The Four Elements in Greek Thought - Dr. Irby's Home Pageglirby.people.wm.edu/COLL100/4_Element_Readings.pdf · Elemental Theory: Presocratics 1 The Four Elements in Greek Thought

Elemental Theory: Presocratics

1

The Four Elements in Greek Thought

Thales

From Miletus, an important Greek port in Asia Minor/Western Turkey, Thales lived in the 6th

century BCE, and was widely regarded as the first Greek thinker to consider the physical world in

a rational way, participating in perhaps the most exciting intellectual revolution in the history of

humanity. Thales considered water to be the origin of life and the basis of all physical objects,

thus the first to ask “what is the stuff of the world?”

1. Of those who first pursued philosophy, the majority believed that the only principles

of all things are principles in the form of matter. For that of which all existing things are

composed and that out which they originally come into being and that into which they

finally perish, the substance persisting but changing in its attribute, this they state is the

element and principle of things that are…For there must be one or more than one

nature out of which the rest come to be, while it is preserved. (Aristotle, Mete. 1.3

983b6-18 = 11A2: Curd & McKirahan)

2. However, not all agree about the number and form of such a principle, but Thales,

the founder of this kind of philosophy, declares it to be water. (That is why he indicated

that the earth rests on water). Maybe he got this idea from seeing that the nourishment

of all things is moist, and that the hot itself comes to be from this and lives on in this

(the principle of all things is that from which they come to be) – getting this idea from

this consideration and also because the seeds of all things have a moist nature; and

water is the principle of the nature of moist things. (Aristotle, Mete. 1.3 983b18-27 =

11A12: Curd & McKirahan)

3. Some say that it [the earth] rests on water. This is the oldest account we have

inherited, and they report that Thales of Miletus gave it. It rests because it floats like

wood or some other such thing (for none of them is by nature such as to rest on air, but

on water). As though the same argument did not apply to the water supporting the

earth as to the earth itself. (Aristotle, On the Heavens 2.13 294a28- 34 = 11a14: Curd &

McKirahan)


2

4. Thales’ opinion is silly; for he says that the earth is upheld by water, and is carried

along like a ship, and is rocked by the water’s motion when, as we say, it trembles.

(Seneca NQ 3.13: Warmington)

5. Thales says that it is the etesian winds blowing against the mouths of the river Nile

that prevent the stream from pouring into the sea, and that the river being filled

because of this floods over Egypt which is low and plainful. (Diodorus 1.38.2:

Warmington)

Anaximander

Also from Miletus, 6th century BCE, Anaximander was Thales’ student. For Anaximander, it was

‘the boundless’ that gave rise to the physical world.

1. Of those who say that [the first principle] is one and moving and indefinite,

Anaximander, son of Praxiades, a Milesian who became successor and pupil to Thales,

said that the indefinite (to apeiron) is both principle (archē) and element (stoicheion) of the

things that are, and he was the first to introduce this name of the principle. He says that

it is neither water nor any other of the so-called elements, but some other indefinite

(apeiron) nature, from which come to be all the heavens and the worlds in them; and the

things from which is the coming-to-be for the things that exist are also those into which

is their passing-away, in accordance with what must be. For they give penalty (dike)

and recompense to one another for their injustice (adikia) in accordance with the

ordering of time— speaking of them in rather poetical terms. It is clear that having seen

the change of the four elements into each other, he did not think it fit to make some one

of these underlying subject, but something else, apart from these. (Simplicius,

Commentary on Aristotle's Physics 24, lines 13ff. = 12A9 and B1: Curd,

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presocratics/#Mil)

2. Anaximander said that the first principle and element is the Unlimited and that the

earth is in the middle being round and occupying the position of a central point and

that the sun is not less in size than the earth. He was the first to draw and outline of the

land and sea, and he even constructed a celestial globe. (Diogenes Laertius 2.1:

Warmington)

3. Anaximander was a pupil of Thales. He was a Milesian son of Praxiades. He said that

the first principle of things is of the nature of the infinite, and from this the heavens and


3

the worlds in them arise. And this (first principle) is eternal and does not grow old, and

it surrounds all the worlds. He says of time that in it generation and being and

destruction are determined. He said that the first principle and the element of beings is

the infinite, a word which he was the earliest to apply to the first principle. Besides this,

motion is eternal, and as a result of it the heavens arise. The earth is a heavenly body,

controlled by no other power, and keeping its position because it is of equal distance

from all things. Hippolytus, Refutation 1.6.3-5 = 12A11: Fairbanks)

4. On thunder, lightning, thunderbolts, fiery whirlwinds, and hurricanes: Anaximander

said that all these come about through the blast (of wind), for whenever it is surrounded

and pressed in a thick cloud it is subjected to violence and bursts out through the

lightness and fine texture of its particles; the breaking of the cloud makes the noise,

while the cleft produces the flash by contrast with the blackness of the cloud...

