by A. A. Long
Simplicius’ quotations enable us to see that the long continuous text of Parmenides, quoted by Sextus M. 7.111, is in fact a patchwork, combining passages from different sections of the poem and omitting crucial lines in the proem.57 This should serve as a warning: even where we do have long verbatim fragments, we cannot always be certain that the extant text is correct, or allows a correct impression of the work from which it has been cited or compiled.
NOTES
1 My aims in what follows are strictly historical. The attribution of tenets to early Greek philosophers by means of the “philosophical assessment of a view as coherent or incoherent” proposed by Makin [75] risks projecting today’s fashions upon the past.
2 I limit myself to that part of Diels’ work [3] that is concerned with early Greek philosophy. Note that his book deals only with the doxography of physics. For a critical evaluation of it, see Mansfeld and Runia [27].
3 The criticism by Lebedev [46], [47] is unfounded; see Mansfeld and Runia [27] 333–38; the sources for or relating to Aetius are discussed at length in this book.
4 Synoptically presented: left-hand column for ps.-Plutarch, right-hand column for Stobaeus, the two columns united by an elegant horizontal brace to indicate descent from a shared archetype; to the left at the bottom, further testimonia to ps.-Plutarch, and to the right those to Aetius. Diels’ Doxographi Graeci also contains editions of the relevant fragments of Theophrastus (including the De sensibus), the first book of Hippolytus’ Refutation, sections of Cicero and Philodemus, and other minor works.
5 D. L. II.1-17, VIII.51-77, 82–84, IX.1-60. Note that Thales, as the first of the seven sages, is treated in D. L. I.17-44, which includes his physical tenets (I.23-24, 27).
6 Published 1934–37 = 5th edition. The 6th edition, containing addenda, is essentially unchanged in subsequent reprints. Kranz introduced an influential but, in my view, questionable modification by beginning vol. I with early cosmological poetry and prose and gnomic literature. Diels had placed this material before the sophists.
7 No such hypothesis was (or is) available for most of the sophists included in DK. Note that Protagoras came to be included in Diogenes Laertius via the Successions literature; see p. 32.
8 See the explicit justification in Diels [2], vi, a work now largely forgotten and unfortunately never reprinted. There the distinction between A- and B-fragments is found for the first time. The testimonia are far more complete than in DK.
9 See Whittaker [80]. For the working methods of ancient authors, see Mejer [61] 16–29; on excerpting, J. E. Skydsgaard, Varro the Scholar: Studies in the First Book of Varro’s De re rustica (diss. Copenhagen, 1968) 101–16; on the writing of treatises, T. Dorandi, “Den Autoren über die Schulter geschaut. Arbeitsweise und Autographie bei den antiken Schriftstellern,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 87 (1991) 11–33 and id., “Zwischen Autographie und Diktat. Momente der Textualität in der antiken Welt,” in W. Kullmann and J. Althoff, eds., Vermittlung und Tradierung von Wissen in der griechischen Kultur (Tübingen, 1993) 71–83.
10 See Steinmetz [28], Mansfeld [69].
11 Diels [426] 7.
12 E. Zeller, “Ueber die Benützung der aristotelischen Metaphysik in den Schriften der älteren Peripatetiker,” Abteilungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Philologisch-Historische Klasse 1877, 145–67. Repr. in O. Leuze, ed., Eduard Zellers Kleine Schriften, Bd.1 (Berlin, 1910) 191–214.
13 For other lost works dealing with physicists, cf. D. L. V.46, VI.101, X.27. Shorter and longer works could be simultaneously available. Thus the Aetius that ps.-Plutarch (who is extant) epitomized was in circulation as late as the fifth century A.D.
