924. Theophr.ap.Simpl.Phys.p. 25, 1 (R. P. 206 a).
924. Theophr.ap.Simpl.Phys.p. 25, 1 (R. P. 206 a).
925. This was stated by Thrasylos in his list of the tetralogies in which he arranged the works of Demokritos, as he did those of Plato. He gives Tetr. iii. thus: (1) Μέγας διάκοσμος (ὃν οἱ περὶ Θεόφραστον Λευκίππου φασὶν εἶναι); (2) Μικρὸς διάκοσμος; (3) Κοσμογραφίη; (4) Περὶ τῶν πλανήτων. The two διάκοσμοι would only be distinguished as μέγας and μικρός when they came to be included in the samecorpus. A quotation purporting to be from the Περὶ νοῦ of Leukippos is preserved in Stob. i. 160. The phrase ἐν τοῖς Λευκίππου καλουμένοις λόγοις inM.X.G.980 a 8 seems to refer to Arist.de Gen. Corr.325 a 24, Λεύκιππος δ’ ἔχειν ᾠήθη λόγους κ.τ.λ., and would prove nothing in any case. Cf. Chap. II. p. 138,n.305.
925. This was stated by Thrasylos in his list of the tetralogies in which he arranged the works of Demokritos, as he did those of Plato. He gives Tetr. iii. thus: (1) Μέγας διάκοσμος (ὃν οἱ περὶ Θεόφραστον Λευκίππου φασὶν εἶναι); (2) Μικρὸς διάκοσμος; (3) Κοσμογραφίη; (4) Περὶ τῶν πλανήτων. The two διάκοσμοι would only be distinguished as μέγας and μικρός when they came to be included in the samecorpus. A quotation purporting to be from the Περὶ νοῦ of Leukippos is preserved in Stob. i. 160. The phrase ἐν τοῖς Λευκίππου καλουμένοις λόγοις inM.X.G.980 a 8 seems to refer to Arist.de Gen. Corr.325 a 24, Λεύκιππος δ’ ἔχειν ᾠήθη λόγους κ.τ.λ., and would prove nothing in any case. Cf. Chap. II. p. 138,n.305.
926. See above, p. 380,n.921.
926. See above, p. 380,n.921.
927. The aristocrats had massacred the democrats, and were overthrown in their turn by the Athenians. Cf. [Xen.] Ἀθ. πολ. 3, 11. The date is fixed byC.I.A.i. 22 a.
927. The aristocrats had massacred the democrats, and were overthrown in their turn by the Athenians. Cf. [Xen.] Ἀθ. πολ. 3, 11. The date is fixed byC.I.A.i. 22 a.
928. Theophr.ap.Simpl.Phys.p. 28, 4 (R. P. 185). Note the difference of case in κοινωνήσας Παρμενίδῃ τῆς φιλοσοφίας and κοινωνήσας τῆς Ἀναξιμένους φιλοσοφίας which is the phrase used by Theophrastos of Anaxagoras (p. 293,n.660). The dative seems to imply a personal relationship. It is quite inadmissible to render “was familiar with the doctrine of Parmenides,” as is done in Gomperz,Greek Thinkers, vol. i. p. 345.
928. Theophr.ap.Simpl.Phys.p. 28, 4 (R. P. 185). Note the difference of case in κοινωνήσας Παρμενίδῃ τῆς φιλοσοφίας and κοινωνήσας τῆς Ἀναξιμένους φιλοσοφίας which is the phrase used by Theophrastos of Anaxagoras (p. 293,n.660). The dative seems to imply a personal relationship. It is quite inadmissible to render “was familiar with the doctrine of Parmenides,” as is done in Gomperz,Greek Thinkers, vol. i. p. 345.
929. See§ 84.
929. See§ 84.
930. Cf. Diog. ix. 30, οὕτος ἤκουσε Ζήνωνος (R. P. 185 b); and Hipp.Ref.i. 12, 1, Λεύκιππος ... Ζήνωνος ἑταῖρος. Diels conjectured that the name of Zeno had been dropped in the extract from Theophrastos preserved by Simplicius (Dox.483 a 11).
930. Cf. Diog. ix. 30, οὕτος ἤκουσε Ζήνωνος (R. P. 185 b); and Hipp.Ref.i. 12, 1, Λεύκιππος ... Ζήνωνος ἑταῖρος. Diels conjectured that the name of Zeno had been dropped in the extract from Theophrastos preserved by Simplicius (Dox.483 a 11).
