Philosophy On The Nile Herodotus and Ionian Research

De Gruyter
Philosophy on the Nile: Herodotus and Ionian Research

Author(s): Daniel W. Graham
Source: Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, Vol. 36, No. 4 (December
2003), pp. 291-310
Published by: De Gruyter
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40913950 .
Accessed: 28/06/2013 03:43
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.
.
De Gruyter is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Apeiron: A Journal for
Ancient Philosophy and Science.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 194.214.161.15 on Fri, 28 Jun 2013 03:43:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Philosophy
on the Nile:
Herodotus and Ionian Research
Daniel W. Graham
In the mid-fifth
century
BC a
young
Greek tourist made a
voyage up
the
Nile. Armed with the latest
ideas,
gifted
with a keen
eye
and a
prodigious
memory,
and
perhaps
animated
by
the
hope
of
writing
an
engaging
travelogue,
he
sought
to learn the sources of the Nile and the causes of
the river's
strange
behavior. His
experiences
and
explanations
have
gone
down in the annals of
history,
for the tourist won
everlasting
fame as the
father of
history.
Herodotus should be
interesting
to us because he was
not
just
a
chronicler,
but a researcher well-versed in the
philosophy
and
science of his time.1
We can tell from allusions of dramatists that Presocratic
thought
had
an
impact
on the intellectual
community
of Herodotus' time.2 But even
when we consider their reactions with the
fragments
of the
philosophers
1 His own terms for research
point
us to the office of a
histor,
a
judge
or arbitrator
(a
term he does not
explicitly apply
to
himself):
'The
patterns
of arbitration associated
with the word
iGicop provide
a
powerful metaphor
for intellectual activities includ-
ing
the
rigorous
examination of
evidence,
choosing
between
conflicting
claims and
versions,
assessing responsibility,
and the
consequent building
of a consensus
within a
community' (Connor [1993], 9;
for
etymology
see
Floyd [1990]). '[Herodo-
tus]
has
applied
to historical
problems
the latest methods of other branches of
inquiry, making
at the same time his own contribution to their
development'
(Fowler [1996], 86).
2
Aeschylus, Sophocles
and
Euripides
all seem to have
repeated Anaxagoras'
account
of the Nile floods: Sen
Q
Nat 4a.2.17
=
DK
59a91;
A fr 300
N,
Supp
497, 561;
S fr
797;
E Hei 1-3 and fr 228.
APEIRON a
journal
for ancient
philosophy
and science
0003-6390/2003/3604 291-310 $15.00 Academic
Printing
&
Publishing
292 Daniel W. Graham
themselves,
we
get
no clear
picture
of how thinkers
responded
to each
other.3 It is
precisely
here that Herodotus' observations can
help
us
out,
as he
plays
the
philosopher/scientist. Although
one now venerable
logic
textbook notes that 'the
procedure
he followed in
rejecting
some
hy-
potheses
and
accepting
others is still a model of scientific
method,'4
his
researches on the Nile have excited
only slight
interest
among
historians,
and less
among philosophers,
historians of science or historians of ideas.5
In this
paper
I wish to
(I)
examine Herodotus' treatment of theories
concerning
the Nile
floods, (II)
show how in
responding
to them Hero-
dotus reveals the
importance
of these
theories,
and
(III) argue
that we
can
glimpse
in Herodotus the
application
of methods that dominate later
philosophy.6
I
In his discussion of
Egypt,
Herodotus introduces a
problem
of how to
explain
a
phenomenon unique
to that land:
(20)
Some of the Greeks who have wished to advertise their wisdom
have
expounded
three
approaches
[hodoi]
concerning
this water
[sc.
the
Nile
floods],
two of which I do not think worth
commenting
on
except
only
to relate them. The first
says
the etesian winds7 cause the river to
3 Heraclitus is
atypical
in
reacting
to his
predecessors
and
contemporaries by
name
and with invective. There are a number of allusions of one Presocratic to another.
But in none of the
surviving
material do we find one
philosopher providing
detailed
evaluation or criticism of another.
4 Cohen and
Nagel (1934), 201;
cf.
197-204,
where it is used
precisely
as a model of
scientific
inquiry.
This
notice, however,
in an
introductory
work,
does not involve
a historical
study
of the theories themselves.
5 For
instance,
the
passage
is not discussed at all in
Brunschwig
and
Lloyd (2000),
which does
pay
attention to Herodotus
(but
see
p. 29).
G.E.R.
Lloyd (1979), 29-30,
53 n
224,
171 n
231,
253 n 18 cites the
passage
in connection with other
investigations
but does not discuss it at
length.
It is
ignored
in Hankinson
(1998).
6 There is a
general methodological
discussion of Herodotus in relation to the
Presocratics in A.B.
Lloyd (1975),
156-70.
7 The 'annual' winds
blowing
from the north in the summer in the Mediterranean:
Aristotle
Meteorology
361b35 ff .
Philosophy
on the Nile 293
rise
by hindering
the Nile from
emptying
into the sea. Yet oftentimes
the etesian winds have failed to
blow,
but the Nile flooded all the same.
Further,
if the etesian winds were the
cause,
all the other rivers that
flow in a direction
contrary
to the winds would
experience
the same
effects as the Nile for the same
reason,
and all the more so in
proportion
to their weaker
currents,
since
they
are smaller rivers. Yet there are
many
rivers in
Syria,
and
many
in Africa that
experience
no such effects
as the Nile.
(21)
The second
approach
is more unscientific than the aforemen-
tioned,
and more fantastic to relate.
According
to
it,
a current from
Ocean,
which is
supposed
to flow around the
earth,
brings
this about.
(22)
The third
approach,
which is
by
far the most
plausible-sound-
ing,
is in fact the most
wrong-headed.
For it too is
mistaken,
claiming
the
Nile,
which flows in Africa
through
the middle of
Ethiopia,
and
ends
up
in
Egypt, originates
from melted snow.
(Histories II)8
To Herodotus and the
Greeks,
the Nile floods are anomalous because
they
occur in summer rather than in
winter,
when Greek rivers run
high
owing
to winter rains.9 Winter is also the
rainy
season in
Egypt, affecting
virtually
all other
rivers,
yet leaving
the Nile unaffected.10 Herodotus
quickly
identifies three theories
purporting
to
explain
the
anomaly,
with
the intention of
dwelling only
on the last
one,
the one that is
prima
facie
most
plausible,
but
ultimately,
as he lets us know at the
outset,
indefen-
sible. These theories manifest a number of features well known from
early philosophical inquiries.
