From the Beginning to Plato

72 FROM THE BEGINNING TO PLATO
Refutation I.7.5 [KRS 149]) is explicit on the point. Perhaps the ambiguity of
‘stars’ as heavenly bodies in general or the fixed stars in particular added to the
confusion.
8 Anaximenes also posited earthy bodies in the region of the ‘stars’, envisaged as
being carried round with them (Hippolytus Refutation I.7.5; Aetius II.13.10 [KRS
152]). These were presumably introduced to account for eclipses: (cf. Hippolytus
Refutation 1.8.6, 9 on Anaxagoras [KRS 502]).
9 Aristotle’s comparison with a lid probably derives not from Anaximenes but from
Anaxagoras’ version of flat-earthism. Note the reference in the sequel to the
clepsydra (294b18–21), elsewhere associated by him with Anaxagoras (Physics
213a22–7 [KRS 470]).
10 Pre-Socratics seem not to have mentioned predecessors or contemporaries by name
except to attack them. An explicit critique of Thales is not attested nor likely for
Anaximander or Anaximenes, but is attributed to Xenophanes (Diogenes Laertius
IX. 18 [KRS 161]). No book: various writings are ascribed to Thales, notably a
‘Nautical star-guide’ (Simplicius Physics 23.25–9, Diogenes Laertius I.23 [KRS
81–2]). But already in antiquity their authenticity was doubted: for a cautiously
sceptical review of the evidence see KRS, pp. 86–8.
11 The few mentions in the doxography of physical theses about the constitution and
behaviour of the heavenly bodies which Thales is supposed to have advanced (texts
at DK 11 A 17a and b) are either inconsistent with better evidence or merely
isolated assertions. E.g. the claim that Thales knew the moon derived its light from
the sun is at odds with the strong evidence that Anaximander and Anaximenes did
not. Such knowledge is first credibly associated with Parmenides (fr. 14, KRS 308)
or Anaxagoras (Plato Cratylus 409a–b; Hippolytus Refutation 1.8.8 [KRS 502])
among philosophers.
12 See Mansfeld [2.40], ch. 5.
13 Geocentric conception: Anaximander famously located the earth in the middle of a
symmetrical cosmos, with the sun, moon and stars conceived as circling round it in
a sequence of concentric rings. For a treatment of Anaximander’s logic as
represented by Aristotle see Barnes [2.8], 23–9; also Makin [2.52].
14 So Robinson [2.55]; Furley [2.32], ch. 2. Their views are very effectively criticized
by Panchenko [2.54].
15 Texts on the shape of the earth and the celestial rings are collected and discussed in
KRS, pp. 133–7.
16 Interestingly, a claim that Anaximander’s earth ‘moves round the middle of the
cosmos’ is ascribed to Eudemus (Theon of Smyrna p. 198H [DK 12 A 26]). Its
truth and provenance are generally doubted: Kahn [2.49], 54–5. But it may
originate from an attempt to work out what would be the behaviour of a cylinder in
unstable equilibrium at the centre of the universe: this would be rotation about its
own axis.
17 ‘Not controlled by anything’ is unclear. Perhaps a contrast with the sun, moon and
stars is intended: their behaviour is controlled by the misty rings which envelope
the fire which constitutes them.
18 The sentence about Anaximander seems unmotivated in context, unless seen as
completing Alexander’s argument that he is not the primary focus of the
Aristotelian passage which names him (Simplicius On the Heavens 532.7–12). So
construed its point will be to suggest that because the theory Aristotle mentions