Hermann Diels, professor of classics at Berlin, is chiefly remembered for this collection of quotations from, and reports about, Presocratic philosophers; his system of numbering was later adopted as the scholarly standard. This reissue reproduces the original, single-volume edition of 1903, though the book was revised and expanded three times during Diels' lifetime, and again after his death, and new fragments continue to be discovered. Designed as a reference tool to underpin university classes on the beginnings of Greek philosophy, the (...) book sought to enable students to engage with original evidence. Diels aimed to provide a complete corpus of fragments rather than an arbitrary selection. He intentionally reproduced the texts exactly rather than standardising the language, in order to provide a foundation for future research. While admitting he found the material obscure at times, Diels provided German translations to help make the content more accessible to his readers. (shrink)

This sourcebook, a corrected reprint of the University of South Carolina Press edition of 1972, contains a complete English translation of the sophist material collected in the critical edition of Diels-Krantz, as well as Euthydemus and a completely re-edited Antiphon.

Werner Jaeger once remarked that fifth-century sophistry is the one ancient intellectual movement that is readily comprehensible to a modern mind. In the light of this fact, it is all the more surprising that until the publication of the present volume there has been no complete English version of the sophist material collected in the standard edition of Diels-Kranz. Kathleen Freeman’s Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers: A Complete Translation of the Fragments in Diels’ "Fragmente der Vorsokratiker" included some (...) of the material, but the longer extracts from Gorgias and Prodicus, a concluding essay by the Anonymous Iamblichi, and the Dissoi Logoi were summarized rather than translated. Apparently complete translations of sophist texts have heretofore existed only in two Italian versions, one of which dates back to 1923. The present handbook is the first complete English translation of the sophist material, and it is the work of ten different hands under the general editorship of Rosamond Kent Sprague. It is also a new edition in that J. S. Morrison, the translator of Antiphon, believed, contrary to Diels, that the sophist Antiphon and the orator Antiphon of Rhamnus were one and the same, and he has reedited the material completely so as to produce a unified Antiphon. Another exception is the sophist Euthydemus of Chios, who is an historical person and is included in an appendix. (shrink)

Name and notion -- Protagoras -- Xeniades -- Gorgias -- Lycophron -- Prodicus -- Thrasymachus -- Hippias -- Antiphon -- Critias -- Anonymus Iamblichi -- Dissoi Logoi or Dialexeis -- Appendix: Euthydemus of Chios.

Einleitung.--Zur Vorgeschichte der griechischen Philosophie: kosmogonische Dichtung und Prosa.--Die altionischen Naturphilosophen.--Pythagoras und die älteren Pythagoreer.--Xenophanes von Kolophon.--Herakleitos von Ephesos.--Die Elaten.--Empedokles.--Anaxagoras.--Leukippos.--Eklektiker und Epigonen.--Das Zeitalter der griechischen Aufklärung: Die Sophistik, Demokrit, die jüngeren Pythagoreer.

Einleitung.--Zur Vorgeschichte der griechischen Philosophie: kosmogonische Dichtung und Prosa.--Die altionischen Naturphilosophen.--Pythagoras und die älteren Pythagoreer.--Xenophanes von Kolophon.--Herakleitos von Ephesos.--Die Elaten.--Empedokles.--Anaxagoras.--Leukippos.--Eklektiker und Epigonen.--Das Zeitalter der griechischen Aufklärung: Die Sophistik, Demokrit, die jüngeren Pythagoreer.