First,
they
are all theories
deriving
from
Greek thinkers
speculating
about a
recurring
event that is both
puzzling
and
amazing,
a ihauma or marvel. Herodotus nowhere tells us who the
respective
authors
are,
but we can determine them from other ancient
sources. The
theory
about the etesian winds comes from
Thaes,
the
theory
about Ocean currents from
Hecataeus,
and the
theory
about
8 This and all other translations
my
own unless otherwise noted.
9 Hdt 2.19: the Nile acts in a manner
opposite
to other rivers. In the words of
Lucan,
leges
aliarum nescit
aquarum,
de Bello Civili 10.228.
10 In fact the Nile travels its last 2000 kms. without
receiving hardly drop
of water from
local runoff: Bonneau
(1964),
12. Rain water falls in a
significant
amount
only
from
Cairo
north, ibid.,
16 and n 4.
294 Daniel W.Graham
melting
snow from
Anaxagoras.11 Evidently
these Greek thinkers were
attempting
to
explain
unusual
phenomena
not
only
from their own
regions,
but from
places
at the limits of their
world,
from the sixth
century
BC on.
Second,
the theories are all
naturalistic,
presupposing
some sort of
natural,
rather than
supernatural,
causes,
which will ulti-
mately
remove the event under discussion from the realm of the marvel-
ous to the realm of the mundane.
Third,
there are
already, by
sometime
in
perhaps
the mid-fifth
century
BC,
three
competing
theories about the
same
phenomenon, indicating
an
ongoing
interest in the
phenomenon,
a tradition of
inquiry.12
These
points
are
typical
manifestations of
early
Greek
philosophizing.
In the sixth and fifth centuries certain Greek intellectuals undertook to
give
naturalistic
explanations
of
phenomena, including
what had hith-
erto been
regarded
as
prodigious
or ominous events.
Originating
with
Thaes
(as
far as we
know),
the
leading early practitioners
of this method
were
Ionians,
and so we
may
call the debate
they
started the Ionian
tradition. Each seems to be aware of theories of his
predecessors,
and to
repeat,
elaborate,
or
replace
those theories. There
is, then,
some sort of
ongoing
conversation about the natural world
among
the natural
phi-
losophers.
But what we never see in the
fragments
of
philosophers
is
how the conversation
proceeds,
and,
more
specifically,
how in detail one
thinker reacts to another.
It is instructive to see how Herodotus continues:
(22.2)
Now how could
[the Nile]
flow from
snow,
going
from the hottest
places
to
places
most of which are cooler?
In
support
of his
point
he
gives
several considerations:
(1)
winds from
the south of
Egypt
are
hot; (2) (a)
the
region
is
sunny
and devoid of
ice;
11 Thaes: Sen
Q
Nat
4a.2.22,
Aetius
4.1.1;
Hecataeus:
fragment
F302
Jacoby
with
Lloyd
(1976), 100;
Anaxagoras: Hippol
Haer 1.8.5
=
DK
59A42,
At
1.4.3,
Sen
Q
Nat 4a.2.17
=
A91.
12 We cannot date Herodotus
exactly,
but he is
generally thought
to have written
around the mid-fifth
century. (Lloyd [1975],
61-8
puts
his visit between 459 and
430,
and more
likely
after
449.)
From the
standpoint
of theories of the Nile
floods,
we
can
roughly
confirm the
dating:
Herodotus knows
Anaxagoras' theory
of the Nile
floods,
but not those of
Diogenes
of
Apollonia (Sen Q
Nat 4a.2.28-30
=
A18)
and
Democritus
(D
S
1.39.1-3). Meanwhile,
Aristophanes
alludes to Herodotus7
theory
in the Clouds
(line 273),
a work
performed
in 423.
Philosophy
on the Nile 295
(b)
when it snows it
always
rains within five
days,
which does not
happen
in
Egypt; (3)
humans in southern Africa are burned black
by
the
sun's hot
rays; (4)
birds such as cranes and swallows do not
migrate
from
there,
as
they
do from cold countries. All of these considerations
prove
that there is no snow inland in Africa. More
important, they
show that
Herodotus is
practicing
Ionian
histori,
drawing
on
observations,
local
information,
and 'obvious' inferences to evaluate theories.
Previously,
Herodotus was unable to resist
criticizing
the etesian
winds
theory
when he introduced
it,
though
he had
promised only
to
mention
it;
now he cannot resist an attack on the Ocean current
theory.
This
theory
does not admit of refutation
(ouk
echei
elenchon)
because no
one has never encountered
any
such
body
of water. As far as Herodotus
can
tell, Ocean,
the stream that circles the disk of the earth in Homer and
Hesiod,
is
pure myth.
Herodotus
regards
the whole
geographical
frame-
work of his
age
as
suspect:
there is no assurance that the world is
apportioned
into three continents
symmetrically arranged
around the
Mediterranean sea and surrounded
by
Ocean.13 Thus
any theory
founded
upon
these untested
assumptions
is
insupportable.
In fact the
Ocean
theory
was destined to find some sort of
empirical
vindication
from
early explorers.14
13 Hdt
4.36.1,
4.42.1
14 The
discovery
that there was an ocean
surrounding
Africa could lend
support
to
Hecataeus'
theory.
The
early explorer Euthymenes
of Massalia
(as early
as 530 BC:
cf.
Jacoby
[1909],
Cary
and
Warmington [1929], 46,
but date
uncertain)
seems to have
combined the theories of the etesian winds and a source in Ocean when he observed
the mouth of a river on the Atlantic coast of Africa
(the Senegal?). Assuming
the
river to be the Nile because of its
having
flora and fauna similar to the river in
Egypt,
he claimed it
emptied
into the sea
violently
while the etesian winds were
blowing
(in
the
Mediterranean)
and was calm when
they
ceased to blow
(Sen Q
Nat
4A.2.22).
(This
need not be a 'wild fable' as Thomson
[1965],
77
suggests,
since a
Portuguese
explorer
made the same inference in the fifteenth
century
AD:
Carpenter [1966],
102.)
