Heraclitus - Miroslav Marcovich - Heraclitus - Greek Text With A Short Commentary (1967, Los Andes University Press)

iMiT.
KSO εν V enezuela / T allehes GrAficos U niversitarios / M erida

P rinted in V enezuela / T he L os A ndes U niversity P ress / Merida
HERACLITUS
\χ
GREEK TEXT WITH A SHORT COMMENTARY
'4
- BY
M. M ARCOVICH
Sometime Lecturer in Classics in the University o f Belgrade,
Professor o f Classics in the University o f Merida, Venezuela
E D I T I Ü M AI O R
TH E LOS ANDES UNIVERSITY PRESS, MERIDA, VENEZUELA

1967
£>
Z O S '
W ir
To
XX. K. C. GUTHRIE, Cambridge

II. CHERNISS, Princeton
R. MONDOLFO, Buenos Aires
, XA P I Σ TΗ P I A
+
CONTENTS
P reface- page xv
A bbreviations xix
J ’ONSPECTUS NUM ERORUM ΧΧΠ
PART ONEcTlIE DOCTRINE ON THE LOCOS

(Fragments 1-50)
G roup O n e 1
Fragment 1 (1) . 2
>> 2 (31) 12
>> 3 (17) 14
'' 4 (72) 17
C roup T wo 19
Fragment 5 (55) 20
6 (101 a) 22
yy
7 (35) 25
C roup T h ree • 30
Fragment 8 (123) • 1 31
V
9 (54) 34
yy
10 (22) - ' 37
" 11 (is) 39
" 12 (86) 42
jj
13 (707) 45
14 (93) 49
yy
15 (101) 53
IX
G roup P our p. 59
Fragment 16 (40) 61
17 (129) 67
J> 18 (81) 71
yy
19 (28b) 74
yy
20 (28*) 78
” 21 (56) 81
•J 22 (87) 84
G roup F ive 87
Fragment 23 (114 + 2) 88
yy
24 (85) 98
G roup S ix 101
Fragment 25 (10) 102
>> 26 f50) 111
” 27 (51) 119
G roup S even 130
>> 29 (58) 143
30 (42) 150
M 31 (Ϊ25) 153
G roups E ig h t to T welve 158
G r oup E ig h t 161
yy
33 (00) 165
34 (108) 174
G roup N in e 176
>> 36 (18) 179
yy
37 (9) 184
yy
38 (1) 188
39 (18) 190
yy
40 (12) 194
G roup T en 215
X
Fragment 42 (126) p. 220
” 43 (57) 222
G roup E leven _ 224
Fragment 44 (111) 225
” 45 (23) 227
” 46 (58) 231
G roup T w elve 235
” 48 (26) 242
” 49 (21) 247
” 50 (15) 250
PART TWO: THE DOCTRINE ON FIRE

(Fragments 51-93)
G roup T h ir t e e n 259
” 52 (94) 274
” 53 (31) 278
” 54 (90) 291
” 55 (65) 296
” 56ab (84ab) 301
G roup F ourteen 305
Fragment 57 (3) 307
” 58 (6) 312
” 59 (106) 319
” 60 (99) 322
” 61 (A 1: DL IX, 9-11) 329
” 62 (120) 336
” 63ab (105 + 38) 341
” 64 (100) 343
” 65 (A 13) 346
xi
G roup F if t e e n p. 350
67 (45) 365
68 (118) 371
69 (117) 379
70 (85) 383
71 (110) 389
G roup S ix teen 391
" 73 (63) 395
74 (27) 399
75 (92) 403
76 (56·) 407
G roups S ev en teen to T w en ty O n e 411
G roup S ev en teen 412
” 78 (7) 418
G roup E ig h t e e n 421
80 (11) 426
” 81 (16) 431
” 82 (66) 434
G roup N in e t e e n 438
Fragment 83 (108) 440
” 84 (32) 444
85 (11) 447
G roup T w en ty 454
Fragment 86 (5) 455
87 (11) 464
88 (68) 469
89 (74) 471
G roup T w e n t y O n e 474
Fragment 90 (78) ■ 476
xii
Fragment 91 (102) p, 480
92 (79) 485
93 (52) 490
PART THREE: ETHICS, POLITICS, AND THE REST

(Fragments 94-125)
C roup T w en ty Two 499

Fragment 94 (119) 500
" 95 (29) 505
96 (24) 509
97 (25) 512
·’ 98 (49) 515
99 (20) 521
ff
100 (39) 524
ff
101 (104) 526
G roup T w en ty T h r e e 530
Fragment 102 (43) 531
If
103 (44) 533
ff
104 (33) 536
ff
105 (121) 538
>f
106 (125a) 543
G roup T w en ty F o u r : ΑΔΗΛΑ 546

Fragment 107 (124) 547
108 (A 19 + A 18) 552
109 (87) 560
110 (95 + 109) 562
·’ 111 (122) 565
G roup T w en ty F iv e : D ubia et S puria 567

Fragment 112 (115) 568
ff
113 (47) 571
ff
114 (46) 573
ff
115 (67a) 576
xiii
Fragment 116 (A 16) p . 580
” 117 (0) 585
118 {126a) 587
” 119 {127) 591
” 120 {132) 595
” 121 {133) 596
122 {134) 597
" 123 {135) 598
” 124 (150) 599
” 125 (158) 600
A ppe n d ix 602
A L iberally S electiv e B ibliography 605
I ndex V erborum H eracliti 623
I ndex L ocorum 633
I n d ex N om in um P otiorum 654
I ndex R erum M emorabilium 659
A ddendum 665
***
Table of Opposites in Heraclitus’

Doctrine on the Logos betw. pp. 160 and 161
Stemmata and Diagrams
Fragment 1 (1) p . 7
” 27 (51) 128
40 {12) 207
” 119 (127) '594
XIV
PREFACE
(i) In the first place this is a source book.

I tried to give a critical text of all the extant
fragments of Heraclitus.
(a) The basic criterion has been the degree

of litcrality in the citations from Heraclitus.
Thus each one of the Testimonia {which, by the
way, cover a time period of round 2,000 years,
from Ion of Chios up to Marsilio Ficino [1433-
1499], and whose number is considerably bigger
than in any edition of Heraclitus hitherto) is
C, P, R marked either with the letter C (= Citatio,
quotation: Heraclitus verbis expresses), or with
the P ( = only a Paraphrase of the fragment),
or else with the R ( = Respicit: no more than
a reminiscence or reference to the fragment),
according to its probable degree of literality.
Only the words given in heavy type could be
claimed to be by Heraclitus himself.
(b) In accordance with the principle of C,

P, or R, the Testimpnia are counted by the
(a), (b), (c) letters (a), (b), (c), (d), etc., and arranged
according to their evidential value or proximity
to what seems to be a most likely original text
of Heraclitus, marked mostly with the letter
xv
(a). Consequently, the succession (a), (b), (c),
etc., need not imply the chronological order of
Testimonia (which might well be say (b), (c),
(a), as, for example, in fr. 98 [49]).
(c) The derivation of the sources

(a), (a1) (a2) catccl by the figures: (a), (a1), (a2); (b), (b1),
(b2), etc., which means that the Testimonia
(a1), (a2), etc., seem to be dependent on the com
mon source (a). The latter is missing in some
cases, where it has not been preserved. Special
attention has been -paid to the transmission of
the fragments in antiquity.
(ii) The sayings are divided in three Parts

and. in several Groups according to their pro
bable meaning. In this Editio mnior 125 frag
ments are classified into 25 Groups. D ie l s ’ al
phabetical arrangement of the fragments can
not bear criticism (cf. RE, Sup pi. X, p. 270,31
//'.). The numeration of D ie l s -Κ κλνζ is always
given in parenthesis. The division of some frag
ments into lines is mine; its purpose is to em
phasize the semantic units or clauses within the
rhythmical prose of Heraclitus. Λ metrical ana
lysis (like that undertaken by D eicho raebek )
is not intended.
(iii) The Commentary is as short as possible,

since the aim has been to produce a concise but
complete source book, not a long treatise. Some
times the knowledge of the leading English lite
rature on Heraclitus (Bubnet, Kirk, (Juturie)
is presupposed. Sometimes a criticism of K irk’s
valuable book is intended. Often enough new
interpretations of the sayings are attempted. But
I would like to say that grosso modo I share
the approach to Heraclitus maintained by the
XVI
late R ein h a rd t and by K ir k . I have read as
much of the vast literature on Heraclitus as it
was available; nevertheless it is quite possible
that some ideas worth mentioning have been
overlooked.
In short, the emphasis is made on a more cri

tical text of Heraclitus. As for the interpreta
tion and assessment of the fragments, many of
the Heraclitean gnomes, incompletely transmit
ted, discrete and obscure as they are, will be
for a long time open to further criticism and
modifications:
τοΐος ydcp νόος έστίν έπιχθονίων άνθρώπων

οΐον έπ’ ήμαρ άγηισι πατήρ άνδρών τε θεών τε.
I owe my gratitude to Professor G. S. K ir k ,

Trinity Hall, Cambi-idge, and Yale University,
for his acute and learned criticism. Of course,
for any possible mistake the responsability is
only mine. I am also indebted to the Chancellor
of the University of Los Andes, Dr. P. Rixcox
G., for the publication of this edition in Vene
zuela. Finally, I must thank to the printing staff
of the University Press for their care.
Μ. M.
Cambridge
January, 1066
A
ABBREVIATIONS
B I. By water, Iferacliti Ephesii Reliquiae

(Oxoiiii, 1877).
BKHXAYS, •I. Bernays, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, eel.
Grs. Ahh. by 11. l Tsener (Berlin, 1885), I, pp. 1-108
and 291-326.
BUILXET J. Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy (Lon
don, 1892); 4th ed. by W. L. Lorimer
(London, 1930; a reprint with corrections
of 3rd ed., 1920), pp. 130-168.
l)Iv Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, by H.
Diels, 4th ed. (Berlin, Weidmann, 1922);
5th ed. by W. Kranz (Berlin, 1934); 6th
to 10th edns. reprints with Nachträge
(Berlin, 1951-1961 ), 1, pp. 139-190 and
491-495.
FH A E N K E L , II. Fraenkel, Dichtung und Philosophie des
Dichtung frühen Griechentums (Amer. Philol. Assoe.
Philol. Monographs, nr. 13, New York,
1951); 2nd ed. (Munich, Beek, 1962), pp.
422-453.
FHAENKEL, II. Fraenkel, Wege und Formen frühgrie
Wege chischen Denkens, ed. by F. Tietze, 2nd ed.
(Munich, Beck, 1960),'pp. 237-283.
xix
GIGON 0. Gigon, Untersuchungen zu Heraklit
(Leipzig, Dieterich, 1935).
GUTHRIE W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek
Philosophy, I (Cambridge, 1962), pp. 403-
492.
KIRK G. S. Kirk, Heraclitus, the Cosmic Frag
ments (Cambridge, 1954; reprint with cor
rections 1962).
KIRK-RAVEN G. S. Kirk and J. E. Raven, The Preso-
cratio Philosophers (Cambridge, 1957; re
print with corrections 1963), pp. 182-215.
LASSALLE E. Lassallc, Die Philosophie Herakleitos’
des Dunklen von Ephesos, 2 vols. (Berlin,
% 1858). = Gesamt werke, ed. by Schirmer
(Leipzig, 1905), vol. 6.
MARCOVICH, M. Marcovieh, ‘Herakleitos’: Pauly-Wisso-
RE wa, Real-Encyclopädie der class. Alter
tumswissenschaft, Suppl.- Bd. X (1965),
pp. 246-320.
RAMNOUX Cl. Ramnoux, IJeraclite on I'homme enlrt
les choses et les mots (Paris, Les Belles
Lottres, 1959).
REINHARDT. K. Reinhardt, ‘Heraklits Lehre vom Feuer’
Herrn. and ‘Heraclitea’, Hermes 77 (1942), pp.
1-27 and 225-248. — Vermächtnis der An
tike, ed. by C. Becker (Göttingen, 1960),
pp. 41-97.
REINHARDT. K. Reinhardt, Parmenides und, die Ge
Barn i. schichte der griechischen Philosophic
(Bonn, 1916; reprint 1959).
SCHL. F. Schleiermacher, ‘Herakleitos der Dunk
le von Ephesos, dargestellt aus den Trüm
mern seines Werkes und den Zeugnissen
XX
dci' Alten’, Museum der Altertums-Wissen
schaft, ed. by F. A. Wolf and Pli. Butt-
mann, I (Berlin, 1807), pp. 315-533. —
Sämtliche Werke, Abt. I ll, Bd. 2 (Berlin,
1838), pp. 1-146.
. SCHUSTER P. Schuster, Heraklit von Ephesus (Acta
Sccietatis Philol. Lipsiensis, ed. by F .
Ritschl, 3, Leipzig, 1873, pp. 1-394).
VLASTOS G. Vlastos, O n Heraclitus’, Amer. Journal
f of Philology 76 (1955), pp. 337-368.
WALZER R. Walzer, Eraclito. Raccolta dei fram-
menti e traduzione italiana (Florence, San-
soni, 1939; reprint Olms, Hildesheini,
1964).
Z.M 11. /cller. La Filosofia dei Greet nel sun
sviluppo storico. Parte I, vol. 4: Eraclito.
A cura di R. Mondolfo (Florence, La Nuo-
va Italia Ed., 1961).
Z.\ E. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen in
ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, I, 2;
6th ed. by W. Nestle ( Leipzig, Reisland.
1920), pp. 783-939.
XXI
C0 NSP E CTUS N Γ 31 E R 0 R U M
SCHLEIER
MABCOVICH DIELS-KRANZ BYWATER
MACHER
1 1 2 47
19 6 4
73 94 0
75 90 p. 520
2 * 34 3 3
3 17 5 2
4 72« 93 0
5 55 13 0
6 101a 15 23
7 35 49 0
8 123 10 0
9 54 47 36
10 22 8 7
11 18 7 6
12 86 116 12
13 107 4 22
14 93 11 10
15 101 80 73
16 40 16 13
17 129 17 14
18 81 138 0
19 28b 118b 8b
XXII
MAHC'OVrCH DIELS-KRANZ BY WATER
iMCIIER
s'-
20 28“ 118“ 8“
21 56 47 n. 0
22 97 115 5
OO
oo
23 114; 2 91b; 92
113 91a p. 478
116 106 p. 530
112 107 p. 479
24 89 95 p. 520
25 10 59 37bis
26 50 ^ 1 0
27 51 45; 56 27·. 34
p. 41
8 46 33
28 80 62 35
Λ 22 43 pp. 345; 40;
434
137 63 p. 426
29 53 44 p. 408 s.
30 42 119 p. 345
31 125 84 0
32 59 50 0
33 60 69 28
34 103 70 0
35 61 52 0
36 13 54 0
37 53 0
37 9 51 0
38 4 0 0
39 48 66 56
40 12 42 21
49a 81 72
91 41; 40 20
41 88 78 38l,iK
42 126 39 0
43 57 35 0
44 111 104b 39b
XX111
SCHLEIER
MARCOVI CH DIELS-KRANZ BYWATER
MACHER
45 23 60 69
46 58 57; 58 0
47 62 67 50; 51
77b 0 p. 498
48 26 77 64
49 21 64 42
50 15 127 70
51 30 20 25
52 94 29 30
53 31 21; 23 25; 26
54 90 22 41
55 6« 24 p. 430
56a 84a 83 0
56b 84b 82 0
57 3 0 p. 394
58 6 32 29
59 106 120 p. 346
60 99 31 32
61 Λ 1 (IX, 1) ο 0
62 120 30 31
63a 105 119η. p. 345
63b 38 33 p. 346
64 100 34 p. 400
65 A 13 0 p. 396
66 36 68 49
77* 72 0
76 25 pp. 372; 376
67 45 71 0
68 118 74-76 60-62
69 117 73 59
70 85 105 58
71 110 104a 39a
72 98 38 p. 365
73 63 123 0
74 27 122 52
75 92 12 9
XXIV
SCHLEIER-
MAKCOVICH DIKLS-KRANZ BYWATER
WACHER
76 96 85 43
77 67 ' 36 0
78 7 37 24
79 64 28 0
80 11 55 37
81 16 27 40
82 66 26 0
83 108 18 17
84 32 65 11
85 41 19 44
86 5 130; 126 0
128 0 0
87 14 124; 125 p. 525
88 68 129 p, 431
89 74 97 n. 0
90 78 96 66
91 102 61 p. 409
92 79 97 67
82-83 99-98 38
70 79 n. 0
93 52 79 0
94 119 121 57
95 29 111b 71
96 24 102 53
97 25 101 54
98 49 113 0
99 20 86 55
100 39 112 15
101 104 111a 71
102 43 103 16
103 44 100 19
104 33 110 45
105 121 114 46
106 125a 0 0
107 124 46 n. 0
108 A 19;A 18 87-89 0
XXV
SCHLEIER
MARCOVICH DIELS-KRANZ BYWATER
MACHER
109 87 117 68
110 95;109 108; 109 1
111 122 9 0
112 115 0 0
113 47 48 p. 527
114 46 132 65
131 134 0
115 67a 0 0
116 A 16 of. 133 p. 474
117 0 0 0
118 126a 0 0
119 » 127 0 0
120 132 0 0
121 133 0 0
122 134 135 0
124 135 137 0
123 130 0 0
125 138 0 0
XXVI
CONSPECTUS NU ΜΕ R Ο R U Μ
II
DIKLS-KRANZ ΜAIKOVICH DIELS-KRANZ MARCOVICII

A 1 61 15 50
(IX,9-11) 16 81
13 65 17 3
16 116 18 11
18-19 108 19 1 (.9)
22 28 (c2-“) 20 99
21 49
Β 1 1 22 10
2 23 23 45
3 57 24 96
4 38 25 97
5 86 26 48
6 58 27 74
7 78 28“ 20
8 27 (d'); 28b 19
28 (C1) 29 95
9 37 30 51
10 25 31 53
11 80 32 84
12 40 33 104
13 36 34 2
14 87 35 7
XXVI1
DIELS-KRANZ MAKCOVK'II DIELS-KRANZ MARCOVICH
36 66 71 69 (ft1)
37 36 (c1) 72“ 4
38 63b 72|J 3 (c)
39 100 73 1 (&’)
40 16 74 89
41 85 75 1 (fc2)
42 30 76 66 (e)
43 102 77“ 66 (d1)
44 103 77b 47 (d4)
45 67 78 90
46 114 79 92
47 113 80 28
48 % 39 81 18
49 98 82-83 92 (ft)
49a 40 (c=) 84a 56a
50 26 84b 56b
51 27 85 70
52 93 86 12
53 29 87 109
54 9 88 41
55 5 89 24
56 21 90 54
57 43 91 40 (c:i)
58 46 92 75
59 32 93 14
60 33 94 52
61 35 95 110
62 47 96 76
63 73 97 22
64 79 98 72
65 55 99 60
66 82 100 64
67 77 101 15
67a 115 101a 6
68 88 102 91
69 98 Q/) 103 34
70 92 (d) 104 101
xxviii
DIKLS-KI! ΛXZ MARCO VK'H DIELS-KKAXZ MARCOV1CH
105 63a 124 107
106 59 125 31
107 13 125a 106
108 83 126 42'
109 110 126n 118
no 71 1261) 0
111 44 127 119
112 23 (/) 128 86 (ff1)
113 23 (d‘) 129 17
114 23 130 124
115 112 131 114 (rf1)
116 23 (p) 132 120
117 69 133 121
118 68 134 122
119 94 135 123
120 62 136 96 (b)
121 105 137 28 (d1)
122 111 138 125
123 8 139 118 (c)
XXIX
PART ONE
THE DOCTRINE ON THE LOGOS

(Fragments 1 - 5 0 )
GROUP ONE
Frr. 1 (1); 2 (34); 3 (17); 4 (72*)
/
(i) - The Logos is an objective Truth (έών) or
universal Law (γινομένω ν πάντω ν κ α τ’ αύτόν),
operating and apprehensible in the world of our
daily experience (cf. ού «ρρονέουσι τοια ΰτα . ..
όκοίοις έγκυρέουσιν). I t is like a close friend of
men (cf. <5ι μάλιστα διηνεκώς όμιλοΰσι).
Nevertheless men fail to recognize it, nor do they
comprehend it when instructed by Heraclitus himself
(frr. 1; 2; 3). Their behaviour is void of reason and
absurd: they are at variance with the close friend
(fr. 4); they act as if they ivere somnambulists
(fr. 1, iv ); they are absent-minded like the deaf
(fr. 2).
(ii) - The practical consequences are far-reaching.
Since on the apprehension of the universal Logos
depends the correct and effective activity of a Greek
citizen, men behave as if ignorant each time they
undertake either*speech or deeds (άπείροισιν έοί-
κασι πειρώ μενοι και έπέω ν καί έρ γω ν).
(iii) - The method by which one can reach the
Logos is shoion by Heraclitus: if one properly analyses
each thing into its (two) constituent parts, the result
will be some kind of unity between them (cf. the
terms άρμονίη, συλλάψιες, §v και τα ύ τ ό ), thanks
to the universal Logos.
(iv) - Insteud of the recognition of an objective
and universal Truth (the Logos), men in general
and the philosophers in particular possess only a
deceptive individual δόξα, based on imagination or
conjecture (cf. έω υτοΐσι δέ δοκέουσι [sc. γινώσ-
κειν], and frr. 20 [28* \; 23 [2]; 24 [85]).
1
1
(1 DK; 2 B)
(a) C Sext. Emp. adv. math. VII, 132 έναρχόμενος

γοΰν 1 των περί φόσεως δ προειρημένος άνήρ (sc. Η ρ ά
κλειτος) καί τρόπον τινά δεικνύς τό περιέχον φησί"
(ΐ) τοΰ δέ-' λ ό γ ο υ το ΰ δ ’ έόντος -

α ί ε ι 4 ά ξ ύ ν ετο ι γ ίν ο ν τ α ι5 ά νθ ρ ω π ο ι
κ α ί πρ όσ θεν ή ά κ ο ΰ σ α ι κ α ι ά κ ο ύσ α ντες
/ τό π ρ ώ τ ο ν
(Η) γινο μ ένω ν γ ά ρ πάντων® κ α τά τόν λ ό γ ο ν τόνδε
ά π είρ ο ισ ιν 7 έο ίκ α σ ι π ειρ ώ μ ενο ι
κ α ι ® έπέω ν κ α ί έ ρ γ ω ν
(iii) τ ο ιο υ τ έ ω ν 9 ό κ ο ίω ν 10 έ γ ώ διη γεΟ μ αι
κ α τά φύσιν δ ια ιρ έ ω ν έ κ α σ τ ο ν 11
κ α ί φ ρ ά ζω ν δ κ ω ς 12 έχ ει'
(ΐν) το ύς δέ ά λ λ ο υ ς ά νθρ ώ πους
λ α νθ ά νει όκόσα έ γ ε ρ θ έ ν τ ε ς ποιουσιν
δκω σπερ όκόσα εϋδο ντες έ ^ ιλ α ν θ ά ν ο ν τ α ι.
Seq. fr. 23 (2). (Schl. fr. 47).12
1 γοΰν Kayser : οΰν codd. 2 τοΰ δέ Hippol. : τοΰ Clem., Aristot. :

om. Soxt. 3 τοϋδε έόντος Sext. n l e (τοΰ δέοντος llippol., Clem.,
Eus., Aristot. ΛΓϋ, Arist. comm, anon., τοΰδε δντος Sext. ς) : τοΰ δντος
Arist. ΘΓΙ 4 αίεΐ Clem., Eus. io : άεί Hippol., Eus. n o : om Sext.
5 γίνονται Sext. N, llippol. : γ ίγ ν - Sext. ι.ες, Clem., Arist. 6 πάν
των llippol. : om. Sext. 7 άπείροισιν Sext. n (άπειροι είσίν
Hippol.) : άπειροι Sext. τες 8 καί Hippol. : om. Sext. 9 Hip
pol. : τοιούτων Sext. 10 όποια Hippol. 11 διερέων κατά
φύσιν (om. έκαστον) Hippol. 12 δπω ς Hippol.
2
(b) C Hippolyt, refut. IX, 9,1 (p. 241, 15 Wendland)
Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς μέν οδν φησιν είναι τό παν^διαιρετόν άδιαί-
ρετον, γενητόν άγένητον, θνητόν άθάνατον, λ ό γ ο ν
α ι ώ ν α , π α τ έ ρ α υ ί ό„ν, θεόν δί και ον. . . seq. frr. 26
150) et 27 {51). δτι δέ λ ό γ ο ς έστιν άεΐ τό παν καί διά
παντός ών, οδτω ς λέγει" " τ ο υ δ έ λ ό γ ο υ τ ο υ δ’
έόντος άεΐ ά ξ ύ ν ε τ ο ι1 γίνονται άνθρω
π ο ι κ α ί π ρ ό σ θ ε ν ή ά κ ο ΰ σ α ι κ α ί ά κ ο ύ-
σ α ν τ ε ς 12 τ ό π ρ ώ τ ο ν " γ ι ν ο μ έ ν ω ν 3 γ ά ρ π ά ν
των κατά τόν λ ό γ ο ν τόνδε ά π ε ίρ ο ισ ιν 4
έ ο ί κ α σ ι π ε ι ρ ώ μ ε ν ο ι κ αί έ π έ ω ν καί έρ
γων τοιουτέων όκοΐα5 έγώ διηγεΰμαι
δ ια ιρέω ν κατά φύσιν καί φράζων δκως3
έ χ ε ι.” δτι δέ έστι π α ΐ ς τό πα ν καί δι* αίώ νος α ιώ
νιος βασιλεύς τώ ν δλων, ούτως λ έγ ει. .. seq. fr. 93 (52).
1 ξετοί Ρ, corr. Miller 2 άκούσαντας Ρ 3 γινόμενον Ρ

4 άπειροι (ι corr. οχ ν) είσ'ιν Ρ, corr. Wordsworth 5 όκοΐα et
δκω ς Miller : όποια et δπω ς Ρ
(C) C? Clem. ström. V, 111,7 (II, ρ. 401 Stählin3) άν-

τικρυς δέ ό μέν 'Η ράκλειτος " τ ο υ λ ό γ ο υ τ ο υ δ’
έ ό ν τ ο ς α ί ε ί ” φησίν " ά ξ ύ ν ε τ ο ι γ ί γ ν ο ν τ α ι ά ν
θρωποι καί πρόσθεν ή άκουσαι καί
ά κ ο ύ σ α ν τ ε ς τ ό π ρ ώ τ ο ν . ” ( = Euseb. praep. ev.
XIII, 13, 39 [II, ρ. 214 Mras]). (Schl, ad fr.).
(Λ) Ρ (A 4 DK) Aristot. rhet. Γ 5, p. 1407 b 14 Ross

τα γ ά ρ Η ρ α κ λείτο υ διαστίξαι έργον, διά τό άδηλον
είναι ποτέρω ι πρόσκειται, τώ ι ϋστερον ή τώ ι πρότερον,
οΐον έν τηι ά ρχή ι α ύ τ ή ι1 του συγγράμματος" φησί γάρ"
"του λ ό γ ο υ τ ο ΰ δ ’ έ ό ν τ ο ς ά ε ί ά ξ ύ ν ε τ ο ι
ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ι γ ί γ ν ο ν τ α ι"” άδηλον γ ά ρ τό άεί πρός
π ο τέρ ω ι2 < δ ε ΐ> δια σ τίξα ι.3
1 αύτήι ßichards : αύτού codd. 2 ποτέρωι Susemihl : προτέρωι

Λ : δποτέρω ς ΘΠ 3 δει διαστίξαι Gaisford : διαστίξαι codd. :
δεΐ στίξαι Victorius : ‘punctuandum’ Guilelmi translatio
3
(d') Anon, in A r ist. rhet. p. 183, 19 Rabe.
(cP) (A 4 DK) Demetr. de elocnt. 191.
(e) R Cleanth. hymn. Ιον. 21 Zuntz (Harvard Stud. 63
[1958], p. 303)
ώσθ’ ένα γίγ νεσ θ α ι πάντω ν λ ό γ ο ν 1 αίέν έ ό ν τ α . 12*4
1 λόγω ν 1', corr. Ursinus 2 έόντων Ρ, corn Brunek
(/') R Amelins ap. Euscb. praep. cv. XI, 19,1 (IT, p. 45

Mras) καί οδτος ά ρ α Tjv ό λ ό γ ο ς κ α θ ’ δ ν α ί ε ΐ
ö v j a τ ά γ ι ν ό μ ε ν α έ γ ί ν ε τ ο , ώ ς άν καί ό
Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς ά ξ ιώ σ ε ιε 1 καί νή Δ ί’ δ ν 2 ό * βάρβαρος
(sc. Ioannes evang.) ά ξ ιο ι... ( = Theodoret. Gr. aff. cur. II,
88; Cyrill, c. Iulian. 8, p. 283 Anbert = PG 7G, p. 936 A).
1 άξ. είναι Cyn 2 Δί’ δν : Δία Tlicod., Cyv. 3 καί ό Tliooil.
(flf) R? (19 DK; 6 B) Clem. ström. II, 24,5 (II, p. 126

St.) άπιστους είναι τινα ς έπιστύφων Η ρ ά κ λ ειτό ς φησιν
“ά κ ο ϋ σ α ι ο ύ κ έ π ι σ τ ά μ ε ν ο ι ο ύ δ ’ ε ί π ε ϊ ν,”
ω φεληθείς δήπουθεν π α ρ ά Σολομω ντος "έάν ά γα πή σ η ις
άκούειν, έκδέξηι, καί έάν κλίνη ις τό οδς σου, σοφός έσηι”
(Sir. 6, 33). (Sehl. fr. 4).
(h1) R (73 DK; 94 B) M. Ant. IV, 46. post fr. 4 (72)

...καί δτι ού δει ώ σπερ κ α θ ε ύ δ ο ν τ α ς π ο ι ε ΐ ν κ α ϊ
λ έ γ ε ι ν (κα ί γ ά ρ καί τότε δοκοϋμεν ποιεΐν κα ’ι λέ-
γ ε ι ν ) . . . seq. fr. 89 (74). Cf. VI, 31.
(h-) R (75 DK; 90 B) VI, 42 πά ντες εις Sv άποτέλεσ-

μα συνεργουμεν, οί μέν είδότω ς καί παρακολουθητικώ ς,
οί δέ άνεπιστάτω ς, ώ σπερ καί τ ο ύ ς κ α θ ε ύ δ ο ν τ α ς ,
οιμ α ι,1 ό Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς έ ρ γ ά τ α ς ε ί ν α ι λ έ γ ε ι καί
4
συνεργούς των έν τώ ι κόσμωι γινομένων, ά λλος δέ
κατ’ άλλο συνεργεί. .. (Schl. ρ. 520 = 137).
1 οΐμοα cf. A.S.L. Ifarquliumm ρ. 708
(t') ID Hippol. ref. I, 4,1 (ρ. !) AVcndl. = Vox. ρ. 558)

αυτόν 1 μέν γ ά ρ έφασκε (sc. Η ρ ά κ λειτος) τά πά ντα είδέ-
ναι, τούς δέ άλλους άνθρώ πους οϋδέν.
1 Jio<’p<’v : α ύτόν LBO, τό ν Τ
(ΐ·) Proei. in Tim. I, ρ. 351,5 Diehl Πλάτων μέν οδν

τοσαύτηι χρ ή τα ι έν τοΐς λ ό γο ις άσφαλείαι, οί δέ άλλοι
ούχ ούτω ς' ά λ λ ’ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς μέν έαυτόν πά ντα είδέναι
λέγω ν πά ντα ς τούς ά λλους άνεπιστήμονας π ο ιε ί...
(Schl. ρ. 526 = 14.1).
(?)' Diog. Laert. IX, 5 . . . τέλειος μέντοι γενόμενος

ί sc. Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς) πά ντα έγνωκέναι.
(/,·) R? = fr. 23 (/) (112 DK; 107 Β) . .. καί ποιεΐν

κατά φ ύ σ ιν ...
i (1 )
(i) Of this Truth, real as it is,

men always prove to he uncomprehending,
both before they have heard it and when once they have
/ heard it;
(ii) For, although all things come to pass in accordance with

/ this Truth.
men behave as if ignorant (or unexperienced) each time
/ they undertake (or experience)
either speech or deeds,
(iii) whereas I, for my'part, explain such ivords and things

taking apart each of them according to its real constitution
and then shoiving how it is;
(iv) As for the rest of men,

they remain unaware of what they do after they wake up
just as they forget what they do while asleep.
Λ6
6
The structure of fr. 1 seems to be as follows:"1
ό λόγος Opposition άνθρωποι
και πρόσθεν ή άκοΰσαι

Ο δ)
t
(i ) έών 9
α'ιεΐ άξύνετοι
Si
καί άκούσαντες τό πρώτον
(h α)
καί έπέων
ΐ
(ii) γινομένων πάντων Yes άπειροι πειρώμενοι
κατ’ αύτόν Si
καί έργων
κατά φύσιν λανθάνει (αύτοΟς) όκόσα

διαιρέων έγερθέντες ποιοϋσιν
(6 α) («■ 6)
ΐ ΐ
ιίίί.) έγώ διηγεΰμαι Yes (ίν) οί δέ άλλοι
Si
φράζων δκωσπερ όκόσα εϋδοντες

1sc. ποιοϋσιν) έπιλανθά-
δκως έχει
(α 1>) νοντσι
(1) α)
δ λ ό γ ο ς in fr. 1 seems to mean first statement imply
ing (oral) teaching (as in fr. 83 [J08] and probably in fr. 109
[87] as well): (a) because men can hear this Logos from
Heraclitus (άξύνετοι . . . κ α ι άκούσαυτες τό πρώ τον =
φ άξύνετοι άκούσαντες fr. 2 [34] — ούδέ μαθόντες γινώσ-
κουσιν fr. 3 [17])·, (6) because the phrase οδτος δ λ ό γ ο ς in
archaic prose usually means ‘this statement, exposition, argu
ment’: cf. Melissus fr. 8,1; Democrit. fr. 7 (cf. Ion fr. 1;
Diog. Apollon, fr, 1).
Now, since men can also know the Logos by themselves

from the surrounding world, without the help of Heraclitus
(cf. άξύνετοι . . . καί πρόσθεν ή άκοΰσαι and ούκ έμοΰ
ά λ λ ά τού λόγου ά κούσαντας fr. 26 [50]), ό λ ό γ ο ς in
irr. 1; 23 (2) and 26 (50) must mean, at the same time,
objective truth (law, rule). That archaic Greek thought had
not yet made a clear distinction between the objective and
the subjective aspects of knowledge (i. e. between the Idea-
Word and the Thing), has been well known since the times
of M. W undt.'2)
Among the preserved sayings of Heraclitus there is no

formal definition of his Logos or Truth: nevertheless on the
ground of the fragments of Grcjpp 6 and of the formula £v,
τό αύτό, ξυνόν contained in frr. 32 (59)·, 33 (60)·, 34 (103)·,
41 (88); 43 (57); 46 (58); 50 (15), we »may suppose that
the Logos implied: (a) unity or coincidence of each couple
of opposites; (b) underlying unity of this world-order (cf. £v
π ά ντα εΐναι fr. 26 [50]) thanks to the universality of the
Logos (cf. του λό γο υ έόντος ξυνου fr. 23 [5] and γ ιν ο
μένων πάντω ν κ α τά τόν λ ό γο ν τόνδε fr. 1).
On the other hand, λ ό γ ο ς in fr. 53 (31 DK) means

clearly ‘proportion’, ‘measure’ (probably in fr. 67 [45 DK]
as well), and in the Herodotean phrase οδ πλέω ν λ ό γο ς
fr. 100 (39 DK) it means ‘value’, ‘account’, ‘estimation’. Finally,
λ ό γ ω i in fr. 4 (72) is a Stoic explanation by Marcus, and
fr. 112 (115 DK) is suspected of being spurious.
8
τ ο ΰ λ ό γ ο υ τ ο υ δ ’ έ ό ν τ ο ς are, most probably, ob
jective genitives depending on άξύνετοι (cf. Iliad I, 273; Eurip.
Or. 1406): ‘Of this real (or true) Logos men always (continua
lly) prove to be uncomprehending...' τ ο ΰ δ ε is probably attri
butive, not predicative (as Kranz and Kirk 33; 35 have taken
it: ‘Of the Logos which is as I describe it’) : cf. (ii) τον λόγον
τόνδε (besides, one would expect τοΰ λό γο υ έόντος τοιοΰδε).
έ ώ ν with ό λ ό γ ο ς (cf. Herodot. I, 95,1; 116,5; Aristoph.
Frags 1052) probably means real, true (‘wirklich’, ‘wahr’, cf.
W. Luther, ‘Wahrheit’ und ‘Lüge’ im ältesten Griechentum.
Diss. Gott., Borna - Leipzig, 1935, 57; 127; Gymnasium 65
[1958], 1 0 0 ).(3)
cc ί ε ί seems to go rather with ά ξ ύ ν ε τ ο ι<1) than with

έό ντο ς; (s) because: (a) α ίεί = κα ’ι + καί is an archaic figure
(cf. Herodot. IV, 48,1); (h) it seems to me that in α ίεί άξύ-
νετοι γίνοντα ι άνθρω ποι (against the rhythmical unit του
δέ λόγου τουδ’ έόντος) we have an intentional alliteration
a- a- g- a-·: cf. p- p- m- p- (πόλεμος πάντω ν μέν πα τή ρ . . .)
in fr. 29 (55); h- h- a- h- (αίρευντα ι έν άντί ά π ά ν τ ω ν .. . )
in fr. 95 (29 D K ); p- e- p- p- (π α ΐς έστι παίζω ν, πεσσεύων)
in fr. 93 (52 D K ); e- a- e- e- (ήν ά εί καί έστιν κ α ί έσται)
in fr. 51 (30 D K ); k-k- h-k- k- (κεκόρηνται δκω σπερ κτή-
νεα) in fr. 95 (29 D K ); a- a- a- c- (ά ισ μ α αίδοίοισιν, άναι-
δέσ τα τα εϊρ γα σ τα ι) in fr. 50 (15) et al.; (c) έόντος αίεί
seems to be lectio facilior [cf. fr. 1 (5), (c), (d), (e), (/)],
influenced by the epic formula αίέν έόντες (Iliad I, 290
cl at,).
(ii) κ α ί έ π ε α κ α ί Ι ρ γ α seem to imply ‘das

ganze menschliche Gebahren’ (Reinhardt, Farm. 218); ‘der ganze
Hercich menschlicher Betätigung’ (Gigon 8); cf. (iv) ποιουσιν
and λ έγο ντα ς in fr. 23 ( 111). I take π ε ι ρ ώ μ ε ν ο ι as
frequentative (‘men behave as if ignorant each time they prove
or experience either words or deeds’),<c) and (iii) τοιουτέων
όκοίων in the weakened function of the relative: ‘whereas I,
for my part, explain such words and th in g s.. . ’ <T) (perhaps
an Ionic idiom?).
9
The adverbial phrase (iii) κ α τ ά φ ύ σ ι ν ‘properly’
or ‘as it ought to be divided’ (K> has not the same import as
φύσις, ‘the real constitution of every thing severally’, in fr. 8
(123)·, neither does the phrase δκω ς εχει ‘how it is’, ‘the
result’ necessarily imply ουσία, ‘the real essence’.(n> Never
theless we may think of this ‘taking to pieces’ or division
(δ t a i p έ ω v) of every given thing ( έ κ α σ τ ο ν ) e.g. as
that illustrated in fr. 27 (51) [the bow consists of two arms,
κορώναι, and of the unifying string, νευρά ; cf. the mecha
nical term άρμονίη ‘connexion’, ‘method of joining’] ; and of
the analysis of a word, e.g. as that stated in fr. 39 (48) [the
name and the function arc the two constituent parts of every
given th in g ]. Thus in both cases the result will be the unity
or integrity of each analysed thing thanks to the Logos.
In (iv) the sentence would be complete in itself even
without έ π ι λ α ν θ ά ν ο ν τ α ι (which cannot mean the
same as λ α ν θ ά ν ε ι(10)) : possibly Heraclitus added this word
cither for the sake of balance or of the word-play (which is
here as weak as e.g. in διηνεκώ ς : διαφέρονται fr. 4 [72]
or in Ισχυρίζεσθαι : Ισχυροτέρω ς fr. 23 [114]).
The influence of Hesiod, Erga 293-97, on fr. 1 (suggested
by F.-J. Weber, Gymnasium 71 [1964], 36 ff.) seems unlikely.
(g) (= fr. 19 DK) seems to be only a reminiscence of

fr. 1. The same is true of (A1) ( = fr. 73 D K ),<],) and of (A2)
( = fr. 75 DK) as well: only τούς καθεύδοντας έ ρ γ ά τα ς
είναι could belong to Heraclitus,<12) and this is reducible to
καθεύδοντας ιτοιεΐν καί λ έγ ειν ( =\ A1) , both coming from
(iv) όκόσα ευδοντες ττοιοΟσιν.
(1) Cf. Β. Snell, H e r m e s 61 (1926), 366 n. 1; Gigon 8 f . j Kirk 46 f .;

Ramnoux 309 ff.; K. Deichgräber, R h y th m is c h e E le m e n t e i m L o g o s
tie s H e r a M i t , Akatl. Mainz 1962, 533 ff.
<-) A r c h i v f . G esell, d . P h ilo s . 20 (1907), 455; cf. A. Busse, R h . M u s .
7 5 (1926), 208; G. Calogero, G io rn . C r i t . F ile s . I t . 17 (1936),
196 f .; W. J. Verdenius, M n e m o s . 1947, 277; 1958, 350; Kirk 396.
10
'·'» So already P. Xatorp, Jilt. M u s. 38 (1883), 83, and .T. Burnet
.133 and n. 1, but with wrong construction; then correctly P. Tannery,
R e v u e p h ilo s . 16 (1883), 292 f f .; P o u r V h is t o i r e <le la sett net
Itc U e n r, Paris, 1887, 193 (‘Ce verbe, qui est vrai, est toujours incom-
pris des homines-) ; Snell 365 f .; Busse 206.
t*> So Xatorp; Tannery; Beinhardt, F a r m . 218; Snell; Busse 207:
Kranz (appar. ad f r .) ; Kirk 34.
<s> So Zeller (ZN 792 n.) ; Biels; IV. Capelle, H e r m e s 59 (1924).
190 f.; AValzer 41; Vcrdenius 279; H. Frankel, D ic h tu n g - 423;
F. M. Cornford, P r i n r i p i u m S a p ie n tia c , Cambridge, 1952, 113; G.
Zuntz, H a r v a r d S ttid ie s 63 (1938), 307 n. 42; Deicligräbcr 535;
Guthrie 424, r t al.
00 So already Diels; a lite r n.g. Kirk 33; 41: ‘oven if ( o r oven when)
they experience my words.’
<7> Of. Snell 370 n. 2 ( c o n tr a Diels), and Gigon 8 ( c o n tr a .T. Stenzel,
M e t a p h y s i k d e s A l t e r t u m s , Munich, 1931, 58).
<-Ό Cf. ,T. \V. Beardsloe Jr., T h e ü s r o f φύσις i n F if t h - C e n t u r y G r. L i t . ,
Diss. Chicago, 1918, 47.
09 C o n tr a Gigon 10; Walzer 42 nn. 8-9; F. Hcinimann, A 'o m o s u n d
P h y s is , Diss. Basel, 1945, 93, on the one hand; Verdenius 273;
Kirk 229. on the other,
did A l i t e r Snell; W. Jaeger, T h e T h e o lo g y o f t h e P a r t y G r e e k P h ilo
so p h e r s , Oxford, 1947, 112; Gigon 6; Diels-Kranz; Walzer:
Frankel.
O') So already G. Breithaupt, D e M . A u r . A n t . c o m m , q u a c s t. se t.,
Diss. Gott., 1913, 21 f.
(no So Brcithnupt; C. K. Haines (in L o c h , 1916); Reinhardt, F o r m .
195 n.1
11
2
(34 DK; 3 B)
(a) C Clem, ström. V, 115,3 (11, p. 404 St.), post fr. 104
(33 D K ). k<5cv τό 'ρητόν έκεϊνο ά ν α γ α γ ε ΐν έθέληις "ό
εχω ν ώ τα άκούειν άκουέτω ” (e.g. Luc. 8,8; 14,35), εϋροις
Äv ώ δέ π ω ς 1 έμφαινόμενον ττρός του Έ φ εσ ίου’
ά ξ ύ ν ετο ι ά κ ο ύ σ α ν τες
κ ω φ ο ΐσ ιν έ ο ΐκ α σ ι*
φ ά τ ις α ύ τ ο ΐσ ι3 μ α ρ τυ ρ ε ί
τταρεόντας ά π ε ΐν α ι.'
(Schl. fr. 3).
1 πως om.Euseb.prafp.er. XIII, 13,42 2 κωφοΐσιν Eus., T h e o s . :

κωψοΐς Clem., Theocl. 3 αύτοΐσι Eus. io, Theod. : αύτοίσιν Clem. :
αύτοΐς Eus. nd 4 άπεΐναι Eus., Theod., T h e o s . : άπιέναι Clem.
(a1) Thcodorct. Gr. aff. cur. 1, 70.
(«-) Theosophia 67 (H. Erbse, Frac/rn. gr. Theosophien,

Hamburg, 1941, pp. 25; 184).
12
2 (34)
People who remain uncomprehending (even) when they

have heard [sc. the teaching on the Logos] are like
the deaf;
to them applies the witness of the saying: though present
they a n absent.
Pi
Probably ά ξ ύ ν ε τ ο ι is not the subject here: the subject

could be either άνθρω ποι understood, or the same as expressed
in a previous (but now lost) statement. If the former, then the
translation would be as given above. The versions of e.g. Burnet
(‘Fools when they do hear are like the deaf’); Gigon 2; Walzer
74; Frankel, Wege* 260 (‘Die Verständnislosen hören und
sind doch wie die Tauben’); Bamnoux 216; Guthrie 412; H.
Wiese, Heraklit bei Klemens v. Al., Diss. Kiel, 1964 (type
written), 250 (‘Unverständige gleichen, wenn sie gehört haben,
den Tauben’) arc not probable in my opinion.
κ ω φ ο ί ; ef. Pannen, fr. 6,7 (quoted by Diels, Parme

nides Lehrgedicht, Berlin, 1897, 69); Aesehyl. Choeph. 882 f.;
Septem 202; [Plut.] prov. 43 (Paroem. Gr., I, p. 347); Lucrct.
V, 1052 (cf. Otto, Sprichw. d. Römer nr. 1715); Isaias 7,9;
ev.Matth. 13, 13 βλέποντες ού βλέπουσιν κα'ι άκούοντες
ούκ άκούουσιν ούδέ συνίουσιν.
As for the saying π α ρεόντα ς άπεΐναι, cf. Aristoph.

Knights 1119 f.; Paroem. Gr., I, p. 446; II, p. 766; TG fr. adesp.
517 N.2 (J. Bernays, Die heraklit. Briefe, Berlin, 1869, 127).
13
3
(17 DK; 5 B)
(a) C Clem. ström. II, 8,1 (II, p. 117 St.)
ού γάρ φρονέουσι τοιαΰτα* πολλοί 2

όκοίοις 3 έγκυρέουσιν,'
ούδέ μαθόντες γινώσκουσιν,
έωυτοΐσι δέ δοκέουσι
κ α τά τον γενναΐον 'Η ράκλειτον. <3ρ’ ού δοκεΐ σοι καί

οδτος τούς μή πιστεύοντας ψ έγειν; (Sehl. fr. 2).
1 τοιαΰτα 1 odd. : τοσαΟτα ΙΊι. Gompcrz ( S U W ie n 113 [1880J,

997 s.) : τά αύτά ci. Staelilin 2 < o l> πολλοί Bergk ( K l . S o h r.
ll, 22 n.), acc. Staehlin, Nestle ( A r c h i v 25 [1911], 296), Mazzantini
150 η. 1; 236 : [πολλοί] A. Patin ( H e r a k l i t s E i n h e i t s l e h r e . . . , Progr.
Gymn. München 1885, 87), acc. Reinhardt ( P a r m . 214 n, 1), H. Fraenkei
( D i c h t u n g 2 424 n. G) 3 όκοίοις Bergk coni. Archil, fr. 68 1).,
acc. Patin, Staehlin (όκοίοίσ’) , Nestle, K. Deichgraeber ( P h ilo l. 93
[1938], 14 n. 5), Fraenkei cett. : όκόσοί L, Schleiermacher, Diels, Kranz,
Gigon 17, Fruechtel, Guthrie 412 : ό κ ό σ οι< ς> Th· Gataker (in ed. M.
Ant., Bond. 1697, p. 168“), acc. Bywater, Wilamowitz ( G l. d . R e l l . s II,
112 n. 2), N. Majnarie ( S a d , Acad. Sc. Zagreb, 293 [1953], 287), Kirk
47, Vlastos ( A J P 76 [1955], 347) 4 έγκυρέουσιν Schuster, Bywa-
ter, Staehlin, έγκυρεΰσιν Diels : έγκυρσεΰουσιν L : έγκυρέωσιν
Cobet ( L o g i o s H e r m e s 1 [1866], 141), acc. L. Massa Positano ( P a r o la
d e l P n s s a to 1 [1946], 364) : έγκύρσωσιν Bergk
(b) R? Hippo«·, de victu I, 5 καί τ ά μέν πρήσσουσιν

ούκ οϊδασιν (cf. fr. ]), α δέ ού πρήσσουσι δ ο κ έ ο υ σ ι ν
ε ί δ έ ν α ι ' κ α ί τ ά μέν ό ρ έ ο υ σ ι ν ού γι ν ώσ-
κ ο υ σ ι ν . . . (Cf. Gigon 41; Jaeger, Diokles von· Karystos,
Berlin, 1!)38, 171; 229; W z e r 59).
(c) R M. Ant. IV, 46 ( = fr. 4b) . . . κ α ί οΐς κ α θ’

ή μέραν έγκυροΰσι, τα ΰτα αύτοΐς ξένα φαίνεται.
14
3 (17)
The majority of men do not notice (or apprehend) the

things they meet with, -
nor do they know (or comprehend) them when they have
learned about them (or when they arc taught),
but they seem to themselves (or imagine) to do so.
ό κ ο ί ο ι ς is tiic preferable reading here, in view of

Areliiloch. I'r. 68 1). καί φρονευσι τοΓ όκοίοισ’ έγκυρέω σιν
εργμασιν. Anyway a dalivo is required hv the verb έγκυρεϊν.
l ’erhaps the nominative form όκόσοι cod. can be explained by
Ilie influenee of the preceding πολλοί.
π ο λ λ ο ί is not to be taken as an addition by Clement
(beenuse in this case one would expect ot πολλοί, as in frr. 95
[29 DK]; 101 [104 DK] or elsewhere in Clement; cf. also
IT. Wiese, II. bei Klemens, 127 f .). On the other hand, < o i>
πολλοί does not seem to be necessary, in view of the irregular
use of the article by Heraclitus.(U
It is not necessary to see in Clem, protr. GO, 1 (I, p. 46,25
St.) ά λ λ ’ ού τα ΰτα φρονοΰσιν οί πολλοί a reminiscence of
this fragment (as Wiese 128 η. 1 does), because both φρονεΐν
and οί πολλοί arc very common in Clement.
In lines 1-2 of the fragment probably only a borrowing
of phraseology from Archilochus is concerned, and not a pole
mic against his view (as Wilamowitz, Gl. d. Hell.3 II, 112 n. 2:
Massa Positano; H. Frankel and Guthrie 412 η. 1 have thought);
because φ ρ ο ν ε ΐ ν in fr. 3 (17) seems to mean ‘to be well
aware of’, ‘take heed of’, ‘notice or apprehend’ (LSJ, s. v., I ll) ,
whereas in Archilochus fr. 68,3 it seems to imply ‘to think of.
r 15
to have in mind', ‘intend' (LSJ, II, 2, a; cf. Odyssey XXI,
Sf>: Iliad III, 98 et a l.).
The saying implies a polemic against άνθρω ποι ίι·. 1
(i.c. the propaganda of the new Logos-doctrine): it does not
express such agnostic ideas as the fragments of Group 21 do;
because the subject is πολλοί (‘most people'), and not all
men as such or mankind. Thus the influence of Xenophanes
ft·. 34 is not probable here (contra Massa Positano 366).
<>> Cf. Kirk 138 s. - Wieso 127 n. 2 referred to άνθρωποι fr. 1. Cf. also
τά πάντα against άπάντων in fr. ό4 (90 D K ); ή άρκτος against
οδρος in fr. 62 (120 DK); ot πολλοί in fr. 101 (104 DK), where
ono would expect only πολλοί. Cf. perhaps also I l i a d IT, 480
against 483.
More often Heraclitus suppresses the article in the following
two cases:
( a ) in ‘titles': fr. 16 ( 4 0 ) ; 25 ( 1 0 ) ; 32 ( 5 9 ) ; 35 ( 6 1 ) ; 48 ( 2 6 ) ;
51 (30 DK); 53 (31 D K ); 67 (45 D K ); 68 (118 DK) against
72 (98 DK), whore the souls of the dead are concerned; 69 (117 D K );
70 (96 DK); 93 (52 DK) ft a l.
( b ) with substantive-adjectives: frr. 11 (IS ); 25 (1 0 ); 27 (5 1 );
41 ( 8 8 ) ; 42 ( 1 2 6 ) ; 83 (108 D K ).
4
(72 DK; 93 B)
(a) P M. Ant. IV, 46. post fr. 69 l·1 (71 DK) . .. καί ö ti
ώ ι μ ά λ ισ τα διη νεκ ώ ς όμιλοΟσι

(λ ό γω ι τώ ι τά δλ α διοικοΰντι),
το ύ τω ι δ ια φ έρ ο ντα ι,
καί οΐς καθ’ ή μέραν έγκυροϋσι,1 τα ϋτα αύτοΐς ξένα φαί

νεται ( = fr. 3 c). seq. fr. 1 (h1).
1 άκυροϋσαν A, spat. vac. D
17
4 (72)
Men are at variance with that with whom they have most
continuous intercourse.
That the words οΐς καθ’ ή μέραν — ξένα φαίνεται belong

to Marens (representing an eeho of fr. 3 [17\), was already
noticed by Thomas Gataker (1697, p. 168“), followed by Bv-
water, Burnet, Farquharson: cf. X II, 1,2 . .. κα'ι παύσ ηi
ξένος ών της π α τρ ίδος καί θαυμάζω ν ώ ς {Απροσδόκητα
τά καθ’ ήμέραν γινόμ ενα ; X II, 13; ΙΥ, 29.
λ ό γω ι — δίοικοΰντι are an explanation by Marcus him
self (correctly Bywatcr, Sehenkl, Burnet 139 n. and in CR 15
[1901], 423 b, et al.; contra e.g. Diels, Kranz, Walzer 110,
Guthrie 419; 425 n. 3). >
The idea of the saying might be the same as e.g. in Lys.
14, 44 το ΐς οίκείοις διάφορος, depicting the paradoxical be
haviour of men before Logos. The latter seems to be perso
nified here as a close friend of men. Λ personification of the
Logos is probable also in fr. 26 (50), and is possible in frr. 8
(123) and 14 (93) as well. In like manner, Polemos appears
personified in fr. 29 (53), and Fire in frr. 79 (64 D K ); 81
(16 D K ); 82 (66 DK), and in the fragments of Group 19.
GROUP TWO
Frr. 5 (55); 6 (101a) ■ 7 (35)
The fragments of this Group are obscure in their

implications. Possibly, since the Logos is omnipresent,
Heraclitus emphasizes the need for gathering many
sense-data as the first condition for the apprehension
of the Logos. Hence his appeal to Ιστορίη. This is
very hypothetical,(1)
i1) Cf. also Kirk 61; 376.
19
*
(55 DK; 13 B)
(ol) C Hippolyt, refut. IX, 9,5 (p. 242,13 Wendland),

post fx·. 9 (5-ί).δτι δέ έστιν (sc. ό π α τή ρ πάντω ν) όρατός
άνθρώ ποις καί ούκ άνεξεύρετος,1 έν τούτοις λ έ γ ε ι'
όσων - όψις άκοή μάθησις,

ταΟτα έγώ προτιμέω,
φησί, τουτέστι τά ό ρ α τά τω ν άαράτω ν. scq*. fr. 21 (55).
1 αν έξευρετός Ρ 2 δσον Ρ
(ο*) C IX ,10,1 (ρ. 242,22 W.) οϋτω ς Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς

έν ϊσηι μοίραι τίθετα ι καί τιμ α ι τ ά έμφανη τοΐς άφανέσιν,
ώ ς έν τι τό έμφανές κ α ι τό άφ α νές όμολογουμένω ς ύπάρ-
χον' (seq. fr. 9 [54] ) . . . καί όσ ω ν 1 όψις άκοή μάθησις
(τουτέστι τά ό ρ γ α ν α ), ταΟτα, φησίν, έ γ ώ προτιμέω, ού-
τά άφανή προτιμήσας. scq. fr. 43 (57).
1 δσον Ρ
20
5 (55)
The things of which them is seeing, hearing, and perception,

these do I prefer.
μ ά θ η σ ι ς means here ‘perception', ‘apprehension7, ‘one's

own experience’ (ef μανθάνειν in lliu persis fr. 5,7 p. 139
Allen; Hcrodot. I, 5; VII. 208; V III, 128,2; W. Nestle, Die
Vorsokratiker, Jena, 1908, fr. 37; B. Snell, Philol. Unters. 29,
Berlin, 1924, 73 n. 3; Hermes 61 [1926], 362; Die Entdeckung
des (leistes;' Hamburg, 1955, 193 ‘Erfahren’; Kirk-Raven nr. 200
‘perception’; Ilippol. a- τουτέστι τά ό ρ γ α ν α ) . Cf. Xenoph.
mem. I 4, 13 δ σ α ά ν άκούσηι ή ϊδηι fj μάθηι.(ι)
τ α Ο τ α ε γ ώ τ ι ρ ο τ ι μ έ ω ‘these do I prefer' — to
what.’ Snell has suggested: “das gilt mir mehr — mehr offenbar
als jede reine Spekulation (also etwa theologische oder mathe-
malische)” [Hermes 1. c .]; “das ziehe ich vor — offenbar vor
dem, was blosse Spekulation über das Unsichtbare ist” [Die
Entdeckung 1. c.].(3) In my view positive support for the
new Logos-doctrine (cf. έγώ fr. 1 and perhaps έμεω υτόν
fr. 15 [101]), and not a polemic against Pythagoras, Xeno
phanes or other thinkers, is more likely here: because Hera
clitus was aware of the fact that those philosophers won1
engaged in ίσχορίη as well (cf. frr. 17 [129]; 16 [40]). The
reason for attacking them was different (ef. Group 3).
<0 Quoted by It. Hirzel, O u te r s , z u C ic e ro 's p h ilo s . S c h r i f t e n , If, 1,

Leipzig, 1882, 167 n. 2. — The versions of J. H. Waszink, T e r t u l l . tic
n n im a , Amsterdam, 19472, 241 [‘Whatsoever is learned through the
intermediary of sight and hearing...’], and of G. Nenci, P a r o la d e l
I ’a s s a to 6 (1951), 126 n. 2 [‘Quelle cose da cui μάθησις & data dalla
vista c dall’ udito. . . ], seem to me wrong.
<-> Cf. perhaps Menand. m o n . 18 άφείς τά φανερά μή δίωκε τάφανη. —
The interpretation of Beinhardt, Perm. 212 f., adopted by J. Stenzei,
M e t a p h y s i k d e s A l t e r t u m s , 60, is obviously wrong.
21
6
(101a DK; 15 B)
(α) P Polyb. XII, 27,1 δυεΐν γ ά ρ δντων κ α τά φύσιν

ώ ς αν εΐ τινων όρ γά νω ν ήμΐν, οΐς πά ντα πυνθανόμεθα
καί πολυπραγμονσυμεν, < ά κ ο ή ς καί όράσεω ς>,* άλη-
θινω τέρας δ ’ οϋσης ού μικρώ ι της όράσεω ς κ α τά τόν
'Η ράκλειτον ( ό φ θ α λ μ ο ί γ ά ρ τ ώ ν 3 ώ τ ω ν ά κ ρ ι -
βέστ ε ρο ι μάρτυρες)... (Schl. fr. 23).
1 < > Büttner-Wobst (cf. F le c k c is , a n n . 1889, 685) 2 των : τοι

ci. Diels ( Π .2 )
(a1) R (A 23 DK; 14 B) IV, 40,2 τοΰτο γ ά ρ ίδιάν

έστι τω ν νΰν καιρών, έν οίς πάντω ν πλω τώ ν κ α ί πορευ-
τώ ν γεγο νό τω ν ούκ άν ετι πρέπον εΐη ποιη τα ΐς καί μυθο-
γρ ά φ ο ις χρήσθαι μάρτυσι π ερ ί τώ ν άγνοουμένω ν, δπερ
οί πρό ήμών πεποιήκασ ι π ερ ί τώ ν πλείστω ν, ά π ι σ τ ο υ ς
άμψισβητουμένων πα ρεχόμ ενοι β ε β α ι ω τ ά ς κ α τά τόν
‘Η ράκλειτον, πειρατέον δέ δι’ αυτής τής ιστορίας ικανήν
πα ρ ισ τά να ι πίστιν τοΐς άκούουσι.
22
6 (101 a)
Eyes are more accurate witnesses than ears.
The evidence for the fragment is unsatisfactory: its text

is uncertain. In view of Philo de confus. linguar. 141 (II, p. 256
Wcndl.); de Abrah. 150 (IV, p. 34 Cohn), the source of Poly
bius might have been a Sceptic one, which makes things
even worse.
«
That the, words of (a) given in italics are meant as Hera-
clitean, is confirmed by (al ), which is no more than a remi
niscence of (a), as suggested by A. Mauersberger, Polybios·
Lexicon (Berlin, 1956), s. βεβαιω τής. Namely, άπιστους
comes from the proverb, known since Herodot. I, 8,2 ώ τα y a p
τυ γχά ν ει άνθρώ ποισι έόντα ά πιστότερα όφθαλμω νΠ) (cf.
άληθινω τέρας and άκριβέστεροι in a) ; and βεβαιω τάς
comes from μάρτυρες.
τ ω ν before ώ τω ν was deleted by Reinhardt, Nachlass

158 (ap. H. AVicso, H. bei Klemens, 318), and Kirk-Raven
nr. 420 (but not yet in Kirk 138); and Diels and Kranz were
willing to change it into τοι. But cf. Lucian, de saltat. 78
Ή ροδότω ι μέν οδν τά δι’ ό μ μ ά τ ω ν φαινόμενα πιστό
τερ α είναι τ ω ν ώ τ ω ν δοκεΐ.
One cannot build any interpretation upon the difference

between άκριβέστεροι in (a) and the topic πιστότεροι,
because the former is a Polybian word; and besides, we find
also stich versions as e.g. δψει προ άκοής σ α φ εσ τέρ ω ι...
μάρτυρι (Philo de confus. linguar. 57); όψις y a p ώτων
κριτικω τέρα (Schob Β in II. XIX, 292); όφθαλμοΐς ώτων
έναργεστέροη κριτηρίω ι (Philo de sacrif. Abel 34).
If Heraclitus (in view of Herodot. I, 8,2 and the proverb)
said something like (a), it could mean the following: ‘Between
the two ways for men to reach the Logos, by themselves or
instructed by Heraclitus, the first has preference; because,
as traditional wisdom has it: eyes are more accurate witnesses
than ears.’ Cf. also fr. 26 (50) ούκ έμου ά λ λ α του λόγου
άκοόσαντας.
I t is difficult to tell if Empedocles, fr. 3,10 μήτε τιν* δψιν
εχω ν πίσ τει πλέον ή κ α τ’ άκοήν, alluded to Heraclitus’
saying or not; in view of the context I would rather think not.<2)
(!) Cf. Thucyd. I, 73,2; P a r o e m . Gr. II, p. 744; A. Otto, S p r ic h w . </.

R ö m e r nrr. 1273; 1274; many instances in Philo (cf. P. Wendland,
R h . M u s . 53 [1898], 30 f .; H. Leisegang·, I n d e x p. 10): e.g. d e sp e c ,
le g . IV, 60 and 137 (V, pp. 222 and 239 0.); d e v i t a M o s . I, 274;
II, 213 (IV, pp. 185 and 250 C.); Dio Chrysost. 12, 71, e t a l. Cf.
also Wiese 271.
(2) A l i t e r Kirk-Raven nr. 419 n. 1; R. Mondolfo, ‘Testimonianze su
Eraclito anteriori a Platone’, R iv . C r it. d i S t o r i a d e lla F ilo s ., 1961, 415.
24
7
(35 DK; 49 B)
(ff) P Clem. ström. V, 140,5 (II, p. 421 St.)· post

limped, fr. 132. γνώ σιν και Αγνωσίαν δρους εύδαιμονίας
κ α κοδαιμονίας τε θείω ς έδήλωσεν (sc. ό ’Ε μ πεδοκλή ς)-
χ ρ ή γ ά ρ εδ μ ά λα π ο λ λ ώ ν ϊσ τ ο ρ α ς φιλοσόφους Ανδρας
ε ί ν α ι κ α θ’ 'Η ράκλειτον, καί τώ ι όντι Ανάγκη
π ο λλά πλανηθήναι διζήμενον έμμεναι έσθλόν.1
1 Phocylid. fr. 13 D.; cf. Plut. de a n d . 4 7 E ; Cramer, A n e c d . P a r . I,

j). 166,17; Wilamowitz, S a p p h o u . S im o n id e s (Berol., 1913), p. 174 n. 2
(a1?) R Porphyr, de abstin. II, 49 N auek2 ίσ τω ρ γ ά ρ

πολλώ ν ό όντω ς φ ιλ ό σ ο φ ο ς...
7 (35)
Men (?) must be acquainted with many things.
I think, only πολλώ ν ίσ τορα ς χρή (or something similar)

e.g. άνθρώ πους (cf. frr. 1: 13 [ 107]) εΐνοα might bo by
Heraclitus.
Although χ ρ ή could well belong 1o Clement.,'l> never
theless 1 believe it belongs to Heraclitus; not so much because
of the Ileraelitean use of this word (ef. frr. 23 [111] ; 28 [80];
102 [43 D K ]; 103 [44 T)K] ;<2) cf. also δει fr. 23 [2]; άξιον
fr. 105 [121 D K ]), but (a) because of the word ά νά γκ η
(χρή Anecd.: δει Plut.) in Phocylides, which is not likely
to belong to Clement (τώ ι ö v n points to a quotation); (b)
something like this χρή must have existed in Heraclitus’ saying,
justifying its use by Clement here.
The same will be true of πολλώ ν ί σ τ ο ρ α ς . The
latter word means ‘acquainted; versed; knowing’ [originally
‘eye-witness’] 13’ and matches 8ψις άκοή μάθησις fr. 5 (55);
όφθαλμοί fr. 6 (101η).
On the other hand, εδ μ ά λα (which goes rather with
χ ρ ή <4) than with πολλών, as usually interpreted) and φιλό
σοφοι ά νδρες probably belong to Clement. Against the authen
ticity of εδ μάλα it can be said that- it is very common in
Clement (22 instances in Stählin’s Index), and that it is a
parallel to τώι ό ντι.'δ) Nestle's conjecture ού μά λα (Die Vorso-
kratiker, 1908, 238 n. 4) cannot be taken seriously.
Pro φ ι λ ό σ ο φ ο ς in early fifth-century Ionic can be
adduced Herodot. I, 30,2, and Pythagoras teste Heraclid. Pont.
26
Γι'. 87 Wclirli ;ΐ]>. Diog. Laerl. I, 12 fcf. Plato Phacdr. 278 I)
and Clem strum. IV, 9,1; I, 61,41 cf. also the compound
nouns κακοτεχνίη, πολυμαθίη, ά γχιβ α σ ίη in Heraclitus.
But contra arc Clem, ström. T, 68,3 (II, p. 42 St.) γένη
φιλοσόφων άνδρώ ν(Γ) and Clement's predilection for this word
used as adjective. Porphyrins (a1) seems to be of no evidential
value (contra Diels and Kranz), since he probably depends on
Clement here (so AVilamowitz, Platon 1. c.; Wiese 20!) n. 4).
Thus I would rather side with Wilamowitz (Philol. Ü7itcrs. 1,
214 £.); Deichgräber (Hermes 70 [1935], 110 n. 4); Bernhardt
(Nachlass 1. e.); AY. Burkert (Hermes 88 [1960], 171 n. 1);
AViese 1. o., against the authenticity of φιλόσοφοι ανδρες.
As for the interpretation of the saying, so freely and

incompletely paraphrased by Clement, πολλώ ν ΐσ τορ α ς χρή
είναι could belong to this Croup, stressing the need of ga
thering many sense-data as the first condition for the recog
nition of the Logos.
The interpretation of Reinhardt (who considered only
ΐσ τορα ς as authentic) seems to me exaggerated and impro
bable; it reads: “Der AATcise muss ΐστω ρ Augenzeuge sein: vgl.
όφθαλμοί γ ά ρ ώτων άκριβέστεροι μάρτυρες im Sinne der
Ovgesgeschiehte bei Herodot: die AArahrheit ist kaum glaublich,
paradox: man muss sie schon mit eigenen Augen sehen: muss
Augenzeuge gewesen sein. ..
The presumable contradiction between this and fr. 16 (·ίθ)
was treated till now as follows. AY. Ncstlo(s) rejected fr. 7 (35)
as spurious (which is out of the question). Against the inter
pretation of this fragment as an ironical sneer (so l·’. M. Corn-
ford, From Religion to Philosophy, London, 1912, 186 n. 3:
Principium Sapientiae 115; Guthrie 204; 417) or as an opinion
of the πολλοί (so Kranz, appar. ad fr.) we are warned by
‘the admonitory force of χ ρ ή ’ (Verdcnius, Mnemos. 1947, 280).
On the other hand, Zeller (903 and nn. 1-2) and Verdenius
N.
2S1 ff. opposed ίστορίη, as ‘das eigene Forschen’, to πολυ

μαθίη, as ‘von anderen lernen': “So in the two fragments
there is no contrast between knowing much and knowing little,
but between inquiring independently (ίστορεΐν) and borrow
ing other people’s wisdom (μανθάνειν).”, Vcrdenius 1. e.
This is again improbable: («) because both πολλώ ν ίστορες
and πολυμαθίη imply ‘knowing much’; ( b ) because Pythagoras
is also said to have been engaged in ίστορίη, fv. 17 (129);
and (c) because the other three typical ίστοροΰντες (Heca-
taeus, Xenophanes and Hesiod) can hardly be accused of
borrowing other people’s wisdom.
The seeming contradiction between the two fragments is
due to the fact that they deal with different topics. Sense-
perception and experience remain the basic condition for the
apprehension of the omnipresent Logos (Group 2); but this
is not the only condition: more arc required (Group 3).
Among them, tin? intelligence or faculty correctly to interpret
sense-data (fr. 13 [107) and insight (cf. fr. 14 [55]) are the
most important. Without these conditions men cannot reach
the Logos nor attain wisdom (νόος fr. 16 [40])) but will
stay at the stage of sterile πολυμαθίη. Thus ίστορίη is not
rejected by Heraclitus (cf. fr. 17 [129])·, but it is only the
first step toward the apprehension of the universal Logos.
Consequently
ίστορίη plus ού β ά ρβ α ρ ος ψυχή = νόος ‘wisdom’
ίστορίη plus βά ρβα ρος ψυχή = πολυμαθίη.(0>
<*> Cf. s tr ö m . Vi, 65,1 πολυμαθή δέ είναι χρή τόν γνωστικόν «»<1
Wiese, Π . hei K l e m e n s , 260 n. 3
ι-> Referred to by Walzer 75 n. 1; Vcrdenius ( M n e m o s 1947, 280);
Kirk 238.
<■'» Cf. Wilamowitz, P la t o n (Berlin, 1918), 1, 107 n. 1 [1959s, 79 n .];
Snell, P h ilo l. U n te r s . 29, 61; 62 n. 3; Reinhardt, N a c h la s s 1 5 8 ap.
Wiese 318; ef. ΐστωρ — Ιστορών Aeschyl. S u m . 455; A g a m . 676;
P e r s a e 454.
(-0 So Wiese 256; 260 n. 2.
28
(M Cf. Reinhardt 1. c. and Wiese 258 n. 4.
<«) Hippocrat. V M 20 (T, p. 620 L .); ττ. εύσχημοσύχης 5 (IX, p. 232 L . ) ;
Thueyd. II, 40,1 are later instances. — As for Heraelid. Pont. fr. 87
W., cf. J. 8. Morrison, CQ 52 (1958), 198-219, against W. Burkert,
H e r m e s 88 (1960), 159-177. Cf. now also C. J. Vogel, P y th a g o r a s a m l
P a r l y P y th a g o r e a n is m (Assen, Van Gorcum, 1966), 97-102 and 278 f.
(?) Wieso 259 n. 3 referred to Plato P h a e d . 64 D.
(s) ZN 904 n.; V o m M y t h o s z u m L o g o s “ (Stuttgart, 1942), 16 n. 58:
‘Herakl. Fr. 35, dessen flagranter Widerspruch zu Fr. 40 bisher von
niemand Überzeugend erklärt wurde.”
<»' A l i t e r Kirk 395.
29
GROUP THREE
F it. 8 (123); 9 (54); 10 (22); 11 (18); 12 (86);
13 (107); 14 (93); 15 (101) ϊ
Although the Logos (also implied by the terms

φύσις, άρμονίη, σύλλαψις) is accessible to human
knowledge, it does not lie always on the surface of
things, but ‘hides itself’ within every particular
thing (frr. 8; 9; 14). Consequently men must (a)
possesss an intelligence able to understand the lan
guage, of trustworthy sense-witnesses (fr. 13); an
insight able to interpret correctly the signs emitted
by the Logos from within things (fr. 14); (b) there
is also need of confidence (frr. 11; 12) and persis
tence (fr. 10) in searching for and reaching the
hidden Logos. Briefly, the emphasis is on human
endeavour and personal effort (ef. perhaps fr. 15)
aimed at the apprehension of the universal Logos.
8
(123 DK; 10 B)
φ ύσ ις κ ρ ύ π τεσ θ α ι φ ιλεΐ.
(«’) Β Philo qu. in Gen. IV, 1, p. 265 R. Marcus.

‘According to Hcracleitus, our nature [a tree]1 likes to hide
itself.’
1 n f. G en . 18,1; ZN 837 n. at ΙΪ. Marcus
(a-) R de somn. I, G (III, p. 205 Wendland) έμοί

το ίνυν δοκεΐ σύμβολον είναι τό φρέαρ έπιστήμης- ού γ ά ρ
έστιν επιπόλα ιος αύτής ή φ ύ σ ι ς , ά λ λ ά πάνυ βαθεΐα'
ούδ’ έν φανερώ ι πρόκειται, ά λλ’ έν άφανεΐ που κ ρ ύ π-
τεσθαιφιλεΐ.
(α?·) R de spec. leg. IV, 51 (V, ρ. 220 Cohn) χρόνω ι δέ

πα ντάπα σ ιν ό λ ίγω ι δια κ α λύ π τετα ι τά τοιαΟτα στρατη
γή μ α τα , τ ή ς φύσεως ούκ άεΐ κ ρ ύ π τ ε σ θ α ι
φ ι λ ο ύ σ η ς ά λ λ ’, όπόταν κα ιρός ήι, τό ίδιον κάλλος
άναφαινούσης άηττήτοις δυνάμεσιν.
(«') R de fuga et inv. 179 (III, ρ. 149 W.) οι μέν οΰν

ά λ λ η γ ο ρ ία ς καί φ ύ σ ε ω ς τ ή ς κ ρ ύ π τ ε σ θ α ι φ ί
λ ο ύ σ η ς άμύητοι τήν είρημένην είκάζουσι πη γή ν τω ι
Α ΐγυπτίω ι π ο τ α μ ώ ι...
(«'·) R de niut. nom. 60 (III, ρ. 167 W.) . . . πά νθ’ βσα

μή τό εύπρεπές έν λ ό γω ι διασώ ιζειν δοκεΐ σύμβολα φ ύ-
σ ε ω ς τ ή ς άεί κ ρ ύ π τ ε σ θ α ι φ ι λ ο ύ σ η ς υπά ρ
χοντα . . .
οιI
♦J
(b) P Themist. or. 5, 69 B φ ύ σ ι ς δέ κ α θ ’ 'Η ρά
κλειτον κ ρ ύ π τ ε σ θ α ι φ ι λ ε ΐ , 1 καί προ τής φύσεως
ό τής φύσεως δημιουργός... (Ex Porphyrio suspic. Η. Diels).
_(= 12,159 Β ).
1 edd. : φιλέει codd.
(c) Ρ Prod, in remp. II, p. 107,5 Kroll και δτι τό

π λα σ μ α τώ δες τούτο κ α τά φύσιν πώ ς έστιν, διότι καί
ή φύσις κρύπτεσθαι φιλεΐ καθ’ Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι
τον. .. (Ex Porphyrio).
(d ) R Iulian. or. 7, 216 C φ ι λ ε ΐ γ ά ρ ή φ ύ

σ ι ς κ ρ ύ π τ ε σ θ α ι , καί τό άποκεκρυμμένον τή ς τών
θεών ούσίας ούκ ά νέχετα ι γυμ νοΐς είς ά κ αθά ρτους ά κ οά ς
'ρ ίπτεσ θα ι ‘ρήμασιν.
(c) R Manil. IV, 869 s. Housman2

conditur en, inquit,1 vasto natura recessu
mortal isquc fugit visus et pectora nostra.
Cf. Sen. qü. nat. VII, 30,4 . . . sive in sanctiore secessu 2
maiestas tanta delituit et regnum suum, id est se, regit nee
ulli dat aditum nisi animo.
1 en Tneol). inquit itentl. : enim quid M, enira quod I, G 2 recessu δ
32
8 (123)
The real constitution of each· thing is accustomed to hide itself.
The common source of all the preserved testimonia could

be a Stoic one.
The implication of the saying is obscure. <]) 6 a ι ς in
fr. 59 (106 DK) probably hints at the physical άναθυμίασις
which makes up the content of the sun (cf. fr. 58 [6 D K ]; aliter
Kirk 230). In view of the άρμονίη άφανής fr. 9 (54)(1) and
άρμονίη fr. 27 (51); of the phrase κ α τά φύσιν δ ι α ι ρ έ ω ν
£καστον(ϊ> fr. 1; and perhaps of the συλλάψιες = 2v fr. 25
(10), the mechanical implication of φύσις is more probable here.
Thus fr. 8 might belong to the doctrine on the Logos: ‘The
real constitution of every particular thing(2) ( = Logos) usually
(or mostly) hides itself (i.e . does not lie oh the surface
itself of the thing).’
Kirk 1. c. (cf. Kirk-Raven p. 193) has correctly interpreted
the saying, but seems to go too far (‘The hidden truth about
things is that they are not separate from each o th er... ’), taking
the φύσις out of the thing. The interpretations of e.g . Gigon
ΙΟΙ'3' and W. Schadewaldt(4) seem to me improbable.
Possibly Cicero, Acad. pr. II, 32 naturam aceusa, quae in
profundo veritatem, ut ait Democritus,<5) penitus abstruserit,
combines this saying with that of Democritus.
Π) Cf. Zeller 837 n.; Walzer 152 and especially Kirk 231.
(-> Cf. e.g. Empedocles fr. 110,5 διτη φύσις έστίν έκάστωι.
(.ι) “Wenn das Entstehen und die Entwicklung der Dinge tatsächlich ein
Widerspiel von L e b e n u n d Tod ist, dann ist das Wesen dieses
Werdens verborgen.” Cf. P. Heinimann, N o m o s u n d P h y s i s , 92 ff., and
Kirk 228.
(■») H e lla s u n d H e s p e r ie n , Zürich, 1960, 910.
<·■> fr. 117 . . . έ ν β ο θ ω ι γ ά ρ ή άλήθεια.
33
9
(54 DK; 47 B)
(α1) C Hippolyt, refut. IX, 9.5 (p. 242,10 Wendl.). post

fr. 27 {51). δτι δέ έστιν1 (sc. 6 π α τή ρ πάντω ν) Αφανής [6]-
ά ό ρ α το ς Α γνω στος Ανθρώποις, έν τούτοις λέγει" ά ρ μ ονίη
άφοινής φ α ν ερ ή ς κρείττω ν· έ π α ιν ε ΐ3 < γ ά ρ > 4 κ α ί προ-
θ α υ μ ά ζει πρό του γινω σκομένου τό Αγνωστον αύτοΟ καί
Αόρατον τή ς δυνΑμεως. seq. fr. 5 (55).
1 S (στιν) Ρ, Hiller : (ό θεός) porperam Wendland, Kirk 2 seel.

Wordsworth 3 < έν ο !ς> έττσινεί ei. Diels 4 γά ρ add.
(fl2) C IX, 10,1 (ρ. 242,22 IV.) οϋτω ς ’Η ράκλειτος

έν ϊσηι μοίραι τίθ ετα ι καί τιμ α ι τ ά εμφανή το ΐς Αφανέ-
σιν, ώ ς έν τι τό έμφανές καί τό Αφανές όμολογουμένω ς
ύττΑρχον' έστι1 γά ρ , φησίν, Α ρ μ ο ν ί η 2 Α φ α ν ή ς φ α
ν ε ρ ή ς κ ρ ε ί τ τ ω ν , κ α ί ... seq. fr. 5 (55).
1 gern Miller : τις Ρ : ές τί Schuster 24 2 άρμονία (a corr. ex η)

ή Ρ, corr. Miller
(b) C Plut. de cm. procr. in Tim. 1026 C τής δέ ψυχής

ούδέν μέν ειλικρινές ούδ’ Ακρατον ούδέ χω ρ ίς Απολεί
π ετα ι τω ν Αλλων" ά ρ μ ο ν ί η γ ά ρ Α φ α ν ή ς φ α ν ε
ρ ή ς κ ρ ε ί τ τ ω ν κ α θ’ 'Η ράκλειτον, έν ήι τά ς διαφ ο
ρά ς καί τ ά ς έτερότητα ς ό μιγνύω ν θεός έκρυψε καί κατέ-
δυσεν. (Schl. fr. 36).
(c) R? Plotin. I, 6 [1], 3,28 Henry et Schwyzer αί δέ

ά ρμονίαι α ί έν τα ΐς φω ναΐς αί Αφανείς τά ς φ ανεράς ποιή-
σ α σ α ι... (Bernays, Ges. Ahh., I, 26 n. 1).
34
(d) R? Procl. in Crat. 176 (p. 101,22 Pasquali) τό δέ
τής μουσικής παρίστησιν δτι ό 1 θεός οδτος (sc. ’Απόλλων)
α ίτιός έστι πάσης ά ρ μ ο ν ί α ς ά φ α ν ο ΰ ς τ ε κ α ί
έ μ φ α ν ο Ο ς . . . (cf. Vlax/Phaed. 85 Ε ).
1 6 Γ, om.cett.
35
9 (54)
Invisible connexion is stronger than visible.
I .e . ‘The invisible (under-the-surface) method of joining

or connexion between two opposites of every thing [i.e. the
Logos, cf. Kranz ad fr. and Kirk 224] is stronger even than
real joints (or holdfasts).’" ’
Probably the mechanical connexion of two simultaneous
opposites, such as described in fr. 27 (51), which is obviously
meant as a typical case, is primarily aimed at here (so F. H.
Sandbach ap. lvirk 225).
Aliter Gigon 29;<2) Kirk 224 ff.,3) Unlikely Reinhardt, Pann.
197;"’ Q. Cataudella, Sophia 17 (1949), 332 ff.
d) Cf. e.g. O d y s s e y V, 248; 361; B. Moyer 'Αρμονία, B c d e u tim g s g c -

s e tfic titc v o n H o m e r U s P la t o n , Biss. Zürich, Freiburg, 1932, passim;
Kranz; Gigon 23; 29 ‘Fügung’, ‘Zusammenfügung’; Kirk 207 f.
(-> “Die ‘sichtbare 'Zusammenfügung’ ist die evidente Abfolge von Tag
und Nacht, Leben und T od... Die ‘unsichtbare Fügung’ ist die völlige
Einheit, die engste Verbindung...” ; cf. Walzer 92.
( i) The moaning might lie that connexion between opposites is stronger
than that between similars, or between things which are patently
related to each other.” “The apparent connexion is the superficial
contact and similarity presented by a non-analytical glance at things
around u s ...” .
<■*> “Erst mit dem Gegensatz tritt jedes Ding ins Dasein, und die innere
Einheit, das ταύτόν, die ‘unsichtbare Harmonie’ (Fr. 54) wird
sichtbar erst durch Zweiheit, Widerspruch und ewigen Wechsel.”
36
10
(22^-DK; 8 B)
(«) C Clem, ström. IV, 4,2 (II, p. 249 St.)
χρ υσ ό ν γ ά ρ ol διζή μ ενοι,
φησίν Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς,
γ η ν πολλή ν όρύσσουσι
κ α ί εύρ ίσ κ ουσ ιν ό λίγο ν.
(Schl. fr. 7).
(«') Theodoret. Gr. aff. cur. I, 88.
37
10 ( 2 2 )
Those who seek for gold

dig much earth and find a little.
Probably only a traditional adage or φάτις is quoted.

There is no doubt that the saying has a positive, hortatory
meaning, the word ό λ 1γ ο ν implying ‘little but precious
and worth searching for, because it is gold.’n) Thus I would
understand the saying so: ‘Those who search for the hidden
Logos must make a strong endeavour, must seek with zeal
and persistence.’
(l) Unlikely H. Wiese, E. b e i K l e m e n s , 158: “Unwahrscheinlich is t... »

die Umdeutung des quantitativen όλίγον in ein qualitatives. Wenn
dies nicht nur ein weiteres Beispiel für den Zusammenhang der
Gegensätze ‘viel’ (γην πολλήν) und ‘wenig’ (όλίγον) gewesen ist...”.
38
11
(18"DK; 7 B)
(«) C Clem. ström. II, 17,4 (II, p. 121 St.) άληθές

δ’ οδν δν π α ν τ ό ς 1 μάλλον άποδείκνυται τό υπό του
προφήτου είρημένον- έάν μή πιστεόσητε, ούδέ μή συνήτε
(Is. 7,9). τούτο καί Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς ό Έ φ έσ ιο ς τό λόγιον
•χαραφράσας εϊρ η κ εν
έά ν μή έ λ π η τ α ι2 ά ν έλ π ιστόν,
ούκ έξευ ρ ή σ ει,3
ά νεξερ εύ νη το ν έόν κ α ί άπορον.
(Schl. fr. 6).
1 παντός Dindorf : π άντω ς L 2 Ιλπησθε Stephanus eonl. Theo

dor. : Ιλπ η αι Schuster, Bywater, Th. Gomperz 3 έξευρήσετε Steph.
sec. Theod. : έξευρήσεαι re} έξευρήσεις ei. Schuster
(αι) P Theodoret. Gr. aff. cur. I, 88 καί ό 'Η ράκλειτος

δέ πά λιν π α ρ ε γ γ υ α ι ξενα γεΐσ θ α ι ύπό τής πίστεω ς, οϋτω
λ έγω ν ' έ ά ν μ ή έ λ π ί ζ η τ ε ά ν έ λ π ι σ τ ο ν , ο ύ χ
εύρήσετε, ά ν ε ξ ε ρ ε ύ ν η τ ο ν 1 έόν καί άπο
ρ ο ν . seq. fr. 10 (22).
1 KSC, Clem. : άνεξεΰρετον B, Mullach, -ητον LM
39
11 (18)
I f you do not expect the unexpected, you will not find it;
for it is hard to be searched out and difficult to compass.
έλπη τα ι άνέλπιστον, correctly punctuated by T. Gora-

perz;(1) the object of έξευρήσει is obviously αύτό under
stood,<2) and the subject of the verbs is something like τις
or άνθρω πος.
Line 1 of the fragment seems to imply a polemic against
the traditional opinion represented e.g. by Carm. aur. v. 53
ώ στε σε μήτε ά ελ π τ’ έλπίζειν μήτε τι λήθειν.(3) The same
criticism is implied already in Archilochus’ fr. 74,1 D. χρ η
μάτω ν ά ελπτον ούδέν έ σ τ ιν ... [hence Eurip. fr. 761 N.- „
ά ελπτον ούδέν, π ά ντα δ ’ έλπίζειν χ ρ εώ ν(4) and Ps. Linus
ap. Stob. V, 46,1 έλπεσθαι χρή π ά ντ’ έπεί ούκ £στ’ ούδέν
ά ελ π το ν ].
ά ν ε ξ ε ρ ε ύ ν η τ ο ν and ά π ο ρ ο ν mean only ‘hard
to be searched out’ and ‘difficult to compass or discover’, and
not ‘impossible t o . . . ’: cf. LSJ, s. άπορος, II, 2; Herodot.
V III, 53,1, and Burnet 133.
ä λ π ε σ θ α ι means here only ‘to expect’, ‘erwarten’ (P.
Friedländer ap. DK I, p. 492,44), and not ‘to hope’, ‘erhoffen’
(as DK, Reinhardt, Nestle, Frankel et dl. have it). Hence, a
“Hoffen im Mystcriensinn’ (Diels) is out of the question.w
Men must have great confidence in success while searching

for the hidden Logos.<e) The latter is 'difficult to compass’
either because it is hidden inside the things or because it is
paradoxical (cf. ού ξυνιασιν δ κ ω ς ... fr. 27 [51]).
40
Bernays’ supposition (Ges. Abh., I, 71 f.) that the fragment
is a forgery by Clement is not likely.
*') ,S7> W ie n 113 (1886), 99ί). Hi· wax followed by Reinhardt, F a r m , 62

n. 2; Burnet 133 n. 2; Verdenius, M n e m o s . 1947, 279 n. 52; Kirk
231; Wiese 132 f. ( c o n tr a Bywater, Diels, Nestle, Heidel f P ro c .
A m . A c . A r t s 48, 1913, 696], Kranz, P. Canivet [Soinors c h r e tie n n e s
57, Paris, 1958, a d lo o .], on the one hand; Gigon 2; Walzer 42 n. 2:
60 n. 1; Mazzantini 104; 150 n. 2; 236; P. Wheelwright [ B c r a c liliis ,
Princeton, 1959,138], on the other).
<-> C o n tr a xö σοφόν of Reinhardt; ‘truth’ of Wheelwright 20; 138. - The
version of II. Frankel, W ege. - 263: “ . . . der wird nicht finden was
unaufspürbar ist und unzugänglich” is not correct.
(·'>> First quoted by T. Gomperz 1. e.
<■>> Quoted by Reinhardt 1. e.
<■’> Unlikely Mazzantini 104; 236; Hanmoux 422 if.
i") U. Hölscher, V a r ia v a r io r u m (Festgabe K. Reinhardt), Münster-
Köln, 1952, 74, started well, but finished with an improbable inter
pretation: “Das Paradox von der Einheit der Gegensätze war nicht
zu beweisen, sondern nur intuitiv zu begreifen. Fragment 18 ... es
ist ‘nicht aufzuspüren’, sondern stellt sich ‘unverhofft’ ein.” But
Heraclitus tried to prove rationally and experimentally his Logos
[cf. c.g. frr. 1 (iii); 27 ( S I ) · , 32 ( 5 9 ) ·, 44 ( 1 1 1 ) ] , and frr. 13
( 1 0 7 ) ·, 14 (95) do not imply intuition but intelligence and insight.
41
12
(86 DK; 116 B)
(α) P Plut. Coriol. 38 ούδενΐ1 γ ά ρ ούδαμώ ς άνθρω-

πίνω ι προσέοικεν (sc. ό θεός) οδτε φύσιν οΰτε κίνησιν
ούτε τέχνην οϋτ’ Ισχύν, ούδ’ εΐ τι ποιεί τω ν ήμΐν άποιήτω ν
καί μη χανα τα ι τω ν άμηχάνων, π α ρ ά λ ο γό ν έστιν, ά λ λ ά
μάλλον έ ν 2 πά σ ι δ ια φ έρ ω ν 3 πολύ μά λισ τα το ΐς έρ γ ο ις
άνόμοιός έστι καί π α ρ η λλα γμ ένος. ά λ λ ά τω ν μέν θείων
τά πολλά, καθ’ Η ρ ά κ λειτον,
ά π ισ τ ίη ι1 δ ια φ υ γ γ ά ν ε ι μή γιν ώ σ κ εσ θ α ι.
1 ούδενΐ Ν : ούδέν Υ 2 έν οηι.λ' 3 διαφ. < ή μ ώ ν > ci.

Ziegler 4 άπιστίη Υ : πίστιν Ν
(b) Ρ Clem. ström. V, 88,4 (II, ρ. 384 St.) δπ ω ς δε

ή διανομή αϋτη καί δ τί ποτέ έστι τό ά γιο ν πνεύμα, έν
τοΐς π ερ ί προφ ητείας1 κάν τοΐς π ερ ί ψυχής έπιδειχθή-
σεται ήμΐν. ά λ λ ά τά μέν τή ς γνώ σ εω ς βάθη 2 κρύπτειν
ά π ισ τ ίη ι3 ά γ α θ ό ν 4 καθ’ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν- ά π ι σ τ ί η ι 5 γ ά ρ
δ ι α φ υ γ γ ά ν ε ι μ ή γ ι γ ν ώ σ κ ε σ θ α ι . (Schl. fr. 12).
1 cf. I, 158,1 et St. 2 cf. 1 c p . C le m . 40, 1; H orn. 11, 33; I C or.

2, 10; Clem, q u is d iv e s s a l v c t v r 30, 1 (ITT, p. 183 St.) c t a l. 3 L1 :
άπιστίη L3, Stnehlin 4 άγαθόν ci. ltnmnoux 466 : άγαθήι L’,
άγαθή L3, St. 5 άπιστίη L, corr. St.
42
12 ( 86)
I t is became of want of (human) confidence

that it [the Logos?] escapes men’s knowledge.
Probably Clement (b) is dependent on Plutarch (a). As for

the context of (b), I would read with Ramnoux 466: κρύπτεlv
άπιστίηι [= ά π ίσ το ις](1) ά γ α θ ό ν '2’ etc. ‘According to Hera
clitus it is not unfair to conceal the depths of the (divine)
knowledge from the unbelievers; because exactly for the want
of belief men fail to know (these depths).’ Cf. Isaias 7,9 έάν
μή πιστεύσητε, ουδέ μή συνήτε (quoted by Clement ad
Heracl. fr. 11 [78]) and ström. I, 18,1 (II, p. 13 St.) άρμόζει
γά ρ , οίμαι, της ά ληθεία ς τά σ πέρματα μόνοις φυλάσσεσ-
θαι τοΐς της πίσ τεω ς γ ε ω ρ γ ο ΐς; I, 20,4; 21,2; protr. 2,1.
The interpretation of H. Wiese, H. bei Klemens, 215 (who
reads after L·3 and Stählin άπιστίη ά γα θ ή ) seems to me
unlikely/3’
There can be no doubt that only the words άπιστίηι δια-
φ υ γ γά νει μή γινώ σ κεσ θαι belong to Heraclitus (so already
Bywater, Zeller 794 n. 1, DK, Walzer, Ram noux)/4’ As for the
subject of δια φ υγγά νει, I think we might understand either
something like άνέλπιστον from fr. 11 (18) (so Reinhardt,
Farm. 62 n. 2) or like φύσις fr. 8 (123) (cf. T. öomperz 1000
f.; 1029 f.), i.e . the Logos. ‘Das Göttliche’ as subject here
(so Frankel, Dichtung2 450) is not likely to m e/3’ Because
άπιστίη says much the same as έάν μή έλπηται, and δια-
φ υ γ γά νει reminds us of άνεξερεύνητον καί άπορον fr. 11
(18) and perhaps of κρύπτεσθαι φιλεΐ fr. 8 (123) as well.
<i) As for the dative, cf. O d y s s e y IV, 350 = XVII, 141; Hesiod e r g a 42.
<-’) άγαθηι Li can be explained by the influence of the preceding dative.
43
“Gut ist das Misstrauen des Lehrers gegenüber den Vielen, das bei
der Behandlung der letzten Dinge zum Zwecke ihrer Verhüllung das
Mittel der symbolischen Ausdrueksweise anwendet... Denn aufgrund
dieses der Darstellung zugrundeliegenden Misstrauens können die
Geheimnisse vom unreifen Leser nicht verstanden werden.”
<■*> The conjecture of Diels, ff.2 (τοΰ λόγου τά πολλά κρύπτειν κρύψις
άγαθή' άπιστίηι γά ρ κτλ.) cannot be taken seriously.
(*) The same can be said of the interpretation of c.g. T. Gomperz;
Burnet 141; Nestle fr. 45 and ap. Zeller 794 n. 1; Reinhardt 213 n. 1;
Mazzantini 106; 250; Wheelwright fr. 63; Guthrie 472 (‘Divine things
for the most part escape recognition because of unbelief’).
44
13
(107 J)K; 4 B)
(«) C Sext. Emp. adv. math. VII, 126 ά λ λ α τήν μέν

αΐσθησιν έ λ έγ χ ει (sc. δ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) λ έγω ν κ α τά λέξιν
κ α κοί μ ά ρ τυ ρ ε ς ά νθ ρ ώ π ο ισ ιν ό φ θ α λ μ ο ί κ α ί ώ τα
β α ρ β ά ρ ο υ ς ψ υ χ ά ς έχόντω ν,
δπερ ίσον ήν τώ ι1 ‘βαρβάρω ν έστί ψυχών τα ΐς ά λ ό γο ις

αίσθήσεσι πιστεύειν.’ (Sehl. fr. 22).
1 τώι Bokker : τών codd.
(6) Ε Stob. I ll, 4,54 (III, p. 233 Hensc) [περί άφρο-

σύνης] Η ρ α κ λ είτο υ ' κακοί < μ ά ρ τ υ ρ ε ς > 1 γίνοντα ι όφθαλ-
μοί καί ώ τα άψρόνων άνθρώ πω ν ψ υχάς βαρβάρους έχόν
των.
1 μάρτυρες ftdd. Schlelermacher, Stornbach
(h') R Gnomol. Vat. [743] nr. 311 Sternbuch. post. fr. 15

(101) a.'·' ό αύτός (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) έφη' κακοί μάρτυρες
ώ τα καί όφθαλμοί άψρόνων άνθρώπων.
(6s) R Gnomol. Monac. [84 V] I, 31 (Woelfflin, Caec.

Ball·., p. 20) (Heraclitus dixit): oculos et aures vulgi malos
testes esse.
45
(c) R Diog. Laert. IX, 7. post fr. 114 (46 DK) . .. καί
τήν δρασιν ψεύδεσθαι.
Cf. Tertull. de anima 17,2 horum (sc. sensuum) fidem

Acadcmici durius damnant, secundum quosdam et Heraclitus
et Diodes et Empedocles. (Cf. I. H. Waszink2, p. 240).
46
13 (107)
Evil witnesses are eyes and ears for men,

if they have souls that da not understand their language.
άνθρώιτοισιν with έχόντω ν: cf. J. Classen, Beobach

tungen über den homerischen Sprachgebr., Frankfui’t, 1867,
175 (nine instances from Homer); C. Pascal, Itendic. 1st. Lom
bardo, Ser. II, 39 (1906), 199 η. 1 (cf. Xcn. anab. VII, 7,40
δμνυμι δέ σοι μηδέ άποδιδόντος [sc. σου] δέξασ θαι &ν).
Thus the change of έχόντων into έχουσιν is not necessary
(contra C. Ritter; L. Sternbach ad bl ; Guthrie 415 n. 2).
έ χ ό ν τ ω ν is only conditional (‘if they have’) [so e.g.
Burnet; Kirk-Raven nr. 201; Guthrie 415], not causal (as
Pascal; Kranz; Mazzantini 254, alternatively, have it): the
limitative force of έχόντω ν is confirmed both by the context
of (a) and by (b) άφρόνων, vulgi.
κ α κ ο ί = άχρηστοι (perhaps the same meaning in fr.
101 [104], ‘worthless’ translates K. von Fritz, CP 40 [1945], 231).
β ά ρ β α ρ ο ς means here ‘who cannot understand the lan
guage of’ [i.e. who cannot correctly interpret the reliable messa
ges of the senses’]: cf. Aesehyl. Again. 1051; 1060 (and M. Mar-
covich, A JP 83 [1962], 292 f .) ; 1 Cor. 14,11 and Zeller 901 n. 3;
Diels, 11} (‘wenn sie Seelen haben, welche die Aussagen der
Sinne nicht richtig verstehen können’); Burnet; Reinhardt,
Parin. 213; H. Werner, N. Jahrb. 21 (1918), 391 n. 1; Kirk-
Ravcn p. 189 n. 2; H. Schwabl and H. Diller, Entretiens Hardt,
8 (Geneva, 1962), pp. 5 and 40 (but H. C. Baldry, ib., p. 69 f.,
seems to go too far), ψ υ χ ή means here ‘intelligence’, ‘faculty
of understanding and interpretation’, cf. fr. 68 (118 D K ).
The fragment stresses the need of personal intelligence
or insight for the apprehension of the Logos. It was correctly
47
interpreted by Kirk 61; 281; 376; Snell, Die Entdeckung3 194.
Unfortunately, the influence of the misleading context of (a)
[i.e. Aenesidemus] is too often visible in modern interpre
tations (so e.g. in Pascal 204; Zeller 901; 908 f. “erklärte
e r . .. die Sinne für trügerisch, und die Vernunfterkenntnis
allein für zuverlässig”; Reinhardt; Nestle ap. Zeller 908 n.;
Vom Mythos zum Logos2, 98 n. 65). The interpretations of
Bernays (Ges. Abh., I, 94 f.) and Wilamowitz (Platon, P ,
339 η. 1 [ = 19595, 264 n. 2]) arc obviously wrong.
Democrit. fr. 11 seems to be no parallel instance to this
fragment (contra Kirk-Raven 1. e.).
48
14
(93 DK; 11 B)
(a) C Plut. de Pyth. or. 404 D οίμαι δέ < κ α Ι σέ>*

γιγνώ σ κ ειν τό π α ρ ’ Ή ρα κ λείτω ι λεγόμ ενον ώ ς
ό ά ν α ξ 2 οδ τό μ α ντεΐό ν έσ τι τό έν Δ ελ φ ο ΐς
ο δτε. λ έ γ ε ι ο δτε κ ρ ύ π τει ά λ λ ά σ η μ α ίνει.
πρόσλαβε δέ τούτοις εδ λεγομ ένοις καί νόησον τόν εν

τα ύ θ α θεόν χρώ μενον τηι Πυθίαι π ρ ό ς άκοήν καθώ ς
ήλιος χρ ή τα ι σελήνηι τρ ό ς δψιν.3 (Schl. fr. 10).
1 καί σέ add. Boisko 2 ώ ς ό δ ν α ξ Tumeb. : ώσθ' δνα ξ Ε

(Β) 3 π ρ ός δψιν post Π υ θ . codd., transp. Wyttenbach
(αΊ) Ρ Stob. I ll, 199 (III, p. 151,6 Hense) [περί άρε-

τής] Π υ θ α γ ο ρ ικ ά ... ώ ς γ ά ρ ό ά ν α ξ ό έ ν Δ ε λ
φ ο ΐ ς ο δ τ ε λ έ γ ε ι ο δ τ ε κ ρ ύ π τ ε ι ά λ λ ά ση
μ α ί ν ε ι , κ α τά τόν Η ρ ά κ λειτον, οϋτω των Π υθαγορικώ ν
συμβόλων καί τό φ ράζεσ θαι δοκούν κρυπτόμενόν έστι καί
τό κρύπτεσθαι νοούμενον. ( = Plut. fr. 34, 3. VII, ρ. 151 Ber-
nardakis).
(b) R Iambi, epist. ad Dexipp. ap. Stob. II, 2,5 (II,

p. 18,20 Wachsmuth) ώ ς δέ τ ά έ ρ γ α α ύ τά δείκνυσιν, αύτός
ό έ ν Δ ε λ φ ο ΐ ς θ ε ό ς ο δ τ ε λ έ γ ω ν , καθ’ Η ρ ά
κλειτον, ο δ τ ε κ ρ ύ π τ ω ν ά λ λ ά σ η μ α ί ν ω ν τά ς
μαντείας, έγείρ ει π ρ ό ς διαλεκτικήν διερεύνησιν τούς
έπηκόους τω ν χ ρ η σ μ ώ ν ...
49
(!>') K de mystcriis III, 15 (ρ. I3G,1 Partlicy) συμβο
λ ικ ό ς δέ την γνώ μην τοϋ θεοΰ έμφαίνουσι (sc. οί γ εν ε
σιουργοί δαίμονες) καί τήν τοΰ μέλλοντος προδήλωσιν
καθ’ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν ο ύ τ ε λ έ γ ο ν τ ε ς ο ö τ ε κ ρ ύ π-
τ ' ο ν τ ε ς α λ λ ά σ η μ α ί ν ο ν τ ε ς , έπειδή τής δημιουρ
γ ία ς τον τρόπον άποτυποΰσι δ ιά τή ς προδηλώσεω ς. καθά-
περ ο5ν δι’ εικόνων γεννώ σι π ά ντα (sc. οί θεοί), καί σημαί-
νουσιν ω σαύτω ς δ ιά συνθημάτω ν- ίσιος δέ κ α ί την ήμε-
τέρα ν σύνεσιν ά πό τής αύτής άφορμής είς όξύτητα πλείονα
άνακινοΰσι.
(c) It Lucian, vit. auct. 14 ά τεχνώ ς γ ά ρ ώ σπερ ό

Λοξίας ούδέν άποσαφεΐς.
50
Η (93)
The Lord whose is the oracle in Delphi

neither speaks out nor conceals, but gives a sign.
δ ά ν α ξ (for Apollo): cf. C. F. H. Bruehmann, E pi

theta deorum, 21. The hymnic description of god in an invo-
catio is clearly visible in line 1 (cf. e.g. Eurip. Tr. 454 ώ
μαντεΐ* ά ν α ξ ), σ η μ α ί ν ε ι means ‘gives σ ή μ α τα ’: cf.
Xenoph. mem. I, 1,9 (DK I, p. 494,24 f.); anab. VI, 1, 31;
Hell. V, 4,17 et al.; ‘er deutet an’ (Schleiermacher, Diels);
‘macht Andeutungen’ (Nestle, fr. 36); ‘er weist hin’ (Frankel,
Dichtung2 452); ‘gibt ein Zeichen’ (Hölscher, Festgabe Rein
hardt, 72); ‘gives a sign’ (Kirk-Raven nr. 247; cf. Guthrie
414); contra Snell (Hermes 61, 371 nn. 3-4; 372) ‘bedeutet’
(accepted by K ranz), λ έ γ ε ι means ‘speaks out’; ‘deutlich,
gerade heraussagen . . . die offene Rede’ Nestle (Archiv f.
Gesell, d. Philos. 25 [1911], 291); ‘kündet’ (K. Latte, RE
X V III, 845); contra Ramnoux 302; 468 (“notre propre solution
ramene l’opposition traditionnelle des oracles par signes et
des oracles par mots”) . As for the sort of signs meant in the
fragment, cf. e.g . Herodot. I, 62,4, and Heracl. fr. 21 (56).
The saying seems to be an image (m etaphor); its impli
cation might be the following: ‘As Apollo neither speaks out
all (100%) nor conceals all (0% ), but shows forth a part of
the truth (50%), so also Logos inside the things is neither
inaccessible to human knowledge (0%) nor self-evident (100%),
but requires an intellectual effort from men’, i.e. insight or
faculty to interpret correctly the signs emitted by Logos to
the senses, or an ού β ά ρβ α ρος ψυχή, fr. 13 (107). In Apollo
the allusion to Logos seems to be more likely (so Snell 372;
Mazzantini 110) than that to ‘the oracular obscure style of
Heraclitus’, as the fragment is usually interpreted.
51
The emphasis seems to be on the cognitive effort of men
aimed at the apprehension of the hidden Logos; cf. mutatis
mutandis (b) εγείρ ει πρ ός διαλεκτικήν διερεύνησιν; Nestle,
Vom Mythos zum Logos - 101 (“Winke, die den fragenden
zum eigenen Nachdenken anregen. . the rest is improbable);
and pex-haps Soph. fr. 771 Pearson τόν θ ε ό ν ... σ ο φ ο ΐ ς
μέν α ίνικτηρα θεσφάτω ν ά ε ί . . .
Ρ. Merlan (ΤΑΡΑ 80 (1949j, 429; Actes du XI. Congres

de Philosophie, Amsterdam, 1953, vol. XII, 59) was right in
thinking that the interpretation of the saying as an apology
of Heraclitus’ oracular style would be too narrow, but his
own interpretation (“ambiguity on the side of the gods and
risk on the side of man are essential in their relations to each
o th er... a kind of religious consciousness or attitude among
the Greeks.. . ”) seems to me less likely than that given above.
15
(101 DK; 80 B)
(«) C Plut. adv. Colot. 1118 C έν οίς δέ κομιδήι

δ ια γ ελ α ι καί φλαυρίζει (se. ό Κωλώτης) τόν Σ ω κ ράτην
ζητοϋντα τί άνθρω πός έστι καί νεανιευόμενον, ώ ς φησιν,
δτι μηδ’ α ύτός < α υ τό ν> * είδείη, δήλος μέν έστιν α ύτός
ουδέποτε πρ ος τούτω ι γενόμενος, δ δ’ Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς ώ ς
μ έ γ α τι καί σεμνόν δια π επ ρ α γμ ένο ς έδ ιζ η σ ά μ η ν φησιν
έμεω υτόν, καί τω ν έν Δ ελφοΐς γρ α μ μ ά τω ν θειότατον
έδόκει τό 'γν ώ θ ι σαυτόν’- δ δή καί Σ ω κ ρ ά τει < τ η ς > 2
α π ο ρ ία ς καί ζητήσεω ς ταύτης αρχήν έ ν έ δ ω κ ε ν ... (Schl,
fr. 73).
1 αύτόν add. Pohlenz (ef. Plat. P h a ed r. 229 E - 230 A) 2 τη ς add.

Pohlenz
(«’?) P Iulian. or. 6, 185 A ούκοΰν ό μέν < έ ν > 1

Δ ελφοΐς θεός τό 'γν ώ θ ι σαυτόν’ π ρ οα γορεύει, Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι
το ς δέ έ δ ι ζ η σ ά μ η ν έ μ < ε > ω υ τ ό ν , ά λ λ ά καί
Π υθα γόρ α ς οΐ τε ά π ’ εκείνου μ έχρι θεοφ ρ ά σ του τό κ α τά
δύναμιν όμοιοΰσθαι θεω ι φ α σ ι. . .
1 έν add. Pctavius
(a") R Aristonym. ap. Stob. I ll, 21,7 (III, p. 557

Hense) [περί τοΰ γνώ θ ι σαυτόν]. έκ τω ν Ά ρισ τω νύμ ου
τομαρίω ν. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς νέος ώ ν πάντω ν γ έ γ ο ν ε σ ο φ ό
τερ ο ς,1 δτι ήιδει έαυτόν μηδέν είδότα. (Schl. ad. fr.).
1 σοφώτατος Α2, Gnom. Vat.
53
(a3) R Gnomol. Vat. [743] nr. 310 Stcrnbach Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι
τος ό φυσικός έφησε σ ο φ ό τα το ς 1 γεγο νένα ι πάντω ν νέος
ών, δτι ήιδει εαυτόν- μηδέν είδότα.3 ( = Anton. Monaeh.
mclissa. I, 59 [PG 136, 960 C ] ; Maxim. Conf. serm. 56 [PG 91,
969 A ] ).
1 σοφώτερος Ant., Max. 2 ήιδειν έμαοτόν cod, corn Sternb.

3 είδότα cod. et Max. in Vat. Gr. 741 et 385 : övtot Ant., -Maximi
codcl. cett., cf. (a4)
(a4) R Diog. Laert. IX, 5 γ έγ ο ν ε δε θαυμάσιος έκ

π α ίδω ν (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς), δτε καί νέος ών έφασκε μηδέν
είδέναι,1 τέλειος μέντοι γενόμενος πά ντα έγνω κ έναι (cf.
fr. 1 i3). (Schl.).
1 d g : είναι B F P
(b) P Suda s. Πόστουμος. τά δέ π ρ ώ τα χρυσοχόος

ήν. έπεί δέ ά π α ξ αυτόν είσήλθεν δδε ό φ ιλόλογος έρω ς,
ές τ ά ς ’Α θήνας ώ ρμησε κ α ί έξεμουσώθη τ ά Ε λ λ ή ν ω ν
έκεΐθι. κ α ί ές γ ή ρ α ς βαθύ ήλασε π ολλά κ α ί κ α λ ά είδώ ς.
ουκουν ά π εικ ό ς ήν κ α ί τόνδε τον Ποστοΰμον λ έγ ειν
λ ό γο ν έκεΐνον "ονπερ οδν Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς εΐπεν έφ’ έαυτοΟ'
έμεωυτόν έδιζησάμην. ( = Aelian. fr. 317 Hcr-
cher). (Schl.).
(c) P Plotin. V, 9 [5], 5,29 Henry et Sehwyzer όρθώ ς

ά ρ α το γ ά ρ αύτό νοεΐν έ σ τ ί< ν > τε καί είνα ι’ (Parm. fr. 3)
καί 'ή τω ν άνευ ύλη ς έπιστήμη ταύτόν τώ ι π ρ ά γ μ α τ ι’
(Aristot. de anima Γ 4, ρ. 430 a 3) καί τό έ μ α υ τ ό ν
έ δ ι ζ η σ ά μ η ν ώ ς έ ν τω ν δντω ν. ..
(c1) R IV, 8 [6], 1, 11 ό μέν γ ά ρ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς, δς

ήμΐν π α ρ α κ ελεόετα ι ζ η τ ε ΐ ν τ ο ύ τ ο ... (seq. frr. 54
54
[90 J)lv I; 33 / 160 \ ; 5Gab [84ab D K ]) είκ ά ζειν εδω κεν1 άμε-
λή σα ς σαφή ήμΐν ποιήσαι τόν λόγον, ώ ς δέον ίσω ς
π α ρ ’ αύτών- ζ η τ ε ί ν, ώ σ π ε ρ καί αύτός
ζ η τ ή σ α ς ε δ ρ ε ν. Cf. [Aristot.] theologia I, 27 (vert,
angl. <i. Lewis, ap. H.-S., II, p. 225 s.).
1 εδωκεν codd., Henry ct Sclnvyzer : δοκεΐ Volkmann, Brehier, Kirk

250 2 αυτών Heintz aji. Harder. ( G n o m o n 4 [1928], 645), Harder- :
αύτώ Ai.E BBJ, H.-S. : αύτώ A^UC : αύτών Vat. Ciz.ec : αύτοΐς Volk
mann, Brihicr, Kirk
(d>) R Clem, ström. II, 2,3 (II, p. 114 St.) <£v μέν
γ ά ρ δή κλέπται, καί δή καί τα δ τα ά π ο δεικ τέα περιαιρε-
θείσης α ύτοΐς τής φ ιλαυτίας, ά δέ αύτοί δ ι ζ η σ ά μ ε
ν ο ι έ α υ τ ο ύ ς έ ζ ε υ ρ η κ έ ν α ι φ ρυά ττονταμ τούτω ν
ό έ'λεγχος. (Cf. C. Reinhardt, Nachlass, 189 ss. [ap. H. Wiese
318 s.] et H. Wiese 112 ss.).
(d-’) R Diog. Laert. IX , 5 (post a*). ήκουσέ τ ’ ούδενός,

ά λ λ ’ α ύ τ ό ν 1 έφη δ ι ζ ή σ α σ θ α ι 2 καί μ α θεΐν πά ντα
π α ρ ’ έαυτοϋ. (Sehl.).
1 cd. Froben. : αύτόν codd. 2 Casaub. : διζήσεσθαι B*F, διαζή-

σ ε σ θ α ι Β<Ρ
(ά'Λ) R Tatian. or. ad Gr. 3 (ρ. 3 Schwartz, TU IV, 1)

τόν γ ά ρ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν ούκ αν ά ποδεξαίμην έ μ α υ τ ό ν
έ δ ι δ α ξ ά μ η ν είπόντα, δ ιά τό α ύτοδίδα κτον είναι καί
ύπερήφ ανον. . .
(d*) R Dio Chrysost. or. 38 [55], 1-2 . . . καί των

ά λλω ν δέ τω ν πλείστω ν έχομεν είπεΐν τούς διδα σ κάλους
τω ν ένδόξων άνδρώ ν . . . δ ίχ α γ ε Η ρ α κ λ είτο υ τοδ Έ φε-
55
σίου καί 'Ησιόδου τοΰ Ά σ κ ρ α ίο υ ... Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς δέ έτι
γενναιότερον α υ τ ό ς έ ξ ε υ ρ ε ΐ ν 1 την του π α ντός
φύσιν όποια τυ γ χ ά ν ει οδσα μ η δ ε ν ό ς δ ι δ ά ξ α ν τ ο ς
καί γενέσ θα ι π α ρ ’ α ύ τ ο Ο σ ο φ ό ς .
1 ßeiske : έζεΰρε UBPH, έξεΰρεν Μ
(d5) R Suda s. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς, οδτος έμαθήτευσεν ού-

δενί τω ν φιλοσόφων, φύσει δέ καί έπιμ ελεία ι ήσκήθη.
(d6) R Olympiod. in Plat. Phaed. p. 158, 9 Norvin

. . . αύτοδίδακτοΓ Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ο ς ...
(e) R Hesych. s. έδίζησα έμεω υτόν' έζήτησα έμαυτόν.
(/) R? (116 DK; 106 B) Stob. III, 5,6 (III, p. 257 H.)
[περί σωφροσύνης]. Η ρ α κ λ είτο υ ' άνθρώ ποισι π δ σ ι μετεστι
γ ι ν ώ σ κ ε ι ν ε α υ τ ο ύ ς καί σωφρονεΐν. = fr. 23 (β).
(Schl.).
56
15 (ίο;)
/ asked myself.
The enigmatic saying might belong to this Group if it

implies: ‘I asked myself [sc. about the solution of the riddle
of the Logos], and nobody else’. Cf. fr. 1 (iii) έ γ ώ διη-
γ ε ΰ μ α ι; fr. 83 (108 DK) όκόσων λ ό γο υ ς ηκουσα ο ύ δ ε ι ς
κτλ., and the insight required by fr. 14 (93). So Zeller 904
(“er will nicht andere befragen, sondern sich selbst”) ; H.
Gomperz, Festschrift J. Schlosser (Zürich, 1927), 13; Verde-
nius, Mnemos. 1947, 281 (“lie prides himself on drawing
only on his own insight”); G. Calogero, Gnomon 34 (1962),
325. As for the meaning of δίζησθαι ‘demand’, ‘require’,
cf. Herodot. VII, 103,2, and LSJ, s. ζητέω I, 5.'"
The traditional interpretation (‘Ich habe mich selbst ge
sucht’, Schleiermacher = Diels, V S4 = Frankel, D ichtung2
432; ‘. . . erforscht’, Diels, II.2 = Kranz, VS;5 ‘. . . durch
forscht’, Wiese 114 f.; ‘I sought for myself’, Burnet 139 = Kirk-
Raven nr. 249; ‘I searched myself’, Wheelwright fr. 8 =
Guthrie 414; 417) seems to me less likely. Against the inter
pretation of the saying as an answer to the Delphic command
‘Know thyself’ (cf. c.g . P. Friedländer ap. DK I. p. 494,30),
or as an appeal to the ‘self-knowledge’ (cf. fr. 67 [45 DK]
and e.g . Jaeger, Paideia 1 3 [1954], 242; Gigon 111; Kirk-
Raven p. 213; Guthrie 418 ‘Heraclitus was certainly ‘looking
for himself’ in the sense that he was trying to discover his
own true nature”) it can be said that neither δίζησθαι means
the same as γινώσκειν, nor έμεω υτόν as ψυχή.'-’
<>) Mazzantini 79 f.; 109; 178 n. 1; 253 (with reference to Hero-

A lite r
dot, VII, 142,1): “il verbo usato da Eraclito . . . era tradizionale per
57
Γ inlorprotaziono dogli orarnli, e i„ particular»· .loll' oracolo dol-
ri<‘...... .. ■'· Deirhgräbor, D i r U xti n xirn u m l, T r u g i h s G o tte s (Göt
tingen, 1952), (iß; Hölscher, F i s t g ä b e l M n h a r i l t . 76; SI u. 29;
Gut hi ip 418 and u. 1 (with reference to Iiorodot. IV, 151) r t a t.
-> T h e interpretation* o f Reinhardt, F a r m . 2 2 0 , and O. Becker, 17a s
H ih i tie s I f i g e s . . . im f r iih fi i\ D · n!:ι n ( Hornvos Kinzolsr-hr. 4, Berlin,
19.'!” ), 144 (“ich halio cs versucht, das Rätsel meines selbst zu
lösen... ein vergebliches Bemühen”) seem to me wrong. Beinhardt,
•Va c h la s s 189 ff. (ap. Wiese 318 ff), gives no definite interpre
tation. Wiese's attempt (p. 114 f.) : “ich durchforschte mich selbst
und fand das ξονόν, den λόγος, der nicht individuell, sondern
allgemein i s t . . . ” was not happy (cf. already Bornnys, G es. A b h ., I,
105 “in me ipsum deseendi meaeque naturae leges perso,rutando ad
intcllegendas universae rerum naturae leges pervenire conatus sum”,
and Frankel, D ic h tu n g - 432).
58
GROUP FOUR
F it. 16 (40); 17 (129); 18 (81); 19 (28b) ;

20 (58s) ; 21 (56); 22 (97) ?
77m Group includes some polemic sayings (cf.

also frr. 28 [80]; 29 [53]; 30 [42); 43 [57]).
The reason for attacking the concerned authors
might he the same as in Group 1: they have failed
to recognize the universal Logos. Thus the gross of
Heraclitus’ polemics might he understood as Logos-
propaganda.
(i) - Homer, Hesiod, Pythagoras, Xenophanes,
Hecataeus are attacked for not having possessed
the insight (required hy frr. 13 [107] and 14 [33]),
which is necessary for reaching the hidden Logos
(ef. frr. 8 [123]; 9 [54] and γρ ίφ ο ς in fr. 21 [56]);
though they have satisfied the requirement of ίστορίη
(Group 2), which by itself is not sufficient (frr. 16
[40]; 17 [129]). As already said, only ίστορίη
plus an ού β ά ρβ α ρος ψυχή give the true wisdom
(νόος) ; without such an intelligence or insight
ίστορίη remains a harren πολυμαθίη.
(ii) - Thanks to its universal validity the Logos
is the only real Truth (cf. έών, ξυνός etc.). Those
who have not apprenhended it will possess and main-
59
✓
lain (φύλασσεiv fr.. 20 |2i?a|) just false opinions
or fancies (δοκέοντα ib.; cf. έωυτοΐσι δέ δοκέουσι
[sc. γινώ σ κ ειν| fr. 3 \17\), and will teach just
lies (ψεύδη fr. 19 [38h|) instead of truth.
(iii) - Pythagoras appears as the target of special
attacks, probably because of his great social influence
and renown (cf. ίστορίην ήσκησεν άνθρώ πω ν μ ά
λισ τα πάντω ν fr. 17 | 329] and perhaps δ δοκι-
μώ τατος fr. 29 [iWa] ). He and his followers seem
to be alluded to in κοιτίδες fr. 18 [SI], and perhaps
in ψευδών τέκτονες καί μάρτυρες fr. 19 (38b)
too.
60
16
(40 DK; 16 B)
(«) C Diög. Liiert. IX, 1 μεγαλόφ ρω ν δέ γέγ ο ν ε

(sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) π α ρ ’ όντιναοϋν καί υπερόπτης, ώ ς καί
έκ του σ υ γγ ρ ά μ μ α το ς αΰτοΰ δήλον, έν ώ ι φησι*
πολυμαθίη 1 νόον ου διδάσκει*
'Ησίοδον γ ά ρ αν έδίδαξε καί Πυθαγόρην,
αδτίς τ ε 2 Ξενοφάνεά τ ε 3 καί Έ καταΐον.
είναι γ ά ρ . . . (seq. fr. 85 [41 D K ]). (Schl. fr. 13).
1 BP2, Ath., a i; πολυμαθή F, Atli.A, Clem. : πολυμαθεία P> 2 τε

BP : δέ F 3 τε BP : om.F
(«’) Schol. in Plat. Theaet. 179 E (VI, p. 245 Hermann)

ή γριω μένοι καί μεγαλόφ ρονες' τοιοΰτος γ ά ρ δ 'Η ρά κλει
τος γέγονεν, οδ καί ά π ό φ θ εγμ α φέρεταιτοιοΟτον* π ο λ υ
μ α θ ί η ν όο ν ού δ ιδά σκ ει * ' Ησ ί ο δ ο ν γ ά ρ
ά ν έ δ ί δ α ξ ε κ α ί Π υ θ α γ ό ρ α ν . (Ε Diogene: cf.
Schol. in remp. 498 A [VI, p. 347 H .]).
(b) R Gell. noct. AU. praef. 12. ego vero, cum illud
Ephesii1 viri summe nobilis verbum 2 cordi haberem (quod
profecto ita cst) πολυμαθίη νόον ού δ ιδ ά σ κ ε ι...
\ craelitL efesu R 2 verum APRV
(c1) R Athen. X III, 610 B . . . 'πουλυμαθημοσύνης,

τ ής ού κενεώτερον ούδέν,’ " Ιπ π ω ν έφη ό ά θεος (cf. DK
ad 38 Β 3). α λ λ ά καί Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς ό θεΐός φησι π ο λ υ -
61
»
μαθίη' νόον έχειν-' ού δ ι δ ά σ κ ε ι , καί ό
Τίμων δέ έφη' (Poet, philos. fr. 20 Diels)
έν δέ πλατυσμός
πουλυμαθημοσύνης, τής ού κενεώτερον άλλο.
(Schl, ad f r .) .
1 πολυμαθή A, corr. Scliweighaeusor 2 εχειν fiel. Kaibel
(c-) R Clem ström. I, 93,1 (II, p. 59 St.) κάν τώ ι Δη-

μοδόκω ι (amat. 137 Β), εί δή του Π λάτωνος τό σ ύ γγ ρ α μ μ α ,
"μηδ’ ήι τ ο ύ τ ο 1 φιλοσοφεΐν” λ έ γ ε ι 2 “περί τά ς τέχνα ς
κ υ π τά ζ ο ν τα 2 ζην ουδέ πολυμαθοΰντα, ά λ λ ά ά λλο τι,
έπεί έ γ ω γ ε ώιμην καί όνειδος είναι.” ήιδει γά ρ , οίμαι,
ώ ς ά ρ α [ ή δ η ] 4 π ο λ υ μ α θ ί η 5 ν ό ο ν έ χ ε ι ν ο ύ® \δ ι-
δ ά σ κ ε ι καθ’ Η ρ ά κ λειτον. (Schl.)
1 μηδ* ήι τοϋτο scripsi ex [Plat.] : μηδέ ήγοΰ τό L : μή ούκ ήι

τοϋτο II. Jackson, Staehlin 2 λέγειν L, corr. St. 3 [Plat.] :
-ας L 4 ήδη seel. Mayor (ut glossema ad ήιδει) : ή δή Jackson,
ήδε ή Bernays 5 πολυμαθή 1- 6 Ιχ ει' δ Β
(d) R Prod. in Tim. I p. 102,22 Diehl ά λ λ α δ ιά τί, -

φασίν,1 ο δ τ ο ς- ό ίερεύς φ ορτικώ ς έπέπληξε (cf. Tim.
22 B ); τί γ ά ρ θαυμαστόν ή τω ν γεγο νό τω ν γ ν ώ σ ις ; π ο -
λ υ μ α θ ε ί η 3 ν ό ο ν ο ύ φ ύ ε ι , φησίν ό γεννα ίος
Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς. (Schl.)
1 φησιν C 2 ούτω ς ci. Radormacher 3 Ν : πολυμαθή Ρ :

πολυμαθείας C
(e) R Serenus ap. Stob. II, 31,116 (II, ρ. 229 Wachs-

muth) [έκ τω ν Σερήνου] ‘Η ράκλειτος μεν έλ εγε π ο λ υ -
02
μάθειαν νουν μ ή εμποιείν, Ά ν ά ξ α ρ χ ο ς δέ
(<- Β 1 DK) πολυμάθειαν κ ά ρτα μέν ώφελεΐυ, κ ά ρτα δέ
βλάπτειν. [ — Ioann. Dnmasc. Excerpt. Flor. II, 116 p. 205
Meine!«*]. (Cf. Sohl. ]). 344 = 22).
(/) II lulian. or. 6, 187 11 . . . κ α ί ούτε βίβλους άνε-

λ ίξα ι δεΐ μ υρία ς' π ο λ υ μ α θ ί α γ ά ρ , φασί, ν ό ο ν
ού δ ι δ ά σ κ ε ι .
{(j) II Democritus 68 Β 64 DK πολλοί πολυμαθέες

νοΟν ούκ έχουσιν. Β 65 πολυνοΐην, ού πολυμαθίην άσκέειν
χρή·
(h) II? Clem ström. I, 129,4 (II, p. 80 St.) ’Η ράκλει

το ς γ ά ρ μεταγενέσ τερος <2>v Π υθαγόρου μέμνηται αύτοΰ
έν τώ ι σ υ γγ ρ ά μ μ α τι. (Fr. 17 [129] respicere cens. Bywater
et Staehlin, fr. 18 [81] W alzer).
63
16 ( ί θ) \
Learning of many things dors not teach intelligence;

otherwise it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras,
and again Xenophanes and Ilecataeus.
νόον εχειν have only testimonia (c1'2). It seems to be

lectio facilior (because of LSJ, s. νόος I, 2 a, b: so K. Deich
gräber, Philol. 93 [19381, 13 f.(,)). Of course, νόον is only accu
sations ret: άνθρώ πους as acc. personae affectae can be un
derstood without difficulty (of. c.g. Herodot. VI, 138,2).
Tlius (g) is not an argument in favour of εχειν. Since'έχειν
is absent in the majority of testimonia, and, on the other hand,
since line 1 of the fragment is clear enough as it is transmitted,
I would rather think that εχειν does not belong to Heraclitus.
It was suppressed by Schleiermacher; Kaibel (c1); Reinhardt
(Parm. 156); Wilamoivitz (Platon" 101); Wiese 105. But
the majority of scholars keep it (DK; Gigon 17; Verdenius,
Mnemos. 1947, 280 et ah); and Kirk-Raven nrr. 193 and 260
put it even in the text of Diogenes Laertius, where it never
stood.
Line 1 was meant by Heraclitus as a statement of general
validity: lines 2-3 play the part of its demonstration (ydcp
ctv).(2) The deletion of lines 2-3 suggested by P. Wheelwright
(Heraclitus 136; 157) cannot be taken seriously.
As already stated (p. 27 f.), this fragment does not seem *
to contradict fr. 7 (35); contra e.g. Nestle (fr. 19); K. von
Fritz (CP 40 [1945], 231 and n. 46); Verdenius 281, followed
by J. Chevalier (La pensce antique, Paris, 1955, 86 n. 1).
The words α δ τ ί ς τ ε seem to separate intentionally
Hesiod and Pythagoras from Xenophanes and Hecataeus: the
64
reason might be that the former two were already dead when
Heraclitus wrote, whereas the latter two were still alive (so H.
Oomperz, Hermes 58 [1923], 36 η. 1; Kranz, Hermes 69 [1934],
115; aliter Kirk 1; W. Burkert, Weisheit und Wissenschaft,
Erlanger Beiträge 10, Nuremberg, 1962, 143). Anyway the
fragment implies that Hecataeus was already widely known,
which suggests round 490 B.C. as the time when Heraclitus
wrote.
Possibly the rejection of πολυμαθίη was already customary
in the time of Heraclitus. Aeschylus fr. 390 N.2 = 667 Mette
δ χρήσιμ’ είδώ ς, ούχ δ π ό λ λ ’ είδώ ς σοφός need not be
influenced by Heraclitus’ saying (contra B. Gladigow, Archiv f.
Gesch. d. Philos. 44 [1962], 231). On the other hand, this
influence is very probable in Democritus frr. 64-65 ( testimo
nium g); it is probable in Timon fr. 20 Diels = Hippon fr. 3
DK (cf. c1), and quite possible in Anaxarchus fr. 1 DK (cf. e ) ;
Plato [Alcib. II] 146 DE; 147 A; Laws 819 A (so Wilamowitz,
Platon 3 101 n. 3; cf. also 811 A; B; [amat.] 133 C; 137 B
and c2; Aristot. fr. 62 Boses) .
ν ό ο ς means here probably ‘intelligence’ (K irk), ‘insight’
(Jaeger, Theology 125; Guthrie 157), ‘sense’ (Guthrie 412),
i.e . something similar to τό σοφόν fr. 85 (41 DK) or σοφίη
fr. 17 (129). Probably the practical application or policy of
this νόος is implied (cf. νόος fr. 101 [104 DK] and ξύν νόωι
fr. 23 [114] ‘with sense’ [Herodot. V III, 86; 138,1; Plato Crito
48 C; Republic 619 B ]).
We might assume that, according to Heraclitus, the achie
vement of this intelligence or wisdom was not possible without
the apprehension of the Logos: the opposite to πολύ- (of
πολυμαθίη) could be £v contained in frr. 26 (50) and 25 (10),
which implies Logos. The relation of this fragment either to
fr. 101 (104 DK) (so Gigon 17), or to fr. 95 ( 29 DK) (so
Mazzantini 240; Ramnoux 123), or again to fr. 23 (114) (so
K. von Fritz 234) seems to me less likely.
The connexion of this fragment with fr. 85 (41 DK) is
not due to Heraclitus himself, but to Diogenes Laertius, who
65
intended to explain it (ef. είναι y a p in testimonium a) ; contra
II. Gomperz, Wien. St. 43 [1922-23], 117; Hermes 58 [1923],
3G; Snell, Die Entdeckung1 193; Kirk 387; 399; Ramnoux
373; \V. Bröeker, Gnomon 30 [1958], 438; Deiehgräber, R hyth
mische Elemente etc., 516; J. Kerschenstcincr, Kosmos, Zetc-
mata 30, Munich, 1962, 109 n .) . To my way of thinking fr. 85
(41 DK) goes rather with the theological fragment 84 (32
l)K ); as for Diogenes (or his source), he was attracted by
the casual contrast between ιτολυμαθίη νόον oö διδά σ κει
and εν το σοφόν.
By the way, I think all instances adduced by Diogenes

in IX, 1-2 up to ύπερεΐδε (with the only exception of fr. 85
[41 DK]) can be understood as ‘proofs’ for the alleged μεγα-
λοφροσύνη of Heraclitus (cf. also IX, 6; 15; 28, and E.
Schwartz, R E V, 748). Namely, frr. 16 (40) and 30 (42)
could have been considered as such ‘proofs’ because Heraclitus
attacked the traditionally renowned names; and frr. 102 (43
DK) χρή [sc. τόν δήμον ?]; 103 ( 44 DK) χρή τον δήμον;
105 (121 DK) ά ξιον Έ φ εσ ίοις κτλ., and the declined honour
of νομοθέτης too, served as ‘proofs’ because he ‘preached’ to
the majority of the Polis about what they should do. Deich
gräber (Philol. 93 [1938], 12 f.) maintained the original unity
of this passage, but Schwartz: Kirk 4 and H. S. Long (in
his edition of DL, Oxford, 1964) supposed in έλ εγε δέ καί
some afterthoughts of Diogenes, which is less likely to me.
I1) But now ( R h y th m is c h e E le m e n te i m L o g o s d e s S e r a k l i t , Akademie

Mainz, 1962, 515 f.) he keeps this £χειν for metrical reasons, which
are not convincing enough.
<-) Cf., in some measure, Reinhardt, F a r m . 180 n. 2 (on fr. 60 [99 D K]):
‘•Solche Bedingungssätze sind verkürzte Beweise/’
66
17
(129 DK; 17 B)
(a) C Diog. Laert. V III, 6 ενιοι μέν οδν 1 Π υθαγόραν

μηδέ εν κατα λιπεΐν σ ύ γ γ ρ α μ μ ά φασιν (διαπεσόντες.2
Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς γοϋν ό φυσικός μονονουχί κ έκ ρ α γ ε κ α ί φησι"
Πυθαγόρης 3 Μνησάρχου
Ιστορίην ήσκησεν * άνθρώπων μάλιστα πάντων,
καί έκλεξάμενος τα ύτας τά ς συγγρα<ράς8
έποιήσατο ° έαυτοΟ 7 σοφίην,
5 πολυμαθείην,8 κακοτεχνίην.)
Cf. DK 14 A 19. (Sehl. fr. 14).
1 οδν P : om.BF, del. Delatte 2 διαπεσόντες ci.J. Keiske (H errn .