The main argument in Parmenides’ didactic poem begins with these remarks by the unnamed goddess who delivers the revelation (B2 in Diels-KranzDie Fragmente der Vorsokratiker):Come now and I shall tell you, and you listen to the account and carry it forth, which routes of inquiry (ơδοί…διζησιος, B2.2) alone are for knowing: the one (μέν, B2.3), that (…) is and that it is not possible (for …) not to be ὅπως ἔστιν τε ϰαὶ ὼς οὐϰ ἔστι μὴ είναι, B2.3) (...) is the course of Persuasion, for it attends truth; the other ἠδ; B2.5 that (…) is not and that it is right (for …) not to be (ὡς οὐϰ ἔστιυ τε ϰαὶ ὡς χρεών ἐστι μὴ εἶναι, B2.5) that one I mark for you as being a byway from which no tidings ever come (παναπευθέα ἔμμεν άταρπόυ, B2.6) For you could neither come to know (Υυοίμς, aorist, B2.7) the thing itself which is not (τό Υε μὴ έόυ), for it cannot be consummated (οὐ Υὰρ ἀνυστόυ), nor could you point it out (φράσαις, aorist, B2.8). (shrink)

This page is dedicated to an analysis of the first section of Parmenides' Poem, the Way of Truth, with a selection of critical judgments by the most important commentators and critics. In the Annotated Bibliography I list the main critical editions (from the first printed edition of 1573 to present days) and the translations in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish, with a selection of studies on Parmenides; in future, a section will be dedicated to an examination of some critical (...) variants of the Greek text, with particular attention to corrections to the Diels-Kranz (abbreviated DK) edition of the Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. The fragments of Parmenides' Poem are cited according to Diels-Kranz numbering system as adopted in the 6th edition, Berlin 1952; the Poem is divided into three parts: the Proem fr. I, 1-32; the Way of Truth (Alethéia) from fr. II to VIII, 49, and the Way of Mortal Opinion (Doxa) fr. VIII, 50 to XIX, 3. (shrink)

The Greeks attributed to Thales a great many discoveries and achievements. Few, if any, of these can be said to rest on thoroughly reliable testimony, most of them being the ascriptions of commentators and compilers who lived anything from 700 to 1,000 years after his death—a period of time equivalent to that between William the Conqueror and the present day. Inevitably there ilso accumulated round the name of Thales, as round that of Pythagoras , a number of anecdotes of varying (...) degrees of plausibility and of no historical worth whatsoever. These and the achievements credited to Thales have, of course, been painstakingly brought together by Hermann Diels in Der Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Useful and necessary as this work undoubtedly is, it nevertheless has probably contributed as much as any other book to the exaggerated and false Aew of Thales which we meet in so many modern histories of science or philosophy, and which it is the purpose of this article to combat. (shrink)

This book is a complete translation of the fragments of the pre-Socratic philosophers given in the fifth edition of Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker.

1) vgl.,,50phistes" 248c4 - 253c3 und 254b7-257aI2. 2) Heidegger, Brief über den "Humanismus"; s. in "Platons Lehre von der Wahrheit", Bern 1947,5.53. 3) 5. Diels "Fragmente der Vorsokratiker"6, Berlin 1951; Parmenides B l. 4) Reinhardt "Parmenides und die Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie", Bonn 1916, 5.32 ff.; zu dem Verhältnis der beiden "Teile" des Gedichts ist u.a. zu vergleichen: Fränkel "Parmenidesstudien" (Götting. Nachr. 1930, 5.153 ff.), Abschnitt IV und V; Calogero, 5tudi sull' Eleatismo, Rom 1932; Riezler "Par­ menides", Frankfurt (...) 1934 (dazu die Rezension von Gadamer in "Gnomon" XII 1936,5.77 ff.); Jaeger "Die Theologie der frühen griechischen Denker", 5tutt­ gart 1953,5.123 f.. 5) B 8,1 '"!J.6~o~ i3't;,~ t-'"ü'&?~ o~?,Io AeL7tE'Tct,L w~, e,O'''n~.. ~., 6) B 8,2... "t"lXu··nJI Il zm. (shrink)

The text of Parmenides 8. 4 is unusually corrupt. Most recent critics, however, agree that Plutarch's printed in the later editions of DielsKranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, should be excluded in favour of As G. E. L. Owen remarks , ‘[Plutarch's] is inappropriate since is to be proved from and not vice versa’.