In the late fourth
century
BC
Pytheas
of
Massalia,
who 'must rank as one of
the world's
greatest explorers' (Dicks [1960], 179) despite
criticisms from Strabo and
others,
sailed
up
the Atlantic coast of
Europe
and reached Great Britain
(see
Roseman
[1994],
Cunliffe
[2001]).
Dicaearchus later defended the
theory deriving
the Nile floods from Ocean
(Lydus
Mens
4.160). Keyser (2001),
368-9
points
out that
he
may
think Ocean is more elevated than the
Mediterranean,
so that water from it
flows downward. Homer // 21.195-7 views Ocean as the source of all rivers.
296 Daniel W.Graham
Herodotus could with some
justification
declare the
subject
of inves-
tigation beyond
the
capacity
of mortal
understanding;
he could
go
so far
as to declare the
very attempt
to
explain
the
origin
of the floods
blasphe-
mous or hubristic.
Instead,
he
immediately
enters into the conversation.
It
quickly
becomes evident that he shares
many assumptions
with the
theorists whose work he is
criticizing.
There is some
recurring phenome-
non to be
explained
here;
it is to be
explained
in naturalistic
terms,
and
in
light
of other
explanations.
The
present
theories fail not because
they
are irrelevant or
patently
absurd,
but because
they fly
in the face of
empirical
facts which tend to disconfirm them
(in
the case of two
theories),
or
they
make
extravagant assumptions unnecessarily.
If the
etesian winds caused the Nile
floods,
all rivers with certain orientations
should
experience
the same
effects;
and if the winds failed to blow at the
appointed
time,
the floods should fail to materialize. Neither of these
results is seen to occur.15 If the floods resulted from
melting
snows,
there
should be evidence of cold conditions and
precipitation
in southern
Africa. There is
not;
hence there is no reason to
accept
the
explanation.16
The criticisms are astute: Herodotus looks for data to confirm or discon-
firm the
explanations
and finds
they
tend to disconfirm them.
Indeed,
he
tacitly
uses the
techniques
familiar to us from modern scientific
method: if we
vary
the factor that
by hypothesis
is the cause
(the
etesian
winds do not
blow),
we should see a variation in effect
(no flooding).
If
we examine the class of all
relevantly
similar rivers
(those flowing
contrary
to the etesian
winds),
we should see the same effects at the same
time. The observations are inconsistent with the
hypothesis.
But Herodotus is not
through:
he
coyly
offers to
give
his own
expla-
nation.
(24)
Since it behooves a critic of the
present
views to
give
his own
view
concerning
the hidden
causes,
I shall
give my
view as to
why
the
Nile floods in summer. In wintertime the sun is driven from its
previous
course
by
storms so that it comes to the
upper regions
of Africa. To
put
15 The view is still considered
plausible by
Lucretius, 6.714-23,
and
by Pliny,
HN
5.10.55.
16 In
fact,
there is
precipitation
in the form of both rain and snow in central
Africa;
the
Nile does
originate
from
melting
snows,
though they
do not contribute to the flood
conditions: Bonneau
(1964),
15.
Philosophy
on the Nile 297
it
briefly,
this
explains everything:
it stands to reason that whichever
region
is nearest the
god,
and whichever lies under
him,
will be
thirsty
for
water,
and the local streams will
dry up.
(25)
To
explain
in more
detail,
traveling through upper
Africa the
sun has this effect: because the air in these countries is
continually
clear
and the
region
is hot and devoid17 of cool
winds,
the sun has the same
effect it
usually
does in summer as it travels
through
the midst of the
sky.
It draws water to itself and then
disperses
it to the
upper regions,
where the winds
pick
it
up
and dissolve it
by scattering.
And
appropri-
ately
there are winds that blow from this
region,
the south and the
southwest
winds,
which are
by
far the most
rainy
winds of all. I believe
that the sun does not
disperse
all the annual water from the Nile
every
time,
but it retains some of it around itself.
When winter
abates,
the sun returns to the middle of the
sky,
and
from there it draws water from all the rivers alike. As
long
as much
rainwater is mixed with
them,
the rivers flow
plentifully,
because the
rainwater of the
region
runs off into them in
torrents;
but when the
rains
stop
in summer and
they
are drawn
by
the
sun,
the rivers shrink.
Since, however,
the Nile does not receive
rainwater,
when it is drawn
by
the
sun,
it alone of rivers
during
this season
naturally
flows much
more
weakly
than it does in summer. For at that time its waters are
equally
drawn
along
with all the
others,
but it alone is drained in
winter. Thus I consider the sun to be the cause of these events.
Despite
his
professed
scorn for theories of the Nile's
floods,
Herodo-
tus shows himself to be
keenly
interested in the
question.
The
problem
presents
a contest which he wishes to enter and to win. Yet his own
explanation
seems at least as
problematic
as those of his
predecessors.
He takes the
explanandum
to be not the
rising
of the Nile in
summer,
but its fall in winter. This is an
original suggestion,
but it does not seem
helpful by
itself. As Diodorus Siculus would later
object, why
do not the
other rivers of Africa also feel the effects of the winter sun?18 This seems
to
pose precisely
the kind of
problem
for Herodotus that Herodotus
poses
for the theorists he criticizes:
why
do the same causes not have the
same effects in all cases? Herodotus'
apparent
answer is that the other
17
Adding
aveu with
Madvig.
18
1.38.8-12;
cf. Aristid
Egyptian
Discourse 341.21 ff.
Jebb.
298 Daniel W.Graham
rivers are fed
by
rainwater in the
winter,
which cancels the effects of the
sun's
evaporation.
In the
summer,
by
contrast,
the sun's effects are seen
on local rivers because
they
are not fed
by
runoff. This
explains
the
strength
of the Nile in the summer relative to other
rivers,
but it does not
account for the
strength
of the Nile relative to
itself}9
If the sun is
directly
over the Nile in summer but not in
winter,
it should cause more
evapo-
ration in summer than in
winter,
and hence should cause the Nile to be
lower
(assuming
a constant flow from its
source). If,
on the other
hand,
the sun is
directly
over the southern stretch of the Nile in winter as it is
over the northern stretch in
summer,
the
evaporation
should be
roughly
constant
throughout
the
year.
There
is, however,
a
way
of
making good
sense of Herodotus'
argu-
ment,
in two
steps.
