The Early Greek Philosophers in Italy
DIOGENES LAERTIUS tells a story about a
youth who, clad in a purple toga, entered the
arena at the Olympian games and asked to compete
with the other youths in boxing. He was derisively
denied admission, presumably because he was beyond
the legitimate age for juvenile contestants. Nothing
daunted, the youth entered the lists of men, and turned
the laugh on his critics by coming off victor. The
youth who performed this feat was named Pythagoras.
He was the same man, if we may credit the story, who
afterwards migrated to Italy and became the founder
of the famous Crotonian School of Philosophy; the
man who developed the religion of the Orphic mysteries;
who conceived the idea of the music of the
spheres; who promulgated the doctrine of metempsychosis;
who first, perhaps, of all men clearly conceived
the notion that this world on which we live is
a ball which moves in space and which may be habitable
on every side.
A strange development that for a stripling pugilist.
But we must not forget that in the Greek world athletics
held a peculiar place. The chief winner of
Olympian games gave his name to an epoch (the ensuing
Olympiad of four years), and was honored almost
before all others in the land. A sound mind in a
sound body was the motto of the day. To excel in
feats of strength and dexterity was an accomplishment
that even a philosopher need not scorn. It will be recalled
that Æschylus distinguished himself at the battle
of Marathon; that Thucydides, the greatest of
Greek historians, was a general in the Peloponnesian
War; that Xenophon, the pupil and biographer of
Socrates, was chiefly famed for having led the Ten
Thousand in the memorable campaign of Cyrus the
Younger; that Plato himself was credited with having
shown great aptitude in early life as a wrestler. If,
then, Pythagoras the philosopher was really the Pythagoras
who won the boxing contest, we may suppose
that in looking back upon this athletic feat from
the heights of his priesthood—for he came to be almost
deified—he regarded it not as an indiscretion of his
youth, but as one of the greatest achievements of his
life. Not unlikely he recalled with pride that he was
credited with being no less an innovator in athletics
than in philosophy. At all events, tradition credits
him with the invention of "scientific'' boxing. Was it
he, perhaps, who taught the Greeks to strike a rising
and swinging blow from the hip, as depicted in the
famous metopes of the Parthenon? If so, the innovation
of Pythagoras was as little heeded in this regard
in a subsequent age as was his theory of the motion of
the earth; for to strike a swinging blow from the hip,
rather than from the shoulder, is a trick which the
pugilist learned anew in our own day.
But enough of pugilism and of what, at best, is a
doubtful tradition. Our concern is with another
"science'' than that of the arena. We must follow the
purple-robed victor to Italy—if, indeed, we be not over-credulous in accepting the tradition—and learn of triumphs
of a different kind that have placed the name of
Pythagoras high on the list of the fathers of Grecian
thought. To Italy? Yes, to the western limits of
the Greek world. Here it was, beyond the confines of
actual Greek territory, that Hellenic thought found its
second home, its first home being, as we have seen, in
Asia Minor. Pythagoras, indeed, to whom we have
just been introduced, was born on the island of Samos,
which lies near the coast of Asia Minor, but he probably
migrated at an early day to Crotona, in Italy.
There he lived, taught, and developed his philosophy
until rather late in life, when, having incurred the
displeasure of his fellow-citizens, he suffered the not
unusual penalty of banishment.
Of the three other great Italic leaders of thought of
the early period, Xenophanes came rather late in life to
Elea and founded the famous Eleatic School, of which
Parmenides became the most distinguished ornament.
