Aristotle and Others on Thales, or the Beginnings of Natural Philosophy (With Some Remarks

on Xenophanes)
Author(s): Jaap Mansfeld
Source: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 38, Fasc. 1/2 (1985), pp. 109-129
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4431379 .
Accessed: 17/09/2013 08:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Mnemosyne, Vol. XXXVIII, Fase. 1-2 (1985)

ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES, OR

THE BEGINNINGS OF
NATURAL PHILOSOPHY

(With Some Remarks on Xenophanes)

BY

JAAP MANSFELD

The clich? runs that Aristotle said that Thaies was the first
philosopher because he made water the element and principle of the
things that are. Whether or not Aristotle was right is a moot
point.
The suggestion that Thaies was reported (in the source or sources
accessible to Aristotle) to have said only that water is the a??? in
the sense of 'origin', or 'what things come from'1), and that Aris-

1) Cf., e.g., U. H?lscher, Anaximanderund die Anfange der Philosophie, Hermes 81

(1954), 385 ff., repr. (with some add.) in: U.H., Anfangliches Fragen: Studien zur
fr?hen griechischen Philosophie (G?ttingen 1968), 40 ff., abb rev. transi, in:
D. J. Furley-R. E. Allen (eds.), Studies in PresocraticPhilosophy, I, The Beginnings of
Philosophy (London 1970), 306 ff.; H. Schwabl, Weltsch?pfung, RE Suppl. IX
(1962), 1514; J. Klowski, Zur Entstehung der Begriffe Sein und Nichts und der
Weltentstehungs-und Weltsch?pfungstheorienim strengenSinne, I, AGPh 49 (1967), 121
ff. See already W. Dilthey, Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften,in: W.D., Ges.
Sehr., I (G?ttingen 41959), 146.?As far as I know, Hegel was the first to find
metaphysics in the idea of Tha?es about water, because it entails that all things are
one (Vorlesungen?ber die Geschichteder Philosophie, Bd. I, ed. K. L. Michelet, Jub.-
Ausg. Bd. 17, repr. Stuttgart 1959, 219). This view is still immensely influential,
see, e.g., S. Sambursky, The Physical World of the Greeks(London 1956), 6-7; A.
Wedberg, A History of Philosophy, I, Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Oxford 1982; first
pubi, in Swedish 1958), 11 f.; V. Cilento, Premessa storica al pensiero antico (Bari
1960), 50; R. S. Brumbaugh, The Philosophersof Greece(New York 1964), 11 f.; H.
Meyerh?fer, Das Erwachen des kritischenBewusstseins bei den Griechen(Donauw?rth
1976), 211 ff.; W. R?d, Geschichteder Philosophie, I, Die PhilosophiederAntike, 1, Von
Thaies bis Demokrit (M?nchen 1976), 32 f., 35; C. F. Geyer, Einf?hrung in die
Philosophie der Antike (Darmstadt 1978), 2; A. v. Schirnding, Im Anfang war das
Staunen: ?ber den Ursprung der Philosophie bei den Griechen(M?nchen 1978), 25, 30;
W. Schadewaldt, Die Anf?nge der Philosophie bei den Griechen:Die Vorsokratiker und ihre
Voraussetzungen= T?binger Vorlesungen I (Frankfurt/M. 1974, 21978), 218. Even
Nietzsche subscribed to it when he wrote, Die Philosophie im tragischenZeitalterder

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
110 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES

totle may almost unwittingly have

slipped into assuming that this
is equivalent to 'what things
are from' in the sense of 'what they
consist of, is sensible2). On the other hand, it has been pointed out
that a view of the essential unity of things is not much different, in
principle, from the idea that
all things have one, and only one,
origin3). Statements can be quoted from Xenophanes which, when
combined, show that according to an early thinker what all things
come to be from is what they still consist of4). Anaximenes' com-
pressed and decompressed 'air' seems to be both what things come
from and what they are5), although one cannot exclude that what
comes to be from this 'air' becomes
something else6). For Tha?es,
Aristotle's text at Met. A 3 is our earliest guide, and what is found
in later authors seems to depend on Aristotle's statements. Here,
it appears to be generally agreed, is where matters must rest. One

Griechen, in: G. Colli-M. Montinari (eds.), F.?., Werke, 3.2 (Berlin-New York
1973), 306, that the statement that "das Wasser der Ursprung und der Mut-
terschooss aller Dinge sei" is metaphysical "weil in ihm, wenngleich nur im
Zustande der Verpuppung, der Gedanke enthalten ist: *alles ist eins' ".
2) See G. Vlastos' and Stokes' suggestions in: M. C. Stokes, One and Many in
PresocraticPhilosophy (Washington D.C. 1971), 40 ff.; J. Barnes, The Presocratic
Philosophers, 1: Tha?esto Zeno (London 1979), 10, 39 ff. (cf. also infra, n. 33).
3) Cf., e.g., W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, I: The Earlier
Presocraticsand the Pythagoreans(Cambridge 1962), 56 f., 70, and the perceptive
comments of C. J. Classen, Tha?es, RE Suppl. X (1965), 946.
4) Vorsokr.21 ? 29 + ? 33, cf. Stokes, o.e., 40, Barnes, o.e., 41 f. It should be
noted that these fragments (together with Vorsokr.21 ? 27) do not derive from the
pure Peripatetic tradition. Aristotle, Met. A 8, 989 a 5 f., states that none of the
materialist monists made earth the principle (contrast Vorsokr.21 ? 27), and he
does not list Xenophanes among the materialist dualists either (contrast Vorsokr.
21 ? 29 + ? 33). Earth, he says, was first added by Empedocles to the three
elements he took over from the monists (Met. A 3, 984 a 8 f.); however, at Phys.
? 1, 193 a 21, he lists 'earth' among the elements assumed by individual early
thinkers, which either is a slip of the pen or reflects an earlier scheme of classifica-
tion, cf. infra, n. 13. Sextus, M. VII 14 * Vorsokr.21 A 35 (in the long and in-
teresting passage concerned with the history of the three parts of philosophy) says
that, according to some (?? fas? t??e?), Xenophanes made philosophy consist of two
parts, viz. physics and logic. This must be a post-Aristotelian view. Theophrastus
excluded Xenophanes from the pe?? f?se?? ?st???a (Phys. op. fr. 5)?cf. Arist. Met.
A 5, 986 b 21 ff.?and did not discuss his view that the element is earth (Phys. op.
fr. 6). See further infra, n. 36, n. 48, n. 64.
5) Cf. Barnes, o.e., 44 ff.; but Simplicius is only able to confirm this point for
Diogenes, In Phys., p. 25, 4-7 = Vorsokr.64 A 5?see further ibid., p. 151, 28 ff.,
with Diogenes Vorsokr.64 ? 2 : p??ta ta d?ta ?p? t?? a?t?? ?te?????s?a??a? t? a?t?
e??a?.
6) Stokes, o.e., 43-8.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES 111

cannot go beyond the text ?? Met., and one's final conclusion is very
much a matter of choice.
However, does Aristotle really tell us that Tha?es made water the
element and principle of things? I think his account contains some
clues that may be helpful in solving the dilemma described in the

previous paragraph.

