)
Anaximander was the author of the first surviving lines of
Western philosophy. He speculated and argued about "the
Boundless" as the origin of all that is. He also worked on
the fields of what we now call geography and biology.
Moreover, Anaximander was the first speculative
astronomer. He originated the world-picture of the open
universe, which replaced the closed universe of the
celestial vault.
His work will always remain truncated, like the mutilated
and decapitated statue that has been found at the marketplace of Miletus and that bears his name. Nevertheless, by
what we know of him, we may say that he was one of the
greatest minds that ever lived. By speculating and arguing about the "Boundless" he was the
first metaphysician. By drawing a map of the world he was the first geographer. But above all,
by boldly speculating about the universe he broke with the ancient image of the celestial vault
and became the discoverer of the Western world-picture.
Table of Contents
1. Life and Sources
2. The "Boundless" as Principle
3. The Arguments Regarding the Boundless
a. The Boundless has No Origin
b. The Origin must be Boundless
c. The "Long Since" Argument
4. The Fragment
5. The Origin of the Cosmos
6. Astronomy
a. Speculative Astronomy
b. The Celestial Bodies Make Full Circles
c. The Earth Floats Unsupported in Space
d. Why the Earth Does Not Fall
e. The Celestial Bodies Lie Behind One Another
f. The Order of the Celestial Bodies
g. The Celestial Bodies as Wheels
h. The Distances of the Celestial Bodies
i. A Representation of Anaximander's Universe
7. Map of the World
8. Biology
9. Conclusion
10. References and Further Reading
and the existing texts (B) of the Presocratic philosophers in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker,
Berlin 1951-19526 . (A quotation like "DK 12A17" means: "Diels/Kranz, Anaximander,
doxographical report no.17").
more like a string of associations and word-plays than like a formal argument. It runs as
follows: "Everything has an origin or is an origin. The Boundless has no origin. For then it would
have a limit. Moreover, it is both unborn and immortal, being a kind of origin. For that which
has become has also, necessarily, an end, and there is a termination to every process of
destruction" (Physics 203b6-10, DK 12A15). The Greeks were familiar with the idea of the
immortal Homeric gods. Anaximander added two distinctive features to the concept of divinity:
his Boundless is an impersonal something (or "nature," the Greek word is "phusis"), and it is not
only immortal but also unborn. However, perhaps not Anaximander, but Thales should be
credited with this new idea. Diogenes Lartius ascribes to Thales the aphorism: "What is the
divine? That which has no origin and no end" (DK 11A1 (36)). Similar arguments, within
different contexts, are used by Melissus (DK 30B2[9]) and Plato (Phaedrus 245d1-6).
in the whole course of its becoming it possessed even for a moment this capability of "being,"
then again all becoming would long since have come to an end." Nietzsche wrote these words in
his notebook in 1885, but already in Die Philosophie im tragischen Zeitalter der Griechen
(1873), which was not published during his lifetime, he mentioned the argument and credited
Anaximander with it.
4. The Fragment
The only existing fragment of Anaximander's book (DK 12B1) is surrounded by all kinds of
questions. The ancient Greeks did not use quotation marks, so that we cannot be sure where
Simplicius, who has handed down the text to us, is still paraphrasing Anaximander and where
he begins to quote him. The text is cast in indirect speech, even the part which most authors
agree is a real quotation. One important word of the text ("alllois," here translated by "upon
one another") is missing in some manuscripts. As regards the interpretation of the fragment, it
is heavily disputed whether it means to refer to Anaximander's principle, the Boundless, or not.
The Greek original has relative pronouns in the plural (here rendered by "whence" and
"thence"), which makes it difficult to relate them to the Boundless. However, Simplicius'
impression that it is written in rather poetic words has been repeated in several ways by many
authors. Therefore, we offer a translation, in which some poetic features of the original, such as
chiasmus and alliteration have been imitated:
Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction happens,
As is the order of things;
For they execute the sentence upon one another
- The condemnation for the crime In conformity with the ordinance of Time.
In the fourth and fifth line a more fluent translation is given for what is usually rendered rather
cryptic by something like "giving justice and reparation to one another for their injustice."
We may distinguish roughly two lines of interpretation, which may be labeled the "horizontal"
and the "vertical." The horizontal interpretation holds that in the fragment nothing is said about
the relation of the things to the Boundless, whereas the vertical interpretation maintains that
the fragment describes the relationship of the things to the Boundless. The upholders of the
horizontal interpretation usually do not deny that Anaximander taught that all things are
generated from the Boundless, but they simply hold that this is not what is said in the fragment.