Euthydemus is included neither in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker by Diels–Kranz nor in Sofisti. Testimonianze e frammenti by Untersteiner nor in Early Greek Philosophy by Laks and Most. Likewise, the great twentieth century works on the Sophists do not give space to him, at best mentioning him briefly. Yet Euthydemus is the author of a fragment, which was quoted by Plato in his Cratylus, and on which again there is no modern study. This paper sets out to study (...) this fragment in depth, to review and discuss the various translations, both existing and possible, to study the context of Plato’s quotation, to clarify the exact meaning and the theoretical scope of this important fragment, and lastly to place Euthydemus in the Protagorean tradition, of which he is a notable product. (shrink)

The following texts and comments are a supplement to ‘Democritus on Politics and the Care of the Soul’, CQ 39 , 307–31 . The Democritean fragments there were quoted only in translation; detailed commentary on them would have taken up too much space and clogged the argument. They make their appearance here in the same order as they did there, preceded by a thumb-nail résumé of that argument and of their place in it. Text, spelling and numbering is that of (...) the standard edition: H. Diels, W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker . Reference will also be made to collections by P. Natorp, Die Ethika des Demokritos , S. Y. Luria, Democritea and G. Ibscher, Demócrito y sus sentencias sobre ética y education , as well as to translations by V. E. Alfieri, Gli Atomisti , K. Freeman, Ancilla to the Presocratics and J. Barnes, Early Greek Philosophy. (shrink)

In this dissertation I uncover a logic of the development of atomism in early Greek philosophy that has not been previously recognized in the philosophical literature. This logic results from the nature of subjectivity and the attempt by reflective subjects to understand the world in which they live. Thus because of the nature of illusions built in to perception and reflection, reflective subjects who attempt to understand their world will develop more or less accurate accounts according to their ability to (...) see through these illusions. ;Physicalism, as it is understood by Professor Phillip Scribner of The American University and explained in currently unpublished manuscripts, provides the interpretative key that reveals the underlying logic in the development of early Greek philosophy. It is therefore necessary to explain this particular form of physicalism in some detail in order to understand the terminology and categories to be used in the historical analysis. To this end I explain the physicalist ontology and philosophy of science, the genesis of the problem of mind in Modern and Contemporary philosophy, the physicalist solution to the problem of mind, and the nature of the physicalist critique of the history of philosophy. ;In the historical sections the themes of materialism, reductionism, and realism are used to compare the views of Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Leucippus, and Democritus and to show how their various positions on the themes follow from their assumptions about the nature of subjectivity. I argue that the predecessors of atomism were all naive realists and that this assumption about the nature of mind generates the problems of early Greek philosophy. The resolution of these problems follows from the development of critical realism by Leucippus and a form of proto-physicalism by Democritus. ;The main sources used are English translations of Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker by H. Diels, edited by W. Kranz, and a variety of secondary sources which provide the consensus of modern authorities. (shrink)

Stobaeus records a placitum where Empedocles says that the world is destroyed by the domination in turn of Love and of Strife. The placitum makes perfectly good sense in the context of Empedocles' belief that Love and Strife produce, in turn, a non-cosmic state of total unity (Love) and of total separation (Strife). But for over two hundred years scholars have been unable to hear that simple message. Sturz (1805) emended the text so as to make it fit the non-cyclical (...) interpretation of Empedocles that he had taken over from the pages of Tiedemann (1791). When Diels included Stobaeus' text in his edition of Aetius, in the "Doxographi graeci" (1879), he failed to remove the emendation, although his own reconstruction of the chapter heading in Aetius made the emendation impossible. Twenty years later, Diels saw the light, and printed Stobaeus' placitum, unemended, in his "Poetarum philosophorum fragmenta" (1901) and in successive editions of his "Fragmente der Vorsokratiker" (from 1903 onwards). But Kranz resurrected the emendation in the "Nachträge" to his sixth edition of the "Fragmente der Vorsokratiker" (1951). The emended placitum is used again by Uvo Hölscher (1965) to support a non-cyclical interpretation of Empedocles and is repeated in the latest collection of the fragments and testimonia (Brad Inwood, 1992). Hölscher fails to appreciate that the text that he uses to support his reconstruction is merely Sturz's translation into Greek of the non-cyclical interpretation of Empedocles proposed by Tiedemann at the end of the eighteenth century. (shrink)

