[PHILOSOPHY] SCHWAB The new Thales of Miletus Towards a History of the Representations of the Figure an his Ideas

Prévia do material em texto

Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 1 
The ‚new’ Thales of Miletus: 
Towards a History of the Representation/s of the Figure an his Ideas 
 
Introduction 
 
To understand why I risk speaking about the “new” Thales of Miletus I have structured my 
paper into three parts: first (1) I will give an outline of the foundations of the research on 
Thales. Then, I will present the new collection of testimonies about Thales which has been 
prepared at the University of Trier for the new series “Traditio Praesocratica. Textual 
Evidence on Early Greek Philosophy and its continuation.” In the second part (2) I will 
explain the focus of my new approach to the testimonies. It mainly consists in a study of the 
representation/s of Thales and his ideas in all the testimonies from the 6th century BC to the 
Medieval Period. (3) In the third part of my paper I would like to illustrate this approach by 
analysing and commenting on some testimonies about Thales in the Latin tradition. 
 
Part I 
The 19th and 20th century foundations of the study of Thales 
With regard to the history of research on Thales in the 20th century I will focus in particular 
on the main collection of testimonies about Thales. 
 
1. The collection of Hermann Diels and others 
The history of research on the first of the so-called Ionian philosophers in the 20th century is 
at first glance enormous.1 There are for instance a lot of different publications dealing with 
the problem of the reported prediction of the sun by Thales as well as many reconstructions 
and explanations about the content and the reasons for the “water-as-first-principle” thesis, 
ascribed to Thales in the Greek as well as in the Latin tradition; not to mention all the 
handbook articles and works of histories of philosophy concerning early Greek philosophy, 
science and religion. 
Nevertheless, with regard to the philological basis of all publications the collection of “the 
fragments of the Presocratic Philosophers” (in German: “Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker”), 
first published by Hermann Diels in 1903, marks one decisive step in this history of research 
 
1
 See Paquet/Lafrance (Vol. 1, 1988), Les Présocratiques: Bibliographie Analytique (1879-1980), 325-341 and 
Luis E. Navia (1993), The Presocratic Philosophers, An annotated Bibliography, 599-617. 
 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 2 
until today.2 Although Diels published two fundamental and influential works before this 
collection (in 1879 the highly important work “Doxographi Graeci”3 as an attempt to 
reconstruct the so-called “Doxographic tradition” and in 1901 the “Poetarum philosophorum 
Fragmenta”) his “Fragmente der Vorsokratiker” remained - in particular for the research in 
Thales - the standard reference work until today. 
 
Some remarks about Diels’ Collection 
One of Diels`main interests in preparing this collection was a practical and didactical one: it 
was originally intended to serve as a textual basis for the teaching of students in Greek 
Philosophy. In the opening paragraph of his preface to the first edition in 1903 Diels 
explained, that “the present book is at first determined to be taken as a basis for lectures about 
Greek Philosophy.”(VS 1903).4 One should be aware of this, in particular when one considers 
the subsequent great influence of the collection on the whole scholarly world.5 
Likewise we have to keep in mind that Diels himself was fully aware that he offered – at least 
in the case of the testimonies (named by the letter “A”) - only a selection (“Auswahl”). In his 
Preface (“Vorrede”) to the second edition of the VS in 1906 he points out the limitations of 
his collection with the following words: 
The selection I have undertaken took me more time and difficulty than if I had sent 
my whole collection of material to the printing office. But I think that by this 
limitation to the essential and old I did a service to the beginners, but not only to 
those. My intention was, to bring merely the grain into the barn, and to leave the straw 
outside, even at the risk of good corn remaining here and there.”6 
 
2
 Diels, H., ed. (1903) Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Berlin, rev. eds. 2 vol. 1906, 1912 and Diels, H., Kranz, 
W., eds., Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (3 vol. 1934-7; 61952 and later repr.). See Walter Burkert (1999), 
“Diels` Vorsokratiker Rückschau und Ausblick“ in: W.M. Calder/J. Mansfeld, eds., Hermann Diels (1848-1922) 
et la Science de l`Antiquité, Fondation Hardt pour l`Étude de l`Antiquité classique, Entretiens Tome XLV, 
Vandoevres-Genève, 169-197, Discussion, 198-206, and G.W. Most (1995), “Polemos panton pater”. Die 
Vorsokratiker in der Forschung der zwanziger Jahre”, in: Altertumswissenschaft in den 20er Jahren, ed. by H. 
Flashar (Stuttgart 1995), 87-114. 
3
 See Jaap Mansfeld, “Doxographi Graeci” in W.M.Calder/J.Mansfeld (1999) 143-164, Discussion 165-8, and 
Jaap Mansfeld / D. T. Runia, Aëtiana. The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer, Volume One. The 
Sources (Leyden, New York, Cologne, Brill, 1997). For the influence of Diels’ Doxographi Graeci as well as 
Zellers’ History of Philosophy see e.g. the Preface (v-vi) to the first edition of the influential “Early Greek 
Philosophy” of John Burnet in 1892. In his preface (v) Burnet mentions “the great authority of Zeller, who was 
the first to recall the history of philosophy from the extravagances into which it had wandered earlier in the 
century.” 
4
 H. Diels, VS (1903), Vorrede zur ersten Auflage: “Das vorliegende Buch ist zunächst bestimmt, Vorlesungen 
über griechische Philosophie zugrunde gelegt zu werden.“ 
5
 See for instance the Italian translation by Antonio Maddalena (1963), Ionici, Testimonianze e Frammenti. 
A whole italian translation of the Diels/Kranz appeared in 2006, edited in the series “Il pensiero occidentale”, I 
presocratici, Testimonianze e frammenti, by Giovanni Reale et al. (Milano 2006). 
6
 „Die getroffene Auswahl hat mich mehr Zeit und Mühe gekostet, als wenn ich mein gesammeltes Material 
vollständig in die Druckerei gesandt hätte. Ich glaube aber gerade durch diese Beschränkung auf das 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 3 
The leading idea behind his work was to reconstruct as authentically as possible “the original 
doctrine” of the Pre-Socratic philosophers. One point of criticism is that it is not always clear 
why he included sometimes this testimony and sometimes excluded another one. Nevertheless 
whoever seriously considered working on Thales in the 20th Century until now was glad to 
have Diels` collection to which he could easily refer: either to some of the reviewed editions 
of the VS by Diels or later to the editions prepared by his former student Walter Kranz or to 
some translations or more limited selections of testimonies always based on the work of 
Diels/Kranz.7 
With regard to the two Milesians Anaximander and Anaximenes, there appeared at least other 
collections of the testimonies and translations with specific commentaries: for instance the 
collection and commentary by Charles Kahn (Anaximander and the Origins of Greek 
Cosmology, 1960) or the French translation with a commentary by Marcel Conche 
(Anaximandre, Fragments et Témoignages, 1991) and in the case of Anaximenes the 
collection with a German translation and commentary by Georg Wöhrle in 1993, only in a 
few cases enriched with some new testimonies. 
In the case of Thales there is for instance an Italian collection by Antonio Maddalena “I 
Ionici” (1963), which is in fact the first Italian translation of Diels/Kranz concerning the 
Milesians and which presents consequently the testimonies in the same numeration as Diels,with some notes.8 There are also many selections that are more limited, for example the 
translated selection of testimonies with a commentary by Kirk and Raven (later also 
Schofield), first published in 1957 (The Presocratic Philosophers, A Critical History with a 
selection of texts) or the Handbook prepared by Richard McKirahan (Philosophy before 
Socrates, An introduction with Texts and Commentary in 1994). 
However, although some scholars9 realized and criticized the fact, that the collection of Diels` 
is a selection and for this reason naturally incomplete,10 nobody else after Diels made 
profound innovations to the foundations of research into Thales by producing a new and more 
 
