INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UUI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. ProQuest Information and Leaming 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 UMI* UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE THE EPISTEMIC ORIGINS OF XENOPHANES’ NATURAL THEOLOGY A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree o f Doctor of Philosophy By SCOTT L. STEARMAN Norman, Oklahoma 2002 UMI Number; 3040840 UMI UMI Microform 3040840 Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Leaming Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Leaming Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 © Copyright by SCOTT L. STEARMAN 2002 Ail Rights Reserved. THE EPISTEMIC ORIGINS OF XENOPHANES’ NATURAL THEOLOGY A Dissertation APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY BY \l0cOfv<. i Q ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work could not have been accomplished without the assistance of others. While no one except the author bears responsibilities for its shortcomings, there are several individuals who helped create whatever intrinsic worth it has. Naturally foremost among these is Dr. Hugh Benson, whose direction, patience, and extraordinary willingness to work “a la distance” were greatly appreciated and undoubtedly necessary. This work in no way rises to the level o f his philosophical scholarship, but it was nevertheless aided by his inspirational example. There were many others, less involved in this work, but of great academic encouragement. Among these are the other members of my dissertation committee (Ellen Green, Chris Swoyer, Zev Trachtenberg, and Wayne Riggs) and those who stood cheering at a further distance; Dr. Bob Clarke and Dr. Mack Roark of Oklahoma Baptist University. There is also institutional gratitude to be expressed; first to the Emmanuel Baptist Church of Paris, which was generous in its sabbaticals and patient when its pastor was away in a library; second to Regents Park College of Oxford University, which allowed a summer as “visiting member of the senior common room” and access to the Bodleian Library. IV Naturally there were those less directly involved in this work’s philosophical argumentation, but who were no less significant to its development. My parents, Sam and Margaret Stearman, who paid for at least the beginning stages of my education (and a good deal else to boot), deserve more than they’ll ever receive. This is undoubtedly true o f my wife, Cecelia, who was always patient, loving, and willing to do what she could to help see these pages come to print. Knowing that finishing meant the opportunity to spend more time with her was a great motivation. ABBREVIATIONS A Testimonia (followed by a Diels-Kranz number) DK Diels-Kranz BCE Before the Common Era dating F Fragment (followed by a Diels-Kranz number) KRS Kirk, Raven, and Schofield LSJ Liddell, Scott, and Jones MXG Melisso, Xenophane, Gorgia of pseudo-Aristotle VI TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................................iv ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................... vi ABSTRACT................................................................................................................... ix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................I Section I - Xenophanes’ Compartmentalized Interpretation Section 2 - Xenophanes’ Dates and Places Section 3 - Xenophanes’ Writings n. RELEVANT FRAGMENTS: Translation and Commentary .....................21 Section I - Introduction Section 2 - Translation and Commentary m. XENOPHANES’ NATURALISTIC EPISTEMOLOGY........................ 51 Section 1 - Introduction Section 2 - The Appropriate Epistemological Model Section 3 - Xenophanes’ Fallibilism Applied to Divination IV. XENOPHANES’ NATURAL THEOLOGY........................................... 87 Section 1 - Introduction Section 2 - The Content of Xenophanes’ Theology vu V. EPISTEMIC FOUNDATIONS AND THE FORMULATION OF XENOPHANES’ TH EO LO G Y .................................................................. 137 Section 1 - A New Understanding of the basis of Knowledge Section 2 - The Explanatory Method and Natural Phenomena Section 3 - The Explanatory Method and the Theological Reformation VI. CONCLUSION: A FINAL WORD ABOUT INFLUENCE................ 156 WORKS CITED ...............................................................................................................161 VUl ABSTRACT Xenophanes was the first ancient Greek to make explicitly philosophical statements about epistemology. He was also the first Pre-Socratic to attack traditional and popular religion, eventually forming a rudimentary natural theology. This monograph attempts to show the clear connection and mutual dependency of these two streams of thought. In the process of this demonstration, however, it is necessary to give an interpretation of both streams. Initially the extant firagments relating to Xenophanes’ epistemology or theology are translated with a brief commentary when a translation issue is paramount. Then a view of Xenophanes’ epistemology is developed, based upon this textual exegesis and two millennia of scholarship. It is argued that Xenophanes is not the empiricist, rationalist, or sceptic that he is sometimes portrayed as being. Rather he best fits the model (indeed a mold he helped create) of a naturalistic fallibilist. The same interpretive enterprise is attempted with his natural theology. A number of misunderstandings of Xenophanes’ beliefs are laid aside and a “minimalist” vision of his theological convictions is developed. It is found that Xenophanes is not a committed monotheist, or monist, as has sometimes been taught. His philosophical razor trims excessive adumbrations and speculations, and trims theology of many of its traditional aspects. IX The monograph continues by looking at how these two streams emerge from one single - albeit complex - commitment to a proto-scientific commitment to the observance of nature. It is this consistent, coherent, and widely cast observational activity that forms the basis of the Xenophanean revolution. The fifth chapter is an attempt to demonstrate the continuity between the scientific methodology of Xenophanes and ours today. In the end Xenophanes appears to be quite influential. This document ends by showing the evident appreciation that Socrates held for this thinker. It was primarily through Socrates that Xenophanes would extend his formidable ideas through centuries of western civilization. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 61 fti) ^ c jo v et^vire 8eo^ fteAi, ito?^Xov ë(ltatrKov ykuirirova o v k o , neXetr€ai. * If it is true that when the pre-Socratics are read with an open mind and sensitive ear that the reader cannot help being struck by the religious note in much of what they say, then Xenophanes is no exception/ In fact he epitomizes the rule. This is one rare example of agreement among contemporary historians of early Greek Philosophy. Xenophanes’ primary contribution was in the area of religious thought. His attack on anthropomorphism, his polemic against Homer’s immoral gods, his refusal to countenance a god that moved hither and thither like a divine butler, were a revolutionary, even if primarily critical, contribution.^ ' From Diels, H. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. (Berlin: Weidemann, 8th edn, 1974), pp. 113 - 138. Following convention, all fragments will be numbered after Diels’ work. “A” will refer to the testimonia, “F ’ to the actual ft^gments. The translation of the fragments will be my own. Where I am dependent upon the work of others (as I will be particularly so of Lesher, 1992) for help in translation and interpretation it will be so noted. Here: “If god had not made honey, men would think figs were sweeter.” ^ I am making allusions to Vlastos’ opening line in his famous ‘Theology and Philosophy in Early Greek Thought” reprinted most recently in Studies in Greek Philosophy (Princeton: University Press, 1995), pp. 3-31. Vlastos made some well supported claims against Jaeger, but his first objection, i.e., that it is wrong to use o f the word “theology” to describe the activity of the Pre-Socratics,