Stobaeus records a placitum where Empedocles says that the world is destroyed by the domination in turn of Love and of Strife. The placitum makes perfectly good sense in the context of Empedocles' belief that Love and Strife produce, in turn, a non-cosmic state of total unity (Love) and of total separation (Strife). But for over two hundred years scholars have been unable to hear that simple message. Sturz (1805) emended the text so as to make it fit the non-cyclical (...) interpretation of Empedocles that he had taken over from the pages of Tiedemann (1791). When Diels included Stobaeus' text in his edition of Aetius, in the "Doxographi graeci" (1879), he failed to remove the emendation, although his own reconstruction of the chapter heading in Aetius made the emendation impossible. Twenty years later, Diels saw the light, and printed Stobaeus' placitum, unemended, in his "Poetarum philosophorum fragmenta" (1901) and in successive editions of his "Fragmente der Vorsokratiker" (from 1903 onwards). But Kranz resurrected the emendation in the "Nachträge" to his sixth edition of the "Fragmente der Vorsokratiker" (1951). The emended placitum is used again by Uvo Hölscher (1965) to support a non-cyclical interpretation of Empedocles and is repeated in the latest collection of the fragments and testimonia (Brad Inwood, 1992). Hölscher fails to appreciate that the text that he uses to support his reconstruction is merely Sturz's translation into Greek of the non-cyclical interpretation of Empedocles proposed by Tiedemann at the end of the eighteenth century. (shrink)

The name of Aëtius is linked to a compendium of physical opinions discovered and reconstructed by Hermann Diels in his Doxographi Graeci (Berlin 1879). Diels was able to show that a very complex doxographical tradition derives from a single work to be dated to the first century CE, which he attributed to an otherwise unknown person called Aëtius. Diels' reconstruction of this lost work provided the basis for his immensely influential collection of fragments, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (Berlin (...) 1903). Diels' discovery and reconstruction is currently being re-examined by Jaap Mansfeld and David Runia in a multi-volume editorial project entitled Aëtiana. The first volume of Aëtiana appeared in 1997.1 That volume deals with the hypothesis that a number of later authors derived their doxographical information from a common source to be identified with a work composed in about 100 CE by Aëtius. The upshot is that the Aëtius-hypothesis is sound but is also in need of revision and refinement. This second volume carries forward the investigation begun in the first volume. It is divided into two parts. The first part consists of a structural analysis of the compendium, and the second offers a reconstruction of its best preserved section, namely book 2. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Thales of Miletus: The Beginnings of Western Science and PhilosophyKevin RobbPatricia F. O’Grady. Thales of Miletus: The Beginnings of Western Science and Philosophy. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2002. Pp xxii + 310. Paper, $84.95.This book has a consistent thesis: Thales of Miletus was the first Western scientist and philosopher not just for what he began, but for what he himself said (or, as O'Grady believes, wrote). On this view, (...) Thales made significant contributions to metaphysics ("He asked the question: 'What is real?' no less than Plato and Aristotle did," 249), cosmology (on the earth and earthquakes, 87 ff.), astronomy (notably the eclipse, 126 ff.), mathematics (Proclus attributes Euclidean theorems to Thales, 191 ff.), psychology (on psyche) and theology (on "full of the gods," 108 ff.). O'Grady's thesis is that we know enough about Thales' thoughts in these areas (each a treacherous minefield of scholarly dispute, as O'Grady admits) that, after a clarified understanding of "Scientificity and Rationality" (her awkward title for Chapter 11), we can confidently conclude that philosophy and science were well begun by Thales. "I believe I have drawn a clear and detailed picture of a brilliant, veracious, and courageously speculative Greek. I see him as a questioner of almost everything, an investigator of nature...Thales is not the mere shadowy figure of Guthrie's perception. He is a man of substance, a man of distinction and of lasting importance" (251).O'Grady had early noted that W. K. C. Guthrie considered Thales a shadowy figure historically, made all the more so, Guthrie believed, because the legend kept expanding. For example, a sixth-century Thales as the seeker after the material archê, and so the first important physikos, is unknown before fourth-century Aristotle's Metaphysics Alpha, and by the time Euclidean theorems are attributed to Thales the tendency to foist imposing discoveries on famous persons was prevalent.This raises the major issue concerning O'Grady's exhaustively researched book. To what extent can the doxographic sources (the "A" sections of Diels's 1903Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker), be used to interpret the Presocratics, especially if the original wording from a thinker perished (any "B" section quotations). It is clear that in the fourth century nothing in writing from Thales survived for the Lyceum to read and catalogue although its scholars clearly sought it; the repeated legetai ("it is said") of Aristotle in Metaphysics Alpha and elsewhere is decisive. It is his standard way of indicating that no written work on the matter survives to be consulted, but stories or oral accounts do.O'Grady's thesis requires that the "A" section material be exploited fully, especially to present Thales as a philosopher (29-70). Many historians will be unwilling to take the entire journey with her. Some (Harold Cherniss) would balk at the first step. The demand for confirming ipsissima verba (or "B" quotations) to reconstruct the thought of any Presocratic with real confidence (as once proposed by G. S. Kirk) threatens to exclude Thales from histories of philosophy, an unsatisfactory result. Even so, Harold Cherniss proposed that drastic solution in 1935 in his magisterial Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratric Philosophy. Presocratic philosophy, he argued, should begin with Anaximander (375).The heart of Cherniss's numbingly exhaustive argument (400 + pages) was that Aristotle's purpose in surveying his predecessors's views was never historical, but dialectical. His intent was to argue for a fourfold causality (on the grounds only four archai had been turned up by all his predecessors, starting with Thales' material cause), and to fit those predecessors's views into a theory of natural causality as he had finally formulated it in his sophisticated, [End Page 107] largely technical vocabulary. Aristotle's "historical" notices on which all later accounts must depend were, thus, never history; the problem and the solution, along with their language, were Aristotle's alone. If Theophrastus paraphrased what he found in Aristotle (McDiarmid), and if the post-Aristotelian doxographic notices were largely dependent on Theophrastus (so already Diels in 1879, in Doxographi Graeci), then any attempt to extract a philosophical Thales from the later doxographic sources (or Aristotle) is methodologically doomed from... (shrink)