They argue that the fragment describes the battle between the elements (or of things in
general), which accounts for the origin and destruction of things. The most obvious difficulty,
however, for this "horizontal" interpretation is that it implies two cycles of becoming and decay:
one from and into the Boundless, and the other caused by the mutual give and take of the
elements or things in general. In other words, in the "horizontal" interpretation the Boundless is
superfluous. This is the strongest argument in favor of the "vertical" interpretation, which holds
that the fragment refers to the Boundless, notwithstanding the plural relative pronouns.
According to the "vertical" interpretation, then, the Boundless should be regarded not only as
the ever-flowing fountain from which everything ultimately springs, but also as the yawning
abyss (as some say, comparable with Hesiod's "Chaos") into which everything ultimately
perishes.
The suggestion has been raised that Anaximander's formula in the first two lines of the
fragment should have been the model for Aristotle's definition of the "principle" (Greek:
"arch") of all things in Metaphysics 983b8. There is some sense in this suggestion. For what
could be more natural for Aristotle than to borrow his definition of the notion of "arch," which
he uses to indicate the principle of the first presocratic philosophers, from Anaximander, the
one who introduced the notion?
It is certainly important that we possess one text from Anaximander's book. On the other hand,
we must recognize that we know hardly anything of its original context, as the rest of the book
has been lost. We do not know from which part of his book it is, nor whether it is a text the
author himself thought crucial or just a line that caught one reader's attention as an example of
Anaximander's poetic writing style. The danger exists that we are tempted to use this stray
text - beautiful and mysterious as it is - in order to produce all kinds of profound
interpretations that are hard to verify. Perhaps a better way of understanding what
Anaximander has to say is to study carefully the doxography, which goes back to people like
Aristotle and Theophrastus, who probably have had Anaximander's book before their eyes, and
who tried to reformulate what they thought were its central claims.
moon, and stars. There are authors who have, quite anachronistically, seen here a kind of
foreshadowing of the Kant-Laplace theory of the origin of the solar system. Some sources even
mention innumerable worlds (in time and/or in space), which looks like a plausible consequence
of the Boundless as principle. But this is presumably a later theory, incorrectly read back into
Anaximander.
6. Astronomy
At first sight, the reports on Anaximander's astronomy look rather bizarre and obscure. Some
authors even think that they are so confused that we should give up trying to offer a satisfying
and coherent interpretation. The only way of understanding Anaximander's astronomical ideas,
however, is to take them seriously and treat them as such, that is, as astronomical ideas. It will
appear that many of the features of his universe that look strange at first sight make perfect
sense on closer inspection.
a. Speculative Astronomy
The astronomy of neighboring peoples, such as the Babylonians and the Egyptians, consists
mainly of observations of the rising and disappearance of celestial bodies and of their paths
across the celestial vault. These observations were made with the naked eye and with the help
of some simple instruments as the gnomon. The Babylonians, in particular, were rather
advanced observers. Archeologists have found an abundance of cuneiform texts on astronomical
observations. In contrast, there exists only one report of an observation made by Anaximander,
which concerns the date on which the Pleiades set in the morning. This is no coincidence, for
Anaximander's merits do not lie in the field of observational astronomy, unlike the Babylonians
and the Egyptians, but in that of speculative astronomy. We may discern three of his
astronomical speculations: (1) that the celestial bodies make full circles and pass also beneath
the earth, (2) that the earth floats free and unsupported in space, and (3) that the celestial
bodies lie behind one another. Notwithstanding their rather primitive outlook, these three
propositions, which make up the core of Anaximander's astronomy, meant a tremendous jump
forward and constitute the origin of our Western concept of the universe.
this is a conclusion that lies to hand. We can see - at the northern hemisphere, like
Anaximander - the stars around the Polar star making full circles, and we can also observe that
the more southerly stars sometimes disappear behind the horizon. We may argue that the stars
of which we see only arcs in reality also describe full circles, just like those near the Polar star.
As regards the sun and moon, we can observe that the arcs they describe are sometimes bigger
and sometimes smaller, and we are able to predict exactly where they will rise the next day.
Therefore, it seems not too bold a conjecture to say that these celestial bodies also describe full
circles. Nevertheless, it was a daring conclusion, precisely because it necessarily entailed the
concept of the earth hanging free and unsupported in space.
