Ethics, therefore, is purification, and in this thought we see the origin of that general idea which as ** Catharsis" became prominent in Plato and later philosophy. Teichmiiller finds it of the greatest interest to have traced the history of this idea, with its related one of ** separation " or " apartness," back to Heraclitus. '*0f all whose words I have heard," says the latter, " no one has attained to this — to know that Wisdom is apart {xexcDpeafiiuou) from all " (Sto- baeus Floril. iii. 81 ; = frag. 18). This " separateness " of Wisdom, which was only another term for reason, God or pure* fire, reveals the origin of the distinction of the immaterial from the material. With Hera- clitus, to be sure, the idea of immateriality in its later sense was not present, but fire as the most incorporeal being of which he knew, identical with reason and intelligence, was set over against the crude material world. We have therefore here neither spiritualism nor crude materialism, but the beginning of the dis- tinction between the two. With Anaxagoras another step was taken when fire was dropped and the Nous was conceived in pure separateness apart even from
26 HERACLITUS.
fire. Following Anaxagoras, Plato regarded the
Ideas as distinct and separate {si)jxpci^i^j xej^wpcafiivou).
In Aristotle it appears as the separation {j[cope<n6p)
which belongs to absolute spirit or pure form. Finally
in the New Testament it is seen as the purity (dhxpivua)
which is opposed to the flesh (Paul, Epist. to Corinth.
II, i. 12; ii. 17). Human intelligence, according to
Heraclitus, attains only in the case of a few to this
greatest purity, this highest virtue, this most perfect
knowledge. They are the chosen ones, the elect
(ixhxToi) (Teichmiiller, I, p. 112 flf.).
The senses, since they partake of the earthy char- acter of the body, give us only deceitful testimony as r^JOl/ compared with the pure light of Reason, which alone, since it is of the essence of all things, that is, fire, has the power to know all. Here therefore was the first distinction of the intelligible from the sensible world (Id. I, p. 97).
Again, in the qualitative change of Heraclitus we
discover the incipient idea of the actual and potential
first formulated by Aristotle. Since the elements pass
into one another, they must be in some sense the same.
Water is fire and fire is water. But since water is not
X actually fire, it must be so potentially. To express
this idea, Heraclitus used such phrases as *' self -con-
cealment," *^ sunset," ** death," '* sleep," **seed" (Id.
I, p. 92 fif.).
Moreover, inasmuch as we have a progress from the
potential to the actual, from the moist and earthy to
the dry and fiery, that is, from the worse to the better^
we find in Heraclitus the recognition of an end or
purpose in Nature, or a sort of teleology, subject, how-
ever, to the rule of rigid necessity (Id. I, p. 137).
The flux of all things Teichmiiller understands not
Historical and Critical. 27
as a metaphysical proposition, but as a physical truth
gained by generalization from direct observation of
Nature. Furthermore, it was nothing new, all the
philosophers from Thales on having taught the motion
of things between beginning and end (Id. I, p. 121).
That which was new in this part of Heraclitus' work was his opposition to the transcendentalism of Xeno- phanes. Over against the absolute, unmoved and undivided unity of the Eleatic philosopher, Hera- clitus placed the unity of opposition. In Xenophanes' system, above all stood the immovable, transcendent God. In Heraclitus' system there was nothing tran- — scendent or immovable, but all was pursuing the endless way upward and downward. His God was ceaselessly taking new forms. Gods become men, and men gods (Heraclitus, AUeg. Hom. 24, p. 51, Mehler ; cp. frag. 67). The immanent replaces the transcendent. Here emerges the historically significant idea of unity. Against^the unity of Xenophanes, a unity opposed to the mamfo^ji, Heraclitus grasped the idea of a unity which includes the manifold within itself/"^ " Unite whole and part, agreement and disagreement, accor- dant and disaccordant — from all comes one, and from one all" (Arist. de mundo 5, p. 396, b. 12 ; =frag. 59). Everywhere is war, but from the war of opposites re- sults the most beautiful harmony (cp. frag. 46). Here three principles are involved : 1). Through strife all ^ things arise ; the birth of water is the death of fire, the death of water is the birth of earth, etc. (cp. frag. 68).. 2). Through strife of opposites all things are preserved ; take away one, the other falls ; sickness is conditioned by health, hunger by satiety (cp. frag. 104). 3). There is an alternating mastery of one or the other oppo- site ; hence it follows that since all opposites proceed
28 HERACLITUS.
from one another, they are the same (Teichmiiller, I,
p. 130 fif.)-
What did Heraclitus mean by the visible and invis-
ible harmony ? Teichmiiller censures Schuster for
failing to recognize that most significant side of Hera-
clitus' philosophy which is represented by the invisible
harmony — in other words, for reducing him to a mere
sensationalist. The visible harmony, according to
Teichmiiller, is the entire sensible world, in which the
war of opposites results in a harmony of the whole.
But the invisible harmony is the divine, all-ruling and
all-producing Wisdom or World-reason, concealed
from the senses and the sense-loving masses and
revealed only to pure intellect. Thus Heraclitus, to
whom there was an intelligible world revealing itself
to intellect alone, and in the recognition of which was
the highest virtue, was the forerunner of Plato (Id. I,
pp. 154, 161 &.).
