1

Introduction

Introduction*
1. General remarks (Georg Whrle)
More than is the case for any other era in the history of European philosophy, our information about the Presocratics1 is subject to interpretation,
and thus to the changing interests of those who have transmitted the texts.
Most if not all of the texts have come down to us indirectly, and as is the
case with the Thales testimonies presented in this volume are initially
based on the kind of hearsay which even someone as early as Aristotle had
to rely upon. First of all, modern scholarship was, of course, interested in
getting as close as possible to the original thoughts of these protagonists
of ancient Greek wisdom. The greater amount of a texts original wording
survives, the more successful such an endeavour can be. In some cases, we
can even get a rough idea of the contents and meaning of a particular book,
poem or collection. However, and as a matter of course, even the transmission of verbatim quotes has to face the same problems that attend any
other textual tradition that extends over a period of hundreds or thousands
of years, ranging from mechanical errors occurring during the process of
transcription and extending to contradictory interpretations due to the contexts in which the texts are reported. In order to advance to the authentic
core of the ancient text by separating original passages from others that have
been whether by mistake, through misunderstanding or even as a result of
deliberate forgery added to the text, philology has undertaken the effort to
trace the history of the textual tradition and reveal its filiation. Even so, and
justified as these attempts at reconstruction may be, they cannot transcend
the horizon of their own age. They themselves are products of their own
time and of the methodology prevalent during that era. Especially now that
the certainty of the author has been abandoned in favour of understanding
*
1

Introduction translated by Merryl Rebello

On the origin of the term Vorsokratiker (Presocratics), Eduard Zellers role in
establishing it, and its problematic nature, see the introductory remarks of Gemelli
Marciano in her new edition of the Presocratics, Dsseldorf 2007, 37385.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 12/8/14 1:45 AM

Introduction

texts as complex and coherent conjunctions of signs whose reference structure is more or less open, it is time to shift the focus from re-reconstruction
to the genesis of construction, i.e. to trace the process of reception in cases
where the textual remains allow us to do so. In facing this task, one should
at least attempt to identify the immediate contexts in which this reception
was framed.
The new edition at hand is based on a fundamentally different approach
from the old Diels/Kranz edition. In his preface to the first edition of
1903, Hermann Diels acknowledged that an arbitrary selection of fragments
inevitably results in inhibiting and patronising both teachers and students,
which is why he sought to provide as complete a collection of fragments as
possible, while at the same time he included relevant biographical and doxographical material. Nonetheless, the available material was subjected to a
process of rigorous selection, since it was Diels objective to trace the development of Greek thought in statu nascendi [Diels emphasis] by reference
to original documents (ibid.). Consequently, he says the following with
regard to the second edition (1906): Selecting the material took me more
time and effort than if I had sent the entirety of my material to the printer.
However, I believe that I have provided a service not only to beginners by
limiting the texts to the relevant and original ones [my emphasis]. It was
my intention to only carry the wheat into the barn while leaving the chaff
outside, even at the risk of leaving some good grain behind here and there.
Let it be understood that it is not my purpose to criticise Diels procedure.
His merits are not in question, and I assume he was familiar with most of the
material in the present volume (except perhaps for the Syro-Arabic materials) that were the chaff in his metaphor. He was a child of his times, as we
are children of our times, as well. By making this reconstructive selection,
Diels set the standard against which, ultimately, thinkers like Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes and others were to be measured. Occasionally, a new
fragment has been added which may have modified this standard slightly,
but whenever someone speaks of or writes about a Presocratic author, they
still usually have in mind the image of the author as it was sketched out by
Hermann Diels.
Thus, the objective of the present work is not once again to present a
collection which may offer some new elements or others, but which ultimately aims at reconstructing authentic thoughts and works. Rather than
that, this edition in accordance with the title of this new series: Traditio
Praesocratica seeks to document the history of (the adaptive) reception as

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 12/8/14 1:45 AM

Introduction

it can be traced from the earliest extant evidence through the late Middle
Ages. Perhaps the Milesian philosophers Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes are particularly suitable for this procedure, since there is no verbatim
tradition. Therefore, we need not bother to reconstruct works which may
never have existed as such. What actually survives amounts to testimonies
about a doctrine which in the course of traditio has been viewed from different perspectives. It is all about this perspective,2 since it is not because of
what our distant ancestors thought or uttered that we have arrived where
we are now, but because of what history has made of these thoughts and
utterances. To me, it makes sense at least in this context to speak of
testimonies, but in the double sense of the word, referring both to the doctrine of the philosopher in question and also to the perspective of the author/text that has delivered this doctrine to posterity. While these texts are
certainly in a fragmentary condition (especially in the light of every texts
semantic openness, which I mentioned above), it would be misleading to
speak of an incomplete tradition in a narrowly philological sense. After
all, we are unable to identify what this complete body of texts or doctrines
would have been, at least for the Milesians, and most of all in the case of
Thales.
This approach certainly has its factual and methodological perils. If we want
to trace the direction in which the reception moved, the material needs to
be presented in chronological order. However, quite a few of our testimonies are found in authors whose lifetime not to mention whose individual
works can be dated only approximately. In a few cases, datings even by
experts may vary by several hundred years.
A pragmatic approach needs to be taken to these problems, The dates given
in this edition are those of Der Neue Pauly (DNP) or the Tusculum-Lexikon
griechischer und lateinischer Autoren. However, in a few cases I have preferred to follow an individual editors judgment with regard to dating (which
I have also done for authors not listed in DNP, especially for anonymous
works). Since this editions objective is at least to suggest a context of recep2

The first to take this path was Serge Mouraviev in the second part of his monumental
collection Heraclitea. Cf. esp. the preface to volume II A 1, x: 1) prsenter ensemble
tous les textes relatifs Hraclite qui sont parvenus jusqu nous; 2) reconstituer
partir deux non pas la pense et le verbe dHraclite lui-mme [...], mais, plus modestement, ce que ses citateurs et ses tmoins savaient et pensaient de lui et, partir de
l, baucher une histoire de la transmission et de linterprtation de son livre et de
ses opinions....