In the first book of Met., Aristotle studies the views of causality held
by the philosophers who preceded him (A 3, 983 b 2 f.). As we read
on, it becomes clear that he tackles his question from two sides, viz.
both from the inside, by studying the ideas of his predecessors (this
takes up most of the space), and, so to speak, from the outside, by
distinguishing their views from those of others. The latter approach
involves a demarcation problem. Aristotle has to formulate criteria
which will allow him to distinguish between what he calls
philosophy and what he calls myth, or theology7).
Enumerating the causes, Aristotle lists them in the order:
essence; matter; origin of motion;
purpose, or the good (983 a 27
f.). His account begins with the material cause. This order of treat-
ment is deliberate, because the material cause was the first, in
chronological order, to appear; this, at any rate, is what Aristotle's
treatment suggests.
At Met. A 3, 983 b 6 f., Aristotle says that the earliest
philosophers assumed that only causes of a material kind are prin-
ciples of all things. He first mentions Tha?es (983 b 21 ff.), refuses
to include Hippo (984 a 4 f.), and then lists8) Anaximenes and
Diogenes, Hippasus and Heraclitus, Empedocles and Anaxagoras
(984 a 6 f.).
Subsequently, however, he endeavours to ascertain to which ex-
tent the last pair, Empedocles and Anaxagoras, had guessed at
other causes, viz. the efficient and final cause9) (984 b 5 f.; 984 b

7) For Aristotle's use of the term 'mythical' in such contexts see Met. ? 4, 1000
a 17; ? 4, 1091 b 9; cf. also H. Bonitz, Aristotelis Metaphysica, Commentarius(Bonn
1849, repr. Hildesheim 1960), 62 f.
8) Alexander has seen that Tha?es?Anaxagoras form a list, In Met. p. 24, 7-10.
9) Cf. Alex. In Met. p. 28, 22 f. H. Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratic
Philosophy (New York 31976), 219, accounts for the inclusion of Empedocles and
Anaxagoras by assuming that "for all alike", according to Aristotle, "the material

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
112 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES

15-985 b 4, i.e., up to the end of ch. 4). His statement at the begin-
ning of ch. 3 that the majority of the earliest philosophers thought
of material causes only (???a?) is inaccurate if it includes
Empedocles and Anaxagoras. However, underlying Aristotle's list
is a division of these thinkers based on the number of principles
assumed. Only Empedocles and Anaxagoras held that a plurality of
principles exists; the others on the list thought that there is only
one. Aristotle points out that the idea of an efficient (and final)
cause inevitably presents itself to those who accept a plurality of
principles (984 b 5 f.). The 'very first' thinkers (ot ... p??pa? ??
a????), who said that there is only one principle, were not bothered
by the question as to why and how things arise from and disappear
into it (984 a 27 f.)10). Thus, the sweeping statement at A 3, 983
b 6 f., is subsequently qualified. From his account of Tha?es?
Anaxagoras (at 983 b 7-984 a 17) it might be supposed, Aristotle
says, that the only cause (????? ... a?t?a?) dealt with by these people
is of the kind called 'material'; but this impression would be wrong
inasmuch as, 'as they went on' (p?????t??), the very circumstances
of the case showed them the way and compelled them to seek fur-
ther, viz. to look for the efficient (and final) cause (984 a 17 f.).
Consequently, Aristotle leaves no doubt that his list of 8 (or 7, if
one excludes Hippo) early materialists amounts to a simplification
by the time it taggs off into Empedocles and Anaxagoras. On the
other hand, we may be certain that he did not attribute a notion
of the efficient cause to Tha?es or Anaximenes (who, presumably,
are meant by o? ... p??pa? ?? a????11)).
Accordingly, Aristotle's account of early materialism allows for
development. The earliest thinkers thought of one principle only, the
later materialists assumed a plurality?although some still later
thinkers, Hippo and Diogenes, stuck to one only, and Hippo did
so in so na?ve a way that he had better be excluded from the list.

cause was the prime concern". In a way, it was a prime concern for Aristotle
himself (infra n. 44).
10) This does not wholly agree with the generalizing statement at A 4, 985 b
10 f., according to which the monists assumed that 'rarity' and 'density' are the
'principles' of the 'modifications' (see also infra, n. 40).
11) So Alex. In Met. p. 29, 9 f. Ross, ad loc, adds Heraclitus, who however will
not have been for Aristotle among the very first.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES 113

The assumption of a plurality of material causes, in its turn,

generated the problem of the efficient cause. Aristotle is consistent.
Parmenides is not on the list of early materialists in ch. 3. However,
he assumed [like Tha?es, Hippo, Anaximenes, Diogenes, Hip-
pasus, Heraclitus] that the all is 'one', and yet felt compelled to say
that it is 'two'?the latter entailing that, like the pluraliste, he had
to ponder the efficient cause (984 b 2 f.)12)?
It is certain that lists of this sort, arranging the authorities as to
the number and nature of the things assumed, already existed; it
would be interesting to compare them in detail, but this must await
another occasion13). Be it sufficient to note, for the moment, that
Aristotle did not invent the list he used, but that the idea of a
'material cause' is, of course, original with him. Let us, therefore,
turn to the celebrated definition of the earliest philosophy at Met.
A 3, 983 b 6 f. The majority of the earliest philosophers, Aristode
tells us, only assumed universal principles, or causes, that are
material. 'That of which all the things that are consist and from
which they come to be as from a first and into which they pass away
as into a last, the being (??s?a?) persisting but changing as to its
modifications, this, they say, is the element (st???e???) and this the
principle (a????) of the things that are. Hence they believe that
nothing is either generated or destroyed, since a nature (f?se??) of
this kind is always preserved'. Aristode illustrates this analysis by
pointing out that generation and perishing, on this view, do not oc-
cur in an absolute sense (ap???14)), but only accidentally, as in the
case of the accidental attributes acquired or lost by a human person;
just as such a person continues to exist, so there is, according to the
materialists, an (everlasting) nature (elvat t??a f?s??). The early
thinkers disagreed as to the number and the quality of the princi-

12) Cf. Alex. In Met. p. 31, 13 f.; Cherniss, o.e., 221 f.

13) Lists comparable to Aristotle's at Met. A 3 and Phys. A 2 are to be found
at Plat. Soph. 242 c-d; Isocr. Antid. 268; Xenoph. Mem. I 1, 14; and in the Hip-
pocratic treatises Nat. horn., c. 1, and Vet. med., c. 1. Cf. A. Dies, in: Platon, ?uvr.
Compi. Vili, 1: Parmenide(Paris 31956), 11, and VIII. 3: Le Sophiste (Paris 41963),
345 f. n. 1; J. Burnet, Early GreekPhilosophy (London 41930), 9 f. ?. 2; Guthrie,
o.e., 57 f. A later variant of these lists is in Ps.Probus, and in Sext. ?. X 310-18;
see infra, n. 48 and text thereto; n. 51, infine. Cf. also MXG 1, 15; 2, 9-11. See
further infra, n. 68, infine.
14) Cf. also Alex. In Met. p. 24, 2.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
114 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES

ple(s); but Thaies, the founder (a??????) of this kind of philosophy,

said it is water. An excursus follows (983 b 22-984 a 4), underpin-
ning the claim made on behalf of Tha?es. Apparently, the idea that
Thaies was the first philosopher was new enough to warrant proof,
or argument. The excursus comprises two parts. The first of these
deals with the contents and scope of Tha?es' philosophy; the second
part is concerned with a demarcation problem, viz. with the
criterion for distinguishing what began with Tha?es from what
came before Tha?es.
I first shall paraphrase the first part, adding some comments on
the way. Aristotle begins with a statement of historical fact: Tha?es
believed that the earth floats on water. Aristotle connects this with
the idea of water
as the principle15). Next, he speculates about
Tha?es' for holding that water
motives is the principle of all things;
these, he argues, may have consisted of generalizations from ex-
periential data, which are capable of accounting for such data (I
should point out that they belong to the realm of 'physics', especial-
ly biology). The nutriment of all things is moist. Heat itself16) is
generated from moisture and lives by it. Ergo, moisture, or that
from which things have been or continue to be generated, is their
principle. Furthermore, Tha?es may have observed that the seeds
of all things have a moist nature (f?s??), and water is the principle
of the nature (t?? f?se??) of moist things. What Aristotle means is
that (on this view) things come from seeds, that the nature of seeds
is to be moist, hence all things are generated from moisture.
Accordingly, water, in the terms of the general definition at 983 b
6 f., is the 'principle' of things in the sense of what they are
generated from. It is not clear, however, that it is also their 'ele-
ment', and Aristotle does not venture to show in what way things
pass away into water.
In the second part of the excursus, Aristotle approaches Tha?es'
thought from the outside (983 b 22 f.). He argues against a tradi-

