1 The source of his error was Hegel’s remarkable statement that there was no proposition of Herakleitos that he had not taken up into his own logic (Gesch. d. Phil. i. 328). The example which he cites is the state- ment that Being does not exist any more than not-Being, for which he refers to Arist. 2221. A, 4. This, however, is not there ascribed to Herakleitos at all, but to Leukippos or Demokritos, with whom it meant that space was as real as matter (8 175). Aristotle does, indeed, tell us in the Metaphysics that ‘‘some” think Herakleitos says that the same thing can be and not be; but he adds that it does not follow that a man thinks what he says (Met. T 3. 1005 b 24). I take this to mean that, though Herakleitos did make this assertion in words, he did not mean by it what the same assertion would naturally have meant at a later date. Herakleitos was speaking only of nature ; the logical meaning of the words never occurred to him. This is confirmed by K, 5. 1062 a 31, where we are told that by being questioned in a certain manner Herakleitos could be made to admit the principle of contradiction; as it was, he did not understand what he said. In other words, he was unconscious of its logical bearing.
Aristotle was aware, then, that the theories of Herakleitos were not to be understood in a logical sense. On the other hand, this does not prevent him from saying that according to the view of Herakleitos, every- thing would be true (7224. A, 7. 1012 a 24), If we remember his constant attitude to earlier thinkers, this will not lead us to suspect either his good faith or his intelligence. (See Appendix, § 2.)
Herakleitos of Ephesos 161
conceivably be made, or from which opposites could be “separated out,” but something which of its own nature would pass into everything else, while everything else would pass in turn into it. This he found in Fire, and it is easy to see why, if we consider the phenomenon of combustion, even as it appears to the plain man. ‘The quantity of fire in a flame burning steadily appears to remain the same, the flame seems to be what we call a “thing.” And yet the substance of it is con- tinually changing. It is always passing away in smoke, and its place is always being taken by fresh matter from the fuel that feeds it. This is just what we want. If we regard the world as an “ ever-living fire” (fr. 20), we can understand how it is always becoming all things, while all things are always return- ing to it.) 70. This necessarily brings with it a certain way of Flux.
1 That the Fire of Herakleitos was something on the same level as the ** Air” of Anaximenes and not a ‘‘symbol,” is clearly implied in such passages as Arist. 2722. A, 3. 984 25. In support of the view that some- thing different from common fire is meant, Plato, Cra¢. 413 Ὁ, is some- times quoted; but a consideration of the context shows that the passage will not bear thisinterpretation. Plato is discussing the derivation of δίκαιον from δια-ιόν, and certainly δίκη was a prominent Herakleitean conception, and a good deal that is here said may be the authentic doctrine of the school. Sokrates goes on to complain that when he asks what this is which ** goes through” everything, he gets very inconsistent answers. One says it is the sun, Another asks if there is no justice after sunset, and says it is simply fire. A third says it is not fire itself, but the heat which is in fire. A fourth identifies it with Mind. Now all we are entitled to infer from this is that different accounts were given in the Herakleitean school. These were-a little less crude than the original doctrine of the master, but for all that not one of them implies anything immaterial or symbolical. The view that it was not fire itself, but Heat, which ‘‘ passed through” all things, is related to the theory of Herakleitos as Hippo’s Moisture is related to the Water of Thales. It is quite likely, too, that some Hera- kleiteans attempted to fuse the system of Anaxagoras with their own, just as Diogenes of Apollonia tried to fuse it with that of Anaximenes, We shall see, indeed, that we still have a work in which this attempt is made (p. 167, n. 2). ἂ
It
162 Early Greek Philosophy
looking at the change and movement of the world. Fire burns continuously and without interruption. It is therefore always consuming fuel and always liberating smoke. Everything is either mounting upwards to serve as fuel, or sinking downwards after having nourished the flame. It follows that the whole of reality is like an ever-flowing stream, and that nothing is ever at rest for a moment. The substance of the things we see is in constant change. Even as we look at them, some of the matter of which they are composed has already passed into something else, while fresh matter has come into them from another source. This theory is usually summed up, appropriately enough, in the phrase “ All things are flowing” (πάντα ῥεῖ), though, as it happens, it cannot be proved that this is a quotation from Herakleitos, Plato, however, expresses the idea quite clearly. “ Nothing ever is, everything is becoming”; “ All things are in motion like streams” ; “All things are passing, and nothing abides”; “ Hera- kleitos says somewhere that all things pass and naught _abides ; and, comparing things to the current of a river, he says that you cannot step twice into the same stream ” . (cf. fr. 41)—these are the terms in which he describes the system. And Aristotle says the same thing, “ All things are in motion,” “nothing steadfastly is.”? Herakleitos held, in fact, that any given thing, however -stable in appearance, was merely a section in the stream, and that the matter composing it was never the same in any two consecutive moments of -time. We shall see presently how he conceived this process to operate ; meanwhile we remark that the idea was
1 Plato, 7hz. 152 e 1; Crat. 401 ἃ 5, 402 a 8; Arist. Zop. A, 11. 104 b 22; de Caelo, Τ', 1. 298 Ὁ 30; Phys. Oy) 3. 253 8 8:
Hheragleitos of Ephesos 163
not altogether novel, and that it is hardly the central
point in the system of Herakleitos. The Milesians
held a similar view. The flux of Herakleitos was at
most more unceasing and universal.
