North American Philosophical Publications

A New Look at Anaximenes Author(s): Daniel W. Graham Source: History of Philosophy Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 1-20 Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of North American Philosophical Publications Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27744938 . Accessed: 12/07/2013 08:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press and North American Philosophical Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History of Philosophy Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

History

of Philosophy

Volume

20, Number

Quarterly

1, January

2003

A NEW LOOK AT ANAXIMENES

Daniel W. Graham

and the be of the twentieth the beginning century our of of the twenty-first century understanding Between ginning at all. The third philosopher has changed Anaximenes hardly a theory of mat to have advocated he is reputed from Miletus, is to which and to have ter according air, really everything a theory of change according developed rarefied other kinds of matter by being at the least inherited style allegedly from his change, bution.1 to which air or condensed. turns into he Since

theory to fame is the theory of his real claim predecessors, as a significant contri has been which acknowledged Anaximenes Now the modest reputation enjoys has been In a recent edition of Anaximenes, that Anaximenes'

of his

of matter

into question. called W?hrle (1993) argues was invented really

Georg theory of change alleged and foisted on Anaxime by Theophrastus sense Is it true nes to make in an attempt of his cosmogony. is even more mediocre than we have reckoned? that Anaximenes I believe that to a large degree Anaxime I think not. Indeed, nes' of pre-Socratic philosophy interpretation by Wohrle's as a seminal Anaximenes

the shape theory determined raised forever after him. The issues serve to vindicate I shall will, argue, thinker. In this paper of Anaximenes I shall

inter the traditional (I) rehearse criticism of it; (II) examine and W?hrle's pretation Anaximenes' testimonies ancient concerning theory of change; to show that Anaximenes had a ro evidence and (III) advance in from that different bust of key respects change theory to him. These attributed imenes a different?and philosophy.

tend to suggest for Anax considerations more in the of important?place history

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HISTORY

OF PHILOSOPHY I

QUARTERLY

The

traditional

account

of Anaximenes I:

goes

back

to Aristotle's

analysis

in Metaphysics

Of the first philosophers, the majority the sources thought For of all things were found only in the class of matter. [1] that of which all existing and from which that things consist, the they perish last?[2] they come to be first and into which in its substance but properties?this, continuing changing and source of existing they say, is the element things. Ac comes not think either to be do [3] they cordingly anything
or

either one or more than one, there is a certain nature, comes to is pre from which be else while this everything on the number served. do not agree and All, however, character of this source, but Tha?es, of this the originator ... kind of theory, says it is water. and [4] Anaximenes posit air as a simple body prior to [of Apollonia] Diogenes water that is most properly the source. bl7-21, (983b6-13, For 984a5-7)2 We observe here three claims about early philoso being made comes to be from and perishes into back "source"; (2) everything (3) there is no theory is in es coming to

perishes,

inasmuch

as

this

nature

is always

preserved.

. . .

(1) phers: one arche, sence

everything I translate which

to what kind of of Material Monism different versions according a as source: matter the identifies water, air, given philosopher is air. In the case of Anaximenes, fire, or earth. (4) the source Besides utes to Material contrib Anaximenes Monism, subscribing a distinctive to of theory Theophrastus: change, according

expressed by these as Material a theory that is known Monism, to Tha?es, it attributes Aristotle and Heraclitus; Anaximenes, it to Anaximander,3 is less clear whether he attributes and at are least some doxographers attribute it to Xenophanes.4 There

that source; be, but all change three propositions

and consequently is alteration. The

son of Anaximenes, ate of Anaximander, nature is single and it air. says, calling its rarity or density.

was an associ of Miletus, Eurystratus, who says, like him, that the underlying as he but not indeterminate boundless, It differs in essence in accordance with it is thinned When it becomes [i] fire, it [ii: air] is condensed while when it becomes [iii] wind, then still more it becomes condensed [iv] cloud, when [v] water, then [vi] earth, then [vii] stones. Everything else comes from as a result of these. And he too makes motion everlasting,

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEW LOOK AT ANAXIMENES

occurs. change on Aristotle's mentary which We nate find three sequence features from Simplicius (Theophrastus = Anaximenes 24.26-25.1 Physics of this theory ordered of change: by relative Com A55)

(1) a determi density, (2)

of materials

and (vii) stones; (vi) earth, one to an adjacent material the material, respectively. Now

consisting of: (i) fire, (ii) air, (iii) wind, (iv) cloud, (v) water,
from one the change (3) in which or is made rarefying by condensing ba

we may at an interpretation arrive of Anaximenes' I shall call the Standard which sic principles Interpretation: Standard Interpretation to be from of Anaximenes and back into

MM

1. Everything
source.

(Material Monism)
comes

perishes

one

2. Everything that source. is in essence to be or perishing, 3. There is no coming of all things is air. 4. The source

but

only alteration.