15) For difficulties about Aristotle's d?? see Stokes, o.e., 57. I assume that he
used the fact that the earth floated in this way as corroboration of his view that
water is the principle. Aristotle may have been mentally comparing Anaximenes'
air, both support and principle.
16) Although this is often denied, I do not see what could have prevented
Aristotle from thinking of cosmic heat as well (several Presocratics, among whom
Heraclitus, could be adduced).

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES 115

tion which put Thaies on a par with early poets such as Hesiod and
Homer; Snell has argued, convincingly, that the source at issue is
Hippias' collection of 'parallels'17). 'There are some who think that
also the very old [sc. theologians], those much earlier than the
present generation, and even the first theologians thought about
Nature (pe?? t?? f?se??) in this way [??t??: viz. in the way of
Tha?es]. For they made Oceanus and Tethys18) the parents of
becoming (?e??se??); furthermore, the oath of the gods is by water,
which they [sc, the theologians] call Styx19). For what is most
venerable is most ancient, and what
one swears by is most
venerable'. Aristotle means that, ergo, what one swears by is most
ancient; and, as what one swears by is water, water is most
ancient20).
Aristotle rejects his opponent's analysis, 984 a 1 f.: e? ??? ???
a??a?a t?? a?t? ?a? pa?a?? tet????e? ??sa pe?? t?? f?se?? ? d??a, t??'
a? ad???? e??? Ta??? ???t?? ???eta? ??t?? ?p?f??as?a? pe?? t??
p??t?? a?t?a?. This is a difficult sentence, although the difficulty is
not pointed out in modern commentaries. Its first half is always
translated in the following way: 'Whether this view of nature is in
fact ancient and primitive must perhaps remain in doubt ...'21).

17) ?. Snell, Die Nachrichten?berdie Lehrendes Thaies und die Anf?nge dergriechischen
Philosophie-und Literaturgeschichte,Philol. 96 (1944), 170 ff., repr. in: B.S., Ges. Sehr.
(G?ttingen 1966), 119 ff., and in: C. J. Classen (ed.), Sophistik, WdF CLXXXVII
(Darmstadt 1976), 478 ff. Cf. also W. von Kienle, Die Berichte?ber die Sukzessionen
der Philosophen in der hellenistischenund sp?tantiken Literatur (diss. Berlin 1959, pr.
1961), 39 ff.; C. J. Classen, Bemerkungenzu zwei griechischenPhilosophiehistorikern,
Philol. 109 (1965), 175 ff.; Stokes, o.e., 54 f.; Barnes, o.e., 6; G. B. Kerferd, The
SophisticMovement(Cambridge etc. 1981), 48 f. ; J. Mansfeld, Cratylus402 a-c: Plato
or Hippias?, in: L. Rossetti (ed.), Atti SymposiumHeracliteum, I (Roma 1983), 43 ff.
18) //. XIV 201 ??ea??? te ?e?? ???es???a? ??t??a ?????. Cf. Hes. Theog. 337.
Alex. In Met. p. 25, 7 f. speaks of Homer and Hesiod.
19) //. XV 36-7; cf. Hes. Theog. 365. 776-7.
20) For the syllogism(s) see Alex. In Met. p. 25, 13 ff. and Bonitz, o.e., 64 f.?
Taken together, the poetic parallels suggest that water is both the origin and what
is most ancient. It is to be noted that the attempt of A. V. Lebedev, On the Original
Formulationof Tha?es' Thesis t?? a???? ?d?? e??a?,in: Balcanica (Moscow 1979), 176
[Russian text 167 ff.], to restore what Tha?es said miscarries because this
reconstruction is based on Aristotle's crypto-quotations from Homer and Hesiod.
21) Guthrie, o.e., 55. See further the translations of A. Schwegler (T?bingen
1846, repr. Frankfurt/M. 1960); H. Bonitz (Berlin 1890, repr. Hamburg 1966);
E. Rolfes (Leipzig 1920); VV. Wieland, in: Geschichteder Philosophie, 1, Antike (Stutt-
gart 1978); W. D. Ross, Oxf. transi. VIII (Oxford 21928), and J. Barnes, rev.
Oxf. transi. (Princeton 1984); H. Tredennick, Loeb (Cambridge Mass.-London

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
116 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES

This is puzzling. At first blush, one could assume that Aristode

means that the early date of the theologians is in doubt. But his
paraphrase of the analysis of his opponent stresses the antiquity of
the theologians without casting doubt on the implied chronology.
His only quotes (or rather, the only passages quoted, in abbreviated
form, from his opponent, i.e., Hippias) are from Homer and
Hesiod. He does not quote Orpheus, as Plato did in the parallel
passage in Cratylus deriving from Hippias22). Fragments of Aristo-
tle's On Philosophy tell us that he doubted, or even denied, the ex-
istence of a very old poet called Orpheus23), but we have no reason
whatever to assume that he doubted that Homer and Hesiod24)
were very old, or at least lived 'much before the present
generation'.
The problem is: what do the words 'this view of nature' refer to?
One possibility25) is that the reference is to 983 b 21-28, viz. to the
doctrine of Tha?es. On this assumption, Aristotle would mean that
it is not clear that Tha?es' is old, i.e., can be attributed
view to the
early poets. Another possibility26) is that the reference is to the inter-
pretation of the poetical statements argued by Aristotle's opponent.
On this assumption, Aristotle would mean that the philosophical
idea attributed to the poets, which is no other than Tha?es' view,
cannot be certainly said to be old; in other words, the interpretation
is doubtful. These two possibilities are equivalent. Aristotie's oppo-
nent had said that the poets of old ??t?? [sc, like Tha?es] pe?? t??

1933, repr. 1975); H. G. Apostle (Bloomington-London 1965); J. Tricot (Paris

21953); G. Reale (Napoli 1968); C. A. Viano (Torino 1974); H. de Ley (Baarn
1977). The translation is also found in A. Capizzi, La repubblicacosmica: Appunti
per una stona non peripateticadella filosofia in Grecia (Napoli 1982), 487. In the first
draft of this paper, I suggested the translation 'Whether this ancient and hoary
view is in fact concerned with Nature ...', which is a good idea but based on
misconstruing the Greek. The idea can be preserved also when the text is
translated correctly, see infra, nn. 25, 26, and text thereto.
22) Fr. 15 Kern - Vorsokr. 1 ? 2 ap. Plat. Crat. 402 b-c.
23) De Phil. fr. 7 Ross; for a survey of the discussion see M. Untersteiner,
Aristotele: Della Filosofia (Roma 1963), 116 ff.
24) On the antiquity of Hesiod cf. Met. A 8, 980 a 10 f.
25) I owe this suggestion to Professor W. J. Verdenius.
26) This was suggested to me by Professor Ian Kidd, Dr. Chris Carey, and
Mr. Peter Woodward, when I gave a talk on this subject at St. Andrews (May
1983).

