Thales of Miletus DATE ‘Traditionally the earliest Greek physicist, or enquirer into the nature of things asa whole (85), Thales predicted an cclipse which took place therefore, much 1 The eclipse took place in OL. 48, 4 (585/4) according to Pliny, NH. 53 Jno presumably followed Apollodorus; and a year or mor ‘h3)..Medern calculations put jew thatthe eclipse predicted by 378 (DK: af the age of eventy-cight. There i fa (01 95, 1 i a mistake, by the common confusion of € and 6, for Ol. 39, Apoliedorus, then, characterstically placed Thales’ death around the epoch-yeat js come at the time of the eclipse, and his ty years earlier. Thi accords approx it us of Phaleron, acct of the Seven Sages ‘accepted mem ie. 582/¢ me, the epoch-year of the frst restored Pythian festival NATIONALITY fv tol 6 Oadiis, ean, *E€auvou untpds Bt KAcoBouAtvns, &x tay OnBaw, eUyevioaro1 rv ed K&BuOU Kal 'Aytivopos. ..EoArToy pawn BE (sc. ‘Ayfeap) tv Mintirep Ste AAG obv Nefhecp Exmeadvt Dowie. G5 8 of wasious pasty, Waryeris Midtiatos fv (se. OadFs) Kal yévous Aawrrpod. 63 Herodotus 1, 170 (from 65). .Gadko év6pos MiAnolou. ..78 avixatey yévos t6vt05 Doivinos. 62 Now Thales, as Herodotus and Douris and Democritus say, was the son of Examyes as father and Cleobuline as mother, from 76 THALES the descendants of Theleus, who are Phoenicians, nobles from the line of Cadmus and Agenor...and he [Agenor] was enrol a citizen in Miletus when he came with Neileos, when the latter was exiled from Phoenicia. But most people say that Thales was a true Milesian by descent, and of high family. 63. ...of Thales, a man of Miletus...being 2 Phoenician by ultimate descent... ough 62 makes it appear as though he had said more; the references in Douris and Democritus are otherwise unknown), was later much elaborated, partly, no doubt, to support the common theory of the eastern origins of Greek science. If Thales the attention of the Milesians to the navigational value of the Bear, used earlier by Phoenician sailors (see 7 * GL 64 Herodonus 1, 146 ..-Muvien "Opyoutnel opt (sc, the Jonian colonists) ‘even the ostensibly purest Ionian families were mixed by intermarriage with Carian women, PRACTICAL ACTIVITIES 65 Herodotus 1, 170 xpngTi Bt Kal mplv A Biapbapfvat “lovin Carte évbpos MiAngiou Eyéveto (sc. # yvdoun), TO avixatev yévos Bvr05 Polvinas, Bs &xéreve BV BouAe dua ty The (Tkov yap utoov dvr oleonévas nBiv Flovov vouigeaBan Karé rep ef Biot elev. 66 Herodotus 1, 75 cos BE émixeto Emi tov “AAW worandy & Kpotoos, 16 éwetrey, obs uly Ey Aeyeo, Kare Tas Lovaas yepipas BuBipave tov oTpaTéy, dos BE 6 TOADS Abyos "EAAHVeDY, OaAAs of 6 Midfioios BieBiBace. éopéovros yap Kpoicoy Kass of BiaPiigeran ‘rev norapdv 8 otparrés (ot) yap 8) eval xo rotrrov Tov xpovov a5 yepupas Tatras) Aeyeren Tapedvta tev Gary &v 1 oTpaToTEBee Trorfjacn arte tov moTaUdy # éptoTepis XeIpds déovTE TOU oTpATON ail x Bebtis Beew, Totijoat BE be Gveabev Tol otparomébou épfsuevov Bicspuxar Badkav opdocen éyovrer unvocibla, Bkios 6v 7 orperrémeBov Wepunévov Kark& vestou AdPo1, ToWrTn Kare TH Bicopuxe txrpernduevos nPRESOGRATIC PHILOSOPHERS ax Tov &pxateon petdpay, nai atimis wapouerBoueves 78 otparétteov is 18 Apyaia LoPEAAOI, date Erreite Koi EoxioGn Téxiera 6 ToTOHss auporépn Biapatés fyévero, 65 _ Useful also was the of Thales, a man of Mil igle deli saying that it should be in Teos, for this was in the mi of Tonia; the other cities should continue to be i should be regarded as if they were demes. 66 When he came to the Halys river, Croesus then, as I say, put his army across by the existing bridges; but, according to the common account of the Greeks, Thales the Milesian transferred the army for him. For it is said that Croesus w: army should cross the river, since these bridges at this period; and that Thales, who was present the river, which flowed on the left hand of ¢ Fight hand also, He did so in this way: beginning upstream of the army he dug a deep channel, givi escent shape, so that it should flow round the back of where the army was encamped, being diverted in this way from its old course by the channel, and passing the camp should flow into its old course once more. The result was that as soon as the river was divided it became fordable in both its parts, my, flow on the Herodotus provides important evidence for Thales’ activities as statesman and engineer (also as astronomer, 74). Such versatility seems to have been typical of the Milesia to consider too exclusively as theoretical physi became a symbol for ingenui geometrical , says a (009) of Mcton the town-planner; im with Anacharsis. Herodotus, it ieve the story in 66 about Thales diverting the river deny that this is the sort of tl ings over the Halys, but t not have found them; Herodotus was rightly cautious, although the grounds of his suspicion were not certainly correct. He went on to mention a variant account by which the river the story, therefore, may have 1 and restrained nature of the version of 66 suggests that it contained a kernel of truth? 2 For a far more sceptical account of Thales ideas one can refer to D. R. Dicks, CQ xs. 9(1959), 294-309, B THALES TRADITION OF 4 VISIT TO EOYPT 67 Actius 1, 3, 1 Gahiis...grRovogrjoas BE Ev Alytnrrep FAGev sig Miantov mpcoBirepos. 