Anaximander was the author of the first surviving lines of Western
philosophy. He speculated and argued about 'the Boundless' as the
origin of all that is. He also worked on the fields of what we now
call geography and biology. Moreover, Anaximander was the first
speculative astronomer. He originated the world-picture of the open
universe, which replaced the closed universe of the celestial vault.
Table of Contents (Clicking on the links below will take you to those parts of this article)
1. Life and sources
The history of written Greek philosophy starts with Anaximander of
Miletus in Asia Minor, a fellow-citizen of Thales. He was
the first who dared to write a treatise in prose, which has been
called traditionally On Nature. This book has been lost, although it
probably was available in the library of the Lyceum at the times of
Aristotle
and his successor Theophrastus.
It is said that Apollodorus, in the second century BCE, stumbled upon
a copy of it, perhaps in the famous library of Alexandria. Recently,
evidence has appeared that it was part of the collection of the
library of Taormina in Sicily, where a fragment of a catalogue has
been found, on whichAnaximander's name can be read. Only one fragment
of the book has come down to us, quoted by Simplicius (after Theophrastus),
in the sixth century AD. It is perhaps the most famous and most
discussed phrase in the history of philosophy.
We also know very little of Anaximander's life. He is said to have
led a mission that founded a colony called Apollonia on the coast of
the Black Sea. He also probably introduced the gnomon (a
perpendicular sun-dial) into Greece and erected one in Sparta. So he
seems to have been a much-traveled man, which is not astonishing, as
the Milesians were known to be audacious sailors. It is also reported
that he displayed solemn manners and wore pompous garments. Most of
the information on Anaximander comes from Aristotle and
his pupil Theophrastus,
whose book on the history of philosophy was used, excerpted, and
quoted by many other authors, the so-called doxographers, before it
was lost. Sometimes, in these texts words or expressions appear that
can with some certainty be ascribed to Anaximander himself.
Relatively many testimonies, approximately one third of them, have to
do with astronomical and cosmological questions. Hermann Diels and
Walter Kranz have edited the doxography (A) and the existing texts
(B) of the Presocratic philosophers in Die Fragmente der
Vorsokratiker, Berlin 1951-19526. (A quotation like "DK
12A17" means: "Diels/Kranz, Anaximander, doxographical report no.17".)
2. The 'Boundless' as principle
According to Aristotle
and Theophrastus,
the first Greek philosophers were looking for the 'origin' or
'principle' (the Greek word 'archê' has both meanings) of all
things. Anaximander is said to have identified it with 'the
Boundless' or 'the Unlimited' (Greek: 'apeiron', i.e. 'that
which has no boundaries'). Already in ancient times, it is complained
that Anaximander did not explain what he meant by 'the Boundless'.
More recently, authors have disputed whether the Boundless should be
interpreted as spatially or temporarily without limits, or perhaps as
that which has no qualifications, or as that which is inexhaustible.
Some scholars have even defended the meaning 'that which is not
experienced', by relating the Greek word 'apeiron' not to 'peras'
('boundary', 'limit'), but to 'perao' ('to experience', 'to
apperceive'). The suggestion, however, is almost irresistible that
Greek philosophy, by making the Boundless into the principle of all
things, has started on a high level of abstraction. On the other
hand, some have pointed out that this use of 'apeiron' is atypical
for Greek thought, which was occupied with limit, symmetry and
harmony. The Pythagoreans placed the boundless (the 'apeiron') on the
list of negative things, and for Aristotle,
too, perfection became aligned with limit (Greek: 'peras'), and thus
'apeiron' with imperfection. Therefore, some authors suspect eastern
(Iranian) influence on Anaximander's ideas.
3. The arguments regarding the Boundless
It seems that Anaximander not only put forward the thesis that the
Boundless is the principle, but also tried to argue for it. We might
say that he was the first who made use of philosophical arguments.