It is the aim of this paper to offer, in Catalan, a bio-bibliographical note on Hermann Diels, on the occasion of the first centenary of his death, highlighting his contributions to multiple areas of the Altertumswissenschaften, especially on the pre-Socratic philosophers; in this regard, both his intellectual bonds and path are described; then the Fragmente and his philosophical attitude are examined; finally and in the appendix, we offer as a humble tribute to his memory the first Catalan translation of (...) a text of his own: a brief but panoramic essay on the history of ancient Greek philosophy. (shrink)

Este artículo tiene por objetivos: 1) elaborar, en el primer centenario de su muerte, una breve presentación biobibliográfica de Hermann Diels para destacar de nuevo su figura e importancia para la historia de la filosofía presocrática; 2) tratar de esclarecer cuál fue su orientación principal con respecto a la antigüedad griega, filológica, filosófica o científico-técnica; 2.1) aducir evidencias que fundamenten su postura sobre la cuestión a partir de diversas fuentes, que incluyen la transcripción publicada de sus lecciones sobre historia de (...) la filosofía griega antigua y mediante la publicación de un breve e inédito texto en que el difunto Walter Burkert, experto en el mundo heleno y en el propio Diels, formula sus juicios sobre dicha transcripción y sobre Diels en cuanto historiador de la filosofía griega antigua. (shrink)