68 _Proclus in Euclidem p. 65 Friedl. (from Eudemus) (DK 11411) Godijs 68 mpGerow els AlyuTrroy BABY HeTHYCyeW es THY 'EAAGBa THY Geapiav rourray (sc. Thy yecouerpiaw)... 67, Thales...having practised philosophy in Egypt came to Miletus when he was older. 68 Thales, having first come to Egypt, transferred this study [geometry] to Greece Tt was the custom to credit the sixth-century sages (notably, for its to Egypt, the traditional fountain-head t known Greck geometer had ig associated with the home of land- ‘ion of 67 that he spent a considerable time there is unique and not persuasive. That he did visit Egypt, however, is possible enough; several of his achievements are quite ated there (c.g. 79; see also p.88), and Miletus’ relations Naucratis were 50 close as to make a visit by any en, trader or not, perfectly feasible. 2 GF. 69 Herodotus 1, 109. Boxéa 8 wor Bere yecerpin epee Thy EXAdBa meweAly. (1 sens to me tat geometry was divnered fom this owe [a remeararement of holdings after the Nie fad} and so came to Gres} Further, Thales appears in Actius as the holder of a theory about the flooding of the Nile which is one of three already recorded by Herodotus: 70 Herodotus 1, 20 (there are two particularly improbable theories about the cause of the flood) tau 4 Exépn iv Aye tobs Ermofas avanous clvon aitious mAndvetv Tov wotaysy, Kartovras fs Odhacoay expéew ‘tov Nethov. 7 Actius 1v, 1.1 Oadfis Tos Emoias évinous ofetan THovTas TH Alytarrep dvrinpoodsrrous éraipewy Tob NelAou Tév Syxov Bier 18 Tas txpods adrod TH Mapoibiioe Tod évrimapiiKovros WeAdyous eevoxérr Teo 7 Of these, one theory says that the Etesian winds are the cause of the river flooding, by preventing the Nile from running out into the sea 7% Thales thinks that the Etesian winds, blowing straight on to 79PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHERS Egypt, raise up the mass of the Nile’s water through cutting off flow by the swelling of the sea coming against it, Aetius probably depends on a lost P have survived in other sources therefore his information may be self; though it should be rat he could easily have got the relevant information (that the Etesian winds blow in Egypt too), and even the idea, from Milesian traders ANECDOTES ABOUT THALES AS THE TYPICAL PHILOSOPHER 72 Plato Theactetus 174 ...Gomep xal Oadiv &otpovopolvre,, & Osd6epe, xai avo Batrrovta, neodvra els gptap, Opgrré vis EuueAds nai Xapicooe Geparrenvis &rrooxdsyen Aeyerat, dos Te ev BV obpawi mpobuuctro eiBéva, & 8° Smiatey alto Kai Tape THSBa5 Aavbsvor avrév. 73. Aristotle Politics Art, 125929 _duabigdvreav yd até Bree Thy eviav cs Evapedois Tis qiocogias obons, Kerevorieavré acl atrrov fraidv gopev Eoouivny &K Tis EotpoAoyies, En xewdves by T05, stmoptigavra xenpérrov Sy~ov &ppaBdvas BiaBoiven dv Bdaioupysiaay Taw 7 év MinfiTep Kol Xl wévtav, SAtyou profecd- uevov é1’ oWBas EmpéAAovTOS. EmeiA 8 & Kaupds Akt, TOARGY wiobodvea bY spénOY ‘iBoUAETo font mourely rois 26 (DK 11a, eed Hieronymus of Rhodes, and Cicero Div. 1, 49, 72 ..,just as, Theodorus, a witty and attractive Thracian servant-girl is said to have mocked Thales for into a well while he was observing the stars and gazing upwards; declaring that he was eager to know the things in the sky, but that what was behind him and just by his feet escaped his n 73 For when they reproached him because of his poverty, as 80 THALES appropriate time came there was a sudden rush of requests for the presses; he then hired them out on his own terms and so made a large profit, thus demonstrating that itis easy for philosophers to be rich, if they wish, but that it is not in this that they are interested, Neither of these stories is likely to be strictly historical, even though the fourth century p.c. at the latest, before the great igraphy in the third and second centuries. They te how at a comparatively early date Thales had become accepted as the typical philosopher; though 72, one of the oldest versions of the absent-minded professor theme, would have had more point if applied to someone not s0 notor practical in his interests as Thales. The detail ofthe witty slave-gir is added to make ly malicious joke at the fan of the Presocratics, a truth frequently overlooked in the interpretation of certain less obvious passages. ‘THE PREDIOTION OF THE ECLIPSE, AND OTHER ASTRONOMICAL ACTIVITIES 74, Herodotus 1, 74 Btagkpousr BE o@t (sc. Toiat NuEoiat Kai toi0t MaSo1) Ex’ fons dv nOAEuOY 1G cre Erer ovuBOdis yevoutens cuviivenc Gore Wis wins ouveotedons Thy Auépny éamions viera yestoBan. Thy 6 peTadAayiy vatrmy Tis Audpns Garis 8 Minors {ofot “leoot mponyépevct Eoxaten, oUpov TrpOBtuEvEs EvowTéY ToUTON by 16 BA nal tyévero A ueTaPONh. 75, Diogenes Lacrtius 1, 23 Sorat 68 xert& vos mpéiros éotpo- Royfioat xci_ ft EtSnyos tv 1 mepl tev dotpohoyoupevaw loropig: Zevopénns kai ‘HpSBor0s Couudge. uaprupel 8" adrenal ‘Hpdeerros al Anpdxprros. 76 Dercyllides ap. Theon. 