clouds.
reappears as the dark fiery storm-cloud, and so passes
once more into sea. At the next stage we find water
continually passing into earth, We are already
familiar with this idea (δ 10), and no more need be said
about it. Turning to the “upward path,” we find that
the earth is liquefied in the same proportion as the sea
becomes earth, so that the sea is still “measured by
the same tale” (fr. 23). Half of it is earth and half of
it is πρηστήρ (fr. 21). This must mean that, at any
given moment, half of the sea is taking the downward
phenomena are collected in Aetios, iii. 3. The πρηστήρ of Anaximander (Chap. I. p. 69, n. 2) is a different thing altogether, but it is quite likely that Greek sailors named the meteorological phenomenon after the familiar bellows of the smith.
1 Aet. iii. 3, 9, πρηστῆρας δὲ κατὰ νεφῶν ἐμπρήσεις καὶ σβέσεις (sc. Ἡράκλειτος ἀποφαίνεται γίγνεσθαι). Diels (Herak/ettos, p. v.) seems to regard the πρηστήρ as the form in which water ascends to heaven. But the Greeks were well aware that waterspouts burst and come down.
— sl γ ἬΝ ee ΘΠ ΤΉ πο he ‘
Herakleitos of Ephesos 167
path, and has just been fiery storm-cloud, while half of
it is going up, and has just been earth. In proportion
as the sea is increased by rain, water passes into earth ;
in proportion as the sea is diminished by evaporation,
it is fed by the earth. Lastly, the ignition of the
bright vapour from the sea in the bowl of the sun com-
pletes the circle of the “upward and downward path.”
72. The question now arises, How is it that, in spite Measure for measure.
of this constant flux, things appear relatively stable?
The answer of Herakleitos was that it is owing to the
observance of the “measures,” in virtue of which the
aggregate bulk of each form of matter in the long run
remains the same, though its substance is constantly o
changing, Certain “ measures ” of the “ ever-living fire ”
are always being kindled, while like “measures” are
always going out (fr. 20); and these measures the sun
will not exceed. ΑἹ] things are “exchanged” for fire
and fire for all things (fr. 22), and this implies that for
everything it takes, fire will give as much. “The sun wy 2
will not exceed his measures” (fr. 29). Cy. win plan of And yet the “measures” are not to be regarded as
absolutely fixed. We gather from the passage of
Diogenes quoted above that Theophrastos spoke of an
alternate preponderance of the bright and dark |
exhalations, and Aristotle speaks of Herakleitos as |
explaining all things by evaporation.’ In particular, |
the alternation of day and night, summer and winter,
were accounted for in this way. Now, in a passage of
the pseudo-Hippokratean treatise Περὶ διαίτης which is
‘almost certainly of Herakleitean origin,’ we read of an
1 Arist. de An. B, 2. 405 a 26, τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἐξ ἧς τἄλλα συνίστησιν. 2 The presence of Herakleitean matter in this treatise was pointed out by Gesner, but Bernays was the first to make any considerable use of it in reconstructing the system. The older literature of the subject has been in
Man.
168 Early Greek Philosophy
“advance of fire and water” in connexion with day and
night and the courses of the sun and moon.’ In fr. 26,
again, we read of fire “advancing,” and all these things
seem to be intimately connected. We must therefore
try to see whether there is anything in the remaining
fragments that bears upon the subject. ©
73. In studying this alternate advance of fire
and water, it will be convenient to start with the
microcosm. We have more definite information about
the two exhalations in man than about the analogous
processes in the world at large, and it would seem that
Herakleitos himself explained the world by man rather
than man by the world. In a well-known passage,
Aristotle implies that soul is identical with the dry
exhalation,’ and this is fully confirmed by the fragments.