24 [1889], 319), acc. A. Delatte, H. S. Long : διαπίπτοντες Diels
ap. Reiskium (coni. V, 6) : διαπέζοντες B : διαπαίζοντες P P (cf. IV,
52), Diels ( A r c h i v 3 [1890], 452 n. 3), [δια ]παίζοντες Diels, V S * 14
A 19 : διαπταίοντες Scaliger 3 P (Π υθαγόροις B) : -ρα ς
F 4 Ιστορεΐν ϊσχυσεν F 5 έκλ. τα ότα ς τ ά ς σ υγγρ α φ ή ς
Heraelito aufer. Schleierm., Th. Gomperz ( S B W ie n 113 [1886], 1003);
έκλ. ταΰτα c i. Zeller ( S B B A , 1889, 988); έκδεξάμενος ci.Wilamowitz
( G l .d .B e l l .3 II, 185 n. 3) 6 έποίησεν F, Cobet, Byivater 7 έαυ-
to ö BPiF : έωυτοΰ P2, Cobet, Byw. 8 codd., Diels, Delatte, R. D.
Hicks, Long (-ηΐην Cobet) : -θίην Byu·., Kranz (cf. fr. 16)
(b) R Ion 36 B 4,3 s. DK ( = Diog. Laert. I, 120)

εΐπερ Π υθαγόρης έτύμω ς σοφός δς 1 περί πάντω ν
άνθρώ πω ν γν ώ μ α ς είδε2 καί έξέμαθεν.
1 σοφός δς F. Η. Sandbach ( P r o c . C a m b r . P h ilo l. S o c . 185 [1958-59],

36) : ό σοφός codd. 2 είδέ B : ΐδε P : ήιδεε κάξέμαθεν Diels,
acc. Hicks
67
17 (129) ■\
, Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchus,

practised scientific inquiry (or research) beyond all other men,
and having made a selection of these (or such) writings
contrived, a ivisdom of his own,
•r> which was but a barren much learning and a base artifice
(or deceit).
An unauthenticity of the fragment, maintained e.gx. by

Diels (Archiv f. Gesch. d. Philos. 3 [1890], 451; VS4 1, p. 104);
K. Praechter (Die Philosophie des Altertums1*, 63); H. Qom-
perz (Philol. Woch. 48 [1928], 156 ff.) (1) is out of the
question; because: (a) Ion (testimonium l·) probably alludes
to this fragm ent<2) (so A. Delatte, La vie de Pythagore de
Diog&ne Laerce, Brussels, 1922,162 f.; Kranz, Hermes 69 [1934],
229; DK I,5 pp. 181; 380); έτύμ ω ς hints a t a reference (ef.
Pind. 01. 6, 77; Aeschyl. Eum. 534). (b) ίστορίην oo τα ύ τα ς τά ς
σ υ γ γ ρ α φ ά ς is “eine Härte, die man nur in archaischer Spra
che vertragen kann” (Beinhardt, Parm. 235 n. 1, with refe
rence to Demoerit. fr. 182 τ ά δ ’ α ίσ χρ α co τοιοΰτον είνα ι;
cf. also Kranz ad fr. and Burnet 134 n. 2 α ί σ υ γ γ ρ α φ α ί
are ‘too good for a forger’). H. Fränkel (Dichtung2 438 and
n. 34) and Kirk-Raven 183 n. 1 supposed in line 3 some re
wording, and Burkert 1. e. the omission of some words which
have made these σ υ γ γ ρ α φ α ί clearer.
As a matter of fact, the structure of the whole saying
reveals Heraclitus’ style: line 1 (the ‘title’) is balanced with
line 5; lines 2-4 represent a logical succession (ίστορίη > σ υ γ
γρ α φ α ί > σοφίη, with three aorists); tmesis in line 2; isote-
leuta in 4-5; asyndeton (in lieu of σοφίην, τω ι δντι δέ πολυμ.
68
καί κ α κ ο τ.): cf. frr. 93 (52 D K ); 51 (30 D K ). Finally ·πολυ-
μαθίη \vc find in fr. 16 (40) as well.
The phrase έ ι τ ο ι ή σ α τ ο έ α υ τ ο ϋ (cf. Herodot.
I, 129,2; V III, 58,2; Soph. Ant. 547) was interpreted by Burnet
134 as ‘he claimed for his own’; he was followed by H. Gom-
perz (‘ausgeben’, Hermes 58 [1923], 37); H. Chemiss (AJP
60 [1939], 250); Verdenius (Mnemos., 1947, 283 and n. 82);
Kirk 390; Kirk-Raven nr. 261. In such a case I would rather
expect έαυτοϋ έποιήσατο (sc. α ύ τ ά ς ) . Thus I prefer to side
with e.g . Guthrie 157; 417 ‘lie made (contrived) a wisdom
of his own’ (which τώ ι δντι was but a pseudo-wisdom and
an imposture).
έκλεξάμενος is well documented in Herodotus
(Powell), and should not be changed (so Reinhardt; Kranz
116 n. 1; Verdenius 283 n. 79; contra Wilamowitz).
ί σ τ ο ρ ί η, in this context, must presuppose the common

Ionic meaning. The testimony of Nicomachus ap. Iambi. V.P.
89 Deubner έκαλεΐτο δέ ή γεω μ ετρ ία π ρ ό ς Π υθαγόρου
ιστορία (hardly genuine, cf. Burkert 386; 143) can be of no
help here (contra A. Frenkian, Maia 11 [1959], 243 ff.).
Probably ίστορίη implies here ‘travelling and inquiry after
such treatises’ (cf. Herodot. II, 99,1 and Snell, Philol. Unters.
29,63 f.). The saying does not seem to imply the rejection of
ίστορίη (cf. Group 2): Pythagoras’ starting was good; because
‘Hen must be acquainted with many things’ (fr. 7 [55]); but
his end was bad, because he did not possess the insight which
• would have enabled him to grasp the universal Logos beyond
all empirical data and learning.
σ υ γ γ ρ α φ α ί are probably prose treatises (aliter e.g.

Kirk-Raven p. 219 ‘Hesiod!’) . As for their nature, the majo
rity of scholars take them as some Orphic scripture (e.g. Zeller
I “ 384 ff.; W. Rathmann, Quaest. Pyth. Orph. Emped., Diss.
Halle, 1933, 39 f.; 93; Kranz 116; Verdenius 1. c.; Burkert 108;
143). I would rather follow Wilamowitz (Der Glaube der
Hellenen3 II, ρ. 186 n.) and especially K. von Fritz (SB
69
München, 1960, 20; R E XVIII [1963], 3S6^ in believing that
some oriental (Babylonian) mathematical treatises arc meant;
cf. ad fr. 65 (A 13 D K ).
κ α κ ο τ ε χ ν ί η was interpreted by Reinhardt, Farm.
236 (followed by E. Prank, Plato und die sog. Pythagoreer,
Halle, 1923, 67 f.; Rathmann 1. e.; Vcrdenius 282) as trickeries
of a wonderer. Especially Burkcrt 108; 141 speaks of a ‘sha
manism’ of Pythagoras (“und wahrscheinlich deutet eben das
W ort κακοτεχνίη in diese Richtung der ά γ ύ ρ τα ι καί μάν
τ ε ις ;” “Heraklit bezeichnet also Pythagoras als Scharlatan, der
durch unlautere Praktiken Ruhm geerntet h a t... Aus alledem
wird wahrscheinlich, dass Heraklit. wie Herodot und Sophokles
von einer rituell praktizierten Katabasis des Pythagoras Kunde
hatte”) . This seems to go too far and is not likely to me.,3)
I think we may remain rather on the level of a theoretical
polemic: Pythagoras’ σοψίη was no more than a πολυμαθίη,
and a κακοτεχνίη as well. The latter word can be better
explained if referred to κοπίδω ν ά ρ χη γό ς fr. 18 (81) and
ψευδών τέκτω ν fr. 19 (28b): Pythagoras’ teachings are but
a lie and a cheat, because he has not reached the only Truth,
which is the universal Logos. If we venture a bit further,
then κακότεχνος might imply here.‘der Vorschieber falscher
Zeugen’ (cf. Marcovich, Philol. 108 [1963], 41 f.); cf. δίκη
κακοτεχνιώ ν oo δίκη ψευδομαρτυριώ ν (the latter implied
by Δίκη καταλήψ εται ψ ευ δ ώ ν ... μά ρτυρα ς fr. 19 [2Sb] ).
l1) Cf. W. Burkert, W e is h e it u n d W is s e n s c h a ft, 107 and n. 69; Guthrie

157 n. 1.
(2> Cf. (6) κερί πάντων άνθρώπων °° (a) line 2 άνθρώπων μάλιστα
πάντων. Cf. also Empedocles fr. 129 άνήρ περιώσια είδώς, / δς
δή μήκιστον πραπίδων έκτήσατο πλούτον... and Herodot. IV,
95 'Ελλήνων oö τωι άσθενεστάτωι σοφιστηι Πυθαγόρηι. An
allusion by Ion to Empedocles’ fragment would be chronologically
difficult.
a) Cf. also Guthrie, M i n d 75, N. S. Ν» 298 (1966), 295.
70
IB
(81 DK; 138 B)
(α) P Philodem. rhet. I, coll. 57 ct 62 (I, pp. 351 et

354 Sudhaus) [ = Diog. Babyl. SV F I II nr. 105] τ ά μέν γ ά ρ
ούθέν εύφυές προσ φ έρετα ι1 προς άπά τη ν μεμηχανημέ-
νον, ή δέ τω ν 'ρητόρω ν εισ α γ ω γ ή π ά ντα τ ά θ εω ρήμ α τα
π ρ ο ς τοϋτ’ έχει τείνοντα κ α ί κ α τά τον 'Η ράκλειτον κοπί-
δ ω ν έστίν12 α ρ χ η γ ό ς .
1 έχει col. 62 2 έστίν om. eol. 62
(b) R (138 B) Schol. in Eurip. Hec. 131 (I, p. 26,1

Schwartz) = F Gr Hist 566 F 132 (cf. Et. Gud., Et. Magn. s.
κόπις). κοπίδας δέ τά ς τω ν λόγω ν τέχ ν α ς1 ά λλο ι τε καί
ό Τ ίμαιος ούτω ς γρ ά φ ω ν-2 *ωστε καί3 φαίνεσθαι μή τον
Π υ θ α γ ό ρ α ν 4 ε ύ ρ < ε τ ή ν γεν > ό μ εν ο ν 5 τ ω ν <5ελη-
θινώ ν κ ο π ί 6 ω ν μηδέ τον6 ύφ’ Η ρ α κ λ είτο υ 4 κατη
γορούμενον,6 ά λ λ ’ αύτόν < τ ό ν > 7 Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν4 είναι τον
άλαζονευόμενον.’ (Cf. Th. Gomperz, Zs. f. öst. Gymn. 1866,
p. 698, et A. Goldbacher, id. 1876, pp. 496-500).
1 τέχνας < έλ εγ ο ν> Schwartz 2 γράφων Schwartz, Jacoby :

γράφει Μ : γράφωσιν A : < δ ς > ούτως γράφει Mueller 3 καί
om. A 4 Π ρ ω τα γό ρ α ν... Ή ρ α κλείδο υ ... Ή ρακλείδην ci. By
water 5 εόρετήν Hemsterhuys γενόμενον Jacoby : εόρόμενον
A ( = εδρομεν δντων Et. Gud., εϋρομεν όντα Et. Μ.), εόράμενον
Μ : εόρετήν άληθινόν δντα ci. Schwartz : εόρετήν δντα Wilamowitz,
acc. Beinhardt, Kranz : άρξάμενον ci. Diels ( A r c h i v 3 [1890], 454)
6 των . .. κατηγορουμένων ci. Diels, acc. Rathmann : καλούμενον A
7 τόν add. Schwartz, Jacoby
71
18 ( 81)
'( Pythagoras). . . chief captain (or leader) of cheaters.
*
**
The contexts both of (a) and (b) are still difficult to

interpret. It seems to me that the name of Pythagoras did not
stand in the original saying. Hence Timaeus’ reserve μηδέ
τον ύφ’ Η ρ α κ λείτο υ κατηγορούμενον (which I would un
derstand: ‘neither Pythagoras nor any other man, if I am wrong
in supposing Pythagoras’) . Hence perhaps also the misinter
pretation of ά ρ χ η γ ό ς as ή τω ν ‘ρητόρων εισ α γω γή in testi
monium ( a ) . Reinhardt first deleted the phrase μηδέ τον
ύφ’ Η ρ α κ λείτο υ κατηγορούμενον .(Farm. 233); but later
(Hermes 63 [1928], 107 ff. = Vermächtnis der Antike, Göttin
gen, 1960, 99 f.) he took it as a rhetorical repetition of the
preceding words μή τον Π υθαγόραν; i. e., according to Rein
hardt, Pythagoras is ό ύφ’ ‘Η ρακλείτου κ α τη γορούμ ενος:
“Die beiden negativen Glieder geben folglich einen und den
selben Sinn, das zweite, mit μηδέ beginnende ist angeführt
zur Unterstreichung, um der Pointe, um der Antithese willen.”
This seems to me less likely. Diels’ solution (accepted by Rath-
inann) τω ν . . . κατηγορουμένω ν seems more likely (ef. also
P. Jacoby, F Gr Hist I I I b [1955], 589 “es spricht manches
fü r die Aenderung von Diels”) .
κ ο π ί δ ω ν is more probably from κότας ‘liar’, ‘Lügner’

(H. Frisk, Gr. etym. Wb., s. v.), ‘versutus et callidus rhetor’
( Thes.), ‘Betrüger’ (Reinhardt 110 [ = 100]), ‘Schwindler’
(K ranz), than from κοττίς ‘lies’ (= α ι των λόγω ν τέχναι,
testimonium b; ‘Schwindeleien’, K ranz). Not so much because
of its company with α ρ χ η γ ό ς (as Wilamowitz, Hermes 62
[1927], 277, thought: “ . . . wie denn ά ρ χη γό ς unbedingt lehrt,
dass κοιτίδων auf Menschen geht”; but cf. LSJ, s. ά ρ χ η γ ό ς
72
I Γ, 3), but because the interpretation ‘Originator (founder)
of lies’ would be unlikely: according to Heraclitus there were
‘liars’ long before Pythagoras (e. g. Homer and Hesiod). As
for κ όπις (which is probably masculine, cf. ίδρ ιδες), cf.
Eurip. Ifec. 131 f. (hence Lycophr. 763; 1464); δημοκόπος,
όχλοκόπος, ‘ρησικοπεΐν, έλληνοκοπεΐν, π ρ α γμ α το κ ο π εΐν
and Reinhardt, Pann. 233 n. 1.
Possibly the saying alludes to an incorporation: one ’Α ρ

χ η γ ό ς and many κοπίδες; the Master and his pupils (cf.
ψευδών τέκτω ν plus ψευδών μά ρτυρες f fr. 19 [28b] ). But
it is difficult to tell whether the word κ οπίδες implies some
thing more than ‘teachers of lies’ (e. g. political malpractice
or artifice, in view of δημοκόπος ‘Volksbeschwindler’, cf.
Wilamowitz).
73
19
(28b DK; 118 B)
(a) C Clem, ström. V, 9,3 (II, p. 331 S t.), post fr. 20

(58a) . . .κ α ί μέντοι καί'
Δίκη καταλήψεται ψευδών τέκτονας και μάρτυρας
ό Έ φ έσ ιό ς φησιν. οιδεν γ ά ρ καί οδτος έκ της βαρβάρου

φιλοσοφίας μαθών τήν διά πυρός κάθαρσιν τω ν κακώ ς
βεβιωκότων, ήν ύστερον έκπύρωσιν έκάλεσαν οί Σ τω ϊκ ο ί'
καθ’ δν κ α ί τον ιδίω ς ποιόν άναστήσεσθαι δογματίζουσι,
τοΰτ’ εκείνο την άνάστασιν περιέποντες. (Schl. fr. 8).
74
19 {28")
The Goddess of Justice will convict the fabricators of lies

and (their) false witnesses.
There can be no doubt that the Platonic phrase και μέντοι

καί (Pkaedr. 266 B; Thcaet. 144 C; Republic 331 D; 588 A;
Apology 17 C; Theag. 127 B; Ale. I 113 C )n) belongs to Cle
ment, and not to Heraclitus (correct are A. Brinkmann and Rein
hardt, Parm. 167 n. 1; Hermes, 5 f. [Vermächtnis 45 f.]; Kirk
309; Friichtel, ed. Clem.3 [I960]; H. Wiese, II. bei Klemens, 193;
contra Sehlcicrmaeher; Bywater; Burnet 141; Diels; A. Brieger,
Hermes 39 [1904], 202; Kranz; Ramnoux 300; 468; ct a l.).
The phrase means ‘quin etiam’, ‘Steigerung’ (Reinhardt), ‘mo
reover’ (Denniston); cf. Plat. Theaet. 144 C ά ν δ ρ ό ς ... καί
ά λ λ ω ς εύδοκίμου, κα'ι μέντοι κα'ι ούοίαν μ ά λα πολλήν
κατέλιπε.
The idea of Clement in the context of frr. 19-20 is: ‘The
followers of σοφία άνθρώπω ν, according to Heraclitus, not
only do not attain the truth, but (what is worse) run the risk
of the ultimate judgement’ (cf. την δ ιά πυρός κάθαρσιν
in fr. 19 as opposed to τήι μ ό ν η ι.. .σ ώ ιζειν δυναμένηι in
fr. 20). In Heraclitus’ words ψευδών τέκ τονα ς fr. 19 and
ό δοκιμώ τα τος (sc. τω ν άνθρώ πω ν) Clement has found his
δοκησίσοφοι (cf. e.g. ström. V, 8,1; seven instances in
Stählin’s Index). Mutatie mutandis, I think he was right in
bringing frr. 19 (28") aftd 20 (28Λ) into l’elation, because
both sayings seem to reflect Heraclitus’ polemic with his philo
sophical adversaries (cf. also Gigon 128).
Of course, frr. 19 and 20 are two separate sayings, and

the conjecture of Wilamowitz (Euripides Hippolytos, Berlin,
75
1801, 237 η. 2) καί μέν πΰρ καί Δίκη (“almost certainly
i - i j r l i t Denniston 300; “sein· verlockend”, Gigon 127) is out
of the <|uestion.
κ α τ σ λ ή ψ ε τ α ι has the resulting meaning ‘to con
vict', ‘to condemn’ (LSJ, s.v.,V , 5); cf. W. Dittenberger,
Hermes 32 (1897), 34; Wilamowitz 237 (‘verurteilen’); Rein
hardt 165 f.; Kirk 360; Guthrie 472. The same meaning has
κατσλήψ εται in fr. 82 (66 D K ). In like manner, έξευρή-
σουσιν fr. 52 ( 94 DK) has the resulting meaning ‘to get’, ‘to
seize’ (‘festnehmen zur Bestrafung’, Gigon 128).
Such a juridical term as καταλαμβάνειν, and the words
ψευδών μάρτυρες (cf. δίκη ψευδομαρτυριών*3’) as well,
suggest that some kind of punishment of the liars while living
is m eant. The idea might well be; “The Goddess of Justice
for sure will some fine day condemn all these liars’; cf. Eurip.
fr. 979 N.3 σ ΐγα και β ραδεΐ πόδι στείχουσα μάρψει τούς
κακούς, δταν τύχηι (sc. Δ ίκ η ).
It does not seem likely to me to sec in ψευδών τέκτω ν

καί μάρτυρ one sole person, as maintained by e.g . W. A.
Heidel 698 f. (‘to originate and perpetuate false views’); R.
Sehottländer, Hermes 62 (1927), 444 (‘ausdenken und aus-
sagen’); Gigon 128 (contradicting himself; cf. ‘Ausdenken und
Aussprechen’ against, 'τέκ τονα ς και μ ά ρτυρα ς. Das ergibt
die Vorstellung von Lehrern und Begründern der Lügen und
von ihren Jüngern’); Walzer 67 n. 4. Because μαρτυρεΐν
does not mean the same as λ έ γ ε ιν ‘aussprechen’. I t seems
more probable to see in ψευδών μά ρ τυρ ες — ψ ευδομάρτυρες,
i.e. those who share (support, testify) the opinions of ψευδών
τέκτονες. I think the phrase was correctly interpreted by Diels,
IT?4, ‘die Lügenschmiede und < ih r e > (3) Eideshelfer’; Jaeger,
Theology 126 ‘the fashioners of lies and those who support
their testimony’ (contra Schottländer; Kranz; Wiese 197 n. 6).
Now, this suggests that Pythagoras (α ύτό ς έψα) and his

pupils might have been primarily alluded to (cf. τέκ τω ν co
α ρ χ η γ ό ς <n> κακότεχνος against μά ρ τυρ ες ess κ ο π ίδες); so
76
Gigon I. c.: “ ...lie g t es nahe genug, an Pythagoras und
dessen Schüler zu denken.’’
Probably the similarity between τό πΰρ καταλήψ εται
in fr. 82 (66 DK) and Δίκη καταλήψεται here was the
reason both for the Stoics and Clement to interpret this saying
as a punishment after death. But there is no reason not
to see this punishment fulfilled already in this life; contra
Gigon 129 (‘Gebiet der Jenseitsvorstellungen’ with reference
to frr. 74 [27 DK] and 82 [66 D K ]).
Thus the saying might well belong to Heraclitus’ Logos-
polemic.
<l > Cf. F . A s t , L c r . P la t . I I , 3 0 4 , and J. D. Denniston, G r e e k P a r tic le s -

414.
(-> “Nach der Ueberlieferung soll der dem 6. Jhdt. angehörende Gesetz
geber Charondas erstmals eine Klage wegen falschen Zeugnisses
eingeführt haben, Aristot. P o lit. 1274 b 5 ff.” Έ. Bernecker, P K
X X I I I (1959), 1365.
<3> The brackets are mine.
77
20
(28“ DK; 118 B)
(«) C Clem. ström. V, 9,2 (II, p. 331 St.) δ ιά τούτο

καί ό απόστολος π α ρ α κ α λ εΐ (1 Cor. 2,5) ‘ϊνα ή πίσ τις
ήμών μή fjt έν σοφίαι άνθρώ πω ν,’ τω ν πείθειν έ π α γ γ ελ -
λομένων, ‘ά λ λ ’ έν δυνάμει θεοΟ’, τήι μόνηι καί ά νευ τω ν
ά ποδείξεω ν διά ψ ιλής τή ς πίσ τεω ς σώ ιζειν δυναμέντμ'
δ ο κ έο ντα 1 γ ά ρ ό 2 δ ο κ ιμ ώ τ α τ ο ς 3 γ ιν ώ σ κ ει, φ υ λ ά σ σ ε ι4
καί μέντοι καί" (scq. fr. 19 [28b\ . . .ό Έ φ έσ ιό ς φησιν.
(Schl. fr. 8).
1 δοκέοντα Schleienn., aee. Wilamowitz ( E u r i p . Π ϊρ ρ ο Ι . 237), Diels,

Burnet, Reinhardt ( P a r m . 206; B e r m . 77, 5), Kranz, Kirk 47 : δο-
κεόντων L, Bernays (G e s . A b h . I, 36), Bergk { K l . S e h r . II, 303),
Schuster 340 n. 1, Bywater, Pfleiderer ( D ie P h ilo s , d . H e r . 25), Zeller
902 n. 4, H. Gomperz (ap. Diels., V S * p. XXTV), Wilamowitz ms. (ef.
DK I, p. 493,3), N. Majnarie ( B a d , Aead. Se. Zagreb, 293 [1953], 290),
Fruechtel : + δοκεόντων Staehlin : δοκέοντ’ δ ν ci. Diels, B A :
δοκεόντων (imperat.) Heidel 697 2 δ L, Staehlin cett. : g
Schuster, H. Gomperz, Wilamowitz ms., Majnarie, Fruechtel : < δ > δ
s . < ä > δ Heidel 3 δοκιμώτατος L, Staehlin cett. : -v H. Gomperz,
Wilam. ms., Fruechtel, δ-ν < γ ίν ετα ι> Schuster 4 γινώσκει, φυ
λάσσει Diels (coni. Hippocr. d e v iu tu a a u t. m o r b . 11 τόδε γ ε μήν καί
φυλάσσουσι καί γινώσκουσιν, δτι μεγάλην τήν βλάβην φέρει κτλ.)
fere omnium consensu : γινώσκει φυλάσσειν L, Staehlin, Schuster,
Heidel, H. Gomperz, P. Wheelwright 149, Fruechtel; < ο ύ > γ . φ-ειν
A. Patin ( B e r . E in h e its le h r e 45) : γινώσκει πλάσσειν Bernays, By
water : γινώσκει φλυάσσειν Bergk : γινώσκειν φυλάσσει Sehleierm. :
γινώσκειν φλυάσσει Pfleiderer, Zeller
TS
20 ( 28 “ )
What the most esteemed man (among the Greeks)

knows and maintains
arc but fancies (or false opinions).
Schlciermacher’s conjecture δοκέοντα is preferable to

δοκεόντων of Laurentianus.w Possibly the scribe has under
stood ό δοκιμώ τα τος τω ν δοκεόντων (cf. the medieval
translation of Clement ‘probatorum probatissimus’, and even
LSJ, s. δοκέω II, 5, have ‘ol δοκοΰντες Heraclit. 28’). But
the negative (rebuking) meaning of δοκέοντα was the reason
for Clement to adduce the saying, in support of his idea of
δοκησισοφία or σοφία ανθρώπω ν. Thus the pun or paradox
between δοκέοντα (negative) and ό δοκιμώ τα τος (‘posi
tive’, according to the traditional opinion: cf. the words τούτον
έ π ί σ τ α ν τ α ι πλεΐσ τα είδέναι fr. 43 [57] and τω ν Ε λ λ ή
νων σοφώ τερος πάντω ν fr. 21 [56]) seems to be intended,
especially in view of a similar pun in Parmenides fr. 1, 31 f.
(ώ ς τ ά δοκουντα / χρήν δοκίμω ς ε ί ν α ι . . . ) . The phrase
was correctly interpreted by c .g . Wilamowitz (‘Auch was der
glaubwürdigste einsieht.. .festhält, ist nur ein δοκοΟν, ein
eigenes oder fremdes M ein en ...’); Burnet 141 (‘The most
esteemed of them knows but fancies, and holds fast to them’);
Diels.*2»
Diels’ emendation φυλάσσει seems sure: the scribe did
not understand the asyndeton γινώ σ κει φυλάσσει (which is
common in Heraclitus; cf. frr. 17 {129} ; 93 [52 D K ]; 46 [58];
87 [14 DK]; 5 [55];*77 [67 I)K ]; asyndeton between two
clauses we find in frr. 51 [30 DIC]; 27 [511; 93 [52 D K ]);
hence γινώ σ κει φυλάσσειν in Laur.
δ ό κ ι μ ο ς can mean here either (1) ‘trustworthy’ (so
L S J); ‘glaubwürdig’ (Wilamowitz; D K ); ‘der Weiseste’ (Rein
hardt 11. ec.), on a mere philosophical level (cf. perhaps σοφώ-
79
τερ ος Γι·. 21 |.'»6’|; είδέναι 1'ν. 43 [57], and Democritus
frr. G7; 68); or (2) ‘approved’, ‘esteemed’ (Burnet), ‘der
Angoselmsio’ (Snell; "Wiese 1i)7); ‘rhonune db la plus haute
reputation’ (Kamnoux), ‘who is most in repute’ (Wheelwright
fr. 87), ‘the most famous of men’ (Guthrie 413), on a rather
social level. Perhaps the latter meaning is more likely here
(in view of the Herodotean usage of δόκιμος, and of e.g .
Eurip. ifuppl. 277 δοκιμώ τατος Έ λ λ ά δ ι [se. Theseus]). Now,
this most renowned or esteemed (sc. among the Greeks) could
be again Pythagoras rather than Homer or Hesiod. But this
is very hypothetical.
δ ο κ έ ο ν τ α seems to belong to such ideas as έω υτοΐσι
δέ δοκέουσι ( y ινώσκειν se. ά νθρω ποι), and not to
the agnostic ideas represented by Group 21; i.e . δ δοκιμώ
τα το ς τω ν Ε λ λ ή νω ν πάντω ν should be understood, and not
πάντω ν των ανθρώπων. I think the saying is polemic, not
agnostic (as is e.g. Xenophanes fr. 34). Aliler Reinhardt;
Gigon 128 (“Es ist ein Ausdruck weiser Selbstbeschränkung
in der Erkenntnis, dass der Mensch doch nicht zur Klarheit
über alles gelangen könne .·■”); Walzer 67 n. 1; Guthrie 1. c.
φ υ λ ά σ σ ε ι means ‘maintains’, ‘holds fast to a view’
(ef. LSJ, s.v., B, 3 and 6); the Hippocratic instance adduced
by Diels is instructive (π. δια ίτη ς όξέων 11 [II, p. 308 L .]).
The interpretation of the fragment by O. S. Powers (ΤΑ Ρ Α
78 [1947], 432 f.) seems to me far-fetched.
ui C o n tr ae.g. H. Gomperz (ap. Diels, V S * , p. XXIV, 4) δοκεόντων

δ δοκιμώτατον γινώσκει, φυλάσσειν (sc. χρ ή ): ‘(er muss) das
annehmen, was er vom Scheinbaren als das Scheinbarste erkennt’;
Wilamowitz (manuscript ap. Kranz) δοκεόντων δ δ-ον γ., φυλάσσει;
L·. Früchtei (ed. Clem.3 [1960], 533) δοκεόντων δ δ-ον y. (se.
τις), φυλάσσειν ( — ‘befehlender Imperativ’). Such readings are
highly unlikely.
(-> C o n tr a e.g. Walzer 67 (‘II piü degno di fede conosce solamente ciö
ehe di fede έ degno e lo serba’) ; Mazzantini 155; 238; Bamnoux
300 (‘L’homme de la plus haute reputation sait et conserve des
ehoses bonnes ä croire’) .
SO
21
(5 6 D K ; 47 l i . Β )
(α) C Hippol. ref. IX, 9.5 (ρ. 242, 16 Wendl.). post

fr. 5 (55).·** 1 ά πό τω ν τοιούτων αυτοΰ λόγω ν κατανοεΐν
'ρά ιδιον'
έξη π ά τη ν τα ι, φησίν, o i ά νθ ρ ω π ο ι π ρ ο ς τη ν γ ν ώ σ ιν
/ τω ν φ α νερ ώ ν
π α ρ α π λ η σ ίω ς Ό μ ή ρ ω ι, δ ς έ γ έν ετο τω ν Ε λ λ ή ν ω ν
/ σ ο φ ώ τερ ο ς π ά ν τ ω ν -
έκεϊνόν τε γ ά ρ π α ΐ δ ε ς *2 φ θ είρ α ς κ α τα κ τείν ο ν τες
/ έξη π ά τη σ α ν είπ ό ν τες-
δ σ α εΐδο μ εν κ α ι [κ α τ]ελ ά β ο μ εν ,3 ταΟ τα ά π ο λ εί-
/ πομεν,4
5 δ σ α δ έ ο ύτε εΐδ ο μ εν ο υ τ’ έλά β ο μ εν, τ α ΰ τ α φ έρ ο μ εν.56
1 < ταύτό δέ κοά> la*, suppl. Wc. 2 παΐδες cf. Horn. vit. VI
ct Ps. Herod., Certam. 3 seel. Bernays 4 P, We. (ef. Proculi
vit. Horn., p. 100, 21 Allen άπολείπουσιν): άπελίπομεν P. Cruice (ef-
H. v. Ps. Herod, et Ps. Plut, I, pp. 216, 503 et 242, 69 Allen κατέλιπον;
Cert. p. 238, 331 Al., Alcidam. καταλιπεΐν) 5 cf. Horn. vit. 1-
Ps. Herodot. 35 (p. 215, 499 Allen; p. 19 Wilamowitz, K l . T e x t e 137)
δ σ σ ’ έλομεν λιπόμεσθα, δ δ* ούχ Ιλομεν φερόμεσθα; 2. Ps. Plut. I, 4
(ρ. 242, 67 Al.; ρ. 23, 20 Wil.) δσσ’ έλ. λ-σθ’, δσσ’ ούχ £λ. φ ερ . ;
3. Proculi (ρ. 100, 18 Α.; ρ. 26, 27 W.) οΟς ελ. λ-σθ’, οΟς δ ’ ούχ
έλ. φερ.; 4. Horn. vit. IV (ρ. 246, 22 Α.; ρ. 28, 25 W.) δσσ’ £λ. λ-σθ’,
δσ α δ ’ ούχ έλ. φερ.; 5. II. ν. V (ρ. 249, 42 Α.; ρ. 30, 3 W.) = 4.;
6. Η. ν. VI s. Romauam (ρ. 253, 61 Α.; ρ. 32, 6 W.) δσσ’ ϊλ . λ-σθ’,
δσσ’ ούχ ελ. φ ερ . ; 7. Hesycli. ap. Sudani s. “Ομηρος (ρ. 266, 206 A.) =
I . ; 8. Certam. ( ρ. 238, 328 A.; ρ. 44 W.) δσσ’ έλ. λ-σθα, δσ’ ούχ
έλ. φ ερ.; 9. Tzetzes C h ilia d . X III, 662 Kiessling (ρ. 255 Α.) ώ ς οΟς
είλον ούκ έχουσιν, εχουσι δ’ οδς περ είλον; 10. Tzetzes e x e g . i n
I l ia d , ρ. 37 Hermann (1812) οΟς μέν εΐλομεν ούκ έχομεν, οΟς δ’ ούχ
εΐλομεν φερόμεσθα; 11. Ps. Alcidam., Michig. pap. 2754 ν. 1 ss. (J·
G. Winter, Τ Α Ρ Α 56 [1925], 120 ss.; A. Koerte, A r c h i v f . P a p . 8
[1927], 261 ss.; G. S. Kirk, CQ 44 [1950], 149 ss.) δσσ’ ϊλαβον (1·
ελομεν) λιπόμεσθ’, δσσ’ ούκ έλαβον φερόμεσθα. (Cf. C. Ohlert,
P ä ts e l u . B ä ts e ls p ie le d e r a lte n G r ie c h e n ,2 1912, 31; W. Kranz, H e r m e s 74
[1939], 224)
81
21 (.,6)
Men are self-deceived (or mistaken) in their, knowledge of

/ manifest things
the same as Homer teas, although he was (considered) wiser
/ than any other Greek;
for he was deceived by boys killing lice when they said to him:
‘What we have seen and caught we leave behind,
5 and what we have neither seen nor caught we take with us.’
The text transmitted by Hippolytus seems to be trustworthy

(ef. also Kirk, CQ 44 [1950], 160). έξηπάτηνται is confirmed
by line 3 έξηπάτησαν; κατακτείνειν was in use in tonia;
and the words π ρ ο ς τήν γνω σ ιν τω ν φανερώ ν were the
reason for Hippolytus to adduee the saying (Kirk is correct,
p. 158; contra Frankel ap. DK I, p. 493, 31; Dichtung2, 425).
But τε is doubtful (ef. Denniston, Greek Particles- 536 and
Kirk 1. c.).
This is one of the few narrative (discursive) fragments
of Heraclitus (such a one as are frr. 1; 23 [114]·, 86 [5 D K ];
105 [121 DK]).
The Logos is apprehensible; it is as ‘manifest’ (φανερός)
as is the lice-riddle (or as is e .g . the relation between day and
night, fr. 41 [57]), although it is ‘under the surface’ of
things. The point is that men must possess insight or intelli
gence required by frr. 13 (107)·, 14 (93); 8 (123).w
The lice-riddle and the boys are introduced only to show
that Homer was not a real σοφός (neither was Hesiod: cf.
fr. 43 [57] τούτον έπίστανται πλεΐσ τα είδέναι, δσ τις. . .ούκ
έγίνω σ κεν), but not more. Ρ. Friedländer (ap. DK I,
p. 493, 33) seems to go too far in his interpretation: “Der
Sinn ist: ‘die Kinder begreifen besser die antithetische Struktur
82
dos Logos als Homer’.” The same will be true of Reinhardt,
Ραι-m. 206. The interpretations by Snell (Hermes 61 [1926],
372 f.); H. Hiller (‘Weltbild und Sprache im Heraklitismus’,
ih/.y neue Bild der Antike, I [Leipzig, 1942], 314); Frankel
(Dichtung- 425) are not likely.*2’
<*> also U. Hölscher ( F e s tg a b e B e i n h a r d t , 74): “man muss das

C f.
Sichtbare als Zeichen verstehen lernen, als das Sich-anzeigen des
Unsichtbaren”.
<21 Cf. Hölscher 80 f. n. 20.
83
22
(!>7 l)K: 115 B)
(«) C Plut. α» seni sit ger. res pub I. 787 C δ τοίνυν

μέγιστον αί πολιτεΐα ι κακόν έχουσιν,1 τον φθόνον, ήκιστα
διερείδεται προς τό γήρας"
κύνες γ ά ρ κ α ι β α ΰ ζο υ σ ιν - ο ν 3 α ν μή γ ιν ώ σ κ ω σ ι
καθ’ 'Η ράκλειτον, και π ρ ο ς4 τ ό < ν > 5 άρχόμενον ώ σπερ έν
θύρ α ις τοΟ βήματος μ ά χετα ι και πά ροδον ού δίδωσι,
την δέ σύντροφον καί συνήθη δόξαν ούκ ά γ ρ ίω ς ούδέ
χ α λ επ ώ ς ά λ λ α π ρ ά ω ς άνέχεται. (Sehl. fr. 5).
1 μέγ. κακ. εχ. α ί πολιτ. J 2 Β Π 2 καί βαΰζουσιν codd.,

Bywater, Zeller 794 n. 3, Bernardakis, Fowler, Mazzantini 176 n. 2;
252, Mazon ( H E G 63 [1950], 12), H. D. Saffrey (ap. DK I,« p. 494,27) :
καταβαΰζουσίν Koraes, "Wakefield, Wilamowitz (O r . L e s c h . I, 34), Diels,
Kranz, Hubert 3 δν codd. : Sv Diels, Hubert cett., τω ν Wi-
lani. 4 π ω ς J ' B I l : < π λ ή θ ο ς > π ρ ό ς ei. Pohlenz 5 Fowler,
Mau (coni. 784 Ο) : τό codd.
(b') m Aristo Chius ap. Stob. IV, 25, 44 (IV, p. 628

II.) = SVF I nr. 386. έκ των Ά ρ ίσ τω νος όμοιωμάτων" οί
ά ρ τι έκ φιλοσοφίας, πά ντα ς έλέγχο ντες καί ά πό των
γονέω ν άρχόμενοι (ef. fr. 89 [74 D K ]), πάσχουσιν δ π ερ 1
νεώνητοι κ ύ ν ε ς " ού- μόνον τ ο ύ ς ά λ λ ο υ ς ύ λ α κ -
τ ο ΰ σ ι ν , ά λ λ α καί τούς ένδον. (Cf. A. Dyroff, Berl. Ph.
W. 37 [1917], 1215).
1 δπερ 8M, Hense : δπερ καί oi (ut videtur) A*, ab Arnim 2 ού

Heti.-e ; οι OÖ A-’, Am.
84
</>-■) ir .1. a . ν ι i, 7o,.rs.
δάξ’ y ä p καί τοκεώ νε - < κ α > ί, ώ 3 ξένε, δύσφρονας
ά νδρα ς
ύ λ ά κ τ ε υ ν (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς).
Cf. VII, 408,3 et Μ. Marcovieh, Hermes 93 (1965), 250 s.
1 δάξ Jacobs, Headlam : λάξ 1’, edd. 2 cf. fr. 89 (74 DK) 3
τοκεώνε καί 5> scripsi : τοκέων άσιω Γ : πατέων ’Ασίας Schneider,
Uoissonadc, Beckhy : τοκέωνας, Ιώ Headlaro (CK 15 [1901], 401),
ace. Patou
(&3) II? ,1. G. VII, 479,6

θειον ύ λ α κ τ η τ ή ν δήμου έχουσα κύνα
(st*. Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ο ν ).
85
22 (97)7
Dogs only [mid not men] are accustomed to bark at everyone

they do not know.
The text is good as transmitted: καί probably means ‘ju st’,

‘exactly’ (LSJ, s. v., B, 6; Dcnniston, Greek Particles2 316 ff.;
in this position we find it in Soph. PhUoct. 991; Eurip.
Andrem. 906), and not ‘even’ (‘sogar’), as Saffrey has it (ap.
DK I 6, Nachträge), δν with βαΰζειν : Aesehyl. Persae 13;
Odyssey XX, 15; XVI, 4 f. (Saffrey)."»
This is a popular adage. Its implication is obscure; but
the polemic tone seems to be visible. I f so, then the saying
might imply: ‘Like dogs, men (Ephesians) attack every new
doctrine without first trying to understand it.’ Cf. frr. 109 (87
DK) <2) and 2 (34). Perhaps the reaction of the publicum to
Heraclitus’ paradoxical teaching is reflected here? Also Zeller
790 ff. thought that the allusion might have been to the πολλοί
(‘die Masse der Menschen’) . Anyway the fragment is put here
tentatively.
C. Läscaris Comneno, Actas I Congr. Esp. Estud. Clds., 1956
(Madrid, 1958), 338 ff., supposed that Plato (Republic 375 E -
376 B) alluded to this saying, but without conclusive arguments.
"> It Seems less likely that this κα'ι would belong to Plutarch.
(2) Eeferred to also by F.-J. Brecht, H e r a k H t (Heidelberg, 1936), 58 f.,
and by Mazzantini 252.
86
GROUP FIVE
F it. *23 (114 + 2); 24 (89)
This Group deals with the implications of the

universal validity (ξ υ v ό ς) of the Logos. Four
levels seem to be envisaged by Heraclitus.
(i) - On the logical level, the Logos is univer
sally valid, operating in all things (fr. 23 [3]; cf.
fr. 1 γινομένω ν πάντω ν κ α τά τόν λ ό γο ν τόνδε).
(ii) - On the ontological level, the Logos is a
substratum beneath the sensorial plurality of things;
it is an underlying unity of this world-order (ef.
Group 6).
(iii) - On the epistemological level, the recogni
tion of the Logos is a necessary condition for the
correct, real cognition of the world-order (cf. fr. 24
[52] and the words κόσμον τόνδε, τόν αυτόν
άπάντων, fr. 51 [30 D K ]).
(iv) - Finally, on the ethical level of behaviour,
the Logos is a rule for correct conduct in life
(cf. fr. 23 [2] implying δει έπεσθαι τώ ι ξυνώι
λόγω ι, δει ζώ ειν κ α τ’ αύτόν; fr. 23 {114} ξύν
νόωι λ έγο ν τα ς Ισχυρίζεσθαι χρή τώ ι ξυνώι πά ν
των, t and the ivords πειρώ μενοι και έπέω ν καί
έργω ν, fr. 1, i i ) .
87
23
’S
(114 + 2 DK; 01 b + 02 B)
(a) C Stob. I ll, 1, 179 (Π Ι, p. 129 Η.) [π. άρετής]·

'Η ρακλείτου' . . . post (<Γ)
ξύ ν ν ό ω ι1 λ έ γ ο ν τ α ς 2
ίσ χ υ ρ ίζ ε σ θ α ι χ ρ ή τώ ι ξυ ν ώ ι πάντω ν,
δκ ω σ π ερ νό μ ω ι π ό λ ις
κ α ι π ο λ ύ 3 Ισχυροτέρω ς"
5 τρ έ φ ο ν τα ι γ ά ρ π ά ν τ ε ς ο'ι ά ν θ ρ ώ π ε ιο ι4 νόμ οι ·’
ύπό ένός, του θείου"
κ ρ α τ ε ί γ ά ρ τοσ οΰτον όκόσον έθ έλ ει
κα ί έξαρκεΐ π α σ ι χ
κ α ί π ερ ιγίν ετα ι." (Schl. fr. 18)·
C Sext. Emp. adv. math. VII, 133. post fr. 1

... ό λ ίγ α π ρ ο δ ιελ θ ώ ν 7 έπιφ έρει (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς)'
10 δ ιό δ ε ι έπ εσ θ α ι τ ώ ι < ξ υ ν ώ ι,
τουτέστι τ ώ ι> 8 κ ο ιν ώ ι9 (ξυνός γ ά ρ ό κοινός)'
τοΰ λ ό γ ο υ δ ’ έόντος ξυνου
12 ζώ ουσ ιν ο ΐ π ο λ λ ο ί ώ ς ιδ ία ν έχ ο ντες φρόνησιν.
(Schl. fr. 48).
ή δ ’ έστιν ούκ ά λλο τι ά λ λ ’ έξή γη σ ις τοΰ τρόπου της

τοΰ παντός διοικήσεως. διό καθ’ δ τι άν αύτοΰ της
μνήμης κοινωνήσωμεν, άληθεόομεν, δ δέ δ ν ίδιάσωμεν,
ψευδόμέθα.
1 νόωι codd. : νώι ei. Wackernagel ( S p r a c h t. U n te r s , z u H o rn . 38 n. 4),

acc. LSJ, Gigon 11 s., Walzer 2 λέγ. < κ α ί ποιοΰντας> ci.
Diels 3 πολύ Schleierm. : πόλις Trine. 4 άνθρώπειοι cod.
Par. 1985 (άνθρώπιοι Tr.) : άνθρώπινοι C. Gesner, Zeller 837 n. 1
88
5 νόοι ci. Η. Weil. ( Κ<νιι<· A [iliiio l. 2 |l«7S], SO) 6 περιγίνεται
< πάντων> ci. Diels coni. Plut. /*·. 36!» Λ 7 προσδιελθών ci.
Ilekkor, ace. D K 8 < > Jtekker : ξυνωι pro κοινώι seripsit
Sehleierm. 9 λ ό γο ι post κοινοί add. X soil. exp.
(h) R Cleanth. hymn. Ιον. «1. Zuntz

2 Ζεΰ, φύσεως αρχηγέ, ν ό μ ο υ μ έ τ α πάντα
/ κυβερνών...
24 οϋτ’ έσορωσι θ ε ο ϋ κ ο ι ν ό ν ν ό μ ο ν οΟτε
/ κλύουσιν,
ώι* κεν πειθόμενοι σ ύ ν ν ώ ι βίον έσθλόν
/ έχοιεν.
39 . . . κ ο ι ν ό ν άεΐ ν ό μ ο ν έν δίκηι ύμνεΐν.
1 Brunck : οί V
(c) R? Pint. Is. 369 Α ούτε γ ά ρ έν άψ ύχοις σώμασι

τ ά ς του -παντός ά ρ χ ά ς θετέον, ώ ς Δ ημόκριτος και Ε π ίκ ο υ
ρος, οίίτ’ ά ποίου 1 δημιουργόν ύλης ένα λόγον καί μίαν
πρόνοιαν, ώ ς οί Σ τω ικ ο ί (cf. SV I·1 II nr. 1108), π ε ρ ι γ ι -
vο μ έ νην άπ ά ν τ ω ν κ α ί κρατούσαν.
Cf. Clem, ström. VII, 9,1 (III, p. 8 St.) δόναμ ις οδν

πα τρική υπά ρχω ν (sc. ό υιός) 'ρ α δ ίω ς π ε ρ ι γ ί ν ε τ α ι
ώ ν α ν έ θ έ λ η ι (Η. "Wiese, II. bei Klemens, 270).
1 άποιον ού codd., corr. Meziriac
(cl·) R? (113 DK; 91 a B) Stob. III, 1,179 (III, p. 129

H .) . post (/). Η ρ α κ λ είτο υ . . ,ξυνόν έστι π ά σ ι1 τό φρονεΐν.
seq. (a). (Schl. ρ. 478 = 109).
1 πδσι del. Gigon 16, Walzer
89
{il2) H? l’lotin. VI, 5 |2 3 |, 10,11 Brchior καί γ ά ρ καί
τό φρονεΐν ττόίσιν δλον' διό καί ξυνόν τό φρονεΐν, ού τό
μέν ώδε, τό δε ώδί δν.
(e) R! (116 1)Κ; 106 Β) Slob. I ll, 5,6 (111, ρ. 257 Η.)
(π. σωφροσύνης] Η ρ α κ λ είτο υ ' άνθρώτιοισι τκχσι μέτεστι
γινώ σ κειν 1 έαυτούς 2 (cf. fr. 15 \101] f ) καί σωφρονεΐν.3
sei. frr. 6ί) [117 D K ]; 68 [118 D K ]). (Schl. ρ. 530 = 144).
1 L Md : γιγν- A Tr. 2 L Md Tr. : έωυτούς cod. Par. 1985

m. sec. 3 σωφρονεΐν codd.: φρονεΐν vel εδ φρονεΐν <άλλ" ού
η ο ι ο ΰ σ ι> ei. Meis, I I . -
(/) R? (112 DK; 107 Β) Stob. Ill, 1,1.78 (III, p. 129 H.)
[π. α ρ ετή ς], post fr. 44 {111). Η ρ α κ λ ε ίτ ο υ ...
σ ω φ ρ ο ν ε ΐ ν 1 αρετή μεγίστη,
καί σοφίη άληθέα λ έγειν (cf. frr. 19 [28b]; 17 [129])
καί ποιεΐν κ α τ ά 2 φύσιν (cf. fr. 1)
έπα ΐοντα ς (cf. fr. 26 [50]). seq. (rf1). (Schl. p. 479 = 109).
1 σωφρονεΐν codd. : τό φρονεΐν Diels ( I I . - ; V S * ) , acc. Reinhardt

( P e r m . 223 n.), P r a e c h tc r ( D ie P h ilo s . d . A lt.* * , p. 59) 2 καλά
ei. Valekenaer
90
23 (11Ί 2)
Those who will speak [i.e. act | with sense

must rely on what is common to atl
as a city relics on its law,
and much more firmly:
5 for all human laws
arc nourished by one law, the divine law:
for it extends its power as far as it will
and is sufficient for all [human laws]
and still is left over.
10 Therefore one ought to follow what is common.
But although the Logos is common
the many live as if they had a religious wisdom of their own.
**
I think Bywater, Patin (Ileraldits Einheitslehre, 92), H.

Gompcrz (Wien. St. 43 [1922-23], 122 f.; 128 f), Gigon 11; 15,
and Kirk 48 f. were right in believing that fr. 2 DK (ap.
Sextus) presupposes fr. 114 DK (ap. Stobaeus). I would go
a little farther supposing that both fragments belong to one
and the same saying. (1) The assertion διό δ εΐ επεσθαι
τώ ι ξυνώι (line 10) looks like a conclusion or reassurance of
the statement ίσχυρίζεσθαι χρή τώ ι ξυνώι πά ντω ν (line 2).
Now, χρή is clearly inferential (‘If one wants to speak with
sense, then it is necessary for him to rely on what is common
to all’) . But δεΐ seems to imply rather a moral or religious
obligation (‘Therefore one ought to follow what is common’).
The change of χρή into δεΐ, and of ίσχυρίζεσθαι into Μπεσθαι
(ef. the command θεώ ι επου) might be due to the excursus
contained in lines 5-9, which is religious in nature (dealing
with είς νόμος, ό θ ε ίο ς ) . (2) Moreover, the Sceptic Aene-
sidemus (?) ap. Sextus VII, 127-134; V III, 286, was interested
91
only in κοινός λ ό γ ο ς (which he understood as the reason or
intelligence spread all over the world as the air) and in
φρονεΐν ‘thinking’ (cf. λ ο γικ ό ν τ ε . . .κ α ί φρενήρες V II, 127:
φρονεΐν 128; νοεροί. . . έμφρονες 129; λ ο γ ικ ή ν .. .δύναμιν
130; λ ο γικ ο ί 131; νοοΰμεν 133 Η ηΐ.). That is why lie quoted
only fr. 2 DK (although he most probably knew fr. 114 DK
as well: ef. tbc phrase ό θείος λ ό γο ς in VII, 127; 129; 131;
133). On the other hand, Stobaeus took fr. 114 DK probably
from a source interested only in the porver of law, where fr. 2
DK was missing. (Cf. also Gigon 11; aliter Kirk 49; 59 f.).
The inference contained in fr. 23 was aimed at the recog

nition of the new Logos by men, showing it as a divine
principle, as such obligatory for all men. Namely, (1) ‘Every
thing that is common to all is a sacred principle’ (δεΐ επεσθαι
τώ ι ξυνώ ι). (2) ‘Now, the Logos is common to all things’
(του λόγου δ’ έόντος ξυνοΟ). (3) ‘Consequently: δ εΐ ϊπ εσ -
θαι τώ ι λ ό γω ι.’ The syllogism is, in some measure, false,
because ξυνός docs not mean exactly the same in both pre
mises: it implies ‘common’, ‘gemeinsam’ (cf. Jaeger, Theology
115) in (1), and ‘universally valid’, ‘allgemeingiiltig’ in (2).
Possibly Heraclitus was aware of this difference of ξυνός

(social sphere in premise 1, logical implication in premise 2):
that is why he needed the excursus in lines 5-9. Namely,
πάντω ν (line 2) is probably masculine (sc. πά ντω ν τω ν
π ο λιτώ ν: cf. line 3 π ό λ ις = οί π ο λ ΐτα ι). But in the clause
of fr. 1 (ii) γινομένω ν πάντω ν κ α τά τον λ ό γο ν τόνδε
( = line 11 τοΰ λό γο υ έόντος ξυνοϋ) it is neuter. Now, the
‘common thing’ (or ‘property’) of all citizens (τό ξυνόν π ά ν
τω ν τώ ν πολιτών, e.g. ό νόμος της πόλεω ς) has always
been considered a sacred principle. But the Logos is something
different; for example, it is not bound to the boundaries
of the city-state. Hence the need for line 4 Ισχυρίζεσθαι
χ ρ ή . .. πολύ ίσχυροτέρω ς ή νόμωι πόλις. Because, as there
exists a single principle above all the city-state laws, so also
there exists a universal principle more abstract than the visible
things, i.e. the Logos. In like manner, as this εΐς νόμος, ό
θειος is divine in nature tlumks to its all-reaching power or
universal extension (ef. line 7 κ ρατεί γ ά ρ τοσοΟτον όκόσον
έθέλει), thus should the new Logos he considered, operating
in all things. (Of. also Kirk h i) .'"
ξ ύ v v ό ω i ‘with sense’ (actually, a common phrase:
ef. Herodot. V III, 86; 138,1; Plato Republic 619 B; Crito 48
C = Aristophanes Clouds 580) probahlv implies only ’common
sense’ (‘prudently’, ‘wisely’, LSJ, s .v ., I, 1), and not necessa
rily the recognition of the Logos (as νόος fr. 16 [40] seems
to d o ); because the presence of ξύν ν ό ω ι<2) here is due to
ξυνώι, for the sake of the word-play, and not the reverse.
Thus Heraclitus might have based his now Logos doctrine
on the generally approved tradition and on common sense:
‘To rely on what is common to all (men) is an acknowledged
tradition based on the common sense.’ Aliter (sometimes going
too far, sometimes being influenced by the spurious testimonium
e [116] and fr. 116 [A 16 D K ]): Jaeger 1. c. (»Its [sc. of
the Logos] organ is the mind or νοΰς. To speak ‘with the
mind’. ..« ) ; K. λτοη Fritz (CP 40 [1945], 323 f.); E. Wolf
(Gr. Rechtsdenken, I [Frankfurt, 1950], 280); Verdenius (Mne-
mos., 1958, 351: ‘reasoning is the same as increasing the amount
of ξυνόν in one’s own being’); IT. Frankel ( Wege - 264: ‘Ver
nunft ist nach Heraklit nicht eine Leistung des Individuums,
sondern eine überpersönliche Macht; sie ist gemeinsam und
u n iv ersa l...’); Guthrie 425 n. 5; 426 (‘Logos... includes the
act of thinking or rcflexion’).(:,)
λ έ γ ο ν τ α ς is praesens pro futuro: ‘Those who are
going [ = who want] to speak with sense.. . ’ [ = ‘If one wishes
to act with sense, then he m u st... ’]. Aliter Frankel (Dichtung -
445; Wege- 264 and η. 2: ‘Mit Vernunft soll man reden und
sich auf diese "Weise durch das allen Gemeinsame festigen
[sichern]’); Guthrie 425 (‘One must speak with intelligence
and trust in what is common to all’) . In λ έγο ν τα ς the
activity of a Greek citizen (political etc.) is implied; correct is
Diels (but his supplement is not necessary, ef. appar. ad « ) ;
Wolf 1. c. (‘F ü r verständige Staatsmänner g i l t ...') ; Kirk 52;
unlikely Reinhardt (Parm. 215).
93
ί σ χ υ ρ ί ζ ε σ θ α ι , ‘ρτιΐ linn trust in', ‘rely on', ‘base
upon’ (LS-1, s.v ., II, 2) was correctly interpreted by Kirk;
Guthrie; von Fritz 232 and η. 53; Reinhardt (‘sieh auf etwas
stützen’); Gigon 17.l4) AHtcr Diels ( VS 4 ‘sieh wappnen’);
Nestle (fr. 4!) ‘sieh stark machen’); Kranz; Wolf; Jaeger
(‘strengthen themselves with’); Walzer = Mazzantini (‘farsi
forti’) ; Frankel; Verdenius 1. e.
As already said, π ά ν τ ω ν is probably masculine: cf.
perhaps Empedocles fr. 135 τό μέν πάντω ν (masc.) νόμιμον
and Heraclitus fr. 51 (30 DK) τον αυτόν απά ντω ν (sc. τω ν
α νθρώ πω ν); aliter Kirk 55, unlikely Mazzantini 183; 254
(‘cio ehe ad ogni intelletto έ commune’) .
λ έγο ντα ς : ξυνώι : : νόμωι : πόλις = a b : b‘ a',
κ α τά χιασμόν.
κ ο ι ν ό ς with νόμος was probably common: cf. Plato
Laws 644 D; 645 A; 715 B e< al. The ν ό μ ο ς is ό γ ε γ ρ α μ -
μένος νόμος: ‘Grundgesetz’, ‘Staatsverfassung’ (ef. V. Ehren
berg, Die Rechtsidee im frühen Griechentum, Leipzig, 1921,
118; Frankel, Wege- 264 f.); ‘particular codes of law’ (Kirk
51); ‘les constitutions des cites’ (Ramnoux 13); probably the
word has the same meaning in fr. 103 (44 DK). ο ί ά v θ p ώ-
π ε ι ο ι ν ό μ ο ι are not different in meaning and content
from νόμος line 3 [= πά ντες οί νόμοι, κ α τά π ό λ ε ις ] ;
correct are F. Heinimann, Nomos und Physis, 66; Kirk 51; F ran
kel ; unlikely Reinhardt 1. e.; Gigon 14 (‘das ganze genus der
allgemeinen Wahrheiten und Wirklichkeiten’). ίσχυρο-
τ έ ρ ω ς = μάλλον (chosen for the sake of the word-play
with ίσ χυ ρ ίζεσ θ α ι).
Line 6: ε ν ό ς (sc. νόμου) should be understood, and
not as if it were from εν, τό θειον; because, cf. Cleanthes
(testimonium h), and θειότατον κ α ι κοινότατον νόμον in
Gorgias Epitaphios (82 B 6 DK [I, p. 285, 17]); ό θειος
νόμος in Thucydides III, 82,6; Plato Laws 716 A (quoted
also by Kirk 53). Wrong are F. Lassalle (Werke, IV [1910],
1107); H. Gomperz (Wien. Stud. 43, 114); G. Burckhardt
(Ileraklit, Insel-Bücherei 49, Zürich, 19) and especially H.
94
Blass ((Sott und die Gesetze, Bonn, 1958, 27-31; 64: ‘es kann
nur von Ilen gesprochen werden7), refuted by J. Spanar (Cha
ris teria F. Novotny, Prague, 1962, 123 ff.).
The Logos is only analogous to the single divine Law,
but not identical with it (contra Zeller 835 ff.·; A. Menzel,
Zs. f. öff. Recht 12 [1932], 194; Jaeger, Theology 116 ‘The
logos.. As the divine law itself’, et cd.). As for the historic
background of this single divine Law (as a result of the Ionian
ίστορίη) and for the idea of one, universal Law above all
particular city-state laws, cf. e.g. Aristotle rhet. A 10, p. 1368
b 7 (quoted by Kirk 53 n. 1), and Gigon 12 f.; Heinimann
65 ff. As for the personification of Nomos (ef. line 7 κ ρ α τ ε ΐ...
έθέλει), cf. Pind. fr. 169 Sehr. [= fr. 152 Bowra2], quoted
by Kirk 52.
Lines 7-9: some corporeality of the single divine Law
seems to me likely*; it is suggested by the verbs τρέφονται,
έξα ρ κ εΐ and π ερ ιγίνετα ι. As for the first one, cf. Kirk 53;
έξα ρ κ εΐ means, of course, ‘is sufficient’ (sc. for all existing
city-state laws all over the world); and π ερ ιγίνετα ι (abso
lutely used) means ‘it remains over and above’, ‘still is left
over’.(5> Moreover, κ ρατεΐ with τοσοϋτον seems to imply some
territorial extension: cf. Aeschvl. Suppl. 254 f.; (I think,
correct are Frankel, Wege2 264 ‘dessen Macht erstreckt sich
soweit es will’; Guthrie 425 ‘which extends its sway as far as
it will’; contra Kirk 48 ‘it has as much power as it wishes’) .
In like manner έθέλει with όκόσον expresses rather an un
limited possession or extension than the voluntary element of
the divine. In brief, the stress is rather on the inexhausti
bleness of this all-reaching stuff source, than on some other
theological element. Aliter Kirk 55 (‘κρατεί and έξα ρκεΐ
express the absolute power, π ερ ιγίνετα ι the immortality, which
are the two chief marks of the divine from Homer onwards’) <e)
and especially A. Mourelatos ( AJ F 86 [1965], 258-266). The
relation of this fragment to fr. 84 (32 DIv), suggested by
Gigon 14; Blass 1. c., et al., is not likely to me.
*
**
95
Lines 10-12 (fr. 2 1)K) διό δει επεσθαι τώ ι ξυνω ι: <Γ>
‘Therefore one ought to follow (or to obey) what is common,
because it is divine.’ This is the only approved, valid and
real religious-ethical norm or wisdom ( φ ρ ό ν η ' σ ι ς ) . But
the many live (i.c. behave) as if they liad another, private
religious wisdom(s) of their own, which actually does not
exist. As for the unreal clause ώ ς εχοντες ( = ώ ς 6cv εΐχον),
cf. Xonoph. Anab. IV, 2,5-6; V, 4,34 and Schwyzer-Debrunner,
Gr. Gramm., II, 391.(9) Aliter lvirk 61 f. (‘In fr. 2 φρόνησις
is also best interpreted as including both the idea of actual
perception and that of drawing the right conclusion from this
perception’) ; unlikely Nestle fr. 3 (cf. Archiv f. Gesch. d.
Philos. 25 [1912], 283) ‘Denkkraft, ein Tadel der Denkfaulheit
der Menge.’ As for the theological implication of φρονεΐν,
φρόνησις, cf. e.g. Aeschyl. Again. 176 (‘it comes very close
to the meaning of σ ω φ ρ ο νεΐν.. . Ed. Frankel, Agam., II
105); Soph. Antig. 1353; Plato Laws 712 A; 906 AB; Protag.
333 D ; Jaeger, Theology 113.
It seems to me that the later imitators of the saying were
aware of this theological implication of φρόνησις, line 12: cf.
σωφρονεΐν in testimonia e and f (frr. 116 and 112 DK), and
τό φρονεΐν in d (fr. 113 DK). That (/) (112) is no more
than a late (probably Stoic) imitation of Heraclitus, was
already seen by Sehleiermacher p. 479 ( = 109); Heidel 713 f.;
Kirk 390 f. (contra e.g . DK; ΛΥ. Schadewaldt, Hellas und
Hesgcrien, 912; J. Janda. List,; Filologicke 86 [1963], 25 ff.).
By the way, in (/) I take ποιεΐν with κ α τά φύσιν (as

DK and Heinimann 93 did), and not with ά ληθέα λ έγειν
(as Reinhardt, Parm. 223 n. 1; Walzer 144; Kirk 43 n. and
391; D. Holwerda, ΦΥΣ1Σ etc., Groningen, 1955, 94; Janda 1. c.
take it), because ά ληθέα ποιεΐν does not seem to make good
sense: έπα ιοντα ς stands absolute (αύτης, i.c . της φύσεως,
should be understood; contra κ α τά φύσιν έπαιοντας [sc.
πάντω ν], as Reinhardt, Kirk et cd. have it).
The unauthenticity of (e) (116) was shared by Schleier-
macher p. 530 ( = 143); Heidel 714; Gigon 16; Kirk 390; and
96
that of (<{') (113) by Kiilc 55 f. (aliter G. Vlastos, 347 and
n. 23).
lu conclusion, flic objective of all the apparatus applied
by Heraclitus in fr. 23 (114 + 2) was to impose the new
doctrine on the Logos.
to Perhaps there is something more here. This single divine Law

seems to he envisaged by Heraclitus as a ‘corporeal’ being, i.e. as
some kind of i n e x h a u s tib le s t u f f - r e s e r v o i r connected with all existing
human city-laws, n o u r is h in g them with its content. Thus the univer
sality or all-extension of this Law might be thought of as ‘corporeal’.
This can help us to better understand why this world-order is said
to be o n e w h o le thanks to the Logos (frr. 26 [5 0 ] and 25 [ 1 0 ]):
the latter is present or operating in all things; as such it is a
unifying substratum beneath the sensorial plurality of the world,
an underlying unity. In both cases (Law and Logos) some degree
of the archaic corporealism might be implied.
<-> Wackernagel’s conjecture νωι (cf. also A. Meillet, A p e r g u d ’ u n e
h is to ir e d e la la n g u e g r e c q u e a 222; Kirk 50) is not likely to me,
in view of νόον fr. 16 ( 4 0 ) ; 101 (104 DK), and of the forms
in Herodotus as well.
<■'<> The pun νόος : νόμος was not intended by Heraclitus (cf. Plato
L a w s 957 C; 714 A and Frankel, D i c h t u n o g 2 445 n. 50; Deich
gräber, E h y t h m . E le m e n te 539 n. 1).
<4> Cf. Ισχυρίζεσθαι τώι νόμωι as technical term: Demosthen. 33, 27;
Hyperid. E u x e n i p p . 4.
I think, under the influence of the Stoic misinterpretation of lines
7-9 (cf. te s ti m o n i u m c ) -περιγίνεται was interpreted by Diels as
‘siegt ob allem’; the same is true of Nestle (‘hat alles in seiner
Macht’) ; Jaeger 1. e. (‘and prevails in everything’; cf. p. 230 n. 42
‘and lords it over all’) ; M. Gigante (N o m o s B a s ilc u s , Naples, 1956,
52); Mourelatos e t ^ a l.
It seem to me that in T h e P r e s o c ta tic P h ilo s o p h e r s , 214, Kirk
goes too far: “the contact between human laws and the Logos is
indirect, though not without material basis,, since good laws are
the product of wise men with fiery souls. . . ”
Cf. θεώι επου (DK a p p a r . ad I, p. 62, 18; Kirk 60); M. Ant. X,
11,4; £πεο νόμωι Herodot. V, 18,2; Thucydid. II, 35,3; Cleanthes
v. 24 f. ( t e s t i m o n i u m b ) .
(S) ‘Wisdom’ have also Burnet 139; Jaeger 114; Walzer 43; Bamnoux
318; ‘Einsicht’ have Reinhardt ( P a r m . 214); Gigon 15; DK.
(ηι ίδιος here seem to be opposed to κοινός or δήμιος: cf. O d y s s e y
H I, 82; IV, 314 e t a l.
97
25
(10 DK; 59 B)
(a) C Ps. Aristot. de mundo 5, p. 396 b 7-25 Lorimer

ίσω ς δέ τω ν έναντίων ή φύσις γ λ ίχ ε τ α ι και έκ τούτω ν
ά π ο τελ εΐ τό σύμφωνον, ούκ έκ τω ν όμοιων, ώ σπερ ά μ έλει
τό ά ρ ρεν σ υ νή γα γε πρ ος τό θήλυ και ούχ έκ ά τερον π ρ ο ς
τό όμόφυλον, καί τήν πρώ την ομόνοιαν δ ιά τω ν έναντίω ν
συνήψεν, ού διά τω ν όμοιων, έοικε δέ καί ή τέχνη τήν 1
φόσιν μιμούμενη τούτο 2 ποιεΐν- ζω γ ρ α φ ιά μέν γ ά ρ λευ
κών τε καί μελάνων, ω χρώ ν τε καί έρυθρώ ν χρω μ ά τω ν
έγκερα σ αμ ένη 3 φύσεις, τά ς εικόνας το ΐς προηγουμένοις
άπετέλεσ ε συμφώνους,4 μουσική δέ οξείς ά μ α καί βαρείς,
μακρούς τε καί βρ α χείς φ θ ό γγο υ ς μίξασ α έν διαφόροις
φω ναΐς, μίαν άπετέλεσεν- άρμονίαν, γρ α μ μ α τικ ή δέ έ κ 5
φωνηέντων κ α ί 6 άφώνων γρ α μ μ ά τω ν κρασιν ποιησα-
μένη τήν ολην τέχνην ά π ’ αύτώ ν συνεστήσατο. τ α ύ τ ό 7
δέ τοΰτο ήν καί τ ό 8 π α ρ ά τώ ι σκοτεινώ ι λεγόμ ενον
Ή ρ α κ λ είτω ι'
σ υ λ λ ά ψ ιε ς 9
ο λ α 10 κ α ί 11 ούχ 12 ό λ α ,13
συμφ ερόμ ενον 14 δια φ ερόμ ενον,
σ υνά ιδον 15 δ ιά ιδ ο ν '
5 έ κ 16 π ά ντω ν εν
κ α ί 17 έ ξ ένό ς πά ντα .
ούτω ς οδν καί τήν τώ ν όλω ν σύστασιν, ούρανου λ έ γ ω

καί γη ς του τε σύμπαντος κόσμου, διά τής τών έναν-
τιω τά τω ν 18 κράσεω ς ά ρ χώ ν μ ία διεκόσμησεν ά ρ μ ο ν ία ...
(Schl. fr. 37b).
102
1 την dH. AVondland ot Wilaiii. 2 χοΰτο codd. : τό αύτό Stob, J,
40,5 (I, p. 270,6 Wachsm.) 3 έκκ- II Stob. 4 συμφώνους
OFGWs Z Aid. : σύμφωνος AEPWi Lp Stob. : συμφώνους s. s. ως HT
5 έκ om. Stol). 6 τε καί Stol>. 7 αύτό Stob. 8 καί τό
om.Stob. 9 συλλάψιες s. s. -ν- Lp, (ΎΝΛΑΠΨIΑIC Apul.B (CYNA-
ΤΙΨ ΙαΙΟ Apul. ν), συλλάψει ές Stob., συλλήψιες Ρ, συλλήψεις var. leet.
add. Β 223, σύλληψις Par 2494, συλλήψει νοί συλλάψει exemplar Gr.
Anon. Latini (at λ·.); συλλάψιες l l o f f m a n n (G r . D ia l. I ll, 240), Lorimer,
Snell ( H e r m e s 76 [1941], 84 ss.), Kirk 167 : συνάψιες A* CEGT,
συνάψειες A'?, συνάψει ές exemplar Gr. Nicolai Sic., συνάψεις F :
συνάψειας BHW 2 Z Aid. B- 223, συνάψιας W 1 : nomen, non verbum
liabuit interpret. Syriaca : συνάψειας Stob, odd., Bywater, Zeller 830
n. 1. : συνάψιες Diels ( S B B A 1901, 188 ss.), Burnet 137 n. 4, Kranz,
Gigon 20, D. J. Furley 10 δλα P Amb 174 Bern Par 166 Vind 8
Stob. Apul.; Diels cett. : οδλα ABHTW Aid. B 1314; Bywater, Wachsm. :
οδλα EF : δλου CG interpr. Syr. (ut v.) 11 και del. Zeller
12 οϋχ vel οδχ’ codd. plurimi : ούχΐ W 2 f Z Aid. : ούκ T B 1314 A*
13 δ λ α P Amb 174 Bern Vind 8 Stob. Apul.; Diels cett. : ο δλα BTWZ
Aid. B 1314; Byw., Wachsm. : οδλα AEFH Par 166 : δλου CG
Syr. 14 post συμψερ. add. καί codd. omn., Stob.p, Nie. Sic.;
Wachsm., Zeller : om. Stob.F Apul.; Schleierm., Diels, Lorimer 15 post
συνδιδον add. και EFHPW 2 Z Aid. Par 166, Nie. Sic.; Wachsm.,
Zeller : om. ABCGTWi stob. Apul.; Schleierm., Diels, Lorimer 16
έκ Par 166 Vind 8 Stob. Apul. (ut v .); Byw., Wachsm., Lorimer, Walzer,
Kirk : καί έκ codd. cett., Nie. Sic.; Schleierm., Zeller, Diels, Kranz,
Furley 17 καί om. F FI 2 18 έναντιω τάτω ν ABEFHTW
Aid. Stob. Nie. Sic.: έναντίων CGPZ versio Lat. Anon.
(a·1) C Apul. de mundo 20 (ρ. 156,19 Thomas) hoc

Heraclitus sententiarum suarum + mobilis1+ ad hunc modum
est σ υ νλά ψ ιες3 δ λ α καί ούχ δλα, συμφερόμενον δια-
ψερόμενον, συνδιδον δια ιδον- έκ 4 πάντω ν εν καί έξ ένός
π ά ντα .5 sic totius mundi + suo instantia® + initiorum inter
se inpares conventus pari nec discordante consensu7 natura
veluti musicam temperavit: namque uvidis8 arida et glacia-
libus flammida, velocibus pigra, directis obliqua confu[n]dit
unumque ex omnibus et ex uno omnia iuxta Heraclitum
constituit.
1 codd. : nubilis Floridus, nodulis Kroll, modulis Scaliger et al., ft. recte
(cf. A. Gell. XIV, 4 in lemm.) 2 lacunam signif. Goldbacher :
103
<prosecutus> oil. Tuntina altera, <elocutus> ci. Thomas 3 Lori-
mer : συνάψιες Diels, Thomas 4 έκ Lorim. : και έκ I'iols,
Thom. 5 ΟΥΝΛΑΠΨIA IΟΟΛΑ KA I ΟΤΧΟΛΑΨI Νφ ΙρΜεΝΟΝ AIA-
Φε I ρεΜεΝΟΝΓΥΝΑΛΟΝΑ IAAONAI ΚεΓΑΝΓωΝεΝ KA Ι%ΖεΝΟΟε I-
ΓΑΝΓΑΥ B (cf. Diels, S B B A 1901, 194; Thomas; Lorimer, 76 n. 1)
6 substantial« ( p r o suo instantia) .Salmasius : locum graviter adfectum
esse iud. Thomas 7 consensu : conceutu Elmenhorst eonl. p. 156,7
8 uvidis Thomas : ubidis B : humidis cett.
(b ) H? Ps. Lin. (έκ τω ν περί φύσεως κόσμου)

ap. Stob. I, 10,5 (I, p. 119 W.) *Ως κατ’ έριν συνάπαντα
κυβερναται διά παντός' (cf. fr. 85 [41 D K ))
έκ παντός δέ τά π ά ντα κ α ί έκ πάντω ν τό πα ν έστι.1
πά ντα δ’ εν έστιν, έκαστον < δ λ > ο υ 2 μέρος + είναι
ά π α ντα + 3
έκ γ ά ρ ενός ποτ’ έόντος δλου τά δε πά ντ’ 4 έγένοντο,
5 έκ πάντω ν δέ ποτ’ α δ θ ις εν έσσεται έν χρόνου αΐσηι,
άίέν 5 έν δν καί πολλά.
1 Cf. Γ, 10,7 (ρ. 120) 'Ηρακλείτου' έκ πυράς γάρ τά πάντα καί

εις πΰρ πάντα τελευτδι et Aet. I, 3,11 ( D o x . 283 s.) 2 0λου
ci- Meineke, acc. Wachsmuth : οδν FP : ένός Grotius 3 FP : εϊν
έν’ άπαντα Grotius : είν ένί πάντα Meineke : έν δ’ ένί πάντα Wachsm.
4 πάντα τάδ’ FP, transp. Canter 5 άεί FP, corr. Grotius
104
25 (10)
( 'o}iη exions:
things whole and things not whole,
something which is being brought together
and something which is being brought apart,
something which is in tune and something which is out of tune:
5 out of every thing there can be made a unify,
and out of this unity all things are made.
συλλάψιες seems to be the better reading than

συνάψιες, which was shared by Diels, P. Thomas, Kranz et al.
The change of the original συλλάψιες into συνάψιες can be
explained either (1) as lapsus calami ΣΥΛΛΑ- (Stobaeus)>
ΣΥΜΛΑ- (Apulcius”, cf. Kühner-Blass I, "263) > ΣΥΝΛ-
(Apul.v) > ΣΥΝΑ-, or, more probably, (2) as a correction
by some late antique Peripatetic who knew that σύλληψις
meant only ‘conception’ in Aristotle and who relied on the
word συνήψεν in the preceding context (cf. also B. Snell,
Hermes IS [1941], 85, and Kirk 171). As for the meaning of
σύλλαψις, of. Aeschyl. Suppl. 457 σ υλλα βά ς -πέπλων;
Herodot. I ll , 82,5; V II, 16 y , 1-, άρμονίη in Heraclitus fr. 27
(51) and Kirk 172 f. The difference in meaning between the
two words is minimal: yf. ‘Verbindungen (d. h. innerlich zusam
menhängende Gegensatzpaare)’ Diels (SB B A , 1901, 189):
couples’ Burnet 137; ‘Zusammensetzungen (d. h. zusammen
gesetzte Dinge!)’ Snell 87; ‘things taken together' Kirk 168;
176. Thus σύλλαψις is here nomcn adae ret (cf. also LSJ, s. v.),
and not nomen actionis (as Guthrie 440 n. 1 took it).
συλλάψιες is a Heraelitean title or heading (ef. frr. 17
[123]; 29 [53]; 48 [26]; 53 [31 D lv]; 77 [67 D K ]; 93 [52 DK]
ct al.; correct is Gigon 20 ‘Ueberschrift’, with referensce to fr. 67
DK and to W. Havers, IF 43 [1926], 207 ff.; Glotta 16 (1928),
105
94 f .) . It was correctly interpreted as subject of the sentence
by c.g . Diels, Burnet, Kranz, Gigon (mistakenly Snell 86;
87 n. 2; Kirk 175; 177).
I understand the whole fragment as follows: ‘Connexions
[sc. of two opposites] are such things as for example: wholes
and not wholes, something which is being drawn together and
which is being drawn asunder, something which is in tune and
which is out of tune, and so on. In like manner, out of each
thing [i.e. pair of opposites] there can be made a unity (ώσαύ-
τω ς έκ πάντω ν τω ν έναντίων εν τι [= σύλλαψις] γέν ο ιτ’
ά ν ), and actually this Unity lies under all existing things
( καί έξ ένός πά ντα τά δντα συνίσταται = πά ντα £ν έστι,
fr. 26 [50])’.
Τη my opinion. (1) the throe pairs of opposites quoted in
the saying are meant only as a few typical examples among
so many, adduced to illustrate what a σύλλαψις is like; (2) it
is not necessary to see any semantic parallelism between έκ
πά ντω ν äv and έξ ένός π ά ν τα .{1)
Different interpretation was shared by Snell 1. c. (“Worauf
das in concreto ging, ist nicht mehr kenntlich. Aber deutlich
ist, dass diese συλλάψ ιες als Gleichnis standen für die grosse
σύλλαψις des Kosmos, der aus Einem und aus Allem besteht”)
and especially by Kirk 176: “ ‘Things taken together (that is,
things mentally connected and therefore belonging to the same
category — and especially extremes or ‘opposites’, like moist
and dry, hunger and satiety) arc in one sense wholes or
continue, in another sense not wholes, but separate and opposed.
In one sense they tend together, to unity, while in another
sense they tend apart, to plurality. In one sense they sing in
tune with each other and form a single unison, in the other
sense they sing different tunes and appear as utterly separate.’
Thus there are two opposed views which can be taken of
συλλάψ ιες; the first terms in the three groups of predicates
describe one view, the last terms the other.” P. 178: “The last
sentence of the fragment must depend upon the same possibility
of different points of view: ‘from all things (i.e . the plural
106
phenomenal world) one can understand a unifying connexion;
from this connexion, the single formula or Logos of all things,
one is led to turn one's attention back to the many things
which are so connected’.” ^
This interpretation seems to me unlikely. Because Π)
hardly can the three quoted examples of the pairs of opposites,
if interpreted as ‘predicates’ of συλλάψ ιες,<2) satisfy or suit
every possible σύλλαψ ις; for example, it is not clear to me
why the opposites ‘moist and dry, hunger and satiety’ should
‘sing in tune’ or ‘sing different tunes’. (2) The introduction of
the knowing subject, of ‘two different ways of looking at things’
(p. 176), of ‘the personal criterion’ (p. 178), of ‘different
points of view’ etc., is not likely at all. The plural phenomenal
world is something evident, and Heraclitus was not interested
in giving to this ‘conventional, analytical approach' (p. 176)
the same rank as to the underlying, invisible, metaphysical
unity or connexion, which represented his great discovery (i.e.
to the Logos). Anyway I do not see why έκ and έξ should
suggest ‘the human mind’s apprehension’ or ‘the mind’s change
from one aspect of the fact to the other’, as Kirk 179 took
them . To my way of thinking, such a phrase as έξ ένός πά ντα
(sc. τά δντα συνίσταται or έστι or συνέστηκε, as Snell
87 understood it) was common enough, and need no ‘stage or
point of judgement’.'3’ Moreover it matches well fr. 26 (50)
gv πά ντα είναι.
The pair of opposites δ λ α κ α ί ο ύ χ δ λ α is obscu
re; perhaps it implies ‘whole things’ and ‘parts’ (ef. μέρεα
μερέων, δ λ α δλω ν Hippocrat. de nictu I, 6 [DK I, p. 183,12);
15 [p. 186,24]; 17 [p. 187,5]). Gigon 21 ‘rein hypothetisch’
supposed ‘etwa Ganze und Gebrochene Zahl’; unlikely Kirk 176
‘continua’ and ‘separate and opposed’.'1’ As is known, Hera
clitus operates sometimes with ‘extremes’ (such as c.g. ‘gold'
and ‘chaff’, fr. 37 [5]; ‘name’ and ‘function’, fr. 39 [48]), and
not always with proper opposites (cf. also Kirk 173).
σ υ ν - and δ ι α φ ε ρ ό μ ε ν ο ν can mean either (1)
‘being brought together’ and ‘being brought apart’, implying the
107
extensive convergency and divergency (so Kirk 168; 174);
this meaning is more probable in fr. 27 (5:1); or (2) 'being at
variance’ and ‘agree’ (ef. the third pair of opposites, and
έρις fr. 28 [801). Plato envisaged both meanings in Soph.
242 DE, but only the second one in Symp. 187 Λ.
σ υ ν ά ι δ ο ν means ‘to be unison’; possibly δ ι δ i 5 o v
is; a neologism of Heraclitus’ own corresponding to Plato’s άπαι-
δον (so Snell). Probably the first two pairs of opposites are
meant as simultaneous; possibly the third one as well (‘das
Nebeneinander von übereinstimmenden und abweichenden Tö
nen’, Snell 86; Kirk 175; contra Gigon 21 ‘Abfolge’).<5)
*
*♦
The difference between Kirk’s interpretation of the frag

ment and mine can be summarized as follows:
KIRK
συλλάψιες
Opposites are
ψ· ■ψ
in one sense in another sense
δλα ούχ δλα
συν- δια-
£v ττάντα
108
MARCOVICH
Τ'nil 1/ Opposites
δλα καί ούχ δλα
συν- + δια-
σύλλαψις
εύθΰ + σκολιόν
εν
άνω + κάτω
ταύτό
ψυχρόν + θερμόν
άρμονίη
άρχή + π έρ α ς
φύσις
ήμερη + εύφρόνη
ό λ ό γο ς
βίος + θάνατος
λιμός + κόρος
κτλ.
πάντα
ο Such a parallelism is typical of the ancient misinterpretation of the

fragment in the sense of temporal successions or processes in Cosmo
gony (which actually does not exist in Heraclitus): cf. te s tim o n iu m
(6) ; Cleanthes ( S V F T nr. 497) ap. Ar. Didym. fr. 38 Diels ( D o r .
p. 470,14) έξ ένός τε πάντα γίνεσθαι καί έκ πάντων Ιν συγκρί-
νεσθαι; Philo d e sp e c . le g . T, 208 ήτοι ώς Sv τά πάντα ή δτι
έξ έ ν ό ς τ ε κ α ί ε ι ς Sv, δπερ οί μέν κόρον καί
χρησμοσύνην έκάλ&σαν. . . ; Ps. Musaeus 2 A 4 DK; Diels, D o r .
179; K. Kordon', A g n o s t o s T h e o s (Berlin* 1913), 247 ff.; Oigon 43 f.:
Kirk 177.
The possibility for such an interpretation of lines 3-6 (and the
pair of opposites συν- and διαιδον as well) were the reason for
G. Höfer, U e r a k t t t , l l e r a k l i t c e r u n d d a s h ip p o k r a tis c h e C o r p u s , Diss.
Bonn, 1930 (typewritten), 58 ff., to suppose that the fragment
might be spurious (but without conclusive arguments).
(a) The interpretation ‘Things taken together.. .a re.. .wholes or con-
tinua... not wholes, but separate and opposed’ would presuppose
such a Greek original: συλλάψιες δλαι καί ούχ δλαι, συμφερό-
μεναι διαφερόμεναι κτλ.
109
<»> In the sentence έκ π ά ν τ ω ν Εν καί έξ έ ν ό ς π ά ν τα the
spaced words seem to be emphasized (cf. fr. 26 [50] E v π ά ν τα
•ε ίν α ι); this seems to speak against B. H ackforth’s suggestion ‘the
world is a differentiated u n i t y ’ and ‘a d i f f e r e n t i a t e d unity’, quoted
by K irk 179 η. 1 with the rem ark: 'This brings out the contrast
very well’.
<i> Bernays ( G c s. A b h . , I, 15 f.) referred to Sext. Emp. a d v . m a t h . IX ,
337 ό δέ Α Ινησίδημος κ α τ ά Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ο ν κ α ϊ Ετερόν φησι τό
μ έρ ο ς τοϋ δλου κ α ί τα ύτό ν, but the instance has no evidential
value for H eraclitus (cf. the context).
(*> Cf. perhaps Hippocrat. d e n u t r i m . 40 τό σύμφωνον διάφ ω νον, τό
διά φ ω νο ν σύμ φ ω νον; 48 κ α ί σύμφ ω νον κ α ί διά φ ω νον; d e v i c t u
I, 18 (D K I, p. 187,18) κ α ί διά φ ω να κ α ί ξύμφ ω να .
no
26
(50 DK; 1 B)
(«) C Hippol. ref. IX, 9,1 (p. 241 Wendl.) 'Η ράκλει
τος μέν οδν 1 φησιν είναι τό πα ν 2 διαιρετόν άδιαίρετον,
γενητόν άγένητον, θνητόν άθάνατον, λ ό γ ο ν 3 αιώ να, π α
τέρ α υιόν, θεόν δίκαιον’ 4
οόκ έμου άλλά του λ ό γ ο υ 5 άκούσαντας

όμολογεΐν σοφόν έστιν £ ν β πάντα είναι,7
ό Η ρ ά κ λ ειτό ς φησι. seq. fr. 27 (51).
1 οδν < g v > ci. Bernays, Cruice, Diels, Eamnoux ( R e v . p h i l o s . P aris 151
[1961], p. 102) 2 τό ιτδν < 6 ρ α τ ό ν ά ό ρ α τ ο ν > ci. H. Gomperz
( Z s . f . ö s t . G y m n . 1910, p. 967; W i e n . S t . 43 [1922-23], p. 118 n. 1)
3 λ ό γ ο ν < ά λο γ ο ν, χρ ό ν ο ν > ci.Diels 4 δ ίκ α ιο ν < ά δ ικ ο ν > ci.Diels:
δια ϊό ν ci. Heidel 704 (coni. Plat. C r a t. 412 D E) 5 λ ό γ ο υ Bernays
( G e s . A b h . I, p. 80) omnium consensu : δ ό γ μ α τ ο ς P, Bergk ( K l . S e h r .
Π , p. 85 n. 3) 6 έν P 7 είναι Miller fere omnium consensu :
είδ ένα ι P, Bergk (θ εό ν1 δίκ α ιο ν οΰκ έ μ ο ΰ . . . ό μ ο λ ο γ έειν < δ τ ι έν
τ ό > σοφόν έστιν, S v . . . ) , Bernays, cd. Gott., Zeller 844 n.; A. A all
( Z s . f . P h i l o s . 106 [1895], p. 232 n. 1; G e s c h . d . L o g o s i d e e I, p ..28 n. 1),
H. Gomperz (1. c. et ap. Diels., V S * p. XXIV, cf. A. Patin, E in h e i t s l e h r e ,
pp. 61; 92: θεόν' δ ίκ α ιο ν . . .σ οφ όν [έστιν] S v . . . ) , Ε. Κ. Hack
( G o d i n G r e e k P h i l o s ., p. 70 s.), Mazzantini 162, W. Bröcker ( G n o m o n 30
11958], p. 435: δ ίκ α ιο ν' < ά ν α γ κ α ί ο ν > . . . σοφόν τ ’ έόν έν π ά ν τ α < ς >
ε ίδ έν α ι), Eamnoux ( R e v . p h i l o s . 152 [1962], ρ. 84): del. Heidel
(b) R Philo leg. alleg. I ll, 7 (I, p. 114 Cohn) . . ,ό δέ

γονορρυής έκ κόσμου πά ντα καί είς κόσμον άνάγω ν,
ύπό θεοϋ δέ μηδέν οίόμενος γεγ ο νέν α ι' Η ρ α κ λείτειο υ
δόξης έταΐρος, κόρον καί χρησμοσόνην (cf. fr. 55 [65 DK])
καί ε ν τ ό π α ν καί π ά ντα άμοιβηι (cf. fr. 54 [90 D K ])
είσάγω ν.
Ill
de spec. leg. I, 208 (V, 50 Ο.) ή δε είς μέλη τοΰ ζώιου
διανομή δηλοΐ ήτοι ώ ς £ ν τ ά π ά ν τ α ή δτι έξ
ένός τε καί εις £ν (cf. ρ. 109 n. 1), δπερ οί μέν κόρον καί
χρησμοσύνην έκάλεσαν, οί δ ’ έκπύρωσιν καί διακόσμη-
σιν. . .
112
26 (50)
I f you have heard [and understood] not me but the Logos,

it is wise to agree that all things are one.
The fragment does not seem to present textual difficulties.

Bernays’ emendation [not Bergk’s, as Diels, Burnet 132 n. 6
and Kranz have it] λό γο υ (cf. Bh. Mus. 9 [1854], 249 f. =
Oes. Abh. I, 80 f.), instead of cod. Par. δόγμ α τος, is correct;
because cf. Hippol. ref. p. 259,8 We. τά γ μ α το ς Flav. Iosephus,
instead of P δόγμ α τος, or p. 245,15 We. δόμασι ed. Gott.,
instead of P δό γμ α σ ι (the latter instance quoted by Bernays).
Such mistakes are due to the illiteracy of Michael, the scribe
of Parisinus, and not to the paleographical confusion between
Λ and Δ (as Bernays; Diels, VS* ad fr., and Kirk p. 65 appar.
took i t ) . In like manner, Miller’s reading είναι, in lieu of Par.
εΐδέναι, is quite probable (contra Bergk, Bernays, L. Duncker,
Zeller, Mazzantini, Bröcker, Ramnoux, et al.); because again
cf. Hippol. ref. p. 70,14 We. εΐναι (Miller : είδέναι P) δέ
τήν λύραν μουσικόν δ ρ γα νο ν; ρ. 18,12 είναι (Roeper :
εΐδέναι L B 0 ) . Consequently, the interpretations based on
the readings of Parisinus are wrong (especially that by Ram
noux 462; 243; 372). As for Hippolytus’ context and objec
tives, cf. Marcovich, ‘Hippolytus and Heraclitus’, Fourth Pa
tristic Conference, Oxford, 1963 (Studia Patristica, VII, Berlin,
1966, 255 f f .) .
From the opposition contained in the phrase ούκ έμου
ά λ λ ά του λόγου it becomes clear that Logos has an objective
existence, not depending on Heraclitus himself; i.e . that it
is a universal Law operating in all things around us. Correct
e.g. U. Hölscher (Festgabe Beinhardt, 72): ‘Hier ist der
Logos nicht die Schrift, denn er steht zu ihr, dem redend Ich,
im Gegensatz.’ Unlikely Schuster 83; 228 (‘Nicht auf mich,
113
sondern auf die Rede als solche, den Inhalt der Rede, die
Gründe, hörend’), adopted as ‘zulässig’ by Zeller 840 f .; Burnet
132 (‘not to me, but to my W ord’), accepted by Diels, VS*
and H. Blass {Gott und die Gesetze, Bonn, 1958, 38 n. 9);
Reinhardt, Parm. 219 (‘nicht mir, sondern dem Logos in euch
selber’); A. Busse, Rh. Mus. 75 (1926), 209.
Of course, this opposition between I and Logos is not
absolute: Heraclitus’ teaching is also based on the Logos. There
are two ways to the apprehension of the Logos: grasping it
independently from the surrounding world, or being taught
about it by Heraclitus (cf. fr. 1 καί πρόσθεν ή άκουσαι καί
άκούσαντες τό πρώ τον; fr. 3 [17] ού φρονέουσι τοιαΰ-
τα . ..ό κ ο ίο ις έγκυρέουσιν, ούδέ μαθόντες γινώ σκουσιν).
Both ways are good; nevertheless the former is preferable:
cf. fr. 6 {101a) . Correct Gigon 44 (‘Wenn man das Gesetz zum
Masstab nimmt, so folgt vernünftigerweise daraus meine Behaup
tung’) ; Hölscher 76 (‘der Gegensatz von Ich und Logos verrät
in der Tat die Einheit der beiden. Das Ich ist Mundstück des
Logos’) and Kirk 67 (‘ούκ έ μ ο ύ ... implies that his words
have an absolute authority from outside’) .
Logos seems to be personified here (probably in fr. 4 [72]
as w ell). It speaks from inside each phenomenal thing (cf.
όκοίοις έγκυρέουσιν and ώ ι όμιλοΟ σι); it does so probably
like Apollo, who σημαίνει from inside the temple. Unlikely
Hölscher 71: ‘Der Logos wird gehört: man darf also fragen,
von wem er gesprochen wird’.
In accordance with this personification the verb ά κ ο ύ ε ι ν
seems to have some metaphorical meaning here (‘hear the Logos
from things around us’) . But it is not easy to determine the
exact meaning of the verb here; i.e . whether it implies (1)
LSJ, s.v., II, 1 ‘listen to’, ‘give ear’, ‘hearken’ (so Burnet;
Jaeger, Theology, 121; Kirk 65; Guthrie 425; Snell ‘hinhören’;
Walzer and Mazzantini “dando ascolto”; cf. perhaps the imi
tation έπα ΐοντα ς fr. 23 (/) [112])·, or (2) LSJ, II, 2 ‘obey’
(cf. fr. 23 [5] έπεσθαι and Kirk 67); or else (3) L SJ II, 3
‘hear and understand’ (cf. Aeschyl. Prom. 448 κλύοντες ούκ
114
ήκουον; Choeph. 5; ‘vernehmen’ Diels; O. Gigon, Der Ursprung
der griech. Philosophie, Basel, 1945, 212). The last meaning
seems to be the most likely here in view of the epistemological
terms σοφόν έστιν and όμολογεΐν, which imply comprehen
sion of the Logos by men (cf. also ξυνιέναι in frr. 27 [51]·,
1 and 2 [34], and φρονεΐν = γινώ σκειν, fr. 3 [17]).
The difference in tense between ά κούσα ντα ς and όμο-

λ ο γεΐν suggests inference (ef. also Kirk 70 ‘άκούσαντας has
temporal or logical priority over όμολογεΐν’). I think the
phrase σ ο φ ό ν έ σ τ ι ν has here a weakened, i .e . opera
tive or inferential meaning: ‘it is logically necessary’ (aliter
Kirk 71: ‘a pragmatical necessity for men’). Thus I would
understand the saying as follows: ‘If one has heard and under
stood not me but the objective Logos, then it is logically neces
sary for one to agree that all things are one.’ Cf. the inference
contained in fr. 23 (114) ξύν νόωι λ έ γ ο ν τ α ς . . . χρή : ‘For
those who want to act with sense it is necessary t o .. Unlikely
Burnet 132 (‘It is wise to hearken.. .and to confess.. . ’).
ό μ ο λ ο γ ε ΐ ν (sc. έμοί ?) with Accusative cum infi-

nitivo means, of course, ‘to agree... that’ (‘zugestehen’ Diels;
Nestle fr. 13; ‘übereinstimmen’ Gigon). But this verb, which
probably was common in Heraclitus’ time (cf. 37 instances in
Herodotus [Powell], especially II, 75,4; 104,3; V, 87,1),(1) was
chosen by Heraclitus for the sake of the word-play ό λ ό γο ς :
όμ ολογεΐν (sc. τώ ι ξυνώ ι λ ό γ ω ι), implying ‘not being at
variance with the universal Logos both in philosophical theory
and in life-practice’; cf. ζώ ειν κ α τά τόν ξυνόν λ ό γο ν implied
by fr. 23 (2). Correct Kirk 68: ‘it means not opposing the
Logos by refusing to recognize it; it means ‘assimilation’ of
the common formula of th in g s.. . ’; unlikely Guthrie 425 n. 2:
‘To bring one’s own λ ό γ ο ς into conformity.’ Hence the Stoic
feios-formula (S V F I nr. 179 = Stob. II, 75,11 W.; cf. SV F
I I I nr. 12) τό δέ τέλος ό μέν Ζήνων οϋτω ς άπέδω κε *τό
ό μ ο λ ο γ ο υ μ έ ν ω ς ζην’· τούτο δ’ έστι κ α θ ’ έ ν α
λ ό γ ο ν κ α ί σύμφωνον ζην (cf. Μ. Pohlenz, Die Stoa, I I 2,
Göttingen, 1955, G7). Probably hence also fr. 23 (/) [112]
115
σ ο φ ίη ... ποιεΐν κ α τά φύσιν έπα ΐοντα ς (sc. α υτής). On
the other hand, όμ ολογία in Diog. Laert. IX, 8 has nothing
,in common with this fragment (contra Gigon, Der Ursprung,
213).
£ v π ά ν τ α ε ΐ ν α ι : of course, πά ντα is the subject
here. Sentences beginning with the object are common enough
in Heraclitus (cf. κακοί μά ρτυρες fr. 13 [107]; δοκέοντα
fr. 20 [28a] ; ξυνόν fr. 34 [103]; ταύτό fr. 41 [88]; πυρός
ά ντα μ ο φ ή fr. 54 [90 D K ]; κά μ α τος fr. 56a [84a D K ]; Sv
fr. 85 [41 D K ]; νόμος fr. 104 [33 DK] etc.). This statement
expresses actually consequence or result of apprehending the
Logos, and not its very content; correct is Kirk 70: “that ‘all
things are one’ is not the Logos itself — rather it is the
conclusion one would form as a result of apprehending the Logos’
(contra Kirk 32 ‘the chief content of the Logos is that all things
are one'; Reinhardt, Farm. 21!) ‘welches [sc. fr. 2 6 ] ... die
neue Logoserkenntnis inhaltlich bestimmt’; Hölscher 71 “Der
Logos hat einen Inhalt, nämlich ‘dass Alles eins ist’ ’’).
The conclusion ‘All things are one’ bears a clear ontolo
gical implication: ‘beneath all this phenomenal plurality of
things there is an underlying unity’ ( = fr. 25 [10] έξ ένός
π ά ντα [sc. σ υνίσ τα τα ι]) . This metaphysical truth was dedu
ced from the logical universal validity of the Logos (cf. ό
λ ό γ ο ς έστΐ ξυνός fr. 23 [2]; γινόμενα πά ντα κ α τά τον
λ όγον τόνδε fr. 1). Possibly Heraclitus reasoned as follows:
“One and the same Logos is present or operating in every
particular thing (X = A, X = B, X = C, X = D etc.). Thus
all phenomenal things are interconnected (A = B = C = D
etc.).” Convincingly Kirk 70: “they [sc. all things] are ‘one’,
first, in that they all have a common component, part of their
structure; and secondly, because they all connect up with each
other because of this common structure."
The importance of Heraclitus’ saying was well pointed out
by H. Cherniss, Journal of the History of Ideas 12 (1951), 333
(‘but he for the first time in Western thought declared that
reality is not the world that we perceive nor any part of it
116
but a form ula.. . ’) and Kirk ib. (‘The fact that Heraclitus indu
ced from these examples the generalization that all things are
one is itself of great importance: for he was the first thinker,
as far as we know, explicitly io define a connexion between the
apparent plurality of the phenomenal world and the underlying
unity which, in some form or other, was automatically presup
posed by the earlier Presocratics’).*5’
As an actual constituent of things, the Logos in some
measure might be thought of ns ‘corporeal’ (cf. perhaps the
example of the single divine Law, fr. 23 [114]). We may
even assume that Heraclitus' Logos was co-extensive with his
primary cosmic constituent, Fire (so Kirk-Raven 188). But the
identification of the Logos with Fire does not seem likely to me;
contra Kirk 70 ‘it may not be going too far, therefore, to say
that in so far as the Logos, which is closely related to this
κόσμος, is thought of as a material component of the things
to which it is ‘common’, it is thought of as a form of f ir e ..
Gigon 57 (‘Der Satz von Frg. 50 verwandelt sich hier [sc. in
fr. 51 = 30 DK] zur lebendigen Wirklichkeit, π ά ντα — £v
entspricht κόσμος — πΟρ’) ; Der Ursprung 212 f. (‘Das Gesetz
lehrt [Frg. 50], dass alles Feuer ist’): Jaeger, Theology.
123, et (Λ.
The Metaphysics of Heraclitus (the doctrine on the Logos)
should not be confused with his Physics (the doctrine on Fire).
The concrete examples of coincidentia oppositorum (Groups 8-12)
show a close relation to Logic, and remain rather far from
the field of Physics; certainly Fire is utterly absent and
inoperative here. Another consequence of the universality
of Logos was expressed in fr. 24 (89) implying: ‘Those who have
recognized Logos possess one single world-order, valid /o r nil
men’ (cf. π ά ντα = fv « εΐς κ ό σ μ ο ς); here also the fire is out
of the question.
117
Summing up, fr. 26 (50) seems to imply:
(1) - The Logos is an objective Law apprehensible from
the surrounding world (ούκ έμοΰ ά λ λ α του λόγου άκού-
σ α ν τ α ς ).
(2) - The logical, necessary consequence of comprehending
this Logos is the realization of the unity of the plural pheno
menal world (άκούσ αντας όμολογεΐν σοφόν έ σ τ ιν ...) .
(3) - All things are connected with each other because
of the common component or Logos (£v πά ντα εΐναι = fr. 25
(10) έξ ένός π ά ντα [sc. σ υ νίσ τα τα ι]).
(4) - Both men’s conception of the world and their prac
tical conduct should be based upon the universal Logos (the
pun ό λ ό γ ο ς : ό μ ο -λ ο γεΐν).
(Ο A lite rK irk 68: ‘In H eraclitus’ time ό μ ο λ ο γ ε ΐν was still, perhaps,

a neologism .. .it was used by no other philosophical w riter before
the middle o f the fifth century (b u t often by Herodotus). I t is not
therefore surprising th a t the reader or hearer should be expected
to understand its specialized meaning here, with emphasis on the
two component words as well as on the whole.’ B ut in other puns
H eraclitus operates with widely k n o w n words; I think the same is
the case here.
<2> Possibly the idea of some unifying principle beneath the plural
phenomenal world could be traced back to the Orphics; cf. o. g. Plato
S o p h . 242 D κ α ί £τι πρόσθέν άρξάμενον and L a w s 715 E [ = 1
B 6 D K ]; Aeschylus fr. 70 z= 105 Mette.
118
27
(51 DK; 45 B)
/
ού ξυνιασιν δκως διαφερόμενον έωυτώι σ υμφ έρεται'1
παλίντονος2 άρμονίη δκωσπερ τόξου καί λύρης.
1 ουμφέρεται (s. ξυμφ-) Zeller 827 n. 1 coni. Plat. (6 ) et (c),

acc. A. Brieger (H e r m e n 39 [1904], 198), Gigon 22, W alzer 87, Sncll
( H e r m e s 76 [1941], 86 η. 1 ), Verdenius ( P a r m e n id e s , Groning., 1942, 78),
Mazzantini 162, K irk 203, Vlastos ( A J P 76 [1955], 348) : όμολογέει
Hippol., Bywatcr, Biels, Praechter ( P h ilo l . 88 [1933], 343), Kranz, H.
F raen k d (D i c h t u n g 2 430), Ramnoux 237 2 παλίντονος Plut. 369 B ;
473 F (cod. B ) ; Porphyr, d e a n tr o 29; Brieger, Burnet 136 n. 4.
Walzer, Snell, Verdenius, Mazzantini, Fraenkel, K irk 214, E. Kurt/.
( I n t e r p r e t a t i o n e n z u d e n L o g o s - F r a g m e n te n H e r a k l i t s , Biss. Tubing., 1960,
129 s.) : παλίντροπος H ippol.; Plut. 473 F (codd. praet. B ) ; 1026 B ;
Bywater, Biels (conl. Parmenid. fr. 6,9), Wilamowitz (G r . L e s e b u c h II,
2, p. 129), Praechter, K ranz (cf. appar. ad loc.; BK« I, p. 493,19 et
I th . M u s . 101 [1958], 250 ss.), Vlastos, Ramnoux
(a) C Hippo!, refut. IX, 9,2 (p. 241,18 Wendland),

post, fr. 26 (50). xcd δτι τούτο οΰκ ΐσ α σ ι1 πά ντες ουδέ
όμολογοΰσιν, έπιμέμφ εται (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) <δδέ πω ς'
ού ξ υ ν ιδ σ ιν δκως διαφερόμενον
/έω υ τώ ι όμολογέει'2
παλίντροπος άρμονίη δκωσπερ

/ τ ό ξ ο υ καί λύρης.
seq. fi·. 1.
1 ού κείσσσι Ρ 2 ό μ ο λ ο γ έειν Ρ, corr. Miller : όμολογεΐ gv

ci. Biels, H .2 coni. (6)
119
GROUP SEVEN
F it. 28 (80); 29 (53); 30 (42); 31 (125)
This Group represents a logical continuation of

the idea of Tension (τό παλίντονον) contained in
fr. 27 (51). I t deals with the most important among
the conditions for the unity of opposites, which is
described as IFnr, Strife (and war-whirl or stirring).
Like Logos (cf. frr 1; 23 [2]), W ar is universal
(ξυνός), operating in all things and happenings
(γινόμ ενα π ά ντα κ α τ’ £piv) and, at the same time,
personified (cf. fr. 29 [53] with frr. 4 [72]; 8 [123];
14 [53] and 26 [50]). It is a necessity (τό χρ εώ ν),
and right or justice (δ(κη) as well.
The necessity of war is demonstrated by two exam
ples. The first one was taken from the social sphere
(fr. 29): without the war there would not exist the
distinction between free citizens and slaves; between
heroes and mortal men, etc.; and without such a diffe
rentiation no polis icould be possible. The second
illustration comes from every-day-life: ‘The barley-
drink disintegrates [i.c. into its tivo constituent
parts] if it is not stirred’ (fr. 31).
Polemos is not Logos (as Gigon 5 /. mistakenly
took it): as necessary a condition for the Logos as
it is, War-Strife plays only second fiddle in Hera
clitus’ doctrine on the Logos.
The emphasis made by Heraclitus on Polemos (of.
ξυνός etc.) can be explained- by two reasons:
(1) - By Heraclitus’ polemic with traditional opi
nions of the Epics: cf. πόλεμος πάντω ν μέν π α τή ρ
έστι, πάντω ν δέ βασιλεύς with Iliad I, 544; Hesiod
Erga 668; Theogony 468; 923; 886 etc.; £ρις with
Iliad X V III, 107; δίκη with Hesiod Erga 275 ff.'1»
Cf. also frr. 30 (42); 21 (56); 43 (57).m
(2) - B y Heraclitus’ aristocratic Ethics of tear:
cf. Group 22.(3) Hence πόλεμος fr. 29 might imply, at
the same time, άρετή or ‘personal valor’. Anyway,
War-Strife do.es not seem to be such a cogent reason
for the unity of opposites as are Tension of fr. 27 {51)
or some among the reasons stated in Groups 8-12.(4)
We are not entitled to identify War with Change
in Heraclitus; contra e.g. Kirk 241; 244; Kirk-Raven
195 “Strife or war is Heraclitus’ metaphor for the
dominance of change in the world”; Vlastos (A JP
76 [1955], 357): “that strife is universal follows from
the assumption that whatever exists is in change with
the added assumption that all change is strife”. Ob
viously the idea of change is absent in frr. 27 (51);
29 {53); 31 {125); and, on the other hand, xvhere
‘change’ (0) is operative as a reason for the unity of
opposites (Group 10), war is absent.
u> S o G ig o n 116; Μρις m ig h t he im p lie d hy βίη; aliter

K i r k 240.
<-> O n t h e o th e r h a n d , x d χρεών fr. 28 { 8 0 ) m i g h t h e a
te r m in o lo g ic a l b o r r o w in g f r o m A n a x i m a n d e r ’s fr. 1.
CD Frr. 94 { 1 1 9 ) ·, 95 ( 9 9 ); 96 ( 9 4 ) ; 97 (#5); 98 ( 4 9 ) ;
99 (20); 100 ( 3 9 ) ; 101 ( 1 0 4 ) .
T h e f a c t t h a t W a r i n fr. 29 ( S 3 ) p la y s t h e p a r t o f a
p r in c ip le o f differentiation, w h ile i n fr. 31 ( 1 9 5 ) i t
a p p e a r s a s a r e a s o n f o r unity, d o e s n o t s e e m t o b e
e n v is a g e d b y H e r a c litu s .
<■"') O r , b e t t e r , ‘c o n v e r t i b i li t y ’, ‘re c ip r o c a l s h i f t i n g ’ e tc .
131
28
(80 DK; 62 B)
(a) C Celsus ap. Origen, c. Cels. VI, 42 (II, p. 111,9

Koetschau) . . . φησί (sc. ό Κέλσος) θεΐόν τινα πόλεμον
αίνίττεσθαι τούς παλαιούς, Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν μέν λ έγο ν τα ώ δε'
ε ίδ έ < ν α ι> 1 χρή
τόν πόλεμον έόντα ξυνόν
καί δίκην έ ρ ιν 2
καί γινόμενα πάντα κατ’ εριν καί χρεώ ν 3
Φερεκύδην δέ. .. (seq. 7 Β 4 DK). Cf. VI, 43. (Schl. fr. 35).
1 ε16έ<ναι> Sclilcierm., acc. Bywator, Koetsehau, Walzer 115, Kirk 238 :

εΐ δέ A : εΙ< δέναι> δέ Diels, Kranz 2 έρεΐν A, corr. Schleiern».
3 χρεών Diels (J e n a e r L i t t . Z e i t u n g 1877, 394a coni, e ) , cf. Philodem.
(I>) : χρεώμενα A, E. Wolf (Gr. B c c h t s d e n k c n , I [1950], 254) :
καταχρεώμενα Schuster 199 : χωρεόμενα G. Gundermann (coni. Plat.
C r a t. 402 A), acc. Koetscliau : κρίνόμενσ ci. Byw. (coni. Philemon,
fr. 204 Kock χρόνωι τά πάντα γίγνετοίι καί κρίνεται) : χρεών μέτα
Β. Jordan ( A r c h i v f . G esch . d . P h ilo s . 24 [1911], 480), acc. Heidel 711 :
χρ εώ < ν κυβερνώ>μενα ci. Bignono ( F .m p e d o c lr 175)
(b) R Philodetn. de pietate 433 II “ R. Philippson (Her

mes 55 [1920], p. 254)
γίνεσθαι] κ α τ’ 1 ε-
ριν καί κατά] χρεώ ν
π ά ντα φ]ησ!ν Ή ρ [ά -
κλειτος, Μ ί]μνερ[μος
5 δέ π ά ντα δι]αφ ω νεΐν
ό δ’ Έ μ π ] ε δ ο κ λ ή [ ς ...
1 παρ' Diels
132
(c1) R (8 DK; 46 B) Aristot. cth. Nie. Θ 1, p. 1155 b 4
. . . και Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς *τό άντίξουν συμφέρον’ κ α ι 'έκ τω ν
δ ιαφε ράντων καλλίστην άρμονίαν’ (cf. fi*. 27 d1) καί
π ά ν τ α κ α τ ’ έ ρ ι ν γ ( ν ε σ θ α ι. [ = Heliodori paraph r.
ρ. 164,34 H eylbut].
(c2) R (A 22 DK; 43 B) eth. End. H 1, p. 1235 a 25

οί δέ τ ά 1 έναντία φ ίλα ' κ α ί 'Η ράκλειτος έ π ι τ ι μ δ ι
τώ ι ποιήσαντι *ώς έ ρ ι ς έκ τε θεών καί άνθρώ πω ν
άπόλοιτο’ (II. X V III, 1(Π)' ού γ ά ρ δ ν είναι άρμονίαν μή
οντος όξέος καί βαρέος, ούδέ τ ά ζώ ια άνευ θήλεος καί
ά ρρενος έναντίων δντων. (Schl. ρρ. 345 = 22 et 434 = 80 s.).
1 τ ά ora. Μ'ΊΉ!'
(o') R Plut. de Is. 370 D. post fr. 29 . . . κ α ί τόν μέν

"Ομηρον εύχόμενον 'έκ τε θεών έριν έκ τ ’ άνθρώ πω ν
άπολέσ θα ι’ λανθάνειν φησί (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) τηι πάντω ν
γενέσ ει καταρώ μενον, έκ μά χης καί ά ντιπ α θ εία ς την
γένεσιν έχόντων... seq. fr. 52 (94 DK). (Schl. ρ. 408 = 63 s.).
((.·') R Nunienius fr. 16 Thedinga = A 30 Leemans

(ap. Chaleid. in Tim. c. 297 AVrobcl). quod si mundus ex silva,
ceite j'aetus cst de existente olim natura maligna; proptereaque
Nunienius laudat Heraclitum reprehendentem Homerum, qui
optaverit interitum ac vastitatem malis vitae, quod non intelle-
geret mundum sibi deleri placere, siquidem silva, quae malorum
Ions est, cxterminarctur.
(c·’) K Schob A in 11. XVIII, 107 Dindorf 'Η ράκλειτος

τήν τών δντων φύσιν κ α τ ’ έ ρ ι ν σ υ ν ε σ τ ά ν α ι
νομίζω ν μέμφεται "Ομηρον, σύγχυσιν κόσμου δοκών
αύτόν εϋχεσθαι. Schob Τ ad loc· Maass Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς σύγ-
133
χυσιν αύτόν (sc. “Ομηρον) εϋχεσθαι απάντω ν φησίν"
κ α τά γ ά ρ έναντίωσιν τ ά π ά ντα συνέχεσθαι.1 (Eustath.
ad loc.) Cf. Anted. J. A. Cramer, III, p. 24 ώ ς έκ φιλονεικίας
τό π α ν σ ύγκεισ θαι καί σώ ζεσθαι έκεΐνον (sc. Η ρ ά κ λειτο ν)
δοξάζοντα.
1 συνέχεται Τ, corr. Wilam.
(c°) R Simplic. in categ. p. 412,22 Kalbfleisch ού συγ-

χωρήσουσι δέ δσοι τά ναντία ά ρ χ ά ς εθεντο, ο! τε ά λλοι
καί ο ί 1 Η ρ α κ λ είτειο ι- εί γ ά ρ τό έτερον των έναντίω ν
έπιλείψει,2 οίχοιτο ά ν 3 π ά ντα άφανισθέντα. διό καί μέμ-
φεται τώ ι Ό μ ή ρ ω ι 'Η ρά κ λειτος είπόντι ‘ώ ς έρ ις έκ τε
θεών έκ τ ’ άνθρώ πω ν ά πόλοιτο’- οίχήσεσθαι3 γ ά ρ φησι
πάντα. (Schl. ρ. 409 = 64).
1 öl Α cd. Vc«. : om. cctt. 2 JL : έ η ι λ ε ί ψ ο ι KA 3 Cf.

p. 94,13 K. τό μέν έν ύποκειμένωι ο t χ ε τ α ι, τό δέ καθόλου
σώιζεται.
(c7?) R Ps. Linus ap. Stob. I, 10,5 (I, ρ. 119 W.) ώς

κ α τ ’ έ ρ ι ν συνάπαντα κυβερναται διά παντός* (cf.
frr. 85 [41 DK] et 25 [10] b ) .
[Cf. (A 14a DK) Schol. in Nicand. alex. 172 et 174 (II.

Bianchi, Studi It. Filol. CI. 12 [1904], 345) δτι δέ δουλεύει
ή θ ά λασ σ α κ α ί τό πΟρ άνέμοις, κ α τά θειον νόμον (cf.
fr. 23 b) δηλονότι, τούτο δέ καί 'Η ρά κλειτος κ α ί Μενε-
κράτης ε ίρ η κ ε ν .. ,έκτίθεσ θα ι οδν βούλεται διά τούτων
καί Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς δτι π ά ν τ α έ ν α ν τ ί α ά λ λ ή λ. ο ι ς
έστί κ α τ’ αυτόν.]
(d ) R? Theophr. physic, opin. fr. 1 Diels (Box. 476)

ποιεί δέ (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) καί τά ξιν τινά κ α ί 1 χρόνον
134
ώρισμένον τής του κόσμου μεταβολής κ α τ ά τινα
ειμαρμένην άνάγκην.2 (Schl. ρ. 427 = 76).
1 καί Aid. F : παρά Ε : περί- BD 2 άνάγκην del. ut gloss. Usenet·
Diog. Laert. IX, 8 γίνεσ θα ί τε π ά ντα κ α τ’ εναντιό

τη τα . .. γενννασθαί τε αύτόν (sc. τον κόσμον) έκ πυρός
καί π ά λιν έκπυροΟσθαι κ α τά τινα ς περιόδους εναλλάξ
τόν σύμπαντα α ιώ να ' τούτο δέ γίνεσ θα ί κ α θ’ ε ι μ α ρ
μ έ ν η ν . τών δέ έναντίων τό μεν έπί τήν γένεσιν ά γον
καλεΐσθαι π ό λ ε μ ο ν καί ’έ ρ ι ν, τό δ ’ έπί τήν
έκπύρωσιν όμ ολογία ν καί ε ι ρ ή ν η ν . ; (7) π ά ν τ α δ έ 1
γίνεσθαί καθ’ ειμαρμένην καί διά τή ς έναν-
τιο τ ρ ο π ή ς2 ήρμόσθαι τά όντα. (Schl. ρ. 423 = 73).
1 δέ 15 : τε P 'F : del. Ρ-· 2 codd. [Cf. 0. Bitter, P h i l o l 73

[1914-16], 240] : έναντιοδρομίας ei. Diels ( V S * , eonl. Aet. I, 7, 22),
nee. H. S. Long : έναντιοτροπίας ei. Kranz
( d l ) R? (A 8 et B 137 DK; 63 B) Aet. I, 27,1 (Dox.

322) Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς π ά ν τ α [δέ] 1 κ α θ ’ ε ι μ α ρ μ έ
ν η ν , τήν δ’ αυτήν ύπ ά ρ χειν ά ν ά γ κ η ν '2 γ ρ ά φ ει γοΰν'
£στι γ ά ρ ε ί μ α ρ μ έ ν α 1 π ά ν τ ω ς . . .
(Schl. ρ. 426 = 75).
ί, 28,1 (Dox. 323) 'Η ράκλειτος ουσίαν ειμαρμένης άπε-

φαίνετο λ ό γο ν τόν δ ιά ο υ σ ία ς 4 τοΟ πα ντός διήκοντα. ..
(Schl. ρ. 424 = 74).
I, 7,22 (Dox. 303) Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ο ς .. .ειμαρμένην δέ λόγον
έκ τής έναντιοδρομίας δημιουργόν τώ ν δντων.
(Schl. ρ. 4^3 = 73).
1 δέ Stob. I, 5, IS, om. Ps. Plut. 2 καί άν. Ps. Plut. 3 F :

ειμαρμένη Ρ 4 της ούσίας Ps· Pint·) ούσίας < τ ή ς > Byw.
135
(e) R? Plut. de soll. anim. 964 D έπεί τό γ ε μή παν-
τά π α σ ι καθαρεύειν ά δ ικ ία ς τόν άνθρω πον οϋτω τ ά ζώ ια
μεταχειριζόμενον Ε μ π εδ ο κ λ ή ς καί Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς ώ ς α λη
θές προσδέχονται, π ο λ λ ά κ ις όδυρόμενοι καί λοιδοροϋν-
τες τήν φύσιν ώ ς ά ν ά y κ η ν κ α ι π ό λ ε μ ο ν οδσαν,
ά μ ιγ έ ς δέ μηδέν μηδ' ειλικρ ινές έχουσαν ά λ λ ά διά π ο λ
λώ ν κ ά δ ίκ ω ν 1 πα θώ ν περαινομένην.
1 καί δικαίων eodd., corr. Leonicus
136
28 (80)
One must know

that- war is common
and strife is justice
and that all things come to pass by strife and necessity.
*
The word χ p ή seems to be typical of Heraclitus- radical

enlightenment (cf. frr. 102 [-13 D K ]; 103 [44 D K ]; 7 [35]?;
23 [114 + 2]); I think it was one of the reasons for Diogenes
Laertius (IX, 1) to see a μεγαλόφ ρω ν καί ύπερόπτης in
Heraclitus as well. Now, χρή here might depend upon a
certain archaic manner (cf. e. g. Parmenides frr. 1, 28; 6, 1);
it can also imply ‘praktische Anweisung' (so Gigon 116: “Das
Folgende ist die Wahrheit, die die Menschen keimen müssen,
um klug zu s e i n . or even depend on the objective necessity
expressed by χρεώ ν (so Kirk 241; Kirk-Raven 195 ‘It is neces
sary to know’) . Nevertheless I would rather think that είδέναι
χρή here is due to Heraclitus’ polemic with Homer (Iliad
X V III, 197, quoted by Aristotle, testimonium c") and with
Hesiod (Erga 275 ff., cf. Gigon 1. e.). Anyway, this polemic
in fr. 29 (53) is evident. Thus this ε ί δ έ ν α ι χ ρ ή might
imply some rectification: ‘The traditional opinion is wrong:
the truth is t h a t ... ’ (1)
Probably in accordance with this polemic tone the saying
does not seem to be a ‘homogeneous’ and ‘carefully balanced"
statement, as Kirk 242 believed giving the following scheme
of the fragment:
a b c
‘War - strife is everywhere, normal - course - of - events
a b a
is war - strife, everywhere things happen by war - strife
c
and normal - course - of - events.’
137
To my Wily of t h i n k i n g , t h e J T a g m e n t . r a t h e r looks l i k e a s p o a -
tnneous declaration (cf. κ α ι . . . κ α ί ... κ α ί). But if t h e r e is
some intentional balance in it, the chiastic structure <2) m i g h t
be more likely:
a b b a b a
π ό λ εμ ο ς = ξυνός : δίκη = ε ρ ις : π ά ν τ α — κ α τ ’ £ριν
Possibly έρις, and not δίκη, is the subject in line 3:

cf. fr. 26 (50) i v π ά ντα and e.g . frr. 13 (107); 34 (103);
41 (88); 49 (21); 51 (30 D K ); 54 (90 D K ); 56b (84b D K );
67 ( 45 DK); 85 (41 D K ); 95 (29 D K ); 96 (24 D K ); 104
(33 DK). So Burnet 137 'strife is justice’ [cf. Kirk 401;
Vlastos 457]; Nestle fr. 61; Ramnoux 465.
χρεών seems to be either an ‘afterthought’ or the

effect of the mentioned 'spontaneity’ of the statement; this
word can hardly correspond with δίκη implying ‘normal course
of events’, as Kirk took it.
The presence of δ ί κ η here probably is due to the

polemic with Hesiod 1. c. [cf. Iliad XVI, 387 f.; Odyssey XIV,
83 f.J; the word means ‘right’, ‘justice’ (LSJ, II, 1), as in
fr. 45 (23) (cf. also frr. 52 [94 DK] and 19 [58b] ). Kirk’s
interpretation (pp. 127 f .; 242; 401; Kirk-Raven 195): ‘the
right way’; ‘the normal course of events’; "the ‘indicated way’
(from the same root as δείκνυμι), or the normal rule of beha
viour” seems to me vague and unlikely here.
According to Kirk (p. 128 ‘may be’; 240 ‘it is possible’;

Kirk-Raven 119 ‘seems’; 195 ‘Ibis must be’; Kirk 401 ‘almost
certainly a criticism of Anaximander’s metaphor’) and Vlastos
351 ff., this saying would be a deliberate amendment of Anaxi
mander’s fr. 1 ( . . . κ α τά τό χρ εώ ν’ διδόναι γ ά ρ α ύτά
δίκην καί τίσιν ά λλή λοις της ά δ ικ ία ς κ α τά τήν τού
χρόνου τ ά ξ ιν ) . This seems to me unlikely: there is nothing
138
in Anaximander's dictum tlmt Heraclitus would have attacked.
Namely, 1 understand this dark dictum <3) as follows. 'In
Nature no more than 50% of the substance must belong to
the Hot (Dry) principle, apd no more than 50% to the Cold
(Wet) one. The injustice of the Hot consists in its encroach
ment or prevalence at the expense of the Cold during the
summer (this encroachment being manifested in excessive heat
and drought): for example, the Hot takes 70% of the total
substance for itself. Now, the just penalty, satisfaction or
retribution consists in the Hot giving back to the Cold its
20% and, in addition, in paying some ‘amends' (say, another
20%) from its own property [how much and ivhen it is to be
paid, depends on ‘the assessment of Time’, cf. Kirk-Ravon 120],
Consequently, next summer the Hot would possess only 30%
of its original property, should not the Cold, during the
winter, on its own part commit a similar encroachment or
injustice on the former aggressor (this encroachment being
manifested in excessive cold and ra in ).’ To my way of thinking,
Anaximander docs not deal here with the regular change
Summer ^ Winter, each one of them operating only with
50% of the hot or cold substance respectively: he is interested
only in their encroachment or άδικία. Time here, like Dike in
Heraclitus’ fr. 52 (94 DK) and elsewhere, is intrusted to watch
over this equality and justice in natural processes. Both Anaxi
mander and Heraclitus believed in the necessity of some equa
lity and balance in Nature (τό χ ρ ε ώ ν ).
Kirk 240 expressed the opposition between Anaximander's

saying and Heraclitus’ fr. 28 (80) in these terms. According
to Anaximander “change between opposites involves a kind
of injustice: on the contrary, he [i.e. Heraclitus] held that
strife between opposites was ‘the right way’, normal and just."
To such a supposed opposition it can be objected: neither in
Anaximander’s fr. 1 nor in this fr. 28 change between opposites
seems to be involved, ερ ις might imply either concrete hosti
lity between two adversaries (cf. Polemos fr. 29 [53] and
Iliad X V III, 107), or tension expressed in fr. 27 (51), or else
interaction between two opposites (cf. fr. 31 [125] and Kirk
139
241) — one cannot be absolutely sure: but anyway the idea
of change is absent here. Nor does Anaximander’s dictum
imply ‘strife’, but clearly ‘encroachment on other's property’
or pleonexy (cf. -Jaeger, Theology 35, and, in some measure,
C. H. Kahn, Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmo
logy, Columbia University Press, 1960, 178 f.). Evidently
such an encroachment or ά δ ικ ία could hardly be a δίκη for
Heraclitus. Consequently, a criticism of Anaximander is not
likely in Heraclitus’ fr. 28.<4)
Ad (c’"®). This group of testimonia has small evidential

value for Heraclitus; I think it is reducible to this saying.
I t was overestimated by Sehleiermacher, Bywater (fr. 43),
Zeller 824 n. (“οίχήσεσθαι γ ά ρ φησι πάντα, vielleicht Worte
der heraklitischen Schrift”), Burnet 136 n. 3 (“I t must re
present something that was in the original1’), Diels (A 22),
Kranz (Hermes 69 [1934], 116), Guthrie 447 and cspecially
by Kirk 242 f., Kirk-Ravcn p. 196 and nr. 216 (“this important
saying” ; “ . . . the world as such would be destroyed”). Namely:
(1) - All three Aristotelic passages with the ά π ορ ία ι
περί φ ιλία ς {ΕΝ, 1155 a 32 ff.; EE, 1235 a 4 ff.; MM, 1208
b 7 ff.) have a source common also to Plato Lysis 214 A - 216
A .<IS) Besides, as already suggested ad fr. 27 (51), it is highly
probable that both passages E E ( = c1 2) ού γ ά ρ άν είναι
άρμονίαν μή δντος όξέος κ α ί β α ρ έο ς. . . έναντίων δντων
and ΕΝ { = c1) έκ τω ν διαφερόντω ν (sc. τόνων) καλλίστην
άρμονίαν come from Plato tiymp. 187 A |cf. Laches 188 l)|.
(2) · Now, in the words of ΕΝ πά ντα κ α τ’ έριν γίνεσ θα ι
Aristotle just paraphrases by memory this fragment 28 {80).
But in the E E passage he attempts some sort of commentary
on the same fragment: καί Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς έπιτιμ α ι τώ ι ποιή-
140
σαντι Iliad X V III, 107. No new material from Heraclitus
himself is present here. As for the words of E E ουδέ τά
ζω ια (sc. Sv είναι) άνευ θήλεος και ά ρρενος έναντίων
οντων, they arc another explanation by Aristotle: ef. \de
mundo] 5, p. 396 b 9 ff. (quoted ad fr. 25 [10]).
(3) - Plutarch ( = cs) is probably depending on Aristotle
EE: his words τήι πάντω ν γενέσει καταρώ μενον come from
ού γ ά ρ Sv εΐναι. .. τά ζ ω ια ; as for the idea έκ μάχης καί
ά ντιπ α θ εία ς τήν γένεσ ιν έχόντων, this is an explanation of
Plutarch’s own: ef. de soil. anim. 964 E δπου κα'ι τήν γένεσιν
αύτήν έξ ά δ ικ ία ς συντυγχάνειν λέγουσ ι (sc. Ε μ π εδ ο κ λ ή ς
καί Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς), τώ ι θνητώι συνερχομένου του άθανάτου
κτλ.
(4) - Further, Numenius ( = c4) and Scholia AT ( = cr‘)
depend on Plutarch: optaverit and εϋχεσθαι come from Plu
tarch’s εύχόμενον; mundum deleri and σόγχυσιν κόσμου (or
άπάντω ν) come from τήι πάντω ν γενέσει καταρώμενον, and
quod non intellegeret from λανθάνειν. 5
(5) - Finally, Simplicius ( = c") combines the EE topic
with the Peripatetic rafters-simile:
Simplic. in cat. p. 412, 23 Philopon. in cat. ρ. 104, 34

Kalbfl. ε! γ ά ρ τό έτερον Busse ά πεικά ζουσ ι δέ α ύτά
τω ν έναντίων έπιλείψει, (se. τά πρ ός τι) καί τοίς
οϊχοιτο Sv π ά ν τ α άντερείδουσιν ά λ λ η λ α ξύ-
ά φ α ν ι σ θ έ ν τ α . διό κα'ι λοις" τούτων γ ά ρ τού έτέ-
μέμφεται τώ ι Ό μ ή ρ ω ι Η ρου ά ναιρεθέντος ο ύ κ
ρ ά κλειτος ε ίπ ό ν τ ι... ο ί έ σ τ α ι τ ό λοιπόν.
χ ήσ εσ θα ι γ ά ρ φησι Alexander np. Eliam in cut.
π ά ντα . ρ. 242, 14 Busse . . .άντικεί-
μενα- δ ς (sc. ’Α λέξανδρος)
καί τά λαβδοειδή ξύλα π α
ρ ά δ ειγμ α λαμβάνει, ά τι να
μετά άντιθέσεώ ς τίνος
σώιζει ά λ λ η λ α . (0)
141
Simplicius' evidence is highly misleading. He changed
the Aristotelic terminology: ά ναιρεθέντος into εί έπιλείψει;
ούκ έσ ται into οΐχήσεσθαι. . . άφανισθέντα, and (what is
worse) τό λοιπόν (cf. categ. 11, p. 14 a 7) into π ά ντα (under
the influence of the topic σ ύγχυσ ις κ όσ μ ου). For Simplicius
έρ ις was only the άντίθεσις or άντέρεισις of the relatives,
and φησι = ‘he means’ (and not ‘he expressly says').
Consequently, no new material from Heraclitus is contained
in testimonia (cun) .
As for testimonium (d), I would suppose that the words
π ά ντα δέ γίνεσ θα ι κ α θ’ ειμαρμένην come from this fr. 28
(80) γινόμ ενα π ά ντα κ α τ ά ... χ ρ εώ ν : cf. perhaps testi
monium (e) ώ ς ά νά γκ η ν κ α ί πόλεμον. Aliter Gigon 83;
81, and Kirk 303 ff.*23
<n Cf. perhaps Plato L a w s 625 E <5 v ο ι α v δή μοι δοκεΐ κατα-

γνώ ναι τ ω ν π ο λ λ ώ ν ώς ο ύ μανθανόντων δτι
πόλεμος ά ε ΐ π δσ ι διά βίου ξυνεχής έστι πρός άπάσσς
τά ς π ό λ ε ι ς ; 626 Α.
(2) Cf. the structure of fr. 48 ( Ϊ Β ) and Gigon 1. c. The chiasm we find
also in frr. 1; 23 ( 1 1 4 ) ; 50 ( 1 5 ) ; 77 (67 D K ) ; 97 (25 D K ).
(3) “ . . . according to necessity; for they pay penalty and retribution
to each other for their injustice according to the assessment of Time'’
(Kirk-Raven nr. 112).
(-0 Some other unlikely interpretations of fr. 28 ( 8 0 ): Vlastos, C P 42
(1947), 164: " . . . the ‘strife’ of Becoming is justice for Heraclitus” ;
“ ‘strife’ is justice because, through the very conflict of the opposites,
the measure will be kept.” — E. Wolf, Gr. B c c h ts d c n k c n , I, 1950,
248-54 [too modern, existentialist an interpretation). H. Frankel,
D ic h tu n g 2 , 429: d ik e = ‘Prozess’; ‘Rechtsstreit’ (“Die Rechtsordnung
verlöre ihren Sinn und ihre Punktion, wenn sic nicht einem Chaos
widerstreitender Interessen entgegenwirkte”) [too narrow, refuted
already by the words Kod γινόμενα πάντα κ α τ’ £ριν καί χρεώ ν],
(s) “Mündliche Diskussionen” according to Fr. Dirlmeier, A r is to te le s
W e r k e d e u tsch , VI, 511 (cf. 523 f . ) ; VII, 370; V III, 435 f.
io Cf. also Chrysipp. ap. Gell. V II, 1,2 ( = S V F , I I nr. 1169; quoted
ad fr. 45 [iS]) e t q u a si m u tu o ad verso quaeque f u l t a n isu c o n sisterc,
and K. Praechter, P h ilo l. 99 (1933), 342 ff.
142
29
(53 DK; 44 B)
/
(α) C Hippol. ref. IX, 9,4 (p. 242,5 Wendl.). post

fr. 93 (52 D K ), δτι δέ έστιν ό πα τή ρ πάντω ν τω ν γ ε γ ο
νότων γ ε ν η τ ό ς 1 ά γένητος, κτίσις δημιουργός, έκείνου
(sc. Η ρ α κ λείτο υ ) λέγο ντο ς άκούομεν-
π ό λ εμ ο ς
π ά ντω ν μέν π α τή ρ έσ τι, π ά ντω ν δέ β α σ ιλ εύ ς,
κ α ι το ύ ς μέν θ εούς έδ ειξ ε το ύ ς δέ ά νθρ ώ πους,
το ύ ς μέν δ ο ύ λ ο υ ς έποίησε το ύ ς δέ έλευθέρ ους.
seq. ίΐ'. 27 (.77).*(&
)
1 γενητών Ρ, corr. Bornays
(&) R Plut. de Is. 370 D Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς μέν γ ά ρ άντι-

κρυς π ό λ ε μ ο ν όνομάζει π α τ έ ρ α καί βασι
λέα καί κύριον π ά ν τ ω ν . . . seq. frr. 28 (c3) et 52
(a1) [94 DK]. (Schl. p. 408 = 63 s.).
(c) R Procl. in Tim., I p. 174,20 Diehl . . .έ ν έξ α π ά ν

τω ν άν λά β οις τούτων, δτι π ά σ α ή του κόσμου σύστασις
έκ τή ς έναντιώ σεω ς συνήρμοσται ταύτης. καί εΐ δ γ ε ν
να ίος Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς εις ταύτην ά πιδώ ν έλ εγε π ό λ ε μ ο ς
π α τ ή ρ π ά ν τ ω ν , ούδ* οΰτος ά τόπω ς Μλεγεν.
(Schl. ρ. 409 = 64).
ρ. 76,20 πόλεμον γ ά ρ είναι τόν πάντω ν π α τέρ α καί
κ α τά τόν Η ρά κ λειτον.
(c1?) R Marsil. Ficin. in Plat. Tim. II, p. 1439 ed.

