The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology

biblioGrAphy Albertson, James. “Genesis 1 and the Babylonian Creation Myth,” Thought: Fordham University Quarterly 37 (1962): 226–44. Allan, Sarah. The Shape of the Turtle. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991. ———. The Way of Water and Sprouts of Virtue. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006. Allen, Archibald. The Fragments of Mimnermus. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1993. Allen, James P. “The Cosmology of the Pyramid Texts.” Pages 1–28 in Religion and Philosophy in Ancient Egypt. Edited by James P. Allen. New Haven: Yale Egyptological Seminar, 1989. Altenmüller, H. “Djed-Pfeiler.” LÄ 1 (1975): 1100–1105. Anderson, J. C. G. Tacitus: Germania. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 2001. Aristophanes. Birds. Edited with introduction and commentary by Nan Dunbar. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Arrighetti, Graziano. “Cosmologia Mitica di Omero e Esiodo.” SIFC 15 (1966): 1–60. Assmann, Jan. Ägypten: Theologie und Frömmigkeit einer frühen Hochkultur. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1984. ———. Der König als Sonnenpriester: Ein kosmographischer Begleittext zur kultischen Sonnenhymnik in thebanischen Tempeln und Gräbern. Glückstadt: Augustin, 1970. ———. Maât: L’Égypte pharaonique et l’idée de justice sociale. Paris: Julliard, 1989. ———. “Schöpfung.” LÄ 5 (1984): 677–90. Atwell, James E. “An Egyptian Source for Genesis I.” JThS 51 (2000): 441–77. Aujac, Germaine. Geminus, Introduction aux phénomènes. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1975. ———. “Strabon et le stoïcisme.” Diotima 11 (1983): 17–29. Austin, Norman. Archery at the Dark of the Moon. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975. ———. “The One and the Many in the Homeric Cosmos.” Arion 1 (1973): 219–74. Bakker, Frederik A. Epicurean Meteorology: Sources, Method, Scope and Organization. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Ballabriga, Alain. Les fictions d’Homère: L’invention mythologique et cosmographique dans L’Odyssée. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1998. 161 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 161 12/1/19 4:09 PM 162 Bibliography ———. Le soleil et le Tartare: L’image mythique du monde en Grèce archaïque. Paris: Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 1986. Barnes, Jonathan. “The Size of the Sun in Antiquity.” ACD 25 (1989): 29–41. Barrett, W. S. Euripides Hippolytos. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964. Barton, Ian M. Roman Domestic Buildings. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1996. Bauer, Brian S., Vania Smith-Oka, and Gabriel E. Cantarutti, trans. and eds. Cristóbal de Molina: Account of the Fables and Rites of the Incas. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2011. Beagon, Mary. Roman Nature: The Thought of Pliny the Elder. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Bentley, R. M. Manilii Astronomicon. London: Vaillant, 1739. Beye, Charles Rowan. Epic and Romance in the Argonautica of Apollonius. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1982. Bianchetti, Serena. “Avieno, Ora mar. 80 ss.: Le colonne d’Eracle e il vento del nord.” Sileno 16 (1990): 241–46. Bing, Peter. “Aratus and His Audiences.” MD 31 (1993): 99–109. Börtzler, Friedrich. “Zu den antiken Chaoskosmogonien.” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 28 (1930): 253–68. Bolton, James D. P. Aristeas of Proconnesus. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Bowen, Alan C. Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions: In Defense of a Heresy. Leiden: Brill, 2013. ———. “Papyrus Parisinus graecus 1.” EANS 622. Bowersock, G. W. “The East-West Orientation of Mediterranean Studies and the Meaning of North and South in Antiquity.” Pages 167–78 in Rethinking the Mediterranean. Edited by W. V. Harris. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Brumbaugh, Robert S. The Philosophers of Greece. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1964. Brunner, Hellmut. “Die Grenzen von Zeit und Raum bei den Ägyptern.” AOF 17 (1955): 141–45. ———. “Zum Raumbegriff der Ägypter.” Studium Generale: Zeitschrift für die Einheit der Wissenschaften 10 (1957): 612–20. Brunschvicg, Léon, ed. Blaise Pascal: Pensées. Paris: Vrin, 1904. Bunbury, Edward H. History of Ancient Geography. London: Murray, 1883. Burkert, Walter. Greek Religion. Translated by John Raffan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985. ———. The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age. Translated by Margaret E. Pinder. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992. Burnett, Anne Pippin. “Human Resistance and Divine Persuasion in Euripides’ Ion.” CP 57 (1962): 89–103. Carlsen, Robert S., and Martin Prechtel. “The Flowering of the Dead: An Interpretation of Highland Maya Culture.” Man, n.s., 26, no. 1 (1991): 23–42. Casson, Lionel. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971. Cherniss, Harold. “The Characteristics and Effects of Presocratic Philosophy.” JHI 12 (1951): 319–45. Clark, Robert Thomas Rundle. Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt. London: Thames and Hudson, 1978. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 162 12/1/19 4:09 PM Bibliography 163 Clarke, Katherine. Between Geography and History: Hellenistic Constructions of the Roman World. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. ———. “In Search of the Author of Strabo’s Geography.” JRS 87 (1997): 92–110. Clauss, James J. The Best of the Argonauts: The Redefinitation of the Epic Hero in Book One of Apollonius’s Argonautica. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Cohon, Robert. “Vergil and Pheidias: The Shield of Aeneas and of Athena Parthenos.” Vergilius 37 (1991): 22–30. Collins, John F. “Studies in Book One of the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius.” PhD diss., Columbia University, 1967. Conche, Marcel. Anaximandre: Fragments et Témoignages. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1991. Conman, Joanne. “It’s About Time: Ancient Egyptian Cosmology.” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 31 (2003): 33–71. Cornelius, Sakkie. “Ancient Egypt and the Other.” Scriptura 104 (2010): 322–40. Cornell, Tim J. The Fragments of the Roman Historians. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Couprie, Dirk L. Heaven and Earth in Ancient Greek Cosmology. Berlin: Springer, 2011. Couprie, Dirk L., Robert Hahn, and Gérard Naddaf. Anaximander in Context: New Studies in the Origins of Greek Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003. Coxon, A. H. The Fragments of Parmenides. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1986; Revised and expanded edition by Richard McKirahan and preface by Malcolm Scholfield. Las Vegas: Parmenides, 2009. Cullen, Christopher. “A Chinese Eratosthenes of the Flat Earth: A Study of a Fragment of Cosmology in Huai Nan tzu 淮 南 子.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 39, no. 1 (1976): 106–127. Cusset, C. “Hegesianax.” EANS 358. Davies, Malcolm. Poetarum melicorum graecorum fragmenta. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991. Dean, Dennis R. James Hutton and the History of Geology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992. Demand, Nancy. “Epicharmus and Gorgias.” AJPh 92 (1971): 453–63. Dember, H. and M. Uibe. “Über die scheinbare Gestalt des Himmelsgewölbes.” Annalen der Physik 360, no. 5 (1918): 387–96. Derchain, Philippe. “Le rôle du roi d’Égypte dans le maintien de l’ordre cosmique.” Pages 61–73 in Le pouvoir et le sacré. Edited by Luc de Heusch. Brussels: Université libre de Bruxelles, 1962. De Santillana, Giorgio, and Hertha von Dechend. Hamlet’s Mill: An Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time. Boston: Godine, 1969. Diamond, Jared M. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: Norton, 1997. Dickey, Eleanor. Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from Their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Dicks, D. R. Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 163 12/1/19 4:09 PM 164 Bibliography DiCosmo, Nicola. “The Northern Frontier in Pre-Imperial China.” Pages 885–966 in Cambridge History of Ancient China. Edited by Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Diehl, Ernest, trans. Procli Diadochi in Platonis Timaevm Commentaria. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner, 1903. Diels, Hermann. Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria. Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 9. Berlin: Reimer, 1882. ———. Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Liber Quattuor Posteriores Commentaria. Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 10. Berlin: Reimer, 1895. Diels, Hermann, and Walter Kranz. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker: Griechisch und deutsch. 6th ed. Berlin: Weidmann, 1951. Diggle, James, ed. Euripides Phaethon; Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. ———. Studies on the Text of Euripides: Supplices, Electra, Heracles, Troades, Iphigenia in Tauris, Ion. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981. Dilke, O. A. W. Greek and Roman Maps. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985. Diller, Aubrey. “Agathemerus, Sketch of Geography.” GRBS 16 (1975): 59–76. ———. The Tradition of the Minor Greek Geographers. Lancaster, PA: Lancaster Press, 1952. Dittenberger, Wilhelm, and Karl Purgold. Die Inschriften von Olympia. Olympia 5. Berlin: Asher, 1896. Dover, K. J., ed., Aristophanes, Clouds. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Dueck, Daniela. “Pausanias of Damaskos.” EANS 630–31. ———. Strabo of Amasia: A Greek Man of Letters in Augustan Rome. London: Routledge, 2000. Dunand, Françoise, and Christiane Zivie-Coche, Dieux et Hommes en Égypte. Paris: Colin, 1991; repr. 2001. ———. Gods and Men in Egypt. Translated by David Lorton. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004. Dunbar, Nan, ed. Aristophanes, Birds; Edited with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Dwyer, Eugene. “Augustus and the Capricorn.” MDAI(R) 80 (1973): 59–67. Eichholz, D. E. “The Shield of Aeneas: Some Elementary Notions.” PVS 6 (1966– 1967): 45–49. Eliade, Mircea. Cosmologie şi alchimie babiloniană. Bucharest: Vremea, 1937. ———. Cosmologie et Alchimie Babyloniennes. Translated by Alain Paruit. Paris: Gallimard, 1991. ———. Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism. Translated by Philip Mairet. London: Harvill, 1961. ———. Images et Symboles. Paris: Gallimard, 1952. ———. Le Mythe de l’Éternel Retour: Archétypes et Répétition. Paris: Gallimard, 1949. ———. The Myth of the Eternal Return. Translated by Willard R. Trask. New York: Pantheon, 1954. ———. “Psychologie et Histoire des Religions—A propos du Symbolisme du « Centre ».” Eranos Jahrbuch 19 (1950 [1951]): 247–282. Reprinted with revisions as Images et Symboles. Paris: Gallimard, 1952. Translated by Philip Mairet 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 164 12/1/19 4:09 PM Bibliography 165 as Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism. New York: Sheed, Andrews, and McMeel, 1961 (repr. 1969). Ellis, R. “The Literary Relations of ‘Longinus’ and Manilius.” CR 13 (1899): 294. Endsjø, Dag Øistein. “Placing the Unplaceable: The Making of Apollonius’ Argonautic Geography.” GRBS 38 (1997): 373–85. Enright, J. T. “The Eye, the Brain, and the Size of the Moon: Toward a Unified Oculomotor Hypothesis for the Moon Illusion.” Pages 59–122 in The Moon Illusion. Edited by Maurice Hershenson. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1989. Euben, J. Peter. Greek Tragedy and Political Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. Euripides. Hippolytos. Edited by William S. Barrett. Oxford: Clarendon, 1964. Evans, James, and J. Lennart Berggren. Geminos’s Introduction to the Phenomena: A Translation and Study of a Hellenistic Survey of Astronomy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. Evans, Rhiannon. “Ethnography’s Freak Show.” Ramus 28 (1999): 54–73. Faber, Riemer Anne. “Vergil’s Shield of Aeneas (Aeneid 8. 617–731) and the Shield of Heracles.” Mnemosyne 53, no. 1 (2000): 48–57. Faulkner, Raymond O. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976. Filehne, Wilhelm. “Die mathematische Ableitung der Form des scheinbaren Himmelsgewölbes.” Archiv für Physiologie: Physiologische Abteilung 34, no. 1 (1912): 1–32. Finkelberg, A. “On Cosmogony and Eypyrosis in Heraclitus.” AJPh 119 (1998): 195–222. Forrest, W. G. G. “Colonization and the Rise of Delphi.” Historia 6 (1957): 160–75. Foster, Lynn V. Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Fracasso, Riccardo M. “Manifestazioni del simbolismo assiale nelle tradizione cinese antiche.” Numen 28 (1981): 194–215. Frankfort, Henri. Kingship and the Gods. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Fraser, P. M. Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Freidel, David, Linda Schele, and Joy Parker. Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman’s Path. New York: Perennial, 1993. Froidefond, Christian. Le mirage égyptien dans la literature grecque d’Homère à Aristote Paris: Ophrys, 1971. Furley, David J. “Anaxagoras in Response to Parmenides.” Pages 61–85 in New Essays in Plato and the Pre-Socratics. Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplement 2. Edited by Roger A. Shiner and John King-Farlow. Guelph, Ontario: Canadian Assocation for Publishing in Philosophy, 1976. ———. “The Dynamics of the Earth: Anaximander, Plato, and the Centrifocal Theory.” Pages 14–26 in Cosmic Problems: Essays on Greek and Roman Philosophy of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. ———. The Greek Cosmologists: The Formation of the Atomic Theory and Its Earliest Critics. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Gallop, David. Parmenides of Elea: Text and Translation with Introduction. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984. Gardiner, Alan H. Egyptian Grammar. 3rd ed. London: Clarendon, 1957. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 165 12/1/19 4:09 PM 166 Bibliography Gee, Emma. Ovid, Aratus, and Augustus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Gentili, Bruno, and Carolus Prato. Poetarum elegiacorum testimonia et fragmenta. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Teubner, 2002. Gesenius, Wilhelm. Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Translated by Simon P. Tregelles. New York: Wiley, 1893. Geus, Klaus. “Der Widerstand gegen die Theorie von der Erde als Kugel: Paradigma einer Wissenschaftsfeindlichkeit in der heidnischen und christlichen Antike?” Pages 65–84 in Exempla imitanda: Mit der Vergangenheit die Gegenwart bewältigen? Festschrift für Ernst Baltrusch zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Monika Schuol, Christian Wendt, Julia Wilker, and Ernst Baltrusch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Gibbs, Sharon L. Greek and Roman Sundials. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976. Gisinger, Friedrich. Die Erdbeschreibung des Eudoxos von Knidos. Leipzig: Teubner, 1921. ———. “Timosthenes von Rhodos [#3].” RE, second series, 6 (1937): 1310–22. Goff, Barbara Elizabeth. “Euripides’ Ion 1132–1165.” PCPhS 34 (1988): 42–54. González-Reimann, Luís. “Cosmic Cycles, Cosmology, and Cosmography.” Pages 411–28 in vol. 2 of Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Edited by Knut A. Jacobsen. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Graham, Daniel. The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy: The Complete Fragments and Selected Testimonies of the Major Presocratics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Green, Peter, trans. Apollonios of Rhodes: The Argonautika. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Grégoire, Henri, ed. Euripide: Tome III. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1950. Grenfell, Bernard P., and Arthur S. Hunt. Greek Papyri, Series II: Classical Fragments and Other Greek and Latin Papyri. Oxford: Clarendon, 1897. Gruen, Erich S. Rethinking the Other in Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. Grüninger, Gerhart. “Untersuchungen zur Persönlichkeit des älteren Plinius: Die Bedeutung wissenschaftlicher Arbeit in seinem Denken.” PhD diss., University of Freiburg, 1976. Gurval, Robert Alan. Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998. Guthrie, William K. C. A History of Greek Philosophy 1: The Earlier Presocratics and the Pythagoreans. Cambridge: Cambridge Univerity Press, 1962. ———. A History of Greek Philosophy 2: The Presocratic Tradition From Parmenides to Democritus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Hahn, Robert. Anaximander and the Architects: The Contributions of Egyptian and Greek Architectural Technologies to the Origins of Greek Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001. Hallpike, Christopher R. The Foundations of Primitive Thought. Oxford: Clarendon, 1979. Halpern, Baruch. “The Assyrian Astronomy of Genesis 1 and the Birth of Milesian Philosophy.” Eretz-Israel 27 (2003): 74–83. Hardie, Philip R. “Imago Mundi: Cosmological and Ideological Aspects of the Shield of Achilles.” JHS 105 (1985): 11–31. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 166 12/1/19 4:09 PM Bibliography 167 ———. Vergil’s Aeneid: Cosmos and Imperium. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986. Harding, Phillip. Didymos on Demosthenes. Oxford: Clarendon, 2006. Harley, John B., and David A. Woodward. Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient, and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Harrison, Stephen J. “The Survival and Supremacy of Rome: The Unity of the Shield of Aeneas.” JRS 87 (1997): 70–76. Hartog, François. The Mirror of Herodotus. Translated by Janet Lloyd. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. Hawke, Jason. “Number and Numeracy in Early Greek Literature.” SyllClass 19 (2008): 1–76. Hayduck, Michael. Alexandri in Aristotelis Meteorologicorum Libros Commentaria. Berlin: Reimer, 1899. Heather, Peter J. Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Heiberg, Johan L. Simplicii in Aristotelis de Caelo Commentaria. Berlin: Reimer, 1894. Heidel, William A. “Anaximander’s Book: The Earliest Known Geographical Treatise.” Proceedings of the American Academy of the Arts and Sciences 56 (1921): 239–88. ———. The Frame of the Ancient Greek Maps. New York: American Geographical Society, 1937. Heimpel, Wolfgang. “The Sun At Night and the Doors of Heaven in Babylonian Texts.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 38 (1986): 127–51. Helck, Wolfgang, and Eberhard Otto, eds. Lexikon der Ägyptologie. 7 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1975–1990. Heraclitus. Fragments. Translated by T. M. Robinson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987. Hinckley, Lois V., and Michelle Thorne. “The Shields of Achilles and Aeneas in Dialogue.” NECJ 21 (1993–1994): 149–55. Hippocrates. Airs, Eaux, Lieux. Edited by Jacques Jouanna. Série grecque 374. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1996. Hölbl, Günther. A History of the Ptolemaic Empire. Translated by Tina Saavedra. London: Routledge, 2001. Hölscher, Tonio. “Ein römischer Stirnziegel mit Victoria und Capricorn.” JRGZ 12 (1965): 59–73. Hölscher, Uvo. “Anaximander und die Anfänge der Philosophie (II).” Hermes 81 (1953): 385–418. Holder, Paul. “Auxiliary Deployment in the Reign of Hadrian.” BICS 46 (2003): 101–45. Hopkins, E. Washburn. “Mythological Aspects of Trees and Mountains in the Great Epic.” JAOS 30 (1910): 347–74. Horden, Peregrine, and Nicolas Purcell. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000. Hornung, Erik. “Chaotische Bereiche in der geordneten Welt.” ZÄS 81 (1956): 28–32. Horowitz, Wayne. “The Babylonian Map of the World.” Iraq 50 (1988): 147–65. ———. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998. Hubbard, Thomas K. The Pindaric Mind: A Study of Logical Structure in Early Greek Poetry. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Huffman, Carl A. Philolaus of Croton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 167 12/1/19 4:09 PM 168 Bibliography Hurst, André. “Géographes et poètes: Le cas d’Apollonios de Rhodes.” Pages 279–88 in Sciences exactes et sciences appliquées à Alexandrie. Edited by Gilbert Argoud and Jean-Yves Guillaumin. Saint-Étienne: Publications de l’Université de SaintÉtienne, 1998. Hurwit, Jeffrey M. The Art and Culture of Early Greece: 1100–480 B.C. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985. Imhof, Max. Euripides’ Ion: Eine literarische Studie. Bern: Francke, 1966. Inwood, Brad. The Poem of Empedocles. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001. Irby, Georgia. “Climate and Courage.” Pages 247–65 in The Routledge Handbook of Identity and the Environment in the Classical and Medieval Worlds. Edited by Rebecca Futo Kennedy and Molly Ayn Jones-Lewis. London: Routledge, 2015. Irby-Massie, Georgia. “M. Vipsanius Agrippa.” EANS 830. Isaac, Benjamin. The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013. Janowski, Bernd. “Vom näturlich zum symbolisch Raum: Aspekte der Raumwahrnehmung in Alten Testament.” Pages 51–64 in Wahrnehmung und Erfassung geographischer Räume in der Antike. Edited by Michael Rathmann, Mainz: von Zabern, 2007. Jones, Alexander. “The Stoics and the Astronomical Sciences.” Pages 342–44 in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Edited by Brad Inwood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Jones, William H. S. Hippocrates. Vol. 2. Loeb Classical Library 148. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1923. Jones-Lewis, Molly Ayn. “Poison: Nature’s Argument for the Roman Empire in Pliny the Elder’s Naturalis Historia.” CW 106 (2012): 51–74. ———. “Tribal Identity in the Roman World: The Case of the Psylloi.” Pages 192–209 in The Routledge Handbook of Identity and the Environment in the Classical and Medieval Worlds. Edited by Rebecca Futo Kennedy and Molly Jones-Lewis. London: Routledge, 2015. Jouanna, Jacques. “Water, Health, and Disease in the Hippocratic Treatise Airs, Waters, Places.” Pages 155–72 in Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen. Edited by Philip van der Eijk. Translated by Neil Alles. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Kahanov, Y. “Ma’agan-Michael ship (Israel).” Pages 155–60 in Construction navale maritime et fluviale: Approches archéologique, historique et ethnologique. Edited by P. Pomey and E. Rieth. Archaeonautica 14. Paris: CNRS, 1999. Kahn, Charles H. Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. Kannicht, Richard. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Vol. 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Kaplan, P. “Hekataios of Abdera.” EANS 361. ———. “Ktesias of Knidos.” EANS 496. ———. “Skulax of Karuanda.” EANS 745–46. ———. “Skulax of Karuanda, pseudo.” EANS 746. Karenga, Maulana. Maat, The Moral Ideal in Ancient Egypt: A Study in Classical African Ethics. New York: Routledge, 2004. Kartunnen, Klaus. “ΚΥΝΟΚΕΦΑΛΟΙ and ΚΥΝΑΜΟΛΓΟΙ in Classical Ethnography.” Arctos 18 (1984): 31–36. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 168 12/1/19 4:09 PM Bibliography 169 Kaufman, Lloyd, and James H. Kaufman. “Explaining the Moon Illusion.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97 (2000): 500–505. Kaufman, Lloyd, and Irvin Rock. “The Moon Illusion, I.” Science 136 (1962): 953–61. Kaufman, Lloyd, V. Vassiliades, R. Noble, R. Alexander, J. Kaufman, S. Edlund. “Perceptual Distance and the Moon Illusion.” Spatial Vision 20 (2007): 155–75. Keay, Simon J. Roman Spain. Berkeley: University of California, 1988. Keightley, David N. The Ancestral Landscape: Time, Space, and Community in Late Shang China, ca. 1200–1045 B.C. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Kennedy, Rebecca Futo. “Airs, Waters, Metals, Earth: People and Land in Archaic and Classical Greek Thought.” Pages 9–28 in The Routledge Handbook of Identity and the Environment in the Classical and Medieval Worlds. Edited by Rebecca Futo Kennedy and Molly Jones-Lewis. London: Routledge, 2015. Keppie, Lawrence. The Making of the Roman Army: From Republic to Empire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998. Keyser, Paul T. “Baiton.” EANS 186. ———. “Diognetos.” EANS 254. ———. “From Myth to Map: The Blessed Isles in the First Century BC.” AncW 24 (1993): 149–68. ———. “The Geographical Work of Dikaiarchos.” Pages 353–72 in Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation, and Discussion. Edited by W. W. Fortenbaugh and Eckahrt Schütrumpf. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2001. ———. “Greek Geography of the Western Barbarians.” Pages 37–70 in The Barbarians of Ancient Europe: Realities and Interactions. Edited by Larissa Bonfante. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. ———. “Kleon of Surakousai.” EANS 481. ———. “The Name and Nature of Science: Authorship in Social and Evolutionary Context.” Pages 17–61 in Writing Science: Medical and Mathematical Authorship in Ancient Greece. Edited by Markus Asper. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. ———. “Philonides of Khersonesos.” EANS 659. ———. “Xenophanes’ Sun on Trojan Ida.” Mnemosyne 45 (1992): 299–311. Keyser, Paul T., and Georgia L. Irby-Massie. “Diodoros of Tarsos.” EANS 249–50. ———, eds. Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists: The Greek Tradition and Its Many Heirs. London: Routledge, 2008. Kidd, Douglas A. Aratus, Phaenomena: Edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Kidd, Ian G. Posidonius, Vol II: The Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield. The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Kister, Menahem. “Tohu wa-Bohu, Primordial Elements and Creatio ex Nihilo.