THE EARLY HISTORYCIF ?

HE m m OF
by D.J Furley

The concept o f s o u l i s n o t much i n e v i d e n c e nowadays e x c e p t among theo-

l o g i a n s and some l i t e r a r y c r i t i c s , and i t i s t h e r e f o r e n e c e s s a r y t o c l a r i f y i t s
meaning i n t h e t i t l e o f t h i s e s s a y . What I am t h i n k i n g o f i s t h e c o n c e p t o f
p s y c h e a s i t appeared g e n e r a l l y i n Greek p h i l o s o p h y i n t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y B.C.:
t h e c e n t r e o f t h e human p e r s o n a l i t y , u s u a l l y c o n t r a s t e d w i t h t h e body, b u t n o t
d i s t i n g u i s h e d s h a r p l y from t h e mind or t h e emotions; p e r h a p s immortal, p e r h a p s
n o t ; t h e ‘ h i g h e s t ’ p a r t o f a man, which i s somehow r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h i s l i f e ,
h i s t h o u g h t s , h i s emotions and h i s c h a r a c t e r . I am n o t concerned p r i m a r i l y w i t h
t h e q u e s t i o n o f i m m o r t a l i t y , n o r w i t h t h e growth of any p a r t i c u l a r p s y c h o l o g i c a l
d o c t r i n e . I want r a t h e r t o show some o f t h e s t a g e s by which t h e Greeks came t o
a c c e p t t h e view t h a t a man h a s a p s y c h e o f t h i s k i n d , and t o examine how t h e y
came t o a s k c e r t a i n q u e s t i o n s about t h e p s y c h e .
U n t i l t h e time of A r i s t o t l e , t h e Greeks had a v e r y i m p e r f e c t u n d e r s t a n d i n g
o f t h e l i n g u i s t i c t e c h n i q u e o f a b s t r a c t i o n . They made mistakes and c r e a t e d
p u z z l e s because t h e y tended t o t h i n k t h a t words were t h e names o f t h i n g s . Of
c o u r s e t h e y g r a d u a l l y i n c r e a s e d t h e s u b t l e t y and r i c h n e s s o f t h e c l a s s o f
‘ t h i n g s ’ - t h e y l e a r n t , for i n s t a n c e , t o d i s t i n g u i s h between m a t e r i a l and im.--
m a t e r i a l t h i n g s - b u t s t i l l t h e i r problems were g e n e r a l l y t r e a t e d o n t o l o g i c a l l y .
I t is t h i s ‘ e x c e s s i v e realism’ t h a t j u s t i f i e s u s i n a p p r o a c h i n g t h e c o n c e p t o f
s o u l by what may appear t o be a q u e e r r o u t e -
by s t u d y i n g , n o t t h e v e r b s which

(1) T h i s e s s a y i s b a s e d on a number o f p a p e r s r e a d t o a s e m i n a r i n U n i v e r s i t y C o l l e g e London

and i n t h e I n s t i t u t e of C l a s s i c a l S t u d i e s o f London U n i v e r s i t y . I i n i t i a t e d t h i s l i n e o f
i n q u i r y i n t h e s e m i n a r w i t h p a p e r s on Homer and t h e e a r l y p h i l o s o p h e r s . Then I was u n a v o i d a b l y
a b s e n t w h i l e p a p e r s were r e a d by E.G. T u r n e r ( o n t h e e a r l y l y r i c , i a m b i c and e l e g i a c p o e t s ) ,
E.W. H a n d l e y on P i n d a r , B a c c h y l i d e s and A r i s t o p h a n e s ) and T.B.L. W e b s t e r ( o n t h e t r a g e d i a n s ,
t h e f i f t h c e n t u r y p h i l o s o p h e r s a n d m e d i c a l w r i t e r s , H e r o d o t u s , T h u c y d i d e s and t h e e a r l y
o r a t o r s ) . I h a v e been s u p p l i e d w i t h s u m m a r i e s of t h e s e p a p e r s a n d l i s t s o f t h e p a s s a g e s d i s -
c u s s e d , and I am d e e p l y i n d e b t e d t o t h e i r a u t h o r s .

I am r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e a r r a n g e m e n t a n d e m p h a s i s o f t h e e s s a y . I t was o r i g i n a l l y i n t e n d - .
e d t o form p a r t o f a g r o u p o f somewhat s i m i l a r s t u d i e s , whose r e a d e r s , i t was hoped, would n o t
a l l be s p e c i a l i s t s i n C l a s s i c s . I h a v e c o n s i d e r e d w h e t h e r i t s form o u g h t t o be c h a n g e d f o r
p u b l i c a t i o n i n a p u r e l y c l a s s i c a l j o u r n a l , b u t I h a v e d e c i d e d a g a i n s t c h a n g e , 0: t h e g r o u n d
t h a t t h e form may s e r v e t o r e m i n d t h e r e a d e r t h a t , t h i s is i n t h e n a t u r e o f a n E L G U and ~ ~ d~o e s
not pretend t o o f f e r a l l t h e evidence.

My o r i g i n a l p u r p o s e w i l l p e r h a p s e x c u s e t h e p o v e r t y of a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s i n t h e t e x t . I am
most i n d e b t e d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g : B r u n o S n e l l , T h e D i s c o v e r y of the M i n d ( B l a c k w e l l , 1 9 5 3 ) ;
K. von F r i t z ‘ N c I ~ ” ~NOETV, and t h e i r D e r i v a t i v e s i n Homer’, i n C l a s s i c a l Philology, 38 ( 1 9 4 3 )
7 9 f f . , and ‘NQGG, N O E ~aV n d t h e i r D e r i v a t i v e s i n P r e - S o c r a t i c P h i l o s o p h y ’ , ibid. 40 ( 1 9 4 5 )
223-42 a n d ’ 4 1 ( 1 9 4 6 ) 12-34; R.B. O n i a n s , T h e Origins o f E u r o p e a n T h o u g h t ( C a m b r i d g e , 1 9 5 1 ) ;
E . H a r r i s o n , T h y r o s fror H o m e r to P l a t o ( u n p u b l i s h e d ) .

1
d e s c r i b e t h e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e s o u l , b u t t h e nouns which were t a k e n t o be t h e
names o f e n t i t i e s i n which o r by which these f u n c t i o n s were p e r f o r m e d .

The most i m p o r t a n t words a r e ‘ p s y c h e ’ , 'thymes', ‘ n o o s ’ o r ‘ n o u s ’ , ‘ p h r e n ’

w i t h i t s p l u r a l ‘ p h r e n e s ’ , and ‘ k a r d i a ’ w i t h i t s v a r i a n t s and synonyms ‘ k r c d i e ’
‘ k e r ’ and ‘ e t o r ’ . None o f t h e s e words can be t r a n s l a t e d by t h e same E n g l i s h word
i n a l l i t s c o n t e x t s , a n d , i t would t h e r e f o r e be m i s l e a d i n g t o s a y b r i e f l y what
t h e y mean, Their meanings must be a l l o w e d t o emerge a s t h e i r u s e s a r e d i s c u s s e d .

B e f o r e w e b e g i n t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , s o m e t h i n g must be s a i d a b o u t t h e n a t u r e o f
t h e e v i d e n c e and t h e p l a n t o be a d o p t e d . The e a r l i e s t e v i d e n c e a t o u r d i s p o s a l
i s Homer. I n Homer t h e words w i t h which we a r e c o n c e r n e d a r e u s e d s o i n t e r e s t -
i n g l y t h a t w e cannot h e l p t r y i n g t o t r a c e t h e i r p r e - h i s t o r y ; y e t a l l such pre-
h i s t o r y i s h y p o t h e t i c a l , and t h e r e i s n o way o f c h e c k i n g o u r h y p o t h e s e s e x c e p t
by t h e t e s t o f c o n s i s t e n c y . Sometimes t h e , d e s i r e f o r t i d i n e s s h a s i n t h e p a s t
l e d t o an o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n o f Homer’s ‘ p s y c h o l o g y ’ , when a h y p o t h e t i c a l r o o t -
meaning o f a word h a s been assumed t o be i t s meaning i n Homer. We must remember
t h a t t h e Homeric poems a r e n o t p r i m i t i v e ; t h e y u s e a w e l l - d e v e l o p e d l a n g u a g e o f
g r e a t s u b t l e t y and r a n g e . Hence i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o o f f e r a s e r i e s o f ‘ b a s i c ’
meanings f o r t h e s e words, and t r a c e l a t e r developments from them. On t h e o t h e r
h a n d . a l l l a t e r a u t h o r s s t u d i e d and knew t h e l a n g u a g e o f Homer, and n o t h i n g
b e f o r e i t ; s o w e a r e f o r c e d t o r e g a r d t h e Homeric poems a s t h e b e g i n n i n g o f o u r
h i s t o r y . The p l a n t o be f o l l o w e d i s t h e r e f o r e imposed on us: w e m u s t a n a l y s e
t h e u s e s o f t h e s e words i n Homer, and f i n d o u t how and when l a t e r a u t h o r s
e x t e n d e d o r l i m i t e d t h e r a n g e o f t h e i r u s e . We must f i r s t d o t h i s f o r t h e a u t h o r s
who a r e n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e o r i s i n g a b o u t t h e s o u l , and t h e n see how t h e P h i l -
o s o p h e r s t o o k o v e r t h e s e words from t h e o r d i n a r y l a n g u a g e o f Greek l i t e r a t u r e
and framed t h e o r i e s o f t h e s o u l w i t h t h e i r a i d .
I t would be p o s s i b l e t o c a r r y o u t t h e f i r s t p a r t o f t h i s p l a n e i t h e r by
t a k i n g a u t h o r s i n t u r n and e x a m i n i n g t h e i r ‘ p s y c h o l o g y ’ a s a whole, o r by tak-
i n g words i n t u r n and e x a m i n i n g t h e i r u s e i n d i f f e r e n t a u t h o r s . I have found
that. t h e s e ‘ p s y c h o l o g i c a l ’ w o r d s a r e u s e d i n r o u g h l y f o u r k i n d s o f c o n t e x t
( t h o u g h i t i s p a r t o f my argument t h a t t h e b o u n d a r i e s between them a r e f l u i d )
and I p r e ‘ f e r t o d i v i d e t h e s u b j e c t a c c o r d i n g l y .

Descriptions o f t h i n g s h a p p e n i n g t o t h e body
The c o m p l e t e d e t a c h m e n t o f m e n t a l , e m o t i o n a l , i n t e l l e c t u a l o r s p i r i t u a l
a c t i v i t i e s from b o d i l y a c t i v i t i e s seems t o be t h e r e s u l t o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l o r
r e l i g i o u s s p e c u l a t i o n . T h e r e i s no s u c h r i g i d s e g r e g a t i o n i n t h e o r d i n a r y
l a n g u a g e o f t h e p o e t s : some o f t h e words w i t h which t h e y d e s c r i b e d m e n t a l
e v e n t s were a l s o u s e d i n d e s c r i p t i o n s o f b o d i l y e v e n t s . I t w i l l be c o n v e n i e n t
t o deal f i r s t with these ‘corporeal’ contexts.
The words ‘ k a r d i a ’ ( a n d ‘ k r a d i e ’ ) , ‘ k e r ’ and ‘ e t o r ’ r e f e r t o t h e h e a r t .
T h e r e i s n o d o u b t a b o u t t h i s , and a t a l l times silch o f t h e s e words a s a r e u s e d
a t a l l may be u s e d t o d e s c r i b e a n y t h i n g t h a t happens t o t h e o r g a n c a l l e d ‘ h e a r t ’ .
The l i m i t s o f t h e i r u s e i n t h i s way a r e s e t by t h e l i m i t s o f knowledge o f t h e
h e a r t ’ s function.
The word ‘ p h r e n ’ ( a n d ’ p h r e n e s ’ ) i n o u r e a r l i e s t t e x t s may r e f e r t o some
complex o f t i s s u e s i n t h e body, b u t i t i s n o t c l e a r how much o r how l i t t l e o f
t h e body i s i n c l u d e d i n i t s r e f e r e n c e . The problem i s t o o i n t r i c a t e t o be d i s -
c u s s e d f u l l y h e r e : t h e f a v o u r i t e c a n d i d a t e s a r e t h e diaphragm, b e c a u s e t h a t i s