74 Inthesixth year ofthe war, which they [Medes and Lydians] hhad carried on with equal fortunes, an engagement took place in which it turned out that when the battle was in progress the day 8——————— PRESOGRATIC PHILOSOPHERS became night. This alteration of the day Thales foretold to the Jonians, setting as its limit this year in which the change actually occurred. the was the first to study the heavenly bodies clipses of the sun and solstices, as Eudemus says in his history of astronomy; for which reason both Xenophanes wid Herodotus express admiration; and both Heraclitus and Democritus bear witness for him. 76. Eudemus relates in the Astronomy that Ocnopides first dis- vevered the obliquity of the Zodiac and the cycle of the Great Year, and Thales the eclipse of the sun and the variable period of its solstices. iction of the eclipse must have been based on a long series ‘observations, not upon a scientific theory of the true ipses, The cause was unknown to Thales’ immediate Successors in Miletus and therefore, presumably, to him. If the by Eudemu: asserted by Aetius, eg: ty of drawing a wrong ales’ prediction. The ipses of the sun, both | for religious purposes, at any rate since 721 B.C; th century they had probably established a cycle of plausibly of lunations) wid eclipses might ‘occur at certain points. It is overwhel probable that Thales” feat depended on his access to these Baby! ; sce further Kahn, Anaximander and the Origins of Greck Cosmology (New York, +960), 1t many cultivated Greeks visited Sardis at ja were naturally particularly: suddenly Mi probably came from Egypt, with whi There isno evidence that sufficiently detailed observations, over a Jong enough period, were made and recorded by the Egyptian priests. Even on the Babylonian data it could not be predicted that an eclipse would be visible at a particular point. Priests were despatched to Uifferent parts of the Babylonian empire when a possible eclipse was ‘ue, and even within this large area the expected phenomenon was Further, no precise date could be predicted, only broad limits of time. Thus Thales appears to have said that an celipse was likely to occur within a certain year.* It was pure chance that it happened on the day of the battle and so seemed espe remarkable, and to some degree a matter of luck that it was visible near the Ionian area at all. 8 THALES 1 py Hero 29... dares Ett ugar Wd a ne ory Chicopee eh hk Dar [Re an Saris in hs boom of wealth all the sages from Greece. . .0mong whom came Solon. i Sieh ve wc roto ges ade i ithe nesng bn te ec ey wh eich ah Sadeghi nyse rh ‘The infor seasons, a8 divided by sol is more straightfor- ward. All that would be needed would be a rather Tong sare of ‘observations with asolstice-marker, a AioTpémov of some kind, such ‘as was connected with Pherecydes (47), to mark the bearings of the gun at is mast northerly and southerly pnts inthe year— that ¢ summer and winter solstices. Alternatively a gn vertical od, by which the Tengih of the sun's shadow could be exact recorded would sfc, This was it by Heredora to be a Babylonian invention (97), and its introduction was credited to xximander and not to Thales (94). However, measurement of shadows was certainly involved in the computation of the hi pyramids ascribed to Thales confident that the observation itive stage of celestial observation. Di od, DR ta) added that Thales discovered the paange of tesun from solstice to solstice, and the relation of the diameter of sun and d ; which, in piece of information is quite anachronistic, for Thal haw thought that the heavenly bodies had orbits, since they did no a ve ies had orbits, since they did under the earth (which was not made free-swinging unt Anaxie mander); at the most they had semi-orbits, and the ratio of diameter to celestial path would be twice that given? : 5 The detcrination of chs rao was a reurret problem in Grech astronony, sphshmigh:nauraly come to beasosiated wih the caiet known astonomer ‘he ratio ung In Diggers, 1:72, implies sexageimal measrement of te 3 ecliptic was adopted by the Babylonians: 30 serstein, JHS 75 (195: 6. CE Herodotus n, 109 (97), also t, 4 83,—————_——— PRESOCRATIG PHILOSOPHERS One farther observation is attributed to Thales, again with & possible implication that he may be indebted to foreign sources: 78 Callimachus Ianbus t, 52, ft. 191 Pfeifer (DK 11434) Laity yp 4 vin QéANTOS, 85:7 iv EAE Bebids yveuny ai Tis “Andns EAkyeto oTo@uheaaba robs darepioxous, # mAéouct olviKss. - for the victory belonged to Thales, who was clever in vent, not Teast because he was said to have measured out ‘stars of the Wain, by which the Phoenicians sail. js is part of the apocryphal story of the cup (in some versions, Td Biich had wobe presente tothe wisest man living: Thales ind in some versions also the final, choice, but he to others of the Seven Sages. The are the Little Bear (cf. Aratus Phaen. 39, with scholion); this constellation, because its revolution is smaller, provides a more accurate fixed .¢ Great Bear or Wain as « whole fas opposed to the Pole star itself). ora®udo8a strictly means ‘to eee put wometimes, more vaguely, “0 mark out, define” (& on Pindar Ol. 10, 53). The probable meaning is i the Little Bear, and drew the attention of Milesian sailors to its navigational usefulness. Diogenes Laertius, 1, 25, interpreted the lines of Callimachus as meaning simply that Thales ‘discovered’ the Li Bear. Ionian sailors may previously have neglected for al except long open-sea crossings the more conspicuous Great Bear was adequat “Thus the &orpoAoy/a, the study of heavenly bodies, mentioned as characteristic of Thales by Plato (72) and Aristotle (73), seems to have comprised these activities: the lucky prediction of an eclipse, probably with the aid of Babylonian tables; the measurement of Xolstices and their variations, possibly undertaken in part forcalendas- making purposes; and the study of star-groups, perhaps mainly as 2 Co alo 75, where nothing is otherwise known of the references to Thales by Xenophanes, Heraclitus and Democritus. MATHEMATIGAL DISCOVERIES 79 Diogenes Laertius 1, 27 6 6 “lepdovupios Kai Exuerpijoat enow Gdrbv Tas TupuiBas &x iis oxids, Tapempfeavra Ste Auiv too- ueyéins éotiv. 