Chapter I: The Milesian School (1)

[Sidenote: Miletos and Lydia.]

1. It was at Miletos that the earliest school of scientific cosmology had its home. At the time it arose, the Milesians were in an exceptionally favourable position for scientific as well as commercial pursuits. They had, indeed, come into conflict more than once with the neighbouring Lydians, whose rulers were now bent upon extending their dominion to the coast; but, towards the end of the seventh century B.C., Thrasyboulos, tyrant of Miletos, had succeeded in making terms with King Alyattes, and an alliance was concluded between them, which not only saved Miletos for the present from a disaster like that which befell Smyrna, but secured it against molestation for the future. Even half a century later, when Croesus, resuming his father’s forward policy, made war upon and conquered Ephesos, Miletos was still able to maintain the old treaty-relation, and never, strictly speaking, became subject to the Lydians at all. We can hardly doubt that the sense of security which this exceptional position would foster had something to do with the rise of scientific inquiry. Material prosperity is necessary as a foundation for the highest intellectual effort; and at this time Miletos was in possession of all the refinements of life to a degree unknown in continental Hellas.

Nor was it only in this way that the Lydian connexion would favour the growth of science at Miletos. What was called Hellenism at a later date seems to have been traditional in the dynasty of the Mermnadai. There may well be some truth in the statement of Herodotos, that all the “sophists” of the time flocked to the court of Sardeis.[52] The tradition which represents Croesus as what we should call the “patron” of Greek wisdom, was fully developed in the fifth century; and, however unhistorical its details may be, it must clearly have some sort of foundation in fact. Particularly noteworthy is “the common tale among the Greeks,” that Thales accompanied him on his luckless campaign against Pteria, apparently in the capacity of military engineer. Herodotos, indeed, disbelieves the story that he diverted the course of the Halys;[53] but he does not attack it on the ground of any antecedent improbability, and it is quite clear that those who reported it found no difficulty in accepting the relation which it presupposes between the philosopher and the king.

Footnote 52:

Herod. i. 29. Some other points may be noted in confirmation of what
has been said as to the “Hellenism” of the Mermnadai. Alyattes had two
wives, one of whom, the mother of Croesus, was a Karian; the other was
an Ionian, and by her he had a son called by the Greek name Pantaleon
(_ib._ 92). The offerings of Gyges were pointed out in the treasury of
Kypselos at Delphoi (_ib._ 14), and those of Alyattes were one of the
“sights” of the place (_ib._ 25). Croesus also showed great liberality
to Delphoi (_ib._ 50), and to many other Greek shrines (_ib._ 92). He
gave most of the pillars for the great temple at Ephesos. The stories
of Miltiades (vi. 37) and Alkmeon (_ib._ 125) should also be mentioned
in this connexion.

Footnote 53:

Herod. i. 75. He disbelieves it because he had heard, probably from
the Greeks of Sinope, of the great antiquity of the bridge on the
royal road between Ankyra and Pteria (Ramsay, _Asia Minor_, p. 29).
Xanthos recorded a tradition that it was Thales who induced Croesus to
ascend his pyre when he knew a shower was coming (fr. 19).

It should be added that the Lydian alliance would greatly facilitate intercourse with Babylon and Egypt. Lydia was an advanced post of Babylonian culture, and Croesus was on friendly terms with the kings of both Egypt and Babylon. It is noteworthy, too, that Amasis of Egypt had the same Hellenic sympathies as Croesus, and that the Milesians possessed a temple of their own at Naukratis.[54]

Footnote 54:

Milesians at Naukratis, Herod. ii. 178, where Amasis is said to have
been φιλέλλην. He subscribed to the rebuilding of the temple at
Delphoi after the great fire (_ib._ 180).

I. THALES

[Sidenote: Origin.]

2. There can be no doubt that the founder of the Milesian school, and therefore the first of the cosmologists, was Thales;[55] but all we can really be said to know of him comes from Herodotos, and the romance of the Seven Wise Men was already in existence when he wrote. He tells us, in the first place, that Thales was of Phoenician descent, a statement which other writers explained by saying he belonged to the Thelidai, a noble house descended from Kadmos and Agenor.[56] This is clearly connected with the view of Herodotos that there were “Kadmeians” from Boiotia among the original Ionian colonists, and it is certain that there really were people called Kadmeians in several Ionic cities.[57] Whether they were of Semitic origin is, of course, another matter. Herodotos probably mentions the supposed descent of Thales simply because he was believed to have introduced certain improvements in navigation from Phoenicia.[58] At any rate, the name Examyes, which his father bore, lends no support to the view that he was a Semite. It is a Karian name, and the Karians had been almost completely assimilated by the Ionians. On the monuments, we find Greek and Karian names alternating in the same families, and there is therefore no reason to suppose that Thales was anything else than an ordinary Milesian citizen, though perhaps with Karian blood in his veins.[59]

Footnote 55:

Simplicius, indeed, quotes from Theophrastos the statement that Thales
had many predecessors (_Dox._ p. 475, 11). This, however, need not
trouble us; for the scholiast on Apollonios Rhodios (ii. 1248) tells
us that Theophrastos made Prometheus the first philosopher, which is
merely an application of Peripatetic literalism to a remark of Plato’s
(_Phileb._ 16 c 6). Cf. Appendix, § 2.

Footnote 56:

Herod. i. 170 (R. P. 9 d.); Diog. i. 22 (R. P. 9).

Footnote 57:

Strabo, xiv. pp. 633, 636; Pausan. vii. 2, 7. Priene was called Kadme,
and the oldest annalist of Miletos bore the name Kadmos. See E. Meyer,
_Gesch. des Alterth._ ii. § 158.

Footnote 58:

Diog. i. 23, Καλλίμαχος δ’ αὐτὸν οἶδεν εὑρετὴν τῆς ἄρκτου τῆς μικρᾶς
λέγων ἐν τοῖς Ἰάμβοις οὕτως—

καὶ τῆς ἁμάξης ἐλέγετο σταθμήσασθαι
τοὺς ἀστερίσκους, ᾗ πλέουσι Φοίνικες.