2
u n q u e s t i o n a b l y what t h e p l u r a l ‘ p h r e n e s ’ means i n l a t e r medical w r i t i n g s , t h e
l u n g s , o r t h e whole c o l l e c t i o n o f o r g a n s s i t u a t e d r o u g h l y s p e a k i n g between t h e
i n t e s t i n e s and t h e c o l l a r - b o n e . I p r e f e r t h e t h i r d s u g g e s t i o n ( t h e whole c o l l -
e c t i o n ) , b u t w i t h o u t much c e r t a i n t y . For t h e p r e s e n t , i t w i l l s u f f i c e t o n o t i c e
t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s make l i t e r a l Sense i n Homer: ‘He s t r u c k him where
t h e p h r e n e s come round t h e h e a r t ’ ; and r e f e r r i n g t o t h e same wound, ‘ h e p u l l e d
h i s s p e a r o u t o f h i s f l e s h , and t h e p h r e n e s followed a f t e r it’ ; ‘ s t r i k i n g a t
t h e c h e s t , where t h e p h r e n e s h o l d t h e l i v e r , . These a r e a l l t o be u n d e r s t o o d
p h y s i c a Z Z y ; n o t h i n g h a s been s a i d h e r e a b o u t t h o u g h t s o r emotions, minds o r
souls.
P s y c h e , thymos and n o o s a r e sometimes s a i d i n t h e Homeric poems t o r e s i d e
i n t h e body, u s u a l l y i n t h e c h e s t , b u t t h e y a r e n o t p a r t s o f t h e body, made
o f t i s s u e s l i k e t h e h e a r t . The word ‘ p s y c h e ’ p r o b a b l y had some o r i g i n a l r e f -
e r e n c e t o b r e a t h , b u t i t i s n e v e r used i n a d e s c r i p t i o n o f a m a n b r e a t h i n g :
i t does n o t mean ‘ b r e a t h ’ . ‘Thymos’ may a l s o be a word connected w i t h
b r e a t h i n g , b u t i t t o o i s n e v e r used i n a d e s c r i p t i o n of a man b r e a t h i n g ; i t
i s never used i n d e s c r i p t i o n s of any purely corporeal event (except death,
i f d e a t h i s such an e v e n t ) . 4 There i s an i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e , t h e n , between
‘ k a r d i a ’ and ‘ p h r e n e s ’ on t h e one hand and ‘ t h y m o s ’ and ‘ p s y c h e ’ on t h e o t h e r :
t h e former p a i r may r e f e r t o o r g a n s o f t h e body w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o t h e
e m o t i o n a l , mental o r v i t a l a c t i v i t i e s which t h e y o f t e n imply, whereas t h e
l a t t e r p a i r , a l t h o u g h t h e y a r e u s u a l l y more l i k e c o n c r e t e t h a n a b s t r a c t nouns,
never r e f e r t o p u r e l y physical a c t i v i t i e s o r things.
‘ P s y c h e ’ and ‘ t h y m o s ’ a l s o d i f f e r from ‘ n o o s ’ i n an i m p o r t a n t way. I n
o r i g i n , ‘ n o o s ’ seems t o be an a b s t r a c t noun d e r i v e d from a v e r b , s o t h a t i t
b e l o n g s p r o p e r l y t o t h e type o f words l i k e ‘ u n d e r s t a n d i n g ’ , ‘ a p p r e c i a t i o n ’
o r ‘ t h i n k i n g ’ , and does n o t d e n o t e any p h y s i c a l e n t i t y . T h i s i s n o t t r u e o f
‘ p s y c h e ’ o r ‘ t h y m o s ’ . P s y c h e i s something s u b s t a n t i a l enough t o be t h e shade
o r g h o s t which s u r v i v e s a f t e r a man’s d e a t h , and t h y m o s , whether i t w a s
o r i g i n a l l y t h e e x c i t e d b r e a t h i n g i n emotion o r t h e s e e t h i n g t u r m o i l o f t h e
blood, i s s u b s t a n t i a l enough, i n t h e Homeric poems, t o ‘ g i v e o r d e r s ’ and t o
‘ t a l k ’ . ’ Of c o u r s e t h e s i t u a t i o n i s confused by t h e tendency o f t h e s e words
t o be a s s i m i l a t e d t o e a c h o t h e r . For example, ‘ i n t h e p h r e n ’ i s a l e g i t i m a t e
e x p r e s s i o n , because t h e p h r e n h a s a d e f i n i t e p h y s i c a l l o c a t i o n and e x t e n s i o n
i n s p a c e ; ‘ i n t h e thymos’ seems less l e g i t i m a t e , b u t i s i n e v i t a b l e by analogy
w i t h ‘ i n t h e p h r e n ’ because i n o t h e r r e s p e c t s t h e t w o words a r e used s i m i l a r l y .
And some c o n f u s i o n a l s o a r i s e s from t h e p o e t ’ s tendency t o p e r s o n i f y h i s con-
c e p t s f o r d r a m a t i c e f f e c t . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t w i l l p r o b a b l y be g r a n t e d t h a t i n
t h e Homeric poems n o o s h a s less c l a i m t o a p h y s i c a l o r m a t e r i a l e x i s t e n c e
t h a n p s y c h e and t h y m o s , and t h a t t h e s e i n t u r n a r e less s u b s t a n t i a l t h a n
k a r d i a and p h r e n .

The l a t e r development o f t h e s e words i n t h e i r ‘ c o r p o r e a l ’ c o n t e x t s i s

e a s i l y summarised. ‘ K r a d i e ’ and i t s v a r i a n t s , a s I have s a i d , were always
u s e d t o a p p l y t o t h e h e a r t . ‘ P h r e n e s ’ a c q u i r e d t h e common meaning o f ‘ d i a -
phragm’, and c o u l d always be u s e d i n t h i s s e n s e i n a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t e x t s with-
o u t d a n g e r o f ambiguity; i n t h e p o e t s t h e r e a r e r e m i n i s c e n c e s o f Homeric lang-
u a g e , where ‘ p h r e n e s ’ seems t o d e n o t e a l a r g e r p a r t o f t h e body t h a n t h e d i a -
phragm. P s y c h e , thymos and n o o s n e v e r had much c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e p a r t s o f
t h e body, and d i d n o t a c q u i r e any, e x c e p t a s t h e r e s u l t o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l spec-
u l a t i o n . They c o u l d always be s a i d t o r e s i d e i n t h e c h e s t , and v a r i o u s a c t i v i -
t i e s c o u l d be s a i d t o t a k e p l a c e ‘ i n ’ them, a s i f t h e y had s p a t i a l e x t e n s i o n ;
b u t such e x p r e s s i o n s a r e i n e v i t a b l e and need n o t be t a k e n s e r i o u s l y . Thymos
tended t o l o s e whatever c o n n e c t i o n w i t h b r e a t h o r blood i t may once have had;

3
 ‘ p s y c h e ’ c o u l c be u s e d i n v e r y many ways w i t h o u t e v e r s u g p e s t i n g t h e i d e a o f
b r e a t h , b u t i t s c o n n e c t i o n w i t h b r e a t h o r a i r was sometimes r e v i v e d by t h e p h i l -
o s o p h e r s f o r t h e i r own p u r p o s e s . The most n o t e w o r t h y t e n d e n c y o f t h e s e words i s
t o be a s s i m i l a t e d t o e a c h o t h e r : i f o r i g i n a l l y ‘ k a r d i a ’ and ‘ p h r - e n e s ’ , ‘ t h y m o s ‘
and ‘ p s y c h e ’ , and ‘ n o o s ’ b e l o n e e d t o t h r e e d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s , a s I have sue-
p e s t e d , t h e o r i g i n a l d i s t i n c t i o n s , which were a l r e a d y b l u r r e d i n Homer, s o o n
p r a c t i c a l l y disappeared.

I1 L i f e and D e a t h
I n d e s c r i p t i o n s o f w a r r i o r s dying?.,Homer u s e s t h e word ‘ p s y c h e ’ . The p s y c h e
may l e a v e the body by t h e mouth o r through. a wound; when i t h a s l e f t t h e Oodv
t h e man i s dead ( u n l e s s i t i s m e r e l y t h a t he h a s f a i n t e d ) . P s y c h e i s t h a t which
d i s t i n p i s h e s t h e l i v i n g man from t h e dead man, w i t h t h e i m p o r t a n t q u a l i f i c a t i o n
t h a t t o mention i t i s t o s u g g e s t d e a t h . ‘The p r i z e f o r t h e i r r a c e ’ , Homer
w r i t e s , 6 ‘was t h e p s y c h e o f H e c t o r ’ : t h a t i s t o s a y , i f H e c t o r l o s t , h e would
die.

H e s i o d u s e s ‘ p s y c h e ’ i n a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d way when he s a y s t h a t some

m e r c h a n t s a r e s o f o o l i s h and g r e e d y t h a t t h e y p u t t o s e a i n s p r i n p when t h e s e a
i s d a n g e r p u s , ‘ f o r money i s p s y c h e f o r p o o r m o r t a l s ; b u t drowning i s a h o r r i b l e
He means t o s a y t h a t money i s a m a t t e r o f l i f e and d e a t h , and t h a t i s
why m e r c h a n t s r i s b t h e i r l i v e s f o r i t . A r c h i l o c h u s d e s c r i b e s men’having t h e i r
p s y c h a t i n t h e embrace o f t h e waves,V8 meaning ‘ t h e y r i s b t h e i r l i v e s a t s e a ’ .
I n t h e tragedians o f t h e f i f t h c e n t u r y ‘psyche’ i s s t i l l used i n s i m i l a r
c o n t e x t s , b u t by t h i s t i m e , i f n o t e a r l i e r , t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n t h a t t h e t h o u g h t
o f d e a t h i s p r e s e n t i f p s y c h e i s mentioned h a s been dropped. To have p s y c h e i s
t o be a l i v e , and d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y imply d a n g e r . The a d j e c t i v e ‘ e m p s y c h o s ’
i s a normal word i n t h e f i f t h c e n t u r y meaning ‘ a l i v e ’ .
D e a t h i s d e s c r i b e d by Homer i n terms o f t h y m o s as w e l l a s p s y c h e . ‘ T h e
t h y m o s l e f t h i s bones’9 means ‘ h e d i e d ’ , and ‘ b r e a t h i n g o u t h i s t h y m o s J 1 0 a l s o
means ‘ d y i n g ’ . E u t t h e u s e o f ‘ t h y m o s ’ i n these c o n t e x t s grows r a r e r , S O f a r
a s I c a n j u d g e , and seems t o be c o n f i n e d t o a few s t r i k i n g examples. I n
A e s c h y l u s ’ Agamemnon, fo-r i n s t a n c e , C l y t e m n e s t r a d e s c r i b e s Agamemnon ‘ d r i v i n g
o u t h i s t h y m o s a s h e f e l l ’ . 11
O c c a s i o n a l l y i n Homer words f o r h e a r t a r e u s e d i n t h i s way:‘ f o r example
‘ a k e r r o s ’ sometimes means ‘ d e a d ’ , 1 2
I n t h i s s e c t i o n w e must a l s o c o n s i d e r t h e l a n g u a g e of l i f e a f t e r d e a t h . I n
t h e Homeric poems, p s y c h e i s what s u r v i v e s the d e a t h of a man. A s e v e r y o n e knows,
i t was a mere s h a d e ; when i t became i m p o r t a n t , however, t o f i n d l a n p u a g e t o
announce t h e s u r v i v a l o f s o m e t h i n g more s u b s t a n t i a l t h a n a s h a d e , ‘ p s y c h e ’ was
t h e o b v i o u s word t o choose. I t seems c e r t a i n t h a t P y t h a g o r a s u s e d i t i n t h i s
s e n s e , from t h e famous f r a g m e n t o f Xenophanes r e f e r r i n g t o him P y t h a g o r a s ,
who b e l i e v e d i n metempsychosis, saw a man b e a t i n g a puppy and t o l d him t o s t o
1 1P
!
‘ f o r i t i s t h e p s y c h e o f a f r i e n d which I r e c o g n i s e d when I h e a r d i t s v o i c e .
P i n d a r u s e s ‘ p s y c h e ’ s i m i l a r l y : ‘ 0 Megas, i t i s i m p o s s i b l e f o r m e t o b r i n g back
y o u r p s y c h e - what I can g i v e you, h e c o n t i n u e s i n e f f e c t , i s a m u s i c a l
memorial. l 4 T h i s h a s no P y t h a g o r e a n o v e r t o n e s : i t means s i m p l y I c a n n o t b r i n g
you back t o l i f e ’ . Elsewhere P i n d a r u s e s t h e word ‘ p s y c h e ’ i n p a s s a g e s describ-
15
i n g an O r p h i c o r P y t h a g o r e a n e s c h a t o l o g y .
Tie o t i e r words i n o u r l i s t have no u s e i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h l i f e a f t e r d e a t h ,
4
 except coincidentally.

I11 Emotions and Feelings

It would be f u t i l e t o attempt a survey of a l l the emotions. h e of them
must serve a s a p a t t e r n , t o be examined i n d e t a i l ; l a t e r , we can discuss
v a r i a t i o n s from t h e p a t t e r n and s i g n i f i c a n t f e a t u r e s which are apparently
c o m n t o a l l or most of the emotions.
Fear seems t o be the l e a s t complicated of the major emotions f o r our pre-
sent purposes. It may not be wholly t y p i c a l , but I do not think it will be
misleading t o adopt i t ds our pattern. As w e l l a s descriptions of f e a r we have
d i s c r i p t i o n s of fearlessness, and it is n a t u r a l t o t r e a t them together. More-
over, a s w e l l a s inclividual cases of f e a r or fearlessness we have enduring d i s -
positions t o be a f r a i d or f e a r l e s s ; and these d i s p o s i t i o n s ought t o be included
i n our survey, s i n c e , a s we should expect, they c a l l f o r t h similar l i n g u i s t i c
practices.
It i s a f a c t t h a t the h e a r t ‘beats f a s t e r when one is afraid: and i t i s pre-
sumably because of t h i s f a c t t h a t words f o r h e a r t f i g u r l a r g e l y i n descriptions
of f e a r and bravery. ‘My kradie leaps out of my chest ’ 18 and ‘ t h e kradie i n h i s
chest beats 10udly’~’ a r e both descriptions of a man a f r a i d . Descriptions of
what the heart does when one is a f r a i d , heightened by imaginative language, may
be s u b s t i t u t e d , i n p o e t i c language throughout our period, for a simple statement
t h a t someone is a f r a i d . From statements about t h e h e a r t ( i . e . statements i n
which the heart is the s u b j e c t ) t o the use of ‘ t h e heart’ i n other g r m a t i c a l
positions is an easy s t e p ; so a man may be s a i d t o f e a r ‘ i n h i s h e a r t ’ , when
the word f o r h e a r t may be dependent on a l o c a t i v e preposition or simply i n the
dative case.
Homer uses an adjective ‘ bold-hearted’ l8 which Pindar adapts f o r a descrip-
t i o n of Perseus on h i s way t o s l a y the Gorgm ‘breathing with bold heart’. 19
Mention of the heart i n p o e t i c descriptions of bravery is so c o m n t h a t we
need not labour the point, except t o n o t i c e t h e wide s y n t a c t i c a l range; the
Greek could say ‘yotir heart i s bold’ or ‘you have a bold heart’ or ‘be s t r o n g
i n heart’ or ( t o encourage himself) ‘ t a k e courage, my h e a r t ’ .
?he l a s t of these v a r i a t i o n s i s an i n t e r e s t i n g one. k d e a , i n Euripides’
play, encourages h e r s e l f by saying ‘Come arm yourself, m heart; why do we
6
h e s i t a t e t o do dreadful, e v i l deeds t h a t must be done?’:! She d i s s o c i a t e s
h e r s e l f from her h e a r t , and addresses i t i n solilaquy; and t h i s phenomenon
occurs, a s we s h a l l see, with others (but not a l l o t h e r s ) i n our list of words.
From the point of view of t h e t h e o r e t i c a l psychologist, t h i s i s obviously
important, because i t encourages the notion t h a t some of these e n t i t i e s a r e
distinguishable from t h e s e l f and therefore able t o resist the s e l f or even t o
e x e r t pressure on it. We s h a l l not understand t h i s detachment, however, i f we
merely list t h e e n t i t i e s which a r e detached from the s e l f i n t h i s way. It is
always the appropriate e n t i t y which is detached; k d e a wants courage, and
therefore addresses her heart.
I n t h i s example, i n which the h e a r t is viewed a s detached from the s e l f ,
it i s thought of a s an individual substance. A t the opposite extreme t o t h i s
kardia may be so l i t t l e an individual and so much a property t h a t a man may
be s a i d t o b f u l l of i t . ‘ F u l l of h e a r t ’ i s used by Archilochus t o mean ‘ f u l l
of courage’. 51