Anaximander's arguments have come down to us in the disguise of
Aristotelian jargon. Therefore, any reconstruction of the arguments
used by the Milesian must remain conjectural. Verbatim
reconstruction is of course impossible. Nevertheless, the data,
provided they are handled with care, allow us to catch glimpses of
what the arguments of Anaximander must have looked like. The
important thing is, however, that he did not just utter apodictic
statements, but also tried to give arguments. This is what makes him
the first philosopher.
a. The Boundless has no origin
Aristotle
reports a curious argument, which probably goes back to Anaximander,
in which it is argued that the Boundless has no origin, because it is
itself the origin. We would say that it looks more like a string of
associations and word-plays than like a formal argument. It runs as
follows: "Everything has an origin or is an origin. The Boundless has
no origin. For then it would have a limit. Moreover, it is both
unborn and immortal, being a kind of origin. For that which has
become has also, necessarily, an end, and there is a termination to
every process of destruction" (Physics 203b6-10, DK 12A15). The
Greeks were familiar with the idea of the immortal Homeric gods.
Anaximander added two distinctive features to the concept of
divinity: his Boundless is an impersonal something (or 'nature', the
Greek word is 'phusis'), and it is not only immortal but also unborn.
However, perhaps not Anaximander, but Thales should
be credited with this new idea. Diogenes
Laërtius ascribes to Thales the
aphorism: "What is the divine? That which has no origin and no end"
(DK 11A1 (36)). Similar arguments, within different contexts, are
used by Melissus (DK 30B2[9]) and Plato (Phaedrus 245d1-6).
b. The origin must be boundless
Several sources give another argument which is somehow the other
way round and answers the question of why the origin should be
boundless. In Aristotle's
version, it runs like this: "(The belief that there is something
Boundless stems from) the idea that only then genesis and decay will
never stop, when that from which is taken what has been generated, is
boundless" (Physics 203b18-20, DK 12A15, other versions in DK12A14
and 12A17). In this argument, the Boundless seems to be associated
with an inexhaustible source. Obviously, it is taken for granted that
"genesis and decay will never stop", and the Boundless has to
guarantee the ongoing of the process, like an ever-floating fountain.
c. The 'long since' argument
A third argument is relatively long and somewhat strange. It turns
on one key word (in Greek: 'êdê'), which is here translated
with 'long since'. It is reproduced by Aristotle:
"Some make this (viz. that which is additional to the elements) the
Boundless, but not air or water, lest the others should be destroyed
by one of them, being boundless; for they are opposite to one another
(the air, for instance, is cold, the water wet, and the fire hot). If
any of them should be boundless, it would long since have
destroyed the others; but now there is, they say, something other
from which they are all generated" (Physics 204b25-29, DK 12A16).
This is not only virtually the same argument as used by Plato
in his Phaedo (72a12-b5), but even more interesting is that it
was used almost 2500 years later by Friedrich Nietzsche in his
attempts to prove his thesis of the Eternal Recurrence: "If the world
had a goal, it would have been reached. If there were for it some
unintended final state, this also must have been reached. If it were
at all capable of a pausing and becoming fixed, if it were capable of
'being', if in the whole course of its becoming it possessed even for
a moment this capability of 'being', then again all becoming would
long since have come to an end." Nietzsche wrote these words
in his notebook in 1885, but already in Die Philosophie im
tragischen Zeitalter der Griechen (1873), which was not
published during his lifetime, he mentioned the argument and credited
Anaximander with it.
4. The fragment
The only existing fragment of Anaximander's book (DK 12B1) is
surrounded by all kinds of questions. The ancient Greeks did not use
quotation marks, so that we cannot be sure where Simplicius, who has
handed down the text to us, is still paraphrasing Anaximander and
where he begins to quote him. The text is cast in indirect speech,
even the part which most authors agree is a real quotation. One
important word of the text ('allêlois', here translated by 'upon
one another') is missing in some manuscripts. As regards the
interpretation of the fragment, it is heavily disputed whether it
means to refer to Anaximander's principle, the Boundless, or not. The
Greek original has relative pronouns in the plural (here rendered by
'whence' and 'thence'), which makes it difficult to relate them to
the Boundless. However, Simplicius' impression that it is written in
rather poetic words has been repeated in several ways by many
authors. Therefore, we offer a translation, in which some poetic
features of the original, such as chiasmus and alliteration have been
imitated:
Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction happens,
As is the order of things;
For they execute the sentence upon one another
- The condemnation for the crime -
In conformity with the ordinance of Time.
