Chapter 27

(3) The earth is flat in shape, and remains suspended because of its size and because there is no vacuum.[715]For this reason the air is very strong, and supports the earth which is borne up by it.(4) Of the moisture on the surface of the earth, the sea arose from the waters in the earth (for when these were evaporated the remainder turned salt),[716]and from the rivers which flow into it.(5) Rivers take their being both from the rains and from the waters in the earth; for the earth is hollow and has waters in its cavities. And the Nile rises in summer owing to the water that comes down from the snows in Ethiopia.[717](6) The sun and the moon and all the stars are fiery stones carried round by the rotation of the aether. Under the stars are the sun and moon, and also certain bodies which revolve with them, but are invisible to us.(7) We do not feel the heat of the stars because of the greatness of their distance from the earth; and, further, they are not so warm as the sun, because they occupy a colder region. The moon is below the sun, and nearer us.(8) The sun surpasses the Peloponnesos in size. The moon has not a light of her own, but gets it from the sun. The course of the stars goes under the earth.(9) The moon is eclipsed by the earth screening the sun’s light from it, and sometimes, too, by the bodies below the moon coming before it. The sun is eclipsed at the new moon, when the moon screens it from us. Both the sun and the moon turn in their courses owing to the repulsion of the air. The moon turns frequently, because it cannot prevail over the cold.(10) Anaxagoras was the first to determine what concerns the eclipses and the illumination of the sun and moon. And he said the moon was of earth, and had plains and ravines in it. The Milky Way was the reflexion of the light of the stars that were not illuminated by the sun. Shooting stars were sparks, as it were, which leapt out owing to the motion of the heavenly vault.(11) Winds arose when the air was rarefied by the sun, and when things were burned and made their way to the vault of heaven and were carried off. Thunder and lightning were produced by heat striking upon clouds.(12) Earthquakes were caused by the air above striking on that beneath the earth; for the movement of the latter caused the earth which floats on it to rock.

(3) The earth is flat in shape, and remains suspended because of its size and because there is no vacuum.[715]For this reason the air is very strong, and supports the earth which is borne up by it.

(4) Of the moisture on the surface of the earth, the sea arose from the waters in the earth (for when these were evaporated the remainder turned salt),[716]and from the rivers which flow into it.

(5) Rivers take their being both from the rains and from the waters in the earth; for the earth is hollow and has waters in its cavities. And the Nile rises in summer owing to the water that comes down from the snows in Ethiopia.[717]

(6) The sun and the moon and all the stars are fiery stones carried round by the rotation of the aether. Under the stars are the sun and moon, and also certain bodies which revolve with them, but are invisible to us.

(7) We do not feel the heat of the stars because of the greatness of their distance from the earth; and, further, they are not so warm as the sun, because they occupy a colder region. The moon is below the sun, and nearer us.

(8) The sun surpasses the Peloponnesos in size. The moon has not a light of her own, but gets it from the sun. The course of the stars goes under the earth.

(9) The moon is eclipsed by the earth screening the sun’s light from it, and sometimes, too, by the bodies below the moon coming before it. The sun is eclipsed at the new moon, when the moon screens it from us. Both the sun and the moon turn in their courses owing to the repulsion of the air. The moon turns frequently, because it cannot prevail over the cold.

(10) Anaxagoras was the first to determine what concerns the eclipses and the illumination of the sun and moon. And he said the moon was of earth, and had plains and ravines in it. The Milky Way was the reflexion of the light of the stars that were not illuminated by the sun. Shooting stars were sparks, as it were, which leapt out owing to the motion of the heavenly vault.

(11) Winds arose when the air was rarefied by the sun, and when things were burned and made their way to the vault of heaven and were carried off. Thunder and lightning were produced by heat striking upon clouds.

(12) Earthquakes were caused by the air above striking on that beneath the earth; for the movement of the latter caused the earth which floats on it to rock.