5
 Now w e must ask which o f t h e o t h e r words may a t v a r i o u s times be s u b s t i t u t e d
f o r ‘ k a r d i a ’ i n these expressions without changing t h e i r sense. I n Homeric
Greek, ‘thymos’ may be s u b s t i t u t e d i n n e a r l y a l l c a s e s , but not i n t h e i n t e r e s t -
i n g c a s e i n which the speaker addresses h i s own k r a d i e . A common Homeric formula
o f i n t r o d u c t i o n t o a s o l i l o q u y t a k e s t h e form ‘Troubied, he spoke t o h i s own
great-hea.rted thymos.22 ’Ihe words of the s o l i l o q u y are then given, but t h e
thymos i s never addressed i n t h e vocative: ‘ h e s a i d t o h i s thymos‘ is e q u i v a l e n t
t o ‘ h e s a i d t o h i m s e l f ’ . I n f a c t , there i s only one i n s t a n c e i n Homer o f an
address t o any o f t h e s e e n t i t i e s , and t h a t is t o t h e h e a r t . 2 3 S i n c e t h e thymos
1.s o f t e n detached from t h e s e l f s u f f i c i e n t l y t o speak t o a man and g i v e him
o r d e r s , t h i s i s odd; i t must be explained by t h e p o e t ’ s o v e r r i d i n g need t o use
‘thyraos’ i n t h e formula for d e l i b e r a t i v e s o l i l o q u y , which does n o t i n v o l v e t h e
detachment o f anything from t h e s e l f . Later, however, there a r e examples of
a d d r e s s e s t o t h e thymos. 24

I n o t h e r p o s i t i o n s , ‘thymos’ behaves very l i k e ‘ k a r d i a ’ The most s t r i k i n g

i n s t a n c e s a r e i n t h e I l i a d : ‘ h i s rhymes b t i n h i s b r e a s t S 2 ’ i s a d e s c r i p t i o n
of f e a r ; ‘ t h e thymos of each was h e i t i n g ’ ” i s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f good morale
and high s p i r i t s In T y r t z u s , ‘ w i t h thymos’ - t h e simple d a t i v e c a s e - means
‘ b o l d l y ’ ‘ courageousiy’ , 3.7 HerDcotus says ‘Take c c u r q e . . . . and have a good
t h y n o s ’. 2a

C o d d ‘ p s y c h e ’ be sl&tit.uted? YQC, i n flovei-. I t i s t y p i c a l of t h e develop-

ment of ‘ p s y c h e ’ t h a i i t comes t o r e p l s c e o t h e r words i n mare and more c o n t e x t s .
‘Ihe e a r l i e s t c e r t a i n exanple cf ‘ p s y c h e ’ ir: connection with f e a r and courage
seems t o be i n Pi:idar: ‘ S u r e l y i t will remind him i n whai b a t t l e s amid wars he
once h e l d h i s grounc witt: s t e a d f a s t c s y c h e . ~..‘2911ht t h i s use i s ’ a l r e a d y
foreshadowed by a phrase c.f Tyrtaeiis: ‘ s t a k i n g p s y c h e arid s t e a d f a s t thymos’ 30.
I n t h i s , p s y c h e i s t h e l i f e sou.1, but t.h.2 a2jectiv-e could w e l l apply t o ‘ p s y c h e ’
a s w e l l a s ‘thymos ’. Moreover, t h e e a r l y l > - r i cp o e t s extend t h e use o f ‘ p s y c h e ’
L O d e s c r i p t i o n s of o t h e r emctions and d i s p o s i t i o n s , as we s h a l l see.

Could ‘phren’ or ‘ p h r e n e s ’ be s u b s t i t u t e d 3 I n Homeric Greek, only i n a l i m i t e d

f i e l d o f c o n t e x t s . ‘The c h , a r i o t e e r was s t r i c k e n i n h i s ).i.enes, which he formerly
kept i n t a c t , . . . . and d i d not ciare t o t u r n h i s horses’ ;”ji i t seems h e r e t h a t
‘ t o be s t r i c k e n i n h.is phrenes’ i s n o t merely t o be a f r a i d b u t t o l o s e h i s wits
because of Sear. ‘NOWI am sore a f r a i d i n my p h r e n lest, you have been won over
by Thetis’ ;32 h e r e again i t i s n o t merely f e a r t h a t i s d e s c r i b e d , b u t t h e cause
o r c o n t e n t of t h e fear., which is 3 product of thinking.
Cnurage may be, a s i t were l o c a t e d i n t h e p h y e n o r p h r c n e s i n p h r a s e s l i k e
‘ b e bold i n your p h r e n e s ’ . 3 3 But so f a r a s 1 have n o t i c e d Homer does n o t d e s c r i b e
f e a r o r courage by s t a t i n g t h a t the ph:-en b e a t s , o r behaves i n such-and-such a
way, n o r does anyone address h i s p h r e n when t r y i n g t o summon up courage. ‘Ihe
usage i s more or less confined t o F r e p o s i t i o n a l p h r a s e s and oblique c a s e s roughly
e q u i v a l e n t t o a l o c a t i v e . S t a t i s t i c a l l y S U C ! ~ c o n t e x t s a r e a small p r o p o r t i o n
of t h e u s e s of ‘ p h r e n ’ , and. ’ p h r r n . is. less commonly used i n them than ‘ k r a d i e ’
and ‘ t h y m o s ’ . %is u s e of ‘phren’ Continues a f t e r Homer, but examples a r e few
and d u l l .
L a s t l y , may ‘noos ’ he. vsed i n similar c o n t e x t s ? The proper use of ‘noos’
and t h e verb ’ n o e i n ’ i n Fomer i s i n d e s c r i b i n g a man ‘ s e e i n g t h e p o i n t o f a
s i t u a t i o n ’ , ‘ s m i n g up th.e s i t u a t i o n ’ ‘ a p p r e c i a t i n g it’ ( i n something l i k e
t h e m i l i t a r y sense). If t h e xitu.ation i s grim. h i s a p p r e c i a t i o n may make him
a f r a i d , b u t t h i s i s a coincidence. From t h e a p p r e c i a t i o n of p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s ,
‘ n o o s ’ may be extender! t o d e s c r i b e an enduring manner of a p p r e c i a t i n g s i t u a t i o n s ;

6
and i t i s I n t h i s s e n s e t h a t Homer u s e s ‘noos’ i n t h e e x p r e s s i o n ‘you have a
f e P r l e s s noos’ , 3 4 which i s e q u i v a l e n t t o ‘you a r e a courageous man’. S i m i l a r l y
P i n d a r t a l k s o f P a t r o c l u s ’ ‘ f o r c e f u l noos’ , 3 5 “here are a f e w s i m i l a r examples,
and by analogy w i t h t h e o t h e r words ‘noos’ i s sometimes mentioned i n connection
w i t h o t h e r emotions; b u t t h i s i s n o t a l a r g e p a r t of t h e usage o f ‘ n o o s ’ .
T h i s completes my s u r v e y of d e s c r i p t i o n s o f f e a r and f e a r l e s s n e s s . Now I
want t o draw a t t e n t i o n t o c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s i n i t , and add some remarks a b o u t
o t h e r emotions and d i s p o s i t i o n s .
The f i r s t p o i n t concerns t h e i n t e r e s t i n g development o f ‘ k a r d i a ’ and ’ t h y m o s ’
which makes p o s s i b l e p h r a s e s l i k e ‘ f u l l o f k a r d i a ’ (‘courageous’ ) and ‘ w i t h
thymes' ( ‘ c o u r a g e o u s l y ’ ) . I t i s e a s y t o see how t h i s development t a k e s p l a c e 3 6
- t h e r e a r e p a r a l l e l s i n many languages. The development i s c o n f i n e d t o a
s t r i c t l y l i m i t e d f i e l d of c o n t e x t s . ‘ K a r d i a ’ may sometimes be t r a n s l . a t e d
‘courage’ , b u t never ’ f e a r ’ , ‘ j o y ’ , ‘ d e s i r e ’ , ‘ l o v e ’ or ‘ h a t e ’ , though a l l t h e s e
emotions a r e a s commonly r e f e r r e d t o t h e h e a r t a s courage i s . ‘Thymos’ i s some-
times e q u i v a l e n t t o ‘courage’ or ‘ c o n f i d e n c e ’ ; b u t courage i s n o t t h e o n l y
p r o p e r t y i t denotes, I n l a t e r G r e e k i t came t o mean ‘ a n g e r ’ , and t h i s meaning
o u s t e a n e a r l y a l l t h e o t h e r s . I n e a r l i e r . times i t f i g u r e s l a r g e l y i n d e s c r i p -
t i o n s of d e s i r e . Homer has a number o f ways o f sa i n g ‘ h e d e s i r e s ... I: ‘it is
d e a r t o h i s thyrnos’ ; 3 7 ‘ h i s thymos d e s i r e s . . , I ;3’ ‘ h e d e s i r e s i n ’ (or ‘ w i t h ’ )
.
‘ h i s thyrnos . . I ; 3 9 ‘ h i s thyrnos u r g e s him t o . . ( . I ; 40 ‘ h i s thymos i s t o . . . ’ or
. .
b e t t e r ‘ h e h a s thymos t o . , ’ 41 The l a s t quoted example shows ‘ t h y m o s ’ equiv-
alent to ‘desire’.
A second and more i m p o r t a n t p o i n t t h a t must be s t r e s s e d i s t h e g r a d u a l
e n t r a n c e of ‘ p s y c h e ’ i n t o d e s c r i p t i o n s of emotions, I n Homeric Greek t h e
p s y c h e i s n o t mentioned e x c e p t i n a c c o u n t s o f d e a t h or f a i n t i n g , b u t f i r s t t h e
l y r i c p o e t s and then t h e o t h e r w r i t e y s i n c r e a s i n g l y r e f e r t o i t a l l k i n d s o f
emotion - l o v e and h a t e , j o y and g r i e f , d e s i r e , a n g e r , and s o on - and t h e
eriouring c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t a r e m a n i f e s t e d i n t h e s e emotions. Hipponax s a y s
‘ I w i l l s u r r e n d e r my much-lamenting p s y c h e t o m i s e r y ’ ; 4 2 Anacreon s a y s t o h i s
beloved ‘you d o n ’ t r e a l i s e t h a t you h o l d t h e r e i n s o f my p s y c h e ’ ; 4 3 P i n d a r
s a y s ‘ t h e r e a r e men who have p s y c h a i su e r i o r t o wealth’ ;44 E u r i p i d e s d e s c r i b e s
H i p p o l y t u s a s ‘ h a v i n g a v i r g i n p s y c h e J 4 ‘ - one t h a t i s u n a f f e c t e d by s e x u a l
love.
The f u l l s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e new concept o f p s y c h e cannot be seen u n t i l w e
have d i s c u s s e d t h e language used t o d e s c r i b e i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t i e s , and w e
must now p a s s on t o t h a t . Before d o i n g s o , however, w e must n o t i c e t h a t o u r
d i v i s i o n o f emotion and i n t e l l e c t i s an a r t i f i c i a l one. Some cases f a l l c l e a r -
l y i n t o one o r t h e o t h e r c l a s s , and I have u s u a l l y chosen t h e s e c a s e s a s ex-
amples. Innumerable o t h e r s , however, f a l l in t h e border-country between t h e
two, and t h e r e i s no p r o f i t i n t r y i n g t o d e c i d e t o which c l a s s t h e y belong.
S u r p r i s e i s sometimes e x p r e s s e d t h a t Homer, for example, d i d n o t d i s t i n g u i s h
between emotion and t h o u g h t , and ‘ p h r e n ’ and ‘ t h y m o s ’ were b o t h connected w i t h
e i t h e r . But t h i s s u r p r i s e i s misplaced. P h i l o s o p h e r s , p s y c h o l o g i s t s , t h e o l o -
g i a n s and lawyers may sometimes wish t o make a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n , b u t f o r
o r d i n a r y purposes i t would be i n t o l e r a h l e i f w e always had t o d i s t i n g u i s h
between, s a y , f e a r and worried t h o u g h t , or between amazement and p u z z l e d
t h o u g h t , or between j o y and r a t i o n a l a n t i c i p a t i o n of h a p p i n e s s . The words w e
a r e d i s c u s s i n g were u s e f u l t o most Greek w r i t e r s , n o t because t h e y had pre-
c i s e meanings, b u t because t h e y were vague.

7
I V T h o u g h t s , Deli be r a ti o n s , I n s i g h t s I n t e n t i o n s
I n d i s c u s s i n g m e n t a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t i e s I t h i n k i t w i l l be u s e f u l
t o b e g i n by making a d i s t i n c t i o n between two k i n d s o f t h i n k i n g : f i r s t , t h e
momentary i n s i g h t , t h e f l a s h o f ‘ v i s i o n ’ , t h e e x p e r i e n c e t h a t makes u s s a y ‘ I
s e e ’ ; and s e c o n d , a l l k i n d s o f p r o l o n g e d d e l i b e r a t i o n , c a l c u l a t i o n o r ponder-
ing.
I n o u r e a r l i e s t t e x t s t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s q u i t e w e l l marked. The word
‘ n o o s ’ i n Homer n e a r l y a l w a y s r e f e r s , d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , t o momentary
i n s i g h t s ; a t l e a s t i t n e v e r h a s a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h p r o l o n g e d c o g i t a t i o n ,
e x c e p t i n d e s c r i b i n g t h e r e s u l t o f i L . The v e r b ‘ n o e t n ’ , which i s d e r i v e d
from i t , g e n e r a l l y means ‘ t o r e a l i s e t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f a s i t u a t i o n ’ ; t h e
noun ‘ n o o s ’ o f t e n r e f e r s t o t h e a c t o f d o i n g so. S i n c e r e a l i s i n g what a s i t -
u a t i o n means f o r one i s o f t e n f o l l o w e d by making p l a n s t o meet i t , ‘ n o o s ’
and ‘ n o e i n ’ o f t e n have t o do w i t h p l a n n i n g ; ‘noos’ sometimes s h i f t s i t s mean-
i n g from ‘ t h a t which p l a n s ’ t o ‘ t h a t which i s p l a n n e d ’ - i . e , t h e p l a n .