These two were Ionians, and they lived in the sixth
century before our era. Empedocles, the Sicilian,
was of Doric origin. He lived about the middle of the
fifth century B.C., at a time, therefore, when Athens
had attained a position of chief glory among the Greek
states; but there is no evidence that Empedocles ever
visited that city, though it was rumored that he returned
to the Peloponnesus to die. The other great Italic
philosophers just named, living, as we have seen, in
the previous century, can scarcely have thought of
Athens as a centre of Greek thought. Indeed, the very
fact that these men lived in Italy made that peninsula,
rather than the mother-land of Greece, the centre of
Hellenic influence. But all these men, it must constantly
be borne in mind, were Greeks by birth and
language, fully recognized as such in their own time
and by posterity. Yet the fact that they lived in a
land which was at no time a part of the geographical
territory of Greece must not be forgotten. They, or
their ancestors of recent generations, had been pioneers
among those venturesome colonists who reached out
into distant portions of the world, and made homes
for themselves in much the same spirit in which colonists
from Europe began to populate America some
two thousand years later. In general, colonists from
the different parts of Greece localized themselves somewhat
definitely in their new homes; yet there must
naturally have been a good deal of commingling among
the various families of pioneers, and, to a certain extent,
a mingling also with the earlier inhabitants of
the country. This racial mingling, combined with the
well-known vitalizing influence of the pioneer life, led,
we may suppose, to a more rapid and more varied
development than occurred among the home-staying
Greeks. In proof of this, witness the remarkable
schools of philosophy which, as we have seen, were
thus developed at the confines of the Greek world, and
which were presently to invade and, as it were, take
by storm the mother-country itself.
As to the personality of these pioneer philosophers
of the West, our knowledge is for the most part more or
less traditional. What has been said of Thales may
be repeated, in the main, regarding Pythagoras, Parmenides,
and Empedocles. That they were real persons
is not at all in question, but much that is merely
traditional has come to be associated with their names.
Pythagoras was the senior, and doubtless his ideas
may have influenced the others more or less, though
each is usually spoken of as the founder of an independent
school. Much confusion has all along existed,
however, as to the precise ideas which were to be ascribed
to each of the leaders. Numberless commentators,
indeed, have endeavored to pick out from among
the traditions of antiquity, aided by such fragments,
of the writing of the philosophers as have come down
to us, the particular ideas that characterized each
thinker, and to weave these ideas into systems. But
such efforts, notwithstanding the mental energy that
has been expended upon them, were, of necessity,
futile, since, in the first place, the ancient philosophers
themselves did not specialize and systematize their
ideas according to modern notions, and, in the second
place, the records of their individual teachings have
been too scantily preserved to serve for the purpose of
classification. It is freely admitted that fable has
woven an impenetrable mesh of contradictions about
the personalities of these ancient thinkers, and it would
be folly to hope that this same artificer had been less
busy with their beliefs and theories. When one reads
that Pythagoras advocated an exclusively vegetable
diet, yet that he was the first to train athletes on meat
diet; that he sacrificed only inanimate things, yet that
he offered up a hundred oxen in honor of his great discovery
regarding the sides of a triangle, and such like
inconsistencies in the same biography, one gains a
realizing sense of the extent to which diverse traditions
enter into the story as it has come down to us. And
yet we must reflect that most men change their opinions
in the course of a long lifetime, and that the antagonistic
reports may both be true.
True or false, these fables have an abiding interest,
since they prove the unique and extraordinary character
of the personality about which they are woven.
The alleged witticisms of a Whistler, in our own day,
were doubtless, for the most part, quite unknown to
Whistler himself, yet they never would have been
ascribed to him were they not akin to witticisms that
he did originate—were they not, in short, typical expressions
of his personality. And so of the heroes of
the past. "It is no ordinary man,'' said George Henry
Lewes, speaking of Pythagoras, "whom fable exalts
into the poetic region. Whenever you find romantic
or miraculous deeds attributed, be certain that the
hero was great enough to maintain the weight of the
crown of this fabulous glory.'' [45]
We may not doubt, then, that Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Empedocles,
with whose names fable was so busy throughout antiquity,
were men of extraordinary personality. We
are here chiefly concerned, however, neither with the
personality of the man nor yet with the precise doctrines
which each one of them taught. A knowledge
of the latter would be interesting were it attainable,
but in the confused state of the reports that have come
down to us we cannot hope to be able to ascribe each
idea with precision to its proper source. At best we
can merely outline, even here not too precisely, the
scientific doctrines which the Italic philosophers as a
whole seem to have advocated.
First and foremost, there is the doctrine that the
earth is a sphere. Pythagoras is said to have been the
first advocate of this theory; but, unfortunately, it is
reported also that Parmenides was its author. This
rivalship for the discovery of an important truth we
shall see repeated over and over in more recent times.