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES 117

f?se?? ?p??a?e?? (983 b 29-31). Aristotle retorts that a?t? [se,

Thaies', or like Thaies'] ... pe?? t?? f?se?? ? d??a can hardly be said
to be as old as that. He goes on to say: '... whereas Tha?es is said
to have said what he said as regards the first cause'. It is not, in
other words, clear that the theologians practised natural
philosophy, whereas it is clear Tha?es did.
This reading of the puzzling sentence at 984 a 1 f. is also that of
the ancient commentators that survive. Alexander In Met. p. 26,
8 f. Hayduck, note on the lemma e? ??? ??? a??a?a t?? a?t?, writes:
?? ?d???? t??t??, e?te ?? p??t?? ?e?????? ta?t?? ?sa? t?? d???? e?te
??, ta?ta ???e?- ?? ?a? d?t????? t??t? 2?e???, ???a pe????ta? t??e? d?a
s??????s??? de?????a?. The syllogism is that concerned with Styx, set
out by Aristotle in an incompleteway27); Alexander attributes it to
Aristotle's opponent. Asclepiusdoes not refer to syllogisms, but
otherwise agrees with Alexander's interpretation, cf. In Met., p. 25,
13 f. Hayduck: e? ??? ??? ?? pa?a??te??? t? d?t? ??t?? e???? ??
e????as? ?at? t? fa????e???, dd???? ?st?? Ta??? ???t?? ???eta? t? d?t?
?p?f??as?a? t?? p??t?? a?t?a?.
The ancient commentators do not give us the whole of Aristotle's
argument in this chapter, but have at least grasped one of its impor-
tant points. I say argument, because we only have one if we have
seen argues that it is not clear that the theologising
that Aristotle
poets spoke of Nature. In this respect, there is a cruciali difference
between myth and philosophy. The poets speak of Oceanus,
Tethys, Styx; Tha?es speaks of water.
Retrospectively, this point helps to achieve a better under-
standing of the first part of the argument. Tha?es said that the earth
floats on water. Elsewhere, Aristotle tells us that he did so in order
to explain why it is at rest, and argues that the explanation is amus-
ingly crude28). He does not say so here, for here he is not concerned
with the feasability of the explanation provided but with its specific
character. Explanations of this sort belong to 'physics', i.e., to
what, for Aristode, is the 'second philosophy' after 'first'

27) Cf. supra, n. 20 and text thereto.

28) Cael. ? 13, 294 a 28 f. = Vorsokr.11 A 14. Here, too, Aristotle suggests that
Tha?es may have generalized from experiential data.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
118 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES

philosophy29). One cannot quote the theologians30) of old for the

view that the earth is at rest because it floats on Oceanus, or Tethys,
or Styx. Of course one cannot: the idea would never have occurred
to them. The further Aristotle
considerations
hypothetically at-
tributes to Tha?es for the early poets either?not
are not valid even
modo hypothetico. Tha?es said that water is what things are from; this
is a scientific idea, which one may make sense of in connexion with
generalized experiential data. to say that
But it does not make sense
the nature because the gods swear by this river,
of seeds is Styx-like
or that heat itself lives by moisture because Oceanus and Tethys are
the parents of generation. What Aristotle's ?s?? amounts to is that,
one way or another, one may exploit Tha?es' idea in a scientifically,
i.e., philosophically responsible way (cf. Met. ? 4, 1000 a 17 f.).
That the instances given are set out only exempli gratia does not
detract from their
validity. His t??' a? ad???? e?? (984 a 3) means
that, in the case of the theologians, such surmising is out of the
question31). Which is confirmed by a backwardsreference at Met.
A 5, 987 a 3 f., where Aristotle tells us that we have learned from
the 'first sophoV that 'the principle is corporeal, for water and fire
and the like are bodies'. Already the list of material principles at

29) Met. ? 11, 1037 a 14 f.; see E. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechenin ihrer
geschichtlichenEntwicklung, II 2, Aristoteles und die alten Peripatetiker(Leipzig 41921,
repr. Darmstadt 51963), 181; cf. also Bonitz, Comm., 63.
30) Could Aristotle have quoted Egyptian mythological 'antecedents', perhaps
even after Hippias? H?lscher, o.c., loc. cit., argues that the idea of the earth
floating on the waters was imported by Tha?es from Egypt, but this Egyptian earth
is a raft made (by a god) of reeds upon which earthhas been spread. Simpl. In Cael.
p. 522, 14 f. (- Vorsokr. 11 A 14), says that pa?' ????pt???? ??t?? ?? ?????
s???a t ? ???es?a? and that Thaies perhaps got his idea from Egypt. I am not con-
cerned here with the question as to whether or not Tha?es really was influenced
by Egyptian myths (see Classen, Tha?es, 940, 60 ff.). One cannot exclude the
possibility that Hippias referred to the Egyptian myth of the floating earth as an
idea relatedto Tha?es' (cf. Vorsokr.86 ? 6 ta ??? "????s? ta d? ?a???????? ... t??t??
ta ... ???f??a; see also infra, n. 67 and text thereto). Aristotle would have been
able to reject the assumption that the Egyptian idea of the floating earth is already
philosophical on precisely the same grounds as he rejected the Greek poetical
'antecedents' of Tha?es' view of water as the origin or principle. Cf. alsoj. G.
Griffiths, Plutarch's De Iside et Osiride (Univ. of Wales Press 1970), 427-8.
31) A similar point is made about Anaxagoras' Nous as final cause 'in Nature'
(?? t? f?se?) at A 3, 984 b 18 f. fa?e??? ??? ??? ??a?a???a? ?s?e? ????e???
t??t?? t?? ????? ?t?.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES 119

A 3, 984 a 7, spoke of ap??? s???t??; the primary bodies belong

to the realm of 'physics'.
Above, we have noticed that, according to Aristotle, early
materialist philosophy developed (p?????t??) and that his general
definition of the majority view at the beginning of ch. 3 is too nar-
row in that it excludes such later developments as can be found with
Empedocles and Anaxagoras32). Is it possible that, in as far as
Tha?es is concerned, this definition is too wide?
Aristotle points out that Thaies was the a??????, the founder',
of this sort of philosophy, not that he already professed it in toto. All
his words aboutthe founding father need imply is that materialist
philosophy, as it developed, was potentially already contained in
the seminal idea that the origin (a???33)) is water. The idea that
water is the origin of things made possible the idea that water (or air,
or fire, etc.) is the element of things34). Aristotle's hypothetical
reasons for Tha?es' assumption are set out, I believe, with
deliberate caution.
They do not preclude that the things that come
to be from water are actually transformed into something else. That
heat itself comes to be from water and continues to live by it does
not preclude that it is different from water. The protocol cases only
prove that things come from or continue to come from water, not
that they still are water. Furthermore, Aristotle does not provide ex-
amples proving that things return to water, which, on account of his
generad definition, is what one would have expected.
Presumably, the evidence at Aristotle's disposal, listing Tha?es
together with the ancient poets, only claimed that, according to
Tha?es, things originally come from water, just as, according to the
theologians, they come from Oceanus and Tethys. It is not clear,

32) Supra, p. 112-3.