The p r i m a r y meaning o f ‘ n o o s ’ may be summed up i n P r o f e s s o r S n e l l ’ s words:

‘ I t i s t h e mind a s a r e c i p i e n t o f c l e a r images . . . . t h e m e n t a l e y e which
e x e r c i s e s an u n c l o u d e d v i s i o n . 1 4 6 And s o i t i s u s e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h imagi-
n a t i o n i n t h e p r o p e r s e n s e : i t i s u s e d o f t h e mind o f a m u c h - t r a v e l l e d man
who i m a g i n e s h i m s e l f back i n some o f t h e p l a c e s he has v i s i t e d , 4 7 and o f t h e
mind o f t h e p o e t i m a g i n i n g h i m s e l f i n s i t u a t i o n s i n which he r e a l l y t o o k n o
p a r t . 48
P r o l o n g e d t h o u g h t , however, i s u s u a l l y s a i d by Homer t o t a k e p l a c e i n t h e
p h r e n o r t h e t h y m o s , o r i n b o t h : t h e p h r a s e ‘ i n h i s p h r e n and thymos’ i s o f t e n
u s e d w i t h v e r b s d e n o t i n g d e l i b e r a t i o n o r p o n d e r i n g . This c o u p l i n g o f t h e two
t e r m s s h o ws t h a t t h e y a r e v i r t u a l l y synonymous; t h e r e i s one p o i n t o f d i f f e r e n c e ,
however, which may be i m p r t a n t : a l t h o u g h d e l i b e r a t i o n s a r e o f t e n p r e s e n t e d by
Homer a s c o n v e r s a t i o n s between a man and h i s thyrnos, t h e y a r e n e v e r p r e s e n t e d
a s c o n v e r s a t i o n s between a man and h i s p h r e n . ‘ K r a d i e ’ i s sometimes m e n t i o n e d i n
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h p r o l o n g e d t h o u g h t , b u t a s w e s h o u l d e x p e c t Homer d o e s n o t allow
t h e psyche t o p l a y any p a r t i n i t .
C o m p l i c a t i o n s a r i s e when w e t u r n away from i n d i v i d u a l a c t s o f i n s i g h t and
i n d i v i d u a l d e l i b e r a t i o n s t o t h e d i s p o s i t i c n s , c a p a c i t i e s o r p r o p e n s i t i e s which
c o r r e s p o n d t o them. The a p p r e c i a t i o n o r summing up o f a type o f s i t u a t i o n , a s
I h a v e s a i d , i n c l u d e s t h e r e a c t i o n t o i t ; and s u c h a p p r e c i a t i o n s and r e a c t i o n s ,
i f r e p e a t e d i n s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s , c o n s t i t u t e a ‘way o f t h i n k i n g ’ o r ‘ a t t i t u d e ’ .
So Homer s a y s t h e P h a e a c i a n s h a v e ‘ a g o d - f e a r i n g n o o s ’ 4 9 - t h a t i s , a way o f
t h i n k i n g which i n c l u d e s r e s p e c t f o r t h e g o d s . When Oclysseus ‘ s a w t h e c i t i e s and
l e a r n t t h e n o o s o f many men’50 he l e a r n t what s o r t o f view t h e y t o o k o f t h i n g s
and how t h e y t e n d e d t o r e a c t t o them. I n t h e s e c o n t e x t s ‘mind’ i s o f t e n a n ade-
q u a t e t r a n s l a t i o n o f ‘ n o o s ’ ; and so it i s when t h e s u i t o r A n t i n o u s c o m p l a i n s
t h a t P e n e l o p e makes f a i r p r o m i s e s t o a l l h e r s u i t o r s , ‘ b u t h e r n o o s h a s o t h e r
d e s i g n s ’ . 5 1 Here, t h e n o o s i s s t i l l t h a t which sees t h e way o u t o f d i f f i c u l t
s i t u a t i o n s . I t seems o n l y a s h o r t s t e p from t h i s t o ‘ t h a t which w o r k s o u t
s o l u t i o n s o f d i f f i c u l t i e s ’ , b u t i n f a c t t h i s s t e p i s n o t t a k e n a t once. Antinous
g o e s on: ‘And h e r e i s a n o t h e r t r i c k t h a t s h e h a s worked o u t i n h e r p h r e n e s ... 52
- t h e p l a c e f o r working t h i n g s o u t s l o w l y i s i n t h e p h r e n e s , n o t i n t h e noos.
The c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h which t h e Homeric poems a v o i d u s i n g ‘ n o o s ’ i n c o n n e c t i o n
w i t h p o n d e r i n g shows t h e s t r e n g t h o f i t s ‘ i n s t a n t a n c o u s a p p r a i s a l ’ f i e l d o f
m e an i n g .
 Of c o u r s e , i t i s n o t always d e s i r a b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h between i n s i g h t and
d e l i b e r a t i o n . ‘ P h r e n ’ and ‘ p h r e n e s ’ a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y i m p r e c i s e i n meaning t o
be u s e d w i t h o u t r a i s i n g awkward q u e s t i o n s ; sometimes even t h e a c t i v i t y de-
n o t e d by t h e v e r b ‘ n o e t n ’ i s s a i d t o t a k e p l a c e i n t h e ‘ p h r e n e s ’ , SO t h a t t h e
p h r e n e s i n f a c t may embrace a l l k i n d s o f m e n t a l a c t i v i t y . J u s t a s ‘ k r a a i e ’
and ‘ t h y m o s ’ s h i f t t h e i r c a t e g o r y , a s w e s a w , 5 3 s o ‘ p h r e n e s ’ comes t o mean
‘ u n d e r s t a n d i n g ’ , ‘ w i t s ’ , e t c . I n t h i s s e n s e a man may l o s e h i s p h r e n e s
a l t o g e t h e r - be o u t o f h i s w i t s . T h i s i s a q u i t e d i f f e r e n t s e n s e o f ‘ p h r e n e s ’
from t h a t i n which t h e p h r e n e s c o u l d be p u l l e d o u t o f a man on a s p e a r - p o i n t .
Many o f t h e Homeric u s a g e s c o n t i n u e i n post-Homeric l i t e r a t u r e . ‘ P h r e n ’
and ‘ p h r e n e s ’ a r e f r e q u e n t l y mentioned i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h d e l i b e r a t i o n s : t h u s
the l y r i c poet Phocylides says ‘ d e l i b e r a t e a t n i g h t - a t n i g h t men have a
.
s h a r p e r phren’ 5 4 H e r o d o t u s s a y s ‘ i f t h e body i s sick o f a s e r i o u s d i s e a s e ,
the phrenes a r e not healthy either’. ‘Phren’ and ‘ p h r e n e s ’ commonly mean
‘ t h e capacity t o think c l e a r l y ’ , ‘ i n t e l l i g e n c e ’ , ‘understanding’. I n t h i s
f i e l d o f meaning 'thymes', which was common i n Homer, becomes much less common,
b u t ‘ p s y c h e ’ , which was n e v e r s o u s e d i n Homer, i s u s e d more and more o f t e n
T h i s development o f ‘ p s y c h e ’ must be examined i n a l i t t l e more d e t a i l . 5 6 I n
t h e e a r l y l y r i c p o e t s , P i n d a r , B a c c h y l i d e s and A e s c h y l u s , i t d o e s n o t a p p e a r
t o be u s e d i n t h e k i n d o f c.ontext w e a r e now c o n s i d e r i n g , i n s p i t e o f t h e
incre.ased r a n g e o f meaning i t soon acqui-red i n t h e e m o t i o n a l f i e l d . There
a r e examples i n S o p h o c l e s and E u r i p i d e s , however. A fragment o f S o p h o c l e s s a S :
‘ A k i n d l y psyche w i t h j u s t t h o u g h t s i s a b e t t e r i n v e n t o r t h a n any s o p h i s t ’ ; 5 7
and i n E u r i p i d e s ’ O r e s t e s , ‘ I know t h e r e i s an e l e m e n t of u n d e r s t a n d i n g i n
your p s y c h e ’ ; 5 8 and there a r e o t h e r i n s t a n c e s . H e r o d o t u s and T h u c y d i d e s seem
t o u s e ‘ p s y c h e ’ more commonly i n ‘ e m o t i o n a l ’ o r ‘ l i f e - a n d - d e a t h ’ mntexts,
and t h e r e few c a s e s where t h e word o b v i o u s l y h a s ‘ i n t e l l e c t u a l ’ c o n n o t a t i o n s ;
b u t t h e r e i s n o d o u b t a b o u t i t s meaning i n some o f t h e o r a t o r s . A s t r i k i n g
i n s t a n c e o c c u r s i n t h e p e r o r a t i o n o f a s p e e c h o f A n t i p h o n , i n which h e u r g e s
t h e j u r y t o ‘ t a k e away from t h e a c c u s e d t h e p s y c h e t h a t p l a n n e d t h e c r i m e ’ . 5 9
We may s a y , t h e n , t h a t ‘ p h r e n ’ and ‘ p s y c h e ’ a r e b o t h u s e d f a i r l y f r e e l y
i n t h e f i f t h c e n t u r y i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h d e l i b e r a t i o n s and w i t h e n d u r i n g
c a p a c i t i e s f o r t h o u g h t and u n d e r s t a n d i n g . T h i s f i e l d o f meaning i s t h c s p e c i a l i t y
o f ‘ p h r e n e s ’ , however, n o t o f ‘ p s y c h e ’ : t o be robbed o f ‘ p h r e n e s ’ i s t o be
s e n s e l e s s , b u t t o be robbed o f p s y c h e i s t o be k i l l e d . And t h e r e i s a l s o a
s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e - ‘ p h r e n e s ’ i s u s e d more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n ‘ p s y c h e ’ .
I t remains t o s a y s o m e t h i n g a b o u t t h e post--Homeric u s e o f ‘ n o o s ’ . The
comnion t r a n s l a t i o n o f ‘ n o o s ’ a s ‘mind’ 1f:ads t o t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t t h e
n o o s i s t o t h e Greek what t h e mind i s t o t h e E n g l i s h , and t h a t would i n c l u d e
t h e a b i l i t y t o r e a s o n , t o c a l c u l a t e and r e f l e c t , a s w e l l a s t h e a b i l i t y t o
‘ s e e ’ t h e meaning o f a s i t u a t i o n and t h e way o u t o f d i f f i c u l t i e s . I n f a c t ‘ n o o s ’
v e r y commonly means ‘way o f t h i n k i n g ’ - ‘mind’ a s i n t h e p h r a s e ‘ o f l i k e mind’
o r ‘ o f one mind’ - and s o e a s i l y comes t o mean ‘ r i g h t way o f t h i n k i n g ’ o r
‘wisdom’., Thus P i n d a r w r i t e s ‘ h e t e n d s h i s w e a l t h w i t h n o o s ’ . t h a t i s , he d o e s
it P i n d a r a l s o o f t e n u s e s t h e word i n a d v e r b i a l p h r a s e s - f o r example,
he s a y s t h a t t h e man who h a s a l l h i s a b i l i t i e s by l e a r n i n g i n s t e a d o f by
h e r e d i t y ‘ e s s a y s c o u n t l e s s forms o f prowess w i t h i n e f f e c t u a l noos’ . 6 1 I n t h e s e
p h r a s e s ‘ n o o s ’ w i t h an a d j e c t i v e i s s u b s t i t u t e d f o r an a d v e r b when t h e v e r b
f a l l s w i t h i n t h e f i e l d o f meaning o f ‘ n o o s ‘ , and t h e a p p r o p r i a t e E n g l i s h
t r a n s l a t i o n depends on t h e v e r b The word i s u s e d , a s w e s h o u l d e x p e c t , i n

9
 c o n t e x t s d e s c r i b i n g a momentary i n s i g h t , b u t i t i s u s e d much more o f t e n t o r e f e r
t o t h e a b i l i t y t o have such i n s i g h t . I t i s h e r e t h a t t h e word comes c l o s e s t t o
meaning ‘ i n t e l l e c t ’ ; a few examples w i l l show how n e a r i t comes. P i n d a r w r i t e s :
‘We a r e a l i t t l e l i k e t h e i m m o r t a l s , e i t h e r i n n o b l e ~ O O So r i n n a t u r e ’ ; 6 2 and
again , oung v i c t o r , ‘ h e c h e r i s h e s a n o o s and a tongue t h a t a r e beyond
h i s yeazsf’a‘’ I n b o t h s e n t e n c e s n o o s i s t h e f a c u l t y o f t h i n k i n g . S o p h o c l e s
w r i t e s : ‘ B u t when t h e n o o s i s m a s t e r o f i t s e l f , t h r e a t s a r e a l l p o n e ’ ; 0 4 h e
means t h a t a l t h o u g h v i o l e n t men i n a n g e r may make t h r e a t s , when t h e y r e f l e c t
s o b e r l y what i t would mean t o c a r r y o u t t h e i r t h r e a t s t h e y t h r e a t e n no more.
l l i o o s h e r e , t h e r e f o r e , i s t h a t which r e f l e c t s i f u n d i s t u r b e d by e m o t i o n . I n
t h e s e examples and many o t h e r s , i t seems t o be i m p l i e d t h a t t h e n o o s can r e a -
s o n , c a l c u l a t e and d e l i b e r a t e ; b u t I t h i n k i t r e m a i n s t r u e t o s a y t h a t i f a
w r i t e r w i s h e s t o d e s c r i b e p r o l o n g e d t h o u g h t , c a l c u l a t i o n o r d e l i b e r a t i o n , he
t h i n k s f i r s t o f ‘ p h r e n ’ and ‘ p h r e n e s ’ ; i f he w i s h e s t o d e s c r i b e momentary
i n s i g h t o r t h e f a c u l t y o f h a v i n g i t , he t e n d s t o t h i n k o f ‘ n o o s ’ .

