138 Natural- Historical Collections. 



the head was first formed, and it is true that during the first period of the foetal 

 life, that part is proportionally of very great size. He thought that the fcetus 

 was nourished hy the skin, and compared tlie period of puberty in man to that of 

 flowering in plants. We only know the opinions of this philosopher by what 

 Chalcidias has said of them in his commentary on the Timaeus. 



TimcBus of Locres was an immediate pupil of Pythagoras. He wrote a book 

 on Nature, in which he treats of the soul of the world. He is less known, how- 

 ever, by this work than by the dialogue in which Plato has introduced him as in- 

 terlocutor. 



Ocellus Lucanus was also a Pythagorean philosopher, but probably less ancient 

 than the former two. He is author of a book, entitled, on the Nature of the 

 Universe. He maintained the unity of the world and its eternity, as well as 

 that of the species. He speaks of the four elements, their mutations and combi- 

 nations. Between men and the gods, which latter he considers as merely ani- 

 mals of a higher order, he places intermediate beings, the demons. But he makes 

 the whole universe together a supreme divinity. 



This pantheism, which admits beings of different degrees, also formed part of 

 the system of Empedocles. That philosopher, who was born at Agrigentum in 

 the year 444 before Christ, was a contemporary of Socrates. He wrote a poem in 

 six books on nature. In this poem he speaks of the four elements. He does not 

 consider any of them in particular as a principle, as the different philosophers of 

 the Ionian school had done. It is the confused mixture of them all, their chaos, 

 that he looks upon as the pre-existent substance. 



Empedocles did not confine himself to speculations, but was an observer, as 

 Alcmeon had been. He showed the analogy between the egg of animals and the 

 seed of plants, discovered the amnios, and it might be supposed, from a verse of 

 his which has been preserved, that he knew the cochlea of the ear. He applied 

 his knowledge to the general good, rendered the country more healthy by draining 

 the waters, purified the air by fixes, and, it is said, stopped an epidemic disease 

 by closing up a hole in a rock from which emanated noxious vapours. 



Another Pythagorean, whom the ancients appear to have held in great esteem, 

 but of whose writings nothing remains, was Epicharmas. He wrote upon physics, 

 moral philosophy and medicine. Neither the time nor the place of his birth is 

 known with accuracy. 



These are the principal philosophers of the Italian school who engaged in the 

 sciences. The Pythagoreans almost always inspired uneasiness among the peo- 

 ple, by the form of their associations and the mystery which surrounded them. 

 This cause prevented their doctrine from being widely propagated. It had be- 

 come extinct, when it was revived by Plato, who adopted it in part. 



Eleatic School. Along witli the Pythagorean school there arose another, that 

 of Elaea, founded by Xenophanes, who, about the year 500 before Christ, went 

 from Colophon, his native country, to settle in Sicily. This philosopher is the 

 first who combated the anthropomorphism of the Greeks. The divinity was with 

 him the unity or whole ; but his pantheism, instead of being material hke that 

 of the lonians, was purely spiritual. Parmenides, his disciple, went farther, and 

 maintained that all sensible nature was an illusion. His system was precisely 

 that whicli occurs among the Indians at the present day. 



Pamienides found that this illusion takes place according to certain laws, so 

 that we may reason respecting these appearances just in the same manner as re- 

 specting realities. He admitted two principles ; the one active or hot, fire ; the 

 other cold or inert, earth. It was from the concourse, or rather the opposition of 

 these two principles, that, according to him, all living beings resulted. This 

 philosopher had for his friend Zeno the Elaean, the inventor of dialectics. Tlaeir 

 principles not being founded on observation, they required very subtile reasanings 

 for their establishment. The art of connecting them was therefore necessary. 

 But presently what was only a means became an object. It was diflScult always 

 to prove, and occasionally they adopted either side. In this manner, very ingeni, 

 0U8 men succeeded after many efforts in rendering obscure what was clear, and in 



