You are on page 1of 24

On Anaximander Author(s): W. A. Heidel Reviewed work(s): Source: Classical Philology, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Apr., 1912), pp.

212-234 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/261956 . Accessed: 22/03/2012 11:19
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

ON ANAXIMANDER
BY W. A.
HEIDEL

Since the time of Schleiermacher the philosophy of Anaximander has received marked attention from historians of philosophy, and the literature on the subject has grown to large proportions. By many Anaximander is regarded as a metaphysician-as the first metaphysician. In this essay the attempt will be made to study the records, so far as they may conceivably be regarded as containing a metaphysical scheme, without express reference to other interpretations, although they have been conscientiously read and considered. The treatise of Anaximander was known to Aristotle and Theophrastus; there is no reason to think that it was studied by later writers for the purpose of ascertaining his opinions,' although Apollodorus may have inspected it with a view to determine his chronology.2 Theophrastus remarks upon its high-flown style,3 which suggests that it was not discursive but, like that of Heraclitus, somewhat curt and aphoristic. We must therefore look to Aristotle and Theophrastus for a knowledge of the facts; but we shall be under the necessity of somehow checking their conclusions, the more since it is no longer a secret that Theophrastus was absolutely under the spell of his master, and that Aristotle himself, with all his speculative genius, or just because of it, was not always able to distinguish between that which his predecessors said and that which their words suggested to him. The possibility of checking their account is afforded by the body of pre-Socratic doctrine and opinion, in which we must include the early medical writings attributed to Hippocrates. We may consider the doctrine of Anaximander under the following heads. (I) He spoke of the adnetpov, (II) the apX of all things, (III) from which all proceeded and to which all returned. (IV) The
1 On the work of Anaximander and the reasons why it was ignored after Theophrastus, see Tannery Pour l'histoire de la science hellene, p. 87. 2 See Diels Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker2 (elsewhere in this paper referred to

as

V.2),

3 V.2,

12, 7. 13, 9.
212

[CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY VII, April, 1912]

There is. V. 14. Whatever else Anaximander's ac'ecpov may or may not have been.2. 13. after the other points have been discussed. there is mentioned a cosmic law of justice or revenge. and charac- .o4V Ty a7reCpI KaTa 7racoav 7repLacyw-yhv (v. one point which must on all accounts be assumed to be beyond question. 6. 15. 1: 6L&Ty&p h' 7j3 vo'. This occurs in a passage in which Aristotle enumerates the considerations which led his predecessors to postulate an d7reLpov Izep-yeig. 15. 13. A i'roXehtrew Kai 6 dpLWOAs0KEL d7reLpos elvaLKa' r6 ohaeL Tr& TOV o0pavoO direlpov 6' 6vTos 7OV0 Ew. we should get nowhere if we could go no farther.. which follow immediately from the records and the comparison with other pre-Socratic views of the a'7recpov. 29 f.4 and from the alleged ground 1 We shall see later (cf. begin with the statements of Aristotle and Theophrastus.. (V) The worlds and finite things generally arose from the al7vepov by a process or by processes denoted by the verbs 47roxp(veo-Oac or EIKlCpIVYO-OaL. 1007: finibus exemptis in cunctas undique partis. This has been interpreted metaphysically.'E7rKOVPOT abreipov Jv 'AvacK6O/. We must. 4 V. since otherwise the worlds and all that in them is would cease to come into existence. they always bear their plain literal sense." 2 whether 14. (Aristotle): 3 Cf. but it follows also from the express reference of Aristotle to the w7retpov outside the cosmos.2. 14.OL. which has often been strangely misunderstood. V. Lucret. for every conclusion reached under later heads will of necessity bear upon the doctrine of the a7repov. 30: 'Avacltav6pos . however. Kal o-cwa X7reLpov /a97?a. For the phrase KaTa 7rao-av 7repLacywoy'v. of course. -yLveoOaL KaL 0OeLpeoOal.. But it can do no harm to set down certain definite conclusions at the outset.2. Z:evoodv.' This conclusion follows of necessity not only from the statement2 that the alveEpov surrounds all the worlds. 1 (after Theophrastus): 7rdvras 7repL4XeLX TO&T K607MV9.s ALo-y4vs.ON ANAXIMANDER 213 apx must be az"enpog. 28. AI7f6KpLTOS. perhaps. 1. 2 f. in conse(VI) quence of a K(Vfl' buoS. 40 7repd4eLv -7ravra. 43 f.u4vs 'ApXXaos. cf. AELKL7rTOs. V. 226) that there is some reason to question Anaximander meant to claim absolute infinity for the "boundless. (VII) Finally. but since each contradicts himself and each the other.2. p. and from the obvious connection3 between boundless space and matter and the infinite worlds attributed to Anaximander. it was spatially and quantitatively unbounded.. 13. It would.TaLK& wY&977 Kal TO EQw elvac 60KELKai K60-. rather than at the beginning. but though 7repLtXepV and TO repLXov occur many times in pre-Socratic literature. be better to consider the nature of Anaximander's drEcpov last. 1. 15. 7reporTaoLv) sc.

13. of which assumption more it will presently be said.3V KaXo0vUp.EVOVrouam. Anaxagoras) aTe 7rdvrws aziveTua Xe-yeLv 7-'v . V.2 Nevertheless Theophrastus. dXXoLouFvoU ToOU -ygveotv o7oiXeiou 6 'ApoTrorAXs ro7-rov auvgraTEv. is characteristic of the method of Theophrastus in his 4UV0LK6)vd66ac. as may be seen by his De sensu. 13.V a'7rdvrwv V'roXd. which Anaximander had obviously not defined. whether it was air or water or earth or other body. J6&S 13. 14. 4: Xgyet ' avh1r'v eWvav orotLefXwv. the addition of K6o0IoL at the end.4 The a'detpov teristically lumps opinions of very different schools together. 38: ou' &opi?wv d4pa ? 6&wph dXXo rt. 13. but another " infinite something. V.' This is not much.2. /aotv KaL ad6p17ov /Ao-XeOaO XgYeLv.2. for after thus unequivocally alleging the doctrine of dXXoLwoLs the ground for Anaximander's position.TroV airelpou Ov6OV Kai TOv voUv.2. pp. coupled with the fact that Anaximander is clearly alluded KaL to under previous heads. This whole passage does little credit to Theophrastus' peras spicacity. A. but when it has been said. Mt Kal roZs 7repl 'Avata-y6pav the vague phrase. 3 V. V. suffices to show that he is included among those who postulated rT eQwrog oupavou &7reLpov. Cf.2. p. he immediately proceeds to deny it of him: OVTOS 6U OUK dXX' a7rOKpLVO119VWV TrV IvavTLWv &L&r?s 7-'v 7roteZ. introducing a criticism of the doctrine after it has been stated. &9 TIs TrhV gLv T. apparently all has been said that can with reasonable certainty be predicated of Anaximander's adWeLpov considered by itself. viz. The expression alcaprdveL. ovo T&s dpX&s a6Tl TI7 owyjaT-LK& 0-TOLXeZLa 7raparx77oICS ror. In a passage which bears unmistakably the cachet of Theophrastus. 2 V. 56rep &v 660cLc (sc."3 This and the other attempts to define the alwetpov. 11. HEIDEL for postulating an J"7renpov. 7rO6repovca7pE'ortv i Aliaprdvet cf.). avI3alveL ugdycOo. 43: oVros dpX'v e'0 TrV 6VTrV 6o-tv rTv& roU d7rlpoU. 30: U oA roS gi 'V-yv ri OT-L rT &7mtpov. for reasons which will presently appear. was not content to confess himself baffled in the quest. but while much of the matter in the sentence manifestly does not apply to Anaximander. i v6wp yr 1 dXXa TL& a6gaTa. 1 For this see below.2. This will be discussed later el 4 V.2. also at6lou KLVh0EWSI. . reporting Anaximander as saying that it was neither water nor any other of the elements.214 W. that the process of generation might not cease. 229ff. TWCV adXXd rt dXXo 7rap& TraOTa. was an easy step to combine in some sort the foregoing two positions and to attribute to Anaximander the conception of a single (simple) substance indeterminate in quality and magnitude. 24: KaT' Kal KaTd (cf. are based upon the assumption that his a'pX?x was a a-rotXeZov..vv adXX' Jr9paa' TETTrpwv TLV& 6votv dretpov.Giv 'AvaILgadv6py. Having this conception of the a'pX?7.ot ldav edva. 226. Anaximander is criticized for failing to define just what he intended by the al'ecpov. but converted the absence of definition into a negation. jihT7 Mwp gh7TE dXXo 7t T7. 10: 6rXov o T7 oiT7ros o7otXeLwv OSaeo-d1evos OVlK irtwaev gv b'rt TrhV cis dXX7?Xa liera4oXv TO7TwV UT7rOKELf.