V S o u l i n S c i e n c e and Philosophy
The p h i l o s o p h e r s o f M i l e t u s were more i n t e r e s t e d i n cosmology t h a n i n t h e
s t u d y o f Man, and there i s l i t t l e t o s a y a b o u t t h e i r views on t h e s o u l . T h e r e
i s one p o i n t , however, f o r which t h e e v i d e n c e i s scanty b u t f a i r l y c o n c l u s i v e .
I t Seems t h a t from t h e b e g i n n i n g an a t t e m p t was made t o c o r r e l a t e t h e s o u r c e
o f l i f e i n men and a n i m a l s - f o r which ‘ p s y c h e ’ was a l r e a d y t h e normal word -
w i t h s o m e t h i n g more g e n e r a l , a p r i n c i p l e which was a t work i n t h e cosmos a s
a whole. T h a l e s , a c c o r d i n g t o A r i s t o t l e , 6 5 a t t r i b u t e d p s y c h e t o t h e l o d e s t o n e
b e c a u s e o f i t s m a g n e t i c power; t h e r e f o r e A r i s t o t l e c o n c l u d e s t h a t he took
p s y c h e t o be ‘ s o m e t h i n g c a p a b l e o f movement’. A l s o i n A r i s t o t l e 6 6 i s t h e
s u g g e s t i o n t h a t T h a l e s b e l i e v e d p s y c h e t o be ‘mixed i n ’ w i t h t h e whole cosmos
and f o r t h a t r e a s o n t h o u g h t t h a t ‘ a l l t h i n g s a r e f u l l o f g o d s ’ . T h i s e v i d e n c e
g i v e s grounds f o r t h i n k i n g t h a t T h a l e s b e l i e v e d t h e w o r l d t o be a l i v e , p r o -
b a b l y b e c a u s e i t i s c h a r a c t e r i s e d by c o n t i n u o u s movement and movement i s what
d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h e l i v i n g from t h e d e a d ; and t h a t s i n c e i n G r e e k idiom. a s w e
h a v e s e e n , t h e p r i n c i p l e o f l i f e was p s y c h e , he a t t r i b u t e d p s y c h e t o t h e
cosmos. He p o i n t e d t o t h e l o d e s t o n e a s an example of s o m e t h i n g t h a t l o o k s a t
f i r s t s i g h t t o be ‘ d e a d m a t t e r ’ b u t i s a c t u a l l y a l i v e and i n p o s s e s s i o n o f
some s o r t o f p s y c h e .
Anaximenes seems t o have c o r r e l a t e d p s y c h e and h i s f i r s t p r i n c i p l e o f t h e
cosmos, a i r o r m i s t . This i s l i k e l y on a p r i o r i g r o u n d s : t h e f i r s t p r i n c i p l e
was p r o b a b l e chosen i n o r d e r t o a c c o u n t p l a u s i b l y f o r t h e movement o r l i f e o f
t h e cosmos, and ‘ p s y c h e ’ , t h e l i f e - p r i n c i p l e i n e a r l y l i t e r a t u r e , a l r e a d y had
some c o n n e c t i o n w i t h b r e a t h . 6 7 But t h e r e i s s t r o n g e v i d e n c e i n t h e s u r v i v i n g
r e p o r t s , t o o . A e t i o s q u o t e s Anaximenes a s f o l l o w s : 6 8 ‘ J u s t a s o u r p s y c h e ,
b e i n g a i r , h o l d s u s t o g e t h e r , s o t h e whole cosmos i s embraced by b r e a t h and
a i r . ’ This may n o t be a d i r e c t q u o t a t i o n , a s i t p u r p o r t s t o b e ; b u t w e may f a i r l y
s a f e l y a t t r i b u t e t o Anaximenes t h e n o t i o n s t h a t a i r i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e
l i f e o f t h e cosmos, and t h a t i n t h e g u i s e o f p s y c h e i t i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e
l i f e of animals.
The o r i g i n o f t h e n o t i o n o f an immortal s o u l i s p a r t i c u l a r l y h a r d t o t r a c e .
Of c o u r s e , t h e Homeric poems r e c o g n i s e d t h a t t h e p s y c h e o f a man s u r v i v e s h i s

10
d e a t h ; b u t t h i s i d e a seems t o l a c k t h e e t h i c a l and r e l i g i o u s c o n n o t a t i o n s which
a r e i n v o l v e d i n t h e l a t e r t h e o r i e s o f i m m o r t a l i t y . There i s a r e p o r t t h a t
T h a l e s was t h e f i r s t t o make t h e p s y c h e i m m o r t a l . 6 9 Even i f t h i s i s t r u e , i t
i s h a r d t o s a y what T h a l e s meant by i t : p r o b a b l y t h e b e s t guess7’ i s t h a t he
was d i s c u s s i n g what he l e a r n t on h i s v i s i t t o Egypt - t h a t men become g o d s
a f t e r t h e i r d e a t h . But t h i s i s t o o s p e c u l a t i v e a h y p o t h e s i s t o b u i l d o n .
About h a l f a c e n t u r y a f t e r T h a l e s , P y t h a g o r a s was c e r t a i n l y t e a c h i n g t h e
d o c t r i n e o f metempsychosis. No d i r e c t q u o t a t i o n s u r v i v e s , b u t Xenophanes
s t o r y a b o u t i t h a s a l r e a d y been m e n t i ~ n e d :P~y t~h a g o r a s r e c o g n i z e d , from t h e
sound o f i t s v o i c e , t h e p s y c h e o f a f r i e n d , now r e s i d i n g i n a dog. This
i m p l i e s t h a t t h e p s y c h e i s p e r s o n a l and can f e e l p a i n ( P y t h a p o r a s t e l l s t h e
man t o s t o p b e a t i n g t h e dog) and i s i n some s e n s e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e v o i c e .
I n t h e p o e t s o f t h i s p e r i o d w e found no e v i d e n c e t h a t a l l m e n t a l f u n c t i o n s
( i n c l u d i n g i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n s ) were r e f e r r e d t o t h e p s y c h e , b u t i t seems
from t h i s fragment o f Xenophanes t h a t f o r P y t h a g o r a s t h e p s y c h e m i g h t be
i n v o l v e d i n any o f t h e p e r s o n ’ s a c t i v i t i e s . The r e a s o n f o r t h i s i s e a s i l y
s e e n . The p o e t s were c h i e f l y i n t e r e s t e d i n d e s c r i b i n g t h e t h o u g h t s and emo-
t i o n s o f l i v i n g men; P y t h a g o r a s was i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e l i f e o f a p e r s o n a f t e r
d e a t h . By t r a d i t i o n a l idiom i t was t h e p s y c h e t h a t s u r v i v e d d e a t h ; SO t h e
p s y c h e , t o s a t i s f y P y t h a g o r e a n d o c t r i n e , must i n c l u d e a l l t h e f u n c t i o n s o f
p e r s o n a l i t y . The c o n c e p t o f p s y c h e t h u s had a new s t a r t . S p e a k i n g v 2 r y r o u g h l y
w e may s a y t h a t p r e v i o u s l y ‘ p s y c h e ’ had s!owly d e v e l o p e d by t h e i n c l u s i o n o f
more a c t i v i t i e s i n i t s s c o p e ; k u t now i t was assumed t h a t i t i n c l u d e d a l l t h e
a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i v i t i e s . The problem now was t o see what s o r t o f t h i n g p s y c h e
must be t o i n c l u d e t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s .
A l o n g s i d e t h i s problem was a n o t h e r - t h e problem o f knowledge. I t emerged,
s o f a r a s t h e f r a g m e n t s a l l o w u s t o j u d g e , soon a f t e r t h e t i m e o f P y t h a g o r a s ,
and i t was a p p a r e n t l y f i r s t r a i s e d t h r o u g h d o u b t s a b o u t t h e v a i i d i t y o f
sense-perception.
H e r a c l i t u s was w e l l aware t h a t t h e s e n s e s c o u l d be m i s l e a d i n g . The famous
p a r a b l e a b o u t Homer and t h e c h i l d r e n who were k i l l i n g l i c e 7 2 i s i n t e n d e d t o
show t h a t men d e r i v e from t h e i r s e n s e s i m p r e s s i o n s which a r e p u z z l i n g and
a p p a r e n t l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y , and t h i s i s b e c a u s e t h e y do n o t u n d e r s t a n d t h e
workings o f t h e t h i n g s t o which t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s r e f e r . I f t h e y can he
b r o u g h t t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e Logos, t h e s i n g l e formula which u n i f i e s a l l t h i n g s
and makes them c o n s i s t e n t , t h e n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s w i l l be i n t e l l i g i b l e and
h c l p f u l . ‘Bad w i t n e s s e s t o men a r e t h e e y e s and e a r s , i f t h e y have b a r b a r i a n
p s y c h a t ’ z T 3 t h i s i m p l i e s t h a t t h e e y e s a n d e a r s a r e a t l e a s t n o t s o bad i f
t h e y a r e u s e d by a c a p a b l e p s y c h e ( t h i s i s t h e e a r l i e s t s u r v i v i n g example o f
‘ p s y c h e ’ i n a p u r e l y i n t e l l e c t u a l c o n t e x t ) . I t i s q u i t e wrong t o t h i n k t h a t
H e r a c l i t u s e n t i r e l y r e j e c t e d t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e s e n s e s ; he saw t h a t i t had
v a l u e , p r o v i d e d i t w a s c o r r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d by t h e p s y c h e .
The u n d e r s t a n d i n g needed by t h e p s y c h e i s c a l l e d by H e r a c l i t u s e i t h e r
‘ n o o s ’ o r ‘ p h r o n e s r s ’ ( o r ‘ p h r o n e i n ’ ) . ‘NOOS’ can b e u n d e r s t o o d q u i t e w e l l
i n t h e s e n s e which w e have examined o f ‘ t h e a b i l i t y t o see t h e meaning o f
a s i t u a t i o n ’ . ‘ P h r o n e s i s ’ means s o m e t h i n g l i k e ‘knowledge r e l a t e d t o a c t i o n ’ . 7 4
How d o e s one a c q u i r e t h i s u n a e r s t a n d i n g ? ‘ A p p r e h e n s i o n o f t h e L o g o s , ’ s a y s
t h e l a t e s t and most c a r e f u l i n t e r p r e t e r o f H e r a c l i t u ~ , ~‘’i s no m y s t i c a l

11
 p r o c e s s b u t t h e r e s u l t of u s i n g e y e s , ears and common s e n s e . ’ Now i t i s c l e a r
t h a t i s i s n o t a m y s t i c a l process, i f t h a t i m p l i e s a p u r e l y p r i v a t e communion
between H e r a c l i t u s and t h e s o u r c e o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g ; he i n s i s t s t h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g
i s common t o a l l . I t i s p e r m i s s i b l e , however, t o d o u b t whether e y e s , e a r s a n d
common s e n s e have a n y t h i n g t o d o w i t h i t . The main f a c t i n t h e Logos a s H e r a c l i t u s
i n t e r p r e t e d i t was t h e m i t y o f o p p o s i t e s . ‘They d o n o t u n d e r s t a n d , ’ he s a y s o f
men who have n o t g r a s p e d t h e Logos, ‘how b e i n g a t v a r i a n c e i t a g r e e s w i t h i t s e
t h e r e i s a c o n n e c t i o n w o r k i n g i n b o t h d i r e c t i o n s , a s i n t h e bow and t h e l y r e . ’ +i :

This ‘ u n s e e n c o n n e c t i o n ’ 77 i s c e r t a i n l y n o t p r e s e n t e d d i r e c t l y t o t h e s e n s e s ,
and Some o f t h e more e x t r a v a g a n t s t a t e m e n t s o f i t d o n o t a p p e a r o b v i o u s t o common
s e n s e . T h i s i s , o f c o u r s e a t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y judgement; i t is p o s s i b l e t h a t
H e r a c l i t u s h i m s e l f t h o u g h t t h a t h i s Logos was a m a t t e r of common s e n s e . If t h i s
were s o , w e s h o u l d e x p e c t t h a t t o c o n v i n c e h i s r e a d e r s he would a p p e s l t o t h e i r
common s e n s e ; and t o some e x t e n t h e d o e s s o - t h e s i m i l e o f t h e bow and t h e l y r e ,
and t h e image o f t h e ‘ r o a d up’ which i s t h e same a s t h e ‘ r o a d down’,78 a r e two
common s e n s e e x a q p l e s o f a u n i t y of o p p o s i t e s . There seem t o be two o b j e c t i o n s t o
t h i s view, however. The f i r s t i s t h e o r a c u l a r and r i d d l i n g n a t u r e o f H e r a c l i t u s ’
~ t t e r a n c e s ,f o~ r~ which I can f i n d no c o n v i n c i n g e x p l a n a t i o n , i f he i n t e n d e d t o
show t h a t h i s c o n c l u s i o n s were m a t t e r s o f common s e n s e . The second d i f f i c u l t y i s
h i s theory of t h e s o u l .
There a r e many u n c e r t a i n t i e s here and t h i s i s n o t t h e p l a c e t o go i n t o d e t a i l s .
I t seems v e r y p r o b a h l e t h a t H e r a c l i t u s t h o u g h t t h e p s y c h e was made o f f i r e E 0 and
S O i d e n t i f i e d i t w i t h t h e r u l i n g p r i n c i p l e o f t h e cosmos. Two p o s s i b l e r e a s o n s f o r
t h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s u g g e s t t h e m s e l v e s . The f i r s t i s t h e one t h a t w e h a v e a l r e a d y
s u g g e s t e d i n t h e c a s e o f h a x i m e n e s : t h a t p s y c h e a s t h e p r i n c i p l e of l i f e i n human
b e i n g s and a n i m a l s i s t h e r e b y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e o f l i f e o r movement
i n t h e whole cosmos; t h e second i s t h a t i t p r o v i d e s a c o n t a c t between t h e i n d i v i d u a l
p s y c h e and t h e r u l i n g p r i n c i p l e o f t h e cosmos - a c o n t a c t which might w e l l e x p l a l n
t h e p s y c h e ’ s knowledge o f t h e p r i n c i p l e . ‘The d r y p s y c h e i s t h e wisest and t h e
best’ I t a k e t h i s t o imply t h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e Logos ( ‘ p h r 0 n e I . n ’ o r 'noes')
v a r i e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e dryness ( i . e . t h e f i e r y - n e s s ) o f t h e s o u l . D r y n e s s o f t h e
s o u l , a d m i t t e d l y , a c c o u n t s f o r a p e r s o n ’ s L L L e l t n e s s , f o r d e a t h , d r u n k e n n e s s and
( p r o b a b l y ) s l e e p a r e s a i d t o be m o i s t e n i n g s o f t h e but l i f e i s not the
only p r o p e r t y it accounts f o r .
If t h i s i s a c o r r e c t a c c o u n t ’ o f H e r a c l i t u s ’ i d e a s , h i s ‘ t h e o r y o f knowledge’,
i f t h a t i s n o t t o o g r a n d a name f o r i t , i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g e l e m e n t s . Knowledge
o f t h e Logos depends upon t h e k i n s h i p o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s o u l w i t h F i r e , t h e r u l i n g
p r i n c i p l e of t h e cosmos; a l l human s o u l s c a n become s u f f i c i e n t l y f i e r y t o under-
s t a n d , and i n d e e d t h e e t h i c a l aim f o r man i s p r e c i s e l y t o k e e p h i s s o u l d r y
enough t o g r a s r t h e Logos. Once t h e s o u l i s i n t h e r i g h t c o n d i t i o n , t h e e v i d e n c e
o f t h e s e n s e s can be c o r r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d ; one can a c t on t h e i r e v i d e n c e and form
j u d g e m e n t s on p a r t i c u l a r e x ~ e r i e n c e s .I~ am ~ n o t s u r e i f t h e whole o f t h i s t h e o r y
was c o n s c i o u s l y h e l d by H e r a c l i t u s ; s o m e ’ o f i t p e r h a p s l i e s i n t h e r e a l m o f
u n c o n s c i o u s p r e s u p p o s i t i o n . l3ut I t h i n k i t i s t h e b e s t h y p o t h e s i s f o r e x p l a i n -
i n g t h e r e l e v a n t fragments.; moreover I t h i n k i t i s c o n f i r m e d t o some e x t e n t by
an e x a m i n a t i o n o f r a t h e r s i m i l a r t h e o r i e s t h a t were h e l d by P a r m e n i d e s and
Empedocles.
The e x t a n t r e m a i n s o f Parmenides’ poem do n o t c o n t a i n t h e word ‘ p s y c h e ’ ; t h e
c o n c e p t s which a p p a r e n t l y i n t e r e s t e d him more were ‘noos’ ( w i t h a number o f i t s