84. 80. Proclus in Euclidem p. 952 Friedl. (DK11420) E08nuos 8 iv ‘ais Feouetpixais iotopians els Oadfiv toro éviyet 16 Seedpnpicr (5c that triangles h: its adjacent angles equal are themselves equal &r1y Whoiev énéotaaw 81° o& Tpérov qaciv adtév BaKwivar ToT! Tpocxpiebal eno vayxaiov. 79 Hieronymus says that he [Thales] actually measured the pyramids by their shadow, having observed the time when ourown shadow is equal to our height. Bo Eudemus in the History of Geometry refers this theorem to ‘Thales; for the method by which they say he demonstrated the distance of ships out at sea must, he says, have entailed the use of this theorem. In 79 Hicronymus of Rhodes attributes to Thales the simplest impossible that the pyramids were merely local colour, to fit the tradition ofa visit to Egypt. Pliny (N.H. xxxv1, 82, DK 11 a21) gave Sept, sap. conv. 2, 1474 (DK 11421), that the height of a py related to the length of its shadow exactly as the height of any mensurable vertical object is related to the length of its shadow at ie of day. Tt is probable, though not certai i on his near-contemporary Eudemus (whose book on the history of geometry and mathematics, as opposed tohis history of astronomy, Diogenes himself does not appear tohave used for Thales); if so, there is a probability that Thales used the simpler method. On the other hand, the more complex one is based ‘on an argument from similar triangles analogous to that ascribed to him by Eudemus in 80, as a means of measuring the distance of ships ‘out at sea. Provided the height of the observer above sea-level were known, this calculation could be made with the aid of a primitive theodolite, two sticks (one as a sight-line, the other as an approximate level-tine) pivoting on a nail. It is to be observed that Eudemus credited Thales with a knowledge of similar triangles only on the @ friori ground that he could not otherwise les involved, and certainly without stating those principles as a geometer.1 Three other theorems attributed to Thales by Proclus following Eudemus, in the same commentary as 80 (DK 1111) ~ circle bisected by diameter; angles at hase of isosceles triangle are 85pRESOGRATIC PHILOSOPHERS the associated with Thales. my own guess would be Contemporaries for carrying 0 ical feats of mensuration, ‘at lay behind them. This is perhaps co Bat 5 pai see Thales’ Milesian successors seem to have Pi mathematical theory. "pares, AGP, 4 observed tats. “aan Or depot) couldn 29 Diels Gadjis BE TPBTOS Taps- Pl i ye aclay vols “ENAnow begat, TORADY ovat Thy wept guoeas IoToplay Tis “ENANow st, TOR wet Bun ipbyevoveran, as val Cxogplot Son ds Be wae Bienyedy beclieay Gs demoxpoyer waves ols A> GIN Reyeran Bt bo ypaqats unBbv xerraArniy TARY wis Kanowbivns -inlis dotponoyios. 82 Diogenes Laerti aimev obbey' 4 yep a 2g vol Karé Twas piv ovyypabn KarTé- Sp otrev Bvaqepoulvn Rest eovesoyic DaKor Wy Aéyeran elvan To Zapiov. KaAAiporyos 8° atrrdv olBev per v fis Gperou THis uncpas AEyoov by ois “leupors obras. 3 a th ae “rivas 8é ydva BUO ouvey' Tlepi tf \s Kai “lonnepias, ‘Bar dmerrsanre vat Boxes. yK rr a2) 83 Suda s.v. (from Hesycl jus) o! i eae tv Erreat, Trepi ioqnepias, Kot GdAa TOAAG. a i ’ ted the investic “Thales is traditionally the first to have reveal ae fmatare tothe Greeks; he hal many predecessor, a8 also Fe eophratus chinks, bat so far surpassed them as co blot out all who came before him. He is said to have Jeft nothing e Sfreritings cxeept the so-called ‘Nautical Star a G2 And: according to some he left no book behind for te oSvautial Star-guide? ascribed to him is said to be by Phokes h Samian. Callimachus knew! himas the discoverer! ‘of the Little cbypenye wept neve: 26 and wrote as follows in his Jambs. ..[78, lines 3-4]; while according to some he wrote only two works, On the Solstice and On the Equinox, considering the rest to be incomprehensible. 83 _ he wrote on celestial matters in epic verse, on the equinox, and much else. Les ‘These passages show that there was profound doubt in antiquity about Thales’ written works. It is pl ‘Thales gave? (B5, 84), and “from what they relate ious in using original sources; Theophrastus, as a professed historian of earlier philosophy, should have been ‘ious (though he was not always so, in fact), but he evidently to add to Aristotle about Thales (except for the minor and do not by Plutarch, de Pytt, or. 18, 402 (DK 1181), who added that the ‘work in question was in verse; we may thus conjecture that this was the verse work described by Hesychius in 8g as wepl uetedpaov. Lobon of Argos (a disreputable stichometrist of the second century 3.c.), according to Diog. L.. 1, 34, said that Thales wrote 200 