Wesentliche und Alte den Anfängern, und nicht nur diesen, einen Dienst geleistet zu haben. Es war meine 
Absicht, nur die Ähren in die Scheune zu fahren, das Stroh aber draußen zu lassen, selbst auf die Gefahr hin, 
dass hier und da ein gutes Korn darin bliebe.“ 
7
 Diels, H., ed. (1903) Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Berlin, rev. eds. 2 vol. 1906, 1912. Diels, H., Kranz, 
W., eds., Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (3 vol. 1934-7; 61952 and later repr.). 
8
 Antonio Maddalena (1963), Ionici, Testimonianze e Frammenti. A whole italian translation of the Diels/Kranz 
appeared in 2006, edited in the series “Il pensiero occidentale”, I presocratici. Testimonianze e frammenti, 
Giovanni Reale et al. (eds.), (Milano 2006). See also the french translation Les Présocratiques, ed. by Jean-Paul 
Dumont, Jean-Louis Poirier et Daniel Delattre (Gallimard, 1988 et réimpressions) and also Kathleen Freeman, 
The Pre-Socratic Philosophers, A Companion to Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (1946). 
9
 See in particular Dicks, “Thales” in The Classical Quarterly 9 (1959), 294-309. 
10
 Cf. the Preface of Diels to the second edition of the VS in 1906, which contains some decisive sentences for 
the comprehension of his collection. 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 4 
complete collection of the testimonies (as Serge Mouraviev did with his great work 
Heraclitea for Heraclitus). For this reason, Diels’ VS collection and selection has determined 
research in Thales and has widely established the “image” of Thales as we have had it until 
now.11 
 
2. The new collection “Traditio Praesocratica” 
At the end of this year 2008 (or at least at the beginning of 2009) a new collection of the 
testimonies on Thales will replace the collection of Diels/Kranz in the case of Thales, at least 
in some respects. This new collection of testimonies, undertaken for the Greek and Latin 
tradition by Georg Wöhrle of the University of Trier and for the Arabic tradition by Gotthard 
Strohmeier from the Academy of sciences in Berlin, contains almost all testimonies of the 
Greek and Latin tradition about Thales from the 5th century BC to the Medieval Period as well 
as most testimonies of the Arabic tradition (from the 9th to the 14th century AD).12 In 
preparation is also a new collection for Anaximander as well as for Anaximenes (in 2009/10). 
While these collections will be accompanied by commentaries in the new series “Studia 
Praesocratica”, I am preparing the commentary for the testimonies on Thales. The first 
volume of the Traditio Praesocratica as well as the others will be translated in English by 
Richard McKirahan in the next few years. 
 
It seems useful to point out at least two main differences of the new collection to that of 
Diels`: first, a methodological one, which implies the second difference, which concerns the 
number and extent of the collected and presented testimonies. 
1) The first methodological difference is that the new collection tries to avoid as far as 
possible presenting a selection or a “reconstructive selection” of testimonies about Thales.13 
Reconstruction is important and still possible of course; but the editors of the new collection 
are more interested in documenting the history of the reception of the figure of Thales as well 
as his ideas in the various contexts.14 
2) This leads to the second difference which concerns evidently the number and extent of the 
collected testimonies. While the collection of Diels contained (on not more than 14 pages) 
about 40 testimonies about Thales - and inclusive all the indicated parallels, we could say in 
 
11
 It should be mentioned that at least a small number of scholars made use of some testimonies which were not 
mentioned in the Diels/Kranz. 
12
 The Greek tradition is documented from Herodotus to the Gnomologium Vaticanum, while the Latin tradition 
reaches from Plautus to Albertus Magnus as well as the Arabic Tradition from Qusta ibn Luqa (9th century) to 
the 16th century. 
13
 See Traditio Praesocratica (2008) Preface of Georg Wöhrle. 
14
 See Traditio Praesocratica (2008) Preface. G. Wöhrle remarks that the new collection is in particular interested 
in documenting the “Wirkungsgeschichte“. 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 5 
total no more than 100 testimonies (the greater part in Greek), the new collection contains 
about 600 Greek and Latin as well as about 40 Arabic testimonies about Thales. 
This remarkable difference concerns in particular the Imperial Period, Late Antiquity and the 
Medieval Period. For instance the number of testimonies of two interesting groups enlarged 
greatly: the first group of authors are the Greek and Latin Christian authors, now with about 
65 Greek and 37 Latin testimonies15, the second group are the so called Commentators in 
Aristotle, to begin with Alexander of Aphrodisias until John Philoponus in the 6th century, 
who mention the name of Thales several times, in total at least 70 references. 
 To cut a long story short, I will summarize the essential guiding principles of the new 
collection which are as follows16: 
(1) Completeness; this means to be as complete as possible in documenting the testimonies, 
beginning from the 5th century B.C. to the 14th century A.D.; one limitation should however 
be mentioned: (except for a few cases) only texts in which the name of Thales is explicitly 
mentioned are collected and documented as testimonies. 
(2) The Presentation of the testimonies in a chronological order and in many cases with more 
context; 
(3) All Greek and Latin texts are presented as far as possible on the basis of critical editions 
and will be presented with a German translation. There is also an apparatus for “Similia” (e.g. 
water-thesis), so that the reader is enabled to see different stages of the reception of certain 
ideas and attributes ascribed to Thales; 
(4) To document as well as possible rather than to evaluate or to pre-select the Greek and 
Roman textual tradition about Thales: there is for instance no longer a division between 
“more valuable” or for instance so called “false testimonies” (the category of “fallacies”, 
named by the letter “C” in Diels). This means that it is up to the competent reader and scholar 
to make his own evaluation of the respective testimonies. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
15
 A great part of the testimonies of the Christian Authors were contained or at least indicated in the Doxographi 
Graeci (1879) by H. Diels, but not in the VS. 
16
 Cf. Traditio Praesocratica (2008) Preface. 
 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 6 
Part II 
Towards a History of the Representations of Thales an his Ideas 
A new approach to the testimonies 
Having outlined on the one hand the deep influence of Diels’ collection on the history of 
research on Thales until now,and on the other hand mentioned the new textual basis for the 
study in Thales due to the new collection of testimonies in 2008, I would like to present my 
new approach to this huge number of about 600 testimonies. Because having finished the 
collection and documentation of this huge amount of testimonies to Thales, a deeper research 
on these testimonies and particularly an evaluation as well as an interpretation of these is 
required. Therefore my main interest consists in a study of the representation of the figure of 
Thales and his ideas in all the various testimonies and their contexts from the 5th century BC 
to the 14th century A.D. In particular I will study the neglected and often unknown testimonies 
about Thales of the Imperial Period and Late Antiquity which have not been sufficiently 
analysed until today. 
I would like to clarify now my object of research by explaining first what I mean by the terms 
“testimony” and “representation”. 
 