33) In my paper cited supra, ?. 17, I have argued that Hippias' poetical
parallels as cited by Aristotle (and Plato) merely imply that Tha?es' water is the
???es?? of things; cf. Aristotle's paraphrase of//. XIV 201 at Met. A 3, 983 b 31
t?? ?e??se?? pat??a?. Perhaps a??? is Aristotle's term rather than Hippias'.
Schadewaldt, o.e., 225-6, argues that Tha?es only (was said to have) said water is
the genesis of all things.
34) Nietzsche saw this ("Verpuppung", cf. supra, n. 1), and Rod, o.e., 35, says
the notion the unity of things is implied "ansatzweise" in Tha?es; but the sugges-
tion is already in Aristotle.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
120 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES

at least not from the evidence as studied

here35), that Aristotle's
source also said that
according and to Tha?es
the poets things are
water now. We can, at any rate, be certain that it did not say things
returned to water, for this could not be paralleled from the early
poets36).
It is interesting to note that authors later than Aristotle are ex-
plicit on precisely this point.
Theophrastus, as far as can be made
out from Simplicius' transcript37), did not yet speak of the return-
ing of things to water, but he did at least provide an argument
showing that they consist of water which is not in Aristotle, viz. Vor-
sokr. 11 A 13, p. 77, 19 = ap. Simpl. In Phys. p. 23, 26 f. Diels: ??
?? d? ecrutv ??asta, t??t? ?a? t??fes?a? p?f??e38). The late dox-
ographers, however, not printed in Vorsokr., also have things return
to water: Aet. I 3, 1 (both Ps. Plutarch and Stobaeus) a???? t??
d?t?? ?pef??at? t? ?d??, ?? ?dat?? ??? f?s? p??ta e??a? ?a? e?? ?d??
p??ta ??a??es?a?39). Statements to the same effect are to be

35) In the paper cited supra, n. 17, I have argued that Hippias said that, ac-
cording to Heraclitus, the things that are now are compared to a streaming river.
Which need not, however, imply he made a similar inference regarding Tha?es.
36) One assumes that Aristotle would have quoted such evidence from Hippias,
if it had been there. Parallels in Xenophanes would not have been to the point,
because we need poets older than Tha?es; Aristotle, moreover, ignores
Xenophanes qua 'physicist', see supra, n. 4. For the tradition which cited
Xenophanes see infra, n. 64; most of the evidence has been conveniendy
assembled by H. J. Mette, Sphairopoiia: Untersuchungenzur Kosmologiedes Krates von
Pergamon(M?nchen 1936), F 24 h-q.
37) In Phys., p. 23, 24-9 ( - Phys. op. fr. 1); not verbatim.
38) Possibly echoed by Alex. In Met. p. 24, 23 f. ?t? te ?a? ? t??f? p??t?? ????,
?? d? t?? t??f?? ???st? t? e??a?. For the meaning of Theophrastus' ?? ?? d? ?st??
cf. Arist. Met. A 3, 983 b 8 f. ???? ... ?st?? distinguished from ?? ?? ????eta?.?Note
that Vorsokr.,at 11 A 13, prints as the last text (the first is Theophr. Phys. op. fr.
1) a passage from a commentary on a poet, viz., Probus ad Aen. II 81, which at-
tributes to Tha?es the return of bodies to water (in umoremresolv?).Probus' source
will have been another commentary on a poet; it is noteworthy that this is the only
such passage from this type of literature or from the later doxographical vulgate
printed in the Tha?es chapter of Vorsokr.I do not know that Diels wanted to at-
tribute what is in Probus to Theophrastus (what is in Theophr. Phys. op. fr. 1?if
those words are his?, viz. ta ?e?????e?a ???a??eta?, is its opposite). See further
infra.
39) Similarly Ps.Just. Coh. 3 and 5; cf. Classen, Tha?es, 939, 33 f. Diels, Dox.
gr., 179 (cf. also 170-1), acknowledges that the formula is derived from Aristotle's
general definition at Met. A 3, 983 b 8 f., and that it was applied to individuals
(e.g., to Anaximander) by Theophrastus. Yet he suggests that it entered the dox-
ographical vulgate through a 'biographical' intermediate source, as he often does
for things he does not like.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES 121

found in Hermias Irr. 10, and Epiphanius III 1. Hippolytus Ref. I

1, 1-2 has a???? t?? pa?t?? e??a? ?a? t???? t? ?d??? ?? ?a? a?t?? ta
p??ta s???stas?a? p????????? ?a? p???? d?a?e?????40) ?p?f??es?a(
te a?t? ta p??ta ?t?. That all things are carried along on water here
explains earthquakes and other phenomena; it is clear that Hip-
polytus refers to the earth as floating on the water. This connection
(first in Aristotle, not in Simplicius' abstract from Theophrastus,
and not in Aetius either) is also found in Hermias and Epiphanius,
locc. cut. It is therefore practically certain that, through saut du m?me
au m?me, this being either Hippolytus' fault or a copyist's, a few
words have dropped out at Ref. I 1, 2: ?a? p???? d?a?e????? <e?? a?t?
d?a?e?s?a? [or: ??a??es?a?]), ?p?f??es?a? te ?t?. A similar idea is
found in Ps. Heraclitus All. c. 22, 341), who does not speak of the
return of things to water, but of water's malleability into various
shapes, i.e., of water as the element of things: T???ta ??? ?e t??
????s??? ????????s? p??t?? ?p?st?sas?a? t?? d??? ??s???????
st???e??? t? ?d??* ? ?a? ???? f?s?? e??a??? e?? ??asta ?etap?att?????
p??? t? p??????? e???e ???f??s?a? ...
Let us, however, return to Aristotle, who is far less clear about
Tha?es' water as the element and principle of things than the dox-
ographical vulgate. One may conclude that he had two reasons for
having materialist philosophy begin with Tha?es: (1) what he was
reported to have said was, in principle, different from what the
theologians had said; (2) his new idea allowed for further
developments, or rather entailed such developments as were not en-
tailed by the suggestions of the early poets. Such a conclusion would
make out Aristotle to have been far more cautious in his claims
about Tha?es than he has generally been made out to be. Aristotle's
teleology, or insight and argument from
hindsight, permitted him
to project unto Tha?es what came only after Tha?es; I think,
however, that he knew that this is what he did. This interpretation

Diels, Dox. gr., 145, argues that Hippolytus' chapter on Tha?es is

* 40)
biographical', although one of the things he objects to, viz. the attribution of
rarefaction and condensation to Tha?es, is another instance of the influence of a
general statement of Aristotle, viz. Met. A 4, 985 b 10 f. (see supra, n. 10). Hipp.,
Ref. I 1 is not in Vorsokr.; I have printed this text at Die Vorsokratiker,I (Stuttgart
1983), Thaies fr. 18.?I cannot enter here into the vexing question of what is
meant at Simpl. In Phys. 149, 32 f. - Vorsokr. 13 A 5, last text.
41) Belongs with the 'poetical' tradition; cf. supra, n. 36; infra, n. 64.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
122 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES

also lends more point to Aristotle's exclusion of Hippo, who also

said the principle is water. Some of the reasons Aristotle
hypothetically attributes to Tha?es may perhaps be Hippo's42). Yet
*
Aristotle calls Hippo cheap'; in the later 5 th cent., his na?vity was
impardonable. In the case of Tha?es, the pioneer, primitivism is
what one would expect. Yet Thaies was a philosopher because there
can be no doubt that his Vater' is material, i.e., is a body. This
is why, according to Aristotle, he should be respected.
Aristotle, then, made Tha?es the a?????? because one could be
certain that his seminal idea was concerned with Nature. This point
is confirmed by Theophrastus ap. Simpl. In Phys. p. 23, 29 f. Diels
= fr. 'it has been handed down by tradition that
( Phys. op. 1):
Thaies was the first to reveal to the Greeks the investigation of
Nature (Ta??? d? p??t?? pa?ad?d?ta? t?? pe?? f?se?? ?st???a?
t??? "????s?? ??f??a?); although he had many predecessors, he dif-
fered from them to such an extent that he eclipsed all who came
before him'43). Tha?es' lost predecessors cannot of course, be the
theologians; what Theophrastus means is that Aristotle's criterion
of demarcation would have been valid for others, had we known
about them. do not, so we have
We to rest content with Tha?es.
For Aristotle and Theophrastus, natural philosophy, or physics
qua part of philosophy, begins with Tha?es, not with the poets. In
antiquity, this view was by no means totally successful44). Ps.