71. Herakleitos appears to have worked out the The Upward
details of the perpetual flux with reference to the ns
theories of Anaximenes.' It is unlikely, however, that
he explained the transformations of matter by means
of rarefaction and condensation.2 Theophrastos, it
appears, suggested that he did; but he allowed it was
by no means clear. The passage from Diogenes which
we are about to quote has faithfully preserved this
touch.2 In the fragments, at any rate, we find
nothing about rarefaction and condensation. The
expression used is “exchange” (fr. 22); and this is
certainly a very good name for what happens when
fire gives out smoke and takes in fuel instead.
It has been pointed out that, in default of Hippolytos,
our best account of the Theophrastean doxography of
Herakleitos is the fuller of the two accounts given in
Laertios Diogenes. It is as follows :-—
His Opinions on particular points are these:—
He held that Fire was the element, and that all things were an exchange for fire, produced by condensation and rarefaction. But he explains nothing clearly. All things were produced in opposition, and all things were in flux like a river.
The all is finite and the world is one. It arises from fire, and is consumed again by fire alternately through all eternity in certain cycles. This happens according to fate. That which leads to the becoming of the opposites is called War and Strife ; that which leads to. the final conflagration is Concord and Peace.
1 See above, Chap. I. § 29. 2 See, however, the remark of Diels quoted R. P. 36 c. 3 Diog. ix. 8, σαφῶς δ᾽ οὐθὲν ἐκτίθεται.
164 Early Greek Philosophy
He called change the upward and the downward path, and held that the world comes into being in virtue of this. When fire is condensed it becomes moist, and when compressed it turns to water; water being congealed turns to earth, and this he calls the downward path. And, again, the earth is in turn liquefied, and from it water arises, and from that everything else; for he refers almost everything to the evaporation from the sea. This is the path upwards. ie a US
He held, too, that exhalations arose both from the sea and the land; some bright and pure, others dark. Fire was nourished by the bright ones, and moisture by the others. | He does not make it clear what is the nature of that which ' surrounds the world. He held, however, that there were bowls in it with the concave sides turned towards us, in which the bright exhalations were collected and produced flames. These were the heavenly bodies.
The flame of the sun was the brightest and warmest ; for the other heavenly bodies were more distant from the earth ; and for that reason gave less light and heat. The moon, on the other hand, was nearer the earth ; but it moved through an impure region. The sun moved in a bright and unmixed region, and at the same time was at just the right distance from us. That is why it gives more heat and light. The eclipses of the sun and moon were due to the turning of the bowls upwards, while the monthly phases of the moon were produced by a gradual turning of its bowl.
Day and night, months and seasons and years, rains and winds, and things like these, were due to the different exhalations. The bright exhalation, when ignited in the circle of the sun, produced day, and the preponderance of the opposite exhalations produced night. The increase of warmth proceeding from the bright exhalation produced summer, and the preponderance of moisture from the dark exhalation produced winter. He assigns the causes of other things in conformity with this.
As to the earth, he makes no clear statement about its. nature, any more than he does about that of the bowls.
These, then, were his opinions. R. P. 39 Ὁ. ν ΤΣ
Herakleitos of Ephesos 165
It is obvious that, if we can trust this passage, it is
of the greatest possible value ; and that, upon the whole,
we can trust it is shown by the fact that it follows the
exact order of topics to which all the doxographies
derived from the great work of Theophrastos adhere.
First we have the primary substance, then the world,
then the heavenly bodies, and lastly, meteorological
phenomena. We conclude, then, that it may be accepted
with the exceptions, firstly, of the probably erroneous
conjecture of Theophrastos as to rarefaction and
condensation mentioned above ; and secondly, of some
pieces of Stoical interpretation which come from the
Vetusta Placita.
Let us look at the details of the theory. The pure
fire, we are told, is to be found chiefly in the sun.
This, like the other heavenly bodies, is a trough or
bowl, or perhaps a sort of boat, with the concave side
turned towards us, in which the bright exhalations from
the sea collect and burn. How does the fire of the sun
pass into other forms? If we look at the fragments
which deal with the downward path, we find that the
first transformation that it undergoes is into sea, and
we are further told that half of the sea is earth and
half of it πρηστήρ (fr. 21). The full meaning of this
we shall see presently, but we must settle at once
what πρηστήρ is. Many theories have been advanced
upon the subject; but, so far as I know, no one* has
yet proposed to take the word in the sense which it
always bears elsewhere, that, namely, of hurricane
accompanied by a fiery waterspout.* Yet surely this is
1 This was written in 1890. In his Herakleitos von Ephesos (1901) Diels takes it as I did, rendering G/uwind.
2 Cf, Herod. vii. 42, and Lucretius, vi. 424. Seneca (Quaest. Nat. ii. 56) calls it ggmeus turbo. The opinions of early philosophers on these
166 Early Greek Philosophy
just what is wanted. It is amply attested that
Herakleitos explained the rise of the sea to fire by
means of the bright evaporations; and we want a
similar meteorological explanation of the passing of
the fire back into sea. We want, in fact, something
which will stand equally for the smoke produced by the
burning of the sun and for the immediate stage between
fire and water. What could serve the turn better than
a fiery waterspout? It sufficiently resembles smoke to
be accounted for as the product of the sun’s combustion,
and it certainly comes down in the form of water.
And this interpretation becomes practically certain
when taken in connexion with the report of Aetios as
to the Herakleitean theory of πρηστῆρες. They were
due, we are told, “to the kindling and extinction of
"1 In other words, the bright vapour, after
kindling in the bowl of the sun and going out again,