August 25, 1898] 



NATURE 



;87 



and who looked upon the writings of the ancients from 

 the point of view of a student of ethics and philosophy. 

 He addressed a wider and less specially educated class, 

 whose interest in his book was perhaps more literary 

 than scientific. Neither method of exhibiting the ex- 

 tent of ancient knowledge is free from objection. In 

 either case the original is liable to be coloured or dis- 

 torted by the views of the commentator. The modern 

 serious student desires to consult original authorities, and 

 takes but little interest in compilations, however thorough, 

 by authorities, however competent. The work of Mr. 

 Fairbanks will therefore be welcome to that class of 

 students, who are anxious to know what the various 

 authors have said themselves, not merely the interpreta- 

 tion which later writers have put upon these utterances. 

 These original sources of information are too often only 

 to be found in short fragments scattered liberally through- 

 out Greek literature in the form of quotations from the 

 earliest writers, or more or less complete epitomes of the 

 masters' teaching, prepared by later writers. German 

 criticism has been busy with these fragments, determining 

 the relation of these writers to each other as well as to 

 the source of the whole series, in order that we may 

 estimate their relative value. The Greek text of these 

 fragments has been published in numerous short mono- 

 graphs, most of which, however, are not easily accessible, 

 and a competent guide is necessary. This essential 

 service Mr. Fairbanks has rendered to the student by 

 placing the materials ready to his hands. He has, more- 

 over, prepared a carefully constructed text, enriched it 

 by critical notes, and added an English translation. Im- 

 portant passages from Plato and Aristotle bearing on 

 these early writers are also given, so that even the better 

 known authorities gain some illumination. Mr. Fairbanks 

 puts before us all the material for the survey of the 

 history of early Greek thought ; we necessarily confine 

 our attention to the physical side. 



It is interesting to inquire whether the reputations of 

 certain philosophers, and the estimate we have formed 

 of their scientific insight, should be modified by a critical 

 study of the original description apart from the interpre- 

 tation which later authors have given to these expressions. 

 We are too apt to quote over and over again the expressed 

 opinions of writers of repute, without re-examining the 

 grounds on which those opinions rest. We may un- 

 consciously attach too much weight to the comments of 

 later writers who have been swayed by tradition, and 

 who, in the absence of exact information, drawn from 

 trustworthy sources, have inserted their own views in the 

 place of the original. Unfortunately, in some cases, and 

 these the most interesting, no fresh information is forth- 

 coming. Thales, the founder of the Ionian school, for 

 instance, remains as mythical and unsubstantial as ever. 

 He looms large on the distant background owing to his 

 connection with the famous eclipse to which his name is 

 attached, and the part it has played in scientific chrono- 

 logy, but neither ingenuity nor research seems likely to 

 afford a satisfactory answer to the several enigmas con- 

 nected with his history. Anaximandros and Anaximenes 

 scarcely fare better. It is generally agreed that two short 

 phrases have been taken directly from the writings of the 

 former, but even admitting the probability, neither of 

 these expressions is calculated to throw much light on 

 NO. 1504, VOL. 58] 



his teaching or illustrate any distinctive feature in the 

 cosmical tenets which he propounded. It is not till we 

 come to Herakleitos that we meet with any large number 

 of original extracts. The preservation of these quotations 

 may be due to chance, or may be held as evidence of the 

 greater veneration in which his teaching was held. The 

 student of Plato is acquainted with a few of his sayings 

 which had passed into the character of proverbs, and 

 attest the popularity of the author The complete col- 

 lection presented to us by Mr. Fairbanks does not appear 

 very edifying. Some, indeed, have the solemnity of the 

 Proverbs of Solomon, while others well maintain that 

 reputation for obscurity which the author early acquired 

 and consistently retained. As an acute observer and 

 scientific teacher, Herakleitos falls far behind Thales, or 

 rather behind the position popularly assigned to Thales, 

 for which, however, we get here little additional support. 

 The suspicion that Herakleitos believed the sun to be no 

 larger than a human foot is confirmed, and it seems prob- 

 able that he taught that the sun and moon were both 

 bowl- shaped. Eclipses were produced by the turning of 

 these bowl-shaped bodies, so that the concave side was 

 turned upwards and the dark convex side was seen by 

 the observer. Following, however, the reconstructed 

 " Placita of Aetios," probably the original work from 

 which both Stobaeos and Plutarch copied, the earlier 

 master taught that the eclipses of the sun took place 

 when the moon passed across it in direct line, and that 

 eclipses of the moon proved that it came into the shadow 

 of the earth : the earth coming between the two heavenly 

 bodies and blocking the light from the moon. Whether 

 Thales really taught these advanced views himself is 

 immaterial ; the fact remains that these correct notions 

 did obtain at a very early date, and it is very difficult to 

 understand how, in any enlightened society, they were 

 supplanted by the childish formulas recited by Hera- 

 kleitos and his admirers. The scientific teaching of the 

 school of Thales seems to have been at its best at its 

 birth and to have rapidly deteriorated, authority possibly 

 usurping the place of observation. 



The Eleatic school, however, had much to learn. 

 Xenophanes, the founder, was not happy in his scientific 

 suggestions. According to the authority just quoted, this 

 philosopher taught that the stars were formed of burning 

 cloud, extinguished each day and re-kindled at night. 

 This seems to be a fair sample of his teaching, and his 

 name and his work may be rapidly passed aside. 

 Parmenides, probably the disciple of Xenophanes, is 

 entitled to more respectful consideration, both by reason 

 of the regard in which he was held by Plato and by the 

 correctness of his views on certain scientific points. From 

 a passage in Stobaeos he has been credited with having 

 taught that the earth was spherical in shape, but some 

 doubt has existed, inasmuch as the same writer attributes 

 the same discovery to Anaxagoras. Modern research 

 seems to declare on the side of Parmenides, but the 

 evidence is by no means clear. 



Other teachers come under review, notably Pythagoras, 

 from whom we have no preserved quotation, though the 

 do.xographists have much to say of him, and of Empe- 

 docles, who has much to say, both in his own words and 

 those of others. But the reading of even the longest 

 extracts does not leave a very satisfactory impression. It 