931. This point is important, though the argument is weakened by Brieger’s overstatement of it inHermes, xxxvi. p. 183. He says that to assume such a reaction as Anaxagoreanism after the atomic system had once been discovered would be something unexampled in the history of Greek philosophy. Diogenes of Apollonia proves the contrary. The real point is that Empedokles and Anaxagoras were men of a different stamp. So far as Empedokles is concerned, Gomperz states the case rightly (Greek Thinkers, vol. i. p. 560).
931. This point is important, though the argument is weakened by Brieger’s overstatement of it inHermes, xxxvi. p. 183. He says that to assume such a reaction as Anaxagoreanism after the atomic system had once been discovered would be something unexampled in the history of Greek philosophy. Diogenes of Apollonia proves the contrary. The real point is that Empedokles and Anaxagoras were men of a different stamp. So far as Empedokles is concerned, Gomperz states the case rightly (Greek Thinkers, vol. i. p. 560).
932. See above, Chap. V. p. 224,n.492; and Brieger inHermes, xxxvi. p. 171.
932. See above, Chap. V. p. 224,n.492; and Brieger inHermes, xxxvi. p. 171.
933. Diels (formerly at least) maintained both these things. See above, p. 359,n.859; and p. 382,n.930. If, as seems probable (§ 158), Zeno wrote his book some time between 470 and 460B.C., Leukippos can hardly have written his before 450B.C., and even that is too late for him to have influenced Empedokles. It may well have been later still.
933. Diels (formerly at least) maintained both these things. See above, p. 359,n.859; and p. 382,n.930. If, as seems probable (§ 158), Zeno wrote his book some time between 470 and 460B.C., Leukippos can hardly have written his before 450B.C., and even that is too late for him to have influenced Empedokles. It may well have been later still.
934. See above, Chap. VI.§ 131; and Chap. VII.§ 145.
934. See above, Chap. VI.§ 131; and Chap. VII.§ 145.
935. The words ὡς δοκεῖ do not imply assent to the view introduced by them; indeed they are used, far more often than not, in reference to beliefs which the writer does not accept. The translation “methinks” in Gomperz,Greek Thinkers, vol. i. p. 345, is therefore most misleading, and there is no justification for Brieger’s statement (Hermes, xxxvi. p. 165) that Theophrastos dissents from Aristotle’s view as given in the passage about to be quoted. We should be saved from many errors if we accustomed ourselves to translate δοκεῖ by “is thought” or “is believed” instead of by “seems.”
935. The words ὡς δοκεῖ do not imply assent to the view introduced by them; indeed they are used, far more often than not, in reference to beliefs which the writer does not accept. The translation “methinks” in Gomperz,Greek Thinkers, vol. i. p. 345, is therefore most misleading, and there is no justification for Brieger’s statement (Hermes, xxxvi. p. 165) that Theophrastos dissents from Aristotle’s view as given in the passage about to be quoted. We should be saved from many errors if we accustomed ourselves to translate δοκεῖ by “is thought” or “is believed” instead of by “seems.”
936. This prejudice is apparent all through Gomperz’sGreek Thinkers, and seriously impairs the value of that fascinating, though somewhat imaginative work. It is amusing to notice that Brieger, from the same point of view, regards the custom of making Anaxagoras the last of the Presocratics as due to theological prepossessions (Hermes, xxxvi. p. 185). I am sorry that I cannot agree with either side; but the bitterness of the disputants bears witness to the fundamental importance of the questions raised by the early Greek philosophers.
936. This prejudice is apparent all through Gomperz’sGreek Thinkers, and seriously impairs the value of that fascinating, though somewhat imaginative work. It is amusing to notice that Brieger, from the same point of view, regards the custom of making Anaxagoras the last of the Presocratics as due to theological prepossessions (Hermes, xxxvi. p. 185). I am sorry that I cannot agree with either side; but the bitterness of the disputants bears witness to the fundamental importance of the questions raised by the early Greek philosophers.
937. Arist.de Gen. Corr.Α, 8. 324 b 35 (R. P. 193).
937. Arist.de Gen. Corr.Α, 8. 324 b 35 (R. P. 193).
938. Arist.Phys.Α, 3. 187 a 1 (R. P. 134 b).
938. Arist.Phys.Α, 3. 187 a 1 (R. P. 134 b).
939. Arist.de Caelo, Γ, 4. 303 a 8, τρόπον γάρ τινα καὶ οὕτοι (Λεύκιππος καὶ Δημόκριτος) πάντα τὰ ὄντα ποιοῦσιν ἀριθμοὺς καὶ ἐξ ἀριθμῶν. This also serves to explain what Herakleides may have meant by attributing the theory of corporeal ὄγκοι to the Pythagorean Ekphantos of Syracuse (above, p. 338,n.794).
