,) ,; . A ' sliced the myth of Kore and Demeter to make known
the alternation of natural conditions, the passage from
death to life and life to death ; daily observation taught it" (Vol. 1, p. 60).
The intrinsic weakness of Pfleiderer^s position is
best seen when he attempts to pass to the doctrine of
the flux. It taxes the imagination to see how the
identity of life and death should lead to the universal
principle ndi^ra ^(opet xae ou8ki^ /lii^sc. Pfleiderer would
have us believe that the eternal flux was a subordinate
thought — a mere picture to help the mind to conceive
Historical and Critical. 56
the primary metaphysical truth of the unity of oppo- sites. We have already attempted to show that any explanation of the Heraclitic philosophy must be wrong which reduces the doctrine of the flux to a subordinate position. Here it is sufficient to add that if Heraclitus iiad been seeking a picture to illustrate the optimistic endurance of life even in death, and the rational unity and harmony of opposite powers, he could not possibly have chosen a more unfortunate figure than the ever- flowing river into which one cannot step twice. Pflei- derer, in saying that Heraclitus chose the picture of the evanescence of things to illustrate his law of opposites and the endurance of life, seems to have forgotten that on a previous page (above, p. 602) he said that the hopeless creed of the masses, against which the Ephe- sian was trying to establish the triumph of life, saw not too much permanence and constancy in the world, but too little.
We are forced, therefore, to conclude not only that Pfleiderer has failed to establish any especial depend- ence of Heraclitus upon the religion of the Greek Mys- teries, but also that his supposed discovery that we have here a metaphysical philosophy developed from the material principle of the oscillating identity of life ^ QYcS't and death, is an assumption without basis in fact. ^ 'P^y'-
In redeeming the Ephesian from the charge of pessi- p^O
mism, Pfleiderer has done a good work. But here
again he has gone too far, in finding not only a well
grounded rational optimism in the doctrine of a world-
ruling Order, but also a practical optimism in the idea
of the indestructibility of life, an idea which, although
it appears on every page of Pfleiderer's book, is not to
be found in any saying oi Heraclitus or in any record
of his philosophy.
c'.y
56 HERACLITUS.
Section II. — Reconstructive.
^ Alaving examined the four preceding fundamentally
^ different views of the philosophy of Heraclitus, and
having discovered that the opinions of modern critics
on the tenor of this philosophy furnish a new and un-
expected illustration of Heraclitus' own law of abso-
lute instability, it remains to be considered whether it
is possible to resolve^as he did/ this general diversity
into a higher unity, and in this case to verify his law
that in all opposition there is harmony. If such a
unity is sought as that attempted by Lassalle, Schuster,
and Pfleiderer, it may be said at once that the task is
impossible. All such ambitious attempts in construc-
tive criticism in the case of Heraclitus are certain to
result, as we have seen, in over-interpretation, and
while they may leave a completed picture in the mind
of the reader, they do not leave a true one. Not only
is such a unified view of the philosophy of the Ephe-
sian unattainable, but it is unnecessary. It is quite
certain that had we before us his original book in its
entirety, we should find therein no fully consistent
system of philosophy. Yet it is just this fact that
modem critics forget. While they point out errors
and contradictions by the score in the books of their
fellow critics, they allow for no inconsistencies on the
part of the original philosopher. Presuppositions of
harmony between all the sentences of an ancient
writer have led to much violence of interpretation.
Our interest in Heraclitus is not in his system as such,
but in his great thoughts which have historic signifi-
cance. These we should know, if possible, in their
Rjiconstructivb. 67
original meaning and in their connection with preced-
ing and succeeding philosophy. Before concluding
this introduction, then, it will be of advantage to re-
capitulate the results of the foregoing criticism, and
to place together such conclusions concerning the chief
Heraclitic thoughts as we have drawn either from the
agreement or the disagreement of the various criticerj
''^We shall best understand Heraclitus if we fix well
in mind his immediate starting-point. As we found |
above in the examination of Pfleiderer's position) (p. I
47),(the Ephesian philosopher was first and primarily a, preacher. To him the people almost without excep- ^^ "^"^ tion, were blind, stupid, and beastly. Heraclitus "^^^ ^^ hated them. They got no farther than crude sense SCc* A' pBrception)(cp. frags. 4, 6, 3), failing not only to recog- Tq PC'C nize the invisible harmony of the changing world, but Uf-xj ft/ even the change itself (cp. frag. 2). They believed ^..
things were fixed because they appeared so at first *^''^ ^ *" sight. They preferred the lower passions to the higher "^ " ^^ ^ senses (cp. frag. lll)^JIe is from first to last a misan- U^Hv.-/'s/^ thrope. He despises the people, yet as if constrained "^-^'J wXa by a divine conmaand, he must deliver his messag^(cp. ', -.. ^ '': c r frags. 1, 2)./To understand Heraclitus we must free our i^j a ^ f^ minds from conceptions of every other Greek philoso- »/^^ .j pher, except, perhaps, his fellow lonians. Never after- /^ / cu wards did philosophy exhibit such seriousness.) We ^ . can no more imagine Heraclitus at Athens than we . ^.^^ can think of Socrates away from it. ^Althoughjas we . ^ shall see,\the philosophy of Plato stood in vital con- nection with that of Heraclitus, no contrast could be greater than the half playful speculative style of the former, and the stem, oracular and dogmatic utter- ances of the latter. jWe shall find no parallel except in Jewish literature. Cindeed, Heraclitus was a pro-
\>l t-^
^ ri \\
58 HKRACLITUS.
. phet. As the prophets of Israel hurled their messages
' ^.^-^ in actual defiance at the people, hardly more does the
Ephesian seem to care how his words are received, if
only he gets them spokenA Not more bitter and mis-
^^ ^ anthropic is Hosea in his denunciation of the people's
' sins (cp. ch. iv. 1, 2 flf.), than is our philosopher in his
contempt for the stupidity and dullness of the masses.