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 14 (2007): 229–56. Klimkeit, Hans J. “Spatial Orientation in Mythical Thinking as Exemplified in Ancient Egypt: Considerations Toward a Geography of Religions.” HR 14 (1975): 266–81. Koniaris, George Leonidas, ed. Maximus Tyrius: Philosophumena—ΔΙΑΛΕΞΕΙΣ. Berlin: de Gruter, 1995. Korenjak, Martin. “Italiam contra Tiberinaque longe/Ostia: Virgil’s Carthago and Eratosthenian Geography.” CQ 54 (2004): 646–49. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 169 12/1/19 4:09 PM 170 Bibliography Kraft, K. “Zum Capricorn auf den Münzen des Augustus.” JNG 17 (1967): 17–27. Krebs, Christopher B. A Most Dangerous Book: Tacitus’s Germania From the Roman Empire to the Third Reich. New York: Norton, 2012. Kuelzer, Andreas. “Byzantine Geography.” Pages 921–42 in Oxford Handbook of Science and Medicine in the Classical World. Edited by Paul T. Keyser with John Scarborough. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Kurth, Dieter. “Manu.” LÄ 3 (1980): 1185–86. ———. “Nut.” LÄ 4 (1982): 533–41. Laskaris, J. “Hippokratic Corpus, Airs, Waters, Places.” EANS 406. Lasserre, François. Die Fragmente des Eudoxos von Knidos. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1966. Laurent, Jérôme. “Strabon et la philosophie stoïcienne.” ArchPhilos 71 (2008): 111–27. Lawall, G. “Apollonius’ Argonautica: Jason as Anti-Hero.” YCS 19 (1966): 121–69. Lehoux, Daryn. “Poseidonios of Apameia (ca. 110–ca. 51 BCE).” EANS 691–92. Leimbach, R. “Euripides Ion: Eine Interpretation.” PhD diss., Frankfurt am Main, 1971. Lesher, J. H. Xenophanes of Colophon: Fragments; A Text and Translation with a Commentary. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992. Lesko, Leonard H. “Ancient Egyptian Cosmogonies and Cosmologies.” Pages 88–122 in Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice. Edited by Byron E. Shafer. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991. Levin, D. N. “Diplax Porphuree.” RFIC 93 (1970): 17–36. Lewis, C. S. The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964. Lewis, Mark Edward. The Construction of Space in Early China. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006. ———. The Flood Myths of Early China. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006. Littré, Émile. Oeuvres complètes d’Hippocrate: Traduction nouvelle avec le text grec en regard. Paris: Bailliere, 1839–1861. Lloyd, G. E. R. The Ambitions of Curiosity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. ———. Greek Science After Aristotle. New York: Norton, 1973. ———. Magic, Reason, and Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. ———. Polarity and Analogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966. Lonie, Iain M., ed. The Hippocratic Treatises “On Generation,” “On the Nature of the Child,” “Diseases 4”: A Commentary. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1981. Loprieno, Antonio. Topos und Mimesis: Zum Ausländer in der ägyptischen Literatur Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988. Lozovsky, N. “Kosmas of Alexandria, Indikopleustes.” EANS 487. Luckiesh, M. “The Apparent Form of the Sky-Vault.” Journal of the Franklin Institute 191 (1921): 259–63. Lund, Allan A. Die Ersten Germanen: Ethnizität Und Ethnogenese. Heidelberg: Winter, 1998. Lynch, David K. “Optics of Sunbeams.” Journal of the Optical Society of America A 4.3 (1987): 609–611. Lynn, Chris, and Dean A. Miller. “The Shield Beyond All Words to Describe: Trifunctional Patterns Located on the Shield of Aeneas?” JIES 31 (2003): 391–419. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 170 12/1/19 4:09 PM Bibliography 171 MacCormack, Geoffrey. “Natural Law and Cosmic Harmony in Traditional Chinese Thought.” Ratio Juris 2 (1989): 254–73. McKeown, Jennifer. “The Symbolism of the Djed-pillar in The Tale of King Khufu and the Magicians.” Trabajos de Egiptología / Papers on Ancient Egypt 1 (2002): 55–68. Mair, Victor H. Wandering on the Way: Early Taoist Tales and Parables of Chuang Tzu. New York: Bantam, 1994. Major, John S. Heaven and Earth in Early Han Thought: Chapters Three, Four, and Five of the Huainanzi. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993. ———. “Myth, Cosmology, and the Origins of Chinese Science.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 5 (1978): 1–20. Marcotte, Didier. Géographes Grecs, Tome 1: Introduction générale; Ps.-Scymnos; Circuit de la Terre. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2000. Marcovich, Miroslav. Heraclitus. Mérida, Venezuela: Los Andes University Press, 1967. Margarida, Ana Arruda. “Phoenician Colonization on the Atlantic Coast of the Iberian Peninsula.” Pages 113–30 in Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia. Edited by Michael Dietler and Carolina López-Ruiz. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Martin, Karl. “Urhügel.” LÄ 6 (1986): 873–75. Mastronarde, Donald John. “Iconography and Imagery in Euripides’ Ion.” CSCA 8 (1975): 163–76. Mayor, Adrienne. The First Fossil Hunters: Dinosaurs, Mammoths, and Myth in Greek and Roman Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011. ———. The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Mendell, H. “Meton of Athens.” EANS 551–52. Merkelbach, Reinhold, and M. L. West. Hesiodi Theogonia, Opera det Dies, Scutum, Fragmenta Selecta. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Merker, Irwin L. “The Ptolemaic Officials and the League of the Islanders.” Historia 19 (1970): 141–60. Merriam, Carol Una. “An Examination of Jason’s Cloak (Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica 1, 730–68).” Scholia 2 (1993): 69–80. Meyer, J. “Aëtios.” EANS 37–38. Miller, Albert, and Hans Neuberger. “Investigations into the Apparent Shape of the Sky.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 26 (1945): 212–16. Mittenhuber, Florian. “Die Naturphänomene des hohen Nordens in den kleinen Schriften des Tacitus.” MH 60 (2003): 44–59. Moraux, Paul. “Anecdota Graeca Minora II: Über die Winde.” ZPE 41 (1981): 43–58. Morenz, Siegfried. Egyptian Religion. Translated by Ann E. Keep. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1973. Morrison, J. S. “The Shape of the Earth in Plato’s Phaedo.” Phronesis 4 (1959): 101–119. Muhs, Brian P. The Ancient Egyptian Economy, 3000–30 BCE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Müller, Karl. Geographi Graeci Minores. 2 vols. Paris: Didot, 1855–1882. Müller, Klaus E. Geschichte der Antiken Ethnographie und Ethnologischen Theoriebildung. 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1972, 1980. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 171 12/1/19 4:09 PM 172 Bibliography Murray, W. M., and P. M. Petsas. Octavian’s Campsite Memorial for the Actian War. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1989. Myres, J. L. Herodotus: Father of History. Oxford: Clarendon, 1953. Nakayama, Shigeru. A History of Japanese Astronomy: Chinese Background and Western Impact. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969 . . Needham, Joseph. Science and Civilization in China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Needham, Joseph, and Colin A. Ronan. “Chinese Cosmology.” Pages 25–35 in Encyclopedia of Cosmology. Edited by Noriss S. Hetherington. New York: Garland, 1993. Neugebauer, Otto. Astronomy and History: Selected Essays. New York: Springer, 1983. Neugebauer, Otto, and R. A. Parker. Egyptian Astronomical Texts I: The Early Decans. London: Lund Humphries, 1960. Newsome, Elizabeth. Trees of Paradise and Pillars of the World: The Serial Stelae Cycle of ’18-Rabbit-God K,’ King of Copan. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001. Nichols, Andrew. Ctesias, On India: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. London: Bloomsbury, 2011. Nicolet, Claude. Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991. O’Gorman, Ellen. “No Place Like Rome: Identity and Difference in the Germania of Tacitus.” Pages 95–118 in Tacitus. Edited by Rhiannon Ash. London: Bloomsbury, 2006. Östenberg, Ida. “Demonstrating the Conquest of the World: The Procession of Peoples and Rivers on the Shield of Aeneas and the Triple Triumph of Octavian in 29 B.C.” Orom 24 (1999): 155–62. Osborne, Catherine. Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy: Hippolytos of Rome and the Presocratics. London: Duckworth, 1970. Otto, Eberhard. “Bachu.” LÄ 1 (1975): 574. Ottone, Gabriella. “Strabone e la critica a Timostene di Rodi: Un frammento di Polibio (XII.1.5) testimone del Περὶ λιμένων?” Syngraphé 4 (2002): 153–71. Page, D. L. Poetae melici Graeci. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Pankenier, David W. Astrology and Cosmology in Early China: Conforming Earth to Heaven. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. ———. “The Cosmo-Political Background of Heaven’s Mandate.” Early China 20 (1995): 121–76. ———. “Heaven-Sent: Understanding Cosmic Disaster in Chinese Myth and History.” Pages 187–97 in Natural Catastrophes During Bronze Age Civilisations: Archaeological, Geological, Astronomical, and Cultural Perspectives. Edited by Benny J. Peiser, Trevor Palmer, and Mark E. Bailey. Oxford: Archaeopress, 1998. Pascal, Blaise. Pensées. Pages 541–1688 in Oeuvres complètes. Edited by Michel Le Guern. Paris: Gallimard, 2000. Pendrick, Gerard J. “Antiphon of Athens.” EANS 99. ———. Antiphon the Sophist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Picot, Jean-Claude. “L’Image du ΠΝΙΓΕΥΣ dans les Nuées: Un Empédocle au charbon.” Pages 113–29 in Comédie et Philosophie: Socrate et les « Présocratiques » dans les Nuées d’Aristophane. Edited by André Laks and Rosella Saetta Cottone. Paris: Presses de l’École normale supérieure, 2013. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 172 12/1/19 4:09 PM Bibliography 173 Plofker, Kim. “Humans, Demons, Gods and Their Worlds: The Sacred and Scientific Cosmologies of India.” Pages 32–42 in Geography and Ethnography: Perceptions of the World in Pre-Modern Societies. Edited by Kurt A. Raaflaub and Richard J. A. Talbert. West Sussex: Wiley, 2013. Podlecki, A. J. The Life of Themistocles: A Critical Survey of the Literary and Archaeological Evidence. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1975. Pomponius Mela. Chorographie. Translated by Alain Silberman. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1988. ———. De chorographia libri tres. Translated and edited by Piergiorgio Parroni. Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1984. ———. Kreuzfahrt durch die Alte Welt. Translated and edited by Kai Brodersen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1994. Pongratz-Leisten, Beate. “The Other and the Enemy in the Mesopotamian Conception of the World.” Pages 195–231 in Mythology and Mythologies: Methodological Approaches to Intercultural Influences. Edited by Robert Whiting. Helsinki: NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001. Putnam, Michael C. J. Vergil’s Epic Designs: Ecphrasis in the Aeneid. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. Raaflaub, Kurt A., and Richard J. A. Talbert. Geography and Ethnography: Perceptions of the World in Pre-Modern Societies. New York: Wiley, 2012. Radt, Stefan. Strabons Geographika. 10 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002–2011. ———. Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1999. Raphals, Lisa. “A ‘Chinese Eratosthenes’ Reconsidered: Chinese and Greek Calculations and Categories.” East Asian Science, Technology, and Medicine 19 (2002): 10–60. Rappenglueck, Michael. “A Palaeolithic Planetarium Underground: The Cave of Lascaux.” Migration and Diffusion 5 (2004): 93–119. Rao, D. Venkateswara. “Effect of Illumination on the Apparent Shape of the Sky.” Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences, Section A 25, no. 1 (1947): 34–42. ———. “Variation of the Apparent Shape of the Sky with Intensity of Illumination.” Current Science 15, no. 2 (1946): 40–41. Rathmann, Michael. Wahrnehmung und Erfassung geographischer Räume in der Antike. Mainz: von Zabern, 2007. Read, Kay A. “Sacred Commoners: The Motion of Cosmic Powers in Mexican Rulership.” HR 34 (1994): 39–69. Reichert, H. “Personennamen bei antiken Autoren als Zeugnisse für älteste westgermanische Endungen.” Zeitschrift für Deutsches Altentum und Deutsches Literatur 132 (2003): 85–100. Reimann, Eugen. “Die scheinbare Vergrößerung der Sonne und des Mondes am Horizont.” Zeitschrift für Psychologie 30 (1902): 1–38. Riesenberg, Saul H. “The Organization of Navigational Knowledge on Puluwat.” Pages 91–128 in Pacific Navigation and Voyaging. Edited by Ben R. Finney. Wellington, New Zealand: Polynesian Society, 1976. Rihll, Tracey Elizabeth. Greek Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Robinson, Arthur H. “The Uniqueness of the Map.” American Cartographer 5 (1978): 5–7. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 173 12/1/19 4:09 PM 174 Bibliography Robinson, T. M. Heraclitus: Fragments. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987. Rochberg, Francesca. “The Expression of Terrestrial and Celestial Order in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Pages 9–46 in Ancient Perspectives: Maps and Their Place in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and Rome. Edited by Richard J. A. Talbert. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2012. ———. “A Short History of the Waters of the Firmament.” Pages 227–44 in From the Banks of the Euphrates: Studies in Honor of Alice Louise Slotsky. Edited by Micah Ross. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Rochberg-Halton, Francesca. “Mesopotamian Cosmology.” in Encyclopedia of Cosmology. Edited by Noriss S. Hetherington. New York: Garland, 1993. Rock, Irvin, and Lloyd Kaufman. “The Moon Illusion, II.” Science 136 (1962): 1023–31. Rodríguez-Noriega Guillién, Lucía. Epicarmo de Siracusa: Testimonios y Fragmentos. Oviedo: Universidad de Oviedo, Servicio de Publicaciones, 1996. ———. “Epikharmos of Surakousai.” EANS 291–92. Roller, Duane W. Ancient Geography: The Discovery of the World in Ancient Greece and Rome. London: Tauris, 2015. ———. Eratosthenes’ Geography. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. ———. The Geography of Strabo: An English Translation with Introduction and Notes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. ———. “Phoenician Exploration.” Pages 645–53 in Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean. Edited by Carolina López-Ruiz and Brian Doak. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. ———. “Seleukos of Seleukeia.” Antiquite Classique 74 (2005): 111–18. ———. Through the Pillars of Herakles: Greco-Roman Exploration of the Atlantic. London: Routledge, 2006. ———. The World of Juba II and Kleopatra Selene: Royal Scholarship on Rome’s African Frontier. London: Routledge, 2003. Romer, F. E. Pomponius Mela’s Description of the World. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998. Romero, Aldemaro. “It’s a Wonderful Hypogean Life: A Guide to the Troglomorphic Fishes of the World.: Pages 13–41 in The Biology of Hypogean Fishes. Edited by Aldemaro Romero. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001. Romm, James S. “Dragons and Gold at the Ends of the Earth: A Folktale Motif Developed by Herodotus.” Merveilles & Contes 1 (1987): 45–54. ———. The Edges of the Earth in Roman Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. ———. “Herodotus and Mythic Geography: The Case of the Hyperboreans.” TAPhA 119 (1989): 97–113. Rood, Tim. “Mapping Spatial and Temporal Distance in Herodotus and Thucydides.” Pages 101–20 in New Worlds from Old Texts: Revisting Ancient Space and Place. Edited by Elton Barker, Stefan Bouzarovski, C. B. R. Pelling, and Leif Isaksen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Roscher, Wilhelm H. Der Omphalosgedanke bei verschiedenen Völkern, besonders den semitischen: Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Religionswissenschaft, Volkskunde und Archäologie = Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig: Philologisch-historische Klasse 70. Hildesheim: Olms, 1974. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 174 12/1/19 4:09 PM Bibliography 175 Ross, Helen E. “Cleomedes (c. 1st century AD) on the Celestial Illusion, Atmospheric Enlargement, and Size-Distance Invariance.” Perception 29 (2000): 863–71. Ross, Helen E., and George M. Ross, “Did Ptolemy Understand the Moon Illusion?” Perception 5 (1976): 377–85. Rossi, Andreola Francesca. “Ab urbe condita: Roman History on the Shield of Aeneas.” Pages 145–56 in Citizens of Discord: Rome and Its Civil Wars. Edited by Brian W. Breed and Cynthia Damon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Ruck, Carl A. P. “On the Sacred Names of Iamos and Ion: Ethnobotanical Referents in the Hero’s Parentage.” CJ 71 (1976): 235–52. Ruehl, Martin A. “German Horror Stories: Teutomania and the Ghosts Of Tacitus.” Arion 22 (2014): 129–90. Sale, William Merritt. “Homeric Olympus and Its Formulae.” AJPh 105 (1984): 1–28. Salomon, Frank, and George L. Urioste. The Huarochiri Manuscript: A Testament of Ancient and Colonial Andean Religion. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1991. Schaefer, Wilhelm. “Entwicklung der Ansichten des Alterthums über Gestalt und Grösse der Erde.” Pages 1–26 in Programm des Gymnasiums mit Realklassen zu Insterberg. Insterberg: Carl Wilhelm, 1868. Schele, Linda, and David Freidel. A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. New York: Quill/Morrow, 1990. Schele, Linda, and Mary Ellen Miller. The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. New York: Braziller, 1986. Schibli, Hermann S. Pherekydes of Syros. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Schmidt, Johanna. “Olympos.” RE 18 (1939): 272–310. Schulten, A. Iberische Landeskunde. Vol. 1. Strasbourg: Heitz, 1955. Schwabl, Hans. “Weltschöpfung.” RE, 2nd ser. 9 (1962): 1433–1589. Schwartz, Glenn M. “Pastoral Nomadism in Ancient Western Asia.” Pages 249–58 in vol. 1 of Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack M. Sasson. New York: Scribner, 1995. Shapiro, Harvey Alan. “Jason’s Cloak.” TAPhA 110 (1980): 263–86. Shields, Janet. “Sunbeams and Moonshine.” Optics and Photonics News 5, no. 7 (1994): 57, 59. Shumate, Nancy. “Postcolonial Approaches to Tacitus.” Pages 476–503 in A Companion to Tacitus. Edited by Victoria Emma Pagán. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. Sider, David. The Fragments of Anaxagoras. 2nd ed. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 2005. Smith, Michael E. “The Archaeology of Ancient State Economies.” Annual Review of Anthropology 33 (2004): 73–102. Smith, Robert. A compleat system of opticks. Cambridge: Crownfield, 1738. Reprinted Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum, 2004. Sparkes, Brian A. “The Greek Kitchen.” JHS 82 (1962): 121–137. Sparkes, Brian A., and Lucy Talcott. Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries B.C. Athenian Agora 12. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970. ———. Pots and Pans of Classical Athens. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961. Speal, C. Scott. “The Evolution of Ancient Maya Exchange Systems: An Etymological Study of Economic Vocabulary in the Mayan Language Family.” Ancient Mesoamerica 25 (2014): 69–113. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 175 12/1/19 4:09 PM 176 Bibliography Stahl, W. H. Roman Science: Origins, Development, and Influence to the Later Middle Ages. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1962. Steinmetz, Peter. “Tacitus und die Kugelgestalt der Erde.” Philologus 111 (1967): 233–41. Sweeney, Leo. Infinity in the Presocratics: A Bibliographical and Philosophical Study. Dordrecht: Springer, 1972. Syme, Ronald. Tacitus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958. Tacitus. Germania. Edited by J. B. Rives. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Talbert, Richard J. A. “Peutinger Map.” EANS 640. ———. Rome’s World: The Peutinger Map Reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Tan, Zoë. “Subversive Geography in Tacitus’ Germania.” JRS 104 (2014): 181–204. Tarn, W. W. “Two Notes on Ptolemaic History.” JHS 53 (1933): 57–68. Taube, Karl A. “A Prehispanic Maya Katun Wheel.” Journal of Anthropological Research 44 (1988): 183–203. Tedlock, Dennis. Popul Vuh: The Definitive Edition of the Mayan Book of the Dawn of Life. New York: Touchstone, 1985. Teeter, Emily. “Maat.” Pages 319–21 in Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Vol. 2. Edited by Donald B. Redford. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Terio, Simonetta. Der Steinbock als Herrschaftszeichen des Augustus. Münster: Aschendorff, 2006. Thibodeau, Philip. “Anaximander’s Model and the Measures of the Sun and Moon.” JHS 137 (2017): 92–111. Thomson, J. Oliver. History of Ancient Geography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948. Tièche, Edouard. “Atlas als Personifikation der Weltachse.” MH 2 (1945): 165–86. Tierney, J. J. “The Map of Agrippa.” PCA 59 (1962): 26–27. Timpe, Dieter. Romano—Germanica: Gesammelte Studien Zur Germania Des Tacitus. Leipzig: Teubner, 1995. Tobin, Vincent Arieh. “Creation Myths.” Pages 469–72 in volume 2 of Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Edited by D. B. Redford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Todd, Malcolm. The Early Germans. Malden, UK: Blackwell, 2004. Usener, Hermann. Scholia in Lucani Bellum Civile. Leipzig: Teubner, 1889. Vian, Francis, and Émile Delage, trans. Apollonios of Rhodes: Argonautiques. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1974. Vlastos, Gregory. “Equality and Justice in Early Greek Cosmologies.” CP 42 (1947): 65–76. ———. Review of Principium Sapientiae by F. M. Cornford. Gnomon 27 (1955): 65–76. Vogt, Evon Z. Tortillas for the Gods. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976. Volk, Katharina. Manilius and His Intellectual Background. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Wagner, Emil August. Die Erdbeschreibung des Timosthenes von Rhodos. Leipzig: Frankenstein & Wagner, 1884. Wagner, Norbert. “Lateinisch-Germanisch Mannus: Zu Tacitus, Germania C.2.” Historische Sprachforschung / Historical Linguistics 107 (1994): 143–46 Walsh, George B. “The Rhetoric of Birthright and Race in Euripides’ Ion.” Hermes 106 (1978): 301–15. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 176 12/1/19 4:09 PM Bibliography 177 Webster, Graham. The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D. 3rd ed. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998. West, David Alexander. “Cernere erat: The Shield of Aeneas.” PVS 15 (1975–1976): 1–6. West, M. L. “Ab ovo: Orpheus, Sanchuniathon, and the Origins of the Ionian World Model.” CQ 44 (1994): 289–307. ———. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. ———. The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Its Nature, Structure, and Origins. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. ———. “Three Presocratic Cosmologies.” CQ 13 (1963): 154–76. Whitley, C. F. “The Pattern of Creation in Genesis, Chapter 1.” JNES 17 (1958): 32–40. Wiesehöfer, J. “Ein König Erschießt und Imaginiert Sein Imperium: Persische Reichsordung und Persische Reichesbilder zur Zeit Darios I (522–486 v. Chr).” Pages 31–40 in Wahrnehmung und Erfassung geographischer Räum in der Antike. Edited by Michael Rathmann. Mainz: von Zabern, 2007. Wilkinson, Toby A. H. “What a King is This: Narmer and the Concept of the Ruler.” JEA 86 (2000): 23–32. Willcock, M. M., ed. Victory Odes: Olympians 2, 7, 11; Nemean 4; Isthmians 3, 4, 7 / Pindar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Willham, Mary Ella. “Mela, Pomponius.” Pages 257–85 in vol. 9 of Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, Annotated Lists and Guides. Edited by Virginia Brown. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2011. Williams, Robert D., trans. “The Shield of Aeneas.” Vergilius 27 (1981): 8–11. ———. Virgil: The Aeneid. Basingstoke, UK: MacMillan, 1973. Wolff, C. “The Design and Myth in Euripides’ Ion.” HSCP 69 (1965): 169–94. Wolska-Conus, Wanda. Topographie chrétienne. 3 vols. Paris: Cerf, 1968–1973. Woolf, Greg. “Cruptorix and His Kind: Talking Ethnicity on the Middle Ground.” Pages 207–218 in Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity: The Role of Power and Tradition. Edited by Ton Derks and Nico Roymans. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009. Wycherley, R. E. “Aristophanes, Birds, 995–1009.” CQ 31 (1937): 22–31. Xu Fengxian. “Astral Sciences in Ancient China.” Pages 129–43 in Oxford Handbook of Science and Medicine in the Classical World. Edited by Paul T. Keyser with John Scarborough. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Yang, Shao-yun. “ ‘Their Lands are Peripheral and Their qi is Blocked Up’: The Uses of Environmental Determinism in Han (206 BCE-220 CE) and Tang (618– 907 BCE) Chinese Interpretations of the ‘Barbarians’.” Pages 390–412 in The Routledge Handbook of Identity and the Environment in the Classical and Medieval Worlds. Edited by Rebecca Futo Kennedy and Molly Jones-Lewis. London: Routledge, 2015. Zacharia, Katerina. Converging Truths: Euripides’ Ion and the Athenian Quest for Self-definition. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Zanker, Paul. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Translated by Alan Shapiro. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 177 12/1/19 4:09 PM 