14 For more evidence and bibliography, see Mansfeld [29], and for Hippias, Patzer [77].
15 Clement, Stromateis VI.15.1; cf. D. L. I.24.
16 Plato, Crat. 402a-b, Symp. 178a-b, Tht. 152d-e, Aristotle, Metaph. IV.5 1009b12-32, De an. I.2 404a25-31, III.3 427a21-29. Note that poets and philosophers are cited together, though at Metaph. I.3 983b27-84a3, Aristotle emphasizes the difference between them.
17 Fragmentary summary at [Aristotle] MXG 5 (omitted from DK), and Helen (= DK 82 B11) 13: ”… the arguments of the meteôrologoi [early term for philosophers of nature] who, substituting belief (doxa) for belief, demolishing one and establishing another, make the incredible and unclear become clear to the eyes of belief ….”
18 Anc. med. 2; Nat. hom. 1; Isocrates, Helen 3 (ca 385 B.C.); Xenophon, Mem. I.1.13-14 (c. 370 B.C.); Isocrates, Antidosis 268 (c. 353 B.C.); Plato, Soph. 242c-e, 243d-244b. Isocrates’ list is much more complete than Plato’s, so it cannot derive from the latter’s, and at the end he adds Gorgias, who assumed that there was no principle at all. Patzer [77] 85–86 mistakenly derives the accounts of Isocrates and Plato solely from Hippias, overlooking Gorgias.
19 For example, the Heraclitean Cratylus, Aristotle, Metaph. IV.5 1010a10-15.
20 Tht. 152d-183e, Parm. 128a-b. Plato says nothing about Parmenides’ cosmology.
21 The loss of Aristotle’s more literary works prevents us from knowing how he dealt with his predecessors there. He certainly spoke of them (e.g., in the dialogue On philosophy) but one cannot tell how far his way of doing so resembled Plato’s dialogues.
22 See Mansfeld [44].
23 Cherniss [34] remains important as a thorough discussion of Aristotle’s critical treatment of early Greek philosophy, but his view that Aristotle is invariably prejudiced goes too far; cf. Mansfeld [33] 155. McDiarmid [42] applies Cherniss’ methodology to Theophrastus’ account of earlier thinkers.
24 Taurus ap. Philoponus De aeternitate mundi 15.20-24 Rabe (Theophrastus fr. 241A FHSG = [37]); remnants of this procedure are still to befound in Aetius, for example, in 1.3. Fragments attesting the title Physical tenets are very few, and attributions since Usener and Diels have been whimsical; for instance, the passage at D. L. IX.22 (fr. 227D FHSG) refers to something Theophrastus said “in his Physics (), in which he sets out the dogmata of almost all (concerned).” The account of the principles cited by Simplicius also derives from the Physics, as noted p. 26. This too is structured according to division, being a further refinement of that in Aristotle’s Physics; cf. J. Wiesner, “Theophrast und der Beginn des Archerefats von Simplikios’ Physikkommentar,” Hermes 117 (1989) 288–303 and Mansfeld [69].
25 See Mansfeld [40] and Runia [48].
26 See Baltussen [39].
27 Galen De placitis Platonis et Hippocratis III.1.9-17; see Mansfeld [30].
28 Naturales quaestiones, ed. H.M. Hine (Stuttgart, 1995). The title translates the Greek expression for the formula and the idea behind it see Cicero On the parts of oratory 64, Seneca Epistulae 88.24, Quintilian Institutes of oratory 7.2.6-7. On the Chrysippean book title see Plutarch On Stoic self-contradictions 1035c, 1037b, 1047c. See further H. M. Hine, An Edition with Commentary of Seneca Natural Questions, Book Two (New York, 1981; repr. Salem, N. H., 1984) 33; N. Gross, Senecas Naturales Quaestiones. Komposition, natur-philosophische Aussagen und ihre Quellen (Stuttgart, 1989); A. Setaioli, Seneca e i Greci: Citazioni e traduzioni nelle opere filosofiche (Bologna, 1988) 375–452, esp. 378–80.