hexameters. Only mild suspicion is expressed in Br, where any uncertainty implied by xohounévns is perhaps restricted to the nature of the title. But this last sentence almost certainly contains Simplicius’ own judgement and not that of Theophrastus, the paraphrase of whom ‘seems to end before Aéyerar. Diogenes’ information in 82, that the Work was also ascribed to one Phokos of Samos, almost settles the matter; any astronomical work ofarchaicappearance might naturally be credited to Thales, but works actually by Thales would not be alternatively ascribed to men of comparative obscurity. It is possible that the ‘Nautical Star-guide’ was a genuine sixth-century work similar to the hexameter ‘ActpoRoyia of Cleostratus of Tenedos (DK ch. 6) or the so-called Hesiodic "Aotpovouin (DK ch. 4): so Diels 87——— PRESOGRATIC PHILOSOPHERS ‘and others have assumed. Jt is also possible that it was a Hellenistic forgery. Diogenes in 82 worried by in 7B ofa particular naut ‘aid ascribed to Thales; but this need hoe have been described by Thales in writing. However, there is pothing inherently improbable in Thales having recorded such aids ausible enough activity for a practical sage in a fas probably the ‘Nautical Star-guide” that he did so. The other works mentioned in 82, on the solstice and the equinox (only the latter in 3), are unlikely, from thei to have been separate ‘books. Simplicius ‘Thales left no book, ‘Thales studied the solstices according to Eudemus in 75 and 76, and it would be on the ground of this known interest that such a work would be ascribed to him. Once again, however, it must be and of star-risings and ‘period, and also set down empt (o establish a satisfactory calendar: see Cleostratus fr. 4 (DK6xq) and the Hesiodic Astronomy (DK 42175). Observations about the Hyades and the setting of the Jades were also attributed to’Thales (scholion on Aratus 172, Pliny NH. xvm, 213; DK 1182, 11 418); the latter observation, in- Gidentally, was accurate for the latitude of Egypt, not that of Greece. ‘The evidence does not allow a certain conclusion, but the prob- ability is that Thales did not writea book; though the ancient holders of this view might have been misled by the absence of a genuine work from the Alexandrian library, and also by the apophthegmatic nature of the wisdom assigned to the Seven Sages in general. cosmorocy (i) The earth floats on water, whichis in some way the source of all things 84 Aristotle decaslo Br3, 294828 of 8 dg UBat0s xeloon (se. goo! thy viv). TooTov yép épxaidtaTov TrapeiAfigauey tev Aoyov, bv qaoiw dielv Oadjjy Tov Miatiaioy, ds Bie 78 Tri elvan wlvousay Bonep GVAov fy ti ToIotrov Erepov (Kal yap Tove én” képos uiy vey neque every, GAN’ 89" (BaT05), dome ot tov attey Aéyov Evra mrepl Tig yiis Kai TOU UBaTos Tou Sxotvros Tiy yi. 85 Aristotle Met. Ag, 9836 Tav 6h mpédrov giRovognadvrey ot -tAdotot Tas bv Ong HIBa ovos dAonoaw &pxas ever MévTav: EE of 88 THALES ‘yap tovw drrovra Tk Sura, Kai i of yiyveran mpdtou Kal di ee ae ee ee vetoPoMovons, Totre roneTov Kai Tatrmy aipxiv gay va Tey Svrav, nol Bie TobTO oe yiyveotai OUSLY olovrai ofT" éméAAvCE a, 2s Tis toLawmns plows del B~pzouévns...BeT yap eva ive eGoW F slay # wAsious wids & By yiyveran raNAG oepgoulvns éxelvns. 7 whyTOL TAR B05 Kal 19 elBos THis Tor 15 Spxiis o8 TS atrrd mrévres AEyouow, dg Oars uty 6 TFs ToIaATs Sexnyds grAosogias JSx99 clva grow (B18 Kat THy yy #9" GBoros émegaivero dlvat), AaBdov fows Ty tmdanyry taitay Be TOU mévteay 6pav Thy Tpopty Gypav Oey Kai cone tb Scout bx rotnay yoyunoy a Tas ay (88 ob a, Toit’ toriy dpyh névrev), B1& re BA TOUT Tiy tmdAMyY Xcpib raven nal Bure wevrov ve oniouera iv guow byps Exew' 1 8 (Sap dx THs guoxas tor ing things, that from which comes-into-being and into which it is finally destroyed, the substance persisting but changing in its qualities, this they declare is the element and first prin g things, and for this reason they consider that there is no absolute coming-to-be or passing away, on the ground that such a nature is always preserved. ..for there must be some natural substance, either one ‘or more than one, from which the other things come-i Over the number, however, and declared that the earth ison w from seeing the nurture of al itself coming-to-be from this they come-to-be being the principl supposition both from this and from the see a moist nature, water being the natural le of moist things. Our knowledge of Thales’ cosmology a on these two passages, with the cryptic a 89 ds virtually completely mnof8g-gr. Apart fromPRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHERS Aristotle's own criticism and conjecture, they assign two propositions 1¢ earth floats on water (like @ piece of wood or sort); (2) the ‘principte? of all things is water (in in the first half of 85, i.e. the and into wl Aristotle only impossibl not rest on air, but they do on water, therefore the earth floats on jon, that Thales has to find something to support the water that supports the earth, understood the probable nature of Thal would almost certainly still accept the popular conception of the underparts of earth stretching down so far that the problem almost disappeared, as in Homer (1) and long after Thales in Xenophanes (3). The probable direct origin of Thales’ idea of