But Anaxagoras says that perception is produced by opposites ; for like things cannot be affected by like. He attempts to give a detailed enumeration of the particular senses. We see by means of the image in the pupil; but no image is cast upon what is of the same colour, but only on what is different. With most living creatures things are of a different colour to the pupil by day, though with some this is so by night, and these are accordingly keen-sighted at that time. Speaking generally, however, night is more of the same colour with the eyes than day. And an image is cast on the pupil by day, because light is a concomitant cause of the image, and because the prevailing colour casts an image more readily upon its opposite.® .
It is in the same way that touch and taste discern their objects. That which is just as warm or just as cold as we are neither warms us nor cools us by its contact ; and, in the same
_ way, we do not apprehend the sweet and the sour by means of
themselves. We know cold by warm, fresh by salt, and sweet by sour, in virtue of our deficiency in each; for all these are in us to begin with. And we smell and hear in the same
1 Theophr. His¢. Plant. iii. 1, 4 (R. P. 160). 2 Irenaeus, adv. Haer. ii. 14, 2 (R. P. 160 a). 3 Hipp. Ref. i. 8, 12 (Dox. p. 563).
4 Beare, p. 37.
ὃ Theophr. de Sensu, 27 sqq. (Dox. p. 507). ® Beare, p. 38.
Anaxagoras of Klazomenai 317
manner ; the former by means of the accompanying respiration, the latter by the sound penetrating to the brain, for the bone which surrounds this is hollow, and it is upon it that the sound falls.?
And all sensation implies pain, a view which would seem to be the consequence οὗ the first assumption, for all unlike things produce pain by their contact. And this pain is made perceptible by the long continuance or by the excess of a sensation. Brilliant colours and excessive noises produce pain, and we cannot dwell long on the same things. The larger animals are the more sensitive, and, generally, sensation is proportionate to the size of the organs of sense. Those animals which have large, pure, and bright eyes, see large objects and from a great distance, and contrariwise.?
And it is the same with hearing. Large animals can hear -great and distant sounds, while less sounds pass unperceived ; small animals perceive small sounds and those near at hand.® It is the same too with smell. Rarefied air has more smell ; for, when air is heated and rarefied, it smells. A large animal when it breathes draws in the condensed air along with the rarefied, while a small one draws in the rarefied by itself ; so the large one perceives more. For smell is better perceived when it is near than when it is far by reason of its being more condensed, while when dispersed it is weak. But, roughly speaking, large animals do not perceive a rarefied smell, nor small animals a condensed one.*
This theory marks in some respects an advance’
upon that of Empedokles, It was a happy thought of
Anaxagoras to make sensation depend upon irritation
by opposites, and to connect it with pain. Many |
modern theories are based upon a similar idea.
That Anaxagoras regarded the senses as incapable
of reaching the truth of things is shown by the
fragments preserved by Sextus. But we must not, for
all that, turn him into asceptic. The saying preserved
1 Beare, p. 208. 2 7δὲα. p. 209. * Jbid. p. 103. 4 Jbid. p. 137.
318 Early Greek Philosophy
by Aristotle’ that “things are as we suppose them to
be,” has no value at all as evidence. It comes from
some collection of apophthegms, not from the treatise
of Anaxagoras himself; and it had, as likely as not, a
moral application. He did say (fr. 21) that “the
weakness of our senses prevents our discerning the
truth,” but this meant simply that we do not see the
“portions” of everything which are in everything ; for
instance, the portions of black which are in the white.
Our senses simply show us the portions that prevail.
He also said that the things which are seen give us
the power of seeing the invisible, which is the very
opposite of scepticism (fr. 212).
1 Met. A, 5. 1009 b 25 (R. P. 161 a).
Chapter Vii
The Pythagoreans
138. WE have seen (§ 40) how the Pythagoreans, The
Pythagorean
after losing their supremacy at Kroton, concentrated school.
themselves at Rhegion; but the school founded there
was soon broken up. Archippos stayed behind in |
_Italy ; but Philolaos and Lysis, the latter of whom
had escaped as a young man from the massacre of
Kroton, betook themselves to continental Hellas,
settling finally at Thebes. We know from Plato that
Philolaos was there some time during the latter part
of the fifth century, and Lysis was afterwards the
teacher of Epameinondas.’ Some of the Pythagoreans,
however, were able to return to Italy later on.