939. Arist.de Caelo, Γ, 4. 303 a 8, τρόπον γάρ τινα καὶ οὕτοι (Λεύκιππος καὶ Δημόκριτος) πάντα τὰ ὄντα ποιοῦσιν ἀριθμοὺς καὶ ἐξ ἀριθμῶν. This also serves to explain what Herakleides may have meant by attributing the theory of corporeal ὄγκοι to the Pythagorean Ekphantos of Syracuse (above, p. 338,n.794).
940. The Epicureans misunderstood this point, or misrepresented it in order to magnify their own originality (see Zeller, p. 857, n. 3; Eng. trans. ii. p. 225, n. 2).
940. The Epicureans misunderstood this point, or misrepresented it in order to magnify their own originality (see Zeller, p. 857, n. 3; Eng. trans. ii. p. 225, n. 2).
941. Arist.de Caelo, Α, 7. 275 b 32, τὴν δὲ φύσιν εἶναί φασιν αὐτῶν μίαν;Phys.Γ, 4. 203 a 34, αὐτῷ (Δημοκρίτῳ) τὸ κοινὸν σῶμα πάντων ἐστὶν ἀρχή.
941. Arist.de Caelo, Α, 7. 275 b 32, τὴν δὲ φύσιν εἶναί φασιν αὐτῶν μίαν;Phys.Γ, 4. 203 a 34, αὐτῷ (Δημοκρίτῳ) τὸ κοινὸν σῶμα πάντων ἐστὶν ἀρχή.
942. Arist.Met.Α, 4. 985 b 13 (R. P. 192); cf.de Gen. Corr.315 b 6. As Diels suggests, the illustration from the letters of the alphabet is probably due to Demokritos. It shows, in any case, how the word στοιχεῖον came to be used later for “element.” We must read, with Wilamowitz, τὸ δὲ Ζ τοῦ Η θέσει for τὸ δὲ Ζ τοῦ Ν θέσει, the older form of the letter Ζ being just an Η laid upon its side (Diels,Elementum, p. 13, n. 1).
942. Arist.Met.Α, 4. 985 b 13 (R. P. 192); cf.de Gen. Corr.315 b 6. As Diels suggests, the illustration from the letters of the alphabet is probably due to Demokritos. It shows, in any case, how the word στοιχεῖον came to be used later for “element.” We must read, with Wilamowitz, τὸ δὲ Ζ τοῦ Η θέσει for τὸ δὲ Ζ τοῦ Ν θέσει, the older form of the letter Ζ being just an Η laid upon its side (Diels,Elementum, p. 13, n. 1).
943. Demokritos wrote a work, Περὶ ἰδεῶν (Sext.Math.vii. 137; R. P. 204), which Diels identifies with the Περὶ τῶν διαφερόντων ῥυσμῶν of Thrasylos,Tetr.v. 3. Theophrastos refers to Demokritos, ἐν τοῖς περὶ τῶν εἰδῶν (de Sensibus, § 51). Plut.adv. Col.1111 a, εἶναι δὲ πάντα τὰς ἀτόμους, ἰδέας ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ καλουμένας (so the MSS.: ἰδίως, Wyttenbach; <ἢ> ἰδέας, Diels). Arist. Phys. Γ, 4. 203 a 21, (Δημόκριτος) ἐκ τῆς πανσπερμίας τῶν σχημάτων (ἄπειρα ποιεῖ τὰ στοιχεῖα). Cf.de Gen. Corr.Α, 2. 315 b 7 (R. P. 196).
943. Demokritos wrote a work, Περὶ ἰδεῶν (Sext.Math.vii. 137; R. P. 204), which Diels identifies with the Περὶ τῶν διαφερόντων ῥυσμῶν of Thrasylos,Tetr.v. 3. Theophrastos refers to Demokritos, ἐν τοῖς περὶ τῶν εἰδῶν (de Sensibus, § 51). Plut.adv. Col.1111 a, εἶναι δὲ πάντα τὰς ἀτόμους, ἰδέας ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ καλουμένας (so the MSS.: ἰδίως, Wyttenbach; <ἢ> ἰδέας, Diels). Arist. Phys. Γ, 4. 203 a 21, (Δημόκριτος) ἐκ τῆς πανσπερμίας τῶν σχημάτων (ἄπειρα ποιεῖ τὰ στοιχεῖα). Cf.de Gen. Corr.Α, 2. 315 b 7 (R. P. 196).