42) Cf. Arist. An. A 2, 405 b 1 f., partly quoted at Vorsokr.31 A 4 (however,
see Cherniss, o.e., 218 n. 3); cf. also Classen, Tha?es939, 46 f. Theophrastus, Phys.
op. fr. 1, couples Tha?es and Hippo; so also Philoponus?after Alex-
ander/Theophrastus?In Phys. p. 23, 7 f. (not in Vorsokr.)?, see P. Steinmetz, Die
Physik des Theophrastosvon Eresos (Bad Homburg etc. 1964), 344.
43) Presumably, Theophrastus derived Tha?es' anonymous predecessors from
Arist. Met. A 2, 982 b 11 f., on the origin of philosophy (then as now) from
wonder: originally, people started with the more tangible and obvious objects of
wonder, but later on they worried about bigger things, 'e.g., about the changes
of the moon and of the sun, about the stars and about the origin of the universe'.
44) It should be noted that the lack of such a sharp distinction between poets
and philosophers as to the efficient-cum-final cause (Met. A 4, 984 b 23-32; ? 8,
1074 a 38-b 14) may have contributed to blurring the issue. At any rate, the in-
vestigation of the differences in Aristotle's evaluation of the history of the material
and that of the efficient-cum-final cause would repay further study. I have made
some suggestions in Mito scienza filosofia: una questionedi origini, Quad. Stor. 10
(1984), 45 ff.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES 123

Plutarch45), who (just as Stobaeus: Aet. 13,2, not in Vorsokr.) cites

and enlarges upon Aristotle's hypothetical explanations of Tha?es'
assumption of water as if these were concerned with attested
facts46), adds, I 3, 2: d?a t??t? ?a? '?????? ta?t?? t?? ??????
?p?t??eta? pe?? t?? ?dat??? "O?ea??? dspe? ???es?? p??tess?
t?t??ta?'47). This flatly contradicts what Aristotle had said; the im-
plication, without any doubt, is that Homer is a philosopher
because he is believed to have had the same reasons (d?a t??t?) as
Thaies and to have assumed what he assumed in respect of water.
The same idea is found in several sources dealing with Homer or
other poets, and in a doxography, concerned with the number and
nature of the things the Universe arises from as assumed by the
'physicists', found in Sextus, ?. ? 310-31848). Diels argued that
these sources
derive, in part, from the book-by-book commentary
on Homer by Heracleon (1st cent. CE), and in part from a Stoic
source to be dated before Vitruvius?which source could also have
influenced Heracleon49). He admits that Aetius was influenced by
these ideas, but said accuratiora rimari in tanta obscuritate nolo50). This
is rather disappointing; fortunately, others have brought matters
considerably further51).

45) Cf. also Ps Just. Coh. 5, cited by Diels ad loc.

46) So also Theophrastus, if he is correctly reported by Simplicius and
Philoponus (supra, n. 42). Cf. Classen, Tha?es, 939, 46 f.
47) //. XIV 246, a line printed by Diels also in the b column at Aet. 13,2, from
Stob. I 10, 2; but in Stobaeus it occurs in the company of several poetic quotations
(among which, at I 10, 4: //. XIV 201) which do not derive from 'Aetius'. The
derivation Tha?es?Homer is also found in doxographical surveys which, accord-
ing to Diels (Dox. gr., 170 f.), do not belong to the Aetius-tradition although there
are several similarities; these quote //. XIV 201: Theodor. Graec. off. cur. II 9 and
Iren. Adv. haer. II 14, 2. On Irenaeus and Ps.Plutarch/Aetius see R. M. Grant,
After the New Testament(Philadelphia 1964), 91 f., 158 f.
48) None of these passages is to be found in the Tha?es chapter of Vorsokr.(cf.
supra, n. 38); as already been pointed out (supra, n. 36) they can be conveniently
consulted in Mette, o.e. Virtually complete lists of sources also at Classen, Tha?es,
938-9.?Note that Sext., M. X 310-8 is quoted Hipp., Ref. X 6, 2-7, 6.
49) Dox. gr., 88-99; for the Stoic source see ibid., 95.
50) Dox. gr., 181 n. 2 (cf. ibid., 95). The criticism of F. Buf???re, Heraclite,
All?gories d'Hom?re, Coll. Bud? (Paris 1962), XXXII ff., is justified.
51) K. Reinhardt, Herakleitos (12), RE Vili (1913), 509, with further
references, saw that Crates and Chrysippus are involved (cf. F 32 a Mette). See
further Mette's important discussion of Crates' possible r?le, o.e., 24-28, 48-52,
65. P. Steinmetz, Xenophanesstudien,RhM 109 (1966), 41 ff., argues?on uncon-
vincing grounds?that Crates' exegesis of Homer was rewritten in doxographical

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
124 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES

Several authorities are

very clear that Homer is the first
philosopher, or at least the a?????? (in view of the importance of
this term in Aristotle Met. A 3, there can be no doubt that the view
of the history of philosophy taken for granted is opposed to Aristo-
tle's). Ps.Heraclitus, All. 22, 2 writes: ?a? t?? f?s???? ?at? ta
st???e?a d????t?? eG? a?????? "??????, ???st? t??? t?? ?et' a?t??
?? ed??e? e??e?? ?p????a? ?e????? d?d?s?a???. He treats Thaies at some
length52), and cites //. XIV 246, the line also found in
Ps.Plutarch/Aetius (note that Arist., Met. A 3, 983 b 31 f., presup-
poses another line, viz., //. XIV 201). Ps.Heraclitus, be it noted,
speaks of elements.Ps.Plutarch, Vit. Horn., 93, speaks of arche and
genesis: ?????e?a t????? ?p? t?? t?? p??t?? a???? ?a? ?e??se??, ??
Ta??? ? ????s??? e?? t?? t?? ?dat?? ??s?a? a?af??e?- ?a? ?eas??e?a e?
p??t?? '?????? t???' ?p??a?e?, e?p?? (again //. XIV 246 is quoted).
In the previous chapter, Ps.Plutarch had argued that the three
[Stoic] parts of philosophy, among which, of course, t? f?s????, are
already in Homer, who expresses his scientific views in the garb of
riddles and mythical stories. Ps.Probus, In Bue. p. 344, 11 f.
Hagen, dealing with the elements, says: ... Tha?es Milesius ... aquam;
hanc quidem Thaletis opinionem ab Hesiodo putant manare qui dixerit ?t??
??? p??t?sta ???? ???et', a?ta? ?pe?ta53)?nam Zenon Citieus sic inter-
pretatur, aquam '????' appellatum ?p? t?? '??es?a?'54)?: quamquam