4. the possibility of their various interpretations. we have no choice but to accept the former. II Anaximander said to have called his cat"netpov the is apn of all things.2. These words.2. A few still cling to it in the case of Anaximander.2.2. and V. that we may dismiss it without further comment.2 This entire argumentumex silentio. No one now accepts this unhistorical interpretation for Empedocles and Anaxagoras. Cf. for it flatly contradicts their authentic statements. the clear evidence that Theophrastus attributed the word aipX to Anaximander is fatal to their position. so far as they are relevant to our present inquiry. 15. where the Aristotelian conception of Mvalwus::&dp-yeta. we shall presently come to know. To U irow0iv acrtov (not the KiJV?7ts dit8tos. which is questionable. Even if one allowed. 27-34). 305. o6 8&vaTaL U 'ep'pyeta ( ? dvepyyeiq).ON ANAXIMANDRR 215 would thus. 14. The views of other pre-Socratics concerning the adnetpov. Cf. .4 Whatever we may think of the latter statement. Ireipc 5vJTto larL. 6orep 'AvaliWav8p6Obsqo-t. is so palpably the fiction of a brain not schooled to trace the history of ideas. whereby Anaximander becomes a metaphysician. 4 See above. it is even claimed that he was the first to use the term apX4 in this technical sense. not actually present (V. following the lead of Aristotle. though X iX7 lvcat probably innocent in intention. 13. deriving all from a unitary substratum. 31 (after q57o-v'Apatavapos. 2 V. V. To -y&p&retpovO o1Udv dXXo i DXr7 OTlJ. 3 V. 3. 26. 13. except to say that pre-Socratic thought lends it no support whatever. 20: gTepos rp6iroS Ka' 6v OU1K&L Trv peTaPoX)V ris DXqs KacTA dXXoAwAo-p 70o1 b7roKe6t&Ov T&s -YEV&OeLs ci7ro6aaLPTV. but something like the Love and Hate of Empedocles or the Nous of Anaxagoras) dvacpCov. 14. If the interpretation of dpXi given below be accepted. for if Anaximander used the term. like the Aristotelian and Stoic viX.2. which it presupposes. Burnet Early Greek Philosophy2 57 and others offer a different interpretation of these passages.' It was this precise step that Theophrastus took. 2. KKpi'eoO0ai 7rpWTos ai'T?s dpX'p 'vol4o-as T? 6IOKEL/16EOP. 11. otherwise to account for the recurring expression. if not impossible. if one may call it by that name. nothing is more probable than that Theophrastus regarded him as the inventor of it. 10: OLU & T( U gVO's 0oo-as T&s JarTL6T?7Tas &KKplveo-Oat. is grotesquely out of place. 14. v6epeos. for it is difficult. 38. Aristotle thus includes Anaximander with Empedocles and Anaxagoras in the forced reinterpretation. 1. in which the contrarieties are potentially (8v4PEd) implicit. 3. iXtv (here merely the material cause) dbrobatTheophrastus): vv cl/apTdve' oi4v T i) Phys. which would not satisfy Aristotle or Theophrastus. Burnet's chief objection to these statements falls to the ground. be a mere potential substrate which becomes actualized only in determination.2. 150. 15. aITtWjvTat ObU 1 Simpl. 14. Z&Y IX T?J irooyv v7roK4?7TraL. since the conception is of Aristotle's own invention. naturally led to such expressions as those just cited from Simplicius. CMXAKaT& fKKpULOtV * A0Vooas zy&p T&s a'rL6T'qrcas &YTy' VIroKEL1/4fY. n. 11-17. V.

3 We have next to consider whether we must accept this interpretation. air. earth. . VXKLKal 13. but as masses occupyThe latter (2) was obviously a very old conception.4 Indeed that conception presents insuperable difficulties when. water. 12). HEIDEL evidently due to Theophrastus. therefore. 12. To be sure. 2.2. dpX) Kai 7r-q-yXand 51K. 13.2. as in the case of the Ionians. the guarantee that we are dealing with a genuine Anaximandrian term and the interpretation of the term by Theophrastus. 4 There is much confusion even in generally excellent works on ancient philosophy Two meanings should be distinguished: (1) in the use of the word "element. denoting the latter alone. regarded not as pure and uncompounded. 13. 26 f. A. dpX' without OTOLXetLO (V. but the "element" in the strict sense (1) appears to have been created by Empedocles under the influence of Parmenides (cf. that Anaximander 6'ao-IcEv bpXqwv a7retpov. We have at once. who regarded aX7 as synonymous with 0TOlXElOV. 3. 14. and (2) element in the sense of maxima mundi membrafire. Compare the similar cases of hendiadys mentioned below. 0OTOLXELOY ow/laLTK& V. 13.fv ewiat KCa&uTOlX%EOV To term o-TOtXE^ov2to Anaximander. the collocation is common in Aristotle. In Empedocles both conceptions occur and the failure to distinguish between them has led to Aristotle's philosophy knows the element essentially only in the strange results. In order to forestall a possible misapprehension Theophrastus resorted to the hendiadys. cf. Aristotle and the doxographic tradition sought to obviate the embarrassing consequences by ascribing to all the monists Aristotle's favorite conception of a"XXo(co9. 27). so nobody would claim for him the conception of an "element" in the stricter sense. though a certain flavor of the other (1) lingers about it and calls for his process of dXXoiwoLs. 37. possibly. ultimately of the Orphic conception of the soul." element in the strict sense. As no one today attributes to Anaximander the word O'TOlXEZOV. There is.it can have been added to bpxt only with the intention of defining it (by hendiadys) from the Peripatetic point of view.2. fr.2. 9 and his conception of the 9v Kal 8o'ioo) and. in which it comprehends besides the material substratum or 0TotXeFov also the efficient cause. for in the Aristotelian terminology apX has both a wider application. 2 Surely nobody would so interpret (V. ing fixed positions in the cosmos.KaZ Tiots. no evidence I V. acpXca (V. which proved so popular among the alchemists. latter (2) sense. Some light will be thrown on Aristotle's conception in the following discussion. and a narrower acceptation.). 13.2. 11. OTOXetXa (V. 22). 14.l Since there is no thought of attributing the Apx. 702a 26 f. as has been well shown by 0. Gilbert Die meteorologischen Theorien des griechischen Altertums. Bonitz Index Aristot.216 W. alongside the statement Olq06v T 'v'zT T'o Avretpov. 3 Cf. however.2. there was assumed to be only one 'apX4.

vep-yetiq according to need or pleasure. 149. A 1. which will serve adequately to explain both the admitted facts relative to Anaximander and the deductions made from them by Aristotle and Theophrastus.. 803A. We may properly begin with Aristotle. J. Since meteorological and physiological problems constituted the chief centers about which the thought of early Greek science revolved. applying equally to meteorological phenomena of the most various kinds. der Philos. Ge. . 333 f. I am compelled to say that Dr. Bruno Jordan's study of dpX-. therefore. Acad. Amer. n. XIX. in which the word apxqi occurs. while in animals some suppose the heart. 4 JJvrdpXoTros. der Philos. Ross.C. Since this is not primarily a study of dpX'. This was of course susceptible of interpretation as 5Lvwd6/e or J. XXIV. there = was an immediate bridge to Aristotle's OToLXe?oY nroKcet0evov. This I shall now proceed to illustrate.. 5.g. since the traditional interpretation of Anaximander's apX. e. If interpreted in the former sense.' It remains to be seen. others some other part.2 but of all the uses of the word only one appears to me capable of rendering the service required of it.. I have made a large collection of passages. whether it is possible to discover a use of apx and a corresponding conception current among the preSocratics.. "Beitriage zu einer Geschichte der philosophischen Terminologie" Archiv fiir Ge. I shall give only such references as seem to me relevant. to be of this nature.. is quite inadequate and misleading. "Qualitative Change in Pre-Socratic Philosophy" Archiv f. 449 f. but even a superficial knowledge of Aristotle's works reveals the fact that the conception here illustrated from physiology has a much wider scope. 3 Met. Now.ON ANAXIMANDER 217 of that wonder-working process in the literature before Aristotle. 1013a 4 f. and "Antecedents of Greek Corpuscular Theories" (Harvard Studies XXII). as the keel of a ship and the foundation of a house. tr. among the various uses of the word which he recognizes3 is "that from which (as an immanent4 part) a thing first arises. we should at once perceive the possibility of deriving profit for our inquiry from a consideration of apXq in this sense. 2 See my studies " lepl 4'-ewv: A Study of the Conception of Nature among the Pre-Socratics" Proc. The reference to the keel is doubtless due to Plato Legg. n. 3. others the brain. of Arts and Sciences XLV. but as one proceeds to note that Aristotle himself professes to discover the notion among the theogonists and that it may undoubtedly be traced I See my study. from the literature antedating 400 B.5 is due to him." We are thus expressly referred to physiology for this use of apX)'i. 79.

