Chapter I: The Milesian School (2)

17. The doxographers say it was the “eternal motion” that brought into being “all the heavens and all the worlds within them.” As we have seen (§ VIII), it is not likely that Anaximander himself used the phrase “eternal motion.” That is rather Aristotle’s own version of what he found stated about the “separating out” of opposites. We are not told expressly how Anaximander conceived this to operate, but the term “separating out” suggests some process of shaking and sifting as in a sieve. Now it is just such a process that Plato makes the Pythagorean Timaios describe, and the most probable theory is certainly that here, as in many other cases, he has reproduced a genuinely early view. As we shall see, it is quite likely that the Pythagoreans should have followed Anaximander in this.[115] In any case, it is wrong to identify the “eternal motion” with the diurnal revolution of the heavens, as has sometimes been done. That motion cannot possibly be eternal, for the simple reason that the heavens themselves are perishable. Aristotle says, indeed, that all who believe the world has come into being represent the earth as having been forced into the centre by the circular motion;[116] but, though this doubtless refers to Anaximander among others, it is quite irrelevant here. It has to do only with the formation of the world after it has been once for all separated off and enclosed in its own heaven, and we shall have to remember it when we come to that part of the theory. At present, we have only to do with the motion of the Boundless itself; and, if we wish to picture that, it is much safer to regard it as a sort of shaking up and down which sorts out the opposites from the infinite mass.

Footnote 115:

Plato, _Tim._ 52 e, where the elements are separated by being shaken,
stirred, and carried in different directions: “just as by sieves and
instruments for winnowing corn, the grain is shaken and sifted, and
the dense and heavy parts go one way, and the rare and light are
carried to a different place and settle there.” For the relation of
Pythagoreanism to Anaximander, see below, § 53.

Footnote 116:

Arist. _de Caelo_, Β, 13. 295 a 9. The identification of the eternal
motion with the diurnal revolution is insisted on by Teichmüller and
Tannery, and is the real source of the very unnatural interpretation
which they give to the word ἄπειρον. It was obviously difficult to
credit Anaximander with a belief in an infinite body which revolves in
a circle. The whole theory rests upon a confusion between the finite
spherical κόσμος within the οὐρανός and the infinite περιέχον outside
it.

[Sidenote: The innumerable worlds.]

18. We are told more than once that Anaximander believed there were “innumerable worlds in the Boundless,”[117] and it is now usual to regard these with Zeller as an infinite series succeeding one another in time. It may be allowed at once that his disproof of the idea that the worlds are coexistent and eternal is decisive. To suppose that Anaximander regarded this or any other world as eternal, is a flat contradiction of everything we otherwise know, and of the Theophrastean tradition that he taught the world was perishable. We have, then, to decide between the view that, though all the worlds are perishable, there may be an unlimited number of them in existence at the same time, and the view that a new world never comes into existence till the old one has passed away. Now, Zeller allows[118] that there is nothing in the first of these views that is inconsistent with what we know of Anaximander; but he thinks all the statements which have come down to us point rather to the second. It seems to me that this is by no means the case, and, as the matter is of fundamental importance, it will be necessary to examine the evidence once more.

Footnote 117:

[Plut.] _Strom._ fr. 2 (R. P. 21 b). The words ἀνακυκλουμένων πάντων
αὐτῶν are most naturally to be interpreted as referring to an
ἀνακύκλησις or cycle of γένεσις and φθορά in each of a multitude of
coexistent worlds. It would be a very strange phrase to use of a
succession of single worlds.

Footnote 118:

Zeller, pp. 234 sqq.

In the first place, the doxographical tradition proves that Theophrastos discussed the views of all the early philosophers as to whether there was one world or an infinite number, and there can be no doubt that, when he ascribed “innumerable worlds” to the Atomists, he meant coexistent and not successive worlds. Now, if he had really classed two such different views under one head, he would at least have been careful to point out in what respect they differed, and there is no trace of any such distinction in our tradition. On the contrary, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Archelaos, Xenophanes, Diogenes, Leukippos, Demokritos, and Epicurus are all mentioned together as holding the doctrine of “innumerable worlds” on all sides of this one,[119] and the only distinction drawn between their views is that, while Epicurus made the distances between these worlds unequal, Anaximander said all the worlds were equidistant.[120] Zeller rejected this evidence, which he supposed to be merely that of Stobaios, on the ground that we can have no confidence in a writer who attributes “innumerable worlds” to Anaximenes, Archelaos, and Xenophanes. With regard to the first two, I hope to show that the statement is quite correct, and that it is not even incorrect in the case of the last.[121] In any case, it can be proved that the passage comes from Aetios,[122] and there is no reason for doubting that, in the last resort, it is derived from Theophrastos, though the name of Epicurus may have been added later. This is still further confirmed by what Simplicius says in his commentary on the _Physics_.[123]

Those who assumed innumerable worlds, _e.g._ Anaximander, Leukippos,
Demokritos, and, at a later date, Epicurus, held that they came into
being and passed away _ad infinitum_, some always coming into being
and others passing away.

Footnote 119:

Aet. ii. 1, 3 (_Dox._ p. 327). Zeller is wrong in understanding κατὰ
πᾶσαν περιαγωγήν here of the revolution of a cycle. It means simply
“in every direction we turn,” and so does the alternative reading κατὰ
πᾶσαν περίστασιν. The six περιστάσεις are πρόσω, ὀπίσω, ἄνω, κάτω,
δεξιά, ἀριστερά (Nicom. _Introd._ p. 85, 11, Hoche), and Polybios uses
περίστασις of surrounding space.