Anaximander's argument returns in a famous text in the Phaedo (108E4 ff.), where Plato, for
the first time in history, tries to express the sphericity of the earth. Even more interesting is
that the same argument, within a different context, returns with the great protagonist of the
principle of sufficient reason, Leibniz. In his second letter to Clarke, he uses an example, which
he ascribes to Archimedes but which reminds us strongly of Anaximander: "And therefore
Archimedes (...) in his book De aequilibrio, was obliged to make use of a particular case of the
great Principle of a sufficient reason. He takes it for granted that if there be a balance in which
everything is alike on both sides, and if equal weights are hung on the two ends of that balance,
the whole will stay at rest. This is because there is no reason why one side should weigh down,
rather than the other".
One may doubt, however, whether the argument is not fallacious. Aristotle already thought the
argument to be deceiving. He ridicules it by saying that according to the same kind of argument
a hair, which was subject to an even pulling power from opposing sides, would not break, and
that a man, being just as hungry as thirsty, placed in between food and drink, must necessarily
remain where he is and starve. To him it was the wrong argument for the right proposition.
Absolute propositions concerning the non-existence of things are always in danger of becoming
falsified on closer investigation. They contain a kind of subjective aspect: "as far as I know."
Several authors, however, have said that Anaximander's argument is clear and ingenious.
Already at first sight this qualification sounds strange, for the argument evidently must be
wrong, as the earth is not in the center of the universe, although it certainly is not supported by
anything but gravity. Nevertheless, we have to wait until Newton for a better answer to the
question why the earth does not fall.
nearest to the earth, then followed the moon, and the sun farthest away. Some authors have
wondered why Anaximander made the stars the nearest celestial bodies, for he should have
noticed the occurrence of star-occultations by the moon. This is a typical anachronism, which
shows that it not easy to look at the phenomena with Anaximander's eyes. Nowadays, we know
that the stars are behind the moon, and thus we speak of star-occultation when we see a star
disappear behind the moon. But Anaximander had no reason at all, from his point of view, to
speak of a star-occultation when he saw a star disappear when the moon was at the same place.
So it is a petitio principii to say that for him occultations of stars were easy to observe. Perhaps
he observed stars disappearing and appearing again, but he did not observe - could not see it as
- the occultation of the star, for that interpretation did not fit his paradigm. The easiest way to
understand his way of looking at it - if he observed the phenomenon at all - is that he must have
thought that the brighter light of the moon outshines the much smaller light of the star for a
while. Anaximander's order of the celestial bodies is clearly that of increasing brightness.
Unfortunately, the sources do not give further information of his considerations at this point.
understand that every celestial body had such a bellows, the result would be hundreds of
nozzles (or pipes), extending from the celestial wheels towards the earth. Anaximander's
intention, however, can be better understood not as an image, but as a comparison of the light
of the celestial bodies with that of lightning. Lightning, according to Anaximander, is a
momentary flash of light against a dark cloud. The light of a celestial body is like a permanent
beam of lightning fire that originates from the opaque cloudy substance of the celestial wheel.
These numbers cannot be based on observation. In order to understand their meaning, we have
to look at Hesiod's Theogony 722-725, where it is said that a brazen anvil would take nine days
to fall from heaven to earth before it arrives on the tenth day. It is not a bold guess to suppose
that Anaximander knew this text. The agreement with his numbers is too close to neglect, for
the numbers 9 and 10 are exactly those extrapolated for Anaximander's star wheel. Hesiod can
be seen as a forerunner to Anaximander, for he tried to imagine the distance to the heaven. In
the Greek counting system Hesiod's numbers should be taken to mean "a very long time."
Thus, Troy was conquered in the tenth year after having stood the siege for nine years; and
Odysseus scoured the seas for nine years before reaching his homeland in the tenth year. We
may infer that Anaximander, with his number 9 (1 x 3 x 3) for the star ring, simply was trying
to say that the stars are very far away. Now the numbers 18 and 27 can easily be interpreted as
"farther" (2 x 3 x 3, for the moon ring) and "farthest" (3 x 3 x 3, for the sun ring). And this is
exactly what we should expect one to say, who had discovered that the image of the celestial
vault was wrong but that the celestial bodies were behind one another, and who wished to share
this new knowledge with his fellow citizens in a language they were able to understand.
we only observe a small part of the sun wheel, as it moves towards the south. This movement of
the sun wheel accounts for the seasons. The same holds mutatis mutandis for the moon. Today,
we use to describe this movement of the sun (and mutatis mutandis of the moon and the
planets) as a retrograde movement, from west to east, which is a counter-movement to the
daily rotation from east to west. In terms of Anaximander's ancient astronomy it is more
appropriate and less anachronistic to describe it as a slower movement of the sun wheel from
east to west. The result is that we see different stars in different seasons, until the sun, at the
end of a year, reaches its old position between the stars.