form by a contemporary of the author of the Vetustapiacila. ?. Zeegers-van der

Vorst, Les citations des po?tes grecs chez les apologistes chr?tiensdu Ile si?cle (Louvain
1972), who has missed Mette's contribution, plausibly argues that Chrysippus is
involved (75 f.; 153 f., with useful list of sources citing Empedocles Vorsokr.32 ?
6; 164 f., with useful list of sources citing Euripides F 941 2Nauck). [Concentrating
on the passage in Ps.Probus, I have argued that Zeno and Chrysippus are in-
volved, see my paper in: M. J. Vermaseren (ed.), Studies in Hellenistic Religions,
EPRO 78 (Leiden 1979), 171 f. n. 131].
52) I have quoted from this section supra, text to n. 41.
53) Theog. 116.
54) SVF I 103 (cf. supra, n. 51, infine). This Stoic derivation of Tha?es from
Hesiod can be paralleled from Achilles' chapter pe?? t?? t?? ???? a????, Isag. I
3, pp. 31, 27-32, 1 Maass: Ta??? hi 6 ????s??? ?a? Fe?e??d?? ? S????? a???? t??
8??? t? ?d?? ?f?sta?ta?, d d? ?a? ???? ?a?e? ? Fe?e??d??, ?? e????,t??t? ???e???e???
pa?? t?? ?s??d?? ??t? ?????t??* ?t?? [...] ???et? [Theog. 116]? pa?? ?a? t? ?e?s?a?
t? ?d?? ???? ????asta?. Vorsokr.has this passage (ending with Theog. 116) only
in the Pherecydes chapter, 7 ? 1 a. Cf. also the Scholia veterain Hesiodis Theogoniam
ed. L. di Gregorio (Milano 1975), Schol. R2WLZT ad Theog. 116 b, p. 23, 14-6:
?a? Fe?e??d?? d? ? S????? ?a? Ta??? ? ????s??? a???? t?? ???? t? ?d?? fas? e??a?,
t? ???a t? t?? ?s??d?? ??a?a???te?. R2W add: ???? pa?? t? ?e?s?a?, which

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES 125

eandem opinionem ab Homero possimus intellegere quod ait: (quotation of

//. XIV 201, not?as in Ps.Plutarch/Aetius, Ps.Plutarch Vit. Horn.,
and Ps.Heraclitus?//. XIV 246).
In view of the fact that Ps.Plutarch/Aetius and similar dox-
ographers cite //. XIV 246, whereas Aristotle's reference presup-
poses //. XIV 201 and Theophrastus?if the argumentum ex silentio is
permissible?did not mention the poets, the origin of this con-
tamination in Ps.Plutarch/Aetius cannot be merely a
misunderstanding of the passage in Aristotle, although the latter's
poetic reference may have served as a pigeon-hole. Diels' sugges-
tion, taken up by others, that we should look for Stoic influences
appears to be right55). I cannot, in the present paper, try to do what
Diels refused to do, however much the problem has been furthered
by subsequent studies. It is, anyhow, interesting to note that
Ps.Probus refers both to the received opinion which sought the
source of Tha?es' water in Homer's Ocean and to the idea of Zeno
that Tha?es' water derives from Hesiod's Chaos. It is not clear
whether or not Zeno's suggestion about Hesiod was intended to
replace the other view56), for it is also possible to see it as an addi-
tion to parallels that had already been suggested. That it is original
with Zeno is beyond reasonable doubt: the etymology cannot be
ascribed to anyone before him, and only the etymology permits the
use of Hesiod's Chaos.
Unlike Aristotle, the Stoics did not reject the idea that philosophy
begins with the old poets. They practised allegorical interpretation,

etymology, together with others, is given by R2WLZA ad Theog. 116 c, p. 24, 1

di Greg. (cf. SVF II 564). Coupling of Tha?es and Pherecydes also in Tzetzes, see
A. Lolos (ed.), Der unbekannteTeil der Ilias-Exegesis des Iohannes Tzetzes, Beitr. klass.
Phil. 130 (K?nigstein Ts. 1981), p. 28 ad A 141. For Zeno's interpretation of
Hesiod*s cosmogony see SVF I 103-105. For the Stoic interpretation of
Pherecydes' Chaos see M. L. West, Early GreekPhilosophy and the Orient (Oxford
1971), 11 f.
55) Dox. gr., 95; cf. supra, n. 51. Mette, o.e., 49 ?. 6, argues that Theodoretus,
Irenaeus, Ps.Probus and Sextus derive from a separate source which used Arist.
Met. A 3; this source "geht ..., namentlich in der Betonung der Abh?ngigkeit des
Thaies von Homer, ?ber Aristoteles hinaus und erweitert ihn auch sonst (um
Anaximander; Parmenides Xenophanes usf.)".
56) This also depends on a solution of the problem as to whether or not Zeno
wrote a separate commentary on (part of) Hesiod's Theog.', cf. SVF I 167 ?Cic.
N.D. I 36, with Pease's note ad loc. See also EPRO 78, 171 f. n. 131.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
126 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES

and Cleanthes even said that the best way to speak of the gods
(theology being the ultimate part of physics) is in verse57). On the
other hand, it would be unwise to assume that the Stoics were not,
in some cases, the intermediate rather than the original sources of
allegorical and similar explanations found in later commentaries
and suchlike literature. The allegorical mode of exegesis is, of
course, much older than Stoicism58). Furthermore, it cannot be ex-
cluded that Hippias' collection of parallels was used by some Stoics;
although it would not be entirely correct to say that Hippias prac-
tised allegory, his view that what is in Tha?es is already in Orpheus,
Hesiod, and Homer, is quite close to allegorical interpretation.
Hippias, as we know from the verbatim fragment preserved by
Clement59), cited, among other
things, parallels from Orpheus
and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer', in that?undoubtedly
chronologically intended?order. It may, therefore, be not an acci-
dent that Chrysippus, in the second book of his On the nature of
the Gods', according to Cicero's summary, N.B. I 41, volt Orphei,
Musaeij Hesiodi, Hom?rique fabellas accommodare ad ea quae ipse
primo libro de deis immortalibus dixerit, ut etiam veterrimi poetae, qui
haec ne suspicati quidem sint, Stoici fuisse videantur60). For Chrysippus,
too, theology is the ultimate
part of physics61). It is therefore entire-
ly possible that at least some of Hippias' quotations were taken over
by the Stoics, and that they lived on in the professional literature
explaining the poets, or the Poet, as well as in the doxographical
accounts.
However this may be, Aristotle's all-important distinction be-
tween theology, or myth, and natural philosophy, argued at the