chApter 1 The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology Paul T. Keyser Introduction Aristotle exploited prior speculations about the kosmos—claims about the elements, the shape of the earth, the heavenly motions, and the causes of things— in order to support his own claims, which he considered the telos of those earlier works. But a mass of evidence exists that those earlier thinkers were speculating within, or on the margins of, a radically distinct framework, which has left traces throughout early Greek thought and even within Aristotle’s works. Rethinking that evidence reveals features of a model that had no tendency to evolve in the direction of Aristotle’s model, and that I designate as the “Kozy Kosmos.” In this model, the flat earth is bounded at its rim and beneath by watery chaos, with a sacred mountain, pillar, or tree at its center, and overlain by a rotating sky, whose changes are causally connected with changes on earth. This mythohistorical model is anthropocentric, constructed of contiguous and cohering parts, divinely ordered, and threatened by chaos. To better reimagine this model, I exploit evidence of early cosmogonies and cosmologies from Egypt, Israel, Mesopotamia, India, China, and even the Americas. By confronting the reliable evidence for early Greek cosmology with the reimagined mytho-historical model, I show how radically transgressive and yet conservative the development of early Greek cosmology was. This perspective provides a clearer focus for many claims attributed to the writers Akousilaos, Alkman, Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Antiphon, Aristeas, Demokritos, Diogenes of Apollonia, Empedokles, Herakleitos, Melissos, Parmenides, Pherekudes of Suros, Thales, Xenophanes, and Zeno of Elea. Furthermore, key concepts from this “Kozy Kosmos” model persist within the models of Plato and Aristotle. In a related sense, the models of Plato and Aristotle are also “cozy,” in that they are stable, closed, and of human scale.1 1. Alan Bowen and Michèle Lowrie read and provided valuable advice on an early version of §III, “Rounding the Edges, Raising the Sky” (paper given in San Francisco at the 2004 Annual 5 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 5 12/1/19 4:09 PM 6 Paul T. Keyser I� The Mytho-historical “Cradle Cosmology”: An Early and Discarded Image The modern synthesis depicts a kosmos of stunning extent in space and time, vastly exceeding human grasp, and we find ourselves lost among its infinities. As Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) mused, “Le silence éternel de ces espaces infinis m’effraie.”2 This world-picture has evolved through debate and discovery since the publication by Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) of the De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1543). The vastness that terrified Pascal has grown ever more vast through the subsequent works of Isaac Newton (1643–1727 [new style dates]), Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827), and Charles Darwin (1809–1882), plus the twentieth-century works of Albert Einstein (1879–1955), Arthur Eddington (1882–1944), and Edwin Hubble (1889–1953). If we turn and gaze back at the evolution of the world-pictures of ancient cultures, we are amazed in a different way. The synthesis created in the Greek world by Plato and Aristotle became the received view, despite resistance by atomists, throughout cultures influenced by ancient Greco-Roman culture, until they were discarded in favor of the world-picture that began to emerge with Copernicus’s work.3 Because of the long life of, and extensive studies on, this culturally pervasive, geocentric, spherical-kosmos, four-or-five-element model, we are somewhat familiar with its assumptions and choices, but it is in fact quite peculiar and contingent. Why should there be four earthly elements that rise or fall, and one heavenly element that eternally rotates? Why should two planets bob about on their circles near the sun, and three others not do so? Why should there be five twinkling wandering stars, and two great luminaries, plus thousands of “fixed” stars? Why is there a swath of stars like dust in a band across the sky? Why do all those rotations happen at all? Indeed, some of these puzzles were raised in Greco-Roman antiquity. But we can go further back, and further afield, and examine alternative models that were created in ancient Greek culture or in the ancient cultures of Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, or even the Americas. There also we are amazed to find a set of models very similar to one another. Moreover, these models illuminate the Greek models propounded before Plato, as well as some of the Meeting of the American Philological Association, now known as the Society for Classical Studies). Duane W. Roller encouraged that early work and its current expansion. For all of that support, I am very grateful. 2. Léon Brunschvicg, ed., Blaise Pascal: Pensées (Paris: Vrin, 1904), #206 (p. 127) = Michel Le Guern, Pascal: Oeuvres complètes (Paris: Gallimard, 2000), #187 (p. 615); for a PDF image of this pensée in the two MS copies, see: http://www.penseesdepascal.fr/C1-C2/C1p101-C2p129 -Transition7.pdf. 3. C. S. Lewis, The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964). 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 6 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 7 fiGure 1.1. The Quincunx (Flat) Earth, courtesy Paul A. Whyman. peculiar features within those early Greek models and even within the synthesis created in the Greek world by Plato and Aristotle. It is beyond the scope of this paper to explain the parallels, although horizontal transfer (“borrowing”) seems highly unlikely, and instead they are more likely due to either an ancient common inheritance or something like convergent evolution—that is, similar human responses to similar human experiences.4 These primordial world-pictures are relatively well documented in early hieroglyphic texts from Egypt, and likewise in early cuneiform texts from Mesopotamia. The early Sanskrit texts were composed in centuries contemporaneous with Greco-Roman culture but reproduce material that scholars agree derive from the Vedic era of 1500–1000 BC. Similarly, the earliest Chinese texts that survive are contemporaneous with Hellenistic Greek and Greco-Roman culture, but they reproduce material that scholars trace back to the Shang dynasty (roughly 1600–1100 BC). Finally, the partly deciphered monumental texts of the Classic Maya period are dated to ca. 200–900 AD, and the few surviving codices are dated to ca. 1500–1700 AD, but scholars agree that they both reflect much older material. Making use of all these materials requires no hypothesis about (in)dependence—the only assumptions are that comparisons can validly be made and that those comparisons might be revelatory or illuminating. Let us consider those materials, in geographical order of origin, beginning with Egypt and proceeding eastward to the Maya. Egypt The Pyramid texts and later hieroglyphic texts depict a flat world, oriented south to north along the course of the Nile, surrounded by dangerous foreigners, and 4. Indeed some of the parallels seem to derive from human neurophysiology: the illusions that: (1) the moon and sun are larger near rising and setting, (2) the sky is a flattened dome, (3) the sky is spinning, and (4) crepuscular rays diverge. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 7 12/1/19 4:09 PM 8 Paul T. Keyser divinely ordered through the pharaoh.5 Below the land, or in some unspecified “other place,” was the dw3t (“Duat”), where the sun went at night, a cosmic region of darkness, stars, and water, with its entrance in the northwest and its exit in the southeast.6 Above the land, the sky provided fresh water and was a shining firmament (bĭ3), possibly made of the heavenly metal iron (bĭ3t),7 and probably flat, as seen in the determinative for “sky” (pt): 𓇯.8 The world had been created out of dark and formless primordial water, nwn (masculine) and nwnt (feminine), when the creator god called the first mound (q33) into being by his word.9 That originary mound generated Egypt itself, the center of the world, and was the model for every temple.10 The symbolic shape of the earth in the kosmos was repeated in the hieroglyphic determinative for “city,” a circle around a quincunx: 𓊖.11 There seems to be no world-tree or world-mountain (Egypt is a land of few and low mountains), but a distinctive trace of the worldpillar persists in the hieroglyph for the ḏd-pillar (𓊽), which depicts a cosmic sky-support in the Old Kingdom and is an emblem of stability.12 5. James P. Allen, “The Cosmology of the Pyramid Texts,” in Religion and Philosophy in Ancient Egypt, ed. James P. Allen (New Haven: Yale Egyptological Seminar, 1989), 1–28; Jan Assmann, Ägypten: Theologie und Frömmingkeit einer frühen Hochkultur (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1984), 84–90; Hellmut Brunner, “Zum Raumbegriff der Ägypter,” Studium Generale: Zeitschrift für die Einheit der Wissenschaften 10 (1957): 616–617; Joanne Conman, “It’s About Time: Ancient Egyptian Cosmology,” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 31 (2003): 36; Sakkie Cornelius, “Ancient Egypt and the Other,” Scriptura 104 (2010): 322–40; Leonard H. Lesko, “Ancient Egyptian Cosmogonies and Cosmologies,” in Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice, ed. Byron E. Shafer (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), 117; Hans Schwabl, “Weltschöpfung,” RE, 2nd ser. 9 (1962), §42, col. 1499–1502; Vincent Arieh Tobin, “Creation Myths,” in Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, ed. D. B. Redford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 2:469–72. 6. Allen, “Cosmology,” 21–25; Conman, “It’s About Time,” 36–37, 42–43. 7. Allen, “Cosmology,” 7–10; Dieter Kurth, “Nut,” LÄ 4 (1982): 533–41; Lesko, “Ancient Egyptian,” 117. 8. N1 in the sign-list of Alan H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed. (London: Clarendon, 1957), 485; cf. D.L. Couprie, Heaven and Earth in Ancient Greek Cosmology (Berlin: Springer, 2011), 3, 5. A domed heaven may be implied by later depictions that show a curved heaven, as argued by Couprie, 5–9. 9. Jan Assmann, “Schöpfung,” LÄ 5 (1984), 678; Brunner, “Zum Raumbegriff,” 615; Françoise Dunand and Christiane Zivie-Coche, Dieux et Hommes en Égypte (Paris: Colin, 1991; repr. 2001) 55–57, 60–61; trans. by David Lorton as Gods and Men in Egypt: 3000 BCE to 395 CE (Ithaca: Cornell, 2004) 45–47, 50–52; Maulana Karenga, Maat, the Moral Ideal in Ancient Egypt: A Study in Classical African Ethics (New York: Routledge, 2004), 191–192. 10. Brunner, “Zum Raumbegriff,” 616; Cornelius, “Ancient Egypt,” 324; Hans J. Klimkeit, “Spatial Orientation in Mythical Thinking as Exemplified in Ancient Egypt: Considerations Toward a Geography of Religions,” HR 14 (1975): 270; Karl Martin, Urhügel,” LÄ 6 (1986): 873–75; Siegfried Morenz, Ägyptische Religion (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960) 46–47, trans. by Ann E. Keep as Egyptian Religion (Ithaca: Cornell, 1973) 44–45. 11. Brunner, “Zum Raumbegriff,” 618. The sign is O49 in the sign-list of Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 498. 12. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 502, sign R11 in the sign-list; Robert T. R. Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt (London: Thames and Hudson, 1978), 236–237; H. Altenmüller, “DjedPfeiler,” LÄ 1 (1975): 1100–1105; Raymond O. Faulkner, s.v. in A Concise Dictionary of Middle 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 8 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 9 The formless primordial waters lay at the edges of this divinely ordered world, perhaps to invade at any moment.13 Egyptian texts persistently manifest such potent disdain for foreigners that Egyptologists describe it as xenophobia, which derived from an ideology of nationalism.14 In order to prevent the influx of chaos, the Pharaoh had to rule and worship in accord with m3ʿt (“Maʾat”), meaning something like “truth, justice, and the Egyptian way,” with connotations of balance, order, and harmony. That activity would preserve the order and prosperity of Egypt.15 Scholars explicitly compare the Pharaoh acting in accord with Maʾat to the Chinese Emperor acting in accord with the Mandate of Heaven;16 likewise, they compare the central position of Egypt in the kosmos to the central position of China in its kosmos.17 Diodoros of Sicily (Hist. 1.30–31) and Josephus (J.W. 4.607–610) report the Egyptian perception of their homeland as a securely walled country: Josephus writes, “by land it is hard to enter and by sea harborless . . . thus Egypt is everywhere walled” (κατά τε γῆν δυσέμβολος καὶ τὰ πρὸς θαλάσσης ἀλίμενος . . . τετείχισται μὲν οὕτως ἡ Αἴγυπτος πάντοθεν). Mesopotamia The cuneiform texts record many variant creation stories, which tell parallel, but not always consistent, tales.18 The creation began when there was nothing Egyptian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 325; Jennifer McKeown, “The Symbolism of the Djed-pillar in The Tale of King Khufu and the Magicians,” in Trabajos de Egiptologia / Papers on Ancient Egypt 1 (2002): 57–58. 13. Hellmut Brunner, “Die Grenzen von Zeit und Raum bei den Ägyptern,” AOF 17 (1955): 143– 144; Erik Hornung, “Chaotische Bereiche in der geordneten Welt,” ZÄS 81 (1956): 28–32; Brunner, “Zum Raumbegriff,” 613–14; Morenz, Ägyptische Religion, 176–177; Morenz, Egyptian Religion, 168; Klimkeit, “Spatial Orientation,” 279; Assmann, “Schöpfung,” 685–86. 14. Antonio Loprieno, Topos und Mimesis: Zum Ausländer in der ägyptischen Literatur (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988), 22–40; Toby A. H. Wilkinson, “What a King Is This: Narmer and the Concept of the Ruler,” JEA 86 (2000): 28–29. 15. Jan Assmann, Der König als Sonnenpriester: Ein kosmographischer Begleittext zur kultischen Sonnenhymnik in thebanischen Tempeln und Gräbern (Glückstadt: Augustin, 1970), 62–65; Assmann, Ägypten, 84–90 / 68–73; Jan Assmann, Maât: L’Égypte pharaonique et l’idée de justice sociale (Paris: Julliard, 1989), 127–28; Cornelius, “Ancient Egypt,” 326, 330; Phillipe Derchain, “Le rôle du roi d’Égypte dans le maintien de l’ordre cosmique,” in Le pouvoir et le sacré, ed. Luc de Heusch (Brussels: Université libre de Bruxelles, 1962), 68–72; Dunand and Zivie-Coche, Dieux et Hommes en Égypte, 61–62; trans. Gods and Men in Egypt, 52–53; Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 51–60, cf. p. vii; Karenga, Maat, 30–34; Klimkeit, “Spatial Orientation,” 271; Morenz, Ägyptische Religion, 177; Morenz, Egyptian Religion, 168; Emily Teeter, “Maat,” in Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 319–21. 16. Karenga, Maat, 32; on the “Mandate of Heaven,” see below. 17. Morenz, Ägyptische Religion, 46–47; Egyptian Religion, 44–45; note that Conman, “It’s About Time,” 34–35 compares the Egyptian model of the heavens with the Kai Tian model of ancient China, on which see below. 18. Gathered and summarized by Wayne Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998): 147–65; and Francesca Rochberg-Halton, “Mesopotamian 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 9 12/1/19 4:09 PM 10 Paul T. Keyser but an undifferentiated chaos of waters, both salt “Tiamat” and fresh “Apsu” waters.19 This is described in one of the creation stories, the poem Enūma elish, which starts from chaos (mixed salt and fresh) waters:20 When the heaven above had not been named, Earth below had not been called by name. Nothing but primeval Apsu, their begetter, Creative Tiamat, she who bore them all, They commingled waters as a single body. After creation, there was a world continent that was surrounded by Ocean (marratu), apparently with lands across the Ocean stream, drawn on a map as triangles.21 In the midst of the world continent rose Mount Mašu, where the sun rose and set, with its peak in the heaven and roots in the underworld. In other accounts, the cosmic Mēsu tree grew at the center, with its roots reaching down one hundred leagues into Apsu (the fresh waters below the earth) and its crown in the heaven of Anu.22 Temples too served as pillars reaching from earth to heaven.23 The heavens had gates, in the far east and far west, which the heavenly lights passed through when appearing or vanishing.24 There were regions of heaven, among the lights and winds of the sky, named “Great Palace” (Ešarra) and “Great Shrine” (Ešgalla).25 The heavens were sometimes said to be made of fresh water, sometimes of stone. The center of the world was a temple or a city, Cosmology,” in Encyclopedia of Cosmology, ed. Noriss S. Hetherington (New York: Garland, 1993); see also Schwabl, “Weltschöpfung,” §43, col. 1502–1504. 19. Rochberg-Halton, “Mesopotamian Cosmology,” 399–400. 20. Translation based on C. F. Whitley, “The Pattern of Creation in Genesis, Chapter 1,” JNES 17 (1958): 32; and Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 107–109. 21. Wayne Horowitz, “The Babylonian Map of the World,” Iraq 50 (1988): 147–65; and Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 20–42, dating the map to the 9th century BC or later; cf. also Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 318–62. Francesca Rochberg, “The Expression of Terrestrial and Celestial Order in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Ancient Perspectives: Maps and Their Place in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and Rome, ed. Richard J. A. Talbert (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2012), 32–34, suggests for the map a date from the end of the eighth to the early seventh century BC. 22. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 97–102 (Mašu), and 245, 326, 362 (Mēsu). 23. Rochberg-Halton, “Mesopotamian Cosmology,” 402. Mircea Eliade, Cosmologie şi alchimie babilonianǎ (Bucharest: Vremea, 1937), 32–35; trans. by Alain Paruit, as Cosmologie et Alchimie Babyloniennes (Paris: Gallimard, 1991), 41–43; Mircea Eliade, “Psychologie et Histoire des Religions—A propos du Symbolisme du « Centre »,” Eranos Jahrbuch 19 (1950 [1951]): 247–282; repr. with revisions as Images et Symboles (Paris: Gallimard, 1952); trans. by Philip Mairet, as Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism (New York 1961; repr. 1969), ch. 1, “Symbolisme du « Centre »,” 33–72 / “Symbolism of the ‘Centre’,” 27–56. 24. Wolfgang Heimpel, “The Sun at Night and the Doors of Heaven in Babylonian Texts,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 38 (1986): 132–43. 25. Horowitz, “Babylonian Map,” 107–149, especially 125–28. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 10 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 11 fiGure 1.2. Babylonian World Map (BM 92687), courtesy Paul A. Whyman. 1. mountain (ša-du-ú), 2. city, 3. Urartu, 4. Assyria, 5. Der, 6. ??, 7. swamp (ap-pa-ru), 8. Susa. 9. channel (bit-qu), 10. Bit Yakin, 11. city, 12. Ḫabban, 13. Babylon, 14. Great Wall (BÀD.GU.LA) because each of these sacred spaces symbolized “centeredness.”26 Out beyond civilized lands were wild nomadic peoples, barely human, who could invade and cause cosmic destruction.27 The remote parts of the Earth were populated by marvelous beasts and products, and some heroes journeyed out to the edges of the Earth.28 Overall, the Mesopotamian world-picture was schematic and ethnocentric, as one might expect for a culture operating according to traditional modes of thought,29 and as seen in the “Babylonian World Map.”30 26. Eliade, Cosmologie şi alchimie babilonianǎ, 25–32 ≈ Cosmologie et Alchimie Babyloniennes, 33–40; Mircea Eliade, Le Mythe de l’Éternel Retour: Archétypes et Répétition (Paris: Gallimard, 1949), 30–31, rev. ed. (1969), 24; ≈ Trans. by Willard R. Trask, as The Myth of the Eternal Return (New York: Harper, 1954; New York: Pantheon, 1954; London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1955; repr. New York: Harper, 1959, 1965; repr. Princeton, 2005), 12; Eliade, “Psychologie et Histoire des Religions,” 49, 52–53 ≈ Images and Symbols, 39, 42; Rochberg-Halton, “Mesopotamian Cosmology,” 402–403. 27. Eliade, Le Mythe de l’Éternel Retour, 25–29 ≈ Le Mythe de l’Éternel Retour (rev. ed.), 21–23 ≈ The Myth of the Eternal Return, 9–11; Eliade, “Psychologie et Histoire des Religions,” 47–48 ≈ Images and Symbols, 37–38; Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “The Other and the Enemy in the Mesopotamian Conception of the World,” in Mythology and Mythologies: Methodological Approaches to Intercultural Influences, ed. Robert Whiting (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001), 195–231; Glenn M. Schwartz, “Pastoral Nomadism in Ancient Western Asia,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson (New York: Scribner, 2000), 1:249–58. 28. Mircea Eliade, Le Mythe de l’Éternel Retour: Archétypes et Répétition (Paris: Gallimard, 1949), as in note 27; Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 96–106. 29. Christopher R. Hallpike, The Foundations of Primitive Thought (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979); Jason Hawke, “Number and Numeracy in Early Greek Literature,” SyllClass 19 (2009): 1–76. 30. Drawing based on Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 21–22, 402, pl. 2 (drawing), 406, pl. 6 (photo), and altered (cracks removed; locations and sizes of circles, triangles, and rectangles corrected), using a photo by the author and the photos published by the British Museum: http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId =362000&partId=1. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 11 12/1/19 4:09 PM 12 Paul T. Keyser India The early Sanskrit texts known as the Purāṇas, an encyclopedic genre, record a world-picture that accords with the mytho-historical cosmology of India, and already before the Purāṇas, the epics present much of that material.31 The epics often state that all things arose out of water, either an ocean or an undifferentiated mass; this action of rising from the water becomes the regular mode of creation expressed in the Purāṇas.32 The epics describe the process of creation of the earth and heaven in varying ways, but when they describe creation as the separation of earth and sky, the beings responsible for the separation then set up a cosmic pole to keep the earth and sky apart.33 The Purāṇas describe earth and sky as two bowls facing one another, with the sun traveling between them; the earth and sky are sometimes said to be the two wheels, bound by an axle, of the god Indra’s chariot.34 The axle seems to be analogous to the world-pillar of other traditions. In the epics, a single saltwater ocean surrounds the earth, but in the Purāṇas, there are seven concentric circular continents separated by oceans, only one being saltwater (and the others containing various fluids). In the epic texts, Meru is merely a high peak,35 but in the Purāṇas, the cosmic mountain Meru is at the center of the innermost continent and plays a fundamental role in cosmology as the axis mundi.36 The periodic destructions of the world always involve a massive flood, accompanied by earthquakes, heat, and wind.37 China The Chinese texts offer several world-pictures, which share core features, especially that the kosmos evolves without any external divine agent and based only Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 40–42 (see also Horowitz, “Babylonian Map,” 154 ≈ Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 27), emphasizes the use of purely geometrical shapes, known from Babylonian geometry: the circles (kippatu) of the Ocean, concentric on their compass point, the triangle (santakku), the “river” shape (nāru), the long rectangle “brick mold” shape (nalbattu), and the “ox-eye” shape (īni alpi). The small circles for the cities also show central compass points, which we (author and artist) chose to retain. 31. Luis González-Reimann, “Cosmic Cycles, Cosmology, and Cosmography,” in Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism, ed. Knut A. Jacobsen (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 2:411–28; Kim Plofker, “Humans, Demons, Gods and Their Worlds: The Sacred and Scientific Cosmologies of India,” in Geography and Ethnography: Perceptions of the World in Pre- Modern Societies, ed. Kurt A. Raaflaub and Richard J. A. Talbert (West Sussex: Wiley, 2013), 32–42. 32. González-Reimann, “Cosmic Cycles,” 412, 415–16. 33. González-Reimann, “Cosmic Cycles,” 412. 34. González-Reimann, “Cosmic Cycles,” 422–24. 35. E. Washburn Hopkins, “Mythological Aspects of Trees and Mountains in the Great Epic,” JAOS 30 (1910): 366–74. 36. González-Reimann, “Cosmic Cycles,” 424–27; Plofker, “Humans, Demons, Gods.” 37. González-Reimann, “Cosmic Cycles,” 415. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 12 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 13 on its own intrinsic properties.38 The primordial chaos, driven by the “inherent qualities of the Dao,” produces order.39 In Chinese cosmology, earth was always nearly flat (ping, 平). An early culture hero, the emperor Yü, is said to have sent out walkers in each cardinal direction, who reported the extent of the flat earth.40 In the earliest model, the flat earth was imagined to be shaped like the plastron (lower shell) of a tortoise, represented by the character ya 亞, which depicts four squares around a central square—that is, a quincunx pattern; the domed carapace of the tortoise represented the shape of the sky.41 A second model, the Kai Tian (“Lid of Heaven,” 盖天) model, explained sunset and sunrise by proposing that objects become invisible when more than 167,000 li away (there were about 400 meters to the li, 里). According to a third model, the Hun Tian (“enveloping heaven,” 渾天) model, which originated in the first century AD, sunset and sunrise occur at same time all over earth, when the sun dips below, or rises above, the edge of the vaulted earth.42 This measurement, similar to one made by Eratosthenes, in China was interpreted as showing how far the sun was above the flat earth, as shown in Figure 3. After the world emerged from the primordial water, a cosmic flood nearly destroyed the kosmos, but a group of culture heroes ameliorated its effects.43 The various Chinese models of the kosmos often included a cosmic tree (the Jian 38. John S. Major, “Myth, Cosmology, and the Origins of Chinese Science,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 5 (1978): 1–20; Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 210–28; and overview by Xu Fengxian, “Astral Sciences in Ancient China,” in Oxford Handbook of Science and Medicine in the Classical World, ed. Paul T. Keyser with John Scarborough (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 129–43. 