Theophrastus’De sensibus in A-fragments of Diels-Kranz. Revisiting the Testimonia and their Value

  • 1 University of Adelaide, Department of Classics, Archaeology & Ancient History, SA 5005, Adelaide, Australia
Han Baltussen
  • Corresponding author
  • University of Adelaide, Department of Classics, Archaeology & Ancient History, SA 5005, Adelaide, Australia
  • Email
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar


As a crucial source for Presocratic theories of sense perception, Theophrastus’ De sensibus deserves a closer scrutiny than the placement among A-fragments, as often suggested or instigated. This paper proposes to refine our terminology for labelling the varying quality of reporting within the A-fragments has. It supplements the existing criticism of Diels’ division by analysing neglected features. A reassessment of the assumptions underlying the terms ‘fragment’ and ‘paraphrase’ can contribute to dissolving the sharp distinction between A- and B-fragments in DK. It advocates, not equality for A-fragments, but a more inclusive and accurate evaluation of the passages.

  • Baltussen, Han (1998): “The Purpose of Theophrastus’ De sensibus Reconsidered”, Apeiron 31, pp. 167–200.

  • Baltussen, Han (2000a): “Plato in the Placita (Aëtius bk. IV): A Dielsian Blind Spot”, Philologus 144, pp. 227–238.

  • Baltussen, Han (2000b): Theophrastus against the Presocratics and Plato. Peripatetic Dialectic in the De Sensibus. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

  • Baltussen, Han (2002a): “Wehrli’s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes. The physical fragments in Simplicius On Aristotle’s Physics”. In: István M. Bodnár and William W. Fortenbaugh (eds.): Eudemus of Rhodes (Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities, Vol. XI). New Brunswick, N. J.: Transaction, pp. 127–156.

  • Baltussen, Han (2002b): “Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations”. In: Ian Worthington and John Foley (eds.): Epea and Grammata: Oral and Written Communication in Ancient Greece. Leiden: Brill, pp. 173–189.

  • Baltussen, Han (2006a): “Addenda Eudemea”, Leeds International Classical Studies vol. 5.01 pp. 1–28 @

  • Baltussen, Han (2006b): “An Empedoclean ‘Hearing Aid’? Fragment B99 Revisited”, Methexis XIX, pp. 7–20.

  • Baltussen, Han (2007): “Playing the Pythagorean: Ion’s Triagmos”. In V. Jennings and A. Katsaros (eds.): The World of Ion of Chios Mnemosyne Suppl., vol. 288) Leiden: Brill, pp. 295–318.

  • Baltussen, Han (2008): Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator. London: Duckworth.

  • Baltussen, Han (2015): “Understanding Odours in Probl. 12–13: Peripatetic Problems Concerning the Elusive Sense of Smell”. In: R. Mayhew (ed.): The Aristotelian Problemata Physica: Philosophical and Scientific Investigations. Leiden: E. J. Brill, pp. 172–189.

  • Baltussen, Han (2017): “Slim Pickings and Russian Dolls? Presocratic Fragments in Peripatetic Sources after Aristotle”, Journal of Juristic Papyrology (Warsaw) (special issue on fragments, ed. by J. Kwapicz), pp. 73–90.

  • Baron, Christopher A. (2011): “The Delimitation of Fragments in Jacoby’s FGrHist: Some Examples from Duris of Samos”, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51, pp. 86–110.

  • Beare, John I. (1992): Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition from Alcmæon to Aristotle. New York: Thoemmes Press (photomechanical repr., first edition: Oxford: Claredon Press, 1906).

  • Berti, Monica (2013): “Collecting Fragments by Topic: Degrees of Preservation and Textual Relations Among Genres”, Ancient Society 43, pp. 269–288.

  • Berti, Monica (2016): “Documenting Homeric Text-Reuse in the Deipnosophistae of Athenaeus of Naucratis”, BICS 59.2, pp. 121–139.

  • Bryan, Jenny; Wardy, Robert; Warren, James, eds. (2018): Authors and Authorities in Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Including: “Introduction: Authorship and Authority in Ancient Philosophy” at pp. 1–19.

  • Burnikel, Walter (1974): Textgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu neun Opuscula Theophrasts. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.

  • Cherniss, Harold (1964): Aristotle’s Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy. New York: Octagon Books. (first ed.: Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1935).

  • Diels, Hermann (1879): Doxographi Graeci. Berlin: Reimer (photomechanically reprinted by W. De Gruyter, several impressions).

  • Diels, Hermann, ed. (1901): Poetarum Philosophicorum Fragmenta. Berlin: Weidmann.

  • Diels, Hermann, ed. (1989): Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Griechisch und Deutsch von H. Diels. Hrg. von W. Kranz. 18. Aufl. Zürich-Hildesheim: Weidmann.