Could we know the whole truth, it would perhaps appear
that the idea of the sphericity of the earth was
originated long before the time of the Greek philosophers.
But it must be admitted that there is no record
of any sort to give tangible support to such an assumption.
So far as we can ascertain, no Egyptian or
Babylonian astronomer ever grasped the wonderful
conception that the earth is round. That the Italic
Greeks should have conceived that idea was perhaps
not so much because they were astronomers as because
they were practical geographers and geometers. Pythagoras,
as we have noted, was born at Samos, and,
therefore, made a relatively long sea voyage in passing
to Italy. Now, as every one knows, the most simple
and tangible demonstration of the convexity of the
earth's surface is furnished by observation of an approaching
ship at sea. On a clear day a keen eye may
discern the mast and sails rising gradually above the
horizon, to be followed in due course by the hull.
Similarly, on approaching the shore, high objects become
visible before those that lie nearer the water.
It is at least a plausible supposition that Pythagoras
may have made such observations as these during the
voyage in question, and that therein may lie the germ
of that wonderful conception of the world as a sphere.
To what extent further proof, based on the fact that
the earth's shadow when the moon is eclipsed is always
convex, may have been known to Pythagoras we cannot
say. There is no proof that any of the Italic philosophers
made extensive records of astronomical observations
as did the Egyptians and Babylonians; but
we must constantly recall that the writings of classical
antiquity have been almost altogether destroyed.
The absence of astronomical records is, therefore, no
proof that such records never existed. Pythagoras, it
should be said, is reported to have travelled in Egypt,
and he must there have gained an inkling of astronomical
methods. Indeed, he speaks of himself specifically,
in a letter quoted by Diogenes, as one who is accustomed
to study astronomy. Yet a later sentence of
the letter, which asserts that the philosopher is not always
occupied about speculations of his own fancy,
suggesting, as it does, the dreamer rather than the observer,
gives us probably a truer glimpse into the philosopher's
mind. There is, indeed, reason to suppose
that the doctrine of the sphericity of the earth appealed
to Pythagoras chiefly because it accorded with his
conception that the sphere is the most perfect solid,
just as the circle is the most perfect plane surface. Be
that as it may, the fact remains that we have here, as
far as we can trace its origin, the first expression of the
scientific theory that the earth is round. Had the
Italic philosophers accomplished nothing more than
this, their accomplishment would none the less mark
an epoch in the progress of thought.
That Pythagoras was an observer of the heavens is
further evidenced by the statement made by Diogenes,
on the authority of Parmenides, that Pythagoras was
the first person who discovered or asserted the identity
of Hesperus and Lucifer—that is to say, of the morning
and the evening star. This was really a remarkable
discovery, and one that was no doubt instrumental
later on in determining that theory of the mechanics
of the heavens which we shall see elaborated presently.
To have made such a discovery argues again for the
practicality of the mind of Pythagoras. His, indeed,
would seem to have been a mind in which practical
common-sense was strangely blended with the capacity
for wide and imaginative generalization. As further
evidence of his practicality, it is asserted that he was
the first person who introduced measures and weights
among the Greeks, this assertion being made on the
authority of Aristoxenus. It will be observed that he
is said to have introduced, not to have invented,
weights and measures, a statement which suggests a
knowledge on the part of the Greeks that weights and
measures were previously employed in Egypt and
Babylonia.
The mind that could conceive the world as a sphere
and that interested itself in weights and measures
was, obviously, a mind of the visualizing type. It is
characteristic of this type of mind to be interested in
the tangibilities of geometry, hence it is not surprising
to be told that Pythagoras "carried that science to
perfection.'' The most famous discovery of Pythagoras
in this field was that the square of the hypotenuse
of a right-angled triangle is equal to the squares of the
other sides of the triangle. We have already noted
the fable that his enthusiasm over this discovery led
him to sacrifice a hecatomb. Doubtless the story is
apocryphal, but doubtless, also, it expresses the truth
as to the fervid joy with which the philosopher must
have contemplated the results of his creative imagination.