First some clarification about the term “testimony”: I should draw your attention to a special 
characteristic concerning the textual tradition of Thales. Since all references to Thales (or 
more precisely to the name of Thales) originate from later secondary reports, accounts or 
short allusions, there is not a single fragment of any of his works, either genuine or dubious, 
as in the cases of Empedocles or Parmenides. Therefore it seems reasonable to name the 
collected and documented texts which refer to Thales “testimonies”, because they testify at 
least explicitly to his name in relation to other attributes and elements, for instance his 
interests in astronomy or his role in early Greek Philosophy. 
 
The double sense of testimonies 
To this first clarification about the term “testimony” I would like to make a further distinction 
by the more general thesis that every testimony about an early Greek Philosopher seems to be 
always a testimony in a double sense: on the one hand of course (1) a testimony about the 
relevant early Greek thinker and his possible doctrine, on the other hand also no less (2) a 
testimony about the writing and alluding author as well as his attitude towards Thales. 
It seems that the great part of research on the testimonies to Thales and its efforts until now 
were concentrated on the first sense in understanding the term “testimony”, i.e. in a reading of 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 7 
the testimonies which focussed on the possible doctrine of Thales, motivated by the 
conviction to outline or to reconstruct his “original doctrine”. In my approach I will rather 
concentrate my attention to the second sense of the term “testimony”, that is to pay attention 
to the writing and alluding authors as well as their attitude towards Thales in the respective 
different contexts and times. 
 
The term “representation” 
Because of this - at a first glance - slight change of attention I will not talk about the 
reconstruction of a or the “original doctrine of Thales” (which means for the most modern 
authors the more or less accordance with Aristotle’s reports and accounts on Thales), I will 
rather talk about the representation of Thales and his ideas. I am convinced that we are able 
and allowed to utter serious sentences and opinions about the representation of Thales: 
meaning at first how Thales is presented in the different testimonies and contexts, for instance 
in Herodotus, Aristotle, Cicero as well as in Eusebius and Augustine. We are enabled to 
analyse the attitude and perspective of the respective author towards the figure of Thales. 
 
To study now the representations of Thales and his ideas in these double testimonies 
presupposes that we reflect on the question how one should appropriately approach these 
testimonies. How should one analyse the representation/s of Thales in the diverse texts of 
different genres and different eras? 
I will briefly outline a four-step-methodology which concerns mainly two areas: the micro 
and the macro (or wider)-context of a testimony. 
First there are questions referring to what I will call the “micro context” of a testimony, which 
in most cases refers to the length of the testimony in the collection, and secondly some 
questions on what could be called the “macro context” of the testimony in the wider context 
of a work and of an author. 
 
Step 1 Analyzing and Listing Attributes 
First I ask within the micro context of a testimony: What information is given about Thales in 
this testimony? For the occurring and often recurring elements or motives, which are 
attributed in the variety of the 600 testimonies (for instance, Thales as one of the Seven Sages, 
his name related to the report of the water-thesis or the prediction of the eclipse) I will apply 
the notion “attribute” or its plural “attributes“. This term shall serve as a first formal approach 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 8 
to the testimonies. Later it may serve as a point of departure for comparisons.17 So having 
listed the attributes, one can also see which of the attributes, occurring in one testimony, are 
already known in the preceding Greek or Latin tradition and also if there are any new 
attributes. On this first level the attributes of the testimony will be identified, analysed, and 
listed. Then we will ask how the occurring elements are related to each other and combined. 
 
Step 2 Respecting the Context 
In a second step I will pay attention to the fact that every reference to Thales stands in a 
specific context. Philip van der Eijk explained correctly in his valuable introduction to his 
collection of the fragments of Diocles of Carystus about the important role of context: 
One of the most striking developments in fragment collecting over the last hundred 
years is the increasing importance attached to the context in which a fragment is 
embedded. This reflects the growing scholarly awareness of the role of the reporting 
author in the transmission of another author’s ideas.18 
Replacing the name of “Diocles” by the name of “Thales” and the notion of “fragment” by 
“testimony” I would like to cite some of van der Eijk’s valuable reflections, which outline 
some of the important questions which should be raised about the context of any testimony. 
 