TC (Theory of Change)
1. There relative 2. Which
stones.

is a determinate

sequence

of materials cloud, water,

ordered earth,

by and com

density, of fire, air, wind, consists from adjacent respectively.

arise 3. The materials or rarefied, pressed

materials

by being

I do not exagger In calling this the Standard Interpretation, ate: in the English-speaking world alone the view is endorsed and Kirk, Cornford, Guthrie, Bailey, Lloyd, Hussey, by Burnet, are very few dissenting others.6 There Barnes, among many voices, The and two are they have sets been largely ignored.7 MM and TC, respec designated one of each other: could ascribe independent tively, logically MM without to Anaximenes without TC, and TC without MM, The one link between the two sets of prin any inconsistency. a certain to Anaximenes is found in MM3, which ciples assigns For Aristotle there are four kinds of change: kind of change. of principles locomotion,

or change in the category and of place; increase or or in the of quantity; alteration, decrease, category change in the category to be and perish and coming of quality; change in the category of substance.8 On Aristotle's ing, or change the monists material interpretation, recognize only one kind of can be no hence there substance?in Anaximenes' case, air;

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY

QUARTERLY

in substance. to be changes in substance, What appear changes for instance from wind to cloud, are really only changes of qual In that is: instances of alteration.9 has MM3 any case, ity, something not about W?hrle's TC.10 He Plutarch, to say about the ontological or mechanisms the stages attack calls which on states: the Standard to the attention character of change. Interpretation reported of change, but

cosmogony

on focuses in Pseudo

to be air, held the source of the world They say Anaximenes in quantity, in its quali and this was boundless but definite ties. All things were generated and by a sort of condensation of this. Motion has existed from ev respectively, thinning, [a] air was felted he says [b] the earth was erlasting. When formed first, being completely flat. For this very reason it on sun floats air. [c] The and the moon and the other heav their source of generation from earth. At enly bodies have the sun is earth, and because least he declares of its rapid mo tion it gains an excess of heat.11 (Ps.-Plutarch Stromateis 3 = A6) What in the passage is the sequence finds striking of into (b) earth, from which (a) air turns developments: bodies arise. On the Standard (c) the other heavenly Interpre we to produce would the air then clouds, tation, wind, expect so that there then water, and only then earth, and then stones, no would be for the materials need to of the heavenly bodies W?hrle cosmic arise isted. But from the earth: exist they would already there is no reason for Pseudo-Plutarch tradition His before earth ex to depart from

the doxographical views. Anaximenes' records Anaximenes'

he is actually unless reporting as it the "lectio difficilior" that were, is, real view.12 W?hrle theorizes that in an Anaximenes' changes In other TC, into view, a set gener Theophrastus series governed by a cos Anaximenes' real us to trace TC to its

to rationalize attempt a alized few de facto single mogony inventor, This earlier mechanism.13 conflicts is an Theophrastus.14 ingenious commentators.15

words, allowing

with

argument drawing it is difficult And

on the work to counter

of some other

with

testimonies, precisely calls into question all But there of course, is very little

ifW?hrle is right, one testimony because, the other testimonies that conflict with it. has no distinctive from his as apart of air And theory of change, fellow advocates of a source dis is, indeed, to see Anaximenes

ifAnaximenes to set him His choice remarkable.

Material tinctive,

Monism. but hardly

it is hard

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEW LOOK AT ANAXIMENES

as

or to the progress of philosophical speculation contributing to offer.16 advances scientific inquiry if he has no methodological II

There nes'

than Aristotle mentions Anaximenes in a very seem, then, that we are trapped and three small of texts testimonies collection (twenty-three a in tenuous very nar very Diels-Kranz)18 reflecting fragments an row range of views. The ideal situation would be to discover It would early which tion. testimony we could But where and Theophrastus of Aristotle independent by check the judgments of the doxographic tradi could we find such a testimony? the Consider from Plato's Timaeus:

dition, no by name.17

in trying to reconstruct Anaxime problem testimonies: all of them from date from philosophy existing or are most of them the time of Aristotle later, and dependent or his colleague on the views of Aristotle In ad Theophrastus. author earlier

is an obvious

following First,

discussion what we

as we have now called [v] water we observe, as it is com believe, turning into [vii] stones and [vi] earth and being separated, but then dissolving this same pacted; and and [iii] wind [ii] air, being thing becomes ignited, air in turn, and and becomes quenched [i] fire, being compressed fire departs and turns back into the form of [ii] air, and again air coming together and being condensed becomes [iv] cloud comes and mist, and from these being felted still more [v] flowing water, and from water come [vi] earth and [vii] stones on to each other in a circle, these things thus passing again, as it appears, their generation. (Plato Timaeus 49b7-c7)

into felt?prominent pressed as a technological Anaximenes plied ruled Plato imenes out to the as changes. sources

I have that this passage should be accepted argued a testimony of Anaximenes.19 For now let me call attention to the similarities account between and Plato's: (1) Simplicius's in all seven kinds of matter identified appear by Simplicius same in the Plato's the series.20 account, (2) places occupying of condensation and rarefaction The mechanisms the govern is com of felting?by which wool (3) The analogy changes. Elsewhere as first invoked probably by of compression,21 is ap sources can be All other pre-Socratic as indeed can for this theory of change, model recognized But they Anax fail to in and

himself.22

on the passage In fact, commentators have as the inspiration of the passage.23

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

6 consider

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY

QUARTERLY

menes.

a legitimate but also embodies of Anaximenes, interpretation or we see correct can Anaximenes least At (whether not). by a mere account of Plato's that his reading is not de inspection on Aristotle's, or on anything like it, for it accords the pendent several what

on behalf I shall not argue of Plato's but reading, a line of investigation that departs from only suggest radically on Plato or Anaximenes the path has been any commentator us to Let that Plato's of discussion pursue. suppose willing some on not in the of draws, vague way, change only theory Here

the possibility that the passage be taken as in might for the views of Anaximenes. evidence this Evidently seems too of Anaximenes of that the from reading divergent even as a to count tradition of Anaxi doxographical testimony dependent

status. And so, minimally, we may see substances equal one predecessor of Aristotle in find the might theory of is indeed reacting to Anaximenes, we creatively, in his information to interpretation according however

Anaximenes.