Footnote 120:

Aet. ii. 1, 8 (_Dox._ p. 329), τῶν ἀπείρους ἀποφηναμένων τοὺς κόσμους
Ἀναξίμανδρος τὸ ἴσον αὐτοὺς ἀπέχειν ἀλλήλων, Ἐπίκουρος ἄνισον εἶναι τὸ
μεταξὺ τῶν κόσμων διάστημα.

Footnote 121:

For Anaximenes, see § 30; Xenophanes, § 59; Archelaos, Chap. X.

Footnote 122:

This is shown by the fact that the list of names is given also by
Theodoret. See Appendix, § 10.

Footnote 123:

Simpl. _Phys._ p. 1121, 5 (R. P. 21 b). Zeller says (p. 234, n. 4)
that Simplicius elsewhere (_de Caelo_, p. 273 b 43) makes the same
statement more doubtfully. But the words ὡς δοκεῖ, on which he relies,
are hardly an expression of doubt, and refer, in any case, to the
derivation of the doctrine of “innumerable worlds” from that of the
ἄπειρον, not to the doctrine itself.

It is probable that this too comes from Theophrastos through Alexander. Simplicius does not invent such things.

We come lastly to a very important statement which Cicero has copied from Philodemos, the author of the Epicurean treatise on Religion found at Herculaneum, or perhaps from the immediate source of that work. “Anaximander’s opinion was,” he makes Velleius say, “that there were gods who came into being, rising and passing away at long intervals, and that these were the innumerable worlds”;[124] and this must clearly be taken along with the statement of Aetios to the effect that, according to Anaximander, the “innumerable heavens” were gods.[125] Now it is very much more natural to understand the “long intervals” which Cicero mentions as intervals of space than as intervals of time;[126] and, if we take the passage in this way, we have a perfect agreement among all our authorities.

Footnote 124:

Cicero, _de Nat. D._ i. 25 (R. P. 21).

Footnote 125:

Aet. i. 7, 12 (R. P. 21 a). The reading of Stob., ἀπείρους οὐρανούς,
is guaranteed by the ἀπείρους κόσμους of Cyril, and the ἀπείρους νοῦς
(_i.e._ οὐνους) of the pseudo-Galen. See _Dox._ p. 11.

It may be added that it is very unnatural to understand the statement that the Boundless “encompasses all the worlds” of worlds succeeding one another in time; for on this view there is at a given time only one world to “encompass.” Moreover, the argument mentioned by Aristotle that, if what is outside the heavens is infinite, body must be infinite, and there must be innumerable worlds, can only be understood in this sense, and is certainly intended to represent the reasoning of the Milesians; for they were the only cosmologists who held there was a boundless body outside the heavens.[127] Lastly, we happen to know that Petron, one of the earliest Pythagoreans, held there were just one hundred and eighty-three worlds arranged in a triangle,[128] which shows that views of this sort existed long before the Atomists, and looks like an attempt to introduce some order into Anaximander’s universe.

Footnote 126:

It is simplest to suppose that Cicero found διαστήμασιν in his
Epicurean source, and that is a technical term for the _intermundia_.

Footnote 127:

Arist. _Phys._ Γ, 4. 203 b 25, ἀπείρου δ’ ὄντος τοῦ ἔξω (sc. τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ), καὶ σῶμα ἄπειρον εἶναι δοκεῖ καὶ κόσμοι (sc. ἄπειροι). It is
to be observed that the next words—τί γὰρ μᾶλλον τοῦ κενοῦ ἐνταῦθα ἢ
ἐνταῦθα;—show clearly that this refers to the Atomists as well; but
the ἄπειρον σῶμα will not apply to them. The suggestion is rather that
both those who made the Boundless a body and those who made it a κενόν
held the doctrine of ἀπειροι κόσμοι in the same sense.

Footnote 128:

See below, § 53. Cf. Diels, _Elementum_, pp. 63 sqq.

[Sidenote: Origin of the heavenly bodies.]

19. The doxographers have not left us in the dark as to the process by which the different parts of the world arose from the Boundless. The following statement comes ultimately from Theophrastos:—

He says that something capable of begetting hot and cold was separated
off from the eternal at the origin of this world. From this arose a
sphere of flame which grew round the air encircling the earth, as the
bark grows round a tree. When this was torn off and enclosed in
certain rings, the sun, moon, and stars came into existence.—Ps.-Plut.
_Strom._ fr. 2 (R. P. 19).

We see from this that when a portion of the Boundless had been separated off from the rest to form a world, it first of all differentiated itself into the two opposites, hot and cold. The hot appears as a sphere of flame surrounding the cold; the cold, as earth with air surrounding it. We are not told, however, in this extract how the cold came to be differentiated into earth, air, and water; but there is a passage in Aristotle’s _Meteorology_ which throws some light on the subject. We read there:—

But those who are wiser in the wisdom of men give an origin for the
sea. At first, they say, all the terrestrial region was moist; and, as
it was dried up by the sun, the portion of it that evaporated produced
the winds and the turnings of the sun and moon, while the portion left
behind was the sea. So they think the sea is becoming smaller by being
dried up, and that at last it will all be dry.—_Meteor._ Β, 1. 353 b
5.

* * * * *

And the same absurdity arises for those who say that the earth and the
terrestrial part of the world at first were moist, but that air arose
from the heat of the sun, and that the whole world was thus increased,
and that this is the cause of winds and the turnings of the
heavens.[129]—_Ib._ 2. 355 a 21 (R. P. 20 a).