In principle, 
that it is of vital importance for the interpretation of a particular testimony, say, about 
Thales, to consider who the reporting author is, what his intellectual background is, 
what his agenda is, in what literary genre he is writing and for what audience, how he 
comes to speak of Thales, why he is interested in Thales, for what purpose he refers to 
Thales, what his source or sources for Thales’ views are and how well or badly 
informed he is about them, etc. These considerations are often highly relevant to the 
understanding of the testimony itself in one way or another;19 
 
Concerning the macro-context of any testimony these questions should be raised. I will ask: In 
what kind of context does the reference (“Bezugnahme”) to Thales occur? For instance, in 
what part and what kind of text and under what rubric does the author refer to Thales? A 
reference to Thales and the attributes ascribed to him can have and create completely different 
meanings in different kind of contexts. For instance a polemical and apologetic Christian 
 
17
 See in particular Step 4, Comparing synchronically and diachronically. 
18
 See Philip J. van der Eijk (2000), Diocles of Carystos, Vol. I, Introduction, xvii. 
19
 Philip J. van der Eijk, Diocles of Carystus, A Collection of the Fragments with Translation and Commentary, 
Vol. I, Text and Translation, xvii. 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 9 
treatise of the thirdcentury A.D. with a reference to Thales creates an obviously different 
context in comparison to a letter of art with a reference to Thales as one of the Seven Sages, 
demonstrating the authors’ high culture in the late sixth century Latin culture A.D. Therefore 
Kidd, in his methodological reflection about “What is a Posidonian Fragment” remarks that 
“not just the immediate context, but the whole context of the writer’s operation”20 must be 
understood. And from an idealistic perspective, he adds: 
 
To understand one fragment from Seneca, ideally one should have read the whole 
Seneca (or Plutarch, or Cicero, or Strabo, or whoever). They all operate differently, 
write and argue according to their own habits. This requirement applies not only to 
discursive writers, but compilers as well. [.] Even in a single reporter different parts 
may be different.21 
 
By taking this second step one should determine the larger context as much as possible. 
 
Step 3 Analysing the argumentative function 
Having paid attention to (1) the attributes and (2) the wider context one can try to determine 
what role or argumentative function the attributes and the reference to Thales will fulfil in the 
testimony and its wider context. For what reasons did the author refer to Thales and how does 
he use the attributes in respect to his special context and interest? 
For instance, the reference to Thales’ reported Phoenician origins as well as his travels to 
Egypt are mentioned in different contexts and times, be it a historical account, a lexicon 
article, a scholion or a Christian apologetic treatise. In every case these attributes can fulfil 
different argumentative-functions, for example in the latter case of a Christian Apology (like 
Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica) the attributes could be used as an argument against the 
Non-Christians in order to show that the so called “first Greek Philosophers” gained their 
knowledge from other nations or were themselves of “barbarian origins” and so, finally, 
Greek philosophy might have had Non-Greek origins. 
 
Step 4 Comparing Synchronically and Diachronically 
Having analysed one special testimony in its micro and macro context, it would be interesting 
to consider the material analysed in a forth step (4) by comparison: first, in respect to other 
 
20
 I.G. Kidd, „What is a Posidonian Fragment?“ in Aporemata 1: Collecting Fragments – Fragmente sammeln, 
ed. by Glenn Most, 225-236, 232. 
21
 I.G. Kidd (1997) 232. 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 10 
references in the authors work - supposing that there are any further testimonies. Then, two 
other kinds of comparisons are obvious: on the one hand by a synchronical comparison, i.e. a 
comparison to the testimonies about Thales in other authors of the same time and on the other 
hand by a diachronical comparison, i.e. a comparison to the testimonies about Thales from 
other times. 
 
One may ask: But by following this approach and taking the four steps, will we gain new 
insights? And particularly new insights about Thales? 
I think we will gain further insights, at least twofold: 
(1) Knowledge about the interests and methods of the different authors who refer to Thales; 
This knowledge could be no less useful for the studies of other early Greek philosophers. 
(2) Knowledge about the similarity and also the differences in the representation of Thales 
through the times; to see that “the image of Thales” depends to a certain degree to the 
respective author, his context and his time; and to see that the image of Thales is a also a 
matter of debate, of different understandings, evaluations and interpretations. 
 
I would like to illustrate my four-step-methodology in a short case-study. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 11 
Part III 
Illustrating my approach 
1.1 Augustine of Hippo (354-430) 
I will start with a Latin testimony of the Christian Author and church father Augustine of 
Hippo. The great oeuvre of Augustine contains in total five testimonies on Thales in two of 
his works: while four references to Thales are found in de civitate dei (The City of God), one 
testimony is part of his letter Contra Iulianum. I will focus on one testimony, which occurs in 
a passage of the eight book (VIII.2) of his great apologetic, theological and historical work 
The City of God. This testimony of Augustine22 shall serve as a first example for illustrating 
my four-step-approach. Both, the Latin and the English text contain an analysis of the 
attributes (= step1) with the following abbreviations: 
L = Life 
S = Scripture 
 A = Astronomy 
 P = Philosophy 
 
De civitate Dei 8.2 (ed. Dombart/ Kalb) 
 
[L] The founder of the Ionic school, again, was [L] Thales of Miletus, [L] one of those seven 
who were styled the “seven sages,” of whom six were distinguished by the kind of life they 
lived, and by certain maxims which they gave forth for the proper conduct of life. Thales [L] 
was distinguished as an investigator into the nature of things; and, [L] in order that he might 
have successors in his school, [S] he committed his dissertations to writing. That, however, 
which especially rendered him [L] eminent was [A] his ability, by means of astronomical 
calculations, [A] even to predict eclipses of the sun and moon. He thought, however, [P1] that 
water was the first principle of things, and that of it all the elements of the world, the world 
itself, and all things which are generated in it, ultimately consist. [P2] Over all this work, 
however, which, when we consider the world, appears so admirable, he set nothing of the 
nature of divine mind. [L] To him succeeded [L] Anaximander, his pupil, who held a different 
opinion concerning the nature of things; for he did not hold that all things spring [P3] from 
one principle, as Thales did, who held that principle to be water, but thought that each thing 
springs from its own proper principle.23 
 
22
 The passage is quoted by Diels in his DG (1879), 173-4. While the testimony is shortly mentioned for instance 
in E. Zeller (21856) Vol.1, 151 note 6, in A. B. Lebedev (1979, article in Russian about the reconstruction of the 
cosmogony of Thales) 57 and C. Kahn (1960) 28, 39, 42, 47 ff., it is neither mentioned nor discussed in the great 
monograph about Thales by Patricia O’ Grady (2002). 
23
 English Translation by the Rev. Marcus Dods (1871), Glasgow, Vol. II. The Early Church Fathers. 
[L] Ionici uero generis princeps fuit Thales [L] Milesius, [L] unus illorum septem, qui sunt appellati sapientes. 
Sed illi sex uitae genere distinguebantur et quibusdam praeceptis ad bene uiuendum accommodatis; iste autem 
Thales,23 [L] ut successores etiam propagaret, [L] rerum naturam scrutatus [S] suasque disputationes litteris 
mandans [L] eminuit maximeque admirabilis extitit, [A] quod astrologiae numeris conprehensis [A] defectus 
solis et lunae etiam praedicere potuit. [P1] Aquam tamen putauit rerum esse principium et hinc omnia elementa 
mundi ipsumque mundum et quae in eo gignuntur existere. [P2] Nihil autem huic operi, quod mundo considerato 
tam mirabile aspicimus, ex diuina mente praeposuit. [L] Huic successit Anaximander, eius auditor, mutavitque 
de rerum natura opinionem. Non enim [P3] ex una re, sicut Thales ex umore, sed ex suis propriis principiis 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 12 
Step 1 Analysing the Attributes 
 