No line alleged to have been written by Pythagoras
has come down to us. We are told that he refrained
from publishing his doctrines, except by word of
mouth. "The Lucanians and the Peucetians, and the
Messapians and the Romans,'' we are assured, "flocked
around him, coming with eagerness to hear his discourses;
no fewer than six hundred came to him
every night; and if any one of them had ever been permitted
to see the master, they wrote of it to their friends
as if they had gained some great advantage.'' Nevertheless,
we are assured that until the time of Philolaus
no doctrines of Pythagoras were ever published, to
which statement it is added that "when the three celebrated
books were published, Plato wrote to have them
purchased for him for a hundred minas.'' [46]
But if such books existed, they are lost to the modern world, and
we are obliged to accept the assertions of relatively
late writers as to the theories of the great Crotonian.
Perhaps we cannot do better than quote at length
from an important summary of the remaining doctrines
of Pythagoras, which Diogenes himself quoted from
the work of a predecessor. [47]
Despite its somewhat inchoate character, this summary is a
most remarkable one, as a brief analysis of its contents will
show. It should be explained that Alexander (whose work is
now lost) is said to have found these dogmas set down
in the commentaries of Pythagoras. If this assertion
be accepted, we are brought one step nearer the philosopher
himself. The summary is as follows:
"That the monad was the beginning of everything.
From the monad proceeds an indefinite duad, which is
subordinate to the monad as to its cause. That from
the monad and the indefinite duad proceed numbers.
And from numbers signs. And from these last, lines
of which plane figures consist. And from plane figures
are derived solid bodies. And from solid bodies sensible
bodies, of which last there are four elements—fire,
water, earth, and air. And that the world, which is
indued with life and intellect, and which is of a spherical
figure, having the earth, which is also spherical,
and inhabited all over in its centre,
[48]
results from a combination of these elements, and derives its motion from
them; and also that there are antipodes, and that
what is below, as respects us, is above in respect of
them.
"He also taught that light and darkness, and cold
and heat, and dryness and moisture, were equally divided
in the world; and that while heat was predominant
it was summer; while cold had the mastery, it
was winter; when dryness prevailed, it was spring; and
when moisture preponderated, winter. And while all
these qualities were on a level, then was the loveliest
season of the year; of which the flourishing spring was
the wholesome period, and the season of autumn the
most pernicious one. Of the day, he said that the
flourishing period was the morning, and the fading one
the evening; on which account that also was the least
healthy time.
"Another of his theories was that the air around
the earth was immovable and pregnant with disease,
and that everything in it was mortal; but that the upper
air was in perpetual motion, and pure and salubrious,
and that everything in that was immortal, and
on that account divine. And that the sun and the
moon and the stars were all gods; for in them the warm
principle predominates which is the cause of life. And
that the moon derives its light from the sun. And
that there is a relationship between men and the gods,
because men partake of the divine principle; on which
account, also, God exercises his providence for our advantage.
Also, that Fate is the cause of the arrangement
of the world both generally and particularly.
Moreover, that a ray from the sun penetrated both the
cold æther and the dense æther; and they call the air
the cold æther, and the sea and moisture they call the
dense æther. And this ray descends into the depths,
and in this way vivifies everything. And everything
which partakes of the principle of heat lives, on which
account, also, plants are animated beings; but that all
living things have not necessarily souls. And that
the soul is a something tom off from the æther, both
warm and cold, from its partaking of the cold æther.
And that the soul is something different from life.
Also, that it is immortal, because that from which it
has been detached is immortal.
"Also, that animals are born from one another by
seeds, and that it is impossible for there to be any
spontaneous production by the earth. And that seed
is a drop from the brain which contains in itself a
warm vapor; and that when this is applied to the
womb it transmits virtue and moisture and blood
from the brain, from which flesh and sinews and bones
and hair and the whole body are produced. And
from the vapor is produced the soul, and also sensation.
And that the infant first becomes a solid body
at the end of forty days; but, according to the principles
of harmony, it is not perfect till seven, or perhaps
nine, or at most ten months, and then it is
brought forth. And that it contains in itself all the
principles of life, which are all connected together, and
by their union and combination form a harmonious
whole, each of them developing itself at the appointed
time.
