HEIDEL. — ITepl Screws. 103 



constitution (<£vo-is) of the universe and of man, it follows of necessity 

 that man is not one substance, but each ingredient contributed to his 

 birth keeps the self-same force (8iW/us) in the body that it had when 

 contributed. 92 And each must return again to its natural kind (eis ttjv 

 iuvTov <f>vcnv), when man's body ceases to be, — the moist to the moist, 

 the dry to the dry, the hot to the hot, and the cold to the cold. Such 

 is the constitution (<£iW 93 ) of animals and of all things else ; all things 

 originate in the same way, and all end in the same way ; for their con- 

 stitution is composed of the aforesaid substances and terminates in the 

 same in the aforesaid manner, — whence it sprung into existence, 

 thither also does it return." 



Here we find peacefully side by side two uses of <f>va-i?, (1) that of 

 elemental constituent and (2) that of the resultant constitution. Among 

 the strict monists there would be no real distinction, and thus there 

 would be a show of reason for Professor Burnet's main contention if 

 one limited its application to the Ionians and insisted on a strictly 

 monistic interpretation of their thought ; 94 but where a multiplicity of 

 elemental constituents are recognized, the two uses must differ at least 



92 This is interesting and important in view of its evident dependence upon 

 Empedocles. Those who incline to regard Empedocles as a shifty and inaccurate 

 pseudo-philosopher and decline to take seriously his doctrine of ,«'?'$, a s does Profes- 

 sor Millerd, On the Interpretation of Empedocles, p. 39 foil., should reckon with 

 Hippocrates instead of relying entirely on scraps of his philosophical poem, espe- 

 cially when Aristotle agrees with Hippocrates. The fact that Aristotle found Em- 

 pedocles' doctrine of the elements inconsistent with Aristotle's own misinterpretation 

 of Empedocles' " union into one " (Millerd, p. 40) means absolutely nothing to those 

 who know how prone the Stagirite was to find his own "indeterminate matter" in 

 his predecessors. (See my essay Qualitative Change, etc., and Burnet, 2d ed. p. 57.) 

 The fact is, and it ought to be emphasized, that the significance for the pre-Socrat- 

 ics of a knowledge of Hippocrates has been too much neglected even by scholars 

 otherwise competent. The study of Qualitative Change which I published in 1906 

 would have gained immensely in value if I had then realized the evidential value of 

 the Hippocratean corpus and of general Greek literature for these subjects and had 

 incorporated the materials drawn from these sources which were then at my command. 

 This is not, however, the proper occasion for a rehandling of that whole question, 

 and it must therefore be postponed. 



93 This passage well illustrates the fact that, while the philosopher does speak of 

 the elemental substance as <j>vcns, when he uses the term in a general way, as, e.g. 

 the (ptiens of a man or the <pv<ns of the universe, he means the "constitution" of 

 things. This agrees well with the conclusion of Professor Millerd, On the Interpre- 

 tation of Empedocles, p. 20. 



94 Such an interpretation I cannot accept for the Ionians (see my Qualitative 

 Change, etc.), since strict monism implies the interpretation of rb & as rb 6fxoiov, 

 which appears distinctly first in the Eleatics. Even Diogenes is not to be regarded 

 as a consistent monist, since he admitted distinctions in his One. 