29 See W. von Kienle, Die Berichte über die Sukzessionen der Philosophen (diss. Berlin, 1961); F. Wehrli, ed. Die Schule des Aristoteles. VIII: Eudemos von Rhodos (Basel/Stuttgart, 1969); Mejer [61] 62–74; J. Glucker, Antiochus and the Late Academy (Göttingen, 1978) 161, 343–44; G. Giannattasio Andria, I frammenti delle “Successioni dei filosofi” (Naples, 1989); Mansfeld [51] 20–43. I refrain from discussing the literature “On sects” (Peri haireseôn) because the first “sect” or philosophical school was believed to be Plato’s “First Academy” (D. L. II.47).
30 The papyrus fragments of Philodemus’ works on the Academics and the Stoics (first century B.C.) come quite close, but they contain little on early Greek philosophy. Cicero De natura deorum I.25-41 contains much doxographical information on our subject, and is a witness to Epicurean use of Vetusta placita litera
ture.
31 For example, Plato, Parm. 127b, 128a; Aristotle, Metaph. I.4 985b4-5, I.5 986b22.
32 For example, Plato, Soph. 242d; Aristotle, Metaph. I.3 984a11-13, I.4 985b22, 1.6 987a29. For the relative chronology of early Greek philosophers, the much maligned Apollodorus remains our best source; see Mosshammer [71], Mansfeld [395], and J.Mansfeld, “Apollodorus on Democritus,” Hermes 111 (1983) 253–58, repr. in Mansfeld [32]. Note that chronographic notices by Eusebius in DK are still cited from Schoene’s obsolete edition of 1866–75 not from R. Helm, ed. Eusebius. Werke Bd. 7: Die Chronik des Hieronymus (Berlin, 1913–26; repr. 19843 with preface by U. Treu) and J.Karsten, ed. Eusebius. Werke Bd.5: Die Chronik des Eusebius aus dem Armenischen übersetzt (Leipzig, 1911).
33 See Long [251].
34 See F. Decleva Caizzi, “II libro IX delle ‘Vite’ di Diogene Laerzio,” ANRW II 36.6 (1992) 4238–4301.
35 Aristotle Metaph. I.6 987a30-31 lists the Italikoi among those who influenced Plato, but next mentions Cratylus and Heracliteanism, and of course Socrates. The standard succession in the Ionian line is Archelaus-Socrates-Plato, and then the Stoics. For Hippolytus see Mansfeld [51].
36 He is linked with Anaximenes, as Aristotle had already done (Metaph. I.3 984a5-6).
37 See further Mejer [62] 3590–99, B. Centrone, “L’VIII libro delle ‘Vite’ di Diogene Laerzio,” ANRW II.36.6 (1992) 4183–4217, and Decleva Caizzi (n. 34 above).
38 See Mansfeld [68], who develops Burkert [201], and Mansfeld [51], 208–42.
39 See Mansfeld [33] 97–104. Thrasyllus apparently regarded Democritus as a follower of Pythagoras.
40 See Westman [55]. On Plutarch as a source for early Greek philosophers individually, see the numerous papers of Hershbell [56–60] and also Mansfeld [51] 278–95.
41 See Mansfeld [33] 179–91.
42 See F. Leo Die griechisch-römische Biographie nach ihrer literarischen Form (Leipzig, 1901; repr. Hildesheim, 1965) 104–8; A. Dihle, Studien zur griechischen Biographie, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse 3.37, 2nd edn (Göttingen, 1970) 104–7; G. Arrighetti, Poeti, eruditi e biografi. Momenti della riflessione dei Greci sulla letteratura (Pisa, 1987) 141–8 and 164–67; A. Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biography, expanded ed. (Cambridge, Mass., 1993) 70; M. R. Lefkowitz, The Lives of the Greek Poets (London, 1981).
43 D. L. III.47 distinguishes the bios (life) from the doxai (doctrines) of Plato, and VII.38 the bios of Zeno from the dogmata of the Stoics.