All this confirms in the most striking way the statement of Theophrastos, that Anaxagoras had belonged to the school of Anaximenes. The flat earth floating on the air, the dark bodies below the moon, the explanation of the solstices and the “turnings” of the moon by the resistance of air, the explanations given of wind and ofthunder and lightning, are all derived from the earlier inquirer.

Biology.

136. “There is a portion of everything in everything except Nous, and there are some things in which there is Nous also” (fr.11). In these words Anaxagoras laid down the distinction between animate and inanimate things. He tells us that it is the same Nous that “has power over,” that is, sets in motion, all things that have life, both the greater and the smaller (fr.12). The Nous in living creatures is the same in all (fr.12), and from this it followed that the different grades of intelligence which we observe in the animal and vegetable worlds depend entirely on the structure of the body. The Nous was the same, but it had more opportunities in one body than another. Man was the wisest of animals, not because he had a better sort of Nous, but simply because he had hands.[718]This view is quite in accordance with the previous development of thought upon the subject. Parmenides, in the Second Part of his poem (fr.16), had already made the thought of men depend upon the constitution of their limbs.

As all Nous is the same, we are not surprised to find that plants were regarded as living creatures. If we may trust the pseudo-AristotelianTreatise on Plants[719]so far, Anaxagoras argued that they must feel pleasure and pain in connexion with their growth and with the fall of their leaves. Plutarch says[720]that he called plants “animals fixed in the earth.”

Both plants and animals originated in the first instance from the πανσπερμία. Plants first arose whenthe seeds of them which the air contained were brought down by the rain-water,[721]and animals originated in a similar way.[722]Like Anaximander, Anaxagoras held that animals first arose in the moist element.[723]

137. In these scanty notices we seem to see traces of a polemical attitude towards Empedokles, and the same may be observed in what we are told of the theory of perception adopted by Anaxagoras, especially in the view that perception is of contraries.[724]The account which Theophrastos gives of this[725]is as follows:—

But Anaxagoras says that perception is produced by opposites; for like things cannot be affected by like. He attempts to give a detailed enumeration of the particular senses. We see by means of the image in the pupil; but no image is cast upon what is of the same colour, but only on what is different. With most living creatures things are of a different colour to the pupil by day, though with some this is so by night, and these are accordingly keen-sighted at that time. Speaking generally, however, night is more of the same colour with the eyes than day. And an image is cast on the pupil by day, because light is a concomitant cause of the image, and because the prevailing colour casts an image more readily upon its opposite.[726]It is in the same way that touch and taste discern their objects. That which is just as warm or just as cold as we are neither warms us nor cools us by its contact; and, in the same way, we do not apprehend the sweet and the sour by means of themselves. We know cold by warm, fresh by salt, and sweet by sour, in virtue of our deficiency in each; for all these are in us to begin with. And we smell and hear in the samemanner; the former by means of the accompanying respiration, the latter by the sound penetrating to the brain, for the bone which surrounds this is hollow, and it is upon it that the sound falls.[727]And all sensation implies pain, a view which would seem to be the consequence of the first assumption, for all unlike things produce pain by their contact. And this pain is made perceptible by the long continuance or by the excess of a sensation. Brilliant colours and excessive noises produce pain, and we cannot dwell long on the same things. The larger animals are the more sensitive, and, generally, sensation is proportionate to the size of the organs of sense. Those animals which have large, pure, and bright eyes, see large objects and from a great distance, and contrariwise.[728]And it is the same with hearing. Large animals can hear great and distant sounds, while less sounds pass unperceived; small animals perceive small sounds and those near at hand.[729]It is the same too with smell. Rarefied air has more smell; for, when air is heated and rarefied, it smells. A large animal when it breathes draws in the condensed air along with the rarefied, while a small one draws in the rarefied by itself; so the large one perceives more. For smell is better perceived when it is near than when it is far by reason of its being more condensed, while when dispersed it is weak. But, roughly speaking, large animals do not perceive a rarefied smell, nor small animals a condensed one.[730]