944. Arist.Phys.Θ, 9. 265 b 25; Simpl.Phys.p. 1318, 33, ταῦτα γὰρ (τὰ ἄτομα σώματα) ἐκεῖνοι φύσιν ἐκάλουν.
944. Arist.Phys.Θ, 9. 265 b 25; Simpl.Phys.p. 1318, 33, ταῦτα γὰρ (τὰ ἄτομα σώματα) ἐκεῖνοι φύσιν ἐκάλουν.
945. Simpl.Phys.p. 36, 1 (Diels,Vors.p. 346), and R. P. 196 a.
945. Simpl.Phys.p. 36, 1 (Diels,Vors.p. 346), and R. P. 196 a.
946. Arist.Met.Α, 4. 985 b 4 (R. P. 192). Cf. Melissos, fr.7sub fin.
946. Arist.Met.Α, 4. 985 b 4 (R. P. 192). Cf. Melissos, fr.7sub fin.
947. Cf. Zeller,“Zu Leukippus”(Arch.xv. p. 138).
947. Cf. Zeller,“Zu Leukippus”(Arch.xv. p. 138).
948. Diog. ix. 31 sqq. (R. P. 197, 197 c). This passage deals expressly with Leukippos, not with Demokritos or even “Leukippos and Demokritos.” For the distinction between the “summary” and “detailed” doxographies in Diogenes, see Appendix,§ 15.
948. Diog. ix. 31 sqq. (R. P. 197, 197 c). This passage deals expressly with Leukippos, not with Demokritos or even “Leukippos and Demokritos.” For the distinction between the “summary” and “detailed” doxographies in Diogenes, see Appendix,§ 15.
949. These are to be found in Aet. i. 4 (Dox.p. 289;Vors.p. 347; Usener,Epicurea, fr. 308). Epicurus himself in the second epistle (Diog. x. 88; Usener, p. 37, 7) quotes the phrase ἀποτομὴν ἔχουσα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου.
949. These are to be found in Aet. i. 4 (Dox.p. 289;Vors.p. 347; Usener,Epicurea, fr. 308). Epicurus himself in the second epistle (Diog. x. 88; Usener, p. 37, 7) quotes the phrase ἀποτομὴν ἔχουσα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου.
950. Seneca,Q. Nat.vii. 3.
950. Seneca,Q. Nat.vii. 3.
951. Gomperz,Greek Thinkers, vol. i. p. 323.
951. Gomperz,Greek Thinkers, vol. i. p. 323.
952. Arist.Phys.Θ, 1. 252 a 32 (R. P. 195 a);de Caelo, Γ, 2. 300 b 8 (R. P. 195);Met.Α, 4. 985 b 19 (R. P.ib.).
952. Arist.Phys.Θ, 1. 252 a 32 (R. P. 195 a);de Caelo, Γ, 2. 300 b 8 (R. P. 195);Met.Α, 4. 985 b 19 (R. P.ib.).
953. Arist.Phys.Β, 4. 196 a 24 (R. P. 195 d). Cicero,de nat. D.i. 66 (R. P.ib.). The latter passage is the source of the phrase “fortuitous concourse” (concurrere= συντρέχειν).
953. Arist.Phys.Β, 4. 196 a 24 (R. P. 195 d). Cicero,de nat. D.i. 66 (R. P.ib.). The latter passage is the source of the phrase “fortuitous concourse” (concurrere= συντρέχειν).
954. Aet. i. 25, 4 (Dox.p. 321), Λεύκιππος πάντα κατ’ ἀνάγκην, τὴν δ’ αὐτὴν ὑπάρχειν εἱμαρμένην. λέγει γὰρ ἐν τῷ Περὶ νοῦ· Οὐδὲν χρῆμα μάτην γίγνεται, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἐκ λόγου τε καὶ ὑπ’ ἀνάγκης.
954. Aet. i. 25, 4 (Dox.p. 321), Λεύκιππος πάντα κατ’ ἀνάγκην, τὴν δ’ αὐτὴν ὑπάρχειν εἱμαρμένην. λέγει γὰρ ἐν τῷ Περὶ νοῦ· Οὐδὲν χρῆμα μάτην γίγνεται, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἐκ λόγου τε καὶ ὑπ’ ἀνάγκης.