In his commentary on the passage, Alexander tells us that this was the view of Anaximander and Diogenes; and what he says is amply confirmed by Anaximander’s theory of the sea as it is given by the doxographers (§ 20). We conclude, then, that after the first separation of the hot and the cold, the heat of the sphere of flame turned part of the moist, cold interior of the world into air or vapour—it is all one at this date—and that the expansion of this mist broke up the sphere of flame itself into rings. I give the theory which he adopted to explain the origin of the heavenly bodies from these rings as it has been preserved by Hippolytos, with some supplements from Aetios:—

The heavenly bodies are wheels of fire separated off from the fire
which encircles the world, and enclosed in air. And they have
breathing-holes, certain pipe-like passages at which the heavenly
bodies are seen. For this reason, too, when the breathing-holes are
stopped, eclipses occur. And the moon appears now to wax and now to
wane because of the stopping and opening of the passages. The circle
of the sun is twenty-seven times the size (of the earth, while that)
of the moon is eighteen times as large.[130] The sun is highest of
all, and lowest are the wheels of the fixed stars.—Hipp. _Ref._ i. 6
(R. P. 20).

Anaximander said the stars were hoop-like compressions of air, full of
fire, breathing out flames at a certain point from orifices. The sun
was highest of all, after it came the moon, and below these the fixed
stars and the planets.—Aetios, ii. 13, 7; 15, 6 (R. P. 19 a).

Anaximander said the sun was a ring twenty-eight times the size of the
earth, like a cart-wheel with the felloe hollow and full of fire,
showing the fire at a certain point, as if through the nozzle of a
pair of bellows.—Aet. ii. 20, 1 (R. P. 19 a).

Anaximander said the sun was equal to the earth, but the ring from
which it breathes out and by which it is carried round was
twenty-seven times as large as the earth.—Aet. ii. 21, 1 (_Dox._ p.
351).

Anaximander said the moon was a ring eighteen times the size of the
earth....—Aet. ii. 25, 1 (_Dox._ p. 355).[131]

Anaximander held that thunder and lightning were caused by the blast.
When it is shut up in a thick cloud and bursts forth with violence,
then the breakage of the cloud makes the noise, and the rift gives the
appearance of a flash by contrast with the darkness of the cloud.—Aet.
iii. 3, 1 (_Dox._ p. 367).

Anaximander held that wind was a current of air (_i.e._ vapour) which
arose when its finest and moistest particles were set in motion or
dissolved by the sun.—Aet. iii. 6, 1 (_Dox._ p. 374).

Rain was produced by the moisture drawn up from the earth by the
sun.—Hipp. _Ref._ i. 6, 7 (_Dox._ p. 560).

Footnote 129:

Zeller’s difficulty about the meaning of τροπαί here (p. 223, n. 2)
seems to be an imaginary one. The moon has certainly a movement in
declination and, therefore, τροπαί (Dreyer, _Planetary Systems_, p.
17, n. 1).

Footnote 130:

I assume with Diels (_Dox._ p. 560) that something has fallen out in
our text of Hippolytos. I have, however, with Tannery, _Science
hellène_, p. 91, supplied “eighteen times” rather than “nineteen
times.” Zeller (p. 224, n. 2) prefers the text of our MS. of
Hippolytos to the testimony of Aetios.

Footnote 131:

Aetios goes on to say that the moon also is like a hollow cart-wheel
full of fire with an ἐκπνοή. The difference in the figures of
Hippolytos and Aetios is due to the fact that one refers to the
internal and the other to the external circumferences of the rings.
Cf. Tannery, _Science hellène_, p. 91; and Diels, “Ueber Anaximanders
Kosmos” (_Arch._ x. pp. 231 sqq.).

We saw above that the sphere of flame was broken up into rings by the expansion of the air or vapour that its own heat had drawn up from the moist, cold interior. We must remember that Anaximander knew nothing of the ring of Saturn. There are three of these rings, that of the sun, that of the moon, and, lastly, nearest to the earth, the circle of the stars. The circle of the sun was twenty-seven times, and that of the moon eighteen times as large as the earth, from which we may perhaps infer that the circle of the stars was nine times as large. The numbers nine, eighteen, twenty-seven, play a considerable part in primitive cosmogonies.[132] We do not see the rings of fire as complete circles; for the mist that formed them encloses the fire, and becomes an outer ring of opaque vapour. These outer rings, however, have openings at one point of their circumference, through which the fire escapes, and these are the heavenly bodies we actually see.[133]

Footnote 132:

As Diels points out (_Arch._ x. p. 229) the explanation given by
Gomperz, p. 53, cannot be right. It implies the fifth century theory
of μύδροι. Anaximander knew nothing of the “great mass” of the sun.

Footnote 133:

The true meaning of this doctrine was first explained by Diels (_Dox._
pp. 25 sqq.). The flames rush forth _per magni circum spiracula
mundi_, as Lucretius has it (vi. 493). The πρηστῆρος αὐλός, to which
these are compared, is simply the nozzle of a pair of bellows, a sense
which the word πρηστήρ has in Apollonios Rhodios (iv. 776), and has
nothing to do with the meteorological phenomenon of the same name, for
which see Chap. III. § 71. It is not now necessary to refute the
earlier interpretations.

It will be observed that we only hear of three circles, and that the circle of the sun is the highest. The circle of the stars presents some difficulty. It is, in all probability, the Milky Way, the appearance of which may well have suggested the whole theory.[134] It seems that Anaximander must have thought it had more “breathing-holes” than one, though the tradition is silent on this point. There is not the slightest reason for supposing that he regarded it as a sphere. He could not have failed to see that a sphere so placed would make the sun and moon permanently invisible. What, then, are we to say of the fixed stars that do not lie in the Milky Way? There seems to be no way of accounting for them unless we assume that they are the “innumerable worlds” which we have just discussed. As the fire and air which surrounded the world have been broken up into rings, we must be able to see right out into the Boundless, and the fixed stars must be just the worlds, each surrounded by its fiery envelope. It does not seem possible to explain all we are told in any other way; and, if this is right, the statement of some authors, that Anaximander regarded the stars of heaven as gods, may be more than the mere mistake which it is now generally taken to be.[135]

Footnote 134:

It cannot be the Zodiac; for the planets were not separately studied
yet.