By the Logos of Heraclitus was indicated Law, Truth, Wisdom, Reason. It was more than blind law, thinks Teichmiiller, it was self-conscious intelligence ; for self-consciousness, according to Heraclitus, who praised the Delphic motto, "Know thyself," is the highest activity of man, and how could he attribute less to God, from whom man learns like a child ? (cp. frag. 97). But this self-conscious reason is not to be understood as a constant, ever abiding condition. God, who in this purely pantheistic system is one with the world, is himself subject to the eternal law of ceaseless change, pursuing forever the downward and upward way. But is not then God, Logos, Reason, subject, after all, to some higher destiny (tlfxapfxivYj) ? No, says Teichmiiller, for it is this very destiny which it is the highest wisdom in man to recognize, and
Historical and Critical. 29
which is, therefore, identical with the Wisdom which
rules all. The diflSculty here he so far admits, how-
ever, as to acknowledge that this doctrine is " dark and
undetermined" (Id. I, p. 183 fif.).
Finally, says our author, there was no idea of per-
sonality of spirit in the philosophy of Heraclitus, as
there was not in any Greek philosopher from Xeno-
phanes to Plotinus (Id. I, 187).
In closing this part of his exposition, Teichmiiller calls attention to the relation of Heraclitus to Anax- agoras. M. Heinze (Lehre vom Logos, p. 33), following Aristotle, attributes to Anaxagoras the introduction into philosophy of the idea of world-ruling intelligence. But, says Teichmiiller, this idea was present to every Greek from Homer on. Its recognition by Hera- clitus has been shown by the fact that everywhere he attributes to his God, wisdom (aocpia), intelligent will {yvcofxT]), reason (jppovouv and <ppei/7jps(:'), and recog- nized truth (^o/'oc). What then did Anaxagoras add ? The history of the idea of transcendent reason turns upon two characteristics. Identity (rai^rir^c) and Pure Separation {eikxpc\je(:). With Heraclitus both failed; the former, because the World Intelligence took part in the universal change; the latter, because it was mingled with matter. For, in choosing fire for his/ intelligent principle, although as Aristotle says he chose that which was least corporeal (daco/iaTcoTaTOp), he did not escape a sort of materialism. The new that Anaxagoras added, therefore, was the complete sepa- ration of reason from materiality. In a word, while the Logos of the Ephesian was at once world-soul and matter in endless motion, the Nous of Anaxagoras was motionless, passionless, soulless and immaterial. Iden- tity, the other attribute, was added in the epoch-
30 HBRACLITUS.
making work of Socrates when the content of reason was determined by the definition, following whom
Plato established the complete transcendence of the
ideal world (Teichmiiller, I, 189 fif.)-
Heraclitus assumed a world-year or world-period,
the beginning of which was the flood, and whose end
was to be a universal conflagration, the whole to be
periodically repeated forever. In this he was preceded
by Anaximander and followed by the Stoics. This
general idea was adopted by the Christian Churchy but
the latter limited the number of worlds to three, the
first ending with the flood ; ours, the second, to end with
the conflagration of the world ; the third to be eternal
(Epist. Pet. II, iii. 4 fif.; Clement of Rome, Epist. to
Corinth, i. 57, 58) ; (Teichmiiller, I, 198 fif.).
In the second part of his work, Teichmiiller enters upon an exhaustive argument to show the dependence of the Heraclitic philosophy upon Egyptian theology. Heraclitus moved within the sphere of religious thought. He praised the Sibyl and defended revelation and in- spiration (Plutarch, de Pyth. orac. 6, p. 397 ; cp. frag. 12). His obscure and oracular style, like that of the king at Delphi (cp. frag. 11), was in conformity with his religious character. Observation of Nature he fully neglected, depending for his sources more than any other philosopher upon the beliefs of the older theo- logy. Without deciding how far Heraclitus is directly, as a student of the Book of Death, or indirectly by connection with the Greek Mysteries, dependent upon the religion of Egypt, he proceeds to indicate the interesting points of similarity between them (Teich- miiller, II, p. 122).
Among the Egyptians the earth was flat and infl- nitely extended. The visible world arose out of water.
Historical and Critical. 31
The upper world belonged to fire and the sun. As the
sun of Heraclitus was daily generated from water, so
Horus, as Ra of the sun, daily proceeded from Lotus
the water. As the elements with Heraclitus proceed
upward and downward, so the gods of the elements
upon the steps in Hermopolis climb up and down (Id.
II, p. 143).
With these illustrations, it is suflScient to say, with-
out following him further in detail, that Teichmiiller
carries the comparison ttrough the whole system of
Heraclitus, and parallels his actual and potential, his
unity of opposites, his eternal flux, strife, harmony,
purification. Logos, and periodicity of the world, with
similar notions found in the religion of Egypt.
In order to appreciate the worth of Teichmiiller's work, it is necessary to remember that, as we have said, it does not profess to be a unified exposition of Hera- clitus' philosophy, but a contribution to the history of philosophic ideas in their relation to him. In afford- ing this service to the history of ideas, he has thrown a good deal of light upon the true interpretation of the philosophy of Heraclitus. But the very purpose of his task has caused him to put certain of the ideas into such prominence, that unless we are on our guard, we shall not get therefrom a well proportioned conception of the system as a whole. We shall do well, conse- quently, to make a short examination of the work out- lined in the foregoing pages, to put the results, if we can, into their fit relation to the whole.
Concerning Teichmiiller's starting point, namely,
that the physics of Heraclitus is the key to his whole
thought, we must observe, in passing, the inconsist-
ency between the first part of Teichmiiller's book,
32 HERACLITUS.