as applied to the sea. the term dpX?i connotations.ua: perhaps we might best render with " sum ".4 But the history of the concepstript of metaphysical 1 Meteor. as we see. Cu. all these lie. wherefore some say that the rivers not only flow into it but out of it. as when in the passage above cited he says.JePOP KIat /e&yJvrTaL TOSS dXXOLS. as for each of the other elements there exist a collective mass ) and source (dp%X by reason of its size. XXVIII.g. 354b 15. Aristotle says1: "The cause which led men formerly to regard the sea as the source i) or reservoir (dpX and the collective body2 of all water is this: it might be thought reasoliable that such a reservoir should exist for water. regarded as an apXi7.218 W. from which it proceeds in undergoing change by division and union with others. and the collective body of earth is that about which. cf. One who cannot knows Aristotle's conception of the apXq) Kal 0 Tot1eXov help seeing the striking resemblance. We shall find the term ap%Xqoccurring in this connection and in a technical sense in "Hippocrates. 354b 6: 65e' AeTaSdXXeL Te . 3 Meteor." The mass of material is so large that it becomes embarrassing. we might suspect that the two notions were had been the same except that. (b) this "'store"' is conceived as a source or reservoir. my " Notes on Philolaus" Amer. Lucret. B 2. or (c) as a region or specific place of the form of matter in question. 1.POs 65YKos.epCPE6. B 2. 4 Even this was never far from Aristotle's thought. of Philol. HEIDEL as far back as Xenophanes. A.." Before proceeding farther we may note what is said of &p%X in this sense: (a) it is the collective body or mass-the store of a given kind of matter." and we shall presently discover that there attached to it certain associated ideas which have obvious relations to the thought of Plato and Aristotle touching the JpXal Kcal 0oi-Txea-" the elements. Indeed. one's interest is fully aroused. Jour. e. Aristotle had only to interpret this as dXofwots in order to obtain his dpX' Kcl aToLXeFoJ! 2 ." "In accordance3with such considerations the sea was thought to be the source (dpXi) of moisture and all water. 354b 2. We may begin with the sea. the source or reservoir of fire is in the upper regions. 1042: nec plagae possunt extrinsecus undique summam I conseruare omnem quaecumque est conciliata. (d) this source is regarded not merely as the point of departure for a process-its beginning-but as the vital moment in a circular process-its end as well as its beginning. Here it is interpreted by . Cf. So. the mass of air is that next to the region of fire.qOpow/. 79. if we were dependent on him for the conception.

588 f. 39 (7. illustrating the principles that water seeks a level and hence circulates when its equilibrium is disturbed. Mr.g. N.. first came in with the atomic theory. The so-called "elements" in particular were early regarded as kinds of matter collected together.N.2I may pass on to other points. Aristotle speaks of the apx?7 as a 7rnyt. and Hipp. esp. As I have sufficiently shown this elsewhere. 51 sub fin.. speaks of Plato's Tartarus as wept 2 See my "Antecedents of Greek Corpuscular Theories. falsely renders dpx' with "principe ".). since matter was from of old regarded as an 60pow7.3 as massed combatants engaged in a cosmic war.al or sum capable of being compounded or divided.N. 7r. 6Meteor.. each having its restricted sphere. cf. W. B 2. n. reflected in the battle of the gods is (Iliad 21) and specialized in the d&cKlaof Anaximander and the tug-of-war (dvwsFpiTTUatLs depending on J7rLKpdrTeLa). Hipp. As in the children's games. used it to explain the circulation of the humors in the body from one dpXi Kac 7r7l-yh another.7 the of apxr) Kal oTotXeiov early naturalists and physicians. a) The dp%Xi collective mass or store of matter. Whether Empedocles included this illustration in his explanation of hot springs and volcanoes. Meteor. makes the amazing statement: "The notion of fire or anything else as composed of particles. p.ON ANAXIMANDER 219 tion points to the opposite conclusion: Aristotle's metaphysical is only a sublimated replica of the ap%X. 79 (July. 1911) 397." 3See above. This needs as little illustration. 8See e.. 36 (7. Aristotle's description of the circulato tory system (Hist. 513a 35) is based upon the same general view.rb 1 See above p. To show this we may further illustrate the above description of the apX?i. 4. Seneca Q. as often. 24) invoked to explain hot springs. also ibid. fine or coarse. Burnet recognizes the connectiou of Phaedo 111 D with the Empedoclean analogy of the hot-water evils (Seneca Q. b) The &pXi7 as a source or reservoir.C (7. 216. is not certain. 4The cosmic r6XclAos a very ancient notion. vo6orwv. 552 L. is likewise in Plato's mind. L. ad loc.): iv. i uhrtsL Kal &XX-q where Littr6. Benn "The Origin of the Atomic Theory" Mind. III. as by the application of heat. 2.. No. Burnet's note on the Phaedo.356al. 7r. 550. Arist. A. 65aT6s rt 7rX77Oov. p. as I suspect. n. probably combined with the filtration theory. Animal. The view which Plato there gives has been recognized8as depending on an old theory dealing with the circulation tuov . A 3. 7 111 D f. voIJoc. but it is obvious that the analogy of cauldrons with communicating tubes. xr. 355b 32 f. The thought is made perfectly clear." passim. notably in his discussion6 of Plato's description of Tartarus in the Phaedo7. a combatant drawn beyond his line is counted with the opposing side. dpyX 67ro-yiv-qra&. . 28) to explain the circulation of water on the evaporation theory. but we know that Diogenes of Apollonia employed it (cf.iv. 218. 2. IV.). 7razAi. for example of. 556 L.4 In the medical theories such masses or dpXai5 of humors may form anywhere and when formed become the "sources" of disease unless speedily drained.S. 6 This is the meaning.

" Indeed.) called dpXao. There are besides four other sources. Animal. In Hist. HEIDEL of humors in the living body and with the circulation of waters in the earth. Animal. by Arist. cf. but there also occurs here (c. below. n. p. Thus we read5: "I desire first to show how the bile. when the sources are replenished from the abdominal cavity. cf. Arist. when it becomes empty it drains the dissolving body. and Polybus. Who can say which conception furnished the suggestion for the other? The intrinsic probability would seem to be in favor of the physiological theory as the earlier. L. 245 C.9g8o. elemental 7riyca of Empedocles.. Hipp. 666a 8. r4. r 5. and the phlegm increase and diminish from meat and drink. where the soul is called 7r7j-y@ 7yyivevO-a. L. Part. the analogy would be complete. Gen. For the dp%X5 the winds. Hi8t.. 584 L. 944b 4 f. cf. r 2. though four lesser dpXai4 were also assumed. the heart. 224. D: ?t dpXis zy&p iv.) the use of 4pX5= "cause. ibid. 7. 434 adn. the blood. 33 (7.. p6atos 7raL1ou. 667b 13 f. most prominent in the four elements. 12 and 17 (and. 2 See my "Antecedents of Greek Corpuscular Theories" 133 f.220 W. as the heart Resp. 50 f. Animal. of [Arist. A 1. suggests at once a striking parallel to the four such as dpX5 or 7rryh5. 515a 16: T&s that forms in the hatching egg and later becomes the heart of the chick is called 7 is called T7s o6aias i dp%X. 580 f. it becomes the source (7rflry') of all things to the body.. and the spleen.2 Such an dpX Kcal7wyy is the heart. from which the aforesaid humors severally proceed to the body. 3 (9. A. Diogenes of Apollonia. dpd-yK71 7r&v -ytyvy6..). and when they in turn become empty.' so the physiological theory deals with respiration quite as much as with the circulation of the blood. 511b f. 7r.] Probl.Part. c. But just as Plato's theory accounts not only for the circulation of waters but also of the winds. to wit.cc. 4 The formation of such cavities in the embryo is explained by Hipp. Animal.ud5wv. Part..vo6oawv. Possibly the same is true of Plato Phaedr. 3 Cf. Kal T7j jOpL T4 9XOV7TL T*V T?S c/VM)KcS OepEpy6T7qTos Aristotle describes T&s dpX&s TCV fXej8oV after Syennesis. where the 7r--ya are called dpXacthe two conceptions of "source" and "cause" blend. Arist. 766a 34: IVT7J cpXV dpX%5v. 7r. to serve in the theory of Empedocles as the counterpart of the KOtX12 among the medici.. after some such source. the aqueous humor (vip(o4 or v8op). The first blood-clot . 51 (7. and see passim for similar expressions. The organs which are here called 7r-cLya later. Animal.. 478b 34. Z 3.). L. the liver. the brain. A 1. A 13.. dpX* TOV OU..Eovo Kai dpXJ KLVt*ErwS. ibid.. 7r. they drain the body. On this wise: when the abdominal cavity is full. The circumstance that the medical fraternity recognize four humors and four correspondwhile each of the humors is commonly associated with one of the properties ing 7r1yzai. cf. are 640b 10 f. 349a 28 ff. 561a 10. T apX&S Kal 7as EyLo7as 5Xgas. 4. 6 Hipp. and acD77 -ydp 90T7v dpX* Kac 7r7l7y' TOV al)uaTos (? ?) bro5oXj 7rpcbT77.3 But among the medical fraternity the abdomen (KotXif) was often regarded as the chief dpXt5 or 7rnyq.. KTX.). Meteor. The body itself also draws somewhat from the abdominal 1 Phaedo 112 B. If there were only a ge.. 17. Animal..ydX-q of the 7reypov Anaximander.. 542 f.

