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.1 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.2

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 (§ 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 looking 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." 5 It is not quite clear how these two accounts of vision were reconciled, or how far we are Empedokles with the Platonic theory.

1 Beare, pp. 161-3, 180-81.

3 Ibid. pp. 14 sqq.

entitled to credit

The statements

2 Ibid. pp. 95 sqq. Theophr. de sens. 26.

Plato, Men. 76 d 4. All our

5 The definition is quoted from Gorgias in MSS. have ἀπορροαὶ σχημάτων, but Ven. T has in the margin γρ. Xpημáτwv, which may well be an old tradition. The Ionic for "things" is xphuara. See Diels, Empedokles und Gorgias, p. 439.

Theology and religion.

which have been quoted seem to imply something very like it.1

Theophrastos tells us that Empedokles made no distinction between thought and perception, a remark already made by Aristotle. The chief seat of perception 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).

I 19. 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, Elementary Cognition, p. 18.

2 Arist. de An. г, 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 An. A, 2. 405 b 6) probably got the Sicilian doctrine from Gorgias. At a later date, Philistion of Syracuse, Plato's friend, substituted the yuxikov тveÛμa ("animal spirits ") which circulated along with the blood.

4 Beare, p. 253.

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 cultivation 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 KLAZOMEN AI

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.).2 He doubtless thought it natural that he should not survive Perikles, and still more natural that he should die the year Plato was born.3 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 (R. 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, n. I.

2 We must read dydoŋkoσrns with Meursius to make the figures come right.

On the statements of Apollodoros, see Jacoby, pp. 244 sqq.

may be a genuine tradition; and if so, we get from about 462 to 432 B.C. as the time he lived there.

2

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 Early life. Theophrastos tells us that his father's name was Hegesiboulos." 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 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." Of course the story of his contempt for worldly goods was seized on later

1 Diog., loc. cit. In any case, it is not a mere calculation of Apollodoros's; for he would certainly have made Anaxagoras forty years old at the date of his arrival in Athens, and this would give at most twenty-eight years for his residence there. The trial cannot have been later than 432 B.C., and may have been earlier.

2 Arist. Met. A, 3. 984 a 11 (R. P. 150 a).

3 Phys. Op. fr. 3 (Dox. p. 477), ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 25, 19 (R. P. 162 e).

Diog. ix. 41 (R. P. 187). On the date of Demokritos, see Chap. IX. $171.

Phys. Op. fr. 4 (Dox. p. 478), repeated by the doxographers.

6 Plato, Hipp. ma. 283 a, τοὐναντίον γὰρ ̓Αναξαγόρᾳ φασὶ συμβῆναι ἢ ὑμῖν· καταλειφθέντων γὰρ αὐτῷ πολλῶν χρημάτων καταμελῆσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι πάντα· οὕτως αὐτὸν ἀνόητα σοφίζεσθαι. Cf. Plut. Per. 16.

7 Arist. Eth. Nic. K, 9. 1179 a 13. Cf. Eth. Eud. A, 4. 1215 b6 and 15, 1216 a 10.