the main superseded by Carl Fredrichs’ Hippokratische Untersuchungen (1899), where also a satisfactory text of the sections which concern us is given for the first time. Fredrichs shows that (as I said already in the first edition) the work belongs to the period of eclecticism and reaction which I have briefly characterised in § 184, and he points out that c 3, which was formerly supposed to be mainly Herakleitean, is really from some work which was strongly influenced by Empedokles and Anaxagoras. I think,
however, that he goes wrong in attributing the section to a nameless
‘¢ Physiker ” of the school of Archelaos, or even to Archelaos himself; it is far more like what we should expect from the eclectic Herakleiteans whom Plato describes in Craz. 413 c (see p. 161, n. 1). He is certainly wrong in holding the doctrine of the balance of fire and water not to be Herakleitean, and there is no justification for separating the remark quoted in the text from its context because it happens to agree almost verbally with the beginning of c. 3. As we shall see, that passage too is of Herakleitean origin.
1 Περὶ διαίτης, i. 5. Ishould read thus: ἡμέρη καὶ εὐφρόνη ἐπὶ τὸ μήκιστον καὶ ἐλάχιστον" ἥλιος, σελήνη ἐπὶ τὸ μήκιστον καὶ ἐλάχιστον" πυρὸς ἔφοδος καὶ ὕδατος. In any case, the meaning is the same, and the sentence occurs between χωρεῖ δὲ πάντα καὶ θεῖα καὶ ἀνθρώπινα ἄνω καὶ κάτω ἀμειβόμενα and πάντα ταὐτὰ καὶ οὐ τὰ αὐτά, which are surely Herakleitean utterances.
2 Arist. de An. A, 2. 4052 25(R. P. 38). Diels attributes to Herakleitos himself the words καὶ ψυχαὶ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ὑγρῶν ἀναθυμιῶνται, which are found in Areios Didymos after fr. 42. I can hardly believe, however, that the word ἀναθυμίασις is Herakleitean. He seems rather to have called the
_ two exhalations καπνός and ἀήρ (cf. fr. 37).
Herakleitos of Ephesos 169
Man is made up of three things, fire, water, and earth.
. But, just as in the macrocosm fire is identified with
the one wisdom, so in the microcosm the fire alone is
conscious. When it has left the body, the remainder,
the mere earth and water, is altogether worthless (fr. 85).
Of course, the fire which animates man is subject to
the “upward and downward path,” just as much as the
fire of the world. The Ilepi διαίτης has preserved the
obviously Herakleitean sentence: “ All things are pass-
ing, both human and divine, upwards and downwards
by exchanges.”! We are just as much in perpetual
flux as anything else in the world. We are and are
not the same for two consecutive instants (fr. 81).
The fire in us is perpetually becoming water, and the
water earth;-but, as the opposite process goes on_
simultaneously, we appear to remain the same.”
74. This, however, is not all. Man is subject toa fat Pp c=.
certain oscillation in his “measures” of fire and water,
and this gives rise to the alternations of sleeping and
waking, life and death. The Jocus classicus on this
subject is a passage of Sextus Empiricus,, which
reproduces the account of the Herakleitean psychology
given by Ainesidemos (Skeptic, c. 80-50 8Β.0.)». It
is as follows (R. P. 41) :—
2 We seem to have a clear reference to this in Epicharmos, fr. 2, Diels (170 b, Kaibel): ‘* Look now at men too. One grows and another passes away, and all are in change always. What changes in its substance (κατὰ φύσιν) and never abides in the same spot, will already be something different from what has passed away. So thou and I were different yesterday, and are now quite other people, and again we shall become others and never the same again, and so on in the same way.” This is put into the mouth of a debtor who does not wish to pay. See Bernays on the αὐξανόμενος λόγος (Ges. Adbh. i. pp. 109 sqq.).