Philolaos certainly did so, and Plato implies that he
had left Thebes some time before 399 B.C., the year
in which Sokrates was put to death. In the fourth
century, the chief seat of the school is at Taras, and
we find the Pythagoreans heading the opposition to
Dionysios of Syracuse. It is to this period that
Archytas belongs. He was the friend of Plato, and
almost realised, if he did not suggest, the ideal of the -"
philosopher king. He ruled Tara’ for years, and Aris-
For Philolaos, see Plato, Phd. 61d 7 ; e 7; and for Lysis, Aristoxenos in Iambl. V. Pyth. 250 (ΚΒ. P. 59 b).
Philolaos.
320 Early Greek Philosophy
toxenos tells us that he was never defeated in the field
of battle.’ He was also the inventor of mathematical
mechanics. At the same time, Pythagoreanism had
taken root in Hellas. Lysis, we have seen, remained
at Thebes, where Simmias and Kebes had heard
Philolaos, and there was an important community of
Pythagoreans at Phleious. Aristoxenos was personally
acquainted with the last generation of the school,
and mentioned by name Xenophilos the Chalkidian
from Thrace, with Phanton, Echekrates, Diokles, and
Polymnestos of Phleious. They were all, he said,
disciples of Philolaos and Eurytos.” Plato was on
friendly terms with these men, and dedicated the
Phaedo to them.* Xenophilos was the teacher of
Aristoxenos, and lived in perfect health at Athens till
the age of a hundred and ἔνε."
139. This generation of the school really belongs,
however, to a later period, and cannot be profitably
studied apart from Plato; it is with their master
Philolaos we have now to deal. The facts we know
about his teaching from external sources are few in
number. The doxographers, indeed, ascribe to him
an elaborate theory of the planetary system, but
Aristotle never mentions his name in connexion with
this. He gives it as the theory of “the Pythagoreans ”
or of “some Pythagoreans. It seems natural to
suppose, however, that the Pythagorean elements of
1 Diog. viii. 79-83 (R. P. 61). Aristoxenos himself came from Taras. For the political activity of the Tarentine Pythagoreans, see Meyer, Gesch. des Alterth. v. ἃ 824. The story of Damon and Phintias (told by Aristoxenos) belongs to this time.
3 Diog. viii. 46 (R. P. 62).
3. Compare the way in which the 7heaetetus is dedicated to the school of Megara.
4 See Aristoxenos af. Val. Max. viii. 13, ext. 3; and Souidas s.v.
5 See below, §§ 150-152.
The Pythagoreans 321
Plato’s Phaedo and Gorgias come mainly from
Philolaos. Plato makes Sokrates express surprise
that Simmias and Kebes had not learnt from him why
it is unlawful for a man to take his life,' and it seems
to be implied that the Pythagoreans at Thebes used
the word “ philosopher” in the special sense of a man
who is seeking to find a way of release from the burden
of this life? It is extremely probable that Philolaos
spoke of the body (σῶμα) as the tomb (σῆμα) of the
soul.?> In any case, we seem to be justified in holding
that he taught the old Pythagorean religious doctrine
in some form, and it is likely that he laid special stress
upon knowledge as a means of release. That is the
impression we get from Plato, and he is by far the
best authority we have on the subject.
We know further that Philolaos wrote on “numbers” ; for Speusippos followed him in the
1 Plato, Phd. 61 d 6.
2 This appears to follow at once from the remark of Simmias in Phd. 64 b. The whole passage would be pointless if the words φιλόσοφος, φιλοσοφεῖν, φιλοσοφία had not in some way become familiar to the ordinary Theban of the fifth century. Now Herakleides Pontikos made Pythagoras invent the word, and expound it in a conversation with Leon, tyrant of Sikyon or Philetous. Cf. Diog, i. 12(R. P. 3), viii. 8; (Οἷς. Zzsc. v. 3. 85 Doring in Arch. v. pp. 505 sqq. It seems to me that the way in which the term is introduced in the Phaedo is fatal to the view that this is a Sokratic idea transferred by Herakleides to the Pythagoreans. Cf. also the remark of Alkidamas quoted by Arist. Rhet. B, 23. 1398 Ὁ 18, Θήβησιν ἅμα of προστάται φιλόσοφοι ἐγένοντο καὶ εὐδαιμόνησεν ἡ πόλις.