Due to the inclination of the axis of the heaven, the celestial bodies do not circle around the
earth in the same plane as the earth's - flat - surface, but are tilted. This inclination amounts to
about 38.5 degrees when measured at Delphi, the world's navel. The earth being flat, the
inclination must be the same all over its surface. This tilting of the heaven's axis must have
been one of the biggest riddles of the universe. Why is it tilted at all? Who or what is responsible
for this phenomenon? And why is it tilted just the way it is? Unfortunately, the doxography on
Anaximander has nothing to tell us about this problem. Later, other Presocratics like
Empedocles, Diogenes of Apollonia, and Anaxagoras discuss the tilting of the heavens.
Although there exists a report that says the contrary, it is not likely that Anaximander was
acquainted with the obliquity of the ecliptic, which is the yearly path of the sun along the stars.
The ecliptic is a concept which belongs to the doctrine of a spherical earth within a spherical
universe. A three-dimensional representation of Anaximander's universe is given in Figures 2
and 3.
8. Biology
The doxography tells us that according to Anaximander life originated from the moisture that
covered the earth before it was dried up by the sun. The first animals were a kind of fish, with a
thorny skin (the Greek word is the same that was used for the metaphor "the bark of a tree" in
Anaximander's cosmology). Originally, men were generated from fishes and were fed in the
manner of a viviparous shark. The reason for this is said to be that the human child needs long
protection in order to survive. Some authors have, rather anachronistically, seen in these
scattered statements a proto-evolutionist theory.
9. Conclusion
It is no use trying to unify the information on Anaximander into one all-compassing and
consistent whole. His work will always remain truncated, like the mutilated and decapitated
statue that has been found at the market-place of Miletus and that bears his name.
Nevertheless, by what we know of him, we may say that he was one of the greatest minds that
ever lived. By speculating and arguing about the "Boundless" he was the first metaphysician. By
drawing a map of the world he was the first geographer. But above all, by boldly speculating
about the universe he broke with the ancient image of the celestial vault and became the
discoverer of the Western world-picture.
Guthrie, W.K.C. A History of Greek Philosophy I, The Earlier Presocratics and the Pythagoreans.
London/New Y ork 1985 (Cambridge 1962)
Kirk, G.S., J.E. Raven, and M. Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, Cambridge 1995 (1957)
The above two works each have a good survey of Anaximander's thoughts in the context of ancient Greek
philosophy, with translations of the most important doxography.
Kahn, C.H. Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology. New Y ork 1960 (Indianapolis/Cambridge
1994)
A classical study on Anaximander's cosmology and his fragment, also with many translations.
Furley, D.J. and R.E. Allen, eds. Studies in Presocratic Philosophy, Vol. I, The Beginnings of Philosophy.
New Y ork/London 1970
C ontains many interesting articles on Anaximander by different authors.
Kahn, C.H. "Anaximander and the Arguments Concerning the Apeiron at Physics 203b4-1." in: Festschrift
E. Kapp, Hamburg 1958, pp.19-29.
Stokes, M.C. "Anaximander's Argument." in: R.A. Shiner & J. King-Farlow, eds., New Essays on Plato and
the Presocratics. 1976, pp.1-22.
Two articles on some of Anaximander's arguments.
Dicks, D.R. "Solstices, Equinoxes, and the Presocratics," The Journal of Hellenic Studies 86. 1966, pp.2640
Kahn, C.H. "On Early Greek Astronomy." The Journal of Hellenic Studies 90. 1970, pp.99-116
Two conflicting articles on Anaximander's astronomy.
Bodnr, I.M. "Anaximander's Rings," Classical Quarterly 38. 1988, pp. 49-51
O'Brien, D. "Anaximander's Measurements," The Classical Quarterly 17. 1967, pp.423-432
Two articles on important details of Anaximander's astronomy.
McKirahan, R. "Anaximander's Infinite Worlds," in A. Preus, ed., Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy VI:
Before Plato, Albany 2001, pp. 49-65
A recent article on 'innumerable worlds.'
Heidel, W.A. The Frame of the Ancient Greek Maps. With a Discussion of the Discovery of the Sphericity
of the Earth. New York 1937
An old but still valuable book on Anaximander's map of the world.
West, M.L. Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient. Oxford 1971
A discussion of possible Iranian influence on Anaximander.
Classen, C.J. Anstze. Beitrge zum Verstndnis der frhgriechischen Philosophie. Wrzburg/Amsterdam
1986
The best book in German.
Author Information
Dirk L. Couprie
Email: dirkcouprie@dirkcouprie.nl
The Netherlands