B 10. not counting the abdominal cavity.ON ANAXIMANDER 221 cavity when there is something in it. vc4&ev adve/wv Tr aAAa /ucyas3 KaL yeveTWp 7roTa. is too obvious to need further comment.) the KOLXLaL are compared to the sea. by the position of Cnidus. Query: Was the mention of these two names conditioned. In this connection I may remark that in his discussion of Ionia and the Peloponnesus in the same "chart " Roscher has apparently overlooked 7r. the body draws to itself some of the aforesaid humor from the abdominal cavity." Abh. and the sea. say...) says: o d iyKcK>aX6s iToL .' der philol-hist.or abdomen. 34 (7.L/wv. "Ueber Alter. the head (i.. 4 (8.. p.. In Hdt. Thus there are four sources. The heart is the source for the blood.e. and the region of the liver.).7rny78' ave/oLO OVTE poat OVTC ap ev ve4e-L1v<7voLaLc KS aVLOLO flUOLVTO &TW9CV ave7v 7ovrov pvycLXoLo EK7rVVELVTOr> 7orauWv 7rovros ovT' aL9EpOE oJu43pLoviv8wp. V. 545) instead of gulyas I6vTOS. the brain). 2Hipp. iv. 588 L. Ver. phlegm).tjp4 Kal u-ypcj) Tra/ALetov. Ursprung und Bedeutung der Hippokratischen Schrift von der Siebenzahl. OaaXdoo--s 8. 30): 7rl)? S'&ETL 0XaOav' v&aros. 6. 63. in the statement of Aristotle.2 In view of this we may perhaps at this point recall the interesting fragment of Xenophanes (fr. and the sources (central organs) draw from the abdomen through the veins-each humor attracting its like-and distribute it to the body. 484 L. 867a 25: is also Plato's doctrine in the Timaeus. 10 f. Ges.vo6owv. I see no hint of a chart in it. The significance of the latter is not altogether clear except for this point. 39. Diodorus i.] Probl. he might very likely have been charged with regarding the sea as "infinite. 7r. d. 227.e. in the theory reproduced by Plato. and was Attica still regarded as belonging to Ionia? 3 Had Xenophanes said lr6vros direopwv (cf. cf. 4).vaujv. 438L. Emped. vr. 7r. 10 (6. XXVIII. 52 a lake is called the . v e 7rq-y' elat Kef/Xa rov 67ypoO. 2. and of the Sea of Azov he says.v geyloT-)v. 104a. but I incline to agree with him that it reproduces the views of Asia Minor at a relatively early date. 5oKeIE 1 Cf. No. [D8aTL] . aapK<Zv.'qTrp67roXLts TroO PvXpoO Kal TroO Ko'XXb6deoS (i. Iliad 24. The various views have a common origin.. or Tartarus. When man eats or drinks. regarding it as representing a "chart" of the world.ATp 'Trdvtos (of the river Bug). Athenaeus iii. for the aqueous humor. and in the medical tradition the express comparison of the abdomen (IoAtX(i) with the sea seems to have been a commonplace. Here /hfTpo67roXLs means no more than 7rlyh(=adpXh)." The parallel between the ICotX(". fr. n. for the bile. the spleen. iP8oAd8wv.. for the phlegm'. 8&atrTs. A. [Arist. which Hipp. Roscher. 546 L.5ouvat 7rc0 Kai XageZv rap& rdvrw. iv.): KOLXi-qV 5e T'. discusses it. der kgl. Wiss. as apparently he used the word of the depth of the earth (cf. 86: ? Ma Teris rf KaVeraTS Kai /l7T)p TOO II6UTov. 11 (9. 1 and see below." Is it not possible that Anaximander used acrelpwv or %aretpos in the same popular sense ? .iv. sachs..

Lex.222 W. and s. xiv.X.I. cf.): 7) 5evrTpa . Anim. A. for they <5' at> relate to the " elements " as maxima mundi membra. In Hipp. Arist. 2 (8.2 Thus Aristotle 7repl TI7S /6oews IAri o0y acpxaZou KaL 7rpWTorL O0Aoao0jaaTes TLs Kal ToLa TLs. And it may not be amiss to recall that Aristotle himself associated these notions with his own apXt) ical o-Totxel?c. with whose conception of respiration it is of course most intimately connected. HEIDEL Of course Xenophanes held also that rivers. pXia. 100 L. tinued in use throughout the history of Greek medicine) were later called cpXal KaZ U (S dpXCXS Kai aTOLXeta fTo0xeca. Hipp. n. ey l -y K. by Pseudo-Galen Introd.) . In both TiWJ'. 12 (7.7 (6. 6KOV at ir-Iyal Kal al jprwar (fr. 6) are to be understood in the sense of i7r-yat (cf. and clouds return again to the sea. Thayer's N. 90 A.. 7repl T7rs UXLK7S dpX7S Kal TXr TroLaT77s aias &Ko6TKiOV. 7r. 2) Trs Te Tr0po7S Kat TOVr 7TepLTTdI- ' Arist. A 1. and also fr. irreconcilable. aTL L Tr) I 5val -yT7p 6Xaas TaDJTa I ?TarTaas ?I 5LOLKECTaL T6 NiOV. which Empedocles properly calls roots. we men are a 95UT8fl OV6K 9yYECOY having our Ke95aX. Tpoj. but there is of no mistakingthe fact that for him the sea is the apXi Kaa 7rq-ryi7 The two theories in question were not rivers. 584 L. dpxh. ero?s 'OPtPLKOT 97reoL4KaXOv/pOts cf. 2 The phrase later became a commonplace: cf. H.uo?pa KdrTwOJey A. Kal TrPOS KsOOVTOS Kal TrwS TOU i5arOs KO\LMay ey r ph'oT pos ac. . 0/n-oos 7ras5lov. . 3: KVKXCOEVPWP U TOV4/ vXpb Kal 47)p6V Kai 7roVX6 KLPOlP (read KELvYb W. p.. TOV U T7relCaT07os&a7TopeUOProsTros /WKTrpas dtappayjtvaL Trd Te i7p& Kat T& 7regaTra.arT c o Kal T(r)Y q5VTrp -yieoELy X17ovaP OZY.v.) the heart is described as the place It seems that the Empedoclean ALr$/=aTz ToV ar. With the latter. as applied to meteorology and physiology. 7. It is probable that he here expresses his belief in the evaporation or meteoric theory of the origin of streams rather than in the filtration theory. 10). 0. . s. 486 L. 697: 'Epaao-TpaTos (there were three dpXal or iI7rOTLO4LEPts T7-)P TpL7rXOKLaY TwY &yyelco 6SXov 0claTOs /raTos. 23. that the apX?itheory. a6rX KaX4Tat IAv yit. 7rapaXelTeL KaZ q5V#aS dy-yeZa! ). as to their source. r.v. KaZ 7TepZ TrJp TWY LoLWS K TraT77S 7yLpeTaL Tr6 5XOv. and were unquestionably combined in the physiological sphere.) and my "Antecedents of Greek Corpuscular Theories" 135 f. and clouds. d7reXLcO) (?d7reXhq5Oj ?) TroVGepAo 7rOVX6 cases reference is clearly had to "bodies" of air or fire in the earth. the dpXai are only circulatory systems and not true (Aristotelian) dpXal Kal aroLXeZa. capKCOIh. e.Kai '1ta in heaven...l as of With the description the apX?i a 7rt7' we should also compare the expression dpxi ical ptsa and similar turns.g. A 5. d\\& o6ipdvmow. 640b 4: ol [cf.T. .T. fr. existed in its main outlines before the days of Empedocles. Emped. Part. 1. though the term is employed. According to Plato Tim.aTa6s eio. The notion is doubtless Orphic. We could hardly desire more striking proof of the historical origin of the Aristotelian conception. KarT& XObYa (into the earth) 6erTO jAaKp0al (below the aether =fire). Hipp. TO7T06TW y&p cTTp * eK T`Y YTC W/dT-WJ OVYLaT7aO 6 5' 63p KaZ T7 tD5wp iX 7 T-W cW/.Ov/woJw. Y Nwv yev&Oa&KaZ 7racTa b7ro&Xytv (see below. winds. 410b 27: roVTro 6&T7rOVOC Kal O 6' .7 T4) U It is plain (note the use of fXaLs) that 1rPte6/aTart s PvpYep(y e T&S q5VaTK&S evepyeLas. 224. 54: a1Olp piaas.. 5TE ovYerTapdXO?). So much at least is obvious. vepa a ar. Kal dpT?)pLas. c. winds. Animal.d7T-w It is noteworthy that the physiological dpXat (for the term con7T*7 406o-u 7rd&es. 2.