12
d e r i v a t i v e s ) and ‘ p h r o n e i n ’ . ‘NOOS’ i s used by Parmenides i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h
t h e i n t e l l i g e n c e which marks t h e man who h a s h e a r d and understood h i s p h i l o -
sophy: ‘ M o l d with o u r noes,' he s a y s , ‘ t h i n g s t h a t a r e s u r e l y p r e s e n t t o
i t , though f a r o f f ’ .14 And t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l i n s t a n c e s o f t h e v e r b ‘ n o e i n ’
and i t s d e r i v a t i v e s i n c o n t e x t s d e s c r i b i n g t h e f a c u l t y o f s e e i n g t h e t r u t h
a s Parmenides sees i t . ‘ P h r o n e i n ’ as w e l l a s 'noes' i s used i n a v e r y
i n t e r e s t i n g and p u z z l i n g ‘For men’s n o o s comes t o them a t each
time i n accordance w i t h t h e m i x t u r e of t h e much-wandering frame. For t o a l l
men and t o each t h e n a t u r e o f t h e frame i s t h e same a s what i t t h i n k s
( p h r o n e i n ) : for what p r e p o n d e r a t e s i s t h e thought ( n o e m u ) . ’ I f w e c o r r e l a t e
t h i s fragment w i t h o t h e r s 8 6 which proclaim t h a t o n l y what i s can be thought
( n o e i n ) , w e seem t o be d r i v e n t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t thought &out Being i s
i t s e l f i n some way dependent on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f ‘ t h e much-wandering
frame’. Yet t h e metaphysical schism between t h e world of Being and t h e world
o f Seeming or Becoming i s a p p a r e n t l y complete i n Parmenides’ philosophy.
T h i s fragment t h e r e f o r e p r e s e n t s a c r u x i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Parmenides:
e i t h e r , i t seems, i t h a s n o t h i n g t o do w i t h knowledge o f Being, o r t h e
d i v i s i o n between Being and Becoming i s n o t s o complete a s i s u s u a l l y thought.
I n my view o n l y one a n s w e r i s p o s s i b l e . 8 7 The v e r y e x i s t e n c e o f t h e
p h i l o s o p h e r n e c e s s i t a t e s some l i n k between Being and Becoming: t h e r e i s
Being on t h e one hand and t h e p h i l o s o p h e r ’ s mind on t h e o t h e r , and t h e whole
of Parmenides’ Way o f T r u t h i s a proclamation of c o n t a c t between t h e two.
Theophrastus, who q u o t e s t h i s fragment i n h i s De S e n s u , 8 8 goes on t o t e l l
u s t h a t Parmenides s a y s : ‘ a c o r p s e does n o t p e r c e i v e l i g h t and h e a t and
sound, because of i t s l a c k of f i r e , b u t p e r c e i v e s c o l d and s i l e n c e and t h e
o p p o s i t e s ( o f what can be p e r c e i v e d by t h e a i d of f i r e ) . ’ Theophrastus
speaks h e r e of p e r c e p t i o n ; b u t Parmenides speaks of ‘ n o o s ’ . We can i n f e r ,
then, t h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g depends on t h e p r e s e n c e o f what Theophrastus
c a l l s f i r e . The name ‘ f i r e ’ i s p r o b a b l y an o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of what
Parmenides meant. The b e g i n n i n g o f t h e Way of Seeming blames t h e whole o f
men’s misunderstanding on t h e i r mistaken assumption t h a t t h e r e e x i s t t w o
‘forms’ : on t h e one hand ‘ t h e e t h e r i a l f i r e of flame, s o f t , v e r y l i g h t ,
everywhere i d e n t i c a l , b u t d i f f e r e n t from t h e o t h e r form: and t h a t o t h e r
69
independent o f i t , q u i t e o p p o s i t e , u n l i t N i g h t , a dense and s o l i d form.
I t i s c l e a r from t h i s t h a t t h e o p p o s i t e of f i r e i s n o t what i s c o l d b u t
what is d a r k , and t h a t t h e r e f o r e Parmenides used f i r e t o r e p r e s e n t what
is light.
The prologue t o Parmenides’ poem d e s c r i b e s how t h e p o e t was conducted
by goddesses through ‘ t h e g a t e of Night and Day’. The goddesses a r e
d a u g h t e r s o f t h e Sun, and t h e y ‘ l e a v e t h e house o f Night’ and go i n t o
t h e l i g h t . The r e v e l a t i o n which comes t o t h e p o e t a t t h e end of h i s
j o u r n e y i n c l u d e s t h e whole of h i s p h i l o s o p h y - t h e Way o f T r u t h and t h e
Way of Seeming. I n t h i s a l l e g o r i c a l way t h e p o e t c o n n e c t s h i s v i s i o n w i t h
L i g h t , and t h e ignorance o f o t h e r men w i t h Darkness.
There i s o f c o u r s e a g r e a t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e a l l e g o r i c a l p r o l o g u e
and t h e l i t e r a l t h e o r y of n o o s which we have found i n t h e Way of Seeming;
and any a t t e m p t t o b i d g e t h e gap between t h e two must remain e x t r e m e l y
vague. N e v e r t h e l e s s w e can s a y t h a t he a p p a r e n t l y connected n o o s w i t h a
p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f l i g h t forms i n ‘ t h e much-wandering frame’ , and t h a t t h i s

13
 l i g h t i s n o t w h o l l y an i l l u s i o n o f t h e world o f Seeming b u t b e a r s some r e l a t i o n
t o t h e world o f T r u t h .

Can we c o n n e c t t h e p h y s i o l o g i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f nOOS any more a c c u r a t e l y

with the a l l e g o r i c a l J o u r n e y o f t h e p r o l o g u e ? P a r m e n i d e s says: ‘Men’s noes
comes to them at e a c h t i m e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e m i x t u r e o f t h e much-wander-
ing frame’ * 9 0 S O t h e t h e o r y seems t o be d e s i g n e d t o a c c o u n t f o r p r e s e n t
t h o u g h t s , TJther t h a n f o r t h e o r i g i n o f knowledge i n t h e p h i l o s o p h e r ’ s mind.
How, t h e n , d o e s P a r m e n i d e s a c c o u n t f o r t h e o r i g i n o f h i s knowledge? He p r o v e s
h i s t h e o r y by r a t i o n a l argument, b u t a t t h e same time s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e whole
o f h i s p h i l o s o p h y came t o him a s a r e v e l a t i o n . If t h e p r o l o g u e i s n o t a mere
l i t e r a r y d e v i c e , i t seems l i k e l y t h a t t h e n o t i o n o f a t h e o r y e x c o g i t a t e d
s o l e l y by t h e p h i l o s o p h e r from h i s own l o g i c a l and e m p i r i c a l r e s o u r c e s must
have been u n c o n v i n c i n g b o t h t o P a r m e n i d e s and t o h i s a u d i e n c e . Something more
c o n c r e t e was needed - some e x t e r n a l a u t h o r i t y . P e r h a p s t h e r e v e l a t i o n i s
i n t e n d e d t o e x p l a i n t h e o r i g i n o f h i s wisdom, and t h e p h y s i o l o g i c a l t h e o r y o f
n o o s t o e x p l a i n i t s a c c u r a t e a p p l i c a t i o n t o p a s s i n g s i t u a t i o n s . Such a combin-
a t i o n would be a l i k e l y r e s u l t o f a ‘ p h y s i o l o g i s t ’ s r e f l e c t i o n s on P y t h a g o r e a n
t h e o r i e s o f i m m o r t a l i t y ; ’ b u t t h i s i s v e r y u n c e r t a i n ground. 9 1

Some o f t h e s e i d e a s recur i n Empedocles, whose t h e o r i e s a b o u t t h e s o u l have

a l w a y s been found p u z z l i n g . T h e r e i s n o v e r y c l e a r e v i d e n c e on Parmenides’
views on i m m o r t a l i t y ; Empedocles c e r t a i n l y b e l i e v e d i n t h e Orphic-Pythagorean
e s c h a t o l o g y , and y e t o f f e r e d a m a t e r i c l i s t i c a c c o u n t o f t h i n k i n g .
I t i s s t r a n g e t h a t Empedocles d o e s n o t u s e t h e word ‘ p s y c h e ’ , e x c e p t i n
t h e c o m p a r a t i v e l y u n i n t e r e s t i n g s e n s e o f ‘ l i f e ’ . 9 2 The s o u l which s u r v i v e s t h e
d e a t h of t h e body i s c a l l e d ‘ d a ~ m o n ’ ,n o~ t~ ‘ p s y c h e ’ . The r e s t of Empedocles’
v o c a b u l a r y i s u n i n f o r m a t i v e : f o r t h e most p a r t h e u s e s Homeric words i n f a m i l i a r
ways.

S e v e r a l f r a g m e n t s p r o v e t h a t Empedocles b e l i e v e d i n t h e t r a n s m i g r a t i o n o f
s o u l s , i n judgment and reward o r punishment a f t e r d e a t h f o r s i n s committed
on e a r t h , and t h e r e f o r e i n p e r s o n a l i m m o r t a l i t y , o r a t l e a s t i n p e r s o n a l s u r -
v i v a l . ‘ F o r I have been b e f o r e now a boy and a g i r l , a bush and a b i r d and
a dumb f i s h i n t h e s e a ’ . 9 4 Has t h i s t h e o r y a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e p h i l o s o p h e r ’ s
knowledge? Is he supposed t o r e c a l l i n t h i s l i f e what he h a s l e a r n t a s a d i s -
embodied (or re-embodied) s p i r i t ? I t i s t e m p t i n g t o t h i n k t h a t a t l e a s t h e
c l a i m s some a u t h o r i t y when he s p e a k s o f t h e w a n d e r i n g s o f h i s ‘One o f
t h e s e ( d a L m o n e s ) I now am, an e x i l e and a wanderer from t h e gods’. But he
u s e s such l a n g u a g e o n l y i n t h e poem c a l l e d ‘ P u r i f i c a t i o n s ’ , s o f a r a s w e can
j u d g e , and a n y a u t h o r i t y he c l a i m e d h e r e would p e r h a p s n o t e x t e n d t o h i s work
on n a t u r a l p h i l o s o p h y .
Empedocles’ t h e o r y of ~ e n s e - p e r c e p t i o n ~ depends on t h e p r i n c i p l e o f L i k e
p e r c e i v i n g L i k e ; w e see e a c h of t h e e l e m e n t s i n t h e make-up o f t h e v i s i b l e
o b j e c t by means o f a p o r t i o n o f t h e s e same e l e m e n t s somewhere i n t h e sense-Organ
B u t n o t a l l of Empedocles’ e l e m e n t s a r e p e r c e p t i b l e t o t h e s e n s e s : E a r t h , A i r ,
F i r e and Water may be p e r c e i v e d b u t i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e t h e r e a r e Strife9 6
*
‘ e q u a l i n weight’ e v e r y w h e r e ’ , 9’ and Love, ‘ e q u a l i n l e n g t h and
Where t h e S e n s e s can p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n Empedocles i n s i s t s t h a t they must be
O f the
used to t h e maximum: ‘Do n o t w i t h h o l d your t r u s t from any o f t h e
body t h r o u g h which t h e r e i s a way t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g ( n o e i n ) , b u t understand each

14
thing i n t h e way i n which i t i s c l e a r ’ . 9 9 But Love i s n o t v i s i b l e to t h e eyes:
‘see h e r w i t h your n o o s , and do n o t s i t with dazed e y e s ’ . l o o Thus ‘ n o e i n ’ and
t n o o s t r e f e r t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g which comes from s e n s e - p e r c e p t i o n and a l s o t o a
k i n d o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g which is independent o f s e n s e - p e r c e p t i o n ,
The p r i n c i p l e o f Like-to-Like i s extended by Empedocles from sense-percep-
t i o n t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g . ‘For i t i s w i t h e a r t h t h a t we see e a r t h and we s e e
w a t e r w i t h w a t e r ; w i t h a i r we see b r i g h t a i r , and w i t h f i r e destructive f i r e .
We s e e Love w i t h Love, and g r i e v o u s S t r i f e w i t h S t r i f e ’ . ’ ’ ’ The ‘ s e e i n g ’ o f
Love and S t r i f e i s o f c o u r s e m e t a p h o r i c a l ; t h e y cannot be s e e n w i t h e y e s . So
a man’s u n d e r s t a n d i n g - what he g r a s p s o r ‘ s e e s ’ a t any p a r t i c u l a r moment -
depends upon a m i x t u r e o f t h e s i x e l e m e n t s i n h i s body. Empedocles i d e n t i f i e d
t h e p l a c e o f t h i s m i x t u r e a s n e a r t h e h e a r t , ‘which l i v e s i n t h e s e a o f blood
t h a t r u n s i n o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n s , where c h i e f l y i s what men c a l l t h o u e h t
( n o e m u ) ; f o r t h e blood round t h e h e a r t i s t h e thought o f men’. l o 2