The following attributes are found in this testimony: 
 
L Founder of the Ionic school 
L from Miletus 
L One of the seven Sages 
L Distinguished(eminuit) 
L Investigator into the nature of things (rerum naturam scrutatus) 
S Committed his dissertations on writing (suasque disputations litteris mandans) 
A1 Eminent by means of his astronomical calculations 
A2 Ability to predict eclipses of the sun and moon 
P1 Water-as-first-principle-thesis (aquam putavit initium rerum esse principum) 
P2 No assumption of a divine mind (nihil [.] ex divina mente praeposuit) 
L Anaximander as successor (successit Anaximander) 
P3 Assumption of humidity (umor) 
 
There does not seem to be any new attribute in the Latin tradition, except one, to which it will 
be interesting to draw our attention: the explicit remark (P2), that Thales did not presuppose a 
divine mind (Nihil autem huic operi, quod mundo considerato tam mirabile aspicimus, ex 
divina mente praeposuit.) Another remarkable element (S) is that Augustine does not have 
any doubts about the writings of Thales. 
 
Step 2 Respecting the (Macro-) Context 
The wider context of this passage is the 8th book of Augustines’ apologetic, philosophical and 
theological work, probably written between the years 413-427 A.D.. The City of God contains 
an evaluation and also criticism of the whole spectrum of Greek and Roman Religion and 
Polytheism. Books 8-10 however are dedicated to the natural theology, in particular the 
discussion with the Neoplatonic Philosophers. 
Augustine aims in particular to have a discussion with those philosophers who agree in the 
belief that there is a divine nature, and that this divine nature is concerned with human 
 
quasque res nasci putavit. Quae rerum principia singularum esse credidit infinita, et innumerabiles mundos 
gignere et quaecumque in eis oriuntur; eosque mundos modo dissolvi, modo iterum gigni existimavit, quanta 
quisque aetate sua manere potuerit; nec ipse aliquid divinae menti in his rerum operibus tribuens. Iste [sc. 
Anaximander] Anaximenen discipulum et successorem reliquit, qui omnes rerum causas aeri infinito dedit, nec 
deos negauit aut tacuit; non tamen ab ipsis aerem factum, sed ipsos ex aere ortos credidit. Anaxagoras uero eius 
auditor harum rerum omnium, quas uidemus, effectorem diuinum animum sensit et dixit ex infinita materia, quae 
constaret dissimilibus inter se particulis rerum omnium, similibus quibusque suis et propriis singula fieri, sed 
animo faciente diuino. Diogenes quoque Anaximenis alter auditor, aerem quidem dixit rerum esse materiam, de 
qua omnia fierent; sed eum esse compotem diuinae rationis, sine qua nihil ex eo fieri posset. Anaxagorae 
successit auditor eius Archelaus. etiam ipse de particulis inter se similibus, quibus singula quaeque fierent, ita 
putauit constare omnia, ut inesse etiam mentem diceret, quae corpora aeterna, id est illas particulas, coniungendo 
et dissipando ageret omnia. Socrates huius discipulus fuisse perhibetur, magister Platonis, propter quem breuiter 
cuncta ista recolui. 
 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 13 
affairs.24 He points out that there “is no one, who has even a slender knowledge of these 
things, who does not know of the Platonic philosophers, who derive their name from their 
master Plato. Concerning this Plato, then, I will briefly state such things as I deem necessary 
to the present question, mentioning beforehand those who preceded him in time in the same 
department of literature.”25 
Therefore the second chapter of book VIII opens with a short report about the Italian and 
Ionian School of Philosophy. Augustine mentions on the one hand only Pythagoras as founder 
of the Italian School, on the other hand not only Thales, as founder of the Ionian School, but 
also in the following succession Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras and Diogenes as 
disciples of Anaximenes, Archelaus as disciple of Anaxagoras, and finally Socrates as the 
“master of Plato”, as a disciple of Archelaus. It seems that the range of philosophers in VIII.2 
concentrates on those philosophers who can be shown to be precursors of Plato.26 
: 
From his own remarks and citations we know, that Augustine uses in the City of God several 
times material of the Latin tradition (e.g. Cicero, Varro or Apuleius), of the Greek tradition 
(e.g. the second part of the chronicle of Eusebius, the so-called Canons, in Jerome’ s Latin 
translation and continuation), but also knowledge of handbooks of philosophical doctrines.27 
Concerning the sources for the passage in book VIII.2 O’Daly points out that “Augustine has 
either adapted it to his own purpose, possibly from several sources, or he has had access to a 
Platonizing doxography” (O’ Daly 111).28 According to O’ Daly Augustine “undoubtedly also 
used handbooks of philosophical doctrines.29 At least one such handbook seems to be behind 
the historical survey of 8.2-4 and later doxographical chapters of Book 8, though Augustine 
does not name its author.”30 
 
 
 
 
24
 See VIII, End of Ch.1. 
25
 See VIII, End of Ch.1. 
26
 cf. O’ Daly (1999) Augustine’ s City of God, A Reader’ s Guide, 110. 
27
 See O’ Daly (1999) Ch. 11, Influences and Sources, 234-264, as well as for de civ. Dei VIII.1-2, 110-111, 
notes 12 and 13. 
28
 cf. G. O’ Daly (1999) 111. For the passage about Pythagoras the probable source may be Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 
5.8-10, cf. O’ Daly (1999, 110 and 240); for the whole variety of influences and sources see O’ Daly (1999) 234-
264. He also mentions that there are several further influences of Tusc. Disp. on points of details: the work seems 
to be an important source of Augustine’s knowledge of Greek philosophy (240), with reference to Hagendahl 
(1967) 510-6. 
29
 With reference to Solignac (1958) and Dillon (1993, The Handbook of Platonism). 
30
 O’ Daly (1999) 259. 
 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 14 
Step 3 Analysing the argumentative function 
The reference to Thales is embedded in a short overview of some chosen early Greek 
philosophers. After Pythagoras mentioned as the founder of the Italian direction of philosophy 
Thales is equally mentioned as the founder of the Ionic School which leads to Socrates as the 
master of Plato. Although Augustine seems to focus particularly on the question if the 
respective thinker assumed a divine mind or not, he opens with a short description of Thales 
(cf. L, S, A, P). His report about Thales is informative and seems to be rather descriptive than 
polemical. In his whole account Augustine seems to be interested in sketching the historical 
evolution of the concept of a divine mind. While according to Augustine Thales and 
Anaximander do not seem to assume a divine mind, Anaximenes however “neither denied nor 
ignored the existence of gods”31. In the further succession Augustine points out that 
Anaxagoras as the pupil of Anaximenes “perceived that a divine mind was the productive 
cause of all things which we see.” 
 