If Plato however reaction which

idiosyncratically, to overthrow the Anaximenes has

find sufficient

with

theory of change. Accord both the sequence of changes and the mechanisms ing toW?hrle, of change were in invented his attempt to ra by Theophrastus if tionalize Anaximenes' But is Plato familiar cosmology. already the sequence and the mechanisms not have well in the mid-fourth before cen could tury, Theophrastus the theory. They were already set his But stylus we need to his notebooks not limit invented known the principles

skeptical no articulated

of

to compose

Theophrastus his history of natural

philosophy. ourselves something reactions iar with the among Sea For nor of Anaximenes' theory. in several pre-Socratics. Anaximenes materials: is made In his meteorology There to Plato's to learn reaction are correlations and That Xenophanes is famil

rainbow.24

account of likely by his similar a connection he recognizes

is the source of water, the source of wind; neither <would there be wind> without great sea, currents of rivers nor rain water from the sky, but great sea is the begetter of clouds and winds and rivers. (B30)

the sequence of changes is not fully perspicuous in Although we see that from sea arises wind, this account, from which pre clouds feeds the sea. condense, rain, which sumably producing

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEW LOOK AT ANAXIMENES

We have then a kind

Some

commentators

all constructing another story: For from earth is the

to wind to cloud to water. of cycle of water want to make into a dualist Xenophanes out earth tells of but B27 and water,25 things are all things and into earth do all things end.

If earth

source

in his discussion to be neither clear nor systematic of changes,27 we might allow a sequence infer that he would of earth, water, then is wind, cloud, and fire. His view of meteorological changes at least consistent with Anaximenes' of theory change. Heraclitus earth turn a theory of change in which in a balanced and into one another has and of sea half fire, water, sequential is earth, and way: half

itself is generated to be a conjunction a change gesting

water and end of all things, presumably out of that. At the other extreme, the sun seems arise from moist vapors, of sparks which sug seems to fire.26 While from vapor Xenophanes

The turnings of fire: first sea, firewind.28 (B31a) The scheme similar: than is simpler an ordered it involves that

series

of Anaximenes, but formally of transformations balanced half into

The fire turns into water, transformations. and by inverse turns back into fire, while the other half turns of the water half of earth turns back earth. Presumably into water. It may be objected Heraclitus recognizes on their debt doubt There the evidence

nor at this point that neither Xenophanes in the series, air as a material casting to the seven-fold scheme of Anaximenes.

may ther Xenophanes both at scheme, very similar In the western portant Nor Nor criticism

that Heraclitus is a possibility does air, but recognize is problematic.29 The absence of air in the scheme a criticism in fact embody of Anaximenes. But while nei nor Heraclitus follows Anaximenes' simply least seem to accept schemes of serial change in conception. to that of Anaximenes Greek Parmenides tradition, kind of theory: of a certain presents an

im

is it divisible, since all is alike, is there any more here, which would is full of what-is.

keep

it from hold

ing together, nor any less, but all

. . . For neither is it right for there to be anything more (B8.22-24, 44-45)

nor anything

less here

or there.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

8
Parmenides' differences

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY
attack

QUARTERLY

The being. that to appeal to the is the only philosopher Anaximenes ports mechanisms of condensation and rarefaction Of explicitly.31 course W?hrle we have but Theophrastus' impugns veracity; already according mechanisms And since, to Simplicius, not assign does the Theophrastus to any other philosophers, if we reject Theophras tus' testimony we are left with no one against whom Parmenides is reacting. W?hrle Anaximenes, rests earth there remark, is an recognizes notably geology, on a cushion of air as even more striking parallel, following passage: in his that Anaxagoras seen reason to rehabilitate him as a witness.

a theory that explains is directed against in terms of differing of character concentrations of re obvious is Anaximenes.30 target Theophrastus

is deeply influenced by to which the flat according in Anaximenes (p. 31). But which W?hrle does not

in the

these things being separated From earth is compacted. For from clouds water is separated, from water earth, and from earth stones are compacted stones move by the cold. These out more than water. (B16) Here menes, we find four members with of the seven-fold scheme of Anaxi of condensation. What is complete a cannot is that condensation be in basic process striking to him all change for according results from the Anaxagoras, or rarefaction can of substances. Condensation rearrangement only be appearances concentration.32 Yet formations the series resulting from fundamental the in the series Note context Anaxagoras of Anaxagoras?and occurs claims imitates precisely it does not of changes of trans also that of cos the mechanism

his mechanisms.

mogony, nes. Evidently

for Anaxime belong Anaximenes' of thought Anaxagoras theory was It is no apt in the field of cosmogony. especially change wonder that writers of philosophical successions made a even student of the relation Anaximenes, Anaxagoras though a chronological ship was impossibility.33 In we Finally, criticisms find a trace of Anaximenes'

of changes where W?hrle

theory in Melissus. in which of theories of change he alludes to and Anaxagoras, he also seems to re Heraclitus, Empedocles, fer to Anaximenes: But it appears to us that the hot becomes cold and the cold . . .And from water hot, and the hard soft and the soft hard. earth and stone seem to come to be. (B8.3)