Anaximander said that wind is a current of air produced when the finest particles in it

are set in motion or dissolved by the sun (Aetius 3.3, 7, Warmington)

11. Anaximander says that when the earth expands through undue dryness in summer

or after damp rainfalls and spreads open in very wide clefts, which are penetrated by

violent and excessive draughts of the air above, shaken by them in a violent blast, is

stirred out of its proper position. (Ammianus 17.7.12: Warmington)

5. Anaximander said that the first animals were generated in the moisture, and were

covered -with a prickly skin; and as they grew older, they became drier, and after the

skin broke off from them, they lived for a little while. (Aetius 5.19.4 = 12A30, Fairbanks)

6. Animals come into being through vapors raised by the sun. Man, however, came into

being from another animal, namely the fish, for at first he was like a fish. Winds are due

to a separation of the lightest vapors and the motion of the masses of these vapors; and

moisture comes from the vapor raised by the sun from them; and lightning occurs when

a wind falls upon clouds and separates them. Anaximander was born in the third year

of the forty-second Olympiad. (Hippolytus Ref. 6: Fairbanks)

7. Anaximander believed that there arose from heated waters and earth either fish or

animals very like fish. In these humans grew and were kept inside as embryos up to

puberty. Then finally they burst and men and women came forth already able to

nourish themselves. (Censorinus, On the Birthday 4.7 = 12A30: Curd & McKirahan)


4

16. It was the opinion of Anaximander that gods have a beginning, at long intervals

rising and setting, and that they are the innumerable worlds. But who of us can think of

god except as immortal? (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods 1.10: Fairbanks)

Anaximenes

Also from Miletus, Anaximenes was Anaximander’s student. Anaximenes considered air to be

the source of the physical world, adding that the process of condensation and rarefaction gave

different shapes to physical objects. Anaximenes was the first to ask “How does stuff change?”

1. Anaximenes says that air is the first principle of all things, and that it is infinite in

quantity but is defined by its qualities; and all things are generated by a certain

condensation or rarefaction of it. Motion also exists from eternity. And by compression

of the air the earth was formed, and it is very broad; accordingly he says that this rests

on air; and the sun and the moon and the rest of the stars were formed from earth. He

declared that the sun is earth because of its swift motion,' and it has the proper amount

of heat. (Plutarch, Strom. 3: Fairbanks,

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/presoc/anaximen.html)

2. Anaximenes, himself a Milesian, son of Eurystratos, said that infinite air is the first

principle, from which arise the things that have come and are coming into existence,

and the things that will be, and gods and divine beings, while other things are

produced from these. And the form of air is as follows: When it is of a very even

consistency, it is imperceptible to vision, but it becomes evident as the result of cold or

heat or moisture, or when it is moved. It is always in motion; for things would not

change as they do unless it were in motion. It has a different appearance when it is

made more dense or thinner; when it is expanded into a thinner state it becomes fire,

and again winds are condensed air, and air becomes cloud by compression, and water

when it is compressed farther, and earth and finally stones as it is more condensed. So

that generation is controlled by the opposites, heat and cold. And the broad earth and

the moon and all the rest of the stars, being fiery bodies, are supported on the air by

their breadth. And stars are made of earth, since exhalations arise from this, and these

being attenuated become fire, and of this fire when it is raised to the heaven the stars

are constituted. There are also bodies of an earthy nature in the place occupied by the

stars, and carried along with them in their motion. He says that the stars do not move

under the earth as others have supposed, but around the earth, just as a cap is moved


5

about the head. And the sun is hidden not by going underneath the earth, but because it

is covered by some of the higher parts of the earth, and because of its greater distance

from us. The stars do not give forth heat because they are so far away. Winds are

produced when the air that has been attenuated is set in motion; and when it comes

together and is yet farther condensed, clouds are produced, and so it changes into

water. And hail is formed when the water descending from the clouds is frozen; and

snow, when these being yet more filled with moisture become frozen, and lightning,

when clouds are separated by violence of the winds; for when they are separated, the

flash is bright and like fire. And a rainbow is produced when the sun's rays fall on

compressed air; and earthquakes are produced when the earth is changed yet more by

beating and cooling. Such are the opinions of Anaximenes. And he flourished about the

first year of the fifty-eighth Olympiad. (Hippolytus. Ref. 1.7.3: Fairbanks)

3. Anaximenes says that the earth was wet, and when it dried it broke apart, and that

earthquakes are due to the breaking and falling of hills; accordingly earthquakes occur

in droughts, and in rainy seasons also; they occur in drought, as has been said, because

the earth dries and breaks apart, and it also crumbles when it is wet through with

waters. (Aristotle, Meteorology Fairbanks)

Xenophanes

From Colophon, just to the north of Miletus Xenophanes lived ca 570-475—we cannot be sure.

He travelled widely, wrote in verse, and is one of the first to question the reliability of the senses.

Although a truth of reality exists, human beings are unable to know it (stay tuned for

Parmenides and Plato’s theory of Forms). Xenophanes is particularly well-known for the line

about horses and cows designing gods in their own images:

But if cattle and horses and lions had hands

or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do,

horses like horses and cattle like cattle

also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies

of such a sort as the form they themselves have.

Xenophanes also speculated on shifting water levels, theorizing that the earth transitioned from

periods of wetness to dryness, on the empirical evidence of fossils.


6

1. And he says that nothing comes into being, nor is anything destroyed, nor moved;

and that the universe is one and is not subject to change. And he says that god is eternal

and one, homogeneous throughout, limited, spherical, with power of sense- perception

in all parts. The sun is formed each day from small fiery particles which are gathered

together: the earth is infinite, and is not surrounded by air or by sky; an infinite number

of suns and moons exist, and all things come from earth. The sea, he said, is salt because

so many things flow together and become mixed in it; but Metrodoros assigns as the

reason for its saltness that it has filtered through the earth. And Xenophanes believes

that once the earth was mingled with the sea, but in the course of time it became freed

from moisture; and his proofs are such as these: that shells are found in the midst of the

land and among the mountains, that in the quarries of Syracuse the imprints of a fish

and of seals had been found, and in Paros the imprint of an anchovy at some depth in

the stone, and in Melite shallow impressions of all sorts of sea products. He says that

these imprints were made when everything long ago was covered with mud, and then

the imprint dried in the mud. Farther he says that all men will be destroyed when the

earth sinks into the sea and becomes mud, and that the race will begin anew from the

beginning; and this transformation takes place for all worlds. (Hippolytus, Ref. 1.14.3-6:

Fairbanks)

2. The world is without beginning, eternal, imperishable. The stars are formed of

burning cloud; these are extinguished each day, but they are kindled again at night, like

coals; for their risings and settings are really kindlings and extinguishings. The objects

which appear to those on vessels like stars, and which some call Dioscuri, are little

clouds which have become luminous by a certain kind of motion. The sun is composed

of fiery particles collected from the moist exhalation and massed together, or of burning

clouds. Eclipses occur by extinction of the sun; and the sun is born anew at its risings.