Step 4 Comparing Synchronically and Diachronically 
Synchronical 
In comparison with the other four references to Thales in Augustine`s City of God (in VIII, 5 
and XVIII, 24, 25, 37) one can notice that the treated passage in VIII.2 is the most informative 
and longest account about Thales. 
(a) In the next passage in book VIII.5 Thales is only shortly mentioned together with 
Anaximenes, the Stoics and Epicurus, but in this context in a more polemical sense; they are 
negatively compared with the great platonic philosophers32 and characterised as those who 
assume that the principles of nature (principia naturae) are corporal (corporalia). 
(b) The other three references to Thales (in XVIII, 24, 25, 37) occur in chronological contexts, 
in which Augustine refers onetime (XVIII, 25) explicitly to the Chronicle of Eusebius as his 
source (translated by Jerome) and ascribes the following attributes to Thales: 
L = one of the seven sages (septem sapientibus) 
L = date of his life 
L = physicist (physicus fuit) 
S = left books (suorum dogmatum libros reliquit) 
 
 
 
31
 “[.] but, so far from believing that the air was made by them, he (sc. Anaximenes) held, on the contrary, that 
they sprang from the air.” 
32
 VIII.5: “his tantis et tanti Dei cognitoribus viris” 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 15 
Diachronical 
(1) Compared for instance with the references to Thales and other early Greek philosophers in 
the works of the North African Christian and apologetic writer Tertullian, who wrote nearly 
200 years earlier, Augustine seems to be more moderate and less hostile in his treatment of 
Early Greek philosophy. In his account in book VIII.2 he seems to be more balanced and 
appears to be more descriptive. 
(2) Nevertheless by his account Augustine shows indirectly and by the way - like e.g. 
Tertullian, Clemens, Eusebius and Theodoretus - that the different Greek philosophers are not 
in accordance with each other (in Greek, the so-called diaphonia-argument, in Latin, the 
dissensio-argument).33 
 
(3) The third point we can notice in a diachronical perspective is a remarkable and interesting 
one. I will pay more attention to it because there is an important issue on debate, in particular 
if Thales might have assumed a divine mind (as for instance Cicero and other authors report) 
or not, as Augustine points out in his account. 
It seems worth to consider the clear and strong denial of Augustine (P2), that Thales assumed 
a divine mind. Because at a first glance this denial seems to disagree with a lot of other 
testimonies of the Latin as well as the Greek tradition before and after Augustine. To illustrate 
this fact I will shortly present the testimonies of the Latin tradition, in which a divine mind is 
explicitly ascribed to Thales. By the mere presentation of these testimonies I will not claim a 
possible dependency of the respective authors and texts. 
 
Testimonies of the Latin Tradition 
 
T76 Cicero, 
De natura deorum 1.25-26 (ed. Pease) 
 
 
Thales enim Milesius, qui primus de talibus rebus 
quaesivit, aquam dixit esse initium rerum, deum 
autem eam mentem quae ex aqua cuncta fingeret 
(si dei possunt esse sine sensu). 
 
T226 Minucius Felix, 
Octavius 19.4-5 (ed. Kytzler) 
 
 
sit Thales Milesius omnium primus, qui primus 
omnium de caelestibus disputavit. idem Milesius 
Thales rerum initium aquam dixit, deum autem 
eam mentem, quae ex aqua cuncta formaverit. 
esto34 altior et sublimior aquae et spiritus ratio, 
 
33
 Cf. for the terms see J. Mansfeld “Philosophy in the service of Scripture: Philo’s exegetical strategies”, in J.M. 
Dillon/A.A. Long (1988), 70-102, 89-102, esp. 89, notes 36 and 37. 
34
 eo: cod. esto coniecit Vahlen. 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 16 
quam ut ab homine potuerit inveniri, a deo 
traditum; vides philosophi principalis nobiscum 
penitus opinionem consonare. 
 
 
T266 Lucius Cael. F. Lactantius, 
Divinae institutiones 1.5.15-16 
(ed. Heck/Wlosok) 
 
 
Sed hactenus de poetis. Ad philosophos 
ueniamus, quorum grauior est auctoritas 
certiusque iudicium, quia non rebus 
commenticiis, sed inuestigandae ueritati 
studuisse creduntur. Thales Milesius, qui unus e 
septem sapientium numero fuit quique primus 
omnium quaesisse de causis naturalibus traditur, 
aquam esse dixit ex qua nata sint omnia, deum 
autem esse mentem quae ex aqua cuncta 
formauerit. Ita materiam rerum posuit in umore, 
principium causamque nascendi constituit in deo. 
 
T361 Apponius,35 
In canticum canticorum expositio 5.22-23 
(ed. de Vregille/Neyrand) 
 
 
 
23. De quibus Thales nomine initium omnium 
rerum aquam in suo esse dogmate pronuntiauit, 
et inde omnia facta subsistere ab inuiso et magno; 
causam uero motus aquae spiritum insidentem 
confirmat; simulque geometricam artem 
perspicaci sensu prior inuenit, per quam 
suspicatus est unum rerum omnium creatorem. 
 
 
T485c Isidor of Sevilla (about 560-636), 
Etymologiae 8.6.18 4 (ed. Lindsay) 
 
 
(Cap. 6: De philosophiis gentium) Theologi 
autem idem sunt qui et Physici. Dicti autem 
Theologi, quoniam in scriptis suis de Deo 
dixerunt. Quorum varia constat opinio, quid Deus 
esset dum quaererent. Quidam enim corporeo 
sensu hunc mundum visibilem ex quattuor 
elementis Deum esse dixerunt, ut Dionysius 
Stoicus. Alii vero spiritaliter intellexerunt 
mentem esse Deum, ut Thales Milesius.36 
 
 
With regard to these five testimonies of the Latin tradition we can note that at least three 
authors wrote before Augustine: Cicero37 as well as Minucius Felix and Lactantius38 (both 
 
