8. If Thales ever wrote anything, it soon was lost, and the works which were written in his name did not, as a rule, deceive even the ancients.[79] Aristotle professes to know something about the views of Thales; but he does not pretend to know how they were arrived at, nor the arguments by which they were supported. He does, indeed, make certain suggestions, which are repeated by later writers as statements of fact; but he himself simply gives them for what they are worth.[80] There is another difficulty in connexion with the tradition. Many a precise-looking statement in the _Placita_ has no other foundation than the habit of ascribing any doctrine which was, roughly speaking, characteristic of the whole Ionic “Succession” to “Thales and his followers,” and so producing the appearance of a definite statement about Thales. But, in spite of all this, we need not doubt that Aristotle was correctly informed with regard to the leading points. We have seen traces of reference to Thales in Hekataios, and nothing can be more likely than that later writers of the school should have quoted the views of its founder. We may venture, therefore, upon a conjectural restoration of his cosmology, in which we shall be guided by what we know for certain of the subsequent development of the Milesian school; for we should naturally expect to find its characteristic doctrines at least foreshadowed in the teaching of its earliest representative. But all this must be taken for just what it is worth; speaking strictly, we do not know anything about the teaching of Thales at all. Footnote 79: See R. P. 9 e. Footnote 80: R. P. _ib._ [Sidenote: Conjectural account of the cosmology of Thales.] 9. The statements of Aristotle may be reduced to three: (1) The earth floats on the water.[81] (2) Water is the material cause[82] of all things. (3) All things are full of gods. The magnet is alive; for it has the power of moving iron.[83] Footnote 81: Arist. _Met._ Α, 3. 983 b 21 (R. P. 10); _de Caelo_, Β, 13. 294 a 28 (R. P. 11). Later writers add that he gave this as an explanation of earthquakes (so Aet. iii. 15, 1); but this is probably due to a “Homeric allegorist” (Appendix, § 11), who wished to explain the epithet ἐννοσίγαιος. Cf. Diels, _Dox._ p. 225. Footnote 82: _Met._ Α, 3. 983 b 20 (R. P. 10). I have said “material cause,” because τῆς τοιαύτης ἀρχῆς (b 19) means τῆς ἐν ὕλης εἴδει ἀρχῆς (b 7). Footnote 83: Arist. _de An._ Α, 5. 411 a 7 (R. P. 13); _ib._ 2. 405 a 19 (R. P. 13 a). Diog. i. 24 (R. P. _ib._) adds amber. This comes from Hesychios of Miletos; for it occurs in the scholium of Par. A on Plato, _Rep._ 600 a.