The historians' history of the world in twenty-five volumes, volume 04 : $b Greece to the Roman Conquest
History
The historians' history of the world in twenty-five volumes, volume 04 : $b Greece to the Roman Conquest
World history
Thales, who enjoyed great repute in his native city of Miletus and
throughout Asia Minor at the commencement of the sixth century, calls
water the beginning of all things. This was no new idea. For before his
time poets had spoken of Oceanus, of the origin of the gods, and of the
deluge from which the world was born anew. And the infinite sea could not
but lie close to the thoughts of a seafaring nation.
The novel and genuinely philosophic element in this proposition is
rather the monistic endeavour to refer all phenomena to a single cause,
to be sought not in heaven but on earth. For that which is taken as
the beginning is not Oceanus, or, it may be, Poseidon, as in the older
cosmogonies, but this palpable substance of water, out of which all
things come and to which they all return. This original matter is
indeed supposed to be animated by a divine spirit, but this divinity
is not a person. There is no place for it on Olympus. Rather is it the
expression of the immanent force which this philosopher recognised in
the incomprehensible properties of the magnet, and there called “soul.”
This enduing of nature with a soul is characteristic of the infancy
of speculation, and hence this Ionic philosophy has also been called
Hylozoism (the doctrine of living matter). The monistic impulse, which
would bind the world and this single and supposed divine primeval force
together, is diametrically opposed to the polytheistic tendency of the
popular religion of Greece. Even in the first Greek philosophers this
aspiration after unity points forward to monotheism, which was preached
by Xenophanes, the Ionian, at the end of this same century.
Of all the achievements of Thales his prediction of the eclipse of
the sun (May 28, 585) is that which caused the greatest amazement,
although its scientific significance is the most trifling of any. For,
as the history of astronomy proves beyond controversy, Thales and his
whole generation lacked the rudiments of knowledge necessary for the
calculation of eclipses, and had not the faintest notion of how they
came about. Hence he can only have employed according to a fixed method
some such formula as the Chaldeans had gained from empiric observation
in calculating their eclipse period of eighteen years and eleven days
(_Saros_). The rule only suffices for approximate predictions. As a
matter of fact, Herodotus, the earliest witness to this event, states
that Thales allowed a margin of a whole year for the occurrence of the
eclipse.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account