It is in the same way that touch and taste discern their objects. That which is just as warm or just as cold as we are neither warms us nor cools us by its contact; and, in the same way, we do not apprehend the sweet and the sour by means of themselves. We know cold by warm, fresh by salt, and sweet by sour, in virtue of our deficiency in each; for all these are in us to begin with. And we smell and hear in the samemanner; the former by means of the accompanying respiration, the latter by the sound penetrating to the brain, for the bone which surrounds this is hollow, and it is upon it that the sound falls.[727]

And all sensation implies pain, a view which would seem to be the consequence of the first assumption, for all unlike things produce pain by their contact. And this pain is made perceptible by the long continuance or by the excess of a sensation. Brilliant colours and excessive noises produce pain, and we cannot dwell long on the same things. The larger animals are the more sensitive, and, generally, sensation is proportionate to the size of the organs of sense. Those animals which have large, pure, and bright eyes, see large objects and from a great distance, and contrariwise.[728]

And it is the same with hearing. Large animals can hear great and distant sounds, while less sounds pass unperceived; small animals perceive small sounds and those near at hand.[729]It is the same too with smell. Rarefied air has more smell; for, when air is heated and rarefied, it smells. A large animal when it breathes draws in the condensed air along with the rarefied, while a small one draws in the rarefied by itself; so the large one perceives more. For smell is better perceived when it is near than when it is far by reason of its being more condensed, while when dispersed it is weak. But, roughly speaking, large animals do not perceive a rarefied smell, nor small animals a condensed one.[730]

This theory marks in some respects an advance upon that of Empedokles. It was a happy thought of Anaxagoras to make sensation depend upon irritation by opposites, and to connect it with pain. Many modern theories are based upon a similar idea.

That Anaxagoras regarded the senses as incapable of reaching the truth of things is shown by the fragments preserved by Sextus. But we must not, for all that, turn him into a sceptic. The saying preservedby Aristotle[731]that “things are as we suppose them to be,” has no value at all as evidence. It comes from some collection of apophthegms, not from the treatise of Anaxagoras himself; and it had, as likely as not, a moral application. He did say (fr.21) that “the weakness of our senses prevents our discerning the truth,” but this meant simply that we do not see the “portions” of everything which are in everything; for instance, the portions of black which are in the white. Our senses simply show us the portions that prevail. He also said that the things which are seen give us the power of seeing the invisible, which is the very opposite of scepticism (fr.21a).

647. Diog. ii. 7 (R. P. 148), with the perfectly certain emendation referred toib.148 c. The Athens of 480B.C.would hardly be a suitable place to “begin philosophising”! For the variation in the archon’s name, see Jacoby, p. 244, n. 1.

648. We must read ὀγδοηκοστῆς with Meursius to make the figures come right.

649. On the statements of Apollodoros, see Jacoby, pp. 244 sqq.

650. Diog.,loc. cit.In any case, it is not a mere calculation of Apollodoros’s; for he would certainly have made Anaxagoras forty years old at the date of his arrival in Athens, and this would giveat mosttwenty-eight years for his residence there. The trial cannot have been later than 432B.C., and may have been earlier.

651. Arist. Met. Α, 3. 984 a 11 (R. P. 150 a).

652.Phys. Op.fr. 3 (Dox.p. 477),ap.Simpl.Phys.p. 25, 19 (R. P. 162 e).

653. Diog. ix. 41 (R. P. 187). On the date of Demokritos, see Chap. IX.§ 171.

654.Phys. Op.fr. 4 (Dox.p. 478), repeated by the doxographers.

655. Plato,Hipp. ma.283 a, τοὐναντίον γὰρ Ἀναξαγόρᾳ φασὶ συμβῆναι ἢ ὑμῖν· καταλειφθέντων γὰρ αὐτῷ παλλῶν χρημάτων καταμελῆσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι πάντα· οὕτως αὐτὸν ἀνόητα σοφίζεσθαι. Cf. Plut.Per.16.