] Mund." p. says. has often been noted. various points of view combined.3 c) The apxqi as a region or specific place for a certain kind of matter or humor. where the "world-soul" is d. i.qOepoldvpi7 It is not improbable that the very verse alluded to by Plato is that preserved by Vettius Valens ix. above 4We noted that the spatially and Anaximander's d7reLpov was the sole descriptive be attributed to it.-Your father's murder'd. the head. assurance quantitatively unbounded nature of which predicate could with perfect . say: &V as Shakespeare 9KO OPOV j |WP4TWP d~dcTEmE3 d4TpUp. . 'Hes.ON ANAXIMANDER 223 in seems to have regarded the Hesiodic Tartarus' as an apX7I the sense we have been describing. VtJrb dva7Tre6vrwv. r6vTov . makes Helen Oetw." it is relatively unless Ze6s should be regarded with the meteoric merely as the sky. 722 f. as has der Griechen and Geschichte long been seen. b4) [Arist. supply from which. 0-at 'yap T*Y IVX*) eK TOV 8Xov d-tvat TWv dvi4Amn. n. Mem. Kai TapHesiod TE rdTvwv Ka4 oupaoOU TdpOU . 8. 1. But on this head it is well to speak with some reserve until the cosmography of primitive Greece is somewhat better understood. . and again we have (ibid. 4. to which the Hesiodic Tartarus is closely akin. 1255a 37. much d.4 X60S. must be regarded as occupying a definite position. But does not the last expression Ze6s 7r6Pov argue that the text as we have Aia late? At any rate AiDahere must mean " cause. 18 Diels: SLK?) soul and compared in this regard to "earth " referred to as the source of the individual or maxima conceived as "elements" and "moisture mundi "-manifestly membra. Meteor.eOa In all these cases regard is had not so much to the organ by which. for the analogy between the alvetpov of Anaximander and the primitive Chaos. if realistically conceived. Arist. ol /hA' o4P dpxacOLKal .r' aIOipos gpptw7TaL. 3.2 If we should come to agree with him.). quoted by Arist. 401 a29. the preceding note). . there are evidently (727). . . 86). what is needed is obtained: The same point of view is presented by Xen. Erdkunde that the work must inaccuracies.Kal Trb XOL7rb o6pavbp Z 5vTW TL. interpretation blepOev for 6iTepOev But in vss. it would prove a most striking confirmation of our view. some day be done over again. 149. 7. A 6. 5' d7r' Theodectes. . 736 f. OOTWS vpoaeppL~S/. . Hdt. The Londin. &' a6Toos vroLoin au'rns (sc. where other texts read dpXd. .aCrSjTAcTOV Kal d p X hr. 1-7ycal Kal relpaT' gacLA' Aristotle's would seem at least to require (736 f. V Te 7XeLY iuas OVT' -WS tYCp 9KEL3'a TpOaepprwTL TX . of it is stopp'd. Macbeth II. Pol. 5." the very source See my "Anteroyal of Greek Corpuscular cedents Theories. Macan ?3 s dpX al yp 0-Z a * S Kal K a I Ai O&aMTT7s* Kal ohv6epop brNa8ov -yL to-Ws OYTW Tp-paLyLKdTEpO TL TOU eliat Tr Xey6jA&epov. Berger's Mythische Kosmographie der der Griechen are so full of intolerable wiss. p. Kai aTol cLTp6s T7' a*Jpa KaTEd Te T&r Alvaa Kal KaTr Tr 5Xa ac4LjTa. PKal TOUTOU raro wepi TOUTO OUoT-71jaL T7f' T67rOV xdp' US 5Xop does not say cpXal Kal pasw but -y7s kicw (728) and -y7s . B 1. 4. Orphic lines we have Z6S KeCacX. It is obvious that a source or reservoir. the fountain of your blood I Is stopp'd. as to the source of in other words it is the dpX? Kal irlqyi4. aXdrTT77s) 7r7yds (cf. 353a 34. 330. 4. 7ro1avTr US# TOUTO 6pLOp6P IZ. in accordance theory of the origin of water. . Since the 7rTnh of a river was its KegaMX (cf. 91) we may here note that So in the familiar word (cf.OoZV tTpOc7poee?Zv TIS "The spring.&acTpipovrTes repl T&s OeoXoyias on Hdt. 2 Theog. 23 Kroll: KaOCbSKai 6 Oet6raTos 'Op956s XIyec 4vx' 5d' dvOpCbroswp same notion is attributed to Hippocrates by Anonym. vi.

39 (558). as e. This is the physiological counterpart of the return of each ingredient in a composite to its <6>vts-its I. quoted above. Cf. . regards the sea as a Tr6Os: the important question with him or is whether it should be called the T6Oo OaMA6-TT77s the T6rOs 8arTos. dVOp.g. Plato's matter thus became directly the parent of Arisbut as interpreted a blank I. Of b7ro5oXh we have already had several instances (see above p. the entiredescription totle's apx'h Kal -rotXeFov. 3See. ir. Part.). Arist. in a word. 33. ir. 36 (550). cf.. and other related instances might readily be cited. 2. but cf.ews vbro5oX otov rt0hV (49A) and i. 3.): dpX1 . rpoojs.ueydXq a ii. doubtless the KOLXMf is meant) Is e`Ty-aov (9. in allusion to the bag of Aeolus. Meteor. 1 and 2). 19. nn.221.224 W.): eravae/gpet rp6es 'IV6ooeGvlOv 9KacTrov rp6s rhV eWVTOV. K. T." Tim.which is only our old KOLXIa:cf.767wV T. 278 L. 2. quoted above. KaraI oX 016-tv eis r TsV . Plato's description of it is too well known to require much illustration. Arist. as also about the other of the KOLXIa organs or apXat. Hipp. e.3 These conceptions explain Aristotle's doctrine and has a OvclKQ possesses its obiCetoV T'dro'o that each rTOLXEZtov Ix[Vqo-tv toward it. p. see 33 (7. En. 220. 562).7ro0eKt1.4 The 1 Aristotle. 10(6. Meteor. iv.v c oUiy-yuyv6jeva aeil 9. 48E f. regard is had to the container rather than to the thing contained. n. 356 a33. In regard to the position Aristotle and the medici have much to say. V. and Gilbert Meteor. 4. We have seen that the sea and the abdomen receive back that which they send forth to circulate through the earth or the body.rs. of course. Theorien. 355 b2. 15.667bl9. 4See Hipp..2. 40 (560. 222. A13.Kat Kali p TO1TOU &ws av ?e?T 1t 7r6repov &p' &o'rep d'y-yetou&ZXao4eZv Ovora TOVi&VPeLAOV.ccura KaL 7rcXtiv JKEWEP acbr6XXvrat. r6rov. udXpL otop {t dTKWV dotg4evov. 14: ets o rhxV abroO 9einv Irawvuxvac'p. speaking of the winds: Kat X apX1 7r60ev abCLTwv. p.. f Cw irp6s TI ouwy'yexs O6AoXo"yVr9ov E: irp6s rhxVav'TroO 956o-v pep6jAevov. Lucret. ibid. Plato Critias llA calls the "basinof the sea" TrOT? OaXdoo'r71s acy-ye?ov. Historically the most important instance is that of Plato's conception of "matter. A. find each vessel considered as the natural place for a specific kind of stuff.. 37 (554). 79 D: TrI Oepp. Plato Tim.g. vo6ocvv. &al.). Plotin. For a&y-yeZov. See my "Hepl '160rews " 103 f. 1113: corpora distribuuntur et ad sua saecla recedunt. 51 (588). 349 b3 f. 106 L. 2 The dpXac or 7r-yal are repeatedly called Xcpla by Hipp. and S. 7r. Kat betrays its own descent from the old meteorological and physiological acpyXJ 7rV'y?. z'o6awp.1 (6.. s. @Oog. HEIDEL This fact has already received sufficient illustration in connection with the sea.). irdC7s qcaVTcdeT7cLa 'yevIg. 24: 7rp6s rTOv rpOo-hKOvra abVTq. 413. I..abroO Xbpev 19vat.p. 349 a33. d) The apXiiregarded as the end no less than as the beginning. 544 L. 24 (though not defined. r 5. ir. L. KEPWOJ TrOd Animal. &dyyeFov. to which it therefore returns of itself when it becomes disengaged from the entanglements caused by the circulatory process. "tribe" or its natural (and original) place of abode (cf. Hipp.evov. iv.efpos ac/fLKVe'rT 1X 9Kdrov ypeos Is adpXy'v Aey'dXqv dqtKveZtrat /Aca 95t6os eivac KalI 71 ct. B 2.484 L.v. Cf. Meteor.' But something more is intended when the apx?5is spoken of as an or a7y7yetov Xcop'ov or vr-o8x77 2-when. When there is we more than one dpXt7i..