35
 The work and its author are very difficult to date: dating vary from the 5th to the 7th c. 
36
 Vgl. Honorius Augustodunensis, De haresibus (Migne PL 172, 236A). 
37
 For the passage in Cicero see the clear analysis of Richard McKirahan, Epicurean Doxography in Cicero, De 
Natura Deorum Book 1, in Epicureismo Greco E Romano, ed. G.Giannantoni e M.Gigante, Vol. II., (1993) 865-
878, McKirahan (870) remarks that “though Thales is reported on good authority as believing that “all things are 
full of gods” (cf. Arist., de an. A5. 411a7-8 = T30) the conception of God as a mind which is in some sense 
independent of water and which functions as a cause of change is hard to reconcile with Aristotle’s chief 
doxographic account (cf. Arist., metaph. A3.983b18ff. = T27), which not only fails to acknowledge any divine 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 17 
authors of the Latin apologetic tradition) ascribe the attribute of a divine mind (deum autem 
[.] mentem) to Thales. Apponius and Isidor of Sevilla also ascribe the assumption of a god-as-
spirit conception to Thales. 
I think that these testimonies illustrate, that the denial of a divine mind by Augustine is, with 
regard to the Latin tradition, noticeable and outstanding, in particular if one takes in account 
that Augustine was not only highly familiar with the writings of Cicero; he probably also 
knew the writings of his Christian precursors Lactantius39 and of Minucius Felix. By his 
denial Augustine would correct at least indirectly the remark of Cicero in de natura deorum 
I.25 - more precisely the opinion expressed by Velleius in the famous dialogue - where for the 
first time in the Latin tradition the idea of the divine mind is ascribed to Thales. We can 
further note that Augustine would also correct indirectly his Christian precursors Minucius 
Felix (Octavius 19, 4-5) and Lactantius (Div. inst.1, 5, 15-16), who remarked in a rather 
integrative and positive manner that Thales assumed God as a creative mind (mens). We can 
notice a clear disagreement.40 
My point is not, who was right or wrong, I am rather interested in the question why Augustine 
could claim this and what motivates him to disagree with this tradition. Because, if he clearly 
claims the contrary as Cicero, one can assume that Augustine had some reasons. 
 
In order to answer to this question I think one can distinguish at least two aspects: First, 
concerning (1) his access to other sources and reports, secondly concerning (2) his own 
interest and the purpose of his work. 
 
mind in Thales’ system, but also explicitly addresses the questionwho first separated the mover from the moved, 
and would certainly have attributed this distinction to Thales had Aristotle known of any evidence for this view.” 
esp. 870, 873-874 as well as McKirahan’ s seven conclusions, 876-878. 
38
 O’Daly remarks that Augustine had some acquaintance with Lactantius. “Yet the sprit of Lactantius has left no 
profound traces in Augustine’ s work.” (1999, 51). He is further convinced that “while Augustine undoubtedly 
borrows themes and arguments from the earlier apologists and related literature, no one of his precursors has 
either a dominant or a profound influence on his apologetic concerns and strategies.” 
39
 One explicit reference of Augustine to Lactantius (Inst. 4, 18 ff.) is for instance in book XVIII, 23. 
40
 For the Greek Tradition see: T157, Ps.-Plutarchus, Plac. phil. 1.7, 881D9 (z §. Ti ¿j o( q eo/ j) [ ...] 
Qal h =j n ou= n t o u= ko/s m o u qeo /n . 
T200 Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis 23.2 (ed. Marcovich) 
Prw ½t oj Q al h= j d i ai rei Í, w ¨j oi ¸ t a \ e)kei ¿n ou [ d i ai rou=n t ej ] a)k ri bou=n t ej m n hm on eu/o usi n , 
ei ¹j q eo/n , ei ¹ j d ai ¿m on aj, ei ¹j hÀ rw a j. ) Al l aÜ q eo\ n m e\n t o\n n o u=n t ou= ko /sm ou a Ãgei , 
d ai ¿m on a j d e\ ou)si ¿aj n o e i Í yux i ka /j, k ai ì hÀ rw a j t a\j k ex w ri sm e/n a j yux a\j t w ½n 
a)n q rw ¯ pw n , a) ga qou \j m e \n t a\ j a) ga qa/ j, kak ou\ j d e\ t a\ j f au/l o uj. 
T290 Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, 14.16.6.1 
Qal h =j t o\n k o/sm o n ei ån ai t o\n qeo /n . 
T358 Cyrill, Contra Iul. 1.38a-c, 544D-545A, T368 Iohannes Stobaios, Anthologium 1.1.29a and 1.1.29b 
T422 Ps.-Galen, Hist. phil. 35.10-12, T 408 Philoponus, In de an. 15.86.11-35 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 18 
(1) Augustine probably could have access to other information and sources of the Latin 
tradition and perhaps also of the Greek tradition41 which enabled him to deny that Thales 
assumed a divine mind. There are four references to Thales in the writings of Tertullian: once 
(in T223) he claims that Thales and others (e.g. Anaximenes and Anaximander) venerated 
“unworthy substances”, for instance water (aquam), as gods;42 in the other three passages 
(T219, T222, T223) Tertullian introduces Thales at least as one who does not have any 
knowledge about the gods or about the divine.43 
 
(2) As already mentioned Augustine tries to illustrate by his account the gradual evolution of 
the concept of a divine mind. His well selective account and the presented “doxography” 
seem to be construed by this purpose. We can certainly assume that Augustine did not only 
reproduce his source or information, he also chose from his material and decided to present 
his account of Early Greek Philosophy in his manner against other accounts. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
41
 There is for instance the interesting passage in the Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius (PE 14.14, 1-7 and 7-
8.2) which shows at least a certain similarity with the account of Augustine. However as O’ Daly notes (263) “it 
remains debatable whether Augustine had access to the polemical Praeparatio Evangelica.” He adds (263, note 
77) that J.J. O’Meara (1969) argues that he had, against Altaner (1967: 258 n.46). 
42
 T 223 Quintus Sept. F. Tertullianus, Adv. Marcionem 1.13.3 (ed. Braun) 
Vt ergo aliquid et de isto huius mundi indigno loquar, cui et apud Graecos ornamenti et cultus, non sordium, 
nomen est, indignas uidelicet substantias ipsi illi sapientiae professores, de quorum ingeniis omnis haeresis 
animatur, deos pronuntiauerunt, ut Thales aquam, ut Heraclitus ignem, ut Anaximenes aerem, ut Anaximander 
uniuersa caelestia, ut Strato caelum et terram, ut Zeno aerem et aetherem, ut Plato sidera […]. 
43
 Cf. Ad nat. 2.2.10-11 = T219, Apologeticum 19.1.4 = T222, Apologeticum 46.8-9 = T223. 
Additionally to these testimonies of Tertullian there are also two references in Clemens’ Stromata: while in the 
first testimony (Strom. 2.4.14.1-2 = T216), concerning the first principle, Clemens denies that it was really 
known by the early Greek Philosophers, the second testimony (Strom. 5.14.96.4 = T217) deals with a comment 
about Thales’ opinion about God. 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 19 
Conclusion 
 
At least in two respects of my study it is plausible to speak about “the” or at least about “a” 
new Thales of Miletus: 
 
(1) Concerning the extent of the newly examined testimonies: Because my study will be 
based by means of the new collection of the Traditio Praesocratica on a far greater number of 
testimonies than any other study until now; it will offer an examination of many as yet 
unknown testimonies about Thales, in particular those of the Imperial Time and of Late 
Antiquity. 
 