44 On gnômai and anecdotes, and their tradition, see Gutas [65] (also for earlier literature), P. Nassen Poulos, “Form and function of the pronouncement story in Diogenes Laertius’ Lives,” in R. C. Tannehill, ed., Pronouncement Stories (Missoula, 1981), and J. Glucker, “: Sources and credibility of De Stoicorum repugnantiis 8,” ICS 13 (1988) 473–89.
45 For criticism of Diels’ derivation of Hippolytus I from Theophrastus, see Mejer [61] 83–86; Osborne [52] 187–211; Mejer [62] 3591–97; Mansfeld [51] 1–56 (critical of Osborne); and Mueller [54] 4357–71. More research is needed, especially on Diogenes Laertius and ps.-Plutarch Stromateis.
46 The remark attributed explicitly to Theophrastus at D. L. IX.6 (fr. 233 FHSG) about the “half-finished character and inconsistencies” of Heraclitus’ book does not apply to the overview in the detailed Laertian doxography.
47 This even holds for Mejer [62] 3593, who accepts the detailed Heraclitean doxography in Diogenes Laertius as Theophrastean.
48 Diels included only Hippolytus I in his Doxographi Graeci, though the verbatim fragments cited in the later books found their way into DK. For Hippolytus’ text of these, see Osborne [52] (whose work is overpraised by Barnes [72] and criticized by Mueller [53] and Mansfeld (above n. 45)). On Hippolytus in general, see Mueller [54], who, in my opinion, goes too far in believing that some Gnostics used the early Greek philosophers in ways similar to Hippolytus.
49 Sextus’ treatment and quotations of Parmenides seem to be dependent on the same intermediate tradition as those of Diognes Laertius; see Rocca-Serra [63].
50 See Gelzer [64] and Mansfeld [51] 300–307.
51 For Clement see Méhat [70] and A. le Boulluec, “Clément d’Alexandrie,” in Goulet [151] vol. 2, 426–31; for Philo, D. T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature. A Survey (Assen/Minneapolis, 1993) 132–56. Philo himself is of some importance as a source for a number of early Greek philosophers (see n. 38 above), but it is doubtful whether he or Clement ever consulted the originals.
52 For example, Mansfeld [51] 307–12.
53 No Greek text yet supersedes V. Cousin, ed. Procli philosophi platonici opera inedita T. III: Procli commentarium in Platonis Parmenidem (Paris, 1864; repr. Hildesheim, 1961). A critical edition by C. Steel is in preparation for the Budé series.
54 Edited by H. Diels, Simplicii in Aristotelis physica commentaria (Berlin, 1882–95) and J. L. Heiberg, Simplicii in Aristotelis de caelo commentaria (Berlin, 1894). Simplicius’ commentaries on Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Meteorologica are lost.
55 M. Tardieu, Routes et haltes syriennes d’Isidore à Simplicius, Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Section des Sciences Religieuses 44 (Louvain/Paris, 1990).
56 As he says about Parmenides, In phys. 144.28. He also notes that he possessed only one of the several works he claims were written by Diogenes of Apollonia, ibid. 151.24–29. For Neoplatonist methods of quotation, see Wildberg [81].
57 The passage was printed as a single fragment in early editions of DK. On the transmission of the poem, see O’Brien [76].