AotwS aipxX Kat irdvra 4juoZ 6OKfLt of a real oipv ovlA/a afpxX /ALv -ayp TeXevTr* KVKXOV oV% dspf@)Kal TWV VotT. 9 (9. 103: uvvbv -yap dpX* Kal 7rgpas 7rt K6KXOV 7repc/epetas.s7 7roXXaZ oLacXaoUTrvovoacL. r. Kai cp%X. 7r. co6os evoc. 60 L. rather primitive.Ud77TPV c7rb 7rav7-bs 6OL4ws TOU T#lAaTos. 11 (9. Parmenides. fr. 11 (6. The religious application seems to have come much later. 7r. like the soul. who refers to several other passages.uda.K6KXOV-yCp yeyevYP dpA)* oiX e0X el va should help us to understand Heraclitus. 1 See De Jong De Apuleio Isiacorum My8teriorum Teste. since here the conservatism was more tenacious of primitive ideas.' In its round the atom. 276 L. all becomes 06pfQC Kal at QoOeY poLa. the individual particle of matter passes through the several spheres or regions of the world only to return in the end to the point from which it set out. T67rWVTWJ KarTa dvOpw7rov. and Diogenes of Apollonia.la.): Hipp. though I am unable to give the reference. OVK These quotations TETE7XCET71KEV o5a . The departure of the particle of matter from the universal apX'7' was viewed as individuation. Plato Tim. just as the soul in Hellenistic times was conceived as originating in God and ending by reabsorption into the blank negation called Deity. 182 L.u4a (and because of the connection of the circulatory with the respiratory system). My impression is that Rohde somewhere confirms this. Kal 60eV 9jpKTaL Kal ?7 7rap%ovTacu . Melissus. Leyden 1900. may be held for a time in an alien element. 2 Cf. Thus. conception was sublimated in the course of time into metaphysics. Kai d7ra TWV fQC Kai dro TWV o @W. and it is just this which distinguished the technical from the naive view of the apXq) IcaL -7rq7 The scientific conception rests upon the assumption of a physical cycle in which. T-reXevT Kal afvOpJnrov. transfers the conception to that of a subject in which all considerations lead to the same conclusion. 102 L.Kai es dXX?Xas &ta&6a6acu divac. 7r. but it inevitably tends to return home. But we know that this development came late. This simple. 3 The metaphysical doctrine as applied to matter was developed by Plato on the basis of hints (hardly more) contained in the philosophy of the Pythagoreans.): al c/Ages 6LA TOU off. Hence the reabsorption of the soul into a metaphysically conceived Deity appears to have been thought of first among the neo-Pythagoreans and neo-Platonists. fr.dVCaL KtV'q0Tv d7ro . like the soul in the Orphic IvccXoq7EVEE9. ap%X.u1a aiT7-q7 vov p'0q. . Consequently there were those who went so far as to deny the existence 1 (6.lAa raclroLXXat T7 Kat 7raVToLad. as Hipp. This interpretation differs slightly from that of Diels Parmenides Lehrgedicht66 f.3 ' a61T.2 its return as becoming merged in the world-ground.): cPX1 5U rtVTrV #aQ KacTTE\rXevr rtPTdovAla. 106 L.7aTOS KEXv/.): eo-1 6U Kai a7r& Tr1 KOLXt7fl qX.8ES dVA &' cv X T7O0w. TpOc/ls. o67rvoLa .) says. 49 D f. Democritus. This is hardly the place to trace the development in detail. [Kal] ^ KOLXL77J Kai es 0bpOVfft 6 Kal d7rb TWv raXe6)V TpOrp7 TCj aTW'LTL gpXeTat.ON ANAXIMANDER 225 same thought recurs continually in connection with the functions ascribed to the dpXya4ywhether conceived as physiological organs or as elements. 3. -ypaq5vros dpxX Oo-frwv 7rveulJa Kal p5uJ/a Kai 0/6otos. q5XflWV Te7V TOr ai' T EUWOev dXXo ofw. Ibid. 23 (9. The meaning is illustrated by Hipp. TOU afbaTos. dXX& lrdpTa o1..

IV Aristotle and Theophrastus affirm that Anaximander postulated the a7retpov in order to provide against the cessation of tye'veotr . 27. 5. if. First.2. Theog.226 W. HEIDEL III According to Theophrastus the apXii of Anaximander was that out of which things come and to which they return. &r T( 15. insists that this belongs solely to Aristotle.2. 24: cI' Zva cX v xpioOcu r&s Kal totle): peLTat OiTwS 6ju&ws j 67roXcL7re1I'-yi'EcV 14. 31. Now there is a passage in Lucretius which suggests to me a view that may very well represent Anaximander's thought. 3.3 It is possible that both the report and the criticism based upon it were justified. 0Oopdv. 0. and compare the storms in Tartarus. It would of course apply with precision to the Atomists. there is some doubt as to what Anaximander meant by "innumerable" worlds. but used the term rather more loosely. 14. it is possible that the form of Aristotle's report does not exactly reproduce what he wrote. all matter. der Philo8. falls directly downward and. Philol. 999 f. 36 f. But further. Gilbert Archiv ftlr Ge. n. el &dretpoi eZ-qd0ei dq/a&- TI -yt-yI'6pLPoI'. who postulated an absolute infinity. but certain considerations suggest a reasonable doubt. 14. 29.' and this has a bearing upon our question. Cf. 3 V. all bodies large or small fall . 436.2. the book of Anaximander was not discursive but aphoristic in style. Lucret. 13. Cla88. according to the Epicurean doctrine. 6. Jrpbr V.2 and Aristotle criticized his reasoning. n. Hes. II. 6 1. as falling through a void. Again. A. XIV. but what might be inferred from it.eI'acyKCLZD ?"Epycig d7retpoy elcZL awAa aloOOfT6P. 221. 742 f.4 it is possible that Anaximander had not conceived his d'7-etpoy as infinite in the strictest sense. as has already been suggested. 2 On the last passage see my note. 4 See above. see Burnet Early GreekPhilo8ophy262 f. He says:6 semperin assiduomotu7res quaequegeruntur partibuse cunctisinfernaque8 suppeditantur 1 V. 34: O0Te 7&p J'a X 'y6'cos /1 &AeXEirf. 433. 8 Since. maintaining that strict infinity was not requisite for the purpose. This' has been sufficiently explained in the foregoing section. but will receive a definition more in detail in the two following. 7 See below. 5 For a discussion of this question. on KbvI?ts dlwos. 14. 45 (Arisyev'oeLt d4006ys. 13. as seems most probable. the world included.

no less obvious is the fact that Lucretius is here reproducing the arguments of Democritus. a thunderbolt. fCKpOLa might be thought to represent an original CFKKpUL0S. After a brief argument to prove the strict infinity of matter. It seems to me not unlikely.which would apply not to men but to the world. cf. fr. 1138.. 3. If we divest this utterance of the few touches due to an advanced stage of philosophizing. Lucret. for it falls in perfectly with his doctrine of cosmic respiration (nutrition). 1.sic omniadebent dissoluisimul ac defecit suppeditare materiesaliquarationeauersauiai. in nam ueluti priuatacibo naturaanimantum diffluitamittens corpus. at least in part. nisi materiai ex infinitosuboriricopia posset. 724. the world would receive no accessions at all but such as come from a lateral and upward motion of atoms due to the secondary effects of a clinamen. 17-19. Diels is doubtless right in declaring it spurious. If that were the case./aros applied to a&ip) gives in substance it the thought of Anaximenes. 1049.ON ANAXIMANDER ex infinito cita corporamateriai. as Curtius maintained. that (excepting the adjective do-S. however indirect. fr. Eurip. Pyrakmon) of Hes. for there is doubtless a connection. 2 1. in addition to the discussion referred to in the preceding note. usque adeo passimpatet ingens copia rebus finibusexemptisin cunctasundiquepartis. The same general point of view is met with in Anaximenes. quod neque clarasuo percurrere fulminalcursu perpetuopossint aeui labentiatractu nec prorsumfacereut restet minusire meando. . 4 Cf. Diels Dox. The whole has the appearance of a (partly mistaken) paraphrase which our late source erroneously quotes as an excerpt." though it is perhaps-not certainly -a substitute for what Anaximenes said. 318: 7rXo6aLovtowp. The connection of this argument with the primitive conception of the cosmic respiration or nutrition3 is obvious. See my "IAntecedents of Greek Corpuscular Theories" 133-40. the poet proceeds:2 quod nulo facerentpacto.4 For Democritus the universe was unquestionably infinite in the strict with equal velocity. Theog. cf. 2. the residue may well be thought to be primitive. 483. between Lucretius' description of infinite space and Hesiod's Tartarus. 1036. Hence the use of suborirT. unde amissasolent reparare temporequaeque. however. The adjective 7rXo6aLosanswers well to the conception of the &7reLpov or d7reLpos d'p as merely "boundless. but. and a brief description of the mechanical origin of things each after its kind. 8 1035. based on the infinity of space. 227 est igitur naturaloci spatiumqueprofundi. 1 One is reminded of the dKIAwv(probably not an anvil.