656. Arist.Eth. Nic.Κ, 9. 1179 a 13. Cf.Eth. Eud.Α, 4. 1215 b 6 and 15, 1216 a 10.

657. Diog. ii. 10 (R. P. 149 a). Pliny,N.H.ii. 149, gives the date as Ol. LXXVIII. 2; and Eusebios gives it under Ol. LXXVIII. 3. But cf.Marm. Par. 57, ἀφ’ οὗ ἐν Αἰγὸς ποταμοῖς ὁ λίθος ἔπεσε ... ἔτη ΗΗΠ, ἄρχοντος Ἀθήνησι Θεαγενίδου, which is 468-67B.C.The text of Diog. ii. 11 is corrupt. For suggested restorations, see Jacoby, p. 244, n. 2; and Diels,Vors.p. 294, 28.

658. Pliny,loc. cit.,“qui lapis etiam nunc ostenditur magnitudine vehis colore adusto.”Cf. Plut.Lys.12, καὶ δείκνυται ... ἔτι νῦν.

659. Cicero,de nat. D.i. 26 (after Philodemos),“Anaxagoras qui accepit ab Anaximene disciplinam(i.e.διήκουσε)”διήκουσε)”; Diog. i. 13 (R. P. 4) and ii. 6; Strabo, xiv. p. 645, Κλαζομένιος δ’ ἦν ἀνὴρ ἐπιφανὴς Ἀναξαγόρας ὁ φυσικός Ἀναξιμένους ὁμιλητής; Euseb.P.E.p. 504; [Galen]Hist. Phil.3; Augustine,de Civ. Dei, viii. 2.

660.Phys. Op.fr. 4 (Dox.p. 478), Ἀναξαγόρας μὲν γὰρ Ἡγησιβούλου Κλαζομένιος κοινωνήσας τῆς Ἀναξιμένους φιλοσοφίας κ.τ.λ. In his fifth edition (p. 973, n. 2) Zeller adopts the view given in the text, and confirms it by comparing the very similar statement as to Leukippos, κοινωνήσας Παρμενίδῃ τὴς φιλοσοφίας. See below, Chap. IX.§ 172.

661. Holm,Gr. Gesch.ii. 334. The whole chapter is well worth reading in this connexion.

662. Plut.Per.4 (R. P. 148 c). I follow Zeller, p. 975, n. 1 (Eng. trans. ii. p. 327, n. 4), in regarding the sobriquet as derisive.

663. 270 a (R. P. 148 c).

664. Gell. xv. 20,“Alexander autem Aetolus hos de Euripide versus composuit”; ὁ δ’ Ἀναξαγόρου τρόφιμος χαιοῦ (so Valckenaer for ἀρχαίου) κ.τ.λ.

665. The question was first raised by Valckenaer (Diatribe, p. 26). Cf. also Wilamowitz,Analecta Euripidea, pp. 162 sqq.

666. See Introd. p. 12,n.14. The fragment is quoted R. P. 148 c. The words ἀθανάτου φύσεως and κόσμον ἀγήρω carry us back rather to the older Milesians.

667. R. P. 150 b.

668. Both Ephoros (represented by Diod. xii. 38) and the source of Plut.Per.32 made these attacks immediately precede the war. This may, however, be pragmatic; they perhaps occurred earlier.

669.Birds, 988. Aristophanes had no respect for orthodoxy when combined with democratic opinions.

670. Plut.Per.32 (R. P. 148), where some of the original words have been preserved. The phrase τὰ θεῖα and the word μετάρσια are archaisms from the ψήφισμα.

671. These accounts are repeated by Diog. ii. 12-14. It is worth while to put the statements of Satyros and Sotion side by side in order to show the unsatisfactory character of the biographical tradition:—Sotion.Satyros.Accuser.Kleon.Thoukydides s. of Melesias.Charge.Calling the sun a red-hot mass.Impiety and Medism.Sentence.Fined five talents.Sentenced to death in absence.Hermippos represents Anaxagoras as already in prison under sentence of death when Perikles shamed the people into letting him off. Lastly, Hieronymos says he never was condemned at all. Perikles brought him into court thin and wasted by disease, and the judges acquitted him out of compassion! The Medism alleged by Satyros no doubt comes from Stesimbrotos, who made Anaxagoras the friend of Themistokles instead of Perikles. This, too, explains the accuser’s name (Busolt,Gr. Gesch.p. 306, n. 3).