In the fourth and fifth line a more fluent translation is given for
what is usually rendered rather cryptic by something like "giving
justice and reparation to one another for their injustice."
We may distinguish roughly two lines of interpretation, which
may be labeled the 'horizontal' and the 'vertical'. The horizontal
interpretation holds that in the fragment nothing is said about the
relation of the things to the Boundless, whereas the vertical
interpretation maintains that the fragment describes the relationship
of the things to the Boundless. The upholders of the horizontal
interpretation usually do not deny that Anaximander taught that all
things are generated from the Boundless, but they simply hold that
this is not what is said in the fragment. They argue that the
fragment describes the battle between the elements (or of things in
general), which accounts for the origin and destruction of things.
The most obvious difficulty, however, for this 'horizontal'
interpretation is that it implies two cycles of becoming and decay:
one from and into the Boundless, and the other caused by the mutual
give and take of the elements or things in general. In other words,
in the 'horizontal' interpretation the Boundless is superfluous. This
is the strongest argument in favor of the 'vertical' interpretation,
which holds that the fragment refers to the Boundless,
notwithstanding the plural relative pronouns. According to the
'vertical' interpretation, then, the
Boundless should be regarded not only as the ever-flowing fountain
from which everything ultimately springs, but also as the yawning
abyss (as some say, comparable with Hesiod's 'Chaos') into which
everything ultimately perishes.
The suggestion has been raised that Anaximander's formula in the
first two lines of the fragment should have been the model for Aristotle's
definition of the 'principle' (Greek: 'archê') of all things in
Metaphysics 983b8. There is some sense in this suggestion.
For what could be more natural for Aristotle
than to borrow his definition of the notion of 'archê', which he
uses to indicate the principle of the first presocratic philosophers,
from Anaximander, the one who introduced the notion?
It is certainly important that we possess one text from Anaximander's
book. On the other hand, we must recognize that we know hardly
anything of its original context, as the rest of the book has been
lost. We do not know from which part of his book it is, nor whether
it is a text the author himself thought crucial or just a line that
caught one reader's attention as an example of Anaximander's poetic
writing style. The danger exists that we are tempted to use this
stray text - beautiful and mysterious as it is - in order to produce
all kinds of profound interpretations that are hard to verify.
Perhaps a better way of understanding what Anaximander has to say is
to study carefully the doxography, which goes back to people like
Aristotle and Theophrastus, who probably have had Anaximander's book
before their eyes, and who tried to reformulate what they thought
were its central claims.
5. The origin of the cosmos
The Boundless seems to have played a role in Anaximander's account
of the origin of the cosmos. Its eternal movement is said to have
caused the origin of the heavens. Elsewhere, it is said that "all the
heavens and the worlds within them" have sprung from "some boundless
nature". A part of this process is described in rather poetic
language, full of images, which seems to be idiosyncratic for
Anaximander: "a germ, pregnant with hot and cold, was separated [or:
separated itself] off from the eternal, whereupon out of this germ a
sphere of fire grew around the vapor that surrounds the earth, like a
bark round a tree" (DK 12A10). Subsequently, the sphere of fire is
said to have fallen apart into several rings, and this event was the
origin of sun, moon, and stars. There are authors who have, quite
anachronistically, seen here a kind of foreshadowing of the
Kant-Laplace theory of the origin of the solar system. Some sources
even mention innumerable worlds (in time and/or in space), which
looks like a plausible consequence of the Boundless as principle. But
this is presumably a later theory, incorrectly read back into
Anaximander.