(At the very opening of his book he says, from his lofty
position of conscious superiority : " This Law which I
unfold, men insensible and half asleep will not hear,
and hearing, will not comprehend'^ (frag. 2 ; cp. frags.
NoTvCa^hat was the prime error of the people which
so aroused the Ephesian, and what was the message
ck which he had to deliver to them f^ Zeller is wrong in
saying (Vol. 1, p. 576) that, according to Heraclitus, the radical error of the people was in attributing to things a permanence of being which they did not possess/in no passage does he censure the people for this. I What he blames them for is their insensibility, for looking low when they ought to look high — in a word, for blindness to the Divine Law or the Universal Reason • 7 (frags. 2, 3, 4, 51, 45, 14).^ (He blames them for not recognizing the beauty of strife (frag. 43), and the law of opposites (frag. 45). He blames them for their grossness and beastliness (frags. 86, 111). Finally, he blames them for their immorality (frag. 124), their silliness in praying to idols (frag. 126), and their imbecility in thinking they could pimfy themselves by sacrifices of blood (frag. 130)j/(jVe *y see therefore how wholly impossible it is to under- stand Heraclitus unless we consider the ethical and ^ f religious character of his mind. Thus Zeller, in as far as he has attempted to give us a picture of Heraclitus'
i ta
I'f
Reconstructive. 69
system, has failed by starting with the doctrine of the
flux and overlooking the religious motive^) This is not
to say, as Pfleiderer has done, that Ijhe flux/ was
/ ^ merely a negative teaching, (jf ext to the recognition of the Eternal Law, it was the most positive of his teachings, and was the groimd of his influence upon subsequent thought.^ As such it is of chief interest to us ; but as far as we wish to get a picture of Heraclitus himself, we must think first of his religious and ethical point of departure. Thus(i^ content of Heraclitus' message to his countrymen was ethical. It was a call to men everywhere to wake t^p,jto purify their ^ap^dpoui; ^y;fcfcj^and see things in their reality.^ /What now was this reality which he with his finer
I jL insight saw, but which ruder souls were blind to ? This brings us to the theoretical side or the philo -^»
/ V sophical content of Heraclitus' messagejWHere comes
in the contribution of Teichmiiller, who^as we saw^,
/clearly pointed out that the great new thought of the
jlphesi an was the unit xJZL^he manifold, as opposed to
the unity over against the manifold, taught by
Xenophanes. It was the unity of opposition, the
harmony of strife. ' Tt was Order immanent in cease-^
less" change.^ To use a phrase of Campbell's, " The
Idea of the universe implies at once absolute activity
and perfect law " (Plat. Theaet. Appendix, p. 244)^his
was the central thought of Heraclitusy** the grandeur
of which," says Campbell, ** was far beyond the com-
prehension of that time." But, it may be said, if we
have rightly apprehended Heraclitus' position as a
prophet and preacher, this was rather strong meat to
' feed the masses. But the 7:o)J.oc with Heraclitus was a
very broad term. It included everybody. The arro-
gance of this man was sublime. Neither Homer nor
60 HBRACLITUS.
Hesiod nor Pythagoras nor Xenophanes escaped his lash (cp. frags. 16, 17, 119, 114). He had especially in mind the so-called '*men of repute," and said they were makers and witnesses of lies (cp. frag. 118). The whole male population of Ephesus, he said, ought to be hung or expelled on account of their infatuation and blindness (cp. frag. 114). Addressing such an audience, indeed, his message had to be pitched high. I >z (jVe have in the Ephesian sage a man who openly claimed to have an insight- superior to all the world, and the history of thought has vindicated his claim. Furthermore, it must be remembered that Heraclitus did, in a measure, try to make the world-ruling Law intelligible. He pictured it now as Justice, whose handmaids, the Erinyes, will not let the sun overstep his bounds (frag. 29) ; now as Fate, or the all-determin- ing Destiny^Stobaeus, Eel. i. 5, p. 178 ; cp. frag. 63) ; /now as simple Law (frags. 23, 91), now as Wisdom Ifrag. 65), intelligent Will (frag. 19), God (frag. 36), Zeus (frag. 65). Respecting the latter term he ex- pressly adds that it is misleading. So we see that Heraclitus did what some modem philosophers have been blamed for doing — he put his new thoughts into old religious formulas. But it was more justifiable in the case of the Ephesian. He did so, not to pr.esent a semblance of orthodoxy, but to tify to make his idea intelligible/) In fact, Heraclitus, no less than Xeno- phanes, was a fearless, outspoke^ enemy of the popular anthropomorphisms. " This world, the same for all,'' he says, '' neither any of the gods nor any man has made, but it always was, and is, and shall be, an ever living fire, kindled and quenched according to law *' (frag. 20 ; cp. frag. 126). At this point it is natural to ask ourselves/ what,