Footnote 135:

The _Placita_ and Eusebios both have τοὺς ἀστέρας οὐρανίους instead of
τοὺς ἀπείρους οὐρανούς (see above, p. 65, n. 2), and it seems just
possible that this is not a mere corruption of the text. The common
source may have had both statements. I do not, however, rest the
interpretation given above on this very insecure basis. Quite apart
from it, it seems to be the only way out of the difficulty.

The explanation given of thunder and lightning was very similar. They too were caused by fire breaking through compressed air, that is to say, through the storm-clouds. It seems probable that this is really the origin of the theory, and that Anaximander explained the heavenly bodies on the analogy of lightning, not _vice versa_. That would be in perfect agreement with the meteorological interest of the time.

[Sidenote: Earth and sea.]

20. We turn now to what we are told of the origin of earth and sea from the moist, cold matter which was “separated off” in the beginning, and which filled the inside of the sphere of flame:—

The sea is what is left of the original moisture. The fire has dried
up most of it and turned the rest salt by scorching it.—Aet. iii. 16,
1 (R. P. 20 a).

He says that the earth is cylindrical in form, and that its depth is
as a third part of its. breadth.—Ps.-Plut. _Strom._ fr. 2 (R. P.
_ib._).

The earth swings free, held in its place by nothing. It stays where it
is because of its equal distance from everything. Its shape is convex
and round, and like a stone pillar. We are on one of the surfaces, and
the other is on the opposite side.[136]—Hipp. _Ref._ i. 6 (R. P. 20).

Footnote 136:

The MSS. of Hippolytos have ὑγρὸν στρογγύλον. Roeper read γυρὸν
[στρογγύλον], supposing the second word to be a gloss on the first;
but Diels has shown (_Dox._ p. 218) that both are wanted. The first
means “convex,” and applies to the _surface_ of the earth; while the
second means “round,” and refers to its circuit. As to κίονι λίθῳ, it
is not easy to say anything positive. It might, possibly, be a mere
corruption of κυλίνδρῳ (cf. Plut. _Strom._ fr. 2; R. P. 20 a); but, if
so, it is a very old one. Aetios (iii. 10, 2), who is quite
independent of Hippolytos, has λίθῳ κίονι; Roeper suggested κιονέῃ
λίθῳ; Teichmüller, κίονος λιθῷ; while Diels doubtfully puts forward
λιθῷ κίονι, which he suggests might be a Theophrastean modernisation
of an original λιθέῃ κίονι (_Dox._ p. 219).

Adopting for a moment the later theory of “elements,” we see that Anaximander put fire on one side as “the hot,” and all the rest on the other as “the cold,” which is also moist. This may explain how Aristotle came to speak of the Boundless as intermediate between fire and water. And we have seen also that the moist element was partly turned into “air” or vapour by the fire, which explains how he could say the Boundless was something between fire and air, or between air and water.[137]

Footnote 137:

See above, p. 58, _n._ 48.

The moist, cold interior of the world is not, it will be noticed, pure water. It is always called “the moist” or “the moist state.” That is because it has to be still further differentiated under the influence of heat into earth, water, and vapour. The gradual drying up of the water by the fire is a good example of what Anaximander meant by “injustice.” And we see how this injustice brings about the destruction of the world. The fire will in time dry up and burn up the whole of the cold, moist element. But then it will not be fire any longer; it will simply be the “mixture,” if we choose to call it so, of the hot and cold—that is, it will be the same as the Boundless which surrounds it, and will pass away into it.

The view which Anaximander takes of the earth is a great advance upon anything we can reasonably attribute to Thales, and Aristotle has preserved the arguments by which he supported it. It is equally distant from the extremes in every direction, and there is no reason for it to move up or down or sideways.[138] Still, he does not attain to the idea that it is spherical. He believes that we live on a convex disc, and from this the cylindrical form follows as a matter of course. The really remarkable thing is that he should have seen, however dimly, that there is no absolute up and down in the world.

Footnote 138:

Arist. _de Caelo_, Β, 13. 295 b 10, εἰσὶ δέ τινες οἳ διὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητά
φασιν αὐτὴν (τὴν γῆν) μένειν, ὥσπερ τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἀναξίμανδρος· μᾶλλον
μὲν γὰρ οὐθὲν ἄνω ἢ κάτω ἢ εἰς τὰ πλάγια φέρεσθαι προσήκειν τὸ ἐπὶ τοῦ
μέσου ἱδρυμένον καὶ ὁμοίως πρὸς τὰ ἔσχατα ἔχον. That Aristotle is
really reproducing Anaximander seems to be shown by the use of
ὁμοιότης in the old sense of “equality.”

[Sidenote: Animals.]

21. We have seen enough to show us that the speculations of Anaximander about the world were of an extremely daring character; we come now to the crowning audacity of all, his theory of the origin of living creatures. The Theophrastean account of this has been well preserved by the doxographers:—

Living creatures arose from the moist element as it was evaporated by
the sun. Man was like another animal, namely, a fish, in the
beginning.—Hipp. _Ref._ i. 6 (R. P. 22 a).

The first animals were produced in the moisture, each enclosed in a
prickly bark. As they advanced in age, they came out upon the drier
part. When the bark broke off,[139] they survived for a short
time.—Aet. v. 19, 1 (R. P. 22).

Further, he says that originally man was born from animals of another
species. His reason is that while other animals quickly find food by
themselves, man alone requires a lengthy period of suckling. Hence,
had he been originally as he is now, he would never have
survived.—Ps.-Plut. _Strom._ fr. 2 (R. P. _ib._).