955. Introd.§ VIII.
955. Introd.§ VIII.
956. Aet. i. 3, 18 (of Epicurus), συμβεβηκέναι δὲ τοῖς σώμασι τρία ταῦτα, σχῆμα, μέγεθος, βάρος. Δημόκριτος μὲν γὰρ ἔλεγε δύο, μέγεθός τε καὶ σχῆμα, ὁ δὲ Ἐπίκουρος τούτοις καὶ τρίτον βάρος προσέθηκεν· ἀνάγκη γάρ, φησί, κινεῖσθαι τὰ σώματα τῇ τοῦ βάρους πληγῇ· ἐπεὶ (“or else”) οὐ κινηθήσεται;ib.12, 6, Δημόκριτος τὰ πρῶτά φησι σώματα, ταῦτα δ’ ἦν τὰ ναστά, βάρος μὲν οὐκ ἔχειν, κινεῖσθαι δὲ κατ’ ἀλληλοτυπίαν ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ. Cic.de fato, 20,“vim motus habebant (atomi) a Democrito impulsionis quam plagam ille appellat, a te, Epicure, gravitatis et ponderis.”These passages represent the Epicurean school tradition, which would hardly venture to misrepresent Demokritos on so important a point. His works were still accessible. It is confirmed by the Academic tradition inde Fin.i. 17 that Demokritos taught the atoms moved“in infinito inani, in quo nihil nec summum nec infimum nec medium nec extremum sit.”This doctrine, we are told, was “depraved” by Epicurus.
956. Aet. i. 3, 18 (of Epicurus), συμβεβηκέναι δὲ τοῖς σώμασι τρία ταῦτα, σχῆμα, μέγεθος, βάρος. Δημόκριτος μὲν γὰρ ἔλεγε δύο, μέγεθός τε καὶ σχῆμα, ὁ δὲ Ἐπίκουρος τούτοις καὶ τρίτον βάρος προσέθηκεν· ἀνάγκη γάρ, φησί, κινεῖσθαι τὰ σώματα τῇ τοῦ βάρους πληγῇ· ἐπεὶ (“or else”) οὐ κινηθήσεται;ib.12, 6, Δημόκριτος τὰ πρῶτά φησι σώματα, ταῦτα δ’ ἦν τὰ ναστά, βάρος μὲν οὐκ ἔχειν, κινεῖσθαι δὲ κατ’ ἀλληλοτυπίαν ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ. Cic.de fato, 20,“vim motus habebant (atomi) a Democrito impulsionis quam plagam ille appellat, a te, Epicure, gravitatis et ponderis.”These passages represent the Epicurean school tradition, which would hardly venture to misrepresent Demokritos on so important a point. His works were still accessible. It is confirmed by the Academic tradition inde Fin.i. 17 that Demokritos taught the atoms moved“in infinito inani, in quo nihil nec summum nec infimum nec medium nec extremum sit.”This doctrine, we are told, was “depraved” by Epicurus.
957. Arist.de Gen. Corr.326 a 9, καίτοι βαρύτερόν γε κατὰ τὴν ὑπεροχήν φησιν εἶναι Δημόκριτος ἕκαστον τῶν ἀδιαιρέτων. I cannot believe this means anything else than what Theophrastos says in his fragment on sensation, § 61 (R. P. 199), βαρὺ μὲν οὖν καὶ κοῦφον τῷ μεγέθει διαιρεῖ Δημόκριτος.
957. Arist.de Gen. Corr.326 a 9, καίτοι βαρύτερόν γε κατὰ τὴν ὑπεροχήν φησιν εἶναι Δημόκριτος ἕκαστον τῶν ἀδιαιρέτων. I cannot believe this means anything else than what Theophrastos says in his fragment on sensation, § 61 (R. P. 199), βαρὺ μὲν οὖν καὶ κοῦφον τῷ μεγέθει διαιρεῖ Δημόκριτος.
958. In Aet. i. 12, where theplacitaregarding the heavy and light are given, no philosopher earlier than Plato is referred to. Parmenides (fr. 8, 59) speaks of the dark element as ἐμβριθές. I do not think that there is any other place where weight is even mentioned in the fragments of the early philosophers.
958. In Aet. i. 12, where theplacitaregarding the heavy and light are given, no philosopher earlier than Plato is referred to. Parmenides (fr. 8, 59) speaks of the dark element as ἐμβριθές. I do not think that there is any other place where weight is even mentioned in the fragments of the early philosophers.
959. Arist.de Caelo, 308 a 9, περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἁπλῶς λεγομένων (βαρέων καὶ κούφων) οὐδὲν εἴρηται παρὰ τῶν πρότερον.