6. Astronomy
At first sight, the reports on Anaximander's astronomy look rather
bizarre and obscure. Some authors even think that they are so
confused that we should give up trying to offer a satisfying and
coherent interpretation. The only way of understanding Anaximander's
astronomical ideas, however, is to take them seriously and treat them
as such, that is, as astronomical ideas. It will appear that many of
the features of his universe that look strange at first sight make
perfect sense on closer inspection.
a. Speculative astronomy
The astronomy of neighboring peoples, such as the Babylonians and
the Egyptians, consists mainly of observations of the rising and
disappearance of celestial bodies and of their paths across the
celestial vault. These observations were made with the naked eye and
with the help of some simple instruments as the gnomon. The
Babylonians, in particular, were rather advanced observers.
Archeologists have found an abundance of cuneiform texts on
astronomical observations. In contrast, there exists only one report
of an observation made by Anaximander, which concerns the date on
which the Pleiades set in the morning. This is no coincidence, for
Anaximander's merits do not lie in the field of observational
astronomy, unlike the Babylonians and the Egyptians, but in that of
speculative astronomy. We may discern three of his astronomical
speculations: (1) that the celestial bodies make full circles and
pass also beneath the earth, (2) that the earth floats free and
unsupported in space, and (3) that the celestial bodies lie behind
one another. Notwithstanding their rather primitive outlook, these
three propositions, which make up the core of Anaximander's
astronomy, meant a tremendous jump forward and constitute the origin
of our Western concept of the universe.
b. The celestial bodies make full circles
The idea that the celestial bodies, in their daily course, make
full circles and thus pass also beneath the earth - from
Anaximander's viewpoint - is so self-evident to us that it is hard to
understand how daring its introduction was. That the celestial bodies
make full circles is not something he could have observed,
but a conclusion he must have drawn. We would say that
this is a conclusion that lies to hand. We can see - at the northern
hemisphere, like Anaximander - the stars around the Polar star making
full circles, and we can also observe that the more southerly stars
sometimes disappear behind the horizon. We may argue that the stars
of which we see only arcs in reality also describe full circles, just
like those near the Polar star. As regards the sun and moon, we can
observe that the arcs they describe are sometimes bigger and
sometimes smaller, and we are able to predict exactly where they will
rise the next day. Therefore, it seems not too bold a conjecture to
say that these celestial bodies also describe full circles.
Nevertheless, it was a daring conclusion, precisely because it
necessarily entailed the concept of the earth hanging free and
unsupported in space.
c. The earth floats unsupported in space
Anaximander boldly asserts that the earth floats free in the
center of the universe, unsupported by water, pillars, or whatever.
This idea means a complete revolution in our understanding of the
universe. Obviously, the earth hanging free in space is not
something Anaximander could have observed. Apparently, he
drew this bold conclusion from his assumption that the celestial
bodies make full circles. More than 2500 years later astronauts
really saw the unsupported earth floating in space and thus
provided the ultimate confirmation of Anaximander's conception. The
shape of the earth, according to Anaximander, is cylindrical, like a
column-drum, its diameter being three times its height. We live on
top of it. Some scholars have wondered why Anaximander chose this
strange shape. The strangeness disappears, however, when we realize
that Anaximander thought that the earth was flat and circular, as
suggested by the horizon. For one who thinks, as Anaximander did,
that the earth floats unsupported in the center of the universe, the
cylinder-shape lies at hand.
d. Why the earth does not fall
We may assume that Anaximander somehow had to defend his bold
theory of the free-floating, unsupported earth against the obvious
question of why the earth does not fall. Aristotle's
version of Anaximander's argument runs like this: "But there are some
who say that it (viz. the earth) stays where it is because of
equality, such as among the ancients Anaximander. For that which is
situated in the center and at equal distances from the extremes, has
no inclination whatsoever to move up rather than down or sideways;
and since it is impossible to move in opposite directions at the same
time, it necessarily stays where it is." (De caelo 295b10ff.,
DK 12A26) Many authors have pointed to the fact that this is the
first known example of an argument that is based on the principle of
sufficient reason (the principle that for everything which occurs
there is a reason or explanation for why it occurs, and why this way
rather than that).
