Good Gut Guide Help For Ibs Ulcerative Colitis

Crohns Disease Diverticuliti

Now on sale at alibris.com

( 4.5/5.0 ★ | 129 downloads )
-- Click the link to download --

https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.26
539780007138050&type=15&murl=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2
Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F9780007138050
Good Gut Guide Help For Ibs
Ulcerative Colitis Crohns Disease
Diverticuliti
ISBN: 9780007138050
Category: Media > Books
File Fomat: PDF, EPUB, DOC...
File Details: 5.3 MB
Language: English
Website: alibris.com
Short description: Used-Like New Used Like New, no missing pages, no
damage to binding, may have a remainder mark.

DOWNLOAD: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&
offerid=1494105.26539780007138050&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2F
www.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F9780007138050
 Good Gut Guide Help For
Ibs Ulcerative Colitis
Crohns Disease
Diverticuliti

• Click the link: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.2653978000713805

0&type=15&murl=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F9780007138050 to do
latest version of Good Gut Guide Help For Ibs Ulcerative Colitis Crohns Disease Diverticuliti in
multiple formats such as PDF, EPUB, and more.
• Don’t miss the chance to explore our extensive collection of high-quality resources, books, and guides on
our website. Visit us regularly to stay updated with new titles and gain access to even more valuable
materials.
.
 THE DOXOGRAPHY 69 from the primeval moisture as it is
evaporated by the sun and separated into sea and land. The details
are given by A.: at first these animals were surrounded by thorny
“‘barks”’; upon maturity they migrated to dry land, shed their
coverings, and ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγον χρόνον μεταβιῶναι. Since the verb
μεταβιῶναι occurs nowhere else, its meaning has been disputed.
Burnet renders the phrase “they survived for a short time,” and
compares the doctrine of Archelaus (a 4.5) that the first animals,
produced in the earth and nourished by slime, were ὀλιγοχρόνια (p.
70, following Heidel). But a verbal compound in μετα- normally
indicates a change from one condition to another, and μεταβιῶναι
should mean ‘to live a different life’? or “‘to survive in a different
form.” Either sense is applicable to Anaximander’s view. There is, of
course, a considerable change in living conditions for these creatures
newly transferred from the sea to the land and suddenly exposed to
sunlight and air. It is understandable that their constitution was less
robust, and their life span shorter, than that of their children who
were produced in the normal way. 22. DESCENT OF MAN H. τὸν δὲ
ἄνθρωπον ἑτέρῳ ζῴῳ γεγονέναι, τουτέστι ἰχθύι, παραπλήσιον κατ᾽
ἀρχάς. Ρ. (after 13.P.) ἔτι φησίν, ὅτι κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς ἐξ ἀλλοειδῶν ζῴων ὁ
ἀνθρωπος ἐγεννήθη ἐκ τοῦ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα δι᾽ ἑαυτῶν ταχὺ νέμεσθαι,
μόνον δὲ τὸν ἄνθρωπον πολυχρονίου δεῖσθαι τιθηνήσεως" διὸ καὶ
κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς οὐκ ἄν ποτε τοιοῦτον ὄντα διασωθῆναι. Censorinus (with
21) in his homines concrevisse fetusque ad pubertatem intus
retentos; tunc demum ruptis illis viros mulieresque qui iam se alere
possent processisse. Parallel: Plutarch Symp. vu11.8. ΟΕ (= Vors. A
30) ot δ᾽ ad’ Ἕλληνος τοῦ 3 παλαιοῦ καὶ πατρογενείῳ [Ποσειδῶνι
θύουσιν, ἐκ τῆς ὑγρᾶς τὸν ἄνθρωπον > , ~ , « \ 4 A ‘ / \ > ~ ¢
οὐσίας φῦναι δόξαντες, ὡς καὶ Σύροι: διὸ καὶ σέβονται τὸν ἰχθῦν, ws
« a \ 4, > δ᾽ 3, / ~ > ὁμογενῆ καὶ σύντροφον, ἐπιεικέστερον
Ἠναξιμάνδρου φιλοσοφοῦντες: οὐ A > A Ψ - > A > ~ \ > , > > >?
> , > yap ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐκεῖνος ἰχθῦς καὶ ἀνθρώπους, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν
ἰχθύσιν eyγενέσθαι τὸ πρῶτον ἀνθρώπους ἀποφαίνεται καὶ
τραφέντας, ὥσπερ οἵ γαλεοὶ, καὶ γενομένους ἱκανοὺς ἑαυτοῖς βοηθεῖν
ἐκβῆναι τηνικαῦτα καὶ
 70 THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE γῆς λαβέσθαι. . . .
οὕτως ὁ Ἀναξίμανδρος τῶν ἀνθρώπων πατέρα Kat μητέρα κοινὸν
ἀποφήνας τὸν ἰχθῦν διέβαλε πρὸς τὴν βρῶσιν. P. states that men
must have been born ‘“‘from living things of another kind,” for they
could not have survived as helpless infants with no parents to care
for them. H. tells us one thing more about these protomen: they
were like fish. In the version of Censorinus these fish-like creatures
are identified with the first aquatic living things (21), and adult men
and women are represented as emerging in the same way as other
animals, when their enclosing membranes are split. (In Censorinus
the words rupiis illis refer grammatically to pisces seu piscibus
stmillima animalia, but in fact it must be the wrappings of the early
sea creatures which are meant.) The statement of Censorinus
concerning the formation of men agrees so Closely with what Aétius
tells us about animals in general (21.A.) that we seem justified in
identifying the two accounts. In that case Anaximander agreed with
the later Greek physicists in considering the origin of man as entirely
comparable to that of the other land animals (see below, p. 112). A
special reason is given why human beings cannot have originated in
their present form, but their original form itself was in no way
unique. Like the rest of the animals, they completed their
development in the sea within a protective shell. Plutarch, on the
other hand, declares (Symp. 730E) that men were born within fish
(not fish-like animals), were nourished like dogfish or small sharks,
and became self-sufficient before leaving the water. He thus presents
an account of man’s prehistory which is unlike that of other animals,
and which is not confirmed by any other source. (It should be noted
that although Censorinus hesitates between ‘‘fish or animals very
similar to fish,’ he does not have the dogfish in mind. This is clear
from the mere fact of his hesitation, and above all from the
expression ruptis illis ; for the dogfish does not burst when its young
are produced.) In such a case should we follow Plutarch against the
testimony of the doxographers? Can men really have been born like
sharks, ready to take care of themselves in the sea? I think not.