Xenophanes recorded an eclipse of the sun for a whole month, and another eclipse so

complete that the day seemed as night. Xenophanes held that there are many suns and

moons according to the different regions and sections and zones of the earth; and that at

some fitting time the disk of the sun comes into a region of the earth not inhabited by

us, and so it suffers eclipse as though it had gone into a hole; he adds that the sun goes

on for an infinite distance, but it seems to turn around by reason of the great distance.

The moon is a compressed cloud. It shines by its own light. The moon disappears each

month because it is extinguished. The sun serves a purpose in the generation of the

world and of the animals on it, as well as in sustaining them, and it drags the moon

after it. Comets are groups or motions of burning clouds. Lightnings take place when

clouds shine in motion. The phenomena of the heavens come from the warmth of the


7

sun as the principal cause. For when the moisture is drawn up from the sea, the sweet

water separated by reason of its lightness becomes mist and passes into clouds, and falls

as rain when compressed, and the winds scatter it; for he writes expressly : 'The sea is

the source of water.' (Aetius: Fairbanks)

3. Xenophanes of Kolophon, going his own way and differing from all those that had

gone before, did not admit either genesis or destruction, but says that the all is always

the same. For if it came into being, it could not have existed before this; and not-being

could not come into existence nor could it accomplish anything, nor could anything

come from not-being. And he declares that sensations are deceptive, and together with

them he does away with the authority of reason itself. And he declares that the earth is

constantly sinking little by little into the sea. He says that the sun is composed of

numerous fiery particles massed together. And with regard to the gods he declares that

there is no rule of one god over another, for it is impious that any of the gods should be

ruled; and none of the gods have need of anything at all, for a god hears and sees in all

his parts and not in some particular organs. He declares that the earth is infinite and is

not surrounded on every side by air; and all things arise from earth; and he says that the

sun and the stars arise from clouds. (Plutarch, Strom. 4: Fairbanks)

Heraclitus

From Ephesus, a port town between Miletus and Colophon, 535-475 BCE, Heraclitus’

contentious philosophy reflects the politics of the day as tension mounts between the expanding

Persian Empire and the Greek city-states in Ionia. For Heraclitus, fire was the source of the

physical world, and that Strife was the organizing principle. He is particularly well-known for

surmising that the world is in a state of constant flux (you can’t step into the same river twice)

and that opposites in balance impose order on the sensible world. His thought, refined by

Aristotle, was the basis of Stoicism, a very widely accepted philosophical, ethical, and physical

system in the ancient Greek world.

1. In particulars, his doctrines are of this kind. That fire is an element, and that it is by

the changes of fire that all things exist; being engendered sometimes by rarity,

sometimes by density. But he explains nothing clearly. He also says, that everything is

produced by contrariety, and that everything flows on like a river; that the universe is

finite, and that there is one world, and that that is produced from fire, and that the

whole world is in its turn again consumed by fire at certain periods, and that all this


8

happens according to fate. That of the contraries, that which leads to production is

called war and contest, and that which leads to the conflagration is called harmony and

peace; that change is the road leading upward, and the road leading downward; and

that the whole world exists according to it.

For that fire, when densified becomes liquid, and becoming concrete, becomes also

water; again, that the water when concrete is turned to earth, and that this is the road

down; again, that the earth itself becomes fused, from which water is produced, and

from that everything else is produced; and then he refers almost everything to the

evaporation which takes place from the sea; and this is the road which leads upwards.

Also, that there are evaporations, both from earth and sea, some of which are bright and

clear, and some are dark; and that the fire is increased by the dark ones, and the

moisture by the others. But what the space which surrounds us is, he does not explain.

He states, however, that there are vessels in it, turned with their hollow part towards

us; in which all the bright evaporations are collected, and form flames, which are the

stars; and that the brightest of these flames, and the hottest, is the light of the sun ; for

that all the other stars are farther off from the earth; and that on this account, they give

less light and warmth; and that the moon is nearer the earth, but does not move

through a pure space; the sun, on the other hand, is situated in a transparent space, and

one free from all admixture, preserving a well proportioned distance from us, on which

account it gives us more light and more heat. And that the sun and moon are eclipsed,

when the before-mentioned vessels are turned upwards. And that the different phases

of the moon take place every month, as its vessel keeps gradually turning round.

Moreover, that day and night, and months and years, and rains and winds, and things

of that kind, all exist according to, and are caused by, the different evaporations.