"The senses in general, and especially the sight, are a
vapor of excessive warmth, and on this account a man
is said to see through air and through water. For the
hot principle is opposed by the cold one; since, if the
vapor in the eyes were cold, it would have the same
temperature as the air, and so would be dissipated.
As it is, in some passages he calls the eyes the gates
of the sun; and he speaks in a similar manner of
hearing and of the other senses.
"He also says that the soul of man is divided into
three parts: into intuition and reason and mind, and
that the first and last divisions are found also in other
animals, but that the middle one, reason, is only found
in man. And that the chief abode of the soul is in
those parts of the body which are between the heart
and the brain. And that that portion of it which is in
the heart is the mind; but that deliberation and reason
reside in the brain.
Moreover, that the senses are drops from them;
and that the reasoning sense is immortal, but the others
are mortal. And that the soul is nourished by the
blood; and that reasons are the winds of the soul.
That it is invisible, and so are its reasons, since the
æther itself is invisible. That the links of the soul are
the veins and the arteries and the nerves. But that
when it is vigorous, and is by itself in a quiescent state,
then its links are words and actions. That when it is
cast forth upon the earth it wanders about, resembling
the body. Moreover, that Mercury is the steward
of the souls, and that on this account he has
the name of Conductor, and Commercial, and Infernal,
since it is he who conducts the souls from their bodies,
and from earth and sea; and that he conducts the pure
souls to the highest region, and that he does not allow
the impure ones to approach them, nor to come near one
another, but commits them to be bound in indissoluble
fetters by the Furies. The Pythagoreans also assert
that the whole air is full of souls, and that these are
those which are accounted dæmons and heroes. Also,
that it is by them that dreams are sent among men, and
also the tokens of disease and health; these last, too,
being sent not only to men, but to sheep also, and other
cattle. Also that it is they who are concerned with
purifications and expiations and all kinds of divination
and oracular predictions, and things of that kind.''
[49]
A brief consideration of this summary of the doctrines
of Pythagoras will show that it at least outlines
a most extraordinary variety of scientific ideas. (1)
There is suggested a theory of monads and the conception
of the development from simple to more complex
bodies, passing through the stages of lines, plain
figures, and solids to sensible bodies. (2) The doctrine
of the four elements—fire, water, earth, and air—as the
basis of all organisms is put forward. (3) The idea,
not merely of the sphericity of the earth, but an explicit
conception of the antipodes, is expressed. (4)
A conception of the sanitary influence of the air is
clearly expressed. (5) An idea of the problems of
generation and heredity is shown, together with a distinct
disavowal of the doctrine of spontaneous generation—
a doctrine which, it may be added, remained
in vogue, nevertheless, for some twenty-four hundred
years after the time of Pythagoras. (6) A remarkable
analysis of mind is made, and a distinction between
animal minds and the human mind is based on this
analysis. The physiological doctrine that the heart
is the organ of one department of mind is offset by the
clear statement that the remaining factors of mind
reside in the brain. This early recognition of brain
as the organ of mind must not be forgotten in our later
studies. It should be recalled, however, that a Crotonian
physician, Alemaean, a younger contemporary
of Pythagoras, is also credited with the same theory.
(7) A knowledge of anatomy is at least vaguely foreshadowed
in the assertion that veins, arteries, and
nerves are the links of the soul. In this connection it
should be recalled that Pythagoras was a practical
physician.
As against these scientific doctrines, however, some
of them being at least remarkable guesses at the truth,
attention must be called to the concluding paragraph
of our quotation, in which the old familiar dæmonology
is outlined, quite after the Oriental fashion. We
shall have occasion to say more as to this phase of the
subject later on. Meantime, before leaving Pythagoras,
let us note that his practical studies of humanity
led him to assert the doctrine that "the property of
friends is common, and that friendship is equality.''
His disciples, we are told, used to put all their possessions
together in one store and use them in common.
Here, then, seemingly, is the doctrine of communism
put to the test of experiment at this early day. If it
seem that reference to this carries us beyond the
bounds of science, it may be replied that questions such
as this will not lie beyond the bounds of the science of
the near future.