Basil. 1576. bellum enim, id est oppositionem, apud Hera-
clitum esse omnium patrem.
143
(d) It Lucian, quomodo hist, conscrib. 2 ...κ α ί, ώ ς
έοικεν, Αληθής öcp’ ήν έκεΐνο τό π ό λ ε μ ο ς Α π ά ν
τ ω ν π α τ ή ρ , εΐ γ ε κ α ί σ υ γγ ρ α φ έα ς τοσούτους άνέ-
φυσεν (sc. πόλεμος) ύπό μ ιδ ι τηι όρμήι.
(ιί1) R I car omen. 8 (sub fin.) έτερος δέ τις ούκ

ειρηνικός άνήρ πόλεμον τω ν δλω ν π α τέρ α είναι έδόξαζε.
(e) It Chrysipp. up. Pliilodcm. de pietate c. 14, p. 81,21

Gomperz [ = Dox. 548b; SV F II nr. 636] έν δέ τώ ι τρίτω ι
(sc. π. φύσεως) τό (ν ) κ (ό σ )μ ο ν έ'να των φ (ρ ο ) ν ίμ (ω ) ν,
συνπολειτευόμενον θεοΐς κ α ί άνθρώποις, καί τ ό ν π ό
λ ε μ (ο ν ) κ α ί τ ό ν Δ ί α τ ο ν α ( ύ ) τ ό ν ε ί ν α ι ,
κ α θ ά π (ε )ρ καί τόν Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν λέγειν.
144
29 (53)
War
is father of all (beings) and king of all,
and so he, renders some gods, others men,
he makes some slaves, others free.
The saying has a strong bipartite structure (cf. three

times μέν .. .δ έ ).π) Line 2 is meant as an assertion of general
validity, and lines 3-4 play the part of some illustrations of
this assertion (κ α ί is consecutive = ώστε) .<2) π α τ ή ρ
(implying ‘the cause’) might correspond with γ ι ν ό μ ε ν α
π ά ντα κ α τ’ Ιρ ιν of fr. 28 (80), and βασιλεύς (implying
“the supreme principle’) reminds us of ξυνός ibidem.
The usurpation of Zeus’ throne by the newcomer Polemos
(pointed out already, by Chrysippus, testimonium e) was not
meant seriously by Heraclitus: rather some polemic parody is
implied (‘W ar might well be called Zeus’) . More serious is
that usurpation by the new god Fire contained in frr. 84
(32 DK); 79 (64 D K ); 80 (11 D K ).
Now, the equation Polemos = Zeus does not seem to be
carried out by means of the principle pars pro toto (as is the
case in frr. 79 [64 DK] and 80 [11 DK], with κεραυνός
and π λ η γ ή ); contra Kirk 246 ‘Heraclitus elevates this func
tion fi.e. ‘ultimate control over the Trojan battlefield’] to
the supreme one, to the neglect of the other activities of Zeus.”
Heraclitus rather substitutes the traditional Zeus by his own
new principle Polemos. We have a similar case of substitution
of Zeus in Pindar’s fr. 169 Sehr. = 152 Bowra* (quoted by
Gigon 119) νόμος ό πάντω ν βασιλεύς / θνατώ ν τε καί
άθανάτω ν. Thus wo have to do here with “die bewusste
145
Verdrängung des Zeus durch das eigene erkannte Weltprinzip”
(Gigon).
π ά ν τ ω ν is dearly masculine [άνδρώ ν τε θεών τε
should be understood], as it becomes clear from lines 3-4
(correctly Gigon and Kirk, against the usual rendering ‘aller
Dinge’ by Zeller 823; DK; Walzer 90 et al.). Consequently,
the sphere is rather social than natural (physical). The
division of the world into gods and men, into free men and
slaves etc., according to Greek ideas, was ‘the foundation
of all order’ (Jaeger, Theology 118). We find the same
division, for example, in Diogenes Laertius V III, 34 μή y a p
δεΐν τά α υτά τετά χθ α ι θεοΐς καί άνθρώ ποις, ώ σπερ ούδ’
έλευθέροις καί δούλοις.
Obviously other social categories are also possible as the
effect of war (for example, the division into rich and poor,
cf. Tyrt. fr. 6,4 ff. D.). Thus the universality of Polemos
might well be thought of as follows:
ΐάντες
_____________________ I _______________________
4. 4. 4- I I
θεο[ ελεύθεροι < π λούσ ιοι
άνθρω ποι δούλοι π τω χ ο ί> pq xy
contra Gigon 119 (accepted by Kirk 247 f .; liamnoux 414):
πά ντες
__________ I ___________
4 Ί-
θεοί άνθρω ποι
I
4· I
έλεύθεροι δούλοι
146
έ σ τ i is atemporal; accordingly έ π ο ( η σ ε is gnomic
(as in fr. 44 [111]), because “the making of slaves and free men
goes on all the time” (correctly Kirk 246). Consequently, also
έ δ ε ι ξ ε must have a continuous, present sense (Kirk 1. c.;
131). As for the meaning, δείκνυμι [cf. LSJ, I, 1] = άπο-
δείκνυμι [cf. LSJ, II, 2], ‘make’, ‘render’ (correctly Burnet
136; Jaeger 1. c.; ‘reddere’ Kranz, Index) = ποιεΐν (with
two accusatives); cf. Menander fr. 83 Kock τυφλούς < τ ο ύ ς >
έμβλέποντας. . .δεικνύει; Aristophan. Frogs 1010 f. πεποίη-
κα ς = ά πέδειξα ς. Aliter Kirk 247 and n. 1 ‘shows’, ‘reveals’;
Guthrie 446; unlikely Ramnoux 108 “La Guerre fait des
esclaves. Elle force les dieux ä se reveler”; 414 “Polemos est
done responsable du fait que les dieux se montrent”·, and
Frankel, Wege1, 270 ‘ernennen’; Dichtung*, 428 ‘bestimmen’.
The θ ε ο ί are ά θάνατοι of fr. 47 {62) or άρηίφατοι

of IT. 96 (24 DK), i.e. ‘those who have fallen in war and thus
become heroes’: cf., for example, Pind. N. 3,22 ί^ρως θεός
(and perhaps Heraclitus’ fr. 86 [5 DK] sub fin .) . The passage
was correctly interpreted by Gigon 1. c.: “Die Lebenden bleiben
Menschen, die Gefallenen werden alle zu Göttern erhoben”
(adopted by Jaeger 1. c., and by K. Deichgräber, Der listen-
sinnende Trug des Gottes, Göttingen, 1952, 68); but the refe
rence to Hesiod Erga 157 ff. is of no use here, since it contra
dicts the gnomic aorist έδειξε (corectly Kirk 247 ‘does not
bear examination’) .
Kirk’s own interpretation, A JP 70 (1949), 384 ff.; Hera
clitus 247 ff., which operates with the spurious fr. [136]
DK = nr. 240 Kirk-Raven, seems very unlikely to me; it reads:
“The reason must be that the former [i.e. souls of those
slain in battle] arc fiery, the latter [i.e. souls of those who
arc wasted away by illness] watery”; “This Logos, in its
material aspect, must be a kind of fire”; “ ‘men’ would be
those who were found to be mortal in that their souls were
destroyed by ceasing to be fire and becoming water”. Cer
tainly the idea of Fire is absent in this fr. 29 (55). I guess
that War, which makes some men into gods and others into
147
mortals, might imply the personal άρετή of the άριστοι
fr. 95 (29 D K ). Fränkel’s interpretation (Wege*2, 270) ope
rating with the mathematical proportion a : b :: b : e (‘die
Götter’ : ‘die Menschen’ : : ‘die Menschen’ : ‘die Sklaven’)
is evidently far-fetched.
Summing up, the saying might imply: (1) a social illu

stration of the universality of Polemos expressed in fr. 28 (80)
(cf. also Kirk 249 at the end); (2) a continuation of the
polemic with Homer and the traditional opinion, implied
also by fr. 28 (50); (3) the idea that the necessary differen
tiation of Polis is possible only thanks to War; (4) some
glorification of the personal valor manifested in war (if the
condition of ‘gods’ is preferable to that of ‘mortals’, in view
of frr. 95 [29 D K ]; 96 [24 D K ]; 97 [25 D K ]). Points (3)
and (4) do not fit well into Heraclitus’ doctrine on the Logos
(coincidentia oppositorum) .
(') The reading of W. Weber, D e r P r o p h e t u n d s e in G o tt (eine Studie

zur vierten Eklogc Vcrgils), Beihefte zum ‘Alten Orient’, 3, Leipzig,
1925, 102 n. 1: βασιλεύς, < πάντων δέ κύριος> [taken from
te s ti m o n i u m 6], “aas der Vorstellung vom persischen Grosskönig
genommen”, is not likely nt all: κύριος (although possible, cf.
Find. /. 5,53 Ζεύς δ πάντων κύριος) is not probable here because
• of the mentioned bipartite structure of the fragment and because
it is missing in the Epic vocabulary (alluded to by Heraclitus).
(2) As for the a llite r a tio n p - : p - m - p - : p - d - b ·, ef. frr. 93 (52 DK)
p - p - p -; 80 (11 DK) p - -p- p - : 82 (CO DK) p - p - -p- : k - k - k-
nnd fr. 1 ( I ).
The scheme of the structure of the fragment given by (ligon
119 seems possible:
P o le m o s
a b — a b
e„ d c ,.
148
IJut the chiasm c, c„ : o, e l does not seem to be intended:
line 4 begins with δούλους because it is the s h o r te r word. In view
of the difference between the u n iv e r s a lity of the statement in
line 2, and the e x a m p le s in lines 3-4, thought of as numberless, the
scheme might rather look as follows:
P o le m o s :
A IS, A />'
■I ____________
4 4 4 4 ■ 4*
ni ha- a3 6 a* < o 3 6 a°> < a 7 b αβ> < 0 *-! b a x>
140
following evidence: Herodot. I, 92,3 έ Τι t κνάφου έ λ κ ω ν
διέφθειρε ( = a cylinder or torture-wheel with spikes); Tim.
Lex. (Hermann, Plato, VI, p. 403) κνάφος δργα νόν t i [8v]
έ v κ ύ κ λ ο ι κέντρα έχον δ ι’ οδ τούς βασανιζομένους
κτείνουσιν, δμοιον δέ έστι κναφικω ι κτένι [ — S uda];
Hesych. s. έπι κνάψου έλκω ν' δ ια φ θ ε ίρ ω ν .. ,ό οδν Κροΐσος
τόν έχθρόν π ε ρ ιέ ξ α < ι> ν ε τα ΐς ά κ ά νθα ις καί οδτω ς έφθει-
ρεν; s. κνάφου δίκην' δταν έ ν κ ύ κ λ ω ι οί κναφεΐς
περιέλκουσι τά ίμ ά τια π ερ ί τόν λεγόμ ενον κνάφον.'“’
ί1) Cf. Μ. Marcovich, A n u a r io d e F ilo lo g U i (Universidad del Zulia,

Venezuela), 2-3 (1963-64), 347-364.
<2> As for the plural form γνάψων, cf. perhaps Hesych. s. κνάφοι'
άκανθαι αίς κνάπτεται τά Ιμάτια.
164
33
(60 DK; 69 B)
(a) C Hippol. ref. IX, 10,4 (p. 243, 11 Wendl.). post

fr. 32 (59). καί τό άνω καί τό κάτω äv έστι καί τό αύτό-
όδός άνω κάτω μία καί ώυτή.

scHi. fr. 35 (61).
(b) R Tertull. adv. Marcionem II, 28,1 Kroymann. nunc

et de pusillitatibus et malignitatibus ceterisquc notis et ipse
adversus Marcionem antithesis aemulas faciam. si ignoravit
deus meus esse alium super se, etiam tuus omnino non sciit
esse alium infra se. q u id 1 enim ait Heraclitus ille tenebrosus?
cadem via sursum et deorsum. (Schl. p. 383 — 47).
1 quod MR
(c) R Hippocr. de nuirim. 45 (CMG I, 1 p. 84 Heiberg)

όδός άνω κάτω μία.1 (cf. 18 φαρμακείη άνω κ α ί κάτω,
ούτε άνω οίίτε κ ά τω ). (Schl. fr. 28).
1 μία om. A
(d) R Diog. Laert. IX, 8-9 . . . κ α ί την μεταβολήν

οδόν άνω κ ά τ ω , τόν τε κόσμον γίνεσ θα ι κ α τ’
αύτήν.’ (9) πυκνούμενον γ ά ρ τό πυρ έξυγραίνεσ θαι
συνιστάμενόν τε γίνεσ θα ι ύδωρ, πηγνύμενον δέ τό ϋδωρ
εις γη ν τρέπεσ θα ι' καί ταύτην όδόν έπί τό κάτω εΤναι.-
πά λιν τε αδ τήν 3 γη ν χεΐσθαι, έξ ή ς τό ϋδω ρ γίνεσθαι,
έκ δέ τούτου τά λοιπά, σχεδόν πά ντα έπί τήν άναθυ-
165
μίασιν ά νά γω ν4 την άπό τή ς θα λάττη ς' αΐίτη δέ έστιν
ή έπΐ τό άνω όδός. Cf. fr. 53 (31 D K ).
Cf. fr. 40 (12) (d2) .
1 κατά ταύτην F 2 είναι BP : είναι λέγει F 3 αδ τήν

Zeller 848 n. 3, Byw., Beiske : αύτήν B, αυτήν τήν PF, Hesycli.
Mil. 4 ef. Aristot. d e a n im a A 2, p. 405 a 25 et G. Kirk 328
(d1) R Cic. de nat. deor. II, 84. et cum quattuor

genera sint corporum, vicissitudine corum mundi eontinuata
natura est. nam ex terra aqua, ex aqua oritur aer, ex aere
aether, deinde retrorsum vicissim ex aethere aer, inde aqua,
ex aqua terra infima. sic naturis iis1 ex quibus omnia constant
sursus deorsus, ultro citro eommeantibus mundi partium
coniunctio continetur.
Cf. III, 31; Plin. nat. hist. II, 104 ultro citro commeante
natura. Cf. fr. 66 (36 D K ).
1 iis HF2 : hiis BF1, his M, is N
(cP) R Philo de aet. mundi 109 (VI, p. 106 Cohn)

κ α θά περ γ ά ρ α ί έτήσιοι ώ ρα ι κύκλον ά μ εφ ουσ ιν άλλή-
λ α ς ά ντιπα ρα δεχόμ ενα ι προς τά ς ένιαυτώ ν ούδέποτε
ληγόντω ν περιόδους, [εΙς]1 τόν σύτόν τρόπον [τίθησ ι]5
καί τ ά σ τοιχεία του κόσμου τα ΐς εις ά λλη λα μεταβολαΐς,
τό παραδοξότατον, θνήισκειν δοκοΰντα ά θ α ν α τίζετα ι3
δολιχεύοντα άεΐ καί τ ή ν α ύ τ ή ν ό δ ό ν ά ν ω κ α ί
κ ά τ ω συνεχώ ς άμείβοντα. (110) ή μέν οδν προσάντης
όδός άπό γ η ς ά ρ χ ε τ α ι... Cf. fr. 66 (36 D K ).
1 seel. Cohn : άεί Biels, Cumont 2 seel. Cohn : τίθεσο ci.Mangey :

φηοΐ Bernays : τιθεϊσαι Buecheler : περιθέουσι oi. Diels, περιθέει
Cuihont 3 άπαθανατίζεται L, Turneb., Reinhardt (H e r r n . 77, p. 17)
166
(d3) B Epictet. fr. 8 (p. 460 Schenkl) = Muson. Buf.
fr. 42 Hense ...α ύ τ ά τ ά τέττσ ρ α σ τοιχεία ά ν ω καί
κ ά τ ω τρ έπ ετα ι καί μεταβάλλει, καί*>/ή τε ϋδω ρ γ ίν ε
τα ι καί ΰδωρ άήρ, οδτος^δέ πά λιν είς α ιθέρ α μεταβάλλει,
καί 6 αύτός τρόπος τής μεταβολής άνω θεν κάτω . Cf. *
fr. 66. (Bernays, Ges. Abh., I, 2 n. 1).
(d4) R Max. Tyr. 41, 4 i όρ ά ις οδν τά πάθη, & σύ

μέν καλεΐς φθοράν τεκμαιρόμενος τήι τω ν άπιόντων
όδώι, έγώ δέ σωτηρίαν τεκμαιρόμενος τήι διαδοχήι των
μελλόντων, μεταβολήν όρα ις σω μάτω ν καί γενέσ εω ς,1
ά λ λ α γή ν ό δ ώ ν ά ν ω κ α ί κ ά τ ω κ α τά τόν 'Η ρ ά
κλειτον- καί α δθις αδ 'ζώ ντα ς μέν τόν έκείνω ν θάνατον,2
άποθνήισκοντας δέ τήν έκείνω ν ζωήν’ (cf. fr. 47 b3) .
(k) (76 DK; 25 B) 'ζήι πυρ τόν γ ή ς θάνατον, καί άήρ ζήι
τόν πυρός θάνατον, ΰδω ρ ζήι τόν ά έρος θάνατον, γή τόν
ΰδατος (cf. fr. 66 [36 DK], e4). διαδοχήν όρ α ις βίου καί
μεταβολήν σωμάτων, κα ινουργία ν του δλου.
(Schl. ρ. 407 = 63).
Cf. X, 5 c πα ν γ ά ρ σώ μα 'ρ ε ΐ κ α ί φ έρεται όξέως,

Εύρίπου δίκην, ά ν ω κ α ί κ ά τ ω , νϋν μέν έκ νηπιό-
τητος εις ήβην οίδαΐνον, νυν δέ έξ ήβης είς γ ή ρ α ς ύπο-
νοστοΟν κ α ί ύποφερόμενον. I, 2 g . . . έ π ί σώματι, ούχ
έστώ τι ά λ λ ά φερομένω ι ά ν ω κ α ί κ ά τ ω , καί ύπό
κενώσεως καί πλησμοσύνης κυκωμένωι.3
1 γενέσεων Reiskc 2 θάνατον versio Paccii2, Heinse, Gataker,

Dcubncr (ad M. Ant. IV, 46): ßiov codd., Hobein 3 cf. Plat.
P h ilc b . 42 D; 43 A άεΐ γ ά ρ άπαντα άνω τε καί κάτω *ρεΐ; Β;
P h a /'fl. 90 Ο
(d5) R Cleomed. de motu circ- corp. I, 11 (61) (p. 112,1

H. Ziegler) ούδ’ öv έξαμβλω θείη1 τούτου δνεκα (sc. ή γ ή ),
έν μέρει καί αύτή άντιλαμβάνουσά τινα 2 έκ τε ά έρ ος καί
έξ ούρανοΟ" ό δ ό ς γ ά ρ ά ν ω κ ά τ ω , 3 < ώ ς > 4 φησιν
167
ό 'Η ράκλειτος, δ ι’ δλης < τ ή ς > 8 ουσίας, τρέπεσ θα ι καί
μεταβάλλειν ττεφυκυίας, είς παν τώ ι δη μιουργω ι ύπει-
κούσης είς τήν τω ν δλω ν διοίκησιν καί διαμονήν.
1 έζαναλωθείη Ν, edd. 2 τινά άντιλ. Μ 3 κάτω < μ ία >

Bernhardt ( K o s m o s υ . S y m p a t h i e , Monaclu, 1926, 107; H e r r n . 77, 17)
4 ώς add. 5 της add. Beinhardt
(de) R Nemcs. de not. hominis 5, p. 154 s. Matthaei

ΐν α γ ά ρ μή μόνον < κ α τ ά > 1 τήν προς τ ό ά ν ω κ α ί
τ ό κ ά τ ω κ ά θ ο δ ό ν τ ε κ α ί ά ν ο δ ο ν τήν σχέ-
σιν έχηι τ ά στοιχεία, ά λ λ ά καί τήν κ α τά κύκλον, έπέ-
καμψέ π ω ς κ α ί έπέστρεψε (sc. ό δημιουργός) τ ά ά κ ρ α
π ρ ό ς άλληλα" λ έ γ ω δέ τό π υ ρ κ α ί τήν γ η ν . ..
1 κοιτά add.
(d7) R Μ. Ant. VI, 17 άνω κάτω κύκλω ι < α ί > 7

φοραί τω ν σ τ ο ιχ ε ίω ν ...; IX, 28,1 τα ύ τά 2 έστι τ ά του
κόσμου έγκ ύκ λια , άνω κάτω, έξ αίω νος είς α ιώ να ;
cf. IV, 46 ( = fr. 66 [36 DK], e3) .
1 add. Eeiske 2 Gataker : ταΟτα codd.
(<£8) R Lucian, vit. auct. 14 .. .κ α ί έστι τ ω ύ τ ό .. .άνω

κάτω , περ ιχω ρέοντα καί άμειβόμενα έν τήι του αίω νος
π α ιδιή ι (cf. fr. 93 [52 D K ]).
(e1) R? Philo de somniis I, 153 (III, p. 237 Wendl.)

τά άνθρώ πω ν π ρ ά γ μ α τ α κλίμ α κι πέφυκεν έξομοιοϋσθαι
δ ιά τήν άνώ μαλον αύτώ ν φοράν' (154) 'ή μ ία γ ά ρ , ώ ς
Ιφη τις, ή μέρα 1 τόν μέν καθεΐλεν ύψόθεν, τον δέ ήρεν ά νω ’
168
(cf. Eurip. fr. 420, 2-3 N.-), μηδενός έν όμοίω ι πεφυκότος
μένειν των π α ρ ' ήμ ΐν,. ά λ λ ά π α ντοία ς μεταβαλλόντω ν
τρ ο π ά ς2 >... (156) καί ό δ ό ς τις ήδ’ έστίν & ν ω κ σ i
κ ά τ ω τω ν άνθρω πείω ν α ρ α γ μ ά τω ν , ά σ τά τοις καί άνι-
δρύτοις χρωμένη σ υντυχίαις. ..
1 ή μία γ ά ρ ,.,ή μ έ ρ α codd., We. (μι’ ή μέρα Ps. Plut. con«. ad A p o ll.
104; Stob. IV, 41,1 = V, p. 927 Η .): έν μιδι γάρ... ήμέραι Io. Lydus
dr, m e n s . IV, 7 (p. 72 s. Wuenschl, ef. ( e 1) 2 παντοίαις μετα-
βάλλοντος τροπαΐς Lyd.
(c2) de vita Mos. I, 31 (IV, p. 127 Cohn) τύχης γ ά ρ

άσταθμητότερον ούδέν, ά ν ω κ α ι κ ά τ ω τ ά ά ν-
θρώπεια πεττευούσης (cf. fr. 93 [52 D K ]) , ή
'μ ια ι1 π ολλά κις ήμέραι τόν μέν ύψηλόν καθαιρεΐ, τον δέ
ταπεινόν μετέωρον έξα ίρ ει.’
1 ή μία GH (probat Wendl.)
(f) R Plotin. IV, 8 [6], 1,11 H.-S. ό μέν γ ά ρ Η ρ ά

κλειτος . . . ά μοιβάς τε ά ν α γ κ α ία ς τιθέμενος έκ των
έναντίων, όδόν τε άνω κάτω είπώ ν κ α ί ...
seq. frr. 56ab (84ab D K ).
1 ά νω κ α ί κ ά τω Α»'Κ, Iambi., Aen., Perna ( 1 5 8 0 )
({') Tambl. de anima ap. Stob. I, 49,39 (I, p. 378,21 \V.)

Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς μέν γ ά ρ ά μ ο ιβ ά ς ά ν α γ κ α ία ς τίθ ετα ι έκ
τω ν έναντίων, όδόν τε ' άνω καί κάτω διαπορεύεσθαι
τά ς ψ υχάς ΰπείληφε- κ α ί . . . seq. frr. 56ba (84ba DK ).
1 όδόν τ ε Heeren : δδ ό ντ’ P» δδ ό ντες F 2 of. P lat. G org. 493 A ;

re m p . 517 B ; 621 C
169
(f2) Aen. Gaz. Theophrast. p. 5 Boissonade ( = PG 85,
877 C) δ μέν γ ά ρ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς διαδοχήν ά ν α γκ α ία ν τιθ έ
μενος, άνω καί κάτω τής ψυχής τήν πορείαν έφη γ ίγ ν ε σ
θαι. seq. fr. 56b (84b D K ).
(ff) R? Λ. G. VII, 128 ( = Diog. Laert. IX, 16)

Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς έ γ ώ - t( μ’ ά ν ω 1 κ ά τ ω Μλκετ’ άμουσοι;
1 τίμαίω ΒΡι, corr. Meineke

33 (60)
The way up and the way down is one and the same.
‘The road up the hill (e.g. acropolis) (1> and the road
down the same hill is one and the same.’ The formula μία
κ α ί ώυτή suggests that the saying represents another illu
stration of coincidentia oppositorum: Hippolytus understood
it so (testimonium a), then G. Calogero (Giorn. Crit. Fit. It.
17 [1936], 212 ff.); H. Gomperz (Tessarakontaeteris Th. Borea,
Athens, 1940, II, 51); Kirk 109; 111 f. (Cf. also Reinhardt,
Herrn,. 77 [1942], 16 ff. = Vermächtnis der Antike, 58 ff.,
with the exception of the interpretation of άνω κάτω as
‘Hin- und Herweg’, and contra his interpretation on p. 243 =
92: ‘Der Wechsel - der Weg hin und her - ist die Erschei- «
nungsform der Einheit’) .
Theophrastus ap. Diog. Laert. (testimonium d) interpreted
the saying as some metaphor of the physical fragment 53
(31 DK), which is very unlikely. He was followed by the Stoics
(testimonia dus), and by many modern scholars as well (e.g.
by Zeller 804 n. 1; 853 ff .; Reinhardt, Parm. 179; Gigon 67;
103; Jaeger, Theology 122; Kranz, VS“, I, p. 493,37 ff.; R.
Mondolfo, L ’ Infinite nel pensiero dell’ antichitä classica, Flo
rence, 1956, 78 n. 1; Vlastos, CP 42 [1947], 164; A JP 76
[1955], 349; Ramnoux 80 n. 1).
One point should be made clenr in Theophrastus’ mis
leading treatment of Heraclitus: the words ή του κόσμου
μεταβολή (physic. opin. fr. 1 Diels = Simplic. in phys.
p. 23,33 Diels) <2) do not imply the same as ή μεταβολή in
testimonium (d). There the word was deduced from Hera
clitus’ frr. 54 (90 DK) πυρός άνταμοιβή τά πά ντα καί
πυρ άπάντω ν and 51 (30 DK) άπτόμενον μέτρα καί άπο-
171
σβεννύμενον μέτρα, implying both γένεσ ις and έκπύρω σις
του κόσ μου; whereas here μεταβολή was deduced from
fr. 53 (31 DK) πυρός τροπαί, implying only cosmogony and
cosmology (meteorology) as its continuation (because the. words
of d: έκ δέ τούτου τ α λ ο ιπ ά [i.e. τα άστρα] do not imply
any φ θ ο ρ ά ). If so, then frr. 33 (60) and 53 (31 DK)
( = testimonium d) have nothing to do with the supposed
eepyrosis attributed to Heraclitus by Theophrastus. In doing
so Theophrastus relied on: (1) the misinterpretation of frr. 54
(90 DK) and 51 (30 D K ); (2) the general premise of Aris
totle’s own philosophy dealing with arche (cf. phys. Γ 5, p. 204
b 33 ά π α ντα γ ά ρ έζ οδ Sern, κ α ί δια λύετα ι είς τ ο ΰ τ ο ;
metaph. A 3, ρ. 983 b 8; and in Heraclitus’ case the έξ οδ
was fire). Cf. also Kirk 106 f.; 328; J. Kerschensteincr,
Hermes 83 (1955), 400. <3>
o) Of. c.g. Herodot. VIII, 53,1 (Ανοδος ‘ascent’); I, 186,2 (κατά-

βασις ‘descent’) .
(-> . . .άλλά πΰρ έποίησαν τήν άρχήν (sc. “ Ιππασος καί Η ρ ά
κλειτος), καί έκ πυρός ποιοϋσι τά δντα πυκνώσει καί μονώσει,
καί διαλύουσι πάλιν είς πϋρ, ώς ταύτης μιας οϋσης φόσεως
τής όποκειμένης' πυρός γά ρ Αμοιβήν είναι φησιν Η ράκλειτος
πάντα, ποιεί δέ καί τάζιν τινά καί χρόνον ώρισμένον τής τοΰ
κόσμου μεταβολής κατά τινα ειμαρμένην Ανάγκην.
(Ο By tlie "'ay, the s u p e r fic ia l diameter of Diogenes’ έπί μέρους
account of Heraclitus (IX, 8; the passage precedes te s ti m o n i u m d )
can be deduced from the order of topics followed by him. Namely,
a normal Aristotelic order of topics would be as follows:
172
Diog. Laert. IX, 8 Material from Heraclitus
(1) πΰρ είναι σ τ ο ι χ ε ΐ ο ν

(2) καί πυρός άμοιβήν fr. 54 ( 9 o )
τ ά πάντα, χ
(3) άραιώ σει καί πυκνώσει cf. fr. 53i> ( 3 1 b) : διαχέεται; Aris-
γινόμενα- tot. p h y s . A. 4, p. 187 a 12; A 6,
p. 189 b 8; and Kirk 22 f.
(4) πεπεράνθαι τε τ ό π α ν
(5) καί 6να είναι κόσμον" fr. 51 (S O ) κόσμον τόνδε, τόν αύ
τόν άπάντων
(6) γεννδσθαί τε αύτόν fr. 51 (S O ) π ΰ ρ . . . άπτόμενον and
έκ πυρός fr. 54 ( 9 0 )
(7) καί πάλιν έκπυροΰσθαι fr. 51 (S O ) π ΰ ρ . . . άποσβεννύμενον
and fr. 54 ( 9 0 )
(8) κατά τινας περιόδους fr. 51 (S O ) μέτρα. . . μέτρα; cf.
έναλλάξ τόν σύμπαντα Siniplic. d e c a e lo , p. 294,4 Heib., and
αιώνα" Aristot. d e ca e lo A 10, p. 279 b 14
έναλλάξ
(9) τοϋτο δέ νίνεσθαι fr. 28 (S O ) κατά χρεών (?)
καθ* είμαρμένην.
(10) καί *ρείν τά δλα fr. 40 (L S ) etc.
ποταμού δίκην.
(11) γίνεσθαί τε πάντα fr. 28 (S O ) γινόμενα πάντα κατ’
κατ’ έναντιότητα" 6p ιν
(12) των δέ έναντίων τό μέν έπί fr. 28 ( S O ), and confusion with Em·
τήν γένεσιν ά γον καλεΐσ- pad odes
θαι πόλεμον καί 6ρ tv,
(13) τό δ’ έπί τήν έκπύρωσιν fr. 77 ( 6 7 ) (?), and confusion with
όμολογ(αν καί ειρήνην... Tlmpodorlcg
Mow, the order in DL is: 1-3; 11; 10; 4-9; 12-13.
173
40
(12 DK; 42 B)
(a) C Cleanth. ap. Arinm Didym. ap. Eus. praep. ev.

XV, 20,2 (II, p. 384 Mras) [ = Dox. 470 s.; SVF I nr. 519].
περί δέ ψυχής Κλεάνθης μεν τά Ζήνωνος δό γμ α τα π α ρ α
τιθέμενος πρός συγκρισιν τήν πρός τούς ά λλους φυσι
κούς φησιν δτι Ζήνων τήν ψυχήν λ έγει αισθητικήν1 άνα-
θυμίασιν καθάπερ Η ράκλειτος" βουλόμενος γ ά ρ έμφα-
νίσαι (sc. Η ρ ά κ λειτος) δτι α ί ψυχαί άναθυμιώ μεναι νεα
ρ ο ί2 άεί γίνονται, εϊκασεν α ύτά ς τοΐς ποταμοΐς λέγω ν
οϋτως"
ποταμοΐσι τοΐσιν αότοϊσιν έμβαίνουσιν3
έτερα καί έτερα υδατα έπιρρεΐ*
κ α ί ψυχαί δέ άπό4 τω ν υγρώ ν άναθυμιώ νται.5 άναθυ-
μίασιν μέν οδν όμοίω ς τώ ι Ή ρα κλείτω ι τήν ψυχήν άπο-
φαίνει Ζήνων, αισθητικήν δέ αύτήν είναι διά τοΟτο λ έγει
δ τ ι... (Schl. fr. 21).
1 οΛσθησιν ή codd., oorr. Wellmann 2 νεαραί J. D. Meerwaldt

( M n e m o s . 1951, 54) : νοεραί codd. edd. : Μτεραι ci. Diels 3 έμ-
βαίνουσιν del. A. Eivier ( O n e m p lo i a r c h a tq u e d e V a n a lo g ic , Lausanne,
1952, 9 ss.), acc. H. Frankel ( W e g e 1, p. 78 n. 3) 4 < ά ε!> άιτό
ci. Capelle { B e r m . 59 [1924], 121 n. 4) 5 άναθυμιώνται <8τεραι
καί £τεραι> ci. II. Gomperz : άναθυμ. <νεαραΙ> ci. Meerwaldt :
άναθυμιώμεναι ci. Wilamowitz {H e rrn . 62 [1927], 276)
(51) It Plat. Crat. 402 A λ έγει που Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς δτι

π ά ν τ α χ ω ρ ε ΐ καί ούδέν μένει, καί ποταμού 'ροήι
άπεικάζω ν τά δντα λ έγει ώς δ ί ς έ ς τ ό ν α ύ τ ό ν
π ο τ α μ ό ν ούκ άν έμβαίης.
Cf. 401 D δσοι δ’ αδ ‘ώσίαν’ (sc. καλοΟσι), σχεδόν

τι αδ οδτοι καθ’ Η ρά κ λειτον άν ήγοΐντο τ ά δ ν τ α
194
ί έ ν α ι τε π ά ν τ α καί μένειν ούδέν τό οδν αίτιον
καί τό ά ρχη γόν αύτών είναι τό ώθοΰν, δδεν δή καλώς
έχειν αυτό 'ώσίαν* ώνομάσθαι.
Theaet. 160 D ...κ α τ ά μέν "Ομηρον καί Η ρά κλειτον

καί παν τό τοιοΟτον φΟλον ο ΐ ο ν ' ρ ε ύ μ α τ α κ ι-
ν ε ΐ σ θ α ι τ ά π ά ν τ α ; 152 D έκ δέ δή φ ο ρ ά ς τ ε
κ α ί κ ι ν ή σ ε ω ς καί κράσεω ς πρός άλληλα γ ίγ ν ετα ι
πάντα ά δή φαμεν είναι, ούκ όρθώς προσαγορεύοντες'
έστι μέν γ ά ρ ούδέποτ’ ούδέν, άεί δέ γίγνετα ι. (Β) καί
περί τούτου πάντες έξης οί1 σοφοί πλήν Παρμενίδου συμ-
φερέσθων,2 Π ρω ταγόρας τε καί Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς καί Ε μ π ε
δοκλής, καί των ποιητών οί άκροι της ποιήσεως έκατέ-
ρας, κω μω ιδίας μέν Ε π ίχ α ρ μ ο ς, τρ α γω ιδία ς δέ "Ομη
ρος, < δ ς > 8 είπών ' Ω κεα νόν τε θεών γένεσιν καί μητέρα
Τ ηθύν’ {II. XIV, 201 = 302) πάντα εϊρηκεν έκγονα
'ροής τε κ αί κ ι ν ή σε ως .
1 έξης οί ΤΥ, Stob. : έζαίσιοι BW, Eus. (έζαίσιοι ol pap. Berol.)

2 συμφερέσθων Β (ut videtur), Υ : -ψέρεσθον TW, pap. Berol., Eus. :
συμφέροντα S to l·. 3 8ς add. Heindorf
Cf. Crat. 411 Β ...ώσπερ καί τών νϋν οί πολλοί τών σο
φών ύπό τοΰ πυκνά περιστρέφεσθαι ζητοΰντες δπηι έχει τά
όντα είλιγγιώ σ ιν,1 κά πειτα αύτοΐς φαίνεται περιφέρεσθαι
τ ά π ρ ά γ μ α τ α καί πάντω ς φ έ ρ ε σ θ α ι . (C) αίτιών-
τα ι δή ού τό ένδον τό π α ρ ά σφίσιν πάθος αίτιον είναι
ταύτης τής δόξης, ά λλά αύτά τ ά π ρ ά γ μ α τ α οϋτω
πεφυκέναι, ούδέν αύτών μόνιμον είναι ούδέ βέβαιον, ά λλά
' ρ ε ΐ ν κ α ί φ έ ρ ε σ θ α ι καί μεστά είναι πάσης φοράς
καί γενέσεω ς άεί.
1 άεί είλιγγ. TW
195
439 C . . . ώ ς ιόντων ά π ά ν τ ω ν ά εί και 'ρ ε ό ν-
τ ώ ν . . .τό δ’, εί έτυχεν, ούχ οϋτως έχει, ά λλ’ οδτοι αύτοί
τε ώσπερ εις τινα δίνην έμπεσόντες κυκώνται καί ήμας
έφελκόμενοι προσεμβάλλουσιν. (D) . . . κ α ί δοκεΐ ταΟτα
π ά ν τ α 'ρ ε ΐ ν . 440 Α ά λ λ ’ ούδέ γνώ σιν είναι φάναι
ε ίκ ό ς ...ε ί μεταπίπτει1 πά ντα χρήμ α τα καί μηδέν μένει.
(Β) .. .οϋ μοι φαίνεται ταΟτα δμοια δντα, & νδν ήμεΐς
λέγομεν, *ρ ο ή ι ούδέν ούδέ φ ο ρ ά ι. (C) ταΟτ’ οδν πότε-
ρόν ποτέ ούτως έχει ή έκείνω ς ώ ς οι περί Η ρ ά κλειτόν
τε λέγουσ ι καί άλλοι πολλοί, μή ού 'ράιδιον ήι έπισκέ-
ψασθαι. (CD) . . . κα τα γιγνώ σ κειν ώ ς ούδέν ύ γ ιές ούδε-
νός, ά λ λ ά π ά ν τ α ώ σπερ κεράμια * ρ εΐ, καί άτεχ-
νώ ς ώσπερ οί κατάρρω ι νοσοΟντες άνθρωποι οϋτω ς οΐεσ-
θαι καί τά π ρ ά γμ α τα διακεΐσθαι, ύ π ό ' ρ ε ύ μ α τ ό ς
τε καί κατάρρου π ά ν τ α τ ά 2 χ ρ ή μ α τ α έ χ ε σ θ α ι .
1 -ει Τ2 : -ήι WT> : -οι Β in ras. 2 τά om. TW
Theaet. 156 A . . . ώ ς τό π α ν κ ( ν η σ ι ς ήν καί άλλο

π α ρ ά τοΟτο ούδέν. 177 C ...τ ο ύ ς τήν φερομένην ούσίαν
λέγοντας. 179 D οί γ ά ρ τοΟ Η ρ α κ λείτου έταίροι χορη-
γοϋσι τούτου του λόγου μάλα έρρωμένως. 180 A . . . ά λλ’
εδ πάνυ φυλάττουσι τό μηδέν βέβαιον έαν είναι μήτ’ έν
λ ό γω ι μήτ’ έν τα ΐς αύτώ ν ψυχαΐς, ήγούμενοι, ώ ς έμοί
δοκεΐ, αύτό στάσιμον είναι’ τούτωι δέ πάνυ πολεμοΰσιν
καί καθ’ δσον δύνανται πανταχόθεν έκβάλλουσιν. 181 A
τούς ' ρ έ ο ν τ α ς . (C) τ ά π ά ν τ α κινεΐσθαι.
182 A .. .π ά ντα δή πασαν κίνησιν άεί κινείται. (C) κ ι ν ε ί
ται κ α ί ' ρ ε ΐ . . . τ ά π ά ν τ α . 183 Δ . . . ε ί πάντα
κινείται, πα σ α άπόκρισις, περί δτου άν τις άποκρίνηται,
όμοίω ς όρθή είναι.
Soph. 249 Β .. .έάν αδ φερόμενα καί κινούμενα πάντ’

είναι σ υ γχ ω ρ ώ μ εν ...
Phaed. 90 Β καί μάλιστα δή οί περί τούς άντιλογικούς

λόγους διατρίψαντες οίσθ’ δτι τελευτώντες οΐονται σοφώ-
196
τατοι γεγονέναι τε καί κατανενοηκέναι μόνοι δτι οϋτε
των π ρ α γμ ά τω ν ούδενός ούδέν ύ γιές ούδέ βέβαιον ούτε
των λόγων, ά λλά πάντα τά δντα άτεχνώ ς ώσπερ έν
Εύρίπωι άνω καί κάτω 1 “στρέφεται2 καί χρόνον ούδένα
έν ούδενί μένει.
1 καί κάτω BY : κάτω TW, Kobin 2 cf. Aeschyl. A g a m . 190 s.;

Λ. Pliilippson ( B E VI, p. 1283); A. S. Pease ad Cic. d e n o t. d e o r . Ill, 24
Phüeb. 43 A . . . ώ ς οί σοφοί φ α σ ιν άεί γ ά ρ άπαντα

άνω τε καί κάτω 'ρεΐ.1
1 cf. 42 CD; 43 Β ct Protag. ap. Sext. Emp. P y r r li. h y p . I, 217 [80 A

14 DK]; Aristot. p h y s . E 4, p. 228 a 8
(b2) R (65 A 4 DK) Aristot. metaph. Γ 5, p. 1010 a 7

ετι δέ πάσαν όρώντες ταύτην κινουμένην τήν φύσιν, κατά
δέ του μεταβάλλοντος ούθέν άληθευόμενον, π ερ ί γ ε τό
πάντηι πάντω ς μεταβάλλον ούκ ένδέχεσθαι άληθεύειν.
έκ γ ά ρ ταύτης τής ύπολήψεως έξήνθησεν ή άκροτάτη
δόξα των είρημένων, ή των φασκόντων ήρακλειτίζειν
καί οϊαν Κρατύλος εΐχεν, δς τό τελευταιον ούθέν ώιετο
δεΐν λέγειν ά λ λ ά τόν δάκτυλον έκίνει μόνον,1 καί Ή ρα-
κλείτωι έπετίμα είπόντι δτι2 δ ί ς τ ώ ι α ύ τ ώ ι π ο
τ α μ ο ί ο ύ κ έ σ τ ι ν έ μ β ή ν α ι ' αύτός γ ά ρ ώιετο
ούδ’ άπαξ. (Cf. Alcxand. in metaph. ρ. 308, 28 Hayduck;
Aselep. in metaph. p. 278,32 Hayduck; David, prolegom. philos.
p. 4,2 Busse; Georg. Pachymer. de Mich. Palaeol. I, p. 340,6
Bokker ct Sehol. Vat. p. 656 Bekk.).
1 cf. r h e t. Γ 16, p. 1417 b l 2 8τι om. EJ
Cf. top. A 11, ρ. 104 b 21 .. .ή δτι π ά ν τ α κινείται

καθ’ Η ράκλειτον.
197
de an. A 2, p. 405 a 28 έν κινήσει δ ’ είναι τά οντα
κάκεΐνος (sc. Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς) ώιετο καί οί πολλοί.
de caelo Γ 1, ρ. 298 b 29 οί δέ τά μέν ά λλα π ά ν τ α

γίνεσθαί τέι φασι καί 'ρ ε ΐ ν, είναι δέ π ά γ ιο ς ούθέν, έν
δέ τι μόνον ύπομένειν, έξ οΰ ταυτα πάντα μετασχημα-
τίζεσθαι πέφυκεν- δπερ έοίκασι βούλεσθαι λ έγειν άλλοι
τε πολλοί καί Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς ό Έ φέσιος.
1 τε JFHM, Bekker, Guthrie : om. EL, versio G. de Moerbeka, Allen
**
metaph. A 6, p. 987 a 32 έκ νέου τε1 y a p συνήθης γενό-

μενος2 (sc. Πλάτων) πρώ τον Κρατόλωι κ α ί τα ΐς Ή ρακλει-
τείοις δόξα ις ώ ς ά π ά ν τ ω ν τ ω ν α ι σ θ η τ ώ ν ά ε ί
*ρ ε ό ν τ ω ν καί έπιστήμης περί αύτώ ν ούκ οΟσης, ταϋτα
μέν καί ϋστερον ούτω ς ύπέλαβεν.
1 τε om. Α<> 2 συνήθης γενόμένος Α·>, Alex. : συννενόμενος Ε
Μ 4, ρ. 1078 b 13 .. .δ ιά τό πεισθήναι περί τής άλη-

θείας τοΐς Ή ρα κλειτείοις λ όγοις ώ ς πάντων τών αισθητών
άεί 'ρ εό ντω ν ...
Γ 8, ρ. 1012 b 26 εί δέ πάντα κινείται, ούθέν έσται

άληθές. (Cf. Η. Cherniss, Aristotle’s Criticism of Presocratic
Philosophy, p. 86 n. 363).
phys. Θ 3, p. 253 b 9 κ α ί1 φασί τινες κ ι ν ε ΐ σ Θ a ι

τών δντων οΰ τά μέν τά δ’ οΰ, ά λλά π ά ν τ α καί άε(·
ά λλά λανθάνειν τούτο τήν ήμετέραν αΐσθησιν.
θ 8, ρ. 265 a 2 δήλον οδν έκ τούτων δτι ούδ’ οί φυσιο-
198
λόγοι καλώ ς λέγουσιν οί π ά ν τ α τ ά α ι σ θ η τ ά κ ι
ν ε ί σ θ α ι φάσκοντες ά ε ί - κινεΐσθαι γ ά ρ άνάγκη τού
των τινά τών κινήσεων, καί μάλιστα κατ’ έκείνους [έστίν]
άλλοιουσθαι' 'ρ ε ΐ ν γ ά ρ φασιν ά ε ί 3 καί φθίνειν, έτι
δέ καί τήν γένεσιν καί τήν φθορίων άλλοίωσιν λέγουσιν.
(Cf. Cherniss 162 n. 80 et Boss 717).
Ε 4, ρ. 228 a 8 .. .πότερον μία ή ύ γίεια καί δλω ς αί

έξεις καί τά πάθη τήι ούσίαι είσίν έν τοΐς σώμασιν'
κ ι ν ο ύ μ ε ν α γ ά ρ φαίνεται τά έχοντα καί *ρ έ ο ν τ α.
1 καί om. Ε 2 seel. Boss 3 άεί φασι ΕΗΙ
(c1) Ε Sen. cp. 58, 22. quaecumque videmus aut tan-

ginms, Plato in illis non numerat quae esse proprie putat.
fluunt enim et in nssidua deniinutione atque adiectione sunt,
nemo nostrum idem est in senectute qui fuit iuvenis; nemo
nostrum est idem mane qui fuit pridie. corpora nostra rapiuntur
fluminum more, quiequid vides, currit cum tempore. nihil ex
iis1 quae videmus manct. ego ipse, dum loquor mutari ista,
mutatus sum. (23) hoc est quod ait Heraclitus: in idem f lumen
bis descendimus et non descendimus. manet enim idem fluminis
nomen, aqua transmissa est. hoc in amne manifestius est quam
in hominc. sed nos quoque non minus velox cursus praetervehit,
ct ideo admiror dementiam nostram, quod tantopere amamus
rem fugacissimam corpus timemusque ne quando moriamur, cum
omne momentum mors prioris habitus sit. Cf. 24, 20 s.; dial.
VI, 21,7.
1 his LOb : is Ρ-
(c-) R (49a DK; 81 B) Heraclit. qu. Horn. 24. post

fr. 47 (62). καί πά λιν (sc. Η ρ ά κ λειτός φησι)- π ο τ α μ ο ΐ ς
τοΐς αύτοΐς < δ ί ς > 3 έ μ β α ί ν ο μ έ ν τε καί
ο ΰ κ έ μ β α ί ν ο μ ε ν , ε ί μ έ ν τε καί οόκ ε ΐ μ ε V
δλον τε τό π ερ ί φύσεως α ινιγμ α τώ δες2 άλληγορεΐ.
(Schl. fr. 72).
1 δίς add. Schleiermacher, acc. Walzer 2 -δως ci. Mehler
(c3) K (91 DK; 41 et 40 B) Pint, de E 18, 392 A

ήμΐν μέν y d p όντως τοΟ είναι μέτεστιν ούδέν, ά λ λ ά πά σ α
θνητή φύσις έν μέσωι γενέσεω ς και φθοράς γενομένη
φάσμα π α ρ έχει καί δόκησιν άμυδράν καί άβέβαιον αύτής'
(Β) άν δέ τήν διάνοιαν έπερείσηις1 λαβέσθαι βουλόμενος,
ώ σπερ ή σφοδρά π ερ ίδρ α ξις ύδατος τώ ι πιέζειν και εις
ταύτό2 συνάγειν διαρρέον άπόλλυσι τό περιλαμβανόμε-
νον, οϋτω των παθητώ ν καί μεταβλητών3 έκάστου την
ά γ α ν ένά ργεια ν4 6 λ ό γο ς διώκων άποσφάλλεται τήι μέν
είς τό γιγνόμενον αύτοΟ τήι δ’ είς τό φθειρόμενον, ούδε-
νός λαβέσθαι μένοντος ούδ’ όντως δντος5 δυνάμενος.
π ο τ α μ ώ ι γάρ ο ύ κ έ σ τ ι ν έ μ β ή ν α ι δ ί ς τ ώ ι
α ύ τ ώ ι καθ' “Η ρά κ λειτον ούδέ θνητής ούσίας δίς άψασ-
θαι κα τά έξιν,6 ά λλ’ όξύτητι καί τά χει μεταβολής σκίδνησι
καί πάλιν συνάγει < α ύ τ ή ν > ,7 μάλλον8 δέ ούδέ πάλιν
ούδ’ ύστερον ά λ λ ' ά μ α συνίσταται καί άπολείπει,8 καί
πρόσεισι καί άπεισιν. (C) δθεν ούδ’ είς τό είναι περαίνει
τό γιγνόμενον αύτής τώ ι μηδέποτε λή γειν μηδ’ Ιστασθαι”
τήν γένεσιν, ά λλ’ άπό σπέρματος ά εί μεταβάλλουσαν
έμβρυον ποιεΐν είτα βρέφος είτα παΐδα, μειράκιον έφε-
ξής, νεανίσκον, είτ’ άνδρα, πρεσβύτην, γέροντα, τά ς πρώ-
τα ς φθείρουσαν γενέσεις καί ή λικία ς τα ΐς έπιγιγνομέναις.
ά λλ’ ήμεΐς ένα φοβούμεθα γελ ο ίω ς θάνατον ήδη τοσού-
τους τεθνηκότες καί θνήισκοντες. ού γ ά ρ μόνον, ώ ς Η ρ ά
κλειτος έλεγε, 'πυρός θάνατος άέρι γένεσις, καί άέρος
θάνατος ϋδατι γένεσ ις’ (cf. fr. 66 [36 DK ]), ά λ λ ’ έτι σα-
φέστερον έπ’ αύτώ ν ήμών10 φθείρεται μέν ό” άκμάζω ν
γινομένου12 γέροντος, έφθάρη δ’ ό νέος είς τόν άκμά-
ζοντα, καί ό π α ΐς είς τόν νέον, είς δέ τόν π α ΐδα τό νήπιον
(D) δ τ ’ έχθές είς τόν σήμερον τέθνηκεν, ό δέ σήμερον
200
είς τόν ccöpiov ά ποθνή ισ κ ει'13 μένει δ’ ούδείς ούδ’ έστιν
εις, ά λλά γιγνόμ εθ α πολλοί, περί έν τι14 φάντασμα καί
κοινόν έκμα γεΐον15 ύλης περιελαυνομένης καί όλισθα-
ν ο ύ σ η ς... (Ε) ούτε γά ρ '& νευ μεταβολής έτερα πάσχειν
είκός, ούτε μεταβάλλω ν < ούδείς > 16 ό αύτός έσ τιν 17 εί
δ’ ό αύτός ούκ έστιν, ούδ’ έστιν,18 ά λ λ ά 10 τοΰτ’ αύτό μετα
βάλλει20 γιγνόμ ενος έτερος έξ έτέρου. ψεύδεται δ ’ ή
αΐσθησις ά γνοία ι του δντος είναι τό φαινόμενον.21
(Schl. fr. 20).
1 έπερείσηι τις Ens. p r . e r . XI, 11, 4-9 2 κ. είς τ. Eus. : είς τ. καί
eodd. 3 it. κ. μ. Eus. : παθημάτων καί μεταβάντων eodd. 4
ένάργ. F* Π : ένέργειαν eodd. cett., Eue. 5 δντος δντως codd.,
transp. Wilamowitz 6 έξιν < τ ή ς α ύ τή ς> Diels ( H e r A ) 7
αύτήν addidi 8 μάλλον — άπολείπει praebet solus Eus. 9
ϊστ. Eus. : ήττάσθαι eodd. 10 ήμών Eus. : ή δι’ ών Γ : ΐδοις άν
cett. (cf. F. C. Babbitt) 11 6 Eus., om. codd. 12 γενομ.
Xs g, Eus. 13 cf. P a. Plut. c o n s, a d A p o ll. 106 DE (fr. 41 [ S S ] );
Philon. d e l o s . 127 ss.; (c>); M. Ant. IX, 21; fr. 33 [60] ( d * ) 14 τι
Eus., om. codd. 15 cf. Plat. T im . 50 f! 16 ούδείς add. Sie-
veking 17 έστιν : άν εΐη Eus. 18 cf. Pint. T h c a e t. 152
DE et testim. (c2) 19 ά λ λ ά Eus. : άμ α codd. 20 τοΰτ’ αύτό
μεταβάλλει codd. : έκ τοΟ αύτόν μεταβάλλειν Eus. ( < ή > έκ τού
Mras) 21 cf. Agt. I, 9,2 ( D o x . 307 s .); S V F I nr. 324; Origen.
d e o r a tio n e 6 (II, p. 311 Koctscliau) = S V F I I nr. 989; I’s. Ileraclit.
cp. VI (p. 73,11 Byw.); Hippolyt, r e f u t . I, 23,2 ( D o x . 572); Pliilon. d r
p o s te r . C a in i 163 (II, p. 36,14 We.) τής σωματικής ούσίας αίεΐ
'ρεούσης; d e s o m n . II, 109 (III, p. 276,18 We.); Ovid. Μ . XV, 214-216;
M. Ant. II, 17 ή δέ ούσία 'ρέουσα, ή δέ αΐσθησις άμυδρά. . .πάντα
τά μέν τού σώματος ποταμός; IV, 43
(c‘) Ε de sera num. vind. 559 C .. .ή λήσομεν είς

τόν Ή ρακλείτειον ά πα ντα π ρ ά γμ α τα 1 π ο τ α μ ό ν έμ-
βαλόντες, ε ί ς δ ν ο ύ φ η σ ι δ ί ς έ μ β ή ν α ι , 2 τώι
πάντα κινεΐν καί έτεροιοΰν τήν φύσιν μεταβάλλουσαν.
(Schl, ad fr. 20).
1 τά πρ ά γμ . GXFZBy 2 < ε!ν α ι> έμβήναι ci.
201
(<··'■) P (41 B) qu. nnt. 912 A τά γ ά ρ π η γα ία καί
ποτάμια νά μα τα πρόσφατα μέν έστι καί νεογενή ( π ο
τ ά μ ο ΐ ς γ ά ρ δ ί ς τ ο ΐ ς α ύ τ ο ΐ ς ο ύ κ ά ν έ μ-
β α ί η ς, ώ ς φησιν Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς' έ τ ε ρ α γ ά ρ έ π ι ρ -
ρ ε ΐ ύ δ α τ α ) , τρέφει δέ καί ταΰτα των όμβριων χείρον.
(Sehl.).
(c*) R Simplic. in phys. p. 1313,8 Diels τούς δέ περί

Η ρά κλειτον φυσιολόγους είς τήν ένδελεχή τής γενέσεω ς
‘ροήν άφορώ ντας καί δτι γινόμενα καί άπογινόμενα
πάντα έστι τά σωματικά, δντω ς δέ ουδέποτε δντα, ώς
καί ό Τίμαιος (28 Α) εΐπεν, είκός έστι λέγειν δτι ά ε ί
π ά ν τ α ‘ρ ε ΐ καί δτι ε ί ς τ ό ν α ύ τ ό ν π ο τ α μ ό ν
δί ς ούκ άν έ μ β α ί η ς .
ρ . 77,30 ...ο ύ δ έ τότε δν άν λέγοιτο κυρίως, ά λλά

γινόμενον καί φθειρόμενον διά τήν συνεχή ‘ροήν τήν
π ά ντα έναλλάσσουσαν' ήν ό Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς ήινίξατο διά
του ε ί ς τ ό ν α ύ τ ό ν π ο τ α μ ό ν δ ί ς μ ή & ν έ μ-
β ή ν α ι, τήι ένδελεχεΐ τοϋ ποταμού ‘ροήι τήν γένεσιν
άπεικάζω ν πλέον τό μή δν Αχούσαν τού δντος.
(Schl, ad fr. 21).
Cf. ρ. 887,1 χρήται δέ τώ ι Η ρ α κ λείτου λ ό γω ι τώ ι

λέγοντι π ά ν τ α ‘ρ ε ΐ ν καί μηδέποτε τό αύτό είναι
...καίτοι καί τω ν σωμάτων καί των έξεων καί τω ν π α
θών πάντων ‘ρεόντων, ώ ς φησιν ‘Η ράκλειτος; ρ. 1257,17
οδτε πάντα τά δντα άεί κινείται, ώ ς Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς έδόκει
λ έ γ ε ιν ...
(<■.’) R Olynipiod. in cat. ρ. 4,31 Sliivc δτι μέν γά ρ

ούκ έχει στάσιν τά γεννητά καί φθαρτά δήλον, ώ ς καί
αύτή ή φύσις των πρ α γμ ά τω ν μαρτυρεί καί έτι μέντοι
γ ε τό ά πόφ θεγμ ά τίνος άρχαίου τό λέγον δτι δν τρόπον
άδύνατόν έ σ τ ι ν έν τ ώ ι α ύ τ ώ ι π ο τ α μ ώ ι
δ ί ς έ μ β ή ν α ι κα τά τόν αύτόν χρόνον κ α τά τό αύτό
ύποκείμενον (κα ί τί λέγω , φησιν έτερος, [εΐπεν]1 δτι
202
ού δυνατόν δίς έμβήναι είς τό αύτό ύδωρ, δπου γ ε καί
ούδέ άπαξ* άλλω ι γ ά ρ ύδατι κλύζονται μέν, εί τύχοι,
δάκτυλοι, άλλω ι δέ π ο ύ ς), ούτως ούδέ τά π ρ ά γμ α τα
δυνατόν στάσιν έχειν ά λ λ ά μεταβάλλεσθαι άεί. τήν δέ
ψυχήν εύρίσκομεν δτι μή μόνον κατόπιν έρχομένην των
π ρ α γμ ά τω ν ά λλά καί τήι όξύτητι της κινήσεως έστιν
δτε καί προλαμβάνουσαν, ώ ς δηλοϋσιν α ί μ α ν τ ε ΐα ι...
1 dol. Stucve 2 cf. Plut. d e d r f . orac. 432 AB
(c8) R Philopon. in cat. p. 2,7 Busse Ε φ εκ τικ ο ί μέν

[οδν]1 έλέγοντο διά τοιαύτην α ιτ ία ν Πύρρων ό τής αίρέ-
σεως ήγησάμενος έλεγεν άκαταληψίαν είναι έν τοΐς οδοί
τοιούτωι χρώ μενος π α ρ α δ είγ μ α τι- ώσπερ, φησίν, ε ί ς
τόν α ύ τ ό ν π ο τ α μ ό ν δίς έ μ β ή ν α ι άμήχα-
ν ο ν (φθάνει γ ά ρ παραρρεύσ ας πριν δεύτερον2 είς αύ
τόν έμβαλεΐν3), ούτως ούδέ περί των πρ α γμ ά τω ν έστι τι
σαφώς άποφήνασθαι 'ρευστής ούσης καί αύτώ ν τής «ρύ
σεως καί έν τούτωι τό είναι έχούσης έν τώ ι γίνεσθαι καί
άπογίνεσθαι' δθεν έρωτώμενοι κατένευον μόνον ή άνέ-
νευον, οίόμενοι φθάνειν «ΐμειφθήναι τά π ρ ά γ μ α τα πριν
άποκρίνασθαι. [6 δέ μαθητής αύτου 'Η ράκλειτος έπιτεί-
νων τό άτοπον έλεγεν δτι ούδέ ά π α ξ είς τόν αύτόν ποτα
μόν έμβήναι δυνατόν* πριν γ ά ρ δλον τό σώ μα καταδΰναι,
πλεΐστον ύδω ρ φθάνει παραρρεΰσαν. ούτω δέ έχειν καί
τήν τών π ρ α γμ ά τω ν φύσιν' έν κινήσει γ ά ρ καί 'ροήι τό
είναι έχειν άπαντα] .4
1 dd. Busse 2 δεύτερον F : δίς 0 3 C : είσελθεϊν F

4 ricicndum Busse
(c°) R Gregor. Naz. carm. I, sect. 2,14 (PC? 37, p. 757 s.)
25 είμί. φράζε τί τούτο; τό μέν παρέθρεξεν έμεΐο,

άλλο δέ νΰν τελέθω, ά λ λ ’ έσομ’, εΐ γ* έσομαι.
203
έμπεδον ούδέν έ γ ω γ ε 'ρόος θολερού ποταμοΐο
αίέν έπερχόμενος, έσταός ούδέν έ χ ω ν ...
31 οϋτε δίς δν τό
π ά ρ ο ι θ ε 'ρόον πο
τ α μ ο ΐ ο π ε ρή σ ε ι ς
έμπαλιν, οϋτε βροτόν δψεαι δν τό π ά ρ ο ς ...
(c10) R Mnrsil. Picin. de immort. animor. XI, 6 (I,

p. 259 cd. Basil. 1576). quod quidem abunde Plutarchus ct
Proculus demonstraverunt, et ante illos Heraclitus inquit:
queinadmodum non possumus eandem torrentis aquam bis in-
trare, aut eandem rotae currentis particulam bis similiter
tangere, ita similem omnino dispositionein complexionemque
corporis per duo puncta perscverantem assequi non valemus.
epist. 3 (I, p. 725) nempe didici ab Heraelito et Thaletc1

cuncta mortalium sive bona sive mala, dum oriri videntur,
occiderc.
1 cf. Hippol. r e f , I, 1,3 (D ot.. 5 5 5 )
( d 1) R Diog. Laert. IX, 8 καί 'ρεΐν τά δλα ποταμού

δίκην.
(Α 6 DK) Aet. I, 23,7 ( Ό ο χ . 320) Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς ήρεμίαν

μέν καί στάσιν έκ των δλω ν άνήιρει (έστι γ ά ρ τοΟτο των
νεκρώ ν), κίνησιν δέ άίδιον μέν τοΐς άιδίοις, φθαρτήν δέ
τοΐς φθαρτοΐς < ά π ε δ ίδ ο υ > .1
Ilippol. ref. I, 4,2 {Όοχ. 559) συμφέρεσθαί- τε τά πάντα

άλλήλοις καί ούχ έστάναι.
Lucian, vit. auct. 14 καί δτι έμπεδον ούδέν.
1 addidi e Stob. I, 19,1 2 έμφέρεσθαι eodd., corr. Boeper
204
(d1) R? Hippocr. de victu I, 5 χω ρ εΐ1 δέ πά ντα καί
θεΐα= καί άνθρώπινα* άνω καί κάτω ά μ ειβ ό μ εν α ...
1 χωρεΐ Ρ, vere. Lat., Bernays : χωρίς codd. 2 i.c. ή μέρη καί

εύψρόνη, σελήνη, ήλιος (cf. e.g. Plat. P h a e d . 109 D τά άστρα
χωροϋντα) 3 cf· d e m . sa c ra ~ (VI, p. 368,5 L.) χωρεΐ άνω τε
καί κάτω (sc. τό ιτνεΰμα); e p id . V, 19 (V, ρ. 218,15 L .); a p h o r. 1, 23
(IV, ρ. 470 L.) et G. Hoefer, H c r a M it, H e r a le lite e r u. d. h ip p o c r . C orpus,
Dias. Bonn., 1950, p. 36 s.; Plat. P h ilc h . 43 A; B
205
40 (12*)
Upon those who are stepping into the same rivers

different and again different waters flow.
The stemma of transmission of the river-statement might look

grosso modo as follows (p. 207). Reinhardt {Herrn. 77,18 n. 2 =
Vermächtnis 60 n. 24) was not conclusive enough, and Kirk’s
useful attempt (p. 375 [ = Ramnoux 457], cf. A JP 72 [1951],
245) seems to be incomplete, since he did not count with
Cratylus and the Sceptics (Aenesidemus?). (Cf. Marcovich,
Phron. 11, pp. 19-24).
Testimonium (a) is the only original form of the river-

statement (Kirk is correct, p. 374; contra e.g. Vlastos, pp. 338
ff.).(1) I think we can explain the genesis of other existing
versions. Obviously the present tense έμβαίνουσιν(2) was
meant by Heraclitus as progressive or ‘cursive’ (Brugmann):
‘Upon those who are (in the process of) stepping into the same
riv ers.. . ’ But it was understood (say by Cratylus) as iterative
(‘Upon those who several times step into the same rivers.. . ’).
That is why we have since Plato onward the form with δίς plus
aorist: δίς ές τόν αύτόν ποταμόν ούκ &ν έμβαίης (δ1;
c3; c°); δίς τώ ι αύτώι ποταμω ι ούκ £στιν έμβηναι (δ3;
c:l; c4; c"; c7; cs) . Cratylus must have known the version with
δίς, because he corrects it: αύτός γ ά ρ ώιετο ούδ’ ίχπαξ (δ2).
As for the words ούκ έστιν έμβηναι, they were deduced
from έτερα καί έτερα ϋδατα («).
The Scepsis (probably Acnesidomus = c) was an im

portant transmitter of the saying in the distorted version of
Cratylus known since Plato and Aristotle.<3) Now, the text of
Plutarch 392 B (c3) ούδέ θνητης ούσίσς δίς άψασθαι κ α τά
2ξιν, ά λλ’ όξύτητι καί τά χ ει μεταβολής σ κ ( δ ν η σ ι
206
Heraclitus
ποταμοΐσι τοΐσιν αύτοΐσιν έμβαίνουσιν
έτερα καί έτερα ύδατα έπιρρεΐ.
< Cratylus (δ)

δίς τω ι αύτώ ι ποταμω ι
ούκ έστιν έμβήναι>
I
*
Plato (δ1)
Aristotle (δ2)
Theophrastus (d )
I Cleanthes (α)
I
---------- > <Aenesidemus ? (c) >
(1) Seneca (c1); Heraclit. Homer, (c2)

(2) Plutarch 392 B (c3); 559 C (c4); 912 A ? (c5)
(3) Simplic. (c°) Olympiod. (c7); Philopon. (c8) etc.
κ α ί πά λιν σ υ ν ά γ ε ι < α ύ τ ή ν > , μάλλον δέ ούδέ

πάλιν ούδ’ ύστερον ά λλ’ ά μ α σ υ ν ί σ τ α τ α ι καί
ά π ο λ ε ί π ε ι , καί π ρ ό σ ε ι σ ι κ α ί ά π ε ι σ ι ν needs
some commentary. Schleiermacher (fr. 20); Walzer (p. 126,
with an improbable text); Mazzantini (pp· 83 f.; 175); Kirk
(p. 381 ff.; Kirk-Baven nr. 217); Mondolfo (ZM, p. 46) and
207
(iuthrio 441 accepted nil three pairs of verbs as IIcraclitcan.,4)
Reinhardt (Parm. 207 ff. n.) accepted only pairs 2 and 3; and
Bywater (fr. 40); Zeller (p. 797 n. 2); Diels (H.- = VS4)
and Kranz pail’s 1 and 3. The editors of Plutarch coincide in
seeing in pairs 1 and 3 some reference, and in considering pair
2 as a commentary (correction) by Plutarch himself, vie.:
G. Bernardakis (Teubn., 1891 = 1894); W. R. Paton (Weid
mann, 1893); W. Sieveking (Teubn., 1929); P. C. Babbitt
(Loeb, 1936); R. Flaceliere (in the French version).(5)
I think none of these verbs is likely to be by Heraclitus.

Namely, (1) the reference to Heraclitus ends with καθ’ Η ρ ά
κλειτον. The words ούδέ.,.έξιν are a continuation (application)
of Plutarch’s own (ούδέ = ‘so too’; 'in like manner’).le} Wc
find a similar comparison in the preceding text (392 B):
ώ σπερ (plus a concrete example) . . . ουτω.<7) Also in 392 C
Plutarch (i.e. his source) applies a Heraclitean saying (the
Stoic distortion of fr. 66 [36 DK]) to his own purpose (ού
γ ά ρ μόνον, ώ ς Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς έ λ ε γ ε .. .ά λ λ ’ Ι τ ι σαφέστερον
έπ’ αύτώ ν ήμώ ν). Thus the words from ούδέ onwards are
not meant by Plutarch as a reference to Heraclitus, and
θνητή ούσία appeal’s as the common subject to all the pairs
of verbs (as it becomes clear from 392 C τό γιγνόμενον
α ύ τ ή ς ... μεταβάλλουσαν).
(2) Now, it could be that Plutarch in pairs 1 and 3

is paraphrasing somebody’s words (since he corrects them in
μάλλον δέ — άπολε(πει). But obviously these words arc taken
from his Sceptic source for the whole of chapters 18-19 (Acnesi-
demus?), and not from Heraclitus’ river-simile.
The water in a river flows in one direction, and docs not

behave as described in these six verbs, which rather imply
a movement or action in opposite directions:<S) ‘it scatters and
gathers again; it comes together ( = takes a shape) and fails
(ceases); it approaches and departs.’ Especially συνίσταται
(which implies a formation, organization etc., cf. LSJ, s. v.,
IV-V) is unsuitable to the shapeless water.
208
Since the whole of chapter 18 deals with the Sceptic com
monplace (9) of πα σ α θνητή φύσις έν μέσωι γενέσεω ς καί
φθοράς γενομένη, or with τό γιγνόμενον καί τό φθειρό
μενο ν έκάστου των παθητών καί μεταβλητών, it is reaso
nable enough to see in these six verbs the behaviour of the
mortal substance as the object of perception. This substance
is said to provide only a phantom or apparition of itself, dim
and uncertain (φάσμα πα ρ έχει καί δόκησιν άμυδράν καί
άβέβαιον αύτής) : thus exactly as a phantom the mortal
substance ‘approaches’ the knowing subject (ήμΐν or τώι
λόγω ι) and ‘departs’; it ‘takes a certain shape’ and ‘fails’
again etc. As for the third pair of verbs, already von Arnim (10)
referred to Philo de los. 126 (IV, p. 87 Cohn) ή λ θ ο ν
ά π ή λ θ ο ν , έφάνησαν άπεπήδησαν (sc. αί φ αντα(αι).(η>
Obviously πρόσεισι, συνίσταται and συνάγει imply τό

γιγνόμενον of the mortal substance, and their opposites —
τό φθειρόμενον αύτής. If so, then probably we have the same
Sceptic terminology in de comm. not. 1083 B τά ς έν μέρει
πά σ ας ούσίας 'ρεΐν καί φέρεσθαι, τά μέν έξ αύτώ ν μεθι-
είσας τά δέ ποθεν έπιόντα προσδεχομένας· οΐς δέ π ρ ό σ-
εισι καί άπεισιν άριθμοΐς ή πλήθεσι, ταύτά
(Kronenberg sec. Xyland. : ταΰτα ΕΒ) μή διαμένειν ά λλ’
ϊτ ε ρ α γίνεσθαι, τα ΐς είρημέναις προσόδοις < κ α Ι άφό-
δοις add. Herwerden> έξα λλα γή ν τής ούσίας λαμβανού-
σης.(12) The word σκίδνησι is also Sceptic: 1085 B ούσίας
όλισθηρας καί σ κ ε δ α σ τ ή ς καί φερομένης άεΐ καί
'ρεούσης; the same is true of the ϋδατος περ ίδρ αξις —
simile (392 B )(ia) and of the phrase όξύτητι και τά χει μετα
βολής as well.(14)
(3) The verbs of 392 B are used elsewhere by Plutarch;

he uses the form σκίδνησι (qu. conv. 688 B; de fac. in orbe
933 D; 939 C; quoted by Reinhardt, Parm. 208 n .) ; άπολεί-
πειν in this sense (‘be wanting’, cf. Odyssey VII, 117) we have
at 688 A (ώ ς άεΐ τοΟ άπολείποντος άναπλήρω σιν ή φύσις
έχοι) ; 1067 C; Anton. 78 (‘to decease’); Demetr. 45. Cf. also
συνάγειν καί συνιστάναι (de an. procr. 1025 C); ή μέν γ ά ρ
209
(sc. φιλία) συνάγει καί συνίστησι καί συνέχει (de amicor.
multit. 95 A ) ; διά γει τό χρωματικόν, ή δ’ άρμονία συνίστη-
σιν (non posse suaviter vivi sec. Epic. 109C B ) ; de tuenda sanit.
129 C.<15>
(4) Further, σκίδνησι and συνάγει are undoubtedly

transitive; no instance of their use as intransitive is known
to me; contra Kirk 384: “The question whether the first pair
can be taken intransitively or not (they must be if used as
above) remains”; Kranz “zerstreut sie sich and sammelt sich
wiederum” (so already Schleiermacher, but correctly Diels,
Η .1 = FS4) . I would suggest the reading σκίδνησι καί πάλιν
συνάγει < α ύ τ ή ν > .5*(10) J. Bernays (Die heraklitischen Briefe,
Berlin, 1869, 55) supposed tentatively συνάγει < τ ά μέρη
α ύ τή ς> , and Flaceliere 62 renders: “en dispersent les ele
ments, puis les reunissent ä nouveau.”
As already said, the subject of these verbs is θνητή ούσία.

Bernardakis and Diels supposed θεός as subject, taken from
Ps.-Heraclit. ep. VI, p. 74,1 Byw. (ούκ ϊσασιν δτι θεός έν
κόσμωι μ εγ ά λ α σώ ματα ιατρεύει, έπανισοί αύτώ ν τό
άμετρον’ τά θρυπτόμενα ένοποιεϊ, τά όλισθήσαντα ύπο-
φθάς πιέζει, συνάγει τά σκιδνάμενα, φαιδρύνει τά ά πρε
πή, κα τείρ γει τά ληφθέντα, διώ κει τ ά φ ε ύ γ ο ν τ α ... , quoted
by Bywatcr ad fr. 40); but this Posidonian passage has
nothing in common with Heraclitus (contra Kirk 383). On
the other hand, Reinhardt 209 n., Mazzantini and Kirk sug
gested ‘river’ as subject. Both are improbable.
(5) The words μάλλον δέ — άπολείπει are a clear

correction of πάλιν by Plutarch himself. The parenthetic
character of these words might have been the reason for their
omission in all the existing manuscript* (Patou even deleted
them, but his reasons are not convincing enough). While
correcting his Sceptic source Plutarch at the same time
changed the order of words adjusting the second pair of
verbs both to the third one and to the general theme of
γένεσ ις καί φθορά.
210
In conclusion, in Plutarch’s 392 B (cs) no reliable Hera-
clitean material is contained; contra e.g. Guthrie, 1. c.: “ [392
B] .. .reveals in contrast to most contemporary testimony the
true Heraclitean conception”, or Kirk 384: “It is possible,
oven probable, that these verbs belong at the end of fr. 12:
. . . έτερα καί Μτερα ϋδα τα έπιρρεΡ σκίδνησι καί συνάγει,
συνίσταται καί άπολείπει, πρόσεισι καί άπεισι.”
Ad (c1'2). Gigon 106 1; 97, and Kirk 373 f. were right

in rejecting fr. 49a DK (contra e.g. DK; Vlastos 343; Calo-
gero, Gnomon 34 [1962], 324): its first part is reducible to
the Platonic ( = Cratylian) summary of (a). As for the
second part (‘we exist and do not exist’), Kirk thinks that
it “very probably” comes from Aristotle e.g. metaph. Γ 7,
p. 1012 a 24 έοικε δ’ δ μέν Η ρα κλείτου λόγος, λέγω ν πάντα
είναι καί μή είναι, ά πα ντα άληθή ποιεΐν. I think it is not
likely.
It is clear that both Seneca and Heraclitus Homericus

have used a common source. Now, from the context of (c1)
it becomes highly probable that this source was a Sceptic one.
Thus I suggest that the phrase εΐμέν τε και ούκ είμεν comes
from a source which was common also to Plutarch 392 E
.. ,οΰτε μεταβάλλω ν < ο ύ δ ε!ς> ό αύτός έστιν' εί δ’ ό
αύτός ούκ έστιν, ο ύ δ ’ έ σ τ ι ν . . . (17)
I f both Plutarch 912 A (c5) and fr. [49a DK] (c1'2)

come from a Sceptic source (as I would think they do),<18)
then wc may suppose that Aenesidemus (?), besides Plato,
1ms used Heraclitus’ original saying as well (in view of the
plural form ποταμοΐς, of the present tense έμβαίνομεν, and
also of the phrase έτερα έπιρρεΐ ϋδατα).
211
Fr. 40 (a) represents a rhythmical and balanced Hera-
clitean saying, consisting of 2 x 13 syllables: the phrase
Ε τ ε ρ α κ α ί Ε τ ε ρ α ( = Ετερα άεί) is so for stylistic
reasons. According to Kirk 378, this repetition “strongly sug
gests the regularity” of the passage of water in a river; the
same phrase in Aristotle meteor. B 3, p. 357 b 30 άεί γά ρ
άλλο καί άλλο γ ίγ ν ετα ι τούτων Εκαστον is, acording to
Kirk 379, “strongly reminiscent of Ετερα καί Ετερα in fr. 12.”
Kirk’s interpretation is not likely to me; this repetition is a
common phrase in Greek: cf. Aristotle pp. 341 a 9; 342 a 7;
Plato Laws 632 B Ετερον καί αδθις Ετερον είδος της άρε-
της; Menand. fr. 536,8 Kock [ = 656,8 Körte] έτέραν περι-
μεΐναι (-μείνας Edmonds) χάτέραν τρικυμίαν.
The implication of Heraclitus’ river-simile is obscure. Rein

hardt (P am . 177; 206 f.) interpreted it as some metaphor
explaining the physical teaching of Heraclitus: “das Mass des
Meeres bleibt dasselbe, während der Stoff fortwährend wech
selt. . .das Wasser fliesst vorüber, aber der Fluss bleibt stets
derselbe” ; “Beharren im W echsel... μέτρον im μεταβάλ
λ ε ι . . . ” Kirk (Mind 60, N. S. 237 [19511, 36 ff.; CF 366;
377 f.; Kirk-Raven 198) followed Reinhardt: “The preservation
of the river’s identity and name, in spite of the constant change
of its parts, is due to the regularity and balance of that change,
just as the preservation of a κόσμος is due to the μ έ τ ρ α ...
“The river-image illustrates the kind of unity that depends on
the preservation of measure and balance in change”. (Cf. also
Vlastos 313).
This interpretation is not likely to me, because the idea of

regularity, balance or measure is not visible in the saying
(neither in the phrase Ετερα καί Ετερα nor in the six verbs
of fr. 91b DK [= Kirk-Raven nr. 217], which have nothing to
do with Heraclitus).
On the other hand, the traditional interpretation of the

saying in the sense of a constant flux of all things<,e) does not
seem to find support in other fragments of Heraclitus.
212
I would tentatively interpret the river-simile as another
example of coincidentia oppositorum, in this case of the oppo
sites the same and other, different: ‘The opposites τό αυτό
and έτερον are two inseparable parts of the same whole
(river), as are name of a thing (τό αύτό; cf. testimonium c1:
manet enim idem fluminis nomen) and its contents (£τερα
ϋδα τα ).’ Cf. fr. 39 (48).
Heraclitus’ examples of opposites are not always concrete
(cf. e.g. δλα καί ούχ δλα fr. 25 [10], or Αγαθόν και
κακόν implied by fr. 46 [58]), so that ό αυτός : έτερος
seem possible. Further, the formula of coincidence (£v καί
ταύτό) is missing also in fr. 36 (13); 37 (9); 39 (48). Finally,
the fact that ό αύτός should be here one of the opposites,
whereas in other fragments dealing with the Logos it plays
the part of the formula of unity, does not seem to be an
obstacle, since πόλεμος also appears in fr. 77 (67 DK) as a
simple opposite, while in frr. 28 (80) and 29 (53) it plays
the part of a principle of higher rank. Aliter Kirk 377.,20>
o> The words καί ψυχαΐ δέ άπό των ύγρων άναθυμιώνται cannot
he by Heraclitus; correctly Bywater, Zeller 797 n. 2, Kirk 367 ff.
( c o n tr a Diels-Kranz; Reinhardt, F a r m . 61; Capelle, H e r m e s 59 [1924],
121 f f .; Gigon 28; 104 f.; Walzer 53; Maddalcna 227 f .; Mazznn-
tini 149; Frankel, D i c h tu n g 2 432; Mondolfo, C u ltu r a U n iv e r s ita r ia ,
Caracas, 68-69 [1959], 30 f f .; ZM 41 f .; A Patri, H erm e d e m i t a -
p h y s iq u e e t m o r a le 63 [1958], 129 f.), Improbably von Arnim ad
S V F I nr. 141.
(-’> This word is genuine; correctly e.g. Kirk ( J U S 74 [1954], 199;
M a s . I l e l v . 14 [1957], 162 f.), who quotes Democrit. fr. 108; c o n tr a
A. Rivier, 1. c., and M a s . H e ir . 13 [1956], 163 n. 56. — έμβαίνουσιν
is a lo c a tiv e (of. e.g. Theocr. 15, 59 δχλος πολύς δμμιν έπιρρεϊ;
so is ποταμοΐσί, cf. I lia d . V, 199; O d y s s e y IV, 656), and not a
d a tiv u s in d ic a n tis ( c o n tr a Rivier n. 7; K a m n o u x 223; 453). In
fr. 86 (5 DK) Heraclitus used the construction atq πηλόν έμβάς
possibly because πηλωι έμβάς πηλωι άπονίζοιτο would not be
clear enough (c o n tr a Rivier 12).
(;|) («3) [= fr. 91» DK] is reducible to (δ1-2) ; correctly Reinhardt,
F a r m . 207 n. 1; H e r m e s 77, 18 n. 2 [ = V e r m ä c h tn is 60 n. 24];
E. W?erts, H e r a k l i t u n d H e r a lc lite e r (Klass.-philol. Stud. 7, Berlin,
1926), 8 f.; Gigon 106 f .; Kirk 372; 375; Rivier, M u s . H e lv . 13,
(1956), 158 n. 44» ( c o n tr a Vlastos 338 ff. e t el.).
213
41
(88 DK; 78 B)
(α) P Ps. Plut. cons, a d A p o l l . 106 D-F πότε γά ρ έν

ήμΐν αύτοΐς ούκ1 έστιν ό θάνατος;2 κα(, Tji φησιν Η ρ ά
κλειτος,
ταύτό3 τ’ ένι4
ζών καί τεθνηκός
καί τό3 έγρηγορός καί τό,! καθευδον
καί νέον καί γη ρ α ιό ν
5 τάδε7 γ ά ρ μεταπεσόντα έκεϊνά έστι
κάκεΐνα πάλιν μεταπεσόντα ταΟτα.7
ώς γάρ έκ του αύτοΟ πηλοΟ δύναταί τις πλάττων ζώια

συγχεΐν8 καί πάλιν πλάττειν καί συγχεΐν, καί τοΟΘ’ gv παρ’
έν ποιεΐν άδιαλείπτως, ουτω καί ή φύσις® έκ της αύτης
Ολης πάλαι μέν τούς προγόνους ήμών άνέσχεν, εΐτα
συγχέασ’ αύτούς10 έγέννησε τούς πατέρας, είθ’ ήμας,
εΐτ’ όχλους έπ’ άλλοις άνακυκλήσει. καί ό της γενέσεως
ποταμός11 οδτος12 ένδελεχώς 'ρέων οΰποτε στήσεται, καί
πάλιν ό1* έξ έναντίας αύτώι ό της φθοράς εΐτ’ Ά χέρων
είτε Κωκυτός καλούμενος ύπό των ποιητών.14 ή πρώτη
οδν αίτια ή δείξασα ήμΐν τό του ήλιου φως, ή αύτή καί
τόν ζοφερόν "Αιδην άγει15, καί μήποτε τοΟδ’ είκών ήι ό
περί ήμας άήρ1β, έν παρ’ έν ήμέρ'αν καί νύκτα ποιων,
έπαγω γός17 ζωής τε καί θανάτου, καί ύπνου18 καί έγρη-
γόρσεως. (Schl. fr. 38b).
1 ούκ Ζ υ, ante έν ήμΐν η.2 ΛΕΧ : om. eott. 2 cf. fr. 40 (72),
testimon. (c8) n. 13 3 < £ v > ταΰτό τ ’ ei. A. Maddalena (C o sm o -
Xogia io n ic a , 220 n. 3) ft. recte 4 τ ’ Ινι Φ Π, Sehleiermacher,
Diele, Kranz, Kirk 135 : y ‘ £vi codd. oett., Babbitt : ut gloss, γένει
del. Bernardakis, Wilamowitz ( H e r r n . 62 [1927], 276), Paton, Gigon
90, Walzer 122 : γε δή ei. Beinhardt (H e r r n . 77 [1942], 242 n. 2) :
216
ταΰτό τ ’ έστί ci. Schleierm. : ταϋτω ι τ ’ ένι ci. Bornays (Ges. A b h .,
I, 50), aec. Schuster 174 : ταβτ’ είναι ci. Byivater : ταΰτό τ ό ci. Zeller
■SOS η. 2 5 τό del. Eeiske, Paton, Babbitt, Kranz 6 τό
om. Φ Π (praeter Ε ), Paton, Biels, Kranz 7 τάδε — ταΟτα Hera-
elito a b r o g a v . Schleiermacher, WHamoivitz, Paton 8 πλάττειν ζώ ια
< κ α 'ι> σ υγχεΐν ci. Sauppe 9 cf. Ps. Heracliti cp. VI (p. 74,6
Byw.) διά πόσης γ ά ρ έρ χεται τής ούσίας (sc. θεός έν κόσμοι)
άρμόζων, πλάττω ν [πλάττω ν άρμοζόμενος codd.], διαλύων, πηγ-
νύς, χέω ν et Aristot. de g e n . a n im . A 22, p. 730 b 29 10 σ υγχέα σ ’
αύτούς Sauppe fere omnium consensu, αύτήν Hartman : συνεχείς (συγ
γενείς υ) αύτοΐς codd., Bernays (Τ, 47 n. 1), Babbitt 11 cf. I I .
XIV, 201 ( = 302) et Plat. T h c a e t. 152 DE 12 Ούτως Φ D,
Babbitt 13 ό om. Π Z υ2 14 cf. Plat. P h a e d . 112 Ε ; 113 C
15 έπ ά γει ci. Pohlenz 16 cf. ft. Sext. Emp. a d v . m a th . X, 233;
IX, 360 17 έπ α γο γό ς B, Paton cett. : έπ α γω γο ύ ς Δ υ, Em-
perius, Bernardakis, Babbitt : έπ α γ ω γ ά ς codd. cett. 18. cf. Plat.
T im . 45 B (πυρ) έπ α γω γό ν Οπνου
41 (88)
As [one] and the same thing there exists in us

living and dead,
and the leaking and the sleeping,
and young and old:
5 for these things having changed round are those,
and those things having changed round are these ones.
Wilamowitz’ explanation of y* Ivi as γέν ει is not likely

at nil: Ps. Plutarch has read in his source Svi , because he
paraphrases it in έν ήμΐν. Possibly we should read with Mad-
dalena £ V τ α ύ τ ό τ ’ ε ν ι (cf. already Reinhardt, Farm.
237; 252 n. 1 ‘Als ein und dasselbe wohnt den Wesen inne...’) .
As for the construction (‘As [one and] the same thing there
exists in u s ... ’), cf. e.g . Theogn. 1135 Ε λ π ίς έν άνθρώττοισι
μόνη θεός έσθλή ένεσην.
The words τ ά δ ε — τ α Ο τ α seem to belong to Hera

clitus (contra Schleiermacher, Wilamowitz, Paton; pro Rein
hardt, Gigon 90 f., Kirk 139 ff.), because the change ‘dead’
> ‘living’ (‘old’ > ‘young’) is an archaic idea which is not likely
to belong to the way of thinking of Ps. Plutarch. To achieve
the required reciprocity of the change ‘living’ ΐξ ‘dead’, Hera
clitus saw himself obliged to have recourse to the old belief
that the grandchild is a continuation of the life of the grand
father (cf. Melissus I'r. 8,3 καί τό ζώον άποθνήισκειν καί
έκ μή ζώ ντος γ(ν εσ θ α ι; Plat. Phacd. 70 C; Gnnsehinietz,
R E X, 2403, and Kirk 147 I'.). Also in fr. 50 (15) Heraclitus
made use of a traditional belief (namely, that. Dionysus is
Hades as w ell).
As for the meaning of μ ε τ α π ί π τ ε ι ν ‘Umschlägen’

(Diels), ‘to shift’ (Burnet 139 and n. 1), ‘of a sudden change’
218
LSJ, s. V., I, 2, ef. e.g. Plato Phacdr. 241 B; Theaet. 162 D
and Kirk 146 f.;329.
The fragment was correctly interpreted by Kirk 143 as

an instance of coincidentia oppositorum (aliter Ylastos CP 42
[1947], 165; unlikely Zeller 805 n. 2; Maddalena 220 f.; Ram-
noux 33 ff.; 392).
219
7
43
(57 DK; 35 B)
(a) C Hippol. ref. IX, 10,2 (p. 242,26 We.). post fr. 5
(55). τοιγαρουν ούδέ1 σκότος ουδέ φως, ούδέ πονηρόν
ούδέ ά γα θ ό ν έτερόν φησιν είναι ό 'Η ράκλειτος ά λ λ ά £ν
καί τό αύτό. έπιτιμ α ι γοΰν Ή σιόδω ι (ef. theog. 123 s.)
δτι ήμέραν καί νύκτα < ο ύ κ > 2 ο ΐδ εν ήμέρα γό ρ , φησί,
καί νύξ έστιν έν, λ έγω ν δ δ έ π ω ς-
διδάσκαλος δέ πλείστων Ησίοδος'

τοΟτον έπίστανται πλεΐστα είδέναι,
δστις ή μέρην και εύφρόνην3 ούκ έγινωσκεν'
έστι νά ρ έν.
seq. fr. 46 (58).
1 οΰτε quater Sauppe 2 ούκ add. suad. ed. Gott., ace. Gruice,
Kirk 155 3 ευφροσύνην P, corr. Hiller
222
43 (57)
Teacher of most men is Hesiod:

they arc sure that he knejp most things,
a man mho did not get to recognize day and night!
For they are one.
δ έ is ‘inceptive’ (a weakened δ η ) : cf. Denniston, Greet;

Particles2 170 f.; Heraclit. fr. 1 (i) and Kirk 36. έ ιτ ίσ -
τασθαι ‘feel sure’ (of mistaken knowledge), ‘suppose’,
‘believe’: of. Hcrodot. 1, 122,1; III, 66,3; VI, 139,4 (and
Powell, s. v., 3). I would take έ γ ί ν ω σ κ ε ν as inchoa
tive: ‘who did not get (or managed) to recognize’; cf. fr. 83 (108
DK) ούδείς ά ί ρ ι κ ν ε ΐ τ α ι ές τούτο ώστε γινώ σκειν;
aliter Kirk 155: ‘who continually failed to recognize'.
The unity of Day and Night was meant by Heraclitus as

something self-evident or easily understandable (cf. τά φανερά,
fr. 21 [56]): probably because they succeed each other every
day. The fragment was correctly interpreted as another example
of coincidentia oppositorum by Kirk 156 (but fr. 77 [67 DK]
does not seem to be operative here; contra Zeller 803 n. 2;
Kirk 1. c.; Ramnoux 369). Cf. also Nestle (Philol. 67 [1908],
534; ZN 803 n. I; Vom Mythos zum Logos2, 98 n. 68), but his
reference to Ilesiod thcog. 748 ff. is not likely (correctly Kirk
156 f.; contra Frankel, Wege2 318 n. 3).
Fr. 60 (99 DK) docs not seem to belong here; contra Patin
(Finheitslehre 31 f .) ; Reinhardt (Parm. 180 n. 2; 182); Kirk
.134; 165. Unlikely Mazzantini 70; Ramnoux 5; 373; 390 f.
223
47
(62 DK; 67 B)
(a) C Hippol. ref. IX, 10,6 (p. 243,16 We.). post

fr. 35 (61). λ έ γ ε ι δέ (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) όμολογουμένω ς τό
άθάνατον είναι θνητόν καί τό θνητόν άθάνατον διά των
τοιούτων λ ό γω ν -
ά θ ά ν α το ι θνητοί, θνη το ί ά θ ά ν α το ι,
ζώ ν τες τό ν έκ είνω ν θά να τον,
τον δ έ έκ είνω ν βίον τεθ ν εώ τες.
soq. fr. 73 (63 DK).
(&1) R Heraclit. qu. Horn. 24 ό γοΟν σκοτεινός ‘Η ρά

κ λειτος άσαφη κ α ί διά συμβόλων1 είκάζεσ θα ι δυνάμενα2
**3 θ εο λ ο γεί τ ά 4 φυσικά δι* ών φησι' θ ε ο ί θ ν η τ ο ί
[τ’], άνθρωποι άθάνατοι, ζώντες τόν
έκ είνω ν θάνατον, θ νή ισ κ ο ν τες τήν έκεί
ν ω ν ζ ω ή ν - καί π ά λ ιν- seq. fr. 40 (c2). (Schl. fr. 51).
1 συμβόλων <μόνον> ci. Polak 2 δύναμιν Ο : δεόμενα oi. ed.

Soc. Bonn. 3 lacunam suspicor (cxspectes μόνον προφέρων) 4
Aid. : θ ε ο λ ο γ ε ί τ α ι AG
( b 2) R Max. Tyr. 4, 4 h σκόπει καί τόν Ή ρ ά κ λειτο ν-

θεοί θνητοί, ά νθρω ποι' άθάνατοι.
(Schl, nd fr. 51).
1 0νθρωποι II2, Iloinse : θεοί cott., Ilolioin
(b3) R 41, 4 i. post fr. 33 (d4) .. . κ α τ ά τόν Η ρ ά

κλειτον- καί α δθ ις αδ (sc. όρα ις) ζ ώ ν τ α ς μ έ ν τ ό ν
236
έκείνων θ ά ν α τ ο ν 1, ά π ο θ ν ή ι σ κ ο ν τ α ς δέ
τ η ν έ κ ε ί ν ω ν ζ ω ή ν. seq. fr. 66 (36) (e4).
1 θάνατον versio Paeiis, Heinse, Öataker, Deubner (ad M. Ant. IV, 4β) :
ßiov eodd., Hoheit!
(It1) It Lucian, rtf. auct. 14 τί δέ οί ά νθρω ποι; —

Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς' θεοί θνητοί. — τί δέ οί θεοί; — Ή ρ .’ ά ν
θρω ποι άθάνατοι.
(¥') It? Dio Cass. V II fr. 30,3 (I, p. 88,7 Boissevain)

εί γ ά ρ δεΐ δη τι κ α ί θρασυνόμενον είπεΐν, οθτ’ άνθρω πος
ούδέν ά λλο έστίν ή θεός σώ μα θνητόν έχων, οϋτε θεός
ά λλ ο τι ή άνθρω πος ά σ ώ μα τος καί δ ιά τούτο καί άθά-
νατος. ( = loan. Zonaras, epit. hist. VII, 25,4. [II, p. 162,26
D] ) .
(b°) R? Hermes: Corpus Hennet., vol. I, X, 25 Nock

(cf. Stob. I, 47,8 [I, p. 305 W .]) ούδείς μέν γ ά ρ τω ν ούρα-
νίων θεών έπί γ η ς κατελεύσεται, οόρανοΟ τόν öpov κατα-
λιπών, ό δέ άνθρω πος κ α ί1 είς τόν ούρανόν άναβαίνει
καί μετρεΐ α ύ τ ό ν ... τοσοϋτον τό2 μ έγεθός έστιν αύτου
της έκτά σ εω ς3* διό τολμητέον4 είπεΐν τόν μέν άνθρω πον5
έπ ίγειον είναι θεόν θνητόν, τόν δέ ούράνιον θεόν ά θ ά ν α
τον άνθρωπον.
1 και Stob., oin. eodd. 2 χό Stob., om. eodd, 3 έκσ τά σ εος

Stob. ft. recte 4 Stob. : χολμ. έστίν eodd. 3 <5νθρ. < τ ό ν >
U.sener
(bT) R? vol. I, X II, 1 Nock οδτος δέ ό νους έν μέν

άνθρώ ποις θεός έστι- διό καί τινες τώ ν άνθρώ πω ν θεοί
εϊσι, καί ή αύτώ ν1 άνθρω πότης έ γ γ ύ ς έστι τή ς θεότητος-
237
καί y a p ό ’Α γα θός Δ αίμω ν τούς μέν θεούς εΐπεν άθα-
νά τους < ά ν θ ρ ώ π ο υ ς > 2, τούς δέ άνθρώ πους θεούς θνη-
τόύς.
1 Flussas : αύτοϋ codd. (fort, i b i Nock) : secl. Beitzenstein : τούτων

Scott 2 fiic Bz, ante άθανάτους Reitz., ante εΐπεν F.inarson
(c) R Clem. paed·. I ll, 1,5 (I, p. 236,24 St.) ...θ ε ό ς

δέ έκεϊνος ό άνθρω πος γίνετα ι, δτι βούλεται δ 1 θεός,
όρθώ ς ά ρ α εΐπεν Η ρά κλειτος" ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ι θεοί,
θ ε ο ί ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ι , λ ό γο ς γ ά ρ ώυτός. μυστήριον έμ-
φανές" θεός έν άνθρώ πω ι, καί ό άνθρω πος θεός, κ α ί τό
θέλημα του πα τρ ό ς ό μεσίτης έκτελεΐ" μεσίτης γ ά ρ ό
λ ό γ ο ς ό κοινός ά μ φ ο ΐν ... (Schl, ad fr. 51).
1 8 Bernays {H e r . B r ie fe , 40) : 6 P : δ τ ι < π ο ι ε ΐ > δ β ο ύ λετα ι θ εό ς

ci. Schwartz
(ιΖ1) R Phil. leg. alleg. I, 107 (I, p. 89 Colin) φύσει

μέν οδν έστι (sc. θάνατος) καθ’ δν χω ρ ίζετα ι ψυχή άπό
σώ ματος, ό δέ έπί τιμ ω ρ ία ι συνίσταται δτα ν ή ψυχή τόν
ά ρ ετή ς βίον θνήισκει, τόν δέ κ α κ ία ς ζήι μόνον.1 (108) εδ
καί ό Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς, κ α τά τοΰτο Μ ωυσέως άκολουθήσας
τώ ι δόγματι" φησί γ ά ρ 2' ζ ώ μ ε ν τ ό ν έ κ ε ί ν ω ν
θάνατον, τεθνήκαμεν δέ τόν έκείνων
β ί ο ν " ώ ς νυν μέν, δτε ζώ μ εν', τεθνηκυίας τής ψυχής
καί ώ ς άν έν σήματι τώ ι σώ ματι έντετυμβευμένης, εί δέ
άποθάνοιμεν, τής ψυχής ζώ σης τόν ίδιον βίον καί άπηλ-
λ α γμ ένη ς κακοΰ και νεκρού συνδέτου του σ ώ μ α το ς1.
(Schl, ad fr. 50).12
1 cf. d e fu g e t e t in v . 55 (III, p. 122 Wcndl.) έδίδαξε γάρ με (sc.

σκέψις) δτι καί ζώ ντες ϊνιοι τεθνήκασι καί τεθνη κότες ζώσι κτλ.
2 γ ά ρ om, MAP ft. recte 3 δτε ζώμεν MAP Armen. : δτι
ένζώμεν UFL· 4 pro κακοΰ — σώ ματος : κακών καί μακρών
νόσων Arm.
238
(d-) R qu. in Gen. IV, 152 (p. 434 R. Marcus) ...the death
of the body is the life of the soul, since the soul lives an incor
poreal life of its own. In regard to this, Heracleitus, like a
thief taking law and opinions from Moses, says: we live their
death, and we die their life, intimating that the life of the
body is the death of the soul. And what is called ‘death’ is
the most glorious life of the first1 soul.
1 virtuous ci. Marcus
(d··) R Scxt. Bmp. Pyrrh. hyp. I ll, 230 ό δέ 'Η ρά

κλειτός φησιν δτι καί τό ζην καί τό άποθανεΐν καί έν
τώ ι ζην ή μας έστι καί έν τώ ι τεθνάναι- δτε μέν γ ά ρ
ήμεΐς ζώμεν, τά ς ψυχάς ήμών τεθνάναι καί έν ήμΐν
τεθάφθαι, δτε δέ ήμεΐς άποθνήισκομεν, τά ς ψυχάς άνα-
βιουν καί ζην. (Schl. fr. 50).
(tZ>) R (77b DK) Numen. fr. 35 Thedinga = A 46

Leemans (ap. Porphyr, de antro 10, p. 104,14 N.2). post fr. 66
(36 DK) (d1) ...άλλαχοΰ δέ φάναι (sc. Η ρ ά κ λειτον)· ζην
ή μ α ς τόν έκείνω ν (sc. ψυχών) θάνατον, καί ζην έκείνας
τόν ήμέτερον θάνατον. (Schl. ρ. 498 = 122).
(dr) R Hicroclcs in cann. aur. 24 Mullach (Frr. philos.

(h·., I, p. 470 b) διό καί επαμφοτερίζει (sc. ή άνθρώ που
ουσία) τα ΐς σχέσεσιν, ότέ μέν έκεΐ ζώ σα τήν νοερόν
εύζωΐαν, ότέ δέ ένταΰθα τήν αισθητικήν έμπά θειαν προσ-
λαμβάνουσα. ενθεν καί λ έ γ ε τ α ι όρθώ ς ύπό Η ρ α κ λ είτο υ
δτι ζώ μεν τόν έκείνω ν θάνατον, τεθνήκαμεν δέ τόν έκεί
νων βίον. (Schl. ρ. 497 = 122).
239
47 (62)
Immortals are mortals, mortals are immortals;

for (the former) live the death of the latter,
and (mould) die their life.
I suppose, testimonia b1' 7 (and possibly c as well) go back

to a common (Stoic) source; as for testimonia d1'r\ they are
clearly Pythagorean. Ad (c): the words λ ό γο ς γ ά ρ ώ υτός
arc an interpretation of Clement’s own; contra Stählin; Walzer
101, and H. Wiese, I-Ieraklit bei Element (Diss. Kiel, 1963),
86 ff. (but correctly on p. 89).
The meaning of the saying is obscure. I think Gigon 125

was right in seeing in ά θ ά ν α τ ο ι — heroes or θεοί from
fr. 29 (53) [cf. e.g. Pinch N. 3,22 ηρω ς θεός; IG X II, 3,863
ά θ ά να το ς θείος ή ρω ς; IX, 1201; Dio Cass. LYI, 41,9] and
in θ ν η τ ο ί — survivors from battlefield or άνθρω ποι from
the same fr. 29. But neither his nor Th. Gomperz’s interpre
tation of the fragment0 » were happy.
I ventured the following interpretation (cf. Antiquite

vivante 12 [1962], 51 ff.). The subject of ζ ώ ν τ ε ς is
ά θ ά ν α τ ο ι/2» and not θνητοί, as usually interpreted. Further,
the meaning of ζ η ν here is ά θανατίζεσθαι, immortalitate
perfrui; hence θ ά ν α τ ο ς = θνητότης, β ί ο ς = άθα-
νασία, and τ ε θ ν ά ν α ι = θνητούς γενέσθαι. Finally,
τεθνεώ τες implies some potential mood ( = τεθναΐεν άν,
άποθάνοιεν ά ν ). As for such a ‘rhetoric’ perfect tense in
apodosis, cl', fr. 50 (15) εϊρ γ α σ τα ι; Demosthcn. 24, 139 τέθ-
νηκεν; Plato Phaed. 80 D άπόλωλεν, and Kiihner-Gerth,
Satzlehre*, § 385,5. Thus I understand lines 2-3 of the frag
ment as follows: ol γ ά ρ ά θάνα τοι άθανα τίζοντα ι δ ιά τήν
240
τω ν θνητών θνητότητα, δ ιά δ ’ έκείνω ν άθανα σία ν τεθνή-
κασιν (== άποθάνοιεν άν, θνητοί άν γένο ιντο ).
‘Immortal heroes and mortal survivors are ‘one’ [i.e. make

one single continuum]; because the heroes owe their immorta
lity exactly to the mortal condition of the survivors: should
the latter obtain immortality, the heroes would surely lose it
( = τον δέ έκείνω ν βίον τεθ ν εώ τες).’ Because all cannot
be either only heroes or only mortal men: the division of the
society into ‘heroes’ and ‘mortal men’, into ‘free’ and ‘slaves’
etc. (fr. 29 [53]) is necessary for the existence of polis.
Consequently, the opposites are ‘one’ because they condi

tion each other.
(Π “Dor K rieg scheidet. Wer am Loben bleibt, ist θνη τό ς, wer im

K am pftod fällt, wird ά θ ά ν α το ς. Da dies eine μ ετα β ο λή von Gegen
sätzen ist, so wird dasselbe Wesen T räger sowohl von θνη τό ς wie
auch von ά θ ά ν α τ ο ς ” (Gigon 1. c.). “Und er nahm eine auf- und
absteigende Bewegung an, vermöge welcher Menschenseelen . . . zu
G öttern erhoben werden, G ötter in das Erdleben herabsinken” (Th.
Gomperz, S B W i e n 113 [1886], 1010 f.; 1041).
(2 ) S o already A. Maddalena, S u l l a c o e m o lo g ia io n i c a e t c ., 2 3 3 and n. 3.
241
48
(26 DK; 77 B)
(a) C Clem, ström. IV, 141,1-2 (II, p. 310 St.) δσα

δ ’ αδ π ερ ί ϋπνου λέγουσι, τά α ύ τά χρή και περί θανάτου
έξακούειν. έκ ά τερ ος γ ά ρ δηλοΐ τήν άπόστασιν1 της ψυχής,
ό μέν μάλλον ό δέ Τ)ττον, δπερ έστί καί π α ρ ά Η ρ α κ λ ε ί
του λαβεΐν'
ά νθ ρ ω π ο ς
(a) έ ν 2 ε ύ φ ρ ό ν η ι3
(b) φ ά ο ς 4ά π τ ε τ α ι 5 έ α υ τ ώ ι"
(c) [άποθα νώ ν]7 ά π ο σ β εσ θ είς ό ψ εις8,
(c) ζώ ν δ έ 11
(b ) ά π τ ε τ α ιτεθ νεώ το ς
(a) ε ΰ δ ω ν 10 [άποσβεσθείς δψ εις]11,
(e) έγρηγορώ ς
(b) ά π τ ε τ α ι εϋδοντος. (Sehl. fr. 64).
1 άποστασίαν Saer. parall. ρ. 244 H oll; Maxim, c. 29; Flor. Mon. f.

70T 2 άνθρ., < 8 π ω ς > έν εύφρ. φάος, άπτεται άποσβέννυται
damnans cetera Bywater (cf. J o u r n a l o f P h ilo l. 4 [1872], 212); ä .,
< ώ ς > έν εύφρ. φάος, άπτεται, άποθανώ ν άποσβεσθείς. ζώ ν δέ κτλ.
ci. Zeller 887 n. 1; ά. < δ κ ω σ π ε ρ > κτλ. Η. Gompcrz (ap. Diels., V S 4,
ρ. X X III) 3 εύφροσύνηι L, corr. Sylburg 4 + φάος Staelilin :
φάους ci. St. et E. Schwartz, acc. IC. D. Georgoulcs ( P la t o n 3 [1951],
278 ) 5 άπτει Schleinrm., acc. Mullach (fr. 75), Schuster 271 6
έαυτώ ι del. Zeller, έαυτώ ι άποθανών del. Byw., acc. U. Hoelsehei'
( P e s t g a i n l l c i n h a r d l , 78) 7 άποθανώ ν seel, ut gloss. W ilaiiiouitz
ap. St., acc. Goebel ( V o r /ι. P h il., fit) s.), Reinhardt ( F a r m . 215 n. 1),
Nestle (ap. Zell., p. 889 n.), Snell ( H e i m . 61 [1926], 370 n. 3 ), Kranz,
Gigon 95 ( U r s p r u n g , 234), Walzer, Georgoules, K irk 309 ( A J P 70
[1949], 390 s.; P r e s . P h ilo s . 207), Ramnoux 42, H . Wiese ( E . b e i K l e m .,
181) 8 άποσβεσθείς δψεις del. St. ct Schwartz, ace. Diels (17.2 =
242
V S * ) , Burnet 138, A. N. Zoumpos ( R E G 59-60 [1946-47], 1 ); δψ εις del.
Vietorius, aec. Schleierm., Lassalle, I I , p. 256 s., Schuster, Zeller, Diels
( V S * ) , Ritter ( P h i l o l . 73 [1914-16], 237 s.) 9 ζώ ν δ έ ' interp.
Schwartz, acc. Diels ( 3 . ? — V S * ) , Burnet, Mazzantini 154, 237; L.
Frucchtel : ζω ήν δέ ci. Goebel x(cf. H. Gomperz, Z s . f . ö s t . G y m n . 61
[1910], 964) 10 εϋδω ν del. Nestle, acc. Gigon, Walzer, Georgoules
11 άποσβεσθείς δψεις del. ut dittorgr. Wilam. fere omnium consensu :
post εϋδοντος transponondum St.
243
48 (26)
Man
(a) in the night
(b) kindles a light for himself,
(c) thrnigh his vision is extinguished;
(c) though alive,
(b) he touches the dead,
(a) (namely) while sleeping;
(c) though awake,
(b) he touches the sleeper.
I think the text of Wilamowitz prevails today (cf. also

H. Wiese, Heraklit bei Klemens, 181 and n. 4). The attempts
to keep the full text of Clement (by Nestle, fr. 102; 0. Leuzc,
Hermes 50 [1915], 622; Mazzantini; Wheelwright 68; 146; L.
Friichtel, in the edition of stromatcis [Berlin, 1960], 531)
cannot be taken seriously. Hölscher’s suggestion (Festgabe
Reinhardt, 78): [έαυτώ ι ά π ο θ α νώ ν], ‘indem er sich selber
stirbt, d. h. den Sinnen abstirbt’, is not likely (and his reference
to ep. Rom. 6,2; ep. Gal. 2,19 was not happy, because dmo-
θνήισκειν means there ‘renounce’, LSJ, s. v., III).
The implication of the saying is obscure. I think Leuzc

624(,) and J. Stenzel (Metaphysik des Altertums, Munich,
1931, p. 59,8 f.) were right when they saw in the fragment
another illustration of coincidentia oppositorum. The letters (a),
(b), (c) above mark the chiastic structure of the fragment.
There (1)) and (c) are pairs of opposites: light : darkness
(implied by άποσβεσθείς δψ εις); alive : deadm ; awake :
sleeping (cf. fr. 41 [88]); as for (a), it plays the part of some
additional explanation given by Heraclitus himself.
244
The reason for the unity of opposites seems to consist here
in that they ‘overlap’, ‘interfere’ or ‘touch’ each other. This is
expressed three times by the same verb: dt it τ ε τ α ι. It lias
two meanings here: ‘catch’, and ‘catch fire’, ‘set on fire’, ‘kindle’
(correctly Zeller 887 n. 1; Leuze 609). Probably the pun was
common enough: cf. Plato Republic 497 E - 498 A.
φ ά ο ς implies φάσμα (correctly Gigon 96: ‘Traumge-

sielite, die er mit seinem inneren Licht sieht’): cf. Aeschyl.
Λ rjam. 274 όνείρων φάσματ’ εύπειθή; Soph. Philoctet. 830 f.
ct al. As for φ άος όμμάτω ν, cf. Pind. N. 10,40 f.; Odyssey
XVI, 15; XVII, 39; XIX, 417/··"
The existing interpretations seem to be less likely: cf. e.g.

Zeller 885 ff.; Diels, VS2'4; Reinhardt, Partn. 217 n.; Hermes
77 (1942), 225 [ = Vermächtnis der Antike, 72] (‘wie der
Schlafende zum Wachen, so verhält sich der Lebendige zum
Toten’); Zoumpos 1. c.; Ramnoux 44; 49 f.; 395; Gigon 97
(who supposed in the fragment two different sayings: one
reducible to fr. 24 [55], and the other to fr. 41 [55]: ‘Dann
wäre sachlich alles geordnet’).
Kirk's physiological interpretation {AJP 70 [1949], 390;

Heraclitus, 148; Presocratic Philosophers, nr. 236 and p. 208)
seems unlikely to me; it runs: ‘his soul-fire is burning low, is
almost extinguished, and in most respects he resembles a dead
man. Sleep, then, is a medial state between waking life and
death.’ I would object to: (1) Man’s vision is not extinguished
in sleep, but ‘he kindles a light for himself, although his vision
is extinguished’ (dativus commodi έα υτώ ι seems to speak
against Kirk’s interpretation). (2) ‘Although living, he touches
the dead, (namely) in sleep’: the reason might well be the
traditional one (cf. ad fr. 49 [21]), and not necessarily:
‘because the soul is approaching the completely watery state
which means its θά να το ς’ (Kirk, p. 390). (3) Especially the
end of the fragment (‘although awake, he touches the sleeper’)
speaks against Kirk’s interpretation.
245
(1 ) “Er [Heraclitus] glaubte so, mit der Hilfe der Sphaehe [άτττεσθαι]
einen Beweis für seine Lclire von der Identität der Gegensätze führen
zu können.”
• (2) The reason for the unity of opposites L i f e : D e a th in Heraclitus
seems to be each time a different one: in fr. 39 { 4 8 ) it was the idea
that they formed two constituent parts of the same object; in fr. 41
{ 8 8 ) it was their convertibility or reciprocal replacement; in fr. 47
{ 6 2 ) it was their mutual conditioning; here it is the overlapping
of their meanings; finally, in fr. 50 { I S ) the reason consists in a
traditionally adopted truth; fr. 49 { 2 1 ) is too obscure.
(3) In view of such instances it is not necessary to see in Diogenes
Laertius IX, 4 ( = A G VII, 127) an allusion to this fragment:
σώμα γάρ άρδεύσασα (άρδεύουσα AG) κακή νόσος ϋδατι
/ φέγγος
έσβεσεν έν βλεφάροις (έκ βλεφάρων A G ) καί
/ σκότον ήγάγετο.
246
49
(2i; DK; 64 B)
(e) C Clem, ström. I ll, 21,1 (II, p. 205 St.) τί δέ;

ούχ'ι καί Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς θάνατον τήν γένεσ ιν κα λεΐ Πυθα-
γ ό ρ α ι τε1 καί τώ ι2 έν Γ οργίαι Σ ω κ ρ ά τει έμψερώς (cf.
Pint. Gorg. 492 Ε - 493 A; Phaed. 95 CD), έν οίς φησι'
θ ά ν α τό ς έσ τιν όκόσ α έ γ ε ρ θ έ ν τ ε ς όρέομεν,
όκόσ α δέ εΰ δο ν τες υ π α ρ 3; (Schl. fr. 42).
1 Πυθαγόραι τε Simon Hcrvot : -ας δέ L 2 τώιSylburg : τό L

3 ί}παρ scripsi : ΰπνος Clem., ecld. : ζωή ci. Nestle ( V o r s o k r a tik e r ,
fr. 1 0 1; P h ilo l. 6 7 [ 1 9 0 8 ] , 5 3 4 ; Z N 9 0 0 η . ) : ύ π ν ο ς , < όκόσα δέ
τεθνηκότες ζωή> ci. Diels (ff.2 = FS4), cf. W. Kranz
(α1) K V, 105,2 (II, p. 396 St.) πά λιν τε αδ ό Πλάτων

έν μέν τώ ι έβδόμω ι τή ς πολιτεία ς τήν ένταϋθα ήμέραν
νυκτερινήν κέκληκεν (cf. 521 C) . . . ύ π ν ο ν δ έ κ α ί
θ ά ν α τ ο ν τήν είς σ ώ μα κάθοδον τής ψυχής κ α τά τα ύ τά 1
Ή ρα κλείτω ι. (Euseb. praep. ev. X III, 13, 32).
1 ταυτά La, ταΟτα L

49 (21)
What we see when awake is death,

and what we see when asleep is life (reality).
I suggest the reading ö i t a p , in lieu of Clement’s ϋπνος.

Because:
(1) ϋπνος is semantically unsatisfactory: όκόσα εϋ-

δοντες δρέομεν is not a ϋπνος (‘sleep’), but an ένύπνιον
(‘dream’); ϋττνος was wrongly translated e.g. by Zeller 899
n. 5 as ‘Traumbild’, by Reinhardt (Farm. 216 n. 1) as ‘Trugbild’,
by Snell (Tusculum-Biicher, Heimeran, Munich) as ‘Traum’,
by Kranz as ‘Dämmerung’, etc. Either the word was already
corrupt in Clement’s source, or he took ϋπα ρ for a corruption
and emended it in ϋττνος. That Clement is not always trust
worthy, we may learn e.g . from fr. 48 (26) [άποθανώ ν], or
from fr. 47 (62), testimonium (c), λ ό γο ς y d p ώυτός.
(2) Elsewhere Clement is interested in the common-place

ϋπνος καί θά να το ς: cf. protrept. 102,3; ström. IY, 141,1;
paedag. II, 80,3 £οικεν γ ά ρ ή του ϋπνου κ αταφ ορά θανά-
τω ι; fr. V (III, ρ. 222,20 St.) θανάτω ι γ ά ρ ό μάκρος ϋπνος
έφάμιλλος. Anyway, the association of Hypnos with Thanatos
seems to be lectio facilior in view of such common instances
as Iliad XIV, 231; XVI, 672 = 682; Hesiod theog. 212; 756
ff.; Pausan. I ll, 18,1; etc.
According to Diels the fragment is incomplete, according

to Maddalena 265 it is corrupt.
The implication of the saying is obscure. I f the words

όκόσα έγερ θ έντες όρέομεν imply βίος, and the words
248
όκόσα δέ εϋδοντες imply övap, then I would tentatively
suppose that we have here another example of the unity of
opposites: β ί ο ς = θ ά ν α τ ο ς ; ÜT t a p = ö v a p . Per
haps the similarity with fi\. 48 (26) might be of interest:
όρον <*> δψ εις; φάος : φάσμα υπα ρ : δναρ, etc.
The majority of scholars seem to see in the saying some

physiological implication, parallel to fr. 66 (36 DK). So e.g.
Diels: ‘Lehen, Schlaf, Tod ist in der Psychologie die dreifache
Leiter, wie in der Physik Feuer, Wasser, E rde’ (hence Gigon
!)7 f. referred to the spurious fr. 76 DK, and Kranz, VSa, I,
p. 492,48 thought of a ‘proportion’). Similarly Kirk 341: ‘what
wo see when awake is death, i.e . changes from one kind of
matter to another?’ But in fr. 66 (36 DK) θά να τος seems to
imply δλεθρος, whereas here it might imply ‘unreality’.
Hnmnoux’s interpretation (pp. 36 ff.; 393) is not likely.
Itfis highly questionable whether the image βίος = δνειρος

of Aenesidemus ap. Philo de Iosepho 126 (IV, p. 87 Cohn)
goes back to this fragment (contra By water; Walzer 62);
cf. von Arnim, Quellenstudien zu Philo, 94 ff.; F. H. Colson,
in Philo (Loeb), VI, p. 601 f.
249
being ‘kindled’ (i. e. increased up to say 90% of
the fire-stuff) according to fixed measures (fr. 51).
The world-order shall never perish thanks to the
preservation of equality of exchanges of fire for
every particular thing. This process of changes of
fire (compared with the circulation of money) is
going on simultaneously, partially and severally
(fr. 54).
(iv) - The divine fire while operating in the

cosmic processes necessarily has to undergo unceasing
qualitative changes (fr. 56 a b ) . Its stages with say
less than 50% of fire (e. g. night-time; winter; earth)
seem to have been metaphorically called by Heracli
tus Fire’s ‘want’ (or ‘starvation’) and ‘war-time’;
those with more than 50% (e. g. day-time; summer;
sky-fire), Fire’s ‘satiety’ and ‘peace-time’ (frr. 55;
77); and all its changing in general is called ‘toil and
servitude’ (fr. 56ab).
51
(30 DK; 20 B)
y
(0) κόσμον τόνδε1, τόν αύτόν Απάντων2,

οΰτε τις θεών οΰτε άνθρώπων έποίησεν,
άλλ’ ϊ|ν Αεί καί έστιν καί Ε σ τ α ι"
πΟρ άείζωον, άπτόμενον μέτρα καί άποσβεννύμε-
/ νον μέτρα.
1 τόνδε om. Gem., e Simplic. ( t e s t . 6») et Plut. (test, c) add. Bywater,

ace. Diels cett. 2 τόν αύτόν άπάντων (πάντων Eus.) Clem. :
om. Simpl., Pint.; Heraclito abrog. Reinhardt (Pam. 170 n. 1; Hermes,
12 ss. = Vermächtnis der Antike, 53 ss.), Snell (Tuseulum*, 1944),
Kirk 307 ss., Fraenkel (Dichtung2 , 439), vix recte
(a) C Clem, s tr ö m . V, 103,6 (II, p. 396 St.) ού1 παρα-

πέμπομαι καί τόν Έμπεδοκλέα, δς φυσικώς ούτως2 της
των πάντων άναλήψεως μέμνηται, ώς έσομένης ποτέ εις
τήν του πυρός ουσίαν μεταβολής. (104,1) σαφέστατα
< δ ’> 3 Ηράκλειτος ό Έφέσιος ταύτης έστί τής δόξης,
τόν μέν τινα κόσμον άίδιον είναι δοκιμάσας,4 τόν δέ τινα
φθειρόμενον, τόν κατά τήν διακόσμησιν είδώς ούχ έτε
ρον οντα έκείνου πως έχοντας. (2) άλλ* δτι μέν άίδιον
τόν έξ άπάσης τής ούσίας Ιδίως8 ποιόν κόσμον ήιδει,
φανερόν ποιεί λέγων ούτως-
κόσμον, τόν αύτόν άπάντων,

ούτε τις θεών οΰτε άνθρώπων έποίησεν,
άλλ* ήν άεί καί έστιν καί έσται*
πΟρ άείζωον, άπτόμενον μέτρα καί άποσβεννύμενον
/ μέτρα.
(3) δτι δέ καί γενητόν καί φθαρτόν αύτόν είναι έδογμά-

τιζεν, μηνύει τά έπιφερόμενα* seq. fr. 53 ( 3 1 ) . (= Euseb.
p r a e p . e v . XIII, 13,30 s.). (Schl. fr. 25).
261
1 ού om. Eus. 2 ό φυσικός οδτος Eus. 3 δ ’ ex Eus. add.
Staehlin 4 δογματίσας ei. Mayor 5 άιδίως L, Eus. : corr.
Bernays (G e s . A h h ., I, p. 12 n. 1), ef. V, 9,2 καθ’ δν (sc. Ηράκλειτον)
καί τόν Ιδίως ποιόν (sc. κόσμον) άναστήσεσθαι δογματίζουσι (sc.
ot ΣτωικοΟ, τοΰτ’ έκεΐνο τήν άνάστασιν περιέποντες
(δ1) R? (A 10 DK) Aristot. de caelo A 10, p. 279 b 14

...οίδέέναλλάξ ότέ μέν ο δ τ ω ς ό τ έ δέ
άλλως έ χ ε ι ν φ θ ε ι ρ ό μ ε ν ο ν (sc. τόν ουρανόν),
καί τούτο άεί δια τελεΐν ούτως, ώ σπερ Ε μ π ε δ ο κ λ ή ς ό
‘Α κ ρ α γα ντΐνος καί Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς ό Έ φ έσ ιος. Cf. Plat. soph.
242 DE et G. Kirk 23; 25; 319 s. (Schl. p. 466 = 101).
Cf. Simplic. de caelo p. 307,15 Heiberg . . . φθειρόμενον

δέ καί πά λιν γινόμενον ένα λλά ξ λ έγο ν τα ς καί τούτο διη-
νεκώς, ώ ς Ε μ π ε δ ο κ λ ή ς καί Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς έδόκουν λ έγειν
καί ύστερον τω ν Σ τω ικ ώ ν τινες.
(δ2) R? Aristot. phys. Γ 5, ρ. 205 a 1 δλω ς γ ά ρ καί

χ ω ρ ίς του ά πειρον εΐναί τι αύτώ ν (sc. τω ν στοιχείω ν),
άδύνατον τό παν, κάν ή ι πεπερασμένον, ή είναι ή γ ί γ
νεσθαι £ν τι αύτών, ώ σπερ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτό ς φησιν ά π α ν τ α
γ ί ν ε σ θ α ί π ο τ έ π υ ρ . . . π ά ν τ α γ ά ρ μεταβά λλει έζ
έναντίου είς έναντίον. Cf. de gen. et corr. B 5, ρ. 332 a 6;
Heracliti fr. 54 (90) et M. Marcovich, Ε studios de Filosofia
griega, I, p. 33 ss. (Schl. p. 456 = 95).
Cf. Philopon. in phys. p. 433,5 Vitelli πά ντα ποτέ έκπυ-

ρωθήσεσθαι άναλυθέντα είς πυρ.
(δ3) R Thoophrast. physic, opin. fr. 1 (Box. 476,1) ap.

Simplic. in Aristot. phys. p. 24,4 Dicls. ποιεΐ δέ (sc. Η ρ ά
κλειτος) καί τά ξιν τινά καί χ ρ ό ν ο ν ώ ρ ι σ μ έ ν ο ν
τ η ς τ ο υ κ ό σ μ ο υ μ ε τ α β ο λ ή ς . . . Cf. fr. 28 (80)
(d) et G. Kirk 23.
262
(b4) R Diog. Laert. IX, 8 . . . κ α ί ένα είναι κόσμον"
γεννα σ θαί τε αύτόν έκ π υρός κ α ί π ά λιν έκπυροΟσθαι
κ α τ ά τ ι ν α ς π ε ρ ι ό δ ο υ ς έ ν α λ λ ά ξ τόν σύμ-
πα ντα α ιώ ν α ... ^ (Sehl. ρ. 460 = 97).
(δ5) R (Α .10 DK) Simplic. de caelo ρ. 294,4 Heiberg,

καί Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς δέ ποτέ μέν έκπυρουσθαι λ έ γ ε ι τόν
κόσμον, ποτέ δέ έκ του πυρός συνίστασθαι π ά λ ιν αύτόν
κ α τ ά τ ι ν α ς χ ρ ό ν ω ν π ε ρ ι ό δ ο υ ς , έν οΐς φησι"
μ έτρ α 1 ά π τ ό μ ε ν ο ς καί μέτρα σβεννύμε-
ν ο ς. τα ύτης δέ τή ς δόξης ύστερον έγένοντο καί οί
Σ τ ω ικ ο ί... (294,13) κ α ί 'Η ρά κλειτος δέ δ ι’ α ίνιγμ ώ ν2
τήν έαυτοΟ σοφίαν έκφέρω ν ού τα υ τα ά π ερ δοκεΐ τοΐς
π ολλοϊς σημαίνει" ό γ ο υ ν έκ εΐν α είπώ ν περί γενέσεως,
ώ ς δοκεΐ, τοϋ κόσμου καί τά δε γέγραφ ε" κ ό σ μ ο ν
τόνδε ούτε τις θεών οΰτε άνθρώπων
έποίησεν, ά λ λ’ ή ν ά ε ί . πλήν δτι ό3 ’Α λέξαν
δρος, βουλόμενος τόν Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν γενητόν και φθαρτόν
λ έγειν τόν κόσμον, ά λ λ ω ς άκούει του κόσμου νυν. ού
γ ά ρ μαχόμενα, φησί, λ έγει, ώ ς άν τω ι δόξαι" κόσμον
γ ά ρ , φησίν, ένταυθα ού τήνδε λ έγ ει τήν διακόσμησιν,
ά λ λ ά καθόλου τά δντα καί τήν τούτων διάταξιν, καθ’ ήν
ε ίς έ κ ά τ ε ρ ο ν έν μ έ ρ ε ι ή μ ε τ α β ο λ ή του
π α ν τ ό ς , ποτέ μέν είς πυρ, ποτέ δέ εις τόν τοιόνδε
κόσμον" ή γ ά ρ τοιαύτη τούτων έν μέρει μεταβολή καί ό
τοιουτος κόσμος ούκ ήρξατό ποτέ, ά λ λ ’ ήν άεί. καί
τα ΰτα δέ προστίθησιν ό ’Α λέξανδρος δτι οι λέγοντες
ποτέ μέν οδτω ς τό παν, ποτέ δέ ά λλω ς έχειν, άλλοίωσιν
μάλλον του πα ντός ά λ λ ’ ού γένεσιν καί φθοράν λέγουσιν.
(Schl. ρρ. 449 et 462 = 90 et 98).
Ρ. 367,9 έστι δέ τό λεγόμενον δτι ό κόσμος ού γέγ ο -

νεν οδτε ένδέχετα ι αύτόν φθαρήναι" ού γ ά ρ , εΐ τινα τών
σωμάτων εις ά λ λ η λ α μεταβάλλει, διά τούτο μέρη τινά
τοΰ κόσμου φθείρεται, ά λ λ ’ ώ ς αύτός (sc. ό ’Α λέξαν
δρος) ά ντιλέγω ν το ΐς π ερ ί Έ μ π εδ ο κ λ έα καί Η ρ ά κ λειτο ν
παρά μ έ ρ ο ς γ ί ν ε σ θ α ι λέγουσ ι κ α ί φ θ ε ί-
263
ρ ε σ θ α ι τ ό ν κ ό σ μ ο ν εΐπεν ού τον κόσμον γίνεσ-
θα ι καί φθείρεσθαι, ά λ λ ά τούτον μέν διαμένειν άίδιον,
τ ά ς δέ διαθέσεις αύτοΰ ύπαλλάσσεσθαι, ούτω ς άν καί
ήμεΐς λέγοιμ εν.4
1 μέτρια. . . μέτρια A, cf. Galen, ( t e s t , d ) 2 α ίνιγμώ ν DE :

-μάτων AE2, Karsten 3 πλήν δτι 6 : ό E : 6 μέντοι Ε 2,
Karsten 4 C : λέγω μ εν ADE2 : -ομεν Ε
(be) R Simplic. in phys. p. 1121,12 Diels, γενητόν δέ

κ α ί φθαρτόν τόν ένα κόσμον ποιοΟσιν δσοι ά εί μέν φασιν
είναι κόσμον, ού μήν τόν αυτόν άεί, ά λ λ ά ά λλοτε άλλον
γινόμενον κ α τ ά τ ι ν α ς χ ρ ό ν ω ν π ε ρ ι ό δ ο υ ς ,
ώ ς Ά ν α ξιμ ένη ς τε κ α ί Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς κ α ι Δ ιογένη ς καί
ύστερον οί άπό τή ς Σ τοά ς.
(br) R? Plut. de Ε 388 E F άκούομεν οδν τω ν θεολό

γ ω ν τ ά μέν έν ποιήμασι τ ά δ ’ άνευ μέτρου λεγόντω ν καί
ύμνούντων ώ ς ά φ θα ρτος ό θεός κ α ί ά ί δ ι ο ς πεφυ-
κώς, ύπό δή τίνος ειμαρμένης γνώ μ η ς κ α ί λό γο υ μετα-
β ολα ΐς έαυτοϋ χρώ μενος ά λ λ ο τ ε μ έ ν ε ι ς π υ ρ
ά ν ή ψ ε τ ή ν φ ύ σ ι ν *1 π ά νθ ’ όμοιώ σας πασιν, ά λ λ ο
τ ε δ έ π α ν τ ο δ α π ό ς έν τε μορφαΐς κ α ί έν πάθεσι
καί δυνάμεσι διαφόροις γ ι γ ν ό μ ε ν ο ς , ώ ς γ ίγ ν ε τ α ι
νυν < ό > * κ ό σ μ ο ς . . .
1 τηι φύσει codd., corr. Eeiske 2 ό add. Babbitt
(b8) R Aet. I, 3,11 (Dox. 284) τούτου (sc. πυρός)

δέ κατασβεννυμένου κοσμοποιεΐσθαι τά πά ντα ' cf. fr.
53 (31).
I, 7,22 (Dox. 303) Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς τό περιοδικόν

π 0 ρ ά ( δ ι ο ν (sc. είναι θ ε ό ν ). . .
264
(c) R Flut. de an. procr. in Tim. 1014 Α κ ό σ μ ο ν
τ ό ν δ ε , φησίν Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς, ο (5 τ ε τ ι ς θ ε ώ ν ο ö τ ’
ά ν θ ρ ώ π ω ν έ π ο ί η σ ε ν, ώ σπερ φοβηθείς μή θεού
ά πογνόντος άνθρω πόν τινα γ εγ ο νέν α ι τοθ κόσμου δη
μιουργόν ύπονοήσωμεν. (Schl. ρ. 450 = 91).
(d) R Galen, de tremore VII, 617 Kühn ά τε γ ά ρ άει-

κίνητον δν τό έμφυτον θερμόν, οδτ* εϊσω μόνον ο(3τ’ έξω
κινείται, δια δέχετα ι δέ ά εί τήν έτέρα ν αυτου κίνησιν ή
έτέρα. τα χύ γ ά ρ άν ή μέν έσω μονή κατέπαυσεν εις άκι-
νησίαν, ή δέ έκτός έσκέδασέ τε καί ταΰτηι διέφθειρεν
αύτό, μ έ τ ρ ι α δέ σ β ε ν ν ό μ ε ν ο ν κ α ί μ έ τ ρ ι α
άναπτόμενον, ώ ς Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς έλεγεν, άεικίνητον
οϋτω μένει, ά νά πτετα ι μέν οδν τήι κάτω συννεύσει, τής
τροφής όρεγόμενον' αίρόμενον δέ καί πάντηι σκιδνά-
μενον σβέννυται.
(c) R Olympiod. in Phaed. ρ. 237,7 Norvin ποΰ όρδ-

τα ι τά ά σ τρ α καί ποια ό ρ α τα ι; ώ ς μέν ό έξη γη τή ς φησι,
προα παντή μ α τα αύτώ ν όρα τα ι έν τώ ι άέρι. καί πώ ς ού
μέχρι τώ ν ήμετέρω ν κάτεισιν όφθαλμών, ά λ λ ά πόρρω-
θεν όντα φ α ίνετα ι; διά δέ τούτο ό ήμέτερος καθηγεμ ώ ν
φλογώ σεις φησίν έξ έκείνω ν έν τώ ι α ίθέρι γίνεσ θα ι καί
τα ύ τα ς όρδσθαι. καί μήποτε, φησί, τοΰτό έστιν δπερ ό
'Η ράκλειτος λ έ γ ε ι' άπτόμενος μέτρα καί
σβεννύμενος μέτρα' ού γ ά ρ δήπου αύτός ό
ήλιος, ά λ λ ’ δ πρός ή μ α ς ήλιος. Cf. fr. 58 (6) (f) et Ο.
Kirk 268.
(/) Rf Heraclit. qu. Horn. 26,7 . .. διά τοΰτο τήν μέν1 .