(2) Concerning my approach to the testimonies: 
a) First by paying attention to the various representation/s and “images” of Thales in their 
contexts and times. By my four-step-methodology I will try to illuminate the question by 
which reasons the respective authors present “their Thales” in a certain manner. 
b) In particular by the method of comparisons of the analysed attributes I will show - as in the 
indicated comparison of Minucius Felix and Lactantius with Augustine - that one can further 
distinguish highly different images and references to Thales within certain traditions; for 
instance that there are different images as well as diverse opinions about Thales within the so-
called Christian tradition.44 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
44
 I am deeply thankful for the fruitful discussions I have had with Philip van der Eijk at the University of 
Newcastle upon Tyne in preparing this paper as well as for his corrections. 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 20 
 
 
Bibliography 
 
 
Sigla 
 
VS = Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, ed. Diels, Hermann (1903), Berlin, rev. eds. 1906, 
1912, 1922). 
 
DK = Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, eds. Diels, H. and Kranz, W., (3 vol., 1934-7; 61951 
and later repr.). 
 
DG = Diels, H. (1879) Doxographi Graeci, Berlin, de Gruyter, repr. 1976. 
T = Testimonies on Thales of the Traditio Praesocratica (2008), Textual Evidence on Early Greek Philosophy 
and its continuation / Zeugnisse frühgriechischer Philosophie und ihres Fortlebens, ed. Gemelli Marciano, M. 
Laura / McKirahan, Richard / Primavesi, Oliver / Riedweg, Christoph / Strohmaier, Gotthard / Wöhrle, Georg, 
de Gruyter, Berlin. 
Studia Praesocratica, ed. Gemelli Marciano, M. Laura et alii (see above), de Gruyter, Berlin. 
 
 
Bibliographies 
 
Navia Luis E. (1993), The Presocratic Philosophers: An annotated Bibliography, New 
York/London. 
 
Paquet L., Roussel M., Lafrance Y. (1988, Vol.1), Les Présocratiques: Bibliographie 
Analytique (1879-1980), Montréal. 
 
 
Articles and Studies 
 
Burkert, Walter (1999), “Diels` Vorsokratiker Rückschau und Ausblick“ in: W.M. Calder/J. 
Mansfeld eds., Hermann Diels (1848-1922) et la Science de l`Antiquité, Fondation Hardt pour 
l`Étude de l`Antiquité classique, Entretiens Tome XLV, Vandoevres-Genève, 169-197, 
discussion 198-206. 
 
Burnet, John (11892, 41930), Early Greek Philosophy, London. 
 
Conche, Marcel (1991), Anaximandre, Fragments et Témoignages. 
 
Dicks, D.R., “Thales” in The Classical Quarterly 9 (1959), 294-309. 
 
Van der Eijk, Philip J. (2000), Diocles of Carystos, Vol I., A Collection of the Fragments with 
Translation and Commentary. Studies in Ancient Medicine, no. 22, Leiden: Brill. 
 
Kahn, Charles H. (1960) Anaximander and the Originsof Greek Cosmology, New York. 
 
Andreas Schwab Trier / Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) 2. June 2008 
 21 
Kidd, I.G. (1996), “What is a Posidonian Fragment?“ in Aporemata 1: Collecting Fragments 
– Fragmente sammeln, ed. by Glenn W. Most, 225-236. 
 
Kirk G.S., Raven J.E. (11957) Schofield M. (2 1983), The Presocratic Philosophers, A Critical 
History with a selection of texts, Cambridge. 
 
Lebedev, A. B. (1979), “Ein Demiourg bei Thales? Zur Rekonstruktion der Kosmogonie des 
Thales von Milet, (article in Russian) in: Civ’jan, T. V. (ed.): Text. Semantik und Struktur. 
Moskva: Nauka, 1983, 51-66. 
 
Maddalena, Antonio (1963), Ionici, Testimonianze e Frammenti. Introduzione, traduzione e 
commento, Firenze. 
 
Mansfeld, Jaap, “Philosophy in the service of Scripture: Philo’s exegetical strategies”, in J.M. 
Dillon/A.A. Long (1988), The Question of “Eclecticism”. Studies in Later Greek Philosophy, 
University of California Press: Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 70-102. 
 
Mansfeld, Jaap (1999), “Doxographi Graeci” in W.M. Calder/J.Mansfeld eds. (see above), 
143-164, Discussion 165-8. 
 
Mansfeld, Jaap, Runia D. T. (1997), Aëtiana. The Method and Intellectual Context of a 
Doxographer, Volume One. The Sources (Leyden, New York, Cologne, Brill). 
 
McKirahan, Richard (1995), Philosophy Before Socrates, An introduction with Texts and 
Commentary, Indianapolis. 
 
McKirahan, Richard (1993), “Epicurean Doxography in Cicero”, De Natura Deorum Book 1, 
in Epicureismo Greco E Romano, ed. G. Giannantoni e M. Gigante, Vol. II, 865-878. 
 
Most, Glenn W. (1995), “Polemos panton pater”. Die Vorsokratiker in der Forschung der 
zwanziger Jahre”, in Altertumswissenschaft in den 20er Jahren, ed. by H. Flashar, Stuttgart, 
87-114. 
 
O’ Daly, Gerard (1999), Augustine’ s City of God, A Reader’ s Guide, Clarendon Press, 
Oxford. 
 
O’Grady, Patricia (2002), Thales of Miletus. The beginnings of Western Science and 
Philosophy. Aldershot: Ashgate. 
 
Reale Giovanni et al. eds. (2006), I presocratici, Testimonianze e frammenti, “Il pensiero 
occidentale”, Milano. 
 
Wöhrle, Georg (1993), Anaximenes aus Milet. Die Fragmente zu seiner Lehre. Stuttgart. 
 
Zeller, Eduard, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (21856), 
Vol.1, Tübingen.