1 Nutrition, Aet. v. 27, 1; pleasure and pain, Aet. iv. 9, 15; v. 28, 13 tears and sweat, v. 22, I.
2 That is, watery vapour, not the elemental air or αἰθήρ (8 107). It is identical with the ‘‘ water’ mentioned below. It is unnecessary, therefore, to insert καὶ ὕδωρ after πῦρ with Karsten and Diels.
Empedokles of Akragas 285
fire and water are arranged alternately ; through those of the fire we perceive light objects, through those of the water, dark ; each class of objects fits into each class of passages, and the colours are carried to the sight by effluence. R. P. 2,
But eyes are not all composed in the same way ; some are composed of like elements and some of opposite ; some have the fire in the centre and some on the outside. That is why some animals are keen-sighted by day and others by night. Those which have less fire are keen-sighted in the daytime, for the fire within is brought up to an equality by that without ; those which have less of the opposite (2.6. water), by night, for then their deficiency is supplemented. But, in the opposite case, each will behave in the opposite manner. Those eyes in which fire predominates will be dazzled in the daytime, since the fire being still further increased will stop up and occupy the pores of the water. Those in which water predominates will, he says, suffer the same at night, for the fire will be obstructed by the water. And this goes on till the water is separated off by the air, for in each case it is the opposite which is a remedy. The best tempered and the most excellent vision is one composed of both in equal proportions. This is practically what he says about sight.
Hearing, he holds, is produced by sound outside, when the air moved by the voice sounds inside the ear; for the sense of hearing is a sort of bell sounding inside the ear, which he calls a “fleshy sprout.” When the air is set in motion it strikes upon the solid parts and produces a sound.! Smell, he holds, arises from respiration, and that is why those smell most keenly whose breath has the most violent motion, and why most smell comes from subtle and light bodies. As to touch and taste, he does not lay down how nor by means of what they arise, except that he gives us an explanation applicable to all, that sensation is produced by adaptation to the pores. Pleasure is produced by what is like in its elements and their mixture; pain, by what is opposite. R. P. 2.
1 Beare, p. 96, n. 1. 2 Lbid. p. 133.
i ee -- {ὃ
286 Early Greek Philosophy
And he gives a precisely similar account of thought and ignorance. ‘Thought arises from what is like and ignorance from what is unlike, thus implying that thought is the same, or nearly the same, as perception. For after enumerating μὸν we know each thing by means of itself, he adds, “for all things are fashioned and fitted together out of these, and it is by these men think and feel pleasure and pain” (fr. 107). And for this reason we think chiefly with our blood, for in it of all parts of the body all the elements are most completely mingled. ἈΚ. P. 178. .
All, then, in whom the mixture is equal or nearly so, and in whom the elements are neither at too, great intervals nor too small or too large, are the wisest and have the most exact perceptions ; and those who come next to them are wise in proportion. ‘Those who are in the opposite condition are the most foolish. Those whose elements are separated by intervals and rare are dull and laborious; those in whom they are closely packed and broken into minute particles are impulsive, they attempt many things and finish few because of the rapidity with which their blood moves. Those who have a well-proportioned mixture in some one part of their bodies will be clever in that respect. That is why some are good orators and some good artificers. The latter have a good mixture in their hands, and the former in their tongues, and so with all other special capacities. R. P. 22.
y Perception, then, is due to the meeting of an element
“| in us with the same element outside. This takes place
when the pores of the organ of sense are neither too
large nor too small for the “effluences” which all
things are constantly giving off (fr. 89). Smell was
explained by respiration. The breath drew in along
with it the small particles which fit into the pores.
From Aetios’ we learn that Empedokles proved this
by the example of people with a cold in their head,
who cannot smell, just because they have a difficulty
1 Aet. iv. 17, 2 (Dox. p. 407). Beare, p. 133.
Empedokles of Akragas 287
in breathing. We also see from fr. 101 that the
scent of dogs was referred to in support of the theory.
Empedokles seems to have given no detailed account
of smell, and did not refer to touch at all." Hearing
was explained by the motion of the air which struck
upon the cartilage inside the ear and made it swing .
and sound like a bell.’
The theory of vision® is more complicated ; and,
as Plato adopted most of it, it is of great importance
in the history of philosophy. The eye was conceived,
as by Alkmaion (ὃ 96),) to be composed of fire and
water. Just as in a lantern the flame is protected
from the wind by horn (fr. 84), so the fire in the iris
is protected from the water which surrounds it in the
pupil by membranes with very fine pores, so that,
while the fire can pass out, the water cannot get in.
Sight is produced by the fire inside the eye going forth
to meet the object. This seems strange to us, because
we are accustomed to the idea of images being
impressed upon the retina. But Jooking at a thing
no doubt seemed much more like an action proceeding
from the eye*than a mere passive state.
He was quite aware, too, that “effluences,” as he
called them, came from things to the eyes as well;
for he defined colours as “effluences from forms (or
‘things ’) fitting into the pores and perceived.”° It is
not quite clear how these two accounts of vision were
reconciled, or how far we are entitled to credit
Empedokles with the Platonic theory. The statements
1 Beare, pp. 161-3, 180-81. 2 Jbid. pp. 95 544.
3 Jbid. pp. 14 sqq. 4 Theophr. de sens. 26.
ὅ The definition is quoted from Gorgias in Plato, Men. 76d 4. All our MSS. have doppoat σχημάτων, but Ven. T has in the margin vp. χρημάτων, which may well be an old tradition, The Ionic for “things” is χρήματα. See Diels, Empedokles und Gorgias, p. 439.
Theology and
religion.
288 Early Greek Philosophy
which have been quoted seem to imply something very like it.’