όξυτάτην φ λ ό γα συνεχώ ς ‘Ή λιόν τε καί Δ ία π ρ ο σ α γ ο
ρεύει (sc. "Ο μηρος), τό δ ’ έπί γ ή ς π ΰ ρ "Ηφαιστον,
έτοίμω ς ά π τ ό μ ε ν ό ν τ ε κ α ί σ β ε ν ν ύ μ ε ν ο ν . ' · 1
1 μέν SO : om. cett. et Buffiere 2 cf. Comut. c o m p e n d . 19 (p. 33,12

Lang) ό μέν γ ά ρ αΙθήρ καί τό δ ια υ γές καί καθαρόν πυρ Ζ ε ύ ς
έστι, τό δ* έν χρήσει καί άερομιγές "Ηφαιστος, άπό τοθ ήφθαι
ώ νομασμένος. ..
265
(g) R Iustin. apol. I, 60,8 Krüger ώ ς έκπύρωσιν
γενήσεσθαι διά ΜωΟσέως προεμήνυσε τό προφητικόν
πνεύμα, άκούσατε* (9) εφη δέ οϋτως* καταβήσεται ά ε ί-
ζ ω ο ν π 0 ρ και κ α τα φ ά γετα ι μέχρι της άβύσσου κάτω
(cf. deuteronom. 32,22). Cf. II, 7,3.
Nicand. alex. 173 s. (A 14a DK)

...πδρ μέν ά ε ί ζ ω ο ν και άχύνετον έτρεσεν
Οδωρ / ά ρ γ έ σ τα ς. .. Cf. Schol. ad loc.
(Sehl. p. 385 s. = 49).
Cleanth. hymn. Ιου. 10

άμφήκη πυρόεντα άειζώοντα κεραυνόν
Cf. fr. 79 (64) et I. Beninys (Ges. Abh., I, p. 91 n. 1).
(A) R? M. Ant. VII, 9 σ υ γκ α τα τέτα κ τα ι γ ά ρ και

σ υγκ οσ μ εΐ (sc. πά ντα) τ ό ν α ύ τ ό ν κ ό σ μ ο ν * κ ό σ
μος τε γ ά ρ ε ι ς έξ άπάντω ν, καί θεός είς δι’
άπάντω ν, καί ούσία μία, κ α ί νόμος είς (cf. fr. 23 [114]),
λ ό γ ο ς κοινός π ά ν τ ω ν τω ν νοερών ζώιω ν, κ α ί άλή-
θεια μία . .. Cf. C. Deichgraeber, Rh. Mus. 89 (1940), ρ. 46.
Diog. Laert. IX, 12 έπιγρ ά φ ουσ ι δέ αύτώ ι (sc. τώ ι τοΰ

Η ρ α κ λ είτο υ σ υ γγ ρ ά μ μ α τι) οί μ έ ν ... ά λλοι Γνώμον*1
ήθώ ν12, τρόπου κ ό σ μ ο ν 3 έ 'ν α 4 τ ω ν ξ υ μ π ά ν τ ω ν .
Cf. Μ. Marcovich, Estudios de Füosofia griega, I, p. 53 ss.
1 γνώμον’ Kuester ct Keisko : γνώμην codd. 2 ήτοι ci. Bernaya

(G e s . A h h ., I, p. 8 n. 3) 3 τρόπου κόσμον codd., Kran* (conl.
Aelian. nor. h is t. VI, 12 sub fin .): κόσμον τρόπον Suda, s. Δηλίου
κολυμβητοΰ, Kuester, Diels ( V S * ) : τροπάς κόσμου ci. Deichgraeber
( R h y t h m . E ie r n , i m L o g o s d . S e r a k l i t , Akad. Mainz, 1962,9, p. 549)
4 ίνα Kuester, Kranz : ένός codd., Bernays, Deichgraeber
266
(i) R? Plotin. V, 1 [10], 9,3 H. et S. καί ’Η ράκλειτος
δέ τ o g ν οίδεν ά ί δ ι ο ν καί νοητόν' τά γ ά ρ σώ
μα τα γινόμ ενα 1 άεί κ α ί ’ρέοντα.
1 γινόμενα Harder : γίνεται codd. edd.
267
51 (30)
This world-order, the same for all (men),

no one of gods or men has made,
but it always was and is and shall be:
an ever-living fire, kindling in measures and going out
/ in measures.
Testimonia under (b) seem to share the misinterpretation

of μ έτρα . .. μέτρα as time-periods (by Aristotle?, Theophras
tus, Stoa and Doxographers). But it is difficult to tell whether
(&1) presupposes this fragment, and in (b2) fr. 54 (90) might
be alluded to as well (so Schleiermacher ad his fr. 41).
Possibly in ποτέ (b) (and in έναλλάξ, b1, too) the phrase
μ έ τ ρ α ... μέτρα (understood as periodic changes) is echoed
(aliter Kirk 322).
Clement (or rather his Stoic source) have omitted τ ό ν δ ε

in Heraclitus’ text, to avoid misunderstanding: because in V,
104,2 they are talking of the eternal kosmos, not of this diakos-
mesis (cf. Wiese, Heraklit bei Klemens, p. 242 and n. 1).
Thus we arc not entitled to put τόνδε into Clement’s text
(contra Kirk ei al. ) .
Reinhardt and Kirk (followed by Snell and Frankel)

have rejected the words τ ό ν α ύ τ ό ν α π ά ν τ ω ν as
an explanatory gloss of Clement’s own: “ITis motive for adding
this explanatory phrase is equally plain: he wished to show
clearly to what the phrase τόν έξ ά πά ση ς τή ς ούσίας Ιδίως
ποιόν κόσμον referred; τόν αύτόν άπάντω ν is an over-con
densed but unmistakable summary of the longer Stoic inter
pretation” (Kirk 309); “Thus the interpolation is very strongly
motivated” (Kirk-Raven 199 n. 1).
268
I think this rejection is not at all likely; because:
(i) If Clement had added these words, they should mean:
‘The World as the eterrfal qualified substance, which is the
same for all possible particular world-orders or διακοσμήσεις
[= ά π ά ντω ν]’. Now, this would contradict both Stoic ideas
and terminology; for, they always speak of one κόσμος (and
not of κόσμοι), no matter which one of the three senses is
used (cf. DL V II, 137 s ,) . And Clement is following here
literally his Stoic source (so also Wiese 241: “Dass sie klemen-
tinischer Zusatz sein sollten, ist schon gar nicht anzunehmen,
da Klemens hier sicher nu r eine stoische Vorlage exzei’piert”) .n>
Anyway the words rejected by Reinhardt and Kirk look

quite different from the rest of Clement’s explanatory glosses
(cf. Wiese 242 n. 5; contra Kirk 309), as already pointed out
by Gigon 51 ("Eine erklärende Glosse hätte klarer und ein
facher gelautet”) and Kerschensteiner (Kosmos, Zetemata 30,
Munich, 1962, 101: “Aber fü r einen erklärenden Zusatz, der
doch das Gemeinte verdeutlichen soll, wäre die gewählte Form
sehr m erkwürdig... ”).
(ii) On the other hand, if we accept τόν αύτόν άπάντω ν

as original, τω ν άνθρώ πω ν can be easily understood, and
the phrase would mean: ‘This world-order, the same of all
men’, as suggested by Vlastos 345 n. 18 (cf. also Guthrie 454
n. 2).<2) Also in the possible Stoic imitation of this fragment
(testimonium h: ...κ ό σ μ ο ν , Μνα των ξυμπάντω ν) ‘one for
all men’ should be understood. As for the genitive άπάντων,
already Gigon 55 referred to fr. 23 (114) τώ ι ξυνώι πάντων.
As Vlastos convincingly pointed out, the idea of the real

world-order, the same for all men, as opposed to the deceptive
private dream-worlds of men who do not follow the Logos,
matches Heraclitus’ fr. 24 (89) τοΐς έγρ η γορ όσ ιν ενα καί
κοινόν κόσμον ε ίν α ι... Kirk (in Kirk-Raven ad nr. 220)
objected to this: “This would be possible enough if (what does
not seem particularly probable) fr. 30 followed directly upon
269
a reference to men s delusions”. But such a supposition is not
necessary, since Heraclitus elsewhere combines some elements
of his Logos-doctrine with those of his Fire-doctrine, as e. g. in
fr. 77 (67) the pairs of opposites with the gross of singular
things (cf. θυώ ματα <n> χρήμ α τα, fr. 54 [50]).
Thus while accepting the phrase τον αύτόν άπάντω ν

as genuine (as Gigon; Kranz, Philol. 93 [1938], 441; Deich
gräber, Rh. Mus. 89 [1940], 48 n. 4; Vlastos; Kerschcnsteiner
99 f f.; Guthrie; Wiese 241 f. did), we may, at the same time,
suppose in it some sort of ‘suture’ between Heraclitus’ Logos-
doctrine and his Fire-doctrine.
The polar expression ο ΰ τ ε τ ι ς θ ε ώ ν ο ΰ τ ε Α ν

θρώπων, ‘no god or man’, implies ‘überhaupt keiner’
(Gigon 55); ‘absolutely no one at all’ (Kirk 311).(3)
“This polar expression, like the hieratic formula fjv ά εΐ

καί έστι κ α ί έσται, the epithet άεΐζω ον, and the repeated
μέτρα, are the most striking elements of a pronouncement
which is solemn, elaborate and portentous, which reveals its
origins in heroic verse. . . the monumental style probably indi
cates that this pronouncement was considered by Heraclitus
as an especially important one.” (Kirk i b.).
I find Gigon’s suggestion (p. 52): “Frg. 30 mag den

kosmologischen Teil des Werkes eröffnet haben” quite possible
(contra Kirk i b.).
έ π ο ί η σ ε ν : I think Gigon 56 was right in interpreting

κόσμον έποίησεν as διεκόσμησεν (cf. Anaxagoras fr. 12
π ά ντα διεκόσμησε νους) and in supposing in line 2 a pole
mic against the traditional, epic view that a god or gods
arranged this world-order (cf. e. g. διέτα ξε in Hesiod Theog.
74; Erga 276). This was adopted by Walzer (p. 70 n. 4),
Kirk 315, and. especially by Guthrie 454 n. 3: “W hat is denied
here is not of course creation ex nihüo, an idea quite foreign
to Greek thought, but only the creation of κόσμος out of
270
previous disorder. The denial is no doubt primarily aimed
at the parcelling out of the world into sky, sea and earth,
symbolized by the distribution (δασμός) between the chief
gods, of which the old poets spoke (7Z. XV, 187 ff., Hes. Th.
74, 885)”.
The instances of the hieratic ‘eternity formula’ (Ewig

keitsformel) contained in line 3 are quoted by Reinhardt
{Parm. 176 and Hermes, 10 f. = Vermächtnis, 52 f.), Walzer
(p. 70 n. 5) and Kirk 310. I would only add that the word-
order fjv ά εΐ (in lieu of the expected ά εΐ ήν) probably is due
to the intentional ‘varied alliteration’ e- a- e- e-; cf. ad fr. 1 (i)
άεΐ άξυνετοι γίνοντα ι άνθρωποι.
As for the correct punctuation of the line (a colon after

εσ τα ι'), cf· H. Gomperz (Hermes 58 [1923], 49); Reinhardt
{Parm. 171 ff.; Hermes I. c.); Snell (Tusculum); Kirk I. c.;
Guthrie 454; contra Diels; Kranz (‘scheint unmöglich’); Gigon
52; Walzer 68 et al. Cf. the punctuation with a colon in Hera
clitus’ frr. 27 (57); 93 (52), where an έστι γ ά ρ is also easily
understood.
π υ ρ ά ε ί ζ ω ο ν : cf. ζώ σαν φ λ ό γ α Eurip. Bacchae 8;

τό π Ο ρ .. . ζήι Aristoph. Lysistr. 306; ζωπυρέω , and L. Rader·
macher, Wien. Stud. 49 (1931), 115 ff. I agree with Kirk 316
that the πυρ άείζω ον probably refers primarily to αιθήρ,
“that purer kind which in popular thought fills the upper
region of the heavens and is considered to be divine and im
mortal” (contra Vlastos 362); cf. Marcovich, RE 294. This
world-order is eternal thanks to the fact that its essence is a
part of the immortal, divine Fire.
The participles are probably middle, μέτρα . . .μ έτρ α being

internal accusatives (so Diels; Kirk 317). Now, μ έ τ ρ α . . .
μ έ τ ρ α were understood both in antiquity and among some
modern scholars temporally, as successive periods or periodic
changes affecting the whole world (cf. e. g. Gigon 61: “ .. .ά ε ί
ζωον. Das άεί entscheidet über die Bedeutung von μέτρα —
271
μέτρα. So muss μέτρα — μ έτρα zeitlich aufgefasst werden.
Das räumliche μ ετρεΐται in Frg. 31 beweist nichts”) . This is
not likely at all, μ έ τ ρ α .. .μ έτρ α meaning clearly quantitative
measures and implying a constant quantum or ratio of fire’s
changes thought of primarily as simultaneous all over the
eternal world. In fr. 53 (31) the phrase καί μετρέετα ι είς
τον αύτόν λ ό γ ο ν ... (‘and is measured as to form the same
proportion. . . ’) implies clearly quantitative measure, and a
100% extinguished fire obviously would contradict its epithet
ά είζω ον (‘ever-living’), which suggests “a more or less con
stant and inextinguishable fire, not one which suffers violent
fluctuations”, as Kirk 317 f. convincingly pointed out.
Thus this fragment does not speak in favour of a world-

conflagration ascribed to Heraclitus both in antiquity and by
some modern scholars (e. g. by Zeller 863 ff.; Diels; Gigon
48 ff. and in Der Ursprung d. gr. Philosophie, 207 ff.; Mon-
dolfo, Phronesis 3 [1958], 75 ff., and in ZM 251 f f .) . The
reasons against an ecpyrosis for Heraclitus are to be found
in Kirk 336 f . and in RE 297 f . (with bibliography).
The first man who attributed a periodical cosmic destruc

tion to Heraclitus was Aristotle. Now, according to Ylastos
(A J P 76 [1955], 311) it is the misinterpretation of Heraclitus’
Grcat-Year-doctrinc (cf. fr. 65 [A 13 DK]) which is likely
to have been the chief factor in Aristotle’s attribution to Hera
clitus of an ecpyrosis; this view was accepted by Kirk (Hera
clitus2, 1962, 324 n. 1). But I rather believe that the chief
factor was the general premise of Aristotle’s own way of
thinking, expressed e. g. in phys. Γ 5, p. 204 b 33 ά π α ντα
γ ά ρ έξ οδ εστι, καί δια λύετα ι είς τοΰτο; metaph. Λ 3,
ρ. 983 b 8 έξ οδ γ ά ρ Ιστιν ά π α ντα τά όντα και έξ οδ
γ ίγ ν ε τ α ι πρώ του καί είς δ φ θείρεται τελευταΐον, τής μέν
ούσ ίας ύπομενούσης το ίς δέ πάθεσι μ ετα β α λ λ ο ύ σ η ς...,
and the έξ οδ was fire for Heraclitus.
272
In short, the saying seems to imply:
(i) - This world-order of our experience, which is, by the
way, the only real world-order, common to all men,
(ii) - has not been arranged (made) by anybody at all
(as the traditional epic opinion has it),
(iii) - but is eternal.
(iv) - I t is eternal because its actual basic substance is
the immortal divine Fire;
(v) - this underlying fire (both in the world-processes
and in all things severally) is constantly and simultaneously
being extinguished in measures and kindled in measures, so
that the quantum of the changes of fire remains always
constant.
Thus the preservation of the measures seems to be a more

operative principle than the divine fire itself.
For more details see Kirk’s exhaustive treatment of the

fragment, pp. 307 ff. (with Vlastos’ remarks, pp. 345 f f .) .
(») As for tha terminology, ef. Diog. Laert. VII, 137 τόν έκ της
άπάσης ούοίας Ιδίως ποιόν; 138 καί Ιστι κόσμος δ Ιδίως ποιός
< έκ add.> τής των δλων ούοίας; Arius Didym. ap. Eus. P. E .
XV, 15,3 ( D o r . 464) καί τδ μέν έκ τής πάσης ούοίας ποιόν
κόσμον άίδιον είναι καί θεόν; Pohlenz, D ie S to a , I I 2 (Göttingen,
1955), 44.
(-’> Less likely Gigon 5 5 : ‘alle existierenden Wesen’; D e r U r s p r u n g d e r
g r . P h ilo s o p h ie (Basel, 1945), 221: ‘Diesen Kosmos, denselben für
alle Wesen’.
(3) Cf. R. Hirzel, 1875, 26, p. 470 b; Idem, U n te r s .·
J e n a e r L i t t . Z e itu n g
zu C ic e ro ’s p h ilo s . S c h r i f t e n , III
(Leipzig, 1883), 145 n. 1; Wila-
mowitz, E u r i p i d e s E e r a k le s * (Berlin, 1895), II, 231 [ = 1959*, III,
p. 230 f .] ; E. Kemmer, D i e p o la r e A u sd ru c T c sw e ise i. d . g r . L i t . (Dies.
Würzburg, 1900), 50; Kirk 311.
273
,2> I do not find likely the construction πρώτον ή taken temporally,
as is the case here; c o n tr a LSJ, s. πρότερος, B, III, 8, c , Wiese
245 n. 4.
,3> If such a r a r e phenomenon as πρηστήρ is some s y m b o l t o r any
kind of sky-fire, then perhaps also the change sea > earth and v ic e
v e r s a might apply to such rare phenomena as the upheaval of islands
(like Rhodes and Delos) and the sinking of land-masses (as it was
believed that Atlantis had sunk) etc. This is the way in which
Kirk 333 f. interpreted the saying. Nevertheless I prefer to see in
the saying an allusion to the e v e r y d a y m e te o r o lo g ic a l p r o c e s s e s .
290
54
(90 D lt; 22 B)
(a) C Pint. de E 388 DE . . . άπομιμουμένου του

άριθμοϋ τήν τ ά δ λ α διακοσμοΟσαν άρχήν. ώ ς γ ά ρ έκεί-
νην ύπα λλά ττουσ α ν1 έκ μέν έα υτή ς τόν κόσμον έκ δέ
τοΰ κόσμου π ά λιν12*έα υτή ν ά ποτελεΐν
π υ ρ ά ς τε:ι ά ν τ α μ ο ιβ ή τ ά 4*6 π ά ν τα , φησίν ό 'Η ράκλειτος,

κ α ι π υ ρ ά π ά ντω ν,
δκωσπερ® χρ υ σ ο υ χ ρ ή μ α τ α
κ α ί χ ρ η μ ά τ ω ν χ ρ υ σ ό ς'1,
οϋτω ς ή τη ς π εμ π ά δ ο ς π ρ ό ς έαυτήν σύνοδος ούδέν οΰτ’

ά τελ ές οΰτ’ ά λλότρ ιον γ έν ν α ν πέφυκεν, ά λ λ ’ ώ ρισ μένας
έχει μεταβολάς.
(Schl. fr. 41).
1 ύπαλλάττουσαν Wilamowitz (έναλλάττουσαν Madvig, άλλάττουσαν

Babbitt) : φυλάττουσαν codd. : πλάττουσαν Bernays 2 post
πάλιν add. α ΰ A«®"., ά<ρ' Π1, έ φ ’ Γ Ε 3 τε Xs Β g, ora. cett.
4 άνταμοιβή τά Biels ( S B B e r l . 1901, p. 191), aco. Kirk 345, άντα-
μοιβήν τά Bernardakis et Schwartz, acc. Sieveking : άνταμοίβηται Γ,
άνταμείβεται cett. : άνταμείβεσθαι Wyttenbach, acc. Babbitt : άντα-
μοίβητα Paton 5 έκ ώσπερ Γ, ώσπερ cett., corr. Bernardakis
6 cf. Plat. le g . 849 E άλλάττεσθαι νόμισμά τε χρημάτων καί χρήματα
νομίσματος
(&') Κ Simplic. in phys. ρ. 23,33 Diels — Theophrast.

physic, opin. fr. 1 (Dox. p. 475,14) " Ιπ π α σ ο ς δέ ό Μετα-
ποντΐνος και Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς ό Έ φ έσ ιο ς έν καί οδτοι καί
κινούμενον καί πεπερασμένον, ά λ λ ά πΟρ έποίησαν τήν
ά ρ χή ν- καί έκ πυράς ποιοΟσι τ ά δντα 1 πυκνώ σει κ α ί μ ο
νώσει, καί διαλύουσι π ά λ ιν εις πυρ, ώ ς τα ύτη ς μ ια ς οδσης
291
«ρύσεως τη ς ύποκειμένη ς- π υ ρ ό ς γάρ ά μο ιβήν
εϊνα ί φησιν Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς π ά ν τ α 2.
1 δντα ex π<5«ντα corr. Ea 2 τά πάντα ci. Sehleiermacher ft. recte
(δ3) R Diog. Laert. IX, 8 π δρ είναι στοιχεΐον καί

πυρός άμοιβήν τά πάντα...
(δ3) R Euseb. praep. ev. XIV, 3,8 ό δέ Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς

ά ρ χή ν τω ν π«άντων έφη είνα ι τό πυρ, έξ οδ τ ά π«5«ντα
γ ίν ε τ α ι κ α ί εις δ <*ναλόεται· < π υ ρ ό ς > 3 ά μ ο ι β ή ν
γ ά ρ ε ί ν α ι τ ά π ά ν τ α . (Cf. Box. 169; G. Kirk 24).
(Sehl, ad fr.).
1 πυρός add.
(c1) R Heraclit. qu. Hom. 43,7 ...δ η μ ιο υ ρ γ ό ν , ή νίκα

έμ ελλε π ά ντα μορφοΰσθαι, τόν "Η φαιστον έπέστησε, τουτ-
έστι τήν θερμήν ο ύ σ ία ν π υ ρ ό ς γ ά ρ δή, κ α τά τόν
φυσικόν Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν, ά μ ο ι β ή ι 1 τ ά π ά ν τ α γίνετα ι.
(Schl, ad fr.).
1 άμοιβήι Diels (D o x . 475): άμοιβή codd., edd.
(c*) R Philo, leg. alleg. I ll, 7 (I, p. 114 Cohn) . . .'Η ρ ά

κ λειτε ίου δόξης έτα ΐρ ο ς, κόρον κ α ί χρησμοσύνην (cf.
fr. 55 [65]) κ α ί §ν τό π α ν (cf. fr. 26 [50] δ) κ α ί π ά ν τ α
ά μ ο ι β ή ι είσ άγω ν.
Cf. de aetem. mundi 109 (VI, ρ. 106 C.) = fr. 33 [60] d2

. . . κ α ί τήν αυτήν όδόν ά νω κ α ί κά τω συνεχώ ς ά μ ε ί-
β ο ν τ α (sc. τ ά σ το ιχ εία ).
292
(c:i) R Plotin. IV, 8 [6], 1 ό μέν γ ά ρ Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς. ..
ά μ ο ι β ά ς τε ά ν α γ κ α ία ς τιθέμενος έκ τω ν έναντίων,
δδόν τε άνω κ ά τω εΐιτών (cf. fr. 33 [60]) κ α ί . . . seq.
fr. 56ab [84ab]. ""
Cf. Iambi, de anima ap. Stob. I, 49,39 (I, p. 378,21 W .);

Aen. Gaz. Theophrast. p. 9 Boiss. = PG 85, p. 877 C ( = fr. 56
1.8-4] a? et a3) .
(c4) R Lucian, vit. auct. 14 . . . π ερ ιχω ρ έο ντσ καί

άμειβόμενα...
(cr’) R? Arnob. adv. nationes II, 10 vidit enim Hera

clitus res ignium conversionibus fieri. . .
293
54 (90)
A ll things are an equal exchange for fire

and fire for all things,
as goods are for gold
and gold for goods.
Testimonia under (b) are dependent on Theophrastus,

those under (c) on the Stoic doctrine (and so is testimonuim
a to o ). All of them presuppose the ecpyrosw-interpretation
of Heraclitus.0 ’
As for the text of (a), I agree with Kirk 345 in that

άνταμοιβή should be read, and not ά ν τ α μ ο φ ή < ν > , as
Bemardakis, Schwartz and Sieveking have it: because in that
case I would expect χρυσόν, and not χρυσός. But I disagree
with Kirk in that the preceding text of Plutarch from ώ ς γ ά ρ
έκείνην down to ά ποτελεΐν is attributed by him to Hera
clitus: the oratio obliqua depends on a φασίν understood, and
the reference to Heraclitus begins with π υρός τε. Thus we
have an anacoluthon.
The simile seems to imply the following points:

(i) As gold is the general tantamount (equivalent) for
any kind of wares, so also fire should be thought of as the
common constituent part of every physical thing.
(ii) The word χ ρ ή μ α τ α suggests that τ ά π ά ντα
and ά π α ν τα refer to manifold individual objects and pheno
mena from the world of our experience (e. g. to ‘soul’, ‘day’
etc.), and not only to two world-masses (sea and land). The
same is suggested by π ά ντα fr. 78 (7), and by θυώ μ α τα
fr. 77 (67) too.
294
(iii) The characteristic of the process of trading and ex
change (circulation of money) is that it is going on simulta
neously, partially and severally: varying amounts of gold
(currency) are being exchanged for different articles of wares
at the same time in different places all over the country.
Thus τ ά πάντα and ά π α ν τ α mean “all things
severally’ and not ‘the totality of things’ or cosmos. Because
a. total and successive exchange: the whole of goods for all
the gold and vice versa is out of the question. But this is
the way Theophrastus (in testimonium h), the Stoics and
some modem scholars interpreted the exchange and τ ά πά ντα
(cf. e. g. Gigon 18 ‘Gegensatzwechsel’; Der Ursprung d. gr.
Philosophie 211: ‘Wechselweiser Umsatz: Des Alls gegen das
Feuer und des Feuers gegen das All’), taking them to imply
an eepyrosis. This interpretation has been refuted by Burnet
161: “All the wares and gold do not come into the same hands.
In the same way, when anything becomes fire, something of
equal amount must cease to be fire, if the ‘exchange’ is to be
a just one.” Cf. also Cherniss (A JP 56 [1935], 414 f.) and
Kirk 337; 347 f.
(iv) The most important implication of the simile seems
to be the necessity of preservation of measures in the quali
tative changes. The idea of measure is implied by the term
α ν τ α μ ο ι β ή , ‘equal exchange’ (‘άντ- reinforces the idea
of exact reciprocity in ά μ ο ιβ ή ’, Kirk 346), which presupposes
the idea of a fixed value. As Guthrie 461 convincingly put it:
“In mercantile transactions the essential thing is parity of
value: a certain quantity of gold will buy a certain quantity
of goods.”
We should not, expect, more precision and cogency from

an archaic simile.
(i) 1 am not sure that Hippoerat. d e v i c t u I, 5 χωρεΐ δέ πάντα καί

θεία καί άνθρώπινα άνω καί κάτω άμειβόμενα is an imitation
of this saying ( c o n tr a Kirk 346).
295
24
’S
(89 DK; 95 B)
(«) P Pint, de superst. 166 C ό Η ρ ά κ λ ειτό ς φησι
τοίς έγρηγορόσιν ένα καί κοινόν

κ ό σ μ ο ν είναι,
τω ν δέ κ ο ι μ ω μ έ ν ω ν έκαστον εις
ίδιον άποστρέφεσθαι'1
τώ ι δέ δεισιδαίμονι κοινός ο ύ δ ε ίς 2 έστι κόσμος· οδτε

γ ά ρ έγρ η γο ρ ώ ς τώ ι ψρονοΰντι χρήται οδτε κοιμώμενος
ά τια λλάττεται του τ α ρ ά τ τ ο ν τ ο ς ... (Schl. ρ. 520 = 136 s.).
1 άναστρέφεσΟαι 1) 2 ούδείς < ούδ’ Ϊ6ιός> add. Mattlmei, ace.

Patou
98
24 (89)
The waking share one common world,

whereas the sleeping turn aside each man into a world of his own.
**
Diels (followed by Reinhardt, Parm. 216 η. 1; Kranz and

Walzer 124) rejected the second part, and Kirk 63 f. the first
part of the fragment; both are unlikely. The way in which
G. Vlastos 344 ff. treated the saying seems to me sound; un
likely Ramnoux 58; 396.
Kirk objected to the authenticity of the word κόσμος
here: “the sum of one’s experience is meant, and the sense of
‘order’ certainly cannot be stressed.’ But I think the treatment
of κόσμος in general by Kirk 313 f. was too strict and narrow
(certainly κόσμος in Anaxagoras fr. 8, or in Diogenes Apollon,
fr. 2, or else in Empedocles fr. 134,5 implies mueh more
World than order; cf. also Vlastos 346). Possibly the phrase
κόσμον τόνδε, τον αύτόν απάντω ν fr. 51 (30 DK), and
the words όκόσα έγερ θ έντες όρέομεν fr. 49 (21) as well,
speak in favour of the authenticity of κόσμος in this fragment.
I don’t think that “neither part [of the fragment] adds
materially to what we already know” and that “the final part
of 1. . . would be quite sufficient in itself to cause the con
nexion of ‘each returns to his private land’ with s le e p ...”,
as Kirk 64 believed. To my way of thinking, this fragment does
say something new. It is a Heraclitean simile or metaphor: “As
the world of those who are awake is one, the same and common
to all men, and therefore real and true; whereas the worlds
(cf. ψάος co φ άσ ματα in fr. 48 [26]) of those who sleep are
many, different from each other and certainly illusive, unreal
and untrue: so also those who have recognized the universal
Logos, common to all things and l’eal (έών, fr. 1), possess one
99
single world-order, common to all men (cf. κόσμον τόνδε,
τόν αυτόν απάντω ν) and true; whereas the rest of men
possess each one a different world, untrue and -fanciful (cf.
δοκέοντα fr. 20 [2da] ; έω υτοΐσι δέ δοκέουσι fr. 3 [17];
ώ ς ιδίαν £χοντες fr. 23 [.2]). Thus the word έγρ η γορ όσ ιν
alludes to the recognition of the Logos.
The re-wording of Heraclitus’ original text (supposed
already hv Gigon 10) might be minimal.
The Pythagorean symbol έκ τή ς ίδίης έά ν άποδημήις,
μή έπιστρέφου. . . (Hippol. refut. VI, 26,1 [ρ. 153,1 W endl.]);
αποδήμω ν τής οικ εία ς μή έπιστρέφου (Iambi, protr. 21,14)
has nothing in common with this fragment; contra Kirk 64
“and it is impossible not to wonder whether the first sentence
also is really derived from Heraclitus’; ‘each returns to his
private land.’ 01
\
It is quite possible that fr. 24 (89) was one of the sources
for the Sceptic forgery contained in Sext. Emp. adv. math.
VII, 129.
The symbol was first adduced by .T. Bernays ( Gets. J b h . , I, 92 n.),

who brought its second part (εΐ δέ μή, Έριννύες Δίκης έπίκουροί
σε μετελεύσονται Hippolytus; Έ ρινύες γ ά ρ μετέρχονται Iam-
bliehus) into relation with Heraclitus fr. 52 (94 D K ); so did
Bywater. But the most probable explanation is that both Heraclitus
and the Pythagorean symbol have made use of the common phrase
Έρινύες Δίκης έπίκουροί in d e p e n d e n t l y , and not that the symbol
was derived from Heraclitus.
100
GROUP SIX
F it . 25 (70); 26 (50); 27 (57)
The fragments of this Group are of great theo

retical importance for Heraclitus’ doctrine on the.
Logos: all three are meant as statements of universal
validity. They deal with the content of the Logos
( which Heraclitus actually does not define among
the preserved sayings) .
(i) - Out of each pair of opposites there can be
made a unity (fr. 25 έκ πάντω ν έ'ν or a σύλλαψ ις;
fr. 27 [sc. παν] διαφερόμενον σ υ μ φ έρ ετα ι).
(ii) - The universal validity of this Law is the
reason for the underlying (metaphysical) unity of
this world-order (fr. 26 £v π ά ντα είνα ι = fr. 25
έξ ενός π ά ντα ).
(iii) - As paradoxical as it seems, the most im
portant reason for the unity of opposites (although
not the only one, cf. Groups 8-12) consists in a
constant tension or variance between them ( t o
παλίντονον fr. 27; cf. ερις and πόλεμος in Group 7).
(α1) 0? IX, 9,5 (ρ. 242,9 AVe.). post fr. 29 (53).
δτι δέ έστιν (sc. ά π α τή ρ πάντω ν) ***1 άρμονίη δκω σπερ
τόξου καί λύρης. seq. fr. 9 (54).
1 lae. signif. Miller : <άρμονία, έν τούτοις λέγει> ci. Wendland :

<άδιαίρετος διαιρετός, οϋτως λέγει- διαφερόμενον έωυτώι όμολο-
γέει- παλ(ντροπθς> ci.
(b) R Plato symp. 187 AB μουσική δέ καί παντί

κατά δη λος τώ ι καί σμικρόν προσέχοντι τόν νοϋν, δτι
κ α τά τ α ύ τ ά 1 έχει τούτοις, ώ σπερ ίσω ς καί Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς
βούλεται λέγειν, έπεί τοΐς γ ε 'ρήμασιν ού κ α λώ ς λ έ γ ε ι-
τό έ ν 2 γ ά ρ φησι δ ι α φ ε ρ ό μ ε ν ο ν α ύ τ ό α ύ τ ώ ι
ξ υ μ φ έ ρ ε σ θ α ι , ώ σ π ε ρ ά ρ μ ο ν ί α ν τό.ξου τε
κ α ί λ ύ ρ α ς , έστι δέ πολλή ά λ ο γ ία άρμονίαν φάναι
διαφ έρεσθαι ή έκ διαφερομένω ν έτι είναι- ά λ λ ά ίσω ς
τόδε έβούλετο λ έγειν δτι έκ διαφερομένων πρότερον του
όξέος καί βαρέος, έπ ειτα ϋστερον όμολογησάντω ν γέγ ο -
νεν ύπό τής μουσικής τέχνη ς-3 ού γ ά ρ δήπου έκ δια φ ε
ρομένων γ ε έτι του όξέος καί βαρέος αρμονία άν εϊη.
(Schl. ρ. 411 = 65).
1 ταύτά W 7 , ταΟτα Β 2 δν vcl potius παν ci. Ast 3 τέχνης

ή άρμονία Ficin., Stephan.
(c) R soph. 242 DE Ί ά δ ε ς δέ καί Σ ικ ε λ α ί1 τινες

ύστερον Μ οϋσ αι2 (sc. Heraclitus et Empedocles) συνενόη-
σ α ν 3 δτι συμπλέκειν ά σ φ α λ έσ τα το ν4 άμφότερα κ α ί λ έ
γ ειν ώ ς τό δν π ο λ λ ά τε καί έν έστιν, έχθρα ι δέ καί φ ιλίαι
συνέχεται, δ ι α φ ε ρ ό μ ε ν ο ν γ ά ρ άεί σ υ μ φ έ ρ ε-
τ α ι, φασίν α ί συντονώ τεραι τω ν Μουσών- α ί δέ μαλα-
κ ώ τερ α ι τό μέν ά εί τα ΰ τα οϋτω ς έχειν έχάλασ αν, έν μέρει
δέ τοτέ μέν έν είναι φασι τό πόίν καί φίλον ύπ’ ’Αφρο
δίτης, τοτέ δ έ 5 π ο λ λ ά κ α ί πολέμιον αύτό αύτώ ι δ ιά νεΐ-
κός τι." (Schl. fr. 27; cf. ρ. 469 s. = 103).
120
1 σικελαί Β, Simpl, tin p h y s . p. SO,15 D.): σικελικοί TYW, Eusob.
( p r a e p . c v . XIV, 4, 8) 2 cf. I)iog. Lagrt. IX, 12 έπιγράφουσι
δ ' αύτωι οι μέν Μούσας; Suda s. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς- καί έγραψ ε πολλά
ποιητίκω ς; Marsil. Ficin. d e i m m o r t . a n i m o r u m XV, 4 (I, p. 393 cd.
Basil. 1576) ...deincle ab Orplieo Empedoele Heraclito poeticis dumtaxat
carminibus decantatos 3 συννενοήκασιν B 4 άσφαλέστερον
Eus. 5 δέ καί TY 6 cf, Empcdocl. fr. 17 DK
(d1) R (8 DK; 46 B) Aristot. eth. Nie. Θ 1, p. 1155 b 4

(praec. Eurip. fi-. 898,7-10 N.J) . . . καί Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς 'τ ό
άντίξουν σ υ μ φ έ ρ ο ν ’ καί 'έκ τω ν διαφερόντων
καλλίστην ά ρ μ ο ν ί α ν ’ καί 'π ά ντα κ α τ’ έριν γίνεσ θ α ι’
(cf. fr. 28 [80]). (Schl. fr. 33).
(d-) R? Hippocr. de victu I, 11 . . . καί σύμφορα

πά ντα διάφορα έ ό ν τ α ... ύ π ε ν α ν τ ί ο ς ό τ ρ ό π ο ς
έκάστων όμολογεόμενος; 17 τα ΰ τα πάντα
διάφ ορα έόντα σ υμ φ έρ ει;1 18 τ ά πλεΐστον - διάφορα
μά λισ τα συμφέρει, τ ά δέ έλάχιστον- διάφορα ήκιστα
συμφέρει. (Cf. Bernnys, Ges. Abh. 1, 21 s.).
1 συμφ. τήι φύσει Μ 2 π λ εΐσ τα . .. έλάχιστα ΘΜ, corr. Wilam.
(d3) R Hör. epist. I, 12,19 quid velit et possit rerum

concordia discon, / Empedocles... (cf. Lucan. I, 98; Lact.
div. inst. II, 9,17 philosophi quidam ct poetae discordi concordia
mundum constare dixerunt); de arte 374 svmphonia discors;
Ovid. met. I, 432 s. discors concordia; Manil. I, 142 discordia
concors; Sen. <ju. nat. VII, 27,4 tota lmcc immdi concordia ex
discordilnis constat; de otio 5,6 utrum contraria inter sc clemcnta
sint, an non pugnent, sed per diversa conspirent; Cic. de nat.
deor. II, 119 conccntus ex dissimilibus motibus; Marsil. Ficin. in
Plat. soph. II, ρ. 1287 ed. Basil. 1576 sed Heraclitus hunc mundi
habitum una cum discordi quadam concordia ferme semper esse
consimilem, quamvis non prorsus eundem (omnia enim iugiter
fhiitare). Ps. Aristot. de mundo 5, p. 396 b 7 τω ν έναντίω ν ή
φύσις γ λ ίχ ε τα ι καί έκ τούτω ν α ποτελεί τό σύμφωνον,
ούκ έκ τω ν όμοιω ν; Μ. Ant. V II, 48 καί τό έκ τω ν έναν
τίω ν συγκοσμούμενον (cf. A.S.L. Farqnharson 740 s.); Philo
qu. in Gen. III, 5 (I, p. 185 R. M arcus); Plotin. III, 2 [47], 16,48
H.-S. καί τό π α ν όμ ολογεΐ έα υτώ ι τω ν μερών πολλα χοΰ
μαχο μ ε ν ώ ν ...
(e‘) R (56 Β) Plut. de tranq. an. 473 F δεΐ δ ’ ώ σπερ

έν πινα κ ίω ι χρ ω μ ά τω ν έν τήι ψυχήι τω ν π ρ α γ μ ά τω ν τά
λ α μ π ρ ά καί φ α ιδρ ά π ρ οβ ά λλοντα ς άποκρύπτειν τά
σκυθρω πά καί πιέζειν. έξα λεΐψ α ι γ ά ρ ούκ έ'στι παντά-
πα σ ιν ούδ' ά π α λ λ α γ ή ν α ι' π α λ ί ν τ ρ ο π ο ς 1 γ ά ρ ά ρ-
μ ο ν ί η κόσμου δ κ ω σ π ε ρ λ ύ ρ η ς κ α ί τ ό ξ ο υ ,
καί τω ν άνθρω πίνω ν καθαρόν ούδέν ούδ’ ά μ ιγές. ά λ λ ’
ώ σπερ έν μουσικήι β α ρείς φ θ ό γ γο ι καί όξεΐς, έν δέ
γρ α μ μ α τικ ή ι φωνήεντα καί άφω να γρ ά μ μ α τα , μουσικός
δέ κ α ί γρ α μ μ α τικ ό ς ούχ ό θ ά τερ α δυσχεραίνω ν και ύπο-
φ εύγω ν ά λ λ ’ δ πασ ι χρήσθαι και μειγνύναι π ρ ο ς τό
οίκεΐον έπιστάμενος, οΰτω και τω ν π ρ α γμ ά τω ν άντιστοι-
χ ία ς έχόντων. .. (seq. Eurip. fr. 21 Ν.2) .
1 παλίντονος D
(e2) R (56 Β) de Is. 369 AB άδύνατον γ ά ρ ή φλαΟ-

ρον ότιουν 0πουι πάντω ν ή χρηστόν δπου1 μηδενός ό
θεός α ίτιο ς έγγενέσθαι* π α λ ί ν τ ο ν ο ς γ ά ρ ά ρ μ ο
ν ί η κόσμου δ κ ω σ π ε ρ 2 λ ύ ρ η ς καί τόξου
καθ’ Η ρ ά κ λειτον, καί κ α τ’ Ε ύ ρ ιπ ίδ η ν ... (fr. 21 Ν.2) .
(Schl. fr. 34).
1 όμοΰ codd., corr. Meziriac 2 δπωσπερ codd., corr. Wyttenbach
122
(e3) R de an. procr. in Tim. 1026 A . .. ζωή τε του
παντός έστιν εμφρων καί αρμονία καί λ ό γο ς ά γ ω ν πει-
θοΐ μεμιγμένην άνάγκην, ήν ειμαρμένην οί πολλοί καλοΰ-
σιν, Ε μ π εδ ο κ λ ή ς δέ φιλίαν όμοΟ κ α ί νεΐκος, Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς
δέ π α λ ί ν τ ρ ο π ο ν άρμονίην κόσμου δ κ ω σ
π ε ρ λ ύ ρ η ς κ α ί τ ό ξ ο υ , Π αρμενίδης δέ φώς καί
σκότος, ’Α ν α ξα γό ρ α ς δέ νοΰν καί ά π ε ιρ ία ν . . .
(Schl. ad. fr. 34).
(e‘?) 11 Porphyr, de antro nymphar. 29 Nauck- . . . καί

διά τούτο π α λ ί ν τ ο ν ο ς ή ά ρ μ ο ν ί α <ώσπερ
λ ύ ρ α ς > χ κ α ί τ ό ξ ο υ , ε ί 2 διά των έναντίων.
1 < ώσπερ λ ύ ρ α ς > add. Byw., acc. Kirk 211, < λ ύ ρ α ς > Schuster 231,
< κόσμου ώ ς λ ύ ρ α ς > Zeller 828 n. 2 καί τόξου, st Schleiern.
1>. 418 [70], ncc. Byw., Kirk, εΐπερ Schuster : κα'ι τοξεύει cod., Nauck,
Walzer
(e5) R Synes. de insomniis 2, PG 66, 1285 Β τό δ’ έξ

άντικειμένω ν ϊ ν άρμονία, καί λύ ρ α ς καί κόσμου.
(/) R Simplic. in phys. ρ. 50,10 Diels (cf. phys. A 2,

p. 185 b 19) τοια υτα ι γ ά ρ α ί θέσεις ώ ς Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς έδό-
κει, τό ά γ α θ ό ν καί τό κακόν είς ταύτόν λ έγω ν σ υ ν ιέν α ι1
δ ί κ η ν τ ό ξ ο υ κ α ί λ ύ ρ α ς * δ ς καί έδόκει θέσιν
λ έγειν δ ιά τό οϋτω ς άδιορίσ τω ς φάναι. seq. Plat. soph.
242 D. Cf. Kirk 95. (Sehl. ρ. 414 = 67).
1 cf. ρ. 82,23 κ αι ό του 'Η ρακλείτου λ ό γ ο ς άληθής ό λέγω ν τό

ά γαθόν καί τό κακόν ταύτόν είναι.
123
27 (51)
(Men) do not understand how what is being brought apart

comes together with itself:
there is a ‘back-stretched connexion’ like that of the bow
or of the lyre.
όμολογοΰσιν in Hippolytus’ context (testimonium a) is

an echo of όμολογεϊν from the preceding fr. 26 (50): it is
not the reason for the presence of όμολογέειν in Parisinus
(contra Kirk-Raven 193: “a verb which could easily have been
repeated accidentally, since Hippolytus used it twice in the
infinitive just before he quoted the fragment”; Kirk 204). I think
ά μ ολογέει in (a) is due to some Stoic version of the fragment:
cf. Plotinus (quoted in d3) καί τό παν όμολογεΐ έα υτώ ι κχλ.
The origin of this version might have been Plato Symp. 187 AB
έκ διαφερομένων πρότερον του όξέος καί βαρέος, έπειτα
ϋστερον ό μ ο λ ο γ η σ ά ν τ ω ν . . . ή γ ά ρ άρμονία σ υ μ
φ ω ν ί α έστί, συμφωνία δέ ο μ ο λ ο γ ί α τ ις κτλ. Now,
already Fr. Dirlmeier (Aristoteles Werke deutsch, V II, 372)
has suggested that Aristotle eth. Eud. Η. 1, p. 1235 a 27
ού γ ά ρ άν είναι άρμονίαν μή δντος όξέος καί β α ρ έ ο ς ...
έναντίων δντων was influenced by the Symposium passage.
I think the same is true of testimonium (d '); namely, τό
άντίξουν συμφέρον ‘what is at variance, agrees’ (1> comes
from διαφερόμενον. . ,ξυμφέρεσθαι (testimonium h), and
έκ τω ν διαφερόντων (sc. τόνων) καλλίστην άρμονίαν
comes from έκ διαφερομένω ν. . . γέγο νεν (sc. άρμονία)
ibid, plus e.g. Laches 188 D άρμονίαν καλλίστην (aliter
Kirk 220 f .; 224). Hence also [Aristotle] de mundo 5, p. 396
b 15 μουσική δέ όξεΐς ά μ α καί βαρείς, μακρούς τε καί
β ρ α χείς φ θόγγους μίξασ α έν διαφόροις φωναΐς, μίαν
124
άπετέλεσεν ά ρ μ ο νία ν; b 7 έκ τω ν έναντίων . . . τό σύμ
φωνον, and Horatius (quoted under d3) symphonia discors;
rerum concordia d i s c o r s Probably the same Peripatetic
influence we find in testimonium (d~) as well.
σ υ μ φ έ ρ ε τ α ι is the preferable reading, because Plato
in (b) uses this word although όμ ολογεΐ would better suit
his purpose.
τ τ α λ ί ν τ ο ν ο ς is preferable to πα λίντρ οπος; because:
(.1) - ‘παλίντονος is a current epithet of the bow’, Verde-

nius 1. c.; 'πα λίντρ οπος cannot well describe a άρμονίη’
Ii.o. ‘method of joining’, ‘connexion’], Kh’k 214.
(2) - The idea of ‘tension’, implied by -τονος, can be
deduced also from Heraclitus’ fr. 28 (80) έρ ις and from this
fragment διαφερόμενον. .. συμφέρεται (contra, Vlastos 349).
(3) - Diog. Laert. IX, 7 δ ιά τής έ να ν τιο τρ ο π ή ς' ”
ήρμόσθαι τά δντα does not seem to support the rending
παλίντροπος, since the terminology probably comes from
fr. 53" (31" DK) τρ ο π α ί; fr. 54 (90 DK) άνταμοιβή and
fr. 33 (60) όδός άνω κάτω. Cf. DK I, p. 141,26 τρέπεσθαι ;
Aristot. phys. Γ 5, p. 205 a 6 πά ντα γ ά ρ μ εταβά λλει έξ
έναντίου εις έναντίον; Aet. I, 7,22 (Dox. 303) έκ τής έναν-
τιοδρομίας, and J. Kcrschensteiner, Hermes 83 (1955), 395 f.
(aliter Bernays, Ges. Abh., I, 22; Kranz; Vlastos 348).45
(4) - It does not matter that our best source (a) has
παλίντροπος, since Hippolytus is obviously depending on a
Stoic source, where πα λίντροπος stood; probably hence also
όμολογέει in (a), in lieu of συμφέρεται. Of. also Hippolytus'
context to fir. 04-00 DK.
(5) - According to IVilamowitz (followed by Kranz and
Vlastos), παλίντονος is lectio facilis, immo trivialis. But the
same can be said of πα λίντροπος (ef. e.g . Soph. fr. 576,5
Pearson π λ ά σ τ ιγ γ α . . ,παλίντροπον Stobaeus, in lieu of
π α λ ίρ ρ ο π ο ν ).
(6) - Parmenides fr. 6,9 π α λίντροπος. . . κέλευθος is not
an argument pro πα λίντρ οπος : cf. Soph. Philoctet. 1222 f.
and Kirk 211; Kirk-Raven 194 n.; 272; J. E. Raven, Pytha
goreans and Eleatics (Cambridge, 1948), 25 f.; K. Reich,
Hermes 82 (1954), 291; N. B. Booth, Phronesis 2 (1957),
94; G. E. L. Owen, CQ 54 (1960), 90 ff.; 91 n. 3; contra e.g.
Vlastos 341 n. 11; Zeller-Mondolfo 392 ff.; Guthrie 408 n. 2;
A. A. Long, Phronesis 8 (1963), 94 n. 1.
I understand the saying as follows:
“They [probably άνθρω ποι] do not comprehend how

(i.e . in what way exactly) every thing which is being brought
apart (i.e . which is diverging) [or, less probably, which is
being at variance: so Burnet 136; Kirk 203; Guthrie 439]
nevertheless comes together with itself (i.e . converges) [or,
less probably, agrees with itself]. As a matter of fact, we have
to do with a ‘back-stretched connexion’ like, for example, that
of the bow or that of the lyre.”
The statement διαφερόμενον συμφέρεται has the vali
dity of a general rule; Kirk (p. 205) is correct: ‘the participle
is of universal application: anything which is διαφερόμενον
is also συμφερόμενον. .. ;(4) (cf. Kirk-Raven 194 ‘anything
being carried apart’) . Consequently, the explanation of this
statement: παλίντονος άρμονίη must also be of universal
validity. On the other hand, άρμον(η τόξου καί λύρης ave
meant only as particular, concrete examples (cf δ κ ω σ π ε ρ ).
The bringing such common examples as ‘bow’ or ‘lyre’
might imply accessibility of the Logos: ‘The reason (cf. δκω ς)
is quite simple, but one should κ α τά φύσιν διαιρεΐν έκαστον
and, besides, possess an ού βά ρβα ρος ψυχή.’ Cf.
126
frr. Men Logos
27 (51) ού ξυνιασιν δκ ω ς opposed to τόξον, λύρη
21 (56) έξηπάτηνται πρ ός
τήν γνώ σιν ” ” τω ν φανερών
43 (57) ούκ έγίνω σκεν ” ” ήμέρην και εύφρό-
νην
3 (17) ού φρονέουσι ” ” όκοίοις έγκυρέου-
σιν
1 U) άξύνετοι ” ” του λ ό γο υ έόντος
There seems to be no close parallelism between this frag

ment and fr. 25 (10). There, συμφερόμενον (A) and διαφ ε
ρόμενον (Λ’) probably were meant only as a pair of opposites,
whose unity or connexion was σύλλαψις ( B ) . But here διαφε
ρόμενον (A + A’) implies both opposites (i.e. two ends of
the bow, ιταλίντονα τόξα, κορωναι, κ έρ α ), and συμφέρεται
has the upper rank of Unity or Connexion [= σύλλαψις,
άρμονίη, νευρά, äv, B, or Logos]. Here the emphasis is on
σ υμφ έρεται: what men do not understand is the unity (i.e.
Logos) between two opposites. On the contrary, in fr. 25 (10)
συν- : δια- were equipollent. Aliter Kirk 217: “in fr. 10 it
was concluded that συμφερόμενον and διαφερόμενον were
alternative ways of describing συλλάψιες. .. “συμφέρεται
describes this synthetic way of regarding differentiation...
διαφερόμενον describes the analytical way of viewing diffe
r e n t i a t i o n . c f . Kirk-Raven 194.
Probably the constant tension between the two opposites
(cf. Group 7), as well as their simultaneity (and not their
temporal succession: cf. the present tense συμφέρεται and
Plato’s άεί in testimonium c) were for Heraclitus a specially
important or typical reason for the unity or Logos. Never
theless it is not the only one (cf. Groups 8-12).
π α λ ί ν τ ο ν ο ς · 51 means only ‘back-stretched’, ‘rück-
gespannt’, implying here the tendency of the tivo arm-ends
(A and A’) of a strung but resting bow [i.e. without the
127
intervention either of the arrow or of the archerJ back towards
the right line. Thanks to this dual back-stretching in opposite
directions the effective unity of the instrument through the
string (νευρά - B ) can be achieved. Thus the string plays the
part of a higher principle, that of unity or Logos (άρμονίη),
and its counter-action or tension seems to have no point [i.e.
the interaction between the two opposites or arms seems to be
envisaged, rather than that between the string and the arm s]:
A somewhat different view was shared by Kirk 203 ‘a

connexion working in both directions’; 215 ‘under opposite
tensions’; 217 ‘the connexion is one which simultaneously
operates in contrary ways, and it is only maintained so long
as each tension exactly balances the other. If the outward
pull of the arms is too strong the string breaks; if the inward
pull of the string is too strong the arms br eak. . Kirk-Raven
195 n. 2 “παλίντονος = ‘counter - stretched’, i.e. tending
equally in opposite directions. A tension in one direction
automatically produces an equivalent tension in the other;
if not, the system collapses.” ; cf. p. 194. This sounds very
coherent and attractive, but does not satisfy the very meaning
of παλίντονος.
12S
Likely explanations of the bow simile were given by Gigon
23; Kirk 1. c. and E. Kurtz, Interpretationen zu den Logos-
Fragmenten Heraklits (Diss. Tübingen, 1960, typewritten),
129 f. For other interpretations cf. Marcovieh, RE, 282 f.
Probably the phrase παλίντονος άρμονίη implying ‘a

connexion based on the back-stretching of two opposite bow-
arms’ was another philosophical neologism of Heraclitus’ own.
<*) Cf. T h es. V III, 1141 B, and LSJ, s. συμφέρω A, III, 2 ( con tra
LSJ, s. v., A, II, 3 b, and c o n tra Burnet 136: ‘It is the opposite
which is good for us’) . Against the authenticity of ( d 1) — fr. 8 DK,
of. Gigon 25 f . ; Kirk 220 f. (unlikely DK; Jaeger, T h e o lo g y, 120;
231 n. 45; Walzer 49; Mazzantini 148; 235; W. Bröcker, G nom on 30
[1958], 434 ‘das Feindliche förderlich’; Zeller-Mondolfo 106 ff.).
<-> Besides, the traditional confusion of Heraclitus with Empedocles
(cf. Kirk 25) seems to be likely in Horatius (so Kiessling ad loc.,
and Housmann ad Manil. 1. c .) . A li t e r E. Bignone, S tu d i I t . F ilo l. Cl.
4 (1925), 69 ff.
Probably the word όμολογία in Diog. Lagrt. IX, 8 (των
δέ έναντίων τό μέν έπΐ τήν γένεσιν ά γ ο ν καλείσθαι πόλεμον
καί Ιριν, τό δ* έπΐ τήν έκπόρωσιν δμολογίαν καί εΙρήνην)
is due to the same influence of Empedocles’ φιλία (cf. J. Kerschen-
steiner, H e rm e s 83 [1955], 398).
<3> In view of the word μετατροπή, the reading έναντιοτροπης should
not be changed; c o n tra έναντιοδρομίας by Diels (V S * , I, p. 68,28),
accepted by H. S. Long (Oxford, 1964); έναντιοτροπίας by Kranz.
The rest of the sentence seems to go too far (“ . . . and the whole
sum of things is no exception to this rule”) .
<·’■■> Cf. παλίντονα τό ξα (or τόξον) in I lia d V III, 266; X, 459; XV,
443; O d y ssey XXI, 11; 59; h y m n . XXVII (Artem.), 16; Soph.
T ra ch . 511; Herodot. V II, 69,1; Apoll. Bhod. I, 993; βέλη Aeschyl.
Choeph. 161. Possibly the word was an e p ith e to n o rn a n s (cf. ά γκ ύ λ α
τόξα I lia d V, 209; O d y ssey XXI, 264 etc.; καμπύλα τόξα I lia d
n r , 17 etc.).
129
30
(42 DK; 119 B)
(α) P Diog. Laert. IX, 1. post fr. 85 (41 D K ).
τόν τ ε 1 "Ο μηρον

έφαοκεν δ ξ ιο ν έκ τω ν ά γ ώ ν ω ν έ κ β ά λ λ ε σ θ α ι κ α ι
/ ‘ρ α π ίζ εσ θ α ι,
κ α ι ’Α ρ χ ίλ ο χ ο ν ό μ ο ίω ς. seq. fr. 102 (43 D K ).
(Schl. p. 345 s. = 22 s .) .
1 τε P2 edd. ·. γε BPiF
(b) R? Ps. Heracliti epist. VII, pap. Genav. 271 col.

XIY, 15 s. ("V. Martin, Mus. Helvet. 16 [1959], p. 101 ss.)
μισώ μέν οδν αύτούς (sc. πα ιη τά ς), Ό μ η ρ ο υ ς καί Ή σιό-
δους και Ά ρ χ ιλ ό χ ο υ ς.
150
30 (42)
Homer
deserves to be expelled from the contests and flogged,
and Archilochus likewise.
By water believed that ό μ ο ί ω ς , and Diels-Kranz that

καί ...ό μ ο ίω ς are not by Heraclitus. But όμοίω ς was
quite possible in Heraclitus’ time, and besides two so similar
Heraclitcan sayings are not likely to me; thus the full saying
will be authentic.
Now, the reason for ranking Archilochus one step behind
Homer (so that the phrase κα'ι ’Α ρχίλοχον όμοίω ς looks
like an afterthought) might consist in the fact that he so much
repeated and imitated Homer, ‘Ό μ η ρ ο ν μεταφ ράζω ν (cf.
Odyssey X V III, 136 f. and Archilochus fr. 68 D.; Iliad XVIII,
309 and Archiloeh. fr. 38 D. έτήτυμον γ ά ρ ; [cf. also the
proverbs in Archiloeh. fr. 41 D. : Odyssey XIV, 228; 57 D. .·
Iliad VII, 102 et al.]). Consequently, Heraclitus treats Archi
lochus as an apprentice of Homer.
“The reciters of Homer well deserve to be turned out
from any prize-contest all over the Hellenic world, and to be
whipped; and those of Archilochus likewise.” So much is
suggested by the present tense of the verbs. Probably κα'ι
between the two verbs is not that of climax (cf. Denniston,
Greek Particles2, 291), since both actions (‘to expel with
flogging’) seem to have been cbmmon enough in Greece: the
έκβάλλειν, ‘to drive an actor from the stage’ (almost a tech
nical term, cf. LSJ, s. v., IV), was often accompanied by
flogging (cf. Demosthcn. 19, 337).
The reason for excluding the Homeric poems from the
ά γω νες might consist in that they taught people lies, instead
151
of the truth (cf. fr. 19 [5θ'' | ). Anyway, neither Homer (ci\
δήμων άοιδοί in fr. 101 [104 DK]) nor Hesiod (cf. διδά σ
καλος δέ πλείστω ν Η σ ίοδος, fr. 43 [57]) deserve to be
the true teachers of the people. Probably here speaks the
Enlightener.
Now, it is difficult to say which exact teaching of Homer
is aimed at here. But in view of the excited polemic about
Polemos in frr. 28 (80) and 29 (53), the saying might tenta
tively be put here (so already Gigon 118; contra e.g. Schleier
macher, who referred to frr. 63a [105 DK] or 59 [106 D K ]).
As for Archilochus, in some lost fragment he might have
cursed war following Iliad X V III, 107.(1)
The relation ά γώ νες : πόλεμος suggested by Gigon (“Weil es

sich gerade um Kämpfe handelt, aus denen Homer verbannt sein
sollte . · · ”) seems to me far-fetched. The same is true of Fränkel’s
interpretation (D ic h tu n g * , 449 and n. 57): “Homer verdient mit
dem Stock aus den Wettkämpfen herausgeprügelt zu werden, und
Archilochos gleichfalls” ; “Das Wort ‘Rhapsode’ klingt an das Wort
für ‘Stock’ an. . . ”.
152
31
(125 DK: 84 B)
(α) P Theophr. da vcrtiginc !) W immer1 γίν ετα ι δ ’

ίλ ιγ γ ο ς καί δταν είς τό αύτό βλέπωσι καί έπατενίζω -
σ ι ν ... αίτιον δ έ ...δ ιό τ ι τ ά έν τώ ι κινεΐσθαι σωζόμενα
διίστησι καί < χ ω ρ ίζ ε ι> 2 ή στάσις' τής δψεως δέ στάσης,"
ένός μορίου, καί τά λ λ α τ ά συνεχή έν τώ ι έγκ εφ ά λω ι
ΐσ τ α τ α ι'4 διισ τάμενα δέ καί χω ριζόμενα τά β α ρέα κατα-
βαρόνει καί ποιεί τον ίλ ιγγο ν , τά γ ά ρ πεψυκότα κινεΐσ-
θαι τήνδε τήν κίνησιν + άλλοτε + ·"’ καί συμμένει διά
ταύτην' εί δέ μή," καθά περ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτό ς φησι, καί ό
κυκεώ ν δ ι ί σ τ α τ α ι < μ ή > 7 κ ι ν ο ύ μ ε ν ο ς .
1 I II (1862), ρ. 138 Tcubn. = ρ. 403 Didot (Paris., 1860) 2 addidi

3 δέ στάσης Usener (in A le x . A p h r o d is . p r o b t., Bcrolini, 1858, ρ. X III
et p. 11) : διάστασις AQ Aid. 4 Us. : συνίστασθαι AQ Aid.
5 non sanuni (exspectes δήλον δτι v. sim.) : σώζεται Wimmer : άλλοτε
def. Kirk 255 6 εί δή Bernavs (G rs. A b h .. 1,6), aec. Bviv. 7 μή
add. Bernavs, aee. Usener (eonl. Alex. IV, 42) rott.
(a1) R Ps. Alex. Aphrodis. probt. IV, 42 (p. 11,16

Usener) ό δέ κυκεών,1 ώ σπερ καί Η ρ ά κ λ ειτό ς φησιν,
έάν μή τις ταράττηι, < δ ι> ΐσ τα τα ι.-’
1 κυκλεύων codd., corr. Us. 2 Us.: Ϊσταται eodd.
(/P) R Chrysipp. «ρ. Pint, da Stoic, repuyn. 1049 F

I = SV F 11 nr. 937] πρώ τον γ ά ρ έν τώ ι π ρ ώ τω ι1 περί
«ρύσεως τό άίδιον- τή ς κινήσεω ς κ υ κ ε ώ ν ι παρεικά -
σ ας (so. Χρύσιππος) ά λ λ ’ ά λ λ ω ς σ τρ έφ ο ντι2 καί ταράσ-
σοντι τών γινομένω ν, ταυτ* ε ίρ η κ ε ν ...
1 πρώτωι X g : om. cctt. 2 ά(διον Ε : αίδοϊον cctt 3 τρέ-

φοντι Ρ α A (non Ε)
153
«*
(Ir) R M. Ant. IV, 27 ήτοι κόσμος δια τεταγμένος,

ή κ υ κ ε ώ ν συμπεψορημένος' μεν, ά λ λ ’ ά κ ο σ μ ο ς '2 ή
έ’ν σοι μέν τις κόσμος ύφίστασθαι δύναται, έν δέ τώ ι
π α ντί ά κ οσ μ ία ; VI, 10 ήτοι κ υ κ ε ώ ν κ α ί άντεμπλοκή
και σκεδασμός, ή ενω σις και τά ξ ις καί πρόνοια. IX, 39
. . . ή άτομοι καί ούδέν ά λλο ή κ υ κ ε ώ ν καί σκεδασ
μός. (Cf. X II, 14,1 . . . ή ψυρμός είκαιότητος άπροστά-
τη τος).
1 συμπεφυρμένος Schultz, Eendall 2 Trannoy : μέν, άλλά κόσμος

codd., Farquharson ρ. 015 : άλλα μήν κ. Eendall : μέν, άλλά κόσμωι
Eeiske : μέν, άλλ’ ού κόσμος ci. Schenkl
(b3) R Lucian, vit. auct. 14 τα ϋτα όδΰρομαι, καί δτι

έμπεδον ούδέν ά λ λ ά κως ές κ υ κ ε ώ ν α πά ντα συνει-
λέονται, καί έστι τω ύτό τέρφ ις άτερψιη, γνώ σ ις άγνω -
σίη, μ έ γ α μικρόν, άνω κάτω , π ε ρ ιχ ω ρ έο ν τ α 1 καί άμει-
βόμενα έν τήι τοϋ αίώ νος παιδιήι.
1 AC .· περιχορέοντα Γ : περιχορεύοντα cett.
(c ) R Epieur. ap. Diog. Laevt. X, 8 Η ρ ά κ λ ειτό ν τε

κυκητήν καί Δ ημόκριτον Ληρόκριτον (sc. έκάλει
Ε π ίκ ο υ ρ ο ς ) . ..
(d) Β (A 3b DK) Pint, de garrul. 511 B οι δέ συμ-

βολικώ ς άνευ φωνής δ δει φ ρά ζοντες ούκ επαινούνται
καί θαυμάζονται διαφ ερόντω ς; ώ ς 'Η ράκλειτος, άξιούν-
τω ν αύτόν τω ν πολιτώ ν γνώ μ ην τιν* είπεΐν π ερ ί όμονοίας,
ά να β ά ς έπί τό βήμα καί λαβώ ν ψ υ χ ρ ο ύ κ ύ λ ι κ α
καί τών άλφίτων έπιπάσας καί τώι
γ λ ή χ ω ν ι κ ι ν ή σ α ς έκπιώ ν άπήλθεν, ένδ ειξ ά μ ενο ς1
α ότοά ; ÖTI τό τοις τυχουσιν ά ρκεΐσ θαι κ α ί μή δεΐσθαι
154
τω ν πολυτελώ ν έν είρήνηι καί όμονοίαι δια τερ ει τά ς
πόλεις.
Schol. Τ in 11. X, 149 έστασίαζόν ποτέ Έ φ έσ ιοι περί
χρημάτω ν' παρελθώ ν δέ ε ις την έκκλησίαν Η ρ ά κ λειτος,
έπ ιπ ά σ α ς κύλικι ά λ φ ιτα έζέπ ιε τ ο ν κ υ κ ε ώ , έμφαί-
νων δτι δει ζηλουν αύτάρκειαν.
Thcmist. π. ά ρετή ς ρ. 40 Sachau (Inedita Syriaca, "Wim
1870 = J, Gildemeister-Fr. Bnceheler, Rh. Mus. 27 [1872],
456 s. = A 3b DK). Cf. fr. 106 (125a D K ).1
1 Γ ·. έπιδ. eott.
155
31 (125)
The barley-drink disintegrates if it is not moved (stirred).
ft
f t*
The keeping of άλλοτε in the context of (a) by Kirk

255 is not likely, since the word does not imply ‘noiimally’.(1)
και before ό κυκεών might belong to Theophrastus, who
quotes the saying either by memory or from a second-hand
source.(-’)
δ ι ί σ τ α τ α ι , although suspect because of the context

(ef. also Theophrnst. de causis plant. VI, 10,3), seems possible
in view of Hippocrat. de morbis IV, 51 (VII, p. 584 L., partly
quoted by Diels, VS4, p. XXVI) τό δέ (sc. γ ά λ α ) ταρασσό-
μενον άφριήι κα'ι διακρίνεται, καί τό μέν πΐον, δ βούτυρον
καλέουσιν, έτίιπολής διίσ τα τα ι ( = comes up to the surface)
[τούτο] έλαφρόν έόν, τό δέ βαρύ καί π α χύ [i.c. ίππάκη]
κάτω ΐσ τ α τ α ι.. ,οΰτω δέ κ α ί έν τώ ι άνθρώ πω ι ταρασσο-
μένου του ύγρ ο ϋ πα ντός έν τώ ι σ ώ μ α τ ι.. .διίσ τα τα ι
( = disintegrates) . . .οί πάντα, καί έπιπολής μέν τό της
χο λή ς διίσ τα τα ι ( = comes up)* κουφότατον γ ά ρ έ σ τ ι .. . ;
aphorismi 7, 33 όκόσοισι δέ τ ά οδρα διεστηκότα γίνετα ι,
τούτοις τα ρα χή ισχυρή έν τώ ι σώ ματί έστιν. Of course,
διίσ τα τα ι in fr. 31 (125) means δ ια χω ρ ίζετα ι (cf. Hcsych.
and the context), and not δια χ έετα ι of fr. 53b (31h DK),
as Kranz ad fr. took it to be. Also Theophrastus understood
διίσ τα τα ι as opposed to συμμένει καί σώζεται.
Finally, κ ι ν ε ΐ ν implies circular motion, stirring or

κυκαν (because of the κυκεώ ν): cf. testimonium (d), the
ίλ ιγ γ ο ς from the context of (a), and e.g. Pherccrat. fr. 69,5
Kock κινείται γ ά ρ ευθύς μοι χολή; Anaxipp. fr. 2 έά ν με
κινήις καί ποιήσηις τήν χολήν. . .ζέσ α ι; Soph. Ο. C. 1559 f.
π οντία / θύελλα κινηθεΐσα.
156
‘If the barley-posset is not being stirred it will disinte
grate into its two ingredients or opposites: the solid barley
(and cheese) will sink down to the bottom, the neat wine will
remain over it; the posset or mixture as such will no longer
exist.’.Cf. Iliad XI, 639 f .; Odyssey X, 234 f .; the fragment
was correctly interpreted by Kirk 256.
The verb κινεΐν or ‘stirring’ probably implies ‘war-vortex'
(cf. Gigon 118 ‘Bewegung des π ό λεμ ο ς’). I t appears as a
necessary condition for the effective unity of every thing.
A similar reason was tension in fr. 27 (51). The saying
might illustrate especially fr. 28 (80) γινόμενα πά ντα κ α τ’
äpiv. Probably the stirring symbolizes interaction between two
opposites, but not movement in general (contra Gigon 1. e.:
“ Inhaltlich ist das Frg. ein Beweis für die Notwendigkeit der
Bewegung’’), nor change (contra Kirk 1. c.; because, as Kirk
himself correctly states: “The barley and cheese could not
dissolve in the w in e ..."; also in the medical literature the
barley-drink was considered as difficult to digest, cf. e.g.
Ilippociat. acut. 39).
Possibly the saying even implies as much as: “Then'
would be no such thing a s 'κόσμος, just as there would be no
such thing ns κυκεών if its ingredients existed in isolation
from each other” (Kirk 1. c.) . But such a generalization can
be better deduced from fr. 28 (80) τον πόλεμον έόντα ξυνόν
and γινόμενα πά ντα κ α τ’ 8ριν.(3)
<*> The words which follow Heraclitus’ saying do not belong to the
same topic ( c o n tr a Kirk 255).
'=·’> Burnet 139; DK; Kirk; Wheelwright fr. 50 c t a t. accept this καί,
‘even’, ns genuine. — Anyway the interpretation of Kumnoux 03
does not seem likely: “Menie lo breuvage des niystes se corrompt
si on ne le reraue pas” ; “Γ exemplo est un article du culte Dome-
triaque” (cf. Wheelwright ‘the sacred barley drink’) . I think rather
a common every-day object was adduced by Heraclitus here, as
elsewhere in Groups 8-12.
on A 2 3 DK = fr. 28 ( 8 0 ) t e s tim o n iu m (c2) is out of the question
( c o n tr a Gigon and K irk).
157
·»
GROUPS EIGHT TO TWELVE
These Groups of fragments most probably contain

examples of coincidentia oppositorum. I t seems that
Heraclitus was indefatigable in finding out each
time a new concrete illustration for his someivhat
abstract doctrine on the Logos. This insistence was
noticed already by Philo, qu. in Gen. I ll, 5 (trans
lated by R. Marcus, Loeb, Suppl. I, p. 188): “And
setting out from this fact, Heraclitus wrote books
on nature, getting his opinions on opposites from
our theologian [i.e. from Moses, cf. quis rer. div.
heres 214 = III, p. 48 Wendl.J, and adding a great
number of laborious arguments to them.” Hera
clitus’ purpose might have been to prove the univer
sality of the Logos and consequently to impose his
new doctrine.
The modern reader must not be a severe judge

in dealing with this archaic teaching on the unity
of opposites; he should keep in mind:
(i) - That Heraclitus does not operate ahvays

with real logical opposites,(I) but also with extremes
or ‘things which could be brought together by asso
ciation’: such as, for example, gold and chaff (or
failin g s); mud and pure water; barley and wine;
bitter vetch (orobus) and, say, honey.
(ii) - In like manner, very often the logical coin

cidence or identity of opposites is not meant, but
a metaphysical unity between them. According to
Heraclitus there exists an underlying connexion, a
single continuum between two poles or extremes:
the two opposites necessarily belong to the same
whole (cf. the tepn ξυνόν, fr. 34 [103]). This
metaphysical looseness of Heraclitus’ idea of the
unity of opposites (which did not ahvays imply
logical identity) was something that Aristotle could
not understand: cf. c.g. Top. Θ 5, p. 159 b 30;
Phys. A 2, p. 185 b 19; II. Cherniss, Aristotle's
Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy, 86 n. 363, and
Kirk 16; 19; 94; 95 n. l.«s>
The formula for the unity of opposites (if not

missing) is i v κ α ί τ α ύ τ ό : ef. frr. 32 (55);
33 (60); 46 (58); 41 (88); 50 (15); 43 (57);
25 (10).
(iii) - The reasons for coincidentia oppositorum

are different in kind and not always sufficiently
convincing (see Table of Opposites). Sometimes He
raclitus was obliged to ‘reduce’ the opposites tradi
tionally considered as ‘positive’ (such as, for exam
ple, Dionysus as god of ‘life’; surgeons; justice;
health), and, on the other side, to ‘raise’ and reap
praise those commonly thought of as ‘negative’ (such
as, for example, Hades; illness; sea-water [of. Iliad
I, 314; contra Frankel, Dichtung2, 440]; mud; bitter
vetch; injustice; weariness; hunger), to achieve their
balance and equipollence required by his Law of
the unity of opposites (Logos).
He also did not mind placing animals (donkeys,

*pigs, oxen, fishes) on the same level with men,
giving to their ‘criterion’ the same rank and value
as to that of men, just to attain his goal (the unity
of opposites). For example:
159
fr. 37 (9) σύρμα τα (α) = κτήμα (δ ) [sc. δνοις]
χρυσός (c) = κτήμα (δ) [sc. άνθρώ ποις]
Therefore, σ ύρματα (α) = χρυσός (c), i.e. both chaff and

gold belong to the same whole (continuum).
Or
fr. 36 {13) βόρβορος (α) = ήδονή (δ) [sc. ύσί]
καθαρόν ϋδω ρ (c) = ήδονή (δ) [sc. άνθρώ ποις]
Therefore, βόρβορος ( λ ) = καθαρόν ύδω ρ (c), i.e. both
are one.
In frr. 27 {51) and 31 {125) the reason for the
unity of opposites was interaction between them
(manifested as ‘tension’, ‘war-strife’, ‘war-vortex’) .
Other probable reasons are adduced in Groups 8-12.
(') Cf. δλα κα'ι ούχ δλα fr. 25 ( 1 0 ) and Kirk 173:
“negation does not imply the contrary, as, for example,
‘not summer’ does not necessarily imply ’winter’, and
might imply ‘pig’.”
<2> Cf. now G. E. B. Lloyd, P o l a r i t y a n d A n a lo g y , Cam
bridge, 1906, 96-102.
160
i
I
I
TABLE OF OPPOSITES IN HERACLITUS’ DOCTRINE ON THE LOGOS«1»
TABLE OF OPPOSITES IN HERACLITUS’ DOCTRINE ON TH E LOGOS«1»
O P P O S I T E S T H E IB U N I T Y :
Fr. Simultaneous<2) Successive Symbol of Reason for
25 (10) Ska : ούχ δλα

25 (10) συν- : διάιδον
25 (10) συμ- : διαφερόμενον
27 (51) διαφερόμενον
(τιαλίντονον) τόξον, λύρη Tension
29 (5 3 ) θεοί : άνθρωποι < π ό λ ις> War-strife
29 (53) έλεύθεροι : δούλοι ft ft
31 (1 3 5 ) <άλφιτα : οΐνος> κυκεών War-vortex

32 (59) όδός ευθεία : σκολιή(3) γνάφος Their evident presence in
the s a m e object
tt
33 (60) άνω : κάτω όδός
34 (1 0 3 ) άρχή : πέρας κύκλος tr
35 (6 1 ) ύδωρ καθαρόν : μιαρόν θάλασσα Objectively taken (without

the animate standard) the
opposites make o n e whole
ft ff tt it
36 (IS ) βόρβορος
χρυσός : σύρματα it
37 (9 )
όροβος : < e .g . μέλι> it
38 (4 )
tt
39 (4 8 ) βίος : θάνατος βιός-τόξον
τό αύτό : έτερον ( ?) tt
40 (1 3 ) ποταμός
41 (8 8 ) ζών : τεθνηκός άνθρωπος Convertibility: the opposi
tes necessarily replace one
► another
41 (8 8 ) έγρηγορός : καθεΰδον ft tt
41 (8 8 ) νέον : γηραιόν » tt
42 (136) ψυχρόν : θερμόν·4) It
42 (1 3 6 ) ύγρόν : καρφαλέον it
43 (5 7 ) ήμέρη : εύφρόνη·4) tt
44 (lit) νοΰσος : υγιείη Correlativeness: one oppo

site cannot be correctly va
lued without the other one
44 (111) λιμός : κόρος·4* tt
44 (111) κάματος : άνάπαυσις·4* tt
45 (S3) δίκη : < άδικήμα τα> tt
46 (58) ιατροί : νόσοι·3* <λύπη> The opposites are one be

cause they have the same
effect
47 (6 3 ) άθάνατοι : θνητοί They are one because they
‘condition’ each other
48 (3 6 ) φάος : < σ κότος> άνθρωπος They are one because their
(= άποσβεσθεΐς δψεις)<3> meaning-extensions overlap
(interfere) (the opposites
‘touch’ each other)
ff tt
48 (26) ζων : τεθνεώς
ft tt
48 (26) έγρηγορώ ς : εϋδων
49 ( S t ) θάνατος : ϋπαρ ” (»)
50 ( 1 5 ) "Αιδης : Διόνυσος They are one (god) be
cause of a traditional re
ligious truth
(l) The lists of the opposites in Heraclitus given by Gigon 27 f. and Ramnoux 9-14 arc either misleading
or incomplete.
<=) T. e. both opposites are present in the same object or medium at the same time.
("·> Of. ευθύ καμττύλον, φως σκότος, αγαθόν κακόν in the Pythagorean list of ten pairs of opposites
ap. Aristot. m e ta p h . A 5, p. 986 a 25. The pair άρρεν θήλυ, which appears there and in E E I I 1,
p. 1235 a 23 [ fr. 28 c2] ; Hippocr. d e v ie tw I, 8; 9 etc., is not likely for Heraclitus (right is Gigon
117; a lite r Kirk 168 f .) .
d> Cf. the opposites which appear in Heraclitus’ P h y s i c s (Doctrine on Fire): frr. 77 (67 DK) ήμερη
εύφρόνη, χειμών θέρος, πόλεμος ειρήνη, κόρος λιμός; 55 (65 I>Κ) χρησμοσύνη καί κόρος; 56ab
(84ab DK) . . . άναπαύεται; κάματος. ..
GROUP EIGHT
F rr. 32 (59); 33 (60); 34 (103)
The opposites of this Group are ‘one’ because they

are evidently present in one and the same thing
(cylindrical carding comb; an inclined street; circle;
ef. also fr. 27 [57]). They might well be called
‘geometrical opposites’ (straight and crooked; up
and down; beginning and end), reminding us of the
Pythagorean list of opposites ap. Aristotle, metaph.
A 5, p. 986 a 23 ff. (cf. also Alcmaeon fr. 2 and
Apuleius de mundo 21 [p. 157 Thomas] directis
obliqua).
161
32
(59 DK; 50 B)
(a) C Hippol. ref. IX, 10,4 (p. 243,7 W endl.). post

fr. 46 ( 5 8 ) . καί ευθύ b i, φησί[ν] (sc . Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς), καί
στρεβλόν τό αύτό έστι'
γ ν ά φ ω ν ,1 φησίν, ό δ ό ς εύ θ εΐα κ α ί σκολιή
(ή του όργάνου του καλουμένου κοχλίου έν τω ι γνα-
φείω ι2 περιστροφή εύθεΐα καί σκολιή· άνω y a p όμοΰ
καί κύκλωι π ερ ιέρ χ ετα ι3)
μ ία έσ τί, φησί, κ α ί ή αύτή. seq. fr. 33 (60)
1 γνόιφων scripsi : γραφέων Ρ, Kirk 97 : γράφων Ρ. Tannery

(Pour l ’h is t. d e la sc . h e ll.2, p. 204) : γραφε!ωι Mullach : γναφέων
ed. Gott., aec. Bywater, Zeller 804 n. 1 : γναφείωι Bernays (O e s.
A b h . I, 76), aec. Diels, Wendland, Kranz, Walzer cett. 2 γνα-
φείωι Bernays omnium consensu : γραφείω Ρ 3 περιέρχεται
Koeper, ace. Wendl., DK cett. : περιέχεται Ρ 2 ·· περιέλκεται Bernays,
Mullach
162
32 (59)
Of the carding-rotter
the straight (translatory) and the crooked (rotatory) way
is one and the same.
I read γ ν ά φ ω ν (from γ ν ά θ ο ς ‘carding comb’),(1)

because this word is explained by Hippolytus as τό δργα -
v o v ... έν τω ι γναφ είω ι. Kirk 97 ff. defends the ms. reading
γραφέω ν, with an unlikely rendering: ‘Of letters [or, of
writers] the way is straight and crooked’ (in such a case one
would rather expect γ ρ α φ έω ς χειρ ό ς όδός or sim .). Guthrie
443 adopted Kirk’s interpretation as ‘convincing’ (‘The track
of writing is straight and crooked’) .
But Kirk (Mullach and Hugh Lloyd-Jones ap. Kirk 101)
have to presuppose the following changes: γ ρ α φ- (the
original of Heraclitus) > γ ν α φ - (the source of Hippo
lytus) > again γ p α φ- (cod. Paris.). This is not likely
to me. It is simpler to explain γρα φ έω ν P as a mistake or
lapsus of the original γνάφω ν, since the same scribe Michael
(who probably knew very well what γρ α φ εύ ς and γραφεΐον
meant, but was not quite sure about γνά φ ος and γναφεΐον)
writes in the next line γρα φ είω ι, in lieu of the sure γναφείω ι.
As for the reading γρα φ έω ν from τό γρ ά φ ο ς (adduced
by Kirk 101 f. from G. D. I. Collitz, nrr. 1149,7; 1151,19;
1156,2; 3; 1157,6; I. G., V, 2, nr. 343, 18-19), my objections
are: (1) the word is rather dialect (limited to the Pelopon-
ncsc); (2) it means either ‘inscription’ itself or its contents
[= γρ ά μ μ α τα , LSJ, III, 1-2], but not letters ΑΒΓΔ, which
is the required meaning here.
I think we may suppose the existence of a cylindrical
carding comb or roller (γνάφος) in archaic Greece (able
to fulfil a rotatory movement as well) on the ground of the
163
34
(103 DK; 70 B)
(η) P Porphyr, qu. Hom. ad 11. XIV, 200 (p. 190,6

Schrader) της δέ δλης του κύκλου περιφέρειας οΰκέτι
(sc. έστι τό πόθεν π ο ΐ)- πδν γ ά ρ δ cfxv τις έπινοήσηι
σημεΐον, αρχή τέ έστι καί π έρ α ς- ξυνόν y a p α ρ χή καί
π έ ρ α ς έπ'ι κύκλου περιφερείας κατά τόν Η ράκλειτον.
(b1) R? Hippocr. de loc. in hom. 1 (VI, p. 276 L.)

έμοί δοκεΐ άρχή μέν οδν ούδεμία είναι τοΰ σώματος,
ά λ λ α πάντα όμοίως άρχή κα'ι πάντα τελευτή- κύκλου γ ά ρ
γραφέντος άρχή ούχ εύρέθη. (Reinhardt, Ραηη. 212).
(ir) de oss. nat. 11 (IX, ρ. 182 L.) καί αυτή μέν ή

μία (sc. φλέψ) δθεν ήρκται καί ήι τετελεύτηκεν, ούκ
οΐδα - κύκλου γ ά ρ γεγενημένου άρχή ούχ εύρέθη. (Μοη-
dolfo, L ’Infinito nel pensiero dell’antichitä class.,1 63).
(IP) de victu I, 19 πλοκεΐς ά γοντες κύκλωι πλέκου-

σιν- άπό τής άρχή ς ές τήν άρχήν τελευτώσιν. τ ω ύ τό 1
περίοδος έν τώ ι σώ ματι- όκόθεν άρχεται, έπί τούτο τε-
λευτδι. (Bernays, Ges. Abh., Τ, 25).
1 τ ω ό τ ό E r m e r i i i s : τοΟτο ΘΜΡ
(IP) de nutrim. !) άρχή δέ πάντων μία καί τελευτή

πάντων μία, καί ή αύτή τελευτή καί άρχή. (Bornays).
Of. Ps. Aristot. problem. XVII, 3, ρ. 916 a 37 εί δή

κύκλος έστίν, τοΰ δέ κύκλου μήτε άρχή μήτε π έ ρ α ς ...
(Bcrnays).
174
34 (103)
In a circle beginning and end are common.
1 think Gigon 100; Walzer 138 and Kirk 113 are right
reading [π εριφ έρεια ς]; contra Diels-Kranz (who keep this
word) and contra the reading of Bywater and Wilamowitz
(Hermes 62 [1927], 276): [έπί κύκλου περ ιφ έρ ειας]. The
genitive form ε π ί κ ύ κ λ ο υ seems to be genuine: if
Porphyrins had found in his source έπί κύκλωι, he would
write έπί κύκλου περιφερείαι.
Kirk 115 has correctly interpreted the saying as another
example of coincidentia op-positorurn (aliter Zeller 804; Rein
hardt, Farm. 211 f.; Gigon 1. c.; A. Maddalena, Sulla cosmo-
logia ionica etc., Padova, 1940, 223; Mazzantini 253; Mondolfo,
L’ Infinite etc., Florence, 1956, 79; Ramnoux 123).
Probably Heraclitus means: ‘The opposites Beginning and
End coincide, as e.g. in the circle’ (cf. perhaps testimonia b3
and b*), and not: ‘Every point in a circle’s circumference
can be taken both as its beginning and end’ (as Porphvrius
in a, and testimonium bl have understood it); aliter Mondolfo,
o. e., 64 n. 1; 7 9 ." ’
in iir r m ip p . fr . 4,4 f. ό ν ο μ ά ζ ε τ α ι δ ’ έ ν ι ο ίυ τ ό ς , ώ ν δ έ π ε ρ ι φ ε ρ ή ς
τ ε λ ε υ τ ή ν / ο ύ δ ε μ ί α ν ο ύ δ ’ ά ρ χ ή ν < £ χ ε ι > need not be in flu en ced
b y H e r a c l i t u s ( c o n tr a R e i n h a r d t , H errn. 77 [ 1 0 4 2 ] , 2 3 0 — Vrr-
i d iii'h I a is tier A n t i k e , 7 7 ) ; t h e s a m e w i l l lie t r u e o f P l u t . d c f . u r tic .
4 1 6 Λ ( c f . J . M . E d m o n d s , The F ra g m en ts o f A ttic C om edy, I,
p. 2 8 9 n. a ) . P a r m e n i d e s fr . 6 h a s h a r d ly a n y t h i n g t o d o w ith
H e r a c l i t u s ’ s a y i n g : c f . K i r k 1 1 5 n. I ; c o n t r a A . P a t i n , J a h r h h . f . d .
P h ilologie , S u p p lb d . 2 5 ( 1 8 9 9 ) , 5 6 3 f . ; E . L o e w , W ien . S t. 53
(1 9 3 5 ), 9 ; Z M I, 2 ( 1 9 5 0 ) , 1 8 8 ; M o n d o lfo , L ’ I n fin ite , 64 n. 2;
II. L e is e g a n g , D en k fo rm en , B e r lin , 1 9 5 1 , 8 4 f . ; M . U n te r s te in e r ,
P a rm en id e, F lo r e n c e, 1 9 5 8 , pp . X C V 1 I a n d 37 n . ; R a m n o u x 124.
175
GROUP NINE
Prr. 35 (61); 36 (13); 37 (9);

38 (4); 39 (48); 40 (12*) ?
The opposites of this Group, taken by themselves

or objectively, make one whole: their separation is
due to the different points of view or criteria of
the observers (e.g. fishes, pigs, donkeys, oxen as
opposed to men) .
The last two examples are somewhat different:
‘name’ and ‘function’ (äpyov, fr. 39); ‘name’ (?)
and ‘contents’ (υδατα, fr. 40) are the two insepa
rable and essential parts of every object; so are the
two opposites which they imply (βίος : θ ά ν α το ς;
τό αύτό : έτερον).
176
35
(61 DK; 52 B)
(a) C Hippol. ref. IX, 10,5 (p. 243,12 Wendl.). post

fr. 33 (60). καί τό μιαρόν φησι[ν] (sc. Η ρ ά κ λειτος) και
τό καθαρόν §ν καί ταύτόν είναι, καί τό πότιμον καί τό
αίποτον £ν καί τό αύτό είναι’
θ ά λα σ σ α , φησίν, ύδω ρ κ α θα ρ ώ τα το ν κ α ί μ ια ρ ώ τα το ν’
ίχθύ σ ι μέν πότιμ ον κ α ί σωτήριον,
ά νθρ ώ ποις δέ άποτον κ α ί όλέθριον. seq. fr. 47 (62).
(b) R Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. hyp. I, 55 καί τό θαλάττιον

ϋδωρ άνθρώποις μέν άηδές έστι πινόμενον καί φαρμα
κώδες, ίχθύσι δέ ήδιστον καί πότιμον. seq. fr. 36 (13).
(c) R Hippocr. de victu I, 10 (DK I, p. 185,12)

. . . θαλάσσης δύναμιν, ζώ ιω ν συμφόρων τροφόν, άσυμ-
φόρων δέ φθόρον.
(d) R? Philo quis rer. div. heres 208 (III, p. 47 s.

Wendl.) πάλιν ϋ δ α τ ο ς τ ό γ λ υ κ ύ τ ώ ι π ι κ ρ ώ ι
(sc. έ ν α ν τίο ν )... (209) θνητά ά θ ά ν α τ α .. .άρχή τελευτή,
γένεσ ις φθορά, ζωή θάνατος, νόσος ύ γ ε ί α .. .δικαιοσύνη
άδικία, φρόνησις ά φ ρ οσ ύνη ... (211) εύθεΐαι καί περι
φερείς γ ρ α μ μ α ί... (212) ένδεια περιουσία, πόλεμος
ειρήνη, νόμος άνομία. . .άπονία πόνος, νεότης γ ή ρ α ς ...
(213) εν γ ά ρ τό έξ άμφοΐν των έναντίων, oö τμηθέντος
γνώ ριμ α τά έναντία. (214) ού τουτ’ έστιν ö φασιν "Ε λλη
νες τόν μέγαν καί άοίδιμον π α ρ ’ αύτοΐς 'Ηράκλειτον
κεφάλαιον τής αύτοΰ1 προστησάμενον φιλοσοφίας αύ-
χεΐν ώ ς έφ’ εύρέσει καινήι; (Α. Patin, Η enklitische Bei
spiele, I, Neuburg, 1892, p. 8 ss.).
1 αύτοΰ Η* : αύτοΰ cett.
177
35 (et)
The sea is the most pure and the most polluted water:
for fishes it is drinkable and salutary,
but for men it is undrinkable and destructive (deadly).
The objective unity of opposites, and not any kind of

relativism (as e.g. in Hippoer. de nut rim. 19 or in Scxt.
Pyrrh. I, 58), was aimed at by Heraclitus in this saying. It
was correctly interpreted by Reinhardt, Farm. 204; Walzer
100: Kirk 75 f. and in Mus Ifelv. 14 (1957), 155 ff.<" The
interpretation of Frankel (Dichtung- 440; ef. Wege- 278),
based on mathematical proportion, is not likely (“Das Meer,
als mittlere Proportionale, vereinigt in sieh die entgegenge
setzten Eigenschaften des Oben und Unten”).
(') Cf. also Zeller 832: “Er bemerkt auch, was ilem einen heilsam ist,
sei dem anderen verderblich. . . ; aber was er daraus schliesst, is nicht
der Satz, dass die heilsame oder verderbliche Wirkung eines Dinges
ein blosses Verhältnis desselben zu anderen Dingen bezeichne, sondern
der entgegengesetzte, dass das Ding a n sic h s e lb s t beides, heilsam
und verderblich, zugleich sei.” Th. Gomperz, S B W ie n 1886, pp. 1007;
1023; 1038; I\ Wendhind, S l t B . l 1808, II, 788 If.
178
36
(13 DK; 54 B)
(ff1) P Clcm. ström. I, 2,2 (II, p. 4 St.) ε’ι δέ μή

πάντων ή γνώσις, δνος λύρας, fji φασιν οί παροιμιαζό-
μενοι, τοΐς πολλοΐς τά σ υ γγρ ά μ μ α τα -
ϋες γουν β ορβόρω ι η δο ντα ι μ ά λλον fj κ α θ α ρ ω ι υδατι.
(o'-) Ρ protrept. 92,4 (I, ρ. 68 St.) oi δέ (sc. έθνικο'ι)

σκωλήκων δίκην π ερ ί τέλμ ατα καί βορβόρους, τά ήδονής
'ρεύματα, καλινδούμενοι άνονήτους και άνοήτους έκβόσ-
κονται τρυφάς, ύώ δεις τινές άνθρωποι- ö ε ς γά ρ , φησίν,1
ηδονται βορβόρωι μάλλον ή καθαρωι
υδατι καί 'έπ ί φορυτώι μαργαίνουσιν’ κ α τά Δημό
κριτον (fr. 147 D K ).
1 φησίν (sc. ή π α ρ ο ιμ ία ), cf. (a*), (α3) et s t r ö m . VI, 81,1 (II, p. 472

8t.) ά νίκ η τος γ ά ρ , φησίν, ή ά λήθεια, ψ εοδοδοζία δέ κ α τα λύ ετα ι :
φασίν Arcerius
(«:’) IM slrom. 11, 68,3 (11, p. 149 St.) * * * χοίρος

βορβόρωι ί^δεται1 καί κόπρωι.
1 ηδεται cf. («*), («-’), (Ζ<3) ct I. F. Boissonade, A necd. IV, ρ. 172 δς

έγκυλινδούμ ενος βορβόρω ι ηδεται
(&1) R Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. hyp. I, 55. post. fr. 35 (61).

σύες τε1 ήδιον βορβόρωι λούονται2 δυσωδεστάτωι f\
ϋδατι διειδεΐ καί καθαρωι.
1 τε GT : δέ <·<1<Ι. 2 λούονται ef. Arislot. h is t, tinhii. Q o, j,. 5 9 5
a 31 τ ά ς 6 ' δς κ α ί τό λούεσθαι έν π ηλω ι (sc. π ια ίν ε ι); (c i), (c2),
proverb, δ ς λοοσαμένη εις κύλισ μ α βορβόρου P a r o r m . Gr. I,, ρ- 3 7 6 ;
2 Petr. 2,22
(I)-) R? Lucret. VI, 976 ss.

at contra nobis caenum taeterrinia cum sit
spurcities, eadem subus haec iucunda videtur,
insatiabilitcr toti ut volvantur ibidem.
(b3) R? Anon, in Plat. Theaet. col. 63,25 (p. 42 Dicls-

Schubart, Berl. Klassikertexte 2, 1905) . . ,ώ ς τήι μέν θαλ-
< λ > ία ι ή δ ο ν τ α ι α ίγες, τ ώ ι δέ β ο ρ β ό ρ ω ι
δ ε ς , έκατέρω ι δέ τούτων προσκόπτουσιν άνθρωποι.
(cl ) Κ (37 Ι)Κ; 53 Β) Columella VIII, 4,4 siccus etiam

pulvis et cinis, ubicunque cohortem porticus vel tectum protegit,
iuxta parietes reponendus est, ut sit quo avcs se pcrfundant.
nam his rebus plumam pinnasque cmundant, si modo credimus
Ephesio Heraclito, qui ait sues caeno, cohortales aves pulvere
vel cinere1 lavari. (Cf. G. Kirk 77).
1 cinere o?n. SA
(<r) R? Galen, protrept. 13 (p. 19,11 Kaibel) έν τίνι

τοίνυν έτι την ίσχύν έπιδείξονται ή έπΐ τίνι μ έγ α φρονή-
σουσιν; . ,.τ ά χ ’ οδν έπί τώ ι δι’ δλης ήμέρας κονίεσθαι
δικαιοΰσιν'1 ά λ λ α τοΰτό γ ε κα'ι τοΐς δρτυξι καί τοΐς
πέρδιξιν υπάρχει, καί εϊπερ έπί τούτωι, μ έγα χρή <ρρο-
νεΐν < κ α ί> - έπί τώ ι δι’ δλης ήμέρας β ο ρ β ό ρ ω ι
λούεσθαι.
1 < θα υ μ ά ζεσ θ α ι> δικαιοΰσιν Kniliel 2 adil. Kaibel
180
(dl) B Athen. V, 178 F 'ά πρ επες γ ά ρ fjv, φησίν
’Αριστοτέλης (fr. 100 Rose3), ήκειν είς τό συμπόσιον σύν
ίδρώτι πολλώ ι καί κονιορτώ ι'’ δεΐ γ ά ρ τόν χαρίεντα μήτε
'ρυπαν μήτε αύχμεΐν μήτε β ο ρ β ό ρ ω ι χαίρειν
καθ’ Η ράκλειτον.
(d-) R? Philo de spec. leg. I, 148 (V, p. 36 Cohn)

. .. καί ο υ ό ς τρόπον έ ν β ο ρ β ό ρ ω ι διαιτωμένη
χαίρει (sc. έπ ιθ υ μ ία ). Cf. de agric. 144 (II, ρ. 123
Wendl.) διό καί π α γ κ ά λ ω ς τούς οϋτω βιοΰντας των
σοφιστών ό νομοθέτης τώ ι συών π α ραβ ά λλει γένει, διαυ-
γ ε ΐ μέν ούδενί καί καθαρώ ι (cf. δ1), θολερώι δέ καί βορ-
βορώδει1 βίωι καί τοΐς αίσχίστοις έμφερομένους.2
1 Mangey, ace. Wo. : βαραθρώδει eodd. 2 Η2, -οις G : έμφε-

ρόμενον ΜΑ (Η1) : -μένωι ci. Mangey
(d:<) R? Pint. qu. conviv. 671 A ούδέν y a p άλλο

β ο ρ β ό ρ ω ι χ α ΐ ρ ο ν οϋτω (sc. ώς δς) καί τόποις
'ρυπαροΐς καί άκαθάρτοις όρώμεν.
(rf1) R? Plotin. 1, 6 |1 1, 6,3 Η. et S. διό καί a l τελεταί

όρθώς αίνίττονται τόν μή κεκαθαρμένον καί είς "Αιδου
κείσεσθαι έν βορβόρωι (cf. Plat. Phaed. 69 C), δτι τό μή
καθαρόν βορβόρωι διά κάκην φίλον' οΐα δή καί ϋ ε ς,
ού καθαραί τό σώμα, χ α ί ρ ο υ σ ι τ ώ ι τ ο ι ο δ τ ω ι .
(<ί) R? Vincentius Bellovacensis speculum morale III.

9,3 (E. Woelfflin, Caec. Balbi de nugis philosophorum, Basileac,
1855, p. 78). legitur in proverbiis philosophorum quod, cum
quidam diceret audientc Pythagora quod libentius moraretur
in mulicrum consortio qnam in philosophorum contubeimio,
respondit Pythagoras: et sus libentius in luto quam in aqua
pura. Cf. W. Burley, de vita et moribus philosophorum [1473],
Pythag. 10 ( = Woelfflin p. 18): et sus, inquit (sc, Pytha
goras), libentius in coeno quam in aqua versantur.
36 (IS)
Pigs delight in mire (mud) rather than in clean ivater.
(1) - Probably there existed, anterior to Heraclitus, a

popular saying- like this: δς έν βορβόρωι κυλίνδεται (cf.
Semonid. fr. 7,2 ff.; Paroem. Gr. I, p. 376; II, p. 705; 2
Petr. 2,22; Boissonade, Anecd. IV, p. 172; Epictet. IV, 11;
29; 31; Aristid. 33,31 Keil; Lucian. Anachars. 1; Horat. epist.
I, 2,26; Hippol. refut. IX, 7,3; ,1. G. XIV, 106,3).
(2) - Now, Heraclitus quoted this saying (probably with
the verb ηδονται), adding the words μάλλον ή καθαρώ ι
δδατι, to get the pair of opposites ‘mud’ : ‘clean water’ (cf.
Hippolytus, quoted ad fr. 35 [61] a: to μιαρόν και τό
καθαρόν έν έστι), which he needed for his Logos (coinci-
dentia oppositorum) : cf. fr. 37 (9).
(3) - The Orphic image of the unpurified soul which in
Hades έν βορβόρωι κείσεται (cf. Plato Phaedo 69 C; Repu
blic 533 D) should be kept apart. But this topic was combined
with Heraclitus’ saying by testimonium id *). (l)
Now, it is difficult to say which one among the posterior
instances alludes to (1), (2) or (3). Possibly, testimonia (a),
(i>) [= the Sceptic relativism], (c) and (d) allude to (2).(-‘
Democritus’ fr. 147 (cf. testimonium a-) 1ms nothing to do
with Heraclitus’ saving (contra. Diels-Ivran/. ad loe.: ‘also Ilci-a-
klitzitnt’); nor has 2 Pelr. 2,22 (cf. 0. liudberg, (-onieclanm
NT 7, Uppsala, 1942, 11 f.; contra Wcndland, idBit A 1898,
788 i f .) . Probably the same will be true of Ostracon Aegypt.
nr. 12319,12 (contra Wilamowitz, 8BBA 1918, 743: ‘die artige
Fortbildug des heraklitischen B 13’).<3>
**
182
In view of the similarity between this saying and frr. 37
(!))·, 35 (61), and of Sextus’ relativism (testimonium b') as
well, the interpretation of the fragment as one more concrete
example of coincidcntia appositorum seems to be the most
likely: as by Kirk 80.
The traditional ‘ethical’ interpretation of the fragment as
some criticism of the πολλοί (cf. fr. 95 [29 DK[) is for
me unlikely; contra Bernays, Ges. Abh., I, 96; Zeller 911
(‘Die meisten leben dahin wie das Vieh; sie wälzen sich im
Schm utz...’); Ctigon 121 (‘Die Bekämpfung des gemeinen
Lebens’); Frankel, Wege* 266 f.; Aubineau, o. e., 205; et at.
*') The ‘new’ fragment of Heraclitus: βορβόρωι κατορύττεται, which

Η. Frankel ( A J P 59 [1938], 312 f. = W e g e - 256 f.) got from
Plato R e p u b lic , 533 I), has no probability of life (as a matter of
fact, the same has been already attempted by J. Bernays, G cs. A b h ..
I, 96 f .) : τώι δντι refers to the Orphics (cf. R e p u b lic 363 D;
P h a c d o 69 C; Schol. in Aristopli. F r o g s 145 f .; I>iog. Laert. VI,
39; Orph. frr. 4; 5; 235 Kern; DK 1 B 4; and te s tim o n iu m d * ).
Correctly Kirk 79 η. 1.
<-) Cf. M. Aubineau, R e c h e r e h e s d e S c ie n c e R e lig . 47 (1959), 185-214.
oo εί (ή Ostr.) at (5ες περιεστηκυιαι Ιθεώρουν άνθρωπον / έμ
βορβόρωι βα[πτιζόμεν]ον, 'οΐων äcv Ιφα/σαν των ά[γαθών ό
άνθρω]πος άπολαύει.’
37
(9 DK; 51 B)
(a) P Aristot. eth. Nie. K 5, p. 1176 a 3 δοκεί δ' είναι

έκάστω ι ζώ ιω ι καί ήδονή οικεία, ώσπερ καί έργον- ή
γ ά ρ κ α τά τήν ένέργειαν. κ α ί έφ’ έκάστω ι δέ θεωροΰντι
τοΰτ’ άν φανεί η- έτέρ α γ ά ρ ίππου ήδονή καί κυνός καί
άνθρώπου, καθάπερ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτό ς φησιν
όνους1 σ ύ ρ μ α τ’2 ά ν έ λ έσ θ α ι μ ά λλον3 ή χ ρ υ σ ό ν
ήδιον γ ά ρ χρυσού τροφή δνοις.
1 6νους Κ1', Midi., Byw., ΒΚ, Kirk 81 : δνον Lh, Ileliod. p n r a p h r .

p. 219,13 Heylbut, versio Lat., Bekker, Susemihl, Apelt, Kackham 2
σύρματ’ codd., Mich. : &ρματ’ M<> : σάρματ’ ci. H. Lloyd-Jones
3 μάλλον om. Mich.
(a1) P Michael Ephes. in eth. Nie. p. 570,21 Heylbut

. . . τό δέ λεγόμενον υπό τής λέξεω ς Η ρ α κ λείτου τοΰ
Έ φεσίου καί έμου πολίτου τό ό ν ο υ ς σ ύ ρ μ α τ ’ ά ν
έ λ έ σ θ α ι < μ ά λ λ ο ν > * ή χ ρ υ σ ό ν , σύρματα τον
χόρτον Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς λέγει, δ ς κατά φύσιν ήδύς έστι
τώ ι όνωι.
1 add. Aid. : om. Β
(a-) R? (A 21 DK) Clem, ström. II, 130,2 (II, p. 184

St.) ’Α ναξαγόραν μέν γ ά ρ τον Κλαζομένιον τήν θεωρίαν
φάναι τού βίου τέλος είναι καί τήν άπό ταύτης έλευθε-
ρίαν λέγουσιν, Η ρ ά κ λειτο ν δ έ1 τον Έ φέσιον τ ή ν
εύαρέστησιν.
1 δέ scripsi : τε Β edd.
184
Theodorct. Or. aff. cur. XI, 7 καί 'Η ράκλειτος δέ ό
Έ φέσιος τήν μέν προσηγορίαν μετέβαλε, τήν δέ διάνοιαν
κ α τα λ έλ ο π τεν1 άντί γ ά ρ τής ήδονής εύαρέστησιν τέ-
θεικεν. ✓ (Schl. ρ. 428 = 77).
1 ού καταλ. DSCV
Marsil. Fioin. de voluptate 8 (I, ρ. 1000 ed. Basil. 157G).

atque idcirco certain et quasi propriam singulis animantibus
cupiditatem (ut inquit Heraclitus) voluptatemque competere.
delectat enim quenquc quod naturae suae sit aptum, trahit
sua quenquc voluptas.
37 (9)
Asses would choose chaff rather than (/old.
όνους swins to ho si preferable residing to όνον;

1 suppose such a process in the transmission of (a): όνουσ σ-
K > όνου σ- Η > όνον σ- > οΐον Μ.
σ ύ ρ μ α τ α ‘chaff’ is preferable both to σ άρμ ατα of

Eloyd-Jones (ap. Kirk 82) and to συρμαία supposed by Kirk
82 f.; because ef. Hesiod Erga 606 f.; the proverb όνος εις
ά χυ ρ α (Philemon fr. 188; Paroem. Or. Γ, ρ. 284; ΤΙ, ρ. 563);
Columella VIΤ, 1,1 paleis vero, quae panic omnibus regionibus
abundant, ctiam gliscit (sc. ascii us) and Olck, RE VI, 630.
σύρματα is the normal food of donkeys (cf. the context of a ).(,)
The saying was correctl.v interpreted by Kirk 83 I', as an

example of coincidentia oppositorum: contra e.g. Zeller 704
Wendland, HUBA 1808, 701 n. 2; Nestle, ap. ZN 705 n. Here
also the interpretation by means of a mathematical proportion,
suggested by Frankel, Wege2, 266, seems unlikely (“ Der Text
legt zwei flloicliungeii nahe: Esel ·. Durchschnittsmensch r--
Durchschnittsmcnsrh : Kenner der wahren Werte, und ent
sprechend: Abfall : Gold = Gold : wahren Werten”). Never
theless even Reinhardt was influenced by Fränkel’s ‘pattern’:
cf. Hermes, 225 [= Vermächtnis 72] “ . . . denn auch dem
liegt die Proportion zugrunde: wie der Esel zum Golde, so
verhält sich der Mensch zu dem, was wahrhaft wäre.’’
186
Testimonium («.-) [= A 21 DK] was referred tn fr. 71
(110 DK) by Diels and Stälilin (and to fr. 93 [52 DK| by
Schleiermacher). But I think the witness of Marsilio Ficino
makes it clear that (a2) conies from the context of (a).
e> T h e a s s o c i a t i o n ‘s t r a w ’ : ‘g o l d ’ ( b o t h y e l l o w ? ) m ig h t be folk loric

in o r ig i n : c f . e . g . G r im m , W b . d. d eu tsch en Spy., s. H ä c k e r l in g :
D er M a n n , der d as W e n n u n d d as A b e r erd ach t,
H a t s i c h e r a u s H ä c k e r lin g G o ld s c h o n g e m a c h t .
St. T hom pson, M o tif-In dex of F o lk L it. (B lo o m in g to n , In d ia n a ,
1950), D475.1.20; 1)451.5.6.
ist
38
(4 DK)
(a) R Albertus Magnus de vegetab. VI, 401 (p. 545

Meyer). orobum est herba quae a quibusdam vocatur vicin
aviu m ...: est autem delectabilissimus pastus boutn, ita quod
bos cum iocunditate comedit ipsum; propter quod Heraclitus
dixit1 quod si felicitas esset in delectationibus^ corporis, boves
fdices dicercmus cum inveniant orobum, ad coniedendum.3 (Cf.
I. Bywater, Journal of Philology 0 fl 880], p. 230 ss.).
1 ‘apud quondam suspicor cod. pal rein’ Moyer 2 L: irrationalis Λ :

indeäbilis CP, in deleetabilibus P (in mg.) ct. rob codd. ' 3 ef. c.g.
Hippocr. r. M . 8; Aristot. I I . A . © 8, p. 595 b 6; Galen, de a lim e n t,
f a c u l t . I, 29 (C M G V, 4,2 p. 257); Hesyeli. s. ώροβισμένοι ct Olek.
( B E VI, 556 ss.)
.188
38 ( 4)
The fragment was correctly valued and interpreted by

Bywater and Kirk 84 ff. as an example of coincidentia npposi-
torum (contra e.g. Oigon 121; Frankel, Wege2 2G6).
Judging by the text of frr. 37 (9) and 36 (13), the

original tentatively might have read like this: βόες όρόβοις
ήδονται (e.g. μάλλον f) μέλιτι), ‘Cattle delight in hitter
vetch' (rather than in honey).I
I Si)
39
(48 DK; 66 B)
(a1) C Etym. magn. s. v. βιός .. .έοικε δε δπό των

ά ρχα ίω ν δμωνυμως λέγεσ θα ι βιος τό τόξον καί ή ζωή.
Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς γοΟν1 δ σκοτεινός'
τώ ι οδν τό ξ ω ι2 όνομ α βίος, έρ γ ο ν δε θά να τος.
ήτοι π α ρ ά την βίαν τής τάσεω ς τό δπλον ουτω κεκλήσθαι,

έπειδή μετά βίας τείνεται, ή ότι δι’ αΰτοΰ τά πρός τόν
βίον οί αρχα ίοι εϊχον έν τα ΐς θήραις αύτώ ι χρώ μενοι' τά
< γ ά ρ > 3 πρός τόν βίον έπορίζοντο τοξεύοντες τά πτηνά
καί τά τετράποδα. (Sehl. fr. Γ>6).
Cf. Schol. in II. I, 49 {Anecd. Paris., I ll, p. 122 Cramer);

cod. Angelieum 122 (P. Matranga, Anecd. Gr., II, Romae, 1850,
p. 392).
1 youv MD : oOv 1’ 2 τώι τόξωι : τοΟ ßioö see. Eustatli.

ei. Valckenanr ad Eurip. P h o r n . 1168; Loliealc, A f/h io p h . p. 870; Rywator
3 γ ά ρ ncli.lidi
(a~) C Tzot/.os exeg. in 11., p. 101 Jlcruiiinn. βιος δέ

τό τόξον λ έγετα ι πρός αντιδιαστολήν τοΟ βίου, δ ση
μαίνει τήν ζ ω ή ν .. .ότι δέ βίος έλέγετο καί αύτό, φησίν
Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς ό σκοτεινός' τ ώ ι δέ τ ό ξ ω ι ό ν ο μ α
βίος, έ ρ γ ο ν δέ θ ά ν α τ ο ς .
(<γ ) Ρ Eustath. in II. I, 49 .. .διό καί άστείω ς ό

σκοτεινός Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς έφη ώ ς ά ρ α τοΟ βιοϋ, ήτοι τ ο G
τόξου, τό μέν ό ν ο μ α βίος, τό δέ έ ρ γ ο ν
190
θ ά ν α τ ο ς , παρωνόμασται μέν γάρ εκ του βίου, ώς
του ζην αίτιος, θανατοΐ δέ τούς βληθέντας καί στερίσκει
τοΰ ζην.
(&) R? Hippocr. de nutrim. 21 (CMG 1 ,1 p. 81 Heiberg)

τροφή ού τροφή, ήν μή δύνηται, < ο ύ > ' τροφή τροφή, ήν
[μή]- οΐόν τε ήι τρέφειν. ο ϋ ν ο μ α τροφή, έ ρ γ ο ν
δέ ούχί' έ ρ γ ο ν τροφή, ο ϋ ν ο μ α δέ ούχί.
1 ού add. Diels : μή Lit tri 2 del. Litt re
191
39 (48)
The name of the how is life, but its work is death.
Tzetzes’ δέ might be genuine.

Name and function (tvork) are meant as equipollent,
both being essential and inseparable constituent parts of every
object; so men should think of the opposites which they imply:
life and death. Calogero (Giorn. Crit. Filos. It. 17 [1936],
205 f .) ; Heinimann (Nomos und Physis, 55) and Kirk 122
have correctly interpreted the fragment as an example of
coincidentia oppositorum (contra e.g. Heidel, Proceed. Amer.
Acad. Arts and Sc. 48 [1913], 702 f.; Snell, Hermes 61 [1926],
369; Fränkel, Dichtung1 430 “Der Sinn des unübersetzbaren
Spruchs beruht darauf.. .dass der Ausdruck ‘Werk’ auch die
‘Wirklichkeit’ bedeuten kann, im Gegensatz zum blossen Wort
oder Namen”; Ramnoux 223; 305 f. ‘le nom et la chose se
contredisent’) . The interpretation by A. Maddalcna, Sulla
cosmologia ionica etc., 259 and n. 2, is unlikely.
Probably the pun βιός eo βίος was already common

enough in Heraclitus’ time: cf. Aristophan. Plut. 33 f.; Sophocl.
Philoct. 931; 933; Aristoph. Bccl. 563, and the context of
testimonium ( a' ) .
Also Heraclitus shared the Greek belief that name reveals

a great deal of the true φύσις of its object (βιός = β ίο ς ).(,)
Hence his meaningful word-plays (which should be distin
guished from his merely rhetorical puns): fr. 23 (114) ξύν
νόωι co ξυνώι; fr. 26 (50) τοΟ λόγου co όμολογεΐν; fr. 50
(15) όΕισμα αίδοίοισιν οο άναιδέστατα etc. They can be
compared with Aeschylus’ etymological attempts (cf. e.g.
Agam. 609 κηδος; Eum. 181 f. Ιός, et Schol., et al.).
192
Thus, ns far as the φύσει όρθότης των όνομάτων is
concerned, Heraclitus might have been the spiritual father
of Plato’s Cratylus.'2'
o> Cf. e.g. Ed. Fränkel, A g a m e m n o n II, 329; 331; Kirk 119 f.; 198. -
Fr. 77 (67 DK) όνομάζεται (with the o b je c tiv e ήδονή ‘scent’)
does not contradict this: cf. Diels, V S * ad fr.; Calogero 218;
Kirk 198 ( c o n tr a Nestle, P h ilo l. 67 [1908], 536; Kranz ad fr.).
Also frr. 45 (U S) Δίκης δνομα and 84 (32 DK) Ζηνός δνομα
imply that the name corresponds to the very essence of its holder.
(-> Cf. e.g. Diels, N . J a k r b . 2 5 (1910), 3 and n. 2; J. Stenzel, in R E
XI, 1661 f.; H. Diller, in D a e n e u e B i l d d e r A n t i k e , I (Leipzig,
3942), 307 f.; D. J. Allan, A J P 75 (1954), 271 ff. [but with the
correction by Chernies, A J P 76 [1955], 184 f f .] ; K. Mondolfo,
B iv . C r it. S t a r . F ilo s . 9 (1954), 221 ff.; ZM 417 ff. - A li t e r M.
Warburg, N e u e p h ilo l. U n te r s . 5 (1929); Kirk, A J P 72 (1951),
225 ff. - J. V. Luce offers a usefulsinnmary in A J P 85 (1964),
136 ff.
193
. (D The interpretation of Ramnoux 222; 457 is not likely at all.
(«) A n n a le s d e V U n iv e r s ity d e L y o n , III scrie, Lettres, 11 (Paris, 1941).
(0 ) Cf. e.g. Koi ψυχαί δέ κτλ. (α) [ = fr. 12» DK] ‘and souls also...’,
and Kirk 372.
<t> Cf. also λαβέσθαι = δψασθαι (and Plut. 1086 A ); μένοντος
κτλ. = κατά έξιν.
(s) As correctly pointed out by A. Bivier, M u s . I I c iv . 13 (1956), 161 n. 50.
W Cf. J· Schroeter, P ln ta r c h s S te llu n g z u r S k e p s is , Leipzig, 1911,
pp. 11; 20; 49 f.
dot Q u e lle n s tu d ie n z u P h ilo (Philol. Unters. 11, Berlin, 1888), 94 ff.
di) Cf. also d e sp e c . le g . I, 26 (V, p. 6 Cohn).
(i2 ) Cf. also Sext. Emp. P y r r h . h y p . Ill, 115 'ρευστήν είναι λεγόντων
τήν ούσ(αν καί άεΐ διαφορήσεις (άφαιρέσεις in mg. L, Kayser
f o r t , recte : άποφορήσεις ci. Mutschmann coni. I, 217) τε καί
προσθέσεις ποιουμένην, and (ci). Probably the source is Plato
T im . 42 A καί τό μέν προσίοι τό δ* άπίοι τοϋ σώματος αύτών
(quoted by Beinhardt); 33 C; 82 Β άπιόν ή πρασιόν; 43 Α έπίρ-
ρυτον σώμα καί άπόρρυτον; P h ile b . 42 C, etc.
(is) Cf. 1082 Α ή μέν οδν τοϋ χρόνου νόησις αύτοΐς οΐον ϋδατος
περίδραξις, δσωι μδλλον πιέζεται διαρρέοντος καί διολισ-
θάνοντος.
di) Cf. de v i r t. m o r . 446 F λανθάνουσαν (sc. τροπήν) ήμδς όξύτητι
καί τάχει μεταβολής; Sext. Emp. a d v . m a th . VIII, 7 ποταμού
δίκην 'ρεούσης τής ουσίας, ώστε ταύτό μή δύο τούς έλαχίσ-
τους χρόνους ύπομένειν μηδέ έπιδέχεσθαι, καθάπερ έλεγε καί
ό Άσκλεπιάδης, δύο δείξεις (Mutschmann coni. P y r r h . h y p . Ill,
54 : έπιδείξεις codd.) διά τήν όξύτητα τής 'ροής; Philo d e sp e c ,
le g . I, 27 (V, p. 7 C.) άεΐ νικώσης τής περί τήν 'ρύσιν (Mangey :
φύσιν BMF : φοράν ΑΗ) όξύτητος τήν δι’ δψεως άκριβή προσ
βολήν,· Sext. Ρ . h . I l l , 115 τόν δέ 'Ηράκλειτον όξείαι ποταμού
'ρύσει τήν εύκινησίαν τής ήμετέρας Ολης άπεικάζειν; (cJ).
(is) probably this is again Platonic terminology; cf. e.g. T im . 66 0
δ π ό τα ν .,.τά δέ παρά φύσιν ξυνεστώτα ή κεχυμένα τά μέν
ξυνάγηι τά δέ χαλδι.
α«) Cf. perhaps P h ilo p o e m . 20 συναγαγών μόλις έαυτόν (‘to collect
oneself’) ; 1077 C συναγομένης.. ,είς έαυτήν τής Ολης.
(it) The probable source for the Sceptics was e.g. Plato T h c a e t. 152 1)
. . . πάντα & δή φαμεν είναι, ούκ όρθώς προσαγορεύοντες-
έστι μέν γάρ ούδέποτ’ ούδέν, άεί δέ γίγνεται.
(is) in view of δίς and ούκ δν έμβαίης (c>); b is and εΐμέν τε καί ούκ
εΐμεν ( c 2) .
(18) So e.g. Zeller 796 ff.; 799 n. 1; Nestle ib . 798 n .; Burnet 145 f.;
ZM 39 ff.; Guthrie 449 ff.; 488 f f .
(2 o) Ö δ C", τ α is probably p lu r . p r o s i n g .; cf. Herodot. II, 24,0; 108,4.
214
GROUP TEN
Frr. 41 (88); 42 (126); 43 (57)
(i) - Convertibility is the reason for the unity

of opposites in this Group: the opposites make one
single whole because they necessarily replace one
another (ef. Kirk 142). They might be thought of
e.g . as two faces of one single coin (cf. the verb
μεταπίΐΐτειν).
(ii) - The opposites of fr. 42 and 43 are taken

from the physical sphere, those of fr. 41 from the
physiology of man (cf. also fr. 48 [26]). On the con
trary, fvr. 50 (106) and 60 (99) do not seem to
belong to the Doctrine on the Logos (aliter Kirk
159 ff.; 165).
215
42
(126 DK; 39 B)
(a) C Tzetzes, schol. ad exeg. in Iliad., p. 126 Hermann

ό π α λ α ιό ς γ ά ρ ‘Η < ρ ά > κ λ ε ιτ ο ς 6 Έ φ έσ ιος έκαλεΐτο δει
νός διά τό τω ν λ ό γω ν αύτοΟ σκοτεινόν'
τά ψυχρά θ έ ρ ε τ α ι , θερμόν ψύχεται,

6 < γ ρ ό ν > αύαίνεται, καρψαλέον νο τίζετ< α ι> .
Cf. Th. Bergk, opusc., II, p. 302 n. 4.
(b) 11 Fs. Her. ep. V (p. 72,34 Byw.) καί έν τω ι πα ντί

ό γ ρ ά αύα(νεται, θερμά ψύχεται.
42 (126)
Cold things become warm, warm thing becomes cold;

moist thing becomes dry, dry (parched) thing becomes wet.
Probably Tzetzes saw in Heraclitus’ saying another obscure

γρΐ<ρος (the thing a becomes a1, and vice versa).
α ύ α ί ν ε τ α ι : cf. αϋη fr. 68 (118 D K ); ten times

in Hcrodot; α ύχμ ός Diog. Laert. IX, 3; Ps. Heracliti ep. VI
(p. 73,22 and 34 Byw .); Plut. de tuenda san. 136 B. κ α p <p a-
λ έ ο v : cf. Odyssey V, 369. ν ο τ ί ζ ε τ α ι : cf. Aeschyl. fr.
44,6 N.* (125, 25 M.). Although all three words occur in the late
Anthologia Palatina, nevertheless they seem to be genuine
(though, for example, αδον ύ γρ α ίνετα ι would be possible as ori
ginal form as well). The terms of the fragment seem to be taken
from the natural processes (cf. χειμώ ν θέρος in fr. 77 [67
DK] and e.g. Empedocles fr. I l l , 6 f f .) .
The saying probably illustrates the coincidence of the

opposites (because of their reciprocal change or replacing):
so F.-.T. Brecht, Ileraclit (Heidelberg, 1936), 113. Aliter Mad-
dalena 219; Vlastos (CP 42 [1947f, 165); Kirk 152 (‘the gene
rality of change’; ‘an illustration of this measure’). Unlikely
Keinhardt (Parm. 223); Gigon 99.
W. Auerbach (Eos 33 [19291, 313 f.) referred the saying

U> Heraclitus’ fr. 53 (31 l)K), and W. Bröcker (Hermes 84
[1956], 382 ff.) took it as a quotation from Anaximander’s
saying; both arc unlikely for me.
%
221
GROUP ELEVEN
F rr. 44 (111)·, 45 ( 23)·, 46 (58)
(i) - The opposites of frr. 44 and 45 are ‘one’

because they are correlative: one cannot either knou>
(cf. ^ιδεσαν) or value correctly (ef. έποίησεν ήδύ
καί ά γα θ ό ν) one opposite without taking into ac
count the other one (correctly Kirk 123 ff.).
(ii) - The opposites οί Ιατροί : αί νόσοι, i. e.

‘medical treatment’ : ‘illness’,(1) fr. 46, are ‘one’
because they both produce the same effect, i . e . pain
fulness or suffering (λ ύ π η ).
(D Cf. άγαθόν : κακόν i n A r i s t o t l e ’s l i s t o f P y th a g o r e a n

o p p o s ite s , metaph. A 5, p. 986 a 26.
44
(111 ΠΚ; 104» B)
(a) C Stob. I ll, 1,177 (III, p. 129 Η.) [τι. άρετής]

Η ρ α κ λ ε ίτ ο υ ... post fr. 71 (110 DK).
νουσος ύγιείην1 έποίησεν ήδύ καί άγαθόν2,
λιμός κόρον, κάματος άνάπαυσιν.
seq. fr. 23 (114 + 2) f, d \ a. (Sehl. fr. 39).
1 ύγιείην A, ύγείην Μ<ι : ύγε(αν Trine., ύγίειαν Byw. 2 ήδύ

καί άγαθόν codd. (cf. Herodot. I ll, 80,2; H. Gomperz ap. Diels., V S * ,
ρ. XXV, et Wilamowitz., E e r m . 62 [1927], 278) : vix Heracliti esse eens.
Schleiern., acc. Th. Gomperz ( S B W ie n , 1886, 1017), qui ci. <ιτοθεινήν>
έποίησεν : ήδύ, κακόν άγαθόν Heitz, Diels, Burnet 140 n. 1, Nestle
fr. 67, Reinhardt ( F a r m . 195 n.; 204 n. 2)
225
44 (111)
It is disease that makes health jjleasant and good,

hunger satiety, weariness rest.
The fragment was correctly interpreted by Kirk 130 ff.

(unlikely Reinhardt, Farm. 237). Fr. 71 (110 DK) does not
seem to belong here, but rather goes with fr. 70 (85 D K ):
cf. θέλειν (contra Gigon 111).
Possible comparative material: Herodot. IX, 89,4 και

λιμώ ι, συστάντας καί κ α μ ά τω ι; Odyssey XV, 400 μετά
γ ά ρ τε κα'ι ά λ γεσ ι τέρ π ετα ι άνήρ; Plato Phaedo 60 Β
ώ ς θαυμασίω ς πέφυκε (sc. ήδύ) πρός τό δοκοΰν έναντίον
εΐναι, τό λυπερόν (the last instance quoted by Fränkcl,
Dichtung2, 427 n. 9).
226
45
(23 DK; 60 B)
(o) C Clem. ström. IV, 9,7 (II, p. 252 St.) δτα ν γ ά ρ

άφ έληις τό α ίτιον του φόβου, τήν ά μ α ρτία ν, άφ εΐλες τον
φόβον, πολύ δέ1 έτι < μάλλον τ ή ν > 2 κόλασιν, δταν άπήι
τό πεφυκός έπιθυμεΐν' ‘δικ α ΐω ι γ ά ρ ού κεΐτα ι νόμος’, ή
γρα φ ή φησιν (I Tim. 1,9). κα λώ ς οδν ‘Η ράκλειτος
Δ ίκ η ς δν ο μ α φησίν ούκ ά ν ή ιδ εσ α ν 3
ε ί τ α υ τ α 4 μή ήν,
Σωκράτης δέ νόμον5 ένεκα άγαθων ούκ Sv γενέσθαι®.

(Sehl.fr. 69).
1 πολύ 6έ : πρός δ’ ei. Sylburg 2 suppl, Staehlin 3 ήιδε-

σαν Sylburg, ace. Schleierm., Bywater, Staehlin, Biels, Kranz, Kirk 124 :
έδησαν L : έδεισαν Hoeschel, ace. H. Gomperz ( Z s . f . öst. G y m n . 61
[1910], 964), N. Majnaric (et Δίκης δμμα : S a d , Acad. So. Yug., 293
[1953], 289) 4 ταΟτα L, edd. : τάντία ci. Diels : <5τη ci. Goebel
( V o r s . P h il, 76) : ταύτά Beinhardt ( P a r m . 204 n. 1), ace. E. Wolf :
τάδικα vel τάντία ci· Kranz 5 νόμων L 6 ef. e.g. Lucian.
D e m o n a x 59
(5) R? Chrysipp. π. προνοίας ap. Gell. VII, 1,2 Hosius

[= SV F II nr. 1169], nihil est prorsus istis, inquit, insu-
bidius1 qui opinantur bona esse potuisse si non essent ibidem2
mala, nam eum bona malis contraria sint, utraque necessum
est opposita inter sese3 et quasi mutuo adverso quaeque4 fulta
nisu consistere5; nullum adeo contrarium est sine contrario
227
altero. quo enim pacto iustitiae sensus esse posset, nisi essent
iniuriaef (Cf. I. Burnet, The Ethics of Aristotle, Londini,
1900, I, p. 351 n .).
1 insipidius v u lg . : insulsius Lactant. e p it. i n s t i t . d iv . 24,6 2 itidem

m lg . 3 esse inter se Lact. 4 ndversoque Lact. 5 cf. fr. 28
( 8 0 ) , p. 141 et n. 6
(c) R? Ps. Her. ep. V II (p. 76,14 Byw.) τά μά λισ τα

δοκοΰντα δικαιοσύνης είναι σύμβολα, οί νόμοι, ά δ ικ ία ς
sta l τεκμήριον' εί y a p μή fjaav, άνέδην άν έπονηρεύεσθε.
νΟν δ* εί τι1 καί μικρόν έπιστομίζεσθε φόβωι κολάσεω ς,
κατέχεσθε είς πα σ αν άδικίαν.
Cf. ep. V II, pap. Genav. 271 col. X III, 12 s. (V. Martin,
Mus. Helvet. 16 [1959], p. 101 ss.) νόμ [ος ά ]π ειλ εΐ. κ [ό λ ]α -
σιν φυλάττεσθε.
1 δέ τι codd., corr. Bernays
228
45 (23)
(Men) would not knoiv the name of Justice

if these things [i.e. wrongdoing or injustice] did not exist.
**
Both the author of the Pseudo-Heraclitean letter V II and

Clement coincide in interpreting Heraclitus’ δ ί κ η as κό-
λα σ ις or νόμος (i.e. ‘punishment’), and τ α Ο τ σ as άδι-
κίαι, ά μα ρτία ι. Thus they have understood Heraclitus’ saying
as follows:
Clement ol νόμοι ά δ ικ ία ς είσΐ τεκμήριον.

= νόμον Ενεκα ά γα θ ώ ν ούκ ά ν γενέσθαι.
Better εί ά μ α ρ τία μή ήν, κόλασις ούκ άν ήν.
What follows in the Letter (εί γ ά ρ μή ήσαν [sc. οί νόμοι]

κτλ.) has no longer any close relation to Heraclitus’ saying.
Consequently, both the Letter and Clement have understood
τα ϋτα as c.g. ά δ ι κ ή μ α τ α , and they do not provide
support for taking τα υτα to refer to Law or laws; contra
Schuster 304; Zeller 913 and n. 4; Diels, Ή 2 (‘Entweder die
Crcsetze.. . ’), and Kirk 125 f.
Now, that the word which lies outside the quotation of

Clement and to which this τα ϋ τα refers, was really something
like τά ά δικ ή μ α τα (or τά δικα , cf. Kirk 127), we way infer
from Chrysippus (testimonium &).(1)
The fragment clearly seems to be another example of the

unity of opposites (cf. also Kirk 129).(2) At the same time,
Heraclitus might have intended to correct some traditional
opinion (expressed, for example, by Herodot. I, 96, 2 έπιστά-
μενος δτι τώ ι δικα ίω ι τό άδικον πολέμιόν έ σ τ ι).
229
Δ ί κ η ς δ ν ο μ α : cf. fr. 84 (32 DK) Ζηνός όνομα.
But in this fr. 45 (23) δνομα seems to imply ‘idea’ (cf. e.g.
Herodot. II, 43,2); the genitive is appositivus (cf. e.g. Plat.
Crat. 402 CD τό τή ς Τηθύος δνομα and LSJ, s. v., IV, 1).
Possibly Hippocrat. de victu I, 24 . . ,παρανομεΐν κα τά

νόμον, ά δικεΐν δ ικ α ίω ς imitates this fragment.
(D I The corrections τάντία ‘das Entgegengesetzte’ (i.e. ‘die Ungerechtig

keit’) (Diels); ‘the opposites’ (Bignone ap. Diels, V S * , p. X X III);
ταύτά (Beinhardt); τ&δικα (Kranz) are not necessary. Unlikely
Maddalena 243 ταΰτα — τά πάντα t
<2> Ideas s im ila r to that expressed by Heraclitus can be found elsewhere:
cf. e.g. Tac. a n n . XV, 20,2 le g e s e g r e g ia s , e x e m p la h o n e s ta a p u d
b o n o s e x d e lic tis a lio r u m flig n i, or c p . R o m . 3,5 ή άδικία ήμων
θεού δικαιοσύνην συνίστησιν (the latter instance quoted by Mazzan-
tini 237).
230
46
(58 DK; 57, 58 B)
(a) C Hippol. ref. IX, 10, 2-3 (p. 242 s. We.) . . .ούδέ
πονηρόν ούδέ ά γα θ ό ν έτερόν φησιν είναι ό Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς
ά λ λ ά έν καί τό α ύ τ ό ... (seq. fr. 43 [57]). καί ά γα θόν
καί κακόν’
oi γοΟν Ιατροί, φησιν ό Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς,

τέμ νο ντες, κ α ίο ν τες,1 πά ντηι3 βασανίζοντες κ α κώ ς τούς
/ άρρω στοΰντας,
έ π α ιτιώ ν τα ι* μη δέν’4 ά ξ ι ο ν 5 μισθόν® λ α μ β ά ν ε ιν π α ρ ά
/ τω ν άρρωστούντων,
τ α ύ τ ά έ ρ γ α ζ ό μ ε ν ο ι [τά ά γα θ ά ] κα'ι α ί νόσ οι7.
scq. fr. 32 (59).
1 καίοντες <κεντέοντες στρεβλοΰντες> ci. By«·. 2 καίοντες

πάντηι, interp. Diels ( Η . 2 = V S * ) 3 έπαιτιώνται Ρ, Miller, ο<1.
Gott., By«·., Zeller 803 n. 3, Goebel ( V o r s . P h il. 62 s.), H. Gomperz ( Z s . f .
ö s t . G y m n . 61 [1910], 971), Kirk 88 [cf. Plat. r e m p . 497 B] : έπαιτέον-
ται Bcrnays (G e s. A b h ., I, 76; B r i e f e 141), acc. Bunsen, Diels, Burnet
137 n . 3, Wendland, Kranz 4 μηδέν’ Wordsworth e t Sauppe, ace.
Byw., Zeller, Kirk : μηδέν P, Bernays, Diels, Wendl. 5 άζιον P,
edd. : άξιοι Bernays, acc. Bunsen, Diels, Wendl., Kranz (έπαιτιώνται
μηδέν, άξιοι κτλ. interp. Η. Gomperz) 6 μισθόν Wordsworth,
acc. cd. Gott., By«·., Diels, Wendl. cctt. : μισθών P, Bernays 7 ταύτά
(Snuppe) έργαζόμενοι [τά άγαθά] καί αί νόσοι Ramnoux 334 see.
Wilam. ( H e r r n . 62 [1927], 278), qui leg. ταύτά έργ. τά [άγαθά] κα'ι
αί νοΰσοι : ταύτά έργ., τά άγαθά καί < τ ά > αί νόσοι ci. Kirk 92 :
ταΰτα έργ. τά άγ. καί τάς νόσους Ρ, Miller, ed Gott., Wendl. (ταύτά),
Praechter (ap. Diels., V S * , ρ. X X IV ); κατά τά ς νόσους ci. Petersen; καί
βασάνους ci. Byw. (coni. Sext. a d v . m a th . XI, 159); τάς νόσους <έκ-
βάλλοντες> ci. Η. Gomperz (ap. Diels., V S * ) : ταύτά έργ. τά άγ. και
< τά κ ακά> τάς νόθους ci. Sauppe : ταΰτα έργ. τά άγαθά [καί
τάς νόσους] Zeller, acc. Goebel : ταΰτα έργ., [τά άγ. καί τάς νόσους]
Nestle ( P h ilo l. 67 [1908], 535), DK (ταύτά), Kirk, W. Gereon Rabi-
no«itz et W. L. Matson ( S e v . o f M e ta p h ., Yale 10 [1956], 248 n. 8) :
ταΰτα — νόσους Heraclito abrog. D. S. Robertson sec. Byw.
231
(6) R? Ps. Her. ep. VI (p. 73,15 Byw.) οί ια τ ρ ο ί...
oöt£ τέχνην ο ϋτε φύσιν ε ιδ ό τ ε ς ... (25) ά π ο κτιννύντες
(&νθρώπους... (29) β λ ά π το ντες. . . (33) τον έμόν θειον
οδτοι άπέκτεινα ν κ α ί μισθόν έλαβον.
Cf. Diog. Laert. IX, 3 κ α ί τω ν ιατρώ ν α ίνιγμ α τω δ ώ ς

έπυνθάνετο (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) εί δύναιντο έξ έπομβρίας
αύχμόν ιιοιησαι1; IX, 4.
1 cf. ep. VI (ρ. 73,22 et 34 Byw.) πώ ς έξ έπομβρίας αύχμόν ποιητέον
232
46 (58)
Doctors,
who cut and burn,
complain that they receive no worthy fee;
but they produce the same effect as the diseases!
1 find the text of Parisinus (έπαιτιώ ντα ι μηδέν’ άξιον)

find that of Wilamowitz and Eamnoux (τα ύτά έργα ζόμενοι
[τά ά γα θ ά ] καί a t νόσοι) satisfactory: some scribe failed to
uudcstand the comparative meaning of τ α ύ τ ά κ α ί ‘the
same as’; hence the gloss [τά ά γα θ ά ] and then the accusative
τά ς νόσους in P. The text ταΟτα έργα ζόμ ενοι by itself (so
Nestle, Kirk et al.) is not pointed enough, έν κα'ι τό αύτό from
Hippolytus’ context seem to require Sauppe's reading τ α ύ τ ά .
The idea of the saying seems to have been common in

Greece: cf., for example, Xenoph. mem. I, 2,54 κ α ί τοΐς ία-
τρ οΐς παρέχουσ ι (sc. αύτούς) μ ετά πόνων τε κ α ί άλγη-
δόνων κ α ί άποτέμνειν κ α ι άποκάειν, και τούτου χά ριν
οΐονται δεΐν α ύτοΐς κ α ί μισθόν τίνειν.
As for the technical terms τ έ μ ν ε ι ν κ α ’ι κ α ί ε ι v,

‘amputate and cauterize’ (taken from the war-traumatology),
ef. c.g . Diog. Laert. I ll, 85 ή δέ χειρουρ γικ ή δ ιά τοΟ τέμ-
νειν και καίειν ύ γ ιά ζ ε ι; Aescliyl. Agam. 849; LSJ, s. τέμνω,
I, 3; s. καίω, IV; J. Dnmortier, Le vocdbulaire medical d’Es-
chylc (Paris, 1935), 47 f.; Ed. Frankel, Agamemnon, IT,
388; they occur often in Plato (Gorg. 456 B; 479 A; 480 C;
521 E — 522 A; Republic 406 D; 426 B; Prof. 354 A; Tim.
64 D; 65 B; Polit. 293 B).
233
That the treatment by the doctors was meant by Hera
clitus as something which is necessary and good, can be seen
e.g. from Xenophon I. c. δεΐν κ τ λ .; anab. V, 8,18 καί γ ά ρ
οι ιατροί καίουσι καί τέμνουσιν έ π ’ ά γ α θ ώ ι ; this
was well made out by Kirk 90 f.; 91 n. 1.
έργάζεσθαι, ‘produce some effect’, ‘bewirken’

(Diels): cf. e.g. Democrit. frr. 268; 213.
234
GROUP TWELVE
F it . 47 (63); 48 (26); 49 (21)?; 50 (15)
(i) - The opposites of fr. 47 are ‘one’ because

they condition each other: a necessarily presupposes
a1, and vice versa.
(ii) - The opposites of fr. 48 (and perhaps of

fr. 49 as well) are ‘one’ thanks to the interference of
their extensions; i.c. their meanings overlap, they
‘touch’ (ef. &πτετσι) each other.
(iii) - Finally, the opposites ‘life’ : ‘death’ (fr. 50)

are ‘one’ because of a traditionally accepted religious
truth.
235
50
(15 DK; 127 B)
(a‘) C Clem. protr. 34,5 (I, p. 26 St.) ύπόμνημα τοΰ

•πάθους τούτου μυστικόν φ αλλοί κ α τά -πόλεις άνίστανται
Διονόσωι'
ε ί μή γ ά ρ Δ ιονύσ ω ι π ομ πή ν έποιοΰντο
κ α ί υμνεον ά ισ μ α 1 α ίδο ίο ισ ιν,
Α ν α ιδ έσ τα τα 2 ε ϊρ γ α σ τ α ι3, φησίν Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς'
ώ υ τό ς δ έ "Α ιδ η ς κ α ί Δ ιόνυσος,
5 δ τ ε ω ι μ α ίν ο ν τα ι κ α ί λ η να ΐζο υ σ ιν,4
ού δ ιά την μέθην τοΰ σώματος, ώ ς έγ ώ οίμαι, τοσοΰτον

όσον δ ιά τήν έπονείδιστον τη ς ά σ ελ γ εία ς ίεροφαντίαν.
(Schl.fr. 70).
1 <3ισμα Ρ : άισματα Heinse, Staehlin 2 άισμα αίδ. άναιδές,

. . .τατα ci. AVilnmowitx (G l. d . H e lls '. II, ρ. 207 n. 1), δισμα αίδ.
άναιδές, < άναιδέσ > τατα s. < άσ εβέσ> τατα ci. Kl. Reich (H e r r n .
80 [1952], 106) : αΐσμα, αίδ. άναιδ. interp. G. Schaefer ( D ie P h ilo s ,
d . Π . , Lipsiae, 1902, 66), acc. Ramnoux 97 3 εϊργασται P, Zeller
918 n. 2, J. M. Stahl ( K r i t . - h i s t . S y n t . d . g r . V e r b u m s , Heidelb., 1907,
•109), AV. Otto ( D io n y s o s , Francof. s. Moenum, 1933 = 1960i, 107), A.
Lesky ( W . S t . 54 [1936], 25), Reich, Ramnoux : εϊργαστ’ <5v Schleicrm.,
H y w ., D iels, S ta e h lin , R e in h a r d t ( 1 ‘n r r n . 1 8 0 n. 2 ) , K rair/., K i r k (P rrs.
: dv άϊκέστατα εϊργαστο ci. Lohnck : είρχατ' dv
P h ilo s , nr. 246)
II, Gott., 1880, 10 ot 15 s.) et non sanum ( G l. d . H e ll.,
(C o m m , g r a m m .
1. c.) Wilam., nee. W o h e r 4 γρ. καί ληνεύουσιν mg. Ρ -
(α2) Κ Plut. de Is. 362 Λ καί μέντοι < τ ά > ' Η ρ α

κλείτου τοΰ φυσικοΰ λέγο ν το ς " Α ι δ η ς κ α ί Δ ι ό
ν υ σ ο ς ώ υ τ ό ς , δ τ ε ω ι μ α ί ν ο ν τ α ι κ α ί λ η-
ν α ΐ ζ ο υ σ ι ν 2 είς ταύτην ύπά γουσ ι τήν δόξαν, οί γ ά ρ
άξιοΰντες ‘Ά ιδ η ν λ έγεσ θ α ι τό σώμα, τής ψυχής οΐον παρα-
φρονούσης καί μεθυούσης έν αύτώ ι, γ λ ίσ χ ρ ο ς άλληγο-
250
ρουσι. βέλτιον δέ τον ’Ό σ ιρ ιν ε’ις τσύτό σ υνάγειν τώι
Διονύσωι τώ ι τ ’ Ό σ ίρ ιδ ι τόν Σ άραπιν, δτε τήν φόσιν μετέ
βαλε, ταύτης τυχόντι3 τής προσ ηγορίας. (Schl, ad fr.).
1 add. Scliellens, arc. Sieveking 2 οδτος δτε οδν μ. κ. ληραίνου-

σιν codd., corr. ρχ Olom. 3 τυχόντι Squire : τυχόντα codd.
(fl·1) It Arnob. adv. nat. V, 29. ac ne quis forte a nobis

tam impias arbitretur confietas res esse, Heraclito ut testi non
postulamus nt credat, nee mvsteriis volumus quid super talibus
senserit ex ipsius aceipiat leetione: totam interroget Graeciam,
quid sibi velint hi phallil, quos per rura, per oppida mos
subrigit ct vcncratuv antiquus, invcnict causas eas esse quas
dieim us... (Lnssnllc, I, p. 205 s.).
Ad fr. 87 (11) spectare perperam iud. Bywater (fr. 125),

Walzer 57: ex Clem, protrept. 34,5 haustum esse demonstr.
H. Wiese, lleraklit bet Klemens, p. 309.
1 h i p h a lli Stewechius [1604] : h ii u a lli P : ity p h a lli Sabaeus [1543]
251
50 (15)
I f they [i.c. the many] omitted (failed) to make the

procession to Dionysus
and to sing the hymn to the shameful parts,
they would he proceeding most irreverently (impiously):
but Hades and Dionysus arc the same,
5 no matter how much they go mad and rave celebrating
bacchic rites in honour of the latter.
I sec no textual difficulty: the transmitted form ε ΐ p-

y α σ τ a i is syntactically correct (cf. c.g. Acschyl. Agam.
868 τέτρ η τα ι; Stahl, 1. c.; Lesky, 1. c.); contra Schleierniacher,
By water, Wilamowitz, Diels, Kranz, Kirk et al. ά ν α ι δ έ σ -
τατα (in lieu of the expected άσεβέστατα) is due to the
intentional pun with <5ισμα αίδοίοισιν, implying: /According
to the many, singing the hymn to the shameful [ = unreverable]
parts is an act of reverence, which is absurd.’ As for the seman
tic proximity between άναιδής, ‘invereeundus’, and άσεβής,
cf. c.g . Xenophon Cyrop. V III, 1,28 μάλλον τούς σίδουμέ-
νους αίδοΰνται τω ν <5^αιδών οί άνθρω ποι (‘People have
more respect for those who have such respect for others than
they have for those who have not’) .
Perhaps both Clement and Plutarch go back to a common

source (in view of the element μέθη τοϋ σ ώ μ α το ς); it seems
possible that the fragment came to them through a Pytha
gorean source, which probably interpreted Dionysus (from
the fragment) as μέθη, and Hades as body or death for the
soul (cf. e.g. Plato Phaed. 7!) C ) . Now, some modern scholars
were willing to see in Dionysus here some hint to ‘wetness’ or
to wine as ‘liquid of death’, with reference to Heraclitus’ fr.
69 (117 DK); so already Bcrnays (Ges. Abh., I, 61 n. 1),
252
and now especially Verdenius (Mnemosyne 1959, 297). But
this is not likely, because line 4 of the fragment plays the
part of a general premise referring to a commonly accepted
and known truth, and the id$a ‘wine is death for the soul’ can
hardly be expected to be such.
The majority of scholars understand ε ί μ ή as si non,

referring only to Dionysus: ‘If it were not to Dionysus that
they made the procession and sung the hymn to the shameful
parts, the deed would be most shameless’ (Kirk-Raven nr. 246);
so also Zeller 918 n. 2; Burnet 141; Diels-Kranz; Nestle, fr. 33;
Frankel (Dichtung-, 451); Reich 109; Ramnoux 97; Wheel
wright, fr. 77; Guthrie 475; Wiese (Heraklit bei Klemens,
37 f .) . But I would side with Schleiermacher (p. 525 f. =
141) and Lesky 25, in believing that εί μή means here nisi
and refers to the full protasis till αίδοίοισιν (lines 1-2): ‘If
they omitted both to hold the procession to Dionysus and to
sing the hymn to phalli, such an omission for sure would be
considered as an act of greatest irreverence (impiety).’ My
arguments are:
(1) The words Διονύσωι πομπήν έποιοΟντο κ α ί υμνεον

ά ισ μ α αίδοίοισιν have the chiastic structure a b c : cb a, which
Heraclitus uses elsewhere (as already pointed out by Lesky).
The balance requires that Dionysus and phalli are equipollent
(both implying ‘life’); contra Wiese 37 n. 1.
(2) As already said, Heraclitus used here άναιδέστατα,

instead of άσεβέστατα, probably to get the additional pun:
<3ισμα αίδοίοισιν = άναιδέστατον.
(3) The interpretation: ‘If it were not to Dionysus that

th e y ...’ contradicts the full reasoning of the fragment, which
seems to be as follows: *
(a) Dionysus and Hades are inseparable.