For this assumption there is. but. recreari. This process of rarefaction and condensation belongs to the same category as Anaximander's 'eciKpIO9. it has been common to accept Aristotle's interpretation of the apxat of the Ionians as a-TotXeia.udl6v. as well as with the XvuArosof Parmenides Call it by whatever name we please. authentic words of the philosopher (fr.228 W. 433 adnot.). for dates from though it has long been known that the term C7TOLXe?ov Plato and the conception of the " element " in the strict sense from Empedocles. no satisfactory evidence. HEIDEL sense. it is obviously conceived and the Pythagoreans. and therefore to assume. A. I deminui debet. Hence we naturally think of water as the dpXq\ Similarly the "air" of Anaximenes. 318 f."2 Before dismissing the subject of the azpXqc it is desirable to emphasize the importance of the result of the foregoing study in the event of its being accepted. and a study of the 1 See my "llIpas and "Aire&poiin the Pythagorean Philosophy. 5. and has long been recognized as a distinctly mechanical operation. as an dpXi Kal 7r77yh. 2 Professor E. 7r. into which it finally yielded up the "ghost. whatever he had in mind.: Denique iam tuere hoc. that the Milesians explained the origin. however. circum supraque quod omnem I continet amplexu terram: si procreat ex se I omnia. in the Kac 7yyq of all things.1 (9. The results of my essay have been adopted in the main by Burnet Early GreekPhilosophy2 334 f. L. which links the " outer circle" withrbd w TOU K60LOV &d7repoV. of individual things or of differentiations by "dynamic" processes. K. is the outer source. from which it drew its sustenance (breath). from which it draws its sustenance. cum recipit res. I nam quodcumque alias ex se res auget alitque.the dKpiroS K6o'tOS or the' O)XutoS K607LOS of Hipp. quod quidam memorant. XIV. the general conception has a long history.. but for the older Pythagoreans' ai7Tepov meant only the spatially or quantitatively indefinite." Archiv fur Ge. Rand calls my attention to Lucret. der Philos. 384 f. surrounding the world. . However we may decide this question. I totum natiuo ac mortali corpore constat. eC'36o. The comparison with the well-known verses of Pacuvius on which the passage is modeled suggests that Lucretius here refers to the caelum or aether. We know too little about the opinions of Thales to be able to say more than that his teachings relative to "water" are very like the conception of Xenophanes above set forth. 2). as a necessary consequence. This result tallies well with all that we know of the development of early Greek philosophy. recipitque perempta. we are directed by these considerations once more to lying the view that Anaximander's d7reLpov was an apX7 Ical V7n77-' about the world. specifically by that of a\XXotwCon.

251-260 (earth as dpX? Kal 7rq'yh). . n." have primarily a spatial reference. 1 and p. Anaxagoras. . ci7r (Tro) aicvos. Early Greek Philosophy2 66. if really due to Theophrastus. Burnet. there can be no doubt of the conception. The phrase ov OXo<t 65rcas K6o6uvs . p. ibid. In Lucretius this ancient conception reappears in all its purity." KaTa& d7roToAkhv IK 70V According to Leucippus (V. n. this is hardly right: 3 {K TroO4&ov is probably lrapeXqXvO6r6Tos Xp6pou. 4). a ) The first concerns the origin of the worlds. 343.2. or d'o'Cp1o-1g. 221. conceptions. where there is no room for true elements. Democritus. 2 V. for early Greek philosophy quite generally regards the world as a slice cut off from the infinite. . 5." Though possible. 139. ibid.' V The process eicKpKo-T. like that of the Atomists. Thus it is conceded that the 6869davo KaTO of Heraclitus.ON ANAXIMANDER 229 records proves it to be utterly unhistorical.uav6pov dToKeKpl-Oat Kai KaO6Xov Jro6s -y6vrpov OepUoi 7e Kai &iretpous 1/vXpoi KaTa& Tro6s re o6pavok {K TOU7 &LdOJv 7ip' gyeeovp TroiOe TroV K6c6zovi droKptO@. 3). which are said to have been separated off from the A'vetpov. 28:'Avatf. and in systems. so fundamental that they continued throughout the history of Greek thought to exercise a powerful influence. n. the "four elements. 4. fr.2. too.and thereforethe ue'Tpa the and " three (or four?) elements. . 13. 261-272 (water). . 14 (see my "Antecedents of Greek Corpuscular Theories" 138. After what has already been said on this subject. fr. . The reports based on Theophrastus relate to three distinct matters and must be considered separately. 167. to be construed like {K T7apT7S TOV Xp6pOV. 4) the worlds originate {K TOV0 c7relpov.o the cold by dynamic evolution. which I doubt. Note here the phrase aeris in magnum fertur mare! This reminds one of OdXarTra as an cipXt and also of the Tr6yros dTetpwv (see above. 4. 273-280 (air). probably means the eternal unchanging substratum capable of producing the hot and TO {K -roV &o6ov 7y6vq. still assert their claim to recognition. it is hardly necessary to refute such an interpretation of the &7retpov. . just as Is cL6op means "forever. .r &reLpov . .3 b) A second class of texts relates to a process operative in the formation and organization of the worlds. If we accept the comparison with Anaxagoras continually made by Aristotle and Theophrastus. n." as maxima mundi membra or apXat /ca&vryat'. We are told that things ISee Lucret. .It / ((l 6& Tr is striking and. . renders the sentence: "Something capable of begetting hot and cold was separated off from the eternal.at. .2 The meaning of this cannot be doubtful. 218. The interpretation of the apXat given above has the great advantage that it requires us to impute to the early philosophers only such conceptions as are abundantly attested in the pre-Socratic period. 2. Cf.

and indeed the conclusion was inevitable from the constant comparison and practical identification of the doctrines of Anaximander and Anaxagoras. 18. 16). and that it was this fact which led Aristotle to class Anaximander with Anaxagoras. Philol. 12. This is possible. 1 and others. 12. Augustine4 a century earlier. . 7ieaOa& Xpvo6v. But Theoone. 5 Tr 5e 7y. but it will not do to charge Simplicius with the responsibility for it. 2-23. 15. 13. Anaxagoras. following Zeller Ia. and what was earth. In this connection Anaximander is credited with the doctrine3 that in the segregation of matter like consorted with like. 4. 279 f. 206. the only difference recognized being Anaxagoras' introduction of the Novs. fragments 9. the former of the two preceding names.uov into more or less homogeneous masses by the vortex motion started by the Novs. the latter regarded as a v7roKet1ehVoV 4 V.2. 18 f. 1. this natural reference is confirmed by the mention of Anaxagoras in the next statement touching the Nois (l. The same point of view occurs in the account of the origin of the stars. 12: J. quoted 2 above. Simpl. 214. Empedocles. 111. Phys. 17. fr.' In another passage2 Simplicius invokes the authority of Theophrastus for a rather detailed statement regarding their philosophy. p. 4.2. "The 8&vP in Anaximander and Anaximenes" Class." There is undoubtedly confusion here. as indeed there is a pitiable confusion everywhere manifested in the statements of Aristotle and Theophrastus touching Anaximander. 27. HEIDEL originate not by qualitative change. 16). 9. "and what was gold in the universe became gold. and 158.5 I V. 6 TL dvevJ T7J 7ravT& Xpvaos ?P. 479. I. 3 Ibid. n. in which two interpretations are offered. 5 Cf. but the parallel is made almost complete in either case. which all now agree to be the phrastus had two conceptions of Anaxagoras-the true one. 36 (Parmenides). based upon a study of the philosopher himself. 7Jv KXTX. became earth. 13. 14. The comparison with St.2. which gave a clean-cut dualism between mind (Novs) and containing differences only uhvdgeL. The same interpretation of Anaximander as is given by Simplicius occurs in St. but not at all probable. See my paper. 3.2.230 W. 27. but by a mechanical segregation of opposites in consequence of the eternal motion. A. 29 (Empedocles). Augustine shows that Simplicius cannot be charged with the supposed alteration of the text (the addition of o 'Ava ay6pas. V. the other due to Aristotle's favorite reinterpretation. For the latter philosopher the meaning of d7ro6lpto-iq in this connection is clear: it refers to the segregation of the original 7rdv'ia 0. where of all places the name was not needed except to mark a change from one thinker to another. matter. 16.eZVoS7yp OIiov ev T7 8taKpLOeG TOV &Teipov rT& OT770ei oepeoOac Kal 7rpoS AXX?qXa. Diels Dox. refers Kezvos to Anaxagoras. The natural reference is to Anaximander. with which compare V.

