ANAXIMANDER'S BOOK, THE EARLIEST KNOWN GEO- 

 GRAPHICAL TREATISE. 1 



Bt Williaji Arthur Heidel. 



Received January 20, 1921. Presented February 9, 1921. 



Anaximander of Miletus is admittedly one of the foremost figures 

 in the history of thought, and much has been written about him. 

 He remains, however, somewhat enigmatical, and the obscurity which 

 invests his character involves in some measure the entire line of early 

 Milesian thinkers. When one considers the commonly accepted view 

 regarding Anaximander one can hardly escape the impression that 

 it is somewhat incongruous if not wholly inconsistent. 



That he wrote a book is not called in question, though one is not 

 sure whether he or Pherecydes is to be credited with writing the 

 earliest prose treatise in Greek. Anaximander is generally called a 

 'philosopher' and his book is supposed to be properly described by 

 its traditional title Ofi Nature. No disposition has been shown to 

 doubt that he was sufficiently interested in geography to prepare a 

 map of the earth, which made a deep and lasting impression, inso- 

 much that it may be said to have fixed the type, preserved with suc- 

 cessive enlargements, refinements, and modifications, to be sure, but 

 essentially the same, until in the Alexandrian Age various attempts 

 were made to adjust its outlines in conformity with the newer concep- 

 tion of the earth as a spheroid. Duly considered this admitted fact 

 would of itself suggest the questions whether Anaximander was not 

 a geographer rather than a philosopher, and whether he must not be 

 presumed to have written a geography in addition to drawing a map. 

 When one finds that he is expressly credited with a geographical 

 treatise in the biographical and bibliograpliical tradition of the 

 Greeks, one asks why this has been called in question. We have, 

 then, first to canvass the evidence regarding his book and his map. 



1 This essay does not aim to discuss the opinions of Anaximander in detail. 

 So far as his 'philosophy' is concerned, I undertook to do that in Class. Philol- 

 ogy, 7 (1912), pp. 212-234. A few rjrinor points I should now judge some- 

 what differently. With regard to Anaximander's geography and sundry other 

 opinions I believe it is possible to ascertain more than has been suspected; but 

 this cannot be done until the position of Hecataeus shall have been more fuUy 

 and clearly estabUshed. On this I have been at work for ten years with results 

 which I hope sometime to publish. Then, si dis placet, I may take up Anaxi- 

 mander anew. 