Plutarch has enlarged upon the meager doxographical information in
order to make Anaximander’s view fit better into a convivial
discussion of ‘“‘why the Pythagcreans rejected fish more than all
other animals.”” We need no more believe that Anaximander thought
men were born from dogfish than
 THE DOXOGRAPHY 71 that he “deprecated the eating of
fish, having shown it to be the father and mother of mankind.” This
playful conclusion draws with it a fallacious premise. Plutarch, like
Aristotle, certainly knew that the dogfish (as well as many other
sharks) is viviparous, and that “‘the young are large at birth and
prepared to take care of themselves” (D. S. Jordan, A Guide to the
Study of Fishes [New York, 1905], p. 127). He has made use of this
example here to render his version of Anaximander’s theory more
plausible. But it does not tally with the statements of Aétius and
Censorinus ; if Plutarch is right, they are wrong. We are not bound
to reject their testimony when it is contradicted only by an after-
dinner speaker with an obvious motive for inaccuracy. There is then
no good reason to suppose that the dogfish comparison goes back
to Anaximander; or rather, there is every reason to believe that it
does not. All appreciations of his theory which emphasize this
analogy and its importance for the modern doctrine of evolution (as
does Burnet, p. 71) are either irrelevant or misleading. 23: ΤῊΝ he
a. ef A. (Theodoretus v.18; Dox. 387n = Vors. A 29) Ἀναξιμένης δὲ
καὶ Ἀναξίμανδρος καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Ἀρχέλαος ἀερώδη τῆς ψυχῆς
τὴν φύσιν εἰρήκασιν. In the other versions of Aétius 1v.3.2, Stobaeus
has ναξιμένης AvaEayopas Ἀρχέλαος Διογένης, pseudo-Plutarch
simply οἱ ἀπὸ Ἀναξαγόρου. The textual basis for attributing this
doctrine of the soul to Anaximander is therefore very weak.
Theodoretus (who generally follows Aétius) has omitted Diogenes
from his list by inadvertence, and we are led to wonder whether his
reason for including Anaximander was a better one. Of course, it is
just possible that Anaximander figured in the original list of Aétius,
and has fallen out of the other excerpts. But the connection with
Theophrastus’ account would still be a doubtful one.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 36.47%
accurate

elena ἢ ; ‘oohenour demise are “πλάνη ἀπ θεὸ ΤῸΝ ἔμ. MR

TN en SiG οὐ hikes Kook σι κα ἀρ αὐ ὧν ἜΣ iks fro ecedeniae «ραν
anda Sti ῇ ω i ἴῃ ὧν ἀμ er : ‘ig : ΩΝ ie: ala ψαιρενθεμρηὶ ath lhe % ’
Ὧν ΤῊ 19) ata nn ai hey αν ν᾿ Si edi ΕΠ ἢ Hf i cio Ἢ ᾿ς i ail ἽΝ ΝΕ δ
U4 ἫΝ ik Sa Wil “ ΣΝ ἢ ' 7 MY tay i} wu v Ba ; Sen iP ἊΝ ΠΟ] bins
eae μὶ His hen Rae: Vad ae Me. r Ma (av vd " I Γ 7 ᾿ 1 , erty ἷ ΠΝ ἡ.
ap * ὶ ; " pre fi) ἘΝ Gail ἡ δὲ rive 4 υ ἢ ; hi COM ater: ἀμ ἢ iyen one”
il | eel | by ee ‘le ἐμ nati Ὑ:} ; vv Wea cohen Eile agen a " ; , ᾿ Ὁ δ ἃ
én Ue, Ἢ ἫΝ eet. ie Tee coe tn ng ον ΤΥ, capt ate i dail here> ᾿ ΤῊ
νυ ΤῊ ee ony the Hiyibaae oi Pal weet ΠΝ -- γὐ πον ΠΤ ΠΝ. we oe τ
, μεμα μι ee er μα ἤμμα yon Pi ὅκὴ in un
THE COSMOLOGY OF ANAXIMANDER
The text on this page is estimated to be only 42.63%
accurate

6 iy Ἵ ὉΠ bat bee | ee hula ͵ | yoy τα ᾿ Ἧ May a Renee! i

SLi al ‘ ; ᾿ ᾿ Ἷ ἢ " A i ον ᾿ ᾿ : Δ δ tay τ : κ νυ τς ἡ f 1 Nie elie i Ϊ τ hel
7 ay i t } ΣΝ ἢ ᾿ τὴν ᾿ Ἀν ΣΝ νυ δὴ ἀνὰ Ἷ ' ] x ’ ἢ ἢ ἵν Ἰ ᾿ δὰ ty 1 i 2 "
" 1 ot) A Π ἊΣ τὰ ΗΝ f fi δυ: 8,
 THE MILESIAN THEORY OF THE NATURAL WORLD we have
seen that his usual method of exposition is to give a careful, detailed
paraphrase of the author whose doctrines are under discussion
(above, pp. 17-24). The only fundamental distortions which can be
discovered in his account are due to the use of Aristotelian terms
and concepts as valid tools for the analysis of earlier ideas. This is
not so much a question of misunderstanding as of the involuntary
projection of more specialized, abstract notions into a period where
the modes of thought and expression were simpler and closer to the
concrete language of poetry and myth. Although the procedure of
Theophrastus was justified by the original goals of Peripatetic
doxography, the results are, from our point of view, anachronistic.
