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. li. 25, 1 (Dox. p. 355).
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. ili. 3, 1 (Dox. p. 367).
Anaximander held that wind was a current of air (2.6. 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. fef. i. 6, 7 (Dox. p. 560).
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,
1 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, Scdence helldne, p. 91 3. and Diels, ‘‘ Ueber Anaximanders Kosmos” (Arch. x. pp. 231 sqq.).
The Milesian School 69
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.. 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.”
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.’ 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
1 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.
3 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 cannot be the Zodiac ; for the planets were not separately studied yet.
70 Early Greek Philosophy
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.’
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.
Earthand 20. We turn now to what we are told of the origin
aa 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
1 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 Milesian School 71
depth is as a third part of its -breadth.—Ps.-Plut. Strom. fr. 2 (R. P. 2.).
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..—Hipp. Ref. i. 6 (R. P. 20).
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 inter-
mediate 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.’
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 Anaxi-
mander meant by “injustice.” And we see how this
injustice brings about the destruction of the world.
1 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 suzface 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. 20a); 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 ; Teichmiiller, κίονος λίθῳ; while Diels doubtfully puts forward λιθῷ κίονι, which he suggests might be a
Theophrastean modernisation of an original λιθέῃ κίονι (Dox. p. 219). - ® See above, p. 58, n. 1.
Animals.
72 Early Greek Philosophy
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.’
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.
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. ef. i. 6 (R..P. 22 a).
The first animals were produced in the moisture, each en- closed in a prickly bark. As they advanced in age, they came
1 Arist. de Caelo, B, 13. 295 Ὁ 10, εἰσὶ δέ τινες of διὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητά φασιν αὐτὴν (τὴν γῆν) μένειν, ὥσπερ τῶν ἀρχαίων ᾿Αναξίμανδρος" 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.”
The Milesian School 73
out upon the drier part. When the bark broke off! 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. 2d.).
He declares that at first human beings arose in the inside of fishes, and after having been reared like sharks,? and become capable of protecting themselves, they were finally cast ashore and took to land.—Plut. Symp. Quaest. 730 f (R. P. 20.).
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 répresent 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 zammalia. ‘The statements of Aristotle
1 This is to be understood in the light of what we are told about γαλεοί below. Cf. Arist. Hist. An. Z, 10. 565 a 25, τοῖς μὲν οὖν σκυλίοις, οὖς καλοῦσί τινες veBplas γαλεούς, ὅταν περιρραγῇ Kal ἐκπέσῃ τὸ ὄστρακον, γίνονται οἱ νεοττοί.
2 Reading ὥσπερ οἱ γαλεοί for ὥσπερ οἱ παλαιοί with Doehner, who compares Plut. de sol/. anim. 982 a, where the φιλόστοργον of the shark is described. See p. 74, ἢ. 1.
’ Theology.
“74 Early Greek Philosophy
about the galeus levis were shown long ago by Johannes
Miiller 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.’