688 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



rifv (reXrjvrjv /cat tovs aarepas. The orthodox view appears to be that 

 a sphere of flame is somehow exploded and (rather curiously I) reduced 

 to a succession of circles of flame confined within an envelope of mist; 

 these circles being those which constitute sun, moon, and stars. 

 We have come to expect definite analogies and clear 'Anschauung' 

 among the early Greek philosophers ; and the severe strain which the 

 current view puts on the imagination would of itself cast suspicion 

 on it. We might nevertheless feel compelled, however reluctantly, 

 to accept it, if the details of the account itself pointed to it or were 

 even consistent with it. It will probably be conceded that — the 

 term a^aTpa apart — it is vastly simpler to concei\e of a wide annu- 

 lar mass breaking up into annular parts than to imagine the same 

 result ensuing from the destruction of a sphere. But as a matter of 

 fact our text says nothing that may fairly be interpreted as implying 

 the breaking or exploding of the sphere. The crucial words are 

 TrepL(f)V7]vaL and aToppayeiaris. Perhaps the real force of neither word 

 has been appreciated. Here TepL(f)vrji'aL means that the "sphere" at 

 first "snugly fitted" or Avas "closely attached to" the "air" which 

 encircles the earth; whereas a.Toppayeiai]s states merely that subse- 

 quently it became detached, as even a superficial attention to the nor- 

 mal meaning of the terms will convince the reader. The contrast 

 may be illustrated by Arist. Hist. x\nimal. 5. 19. 552^3, ravra 8e xpovov 

 fj.kv TLva KLvelrat TpoaTre4>VK6Ta, cTretr' aToppayevra 4>ep€TaL Kara to vSccp, 

 at KaXovp.ei'aL daKapides. Besides, diropprjypvvaL is not the proper word 

 to use of the tearing of such an envelope as a sphere of flame; Greek 

 writers so use prjyvvpaL, biapp-qyvvvat, and irepipp-qyvvvaL, especially 

 the last-mentioned, as might be shown by a long list of examples 

 derived from Aristotle and other authors. The same general concep- 

 tion is implied in the simile cos rw b'evbpoo 4>\ol6v. We may not press 

 similes beyond the immediate point of comparison, which in this 

 instance is the snugness of the fit; but if one is to press it, it is 

 obvious that the bark of a tree is annular rather than spherical. It 

 will hardly serve the interest of the objector to refer to Anaximander's 

 notion of the prickly integument of the first animals, \'- 17, 18, kv 

 vypQi yevrjdrjvaL to. Trpcora ^(2a ^Xoiots TrepLexofxeva CLKavdooSeaL . . . 

 TrepLpprjyvvixkvov tov (pXoiov ; for there, as TrepLpprjyvvjjiepov sufficiently 

 shows, the conception is altogether different. It is quite possible, as 

 later Greek thinkers prove, to conceive of the cosmos and the human 

 embryo as equally inclosed in a v/jltjv without pressing the comparison 

 beyond reason. I have noted with some interest another passage in 

 which the meaning of diropp-qyvvvaL has been similarly misconceived. 



