Customer Reviews

Ancilla to Pre-Socratic Philosophers: A Complete Translation of the Fragments in Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Back in 1948, Kathleen Freeman's "Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers" was a genuine gift to English-speakers interested in the early Greek thinkers, but not at home in Greek, Latin, and German. In this "handmaiden" she translated the "fragments" -- actually quotations in texts by other, later, writers, although a few physical fragments have turned up on papyri -- as they were presented in the then most-recent edition of a classic of scholarship, the fifth edition of H. Diels' "Fragmente der Vorsokratiker." (Which, for those who haven't guessed, was one of the monuments of late-nineteenth-century German classical studies.)

The translation was severely plain, and seems to have pretty much avoided any but the most basic interpretation -- that of vocabulary and grammar (which can get pretty controversial for this material!). She was not the first to translate most of these passages in one place (Burnet's 1892 "Early Greek Philosophy," and its revisions, included a great many), but her work was both exceptionally comprehensive, and when published, up-to-date; the title of "Ancilla" indicated, to those familiar with the word, that it was intended to assist.

The book was originally published as part of a set, along with "The Pre-Socratic Philosophers: A Companion to Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker," which is now out of print. It was obviously intended as a supplemental reader, to be used with one of the many books on the history of Greek philosophy (not necessarily Freeman's "Companion.") There is not even a clear statement of the rationale for segregating this extremely diverse group as all characterized by being predecessors to Socrates. (Although, in fact, some seem to have been his younger contemporaries....) Nietzsche, who, early in his short career as a classical philologist, did an important study of one of the major late-classical sources, suggested calling them "Pre-Platonic." This is actually more helpful; what they most clearly have in common is that Plato's works are the first such to survive "in bulk," and their writings reach us only in snippets. Traditional usage prevailed, with Diels, with Freeman, and everyone else.

The "Ancilla" was restricted to Diels' "B" texts, those he regarded as certainly or likely to be the actual words of the men to whom they were attributed. The much more voluminous "A" texts, the biographical, descriptive, and anecdotal "Testimonies," were excluded (Freeman dealt with them in "Companion"). Freeman's was a modest-looking but difficult project, carried out to the satisfaction of many classicists -- although every specialist, of course, found something to object to in the treatment of his or her favored Pre-Socratic.

Since the book was largely aimed at people finding their way through the literature, Freeman thoughtfully provided a table to find fifth-edition Diels texts as numbered in the fourth edition, which was cited in much of the older secondary literature in English.

Naturally, the sixth (by some complex reckonings, also reprinted as the tenth) edition of Diels, as revised by W. Kranz (hence DK), appeared shortly thereafter, in 1952. Scholarship since has relied on this version, known as Diels-Kranz, citing texts by their 1952 DK numbers. Unhappily, neither Harvard University Press nor, apparently, the British publisher, Blackwell, saw fit to issue a new edition of the "Ancilla," reflecting any changes, or even adding a note making clear whether, and where, the standard numbering had changed in the Diels / DK transition, let alone any differences in the German translation.

In fact, it was not until 1983 that the "Ancilla" even appeared in paperback (from Harvard); in the meantime, competing volumes, such as Philip Wheelwright's "The Presocratics" (1966; still in print) had become available, with fewer fragments, but many "Testimonies," and some sort of running commentary.

This delay is somewhat puzzling. The post-war years saw a considerable increase in publications concerning the Pre-Socratics, and a less expensive version would presumably have been a textbook of choice in a variety of courses, not just Greek philosophy. Most notably, the German philosophers Heidegger and Jaspers freely interpreted them, if rarely to the satisfaction of a classicist. (More recently, David L. Hall and Roger T. Ames made considerable use of the Pre-Socratics in a trilogy of studies comparing ancient Chinese and early western thought, "Thinking Through Confucius," "Anticipating China," and "Thinking From the Han." I have found these comparisons illuminating.)