So Empedocles’ p o s i t i o n i s n o t u n l i k e Parmenides’, i n s p i t e o f t h e i r
d i f f e r e n c e s . Parmenides might have claimed f o r h i s t h e o r y t h e a u t h o r i t y o f
l o g i c a l cogency; i n s t e a d - o r r a t h e r , a s w e l l - he spoke o f a r e v e l a t i o n
Empedocles might have claimed t h a t h i s t h e o r y was a p l a u s i b l e i n f e r e n c e irom
s e n s e - p e r c e p t i o n ; and p e r h a p s t h a t z s how he t h o u g h t o f i t , b u t i t i s p o s s i b l e
t h a t he claimed f u r t h e r a u t h o r i t y from t h e e x p e r i e n c e s h i s s o u l had undergone
i n detachment from h i s body. Both Parmenides and Empedocles accounted f o r
c e r t a i n t y i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g and i n t e r p r e t i n g p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n s by p o s i t i n g a
c l o s e r e l a t i o n between t h e composition o f t h e n o o s and t h a t o f i t s e n v i r o n -
ment.
The c o n t r i b u t i o n o f Anaxagoras t o t h e concept o f s o u l i s h a r d t o assess
because o f h i s cosmological d o c t r i n e t h a t N o u s i s t h e e n t i t y which caused
t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e cosmos. He s a i d much about n o u s , b u t one cannot be s u r e
how much o f what he s a i d i s i n t e n d e d t o be a p p l i e d t o a man’s n o u s a s w e l l a s
t o t h e cosmic n o u s . Parmenides made t h e n o o s depend on t h e composition o f t h e
body, and Empedocles on t h e p r o p o r t i o n s o f e l e m e n t s i n t h e blood; a g a i n s t
them Anaxagoras i n s i s t e d t h a t n o u s i s n o t a m i x t u r e - it i s i n f a c t the only
p u r e s u b s t a n c e i n t h e c o s m o s . l o 3 I t i s ‘ t h e f i n e s t of a l l t h i n g s and t h e
p u r e s t , i t h a s a l l knowledge o f a l l t h i n g s and h a s t h e g r e a t e s t s t r e n g t h ;
and whatever h a s p s y c h e , both g r e a t e r and l e s s e r t h i n g s , o f a l l i s n o u s t h e
r u l e r ’ . l o * Anaxagoras wished, a p p a r e n t l y , t o make n o u s a s l i t t l e material.
a s p o s s i b l e and s o c a l l e d i t ‘ t h e f i n e s t ’ o r ‘ t h i n n e s t ’ o f a l l t h i n g s , b u t
he c o u l d n o t a l t o g e t h e r a v o i d making i t m a t e r i a l . The l a s t s e n t e n c e quoted
p r o b a b l y means t h a t l i v i n g t h i n g s a r e c o n t r o l l e d by n o u s : t h a t i s , t h e i r
n o u s c o n c e i v e s and d i r e c t s t h e a c t i o n s which t h e y perform. L i v i n g t h i n g s
a r e quoted a s t h e obvious example of t h e c o n t r o l l i n g power of n o u s , from
which t h e c o n t r o l l i n g power o f t h e cosmic n o u s i s i n f e r r e d , o r a t any r a t e
more e a s i l y u n d e r s t o o d . I t i s u n c l e a r from t h e fragments what f o l l o w s i n
Anaxaqoras’ view from t h e fact. t h a t t h e n o u s i n t h e s o u l i s i d e n t i c a l i n
m a t e r i a l w i t h t h e cosmic n o u s .
The u n i t y of t h e human p s y c h e and t h e cosmos a s a whole i s s t r i k i n g l y ,
i f n a i v e l y , m a i n t a i n e d by Anaxagoras’ contemporary, Diogenes o f A p o l l o n i a .
He b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e s o u r c e o f l i f e , i n a n i m a l s and i n t h e cosmos, was a i r ;
s o f a r i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t he made no advance on t h e t h e o r y o f Anaximenes,
b u t he went much f u r t h e r when he argued t h a t t h i s common source must be

15
endowed w i t h t h o u g h t and i n t e l l i g e n c e ( n o e s i s ) t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e o r d e r l i n e s s o f
t h e cosmos. l o ’ T h i s s i m p l e t h e o r y s t a r t s , p e r h a p s , from t h e o b v i o u s c o r r e l a t i o n
o f l i f e w i t h b r e a t h i n g ; t h e n s i n c e p s y c h e , t h e s o u r c e o f l i f e , i s a l s o i n Greek
idiom by t h i s t i m e c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h o u g h t and i n t e l l i g e n c e , b r e a t h i n g i s
c o r r e l a t e d w i t h i n t e l l i g e n c e . T h i s l a t t e r s t e p i s r e i n f r r c e d by a n a t u r a l con-
n e c t i o n between l i f e and s e n s a t i o n , and s e n s a t i o n and t h o u g h t . Thus t h e teleo-
l o g i c a l t h e o r y i s a p p r o a c h e d from two d i r e c t i o n s a t once - n o t o n l y from t h e
o r d e r l i n e s s o f t h e cosmos b u t a l s o from t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e w o r l d - s t u f f with
the i n t e l l i g e n t psyche.
The d o c t r i n e t h a t a i r i s t h e c a u s e o f t h o u g h t and knowledge a p p e i l e d p a r -
t i c u l a r l y t o one o f t h e medical w r i t e r s , t h e a u t h o r o f t h e S a c r e d D i s e a s e . He
a d a p t s t h i s i d e a t o a n o t h e r which came from a d i f f e r e n t s o u r c e - t h e i d e a t h a t
t h e c e n t r e o f t h o u g h t i s t h e b r a i n : l o 6 ‘So I t h i n k t h a t t h e b r a i n h a s v e r y g r e a t
power i n a man. I t i s t h i s t h a t i s t h e i n t e r p r e t e r o f t h e t h i n g s t h a t come from
t h e a i r , i f i t i s i n a h e a l t h y s t a t e : wisdom ( p h r o n e s i s ) i s p r o v i d e d by t h e
a i r . . . . When t h e man draws b r e a t h i n t o h i m s e l f , i t g o e s f i r s t t o t h e b r a i n and
t h e n t h e a i r i s d i s p e r s e d t o t h e r e s t o f t h e body, l e a v i n g i n t h e b r a i n i t s b e s t
p a r t and w h a t e v e r t h e r e i s o f wisdom and j u d g e m e n t ’ . 1 0 7

The f o r m a t i o n , t w a r d s t h e end o f t h e f i f t h c e n t u r y o f t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e
s o u l i s made o f a i r may p e r h a p s mark a s u i t a b l e p o i n t t o end t h i s s u r v e y - n o t
b e c a u s e i t i s t h e b e s t achievement o f i t s k i n d , b u t b e c a u s e i t i s i n many ways
t y p i c a l . ‘ P s y c h e ’ i n Diogenes d e n o t e s s o m e t h i n g t h a t i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r l i f e ,
s e n s a t i o n and t h o u g h t ; n o u s i s a p p a r e n t l y o n e o f i t s f u n c t i o n s ; p h r e n e s g i v e s
p l a c e t o one o f i t s d e r i v a t i v e s , p h r o n e s i s , and t h i s i s a l s o a f u n c t i o n o f
p s y c t i e ; t h y m o s h a s f a l l e n i n t o t h e background; t h e h e a r t i s mentioned a s t h e
p l a c e where t h e t h i n k i n g s o u l r e s i d e s , b u t i t i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t i n i t s e l f .
This all-embracing psyche i s a m a t e r i a l substance, a i r y i n n a t u r e , d i f f e r i n g
o n l y i n q u a l i t y ( h e a t , d r y n e s s , e t c . ) from t h e a i r from which t h e cosmos o r i g i n -
a t e s and from t h e p s y c h e o f o t h e r men and even o f a n i m a l s . Wherever i t m a n i f e s t s
i t s e l f i n t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o n d i t i o n s ( h o t and d r y , w e may g u e s s ) i t b r i n g s
‘ u n d e r s t a n d i n g ’ . ‘Diogenes, l i k e o t h e r s , ’ s a y s A r i s t o t l e , ‘ s a i d t h a t t h e p s y c h e
i s a i r , on t h e ground t h a t a i r i s . . . t h e s o u r c e ( a r c h e ) o f a l l t h i n g s ; and t h e
p s y c h e h a s knowledge . . . b e c a u s e i t i s t h e p r i m a r y t h i n g from which a l l e l s e
comes’. 1 0 8
The e a r l y h i s t o r y o f t h i s way o f t h i n k i n g h a s now been o u t l i n e d . I n l a t e r
development i t was g r c d t l y r e f i n e d , b u t one c a n n o t h e l p n o t i c i n g t h e t r a c e s i t
l e a v e s on P l a t o ’ s Theory o f Forms - t h e p s y c h e i s s a i d t o be ‘ a k i n ’ t o t h e F O ~ I - S
and even on A r i s t o t l e ’ s p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r y , i n which t h e n o u s , m y s t e r i o u s l y , i s
s a i d t o come from ‘ o u t s i d e ’ . What w e f i n d i n l a t e r p h i l o s o p h y t h a t i s l a r g e l y
m i s s i n g from t h i s e a r l y h i s t o r y i s t h e problem o f t h e r e l a t i o n between t h e s o u l
and t h e body. The r e a s o n f o r t h i s i s p r o b a b l y t h a t t h e s o u l was u s u a l l y c o n s i d e r e d
t o be o f t h e same ( m a t e r i a l ) n a t u r e a s t h e body, even i f ‘ f i n e r ’ o r ‘ t h i n n e r ’ ;
t h e s o u l was s i m p l y a f l u i d - l i k e s u b s t a n c e , i n v i s i b l e and i n t a n g i b l e , c o n t a i n e d
i n t h e body d u r i n g l i f e b u t l e a v i n g i t a t d e a t h . No d o u b t t h e r e were many r e a s o n s
f o r t h e abandonment o f t h e i d e a t h a t t h e s o u l was a m a t e r i a l s u b s t a n c e , b u t t h e
c h i e f r e a s o n may h a v e been t h e u n l i k e l i n e s s o f t h i s i d e a i n f a c e o f t h e n o t i o n
t h a t t h e s o u l was d i v i n e . F o r s u c h a s D i o g e n e s , t h e r e c o n c i l i a t i o n was n o t t o o
d i f f i c u l t : t h e cosmic a i r was d i v i n e , and s o was t h e p s y c h e . But t h e P y t h a g o r e a n
t r a d i t i o n t h r o u g h o u t i t s h i s t o r y seems t o h a v e been h o s t i l e t o t h e n o t i o n o f a

16
m a t e r i a l s o u l , p e r h a p s because of i t s i n s i s t e n c e on t h e s o u l ’ s d i v i n i t y , and i t
was t h e Pythagorean i d e a o f t h e s o u l which, through P l a t o - , p r e v a i l e d .

U n i v e r s i t y C o l l e g e London

Notes: ( 2 ) vomer, , I l i a d c 1 6 , 4 8 1 , a n $ 504 +XI’ c?uI: 8:O’ + TE,C&V~ gpyamr