He declares that at first human beings arose in the inside of fishes,
and after having been reared like sharks,[140] and become capable of
protecting themselves, they were finally cast ashore and took to
land.—Plut. _Symp. Quaest._ 730 f (R. P. _ib._).

Footnote 139:

This is to be understood in the light of what we are told about γαλεοί
below. Cf. Arist. _Hist. An._ Ζ, 10. 565 a 25, τοῖς μὲν οὖν σκυλίοις,
οὓς καλοῦσί τινες νεβρίας γαλεούς, ὅταν περιρραγῇ καὶ ἐκπέσῃ τὸ
ὄστρακον, γίνονται οἱ νεοττοί.

Footnote 140:

Reading ὥσπερ οἱ γαλεοί for ὥσπερ οἱ παλαιοί with Doehner, who
compares Plut. _de soll. anim._ 982 a, where the φιλόστοργον of the
shark is described. See p. 74, _n._ 141.

The importance of these statements has sometimes been overrated and still more often underestimated. Anaximander has been called a precursor of Darwin by some, while others have treated the whole thing as a mythological survival. It is therefore important to notice that this is one of the rare cases where we have not merely a _placitum_, but an indication, meagre though it be, of the observations on which it was based, and the line of argument by which it was supported. It is clear from this that Anaximander had an idea of what is meant by adaptation to environment and survival of the fittest, and that he saw the higher mammals could not represent the original type of animal. For this he looked to the sea, and he naturally fixed upon those fishes which present the closest analogy to the _mammalia_. The statements of Aristotle about the _galeus levis_ were shown long ago by Johannes Müller to be more accurate than those of later naturalists, and we now know that these observations were already made by Anaximander. The manner in which the shark nourishes its young furnished him with the very thing he required to explain the survival of the earliest animals.[141]

Footnote 141:

On Aristotle and the _galeus levis_, see Johannes Müller, “Ueber den
glatten Hai des Aristoteles” (_K. Preuss. Akad._, 1842), to which my
attention has been directed by my colleague, Prof. D’Arcy Thomson. The
precise point of the words τρεφόμενοι ὥσπερ οἱ γαλεοί appears from
Arist. _Hist. An._ Ζ, 10. 565 b 1, οἱ δὲ καλούμενοι λεῖοι τῶν γαλεῶν
τὰ μὲν ᾠὰ ἴσχουσι μεταξὺ τῶν ὑστερῶν ὁμοίως τοῖς σκυλίοις, περιστάντα
δὲ ταῦτα εἰς ἑκατέραν τὴν δικρόαν τῆς ὑστέρας καταβαίνει, καὶ τὰ ζῷα
γίνεται τὸν ὀμφαλὸν ἔχοντα πρὸς τῇ ὑστέρᾳ, ὥστε ἀναλισκομένων τῶν ᾠῶν
ὁμοίως δοκεῖν ἔχειν τὸ ἔμβρυον τοῖς τετράποσιν. It is not necessary to
suppose that Anaximander referred to the further phenomenon described
by Aristotle, who more than once says that all the γαλεοί except the
ἀκανθίας “send out their young and take them back again” (ἐξαφιᾶσι καὶ
δέχονται εἰς ἑαυτοὺς τοὺς νεοττούς, _ib._ 565 b 23), for which compare
also Ael. i. 17; Plut. _de soll. anim._ 982 a. The _placenta_ and
umbilical cord described by Johannes Müller will account sufficiently
for all he says. At the same time, I understand that deep-sea
fishermen at the present day confirm this remarkable statement also,
and two credible witnesses have informed me that they believe they
have seen the thing happen with their own eyes.

[Sidenote: Theology.]

22. In the course of our discussion of the “innumerable worlds” we saw that Anaximander regarded these as gods. It is true, of course, as Zeller says,[142] that to the Greeks the word θεός meant primarily an object of worship, and he rightly adds that no one would think of worshipping innumerable worlds. This, however, is no real objection to our interpretation, though it serves to bring out an interesting point in the development of Greek theological ideas. The philosophers, in fact, departed altogether from the received usage of the word θεός. Empedokles called the Sphere and the Elements gods, though it is not to be supposed that he regarded them as objects of worship, and in the same way we shall find that Diogenes of Apollonia spoke of Air as a god.[143] As we may learn from the _Clouds_ of Aristophanes, it was just this way of speaking that got philosophers the name of being ἄθεοι. It is of great importance to bear this point in mind; for, when we come to Xenophanes, we shall see that the god or gods he spoke of meant just the world or worlds. It seems also that Anaximander called the Boundless itself divine,[144] which is quite in accordance with the language of Empedokles and Diogenes referred to above.

Footnote 142:

Zeller, p. 230.

Footnote 143:

For Empedokles, see Chap. V. § 119; and for Diogenes, Chap. X. § 188,
fr. 5. The cosmologists followed the theogonists and cosmogonists in
this. No one worshipped Okeanos and Tethys, or even Ouranos.

Footnote 144:

Arist. _Phys._ Γ, 4. 203 b 13 (R. P. 17).

III. ANAXIMENES

[Sidenote: Life.]

23. Anaximenes of Miletos, son of Eurystratos, was, according to Theophrastos, an “associate” of Anaximander.[145] Apollodoros said, it appears, that he “flourished” about the time of the fall of Sardeis (546/5 B.C.), and died in Ol. LXIII. (528/524 B.C.).[146] In other words, he was born when Thales “flourished,” and “flourished” when Thales died, and this means that Apollodoros had no definite information about his date at all. He most probably made him die in the sixty-third Olympiad because that gives just a hundred years, or three generations, for the Milesian school from the birth of Thales. We cannot, therefore, say anything positive as to his date, except that he must have been younger than Anaximander, and must have flourished before 494 B.C., when the school was, of course, broken up by the destruction of Miletos.