But at least it is available. And the "Ancilla" still has considerable value, besides its still nearly-complete coverage. Since it had no burden of citations of secondary literature, and no explicit interpretation, there was little to become hopelessly out of date as the pace of publication picked up, and continued to accelerate. In 2002, Gregory Hays cited it, in a new translation of Marcus Aurelius [Modern Library], as "a good starting point" for "Heraclitus and other early philosophers who appear in the *Meditations*."

So the "Ancilla" remains a fine piece of work, endlessly useful to the student. It is just the book to have at hand while reading someone's Greek-laden exposition of, say, Parmenides or Empedocles, or to check a translation that seems too good, or too convenient for an argument, to be taken at face value.

In any other situation, however, it is also likely to be endlessly frustrating. Not so much because it doesn't answer questions, but because it gives no guidance in finding answers (you just have to look elsewhere), and doesn't even suggest what questions would be appropriate.

Fortunately, when you reach this stage, there are some excellent, and very recent, volumes of translations, currently in print, which cover much of the same ground, but with much more information. Two of them, which should be readily available, also rely mainly on the "B" texts. Jonathan Barnes' volume for the Penguin Classics, "Early Greek Philosophy" (1987) is in its second edition (2002), which now includes the most spectacular addition to our knowledge of the Pre-Socratics, the "Strasbourg Papyrus" of Empedocles. Barnes provides an interpretive introduction, and useful bibliographies, but only brief head notes to the translations.

The Penguin Classics volume is in competition with Robin Waterfield's more extensive translation of "The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and The Sophists" in the Oxford World's Classics series (2000), which includes many "A" texts, and the "Strasbourg Papyrus," has both explanatory and textual notes, and generally is well-provided with aides to the reader (although it lacks Barnes' helpful Subject Index). It is unusual in including the surviving passages of the interesting figures known as Sophists, whom Plato had rejected as not being "real" Philosophers. (The Penguin Classics issued its own "The Greek Sophists," translated by John Dillon and Tania Gergel, in 2003).

Still, Freeman's book is far handier as a quick reference; the virtue of its limitations.

For those interested in the actual Greek (and some Latin) texts, including a lot of the "A" Testimonies, and some (usually) not-too-technical discussions of textual problems and philosophical issues, the first place to go used to be G.S. Kirk and J.E. Raven, "The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts" (Cambridge University Press, 1957; in paperback in 1971). Like the "Ancilla," it aged fairly quickly in a period of intense interest in the Pre-Socratics; the more so because it covered historical and philosophical problems. Unlike the "Ancilla," however, this edition of the book was replaced by the extensively revised Second Edition, by Kirk, Raven, and M. Schofield, in 1983 (quickly issued in paperback, and reissued with a bibliographic update in 1995); for which the publisher as well as the editors/translators deserve gratitude. It remains the first place to go. (In the Second Edition, the translations, previously relegated to italics at the foot of the page, were moved into the main text in roman type; a great convenience to new Greekless readers, a distraction at first to those, like me, who had become accustomed to jumping back and forth on the page.) It included a section from the "Derveni Papyrus," the first closely datable "Orphic" text with philosophical content. (A carbonized-during-cremation papyrus was discovered in 1962 in an undisturbed tomb; the long-promised "full edition" of this discovery is, at this writing, still to be published sometime "soon." Gabor Betegh's 2004 volume "The Derveni Papyrus: Cosmology, Theology and Interpretation" contains another preliminary text and translation, with references to the already extensive literature.)

However, despite my admiration for Kirk-Raven-Schofield, there are places where it becomes very technical indeed; enough to make this reader turn back to the simplicity of Freeman with relief, for at least a while.

Am I the only one who has ever had the following experience? You keep reading summaries of the pre-Socratics, and every once in a while they'll toss you an actual fragment. But when you ask them, "Hey, where did you happen to get these lovely pre-Socratic fragments?," they tell you its all contained in a single volume by a guy named Diels. Oh, but there is one small catch. His book is called "Fragmente der Vorsokratteker," or something, and so you have to learn how to speak German. If this problem has been keeping you awake at night because you only read English, then worry no longer! Kathleen Freeman's "Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers" is a complete translation of the Diels text, excluding only a couple orations by Gorgias. To the best of my knowledge, it is the only translation avaliable. For anyone with an interest in philosophy, this book is an invaluable reference that you will turn to time and again. All the fragments of Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and Parmenides are contained in this one little softcover volume for only a few dollars. Get this book now, because who knows how long it will be in print. If you wait too long, you may have to learn how to read German.