959. Arist.de Caelo, 308 a 9, περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἁπλῶς λεγομένων (βαρέων καὶ κούφων) οὐδὲν εἴρηται παρὰ τῶν πρότερον.
960. Plato,Tim.61 c 3 sqq.
960. Plato,Tim.61 c 3 sqq.
961. Zeller says (p. 876) that in antiquity no one ever understood by weight anything else than the property of bodies in virtue of which they move downwards; except that in such systems as represent all forms of matter as contained in a sphere, “above” is identified with the circumference and “below” with the centre. As to that, I can only say that no such theory of weight is to be found in the fragments of the early philosophers or is anywhere ascribed to them, while Plato expressly denies it.
961. Zeller says (p. 876) that in antiquity no one ever understood by weight anything else than the property of bodies in virtue of which they move downwards; except that in such systems as represent all forms of matter as contained in a sphere, “above” is identified with the circumference and “below” with the centre. As to that, I can only say that no such theory of weight is to be found in the fragments of the early philosophers or is anywhere ascribed to them, while Plato expressly denies it.
962. The Aristotelian criticisms which may have affected Epicurus are such as we find inde Caelo, 275 b 29 sqq. Aristotle there argues that, as Leukippos and Demokritos made the φύσις of the atoms one, they were bound to give them a single motion. That is just what Epicurus did, but Aristotle’s argument implies that Leukippos and Demokritos did not. Though he gave the atoms weight, Epicurus could not accept Aristotle’s view that some bodies are naturally light. The appearance of lightness is due to ἔκθλιψις, the squeezing out of the smaller atoms by the larger.
962. The Aristotelian criticisms which may have affected Epicurus are such as we find inde Caelo, 275 b 29 sqq. Aristotle there argues that, as Leukippos and Demokritos made the φύσις of the atoms one, they were bound to give them a single motion. That is just what Epicurus did, but Aristotle’s argument implies that Leukippos and Demokritos did not. Though he gave the atoms weight, Epicurus could not accept Aristotle’s view that some bodies are naturally light. The appearance of lightness is due to ἔκθλιψις, the squeezing out of the smaller atoms by the larger.
963. In dealing with Empedokles, Aristotle expressly makes this distinction. Cf.de Caelo, Β, 13, especially 295 a 32 sqq., where he points out that Empedokles does not account for the weight of bodies on the earth (οὐ γὰρ ἥ γε δίνη πλησιάζει πρὸς ἡμᾶς), nor for the weight of bodies before the vortex arose (πρὶν γενέσθαι τὴν δίνην).
963. In dealing with Empedokles, Aristotle expressly makes this distinction. Cf.de Caelo, Β, 13, especially 295 a 32 sqq., where he points out that Empedokles does not account for the weight of bodies on the earth (οὐ γὰρ ἥ γε δίνη πλησιάζει πρὸς ἡμᾶς), nor for the weight of bodies before the vortex arose (πρὶν γενέσθαι τὴν δίνην).
964. Diog.,loc. cit.(p. 390).
964. Diog.,loc. cit.(p. 390).
965. This seems to be in the main the view of Dyroff,Demokritstudien(1899), pp. 31 sqq., though I should not say that lightness and weight only arose in connexion with the atoms of theearth(p. 35). If we substitute “world” for “earth,” we shall be nearer the truth.
965. This seems to be in the main the view of Dyroff,Demokritstudien(1899), pp. 31 sqq., though I should not say that lightness and weight only arose in connexion with the atoms of theearth(p. 35). If we substitute “world” for “earth,” we shall be nearer the truth.
966. See above, p.390.
966. See above, p.390.
967. This view was independently advocated by Brieger (Die Urbewegung der Atome und die Weltentstehung bei Leucipp und Demokrit, 1884) and Liepmann (Die Mechanik der Leucipp-Demokritschen Atome, 1885), both of whom unnecessarily weakened their position by admitting that weight is an original property of the atoms. On the other hand, Brieger denies that the weight of the atoms is the cause of their original motion, while Liepmann says that before and outside the vortex there is only a latent weight, aPseudoschwere, which only comes into operation in the world. It is surely simpler to say that this weight, since it produces no effect, does not yet exist. Zeller rightly argues against Brieger and Liepmann that, if the atoms have weight, they must fall; but, so far as I can see, nothing he says tells against their theory as I have restated it. Gomperz adopts the Brieger-Liepmann explanation. See also Lortzing,Jahresber., 1903, pp. 136 sqq.