39. John S. Major, Heaven and Earth in Early Han Thought: Chapters Three, Four, and Five of the Huainanzi (Albany: State University of New York, 1993), 23–25. 40. Lisa Raphals, “A ‘Chinese Eratosthenes’ Reconsidered: Chinese and Greek Calculations and Categories,” East Asian Science, Technology, and Medicine 19 (2002): 10–60, 30. Similarly, Alexander the Great employed such walkers, or bematists, to measure his routes.[0] Three men, named Philonides of Khersonesos (Keyser, EANS 659), Diognetos (Keyser, EANS 254), and Baiton (Keyser, EANS 186), are attested as a βηματιστής, see Pliny, Nat. hist. 2.181; 6.61–62; 6.69; 7.11; and 7.84, and Athenaios 10.59 (442c); Wilhelm Dittenberger and Karl Purgold, Die Inschriften von Olympia, Olympia 5 (Berlin: Asher, 1896) #276 (col. 403–404). 41. Sarah Allan, The Shape of the Turtle (Albany: SUNY, 1991), 88–98. 42. Christopher Cullen, “A Chinese Eratosthenes of the Flat Earth: A Study of a Fragment of Cosmology in Huai Nan tzu 淮 南 子,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 39, no. 1 (1976): 107–109; Major, Heaven and Earth in Early Han Thought, 23–53; Shigeru Nakayama, A History of Japanese Astronomy: Chinese Background and Western Impact (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969), 24–43; Joseph Needham and Colin A. Ronan, “Chinese Cosmology,” in Encyclopedia of Cosmology, ed. Noriss S. Hetherington (New York: Garland, 1993), 64–66. 43. Sarah Allan, The Way of Water and Sprouts of Virtue (Albany: SUNY, 2006), 39–41; Mark Edward Lewis, The Flood Myths of Early China (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006), 28–33; Major, “Myth, Cosmology, and the Origins,” 6; David W. Pankenier, “Heaven-Sent: Understanding Cosmic Disaster in Chinese Myth and History,” in Natural Catastrophes During Bronze Age Civilisations: Archaeological, Geological, Astronomical, and Cultural Perspectives, ed. Benny J. Peiser et al. (Oxford: Archaeopress, 1998) 187–97. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 13 12/1/19 4:09 PM 14 Paul T. Keyser fiGure 1.3. Measuring the Height of the Sun above the Flat Earth, courtesy Paul A. Whyman Tree) or a cosmic mountain named after the real Kunlun mountain but located in the remote west.44 The cosmic mountain was the “Central Peak” (Zhong Yue, 中岳), the axis mundi, the place on earth closest to heaven, and a kind of paradise. Blessed persons were able to climb up to heaven on the cosmic tree. The earliest Chinese kingdom of which we have secure knowledge, the Shang, depicted the earth as square and aligned with the cardinal directions; they lived in the central area, which they named “Central Shang” (Zhong Shang, 中商).45 Later Chinese empires reused the designation “central,” usually in the name “Central Realm” (Zhong Guo, 中國). All around this central realm lived barbarous peoples, destroyers of order, often analogized to animals, designated as the “Four Quadrates” (Si Fang 四方) and typically assigned to one of the four cardinal directions; among the emperor’s duties was to banish or destroy them when necessary.46 On the northern frontier, 44. Riccardo M. Fracasso, “Manifestazioni del simbolismo assiale nelle tradizione cinese antiche,” Numen 28 (1981): 201–203; Mark Edward Lewis, The Construction of Space in Early China (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006), 258–60; Major, Heaven and Earth, 26; David W. Pankenier, “The Cosmo-Political Background of Heaven’s Mandate,” Early China 20 (1995): 139–41. In the Zhou period, the world-mountain was “Mt. Sung 嵩山, which rises impressively from the yellow earth plain just southeast of Luoyang” (Pankenier, 139). 45. David N. Keightley, The Ancestral Landscape: Time, Space, and Community in Late Shang China, ca. 1200–1045 B.C. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 81; Pankenier, “CosmoPolitical Background,” 139–41. 46. Allan, The Shape of the Turtle, 75–98; Lewis, The Construction of Space, 297. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 14 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 15 they were typically nomads.47 The emperor was obligated to perform “Heaven’s Mandate” (Tian Ming, 天命) in order to guard the right functioning of the kosmos and, in particular, of the Central Kingdom, the land over which he ruled. All acts of the ruler affected the orderly operation of the kosmos, and its harmony would endure only so long as appropriate behavior persisted.48 The emperor and his attendants conducted rituals that enacted the cycle of the seasons in the “Bright Shrine” or “Luminous Hall” (Ming Tang, 明堂), which imitated the structure of the kosmos.49 Classical Chinese literature persistently promoted a “vital necessity of maintaining conformity with the normative patterns of the cosmos.”50 Maya The partially deciphered Mayan inscriptions and codices depict a world-picture that accords with the same mytho- historical cosmology evident in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, and China. The world order prior to the current one was destroyed in a cosmic flood,51 which wrought chaos in the kosmos.52 The current creation began with an empty primordial sea beneath a dark primordial sky, and then the earth, beginning with the mountains, rose from the waters simply because the word of the creator gods called it forth.53 Next, the “first father” (the Maize God) raised up the World Tree to support the sky, a support that was called “Raised-up-Sky” (Wakah-Chan),54 and brought order out of primordial 47. Nicola DiCosmo, “The Northern Frontier in Pre-Imperial China,” in Cambridge History of Ancient China, ed. Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 885–966. 48. Lewis, The Flood Myths, 21–23; Geoffrey MacCormack, “Natural Law and Cosmic Harmony in Traditional Chinese Thought,” Ratio Juris 2 (1989): 254–73; Victor H. Mair, Wandering on the Way: Early Taoist Tales and Parables of Chuang Tzu (New York: Bantam, 1994), 130–31; Needham and Ronan, “Chinese Cosmology,” 63–64; Pankenier, “Cosmo-Political Background,” 121–76; David W. Pankenier, Astrology and Cosmology in Early China: Conforming Earth to Heaven (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 226–34. 49. Lewis, The Construction of Space, 260–73; Pankenier, Astrology and Cosmology, 342–49. 50. Pankenier, Astrology and Cosmology, 317–50 (quotation on p. 350). 51. David Freidel, Linda Schele, and Joy Parker, Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman’s Path (New York: Perennial, 1993), 105–106; Elizabeth Newsome, Trees of Paradise and Pillars of the World: The Serial Stelae Cycle of ’18-Rabbit-God K,’ King of Copan (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001), 8–12, 198–207, 219. The early Inca myths included a flood narrative: Brian S. Bauer, Vania Smith-Oka, and Gabriel E. Cantarutti, eds., Cristóbal de Molina: Account of the Fables and Rites of the Incas (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2011), 4–13; Frank Salomon and George L. Urioste, The Huarochiri Manuscript: A Testament of Ancient and Colonial Andean Religion (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1991), 52–52 (§§29–34). 52. Newsome, Trees of Paradise, 198–205, 219. 53. Freidel, Schele, and Parker, Maya Cosmos, 59–60, 139–41, 283–84; Dennis Tedlock, Popul Vuh: The Definitive Edition of the Mayan Book of the Dawn of Life (New York: Touchstone, 1985), 72–75. 54. Freidel, Schele, and Parker, Maya Cosmos, 71–75; Newsome, Trees of Paradise, 198–207. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 15 12/1/19 4:09 PM 16 Paul T. Keyser chaos.55 Not much later, the Maize God was killed, but he rose again from the crack in a turtle carapace;56 this turtle is identified as the asterism of the “Belt of Orion.”57 Maya myth often represents the earth itself as a quincunx diagram with the world-tree in the central square and a lesser tree in each cardinal square.58 Sometimes the earth rests on the back of a turtle,59 and the turtle was a model of the shape of the kosmos, with flat earth below and rounded heaven above.60 The cardinal directions are oriented on the path of the sun, so that “north” and “south” are on one “side” or the other.61 The world-tree remained the axis mundi:62 it both supported the world and provided a pathway for moving between levels of the kosmos.63 It was often depicted as a cosmic maize plant.64 In Maya art, the ruler of a city was depicted as the world-tree, or as the divine maize plant;65 as such, he is also sometimes shown arising from a turtle-shaped altar.66 The ruler of a city performed rituals to protect his subjects and ensure their success; through these rituals, the ruler also maintained the right order of the universe.67 Evidence from Hebrew Although the cosmogonic story told in the Hebrew Bible is formally distinct from these accounts, the Hebrew texts include features that recall this mythohistorical cosmology.68 At the divine word, creation emerges from watery chaos. 55. Linda Schele and David Freidel, A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya (New York: Quill/Morrow, 1990), 255–58. 56. Freidel, Schele, and Parker, Maya Cosmos, 65, 92–94, 281–83, 370–72. 57. Freidel, Schele, and Parker, Maya Cosmos, 80–85. 58. Newsome, Trees of Paradise, 8–12, 218–19; Schele and Freidel, A Forest of Kings, 66; Evon Z. Vogt, Tortillas for the Gods (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976) 13–16. 59. Schele and Freidel, A Forest of Kings, 66. 60. Karl A. Taube, “A Prehispanic Maya Katun Wheel,” Journal of Anthropological Research 44 (1988): 193–99. 61. Vogt, Tortillas, 13–16. 62. Freidel, Schele, and Parker, Maya Cosmos, 53. 63. Lynn V. Foster, Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 174–78. 64. Robert S. Carlsen and Martin Prechtel, “The Flowering of the Dead: An Interpretation of Highland Maya Culture,” Man, n.s. 26, no. 1 (1991): 33–36. 65. Foster, Handbook to Life, 182; Freidel, Schele, and Parker, Maya Cosmos, 137, 394–97; Newsome, Trees of Paradise, 25–29, 129–30; Schele and Freidel, A Forest of Kings, 68. 66. Foster, Handbook to Life, 182. 67. Foster, Handbook to Life, 178–83; Kay A. Read, “Sacred Commoners: The Motion of Cosmic Powers in Mexican Rulership,” HR 34 (1994): 39–69; Linda Schele and Mary Ellen Miller, The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art (New York: Braziller, 1986), 301–15. 68. Baruch Halpern, “The Assyrian Astronomy of Genesis 1 and the Birth of Milesian Philosophy,” Eretz-Israel 27 (2003): 74–83, also draws this analogy, but only between Hebrew and Mesopotamian cosmogonies. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 16 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 17 Genesis 1:2 uses language of “waste and empty” (‫תֹ הּו וָבֹ הּו‬, tohū and bohū), the “deep” (təhōm, ‫תהֹום‬, ְ translated by ἄβυσσος), and “the surface of the waters.”69 There are waters above the earth, presumably the source of rain (Gen 1:6), and waters below the earth, the source of springs (Exod 20:4; Deut 4:18; 5:8; 33:13 [təhōm]; Ezek 31:4 [təhōm]),70 like the Mesopotamian Apsu or the Egyptian Duat. The sky above us, the “firmament” (ַ‫ ָרקִ יע‬rāqīʿa, translated as στερέωμα), is flat and shining, like a hammered sheet of metal (Gen 1:7–8, 14–15, 17, 20; Job 37:18).71 The earth emerges from the waters (Gen 1:9), much as the first mound emerged from the waters in Egypt or as land emerges from receding floods anywhere.72 The earth was imagined as a disk or “circle” (‫ חּוג‬ḥūg, translated as γῦρος: Isa 40:22; cf. Prov 8:27), with the solid sky domed above (Job 22:14). Several locations are referred to as the “navel” of the world or the land (‫טּבַ ּור‬ tabbūr, translated as ὀμφαλός: Judg 9:36–37; Ezek 38:12).73 Moreover, the original world order is destroyed in a cosmic flood (Gen 6:9–9:17), which arises from the original chaos—that is, from the abyss (təhōm, 7:11 and 8:2). The concept of a world-pillar or world-mountain occurs in several places, but it mostly plays a minor cosmogonic role. First, pillars are part of the construction of the earth (Job 9:6; Ps 75:3) or even heaven (Job 26:11; ‫ עַמּוד‬ʿamūdh, translated as στῦλος). Second, in Jacob’s dream, a ladder connects earth and heaven (Gen 28:10–19). Third, with the divinity at its summit, Mount Sinai plays a central and 69. For tohū and bohū, see also Jer 4:23 and Job 26:7. See also Menahem Kister, “Tohu waBohu, Primordial Elements and Creatio ex Nihilo,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 14 (2007): 229–56. The chaos of the primal state is similar to Egyptian cosmogony: James E. Atwell, “An Egyptian Source for Genesis I,” JThS 51 (2000): 451–53. The təhōm (“abyss”) is etymologically related to the Babylonian Tiamat: James Albertson, “Genesis 1 and the Babylonian Creation Myth,” Thought: Fordham University Quarterly 37 (1962): 230. Some of the following is noted by Wilhelm Schaefer, “Entwicklung der Ansichten des Alterthums über Gestalt und Grösse der Erde,” in Programm des Gymnasiums mit Realklassen zu Insterberg (Insterberg: Carl Wilhelm, 1868), 4–5. For Hebrew words, see Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, trans. Simon P. Tregelles (New York: Wiley, 1893). 70. The watery “abyss” is also at Deut 33:13; Isa 51:10; Pss 77:16; 104:6; 135:6; Job 28:14; 38:16; 38:30; 41:31 (all of the sea). The sources of the Nile in Herodotus, Hist. 2.28 are from the abyss (i.e., Duat). Compare Albertson, “Genesis 1,” 230–31; Francesca Rochberg, “A Short History of the Waters of the Firmament,” in From the Banks of the Euphrates: Studies in Honor of Alice Louise Slotsky, ed. Micah Ross (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 228–29. 71. The same root used of hammered metal objects is in Exod 39:3; Num 16:38–39; Isa 40:19; Jer 10:9. Compare Rochberg, “A Short History,” 235–39. 72. Albertson, “Genesis 1,” 232–33. 73. Eliade, Le Mythe de l’Éternel Retour, 32–33 ≈ Le Mythe de l’Éternel Retour (rev. ed.) 25–26 ≈ The Myth of the Eternal Return, 13. Wilhelm H. Roscher, Der Omphalosgedanke bei verschiedenen Völkern, besonders den semitischen: Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Religionswissenschaft, Volkskunde und Archäologie = Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig: Philologisch-historische Klasse 70.2 (Hildesheim: Olms, 1918), 12–25. The Hebrew word, however, might better be translated “high lookout site.” Compare also Ezek 5:5 (Jerusalem is in the middle of all peoples and lands). 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 17 12/1/19 4:09 PM 18 Paul T. Keyser foundational role in the Jewish narrative (Exod 19); likewise, the divine epiphany was a pillar of fire by night and a pillar of cloud by day (Exod 13:21–22). Fourth, humans build the tower that would reach to heaven from earth (Gen 11:1–9). All of this suggests that the early tellers of these tales were familiar with the mytho-historical cosmology, but they were selecting pieces from it for their own purposes.74 There is no evidence that the behavior of the king maintained cosmic order or caused cosmic chaos. The Cradle Cosmology Thus, across these five ancient culture zones—Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, and Maya—there is a body of common belief in an early, mythohistorical, “cradle” cosmology. There are clear traces of it in the Hebrew texts, and, as we will see, this cosmology explains many of the neglected oddities of early Greek cosmologies. The key parallels among these five or six ancient culture zones are as follows. 1. The kosmos emerges from watery chaos, either spontaneously (China) or by divine fiat, perhaps by the word of the god(s) involved (Egypt, Israel, and Maya). 2. The kosmos has a center, and at that center is a world-tree, world-pillar, or world-mountain that serves an axis and passageway. 3. The earth is flat, either a disc (India, Israel, and Mesopotamia) or a quincunx (China, Maya, and perhaps Egypt). 4. The sky is solid, either flat (Egypt 𓇯) or domed (China, Israel, and Maya). 5. The sky rotates around the earth; the changes in the sky are causally correlated with events upon the earth. 6. At the edge of the earth is the Ocean (the edges are underspecified in Egypt and China, but the watery Duat may be the Egyptian parallel to the outer Ocean); sometimes lands exist beyond that Ocean (Mesopotamia and India). 7. The kosmos is surrounded by chaos that threatens to invade, and (except in Egypt) a cosmic flood once almost destroyed the world. 8. The people who develop the myth are the only true people; around them are barbarians and monsters, who could invade. 9. The kosmos might redescend into chaos, so the ruler must act to maintain cosmic integrity (especially in China, Egypt, and Maya). 74. Indeed, the Phoenician cosmology of Sanchouniathon recorded by Philo of Byblos provides significant parallels to the Hebrew cosmology: see Uvo Hölscher, “Anaximander und die Anfänge der Philosophie (II),” Hermes 81 (1953): 392–97; M. L. West, “Ab ovo: Orpheus, Sanchuniathon, and the Origins of the Ionian World Model,” Classical Quarterly 44 (1994): 289–307, at 295–302. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 18 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 19 Earlier work by Eliade and others has shown the widespread existence of some of these features, in particular the key role of a “center” and the belief in a pillar or tree or mountain that ascends to heaven.75 That humans, especially powerful ones like kings or emperors, might affect the operation of the kosmos is hardly mentioned by Greek texts. Instead, if they mention it at all, they allude to it for the purpose of rationalizing that idea. For example, in Sophocles’s Oedipus the King 40–57, the king must heal the land, not by magic but by detecting the cause of the plague. It is important to note that this “cradle” cosmology is one that “sublimates,” so to speak, the political order of the so-called “palace” or “state” economy.76 In China, “the realm of the supernatural was conceptualized by analogy with human socio-political experience”; then, the analogy was inverted, and the supernatural was understood as the cause of the human world.77 That is, in a palace economy, most produce is gathered by the central ruler, who then redistributes it to his subjects, for whom he is obliged to provide. This was certainly the dominant economy in the empires of China, in pharaonic Egypt,78 and also in the city-states of the Maya.79 Such an economy is less well attested for Mesopotamia and India. II� The Kozy Kosmos in Greece The Kozy Kosmos was certainly found in a wide variety of cultures from an early date, some of which (Egypt and Mesopotamia) were in contact with Greece at the time. I am arguing that, in addition to the modern, the ancient atomist, and the Platonic-Aristotelian world-pictures, there was another, even earlier, worldpicture, the Kozy Kosmos.80 There is indeed reason to think that some of the 75. Roscher, Der Omphalosgedanke; Eliade Le Mythe de l’Éternel Retour; The Myth of the Eternal Return, as above §I.Mesopotamia; Giorgio De Santillana and Hertha von Dechend, Hamlet’s Mill: An Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time (Boston: Godine, 1969), on which see Major, “Myth, Cosmology, and the Origins,” 2–6. 76. Discussed by Michael E. Smith, “The Archaeology of Ancient State Economies,” Annual Review of Anthropology 33 (2004): 73–102. 77. Pankenier, “Cosmo-Political Background,” 161–76. 78. Brian P. Muhs, The Ancient Egyptian Economy, 3000–30 BCE (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), suggests an increasingly mercantile economy starting in the first millennium BC, which was long after the formation of the mytho-historical cosmology. 79. C. Scott Speal, “The Evolution of Ancient Maya Exchange Systems: An Etymological Study of Economic Vocabulary in the Mayan Language Family,” Ancient Mesoamerica 25 (2014): 69–113, notes that mercantilism appears only late in the Classic period, whereas terms for “the hierarchical appropriation of goods and labor” appear early and are pervasive. 80. My point of departure is similar to that of David J. Furley, The Greek Cosmologists: The Formation of the Atomic Theory and Its Earliest Critics (Cambridge: Cambridge University 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 19 12/1/19 4:09 PM 20 Paul T. Keyser elements of the Kozy Kosmos world-picture, and perhaps some version of the whole model, were known in Greek culture. I will argue that certain elements of the model were present. Furthermore, I will argue that many statements by early Greek writers make more sense if interpreted in light of the Kozy Kosmos model. There is, however, no extant extended description in Greek of the Kozy Kosmos model per se. But the elements of the model in other cultures are not gathered into one standard coherent account either. The distinction is that even early Greek texts seem to display debates and discussions as the Greeks transformed the model and invented radically new models. Nevertheless, as will be seen, many of the archaic elements persisted into much later periods. My interpretation of these Greek texts as reflecting pieces of the Kozy Kosmos is a divergent interpretive move. The usual approach relies on interpretations of fragments and paraphrases of a limited set of early writers, which were supplied by ancient scholars committed to a teleological view of the development and ancestry of the Platonic-Aristotelian synthesis. But the context of these early writers was not the Platonic-Aristotelian synthesis. It is, rather, the reverse: Plato and Aristotle’s context was the body of works of these earlier writers. Moreover, there is no a priori reason to think that Plato and Aristotle recorded precisely what their predecessors meant and, therefore, no reason to accept either author’s interpretations, or those of their successors, rather than another system of interpretation. Therefore, I reject the hopelessly teleological term “pre-Socratic”—even if properly interpreted to include Aeschylus, Aristophanes, Arkhilokhos, Herodotus, Hesiod, and much of the Hippocratic corpus—because it conveys no content, only a scholarly attitude, and one that is actually wrong and maybe even dangerous.81 Center Greeks referred to sacred places as an omphalos and described Greece as lying in a central, balanced, and optimal position on the earth.82 Pindar records Delphic legends that claimed Zeus had sent two of his eagles from the utter west and east, who met at the omphalos.83 The common Europe/Asia dichotomy—for example, in Herodotus, Hist. 1.4 and the Hippocratic Airs, Waters, and Places Press, 1987), 1:1–2, who shows that the ancient atomist world- picture precedes the PlatonicAristotelian world-picture. 81. All fragments cited from DK6 or elsewhere are also cited with the actual source, to emphasize the degree to which we are dependent on doxographic sources whose motives were often far from accuracy. 82. Roscher, Der Omphalosgedanke, 61–78; James S. Romm, The Edges of the Earth in Roman Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 65–66. 83. Pindar, Pythians 4.74, and Paians fr. 54 Maehler = Strabo, Geogr. 9.3.6 + Pausanias, Descr. 10.16.3; M. L. West, The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 20 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 21 §§12–24 (Littré 2.52–92)—seems to reflect the same view, with central Greeks living at the western edge of Asia and the eastern edge of Europe.84 Herodotus elsewhere accepts Libya as a third, coequal continent (4.42, 4.45), and Pindar may have also.85 Related to the view that “we” live in the “center” is the perception that east-to-west is the primary direction, as determined by the sun. The Egyptians posited an eastern sunrise peak, Bachu, matched by the western sunset peak, Manu,86 and as noted above (§I), they regarded the central Nile as providing a cosmic directionality. Mesopotamian cosmic geography included a pair of solar mountains in east and west,87 and the early Semitic context of the Hebrew scriptures also presupposes an east/west axis, so that the word for “north” means “left” and that for “south” means “right.”88 Early Greek epics seem to orient their world around the same east/west or dawn/dusk axis, in which they connect right and light with east and left and gloom with west, and place the paths of day and night adjacent (Homer, Il. 12.238–240; Od. 10.80–86, 190–192; 13.239–241; Hesiod, Theog. 746–757).89 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 149–50. Epimenides explicitly denies an omphalos, proving that some believed in one, DK6 3 B11 = Plutarch, Failure of Oracles §1 (409E). 84. The geographical work of Hekataios of Miletos (ca. 505 BC) had one book on Europe and one book on Asia, based on the citations of the fragments, primarily by Stephanos of Byzantium, FGrHist 1 F36–194 (“in ‘Europe’ ”) and F195–357 (“in ‘Asia’ ”); see P. Kaplan, “Hekataios of Abdera,” in EANS 361. 85. Pindar, Nemeans 4.70 (Europe), Olympians 7.18 (Asia), and Pythians 9.8 (Libya). The later geographical work of Eudoxos of Knidos (ca. 360 BC) in seven books treated Libya as a third continent: Friedrich Gisinger, Die Erdbeschreibung des Eudoxos von Knidos (Leipzig: Teubner, 1921), 12–18; François Lasserre, Die Fragmente des Eudoxos von Knidos (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1966), 240–41. 