Hermippos represents Anaxagoras as already in prison under sentence of death when Perikles shamed the people into letting him off. Lastly, Hieronymos says he never was condemned at all. Perikles brought him into court thin and wasted by disease, and the judges acquitted him out of compassion! The Medism alleged by Satyros no doubt comes from Stesimbrotos, who made Anaxagoras the friend of Themistokles instead of Perikles. This, too, explains the accuser’s name (Busolt,Gr. Gesch.p. 306, n. 3).

672.Apol.26 d.

673. Plut.Nic.23 (R. P. 148 c). Cf.Per.32 (R. P. 148).

674. See the account of Archelaos in Chap. X.§ 191.

675. The oldest authority for the honours paid to Anaxagoras is Alkidamas, the pupil of Gorgias, who said these were still kept up in his own time. Arist.Rhet.Β, 23. 1398 b 15.

676. Diog. i. 16; ii. 6 (R. P. 5; 153).

677. Schaubach (An. Claz. Fragm.p. 57) fabricated a work entitled τὸ πρὸς Λεχίνεον out of the pseudo-Aristoteliande plantis, 817 a 27. But the Latin version of Alfred, which is the original of the Greek, has simplyet ideo dicit lechineon; and this appears to be due to a failure to make out the Arabic text from which the Latin version was derived. Cf. Meyer,Gesch. d. Bot.i. 60.

678. It comes from Vitruvius, vii. pr. 11. A forger, seeking to decorate his production with a great name, would think naturally of the philosopher who was said to have taught Euripides.

679. Plut.de Exilio, 607 f. The words merely mean that he used to draw mathematical figures relating to the quadrature of the circle on the prison floor.

680.Apol.26 d-e. The expression βιβλία perhaps implies that it filled more than one roll.

681. Simplicius also speaks of βιβλία.

682. Simplicius tells us that this fragment was at the beginning of Book I. The familiar sentence quoted by Diog. ii. 6 (R. P. 153) is not a fragment of Anaxagoras, but a summary, like the πάντα ῥεῖ ascribed to Herakleitos (Chap. III. p. 162).

683. Zeller’s τομῇ still seems to me a convincing correction of the MS. τὸ μή, which Diels retains.

684. I had already pointed out in the first edition that Simplicius quotes this three times as a continuous fragment, and that we are not entitled to break it up. Diels now prints it as a single passage.

685. Simplicius gives fr. 14 thus (p. 157, 5): ὁ δὲ νοῦς ὅσα ἐστί τε κάρτα καὶ νῦν ἐστιν. Diels now reads ὁ δὲ νοῦς, ὃς ἀ<εί> ἐστί, τὸ κάρτα καὶ νῦν ἐστιν. The correspondence of ἀεὶ ... καὶ νῦν is strongly in favour of this.

686. On the text of fr. 15, see R. P. 156 a. I have followed Schorn in adding καὶ τὸ λαμπρόν from Hippolytos.

687. This is doubtless the meaning of the words τοῖς ἔργοις ὕστερος in Arist.Met.Α, 3. 984 a 12 (R. P. 150 a); though ἔργα certainly does not mean “writings” oropera omnia, but simply “achievements.” The other possible interpretations are “more advanced in his views” and “inferior in his teaching” (Zeller, p. 1023, n. 2).

688. Arist.Phys.Α, 4. 187 b 1 (R. P. 155 a).

689. Aet. i. 3, 5 (Dox.p. 279). See R. P. 155 f and n. 1. I read καρπὸν with Usener.

690. See Tannery,Science hellène, pp. 283 sqq. I still think that Tannery’s interpretation is substantially right, though his statement of it requires some modification.