Footnote 145:

Theophr. _Phys. Op._ fr. 2 (R. P. 26).

Footnote 146:

This follows from a comparison of Diog. ii. 3. with Hipp. _Ref._ i. 7
(R. P. 23). In the latter passage we must, however, read τρίτον for
πρῶτον with Diels. The suggestion in R. P. 23 e that Apollodoros
mentioned the Olympiad without giving the number of the year is
inadequate; for Apollodoros did not reckon by Olympiads, but Athenian
archons. Jacoby (p. 194) brings the date of his death into connexion
with the _floruit_ of Pythagoras, which seems to me less probable.
Lortzing (_Jahresber._, 1898, p. 202) objects to my view on the ground
that the period of a hundred years plays no part in Apollodoros’s
calculations. It will be seen, however, from Jacoby, pp. 39 sqq., that
there is some reason for believing he made use of the generation of
33⅓ years.

[Sidenote: His book.]

24. Anaximenes wrote a book which certainly survived until the age of literary criticism; for we are told that he used a simple and unpretentious Ionic,[147] very different, we may suppose, from the poetical prose of Anaximander.[148] We may probably trust this criticism, which comes ultimately from Theophrastos; and it furnishes a good illustration of the truth that the character of a man’s thoughts is sure to find expression in his style. We have seen that the speculations of Anaximander were distinguished for their hardihood and breadth; those of Anaximenes are marked by just the opposite quality. He appears to have thought out his system carefully, but he rejects the more audacious theories of his predecessor. The result is that, while his view of the world is on the whole much less like the truth than Anaximander’s, it is more fruitful in ideas that were destined to hold their ground.

Footnote 147:

Diog. ii. 3 (R. P. 23).

Footnote 148:

Cf. the statement of Theophrastos above, § 13.

[Sidenote: Theory of the primary substance.]

25. Anaximenes is one of the philosophers on whom Theophrastos wrote a special monograph;[149] and this gives us an additional guarantee for the trustworthiness of the tradition derived from his great work. The following[150] are the passages which seem to contain the fullest and most accurate account of what he had to say on the central feature of the system:—

Anaximenes of Miletos, son of Eurystratos, who had been an associate
of Anaximander, said, like him, that the underlying substance was one
and infinite. He did not, however, say it was indeterminate, like
Anaximander, but determinate; for he said it was Air.—_Phys. Op._ fr.
2 (R. P. 26).

From it, he said, the things that are, and have been, and shall be,
the gods and things divine, took their rise, while other things come
from its offspring.—Hipp. _Ref._ i. 7 (R. P. 28).

“Just as,” he said, “our soul, being air, holds us together, so do
breath and air encompass the whole world.”—Aet. i. 3, 4 (R. P. 24).

And the form of the air is as follows. Where it is most even, it is
invisible to our sight; but cold and heat, moisture and motion, make
it visible. It is always in motion; for, if it were not, it would not
change so much as it does.—Hipp. _Ref._ i. 7 (R. P. 28).

It differs in different substances in virtue of its rarefaction and
condensation.—_Phys. Op._ fr. 2 (R. P. 26).

When it is dilated so as to be rarer, it becomes fire; while winds, on
the other hand, are condensed Air. Cloud is formed from Air by
felting;[151] and this, still further condensed, becomes water. Water,
condensed still more, turns to earth; and when condensed as much as it
can be, to stones.—Hipp. _Ref._ i. 7 (R. P. 28).[152]

Footnote 149:

On these monographs see _Dox._ p. 103.

Footnote 150:

See the conspectus of extracts from Theophrastos given in _Dox._ p.
135.

Footnote 151:

“Felting” (πίλησις) is the regular term for this process with all the
early cosmologists, from whom Plato has taken it (_Tim._ 58 b 4; 76 c
3).

Footnote 152:

A more condensed form of the same doxographical tradition is given by
Ps.-Plut. _Strom._ fr. 3 (R. P. 25).

[Sidenote: Rarefaction and condensation.]

26. At the first glance, this undoubtedly looks like a falling off from the more refined doctrine of Anaximander to a cruder view; but a moment’s reflexion will show that this is not altogether the case. On the contrary, the introduction of rarefaction and condensation into the theory is a notable advance.[153] In fact, it makes the Milesian cosmology thoroughly consistent for the first time; since it is clear that a theory which explains everything by the transformations of a single substance is bound to regard all differences as purely quantitative. The infinite substance of Anaximander, from which the opposites “in it” are “separated out,” cannot, strictly speaking, be thought of as homogeneous, and the only way to save the unity of the primary substance is to say that all diversities are due to the presence of more or less of it in a given space. And when once this important step has been taken, it is no longer necessary to make the primary substance something “distinct from the elements,” to use Aristotle’s inaccurate but convenient phrase; it may just as well be one of them.

Footnote 153:

Simplicius, _Phys._ p. 149, 32 (R. P. 26 b), says, according to the
MSS., that Theophrastos spoke of rarefaction and condensation in the
case of Anaximenes _alone_. We must either suppose with Zeller (p.
193, n. 2) that this means “alone among the oldest Ionians” or read
πρῶτου for μόνου with Usener. The regular terms are πύκνωσις and
ἀραίωσις or μάνωσις. Plutarch, _de prim. frig._ 947 f (R. P. 27), says
that Anaximenes used the term τὸ χαλαρόν for the rarefied air.

[Sidenote: Air.]

