And into that from which things take their rise they pass away once more, “as is ordained; for they make reparation and satisfaction to one another for their injustice according to the appointed time,” as he says[102] in these somewhat poetical terms.—_Phys. Op._ fr. 2 (R. P. 16). And besides this, there was an eternal motion, in the course of which was brought about the origin of the worlds.—Hipp. _Ref._ i. 6 (R. P. 17 a). He did not ascribe the origin of things to any alteration in matter, but said that the oppositions in the substratum, which was a boundless body, were separated out.—Simpl. _Phys._ p. 150, 20 (R. P. 18). Footnote 99: See the conspectus of extracts from Theophrastos given by Diels, _Dox._ p. 133; _Vors._ pp. 13 sqq. In this and other cases, where the words of the original have been preserved by Simplicius, I have given them alone. On the various writers quoted, see Appendix, § 9 sqq. Footnote 100: Simplicius says “successor and disciple” (διάδοχος καὶ μαθητής) in his Commentary on the _Physics_; but see above, p. 52, n. 2. Footnote 101: For the expression τὰ καλούμενα στοιχεῖα, see Diels, _Elementum_, p. 25, n. 4. In view of this, we must keep the MS. reading εἶναι, instead of writing νυνί with Usener. Footnote 102: Diels (_Vors._ p. 13) begins the actual quotation with the words ἐξ ὧν δὲ ἡ γένεσις.... The Greek practice of blending quotations with the text tells against this. It is very rare for a Greek writer to open a verbal quotation abruptly. Further, it is safer not to ascribe the terms γένεσις and φθορά in their technical Platonic sense to Anaximander. [Sidenote: The primary substance is not one of the “elements.”] 14. Anaximander taught, then, that there was one eternal, indestructible substance out of which everything arises, and into which everything once more returns; a boundless stock from which the waste of existence is continually being made good. This is only the natural development of the thought we have ventured to ascribe to Thales, and there can be no doubt that Anaximander at least distinctly formulated it. Indeed, we can still follow to some extent the reasoning which led him to do so. Thales had regarded water as the most likely of all the things we know to be that of which all others are forms; Anaximander appears to have asked himself how the primary substance could be one of these particular things. His argument seems to be preserved by Aristotle, who has the following passage in his discussion of the Infinite:—