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEW LOOK AT ANAXIMENES

The last sentence as we problem now characterizes see, remains the theory of Anaximenes, are we sup

ported, One for the Plutarch? drawn

by Anaxagoras. to be addressed: cosmogony would response how be to account by Pseudo he has simply or perhaps has himself that recorded

apparently obvious One

defective

I think there is another us heavily to discount him as that does not require possibility a source. What in his account, he is likely to be doing perhaps sources is focus from Theophrastus, the doxographic following on If the bodies. that of is appearance correct, there heavenly ing is no reason for him to mention intermediate the of con stages in the present context densation be taken for (that would The granted). the earth. We is that the first heavenly is point body to appear a simple not overlook should observation here: to does not say that earth is the first element that the Earth the noun,

on a very abbreviated account, too much. his sources But abbreviated

Pseudo-Plutarch come to be, but article

is the first thing; the definite as well as the characterization accompanying on air, makes of the earth as a flat body floating the in clear tended And the earth referent. did the only after appeared reverse in this the stars. Seen of rarefaction process generate narrative light Pseudo-Plutarch's condensation and rarefaction but formation there was presupposes explicitly bodies. Hence it cannot be inferred of heavenly that no wind, or was water before there cloud, earth, only that there was no stable cosmic the earth. This is body before of Hippolytus, consistent with the account who records: came to be from earth because The heavenly bodies of the came to be moisture from which thinned it, arising being were from fire aloft the and bodies fire, floating heavenly 1.7.5 = All) composed. (Refutation of All Heresies deals the processes with only of the

A further is merely

consideration hinted from

ries moisture fuel

influencing at in Hippolytus's the earth

the order account: considered

in most

was

of the cosmogony early theo

for the continued without the earth as heavenly What traces and bodies could

of the heavenly ignition a kind of constant source not continue in existence.

to provide the bodies.34 Hence of evaporation,

are forced to see Anaximenes phy. We a but rather without theory of change,

seems to emerge from this brief survey is that there are in both its cosmological of Anaximenes' theory of change its cosmogonical all pre-Socratic settings philoso through not as as a philosopher a philosopher whose

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

10

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY

QUARTERLY

influential theories of pre theory of change was one of the most to Anaximenes If Plato's Socratic is revealing, response thought. it is certainly not the earliest to his theory of change. A reaction thorough pre-Socratic edition of Anaximenes as would count philosophers testimonies fragments of his theory. of other

Ill
named after him, Meno raises the ques dialogue we would tion of how, when we were after something, inquiring some new if we had know in Plato it. Is there found insight in a new light? Let us turn that will help us to see Anaximenes at least which testimony, see of and what Anaximenes, adaptation on the F. notes: M. Cornford passage, Commenting tion or The tus back to what I call Plato's is his we reac have. In the Platonic

result so far is that fire and the rest are denied the sta or permanent an of elements with things unchanging character. Their in a cycle is de transformation apparent scribed in terms borrowed from Anaximenes and Anaxagoras. Anaximenes had conceived that all things at all times really are air. Air is the permanent fire is air in a rarefied nature; air becomes state; when more closely packed, successively
wind, cloud, water, earth, stone. . . .

Plato the contrary rejects this interpretation, asserting that there is a change of quality without any underlying stance or permanent (1937, 180) ground.

view sub

recited the Standard like of Anaximenes Interpretation Having a catechism, as Cornford Plato Anax interprets rejected having in favor of another. account imenes' But where does Plato reject the account? He provisionally it, and draws his conclu adopts seems to favor the account sions. He it says because precisely what to say?even of change adequate theory ideal account. the (For Plato will modify own to of suit the needs his of atomic-math theory change In other words, in adopting ematical the account, theory.)35 Plato as an initial is not rejecting but at least it, it, endorsing true of the approximation (his own, to be articulated theory a genuinely If that is so, we have different perspective later). though it is not the on that the the meaning and significance found in the doxographical it may be that Plato of Anaximenes' tradition. theory from he wants an

fast and loose with playing its real ontological basis and its implica theory, ignoring tions in order to say something to say. He may also be he wants

Now

is just

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEW LOOK AT ANAXIMENES

violently detaching Anaximenes'

11

it is objective I can and unbiased.36 But be the case if Plato were might right in his inter We might realize that we had found of Anaximenes. pretation what we were for: a different point of view from which looking right, much suggest what less that to understand If we Anaximenes. to the Standard for a moment, go back Interpretation in the Theory shall find that of Change by rely defending we have into question Monism.37 called Material ing on Plato, one material turns into another to Plato, in an end According is no single material that is always less cycle. There present, and not every material Plato is always changing account into some is the other material. flux What discovers in the

from his on theory of change across. own to On Plato's message get tological or potential wit the other hand, he at least is our only witness, ness, who is not in the thrall of the doxographical interpretation. I cannot here give a demonstration is that Plato's perspective theory in order

we

the constancy of a single the series of changes itself. reduce all stuff, we cannot because and MM3 there are is no false.

stuff. Nothing If there is no reality

is always constant underlying to it. Change is not alter stuff to be altered. Hence

of change, there but

ation, MM2 But view? in his

continuing

is this not wildly from a historical implausible I think not. Consider account Anaximander's fragment:

point

of

of change

From what objects things existent take place, does their destruction be: for they give recompense and pay to the for their injustice according Less than derliness According

to them too to what must "according restitution to each other of time." (Bl) ordering to be,

come

opposites the territory reparations. cold comes make stance

a theory of change, this account the or establishes over and balance time. of change when viewed to the best interpretation, this passage tells us that on into each other.38 When the hot trespasses perish of the The hot cold in summer, must make it eventually in into the cold and the winter, perishes

to usurp the territory in summer. What reparations that

that perishes not identical

of the hot. It in turn must we have is not a single sub is now hot, now cold, but one temporary existence as another If it perishes into another. it is arises, to its successor substance. Heraclitus is explicit about the status of

After Anaximenes, his materials:

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

12

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY

QUARTERLY

to water To souls it is death to become water, to be death come earth, but from earth water is born, and from water soul. (B36) Heraclitus Immortal those, The even makes a paradoxical generalization living of the pattern: the death of

mortal immortals, mortals, the life of these. (B62) dying

of birth and death is the concrete correlate of the language to be and perishing, of coming both expressed language by the same verbs a child, and the or bears in Greek. A parent begets an ani child is born; it is not identical with its parents. When are generated mal in its carcass, dies and organisms they are not identical is not

with it. The dominant of birth and death imagery or change the imagery for expressing of qual alteration, is it the to for be and ity; imagery expressing coming cosmos But does not Heraclitus destruction. is say the whole fire? Yes and no: This world, the same of all, no god nor man did create, but it ever was and is and will be: everliving in mea fire, kindling sures and being quenched in measures. (B30)

is fire, but the fire lives by perishing and (kosmos) one The at world is fire because time its parts again. kindling were fire, and parts of it are now fire, and other parts will later be fire. In another the it world is is fire because sense, always like fire changes. changing The not he ers cycle, the "begetter" riv of and clouds, winds, (yeverup) a in that embodies the birth of (B30.5), phrase again imagery rather than of alteration. If sea begets clouds and winds, they are born from it and are not identical so we arrive with it. And all Plato the early seems Ionians to find explicit. sea calls are of Xenophanes presuppositions metaphysical if we recall his discussion But of the water again

The

world

are

at a surprising to which reading according the same is what saying thing, which in Anaximenes' attractive theory. If Plato's

is right, Anaximenes did not invent the reading common to of the Ionians. he took concept Rather, change from Anaximander the notion of one kind of thing chang and identified the items that undergo ing into another, change, which a natural his predecessor had left vague. His move was basic over one: could to specify what into what. turned In principle, he things a have of unconnected white posited plurality changes: to black, wet to dry, hot to cold, and vice versa.39 This, too, was

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEW LOOK AT ANAXIMENES

anticipated plete with of changes directional mutual would in Anaximander, specifically in his

13

a bi the changes, or that would allow process symmetrical changes, materials. of adjacent This mechanism transformations or rare from light to heavy allow and justify an ordering This can theory of change that all other materials

fire, air, earth, and presumably a mechanism to drive he added

re cosmogony, water.40 To a series

to dense.

assumption leged material. defines isted. the

the be articulated without are basic with one privi It What, then, is the role of air in Anaximenes? ex state before the cosmos one, undifferentiated

with associated air has special Furthermore, properties as can account well for the the world which orderliness of life, we as for animal not But and human need suppose intelligence. into six other that after air is differentiated stuffs, they are or offspring41 of air. still air: rather, they are products Anaximenes' mogony?presumably us And it allows account allows the explanation. in a ratio to explain the cosmos change within we as it is Indeed, nal?or, may say, scientific?way. precisely a mechanism to assign the attempt for change which makes pre and meteorology, of cosmogony, Socratic theories cosmology, seem at all the scientific. Without that, they would be no more we was can than re putative From write histories of the world. Anaximenes, To whom of philosophy. of Plato's also immediate and for an orderly aim of Ionian rational cos

standpoint

the early history Parmenides to be? Since the and coming reacting when he ruled out change there of Paul demise of the Pythagorean hypothesis Tannery,42 If the early Ionians had already has not been a good candidate. had a the theory of Material elaborated Monism, they already common in to that has much with Parmenides Aristotle's reply comes to be from nothing, but there is later response: nothing a continuing substratum. always can hypothesize that Parmenides' for the first time made other it clear by coming if A perishes we reading, is Anaximenes, who target that materials into each change On the Platonic <j)9eipouaiv.43 there is nothing I think Heraclitus Kai

But

to be and perishing: y?yvovTcu into B and B in turn into A,

present exploited is to him But

and permanently the metaphysical

Anaximenes' how tradition

In fact reliably. of the theory, and it consequences that Parmenides is replying most it is But directly. an argument. that gives Heraclitus theory of change and could the doxographical think they even was right

could Aristotle, Theophrastus, so wrong? How get Anaximenes a material was monist that Anaximenes

if Plato

in

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

14
his

HISTORY

OF PHILOSOPHY

QUARTERLY

not

other major

answer to that. We have is a simple There interpretation? one in the that talked Anaximenes about yet pre-Socratic most: fluenced of Anaximenes' Apollonia. Diogenes Following

thing is arranged for the best (B3). But he holds that everything
is, and must ties needed of air. For air has those spiritual be, made quali to direct after the world (B3, B4, B5). But writing a firm for real needed substantial basis Diogenes of Parmenides' understanding that there is only one reality: monistic

devotee,

Anaxagoras,

Diogenes

argued

that

every

Parmenides,

his ity. Following he declares theory,

are It seems right to me in general to say that all existents altered from the same thing and are the same thing. And this is manifest: for if the present existents of this world water, order?earth, fire, air, and the rest, which plainly exist in this world-order?if any of these was different the one from the other, being other in its own nature and not it would the same, often and alter, and in no way change . . . unless would they have been able to mix with each other so as were same. to be the But since all are constituted they same altered from the thing, they become different at differ ent times and turn back into the same thing. (B2) There phy. It Xenophanes: ard, much is only one material is not Anaximenes more monist or Tha?es, And Diogenes in pre-Socratic philoso or not Heraclitus we haz was, may

it is Diogenes.44 in his metaphysics than Anaximenes. explicit as he read in light of Diogenes read Anaximenes Aristotle in light of the post-Parmenidean Anaximander pluralists.45 onto the metaphysics And he projected of the later philosopher the earlier. If Plato is right, Anaximenes that a paradigm of phi produced the of conception shaped philosophical explanation losophy was not Mate down to the time of Parmenides. The paradigm nor was a pluralistic at all. it monistic rial Monism, It was an that into other substance theory positing original changed substances successor in such substances

in its turn, and portions of it would direct other emerge again and presumably the cosmos. stuffs from within, from without, was to fall before the devastat The Ionian destined paradigm of Parmenides. it fell, it would And when fall so ing criticisms completely know what told modern that after it had scholars the fourth looked even century B.C., no one would era if anyone like. And from an earlier what it looked would like, they perhaps

a way that it no longer its existed when But the original existed. stuff would

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEW LOOK AT ANAXIMENES

say, like called has like Meno's that. discussion attention out has to an some been less than a demonstration. to Anaximenes benighted inquirer, that surely it did not