86. Eberhard Otto, “Bachu,” LÄ 1 (1975): 574; Dieter Kurth, “Manu,” LÄ 3 (1980): 1185–86. 87. Heimpel, “The Sun at Night,” 143–46; Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 330–34. 88. Bernd Janowski, “Vom näturlich zum symbolisch Raum: Aspekte der Raumwahrnehmung in Alten Testament,” in Wahrnehmung und Erfassung geographischer Räume in der Antike, ed. Michael Rathmann (Mainz: von Zabern, 2007): 51–64. 89. G. E. R. Lloyd, Polarity and Analogy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), 40, 47, cites anthropological studies of Indonesia and of the Nuer of the upper Nile. Graziano Arrighetti, “Cosmologia Mitica di Omero e Esiodo,” SIFC 15 (1966): 1–60; Norman Austin, “The One and the Many in the Homeric Cosmos,” Arion 1 (1973): 228–238; Norman Austin, Archery at the Dark of the Moon (Berkeley: University of California, 1975), 90–102; Alain Ballabriga, Le soleil et le Tartare: L’image mythique du monde en Grèce archaïque (Paris: Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 1986), 60–62, 77, 108–117, cf. also 147–56, 175–255. Alain Ballabriga, Les fictions d’Homère: L’invention mythologique et cosmographique dans l’Odyssée (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1998), 7–10, 221–22, qualifies his earlier work by attributing certain geographical items in Homeric epic to actual geographical discoveries of the seventh and sixth centuries BC. See also G. W. Bowersock, “The East-West Orientation of Mediterranean Studies and the Meaning of North and South in Antiquity,” in Rethinking the Mediterranean, ed. W. V. Harris (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) 172–74. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 21 12/1/19 4:09 PM 22 Paul T. Keyser Edges Extreme As seen in all five cultures where the Kozy Kosmos is found (§I), the edges of the (flat) earth were in various ways extreme: inhabited by monsters or quasihuman beings. Already in the early poem of Aristeas of Prokonnesos, griffins who guarded gold and one-eyed paragons dwelt in the far north.90 This picture of extreme edges is particularly apparent in Herodotus’s Histories, but it is manifested in many Greek texts.91 Herodotus exploited travelers’ reports,92 rather than the map of Anaximander (Hist. 4.42–44), and rejected the circumambient Ocean stream (2.23; 4.8, 36, 45). Instead, he portrayed most edges of the earth as desert land (erēmos or erēmiē), but all edges are extremes in what they produce (3.106.1). Herodotus claimed that the far South was empty (4.185), although the nearer South produces huge elephants, tall, long-lived beautiful folk, and plentiful gold (3.114). In the furthest North, days and nights are said to be extreme, lasting six months each, straining even Herodotus’s credulity (4.25). The far North was desert (4.17; 5.9), and beyond those limits one could not inquire (2.32; 4.31), but from the nearer North came much gold, perhaps guarded by griffins (3.116; 4.27). The far West is not described as empty. In Libya, the West was filled with things wild and rough, such as giant snakes and dog-headed men (4.191), and from far western Tartessos came extreme wealth for the first Greek who traded there (4.152). In the far East, where the sun burned close at dawn but was cool at evening (3.104), there was sand and more gold, excavated by giant ants (3.98; 3.102). Moreover, India was the farthest inhabited region of the East, and beyond that lay emptiness (4.40.2): Μέχρι δὲ τῆς Ἰνδικῆς οἰκέεται Ἀσίη· τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ ταύτης ἔρημος ἤδη τὸ πρὸς τὴν ἠῶ, οὐδὲ ἔχει οὐδεὶς φράσαι οἷον δή τι ἐστί. As far as India, Asia is inhabited: but from there on to the dawn, it is just desert, and no one can say what it’s like. Herodotus’s known and inhabited world is symmetrical around its temperate central point, Greece (Hist. 3.106). Thus the Nile must resemble the Danube, 90. James D. P. Bolton, Aristeas of Proconnesus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 74–103; Romm, The Edges of the Earth, 71–74; Tim Rood, “Mapping Spatial and Temporal Distance in Herodotus and Thucydides,” in New Worlds from Old Texts: Revisting Ancient Space and Place, ed. Elton Barker et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) 115–16. 91. On Herodotus, see James S. Romm, “Dragons and Gold at the Ends of the Earth: A Folktale Motif Developed by Herodotus,” Merveilles & Contes 1 (1987): 45–54; Romm, The Edges of the Earth, 9–41, 45–81, 83–94, 124–28, and 172–86. 92. O. A. W. Dilke, Greek and Roman Maps (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985), 21–24, 57–59, and Romm, The Edges of the Earth, 32–41. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 22 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 23 in mouths and course (2.33; 2.49), and if there were Hyperboreans living beyond the north wind, there would also be Hypernoteans living beyond the south wind (4.36).93 Roughly contemporaneous with Herodotus, and deploying similar notions about geographical symmetry, is a medical writer in the Hippocratic corpus, who sought to explain disease on the basis of directional exposure. He described the South as phlegmatic and moist, to which the North was symmetrically opposed, bilious and cold. The East was mild like spring, so that Asia was fertile, and the West was autumnal, while Greece being centrally located was moderate and best.94 From the same era are the reports of Skulax of Karuanda and of Ktesias of Knidos, each preserved only in extracts. From the eastern rim of the world, Skulax reported tribes whose physical characteristics stretched the limits of what could be called human, one-eyed beings or beings with feet or ears large enough to serve as parasols.95 Ktesias reported on India, which had springs flowing with gold, rivers burgeoning with honey, and people who lived far beyond the short lifespans of the Greek world. But India also had monsters like the martikhora and the dog-headed people.96 Nearly contemporary with Ktesias, the historian Thucydides describes far western Sicily as extraordinarily large (Hist. 6.1.1), originally settled by monsters from the Odyssey, the Cyclopes and the Laestrygonians (6.2.1), and then filled with a plethora of strange barbarians (6.2.2–6), and altogether too extreme for conquest (6.6.1). Thucydides also attributes the origin of the Athenian plague, a hitherto unknown disease (2.47.3; 2.50.1), to the remotest reaches of the South, the epic land of “Ethiopia beyond Egypt” (2.48.1).97 This piece of the model did not wholly fade, but it is reprised by Strabo (around 20 AD), who defends the Homeric model of the inhabited world as 93. On symmetries in Herodotus’s world-picture, see Klaus E. Müller, Geschichte der antiken Ethnographie und ethnologischen Theoriebildung (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1972) 1:101–131; François Hartog, The Mirror of Herodotus, trans. Janet Lloyd (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 14–19; James S. Romm, “Herodotus and Mythic Geography: The Case of the Hyperboreans,” TAPhA 119 (1989): 97–113; and Romm, The Edges of the Earth, 60–61. 94. Hippocratic corpus, Airs, Waters, and Places §§12, 16, 23 (Littré 2.52–54, 2.62–64, 2.82–86); cf. Müller, Geschichte der antiken Ethnographie, 1:137–44; Jacques Jouanna, ed., Airs, Eaux, Lieux (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1996), 54–64; and J. Laskaris, “Hippokratic Corpus, Airs, Waters, Places,” in EANS 406. Similar is Regimen 2.37–38 (Littré 6.528–534). 95. Cited in Tzetzes, Khiliades 7.629–636; Romm, The Edges of the Earth, 84–85; Kaplan, “Skulax of Karuanda,” in EANS 745–746. 96. Mostly preserved as an epitome in Photios, Library §42 (pp. 45–50) = FGrHist 688 F45; Romm, The Edges of the Earth, 77–81, 85–88; Kaplan, “Ktēsias of Knidos,” in EANS 496; Andrew Nichols, Ctesias: On India (London: Bristol Classical Press, 2011). The spring running gold, F45.9; the martikhora, F45.15 (Aristotle, History of Animals 2.1, 501a24–b1); the river of honey, F45.29; the long lives of the Indians, F45.32; and the dog-headed people, F45.37—on whom see Klaus Karttunen, “ΚΥΝΟΚΕΦΑΛΟΙ and ΚΥΝΑΜΟΛΓΟΙ in Classical Ethnography,” Arctos 18 (1984): 31–36). 97. Cf. Rood, “Mapping Spatial and Temporal Distance,” 112. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 23 12/1/19 4:09 PM 24 Paul T. Keyser surrounded by Ocean (Geogr. 1.1–10).98 Indeed, for Roman geographers, the northern Ocean became the symbol of the extreme edges of the world, and the ultimate West became again (or was still) the land of paradise.99 Creation Arises from Chaos In the Kozy Kosmos model, creation commences from emptiness, chaos, or disorder. Creation, whether spontaneous or divine, is the imposition of order upon the unordered. Early Greek texts offer a similar picture, from Hesiod, Homer’s Iliad, and Akousilaos, to Alkman, Anaxagoras, the Hippocratic Fleshes, and Pherekudes of Suros, and finally, Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes, on whom see below, §II.Milesians.100 Hesiod indeed starts from Chaos (ΧΑΟΣ) in Theogony 116, which is usually interpreted as a “gap,” a lack of being, rather than as active disorder, although Theogony 736–745 seems to display a concept of chaos filled with more disorder (742–743: ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα φέροι πρὸ θύελλα θυέλλῃ / ἀργαλέη).101 The Iliad, in the “Deception of Zeus” (14.201; 14.245–246; 14.302), refers to Okeanos as the begetter of all things—apparently derived from Mesopotamian epic102—and elsewhere refers to Okeanos as the origin of all freshwater (21.195–197), parallel to the Apsu of Mesopotamia (or Duat of Egypt). Plato (Theaitetos 152e) interpreted these lines as declaring that:103 πάντα . . . ἔκγονα ῥοῆς τε καὶ κινήσεως all things . . . (are) the offspring of flux and change Plato (Symposium 178b) credits the idea of a primal Chaos to Akousilaos of Argos, whom scholars consider both historian and philosopher.104 Pherekudes 98. Romm, The Edges of the Earth, 43. 99. Romm, The Edges of the Earth, 140–49, 156–71; Paul T. Keyser, “From Myth to Map: The Blessed Isles in the First Century BC,” AncW 24 (1993): 149–68. 100. Friedrich Börtzler, “Zu den antiken Chaoskosmogonien,” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 28 (1930): 253–68. 101. G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983) 36–41, stress the importance of the χάος in Theog. 736–745. 102. Walter Burkert, The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age, trans. Margaret E. Pinder (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992) 91–93; West, The East Face of Helicon, 144–48. 103. Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, 13–17. 104. DK6 9 B2 = FGrHist 2 F6a; the claim is repeated in many later sources. Cf. Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, 18–19; Schwabl, “Weltschöpfung,” §23, col. 1464–1466. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 24 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 25 of Suros mentions Chaos and seems to equate it with primordial water.105 Alkman, as preserved in a paraphrase, reports another cosmology that seems to start from primordial Chaos:106 τὴν ὕλην πάν[των τετα]ραγμένην καὶ ἀπόητον the matter of all things was disturbed and unmade Much later, Anaxagoras refers to an initial chaos-like state, in which all kinds of things were mixed in an undifferentiated mass. He writes:107 ὁμοῦ πάντα χρήματα ἦν, ἄπειρα καὶ πλῆθος καὶ σμικρότητα· καὶ γὰρ τὸ σμικρὸν ἄπειρον ἦν. All things were together, unbounded in quantity and smallness: for the small was also unbounded. Moreover, he seems to assume that the unbounded continues to exist outside the kosmos and surrounds it:108 ἀήρ τε καὶ αἰθὴρ ἀποκρίνονται ἀπὸ τοῦ πολλοῦ τοῦ περιέχοντος, καὶ τό γε περιέχον ἄπειρόν ἐστι τὸ πλῆθος. 105. DK6 7 B1a = Achilles, Isagoge §3; Hermann S. Schibli, Pherekydes of Syros (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), F64 (p. 164), and pp. 46–48; M. L. West, “Three Presocratic Cosmologies,” CQ 13 (1963): 172. 106. Malcolm Davies, Poetarum melicorum graecorum fragmenta (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 51–52, fr. 5.2.iii = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, 47–49 = D. L. Page, Poetae melici Graeci (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962; repr. 1967 with corrections), fr. 5 = POxy 24 (1957) #2390; see West, “Three Presocratic Cosmologies,” 154–56. 107. DK6 59 B1 = David Sider, The Fragments of Anaxagoras, 2nd ed. (Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 2005), 68–76 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 467; the fragment is preserved in two pieces in Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.4 (187a21) and (187b7); for the edition of Simplicius, see Hermann Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 9 (Berlin: Reimer, 1882), 155.23–30 and 164.13–20. See also DK6 59 B4.b = Sider, Fragments, 102–107 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 468; the fragment is preserved in Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.2 (184b15), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 34.21–26. Cf. William K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy 2: The Presocratic Tradition from Parmenides to Democritus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 294–304. 108. DK6 59 B2 = Sider, Fragments, 77–81 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 488 = Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.4 (187a21), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 155.30–156.1. The verb ἀποκρίνομαι here seems to mean “secrete” as in medical texts, e.g., in the Hippocratic corpus: Airs, Waters, Places §9 (Littré 2.38.17); Ancient Medicine §14 (Littré 1.604.1); Prognosis §23 (Littré 2.178.13–14); On Seed §3 (Littré 7.474.5). 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 25 12/1/19 4:09 PM 26 Paul T. Keyser Air and Aither are being separated from the surrounding mass, and the surrounding is unbounded in quantity. Probably around the same time, the Hippocratic Fleshes records the belief that the kosmos began with disordered matter (ὅτε ἐταράχθη πάντα . . . ὅτε συνεταράχθη).109 For these writers on cosmology and cosmogony, whatever role it played in their text as a whole, the origin of the kosmos seems to have been some chaos-like state, which often is seen as continuing to exist in the outer Ocean.110 Of course, the path from chaos to kosmos varied a great deal, and their works indeed often responded to, or disputed with, their predecessors, including lost works unknown to us. Guardians of Order The kosmos arose from Chaos, and might slip back into it; therefore, semi-divine agents must act to ensure that the kosmos endures. Hesiod declared the Chaosborn earth herself the guardian: Γαῖ’ εὐρύστερνος, πάντων ἕδος ἀσφαλὲς αἰεὶ (Theog. 117). Anaximander, Herakleitos, Parmenides, and Anaxagoras referred to divine guardian(s) of order. Anaximander indicates that balance is maintained:111 διδόναι γὰρ αὐτὰ δίκην καὶ τίσιν ἀλλήλοις τῆς ἀδικίας, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ χρόνου τάξιν to render justice and recompense to one another for their injustice, according to the order of time In other words, ministers of justice (order) discover the imbalance, and they pay recompense to restore justice (order). Scholars since Theophrastos have wanted to see here an implicit reference to the balance of ontological opposites like cold/hot,112 but something like the protagonist’s speech in Sophocles, Aias 646–648 + 669–676, seems more likely and less retrojective: 109. Hippocratic corpus, Fleshes §2–3 (Littré 8.584–586). 110. For the circumambient ocean as manifesting chaos, see Romm, The Edges of the Earth, 20–26; Schwabl, “Weltschöpfung,” §46.b, col. 1510. 111. DK6 12 B1 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 110 = Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.2 (184b15), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 24.13–21. Cf. Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy 2:87–89. 112. Charles H. Kahn, Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960), 166–96; Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, 118–121; Gregory Vlastos, “Equality and Justice in Early Greek Cosmologies,” CP 42 (1947): 169–73, emphasizes the roles of justice and balance in early Greek cosmology, especially in Anaximander’s model. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 26 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology ἅπανθ᾽ ὁ μακρὸς κἀναρίθμητος χρόνος φύει τ᾽ ἄδηλα καὶ φανέντα κρύπτεται· ... καὶ γὰρ τὰ δεινὰ καὶ τὰ καρτερώτατα τιμαῖς ὑπείκει· τοῦτο μὲν νιφοστιβεῖς χειμῶνες ἐκχωροῦσιν εὐκάρπῳ θέρει· ἐξίσταται δὲ νυκτὸς αἰανὴς κύκλος τῇ λευκοπώλῳ φέγγος ἡμέρᾳ φλέγειν· δεινῶν τ᾽ ἄημα πνευμάτων ἐκοίμισε στένοντα πόντον· ἐν δ᾽ ὁ παγκρατὴς ὕπνος λύει πεδήσας, οὐδ᾽ ἀεὶ λαβὼν ἔχει. 27 Long and countless time brings forth all unseen things, and hides all that appears: ... The awesome and the mighty submit to authority. So it is that snowywayed winter gives place to fruitful summer; night’s dark orbit makes room for white-horsed day to kindle her radiance; the blast of dreadful winds allows the groaning sea to rest; almighty Sleep, too, releases his fetters, not holding forever. Both Anaximander and Sophocles attribute authority to time, and Sophocles’s verbal phrases τιμαῖς ὑπείκει (670), ἐκχωροῦσιν (671), ἐξίσταται (672), and ἐκοίμισε (674), correspond closely to the semantics of Anaximander’s διδόναι . . . δίκην καὶ τίσιν. It seems likely that Anaximander referred to his guardian as “governing” (κυβερνᾶν) the kosmos.113 Likewise, Herakleitos speaks of the Erinyes restoring the transgressive sun to his path:114 Ἥλιος γὰρ οὐχ ὑπερβήσεται μέτρα· εἰ δὲ μή, Ἐρινύες μιν Δίκης ἐπίκουροι ἐξευρήσουσιν. Sun will not overstep his measures; otherwise the Erinyes, guardians of Dike, will find him out. 113. DK6 12 A15 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 108 = Aristotle, Physics 3.4 (203b10–13). 114. DK6 22 B94 = Miroslav Marcovich, Heraclitus (Mérida, Venezuela: Los Andes University Press, 1967), fr. 52 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 226 = T. M. Robinson, Heraclitus: Fragments (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987), fr. 94 (and p. 144) = Plutarch, On Exile 604A. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 27 12/1/19 4:09 PM 28 Paul T. Keyser Similarly, Herakleitos’s “thunderbolt” rules all,115 and in Herakleitos’s eventual ekpyrosis, the fire will judge and convict.116 Parmenides also has a guardian, the cybernetic goddess who regulates the appearing of the fires in the sky:117 δαίμων ἣ πάντα κυβερνᾶι / goddess ruling all things Anaxagoras labels νόος (νοῦς) as boundless (ΑΠΕΙΡΟΝ) and places it over all things to organize them well:118 νοῦς δέ ἐστιν ἄπειρον καὶ αὐτοκρατὲς καὶ μέμεικται οὐδενὶ χρήματι, ἀλλὰ μόνος αὐτὸς ἐφ’ ἑωυτοῦ ἐστιν. Mind is boundless and absolute and mixed with no thing, but is all alone by itself. For the author of the Hippocratic Fleshes, it was the immortal “hot” that thinks, sees, and hears everything (ὃ καλέομεν θερμὸν, ἀθάνατόν τε εἶναι καὶ νοέειν πάντα καὶ ὁρῇν καὶ ἀκούειν καὶ εἰδέναι πάντα ἐόντα τε καὶ ἐσόμενα) and brought order out of chaos.119 115. DK6 22 B64 = Marcovich, Heraclitus, fr. 79 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 220 = Hippolytus, Refutation 9.10.6, τὰ δὲ πάντα οἰακίζει Κεραυνός, (then Hippolytus interprets, probably accurately) τουτέστι κατευθύνει, κεραυνὸν τὸ πῦρ λέγων τὸ αἰώνιον. Compare also DK6 22 B41 = Marcovich, Heraclitus, fr. 85 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 227 = Robinson, Heraclitus: Fragments, fr. 64 (and pp. 126–127) = Diogenes Laërtios, Lives 9.1. 116. DK6 22 B66 = Marcovich, Heraclitus, fr. 82 = Robinson, Heraclitus: Fragments, fr. 66 (and p. 127) = Hippolytus, Refutation 9.10.6; see A. Finkelberg, “On Cosmogony and Eypyrosis in Heraclitus,” AJPh 119 (1998): 195–222. 117. DK6 28 B12, line 3 = Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.2 (184b15), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 39.12–20; see A. H. Coxon, The Fragments of Parmenides, revised and expanded edition; ed. Richard McKirahan and Malcolm Scholfield (Las Vegas: Parmenides, 2009), 366–72, who explicitly compares Herakleitos’s ruling Thunderbolt on p. 371. 118. DK6 59 B12 = Sider, Fragments, 125–141 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 476 = Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.4 (187a21), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 156.13–16, and 1.4 (187b7), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 164.24–25. Paraphrased by Plato, Kratulos 413c; cf Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy 2:272–279. 119. Hippocratic corpus, Fleshes §2–3 (Littré 8.584–586). 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 28 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 29 World Mountains, Pillars, and Trees World-mountains may have figured in early Greek thought; Olympus reaching to heaven would have been the last vestige.120 There are traces in Greek texts of a world-pillar. Hesiod (Theog. 775–779) tells of terrible Styx, eldest daughter of Ocean, whose house is partly formed of heaven-high “silver pillars” (κίοσιν ἀργυρέοισι). Of Calypso’s father Atlas, the Odyssey 1.53–54 says: . . . ἔχει δέ τε κίονας αὐτὸς μακράς, αἳ γαῖάν τε καὶ οὐρανὸν ἀμφὶς ἔχουσιν. . . . he himself holds the tall pillars that hold earth and heaven apart. According to Pindar, Pythian 1.19–20, Mount Aetna is the snowy pillar that holds down Typhon: . . . κίων δ᾽ οὐρανία συνέχει, / νιφόεσσ᾽ Αἴτνα . . . . . . the heavenly pillar holds him down, / snowy Aetna . . . In Aeschylus’s Prometheus Bound 351–352, the protagonist explains that it is his brother Atlas himself who:121 ἕστηκε κίον᾽ οὐρανοῦ τε καὶ χθονὸς / ὤμοις ἐρείδων stands bearing the pillar of heaven and earth / on his shoulders Atlas is, so to speak, the personification of the world-pillar—he does not hold up a globe, from the outside, but a canopy, from the inside.122 120. Homer, Il. 15.187–193: Olympos is common to all parts of the kosmos; Homer, Od. 6.43–45: it has a blessed climate. See Johanna Schmidt, “Olympos,” RE 18 (1939): 276–79; William Merritt Sale, “Homeric Olympus and Its Formulae,” AJPh 105 (1984): 1–28, especially 1, where he states it is neither earth nor the sky, but “a third region whose nature and location are elusive,” and 15, where he cites Homer, Il. 5.749–751 = 8.393–395, which appears to identify “heaven” and “Olympos.” 121. See also Hesiod, Theog. 517–520, 746–748; and Ibukos, fr. 336, in Davies, Poetarum melicorum graecorum fragmenta, fr. 336, p. 303 = Scholia to Apollonios of Rhodes, 3.106 (τῶν τὸν οὐρανὸν κιόνων); cf. West, The East Face of Helicon, 148–49. 122. Eduoard Tièche, “Atlas als Personifikation der Weltachse,” MH 2 (1945): 165–86. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 29 12/1/19 4:09 PM 30 Paul T. Keyser Moreover, there is an explicit cosmic tree attested by Pherekudes of Suros.123 Two sources refer briefly to a tree, and on it a decorated cloak (φᾶρος) or robe (πέπλος). The cloak or robe was woven by the primordial god Ζάς for his brideto-be, the primordial goddess Χθονίη, and embroidered with depictions of the earth (Γῆ) and Ocean (Ὠγηνός), that is, of the created kosmos.124 The tree is described as “floating” or “flying” (literally, “winged,” ὑπόπτερος), just like the bowl of the sun in Mimnermos,125 and draped with the embroidered cloak (πεποικιλμένον φᾶρος).126 This tree seems to be the beginning of a cosmogony like the Kozy Kosmos, in which the first act of creation was to raise the cosmic tree; the laying upon it of the cloak embroidered with earth and sea corresponds closely to the world-tree supporting the heaven and maintaining the separation of earth and sky.127 Hebrew texts also speak of something being “stretched out” to form the heavens;128 in two texts, the heavens are stretched like a “tent” or “curtain” (Isa 40:22: ‫ אֹ הֶ ל‬/ σκηνὴν / tent; Ps 104:2: ‫ ִריעָה‬/ δέρριν / curtain). Milesians (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes) Writing the Kozy Kosmos From the point of view of the Kozy Kosmos model, it seems possible to clarify the contribution of the Milesian philosophers, with respect at least to their 123. On Pherekudes of Suros, see Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, 50–71; Schibli, Pherekydes of Syros; Schwabl, “Welfschöpfung,” §22, col. 1459–1464; West, “Three Presocratic Cosmologies,” 157–72. 124. DK6 7 B2 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 53 = Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, Greek Papyri, Series II: Classical Fragments and Other Greek and Latin Papyri (Oxford: Clarendon, 1897), #XI, pp. 21–23; Schibli, Pherekydes of Syros, F68 (pp. 165– 67). West, “Three Presocratic Cosmologies,” 158 argues for the accentuation “Ζάς.” 125. West, “Three Presocratic Cosmologies,” 171n2, 172, also draws the parallel with Mimnermos and argues that the tree was “flying” in Chaos; see also Schibli, Pherekydes of Syros, 73–74. 