Von Parmenides (um 515-455 v. Chr.), dem zusammen mit Anaximander und Heraklit bedeutendsten Denker der Vorsokratik und Begrunder der Schule der Eleaten, ist ein in Versen abgefasstes "Lehrgedicht" erhalten. Das Fragment zahlt, nicht zuletzt aufgrund seiner Vermittlung durch Platon, zu den Grundungsdokumenten der abendlandischen Philosophie. Der Politiker und Philosoph Kurt Riezler (1882-1955) unternimmt es in seiner 1934 erstmals erschienenen Interpretation des parmenideischen Gedichts, das in seinen beiden Teilen dargelegte sachliche Verhaltnis von Schein und Sein als innere Verflechtung philosophisch zu legitimieren. (...) Die Ausgabe enthalt den griechisch-deutschen Text und wurde von Hans-Georg Gadamer bearbeitet und mit einem Nachwort versehen. (shrink)

English summary: With his research on early Greek philosophy, Hermann Diels created the definitive works of his era, and his Fragments of the Presocratics remains the standard work on the topic. However, the scholar never published a panorama of his unmatched knowledge. For the first time, a transcript of the lecture in which Diels represented his vision of Hellenic thought is now available. The script from the 1897/98 winter semester documents the oratory and pedagogy of the great Hellenist and was (...) provided by one of his exceptional students, the Munich-based Egyptologist Friedrich Wilhelm von Bissing. Diels proved himself as a clear-headed thinker discussing the historical course of early proverbial wisdom, the natural and political theory of Plato, and the conceptual precision of Aristotle. Central figures such as Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Democritus are concisely drawn and colored. Thus the text offers an absorbing picture of the origins of theoretical consciousness in Europe. German text. German description: Mit seinen Forschungen zur fruehgriechischen Philosophie hat Hermann Diels Epoche gemacht; seine aFragmente der Vorsokratiker sind weiterhin das Standardwerk zum Thema. Nie jedoch hat der Gelehrte ein Panorama seines unerreichten Wissens veroffentlicht. Erstmals wird nun eine Mitschrift jener Vorlesung zuganglich, in der Diels seine Sicht des hellenischen Denkens darstellte. Das Skript aus dem Wintersemester 1897/98 dokumentiert vorzueglich Sprachkraft und Padagogik des grossen Grazisten; es stammt von einem Ausnahme-Studenten, dem spateren Muenchner Agyptologen Friedrich Wilhelm von Bissing.Im historischen Gang von frueher Spruchweisheit bis zur Natur- und Staatslehre Platons und der begrifflichen Prazisionsarbeit des Aristoteles hebt Diels besonders das Fortwirken grosser Denkmuster hervor. Zentrale Gestalten wie Anaximander, Heraklit, Parmenides oder Demokrit sind pragnant und farbig gezeichnet. So bietet der Text ueber seinen fachhistorischen Wert hinaus ein fesselndes Bild der Urspruenge theoretischen Bewusstseins in Europa. (shrink)

Der Band versammelt die Beiträge einer internationalen Tagung zu zentralen Stationen der Vorsokratiker-Rezeption: Platon, Aristoteles, Autoren der hellenistischen und der Kaiserzeit, der Renaissance und der Gegenwart. Die Untersuchungen zeichnen sich durch einen rezeptionsorientierten Forschungsansatz aus und gehen in vielfältiger Hinsicht den Funktionen nach, die die Bezugnahmen auf die Vorsokratiker im jeweils untersuchten Rezeptionskontext erfüllen. Sie fragen: Welche Haltung zum rezipierten Text zeigt sich im rezipierenden Text? Dient er polemischer Abgrenzung oder vielmehr der Bekräftigung eigener Auffassungen im Rekurs auf (...) die Autorität,der Alten‘? Inwieweit lässt der rezipierende Text das Bemühen um eine unvoreingenommene, sachlich-objektive Darstellung erkennen? Konstruieren die rezipierenden Texte eine Rezeptions- oder Sukzessionslinie und wie ordnen sie sich selbst gegebenenfalls in diese ein? Wird hierbei der hermeneutische Prozess der Rezeption reflektiert oder thematisiert? Mit der Untersuchung dieser und ähnlicher Fragen greift der Band einen Forschungsansatz auf, der mit Bezug auf die Vorsokratiker ganz wesentlich von Georg Wöhrle gefördert wurde; ihm ist der Band als Festschrift gewidmet. (shrink)