And this lack of a fully historical method becomes most serious
where fundamental philosophic doctrines are involved, such as those
concerning the ἀρχαί. For it is in regard to such basic matters that
the variations of language and conception are most significant
between one age and another. Thus, the word φύσις was used by
Empedocles to refer to the whole process of ‘‘growth”’ (i.e., of
natural development) from birth to maturity, but Aristotle
misinterprets Empedocles’ statement a century later, because in his
mind φύσις has come to represent above all the true nature or form
of a fully developed thing. This kind of misunderstanding is much
less frequent in regard to specific physical theories, even if they are
no longer accepted by Aristotle and his disciple. For example, the
fact that Theophrastus regards the earth as spherical does not
prevent him from accurately describing the cylindrical shape given to
it by his predecessors, just as the Peripatetic conviction that the
order of the universe is unchanging does not preclude a fair
exposition of doctrines explaining how the sea and dry land have
come into existence. In general, the Theophrastean doxography
(where it can be reconstructed) is fully reliable for the detailed
theories of heaven and earth. But it requires very close scrutiny [:
evaluating Theophrastus as an historian of early Greek philosophy,
 76 THE COSMOLOGY OF ANAXIMANDER whenever more
general principles of reality and causation are under discussion. The
practical consequence of all this for an understanding of
Anaximander is that his authentic ‘‘fragment’—which has reached us
by way of Theophrastus’ account of his apy7}—is the last thing
which we will be in a position to interpret. For the fragment itself is
too brief to provide its own context, and we cannot altogether rely
upon the one within which it is preserved. Paradoxically enough, the
detailed physical speculations of Anaximander, for which we depend
entirely upon later paraphrasing, are more accessible to us than the
general philosophic doctrine which has come to us partially in his
own words. Indeed it is these specific theories alone which can
provide us with an authentic context for the interpretation of the
fragment itself. It is therefore with them that we must begin, as
offering some firm ground from which the more slippery problems
can later be attacked. Topics 10 to 23 of the foregoing doxography
for Anaximander will thus be reviewed here in turn. A translation of
the most important testimonies is given in each case. 10. Position of
the Earth H. The earth is aloft, not dominated by anything; it
remains in place because of the similar distance from all points [of
the celestial circumference]. Arist. There are some who say that the
earth remains in place because of similarity [or symmetry], as did
Anaximander among the ancients; for a thing established in the
middle, with a similar relationship to the extremes, has no reason to
move up rather than down or laterally; but since it cannot proceed in
opposite directions at the same time, it will necessarily remain where
it is. Anaximander’s view of the earth as resting in equipoise at the
center of the heavens is perhaps the most significant single piece of
information which has reached us concerning the development of
scientific thought in sixth-century Miletus. Thales’ prediction of a
solar eclipse, which symbolized to the ancients the scientific
attainments of this period, is less impressive for us who know that
such a tour de force could only have been achieved on the basis of
century-long Babylonian observations.” 1 For the texts translated
here, see the doxography (above pp. 53 f.). 2 Although it is generally
assumed that the report of Herodotus (1.74) has an historical basis,
doubts have been expressed from time to time, most recently by O.
Neugebauer (The Exact Sciences, p. 136; cf. pp. 113f.). Even if only
a legend, the story would still show how an Ionian of the fifth
century pictured the Milesian science of the preceding age. In fact,
however, the authority for the story is somewhat greater than its
critics suppose. Even Xenophanes seems to have been familiar with
it, judging from the vague report in D.L. 1.23 (Thales a 1):
‘According
 THE MILESIAN THEORY OF THE NATURAL WORLD 77 For
the history of ideas, Anaximander’s theory of the earth’s position is
of an entirely different order of importance. Even if we knew nothing
else concerning its author, this alone would guarantee him a place
among the creators of a rational science of the natural world. What
is most striking in this doctrine is its specifically mathematical
character. No matter what terms were used for its formulation, it
must, in substance, presuppose the standard definition of the circle
as “that which is in every way equidistant from the middle to the
extremes.”! That this clear geometric concept was itself the work of
Anaximander is unlikely, and is in fact contradicted by the ancient
tradition, which ascribes to Thales a proof that the diameter of a
circle divides it into two equal parts.? In all probability the rudiments
of geometry were an essential part of Anaximander’s formation in
the ‘‘school” of Thales. The definition of a circle in terms of its equal
radii might have been suggested by the spokes of a wheel; for the
word κύκλος originally had this concrete sense. But the fact that
such a notion had been formulated in a precise way is in itself
worthy of note. More important for us is Anaximander’s own use of
this geometric idea, as a general expression for the principle of
symmetry or indifference. It is indeed the same notion which was
glorified in modern times by Leibniz as his Principle of Sufficient
Reason, according to which everything which is true or real implies a
reason why it is so and not otherwise.3 Such considerations of
symmetry have by no means to some, Thales seems to have been
the first to practice astronomy and to predict solar eclipses and
solstices, as Eudemus says in the History of Astronomy; for this
reason Herodotus and Xenophanes express their admiration for him.
And Heraclitus and Democritus also speak in his favor.’ Since there is
nothing marvelous about a prediction of solstices, the natural
implication is that Xenophanes, Heraclitus, and Democritus— like
Herodotus—had the eclipse in mind. It is true that the Babylonians
had no reliable method of predicting solar eclipses. But they
certainly made an effort to foretell such eclipses, apparently with the
aid of lunar cycles which informed them when an eclipse was
possible. And Thales may very well have offered his prediction on
the basis of such information. This is the suggestion of B. L. von der
Waerden, who concludes: “DaB sie [the eclipse] wirklich eingetreten
ist und in Kleinasien sichtbar war, war natiirlich der reinste Zufall.’’
See ‘‘Die Voraussage von Finsternissen bei den Babyloniern,”’
Berichte der sachsischen Akademie Leipzig, Mathematische-
Physische Klasse, XCII (1940), 113, n. 2. 1 Euclid’s classical
definition of a circle (1, Def. 15) is naturally limited to the plane
figure, but the early references to a figure ‘“‘whose extremities are
equidistant from a central point’’ do not distinguish between the
circle and the sphere (see, e.g., Plato Epist. vu. 342b.7).