126. DK6 7 B2 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield (1983) fr. 55 = Schibli, Pherekydes of Syros, F69 (p. 167) = Isidoros in Clement, Stromateis 6.53.5, and DK6 7 A11 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 56 = Schibli, Pherekydes of Syros, F73 (p. 168) = Maximus of Tyre 4 (“Who Knows Better about Gods, Poets or Philosophers?”), §4g; George Leonidas Koniaris, Maximus Tyrius: Philosophumena—ΔΙΑΛΕΞΕΙΣ (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), 45. For the ὑπόπτερος bowl of the sun in Mimnermos, Nannō, see Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 7; Bruno Gentili and Carolus Prato, Poetarum elegiacorum testimonia et fragmenta, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Teubner, 2002) fr. 5 = Athenaios, Deipnosophists 11 (470a); see Archibald Allen, The Fragments of Mimnermus (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1993), 94–99. West, “Three Presocratic Cosmologies,” 167–69, denies that the cloak was put on the tree, but allows that cloak and tree both represent the kosmos somehow. D.L. Couprie, Heaven and Earth in Ancient Greek Cosmology (Berlin: Springer, 2011), 9–10 cites an Assyrian seal that appears to show a tree covered by a mantle. 127. Schibli, Pherekydes of Syros, 69–77. 128. In the Prophets: Isa 40:22 (‫ ּנֹוטֶ ה‬/ διατείνας); 42:5 (‫ נֹוטֵ יהֶ ם‬/ [absent]); 44:24 (‫ נֹ טֶ ה‬/ ἐξέτεινα); 45.12 (‫ נָטּו‬/ ἐστερέωσα [sic]), 48:13 (‫ טּפְ ִחָ ה‬/ ἐστερέωσε [sic]); 51:13 (‫ נֹוטֶ ה‬/ ποιήσαντα [sic]); Jer 10:12 (‫ נָטָ ה‬/ ἐξέτεινε); 51:15 (‫ נָטָ ה‬/ ἐξέτεινε); Zech 12:1 (‫ נֹ טֶ ה‬/ ἐκτείνων); and in the Writings: Ps 104:2 (‫ נֹוטֶ ה‬/ ἐκτείνων); and Job 9:8 (‫ נֹ טֶ ה‬/ τανύσας). 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 30 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 31 theories about the origin of the kosmos. The primordial water of Thales is not an “element” in the sense of an irreducible substance from which, or with which, everything is made.129 Rather, it is the same primordial unformed (ΑΠΕΙΡΟΝ) water that we have seen in the various versions of the Kozy Kosmos.130 And just as the world that emerges from the primordial waters remains in some way surrounded by them, so too is Thales’s earth “floating” (πλωτὴν) upon the water,131 like the floating islands of Odyssey 10.3 (Αἴολος) and Herodotus, Hist. 2.156.1 (Χέμμις). Anaximander posited ΑΠΕΙΡΟΝ in eternal motion as the origin of all things.132 For millennia, scholars have given themselves endless headaches by attempting to explain how something so unlike an element can produce everything or be that from which, or with which, everything is made. In the context of the Kozy Kosmos, the “unbounded” is probably the primordial chaos, the unformed stuff out of which the whole world came and may resolve back into.133 If Anaximander’s ΑΠΕΙΡΟΝ is to be compared to any “physical” thing, the best choice might be Chinese qi, 氣. 129. DK6 11 A14 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 84 = Aristotle, On Heaven 2.13 (294a28–31). 130. For Thales’s water as ΑΠΕΙΡΟΝ, see Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 3.4 (203a16), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 458.23–29. 131. Hölscher, “Anaximander,” 385–391; William K. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy 1: The Earlier Presocratics and the Pythagoreans (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962), 54–61; Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, 88–95. All of these scholars draw connections with the Egyptian Nun and the Mesopotamian Apsu and Tiamat, as primordial water. 132. DK6 12 A1 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 94 = Diogenes Laërtios, Lives 2.1. For “through the eternal motion” (διὰ τῆς ἀιδίου κινήσεως) of the ΑΠΕΙΡΟΝ, see DK6 12 A9 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 119 = Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.2 (184b15), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 24.21–25, and DK6 12 A11 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 101b = Hippolytus, Refutation 1.6.2. Cf. David J. Furley, The Greek Cosmologists: The Formation of the Atomic Theory and Its Earliest Critics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 1:28–30. 133. Gregory Vlastos, Review of Principium Sapientiae by F. M. Cornford, Gnomon 27 (1955): 65–76, at 74–75, also connects Anaximander’s ΑΠΕΙΡΟΝ with Hesiod’s ΧΑΟΣ, and reads Anaximander as stating that reabsorption of the kosmos back into the ΑΠΕΙΡΟΝ is the resolution of the opposites. Cf. Leo Sweeney, Infinity in the Presocratics: A Bibliographical and Philosophical Study (Dordrecht: Springer, 1972), 5. Harold Cherniss, “The Characteristics and Effects of Presocratic Philosophy,” JHI 12 (1951): 319–45, at 324–25, argues that Anaximander’s ΑΠΕΙΡΟΝ is a “boundless expanse of indefinitely different ingredients . . . it is everything in actuality” (cf. Sweeney, Infinity, 8–9). Kahn, Anaximander, 231–39, explores early senses of the word ΑΠΕΙΡΟΝ, and concludes that it means “what cannot be passed over or traversed from end to end,” and that for Anaximander it is “the living, divine force of natural change” (cf. Sweeney, Infinity, 24–26). Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, 1:83–87, suggests that ΑΠΕΙΡΟΝ was undifferentiated; similarly, Sweeney, Infinity, 55–65, “indeterminate.” Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, 110, argue that the primary meaning of ΑΠΕΙΡΟΝ in Greek of the era must have been “spatially unlimited” but acknowledge “for Anaximander, the original world-forming stuff was indefinite, it resembled no one kind of matter.” Romm, The Edges of the Earth, 9–13, emphasizes the sense “lack of boundary.” 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 31 12/1/19 4:09 PM 32 Paul T. Keyser Anaximenes postulated that the origin of the kosmos was the perpetually moving and boundless air (ἀέρα ἄπειρον) and proposed an air-water-earth continuum to explain transformation.134 In the context of the Kozy Kosmos, we can understand Anaximenes as simply saying that when the primordial fluid chaos “thins,” it can become like the fires above the earth, and when it “thickens,” it can become like wind, mist, water, and even earth. He was hardly referring to elements or substances, in Aristotle’s sense, but he was simply referring to primordial chaos coalescing into stuff with which we are familiar. The entire kosmos was surrounded by this endless “air” (ὅλον τὸν κόσμον πνεῦμα καὶ ἀὴρ περιέχει).135 Here also, the best physical correlate of Anaximenes’s “air” might be Chinese qi, 氣, which would help explain how he made it divine.136 Responding to Chaos We have seen how different cultures responded to the threat that primordial chaos might return to the kosmos by invading or irrupting (§I). Greek philosophy can be defined as the search for the stability that lies under the perceptible instability of the world. When such an outlook is confronted with the concept of a primordial chaos (disorder or formlessness) that might return, several responses are possible. One may embrace—that is, radically accept—the chaos and assert that the universe is fundamentally dynamic. Or, secondly, one may attempt to banish—that is, radically reject—the chaos and assert that the universe is fundamentally stable. Or, thirdly, one may attempt to strike a balance between stability and chaos. It is possible to view at least some of the early Greek writers as having adopted one of these three strategies. Some writers embraced the chaos: first, Herakleitos, then Anaxagoras, and lastly Leukippos and Demokritos. For Herakleitos, the universe was an eternal fire,137 implying that dynamism was the underlying principle, presumably a dynamism derived from the pluripotent primordial chaos. His directive and generative “fire” was an agent of perpetual change but always cashed out in balanced “measures” (ἁπτόμενον μέτρα καὶ ἀποσβεννύμενον μέτρα, “ignited in measures, quenched in measures”)138 and enforced by Erinyes (DK6 22 B94). 134. DK6 13 A5 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 140 = Theophrastos in Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.2 (184b15), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 24.26–25.1, note κίνησιν . . . ἀίδιον. 135. DK6 13 B2 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 160 = Aëtios 1.3.4. On Aëtios, see J. Meyer, “Aëtios,” in EANS 37–38. 136. DK6 13 A10 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 145 = Aëtios 1.7.13. 137. Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, 197–200; Furley, The Greek Cosmologists, 33–36. 138. DK6 22 B30 = Marcovich, Heraclitus, fr. 51 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 217 = Clement, Stromateis 5.104.1. The analogy to money from DK6 22 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 32 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 33 Anaxagoras said that “seeds of everything were in everything,” a claim from which have sprouted endless tangles for his interpreters.139 But what if he simply meant that anything can emerge out of anything, just as if out of the the still underlying primordial chaos? He is quoted as saying that even in the current state of the world:140 οὐδὲ χωρὶς ἔστιν εἶναι, ἀλλὰ πάντα παντὸς μοῖραν μετέχει . . . ἀλλ’ ὅπωσπερ ἀρχὴν εἶναι καὶ νῦν πάντα ὁμοῦ. ἐν πᾶσι δὲ πολλὰ ἔνεστι Nor can they exist apart, but all things have a share of all . . . but as it was in the beginning also now all things are together. In all things there are many (things) For Leukippos and Demokritos, the atoms were in perpetual motion, thus both embodying chaos (in the sense of disorder) and allowing for an unlimited number of combinations.141 The atoms moved in an infinite void, and when they coalesced to form any one of the many worlds, it occurred by “cutting off” from the ΑΠΕΙΡΟΝ:142 τὸ μὲν πᾶν ἄπειρόν . . . κόσμους τε ἐκ τούτου ἀπείρους εἶναι . . . γίνεσθαι δὲ τοὺς κόσμους οὕτω· φέρεσθαι κατὰ ἀποτομὴν ἐκ τῆς ἀπείρου πολλὰ σώματα παντοῖα B90 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 219 = Marcovich, Heraclitus, fr. 54 = Plutarch, The ‘E’ at Delphi §8 (388D). Cf. Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, 1:454–459. 139. DK6 59 B1 and B4, as above, “Creation Arises from Chaos.” See David J. Furley, “Anaxagoras in Response to Parmenides,” in New Essays in Plato and the Pre-Socratics, Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplement 2; ed. Roger A. Shiner and John King-Farlow (Guelph, Ontario: Canadian Assocation for Publishing in Philosophy, 1976), 61–85, at 71–76; repr. in Cosmic Problems: Essays on Greek and Roman Philosophy of Nature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 47–65, at 55–58. Compare the near-parallel in the Hippocratic Diseases IIII §3 (Littré 7.544–546), the earth contains innumerable distinct powers that nourish distinct plants. 140. DK6 59 B6 = Sider, Fragments, 110–113 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 481 = Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.4 (187b7), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 164.26–165.1; and DK6 59 B11 = Sider, Fragments, 123–24 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 482 = Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.4 (187b7), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 164.20–24. 141. DK6 67 A6 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 555 = Aristotle, Metaphysics 1.4 (985b4–19), and DK6 68 A37 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 556 = Aristotle in Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Heaven’ 1.10 (279b12), Johan L. Heiberg, Simplicii in Aristotelis de Caelo Commentaria (Berlin: Reimer, 1894), 295.1–9. 142. DK6 67 A1.31 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 563 = Diogenes Laërtios, Lives 9.31. Cf. Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, 2:406–413; Furley, The Greek Cosmologists, 140–46. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 33 12/1/19 4:09 PM 34 Paul T. Keyser The whole is unbounded . . . and there are unbounded kosmoi from this (the whole) . . . and the kosmoi come to be like this: many bodies of all sorts move by abscission from the unbounded Demokritos could have conceived the void itself as the chaos-as-gap: the primordial emptiness persists throughout the kosmos as the gap between atoms, the void in which the atoms move. Secondly, some writers attempted to banish the chaos and assert a radical underlying stability to the world. Parmenides denied anyone could think about “what is not,”143 which seems to include thinking about chaos or the unbounded. Instead, the way of truth led to eternal stability, and a kosmos that in truth was perfect and complete, like a sphere.144 Zeno responded similarly and raised paradoxes about change and plurality in order to argue that there is no real change at all.145 Plato describes Zeno’s aim as arguing for essential Oneness (Parmenides 127D–128C), and essential Oneness would support an eternal and unchanging kosmos. Epikharmos is credited with asserting the eternal world order and spoofing the idea that it emerged from Chaos.146 Melissos argued for an eternal and changeless kosmos unbounded in extent:147 ἀεὶ ἦν ὅ τι ἦν καὶ ἀεὶ ἔσται. It always was what it was and always will be. 143. DK6 28 B2 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 291 = Proklos, On Plato’s Timaios 2 (29c), Ernest Diehl, trans., Procli Diadochi in Platonis Timaevm Commentaria (Leipzig: Teubner, 1903), 1:345, and Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.3 (186a24), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 116.25–117.1; also DK6 28 B6 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 293 = Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.2 (185b5), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 86.19–28, and 1.3 (186a24), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 117.2–13. See Coxon, Fragments, 290–305. 144. Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, 248–54; especially DK6 28 B8 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, frr. 295–296 = Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.2 (185a20), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 77.34–78.29, plus 1.3 (187a1), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 144.22–146.26. See also below §III, on the spherical kosmos. Cf. Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, 2:43–49; Coxon, Fragments, 312–52. 145. Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, 263–69, 277–79. 146. DK6 23 B1 = Lucia Rodríguez-Noriega Guillén, Epicarmo de Siracusa: Testimonios y Fragmentos (Oviedo: Universidad de Oviedo, Servicio de Publicaciones, 1996), fr. 248 (pp. 149–51) = Diogenes Laërtios, Lives 3.10 (from Alkimos, Essays for Amyntas: see Nancy Demand, “Epicharmus and Gorgias,” AJPh 92 (1971): 453–63); on Epikharmos, see L. Rodríguez-Noriega, “Epikharmos of Surakousai,” in EANS 291–92. 147. DK6 30 B8 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, frr. 525 and 527 = Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.2 (184b15), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 162.23–26, and 1.2 (184b15), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 109.29–32. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 34 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 35 ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἔστιν ἀεί, οὕτω καὶ τὸ μέγεθος ἄπειρον ἀεὶ χρὴ εἶναι. But since it exists always, so also it must always be unbounded in size. All four of these authors, Parmenides, Zeno, Melissos, and Epikharmos, sought to assure readers that the kosmos is stable and eternal. Thirdly, two poets of cosmogony can be read as attempting to depict a balance between unbounded chaos and bounded kosmos. Xenophanes’s poetry provides evidence that he saw a cycle between kosmos and chaos (the unbounded).148 He speaks of the upper bound of the earth pushing against the air, while its lower part reaches the ΑΠΕΙΡΟΝ:149 γαίης μὲν τόδε πεῖρας ἄνω παρὰ ποσσὶν ὁρᾶται ἠέρι προσπλάζον, τὸ κάτω δ’ ἐς ἄπειρον ἱκνεῖται This upper bound of the earth is seen at our feet, touching the air, the lower comes to the boundless. He seems to be speaking of the created kosmos (here, the earth) as existing in balance with the unbounded (chaos). Just as in Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Mayan versions of the Kozy Kosmos, the primordial water continues to exist below the earth. Also out at the edges of the created kosmos, the unbounded chaos continues to lurk, and into it the sun vanishes daily:150 . . . τὸν ἥλιον εἰς ἄπειρον μὲν προϊέναι, δοκεῖν δὲ κυκλεῖσθαι διὰ τὴν ἀπόστασιν . . . . . . the sun proceeds into the boundless, but appears to circle round because of the separation . . . That is, when the sun reaches the outer chaos, the sun ceases to exist. The idea that a sufficiently distant sun would vanish is similar to the claim in the “Kai 148. Xenophanes’s god may have been the guarantor of that orderly cycle. Cf. DK6 21 B25 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 171 = Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.2 (184b15), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 22.22–23.20, ἀλλ’ ἀπάνευθε πόνοιο νόου φρενὶ πάντα κραδαίνει (“but aloof from toil he trembles all things by the will of his mind”). Cf. J. H. Lesher, Xenophanes of Colophon: Fragments; A Text and Translation with a Commentary (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992), 106–110. 149. DK6 21 B28 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 180 (also fr. 3) = Achilles, Isagoge §4. Compare Lesher, Xenophanes of Colophon, 128–31. 150. DK6 21 A41a = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 179 = Aëtios 2.24.9. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 35 12/1/19 4:09 PM 36 Paul T. Keyser Tian” theory of ancient China (see §I.China). Indeed, Xenophanes did say that the sun and stars are daily ignited at their rise, and daily quenched at their setting:151 . . . σβεννυμένους δὲ καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἀναζωπυρεῖν νύκτωρ καθάπερ τοὺς ἄνθρακας· τὰς γὰρ ἀνατολὰς καὶ τὰς δύσεις ἐξάψεις εἶναι καὶ σβέσεις . . . . . . being quenched each day they are rekindled nightly like coals: so risings and settings are catchings and quenchings . . . A third way in which Xenophanes reflects the Kozy Kosmos model, while representing the kosmos as in balance with the outer chaos, is to depict the cosmic flood as a periodic occurrence from which the kosmos regularly recovers:152 ἀναιρεῖσθαι δὲ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους πάντας, ὅταν ἡ γῆ κατενεχθεῖσα εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν πηλὸς γένηται, εἶτα πάλιν ἄρχεσθαι τῆς γενέσεως, καὶ ταύτην πᾶσι τοῖς κόσμοις γίνεσθαι μεταβολήν. All people are wiped out, when the earth is carried down into the sea and becomes mud; then again there is the start of a creation (genesis), and this transition occurs in all kosmoi. Xenophanes offers the evidence of fossil plants, molluscs, and fish, to support his claim that the earth is being dissolved into mud over time. Then, he connects that observation to the cosmic flood of the Kozy Kosmos model, but he asserts a cycle of flood and re-creation.153 151. Stars: DK6 21 A38 = Aëtios 2.13.14. Sun: DK6 21 A40 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 177 = Aëtios 2.20.3. Cf. Paul T. Keyser, “Xenophanes’ Sun on Trojan Ida,” Mnemosyne 45 (1992): 299–311. 152. DK6 21 B33 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 184 = Hippolytus, Refutation 1.14.6. 153. The cosmic flood of the Kozy Kosmos appears elsewhere in Greco-Roman texts: Akousilaos DK6 9 B20 = Clement, Stromateis 1.102; Iulius Africanus in Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 10.10.7; Plato, Timaios 22; Kritias 111–112; Laws 3 (677a); Hegesianax, Phainomena, cited in Hyginus, Astronomia 2.29 (on Hegesianax, see C. Cusset, “Hegesianax,” in EANS 358); Apollodoros 1.7.2; Propertius 2.32.53–54; Ovid, Metamorphoses 1.151–415; Germanicus, Aratea 561–562; Manilius, Astron. 4.828–833; Lucan 1.653–654. Adrienne Mayor, The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 201–206, and The First Fossil Hunters: Dinosaurs, Mammoths, and Myth in Greek and Roman Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011) 210–211, discusses some of these texts, and the relevance of fossils, as in Xenophanes. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 36 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 37 Empedokles attempts to balance the primordial chaos and the stability of the created kosmos. That is, his model allows for perpetual change, but with an underlying stability.154 Unlike Thales’s “water” or Herakleitos’s “fire,” which are not elements but cosmogonic principles, the four “roots” of Empedokles were pretty much “elements” in the sense later desired by Plato and Aristotle.155 Can we perhaps understand Empedokles as having represented the primordial Chaos as “Strife,” and the stability of the kosmos as “Love,”156 analogous to the Egyptian Maʾat and the Chinese Mandate? III� Rounding the Edges, Raising the Sky We have seen, in the prior section, how the Kozy Kosmos, the mytho-historical “cradle cosmology” of a flat earth and central pillar, which arose from chaotic primordial waters, is reflected in many of the models and assumptions of early Greek writers. If we consider it within the context of the Kozy Kosmos, much of Greek cosmology becomes more explicable. Now, looking at the evolution of Greek cosmology itself, we should keep in mind that early Greek thinkers were not seeking a system similar to what Plato propounded or Aristotle advocated. Greek writers of the early centuries, up to the times of Plato and Aristotle, did not primarily ponder what elements explained the world, or what caused the kosmos, or even earth’s shape or appearance when viewed from afar; instead, they inquired about the origin and nature of the kosmos and the earth within that kosmos. They speculated about the first origins of the world and offered models that explained day and night, month and season, and other phenomena of earth and heaven. Certain traditions continued to direct their debates, but few overarching or undergirding assumptions, doctrines, or goals restrained their hypotheses. Yet the accounts of Aristotle, the doxographers, the neo-Platonist commentators, and most scholars since have depicted their discussion as a dialogue culminating in Peripatetic cosmology. Moreover, doxographers often perversely 154. Strife scatters the elements; love joins them into functional wholes: DK6 31 B27+31 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 358 = Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 8.1 (252a5), Hermann Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Posteriores Commentaria, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 10 (Berlin: Reimer, 1895), 1183.23–1184.4; and DK6 31 B30 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 359 = Aristotle, Metaphysics 2.4 (1000b12–17). 155. DK6 31 B17.1–35 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 348+349 = Brad Inwood, The Poem of Empedocles, 2nd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001) fr. 25 = Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.4 (187a21), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 157.25–159.8 (the whole fragment). 156. Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, 296–300. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 37 12/1/19 4:09 PM 38 Paul T. Keyser retroject later syntheses onto the words of early philosophers.157 In light of the Kozy Kosmos model, let us try to clear away some of the retrojected accretions, to see what sort of world-picture these early thinkers were proposing. The early Greek kosmos was small and organically whole, with earth and heaven in close coherence. At first, this mytho-historical Kozy Kosmos had little room for questions such as the shape of the sky or the nocturnal location of the Sun. But philosophers propounded theories that developed and altered that picture, with the result that many competing views coexisted up to the era of Aristotle and after. While there was no single line of development, five pieces of the puzzle were shared among many of the theories: (1) solid sky; (2) high ridges at the rim of earth; (3) sun near earth at sunrise and sunset; (4) sun feeds on vapors from earth; and (5) sun and moon are small compared to the earth. Solid Sky, Flat or Domed First of these shared pieces was the notion that the sky was solid, like a roof over the earth. That is what we find in Pherekudes of Suros, for example,158 and is the image behind the falling anvil of Hesiod, Theogony 722–745. This is also probably the meaning of the bronze or iron ouranos in Homer and Pindar.159 For the early Egyptians, the heaven was flat (the flat sky-determinative, 𓇯), whereas in the Hebrew scriptures, it seems to have been rounded. Some Greek texts seem to assume a flat heaven, on which the house of Zeus sat;160 but Aristophanes represents both Hippon of Kroton and Meton of Athens as propounding a domed heaven, like the hemispherical πνιγεύς (pnigeus, “damper”), used in cooking.161 157. D. R. Dicks, Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970), especially 41–42, advocates thorough reevaluation of early Greek astronomy. Catherine Osborne, Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy: Hippolytus of Rome and the Presocratics (London: Duckworth, and Ithaca: Cornell, 1970), especially 183–86, argues that the context of quotations in the doxographic source Hippolytus must be taken into account, for reading Herakleitos and Empedokles at least. Alan C. Bowen, Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions: In Defense of a Heresy (Leiden: Brill, 2013), unpacks the retrojection in one crucial source, Simplicius. 158. Schibli, Pherykydes of Syros, 38–49. Cf. Homer, Il. 8.13, and Hesiod, Theog. 116–134. 159. Bronze heaven: Homer, Il. 17.425 χάλκεος οὐρανὸς; cf. 1.426; 14.173; the “very brazen heaven”: Il. 5.504; Od. 3.2, οὐρανὸν ἐς πολύχαλκον (perhaps compare “bronze-rich” as in Il. 10.315; 18.289; Od. 15.425); and Theognis 868–869, in an adunaton (Ἔν μοι ἔπειτα πέσοι μέγας οὐρανὸς εὐρὺς ὕπερθεν / χάλκεος). The iron heaven, σιδήρεος οὐρανὸς: Od. 15.329 and 17.565. See West, The East Face of Helicon, 139–40; Couprie, Heaven and Earth, 10–11. 