3. For reasons which will appear, I do not attach importance in this connexion to Philolaos, fr. 14 Diels=23 Mullach (R. P. 89), but it does seem likely that the μυθολογῶν κομψὸς ἀνήρ of Gorg. 493 a 5 (R. P. 89 Ὁ) is responsible for the whole theory there given. He is certainly, in any case, the author of the τετρημένος πίθος, which implies the same general view. Now he is called tows Σικελός τις ἢ ᾿Ιταλικός, which means he was an Italian; for the Σικελός τις is merely an allusion to the Σικελὸς κομψὸς ἀνὴρ ποτὶ τὰν ματέρ᾽ ἔφα of Timokreon. We do not know of any Italian from whom Plato could have learnt these views except Philolaos or one of his disciples. They may, however, be originally Orphic for all that (cf. R. P. 89 a).
Plato and the Pythagoreans.
322 Early Greek Philosophy
account he gave of the Pythagorean theories on that
subject.'_ It is probable that he busied himself mainly
with arithmetic, and we can hardly doubt. that his
geometry was of the primitive type described in an
earlier chapter. Eurytos was his disciple, and we have
seen (§ 47) that his views were still very crude.
We also know now that Philolaos wrote on
medicine,” and that, while apparently influenced by
the theories of the Sicilian school, he opposed them
from the Pythagorean standpoint. In particular, he
said that our bodies were composed only of the warm,
and did not participate in the cold. It was only after
birth that the cold was introduced by respiration. The
connexion of this with the old Pythagorean theory is
obvious. Just as the Fire in the macrocosm draws in
and limits the cold dark breath which surrounds the
world (§ 53), so do our bodies inhale cold breath from
outside. Philolaos made bile, blood, and phlegm the
causes of disease ; and, in accordance with the theory
just mentioned, he had to deny that the phlegm was
cold, as the Sicilian school held it was. Its etymology
proved that it was warm. As Diels says, Philolaos
strikes us as an “uninteresting eclectic” so far as his
medical views are concerned.? We shall see, however,
that it was just this preoccupation with the medicine
of the Sicilian school that gave rise to some of the
most striking developments of later Pythagoreanism.
140. Such, so far as we can see, was the historical
1 See above, Chap. II. p. 113, n. 2.
2 It is a good illustration of the defective character of our tradition (Introd. § XIII.) that this was quite unknown till the publication of the extracts from Menon’s /atrika contained in the Anonymus Londinensis. The extract referring to Philolaos’is given and discussed by Diels in Hermes, xxviii. pp. 417 sqq.
3 Hermes, loc. cit.
The Pythagoreans 323
Philolaos, and he is a sufficiently remarkable figure.
He is usually, however, represented in a different light,
and has even been spoken of as a‘“ precursor of
Copernicus.” To understand this, we shall have to
consider for a little the story of what can only be
called a literary conspiracy. Not till this has been
exposed will it be possible to estimate the real
importance of Philolaos and his immediate disciples.
As we can see from the Phaedo and the Gorgias,
Plato was intimate with these men and was deeply
impressed by their religious teaching, though it is plain
too that he did not adopt it as his own faith. He
was still more attracted by the scientific side of
Pythagoreanism, and to the last this exercised a great
influence on him. His own system in its final form
had many points of contact with it, as he is careful to
mark in the Phzlebus. But, just because he stood so
near it, he is apt to develop Pythagoreanism on lines
of his own, which may or may not have commended
themselves to Archytas, but are no guide to the views
of Philolaos and Eurytos. He is not careful, however,
to claim the authorship of his own improvements in
the system. He did not believe that cosmology could
be an exact science, and he is therefore quite willing
to credit Timaios the Lokrian, or “ancient sages”
generally, with theories which certainly had their birth
in the Academy.
Now Plato had many enemies and detractors, and
this literary device enabled them to bring against him
the charge of plagiarism. Aristoxenos was one of
these enemies, and we know he made the extraordinary
statement that most of the Republic was to be found in