Anaximander had a sphere in mind, but may in fact have referred to
it as κύκλος ; for this wider use of the term see p. 89, n. I. 2 See T.
L. Heath, A History of Greek Mathematics (Oxford, 1921), I, 130f.
For the basic plausibility of the tradition, see Kurt von Fritz, “Die
APXAI in der griechischen Mathematik,” Archiv ftir
Begriffsgeschichte, I (Bonn, 1955), especially 77 ff. For a parallel
tendency to reinstate one of the traditions concerning Thales’
scientific accomplishments, see A. Wasserstein, ““Thales’
Determination of the Diameters of the Sun and Moon,” 7HS, LX XV
(1955), 1143; FHS LXXVI (1956), 105. 3 The most succinct ancient
formula for this is the proposition of Leucippus (B 2): οὐδὲν χρῆμα
μάτην γίνεται, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἐκ λόγου τε Kai ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης. The
atomists seem to have made use
 78 THE COSMOLOGY OF ANAXIMANDER ceased to play a
role in modern mathematical thought. If the geometric sphere
imposed itself with such power on the ancient scientific imagination
(and indeed still on that of Galileo), it must be due above all to the
intellectual prestige of this figure as the image par excellence of
regularity, order, and rational proportion.! That this cosmological
application of a geometric idea was Anaximander’s personal
achievement, is fortunately beyond doubt. One of the rare items of
information which Aristotle gives us concerning the thought of
Thales is the latter’s teaching that the earth does not fall because it
floats on water. The Egyptian and Oriental affinities of this doctrine
have been remarked both by ancient and by modern commentators.
It may be considered philosophical only in that it recognizes a
problem to be solved. Anaximander dismisses all such pseudo-
solutions at a single stroke and gives the question its decisive form:
Why, after all, should the earth fall? If the universe is symmetrical,
there is no more reason for the earth to move down than up. By this
implicit rejection of the familiar idea of ‘down’? as the direction in
which all bodies tend, Anaximander is well ahead of his time. The
use of such speculative reasons in radical contrast with the evidence
of common sense did not satisfy his successors, who resorted to
more solid considerations to keep the earth in its place. Aristotle tells
us that Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and Democritus—the leading
Ionian physicists for a century and a half—all explained the earth’s
stability by its flatness and its great size, which caused it “not to cut
the air below but to sit upon it like a lid.’’3 Their view is in principle
the same as Thales’, only air has now replaced water. The alternative
theory of the celestial δίνη which supports the earth is that of
Empedocles.4 Now any such explanation of the earth’s stability, and
in particular any notion of a γῆς ὄχημα, presupposes that “down”
would be the natural place for it to go. It is therefore incorrect to say
that the predecessors of Aristotle “only treated of the relative light
and heavy.”5 They may not have of this principle in demonstrating
the infinite diversity of the atomic bodies (Dox. 483.17 = Vors. 67 Α
8). 1 The unique esthetic and hence magical importance of the circle
is of immemorial antiquity ; cf. Il. Σ᾽ 504: ἥατ᾽ ἐπὶ ξεστοῖσι λίθοις
ἱερῷ evi κύκλῳ. And children still draw “‘a magic circle.” 2 De Caelo
294229 = Thales A 14. 3 De Caelo 29413. See also Plato Phaedo
ggb.8, and the texts quoted at Vors. 64.02. The same or a very
similar doctrine seems to have been held by Archelaus (A 1.17 ἡ μὲν
[sc. γῆ] ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος... κρατεῖται), as well as by Diogenes (A 1 τὴν
γῆν... ἠρεισμένην [sc. ἐπὶ τῷ ἀέρι] ἐν τῷ μέσῳ). 4 Phaedo 99b.6; De
Caelo 295%17 = Emped. 467. A similar view is apparently ascribed
to Leucippus by D.L. rx.30 (= Leucippus a 1): τὴν γῆν ὀχεῖσθαι περὶ
τὸ μέσον δινουμένην. But there is perhaps some confusion here; it is
not likely that Leucippus differed from Anaxagoras and Democritus
on this point. 5 Burnet, p. 343, citing De Caelo 300°9.
 THE MILESIAN THEORY OF THE NATURAL WORLD 79
defined absolute lightness and weight, but they generally assumed
that the earth would fall downwards if left to its own devices. The
fundamentally different point of view proposed by Anaximander
reappears in the Phaedo, where Socrates presents a description of
the earth which is avowedly not his own, but of whose truth he has
been convinced by someone else :! I am therefore persuaded that,
in the first place, since the earth is round and in the middle of the
heaven, it has no need either of Air or of any other Necessity in
order not to fall, but the similarity of the heaven to itself in every
way and the equilibrium of the earth suffice to hold it still. For an
equilibrated thing set in the midst of something of the same kind will
have no reason to incline in one direction more than in another. But
as its relationship is symmetrical it will remain unswervingly at rest.
(108e—109a) If one disregards the spherical shape of the earth, the
essential identity of this explanation with that of Anaximander is
clear. It is no doubt this passage of the Phaedo (and the
corresponding statement in the Timaeus?) which Aristotle has in
mind when he declares, ““There are some who say that the earth is
at rest because of symmetry, as did Anaximander among the
ancients.”” Who the moderns are, Aristotle does not need to say. We
need not infer that Anaximander is the unnamed ‘‘someone”’ by
whom the Socrates of the Phaedo claims to have been persuaded. It
is on the whole more probable that the point of view of
Anaximander, although neglected by the Ionian naturalists, was not
entirely forgotten during the fifth century. An explanation of the
position of the earth in terms of symmetry may well have been
preserved by some Pythagorean astronomers, and was at all events
given by Parmenides in his cosmology, if we may rely upon a
confused statement of Aétius.+ We shall see in a moment that
Parmenides certainly made use of the principle ὡς ἐγὼ ὑπό twos
πέπεισμαι, Phaedo 108c.8. 2 Tim. 62d.12. 3 ὁμοιότης here (as in the
Phaedo passage) implies the geometric sense of “similar,” i.e., of the
same shape, proportional. Since the earth and the heaven are
spheres, they are related to one another as are similar triangles. But
this geometric consideration is heaped upon another, the internal
symmetry or ὁμοιότης of a sphere in every direction from the center.
