1 The MSS. of Simplicius have ἔθος, not θεός ; but I adopt Usener’s certain correction. It is confirmed by the statement of Theophrastos, that the air within us is “ἃ small portion of the god” (de Sens. 42); and by Philodemos (Dox. p. 536), where we read that Diogenes praises Homer, τὸν ἀέρα γὰρ αὐτὸν Ala νομίζειν φησίν, ἐπειδὴ πᾶν εἰδέναι τὸν Ala λέγει (cf. Cic. Mat. D. i, 12, 29).
Eclecticism and Reaction 411
in appearance nor in intelligence, because of the multitude of differentiations. At the same time, they all live, and see, and hear by the same thing, and they all have their intelligence from the same source. R. P. 211.
(7) And this itself is an eternal and undying body, but of those things ἢ some come into being and some pass away.
(8) But this, too, appears to me to be obvious, that it is
both great, and mighty, and eternal, and undying, and of
great knowledge. R. P. 209.
That the chief interest of Diogenes was a physio- | logical one, is clear from his elaborate account of the veins, preserved by Aristotle? It is noticeable, too, that one of his arguments for the underlying unity of all substances is that without this it would be impossible to understand how one thing could do good or harm to another (fr. 2). In fact, the writing of Diogenes is essentially of the same character as a good deal of the pseudo-Hippokratean ‘literature, and there is much to be said for the view that the writers of these curious tracts made use of him very much as they did of Anaxagoras and Herakleitos.’
189. Like Anaximenes, Diogenes regarded Air as
the primary substance; but we see from his arguments
that he lived at a time when other views had become
prevalent. He speaks clearly of the four Empedoklean
elements (fr. 2), and he is careful to attribute to Air
1 The MSS. of Simplicius have τῷ δέ, but surely the Aldine τῶν δέ is right. ;
2 Arist. Hist. An. T, 2. 511 Ὁ 30.
3 See Weygoldt, ‘‘ Zu Diogenes von Apollonia” (Arch. i. pp. 161 sqq.). Hippokrates himself represented just the opposite tendency to that of those writers. His great achievement was the separation of medicine from philosophy, a separation most beneficial to both (Celsus, i. pr.). This is why the Hippokratean corpus contains some works in which the ‘‘ sophists ” are denounced and others in which their writings are pillaged. To the latter class belong the Περὶ διαίτης and the Ilept φυσῶν ; to the former, especially the Περὶ dpxains larpixijs.
Cosmology.
——— aa
412 Early Greek Philosophy
the attributes of Nous as taught by Anaxagoras (fr. 4).
The doxographical tradition as to his cosmological
views is fairly preserved :—
Diogenes of Apollonia makes air the element, and holds that all things are in motion, and that there are innumerable worlds. And he describes the origin of the world thus. When the All moves and becomes rare in one place and dense in another, where the dense met together it formed a mass, and then the other things arose in the same way, the lightest parts occupying the highest position and producing the sun. [Plut.] Strom. fr. 12 (R. P. 215).
Nothing arises from what is not nor passes away into what isnot. The earth is round, poised in the middle, having received its shape through the revolution proceeding from the warm and its solidification from the cold. Diog. ix. 57 (R. P. 215).
The heavenly bodies were like pumice-stone. He thinks
they are the breathing-holes of the world, and that they are
red-hot. et. il. 13, 5 =Stob. i. 508 (R. P. 215).
The sun was like pumice-stone, and into it the rays from
the aether fix themselves. Aet. ii. 20, το. The moon was a
pumice-like conflagration. Jd. ii. 25, το.
Along with the visible heavenly bodies revolve invisible stones, which for that very reason are nameless; but they often fall and are extinguished on the earth like the stone star _ which fell down flaming at Aigospotamos.' Jd, 11. 13, 9.
We have here nothing more than the old Ionian
doctrine with a few additions from more recent sources.
Rarefaction and condensation still hold their place in
the explanation of the opposites, warm and cold, dry
and moist, stable and mobile (fr. 5). The differentia-
tions into opposites which Air may undergo are, as
Anaxagoras had taught, infinite in number; but all
may be reduced to the primary opposition of rare and
1 See Chap. VI. p. 292, ἢ. I.
Eclecticism and Reaction 413
dense. We may gather, too, from Censorinus! that ἢ _/Diogenes did not, like Anaximenes, speak of earth and water as arising from Air by condensation, but rather of blood, flesh, and bones. In this he followed Anaxagoras (§ 130), as it was natural that he should. That portion of Air, on the other hand, which was rarefied became fiery, and produced the sun and heavenly bodies. The circular motion of the world is due to the intelligence of the Air, as is‘also the division of all things into different forms of body and the observance of the “measures” by these forms.”
Like Anaximander (§ 20), Diogenes regarded the
sea as the remainder of the original moist state, which
had been partially evaporated by the sun, so as to
separate out the remaining earth.? The earth itself is
round, that is to say, it is a disc: for the language of
the doxographers does not point to the spherical form.‘
Its solidification by the cold is due to the fact that cold
is a form of condensation.
Diogenes did not hold with the earlier cosmologists
that the heavenly bodies were made of air or fire, nor
yet with Anaxagoras, that they were stones. They
were, he said, pumice-like, a view in which we may
trace the influence of Leukippos. They were earthy,
indeed, but not solid, and the celestial fire permeated
their pores. And this explains why we do not see
the dark bodies which, in common with Anaxagoras,
he held to revolve along with the stars. They really
are solid stones, and therefore cannot be penetrated
by the fire. It was one of these that fell into the
1 Censorinus, de die natali, 6, 1 (Dox. p. 190).
2 On the ‘‘ measures” see Chap, III. § 72.
8 Theophr. a. Alex. in Meteor. p. 67, 1 (Dox. p. 494). 4 Diog. ix. 57 (R. P. 215).
nimals and lants. |
414 Early Greek Philosophy
Aigospotamos. Like Anaxagoras, Diogenes affirmed
that the inclination of the earth happened subsequently
to the rise of animals.’
We are prepared to find that Diogenes held the
doctrine of innumerable worlds; for it was the old
Milesian belief, and had just been revived by Anaxa-
goras and Leukippos. He is mentioned with the rest
in the Placita; and if Simplicius classes him and
Anaximenes with Herakleitos as holding the Stoic
doctrine of successive formations and destructions of
a single world, he has probably been misled by the
“ accommodators.” ”
190. Living creatures arose from the earth, doubt-
less under the influence of heat. Their souls, of course,
were air, and their differences were due to the various
degrees in which it was rarefied or condensed (fr. 5).
No special seat, such as the heart or the brain, was
assigned to the soul; it was simply the warm air
circulating with the blood in the veins.
The views of Diogenes as to generation, respiration,
and the blood, belong to the history of Medicine ; ὅ his
theory of sensation too, as it is described by Theo-
phrastos,* need only be mentioned in passing. Briefly
stated, it amounts to this, that all sensation is due to
the action of air upon the brain and other organs,
while pleasure is aeration of the blood. But the details
of the theory can only be studied properly in connexion
with the Hippokratean writings ; for Diogenes does not
1 Aet. ii. 8, 1 (R. P. 215).
2 Simpl. Phys. p. 1121, 12. See Chap. I. p. 83, ἢ. 1.
3 See Censorinus, quoted in Dox. p. 191.
4 Theophr. de Sens. 39 sqq. (R. P. 213, 214). For a full account, see Beare, pp. 41 sqq., 105, 140, 169, 209, 258. As Prof. Beare remarks, Diogenes ‘‘ is one of the most interesting of the pre-Platonic psychologists ”
Eclecticism and Reaction 415
really represent the old cosmological tradition, but a
/ fresh development. of reactionary philosophical views
combined with an entirely new enthusiasm for detailed
investigation and accumulation of facts.
Iii. Archelaos of Athens
191. The last of the early cosmologists was
Archelaos of Athens, who was a disciple of Anaxa-
goras, He is also said to have been the teacher of
Sokrates, a statement by no means so improbable as
is sometimes supposed.” There is no reason to doubt
the tradition that Archelaos succeeded Anaxagoras in
the school at Lampsakos.2 We certainly hear of
Anaxagoreans,* though their fame was soon obscured
by the rise of the Sophists, as we call them.
