anaximander's book. 265 



out. Again, it is not necessary to assume that all the ' teachers ' of 

 Niceratus practised their hyponoetic interpretation on Homer. 

 Stesimbrotus, who wrote about moot questions in Homer, may be 

 acknowledge to have done so; Anaximander the Younger, who inter- 

 preted the Pythagorean symbols, may be said to have fulfilled all that 

 the words of Xenophon require us to suppose if, as is altogether 

 probable, his method of exegesis was essentially the same as that 

 applied to the poets. 



Of the elder Anaximander we have not spoken in this connection 

 because very little can be said in favor of him in relation to the hypo- 

 noetic interpretation presupposed by the passage from Xenophon's 

 Symposium. It is true that indications are not wanting of somewhat 

 allegorical interpretations of Homer at the close of the sixth century 

 B.C.; but neither is there any evidence that the practice dates back 

 to the middle of that century, nor is there anywhere a hint that the 

 great Milesian would have concerned himself with it, if it did. It was 

 rather in the latter half of the fifth century that the method which was 

 destined in time to enjoy great favor and an extended application 

 won its first laurels. Hence we may with tolerable confidence identify 

 the Anaximander of Xenophon's Symposium with Anaximander the 

 Younger, the interpreter of Pythagorean symbols. 



If our results are assured we have added at least two brief verbatim 

 fragments to the one previously allowed to have come from the book 

 of Anaximander, the reputed originator of Greek prose. Of these 

 fragments it is not necessary now to speak at length; it is perhaps 

 deserving of mention, however, that in point of style they closely 

 resemble not only the fragment communicated by Simplicius but like- 

 wise the fragments of Hecataeus. Of the three the sentence quoted 

 by Simplicius is the most complex; for the most part their structure 

 is exceedingly simple, no elaborate periods being attempted; but there 

 is no want of precision or lucidity. Hecataeus, as far as we can judge, 

 made no advance in this respect; even Herodotus in general con- 

 structed his sentences on the same model, only occasionally betraying 

 the influence of fifth century sophists. It would therefore be as proper 

 to speak of Herodotus as primitive as it would of Anaximander. 

 That Simplicius should think the terms used by x\naximander rather 

 'poetic' is only a compliment to the imaginative vigor of his speech.^* 



64 ys I 15^ 29. There is nothing really 'poetic' about the phraseology of 

 Anaximander; the style is imaginative and more or less elevated, but less so 

 than that of HeracUtus. It was probably due to the theory that prose in 

 Anaximander's time was new, being recently introduced to supplant verse, 