First,
we must
adopt
one
reading
of the text that
helps
make some sense of the situation. When Herodotus
says,
in the
penulti-
mate sentence of the
passage
cited,
that the Nile 'alone is drained in
winter',
he means to
imply,
not
that,
although
all the rivers of the
region
are drawn
equally, only
the Nile is drained
owing
to the lack of
runoff,
but that because at that time the rivers are not
'equally
drawn',
only
the
Nile
experiences significant evaporation.20
That is to
say,
in the winter
the other rivers are not drawn
by
the sun at all or
hardly
at
all,
while the
Nile is
strongly
drawn. This situation could
happen
in
part
because the
other rivers are shorter than the Nile and do not extend south to the
place
where the sun resides in winter. This
reading
seems to be confirmed
by
Herodotus' statement in the last
paragraph quoted
above that 'when the
rains
stop
in summer and
they
[the
rivers other than the
Nile]
are drawn
by
the sun
[sc.
as
they
were not in
winter],
the rivers shrink.' When the
sun crosses the
sky
far to the south of the local
rivers,
it has little or no
effect on them.
Yet,
as we have
seen,
this
by
itself would not be
enough:
the Nile would have to be more
strongly
drawn in winter than in summer
to account for its
being
lower in winter. But how could that be?
The second
step
is to
supply
some sort of reason for the increased
evaporation
of the Nile in winter. A.B.
Lloyd (1976, 106)
takes it that the
first sentence of ch. 25 is meant to indicate that conditions are ideal in
19 /rThis
[Herodotus'] suggestion might
serve as a
possible explanation
of the
lowering
of the water in
winter,
but it leaves untouched the
question
of its overflow in
summer'
(Tozer [1964], 63).
20 Cf. How and Wells
(1912),
170-1.
Philosophy
on the Nile 299
upper
Africa for increased
evaporation
in winter. But the sentence seems
rather to
point
to the fact that
evaporation
takes
place
in winter
just
as it
does in
Egypt
in
summer,
having
not a
greater
but 'the same effect'. Otto
Gilbert
(1907),
442 n
1,
focusing
on the second sentence of the
chapter,
claims that when the sun moves north it
gives up
the water it has
gathered
in
winter,
which falls as rains to swell the Nile. But Herodotus
says explicitly
that 'the Nile does not receive rainwater'
(25).
This
might
mean that it does not receive rainwater in
winter,
but Herodotus does
not make that restriction
explicitly.21
Herodotus does not
give any
un-
ambiguous
reason in the text to account for the
greater evaporation
of
the Nile in winter than in
summer,
and commentators have failed to find
an
adequate
account in it.22 It
would,
of
course,
be ideal to find the reason
in the
text;
but
lacking
that we must look for a
background theory
that
would make sense of the different rate of
evaporation.
Such a
theory
can be found in Herodotus'
geography. According
to
his
theory
about the source of the
Nile,
the river rises in western Africa
opposite
the sources of the Danube in
Europe
and flows across the
southern continent eastward like its
European counterpart.23
Thus for
most of its
length
it lies
directly
below the sun at its southern station.24
A short river would not lie
directly
under the
sun,
and a
long
river that
ran
mainly
south to north would lie under it
only
it for a
relatively
short
period
of time
(and
thus if the Nile were such a river it would be little
affected);
but a river
running along
an east-west axis under the
path
of
the winter sun would be
exposed
to its heat
constantly throughout
the
winter.
Thus,
in accordance with Herodotus'
geography, astronomy,
and
physical theory,
because of its
unique disposition,
the Nile should
21 Cf. Weidemann
(1890),
110.
22 Weidemann
(1890), 110-11,
Bonneau
(1964),
188-93 can make
nothing
of Herodotus'
theory.
23 Hdt 2.31-4. Herodotus bases his view on a
report
of some
Cyrenians
that Etearchus
king
of the Ammonians had learned of a river like the Nile from the tribe of
Nasamonians
(chs. 32-3);
thus it is not mere invention on his
part,
but it does seem
heavily
influenced
by
a schematic view of
geography
such as he
professes
to
distrust. Herodotus
may
be
confusing reports
of the
Niger
river with the Nile: Plin
HN 8.77 with
Hyde (1947),
278-9.
24
'Obviously
the Nile was
regarded [by
Herodotus]
as on or near the winter
"tropic"
'
(Heidel [1937], 21).
indeed
give up
more
vapor
to the sun than
any
other river of the
region
in winter. It alone should
experience
a
significant
amount of
evaporation
when the sun was at its southern
tropic.
I take it that this is
precisely
what Herodotus is
implying,
however
obscurely,
in
defending
his own
explanation. During
the
summer,
when the sun crosses the
sky directly
above the other
rivers,
and over the northern stretch of the
Nile,
it draws
them and the Nile
equally.
But in winter the Nile
experiences heavy
evaporation
as the sun moves not across it as the river flows due north
but
along
its
long
axis where the river flows due east.
Only
in summer
can the normal flow of the Nile be observed as it is not
subject
to the
massive
evaporation
that it
experiences
in winter.
Of course Herodotus can
only speculate
on the
path
and extent of the
Nile;
he
misjudges
the distance of the southern
tropic,
and in
any
case
he is not aware that the earth is
spherical.
But
given
his
assumptions
and
reconstructions,
his
theory
makes sense. More
important
for us than his
success in the debate is the fact that he makes his case within the
framework of his
predecessors.
Like
them,
he assumes that there are
recurring
natural conditions sufficient to account for the
phenomenon
of the Nile floods. The motions of the sun are
governed by
winds and
atmospheric
conditions,
as is
typical
in
early
Ionian
thought.25
The sun's
heat 'draws' or
evaporates
water,
which is
dispersed by
winds,
some of
which
produce
rain. This account of the water
cycle goes
back at least to
Xenophanes.26
It is
interesting
that Herodotus refers to the sun as 'the
god', yet
he ascribes to the
deity only physical powers,
and indeed has
atmospheric
conditions control its orbit.
(Is
he
trying
to deflect
potential
criticism with the
epithet?)27
II
In a number of
ways
Herodotus is a
player
in the same
game
as the Ionian
philosophers.
He
is,
in the first
place,
himself from Halicarnassus in
Ionia,
and writes in the Ionic dialect. He is a kind of eclectic researcher
25 The earliest recorded case is the
theory
of Anaximenes:
Hippol
Haer 1.7
A,
At 2.22. 1
=
B2a.
26 B30 with Arist Meteor 1.8 and Gilbert
(1907),
402 ff .