Footnote 59:

See Diels, “Thales ein Semite?” (_Arch._ ii. 165 sqq.), and Immisch,
“Zu Thales Abkunft” (_ib._ p. 515). The name Examyes occurs also in
Kolophon (Hermesianax, _Leontion_, fr. 2, 38 Bgk.), and may be
compared with other Karian names such as Cheramyes and Panamyes.

[Sidenote: The eclipse foretold by Thales.]

3. By far the most remarkable statement that Herodotos makes about Thales is that he foretold the eclipse of the sun which put an end to the war between the Lydians and the Medes.[60] Now, we may be sure that he was quite ignorant of the true cause of eclipses. Anaximander and his successors certainly were so,[61] and it is incredible that the right explanation should once have been given and then forgotten so soon. Even supposing, however, Thales had known the cause of eclipses, no one can believe that such scraps of elementary geometry as he picked up in Egypt would enable him to calculate one from the elements of the moon’s path. Yet the evidence for the prediction is too strong to be rejected off-hand. The testimony of Herodotos to an event which must have happened about a hundred years before his own birth may, perhaps, be deemed insufficient; but that of Xenophanes is a very different matter, and it is this we have really to deal with.[62] According to Theophrastos, Xenophanes was a disciple of Anaximander, and he may quite well have seen and spoken with Thales. In any case, he must have known scores of people who were able to remember what happened, and he had no conceivable interest in misrepresenting it. The prediction of the eclipse is really better attested than any other fact about Thales whatsoever, and the evidence for it is about as strong as for anything that happened in the early part of the sixth century B.C.

Footnote 60:

Herod. i. 74.

Footnote 61:

For the theories held by Anaximander and Herakleitos, see _infra_, §§
19, 71.

Footnote 62:

Diog. i. 23, δοκεῖ δὲ κατά τινας πρῶτος ἀστρολογῆσαι καὶ ἡλιακὰς
ἐκλείψεις καὶ τροπὰς προειπεῖν, ὥς φησιν Εὔδημος ἐν τῇ περὶ τῶν
ἀστρολογουμένων ἱστορίᾳ, ὅθεν αὐτὸν καὶ Ξενοφάνης καὶ Ἡρόδοτος
θαυμάζει.

Now it is quite possible to predict eclipses without knowing their true cause, and there is no doubt that the Babylonians actually did so. On the basis of their astronomical observations, they had made out a cycle of 223 lunar months, within which eclipses of the sun and moon recurred at equal intervals of time.[63] This, it is true, would not enable them to predict eclipses of the sun for a given spot on the earth’s surface; for these phenomena are not visible at all places where the sun is above the horizon at the time. We do not occupy a position at the centre of the earth, and what astronomers call the geocentric parallax has to be taken into account. It would only, therefore, be possible to tell by means of the cycle that an eclipse of the sun would be visible somewhere, and that it might be worth while to look out for it. Now, if we may judge from a report by a Chaldaean astronomer which has been preserved, this was just the position of the Babylonians. They watched for eclipses at the proper dates; and, if they did not occur, they announced the fact as a good omen.[64] To explain what we are told about Thales no more than this is required. He simply said there would be an eclipse; and, as good luck would have it, it was visible in Asia Minor, and on a striking occasion.

Footnote 63:

The first to call attention to the Chaldaean cycle in this connexion
seems to have been the Rev. George Costard, Fellow of Wadham College.
See his _Dissertation on the Use of Astronomy in History_ (London,
1764), p. 17. It is inaccurate to call it the _Saros_; that was quite
another thing (see Ginzel, _Klio_, i. p. 377).

[Sidenote: Date of Thales.]

4. The prediction of the eclipse does not, then, throw much light upon the scientific attainments of Thales; but, if we can fix its date, it will give us a point from which to start in trying to determine the time at which he lived. Modern astronomers have calculated that there was an eclipse of the sun, probably visible in Asia Minor, on May 28 (O.S.), 585 B.C.,[65] while Pliny gives the date of the eclipse foretold by Thales as Ol. XLVIII. 4 (585/4 B.C.).[66] This, it is true, does not exactly tally; for May 585 belongs to the year 586/5 B.C. It is sufficiently near, however, to justify us in identifying the eclipse as that of Thales, and this is confirmed by Apollodoros, who fixed his _floruit_ in the same year.[67] The further statement that, according to Demetrios Phalereus, Thales “received the name of wise” in the archonship of Damasias at Athens, agrees very well with this, and is doubtless based on the story of the Delphic tripod; for the archonship of Damasias is the era of the restoration of the Pythian Games.[68]

Footnote 64:

See George Smith, _Assyrian Discoveries_ (1875), p. 409. The
inscription which follows was found at Kouyunjik:—

“To the king my lord, thy servant Abil-Istar.

* * * * *

“Concerning the eclipse of the moon of which the king my lord sent to
me; in the cities of Akkad, Borsippa, and Nipur, observations they
made, and then in the city of Akkad, we saw part.... The observation
was made, and the eclipse took place.

* * * * *

“And when for the eclipse of the sun we made an observation, the
observation was made and it did not take place. That which I saw with
my eyes to the king my lord I send.”

Footnote 65:

For the literature of this subject, see R. P. 8 b, adding Ginzel,
_Spezieller Kanon_, p. 171. See also Milhaud, _Science grecque_, p.
62.

Footnote 66:

Pliny, _N.H._ ii. 53.

Footnote 67:

For Apollodoros, see Appendix, § 20. The dates in our text of Diogenes
(i. 37; R. P. 8) cannot be reconciled with one another. That given for
the death of Thales is probably right; for it is the year before the
fall of Sardeis in 546/5 B.C., which is one of the regular eras used
by Apollodoros. It no doubt seemed natural to make Thales die the year
before the “ruin of Ionia” which he foresaw. Seventy-eight years
before this brings us to 625/4 B.C. for the birth of Thales, and this
gives us 585/4 B.C. for his fortieth year. That is Pliny’s date for
the eclipse, and Pliny’s dates come from Apollodoros through Nepos.
For a full discussion of the subject, see Jacoby, pp. 175 sqq.