For that the bright evaporation catching fire in the circle of the sun causes day, and the

predominance of the opposite one causes night; and again, from the bright one the heat

is increased so as to produce summer, and from the dark one the cold gains strength

and produces winter; and he also explains the causes of the other phenomena in a

corresponding manner. But with respect to the earth, he does not explain at all of what

character it is, nor does he do so in the case of the vessels; and these were his main

doctrines. (Diogenes Laertius 9.10-11: C.D. Yonge,

http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/diogenes/dlheraclitus.htm)

2. There is a Great Year, whose winter is a great flood and whose summer is a world

conflagration. In these alternating periods, the world is now going up in flames, now

turning to water. This cycle consists of 10,800 years. (DK A13: Kahn)


9

3. [Concerning the size of the sun: it is] the width of a human foot (B3)

4. What opposes unites, and the finest attunement stems from things bearing in

opposite directions, and all things come about by strife (B8)

5. On those who enter the same rivers, ever different waters flow. (B12)

6. This world, which is the same for all, no one of gods or men has made. But it always

was, is, and will be: an ever-living Fire, with measures of it kindling, and measures

going out. (B30)

7. The transformations of Fire: first, sea; and of the sea half is earth, half whirlwind ...

Sea pours out, and is measured by the same amount as before it became earth. (B31)

8. For it is death to souls to become water, and death to water to become earth. But

water comes from earth; and from water, soul. (B36)

9. The sea is the purest and the impurest water. Fish can drink it, and it is good for

them; to men it is undrinkable and destructive. (B61)

10. All things are an interchange for Fire, and Fire for all things, just like goods for gold

and gold for goods. (B90)

11. [For, according to Heraclitus, it is not possible to step twice into the same river, nor

is it possible to touch a mortal substance twice in so far as its state is concerned. But,

thanks to the swiftness and speed of change,] it scatters <things> and brings <them>

together again, [(or, rather, it brings together and lets go neither again nor later, but

simultaneously)] it forms and dissolves, and it approaches and departs. (B91)

12. Cold things become warm, and what is warm cools; what is wet dries, and the

parched is moistened (B126)

13. Heraclitus says that the stars are fed by vapors which rise from the earth, that the

sun is a blaze, endowed with intellect, which comes out of the sea (Aetius 2.17.4:

Warmington)

14. Heraclitus says that thunder occurs when winds and clouds whirl together and the

blasts strike against the clouds; lightening occurs when the evaporations burst into

flames, and fiery whirlwinds when the clouds are kindled and quenched (Aetius 3.3.9:

Warmington)


10

Democritus

From Abdera in Thrace (a Greek speaking region so far north as to be considered almost

barbaric), he lived ca 460-370 BCE. A polymath who wrote on just about everything from music,

to geometry, to cosmology, Democritus is best known for positing an elemental theory that was

flatly rejected in antiquity

1. Democritus says that of our universe the earth came into being before the stars.

(Hippolytus, Ref. 1.13.4: Warmington)

2. Democritus believed that at first the earth wandered about because of its smallness

and lightness, but, becoming in time dense and heavy, it came to rest. (Aetius 3.13.4:

Warmington)

5. Democritus says that the earth as it increased inclined obliquely because the southern

portion of the encompassing air was very weak; the northern parts are unmixed, while

the southern are mixed; whence the latter becomes heavy where it abounds in fruits and

increase (Aetius 3.12.2: Warmington)

6. Democritus appears to seek the origin of it (saltiness in the sea) in the earth… that in a

wet substance like is attracted to like as in the whole universe, and thus sea comes into

being and all other things that are…from conglomeration of homogenous atoms; that

sea is composed of homogenous atoms is clear from other facts also.(Hibeh Papyrus 1,

no. 16: Warmington)

7. Anyone who thinks like Democritus that the sea is diminishing and will disappear in

the end reminds us of Aesop's tales. His story was that Charybdis had twice sucked in

the sea: the first time she made the mountains visible; the second time the islands; and

when she sucks it in for the last time she will dry it up entirely. Such a tale is

appropriate enough to Aesop in a rage with the ferryman, but not to serious inquirers.

(Aristotle, Meteorology 356b: Webster,

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meteorology.2.ii.html)

8. Democritus says that the earth is full of water and that when a quantity of rainwater

is added to this an earthquake is the result. The hollows in the earth being unable to

admit the excess of water it forces its way in and so causes an earthquake. Or again, the

earth as it dries draws the water from the fuller to the emptier parts, and the inrush of


11

the water as it changes its place causes the earthquake. (Aristotle, Meteorology 365a:

Webster, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meteorology.2.ii.html)

9. A blast of wind sometimes propels the waters and, if its attack is very violent, shakes

obviously that part of the earth into which it has driven and packed the waters;

sometimes, hurled into the highways of the earth and seeking to escape, it shakes the

whole. (Seneca, NQ 6.20.4: Warmington)

10. Democritus believed that thunder arises from an irregular compound which forces

the surrounding in a headlong down rush; that lightening is a collision between clouds,

because of which the generative substances of fire are filtered through the pores and

gaps and by friction are gathered together into one place; that a thunderbolt comes

about when the onrush is propelled from purer, finer, evener, and, as he himself writes,

more close-fitted generative substances of fire, confined in porous places and enclosures

of separate membranes, become corporeal through the intensity of mixture and take a

rush right down. (Aetius 3.3.11: Warmington)

11. Democritus says that when in a small vacuum there are many small bodies (which

he calls atoms) wind follows (Seneca, NQ 5.2: Warmington) 12. Democritus says that

when the snow in the parts towards the north thaws because of the summer solstice and

flows away, clouds are compressed out of the vapors; when these are driven together

towards the south, Egypt amongst other lands receives plenty of violent rain-storms

because of the etesian winds; through these both the lakes and the river Nile are filled

up. (Aetius 4.1.4: Warmington)

Elemental Theory: Aristotle

12

Aristotle

From Staigira in Macedonia, 384-322 BCE. He was Plato’s most famous student at the Academy

in Athens, and he opened his own school, the Lyceum, in Athens. He had many famous students,

Theophrastus, whom we’ll meet later, and Alexander of Macedon, of whom you have surely

already heard. Aristotle was a polymath whose surviving writings seem to be his lecture notes;

they cover almost all manner of human intellectual inquiry from politics and ethics to physics

and biology (mathematics alone seems to be missing). We’ll be spending some time with this

giant of Greek intellectual thought whose shadow affected every thinker after him until nearly

the modern era. It was due to Aristotle’s influence, among other things, that the atomic theory

was rejected as was the theory of heliocentricism.

On Generation and Corruption, book 2

Part I

We have explained under what conditions 'combination', 'contact', and 'action/passion'

are attributable to the things which undergo natural change. Further, we have discussed

'unqualified' coming-to-be and passing-away, and explained under what conditions

they are predicable, of what subject, and owing to what cause. Similarly, we have also

discussed 'alteration', and explained what 'altering' is and how it differs from coming-

to-be and passing-away. But we have still to investigate the so-called 'elements' of

bodies.

For the complex substances whose formation and maintenance are due to natural

processes all presuppose the perceptible bodies as the condition of their coming to- be

and passing-away: but philosophers disagree in regard to the matter which underlies

these perceptible bodies. Some maintain it is single, supposing it to be, e.g. Air or Fire,

or an 'intermediate' between these two (but still a body with a separate existence).

Others, on the contrary, postulate two or more materials ascribing to their 'association'

and 'dissociation', or to their 'alteration', the coming-to-be and passing-away of things.

(Some, for instance, postulate Fire and Earth: some add Air, making three: and some,

like Empedocles, reckon Water as well, thus postulating four.)

Now we may agree that the primary materials, whose change (whether it be 'association

and dissociation' or a process of another kind) results in coming-to be and passing

away, are rightly described as 'originative sources, i.e. elements'. But (i) those thinkers

are in error who postulate, beside the bodies we have mentioned, a single matter-and


13

that corporeal and separable matter. For this 'body' of theirs cannot possibly exist

without a 'perceptible contrariety': this 'Boundless', which some thinkers identify with

the 'original real', must be either light or heavy, either cold or hot. And (ii) what Plato

has written in the Timaeus is not based on any precisely-articulated conception. For he

has not stated clearly whether his 'Omniprecipient" exists in separation from the

'elements'; nor does he make any use of it. He says, indeed, that it is a substratum prior

to the so-called 'elements'-underlying them, as gold underlies the things that are

fashioned of gold. (And yet this comparison, if thus expressed, is itself open to criticism.

Things which come-to-be and pass-away cannot be called by the name of the material

out of which they have come-to be: it is only the results of 'alteration' which retain the

name of the substratum whose 'alterations' they are. However, he actually says' that the

truest account is to affirm that each of them is "gold"'.) Nevertheless he carries his

analysis of the 'elements'-solids though they are-back to 'planes', and it is impossible for

'the Nurse' (i.e. the primary matter) to be identical with 'the planes'.

Our own doctrine is that although there is a matter of the perceptible bodies (a matter

out of which the so-called 'elements' come-to-be), it has no separate existence, but is

always bound up with a contrariety. A more precise account of these presuppositions

has been given in another work': we must, however, give a detailed explanation of the

primary bodies as well, since they too are similarly derived from the matter. We must

reckon as an 'originative source' and as 'primary' the matter which underlies, though it

is inseparable from, the contrary qualities: for the hot' is not matter for 'the cold' nor 'the

cold' for 'the hot', but the substratum is matter for them both. We therefore have to

recognize three 'originative sources': firstly that which potentially perceptible body,

secondly the contrarieties (I mean, e.g. heat and cold), and thirdly Fire, Water, and the

like. Only 'thirdly', however: for these bodies change into one another (they are not

immutable as Empedocles and other thinkers assert, since 'alteration' would then have

been impossible), whereas the contrarieties do not change.

Nevertheless, even so the question remains: What sorts of contrarieties, and how many

of them, are to be accounted 'originative sources' of body? For all the other thinkers

assume and use them without explaining why they are these or why they are just so

many.

Part 2

Since, then, we are looking for 'originative sources' of perceptible body; and since

'perceptible' is equivalent to 'tangible', and 'tangible' is that of which the perception is


14

touch; it is clear that not all the contrarieties constitute 'forms' and 'originative sources'

of body, but only those which correspond to touch. For it is in accordance with a

contrariety-a contrariety, moreover, of tangible qualities that the primary bodies are

differentiated. That is why neither whiteness (and blackness), nor sweetness (and

bitterness), nor (similarly) any quality belonging to the other perceptible contrarieties

either, constitutes an 'element'. And yet vision is prior to touch, so that its object also is

prior to the object of touch. The object of vision, however, is a quality of tangible body

not qua tangible, but qua something else-qua something which may well be naturally

prior to the object of touch.

Accordingly, we must segregate the tangible differences and contrarieties, and

distinguish which amongst them are primary. Contrarieties correlative to touch are the

following: hot-cold, dry-moist, heavy-light, hard-soft, viscous-brittle, rough-smooth,

coarse-fine. Of these (i) heavy and light are neither active nor susceptible. Things are

not called 'heavy' and 'light' because they act upon, or suffer action from, other things.

But the 'elements' must be reciprocally active and susceptible, since they 'combine' and

are transformed into one another. On the other hand (ii) hot and cold, and dry and

moist, are terms, of which the first pair implies power to act and the second pair

susceptibility. 'Hot' is that which 'associates' things of the same kind (for 'dissociating',

which people attribute to Fire as its function, is 'associating' things of the same class,

since its effect is to eliminate what is foreign), while 'cold' is that which brings together,

i.e. 'associates', homogeneous and heterogeneous things alike. And moist is that which,

being readily adaptable in shape, is not determinable by any limit of its own: while 'dry'

is that which is readily determinable by its own limit, but not readily adaptable in

shape.