3 Sextus quotes ‘‘Ainesidemos according to Herakleitos.” Natorp holds (Forschungen, p. 78) that Ainesidemos really did combine
170 Early Greek Philosophy
The natural philosopher is of opinion that what surrounds us? is rational and endowed with consciousness. According to Herakleitos, when we draw in this divine reason by means of respiration, we become rational. In sleep we forget, but at our waking we become conscious once more. For in sleep, when the openings of the senses close, the mind which is in us is cut off from contact with that which surrounds us, and only our connexion with it by means-of respiration is pre- served as a sort of root (from which the rest may spring again) ; and, when it is thus separated, it loses the power of memory that it had before. When we awake again, however, it looks out through the openings of the senses, as if through windows, and coming together with the surrounding mind, it assumes the power of reason. Just, then, as embers, when they are brought near the the fire, change and become red-hot, and go out when they are taken away from it again, so does the portion of the surrounding mind which sojourns in our body become irrational when it is cut off, and so does it become of like nature to the whole when contact is established through the greatest number of openings. ~
In this passage there is obviously a very large
admixture of later phraseology and of later ideas. In
particular, the identification of “that which surrounds
us” with the air cannot be Herakleitean; for Herak-
leitos can have known nothing of air, which in his day
was regarded as a form of water (§ 27). The
reference to the pores or openings of the senses is
probably foreign to him also; for the theory of pores
is due to Alkmaion (§ 96). Lastly, the distinction
between mind and body is far too sharply drawn. On
the other hand, the important rédle assigned to
respiration may very well be Herakleitean; for we
Herakleiteanism with Skepticism. Diels, on the other hand (Dox. pp. 210, 211), insists that Ainesidemos only gave an account of the theories of Herakleitos. This controversy does not affect the use we make of the
passage. 1 +d περιέχον ἡμᾶς, opposed to but parallel with τὸ περιέχον τὸν κόσμον.
Herakleitos of Ephesos 171
have met with it already in Anaximenes. And we can
hardly doubt that the striking simile. of the embers
which glow when they are brought near the fire is
genuine (cf. fr. 77). The true Herakleitean doctrine
doubtless was, that sleep was produced by the
encroachment of moist, dark exhalations from the
water in the body, -which cause the fire to, burn low.
In sleep, we lose contact with the fire in the world
which is common to all, and retire to a world of our
own (fr. 95). In a soul where the fire and water
are evenly balanced, the equilibrium is restored in the
morning by an equal advance of the bright exhalation.
75. But in no soul are the fire and water thus (4) Life and evenly balanced for long. One or the other acquires ἊΣ predominance, and the result in either case is death. Let us take each of these casesin turn. It is death, we know, to souls to become water (fr. 68); but that is just what happens to souls which seek after pleasure. For pleasure is a moistening of the soul (fr. 72), as may be seen in the case of the drunken man, who, in pursuit of it, has moistened his soul to such an extent that he does not know where he is going (fr. 73). Even in gentle relaxation over our cups, it is more difficult to hide folly than at other times (fr. 108). That is why it is so necessary for us to quench wantonness (fr. 103); for whatever our heart’s desire insists on it purchases at the price of life, that is, of the fire within us (fr. 105). Take now the other case. The dry soul, that which has least moisture, is the best (fr. 74); but the preponderance of fire causes death as much as that of water. It is a very different death, however, and wins “greater portions” for those who die it (fr. 101). Apparently those who fall in battle
172 Early Greek Philosophy
share their lot (fr. 102). We have no fragment which tells us directly what it is, but the class of utterances we are about to look at next leaves little doubt on the subject. Those who die the fiery and not the watery death, become, in fact, gods, though in a different sense from that in which the one Wisdom is god. It is probable that the corrupt fragment 123 refers to this unexpected fate (fr. 122) that awaits men when they die. |
Further, just as summer and winter are one, and
necessarily reproduce one another by their “opposite
tension,” so do life and death. They, too, are one, we
are told; and so are youth and age (fr. 78). It follows
that the soul will be now living and now dead ; that it
will only turn to fire or water, as the case may be, to
recommence once more its unceasing upward and
downward path. The soul that has died from excess
of moisture sinks down to earth; but from the earth
comes water, and from water is once more exhaled a
soul (fr. 68). So, too, we are told (fr. 67) that gods
and men are really one. They live each others’ life,
and die each others’ death. Those mortals that die
the fiery death become immortal, they become the
guardians of the quick and the dead (fr. 123) ;? and