From the Beginning to Plato

things come in the end’ (fr. 27). In the doxography where this line is quoted it is
taken as committing Xenophanes to a cosmogony (Theodoretus, Therapy for Greek
Malaises IV. 5 [DK 21 A 36]). But this conflicts with Xenophanes’ stress
elsewhere on sea as a source of things, and with Aristotle’s denial that any pre-
Socratic monist made earth the first principle (Metaphysics 989a5–6). Probably
Xenophanes meant only that the earth was the origin of all living things: so Guthrie
[2.13] I: 383–7; Lesher [2.60], 124–8. The intricacies of the doxography are
indicated in Mansfeld [2.40], 150–5.
54 This is the standard interpretation: cf. e.g. Guthrie [2.13] I: 386–7. That popular
beliefs are the target of the whole body of Xenophanes’ physical fragments is well
argued by Lesher [2.60], 124–48. For texts and discussion see also KRS, pp. 172–
8.
55 The main modern disagreement about Xenophanes’ handling of physical topics is
whether he treats them as intrinsically ludicrous, deserving only opportunistic
flights of fancy or brief debunking, or works out a serious systematic and
comprehensive theory, albeit mocking popular misconceptions at the same time.
The first view: Burnet [2.11], 121–5; Guthrie [2.13] I: 387–94; Steinmetz [2.69].
54–68. The second: Fränkel [2.63], 119–21; [2.30], 334 (which complains however
of ‘poverty-stricken’ empiricism); Hussey [2.35], 26 (who credits Xenophanes with
a more admirable ontological and methodological ‘parsimony’); Lesher [2.60], 145–
8.
56 On the moon see Runia [2.67].
57 So Keyser [2.64]. The doxographical evidence about Xenophanes’ sun is complex
and confusing; for discussion see Runia [2.68].
58 On ancient interpretations of Xenophanes’ epistemology, see Mansfeld [2.40], 156–
9; on modern see Lesher [2.60], 159–69 (summarizing Lesher [2.65]). A good
recent treatment: Hussey [2.35].
59 For knowledge as direct (not a matter of sign-inference), cf. Alcmaeon, fr.1 [KRS
439]; as transparent, cf. Hippocrates On Ancient Medicine 1. Not everyone would
agree that Xenophanes incorporates all three notions in his concept of knowledge.
60 So Lesher [2.66]. But this may be a text relating rather to the origins of civilization
and discovery of the arts: so e.g. Guthrie [2.13] I: 399–401. Note also that fr.35 is
‘fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty’: Lesher [2.60], 171. The limitations of
human understanding are probably the focus of another famous Xenophanean
remark: ‘If god had not made yellow honey, they would think figs were much
sweeter’ (fr.38 [KRS 189]).
GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR CHAPTERS 2–6
Texts
Original language editions
THE IONIANS 75
2.1 Diels, H. Doxographi Graeci, Berlin, G.Reimer, 1879 (repr. de Gruyter 1965).
Original texts of the main doxographers, with Latin prolegomena.