160. The “bronze-based house of Zeus” in: Homer, Il. 1.426; 14.173; 21.438; 21.505; Od. 8.321, χαλκοβατὲς δῶ(μ); cf. Pindar, Nemeans 6.3: ἀσφαλὲς αἰὲν ἕδος; Pythians 10.27. 161. Aristophanes, Clouds 95–96 = Hippon DK6 38 A2: see Dover (1968) 106–107, and JeanClaude Picot, “L’Image du ΠΝΙΓΕΥΣ dans les Nuées: Un Empédocle au charbon,” in Comédie et Philosophie: Socrate et les « Présocratiques » dans les Nuées d’Aristophane, ed. André Laks and Rosella Saetta Cottone (Paris: Presses de l’École normale supérieure, 2013), 113–29. For Meton, see Aristophanes, Birds 1000–1001 (Meton not in DK6); R. E. Wycherley, “Aristophanes, Birds, 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 38 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 39 Since the early eleventh century AD, scientists have speculated and calculated that the apparent shape of the sky is flatter than a hemisphere;162 such an illusion might have contributed to the belief in various cultures, including Greek, that the sky was to some degree domed. The doxographers, however, uncritically attribute the notion of a spherical heaven to most thinkers, probably solely on the basis that they speculated about the kosmos. Rim Ridges I turn next to the idea that the flat earth was fringed with skyscraping peaks behind which the sun hid at night. Herodotus described the Kaukasos in the east and the Atlas in the west as heaven-high (Hist. 1.203; 4.184). The author of the Hippocratic Airs, Waters, Places told the same of the northern Rhipaian peaks,163 which Herodotus (4.25) referred to, but did not name, as lofty and inaccessible, and Aristeas of Prokonnesos claimed to have approached.164 The doxographers record that Anaximenes and others explained night as the shadow of those rim ridges,165 and Plato’s myth in his Phaidon, 109–111, placed the 995–1009,” CQ 31 (1937): 22–31, at 24–25; Nan Dunbar, ed., Aristophanes, Birds; Edited with introduction and commentary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 555–56; H. Mendell, “Meton of Athens,” in EANS 551–552. On the πνιγεύς vessel, see Brian A. Sparkes and Lucy Talcott, Pots and Pans of Classical Athens (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), plate 36; Brian A. Sparkes, “The Greek Kitchen,” JHS 82 (1962): 121–37, at 128, plate IV.2; Brian A. Sparkes and Lucy Talcott, Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries B.C., Athenian Agora 12 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), #2021–2022: pp. 32, 233, 377, 397, fig. 19, and plate 97, “cooking bell.” 162. The astronomer and mathematician “Alhazen,” Optics 7.55 (ca. 1020 AD), suggested the sky has a flat shape, but later writers sought to establish that it was domed; see Robert Smith, A Compleat System of Opticks (Cambridge: Crownfield, 1738; repr. Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum, 2004), 1:63–67 (book I, §5); Wilhelm Filehne, “Die mathematische Ableitung der Form des scheinbaren Himmelsgewölbes,” Archiv für Physiologie: Physiologische Abteilung 34, no. 1 (1912): 1–32; H. Dember and M. Uibe, “Über die scheinbare Gestalt des Himmelsgewölbes,” Annalen der Physik 360, no. 5 (1918): 387–96; M. Luckiesh, “The Apparent Form of the Sky-Vault,” Journal of the Franklin Institute 191 (1921): 259–63; Albert Miller and Hans Neuberger, “Investigations into the Apparent Shape of the Sky,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 26 (1945): 212–16; D. Ventateswara Rao, “Variation of the Apparent Shape of the Sky with Intensity of Illumination,” Current Science 15, no. 2 (1946): 40–41; D. Ventateswara Rao, “Effect of Illumination on the Apparent Shape of the Sky,” Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences, Section A 25, no. 1 (1947): 34–42; Lloyd Kaufman and Irvin Rock, “The Moon Illusion, I,” Science 136 (1962): 953–61, at 954–955; Helen E. Ross and George M. Ross, “Did Ptolemy Understand the Moon Illusion?” Perception 5 (1976): 377–85, at 381–85; J. T. Enright, “The Eye, the Brain, and the Size of the Moon: Toward a Unified Oculomotor Hypothesis for the Moon Illusion,” in The Moon Illusion, ed. Maurice Hershenson (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1989), 59–122, at 110–13. 163. Hippocrates, Airs, Waters, and Places §19 (Littré 2.70). 164. Compare Damastes of Sigeion, FGrHist 5 F1 = Stephanos of Byzantium, s.v. Ὑπερβόρειοι. Bolton, Aristeas, 39–42 argues that Aristeas is the source of all these remarks. 165. Anaximenes DK6 13 A7.6 + A14, compare Aristotle, Meteorology 2.1 (354 a29–30), as well as Anaxagoras DK6 59 A7, Demokritos DK6 A94 = Aëtios 3.10.4–5, and Arkhelaos DK6 60 A4.4 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 515 = Hippolytus, Refutation 1.9.4. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 39 12/1/19 4:09 PM 40 Paul T. Keyser whole oikoumenē at the bottom of a deep hollow whose foothills were those same peaks, and whose rim lay up in the true sky, in a blessed land of beauty.166 Aristotle, despite believing in a spherical earth, still reported astronomically tall peaks all around the Mediterranean: Kaukasos in the east, Rhipaians in the north, Purene in the west, and the Ethiopian mountains in the south.167 Only when Dikaiarkhos brought the heights of mountains within the range of human logos by measuring their heights did this belief recede.168 Sun and Moon Close to Earth Thirdly, the sun moving across the flat or domed sky was thought to be closer to the earth at dawn and dusk, a belief that may have originated in the optical illusion that sun and moon appear larger when near the horizon.169 Herodotus (Hist. 3.104) and Ktesias described the sun over India as much closer to the earth than when over Greece.170 The author of the Hippocratic Airs, Waters, and Places employed the belief to explain the climate of the far west and east.171 Euripides reflects the same picture, in his Phaithon:172 . . . Μέροπι τῆσδ’ ἄνακτι γῆς, ἣν ἐκ τεθρίππων ἁρμάτων πρώτην χθόνα Ἥλιος ἀνίσχων χρυσέᾳ βάλλει φλογί· καλοῦσι δ’ αὐτὴν γείτονες μελάμβροτοι 166. Romm, The Edges of the Earth, 125. 167. Aristotle, Meteorology 1.13 (350a18–b18). 168. Paul T. Keyser, “The Geographical Work of Dikaiarchos,” in Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation, and Discussion, ed. W. W. Fortenbaugh and Eckahrt Schütrumpf (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2001), 353–72. 169. Photography demonstrates that the effect is an illusion. The cause has been debated since antiquity: Eugen Reimann, “Die scheinbare Vergrößerung der Sonne und des Mondes am Horizont,” Zeitschrift für Psychologie 30 (1902): 1–38, especially 1–2 for the ancient evidence; Kaufman and Rock, “The Moon Illusion, I,” 956–61; Irvin Rock and Lloyd Kaufman, “The Moon Illusion, II,” Science 136 (1962): 1023–31; Enright, “The Eye, the Brain, and the Size of the Moon”; Lloyd Kaufman and James H. Kaufman, “Explaining the Moon Illusion,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97 (2000): 500–505; Helen E. Ross, “Cleomedes (c. 1st century AD) on the Celestial Illusion, Atmospheric Enlargement, and Size-Distance Invariance,” Perception 29 (2000): 863–71; and Lloyd Kaufman et al., “Perceptual Distance and the Moon Illusion,” Spatial Vision 20 (2007): 155–75. 170. Ktesias, Indika, FGrHist 688 F45.12 and 45.18 = Photios, Library 72 (pp. 45b and 46a): the sun in India rose ten times the size it did in Greece. 171. Hippocratic corpus, Airs, Waters, and Places §§12, 16, 23 (Littré 2.52–54, 2.62–64, 2.82–86). 172. James Diggle, ed., Euripides Phaethon; Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 55 (lines 1–7) and 78–83 (commentary) = Richard Kannicht, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Vol. 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004) fr. 771–772 = Strabo, Geogr. 1.2.27 (lines 1–5) + Stobaios 1.25.6 (line 6) + Vitruvius, De architectura 9.1.13 (line 7). 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 40 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 41 Ἕω φαεννὰς Ἡλίου θ’ ἱπποστάσεις. . . . θερμὴ δ’ ἄνακτος φλὸξ ὑπερτέλλουσα γῆς . . . καίει τὰ πόρσω τἀγγύθεν δ’ εὔκρατ’ ἔχει . . . to Merops, the king of this country, Which is the first land that, from his chariot and four, As he rises, the Sun strikes with his golden flame: The swarthy neighbors call it Dawn’s and Sun’s bright stables. . . . The lord’s hot flame rising over the earth . . . Burns what’s far away, but keeps the nearer temperate. The belief persisted into the era of Aristotle, as well as the later peripatetic Problems,173 and is recorded by Strabo (Geogr. 3.1.4–5) from Poseidonios or Artemidoros around 100 BC. Furthermore, an optical illusion may have contributed to the belief that the sun was closer to the earth at dawn and dusk: the illusion of diverging crepuscular rays. Rays of light shining through clouds from the setting or rising sun (or moon) seem to converge at the “vanishing point” for much the same reason as railroad tracks seem to converge; the vanishing point then seems at a finite and even close distance.174 The geometry of Figure 3 (above) in which the distance from the flat earth up to the sun is measured seems to derive from that illusion. Sun Nourished by Terrestrial Vapors Furthermore, the fire of the sun was close enough to both warm the earth and be nourished by vapors arising from the earth. Herodotus said exactly that (Hist. 2.25), as apparently did Antiphon, On Truth:175 πῦρ ἐπινεμόμενον μὲν τὸν περὶ τὴν γῆν ὑγρὸν ἀέρα, ἀνατολὰς δὲ καὶ δύσεις ποιούμενον τῶι τὸν μὲν ἐπικαιόμενον ἀεὶ προλείπειν, τοῦ δ’ ὑπονοτιζομένου πάλιν ἀντέχεσθαι. 173. Aristotle, Meteorology 2.5 (361 b36–2a7); pseudo-Aristotle, Problems 8.17, but compare Problems 25.5; 25.15. 174. David K. Lynch, “Optics of Sunbeams,” Journal of the Optical Society of America A 4.3 (1987): 609–611; Janet Shields, “Sunbeams and Moonshine.” Optics and Photonics News 5, no. 7 (1994): 57, 59. 175. DK6 87 B26 = Gerard J. Pendrick, Antiphon the Sophist (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), Book 2, fr. 26 = Aëtios 2.20.15; see also G. J. Pendrick, “Antiphon of Athens,” in EANS 99. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 41 12/1/19 4:09 PM 42 Paul T. Keyser [The sun is] a fire that feeds on the moist air around the earth and produces its risings and settings by continually abandoning the scorched air and clinging in turn to air which is somewhat moistened. The Hippocratic Breaths says the same thing:176 Ἀλλὰ μὴν ἡλίου τε καὶ σελήνης καὶ ἄστρων ὁδὸς διὰ τοῦ πνεύματός ἐστιν· τῷ γὰρ πυρὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τροφή· τοῦ δὲ πνεύματος τὸ πῦρ στερηθὲν οὐκ ἂν δύναιτο ζῇν· ὥστε καὶ τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου δρόμον ἀένναον ὁ ἀὴρ ἀένναος καὶ λεπτὸς ἐὼν παρέχεται. But the path of the sun and moon and stars is through the pneuma; for the nourishment of fire is pneuma. Fire deprived of pneuma cannot live, so the everlasting air, being light, provides the everlasting path of the sun. The doxographers record the same from the writings of Xenophanes, Herakleitos, and others.177 Instead of sunset being the shadow of a cosmically tall mountain range, Xenophanes and Herakleitos taught that it was the extinction of the solar fire, rekindled at dawn.178 The sun, moon, and stars, therefore, were moving fires, periodically hidden or extinguished, about whose shapes and sizes thinkers speculated variously. The doxographers tell us that Anaximenes believed the sun and moon to be flat like leaves.179 Parmenides preferred a model in which they encircled the flat earth like wreaths (στεφάναι) or like wheel rims, the light shining through a hole.180 Anaximander apparently said the same, and in neither case did the 176. Hippocratic corpus, Breaths §3 (Littré 6.94.13–17); for “δρόμον” William H. S. Jones, Hippocrates, vol. 2; LCL 148 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1923) reads “βίον”—and brackets “ἀένναος καὶ” (“so the air being light provides the everlasting path of the sun”). Similarly, Sacred Disease §13 (Littré 6.386) says the south wind afflicts the sun and moon; Regimen 2.38 (Littré 6.530–532) says the sun drinks (ἐκπίνει) moisture from the earth. 177. Xenophanes DK6 21 A40 = Aëtios 2.20.3, DK6 21 A46 = Aëtios 3.4.4, on which see Keyser, “Xenophanes”; and Herakleitos DK6 22 A11 = Aristotle, Meteorology 2.2 (354 b33—355 a33) = Marcovich, Heraclitus, fr. 58, compare Diogenes Laërtios, Lives 9.9. The doxographers record the same also of Anaximenes DK6 13 A7.5 = Hippolytus, Refutation 1.7.5; Philolaus DK6 44 A18 = Aëtios 2.5.3; Demokritos DK6 68 B25 = Eustathios of Thessalonike, Commentary on Odyssey 12.62; and Mētrodoros of Chios DK6 70 A4 = pseudo-Plutarch, Stromateis 11. 178. Sunset: Xenophanes DK6 21 A41 = Aëtios 2.24.4, and see Keyser, “Xenophanes”; Herakleitos DK6 22 B6 = Marcovich, Heraclitus, fr. 58 = Robinson, Heraclitus: Fragments, fr. 6 (and p. 79) = Aristotle, Meteorology 2.2 (355a13). 179. Anaximenes DK6 13 A7.4 = Hippolytus, Refutation 1.7.4. 180. Wreaths: Parmenides DK6 28 A37 = Aëtios 2.7.1, and compare B12 = Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.2 (184b15), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 39.12–20. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 42 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 43 wreaths require a spherical earth.181 Herakleitos and Antiphon saw the sun and moon as bowls (σκάφαι) of fire, a view perhaps encouraged by the Egyptian Kozy Kosmos and the poetry of Mimnermos. The bowls were also used to explain the phases of the moon and solar and lunar eclipses; eclipses were seen as darkenings due to the bowls tilting away from the earth.182 Small Sun and Moon The last of these shared notions that I will mention is the small size of the sun and moon. Anaxagoras is attested to have said the sun was about the size of the Peloponessos, while Herakleitos thought it was “foot-sized.”183 The latter belief persisted into the thought of Epikouros, who defended the idea by arguing that the sun was in effect a special case, and did not shrink in appearance due to distance.184 The Kozy Kosmos in Greece was framed by a flat earth close beneath a flat sky, on or under which the fires of sun, moon, and stars moved, nourished by vapors arising from the earth. Three observations, later cited as evidence for a spherical earth theory by the doxographers, do not necessarily suggest a spherical earth, and are in fact compatible with a flat earth. The three observations that are compatible with the Kozy Kosmos model are: (1) star elevations, (2) solstices and equinoxes, and (3) elevations of the sun. Compatible: Star Elevations First, travelers moving far enough south or north can observe the elevations of stars changing, which Aristotle, On Heaven 2.14 (298a3–6), and later writers cited as evidence that the earth is spherical or at least curved. But that observation is equally compatible with a flat earth under a flat sky of moderate height, 181. Anaximander DK6 12 B4 = Aëtios 2.20.1 (vent), A10 = pseudo-Plutarch, Stromateis 2 (bark, φλοιόν, around tree), and A21–22 = Achilles, Isagoge 19, and Aëtios 2.20.1; 2.21.1; 2.25.1. On his rings, see the reconstruction in Philip Thibodeau, “Anaximander’s Model and the Measures of the Sun and Moon,” JHS 137 (2017): 92–111. The wreaths sit in the plane of the ecliptic, and the central earth can be any shape. 182. Mimnermos, Nannō; Gentili and Prato, Poetarum elegiacorum testimonia et fragmenta, fr. 5 = Athenaios, Deipnosophists 11 (470a); Herakleitos DK6 22 A1.9–11 = Marcovich, Heraclitus, fr. 61 = Diogenes Laërtios, Lives 9.9–11, and DK6 22 A12 = Aëtios 2.24.3; 2.27.2; 2.28.6; 2.29.3; Antiphon, On Truth, DK6 87 B28 = Pendrick, Antiphon, fr. 28 = Aëtios 2.29.3. 183. Anaxagoras DK6 59 A1.8 = Diogenes Laërtios, Lives 2.8; compare A42.8 = Hippolytus, Refutation 1.8.8; Herakleitos DK6 22 B3 = Marcovich, Heraclitus, fr. 57 = Robinson, Heraclitus: Fragments, fr. 3 (and pp. 77–78) = Aëtios 2.21, compare Diogenes Laërtios, Lives 9.7. Aëtios 2.21.1 claimed that Anaximander said the sun was the same size as the earth (DK6 12 A21). 184. Epikouros, Letter to Pythoklēs §91; Lucretius 5.564–565; cf. Jonathan Barnes, “The Size of the Sun in Antiquity,” ACD 25 (1989): 29–41. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 43 12/1/19 4:09 PM 44 Paul T. Keyser as walking down a corridor with one’s eye fixed on a ceiling fixture will show— that is, as you walk towards the ceiling fixture, in order to keep your eye on it, you must gradually raise your gaze until you are looking straight up. Similarly, the disappearance of southern stars while traveling moderately far northward (or their coming into view while going south) would easily be explained on a flat earth as due to phenomena on the horizon, such as haze or peaks. Compatible: Observing Solstices and Equinoxes Secondly, the observation of solstices and equinoxes is likewise compatible with a flat earth over which the sun seasonally oscillates south and north.185 Herodotus for example explains solstices by the coldness or warmness of the air (Hist. 2.25–26), and the doxographers tell us that Anaxagoras and Diogenes of Apollonia said the same.186 After solstices and equinoxes were explained in terms of a spherical cosmology, doxographers retrojected that cosmology onto any thinker who gave dates for solstices and equinoxes. Compatible: Elevation of Sun from Two Places The third observation cited by ancient doxographers as evidence of a spherical earth is the simultaneous measurement of the elevation of the sun in two places on the same meridian. Eratosthenes used this observation to determine the size of the earth, but his interpretation of his results depends on the theory that the earth is spherical and therefore cannot prove that theory. The same measurement was used, by one school of early Chinese astronomers, called Kai Tian (“Lid of Heaven”; see §I.China), to determine the distance from the flat earth to the sun, which is how Epicureans interpreted the results of Eratosthenes.187 Addition: The Kosmos Itself is Spherical Thinkers of the fifth century BC added three innovations to the existing picture of the Kozy Kosmos, not all of which immediately became standard, and none of which require changing the theorized size or shape of the earth. First was 185. For example, the observations recorded in the Hippocratic Corpus, Airs, Waters, and Places §11 (Littré 2.52), and the observations of solstices that are attested for Stonehenge, early Mesopotamia, early China, and many cultures for which a spherical earth is out of the question. 186. Aristotle, Meteorology 2.2 (354b33–355a33); Anaxagoras DK6 59 A42 = Hippolytos, Refutation 1.8.9; Diogenes of Apollonia DK6 64 A17 = Alexander of Aphrodisias, On Aristotle’s ‘Meteorology’ 2.1 (353a32); Michael Hayduck, Alexandri in Aristotelis Meteorologicorum Libros Commentaria (Berlin: Reimer, 1899), 67.1–14. 187. G. E. R. Lloyd, The Ambitions of Curiosity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 52–55. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 44 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 45 the idea that the kosmos itself was spherical. Xenophanes and Parmenides both emphasized the essential unity of the kosmos, and Parmenides even compared it to a sphere, perfect and complete:188 αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ πεῖρας πύματον, τετελεσμένον ἐστί πάντοθεν, εὐκύκλου σφαίρης ἐναλίγκιον ὄγκωι, μεσσόθεν ἰσοπαλὲς πάντηι· τὸ γὰρ οὔτε τι μεῖζον οὔτε τι βαιότερον πελέναι χρεόν ἐστι τῆι ἢ τῆι. οὔτε γὰρ οὐκ ἐὸν ἔστι, τό κεν παύοι μιν ἱκνεῖσθαι εἰς ὁμόν, οὔτ’ ἐὸν ἔστιν ὅπως εἴη κεν ἐόντος τῆι μᾶλλον τῆι δ’ ἧσσον, ἐπεὶ πᾶν ἐστιν ἄσυλον· οἷ γὰρ πάντοθεν ἶσον, ὁμῶς ἐν πείρασι κύρει. Since, then, there is a furthest limit, it is completed, From every direction like the bulk of a well-rounded sphere, Everywhere from the center equally matched; for it must not be any larger or any smaller here or there; There is neither what-is-not, to stop it from reaching Its like; nor is there a way in which what-is could be More here and less there, since it all inviolably is; For equal to itself from every direction, it lies uniformly within limits. Scholars dispute whether Parmenides meant that the kosmos itself had the shape of a sphere, but I side with Gallop and Coxon in thinking that Parmenides would have regarded the question of the shape of the whole kosmos as meaningless and is here describing attributes of the kosmos, said to be perfect and boundless in the way that a sphere is.189 There is no question of the earth itself being a sphere, as none of what Parmenides says would apply to the earth: the earth is indeed “more here and less there,” especially in mountainous and maritime 188. DK6 28 B8.42–49 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 299 = Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.3 (187a1), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 146.15–22 (just these lines). 189. Dicks, Early Greek Astronomy, 51; David Gallop, Parmenides of Elea: Text and Translation with Introduction (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984), 19–21, 98–100, notes that Eudemos (in Simplicius) said that “some” interpreted the reference to be to the shape of the whole kosmos. A. H. Coxon, The Fragments of Parmenides (Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1986; rev. ed. by Richard McKirahan and Malcolm Scholfield, Las Vegas, Zurich, and Athens: Parmenides, 2009), 212–17 / 335–342, argues that Parmenides alludes to equilibrium, comparing Melissos’s statement that being itself is nonphysical, Melissos DK6 30 B9 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 538 = Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 1.2 (185b5), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 87.5–7 and 1.3 (186a13), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Priores Commentaria, 109.34–110.2. See also Couprie, Heaven and Earth, 64–67. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 45 12/1/19 4:09 PM 46 Paul T. Keyser Greece, and can scarcely be “equal to itself from every direction.”190 In any case, Empedokles asserted the spherical shape of the kosmos:191 (B27) οὕτως Ἁρμονίης πυκινῶι κρύφωι ἐστήρικται Σφαῖρος κυκλοτερὴς μονίηι περιηγέι γαίων . . . (B29) οὐ γὰρ ἀπὸ νώτοιο δύο κλάδοι ἀίσσονται, οὐ πόδες, οὐ θοὰ γοῦν(α), οὐ μήδεα γεννήεντα . . . (B28) ἀλλ’ ὅ γε πάντοθεν ἶσος <ἑοῖ> καὶ πάμπαν ἀπείρων Σφαῖρος κυκλοτερὴς μονίηι περιηγέι γαίων Thus it is fixed in the dense cover of harmony, A rounded sphere, rejoicing in its joyous solitude . . . For two branches do not dart from its back, Nor feet nor swift knees nor potent genitals, . . . But it indeed is <self->equal on all sides and totally unbounded, A rounded sphere rejoicing in its surrounding solitude. Some scholars read Aristotle as attesting that Anaxagoras said the same, but Anaxagoras clearly imagined a flat earth.192 Aristotle’s citation is not evidence that Anaxagoras believed in a spherical kosmos. He may well have done so, but this citation is not evidence of that; rather, it is another example of doxographic retrojection. Anaxagoras described upper and lower faces of his discoid earth, which Aristotle assimilated to his own model of a spherical earth. Addition: The Vortex Secondly, Empedokles and Anaxagoras also hypothesized the vortex (δίνη), the cosmic rotation that explains the ongoing rotation of the stars.193 In a flat-earth, 190. The spherical earth is alleged for Parmenides by Diogenes Laërtios, Lives 9.21–22, who credits even Thales with such a theory, in what should be read as an astounding example of doxographic retrojection. 191. DK6 31 B27–29 = Inwood, The Poem of Empedocles, frr. 33–34, with B27, B29 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, frr. 358, 357, respectively; B27 = Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ 8.1 (252a5), Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Quattuor Posteriores Commentaria, 1183.23–1184.4; and B28 = Stobaios, Eclogae 1.15.2; B29 = Hippolytus, Refutation 7.29.13. 192. Aristotle, Meteorology 2.7 (365a23–26) reports Anaxagoras’s theory of quakes, using the words “above” and “below”, which Aristotle then interprets in terms of a spherical earth. Anaxagoras, however, surely believed in a flat earth: DK6 59 A42.3 = Theophrastos in Hippolytus, Refutation 1.8.3; cf. Couprie Heaven and Earth, 185–88. 193. Empedokles DK6 31 A49a = Inwood, The Poem of Empedocles, fr. 40; cf. Aristotle, On Heaven 2.1 (284a24–26); DK6 31 B35 = Inwood, The Poem of Empedocles, fr. 61 = Simplicius, On Aristotle’s ‘On Heaven’ 2.13 (295a29), Heiberg, Simplicii in Aristotelis de Caelo Commentaria, 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 46 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 47 flat-sky kosmos, the downward fall of objects does not immediately demand explanation, but in the vortex according to Empedokles and Anaxagoras, heavy material collects at the center, a concept that Furley has insightfully called “centrifocal dynamics.”194 Leukippos and Demokritos, however, hypothesized a vortex without a spherical kosmos and accepted plural worlds, thus contravening centrifocal dynamics.195 A spherical kosmos, the vortex, and centrifocal dynamics were all compatible with a low heaven close to the earth, and only Demokritos and Archelaos seem to have asserted the later commonplace that the earth was small compared to the kosmos.196 Discarding the Kozy Kosmos: The Spherical Earth Late in the fifth century BC a Pythagorean, perhaps Philolaos, proposed that the planets and even the earth orbited in circles around a central fiery “hearth,” and for the first time they suggested that earth itself was spherical.197 This was no more based on observation than was the spherical kosmos. Plato accepted, or at least mythologized about, a spherical earth, in the Phaidon and the Timaios, but the idea was ignored or rejected by the geographers Ktesias and Ephoros. Even Plato, in the Phaidon, describes the shape of the earth with sufficient ambiguity so that scholars have debated it extensively.198 Aristotle was not the first to 528–30. Anaxagoras DK6 59 B9, B12, on which see Sider, Fragments, 118–20, 125–41, who argues that Aristotle did not mean to attribute a vortex to Anaximenes, since On Heaven 2.13 (294b31– 295a29) = DK6 13 A67 attributed the vortex to “all,” which includes Anaximenes if and only if it includes Pythagoreans and Anaximander. 