Anaximander's argument returns in a famous text in the Phaedo
(108E4 ff.), where Plato, for the first time in history, tries to
express the sphericity of the earth. Even more interesting is that
the same argument, within a different context, returns with the great
protagonist of the principle of sufficient reason, Leibniz. In
his second letter to Clarke, he uses an example, which he ascribes to
Archimedes but which reminds us strongly of Anaximander: "And
therefore Archimedes (...) in his book De aequilibrio, was
obliged to make use of a particular case of the great Principle of a
sufficient reason. He takes it for granted that if there be a balance
in which everything is alike on both sides, and if equal weights are
hung on the two ends of that balance, the whole will stay at rest.
This is because there is no reason why one side should weigh
down, rather than the other".
One may doubt, however, whether the argument is not
fallacious. Aristotle
already thought the argument to be deceiving. He ridicules it by
saying that according to the same kind of argument a hair, which was
subject to an even pulling power from opposing sides, would not
break, and that a man, being just as hungry as thirsty, placed in
between food and drink, must necessarily remain where he is and
starve. To him it was the wrong argument for the right proposition.
Absolute propositions concerning the non-existence of things are
always in danger of becoming falsified on closer investigation. They
contain a kind of subjective aspect: 'as far as I know'. Several
authors, however, have said that Anaximander's argument is clear and
ingenious. Already at first sight this qualification sounds strange,
for the argument evidently must be wrong, as the earth is not
in the center of the universe, although it certainly is not
supported by anything but gravity. Nevertheless, we have to wait
until Newton for a better answer to the question why the earth does
not fall.
e. The celestial bodies lie behind one another
When Anaximander looked at the heaven, he imagined, for the first
time in history, space. Anaximander's vision implied
depth in the universe, that is, the idea that the celestial
bodies lie behind one another. Although it sounds simple, this
is a remarkable idea, because it cannot be based on direct
observation. We do not see depth in the universe. The more
natural and primitive idea is that of the celestial vault, a kind of
dome or tent, onto which the celestial bodies are attached, all of
them at the same distance, like in a planetarium. One meets this kind
of conception in Homer, when he speaks of the brazen or iron heaven,
which is apparently conceived of as something solid, being supported
by Atlas, or by pillars.
f. The order of the celestial bodies
Anaximander placed the celestial bodies in the wrong order. He
thought that the stars were nearest to the earth, then followed the
moon, and the sun farthest away. Some authors have wondered why
Anaximander made the stars the nearest celestial bodies, for he
should have noticed the occurrence of star-occultations by the moon.
This is a typical anachronism, which shows that it not easy to look
at the phenomena with Anaximander's eyes. Nowadays, we know that the
stars are behind the moon, and thus we speak of star-occultation when
we see a star disappear behind the moon. But Anaximander had no
reason at all, from his point of view, to speak of a star-occultation
when he saw a star disappear when the moon was at the same place. So
it is a petitio principii to say that for him occultations of
stars were easy to observe. Perhaps he observed stars disappearing
and appearing again, but he did not observe - could not see it as -
the occultation of the star, for that interpretation did not fit his
paradigm. The easiest way to understand his way of looking at it - if
he observed the phenomenon at all - is that he must have thought that
the brighter light of the moon outshines the much smaller light of
the star for a while. Anaximander's order of the celestial bodies is
clearly that of increasing brightness. Unfortunately, the sources do
not give further information of his considerations at this point.