It is only the second idea (as applied to the heaven) which can go
back to Anaximander. For the earliest doctrine of a spherical earth,
see the Supplementary Note at the end of this chapter. 4 Dox.
380.13 = Parm. a 44. The confusion of Aétius is clear from (1) the
fact that he blended this information into his discussion of
earthquakes, instead of giving it under its correct heading, two
chapters earlier (περὶ κινήσεως γῆς, Dox. 378), and (2) his
attribution of the same doctrine to Democritus, who should have
been listed just below with Anaximenes (Dox. 380.19). Heath
(Aristarchus, p. 124) is very ill-advised to follow Aétius on this point,
against the express statement of Aristotle (p. 78, n. 3). The proper
explanation of Democritus, according to suspension in air, is
presupposed by Aétius himself at Dox. 378.16 (= Democr. a 95).
 80 THE COSMOLOGY OF ANAXIMANDER of symmetry in
the first part of his poem, so that the information preserved by
Aétius must be correct. In that case it could be Parmenides whom
Plato had in mind, or he may simply have wished to indicate that the
doctrine was not a new one.! There is one feature of Anaximander’s
view (as presented by Hippolytus) which does not appear in the
statements of Plato and Aristotle, namely, that the earth remains
aloft “not dominated by anything”’ (ὑπὸ μηδενὸς κρατουμένην). The
authenticity of this idea is confirmed both by its absence from the
fourth-century formulations, and by the general importance of the
idea of κρατεῖν in early Greek cosmology.? Thus it is reported for
Archelaus that “the earth is dominated by air, air by the surrounding
rotation of fire’ (A 1.17). The author of the Hippocratic treatise De
Flatibus insists that Air is “the greatest potentate of all things”
(μέγιστος ἐν τοῖσι πᾶσι τῶν πάντων δυνάστης ἐστίν, ch. 3; Jones, II,
230) ; its δύναμις is supreme. So Anaximenes is supposed to have
compared the Air surrounding the world to the soul which dominates
(συγκρατεῖ) the body.3 Anaximander denies that any elemental body
or portion of the world dominates another ; for him it is equality and
equilibrium which characterize the order of Nature. By this radical
distinction between the situation of the earth in the surrounding
heaven and the condition of a particular body falling to the earth,
Anaximander’s view prepared the way for a purely geometric
approach to astronomy, and hence, indirectly, for the heliocentric
hypothesis. This mathematical insight was, as we have seen, refused
by his more empirically minded successors. Their rejection probably
constitutes the earliest recorded conflict between mathematical
science and common sense. But if this exalted vision of the
harmonious sphere did not impose itself on Ionian physics, it
remained alive in another form. Xenophanes seems to have
described the body of his ‘‘greatest god” as “‘equal in every way,” a
“‘symmetrical form,” which Theophrastus rightly interpreted as
meaning spherical in shape.* The same idea appears in the poem of
Parmenides, when he describes Reality (τὸ ἐόν) as marked by “an
uttermost limit’? and therefore ? For E. Frank’s conjecture that the
“someone”’ is Archytas, see the Supplementary Note, pp. 117 f. 2
See also below, p. 130. 3 Anaximenes B 2. Although the wording is
almost certainly not that of Anaximenes, some of the thought is
probably authentic; συγκρατεῖν, περιέχειν, and the conception of the
ψυχή as breath seem to echo Milesian ideas. I suspect, however,
that it was originally not the κόσμος but the earth which Air was said
to dominate by surrounding; cf. Ar. Wubes 264, and Anaxag. A 42.3:
τὸν ἀέρα ἰσχυρότατον ὄντα φέρειν ἐποχουμένην τὴν γῆν. 4 See the
imitations of Xenophanes by Timon in Vors. 21 A 35. For the
judgment of Theophrastus, see ibid. A 33.2 (Hippolytus), and the
other passages cited by Diels in note on Dox. 481.9.
 THE MILESIAN THEORY OF THE NATURAL WORLD 81
“completed in every direction like to the bulk of a well-rounded
sphere, equally balanced in every way. . . . For, equal to itself on
every side, it meets with its end points in symmetrical fashion.’’!
Even so the divine sphere of Empedocles, the embodiment of
absolute cosmic harmony, is declared to be “equal to itself on every
side” (B 28-29). We see here how Anaximander is ancestor not only
to the naturalism of Ionia, but also to the geometric philosophy
usually associated with the name of Pythagoras, and how his ideas
could therefore serve as springboard for the metaphysical flight of
Parmenides. 11. Form of the Earth? H. The form of the earth is
moist,3 rounded like [the drum of] a stone column. P. Its form is
cylindrical, with a depth one third of its width. The geometrical turn
of mind confronts us with equal distinctness in Anaximander’s
description of the earth, as a cylinder whose altitude is one third the
diameter of its base. Whether or not he made use of the classical
term κύλινδρος or “roller” (which was familiar to Democritus, B 155)
is not known, but the idea is perfectly expressed by a comparison of
the earth to the stocky, rounded stones of which a Greek column is
composed. That this image is due to Anaximander himself, and not
simply to Theophrastus, is a very likely conjecture of Diels (Dox.
219). The originality of Anaximander’s conception of the earth is by
no means limited to his precise numerical ratio for the dimensions of
the cylinder. The epic, it is true, also conceives the surface of the
earth as flat, and even as circular in shape, bounded by the
circumjacent Ocean. As one might expect, this view is a good deal
older than Homer. But what the early poets lack is any distinct notion
of the subterranean regions. The Iliad speaks of the Titans seated in
the darkness of Tartarus “αἱ the limits of earth and sea” (Θ 478 ff.).