I think it's important for everyone to realize that when you purchase this book, you are getting less than you may imagine.

The back of the book (which is viewable through the "Look Inside!" feature) states:
"This book is a complete translation of the fragments of the pre-Socratic philosophers given in the fifth edition of Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker."

Sounds good, huh?

Well, I think right about here is where it would have been extraordinarily appropriate and relevant to mention the fact that this book is not an autonomous work, and is instead merely supplemental to another of Freeman's books, 'Companion to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers'.

Don't you agree?

But no, I had to buy this work, wait for it to arrive, and then find this sentence in the extremely short foreword (N.B: the "Look Inside!" feature conveniently skips right over the foreword):

"Comments on readings and interpretation have been confined to footnotes, and are restricted to the minimum; for further discussion, the reader is referred to my Companion to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers, to which this book is ancillary."

For ancillary, read "subordinate."

I do not care what led to the decision to omit this seemingly vital (yet, apparently superfluous) piece of information, but, to my mind, this situation needs to be remedied and I accordingly wrote this review...

In any case, I managed to track down a copy of Freeman's 'Companion to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers'. [Note: It's that Freeman's Companion is a companion to the three volume work of Diels, and this gives rise to its name]. I would recommend that everyone do likewise, since it is meticulous in its citation of sources, and extremely helpful in explicating innumerable passages in the Ancilla. However, it was extremely difficult for me to find a copy of Freeman's Companion as it is unfortunately exceedingly rare. Go ahead and test this assertion by trying to find a copy for yourself. I'm betting you will either fail or, in your success, have to fork over a large sum of money.

FYI, Diels' book is in German [as a side-note, the true name of his work is 'Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker']. This is true of all the statements in the three volume work that are not the Fragments themselves, but not true of the Fragments, which are still in Ancient Greek. I myself read fluent German, and I wouldn't be able to read Diels' work.

I would like to defend the description of the Ancilla as subordinate to the Companion [Note: The word ancillary is originally used by Freeman herself (etymologically related to the title of the work), and I'm following her lead, because after reviewing the situation, I agree with her].

In the Ancilla, one encounters such enlightening fragments as this one from Anaximander of Miletus:

4. Nozzle of the bellows.

Or, how about this one from Heracleitus of Ephesus?

137. Utterly decreed by fate.

Wait, there is more! Empedocles of Acragas states:

159. The accumulated bulk.

Now, admittedly, there are many lucid and perfectly clear statements in the Ancilla in addition to all the half-formed or poorly understood sentences. However, it must be forcibly emphasized that the Ancilla is full of FRAGMENTS in a FRAGMENTARY condition. If one were to read it as a stand alone, a lot of it is incomprehensible and downright puzzling. If one really keeps this in mind, it will be perfectly clear why Kathleen Freeman says the following in the preface to her Companion to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers:

"But of those students who are willing to take the trouble to study the sources, many have not the time to read all the material collected in Diels. Even those who have the time would usually be glad of some guidance at first; for of the fragments of a man's work which happen to survive, not all are of equal importance, while the tradition about his life and work varies still more greatly in value and is often conflicting. The object of this Companion is to offer such guidance. It is the fruit of a number of years of experience reading Early Greek Philosophy with university students; and its plan has developed out of an acquaintance with their needs."

Hence, it is perfectly logical to describe the Ancilla as ancillary (subordinate) to the Companion. And in any case, I give both my wholehearted recommendation, but ONLY if studied side by side, since, to paraphrase Einstein, the Ancilla without the Companion is lame, and the Companion without the Ancilla is blind.

I would give this work five stars if I were only to judge the quality of its contents and of Freeman's scholarship and translations. However, considering that it is nearly impossible to find its companion volume, without which the book is not nearly as helpful, I have no choice but to downgrade the book to four stars.