Footnote 68:

Diog. i. 22 (R. P. 9). I do not discuss the Pythian era and the date
of Damasias here, though it appears to me that the last word has not
yet been said upon the subject. Jacoby (pp. 170 sqq.) argues strongly
for 582/1, the date now generally accepted. Others favour the Pythian
year 586/5 B.C., which is the very year of the eclipse, and this would
help to explain how those historians who used Apollodoros came to date
it a year too late; for Damasias was archon for two years and two
months. It is even possible that they misunderstood the words Δαμασίου
τοῦ δευτέρου, which are intended to distinguish him from an earlier
archon of the same name, as meaning “in the second year of Damasias.”
Apollodoros gave only Athenian archons, and the reduction to Olympiads
is the work of later writers. Kirchner, adopting the year 582/1 for
Damasias, brings the archonship of Solon down to 591/0 (_Rh. Mus._
liii. pp. 242 sqq.). But the date of Solon’s archonship can never have
been doubtful. On Kirchner’s reckoning, we come to 586/5 B.C., if we
keep the traditional date of Solon. See also E. Meyer, _Forschungen_,
ii. pp. 242 sqq.

[Sidenote: Thales in Egypt.]

5. The introduction of Egyptian geometry into Hellas is universally ascribed to Thales, and it is extremely probable that he did visit Egypt; for he had a theory of the inundations of the Nile. In a well-known passage,[69] Herodotos gives three explanations of the fact that this alone of all rivers rises in summer and falls in winter; but, as his custom is in such cases, he does not name their authors. The first of them, however, that which attributes the floods to the Etesian winds, is ascribed to Thales in the _Placita_,[70] and also by many later writers. Now, those statements are derived from a treatise on the Rise of the Nile attributed to Aristotle and known to the Greek commentators, but now extant only in a Latin epitome of the thirteenth century.[71] In this work the first of the three theories mentioned by Herodotos is ascribed to Thales, the second to Euthymenes of Massalia, and the third to Anaxagoras. Where did Aristotle, or whoever wrote the book, get these names? We think naturally once more of Hekataios, whom Herodotos so often reproduces without mentioning his name; and this conjecture is much strengthened when we find that Hekataios actually mentioned Euthymenes.[72] We may conclude, then, that Thales really was in Egypt; and, perhaps, that Hekataios, in describing the Nile, took account, as was only natural, of his distinguished fellow-citizen’s views.

Footnote 69:

Herod. ii. 20.

Footnote 70:

Aet. iv. I. 1 (_Dox._ p. 384).

Footnote 71:

_Dox._ pp. 226-229. The Latin epitome will be found in Rose’s edition
of the Aristotelian fragments.

Footnote 72:

Hekataios, fr. 278 (_F.H.G._ i. p. 19).

[Sidenote: Thales and geometry.]

6. As to the nature and extent of the mathematical knowledge brought back by Thales from Egypt, it seems desirable to point out that many writers have seriously misunderstood the character of the tradition.[73] In his commentary on the First Book of Euclid, Proclus enumerates, on the authority of Eudemos, certain propositions which he says were known to Thales.[74] One of the theorems with which he credits him is that two triangles are equal when they have one side and the two adjacent angles equal. This he must have known, said Eudemos, as otherwise he could not have measured the distances of ships at sea from a watch-tower in the way he was said to have done.[75] Here we see how all these statements arose. Certain remarkable feats in the way of measurement were traditionally ascribed to Thales, and it was assumed that he must have known all the propositions which these imply. But this is quite an illusory method of inference. Both the measurement of the distance of ships at sea, and that of the height of the pyramids, which is also ascribed to him,[76] are easy applications of what Aahmes calls the _seqt_. These rules of mensuration may well have been brought from Egypt by Thales, but we have no ground for supposing that he knew any more about their _rationale_ than did the author of the Rhind papyrus. Perhaps, indeed, he gave them a wider application than the Egyptians had done. Still, mathematics, properly so called, did not come into existence till some time after Thales.

Footnote 73:

See Cantor, _Vorlesungen über Geschichte der Mathematik_, vol. i. pp.
112 sqq.; Allman, “Greek Geometry from Thales to Euclid”
(_Hermathena_, iii. pp. 164-174).

Footnote 74:

Proclus, _in Eucl._ pp. 65, 7; 157, 10; 250, 20; 299, 1; 352, 14;
(Friedlein). Eudemos wrote the first histories of astronomy and
mathematics, just as Theophrastos wrote the first history of
philosophy.

Footnote 75:

Proclus, p. 352, 14, Εὔδημος δὲ ἐν ταῖς γεωμετρικαῖς ἱστορίαις εἰς
Θαλῆν τοῦτο ἀνάγει τὸ θεώρημα (_Eucl._ i. 26)· τὴν γὰρ τῶν ἐν θαλάττῃ
πλοίων ἀπόστοσιν δι’ οὗ τρόπου φασὶν αὐτὸν δεικνύναι τούτῳ προσχρῆσθαί
φησιν ἀναγκαῖον. For the method adopted by Thales, see Tannery,
_Géométrie grecque_, p. 90. I agree, however, with Dr. Gow (_Short
History of Greek Mathematics_, § 84) that it is very unlikely Thales
reproduced and measured on land the enormous triangle which he had
constructed in a perpendicular plane over the sea. Such a method would
be too cumbrous to be of use. It is much simpler to suppose that he
made use of the Egyptian _seqt_.

Footnote 76:

The oldest version of this story is given in Diog. i. 27, ὁ δὲ
Ἱερώνυμος καὶ ἐκμετρῆσαί φησιν αὐτὸν τὰς πυραμίδας, ἐκ τῆς σκιᾶς
παρατηρήσαντα ὅτε ἡμῖν ἰσομεγέθης ἐστίν. Cf. Pliny, _H. Nat._ xxxvi.
82, _mensuram altitudinis earum deprehendere invenit Thales Milesius
umbram metiendo qua hora par esse corpori solet_. (Hieronymos of
Rhodes was contemporary with Eudemos.) This need imply no more than
the simple reflexion that the shadows of all objects will probably be
equal to the objects at the same hour. Plutarch (_Conv. sept. sap._
147 a) gives a more elaborate method, τὴν βακτηρίαν στήσας ἐπὶ τῷ
πέρατι τῆς σκιᾶς ἣν ἡ πυραμὶς ἐποίει, γενομένων τῇ ἐπαφῇ τῆς ἀκτῖνος
δυοῖν τριγώνων, ἔδειξας ὃν ἡ σκιὰ πρὸς τὴν σκιὰν λόγον εἶχε, τὴν
πυραμίδα πρὸς τὴν βακτηρίαν ἔχουσαν. This, as Dr. Gow points out, is
only another calculation of _seqt_, and may very well have been the
method of Thales.