This “‘deepest pit under the earth” is as far below Hades as heaven
is from earth (9 13-16). The Hesiodic Theogony contains several
elaborate descriptions of this place, where the “‘sources and limits”?
of Earth, Tartarus, Sea, and Heaven converge, while ‘‘above grow
the roots of Earth and Sea” 1 Parm. B 8.42 ff. The link with
Anaximander was pointed out by G. Vlastos, ‘‘Equality and Justice in
Early Greek Cosmology,’ CP, XLII (1947), 161 f. For a full discussion
of the sphere as the symbol or embodiment of divinity, see O. J.
Brendel, ‘‘Die Symbolik der Kugel,” Mitt. Deutsch. Archaol. Inst.
Rom., LI (1936), especially 28 ff. B 7155 2 For the texts translated
here, see the doxography (above, p. 55). The texts quoted for 12-23
are also to be found in their respective places in the doxography. 3
Or ‘‘concave,’’ if the correction γυρόν is accepted for ὑγρόν in the
MSS. See above, pp. 55 ἴ.
 82 THE COSMOLOGY OF ANAXIMANDER (Theog. 727 £.,
736 ff., 807 ff.). It would be hopeless to draw a diagram to
accompany such a description. The poetic Tartarus is vividly and
dramatically conceived. A diagram, however, requires not drama but
a precise geometric arrangement, and nothing could be more alien
to the poet’s state of mind when describing such mysterious regions.
It is, on the other hand, the characteristic feature of Anaximander’s
view of the earth that it lends itself directly to geometric
representation. We can scarcely doubt that the Milesians were in fact
accustomed to discuss such matters with the aid of diagrams or of
simple models. And, in Ionia at any rate, the standard model for the
earth remained that of Anaximander until the time of Democritus.?
The doxographical description of Anaximander’s earth as a rather
low cylinder can be supplemented by data from a different source.
When the Greek geographers looked back to the origins of their
science, they recognized the same Milesian as the first to have
produced a πίναξ or chart of the inhabited earth. And what little we
know about the details of that first Greek map shows the same
geometric spirit reigning here as in the rest of the cosmos. We have
no description of Anaximander’s chart as such, but F. Jacoby has
shown that the geographical ideas which Herodotus ascribes to the
“‘Ionians” are essentially those of Hecataeus of Miletus, and he has
rightly pointed out that the general lines of Hecataeus’ view must
already have been those of Anaximander. The fullest statement of
the relation between Hecataeus and Anaximander is given by the
late geographer Agathemerus, probably on the authority of
Eratosthenes: Anaximander of Miletus, the pupil of Thales, was the
first to depict the inhabited earth on a chart (ἐν πίνακι γράψαι). After
him Hecataeus of Miletus, a muchtraveled man, made it more
precise so as to be a thing of wonder. . . . Now the ancients drew
the inhabited earth as round, with Hellas in the middle, and Delphi in
the middle of Hellas, since it holds the navel (τὸν ὀμφαλὸν ἔχειν) of
the earth. Democritus, a man of great experience, was the first to
recognize that the earth is oblong, with its length one-and-a-half
times its width. The natural inference is that this circular scheme
(with a given point 1 Democritus changed the model to an oblong
The Frame of Ancient Greek Maps (New York, solid, the ratio of
whose sides was 2:3 (Democr. B 15, A 94). Perhaps this correction
applied only to the inhabited region of the earth, ἡ οἰκουμένη γῆ;
and even the latter was represented as a circle on maps of the time
of Aristotle (Meteor. 36213). 2 F. Jacoby in RE, VII, s.v. Hekataios,
cols. 2667 ff., especially sec. 10 on the schematic “‘Weltbild”’ (cols.
2702-7). See also W. A. Heidel, 1937), pp. 11 ff. Heidel emphasized
this aspect of Milesian science in ‘‘Anaximander’s Book, The Earliest
Known Geographical Treatise,’’ in Proceedings of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences, LVI (1921), 239. 3 Agathemerus 1.1-
2, in Geographi Minores, ed. Mueller, II, 471 (= Vors. 12 A6 and 68
B15).
 THE MILESIAN THEORY OF THE NATURAL WORLD 83 at
the center) was due to Anaximander, while the contribution of
Hecataeus lay chiefly in the more accurate details added from his
extensive travels. This view is decisively confirmed by other sources.
Thus Herodotus refers as follows to the geographical ideas of his
predecessors: “1 laugh at the sight of the earth charts which many
have drawn up in the past, and which no one has explained in a way
that makes any sense. They picture Ocean flowing round about the
earth, which is circular as if drawn with the compass; and they make
Asia equal to Europe.’’! The oblique reference here to a nonsensical
exegesis suggests the travel book of Hecataeus, while the “many”
cartographers imply a number of maps in circulation, all constructed
according to the same general scheme. Now these charts were
either painted on wood or worked in bronze, like the χάλκεος πίναξ
which Aristagoras of Miletus brought to Sparta in 499-98 B.c: in
order to win help for the Ionian revolt, on which were engraved the
‘‘circumference of the entire earth, the whole sea, and all the
rivers.”’? These Greek maps are of course lost, but by a lucky
coincidence we possess one of their Mesopotamian counterparts
inscribed in a more durable medium. There is in the British Museum
a clay tablet of neo-Babylonian or Persian date (that is,
approximately contemporary with the maps of Anaximander and
Hecataeus), on which is plainly visible the outline of the earth,
surrounded by the “Bitter River,” or salty Ocean (Plate I). Precisely as
in the maps described by Herodotus, the circumference of the earth
and the Ocean are here represented as perfect circles, and there is
even a small, deep hole in the center of the chart which was
probably left by the scribe’s compass. mander and Hecataeus by B.