g. The celestial bodies as wheels
A peculiar feature of Anaximander's astronomy is that the
celestial bodies are said to be like chariot wheels (the Greek words
for this image are presumably his own). The rims of these wheels are
of opaque vapor, they are hollow, and filled with fire. This fire
shines through at openings in the wheels, and this is what we see as
the sun, the moon, or the stars. Sometimes, the opening of the sun
wheel closes: then we observe an eclipse. The opening of the moon
wheel regularly closes and opens again, which accounts for the phases
of the moon. This image of the celestial bodies as huge wheels seems
strange at first sight, but there is a good reason for it. There is
no doxographic evidence of it, but it is quite certain that the
question of why the celestial bodies do not fall upon the earth must
have been as serious a problem to Anaximander as the question of why
the earth does not fall. The explanation of the celestial bodies as
wheels, then, provides an answer to both questions. The celestial
bodies have no reason whatsoever to move otherwise than in circles
around the earth, as each point on them is always as far from the
earth as any other. It is because of reasons like this that for ages
to come, when Anaximander's concept of the universe had been replaced
by a spherical one, the celestial bodies were thought of as somehow
attached to crystalline or ethereal sphere-shells, and not as
free-floating bodies.
Many authors, following Diels, make the image of the celestial wheels
more difficult than is necessary. They say that the light of a
celestial bodies shines through the openings of its wheel 'as through
the nozzle of a bellows'. This is an incorrect translation of an
expression that probably goes back to Anaximander himself. The image
of a bellows, somehow connected to a celestial wheel, tends to
complicate rather than elucidate the meaning of the text. If we were
to understand that every celestial body had such a bellows, the
result would be hundreds of nozzles (or pipes), extending from the
celestial wheels towards the earth. Anaximander's intention, however,
can be better understood not as an image, but as a comparison of the
light of the celestial bodies with that of lightning. Lightning,
according to Anaximander, is a momentary flash of light against a
dark cloud. The light of a celestial body is like a permanent
beam of lightning fire that originates from the opaque cloudy
substance of the celestial wheel.
h. The distances of the celestial bodies
The doxography gives us some figures about the dimensions of
Anaximander's universe: the sun wheel is 27 or 28 times the earth,
and the moon wheel is 19 times the earth. More than a century ago,
two great scholars, Paul Tannery and Hermann Diels, solved the
problem of Anaximander's numbers. They suggested that the celestial
wheels were one unit thick, this unit being the diameter of the
earth. The full series, they argued, had to be: 9 and 10 for the
stars, 18 and 19 for the moon, and 27 and 28 for the sun. These
numbers are best understood as indicating the distances of the
celestial bodies to the earth. In others words, they indicate the
radii of concentric circles, made by the celestial wheels, with the
earth as the center. See Figure 1, a plane view of Anaximander's
universe.
These numbers cannot be based on observation. In order to understand
their meaning, we have to look at Hesiod's Theogony 722-725,
where it is said that a brazen anvil would take nine days to fall
from heaven to earth before it arrives on the tenth day. It is not a
bold guess to suppose that Anaximander knew this text. The agreement
with his numbers is too close to neglect, for the numbers 9 and 10
are exactly those extrapolated for Anaximander's star wheel. Hesiod
can be seen as a forerunner to Anaximander, for he tried to imagine
the distance to the heaven. In the Greek counting system Hesiod's
numbers should be taken to mean 'a very long time'. Thus, Troy was
conquered in the tenth year after having stood the siege for nine
years; and Odysseus scoured the seas for nine years before reaching
his homeland in the tenth year. We may infer that Anaximander, with
his number 9 (1 x 3 x 3) for the star ring, simply was trying to say
that the stars are very far away. Now the numbers 18 and 27 can
easily be interpreted as 'farther' (2 x 3 x 3, for the moon ring) and
'farthest' (3 x 3 x 3, for the sun ring). And this is exactly what we
should expect one to say, who had discovered that the image of the
celestial vault was wrong but that the celestial bodies were behind
one another, and who wished to share this new knowledge with his
fellow citizens in a language they were able to understand.
i. A representation of Anaximander's universe
Although it is not attested in the doxography, we may assume that
Anaximander himself drew a map of the universe, like that in figure
1. The numbers, 9, 10, 18, etc., can easily be understood as
instructions for making such a map. Although Diogenes
Laërtius reports that he made a 'sphere', the drawing or
construction of a three-dimensional model must be considered to have
been beyond Anaximander's abilities. On the other hand, it is quite
easy to explain the movements of the celestial bodies with the help
of a plan view, by making broad gestures, describing circles in the
air, and indicating direction, speed, and inclination with your
hands, as is said of a quarrel between Anaxagoras
and Oenopides (DK 41A2).