27 Cf. Socrates in PI
Ap
26d-e.
Philosophy
on the Nile 301
like other Ionian
intellectuals,
interested in diverse
tales, events,
and
phenomena
from diverse
places.
He makes naturalistic
assumptions
like
the Ionian
philosophers:
the world consists of natural
powers
whose
actions
produce
natural events.
Although
Herodotus allows room for
supernatural
interventions,
he often minimizes them.28 And he
performs
his own researches to
try
to understand
phenomena.
He shares with us
his
attempts
to find out about the sources of the Nile:
Concerning
the sources of the
Nile,
no
Egyptian,
African,
or Greek with
whom I have conversed has claimed to
know,
with the
exception
of a
scribe of the
temple
treasures of Athena in the
city
of
Sais,
Egypt
-
but
he seemed to be
putting
me on when he claimed to have certain
knowledge. (2.28)
The scribe
says
there is a bottomless
abyss
between
Syene
and
Elephan-
tine from which waters well
up
and flow north to toward
Egypt
on the
one
side,
and south towards
Ethiopia
on the other. But Herodotus does
not believe him. 'I was not
able/
he
continues,
'to
get
information from
anyone
else,
but I
investigated
as far as I
could,
traveling personally
as
far as the
city
of
Elephantine,
and
making
verbal
inquiries
from there'
(2.29.1).
Herodotus is
consciously pursuing
scientific research as well as
geographical exploration.
Clearly
the historian is
capable
of
using
information he
gleaned
to test
theories,
such as that of Hecataeus.
Among
his other
virtues,
Herodotus
has the
integrity
to tell us when he cannot find
adequate
information,
for
instance about the sources of the Nile.
Indeed,
these were not discovered
until the nineteenth
century
AD,
when
European explorers finally
pushed deep
into what had been to them terra
incognita.29
And
only
in
modern times was it determined that the cause of the Nile floods was
28 A
couple
of
examples
are his
skepticism
about a
story
that Heracles killed tens of
thousands of men who were
trying
to sacrifice him
(kco cpoiv %z' noXkq rupita
(poveGoa;),
2.45. The
gorge
of the Peneus is said to have been made
by
Poseidon,
who causes
earthquakes;
Herodotus
tactfully grants
that it
may
have been caused
by
an
earthquake,
7.129.4. But he believes in oracles and in divine
interventions,
e.g.,
8.77. On Herodotus' attitudes to the
gods
and
religion,
see
Lloyd (1975), 159,
168-70.
29
Writing
in the first
century
AD
Pliny
the Elder describes what is known of the Nile's
course,
HN
5.10.51-4;
cf. also Str 17.1.4. Aristotle believed the source of the Nile was
in the Silver
Mountain,
Meteor 350bl2-14.
302 Daniel W.Graham
monsoon rains
falling
on
Ethiopian
Plateau and
draining
into the Blue
Nile and other tributaries.30 In
any
case,
Herodotus was
eager
to
gain
as
much
knowledge
as he
could,
short of
leaving
the civilized world on a
dangerous
safari. And he seems to have
brought
with him on the Nile a
curiosity
informed
by
his Ionian
predecessors.
One
signal
difference between Herodotus and the Ionian
philoso-
phers
seems to be the fact that he does not have a unified
theory
to
promote.
He borrows
meteorological conceptions, pursues geographi-
cal, historical,
and
ethnographic
information,and
retains at least a modi-
cum of
religious
commitment. He takes a critical stance to
meteorological
theories,
geographical reports,
and schematic
cosmography.
But he does
not have
any systematic theory
of his own to
replace
the
philosophical
theories with. It is
possible
that he would defend his own eclecticism as
the
only
rational
response, given
the fact that
empirical
information is
not
adequate
to
justify any
unified account of the
phenomena.
He
might
agree
with
Xenophanes'
dictum,
The
gods
did not from the
beginning
reveal all
things
to
mortals,
but
in time
by seeking they
find what is better.
(B18)
Herodotus is not a
systematic
thinker,
but deals with
problems
ad hoc.
His
strength
is his breadth of
knowledge
and his
pragmatism.
Grand
theories built on a
priori hypotheses
are intellectual luxuries he does not
allow himself.
We can see from Herodotus' reactions that at least some intellectuals
of the fifth
century
who did not see themselves as
philosophers
or
scientists took
philosophical-scientific
theories
seriously.
Herodotus re-
gards
the several theories of Nile
flooding
as worth
considering,
if
only
for a moment. More
importantly,
he
regards
them as
being
the
right
sorts
of
explanations
to
give
of an unusual
phenomenon. They
assume natural
events and conditions as the
only principles
relevant to
explaining
a
problematic phenomenon.
Naturalistic
explanations
fail when
they
do
30 Bonneau
(1964),
1
6-25;
the view that rains were
responsible
was held
by
Democritus
(above,
n
9),
Aristotle
(who
wrote a lost book on the Nile
floods,
frr. 246-8 Rose3
-
but
perhaps
the book is
by Theophrastus:
Steinmetz
[1964], 278-96),
Eratosthenes
(Proclus
In Tim
121.8-11),
Posidonius
(Str
2.3.3
=
F49.130-5 Edelstein-Kidd,
Cleom
1.6.31-3
=
F210.20-3
Edelstein-Kidd),
and Strabo
(17.1.5),
who
(following
Eratosthenes) regards
the view as confirmed
by
observation,
though
it is unclear
how
empirical
the observations were
(Edelstein-Kidd [1988]
ad
loc).
Philosophy
on the Nile 303
not account for
ways
in which the
putative
cause should act
(e.g.,
the
etesian winds should act
equally
on all rivers with a certain
orientation),
or
they posit
unverifiable existents
(e.g.,
Ocean),
or
they presuppose
impossible
conditions
(cold
in
upper
Africa).
But within the
general
framework of naturalistic
explanation,
the researcher can find a
plausi-
ble account that will
explain
the
phenomenon.
The
responsible
re-
searcher should
ideally
know as much as
possible
about the
pheno-
menon in
question,
and its
geographical setting; only
so can some
hypotheses
be evaluated
reasonably.
And it is
only
reasonable to
inquire
of the locals to find out what
they
know about the
phenomenon.
Within
the broad framework of the Ionian
tradition,
Herodotus
may regard
himself as
doing
the field work
necessary
to determine the
right
answers
to
questions
that cannot be
adequately
determined a
priori:
he is an
empirical
researcher
among
abstract theorists.