15
look

This

It has and

to challenge and reject the Material Monism that formed the other part of the Standard Whether the alter Interpretation. can native critical sketched here withstand interpretation even millen and the cumulative inertia of centuries, scrutiny to be seen. But perhaps remains nia, of doxographical orthodoxy, it will be enough if it stimulates to take for themselves others a new look at Anaximenes.46

and ramifications of drawn a de in that reaction. the perspective embodied with Starting we found additional fense of Anaximenes' of change, theory reasons we were to support in the process, that theory. But led

interesting of the implications

reaction

Brigham

Young University

NOTES
1. See
2. All

esp. Classen
translations

(1977)
are my

and Hussey
own, except

(1972, p. 28).
as otherwise noted.

3. Aristotle variously seems to treat him as a monist 16) and as a pluralist (Physics 187a20-23). 4. Stobaeus,
Theophrastus

(Physics Galen

187al2? that

Theodoret,
nowhere

Olympiodorus,
this view

and Sabinus;
to Xenophanes.

notes
See

attributes

sources

collected

as Xenophanes

A36.

5. Diels and Kranz text numbers, (A texts) and fragments (B texts).

distinguishing

between

testimonies

6. Burnet (1892/1930, pp. 73-74), Bailey (1928, pp. 16-18), Guthrie (1962, pp. 115-116), Lloyd (1970, pp. 19-20, 21-22; 1979, pp. 140-141), and Schofield (1972, p. 27), Kirk in Kirk, Raven, Hussey (1983, pp. Barnes for Cornford, see below. Against 145-146), (1979/1982, pp. 38-44);
Barnes

pling of the majority. 7. Heidel (1906), Cherniss H?lscher (1953, pp. 267-268,
chap. tion, advocates 2). and These their of figures alternative the majority do not

in particular

in Graham

(1997,

pp.

12-17).

These

are

but

sam

(1935, pp. 362 ff.), McDiarmid 273-274), Klowski (1966), Stokes

share a common generally alternative are unacknowledged

(1953), (1971,
by

interpreta

proposals view.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

16

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY

QUARTERLY

8. Categories From Physics V on, 201a9-15, V.l-2. 14; Physics ULI, but Aristotle defines coming to be and perishing as changes, metabolai,
not as motions, hi?eseis, a subset of changes.

9. E.g.,

On Generation

and Corruption

314a8-ll.

10. W?hrle (1993, p. 18 ff.). In fact he rejects MM also, following in this (pp. 22, 32) without much argu Klowski (1972) and Cherniss
ment.

11. Reading W?hrle,

lkcivws 6ep|i?Tr|Ta

Xa?etv with Zeller. (1972, p. 134?incorrectly cited by

12. To use the image from Klowski p. 20 as being from p. 132).

13. "Verdichtung und Verd?nnung . System . . nicht jedoch in der Weise, n?mlich als Faktoren eines Prozesses auf der einen und den Steinen auf der

spielten eine Rolle in Anaximenes' wie sie aus Theophrast hervorgeht, in zwei Richtungen mit dem Feuer anderen Seite' (58).

14. W?hrle (1993, pp. 19-23 and 58), following Klowski rather closely next the problem as an inconsistency note). Moran (1975) discusses (see
in Anaximenes' theory.

an argument in H?lscher 15. Klowski (1953, pp. (1972), developing There is a further argument based on a disputed MS reading 273-274).
of Hippolytus 1.7.7: Diels corrects

? df|p ?pai?joel? ?KTT TrL>KV(jL)|ievo? (|)epr|Tai by dropping the ?k- prefix and <j) pr|Tai. Klowski (pp. 137?138) changing the final words to Kai ??ei?
stresses that there is no

dve'iiou?

??

yevv?odai,

otciv

inconsistent with Theophrastus'

other not

grammatical

reason

to emend

the

text, sees

which

account

of Anaximenes'
account

physics. On
and no

the
con

flict. In any case my objection

turn on fine points of

hand,

Hippolytus

accepts

the

traditional

to the Klowski-W?hrle
readings.

interpretation

does

textual

16. Hussey
cal change was

(1972, p. 28) remarks:

Anaximenes' sole

"This new general

contribution."

theory of physi

important

17. W?hrle

(1993, p. 31).

18. W?hrle adds four new testimonies, but all of them date from well after Aristotle, indeed from the Christian Era. 19. "A Testimony
20. I am

of Anaximenes
the mention

in Plato,"
of'mist'

submitted

for publication.
for cloud.

Plato
wind

omits
in his of a

assuming

in 49c5

is a synonym

[iv] cloud
subsequent

in his account
account

of water's
being how

being rarefied,
condensed, he reverses but

and

[iii]

of air's

ing that the process

result casual

is cyclical, he establishes
(Notice also

that his omissions

the

by

affirm

are the
order of

earth and stones in his first mention

exposition.

of them.)

21. According toHippolytus "from air cloud is produced by felting [Kara tt\v Tu\r|aiv]" (Ref. 1.7.3) and the stars "turn around the earth like a fell cap [to ttiXiov]" (ibid., 6), a striking simile.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEW LOOK AT ANAXIMENES

22. conflicts I leave with it as other an exercise to the reader For to see how himself, this account see

17

55d ff. assigning one kind of triangle to earth and another to the other three canonical (Empedoclean) elements, with the result (56d) that earth
cannot change into any other sees element. as Hence

pre-Socratic

theories.

Plato

Tim,.

accepts
his rect

neither

the account

of change nor the list of elements

them helpful for understanding

in propria

persona the

Plato

found in
cor

passage, account;

he though see below.

23. See A. E. Taylor (1975, p. 80, n. 22).

(1928) and F. M.

Cornford

(1937) ad he,

Vlastos and

24. Compare Xenophanes scholium on Aratus 515.27, 25. Barnes 26. According
hence eclipses

B32 with the texts of Aetius collected in Anaximenes A18. pp. 41-42).
sun

3.5.10

(1979/1982,

to Theophrastus

as reported by Aetius
comes of from burning vapors the moist

at 2.20.3 = A40;
clouds." that Solar provide

the [says] "Xenophanes a seem to result from

fuel for the sun: Aetius

2.24.9 = A41a, with Bicknell

failure

1967.

27. On the other hand I do not wish to be as skeptical as Lloyd (1966, that Xenophanes p. 81) when he says that "It seems quite improbable
had either a very

when he
28.

precise

or

a very

elaborate

physical

theory

in mind

[stated B29]."
some sort

TTpnaTfip: "soul"

teorology 369al0-12,
with in place

371al5-17.
of "fire."

of fiery manifestation

of storms:

Aristotle

Me

For the three-fold scheme, compare B36,

29. B76 puts several versions

element scheme

air in the series with fire, water, and earth, but the of this fragments are likely to be infected by the four
of Empedocles, accepted as standard from classical times

on. Kahn
remains fold

(1979, pp.
be

153-155)
on an other

gives
grounds.

some reasons
As Kahn that allows

for accepting
Heraclitus' for expansion.

air, but
three

suspicious scheme may

notes,

abbreviated

one

30. Taran (1965, p. 109) is at pains to deny that any particular theory as the is in question. Coxon (1986, p. 18 et ad loc.) sees Anaximenes in B8. Guthrie target in B4, B6, and B7, but says nothing of the passages
(1965, p. 33) sees Anaximenes as one of several possible targets.

on Aristotle's Physics 31. See Simplicius Commentary where Simplicius feels entitled to extend the mechanisms
There losophers. was consistent has in been some the question mechanisms about whether only ascribing

149.28-150.4, to other phi

(see

Theophrastus to Anaximenes

McDiarmid dealt with

1953, p. 143, n. 72), but it seems to me in terms of explicit vs. tacit ascription. B9, B12, B13, B17 with Stokes

the problem

can be

32. Anaxagoras

(1971, pp. 45-46). died Anaximenes was born in the

33. Diogenes Laertius 2.6. According to Apollodorus, in the 63rd Olympiad (528-525 b.c.) while Anaxagoras 70th (500-497 b.c.) (D.L. 2.3, 2.7).

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

18

HISTORY

OF PHILOSOPHY

QUARTERLY

34. Thus Xenophanes in Aetius 2.13.14 = A38, 2.20.3 = A40, 2.24.9 = n. 21 above); Heraclitus in Aetius 2.28.6 = A12 with B6; cf. A41a (see 3 On work influenced via Breaths (a by Anaximenes [Hippocrates] stars the of "But of is the and sun, moon, Diogenes path Apollonia): is the fuel wind for fire: fire the of air, wind; through deprived [Tpo^rj]
could 35. not See survive." above, n. 10.

36. In fact, I think it is colored by a Heraclitean perspective. But that, at least, is a perspective different from the one held by the Peripatetics. 37. W?hrle himself questions Material Monism, esp. pp. 22-23, but his argument is vitiated in part by its reliance on a flawed rejection of the Theory of Change. 38. That of Kahn (1960, 166ff.). B4, did in the realm of medical 2 = A10.
in what . . . said seems boundless to me air a close is the

39. As evidently Alcmaeon, 40. Ps.-Plutarch

4L A term that Anaximenes:

theory.

Stromateis
appears

paraphrase source,

of from

"Anaximenes

which the things that are and were and will be and gods and divinities come to be, the rest from the offspring of these" (Hippolytus Refutation
1.7.1).

as reacting to a 42. Tannery (1887/1930, chap. 9) saw the Eleatics pluralistic Pythagorean theory; his view influenced many scholars for
generation, including Burnet, Cornford, and Raven.

43. A point grasped by Gigon (1968, p. 104), speaking of Anaximenes: "Der Eine Ursprung verwandelt sich in Alles und der unendliche Prozess der Verd?nnung und Verdichtung steht dem Begriff des reinen Werdens
schon

des endlosen Wandels entscheidenden Punkt 44. I exclude

Parmenides pp. 133 65-66), views a is a monist, numerical

ganz

nahe.

. . .Anaximenes

der sichtbaren Dinge und wird darum der Hauptgegner des Parmenides." the Eleatics.
Curd's though Zeno more that or, to use precise is now an

gibt

als

Erster

die

konkrete

Anschauung

in einem

from consideration
monist,

I am inclined
terminology controversial

to believe
(1998, (see

contra, Barnes,
him seem as

1979a,
a

and Curd, pp. 66 ft; Mourelatos

is at most

1970, pp.
anti-pluralist, sense,

132

Melissus
One do

is most
not

likely a numerical
to be material

"nondualist").

and

monist. But his One and Parmenides'

straightforward nor identi

fiable with any element or stuff in the world; see Melissus B9 with Vlastos (1953, pp. 34-35). McDiarmid (1953, pp. 102-106) notices the close con nections Anaximenes and Diogenes between in Aristotle and on but focuses he the differences between Diogenes' and Theophrastus;
Aristotle's theories: "the air

in any

strate than is that of Anaximenes" not fully articulated in Aristotelian

of Diogenes

is no more

an Aristotelian

sub

air is (p. 105). Yet even if Diogenes' terms, it is a single material reality.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NEW LOOK AT ANAXIMENES

45. There Anaximenes
On Anaximander

19
introduces 984a5-7.

is at least a trace of this in the way Aristotle in the same breath, Metaphysics and Diogenes
as perhaps a pluralist, see n. 3 above.

at the of Classics 46. I read a version of this paper to the Department an Con at XI the version and Dec. of 14, 2001, Toronto, early University 2001. Mexico de of the Asociaci?n 15, M?xico, City, Aug. gress Filos?fica in both presentations. I am grateful for helpful discussion

REFERENCES
Cyril. Bailey, Clarendon 1928. Press. The Greek Atomists and Epicurus. Oxford:

The Early Greek Philosophers. 1979/1982. Jonathan. Barnes, Paul. & edn. London: Revised Routledge Kegan Archiv the Eleatic and One." "Parmenides _1979a. f?r vol. 61, pp. 1-21. der Philosophie, Geschichte Bicknell, ?ranos, Peter vol. of Solar Eclipses." Account "Xenophanes' 65, pp. 73-77. 4th edn. Lon Greek Philosophy. 1892/1930. Early J. 1967. Charles Black. Criticism Johns Hopkins "Anaximander of Change?" Cosmology. Phi of Presocratic Press. University and Anaximenes: Phronesis, London: vol. 1935. Aristotle's

John. Burnet, & don: Adam Cherniss,

Harold.

The losophy. Baltimore: 1977. C. Joachim. Classen, Theories Earliest Greek 89-102. Cornford, F. M. Paul. 1986. The 1937. Plato's

The

22, pp. & Van

Routledge Assen:

Kegan A. H. Coxon,
Gorcum.

Fragments

of Parmenides.

N.J.: 1998. The Legacy Princeton, of Parmenides. Curd, Patricia. Press. Princeton University der Kranz. 1951. Die Fragmente and Walther Hermann, Diels, 6th edn. Berlin: Weidmann, 3 vols. Vorsokratiker. der griechischen 1968. Der Ursprung Olof. Philosophie. Gigon, 2nd edn. Basel: K. Schwabe 1962. & Co. Guthne, W. C. of Greek Press. University Greek of Philosophy. Press. A History Philosophy. Vol. Vol. 1.

Cambridge: _1965. Cambridge

Cambridge A History University

2. Cambridge:

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

20
Heidel, W.

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY
A. 1906. "Qualitative f?r Geschichte 1953.

QUARTERLY

phy." 333-379. H?lscher,

Archiv Uvo.

in Presocratic Philoso Change der Philosophie, vol. 19, pp. und

"Anaximander vol. The

Hermes, Philosophie." Edward. 1972. Hussey, Kahn, Charles H. New The Cosmology. _1979. York: Art

die Anf?nge der 358-418. 81, pp. 257-277, London: Presocratics. Duckworth. the Origins Press. University of Heraclitus. and of Greek

1960. Anaximander Columbia Thought Press. and

Cambridge:

Cambridge University and M. Schofield. 1983. The Presocratic Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Press. Philosophers. University Cambridge Joachim. 1966. "Das Entstehen der Begriffe Substanz Klowski, und Materie."
pp. 2-42.

Archiv

f?r Geschichte

der Philosophie, als

vol. Substanz

48,

_1972. Konzipiert?" G. E. Lloyd,

"Ist der Aer

des Anaximenes

eine

bridge _. 1970. York:

vol. 100, pp. 131-142. Hermes, R. 1966. Polarity and Analogy. Cambridge: Press. University Greek Early Norton. Science: and Thaies to Aristotle. Cambridge: and

Cam New Cam

W. W.

Reason _1979. Magic, Press. bridge University John B. 1953. McDiarmid, Harvard Causes." Studies 85-156. Jerome. Moran, of Anaximenes." Mourelatos, New Haven, Stokes, Taran, 1975.

Experience.

"Theophrastus in Classical

the Presocratic vol. 61, pp.

Philology,

of Earth "The Priority in the Cosmogony vol. 9, pp. 17-19. Apeiron, P. D. Alexander 1970. The Route of Parmenides. Conn.: C. 1971. 1965. University One and Many Center for Hellenic Parmenides. Yale Press. in Presocratic Studies. N.J.: Timaeus. Princeton Oxford: Philoso

Michael

phy. Washington: Leonardo. Press. 1928. Press.

Princeton, on Plato's

University A. E. Taylor, Clarendon

A Commentary

1953. Review of J. E. Raven, Vlastos, Gregory. Pythagoreans and Eleatics. vol. 25, pp. 29-35. Gnomon, Universe. _1975. Plato's Seattle: of Wash University ington Press. 1993. Anaximenes Franz aus Milet: Steiner Die Fragmente zu Stuttgart: Verlag. W?hrle, Georg. seiner Lehre.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions