684 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



V^ 13, 7. didovaL yap avra d'tKriv Kal Tiatv aWrjXoLS rrjs dSiKtas Kara 

 TJJJ' Tov xpoi'ov ra^LV. 



In his note on this passage (V^ 15, 28) Diels repeats his former 

 explanation, " aXXrjXoLs: datiius commodi: das Untergehende dem 

 Uberlebenden und dieses wieder untergehend dem kiinftig Entsteh- 

 enden. Vgl. Eur. Chrysipp. fr. 839, 13." This interpretation, which 

 is that now currently accepted, rests obviously on the assumption 

 that the preceding sentence in Simplicius, e^ oov 5e 17 yevtal-i eari 

 TOts ovffL, Kal Trjv (pdopav eis ravra jLueadaL Kara to xP^^'') preserves 

 the authentic words of x^naximander and that, in consequence, it is 

 individual things or objects (to. ovto) that mutually exact and pay the 

 penalty for injustice done to one another. On that view Diels's elab- 

 oration of the implications of dXXijXots is both ob\ious and necessary. 

 I believe, however, that in my essay On Anaximandcr, p. 233 sq., I 

 showed conclusively (1) that it is not individual objects but the 

 contraries, hot and cold, that encroach on one another and suffer 

 periodic punishment inflicted hy eacii on the other (wherefore aWriXois 

 is here to be interpreted as a strict reciprocal and not as Diels pro- 

 poses), and (2) that when this mutual KoXaais is said to recur Kara 

 Tr]v TOV xpovov Ta^iv, reference is had to the seasonal excess of the hot 

 in summer and of the cold in winter. The strict limitations of space 

 imposed upon my essay led to the exclusion of many things which I 

 reluctantly omitted, and did not admit of a full statement of my views. 

 I propose, therefore, here to add a few points which may serve to 

 explain and confirm them. Zeller insists that for Anaximander one 

 pair of contraries onl^', the hot and the cold, existed, at least as prima- 

 rily proceeding from the aireLpov; this would rule out the moist and 

 the dry, which are mentioned with the first pair l>y Simplicius, as due 

 to Aristotle. This may be true, but it is not necessarily so; for the 

 Empedoclean and Hippocratic group of four contraries is too well 

 attested, and if, as seems certain, Anaximander had in mind the sea- 

 sonal changes it is hard to conceive of him as overlooking the differ- 

 ences in drought and moisture which Simplicius mentions with those 

 of heat and cold. A passage strikingly illustrating and interpreting 

 that of Simplicius is found in Philo, De Anim. Sacrif. Idon. II. 242 

 Mang. 17 be els fxeXr] tov ^wov biavoixi] brfKol, r]TOL cbs tv to. iravTa r) otl e^ 

 evos re Kal els ev • oirep ol fiev Kopov Kal xPlf^l^oavvrjv eKaXeaav, ol 5' 

 eKTvpccaiv Kal biaKoaixrjcrLU • eKirhpoiGLV jj.ev /card Tr}v tov deov bvvaaTelav 

 Tuiu aXKcx)v eTTLKpaTrjaavTOS, biaKoa jx-qa lv be Kara Trjv tcov TeTTO.- 

 pcov crotx*'^'' l(Jovop.lav, r]v avTLbtboaa iv aWrj^ois. Philo 