Almost nothing of Anaximander's opinions about the stars has been
handed down to us. Probably the best way to imagine them is as a
conglomerate of several wheels, each of which has one or more holes,
through which the inner fire shines, which we see as stars. The most
likely sum-total of these star wheels is a sphere. The only movement
of these star wheels is a rotation around the earth from east to
west, always at the same speed, and always at the same place relative
to one another in the heaven. The sun wheel shows the same rotation
from east to west as the stars, but there are two differences. The
first is that the speed of the rotation of the sun wheel is not the
same as that of the stars. We can see this phenomenon by observing
how the sun lags behind by approximately one degree per day. The
second difference is that the sun wheel as a whole changes its
position in the heaven. In summer it moves towards the north along
the axis of the heaven and we see a large part of it above the
horizon, whereas in winter we only observe a small part of the sun
wheel, as it moves towards the south. This movement of the sun wheel
accounts for the seasons. The same holds mutatis mutandis for
the moon. Today, we use to describe this movement of the sun (and
mutatis mutandis of the moon and the planets) as a retrograde
movement, from west to east, which is a counter-movement to the daily
rotation from east to west. In terms of Anaximander's ancient
astronomy it is more appropriate and less anachronistic to describe
it as a slower movement of the sun wheel from east to west. The
result is that we see different stars in different seasons, until the
sun, at the end of a year, reaches its old position between the
stars.
Due to the inclination of the axis of the heaven, the celestial
bodies do not circle around the earth in the same plane as the
earth's - flat - surface, but are tilted. This inclination amounts to
about 38.5 degrees when measured at Delphi, the world's navel. The
earth being flat, the inclination must be the same all over its
surface. This tilting of the heaven's axis must have been one of the
biggest riddles of the universe. Why is it tilted at all? Who or what
is responsible for this phenomenon? And why is it tilted just the way
it is? Unfortunately, the doxography on Anaximander has nothing to
tell us about this problem. Later, other Presocratics like Empedocles,
Diogenes of
Apollonia, and Anaxagoras
discuss the tilting of the heavens.
Although there exists a report that says the contrary, it is not
likely that Anaximander was acquainted with the obliquity of the
ecliptic, which is the yearly path of the sun along the stars. The
ecliptic is a concept which belongs to the doctrine of a spherical
earth within a spherical universe. A three-dimensional representation
of Anaximander's universe is given in Figures 2 and 3.
7. Map of the world
Anaximander is said to have made the first map of the world.
Although this map has been lost, we can imagine what it must have
looked like, because Herodotus, who has seen such old maps, describes
them. Anaximander's map must have been circular, like the top of his
drum-shaped earth. The river Ocean surrounded it. The Mediterranean
Sea was in the middle of the map, which was divided into two halves
by a line that ran through Delphi, the world's navel. The northern
half was called 'Europe', the southern half 'Asia'. The habitable
world (Greek: 'oikoumenê') consisted of two relatively small
strips of land to the north and south of the Mediterranean Sea
(containing Spain, Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor on the one side, and
Egypt and Libya on the other side), together with the lands to the
east of the Mediterranean Sea: Palestine, Assyria, Persia, and
Arabia. The lands to the north of this small 'habitable world' were
the cold countries where mythical people lived. The lands to the
south of it were the hot countries of the black burnt people.
8. Biology
The doxography tells us that according to Anaximander life
originated from the moisture that covered the earth before it was dried
up by the sun. The first animals were a kind of fish, with a thorny
skin (the Greek word is the same that was used for the metaphor 'the
bark of a tree' in Anaximander's cosmology). Originally, men were
generated from fishes and were fed in the manner of a viviparous
shark. The reason for this is said to be that the human child needs
long protection in order to survive. Some authors have, rather
anachronistically, seen in these scattered statements a
proto-evolutionist theory.