_Theophrastos tells us that Empedokles made no
distinction between thought and perception, a remark
already made by Aristotle?” The chief seat of per-
ception was the blood, in which the four elements are
most evenly mixed, and especially the blood near the
heart (fr. 105). This does not, however, exclude the
idea that other parts of the body may perceive also ;
indeed, Empedokles held that all things have their
share of thought (fr. 103). But the blood was specially
sensitive because of its finer mixture.* From this it
naturally follows that Empedokles adopted the view,
already maintained in the Second Part of the poem of
Parmenides (fr. 16), that our knowledge varies with
the varying constitution of our bodies (fr. 106). This
consideration became very important later on as one
of the foundations of scepticism; but Empedokles
himself only drew from it the conclusion that we must
make the best use we can of our senses, and check one
by the other (fr. 4).
119. The theoretical theology of Empedokles
reminds us of Xenophanes, his practical religious
teaching of Pythagoras and the Orphics. We are told
in the earlier part of the poem that certain “gods” are
composed of the elements; and that therefore though
1 See Beare, Zlementary Cognition, Ὁ. 18.
2 Arist. de An. Τ', 3. 427 a 21. 3 R. P. 178 a. This was the characteristic doctrine of the Sicilian
_ school, from whom it passed to Aristotle and the Stoics. Plato and
Hippokrates, on the other hand, adopted the view of Alkmaion (§ 97) that the brain was the seat of consciousness. Kritias (Arist. de Amz. A, 2. 405 b 6) probably got the Sicilian. doctrine from Gorgias. At a later date, Philistion of Syracuse, Plato’s friend, substituted the ψυχικὸν πνεῦμα (‘animal spirits ”) which circulated along with the blood.
4 Beare, p. 253.
Empedokles of Akragas 289
"they “live long lives” they must pass away (fr. 21).
We have seen that the elements and the Sphere are also
called gods, but that is in quite another sense of the word.
If we turn to the religious teaching of the
Purifications, we find that everything turns on the
doctrine of transmigration. On the general significance
of this enough has been said above (§ 42); the details
given by Empedokles are peculiar. According to a
decree of Necessity, “daemons” who have sinned are
forced to wander from their home in heaven for three
times ten thousand seasons (fr. 115). He himself is
such an exiled divinity, and has fallen from his high
estate because he put his trust in raving Strife. The
four elements toss him from one to the other with
loathing ; and so he has not only been a human being
and a plant, but even a fish. The only way to purify
oneself from the taint of original sin was by the culti-
vation of ceremonial holiness, by purifications, and
abstinence from animal flesh. For the animals are our
kinsmen (fr. 137), and it is parricide to lay hands on
them. In all this there are, no doubt, certain points of
contact with the cosmology. We have the “mighty
oath” (fr. 115; cf. fr. 30), the four elements, Hate as
the source of original sin, and Kypris as queen in the
Golden Age (fr. 128). But these points are neither
fundamental nor of great importance. And it cannot
be denied that there are really contradictions between
the two poems. That, however, is just what we should
expect to find. All through this period, there seems
to have been a gulf between men’s religious beliefs, if
they had any, and their cosmological views. The few
points of contact which we have mentioned may have
been sufficient to hide this from Empedokles himself.
CHAPTER'Vi
Anaxagoras of Klazomenai
Date. 120. ALL that Apollodoros tells us with regard to the |
date of Anaxagoras seems to rest upon the authority
of Demetrios Phalereus, who said of him, in the
Register of Archons, that he began to study philosophy,
at the age of twenty, in the archonship of Kallias or
Kalliades at Athens (480-79 B.c.).’ This date was
probably derived from a calculation based upon the
philosopher's age at the time of his trial, which
Demetrios had every opportunity of learning from
sources no longer extant. Apollodoros inferred that
Anaxagoras was born in Ol. LXX. (500-496 B.C.),
and he adds that he died at the age of seventy-two in
Ol. LXXXVIII. 1 (428-27 B.c.).? He doubtless thought
it natural that he should not survive Perikles, and still
more natural that he should die the year Plato was
born.2 We have a further statement, of doubtful
origin, but probably due to Demetrios also, that
Anaxagoras lived at Athens for thirty years. This
1 Diog. ii. 7 (ΕΒ. P. 148), with the perfectly certain emendation referred to ib. 148 c. The Athens of 480 B.c. would hardly be a suitable place to ‘begin philosophising”?! For the variation in the archon’s name, see Jacoby, p. 244, ἢ. I.
- 2 We must read ὀγδοηκοστῆς with Meursius to make the figures come right. /
3 On the statements of Apollodoros, see Jacoby, pp. 244 sqq.
Anaxagoras of Klazomenai 291
may be a genuine tradition;' and if so, we get
from about 462 to 432 B.C. as the time he lived
there.
There can be no doubt that these dates are very
nearly right. Aristotle tells us? that Anaxagoras was
older than Empedokles, who was born about 490 B.C.
(§ 98); and Theophrastos said* that Empedokles was
born “not long after Anaxagoras.” Demokritos, too,
said that he himself was a young man in the old age
of Anaxagoras, and he must have been born about
460 B.c.4 |
121. Anaxagoras was born at Klazomenai, and Theophrastos tells us that his father’s name was
Hegesiboulos.2 The names of both father and son
have an aristocratic sound, and we may assume they
belonged to a family which had won distinction in the
State. Nor need we reject the tradition that
Anaxagoras neglected his possessions to follow
science.® It is certain, at any rate, that in the fourth
century he was already regarded as the type of the
man who leads the “ theoretic life.” 7 Of course the story
of his contempt for worldly goods was seized on later