(I) ) Men insist in celebrating only Dionysus.
(r) Thus men’s proceeding is unreasonable and useless.
253
Or, more fully:
(a) Thanks to the old belief, thanks to the traditionally
accepted religious truth that Dionysus is Hades too, both deities
have been always and commonly considered as inseparable (line
4). [General premise].
(b) Now, in our time people try to separate one from the
other: they consider their most sacred duty to celebrate only
Dionysus (Life). (Lines 1-3).
(c) Thus in doing so they necessarily celebrate Hades
(Death) too. Consequently, all their proceeding (the phallic
procession and hymn; the bacchic rites etc.) is void of reason
and useless, no matter how great is their zeal (cf. line 5).
Ad (c). I think the fragment implies a full rejection of

the Dionysiac rites, without any intention to justify them.
This goes well with the rest of Heraclitus’ radical criticism
of the rites practised among men (cf. frr. 87 [14 D K ]; 86 [5
D K ]); correctly Zeller 918 η. 2;(1) P.M. Schuhl, Essai sur la
formation de la pensee grecque2 (Paris, 1949), 278; E. R.
Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley, 1951), 196
n. 14; cf. also F. Gregoire, Revue neoscol. de philos. 38 (1935),
60 f. Aliter E. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit im
Lickte der Mysterienidee (Berlin, 1886), 28; Reinhardt, Farm.
180 n. 2; A. Delatte, Les conceptions de Venthousiasme chez
les philosophes presocratiques (Paris, 1934), 13 ff.; Nestle,
Vom Mythos zum Logos2 (Stuttgart,· 1942), 100;<2) Reich
109;(:i) Verdenius;('1, Kirk-Raven 212.<r,)
Ad (a). Since line 4 (‘Hades and Dionysus arc the same’)

plays the part of a generally acknowledged truth or general
premise in the reasoning contained in the fragment, it cannot
be the fruit of Heraclitus’ own new doctrine on the Logos
(‘Death and Life arc one’); contra Delatte 14; Lesley 27 ff.;
Reich 107 f. et al. As for the chthonic elements of Dionysus,
cf. e .g . his epithet μ ε λ α ν α ιγ ίς ; Aeschyl. fr. 228 N.2 = 377
Mette, and Wilamowitz, Der Glaube der Hellenen3 (1959), II,
254
72 and 371 f .; Otto, Dionysos3 (1960), 107; Schuhl 228; K.
Ker&iyi, Die Mythologie der Griechen (Zürich, 1951), 234 f.
and figg. 57; 58; H. Jennmairc, Dionysos (Paris, 1951), 268
ff.; J. Fontenrose, Python (Berkeley, 1959), 380 n. 22.
Filially, there is no need to see in «Αναιδέστατα any pun

with "Α ιδης; contra G. Teichmüller, Neue Stud, zur Gesell,
der Begriffe, I (Gotha, 1876), 28 f.; Verdenius, 1. c. (‘(Αναιδέσ
τα τα = utterly unlike Hades’) ; Ramnoux 97 f .
The saying may well belong also to the religious Group

20; it is put here because of the greater importance of the
doctrine on the Logos.
<>> «Dio letzteren Worte.. .sollen wohl die Menschen auf die Blindheit
aufmerksam machen, mit der sie ihr ausgelassenes Fest dem Todes
gott feiern.”
(-> “Rein äusserlich genommen wäre dieser [i. e. der Dionysoskult] ein
schamloses Treiben. Dieses gewinnt aber einen Sinn und wird ent
schuldigt als Ausdruck einer dahinter stehenden wahren Idee: Dio
nysos, der Gott der Zeugungskraft und des Lebens, ist in Wirklich
keit identisch mit Hades, dem Gott des Todes, d. h. aus Leben wird
Tod und aus Tod Leben. Diese tiefsinnige Wahrheit des Ineinander
von Leben und Tod, Lust und Leid offenbart das Doppelwesen des
Dionysos dem, der tief genug schaut.” Cf. also R.B. Onians, T h e
o r ig in s o f E u r o p e a n t h o u g h t a b o u t t h e b o d y , t h e m i n d etc. (Cam
bridge, 1951), 252.
<:1> “Ja — aber sie wissen nicht, warum ihr Tun nicht schamlos ist:
weil Hades Dionysos ist: weil der Tod die Zeugung notwendig macht
und angesichts des Todes Scham nichtig ist.” ·
<■') “On a superficial view the cult of Dionysus is άναιδής, but from
a philosophical point of view it is decent (‘οΛδής’) in a higher
sense (cf. Π 1 0 2 )...”
('■> “such rituals can possess (and sometimes accidentally do possess) a
positive value, because they guide men indirectly to the apprehension
of the Logos. The precise grounds on which Hades and Dionysus
are here identified are not known, but presumably the former
represents death, the latter exuberant life; and it is the implied
identification of these especially significant opposites.. .that prevents
the cult from being utterly shameful.”
255
PART TWO
THE DOCTRINE ON FIRE

(Fragments 51 - 93)
GROUP THIRTEEN
F it . 51 (30); 52 (94); 53 (31); 54 (50); 55 (65);
56ab (84ab); cf. fr. 77 (67).
The fragments of this Group deal with three basic

principles of Heraclitus’ Physics: Fire, Measures,
and Change.
(i) - Fire is actually the basic, underlying sub
stance of all things, which are no more than trans
formations or changes undergone by fire (frr. 51;
53;54).
(ii) - In its purest form of the extra-cosmic αιθήρ
fire is ‘ever-living’, i. e. immortal and divine. Now,
since fire forms the basic stu ff of this world-order,
the latter is itself eternal (contrary to the tradi
tional epic opinion of a world-arrangement), fr. 51.
(iii) - Inasmuch as it is engaged in the world-
processes (both in the regular meteorological pheno
mena and in things severally) fire has to obey the
principle of constant measures. This principle appears
as more operative and convincing than fire itself,
having the necessity of a supreme natural law (ef.
the part of Dike in fr. 52).
Even the old traditional god Helios in his daily
course will never transgress his fixed measures (fr.
52), and the existence of this world-order, composed
of three main world-masses (sea, earth, and shy-fire
burning in the heavenly bodies) depends on the
preservation of the constant measures in the process
of any qualitative change (cf. δ ια χέετα ι κ α ί με-
τρ έετα ι είς τόν αύτόν λ ό γο ν κτλ., fr. 53).
Fire itself in the cosmological and meteorological
alterations is being ‘extinguished’ (i. e. reduced
dmvn to say 10% of its original fire-stuff) and
259
52
(94 DK; 29 B)
(a1) C Plut. de exü. 604 A καίτοι χών πλανητώ ν

έκα σ τος έν μιαι σ φ αίραι κ α θά περ έν νήσωι περιπόλω ν
δια φ υλά ττει χήν χ ά ξ ιν
"Η λιο ς γ ά ρ ο ύ χ ό π ερ β ή σ ετα ι μ έτρ α , φησίν ό Ή ρά-
κλειχος·
ε ΐ δ έ μή, Έ ρ ιν ύ ε ς μ ιν Δ ίκ η ς έπ ίκ ο υ ρ ο ι έξευρ ή -
/ σουσιν.
(ScW.fr. 30).
(β2) R de Is. 370 D 'Η ρά κ λειτος μέν y a p άνχικρυς...

seq. frr. 29 (53) b; 28 (80; A 22) c3 . . . φ η σ ί . . . " Η λ ι ο ν
δέ μ ή ύ π ε ρ β ή σ ε σ θ α ι χ ο ύ ς π ρ ο σ ή κ ο ν χ α ς
δρους' εί δέ μ ή, Κ λ ω θ ά ς1 μιν Δίκης
έ π ι κ ο ύ ρ ο υ ς έ ζ ε υ ρ ή σ ε ν , ν . seq. EmpedocAis frr. 18;
17; 19; 122,2. (Schl. ad. fr.).
1 Κλώθας Hubmann et Schuster 184, 357, ace. Sieveking : γλώ ττας

codd., + γλώ ττας + Kirk 286 : Λύσσας Buttmann, acc. Bernardakis :
γοργω πας Babbitt, acc. Cilento (cf. Origen, c. C e ls. VI, 42)
(b) R Philodem, de piet. 6a, p. 70 Oomperz (rostit.

Croencrt ct Dicls) [θεούς Έ ρ ιν ύ α ς θ’ ώ ς έπικούρους]
ε[Τπε τή ς Δ ί] κ η ς ... seq. frr. 79 ( 64) et 77 (67).
(c) R? Ps. Heracliti ep. IX (p. 77,29 Bvw.) π ολλα ί

Δ ίκης Έ ρ ιν ύ ες, Α μαρτημάτω ν φύλακες.
274
52 (94)
Helios (Sun) will not overstep his measures;

otherwise the Erinyes, ministers of Justice, will find him out.
Contrary to the tradition existing from Bywater up to

Kirk, I don’t think that in the Pythagorean precept preserved
in Hippolyt, refut. VI, 26,1 (p. 153 Wendl.) έκ τή ς ίδίης
έάν άποδημήις, μή έπιστρέφου' ε ΐ δ έ μ ή, Έ ρ ι ν ν ύ ε ς
Δίκης έπίκουροι σ ε μ ε τ ε λ ε ύ σ ο ν τ α ι the
spaced words presuppose this fragment of Heraclitus (contra
e. g. Kranz, ad VS5 I, p. 466,26: ‘also Imitation des Heraklit
22 B 94’; Gigon 87: ‘Man muss vermuten, dass Heraklit hier
nachgeahmt wird’; Kirk 64: . .derived from Heraclitus’; 285:
‘the second part, however, certainly reproduces Heraclitus’).
Probably the phrase Έ ρ ιν ύ ες Δ ίκης έπίκουροι is a tradi
tional hieratic formula anterior both to Heraclitus and the
Pythagoreans (cf. also Kirk ib.), and the coincidence of εΐ δέ
μή both in Heraclitus and in the precept, and between μετε-
λεύσονται [μετέρχονται Iamblich. protr. 21 (14)] and έξευ-
ρήσουσιν is merely casual.
μ έ τ ρ α seems to mean here ‘spatial measures’, ‘bounds’,

‘orbit’ (cf. testimonium α2: τούς προσήκοντας δ ρ ο υ ς ):
because of the verb ύπερβαίνειν ‘overstep’, and of fr. 62 {120)
as well (cf. also Kirk ib.). The temporal meaning of μέτρα
here (so Keinhardt, Parm. 177; Hermes, 14 = Vermächtnis
56, and especially Gigon 61 and 86: ‘die Masse können nur
zeitlich sein’) is not likely. But Kirk ΐϊ>. believes that ‘mea
sures’ should be taken here in a general sense: “ . . . it is obvious
ly wrong to try and restrict μέτρα — a word which applies
in more than one category— to a narrow sense here. Doubtless
Heraclitus is thinking of any departure by the sun from its
275
normal behaviour”. This view was adopted by Guthrie 465:
•‘‘The sun is set to follow a measured path in the sky in a
measured time, giving out a measured amount of heat”.
But a measured amount of heat can be dependent both on

a measured sea-exhalation and on a measured path of the sun.
I think the spatial implication of μέτρα here (‘Sun’s bounds’)
depends on the mythological character of the whole saying.
Helios is here clearly the divinity (contra Gigon 86), the sun
being elsewhere in Heraclitus only a small, passive and inani
mate σκάφη (‘basin’? ). Thus Heraclitus is here (as in many
other fragments) only quoting a traditionally accepted truth
as an illustration, with the intention of proving and imposing
a new doctrine of his own: this time that of the necessity of
preservation of the five-measures for the existence of this
world-order: ‘Even the god Helios must obey the nicasurcs-
principle (as the traditional wisdom has it): so do all things
in the world-processes’. By the way, the fragment seems to
reveal the superiority of the measure-principle to that of fire
(implied by the su n ); but Heraclitus probably was not aware
of this fac t.
Thus the saying seems to illustrate the necessity of mca-

sures for the cosmic balance; it was correctly interpreted by
Kirk 287 f.: “Heraclitus in this fragment is simply stressing
this accepted element of regularity in the sun’s behaviour: the
sun has μέτρα to which he adheres. So also, we shall discover,
all things in the natural world have μέτρα (perhaps not of
precisely the same kind in every case).. .if these measures were
abandoned then the world ns we know it could not continue
toexist”.(1>
The future tense ούχ ύπερβήσεται possibly implies the

improbability of such a happening (‘Sun will never transgress
his bounds’), and έξευρίσκειν has the resultative meaning:
‘find out’ > ‘catch’, ‘seize’. The same is the case with κατα-
λαμβάνειν in frr. 19 (28b) and 82 (66): ‘seize’ > ‘convict’.
276
“The Erinyes avenge every violation of what we should
call the natural laws of life” (Jaeger, Theology, 229 n. 31;
116, with reference to Iliad XIX, 418; cf. also Nestle, ZN
838 n. 1; Kirk 287). As for the part of Dike in the natural
processes, cf. e. g. Parmenid. frr. 1,14 and 28; 8,14; It. Hirzel,
Themis, Dike und Verwandtes (Leipzig, 1907), 145; Nestle ib.;
Gigon 87; Vlastos, CP 42 (1947), 174 ff. et al.
(i> Nestle is not clear enough, ZN 838 η. 1: “Es soll wohl auch hier
nichts weiter als die unverbrüchliche Gesetzmässigkeit des Weltlaufs
zum Ausdruck gebracht werden” ( c o n tr a Kirk 288 η. 1).
277
53
(31 DK; 21 + 23 B)
(a) C Clem, ström. V, 104,3 (II, p. 396 St.), post

fr. 51 (30).
fr. 53a (21 B) δτι δέ κ α ί γενητόν καί φθαρτόν αύτόν

(sc. τόν κόσμον) εΐναι έδο γμ ά τιζεν (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς),
μηνύει τ ά έπιφερόμενα*
π υ ρ ό ς τροπαί*1
π ρ ώ το ν θ ά λ α σ σ α ,
θ α λ ά σ σ η ς δ έ τό μέν ή μ ισ υ γη ,
τό δ έ ή μ ισ υ π ρ η σ τή ρ .
(4) δυνάμει y a p λ έ γ ε ι δτι < τ ό > 2 πυρ ύπό του διοικοΰν-
τος λόγου κ α ί θεοΟ τ ά σ ύμπαντα δι* ά έρ ος τρ έπ ετα ι είς
όγρόν, τό ώ ς σ πέρ μ α τή ς διακοσμήσεω ς, δ κ α λεΐ θά λασ
σαν' έκ δέ τούτου α δθ ις γ ίν ετα ι γη καί ούρανός3 καί τά
έμπεριεχόμενα. (Schl. fr. 25).
fr. 53b (23 B). (5) δπ ω ς δέ πά λιν ά να λα μβ ά νετα ι

καί έκπυροΟται, σαφώ ς διά τούτων δηλοΓ
< γ ή > 4 θ ά λ α σ σ α δ ια χ έ ε τ α ι,
κ α ί μ ε τ ρ έ ε τ α ι ε ις τόν α ύ τόν λ ό γ ο ν
όκ οΐος π ρ όσ θεν5 ήν ή γ ε ν έ σ θ α ι γ ή β.
όμοίω ς καί π ερ ί τω ν ά λλω ν στοιχείω ν τά αύτά. (105,1)
π α ρ α π λή σ ια τούτω ι καί οι έλλογιμ ώ τα τοι των Σ τω ικώ ν
δογμ α τίζουσ ι περί τε έκπυρώ σεω ς διαλαμβάνοντες καί
κόσμου διοικήσεω ς. .. ( = Kusch, praep. ev. ΧΤΤΓ, 13,31).
(Schl. fr. 26).
1 τροπάς Βω. 2 τό Eus., om. Clem. 3 ούρ. καί γή Eus.

4 γη add. Burnet 135 n. 2 (coni. Diog. Lagrt. IX, 9 πάλιν τε αδ τήν
Υήν χεΐσθαι, έζ ής τό ύδωρ γίνεσθαι; Agt. I, 3, 11 [D o x . ρ. 284,6]
278
επειτα άναχαλωμένην τήν γην ύπό τού πυρός χύσει (Doehner :
φύσει eodd.) Οδορ άποτελεΐσθαι; cf. etiam test, c2: πάλιν δ’ άτιό
ταύτης διαλυομένης καί διαχεομένης πρώτη μέν γίγνεται χύσις
εις ύδωρ), acc. Kranz, Fraenkel ( D ic h tu n g ^ , p. 439), Kirk 325; 332,
Vlastos 359 s., Guthrie 465 : < πάλιν δέ γ ή > postea Kranz ( V o r s o k r a t.
D e n k e r , 1939, p. 52; DK« I, p. 493,6) et Deichgraeber ( B h . M u s . 89
[1940], p. 49) 5 πρόσθεν Bus. : πρώτον Clem., Cherniss (toste
C. Eamnoux 403), Wiese ( H e r a k l i t b e i K le m e n s , p. 245) 6 γή
om. Eus., del. Lassalle II, p. 61 : ή γενέσθαι γη del. Cherniss, Vlastos
360, Wiese : γην ci. Schuster 129 n. 3, acc. Brieger (H e r m e s 39 [1904],
218) : + γη + Bywater
(b) R Diog. Laert. IX, 9 = fr. 33 (60) testim. (d).
(c1) R Zeno ( SVF I, nr. 102) ap. Ar. Didym. fr. 38

(Vox. 469 s.) ap. Stob. I, 17,3 (I, p. 152 XV.). Ζήνωνα δέ
ούτω ς άποψαίνεσθαι διαρρήδην' τοιαύτην δέ1 δεήσει
είναι έν ιτεριόδωι2 τήν τοΰ δλου διακόσμησιν έκ τής
ουσίας' δταν έκ πυρός τροπή3 είς δδω ρ δι’ ά έρος γένη-
ται, τό μέν τι ύφίστασθαι4 καί γη ν συνίστασθαι, [κ α ί]5
έκ τοΟ λοιπού δέ τό μέν διαμένειν δδωρ, έκ δέ τοΟ άτμι-
ζομένου ά έρ α γίνεσθαι, λεπτυνομένου8 δέ του άέρος πϋρ
έξά πτεσ θα ι7.
1 δέ del. Heeren 2 π. < τιν Ι> ci. Diels 3 τροπή Heeren : τροπή
FP : τραπηι (deleto γένηται) ci. Meineke coni. Diog. VII, 142 4 ύφ-
ίσταται FP, corr. Canter 5 καί del. Heeren 6 λεπτυνομένου
Wachsmuth coni. Plut. d e S to ic , r e p u g n . 1053 A (λεπτυνθέντα et τόν
άέρα ci. Usener) : έκ τίνος FP, Diels, ab Arnim 7 έξάπτεσθαι
ci. Diels conl. Stob. I, 21,5 ( D o x . 465,25), acc. Wachsm. : έξάπτειν FP
Cf. Diog. Laert. VII, 142 γίνεσ θα ι δέ τόν κόσμον

δταν έκ πυρός ή ούσία τρα πη ι δι’ ά έρ ος είς ύγρότητα,
εΐτα τό π α χυ μ ερ ές αύτοΰ συστάν άποτελεσθήι γή , τό δέ
λεπτομ ερές έξα ερω θή ι1, καί τοΟτ’ έπί πλέον λεπτυνθέν
πυρ άπογεννήσηι.
279
VII, 136 . ..τ ρ έ π ε ιν (sc. θεόν) την πάσ αν ούσίαν δι*
ά έρ ο ς είς ύ δ ω ρ . . .
1 έξαερωθήι Ρ 2 : έξαραιωθήι BFPi
(c2) R Chrysipp. ( SVF II, nr. 413) ap. Ar. Didym.

fr. 21 (Dox. 458,22) ap. Stob. I, 10 (I, p. 129 W .). . . .πρ ώ της
μέν γιγνο μ ένη ς τής έκ πυρός κ α τά σύστασιν είς ά έρ α
μεταβολής, δευτέρα ς δ’ άπό τούτου εις ί)δωρ, τρίτης
'δ* έτι μάλλον κ α τά τό ά νά λο γο ν συνισταμένου του ϋδα-
τος είς γήν. π ά λιν δ* άπό τα ότης διαλυομένης καί δια-
χεομένης πρώτη μέν γ ίγ ν ε τ α ι χύσις είς ΰδωρ, δευτέρα
δ’ έξ ϋδα τος είς άέρα, τρίτη δέ καί έσχάτη είς πυρ.
Cf. Chrysipp. (SV F II, nr. 579) ap. Plut. de Stoic, repugn.
1053 A λ έ γ ε ι γ ά ρ (sc. ό Χρύσιππος) έν τώ ι πρώ τω ι1 π ερ ί
φύσεως" ή δέ πυρός μεταβολή έστι τοιαύτη' δι’ ά έρος
είς Οδωρ τρ έπ ετα ι1 κάκ τούτου γ ή ς ύφισταμένης άήρ
ά να θυμια τα ι, λεπτυνομένου δέ τοΟ ά έρ ος ό αιθήρ περι-
χ ε ΐτα ι2 κύκλω ι’ οί δ ’ ά σ τέρες έκ θαλάσσης μ ετά τοΰ
ήλιου άνάπτονται.
1 πρώτωι g : τρίτωι cett. 2 περιέχεται codd., corr. Wyttenbach
(cs) R Lucret. I, 782 ss.

Quin etiam repetunt a caclo atquc i"iiil)us cius
ct primum faciunt igncm sc vertere in auras
aeris, hinc imbrem1 gigni terramque crcari
ex imbri1 retroquc a terra1 cuncta revert i,
umorem primum, post aera, deinde calorem,
nee cessare haec inter se mutare, meare2
a caelo ad terram, de terra ad sidera mundi.
280
(Cf. C. Bailey ρ. 735 s.).
1 ignem.. .igni.. .in terrain OQII, restit. Marullus 2 meando ci. Maas
(c*) R Cic. de nat. deor. II, 84 = fr. 33 (60) tcstim.

(d1). Cf. TU, 31 et Λ. S. Pease ad loe.
(c5) Epictet. fr. 8 (p. 460 Schenkl) = Muson. Ruf.

fi*. 42 Hense = fr. 33 (60) tcstim. (cP).
(<-' ) R Occll. Luenn. 15 [I, 13] Harder πΰρ μέν γ ά ρ

είς έν συνερχόμενον ά έρ α ά πογενναι, άηρ δέ ίίδωρ,
ίίδωρ δέ γ η ν ά πό δέ γ η ς πά λιν ή αύτη π ερίοδος της
μεταβολής μέχρι πυρός, δθεν ήρξατο μεταβάλλειν.
Cf. 24 [11,6] et 31 [II, 13].
(c7) R Mart. Capelia 7, 738 ...totquc (sc. septem)

transfusiones elementorum: nam ex informi materie primus
ignis, ex igni aer, ex aere aqua, ex aqua ten*a: item fit adscensio
et ex terra aqua est, ex aqua aer, ex aere ignis, ex igne in
materiem inconprehensam iam non poterit pervenire. . .
Cf. Plat. Tim. 49 BC ct A. E. Taylor, A Comm, on Plato's

Tim., p. 315; Aristot. de gen. et corr. B 10, p. 337 a 1 ss.;
Phiion. do astern, mnndi 110 (VI, p. 106 Colin): Ileraclit.
</u. Horn. 22,4; Sen. qu. nat. I ll, 10,1; Cornut. compend. 17
(p. 28 Lang); Plut. de primo frig. 950 DE; Aet. I, 3,11
(Dox. 284,4); Galen, de elem. I, 4 (I, p. 443 K ühn); in
Ilippocr. de alim. I ll, 24 (XV, p. 357 K .); Simplie. in phgs.
p. 1181,14 Diels; Schol. Pind. Ol. 1,1; Origen, de princ. II,
1,4 (V, p. 109 Koetschau); Greg. Nyss. in hexaem. PG 44,
p. 108 A; Nemes. de nat. horn. 5, p. 155 Matthaei.
281
53 (31)
(53a) The transformations (turnings) of Fire:

first sea,
and of the sea the half is earth,
the half prester (burning).
(53b) < Earth> is liquefied as sea,

and it is measured in the same proportion
as existed before it became earth.
All our testimcnia presuppose Stoic intermediaries, with

the only exception of (b), where the Theophrastean nucleus
remains preserved: only here the fourth element (άήρ) is
not yet introduced.
The text of fr. 53b makes difficulties. There is a number

of scholars who are not willing to adopt Burnet’s supplement
< γ fj> : so Gigon 68 (but he accepts the word in Der Ursprung
207); Walzer 71; Reinhardt, Hermes, 16 and 246 [ = Ver
mächtnis 58 and 95]; Mazzantini 156; Frankel, Wege2, 278
(but he accepts it in Dichtung2, 439); especially Chernies
(1955) and Wiese, Heraldit bei Klemens (1963), 245. Even
Kirk 332 wrote with reserve: “ . . . f or the sake of clarity I
provisionally accept this slight addition”, and Deichgräber
(Rhythmische Elemente im Logos des Heraklit, 1962, 502)
while reading θά λασ σ α < γ η > (?), puts the question: “Die
andere Frage ist, ob überhaupt am Anfang das γη angesetzt
werden muss. . . ”
Moreover Cherniss, Vlastos 360 n. 1 and Wiese coincide in

considering the words ή γενέσ θα ι γη a gloss. Thus Cherniss
and Wiese suggest the following text of fr. 53b: θάλασ σ α
282
δια χέετα ι καί μ ετρέεται είς τον αύτόν λ ό γο ν όκοΐος
πρώ τον ήν.
Now, Gigon (‘Das Meer strömt auseinander’; ‘das Meer

iiberflütet.. .alles’) and Deichgräber (“Es könnte von einem
Zerfliessen, Siehausbreiten des Meerwassers die Rede gewesen
sein. ‘Meer aber breitet sich fliessend aus’ ”) take δια χέετα ι
in the sense of ‘spread out’. But a flood is out of the question
here, where a qualitative change (τροπή) is expected. F u r
ther, Reinhardt took the verb in its most likely sense, that of
‘liquefy’, and translated: ‘Das Meer geht aus festem in flüssigen
Zustand über’. This I find linguistically impossible: the trans
lation ‘The sea passes from a solid to a liquid state’ [its ‘solid
state’ being earth, cf. also Vlastos 359 n. 46] presupposes e. g.
such a Greek text: γή θάλασσα διαχέεται, which he denies.
Finally, Cherniss and Wiese take δια χέετα ι in its quite

possible sense of ‘disperse’, ‘dissolve’/ 0 understanding the phrase
so: ‘The sea is dispersed as fire’; ‘Das Meer zerfliesst (ins
Dünnere, das Feuer)’. This makes sense. The advantages of
this interpretation are: (i) no addition to the transmitted
text is necessary; (ii) it provides a likely end (θάλασ σ α >
πυρ) to the beginning of the saying (πϋρ > θά λα σ σ α ),
matching the end of fr. 51 (30) άπτόμενον μέτρα καί
άποσβεννύμενον μ έτρ α ; (iii) it better corresponds with
Clement’s context δ π ω ς δέ πά λιν ά να λα μ β ά νετα ι και έκ-
πυρουται, σαφώ ς δ ιά τούτω ν δηλοϊ.
But the disadvantages of the reading θάλασ σ α δια χέετα ι

arc greater:
(i) The phrase θά λασ σ α δ ια χέετα ι in itself is not clear
enough; it can imply as well: ‘The sea is dispersed as άήρ
(or as αιθήρ, or as ά τμ ίς etc.)’. The rendering ‘The sea is
dispersed as fire’ would presuppose the text θάλασ σ α πΟρ
διαχέεται.
(ii) Since Clement or his Stoic source understood the
άνάληψις as the series of changes Earth > W ater > Air >
283
Fire, both texts: that implying the change Earth > Water,
and that Water > Air (according to the Stoics) correspond
well with the context όπω ς δέ π ά λιν ά να λα μβ ά νετα ι και
έκπυροΰται, σαφώ ς διά τούτω ν δηλοΐ.
(iii) To my way of thinking, a correspondence (θά λα σ
σα > πϋρ) with the beginning of the saying (πυρ > θά λασ
σα) is not intented by Heraclitus. Contrary to the traditional
diagram of the fragment (from A. Patin, Heraklitische Bei
spiele, Progr. Gymn. Neuburg, II [1892-93], 86, up to Kirk
332; cf. also Ramnoux 79; Deichgräber, Rhythm. Elemente
544), which looks as follows:
πυρός τρ ο π α ί- Fire Fire

t [θαλάσσης] τό δέ
ήμισυ πρηστήρ-
πρώ τον θάλασσα, Sea Sea

t < γ ή > θά λασ σ α
δια χ έετα ι κτλ.
[θαλάσσης] τό Earth Earth

μέν ήμισυ γη I
I would understand the fragment as follows. The title πυρός

τρ ο π α ί (where probably the immortal divine Fire, the πυρ
άείζω ον from fr. 51 [30] is meant) does not interfere in
the rest of the saying. The cosmic fire is represented by the
‘burning’ (πρη σ τή ρ), which might represent here any kind
of meteorological burnings (c. g. the hot exhalation from the
sea which burns in the σ κάφ αι of the heavenly bodies). The
reciprocal change Burning > Sea can be easily undestood
by means of e. g. fr. 58 (6) ό ή λιο ς νέος έφ’ ήμέρηι έστίν.
Thus the diagram of fr. 53ab might look like this:
284
Burnings
(πρηστήρ, ά τμ ίς etc.)
A
θαλάόσ ης τό δέ
ήμισυ πρηστήρ
4
π ρ ώ το ν θ ά λ α σ σ α , SEA
θαλάσσης τό μέν < γ ή > θάλασσα

ήμισυ γη δ ια χέετα ι κτλ.
ψ
Earth
(iv) A strong argument in favour of the addition γη

seems to be that adduced by Burnet; namely, our oldest
testimonium of the fragment (b), the Pre-Stoie, Theophrastean
account has π ά λ ιν τε α δ τήν γη ν χεΐσθαι, έξ ή ς τό ύδωρ
γίνεσθαι. Moreover, the coincidence of phraseology between
γ η θά λασ σ α δ ια χέετα ι and Chrysippus (c2) π ά λ ιν δ’ άπό
ταύτης (sc, γ η ς ) διαλυομένης κ α ί δ ι α χ ε ο μ έ ν η ς
πρώ τη μέν γ ίγ ν ε τ α ι χ 6 σ ι ς ε ί ς ύ δ ω ρ is striking.
(ν) Vlastos 360 n. 47 argued (and I think he is right)
that the presence of the words ή γενέσ θα ι γ η presupposes a
γ η at the beginning of fr. 53b: “Incidentally, I would argue
that, if ή γενέσ θα ι γη is a gloss, it must have been put in
by someone who did have an initial γη in his text; for, if he
did not, it wotild have been natural to take θά λασ σ α as the
subject, and, in that case, his gloss would probably have been
ή γενέσ θα ι θά λα σ σ α ” . .
(vi) Finally, it does not seem difficult to explain ivhy
γη has been omitted in Clement’s text (probably by someone
between Clement and Eusebius): because of the strange con
struction γη θά λασ σ α δια χέετα ι, against the lectio facilior
θά λασ σ α δια χέετα ι, understood as ‘the sea spreads out’.
As for the mentioned construction, Deichgräber 502 referred
285
to Hippocrat. de flat. 8 (CMG I, P· 96,16) τ ° Υα Ρ πνεύμα
συνιστάμενον ύδω ρ χεΐτα ι, ‘for the wind when it condenses
passes to water’.
Consequently, the addition < γ ή > seems to me very likely.
The words f) γενέσ θα ι γ η do not need to be a gloss

(contra Chemiss, Vlastos and Wiese). In a transmitted text
like this:
L πρώ τον fjv ή γενέσ θα ι γή
Eus. πρόσθεν fjv ή γενέσ θα ι
it seems preferable to take πρώ τον as a mistake, and to insert
< γ ή > in Eusebius’ text.'2»
Clement’s words μηνύει τ ά έπιφερόμενα seem to imply

that in his source fr. 53 (31) was closely connected with
fr. 50 (30); very probably in Heraclitus’ original as well (so
Deichgräber, Rh. Mus. 89 [1940], 48 f.; Kirk 316; 325 f.;
Wiese 242 f.; Reinhardt, Hermes 10 = Vermächtnis 51, is
going too far: “Folgten die Fragmente unmittelbar einander?
Offenbar”) .
Clement’s final comment: όμοίω ς και περί τώ ν ά λλω ν

στοιχείω ν τά α υτά does not allude to any lost saying of Hera
clitus, but implies: θάλασσα άήρ δια χέετα ι, άήρ δέ πυρ ;
this is suggested c. g. by testimonium (c~) (so Reinhardt,
Hermes 247 = Vermächtnis 97; contra Deichgräber 51).
Kirk’s explanation (p. 332): “ more likely he was simply ex
plaining. .. that the λ ό γο ς of air and earth, as well as of sea,
remains unchanged when they too are ‘dissolved’ to fire in
the eepyrosis” seems to me less likely. Clement’s comment is
not an argument contra Burnet’s addition < γ ή > (contra
Wiese 246: “D ie .. .Bemerkung über die anderen Elemente
ist am ehesten verständlich, nenn B 31b nur von der Rück-
2S6
Verwandlung des einen Elements Wasser handelte und nieht
zugleich auch den Blick auf andere Elemente [Erde] warf’-) .
π υ ρ ό ς τ ρ ο ί α ! : -the word τροπή seems to imply

here ‘the final result of a complete change’, transformation
(Burnet), tu m (ef. LSJ, s. v., I, 2). I think Snell (Hermes
61 [1926], 359 and n. 1) is going too far; certainly the meaning
‘Sonnenwende’ is not operative here. As I understand the
saying, πυρός τρ οπα ί suggests that the extra-cosmic divine
Fire (πυρ άείζω ον or say αΙθήρ) is represented in the
cosmic processes by three main actors, which are his ‘substi
tutes’, transformations or turns (marked with a in the follow
ing diagram): the protagonist Sea, and, at equal shares, Earth
and Prester (the latter implying the meteorological, heavenlv
fir e ) . Νοτν, the process of a gradual qualitative change is
taking place only between these three actors (marked with b).
Or diagrammatically represented:
Fire
( a )
<------------- ------------->
Barth ---- -------- » Sea Prester
(b) (b)
This meaning of τροπή does not imply that Heraclitus

ignores the processes by which the complete changes take
place, as Kirk 329 believes. Certainly the method of change
is visible in δια χέετα ι, whifch I think presupposes the know
ledge of Anaximenes’ άραίω σις. The same gradual process
of qualitative change is implied by the verbs άλλοιοΰται,
fr. 77 (67); έκ γ η ς δέ ΰδω ρ γ ί ν ε τ α ι , έξ ϋδα τος δέ
ψυχή, fr. 66 (36); μεταβάλλον fr. 56a (84a). The words
μεταπίπτειν, fr. 41 (88), and άνταμοιβή, fr. 54 (90), are
287
irrelevant here, since the former implies ‘the reciprocal chang
ing of places by two opposites’, and the latter is probably a
financial term meaning ‘exchange’ (contra Kirk i b. ) .
ή μ ι σ υ. . .ή μ ι σ υ cannot be taken literally, otherwise

there would be no more sea. Gigon 66 took the phrase as
implying no more than ‘at equal portions’ (‘zu gleichen Tei
len’) . Possibly we should understand: ‘of the part (quantum)
of the sea assigned to such changes, half is passing to earth,
half to burning.’ It means that if say 10 quanta or measures
of Fire turn around into Sea, only e. g. 2 quanta will change
into Earth, and 2 into Burning. But one cannot be sui'e
enough.
π ρ η σ τ ή ρ : I think Kirk 330 f. is right in believing

that πρηστήρ here must be an expression for the celestial
fire (contra e. g. Burnet 135 ‘whirlwind’; 149 ‘hurricane accom
panied by a fiery water-spout’; Diels and Kranz ‘Glutwind’,
‘Gluthauch’). But this πρησ τήρ is not exactly either ‘lightning-
flash’ (as Kirk 325 takes it) or ‘thunder’ (and the symbolic
theological κεραυνός, fr. 79 [64], is not a good parallel;
contra Kirk 331), since Heraclitus, according to Aet. I ll,
3,9 = fr. 61 (b1), distinguished between βροντή, αστραπή
and πρηστήρ, as Guthrie (p. 464) well pointed out (“On
the other hand Heraclitus seems to have been interested in
πρηστήρες, and thought them worthy of an explanation
[‘ignition and quenching of clouds’] alongside such common
phenomena as thunder and lightning”) . I provisionally adopt
Guthrie’s rendering of πρηστήρ as burning, and I find
conclusive both Kirk’s remark (“As it stands the word means
‘burner’ or ‘blazer’, and is applied to a particular form of
f ir e ... It would indicate celestial fire quite clearly enough”)
and Guthrie’s summary: “as Diels saw, a waterspout accompa
nied by lightning (‘Windhose mit elektrischer Entladung’,
and so LSJ) was ideal as ocular demonstration of the link
binding fire and water in the process of reciprocal change
(Diels, Ilerakleitos, 24, quot. Reinhardt, Parm. 178, n. 1 ).”
288
Anyway this burning seems to be a phenomenon parallel
to the hot exhalation which burns in the σ κάφ αι of the hea
venly bodies, though not identical with it, as Theophrastus
ap. Diog. Laert. IX, 9 (testimonium b) Ικ δέ τούτου (sc. τοΟ
ΰδα τος) τ ά λ ο ιπ ά (sc. τ ά ά σ τρ α ), σχεδόν π ά ν τα Ιπ Ι τήν
άνα θυμία σιν ά ν ά γ ω ν τήν ά π ό της θα λάττη ς, and Gigon
68 (‘gleich’), followed by Walzer 72 n. 3, understood πρηστήρ.
ε i ς is that of manner: LSJ, s. v., IV, 3.
Summing up, schematic as it is, fr. 53 (31) seems to

describe the constant, normal natural processes which are
every day going on: such as the ignition of the heavenly
bodies every morning (the change sea > skv-fire); the ebb
and tide (the change sea > earth and vice versa) etc.<3) Thus
the saying does not seem to support any interpretation in the
sense of a eosmogor.y and an ecpyrosis, Heraclitus’ world being
eternal, fr. 51 (30).
Possibly the changes earth (with say some 10% of fire) >
sea (with say 50% of fire) > sky-fire (with say 90% of
fire) correspond with the words ά πτόμενον μέτρα, and
those in the opposite direction with άποσβεννύμενον μέτρα
of fr. 51 (30).
But the point is that the quantities of each one of the

three world-masses (sea, earth, sky-fire) remain unchanged
thanks to the preservation of the measures (μέτρα, λ ό γ ο ς ).
(i) Reinhardt referred to Hippolyt, r e f u t . I , 7,3 (p. 12 W. = D o x .

560,19) 8ταν γ ά ρ είς τό άροαότερον διαχυθήι (sc. 6 ά ήρ), πυρ
γίνεσ θοι; Heriniae ir r is . 7 ( D o x . 653,5) άραιού μένος δέ καί δια-
χεόμενος αΙθήρ καί πυρ (sc. γ(νεται)·
289
55
(65 DK; 24 B)
(a) R Hippolyt, refut. IX, 9,7 (p. 243,26 W endland),

post fr. 79 (64). κ α λ εΐ1 δέ (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) αύτό (sc. τό
TtOp) χρ η σ μ ο σ ύ νη ν κ α ί κ ό ρ ο ν χρησμοσύνη δέ έστιν ή
διάκόσμησις κ α τ’ αύτόν, ή δέ έκ πύρω σ ις κόρος.
1 καλεΐς Ρ
(b1) R Philo, leg. alleg. I ll, 7 (1, ρ. 114 Cohn) ...Η ρ α

κλείτειου δόξη ς έτα ΐρ ος, κ ό ρ ο ν κ α ί χ ρ η σ μ ο σ ύ
ν η ν κ α ί £ν τό π α ν (cf. fr. 26 [50] b) κ α ί π ά ντα άμοιβήι
(cf. fr. 54 [50] c2) είσ άγω ν. (Schl. ρ. 430 = 73).
(δ2) R de spec. leg. I, 208 (V, p. 50 C.) ή δέ είς

μέλη το0 ζώ ιου διανομή δηλοΐ ήτοι ώ ς1 i v τ ά π ά ντα ή
δτι έξ ένός τε κ α ί είς έν2, δπ ερ οι μέν κ ό ρ ο ν κ α ί
χ ρ η σ μ ο σ ύ ν η ν έκάλεσαν, οί δ ’ έκπύρω σιν καί δια-
κόσμησιν' έκπύρω σιν3 μέν κ α τά τήν του θερμού4 δυνασ
τεία ν τω ν ά λλω ν έπικρατήσαντος, διακόσμησιν δέ3 κ α τά
τήν τω ν τεττά ρ ω ν σ τοιχείω ν ισονομίαν, ήν άντιδιδόασ ιν
ά λλήλοις. Cf. SV F II nr. 616 (Ex Posidonio emanasse susp.
Reinhardt, Farm. 164 n. 1 et 173).
1 ώ ς RF : ε ίς AH, ή δ τ ι ε ίς Turneb. 2 ΐ ν RF : Mvcc A H Turn.

3 έκπύρωσιν — δέ om. AH Turn. 4 θερμού R : θεού F : πορός
ci. Bernays (D ie h e ra k lit. B r ie fe , p. 125)
(c) R Plut. de E 389 C έπ εί δ ’ ούκ ίσος ό τω ν

περιόδω ν έν τα ΐς μετα β ολα ΐς χρόνος, ά λ λ ά μείζω ν ό
τή ς έτέ ρ α ς ήν κ ό ρ ο ν καλούσιν, ό δ έ τ ή ς χ ρ η σ -
296
μ ο σ ύ v η ς έλάττω ν, τό κ α τά λ ό γο ν τηρουντες ένταΰθα
τόν μέν άλλον ένιαυτόν π α ιά ν ι χρώ ντα ι περί τά ς θυσίας,
άρχομένου δέ χειμώ νος έπ εγείρ α ντες τόν διθύραμβον
τόν δέ π α ιά ν α κ α τα πα ύ σ α ντες τρ εις μήνας ά ντ’ έκείνου
τοϋτον κα τα κ α λοΰντα ι τόν θεόν, δπ ερ τρ ία π ρ ο ς < έν-
ν έ α > , έν τούτω ι1 τήν διακόσμησιν οίόμενοι χρόνω ι προς
τήν έκπύρω σιν είναι.
1 < ένν έα > έν τούτωι scr. : έν < ν έα > τούτο Bases et Strijd, acc.
Sieveking, Babbitt : gv (gv οδσα Γ) τοΰτο codd., Kirk 357 s.
297
55 ( 65 )
Want and satiety (of Fire ?).
All our testimonia presuppose the Stoic ecpj/msfs-interprc-

tation. In (c) έννέα should be read (contra K irk’s defense of
the mss. reading Sv), because otherwise we should expect such
a text: δπ ερ εν π ρ ο ς τρία, since according to Plutarch the
fiepj/ratts-period ( = Apollo) lasts nine months and that of the
world-forming ( = Dionysus) three months. I think, in the
archetype it stood δπερ τρ ία πρ ος θ, έν τούτω ι; hence my
emendation.
The fragment, consisting only of two words, is obscure.

Tentatively I would suppose:
(i) Hippolytus was clever enough to recognize coinci-
dentia oppositorum in several sayings (even there where Theo
phrastus and the Stoics did not: cf. fr. 33 [60]). Now, since
he brings this fragment together with others dealing with fire
(frr. .79 [64]: 82 [66); 77 f67]), we may suppose that the
saying does not represent another illustration of the opposites-
doctrine (as is the case in fr. 44 [111] λ ιμ ό ς κόρον); contra
e. g. Guthrie 455: “Fr. 65 seems to be no more than another
statement of the identity of opposites... ”
(ii) Further, it seems quite' possible that these ‘want, and

satiety’ refer to Fire (as Hippolytus and the Stoics took it),
because in fr. 77 (67) we find the same pair (κόρος λιμός)
as referring to ό θεός, which we must think of as some aspect
of the eternal Fire (e. g. as α ιθή ρ ; cf. also κεραυνός,
fr. 79 [64], and πυρ, fr. 82 [66]).
298
Now, from this fr. 77 (67) ό θ εός- ήμέρη εύφρόνη,
χειμώ ν θέρος, -πόλεμος εΙρήνη, κόρος λ ιμ ό ς we might
infer: (a) that χρησμοσμνη και κόρος are to be understood
as successive states (and not as simultaneous situations, as
Kirk 359 alternatively took them) ;(1) (δ) that the process-
stages with say 90% of fire (Day, Summer) could be perhaps
called ‘state of satiety’ or ‘peace-time’ of Fire, while those
with 10% of fire (Night, W inter) would be ‘state of hunger
or want·’ and ‘war-time’ of Fire.(2) This aspect of succession
encouraged the Stoic misinterpretation of e. g. Summer as
ccpyrosis·period, and W inter as that of the world-forming
(cf. Plutarch, testimonium c).
The association of War with Hunger (need, lack, depri

vation), and of Peace-time with Satiety, and the idea of a
living Fire which nourishes (satiates) himself might be fol
idoric in origin.<3>
Gigon (Her Ursprung der gr. Philosophie, 211) and Kirk

361 n. 1 supposed that Heraclitus was referring hex*e to Anaxi
mander’s fr. 1: “Die χρησμοσύνη bei Heraklit kann geradezu
als die Busse gelten für das Unrecht, das der Kosmos im
Zustand des κόρος begeht.” “It is possible that in the words
χρησμοσύνη and κόρος Heraclitus was referring to Anaxi
mander’s metaphor of the mutual encroachment and subsequent
retribution of the world-masses, κόρος would describe the
state of ά δικ ία , while χρησμοσύνη calls for ‘retribution and
punishment’, δίκην καί τίσιν.”
I think it is not likely; because (a) there is no trans

gression of the measures in Heraclitus ns a rule (cf. fr. 77 [6~]);
even the old Helios would never commit such a transgression.
(b) Fire is the last actor to do such a v-rongdoing or encroach
ment, since it plays the part of the supreme judge or Zeus.
(c) κόρος, as opposed to ‘hunger’ and ‘war-time’, does not
seem to imply ‘insolence’ or ά δ ικ ία here.
299
<i) Even within the Logos-doctrine the opposites κόρος λιμός arc
successive, not simultaneous, cf. fr. 44 (1 1 1 ).
<2 ) Already Gigon 49 referred this saying to fr. 77 ( 6 7 ) . But this does
not entitle us to read here: < π ΰ ρ -> χρησμοσύνη κόρος, < πόλε
μος εΙρήνη> , as Gigon did (followed by Walter 104; Mazzantini
166). Diog. Laert. IX, 8 is not a good parallel (cf. Kirk 358;
c o n tr a Gigon I. c .) .
<3> Cf. e.g. Plotin. II, 1 [40], 4,12 H. et S. . . . κ α ί itöp olov διά
κόρον ύβρίζον (quoted by Bernays, D ie h e r a k lit. B r i e f e , 126).
300
56ab
(84ab^DK; 83, 82 B)
(a) P Plotin. IV, 8 [6], 1,8 Henry et Schwyzer [περί

τή ς εις τά σ ώ μ α τα καθόδου τή ς ψυχής] . . . άπορώ , πώ ς
ποτέ κ α ί νυν κ α τα βα ίνω , κ α ί δ π ω ς ποτέ μοι ένδον ή ψυχή
γ εγ έν η τα ι του σ ώ μ ατος τούτο οδσα οΐον έφάνη καθ’
έαυτήν, κ α ίπ ερ οδσα έν σώ ματι. ό μέν γ ά ρ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς,
δ ς ήμΐν π α ρ α κ ελ εύ ετα ι ζητεΐν τοδτο, ά μ ο ιβ ά ς τε ά να γ·
κ α ία ς τιθέμενος έκ τω ν έναντίω ν (ef. fr. 54 [90] c3),
όδόν τε άνω κά τω 1 είπώ ν (cf. fr. 33 [60] f ) καί
fr. 56a μ εταβάλλον ά να π α ύετα ι
καί
fr. 56b κ ά μ α τ ό ς έσ τι τ ο ΐς α ύ τ ο ΐς 2 μ ο χ θ εΐν κ α ί
/ ά ρ χ ε σ θ α ι3,
είκ ά ζειν έδω κεν4 ά μ ελή σ α ς σαψή ήμΐν ποιήσαι τόν λόγον,
ώ ς δέον ίσ ω ς π α ρ ’ αύτώ ν5 ζητεΐν, ώ σπερ καί αύτός
ζητήσας εδρεν (cf. fr. 15 [101] d1) .
(Cf. F. Lasalle, I, pp. 124; 131).
1 καί κάτω AiE, Iambi., Aeneas, Perna (1580) 2 i.e. τοίς νοη-
τοΐς sec. Plot. 3 s e r v ir e Ambros. Travers., Aeneas, Picin. (1492) :
άγχεσθαι Creuzer : ‘si άρχεσθαι corruptela, prob, anterior Plotino’
H. et S. 4 έδωκεν codd., H. et S. : δοκεΐ Volkmann (coni. Ficino),
Bröliior, Kirk 250 5 αύτών Heintz np. Harder. ( G n o m o n 4 [1928],
645), Harder2 (1956) : αύτών Vat. Ciz.ec : αύτωι A2UC : αύτωι A'E
BR.T, IT. et S. : αύτοΐς Volkmann, Brillier, Kirk
(a1) R IV, 8 [6], 5,5 ούδ’ ή Έ μ π εδ ο κ λ έο υ ς ψυγή

άπό του θεοΰ καί πλάνη ούδ’ ή ά μ α ρ τία έφ’ ήι ή δίκη1,
ούδ’ ή Η ρ α κ λ είτο υ ά ν ά π α υ λ α έ ν τ ή ι φ υ γ ή ι ,
ούδ’ δλω ς τό έκούσιον τή ς καθόδου (sc. τή ς ψυχής) καί
τό άκοΰσιον αδ.
1 cf. IV, 8,1,17-20 et Empedoclis fr. 115,13 s. DK
301
(a2) R Iambi, de anima ap. Stob. Γ, 49, 39 (I, p. 378,21
W.) Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς μέν γ ά ρ ά μ ο ιβ ά ς ά ν α γ κ α ία ς τίθ ετα ι έκ
των έναντίων, όδόν τ ε 1 άνω καί κάτω διαπορεύεσθαι
τά ς ψ υχά ς ύπείληφε καί τό μέν τ ο ΐ ς 2 α ύ τ ο ΐ ς έ π ι -
μ έ ν ε ι ν κ ά μ α τ ο ν ε ί ν α ι , τόδέ μ ε τ α β ά λ λ ε ι ν
φέρειν άνάπαυσιν.
1 όδόν τε Heeren : όδόντ* Ρ, όδόντες F 2 < έν> τοΐς Heeren
Cf. I, 49, 37 (I, ρ. 375, 7 W.) .. .κ α θ ’ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν δέ

τή ς έν τώ ι μ εταβ ά λλεσ θα ι ά ν α π α ύ λ η ς. . .
(αΛ) Β Aeneas Oaz., Thcophr. ρ. 9 = PG 85, pp. 877

C - 880 A ό μ έ ν γ ά ρ Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς διαδοχήν ά ν α γ κ α ία ν
τιθέμενος, άνω και κάτω τής ψυχής τήν πορ εία ν Μφη
γ ίγ ν ε σ θ α ι' έπ εί1 κ ά μ α τ ο ς αΟτήι τώ ι δη μ ιουργώ ι
συνέπεσθαι καί ά νω μ ετά του θεού τάδε τό πα ν
σ υμπεριπολεΐν καί ύπ’ έκείνω ι τετά χθ α ι κ α ί ά ρ χ ε σ-
θ α ι1. δ ιά τοΟτο τήι του ήρεμείν έπιθυμίαι κ α ί ά ρ χή ς
έλπίδι κά τω φησί τήν ψυχήν φέρεσθαι.
1 έπεί — άρχεσθαι codd. plerique : έπεί κ ά μ α τ ο ς έπί τ ο ΐ ς

α ύ τ ο ΐ ς άνω μ ο χ θ ε Ιν καί τοΐς θεοϊς συμπεριπολεΐν κ α I
ά ρ χ ε σ θ α ι cod. Mon. 564 et interpr. Lat. Ambros. Traversarii (cf.
8. Sikorski, D e A e n r a G azaco, Breslauer pliilol. Abli. IX, 5, [Ί909], p. 47)
(a4) R p. 11 = PG 85, p. 881 C ...ο ύ κ είδώ ς δτω ι

χρή μάλλον συνέπεσθαι' πότερον Ή ρα κ λείτω ι, ώι δοκει
τω ν άνω πόνων τή ς ψυχής ά ν ά π α υ λ α ν είναι τ ή ν
είς τόνδε τόν βίον φ υ γ ή ν . . .
(«°) R Anon. Arab, dicta sapientis Graeci I, 89 (vertit

G. Letvis, ap. H. et S., II, p. 241). «Heraclitus said: When
I erred, I descended to this world in order to rest, and through
it I catne into greater fatigue and weariness.»
302
56ab (84nh)
(56a) In changing it [fire?] is at rest.
(56b) I t is weariness to toil for the same (masters)

and he ruled by them.
The sayings, preserved only in such a late and little trust-

worthy source as is Plotinus, are highly enigma tie. What
follows is very hypothetical.
(i) I would side with Kirk 252 (contra Gigon 94 and
Guthrie 445 n. 3) in believing that both sayings belong toge
ther: “ One saying mentions rest (ά ν α π α ύ ε τ α ι), the other
its opposite (κ ά μ α το ς) ; one mentions change (μ ετα β ά λλ ο ν ),
the other its opposite (το ΐς α ύ τ ο ΐς ). ‘Change is rest, no change
is weariness’ is surely a legitimate summary of the content
of the two sayings together” (K irk ).
The second saying (a popular wisdom?) seems to play

the part of an explanation or proof of the first one (κά μ α τος
γ ά ρ έστι would be quite a possible original text).
(ii) Certainly the first saying is not of the same order

as the statements of the coincidence of opposites (right is
Kirk; contra Guthrie 445). Both sayings seem to imply
justification of the change. But I don’t think change in general
is meant, as Gigon and Kirk interpreted them: ‘Anything
(i. e. everything) rests by (while) changing’; ‘It is restful
for things to change’ (K irk ).
I would agree with Diels that πυρ might be the invisible

subject here (hence perhaps the neuter gender μεταβάλλον).
303
It, is fire in whose changes Heraclitus was particularly inte
rested (cf. άιττόμενον μ έτρα καί άποσβεννύμενον μέτρα,
fr. 51 [30]; άλλοιοΟται δέ δκω σπερ < π ϋ ρ > fr. 77 [67]
etc.). Thus the sayings seem to justify the necessity for fire
to undergo changes. It is tiring for the divine fire to toil as
a servant always for the same master, e. g. for water in a
drunkard’s soul (ef. frr. 66 [56] ψυχήισιν θ ά να τος ύδω ρ
γεν έσ θ α ι; 69 [117] 6γρήν τήν ψυχήν έχω ν). I t finds its
rest each time it changes the master, passing c. g. to earth,
or to sky-fire (in the σ κ ά φ α ι), or to any other thing (cf. χ ρ ή
ματα, fr. 54 [SO]), and not only to some of the constituent
elements of the human body, as Diels interpreted the fragment.
In the second saying we have to understand: τοΐς α ύτοΐς

(sc. δεσιτόταις) and ά ρ χεσ θ α ι (sc. όττό τω ν α υτώ ν), i. e. ‘it
is weariness to be ruled always by the same masters’, and not
‘to be ruled at all’: because when the fire changes master and
finds its (temporary) rest, it will be ruled or serve all
the same.
This servitude of fire we might think of as the stages

when the fire is being reduced say to 50% or less of its
original fire-stuff. Perhaps we could compare this toil and
servitude with the starvation (deprivation, need, want) of fire
from fr. 55 (65).
Needless to say, Plotinus gives us no clue to the under

standing of the sayings: the reason for him to quote the
fragment was the fact that it implied the necessity-of change;
and Plotinus needed this necessity (ef. ά μ ο ιβ ά ς τε ά να γ-
κ α (α ς τιθέμενος έκ τω ν έναντίω ν) to explain Heraclitus'
όδόν ά νω κάτω as ά νοδος και κάθοδος τής ψυχής (cf. Β.
Harder, Plotins Schriften, Hamburg, 1956, 440; 443). In («’)
and (a*) the influence of Empedocles’ ideas seems to be clear.
304
GROUP FOURTEEN
P i t . 57 (3)t 58 (6); 59 (106); 60 (99);

61 (DL IX , 9-11)·, 62 (120); 63ab (105 + 38);
64 (100); 65 (A 13)
This Group deals with the astronomical and meteo

rological views of Heraclitus.
(i) - The regularity in the natural processes is due

principally to the preservation of the ‘measures’ or
constant quantities of the hot sea-exhalation, which
is burning in the σ κάφ αι of the heavenly bodies
(fr. 61). Day and night, summer and winter (cf.
fr. 64), Great Summer and Great W inter (fr. 65),
lightning, storm, rain etc. all depend on the inten
sity of the regulated exhalation (say from 10% up
to 90% of fire) (fr. 61). Thus there are no good
or bad days (as e. g. Hesiod has believed), since the
very essence of every day is one and the same in kind
(i. e. the sea-exhalation) (fr. 59).
(ii) - Possibly all the σ κάφ αι of the heavenly

bodies are equal in size: they seem to be some small
basins, the width of a human foot (fr. 57), serving
as foci for the ignition of the hot exhalation collec
ted in them (fr. 61). Now, the flame of the sun
is by far the brightest (fr. 60), because the exhala
tion - measures alloted to it are the highest (say
up to 90% of fire). There is not such a divinity as
Helios, since the sun - σκάφη is being quenched at
evening and rekindled at dawn: so to speak, every
morning there is a new sun (i. e. a new sea-exhala
tion, although alivays the same in kind and measures)
(fr. 58).
305
(iii) - The order of the bodies is: first the moon,
then the sun, furthest from the earth are the stars.
The moon moves in the zone of άήρ, the sun in
that of αιθήρ. The eclipses of the sun and the moon,
and the monthly phases of the moon are not con
vincingly explained by Heraclitus (fr. 61).
Some influence by Xenophanes (irr. 58; 61 &1)
and Pythagoras (fr. 65) seems to be likely.
306
57
(3 DK; om.B)
(a) P Aet. II, 21 (Dox. 351 s.) π ερ ί μ εγέθο υ ς

ή λ ί ο υ. Α ν α ξ ίμ α ν δ ρ ο ς τόν μεν ήλιον ίσον είναι τή ι γή ι,
τον δέ κύκλον ά φ ’ οδ τήν έκπνοήν έχει κ α ί ύφ’ οδ "περι
φ έρ ετα ι*1 έπ τα κ α ιεικ ο σ α π λα σ ίω τής γ ή ς . · · Α ν α ξ α γ ό ρ α ς
•πολλαπλάσιον Πελοπόννησου. 'Η ρ ά κ λειτος
εδρος ποδός άνθρωπείου.
’Ε πίκουρος τηλικοδτον ή λίκ ος φαίνεται, ή μικρώ ι τινι μεί-
ζω ή έλάττω . ( = Euseb. praep. ev. XV, 24,3).
* (Schl. ρ. 394 = 54).
1 Stob. : φέρεται Pa. Plut.
(a1) R Theodoret. Gr. aff. cur. IV, 22 (ex Aetio)

...Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ο ς δέ1 π ο δ ι α ΐ ο ν (sc. τ ό ν ή λ ι ο ν ) ,
cf. 1,97.
1 δέγε bl
Cf. alleg. Horn. II. I, 14 (A. Ludwieh, Ind. led. Regimont.

1895, p. 5); Mich. Glyc. annal. I, p. 40 Bekker; Philon. de somit.
I, 53 (III, p. 216 W.) e vet. plac., cf. P. Wendland, SBBA
1897, pp. 1076 n. 1 otl079.
(b) R Aristot. meteor. A 3, p. 339 b 30 δσοι δέ πδρ

καθα ρόν εΐνα ί φασι τό π ερ ιέχο ν καί μή μόνον τ ά φερό-
μενα σώ ματα, τό δέ μ εταξύ γ η ς κ α ί τω ν ά σ τρ ω ν άέρα,
θεω ρήσαντες ά ν1 τ ά νυν2 δεικνύμενα δ ιά τω ν μαθημάτω ν
Ικανώ ς ίσ ω ς ά ν έπαύσαντο τα ύτη ς3 τή ς π α ιδ ικ ή ς δόξης·
307
I Sät* J ..t. 3*
λ ία ν γ ά ρ άπλουν τό νομ ίζειν μ ι κ ρ ό ν τ ο ϊ ς 4 μ ε y έ-

θ ε σ ι ν ε ΐ ν α ι τ ω ν φ ε ρ ο μ έ ν ω ν έ κ α σ τ ο ν , δτι
φ α ίνετα ι θεω ρουσιν έντεϋθεν ήμΐν5 οΰτω ς. Cf. Η. Chemise,
Aristotle’s Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy, pp. 126 n. 509;
184 n. 171.
1 & v om. F 2 vGv om. HN 3 ταύτης om. EN, ante δόζης

ponit F 4 τοΐς om. F 5 F, Lee : ήμΐν έντ. EHN, Bekker
(c) R de an. Γ 3, p. 428 b 2 Ross φαίνεται δέ γ ε 1

κ α ί ψευδή π ερ ί ών ά μ α ύπόληψιν άληθή έχει-’, otov φ α ί
νετα ι μέν ό ή λ ι ο ς π ο δ ι α ΐ ο ς , πισ τεύετα ι3 δ ’ εΐναι
μείζω ν4 τή ς οικουμένης.
1 ye C Ό Φ 1 : om. Ε Si 2 £χει C L S* φ> : £χειν V Ε 3 L :

πεπίστευται Ε Ό* W γ : πέπειστσι Ό C 4 με(ζω XJ C Ε
(c1) R de somn. 1, ρ. 458 b 28 Ross κ α ί ύγια ίνουσ ι

δέ κ α ί είδόσιν1 δμ ω ς ό ή λ ι ο ς π ο δ ι α ΐ ο ς εΐναι
δοκεΡ.
2, ρ. 460 b 16 αίτιον δέ του συμβαίνειν τα ΰ τα τό μή

κ α τά τήν αύτήν δύναμιν κρίνειν τό τε κύριον και ώ ι τά
φ α ντά σ μ α τα γίνετα ι, τούτου δέ σημεΐον δτι φαίνεται μέν
ό ή λ ι ο ς π ο δ ι α ΐ ο ς , άντίφησι δέ π ο λ λ ά κ ις έτερόν
τι π ρ ό ς τήν φαντασίαν.
1 videntibus Γ1 2 of. D. Boss (vers. n. 2 ad loc.)
(d ) R Epicur. ep. ad Pyth. 91 Bailey τό δέ μ έγεθο ς

ήλίου τε < κ α ΐ σ ελ ή ν η ς> 1 καί τω ν λοιπώ ν άσ τρω ν κ α τά
μέν τό2 πρ ός ή μ α ς τηλικοΟτόν έστιν ήλίκον φαίνεται,
308
κ α τά δέ τό καθ’ α ύτό3 ήτοι μεΐζον του δρω μένου ή μι-
κρώ ι έλαττον ή τηλικοΟτον'. Cf. Schol. ad loc.
1 καί σελήνης add. Usener, acc. Von der Muehll, Bailey 2 μέν τό
Schneider: μέντοι codd. 3 καθ’ αύτό Usener : καθ’ αύτόν Ρ 1,
καθ’ αύτήν Q, κατ’ αύτό Γ Η1 Ρ* Ζ, κατ’ αύτόν Β Η* 4 post
τηλικοΟτον hab. ούχ άμα codd., sed. Bailey (τυχόν Lachmann, τυγχάνει
Usener)
Cf. Philodem. π. σημειώ σεω ν col. IX , 13 ss. De Lacy;

Lucret. V, 564 ss. (cf. C. Bailey, III, ρ. 1408); Cic. Acad. pr.
II, 82 (cf. 123); de fin. I, 20; Sen. qu. not. I, 3, 10; Cleomed.
II, 1, pp. 126,27 ss. II. Ziegler; 134,13 κ α τά δέ τα υ τα π ά ντα
ούκ π ο δ ι α ΐ ο ς (sc. ό ή λ ι ο ς ) ούδέ ή λίκ ος φ αί
ν ετα ι; 136,21; 152,7; Amob. adv. nationes II, 61 orbe sit sol
amplior an pedis unius latitudine metiatur; Tertull. ad nationes
II, 4,15.
(e) R Diog. Laert. IX, 7 εΐρηκ ε δέ (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι

τος) καί π ερ ί τω ν έν1 κόσμω ι συνισταμένων πά ντω ν2 π α
θών, δτι τε ό ή λ ι ό ς έστι τό3 μ έγεθο ς οΐος4 φαίνεται.
seq. fr. 67 (45).
1 έν τωι Ρ2 2 πάντων om. FP2, 3 τό FP2, om. BP* 4 οΓος

codd. [cf. Epic. c p . P y t h . 91 olov φαίνεται F Co, ήλίκον όποιον φ. Z f,
cf. Ρ. V. d. Muehll]: όσος Cobet
(/) It Ps. Hcracliti ep. IX (p. 77,31 Byw.) θεοΐς ξυνοι-

κών δ ι’ ά ρ ετη ς ο ΐδ α ή λ ι ο ν ό η ό σ ο ς έ σ τ ί .
309
57 (3)
(The sun’s) breadth is (the length of) a human foot.
The text of the fragment is uncertain, since its best

source (a) is no more than a late quotation from some version
of Heraclitus in hexameters. The implication of a saying like
this: ‘The width of the sun is a human foot’ is obscure. Attemp
ted explanations are listed in Kirk 281 f. (Zeller 858 n. 1;
Reinhardt, Parm. 237; Gigon 81 f.; H. Frankel, Wege1, 271;
Dichtungs, 433; Deichgräber, Phüol. 93 [1938], 25 f.). All
these scholars, including Kirk 282 and Guthrie 486, coincide
in believing that the saying should not he taken literally.
So Kirk wrote: “B ut it is probable that Heraclitus did not
seriously consider the sun to be the width of a human foot,
and in this case he must have been referring to its apparent
width.” " . . .he is relating the apparent size of the sun to the
size of a mere part of a man, with the implication that appea
rances are deceptive, that one has to look below the surface,
that ‘a thing’s constitution is accustomed to hide itself’ (fr.
123).” A similar view was shared by Guthrie: “By itself, and
without context as it is, it might be supposed to refer only
to appearances, as a reinforcement of the thesis that the senses
are misleading unless interpreted by the m in d ...” ; “I t is
hardly possible that Heraclitus believed his statement to be
literally true, and its significance must remain mysterious.”
But I would rather believe that Heraclitus did seriously

consider the sun to be the width of a human foot (certainly
this is the way in which testimonium (a) understood the saying).
I think the scholars were too much impressed by the φ α ίνετα ι-
element in our testimonia.
310
(i) In testimonium (b) I would deduce that the words
ö tcφα ίνετα ι θεωροΟσιν έντευθεν ήμΐν ούτω ς are no more
than an attempt at interpretation of the Heraclitean material
(the spaced text) by Aristotle himself. If so, then the φ α ίνετα ι-
element in (c), (d ) and (e), which are probably dependent
on Aristotle, has nothing to do with Heraclitus’ original idea,
represented correctly in ( a ) .
(ii) Since the word σκάφη meant in Heraclitus’ time also
‘basin for washing feet' (cf. Aeschyl. fr. 225 N.2 = 375 Mette
καί νίπ τρα δή χρή θεοφόρων π ο δ ω ν φέρειν"
λεοντοβάμω ν που σ κ ά φ η χ α λ κ ή λ α το ς;
and Hippocrat. steril. 234), we may think of his sun to be
so small (i. e. some kind of focus: σ κ ά φ α ς .. . έν α ΐς ά θ p ο ι-
ζ ο μ έ ν α ς τ ά ς λ α μ π ρ ά ς ά να θυμιά σεις ά ποτελεΐν φλό
γ α ς , Diog. Laert. IX, 9).
Thus the possibility of a literal, meteorological interpre

tation of the saying (‘the sun-basin is the width of a human
foot’) I think cannot be avoided.
311
58
(6 DK; 32 B)
(a) P Aristot. meteor. B 2, p. 354 b 33 διό καί γελ ο ίο ι

π ά ντες δσοι τω ν πρότερον ύπέλαβον τόν ήλιον τρέφ εσθαι
τώ ι ύγρ ώ ι. (κ α ι δ ιά τουτ’ ένιοί γ έ φασιν καί ποιεΐσθαι
τ ά ς τρ ο π ά ς αυτόν- ού γ ά ρ αίε'ι τούς α υτούς δύνασθαι
Τόπους π α ρ α σ κ ευά ζειν α ύτώ ι τήν τροφήν.) ά να γκ α ΐο ν
δ ’ είναι τούτο συμβαίνειν π ερ ί αύτόν ή φ θείρεσθαι- κ α ί
γ ά ρ τό φανερόν πυρ, έω ς Sv έχηι τροφήν, μέχρι τούτου
ζήν, τό δ ’ ύγρ ό ν τώ ι πυρί τροφήν είναι μόνον- ώ σπερ
άφικνούμενον μ έχρι πρ ός τόν ήλιον τό ά να γόμ ενον του
ύγροδ, ή τήν άνοδον τοιαύτην οδσαν οΐα νπερ τήι γ ιγ ν ο -
μένηί φ λογί, δι’ ή ς τό εΐκός λα β ό ντες οϋτω κ α ί π ερ ί τοδ
ήλιου ύπέλαβον. τό δ* ούκ έστιν δμοιον- ή μέν γ ά ρ φλόξ
δ ιά συνεχούς ύ γρ οϋ καί ξηρού μεταβαλλόντω ν γ ίγ ν ε τ α ι
κ α ί ού τρ έφ ετα ι (ού γ ά ρ ή αύτή οδσα δια μ ένει ούδένα
χρόνον ώ ς είπ εΐν), π ερ ί δέ .τό ν ήλιον άδύνα τον τοδτο
συμβαΐνειν, έπεί τρεφομένου γ ε τόν αύτόν τρόπον, ώ σπερ
έκεΐνοί φασιν, δήλον δ τι κ α ί ό ή λ ιο ς ού μόνον, κ α θά περ
Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτό ς1 φησιν, ν έο ς έφ ’ ή μέρη ι έσ τίν, ά λ λ ’ ά εΐ νέος
συνεχώ ς. (Schl. fr. 29).
1 ΓΗΝ : 6 Ή ρ. Ε
(bl ) R Alexander, in meteor, p. 72,31 Hayduck π ερ ί

δέ τόν ήλιον ούδέν τοιοΰτον γ ίν ετα ι, έπ ε’ι εΐ γ ε έτρέφετο
ό ήλιος οδτω ς ώ ς καί τό πδρ, κ α θ’ ά φασιν1, ού
μόνον, ώ ς Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτό ς φησι, ν έ ο ς 2 έ φ ’ ή μ έ ρ η ι άν
ήν, κ α θ ’ έκάστην ήμέραν ά λ λ ο ς έξα πτόμ ενος τοδ π ρ ώ
του έν τήι δύσει σβεννυμένου, ά λ λ ’ άεί τε κ α ί συνεχώ ς
νέος τε κ α ί ά λλοτε ά λ λ ο ς έγίνετο, ώ σπερ καί a t φ λ ό γ ες
έν τώ ι γίν εσ θ α ι τό είναι έχων. (Schl, ad fr.).
1 ψησίν I 2 νέος A W, Aid. : νέος ών I B, Hayduck
312
(b-’) R Olympiod. in meteor, p. 136,6 Stiive . . .ώ ι δή-
λον δτι ού τρ έφ ετα ι ό ήλιος ύπό τής άτμίδος. όπερβη-
σόμεθα δέ τήν Η ρ α κ λ ε ίτο υ 1 π α ρ α δ ο ξο λ ο γία ν' ούκέτι γ ά ρ
ν έ ο ς έ φ ’ ή μ έ ρ η ι γενή σ ετα ι ό ή λ ι ο ς δ ιά τόν
Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν, ά λ λ α νέος καθ’ έκαστον νυν. έ λ ε γ ε γ ά ρ ό
Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς δτι πυρ όπ ά ρ χω ν δ ήλιος, δτα ν μέν έν τα ΐς
ά να το λ α ΐς ύπάρχηι, ά νά π τετα ι δ ιά τήν έκείσε θερμό
τη τα ’ δ τα ν δέ έν τα ίς δυσ μ α ΐς έλθηι, σβέννυται δ ιά τήν
έκείσε ψυξιν.
1 Η ρακλείτου V : ήρακλεΐτειον G, Aid.
(b3) R Schol. in Plat. remp. -498 A Greene Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι

το ς ό Έ φ έσ ιο ς φυσικός ών έλ εγεν δτι ό ή λ ι ο ς έν τήι
δυτικήι θαλάσσηι έλθώ ν κ α ί κ α τα δύ ς έν αύτήι σβέννυται,
εΐτα διελθώ ν τό ύπό γή ν κ α ί είς άνατολήν φ θά σ α ς έξάπ-
τ ε < τ α > ι πάλιν, καί τούτο α ίεΐ γ ίγ ν ε τα ι. ( Έ χ comm, ree.’,
ef. G. C. Greene, p. 240).
(c) R Plato, resp. VI, 479 E . . .τούναντίον ή νυν δεΐ

τοΟ έπιτη δεύμ α τος τούτου (sc. τή ς φιλοσοφίας) πόλιν
δπτεσθαι... νΟν μ έ ν ... 498 Α ο ί κ α ι ά π τ ό -
μενοι μ ειρ ά κ ια δ ν τ α .. .π ρ ο ς δέ τό γ ή ρ α ς έκ τός δή
τινω ν ό λ ίγω ν ά π ο σ β έ ν ν υ ν τ α ι πολύ μάλλον τ ο υ
Ηρακλείτειου ήλίου, δσον α δθ ις ούκ
έξάπτονται.
(d) R Prod, in Tim., I ll , p. 310,30 Diehl τόν γ ά ρ

Διόνυσον oi θ εο λό γο ι τα ύτη ι τήι π ρ ο σ η γο ρ ία ι κεκλή-
κασιν (sc. νέον θεόν, cf. Orphic, frr. 205 et 207 Κ .) . . . p. 311,4
δ ιά δή τοΟτο κ α ί τόν "Η λιον νέον θεόν εΐώ θασ ι καλεΐν
(κ α ι ν έ ο ς έ φ ’ ή μ έ ρ η ι ή λ ι ο ς , φησίν Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι
τ ο ς ), ώ ς Δ ιονυσιακής μ ετέχοντα δυνάμεω ς. (Schl, ad fr.).
313
(e) R Plotin. II, 1 [40J, 2, 8 H. et S. π ώ ς y a p <3cv,
φησ£ (sc. Plato, resp. 530 B), σ ώ μ ά τε 1 έχοντσ καί δ ρ ώ
μ ενα (sc. τ ά ούράνια) τό2 ά π α ρ α λ λ ά κ τω ς 2ξει κ α ί τό
ώ σ α ύτω ς; σ υγχω ρ ώ ν κ α ί έπ ί τούτω ν δηλονότι τώ ι Ή ρα -
κλείτω ι, δ ς £φη ά ε ί κ α ί τ ό ν ή λ ι ο ν γ ί ν ε σ θ α ι .
1 σώμά τε ecripsi ex Platone: σώματα codd. edd. 2 τό Philop.,

on. codd.
(/) R Olympiod. in Phaed. p. 237 Norvin. post fr. 51

(30). o ö γ ά ρ δήπου α ύ τ ό ς δ Xι ος, άλλ’ δ
π ρ ό ς ή μ α ς ήλιος. Cf. fr. 51 ( e ) .
(g) Rf Schol. Arab, in Aristot. anal. post. B 7, p. 93

b 5 (cf. R. Walzer, Oriens 6 [1953], p. 133): “I t may be that
he follows in this the view of Heraclitus that the stars cease
to exist when they set.”
314
58 (6)
The sun “is new every day.
On the context of (a). Id eler/1* Chemiss<2) and H. _D. P.

Lee (3) coincide in considering that in the words ττάντες δσοι
τω ν πρότερον ύττέλαβον τόν fjXiov τρέφ εσθαι τώ ι ύ γρ ώ ι
Aristotle is referring only to Heraclitus and his followers; on
the other hand, Kirk 264 ff. argued that a whole group of
early φυσικοί is m eant.
Now, if we bear in mind that Aristotle is dealing here

only with the topic ‘the sun is fed by moisture’ (and not
‘heat in general is generated from moisture’), then it becomes
clear that a whole group of early φυσικοί cannot be referred
to (contra Kirk et al. ) . On the other hand, in view of the
doxographical evidence on Xenophanes(4) or A ntiphon<5) it
seems likely to me that ιτάντες δσοι τω ν πρότερον can
refer to them as well, and not only to Heraclitus and his
followers (contra Cherniss et al.).
Nevertheless I would believe that Aristotle is referring

here primarily to Heraclitus and his followers, and that there is
a unity of thought in the whole passage starting from line b 34
τόν fjXiov τρέφ εσθαι τώ ι ύ γρ ώ ι down to the quotation of
Heraclitus’ saying (p. 355 a 14). But some of the arguments
adduced by Cherniss are not good (certainly Hippocrat. de
victu I, 3 is of no evidential value for Heraclitus; pro Fred-
rich and Kirk; contra Burnet 156, Cherniss and L ee). This
unity can be confirmed by the word τήν άνοδον (sc. τοΟ
ήλίου) (p. 355 a 6), which I would take to mean ‘the rising
of the sun’ (cf. Aratus 536) and which probably alludes to
Heraclitus’ words ό ή λιος ν έ ο ς έφ’ ή μέρη ι έστίν.
315
■ The words καί γ ά ρ τό φανερόν πυρ down to τό δ*
ύγρ όν τώ ι π υ ρ ί τροφήν είνα ι μόνον seem to be an expla
nation of Aristotle’s own (as are his words in metaph. A 3,
p. 983 b 23 και αύτό τό θερμόν έκ τοότου [sc. του ύγρ ο ϋ
or του ϋδατος] γιγνό μ εν ο ν κ α ί τούτω ι ζ ώ ν ) . Finally the
words (ρ. 354 b 34) καί δ ιά τοΰτ’ £νιοί γ έ φασιν down to
α ύτω ι τήν τροφήν (which I have put into parenthesis) seem
to be an afterthought of Aristotle and need not refer to Hera
clitus himself (cf. Svioi); probably they refer to some of his
followers.(e)
Consequently, speaking of the thesis ‘the sun feeds on

moisture’ Aristotle seems to refer primarily to Heraclitus and
his followers, whose theory lie is trying to discredit by addu
cing two arguments: (a) ‘The moisture which is drawn up
cannot reach as far as the sun’; (b) ‘The rising of the sun is
not of the same kind as the kindling of a flame’. (Needless to
say, Aristotle’s second argument falls far short of proofs, since
he first arbitrarily attributes to his opponent such a thesis as:
‘The rising of the sun is of the same kind as the coming-to-be
of flame’, and then he proceeds to refute i t ) .
Testimonia (c) and (bu3) have in common the έπττεσθαι

and σβέννυσθαι element of the sun, and I agree with Gigon
85; Reinhardt (Hermes, 237 f. = Vermächtnis, 85 f.) and
Kirk 279 in believing that in Heraclitus’ original the assertion
‘The sun is new every day’ has been either immediately pre
ceded or followed by a reference to the quenching of the sun’s
fire every night and to its rekindling every morning.
The meaning of the fragment seems to be clear enough

if we bring it together with Theophrastus’ account on Hera
clitus’ meteorology (cf. fr. 61): the sun is a σκάφη ( = a
small basin ?) in which the hot and moist exhalation or evapo-
316
ration from the sea is being focused and ignited every morning,
and completely extinguished every night. Conceivably the
intensity of this evaporation is gradually being increased
during the day reaching the maximum of heat at midday.
But we must take Heraclitus’ sun as being completely quen
ched at night; otherwise he could not say that the sun is new
every day (i. e. every m orning); cf. also testimonia (b), (c),
(g), and Guthrie 485: ‘as a heat- and light-giving body it
[the sun] is new every day, since its flame is quenched at
n i g h t...” The opposed view, shared by Reinhardt (Hermes
235) and Kirk 267 on the ground of an interpretation of
testimonium (a) seems to me less likely; it reads: “ ...H e r a
clitus must have meant that the sun’s matter is gradually
renewed during every twenty-four horn’s, not that a comple
tely new sun is born each d a y .. .or that it is extinguished at
evening and rekindled at dawn.” Possibly when the sun’s σκάφη
is quenched at night, those of the moon and the stars are
kindled, and vice versa.
The extinction of Heraclitus’ sun by submersion in the

western sea (b3) Ϊ3 out of the question; the θερμότης in the
east and the ψΟξις in the west (b2) might reflect the Aristo-
telic two-exhalations-theory (cf. Diog. Laert. IX, 9 and 11
f = fr. 61] and Kirk2 271 f f .) .I
I agree with Diels (S B B A 1920, 4 ff.), Gigon 84 and

Kirk 277 f. in supposing that Heraclitus’ view of the sun
(and of the heavenly bodies in general) was partially depen
dent on Xenophanes (cf. Aet. II, 20,3 [quoted in note 4]
and II, 13,14 [Dox. 343 = DK 21 A 38] Ξ ενοφάνης έκ
νεφών μέν τιειτυρωμένων [sc. το ύς ά σ τέρ α ς γίν εσ θ α ι]'
σβεννυμένους δέ καθ’ έκάστην ή μέραν ά να ζω πυρ εΐν νύκ-
τω ρ κ α θά περ τ ο ύ ς ά ν θ ρ α κ α ς - τ ά ς y a p ά να το λά ς
καί τά ς δύσεις έξά ψ εις είνα ι κ α ί σ β έσ εις); cf. especially
Kirk 277: “The heavenly bodies are concentrations of fire
derived from the moist exhalation; they resemble fiery clouds;
they are kindled on rising, extinguished on setting, like embers
which may die down and then be made to glow once again.
317
A part from the absence of the σ κάφ αι this is very like what
Heraclitus may have meant; the simile of the embers suggests
that something persists during the period of extinction. If
anything, these passages suggest an instantaneous kindling in
the east, the effect of which lasts all day (or all night, in
the case of the moon and sta rs ). . . ”
I would also agree with Diels and Gigon in supposing in

this saying an intended attack on the popular belief in the
sun’s divinity (cf. e. g. Plato apol. 26 D). Cf. also the next
fragment 59 (106).
Kranz (DK0, Nachträge, I, p. 492,30) supposed a refe

rence to this fragment in Horatius’ carmen saec. 9 ff. Sol. . .
q u i.. .aliusque et idem nasceris; I don’t think it is likely.12
(1) I. L. Ideler, A r i s t o t e l i s n e t e o r o l o g i c o r i m li b r i IV (Lipsiae, 1836), I,

p. 509.
(2 ) A r i s t o t l e ’s C r itic ism · o f P r e s o c r a tic P h ilo s o p h y , 133 n. 541.
(s) Aristotle M e te o r o lo g ic a (Loeb, 1952), pp. 124 n. a; 133 n. c.
<*) Cf. Agt. II, 20,3 ( D o x . 3 4 8 = DK 21 A 40) θεόφραστος έν τοΐς
Φυσικοΐς γέγραψεν έκ πυριδίων μέν των συναθροιζομένων έκ της
ύγρα ς άναθυμιάσεως, συνσθροιζόντων δέ τόν ήλιον; Ηίρροΐ. r e f . I,
14,3 ( = DK 21 A 33) τόν δέ ήλιον έκ μικρών πυριδίων άθροιζο-
μένων γίνεσθαι κ α θ ’ έ κ ά σ τ η ν ή μ έ ρ α ν ; e t αΐ.
(») Cf. Aet. II, 20,15 ( D o x . 351 = DK 87 Β 26) (περί ουσίας ήλίου).
Άντιφων πυρ έπινεμόμενον μέν τόν περί τήν γην ύγρόν ά έ ρ α ...
<ο> Cf. Cleantlies ( S V F 1 n r . 501) ap. Cie. d e n a t. d e a r . I l l , 3 7 : eamque
causftm Cleanthes adfert
‘cur se sol referat nec longius prog-rediatur
solstitiali orbi’
itemque brumali, ne longius discedat a cibo; ( c f . P e a s e ad loc.); Aet.
II, 23,5 ( D o x . 353) περί τροπών ή λ ίο υ .. .ol ΣτωικοΙ κατά τό
διάστημα τής ύποκειμένης τροφής διέρχεσθαι τόν ήλιον1 ώκεανός
δέ έστιν ή γή, ής τήν άναθυμίασιν έπινέμεται.
318
59
(106 DK; 120 B)
(a) P Plut. Camül. 19,1 π ερ ί 6’ ήμερω ν άποφράδω ν,

είτε χρή τίθεσ θαί τινας, είτε κ α ί1 όρθω ς Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς έπέ-
πληξεν Ή σιόδω ι τ ά ς μέν ά γ α θ ά ς ποιουμένω ι τ ά ς δέ φαύ-
λ α ς (cf. erga, 765 ss.), ώ ς ά γνοουντι φ ύ σ ι ν ή μ έ ρ α ς
ά π ά ο η ς μ ί α ν οδσαν, έτέρ ω θι2 (V II, ρ. 141 Bernard.)
διηπόρηται. (Schl. ρ. 346 = 23).
1 καί scripsi (ci. Β. Kuehner et Β. Gerth, G G , S a t z l e h r e *,

II, p. 300 n. 2) :
μή codd. : del. Beiske omnium consensu 2 έν έτέρωι S1»
(b) P Seneca, ep. 12,7 ideo Heraclitus, cui cognomen1

fecit orationis obscuritas, unus inquit dies par omni est. hoc
alius aliter excepit2; dixit enim3 parem esse horis, nec men-
titur; nam si dies est tempus viginti et quattuor horarum,
necesse est omnes inter se dies pares esse, quia nox habet quod
dies perdidit. alius ait parem esse unum diem omnibus simili-
tudine: nihil enim habet longissimi temporis spatium quod non
et in uno die invenias, lucem et noctem ...
1 cogn. scotinon c o d . B a r i . 2659 2 codd. a n t. : accepit re c . : cepit

B en se 3 enim < alius> ci. G e m o ll, a c c . W a lz e r
319
59 (106)
The real constitution (or essence) of every day is one

(and the same). (One day is like any other).
Tentatively the original might have read: φύσις ή μ έρ α ς

άΐτάσης μία ( = unus dies par omni est). There are no good
(lucky) and bad (unlucky) days, because the real essence of
every day is one and the same, namely fire burning in the
sun’s σκάφη, which is the only source of the day-light (cf.
fr. 60 [99]); it is due to the hot sea-exhalation, which is always
the same in kind. This seems to be an attack on the popular
belief represented e. g. by Hesiod, Erga 765 ff., as Plutarch
had already guessed it.
Now, Bernays ( Ges. Abh., I, 11); Reinhardt (Parm. 177

n. 1) and especially Kirk 159 ff. (followed by Guthrie 413 n. 1)
supposed that this fragment may be a distorted version of
fr. 43 (57). I think it is not likely; because:
(а) In fr. 43 (57) Heraclitus is speaking of the opposites

day and night, and here only of the day (Gigon 133).
(б) There Hesiod’s teaching on the mother-child rela
tionship of Night and Day (Theog. 123 f.) seems to have been
criticized, whereas here Heraclitus is likely to rebuke Hesiod’s
belief in good and bad days (Erga 765 f f .) . Heraclitus could
well have attacked Hesiod for different reasons, as he did
with Homer too: cf. e. g. frr. 28 (80) and 29 (53) against
fr. 21 (56).
(c) In fr. 43 (57) day and night are said to be one pro
bably because they invariably succeed each other (the level
of the coincidentia oppositorum); in this fr. 59 (106) the real
320
essence (φύσις) of the day is concerned, which is probably
fire (the level of Heraclitus’ Physics).
Thus this fragment does not seem to be reducible to

fr. 43 (57).
Another question is whether the words Ήσιόδωι and

άγνοοΟντι (i. e. ού γινώσκοντι) in (d) are likely to go back
to Heraclitus, or are due to Plutarch. In favour of their
authenticity Kranz (Hermes 69 [1934], 115) referred to the
words Ησίοδος and ούκ έγίνωσκεν in the mentioned fr. 43
(57); cf. also e. g. oti τι γινώσκων, fr. 86 (5), and γινώσκειν,
fr. 83 (108). One could perhaps also argue that the way
from a text like φύσις ήμέρας άπάσης μία to Hesiod’s Erga
765 ff. is so far a one that some hint at Hesiod is likely to have
existed in Heraclitus’ original, to make the link clear.
But, on the other hand, in a text like fr. 28 (80) Aristo

tle could easily guess (eth. Eud. Η 1, p. 1235 a 25) that the
passage criticized by Heraclitus was Iliad X V III, 107; the
same might have been the case with Plutarch (or his source)
here. Moreover, Plutarch improvised in de Is. 370 D the words
λ α ν θ ά ν ε ι ν (sc. τόν ’Όμηρον) φησί (sc. ’Ηράκλειτος)
( = quod non intellegeret, Numenius fr. 16 Thedinga; cf. ad
fr. 28 [80]): here also he could well have added an άγνοοΟντι
of his own.
Thus I prefer to keep Ή σιόδοι and άγνοοΟντι (which

arc missing in 6) out of Heraclitus’ possible text.
Finally Kranz and Kirk supposed that the word similitu-

dine in Seneca’s context might reflect Greek φύσει (from a).
I don’t think it is likely, because Seneca’s late and confused
explanations presuppose a 24-hours-day; accordingly this simi-
litudo consists in lucem et noctem. That ήμέρα in Heraclitus
would imply εύφρόνη as well, is not likely a t a ll.
321
60
(99 DK; 31 B)
(0) et μή ή λ ιο ς ήν, εν εκ α τω ν ά λ λ ω ν ά σ τρ ω ν εύφρόνη

ά ν ήν.
(a) Ρ [Plut.] aqua an ignis utilior 957 A Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς

μέν οδν εί μή ή λ ιο ς φησ'ιν ήν, εύφρόνη ά ν ήν1* έστι δ’
εΐπεΐν ώ ς εί μή θ ά λ α ττα ήν, πά ντω ν < ά ν > 2 ά γρ ιώ τα το ν
ζώ ιον κ α ί ά να ιδέσ τα τον3 ό ά νθρ ω πος ήν. (Schl. fr. 32).
1 < ο ύ κ > <Sv ήν Patin ( H e r a k l i U E in h e it s l e h r e , ρ. 31 s.) conl. fr. 43 (57)

2 ά ν add. üernardakis 3 άναιδέστατον s. -ος codd. : ένδεέστατον
Meziriac, acc. Bernardakis, Hubert, Kirk 162, Helmbold cett.
(b) P Plut. de fortuna 98 C καί ώ σπερ ή λ ι ο υ

μ ή Ö ν τ ο ς £νεκα τω ν ά λ λ ω ν ά σ τρ ω ν ε ύ φ ρ ό ν η ν
ά ν ή γ ο μ ε ν , ώ ς φησιν 'Η ρά κλειτος, ούτω ς Μνεκα τω ν
αισθήσεων, ε ί1 μή νοΟν μηδέ λ ό γο ν ό ά νθρ ω πος Ισχεν,
ούδέν άν διέφερε τώ ι βίωι τω ν θηρίων. (Schl, acl fr.).
1 εϊ γ ε G
(&1) Ρ Clem, protrept. 113,3 (I, ρ . 80 St.) και γ ά ρ

ώ σπερ ή λ ί ο υ μ ή δ ν τ ο ς £ ν ε κ α τ ω ν ά λ λ ω ν
ά σ τ ρ ω ν ν ύ ξ ά ν ή ν τ ά πάντα, ούτω ς εΐ μή τόν
λ ό γο ν έγνω μ εν καί τούτω ι κατηυγάσθημεν, ούδέν ά ν τω ν
σιτευομένων όρνίθων έλειπόμεθα, έν σκότει πιαινόμενοι
καί θα νά τω ι τρεφόμενοι.
(c) R Macrob. in somn. Scip. I, 20,3 ...C icero sciens

etiam ceteras stellas habere lumen suum . . . et ostendem in sole
maximum lumen esse, non solum ait dux, sed et princeps et
322
moderator luminum reliquorum. adeo et eeteras stellas seit
esse ltimina, sed hunc ducem et principem, quem Heraclitus
fontem caelestis lucis appellate (Lassalle, I, p. 110 n. 3).
(c1) R Marsil. Ficin. de sole 6 (I, p. 969 ed. Basil. 1576)

Heraclitus (solem) luminis caelestis fontem (nominaverat).
(d) R? Diog. Laert. IX, 10 λ α μ π ρ ο τ ά τ η ν δ έ

ε ί ν α ι τ ή ν τ ο υ ή λ ι ο υ φ λ ό γ α καί θερμοτά τη ν-
τ ά μ έ ν γ ά ρ ά λ λ α ά σ τ ρ α πλεΐον ά π έχ ειν άπό
γη ς καί δ ιά τούτο ήττον λά μ πειν καί θάλπειν, τήν δέ
σελήνην πρ ο σ γειο τέρ α ν οΟσαν μή διά τοΟ καθαρού φέρεσ-
θαι τόπου- τόν μέντοι ήλιον έν δ ια υ γ ε ΐ καί ά μ ιγ ε ΐ κινεΐσ-
θ α ι1 καί σύμμετρον άφ’ ήμώ ν έχειν διά σ τη μα 2- το ιγ ά ρ το ι
μάλλον θερμαΐνειν τε καί φω τίζειν. Cf. fr. 61 {a).
1 κινεΐσθαι Bywater et Beiske (cf. φέρεσθαι) : κεΐσθαι codd. 2 cf.

ft. fr. 52 (M)
Cf. Aet. II, 28,6 (Dox. 359) . . .λα μ π ρ ό τερ ο ν μέν τόν
ήλιον, έν κ α θα ρ ω τέρ ω ι γ ά ρ ά έρ ι φέρεσθαι, τήν δέ σελή
νην έν θολω τέρω ι, δ ιά τούτο κ α ι ά μ α υρ οτέρ α ν φαίνεσθαι.
Cf. fr. 61 (a1) .
323
60 (99)
I f there were no sun, for all the other stars it would be

(perpetual) night.
I agree with Diels and Burnet 135 that in x’eeonstructing

a probable original text of the saying we have to combine testi-
monia (a) and ( b ) . I t is highly probable that Clement (ft1),
here also, is dependent on Plutarch (ft): so Kirk and Wiese
(Heraklit bei Klemens, 61). Further, I follow C. Kowolski
(De Plutarchi scriptorum iuvenilium colore rhetorico, Cracow,
1918, 258 ff.) and especially F. H. Sandbach (CQ 33 [1939],
198 ff.) in believing that (a) is one of the Psewdo-Plutarehean
treatises. I suppose (a) and (b) are independent sources.
Now, from Bywater onwards, it has been generally accepted

that the text of (a) is preferable to that of (b).(1> This xvas
the reason for many scholars’ not accepting as genuine the
words from (b) Ενεκα τω ν ά λ λ ω ν άστρω ν. But a textually
preferable version of a fragment need not be a complete one
as well. Patin I. c. denied the authenticity of these words
in order to bring this fragment as close as possible to fr. 43 (57)
(following 0. Teichmüller, Neue Studien zur Gcsch. der Be
griffe, I, 49).
On his part, Kirk 163 i. argued that Plutarch probably

inserted the words Ενεκα τω ν ά λλω ν άστρω ν in the de
fortuna passage to correspond with the phrase Ενεκα τω ν α ισ
θήσεων of his own, whereas the suppression of a p art of the
quotation from Heraclitus in (a) is not likely: “it is clear
that had Plutarch wanted to supply such a phrase to his own
assertion about the dependency of men on the sea, in order
to provide a formal parallel to the quotation, he could have
324
done so; a phrase like ένεκα τω ν ά λλω ν εόρημάτω ν would
in fact have made the sense clearer.”
I don’t think Kirk is right. On ( a ) : Pseudo-Plutarch could

not supply such a phrase as ένεκα τω ν ά λλω ν ευρημάτων,
because he maintained that water was not a discovery at all:
ef. 956 A έτι δέ τό έξ ά ρ χ ή ς καί ά μ α τη ι π ρ ώ τη ι κ α τα
βολή ι τω ν ά νθρώ πω ν χρησιμώ τερον του ύστερον εύρε-
θ έ ν τ ο ς .. .Οδωρ μέν οδν ούκ έστιν είπεΐν δ τ’ ούκ ήν
ά νθρώ ποις ουδέ τ ις εύρετής λ έ γ ε τ α ι θεώ ν ή ήρώ ω ν'
σχεδόν γ ά ρ γενομένω ν εύθύς ύπήρχε κ α ί τό γεγενή σ θ α ι
παρεΐχεν. Nor could he add ένεκα τω ν ά λλω ν στοιχείων,
because he was speaking of the sea-, which is a product of the
element icater: cf. 957 A καί μήν τεττά ρ ω ν δντω ν τω ν
στοιχείω ν τό ϋδω ρ έξ έαυτου πέμπτον, ώ ς ά ν τ ις εϊποι,
πεποίηκε στοιχείον τήν θάλασσαν, ούδέν ήττον έκείνω ν
ώφέλιμον. In short, it seems that the author of the treatise
was interested in this passage only in the proportion:
Sun : Night : : Sea : Savagene$s.w
Thus he might well have suppressed the words ένεκα τω ν

ά λλω ν άστρων.
As for (b), there is an equal possibility that Plutarch

has added the words ένεκ α τω ν αισθήσεω ν to correspond
with Heraclitus’ quotation (take notice of the fact that he
used in 98 B the singular form τήν αΐσθησ ιν).
Some scholars believe that Theophrastus ap. DL IX, 10

(the spaced words in d) may speak in favour of the authen
ticity of ένεκα τω ν ά λλω ν άσ τρω ν (so e. g. Burnet 135 n. 6).
I tentatively accept these words as genuine.
As for the meaning of the fragment, I don’t see why we

should not take it in its literal, i. e. meteorological sense (so
also Guthrie 484: “it is probably a straightforward statement”) :
‘The sun is the main source of the light: it is the brightest
325
heavenly body’ ( — Heraclitus solem fontern caelestis lucis ap
pellant, testimonium c ) . So Zeller 860; Diels; Frankel (Wege3,
270 f.; but with an unlikely interpretation in Dichtung2, 434)
et al.
Conceivably Heraclitus thought of all heavenly σκάφοα

as equal in size: thus he needed some other reason to explain
the difference in their brightness. Judging by fr. 61 (a) (6)
Heraclitus is likely to have explained this difference by various
‘measures’ or the quantity of fire burning in them, i. e. by
the varying intensity of the hot sea-exhalation·, for example,
80% of this exhalation in the sun-σκάφη, 10% in that of
the moon, another 10% in those of the stars. This interpre
tation is supported both by the measures-principle and by
Diogenes’ words (fr. 61, a, 1) σχεδόν ιτάντα έττί τήν άνα-
θυμίασιν ά νά γω ν τήν ά πό τή ς θα λάττη ς.
But Diogenes in (d ) adduces three different reasons why

the flame of the sun is the brightest and hottest. It is so:
(1) because the sun is nearer the earth than the rest of the
stars (with the exception of the moon); (2) because it moves
in a brilliant and uncontaminated region (i. e. in the zone of
the pure αΙθήρ ?), whereas the moon, though nearer the earth
than the sun, moves in a troubled and impure region (i. e. in
the zone of the mist or ά ή ρ ?); (3) because the sun keeps a
fit (‘right’, Burnet 148; ‘suitable’, Guthrie 483; ‘commensu
rate’, Kirk 271) distance from the earth. Several scholars
accept Diogenes’ explanation (so Burnet; Gigon 78 f.; espe
cially Guthrie 484: “Though as it [this fragment] stands it
hardly seems worth making, it may have found its place in an
account of the comparative brightness of sun, moon and stars
which went on to offer an explanation, on the lines paraphrased
by Diogenes, in terms of relative distance from the earth and
purity of atmosphere”) .
My feeling is that Heraeiltus explained the difference in

brightness of the heavenly bodies by different measures
(quanta) of fire, and that Diogenes (Theophrastus?) combines
326
here different fragments. Probably the third reason is no more
than an application of fr. 52 (94), which actually was meant
by Heraclitus only as an ^.illustration of the necessity of the
measures-principle, not as a reason for the brightness of the
sun-flame. Conceivably the σκάφοα of the moon and the stars
are also supposed to keep a σύμμετρον ά φ ’ ήμών διάσ τημα
(Kirk 271 takes this phrase for a Peripatetic expansion). Nor
is the fact that the moon moves in the misty zone of άήρ
likely to have been adduced by Heraclitus as a reason for its
less brightness, because he probably knew that the pure aithe-
rial zone where the sun moves is behind the former one, look
ing from the earth.
Thus 1 suppose that the doxography has applied here mate

rials from some other sayings of Heraclitus, dealing with the
problems of the order of the heavenly bodies (first the moon,
then the sun, furthest from us are the stars) and of the zones
in which they move (the zone of άήρ for the moon, that of
α ιθήρ for the sun and the s ta rs ).
The attempts to interpret fr. 60 connecting it with fr. 43

(57) are highly improbable; so did Patin I. c.; Reinhardt
(Parm. 180 n. 2): “Tag und Nacht sind eins; denn fehlte dem
Tage die Sonne (und die Sonne ist doch nur ein grosser, erden
naher Stern), so könnten auch unsere Sinne keinen Unterschied
mehr wahr nehmen” ; p. 182: "der Tag ist eine erleuchtete
Nacht, die Nacht, ein verfinsterter T a g ...” ; and especially
Kirk 165: “What it asserts, indirectly, is that the sun is the
cause of day: without it, there would be continuous night.
Thus the distinction between day and night (conditions which
at. first sight arc essentially opposed to each other) is brought
about by a single cause: these dual phenomena are the product
of a single factor. Thus in yet another way the connexion
between day and night is established.” I agree with Guthrie’s
objection: “this seems a lot to get out of a very simple sentence.”
Certainly only a fortiori can we get the idea of the unity of
day and night out of such a simple statement like this: ‘If there
were no sun, it would be (perpetual) night.’
327
Franz B o ll<3) and W. Bröcker (Gnomon 30 [1958], 436)
seem to undervalue Heraclitus’ thought when they believe that
the ‘primitive mentality’ in Heraclitus’ time did not know
that the sun is the source of the day.
: The passage from Hippolytus (Refut. I, 4,3), quoted by

Gigon 79, does not seem to belong here: cf. fr. 68 (118) (b).
(D Kirk 163 and Wiese 61 η. 1 supposed that ή γομεν in the text of (6)
might be corrupt, and Frankel ( D i c h t u n g 2, 434 n. 21 ; W ege'*, 270
n. 1) that the second fjv in the text of ( a ) might be corrupt·:
both are unlikely.
<2> Buchet de Moziriac changed the transmitted άναιδέστατον into έν-
δεέστατον ( a ) ; this was adopted by Bernardakis, Hubert, Kirk,
Helmbold e t a l. I don’t think the change was necessary: άγριώτατον
ζωιον καί άναιδέστατον δ άνθρωπος fjv means ‘man would be
the most savage and ruthless of all creatures’. Plutarch is speaking
here of the c u ltu r a l savageness, not of the material destitution: cf.
the context άγριον οδν ήμών όντα καί άσύμβολον τόν β(ον τούτο
τό στοιχεΐον συνήψε καί τ έ λ ε ι ο ν έποίησε, διορθοώμενον
...κοινωνίαν δ* έργαζόμενον καί φ ι λ ί α ν (957 Α );
. . . καί ά π α ί δ ε υ τ ο ν έκώλυσεν είναι τό πλεΐστον άνθρώ-
πων γένος (Β ).
<3> F. Boll, D ie S o n n e i m G la u b e n u n d i n d e r W e lta n s c h a u u n g d e r a lte n
V ö l k e r (Stuttgart, 1922), 9.
61
(n) R (A 1 DK ). Diog. Laert. IX, 9 (1) . . . έ κ δέ
τούτου (se. τοΟ ύδατος) τ ά λοιπά, σχεδόν π ά ν τ α έ π ί
την ά να θ υ μ ία σ ιν ά ν ά γ ω ν τήν άπό τής
θ α λ ά τ τ η ς . ..
(2) γίν εσ θ α ι δ ’ ά να θυμ ιά σ εις ά π ό τε γ η ς κ α ί θαλάτ-

της, ά ς μέν λ α μ π ρ ά ς κ α ί κ α θα ρ ό ς, ά ς δέ σκοτεινός· αϋ-
ξεσ θαι δέ τό μέν πΟρ όπό τω ν λαμπρώ ν, τό δέ ύγρόν
ύπό τω ν έτέρω ν.
(3) τό δέ περ ιέχον όποΐόν έστιν ού δηλοΐ' ε ί ν α ι

μέντοι έ ν α ύ τ ώ ι σ κ ά φ α ς έπεστραμμένας
κατά < τό> * κ ο ΐ λ ο ν π ρ ό ς ή μας , έ ν α ΐ ς
ά θ ρ ο ι ζ ο μ έ ν α ς τ ά ς λαμπράς ά ν α θ υ μ ι ά σ ε ι ς
ά ποτελεΐν φλόγας, ά ς είναι τά άστρα.
IX, 10 (4) seq. fr. 60 testimonium (d).
(5) έ κ λ ε ί π ε ι ν τ ε ή λ ι ο ν κ α ί σελήνην
άνω σ τ ρ ε φ ο μ έ ν ω ν τω ν σκαφών* τ ο ύ ς τε
κατά μήνα τής σελήνης σ χημα τισμούς
γίνεσθαι σ τ ρ ε φ ο μ έ ν η ς + έν αύτήι +2 κατά
μ ι κ ρ ό ν τ ή ς σ κ ά φ η ς.
(6) ή μ έ ρ α ν τε καί νύκτα γίνεσθαι

κ α ί μ ή ν α ς κ α ί 3 ώ ρ α ς έ τ ε ί ο υ ς 4 (cf. fr. 64)
κ α ί έ ν ι α υ τ ο ύ ς ύ ε τ ο ύ ς τε καί π ν ε ύ μ α τ α
καί τά τούτοις δμοια κατά τάς διαφ ό
ρους ά ν α θ υ μ ι ά σ ε ι ς . (IX, 11) τήν μέν γ ά ρ λ α μ
π ρ ό ν ά ναθυμίασιν φ λογω θεΐσ α ν έν® τώ ι κύκλω ι0 τοΟ ήλιου
ήμέραν ποιεΐν, τήν δέ έναντίαν έπικρα τήσ α σ αν νύκτα
άποτελεΐν* κ α ί έκ μέν του λ α μ π ρ ού τό θερμόν αύξόμενον7
θέρος ποιεΐν, έκ δέ τού σκοτεινού τό ύ γρ ό ν πλεονά ζον
χειμ ώ να ά π ερ γά ζεσ θ α ι. ά κολούθω ς δέ τούτοις κ α ί περί
τώ ν ά λλω ν α ίτιο λ ο γεΐ.
329
(7) π ερ ί δέ τή ς γ η ς ούδέν άποφ α ίνεται π ο ια τ ίς έστιν,
άλλ* ούδέ π ερ ί τω ν σκαφών.
1 τό add. Beiske 2 έν αύτήΐ non sanum iudico (an ώσαότως,

i.e . övco?) 3 καί Γ, om.cett. 4 φ (έτίους Π , αίτιους BP)
5 έν BP, om. F 6 κοίλωι cl. Eeiske 7 BP* : αύξανόμενον
FP«b. Hesych. Miles.
(n·1) R (A 10-12 DK). ASt. II, 11,4 (Dos. 340). Π αρ

μενίδης Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς Σ τρ α τώ ν Ζήνων πύρινον είναι τόν
ούρανόν.
13,8 (D. 342) Π αρμενίδης καί Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ο ς1 π ιλή μ α τα
π υρ ός τ ά άστρα.
17,4 (D. 346) 'Η ρ ά κ λειτος καί οί Σ τω ικ ο ί τρέφ εσθαι
τούς ά σ τέρ α ς έκ τής έπ ιγείο υ άναθυμιάσεω ς. (Ens.
praep. ev. XV, 48,2).
20,16 (D. 351) Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς καί Έ κ α τ α ΐο ς ά ν α μ μ α 1
νοερόν τ ό έ κ θ α λ ά τ τ η ς ε ί ν α ι τ ό ν ή λ ι ο ν . 1
22.2 (D. 352) (π ερ ί σ χ ή μ α τ ο ς ή λ ι ο υ ) . Η ρ ά
κ λειτος σ κ α φ ο ε ι δ ή, ύπόκυρτον. (Eus. XV, 25,2).
24.3 (D. 354) (π ερ ί έ κ λ ε ί ψ ε ω ς ή λ ί ο υ ) . 'Η ρ ά
κ λειτος κ α τ ά τ ή ν τ ο υ σ κ α φ ο ε ι δ ο υ ς σ τ ρ ο
φήν, ώ σ τ ε τ ό μ έ ν κ ο ΐ λ ο ν ά ν ω γ ί ν ε σ θ α ι ,
τό δέ κ υ ρ τ ό ν κ ά τ ω π ρ ό ς τήν ή μ ε τ έ ρ α ν
δ ψ ι ν . (Eus. XV, 50,3; Schol. in Plat. remp. 498 A [VT,
p. 347 s. Hermann]).
27,2 (D. 358) (π ερ ί σχήματος σελήνης).
'Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς σ κ α φ ο ε ι δ ή. (Eus. XV, 28,1).
28,6 (D. 359) Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς τό αύτό πεπονθέναι τόν
ή λ ι ο ν κ α ί τ ή ν σ ε λ ή ν η ν - σ κ α φ ο ε ι δ ε ϊ ς γάρ
δ ν τ α ς το ΐς σχήμασι το ύς ά σ τέρα ς, δ ε χ ο μ έ ν ο υ ς
τάς άπ ό τής ύγρας άναθυμιάσεως αύ-
330
γά ς1 φωτίζεσθαι πρός τήν φ αντασίαν. .. seq. fr. 60
(d). (Eus. XV, 29,4).
29,3 (Ό. 359) (π ερ ί έκλείψεως σελήνης).
'Η ρά κ λειτος κατά τήν τοϋ σκαφοειδοΰς
σ τ ρ ο φ ή ν . 5 (Eus. XV, 51,2).
Cf. Theodoret. Gr. aff. cur. IV, 23 (D. 356). Ά να ξιμ ένη ς
δέ καί Π αρμενίδης καί Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς έκ μόνου συνεστάναι
πυρός (sc. τήν σελήνην). (Cf. Schl. ρ. 399 = 57).
1 Heracliti lemma dubium 2 ά ναλμ α FP, corr. Heeren 3 cf.

Π, 20,4 ( D . 349); Diog. Laert. VII, 14S ( S V F II nr. 650); Porphyr.
d e a n tr o 11; Arii Didymi frr. 33 et 34 ( D . p . 467,12 et 17) 4 α ύ τά
codd., ex Stob. corr. Beck 5 ‘Α λκμαίω ν 'Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς Ά ντιφω ν
κ α τά τήν του σκαφοειδοΰς στροφήν καί τά ς -κερικλίσεις Stob. :
καί < σ χη μ α τίζεσ θα ι κ α τ ά > τά ς ιιερικλίσεις A. Buestoiv
(bl ) R (A 14 DK) Aet. I ll, 3,9 {Box. 369) Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι

τος βροντήν μέν κ α τά συστροφάς άνεμω ν καί νεφών καί
έμπτώ σ εις πνευμ άτω ν είς τά νέφη, ά σ τρ α π ά ς δέ κ α τά
τά ς τω ν < ά ν α > θυμιω μένω ν1 έξάψεις, π ρ η σ τή ρ α ς δέ
κ α τά νεφών έμπρή σεις κ α ί σβέσεις.
1 άναθυμιωμένων Schuster, acc. Diels (D.), cf. II, 6,3 : θυμιωμένων

Stobaei codd., DK
(ir) R (DK I, p. 492,6) Sen. q u . n a t . II, 56,1 .Hera

clitus existimat fulgurationem esse velut apud nos iticipientium
ignium eonatum et primam flammam incertam modo intereun-
tero, modo resurgentem.
331
61
This fragment (or fragments) contains the doxographic evi

dence on Heraclitus’ meteorology. Only the spaced text might
reflect his probable ideas. Theophrastus’ account ap. DL (a) is
evidently influenced by Aristotle’s theory of two exhalations
(one from the earth and one from the sea): see Kirk 271 ff.
Now, since Heraclitus is likely to have maintained only one
exhalation (the hot and moist one coming from the sea), the
contradictions in (a) and (a1) were inevitable:
Heraclitus’ view Peripatetic ideas

(a) (1) (a) (2) and (6)
(α1) II, 28,6; 20,16 (α1) II, 17,4
Aristot. meteor. B 2,
p. 354 b 34 (ad fr. 58)
τόν ήλιον τρέφεσθαι
τώι όγρώι (α) (6) and (2)
As Kirk 272 pointed out: “This explanation of day [a, 6]

is at variance with the idea that the sun is fed on moisture;
for in this case night would be caused by the mere absence of
moisture, not by the presence of its contrary, and nothing
positive like a dark exhalation is needed to quench the sun.”
The evidence might be summed up as follows:
(i) The leading idea seems to be that almost all meteo

rological phenomena can be explained by means of fire which
is regularly being kindled and extinguished according to con
stant measures or quanta (cf. fr. 51 [30]). Thus the heavenly
lights, day and night, summer and winter, storm, lightning and
rain all seem to depend on the degree of intensity of the hot
moist exhalation from the sea (or on its almost total absence):
cf. fr. 53 {31) θα λάσ σ η ς . . .τό δέ ήμισυ πρηστήρ and (α)
332
(1) σχεδόν π ά ντα έπί τήν άναθυμίασιν ά ν ά γ ω ν τήν άττό
τη ς θα λάττη ς.
(ii) In dependence on the exhalation-theory the heavenly
bodies are said to be σ κ ά φ α ι, probably round and small
basins (cf. Aesehyl. fr. 225 = 375 M.; Hippocrat. steril. 234)
with the inside part turned towards us (i. e. toward the sea).
They might be thought of as some sort of spheroid (concave)
mirrors in which the hot sea-exhalation is focused producing
flame (a, 3; a1, II, 28,6).
The majority of scholars understand σκάφη as ‘bowl’

(Burnet 147 et al.), ‘Schale’ (Zeller 858), evidently connecting
it with the legendary golden cup of Helios in which he (with
his horses) crosses Oceanus back from West to East during
the night (cf. Pherecydes ap. Athen. XI, 470 C; Mimnerm.
fr. 10,5 ff. D.; Stesichor. fr. 6 D ): so Gigon 80 f.; Kirk 269 f.;
276 f.; Guthire 484.(1) This seems possible, although less likely
to me, because: (a) the legend knows only of the sun’s bowl, not
of those of the moon and the rest of the stars; (b) the idea of
the sun’s cup served to explain its return to the East every
morning (by crossing Oceanus during the night); Heraclitus
is not likely to having adopted legendary views: notice that
his sun (i. e. hot exhalation) is quenched every night (‘The sun
is new every day’) . The interpretation ‘sun’s boat’, ‘Sonnen-
nachcn' (ZN 858 n. 1), ‘Sonnenboot’ (Gigon, Der Ursprung
d. gr. Philosophie, 226) is even less likely. Thus I prefer to
believe that Heraclitus’ σ κάφ α ι come from some optical expe
riments with the concave mirrors, not from the myth. As a
semantic parallel cf. σκαφεΐον, ‘concave metallic mirror, used as
burning glass’ (Plut. Numa 9,7; scaphium Mart. Cap. VI, 597).
(iii) As suitable as the idea of σ κάφ αι is to explain the
ignition of the exhalation collected in them, it failed to explain
the eclipses of the sun and moon, and the monthly phases of
the moon too. Namely, according to Heraclitus («, 5; a1, II,
24,3; 29,3) the eclipses occur when the σκάφ αι with their
333
hollow part where the fire is burning are turned upwards
and away from the earth, showing us their dark convex part.
The same accounts for the moon’s monthly phases, only with
a gradual turning of its σκάφη (reading tentatively ώ σαύτω ς
in lieu of the senseless έν αύτήι, in a, 5 ) . But, as Kirk 276
well pointed out: “the turning of a circular bowl...m akes
its open side appear more and more elliptical, but never
ci’escent-shapcd as is the partially eclipsed sun or moon, or
the moon when not full.”
(iv) As for (a) (6), it seems probable that Heraclitus

explained the difference between day and night, i. e. between the
brightness of the sun and the dimness of the moon and the stars,
by various ‘measures’ of fire, i. c. by varying quantity or
intensity in the hot exhalation (cf. fr. CO 199J). And it is
quite possible that he did so as for the difference between
the seasons (cf. perhaps frr. 64 [100] and 77 [07]), between
lightning, storm, rain etc. In (a) (6) Diogenes understands
διαφόρους as ‘dual’ exhalation, bright and dark: Heraclitus
possibly thought of the varying quantity of the only sea-
exhalation, say from 10% of fire in the winter-time up to 90%
in the lightning and ‘burning’ (electrical storm, π ρ η σ τ ή ρ ).
Testimonium (b) remains partially obscure (cf. also Kirk2 275).
(v) F r. 60 (99), testimonium (d), seems to bring us

meteorological material from another saying of Heraclitus
(mistakenly interpreted by Theophrastus or the doxographv
as the reasons for the brightness of the sun). The order of
the heavenly bodies is: moon, sun, the rest of the stars (start
ing from the earth). The moon moves in the zone of the
misty άήρ, the sun in that of the pure α ιθή ρ (probably the
stars too).(2) That Heraclitus paid very little attention to the
stars, we may infer from Aristotle’s criticism, meteorol. B 2,
p. 355 a 18 (post fr. 58) ά τοπον δέ κ α ι t o μόνον φρον-
τ(σαι του ήλΙου, τω ν δ ’ ά λλω ν άσ τρω ν α υτούς πα ρ ιδ εΐν
τήν σω τηρίαν, τοσούτων κ α ί τό πλή θος κ α ί τό μ έγ εθ ο ς
δντω ν (quoted by Bernays, Ges. Abh., 1 ,12).
334
<»> Cf. Boll, D ie S o n n e im G l a u b e n .. .d e r a lte n Völker, 18 and fig. 12;
Kranz, G o tt· N a o h r., Phil.-Hist. Klasse, I, 2,7 (1938), 356.
(2) Cf. e.g. Plat. P h a e d . I l l B ήιπερ άήρ τε Οδατος άφέστηκεν καί
αιθήρ άέρος πρός καθαρότητα; A ristot. de eaelo Β 1, ρ. 284 a 11
τόν δ’ ούρανόν καί τόν <5νω τόπον οί μέν άρχαΐοι τοϊς θεοίς
άπένειμαν ώς δντα μόνον άθάνατον; Ps. H ippocrat. de c a m . 2
. . . έξεχώρησεν (se. δ καλέομεν θερμόν) εις τήν άνωτάτω περι-
φορήν, καί αύτό μοι δοκέει αιθέρα τοΐς παλαιοΐς είρήσθαι.
335
62
(120 DK; 30 B)
(a) C Strabo, I, 1,6 (p. 3 Cas.)
οϊη δ’ ά μ μ ορ ός έστι λοετρω ν Ώ κ εα ν ο ΐο .1
διά μέν γ ά ρ της ά ρκτου κ α ί της ά μ ά ξη ς τόν ά ρκτικόν

δηλοί (sc. " Ο μ η ρ ο ς). . .ούδέ Κ ράτης οδν δρ θώ ς γ ρ ά φ ει
οϊος2 δ ’ ά μ μ ορ ός έστι λοετρων,
φ εύγω ν τά μή φευκτά, βελτίω ν δ ’ Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς καί όμηρι-

κώ τερος, όμοίω ς άντί τοϋ άρκτικου τήν ά ρκτον όνο-
μάζω ν'
ήοΟς κ α ί έ σ π έ ρ α ς τ έ ρ μ α τ α
ή ά ρ κ τ ο ς κ α ί ά ν τίο ν τ ή ς ά ρ κ το υ ο δ ρ ο ς α ίθ ρ ιο υ
/ Διάς.
ό γ ά ρ ά ρ κ τικ ό ς έστι δύσεω ς κ α ί ά να τολή ς δρος, ούχ

ή ά ρ κτος. (Schl. fr. 31).
1 II. XVIII, 489; O d. V, 275 2 sc. άρκτικός κύκλος
336
62 (120)
The limits between Morning (or East) and Evening (or

West) are the Bear (or North) and, opposite the Bear,
the boundary of bright Zeus.
The fragment is partially obscure, because we don’t know

what οΰρος αίθριου Δ ιός means (Gigon 84 took it as “offen
bar ein uns unbekannter astronomischer Name”, but Kirk 290
said of him: “in this he is unduly defeatist”). So far it seems
to be clear that the saying has some astronomical meaning:
that is why it is put here. The text seems to be good (except
for έσττέρης, which form Corais and Meineke put into Strabo’s
te x t).
Strabo quotes the saying to prove that both Homer and

Heraclitus used ή ά ρ κ το ς for 6 ά ρ κ τικ ό ς κύκλος. Thus he
probably understood the fragment so: “The ends (limits) of
the distiction between dawn and evening (viz. between the
rising and setting both of the sun and the stars) are the
Arctic circle and, opposite this, the Antarctic circle;” i. e., ‘the
Arctic and the Antarctic circles form two boundaries beyond
which there is neither rising nor setting.’ This interpretation
must be rejected on the ground that Heraclitus is not likely
„ to have known of the celestial Antarctic circle (South Pole),
nor is there any constellation in the whole celestial south hemi
sphere called οδρος αίθριου Δ ιός (nevertheless Schuster 257 f.
and formerly Diels too followed Strabo’s interpretation).
But, formally taken, Strabo might be perhaps partially

right: in view of such evidence as Odyssey X, 86 (of the land
of Laestrygonians): έ γ γ ύ ς γ ά ρ νυκτός τε καί ί)ματός είσι
κέλευθοι, and Aratus 61 f. Τ)χ( ττερ ά κ ρ α ι / μ ίσ γοντα ι
337
δύσ ιές τε κ α ί ά ντο λα ΐ ά λλήλη ισ ιν (cf. Crates in Schol.
ad loc.), Heraclitus could perhaps have some knowledge of the
land of the midnight sun, so that the saying might mean: “The
limits of the distinction between dawn and evening (rising and
setting of the sun) are the constellation of the Bear and, over
against the Bear, that of the Watcher of bright Zeus.” The
latter could be perhaps the constellation of Dragon, but then
the epithet α ίθρ ιο ς would not be adequately accounted for.
And to think of the abode of Boreas, translating οδρος α ί
θριου Δ ιός with 'wind (or, less likely, guardian) of the clear
sky’ (in view of Aristotle meteor. B 3, p. 357 a 35; B 6,
p. 364 b 29 βορέας or ά π α ρ κ τ ία ς α ίθ ρ ιο ς; cf. also Sophocles
fr. incert. 870 N.2; Serv. in Aen. X, 350; X II, 366), we are
prevented by the lack of evidence on any relation between
Boreas and some celestial region (cf. also Nestle, in ZN 846 n.,
against the translation ‘wind’ for ο δ ρ ο ς ). The meaning ‘wat
cher’, ‘guard’ for οδρος was first suggested by G. Teichmüller
{Neue Studien etc., I, 16) with reference to Arcturus, which
is out of the question, for its not lying within the Arctic circle
(cf. also Zeller’s criticism, p. 845 n. 1 ).
Thus we must reject Strabo’s interpretation for the lack

of evidence on a constellation called οδρ ος αίθριου Διός.
Moreover, it is much more likely that the phrase ή οδς κα'ι
έσ π έρ α ς τέρ μ α τα means ‘the limits between morning and
evening’ than ‘the limits of the distinction morning : evening’.
Now, ήώ ς and έσ π έρ α might imply ‘cast’ and ‘west.’

respectively; ή ά ρ κ το ς implying ‘north’ does not seem to cause
difficulty; thus the phrase οδρος αίθριου Δ ιός is likely
to imply somehow ‘south’, corresponding to the fourth point
of the compass (so also Kirk 289 f . ) .
As for the phrase α ί θ ρ ι ο ς Ζ ε ύ ς , in view of such

evidence as e. g. Aratus 899 Δ ιός εύδιόω ντος; Theocrit. 4,
43 χ ώ Ζεύς ό λ λ ο κ α μέν π έλ ει α ίθρ ιο ς ό λ λ ο κ α δ ’ δει;
[Aristot.] de mundo 7, ρ. 401 a 17, it seems likely that it
means ‘the bright blue sky’; it is the consequence of the shining
338
sun, but is not the sun itself (so Burnet 135 n. 5; cf. also
Zeller, 1. c., ‘die Region des Lichtes’; especially Kirk 291 f.
[cowfro Kranz SB B A 1916, 1161 η. 1, and in VS5 ad fr.]:
“bright Zeus is the bright part of the sky, and the boundary
of bright Zeus is the region where this brightness becomes
greatest, namely, where the sun is at its height at noon. This
lies on the other side from the point of view of a Greek
observer”) . (1)
ο δ ρ ο ς cannot mean ‘wind’ (as Heidel, CP 5 [1910],

247; Proc. Amer. Acad, of Arts 48 [1913], 714 f., ‘the wind
of Heaven opposite the Bear’; Reinhardt, Parm. 182 η. 1, ‘der
Wind des Aether-Zeus’; H. L. Jones, in the Loeb-Strabo ad loc.,
‘and over against the Bear fair breezes blow from fair skies’,
took it), because the word does not necessarily imply the south
wind, nor can it supply any determinate geographical point
(so Nestle; Kranz; Kirk 290 f . ) .
It cannot mean ‘mountain’, i. e. the Thessalian Olympus

(which lay in the same meridian as Delphi, the middle of the
world), as Schuster and Diels (Heraklit2, 45; cf. also Heidel
715) believed, because it does not necessarily imply either
‘what is opposite the Bear’ or ‘south’ (cf. Kirk 291).
Thus ‘boundary’ remains as the most likely meaning (so

Schlciermacher ‘Grenze’; Burnet; Diels, VS*·, Kranz ‘Grenz
stein’; Walzer 150; K irk ). Accordingly, Zeller, Kranz and
Ivirk 292 f. interpreted the saying as follows: “ . . . zwischen
Ost und West liege Nord und Süd”; “Morgen- und Abend-
» land werden getrennt durch die Verbindungslinie des Nordsterns
mit dem (täglichen) Kulminationspunkt der S onnenbahn...”;
“Now it is obviously true that the limits (or turning-points)
of dawn and evening, i. e. the end of morning and beginning
of evening, can be regarded as a line drawn from north to
south through the position of the observer; such a line would
equally separate the region of dawn, i. e. the east, from the
region of evening, i. e. the west” ; “the delimitation of dawn
and evening will always lie between the north and the culmi-
339
nation of the sun’s daily journey through the sky; dawn (mor
ning) will not be unduly prolonged at the expense of evening,
nor evening at the expense of morning; noon will always come
exactly half-way between the two.” Both Kranz and Kirk refer
red to fr. 52 {94), taking the fragment as a statement of the
regularity of the sun’s apparent movement.
I confess that the phrase οδρος αίθριου Δ ιάς is not clear

enough to me. W hat we need here is a meaning ‘the upper
lim it’, ‘culmination-point’, ‘acme’, for· οδρος (perhaps some
technical term referring to the pointer of the sun-dial?). But
I don’t know of any evidence for such a one.
Ο) The interpretation of H. Berger ( G e s c h ic h te d e r w is e . E r d k u n d e d e r

G r ie c h e n 2, 79): “ ...ihm gegenüber aber sei die Grenze des sichtbaren
Himmels, d. h. der Punkt, wo der Kreis der immer unsichtbaren
Gestirne um den gegenüberliegenden Pol der Achse den Horizont
berührt” is obviously wrong.
340
63ab
(105 + 38 DK; 119 η. + 33 B)
(a) R (fr. 63a) Schol. A T in Iliad. X V III, 251 (II,

p. 159 Dindorf; VI, p. 255 Maass) ίήι δ’ έν νυκτί γένοντο
(se. ‘Έ κ τ ω ρ κ α ί Π ουλυδάμας)" π ώ ς έν μ ια ι νυκτί γενό-
μενοι τοσοΰτον άλλήλω ν διαφέρουσι, τη ς σ υμ πά θεια ς των
ούρανίων όμοίω ς π ρ ό ς ά μφ οτέρους έχούσης; έστιν οδν
διαφ ορά τοΐς γεννω μ ένοις ούκ έν νυκτί μόνον ά λ λ ά καί
κ α τά τήν τής ώ ρ α ς ά κρίβεια ν. ' Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι τ ο ς έντεΟ-
θεν ά σ τ ρ ο λ ό γ ο ν φησί τ ό ν ‘Ό μ η ρ ο ν , κ α ί έν
οΐς φησι" μοίραν δ* οΰ τινά φημι πεφ υγμένον έ'μμεναι
άνδρώ ν κτλ. (II, VI, 488 β.). (Schl. ρ. 345 = 22).
(α1) R Eustath. in Iliad, ρ. 1142,5 Rom. έν δέ τώ ι ‘μιαι

δ’ έν νυκτί έγένοντο’ Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι τ ο ς παρετήρήσ ε καί
ά σ τ ρ ο λ ό γ ο ν ε ί ν α ι τ ό ν π ο ι η τ ή ν , δ ς έ ν μιαι
νυκτί γενομ ένους τόν "Ε κ το ρ α κ α ί τόν Π ολυδάμαντα
δμω ς πολύ δια φ έροντα ς ά λλήλω ν Ιστορεί δ ιά ώ ρ α ς άκρ(-
βειαν. (Schl. ρ. 345 = 23 η.).
(b) R (fr. 63b) Diog. Laert. I, 23 δοκ εΐ δέ (sc.

Θ α λ ή ς ) κ α τά τιν α ς π ρ ώ το ς ά σ τ ρ ο λ ο γ ή σ α ι καί
ή λ ια κ ά ς έκλείψ εις κ α ί τρ ο π ά ς προειπεΐν, ώ ς φησιν Εϋδη-
μος έν τήι π ερ ί τω ν άστρολογουμένω ν ίσ τορίαι (fr. XCIV
Spengcl)· δθεν αύτόν κ α ί Ξ ενοφάνης (fr. Β 19) κ α ί Η ρ ό
δοτος (I, 74,2) θαυμάζει" μ α ρ τυρ εί δ* α ύτω ι κ α ί *Η ρ ά-
κ λ ε ι τ ο ς κ α ί Δ ημόκριτος (fr. Β 115 a ) .
(Schl. ρ. 346 = 23).
341
63ab (105 +
(a) Heraclitus calls Homer astronomer.