[Sidenote: Thales as a politician.]

7. Thales appears once more in the pages of Herodotos some time before the fall of the Lydian empire. He is said to have urged the Ionian Greeks to unite in a federal state with its capital at Teos.[77] We shall have occasion to notice more than once in the sequel that the early schools of philosophy were in the habit of trying to influence the course of political events; and there are many things, for instance the part played by Hekataios in the Ionian revolt, which point to the conclusion that the scientific men of Miletos took up a very decided position in the stirring times that followed the death of Thales. It is this political action which has gained the founder of the Milesian school his undisputed place among the Seven Wise Men; and it is owing mainly to his inclusion among those worthies that the numerous anecdotes which were told of him in later days attached themselves to his name.[78]

Footnote 77:

Herod. i. 170 (R. P. 9 d).

Footnote 78:

The story of Thales falling into a well (Plato, _Tht._ 174 a) is
nothing but a fable teaching the uselessness of σοφία; the anecdote
about the “corner” in oil (Ar. _Pol._ Α, 11. 1259 a 6) is intended to
inculcate the opposite lesson.

[Sidenote: Uncertain character of the tradition.]

8. If Thales ever wrote anything, it soon was lost, and the works which were written in his name did not, as a rule, deceive even the ancients.[79] Aristotle professes to know something about the views of Thales; but he does not pretend to know how they were arrived at, nor the arguments by which they were supported. He does, indeed, make certain suggestions, which are repeated by later writers as statements of fact; but he himself simply gives them for what they are worth.[80] There is another difficulty in connexion with the tradition. Many a precise-looking statement in the _Placita_ has no other foundation than the habit of ascribing any doctrine which was, roughly speaking, characteristic of the whole Ionic “Succession” to “Thales and his followers,” and so producing the appearance of a definite statement about Thales. But, in spite of all this, we need not doubt that Aristotle was correctly informed with regard to the leading points. We have seen traces of reference to Thales in Hekataios, and nothing can be more likely than that later writers of the school should have quoted the views of its founder. We may venture, therefore, upon a conjectural restoration of his cosmology, in which we shall be guided by what we know for certain of the subsequent development of the Milesian school; for we should naturally expect to find its characteristic doctrines at least foreshadowed in the teaching of its earliest representative. But all this must be taken for just what it is worth; speaking strictly, we do not know anything about the teaching of Thales at all.

Footnote 79:

See R. P. 9 e.

Footnote 80:

R. P. _ib._

[Sidenote: Conjectural account of the cosmology of Thales.]

9. The statements of Aristotle may be reduced to three:

(1) The earth floats on the water.[81]
(2) Water is the material cause[82] of all things.
(3) All things are full of gods. The magnet is alive; for it has
the power of moving iron.[83]

Footnote 81:

Arist. _Met._ Α, 3. 983 b 21 (R. P. 10); _de Caelo_, Β, 13. 294 a 28
(R. P. 11). Later writers add that he gave this as an explanation of
earthquakes (so Aet. iii. 15, 1); but this is probably due to a
“Homeric allegorist” (Appendix, § 11), who wished to explain the
epithet ἐννοσίγαιος. Cf. Diels, _Dox._ p. 225.

Footnote 82:

_Met._ Α, 3. 983 b 20 (R. P. 10). I have said “material cause,”
because τῆς τοιαύτης ἀρχῆς (b 19) means τῆς ἐν ὕλης εἴδει ἀρχῆς (b 7).

Footnote 83:

Arist. _de An._ Α, 5. 411 a 7 (R. P. 13); _ib._ 2. 405 a 19 (R. P. 13
a). Diog. i. 24 (R. P. _ib._) adds amber. This comes from Hesychios of
Miletos; for it occurs in the scholium of Par. A on Plato, _Rep._ 600
a.

The first of these statements must be understood in the light of the second, which is expressed in Aristotelian terminology, but would undoubtedly mean that Thales had said water was the fundamental or primary thing, of which all other things were mere transient forms. It was, we shall see, just such a primary substance that the Milesian school as a whole was seeking, and it is unlikely that the earliest answer to the great question of the day should have been the comparatively subtle one given by Anaximander. We are, perhaps, justified in holding that the greatness of Thales consisted in this, that he was the first to ask, not what _was_ the original thing, but what _is_ the primary thing now; or, more simply still, “What is the world made of?” The answer he gave to this question was: _Water_.

[Sidenote: Water.]

10. Aristotle and Theophratos, followed by Simplicius and the doxographers, suggest several explanations of this answer. By Aristotle these explanations are given as conjectural; it is only later writers that repeat them as if they were quite certain.[84] The most probable view of them seems to be that Aristotle simply ascribed to Thales the arguments used at a later date by Hippon of Samos in support of a similar thesis.[85] This would account for their physiological character. The rise of scientific medicine had made biological arguments very popular in the fifth century; but, in the days of Thales, the prevailing interest was not physiological, but rather what we should call meteorological, and it is therefore from this point of view we must try to understand the theory.

Footnote 84:

_Met._ Α, 3. 983 b 22; Aet. i. 3, 1; Simpl. _Phys._ p. 36, 10 (R. P.
10, 12, 12 a). The last of the explanations given by Aristotle,
namely, that Thales was influenced by early cosmogonical theories
about Okeanos and Tethys, has strangely been supposed to be more
historical than the rest, whereas it is merely a fancy of Plato’s
taken literally. Plato says more than once (_Tht._ 180 d 2; _Crat._
402 b 4) that Herakleitos and his predecessors (οἱ ῥέοντες) derived
their philosophy from Homer (_Il._ xiv. 201), and even earlier sources
(Orph. frag. 2, Diels, _Vors._ 1st ed. p. 491). In quoting this
suggestion, Aristotle refers it to “some”—a word which often means
Plato—and he calls the originators of the theory παμπαλαίους, as Plato
had done (_Met._ 983 b 28; cf. _Tht._ 181 b 3). This is a
characteristic example of the way in which Aristotle gets history out
of Plato. See Appendix, § 2.

