HEIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 601 



that of the origin of animal hfc attrihutrd to Archehius, Y' 324, IS, 



Trepl de i^cocov 4>ri(Tlv, on depnaLVOfiev-qs ri?s 777s to irpCiTOV ev to; ^arco jikpn, 

 oirov TO depp-ov Kal to \pvxpov iplaytTO, a.vt4>alveT0 to. re aXXa fwa TroXXd 

 Kal ol a.i'9p<j)iroi, airaPTa Trjv avTrjv SiaLTav exovTa tK ttJs i\vo$ Tpe(f)6iJ.eua 

 (tip di oXiyoxpoPia)- vaTepov 8e avToTs "f] e^ a\Xr]\(jcu yeueais avvearr]. 



c. 3. Anaximenes. 



V^ 17, 37. oi'TOs apxvi' aepa elwev Kal to aiveLpov. 



In his note in \^ Diels says: "Missverstan(hiis oder Verderhnis 

 statt Koi TOVTOv iiireipov." This sugfjestion is phiusible, but far from 

 certain. As I showed in my study of apxr}, On Anaximandcr, various 

 vestiges of an earher cosmological, non-metaphysical, sense of that 

 word survive in Aristotle; it can hardly be thouglit impossible that 

 the same should be true of Theophrastus, from whom this statement 

 of Diogenes ultimately derives. Indeed, as we shall see when we 

 discuss Diogenes's account of the cosmology of Leucippus (cp. p. 732, 

 on \- 343, 1), there is at least one such vestige, though almost obliter- 

 ated by the unintelHgence of excerptors or copyists. But, leaving 

 that for the present aside, we are credibly informed that Anaximenes 

 regarded the outer "air" as boundless, upon which fact Diels relies 

 for his proposed correction; and we know that Anaximenes held the 

 doctrine of the cosmic respiration, in accordance with which the 

 cosmos subsists, as it arises, by receiving its substance from the 

 encircling aireLpov in the form of irpevna or breath. This Tvevpa comes 

 from and returns to the aTreipov, which is therefore nothing else but an 

 apxT) Kol irrjyi], or reser\oir, of iTvevp.a. We thus ha\e a complete 

 parallel, so far as concerns the Trvevpa-arjp, to the doctrine of the 

 early Pythagoreans reported by Aristotle. Cp. my Antecedents of 

 Greek Corpuscular Theories, p. 139 sq. In \^ I. 354, 16 sq. Diels has 

 corrected the text of Aristotle along the lines I suggested. I cannot, 

 however, approve of the bracketing of xpovov, ib. 22, as proposed by 

 Diels. 



V2 18, 30 sq. Hippolytus, Ref. 1.7. 



The corrupt state of the text of Hippolytus's Philosophumena, 

 especially in the first book, is well known. With the aid of Cedrenus 

 Diels has been able to set many passages right; yet much remains 

 to be done. In 1. 7, the chapter de^■oted to Anaximenes, several 

 additions or interpolations wliich ought to be remo\ed or bracketed 