27. The air that Anaximenes speaks of includes a good deal that we should not call by that name. In its normal condition, when most evenly distributed, it is invisible, and it then corresponds to our “air”; it is identical with the breath we inhale and the wind that blows. That is why he called it πνεῦμα. On the other hand, the old idea, familiar to us in Homer, that mist or vapour is condensed air, is still accepted without question. In other words, we may say that Anaximenes supposed it to be a good deal easier to get liquid air than it has since proved to be. It was Empedokles, we shall see, who first discovered that what we call air was a distinct corporeal substance, and was not identical either with vapour or with empty space. In the earlier cosmologists “air” is always a form of vapour, and even darkness is a form of it. It was Empedokles who cleared up this point too by showing that darkness is a shadow.[154]

Footnote 154:

For the meaning of ἀήρ in Homer, see Schmidt, _Synonomik_, § 35; and
for its survival in Ionic prose, Hippokrates, Περὶ ἀέρων, ὑδάτων,
τόπων, 15, ἀήρ τε πολὺς κατέχει τὴν χώρην ἀπὸ τῶν ὑδάτων. Plato is
still conscious of the old meaning of the word; for he makes Timaios
say ἀέρος (γένη) τὸ μὲν εὐαγέστατον ἐπίκλην αἰθὴρ καλούμενος, ὁ δὲ
θολερώτατος ὁμίχλη καὶ σκότος (_Tim._ 58 d). The view given in the
text has been criticised by Tannery, “Une nouvelle hypothèse sur
Anaximandre” (_Arch._ viii. pp. 443 sqq.), and I have slightly altered
my expression of it to meet these criticisms. The point is of
fundamental importance, as we shall see, for the interpretation of
Pythagoreanism.

It was natural for Anaximenes to fix upon Air in this sense as the primary substance; for, in the system of Anaximander, it occupied an intermediate place between the two fundamental opposites, the sphere of flame and the cold, moist mass within it (§ 19). We know from Plutarch that he fancied air became warmer when rarefied, and colder when condensed. Of this he satisfied himself by a curious experimental proof. When we breathe with our mouths open, the air is warm; when we breathe with our lips closed, it is cold.[155]

Footnote 155:

Plut. _de prim. frig._ 947 f (R. P. 27).

[Sidenote: The world breathes.]

28. This argument from human breathing brings us to an important point in the theory of Anaximenes, which is attested by the single fragment that has come down to us.[156] “Just as our soul, being air, holds us together, so do breath and air encompass the whole world.” The primary substance bears the same relation to the life of the world as to that of man. Now this, we shall see, was the Pythagorean view;[157] and it is also an early instance of the argument from the microcosm to the macrocosm, and so marks the first beginnings of an interest in physiological matters.

Footnote 156:

Aet. i. 3, 4 (R. P. 24).

Footnote 157:

See Chap. II. § 53.

[Sidenote: The parts of the world.]

29. We turn now to the doxographical tradition concerning the formation of the world and its parts:—

He says that, as the air was felted, the earth first came into being.
It is very broad and is accordingly supported by the air.—Ps.-Plut.
_Strom._ fr. 3 (R. P. 25).

In the same way the sun and the moon and the other heavenly bodies,
which are of a fiery nature, are supported by the air because of their
breadth. The heavenly bodies were produced from the earth by moisture
rising from it. When this is rarefied, fire comes into being, and the
stars are composed of the fire thus raised aloft. There were also
bodies of earthy substance in the region of the stars, revolving along
with them. And he says that the heavenly bodies do not move under the
earth, as others suppose, but round it, as a cap turns round our head.
The sun is hidden from sight, not because it goes under the earth, but
because it is concealed by the higher parts of the earth, and because
its distance from us becomes greater. The stars give no heat because
of the greatness of their distance.—Hipp. _Ref._ i. 7, 4-6 (R. P. 28).

Winds are produced when air is condensed and rushes along under
propulsion; but when it is concentrated and thickened still more,
clouds are generated; and, lastly, it turns to water.[158]—Hipp.
_Ref._ i. 7, 7 (Dox. p. 561).

The stars are fixed like nails in the crystalline vault of the
heavens.—Aet. ii. 14, 3 (_Dox._ p. 344).

They do not go under the earth, but turn round it.—_Ib._ 16, 6 (_Dox._
p. 346).

The sun is fiery.—_Ib._ 20, 2 (_Dox._ p. 348).

It is broad like a leaf.—_Ib._ 22, 1 (_Dox._ p. 352).

The heavenly bodies are diverted from their courses by the resistance
of compressed air.—_Ib._ 23, 1 (_Dox._ p. 352).

The moon is of fire.—_Ib._ 25, 2 (_Dox._ p. 356).

Anaximenes explained lightning like Anaximander, adding as an
illustration what happens in the case of the sea, which flashes when
divided by the oars.—_Ib._ iii. 3, 2 (_Dox._ p. 368).

Hail is produced when water freezes in falling; snow, when there is
some air imprisoned in the water.—Aet. iii 4, 1 (_Dox._ p. 370).

The rainbow is produced when the beams of the sun fall on thick
condensed air. Hence the anterior part of it seems red, being burnt by
the sun’s rays, while the other part is dark, owing to the
predominance of moisture. And he says that a rainbow is produced at
night by the moon, but not often, because there is not constantly a
full moon, and because the moon’s light is weaker than that of the
sun.—_Schol. Arat._[159] (_Dox._ p. 231).

The earth was like a table in shape.—Aet. iii. 10, 3 (_Dox._ p. 377).

The cause of earthquakes was the dryness and moisture of the earth,
occasioned by droughts and heavy rains respectively.—_Ib._ 15, 3
(_Dox._ p. 379).

Footnote 158:

The text is very corrupt here. I retain ἐκπεπυκνωμένος, because we are
told above that winds are condensed air, and I adopt Zeller’s ἀραιῷ
εἰσφέρηται (p. 246, _n._ 554).