Footnote 85:

Compare Arist. _de An._ Α, 2. 405 b 2 (R. P. 220) with the passages
referred to in the last note. The same suggestion is made in Zeller’s
fifth edition (p. 188, n. 1), which I had not seen when the above was
written. Döring, “Thales” (_Zschr. f. Philos._ 1896, pp. 179 sqq.),
takes the same view. We now know that, though Aristotle declines to
consider Hippon as a philosopher (_Met._ Α, 3. 984 a 3; R. P. 219 a),
he was discussed in the history of medicine known as Menon’s
_Iatrika_. See Diels in _Hermes_, xxviii. p. 420.

Now it is not very hard to see how considerations of a meteorological kind may have led Thales to adopt the view he did. Of all the things we know, water seems to take the most various shapes. It is familiar to us in a solid, a liquid, and a vaporous form, and so Thales may well have thought that he saw the world-process from water and back to water again going on before his very eyes. The phenomenon of evaporation naturally suggests everywhere that the fire of the heavenly bodies is kept up by the moisture which they draw from the sea. Even at the present day, the country people speak of the appearance of sunbeams as “the sun drawing water.” Water comes down again in the rain; and lastly, so the early cosmologists thought, it turns to earth. This seems strange to us, but it may have seemed natural enough to men who were familiar with the river of Egypt which had formed the Delta, and with the torrents of Asia Minor, which bring down unusually large alluvial deposits. At the present day the Gulf of Latmos, on which Miletos used to stand, is completely filled up. Lastly, they thought, earth turns once more to water—an idea derived from the observation of dew, night-mists, and subterranean springs. For these last were not in early times supposed to have anything at all to do with the rain. The “waters under the earth” were regarded as an entirely independent source of moisture.[86]

Footnote 86:

The view here taken most resembles that of the “Homeric allegorist”
Herakleitos (R. P. 12 a). That, however, is also a conjecture,
probably of Stoic, as the others are of Peripatetic, origin.

[Sidenote: Theology.]

11. The third of the statements mentioned above is supposed by Aristotle himself to imply that Thales believed in a “soul of the world,” though he is careful to mark this as no more than an inference.[87] The doctrine of the world-soul is then attributed quite positively to Thales by Aetios, who gives it in the Stoic phraseology which he found in his immediate source, and identifies the world-intellect with God.[88] Cicero found a similar account of the matter in the Epicurean manual which he followed, but he goes a step further. Eliminating the Stoic pantheism, he turns the world-intellect into a Platonic _demiourgos_, and says that Thales held there was a divine mind which formed all things out of water.[89] All this is derived from the cautious statement of Aristotle, and can have no greater authority than its source. We need not enter, then, upon the old controversy whether Thales was an atheist or not. It is really irrelevant. If we may judge from his successors, he may very possibly have called water divine; but, if he had any religious beliefs at all, we may be sure they were quite unconnected with his cosmological theory.

Footnote 87:

Arist. _de An._ Α, 5. 411 a 7 (R. P. 13).

Footnote 88:

Aet. i. 7, 11 = Stob. i. 56 (R. P. 14). On the sources here referred
to, see Appendix, §§ 11, 12.

Footnote 89:

Cicero, _de Nat. D._ 1. 25 (R. P. 13 b). On Cicero’s source, see
_Dox._ pp. 125, 128. The Herculanean papyrus of Philodemos is,
unfortunately, defective just at this point, but it is not likely that
the Epicurean manual anticipated Cicero’s mistake.

Nor must we make too much of the saying itself that “all things are full of gods.” It is often supposed to mean that Thales attributed a “plastic life” to matter, or that he was a “hylozoist.” We have seen already how misleading this way of speaking is apt to be,[90] and we shall do well to avoid it. It is not safe to regard such an apophthegm as evidence for anything; the chances are that it belongs to Thales as one of the Seven Wise Men, rather than as founder of the Milesian school. Further, such sayings are, as a rule, anonymous to begin with, and are attributed now to one sage and now to another.[91] On the other hand, it is extremely probable that Thales did say that the magnet and amber had souls. That is no apophthegm, but something more on the level of the statement that the earth floats on the water. It is, in fact, just the sort of thing we should expect Hekataios to record about Thales. It would be wrong, however, to draw any inferences from it as to his view of the world; for to say that the magnet and amber are alive is to imply, if anything, that other things are not.[92]

Footnote 90:

See Introd. § VIII.

Footnote 91:

Plato refers to the saying πάντα πλήρη θεῶν in _Laws_, 899 b 9 (R. P.
14 b), without mentioning Thales. That ascribed to Herakleitos in the
_de part. An._ Α, 5. 645 a 17 seems to be a mere variation on it. So
in Diog. ix. 7 (R. P. 46 d) Herakleitos is credited with the saying
πάντα ψυχῶν εἶναι κα δαιμόνων πλήρη.

Footnote 92:

Bäumker, _Das Problem der Materie_, p. 10, n. 1.

II. ANAXIMANDER

[Sidenote: Life.]

12. The next name that has come down to us is that of Anaximander, son of Praxiades. He too was a citizen of Miletos, and Theophrastos described him as an “associate” of Thales.[93] We have seen how that expression is to be understood (§ XIV.).

According to Apollodoros, Anaximander was sixty-four years old in Ol. LVIII. 2 (547/6 B.C.); and this is confirmed by Hippolytos, who says he was born in Ol. XLII. 3 (610/9 B.C.), and by Pliny, who assigns his discovery of the obliquity of the zodiac to the same Olympiad.[94] We seem to have here something more than a mere combination of the ordinary type; for, according to all the rules of Alexandrian chronology, Anaximander should have “flourished” in 565 B.C., that is, just half-way between Thales and Anaximenes, and this would make him sixty, not sixty-four, in 546. Now Apollodoros appears to have said that he had met with the work of Anaximander; and his reason for mentioning this must be that he found in it some indication which enabled him to fix its date without having recourse to conjecture. Diels suggests that Anaximander may have given his age at the time of writing as sixty-four, and that the book may have contained some other statement showing it to have been published in 547/6 B.C.[95] Perhaps, however, this hardly does justice to the fact that the year given is just that which preceded the fall of Sardeis and the subjugation of the Lydian empire by the Persians. It may be a more plausible conjecture that Anaximander, writing some years later, incidentally mentioned what his age had been at the time of that great crisis. We know from Xenophanes that the question, “How old were you when the Mede appeared?” was considered an interesting one in those days.[96] At all events, we seem to be justified in believing that Anaximander was a generation younger than Thales. When he died we do not really know.[97]

Footnote 93:

R. P. 15 d. That the words πολίτης καὶ ἑταῖρος, given by Simplicius,
_de Caelo_, p. 615, 13, are the original words of Theophrastos is
shown by the agreement of Cic. _Acad._ ii. 118, _popularis et
sodalis_. The two passages represent quite independent branches of the
tradition. See Appendix, §§ 7, 12.