We find a
striking
contrast between the
curiosity
of the Greek re-
searcher and the
complacency
of the locals:
(19)
. . .
Concerning
the nature
[phusis]
of the river I was not able to
get
any
information either from the
priests
or from
anyone
else. I was
eager
to find out from them
why
the Nile comes down in a
flood,
beginning
at the summer solstice and
continuing
for a hundred
days,
and when
these
days
are
fulfilled,
the current subsides back to its former levels so
that it continues shallow the whole winter until the next summer
solstice.
Well,
concerning
these
thing
I was not able to
get any
informa-
tion from
any Egyptian,
when I
inquired
of them what
power
the Nile
has to act
by
nature in a
way opposite
to other rivers.
Like the Ionian
philosophers,
Herodotus cannot even
imagine
that this
question
is
beyond
solution. And it must have seemed
amazing
that the
learned
priests
of
Egypt
had no
knowledge
of the causes of this annual
phenomenon.31
But so it was. And so we see the difference between the
31 The
Egyptians
do have
explanations
for the
flooding
-
it is caused
by
one or other
of the
gods.
But if
they
shared these with Herodotus he did not
regard
these as
genuine explanations: Lloyd (1976),
94-5. The
Egyptians may
have seen Ocean as a
source of the
Nile,
and
may
have
recognized
in
mythical
terms a correlation between
the etesian winds as the floods
(Bonneau [1964], 143-5, 151-2),
but it does not follow
that
they
could translate these
conceptions
into a rational account that would
satisfy
Herodotus. Lucan
puts
a
long
discourse on the sources of the Nile in the mouth of
an
Egyptian priest,
who,
in
good
Ionian
fashion,
addresses and refutes the views
304 Daniel W.Graham
Greeks and their
Egyptian neighbors,
and between Ionian
curiosity
and
traditional lore.
Ill
Herodotus' discussion is
interesting
not
only
as
depicting
his own
involvement in naturalistic
inquiries,
but as
foreshadowing
later meth-
ods. The
inquiry proper begins
with a statement of other
people's
views
on the Nile floods. These are indeed Greek
views,
which the native
Egyptian populace, including
the learned
priests,
are innocent of.
By
Herodotus' time there are
already
three
competing
theories
by
the
Greeks of an unusual
Egyptian phenomenon.
Herodotus thinks the
Egyptians
could and
presumably
should have
something
to
say
about
the
phenomenon,
but
they
do not. He enters the discussion
by engaging
previous
Greek theories.
Already
in the mid-fifth
century
BC we have
something comparable
to a modern
piece
of research: the
investigator surveys
the
literature,
identifies three
hypotheses
that
purport
to account for the
problematic
phenomenon.
He then
proceeds
to criticize
them,
showing
that all of
them fail to account for the conditions and circumstances relevant to the
phenomenon. Finally
he
proposes
his own
alternative,
which he claims
avoids the
failings
of other theories and
adequately
accounts for the
phenomenon.
The theories of Presocratic
philosophy
have
long
been known from a
secondary
tradition of transmission known as
doxography.
As Hermann
Diels
pointed
out in his
groundbreaking study
(1879),
this tradition
goes
back to the work of Aristotle's
colleague Theophrastus,
whose multi-vol-
ume
study
of
physical
theories became the basis of all later
scholarship.
Indeed,
it was
summarized,
epitomized,
and
passed
on in abbreviated
forms which served as textbooks for later students.
Theophrastus
was
heavily
indebted to Aristotle for his
understanding
of the
early
thinkers,
presented by
Herodotus
(10.219-27
on the
melting
snows as a cause of the
floods,
lines 239-47 vs. the etesian
winds,
lines 255-61 on
Ocean)
in a
speech
to
Julius
Caesar.
In
light
of Herodotus'
experience
this
speech
is
ironic,
but it is not
anachronistic,
given
the almost three centuries of Hellenistic influence on
Egypt by
Caesar's time.
Philosophy
on the Nile 305
and he is sometimes
excessively dependent
on him.32 Recent
studies,
however,
have
pointed
out that there are hints of
doxographies
even
earlier than that of
Theophrastus.
Schematic accounts of
early
thinkers
are found in Plato and
Aristotle,
suggesting
an earlier
organization
of
thinkers,
perhaps originating
in the
sophist Hippias.33
In Herodotus we see a historian
collecting opinions
or theories on
a
phenomenon
that had
already
become a
topic
of debate. To be sure
Herodotus is not
trying
to
generate
a
doxography,
for he does not even
mention the names of the theorists who have offered
explanations
of
the floods. He
suggests
that even the fact that
they
offer
opinions
on
the
subject
is a
sign
of excessive ambition. Yet
clearly
it is the existence
of
competing
theories on a celebrated
physical problem
that
provides
the occasion for his own
disquisition,
and it allows him the
opportunity
to add to his own
repute by outdoing
his
predecessors.
Whatever
resentment the historian
may
feel towards the
tradition,
he is
depend-
ent on it for the
problem
and the occasion to advance his own solution.
A certain kind of
very
basic
doxography
is an inevitable
by-product
of the whole
procedure.
Herodotus'
doxography
is minimal because
it is
anonymous:
he does not share with us the names of the
theorists;
and it
is,
so far as we can
see,
ad hoc: unlike the formal
doxographies
of later
antiquity,
there is no
sign
that Herodotus has inherited or
created a
systematic
list of famous
opinions
about
important topics.
Yet from this
very
modest encounter between the scholar and his
materials,
we can see how
systematic
collections could arise from
compilations
of individual
problems. Ultimately,
the
Theophrastean
doxography
is but a
string
of
problems
of natural
explanation,
become
topoi, together
with the
proposals
advanced to solve them.
Indeed,
the
tradition abbreviates the theories until
they
are
only opinions
taken
out of their theoretical context in a kind of
smorgasbord
of views that
one could use either to
provide
foils for a new
interpretation,
or at
worst,
signs
of erudition.
The first
stage
of Herodotus'
inquiry
is
collecting
views,
including
learned
views,
to account for the
phenomenon.
These views are what
32 See McDiarmid
(1953).
33 Snell
(1944/1966)
was the first to
recognize Hippias
as
making
the first efforts in the
direction of a
history
of
philosophy,
seconded
by
Classen
(1965).