We have seen that Anaximenes was quite justified in going back to Thales in regard to his general theory of the primary substance; but it cannot be denied that the effect of this upon the details of his cosmology was unfortunate. The earth is once more imagined as a table-like disc floating upon the air. The sun, moon, and planets are also fiery discs which float on the air “like leaves.” It follows that the heavenly bodies cannot be thought of as going under the earth at night, but only as going round it laterally like a cap or a millstone.[160] This curious view is also mentioned in Aristotle’s _Meteorology_,[161] where the elevation of the northern parts of the earth, which makes it possible for the heavenly bodies to be hidden from sight, is referred to. In fact, whereas Anaximander had regarded the orbits of the sun, moon, and stars as oblique with reference to the earth, Anaximenes regarded the earth itself as inclined. The only real advance is the distinction of the planets, which float freely in the air, from the fixed stars, which are fastened to the “crystalline” vault of the sky.[162]

Footnote 159:

The source of this is Poseidonios, who used Theophrastos. _Dox._ p.
231.

Footnote 160:

Theodoret (iv. 16) speaks of those who believe in a revolution like
that of a millstone, as contrasted with one like that of a wheel.
Diels (_Dox._ p. 46) refers these similes to Anaximenes and
Anaximander respectively. They come, of course, from Aetios (Appendix,
§ 10), though they are given neither by Stobaios nor in the _Placita_.

Footnote 161:

Β, 1. 354 a 28 (R. P. 28 c).

Footnote 162:

We do not know how Anaximenes imagined the “crystalline” sky. It is
probable that he used the word πάγος as Empedokles did. Cf. Chap. V. §
112.

The earthy bodies, which circulate among the planets, are doubtless intended to account for eclipses and the phases of the moon.[163]

Footnote 163:

See Tannery, _Science hellène_, p. 153. For the precisely similar
bodies assumed by Anaxagoras, see below, Chap. VI. § 135. See further
Chap. VII. § 151.

[Sidenote: Innumerable worlds.]

30. As might be expected, there is the same difficulty about the “innumerable worlds” ascribed to Anaximenes as about those of Anaximander, and most of the arguments given above (§ 18) apply here also. The evidence, however, is far less satisfactory. Cicero says that Anaximenes regarded air as a god, and adds that it came into being.[164] That there is some confusion here is obvious. Air, as the primary substance, is certainly eternal, and it is quite likely that Anaximenes called it “divine,” as Anaximander did the Boundless; but it is certain that he also spoke of gods who came into being and passed away. These arose, he said, from the air. This is expressly stated by Hippolytos,[165] and also by St. Augustine.[166] These gods are probably to be explained like Anaximander’s. Simplicius, indeed, takes another view;[167] but he may have been misled by a Stoic authority.

Footnote 164:

Cic. _de nat. D._ i. 26 (R. P. 28 b). On what follows see Krische,
_Forschungen_, pp. 52 sqq.

Footnote 165:

Hipp. _Ref._ i. 7, 1 (R. P. 28).

Footnote 166:

Aug. _de civ. D._ viii. 2: “Anaximenes omnes rerum causas infinito
aëri dedit: nec deos negavit aut tacuit; non tamen ab ipsis aërem
factum, sed ipsos ex aëre ortos credidit” (R. P. 28 b).

Footnote 167:

Simpl. _Phys._ p. 1121, 12 (R. P. 28 a). The passage from the
_Placita_ is of higher authority than this from Simplicius. Note,
further, that it is only to Anaximenes, Herakleitos, and Diogenes that
successive worlds are ascribed even here. With regard to Anaximander,
Simplicius is quite clear. For the Stoic view of Herakleitos, see
Chap. III. § 78; and for Diogenes, Chap. X. § 188. That Simplicius is
following a Stoic authority is suggested by the words καὶ ὕστερον οἱ
ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς. Cf. also Simpl. _de Caelo_, p. 202, 13.

[Sidenote: Influence of Anaximenes.]

31. It is not quite easy for us to realise that, in the eyes of his contemporaries, and for long after, Anaximenes was a much more important figure than Anaximander. And yet the fact is certain. We shall see that Pythagoras, though he followed Anaximander in his account of the heavenly bodies, was far more indebted to Anaximenes for his general theory of reality (§ 53). We shall see further that when, at a later date, science revived once more in Ionia, it was “the philosophy of Anaximenes” to which it attached itself (§ 122). Anaxagoras adopted many of his most characteristic views (§ 135), and some of them even found their way into the cosmology of the Atomists.[168] Diogenes of Apollonia went back to the central doctrine of Anaximenes, and once more made Air the primary substance, though he also tried to combine it with the theories of Anaxagoras (§ 188). We shall come to all this later on; but it seemed desirable to point out at once that Anaximenes marks the culminating point of the line of thought which started with Thales, and to show how the “philosophy of Anaximenes” came to mean the Milesian doctrine as a whole. This it can only have done because it was really the work of a school, of which Anaximenes was the last distinguished representative, and because his contribution to it was one that completed the system he had inherited from his predecessors. That the theory of rarefaction and condensation was really such a completion of the Milesian system, we have seen already (§ 26), and it need only be added that a clear realisation of this fact will be the best clue at once to the understanding of the Milesian cosmology itself and to that of the systems which followed it. In the main, it is from Anaximenes that they all start.

Footnote 168:

In particular, the authority of Anaximenes was so great that both
Leukippos and Demokritos adhered to his theory of a disc-like earth.
Cf. Aet. iii. 10, 3-5 (Περὶ σχήματος γῆς), Ἀναξιμένης τραπεζοειδῆ (τὴν
γῆν). Λεύκιππος τυμπανοειδῆ. Δημόκριτος δισκοειδῆ μὲν τῷ πλάτει,
κοίλην δὲ τῷ μέσῳ. This, in spite of the fact that the spherical form
of the earth was already a commonplace in circles affected by
Pythagoreanism.