  • Dorandi, Tiziano (2013): Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers (Edited with Introduction). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Ehler, D. (1992): Hermann Diels, Hermann Usener, Eduard Zeller. Briefwechsel [Erster Band]. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

  • Eigler, Udo (1993): “Theophrast. De odoribus”. In: Ulrich Eigler, Georg Wöhrle (eds.): Theophrast: De odoribus. Edition, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Stuttgart: Teubner, pp. 20–56.

  • Ierodiakonou, Katerina (2005): “Empedocles on colour and colour vision”, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 29, pp. 1–37.

  • Kerschensteiner, Jula (1962): Kosmos. Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zu den Vorsokratikern. Munich: C. H. Beck.

  • Kidd, Ian (1997): “What is a Posidonian Fragment?”. In: Glenn W. Most (ed.): Collecting Fragments – Fragmente Sammeln. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, pp. 225–36.

  • Laks, André (1997): “Du témoignage comme fragment”. In: Glenn W. Most (ed.): Collecting Fragments – Fragmente Sammeln. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, pp. 237–72.

  • Laks, André (1998): “Éditer l’influence? Remarques sur la section C des «Fragmente der Vorsokratiker» de Diels-Kranz”. In: Walter Burkert, Marciano Laura Gemelli, and Elisabetta Matelli (eds.): Fragmentsammlungen philosophischer Texte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, pp. 89–105.

  • Laks, André (2011): “Fragments. Réflexions à propos de l’édition Harnack du Contre les Chrétiens de Porphyre”. In: Sébastien Morlet (ed.): Le Traité de Porphyre contre les chrétiens. Un siècle de recherches, nouvelles questions. Paris: Bibliothèque Augustinienne, pp. 51–57.

  • Laks, André (2013): “Voraussetzungen, Zwänge und Probleme einer anthologischen Edition der ersten Griechischen Philosophen”, Textkritische Beiträge 14, pp. 107–120.

  • Laks, André; Most, Glenn (2016): Early Greek Philosophy. 9 vols. (Loeb Classical Library) Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press.

  • Mansfeld, Jaap (1996): “Aristote et la structure du ‘De Sensibus’ de Théophraste”, Phronesis 41, pp. 158–87.

  • Mansfeld, Jaap and Runia, David (1997): Aëtiana. Intellectual Context and Method of a Doxographer. Vol. 1. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

  • Mansfeld, Jaap (2011): “Hermann Diels (1848–1922)”. In: Oliver Primavesi (ed.): The Presocratics from the Latin Middle Ages to Hermann Diels. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, pp. 389–420.

  • McDiarmid, John B. (1953): “Theophrastus on the Presocratic Causes”, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 61, pp. 85–156.

  • McDiarmid, John B. (1962): “The Manuscripts of Theophrastus’ De sensibus”, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 44, pp. 1–32.

  • Most, Glenn, ed. (1997): Collecting Fragments – Fragmente Sammeln. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

  • O’Brien, Denis (1969): Empedocles’ Cosmic Cycle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Primavesi, Oliver (2011): “Henri II Estienne über Philosophische Dichtung: Eine Fragmentsammlung als Beitrag zu einer Poetologischen Kontroverse”. In: O. Primavesi (ed.): The Presocratics from the Latin Middle Ages to Hermann Diels. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, pp. 157–196.

  • Regenbogen, Otto (1940): “Theophrastos”, Paulys Realencyclopädie der Altertumswissenschaft, Suppl. Bd. 7, cols. 1354–1562.

  • Rudolph, Kelli (2018): “Theophrastus and the Authority of the De Sensibus”. In: Jenny Bryan, Robert Wardy, James Warren (eds.): Authors and Authorities in Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139–61.

  • Stephens, Susan (2002): “Commenting on Fragments”. In: Roy K. Gibson and Christina Shuttleworth Kraus (eds.): The Classical Commentary. Histories, Practices, Theory. Leiden-Boston-New York: Brill, pp. 67–88.

  • Stratton, George Malcolm (1967): Theophrastus and the Greek Physiological Psychology before Aristotle. Chicago: Argonaut, Inc. (photomechanical reprint of 1st ed.: London: George Allen and Unwin, 1917)

  • Tarrant, Harold (1996): “Orality and Plato’s Narrative Dialogues”. In: Ian Worthington (ed.): Voice into Text: Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece. Leiden: Brill, pp. 129–147.

  • Whittaker, John (1989): “The Value of Indirect Tradition in the Establishment of Greek Philosophical Texts or the Art of Misquotation”. In: John N. Grant (ed.): Editing Greek and Latin Texts. New York: AMS Press, pp. 63–95.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.

Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

Publications in Rhizomata cover the full range of ancient philosophy, with special emphasis on the interaction between philosophy and science. Another thematic priority is the influence of ancient philosophy and its interpretation in the later tradition. Supplementing the articles, discussion notes and reviews, the journal also provides bibliographical documentation of recently published important work in the South-East European region.