(b) Heraclitus too mentions Thales as astronomer.
Ad (a): From (b) it becomes clear (i) that Heraclitus

meant by ά σ τ ρ ο λ ό γ ο ς astronomer (‘sternkundig’, W.
Capelle, Philol. 71 [1912], 442 n. 81; Ilermes 60 [1925], 375);
(ii) that he was interested in the astronomical views of his
predecessors; in view of e. g. Odyssey V, 272-5 he might well
have called Homer an astronomer (in a good sense); (iii) that
there is no need to change in (a) Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς into Ή ρα κ λεί-
δης, as Bywater suggested.
I t was probably the Stoa or Crates of Mallos who under

stood άστρολόγος in (a) as ‘astrologer’, providing Hera
clitus’ saying with some ‘astrological passages’ from Homer.
Thus (a) seems to be genuine: so Schleiermacher; H. Schrader
(Porphyrii Quaest. Homer., I, Leipzig, 1880, p. 405 n. 3);
Diels (H .2) ; Capelle et dt.; contra Bywater et Kirk 158.
Now, that already Heraclitus by ά σ τρ ο λ ό γο ς meant ‘As

trologe’, ‘Sternberechner’ (as A. Engelbreeht, Eranos Vindo-
bon., 1893, 125 f f ., and especially Kranz, Hermes 64 [1934],
116 f., with reference to Heraclitus’ fr. 59 [106], and in V»S'r’,
believed), is not at all likely.
342
64
(loci'DK; 34 B)
(a) R Plut. qu. Plat. 1007 DE . . .ό χρόνος ούχ

α π λ ώ ς έστι1 κίνησις, ά λ λ ’ ώ σπερ εΐρηται κίνησις έν τά ξει
μέτρον έχούσηι κ α ί π είρ α τα καί π ερ ιόδους' ών ό ήλιος
έπισ τά τη ς ώ ν καί σ κοπός2, < τ ο 0 > 3 όρίζειν καί βραβεύειν
καί ά ναδεικνύναι καί άναφ αίνειν μ εταβ ολά ς καί ώ ρ α ς α ΐ
π ά ν τ α φ έρ ο υ σ ι4 καθ’ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν (ού5 φαύλω ν ούδέ
μικρώ ν ά λ λ ά τώ ν μ εγίσ τω ν καί κυριω τάτω ν) τώ ι ήγεμό-
νι καί πρ ώ τω ι θεώ ι γ ίγ ν ε τ α ι συνεργός. (Schl. ρ. 400 = 58).
1 έστι om. Π ε Β η 2 σκοπός (cf. Horn. h y m n . C er. 62) codd. :

<έπιταχθείς έπΟ σ κοπος ci. Eeinhardt ( H e r m e s p. 229 η. 1) 3
του addidi 4 cf. Plut. d e d e f . o ra c . 416 A; C y p r ia fr. 4,3 Allen;
O d . IX, 131; Xenoph. a n a l·. I, 4, 10; c y n e g . 5, 34; Ael. Aristid. or. 32,
25; 26, 11; 44, 16 Keil; M. Ant. IV, 23; IX, 3; Iulian. o r 101 C 5
ού : ούδέ J 2 Π ε B n
343
64 (100)
.. .the Seasons which bring all things.
The fragment consists of the second half of a hexameter

(— / ------ / — υυ / — υ): either Plutarch took it from a metrical
version of Heraclitus, or Heraclitus himself is quoting the
epics (cf. also Kirk 294 f.). Schleiermacher, C. Hubert (Teuh-
neriana) et al. reduced the fragment only to α ΐ π ά ν τα φέ-
ρουσι, which is less likely.
The saying is difficult to value. In view of DL IX,

10 = fr. 61 (a) (6) κ α ί ώ ρ α ς έτείους (sc. γίνεσ θ α ι κ α τά
τ ά ς διαφ όρους Α ναθυμιάσεις) it might belong to Hera
clitus’ theory of the measured sea-exhalation, i. e. to his doctrine
on the regularity of the natural processes thanks to the con
stant measures of fire. Cf. also frr. 59 (106); 55 ( 65); 77 (67) ·,
52 (94); 65 (A 13).
Reinhardt (Hermes 77, 228 ff. = Vermächtnis 75 ff.)

interpreted ώ ρα ι as ένιαυτός, and this as γεν εά , with refe
rence to fr. 108 (A 19), and to Plutarch de def. orac. 416 A
ούκ ένια υτός ά ρ χή ν έν α ύτώ ι κ α ί τελευτήν όμοΟ τι ‘π ά ν
τω ν ών φέρουσιν ώ ρ α ι γ ή δέ φύει’ π ερ ιέχω ν (edd. : πε-
ρ ιεχώ ς codd.: περιεσ χη κ ώ ς Schwartz, Sievcking, Reinhardt),
ούδ’ ά νθρώ πω ν ά πό τρόπου, γ εν εά κέκ λητα ι; ρ. 233
( — 81): “Die Zusammenhänge, in denen das Heraklitwort
von den ‘Horen’ (oder Eniautos) wie auch das von der γ ε ν ε ά
begegnen, weisen alle in der gleichen Richtung: ein Kreislauf ,
des Menschenlebens entspricht einem Kreislauf der N atur.”
He Was followed by Kirk 300: “ .. .it is a reasonable assump
tion that he [Heraclitus) compared the lengths of the cycles
344
of human life with the lengths of the cycles of events in
nature.-’
As I stated in the R E -II eradit us, col. 300, this interpre

tation is not likely: (i) because Plutarch’s words πά ντω ν ών
φ έρουσιν ώ ρ α ι γή δέ φύει need not be taken as a reference
to Heraclitus (contra Kirk 297): cf. e. g. Xenoph. anab. I, 4,10
έχω ν π ά ντα δσα ώ ρα ι φέρουσι (and above n. 4). (ii)
because the context of Plutarch 1007 DE is quite different
in kind from that in 416 A, to the disadvantage of the latter
(the association ώ ρα ι : ένιαυτός : γ εν εά does not seem to be
by H eraclitus).
345
65
(A 13 DK)
(a) R Censorin. de die nat. 18,11. est praeterea annus

quem Aristoteles (fi\ 25) maximum potius quam magnum
appellat, quem solis et lunae vagarumque quinque stellarum
orbes conficiunt, cum ad idem signum ubi quondam simul
fuerunt una referuntur; cuius anni hiemps summa est cata-
clysmos, quam nostri diluvionem vocant, aestas autem ecpy-
l'osis, quod est mundi incendium. nam his alternis temporibus
mundus tum ignescere tum exaquesccrc videtur. hunc A ristar
chus putavit esse annorum vertentium IIc c c c L X X x m i, Aretes
Dyrrachinus V d lii, Heraclitus et Linus X dccc, Dion Xnccc-
lx x x iiii, Orpheus CXX, Cassandrus tricies sexies centum mi
lium: alii vero infinitum esse nec umquam in se reverti existi-
m arunt.
(b) R Aet. II, 32,2 (Dox. 363 s.) τ ο ν δέ γ ε μ έ -

γαν έ ν ι σ υ τ ό ν οί μέν...τίθενται...(3) Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι
τος έ κ μορίων ό κ τα κ ισ χ ιλ ίω ν 1 ένιαυτών
ή λ ι α κ ώ ν. (4) Δ ιο γένη ς ό Σ τω ικ ό ς έκ πέντε κ α ί έξή-
κοντα καί τρ ια κοσ ίω ν ένιαυτώ ν τοσούτων 0σος fjv ό κ α θ ’
Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν ένιαυτός. (Schl. ρ. 396 = 56).
1 όκτακισχιλίων Ps. Plat, et Stobaei codd. : όκτακοσίων P. Tannery

( P o u r V h is i. <lc la sc . h e ll., p. 168), aw. Diels
346
65 (A 13)
According to Heraclitus the Great Year consists of 10,800

solar years.
The figure 10,800 is reducible to 3 Babylonian Sars (1

Sar = 602): ef. D. L. van der Waerden, Hermes 80 (1952),
136; 150. The figure 18,000 in (b) would be then equal to 5
Sars, but probably we should read with Tannery and Diels
όκτακοσίω ν, in lieu of όκτακισχιλίω ν. Berosus’ world-period
(fr. 29 Schnabel) of 432,000 solar years till the first cataclysm
is equal, to 120 Sars (van der Waerden 142), the Indian Great
Year of 4,320,000 years is then equal to 1,200 Sars; both are
Babylonian in origin. Finally the Platonicus annus (Republic
546 BC) of 12,960,000 days seems also to be reducible to the
Sars ( = 3,6002; so J. Adam, Plato’s Republic, Cambridge, 1902,
II, 202; 283). The last fact speaks perhaps in favour of Pytha
goras as transmitter of the Great Year from Babylonia to
Greece, and as the probable source for Heraclitus too.
Usually the figure 10,800 is interpreted as 360 days x 30

years (which is likely to be one human generation according
to Heraclitus), i. e. as a ‘world-generation’: so first Tannery,
then Diels; Reinhardt (Parm. 189; Hermes 77, 233 = Ver
mächtnis 81); Gigon 70 (Ursprung 222); Kirk 302; Ylastos
312; Bröcker (Gnomon 30 [1958), 436). But 30 could be also
the year of Sntnvmis (cf. Aet. TT, 32,1-2).
Now, the Babylonian Great Year had a mere astronomical

meaning (cf. e. g. Aetius 1. c.; testimonium a; Cic. de nat. dcor.
II, 51 and A. S. Pease ad loc.). I think the same is likely of
Heraclitus’ Year too. In our sources the magnus annus is
usually connected both with a cataclysm and an eepyrosis (the
former might be Babylonian in origin, the latter seems to be
347
Persian, cf. van der Waerden 143 ff.), and it is highly probable
that Heraclitus knew of both of them.
A world-conflagration is not likely for Heraclitus, because

his world-order is eternal (fr. 51 [50]); contra Zeller 879;
Gigon 74 and Ursprung 222 (“Nach 360 Generationen ist
also ein Ablauf von Feuerzustand und Kosmoszustand zu
Ende”) ; ZM 263 ff But a Great Year as the maximal meteo
rological period would not contradict Heraclitus’ interest in
regularity of the natural processes (cf. frr. 64 [100]; 62 [120];
52 [94]). The same as the solar year, the Great Year is likely
to have been divided in a Great W inter, during the first half
of this period, and in a Great Summer, during the other half
(cf. Seneca qu. nat. I ll, 29,1). Now, the quantum of fire
(i. e. the intensity of the hot sea-exhalation) might gradually
decrease during the W inter, reaching say every 10,800 years
its lowest point of c. g. 10% of fire (corresponding to the
Babylonian cataclysm; cf. perhaps χρησμοσύνη fr. 55 [65]
and εύφρόνη, χειμώ ν, πόλεμος, λιμός, fr. 77 [67]); it
might again gradually increase during the Summer reaching
every 10,800 years the culmination-point of e. g. 90% of fire
(corresponding to the oriental eepyrosis; cf. perhaps κόρος
fr. 55 and ή μέρη, θέρος, ειρήνη, κόρος, fr. 77). I f the
punishing fire from fr. 82 (66) π ά ντα τό πΟρ έπελθόν κρίνει
κ α ί κ α τα λήψ ετα ι (cf. Aeschyl. Agam. 1256; Persae 600) and
from fr. 81 (16) has something to do with the Great Summer, it
is not likely to threaten this world-order, but only the πολλοί
who do not recognize the new fire-religion of Heraclitus
(cf. frr. 86 [5]; 87 [14]).
Starting from the proportion 1 : 360 :: 30 : 10,800 and

from Heraclitus’ fr. 108 (A 19), Kcinhardt (Parm. .192 ff.;
Hermes 234 = Vermächtnis 82) and Kirk 302 interpreted
the Great Year as a 'Kreislauf der Geburten’, as χρόνος έν
ώι μ ετα λλά ττει δαίμονος ψυχή καί ή ρω ος < τ ό ν > βίον
(Plutarch de def. orac. 416 C), as ‘the total cycle for the soul’
(so also Brocker 436 with reference to the obscure fr. 73 [55]).
This interpretation is less likely to me, because the purely astro-
348
nomieal Great Year need not be explained by means of a human
generation or γενεά .
Lassalle II, 191 ff., followed by Vlastos 311 f. and Guthrie

458 and n. 5 (cf. also Burnet 157 f.), interpreted the Great
Year as a cycle of changes of matter, namely as the period
in which any particular piece of m atter regains its former
state of fire; as Vlastos has put it: “the time required for every
part of the fire which takes the ‘downward’ tu rn at any given
moment to return to its source, or, to look at it the other way
round, the interval after which every p art of water and earth
existing at any given time will have been replaced.”
Tliis interpretation is not likely, because: (i) We know

nothing of the ‘parts’ (Lassalle called them ‘atoms’) of matter
in Heraclitus, preserving enough individuality throughout their
changes to ‘have’ a cycle (so Kirk 301). (ii) The idea of an
astronomic year presupposes a mueh more definite starting
point than is ‘any given moment’ (so Zeller 880 n .) . (iii) The
normal meteorological changes of fire are likely to have been
thought of by Heraclitus as mueh more rapid than within
10,800 years: so, for example, the change water > skv-fire >
water, every 24 hours in the sun-σκάφη (cf. fr. 58 [6]):
the change sea > earth > sea, again every 24 hours, if fr. 53
(31) implies ebb and tide, etc.
349
GROUP FIFTEEN
P rr. 66 (36); 67 (45)·, 68 (118); 69 (117);
70 (85); 71 (110).
This Group deals with Heraclitus’ Psychology.

ils we have seen, Heraclitus’ doctrine on fire is
not free from contradiction, since his fire is, on
the one hand, a divine and immortal principle, and,
on the other, when engaged in the cosmic processes,
it has to undergo qualitative changes (being not
exempt to extinction, fr. 58 ftf]) and to obey the
universal measures-principle, just as the other world-
masses (sea and earth) do.
(i) - Now, since the soul was for Heraclitus fiery,
the same contradiction is visible in his psychology
too. In accordance with Heraclitus’ cult of the heroes
(Group 22) and with his eschatological views as well
(Group 16), the soul is likely to be immortal (as is
the divine α ίθ ή ρ ) . B ut inasmuch as it is operating
in the physiological processes of the human body,
the soul has to undergo qualitative changes (‘to die’)
and to obey the principle of measures of these changes
(Group 15).
(ii) - There exists a necessary parallelism between
the macrocosm (meteorology), fr. 53 (31), and the
microcosm (physiology of man), fr. 66 (36): the
reciprocal changes Soul ^ Blood ^ Flesh correspond
with those between Sky-fire ^ Sea ^ Earth. Soul
is fiery, it comes-to-be from the hot blood-exhalation,
and turns again into blood by liquefaction, both
processes in alloied measures (frr. 66; 67 λ ό γ ο ς ) .
Blood comes-to-be from flesh (and bones and liga
ments), and passes into it by solidification, also by
assigned measures (fr. 66).
(iii) - Soul seems to imply in Heraclitus ‘intelli
gence’ (frr. 68; 13 [107]); ‘memory’ and ‘attention’
(fr. 69 ούκ έτταΐων 0κη βα ίνει), and in general
‘the living strength which maintains the body’
(fr. 70). '
(iv) - A ny transgression of the alloted measure
of the change soul-fire > blood-water, manifested
in exaggerated bodily pleasures (frr. 69; 70; 71),
leads to an excessive moistening of the soul and a
weakening of the vital energy of man.
This exaggeration seems to be typical of the πολλοί
(i. c. of the rich bourgeoisie of Ephesus), cf. frr. 95
(29); 99 (20); 106 (125&); xvhereas the heroic best
or aristocrats keep their soul sober and wise (ef.
perhaps fr. 68 άρίστη with fr. 95 ot & ρισ τοι).
351
66
(36 DK; 68 B)
(a) C Clem, ström. VI, 17, 1-2 (II, p. 435 St.) Ό ρ ψ έω ς

δέ ποιήσ αντος (fr. 226 Kern)·
έστιν ϋδω ρ ψυχήι1, θά να το ς δ ’ ύ δ ά τ ε σ < σ > ιν άμοιβή--

έκ δ’ ϋδα τος < μ έ ν > 3 γ α ΐα , τό δ ’ έκ γ α ία ς π ά λ ιν ϋδωρ,
έκ τοΰ δή ψυχή δλον α ιθ έρ α άλλάσσ ουσ α4
'Η ρ ά κ λειτος έκ τούτω ν συνιστάμενος το ύς λ ό γο υ ς ώδέ

π ω ς γράψει*
ψυχήισιν θάνατος ϋδωρ γενέσθαι,

ϋδατι δέ θάνατος γην γενέσθαι*
έκ γ η ς δέ ϋδωρ γίνεται,
έξ ϋδατος δέ ψυχή.
(Cf. Eus. praep. ev. X, 2,6). (Schl. fr. 49).*I,
1 ψυχή L, eorr. Sylburg 2 ψυχή pro θάνατος Hermann ( O p u s c .

II, p. 244) : ψυχήι θάνατος, < ψ υχή> δ’ ύδάτεσσιν [ ά μ ο ι β ή ]
Bya-ater : θάν. + δ’ ύδάτεσιν άμοιβή + Kirk 339 3 μέν add.
Hermann 4 δλον αιθέρα άλλάσσουσα cf. Eurip. B a c c h a e 1331;
Lyeophr. A l e x . 334 : δδόν αίθέρος Hermann : δλον α ’ιθέρ* άναίσσουσα
Bywater, acc. Kirk
Cf. VI, 27,1 (II, p. 443). σιω πώ δέ 'Η ρά κλειτον τον

Έ φέσιον, δς π α ρ ' Ό ρ ψ έω ς τά π λεΐσ τα εϊληφεν.
(a1) R Orphie. fr. 226 Κ = (ο). Cf. Ε. Stemplinger,

Das Plagiat in der griech. TAt. (Lips.-Berol., 1912), pp. 63; 73;
0. Kern ad loc. (Schl. p. 339 = 18).
352
(ί>) Ρ Philo, de aet. mundi 109 (VI, p. 106 Cohn)
κ α θά περ γ ά ρ α ί έτήσιοι ώ ρα ι κύκλον άμείβουσιν άλλή-
λ ο ς ά ντιπ α ρ α δεχό μ ενα ι π ρ ό ς τ ά ς ένιαυτώ ν ουδέποτε
λη γόντω ν περιόδους, [ε ις ]1 τον αύτόν τρόπον [τίθησ ι]2
κ α ί τ ά σ τοιχεία του κόσμου τα ΐς εις άλλη λ α μεταβολαΐς,
τό πα ραδοξότα τον, θ ν ή ι σ κ ε ι ν δ ο κ ο υ ν τ α ά θ α-
ν α τ ί ζ ε τ α ι 3 δολιχεύοντα άεΐ κ α ί τήν αυτήν όδόν άνω
κ α ί κάτω συνεχώ ς άμε(βοντα (ef. fr. 33 [60] d2) .
(110) ή μέν οδν προσ άντης όδός άπό γ η ς ά ρ χ ε τ α ι’

τηκομένη γ ά ρ ε ίς ϋδω ρ λα μ β ά νει4 τήν μεταβολήν, τό
δ’ ϋδω ρ έξατμ ιζόμενον είς ά έρ α , ό δ’ ά ήρ λεπτυνόμενος
εις πυρ· ή δέ κα τά ντη ς ά π ό κεφαλής, συνίζοντος μέν
π υ ρ ό ς κ α τά τήν σβέσιν είς άέρα, συνίζοντος δ ’ όπότε
συνθλίβοιτο είς ύδω ρ άέρος, ϋδα τος δέ [τήν πολλήν άνά-
χ υ σ ιν ]5 κ α τά τήν είς γ η ν πυκνουμένου® μεταβολήν (cf.
fr. 53 [51]).
(111) εδ κ α ί ό 'Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς έν οΐς φησι- ψ υ χ ή ι σ ι

θάνατος ϋδωρ γενέσθαι, ϋδατι θάνατος
γ ή ν γ ε ν έ σ θ α ι . ψυχήν γ ά ρ οίόμενος είναι τό πνεύ
μα, τήν μέν ά έρ ο ς τελευτήν γένεσ ιν ϋδατος, τήν δέ ϋδα
το ς γ ή ς π ά λ ιν γένεσ ιν α ίνίττετα ι- θάνατον ού τήν είς
ά π α ν άναίρεσιν όνομάζω ν, ά λ λ ά τήν εις έτερον στοιχεΐον
μεταβολήν. (Cf. Schl, ad fr.).
1 είς seel. Cohn : del Diels, Cumont 2 τίθησι seel. Cohn : τίθεσο
ei. Mangey : φησί Bernays : τιθεΐσαι Buecheler : περιθέουσι ci. Diels,
περιθέει Cumont 3 άπαθανατίζετοα L, Turneb., Reinhardt ( H e r m e s
77, p. 17) 4 μεταλαμβάνει codd., corr. Cohn 5 del. Cohn :
τήι πολλή i άναχύσει Bernays : < κ α τ ά > τήν πολλήν άνάχυσιν. . .
[μεταβολήν] Buecheler 6 ν, Turneb. : πυκνουμένην ΜΗΡ : πηγ-
νυμένου U
(c) R Hippolyt, refut. V, 16,4 (ρ. I l l Wendl.) ού

μόνον δέ τούτο, φησίν (sc. Perata quidam), οί π οιη τα ί λέ-
γουσιν, ά λ λ ’ ήδη καί οί σοφώ τατοι τω ν Ε λ λ ή νω ν, ών
353
έστι κ α ί 'Η ρ ά κ λειτος εΤς, λ έ γ ω ν ' ψ υ χ ή ι σ ι1 γ ά ρ θ ά-
νατος ύδωρ γενέσθαι.
1 ψυχής et Ρ, eorr. Beniays
(d1) R (77» DK; 72 B) Numen. fr. 35 Thedinga = A

46 Leemans (ap. Porphyr, die antro nymphar. 10, p. 104,6 N.2).
ή γουντο γ ά ρ προσ ιζά νειν τώ ι ϋδα τι τ ά ς ψ υχά ς θεοπνόω ι
οντι, ώ ς φησιν ό Νουμήνιος, διά τοΟτο λ έγ ω ν κ α ί τόν
προφήτην (Gen. 1,2) είρηκ ένα ι έμφ έρεσθαι έπάνω του
ϋ δα το ς θεοΟ π νεύμ α' τούς τε Α ιγυπ τίο υς δ ιά τούτο τούς
δα ίμ ο να ς ά π α ν τα ς ούχ έσ τά να ι έπ ί στερεού ά λ λ ’ [άπαν-
τ α ς ] 1 έπ ί πλοίου, κ α ί τόν ήλιον κ α ί ά π λ ώ ς π ά ν τα ς ουστι-
να ς είδένα ι χρή τ ά ς ψ υχά ς έπιποτω μ ένα ς τώ ι ύγρ ώ ι,
τ ά ς είς γένεσ ιν κατιούσας. δθεν κ α ί Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν ψ υ-
χ ή ι σ ι φάναι τέρψιν ή θ ά ν α τ ο ν 2 ύ γ ρ ή ι σ ι γ ε
ν έ σ θ α ι , τέρψιν δέ είναι α ύ τα ϊς τήν είς γένεσ ιν πτώ σιν3'
άλλαχοΟ δέ φ ά ναι' ζην ή μ α ς τόν έκείνω ν θάνατον, κ α ί ζην
έκ είνα ς τόν ήμέτερον θά να τον (cf. fr. 47 [62] d*).
1 del. Nauck 2 ή θάνατον Diels (και Θ. ci. Kranz) : μή Θ. codd. :

del. Schuster 191 n. 1; Zeller 891 n .; Burnet 138; Gigon 109 3ef.
Diog. Laert. VII, 114 τέρψις δέ olov τρέψις et G. Schmid-O. Staehlin
( G G L I, 1, p. 750 n. 7); Lucian, v i t . a u c t. 14 gern τωύτό τέρψις
άτερψίη
(ds) R Aristid. Quintil. de musica II, 17 (p. 64,29 Jahn) .-

λ έ γ ε ι δέ πού τοι καί ό σοφός Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς τοιάδε ούκ άπάι-
δω ν' τήν γ ά ρ εύπαθοΟσαν έν α ίθέρ ι δηλών φησι' ψυχή α ύγή
ξηρή σοφω τάτη (cf. fr. 68 [118] λ10)' τήν δέ ύπό τή ς άερίου
ζά λ η ς τε καί άνα θυμιά σεω ς θολουμένην έμφαίνει λ έγω ν'
ψυχήισι θάνατος ύγρήισι γενέσθαι.
(d3) R Iulian. or. V, 165 CD .. .ό μύθος αύτόν (sc. τόν

"Α ττιν) είς τό άντρον κατελθεΐν έφη καί σ υ γγ ενέσ θ α ι τήι
354
νύμφηι, τό δ ίυ γρ ο ν 1 α ίνιττόμενος της δ λ η ς ... λ έ γ ε τ α ι τοι
κ α ί π ρ ό ς Η ρακλείτου* ψ υ χ ή ι σ ι ν θ ά ν α τ ο ς ύ γ·
ρή ισ ι γενέσθαι.
1 δίυλον codd., oorr. Friederich
(d4) R Proei. in remp. II, p. 270, 28 Kroll, θνητόν

μέν οδν έστιν είς δ κάτεισιν ψυχή, θανατηφ όρος δέ ή
■περίοδος τω ν ψυχών αύτώ ν, ού μόνον δπ η ι1 φησίν ‘Η ρά
κλειτος, θ ά ν α τ ο ς ψ υ χ α ΐ σ ι ν ύ γ ρ α ΐ σ ι γ ε ν έ σ -
θ α ι λέγω ν, ά λ λ ά καί ήι π ο λ λ ά κ ις αύτός εΐπεν ό Πλάτων
ζην ή μ α ς έν τήι γενέσ ει κ α τά τό πολύ τώ ι θνητώι τής ψυχής
έπομένους.
1 δπηι Usener, acc. Kroll : έπει (ει ex ι) codd.
(d5) R in Tim. I, p. 117,5 Diehl . . . ότέ δέ τό έπιθυμη-

,τικόν ύπό τή ς γενεσ ιουρ γού κατακλυζόμ ενον ύγρ ό τη το ς
έκνευρ ίζετα ι καί β α π τίζετα ι τοΐς τή ς ύλης ‘ρεύμασι, και
ά λ λ ο ς οδτος ψ υ χ ώ ν τώ ν νοερώ ν θ ά ν α τ ο ς , ύ γ-
ρ ή ι σ ι γ ε ν έ σ θ α ι , 1 φησίν 'Η ράκλειτος.
1 ψυχ ήισι βροτείαις θάνατος ύγρήισι γενέσθαι

Μ in mg. (ubi R ψοχαΐσι et ύγραΐσι)
(d11) R Olympiod. in Gorg. p. 237,6 Norvin Ιστέον δτι

τήν γένεσ ιν ύ γ ρ ά ν καλοΟσιν οΐ παλαιοί* οϋτω γ ’ οδν καί
λ έ γ ε τ α ι π ερ ί τή ς ψυχής* ψ υ χ ή ι σ ι ν β ρ οτέα ις θ ά-
νατος ύγρήισι γ ε ν έ σ θ α ι 1, διά τό 'ρευστόν
κ α ί ύδρηλόν2 (κ α ί δ ιά τό άνθεΐν αύτώ ν έντα δθα τά ς
ζ ω ά ς).
1 mg. τά λόγιον Η ρακλείτου φασίν 2 apographa : ύγρηλόν Μ
355
p. 142,7 ϋδω ρ δέ έστι τό 'ρευστόν τής φόσεως. ώς
γ ά ρ έφη ό 'Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς- ψ υ χ ή ς έστι θ ά ν α τ ο ς ή
ύ γ ρ α σ ί α. 1
1 mg. ση. τόν ‘Ηρακλείτου περί ψυχής λόγον- ψ υ χ ή ι ο ι θ ά ν α

τ ο ς ύ γ ρ ή ι σ ι γ ε ν έ σ θ α ι (Bernays, G e s. A b h ., I, ρ. 98 n. 1)
(e1) R (76 DK) Plut. de E 392 C ού γ ά ρ μόνον, ώ ς

Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς έλεγε, π υ ρ ό ς θ ά ν α τ ο ς ά έ ρ ι γ έ-
νεσις, καί άέρος θ ά ν α τ ο ς υ δα τι γένε-
σ ι ς , ά λ λ ’ έτι σαψέστερον έπ ’ α ύτώ ν ή μ ώ ν ... (Cf. fr. 40
[12] c3). (Euseb. praep. ev. XI, 11,7). (Schl. p. 376 = 42).
Cf. ft. Plut. de Is. 363 D . . .“ Ε λλη νες. . .ά λληγορ ου-

σ ι .,.'Ή ρ α ν δέ τόν ά έρ α , γένεσ ιν δέ Η φ α ίσ το υ τήν εις
ιτΟρ ά έρ ο ς μ ε τ α β ο λ ή ν ... et Schol. A in II. XV, 189.
(e2) R de primo frig. 948 F ( = SV F II nr. 430).

έπ εί δ ’ ή φθορά μεταβολή τ ίς έστι τω ν φθειρομένω ν είς
τούναντίον έκ ά σ τω ι1, (949 Α) σκοπώ μεν εΐ κ α λ ώ ς εϊρη-
τα ι τό πυρός θάνατος άέρος γένεσις.
θνήισκει γ ά ρ 2 κ α ί πυρ ώ σπερ ζώ ιον ή β ίαι σβεννύμενον ή
δι’ αύτοϋ μαραινόμενον. ή μέν οδν σβέσις έμφ ανεστέραν
π ο ιεί τήν είς ά έρ α μεταβολήν α ΰ τ ο υ ...
1 of. 9S0 Ε ; 951 Α 2 γ ά ρ om. g X
(e3) R (76 DK) M. Ant. IV, 46 ά εΐ του Η ρ α κ λ ε ί

τειου μεμνήσθαι, δτι Υ ή ς θ ά ν α τ ο ς ϋδωρ γ ε-
νέσθαι, καί ϋδατος θάνατος άέρα γε
ν έ σ θ α ι, κ α ί άέρος πυρ, καί έμπαλιν.
(Cf. fr. 33 [60] d7) .
(e4) R (76 DK; 25 B) Max. Tyr. 41, 4 k. post fr. 47

(62) (b3) . ζ ή ι π υ ρ τ ό ν γ η ς 1 θ ά ν α τ ο ν , κ α ί
356
ά ή ρ ζήι τόν π υ ρ ό ς θάνατον, ϋδωρ ζ ή ι
τόν ά έ ρ ο ς 1 θάνατον, γ ή τ ό ν ϋ δ α τ ο ς . (Cf.
fr. 33 [60] d*). (Schl. ρ. 372 = 40).
! γης. . .άέρος : άέρος. . .γης ej. F. Tocco (Studi itdL di filol. cl. 4
[1896], p. 5)
(e5) R Liieret. I, 664 s.

nam quodeumque suis mutatum finibus exit
continue hoc mors est illius quod fuit ante.
(e") R? Ncmes. de nat. hom. 5, p. 160 Matthaei . .. δθεν

καί τήν ά λλου γένεσιν ά λλου φθοράν είναι φησι1, και
τήν άλλου φθοράν ά λλου γένεσιν, ού μόνον κ α τά τήν
ψυχήν, ώ ς προείρηται, ά λ λ ά καί κ α τά τό σώμα.
1 ec. Aristoteles ? : φαοι ci. Reinhardt ( K o s m o s u n d S y m p a th ie , p. 17

n. 2) et alii
( /') R? (A 15 DK) Aristot. de anima A 2, p. 405 a 28

καί 'Η ρά κ λειτος δέ τήν ά ρ χή ν είναι φησι ψ υ χ ή ν , εΐ-
π ερ τ ή ν ά μ α θ υ μ ( α σ ι ν1, έξ ή ς τ ά λ λ α συνίστησιν·
καί άσ ω μ α τώ τατόν τε καί 'ρέον ά ε ί . ..
Cf. Ε. Zeller 815 n. 1; 883 η. 1; Η. Cherniss, Aristotle’s

Criticism etc., ρ. 298 η. 31; G. Kirk 18; 275.
(Schl. p. 486 s. = 114 s.).
1 i.e. itGp, cf. Simplic. d e a n . p. 31,27 Hayduck; Philopon. d e a n . p. 67,16

Ilayduck ct al.
( /2) RI (12b DK) Cleanthes ap. Ar, Didym. fr. 39

ap. Euseb. praep. ev. XV, 20,2 (II, p. 284 Mras) ( = Dox.
p. 470 s.; S V F I nr. 519). π ερ ί δέ ψυχής Κ λεάνθης. . ,φησίν
357
δτι Ζήνων τ ή ν ψ υ χ ή ν λ έγει αισθητικήν1 ά ν α θ υ -
μίάσιν καθάπερ Ηράκλειτος* βουλόμενος
γ ά ρ έμφανίσαι (sc. ‘Ηράκλειτος) δτι αΐ ψυχαί άναθυμιώ-
μεναι νεαραί2 άεί γίνονται, είκασεν αύτάς τοΐς ποταμοΐς
λέγω ν οϋτως* (seq. fr. 40 [ί58] α ) . . . κ α Ι ψ υ χ α ί δέ
ά π ό τ ώ ν ύ γ ρ ώ ν ά ν α θ υ μ ι ώ ν τ α ι . άναθυμία-
σιν μέν οδν όμοίως τώι Ήρακλείτωι τήν ψυχήν άποφαί-
νεί Ζήνω ν... Cf. G. Kirk 371 s.
1 αΐσθησιν ή codd., corr. Wellmann 2 νεαραί J. D. Meerwählt

(M n e m o s. 1951, p. 54) : νοεραί codd., edd. : Ιτεραι ci. Diels
( f ) R? (A 15 DK) Aet. IV, 3,12 ( Dox . 389). Η ρ ά

κλειτος τ ή ν μέν τοΟ κόσμου ψ υ χ ή ν ά ν α θ υ μ ί α -
σ ι ν έκ τών έν αύτώι ύγρών, τήν δέ έν τοΐς ζώιοις ά π ό
< τ ε > χ τής έκτός καί τ ή ς έ ν α ύ τ ο ΐ ς ά ν α θ υ -
μ ι ά σ ε ω ς , όμογενή*. (Schl. ρ. 493 s. = 119).
Cf. [Aristot.] p r o b le m a ta 13,6, p. 908 a 30 . . .ώσπερ

τινές τών ήρακλειτιζόντων φασίν, δτι ά ν α θ υ μ ι α τ α ι
ώσπερ έν τώι δλωι καί έ ν τ ώ ι σ ώ μ α τ ι . .. Cf. Ο.
Gigon 106.
1 τε ex Nemes. de n o t. horn. 2, p. 68 Matthaei add. G. Capelle (H e rm e s

59 [1924}, 121) -2 ef. Theodoret. Gr.a f f . cwr. V, 23 (D o x. 392)
6 δέ 'Ηράκλειτος τάς άπαλλαττομένας τοΰ σώματος (sc. ψυχάς)
είς τήν τοΟ παντός άναχωρεΐν ψυχήν έφησεν, οΐα δή όμογενή τε
οδσαν καί όμοοΰσιον et fr. 72 (9 8 )
(/<) R? (18 A 9 DK) Theodoret. Gr. aff. cur. V, 18

(Dox. 388). Π α ρ μ ενίδη ς δέ κ α ί " Ιπ π α σ ο ς κ α ί Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ο ς
π υ ρ ώ δ η τα ύτη ν (sc. τ ή ν ψ υ χ ή ν ) κ εκλήκα σ ιν.
Cf. Tertüll. de anima 5,2 Hipparchus1 et Heraclitus ex

igni (sc. animam effin g u n t).
358
Maci'ob. i n s a m n . S c i p . I, 14,19 Heraclitus physicus scin-
tillam stellaris essentiae (sc. dixit animam)2. .. Hipparchus1
ignem.
1 i. e. Hippaaus; cf. Nemes. d e n a t . k o m . 5, p. 169 Matth. 'Ηράκλειτος

δέ καί " ίππαρχος ό Μεταποντΐνος τό πΰρ λέγοντες 2 cf. ft.
fr. 68 ( 1 1 8 ) (α > ) et Η. Biels, D o x . 213 η. 1
359
66 (36)
For souls it is death to become water,

for water it is death to become earth;
but out of earth water comes-to-be,
and out of water, soul.
**
Testimonia (d1-6), (a) [cf. Wiese 265] and (c) come from
Pythagorean sources,· the Neoplatonist fr. 77 DK ( = d l) is
no more than a version of (a), as have pointed ont e. g. Th.
Gomperz (SB Wien 113 [1886], 1015 f.) and Kirk 340 (contra
e. g. Gigon 109; Guthrie 433).
Testimonia (e1-0) , (b) and ( / 2'4) are Stoic in origin; the

Stoics have added ά ή ρ to fire (soul), water and earth, as
they did in fr. 53 (31), interpreting the saying as the cycle
of changes of the four elements: this is counted as fr. 76 DK
( = e4) . That this cannot be a genuine fragment, was pointed
out by Zeller 850 f .; Brieger (Hermes 39 [1904], 208); H.
Gomperz ap. Diels, VS4, p. X X IV (“Kein Fragment des Hera-
klit, sondern plumpe Wiedergabe von B 36”); Snell (Hermes
61 [1926], 361 n. 1); Cherniss (A J P 56 [1935], 415: (e4)
“asserts a cyclical change that Aristotle explicitly denies to
all Presocratics”) ; Kirk 342 ff.; ZM 188 n. 15 (contra e. g.
Nestle, Vorsokratiker, fr. 56, and in ZN 851 n. 1; Gigon 98 ff.
and Ursprung 224; Guthrie 453 n. 2).
The saying might imply the following points.

(i) From the striking parallelism between fr. 53 (31):
shy-fire (represented by ‘burning’) ^ sea ^ earth, and this
fragment: soul ^ water ^ earth, we may infer:
360
(a) That Heraclitus thought of the soul as fiery. This
seems to be confirmed also bv fr. 68 (118).
(b) As the hot sea-exhalation is the source of the sky-fire
(θα λά σ σ ης δ έ . . .τό δέ ημισυ πρ ησ τήρ ), so is the water-
exhalation of the soul-fire (έξ ϋδα τος δέ ψυχή γ ίν ε τ α ι).
Thus Aristotle ( /') and the Stoics (f2; f*; e) grosso modo
have correctly understood Heraclitus’ soul as πυρ or άναθυ-
μίασις.
(c) The qualitative changes soul > jouter > earth and
vice versa bear the necessity of a natural law, as do those
described in fr. 53 (31). Now, if the change soul > water is
a necessary one (as is that of fire into sea), why then a ύγρή
ψυχή is rebuked, fr. 69 (117), and an αϋη ψυχή appraised,
fr. 68 (118)1 I think the answer is in the transgression by men
of the measures of this change.
That the principle of measures in the qualitative changes

is operative here too, we might infer both from the parallelism
between this and fr. 53 (31) ( ή μ ισ υ .. .ή μισυ; μ ετρέεται
εις τόν αύτόν λ ό γ ο ν ), and from fr. 67 (45) λόγον. As for
fr. 68 (118), it does not seem to contradict the measures-
principle, being just an ethical reverse to fr. 69 (117).
(ii) I t seems likely that in fr. 66 (36) we have to do with

normal physiological changes, as in fr. 53 (31) we did with
the everyday meteorological processes.
Since a teaching on the cosmic soul ( /3) is out of the

question for Heraclitus, the plural form ψ υ χ ή ι σ ι ν (which
cannot be explained as a corruption of ψυχήι* στιν, as Deich
gräber Rhythmische Elemente, 504, supposed, because the majo
rity of testimonia have the plural form) may mean: (a) ‘souls
of the dead’, as in fr. 72 (98); (b) ‘souls of the living only’;
(c) ‘both kinds of souls’. My feeling is that only (b) is the case
here: ψυχήισιν might imply ‘any individual soul in the human
body’ (be it that of a wise man, or that of a drunkard etc.).
361
Because although the dead are πλεΐονες, they are not
likely to be considered as a n o r m a l case (cf. έξ ϋδατος δέ
ψυχή). And Heraclitus was especially interested in the soul
i n the body, ef. frv. 67 ( 4 5 ) ) 68 ( 1 1 8 ); 69 ( 1 1 7 ) · , 70 (85);
13 ( 1 0 7 ) .
Moreover, the same as fire, the soul has to be constantly

nourished to can live. It is true that the souls in Hades could
be nourished by moisture (say from the Hades’ rivers). But
it is more likely that Heraclitus shared the traditional view
that they are nurtured from the blood of the sacrificed animals:
cf. fr. 72 (98) a t ψυχαι όσμωνται καθ’ "Αιδην and O d y s s e y
XI, 36 f.
'ρέε δ’ αίμα κελαινεφές' αΐ δ’ άγέροντο
ψυχα! υττέξ Έ ρέβευς νεκύων κατατεθνηώτων
98;153;228).
Thus I M’ould side with Gigon 105 in believing that in

this fragment ύδωρ must imply blood and other bodily humours,
and γή, in its turn, flesh, ligaments and bones. Cf. Empedocles
fr. 105,3 (quoted by Capelle, I. c . )
αίμ α γ ά ρ άνθρώποις περικάρδιόν έστι νόημα
and the implication ‘intelligence’ of ψυχή in Heraclitus’ fr.. 68
( 1 1 8 ); 13 ( 1 0 7 ); Plato Phaedo 96 B πότερον τό αίμά έστιν
<5ι φρονοΟμεν; Aristot. de anima A 2, p. 405 b 4 τους αίμα
φάσκοντας τήν ψυχήν; Diog. Laert. VIII, 30 τρέφεσθαί τε
τήν ψυχήν άπό τοΟ αίματος. Here again, the Stoics are depen
dent on Heraclitus: M. Ant. V, 33 αύτό δέ τό ψυχάριον άνα-
θυμίασις άψ’ αίματος; VI, 15; (/”) άπό τής έν αύτοΐς άνα-
θυμιάσεως; (of. BVF Τ nr. 140 [Galen, de plac. Hipp, d Plat.
II, 81 τρέφεσθαί μέν έξ α ίμ α το ς.. .τήν ψυχήν).
Kirk 341 objected to this interpretation: “It is by no means

certain, in any case, that the soul was nurtured from the blood.
The Stoics assumed this, but for Heraclitus the soul’s efficacy
depended on contact with the outside world and with the
362
material Logos, possibly by the medium of breath, as Sextus
tells us, adv. math. VII, 126 ff. (DK 22 A 16). Primarily
the contact was with fire itself — the cosmic fire which was
replenished by the exhalations from the sea.” K irk’s interpre
tation is not likely, because: (a) it is based on fr. 116 (A 16),
which is an obvious forgery say by Aenesidemus; (&) the idea
that the soul is nourished by the contact with the cosmic fire
is refuted by the words έ ξ ϋδα τος δέ ψυχή; (c) we know
nothing of a material Logos in Heraclitus.
(iii) The metaphorical use of ϋ δ ω ρ implying blood,
and of y ή implying flesh etc. is strange, but not surprising
in Heraclitus. Probably his aim was to bring the physiological
processes in the microsm os close as possible to the meteorological
ones which are going on in the macrocosm (fr. 53 [31])·. hence
the use of ϋδω ρ for blood, to correspond with θάλασσα, and of
γή for flesh, to get the parallelism with γη in fr. 53. Perhaps
there is also something more: Heraclitus might presuppose that
his metaphors water-blood and earth (clay)-flesh (probably taken
from the sculpture: Prometheus created men from earth and
water, Apollodor. bibl. I, 7,1) would be easily understandable
in view of such folkloric common-places as e. g. Xenophanes
fr. 33 πά ντες γ ά ρ γ α ίη ς τε κ α ί ϋδα το ς έκ γεν ό μ εσ θ α ; fr. 2ί)
γή κ α ί ϋδω ρ π ά ντ’ έσθ’ δσ α γίνο ντα ι ήδέ φύονται; Iliad
VII, 99 ά λ λ ’ ύμ εΐς μέν π ά ντες ϋδω ρ καί γαΤα γένοισθε
(quoted by Gigon 103). Thus I would suppose, here too, some
influence by Xenophanes (cf. e. g. Macrob. in somn. Scip. I,
14,19 = DK 21 A 50 Xenophanes ex terra et aqua [sc. animam
esse]).
(iv) The use of the word θ ά ν α τ ο ς here is puzzling
too (in comparison with τρ ο π α ί in fr. 53). I suppose it is due
to Heraclitus’ additional intention to stress, once more, the coin
cidence between death and life (the latter being implied by γ i-
ν ε τ α ι , ‘comes-to-be’; δ έ then would im p ly ‘nevertheless’) :
‘what is death for a thing, it happens to be, at the same time,
its source of life: death and birth coincide’. Heraclitus was espe
cially interested in the unity of this pair of opposites: cf. frr.
39 (48); 41 (55); 47 (62); 48 (26); 50 (15).
363
H. Gomperz (e. g. in Tessarakontaeteris Th. Borea, Athens,
1939, II, 52 f. and n. 4) took death to imply the change from a
fluid to a more solid state of m atter (fire being always consi
dered as άσ ω μ α τώ τατον τε κ α ί 'ρέον άεί, cf. testimonium /*,
and earth as the most inert world-mass); life is then the reverse
process. This seems quite possible. Certainly the quenching
of fire (cf. e. g. fr. 58 [5]) could be considered as its (tempo
rary) death, and this quenching meant for Heraclitus change
into water.
In his turn, Kirk 342 seems to take that the ‘death’ of

soul coincides with the death of the individual man: “on .the
‘death’ of the individual his constituents are not totally destroy
ed, but the ψυχή becomes either fire or water (according to
its condition at the moment of death) and the body, as worthless
now as dung (fr. 96 [DK = fr. 76]), decays and turns into
moisture and earth”; “the soul can only be said to die (when
the individual dies) if it turns to water; if it remains fiery
it remains ‘alive’.”
This interpretation is not likely to me. Because if the pro

cesses in the microcosm (fr. 66) are likely to be parallel to those
in the macrocosm (fr. 53), then this saying must refer to the
normal constant and regulated physiological processes within
the living human organism, and not to the destiny of soul after
the physiological death. There will be always a portion of soul-
fire turning into an equivalent portion of blood in the living
body, and vice versa. Fr. 69 (117) can be taken as an evident
example of the ‘death’ of soul in the living body (possibly the
same would account for sleep). Anyway I cannot imagine the
process έξ υδα το ς δέ ψυχή γ ίν ε τ α ι as taking place outside of
the human body (contra Kirk-Raven 206: “It [the soul] comes
into being from moisture. . . and is destroyed when it turns
entirely into water”) .
67
(45 DK; 71 B)
(a) C Diog. Laert. IX, 7. praee. fr. 57 (3 ) ( e ). λ έ γ ε ι1

bä (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) κ α ί*
ψυχής πείρατα ίών2ούκ άν έξεύροιο1,
πάσαν έπιπορευόμενος4 όδόν-
ουτω βαθύν* λόγον έχει.
seq. irr. 114 (46a); 13 c (46b) . (Lassalle, II, p. 356 s.).
1 λέγει Lipsius, G. Hermann, Cobet, Bywater : λέγεται codd., edd.

(Diels-Kranz; Hicks; H. S. Long) 2 πείρατα Ιών Diels coni. Pind.
P y t h . 10, 29 s. ναυσΐ δ ' 00τε πεζός Ιών < κ εν add. Hermann>
εϋροις. . ,όδόν [cf. II. X, 470; XXII, 123; Od. XIV, 153; Herodot.
VI, 34]: πείρατα Hermann, Cobet, Byw. : πειραταιον BiFPa, πειρδτε
δν Ρ 1 3 έζεόροιο (έζεύροι ό BP) Cobet, Diels coni. Soph,
fr. 833 N.2 = 919 Pearson άλλ’ οώ γά ρ δν. .. μάθοις & ν , ο ύ δ ’ εΐ
πάντ’ έπεξέλθοις σκοπών 4 Ιών ex ν. 1 pro έπιπορευόμενος
Wilamowitz ( H e r m e s 62 [1927], 277) 5 βαθών F : -ς ΒΡί
(5) Ρ Tertull. de anima 2,6 ...q u a n ta difficultas pro

bandi, tanta operositas suadendi, ut merito Heraclitus ille tenc-
brosus vastiores caligines animadvertens apud examinatores ani-
mae taedio quaestionum pronuntiarit: termines animae neqtta-
quatn invenies1 omnem viam Ingrediens2.
(Bemays ap. Schusterum, p. 390 ss.).
1 invenies Reifferscheid : inveniens B, Mesnart [1545] : inrenisse Gele-

nius [1550], Waszink [1947] 2 Ingrediens B, Mesnart : ingrre-
diendo Waszink
(c) R? Enckirid. Sexti 403 ed. H. Chadwick σοφού

ψ υ χ ή ς μ έ γ ε θ ο ς ο ύ κ ά ν έ ξ ε ύ ρ ο ι ς μάλλον
ή περ καί θεού.
365
67 (45)
By setting off you ivould never find out the ends of soul,
though you should travel along every path:
so deep a measure does it have.
Possibly both (a) and (b) come from some Sceptic source
(Aenesidemus?). The text of the fragment seems to be good as.
transm itted. Bywater, Zeller 882 n. 2; Ramnoux 119 and n. 1;
417 et al. had some doubts about the authenticity of line 3.
I think it is genuine, because neither Diogenes nor say Aene
sidemus (cf. fr. 116 [A 16]) are likely to have added here
β α θ ύ v λ ό γ ο ν : they would have written, for example,
μ έ γ α ν or ά πειρον λόγον. The fact that this line is missing
in (6) is not an argument contra its authenticity (as c. g.
Ramnoux took it), because (b) might well be intentionally
incomplete. In like manner, Hippolyt, refut. V, 7,8 (p. 80,18
)V.). ε ί ν α ι δέ φασι τ ή v ψ υ χ ή ν δ υ σ ε ύ ρ ε τ ο ν
π ά ν υ κ α ί δ υ σ κ α τ α ν ό η τ ο ν - ού γ ά ρ μένει έιτι
^ σ χή μ α τος ούδέ μορφής τή ς α ύτή ς πά ντοτε ουδέ πά θους
ένός, ΐν α τις αύτήν ή τύπω ι εΐπηι ή ούσίαι κ αταλήψ εται
I is not an argument pro the authenticity, because the passage
I has nothing to do with this fragment (contra Ramnoux; ZM
I 272; Wiese, Heraklit bei Klemens, 303). But fr. 112 (115)
f- could be such an argument if we were sure it is authentic
(I think it is n o t).
I
K
j. The saying is obscure (cf. also Gigon 111; Ursprung
237). I would suppose that ό δ ό ς implies the horizontal
! dimension, and β α θ ύ ς the vertical one. Thus the follow-
I ing opposition might have been aimed at: ‘You will never discover
the ends of soul in any part of the earth-swr/ace, because its
measure is hidden in the depth (sc. of the human organism,
366
i. e. in the blood).’ The contrast between lines 1-2 (folldorie
in origin) and line 3 might reflect the difference between the
traditional views on soul and the new materialist psychology
of Heraclitus (έξ ϋδα το ς δέ,ψ υχή ).
Moreover, it ε Cp α τ a must be a counterpart of λ ά

γ ο ς : the ends of soul must depend on its logos. Now, I would
follow E. B. Onians (The Origins of European Thought about the
Body, the Mind, the Soul, the World, Time and Fate, Cambridge,
1951, 324) in believing that π είρ α τα means here ‘bonds’ (‘rope-
ends’) : cf. e. g. Iliad VII, 102, implying both ‘beginning’ and
‘end’ (cf. the phrase ‘to make both ends meet’). As for λόγος,
its meaning here is not certain (cf. e. g. Guthrie 477 n. 1), but
the most likely one would be ‘measure’ (so Burnet), in view of
the parallelism between γ ή θ ά λασ σ α δ ια χέετα ι καί μετρέ-
ετα ι είς τόν αύτόν λ ό γ ο ν κτλ., fr. 53 (31), and έκ
γ η ς δέ ύδω ρ γίν ετα ι, fr. 66 (36); between θα λάσ σ η ς δ έ . . ,τό
δέ ήμισυ ττρηστήρ and έξ ϋδα τος δέ ψυχή.
The beginning and the end of soul (its ‘bonds’ or πείρ α τα )

are actually in the blood (έξ ϋδα τος δέ ψυχή γ ίν ε τα ι : ψυ-
χήισιν θά να το ς ϋδω ρ γ ε ν έσ θ α ι). But they depend on the
measure (λ ό γο ς) of the reciprocal change blood ^ fire: x
quanta of the hot blood-exhalation turning into fire are the
soul’s beginning; and the equal measure of x quanta of fire tu rn
ing into blood by liquefaction are the soul’s end.
Starting from such words of the lyrics as βαθύφρων,

βαθυμήτης (which are likely to be analogous to the epic
words πολυφρων, πολύμ η τις), Snell (Die Entdeckung des
Geistes3, Hamburg, 1955, 36 f.; also F. Zucker, Philol. 93
[1938], 31 ff.) took βα θύς to imply here ‘unlimitedness’ or
‘infiniteness’ (‘Grenzenlosigkeit’) of soul. Thus he interpreted
the saying so: “Dies Bild von der Tiefendimension ist erfun-
367
den, um das Charakteristische des Seelischen zu bezeichnen,
dass es seine eigene Dimension hat, dass es nicht räumlich,
nicht extensiv ist, obwohl wir notwendig eine Metapher des
Räumlichen gebrauchen, um dies Unräumliche zu bezeichnen.
Dass die Seele in das Unendliche geht, gerade zum Unterschied
vom Körperlichen, will Heraklit ausdrücken.”
This interpretation seems to expect too much from Hera

clitus’ archaic thought ( c o n tr a “obwohl wir notwendig eine
Metapher des Räumlichen gebrauchen...”): even if implying
‘in f in ite ly deep’, βαθύς would all the same preserve some idea
of extension. Snell's interpretation is not likely to me, because:
(a) It does not account for λόγος: the
of the ‘Tiefe der Seele’, but of the βαθύς λόγος. ( b ) It seems
more likely that β α θ ύ ς implies here only h id d e n and
d if f ic u lt to be sought out (as do κρύτπεσθαι in fr. 7 [1 2 3 ]
and άνεξερεύνητον έόν καί dntopov in fr. 11 [ 1 8 ] ) , and not
‘undiscoverable’, ‘infinitely deep’ (‘unendlich’, ‘grenzenlos’).(1)
The saying seems to imply that the soul’s logos (on which its
πείρατα must depend) can be discovered, though not in the
usual, traditional way of searching (Ιών and πασαν έπι-
πορευόμενος ό δ ό ν); otherwise the idea of searching would
I be senseless. And the words έξ ϋδατος δέ ψυχή seem to prove
k that the πείρατα of soul can be known, (c) An opposition
of soul to body (“gerade zum Unterschied zum Körperlichen” )
is not likely here, because of H eraclitus’ m aterialist views:
έκ γης δέ ύδωρ γίνεται, έξ ύδατος δέ ψυχή.
A somewhat similar view was shared by Zeller 882 (“ In

der Seele dagegen, diesem unendlichen Teil des menschlichen
W e se n s ...”) . The relation of fr. 67 (45) with fr. 15 ( 1 0 1 ) is
not likely, because έμ εω υτόν can hardly imply ψ υχή ς βα θύς
5 λ ό γ ο ς (contra e. g. Jaeger, Paideia, I, 242 f.).(z)
Another group of interpretations take β α θύς to allude

to the universal and divine cosmic fire, which is of vast extent.
So Zeller I. c.·/31 Nestle ;(4) Diels ;<S) Mondolfo,<',, and now
Kirk-Raven 206 (“probably the thought here is not so much
368
of the problem of self-consciousness as of the soul being a
representative portion of the cosmic fire — which, compai’ed
with the individual, is obviously of vast extent”) ; Wiese 115
et al. /
This interpretation seems to be even less likely than that

expounded above, because: (a) According to Heraclitus the indi
vidual soul does not come-to-be from the surrounding cosmic
fire, but from water (by means of exhalation), and has to
obey the principle of measure (λ ό γ ο ς) in the universal meteo
rological-physiological changes earth > water > fire and
vice versa. (b) As Guthrie 477 η. 1 observed: “ βαθύν λ ό γο ν
έχει would seem a rather recherche phrase to express simply
‘so extensive is it’.” Kirk seems to have put too much trust in
such an evidence like Macrob. in somn. Scip. I, 14,19 Hera
clitus physicus scintillam stellaris essentiae [sc. dixit animam],
when he wrote {ibid.): “Thus it [the soul] could be conceived
as an adulterated fragment of the surrounding cosmic fire” ;
but this testimonium is no more than a Stoic misinterpretation
(cf. frr. 68 [118] a*·, 72 [98]).
The other interpretation by Kirk-Raven ib. (“The soul,

which can move to all parts of the body a t need, has limits
that cannot be reached”) is even less likely, because: (a) it is
based on the spurious fr. 115 {67a); {b) a soul which can
move to all parts of the body at need nevertheless would have
reachable limits, namely those of the body’s extremities; (c) the
phrase ούτω βαθύν λ ό γ ο ν έχει is not accounted for.
Frankel (Dichtung2, 433; Wege-, 271 f.) combined this

saying with fr. 57 (3), because a reference to this fragment
precedes the quotation of our saying in Diogenes: “Die Sonne
hat die Breite eines Menschenfusscs; der Seele Grenzen (aber)
wirst du nicht finden. . . ” Such an interpretation is refuted
already by Diogenes’ text, where the phrase λ έ γ ε ι δέ κα'ι
clearly separates this saying from what precedes (cf. also Kirk
281). The same is true of Ramnoux’s relation (p. 417) of this
saying with Diogenes’ preceding text κ α ι itdcvta ψυχών είναι
369
κ α ί δαιμόνω ν πλή ρη ; her treatment of the fragment on
p. 119 ff. was not happier.
(>) The other interpretations of βαθύς are even less likely: cf. H. Gom-
perz (Philosophical Studies, ed. by D. S. Robinson, Boston, 1953,
p. 103 n. 23): βαθύς — ‘plentiful’, ‘rich’, ‘fertile’ (“Fire or Beat
. pervades the entire universe and its amount can never be exhausted”) ;
O. Becker (Das Bild des W eges.. .im frühgr. Denken, Hermes-
Einzelschr. 4, 1937, 144): cf. Iliad XXI, 573 ‘a deep thicket’.
(*) The patristic idea of τ ό β ά θ ο ς τής ψυχής (Clem.

ström. V II, 37,0 [III, p. 29,12 S t.]; Eunap. vitae sophist, p. 113
Boissonade [ = p. 95,7 Giangrande]; cf. Indith 8,14 δτι βάθος
καρδίας άνθρώ που ούχ εύρήσετε) has nothing to do with Hera
clitus’ saying: cf. ad fr. 12 (86) and Wiese 270 with notes 3 and 4.
(3) “In der Seele dagegen, diesem unendlichen Teil des menschlichen
Wesens, hat sich das göttliche Feuer in seiner reineren Gestalt
erhalten”.
{■*) Philol. 64 (1905), 376: “So tief reicht ihr [i.e . der Einzelseele]
vernünftiges Wesen (λ ό γ ο ς), das in dem ewigen, die ganze Welt
durchdringenden Logos wurzelt”.
(3) HerakliW, 27: “Die Seele ist mit ihrem Wesen, ihrem Gesetz (λ ό γο ς)
in dem Urprinzip am tiefsten gewurzelt. Ihre Grenzen reichen also
bis an die Grenzen des Alls” ; Antike Technik (Teubner, 1914), 12:
“So tief ist ihr λόγος, ihr Gesetz begründet, da es in der Gottheit
ruht, da die S eele...als das Göttliche im Menschlichen th r o n t...”.
(e) x» infinito nel pensiero dell’ antichitä elassica (Florence, 1956),
, 361 n. 1: “Ora questa asserita inattingibilitä dei limiti dell’ anima
in che rapporto deve porsi con la identity di natura che Eraclito pone
fra la sostanza universale, che e πυρ άεΐζω ον (fr. 30), e 1’ anima
vivente, che e pure fuoco? Ci accostiamo forse col frg. 45 di Eraclito
a una cerchia di idee analoga a quella del frg. 2 di Anassimenef” ;
ZM 273 f .
370
68
(118 DK; 74-76 B)
/
(0) C αΰη1ψυχή σοφωτάτη καί άρίστη.
1 cf. Trincavell. [1535-36] ad Stob. I l l , 5,8; Stephan. (Poe», philo».

p. 139 [ap. Bywater. p. 3 0 ]); P. Wesseling (Observat. erit. V, 3, pp. 42-
48); C. G. Cobet (Mnemos. 10, p. 185); I. Burnet p. 138 n. 2
(α1) B Muson. Ruf. fr. XVIII* (p. 96 Hense) ap. Stob.

III, .17,42 (III, p. 505,2 Η .), (έκ τοΟ π ερ ί τρ ο φ ή ς), έκείνοις
(sc. το ΐς.θ εο ΐς) μέν οδν ά ρ κ εΐν το ύς ά π ό γ η ς κ α ί ϋδα τος
άναφερομένους άτμούς, ή μ α ς δ’ όμοιοτάτην τα ύτηι προσ-
φέρεσθαι τροφήν δ ν είπεν1, τήν κουφοτάτην κ α ί καθαρω -
τάτην2' οϋτω δ’ δ ν κ α ί τήν ψυχήν ήμών ύ π ά ρ χειν κ α θα ρ ά ν
τε καί ξηράν, όποια οδσ α άρίστη κ α ί σοφω τάτη εΐη δ ν 3,
κα θά περ Ή ρ α κ λ είτω ι δο κ εΐ λ έγο ν τι ούτως* α ύ γ ή ξ η-
ρ ή4 — ψ υ χ ή σ ο φ ω τ ά τ η καί άρίστη.
(Schl, ad fr. 62).
1 είπεν Hense : εΐη S : εΐη εΐ Μ* Α : 6φη, εΐ Halm 2 post καθ.

add. προσψεροΐμεθα Μ4 A, om. S : interprets emblema esse opin.
Hense 3 εΐη fiv Gataker : εΐ π α ν S (εΐ π ά ν M«, εΐ ss. π δ ν A)
4 lectionem depravatam α ύ γή ξηρή Panaetio vel Posidonio attribuen-
dam esse suspicatur P. Wendland (Philos Schrift über die Vorsehung,
Berol., 1892, p. 81 n. 4) : [αϋη ξηρή A*]
(a2) R Stob. I l l , 5,8 (III, p. 257 Η .), [π. σωφροσύ

νης]. post. fr. 69 (117). Η ρακλείτου*1 α ύ γ ή ξ η ρ ή —
ψυχή2 σοφωτάτη καί άρίστη.
1 lemma ex eel. I l l , 5,6 2 α ύ γή ξηρή ψυχή L Μ« Α* : αύη ψυχή

Trine. (α0η scripsit et ξηρή lineola induxit A2), dubitanter recepit
Hense
371
(a*3) R Philo, de provid. II, 66 Colson, ap. Euseb. praep.
ev. V III, 14,66 (I, p. 477 Mras). μόνη γ ά ρ ή Ε λ λ ά ς άψ ευδώ ς
ά νθρω πογονεΐ, φυτόν ούράνιον (cf. Plat. Tim. 90 Α) και
βλά σ τημ α θειον ήκριβωμένον, λογισ μ όν ά ποτίκ τουσ α οί-
κειούμενον Ιπιστήμηι. τό δ ’ α ίτ ιο ν λεπτότητι ά έρ ο ς ή
διά νοια πέφυκεν ά κονα σ θα ι.1 (67) διό κ α ί Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς
οΰκ ά π ό σκοποΟ ψησιν' α ύ γ ή 2 ξ η ρ ή — ψ υ χ ή σο·
φωτάτη και άρίστη. (Sehl. fr. 60).
1 cf. de plantat. 40 (II, p. 141 W .); quod deus sit immutab. 46 (II,
p. 66 W.) 2 α ύγή I, Gaisford, Diudorf, Wendland (Philos Schrift
üb. die Vorsehung, p. 120), Mras : α ύ γή BON : οδ γη (ex α δ γη )
versio Annen, {de provid. II, 109 p. 11? Aucher: quam ob rem etiam
Heraclitus non gratis atque inconsulto dixit: in terra sicca animus ext
sapiens ac virtutis amans), Stephan., Selileierm., Mangey, Colson
(a4) R Plut. de esu earn. 995 E *** α ύ γ ή ξ η ρ ή

ψ υ χ ή σ ο φ ω τ ά τ η κ α τ ά τ ό ν Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ο ν .
(Schl, ad fr. 62).
(α®) R de def. orac. 432 P ά μ α δ* άν τ ις ούκ ά λ ό γ ω ς

καί ξη ρότη τα ψαίη μ ετά τη ς1 θερμότητος έγγ ιγν ο μ έν η ν
λεπτύνειν τό πνεύμ α καί ποιεΐν α ΐθερ ω δες κ α ί κ α θ α ρ ό ν
α ύ γ ή 2 γ ά ρ ξ η ρ ά — ψ υ χ ή < σ ο φ ω τ ά τ η > ® καθ’
Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν. (Schl, ad fr. 61).
1 τής del. Hartman 2 αύγή Sieveking : αϋτη eodd., Babbitt.

3 σοφωτάτη supplevi ex 995 E : άρίστη add. Sieveking
(®n) R liomul. 28,7 (post Pind. fr. 131 Sehr. = 116

Bowra = 131b Snell), ήκει γ ά ρ έκεϊθεν έκ εί δ ’ άνεισιν (sc.
είδω λον), ού μετά σώ μ ατος ά λ λ ’ έάν δτι μ ά λισ τα σ ώ μ α
το ς ά π α λ λ α γ ή ι καί δια κριθή ι καί γένη τα ι καθα ρόν παν-
τά-Λασι καί άσαρκον, καί ά γνόν. α ύ γ ή 1 γ ά ρ ψ υ χ ή
372
ξ η ρ ή , < σ ο φ ω τ ά τ η > 2 κ α ί ά ρ ί σ τ η κ α θ ’ 'Η ρ ά
κλειτον, ώ σπερ Αστραπή νέφους διαπταμένη του σώ ματος.
(Sehl. fr. 61). (ώ σπερ — σ ώ μ α τ ο ς: Sehl. fr. 63).
Cf. ZN, p. 883 s. et n. 3.
1 αύγή scripsi : αΟτη codd., Ziegler^ : αϋη Bekker vix recte 2 σο·
ψωτάτη supplevi ex Clem. (a7)
(aT) R Clem paed. II, 29,3 (I, p. 174 St.) ουτω δ’ άν

καί ή ψυχή ήμών ύ π ά ρ ξα ι κ α θα ρ ά 1 καί ξη ρ ά καί φω-
τοειδή ς- α ύ γ ή - δέ ψ υ χ ή ξηρά, σοφωτάτη
καί άρίστη. ταύτηι δέ καί έποπτική, ούδέ έστιν3
κά θυγρος, τα ΐς έκ του οίνου άναθυμιάσεσιν νεφέλης δί
κην σω ματοποιουμένη4. Cf. Η. Wiese, Heraklit bei Klemens,
p. 74 ss. (Schl, ad frr. 62 et 63).
1 καθαρά : καί καθ. Mon. 2 αύγή Ρ, αύγή P3 (Schol. ad loc.

αύγή- 'Ηράκλειτος Ma) αύγή δέ ψυχή : ψυχή γάρ Catena 3
ούδέ έστιν : ή δέ Cat. 4 σωματοπ. καλύπτεται Cat. ( v e l a t n r Cord.)
(α8) R Galen, δτι τ α ΐς τοΟ σ ώ μ ατος κράσεσιν α ί

τή ς ψυχής δυνάμ εις Μπονται: Scr. min. II, ρ. 47,9 Müller
( = IV, ρ. 786 Kühn), ά λ λ ’ ούι κ α ί ξηρότητα συγχω ρή-
σομεν2 α ιτία ν είνα ι συνέσεως, < ώ σπερ > 3 οί γ ε μήν4 άμφ*
Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν ; κ α ί γ ά ρ οδτος εΐπεν' α ύ γ ή ξ η ρ ή 5 —
ψ υ χ ή σ ο φ ω τ ά τ η , τήν ξηρότητα π ά λ ιν ά ξιω ν συνέ
σεω ς είναι α ιτία ν [τό γ ά ρ τής α ύ γ ή ς όνομα τοΰτ’ ένδείκ-
νυτα ι]'1· κ α ί βελτίονά γ ε δόξαν ταύτην νομιστέον έννοή-
σ α ντα ς7 τούς ά σ τέρ α ς α ύ γο ειδ εΐς θ’ ά μ α κ α ί ξηρούς
όντα ς ά κ ρ α ν σύνεσιν έ χ ε ι ν .. ,8 (Schl. fr. 62).
1 ού Mueller : εί codd. 2 L : συγχωρήσαιεν cett. ( s ic c ita te m

c o n c e d v m t Nicolai Rhegini translatio)
e n im 3 ώσπερ add. Mueller
4 μήν del. Mueller 5 αύγή ξηρή codd., Mueller ( l u x s ic c a a n im a
373
prudentissima Nie. Bheg. thansl.) : αϋη [ξηρή] Daremberg, Cobet vix
recte 6 seel. Mueller 7 έννοήσαμεν L W V m, -ωμεν M
8 cf. ft. Macrob. in somn. Scip. I, 14,19 Heraclitus physicus scintillam
stellaris essentiae (sc. dixit animam) [ = DK A 15]; Cie. de nat, deor.
Π , 42
(o9) R Hermias, in Plat. Phaedr. p. 73 Ast; p. 27,28

Couvreur. έπιτήδειον δέ κ α ί τό θέρος κ α ί ή μεσημβρία
π ρ ό ς ά να γω γή ν, κ α ί κ α τά τόν Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν, δ ς φησιν'
α ύγή ξηρή1 — ψυχή σοφωτάτη.
1 αΟη [ξηρή] Couvreur
(aw) R Aristid. Quint, de musiva IT, 17 (p. 64,20 Jahn),

λ έ γ ε ι δέ πού τοι κ α ί 6 σοφός Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς το ιά δε οόκ
ά π ά ιδ ω ν ' τήν γ ά ρ εύπαθοΟσαν έν α ίθέρ ι δηλώ ν φησι'
ψ υ χ ή — α ύ γ ή ξ η ρ ή , σ ο φ ω τ ά τ η ' τήν δέ ύπό τη ς
ά ερ ίο υ ζά λ η ς τε κ α ί ά να θυμ ιά σ εω ς θολουμένην έμφ αίνει
λ έ γ ω ν ' seq. fr. 66 (36) d2.
(a11) R Porphyr, sent, ad intellig. ducentes c. 29,3 (p. 15

Mommert). δταν δέ μελετήσηι άφ ίσ τασ θαι φύσεως, α ύ γ ή
ξ η ρ ά γίν ετα ι (sc. ή ψ υ χ ή ) , άσ κιος καί άνέφ ελος'
ύγρ ό τη ς γ ά ρ έν ά έρ ι νέφος συνίστησι, ξηρότης δέ άπό
τή ς ά τμ ίδο ς α ύ γή ν ξηράν ύφίστησιν.
(α12) R Marsil. Ficin. de immort. animorum VI, 2 (Ope

ra, I, p. 162 cd. Basil. 1576) ...nnim as csso globos lumimun
implicatos, globos autem esse animas explicates. quod ita signi-
ficavit Heraclitus: α ύ γ ή ξηρή — ψυχή σ ο φ ω
τ ά τ η . id est, lux sicca, anhna sapientissima. Cf. V III, 13
(I, p. 197). ut placet Orphicis et Heraclito, lumen nihil aliud
est nisi visibilis anima. . . anima vero lux invisibilis.
374
de studiosorum sanitate tuenda I, 5 (I, p. 498). hue
tcndit illud H eraditi: lux sicca, anima sapientissima.
epist. I (de divino furpre) (I, p. 612). animum nostrum

priusquam in corpora laberetur, u t etiam Pythagoras, Empe
docles atque Heraclitus antea disputaverant, in caelestibus sedi-
bus extitisse.
(b1) R Porphyr, de antro nymphar. 11 (p. 64,21 Nauck2).

< ö > ‘ αύτός δέ φησιν Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς' ξ η ρ ά ψ υ χ ή σ ο
φ ω τ ά τ η . διό κ ά ντα υθα κ α τά τ ά ς τή ς μίξεω ς έπιθυ-
μ ία ς δίυγρ ο ν καί νοτερώ τερον γ ίγ ν ε σ θ α ι τό πνεύμα, άτ-
μόν έφελκομένης δ ίυ γρ ο ν τή ς ψυχής Ικ τή ς π ρ ό ς τήν
γένεσ ιν νεύσεω ς. (Schl, ad fr. 61).
1 6 add. Hercher, Nauek
(b2) R Synes. de insomniis 5, PG 66, col. 1293 A

. . . μετέωρον α ίρ ετα ι δ ιά θερμότη τα κ α ί ξηρότη τα ' καί
τούτο ά ρ α ή ψυχής π τέρ ω σ ις (τό τε α δ ξ η ρ ή ψ υ χ ή
σ ο φ ή πρ ός ούδέν ά λ λ ο τω ι Ή ρ α κ λ είτω ι τεΐνον εύρίσ-
κ ο μ ε ν ). . .
(ή3) R Eustath. in Iliad. X X III, 261 (ρ. 1299,17 R.)

. . . σκώ πτονται δ ιά τό καί είς εύσ αρκίαν τούς τοιούτους
γυμ νά ζεσ θ α ι καί οΰτω σκω πτικώ ς π α χ εΐς κ α ί αύτούς
λέγεσ θα ι, ο ία μή λεπτούς τόν νουν καί όξεΐς μηδέ οίους
άρέσκειν τω ι εΐπόντι ότι ξ η ρ ή ψ υ χ ή σ ο φ ω τ ά τ η . . .
(b*) R Mich. Glycas, annal. ρ. 141,11 Bekker. idev δέ τό

ξηρόν ύπερτερήσηι στοιχείον, νηφάλιόν τινα κ α ί γρ ή γο -
ρον ά π ο τίκ τει άνθρω πον, έφ’ ώι καί τις σοφός ώ ι όνομα
Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς έ λ ε γ ε ' ψ υ χ ή ξ η ρ ο τ έ ρ η σ ο φ ω τ έ ρ η ,
ψυχήν έντα δθα τήν τοΟ έγκ εφ ά λ ο υ κ α λέσ α ς ούσίαν.
375
p. 219,14 B. κ α ί πρόσ χες, εΐ βούλει, τώ ι σοφώι Ή ρα κ λεί-
τω ι’ ξ η ρ ο τ έ ρ η ψ υ χ ή σ ο φ ω τ έ ρ η . (Schl, ad fr. 61).
(6s) R Mich. Acominat. epist. 173,6 (II, p. 340,6 Lam-

pros) . οΰτε γ ά ρ ψυχήν π ω τοΟ σ αρκικού τύντλου τερσή-
να ν τες πεποιήκα μεν όποιαν καί Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς έπαινώ ν
ψ υ χ ή φησι ξ η ρ ή σ ο φ ή , οίίτε σ ώ μ α τηκεδόνι ψιλο-
σόψου μελέτης λεπτότερον κόγκλου, κ α τά τήν π α ρ ο ι
μίαν, ά π ε τ ε λ έ σ α μ ε ν ...
t
376
68 (118)
The dry soul is wisest and best.
Although Schleiermacher, Bywater and Zeller 883 n. 3

were puzzled by the different versions (counting them as 3
or 4 fragments), the process of corruption of the only original
saying (0) was clear already to Trincavelli and Stephanus:
(i) a fj η (Heraclitus, cf. αύαίνεται, fr. 42 [126]).
(ii) αϋη ξηρή (the latter being a gloss upon αϋη).
(iii) α ύ γ ή ξ η ρ ή (since Panaetius or Posidonius,
according to W endland), meaning 'The dry light is the wisest
soul’ (except in a6' 7 and a10).
(iv) ξηρή.
(iii) is represented by testimonia a1' 12; (iv) by testimonia

b1'5. I think there is no one ancient source for (i) and (ii),
αϋη being a medieval emendation. Thus there is no need to
avoid the reading α ύγή in several testimonia, as some editors
do (cf. ad a·2, «*, a5, a*, a").
The meaning of the saying seems to be clear, α δ ο ς is

what is opposite to ύ γ ρ ό ς (cf. fr. 42 [126] ύγρ ό ν α ύ α ίν ε τα ι);
in view of frr. 66 (36); 53 (31), it refers to fire. (Wrong is
fligon 110: “Damit haben w ir .. .einen Beweis, dass man sich
die Seele als Luft vorzustellen hat. Die Trockenheit ist nicht
Attribut des Feuers, sondern der L uft”) .
The saying is a direct reverse to fr. 69 (117), and it

seems quite possible that both fragments stood near each other
in Heraclitus’ original (cf. also Stobaeus).
377
The regulated physiological change soul (fire) > blood
(water) and vice versa is necessary. Since ψ υ χ ή implies
in Heraclitus intelligence (cf. σοφω τάτη and fr. 13 [107]),
memory and attention (cf. ούκ έπα ΐω ν δκη βαίνει, fr. 69
[117]), the normal measured watery (moist) state of soul
could be perhaps thought of as e. g. that in sleep. B ut when
a man gets drunk, he transgresses the alloted measure of the
change fire > water (υ γρ ή ν τήν ψυχήν £χω ν), loosing atten
tion, memory, intelligence...
Now, the saying ‘The dry [i. e. fiery] soul is wisest and
best’ need not contradict the universal measures-principle,
i. e. need not imply a transgression of the upper-limits of the
fire-quantum of soul. I t might just stress the necessity of
keeping the soul dry (sober, in the first place, according to
the Ethics of the Enlightener).
σ ο ψ ω τ ά τ η is of interest; it might imply the cognos-

citive faculty of men, a condition for the knowledge of God:
only a fiery soul can grasp Fire (cf. e. g. Aristotle metaph.
B 4, p. 1000 b 5 ή δέ γν ώ σ ις του όμοιου τώ ι όμοίω ι, with
reference to Empedocles fr. 109): cf. fr. 85 (41) Sv τό σ ο
φ ό ν " έπίσ τα σ θα ι y ν ώ μ η ν + ότέη κυβερνησαι + π ά ν
τα δ ιά πάντων.
ά ρ ( σ τ η seems to be equally meaningful; it might hint

at the chivalrous and sober best (άρισ τοι) of fr. 95 (29),
who choose one thing in place of all others, the everlasting
glory. The reverse are the many (ot π ο λ λ ο ί), glutted like
. cattle, and probably with moist souls.
378
69
(117 DK; 73 B)
y
(a) C Stob. III, 5,7 (III, p. 257 Η.) [π. σωφροσύ

νη ς]. post fr. 23 (e) {116). Η ρ α κ λ είτο υ 1. ..
άνήρ 6 κόταν μεθυσθήι,
άγεται ύπό παιδός άνήβου σφαλλόμενος2,
ούκ έπαΐων δκη βαίνει3,
ύγρήν την ψυχήν εχων.
seq. fr. 68 {118) (o r). (Schl. fr. 59).
1 eel. hab. L M<* A Trine., lemma ex ccloga priore: non iteratur lemma
in L, toG αύτοΰ addunt ΜΑ, "Ηρακλείτου tue retraxit Tr. 2 σφαλ
λόμενος secl. nt glossema C. Deichgraeber (Bhythm, Elemente etc.,
p. 484 n. 2), sed ef. Aristoph. vesp. 1324 et G. Nestle (Philol. 67
[1908], 537) 3 βαίνηι ei. Diels. (JT.*)
(b1) R (71 DK; 73 n. B) M. Ant. IV, 46. post fr. 66

{36) (e3). μεμνήσθαι δέ καί τ ο υ έ π ι λ α ν θ α ν ο μ έ -
ν ο υ ή ι1 ή ό δ ό ς ά γ ε ι . seq. fr. 4 {72).
1 οΤ η
Cf. VI, 22 .. ή πεπλα νη μένα καί τ ή ν όδόν άγ-

ν ο ο 0 ν τ α et A. S. L. Farquharson 692.
{Ir) R Booth, de consol, philos. I ll, 2,13 (p. 48 Wein

berger) . sed ad hominum studia revertor, quorum animus
etsi caligante memoria tarnen bonum suum repetit, sed velut
ebrius, domum quo tramite reveriatur, ignorat. (Cf. F. Kling-
ner, De Boethii consol, philos., Philol. Unters. 27, Berol., 1927,
pp. 30; 38, et A. S. L. Parquharson, M. Ant., p. 632).
379
(b3) R Seneca, ep. 98, 10. ceteruni tam improbi sunt
tamque obliti quo eant, quo illos singuli dies turbent1 ut
mirentui’ aliquid ipsos amittere amissuri uno die omnia. Cf.
de tranq. 2,2.
1 perturbent ci. Henso
380
69 (117)
A man token he is drunk >

stumbles and is led (home) by an unfledged (beardless) boy,
not knowing whither he goes,
for his soul is· wet.
Hr. 71 DK is no move than a reminiscence of this saying

(as already Bywater and Diels, VS*, p. XXIV, supposed it).
As can be seen from testimonia (δ1"’), the Stoics made use
of Heraclitus’ saying for their own purposes.
I take σφ αλλόμενος with ά γ ε τ α ι (as Guthrie 431 did),

and not with line 3 (as Kirk-Raven nr. 234 did), because line 2
seems to give a satisfactory sense by itself (‘he has to be led
home by his young servant [πρόπολος], because he can’t walk
alone’), while line 3 seems to imply: ‘not knowing where he is
going to, i. e. where is his home’, and not ‘knowing not where he
steps’ (as Burnet 138 lias it). So was the phrase understood by
the Stoics ( ebrius, domum quo tramite revertatur, ignorat), and
besides, the situation was common enough: cf. Xenophanes
fr. 1,17 f.
ούχ ϋβ ρ ις πίνειν όπόσον κεν έχω ν άφίκοιο
οϊκαδ* άνευ προπόλου μή πάνυ γη ρ α λέο ς.
Theogn. 475 f .
α ύτά ρ έγώ , μέτρον γ ά ρ έχω μελιηδέος οίνου,
υπνου λυσ ικάκου μνήσομαι ο ϊκ α δ’ Ι ώ ν ...
Probably using a popular belief that ‘getting drunk’ means
‘getting wet’, Heraclitus gives us here a vivid example of the
loss of the soul’s faculties (here, of memory and attention)
when it turns into water beyond the alloted measures. It is
381
normal and decent to drink wine within measure; the trouble
and the insolence (ϋβρις) begin when μέτρον of wine is
transgressed. Thus the saying may be taken as an illustration
of the thesis ψυχηισιν θ ά να τος ϋδω ρ γενέσ θαι. The reverse
is fr. 68 (118).
The shameful picture is emphasized by the opposition

between άνήρ and π α ΐς ά ν η β ο ς: ‘an adult man is led by an
unfledged, beardless boy’. This opposition is common in Hera
clitus: cf. frr. 21 (5(?)'Ό μηρος : π α ΐδ ες; 105 (121) Έ φ ε-
σίοις ήβηδόν : τοΐς άνήβοις (in all three cases the advan
tage is on the side of the boys); frr. 92 (79) άνήρ νήπιος
ήκουσε π ρ ό ς δαίμονος δκω σπερ π α ΐς π ρ ό ς ά νδρ ό ς; 93 (52)
αΙών π α ΐς έστι κτλ.
382
70
(85 QK; 105 B)
(a1) C Plut. Coriol. 22,1 ύπό τούτου μισούμενον ό

Μ άρκιος έ αυτόν ώ ς ούδένα 'Ρ ω μ α ίω ν έγίνω σ κ ε' πολλά-
κις γ ά ρ έν ά π ε ιλ α ΐς κ α ι προκλήσεσι κ α τά τ ά ς μ ά χ α ς
γ ε ν ό μ ε ν ο ι... ίδιον προσεκτήσαντο τώ ι κοινώ ι τό κ α τ’
ά λλήλω ν έχθος. (2) ου μην ά λ λ α μ έγεθ ό ς τι φρονή
μ α τος έχοντα τόν Τύλλον όρω ν (sc. ό Μ άρκιος) . . .μ α ρ
τυρ ία ν ά π έλιπ ε τώ ι είπόντι
θυμώι μάχεσθαι χαλεπόν'1

δ < τ ι > 2 γ ά ρ άν θέληι.3, ψυχής ώ νεΐται1.
λα β ώ ν γ ά ρ έσθήτα κ α ί σ κ ε υ ή ν .. .ώ σ περ ό Ό δ υ σ σ εύ ς
‘άνδρώ ν δυσμενέω ν κ α τέδυ π ό λ ιν’ (Od. IV, 246).
(Schl, ad fr.).
1 cf. Plat. le g . 863 B 6 θυμός, δύσερι καί δόσμαχον κτήμα έμπε-

φυκός; r e m p . 375 Β άμαχόν τε καί άνίκητον θυμός; Eurip. M e d .
1079 s.; fr. 257 N.2 et n. ad ( e ) 2 τι supplevi 3 θέληι : Ιληι
ci. Wilamowitz : χρήιζηι γίγνεσθαι ex Iambi, (c) scr. Bywater, Wila-
mowitz (Gr. L e s e l·., I, p. 34) 4 de proverbio ψυχής τι ώνείσθαι
cf. Anon, d e s u b lim , 44,9 Jahn-Vahlen*; Eurip. M e d . 968; Xenopli. C y r.
ΠΤ, 1,36; A .O . VII, 622,6; Pers. s a t. 6, 75
(a2) P de cohib. ira 457 D άνθρώ πω ν μέν γ ά ρ κρα-

τήσαι και χείροσι βελτιόνω ν ύπήρξε, τό δ’ έν1 ψυχήι
στήσαι κ α τά 9 υ μ ο ΰ τρόπαιον (ώ ι χαλεπόν
είναι μ ά χ ε σ θ α ι 2 φησιν Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς' δ τ ι γ ά ρ
ά ν θ έ λ η ι 3, ψ υ χ ή ς ώ ν ε ΐ τ α ι ) μ εγ ά λ η ς έστί καί
νικητικής ισ χ ύ ο ς ... (Schl.).
1 έν τήι LCGZab, Helmbold 2 μάχεσθαι LCGb : διαμάχεσθαι

cett. 3 θέληις CXFKMi : θελήσηι Plut. 755 D
383
Locum male intellexit Ammian. XXI, 16,14: cf. I. By-
watcr, p. 41 ct Journal of Philology 6 [1876], p. 80 ss, (contra
I. Bernays ap. P. Schuster, p. 391).
(a3) R amator. 755 Ό ‘Έ ρ ω τ ι δέ μ ά χ ε σ θ α ι χ α

λ ε π ό ν , ού θ υ μ ώ ι κ α θ’ 'Η ρά κλειτον' δ τ ι γ ά ρ
ά ν θελήσηι, καί ψ υ χ ή ς ώνεΐται καί χρη
μάτω ν κ α ι δόξης. (Schl.).
(bl ) R Aristot. eth. Eudem. B 7, p. 1223 b 22 έοικε

δέ κ α ί Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς λ έ γ ε ιν εις τήν ίσχύν τοΟ θυμοΰ βλέ-
ψας, δτι λ υ π η ρ ά ή κώ λυσις αύτοΰ' χ α λ ε π ό ν γάρ
φησι θ υ μ ώ ι μάχεσθαι' ψυχής γάρ ώνεΐ-
τ α ι. Cf. II. Chcrniss, Aristotle’s Criticism etc., p. 345 (Schl.).
(b2) R polit. E 11, p. 1315 a 29 ...ά φ ε ιδ ώ ς γ ά ρ

έα υτώ ν έχουσιν οί δ ιά θυμόν έπιχειροΟ ντες, κ α θά π ερ
κ α ί Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ο ς είπε, χ α λ ε π ό ν φάσκω ν είνα ι θ υ-
μώι μάχεσθαι, ψυχής γάρ ώνεϊσθαι.
(b3) R eth. Nieom. Β 2, ρ. 1105 a 7 έτι δέ χ α λ ε-

π ώ τ ε ρ ο ν ήδονήι μ ά χ ε σ θ α ι ή θ υ μ ώ ι , κ α θ ά
περ φησίν Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ο ς ... (Schl.).
(c) R Iambi, prolrept. 21 (p. 112,19 Pistelli) μά ρτυς

το ΐς λεχθεΐσ ιν Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς' θ υ μ ώ ι γ ά ρ φησι μ ά-
χεσθαι χαλεπόν' δ τι γά ρ δν χρηίζηι
γίγ νεσ θ α ι, ψυχής ώ ν έ ε τ α ι 1. καί τούτο ά ληθώ ς
εΐπε' πολλοί γ ά ρ χα ριζόμ ενοι θυμώ ι άντηλλά ξα ντο τήν
έα υτώ ν ψυχήν καί θάνατον φίλτερον έποιήσαντο.
(Schl. fr. 58).
1 όνέεται codd., corr. Vulcanius
384
(d ) R Democriti fr. 236 DK. θ υ μ ώ ι μ ά χ ε σ θ α ι
μέν χ α λ ε π ό ν , ά νδρός δέ τό κ ρατέειν εύλογίστου.
(e) R Philodemi de ira eol. 27,17 (p. 57 Wilke) . . .μ ετ’

έπ ιθ υ μ ία ς π α ν τ ό ς ώνουμένης (sc. τ η ς ό ρ-
γής) & ποθεϊ...1
1 cf. C. Wilke ρ. XXXIII; Eurip. M e d . 447 τραχεΐαν όργήν ώς

άμή χάνον κακόν; Philemon, fr. 185 Κ. τό γά ρ κατασχεΐν έστι τήν
όργήν (Gesner : τής όργής codd.) ιτόνος; Menand. fr. 780 Kock
(/) R Marsil. Ficin. in Plat., II, p. 1228 (ed. Basil.

1576). malum quod bene iacet non est movendum; cui simile
Pythagorae symbolum ‘ignem gladio ne fodias’ atque illud
Heracliti: durum est adversus iram pugnare, nam cum in
impetu est, vita emitur.
385
70 (85)
I t is hard to fight with the heart’s desire;

for whatever it wishes it buys at the price of soul.
Probably Heraclitus is using here two popular adages

(as he elsewhere does): θυμώ ι μά χεσ θα ι χ α λ επό ν and ψυ
χ ή ς τ ι ώ νεΐσθαι (cf. notes 1 and 4 ad ο1) . In the first φ ά τις
the word θ υ μ ό ς probably means ‘heart as the center of
emotion and passion’ (‘Organ der Regung’, Snell, Die Entdec
kung des Geistess, 27). Now, since θυμός in this fragment
is used with the verb θ έ λ ε i v, its precise meaning seems
to be ‘heart as the center of desire’ (LSJ, s. v., II, 1), in view
of such phrases as, for example, Sappho fr. 5, 3 f. Lobel-Page
κώ σσ α F ]o i θύμω ι κε θέληι γένεσ θα ι / π ά ν τ α τε]λέσ θ η ν;
Iliad XVI, 255; X X I, 65 ήθελε θυμώ ι; Herodas 7,61 ών
έρ α ι θυμός. This is the way in which θυμός was interpreted by
Burnet 140 and n. 2 (‘one’s heart's desire’) ; Diels (‘Sitz der
Begierden’, ‘Herzens Gelüsten’, ‘Herz’) ; Reinhardt, Parm. 196
n. 2 (‘die Begierde’) ; Zeller 912 n. 4 and H. Bogner, Hermes
77 (1942), 215 (‘Leidenschaft’); Frankel, Dichtung2, 447 (‘das
Begehren’) ; Guthrie 433 (‘desire’) . I think θυμός has the
same meaning in Democritus’ reply to Heraclitus’ saying (testi
monium d), in view of his frr. 70 παιδός, ούκ ά νδρ ό ς τό
ά μ έτρ ω ς έπιθυμεΐν; 214 ά νδρ εΐος ούχ ό τω ν πολεμίω ν
μόνον, ά λ λ ά καί ό τω ν ήδονώ ν κρέσσων (fr. 298a is sus
pect). In.short, θυμός most likely implies here έπιθυμ ία (cf.
also Onians, o. c., 253 n.; 47).
Aristotle (b1'3) was mistaken when he took θυμός to mean

anger (as Burnet and Chemiss 345 pointed o u t). The Stoics
and Philodemus followed Aristotle in this belief (a1-3) ; (e).
386
Among the modern scholars Verdenius (Mnemos. 1943, 115 ff.)
and Kirk-Raven nr. 243 interpret θυμός as anger.
In the other proverb (ψ υχής τι ώ νεΐσθαι) ψ υ χ ή clear

ly implies life. The same implication is likely in Heraclitus’
saying (so Onians 195 and 197 n. 2: ‘the living strength which
sustains the body’; Wilamowitz, Die Heimkehr des Odysseus,
Berlin, 1927, 195; Der Glaube der Hellenen3, I, 364 n. 1;
Bogner 1. c.; Frankel 1. c.; F. Dirlmeier, Aristoteles Werke
deutsch, VII, Berlin, 1962, 274), because Heraclitus could not
change the meaning of the proverb very much. All he could do in
order to adjust the proverb to his own soul-doctrinc was to make
ψυχή imply fire. Thus the fiery soul probably implies here
‘man’s vital energy (strength, health etc.)’. If ψυχή implies
here ‘intelligence’ (as it does in frr. 68 [118] and 13 [107]),
we would have to do then with the eternal conflict between
heart and mind (cf. e. g. Ovid, metam. V II, 19 f. aliudque
cupido, / mens aliud suadet). But the former implication seems
more likely. Testimonia (c) and (/) have understood ψυχή
as life.
I think Burnet’s interpretation of the fragment is the most

likely (“The gratification of desire implies the exchange of
dry soul-fire for moisture”) . The fulfilment of the heart’s de
sire (e. g. to wine), the pleasure or passion, imply trans
gression of the alloted measure of the change soul-fire > blood-
water, i. e. debilitation of both mind and body. If θυμός
means a life-danger for soul, the most likely is that it implies
moisture or wetness. So also Guthrie 433.
The. opposite view (θυμ ός meaning anger and implying

heat or fire) is shared by Verdenius 121: “Anger reaches its
goal by expressing itself. This is effected by a concentration
of heat which withdraws fire, i. e. life, from the soul. So anger
always sacrifices life (i. e. soul or fire).” A similar interpre
tation is given by Kirk 1. e. (“I t is difficult to control anger
because the soul-fire [which presumably does the controlling]
387
has been diminished by anger”), but I confess that I do not
get the point of Kirk’s interpretation.
As for that by Yerdenius, my objections are: (a) The

meaning ‘anger’ seems to be too narrow, too Stoic. In his
martial and aristocratic ethics Heraclitus was interested in
something much wider: in fighting against the wordly plea
sures of the πολλοί, say of the rich bourgeoisie of Ephesus
(cf. frr. 95 [29] κεκόρηνται βκω σπερ κτή νεα ; 99 [20]
γενόμ ενοι ζώ ειν έθέλουσι; 106 [125a] μή έπ ιλίπ ο ι ύμ α ς
πλούτος, Έ φ έσ ιο ι, ίν’ έξελ έγχο ισ θ ε πονηρευόμενοι. (b)
As already said, θέληι does not go well with θυμός meaning
anger: heart is likely to have wishes, but not anger; cf. also
fr. 71 (110).
388
71
(110 DK; 104a B)
S
(a) Cf Stob. III, 1,176 (III, p. 129 H .). post frr. 83

(108); 110 (109). Η ρ α κ λ ε ίτο υ '1
ά ν θ ρ ώ π ο ις2 γ ίν ε σ θ α ι3 ό κ όσ α θ έλο υ σ ιν οΟκ όίμεινον.
seq. fr. 44 (111). ' (Schl. fr. 39).
1 lemma ex eel. I ll, 1,174 (fr. 83) 2 M<> A Tr. : -οισι Mullaeh,
Byw., Hense 3 γίγν- Md
389
71 (110)
I t is not better for men to get all they ivant.
This obscure saying is best explained if referred to the

preceding fr. 70 (S5): γίν εσ θ α ι όκόσα θέλουςην seems to be.
reminiscent of δ τι &v θέληι, and ούκ άμεινον might imply
much the same as ψυχής ώ νεΐται. So was the fragment under
stood by e. g. Diels Kranz and by Guthrie 433: “Since bodily
pleasures lead to a moistening, that is a weakening, of the soul,
we can understand why Heraclitus should say (fr. 1 1 0 )... ”
Schleiermacher (fr. 39), Bywater (fr. 104ab), Th. Gom-

perz (SB Wien 113 [1886], 1017) and Burnet 140 took the
saying together with fr. 44 (111), which immediately follows
in Stobaeus. This is not at all likely (cf. Kirk 130). But Gigon
111, though counting two fragments, thought that both sayings
might be related with each other (“So gehört eng dazu Frg.
110”). He supposed that όκόσα θέλουσιν might imply ύγι-
εΐην, κόρον, άνάπαυσ ιν from fr. 44, and that fr. 71 might
belong to the common place π ερ ί εύχώ ν (with reference to
Theognis 129 f .; Democritus fr. 234). This interpretation is
not likely, because in this case we would expect c. g. ούκ
£στιν, in lieu of ούκ άμεινον (‘It is not possible for men to
wish only health, satiety, rest, these things being inseparable
from disease, hunger, weariness’): cf. fr. 45 (23) ούκ Äv ήιδε-
σαν; and besides, όκόσα is not enough accounted for. ούκ
όμεινον seems to imply some disadvantage for men (possibly
the weakening of the soul conceived as the vital strength).
390
GROUP SIXTEEN
F it. 72 (58); 7 3 ^6 3 ); 74 (37); 75 (92); 76 (96).
The cryptic sayings of this Group seem to deal

with the eschatology of man.
(i) - Some souls, at least, exist after the death of
the body. Probably the souls of the aristocratic
warriors or heroes are rewarded with eternity (fr.
73); those of the lustful πολλοί (or say the rich
bourgeoisie of Ephesus) will be somehow punished
(probably by the new god Fire), fr. 74.
(ii) - The fiery soul in the body is nourished from
the hot blood-exhalation: the soul which has left the
body also needs to be nourished, probably from the
blood-exhalation of the sacrificed animals (fr. 72).
(iii) - When the withereal soul has left the body,
the remainder (earth and water?) is as worthless
as dung (fr. 76).
72
(98 DK; 38 B)
(α) Cf Plut. de facie in orbe lunae 943 DE ...ά κ τ ΐ ν ι

τήν δψιν έοικ υΐα ι1 (sc. a t ψ υχαί), π ερ ί2 δέ τήν φύσιν8,
ά νω κουφιζομένην ώ σπερ ένταΟθα, τώ ι π ερ ί τήν σελήνην
αίθέρι, κ α ί τόνον ά π ’ αύτοΰ4 κ α ί δύναμιν, οΐον τ ά στομού-
μενα βαφήν, ίσ χουσ ι- τό γ ά ρ ά ρ α ιόν έτι καί διακεχυ-
μένον^'ρώννυτοα καί .γ ίγ ν ε τα ι σταθερόν καί δ ια υ γές, ώσθ’
ύπό τή ς τυχούσης ά να θυμ ιά σ εω ς τρ έφ εσθα ι-5 καί κα λώ ς
Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ο ς εΐπεν δτι α ΐ ψ υ χ α ί ό σ μ ώ ν τα ι κ α θ ’ "Α ιδην.
1 έοικέναι ΕΒ, corr. Wyttenbach 2 περί codd., Chernies : πυρί

Wyttenbach, Sandbaeh, Pohlenz 3 φύσιν Sandbach, Chemiss : ψυχήν
codd. 4 άψ* αύτοΰ EB, corr. Wyttenbach 5 of. Cic. Tuso. Ϊ,
43 aletur (sc. animus) et sustentabitur iisdem rebus quibus astra susten-
tantur et aluntur (cf. de nat. deor. II, 118); Sext. Empir. adv. math. IX,
73 έκσκηνοι γοΰν ήλιου γενόμ εναι (sc. a t ψυχαί) τόν ύπό σελήνην
οίκοΰσι τόπον, ένθάδε τε δ ιά τήν ειλικρίνειαν του ά έρ ο ς πλεΐονα
π ρ ό ς διαμονήν λαμβάνουσι χρόνον, τροφήι τε χρ ώ ντα ι οίκεία ι τηι
ά π ό γ η ς Αναθυμιάσει ώ ς καί τ ά λο ιπ ά άστρα, τό διαλϋσόν τε
α ύ τά ς έν έκείνοις το ΐς τόπ οις ούκ δχουσιν et Η. Cherniss ad loc.
(6) R? Hippol. refut. I, 4,3 (p. 9 s. Wendl.; Box. 559;

31 A 62 DK) κ α ί ώ σπερ ό Ε μ π ε δ ο κ λ ή ς π ά ν τα τόν κ α θ’
ή μ α ς τόπον έφη κ α κώ ν μεστόν είνα ι κ α ί μ έχρ ι μέν1 σε
λήνης τ ά κ α κ ά φθάνειν έκ του π ερ ί γ ή ν τόπου ταθέντα,
π ερ α ιτέρ ω δέ μή χω ρεΐν, ά τε κα θα ρω τέρου του ύπέρ
σελήνην π α ντό ς δντος τόπου,2 ο ϋ τ ω κ α ί τ ώ ι Ή ρ α -
κ λ ε ί τ ω ι έ δ ο ξ ε ν . Cf. fr. 68 (118) (α10-11).
1 μέν Τ : δέ LBO 2 cf. ft. Plut. de fa d e 943 C; 928 D; Porphyr.

de bntro 11; Cleomed. de motu circ. corp. cael. I I, 3,99, et P. Capelle,
De tuna, stellte, lacteo orbe, animarum sedibus, Dias. Hal. Sax., 1917, p. 10
392
72 (98)
The souls use (the senje of) smell throughout Hades.
The saying is obscure. Assuming that Hades most likely

has here the traditional Homeric meaning of ‘the nether world’,
I would tentatively take the saying for an illustration of the
general rule that the fiery soul (both in the body and outside
of it) is always nourished from the moist exhalation: έξ ϋδατος
δέ ψυχή. As the living soul needs for its existence the exha
lation from blood, so the souls of the dead throughout Hades
need the exhalation from the fresh blood of the sacrificed ani
mals (Odyssey X I, 36 f.; 228), to can survive. A t the same
time, some correction of the Homeric view might have been
aimed at: the souls do not drink blood in Hades (as Odyssey XI,
98 and 153, has it), but they smell its hot exhalation.
A somewhat similar interpretation was shared by Diels,

VS* (“Die Seelennasen der Heroen erfreuen sich der irdischen
Α ναθυμιάσεις wie die Götter der κνΐσ α”), and by Mondolfo
(ZM, p. 304: “ .. .le anime per sussistere abbisognino di nutri-
inento [ά ν α θ υ μ ία σ ις]. . . ”).
Reinhardt (Parm. 195) and Kirk (A JP 70 [1949], 389;

cf. also Kirk-Raven 211 n. 3) seem to be depending on Plu
tarch’s Stoic context in (a), when they interpret Hades as
‘unsichtbares Luftreich’ and ‘a realm of fire’ [i. e. aither],
respectively. I think such ideas of Hades are not likely for
Heraclitus.
Starting from the “common view that the sense of smell

operates on objects drier than the smelling organ (de carnibus
16; Aristotle de sensu S, 444 a 22)”, Kirk interpreted the
393
saying so: “Souls use smell in Hades because they are sur
rounded by dry matter, than which they are but little less
dry.” I think this interpretation is not likely, because it seems
to contradict fr. 66 (36) έξ ϋδα το ς δέ ψυχή.
That the Homeric idea (‘the souls drink blood in Hades

to survive’) could have been reflected in this fragment, we
might perhaps deduce from Porphyr, de abstinentia II, 42
ζήι γ ά ρ τοΟτο (sc. τό πνευματικόν*1’) ά τμ ο ΐς κ α ί άνα-
θυμιάσεσι πο ικ ίλω ς δ ιά τω ν ποικίλω ν, κ α ί δ υ ν α μ ο G*
τ α ι τ α ΐ ς έκ τω ν α ι μ ά τ ω ν καί σαρκών
κ ν ί σ α ι ς.
For other interpretations of the fragment cf. ZN 893 n. 3;

ZM 304 f.; Kirk-Raven I. c.
<i) κ αί σω ματικόν add. Nauck ex Eus. et Cyr.
394
73
(63 ρ κ ; 123 Β)
(α) C? Hippol. refut. IX, 10,6 (ρ. 213 Wendl.). post

fr. 47 (62). λ έ γ ε ι δέ (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) καί σ α ρκός άνά-
στασιν τα ύτη ς < τ ή ς > 1 φ α νερα ς έν ήι γ ε γ εν ή μ εθ α 12, καί
τόν θεόν οΐδε τα ύ τη ς τή ς ά να σ τά σ εω ς αίτιον ούτω ς λέγω ν'
ένθ α 5’ έό ν τι3 έ π α ν ίσ τ α σ θ α ι4
κ α ί φ ύ λ α κ α ς 5 γ ίν ε σ θ α ι έ γ ε ρ τ ί ζώ ντω ν6 κ α ί νεκρώ ν.
1 τή ς add. Diels 2 cf. Hippol. tic u n iv e r s e pp. 139,49; 140,56 et

63 Holl ( T . ü . 20,2) 3 ένθα δέόντι Ρ : ένθάδ’ έόντας Wordsworth,
a c e . Bornays (G e s . A b it,, I, 77 et 103 s.) δ’ έόντι corruptum esse iud.
Reinhardt ( P a r m . 193 n.1), Walzer 102 (cf. I. Burnet 141 n. 4; G. Kirk-
I. Raven nr. 239; G. Guthrie 478 n. 1) : διά θεόν τε et θεόθεν τε ,
Bernays (G e s . Abh., I, 324; B r i e f e 38) : θεόν δει Sauppe : θεόν τιν'
Patin ( E in h e it s l e h r e 14) : λέγοντα ι ci. Wilamowitz 4 έτι άν-
ίστασθαι ci. Bywater 5 φ ύλακα ci. Sauppe (at cf. Hesiodi o p . 123)
6 έγερτιζόντω ν P, corr. Bernays (I, 324) έ γ ε ρ τ ί , ζω ντα ς έκ
νεκρώ ν Bernays ( B n e f e 38)' : έθνεσι ζώντων καί νεκρώ ν ci. Byw.
395
73 (63)
Before him (god?) there they (the heroes?) arise

and become the wakeful guardians of the quick and dead.
**
Hippolytus is quoting the saying to prove that H era

clitus shared the Christian doctrine on the resurrection of body
(and not of soul only); Hippolytus himself taught the same
(cf. Marcovich, Studia Patristica, V II, T. U. 92, Berlin, 1966,
261 f . ) . Thus the context of (a) cannot help us in the inter
pretation of this cryptic saying.
Nevertheless since Hippolytus saw τόν θεόν in the quoted

saying, the most likely is that he found it in the word έ 6 v τ i,
which then should not be changed (contra Reinhardt and
many others).
Moreover, line 2 seems to contain an allusion to Hesiod,

Erga 122 f. (cf. Plato Cratyl. 398 A; Republic 469 A):
το! μέν δαίμονές είσι Δ ιός μ εγά λο υ διά βουλάς
έσθλο(, έπιχθόνιοι φ ύλα κ ες θνητών άνθρώττων
and 252- f .
τρ ίς γ ά ρ μύριοί είσιν έττί χθονί πουλυβοτείρηι
ά θ ά να τοι Ζηνός φ ύλα κες θνητών άνθρώ πω ν
as already Bernays (I, 325), Diels, Gigon Ί 2 6 and others
pointed out. If so, then the subject of έπα νίσ τα σ θαι seem
to be the immortal heroes or θεο( from frr. 29 (53) and 47
(62) . The fragment might be classified also in Group 22 (cf.
especially fr. 97 [25] ) . "Whatever be its meaning, it seems
to imply that some souls, a t least, exist after the death of
body, as fr. 72 ( 98) does. That is why it is put here. Probably
396
έ ν θ α implies the same as κ α θ’ "Αιδην fr. 72; έ π α ν ί σ -
τ α σ θ α ι seems to imply simply ‘rise up’ (cf. Aristoph.
Plut. 539), and not ‘rise up at somebody’s word’ (as possibly
in Iliad II, 85) or ‘rise up one after another’ (as Eustath.
ad II. 1. c., p. 176,17, took i t ) . As for έ γ ε p τ i, cf. e. g.
Eurip. Rhes. 524 φρουρεΐν έγερ τι.
Diels’ interpretation of the saying is not likely, because

there is no evidence of an influence of the Mysteries upon
Heraclitus, and because fr. 48 (26) can be well explained in
terms of the everyday physiology of living men. I t reads: “Der
Gott erscheint. Die in der Finsternis des Todes Liegenden
erheben sich wie die Neophyten der Mysterien, zünden ihre
Fackel an dem Licht des Gottes an (B 26) und neugeboren
gelten sie nun in ihrem Lichtdasein als Wächter der Men
schen . . . ” Unlikely Ramnoux 60 ff.; 256 f .; 396 f f .; ZM 309.
Since (in view of the Hesiodic instances) these φ ύλακες

ζώ ντω ν are likely to be thought of as present everywhere on
earth, it could be that this saying was the source both for
Diogenes Laertius IX, 7 κ α ί π ά ν τ α ψ υ χ ώ ν ε ί ν α ι
κ α ί δ α ι μ ό ν ω ν τ τ λ ή ρ η (1) and for the anecdote ap.
Aristotle de part. anim. A 5, p. 645 a 17 ( = DK A 9) καί
κ α θά περ 'Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς λ έ γ ε τ α ι ΐΐρός το ύς ξένους είπεΐν
το ύς βουλομένους έντυχεΐν αύτώ ι, οΐ έπειδή προσιόντες
εΐδον αύτόν θερόμενον π ρ ό ς τώ ι ίπνώ ι έστησαν (έκέλευε
γ ά ρ α υτούς είσιέναι θ α ρ ρ ο Ο ν τ α ς - ε ί ν α ι γ ά ρ
κ α ί έ ν τ α υ θ α θ ε ο ύ ς ) , ο ϋ τ ω . . . <2) (so Gigon 126).
For other possibilities of explanation of the anecdote cf. Mar-
covich, RE 255,45 ff.
<»> Schleiermacher p. 495 = 120; fr. 131 B. Cf. Mich. Ephes. in A r i s t o t .

p a r t . a n im . p. 22,28 Hayduck . . . τ ά γάρ π ά ν τ α πλήρη
θ ε ώ ν ‘Η ρακλεΙτειόν έσ τι δ ό γ μ α (Walzer ρ. 12 η. 28).
The saying is attributed to Thales by Aristotle, d e a n im a A 5,

p. 411 a 7 ( = 11 A 22 DK) καί έν τώ ι δλ ω ι δή τινες αύτήν
397
(sc. τήν ψυχήν) μεμΐχθαί φασιν, δθ εν ίσω ς καί Θ αλής ώιήθη
πάντα πλήρη θεών εΐναι [cf. d e g e n . a n im . Γ 11,
• p. 762 a 21 π ά ντα ψυχής είναι πλήρη, and Chemiss, A r i s t o t l e ’s
C r itic is m etc., p. 296 n. 26]; Diog. Laert. I, 27 [ = Schol. in Plat.
r e m p . 600 A : VI, p. 360 Hermann] Θ α λ ή ς. . . κ α ί τ ό v κόσ
μ ο ν έμψυχον κ αί δ α ι μ ό ν ω ν π λ ή ρ η ; Agt. I, 7,11 ( D o r .
301; 11 A 23 DK) Θ α λ ή ς . .. τ ό δέ π α ν έμψυχον ά μ α καί
δαιμόνων πλήρες. Plato L a w s 899 Β refers to θ ε ώ ν
είναι πλήρη πάντα without mentioning the author, but
he might have in mind Thales.
<2> Schleiermacher, 1. c.; echoed by Plotinus III, 5 [50], 6, 17 H. ot S.
είσΐ καί ένταόθα θεοί.
398
74
(27 £>K; 122 Β)
(a) C Clem, ström. IV, 144,2 (II, p. 312 St.) τήν δέ

έλ π ίδ α τήν μ ετά θά να τον ού μόνον οί τήν β άρβαρον σο
φίαν μετιόντες ΐσασι το ΐς μέν ά γ α θ ο ΐς καλήν, το ΐς δέ
φ αύλοις έμπαλιν, ά λ λ ά κ α ί οί Π υ θ α γ ό ρ < ε > ιο ι· τέλος
γ ά ρ κάκεΐνοι τήν έλ π ίδ α ύπηγόρευον το ΐς φιλοσοφοΰσιν,
δπου γ ε κ α ί ό Σ ω κ ρ ά τη ς έν Φαίδωνι ‘μ ετά ά γ α θ ή ς έλπί-
δ ο ς’ φησί τ ά ς κ α λ ά ς ψ υχά ς ένθένδε ά π ιένα ι (Phaed. 67 C),
κ α ί π ά λ ιν τούς πονηρούς κ α κίζω ν άντιτίθησι ‘ζώ σι γ ά ρ
μ ετά κα κή ς έλ π ίδ ο ς’ λ έγ ω ν (resp. 330 Ε ). (3) συνάιδειν
τούτω ι καί ό Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ο ς φαίνεται δι* ών φησι π ερ ί των
άνθρώ πω ν δ ια λ εγό μ εν ο ς’
άνθρώπους μένει άποθανόντας

άσσα ούκ έλπονται οόδέ δοκέουσιν.
(Cf. Η. Wiese, Heraklit bei Klemens, 186 ss.). (Schl. fr. 52).
(a1) P Theodoret. Or. aff. cur. V III, 41. post fr. 97

(2 5 ).·έ κ ε ΐν ο δέ του Η ρ α κ λ είτο υ μ ά λα θαυμάζω , δτι
μένει τούς άνθρώπους ά ποθνήισκοντας
δσα ούκ έ λ π ο ν τ α ι ούδέ δοκέουσιν.
(Sehl, ad fr.).
(δ1) 1t Plut. de anima ap. Stob. IV, 52,49 (IV, p.

1092,18 Η.) ( = VII, p. 27 Plut. ed. Bernardakis). ‘κρύψαν-
τες γ ά ρ έχουσι θεοί βίον άνθρώ ποισ ι’ κ α τά τόν σοφόν
Η σ ίοδον (erga 42), ού σ αρκίνοις τισί δεσμοΐς πρ ός τό
σ ώ μα τήν ψυχήν κατατείναντες, ά λ λ ’ ένα δεσμόν αύτήι
κ α ί μίαν φυλακήν1 μηχανησάμενοι καί περιβαλόντες, τήν
ά δηλότητα καί ά πισ τία ν τω ν μετά τήν τελ ευ τή ν έπεί τήν
399
γ ε πεισθεΐσαν 8 ο α Α ν θ ρ ώ π ο υ ς π ε ρ ι μ έ ν ε ι τ ε ·
λ ε υ τ ή σ α ν τ α ς κ α θ’ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν ούδέν άν κ α τά σ χοι.
(Schl.).
1 φυλακήν A : μηχανήν S
(δ2) R Clem, protrept. 22,1 (I, ρ. 16 St.) ά ξ ια μέν

οδν νυκτός τά τελέσμοαα κ α ί πυρός καί τοΟ 'μ εγα λή -
τορ ος’ (μ ά λλον δέ μσταιόφρονος) ‘Έ ρ εχ θ ειδ ώ ν δή μ ου’
(cf. II. II, 547), π ρ ό ς δέ καί τω ν ά λλω ν Ε λ λ ή ν ω ν οϋστι-
να ς μ έ ν ε ι τ ε λ ε υ τ ή σ α ν τ α ς ά σ σ α ο ύ δ έ έ λ -
π ο ν τ α ΐ . seq. fr. 87 (14). ( = Enseb. praep. ev. II, 3,36).
(Cf. H. Wiese 9 s .) .
400
74 (27)
When men die there awaits them what they neither expect
nor even imagine.
**
The saying is obscure, but so far it seems to be likely

that it implies the survival of soul after the death (so e. g.
Zeller 892; Guthrie 477). The relation with fr. 76 (96) is not
likely, because it would contradict frr. 72 (98) and 73 (63).
Both ancient authors and modern scholars are puzzled

by the implication of Ι λ τ ι ε σ θ α ι here: (i) when men
die whether good things beyond any expectation and imagi
nation await them (as Plutarch in (b1) seems to have under
stood it); (ii) or the saying rather implies a threat of the
final judgment and punishment (as both Clement, in (a) and
(b2), and Gigon 129 have understood it); (iii) or else that
simply a neutral uncertainty about the things to happen after
one’s death is implied (so "Wiese, Heraklit bei Klemens, 189:
“Nicht einmal kann man mit Sicherheit von dem ‘drohenden
Ton’ (so Gigon 129) des Satzes sprechen, da ελπεσ θαι einfach
‘erwarten’ heisst (vgl. B 18). F ü r den Christen ist es natür
lich nicht schwierig, hierin eine Andeutung des jüngsten
Gerichts zu sehen”) .
I think (ii) is the most likely; because Ελπεσθαι implies

the expectation of favourable things (as it does in fr. 11 [18]);
and besides, it seems normal enough that men should expect
good things after the death: thus ίχσσα ο ό κ ελπονται
ούδέ δοκέουσιν must imply the unfavourable things, and (i)
and (iii) are pointless. The idea: ‘There awaits men what
they do not expect nor even imagine’ goes well with Hera
clitus’ paradoxical manner (‘They hope for the best, but will
401
receive the worst, which they well deserve’) . Moreover it corres
ponds with the threatening tone implied by fr. 82 (66) π ά ντα
τό πυρ έπελθόν κρινεΐ κ α ί καταλήψ εται.
Thus I would suppose that ά ν θ ρ ώ π ο υ ς does not

imply here ‘men in general’ but rather ‘the majority of men’
or ot πολλοί, cf. frr. 95 ( 29); 99 (20); 101 (104): “After
the death the brave, self-denying aristocratic heroes will be
rewarded (frr. 73 [65]; 97 [25]), while the lustful rich bour
geoisie of Ephesus will be somehow punished, probably by
the; new god F ire.” (Cf. also Frankel, Dichtung2, 449. Eam-
noux’s treatment of the fragment, pp. 134 f .; 421 f., was not
conclusive). The same negative implication of άνθρω ποι is
to be found also in frr. 1; 87 (14).
Clement paedag. I, 99,2 (I, p. 149,22 St.) δσηι γ ά ρ οΐος

ο ύ κ έ λ π ί ζ ε ι ς ο ύ δ’ ε ί κ ά σ α ι δύναιο άν could
be a stylistic borrowing from this saying, as "Wiese 188 n. 2
suggested.
402
75
(92 DK; 12 B)
(a) P Plut. de Pyth. orac. 397 AB τ ά χ α δή μεμψό-

μεθα τήν Πυθίαν δτι Γλαύκης ού φ θ έ γ γ ε τα ι τή ς κιθα-
ρωιδοΟ λιγυ ρ ώ τερ ο ν (cf. Schol. in Theocrit. 4, 31), ούδέ
χριομένη1 μύροις ούδ’ ά λ ο υ ρ γ ίδ α ς άμπεχομένη κάτεισιν2
εις τό < χ ρ η σ τή ρ ιο ν > 3, ούδ’ έπιθυμιαι κασίαν4 ή λήδανον
ή λιβανω τόν ά λ λ ά δάφνην καί κρίθινον άλευρον. ούχ
όραις, εΐπεν (sc. ό Σ α ρ α π ίω ν ), δσην χά ρ ιν έχει τ ά Σ α π φ ι
κά μέλη κηλουντα καί κ α τα θ έλγ ο ντα τούς ά κ ρ ο ω μ έν ο υ ς;
Σ ίβ υ λ λ α δέ μ α ινο μ έν ω ι σ τό μ α τ ι κ α θ’ 'Η ράκλειτον
ά γ έ λ α σ τ α κ α ί ά κ α λ λ ώ π ισ τα καί ά μ ύριστα φ θ ε γ γ ο μ έ ν η
χιλίω ν έτώ ν έξικ νεΐτα ι τήι φωνήι δ ιά τόν θεόν. 6 δέ
Π ίνδαρος άκοΟσαί5 φησι τοΰ θεού τόν Κάδμον '< έ π ιδ ε ικ -
νυμέν> ου° μουσικάν όρθάν’ (fr. 32 Sehr. = 13 Bowra2),
ούχ ή δεΐαν ούδέ τρυφ εράν ούδ’ έπικεκλασμένην το ΐς μέ-
λεσιν. (Schl. fr. 9).
1 χριομένην codd., corr. Vulcobius 2 άμπεχομένην καί τισιν codd.,

corr. Eeiske 3 χρηστήριον ex p. 405 C suppl. Paton : μαντείον
ex p. 438 B suppl. Babbitt : <5δυτον suppl. Beiske 4 κασσίαν
codd., corr. Duebner 5 άκούσας codd., corr. Leonicus 6 έπι-
δεικνυμένου ex p. 1030 A suppl. Paton, acc. Babbitt : ού codd. : del.
Amyot, Sieveking, Kirk
(a1) R Clem, ström. I, 70,3 (II, p. 44 St.) Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς

γ ά ρ ούκ ά νθρω πίνω ς φησίν, ά λ λ ά σύν θεώ ι < τ ό > μέλ
λον1 Σ ιβ ύλλη ι2 πεφ ά νθα ι3. Cf. Euseb. praep. ev. X, 4,25.
(Ex Plutarcho: cf. E. Rohde, Psyche9'™, p. 69 n. 1; H. Wiese,
Ileraklit bei Klemens, 105 ss.). (Schl, ad fr.).
1 τό μέλλον Mayor : μάλλον L 2 Σίβυλλαν Dindorf et Hervet

3 πεφάνσθαι L, corr. Sylburg
403
(6l ) It? Iambi, de mysteriis III, 8 (p. 117,6 Parthey)
κ α ί λ ό γ ο υ ς μέν προϊεμένη (sc. ή ά π ό τω ν θεώ ν πα ρ ούσ α
επ ικ ρ ά τεια ) ού μ ετά δια νο ία ς δέ < α ύ > τ ώ ν ι λεγόντω ν,
άλλά μαινομένωι, < ώ ς > 2 φασι, στ ό μάτι
φ θ ε γ γ ο μ έ ν ω ν αύτούς, κ α ι υπη ρετούνταν δλω ν καί
πα ρ α χω ρ ούντω ν μόνηι τήι του κρατουντος ένερ γεία ι.
(Schl.).
1 αυτών scr. : τών codd., edd. 2 ώς add.
(b2) E? Hippolyt, refut. V, 8,6 (p. 90,5 Wencll.) λέ-

γο υ σ ι δέ αύτό κα'ι "Ε λληνες, φησίν (sc. Naasscnns qnidnin),
ούτω ς μ α ι ν ο μ έ ν ω ι σ τ ό μ α τ ι . . .
(b3) R? Plotin. II, 9 [33], 18,20 Η. et S. ή άδελφ ούς

μέν κ α ί τούς φ α υλοτάτους άξιοΰσι προσεννέπειν, ήλιον
δέ κ α ί το ύς έν τώ ι ούρανώ ι ά παξιοΰσιν άδελφ ούς λέγειν,
ούδέ τήν1 κόσμου ψυχήν σ τ ό μ α τ ι μαινομένωι;
1 τήν τοΟ BEJ
(b*) R? Procl. in remp. I, p. 140,14 Kroll ού π ρ ο ς

νέους ό λ ό γ ο ς ούδέ π α ιδ ευ τικ ώ ς τ ά το ια ύ τα γρά φ ομ εν,
άλλά μ α ι ν ο μ έ ν ω ι σ τ ό μ α τ ι - κ α ι τα ύ τα ή μ α ς
ή τώ ν Μουσών έ ρ γ ά ζ ε τ α ι μα νία (cf. Plat. Phaedr. 245 A)...
p. 166,20 ού γ ά ρ έστιν μ α ι ν ο μ έ ν ω ι σ τ ό μ α τ ι
λ έγ ο ν τα τώ ν τοιούτω ν όνομάτω ν ά π έ χ ε σ θ α ι...
(c) It? Ps. Herncliti epist. V III (p. 76,29 Bywaler)

Σίβυλλα έν π ο λλο ΐς κ α ί τούτο έφ ρ ά σ θη . . . είδέ σε
πρό τοσούτου αίώνος, Έ ρ μ ό δ ω ρ ε, ή Σ ί β υ λ λ α έκεί-
νη κ α ί τότε ήσθα, Έ φ έσ ιο ι δέ ούδέ νυν βούλονται όραν
δν διά θ ε ο φ ο ρ ο υ μ έ ν η ς γυ να ικ ό ς ’Α λήθεια έβλεπε.
(Cf 1 I. Bernays, Z>ie heraklitischen Briefe, p. 87).
404
75 (92)
The Sibyl with raving month utters mirthless things.
It is not easy to determine the precise extent of the frag

ment. On the one hand Bywater, Burnet, Nestle (fr. 35),
Mazzantini, Wheelwright (fr. 79) accepted the whole sentence
from Σ ίβ υ λ λ α down to δ ιά τόν θεόν as genuine, and Schleier-
macher, Diels, Kranz, Walzer omitted only the words χιλίω ν
έτών έξικ νεΐτα ι τήι φωνήι. On the other hand Frankel
(ap. Kranz, V S5, ad fr.) and Hölscher (Festgabe Karl Rein
hardt, 81 n. 28) accepted only Σ ίβ υ λ λ α μαινομένω ι στόματι
as genuine, and Reinhardt (Nachlass 84 f. ap. Wiese, Heraklit
bei Klemens, 317) rejected even the word Σ ίβ υ λ λ α as added
by Plutarch. Between these two extreme views I share Kirk’s
conclusion (Anales de Füologia Cläsica, University of Buenos
Aires, 7 [1959], 5 ff.; cf. independently Marcovieh, A JP 83
[1962], 207) that the text: Σ ίβ υ λ λ α μαινομένω ι στόματι
ά γ έλ α σ τα φ θ έγ γ ετα ι is likely to bo genuine.
Namely, Σ ί β υ λ λ α must belong to Heraclitus, because

Plutarch is speaking of Pythia, not of the Sibyl (so Rohde 1. c.;
cf. Rzach, RE 2 A 2, 2089 f.; Wiese 109 and n. 6; contra Rein
hardt 1. e.), and because of testimonium (c), which most
probably docs not depend on Plutarch. ά γ έ λ α σ τ ο ς , in
the same passive meaning (‘not to be laughed a t’, ‘mirthless’)
is to be found in Acschyl. Choeph. 30 ά γ ελ ά σ το ις ξυμφ οραΐς
•πειτληγμένων, and it is more probable than not that it is
genuine; Plutarch then expanded Heraclitus’ ά γ έ λ α σ τα by
adding καί ά κ α λ λ ώ π ισ τα καί ά μ ύριστα (Kirk 1. c.). Finally,
ά γ έλ α σ τα presupposes some verb, e. g. φ θ έ γ γ ε τ α ι .
The end of the sentence is likely to be supplied by Plutarch
405
(cf. Bouchö-Leclercq, Histoire de la divination, Paris, 1879,
II, p. 186, and K irk ).
The implication of the saying is obscure. Kirk-Raven

nr. 248 supposed that the saying looks like a justification of
the unadorned oracular method of exegesis (cf. also Guthrie
414). I don't think it is likely, because ά γ έ λ α σ τ α implies
much more than ‘unadorned.’
I tentatively suggested (R E 303,65 ff.) that these ‘mirth

less things’ (ά γ έ λ α σ τ α ) might allude to some eschatological
teaching of Heraclitus (e. g. to a 'final judgment’ of souls
by say Fire, cf. fr. 74 [27] ) . Thus the saying might be perhaps
taken as justification of such a doctrine implying: ‘Also the
Sibyl speaks of mirthless things, and yet they arc a word of
tru th ’, the idea of a true teaching being implied both by
Σ ίβ υ λ λ α and by the phrase μαινομένω ι στόματι, ‘with
mouth inspired by God’. Reinhardt’s remark: “Lob der Sibylle
bei Heraklit sehr unwahrscheinlich” is not likely to me, because
of fr. 14 (93).
The Neoplatonist instances adduced under (h) seem to

suggest that the phrase μ α ι ν ο μ έ ν ω ι σ τ ό μ α τ ι has
become by time a ‘winged word’. I think it is an echo of this
saying, though the phrase does not imply in (b2), (b3) and (b4)
more than ‘with poetic inspiration’ (contra E. Brehier, Plotin,
Paris, 1956, IT, p. 137: ‘tellcment leur langage s’ egave’,
testim. b3) .
76
(96 DK; 85 B)
(a) C Strabo, XVI, 26 (p. 784 Cas.) ίσ α κοπρ ία ις

ή γουντα ι (sc. οί Ν αβαταϊοι) τά νεκ ρ ά σώ ματα, κα θά περ
'Η ρ ά κ λειτός φησι νέκ υ ες κ ο π ρ ιώ ν έ κ β λ η τό τ ε ρ ο ι'1 διό
καί π α ρ ά τούς κοπρώ νας κατορύττουσι καί τούς βασιλείς.
1 καθάπερ — έκβλητότεροι ‘haec fort, in marginem reicienda’ Meineke
(b) C I’lut. quaest. conviv. IV, 4,3 (668 F - 669 A)

ώ ς γ ά ρ τά χ ρ ώ μ α τα < τ ο υ φ ω > τ ό ς 1, ούτω ς οί χυμ οί < το 0
ά > λ ό ς 2 δέονται πρ ος τό < κ ιν η > σ α ι3 τήν α ΐσ θ η σ ιν εί δέ
μή4, β α ρείς τήι χεύσ ει προσ πίπτουσ ι κ α ί να υτιώ δεις. ν έ-
κ υ ε ς γ ά ρ κ ο π ρ ι ώ ν έ κ β λ η τ ό τ ε ρ ο ι καθ’ Η ρ ά
κλειτον, κρ έα ς δέ π α ν νεκρόν έστι κ α ί νεκρού μέρος· ή
δέ τω ν ά λώ ν δύναμ ις ώ σπερ ψυχή πα ρ α γενομ ένη χά ρ ιν
αύτώ ι καί ήδονήν προστίθησι. (Schl. fr. 43).
1 lac. litt. 6 s. 7 T, suppl. Benseler 2 lac. litt. 2 s. 3 T, euppl.

Turneb. 3 lac. litt. 4 8. 5 T, suppl. Turn. 4 έμή codd., corr.
Stoplmn.
(c) C Cclsus up. Origen, c. Cels. V, 14 (II, p. 15,19

Koetschau) καί ψυχής μέν αιώ νιον βιοτήν δύναιτ’ &ν πα-
ρασχεΐν (sc. ό θεός), ν έ κ υ ε ς δέ, ψησιν Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς,
κ ο π ρ ί ω ν έ κ β λ η τ ό τ ε ρ ο ι . σ ά ρ κ α δή, μεστήν ών
ούδέ είπεΐν καλόν, αίώ νιον άποψήναι π α ρ α λ ό γ ω ς ούτε
βουλήσεται ό θεός ούτε δυνήσεται. (Schl.).
Cf.V, 24 (II, ρ. 25,12).
407
(d) C Schol. TB in Iliad. XXIV, 54 . . . ή δτι άπό
γ η ς τό σ ώ μα καί δτι βαρύ και γεώ δες, ώ ς καί Ε μ π ε δ ο
κλής φησι, καί 'Η ράκλειτος· ν έ κ υ ε ς κ ο π ρ ι ώ ν έ κ-
β λ η τ ό τ ε ρ ο ι. Locum male intellexit Eustath. p. 1338,47
Bas.
Cf. Schol. BT in Iliad. X X II, 414 (Ps. Epicharmi) είμΐ

νεκρός, ν ε κ ρ ό ς δέ κ ό π ρ ο ς . . . (Μ. Haupt, Opus
cule, Lips. 1876, II, ρ. 191).
(e) C Georg. Cedren. hist, campend. 157 C (I, p. 276

Bekker) τέτα ρ το ς Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς, κ α ί α ύτός σχεδόν σύμ
φω να τώ ι Π υθα γόρ α ι φ θεγξά μ ενος. έφη δ έ- ν έ κ υ ε ς
κ ο π ρ ί ω ν έ κ β λ η τ ό τ ε ρ ο ι . οδτος ήν έπ ΐ Δ αρείου
του Ύ στάσπου. (Schl.).
(/) C Plotin. V, 1 [10], 2, 40 Η. et S. έστι δέ καί

ή λιο ς θεός, δτι έμψυχος, κ α ί τ ά ά λ λ α άσ τρα, κ α ί ήμεΐς,
εΐπ ερ τι, δ ιά τοΟτο' ν έ κ υ ε ς γ ά ρ κ ο π ρ ί ω ν έ κ-
βλητότεροι.
(g) C Mich. Acominat. epist. 170,1 (II, ρ. 335,15 Lam-

pros) δ δέ γ ε Δ ημόκριτος ν έ κ υ έ ς φησι κ ο π ρ ί ω ν
έκβλητότεροι.
(h) R Pollux, V, 163 (I, ρ. 304,'5 Bethc) (έπΐ τοϋ

μηδενός ά ξιου)· τώ ν έν τα ΐς τριόδοις κα θα ρ μ ά τω ν έκ-
βλητότερος, κ ο π ρ ί ω ν έ κ β λ η τ ό τ ε ρ ο ς ’, εί δει
κ α θ’ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν λ έ γ ε ιν . . . (Schl.).1
1 κοπρίων έκβλ. om. FS, omnia om. B
(t) R Iulian. orat. VII, 226 C δει γ ά ρ αύτόν (sc.

τόν Κ υνικόν). . . ό λ ιγω ρ εΐν δέ πάντη του σ ώ μ ατος καί
408
νομίζειν αυτό κ α τά τόν Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν κ ο π ρ ί ω ν έ κ-
β λ η τ ό τ ε ρ ο ν , έκ του 'ράιστου δέ α ύτώ ι1 τά ς θ ερ α
π ε ία ς άποπληροΟν, έω ς άν ό θεός2 ώ σπερ ό ρ γ ά ν ω ι τώ ι
σ ώ μ ατι χρήσ θα ι έπιτά ττηι. (Suda s. Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς; Georg.
Cedren. 1. e .).
1 αύτώι Suda : αύτοΰ codd., Cedren. : αύτώι Hertlein, Wright 2

£ως &v δ θεός Suda, Cedren. : £ως <3tv lae. litt. 5 V
Cf. ft. Diog. Laert. VI, 79 ένιοι δέ φασι τελευτώ ντα

αύτόν (so. Diogenem Cynieum) [καί] έντείλασ θα ι ά τ α
φ ο ν 'ρ ΐ ψ α ι, ώ ς π α ν θηρίον αύτου μ ε τ ά σ χ ο ι.. . ; Cic.
Fuse. J, 104 dnrior Diogenes, ct is qnidem eadem sentiens,
sod ut Cynicns asperius: proici se inssit inhumatum.
(I) It Philo, de fuga et invent. 61 (III, p. 123 W.)

...ά θ ά ν α τ ο ν (sc. κακόν) δ’ έν τώ ι π α ρ ’ ήμΐν βίωι (sc.
έστίν ή ά σ έβεια ), έπε’ι π ρ ό ς γ ε την έν θεώ ι ζω ήν άψυχον
καί ν ε κ ρ ό ν καί κ ο π ρ ί ω ν , ώ ς έφη τις, έ κ β λ η-
τ ό τ ε ρ ο ν.
409
\
76 (96)
Corpses are more fit to be cast out than dung.
The saying (which has become very popular among the

Greeks) seems to imply a criticism of the traditional fune
ral practices (Gigon 133 referred to Theognis 1191-94):
cf. especially fr. 86 (5), lines 7-9. The reason for such a radi
calism might be that the fiery soul (made of aither?) is eternal
(at least that of the godlike heroes or α ρ ισ τ ο ι), the body
(made of earth? [cf. test, tfj) without the soul being as worth
less as dung (cf. fr. 86, line 9 οϋ τι γινώ σ κω ν θεούς ούδ’
ί)ρω ας οΐτινές ε ίσ ι) .
I think the fragment was correctly interpreted by Burnet

151 (“Man is made up of three things, fire, water, and earth.
But, just as in the macrocosm fire is identified with the one
wisdom, so in the microcosm the fire alone is conscious. When
• it has left the body, the remainder, the mere earth and water,
is altogether worthless”) ; by Gigon 1. c. (with the exception
of the words: “Die Seele wird L u f t.. . ”), and by Guthrie 477
(with the exception of the words: “Somewhat in favour of an
‘Orphic’ strain in Heraclitus is a further criticism of custo
mary r ite s ... cf. Gigon).
Anyway the radicalism of the Enlightener seems to be

visible enough.
410
GROUPS
SEVENTEEN TO TWENTY ONE
Groups 17-21 deal ivith Heraclitus’ Theology.

(i) - Group 20 contains the criticism of the tradi
tional beliefs, cults and rites. In the rest of these
groups the features of the new doctrine on God-Fire
are expounded.
(ii) - In Group 18 God appears as separated from
world, as the supreme Steersman, Shepherd and
•Judge of men, very alike to the Homeric Zens.
(iii) - Group 19 speaks of God-Fire as absolute
Wisdom, and Group 21 emphasizes the essential diffe
rence betiveen the true knowledge which has only
God, and the false or incomplete knowledge of man.
(iv) Finally, Group 17 links Heraclitus’ God with
his Physics.
411
GROUP SEVENTEEN
F rr.7 7 (67)·, 78 (7).
Heraclitus’ God appears also as inherent in the

ivorld. God-Fire is the underlying essence of all
things, undergoing qualitative changes. F rr. 77 and
78 seem to illustrate the non-evidcnt thesis that all
things are actually different forms of fire, by two
concrete examples: the relation between fire (im ply
ing God) and spices, between smoke and scents.
77
(67 DK; 36 B)
(a) C Hippolyt, r e f u t . IX, 10, 8 (p. 244 Wendland)

έν δέ τούτω ι τώ ι κ εφ α λα ίω ι π ά ντα όμοΟ τόν ίδιον νουν
έξέθετο (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς), ά μ α δέ κ α ι τόν τη ς Νοητού
αίρέσεω ς, < δ ν > ' δ ι’ ό λ ίγ ω ν έπέδειξα ούκ δντα Χρίστου
ά λ λ ά Η ρ α κ λ είτο υ μαθητήν, τόν γ ό ρ ποιητόν2 κόσμον
αυτόν δη μιουργόν κ α ί ποιητήν έαυτου γινόμενον ουτω
λ έ γ ε ι’
ό θ εό ς
ή μ ερ η εύφ ρ όνη 1, χ ε ιμ ώ ν θέρ ος,
3 π ό λ εμ ο ς είρήνη, κ ό ρ ο ς λ ιμ ό ς
(τά να ντία ά π α ντα , ά δτος4 ό νους)·
ά λ λ ο ιο ΰ τ α ι δ έ δ κ ω σ π ερ < π Ο ρ > \
< δ > ° ό κ ό τα ν 7 σ υ μ μ ιγ ή ι θ υ ώ μ α σ ιν
6 ό ν ο μ ά ζ ε τ α ι8 κ α θ ’ ή δονή ν έκ ά σ το υ .
1 8ν add. suad. edd. Gott., aee. Wendland cctt. 2 πρώτον P, corr.

Bornays 3 εύφράνθη P, corr. Miller 4 ώυτός Bergk ( O p u s c .,
IT, p. 86 n. 4) et Heidel ( P r o c . A m e r . A c a d , o f A r t s 48 [1913] p. 704 ss.)
etiam haee verba Heraelito attribuentes 5 δκωσπερ < π 0 ρ > suppl.
Diels (conl. Pind. fr. 130 Sehr. [= fr. 1141' Bowra] αίεΐ θύα μειγνόντων
π U p l τηλεφανεΐ παντοΐα θεών έπΐ βωμοΐς; A n e e d . P a r . ed. I. A. Cra
mer, I, p. 167,17 olov γ ά ρ καί τό π 0 p πάσχει πρός τά θυόμενα, είτε
λιβανωτός είτε ά ρ< ώ > μ ατα [seripsi: δέρματα cod.], τήν όδμήν
σαφηνίζει τοΰ έκατέρου' ταύτό δή τούτο καί ό οίνος ποιεί' όποιον
μέν ά ν τύχηι είδος [seripsi: ήθος cod.] έν αύτώι θυμιώμενον, τοιοΰ-
τος γίνεται; t e s t , h ) , aee. Burnet, Wendland, Kranz cett. : δκως
πυρ T. Davidson ( A J P 5 [1884], p. 503) et E. Nestle ap. E. Pflei-
derer, p. 353 ss. : δκως άήρ ei. Zeller p. 833 n. 2 : δκωσπερ <μΰ-
pov> Heidel p. 708 : δκωσπερ <£λαιον> H. Fraenkel ( Τ Α Ρ Α
69 [1938], p. 234 ss. = W e g e * , p. 241 ss.; D i c h t u n g *, p. 442), aee.
Snell : <ο!νος> post θυώμασιν suppl. Bergk, Schuster p. 188, acc.
Schaefer ( D i e P h i l o s , d . H e r . etc., Lips. 1902, p. 64), Brieger ( H e r r n .
39 [1904], p. 193): <θύωμα> θυώμασιν Bernays (BA. M u t . 9 [1854],
p. 245 = Ges. A b h . , I, p. 78), ace. Bunsen, edd. Gott., Bywater
413
(< θ υ ώ μ α τα > θυώμασιν Mullach fr. 86) : συμμιγέα θυώ μα<τα
δισφόροις όνόμα>σιν ci. R. Scott 6 8 addidi 7 edd. : 6n6-
ταν P 8 δζεταί Lortzing ( B P h W 26 [1906] nr. 1), acc. W. Schultz
( A r c h i v 22 [1909], p. 197) : οίνομέλι susp. Roeper : < 8 > όνομάζεται
P. Cruice, 8 νομίζεται Wordsworth
(b) R? Sethiani ap. Hippolyt, r e f u t . V, 21, 2 (p. 123 W.)