Meissner, ‘‘Babylonische und griechische Landkarten,’’ Kio, XIX
(1925), 97 ff. The parallel with Greek ' Hdt. 1v.36: γελῶ δὲ ὁρῶν γῆς
περιόδους γράψαντας πολλοὺς ἤδη, καὶ οὐδένα νόον ἐχόντως
ἐξηγησάμενον. of ᾿Ωκεανόν τε ῥέοντα γράφουσι πέριξ τὴν γῆν,
ἐοῦσαν κυκλοτερέα ὡς ἀπὸ τόρνου, καὶ τὴν Aainv τῇ Εὐρώπῃ
ποιεύντων ἴσην. There is a similar criticism in a fragment of
‘‘Epimenides,”’ which denies the existence or knowability of an
ὀμφαλός of land and sea (Vors. 3 B 11). 2 Hdt. v.49. So, in
mentioning Anaximander’s chart Diogenes Laertius says, ‘‘He was
the first to draw the circumference of land and sea’’ (cited in note to
15.A.1). 3 There is at any rate no other good explanation of this
hole, and Mr. D. J. Wiseman of the British Museum was kind enough
to verify with me the possibility that it represents the point where
the compass pin was fixed. Similar marks are to be found in the
mathematical tablets, as Professor O. Neugebauer informs me (in a
letter). This map was compared to those of Anaxicartography may
help to explain the most curious feature of the Babylonian map: the
triangular extensions beyond the Bitter River. Four such triangles are
visible, and there seems to be trace of a fifth. Unger supposes the
original number was seven, but it might just as well have been six.
In that case, the triangles would correspond to the six cardinal
points which Heidel has shown to be fundamental in ancient Greek
maps: the three points of sunrise at summer solstice, equinox, and
winter solstice, together with the corresponding sunsets. On the
tablet, the three western triangles appear at the proper points; two
of the sunrise indications have been lost. There is clearly not a
triangle in the north, for here (as the inscription indicates) ‘‘the sun
is not seen,” either rising or setting. The legend corresponding to the
summer
 84 THE COSMOLOGY OF ANAXIMANDER Just as the
Danube for Herodotus cut Europe in the middle (11.33), and the Nile
for his predecessors divided Asia (or, with a different terminology,
separated Asia from Libya, 11.16), so the Babylonian map shows the
Euphrates dividing the world vertically into two nearly equal
portions. This correspondence between early Greek geography and
an extant Babylonian map presents several points of interest. It
gives a special relevance to the traditional concern of Thales to show
that the diameter of a circle divides it into two equal parts.! It also
reinforces what other sources reveal of the dependence of Milesian
science upon a much more ancient Babylonian tradition. At the same
time Anaximander no doubt surpassed his Mesopotamian model by
the rigor with which he applied the principle of mathematical
proportion to the details of his scheme. The symmetrical subdivisions
of the earth’s upper “inhabited” surface answer to its exact
cylindrical dimensions and to its harmonious position in the center of
the balanced structure of the heavens.? 12. Antipodes H. We are
standing on one surface of the earth; the other is set opposite. It is
difficult to see what considerations other than those of symmetry
can have led Anaximander to speak of the underside of the earth as
“‘set opposite”’ (ἀντίθετον) to that on which we stand. The
statement preserved by Hippolytus does not specify that this
antipodal region was inhabited, but that is quite possible in view of
Anaximander’s rejection of absolute up and down. In fact, one may
suspect that the notion of a symmetrical existence on the other side
of the earth would occur more naturally in the context of a
cylindrical model than in that of a sphere, where the idea of
antipodes is essentially more artificial. If Anaximander taught that
the lower surface of the earth was inhabited, we would have a
simple explanation of those strange words of the De Hebdomadibus
which seem to constitute the earliest extant mention of the
antipodes: The earth, which lies in the middle of the κόσμος and
holds moisture in itself and under itself, is borne in the air so that for
those [standing] below things above are setting declares, as we
would expect, that ‘‘the light of day is greater than the nighttime.” 1
A further link between early Greek geography and geometry can
probably be seen in the view of the great rivers (Ister, Nile, Phasis)
as drawing their source from the Ocean and emptying into the
central sea (Mediterranean plus Pontus). They thus represent so
many equal radii from the circumference to the center. Such
considerations no doubt contributed to the Pythagorean view that
nature imitates mathematics. 2 Compare the remarks of Jaeger on
Anaximander’s geography, Paideia, I, 157 f.
 THE MILESIAN THEORY OF THE NATURAL WORLD 85
below, while things below are above; there is a similar difference for
things at the right and at the left; and this is the case around the
entire earth." This passage has been interpreted as indicating a
spherical earth, whereas the statement that it is borne in the air
seems in fact to presuppose the usual Ionian view of it as flat.2 The
point is that right and left, like up and down, are reversed for
someone standing at any point on the upper surface (‘‘around the
entire [circumference of the] earth’’) in relation to someone standing
at the corresponding point underneath. This remark is relevant here,
because the author has just stated that “the κόσμοι (i.e., celestial
spheres or regions) above the earth are equal in number and similar
in form to those underneath the earth” (ch. 2.1). The date of the De
Hebdomadibus is a subject of considerable dispute, but its
cosmology seems to be that of the early or middle fifth century. It is
difficult to see from whom the author could have taken the doctrine
of antipodes if not from Anaximander.? At this point, however, we
depend upon a conjecture that goes beyond the reach of the extant
testimony. 13. Formation of the Heavens H. The heavenly bodies
arise as a circle of fire which is separated off from the [primeval] fire
in the world, and enveloped by air. P. Something capable of
generating Hot and Cold was separated off from the eternal
[Boundless] in the formation of this world, and a sphere of fire from
this source grew around the air about the earth like bark around a
tree. When this τ De Hebd. 2.24: κατὰ μέσον δὲ τὸν κόσμον ἡ γῆ
κειμένη καὶ ἔχουσα ἐν ἑωυτῇ καὶ ὑφ᾽ ἑωυτῇ (ὑπὲρ ἑωυτῆς 3) τὰ
ὑγρὰ ἐν τῷ ἠέρι ὀχέεται, ὥστε τοῖσι κάτω τάδε μὲν τὰ (τὰ δὲ μέντοι
vulg.: corr. Boll) ἄνω κάτω εἶναι, τὰ δὲ κάτω ἄνω: οὕτω τε διέχειν τά
τε ἐκ δεξιῆς καὶ τὰ ἐξ ἀριστερῆς" καὶ περὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν οὕτως ἔχει.