4 Gen. 16 f. 14. e. 112.4 We have only to recall Aristotle's own doctrine of lt'Stg. the specific reference is to 187 a20: o0 5' UK TOU i'lS evo&Tbas 7&s ivavrt6r11Tcas &KKpLvetTOaL. as Anaximander says and also such as speak of One and Many. 1069 b20: Kal TroOr' o-Tl Trb 'Aivahahy6pou (. "Others separate out from the One the opposites inhering in it. We must now consider the report of Aristotle. The winds are said to arise by the separation from the air (i. only in that it proves beyond a doubt that Anaximander used the expression e'. as.2.2 where he is briefly interpreting his predecessors. . is entirely clear. Empedocles and Anaxagoras. tells the tale: Aristotle is conscious of doing violence to Anaxagoras' express words.8eXrLOVy&p i 6AoO irdira) ev Kai 'EA7re6OKcXeOUS peZ'yula KcLI'AvapacAv5pou.ua. Al. 6tTvep 'EITe6OKXfS Kal 'Avatay6pas {K 7OV getyAaros y&p Kal oDTOL IKKp1POU0L TaXXa. 3 Met. for the interpretation of the Av'JeLpoV as eg stands on precisely the same footing as that of Empedocles' and Anaxagoras' .ccpt'veo9fat. et Corr.uevy. The record derived from Theophrastus. The principal text occurs in one of the most sketchy and confused passages of his Physics. but that is done elsewhere. mist) of the finest vapors. See also Burnet Early GreekPhilosophy2 59. however. Neither was historically justified. Here again he tampers with Anaxagoras.g. as Aristotle was well aware in so far at least as it concerned the two latter philosophers. saying that he does not understand the implication of his own utterances. to understand how he could foist the One on Anaxagoras and Empedocles and transfer the same interpretation from I V. I discussed the matter in my "Qualitative Change in Pre-Socratic Philosophy" 344 f. is that they regarded the world and all that therein is as proceeding from the One by a process of eKKccpto-tlS.. All these passages have been tortured by interpreters. regarded as chemical change. which has been passed in review. ('tTrep 'AvcatIav6p6s r/eaTL Kal roao 5' b' Kai ToXxAd caoap eh'cu. The clause #eX-rAO' y&P X O. n. because they thought they could discover Anaximander's doctrine if only they could make out Aristotle's meaning.ON ANAXIMANDER 231 c) There is also a reference to d'rd6Kpo-Lstin relation to meteorological phenomena. A 2. The assumption of a mixture is not here expressly ascribed to Anaximander. 314 a8 ff. See the following note.' This requires no commentary.oOU Tr lrdpra 2 Phys. See my "Qualitative Change" 369. as the point of agreement assumed by Aristotle as existing between the three philosophers. for they also separate out everything else from the mixture. A 4." Here the important point. The testimony of Aristotle is of value.e.3 and in our passage it is implied.

2. Leucippus. and they declared for an eternal motion: for without motion there is no origin and no passing away. HEIDEL them to Anaximander because of their known similarity of doctrine. but the reference to him is clearly marked as a later addition. 13.5 the company in which Anaximander appears sufficiently explains the record. n. b Theophrastus would not include Epicurus. Here we must distinguish between a K'v'qo-t ad&os (a) in the a7etpov antecedent to the origin of the world. 4. 8 V. 7 V. If Anaximander referred to a pre-cosmical attosq we must interpret it as we do that of the Atomists. some always originating. 946A (the selection of rulers)." Again he says:3 "Those who. 13.1 VI We come now to the "eternal motion" (. A.d'lSo-t& ad(ost). This is rather vague. Legg. and at a later date Epicurus. postulated worlds infinite in number. 21 f." Hippolytus says. 303 Df.232 W. . and (b) in the cosmos creating the world as we know it. others passing away. 3. 3 Phys. 1121. 12. 6 It is not necessary to enter here into the controversy that has raged about this point of their doctrine. 14. the dry and the moist.4 "Anaximander said that there was in addition to the a6WeLpovan eternal motion in which the worlds in due course originate. in motion." Assuming that these reports are derived from Theophrastus. 5. assumed that they originated and passed away ad infinitum. 564E (a kind of natural selection). (the sorting and screening of ore). and infinite. 14.2. a) Simplicius2 classes Anaximander among those who postulated an element "unitary.6 KdV77Tl b) Hermias7 speaks of an " eternal motion anterior to the existence of the moist" whereby things come into existence and pass away. p. which is intimately connected with EGKKplurlT. like Anaximander. mentioned by Simplicius. Plato Polit.8 since the hot and the cold. 2 Phys. 24. and Democritus. quoted above. but probably refers to the segregation of the opposites by the eternal motion. The absolutely consistent mechanical sense of the verbs E'ICicpiveoOac and dwro/cpve-Oat down through Plato again shows how we must interpret Anaximander. 4 V. Rep. 214. are given as the aforesaid 1 Cf.2.

warns one to be cautious.ON ANAXIMANDER 233 opposites. Because of the facts just noted we are unable to derive much enlightenment from the context. Jour. blending paraphrase with simple excerpt. Fortunately we have one clue. to determine precisely what belongs to the Milesian." Especial interest attaches to the words of Simplicius. XXIX. 4 It seems to me very probable that the "ordinance of time" refers to the succession of the seasons due to the obliquity of the ecliptic. in Amer. we know not what. what lies between is sufficiently prosaic. which Anaximander is said to have discovered (V.cvaa Tn)v ToV Xpovov Tartv. B10. 14. KalZrpv 0op&v es rcaOTa PyvveoOat TLZoP Kcard& XpeJbv. Aristotle repeatedly refers to j KLaT&rTv X6tov K6KXOP qopdt as the atria 'yeV0ews Kal 00op&s. . which was possible at any period of ancient Greek. to wit. et Corr. especially however Gen. if not impossible.2.2who is our sole authority."4 Historians of philosophy. . 28. VII Anaximander's doctrine of cosmic "justice and revenge. n. have quite ignored 1 V. . 3 See Burnet Early Greek Philosophy2 54. Things of some sort. and the known freedom in citation. The oratio obliqua at once shows that it is not a mere quotation. . We have then to inquire what it means. pay the penalty to one another for injustice "in accordance with the ordinance of time. 336 a31 f. it must be assumed to be at least an honest paraphrase. If the latter clause is not a direct quotation.2. though it is not easy to see just where it leads: Simplicius remarks upon the high-flown language.v ytvecrOat is subject to suspicion.2. where he refers to the variation in heat and evaporation consequent upon the varying distance of the sun. a'S&. 13. 13. . the moist and the dry. because they are conceded to contain the only passage directly quoted from Anaximander.aX'. e s TavTa sentence e t. while the . 218 f. But even here it is difficult. This falls in perfectly with the interpretathe tion of the litigants as the 1vaVrt6rTr7eT. 4. and we shall have to consider the sentence entirely by itself. with few exceptions..&86vat 'yp a6Ta' 5K7?1P Kal Tr dCXXXoS Tsrs d5tKias KcarT r'. Philol. 6: i civ 5U 7? -yveOIs lorT roTs oDat. hot and the cold. 16. 12. .1 If any reliance is to be placed on these reports they can refer only to the vortex motion which introduced order and created a cosmos out of chaos. 17). . Yet.3 the same cannot be said of SSo'vat . KaTa To XpeEv and . vot77TTKWTdpOLS OLTWS6v61mo-tva6Tra Vywv. Only two phrases seem to justify the description.V roT I have discussed this passage Xp6VOV Td&tV. V.

but he doubtless thought of this as a question of nutrition. It is a case of "an eye for an eye. there would seem to be little excuse for him who misses the way. so &K-0 is K6Xaats. not as a metaphysician. 81. set as it were designedly to serve as a guide-post. and so of the opposites also. by re-absorption2 of individual existences into the common ground. from the MSS by Usener and Diels. 365 f. as many have held. the words of our record offer a fitting description. 3 No doubt Anaximander believed in the destruction of the world. p. tunes (4'rucpadTeta. must seek satisfaction. 3 and 4. developed from the jus talionis. 2 See above. WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY 1 Greek law. These may be considered by themselves. for S&Lcvv or compensation for a say Trlo-V) LSo'vat means to give satisfaction wrong done to a peer-8&cq obtains between peers. nn. HEIDEL inadvertently omitted in the Aldine and restored the word daXXqXotT. If the foregoing discussion serves any useful purpose. But with the defining addition (whether due to Anaximander or to Simplicius) of Ica&TLYLV. n. . Hence there was no public prosecutorthe injured. 225. n. or his friends. That were in truth justice with a vengeance. e7rLcpaTEv. Perhaps it may also be accepted as a demonstration that Anaximander should be regarded.Los. so to speak. although even without it they (not to should have avoided certain palpable blunders.234 W. or rather they must be interpreted by the context of early Greek thought. 227.' there can be no thought of punishment. and of marked by varying forthem and their age-long cosmic 7ro'Xe. As igpts is vepp3caaa. See above. but as a notable pioneer in the field of science. but most are concerned with subjects which by common consent belong to the early history of science rather than of philosophy. a personal satisfaction. hence also the perfectly frank avowal of animosity on the part of the complainant. As the compensation exacted is. What then are the peers that are engaged in this truly Greek 'aydwv? We can think of nothing but the "opposites" mentioned in our sources. e7rLICpaTELOaL). A. a tooth for a tooth": sin and punishment are of a kind. always remained an d7ycv between peers. 4 See my "Qualitative Change in Pre-Socratic Philosophy" 360. in which the state acted only as umpire. p. it may be accepted as an attempt to so interpret the doctrines here considered.4 There are other questions relative to the philosophy of Anaximander which still await adjudication.3 The injustice and the retribution alike are the "personal" concern of peers. 3.