KEIMPE ALGRA
3 The beginnings of cosmology
1. INTRODUCTION: MYTH AND COSMOLOGY
Greek philosophical cosmology did not originate completely out of the blue. The first philosophical cosmologists – usually referred to as Ionian or Milesian cosmologists because they worked in Miletus, in Ionia – could react against, or sometimes build upon, popular conceptions that had existed in the Greek world for a long time.1 Some of these popular conceptions can be gleaned from the poetry of Homer and Hesiod (eighth century B.C.). In Homer the cosmos is conceived as a flat earth, surrounded by the Ocean (Okeanos), and overlooked by a hemispherical sky, with sun, moon, and stars. In the eighth century the annual course of the sun and the rising and setting of some constellations were integrated into a primitive seasonal calendar. Lunations were used for small-scale calendrical purposes (“the twenty-seventh of the month is best for opening a wine-jar,” Hesiod Works and Days 814) and at some point – although there are no traces of this in Homer of Hesiod – some form of lunisolar calendar was established.2
Traditionally such cosmic protagonists as earth, sun, and moon were thought of, and worshipped, as gods, even if their cult in Greece does not appear to have acquired the status of the cult of the Olympians, well-known from myth and poetry.3 But even in Homer, when Zeus calls a meeting of the gods (Iliad XX. 1-18), the rivers, except for Okeanos, and the nymphs also come along. Sun, earth, heaven, rivers, and winds could be addressed in prayers and called to witness oaths. Some Olympians too were connected – and in some contexts even identified – with particular cosmic phenomena (Zeus the cloud gatherer as god of the sky, Poseidon as god of the sea, and so on).
In addition, both within the Greek world and in the cultures of their near-Eastern neighbours mythical stories circulated about the origin of the world conceived as the successive birth of such cosmic deities.4 In such a context, speaking about the cosmos meant speaking about the gods, and theories about the origin of the cosmos (cosmogonies) were actually stories relating the genealogy of the gods (theogonies). The classic early Greek example of the latter category is Hesiod’s Theogony (second half of the eighth century B.C.).5 In this work the first stages of the history of the cosmos are depicted as follows (Theog. 116-33):
First of all Chaos came into being, and then broad-bosomed Earth (Gaia), a firm seat of all things for ever, and misty Tartaros, deep down in broadpathed
earth, and Eros, the most beautiful among the immortal gods, he who loosens our limbs, and subdues the mind and thoughtful counsel of all gods and men. From Chaos, Erebos and black Night came into being, and from Night, again, came Aither and Day, whom she conceived and bore after having mingled in love with Erebos. Now Earth first of all brought forth starry Ouranos, equal to herself, so that it would cover her on all sides, to be a firm seat for the blessed gods forever. She also brought forth large mountains, the beautiful abode of the divine Nymphs who dwell in the woody mountains. She also bore the unharvested sea, seething with its swell, Pontos, without an act of delightful love. Then she slept with Ouranos and bore Okeanos with his deep eddies […].
In the paratactic way characteristic of (Greek) polytheism, this story depicts the cosmos as a plurality of distinct divine entities: each god has his or her own province. The familiar Olympian gods emerge later on in the story and are even more fully anthropomorphic in character. But also the more “abstract” deities of these first stages, such as Night and Earth, who play their roles just shortly after the first beginnings from primeval Chaos, behave in an anthropomorphic fashion: they make love and beget offspring.
As a story (mythos) this may be attractive, but it is only an explanation of sorts. Why precisely god A comes to love god B remains as obscure as are the ways of love in the world of mortals. Readers or listeners may accept these elements of the story as true, but in an important sense they do not really understand what happens. Moreover, the explanatory mechanism of gods begetting other gods by making love apparently allows exceptions. The sea, for example, springs forth from Earth without an act of love. Nor is it in all cases clear why god Y is born from god X: the various stages of the story are not linked in a very perspicuous way. True, in many cases some sort of rationale beyond the birth of one god from another may be thought up, but this is always a matter of interpretation, and the sort of connections that such an interpretation may bring to light could be rather diverse. Night, for example, is said to have brought forth Day, and we may surmise that this is because Day follows Night. But elsewhere Night is also the mother of Death (212), perhaps because Night and Death share the same negative characteristics. Again, elsewhere (224) Night is also said to be the mother of Deceit, and some interpreters suggest that this may be because deceptions generally occur at night.6 But such links are at best associative and vague, and they do not add up to a clear and coherent account.