λέγο υσ ιν οδν οί ΣηθιανοΙ τόν π ερ ί κ ράσ εω ς κ α ί μίξεω ς
λ ό γο ν συνεστάναι τώ ιδε τώ ι τρόπωι" τήν ά κ τΐνα τήν φω
τεινήν άνω θεν έγκ εκ ρ ά σ θ α ι κ α ί τόν σ πινθήρα τόν έλά-
χιστον [έν]1 το ΐς σκοτεινοΐς υδα σ ι κάτω κ α τα μ εμ ΐχθ α ι λεπ-
τώ ς κ α ί συνηνώσθαι κ α ί γ ε γ ο ν έ ν α ι [έν]2 Εν φ ύρα μ ά τ ι3, ώ ς
μίαν όσ μ ήν έκ π ο λ λ ώ ν κ α τ α μ ε μ ι γ μ έ ν ω ν
έ π I τ ο Ο π υ ρ ό ς θ υ μ ι α μ ά τ ω ν " (3) κ α ί δ εΐ τόν
έπιστήμονα τή ς όσφρήσεω ς ϊχ ο ν τ α κριτήριον ε υ α γ έ ς
ά π ό τή ς μια ς του θυ μ ιά μ α το ς όσμής δ ι α κ ρ ί ν ε ι ν
λ επ τώ ς Ι κ α σ τ ο ν τ ω ν κ α τ α μ ε μ ι γ μ έ ν ω ν έ π ί
του πυρός θυμιαμάτων, οίονει σ τύ ρ α κ α και
σμύρναν καί λίβανον ή εΐ τι ά λ λ ο εΐη μεμιγμένον.
1 έν del. 2 έν del. 3 Sv φύραμά τι scr. : ivl φυράματι

Ρ edd.
Cf. V, 19,4 (ρ. 117,4 W.) τό δέ φως πέφυκε κ α θά περ

ά κ τίς1 ήλίου άνω θεν έλλά μ π ειν είς τό ύποκείμενον σκό
τος, ά νά π α λιν δέ ή του πνεύμ α τος εύω δία μέσην έχουσ α 2
τά ξιν έκ τείνετα ι καί φ έρεται πα νταχή ι, ώ ς έ π ί τ ω ν
έν π υ ρ ! θυμιαμάτων τήν εύωδίαν παν-
τα χή ι φερομένην έπεγνώ κ α μ εν. X, 11, 3 (ρ. 270,19) . . .ώ σ
π ερ ή τω ν θυμια μά τω ν όσμή έπί τώ ι πυρί φέρεται. X,
11,2 (ρ. 270,13).
1 άκτίς Bernays : δή τ(ς Ρ 2 μέση έχουσαν Ρ, corr. Miller
(c) R? Philodem, d e p i e t a t e 6a (p. 70 Gomperz) restit.

Croenert et Diels, post fr. 79 ( 6 4 ) b . σ υμ β ]α ινεί δέ κα[1 τά ]-
να ντία θ ε [ΐα θ ε]ΐν α ι νύκτα [ή μ έ ρ α ν ...
414
77 (67)
God is ^
day and night, winter and summer;
3 war and peace, satiety and hunger;
and. he takes various shapes (or undergoes alteration)
/ just as fire does,
which, when it is mingled ivith spices,
6 is named according to the scent of each of them.
This important saying was object of special attention by

Kirk 184-201; H. F ränkd (Wege-, 237-250); Deichgräber
(Rhythmische Elemente etc., 490-96) ; a summary is to be found
in Marcovich, R E 305.
The word-orcbr in lines 2-3 is due to the chiastic figure:

a b : b1 a1; c d : d1 c1 (Deichgräber 492). These four pairs
of opposites should be thought of only as examples (although
probably as typical ones) of any other pair of opposites (cf.
Frankel 238). The former two pail’s come from the sphere of
natural processes, the latter two from the social one.
ά λ λ ο ι ο Ο τ α ι , attacked by Heidel (Archiv f. Gesch.

d. Philos. 19 [1906], 333 n. 1) and Fränkel 238 n. 3, was
convincingly defended both by Kirk 189 f. and Deichgräber
490 f. The verb implies qualitative change, as do μεταβάλλειν,
fr. 56a (84a); δια χέεσ θ α ι (cf. τρ ο π α ί), fr. 53 (31). Because
also the spices have each one a different taste or scent.
π υ ρ is the most likely supplement here, in view of the

parallel instances adduced by Diels. Moreover, the scribe of
Parisinus, Michael, was in a trouble here: in the manuscript
the words δκ ω σ περ όπόταν are written in the end of the
line, with two supra-linear writings, one above the other. In
such circumstances Michael, otherwise known as highly careless,
415
is likely to have omitted both π υρ after -περ and δ before
άπόταν.
The presence of πΟρ here is of great interest: it seems

to be much more than a simple comparison (δ κ ω σ π ερ ), allud
ing to the very essence of god: fire (cf. Group 18).
I find the addition δ, in line 5, necessary for the syntaxis

of lines 4-6. A t the same time, it brings πΟρ even more close to
ό θεός and makes it clear that όνομ άζεται refers to πυρ,
not to δ θεός (contra G. Calogero, Giorn. Grit. Film. It. 17
[19361,218).
ή δ ο ν ή (LSJ, s. v., II) implies the objectively existing

scent (taste, savour or flavour) of eeaeh one of the spices
(cf. also Kirk 197: contra Nestle fr. 76 and in Philol. 67
[1908], 536: “und w ird .. .nach jedermanns Belieben benannt” ).
Consequently, ό ν ο μ ά ζ ε τ α ι must imply an objective
value, and not that the names are products of each man’s fancy.
This goes well with Heraclitus’ belief that the names reflect
a certain p art of the very essence of things, “that they repre
sent something real, but not necessarily the whole truth about
an object” (Kirk 198; contra Nestle I. c., Kranz ad fr.). For
example, the name of a thing is ήμέρη, its contents is π υ ρ :
it cannot be that “der Name bezeichnet gerade nicht die Sache”
(as in the later phrase όνόματι μέν. .. φύσει δέ), since
ήμέρη is only an alteration (άλλοίω σ ις, μεταβολή, τροπή )
of the universal πυρ. In frr. 39 (48) and 40 (12) ‘name’ of
an object and its ‘function’ or ‘contents’ were even equipollent,
in accordance with the parity and coincidence of opposites.
The saying seems to imply the following. In the majority

of theological fragments Heraclitus’ god appears as separated
from things: as the supreme Steersman or Governor (frr. 79
[64]; 85 [44]), Shepherd (fr. 80 [44].) and Judge (frr. 81
[46]; 82 [66]); in short, as some sort of the all-wise Zeus
41 d
(μητίετα Ζεύς, et', fr. 84 [32] ) . Now, Heraclitus was aware
of this dualism, and he intented in this fragment to bring his
god back to the things, to make him inherent in the ivorld.
Tliis was not difficult, since fieraclitus’ god, as far as engaged
in the world-processes, must be thought of as some kind of fire.
Thus this saying appears as a (less convincing) double of
frr. 51 ( 30 ) ; 53 (31 ) ; 54 ( 90 ) . God-Fire is the underlying
essence of all things, undergoing qualitative changes.
The presence of pairs of opposites (lines 2-3) there where

we would rather expect particular things is striking, since in
Heraclitus’ Physics fire is operating in individual things, pheno
mena or processes severally, and not in pairs of opposites
(cf. e. g. sea, sky-fire, earth, sun, moon, stars, seasons, year
and the Great-Year, lightning, rain, wind; χ ρ ή μ α τα in fr. 54;
θ υώ μ α τα here; π ά ντα in fr. 78 [7]). Thus I would take
the pairs of opposites here either as some routine-manner of
Heraclitus or as an intended suture with his Logos-doctrine
(cf. τόν αύτόν άπά ντω ν in fr. 51), in both cases without a
great interest; contra Kirk 201: “The chief importance of the
fragment lies in what it tells us about the opposites and their
relation to each o th er... Once again the essential unity of
opposites is asserted. . . ”
I don’t think that the different spices and scents suggest

here pairs of opposites: they rather allude to individual things.
For example, fire is the very content of Day (say 90%) and
of Night (say 10%) separately, but not of the pair Day-Night
as one thing (by the way, all the opposites which appear in
this saying are successive, not simultaneous). Moreover, the
verb άλλοιουσθαι implies the process of qualitative change
(as is the case elsewhere in Heraclitus’ Physics), not a simple
‘changing each other’s place’ (as is the case with μεταπίπτειν
within the Logos-doctrine, cf. fr. 41 [88] and Gigon 147).
Finally, the majority of the opposites mentioned here appear
also in Heraclitus’ physical Doctrine on Fire, not only in his
Doctrine on the Logos: ‘day’, ‘night’, ‘summer’, ‘winter’, ‘hun
ger’, ‘satiety’, frr. 59 ( 106 ) ; 61; 55 ( 65 ).
417
78
(7 DK; 37 B)
(α) P Aristot. de sensu 5, p. 443 a 21 δοκ εΐ δ ’ ένίοις

ή καπνώ δης ά να θυμ ία σ ις είνα ι όσμή, ο δσ α κοινή γ η ς
τε1 κ α ί ά έρ ο ς [κα ί π ά ντες έπιφ έρονται έπ ί τούτο π ερ ί
ό σ μ ή ς]2> διό καί Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς ούτω ς είρηκεν, ώ ς ε ΐ π ά ν τ α
τ ά δντα κ α π νό ς γ έ ν ο ιτ ο 3, ‘ρ ίν ε ς 4 öcv δ ια γ ν ο ΐε ν , < κ α ί
π ά ντες έπιφέρονται έπ ΐ τοΰτο π ερ ί όσμής > 5, οί μέν ώ ς
ά τμ ίδα , οΐ δ’ ώ ς άναθυμίασιν, οί δ* ώ ς άμφω τα υ τ α - έστι
δ ’ ή μέν ά τμ ίς ύγρ ό τη ς τις, ή δέ καπνώ δης άναθυμίασις,
ώ σπερ είρηται, κοινόν ά έρ ο ς καί γ η ς ' καί συνίσταται
έκ μέν έκείνης ϋδωρ, έκ δέ τα ύτης γ η ς τι εΐδος.
(Sehl. fr. 24).
1 τε EM, Alex, (paraphr.) : om. LSUWX P, Alex, (lemma) 2 καί—

όσμής eodd., Alex, (lemma) : in w . 24-25 (post <5v διαγνοΐεν) transpo-
nere suad. Poerster, aec. Ross2 (cf. p. 214) conl. Alex, paraphrasi :
damn. Thurot alii 3 γέγνοιτο EM (γίγνοιτο Biehl) 4 δτι
'ρΐνες EM P 5 < > Poerster, Ross : έπί (έιτεί EM) δέ την όσμήν
πάντες έπιφέρονται codd. : έπεί δέ τήν όσμήν π. έπιφ. < έπ Ι τοΰτο>
ci. Christ, acc. Bielil : περί δέ τής όσμής π. έπιφ. < έπΙ τούτο>
Kirk ρ. 232
(α1) It Alexander in lib. de sensu ρ. 02,22 Wendhiml

...Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ο ν λ έγ ο ν τα ' ε ί π ά ν τ α τ ά όντα ή ν
κ α π ν ό ς , ‘ρ ΐ ν ε ς ά ν δ ι ε γ ί γ ν ω σ κ ο ν κ α ί έγνώ -
ριζον αύτά, δηλονότι τώ ι α ίσθάνεσ θαι αύτών, ώ ς του
καπνού όντος ίδιου αίσθητοΟ τα ΐς ‘ρισίν.
418
78 (7)
I f all things became smoke,

the nostrils would distinguish them.
Aristotle’s context is misleading: cf. Chemiss, Aristotle’s

Criticism etc., 322 and Kirk 233 f. The saying is obscure. I
would agree with Schleiermacher p. 366 ( = 36) in believing
that the emphasis is on & v δ ι α γ ν ο ΐ ε ν (‘If all things
turned to smoke, nevertheless the noses ivould distinguish
them’) . Moreover, the parallelism between this fragment and
fr. 77 (f>7) is striking:
πάντα θυώ ματα

καπνός πυρ
άν διαγνοΐεν όνομάζεται
('ρΐνες ή δ ο ν ή)
Now, both Reinhardt (Parm. 180 n. 2) and Gigon 57

supposed in κ α π ν ό ς some metaphor for the unity of
this world-order. Reinhardt interpreted the saying so: “In aller
stofflichen Verschiedenheit der Dinge steckt eine verborgene
Einheit; gesetzt es würden alle Dinge zu Rauch, so sähen wir
mit unseren Augen eine Einheit, und doch würde die Nase noch
zwischen den Gerüchen unterscheiden; nun ist aber zwischen
dem Geruchsinne und den übrigen Sinnen kein Unterschied.”
(So also Gigon: “das eine Organ würde die Einheit sehen und
das andere zugleich die Vielheit riechen. So ist beides mög
lich”) . This was accepted both by Kirk 235 ad Guthrie 444 n. 2.
However in view of the close relation of this fragment

with fr. 77 I would suppose that καπνός is not here a symbol
of the unity of the world-order in the same way in which it is
the universally valid Logos (fr. 26 [50]), but that it rather
alludes to the material substratum of all things, i. e. to fire.
419
Thus I would side with Gigon in believing that the saying
is an illustration of the abstract, non-evident thesis that all
things are fire, fr. 51 (30): “E r fragt: Wie kann die Welt
ein Feuer sein, da wir doch die Realität des vielfältigen Kosmos
sehen? In einem kühnen Versuch will er diese Möglichkeit
rechtfertigen: Frg. 7. ”
“All things arc made up of fire though our eyes do not

see it. But suppose that everything turns to smoke: then one
organ of ours, the eyes, would see the universal underlying
stuff, smoke, whereas another organ of ours, the nose, would per
ceive different kinds of matter, i. e. different smells or
scents within this smoke (cf. fr. 77). The same is with the
fiery essence of all things: our one organ, the eyes, see diffe
rent kinds of matter, the things, but another organ of ours
(say, intelligence, ψυχή) should perceive the universal sub
stratum, fire.”
Kirk 236 objected to this interpretation that it is diffi

cult to find the ground for such a special application, i. e.
why should smoke allude to fire. But I think that (in view
of fr. 77) the association between the material smoke and the
material fire is much more likely than that between smoko
and the immaterial Logos.
Finally, Kirk 235 suggested “that Heraclitus considered

the sense of sight to be a higher sense than that of smell, and
therefore that the unity presented by the eyes is more signifi
cant than the plurality presented by the nostrils; so the under
lying connexion in the real world is more significant than
the apparent, diversity.” I don’t think it is l.ikcly, because
Heraclitus seems to have expected men to perceive the under
lying unity of this world-order (whether it is represented by
Fire or by Logos) not by the eyes but by a higher organ, the
intelligence or insight: cf. fr. 13 (107) κακοί μά ρτυρες
άνθρώ ποισιν όφθαλμοί κ α ί ώ τα β α ρβά ρους ψ υχά ς έχόν-
των, and the Logos, which like Apollo οϋτε λ έ γ ε ι οίίτε κρύπ
τει ά λ λ ά σημαίνει (fr. 14 [95]).
420
GROUP EIGHTEEN
F it. 79 (64) ; 80 (11); 81 (16); 82 (66).
The fragments of this Group seem to suggest the

following.
(i) - God is Fire (probably in its most perfect and
purest form, that of α ιθ ή ρ ).
(ii) - He is separated from the world and things,
i. c. extra-cosmic. Because he appears as Steersman
or directing power of this world-order (fr. 79, ef.
fr. 85), and as Shepherd (or Guide) and the supreme
Judge of mankind too (frr. 80; 81; 82).
(iii) - W ith the exception of fr. 79, the sphere is
rather the social (cf. τΙς in fr. 81 and π α ν έρπετόν
in fr. 80) than the physical one.
(iv) - The influence of the epic Zeus seems to he
clear: ef. the thunderbolt in frr. 79 and 80, and the
allusion to Ζεύς πα νόπτης in fr. 81. Cf. also fr. 84.
421
79
(64 DK; 28 B)
(a) C Hippolyt, refut. IX, 10,7 (p. 243,22 Wendland),

post fr. 73 (63) . λ έ γ ε ι δέ (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) κ α ι τοΟ κόσ
μου κρίσιν κ α ί πά ντω ν τω ν έν α ύτώ ι δ ιά π υρ ός γίν εσ θ α ι-
πάντα γά ρ , φησί, τ ό π Ο ρ έ π ε λ θ ό ν κρίνει
κ α ί κ α τ α λ ή ψ ε τ α ι ( = fr. 82 [66]). λ έ γ ε ι δέ καί
φρόνιμον τούτο είναι τό πυρ καί τής διοικήσεω ς των
δλω ν αίτιον, λ έγω ν ο ύτω ς- τ ά δ έ 1 π ά ν τ α ο ία κ ίζ ε ι κ ε ρ α υ
νό ς ( = fr. 79 [64]), τουτέστι κατευθύνει, κεραυνόν τό
πυρ λ έγ ω ν τό αιώνιον, κ α λεΐ δέ αυτό χ ρ η σ μ ο σ ύ ν η ν
κ α ί κ ό ρ ο ν ( = fr. 55 [65])' χρησμοσύνη δέ έστιν ή
διακόσμησις κ α τ’ αύτόν, ή δέ έκπύρω σ ις κόρος.2 scq.
fr. 77 (67).
1 τάδε Η. Boeder ap. G. Guthrie p. 471 n. 1 2 λέγει δέ καί του

κόσμου κρίσιν καί πάντων των έν αύτώι διά πυρός γίνεσθαι λέγω ν
οδτως- "τά δέ πάντα οίακίζει κεραυνός”, τουτέστι κατευθύνει,
κεραυνόν τό πϋρ λέγων τό αίώνιον. λέγει δέ καί φρόνιμον τοΰτο
είναι τό πΟρ καί της διοικήσεως των δλων αίτιον- καλεΐ δέ αύτό
"χρησμοσύνην καί κόρον” - χρησμοσύνη δέ έστιν ή διακόσμησις
κατ* αύτόν, ή δέ έκπύρωσις κόρος- "πάντα” γάρ, φησί, "τό πΰρ
έπελθόν κρίνει καί καταλήψεται.” Ρ, edd. : transposed post Η. Fraenkel
(ef. S tu d io , P a tr i s t i o a VII, T. IT. 92, Berol., 1966, p. 262 s.)
(b) R Philodem, de pietate 6a (p. 70 Gomperz) restit.

Croenert et Diels . . .κ α ί τ[ό ν κόσ μο]v έν οΐς φησι δ [ ιχ ώ ] ς -
Κεραυνός π[άντ’ οία]κίζει καί Ζ [ ε ύ ς ...
seq. fr. 77 (67).
(c) R Cleanth. hymn. Ιον. ed. G. Zuntz (Harv. St. 63

(1958], p. 301)
422
9 τοιον έχ εις ύ π οερ γόν άνικήτοις μ ετά 1 χερσίν
άμφήκη π υρόεντα ά ειζώ οντα κ ε ρ α υ ν ό ν '
του γ ά ρ ύπό π λ η γ ή ς2 φύσεω ς π ά ντ’ έ ρ γ α
^ / < τελ είτα ι > ' 3
<5 ι σύ κ α τ ε υ θ ύ ν ε ι ς κοινόν λόγον, δ ς διά
/ πάντω ν
φ ο ιτ δ ι...
1 μετά Meineke, Zuntz : ύπό F : ένΐ Brimck cett. 2 π λη γή ς F
(cf. Her. fr. 80 [ f f ] ) : π λ η γή ις Brunck, Zuntz 3 τελείτα ι suppl.
ab Arnim, ace. Zuntz : π έπ η γεν suppl. Pohlenz ( H e r m e s 75 [1940],
p. 120), acc. Kirk p. 259 post hunc v. lacunam susp. Zuntz
(d ) II? Diog. Laert. IX, 12 έπιγρ ά φ ουσ ι δ ’ αύτώ ι

(sc. τώ ι σ υ γ γ ρ ά μ μ α τ ι Η ρ α κ λ είτο υ ) ol μέν Μούσας, οί
δέ Περί φύσεως, Δ ιόδοτος δέ (Ν.2, adesp. 287)
ά κ ριβ ές ο ίά κ ισ μα πρ ός στάθμην βίου.
423
79 (64)
Thunderbolt steers all things.
There is a displacement in Hippolytus’ text, as H. Frankel

had pointed out in a letter to Kranz (cf. VSS ad fr.): the
quotations of frr. 79 (64) and 82 (66) need to change places,
that is all. The reason for the displacement seems to be obvious:
λ έ γ ε ι δέ κ α ί occurs twice in the context, both times in appo
sition to π ά ντα in the quotations (frr. 79 and 82), which ori
ginally were written in the margin. (Frankel was not clear
enough about λ έγω ν ούτω ς: I think it. stood in the margin
together with the corresponding quotation, fr. 79). This is not
the only case of textual displacement in Parisinus (see my
edition of Hippolytus, to appear soon in O xford).
This saying (popular among the Stoics, cf. test, a and c)

could be taken as a typical case of Heraclitus’ midway theo
logy (cf. also fr. 84 [32] ούκ έθέλει καί έθ έλει): the word
κεραυνός looks like a ‘common denominator’ of both
the traditional Zeus and the new Fire. Namely, the thunderbolt
is Zeus’ main weapon (cf. Gigon 145) and, pars pro toto,
recalls easily the idea of Zeus as the Supreme Divinity (cf. also
test, b and c ) . On the other hand, κεραυνός is likely to imply
here the purest or aitherial fire (cf. ‘burner’ or πρηστήρ,
and Kirk 356 with n. 1; Kirk-Raven-nr. 223).(1)
As Zeus’ traditional weapon the thunderbolt is a symbol

of guidance and justice (punishment) directed toward men
(cf. also fr. 80 [11] π λη γή with π α ν έρ πετόν; fr. 82 [66]
τό πΟρ with κρινεΐ κ α ί κα τα λήψ ετα ι; fr. 81 [16] τό μή
δΟνόν ποτέ with τ ι ς ) . B ut as a symbol of the purest and
wise celestial fire (cf. fr. 85 [41] γνώ μ η ; fr. 84 [32] gv, τό
σοφόν μοΰνον, and the traditional formula μη τίετα Ζεύς)
424
it implies a steering or directing capacity turned toward phy
sical things (meteorological phenomena and eosmical processes) .·
cf. τά π ά ντα and ο ία κ ίζει with fr. 85 (41) π ά ν τα [sc. τά
οντα] διά πά ντω ν [sc. τώ ν τόπω ν] and κυβερνάν.
It is not easy to say in what actually does consist this direc

ting activity of the rational Fire: (a) whether in keeping the
regular course, order and periodicity of natural phenomena
(day and night; the monthly phases; the seasons; year and
the Great Year; the order of changes earth ^ water ^ soul,
and not otherwise, etc.); cf. perhaps the phrase π ά ντα διά
πάντω ν, in fr. 85; (b) or in the control over the constant
changing of the cosmic fire into several phenomenal things
(cf. fr. 56ab [8/ab] and άλλοιοΰσθαι, fr. 77 [67] ); (c) or
else in the preservation of measures or the regularity in the
qualitative changes of matter (fire, sea, earth; the exhalation,
etc.), cf. the part of Dike in fr. 52 (94). I would side with
Kirk 356 (contra Gigon 146) in believing that (c) is the most
likely, in view of the fundamental importance of the principle
of measures in Heraclitus’ Physics.
Thunderboldt seems to be personified here, in accordance

with the archaic theological views; so arc probably τό μή
δΰνόν ποτέ, fr. 8t (16)·, τό πϋρ, fr. 82 (66)·, σοφόν, fr. 83
(108); 2ν, τό σοφόν μοΰνον, fr. 84 (32); γνώ μη, fr. 85 (41).
Cf. also Logos, fr. 26 (50); Polemos, fr. 29 (55); εΐς νόμος,
fr. 23 (114).
(!) The idea of ‘war’ is not likely to be present in ‘thunderbolt’ here;

c o n tr a Gigon 146 and K irk 355: “The thunderbolt, too, is Zeus'
woapon of war: as such it may be the underlying cause of the ‘war’
which is essential to the continuation of the world”.
425
80
(11 DK; 55 B)
(a) C Ps. Aristot. de mundo 6, p. 401 a 8 Lorimer.

τω ν τε ζώ ιω ν τ ά τε ά γ ρ ια κ α ί ήμερα, τά τε έν ά έρ ι καί
έπί γ η ς καί έν ϋ δ α τι1 βοσκόμενα, γίν ετα ι καί ά κ μ ά ζει
καί φ θείρετα ι το ΐς2 τοΟ θεού πειθόμενα θεσμοΐς2'
π α ν γ ά ρ έρ π ετό ν π λ η γ ή ι3 ν έμ ετα ι,
ώ ς φησιν 'Η ράκλειτος. (Schl. fr. 37).
1 ϋδατι CGTWZ AW. Stoll. Τ, 1,36 (1, ρ. 45 W .) vcrsio Nicol. Sic. :

ϋδασι HPD versio Lat. anon. 2 τώι. . ,θεσμωι Stob. 3 πληγήι
Stob., acc. Bywater, Diels, Lorimer alii : πληγήν interpr. Armen, fr.
Ejmiadzinense : πδν γήι vel πδν γην interpr. Syr. (teste Lorimerio) :
τήν γην eodd. omnes, interpr. Lat anon., Nie. Sic. [i.e. ΠΑΝΓΗΝ et
ΤΗΝΓΗΝ ex ΠΛΗΓΗΝ]
(α1) Apul. de mundo 36 (p. 172,15 Thomas). tandem1

omnium animalium agrestium ct ciciunm, pinnatarum ct pc-
destrium et2 aquatilium natura gignitur, nutritur, absumitur
parens caelestibus institutis: π α ν γ ά ρ έ ρ π ε τ ό ν .. , 3, u t Hera
clitus a it.
1 tandem e d . l u n t . z : tarnen c o d d . 2 et F : om. c e t t .: <atque>

aquat. of. T h o m a s 3 c e te r a d u b i a : men ΓαΠΑΝΤΑεΥεΡΓεΤωΜΟΟ
Cocrr J ΝΑΜεΡΗε f fetONO f fahyti B (cf. II. Diels, S l l l l A 1901, pp. 188 ss.
ct 197)
(a2) Sergii Resainensis interpret. Syriaca, vertit Ed. Koe

nig (ap. W. Lorimer, p. 116): “Denn ‘alles bewegt sich’, wie
Herakleitos gesagt hat. Auf der Erde ist alles ähnlich.”
426
Scd vocem dmä (‘ist ähnlich') c o i t . in r’ä (‘weidet’) Ryssel,
iicc.Sachau, qui vertit (cf. W. L. Lorimer, p. 98 η. 1): “Denn
alles Kriechende, wie Heraklit gesagt hat, weidet auf der gan
zen Erde.” ,
(h) R ' Plato, Critias, 109 BC ...o to v νομής ποίμνια,

κ τή μ α τα κ α ι θ ρ έμ μ α τα έα υτώ ν ή μ δ ς Μτρεψον (sc. θεοί),
πλήν ού σώ μασι σ ώ μ α τα βιαζόμενοι, κ α θά π ερ ποιμένες
κ τ ή ν η π λ η γ ή ι ν έ μ ο ν τ ε ς , ά λ λ ’ ήι μ ά λισ τα εΰ-
στροφον ζώιον, έκ πρύμνης άπευθύνοντες οΐον ο ία κ ι πειθοΐ,
ψυχής έφαπτόμενοι κ α τά την αύτώ ν1 διάνοιαν, ούτω ς
ά γο ν τες τό θνητόν π α ν έκυβέρνων.
1 αύτών Baiter, Schneider alii : αύτών AP
(c‘) R Prod, in remp. II, p. 20,23 Kroll αύτοκινήτω ς

γ ά ρ ζώ σιν (sc. α ί ψ υχαΐ) κα'ι ού π ερ ιά γ ο ν τα ι μόνον ύπό
τή ς είμαρμένης, ώ σπερ τ ά πληγήι νεμόμενά
φασιν, ά λ λ ά καί έ α υ τά ς π εριάγουσ ιν. (Cf. II. Diels, SBBA
1901, ρ. 196 n. 3 et Cr. Kirk 259).
(c2) R Procl. in Alcib. I, p. 279,18 Creuzer = p. 129

Westerink. τό τρίτον π ά λ ιν λέγο μ εν 8τι τά μέν ά λ ο γ α
ζώ ια τ ω ν π λ η γ ή ι ν ε μ ο μ έ ν ω ν έστί καί πά ντα
δσ α τήν ϊασιν π α ρ ά τω ν έκτός υπομένει, καί ή ιπερ άν
ά γ η ι τό ά γο ν , ταύτηι κ α ί τ ά ά γό μ εν α ά γ ετα ι, του έα υ
τώ ν ά ρ χειν καί έα υ τά σώ ιζειν παρηιρημένα.
(c3) R Olympiod. in Alcib. I, ρ. 178,17 Creuzer =

ρ. 113 Westerink. είδος δέ τής π ολιτικ ή ς έπιστήμης τό
ά ρ χειν' ά ρ χειν δέ ούκ ά λόγω ν, τ ω ν π λ η γ ή ι ν ε μ ο
μ έ ν ω ν , ά λ λ ’ άνθρώπω ν.
(cJ) R Plotin. II, 3 152], 13, 14 II. ct S. τά δέ έμ
ψυχα, τά μέν τό κινεΐσθαι ά ορίσ τω ς έχει, ώ ς ύφ’ &ρ-
μασιν ίπ π οι πρ ιν τον ήνίοχον άφ ορίσαι α ύτοΐς τόν δρ ό
μον, &τε δή π λ η γ ή ι ν ε μ ό μ ε ν α ' λο γικ ο ύ δέ ζώ ιου
φύσις έχει π α ρ ’ έα υτή ς τόν ή ν ίο χ ο ν ...
(<2) R Cleanth. hymn. Ιον. ed. Zuntz
5 μοΟνοι, öσα ζώ ει τε καί έρπει θνήτ’ έπΐ

/ γ α ΐα ν . . .
7 σοί γ ά ρ 1 π α ς δδε κόσμος έλισσόμενος π ερ ί γ α ΐα ν
πείθετα ι ήι κεν ά γ η ις κ α ί έκώ ν ύπό σεΐο2 κρατεΐ-
/ τα ι. ..
seq. fr. 79 (64) ( c ) .
11 τοΟ (sc. κεραυνού) γ ά ρ ύπό π λ η γ ή ς 2 φύσεως
/ π ά ν τ’ έ ρ γ α < τ ε λ ε ΐτ α ι> '. ..
1 γ ά ρ Zuntz : δέ F, δη Sualiger 2 σοΐο F, corr. Stephanus 3

πληγής F : πληγή ις Brunck, aec. Zuntz 4 τελείται suppl. ab
Arnim, acc. Zuntz : πέπηγεν suppl. Pohlenz
428
80 ( 11 )
Every animal is driven to pasture with a blow.
Possibly testimonia (a) and (c1*4) are influenced by the

Stoics.
That έ p π ε τ 6 v implies ‘human being’, it becomes

clear from such instances as Iliad XVII, 446 f.; Odyssey
X V III, 130 f.; hymn. Cer. 365; Xenoph. memor. I, 4,11;
TTcsycb. s. έρπετά .
Further, that God should be understood as the most likely

source of this blow or stroke, it seems to be suggested by the
common phrase Δ ιός (or θεοΟ) π λη γή (or μά σ τιξ): Iliad
X II, 37; X III, 812; Aeschyl. Prom. 681 f.; Septem 608; Agam.
367; Soph. Aiax 137; 278 f.; fr. 961 Pearson ( = 876 N.s);
Pint, de superstit. 168 C. Thus Diels and Kranz seem to be
right in believing that ΘεοΟ should be understood (contra
Kirk 258 f . ) .
Finally, in view of the similarity between Ibis saying and

fr. 79 (64): κεραυνός : π λ η γ ή ; ο ία κίζει : νέμ εται (c f.
also fr. 82 [fiß] τό πυρ ), and with reference to Hesiod Theo-
yony 853-57:
Ζευς δ' έπεί o5v κόρθυνεν έόν μένος, εΐλετο δ ’ δπλα,
βροντήν τε στε ροπήν τε καί α ίθα λόεντα κ ε ρ α υ ν ό ν ,
855 π λ ή ξ ε ν ά π ’ Ο ύλύμποιο έπ ά λμ ενο ς’ άμφί δέ π ά σ α ς
έπρεσε θεσ πεσίας κεφ α λά ς δεινοΐο πελώ ρου.
α ύτά ρ έπεί δή μιν δάμασ εν π λ η γ ή ι σ ι ν ίμάσσας...
(cf. also Schol. ABT ad Iliad X III, 812 Δ ιός δέ μάσ τιξ ό
κεραυνός, and Iliad XIV, 414; XV, 117; Pind. Ν. 10,71),
429
I think that π λ η γ ή might hint at π λη γή κ ε ρ α υ ν ό G,
‘stroke of the thunderbolt.’
Consequently, the saying might imply: Thunderbolt {Fire)

is the Supreme Grade (Shepherd) of mankind. This is the way
in which Gigon 146 interpreted the fragment: “Wie das Herden
vieh durch die Peitsche geführt wird, so die (Menschen-)
Welt durch den Blitz Gottes; π λ η γή ι passt vorzüglich für
das eine wie fü r das andere.”
Wilamowitz ( Griech. Lesebuch II, Erläutcr. 132: “ohne

Gewalt geht es nicht ab; πόλεμ ος π α τή ρ π ά ν τ ω ν ... ”) took
π λ η γή to imply ‘war’ or ‘strife’; this seems less likely to me.
F or other interpretations ef. ZN 912 n.; Kirk 261 f.
430
81
(Iff DK; 27 B)
(a) C Clem, paedag. II, 99,5 (I, p. 216 St.) ταύτηι

τε π ά λ ιν ό π α ιδ α γ ω γ ό ς α ύτοΐς ά π ειλ εΐ διά Ή σαΐου
λ έγω ν (29,15)' ‘ούαϊ οί έν κρυφήι βουλήν ποιοϋντες, καί
έροΟσι' τις ή μ α ς δ ρ α ι; ’ λήσεται μέν γ ά ρ ίσ ω ς τό α ισ
θητόν φω ς τ ις 1, τό δέ νοητόν άδύνατόν έστιν, ή ώ ς φησιν
Η ρ ά κ λειτος·
τό μή δΟνόν π ο τέ π ώ ς ά ν τ ις 2 λ ά θ ο ι;
(Of. II. Wiese, Iferaklit bei Klemens, p. 80 ss.). (Sehl. fr. 40).
1 cf. III, 277; O d . XI, 109 = XII, 323; Aescliyl. P r o m . 91; Soph.
II.
T ra ck.101; Ovid, a r t i s a m a t. II, 573 q u is S o le m f a l l e r e p o s s it ? 2 τινα
ci. Schleiemacher : χι Gataker
(6) R Plato, Crat. 413 BC ό μέν γ ά ρ τ ίς φησιν τοϋτο

είναι δ ί κ α ι ο ν , τόν ή λ ιο ν τοΟτον γ ά ρ μόνον διαϊόντα
καί κά οντα έπιτροπεύειν τ ά όντα, έπειδά ν οδν τω ι λ έγω
αύτό άσμενος ώ ς κα λόν τι άκηκοώ ς, κ α τα γ ε λ α ι μου
οδτος ά κ ούσ α ς κ α ί έρ ω τα ι εί ούδέν δίκα ιον οΐμα ι είναι
έν το ΐς ά νθρ ώ ποις έ π ε ι δ ά ν ό ή λ ι ο ς δ ύ η ι . λιπα-
ροΰντος οδν έμοΰ δ τι α δ έκεΐνος λ έ γ ε ι αύτό, τ ό π υ ρ
φ η σ ιν ... (Cf. R. Bonghi, Cratilo, Romae, 1885, p. 378 ss.;
R. Mondolfo, Notas y Estudios de Filosofia [Tueumän, Ar
gent, 1, 4 (19531, PP· 233-240; G. Kirk 363 s .) .
(c) R Cornut. theol. Gr. compend. 11 Lang Ακολού

θω ς δέ τούτοις λ έ γ ε τ α ι κ α ί δτι ‘π ά ντ’ έφοραι Δ ιός όφ-
θα λμ ός καί π ά ν τ’ έπ α κ ο ύ ει’1. π ώ ς γ ά ρ ο I ό ν τ έ
έστ ι τήν διά πά ντω ν διήκουσαν δύναμιν2 λ α ν θ ά-
431
ν ε ι ν τι τω ν έν τώ ι κόσμωι γιγνο μ ένω ν; (Cf. G. Kii'k
ρ.. 362 s .) .
1 cf. Hesiod,e r g a 267; O d . X III, 213 s.; Soph. E l 175; et I I . I ll, 277;
Od. XI, 109 2 cf. Aet. I, 7,33 (D o x . 305 s.) ot ΣτωικοΙ νοερόν θεόν
άποφαίνονται, πυρ τεχνικ ό ν ... καί πνεύμα μέν διήκον δι’ ΰ λ ο υ τού
κόσμου; I, 28,1 ( D o x . 323) λόγον τόν διά της ούσίας του παντός
διήκοντα; Hippolyt, r e f u t . I, 21 ( D o x . 571,10) διά πάντων δέ διήκειν
τήν πρόνοιαν αύτοΰ (sc. θεοΰ) e tc .
432
81 (16)
Hoiv could anyone escape thß notice of that which never sets?
**
Heraclitus’ saying presupposes the traditional belief in

"Η λιος πα νόπτης (cf. Jessen, RE V III, 58 f.; 73; 75), the
supreme Watchman over the wrongdoers and Guardian of
justice (cf. test, a, n. 1 ). Now, Heraclitus’ criticism of the
traditional god Helios was correctly understood by Plato (b):
‘I f the sun is a symbol of justice, does it mean that the justice
disappears when the sun sets?’ Who is supposed to discover
the wrongdoers after the sunset?
Thus Heraclitus substitutes the traditional Helios by his

new god Fire, which never sets. But in spite of all Heraclitus’'
radical criticism the new Watchman does not seem to be much
different from the traditional Ζεύς πα νόπτης (cf. Aeschyl.
Eumen. 1045):
π ά ντα ίδών Δ ιός όφ θα λμός καί π ά ντα νοήσας
καί νυ τά δ ’, α ΐ κ’ έθέληισ’, έπιδέρκετα ι, ούδέ έ λ ή θ ε ι...
Hesiod Erga 267 f. (cf. test c, n. 1).(1) Anyway the old Helios
was also fire.
The fragment, was correctly interpreted by Diels; Gigon

130 (with reference to fr. 82 [66]); Frankel (Dichtung1, 434,
w'ith the exception of the words: “so denkt er an den nie ver
löschenden L o g o s ...”)·, Kirk 365; Guthrie 474. On the other
hand Wiese 83 and 84 n. 2 seems to be too sceptic both about
the possibility of interpretation of the saying and about testi-
monia (b) and (c) as likely reminiscences of it (“sind als
Heraklit-Remininiszenzen zweifelhaft”) .
Π) Cf. also A . β . I l l , 6,155 Cougny [ = T h e o s o p h ia 43, p. 177 Erbse]
ούδείς & v λήθοι τοϊος (se. άμαρτάνων) θεόν, Ούδέ σοφοΐσι
κέρδεσιν ούδέ λόγοισιν ύπεκφύγοι άλκιμον δμμα.
Pind. O l. 1 , 64 f .; Menancl. m o n o s t. 582; Polyb. IV, 33,3, etc.
433
82
(66 DK; 26 B)
(a) C Hippolyt, refut. IX, 10,6 (p. 243 s. Wendl.).

post fr. 73 (63). λ έ γ ε ι δέ (sc. ‘Η ράκλειτος) καί του κόσμου
κρίσιν καί πά ντω ν τω ν έν α ύτώ ι διά πυρά ς γ(νεσ θσ ι'
π ά ν τ α γ ά ρ , φησί, τό πΟρ έπ ελ θ ό ν κ ρ ίν ει κ α ί1 κ α τα λ ή -
ψ ετα ι. Cf. ad fr. 79 (64).
1 κρίνει Kol post C. Reinhardt seel, ut glossema Gigon 130, Walzer 105
434
82 ( 66)
Fire, having come suddenly upon them,

will judge and convict all (living beings).
Reinhardt (Farm. 164 ff.; Hermes 77, 22 ff. = Vermächt

nis 65 ff.) and Kirk 351; 359 ff. rejected the fragment as
“merely a summary or paraphrase by Hippolytus” . Gigon 130 f.
and Marcovieh (Paper to 3rd Internat. Congr. of Class. Stud.,
London, Merida Univ. Press, 1959, 1-11) defended its authenti
city. (As a matter of fact, there is no one spurious saying in
Befutatio IX, 9-10, among 19 fragments in 22 quotations).
έπέρχεσθαι, ‘come suddenly upon’ (LSJ, s. v.,

I, 2): cf. Aeschvl. Agam. 1256 οΐον τό πυρ έπ έρ χ ετα ι;
Persians 599 f. δτα ν κλύδω ν / κακώ ν έπέλθηι; Odyssey
XIX, 155 εΐλον έπελθόντες.«1»
κ ρ ί ν ε ι ν τ ι ν ά, ‘bring somebody to trial’, ‘to judge’

(LSJ, s. v., I ll, 2): cf. Gorgias, DK 82 B 11a (II, p. 302,29)
δταν ά νδρ ες ά νδρ α π ερ ί θανάτου κρίνωσιν. Gigon 130 and
Walzer 105 (following Reinhardt) rejected the word as a gloss.
Kirk 360 η. 1 admitted that Reinhardt’s criticism of κρινεΐ
was “somewhat too drastic”, and I would add that κρινεΐ καί
is likely to be genuine also in view of Heraclitean alliteration
p- p- : h- k- k- (cf. ad fr. 1).
κ α τ α λ α μ β ά ν ε ι v, in the resultative meaning of

‘to convict’ (‘verurteilen’, Wilamowitz, Eurip. Hippolyt., 237),
LSJ, s. v., V, 5, is strongly supported by fr. 19 (28b) Δίκη
καταλήψ εται. We have a similar resultative meaning in fr. 52
{94): Έ ρ ιν ύ ε ς μιν Δ ίκης έπίκουροι έξευρήσουσιν (‘find
out’ > ‘seize’) .
435
In view of the verbs ‘to judge and convict’ I think we
should understand π ά ν τ α τ ά ζ ώ ι α , and not π ά ντα
τ ά δ ν τ α ;<2) contra e. g. Reinhardt (Vermächtnis 66): “Das
Feuer soll richten über das All, Feuer und All etwas Verschie
denes sein.” Cf. π α ν έρ πετόν in fr. 80 (11) and τ ις in
fr. 81 (16).
Thus the sphere is rather theological than cosmological,

and the atmosphere seems to be naive-folkloric: “Some fine
day Fire will suddenly come to judge all men and to convict
the wrongdoers (read: the lustful Ephesians from Group 22).”
To the same genre belongs fr. 19 (28b) : “Some fine day the
goddess of Justice will for sure convict all those fabricators
of lies and their false witnesses.”
I think Gigon 130 f. has correctly grasped the implication

of the saying: “In Frg. 16 ist die Drohung den Menschen
gegenüber ganz klar. Auch das π ά ντα in Frg. 66 wird dement
sprechend nicht theoretisch-kosmologisch, sondern praktisch-reli
giös gemeint sein. Der ganze “eschatologische Komplex” ist
primär naiv-praktisch zu verstehen. Heraklits Gegner sind ihm
die “Bösen” schlechthin, deren Strafe er ausmalt, wohl nicht
viel anders als sich das Volk vorgestellt haben würde.”
We don’t know whether this personified Fire in its advance

should be thought of as a thunderbolt (cf. frr. 79 and 80), or
as an excessive heat during the Summer of the Great Year,
or else as Absolute Wisdom (cf. fr. 84 [55]): the point is
that it will do with men, not with the world-order, which is
everlasting. Thus the saying cannot be taken as an argument
in favour of the supposed world-conflagration in Heraclitus.01
I don’t think Guthrie’s interpretation of the fragment is

likely (p. 456): “ . . . if Heraclitus wrote it he need only have
meant to emphasize the primacy of fire and the tru th that at
some time everything must become fire, which shows up the
impurities of other states of m atter.” Once again, the verbs
436
κρίνει καί κ αταλήψ εται suggest that the field is not the
cosmological.
d) Burnet 135 n. 4 referred to Hippocrat. de v ic tu I, 5 (DK I, p. 182,15)

π υρός έφοδος καί ΰδατος, which is rather far from this fragment.
(=) I t is not likely that we should understand π άντα άνθρωπον.
(3) Themist. i n A r is to t. p h y s. p. 86,31 S chenkl.... ώσπερ ‘Η ράκλειτος
τό πΰρ οΐεται μόνον στοιχεΐον καί έκ τούτου γεγο νέν α ι τό παν.
έντεΰθεν γ ά ρ ή μ δ ς κ αί δ ε δ ί τ τ ε τ α ι συμφλεγήσεσ-
θαΐ ποτέ τό πδν άπειλών, έπειδή διαλυθήσεται
είς τοΰτο έ ζ οδ κ αί γ έ γ ο ν ε (cf. Gigon 129 and Beinhardt, V e r
m ä c h tn is 67), and Mart. Capelia I, 87: quidam etiam c la u d n s fa b e r
venit, qui licet crederetur Iunonius, to tiu s m u n d i ab Heraclito dictus
est d e c o r a to r [demorator BE, corr. Grotius] (cf. also II, 213 ardebat
Heraclitus) need not allude to this fragment.
437
GROUP NINETEEN
F it . 83 (108); 84 (3 2 ) ; 85 (41).
This is the most important theological Group. It

seems to imply:
(i) - There is only one divine principle (fr. 84;
cf. fr. 23 [114]). I t is essentially different from any
other idea hitherto; it is transcendent (fr. 83 πάντω ν
κ εχω ρ ισ μ ένο ν). I t is absolute Wisdom, the only
truly wise Being (τό -σοφόν, frr. 83 and 84; γνώ μη,
fr. 85). His wisdom or intelligence is manifested
in the planful guidance (κυβερνάν) of this world-
order (fr. 85).
(ii) - Inasmuch as the One being is the supre
me principle (and the thoughtful Governor of man
kind too), he could perhaps be called Zeus, as a con
cession to traditional ideas. B ut since his very essence
is the shapeless fire and since he is actually a trans
cendent principle, it is hardly legitimate to call him
'Zeus (fr. 84).
The influence of Xenophanes’ theology (ef. espe
cially his fr. 23 DK) upon frr. 83 and 84 seems
highly likely.
(iii) - In accordance ivith the thesis that there is
only one truly ivise Being, human wisdom consists
in one thing only: in trying to grasp some part of
God as absolute Wisdom (£v τό σοφόν- έπίσ τα σ θα ι
Mv, τό σοφόν μοΟνον, frr. 85 and 84, by implication).
The influence of Pythagoras (ap. Heraclid. Pontic.

fr. 87 Wehrli; cf. Plato Phaedr. 278 D) seems to be
likely here: God is the only truly wise Being or
σοφός: man’s highest mission and scope is to be
only a φιλό-σοφος, or searcher for God as absolute
Wisdom.
(iv) - God is absolute Wisdom because he is abso
lute and purest f^re. He cun be knoivn only by a
most fiery soul (cf. fr. 68 ‘The dry soul is wisest. . . ’).
Conceivably only fire is capable of grasping Fire.
439
83
(108 DK; 18 B)
(a) C Stob. III, 1,174 (III, p. 129 Η.) [π. ά ρ ετή ς].
'Ηρακλείτου*
όκόσων λόγους ήκουσα

ούδείς άφικνεΐται ές1 τούτο ώστε γινώσκειν2
δτι σοφόν έστι πάντων κεχωρισμένον.
seq. fr. 110 (109). (Schl. fr. 17).
1 έ ς A Trine.: είς M<t 2 γινώ σκειν A Tr. : γ ιγ ν - Mrf post γινώσ-

κειν verba ή γ ά ρ θεός ή θηρίον (scil. ex Aristot. p o lit. A 2, p. 1253
a 29) hab. Tr. : seel. Gesner* et Gaisford
(b) R Apollon. Tyan. ap. Euseb. praep. ev. IV, 13,1

(I, p. 185 Mras) θ ε ώ ι .. . έν( τε δντι < κ α Ι > 2 κ ε χ ω ρ ι σ-
μ έ ν ω ι π ά ν τ ω ν . Cf. Euseb. dem. ev. I ll , 3, 11. (Cf.
I. Bernays, Ges. Abh., I, p. 70; Ed. Norden, Agnostos Theos,
p. 39 et n. 3 ).
1 κ αί add. Bernays
(c) R? Plut. Coriol. 38,4 ούδενΐ1 γ ά ρ ούδα μ ώ ς άν-

θρ ω πίνω ι προσέοικεν (sc. ό θεός) οϋτε φύσιν οδτε κίνησιν
οΰτε τέχνην ούτ* Ισχύν. ..ά λ λ ά μάλλον έν2 πα σ ι δ ι α
φ ό ρ ω ν 3 πολύ μ ά λισ τα το ΐς έρ γ ο ις άνόμοιός έστι καί
π α ρ η λ λ α γ μ έ ν ο ς . seq. fr. 12 (86).
} ; ούδέν Υ 2 έν om. Ν 3 δισφέρων <ήμώ ν>
440
83 (108)
Of all whose teachings 1 have heard (learned)

no one reaches the point of recognizing
that the Wise (being) is different from any other thing (idea).
λόγους clearly implies ‘teachings’, ‘doctrines’, and

ή κ ο υ σ α means ‘hear of’, ‘learn’ (implying also ‘read’),
and not ‘hear in person’: cf. fr. 16 (40); Diels and Nestle,
fr. 46 (‘vernehmen’) ; Deichgräber (Rhythm. Elemente, 483)
and Kirk 398.
ο ΰ δ ε l ς seems to be an exaggeration if line 3 is influen

ced by Xenophanes’ fr. 23 o ö ti δ έμ α ς θνητοΐσιν όμοίιος ούδέ
νόημα (sc. εις θεός), as it was suggested by Gigon 138 and
as it seems likely to me too: no m atter how much the intolerant
Heraclitus owed to his predecessors (e. g. to Pythagoras and
Xenophanes), he should hardly be expected to recognize it.
χ ω ρ ί ζ ε σ θ α ι seems to mean here ‘to he different

from’ (LSJ, s. v., II), and not ‘to be separated from’, as
usually understood: cf. e. g. Hcrodot. Y, 61,2 ά λ λ α τε κεχω-
ρισμένα τω ν ά λλω ν ίρών κ α ί δή κ α ί . . . ; III, 20,2 νόμοισι
δέ καί ά λλοισ ι χ ρ α σ θ α ι αύτούς κεχω ρισμένοισι των
ά λλω ν Ανθρώπων καί δή κ α ί . . . and Powell (Lexic. Hero-
dot., s. v.). Probably the same meaning has π α ρ η λ λ α γμ έν ο ς
in testim. ( c ) . The essential or qualitative difference between
the only truly wise being (the Absolute or God) and any tra
ditional idea of god probably consists in that the former is
the non-anthropomorphic, shapeless and almost immaterial
purest Fire (or aither): cf. fr. 84 (32) ούκ έ θ έ λ ε ι.. .Ζηνός
όνομα and perhaps fr. 77 (67) ό θεός . .. άλλοιουται.
441
σ ο φ ό ν seems to moan ‘tho wise (being, i. e. god)’, and
not ‘human wisdom.’ Because the idea ‘wisdom is separated
from all things’*1' (interpretation preferred to by c. g. Kirk
399) seems to be less pointed than this one: ‘the wise (being)
is different in kind from any other thing (idea)’, in view of
Xenophanes’ fr. 23 and Heraclitus’ frr. 84 (32) and 77 (67),
and in view of testimonia (b) and (c) too; contra Kirk 400:
“such late, hypothetical, and in any case probably superficial
references are of little value in reconstructing the original
Heraclitean context” I would argue that testimonium (a) is
much later than are (b) or ( c ) .
Thus T would side with Gigon 138 in believing that, σοφόν

refers to god from fr. 84 (32), and not to human wisdom
mentioned in fr. 85 (41)·. “Ausgesprochen ist die vollkommene
Transzendenz der Gottheit, ihr völliges Verschiedensein vom
Sichtbaren und Denkbaren, nicht viel andere als Xenophanes
11 B 23. Gott ist das ganz andere und damit auch das ganz
abgetrennte.” So also Reinhardt (Parm. 205); Kranz (‘das
Weise’); Frankel (Dichtung2, 443); Bröcker (Gnomon 30
[1958], 438: ‘sic haben nicht den Abgrund erkannt, der Mensch
und Gott trennt’) ; Guthrie 472 (‘transcendence [of the divine
principle] ’).
The opposite view is shared by Zeller 790 and η. 1 (‘nir

gends findet er wahre Erkenntnis’); Burnet 134; Diels, V S4
(‘die Weisheit’) ; Heidel 712; Kirk 399 f. (Cf. also ZN 791 n.).
I think π ά ν τ ω ν is more likely to imply ‘all things

(or ideas)’ than ‘all beings’ (‘alle Wesen’, as Oigon took it).
Anyway ‘all men’ (as suggested by Bröcker) docs not seem
likely to me.
Ps. Philolaus fr. 20 DK ϊσ τι y a p (sc. έβδομάς) ή γεμ ώ ν

καί ά ρ χω ν άπάντω ν, θεός, εις, ά εί ών, μόνιμος, άκίνητος,
α ύτός έα υτω ι δμοιος, δ τ ε ρ ο ς τ ω ν ά λ λ ω ν (quoted
442
by Beinhardt, Farm. 248 n. 2 and by Walzer 142) need not
be a reminiscence of this fragment, and may well reflect e. g.
Xenophanes fr. 23.
<>> The interpretation ‘wisdom is separated from all men’ would be incom
patible with fr. 85 ( 4 1 ) , as Kirk 398 f. pointed out.
443
84
(32 DK; 65 B)
(a) C Clem, ström. V, 115,1 .(II, p. 404 St.), post

Aeschyli fr. 70 = 105a Mette, οΐδα έγώ κ α ί Π λάτω να
προσμαρτυρούντο: Ή ρ α κ λ είτω ι1 νρά φ οντι'
£ν, τό σοφόν μουνον,

λέγεσθαι ούκ έθέλει καί έθέλει Ζηνός όνομα.
( = Euseb. praep. ev. X III, 13,42 [II, ρ. 215 M ras]). seq.

fr. 104 ( 33). (Schl. fr. 11).
1 in C ra t. 396 AB suspic. H. Jackson, sed cf. H. Wiese ( H e r a k lit 6ei

K le m e n s , p. 251 s.)
444
84 (32)
One {being), the only {truly) wise,

is both unwilling and willing to be called by the name of Zeus.
The fragment was exhaustively discussed by Kirk 392-97.
Uv, applied to the divine principle: ef. εις νόμος, ό

θείος, fr. 23 {114), and εις θεός, Xenophanes fr. 23.
μ ο υ v ο ς as usual hymnic element: cf. Norden, Agnostos

Theos, 245 η. 1, and K. Kcyssner, Gottesvorstellung u. Le
bensauffassung im griech. Hymnus (Würzburger Studien, 2),
Stuttgart, 1932, passim.
τ ό σ ο φ ό ν , ‘the only truly wise being’, of the divine

principle: cf. σοφόν, fr. 83 {108)·, γνώ μη, fr. 85 {41)·, Group
21; Xenophanes fr. 23 ούδέ νόημα; fr. 25 ά λ λ ’ άπάνευθε
πόνοιο ν ό ο υ φρενί π ά ντα κ ρ α δα ίνει; the phrase
μη τίετα Ζ εύς; Hcraclid. Pontic, fr. 78 Voss = fr. 87 Wehrli.
ap. Diog. Laert. I, 12: according to Pythagoras μηδένα γ ά ρ
είναι σοφόν [άνθρω πον seel. Cobet] ά λ λ ’ ή θεόν (quoted
bv Gigon 140), and Plato Phaedr. 278 D.
έ θ έ λ ε ι seems to mean, at the same time: (a) ‘can',

‘it is admissible or legitimate’ (the logical level, cf. R. Rüdiger,
Glotta 8 [1916], 18 f.), and (b) ‘will’, ‘does consent’ (the theo
logical clement,: ef. Aeschyl. Again. 160 f. Ζεύς δσ τις π ό τ’
έστιν, εί τό δ’ αύ- / τώ ι φ ί λ ο ν κεκλημένω ι; Eurip.
fr. 912,2 f.; Plato Grat. 400 E and Nestle, ZN 834 n.).
Z η v ό ς : the popular paretymological connexion Ζ η νός:

ζην (cf. e. g. Aeschyl. Suppl. 584 f.; Eurip. Or. 1635; Plato
Oral. 396 AB), supposed by Bernays {Ges. Abh., I, 90 and
n. 1); Calogero {Giom. Crit. Files. It. 17 [1936], 217 f.);
Frankel {Dichtung2, 443); Guthrie 463 and others, is not
445
likely here, because the association between ‘the only wise being’
and the idea of ‘life’ here is not convincing enough (so Gigon
139 and Kirk 392). The form Ζηνός is common enough, and
the form Διάς, in fr. 62 (120), might also be due to metrical
reasons.
**
In the one sense, the divine principle, the only truly wise
being, could be called by the name of Zeus, because he is the
supreme principle (‘weil es das höchste ist’, Gigon 139; aliter
Diels, V S*): the wise Steersman of the world-processes and
the powerful Shepherd and Judge of the mankind too, vci’y alike
to the Olympic μη τίετα Ζεύς. In the other sense, he could
hardly be called Zeus, not only “weil Zeus allzusehr mit dem
Mythos durch Homer belastet ist” (Gigon), but also because
his essence is fire (both extra-cosmic and inherent in the
w orld). Thus it seems that we have to do here not only with
an opposition between two religions (the traditional Homeric
and a new, radical one), but also with the conflict between
the religious mentality and the philosophical thought, since
Heraclitus’ ‘One being, the only truly one’ seems to be a
transcendent metaphysical principle (cf. fr. 83 σοφόν έστι
πά ντω ν κεχωρισμένον, and Group 21).
Needless to say, God is absolute Wisdom because he is

absolute (100%) fire (cf. fr. 68 [118) ‘The dry soul is wisest
and best’), and the purest aithcrial one too.
The influence of Xenophanes’ theology on this saying

seems to be highly likely (so (ligon 140; Kirk 392 f.); ef. e. g.
Xenophanes fr. 23:
εΐς θεός, έν τε θεοΐσι κ α ί άνθρώ ποισι μέγισ τος,
οϋτι δέμ α ς θνητοΐσιν όμοίιος ουδέ νόημα
and K irk’s comment: “In the first line the one god is described
in words often applied to Zeus. . . in the second he is carefully
dissociated from human properties.”
446
85
(41 ρ κ ; 19 Β)
(a) C Diog. Laert. IX, 1. post fr. 16 (40) είναι γ ά ρ
äv τό σοφόν'
έπίστασθαι γνώμην
+ ότέη κυβερνησαι + 1 πάντα διά πάντων.
seq. fr. 30 (42). (Schl. fr. 44).
1 corruptum : ότέη κυβερνησαι P 1, δτε ή κυβερνησαι Β ( “ “ Bs),

δτ’ ένκυβερνησαι F : [δτε] ήι κυβερνδται Bywater : ότέη < έ> κ υ -
βέρνησε Biels, acc. Kranz, Η. 8. Long : ότέη κυβερνδι Snell ( D ie
E n td c e h u n g d e s G e is te s ,123 193) [ήτε κυβερνδι Bernays, Ges. A b h ., I,
p. 85] : ότέηι κυβερνδται Deichgraeber ( P h ilo l. 93 [1938] p. 14 n. 1),
acc. Vlastos 352 [cf. vers. Ambrosii: q u a g u b e r n e n t u r ] : δτεο κυβερνησαι
W. Broecker ( G n o m o n 30 [1958], p. 438) : ^τις <έ>κυβέρνησε ci.
Deichgraeber ( B h y t h m . E le m e n t e i m L o g o s d . M e r ., 516) : έτεήι- κυβερ
νιέσαι Reinhardt ( P a r m . 201 n.) : δπηι s. δκηι κυβερνδται Gigon 144,
acc. Walzer 80; Kirk 386 (et P r e s o c r a t. P h ilo s ., 204); Calogero (G n o m o n
34 [1962], p. 324); Kerschensteiner ( K o s m o s , Zetemata 30, 1962, p.108 n.4)
(b) R Pint, de 1st. 382 Β ή δέ ζώ σ α καί βλέπουσα

καί κινήσεω ς ά ρ χή ν έξ α ύτη ς Αχούσα καί γνώ σ ιν οίκείω ν
καί ά λλοτρίω ν φύσις κά λλους τ ’1 εσπακεν ά πορροήν καί
μοίραν έκ τ ο υ φ ρ ο ν ο ΰ ν τ ο ς δ τ ω Ρ κ υ β ε ρ ν α -
τ α ι τό [τε]3 σ ό μ π α ν καθ’ 'Η ράκλειτον.
(Schl. ρ. 492 s. = 118).
1 κάλλους τ ’ Papabasileios coni. Plat. P h a e d r . 251 Β : άλλως τε codd.

2 δτωι Markland, acc. Sieveking, Babbit (c5i Byivater) : δπως codd.,
Kirk 388 3 τε del. Bentley
447
(c) R Clcanthcs, hymn.. Ιου. 34 s.
. . . δός δέ κυρήσαι
γνώμης ι1 πίσυνος σύ δίκης μέτα π ά ν τ α
/κυβερναις.
1 ή Ρ, corr. Ursinus
(d ) ß Ps. Linus ap. Stob. I, 10,5 (I, p. 119 W.)
ώς κ α τ’ ίίριν συνάπαντα κυβερνδται

/διά παντός’
seq. fi·. 25 (10) ( h ) .
(e) R Hippoerat. de victu I, 10 (I, p. 185,21 et 24 DK)

. . ,τό θερμότατον κ α ί ίσχυρότατον itGp, δπ ερ πά ντω ν
κ ρ α τ ε ί.. . τοΟτο π ά ν τ α διά παντός κυβέρ
ν α ι . ..
(Cf. de cam. V III, ρ. 584 L. δοκέει δέ μοι δ καλέομεν

θερμόν ά θάνα τόν τε είναι κ α ί π ά ντα νοέειν κ α ί όρήν και
άκούειν κ α ί π ά ντα είδέναι έόντα χ έ καί έσόμενα et I.
Bemays, Ges. Abh., I, ρ. 20).
448
85 (41)
Wisdom is one thing:

to know the Thought (Intelligence)
by which'all things are steered through all (tvays).
#♦
I have left the crux in the text without any attempt at

emendation; the most likely ones (according to their proba
bility) are:
(1) ότέηι κ υβ ερνδτα ι by Deichgräber1, accepted by

Vlastos;
(2) [δτε] fji κυβ ερνδτα ι by Byivater;
(3) ότέη < έ > κυβέρνησε by Diels, accepted by Long (Ox

ford, 1964);
(4) δκη κυβ ερνδτα ι by Gigon, accepted by Kirk.
Any relative pronoun is preferable to δκη, because it is

strongly recommended by (b) δτω ι and by the translation of
Ambrosius Traversarius Camaldulensis (Borne, 1472?): qua
gubementur (cf. perhaps also test, (c): fji).
Markland’s emendation of ms. δπ ω ς into δτω ι in Plu

tarch’s text seems to me quite certain (contra Kirk 388) in
view of τοΰ φρονοΰντος [cf. 382 AB του π ά ντα κοσμουν-
τος θεού] .· ‘from the Intelligence by which the universe is
guided’. Moreover, the substitution of δτω ι by δπ ω ς is common
enough in paleography: cf. e. g. Eurip. fr. 495,40 N.2 έγώ
μέν < ο δ ν Matthiae, Hense, Nauck> ούκ οΐδ’ δτω ι σκοπεΐν
χρ εώ ν / τήν εύγένειαν, where Nauck’s emendation (made in
1856) of the ms. δπ ω ς (Stob. IV, 29% 11 [V, ρ. 705 Η .])
into δτω ι was confirmed by cod. Aegypt. s. IV (discovered
449
in 1879); or cf. Earip. Ithcs. 464 f. εί y a p έγ ώ τό δ’ fjpap
εΐσ ίδοιμ’, άναξ, / δτω ι (Musgrave cctt.: δπ ω ς codd.). . .
Moreover, δκη and κ υβ ερνδτα ι are paleographically less

likely. On the other hand, the form δτέη is unknown (as F r.
Bechtel, Die griech. Dialekte, III, Berlin, 1924, p. 171, pointed
out), and against the reading δτεω ι as feminine we are warned
by H. Kallenberg (Rh. Mus. 72 [1917], 509), Eurip. I. T. 1071
being not an exemption (cf. 1064 and Schwyzer, Gr. Gramm.,
I, 616). Finally, Diels’ gnomic aorist έκυβέρνησε ‘is inappro
priate, since the action is strictly continuous’ (Kirk 387 f.).
Any paleographically more likely conjecture (like e. g. this one:
δποίη κυβερνήσαι < ά ν > ) would be semantically weak. Thus
the crux remains.
t ό σ ο φ ό ν applies here to human wisdom, and not

to the divine principle from frr. 83 and 84 (the translation
‘the wise’ by Kirk-Raven nr. 230 is confusing). The sentence
εΐνα ι γ ά ρ ‘Sv τό σοφόν'’ is clear in itself: ‘the true wisdom
consists in one thing only, n a m e ly ...’ (Diogenes opposed 2v
to πολυμαθίη, and associated τό σοφόν with νόον, from the
preceding fr. 16 [40]: πολυμαθίη νόον ού διδά σ κ ει. . . ).
All attempts to interpret τό σοφόν as god have led to

impossible readings; this is the case with Reinhardt (Parm.
201 n.; cf. 62 n. 1; cf. also Th. Gomperz, SB Wien 113 [1886],
1004): £v τό σοφόν έπ ίσ τα τα ι γνώ μ ην έτεήι* κυβερνήσαι
■πάντα διά πάντων, “Wahre Einsicht hat allein das Eine,
das Allweise, als die da ist: alles durch alles zu regieren” ;
with H. Gomperz (Wien. St. 43 [1922-23], 117): είναι γ ά ρ
[sc. τό νόον < έ χ ε ιν > ] Ιν τό σοφόν έπίστασθαι, γνώ μ ην
ότέη έκυβέρνησε κτλ., “Denn (Erkenntnis zu besitzen) be
deute: das eine erfassen, das weise ist: die Einsicht, die alles
st euer t . . and with W. Bröcker I. c. too: he reads είναι γ ά ρ
450
εν τό σοφόν έπίσ τα σ θα ι γνώ μην, δτεο κυβερνήσαι κτλ.
and takes γνώ μ ην as subject: “Einsicht ist, das eine Weise
zu wissen, dessen Sache es ist, alles zu steuern” (but the word-
order is impossible and δτεο is semantically ineonvincing). Cf.
also Kirk 386 f .
On the other hand, γ ν ώ μ η ν probably refers to the

divine guiding principle. But this was denied by Heidel (Proc.
Amer. Acad, of Arts 48 [1913], 700), who maintained that
this was a Stoic concept; Heidel was followed by Reinhardt,
Gigon 144 and especially by Kirk 388 f. Accordingly they
took γνώ μ ην as internal accusative after έπίσ τα σ θα ι instead
of direct object (Gigon compared έπίσ τα σ θα ι γνώ μ ην with
εχειν γνώ μ α ς, fr. 90 [78], ‘Einsicht besitzen’). That is why
Gigon and Kirk preferred the reading δκη: “Verlangt wird
nach den Zeugnissen ein ‘Wie’. . .Damit fällt jeder Grund weg
für die ohnehin etwas befremdliche Annahme, γνώ μ η sei ein
eigener Name für den W eltlenker... Der Sinn des ganzen
Frg. 41 muss dann sein: Eines heisst weise sein, erkennen, wie
alles bis ins einzelne regiert wird” (Gigon); “Wisdom is one
thing: to be skilled in [or acquainted with] true judgement,
how all things are steered through all” (K irk ).
This interpretation was criticized by Vlastos 352 f.; Calo-

gero 1. c., and by Guthrie 429. I think it is not likely because:
(a) The verb κ υ β ε ρ ν ά ν and the hieratic phrase

π ά ντα δ ιά πά ντω ν strongly suggest that the atmosphere is
rather the theological; Vlastos is right in referring to fr. 79 (64)
τ ά δέ π ά ντα ο ί α κ ( ζ ε ι κεραυνός.
(b) έ π ί σ τ α σ θ α ι with accusative probably already

in Heraclitus’ time meant simply ‘to know’ (scire = nosse), and
not only ‘to be skilled in’ (scire = posse): cf. e. g. Aeschyl.
Prom. 980; 840; 265 and G. Italie, Index Aeschyl., s. v.; Powell,
Lexic. Ilerodot., s. v.
451
(c) If so, then γ ν ώ μ η ν is more likely an external
object implying the archaic divinization: cf. Aeschyl. Prom.
1002 f. Δ ιός γνώ μ η ν; Find. P. 5,122 Δ ιός τοι νόος μ έ γ α ς
κ υ β ε ρ ν α ι... Probably γνώ μη is a remainder from the tra
ditional Zens (as are κεραυνός, fr. 79, and πλη γή , fr. 80
[11]), and Heraclitus could not say Δ ιός γνώ μην, because of
fr. 84 (32) λ έγεσ θ α ι ούκ έ θ έ λ ε ι.. .Ζηνός όνομα.
Thus γνώ μη is likely to be another philosophical perso

nification or metaphor alluding to the truly wise divine prin
ciple or Fire (cf. fr. 79 κ εραυνός; fr. 84 εν, τό σοφόν μοΰ-
νον; fr. 83 σοφόν; fr. 81 τό μή δϋνόν πο τέ; fr. 82 τό πυρ).
Cf. R E 308.
*♦
The form τ ό σ ο φ ό ν for ‘human wisdom’, instead of

σοφίη, cf. fr. 17 (129), seems to have been chosen by Hera
clitus with the aim to correspond with τ ό σ ο φ ό ν , fr. 84
(32), for ‘the wise being’, ‘absolute wisdom’ or the divine prin
ciple . γ ν ώ μ η seems to be its synonym here. Thus the
saying might imply:
£v τό σοφόν* έπίσ τα σ θα ι Sv, τό σοφόν μοΟνον.
“The true human wisdom consists in one thing only, namely
in trying to grasp One being, the only truly wise, which governs
(directs) all this world-order.” I. e. God is absolute "Wisdom:
there is no other aim or sense for the philosophical effort of
man but to grasp some part of God-Wisdom.
I think Pythagoras’ influence on Heraclitus is very likely

here: God is the only truly wise being or σοφός: man’s highest
mission and scope is to be a φιλό-σοφος, i. e. a searcher for
God as *absolute "Wisdom. Cf. Heraclides Ponticus fr. 87 "Wehrli
ap. DL I, 12 φιλοσοφίαν δέ π ρ ώ το ς ώ νόμασε Π υθ α γό ρ α ς
κ α ί έα υτόν φ ι λ ό σ ο φ ο ν . . .μ η δένα γ ά ρ είναι σ ο φ ό ν
452
ά λ λ ’ ή θ ε ό ν ; Plato Phaedr. 278 D τ ό μέν σ ο φ ό ν ,
ώ Φαιδρέ, καλειν 6μ οιγε μ έγ α είναι δοκεΐ καί θ ε ω ι
μ ό ν ω ι πρέπειν' τ ό δ έ ή φ ι λ ό σ ο φ ο ν ή τοιοΟτόν τι
μαλλόν τε &ν αύτώ ι ά ρμόττοι καί έμμελεσ τέρω ς £χοι,(1)
and Gigon 140.
Perhaps there is also something more here: God-Wisdom as

absolute Fire (cf. frr. 77; 79; 82; 83; 84) can he known only
by a most fiery soul (cf. fr. 68 [448] αϋη ψυχή σ ο φ ω τά τη );
only fire is capable to grasp Fire: ή γνώ σ ις τοΟ όμοιου τώ ι
ό μ ο ΐω ι...
In view of the verb κυβερνάν something like τόπω ν or

πόρω ν should be understood in the phrase π ά ντα δ ιά π ά ν
τ ω ν : ‘to steer all things through all ways’ (right is Kirk 390
‘I steer a boat through the narrows’), contra Burnet 134 and
Guthrie: ‘to steer all things through all things’; Diels, VS*:
‘alles und jedes zu lenken’, and many others.
(D Cf. J. S. Morrison, CQ 52 (1958), 198-218 ( c o n tr a W. Burkert, H e r

m e s 88 [1960], 159-177) and now C. J. de Vogel, P y t h a g o r a s a n d
E a r l y P y t h a g o r e a n i s m (Assen, 1966), 97-102 and 278 f.
453
GROUP TWENTY
F rr. 86 (5); 87 (14)·, 88 ( 65); 89 (74).
Cf. also frr. 50 (15); 59 (106); 76 (9 6 ); 94 (119).
(i) - In this Group Heraclitus ridicules the conven

tional religious practices and rites as foolish and
illogical: such ones as the purification of a man
who has shed Mood with the Mood of animals (fr. 86);
the phallic rites, Dionysiac obscene hymns and orgia
(frr. 50; 88). Cf. also the rejection of the belief in
every man’s good or bad genius of birth (fr. 94);
of the belief in good or bad days (fr. 59); of the
traditional burial practices (fr. 76).
(ii) - Moreover, following the example of Xeno
phanes (cf. his frr. 14-16 and 23 with Heraclitus'
frr. 86 and 84), he attacks the anthropomorphism and
idolatry of the traditional religion (fr. 86), and
rejects the initiation into the mysteries (probably
into those of Demeter) as unholy (fr. 87). He seems
to emphasize his religious radicalism in the words:
‘We should not (think or act) like children of our
parents’ (fr. 89).
(iii) - The reasons for such an attitude might be
sought for in the religious crisis of the century
(540-440 B. C .)( partly caused by the contacts of the
Greeks from Asia Minor with the non-Hellenic world
(cf. e. g. fr. 23 [114]: εΤς [sc. νόμος], ό θειος;
fr. 84 £v, and Xenophanes’ theology). B ut there
seems to be also something more: Heraclitus’ new
divine principle, the rational and transcendent aithe-
rial Fire, simply was incompatible with any mani
festation of the traditional religion, especially with
the irrational religious practices of the common
people.™
U) Cf. also E. R. Dodds, T h e G reeks a n d th e I r r a tio n a l (Ber
keley, 1951), p. 181 f.
86
(5 DKr 130 + 126 B)
(a) C Theosophia 68 (H. Erbse, Fragmente griech.

Theosophien, Hamb., 1941, p. 184). post fr. 2 (34). δτι 'Η ρά
κ λειτος μεμφόμενος το υ ς θύοντας το ΐς δαίμοσιν Ιφη·
κ α θ α ίρ ο ν τ α ι δ ’ ά λ λ ω ς α ϊμ α τ ι1
μ ια ινό μ ενο ι,
όκοΐον2 ε ϊ τ ις ε ’ι ς 3 π η λό ν έ μ β ά ς
π η λ ώ ι άπονίζοιτο*
5 μ α ίν ε σ θ α ι δ ’ ά ν δ ο κ έο ι4
ε ϊ τ ις μ ιν5 άνθρώπων® έπ ιφ ρ ά σ α ιτ ο οΰτω π ο ιέο ν τ α 7.
κ α ι τ ο ΐς 8 ά γ ά λ μ α σ ι δέ° το υ τέο ισ ιν10 ε ΰ χ ο ν τ α ι11,
όκ οΐον12 ε ϊ τ ις < τ ο ΐ ς > 13 δ ό μ ο ισ ι λ εσ χη νεύ ο ιτο ,
oö τ ι 14 < γ ιν ώ σ κ ω ν 15 θ εο ύς ο ό δ ’ ί)ρ ω α ς ο ϊτ ιν έ ς ε 1 σ ι> 1,!.
seq. fr. 119 (127).
1 άλλως αϊματι Τ, C. I. Neumann ( H e r m e s 15 [1880], ρ. 605 ss.);

C. Buresch (K l a r e s > Lips., 1889, ρ. 118); Diels; Erbse; N. Majnaric
( S a d Acad. Sc. Yugosl. 293 [1953], p. 285 s.) : αϊματι Elias ( t e s t , d ) :
άλλωι αϊματι H. Praenkel ( N a c h r . d . G o t t . G es. 1924, ρ. 105 s. =
W e g e * 77; D ic h tu n g * 451), acc. Kranz ( V S * ) ·, Walzer 45 : αϊματι αϊματι
Fr. Blass et A. Kochalsky : άλλως < α ϊμ α > αϊματι D. S. Robertson
( P r o c . C a m b r . P h ilo l. S o c . 148-150 [1931], p. 2), acc. Kranz ( V o r s o le r a t.
D e n k e r , 1939, p. 56), Kirk-Raven nr. 244 2 όκοΐον (cf. v. 8)
Neumann, Burcsch, Erbse, Deichgraeber ( R h y t h m . E le m e n t e , p. 527) :
otov T, DK alii : ώσπερ 68/ Elias 3 είς T : ές Neumann alii
4 δοκέοι Buresch, Erbse : δοκοΐη T, Neumann, DK alii 5 μιν
Snell, Erbse : άυτον Τ, αύτόν Neumann, Buresch, DK alii : del. Deich
graeber 528 6 άνθρώπων T, Neumann cett. : del. ut dittograph.
Wilamowitz ( D e r G la u b e d e r H e lle n e n * II, ρ. 206 n. 2); Gigon 132 :
άνθρωπον ci. Deichgraeber 7 ποιέοντα Neumann, Buresch, DK,
Erbse, ποιεΰντα Deichgraeber : ποιοΰντα T 8 τοΐς del. Deich
graeber 9 δέ T : om. Origen. Clem., del. Wilamowitz 10 του
τέοισιν T, Clem. P 11 έχονται T 12 όκοΐον Origen. Clem. :
οΐον T 13 τοΐς ex Origene add. suad. Staehlin : om. T, Gern. 14
455
oö τι Origen. : θύειν T 15 γινώσκοντες Η. Weil (R e v u e de
philol. 2 [1878], ρ. 8 6 ); H . Gomperz (Z s. f. ö s t. G ym n. 61 [1910],
p. 963); Heidel (cf. ad te s t, g ) 16 < > ex Origene inser. Bywater,
Diels
(b) C Celsus ap. Origen, c. Gels. VII, 62 (II, p. 213,3

Koetschau). [post Rerodot. I, 131]. καί μήν καί Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς
ώ δέ π ω ς ά ποφ α ίνεται'
'καί τοΐς άγάλμασιτουτέοίσιν

/ εύχονται,
ό κ ο ΐ ο ν ε ΐ τ ι ς τ ο ΐ ς δ ό μ ο ι σ ι λεσ-
/ χηνεύοιτο,
ο ß τ ι 1 γ ι ν ώ σ κ ω ν 2 θ ε ο ύ ς ο ύ δ ’3 ή-
/ ρ ω α ς ο ΐ τ ι ν έ ς είσι.
τί γο ΰ ν σοφώτερον του Η ρ α κ λ είτο υ ή μας διδάσκουσιν;

δ μέν γ ε μ ά λ α ά πορ ρή τω ς ύποσημαίνει ήλίθιον τό τ ο ΐ ς
άγάλμασιν είίχεσθαι έάν μ ή γ ι ν ώ σ κ η ι 2
τις θεούς κ α ί ί ] ρ ω α ς ο ΐ τ ι ν έ ς ε ί σ ι ν . Cf.
VII, 65 (II, ρ. 215,11 Κ .) . (Schl. ρ. 496 s. = 121).
I, 5 (I, ρ. 58,26 Κ.) έν το ΐς έξη ς οδν βέλω ν (sc. δ Κέλ-

σος) α ύτδ κοινοττοιήσαι ώ ς ού πρώ τον ύπό τούτου εύρε-
θέν, έκ τίθ ετα ι Η ρ α κ λ είτο υ λ έξιν την λέγο υ σ α ν δ μ ο ι α 4
ώ ς ε ΐ τ ι ς τ ο ΐ ς δ ό μ ο ι ς λ ε σ χ η ν ε ύ ο ι τ ο ποι-
εΐν τούς προσ ιόντα ς ώ ς θεοΐς το ΐς άψύχοις.
1 OÖ τι ^Hoeschel : oöti A : οΰτε Delarue, Schlcicrm. 2 -γν- A

3 ούδ’ : oöte Schleierm. 4 δμοια corr. in όμοία A
(c) P Clem, protrept. 50, 4 (I, p. 39 St.) σύ δέ άλλ* εί

μή προφ ήτιδος (sc. Σ φ ύ λ λ η ς ) έπακούεις, του γ ε σου άκου-
σον φιλοσόφου, τοΟ Έ φ εσ ίου Η ρ α κ λ είτο υ , τήν άναισ-
θησίαν δνειδίζοντος τοΐς ά γ ά λ μ α σ ι' κ α ί τ ο ΐ ς ά γ ά λ -
μ α σ ί τ ο υ τ έ ο ί σ ι ν ε ϋ χ ο ν τ α ι , δ κ ο ΐ ο ν εΐ τ ι ς
456
< τ ο ΐ ς > 1 δ ό μ ο ι ς λ ε σ χ η ν ε ύ ο ι τ ο . Cf. Η. Wiese,
Her. hei Klemens, ρ. 39 ss. (Schl. p. 496 = 121).
1 τοΐς add. Staehlin
(d ) P (130 B) Elias Cret., in Gregor. Naz. oral. 25,15

(cod. Vat. Reg. Pii II Gr. 6, fol. 90'', 25; cf. Byivateri p. 50).
οϋς δ ια π α ίζω ν Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς κ α θ α ί ρ ο ν τ α ι δ έ, φη-
σίν, α ΐ μ α τ ι μ ι α ι ν ό μ ε ν ο ι , ώ σ π ε ρ & ν ε ΐ τ ι ς
εις πηλόν έμ β ά ς πηλώι άπονίζοιτο.
(Cf. Schl. ρ. 431 = 79).
(e) R Gregor. Naz. orat. 25,15 (PG 35, p. 1220 A ) .

σ ύ γχει μέν και τήν Ε λ λ ή ν ω ν δεισιδαιμονίαν, ώ ς πρότε-
ρον, καί τήν πολόθεον αύτώ ν άθεΐαν, κ α ί τούς π α λα ιο ύ ς
θεούς καί τούς νέους, καί τούς α ισχρούς μύθους, καί τά ς
α ίσ χρ ο τέρ α ς θυσ ίας π η λ ώ ι πηλόν καθαιρόν-
τ ω ν , ώ ς αύτώ ν τίνος λέγο ντο ς ή κ ο υ σ α ...
(/) R Apollon. Tyan. ep. 27 Kayser (Philostrat. p. 351).

τοΐς έν Δ ελφοΐς ίερευσιν. α ΐ μ α τ ι βωμούς μ ι α ί ν ο υ-
σ ι ν ιερείς, ε ΐτα θα υμά ζουσ ί τινες πόθεν α ί π ό λ εις άτυ-
χουσιν, δταν μ ε γ ά λ α δυσθετήσωσιν. ώ τή ς ά μ α θ ία ς. 'Η ρ ά
κ λειτος fjv σοφός, ά λ λ ’ ούδέ έκεΐνος Έ φ εσ ίους έπεισε μή
π η λ ώ ι π η λ ό ν κ α θ α ί ρ ε σ θ α ι . (Bernays, Ges. Abh.,
I, ρ. 72 s.).
(g1) R (123 DK) Theosophia 74 (p. 185 E rbse). δτι ό

Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς όρώ ν τούς "Ε λλη να ς γ έ ρ α τοΐς δαίμοσιν
ά πονέμοντα ς εΐπεν'
δαιμόνω ν ά γ ά λ μ α σ ι ν εδχονται
ο ύ κ ά κ ο ύ ο υ σ ι ν , ώ σπερ < ε ί > 1 άκούοιεν,
ούκ άποδιδοϋσιν2, ώ σπερ < ε ί > 1 ούκ ά π α ιτο ΐεν3.
Cf. DK ad loc.
457
1 εΐ add. Erbse 2 ούκ άποδιδόασιν Hei del ( C P 5 [1910] p. 247)
3 άτκχιτοϊεν (sc. οί "Ελληνες) Erbse δαιμ. άγάλμ. εύχονται ούκ
άκούουσιν δκωσπερ άκούουσιν, ούκ άποδιδοΰσιν δκωσπερ <άιτο-
διδοΰσιν>, ούκ <άΐΐαιτοϋσιν 8κωσιτερ> άπαιτοΰσιν F. Lortzing ( Β .
P h . W . 1899, ρ. 201 = B w s i a n s J a h r e s b e r . 112 [1902], ρ. 304) coni,
test, ff2
(ff2) R Acta Apollonii 19, p. 106 Klette (T . U. 15,2)
δαιμόνω ν δέ ά γ ά λ μ α σ ι ν ε ΰ χ ο ν τ α ι
[&]1 ο ύ κ ά κ ο ύ ο υ σ ι ν 2, ώ σπερ < ε ! > 3 άκούοιεν4,
ούκΓ’ άπαιτοΰσιν, ούκ άποδιδοΰσιν.
1 & del. Patin ( A r c h i v f . G esell, d . P h ilo s . 12 [1890], p. 147 ss.) 2

άκούωσιν Par. 3 εΐ addidi 4 άκούοιεν Patin : άκούωμεν
Par., άκούομεν Klette 5 < ώ ς > ούκ Patin
(h ) R? Ps. Heracliti epist. IV (p. 71,22 ss. Byw.)

ά πα ίδευτοι, ούκ ΐστε δτι ούκ Μστι θ ε ό ς χ ε ι ρ ό κ μ η -
τ ο ς . . . ; ρ . 72,21 . . . ώ στε λίθοι θεώ ν μ ά ρ τυ ρ ε ς;
Cf. I cp. Cor. 12,2 οΐδα τε δτι δτε £θνη ήτε π ρ ό ς τά

είδω λα τά άφω να ώ ς άν ή γεσ θ ε ά π α γό μ εν ο ι; Habacuc
2,18 ...ε ίδ ω λ α κω φ ά ; 19; et G. Rudberg, Coniectanea NT,
VTI (Uppsnlne, 1942), 11 ss.
458
86 (5)
They (sc. the common people) vainly try to purify them-

/ selves ivith blood
when defiled with it,
as if one who had stepped into mud
were to wash it off with mud:
5 he would well be thought mad
if any of (normal) men noticed him doing so.
Further, they pray to these statues,

as if one were to talk (converse) ivith the houses,
not recognizing what gods and heroes really are
(or knowing not the true nature of gods and heroes).
V. 1 ά λ λ ω ς , ‘vainly’, should be kept (contra Ko-

chalsky, Frankel, DK, Walzer et al.) because it is suggested
by the optative όκοΐον εϊ τ ις άπονίζοιτο, ‘as if one were
to wash it off’ (so Majnaric 1. c.).
Robertson’s reading < α ΐμ α > α ΐμ α τι, adopted by Kirk,

seems attractive in view of LSJ, s. κσθαίρω , III, and of the
repetition πηλόν. . ,π η λώ ι too. But it is not necessary: because
α ΐμ α τι can well go with καθαίρονται, corresponding with the
other adynaton, v. 4: πηλώ ι άπονίζεσθαι. As for μ ι κ ι ν ό -
μ ε V ο ι, ‘when defiled with it’, it can be taken as absolutely
used, because it already implies μίασμα, or a defiling with
blood. Cf. c. g. Hippocrat. de morbo sacro 4 (VI, 362 L.)
καθαίρουσι y a p τούς έχομένους τίμ νούσωι α ί
μ α τ ί τε καί ά λλοισι τοιούτοις, ώ σπ ερ μ ί α σ μ ά τι
έχοντας and Marcovich, CP 54 (1959), 259. This μιαινόμενοι
is perfective in sense ( = μεμιασμένοι, μ ια νθέντες), probably
expressing the iteration (‘each time they are defiled with
459
blood’) : cf. e. g. Xcnoph. anal). I ll, 2,17 oi Ά ρ ια ίο υ πρόσθεν
σύν ήμΐν τ α τ τ ό μ ε ν ο ι νυν άφεστήκασιν. Thus we have
in w . 1-4 another Heraclitean chiastic scheme (a : b :: b1 : a1) :
κ α θα ίρεσ θα ι α ΐμ α τι : μιαινόμενοι : :
τ'ις εις πηλόν έμ β ά ς : πη λώ ι ά πονίζεσ θαι
Consequently, an intended word-play in v. 2 μιαινόμενοι :

v. 5 μαΐνεσθαι is not likely to me (contra Patin, Einheitslehre
13 n. 1; Kranz; Walzer 145 n. 1, and especially contra Guthrie
475 n. 2 ),<n because μιαινόμενοι (‘who are really defiled with
blood’) does not belong to the same category as μαίνεσθαι,
referring to the irreal intention of men to κα θα ίρ εσ θα ι αι-
μ α τι and πη λώ ι ά πονίζεσ θα ι (‘to try vainly to purify them
selves or wash the mud off’) .
In like manner, allusion to any current religious practice

in vv. 3-4 is not likely, because the sentence: “as if one who
had stepped into mud were to wash it off with mud” plays in
the whole saying the part of an example of irreal absurdity,
which is not likely to occur ever (cf. a similar example in
v. 8); contra Guthrie 1. c.: “The reference to washing in mud
or clay (πηλός) may contain another hit at current religious
practices, for certain ritual purifications actually did involve
smearing the person with clay. See Dem. De Cor. 259; Guthrie,
Orph. and Gk. Bel. 212”. [Cf. also Wilamowitz, Gl. d. Hell.3,
II, 207 n.].
The negative meaning which μ α ί ν ε σ θ α ι has here,

implying simply ‘to be out of one’s senses’, ‘to be mad or crazy’,
should not be confounded with the positive meaning which
the verb has in frr. 50 {15)·. 'to rave as one possessed by Dio
nysus’; 75 (.93): ‘with mouth inspired by Apollo’.
The Ionic forms: v. 3 όκοΐον, instead of cod. Tubingensis

olov, is suggested by v. 8 όκοΐον Origen and Clement; and
v. 6 δοκέοι, v. 6 ποιέοντα are preferable in view of του-
τέόισιν (T, Origen, Clement), and of Heraclitus’ frr. 3 (17);
46Ö
19 (28*); 74 (27) too. Although the Ionic forms in such a
late source cannot be given much credit, nevertheless the editors
should be consequent (contra e. g. Diels-Kranz; Frankel and
Kirk, who read v. 3 olov and v. 5 δοκοίη with T, but v. 6
ποιέοντα and v. 8 όκοΐον, contra T).
Snell’s reading v. 6 μ i v, instead of T αύτόν, is likely

in view of fr. 52 (94) Έ ρ ιν ό ες μιν Δ ίκης επίκουροι. If so,
then the phrase εϊ τις μιν άνθρώ πω ν is tolerable enough
(contra Wilamowitz, Gigon and Deichgräber), since ά ν θ ρ ώ
π ω ν probably implies here: ‘normal men who would not
act thus’, i. e. ‘the common sense’. Cf. also Odyssey VII, 31
against X X III, 365.
V. 6 έ π ι φ ρ ά ζ ε σ θ α ι means simply ‘to notice’,

‘mark’, ‘observe’ (LSJ, s. v., II, 3), and not ‘erkennen’, ‘deuten’,
‘durchschauen’, ‘auf einen Gedanken kommen’, as Frankel
(Wege2, 77 and n. 2; Dichtung-, 451 and n. 63) took it (cf.
Odyssey V III, 94 = 533 and Kranz ad loc.).
V. 8 < τ ο ΐ ς > , taken from Origen, seems to me likely

because its omission both in T and in Clement is understan
dable after τις (moreover, cf. v. 7 τοΐς ά γ ά λ μ α σ ι) .
V. 9: the last four words form the second part of a

hexameter;<2) the same is the case with frr. 64 (700); 57 (3)
and 28 (d1) (137)·.
υυ I — υυ | — υυ | — _υ
. fr. 86 οόδ’ ί^ρωας οΐτινές είσι
fr. 64 ώ ρ α ς αΐ π ά ντα φέρουσι
fr. 57 εδρος π οδός άνθρω πείου
fr. 28 (dl ) εστι y a p είμ α ρμ ένα πά ντω ς.
In the former two cases I would suppose that Heraclitus

is occasionally but deliberately using the epic form, and not
unconsciously. The reason might consist in the intention to
make his new teachings accessible and attractive to the common
461
people attached to the epic tradition (cf. perhaps fr. 101
[104]). But systematic metrical intentions are not likely in
Heraclitus (contra Deichgräber). The fragment is a typical
example of Heraclitus’ narrative prose (as are frr. 1; 23; 101;
105 [121]). In the latter two eases we have probably to do
with some late poetic version of Heraclitus. Cf. also fr. 96 (b)
(136), and Kirk 294; Deichgräber (Rhythm. Elemente 528 f.).
The singular form v. 9 γινώ σκω ν, instead of the required

plural form, can be explained as an archaic attraction by the
preceding τ ις (cf. Kühner-Gerth, Satzlehre4, I, 87 f.; not
clear enough Pränkel, "IPeye1, 78).
Testimonia (g'~-) seem to be clear as Christian remodel

ings of (a); aliter Neumann 607 (who combined a with g1):
Lortzing 304; Erbse 23 f. But the textual problems remain.
The weak point in Erbse’s reading (in g') is the change of
subject (“ .. .als ob sie [nämlich die törichten Menschen] über
haupt nicht darum bitten”) ; nevertheless it seems to be prefe
rable to Lortzing’s drastic solution.
Vv. 1-6 ridicule the illogical traditional practice and belief

‘that a homicide, whose hands were stained with blood, could
be purged of the pollution of the act by a ritual including animal
sacrifice” (Guthrie 475); and vv. 7-9 reject the anthropomor
phism and idolatry of the conventional religion, following the
example of Xenophanes’ frr. 14-16 (so Gigon 132).
Heraclitus actually does not say us what is the true

nature of gods and semi-gods or heroes (the phrase θεούς
ούδ* ή ρω α ς is not to be taken as £v διά δυοΐν). Never
theless, as for the heroes, we may infer from fr. 76 (96)
(“Corpses are more fit to be cast out than dung”) that the
statues of heroes (representing their bodily features) should
462
not be object of any cult, since it is only their fiery soul which
is eternal and divine. However, the rejecting this cult probably
did not prevent Heraclitus from accepting sacrifices to heroes
(cf. ad fr. 72 [58]). x
As for the true nature of gods, we know nothing about,

but so far seems to be likely that Heraclitus believed only in
one divine principle (cf. fr. 84 [32] Sv, τό σοφόν μοΟνον,
and Xenophanes’ fr. 23), whose very essence is the shapeless,
purest and transcendent rational aither-fire. (Gigon 1. c. only
stated that the cult to the statues of gods would contradict
“das geistige Wesen der Götter”) .
ο ) In Acschyl. S e p t e m 343 f. μ α ι ν ό μ ε ν ο ς δ’, έιτιπνεΐ Χ αοδάμας /

μ ι α ί ν ω ν εύσέβειαν "Α ρης I w o u ld suppose an intentional
word-play between the two verbs, but not a reminiscence of Heraclitus’
saying ( c o n tr a Fräukel, W e g e *2, 77 n. 1).
(2) If we were allowed to read v. 9 so:
oö τι θεούς είδώς οΰδ’ ί)ρωας οΐτινές είσι
we would have a complete hexameter.
463
87
(14 D K ; 124 + 125 B )
(α) P Clem, protrept. 22,2 (I, p. 16 S t.) , p o st fr. 74

{27). τ(σ ι δ ή 1 μ α ν τ ε ύ ε τ α ι Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι τ ο ς 6 Έ φ έ σ ι ο ς ; (14“
DK; 124 Β) 'ν υ κ τ ιιτ ό λ ο ις [ μ ά γ ο ι ς ,] 2 Β ά κ χ ο ις ’, Λ ή ν α ις ,
μ ύσ τα ις· τ ο ύ τ ο ις ά π ε ιλ ε ΐ τ ά μ ε τ ά θ ά ν α τ ο ν , τ ο ό τ ο ις μ α ν
τε ύ ε τ α ι τά π ΰ ρ (14b D K ; 125 B ) ‘
τ ά γ ά ρ ν ο μ ιζ ό μ ε ν α κ α τ ’ ά ν θ ρ ώ π ο υ ς μ υ σ τ ή ρ ια
ά ν ιε ρ ω σ τ ! μ υ ο υ ν τ α ι3.
(3) ν ό μ ο ς oCv κ α ί ύ ιτό λη ψ ις κ ενή τ ά μ υ σ τ ή ρ ια , κ α ι τοΟ

δ ρ ά κ ο ν τ ο ς ά π ά τ η τ ι ς έ σ τ ιν θ ρ η σ κ ε υ ο μ έ ν η . . . ( = E uscb.
praep. ev. II, 3,37 [I, p. 85,11 M ens]). (S chl.
p. 525 = 140; Lassalle I, p. 241; B ernays, B rie fe , p. 134 s.).
Cf. H . Wiese, H eraklit bei K lem ens, pp. 12-29.
1 δέ Eus. IO 2 μ ά γ ο ις seclusi 3 μ υε0 ν τα ι Eus. ONV, μυεΰ-

τα ι Β, μύονται Η
464
87 (14)
The initiation into the, mysteries practised among men

is unholy (impious).
The saying brings two difficult problems.· ( 2) Whether

fr. 14“ DK (124 B)
νυκτιπόλοις μ ά γο ις, Β άκχοις, Λήναις, μύσταις
is a genuine fragment, or is due to Clement? (ii) W hat is the
very meaning of fr. 14b DK (125 B)?
(i) I would side with V. Macchioro (Eraclito, Nuovi Studi

sull’ Orfismo, Bari, 1922, 81 ff.); Reinhardt (Nachlass 48-59
and 254 f. ap. Wiese, Heraklit bei Klemens, 315-17 and 321)
and especially with Wiese 21-24 (probably with Frankel, Dich
tung**, 450, and Kirk, in Kirk-Raven nr. 245, too) in believing
that fr. 14“ DK is not & genuine fragment (contra e. g. Bemays,
Die heraklit. Briefe, 134 f.; Bywater; ZN 932 n. 1; DK; Burnet
141; Nestle fr. 32; Gigon 131; Walzer 56; Guthrie 473); because:
(«) The form of the sentence (a rhetorical question fol
lowed by the answer consisting in enumeration of nouns) is
typical of Clement’s Protrepticus (as Reinhardt 59 ap. Wiese
317, and Wiese 21; 23 f. well pointed out). Wiese quoted a
parallel case (Protrept. 41,1): here Clement first quoted Hesiod
Erga 252 f.
τρ'ις γ ά ρ μύριοί εΐσιν επί χθονί πουλυβοτείρηι
δαίμονες άθάνατοι, φ ύλακες μερόπω ν άνθρώπω ν,
then he put the question: τίνες είσίν οί φύλακες, δ> Βοιώ-
τ ι ε ; finally he gave an answer which is not based upon
Hesiod’s quotation but is a product of Clement’s own: ή δήλον
ώ ς οδτοι (cf. Protrept. 40,1) κ α ί ot τούτω ν έπιτιμότεροι,
465
οί μ εγ ά λ ο ι δαίμονες, ό ’Απόλλων, ή "Α ρτεμις, ή Λητώ,
ή Δημήτηρ, ή Κόρη, ό Πλούτων, ό Η ρ α κ λ ή ς, α ύτός ό
Ζεύς.
(b) μ ά γ ο ι ς : Reinhardt (Nachlass 53 ap. Wiese 316)
pointed out that μ ά γ ο ς in the meaning of γόης, ά γ ύ ρ τη ς
(‘Zauberer’, ‘Quacksalber’) is not likely for the time of Hera
clitus; so did I (Paper to 3rd Class. Congress, 1959, 11 n. 16;
the earliest known evidence for a depreciative sense of the
I word is Soph. 0. T. 387). But W. Burkert (‘Γ Ο Η Σ ’, Rhein.
I Mus. 105 [1962], 38 n. 12, and ‘Iranisches bei Anaximandros’,
I Rhein. Mus. 106 [1963], 122 and n. 69) argued that such a
i meaning was possible, and Wiese 16-19 reached a non liquet
; conclusion (cf. also Nestle, Vom Mythos zum Logos, 99, and
C. Ramnoux, Revue de la Mediterranee 19 [1959], 355 ff.).
But there is another point: whether this μ ά γ ο ις is by

Heraclitus, or by Clement (who uses the word in this sense at
Protrept. 58,3 μ ά γ ο ι .. ,ά σ εβ εία ς; Strom. VI, 31,2), or by
somebody else, it is semantically out of place between the words
νυκ τιπόλοις and Β άκχοις, Λήναις (cf. also Reinhardt, Nach
lass 254 ap. Wiese 321: “Was soll im persischen Ephesus urn’s
Ja h r 500 die persische hochangesehene Kaste der Magier unter
Bakchen und Mystenf”) .
I bracketed [μ ά γο ις] either as an addition posterior to

Clement, or as a scribe’s lapsus instead of Β ά κ χο ις; because
I suppose that in the metrical unit νυκτιπόλοις Β ά κ χο ις
Clement is unconsciously quoting a poetic phrase, in view of
Euripides Ion 718 νυκτιπόλοις ά μ α συν Β ά κ χ ο ις /1*
(c) Reinhardt 56 (Wiese 316) supposed that only the
words νυκτιπόλοι Β άκχοι, Λήναι could be by Heraclitus.
I think only Λ ή ν α ι is likely to go back to Heraclitus,
namely to his fr. 50 (15), where we have ληναΐζουσιν. As for
ν υ κ τ ι π ό λ ο ι , I would take it as a poetic invention of
Euripides (Ion 718; 1049 νυκτιπόλω ν έφόδων ά νάσσεις
[sc. Hecate]; fr. 472,11 N.2 νυκτιπόλου Ζ α γρ έω ς), which is
not likely for Heraclitus. But I agree with Reinhardt 51 (316)
466
that the word is used in Clement as an adjective with Βάκχοι,
and not as a noun, as all scholars take it (cf. e. g. DK; Wiese
10; 16; Guthrie 473: “To night-wanderers, magi, bacchants,
maenads, initiates”) . ^
(d) Finally, as for μ ύ σ τ α ι , it is not likely that
Heraclitus had linked the mysteries (probably those of Deme
ter) with Dionysus’ orgiastic cult, which originally w as. not
secret. Our earliest source for the mysteries of Dionysus is
Euripides’ The Bacchae (about 407 B. C.) 72 ff.; 472; 474;
1108 f., under possible influence of Macedonian practices (cf.
Kern, B E 16, 1291, 49 f f .; Wiese 20 f.).
I t is much more likely that μύσταις is due to Clement

himself, who intended to link the sentence on the bacchants
and maenads (deduced from Heraclitus’ fr. 50) with the follow
ing one, attacking τ ά μυστήρια (so Bernhardt 57 [317]: “ μύσ-
τα ι steht am Ende, weil Klemens auf die Mysterien von
Eleusis zielt. Daran schliesst sich das begründende Heraklit-
zitat”) . (2>
Consequently, fr. 14a DK is not likely to be a genuine

fragm ent.
·*
(ii) Gaisford (in his edition of Eusebius) was the first

scholar who recognized a quotation from Heraclitus in fr. 14b
DK (125 B ) . Bernays 1. c. pointed out that 22,3 νόμος οδν
is likely to bo Clement’s commentary on Heraclitus’ quotation
τ ά νομιζόμενα κ α τ’ άνθρώ πους. The saying can be taken
as a probable fragment of Heraclitus, although not as a sure
one. (cf. also Wiese 26).
In the sentence τ ά μυστήρια can be taken as subject

(so was it understood by e. g. Kirk-Raven nr. 245: “The secret
r ite s .. .are celebrated.. . ”) . But the subject can be also ‘they’
467
(i. o. perhaps Ephesians, ef. fr. 101 [104]), with τά μυστήρια
as internal accusative (so e. g. LSJ, s. μυέω, I: 'they are ini
tiated in the mysteries'; Wiese 24: “in d i e ...Weihen werden
s ie .. .eingeweiht”) . I think the latter is more likely.
The saying can imply either: “The mysteries practised

among men are unholy”, or “The mysteries practised among
men are celebrated in an unholy manner”. The former inter
pretation would imply an unconditional rejection of the mys
teries; the latter “implies that mysteries would not be utterly
worthless if they were correctly celebrated” (Kirk-Raven 212).
The former interpretation is shared by ZN 919 n.; 932

n. 1; 933 n. 1; Gigon 132; F. Gregoire (Revue neoscol. de Philo
sophie 38 [1935], 45), and probably by DK; Burnet; Frankel
(Dichtung2, 450); Guthrie 1. c.; the latter, by Dclatte (Lcs
conceptions de Venthousiasme chez les phüosophes presocrati-
ques, Paris, 1934, 12); P. Friedländer ap. DK I, p. 492, 43
(‘es gibt aber auch eine andere μύησις’) ; Kirk (cf. also Wiese
26). I think the former is more likely, because: (a) the phrase
τ ά νομιζόμενα κ α τ’ Α νθρώπους might imply contempt (cf.
Gigon 1. c. “das sehr kühle, fast verächtlich reservierte τά
ν ο μ ιζ ό μ ε ν α ...”); (b) also frr. 50 (15); 86 (5) and other
similar sayings seem to imply an unconditional rejection of
the traditional religious practices.
This is the oldest known mention of mysteries in Greek

religion; we don’t know which mysteries are alluded to, but
the probability is that those of Demeter might be meant.(i)
(i) The reading νυκτιπόλοισ<ι> μάγοις would be metrically possible,

but is semantically unlikely.
(2> A somewhat similar distinction is to be found in Strabo X, 3, 10
(468 Cas.) Δήμητρος δέ ot τε μ ύ ο τ σ ι καί δαιδοΰχοι καί
Ιεροφάνται, Δ ι ο ν ύ σ ο υ δέ Σειληνοί τε καί Σάτυροι καί Β ά κ -
χ α ι, Λ ή ν α t τε καί θυΐαι. . .
468
88
(68 DK; 129 B)
(a) R lamblich. de mysteriis I, 11 (p. 40,2 Parthey),

διά δή τοΰτο Sv τε κ ω μ ω ιδία ι κ α ί τ ρ α γ ω ιδ ία ι ά λλότρ ια
πάθη θεωροΟντες ΐσ τα μ εν τά οικ εία πάθη κ α ί μ ε τ ρ ιό
τερ α ά π ερ γ α ζό μ εθ α κ α ί ά ποκ α θα ίρ ομ εν' Sv τε τ ο ΐ ς
ίεροΐς θεάμασί τισι καί ά κοόσμασι των
α I σ χ ρ ώ ν1 ά πολυόμ εθα τη ς έπ ί τω ν Spycov Απ’ αύτώ ν
συμπιπτούσης βλάβης, θ ερ α π εία ς οδν ένεκ α τή ς έν ήμΐν
ψυχής κ α ί μετριότητος τω ν διά τήν γένεσ ιν προσψυομένων
αύτήι κακώ ν, λύσ εώ ς τε ά π ό τω ν δεσμώ ν κ α ί Α π α λλα γή ς
χ ά ρ ιν τ ά τοιαΟτα π ρ ο σ ά γετα ι. καί δ ιά τοΟτο εικότω ς
α ύ τά ά κ ε α ‘Η ρά κλειτος προσεΐπεν, ώ ς έξα κεσ όμενα 2 τά
δεινά καί τά ς ψ υχάς έξά ντεις ά π ερ γ α ζ ό μ εν α τώ ν έν τήι
γενέσ ει συμφορών. (Schl. ρ. 431 = 79).
1 cf. ρ. 38,13 τ ή ν .. .το ν φαλλόν στάσιν, ρ. 39,3 τά ς δ* αίσχρολογίας,

ρ. 39,9 2 έξακουόμενα codd., corr. Cobet et Parthey
469
88 ( 68)
Heraclitus called them [sc. the phallic rites and obscene hymns]
“remedies”.
I t is doubtful whether there is anything genuine in

ά κ ε a , 'cures’, ‘remedies’, since Iamblichus also in frr. 69
and 70 DK seems to refer to frr. 98 (49) and 92 (79) in a
misleading way.
I would tentatively side with Bcrnays (Theophrastos’
Schrift Über die Frömmigkeit, Berlin, 1866, 192) and H.
Gomperz (ap. Diels, VS4, p. XX IV ) in believing that if Hera
clitus really said something like ά κ ε a , it must have been
meant as an ironical sneer: “The phallie rites and obscene
hymns are ‘remedies’ in the opinion of the foolish and super
stitious common people”, i. e. they are false cures. I think it
is much more likely that Heraclitus referred to τ ά φ α λλικ ά
as described in fr. 50 (15), than to the purificatory rites as
described in fr. 86 (5), contra Schleiermacher and others. Of.
Iamblichus’ words τ ά Ιερά θ εά μ α τά τιν α κ α ί ά κ ούσ μ α τα
τω ν α ίσ χρ ώ ν; ή τω ν φ αλλώ ν σ τά σ ις and α ί α ίσ χ ρ ο λ ο γία ι
with fr. 50 ε! μή Διονύσωι πομπήν έποιοΰντο κ α ί ΰμνεον
δ ισ μ α αΙδο(οισιν.
A different interpretation is given by Guthrie 476 and
n. 1 (who seems to read mistakenly Iamblichus’ text as τ ά έν
το ΐς Ιεροΐς θ εά μ α τα κ α ι άκούσματα, “the things seen and
heard in sacred rites”) : Iamblichus “hints at a more favour
able attitude to purificatory and other religious rites” . “The
upshot is that Heraclitus was not hostile to initiations and
Dionysiac orgia as such, but deplored the fact that they were
carried out without any understanding of their true signifi
cance. .. ”.
I very doubt that Heraclitus could have said the phallic
rites to be real cures in any positive sense of the word.
470
89
(74 P K ; 97 η. Β)
(α) Ρ Μ. Ant. IV, 46 ά εί τοΟ Η ρ α κ λ είτειο υ με-

μ ν η σ θ α ι... seqq. frr. 66 (e3) ; 69 (δ1) ; 4 et 1 (Λ1), κ α ί δτι ού
δ ει < ώ ς > 1 π α ϊδ α ς το κ εώ νω ν2 (sc. ποιεΐν κ α ί λέγειν),
τουτέστι κ α τά ψιλόν" κ α θότι παρειλήφαμεν.
1 ού δεΐ < ώ ς > Casaub., acc. Coraes, Bernays (G e s . A i h . , I, p. 55 n.),

DK, Farquharson (< 0 σ π ιερ > Gataker) : ούδ’ ώς Schenkl, acc. Trannoy
2 τοκέων & V codd., post W. Headlam ( C B 15 [1901], p. 401) corr. G. H.
ßendall ( C B 16 [1902], p. 28) (cf. Callimach. fr. 191,72 Pf.; A . G. VII,
79,3; 408,3) : τεκτόνων ci. Trannoy
(b) R? Apuleius, apol. 39,1 utrum igitur putas philo-

sopho, non secundum Cynicam temeritatem rudi et indocto, sed
qui se Platonicae scholae meminerit, utrum ei putas turpe
scire an nescire, neglegere an curare, nosse quanta sit etiam
in istis providentiae ratio, an < de> düs1 immortalibus patri
et matri credere?
1 de d ü s vnlg. : düs Ρ φ
(c1) R Aristo Chius ap. Stob. IV, 25,44 (IV, p. 628 H.)
[ = S V F I nr. 386]. έκ τω ν Ά ρ Ισ τω νος όμοιωμάτων" οί
ά ρ τι έκ φιλοσοφίας τιάντας έ λ έ ν χ ο ν τ ε ς κ α ί ά π ό
τ ω ν γ ο ν έ ω ν ά ρ χ ό μ ε ν ο ι . . . seq. fr. 22 (97) (δ1).
(Cf. Α. Dyroff, Berl. Philol. W. 37 [1917], p. 1215).
(c2) R A. G. V II, 79,3

δάξ γά ρ καί τοκεώνε< κ α > ( , ώ 1 ξένε, δόσφρονας
/ ά νδρ α ς
ύλάκτευν (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς). Cf. fr. 22 (97) (δ2).
471
1 τοκεώνε καί, & scripsi (cf. H e r m e s 93 [1965], p. 250 s.) : λάξ yexp
καί τοκέων άσιω I’ : λάξ γ ά ρ έγώ (s. καί) πατέων ’Ασίας Selmeidor,
Boissonade, Beckby : λάξ γ ά ρ καί τοκέωνας, Ιώ Headlam ( C S 15
[1901], ρ. 401), ace. Paton
(cs) R A. G. V II, 408,3

ά ρ τι γ ά ρ Μπιχώνσκτος ό κ α ι τ ο κ έ ω ν + β α ΰ ξα ς1
ά ρ τι κεκοίμηται θυμός έν ήσυχίηι.
1 τοκέων εΐα Ρ 1 (qui versum imperfectum reliquit), τοκέων εία βαΰξας

Ρ° : τ. Mo (ex ια) Plan. : τοκέων καταβαΰξας Brunck, Stadtmueller,
Beckby : τοκέωνε βαΰξας Headlam, acc. Paton
472
89 ( 74 )
We should not [think or act] like ‘children of our parents’.
Probably < ώ ς > (cf. καθότι) and ποιεΐν κ α ί λ έγειν

belong to Marcus. The phrase ‘children of our parents’ sounds
like a proverb. The saying seems to hint at some radical teach
ing of Heraclitus. Now, the one which most radically differed
from the traditional beliefs of our parents (cf. Marcus’ inter
pretation καθότι παρειλή φ α μεν) seems to be that on θεο'ι
οΐτινές είσι, i. e. Heraclitus’ new theology (cf. e. g. fr. 83
[ 1 0 8 } ) . And if Apuleius’ words in (i>) an de diis immortalibus
patri et matri credere allude to this saying (they look like
a reference to somebody’s words?), they might suggest this in
terpretation. But we cannot be sure enough.
I think A. S. L. Farquharson (in his edition of Marcus

Aurelius, p. 632) was wrong when he reduced the saying to
the commonplace represented by e. g. Aristotle Soph. el. 15,
p. 174 b 2 πότερον έπταντα δει πείθεσ θα ι το ΐς γονεΰσιν
ή π ά ντ’ άττειθεΐν; Ε Ν I, 2, ρ. 1164 b 22; Muson. Ruf. fr. XVI
p. 82 Hense; because the idea of ‘to obey one’s parents in all
things or disobey them’ does not mean the same as credere or
think like one’s parents.
Guthrie 416 n. 3 is not convincing when he first referred

the saying to fr. 15 ( 101) and then wrote: “This is in Hera
clitus’s Delphic manner, ‘not speaking out but indicating by
a sign’, and Marcus Aurelius, who quotes the phrase. . . was
no doubt right in interpreting it to signify ‘following tradi
tion’. . . ”
473
GROUP TWENTY ONE
F rr. 90 (78); 91 (102)·, 92 (75); 93 (52)1
(i) - Probably following the idea from fr. 83 (108)

that the divine principle, as absolute Wisdom, is
essentially different from any other idea that men
have, Heraclitus in this Group emphasizes a funda
mental difference between the true insight of God,
and the kick of such a one in man (frr. 90; 92).
(ii) - Probably Heraclitus was influenced here by

nil· old folkloric commonplace which contrasted divine
wisdom with human lack of it,w and which is repre
sented by e. g. Iliad II, 485 f.
ύμεΐς γ ά ρ θ εα ί έστε, π ά ρ εσ τέ τε Ιστέ τε πάντα,
ήμεΐς δέ κλέος οΐον άκούομεν ούδέ τι ΐδμεν.
Pindar Paean 6, 51 ff. τα ϋ τα θεοΐσι [μ ]έν / πιθεΐν
σοφού [ς] δυνατόν, / β ρ ο το ΐσ ι< ν > δ “ ά μ ά χ α ν ο [ν
εό ]ρ έμ εν; Nem. 6, 1 f. §ν άνδρώ ν, / Sv θεών
γέν ο ς ; <2) Alcmaeon fr. 1 π ερ ί τω ν άφανέω ν, π ερ ί
τω ν θνητώ ν σαφήνειαν μέν θεοί έχοντι, ώ ς δέ
άνθρ ώ ποις τε κ μ α ίρ ε σ θ α ι; Xenophanes fr. 34;
Theognis 141 f.
άνθρω ποι δέ μ ά τα ια νομίζομεν είδότες ούδέν,
θεοί δέ κ α τά σφέτερον π ά ντα τελοΟσι νόον.( ,)
(iii) - In view of the probable influence of this

traditional, theme upon Heraclitus it is difficult to
say to which one among Heraclitus' teachings the
thesis on the true insight of God would particularly
apply. Fr. 91 seems to suggest a higher plan or scope
for God, the only Being who grasps this world-order
as a whole, and realizes that fairness and justice are
essential and universal (cf. perhaps fr. 107 [124])·
The enigmatic fr. 93 seems to allude to the lack of
political wisdom in man.
(1) Cf. B. Snell, ‘Menschliches und göttliches Wissen’, D ir

E n td e c k u n g d e s G e is te s s (Hamburg, 1935), 184-202,
(2 ) Cf. P. v. Kloch-Kornitz, K erm es 89 (1961), 370 f.

(3) Cf. Isaiah 55, 8-9 ού γάρ είσιν a t βουλαί μου ώσπερ
a t βουλαί ώμων ούδέ ώσπερ αΐ όδοί ώμων a t όδοί
μου, λέγει κύριος- άλλ’ ώς άπέχει ό ούρανός άπό
της γης, οΒτως άπέχει ή όδός μου άπό των όδών
ύμων καί τ ά διανοήματα ύμων άπό
τ ή ς δ ι α ν ο ΐ α ς μου.
•475
90
(78 DK; 96 B)
(a) C Celsus ap. Origen, c. Cels. VI, 12 (II, p. 82,18

Koetschaii). δμ ω ς μέντοι έβουλήθη (sc. 6 Κέλσος) καί
τούτο1 δεΐξα ι πεπλασμένον ήμΐν καί ληφθέν ά πό τω ν π α ρ ’
"Ε λλησ ι σοφών, άλλην μέν είναι φησάντων τήν άνθρω-
πίνην σοφίαν, ά λλη ν δέ τήν θείαν. καί έκ τίθ ετα ί γ ε Η ρ α
κλείτου λέξεις, μίαν μέν έν ήι φησιν-
ή θ ο ς γ ά ρ ά ν θ ρ ώ π ειο ν μέν ο ΰ κ έ χ ε ι γ ν ώ μ α ς ,
θειον δέ έχει,
έτέρ α ν δέ. . . seq. ir. 92 (7.9). (Schl. fr. 66).
1 sc. I C or. 3,19 ή γάρ σοφία τοΰ κόσμου τούτου μωρία παρά τωι
θεώι έστιν
476
90 (78)
Human nature, has no insight, hut divine nature has.
Heidel (Proc. Amer. Acad, of Arts 48 [1913], 708 f.)

found the word ήθος “difficult and improbable”, and suggested
έθνος instead (with reference to Eurip. Or. 976 f.). His con
jecture is refuted by the word θειον, since θειον έθνος seems
to me impossible (Pinch N. 6,1 θεών γέν ο ς is something quite
d ifferent).
γ ά ρ is not due to Origen's context, and seems to be

genuine (as DK pointed o u t).
Heidel also supposed that (a) is “a thinly disguised prose

rendering of a verse original”, with which I would agree. Heidel
inclined to think that the versifier was not Heraclitus himself;
he suggested the reading:
έθνος μέν ά νθρώ πειον ού γν ώ μ α ς έχει,
θειον δ’ έχει.
I would tentatively suggest as original text:
ήθος γ ά ρ άνθρώ πειον γν ώ μ α ς οόκ έχει,
θειον δ’ έχει.
Since Celsus ap. Origen is a trustworthy source, we might
suppose that the metrical form of the saying is by Heraclitus
himself. P rr. 64 {100) ώ ρ α ς α ΐ π ά ντα cpdpouot and 86 (5)
line 9; ούδ’ ή ρ ω α ς οΐτινές είσι could be instructive: here
Heraclitus is likely to have deliberately used the epic form.
1 think the same is the case here: Heraclitus is probably quot
ing somebody’s verses, with the aim to prove (cf. perhaps γ ά ρ )
some of his own theses (something like fr. 92 [75] or fr. 91
[102]) by means of a traditional and generally acknowledged
adage (cf. e. g. φ ά ιις in fr. 2 [34]). The form of the iambic
trimeter seems to reappear in frr. 98 (49); 103 (44)·, 104 (33).
477
ή θ ο ς has here a broad meaning: ‘the innate nature of
• man as such’ (of course, ά νθρώ πειον is ‘generic’ in sense, as
is in fr. 57 [5]: ‘of every man’) : cf. Pind. 0. 11,19 f. τό γ ά ρ
ε υ φ υ έ ς οϋτ’ α ϊθω ν ά λώ π η ξ / οϋτ’ έρίβρομοι λέοντες
δ ια λ λ ά ξ α ιν τ’ άν ή θ ο ς ; 13, 13 τό σ υ γγ ενές ήθος. So
was the word understood by e. g. Jaeger (Theology 125: ‘human
nature’); Guthrie 398; Diels-Kranz; Snell; Gigon 135 (‘mensch
liches Wesen’; “Das ήθος ist das besondere Wesen der Gat
tung”) ; Frankel (Dichtung2, 436: ‘Menschenart’) ; Kirk-Raven
nr. 208 (‘human disposition’); Walzer 114 (T um ana indole’);
(cf. also Ramnoux 121; 418: ‘la maniferc d ’etre de l ’homme’).
In fr. 94 (119) the meaning of ήθος is more restricted: ‘man’s
character’; ‘the individual moral qualities’.
γ ν ώ μ α ς seems to mean here: ‘right understanding’;

‘insight’ (Jaeger; Guthrie; ‘Einsicht’ DK; Gigon); ‘true judg
ment’ (K irk): cf. Anaxagoras fr. 12 (DK II, p. 38,3) καί
γνώ μ ην γ ε π ερ ί πα ντός π α σ α ν ϊσ χει κ α ί Ισχύει μ έγισ τον
(sc. νους); Soph. El. 214 f. ού γν ώ μ α ν ϊσ χεις έξ οΐω ν / τα
π α ρ ό ντ’ ; Philoct. 837 κ α ιρ ό ς τοι πάντω ν γν ώ μ α ν ΐσχω ν...;
as for the plural form (which should not be changed into
singular, contra Deiehgräber, Rhythm. Eiern. 494 n. 2), cf.
Ion fr. 4,3 f. (a probable reminiscence of Heraclitus’ fr. 17
[129]) . . . δ ς π ερ ί πά ντω ν / ά νθρώ πω ν γ ν ώ μ α ς είδε καί
έξέμ α θ εν; Xenoph. mem. IV, 2,9 .. ,ά γ α μ α ί γ έ σου διότι
ούκ ά ρ γυ ρ ίο υ κ α ί χρυσίου προείλου θησαυρούς κε-
κτησθαι μάλλον ή σ ο φ ί α ς ' δήλον γ ά ρ δτι νομ ίζεις
ά ρ γύ ρ ιο ν κ α ί χρυσίον ούδέν βελτίους ποιεΐν τούς αν
θρώ πους, τά ς δέ τω ν σοφών άνδρώ ν γ ν ώ μ α ς άρετήι
π λο υ τίζειν τούς κεκτημένους. Cf. also Snell, Philol. Enters.
29, p. 37.
The word has not the same meaning as in fr. 85 (41),

where it alludes to the divine principle, pars pro toto: to the
only intelligent or wise Being (contra Gigon and K irk ). Possi
bly νόος, fr. 16 (40), or τό σοφόν, fr. 85, or perhaps σοφίη,
fr. 17, could be taken as synonyms of γ ν ώ μ α ι here.
478
Since I would take the saying for a quotation (by Hei’a-
clitus) from some poetical work, and also in view of the men
tioned folkloric commonplace (cf. p. 474), I would rather
think that γνώ μ α ι applies here to any insight of God in
general, emphasizing the fundamental difference between any
divine and human knowledge, and not to some particular
insight or doctrine of Heraclitus. Possibly the same suggests
νήπιος, fr. 92 (79). But it is also possible that a more definite
application of γ ν ώ μ α ι was mentioned in the preceding and lost
part of the saying, to which the preserved fragment served
as some proof or corroboration (cf. γ ά ρ ) .
Anyway, as the saying stands, it is difficult to see to

which one among Heraclitus’ teachings it would apply. (In
brief, in fr. 85 [41] wisdom consisted in grasping the principle
[i. e. Fire] by which this world-order is directed; in fr. 26
[50] it [cf. σοφόν έστιν] consisted in the realization that
all things form an underlying unity thanks to the universality
of Logos; in fr. 23 [114 + 2] the religious wisdom consisted
in following what is common to all; if fr. 91 [102] really
means καί ού δίκ α ια σοί δίκ α ιά έστιν (c), it might imply
that God has a special insight or standard, superior to that
of men; finally, fr. 93 [52] πα ΐζω ν, πεσσεύων might imply
‘bv chance’, ‘accidentally’, i. e. that men fail to grasp the under
lying order).
Nevertheless the opposite view, shared e. g. by Kirk-Raven

193, cannot be dismissed: “ The superiority of god to man, and
of the divine ‘synthetic’ view of things to the human chaotic
view, is heavily stressed by Heraclitus: e. g. Fr. 78.”
However Jaeger ( Theology 233 n. 58) was not convin

cing when attributing to γ ν ώ μ α ι a too narrow implication,
that of ‘knowing the measure (μ έ τρ ο ν )’, with reference to
Heraclitus’ principle of measures in his Physics. As for the
interpretation of γ ν ώ μ α ι as ‘practical maxims’, or as ‘les
pensers sages’, by LSJ, s. v., I ll, 3, and by Ramnoux 121;
418, respectively, it cannot be taken seriously.
479
91
(102 DK; 61 B)
(α) P Porphyr, qu. Horn, ad II. IV, 4 (p. 69 Schrader)

[Schol. BT: III, p. 194 Dindorf; V, p. 124 Maass], ά π ρ επ ές
φασιν εΐ τέρπει τούς θεούς πολέμω ν θέα. ά λ λ ’1 ούκ ά π ρ ε
πές* τά γ ά ρ γεν ν α ία έ ρ γ α τέρπει, ά λ λ ω ς τε πόλεμοι καί
μ ά χ α ι ήμΐν δεινά δοκεΐ, τώ ι δέ θεώ ι ούδέ τα ΰ τα δεινά*
συντελεί2 γ ά ρ ά π α ν τα ό θεός πρ ός α ρμονία ν3 τω ν [άλλω ν
ή καί.]4 δ λ ω ν \ οίκονομών τά συμφέροντα*0 δ π ερ 7 καί
Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς λ έγει, ώς
τώ ι μ έν θ εώ ι κ α λ ά π ά ν τ α 8 κ α ί δ ίκ α ια ,
ά νθ ρ ω π ο ι δέ & μέν ά δ ικ α ύ π ειλ ή φ α σ ιν & δ έ δ ίκ α ια .
(Schl. ρ . 409 S, = 64 S .).
1 ή Τ 2 συμπληροΐ Τ 3 όίπαντα τήν άρμονίαν Τ 4

άλλων ή καί seel. Zeller 835 n. 3, Dindori 5 δπλων Τ 6 οί
κον. τά συμφ. om. Τ 7 άπερ Τ 8 post καλά πάντα verba
καί ά γα θά add. Τ, ace. edd. : om. Β L Lp
(b) R Hippocrat. de victu I, 11 (I, p. 186,1 D K ), τά

μέν οδν άνθρω ποι διέθεσ αν ουδέποτε κ α τά τω ύτό έχει
ούτε όρθώ ς ούτε μή όρθώς* δσ α δέ θεοί1 διέθεσαν2 άεί
όρ θώ ς έχει καί τ ά όρ θά καί τ ά μή όρθά* τοσούτον δ ια
φέρει.
1 θεοί Μ : δσοι θ : θεός Ρ 2 διέθηκε Ρ (ut videtur)
(c) R? Cleanth. hymn. Ιον. 19

. . . καί ού φ ίλα σοΙ φ ίλα 1 έστίν.
(Gigon ρ. 137).
1 φίλι* ci. Wilaraowitz
480
91 (102)
To God all things are fair and just,

but men have supposed, some things unjust and some just.
I omitted καί ά γ α θ ά in the text of the fragment (contra

all editors), because: (a) it is attested only by one ms. (cod.
Townleianus), which gives the worst text of testimonium (a);
(b) the trite phrase κ α λ ά καί ά γ α θ ά seems to be out of
place here, since κ α λ ά καί δίκ α ια implies by itself ‘fair (or
good) and ju st’.
hong ago Wilamowitz suggested (Euripides Herakles, Ber

lin, 1889, II, 68; but this observation is missing in the ‘Zweite
Bearbeitung’, 1895 = 1959) that in the present form the frag
ment seems to be ‘ein modernisiertes Z itat’, i. e. a paraphrasis
or rewording by say Porphyrius. This was accepted by Gigon
137; Walzer 137; Mazzantini 96 and Kirk 180, who pointed
out as a sign of rewording: “the extreme antithetical style and
the variation in construction from τώ ι...θεώι to άνθρωποι...
ύπ ειλή φ α σ ιν; for as far as can be determined from Other
fragments Heraclitus emphasized parallelism in sense by the
use of parallel constructions rather than by excessive use of
μέν . . . δέ.”
This might be correct; but, on the other hand, the frag

ment as it stands cannot be regarded as impossible for Hera
clitus. (As is known, Wilamowitz also in fr. 106 (125a) saw a
‘modern language’, but the saying is with minimal changes
quite possible for Heraclitus.) ύ π ο λ α μ β ά ν ε ι ν , mean
ing ‘to assume’, ‘to suppose’ (cf. LSJ, s. v., I ll , 1), attacked
by Mazzantini (and Vlastos 367 n. 65), is defended by Kirk
181 as possible (cf. Herodot. II, 55). The first μ έ ν is
481
suspect, but I left it in the text, since the phrase τώ ι μέν
θεώ ι κ α λ ά π ά ντα seems to form a metrical unit. In brief,
if there is any rewording by Porphyrras it is likely to be minimal
(cf. also Kirk 181: “Probably the extent of the rewording is
not very considerable”) .
As for the interpretation, the great majority of scholars

take the saying as referring to Heraclitus’ teaching on the
coincidence of opposites or Logos; so Rcinhai'dt {Farm,. 180
n. 2); Frankel (Trans. Amur. Philul. Ass. (59 [1938], 243 ~
Wege·, 249; Dichtung2 427, with reference to fr. 45 [23] ) ; Kirk
166 (“ God takes the synthetic view, which is the truer one:
he sees all things in the cosmos as fair and right, while men
analyse into opposites, fair and ugly and so on”); 183 (“The
fragment is best interpreted in the light of fr. 10: there are two
possible views about all opposites, including moral ones. Of
these views the synthetic one is more im p o rta n t...”); Ram-
noux 376 f.; Guthrie 448; 472.
I agree with Gigon 137 in believing that this interpre

tation is not likely. Because if we take ά δ ικ α and δίκ α ια
as a pair of opposites (as are e. g. Δίκη and < ά δ ικ ή μ α τ α >
in fr. 45), then God’s superior insight cannot accept only
one of them (τώ ι θεώι π ά ντα δ ίκ α ια ) but must grasp their
inseparability or coincidence. In this case we should expect
such an original: τώ ι θεώ ι π ά ντα κ α ί δίκ α ια κ α ί
ά δικ α , άνθρω ποι δέ ά μέν ά δ ι κ α . . . ά δέ δίκ α ια (‘Το
God every thing is hoik just and unjust, but men see one
thing as unjust and another as ju st'). Or as Gigon put it:
“ Es kann sich gar nicht um sie [sc. um die logische Koinzidenz
von Gut. und Böse] handeln, denn wenn Gerecht und Unge
re c h t... identisch sind, dann wäre das Ungerechte nicht eher
Gerecht als das Gerechte Ungerecht, und Hcraklit könnte nicht
sagen, für God sei alles Gerecht (nicht etwa τα ύ τ ό ν )” .
482
Moreover, if δ ίκ α ια is not a simple opposite but has the
higher rank of a predicate describing any pair of opposites
from the synthetic point of view (according to Kirk's unlikely
interpretation of fr. 25 [10], pp. 176; 178), then the fragment
should have read: τώ ι θεώ ι πά ντα δίκα ια , άνθρω ποι δέ
π ά ντα ά δ ικ α ύπειλήφασιν.
Finally, δίκαιο, is not of the same category of ideas as

are fr. 25 δλα, συμφερόμενον, συναιδον, gv; but according
to K irk’s interpretation they all should equally describe the
‘truer synthetic view’.
(ligon’s own interpretation is even less likely: he believed

that, the saying referred to fr. 28 (SO) ερ ις = δίκη. God knows
that all is war or strife, and that war or strife is justice, while
men do not understand this. But there is nothing in the saying
to suggest that it applies especially to war as justice: in a
sentence like this: τώ ι θεώ ι κ α λ ά π ά ντα καί δ ίκ α ια it is
not likely at all that π ά ντα should apply only or especially
to war. Moreover, Porphyrius’ context speaks against Gigon’s
interpretation, as Kirk 182 f. well pointed out. Porphyrins’
very point was to prove that wars and battles seem dreadful
to men, but not to god. Now, this consideration is separated
from Heraclitus’ quotation by an argument with some Posi-
donian flavour: '‘for god accomplishes all things with a view
to a harmony of the universe. . . ’, and Heraclitus’ saying is
quoted as a confirmation of this assertion: δπερ καί 'Η ρ ά
κλειτος λ έ γ ε ι: “ If Porphyrius knew that Heraclitus’ compa
rison of god and men applied specifically to their views on
war, then surely ho would have quoted it in such a way as
to show that this was its i’eal application... if he could have
adduced Heraclitus on this very point his case would surely
appear stronger” (K irk ).
Bröckor (Gnomon 30 [1958], 436) saw in the saying a

polemic with Anaximander and a correction of his idea of
ά δ ικ ία (fr. 1): “Dagegen Hei’aklit: die ά δ ικ ία existiert nur
in der menschlichen Meinung, aber nicht in Wirklichkeit
483
(für G ott).” Again, it is not clear why π ά ντα should apply
especially to Anaximander’s dictum.
Zeller 835 seems to have been misled by the Posidonian

context of (a) when he interpreted the saying in the sense of
‘jene verborgene Harmonie der W elt’ (cf. fr. 9 [54]).
The implication of the saying is obscure. I would tenta

tively suggest the following explanation. The thesis that even
those facts which are taken by men as unjust find their justi
fication in the deeper insight of God might allude to a higher
plan or scope for God, the only truly Avise Being or Γνώμη,
Avhich steers all things through all ways. Only God grasps this
world-order as a whole and only he knows that fairness and
justice are essential and universal (κ α λ ά π ά ντα κα'ι δ ίκ α ια ),
the unjust accidents being only details which do not matter.
Thus the saying might stress the fundamental difference be
tween the divine insight Avhich realizes the essential but not
self-evident κ ά λλος καί δίκη in the κόσμος, and the human
failure to grasp this ultimate order. I would tentatively refer
the saying to fr. 107 (124): δ κά λλισ τος κόσμος is to men
only a σ ά ρμ α είκήι κεχυμένω ν.
If genuine, the verb α π ο λ α μ β ά ν ε ι v, implying a

partial,incomplete, and in. the end false vieAV, might say much
the same as Alcmaeon fr. 1 τεκμ α ίρεσ θα ι, or Heraclitus’
fr. 93 (52) πα ίζειν, fr. 92 (79) νήπιος.
The saying, probably dealing Avith the ultimate order and

justice in the cosmic phenomena, should not be expected to have
any application to the human moral conduct; othonvise, as
Vlastos 367 pointed out: “ it would be fatal for all morality,
not excepting his j Heraclitus’] oavii” .
484
92
(79 DK; 97 B)
(«) C Celsus ap. Origen, c. Cels. VI, 12 (II, p. 82,23

K .). post fr. 90 (78). έτέρ α ν δε'
ά νή ρ νή π ιο ς ή κουσ ε π ρ ό ς δ ο ίμ ο ν ο ς
δκ ω σ π ερ π α ΐς π ρ ό ς ά νδ ρ ό ς.
(Schl. fr. 67).
(b) K? (82 et 83 DK; 99 et 98 B). [Plato,] Hipp, maior

289 AB ώ άνθρω πε, ά γ ν ο εΐς δτι τό τοϋ Η ρ α κ λ είτο υ εδ
εχει, ώ ς ά ρ α (82 DK; 99 Β) πιθήκω ν ό κά λλισ τος α ισ
χ ρ ό ς άνθρώ πω ν1 γ έν ει συμβάλλειν, κ α ί χυτρώ ν ή καλλίσ-
τη α ισ χ ρ ά παρθένω ν γ έν ει συμβάλλειν, ώ ς φησιν Ι π π ία ς
ό σ ο φ ό ς ... τό τω ν πα ρθένω ν γέν ο ς θεών γ έν ει άν τις
συμβάλληι, ού ταύτόν πείσ ετα ι δπ ερ τό τω ν χυτρώ ν τώ ι
τώ ν παρθένω ν σ υμ β α λλόμ ενον; ούχ ή καλλίστη π α ρ θέ
νος α ισ χ ρ ά φ α ν εΐτ α ι; ή ού και Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς α ύτό2 τοδτο
λ έγει, δν σύ έπ ά γη ι, δτι (83 DK; 98 Β) ά ν θ ρ ώ π ω ν
ό σ ο φ ό τ α τ ο ς π ρ ό ς θ ε ό ν π ί θ η κ ο ς φανεΐται
καί σ ο φ ί η ι κ α ί κ ά λλει κ α ί το ΐς ά λ λ ο ις π α σ ιν ; όμο-
λογήσ ω μ εν3, ώ 4 Ι π π ία , τήν καλλίστην παρθένον πρός
θεώ ν γέν ο ς α ίσ χρ ά ν είνα ι; (Schl. fr. 38).
1 άνθρώπων Bekknr coni. Aristot. to p . Γ 2, 117 b 18 . . . καθάπερ 6

πίθηκος τώι άνθρώπωι (sc. δμοιος), τοΰ ίππου μή δντος όμοιου"
ού γά ρ κάλλιον ό πίθηκος, όμοιότερον δέ τώι άνθρώπωι : άνθρω-
πίνωι s. άνθρωπείωι Sydenham, Heindorf, Burges : άνδρών Th. Gom-
perz ( Z s . f . ö s t . G y m n . 1866, p. 698 [ = H e lle n ik a , Lips., 1912, II, p. 231])
et A. Goldbacher ( Z s . f . ö s t . G y m n . 1876, p. 496) : άλλωι codd., Byivater
conl. Plotino (bi) έτέρωι γένει, W. Zilles ( B k . M u s . 62 [1907], p. 59),
Heidel ( C P 5 [1910], p. 246 ) 2 αύτό F : ταύτό TW 3 W:
όμολογήσομεν TF 4 ώ Coisl. : om. TWF
485
(δ1) R? Plotin. VI, 3 [44], 11,22 H. et S. κ α ίτοι και
καλόν λεγόμ ενον φανείη ά ν π ρ ο ς ά λ λ ο αισχρόν, οΐον
άνθρώπου κάλλος προς θεών' 'πιθήκων*,
φησίν (sc. Plato), ‘ό κ ά λλισ τος α ισ χρ ό ς συμβάλλειν έτε
ρ ο ι γ έ ν ε ι’. ά λ λ ’ έφ’ έα υτοΰ μέν καλόν, π ρ ο ς ά λλο δέ ή
κ ά λλιον ή τούναντίον.
(c) R? Euseb. de theophania 1, 73 (GCS Eus. III, 2,

p. 74,5 Gressmann). “Der aber noch kindliche Verstand in den
Menschen ist gleichsam in prüfender Vergleichung mit den
körperlosen, göttlichen < u n d > vernünftigen (Wesen) im
Himmel mit Recht ganz und gar kindlich genannt worden.
Und selbst wenn es der Weiseste ist von allen Menschen und
selbst wenn es der Vollkommenste ist von denen auf Erden,
so ist er nichts besser als ein K ind\ wenn er an sich selber
mit seiner (späteren) Vollkommenheit verglichen wird.”
1 i.e . άνθρώπων 6 σοφώτατος ττρός θεόν νήπιος : cf. Ρ. Wendland

ap. Η. Gressmann, S t u d i e n z u E u s e h s T h e o p h a n ie , T U 23,3 (Lips., 1903),
p. 153
(d) R? (70 DK; 79 n. B) lamblich. de anima ap. Stob.