9. Conclusion
It is no use trying to unify the information on Anaximander into
one all-compassing and consistent whole. His work will always remain
truncated, like the mutilated and decapitated statue that has been
found at the market-place of Miletus and that bears his name.
Nevertheless, by what we know of him, we may say that he was one of
the greatest minds that ever lived. By speculating and arguing about
the 'Boundless' he was the first metaphysician. By drawing a map of
the world he was the first geographer. But above all, by boldly
speculating about the universe he broke with the ancient image of the
celestial vault and became the discoverer of the Western
world-picture.
10. Suggestions for Further Reading
Diels, H. and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker.
Zürich/Hildesheim 1964
The standard collection of the texts of and the doxography
on Anaximander and the other presocratics.
Guthrie, W.K.C. A History of Greek Philosophy I, The Earlier
Presocratics and the Pythagoreans. London/New York 1985
(Cambridge 1962)
Kirk, G.S., J.E. Raven, and M. Schofield, The Presocratic
Philosophers, Cambridge 1995 (1957)
The above two works each have a good survey of Anaximander's
thoughts in the context of ancient Greek philosophy, with
translations of the most important doxography.
Kahn, C.H. Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology. New
York 1960 (Indianapolis/Cambridge 1994)
A classical study on Anaximander's cosmology and his
fragment, also with many translations.
Furley, D.J. and R.E. Allen, eds. Studies in Presocratic
Philosophy, Vol. I, The Beginnings of Philosophy. New York/London
1970
Contains many interesting articles on Anaximander by
different authors.
Couprie, D.L., R. Hahn, and G. Naddaf, Anaximander in Context.
Albany 2003
A volume with three recent studies on Anaximander.
Kahn, C.H. "Anaximander and the Arguments Concerning the Apeiron at
Physics 203b4-1". in: Festschrift E. Kapp, Hamburg 1958,
pp.19-29.
Stokes, M.C. "Anaximander's Argument". in: R.A. Shiner & J.
King-Farlow, eds., New Essays on Plato and the Presocratics.
1976, pp.1-22.
Two articles on some of Anaximander's arguments.
Dicks, D.R. "Solstices, Equinoxes, and the Presocratics", The
Journal of Hellenic Studies 86. 1966, pp.26-40
Kahn, C.H. "On Early Greek Astronomy". The Journal of Hellenic
Studies 90. 1970, pp.99-116
Two conflicting articles on Anaximander's astronomy.
Furley, D.J. The Greek Cosmologists, Volume I, Cambridge 1987
Dicks, D.R. Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle .
Ithaca/New York 1970
Two good books on early Greek astronomy.
Bodnár, I.M. "Anaximander's Rings", Classical Quarterly 38.
1988, pp. 49-51
O'Brien, D. "Anaximander's Measurements", The Classical Quarterly
17. 1967, pp.423-432
Two articles on important details of Anaximander's astronomy.
McKirahan, R. "Anaximander's Infinite Worlds", in A. Preus, ed.,
Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy VI: Before Plato, Albany
2001, pp. 49-65
A recent article on 'innumerable worlds.'
Heidel, W.A. The Frame of the Ancient Greek Maps. With a
Discussion of the Discovery of the Sphericity of the Earth. New
York 1937
An old but still valuable book on Anaximander's map of the
world.
Loenen, J.H.M.M. "Was Anaximander an Evolutionist?" Mnemosyme
4. 1954, pp.215-232
A discussion of Anaximander's biology.
West, M.L. Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient. Oxford 1971
A discussion of possible Iranian influence on Anaximander.
Conche, M. Anaximandre. Fragments et Témoignages. Paris 1991
The best book in French.
Classen, C.J. Ansätze. Beiträge zum Verständnis der
frühgriechischen Philosophie. Würzburg/Amsterdam 1986
The best book in German.
|