the earth floating on water was from non-Greek mythological accounts (pp. g2f.); the device might have attracted him in part because it provided support for the earth, but it is by no means certai Thales felt this to be a serious problem, and most improbable in any case that he worked out the theory for himself as a conscious answer to that problem. As Tor proposition (2), Aristotle evidently knew nothing the reasons given for Thales" choice of subsequent or natural to Aristotle) were clearly, for Thales and for Heraclitus themselves, very different kinds of thing. In fact, all we know about Thales’ views on water (apart from that the earth floats on it) is that, in a hearsay and probably much abbreviated and somewhat distorted form, they appeared to the not over-discri own idea of a material &pxi. Yet it is poss ‘Thales declared earth to come from water (ie. to be solidified out of 90 THALES it in some way) without therefore thinking that the carth and its ents are somehow water, that they have any continuing relation (beyond the fact that the earth floats on water) except perhaps that of a man to his remote ancestors. See farther pp. g3f. attached by Thales to water as a cor physiological. From the analogy of might have expected Thales to have adduced meteorological reasons, more conspicuously, in support of the cosmi there are reasons for thinking that his Sanat of the world was influenced not only by this variegated traditional background of ‘thological cosmogonical versions, but also by ific cosmological idea derived directly, perhaps, from farther + Tescems more probable than not that Arte took them ftom Hippon of Semen (oF Rhepium, Croton or Metapont), who nthe second hal the fh century nc. revive and modified the dea of waters constiuent material ofthngs. Hippon, when inlet Arse di ot adie eden had ong "As gosbt vO bopraarip wal Bap is Eepivavte (mv Yani), table “ewer eotfna 8 eso tvs ory on navn Gye ey eye a ‘the sed of ll things being moi. Infact he refutes tote whe 2ay thatthe seal is bled: ‘because the sed is ot blood.) Note that there is a good deal of conjecture in this, too. Against the aseumption th of water were derived from is that the additional reason given in ouPRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHERS “Theophrastus (ee previous note) probably did come from Hippon, and might therefore have been expected to be included by Aristole PAcin 87 Heraclitus Homericus Qzaest. Hom. 22 y8p Oye ot is rao per wiv, pes 7 wowov eibe voppot ormpouiver avis depots, wal 7 Rewrérarov ord pos eli EvéerreTa, Siigivew re 18 Udop val vevopaMouevov dls iv &noyaovrar 6b Bf As eipebos nd evongiey Gxrmap aludrrarov 6 Gants Ereptvero ovo) Te Secop, (For moist naturel substance since i is easily formad int ech difere TP ccountomed tr ndenge tery rious changes thal part of it awhich is exkaled is made Reading to Theophrsisy evident, Thales used water and it product + SXpnin eletnguakes (88: this depends on the special conception that the ‘els water), ls winds and movements of stars (Hippolyus Re Trould scarcely provide the reason or Thales adopting the theory ‘The near-eastern origin of part of Thales’ cosmology by his conception that the earth floats or rests on water. In Egypt the earth was commonly conceived as a flat, rimmed dish resting (er, which also filled the sky; the sun sailed each day across ind also sailed under the earth each night (not \¢ Greek legend, eg. 7). In the Babylonian creat ic Apsu and Tiamat represent the primeval waters, and ‘Apsu remains as the waters under the earth after Marduk has split the body of to form sky (with its waters) and earth. In the story of Eridu ts youngest extant version) in the beginning raft surface of the water, and on the raft reed-hut which became earth. An analogous view is implied in the Psalms (where also where Jahweh ‘stretched out yunded it upon the seas, and ed it upon the floods’ rly Tehom is ‘the deep under’ (Gen. xlix. 25), “the deep that coucheth beneath’ (Deut. xxiii. 13). Against this profusion of parallel material from the east and south-east for the waters under the earth, there is no Dble Greek evidence apart from Thales. The naive Greek jon of a river Okeanos surrounding the earth (ch. 1 §2) is not comparable (for it is clear that there is no Okeanos under the ough it was probably a much earlier development, in a rection, of the widely-diffused near-éastern generic con- cept ofthe earth rising in the midst of the primeval waters ~ a concept inly not native to the Greek-speaking peoples, whose home before the migrations into the Greek peninsula lay far from the 9 although the isolated references in Iliad book xrv (8 and 9) to Ol as origin of all things were also probably based same near-eastern concept, from a slightly different aspect, on water, unlikely to have been the orig assertion oft ‘any more general contention that the earth came from, ined by, water, Thales would no doubt be encouraged and gratified to have the apparently native Homeric precedents. Thus Thales’ view that the earth floats on water seems to have been most probably based upon direct contact with near- eastern mythological cosmology. We have already seen that he had associations both with Babylonia and with Egypt. The idea that the tually floats upon water was more clearly and more widely the latter of these countries; and the conjecture might be that Thales was indebted to Egypt for this element of his world-picture.