967. This view was independently advocated by Brieger (Die Urbewegung der Atome und die Weltentstehung bei Leucipp und Demokrit, 1884) and Liepmann (Die Mechanik der Leucipp-Demokritschen Atome, 1885), both of whom unnecessarily weakened their position by admitting that weight is an original property of the atoms. On the other hand, Brieger denies that the weight of the atoms is the cause of their original motion, while Liepmann says that before and outside the vortex there is only a latent weight, aPseudoschwere, which only comes into operation in the world. It is surely simpler to say that this weight, since it produces no effect, does not yet exist. Zeller rightly argues against Brieger and Liepmann that, if the atoms have weight, they must fall; but, so far as I can see, nothing he says tells against their theory as I have restated it. Gomperz adopts the Brieger-Liepmann explanation. See also Lortzing,Jahresber., 1903, pp. 136 sqq.
968. Arist.de An.Α, 2. 403 b 28 sqq. (R. P. 200).
968. Arist.de An.Α, 2. 403 b 28 sqq. (R. P. 200).
969.Ibid.Α, 2. 404 a 17 (R. P. 86 a).
969.Ibid.Α, 2. 404 a 17 (R. P. 86 a).
970. Gomperz,Greek Thinkers, i. p. 339.
970. Gomperz,Greek Thinkers, i. p. 339.
971. For Empedokles, see Chap. V. p.274; Anaxagoras, see Chap. VI. p.312; and for Anaximander, Chap. I. p. 69,n.132.
971. For Empedokles, see Chap. V. p.274; Anaxagoras, see Chap. VI. p.312; and for Anaximander, Chap. I. p. 69,n.132.
972. Arist.de Caelo, Β, 13. 295 a 10, ταύτην γὰρ τὴν αἰτίαν (sc. τὴν δίνησιν) πάντες λέγουσιν ἐκ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὑγοῖς καὶ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα συμβαινόντων· ἐν τούτοις γὰρ ἀεὶ φέρεται τὰ μείζω καὶ τὰ βαρύτερα πρὸς τὸ μέσον τῆς δίνης.
972. Arist.de Caelo, Β, 13. 295 a 10, ταύτην γὰρ τὴν αἰτίαν (sc. τὴν δίνησιν) πάντες λέγουσιν ἐκ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὑγοῖς καὶ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα συμβαινόντων· ἐν τούτοις γὰρ ἀεὶ φέρεται τὰ μείζω καὶ τὰ βαρύτερα πρὸς τὸ μέσον τῆς δίνης.
973. Diog. ix. 32. Cf. especially the phrases ὧν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ μέσου ἀντέρεισιν περιδινουμένων, συμμενόντων ἀεὶ τῶν συνεχῶν κατ’ ἐπίψαυσιν τῆς δίνης, and συμμενόντων τῶν ἐνεχθέντων ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον.
973. Diog. ix. 32. Cf. especially the phrases ὧν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ μέσου ἀντέρεισιν περιδινουμένων, συμμενόντων ἀεὶ τῶν συνεχῶν κατ’ ἐπίψαυσιν τῆς δίνης, and συμμενόντων τῶν ἐνεχθέντων ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον.
974. Cf. Lucr. v. 621 sqq.
974. Cf. Lucr. v. 621 sqq.
975. Aet. iii. 3, 10, quoted above, p. 83,n.168.
975. Aet. iii. 3, 10, quoted above, p. 83,n.168.
976. Aet. iii. 12, 1, Λεύκιππος παρεκπεσεῖν τὴν γῆν εἰς τὰ μεσημβρινὰ μέρη διὰ τὴν ἐν τοῖς μεσημβρινοῖς ἀραιότητα, ἅτε δὴ πεπηγότων τῶν βορείων διὰ τὸ κατεψῦχθαι τοῖς κρυμοῖς, τῶν δὲ ἀντιθέτων πεπυρωμένων.
976. Aet. iii. 12, 1, Λεύκιππος παρεκπεσεῖν τὴν γῆν εἰς τὰ μεσημβρινὰ μέρη διὰ τὴν ἐν τοῖς μεσημβρινοῖς ἀραιότητα, ἅτε δὴ πεπηγότων τῶν βορείων διὰ τὸ κατεψῦχθαι τοῖς κρυμοῖς, τῶν δὲ ἀντιθέτων πεπυρωμένων.
977. Diog. ix. 33, εἶναι δὲ τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου κύκλον ἐξώτατον, τὸν δὲ τῆς σελήνης προσγειότατον, <τοὺς δὲ> τῶν ἄλλων μεταξὺ τούτων.