194. Centrifocal dynamics: Empedokles DK6 31 A49a = Inwood, The Poem of Empedocles, fr. 40, Anaxagoras DK6 59 B15. See David J. Furley, “The Dynamics of the Earth: Anaximander, Plato, and the Centrifocal Theory” in Cosmic Problems: Essays on Greek and Roman Philosophy of Nature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 14–26. 195. Leukippos’s vortex in DK6 67 A1.31 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 563 = Diogenes Laërtios, Lives 9.31. Demokritos’s vortex in DK6 68 A5 = Diodoros of Sicily, Hist. 1.7.1, and DK6 68 A88 = Lucretius 5.621–636, plus DK6 68 A1.45 = Diogenes Laërtios, Lives 9.45. 196. Demokritos DK6 68 A1.31 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 563 = Diogenes Laërtios, Lives 9.31 (infinite number of kosmoi). Arkhelaos DK6 60 A1 = Diogenes Laërtios, Lives 2.17 (μέγιστον τῶν ἄστρων τὸν ἥλιον, καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἄπειρον), and DK6 60 A4.3 = Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, fr. 515 = Hippolytus, Refutation 1.9.3 (μέγιστον μὲν ἥλιον, δεύτερον δὲ σελήνην). 197. Carl A. Huffman, Philolaus of Croton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Plato, Phaidon 108c, explicitly credits “someone,” often assumed to be Philolaos. However, compare Aristotle, On Heaven 2.2 (284b6–286a1), on Pythagorean ideas about heavenly motion; DK6 44 A16 = Aëtios 2.7.7 and A17 = Aëtios 3.11.3 refer to the central fire and the moving earth, but do not describe the shape of the earth. 198. J. S. Morrison, “The Shape of the Earth in Plato’s Phaedo,” Phronesis 4 (1959): 101–119; Furley, The Greek Cosmologists, 53–57. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 47 12/1/19 4:09 PM 48 Paul T. Keyser propose a spherical earth, since he credits mathematikoi with estimating its circumference.199 Some geographers of the early fourth century BC rejected or ignored the spherical earth model. Ephoros of Kumē depicted a tabular world, rectangular and regular, with pillars at the four cardinal points, perhaps to hold up the sky:200 pillars of Herakles to the west, a great Northern one,201 those at the mouth of the Red Sea,202 and probably those of Bacchos by the mouth of the Ganges.203 This rectangular portrait is remarkably similar in its outlines to the Persian view of the world in the time of Darius, according to which peoples lived at the corners of a rectangle whose center was Persia; the peoples ruled by Darius are Lydians to the northwest, Skythians to the northeast, Indians to the southeast, and the land of Kush to the southwest.204 That is, a quincunx, as in the Kozy Kosmos. Even the geographer Eudoxos of Knidos (ca. 360 BC), despite his extensive interest in the spheres of the stars, is not reliably attested to have made the earth a sphere.205 The attraction of the spherical earth theory for Plato and Aristotle may have been that on a spherical earth, there is no edge whence chaos could invade. The eternal boundlessness of the surface of a sphere replaces the boundless chaos that lurks at the rim of the flat earth. I suggest there was a multistep evolution from the Greek version of the “Kozy Kosmos” to the spherical small earth kosmos: 1. Parmenides made an analogy between the perfection of a sphere and that of the changeless kosmos; 2. Empedokles made the whole kosmos spherical on theoretical grounds; 199. Value of forty myriad stades: Aristotle, On Heaven 2.14 (298a15–17). 200. For the pillars, compare above §2, the world-tree of Pherekudes of Suros. 201. According to Pausanias of Damaskos, Periplous 188–195, who listed his sources as Ephoros and more recent authors, Periplous 109–127; see also Auienius, Ora Maritima 88–89. The pillar is clearly distinct from the western ones and lies among the Kelts along the Ocean, but the text is uncertain; cf. Bianchetti (1990). Didier Marcotte, ed., Géographes Grecs, Tome 1: Introduction générale; Ps.-Scymnos, Circuit de la Terre (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2000), 164–66, rejects Höschel’s emendation to βόρειος and suggests Βριάρεως, as in Aristotle fr. 678 Rose = Aelian, Historical Miscellany 5.3, and in Plutarch, Failure of the Oracles §18 (419e–420a), an allegedly old name for the pillars of Herakles. 202. Ephoros FGrHist 70 F172 = Pliny, Nat. hist. 6.199. 203. See Strabo, Geogr. 3.5.5; Pliny, Nat. hist. 6.49—not cited as Ephoros, but evidently a preAlexandrian source; cf. Diodoros of Sicily, Hist. 17.9.5; Arrian, Anabasis 5.29.1; Plutarch, Alexander 62.4; and Q. Curtius Rufus 9.3.19. 204. J. Wiesehöfer, “Ein König Erschießt und Imaginiert Sein Imperium: Persische Reichsordung und Persische Reichesbilder zur Zeit Darios I (522–486 v. Chr),” in Wahrnehmung und Erfassung geographischer Räum in der Antike, ed. Michael Rathmann (Mainz: von Zabern, 2007), 31–40. 205. Gisinger, Die Erdbeschreibung, 15–16, credits a spherical earth to Eudoxos, citing the anonymous report in Aristotle, On Heaven 2.14 (298a15–17) and the unreliable “ΤΕΧΝΗ ΕΥΔΟΞΟΥ” of ca. 180 BC. See A. Bowen, “Papyrus Parisinus graecus 1,” in EANS 622. Lasserre, Die Framente, does not credit a spherical earth to Eudoxos. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 48 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 49 3. Empedokles hypothesized a vortex . . . 4. . . . which led him to introduce centrifocal dynamics; 5. Demokritos suggested that the earth was only a small part of the whole kosmos; 6. Philolaos rounded the corners of that small earth into a sphere and set it whirling around the “central fire”; 7. Plato (ambiguously) adopted the spherical earth model of Philolaos, and then Aristotle formalized it with a causal explanation (earth falls to the “center”). The evolution was by no means inevitable, and not everyone followed all steps of the path: atomists accepted only the vortex and the small size of the earth, Plato and Aristotle rejected the vortex, and Philolaus displaced the earth from the center. Moreover, the relative order of the contributions of Demokritos and Philolaos is uncertain, and if Philolaos offered his model before Demokritos did, then clearly the spherical earth model did not immediately convince everyone. Plato’s Phaidon only ambiguously adheres to a spherical earth theory, and the Phaidon is decades earlier than his Timaios, where sphericity seems far more explicit. On the other hand, a few decades after Aristotle, Epicurus chose to retain a flat Earth in order to allow ongoing chaos. My story rejects much ancient doxography. But when Aristotle and other doxographers were reporting theories, they practiced a characteristic retrojection; that is, they applied their term for a concept or activity to the work of earlier thinkers attested to have written about an earlier form of the concept or activity. For example, from their point of view, any thinker speculating about the kosmos must have offered an opinion about its shape, about the shapes and sizes of the heavenly bodies, and so on. It was easy, all too easy, for doxographers to conform their sources to their own questions. We must doubt all the doxographers, including Aristotle. IV� Vaster than Empires Greek knowledge and perception of the earth and the peoples upon it evolved as they were confronted with new data about more and more remote lands and peoples. Much of what the Greeks wrote about remote places and peoples was based in part on evidence; for example, the north of Europe was and is colder and wetter than the Mediterranean littoral, and the peoples there are paler and taller. Two special cases display the anomalous persistence of aspects of the Kozy Kosmos model: (a) early Greek perceptions of the uttermost west; and (b) Christian topography and the work of Kosmas, “the Indian navigator.” 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 49 12/1/19 4:09 PM 50 Paul T. Keyser Greek Occidentalism Because evidence about the west accumulated more slowly, Greek perceptions about lands and peoples to their west tend to display a greater number of archaic mytho-historical features, and thus they confirm some features of the Greek version of the Kozy Kosmos model.206 Greeks persistently schematized their world-picture, invoking notions of symmetry to impose order upon the data; the particular symmetries invoked changed over time, from an east-west axis, to an Ocean stream encircling the disk of the Earth, to a flat earth whose edges grew extreme, and thence to a spherical earth (§§II–III). The early presence of such symmetries is a manifestation of a mode of thought common among societies operating according to traditional categories (as noted above, §I.Mesopotamia). The longer persistence of this mode among Greeks discussing the west shows how gradual the transition was from traditional to more open and evidential modes of thought, as discussed by Lloyd and others.207 Societies operating according to traditional categories produce symmetric and schematized world-pictures: examples are known from numerous cultures, such as Polynesia,208 the Semitic milieu of the Hebrew scriptures,209 and the ancient Persians.210 When Egyptians gazed westward, they saw in sunset lands the kingdom of the happy dead.211 In the heroic tales of the Odyssey, Proteus of the Sea prophesied Menelaus’s translation to the Elysian Fields (Od. 4.563–568), across which ever pleasant Ocean breezes blew from the West, though surely no rhapsode knew or cared where lay Ogygia (Od. 5).212 Hesiod in The Catalogue of Women told of the flight of the sons of the North Wind round the disk of the earth, passing over remote lands and peoples. His western landmarks were mythic tropes: “amber” (so perhaps the Eridanos), and the Laestrygonians 206. An earlier presentation of “Greek Occidentalism” appeared in Paul T. Keyser, “Greek Geography of the Western Barbarians,” in The Barbarians of Ancient Europe: Realities and Interactions, ed. Larissa Bonfante (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 37–70, at 38–45, followed by additional material on Greek views of western peoples and a discussion of Roman writers. 207. G. E. R. Lloyd, Magic, Reason, and Experience (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 226–67; Paul T. Keyser, “The Name and Nature of Science: Authorship in Social and Evolutionary Context,” in Writing Science: Medical and Mathematical Authorship in Ancient Greece, ed. Markus Asper (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 17–61. 208. Saul H. Riesenberg, “The Organization of Navigational Knowledge on Puluwat,” in Pacific Navigation and Voyaging, ed. Ben R. Finney (Wellington, New Zealand: Polynesian Society, 1976), 91–128. 209. Janowski, “Vom näturlich zum symbolisch Raum.” 210. Wiesehöfer, “Ein König.” 211. Keyser, “From Myth to Map.” 212. Compare Müller, Geschichte der antiken Ethnographie, 1:53–59. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 50 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 51 (who attacked Odysseus).213 Tartessus in southwestern Iberia became known to Greeks sometimes as a prosperous land, sometimes as a city, in each case ruled by an aged happy king, with people who rejoiced in written laws.214 Herodotus (Hist. 3.115) admits that he cannot speak with any certainty about the extreme parts of the west. Mimnermus of Smyrna sang of the sun’s rays stored up at the edge of the Ocean—the same sun who asleep sails in his golden bowl around to the sunrise Ethiopians, starting from the sunset Hesperides.215 But the Pillars of Herakles increasingly seemed a divine limit to westward navigation, beyond which one could not go.216 They, or the Fountains of Night, marked the limit of the West. The other cardinal points too were primary—the North Wind, the Unfoldings of Heaven in the East, and the ancient Garden of Phoebus in the South:217 . . . ὑπέρ τε πόντον πάντ’ ἐπ’ ἔσχατα χθονὸς νυκτός τε πηγὰς οὐρανοῦ τ’ ἀναπτυχάς, Φοίβου παλαιὸν κῆπον . . . . . . and over the whole sea to the ends of land, the Fountains of Night, and the Unfoldings of Heaven, (and) the ancient Garden of Phoibos . . . 213. See Müller, Geschichte der antiken Ethnographie, 1:59–66. M. L. West, The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Its Nature, Structure, and Origins (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 84–85, 127–30, and 169–71, argues that the poem was probably later than Hesiod. The fragments of The Catalogue of Women are edited by Reinhold Merkelbach and M. L. West, Hesiodi Theogonia, Opera det Dies, Scutum, Fragmenta Selecta, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990). Frr. 151–57 cover the north, east, and south, mentioning Ethiopians, Libyans, Scythians, Pygmies, Hyperboreans, and the “Katoudaei” (cave-dwellers, i.e., Trogodytes?). Fragment 150 = POxy 11 (1915) #1358 mentions the western tropes; some editors restore ΑΙΤΝΗ (the peak on Sicily), perhaps thinking of Thucydides, Hist. 6.2.1 (Laestrygones with equally mythic Cyclopes on Sicily). 214. Stesikhoros: Page, Poetae melici Graeci, fr. 7 (p. 100) = Strabo, Geogr. 3.2.11 places Tartessus in the far west. Anacreon, in Page, Poetae melici Graeci, fr. 16 (p. 184) = Strabo, Geogr. 3.2.14, describes the king of Tartessus as very aged; Herodotus, Hist. 1.163, calls Tartessus a city, located in the far west, and still ruled by a very aged king (cf. 4.152); and Strabo, Geogr. 3.1.6, attributes versified laws written in the local script to the natives (probably following Polybius, or an even earlier source). 215. Mimnermos, Nannō; Gentili and Prato, Poetarum elegiacorum testimonia et fragmenta, fr. 10 = Strabo, Geogr. 1.2.40, and fr. 5 = Athenaios, Deipnosophists 11 (470a), on which see Allen, Fragments, 94–99; and Stesikhoros, Page, Poetae melici Graeci, fr. 8 (pp. 100–101) = Athenaios, Deipnosophists 11 (469e), the sun sails in a goblet, δέπας. 216. Pindar, Isthmians 4.11–13; Nemeans 3.21; 4.69–70; Olympians 3.43–44: on which see Thomas K. Hubbard, The Pindaric Mind: A Study of Logical Structure in Early Greek Poetry (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 11–27; Romm, The Edges of the Earth, 17–18; M. M. Willcock, ed., Victory Odes: Olympians 2, 7, 11; Nemean 4; Isthmians 3, 4, 7 / Pindar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 75; in Euripides, Hippolytus 744–745, the “old man of the sea” bars the way; compare W. S. Barrett, Euripides Hippolytos (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964), 303–304. 217. Sophocles: Stefan Radt, Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1999), fr. 956 = Strabo, Geogr. 7.3.1. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 51 12/1/19 4:09 PM 52 Paul T. Keyser An alternate western terminus was Erytheia, the isle of the red sunset.218 The far western reaches, however marked, seemed the land of happiness, at least to the fugacious choros in Euripides’s Hippolytus 732–751. The Periplous attributed to Skulax covers all of Iberia and Gaul in three brief sentences that mainly mention ports, and to Italy gives only thrice that much text; for him, the peoples out west are Iberes and Ligures, whereas the Kelts live only in Italy.219 Another late-enduring belief was that the sun set into the Ocean waters, and that the consequent hissing could be heard: Strabo (Geogr. 3.1.5) records that Poseidonios refuted that claim, still being made by Artemidoros of Ephesos (ca. 100 BC), and Lucan (On the Civil War 9.624–625) seems to depict the same. So the far west, a land of darkness as it were, was depicted as the home of marvels and monsters and the blessed dead. The further west was beyond the grasp of Greeks before Aristotle, despite the Greek settlements in Sicily and South Italy and Massalia. Notions of symmetry and extremes persisted longer in the depictions of the West than they did in other directions. But the far east was also a place where old views persisted. Epicurean and Christian Topography from Pliny to Kosmas Some Latin authors display a reluctance to accept a spherical earth, and some Christian writers took a similar, or more extreme, position, rejecting not only sphericity but attempting to recreate a model of the kosmos based on the Hebrew scriptures. Pliny (Nat. hist. 2.161–166) records that some people doubted the earth could be spherical, because things on the other side would fall off. But he is likely mocking Epicureans,220 and in his own voice, Pliny insists that the earth is a sphere. Tacitus, perhaps influenced by contemporary Epicureanism, seems to have assumed that the earth was flat: in Agricola 12.4 (sun barely shadowed by low extremities of earth, extrema et plana terrarum humili), and in Germany 45.1 (the noise of the sun as it emerges from the sea—as in Strabo, Geogr. 3.1.5), he describes solar phenomena of the far North as if they are due to the edges of 218. Erytheia (or Erythreia) in the far west: Hesiod, Theog. 289–294; 982–983; Pherekudes of Athens, FGrHist 3 F18 = Strabo, Geogr. 3.5.4; Herodotus, Hist. 4.8.2; and Ephoros, FGrHist 70 F129 = Pausanias of Damascus (known as “pseudo-Skumnos”), Periplous 152–169. See Marcotte, Géographes Grecs, 52–55, on Pausanias’s treatment of far western peoples, and 160–163 on Erytheia and environs; compare D. Dueck, “Pausanias of Damaskos,” in EANS 630–31. 219. Pseudo- Skulax, Periplous §2–4 on Iberia and Gaul; §5 and §8–19 on Italy; compare P. Kaplan, “Skulax of Karuanda, pseudo,” in EANS 746. 220. Compare Lucretius, On the Nature of Things 4.404–413: seas and lands lie between (inter) any nearby mountain peaks and the rising sun, as if on a flat earth. On the other hand, Frederik Bakker, Epicurean Meteorology: Sources, Method, Scope and Organization (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 162–263, argues that the Epicureans simply never rejected a flat earth, allowing it as one possible theory among many. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 52 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 53 a flat earth (Germany 45.1: illuc usque et fama uera tantum natura).221 Not much later, the Greek Christian apologist Theophilos of Antioch, in his Defense to Autolukos 2.13 (ca. 180 AD), offered a layered model of the universe with a flat earth,222 based on texts treated above, §I, “Evidence from Hebrew.” Around 310 AD, the Latin Christian writer Lactantius (Divine Institutes 3.24) indeed rejects the antipodes, believing that things “over there” on the antipodes would fall off.223 The theologian Diodoros of Tarsos (ca. 380 AD) denied that the heavens and earth were spherical, and like Theophilos before him, attempted a cosmology based solely on the Hebrew scriptures.224 Augustine (City of God 16.9) conditionally grants that the earth may be a sphere (etiamsi figura conglobata et rotunda mundus esse credatur siue aliqua ratione monstretur), but he raises doubts about whether there might be land on the opposite side, and further, even if there be land there, whether it might be inhabited. Not much later, Theodoros of Mopsuestia (bishop from 392–428 AD) wrote in his Commentary on Genesis that the spherical earth model was merely a pagan supposition— probably his aim was rejecting the rotation of the earth (a theory sometimes attributed to Herakleides of Pontus). Around 540 AD, the merchant and sailor Kosmas composed his Christian Topography, in which he argued that the earth was a flat expanse with a central mountain, around which the sun and moon and stars orbited, all enclosed in a cosmic box.225 He explains that the walls of the kosmos are beyond the outer ocean, and the firmament (below heaven) is joined to them; the roof of the kosmos is like the tholos of a bath (4.8). Sunrises and sunsets are caused by the sun going behind the central cosmic mountain (4.11–12). The measurement of the angles of sunshadows he explains on the flat earth model, like the Epicureans and the early Chinese (6.1–7). His plan view of the flat earth has four quadrants around a central square from which the cosmic mountain rises, similar to the 221. Peter Steinmetz, “Tacitus und die Kugelgestalt der Erde,” Philologus 111 (1967): 233–41; and Florian Mittenhuber, “Die Naturphänomene des hohen Nordens in den kleinen Schriften des Tacitus,” MH 60 (2003): 44–59, argue that Tacitus refers to a spherical earth. 222. On Theophilos, see Andreas Kuelzer, “Byzantine Geography,” in Oxford Handbook of Science and Medicine in the Classical World, ed. Paul T. Keyser with John Scarborough (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 932, who also mentions Diodoros and Theodoros. 223. On Lactantius, Augustine, and Theodoros, see Klaus Geus, “Der Widerstand gegen die Theorie von der Erde als Kugel: Paradigma einer Wissenschaftsfeindlichkeit in der heidnischen und christlichen Antike?” in Exempla imitanda: Mit der Vergangenheit die Gegenwart bewältigen? ed. Monika Schuol et al. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 65–84, at 75–78; for Theodoros, we rely on a Syriac translation, itself rendered into German by Geus. 224. On Diodoros, see P. T. Keyser & G. L. Irby-Massie, “Diodoros of Tarsos,” in EANS 249– 50. We rely on Photios, Library §223, for a summary of his work. 225. Wanda Wolska-Conus, Topographie chrétienne (Paris: Cerf, 1968–1973); cf. N. Lozovsky, “Kosmas of Alexandria, Indikopleustes,” in EANS 487; Geus, “Der Widerstand,” 78–80; and Kuelzer, “Byzantine Geography,” 933. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 53 12/1/19 4:09 PM 54 Paul T. Keyser fiGure 1.4. Kosmas’s Kosmos, courtesy Paul A. Whyman Chinese diagrams (6.34–35). One can see here the desire for a stable and orderly kosmos, safe from all possible chaos.226 V� Boundless Space, Endless Time The mytho-historical “cradle” cosmology of a flat earth centered around “us” gave way—in Greece, in Greco-Roman cultures, and then in Medieval Europe, the Byzantine Empire, and the Islamic Caliphates—to a geocentric spherical earth model that was closely based on the arguments and theories of Plato and Aristotle. This model banished chaos: there was no edge through which chaos could irrupt, and the model, by asserting the divinely providential creation of the closed world, thereby asserted that the world was stable and perpetual. In turn, the image of a geocentric spherical earth was discarded in favor of a heliocentric cosmology that gradually expanded, during the last five centuries, to allow for millions and billions of years and similarly ungraspable expanses of space. This model reintroduces instability and reveals the world, and ourselves within it, as contingent. Something was lost in the transition from the Kozy Kosmos to the geocentric spherical earth model: the idea that humans could strongly affect the operation of the cosmos. The models of Plato and Aristotle posited a world that was 226. Figure 1.4 was created on the basis of copies of the manuscript drawings as published in Wolska-Conus, Topographie chrétienne (1928), 1:537, 543, 545, 549, 555, and especially 557, which the author translated and synthesized, and the artist then rendered visually perspicacious. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 54 12/1/19 4:09 PM The Kozy Kosmos of Early Cosmology 55 stable and operated on the basis of laws or principles that did not allow for human intervention. There was no chaos that could erupt, much less break in from “outside,” since there was no outside at all. Therefore, there was no need for cosmic scale human agency—and not even the possibility. The Stoic model allowed for an external void and periodic conflagrations, but no human agency could affect those; likewise, the manifold crumbling worlds of the Epicureans admitted no prospect that humans could sustain them. Ironically, as our technē has attained ever greater degrees of power, we have reached a point where we can in fact affect the earth as a whole. But we have no agreed framework, no mytho-history, that would explain or limit, much less enable, human intervention. Just as the mytho- historical Kozy Kosmos left traces and relics within later Greek speculations, so we are now faced with traces and relics of the now discarded models of Plato and Aristotle. Many of the specific observations that produce pressure on the modern synthesis were already being made in antiquity, when the dominant paradigm was the synthesis of Plato and Aristotle, the stable geocentric model.227 All in all, we find ourselves as yet unable to modify the agreed modern synthesis, so as to grasp that humans have gained sufficient power to alter, if not the whole kosmos, at least our pale blue sphere within it. The earth, whether central and motionless or peripheric and spinning, is now within our power to alter and not always for the better. The ancient mytho-historical Kozy Kosmos may yet have something to teach us, even if we dwell not on a flat earth with a central world-tree that ascends to heaven, but on a globe suspended in the void of heaven. 227. In an eventual expanded version of this paper, I hope to explore these considerations and sketch the gradually increasing pressure on the modern synthesis, which began almost before it was formed. 00i-180 Roller 1p.indb 55 12/1/19 4:09 PM