#* ateque eius fact (For be [Thales] sid that ‘he world shld wp by var and ride ikea chip, ond when its sid to “quake” is actualy aching because ofthe weate?’s movement.) The cosmological scope of the idea is, howeve to conclude from Aristotle's inform: is implicit i Homeric Okeanos-passages which are thought to be based o' mythologies. Thales may have rationalized the idea from a Greck ately on the Aristotelian formulation, and that about Thales, and that indirectly, would surely have 93,PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHERS found the mere information that the world originated from water sufficient justification for saying that water was Thales’ mater principle or épxf, with the implication that water is a persistent Substrate. It must be emphasized once more that nosuch development was necessary, and th implicit in the near-eastern concepts which were ultim: ard have held that the world originated from an indefini water, on which it stil floats and which is s for certain natural phenomena, without also believing that e rocks, trees or men are in any way made of water or a form of water. "There would be a remote ancestral connexion, no more. On the other entirely new inference jent ofall things. Certainly his near successor Anaximenes believed that all things were made of air (but he had thought of a way in which this could be so: air takes on Gifferent forms when compressed or rarefied), and it is invariably assumed that he was extending and refining a line of though physiological reasons instanced by Ari depend on water for nourishment, that the sperm are of a kind that might Thales. ions (e.g. the Homeric statement that the surrounding Okeanos is the source of all springs and 1 they ‘could have led him to the conclusion that water, as well as being the cosmogonical source, is also involved in the very essence of the developed world. On the other hand one must remain aware of the possibility that Aristotle was simply making his own kind of inference, in the absence of other information, from Thales’ belief that the world originated from water and that water still plays a major part in the ‘cosmos by supporting the earth 2 Thales would have accepted Sim judgement (in Phys. 458, 23, im, értipov; though for Thales this would rea and not infinite’, and bea natural assumption jus was more seriously Anaximenes, generated Il have struck ‘wo things, then, have emerged from the present discussion: ings are water’ is not necessarily a reliable summary of Thales’ of THALES cosmological views; and (ii) even if we do accept Aristotle's account (with some allowance, in any event, for his inevitably altered i -a of how things were felt to be essentially the world is full of gods de an. Aa, 4o5atg fome BE ai Goris, & av rroummyovetous, KUnTKey wh THY Yui Grohapelv, emep Thy AiBov 89m yuxiv Exerw ui Tv oiBnpov Kivel. (Gi), Buen apparently inanimate things can be ali go Diogenes Laertius 1, 24 ‘ApiototéAns 8% Kai ‘hriflas gaciv aarrav wai Tois dyoxors werabibdvan yUXATs, Texuaipouevoy Be TFs “iis uayviribos xat rod Aer pou. Qt Aristotle dean. Ag, 41127 _ wal dv 76 Shep BE Tes atrriy (sc. Thy Wuxtiv) paneyBal qaot, S6ev Foeas Kal Oadiis dion névra TAAPN Sed ev. Thales, too, seems, fro they relate, to have supposed the soul was something ithe said that the [Magnesian] stone possesses soul because it moves iror 90 Aristotle and Hippias say that he gave a share of soul even to inanimate lit, soulless} objects, wing Magnesian stone and gx And some say that it [soul] is intermingled in the universe, for which reason, perhaps, Thales also thought that all things are fall of gods. oh ‘The two passages from Ari le's de anima allow us to conjecture, but no more, about Thales’ vision of the whole world as somehow alive and animated. Aristotle himself was reporting second-hand evidence, and his statements are jejune and cautious (although in 8g etrep need not, and probably does not, express doubt, while fowss in gx qualifies 88cv and not the assertion that follows). The concluding words of 9x, things are full of gods’, occur also in Plato, in a probably unattributed quotation.* go cites the sophist and earlier source than AristoUe for Thales’ source here? 4 g2 Plato Laws 10, G99n 108! dors rairea Suohoydw moped wi Ge evan swhiipn wav; (Ts tei anne who will accept tis and maintain tha fill of gods?) The context deals with souls being called g 95PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHERS style to introduce, rather laboriously, a familiar phrase to enlighten an unfamiliar argument ofhis own, without naming the author. His use ofthe wards in ques ‘because itshows that they are aotsimpl speech) be a genuine quotation fom Tae ted at Hippas was quite posibly uding the comparizon wit tide ideas on Okeanos ee (1c 12). The agent of Hipias quoted by Glement, DK.a636, shows that he made a calletion of key passages on topics tinge and Greek and other prose-soures. $e was therefore the earliest systematic doxographer All that Aristotle seems to have known in 89 was that Thales thought that magnetic stone possesses