Footnote 94:

Diog. ii. 2 (R. P. 15); Hipp. _Ref._ i. 6 (_Dox._ p. 560); Plin.
_N.H._ ii. 31. Pliny’s dates come from Apollodoros through Nepos.

Footnote 95:

_Rhein. Mus._ xxxi. p. 24.

Footnote 96:

Xenophanes, fr. 22 (fr. 17, Karsten; R. P. 95 a). Jacoby (p. 190)
thinks that Apollodoros fixed the _floruit_ of Anaximander forty years
before that of Pythagoras, that is, in 572/1 B.C., and that the
statement as to his age in 547/6 is a mere inference from this.

Footnote 97:

The statement that he “died soon after” (Diog. ii. 2; R. P. 15) seems
to mean that Apollodoros made him die in the year of Sardeis (546/5),
one of his regular epochs. If this is so, Apollodoros cannot have said
also that he flourished in the days of Polykrates, and Diels is
probably right in supposing that this notice refers to Pythagoras and
has been inserted in the wrong place.

Like his predecessor, Anaximander distinguished himself by certain practical inventions. Some writers credited him with that of the _gnomon_; but that can hardly be correct. Herodotos tells us this instrument came from Babylon, so perhaps it was Anaximander who made it known among the Greeks. He was also the first to construct a map, and Eratosthenes said this was the map elaborated by Hekataios.[98]

Footnote 98:

For the gnomon, see Introd. p. 31, _n._ 44; and cf. Diog. ii. 1 (R. P.
15); Herod. ii. 109 (R. P. 15 a). Pliny, on the other hand, ascribes
the invention of the gnomon to Anaximenes (_N.H._ ii. 87). The truth
seems to be that the erection of celebrated gnomons was traditionally
ascribed to certain philosophers. That of Delos was referred to
Pherekydes. For the map see Agathemeros, i. 1, Ἀναξίμανδρος ὁ Μιλήσιος
ἀκουστὴς Θαλέω πρώτος ἐτόλμησε τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐν πίνακι γράψαι, μεθ’
ὃν Ἑκαταῖος ὁ Μιλήσιος ἀνὴρ πολυπλανὴς διηκρίβωσεν, ὥστε θαυμασθῆναι
τὸ πρᾶγμα. This is from Eratosthenes. Cf. Strabo, i. p. 7.

[Sidenote: Theophrastos on Anaximander’s theory of the primary
substance.]

13. Nearly all we know of Anaximander’s system is derived in the last resort from Theophrastos.[99] As to the credibility of what we are told on his authority, it is enough to remark that the original work, which was in the hands of Apollodoros, must certainly have existed in the time of Theophrastos. Moreover, he seems once at least to have quoted Anaximander’s own words, and he criticised his style. Here are the remains of what he said of him in the First Book:—

Anaximander of Miletos, son of Praxiades, a fellow-citizen and
associate of Thales,[100] said that the material cause and first
element of things was the Infinite, he being the first to introduce
this name for the material cause. He says it is neither water nor any
other of the so-called[101] elements, but a substance different from
them which is infinite, from which arise all the heavens and the
worlds within them.—_Phys. Op._ fr. 2 (_Dox._ p. 476; R. P. 16).

He says that this is eternal and ageless, and that it encompasses all
the worlds.—Hipp. _Ref._ i. 6 (R. P. 17 a).

And into that from which things take their rise they pass away once
more, “as is ordained; for they make reparation and satisfaction to
one another for their injustice according to the appointed time,” as
he says[102] in these somewhat poetical terms.—_Phys. Op._ fr. 2 (R.
P. 16).

And besides this, there was an eternal motion, in the course of which
was brought about the origin of the worlds.—Hipp. _Ref._ i. 6 (R. P.
17 a).

He did not ascribe the origin of things to any alteration in matter,
but said that the oppositions in the substratum, which was a boundless
body, were separated out.—Simpl. _Phys._ p. 150, 20 (R. P. 18).

Footnote 99:

See the conspectus of extracts from Theophrastos given by Diels,
_Dox._ p. 133; _Vors._ pp. 13 sqq. In this and other cases, where the
words of the original have been preserved by Simplicius, I have given
them alone. On the various writers quoted, see Appendix, § 9 sqq.

Footnote 100:

Simplicius says “successor and disciple” (διάδοχος καὶ μαθητής) in his
Commentary on the _Physics_; but see above, p. 52, n. 2.

Footnote 101:

For the expression τὰ καλούμενα στοιχεῖα, see Diels, _Elementum_, p.
25, n. 4. In view of this, we must keep the MS. reading εἶναι, instead
of writing νυνί with Usener.

Footnote 102:

Diels (_Vors._ p. 13) begins the actual quotation with the words ἐξ ὧν
δὲ ἡ γένεσις.... The Greek practice of blending quotations with the
text tells against this. It is very rare for a Greek writer to open a
verbal quotation abruptly. Further, it is safer not to ascribe the
terms γένεσις and φθορά in their technical Platonic sense to
Anaximander.

[Sidenote: The primary substance is not one of the “elements.”]

14. Anaximander taught, then, that there was one eternal, indestructible substance out of which everything arises, and into which everything once more returns; a boundless stock from which the waste of existence is continually being made good. This is only the natural development of the thought we have ventured to ascribe to Thales, and there can be no doubt that Anaximander at least distinctly formulated it. Indeed, we can still follow to some extent the reasoning which led him to do so. Thales had regarded water as the most likely of all the things we know to be that of which all others are forms; Anaximander appears to have asked himself how the primary substance could be one of these particular things. His argument seems to be preserved by Aristotle, who has the following passage in his discussion of the Infinite:—

Further, there cannot be a single, simple body which is infinite,
either, as some hold, one distinct from the elements, which they then
derive from it, nor without this qualification. For there are some who
make this (_i.e._ a body distinct from the elements) the infinite, and
not air or water, in order that the other things may not be destroyed
by their infinity. _They are in opposition one to another_—air is
cold, water moist, and fire hot—and therefore, _if any one of them
were infinite, the rest would have ceased to be by this time_.
Accordingly they say that what is infinite is something other than the
elements, and from it the elements arise.—Arist. _Phys._ Γ, 5. 204 b
22 (R. P. 16 b).

It is clear that in this passage Anaximander is contrasted with Thales and with Anaximenes. Nor is there any reason to doubt that the account given of his reasoning is substantially correct, though the form is Aristotle’s own, and the mention of “elements” is an anachronism.[103] Anaximander was struck, it would seem, by the opposition and strife between the things which go to make up the world; the warm fire was opposed to the cold air, the dry earth to the moist sea. These opposites were at war, and any predominance of one over the other was an “injustice” for which they must make reparation to one another.[104] We may suppose that his thoughts ran somewhat as follows. If Thales had been right in saying that water was the fundamental reality, it would not be easy to see how anything else could ever have existed. One side of the opposition, the cold and moist, would have had its way unchecked, injustice would have prevailed, and the warm and dry would have been driven from the field long ago. We must, then, have something which is not itself one of the warring opposites we know, something more primitive, out of which they arise, and into which they once more pass away. That Anaximander called this something by the name of φύσις, is clear from the doxographers; the current statement that the word ἀρχή in the sense of a “first principle” was introduced by him, is probably due to a misunderstanding of what Theophrastos said.[105]

Footnote 103:

The conception of elements is not older than Empedokles (§ 106), and
the _word_ στοιχεῖα, which is properly translated by _elementa_, was
first used in this sense by Plato. For the history of the term, see
Diels, _Elementum_ (1899).

Footnote 104:

The important word ἀλλήλοις was omitted in the Aldine Simplicius, but
is in all the MSS. We shall see that in Herakleitos “justice” means
the observance of an equal balance between what were called later the
elements (§ 72). See also Introd. p. 32, _n._ 45.

Footnote 105:

If the words quoted from Theophrastos by Simplicius, _Phys._ p. 24, 15
(R. P. 16), stood by themselves, no one would ever have supposed them
to mean that Anaximander called the Boundless ἀρχή. They would
naturally be rendered: “having been the first to introduce this name
(_i.e._ τὸ ἄπειρον) for the ἀρχή”; but the words of Hippolytos (_Ref._
i. 6, 2), πρῶτος τοὔνομα καλέσας τῆς ἀρχῆς, have led nearly all
writers to take the passage in the less obvious sense. We now know,
however, that Hippolytos is no independent authority, but rests
altogether on Theophrastos; so the natural view to take is that either
his immediate source, or he himself, or a copyist, has dropped out
τοῦτο before τοὔνομα, and corrupted κομίσας into καλέσας. It is not
credible that Theophrastos made both statements. The other passage
from Simplicius compared by Usener (p. 150, 23), πρῶτος αὐτὸς ἀρχὴν
ὀνομάσας τὸ ὑποκείμενον, does not seem to me to have anything to do
with the question. It means simply that Anaximander was the first to
name the substratum as the “material cause,” which is a different
point altogether. This is how Neuhäuser takes the passage
(_Anaximander_, pp. 7 sqq.); but I cannot agree with him in holding
that the _word_ ὑποκείμενον is ascribed to the Milesian.

[Sidenote: Aristotle’s account of the theory.]

15. It was natural for Aristotle to regard this theory as an anticipation or presentiment of his own doctrine of “indeterminate matter.”[106] He knew very well, of course, that he himself was the author of that; but it is in accordance with his method to represent his own theories as the distinct formulation of truths which earlier thinkers had only guessed at. It was to be expected, then, that he should sometimes express the views of Anaximander in terms of the theory of “elements.” He knew too that the Boundless was a body,[107] though in his own system there was no room for anything corporeal prior to the elements; so he had to speak of it as a boundless body “alongside of” or “distinct from” the elements (παρὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα). So far as I know, no one has doubted that, when he uses this phrase, he is referring to Anaximander.

Footnote 106:

Arist. _Met._ Λ, 2. 1069 b 18 (R. P. 16 c).

Footnote 107:

This is taken for granted in _Phys._ Γ, 4. 203 a 16; 204 b 22 (R. P.
16 b), and stated in Γ, 8. 208 a 8 (R. P. 16 a). Cf. Simpl. _Phys._ p.
150, 20 (R. P. 18).

In a number of other places Aristotle speaks of a thinker, whom he does not happen to name, who held that the primary substance was something “intermediate between” the elements or between two of them.[108] Nearly all the Greek commentators referred this to Anaximander also, but most modern writers refuse to follow them. It is, no doubt, easy to show that Anaximander can have never meant to describe the Boundless in this way, but that is no real objection to the older interpretation. It is difficult to see that it is more of an anachronism to call the Boundless “intermediate between the elements” than to say that it is “distinct from the elements”; and indeed, if once we introduce the elements at all, the former description is in some ways the more adequate of the two. At any rate, if we refuse to understand these passages as referring to Anaximander, we shall have to say that Aristotle paid a great deal of attention to some early thinker, whose very name has been lost, and who not only agreed with some of Anaximander’s views, but also, as is shown by one passage, used some of his most characteristic expressions.[109] We may add that in one or two places Aristotle certainly seems to identify the “intermediate” with the something “distinct from” the elements.[110]

Footnote 108:

Aristotle speaks four times of something intermediate between Fire and
Air (_Gen. Corr._ Β, 1. 328 b 35; _ib._ 5. 332 a 21; _Phys._ Α, 4. 187
a 14; _Met._ Α, 7. 988 a 30). In five places we have something
intermediate between Water and Air (_Met._ Α, 7. 988 a 13; _Gen.
Corr._ Β, 5. 332 a 21; _Phys._ Γ, 4. 203 a 18; _ib._ 5. 205 a 27; _de
Caelo_, Γ, 5. 303 b 12). Once (_Phys._ Α, 6. 189 b 1) we hear of
something between Water and Fire. This variation shows at once that he
is not speaking historically. If any one ever held the doctrine of τὸ
μεταξύ, he must have known perfectly well which two elements he meant.

