The descendant of a family of leading importance in Ephesus, Heraclitus was born about 535 b.c. His cast of mind was so intensely aristocratic that, filled with contempt for the councils and capacities of his fellow-citizens, he made over the hereditary office of ySao-iXevs, which had fallen to him in right of his birth, in favour of his younger brother, and betook himself to a life of solitary meditation. The date of his death was probably about 475 b.c.
To appreciate the significance of the doctrines of Heraclitus, it must be borne in mind that to Greek philosophy the sharp distinction between subject and object which pervades modern thought was foreign, a consideration which suggests the conclusion that, while it is a great mistake to reckon Heraclitus with the materialistic cosmologists of the Ionic schools, it is, on the other hand, going too far to treat his theory, with Hegel and Lassalle, as one of pure Panlogism. Accordingly, when he denies the reality of Being, and declares Becoming, or eternal flux and change, to be the sole actuality, Heraclitus must be understood to enunciate not only the unreality of the abstract notion of being, except as the correlative of that of not-being, but also the physical doctrine that all phenomena are in a state of continuous transition from non-existence to existence, and vice versa, without either distinguishing these propositions or qualifying them by any reference to the relation of thought to experience. "Everything is and is not;" all things are, and nothing remains. "With Heraclitus the principle of continuity is opposed to the principle of discretion taught by the Eleatics, and consequently for him "Being and Nothing," as well as " Union and Separation," are logically and physically incapable of distinction. This being so, he naturally enough selects Fire, according to him the most complete embodiment of the process of Becoming, as the principle of empirical existence, out of which all things, including even the soul, grow by way of a quasi condensation, and into which all things must in course of time be again resolved. But this primordial fire is in, itself that divine rational process, the harmony of which constitutes the law of the universe. Eeal knowledge consists in comprehending this all-pervading harmony as embodied in the manifold of perception, and the senses are " bad witnesses," because they apprehend phenomena, not as its manifestation, but as "stiff and dead." In like manner real virtue consists in the subordination of the individual to the laws of this harmony as the universal reason wherein alone true freedom is to be found. " The law of things is a law of Reason Universal, but most men live as though they had a wisdom of their own." Ethics here stands to sociology in a close relation, similar, in many respects, to that which we find in Hegel and in Comte. For Heraclitus the soul approaches most nearly to perfection when it is most akin to the fiery vapour out of which it was originally created, and as this is most so in death, "while we live our souls are dead in us, but when we die our souls are restored to life." The doctrine of immortality comes prominently forward in his ethics, but whether this must not be reckoned with the figurative accommodation to the popular theology of Greece which pervades his ethical teaching, is very doubtful.
The only extant work, purporting to have been written by Heraclitus, which can be regarded as genuine, is the treatise TLtpl (frvffftas, which has come down in a fragmentary condition. It has been edited by Bywater (Heracliti Eplicsii Reliquiae, Clarendon Press, 1877). The Epistles are in all probability spiirious.
The school of disciples founded by Heraclitus flourished for long after his death, the chief exponent of his teaching being Cratylus. A good deal of the information in regard to his doctrines has been gathered from the later Greek philosophy, which was deeply influenced by it.
By far the most complete exposition of his system is that of Lassalle (Die Phi losophic Herakleitos dcs Dunkeln ran F.phesos, Berlin, 18">cS), although his interpretation is decidedly too strongly dominated by modern Hegelian conceptions. See also Hegel, Genth. d. Phil.; Zeller, Getch. d. Phil. d. Griechfn; Bcrnays, Die Heratlitischen Briefe, Berlin, 18C9; and Schuster, Heraklit von Ephesus, Leipsic, .1873.
HERACLIUS (c. 575–641), emperor of the East, was born in Cappadocia about 575. He was brought into notice by his heading a successful revolt against the emperor Phocas in 610, when he usurped the usurper s throne. At that period the eastern provinces of the empire were being ravaged by the triumphant armies of Chosroes (Khosru) II., which in the first twelve years of Heraclius s reign continued their unresisted progress to the Bosphorus and the Nile, pillaging Asia Minor and Syria, and reducing Constantinople to the utmost distress by cutting off its Egyptian corn supplies. In 618 the public distributions of grain, which had been carried on since Constantine had instituted them as a bribe to attract citizens to his new city in 330, were suspended ; and the bankrupt emperor was hardly dissuaded by the almost imperative prayers of his people from quitting his capital in shame and fear for Carthage. Taking courage, Heraclius appears to have set himself to the task of reorganizing both state and army, a labour which had probably occupied him since his accession. He was menaced on the west by the fierce tribe of the Avars, who were casting longing eyes on the riches of the imperial city ; but in 620 he succeeded in making a treaty with them, and interposed a human barrier against their further encroachments by inviting the Serbs and Croats to settle in the intervening regions, which they have never since left. In 621 Heraclius led an army into camp in Asia Minor, and devoted himself with ardour to the drilling of his inexperienced troops. Every military manoeuvre, every useful exercise and even hardship, was ordered and shared by the emperor. Rekindled the enthusiasm of his soldiers by his stirring words, and excited their admiration and affection by his deeds. Next year he led his forces against Persia, and within five years, in a series of brilliant campaigns tbat place him side by side with the greatest generals of the world, he overthrew the pride of that empire, drove its monarch a fugitive from his throne, and enriched his exulting troops with untold wealth. Siroes, the son of Chosroes, revolting against his unhappy father, put him to death in 628, and speedily made a peace with Heraclius, according to which the Persian empire retired to its former limits, prisoners were mutually given up, and the true cross, carried from Jerusalem by the Persians, was restored to Christian hands. Heraclius returned in triumph to Constantinople, which had in his absence two years before successfully repulsed a combined assault by the Avars and Persians ; and in 629 he proceeded to Jerusalem to restore solemnly the holy relic to its ancient place. But he was not long to enjoy the peaceful fruits of victory. A mighty power had been steadily growing up in the hot sands of Arabia, and was now coming to measure its strength with that of the Roman empire. In 632 the Mahometans invaded Syria ; and, over throwing the armies sent to oppose them, in six years they made themselves masters of the country. Egypt next fell before Islam, and in 640 that fair province of the empire was Mahometan. The people of Asia Minor alone successfully resisted the advancing Saracens. Heraclius seems meanwhile to have sunk into a sort of lethargy, as though his efforts in Persia had completely exhausted him. While his generals and armies were being cut to pieces he was engaged at Constantinople, whither he had retreated in 634, with speculative theological questions. In 638 his JEcthesis appeared, which, tinctured with the heresy of Monothelism, was probably drawn up by the patriarch Sergius. The energy of his earlier life never returned, and in 641 he sank under a long-continued disease. He had been twice married; the second time to his niece Martina, an illicit union which he compelled ths reluctant Sergius to celebrate. His eldest son, Heraclius, succeeded him, taking the title of Constantine III.
The character of Heraclius is a curious riddle, which it is not easy to solve. Personally brave, and possessed of tried ability as a diplomatist and a general, in his latter years he passively allowed his empire to fall to pieces before his eyes, presenting in the periods of his life a con trast that would almost seem to argue the possession of not merely contrary but contradictory qualities. But we mutt not forget that our information regarding the inner details of his latter reign is very imperfect, and that possibly there may be some reason, though hardly an excuse, for his conduct. It would have been better for his fame if he had died immediately after his Persian campaigns.
See Gibbon s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire ; Le Beau s Histoire du Bos-Empire ; and the works of George of Tisidia (of. vol. x. p. 429).