57) SVF I 486, 538. Cf. Mnem. IV 31 (1978), 138; EPRO 78, 135 f.
58) J. P?pin, Mythe et All?gorie(Paris 21976), 95 ff., and esp. A. Henrichs, Cron.
Ercol. 5 (1972), 25 and n. 113.
59) Vorsokr.86 B 6.
60) SVF II 1077; veterrimipoetae recalls Aristotle's words about the theologians
at Met. A 3. (I do not, of course, wish to suggest that Hippias' anthology would
have been Chrysippus' only source). Philodemus, De piet. 13 (SVF II 1078), the
parallel to Cic, loc. cit., has Orpheus Musaeus, but Homer Hesiod (inverting the
order), and adds 'Euripides and other poets'. One cannot be certain that
Euripides was quoted by Hippias, but he was, of course, a favourite of
Chrysippus.
61) SVF II 42, 1008. Cf. EPRO 78, 134 f.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES 127

beginning of Metaphysics*2) and already taken for granted by

Theophrastus, did not win over all the people in the field. Its im-
pact upon the historiography of philosophy in modern times is
probably greater63) than upon the same discipline (or its corollaries)
as practised in antiquity. A view remarkably similar to that of
Hippias?which had been
rejected by Aristotle?was taken up
again by both philosophers and others, and even found its way into
sections of the doxographical vulgate deriving from the investiga-
tions of Aristotle and Theophrastus64). For instance, Calcidius, In
Tim. 280, pp. 284, 15-285, 3 Waszink, who closely follows Arist.,
Met. A 3, 983 b 18 f.65), does not distinguish between Tha?es and

62) However, at Met. ? 8, 1074 a 38 ff., his point of view is different; cf. Quad.
Stor. 10 (1984), 51 ff.
63) Cf. Quad. Stor. 10 (1984), 44 f., 54 ff.
64) A similar Fremdk?rperis Aet. 13, 12, paralleled at Theodoret. Graec. off. cur.
IV 5 (printed by Diels ad Aet. 13, 12): 'Xenophanes said the principle of all things
is earth, for he writes in his "On Nature" [Vorsokr. 21 ? 27 follows]'. However,
Diels' source for Aet. I 3, 12, is Stobaeus (I 10, 12, p. 123, 9 f. W.-H); there is
no parallel in Ps.Plutarch. But in Stob. loc. cit. a passage on Xenocrates and
Xenophanes has been interpolated into Stobaeus* account of the Ionian succession
(after Aetius: parallels in Ps.Plutarch available), and it is far from certain that
Stobaeus' little section on Xenocrates-Xenophanes (note the alphabetical order)
derives from Aetius. In the ch. on Xenophanes in Vorsokr., Diels (before Kranz;
I have checked the earlier editions) prints the Stob.-passage which became Aet.
I 3, 12, at Vorsokr.21 A 36 (second text) with the comment "aus den homerischen
Allegorien" (cf. the comparison of Stob.-Ps.Plut. Vit. Horn, at Dox. gr., 93), i.e.,
not Aetius, whereas he prints the Theodoret.-passage ibid., first text, with the com-
ment: "aus A?tios"?but Theodoretus can only be Aetius if Stobaeus is; Diels'
argument is circular. The transmission of Xenoph. Vorsokr.? 27, ? 29, and ? 33
should be investigated afresh (Steinmetz, Xenoph.-Stud., 41-5, is not sufficient).
Note that ? 27 is also in Sext. ?. X 313 (cf. supra, n. 48 and text thereto) and
in the Scholia Veteraad Iliad. VII 99, II p. 245, 40 f. Erbse (combined with ? 33).
? 33 has also been transmitted by Sextus, ?. X 314, who links it with //. VII 99;
same link, but without quotation of ? 33, in Ps.Probus In Bue. p. 343, 21 f. Hagen
and in Ps.Her. All. 22. Porphyry (ap. Philop. In Phys. p. 125, 27 f., cf. Simpl. In
Phys. pp. 188, 26-189, 1) also quotes //. VII 99, but links this with another
Xenophanes-fr., for which he is the only source (Vorsokr. 21 ? 29). Porphyry, of
course, was well acquainted with the literature on Homer.?The interpretation of
these fragments at Guthrie, o.e., 383 f., is acceptable, although he does not enter
into the problems of their transmission. Note that Aristotle Met. A 8, 989 a 5 ff.
states that earth as the element is both a popular idea and one of Hesiod; see J.
Burnet, GreekPhilosophy(London 91953), 26, and J. Jouanna, Hippocrate:Nature de
VHomme, CMG 11,3 (Berlin 1975), 128 f., whose rejection of the doxographical
vulgate, however, goes too far. Cf. also supra, n. 4, n. 36.
65) SeeJ. H. Waszink, ad loc.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
128 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES

Homer, but states: inque eadem sententia Homerus esse invenitur (p. 284,
17 W.).
That the pre-Aristotelian material continued to play its part
through intermediate sources is further suggested by a passage in
Plutarch, De Is. 364 D: ????ta? d? ?a? "????????spe?
Ta????
?a???ta pa?' ????pt??? ?d?? a???? ap??t?? ?a? ???es??'
t??es?a?? t??
?a? "O?ea???' "?s???? e??a?, t?? d? '?????' t?s?? ?? t??????????? p??-
ta ?a? s??e?t??f??sa?. Vorsokr. gives this text (ending at t??es?a?) at
11 A 11, third item66). We have, again, the connection between
Tha?es and //. XIV 201; Plutarch adds that Homer's view is
originally Egyptian. Now Hippias' collection of parallels also con-
tained said by ?a??????? (Vorsokr. 86 ? 6, p. 331, 17); it is
things
therefore possible that Plutarch's Egyptian parallel, just as that bet-
ween Tha?es and Homer, originally derives from Hippias67),
although the claim that the Egyptian view is older need not have
been in Hippias, and the etymology of T?thys, and the equations
Oceanus ~ Osiris and Tethys ~
Isis, I dare say, were certainly not
in Hippias. Furthermore, the divergence in the literature, both
doxographical and other, in the quotations from Homer (either //.
XIV 201 or XIV 246) is presumably best explained on the assump-
tion that Hippias' collection quoted both lines68).
To return to Aristotle: the point argued in the present paper, viz.
that Aristotle did not attribute to Tha?es more than a seminal idea
which those who came after him
exploited and further
developed
can be paralleled. In the final chapter of Soph. El., Aristotle reflects
on the development of arts and disciplines in general: "In the case

66) Printed in full as Crates F 24 m Mette.

67) Classen, Zwei gr. Phil., 175 ?. 1, suggests this passage may derive from
Hippias.
68) Lists of authors (including Christians) quoting these lines are at Zeegers-
v.d. Vorst, o.e., 147-9; add XIV 241 ap. Tzetzes, p. 94 f. Lolos, Stob. I 10 has
both lines. For the migrations of (clusters of) quotations from one anthology to
another see O. Gu?raud-P. Jouguet, Un livre d'?colierdu IIIe si?cle avant J.-C. (Le
Caire 1938), XXVI ff.; H. Chadwick, Florilegium, RAC VII (1969), 1131 f. Hip-
pias' anthology is to be added to the (putative) sophistic anthologies listed by
Chadwick, o.e., 1135-6.?The text of this paper was finished May 1983; some
references were added September 1984. A comparison and analysis of the lists
cited supra, n. 13 (and text thereto) can be found in my paper Doxography and
ChronographyBeforePlato, to be pubi, in the Atti of the Conference on La storiografia
filosofica antica held at Stresa, Sept. 1984.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARISTOTLE AND OTHERS ON THALES 129

of all discoveries the results

of previous labours that have been
handed down from been advanced
others have bit by bit by those
who have taken them on, whereas the original discoveries generally
make an advance that is small at first [...]. For it may be that in
everything, as the saying is, "the first start is the main part", and
for this reason it is the most difficult; for in proportion as it is more
potent in its influence, so it is smallest in its compass and therefore
most difficult to see [...]" (Arist., Soph. El. 34, 183 b 17 ff. Revised
Oxford translation, my italics).

3723 KB BiLTHOVEN, Obrechtlaan 57

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:37:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions