Importance of Leukippos.
183. We have seen incidentally that there is a wide divergence of opinion among recent writers as to the place of Atomism in Greek thought. The question at issue is really whether Leukippos reached his theory on what are called “metaphysical grounds,” that is, from a consideration of the Eleatic theory of reality, or whether, on the contrary, it was a pure development of Ionian science. The foregoing exposition will suggest the true answer. So far as his general theory of the physical constitution of the world is concerned, it has been shown, I think, that it was derived entirely from Eleatic and Pythagorean sources, while the detailed cosmology was in the main a more or less successful attempt to make the older Ionian beliefs fit into this new physical theory. In any case, his greatness consisted in his having been the first to see how body must be regarded if we take it to be ultimate reality. The old Milesian theory had found its most adequate expression in the system of Anaximenes ([§ 31]), but of course rarefaction and condensation cannot be clearly represented except on the hypothesis of molecules or atoms coming closer together or going further apart in space. Parmenides had seen that very clearly (fr.[2]), and it was the Eleatic criticism which forced Leukippos to formulate his system as he did. Even Anaxagoras took account of Zeno’s arguments about divisibility ([§ 128]), but his system of qualitatively different “seeds” was lacking in that simplicity which has always been the chief attraction of atomism.
[921]. Theophrastos said he was an Eleate or a Milesian (R. P. 185), while Diogenes (ix. 30) says he was an Eleate or, according to some, an Abderite. These statements are exactly parallel to the discrepancies about the native cities of the Pythagoreans already noted (Chap. VII. p. 327, [n. 763]). Diogenes adds that, according to others, Leukippos was a Melian, which is a common confusion. Aetios (i. 7. 1) calls Diagoras of Melos a Milesian (cf. Dox. p. 14). Demokritos was called by some a Milesian (R. P. 186) for the same reason that Leukippos is called an Eleate. We may also compare the doubt as to whether Herodotos called himself a Halikarnassian or a Thourian.
[922]. Diog. x. 13 (R. P. 185 b). The theory was revived by E. Rohde. For the literature of the controversy, see R. P. 185 b. Diels’s refutation of Rohde has convinced most competent judges. Brieger’s attempt to unsettle the question again (Hermes, xxxvi. pp. 166 sqq.) is only half-hearted, and quite unconvincing. As will be seen, however, I agree with his main contention that atomism comes after the systems of Empedokles and Anaxagoras.
[923]. Diog. ix. 41 (R. P. 187). As Diels points out, the statement suggests that Anaxagoras was dead when Demokritos wrote. It is probable, too, that it was this which made Apollodoros fix the floruit of Demokritos just forty years after that of Anaxagoras (Jacoby, p. 290). We cannot make much of the other statement of Demokritos that he wrote the Μικρὸς διάκοσμος 750 years after the fall of Troy; for we cannot be sure what era he used (Jacoby, p. 292).
[924]. Theophr. ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 25, 1 (R. P. 206 a).
[925]. This was stated by Thrasylos in his list of the tetralogies in which he arranged the works of Demokritos, as he did those of Plato. He gives Tetr. iii. thus: (1) Μέγας διάκοσμος (ὃν οἱ περὶ Θεόφραστον Λευκίππου φασὶν εἶναι); (2) Μικρὸς διάκοσμος; (3) Κοσμογραφίη; (4) Περὶ τῶν πλανήτων. The two διάκοσμοι would only be distinguished as μέγας and μικρός when they came to be included in the same corpus. A quotation purporting to be from the Περὶ νοῦ of Leukippos is preserved in Stob. i. 160. The phrase ἐν τοῖς Λευκίππου καλουμένοις λόγοις in M.X.G. 980 a 8 seems to refer to Arist. de Gen. Corr. 325 a 24, Λεύκιππος δ’ ἔχειν ᾠήθη λόγους κ.τ.λ., and would prove nothing in any case. Cf. Chap. II. p. 138, [n. 305].
[926]. See above, p. 380, [n. 921].
[927]. The aristocrats had massacred the democrats, and were overthrown in their turn by the Athenians. Cf. [Xen.] Ἀθ. πολ. 3, 11. The date is fixed by C.I.A. i. 22 a.