691. Arist.Phys.Α, 2. 184 b 21, ἢ οὕτως ὥσπερ Δημόκριτος, τὸ γένος ἔν, σχήματι δὲ ἢ εἴδει διαφερούσας, ἢ καὶ ἐναντίας.

692.Phys.p. 44, 1. He goes on to refer to θερμότητας ... καὶ ψυχρότητας ξηρότητάς τε καὶ ὑγρότητας μανότητάς τε καὶ πυκνότητας καὶ τὰς ἄλλας κατὰ ποιότητα ἐναντιότητας. He observes, however, that Alexander rejected this interpretation and took διαφερούσας ἢ καὶ ἐναντίας closely together as both referring to Demokritos.

693.Phys.Α, 4. 187 a 25, τὸν μὲν (Ἀναξαγόραν) ἄπειρα ποιεῖν τά τε ὁμοιομερῆ καὶ τἀναντία. Aristotle’s own theory only differs from this in so far as he makes ὕλη prior to the ἐναντία.

694. Sext.Pyrrh.i. 33 (R. P. 161 b).

695. The connexion was already noted by the eclectic Herakleitean to whom I attribute Περὶ διαίτης, i. 3-4 (see above, Chap. III. p. 167,n.383). Cf. the words ἔχει δὲ ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων τὸ μὲν πῦρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος τὸ ὑγρόν· ἔνι γὰρ ἐν πυρὶ ὑγρότης· τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ ἀπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς τὸ ξηρόν· ἔνι γὰρ καὶ ἐν ὕδατι ξηρόν.

696. Arist.de Gen. Corr.Α, 1, 314 a 18, ὁ μὲν γὰρ (Anaxagoras) τὰ ὁμοιομερῆ στοιχεῖα τίθησιν, οἷον ὀστοῦν καὶ σάρκα καὶ μυελόν, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὧν ἑκάστῳ συνώνυμον τὸ μέρος ἐστίν. This was, of course, repeated by Theophrastos and the doxographers; but it is to be noted that Aetios, supposing as he does that Anaxagoras himself used the term, gives it an entirely wrong meaning. He says that the ὁμοιομέρειαι were so called from the likeness of the particles of the τροφή to those of the body (Dox.279 a 21; R. P. 155 f). Lucretius, i. 830 sqq. (R. P. 150 a) has a similar account of the matter, derived from Epicurean sources. Obviously, it cannot be reconciled with what Aristotle says.

697. It is more likely that we have a trace of the terminology of Anaxagoras himself in Περὶ διαίτης, 3, μέρεα μερέων, ὅλα ὅλων.

698. Cf. above, p. 305.

699. Arist.de Gen. Corr.Α, 1. 314 a 29. The word πανσπερμία was used by Demokritos (Arist.de An.404 a 8; R. P. 200), and it occurs in the Περὶ διαίτης (loc. cit.). It seems natural to suppose that it was used by Anaxagoras himself, as he used the term σπέρματα. Much difficulty has been caused by the apparent inclusion of Water and Fire among the ὁμοιομερῆ in Arist.Met.Α, 3. 984 a 11 (R. P. 150 a). Bonitz understands the words καθάπερ ὕδωρ ἢ πῦρ to mean “as we have just seen that Fire and Water do in the system of Empedokles.” In any case, καθάπερ goes closely with οὕτω, and the general sense is that Anaxagoras applies to the ὁμοιομερῆ what is really true of the στοιχεῖα. It would be better to delete the comma after πῦρ and add one after φησι, for συγκρίσει καὶ διακρίσει μόνον is explanatory of οὕτω ... καθάπερ. In the next sentence, I read ἁπλῶς for ἄλλως with Zeller (Arch.ii. p. 261). See also Arist.de Caelo, Γ, 3. 302 b 1 (R. P. 150 a), where the matter is very clearly put.

700. Arist.Phys.Γ, 5. 205 b 1 (R. P. 154 a).

701.Phys.Ζ, 6. 213 a 22 (R. P. 159). We have a full discussion of the experiments with theklepsydrainProbl.914 b 9 sqq., a passage which we have already used to illustrate Empedokles, fr.100. See above, p. 253,n.565.