From moist and dry are derived (iii) the fine and coarse, viscous and brittle, hard and

soft, and the remaining tangible differences. For (a) since the moist has no determinate

shape, but is readily adaptable and follows the outline of that which is in contact with it,

it is characteristic of it to be 'such as to fill up'. Now 'the fine' is 'such as to fill up'. For

the fine' consists of subtle particles; but that which consists of small particles is 'such as

to fill up', inasmuch as it is in contact whole with whole-and 'the fine' exhibits this

character in a superlative degree. Hence it is evident that the fine derives from the

moist, while the course derives from the dry. Again (b) the viscous' derives from the

moist: for 'the viscous' (e.g. oil) is a 'moist' modified in a certain way. 'The brittle', on the

other hand, derives from the dry: for 'brittle' is that which is completely dry-so

completely, that its solidification has actually been due to failure of moisture. Further


15

(c) 'the soft' derives from the moist. For 'soft' is that which yields to pressure by retiring

into itself, though it does not yield by total displacement as the moist does-which

explains why the moist is not 'soft', although 'the soft' derives from the moist. 'The

hard', on the other hand, derives from the dry: for 'hard' is that which is solidified, and

the solidified is dry.

The terms 'dry' and 'moist' have more senses than one. For 'the damp', as well as the

moist, is opposed to the dry: and again 'the solidified', as well as the dry, is opposed to

the moist. But all these qualities derive from the dry and moist we mentioned first.' For

(i) the dry is opposed to the damp: i.e. 'damp' is that which has foreign moisture on its

surface ('sodden' being that which is penetrated to its 14 core), while 'dry' is that which

has lost foreign moisture. Hence it is evident that the damp will derive from the moist,

and 'the dry' which is opposed to it will derive from the primary dry. Again (ii) the

'moist' and the solidified derive in the same way from the primary pair. For 'moist' is

that which contains moisture of its-own deep within it ('sodden' being that which is

deeply penetrated by foreign moisture), whereas 'solidified' is that which has lost this

inner moisture. Hence these too derive from the primary pair, the 'solidified' from the

dry and the 'solidified' from the dry the 'liquefiable' from the moist.

It is clear, then, that all the other differences reduce to the first four, but that these admit

of no further reduction. For the hot is not essentially moist or dry, nor the moist

essentially hot or cold: nor are the cold and the dry derivative forms, either of one

another or of the hot and the moist. Hence these must be four.

Part 3

The elementary qualities are four, and any four terms can be combined in six couples.

Contraries, however, refuse to be coupled: for it is impossible for the same thing to be

hot and cold, or moist and dry. Hence it is evident that the 'couplings' of the elementary

qualities will be four: hot with dry and moist with hot, and again cold with dry and

cold with moist. And these four couples have attached themselves to the apparently

'simple' bodies (Fire, Air, Water, and Earth) in a manner consonant with theory. For Fire

is hot and dry, whereas Air is hot and moist (Air being a sort of aqueous vapour); and

Water is cold and moist, while Earth is cold and dry. Thus the differences are

reasonably distributed among the primary bodies, and the number of the latter is

consonant with theory. For all who make the simple bodies 'elements' postulate either

one, or two, or three, or four. Now (i) those who assert there is one only, and then

generate everything else by condensation and rarefaction, are in effect making their


16

'originative sources' two, viz. the rare and the dense, or rather the hot and the cold: for it

is these which are the molding forces, while the 'one' underlies them as a 'matter'. But

(ii) those who postulate two from the start-as Parmenides postulated Fire and Earth-

make the intermediates (e.g. Air and Water) blends of these. The same course is

followed (iii) by those who advocate three. (We may compare what Plato does in

Method of Divisions: for he makes 'the middle' a blend.) Indeed, there is practically no

difference between those who postulate two and those who postulate three, except that

the former split the middle 'element' into two, while the latter treat it as only one. But

(iv) some advocate four from the start, e.g. Empedocles: yet he too draws them together

so as to reduce them to the two, for he opposes all the others to Fire.

In fact, however, fire and air, and each of the bodies we have mentioned, are not simple,

but blended. The 'simple' bodies are indeed similar in nature to them, but not identical

with them. Thus the 'simple' body corresponding to fire is 'such-as fire’, not fire: that

which corresponds to air is 'such-as-air': and so on with the rest of them. But fire is an

excess of heat, just as ice is an excess of cold. For freezing and boiling are excesses of

heat and cold respectively. Assuming, therefore, that ice is a freezing of moist and cold,

fire analogously will be a boiling of dry and hot: a fact, by the way, which explains why

nothing comes-to-be either out of ice or out of fire.

The 'simple' bodies, since they are four, fall into two pairs which belong to the two

regions, each to each: for Fire and Air are forms of the body moving towards the 'limit',

while Earth and Water are forms of the body which moves towards the 'center'. Fire and

Earth, moreover, are extremes and purest: Water and Air, on the contrary are

intermediates and more like blends. And, further, the members of either pair are

contrary to those of the other, Water being contrary to Fire and Earth to Air; for the

qualities constituting Water and Earth are contrary to those that constitute Fire and Air.

Nevertheless, since they are four, each of them is characterized par excellence a single

quality: Earth by dry rather than by cold, Water by cold rather than by moist, Air by

moist rather than by hot, and Fire by hot rather than by dry.

Part 4

It has been established before' that the coming-to-be of the 'simple' bodies is reciprocal.

At the same time, it is manifest, even on the evidence of perception, that they do come-

to-be: for otherwise there would not have been 'alteration, since 'alteration' is change in

respect to the qualities of the objects of touch. Consequently, we must explain (i) what is


17

the manner of their reciprocal transformation, and (ii) whether every one of them can

come to-be out of every one-or whether some can do so, but not others.