Kathleen Freeman, 'Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers - A complete translation of the Fragments in Diels, Fragamente der Vorsokratiker,' Oxford: Basil Blackwell, Sixth Impression 1971 (First printed 1947). 162 pp. ISBN 063102820X.

The staggering importance of the Pre-Socratics was made abundantly clear recently by the American scholar Thomas McEvilley when, in his 'The Shape of Ancient Thought,' he pointed out that: "Within the academic departments where the Greek and Latin Classics are custodialized, the fragments of the pre-Socratics occupy the pinnacle of a hierarchy of texts. They are the Ur-fountainhead of the western tradition [and] arguably the crown of the Greek heritage as it has survived" (page 643):

The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies

But why, given this, do we still have to resort to Kathleen Freeman's edition of the fragments, an edition that is now over 60 years old? Why does her book remain, after all this time, the only COMPLETE English translation of the B fragments in Diels?

Personally I've always found her 'Ancilla' to be very useful so far as it goes, despite the fact that some of her translations could probably be improved on and also that her book would have been far more useful if she had provided the Greek text.

But why hasn't the enormously wealthy English-speaking world been given an equivalent to the German Diels-Kranz, a truly COMPLETE bilingual Greek-English edition of the fragments?

Why, if we want to consult the Greek, must we have to spend the $300 or more that a copy of the out-of-print Diels-Kranz now costs on the used book market since a COMPLETE Greek text of the fragments, so far as I know, exists nowhere else?

And why have all of our classicists without exception confined themselves to cherry-picking and given us editions of only those fragments they personally felt comfortable with while ignoring the rest?

I think the answer to this question has been provided by Victor David Hanson and John Heath in their devastating expose of the Anglo classicist establishment, 'Who Killed Homer? - The Demise of Classical Education and the Recovery of Greek Wisdom' (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2001. ISBN 1893554260) a book which infuriated classicists since it happens to be true.

Classicists as a class are here accused of being idle, arrogant, greedy, irresponsible, amoral careerists. They are cads who care little for Greek thought and who have nothing but the most extreme contempt, not only for the general public which pays their salaries, but even for their students since they would rather disburden themselves of the distasteful task of teaching by passing it to an underclass of academic slaves known as 'graduate teaching assistants' while (when not gadding about the world on an endless round of international 'conferences,' i.e. mutual back-slapping cocktail-slurping canape-gobbling gabfests) they themselves engage in what they fondly describe as 'research' (i.e. the scribbling of esoteric monographs on utterly trivial matters which no-one is ever going to read) since they would blanch at the thought of actually doing something useful such as a truly COMPLETE bilingual Greek-English edition of the fragments.

The laziness, greed, and arrogance of these elitists have pretty well destroyed the classics as a subject of study and hence as a profession. Many of their former colleagues and most of their ex-students are now flipping burgers or driving taxis, and I think one may confidently predict that it won't be long before the remainder of this elite are looking for similar work since no society can be expected to indefinitely support such a useless class of parasites.

I think this explains why we do not have a Greek-English Diels-Kranz and why we do not have much else besides and sadly never will. And I think this is also why Kathleen Freeman is to be congratulated on having given us at least a COMPLETE English translation of the main fragments of the pre-Socratics since it is more than the selected scraps our latter day classicists have condescended to toss to us.

Her work, so far as I am concerned and imperfect though it may be, remains a standing condemnation of our soon-to-be-extinct Anglo classicist elite and is well worth acquiring by the interested student.

As a previous review indicates: this book is only translations. That does not make it "subordinate" to Freeman's "Commentary." Think about it: since when are primary texts subordinate to commentaries?
As a translation of pre-Socratic fragments it is a complete collection and definitely handy to have. On the other hand, if you plan to use it to study the pre-Socratics, forget it. The translations are terrible, often adding entire sentences to the original Greek, presumably to make it "clearer." Translations should be as minimal as possible, particularly when dealing with texts as ambiguous as pre-Socratic fragments. So if you want to do serious work, stay away from this book.