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 12/8/14 1:45 AM

Introduction

tion, many of the testimonies presented here have been prefaced by short
introductions on the author and his work. However, these are only provisional references, and in some cases very brief ones, too. The responsibility
for shedding more light on these contexts rests on a commentator.3 Two examples are sufficient to show how Thales was exploited for various purposes. Pagan authors, on the one hand, generally acknowledged the tradition
of Thales contact with Egyptian knowledge as genuine. Christian apologists, on the other hand, understood the same fact as evidence that Greekpagan wisdom did not pre-date Jewish-Christian wisdom, and backed their
assumptions by chronological constructions such as Moses having lived earlier than Thales. The anecdote about Thales falling into the well, which is
first found in Plato (Th19), is subject to various interpretations, as well. At
first, it is taken to illustrate the sages unwordliness, but Christian authors,
again, take it as evidence for the uselessness of pagan knowledge.
Admittedly, the selection of testimonies is more or less arbitrary. However,
this need not be regarded as a shortcoming, since even completeness could
only aim at including what has come down to us in the first place. What
should bother us instead is the fact that only testimonies mentioning the
author by name are included. As a matter of course, Thales idea that water
is the source of all things is to be found in many texts that do not mention
the author. Had we included these testimonies, the material would have
exceeded all limits. (Mistaken names in the context of gnomologies, i.e. if
a maxim usually attributed to a different author is attributed to Thales in a
particular context, are still a different problem).4 In order to prevent further
confusion (which is bound to occur when rummaging through a heap of
chaff, to put use Diels metaphor), the testimonies are provided with an
apparatus of similia enabling the reader to access the material thematically.
Keywords which allow a first approach to the content are assigned to each
of the similia. Using the keywords makes tracing a doctrinal, biographical or
gnomological attribution to Thales in the history of reception much easier.
One can, for example, trace the development of the anecdote about Thales
falling into a well from Plato down through the Christian Middle Ages. It
goes without saying that this is not intended to entail direct dependence
on particular earlier sources although in some cases this is obvious and
in others it cannot be ruled out , which is why similarities within a group
of similia are occasionally pointed out. The diachronic arrangement shows
3
4

For a commentary on the new Thales of Miletus see Schwab 2011.

Names are the most unstable elements in this genre, see Strohmaier 2003, 16.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 12/8/14 1:45 AM

Introduction

which motifs were passed on and which were not (and which ones were
added), and it illustrates which topics have been particularly interesting to
specific authors or at specific times. It is a shortcoming of the doxographic
arrangement according to Peripatetic categories (e.g., principles, god, cosmos, meteora, psychology, physiology) that the testimonies of the authors
are scattered among various lemmata. The user of the edition at hand, however, can tell at first sight which author considered which piece of Thales information worthy of being recorded and discussed, and why. It makes quite
a difference whether the same story for example that of Thales prediction
of a solar eclipse is told in the context of an historical account, in an excursus within a history of philosophy or in a Christian chronicle. This also
applies to the doxographers in the narrower sense of the word, who today
are mostly seen as a quarry for collecting fragments (which was hardly their
intention). Authors such as pseudo-Plutarch and Stobaeus were interested
in collecting important views on crucial problems not in reconstructing
Thales or other authors.5 I have tried to counteract the fragmentation
of these collections of texts by adding the chapter headings in which the
respective lemmata are found.
Therefore, an artificial distinction between the indirect and the direct traditions, testimonies on Thales life and doctrine as opposed to fragments in
the narrower sense (sections A and B in Diels/Kranz edition) cannot be
upheld. This is prima facie the case with the Milesians, who, in effect, are
known only through the indirect tradition. With other authors such as Empedocles and Parmenides, this kind of approach is a step backwards in terms
of method when compared to the insights of Schleiermacher and Diels, who
were well aware that understanding testimonies depends upon understanding the authors who included them in their works.6 However, the goal of
this collection is not primarily a reconstructive one. Moreover, the context,
too, can be of vital importance in understanding a verbatim fragment.7
Furthermore, it is evident that so-called imitations and forgeries have
to be taken into account, as well; for every age creates its own Thales, an
image that may not withstand critical examination. Still, it is this very image
5
6
7

For the same reason, this edition does not include Atios, an author who is himself
reconstructed. Cf. Mansfeld & Runia 2009.
Cf. Most 1998, 115, esp. 10ff.
In case of the original text of authors such as Parmenides and Empedocles, a reconstructive and synthetic presentation of what has been passed down literally is, of
course, most desirable. This will undertaken in the corresponding volumes in the
present series.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 12/8/14 1:45 AM