977. Diog. ix. 33, εἶναι δὲ τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου κύκλον ἐξώτατον, τὸν δὲ τῆς σελήνης προσγειότατον, <τοὺς δὲ> τῶν ἄλλων μεταξὺ τούτων.
978. From Diog.,loc. cit.(supra, p. 391), it appears that he dealt with the question of the greater frequency of lunar as compared with solar eclipses. It seems to have been this which led him to make the circle of the moon smaller than that of the stars.
978. From Diog.,loc. cit.(supra, p. 391), it appears that he dealt with the question of the greater frequency of lunar as compared with solar eclipses. It seems to have been this which led him to make the circle of the moon smaller than that of the stars.
979. Diels pointed out that Leukippos’s explanation of thunder (πυρὸς ἐναποληφθέντος νέφεσι παχυτάτοις ἔκπτωσιν ἰσχυρὰν βροντὴν ἀποτελεῖν ἀποφαίνεται, Aet. iii. 3, 10) is quite different from that of Demokritos (Βροντὴν ... ἐκ συγκρίματος ἀνωμάλου τὸ περιειληφὸς αὐτὸ νέφος πρὸς τὴν κάτω φορὰν ἐκβιαζομένου,ib.11). The explanation given by Leukippos is derived from that of Anaximander, while Demokritos is influenced by Anaxagoras. See Diels, 35Philol.-Vers.97, 7.
979. Diels pointed out that Leukippos’s explanation of thunder (πυρὸς ἐναποληφθέντος νέφεσι παχυτάτοις ἔκπτωσιν ἰσχυρὰν βροντὴν ἀποτελεῖν ἀποφαίνεται, Aet. iii. 3, 10) is quite different from that of Demokritos (Βροντὴν ... ἐκ συγκρίματος ἀνωμάλου τὸ περιειληφὸς αὐτὸ νέφος πρὸς τὴν κάτω φορὰν ἐκβιαζομένου,ib.11). The explanation given by Leukippos is derived from that of Anaximander, while Demokritos is influenced by Anaxagoras. See Diels, 35Philol.-Vers.97, 7.
980. Aet. iv. 9, 8, οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι φύσει τὰαἰσθητααἰσθητα, Λεύκιππος δὲ Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἀπολλώνιος νόμῳ. See Zeller,Arch.v. p. 444.
980. Aet. iv. 9, 8, οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι φύσει τὰαἰσθητααἰσθητα, Λεύκιππος δὲ Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἀπολλώνιος νόμῳ. See Zeller,Arch.v. p. 444.
981. Chap. IV. p. 200,n.443. The remarkable parallel quoted by Gomperz (p. 321) from Galilei, to the effect that tastes, smells, and coloursnon sieno altro che puri nomishould, therefore, have been cited to illustrate Parmenides rather than Demokritos.
981. Chap. IV. p. 200,n.443. The remarkable parallel quoted by Gomperz (p. 321) from Galilei, to the effect that tastes, smells, and coloursnon sieno altro che puri nomishould, therefore, have been cited to illustrate Parmenides rather than Demokritos.
982. See p. 240, fr.8.
982. See p. 240, fr.8.
983. For these see Sext.Math.vii. 135 (R. P. 204).
983. For these see Sext.Math.vii. 135 (R. P. 204).
984. Sext. vii. 140, “ὄψις γὰρ ἀδήλων τὰ φαινόμενα,” ὥς φησιν Ἀναξαγόρας, ὃν ἐπὶ τούτῳ Δημόκριτος ἐπαινεῖ.
984. Sext. vii. 140, “ὄψις γὰρ ἀδήλων τὰ φαινόμενα,” ὥς φησιν Ἀναξαγόρας, ὃν ἐπὶ τούτῳ Δημόκριτος ἐπαινεῖ.
985. See Zeller,“Zu Leukippus”(Arch.xv. p. 138). The doctrine is attributed to him in Aet. iv. 13, 1 (Dox.p. 403); and Alexander,de Sensu, pp. 24, 14 and 56, 10, also mentions his name in connexion with it. This must come from Theophrastos.
985. See Zeller,“Zu Leukippus”(Arch.xv. p. 138). The doctrine is attributed to him in Aet. iv. 13, 1 (Dox.p. 403); and Alexander,de Sensu, pp. 24, 14 and 56, 10, also mentions his name in connexion with it. This must come from Theophrastos.