Footnote 109:

Arist. _de Caelo_, Γ, 5. 303 b 12, ὕδατος μὲν λεπτότερον, ἀέρος
πυκνότερον, ὃ περιέχειν φασὶ πάντας τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἄπειρον ὄν. That
this refers to Idaios of Himera, as suggested by Zeller (p. 258),
seems very improbable. Aristotle nowhere mentions his name, and the
tone of his reference to Hippon in _Met._ Α, 3. 984 a 3 (R. P. 219 a)
shows that he was not likely to pay so much attention to the ἐπίγονοι
of the Milesian school.

Footnote 110:

Cf. _Phys._ Γ, 5. 204 b 22 (R. P. 16 b), where Zeller rightly refers
τὸ παρὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα to Anaximander. Now, at the end (205 a 25) the
whole passage is summarised thus: καὶ διὰ τοῦτ’ οὐθεὶς τὸ ἓν καὶ
ἄπειρον πῦρ ἐποίησεν οὐδὲ γῆν τῶν φυσιολόγων, ἀλλ’ ἢ ὕδωρ ἢ ἀέρα ἢ τὸ
μέσον αὐτῶν. In _Gen. Corr._ Β, 1. 328 b 35 we have first τι μεταξὺ
τούτων σῶμά τε ὂν καὶ χωριστόν, and a little further on (329 a 9) μίαν
ὕλην παρὰ τὰ εἰρημένα. In Β, 5. 332 a 20 we have οὐ μὴν οὐδ’ ἄλλο τί
γε παρὰ ταῦτα, οἶον μέσον τι ἀέρος καὶ ὕδατος ἢ ἀέρος καὶ πυρός.

There is even one place in which he appears to speak of Anaximander’s Boundless as a “mixture,” though his words may perhaps admit of another interpretation.[111] But this is of no consequence for our interpretation of Anaximander himself. It is certain that he cannot have said anything about “elements,” which no one thought of before Empedokles, and no one could think of before Parmenides. The question has only been mentioned at all because it has been the subject of a lengthy controversy,[112] and because it throws great light on the historical value of Aristotle’s statements. From the point of view of his own system, these are abundantly justified; but we shall have to remember in other cases that, when he seems to attribute an idea to some earlier thinker, we are not in the least bound to believe what he says in a historical sense.

Footnote 111:

_Met._ Λ, 2. 1069 b 18 (R. P. 16 c). Zeller (p. 205, n. 1) assumes an
“easy zeugma.” I should prefer to say that καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλέους τὸ μῖγμα
was an afterthought, and that Aristotle really meant τὸ Ἀναξαγόρου ἓν
... καὶ Ἀναξιμάνδρου. _Met._ Α, 4. 187 a 20 does not assign the
“mixture” to Anaximander.

Footnote 112:

For the literature of this controversy, see R. P. 15. A good deal of
light is thrown on this and similar questions by W. A. Heidel,
“Qualitative Change in Pre-Socratic Philosophy” (_Arch._ xix. p. 333).

[Sidenote: The primary substance is infinite.]

16. Anaximander’s reason for conceiving the primary substance as boundless was, no doubt, that indicated by Aristotle, namely, “that becoming might not fail.”[113] It is not likely, however, that these words are his own, though the doxographers speak as if they were. It is enough for us to know that Theophrastos, who had seen his book, attributed the thought to him. And certainly the way in which he regarded the world would bring home to him with more than common force the need of a boundless stock of matter. The “opposites” of which our world consists are, we have seen, at war with one another, and their strife is marked by “unjust” encroachments on either side. The warm commits “injustice” in summer, the cold in winter. To redress the balance, they must be absorbed once more in their common ground; and this would lead in the long run to the destruction of everything but the Boundless itself, if there were not an inexhaustible supply of it from which opposites might continually be separated out afresh. We must picture to ourselves, then, an endless mass, which is not any one of the opposites we know, stretching out without limit on every side of the heavens which bound the world we live in.[114] This mass is a body, and out of it our world once emerged by the “separating out” of the opposites, which one day will all be absorbed again in the Boundless, and our world will cease to be.

Footnote 113:

_Phys._ Γ, 8. 208 a 8 (R. P. 16 a). That this refers to Anaximander is
shown by Aet. i. 3, 3 (R. P. 16 a). The same argument is given in
_Phys._ Γ, 4. 203 b 18, a passage where Anaximander has just been
quoted by name, τῷ οὕτως ἂν μόνον μὴ ὑπολείπειν γένεσιν καὶ φθοράν, εἰ
ἄπειρον εἴη ὅθεν ἀφαιρεῖται τὸ γιγνόμενον. I cannot, however, believe
that the arguments given at the beginning of this chapter (203 b 7; R.
P. 17) are Anaximander’s. They bear the stamp of the Eleatic
dialectic, and are, in fact, those of Melissos.

Footnote 114:

I have assumed that the word ἄπειρον means _spatially infinite_
(though not in any precise mathematical sense), not _qualitatively
indeterminate_, as maintained by Teichmüller and Tannery. The decisive
reasons for holding that the sense of the word is “boundless in
extent” are as follows: (1) Theophrastos said that the primary
substance of Anaximander was ἄπειρον and contained all the worlds, and
the word περιέχειν everywhere means “to encompass,” not, as has been
suggested, “to contain potentially.” (2) Aristotle says (_Phys._ Γ, 4.
203 b 23) διὰ γὰρ τὸ ἐν τῇ νοήσει μὴ ὑπολείπειν καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς δοκεῖ
ἄπειρος εἶναι καὶ τὰ μαθηματικὰ μεγέθη καὶ τὰ ἔξω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ· ἀπείρου
δ’ ὄντος τοῦ ἔξω, καὶ σῶμα ἄπειρον εἶναι δοκεῖ καὶ κόσμοι. (3)
Anaximander’s theory of the ἄπειρον was adopted by Anaximenes, and he
identified it with Air, which is not qualitatively indeterminate.

[Sidenote: The eternal motion.]