Now it is evident that all of them are by nature such as to change into one another: for

coming-to-be is a change into contraries and out of contraries, and the 'elements' all

involve a contrariety in their mutual relations because their distinctive qualities are

contrary. For in some of them both qualities are contrary; e.g. in Fire and Water, the first

of these being dry and hot, and the second moist and cold: while in others one of the

qualities (though only one) is contrary-e.g. in Air and Water, the first being moist and

hot, and the second moist and cold. It is evident, therefore, if we consider them in

general, that every one is by nature such as to come-to-be out of every one: and when

we come to consider them severally, it is not difficult to see the manner in which their

transformation is effected. For, though all will result from all, both the speed and the

facility of their conversion will differ in degree.

Thus (i) the process of conversion will be quick between those which have

interchangeable 'complementary factors', but slow between those which have none. The

reason is that it is easier for a single thing to change than for many. Air, e.g. will result

from Fire if a single quality changes: for Fire, as we saw, is hot and dry while Air is hot

and moist, so that there will be Air if the dry be overcome by the moist. Again, Water

will result from Air if the hot be overcome by the cold: for Air, as we saw, is hot and

moist while Water is cold and moist, so that, if the hot changes, there will be Water. So

too, in the same manner, Earth will result from Water and Fire from Earth, since the two

'elements' in both these couples have interchangeable 'complementary factors'. For

Water is moist and cold while Earth is cold and dry-so that, if the moist be overcome,

there will be Earth: and again, since Fire is dry and hot while Earth is cold and dry, Fire

will result from Earth if the cold pass-away.

It is evident, therefore, that the coming-to-be of the 'simple' bodies will be cyclical; and

that this cyclical method of transformation is the easiest, because the consecutive

'elements' contain interchangeable 'complementary factors'. On the other hand (ii) the

transformation of Fire into Water and of Air into Earth, and again of Water and Earth

into Fire and Air respectively, though possible, is more difficult because it involves the

change of more qualities. For if Fire is to result from Water, both the cold and the moist

must pass-away: and again, both the cold and the dry must pass-away if Air is to result

from Earth. So' too, if Water and Earth are to result from Fire and Air respectively-both

qualities must change.


18

This second method of coming-to-be, then, takes a longer time. But (iii) if one quality in

each of two 'elements' pass-away, the transformation, though easier, is not reciprocal.

Still, from Fire plus Water there will result Earth and Air, and from Air plus Earth Fire

and Water. For there will be Air, when the cold of the Water and the dry of the Fire

have passed-away (since the hot of the latter and the moist of the former are left):

whereas, when the hot of the Fire and the moist of the Water have passed-away, there

will be Earth, owing to the survival of the dry of the Fire and the cold of the Water. So,

too, in the same Way, Fire and Water will result from Air plus Earth. For there will be

Water, when the hot of the Air and the dry of the Earth have passed-away (since the

moist of the former and the cold of the latter are left): whereas, when the moist of the

Air and the cold of the Earth have passed-away, there will be Fire, owing to the survival

of the hot of the Air and the dry of the Earth-qualities essentially constitutive of Fire.

Moreover, this mode of Fire's coming-to-be is confirmed by perception. For flame is par

excellence Fire: but flame is burning smoke, and smoke consists of Air and Earth.

No transformation, however, into any of the 'simple' bodies can result from the passing

away of one elementary quality in each of two 'elements' when they are taken in their

consecutive order, because either identical or contrary qualities are left in the pair: but

no 'simple' body can be formed either out of identical, or out of contrary, qualities. Thus

no 'simple' body would result, if the dry of Fire and the moist of Air were to pass-away:

for the hot is left in both. On the other hand, if the hot pass-away out both, the

contraries-dry and moist-are left. A similar result will occur in all the others too: for all

the consecutive 'elements' contain one identical, and one contrary, quality. Hence, too, it

clearly follows that, when one of the consecutive 'elements' is transformed into one, the

coming-to-be is effected by the passing-away of a single quality: whereas, when two of

them are transformed into a third, more than one quality must have passed away.

We have stated that all the 'elements' come-to-be out of any one of them; and we have

explained the manner in which their mutual conversion takes place. Let us nevertheless

supplement our theory by the following speculations concerning them.

Elemental Theory: Ovid and the Greek Anthology

19

Ovid, Metamorphoses 15.237-51

And now for a Roman voice, Ovid (43 BCE- 17/18 CE) was a bon vivant who lived and worked in

Rome, writing in Latin. He was a poet whose many works treat the topic of love: elegy (Amores),

how to pick up members of the opposite sex (Art of Love), love letters from mythical heroics

(Heroides). He was also embroiled in court politics, and was exiled for an error (complicity in the

love affairs of one of the imperial women? Involvement in a plot against Augustus, the reigning

emperor?) and a carmen (The Art of Love, which contravenes Augustus’ moral program to re-

instate old Roman virtues—probably just a convenient excuse). His writings from exile to Tomis

on the Black Sea reveal his anger, frustration, and loneliness (Tristia, Letters from Pontus). His

most famous work is the Metamorphoses which recounts the history of the world from its

creation to the deification of Julius Caesar, focusing on myths and legends of things changings

(hence, metamorphosis), often brought on by the whims of the gods.

And even those things which we call elements do not persist. What changes they

undergo, listen and I will tell you. In the eternal universe there are four elemental

substances. Two of these, earth and water, are heavy and of their own weight sink

down to lower levels. And two, air and fire, purer still than air, are without weight and,

if unopposed, fly to the upper realms. These elements, although far separate in position,

nevertheless are all derived each from the other, and each into other falls back again.