See Mansfeld
(1990), 22-83,
126-46.
306 Daniel W.Graham
Aristotle later calls
endoxa,
reputable
views.34 The next
step
is to refute
all the false
views,
an elenchus. As we have
seen,
he carries out this
portion
of the
argument ably.
He
challenges assumptions
not based on
empirical
evidence,
such as the existence of
Ocean;
he
points
out
discrep-
ancies between the
purported explanations
such as the etesian winds
and what one would
expect
of
them;
and he
questions
the
plausibility
of
other
assumptions
such as that of snow in southern Africa.
Finally,
he
develops
his own
account,
a theoria. The
procedure
Herodotus follows
is much like that of Aristotle a
century
later:
We
must,
as in other
cases,
lay
out the
appearances
[tithentas
ta
phaino-
mena]
and first resolve them so as to account for all the received views
[endoxa]
about these
features,
or if
not,
the
greatest
number and most
important
of them. For if the difficulties are resolved and the views are
preserved,
that is sufficient
proof. (EN 1145b2-7)
After
reviewing
the standard views about his
present subject,
Aristotle
observes:
Now the
problems [aporiai] happen
to be
roughly
these,
of which some
must be
rejected
and some
accepted.
For the solution of a
problem
is a
discovery. (EN 1146b6-8)
Much of Aristotle's effort to
prove
a
point appears
in his criticism of rival
views that he
regards
as untenable. His own
theory
is confirmed
by
its
preserving
as much as
possible
from common-sense views on a
subject,
while
eliminating
mistaken views. In some
ways
the differences between
Herodotus'
practice
and Aristotle's
methodology
are
surprisingly
small.
The
practical
difference is that Aristotle has a
carefully developed
theo-
retical
system
into which his final
explanations
fit,
whereas Herodotus
deals with
questions
ad hoc. But the rational and scientific
approaches
of both are similar.
There is one final area in which we can learn about Presocratic sources
from Herodotus. One
continuing mystery
is how
knowledge
of the
Presocratics,
and
particularly
those who did not write or whose
writings
were not
preserved,
was transmitted. The
philosopher
most difficult to
document in this connection is
Thaes,
who seems to have left no writ-
34 EN 1145b2-7 with Owen
(1961),
Nussbaum
(1982).
Philosophy
on the Nile 307
ings.
How do we know about him then?
Clearly
we
depend
on some
second-hand
account,
but from
whom,
and
by
what line of transmission?
It is
generally
assumed that our
knowledge
comes from
reports
in his
fellow
countryman
and
student,
Anaximander.35
In the
present
case we have
preserved
one
explanation by
Thaes. But
how did it arrive at Herodotus? Since Herodotus does not even name
the authors of the several
explanations,
much less the sources from
which he derived
them,
we must reconstruct. We
already
know the
authors. What is
interesting
is the fact that
alongside
Thaes'
explanation,
we have one from a fellow
countryman:
Hecataeus. Hecataeus wrote a
historical
/geographical /ethnographic study
around 500
BC,
on which
Herodotus is
dependent.
If Hecataeus was interested in the Nile
floods,
he
may
have been interested in earlier theories about
them,
and at this
point
we have
only
one we can refer to: that of Thaes. Since Hecataeus
was a fellow-citizen of Thaies in
Miletus,
even if he lived a
couple
of
generations
after
him,
he was in a
position
to know
by
oral
inquiry,
if in
no other
way,
what Thaes' views on the
topic
were. It seems
plausible
to
suppose
that he transmitted Thaes'
explanation along
with his
own,
and
argued
for his own in some such
way
as Herodotus did
-
that is
by
refuting
the earlier
theory
and
showing
how his own views did not have
any
obvious
disadvantages.
If that is
so,
then the Ionian
practice
of rational
inquiry may
have
helped
to
preserve
views that otherwise would have been
lost,
including
some held
by
the
founding
father of the movement. The views of Ionian
thinkers would be
preserved precisely
in the cases in which their follow-
ers
(whether admirers, critics,
or
both) investigated
the same
phenomena
and had their own
proposals
to make. We find the
beginnings
of the
strange
world of
contemporary philosophers
in which the most famous
thinker is the one most often refuted in the literature. A
century-old
35 'Si Thaies n'a
pas
crit sur la
nature,
il est
possible que
ce soit
par
la contradiction
d'Anaximandre
que
ses
opinions
aient t connues'
(Tannery
[1887/1930],
92 n
1,
followed,
e.g., by
West
[1963], 175-6).
Barnes
(1979/1982), 6,
points
to
Hippias
as an
intermediary
between Thaes and
Aristotle,
but observes that 'where
[knowledge
of at least two of Thaes'
theories] lay during
the
century
and a half from Thaes to
Hippias,
we cannot tell.'
Contrary
to most scholars
(see, e.g.,
Kirk,
Raven and
Schofield
[1983], 86-8), Gigon (1945),
43 assumes that Thaes wrote a book that was
subsequently
lost. See now White
(2002),
15-17 on oral transmission of Thaes' ideas
and
O'Grady (2002), 8-28,
who
accepts
the
possibility
that Thaes
may
have written
some books.
theory
lives on as a
possible
solution to a
question
that remains unre-
solved.
We see in this
singular
case of an Ionian tourist in
Egypt
the almost
obsessive habits of
inquiry
that made the Greeks the intellectual leaders
of the ancient world.
Combining
wanderlust,
insatiable
curiosity,
and
critical
thinking,
Herodotus did what he could on the basis of
autopsy,
queries,
and
reasoning
to answer an
open
scientific
question
as he
traveled
up
the Nile.
Although
we do not have
any
details of how
early
Greek
philosophers
carried out their
inquiries,
we must
suppose
that
they
combined the
gifts
of Herodotus with a
passion
for
systematizing
their
insights.
Herodotus
gives
us a
snapshot
of intellectual life in the
fifth
century
that reveals more than an ancient scientific treatise could.
He shows us that even before Socrates the love of wisdom could be a
driving
force behind a life of
inquiry
-
indeed the
defining
motive of a
way
of life that could blur the lines between
explorer
and
philosopher,
tourist and scientist.
Department
of
Philosophy
Brigham Young University
Provo,
Utah 84602
U.S.A.
daniel_graham@byu.edu
References
Barnes, Jonathan. [1979]
1982. The Presocratic
Philosophers.
Revised edn. London:
Routledge
&
Kegan
Paul.