702. Arist.Met.Α, 3. 984 b 15 (R. P. 152).

703. Plato,Phd.97 b 8 (R. P. 155 d).

704. Arist.Met.Α, 4. 985 a 18 (R. P. 155 d).

705. Arist.Phys.Θ, 5. 256 b 24, διὸ καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας ὀρθῶς λέγει, τὸν νοῦν ἀπαθῆ φάσκων καὶ ἀμιγῆ εἶναι, ἐπειδήπερ κινήσεως ἀρχὴν αὐτὸν ποιεῖ εἶναι· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν μόνως κινοίη ἀκίνητος ὢν καὶ κρατοίη ἀμιγῆς ὤν. This is only quoted for the meaning of κρατεῖν. Of course, the words ἀκίνητος ὤν are not meant to be historical, and still less is the interpretation inde An.Γ, 4. 429 a 18. Diogenes of Apollonia (fr. 5) couples ὑπὸ τούτου πάντα κυβερνᾶσθαι (the old Milesian word) with πάντων κρατεῖν.

706. If we retain the MS. εἰδέναι in fr. 1. In any case, the name τὸ σοφόν implies as much.

707. See fr.3,5.

708. Zeller, p. 993.

709. Note that Anaxagoras says “air” where Empedokles usually said “aether,” and that “aether” is with him equivalent to fire. Cf. Arist.de Caelo, Γ, 3. 302 b 4, τὸ γὰρ πῦρ καὶ τὸν αἰθέρα προσαγορεύει ταὐτό; andib.Α, 3. 270 b 24, Ἀναξαγόρας δὲ καταχρῆται τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ οὐ καλῶς· ὀνομάζει γὰρ αἰθέρα ἀντὶ πυρός.

710. Aet. ii. 13, 3 (Dox.p. 341; R. P. 157 c).

711. See above, p. 300,n.684.

712. Aet. ii. 1, 3. See above, Chap. I. p.63.

713. Further, it can be proved that this passage (fr.4) occurred quite near the beginning of the work. Cf. Simpl.Phys.p. 34, 28, μετ’ ὀλίγα τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ πρώτου Περὶ φυσέως, p. 156, 1, καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα (after fr.2), which itself occurred, μετ’ ὀλίγον (after fr.1), which was the beginning of the book. A reference to other “worlds” would be quite in place here, but not a reference to the moon.

714.Ref.i. 8, 3 (Dox.p. 562).

715. This is an addition to the older view occasioned by the Eleatic denial of the void.

716. The text here is very corrupt, but the general sense can be got from Aet. iii. 16. 2.

717. The MS. reading is ἐν τοῖς ἄρκτοις, for which Diels adopts Fredrichs’ ἐν τοῖς ἀνταρκτικοῖς. I have thought it safer to translate the ἐν τῇ Αἰθιοπίᾳ which Aetios gives (iv. 1, 3). This view is mentioned and rejected by Herodotos (ii. 22). Seneca (N. Q.iv. 2, 17) points out that it was adopted by Aischylos (Suppl.559, fr. 300, Nauck), Sophokles (fr. 797), and Euripides (Hel.3, fr. 228).

718. Arist.de Part. An.Δ, 10. 687 a 7 (R. P. 160 b).

719. [Arist.]de plant.Α, 1. 815 a 15 (R. P. 160).

720. Plut.Q.N.1 (R. P. 160), ζῷον ... ἐγγεῖον.

721. Theophr.Hist. Plant.iii. 1, 4 (R. P. 160).

722. Irenaeus,adv. Haer.ii. 14, 2 (R. P. 160 a).

723. Hipp.Ref.i. 8, 12 (Dox.p. 563).

724. Beare, p. 37.

725. Theophr.de Sensu, 27 sqq. (Dox.p. 507).

726. Beare, p. 38.

727. Beare, p. 208.

728.Ibid.p. 209.

729.Ibid.p. 103.

730.Ibid.p. 137.

731.Met.Δ, 5. 1009 b 25 (R. P. 161 a).

Back to Index Next