See the discussion of F. Boll in his appendix to ‘‘Das Lebensalter,”
Neue Zahrbiicher fiir das klassische Altertum, XVI (1913), especially
141-42. 2 ἐν τῷ ἀέρι ὀχεῖσθαι is the standard phrase for the Ionian
theory of the earth’s support; see Vors. 64 ἃ 2, and in particular the
expression γῆς ὄχημα (Eur. Troades 884; De Flat. 3). The phrase
περὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν NO more requires a spherical model than does
the γῆς περίοδος of Herodotus and Hecataeus. 3 Unfortunately, it is
not possible in the present state of Hippocratic studies to fix the date
of a treatise like the De Hebdomadibus. Suggestions range from the
middle of the sixth century (Roscher) to somewhere in the fourth;
Diels proposed the general period 450-350 B.c. (Deutsche
Literaturzeitung, 1911, cols. 1861-66). But in view of its probable
reflection of Milesian ideas concerning the ἄπειρον (which Diels
recognized), it is difficult to believe that this treatise was composed
much later than the middle of the fifth century. The next mention of
the antipodes is in the Timaeus (63a.2), where a spherical earth is
presupposed. The statement of the De Hebdomadibus can scarcely
be derived from the Timaeus, for it uses ‘‘up”’ for our side of the
earth, ‘“‘down’”’ for the other, in precisely the way which Plato says
is “not that of an intelligent man’”’ (63a.6). But this usage is of
course natural if the author has a flat earth in mind.
 86 THE COSMOLOGY OF ANAXIMANDER sphere was torn
off and closed up into certain circles, the sun and moon and stars
came into being. A.1 The heavens are formed from a mixture of hot
and cold. A.2 The heavenly bodies are wheel-like, compressed
masses of air filled with fire, which exhale flames from an orifice at
one point. 14. Stars and Sun H. There are some tube-like passages
which form vents [in the envelope of air], through which the
heavenly bodies are seen; therefore eclipses occur when these vents
are obstructed. A.2 There is a circle 28 times as great as the earth,
similar to the wheel of a chariot, which has a hollow rim filled with
fire, letting this fire appear through an orifice at one point, as
through the mouthpiece of a bellows; and this is the sun. 15. The
Moon H. The moon appears now full, now waning, according to the
obstruction and opening of the passages. A.1 The moon is a circle
19 times as great as the earth, filled with fire like that of the sun... .
for it is similar to a chariot wheel which has a hollow rim, and is full
of fire like the circle of the sun, lying aslant [the celestial equator] as
does the latter, and having a single vent like the mouthpiece of a
bellows. A.2 The moon’s light is its own, but somehow fainter [than
that of the sun]. A.3 It suffers eclipse when the orifice in the wheel
is obstructed. 16. Size, Position, and Distance of the Rings H. The
circle of the sun is 27 times as great as [. . .] the moon, and the sun
is highest [. . .]; lowest are the circles of the fixed stars." A.1 The
sun is set highest of all, after it the moon, and beneath them the
fixed stars and planets. A.2 The sun is equal to the earth, but the
circle from which it has its vent and by which it is carried is 27 times
as great as the earth. D.L. The sun is no smaller than the earth and
consists of purest fire. Our information concerning the early phases
of Anaximander’s cosmogony is limited to a single source (13.P.),
and one which is not explicit enough to permit a detailed
reconstruction. The first stage seems to have been the secretion of a
pregnant seed or germ out of the 1 There seem to be at least two
gaps in this text; see above, pp. 61f.
 THE MILESIAN THEORY OF THE NATURAL WORLD 87
Boundless, which thus became the parent of the universe. The world
seed in turn secretes or “‘separates off” from itself a sphere of flame
“‘which grew around the air about the earth like bark around a tree.”
This statement suggests that flame and ἀήρ are the concrete
representatives of the hot and cold principles named in the
preceding clause: the embryo of the world develops by fission into
an inner, cold (and damp) core, and an outer, warm (and dry)
spherical skin, which fits tight about it (περιφυῆναι). At this point the
earth is mentioned only by anticipation, for the dry land has not yet
arisen out of the central vaporous mass. Its emergence, which
constitutes a further “‘separation”’ of dry from wet, will be discussed
below (20). At this stage, what lies within the sphere of flame must
be something very much like the primeval Moisture of Thales. Since
it is a continuous source of rising water-vapor or ἀήρ, the primary
phase of the three Milesian cosmogonies appears as thus much
more uniform than would be suggested by the traditional opposition
of ‘“‘water,” “air,” and “‘something in between,” (i.e., the azrecpov).
The next stage in the formation of the heavens occurs when the
spherical skin of flame is torn loose from the inner bulk to which it
was attached. The details of this operation are most obscure.
Presumably the heat of the celestial fire causes the air within to
expand and the whole heaven to grow until the outer sphere is
burst.! Circles (κύκλοι) of fire are separated off from this celestial
flame, and enclosed within envelopes of “air,”’ that is to say, of haze
or mist, perhaps in a solidified state. It is only the circles of the sun
and moon which are described in any detail. Their flame is exhaled
by certain tube-like passages or jets that constitute the visible disks
of the sky. The light of the moon is thus its own, but of course
fainter than that of the sun, which is itself of “purest fire” (16.D.L.).
The lunar phases occur according to the opening and closing of such
passages (15.H.). A similar obstruction of the passages accounts for
the eclipses of both sun and moon (14.H., A.3; 15.A.3). Why or how
this takes place is not indicated in our sources. Aétius compares
these circles to the hollow rims of gigantic wheels, and describes