1 The conception of elements is not older than Empedokles (§ 106), and the word στοιχεῖα, which is properly translated by e/ementa, was first used in this sense by Plato. .For the history of the term, see Diels, E/ementum (1899).
2 The important word ἀλλήλοις was omitted in the Aldine SERaUCHUS, 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, ἢ. 1.
oe ῶνΝ μέ -,
τῇ the Milesian School 57
from the doxographers ; the current statement that the
word ἀρχή in the sense of a “ first principle” was\intro-
duced by him, is probably due to a misunderstanding
of what Theophrastos said."
15. It was natural for Aristotle to regard this
theory as an anticipation or presentiment of his own
doctrine of “indeterminate matter.”*” 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 ” that the Boundless was a
body,’ though in his own system there was no room
for anything corporeal prior to the elements ; so he had
to speak of it asa boundless body “alongside of” or
“distinct from” the elements (παρὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα). So
1 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 (2, 6. τὸ ἄπειρον) for the ἀρχή; but the words of Hippolytos (Hef 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 Theo- phrastos; 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 Neuhauser takes the passage (Anaximander, pp. 7 sqq.) ; but I cannot agree with him in holding that the word ὑποκείμενον is ascribed to the Milesian.
? Arist. 2221. A, 2. 1069 b 18 (R. P. 16 ο).
3 This is taken for granted in Phys. Τὶ, 4. 203 a 16; 204 b 22 (R. P. 16 Ὁ), and stated in Τ', 8. 208 a 8 (ΚΕ. P. 16a). Cf. Simpl. Péys. p. 150, 20 (R. P. 18). ;
Aristotle's
account of
the theory.
58 Early Greek Philosophy
far as I know, no one has doubted that, when he uses this phrase, he is referring to Anaximander.
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 “ inter- mediate between” the elements or between two of them! 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.” We may add that in one
1 Aristotle speaks four times of something intermediate between Fire and Air (Gex. Corr, B, 1. 328 Ὁ 35 ; 16. 5. 332 a 21; Phys. A, 4.187 a 14; Met. A, 7. 988 a 30). In five places we have something intermediate between Water and Air (Jet. A, 7. 988 a 13; Gen. Corr. B, 5. 332 a 21; Phys. ΤᾺ, 4. 203 a 18; 2b. 5. 205 a 27; de Caelo, T, 5. 303 Ὁ 12). Once (Phys. A, 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.
® Arist. de Caelo, T, 5. 303 Ὁ 12, ὕδατος μὲν λεπτότερον, ἀέρος δὲ πυκνότερον, ὃ περιέχειν φασὶ πάντας τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἄπειρον bv. That this refers to Idaios οἵ Himera, as suggested by Zeller (p. 258), seems very improbable. Aristotle nowhere mentions his name, and the tone
ὦ oe
The Milesian School 59
or two places Aristotle certainly seems to identify the
“intermediate” with the something “ distinct from” the
elements.’
There is even one place in ἽΠΠΟΣ he appears to
speak of Anaximander’s Boundless as a “ mixture,”
though his words may perhaps admit of another inter-
pretation.” 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,? 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.
16. Anaximander reason for conceiving the The primary substance is
of his reference to Hippon in Mer. A, 3. 984 a 3 (R. P. 219 a) shows infinite.
that he was not likely to pay so much attention to the émiyovo of the Milesian school.
1 Cf. Phys. Τ', 5. 204 Ὁ 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 ἕν καὶ ἄπειρον πῦρ ἐποίησεν οὐδὲ γῆν τῶν φυσιολόγων, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ὕδωρ ἢ ἀέρα ἢ τὸ μέσον αὐτῶν. In Gen. Corr. Β, 1. 328 Ὁ 35 we have first τι μεταξὺ τούτων σῶμά τε ὃν καὶ χωριστόν, and a little further on (329 a 9) μίαν ὕλην παρὰ τὰ εἰρημένα. In B, 5. 332 a 20 we have οὐ μὴν οὐδ᾽ ἄλλο τί γε παρὰ ταῦτα, οἷον μέσον τι ἀέρος καὶ ὕδατος ἢ ἀέρος καὶ πυρός.
2 Met. A, 2. 1069 b18(R. P. 16c). Zeller (p. 205, ἢ. 1) assumes an
“*easy zeugma.” I should prefer to say that καὶ ᾿Εμπεδοκλέους τὸ μῖγμα was an afterthought, and that Aristotle really meant τὸ ᾿Αναξαγόρου ἕν .. . καὶ ᾿Αναξιμάνδρου. Phys. A, 4. 187 a 20 does not assign the ** mixture ἢ to Anaximander.
3 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 ” (Avch. xix. p. 333).
60 Early Greek Philosophy
primary substance as boundless was, no doubt, that
indicated by Aristotle, namely, “that becoming might,
not [41], 1. 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.” This mass is a body, and out of it our world
2 Phys. I, 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 Ὁ 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. .
2 [ have assumed that the word ἄπειρον means spatially infinite (though not in any precise: mathematical sense), not gualttatively indeterminate, as maintained by Teichmiiller 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
ν the Milesian School 61
once emerged by the “separating out” of the opposites,
which one day will all be absorbed again in the Bound-
less, and our world will cease to be.
17. The doxographers say it was the “eternal The eternal ἡ motion ” that brought into being “all the heavens and all ἜΝ the worlds within them.” As we have seen (ὃ VIII), it is not likely that Anaximander himself used the phrase “ otion.” 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 ina 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 Pytha- goreans should have followed Anaximander in this. 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
**to encompass,” not, as has been suggested, “to contain potentially.” (2) Aristotle says (Phys. T', 4. 203 Ὁ 23) διὰ yap τὸ ἐν τῇ νοήσει wh ὑπολείπειν kai 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.
᾿ ἢ Plato, Z¢m. 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,\§ 535
The innumer- able worlds. |