soul because itis able to move bot the farther inference tha for Thales thesoul was something nether it was associated with sally regarded as the source he can move has become permanently 30, and the soul” that goes squeaking down to Hades in Homer isa mere shadow, because it is dissociated from the body and can no longer tendency to regard rivers, as somehow animated or inhabited by this is partly, though not wholly, because they seem to possess the faculty ofselfmovement and change, they differ from mere stocks and stones. Thales’ attitude was not primitive, of course, but there isa connexion with that entirely unphilosophical ani be noted, however, that his examples are of a fe as could be, and cannot move or ind of external object. Thus Thales appears to have made explicit, in an extreme form, a way of thi that permeated Greek mythology but whose ultimate origins were chat our second piece of specific information, gr, is a generalization bas Jusion that certain kinds of apparently inanimate object are > possess soul, because ‘All things are full of god: gods are that they are immor their power (their life-force, ted, it extends both over the animate and over the inanimate world, Thus the assertion may well imply (since even apparently dead things like stone may 96 2 power s extent and variation, be regarded as divine, as due to the therence of some form of immortal ya. Or of daimons, according to the paraphrase in Aetius after Theophrastus: 93, IJ. 11 ads voby ToD xogUOU Toy Geb, 7 BE MEY EuyXOY ve Xot Apes Sifeay BE ve 81 Tod oTengeSbous Uypod Sivan Seley saunruchy ebro0. (Thales said thatthe mind of the world és god, and that the sum of ‘things is ecole, and fl of damon; right though the cementel moisture thse pet ‘The juctapesition of the two statements from Aristotle buted to Thales by Compare, perhaps, the le thing in it is absurd, so rAjpns in Greek could mean ‘containing a great number of", as well a5 ‘absolutely filled out by’. A priori it perhaps seems more probable that Thales sum (rather than each single 1 interpenetrated by some kind of though there would be many kinds of matter from wt power, might be absent. The point was 97PRESOGRATIC PHILOSOPHERS life, was much greater than it appeared to be. Thales was giving an ‘plicit and individual statement of a broad presupposition Gommon to all the early physicists, that the world was somehow alive, that it underwent spontaneous change, and (what irritated Aristotle) that there was therefore no need to give any special account of natural change. This presupposition isstill sometimes called ‘hylozoism’; but this name implies too strongly that it is something uniform, determinable, and conscious. In fact the term applies to at least three possible and distinct attitudes of mind: (a) the assumption (conscious or not) that all things absolutely are in some way that the world is interpenetrated by life, that many ofits parts which appear inanimate are in fact animate; (¢) the tendency to treat the ‘world as.a whole, whatever its detailed constitution, as a single living organism. (a) 8 an extreme, but in view of the universalizing tendency of Greek thought not an impossible, form of the general presupposition; in a way it might be said to be exemplified by Xenophanes. Thales’ belief, it has been suggested, approaches close ‘o (8). (o)isimplicit in the old genealogical view of the world’s history described in chapter 1, which still persisted to some extent under the new rationalized form of philosophical cosmogony. Aristotle at his most perspicuous in 116, where, perhaps with Thales es in mind, he shows himself aware of the possibility of this kind of attitude.” 1 "The spears in the Hiad (2a, 574 ete) which are “eager to devour flesh’, and other similar cases, are sometimes cited as an indi at the animistic view (was an old one. Animism is, of course as old as man himself, and it arises out Of the failure to objecify one's experience ofthe outside world, a technique which feajuires some practice. The Homeric expressions are better described as alterary Conceit, like the pathetic fallacy ~2 deliberate rejection of the technique. concLuston ‘Thales was chiefly known for his prowess as a practical astronomer, geometer, and sage in general. His prediction of the eclipse was probably made feasible by his use of Babylonian records, perhaps obtained at Sardis; he also probably visited Egypt. His theory that the earth floats on water scems to have been derived from near-eastern ‘cosmogonical myths, perhaps directly; water as the origin of things ‘was also a part of these myths, but had been mentioned in a Greek context long before Thales. His development of this concept may in itself have seemed to Aristotle sufficient warrant for saying that ‘Thales held water to be the Spxii, in its Peripatetic sense of a 8 THALES claim that he was the first philosopher, naive though his thought still Further, he noticed that even certain kinds of stone ited power of movement and there soul; the world as a whole, consequent (though probably not completely) by naturally, because of its extent and its persistence, be called divine. Whether he associated this life-force with water, the origin and perhaps the essential constituent of the world, we are not told. 99