Bonneau,
Danielle. 1964. La Crue du Nil: Divinit
gyptienne
travers mille ans d'histoire (332
av.
-
641
ap. J.-C).
Paris: Librairie C. Klinksieck.
Brunschwig, Jacques,
and G.E.R.
Lloyd,
eds. 2000. Greek
Thought:
A Guide to Classical
Knowledge. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
University
Press.
Carpenter, Rhys.
1966.
Beyond
the Pillars
of
Heracles. New York: Delacorte Press.
Cary,
M. and E.H.
Warmington.
1929. The Ancient
Explorers.
London: Methuen & Co.
Classen,
C.
Joachim.
1965.
'Bemerkungen
zu zwei
griechischen "Philosopiehistorikern"
'.
Philologus
109: 175-81.
Cohen,
Morris R. and Ernest
Nagel.
1934. An Introduction to
Logic
and
Scientific
Method. New
York:
Harcourt,
Brace & World.
Connor,
W.R. 1993. 'The Histor in
History'.
In R.M. Rosen and
J. Farrell, eds.,
Notnodeiktes:
Studies in Honor
of
Martin Ostwald. Ann Arbor:
University
of
Michigan
Press.
Philosophy
on the Nile 309
Cunliffe,
Barry.
2001. The
Extraordinary Voyage ofPytheas
the Greek. New York: Walker &
Company.
Dicks,
D.R. 1960. The
Geographical Fragments ofHipparchus.
London: Athlone Press.
Diels,
Hermann. 1879.
Doxographi
Graeci. Berlin:
Knigliche preussische
Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Edelstein,
L. and LG.
Kidd,
eds. 1972-1988. Posidonius. 2 vols, in 3. New York:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Floyd,
Edwin D. 1990. 'The Sources of Greek
Yaxop 'Judge,
Witness" '. Gioita 68: 157-66.
Fowler,
Robert L. 1996. 'Herodotos and his
Contemporaries'. Journal of
Hellenic Studies 116:
62-87.
Gigon,
Olof . 1945. Der
Ursprung
der
griechischen Philosophie.
Basel: Benno Schwabe & Co.
Gilbert,
Otto. 1907. Die
meteorologischen
Theorien des
griechischen
Altertums.
Leipzig:
B.G.
Teubner.
(Repr.
Hildeshiem:
Georg
Olms, 1967.)
Hankinson, R.J.
1998. Cause and
Explanation
in Ancient Greek
Thought.
Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Heidel,
W.A. 1937. The Frame
of
the Ancient Greek
Maps.
New York: American
Geographical
Society.
How,
W.W. and
J.
Wells. 1912. A
Commentary
on Herodotus. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hyde,
Walter Woodburn. 1947. Ancient Greek Mariners. New York: Oxford
University
Press.
Jacoby,
F. 1909.
'Euthymenes
von Massilia'. In G.
Wissowa, ed.,
Paulys Real-Encyclopdie
der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler,
vol.
6,
cols. 1509-11.
Keyser,
Paul T. 2001. 'The
Geographical
Work of Dikaiarchos'. In W.W.
Fortenbaugh,
ed.,
Dicaearchus
of
Messana. New
Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction
Publishers,
353-72.
Kirk, G.S., J.E. Raven,
and M. Schofield.
[1957]
1983. The Presocratic
Philosophers.
2na edn.
New York:
Cambridge University
Press.
Lloyd,
Alan B. 1975.
Herodotus,
Book II: Introduction. Leiden:
E.J.
Brill.

. 1976.
Herodotus,
Book II:
Commentary
1-98. Leiden:
E.J.
Brill.
Lloyd,
G.E.R. 1979.
Magic,
Reason and
Experience.
New York:
Press.
Mansfeld,
Jaap.
1990. Studies in the
Historiography of
Greek
Philosophy.
Assen: Van Gorcum.
McDiarmid, John
B. 1953.
'Theophrastus
on the Presocratic Causes'. Harvard Studies in
Classical
Philology
61: 85-156.
Nussbaum,
Martha C. 1982.
'Saving
Aristotle's
Appearances'.
In M. Schofield and M.C.
Nussbaum, eds.,
Language
and
Logos.
New York:
Press,
267-93.
O'Grady,
Patricia F. 2002. Thaes
of
Miletus. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Owen,
G.E.L. 1961. 'Tithenai ta
phainomena'
. In S.
Mansion, ed.,
Aristote et les
problmes
de la
mthode. Louvain: Publications Universitaires de
Louvain,
83-103.
Roseman,
Christina Horst. 1994.
Pytheas ofMassalia
On the Ocean.
Chicago:
Ares Publish-
ers.
Snell,
Bruno. 1944. 'Die Nachrichten ber die Lehren des Thaies und die
Anfnge
der
griechischen Philosophie-
und
Literaturgeschichte'. Philologus
96:
170-82;
repr.
In B.
Snell,
Gesammelte
Schriften. Gttingen:
Vandenhoek &
Ruprecht
1966.
310 Daniel W.Graham
Steinmetz,
Peter. 1964. Die
Physik
des
Theophrastos
von Eresos. Berlin:
Verlag
Dr. Max Gehlen.
Tannery,
Paul.
[1887]
1930. Pour l'histoire de la science hellne. 2nd
edn.,
A Dies ed. Paris:
Gauthier- Villars et Cie.
Thomson, J.
Oliver. 1965. A
History of
Ancient
Geography.
New York: Biblo and Tannen.
Tozer,
H.F. 1964. A
History of
Ancient
Geography.
New York: Biblo and Tannen.
Weidemann,
Alfred. 1890. Herodots zweites Buch mit sachlichen
Erluterungen. Repr.
Milan:
Cisalpino-Goliardica
1971.
West,
M.L. 1963. 'Three Presocratic
Cosmologies'.
Classical
Quarterly
N S 13: 154-76.
White,
Stephen.
2002. 'Thaies and the Stars'. In V. Caston and D.W.
Graham, eds.,
Presocratic
Philosophy: Essays
in Honour
of
Alexander Mourelatos. Aldershot:
Ashgate,
3-18.

Philosophy On The Nile Herodotus and Ionian Research

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Philosophy On The Nile Herodotus and Ionian Research

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

De Gruyter

Philosophy on the Nile: Herodotus and Ionian Research

Anda mungkin juga menyukai