Early Greek Philosophy — John Burnet (Heraclitus fragments)

Parmenides held that there were crowns crossing one another? and encircling one another, formed of the rare and the dense element respectively, and that between these there were other mixed crowns made up of light and darkness. That which surrounds them all was solid like a wall, and under it is a fiery crown. That which is in the middle of all the crowns is also solid, and surrounded in turn by a fiery circle. The central circle of the mixed crowns is the cause of movement and becoming to all the rest. He calls it “the goddess who directs their course,” “the Holder of Lots,” and “Necessity.” et. ii. 7. 1 (R. P. 126).

93. The first thing we have to observe is that it is The “crowns
quite unjustifiable to regard these “crowns” as spheres.
The word στέφαναι can mean “rims” or “brims” or
anything of that sort, but it seems incredible that it

1 See above, p. 121.

2 It seems most likely that ἐπαλλήλους here means ‘‘crossing one another,” as-the Milky\Way crosses the Zodiac. The term ἐπάλληλος is opposed to παράλληλος.

216 Early Greek Philosophy

should be used of spheres. It does not appear, either,
that the solid circle which surrounds all the crowns is
to be regarded as spherical. The expression “like a
wall” would be highly inappropriate in that case.
We seem, then, to be face to face with something of the
same kind as the “wheels” of Anaximander, and
it is obviously quite likely that Pythagoras should
have taken this theory from him, Nor is evidence
altogether lacking that the Pythagoreans did regard the
heavenly bodies in this way. In Plato’s Myth of Er,
which is certainly Pythagorean in its general character,
we do not hear of spheres, but of the “lips” of
concentric whorls fitted into one another like a nest of
boxes." Even in the Zzmaeus there are no spheres,
but bands or strips crossing each other at an angle.”
Lastly, in the Homeric Hymn to Ares, which seems to
have been composed under Pythagorean influence, the
word used for the orbit of the planet is ἄντυξ,

must mean “rim.” ὃ

The fact is, there is really no evidence that an
ever adopted the theory of celestial spheres at all, till
Aristotle turned the geometrical construction” which
Eudoxos had set up as ἃ hypothesis: “to save
appearances” (σῴζειν τὰ φαινόμενα) into real things.*

1 Rep. x. 616 ἃ 5, καθάπερ οἱ κάδοι of eis ἀλλήλους ἁρμόττοντες : Ε I, κύκλους ἄνωθεν τὰ χείλη φαίνοντας ἱσφονδύλου:).

2 Tim. 36 Ὁ 6, ταύτην οὖν τὴν σύστασιν πᾶσαν διπλῆν κατὰ μῆκος σχίσας, μέσην πρὸς μέσην ἑκατέραν ἀλλήλαις οἷον χεῖ (the letter X) προσβαλὼν κατέκαμψεν εἰς ἕν κύκλῳ.

3 Hymn to Ares, 6:

mupavyéa κύκλον ἑλίσσων
αἰθέρος ἑπταπόροις ἐνὶ τείρεσιν, ἔνθα σε πῶλοι.
ζαφλεγέες τριτάτης ὑπὲρ ἄντυγος αἰὲν ἔχουσι.
So, in allusion to an essentially Pythagorean view, Proclus says to the
planet Venus (h. iv. 17):

» Ν « Ν ΄ ε a "ἦ > i 4 s εἴτε καὶ ἑπτὰ κύκλων ὕπερ avTvyas αἰθέρα ψναιεις.

4 On the concentric spheres of Eudoxos, see Dreyer, Planetary Systems,

Parmenides of Elea 217

From that time forward we hear a great deal about
spheres, and it was natural that later writers should
attribute them to the Pythagoreans; but there is no
occasion to do violence to the language of Parmenides by
turning his “crowns” into anything of the sort. At this
date, spheres would not have served to explain anything
that could not be explained more simply without them.

We are next told that these “crowns” encircle one another or are folded over one another, and that they are made of the rare and the dense element. We also learn that between them are “mixed crowns” made up of light and darkness. Now it is to be observed, in the first place, that light and darkness are exactly the same thing as the rare and the dense, and it looks as if there was some confusion here. It may be doubted whether these statements are based on anything else than fr. 12, which might certainly be interpreted to mean that between the crowns of fire there were crowns of night with a portion of fire in them. That may be right; but I think it is rather more natural to understand the passage as saying that the narrower circles are surrounded by wider circles of night, each with its portion of fire rushing in the midst of it. These last words would then be a simple repetition of the statement that the narrower circles are filled with unmixed fire,| and we should have a

chap. iv. It is unfortunate that the account of Plato’s astronomy given in this work is wholly inadequate, owing to the writer’s excessive reliance on Boeckh, who was led by evidence now generally regarded as untrustworthy to attribute all the astronomy of the Academy to their predecessors, and especially to Philolaos.

1 Such a repetition (παλινδρομία) is characteristic of all Greek style, but the repetition at the end of the period generally adds a new touch to the statement at the opening. The new touch is here given in the word tera. I do not press this interpretation, but it seems to me much the simplest.

The goddess.

218 Early Greek Philosophy

fairly exact reproduction of the planetary system of
Anaximander. It is, however, possible, though I think
less likely, that Parmenides represented the space
between the circles as occupied by similar rings in
which the fire and darkness were mixed instead of
having the fire enclosed in the darkness.

94. “In the middle of those,’ says Parmenides,
“is the goddess who steers the course of all things.”
Aetios, that is, Theophrastos, explains this to mean in
the middle of the mixed crowns, while Simplicius
declares that it means in the middle of all the crowns,
that is to say, in the centre of the world.’ It is not
very likely that either of them had anything better to
go upon than the words of Parmenides just quoted, and
these are ambiguous. Simplicius, as is clear from the
language he uses, identified this goddess with the
Pythagorean Hestia or central fire, while Theophrastos
could not do this, because he knew and stated that
Parmenides held the earth to be round and in the
centre of the νου. In this very passage we are told
that what is in the middle of all the crowns is solid.
The data furnished by Theophrastos, in fact, exclude
the identification of the goddess with the central fire
altogether. We cannot say that what is in the middle
of all the crowns is solid, and that under it there is
again a fiery crown.’ Nor does it seem fitting to

1 Simpl. Phys. p. 34, 14 (R. P. 125 b). 3

2 Diog. ix. 21 (R. P. 126 a).

3 I do not discuss the interpretation of περὶ ὃ πάλιν πυρώδης which Diels gave in Parmenides Lehrgedicht, p. 104, and which is adopted in R. P. 162 a, as it is now virtually retracted. In the second edition of his Vorsokratiker (p. 111) he reads καὶ τὸ μεσαίτατον πασῶν στερεόν, «ὑφ᾽ @> πάλιν πυρώδης [sc. στεφάνη]. That is a flat contradiction. It is of interest to observe that Mr. Adam also gets into the interior of the earth in his

interpretation of the Myth of Er. It is instructive, too, because it shows that we are really dealing with the same order of ideas. The most heroic

Parmenides of Elea 219

relegate a goddess to the middle of a solid spherical earth. We must try to find a place for her elsewhere.

We are further told by Aetios that this goddess was called Ananke and the “ Holder of Lots.”! We know already that she steers the course of all things, that is, that she regulates the motions of the celestial crowns. Simplicius adds, unfortunately without quoting the actual words, that she sends souls at one time from the light to the unseen world, at another from the unseen world to the light” It would be difficult to describe more exactly what the goddess does in the Myth of Er, and so here once more we seem to be on Pythagorean ground. It is to be noticed further that in fr. 10 we read how Ananke took the heavens and compelled them to hold fast the -fixed courses of the stars, and that in fr. 12 we are told that she is the beginner, of all pairing and birth. Lastly, in fr. 13 we hear that she created Eros first of all the gods. Modern parallels are dangerous, but it is not really going much beyond what is written to say that this Eros is the Will to Live, which leads to successive rebirths of the soul. So we shall find that in Empedokles it is an ancient attempt to save the central fire for Pythagoras was my own hypothesis of an annular earth (1st ed. p. 203). This has met with well-deserved ridicule ; but all the same it is the only possible solution on these lines. We shall see in Chap. VII. that the central fire belongs to the later development of Pythagoreanism.

1 R. P. 126, where Fiilleborn’s ingenious emendation κλῃδοῦχον for kAnpodxov is tacitly adopted. This is based upon the view that Aetios (or Theophrastos) was thinking of the goddess that keeps the keys in the Proem (fr. 1, 14). I now think that the κλῆροι of the Myth of Er are the true explanation of the name. Philo uses the term κληροῦχος θεός.

2 Simpl. Phys. p. 39, 19, καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς πέμπειν ποτὲ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ ἐμφανοῦς εἰς τὸ ἀειδές (i.e. ἀιδές), ποτὲ δὲ ἀνάπαλίν φησιν. We should probably connect this with the statement of Diog. ix. 22(R. P. 127) that men arose

from the sun (reading ἡλίου with the MSS. for the conjecture ἐλύος in the Basel edition).

220 Early Greek Philosophy

oracle or decree of Ananke that causes the gods to fall and become incarnate in a cycle of births.’

We should, then, be more certain of the place which
this goddess occupies in the universe if we could be
quite sure where Ananke is in the Myth of Er,
Without, however, raising that vexed question, we may
lay down with some confidence that, according to
Theophrastos, she occupied a position midway between
the earth and the heavens. Whether we believe in the
“mixed crowns” or not makes no difference in this
respect ; for the statement of Aetios that she was in
the middle of the mixed crowns undoubtedly implies
that she was in that region. Now she is identified with
one of the crowns in a somewhat confused passage of
Cicero,” and we have seen above (p. 69) that the whole
theory of wheels or crowns was probably suggested by
the Milky Way. It seems to me, therefore, that we
must think of the Milky Way as a crown intermediate
between the crowns of the Sun and the Moon, and this
agrees very well with the prominent way in which it is
mentioned in fr. 11. -It is better not to be too
positive about the other details of the system, though it
is interesting to notice that according to some it was
Pythagoras, and according to others Parmenides, who
discovered the identity of the evening and morning
star. That fits in exactly with our general view.®

1 Empedokles, fr. 115.

? Cicero, de nat. D. i. 11, 28: ‘* Nam Parmenides quidem commenticium quiddam coronae simile efficit (στεφάνην appellat), continente ardore lucis orbem, qui cingat caelum, quem appellat deum.” We may connect with this the statement of Aetios, ii. 20, 8, τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἐκ τοῦ γαλαξίου κύκλου ἀποκριθῆναι.

8. Diog. ix. 23, καὶ δοκεῖ (Παρμενίδης) πρῶτος πεφωρακέναι τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι Ἕσπερον καὶ Φωσφόρον, ὥς φησι Φαβωρῖνος ἐν πέμπτῳ Ἀπομνημονευ- μάτων᾽ οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόραν. If, as Achilles says, the poet Ibykos of Rhegion had anticipated Parmenides in announcing this discovery,.that is to be

Parmenides of Elea 221

Besides all this, it is quite certain that Parmenides
went on to describe how the other gods were born and
how they fell, an idea which we know to be Orphic,
and which may well have been Pythagorean. We
shall come to it again in Empedokles. In Plato’s
Sympostum, Agathon couples Parmenides with Hesiod
as a narrator of ancient deeds of violence committed
by the gods." If Parmenides was expounding the
Pythagorean theology, all this is just what we should
expect; but it seems hopeless to explain it on any
of the other theories which have been advanced on
the purpose of the Way of Belief. Such things do
not follow naturally from the ordinary view of the
world, and we have no reason to suppose that
Herakleitos expounded his views of the upward and
downward path of the soul in this form. He certainly
did hold that the guardian spirits entered into human
bodies ; but the whole point of his theory was that he
gave a naturalistic rather than a theological account
of the process. Still less can we think it probable
that Parmenides made up these stories himself in
order to show what the popular view of the world
really implied if properly formulated. We must ask,
I think, that any theory on the subject shall account
for what was evidently no inconsiderable portion of
the poem.

95. In describing the views of his contemporaries,
Parmenides was obliged, as we see from the fragments,
explained by the fact that Rhegion had become the chief seat of the
Pythagorean school.