9;)
Z ~ L V OeVp an! ,L; x p o o ~EX% bopu, ~ U T LEE c p p ~ ; ~ ag u v S ~ W T O
Odyssey 9 , 3 0 1 ovmpEvaL npbg 07ijBoc, & L cpp&v~cqmp &OUCJL . . Homer,
( 4 ) The o r i g i n s
of t h e word ‘thymos’ a r e v e r y c o n t r o v e r s i a l . An o r i g i n a l c o n n e c t i o n w i t h b r e a t h i n g i s s u g g e s t 6 d
by such p h r a s e s a s : ‘She b r e a t h e d o u t h e r psyche’ ( i . e . s h e f a i n t e d \ ... ‘ s h e b r e a t h e d a g a i n
and t h e th nor was gathe:ed,into h e r phren’ ( I l i a d 22,467-475 am 8~ y u x t v & & ~ I J ~ ...
E~TVUTOW XZL Eg ’ rpp&vt%Bupog ay6pF3r;). On t h e o t h e r hand, ‘ t h e thyros was g a t h e r e d i n t o h e r
phren’ d e e s n o t mean s i m p l y ‘ s h e b r e a t h e d again’ but r a t h e r ‘ s h e came t o l i f e again’. Some
s c h o l a r s c o n n e c t thymos w i t h &w, B6w, e t c . ( ‘ s e e t h e ’ , ‘ r a g e ’ ) and s u g g e s t an o r i g i n a l
meaning s o m e t h i n g , l i k e ‘ J l a n r i t a l e ’ . ( 5 ) I l i a d 7,,68; 1 1 , 4 0 7 . ( 6 ) I l i a d 22,161
&X& m p i yuxqs BEOV r’JhToQo~. ( 7 ) E r g o 686-7; xpqpma y&p yu$l &XETUL ? E L X O ~ U ~
ppUTo’iaL. Gi5Zvov 8’Em;,pVetV X6pmLV. ( 8 ) 21 D y q $ EJOVTES x u p m v EV &yk&cs.
( 9 ) I l i a d 12,386 h i m , 6 Bupy. ( 1 0 ) f l i a d 4 , 5 2 4 Bupov a m E w v . (11) f g a r e a n o n
$388, &v,a+C eup:v ~L;EL ~ J W V . ( 1 2 ) I l i a d 11,392. ( 1 3 ) Xenophanes P 7
q cpLXou avfpog ~ m L 7yNx7, v q v .gywv P e e c y l ~ v q C& ~ v . ( 1 4 ) Nerean 8 , 4 4 M k v , 7’0
~ ’ o r & L s TEav ymX&v x q i e a i 06 t o t 6uvaTov. ( 1 5 ) E.g. O l y m p i a n 2\77. 516) I l i a d
10’94 xpatitq S & POL %E,W / T e m v . EXB-L. ( 1 7 ) I l i a d 13,288 E V &,& CL x(xrs;q w@hoL
OZL~VOLUL ~T&EL. ( 18 1 epaou-6 LOG. (19) P y t h i a n 10,?4 8-q 8~ ~ Q o wv * p 6 ~ .
( 2 0 ) M c d e a 1242-3 &AX’ EI’ &?&ov, xy6ta. 71 (1EXXopev / & 6 s r v a x&vayXn’icr p+ T&OVSLV
nu&. (21) Ar:hilochus 60 D xap6bqC %&g. (22) E.g. I l i a d 11,403 & B ( q S ’ k
g L m np&s 8v pqtilq.ll.ccpa eupLbV. ( 2 3 ) O d y * r e j 2?,,‘8. (24) E.g. A r c h i l o c h u s 67 D,
E u r i p i d e s M c d c a 1056. (25) Iliad 7 , 2 1 6 BupK E V L m+smL &~acxmv. (26) Iliad
88 eu& E&ou.
23,370 &XWUE
& ~ U EL ...
I.I&xczLs / TIL$.LOVL
mi ,mpb ;sX. Ape&!.
v/u$ ~ ~ & L L E L V ...
(27) T y r t a e u s 6.13 D.
(29) Pythian 1,47 4
( 2 8 ) Kerodotus 1 , 1 2 0 , 3
d v &~V~LJEGEV, ovakg &v .rcoI&obab
(30) Tyrtaeu: 9,18?D \y qv m‘l Buybv TIqpova mx@&Evoc.,
( 3 1 ) I l i a d 13,394 8%66 o t + t q o g nX$yrl yp&Va$, ag q o g ELXLY I o h ’ 8 y, & ~ 6 S L f l o y 9 ... /
2y ‘Llmoug mp6yrrL. ( 3 2 ) I l i a d 1 , 5 5 5 VGV 6 at* cpp6va pq m W E L ~ /,
... 06715. (33) I l i a d 24,171 & ~ Y E L
( 3 5 ) Olympian 9 , 7 5 p L a & vbov.
... C~PEO~.
G E ~ ~ ~ O L WWXT&X
(34) I l i a d 3’63 &&pf!q~wvoog ER:.
( 3 6 ) We might s a y i t i s a development from ‘orpan’ t o
‘ o r g a n ’ s f u n c t i o n ’ . f o l l o w i n g Bruno S n e l l ( D i r c o o e r y of the Mind, p.f5), p r o v i d e d t h a t we
remember t h a t thymos i s n o t an organ i n t h e normal s e n s e of t h e word. (37) Iliad
7 , 3 1 C&OV EXXETO euG. ( 3 8 ) I l i a d 17,702 :Be?& Bup8g. ( $ 9 ) I l i a d 1 3 , 3 8 6 YETO 0u&.
( 4 0 ) f l i a d 7 , 6 8 Bu$g ... X E ~ E ~ E L . (41) I l i a d 1 3 , 7 7 5 “ ~ o p ,smC 7 0 1 e$S
( 4 2 ) Hipponax 42 D xcoto’icrb 6;ow T ~ Vn o h h o v o v ytq{v. ( 4 3 ) Anacreon 4 D oux ELF^^, GTL
.;.,
9s Ep% vx% ~VL~XEGELS. (44) P i n d a r N e m e a n 9 , 3 2 ~ C & W Vp x & g ~ O V T Exp6mou*g ~
UV8pES. (45) E u r i p i d e s Rippolytuo 1006 7EapBkvov y ~ $ vcxwv. (46) Discovery o f the
Mind, p.13 f f . ( 4 7 ) I I i a d 15,80. ( 4 8 ) Odyrscy 1 , 3 4 7 . (49) Odyssey 6,121
$ U i ’ T L V V6OC &Ti 8EOU6(5. ( 5 ? ) O d r s s e y 1 , 3 %OX?& G’&vB&WV ~ E kV y y\ V&OV
J \
( 5 1 ) 0dys;ey 2,92 v6os 6~ o t a A k x ~ L E V O L ~ . ( 5 2 ) Odyssey 2.93 q 6s t6h0v T8v8’
&MOV ,EV L c~~Eo‘L pepprp LEE. ( 5 4 ) P h o c y l i d e s 8 D. N\)mog
~ O U X C U E L V , vumbc F$ TOL &+pq ( 5 5 ) Herodotus 3 , 3 3 ... TOG
c d p x ~ o gvogaov ~ E ~ u Xv m T o~v 7 o c ( 5 6 ) See a l s o T.B.L. Webster
‘ 3 0 y t s y c b l o g i c a ! Terms i n Greek Tragedy’, JHS, 7 6 (1956). $57) S o t h o c l e s f r . 101
y q q yap E ~ V O U C XCLL c p p o v o k To)i)vtiixov / , X ~ E ~ ~ O W V aclrpmo8 & V T ~E(X\LV E U & L ~ .
$ 5 8 ) E u r i p i d e s , Or. 1180 ~3 m v & v y’ a i d a y r q f f -8v. (59) Antiphon 4a 7 ,
qi,iig 6; ~3
n h o k o v ayE~.
... +v ~!OUXEGUUU~V yux;\v k v m q ~ a&&. ? ~ ~ ~
(61) N e z e a n 3,42,pup$bv 6 “ ; p ~ ’ 6 y &TE~E: v& yEuETaL.
(6:) P y t h S a n 6,47 t ~ $ 8;
( 6 2 ) N e r e a n 6,s
&AA~XT L vp,q$popzv i 5 p y v q p6yav voov qToL cpuo~va&&otC. (63) Pythian 5,lfO
xp6ocrova ~ E VaIwCag voov +&pmaL Vd&?‘ ) TE. ( 6 4 ) O e d i p u s Coloneus 659 ahh 6 V O U ” ~
k v / a S m G yibinx~, cppotsa d m ~ ~ q p m . ( 6 5 ) De A n i m a 405819 (DK 11 A 22) ~ O L X E6&
XOr’L &~;ig ... x ~ v q ~ ~ TxLb T$V v y q + v JTOX~~~E’~V, E)imp T%V ~ ‘ ~ ~cpq o v Vux+ v ~ X E L V k b d v

17
Rote5 - cont

aisqpov X L V E F . ( 6 6 ) D e A n i r a 41137 ( i h i d . ! mi d v TG Ghy, S b T L V E ~ a 6 4 v p ~ p ~ t x & z Cc(pi a ~ v ,

&v ’img mL L~iig&q & v T a ?Icx$pT e G v E Z v a L . ( 6 7 ) See p . . From ‘ b r e e t h ’ t o ‘ a i r ’ i s
an a d i i t i o n a l s t e p ; but n o t a d i f f i c u l t one. ( 6 8 ) DK 1 3 A 2 otov 4
A?p oljaa auyxpaTst i p . ~ ~ ,mi &ov T ~ Vx 6 q o v n v ~ i i p xmt A+ ~ E ~ L ~ E L .( 6 9 ) C h o i r i l u s , ap.
.:
yux6, q u b v , &.LET;pa

Diogenes L a e r t i u s 1 , 2 4 . ( 7 0 ) S e e U. H G l s c h e r , ‘Anaximander u . d i e Anfange d e r P h i l o s o p h i c ’ ,

H e r r e s 8 1 (1953) 390. ( 7 1 ) See n o t e 1 3 . ( 7 2 ) DK 22 B 5 6 . On t h i s f r . s e e G.S. K i r k ,
‘The Michigan-Alcidamas-Papyrus’ , CQ 44 ( 1 9 5 0 ) 149-67. ( 7 3 ) B 107 mxot &‘N~E< ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ O L O L V
h X p o i mt cj, $€ip&ouc yux&c Lx&cl.nJ. ( 7 4 ) See W. J a e g e r , P a i d e i a I rEng. T r a n s . 3 ,
1 9 4 6 ) p . 4 6 0 n n . 1 5 8 and 1 6 1 ; q u o t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l by G.S. K i r k , H e r a c l i t u s : T h e C o s a i c F r a g r e n t s ,
p . 6 1 . I n a l a t e r work ( T h e o l o g y o f t h e E a r l y G r e e k P h i l o s o p h e r s , p . 1 1 3 ) J a e g e r c o n t r a s t s H e r a c l i t u s ’
w e o f ‘ p h r o n e i n ’ a n d ‘ p h r o n e s i s ’ w i t h P a r m e n i d e s ’ use o f ‘noein’ a n d ‘ n o o s ’ , a s e v i d e n c e o f t h e
m o r a l , a s o p p o s e d t o p u r e l y i n t e l l e c t u a l , t o n e of H e r a c l i t u s ’ wisdom. B u t ’ H e r a c l i t u s u s e s ‘ n o o s ’
too; and Parmenides uses ‘phronein’ (B 1 6 ) . ( 7 5 ) G . S . K i r k , H e r a c l f t u s T h e Cos:ic F r a g m e n t s ,
p.376. ( 7 6 ) B 51 06 C u v t G L v & ~ g~ L C U ~ E ~ ~ ~ E& V wO Vc ~~ ~ O X O Y ~~ EX LL V T O V &ppov~q O~ S’QLYS~CE~ T ~ ~ O U
Xn’L X6pqj. ( T r a n s . K i r k ) . ( 7 7 ) B 54 &ppoviq & q x a v i ~ . (78) B 60. ( 7 9 ) D i s c u s s e d by
u. H ’ d l s c h e r , ‘Der Logos b e i H e r a k l i t ’ , F e s t g a b e f . K a r l R e i n h a r d t ( M G n s t e r , 1 9 5 2 ) . (80) S e e
G.S. K i r k , ‘ H e r a c l i t u s and D e a t h i n B o t t l e ’ , AJP 7 0 ( 1 9 4 9 ) 384-93. ( 8 1 ) B 118 a67 yux; o o p d q
m-i & p l q . ( 8 2 ) B. 3 6 , B 1 1 7 , B 26. ( 8 3 ) Of c o u r s e , t h e c o n n e c t i o n between f i r e i n t h e
s o u l a n d cosmic f i r e may be a d e s c r i p t i o n or e x p l a n a t i o n o f ‘common s e n s e ’ a n d n o t i n c o m p a t i b l e
w i t h i t a t a l l . But t h i s would n o t a f f e c t my p o i n t , which i s t h a t t h e p h i l o s o p h e r ’ s u n d e r s t a n d i n g ,
b e i n g more t h a n a mere e m p i r i c a l s k i l l , r e q u i r e s a s p e c i a i e x p l a n a t i o n . (84) B 4 1 X E ~ U E 6’
;j..,c A y 6 v ~ ywI.t) ;nrpe&a . p ~ k C w g . (85) B 1 6 , k&m’ ~ X E L X ~ & L V ~ E X E ~ JTOIUTGYKTWV,
;
/ m g voog a v ~ p w r c o L a L , m p I m a y L - , - c \ o yc;rP a h 6 / $ ( X L V & ~ pW ) O V ~ E L ~ E X Q V cpGa~gh v e p m o L a L N / mi
G L V xcrt m X V T i . Tb y y n I 6 o v E m L v @ p . ( 8 6 ) B 3 7 ; B 3. (87) I n general I follow
G. V l a s t o s , P a r m e n i d e s T h e o r y o f Knowledge’, TAPA 7 7 ( 1 9 4 6 ) . ( 8 8 ) D e S e n s u 3 = DK 28 A 46.
( 8 9 ) ,B 856 ff. . . . .fi p t v cpXoeg a t 0 6 p r o v G p , / ~,L,V 8y, y y ’ & q p b v , , & u ~ &)~TCUE y ! n b v , /
6 6 &po 1 : W G T ~ V . a C p mxelivo m ~ a’h 6 /(;FavTLa ,vum ypuy, ‘ I L U X L V O V SEW; EpppLeEc TE.
( 9 0 ) B 1 6 , q u o t e d a b o v e . The MSS. v a r y between ExccSr:oc and E ~ ( x ” . I r e a d t h e l a t t e r , b u t
I d o n o t t h i r l k t h e meaning would c h a n g e much i f t h e f o r m e r were r e a d . ( 9 1 ) On t h i s s u b j e c t
see F.M. C o r n f o r d , ‘ P r i n c i p i u r S a p i e n t i a e ’ ( C a m b r i d g e , 1 9 5 2 ) P a r t I , a n d t h e r e v i e w o f t h i s book
+q +
by G. V l a s t o s i n C n o r o n 27 ( 1 9 5 5 ) 65-76.
7 cm? P~p .
( 9 2 ) DK 3 1 B 1 3 8 .
y~y6pqv x o S ~ 6TE~ x$pq TE / &pvo, T’ olwvbc TE m‘~i5caXog h ~ m o cIxeGc.
( 9 3 ) B 1 1 5 5. ( 9 4 ) B 117

( 9 5 ) B I 1 5 TZV m’L E ~ VGV

O E L ~ L , cpuyuc e E 6 e y m i ahfiqg (96) 31 A 8 6 . ( 9 7 ) B 17 19
&T&Xa\rcOV &mjvq. ( 9 8 ) B 17 2c k q p p o c TE .rr?&~c,TE. ( 9 9 ) , , B 3 12-3 ~ { T ET L &v
&XhV, &tb&poc &T*L VO?@XL, 4 yu& X L ~ L V gpum, V & L6’; 6 q h O V E m O V . (100) B 17 2 1
~V ou v4.1 6&pmu, p$’ ’ ~ ~ X J L Vr,ao‘r~&1&c. ( 1 0 1 ) R 109 y &:q p$v y&p yacav &&ruxp~v, 6 S y L
6 ’ h t p , / ah%pL 6 ’ alekpa 8XovJ &&p mp\L 6 p &~SqXov,,/ mypv BE mopyfi, vsZxog $6 TE VELXE’(:
XUYfp (i02! B 1 0 5 a i p m7o g E V ~ G B O U B p a p L I ; L E v ~ , a ~ L e ~ o ~/o ~ , TE v
‘ t EL h pcrhcma
~
XLXXT~XSTUL & V ~ ~ W K O L ~ L / V .a L p y&p Avep&noLc X E ~ L - G L O V ~ T - ~ vLq p x . ( 1 0 3 ) DK 59 B 1 2 .
( 1 0 4 ) I b i d . &TCL $p X E - T F L & ~ & JTE d v m v x p q p h ~ w vwxt m € k ~ . & a ~ o v , xcx: y$.yqv YE n s t l m v * &
6 a u v ’ ~ ~ X ExcrtL LC$IEL pt5y~mov-mi %a YE \vux;lv &EL mi ,T& ~ E ~ Gm~ W m ~‘h&oow, m v m v Q o U ” ~ xpazer
( 1 0 5 ) B 3 . S e e W . T h e i l e r , Zur C t s e h i c h t e d e r t e l c o l o g i s c h e n N a t u r b e t r a c h t a n g bis auf A r i s t o t e l e s
(Basel, 1924).
i n t h e h e a r t (DK 57 A Z O ) .

18