192. On the cosmology of Archelaos, Hippolytos ὃ writes as follows :—
Archelaos was by birth an Athenian, and the son of Apollodoros. He spoke of the mixture of matter in a similar way to Anaxagoras, and of the first principles likewise. He held, however, that there was a certain mixture immanent even in Nous. And he held that there were two efficient causes which were separated off from one another, namely, the warm and the cold. The former was in motion, the latter at rest. When the water was liquefied it flowed to the centre, and there being burnt up it turned to earth and air, the latter of which was borne upwards, while the former took up its position below. These, then, are the reasons why the earth is at rest, and why it came into being. It lies in the
1 Diog. ii. 16 (R. P. 216).
2 See Chiapelli in Arch. iv. pp. 369 sqq.
8 Euseb. P. Z. p. 504, c 3, ὁ δὲ ᾿Αρχέλαος ἐν Λαμψάκῳ διεδέξατο τὴν σχολὴν τοῦ ᾿Αναξαγόρου.
4 ᾿Αναξαγόρειοι are mentioned by Plato (Ογαΐ. 400 Ὁ 6), and often by the Aristotelian commentators.
5 Hipp. Ref. i. 9 (R. P. 218).
Cosmology.
416 Early Greek Philosophy
_ centre, being practically no appreciable part of the universe. (But the air rules over all things),! being produced by the burning of the fire, and from its original combustion comes the substance of the heavenly bodies. Of these the sun is the largest, and the moon second; the rest are of various sizes. He says that the heavens were inclined, and that then the sun made light upon the earth, made the air transparent, and the earth dry; for it was originally a pond, being high at the circumference and hollow in the centre. He adduces as a proof of this hollowness that the sun does not rise and set at the same time for all peoples, as it ought to do if the earth -were level. As to animals, he says that when the earth was first being warmed in the lower part where the warm and the cold were mingled together, many living creatures appeared, and especially men, all having the same manner of life, and deriving their sustenance from the slime; they did not live long, and later on generation from one another began. And men were distinguished from the rest, and set up leaders, and laws, and arts, and cities, and so forth. And he says that Nous is implanted in all animals alike; for each of the animals, as well as man, makes use of Nous, but some quicker and some slower.
It is not necessary to say much with regard to this
theory, which in many respects contrasts unfavourably
with its predecessors. It is clear that, just as Diogenes
had tried to introduce certain Anaxagorean ideas into
the philosophy of Anaximenes, so Archelaos sought to
bring Anaxagoreanism nearer to the old Ionic views
by supplementing it with the opposition of warm and
cold, rare and dense, and by stripping Nous of that
simplicity which had marked it off from the other
“things” in his master’s system. It was probably for
this reason, too, that Nous was no longer regarded as
the maker of the world. Leukippos had made such a
1 Inserting τὸν δ᾽ ἀέρα κρατεῖν τοῦ παντός, as suggested by Roeper. * Aet. i. 7, 4=Stob. i, 56 (R. P. 217 a).
Eclecticism and Reaction 417
force unnecessary. It may be added that this twofold
relation of Archelaos to his predecessors makes it very
credible that, as Aetios tells us,’ he believed in in-
numerable worlds; both Anaxagoras and the older
Ionians upheld that doctrine.
193. The cosmology of Archelaos, like that of Conclusion.
Diogenes, has all the characteristics of the age to
which it belonged—an age of reaction, eclecticism,
and investigation of detail.2 Hippon of Samos and
Idaios of Himera represent nothing more than the
feeling that philosophy had run into a blind alley,
from which it could only escape by trying back.
The Herakleiteans at Ephesos, impenetrably wrapped
up as they were in their own system, did little but
exaggerate its paradoxes and develop its more fanciful
side.» It was not enough for Kratylos to say with
Herakleitos (fr. 84) that you cannot step twice into
the same river; you could not do so even once.*
But in nothing was the total bankruptcy of the early
cosmology so clearly shown as in the work of Gorgias,
entitled Substance or the Non-existent, in which an
absolute nihilism was set forth and based upon the
Eleatic dialectic. The fact is that philosophy, so long
as it clung to its old presuppositions, had nothing more
to say; for the answer of Leukippos to the question of