The element of earth, set free, is rarefied into liquid water, and, thinned still further, the

water changes into wind and air. Then, losing weight again, this air, already very thin,

leaps up to fire, the highest place of all. Then they come back again in reversed order;

for fire, condensed, passes into thick air, thence into water; and water, packed together,

solidifies into earth.

Greek Anthology

The Greek Anthology is a lengthy collection of about 4500 short Greek poems penned by over

300 authors, spanning several centuries .

683.—Anonymous

On Alpheus and Arethusa

Alpheus is a male water, Arethusa a female, and Love accomplished their marriage by

mixing the waters.

Humoral Theory

20

Four Elements � Four Humors

Hippocrates, Epidemics 6.2

Hippocrates, 5th century BCE, is as much legend as man, and many authors published their works

under the name of Hippocrates to lend authority to their ideas. Hippocratic physicians were

careful observers as they studied the course of disease and tried to diagnose. They believed that

the health was maintained through a balance of the four humors: yellow bile, black bile, blood,

and phlegm. This medical approach dominated medicine in ancient Greece.

Some humors should be expelled, some dried, some injected, sometimes, but sometimes

not. To reduce or increase the body, the skin, flesh, and so on; here, too, some yes, some

no. To smooth, roughen, harden, soften. Some no. To wake up, to put to sleep. And

other things of the sort. Pump out, stretch again immediately what is relaxed, relax

what is tight. Induce another humor, not the one running, help evacuate the one

running, produce a similar condition, just as dissimilars stop pain. Where it inclines

upward, being elevated, resolve it below, and in the opposite case the same thing, for

example, purging the head, phlebotomy, when the removal is not random

Celsus, Proemium 14

Celsus, 25 BCE-50 CE, was a Roman author. He wrote an extensive encyclopedia of human

knowledge (similar, we assume, in scope and length to Pliny’s Natural History—we’ll meet

Pliny soon enough). All that survives are the eight medical books, which are a treasure trove for

anyone interested in Roman medicine. Celsus was not a practicing physician, and we know very

little about him.

They term hidden, the causes concerning which inquiry is made into the principles

composing our bodies, what makes for and what against health. For they believe it

impossible for one who is ignorant of the origin of diseases to learn how to treat them

suitably. They say that it does not admit of doubt that there is need for differences in

treatment, if, as certain of the professors of philosophy have stated, some excess, or

some deficiency, among the four elements, creates adverse health; or, if all the fault is in

the humours, as was the view of Herophilus; or in the breath, according to Hippocrates;

or if blood is transfused into those blood-vessels which are fitted for pneuma, and

excites inflammation p11which the Greeks term φλεγμόνη, and that inflammation

Humoral Theory

21

effects such a disturbance as there is in fever, which was taught by Erasistratus; or if

little bodies by being brought to a standstill in passing through invisible pores block the

passage, as Asclepiades contended — his will be the right way of treatment, who has

not failed to see the primary origin of the cause. They do not deny that experience is

also necessary; but they say it is impossible to arrive at what should be done unless

through some course of reasoning. For the older men, they say, did not cram the sick

anyhow, but reasoned out what might be especially suitable, and then put to the test of

experience what conjecture of a sort had previously led up to. Again they say that it

makes no matter whether by 34 now most remedies have been well explored already . . .

if, nevertheless, they started from a reasoned theory; and that in fact this has also been

done in many instances. Frequently, too, novel classes of disease occur about which

hitherto practice has disclosed nothing, and so it is necessary to consider how such have

commenced, without which no one among mortals can possibly find out whether this

rather than that remedy should be used; this is the reason why they investigate the

occult causes.

Philostratus, Gymnasticus 42.

Ca 170-250 CE, Philostratus was a Greek Sophist philosopher from Athens. He wrote

philosophical dialogues and biographical history of Sophism. Here we have an extract from his

work on athletics, in which he discusses athletic competitions and all manner of issues that

affected the athlete in antiquity.

As far as the topic of bodily proportions is concerned, and the question whether one

kind is best or another kind, there are some minor disagreements among those who

have not examined the matter rationally. But as far as the mixture of the humors is

concerned it has never been disputed, nor would it ever be disputed, that the best type

of mixture of all those that exist is the warm and moist one. For it is composed, like

expensive statues, from material that is unmixed and pure. For those who have a sparse

supply of phlegm and bile are consequently free of impurities and dregs and excessive

humors; they also endure easily whatever hard work is necessary, have good digestion,

are rarely ill and recover quickly from illness, and they are submissive and easy to train

in a variety of different ways, thanks to their fortunate mixture of humors. Choleric

athletes are on the one hand warm in temperament but also dry in their mix of humors

and fruitless to trainers, just as hot sand is to those sowing crops. Despite that, they are

Humoral Theory

22

formidable because of their mental boldness; for they have a very abundant supply of

that.

Phlegmatic athletes are slower in their makeup because of their coldness. These must be

trained with energetic movements, whereas choleric athletes must be trained in a

leisurely fashion and with breaks—in other words the former require a goad, the latter

reins—and it is necessary to dry out the former by the application of dust, while

moistening the latter with oil.

43. That is all I wish to say about the mixture of humors as modern gymnastike describes

them. For the old gymnastike did not even know about the mixtures of humors but

trained only strength. By gymnastike the men of the past meant any exercise whatsoever.

Some trained themselves by carrying weights that were hard to lift, some by competing

for speed with horses and hares, others by straightening or bending thick pieces of

wrought iron, while some yoked themselves with powerful, wagon-drawing oxen, and

others wrestled bulls and even lions by the throat. …

The Four Elements in Greek Thought - Dr. Irby's Home Pageglirby.people.wm.edu/COLL100/4_Element_Readings.pdf · Elemental Theory: Presocratics 1 The Four Elements in Greek Thought

Documents