II, 1,16 (II, p. 6 W .). π ό σ ο ι δή οδν βέλτιον Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς
παίδων ά θ υ ρ μ α τ α 1 νενόμικεν είναι τ ά ά ν-
θρώπινα δοδάσματα.
1 cf. Ilia d . XV, 363 άθύρματα νηιτιέηισιν; Greg. Nyss. in e c c le s ia s t.

hom . I, 628 Μ. (V, p. 290 Alexander) νηπίων. . .άθυρματα; Worn.
p r o t r e p t . 109, 3 (I, p. 78 St.) καθάπερ και ot παΐδες τά άθύρματα
άνδρες γενόμενοι άπέρριψαν; 17,2 (I, ρ. 14 St.)
92 (79)
Man is called silly by God,

just as a child is by a man.
v ή π ι ο ς moans here ‘silly’, ‘fool’, as e. g. in Odyssey

XIIT, 237; IX, 44; Iliad XVI, 46 (cf. LSJ, s. v., II, 1), and
alludes to the lack of true γ ν ώ μ α ι in man, fr. 90 ( 78). It does
not imply ‘weak’, or ‘despicable’ (as Frankel, A JP 59 [1938],
315 = Weye- 259 took it); nor is it likely to mean simply
‘a baby’ (as Burnet 140 has i t ) .
ήκουσε (the aorist is gnomic) means here λ έγετα ι,

καλείται, ‘is called’: cf. LSJ, s. v., I ll, 1, and S. Petersen
(Hermes 14 [1879], 304 f f .) .
δ α ί μ ω ν means ό θεός (cf. ft), and should not be

confounded with δαίμω ν, ‘the personal (good or bad) genius',
in fr. 94 (119).
Already Petersen 306 supposed in the saying an intended

mathematical proportion:
π α ΐς : άνήρ : : άνήρ : δαίμω ν.
This was converted by Frankel 314 ( = 258) into a ‘thought
pattern’ of TTcraclilus: “For the sake of convenience, we call
this pattern by the name of the geometrical mean and tran
scribe it by formulae such as God / man = man / boy, or else
Λ / B = B / C, using mathematical language rather loosely
and disclaiming mathematical strictness... There are three
planes: the levels of God, man, and child (A, B, and C ) .
The degree of perfection decreases, and the degree of imper
fection increases, in equal measure in the transitions from A
487
to B and from B to C (A /B = B /C ).” Reinhardt (Hermes
225 = Vermächtnis 72); Deichgräber (Rhythm . Elemente 550)
and even Kirk 78; 302 agreed with Frankel that the propor
tional form of exposition was dear to Heraclitus, and that this
fragment is the clearest example of a proportional statement
in Heraclitus.
I don’t believe that mathematical proportions were intended

by Heraclitus; anyway they cannot be claimed to be his ‘thought
pattern’ (cf. R E 300 f . ) . Instead of them he uses concrete,
vivid and folklorie comparisons (here too: δκω σπερ, ‘just
as’) . As for this saying, the point is that the interpretation
based on the proportional form might, be misleading, reducing
the problem to a question of degree only. (This was not F ran
kel’s intention, but it might look so; cf. his words: “The degree of
perfection decreases, and the degree of imperfection increa
ses. .. ”).
W hat is Heraclitus likely to have intended in this saying

is to stress a fundamental difference between God and man
in respect to insight: ‘Human nature has no insight, but divine
nature has’ (fr. 1)0). The insight a child possesses is worth
nothing (or very little); ν ή π ι ο ς , ‘silly’, ‘foolish”, should
imply as much as ούκ έχει γν ώ μ α ς, ‘does not possess any
true insight’. In brief, the saying might mean: “In compa
rison with God’s insight, man is just as fool as is a child in
comparison with a man’s insight.”
Ad testimonia (b) and (c): Fr. 83 DK (as for fr. 82 DK,

it has been discarded already by Bernays, Ges. Abh., I, 23)
cannot be taken for a genuine saying. As Wendland (ap. Gress-
mann, cf. note ad c) and W. Zilles (Rh. Mus. 62 [1907], 58)
well pointed out, it is reducible to this fr. 92. Namely, from
488
(c) ανθρώ πω ν ό σοφώ τατος πρ ός θεόν νήπιος
and (ft) ά νθρώ πω ν ό σ οφώ τατος π ρ ό ς θεόν π ίθ η κ ο ς ...
/ σοφίηι
wc may infer that both come from this saying (possibly

throngh a common intermediary), σοφίηι in (b) reveals that
the word πίθηκος is not by Heraclitus, but was introduced
by the author of Hippias maior for his own purposes (κ ά λ
λ ο ς ) .(1) Testimonium, (b) is not a trustworthy piece of evi
dence. Aliter e. g. Fränkel (Dichtung-, 435); Verdenius (Mne-
mos. 1959, 297); Guthrie 413.
Ad (ii): I think also fr. 70 DK is no more than a remi

niscence of this fragment, combined with the Homeric idea of
νηπίω ν ά θ ύ ρ μ α τα (cf. also Wiese, H erallit bei Klemens,
66 ff., especially 67 n. 4 ). Bywater put it under fr. 93 (55).
Aliter Bernays ap. Bywater; DK; Reinhardt (Hermes 225
ff. = Vermächtnis 72 ff.); Deigräber (Rhythm . Eiern. 550 f.).
U> Cf. e.g. Semonid. fr. 7, 71 ff. D. and W. C. McDermott, ‘The Ape
in Greek Lit.’, Τ Α Ρ Α 66 (1935), 167.
489
93
(52 DK; 79 B)
(a) C Hippolyt, r e f u t . IX, 9, 3-4 (p. 241 s. Wendl.)

δτι δέ λ ό γ ο ς έστίν άε'ι τό π α ν καί διά πα ντός ών, οΰτω ς
λ έ γ ε ι . . . seq. fr. 1 (ft), δτι δέ έστι π α ΐς τό πα ν καί δ ι’
α ’ιώνος α ίώ νιος βασιλεύς τω ν δλων, οϋτω ς λ έ γ ε ι-
α ιώ ν π α ΐς έ σ τι π α ίζ ω ν ', π εσ σ ευω ν2-

π α ιδ ό ς ή β α σ ιλη ίη .
seq. fr. 29 (53).
1 cf. Aleman, fr. 30 D. " Ε ρ ω ς o ta < π α ΐ ς B en tley > π α ίσ δ ει 2

Lucian. : π εττεύ ω ν Ρ
(ft1) Ρ Lucian, v i t . ( m e t . 14 τα ϋ τα όδύρομαι (sc. Η ρ ά

κ λειτος) κ α ι δτι εμπεδον ούδέν, ά λ λ ά κω ς ές κυκεώ να
π ά ν τα συνειλέονται κ α ι έστι τω ύτό τέρψ ις άτερψίη, γνώ -
σ ις άγνω σ ίη, μ έ γ α μικρόν, άνω κάτω, π ερ ιχω ρ έο ντα 1 καί
ά μ ειβ όμ ενα έν τ ή ι τ ο Ο α ί ώ ν ο ς π α ι δ ι η ι . — τί
γ ά ρ ό α ι ώ ν έ σ τ ι; — Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς, π α ΐ ς π α ί ζ ω ν ,
π ε σ σ ε ύ ω ν , συμφερόμενος2 διαφερόμενος.
(Schl. ρ. 429 s. = 77).
1 περιχωρέοντα Λ<: : -χορέοντα Γ : -χορεύοντα eet.t. 2 συμφε

ρόμενος Ψ post., con·., om. celt. : <συν>διαφερόμενος ei. Uciiistcr-
liuys, acc. Bernays (Ges. A b h ., I, p. 56)
(ft2) E Clem, p a e d a g . I, 21,4 (I, p. 103 St.) ά γ α λ λ ια τ α ι

τό πνεύμ α τω ν έν Χριστώι π α ιδιώ ν έν ύπομονήι πολιτευο-
μένων, καί αυτή ή θεία π α ιδιά . (22,1) τοιαύτην τινά
490
π α ί ζ ε ι ν π α ι δ ι ώ ν τον έαυτοΰ Δ ία Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς
λ έγει. (Cf. Η. Wiese, ο. ο., ρρ. 70-73). (Schl.).
/
Cf. Flut, de E 393 Ε ή τοΟ ποιητικού π α ιδ ό ς1 έσται

φ αυλότερος (sc. ό θ ε ό ς ) , ήν έκεΐνος έν τινι ψαμάθωι
συντιθεμένηι κα'ι δια χεομένη ι π ά λιν ύφ’ αύτοΰ π α ί ζ ε ι
π α ι δ ι ά ν, ταύτηι π ερ ί τά δλ α χρώ μ ενος ά εί και τόν
κόσμον ούκ δντα π λ ά ττω ν εΐτ’ ά πολλύω ν γενόμενον-'.
1 cf. I l ia d . XV, 362 ss. 2 cf. 106 E
Philo, de aetern. mundi 42 (VI, p. 86 Cohn) εί δ ’ δμοιος,

ματαιοπόνος ό τ ε χ ν ί τ η ς , ούδέν κομιδηι νηπίων
π α ί δ ω ν διαφέρω ν, οΐ π ο λ λ ά κ ις π α ρ ’ α ίγ ια λ ο ΐς άθύ-
ροντες ψάμμου γεω λόφ ους άνισ τδσ ι κ ά π ειθ ’ ύφαιρουντες
τα ΐς χερσί π ά λ ιν έρείπουσι.
Cf. Nemes. de nut. horn. 2 (p. 107 Matthaei); Zachai·. Mityl.

de mundi opif. p. 89 Boissonade.
(ft3) K Prod, in Tim. I, p. 334,1 Diehl ά λλο ι δέ καί

τ ό ν δ η μ ι ο υ ρ γ ό ν έν τώ ι κοσμουργεΐν π α ί ζ ε ι ν
είρήκασιν, κ α θά π ερ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς. Cf. in remp. I, ρ. 127,4
Kroll. (Schl.).
(r) R? Philo, de vita Mos. I, 31 (IV, p. 127 C.) τ ύ χ η ς

γ ά ρ άσταθμητότερον ούδέν, άνω καί κάτω τά ά νθρ ώ πεια
π ε τ τ ε υ ο ύ σ η ς . . . cf. fr. 33 (60) (e~).
Cf. Greg. Naz. carm. II, sect. I, nr. 85,11 (PG 37, p. 1432 A)
π ά ντα χρόνος' πεσσοΐσιν ό μ ο ί ϊ α τηιδε
/ κυλίνδοι. ..
1 cf. A . G. IX, 51
491
(d) R Diog. Laevt. IX, 3 ά να χω ρ ή σ α ς δ ’ εις τό
'ιερόν τη ς Ά ρ τέμ ιδ ο ς (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) μετά των
π α ί δ ω ν ή σ τ ρ α γ ά λ ι ζ ε - περιστάντω ν δ ’ αύτόν των
Έ φ εσ ίω ν, ‘τί, & κάκιστοι, θ α υ μ ά ζ ε τ ε ;’, εΐπεν*1- ‘ή ού
κρεΐττον τοΰτο2 ποιεΐν ή μεθ’ ύμών π ο λ ιτεύ εσ θ α ι; ’3
► ____
1 εΐπεν ΒΡί; εφη FP (γρ.) 2 τοϋτο μετά παίδων Athous 3
cf. fr. 105 ( M l )
492
93 (52)
(Human) age is a child playing, playing dice (or draughts):

a child has the kingly power/
**
As for the context of (a) and Hippolytus’ speculation:

(i) God Father = Logos = World (τό π α ν) ; (ii) God Son
(Aeon, π α ΐς) = Creation (κτίσις, τό π α ν) ; (iii) hence,
Father = Son (‘Patripassianism’), cf. Mareovich, Studia Pa-
tristica V II (Berlin, 1966), 259 f.
Testimonia (ί»1' 3) contain the Stoic misinterpretation of

α ίώ ν as God (Zeus; Aeon) or the Demiurge which fashions
the world and distroys it again. The influence of the Homeric
child-image (Iliad XV, 362 ff.) upon this misinterpretation
is likely enough (cf. Plutarch and Philo). Probably also (a)
comes from a Stoic source.
Plato’s passage about ό πεσσευτής (Laws 903 D) need

not allude to this saying (contra e. g. Bywater; H. Herter,
Bonner Jahrbücher 161 [1961], 82), in view of Laws 739 A;
820 CD etc.
The meaning of the fragment is obscure, and the attempts

to interpret it are many (cf. e. g. RE, 309 f . ) . I venture to
give the following interpretation.
(i) In Heraclitus’ time α ι ώ ν (used as here without

any qualifying adjective) most likely meant human lifetime,
life; here the word might imply ‘man’s mature and old age’
(cf. e. g. Aeschyl. Agam. 106 σύμφυτος α ίώ ν = τό γή ρ α ς,
Schob, and Ed. Fraenkel II, 62 f.; Persae 263; Emped. frr.
17,11 = 26,10; 129,6; Sophocles and Euripides): so e. g. Kranz;
H. Frankel (Dichtung2, 447 and n. 55); E. Degani (Α ΙΩ Ν ,
493
da Omero ad Aristotele, Padua, 1961, 65 f .) ; C. ·!. Classen
(Gnomon 34 [1962], 369). If so, then all interpretations
based upon the meaning of α ιώ ν ‘long space of time’, ‘Time’,
‘ewige Dauer’ etc. are not likely (contra e. g. Bernays, I, 56 f f .;
ZN 807 and n. 2; Diels; Burnet; H erter 81 f.; Deichgräber,
Rhythm. Elem. 513; Guthrie 478 n. 2).
The meaning ‘man’s mature age’, for αιών, is implied

also by βασιληίη, ‘a king’s power'; both are paradoxically
identified with a child or small boy, probably κ α τά χιασ μόν
(a b : b a):
α ιώ ν π α ΐς έστι :: π α ιδ ό ς ή βασιληίη.
The same idea (‘a mature man has no more insight than a
child’) can be found also in fr. 105 (121): ά ξιον Έ φ ε-
σίοις ή β η δ ό ν ά π ά γ ξ α σ θ α ι πα σ ι καί τ ο ΐ ς ά ν ή-
β ο ι ς τήν πόλιν κ α τα λιπεΐν, and in fr. 21 (56) 'Ό μ η ρ ο ν
π α ΐδ ες έξηπάτησαν.
(ii) The meaning of π ε σ σ ε ύ ε ι ν here is not clear:

(a) it might well mean ‘play dice’ = ά σ τρ α γα λ ίζειν (as
testimonium d, and Macchioro took it), in view of e. g. Hesych.
π εττεύει' κ υβ δι; Odyssey I, 107 plus Athen. I, 1.9 A and
Iliad X X III, 88; cf. H. Lamer, RE, X III, 1938 f. (s. lusorin
tabula) (contra e. g. Herodot. I, 94, and Guthrie 1. c.); (b) it
can also mean ‘play draughts’ (e. g. the game called π ό λ ι ς ,
cf. Lamer 1973 f.), as almost all scholars interpret it.
Now. my point is that the implication of the verb: ‘a

fortuitous or meaningless action’ (as supposed by Wilamowitz,
Euripides H e r a k l e s II, 155: ‘um das regellose Spiel . . . zu
schildern’, and by Th. Gomperz, Gr. Denker1, I, 53: ‘eine
zwecklose Tätigkeit’) is much more likely than: ‘a thoughtful
and skillful one’; because it is played by a παΐς, and because
the issue of the game most probably depended on the fortuity
or chance of dice (since dice were used in the great majority
of Greek games on play-board, cf. Lamer 1931,9 f . ) .
494
(iii) Finally, β α σ ι λ η ί η might particularly apply
to the political wisdom of a Greek mature citizen (e. g. of an
Ephesian; cf. perhaps fr. 105 [121] and test. d).
Thus the saying might imply: ‘A mature or aged man

is just as foolish (cf. νήταος, fr. 92) as is a child, in any
respect and especially as for the political wisdom or insight:
a king on the throne behaves like a child.’
The physical implication of the saying (shared by the

great majority of scholars) is not likely to me. Nor is Rein
hardt's attempt (Nachlass 41 f. ap. Wiese, o. c,, 315): “Der
Sieger im Gesellschaftsspiel wurde gern βασιλεύς gen an n t...
Daher βασιλεύς im Wortsinn: Sieger ist, wer am längsten
die Spielsteine hin- und herschiebt; im Rätselsinn: α ιώ ν ist
der Brottspiclcv, dev alles überspielt."
495
PA R T THREE
ETHICS, POLITICS, AND THE REST

( Fragments 94 - 1 2 5 )
!
GROUP TWENTY TWO
F i t . 94 ( 1 1 9 ) ; 95 ( 2 9 ) ; 96 ( 2 4 ) ; 97 ( 2 5 ) ; 98 ( 4 9 ) ;
99 (,3 0 ); 100 ( 3 9 ) ; 101 ( 1 0 4 ) .
This Group contains the e th ic a l sayings. Hera

clitus’ martial Ethics is socially conditioned and nar
row: it praises the self-denying b r a v e r y of the aris
tocratic minority of noblemen-warriors, as opposed
to the rich and life-enjoying bourgeoisie of Ephesus.
The best choose im m o r ta lity and everlasting glory of
the h eroes slain on the battlefield, while the multi
tude prefer mundane pleasures, which mean only
death and loss of immortality (fr r . 95; 9 9 ) . For
the former Heraclitus finds poetic words ( fr . 95
κλέος άέναον, c f. Simonid. fr . 5, 10 D .; fr . 96
ά ρηίφ α τοι), for the latter he has only sarcastic
paradox (c f. fr . 99: “they beget only living deaths’,
μόρους γενέσ θα ι).
499
94
(119 DK; 121 B)
(a) C Stob. IV, 40,23 (V, p. 925 Η.) Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς

£φη ώ ς
ήθος άνθρώπωι δαίμων.1
(Schl, ad fr. 57).
1 eel. sine lemm. hab. S, on. MA
(b) C Plut. qu. Plat. 999 DE πότερ ον1 οδν την έαυ-
τοΟ φύσιν ώ ς κριτικω τέρ α ν ή 2 γο νιμ ω τέρ α ν οδσαν θεόν
προσεΐπε, κ α θά π ερ Μ ένανδρος ‘ό νους y a p ήμών ό θ εό ς’
(cf. test, e3) κα'ι Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ο ς ή θ ο ς άνθρώπωι'
δ α ί μ ω ν , ή... (Schl.).
1 πάτερα X ε η 2 f) : καί J ε Β η 3 άνθρώ που codd., <>

Stob, corr. Bernardakis
(c) P Alexand. Aphrod. de fato 6, p. 170,16 Bruns =

de anima 2, p. 185,21 Bruns, κ α τά δέ τόν αύτόν τρόπον
καί έπΐ τή ς ψυχής εδροι τις άν π α ρ ά 1 την φυσικήν κ α τα
σκευήν διαφόρους γινο μ ένα ς έκ ά σ τω ι τά ς τε πρ οα ιρ έσ εις
καί τ ά ς π ρ ά ξ εις2 καί τούς βίους, ή θ ο ς γ ά ρ ά ν-
θ ρ ώ π ω ν’ δ α ί μ ω ν , κ α τά τόν Η ρ ά κ λειτο ν, τουτέστι
φύσις. ώ ς έπΐ τό πλεΐστον γ ά ρ τα ΐς φυσικαΐς κ α τα σ κευα ΐς
τε καί διαθέσεσιν τά ς τε π ρ ά ξ εις καί τούς βίους καί τά ς
κα τα σ τροφ ά ς αύτώ ν άκολούθους* ίδεΐν έστι5. (Schl. fr. 57).
1 κ α τά Orelli 2 γιγνο μ ένα ς ΚαΙ τά ς πρά ξεις καί τά ς π ρ ο α ιρ έ

σεις d e a n im a 3 άνθρώ πω ι ed. Londin., Orelli 4 άκολούθους
Casebius, ed. Londin., Or.: άκολοόθω ς codd., Bruns 5 καί τά ς των
βίων καταστροφ άς άκολουθεΐν συμβέβηκεν de a n .
500
(d) B Ps. Heracliti ep. IX (p. 78,23 Bywater) μαν
τεύετα ι τό έμόν ή θ ο ς , δπερ έ κ ά σ τ ω ι δ α ί μ ω ν .
(c1) Κ Ps. Epicharmi fr. 17 DK ap. Stob. III, 37,18

(III, p. 702 H.) [ = Hibeh pap. 2].
ό τρόπος άνθρώποισι δ α ί μ ω ν ά γα θ ό ς,
/ οΐς δέ καί κακός.
(c2) R Menandri epiirep. 738 ss. Edmonds (The Frag

ments of A ttic Comedy, III B, p. 1074).
. . . οότός έσθ’ (sc. ό τ ρ ό π ο ς ) ή μ I v θ ε ό ς

Ö τ ’ α ίτιο ς καί του κ α λώ ς καί τοΰ κα κώ ς
π ρ ά ττειν έκάστω ι.
(Cf. U. ab Wilainowitz, (Menanders Schiedsgericht, Bcrolini,

1925, p. 112).
(σ') R Menandri fr. 762 Edmonds ( = Monost. 434)
ό νους γάρ ήμώ v έστιν έν έκ ά σ τω ι θεός.
Cf. Menand. fr. 70.
501
94 (119)
Man’s character is his Genius.
? ] θ ο ς has not here the same meaning as in fr. !)0 (78):

there it implied ‘the inborn nature of all men as a species’,
but here it implies: ‘the individual character with moral quali
ties’, on which depend a man’s decision (cf. fr. 95 [29) αί-
ρ ε Ο ν τα ι...ο ί άριστοι) and the way he acts in life (contra
Snell, Hermes 61 [1926], 364: “Aber ‘Charakter’ betont im
Deutschen immer den ‘Willen’. Von dem eigenen Wollen und
Handeln des Menschen spricht ITera kl it aber nirgends. Es
hat sich für ihn noch nicht in dem Sinn das Individuum
herausgelöst, dass cs ein spontan aus sich heraus handelndes
Ich g ä b e ...”). I think Heraclitus’ saying would be senseless
if a m an’s ήθος should depend on some power outside of the
individual; it strongly suggests that the destiny of every man
depends only on his own qualities, and not on any external power
(as are the allotted good or bad Guardian-angels).
δ α ί μ ω ν means here ‘the allotted personal Genius’ on

which depends a man’s good or bad luck; cf. e. g. Menander
fr. 550 Kock = 534 A Edmonds
όίπαντι δα ίμ ω ν ά νδρί σ υμ πα ρίσ τατα ι
εύθΰς γενομένω ι, μ υ σ τα γ ω γ ό ς του βίου
όιγαθός.
Thcognis 165 ί.
ούδείς ά νθρώ πω ν ουτ’ όλβιός ούτε πενιχρ ός
οΰτε κα κός νόσφιν δαίμονος ουτ’ α γα θ ό ς.
161-64; Phocylides fr. 16 D. Plato has developed this popular
belief into a doctrine: Laws 732 C; 804 A; 877 A; Phaedo
502
107 D; 108 B; 113 D; Republic 617 E; 620 DE; Tim. 90 A
and C. Cf. G. Frangois, Le polytheisme et V ernploi ctu singu-
lier des mots Θ Ε Ο Σ , ΔΑΙΜ Ω Ν dans la litterature grecque
d,’ Homtre ä Platon (Paris»- 1957), 342 f.; Wilamowitz, Der
Glaube der Hellenen3 (1959), I, 362.
Consequently, the saying seems to imply a clear criticism

of the traditional superstitious belief in personal Guardian-
angels, coming from a radical Enlightener.
B ut the stress put on ?)θος seems to allude to something

more. So Snell 363; Kirk-Raven 214 and Guthrie 482 η. 1
took the saying as an attack (at least in part) a t the old belief,
common both in Homer and in the early lyric poetry, that
“idiosyncrasies and failings, particularly emotional outbursts,
are the work of the gods. If Helen leaves her husband for
Paris, she is not to blame, for her infatuation was the work
of Aphrodite:'Zeus can cause a man to act wrongly by making
him angry or ‘taking away his wits’ ” (G uthrie). “Die Gegen
sätze des Empfindens wurden von der alten Lyrik als Eingriff
der Gottheit aufgefasst, dem der Mensch willenlos preisgegeben
war. Gegen diese Auffassung spricht Heraklit ausdrücklich
fr. 119” (Snell). “ [Fr. 119] is a denial of the view, common
in Homer, that the individual often cannot be held respon
sible for what he does. . . Helen blamed Aphrodite for her own
weakness; but for Heraclitus (as indeed for Solon, who had
already reacted against the moral helplessness of the heroic
mentality) there was a real point in intelligent and prudent
behaviour” (K irk ). *
This is a possible interpretation. But I would object to

that Heraclitus in the saying does not attack any one of the
gods (Zeus, Aphrodite etc.), but only the very inferior “Ge
burtsdämon” (δα ίμ ω ν ). On this personal Genius it depends
the whole life of a man (and perhaps also his destiny after
death, in view of the Platonic speculation), and not only his
‘emotional outbursts’, ‘infatuations’ etc., as is the case in the
Homeric commonplace.
503
Guthrie 482 suggested a further possibility: “ ...fro m the
time of Hesiod at least the immortal spirits of good men were
also daimones, and since he gives them the function of ‘guar
dians’, it looks as if the daimones who looked after individual
men were thought of in this way. Heraclitus alludes to Hesiod
in fr. 6 3 ..., and must have accepted this. . . There is thus a
further depth to this saying. I t links up with the belief in
transmigration and means: Ά man’s character is the immortal
and potentially divine part of him.’ This lays a tremendous
emphasis on human responsability and adds to the ethical
content of the sentence.”
Guthrie’s interpretation is not likely to me, because Hera

clitus in fr. 73 (63) evidently agrees with Hesiod’s belief in
δα ίμ ονες φ ύλα κες ζώ ντω ν καί νεκρώ ν (cf. Erga 122 f.;
2Γ)2 I'.), whereas in this saying he rejects the belief in every
man’s δα ίμω ν-Guardian. Obviously the word δαίμω ν does
not imply the same in both instances; nor the same belief is
meant. For example, the daimones of Hesiod are only έσθλοί
(123), and their main function is (124 f.; 254 f.):
οι *ρα φυλάσσουσίν τε δ ίκ α ς και σ χέτλ ια έ ρ γ α

ή έρ α έσσάμενοι, πάντη φοιτώ ντες έπ ’ αΐαν,
while the Genius allotted to a man at his birth can be also a

δα ίμ ω ν δειλός (Theognis 163).
My own guess is that this ήθος of every man might imply

άρετή, understood as virtue bellica, upon which only depends
his destiny: oi άριστοι, provided with άρετή, α ί ρ ε Ο ν τ α ι
κλέος ά έ ν α ο ν (fr. 95 [-?£>!) and μέζονας μ ο ίρ α ς λ α γ-
χάνουσ ι (fr. 97 1251), whereas the late of οί πολλοί, whose
ήθος is void of άρετή, is only to κεκορήσθαι δκω σπερ
κτήνεα (fr. 95) and to ζώ ειν μ ό ρ ο υ ς τ ’ έχειν
(fr. 99 [20] ) . This interpretation would go well with the rest
of Heraclitus’ martial Ethics (this Group; cf. also frr. 29 [55];
47 [62]).
504
95
(29 DK; 111 b B)
(a) 0 Clem, ström. V, 59,4 (II, p. 366 St.) a t yoGv

Ί ά δ ε ς μοΰσαι (i. e. Heraclitus, ef. Plat. soph. 242 D) δ ια ρ
ρήδην λ έγουσ ι τούς μέν πολλούς κα'ι δοκησισόφους ‘δή
μων άοιδοΐσιν έπεσθαι καί + νόμοισι + 1 χρέεσθαι, < ο ύ κ > -
είδότα ς δτι ‘< o t> * πολλοί κακοί, ό λ ίγο ι δέ Α γαθοί'
( = fr. 101 [104]), τούς ά ρίσ τους δέ τό κλέος4 μεταδιώ-
κειν* (5)
α ίρ ε ΰ ν τ α ι γ ά ρ , φησίν, εν ά ν τ ί Α πά ντω ν5 ο ΐ ά ρ ισ το ι,
κ λ έο ς Αέναον" θνητών"
ο ΐ δ έ π ο λ λ ο ί κ εκ ό ρ η ντα Ρ δκω σπερ" κτήνεα,
‘γασ τρ'ι’ κ α ί α ίδοίοις ‘καί το ΐς αίσχίστοις" τω ν έν ήμΐν

‘μετρήσαντες τήν εύδα ιμ ονία ν’ (cf. Demosth. de corona 296:
Plut. de fortuna 97 D). Cf. H. Wiese, Heraklit bei Klemens.
pp. 206-213. (Schl. fr. 71).
1 corruptum esse videtur : καί διδασκάλωι χρείωνται όμίλωι Proclus

(fr. 101) 2 ούκ supplevi ex Proclo 3 ot ftddidi ex Proclo
4 τό κλέος δέ L, transp. Sylburg 5 Sv άντί άπάντων Cobet
( M n e m o s y n e 9 [1860], p. 437) coni, test, (α1) : έναντία πάντων L :
Sv άντία πάντων Bernays ( G e s. A b h ., I, p. 32), Bywater, Zeller 795
n. 3, Wilamowitz (G r . L e s e b u c h , E r l'd n te r ., I, p. 14 s.) 6 cf. Simonid.
5,10 D. άέναόν τε κλέος 7 κεκορέαται Cobet (Λόγιος Έ ρμης
Γ, ρ. 534) 8 δκωσπερ Bernays, Bywator : δπως L, Staehlin :
ούχ ώσπερ test, (o')
I
(α1) R IV, 50,2 (II, ρ. 271 St.) κάντεΰθεν Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι

τος έ ν ά ν τ ί π ά ν τ ω ν κ λ έ ο ς ή ι ρ ε ΐ τ ο , τ ο ΐ ς
δέ πολλοΐς π α ρ α χ ω ρ εΐν δ μ ο λ ο γ εΐ1 κ ε κ ο ρ ή σ-
θαι2 δ κ ω σ π ε ρ 3 κτήνεσι.
505
1 ώμολόγει Sylburg 2 κα! κορήσθοι L 3 ούχ ώσπερ L,
eorr. Bernays
(b) Rf Anonym, ap. Iamblich. protrept. c. 20, p. 99,24

Pistelli = DK 89, 5,2 (II, p. 402,18 . . . κ α ί [ή ]1 ά μ α θ ία
ήδη έστί κ α ί συνήθεια πονηρώ ν λό γω ν τε κ α ί έπιθυμη-
μάτω ν ταύτην (sc. τήν ψυχήν) περιποεΐν έπι δυσκλείαι,
ά λ λ ά μή ά θ ά ν α τ ο ν ά ντ’ αύτής λείπεσ θα ι < κ λ έ -
ο ς > 2, ά ν τ ί θ ν η τ ή ς οΰσης ε ύ λ ο γ ί α ν ά έ ν α ο ν
καί ά εΐ ζώσαν.
1 ή del. Pistelli : καί ή del. Brinkmann 2 κλέος suppl. Wilamowitz

coni. Isocrnt. G, 109 . . . κάλλιόν έστιν θ ν η τ ο ύ σώματος
άντΐ
ά θ ά ν α τ ο ν δ ό ξ α ν άντικαταλλάξασθαι, καί ψυχής.. . πρίασθαι
τοιαΰτην ε ύ κ λ ε ι α ν ή π ά ν τ α τ ό ν α ΐ ώ ν α τοΐς έξ
ήμών γενομένοις παραμενεί, aec. Diels : άθάνατον άντ’ αύτής del.
Friedlaender: + λείπεσθαι + Pistelli : αίρεΐσθαι ci. Kiessling :
λιπέσθαι Blass
506
95 (29)
The best choose one thing in place of all others:

everlasting glory in place of mortal things;
while the majority (or the multitude) are glutted (or stuff
themselves) like cattle.
F it. 101 (104) and 95 (29) are two different sayings,

as such separated by Clements commentary τούς άρίστους
δέ τό κλέος μεταδιώ κειν (so DK; contra Bernays; Bywatcr;
Burnet; ZN 795 η. 3; Wilamowitz; Deichgräber, Rh. Mus. 89
[1940], 52 n., who took them as one single fragm ent).
As for the context of (a), I don’t find the meaning of

δήμω ν. . .νόμοισι χρ έεσ θα ι satisfactory (as c. g. Wiese 206
took it: “und deren [d. h. der Demen] Bräuche mitmachen’'),
in comparison with Proclus’ text διδα σ κ ά λω ι χρ είω ντα ι
δμ ίλω ι : that is why I would suppose a corruption in Clement's
text (perhaps in lieu of νόμοισι we should read νομευσι [sc.
άοιδοΐσιν], in view of Proclus’ διδα σ κ άλω ι and of Hesych.
νομ εΐς' βασιλείς, ή γεμ ό νες too?). I also find the supplement
< ο ύ κ > necessary, and < o i > likely.
Testimonium yb) could be a reminiscence of this saying

if Wilamowitz’s supplement < κ λ έ ο ς > is likely; the latter
seems to be suggested by the preceding δυσκλείαΐ: but in
view of Isocrates’ passage the missing word might well be also
< ε(5κ λεια ν> .
The only difficulty in the text of the fragment is the

interpretation of θ ν η τ ώ ν : (a) Wilamowitz; Snell (Tuscu-
lu m ); Burnet 140 and Kirk-Raven nr. 254 (‘glory among
mortals’), and Guthrie 477 too (‘by their fellow-mortals’)
507
take it as a subjective genith'e, understanding; π ρ ό ς θνη
τών, as e. g. in Empedocles fr. 3, 6 f. εύδόξοιο. . .ά νθ εα
τιμ ή ς / πρ ός θνητών; (l·) on the other hand, Diels ( =
K ranz); Gigon 120; Frankel (Wege2 266; Dichtung2 450);
Wiese 206, understand ά ν τ ί θνητών (‘an Stelle von’, ‘sta tt’,
‘in place of’) .
I think the latter interpretation, is more likely; because:

(i) Assuming that θνητών by itself is indefinite and that we
have to understand either a π ρ ό ς or an άντί, the latter is more
likely since it already exists in the preceding line: ά ντί άπάν-
των. Anyway the subjective genitive κ λ έ ο ς .. .θνητών, ‘glory
by the mortals’, is grammatically more harsh than the other
choice, (ii) The interpretation: ‘The best choose everlasting
glory among mortals’ docs not go well with fr. 96 (24) άρηκρά
το υς θ ε ο ί τιμώ σ ι κ α ί ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ι: The best, choose ever
lasting glory both among gods and mortals, the former beiug
much more important, since on gods depends their destiny after
death (cf. fr. 97 [25] μ έζονα ς μοίρ α ς λ α γχ ά νο υ σ ι and per
haps fr. 73 [65] καί φ ύ λα κ α ς γίνεσ θ α ι κ τ λ .) . (iii) There
seems to exist an intended Heraclitean balance between θνητών
and ά π ά ντω ν:
gv : ά π α ν τ α : : κλέος : θνητά.
(iv) The word θνητά (‘mortal things’) seems to allude to fr. 99

(20) μ ό ρ ο υ ς 2χειν, just as κεκόρηνται implies much
the same a.s fr. 99 ζ ώ ε ι v έθέλουσι. (v) Finally, if ά π ά ν
τω ν is neuter gender, then it is more likely that it is θνη
τώ ν too.
The meaning of the saying is clear enough.
508
96
(24 DJC; 102 B)
(a) C Clem, ström. IV, 10, 1 (II, p. 255 St.) εΐτα

'Η ρ ά κ λειτος μέν φησιν ά ρ η ιφ ά τ ο υ ς θ εο ί τ ιμ ώ σ ι κ α ί ά ν
θρ ω ποι, καί Π λάτω ν έν τώ ι π έμ π τω ι τη ς π ο λ ιτεία ς γρ ά φ ει
(468 Ε)· ‘τω ν δέ δή άποθανόντω ν έπΐ σ τρ α τεία ς δ ς άν
εύδοκιμήσας τελευτήσηι, ά ρ ’ ού πρώ τον μέν φήσομεν του
χρυσοΰ γέν ο υ ς ε ίν α ι;' (Schl. fr. 53).
(«') Ρ Tlieodoret. Gr, aff. cur. V III, 39 ό δέ γ ε Η ρ ά

κλειτος καί τούς έν τοΐς πολέμ οις ά να ιρεθέντα ς πάσης
ά ξιο υς υπολαμβάνει τιμής· ά ρ η ι φ ά τ ο υ ς γ ά ρ , φησίν,
ο ΐ θ ε ο ί τ ι μ ώ σ ι κ α ί ο Ρ ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ι . Seq. fr. 97
(25). Cf. V III, 41.
1 ot BLD, edd.
(b) R (136 DK) Schol. ad Arriani Epicteti diss. IV,

7,27 [eod. Bodl. 251 f. 157r], p. 422 Schenk] (Lips., 1916).
Η ρ α κ λ ε ίτο υ ’
ψ υχαΐ ά ρη ίφα τ οι κ α θα ρ ώ τερ α ι ή ένΐ νούσοις.1
Cf. Η. Schenkt (SB Wien Π δ [18881, ρ. 484,69) et C. Praeeli-
tev (Philol. 58 [18991, ρ. 473 s .) .
1 cf. Kpictet. l. c. ούκέτι διαψέρομαι πότερον πυρετός σύτό (sc. τό

φθαρήναι) ποιήσει ή κεραμίς ή στρατιώτης, άλλ’ εΐ δει συγκρΐναι,
οίδ’ δτι άπονώτερον αύτό καί ταχύτερον 6 στρατιώτης ποιήσει.
509
96 (24)
Gods and men honour those slain in battle.
‘Gods and men’ (cf. e. g. Iliad II, 669) seems to imply

‘tout le monde’, ‘every living being without exception’, as the
polar phrase ούτε τις θεών ούτε άνθρώ πω ν in fr. 51 (50)
implied ‘nobody at all’.
Moreover, θ ε ο ί τ ι μ ω σ ι most probably alludes to

a posthumous or eschatological reward by gods of those slain
in battle, in view of fr. 29 (55) -πόλεμος. . .τους μεν θεούς
έ'δειξε (compared with Pindar N. 3,22 ηρω ς θεός), of fr. 97
(25) μέζονας μοίρα ς λα γχά νο υ σ ι, and possibly of fr. 73
(63) φ ύλα κα ς γίνεσ θ α ι κτλ. as well. So e. g. Zeller 893
and n. 1; contra Nestle (Philol. 64 [1905], 370 n. 16); Guthrie
477: “Fr. 2 4 ...has also been adduced as evidence for posthu-"
mous survival and reward, but need mean no more than that
death in battle is thought glorious, and the memory of the
slain respected, by gods as it undoubtedly is by their fellow-
mortals.”
Testimonium (b), fr. 136 DK: ‘Souls slain in battle arc

purer than those [which pei*ish] in diseases’, is no more than
a reminiscence of this saying (ά ρ η ίφ α το ι), combined with
the old folklorie belief in the conservation of the life-force of
soul when ‘suddenly separated from body’ (Clem, ström. IV,
14,4 |1I, p. 255 S t.]): cf. e. g. Soph. Avl. 819 ούτε φθινάσιν
-πληγεΐσα νόσοις; 1ί. Ganschinietz, R E X, 2391; St, Thomp
son, Motif -Index of Folk Literature2, Μ 161.6 ‘rather die in
battle than in bed’.
This late and untrustworthy hexameter was correctly va

lued by Diels as “Imitation eines byzantinischen Dichterlings”.
510
It was overestimated by Praechter 1. e. and by Kirk (‘Hera
clitus and death in battle’, A JP 70 [1949], 384-393; Kirk-
Raven p. 210), who deduced from it a whole psychological
theory and ascribed it to Heraclitus: “ .. .t h e comparison with
those who die from illness is quite new, and is unlikely to have
been simply invented after Heraclitus. How can the souls of
those dying in battle, it may be asked, be ‘purer’ than the souls
of those dying from disease? The answer I suggest is that the
latter are moistened and inefficient, and their possessors are
in a semi-conscious and sleep-like condition; those slain in
battle, on the contrary, are cut off at their most active, when
their souls are fiery from virtuous and courageous activity.
At the moment of death the enfeebled souls of the sick lose
their last residue of fieriness and become completely watery,
so that they cease to exist as souls; while the souls of those
slain in battle (almost instantaneously, for the most part) are
predominantly fiery. It seems plausible, then, that the latter
avoid the soul-death of becoming water.’’
This interpretation is not likely at all: cei'tainly there is

nothing in ψυχαι κ α θ α ρ ό τε ρ ο ι to suggest a fiery state of
soul coming ‘from virtuous and courageous activity’; these
‘purer souls’ suggest rather some Orphic-Pvthagorean source
(as does Stromateis IV, 15,1).
511
#
97
(25 DK; 101 B)
(ft) C Clem, ström. IV, 49,2 (II, p. 271 St.) τα ύτη ς

της έννοίας κ α ί Α Ισχύλος έπιλα βόμ ενός φησι (fr. 315
Ν.·* = 625 Μ .)’ τώ ι ιτονοΟντι δ’ έκ θεώ ν / όφ είλεται τέκ-
νω μα τοΟ πόνου κλέος. (3)
μόρ οι γ ά ρ μ έζο νες

μ έζο ν α ς μ ο ίρ α ς λ α γ χ ά ν ο υ σ ι
καθ’ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν. (Sclil. fr. 54).
(ft1) R Theodorct. Gr. aff. cur. V III, 39. post fr. 96

(24). καί πάλιν" μ ό ν ο ι γ ά ρ μ ε ί ζ ο ν ε ς μ ε ί ζ ο ν α ς
μ ο ί ρ α ς λ α y χ ά ν ο υ σ ι ν. . .
(41) oöKouv τιάντας ά ρηιφ ά τους κ α τά τόν Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι

τον τιμητέον, ά λ λ ’ έκείνους οΐ τόν υπέρ τη ς εύσεβείας
ά σ πα σ ίω ς κ ατεδέδαντο θ ά ν α το ν έκεΐνοι γ ά ρ άληθώ ς,
κ α τά γ ε τούτον αύτόν, μ ό ν ο ι μ ε ί ζ ο ν ε ς . οδ δή
εΐνεκα καί μ ε ί ζ ο ν α ς άπολαύουσι μοίρας,
καί νυν τό π α ρ ά πά ντω ν άνθρώ πω ν κομιζόμενοι γ έρ α ς,
κ α ί το ύς αιω νίους στεφάνους προσμένοντες. seq. fr. 74 (27).
(b) Ρ Hippolyt, refut. V, 8,42 (p. 96 s. Wendl.) τούτο,

φησίν (sc. Naasscmis quidam), έστίν δ λ έγο υσ ιν oi κατω ρ-
για σ μ ένο ι τω ν Έ λευσ ινίω ν τ ά < μ ε γ ά λ α > ' μυστήρια.
θ έ < σ > μ ιο ν δέ έστι τά μ ικ ρ ά μεμυημένους α δ θ ις τ ά με
γ ά λ α μυεΐσθαι- μ ό ρ ο ι γάρ μ ε ί ζ ο ν ε ς μείζο
νας μοίρας λαγχάνουσι.V ,
V, 8,44 (ρ. 97 W.) τα δ τ’ έστι, φησί, τά μ ικ ρ ά μυστή

ρια, τ ά τή ς σ α ρκ ικ ής γενέσ εω ς, ά μυηθέντες οί άνθρω ποι
512
μικρόν2 τταύσασθαι όφείλουσι < π ρ ίν > 3 κ α ί μυεΐσθαι τά
μ εγ ά λ α , τ ά έΐΐουράνια. οί γ ά ρ τούς έκεΐ, φησί, λ α χ ό ν
τε ς μ ό ρ ο υ ς, μείζονας μοίρας λαγχά
ν ο υ σ ι ν.4
1 μ εγάλα add. Reitzenstein 2 μικρόν Keil, acc. Beitzenst. : μικρά

P, edd. 3 πριν add. Keil 4 λαγχάνουσιν seripsi (cf. r e f u t .
V, 9, 12 [ρ. 100,23 W.] έλαχε Gott. : έλαβε Ρ) : λαμβάνουσιν Ρ, edd.
513
97 (25)
Greater deaths gain greater portions (lots).
As for the text, Theodoretus’ μόνοι is a clear misunder

standing of Clement’s μόροι, and Hippolvtus’ λαμβάνουσιν
I take as a clear lapsus by Michael, the scribe of cod. Parisinus,
in lieu of λα γχά νο υ σ ιν (contra Wendland and others).
The etymological word-play μ ό ρ ο ς : μ ο ΐ ρ α in

the chiastic saying is intentional: cf. e. g. Aeschyl. Choeph. 911
καί τόνδε τοίνυν Μοΐρ' έπόρσυνεν μόρον, and Μ. Ρ. Nilsson
(Gesch. der griech. Religion, T [Munich, 1941], 361 ff.). I t seems
to imply: “The nobler is a man's death, the greater is his posthu
mous reward by gods”. For example, the self-denying brave death
of an ά ρ ισ τος on the battlefield wins the lot (fate, portion or
rank) of a semi-god or hero, which implies immortality (cf.
θεοί fr. 29 [55]; ά θάνα τοι fr. 47 [62]; κλέος άέναον fr. 95
[29]). On the contrary, the mean dooms of the many (say of
the wealthy bourgeoisie of Ephesus) after a greedy life (cf.
fr. 106 [125&]), filled only with earthly pleasures (cf. fr. 95
κεκόρηνται and fr. 99 [20] ζώ ειν έθέλουσι) means a complete
perdition and death already during the life (cf. fr. 99 μόρους
γ ε ν έ σ θ α ι). Diels correctly referred to Plato Cratylus 398 B
έπειδά ν τ ις ά γ α θ ό ς ώ ν τελευτήσηι, μ εγά λ η ν μοίραν καί
τιμήν έχει καί γ ίγ ν ε τ α ι δα ίμ ω ν. ..
514
98
(49 P K ; 113 Β)
(0) < υ > ' εις έμοί μύριοι έάν (Χρίστος ϊμ.
1 an £σθ’ »
(α) Β Theodor. Prodrom, epist. 1 (Lazerius, Miscellanea,

Romac, 1754, p. 20) = PO 133, p. 1240 Α. εΐ γ ά ρ ό ε ι ς
μύριοι παρ’ Ήρακλείτωι έάν άριστος
fj ι, π ά ντω ς καί ή μία χελιδώ ν άντί μορίων λ ο γ ίζ ο ιτ’ άν,
έάν κληρώ τα ι τό άριστον. (Bernays, Ges. Abh., I, p. 33 n. 2).
(a 1*) K tetrastich, in Basil. I (fol. K 2Vod. Bas.).
α ύ χεΐ μέν 'Ε λ λ ά ς μορίους τούς έκγόνους,

α ό χεΐ δέ Πόντος τον Βασίλειον μόνον,
καί κ α τα ποντοΐ1 τώ ι καλώ ι τήν Ε λ λ ά δ α '
ε ΐ ς γ ά ρ κ α θ ’ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτό ν έ σ τ ι μ ύ ρ ι ο ι .
1 Boissonade : κατατιοντεΐν (ut rid.) cod.
(b) R Galen, de dign. puls. V III, p. 773 Kuehn. ου

γ ά ρ τρυφώντω ν δδε ό λ ό γ ο ς ά λ λ ’ ίκανώ ς συντεταμένω ν
τε καί προθύμω ν δεΐται. τοιοΰτοι δ ’ είσί π α ντελώ ς ο λίγο ι
τω ν νΰν. ά λ λ ά κ α τά τον Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν ε ΐ ς έ μ ο ί μ ύ-
ρ ι ο ι, καί ήδιον άν τούς λό γο υ ς πρ ός τούτον τον ένα
ποιησαίμην f) πρ ός μυρίους τούς ένός ή ούδενός άξιους.
(c) R Symmach. epist. IX, 115 (Monum.. Germ. hist.

p. 267 Seeek). quod si mihi ullus honor testimonii publici ad-
515
fectaudus foi'ct, iudicio tuo et similium contentus esse debc-
re m ... secundum Heraclitum phvsicum, qui summam laudis
arbitratur plaeere uni, si esset optimus, qui probaret.
(d1) R Cic. ad Atticum XVI, 11,1. tu vero leges Sexto

eiusque iudicium mihi perscribes: ε ι ς έ μ ο ι μ ύ ρ ι ο ι .
(d2) R II, 5,1. Cato ille noster, qui mihi unus est pro
centum milibus.
(d3) R Brut. 191. legam, inquit, nihilo minus: Plato

enim mihi unus instar est centum milium.
(e) R A. G. VII, 128.
Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς έ γ ώ ' τί μ’ ά νω 1 κ ά τω 2 ελκ ετ’, άμουσοι;

ούχ ύμΐν έπόνουν, τοΐς δ ’ £μ’ έπισταμένοις.
ε ΐ ς έ μ ο I ά νθρ ω πος τ ρ ι σ μ 6 ρ ι ο ι, ot δ ’ ά νάριθμ οι
ουδείς. τα ΰ τ' αύδώ κ α ί π α ρ ά Φερσεφόνηι3.
Vv. 1-4 = Diog. Laert. IX, 16; Hesych. Miles, qui erudit.
claruerunt 32 (FHG Mueller IV, p. 166); vv. 3-4 Suda s. v.
Αναρίθμητος.
1 xt μ’ άνω Meineke : τίμαίω Diog. BPi : τί με ω Λ. Q. ct Diog. <j> :

τίμεον Diog. FP 2 2 cf. fr. 33 (60) ( g ) 3 Diog. P F 2 :τιερσε-
<ρόνη Diog. B <p, A. G. et Suda
(o') It Olympiod. in Plat. Gort/. 20,7 (]>. 103,10"Korvin)·

οϋτω youv καί δ Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς Μλεγεν' ε ΐ ς έ μ ο ί ά ν τ ί
π ο λ λ ώ ν , καί λ έ γ ω τούτο καί π α ρ ά Περσεφόνηι ών.
(e*) R Nicephor. Chumni epist. 44 (Boissonade, Anec-

dota nova, Paris., 1844, p. 57). £ γ ω γ ’ οΐμα ι τό τής παροι-
516
μία ς κάντα ϋθα συμβαίνειν έπί τή ς σής επισ τολή ς- ε ΐ ς
Α ν τ ί π ο λ λ ώ ν . Cf. ep. 39 (ρ. 49 Β .).
(/) R ’ Sen. epist. 7, 10. Democritus ait (fr. 302a DK):

unus mihi pro populo est, et populus pro uno.
Cf. Plat. Gory. 490 A π ο λ λ ά κ ις ά ρ α ε ΐ ς φ ρ ο v ώ v

μυρίων μή φρονούντων κρείττων έστί
κ α τά τόν σόν λόγον, κ α ί τοΟτον ά ρ χειν δεί, τούς δ ’ άρ-
χεσ θα ι. .. (Cf. I. Bernays, Ges. Äbh., I, ρ. 34 n., et E. R.
Dodds, Plato Gorgias, Oxonii, 1959, p. 288).
Scxt. Empir. adv. math. VII, 329 ένα συνετόν άμείνονα

είναι πολλώ ν Ασυνέτων. . .σ πά νιος μεν γ ά ρ έστιν ό συνε
τός, πολύς δέ ό είκαΐος. VII, 334 καί γ ά ρ εί κ α θ ’ ύπό-
θεσιν εις ήν έξ αύτώ ν ό τούτο λέγω ν, ίσον dxv έδύνατο
τοΐς πασιν. Pyrrh. hypotyp. II, 43 πρώ τον μέν γ ά ρ σ π ά --
νιον ίσω ς έστί τό Αληθές, καί δ ιά τοΰτο ένδέχετα ι ένα
τώ ν πολλώ ν φρονιμώ τερον είναι.
Democriti fr. 98 DK ένός φιλίη ξυνετου κρέσσων άξυ-

νέτω ν πάντων.
Euripid. fr. 584 Ν.- εΐς τοι δίκ α ιο ς μυρίω ν ούκ ένδι
κων / κρατεί.
Sosithci Trag. fr. 1 Ν.2 (ap. Stob. IV, 10,18 [IV, ρ. 332 Η .])
ε ΐ ς μ υ ρ ί ο υ ς όρνιθα ς Αετός σοβεί,
λαώ ν τε δειλώ ν πλή θος εδ τρ α φ είς Ανήρ.
Cleantli. fr. 100 Pearson ( = SVF I nr. 559) ap. Clem.

ström. V, 17,6 (II, p. 337 S t.).
ού γ ά ρ πλήθος έχει συνετήν κρίσιν οότε δικα ίω ν'
οΰτε κα λώ ν1, ό λ ίγο ις δέ π α ρ ’ ά νδράσ ι τοϋτό κεν εϋροις.
1 δικαίω ν. . . καλώ ν Wilamowitz : δικ αΐαν. . . καλήν L

(g ) Kt (69 DK; 128 B) lamblieh. de mysteriis V, 15
(p. 219,12 T artlicy). και θυσιώ ν τοίνυν τίθημι δ ιττά είδη"
τ ά μέν τω ν ά ποκ εκα θα ρμ ένω ν παντάιτασιν άνθρώ πω ν,
ο ΐα 4 φ’ έ ν ό ς ά ν ποτέ γένο ιτο σ ι α ν ί ω ς , ώ ς φη-
σιν Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς, ή τινω ν ό λ ίγω ν εύαριθμήτω ν άνδρώ ν,
τ ά δ ’ 4νυλα καί σ ω ματοειδή κ α ί δ ιά μεταβολής συνισ-
τ ά μ ε ν α ...
518
98 (49)
One man is as ten thousand for me, if he be the best.
Since only partial reminiscences of the fragment are

preserved, its original text is not quite certain. We have to
combine εΓς έμοί μύριοι (from testimonia b, d1'3 and e) with
έάν <5ριστος fji (from a and c ) . Now, the saying είς έμοί
μύριοι έάν ά ρ ισ τος fji looks like a iambic trimeter (contra
Deichgräber, Rhythmische Elemente, 526): that is why I
tentatively took that the first syllable is missing. (The most
likely is that it was something like έσθ’, cf. a 1; it cannot be δ,
taken from a, because this ό of Prodromus might well imply
‘th a t one man from Heraclitus’, just as ή μία χελιδώ ν seems
to imply ‘th a t one swallow from the proverb [μία χελιδώ ν
έα ρ ού ποιεί] ’).
Another question is whether the verse is by Heraclitus

himself, or is due to some poetic version of Heraclitus (one
of them being by Scythinus of Teos, cf. DL IX, 16; DK 22
0 8 ). Since T would suppose the iambic metre also in frr. 90
(73); 104 (33) and 103 (44), I think it is more likely that the
metric form is by Heraclitus himself (we have the second half
of a hexameter in frr. 86 [5], v. 9; 64 [100]; they seem to be
by H eraclitus). One could object to: if Heraclitus’ γν ώ μ α ι
have been originallv written in metric form, why then Scythi-
nits is said to have put his prose into verse? A possible answer
might be: the majority of Heraclitus’ sayings are written in
a solemn and balanced prose, and only some of them in metric
form: the latter might have given the idea say to Scythinus
to convert all available sayings info verse.
As for testimonium (g) = fr. 69 DK, I would side with

H. Oomperz (ap. Diels, VS*, p. XXIV) and Kranz ad loc.
519
in believing that it is no more than a techie and distant echo
of this saying (contra e. g. Guthrie 475).
The phrase of Clement ström. I, 49,1 (II, p. 32 St.)

ά ρ κ εΐ τώ ι γνω σ τικ ώ ι κ&ν είς μόνος ά κ ροα τή ς εύρεθήι
need not be a reminiscence of this fragment (contra L. Friich-
tel, in the 3rd edition of Stromateis, Berlin, 1960, ad loc.) ;
cf. also Wiese, Heraklit bei Klemens, 110 f.
The meaning of the saying seems to be clear enough,

δ ρ ι σ τ ό ς probably implies the same as οί ά ρισ τοι in fr. 95
(29): ‘nobleman', ‘aristocrat’, ‘the chivalrous warrior endowed
with ά ρ ετή ’; μ ύ p ι ο i are probably οί πολλοί. As for the
opposition είς : μύριοι, cf. e. g. fr. 101 (104), v. 4.
520
99
(20 DK; 86 B)
(a) C d em . ström. I ll, 14,1 (II, p. 201 St.) 'Η ρά

κλειτος γοΰν κακίζω ν φ αίνεται τήν γένεσ ιν έπειδά ν φήι1'
γενόμενοι
ζώ ειν έθ έλ ο υ σ ι
μόρ ους τ ’ εχ ειν
(μά λλον δέ ά ν α π α ύ εσ θ α ι)'
κ α ι π α ΐδ α ς κ α τα λ είπ ο υ σ ι
5 μόρ ους γ εν έσ θ α ι.
(2) δηλος δέ αύτώ ι συμφερόμενος καί ’Ε μ πεδοκλής λέ-

γοον. .. (seq. Emped. frr. 118; 125; 124 DK ). Cf. H. Wiese,
o. c., pp. 143-40. (Schl. fr. 55).
1 φήι Diels, Staehlin : φησΐ L, έπ ειδή φησι Bywater

99 (20)
Once born,
they [the m ultitude] ivish to live
and to meet w ith their dooms;
and they leave children behind them
so that (new) dooms become.
The phrase μ ά λ λ ο ν δέ ά ν α π α ύ ε σ θ α ι is a clear attem pt

a t explanation by Clement (cf. the parenthetic μ ά λ λ ο ν δ έ -
phrases in e. μ:. Clem, protrept. 11,2 [T, p. 10,27 St.}; 22,1
[I, p. 16 = H eraclitus’ fr. 74 {27) &’]; 23,1 }I, p. 17,261). It
was recognized as such already by Schleiermacher, who was
followed by Mullach (fr. 66); Zeller 898 n. 1; Gigon 121;
W alzer; Reinhardt (Hermes 77,4 = Vermächtnis 44); F rü ch
tei ( W ürzburger Jahrbb. fü r die Altertumsu'iss. 2 [1947],
149); Frankel {Dichtung2, 449); Kirk 309; W heelwright (fr.
97); Wiese 148 f. (contra DK; B urnet; Reinhardt, Parin.
195 n.; Snell, Hermes 61 [1926], 369; M azzantini). The read
ing of Anna R ü s ^ v (ap. DKe, I, p. 492,46 f.) μ ά λ λ ο ν ή άνα-
π α ύ ε σ θ α ι cannot be taken seriously (cf. also Wiese 149 n. 1).
The saving is best explained if referred to fr. 95 {20).

The subject, seems to be οί π ο λ λ ο ί, ζ ώ ε ι ν might imply
‘enjoy the life’ (LSJ, s. v., I I ‘live in the fullest, sense’):
cf. e. g. Dio Cassius L X IX , 19,2 Σ ίμ ιλ ις εντα ύ θα κ εϊτα ι
βιούς μέν έτη τόσα, ζή σ α ς δέ έτη έπ τά , and H eraclitus’
fr. 95 κ εκ ό ρ η ντα ι; fr. 106 (I25n). έ χ ε ι ν probably means
π ά σ χ ειν (cf. LS.J, s. v., A, I, 8; Herodot. I ll, 15,1 ένθα του
λοιιτοΟ δ ια ιτα το έχω ν ούδέν βίαιον; VT, Π,3; Powell, Lex.
Herodot., s. v., I, 4).
The paradox μ ό ρ ο υ ς γ ε ν έ σ θ α ι , ‘so that (new)

dooms become’, ‘damit der Tod nicht aussterbe’ (Reinhardt) ;
522
‘dass neuer Tod geboren wird' (Snell); (cf. also DK; Wheel
wright; Wiese 143 ‘damit Todeslose geboren werden'), can give
us the clue to understand the saying. It seems to imply a
sarcastic criticism of the mundane wav of living of the majority
of the Ephesians from the point of view of the aristocratic
war-ethics. There seems to be an intended parallelism between
ζώ ειν and μόρους έχειν; between π α ΐδ α ς κ α τα λείπ ειν and
μόρους γενέσθαι, as already pointed out by Reinhardt. What
should be understood as the reverse to μόροι (and to θνητά in
IT. 95 too), is the immortality and ‘everlasting glory' of a
hero slain in battle.
“The many choose [cf. έθ έλο υ σ i with αίρεΰνται, fr. 951

the mundane life filled with pleasures, which means only death
and loss of immortality. The same repeats from one generation
into the other, so that actually it can be said that they do not
beget children but only ‘living deaths’.”
100
(39 DK; 112 B)
(a) C? Diog. Laert. I, 88 μέμνηται του Β ίαντος καί

Μ ππωναξ, ώ ς πρ ο είρ η τα ι ( I , 84), κ α ί ό δυσάρεστος Η ρ ά
κ λειτος μ ά λισ τα αύτόν έπηινεσε1 γ ρ ά ψ α ς-
έν Πριήνηι Βίας έγένετο ό Τευτάμεω,

ο5 πλέων- λόγος η των άλλων.
καί οί Π ριηνείς δε α ύτώ ι τέμ ενος κ αθιέρω σαν τό Τευ-

τά μ ειον λεγόμενον, ά π εφ θ έγξ α το ' οί πλεΐσ τοι άνθρωποι"
κακοί. (Sohl. fr. 15).
1 έπήνεσε F : έπήνεκε ΒΡ 2 πλέων F Ρ : πλείων Β 3 άν

θρωποι ΒΡι, Stob. I l l , 1, 172 (DK I, ρ. 65,2) : om. F P 2 , Hicks, Long
524
100 (39)
In Priene lived Bias, son of Teutonics,

who is of more account (esteem) than the rest.
We don’t know the very reason why Heraclitus mentions

Bias with appreciation, but since in fr. 101 (lOi) he seems to
quote the apophthegm ‘Most men are bad’ attributed to Bias,
we may assume that one of the reasons was the same political-
ethical feelings: that is why the saying is put here.
I don’t see the reason for attributing to Heraclitus also

the sentence which follows the saying in Diogenes (κα'ι οί
Πριηνεΐς δέ α ύτώ ι τέμ ενος κ αθιέρω σαν τό Τευτάμειον
λ εγό μ ενο ν), as Η. Gomperz (ap. DK) did, with reference
to fr. 105 (121).
The word λ ό γο ς here is far from any philosophical impli

cation, since π λ έ ω ν λ ό γ ο ς was a common Ionic phrase:
cf. Herodot. II, 89,1 λ ό γο υ πλεϋνος γ υ ν α ίκ ε ς; I ll, 146,3
τω ν Περσέων τούς δκρροφορευμένους τε καί λ ό γο υ πλείσ-
του έόντας Ι'κτεινον; IX, 32,1 τ ά περ έπιφ α νέσ τατά τε
ήν καί λ ό γο υ πλείστου (cf. Powell, Lex. Herodot., s. λόγος,
5, d, and Guthrie 420 f . ) .
101
(104 DK; l i l a B)
(a) C Procl. in Ale. I, p. 255,14 Creuzer = p. 117

Westerink. δεΐ δέ καί είς τό π α ν βλέψαντα έρεϊν δτι τ α ένι-
κ ώ τα τα τω ν έν α ύτώ ι νουν έχ ει κ α ί φρόνησιν, ά δέ μ ερικά
είσι κ α ί διαφ ερόμενα κ α ί ά τα κ τα , ταΟτα γνώ σ εώ ς έστιν
άληθους ά μ οιρ α καί έπιστήμης. όρθώ ς οδν κ α ί δ γ ε ν
να ίος Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς ά πο σ κ ο ρ α κ ίζει τό πλή θος ώ ς άνουν
καί Α λόγιστον'
τ ίς γ ά ρ α ύτώ ν, φησί, νόος ή φ ρ ή ν;

δ ή μ ω ν 1 ά ο ιδ ο ΐσ ι π είθ ο ντα ι-
κ α ί δ ιδ α σ κ ά λ ω ι χ ρ ε ίω ν τ α ι1 ό μ ίλ ω ι,
ούκ ε ίδ ό τ ε ς δ τ ι ‘ο ι1 π ο λ λ ο ί κα κοί, ό λ ίγ ο ι δέ Α γ α θ ο ί’/·
τα υ τα μέν δ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς, διό καί ό σ ιλλο γρ ά φ ο ς 'όχλο-

λοίδορον’0 αυτόν άπεκάλεσ εν. (Schl. fr. 71).1*4
1 δήμων seel. Bywater et Wilamowitz ( G r ie c h . L e s e b . I, p. 34), tamquam

interpret, praoeedentis αύτών : φρήν δαήμων s. δαίμων; Bergk ( O p u s c .,
II, p. 88) : φρήν δήμων; (‘quae sententia, quia sensus est ipsius plebis?’)
interp. C. G. Vollgraf £ ( M n e m o s y n e 1916, p. 425) 2 άοιδοΐσι
ex Clemente scripsit Bernays (G e s . A b h . , T, p. 32) et πείθονται restit.
Diels ( J e n a e r L i t t . Z e i t u n g 1877, p. 394) : αίδοΰς ήπιόων χε Ν :
άοιδοΐσιν Μ π ο ν τ α ι Clem., Bernays, Bywater 3 χρείωνται Diels,
Westerink : χρειών τε Ν : χρέωνται Bernays, χρέονται Wilamowitz
4 οι om. Clem., del. Bernays, Wilamowitz 5 cf. Biantis dictum oi
πλεΐστοι άνθρωποι κακοί (ad fr. 100 et ap. DK I, p. 65,2); Cleanthis
fr. 100 Pearson ( = ad fr. 98 f snl> fin.) ; llerodot. 111, 81,1 όμίλου γά ρ
άχρηίου ούδέν έσ π άξυνετώτερον ούδέ ύβριστότερον 6 <·£.
Timon. Plilias. fr. 28 Waclism. = 43 Diels, ap. Diog. Laert- IX, 6
(b) R Clem. ström. V, 59,4 (II, p. 366 St.) α ί γοΰν

Μ άδες μοΟσαι (i. e. Heraclitus) διαρρήδην λ έγουσ ι τούς
μέν πο λλο ύς κ α ί δοκησισόψους δ ή μ ω ν ά ο ι δ ο ΐ σ ι ν
526
Μ π ε σ θ α ι κ α ί + ν ό μ ο ισ ι+ 1 χ ρ έ ε σ θ α ι , < ο ύ κ > -
είδότας δτι ' < ο ί > *3 π ο λ λ ο ί κακοί, όλί-
γ ο ι δ έ Α γ α θ ο ί ’, τούς Αρίστους δέ τό κλέος μετα-
διώ κειν. .. seq. fr. 95 (29) /
1 corruption esse videtur (an νομεΰσι?) 2 ούκ add. ex Proclo

3 οί add. ex Proclo
101 (104)
What intelligence or (at least) what mind have they?

They put their trust in (wandering) country-bards (or folk-
and take the mob for their teacher, / singers)
knowing not that ‘most men are bad, and (only) few are good’.
The saving is not entirely elear. h’irst of all, we don't

know the subject of the sentence: who are α υ τ ο ί ? Both
Prochts and Clement took them for τό πλήθος, οί π ο λ λ ο ί;
so did most modern scholars (cf. e. g. Frankel, Dichtung-, 448:
“Von der Menge kann sich Ilcraklit nichts Gutes erwarten” ;
Guthrie 454 n. 3: ‘the masses’) . But I think it is unlikely
because of the word δμ ιλος in v. 3, which is a synonym of
ot πολλοί. Misled by the word νόος (“Die pathetische A uf
nahme des Wortes νους” ), Gigon 17 supposed that this saying
followed immediately fr. 16 (40) in Heraclitus’ original. This
is not likely at all. As a matter of fact, no one of the four
mentioned empiric πολυμ α θείς is likely to have put his trust
in folk-singers, instead of a personal inquiry or ίστορίη. This
is especially clear with Hesiod (himself an ά ο ιδό ς), who is
said in fr. 43 (57) to be most men’s teacher, and not that he
took the many for his teacher! I would suppose then that αυτοί
are the leading statesmen or authorities of Ephesus (probably
mentioned in the lost part of the fragm ent).
The next ipicslion is: wind is the difference in meaning

between νόος and φρήν, if any? The phrase νόος φρήν
could be taken as some kind of £v διά δυοΐν: cf. c. g. Aristo
phanes Frogs 534 τα ΰ τα μέν π ρ ό ς ά νδρός έστι / νουν εχον-
τος κ α ί φ ρ έν α ς; Demosthen. de corona 324 βελτίω τινά νουν
και φ ρένας ένθείητε; Xenophan. fr. 25 νόου φρενί. Never
theless I would rather think that the words have different
528
meanings: ν ό ο ς might mean ‘intelligence', ‘insight' (so
Frankel, 1. e. : ‘Einsicht’), as in fr. 16 (40), with the impli
cation ‘political insight or wisdom’. In its turn φ ρ ή ν might
imply ‘mental capacity in general’ (thus ή would imply ‘or
at least’) . In view of fr. 86 (5), v. 5 μαίνεσθαι δ ’ δ ν δοκέοι
(‘lie would well be thought mad’), the rhetoric question τις
αυτώ ν φρήν; might well imply: ‘they are out of their wits’
or ‘crazy’, ‘foolish’; cf. e. g. Aeschyl. Again. 479 φρένων κε-
κομμένος; Sophocl. Antig. 754 φρένων . . . κενός; Euripid.
Heraclidae 709 σών φρένων ούκ Ινδόν ώ ν; mente captus etc.
Finally, I would take δήμος here in the meaning of

IjS-I, I, 1 ‘country’, ‘land’ (contra e. g. Frankel, 1. c.: ‘Sie
glauben den Sängern des gemeinen Mannes’, or Wiese 206:
‘den Sängern der Domen (Gemeinden) folgen’). Possibly the
plural δήμω ν implies that each folk-singer is wandering from
one country or city to another (cf. perhaps Xenophanes fr. 45
ε γ ώ δέ έμαυτόν πόλιν έκ πόλεω ς φέρω ν έβλήστριζον;
cf. fr. 8,2), and not that each δήμος had its own άοιδός.
As already said, in line 4 there seems to be an inten

tional quotation, probably from Bias.
GROUP TWENTY THREE
P it 102 (45); 103 (44); 104 (55); 105 {121) \
106 {125a). Cf. also frr. 98 (45); 101 {104).
The sayings of this Group reflect Heraclitus’ poli

tical views, and are of less philosophical value. His
political standpoint seems to have been obviously
aristocratic and conservative. I t depended on his
aristocratic ethics of war.
Nevertheless some compromising attitude, seems to

be visible. Namely, his political advices (cf. χρή
in frr. 102; 103) and slogans seem, to have been hurled
both against the law-transgressing Tyranny {hence
perhaps fr. 103) and against the violent social wit-
breaks by ot πολλοί, or the wealthy and growing
bourgeoisie of Ephesus {hence perhaps fr. 102).
Probably his ideal was the regime of one able (cf.
fr. 105 όνή ιστός) man, which would rule in accor
dance ivith the city law {hence perhaps fr. 104; cf.
fr. 98). Obviously Heraclitus envisaged his friend
Hermodorus as such a man (fr. 105).
Possibly Heraclitus saiv in him only a new Aisym-

netes and lawgiver. B ut the Ephesians banished him
as a peril for democracy (fr. 105; ‘let no one of us
excel the rest’). This caused Heraclitus’ grudge and
imprecations (fr. 105; cf. also fr. 106). B ut much of
these thoughts must remain only a hypothesis.
102
(43 -DK; 103 B)
(a) C Diog. Laert. IX, 2. post fr. 30 (42). £λεγε δέ

(sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) καί"
ϋ β ρ ιν χ ρ ή σ β εννύ ν α ι1 μ ά λ λ ο ν F| π υ ρ κ α ϊή ν 2.
seq. fr. 103 (44). (Schl. fr. 16).
1 BPi : σβεννόειν P2 (F ), Bywater, Wilamowitz ( G r ie e h . L e s e l·., I,

1>. 3 3 ) 2 PF : πυρκαϊάν B
531
102 (43)
Wanton violence is to be quenched even more

than a conflagration.
**
υ ß p iv σ β εν ν ύ ν α ι was a common phrase: ef.

Simonid. fr. 100,3 D. [ = IG, I, suppl. 334a p. 78; Herodot.
V, 77,4]; Plato Laws 835 D; Herodot. V III, 77,1.
I think the whole saying· follows an old political common

place: ‘Social outbreak is ns dangerous as a city-fire’. Since
πυρκαϊή (conflagration, fire) is an exterior or public event,
it seems much more likely that also ϋ β p ι ς has here
its political meaning: ‘open violence’, ‘violent mass-action (say
by δ ή μ ο ς)’, and not ‘an individual act of insolence or wanton -
ness’; cf. e. g. Euripid. Orestes 696 f.
δταν γ ά ρ ή β δ ι δήμος εις όργή ν πεσών,

δμοιον ώ στε πυρ κ α τα σ βέσ α ι λάβρον.
Thus the saying would bear some aristocratic temper.'J) (If.

also Guthrie 410: “His conception of hybris must have been
much the same as that of Theognis, namely a failure by the
lower orders to keep their proper station.”
Kirk-Raven nr. 251 seem to follow Verdcnius’ unlikely

interpretation (Mnemosyne 1943, 1.15 ff.) of θυμός in fr. 70
(85) as ‘anger’ (cf. Kirk-Raven nr. 243), when interpreting
this saying: “ . . . he did not always think of human behaviour
in terms of the fiery nature of the soul (for υβρις should
involve a moistening of the soul, not its conflagration)”
(p. 214).(i)
(i) On 0βρις cf. J. J. Fraenkel, H y b r i s , Biss. Utrecht, 1941; C. Bel

Grande, H y b r i s etc., Neapel, 1947.
532
103
(44 PK ; 100 Β)
(η) Ü Diog. Laert, IX, 2. post fr. 102 (43) . . . καί '
μ ά χ ε σ θ α ι χ ρ ή τόν δή μ ον ύπέρ γ ε τοΰ νό μ ο υ 1

δ κ ω σ π ερ 2 τε ίχ ε ο ς.
scq. fr. 105 (121). (Schl. fr. 19).
1 ύπέρ τοΟ νόμου ύπέρ τοΰ γινομένου BPiP, omnia retinet C. Ο. Voll-
graff ( M n e m o s y n e 1917, p. 166 ss.: ‘populum ius ac fas instar muri
tueri oportet') : verba ύπέρ τοΰ γινομένου om. Ρ2 Const. Vat. 140, ed.
princ. [Frobeniana, 1533], seel, ut dittogr. edd. : ύπέρ τοΰ γε νόμου
(lectio emend.) Diels : transposui metri gratia 2 δκωσπερ Vat. 140,
Meineke ( D e le c t., p. 173), ace. DK, Kirk-Raven nr. 252 eett. : δκως
ύπέρ BPF, Sehleierm., Byw., H. S. Long
533
103 (44)
The people must fight for their city law

as though for their city wall.
Heraclitus’ insistence on respect for Law might be due to

a deeper, philosophical reason, in view of fr. 23 (114 + 2):
Law is one of the manifestations of a higher and sacred prin
ciple, i. e. ‘'What-is-common-to-all’ or ‘What is universally ope
rative and valid’ (διό δει 2πεσθαι τώ ι ξυνωι) ; so are e. g.
Logos; Polemos; the overliving Fire. (Cf. also Vlastos, VP
42 [1947], 167, and Kirk-Raven 214).
This respect for Law could also be due to the glorification

and deification of Nomos typical of this epoch (cf. fr. 23
είς νόμος, ό θειος and Pindar fr. 169 Sehr. = 152 Bpwra2
νόμος ό πάντω ν βασιλεύς / θνατώ ν τε καί άθανάτω ν...).
Nevertheless, in view of frr. 104 (33) and 105 (121), I

would rather think that the saying has a much narrower,
political meaning, bound to Ephesus.
I would accept Diels’ neglected conjecture that, accord

ing to Diogenes’ codd. Β Ρ Ψ , ύπέρ του γ ε νόμου is the more
likely reading here. If so, then by a slight transposition in
the text we get a iambic trimeter, which is fair enough. If
genuine, it might look like a political slogan! Cf. also frr. 9S
(49)·, 104 (33):
< £ σ θ ’?> εις έμοί μΰριοι εάν ά ρ ισ τος fji

< υ —> νόμος κ α ί βουληι πείθεσ θα ι ένός.
A social outbreak is like a big city-fire (fr. 102). Accor

dingly the city law is such a strong· shelter and protection
against an internal enemy as is the city wall against the
external one. Now, who is the enemy inside the walls? My guess
is as follows.
534
When an aristocrat like Basilides Heraclitus (cf. RE 250)
praises the law, it could be due to his political standpoint:
the city law might be thought of as a protection both against
the Tyrannis (say of the 'successors of the tyrants Athena-
goras and Comas)(,) and against any ϋ β ρις which might come
from oi πο λλο ί (which could well imply the growing new
democracy, cf. frr. 106; 105; 95). Thus the saying might be
taken as a plea for the regime of an Aisymnetes with μόναρχος
εξουσία, in the person of Heraclitus’ friend Hermodorus
(fr. 105). This goes well with fr. 104: . . .νόμος καί βουλήι
πείθεσ θα ι ένός, and with fr. 98 too. There was such a prece
dent. in the near past of Ephesus (Aristarchus of Athens, cf.
Hilda, s. v., and R E 251, 35 f f .) . But this is no more than a
hypothesis.
There are some passages from Cicero which have certain

resemblance with Heraclitus’ saying, but I prefer to believe
that this is due to the common motif: the comparison of the
institutions with city walls. Cf. e. g. de not. deor. I ll, 94
diligentiusque urbem religione quam ipsis moenibus cingitis
(cf. Pease ad loc.); Acad. II, 137 haec [these doctrines] tib i...
lain sunt defendenda quam moenia; Tusc. IV, 43 (quoted by
A. Menzel, Hellenika, Baden bei Wien, 1938, 360) proelium
rectum cst hoc fieri, convenit dimicare pro legibus, pro liber-
tate, pro patria. A reminiscence of Heraclitus’ saying is even
less likely in Pro Sestio 91 (contra M. Gigante, Parola del
passato 1957, 131), because the text seems to be good enough
as transmitted: ...tu rn domicilia coniuncta, quas urbes dici-
mus, invento ct divino iurc et humano moenibus saepsemnt.
Gigante accepts the addition by Raue and Klotz: < id > moe
nibus (< tam quani> moenibus Bake), which is not necessary.
Even so, the idea might be due to the commonplace (ins =
moenia).
(') Of. e. g. Xennpli. m e m . IV, 6, 12 βασιλείαν δέ καί τυραννίδα

άρχάς μέν άμφοτέρας ήγεΐτο είναι, διαφέρειν δέ άλλήλων
ένόμιζε’ τήν μέν γά ρ έκόντων τε των άνθρώπων καί κατά
νόμους των πόλεων άρχήν βασιλείαν ήγεΐτο, τήν δέ άκόντων
τε κα'ι μή κατά νόμους άλλ’ δπως ό άρχων βούλοιτο, τυραννίδα.
535
104
(33 DK; 110 B)
(a) C Clem, ström. V, 115,2 (II, p. 404 St.), post

fr. 84 (32). καί πά λιν'
< υ —> νό μ ο ς κ α ί β ο υ λ η ι1 π ε ίθ ε σ θ α ι ένός.
seq. fr. 2 (34). (= Euseb. praep. ev. X III, 13,42) Cf. H.

Wiese, o. c., p. 250 ss. (Schl. fr. 45).
1 βουλή Eus. 12 : βουλή Clem. Eus. cctt.

104 (33)
. . . I t is law, too, to obey the will, of one (man).
Since the saying seems to form a iambic trimeter, 1 would

suppose that the first foot is missing (possibly something like
έτεός, £τυμος).
νόμος with the verb πείθεσθαι might imply here

νόμιμον, ‘lawful’, ‘conformable to law', or perhaps ‘confor
mable to custom and tradition’. If βουλήι πείθεσθα ι is an
intended epic phrase (ef Iliad XII, 241 ήμεΐς δέ μ εγάλοιο
Δ ιός πειθώ μ εθα βουλήι), then Heraclitus while writing
νόμος . .. ένός might have had in mind such an idea as
Iliad II, 204 ούκ ά γ α θ ό ν πολυκοιρανίη· εις κοίρανος
έσ τω . . .
Thus the saying might imply: “The principle: ‘To obey

the will of one man’ is not contrary to the aekowledged tradi
tion” . Of course, provided that this ‘one man’ is either ‘the
best’ (fr. 98 εΐς έμοί μΰριοι έάν ά ρ ισ τος fjι), which might
mean ‘a nobleman’, or at least ‘the most useful’ (όνήιστός,
l’r. 105), as Hermodorus is said to δο.<υ
ei Cf. e. g . Xcnojih. m r m . IV, 6, 12 βασιλείαν δέ καί τυραννίδα

τύραννος άρχων. .. γράφει, καί ταΰτα νόμος καλείται. B u t this
is q u it e a c lif f u r c u t p r o b le m .
537
105
(121 DK; 114 B)
(0) ά ξιον Έ φ εσ ίοις ήβηδόν ά π ά γ ξ α σ θ α ι1 π α σ ι2

καί τοΐς άνή βοις τήν πόλιν κ α τα λιπ εΐν3,
ο'ίτινες Έ ρμ όδ ω ρον ά νδ ρ α έωυτω ν όνήιστον4
/ έξέβ α λ ο ν φάντες"·
ήμέων μηδέ εΐς όνή ιστός έστω*
5 εΐ δέ μή% ά λλ η ι τε καί μετ’ άλλω ν.
1 άπάγξασθαι Strabo, Muson., Iambi., Ps. Piog. : άποθανεΐν Piog.

Laert., m o r te m n lta n d o s Cic. 2 πασι PL, Lucian, (σύμπαντες
Ps. Piog., v n iv e r s o s Cic.) : om. Strabo, Wilamowitz ( G r ie c h . L c s c b ., I,
p. 34) 3 καί — καταλιπεΐν PL : om. Strabo, Cic. 4 άνδρα
Strabo : om. DL άνδρα έωυτων όνήιστον om. Cic.: άνδρών δντα
äptorov Ps. Her. e p . IX 5 φάντες Strabo : λέγοντες DL 6 εΐ
δέ μή Strabo : εί δέ τις τοιοϋτος DL, s i n q u is c x t i t c r i t Cic.
(a) P (A 3a DK) Strabo XIV, 25 (p. 642 C as.).

ά νδρ ες δ’ ά ξιό λ ο γο ι γεγ ό ν α σ ιν έν αύτηι (sc. έν Έ φ έσ ω ι)
τω ν μέν π α λ α ιώ ν Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ό ς τε ό σκοτεινός καλούμενος
καί Έ ρ μ ό δω ρ ο ς, π ερ ί οδ1 ό α ύτός οδτός2 φ η σ ιν ά ξ ι ο ν
Έφεσίοις ήβηδόν άπάγξασθαι, οΐτινες
Έρμόδωρον άνδρα έωυτων όνήιστον
έ ξ έ β α λ ο ν φ ά ν τ ε ς " ή μ έ ω ν μη δ ε ι ς 3 ό ν ή ι σ -
τ ο ς έ σ τ ω ' ε ί δ έ μ ή, ά λ λ η ι τ ε κ α ί μ ε τ ’
ά λ λ ω ν 1, δοκεΐ δ’ οδτος ό άνήρ νόμους τιν ά ς 'Ρ ω μ α ίο ις
σ υ γ γ ρ ά ψ α ι1.
1 verba περί οδ — μετ’ άλλων ut cmblcma seel. Cobet ( M n e m o s y n e

1876, p. 196) 2 οδτος om. DK, Walzer 3 μηδείς Cobet, Kra
mer, Jones, Wilamowitz : μηδέ εΐς Meineke, Bywater 4 cf. Plin.
ita t. h i s t . XXXIV, 21; Pompon, d ig . I, 2, 2,4
538
(b) P Diog. Laert. IX, 2. post fr. 103 ( i t ) , κ α θά π
τετα ι δέ (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) καί τω ν Έ φ εσ ίω ν έπ ί τώ ι τόν
έτα ΐρ ο ν έκβ αλεΐν Έ ρμ όδω ρον, έν οΐς φησιν' ά ξ ι ο ν
Έφεσίοις ήβηδόν. άποθανεΐν1 πασι καί
τ ο ΐ ς ά ν ή β ο ι ς τ ή ν π ό λ ι ν κ α τ α λ ι π ε ΐ ν , ο ϊ-
τινες Έρμόδωρον <άνδρα>2 έωυτων
ό ν ή ι σ τ ο ν έ ξ έ β α λ ο ν λ έ γ ο ν τ ε ς - ή μ έ ω ν μη
δέ ε ΐ ς ό ν ή ι σ τ ο ς έστω" εί δέ τ ι ς τ οι οΰ-
τ ο ς, ά λ λ η ι 3 τ ε κ α ί μ ε τ' ά λ λ ω ν , άξιούμενος
δέ καί νόμους θεΐναι πρ ος αύτώ ν ύπερεΐδε διά τό ήδη
κεκρατήσθαι τήι πονηραι πολιτεία ι τήν πόλιν. Cf. test. (d).
(Schl. fr. 46).
1 άπάγξασθαι c Strub, scripsit Long' 2 άνδρα e Streb. add. Diels

3 άλληι cl ß t (of. ed. H. S. Long) : άλλοι codd. cott.
(c1) P Cic. Tusc. V, 105. est apud Heraclitum physicum

do principe Ephesiorum Hcrmodoro: universes ait Ephesios
esse morte multandos, quod, cum civitate expellerent I/enno-
dorum, ita locuti sint: nemo de nobis unus excellat: sin quis
extiterit, alio in loco et apud alios sit. an hoc non ita fit omni
in populo? nonne cninem exsuperantiam virtntis oderunt? quid?
Aristides (malo enim Graecorum quam nostra proferre) nonne
ob earn causam expulsus est patria, quod praeter modum iustus
esset? (Schl, ad fr.).
(er) lt Muson. ltuf. fr. IX (p. 47 House) [έκ του

δτι ού κακόν ή φυγή] .. .κ α ί δτι ήδη τινές ά νδρ ες ά γα -
θοί όντες έξηλάθησαν ύπό τω ν π ολιτώ ν- ώ σπερ Ά θήνη-
θεν μέν ’Α ριστείδης ό δίκα ιος, έξ Ε φ έσ ο υ δέ Έ ρ μ ά
δ ω ρ ο ς , έφ’ ώι καί Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς, δτι έφ υγεν1, ή β η
δόν έκέλευεν2 Έ φ ε σ ι ο ύ ς 3 ά π ά γ ξ α σ θ α ι .
1 δτι έφυγεν delendum Cobet (M n em o syn e 1891, ρ. 124) 2 έκέ-

λευσεν A 3 Έφεσίοις Μ
(d) R lamblich. vita Pythay. 172 (p. 97 D eubner).
κ α ί π ά ν τες οδτοι (sc. οί Π υ θ α γό ρ α ι προσελθόντες) π α ρ ά
το ΐς α ότώ ν1 π ο λ ίτα ις ίσοθέω ν τιμώ ν έτυχον. ού y a p κα-
θά π ερ Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς, γρ ά φ ειν2 Έ φ εσ ίο ις [έφ η ]3 τούς νό
μους * *4 ά π ά γ ξ α σ θ α ι τ ο ύ ς π ο λ ί τ α ς ή β η-
δ ό ν κελεύσας, ά λ λ ά μ ετά έννοιας3 κ α ί π ο λ ιτικ ή ς έπι-
στήμης νομοθετεΐν έπεχείρησαν". (Schl.).
1 αύτων Nauck, Deubner ; αύτων 1' 2 γράφειν seripsi : γράφειν

F edd. 3 ίφη seel, ut dittogr. 4 post τούς νόμους lacunam
suspicor (exspectes ex Diog. L. άξιούμενος ύπερεΐδεν v. sim.) 5
εύνοιας Ritterehus. 6 έπεχείρησε, Τ’, <’οπ·. Rittnrshu*.
(c) It Ps. Diogents cpist. 28,C (p. 243 Hm*hi>i·). ή β η -

δ ό ν σ ό μ π α ν τ ε ς ή σωφρονεΐν μάθετε ή ά π ά γ-
ξ α σ θ ε.
(/) R Lucian, vit. auct. 14 Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς, ε γ ώ δέ κέ-

λ ο μ α ι π α σ ι ν ή β η δ ό ν ο ίμ ώ ζειν. . .
(<y) R Ps. Heracliti cpist. IX (ρ. 77,14 Byw.). Έ φ έ-

σιοί σε (sc. Έ ρ μ όδω ρον) ά ν δ ρ ώ ν δ ν τ α ά ρ ι σ τ ο ν
έλαύνουσιν. (Cf. cp. I ll, ρ. 71,2, ct Τ. Bernays, Oie heraklit.
liriefc, p. 129 s s .) .
540
105 (121)
The Ephesians would do well to hang themselves, every

grown man of them,
and leave the city to unfledged boys;
for they have banished Hermodorus, the most useful (or
ablest) man among them, saying:
‘Let no one of us be MOST useful fi. e. let no one of us
excel the. rest];
otherwise (oi· if he does), be it elsewhere and among others’.
The saying is void of any philosophical meaning, but is

a masterpiece as evidence of Heraclitus’ political standpoint.
The pun ή β η δ ό ν : ά ν ή β ο ι ς repeats Heraclitus’

paradoxical idea that sometimes beardless boys have more
insight or sense than grown men: cf. the contrast between
άνήρ and π α ΐς «Χνηβος in fr. 69 (117); between "Ο μηρος
and έκεΐνον π α ΐδ ες έξηττάτησαν in fr. 21 (5β) ; (cf. also
the paradox in fr. 93 \Γ>2]: αιών, implying ‘a grown or aged
man’, is no more than a τιαΐς πα ίζω ν).
ό ν ή ι σ τ ό ς : W’ilamowilz look it as Ionic synonym for

Attic βέλτιστος (and so did e. g. testimonium (g): α ρ ισ τ ο ς ;
Burnet 140 and Guthrie 409 ‘the best m an '). I think that
όνή ιστός docs not mean here the same as «Χρίστος in frr. OS
(-19); 95 (29), but something different: ‘ablest’, ‘most useful
or serviceable’ (this might hint at Hermodorus’ skill e. g. as
νομ οθέτη ς).(1> For such a meaning of όνήιστος cf. e. g.
Phoenix of Colophon fr. 5 D. (ap. Athen. XI, 495 T))
541
Θ α λή ς γ ά ρ , γνώ σ ιν1 ά σ τέρω ν ό ν ή ι σ τ ο ς
κ α ι τω ν τό τ’, ώ ς λέγουσ ι, πολλόν- ανθρώ πω ν
έώ ν ά ρ ι σ τ ο ς, έλα β ε π ελ λ ίδ α χρυσήν.
1 γνώσιν scripsi (cf. Herodot. I l l , 4,1 άνήρ . . . γνώμην Ικανός) :

δστις codd. edd. : ΐστωρ Gerhard 2 πολλών A, corr. Toup
Diog. Laert. V III, 49 Π υθα γόρη ς Ά ν α ξιμ έν ει . . . εί δέ

ύμ εΐς οί όνήιστοί τά ς π ό λ ια ς έκλείφετε, ά πό μέν αύτέω ν
ό κόσμος αίρεθήσεται, έπικινδυνότερα δ* αύτήισι τ ά έκ
Μήδων.
Vv. 4-Γ> make the most interesting point of the fragment.

Heraclitus recommended his friend as the ablest or most useful
man among all citizens. Now, the Ephesians did not pay atten
tion to any one of his possible abilities (i. c. not to the fact
of ONH-), but only to the fact that he is the most so and so
(i. e. only to the fact of - ΙΣ Τ Ο Σ ): that he excels the rest
of citizens. This suggests that the Ephesians (probably called
ot πολλοί in some of the fragments) have seen in Hermodorus
a ‘strong man’ and thus a peril for democracy (cf. also Mün
zer 859). This goes well with the rest of Heraclitus’ aristo
cratic, anti-democratic sayings.<2) The phrase ήμέω ν μηδέ εις
όνή ιστός έστω was correctly understood by Cicero (c1) (nemo
de nobis unus excellat), and by Wheelwright fr. 95 (‘Let us
not have anyone amongst us who excels the rest’) and Guthrie
409 (‘Let no one of us excel’) too.
V. 5 ά λληι τε καί μετ’ ά λλω ν is η stylistic hendiadys.*2
Ο) So also Vlastos, C P 42 (1947), p. 167 n. 116. On Hermodorus cf.

Münzer, R E VIII, 859-151; Marcovich, R E 251 f .
(2) R. Schottlaender, ‘Heraklits angeblicher Aristokratismus’, K l i o
A lite r
43-45 (1965), 23-29 (“Darum ist Heraklits philosophischer und poli
tischer Standpunkt nur angeblich und nicht in Wahrheit ‘Aristokra
tismus’ ”, p. 29).
542
106
(125a D E; 0 B)
(e) P Tzetzes, comm, in Aristoph. Pint. 90a, p. 31 Massn

Positano. τυφλόν δέ τον ΠλοΟτον ποιεί, ώ ς ούκ άρετής,
κ α κ ία ς δέ π α ρ α ίτιο ν1, δθεν και Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς ό Έ φ έσ ιο ς
άρώ μενος Έ φ εσ ίοις, ούκ έπευχόμενος
μ ή έ π ι λ ί π ο ι ύ μ α ς 2 π λ ο ύ τ ο ς , έφη, Έ φ έ σ ι ο ι,
ΐν ’ έ ξ ε λ έ γ χ ο ι σ θ ε πονηρευόμενοι.
(0. Ο. Zuretti, Miscell. Salinas, Panornii, 1907, ρ. 218).
1 -παραίτιον Nestle, acc. Walzer, Kranz ( V S e>} N a c h tr a g ) : παραιτίου

2 ύμας V a . Her. c p . VITT : ύμΐν cockl.
<*ocl«l. e<ld.
(b) R Ps. Heraeliti epist. V III (p. 76,34 Byw.). ούκ

άφ αιρούμενος π λ ο ύ τ ο ν κολά ζει ό θεός, ά λ λ α καί
μάλλον διδούς1 πονηροΐς, ΐ ν’ έχοντες δι’ cov ά μαρτά-
νω σιν2 έ λ έ γ χ ω ν τ α ι 3 καί περιουσιά ζοντες σκηνο-
βατώ σιν αύτώ ν τήν μοχθηρίαν' ή δέ ά π ο ρ ία π α ρ α κ ά -
λυμ μ ά έστιν. μ ή έ π ι λ ί π ο ι ύ μ α ς τύχη, ΐνα
όνειδίζησθε πονηρευόμενοι.
Cf. epist. VII, pap. Genav. 271 coll. X III, 37 ss.; XIV,
13; XV, 36 et 44 (V. Martin, Mus. lie h e t. 16 [1959], p. 101 ss.).
1 διδούς scripsi : δ(δωσι coil, edit 2 άμαρτάνωσιν scripsi : άμαρ-

τάνουσιν cod. odd. 3 έλέγχωνται Pantazides : έλεγχθήσονται
cod. edd.
(c) R? Seliol. T in Iliad. X, 149 έστασίαζόν ποτέ

Έφέσιοι περί χρημάτων πα ρ ελθώ ν δέ εις
τήν εκκλησίαν 'Η ρ ά κ λειτο ς. .. seq. fr. 31 (125) testim. (d).
543
106 (125»)
May wealth never fail you, men of Ephesus,

so that you can he (manifestly) proved, of being wicked.
**
Wilamowitz (Hermes 62 [1927j, 276) judged the fragment

as “ein Apophthegma in ganz moderner Spi-aehe, nicht mehr
Avert, als die Episteln” ; this was adopted by Walzer 154 f.
and Kirk lfil, who added: “yet this ‘((notation’, based perhaps
on the kind of silly biographical accounts used by Diogenes
in his chapter on Heraclitus, is suitable material for archai-
zation. Diels, followed by Kranz in T)K, strangely accepted
this as a genuine fragment. (125a): Hywater wisely omitted it.”
I would disagree with them: I think that in this ease a

genuine saying of Heraclitus has been reworded by some inter
mediary source, which is common both to Tzetzes and to the
Letter. The author of the latter writes τόχη and όνειδίζησθε,
but he knows the readings πλούτος and "ν’ έλ έγχ ω ν τα ι too.
Also in fr, 42 (126) Tzetzes seems to be a source which is
reasonably trustw orthy.
I suppose the original might have read:
μή έ π ιλ ίπ ο ι Έ φ ε σ ίο υ ς π λούτος,
ϊν ’ έ ξ ε λ έ γ χ ο ιν τ ο π ονη ρ οί έόντες.
The paradox looks Heraclitcaii; the idea: ‘The higher in

wealth men stay, the lower in ήθος they fall’ goes well with
frr. 95 (.25); 99 (SO): there άπαντα, κεκόρηνται and ζώ ειν
έθέλουσι (sc. ot πολλοί) imply the level of animals (cattle,
δκω σπερ κτήνεα), and the loss of immortality too (θνητά;
μόρους γεν έσ θ α ι).
544
The form of an imprecation (μή έπιλίποι ύ μ α ς κτλ.)
reappeal's in fr. 105 (121) ά ξιον Έ φ εσ ίο ις ά π ά γξα σ θ α ι.
έ π ι λ ε ί it ε ι ν with accusativus personae is common

enough and is likely for Heraclitus’ time: cf. e. g. Herodot.
II, 174,1 δκ ω ς δε μιν έπιλείποι πίνοντά τε κ α ι εύπαθέοντα
τ ά έπιτηδεα, κλέπτεσ κε dev π ερ ιιώ ν; VII, 21 κοΐον δέ
πινόμενόν μιν ύδω ρ ούκ έπέλιπε, πλήν τω ν μ εγά λ ω ν
ποτα μ ώ ν; Aristoph. Birds 1106 γ λ α υ κ έ ς ύ μ α ς οΰποτ’ έπι-
λείψουσι Λ αυριω τικαί.
έ ξ ε λ έ γ χ ε ι ν τινά Λvith participle, ‘to prove or con

vict one of being such and such’, (LSJ, s. v., I, 3) seems
also likely for Heraclitus: ef. Euripid. Hippolyt. 944 f. κάξε-
λ έ γ χ ε τ α ι. . . κά κισ τος ώ ν ; Simonid. 49 D. έ ξ ε λ έ γ χ ε τ α ι δ’ ό
νέος / οίνος ούπω < τ ό add. Edmonds> πέρυσι δώρον
άμπέλου.
On the other hand π ο ν η ρ ε ύ ε σ θ α ι is not likely

for Heraclitus (the verb first occurs in Aristotle Rhetoric Γ
10,7, p. 1411 a 17, in a specific meaning, ‘to play the knave
or scoundrel’, which might perhaps presuppose a longer seman
tic evolution), but e. g. πονηροί έόντες would be possible, in
view of Aeschyl. Choeph. 1045; frr. 90 N. ( = 316 M.); 401 N.
( = 679 M .); Epicharm. fr. 32 DK.
The fragment is put here because of its resemblance with

the preceding fr. 105, but it could also belong to Hroup 22.
GROUP TWENTY FOUR
F it . 107 (124); 108 (A 19 + A 18); 109 (87);
110 (95 + 109); 111 (122).
Α Δ Η Λ Α
SIVE FRAGMENTA INCERTAE SEDIS
The implication of these fragments is not clear

enough to allow us to classify them into any of the
preceding Groups. F r. 107 is obviously important:
but we don’t know whether the intellectual incapa
city of the whole human race is rebuked (el1. Group
21), or only that of Heraclitus’ philosophical prede
cessors (and i f so, which very reason for the alleged
fairness of this world-order they failed to grasp?).
Likewise the saying about a human generation of
thirty years (fr. 108) has not yet found a satisfac
tory interpretation.
107
(124 DK; 46 η. B)
(a ) C Theophrast. m e t a p h . 15 (p. 7 a 10 Usener; p. 16

Boss ct Fobes [Oxonii, 1929]). ά λ ο γο ν δέ κά κείνοις1 (sc.
το ΐς μόνον τ ά ς ύ λ ικ ά ς ά ρ χ ά ς ύποθεμένοις) δόξειεν άν
εΐ ό μεν δλος ούρανός κ α ί εκ α σ τα τω ν μερώ ν ά π α ντ’- έν
τά ξει καί λ ό γ ω ι (κ α ί μ ορφ αΐς κ α ί δυνάμεσιν καί περιό-
δ ο ις), έν δέ τα ις ά ρ χ α ΐς μηθέν τοιουτον, ά λ λ ’ ώ σπερ
σ ά ρ μ α 3 είκ η ι κ εχυ μ ένο ν4

ό κ ά λ λ ισ το ς, < ώ ς > Γι φησιν Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς, [ό]'1 κ ό σ μ ο ς7.
Cf. Th. Bergk, Opusc., II, ρ. 302.
1 κάκεΐνο ci. Bergk, ace. Bywater, Usener, Diels, Kranz 2 dnrovrd

τ’ EBHD 3 σ ά ρ μ α Diels ( B A ) , ace. Boss et Fobes, Gigon S2 ( et.
U r s p r u n g , p. 212), Fracnkol ( W e g e * , p. 263), Kerschensteiner ( K o s m o s ,
p. 97), Mondolfo (ZM, p. 26) : σαρξ codd., H. Gomperz (ap. Diels.
V S * , ρ. XXVI), I. B. McDiarmid ( A J P 62 [1941], p. 492 ss.) et P.
Friedlaender ( A J P 63 [1942], p. 336), ace. Kranz (FS«, N a c h tr a g , I,
ρ. 494,40), Kirk 82; 220; 313 : σάρον ci. Bernays (ap. Schuster, p. 390),
acc. Byvvater, Zeller 794 n. : σωρός ci. Usener : έξ ci. Bergk 4 κε
χυμένον Usener : κεχυμένων codd., Boss et Fobes cett. : κεχυμέν<η
άνθρώπ>ων Friedlaender 5 ώς addidi 6 ό del. Usener et
Wimmcr : rotinet McDiarmid 494 7 κόσμος Heraclito abrog. M e ·
Diarmid et Friedlaonder
547
107 (124)
The fairest world-order

is but a heap of sweepings piled up at random.
Heraclitus’ text has suffered some corruptions: namely,

in the archetype σ ά ρ μ α (restored by Diels) probably was
written as σαρ in the line and μα over it: this gave the
opportunity to some Christian copyist for the trivial mss.
reading σάρξ. When this σα ρξ was born, the original κεχυ-
μένον (restored by Usener) had to pass into κεχυμένων.
Further, ώ ς was mistakenly omitted after κ ά λ λ ισ το ς: this
induced the copyist to take ό κά λλισ τος φησίν Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς
as one unit (‘as says the noblest Heraclitus’, cf. the common
place δ γεν να ίο ς Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) and to add the article before
κόσμος (so also Boss and Fobes, p. 61). Consequently, the
copyist attributed to Heraclitus only the words: σ ά ρ ξ είκήι
κεχυμένω ν ό κόσμος (‘The world is a flesh composed of
parts scattered at random’) .
In 1941 MeDiarmid tried to keep the whole text as trans

mitted, attributing to Heraclitus only this: σ ά ρξ είκηι κεχυ
μένων ό κά λλισ τος [sc. ά νθρω πος! and referring to Γιτ. 82-
83 DK ( = fr. 92 [791, testimonium (b), of this edition):
άνθρώ πω ν ό σ οφώ τατος π ρ ό ς θεόν πίθηκος φα νεΐτα ι καί
σοφίαι κα'ι κ ά λλει κτλ. MeDiarmid translated his text as
follows (o. <*., p. 494): “ . . . in the ruling principles nothing
of the sort is present, but as Heraclitus says ‘the fairest man
is flesh composed of parts scattered at random’ so is the
cosmos”.
Paul Friedländer immediately objected to this reading:

“Sed neque σ&ρξ κεχυμένω ν Graece dici neque ό κά λλισ τος
548
nomine carere posse mihi videtui·” ; accordingly he improved
MeDiarmid’s reading as follows: σ ά ρ ξ είκήι κ εχ υ μ έν< η άν-
θ ρ ώ π > ω ν ό κάλλιστος. This reading was accepted by Kirk
220; 82, who added that Dials’ emendation of σ ά ρξ to σ ά ρμ α
“ is surely wrong” and that MeDiarmid and Friedländer have
given “a correct explanation of this fragment”. Also Kranz
(DK®, I, p. 494,40 ff., and Kosmos [Bonn, 1958], p. 37 n. 16)
thought that κά λλισ τος κόσμος “ist sicherlich nichts als eine
falsche Lesart”. For some time I myself was impressed by the
originality of this reading· finding it the most plausible one
(A JP 83 [1962], 208). But later (as I already said in R E 267)
my δεύτερα ι φροντίδες were that the reading of MeDiarmid
and Friedländer is not lik e l y a t all. Because:
(i) It is syntactically impossible. Namely, the interpre

tation “but as Heraclitus say s...so is the cosmos” would pre
suppose such an original: ά λ λ ’ ώ σπερ Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτό ς φησιν. ..
οϋτω ς ό κόσμος. It is clear that ώ σπερ goes with the following
σ ά ρ μ α or σάρξ, and not with φησίν Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ο ς; likewise
ό κόσμος alone cannot imply “so is the cosmos” (so also
Kerschensteiner 97 n. 1).
By the way, this ώ σπερ belongs to Theophrastus, not to

Heraclitus (contra DK; Frankel; Kerschensteiner et at.); Theo
phrastus seems to have been shocked by the word σάρμα, ‘heap
of sweepings’, and tried to ‘soften’ it by adding ώσπερ, meaning
‘as for instance’ or ‘so to sav’. Likewise he put the phrase
ώ ς φησιν Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς after ό κά λλισ τος (in lieu of after
κόσμος, as one would expect) possibly to emphasize the word
ό κ ά λλισ το ς: ‘the fairest, N. B. so says Heraclitus’; because
this went well with his own words ό μέν δλο ς ουρανός
κα'ι £καστα τω ν μερώ ν ά π α ν τ ’ έ ν τ ά ξ ε ι καί
λ ό γ ω ι.
(ii) Neither σ άρξ είκηι κεχυμένω ν nor κεχυμένη make

good sense in Greek; in any case they are unparalleled. And if
such an idea ever existed, it could not mean: “the fairest man
549
is flesh scattered at random”, but . .flesh heaped up or massed
together at random” (cf. LSJ, s. χέω , II, 5).
On the contrary, σ ά ρμ α κεχυμένον is a common idea in

Greek and is likely enough: cf. e. g. Herodot. I, 22,1 σωρόν
μ έγ α ν σίτου κεχυμένον, ‘a great heap of food (made from
grain) piled u p ’; Odyssey XV II, 297 f. κόπρω ι, ή. .. ά λ ις κέ-
χ υ τ ο ; Iliad X X III, 775 βοών κ έχυ τ’ δνθος. It is true that the
word σάρμα, ‘a heap of sweepings’ (cf. Rhinton fr. 25 Kaibel,
and Hesych. s. v. σ α ρμ άς' σω ρός γη ς, καί κάλλυσμα, ά λλοι
ψάμμον, ά λλο ι χόρτον), is not documented for Heraclitus’ time,
but it seems likely for him both in view of the verb σαίρειν,
‘sweep’, in Soph. Antig. 409, and in view of σύρμα τα in Hera
clitus’ fr. 37 (9) (so also Frankel. Wege2, 266 n. 2).
(iii) The reading ά νθρώ πω ν ό κάλλισ τος is not supported

by frr. 82-83 DK, which are obviously spurious. On the con
trary, the idea of ό κά λλισ τος κόσμος goes well with Theo
phrastus’ context (cf. ό μέν δλο ς ουρανός. . . έ ν τά ξ ει καί
λ ό γ ω ι) . Moreover, since evidently implying ‘order’, the phrase
ό κ ά λλισ τος κόσμος (cf. Plato Tim. 29 A) might be perhaps
paralleled by Heraclitus’ fr. 91 (102) τώ ι μέν θεώ ι κ α λ ά
π ά ν τ α ; fr. 51 (30) κόσμον τ ό ν δ ε .. .μ έ τ ρ α .. .μ έ τ ρ α ; fr. 64
(100) ώ ρ α ς a t π ά ντα φέρουσι.
The paradoxical saying “The fairest world-order is but a

heap of sweeping-s piled up at random” most probably praises the
order and regularity in cosmic processes, and ridicules the oppo
site view, the idea of disorder and irregularity being implied by
σ ά ρ μ α κεχυμένον and είκήι. It is clear that the saying is
meant as a polemic and an ironical sneer (i. e. that an α ύτοΐς
is to be understood). B ut it is not clear whom it aims at, nor
know we the very reason for this order and regularity: that is
why the saying is tentatively put in this Group.
550
If the saving ridicules the ignorance of the rchole human
race, as opposed to the wisdom of God, then it- might belong to
Group 21 (cf. especially fr. 91 [102\). So took it Kerschenstei-
ner 98 (“Nach Analogic voiuB 102 ergibt sieh als Deutung, dass
dem Menschen als wüster Haufen erscheint, was vor der Gottheit
die schönste Ordnung ist, weil er ihren Sinn und ihre planvolle
Fügung nicht zu begreifen vermag”) . But it is perhaps more
likely that the saying is meant only as a polemic with Hera
clitus’ philosophical predecessors (cf. e. g. fr. 83 [108] όκόσων
λ ό γ ο υ ς ήκουσα ούδείς άφ ικνεΐται ές τοΰτο ώστε γινώ σ κειν
δ τ ι . . . ).
Here again it is not clear which very cause of the order

and regularity men failed to grasp: whether the principle of
measures (Group 13), or the universal Logos (Groups 5-6), or
the guiding Fire (Groups 18-19); or else perhaps only the lack
of a deeper insight by men is blamed (cf. Group 3)? This
is the way in which Zeller 793 n. 1; Diels and Gilbert (Xeue
Jahrbb. 12 [1909], 172) interpreted the saying, i. e. “als Tadel
der gewöhnlichen Vorstcllungsweisc” . Gigon’s interpretation
(Der Ursprung 212) is not likely to me: “Was wir als den
Weltbau sehen, ist nur eine ungeordnete Masse von Dingen, die
mit dem Golde des reinen Feuerzustandes unvergleichbar ist.
Es liegt nahe, hierin eine Polemik gegen die Kosmologien der
Milesier zu sehen” . Mondolfo (ZM 26) went further and sug
gested that the eternal motion and vortex (ή δίνησις, cf. Aris
totle de caelo B 13, p. 295 a 7) of Anaximander’s cosmogony
might be aimed at. But first we don’t know whether such a
δίνη ever existed in Anaximander (cf. e. g. Kirk-Raven 128 t'.),
and then such a common image as ‘a heap of sweepings piled u p ’
need not necessarily recall to mind the idea of vortex.
108
(A 19 + A 18 DK; 87-89 B)
(a) R Ioann. Lydi de mensibus R Philon. qu. in Gen. II, 5 vcrtit

III, 14 ( = 88 B). R. Marcus (Bibi. Loeb. Philon. sup-
plem. I, p. 77) [ = 89 B ] .
δτι 6 τ ρ ι ά κ ο ν τ α ά ριθμ ός Moreover thirty is a very natural
φ υσικώ τατός έστιν. δ γ ά ρ έν μο- (num ber). For as the triad is to
νάσι τρ ιά ς, τούτο έν δεκάσι τρια- unity, so thirty is to the decad, so
κοντάς, έπεί καί ό τοΟ μηνός that the period of the moon is full-
κύκλος * *1 συνέστηκεν έκ τεσ σ ά orbed by collections of months.2 Se
ρων τω ν ά πό μονάδος έξη ς τε cond, it consists of the following
τρ α γώ νω ν, α ' δ' θ' ις'. δθεν ούκ four squares in succession from uni
ά πό σκοπού Ηράκλειτος ty: 1, 4, 9, 1G, which (added toge
γ ε ν ε ά ν τόν μήνα καλεΐ. ther) make thirty. Wherefore not
idly or inappropriately did Hern-
cleitus call this a generation, saying:
R (Α 19 DK) Philon. f n \ ed.
I. Rendel Harris (Cantabrigiae, 1886,
p. 2 0 ).
δυνατόν έν τριακοσ- ‘From a man thirty years old there
τώι έτει τόν3 άνθρωπον can come a grandfather, for he at
πάππον γενέσθαι' ή βα ν tains manhood in his fourteenth year,
μέν4 περί την τεσσαρεσ- when he is able to sow seed, and the
κ α ι δ ε κ α έ τ η 5 ή λ ι κ ί α ν , έν {child) sown within a year comes
ήι σ π ε ί ρ ε ι " τό δέ σπα- into being and similarly after fifteen
ρέν, έ ν τ ό ς έ ν ι α υ τ ο Ο γε- years begets one like himself.’
νόμενον, πάλιν πεντε-
κ α ι δ ε κ ά τ ω ι " έ τ ε ι τ ό δ-
μοιον έαυτώ ι γεννάν. And from these names of grand
fathers, fathers, begotten sons.. .the
re comes about a complete generation.
1 post κύκλος lacunam suspicor 2 ‘of months’ erratum : ‘of decads’ ci. 3 τόν
Wendland : αύτόν cod. : ocö τόν olim Diels : τόν αύτόν Reinhardt ( V e r m ä c h tn is 79)
4 μέν < γ ά ρ > ci. 5 Diels, Fraenkel : τεσσαρεσκαιδεκόχην perporam Harris, Rein
hardt, Kirk 6 immo τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτωι
552
(b') R (A 19 DK; 87 B) Plut. de def. orac. 415 K
ά λ λ ' οί μέν ‘ήβώ ντω ν’1 (ef. 415 C; Hesiod, fr. 171,2 Rzach3)
ά να γιγνώ σ κ ο ν τες έ τ η τ ρ ι ά κ ο ν τ α π ο ι ο Ο σ ι τ η ν
γ ε ν ε ά ν κ α θ ’ Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι τ ο ν , έν ώι χ ρ ό ν ω ι
γ ε ν ν ώ ν τ α π α ρ έ χ ε ι τόν έξ α ύ το ΰ γεγεν-
ν η μ έ ν ο ν ό γ έ ν ν η σ α ς.
1 Ε : ήβώντος cett.
(b12) R (A 19 DK) Censorin. de die nat. 17,2. saceu-

lum est spathun vitae humanae longissimum, partu et morte
definituni. qua re qui annus triginta saecnlnni putarnnt niultmn
videntur errasse. lioe enim tenipus genean voeari Heraclitus
auctor est, quia orbis actat.is in eo sit spatio; orbem autem
vocat aetaiis dum natura ah sementi humana ad sementim
revertitur.
(c) R (A 18 DK) Aet. V, 23 (Dox. p. 434 s.). \SV F

I nr. 133]. Cf. Galen, hist, philos. 127 (Dox. p. 646). πότε'
ά ρ χετα ι ό ά νθρω πος τή ς τελειότητος. Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι τ ο ς
καί οί Σ τω ικοΙ ά ρ χ ε σ θ α ι τούς άνθρώπους
τ ή ς τ ε λ ε ι ό τ η τ ο ς π ε ρ ί τ ή ν δ ε υ τ έ ρ α ν έ β
δομάδα, περί ήν ό σ π ε ρ μ α τ ι κ ό ς κ ι ν ε ί
τ α ι 2 ό ρ ρ ό ς·ν καί γ ά ρ τά 4 δένδρα ά ρ χ ε τ α ι τότε τε
λειότητος δταν ά ρ χη τα ι γεννά ν τά σ π έρ μ α τα 5, άτελή δέ
έστιν άγονα" καί ά κ α ρ π α δντα - τέλειος ο5ν τότε ά ν
θ ρ ω πος7. < Ά ρ ισ τ ο τ έ λ η ς > δέ π ερ ί8 την πρώ την9 έβδο-
μάδα, < π ε ρ ί ή ν > 10 έννοια γίν ετα ι καλού τε καί κακοί)
καί τής διδα σ κ α λ ία ς ά ρ χ ή 11.
1 πότε Gal., Ioann. Damasc. : πότε καί πώς Ps. Plut. d e p l a e . 909 <'
2 κινείται Gal., Diels (coni. Ps. Plut. 908 E ), Bemardakis : κρίνεται
Ps. Plut. : έκκρίνεται Meziriac 3 όρρός Ps. Plut. (cf. Macrob.
i n s o m n . S d p . I, 6,71 post annos autem bis septem ipsa aetatis necessi
tate pubescit. tunc enim m o v e r i v i s g e n e r a tio n is in masculia et purgatio
feminarum) : πόρος Gal. (cf. P t olem. tc tr a l·. IV, 10 p. 205,13 Camera-
riuss κίνησιν εΙκότως των σπερματικών π ό ρ ω ν έμποιεΐν άρ-
χεται) 4 καί γάρ τά Gal. : τά γά ρ Ps. Plut. 5 γεννάν
τά σπέρματα Ps. Plut. : καρπόν φέρειν Gal. (cf. Aristot. h is t, a n im .
H 1, p. 581 a 14 άμα δέ καί τρίχωσις τής ήβης άρχεται, καθάπερ
καί τ ά φ υ τ ά μέλλοντα σ π έ ρ μ α φ έ ρ ε ι ν άνθεΐν πρώ
τον Ά λκμαίω ν φησ'ιν 6 Κροτωνιάτης [24 A 15 DK]) 6 άγονα
Β, Bernardakis : άωρα (A) C, Diels 7 verba άτελή — άνθρωπος
seel. Diels 8 ’Αριστοτέλης δέ περί addidi ex Galeno (cf. H e r m e s
94 [1966], p. 121 s.) : περί δέ Ps. Plut. 9 πρώτην scr. ex Galeno :
δευτέραν Ps. Plut., Diels 10 περί ήν add. : καθ’ ήν Gal. 11
άρχή scr. ex Galeno (cf. Aristot. p o l i t . H. 17, p. 1336 b 37 ss. Boss;
Ε Ν K 10, p, 1179 b 15) : αυτών Ps. Plut., Diels
Cf. Solon, fr. 19,3 s. D.3

τούς δ ’ έτέρους δτε δή τελέσηι θεός £ π τ ’
/ ένιαυτούς,
ήβης έκφαίνει σήματα* γιγνο μ έν η ς
1 σπέρματα Clem.
Aristot. hist. anim. Η 1, p. 581 a 12 φέρειν δέ σ πέρ μ α

π ρώ τον ά ρ χ ετα ι τό ά ρ ρεν ώ ς έπ'ι τό πολύ έν τοις έτεσι
το ϊς δ ΐς έπ τά τετελεσμένοις. Ε 14, ρ. 544 b 25.
Hippolyt, ref ui. V, 7,21 (ρ. 83 Wenoll.) τοΰτο δέ ούκ

έστι Χριστού ά λ λ α Μ πποκράτους λ έγο ν το ς’ έ π τ ά
έ τ ώ ν π α ΐ ς π α τ ρ ό ς ή μ ι σ υ . δθεν οδτοι (sc. οί
Ν αασσηνοί), τήν ά ρ χέγο νο ν φύσιν τω ν δλω ν έν άρχε-
γό ν ω ι τιθέμενοι σ πέρματι, τό Ίπ π ο κ ρ ά τε ιο ν άκηκοότες
δτι έστίν ήμισυ π α τρ ό ς π α ιδίον έπ τά έτών, έν το ϊς τέσ-
σαρσι < κ α 'ι δέκ α > * φασ'ιν έτεσι, κ α τά τον Θωμαν, είναι-
φανερούμενον1. (Cf. Τ. Bcvnays, G e s . A h h . , 1, ρ. 54).
1 καί δέκα add. Miller 2 εΐ μέν Ρ, corr. Miller 3 cf. r e f n t .

V, 7, 20 έμέ ό ζητών εύρήσει έν παιδίοις άπό έτών έπτά" έκεΐ
γά ρ έν τώι τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτωι αΐώνι κρυβόμενος φανεροΰμαι
554
Theon. Sniyrn. math. p. 104,6 Hiller σ πέρ μ α δέ και ήβη
έν δευτέρα ι έβ δομ ά δι; Alexand. in metaph. ρ. 38,19 Hayduek
ήβάσκει π ερ ί την δευτέρα ν έβ δο μ ά δα ; Censorin. de die
nat. 14,4; Macrob. 1. 1.; Ambros, epist. 6, 39; Thes. L. L. VI,
3, p. 2579,79 ss.; Fr. Boll, Die Lebensalter, Neue Jahrbb. 31
(1931), p. 116 [ = Lipsiae, 1913, p. 28]; W. Schadewaldt.
Antike 9 (1933), pp. 282 ss.; 298 ss.
108 (A 19 + A 18)
(0) R Ηράκλειτος Μτ η τριάκοντα γε

νεάν καλεΐ, η έστι χρόνος άπ ό
τής γεννήσεως του πάππου £ως
τ ή ς τ ο υ υ ί ω ν ο ΰ (or: έ ν <5 ι χ ρ ό ν ω ι
ό υ ί ω ν ό ς π ά π π ο ς γ ί ν ο ι τ ’ άν) .
Heraclitus calls the space of thirty years one generation,

which is the (least) length of time from the begetting
of a grandfather till that of his grandson (or: which is
the least time for a grandson to become a grandfather) .
There is small difference Avhether wo shall count a gene

ration from the generating (begetting) of the grandfather
till that of his grandson (as Heraclitus is likely to have done),
or from the birth of the grandfather till that of his grandson
(as Philo took it): the point, is that in both cases it is at least
thirty years, since a man becomes procreative (begetting) at
the least ago of fourteen (and the time from engendering till
birth is counted as one year). Thus 2 x (1 4- 14) = 30; or
2 x (14 + 1) = 30.
This calculation of a generation presupposes: (i) the

oriental division of the human lifetime into ten hebdomads
(documented in Greece since Solon fr. 19 I), onwards); (ii) the
popular belief that grandson is somehow a continuation or
repetition of the life-force of grandfather (after whom lie is
often named). That is why the time-space between grand
parent's and grandson's begetting or birth is considered a
complete cycle of human life. Heraclitus’ fr. 41 (88) is also
based Upon this belief: τα ύτό τ ’ ενι ζώ ν καί τεθνηκός. . . καί
νέον καί γη ρ α ιόν' τά δε γ ά ρ μεταπεσόντα έκεΐνά έστι
κ ά κεΐνα μεταπεσόντα τα ΰτα. (Cf. Reinhardt, Farm. 192
and n. 1).
556
Since all our testimonia are no more than inexact remi
niscences, we don’t know even a possible text of Heraclitus'
saying about a human generation. I have tentatively put above
what seems to have been Heraclitus’ idea. As can be seen,
I give preference to Philo’s version (a), as more explicit.
The saying was given special attention by Frankel (AJP

59 [1938], 89 ff. = Wege2, 231 f.); by Reinhardt (Hermes
77, 230 ff. = Vermächtnis 78 ff.), and by Kirk 298 f. All
throe of them give preference to the version of Plutarch and
Censorinus {b1'2) . Frankel wrote: “Denn sowohl nach Plu
tarch wie nach Censorinus hat Heraklit etwas ganz anderes
gesagt, nämlich: “ Eine Generation umfasst 30 Jahre und stellt
einen Kreislauf des menschlichen Daseins dar; denn das ist
der (durchschnittliche) Abstand zwischen der Zeugung eines
Sohnes durch seinen Vater und der Zeugung eines Sohnes
durch diesen Sohn”. Das ist einfach, und das ist offenbar auch
das Richtige. P h ilo n .. .hat einen groben Schnitzer gemacht."
In his turn Reinhardt 79 supposed such a text of the

saying “dem Sinne nach (der Wortlaut soll nicht wiederge
wonnen werden)”: βίου περ ίοδος γενεά , ένιαυτώ ν οδσα
λ', καθ’ δν χρόνον σπεΐρον π α ρ έχει τό έξ έαυτοϋ σπαρέν
ό γεννήσας.
Kirk too agreed with Fränkel: “Thirty years is the ave

rage length of time between a father's generation of a son.
and that son’s generation in his turn of another son: this is
a cycle of life ..."
Hut 1 do not realize how Plutarch's text can give 30 years.

To my way of thinking, both Plutarch’s text έν δ>ι χρόνω ι
γεννω ντα π α ρ έχει τόν έξ αύτου γεγεννημένον δ γεννήσας
(‘a time sufficient for a begetter [or father] to have a begotten
one [or son] fit to be a begetter [or father] himself’) and
Censorinus’ phrase ab sementi humana ad sementim give only
15 years.
To get 30 years we should read in Plutarch έν ώ ι χρόνω ι
γεννώ ντα π α ρ έχ ει τόν έξ α ύτοϋ < γ ε γ ε ν ν η μ έ ν ο υ > γε·
γεννημένον ό γεννή οα ς. This is not likely in νΐολν of Censo-
rinüs’ evidence. Therefore I would suppose that both Plutarch
and Censorinus (which probably go back to a common source)
have mistakenly used only one half of Heraclitus’ saying.
In his turn Philo (a) might have been mistaken about the
starting point of a generation (birth in place of engendering),
but his testimonium gives clearly 30 years.
Frankel interpreted the saying as a geometrical proportion

a : b :: b : a (“Der Kreislauf der wechselnden Generationen
vollendet sich jeweils innerhalb von 30 Jahren, weil sich dann
das Verhältnis vom Vater zum Sohn wiederholt, und zwar
jetzt mit dem vormaligen Sohn in der Rolle des Vaters” ) .
Cf. also Gigon 70: “ In 30 Jahren kann ein Mensch, von seiner
Geburt an gerechnet, Grossvater werden. Es ist also ein zwei
geteilter Zeitraum von zweimal 15 Jahren, also ‘zwei Leben’.
Diese Zweigeteilthcit des Begriffes ist zu beachten: es ist ein
Weg hin und zurück, vom Vater zum Sohn und zurück zum
Enkel, wo cs von neuem beginnt.” Although the division of 30
years into two times fifteen years seems possible in view of
Censorinus’ orbem autem vocat aetatis dum natura ab sementi
humana ad sementim revertitur (cf. also Plutarch), my guess
is that Heraclitus was more interested in the coincidence or
repetition: grandfather — grandson, which means a ivhole
cycle of life of 30 years (cf. perhaps fr. 41 [881 and Rein
hardt, Farm. 102).
Starting from fr. 64 (100) and from Heraclitus’ Groat

Vear interpreted as the proportion 1 .· 360 :.- 30 : 10,800 (cf.
fr. 65), Reinhardt (Vermächtnis 81) .suggested that the idea
of a human generation of 30 years might be due to the cycles
of events in nature: “ein Kreislauf des Menschenlebens ent
spricht einem Kreislauf der N atur”. “Es ist nicht daran zu
ztveifelil, dass sich diese Zahl [i. e. 10,800] erklärt als Multi
plikation von 30 x 360. Das ergibt die Proportion: ein Tag
verhält sich zu einem Jahre wie eine γεν εά zum grossen Jahr;
558
oder: ein Tag· verhält sieh zu der γ εν εά (gleich 30 x 360
Tagen), wie wiederum ein Jah r zum grossen Jah r (gleich
30 x 360 Ja h re n )”. This interpretation was accepted by Kirk
300 (“ . . . it is a reasonable assumption that he [Heraclitus]
compared the lengths of the cycles of human life with the
lengths of the cycles of events in nature’' ) ; 302 (“ .. . 10,800
years is the longest human cycle just as 30 years is the short
est human cycle (from generation to generation), and bears
the same relationship to it as the longest natural cycle (the
year) bears to the shortest one (the day)” ).
I don’t- think it is likely, because the Great Year of say
10,800 solar years need not be interpreted as 30 x 360, but
in view of its Babylonian origin might well represent 3 Baby
lonian Sal’s (one Sar being = 60-). The Great Year has a
merely astronomical and meteorological meaning. On the other
hand, Heraclitus’ idea of γενεά , based on the hebdomadal
physiology and on the primitive folk-belief about the graiul-
father-grandson-eycle, seems to stay rather far from natural
events.
Reinhardt 80 f. used the comparison with trees in testimo
nium (c) as an argument pro his thesis that Heraclitus drew a
parallel between human cycles and those in nature (“Der Zeit
vom Keimen bis zur Frucht der Pflanze entspricht bei dem
Menschen die Zeit von der Geburt bis zum 14. Jahre. Der Zeit
von dem einen Keimen bis zum neuen Keimen, also durchschnitt
lich der Zeit von einem Jahre, würde demnach eine γενεά
entsprechen...”). But this comparison has nothing to do
with Heraclitus, and probably can be traced back to Alemaeon
(cf. note 5 ad test, c) . Reinhardt 76 found another proof
for the parallelism between a human γεν εά and an ένιαυτός
in nature in Plutarch de def. orac. 416 A (quoted ad fr. 64).
But this passage need not refer to Heraclitus’ fr. 64.
Consequently, Heraclitus’ saying about a human genera
tion of thirty years cannot be convincingly classified into any
■one of the preceding Groups of fragments. My feeling is that
it is folkloric in origin.
559
109
(87 DK; 117 B)
(a1) C Plut. de audiendo 40 F — 41 A οί μέν y a p 1

καταφρονητικοί καί θρασ είς ηττον ώ φελοϋνται υπό τω ν
λεγόντω ν, οί δέ θα υμα στικοί καί ά κ α κ ο ι μάλλον β λ ά π
τονται, καί τον Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν ούκ έλέγχουσ ιν είπόντα
βλάξ άνθρωπος έπΐ παντί λόγω ι έπτοήσθαι- φιλεΐ.
(Sohl. fr. 68).
1 γά ρ 1) η» : οιη, eott. 2 ττοαδεύεσθαΐ cod«!., corr. Xylanilcr coni.

2 8 Τ)
(a-) Ρ de audiendis poetis 28 D ό γ ά ρ ούτω ς άπαν-

τώ ν κ α ί ά ντερείδω ν καί μή π α ντί λ ό γ ω ι π λ ά γ ιο ν ώ σπερ
πνεύμ ατι π α ρ α δ ιδ ο ύ ς έαυτόν, ά λ λ ’ όρθώ ς έ'χειν νομίζω ν
τό β λ ά ξ ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ς ε π ί π α ν τ ί λ ό γ ω ι φ ι-
λ ε ΐ έ π τ ο ή σ θ α ι , 1 π ο λ λ ά δια κρούσ εται τω ν ούκ άλη-
θώ ς ούδ’ ώ φελίμω ς λεγομένω ν.
1 έπτοήσθαι. Π 'λ a 1> (υ) : πεποιήσθαι c-ott.

109 (87)
A stupid man is wont to get astounded at every (new)

word (or teaching) that is said.
The saying is pointless if taken literally: even a stupid

man or a fool is not likely to get shocked at every word he
hears. That is why I would suppose that π δ ς λ ό γ ο ς implies
here ‘every new teaching (doctrine or message)’. The mean
ing of λ ό γ ο ς here ‘simply word’, suggested by Kirk 39
(so also Burnet, DK) is too broad (as is ‘rumour’, ‘report’,
suggested by Outline 420): Verdenius’ translation with ‘ar
gument’ (Mnemosyne 1953. 351) is much better, but in its
turn is too narrow.
Further, a stupid man (probably one of οί πολλοί) is

not likely to get astounded, panic-struck and confounded
[this seems to be the very meaning of π τ ο έ ο μ α ι here:
of. Aeschyl. Choeph. 535 and Thes. G. L., s. v.: consternor metu;
exterrefio; perterreor] at a new teaching say on Logos or on
Cosmos and the principle of measures. But he might well be
panic-struck by some ά γ έ λ α σ τα of Heraclitus (fr. 75), by
some threatening or eschatological message of him (cf. e. g.
frr. 7 4 [571; 81 [761; 82 [66]). (1>
Thus the saying might reflect the reaction of the public

to some radical teaching of Heraclitus (cf. e. g. fr. 89 [74]),
possibly to that dealing with the new religion of Fire; just
as frr. 2 (34) and 105 (121) reflect the responses, of his fellow-
citizens to other ideas of Heraclitus. But one cannot be sure
enough.(i)
(i) Wilamowitz ( G r ie c h . L e s e b u c h , I, 33) ‘έπτοήσθαι — in Aufre

A lite r
gung sein, sich imponieren lassen. Das Gegenteil ist das n i l a d m ir a r i
des Weisen.’
561
110
(95 + 109 DK; 108 + 109 B)
(a1) C? Plut. an virtus doceri possit 439 D ά λ λ ’ δμω ς

οδτ’ άν Ιστόν οϋτε βιβλίον ή λύραν ό μή μαθώ ν μετα-
χειρίσ α ιτο, κ α ίπερ εις ούδέν μ έγ α βλαβησόμενος, ά λ λ ’
α ΐδ εΐτα ι γενέσ θα ι κ α τα γέλ α σ το ς (ά μ α θ ίη ν 1 γ ά ρ , Η ρ ά
κ λειτός φησι, κ ρ ύ π τειν ά μ ε ι ν ο ν ) ... (Schl. fr. 1).
1 άμαθίην U H C y 1 : -ίαν Ψ
(α2) 0? de audiendo 43 D τά χ α μεν γ ά ρ ούδέ ά μ α

θίην κρύπτειν άμεινον, ώ ς φησιν ‘Η ρ ά κ λει
τος, ά λ λ ’ εις μέσον τιθένα ι καί θεραπεύειν.
(a3) Ρ qu. conviv. 644 Ρ Σ ιμ ω νίδης ό ποιη τή ς. . .έν

τινι πότω ι ξένον ίδώ ν κ α τα κείμ ενον σιω πήι κα'ι μηδενί
δια λεγόμενον, ‘ώ ά νθρ ω π’’ εΐπεν, ‘εί μέν ήλίθιος εί, σοφόν
π ρ ά γ μ α π ο ιείς- εί δέ σοφός, ήλίθιον’. ά μ α θ ί η ν γ ά ρ
άμεινον, ώ ς φησιν Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς, κ ρ ύ π τ ε ι ν - έρ-
γ ο ν δέ έν άνέσει κ α ί π α ρ ’ ο ίν ο ν ... διό κ α ί Π λάτω ν έν
οϊνω ι μ ά λισ τα κα θορά σ θαι τ ά ήθη τω ν πολλώ ν νομίζει
(cf. leg. 649 D ss.).
(a4) R (ex test, a3) Plut. έκ του δτι καί γυ ν α ίκ α

πα ιδευτέον fr. 22,1 (V II, ρ. 125,3 Bernardakis) ap. Stob.
I ll , 18,31 (III, p. 521 Η .), ά μ α θ ί η ν 1, ώ ς φησιν Η ρ ά
κλειτος, καί ά λ λ ω ς κ ρ ύ π τ ε ι ν έ ρ γ ο ν έστίν, έν
οϊνω ι δέ χα λεπώ τερ ο ν2. κ α ί Π λάτων δέ φησιν έν οϊνωι
τ ά ήθη φ ανερά γίνεσθαι.
562
1 άμαθίην Md Voss., Hense : -ίαν SA, Bernardakis 2 χαλεπώ-
τατον Nauck
(b) Ρ (109 DK; 109 B) Stob. III, 1,175 (III, p. 129

H.). post fr. 83 (108). 'Η ρ α κ λ ε ίτ ο υ ...1
κρύπτειν άμαθίην κρέσσον ή έ ς τ ό μέσον

φέρειν. (Sehl. fr. 1).
1 eel. hab. lemm. non iterato MA S Trine., cum priore iungit M
563
110 (95 + 109)
I t is better (for us) to conceal (our) ignorance.
The most likely text of the saying is only: ά μα θίη ν κρύπ

τε ιν δμ εινον of (α1' 3) . The words of (b) ή ές τό μέσον
φέρειν, accepted by Schleicrmacher and H. Gomperz, seem
to be a later continuation. Diels took them for a “spielende
Ausfüllung eines Anthologen”, but I think Bywater was* right
in supposing in the whole (b) a late iambic trimeter (he
thought of Scythinus); if so then we should read better εις
μέσον. These words could be also a reply to Plutarch’s (a3):
ά λ λ ' είς μέσον τιθέναι.
Further, Bywater (fr. 108), Burnet, H. Gomperz and

Wheelwright (fr. 53) accepted also the words from (α3): έρ γο ν
δέ έν άνέσ ει κ α ι π α ρ ’ οίνον as genuine. Wilamowitz and
Diels were right in rejecting this text as Plutarchean in lan
guage, style and purpose.
The implication of the saying is completely obscure. It

might be perhaps taken as some polemic and criticism of H era
clitus’ philosophical predecessors (ef. e. g. πολυμαθίη, fr. 16
[40]·, δοκέοντα, fr. 20 [.28“]; ο ύ δ ε'ις.. ,γινώ σ κειν, fr. 83
[108]); or else as an attack at tlio traditional religious igno
rance (cf. fr. 86 [5] oö τι γινώ σ κ ω ν θεούς ούδ’ η ρω α ς
οΐτινές είσι and fr. 80 \7 4 }). . . Possibly, what is meant as
the reverse to κρύπτειν έίμεινον is the deplorable reality of
ψ ευδοδιδάσκαλον είνα ι: cf. frr 43 (57); 30 (42); 19 (28");
17 (129).
564
I ll
(122, DK; 9 B)
(«) B Suda s. άμφισβατεϊν' ενιοι τό άμφισβητεΐν,

"Ιω ν ες δέ κ α ί ά γχ ιβ α τεΐν . καί ά γ χ ιβ α σ ίη ν 1 Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς.
(Schl. ρ. 503 = 125 η.).
Ci. s. ά γ χ ιβ α τεΐν ' "Ιω ν ες τό άμφισβητεΐν. κα'ι ά γ -

χισβασίην Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ο ς2. (Cf. Fr. Bechtel, Griech.
Dialekte, III, ρ. 189).
1 άγχισβασίην AP 2 om. GS, mg. A
565
Ill ( 122)
Coming near to (or Approaching).
**
If the word ά γχι-β α σ ίη (‘coming near to’) really meant

in the Ionic something like άμφισ-βασίη (‘going asunder’,
‘standing apart’, ‘controversy’), then wc might perhaps think
of some Heraclitean word-play like συμφερόμενον διαφερό-
μενον, fr. 25 (10), or διαφερόμενον έω υτώ ι συμφέρεται,
fr. 27 (51). But a meaning like ‘clash’ or ‘collision’ is not docu
mented for ά γχιβ α σ ίη , so that Suda, Thesaurus, and LSJ
(ά γ χ ιβ α σ ίη = άμφισβήτησις) must have been mistaken.*0
Gigon 113 suggested that this ά γχιβ α σ ίη might belong

to the embers-simile of Sextus adv. math. VII, 130 (our fr. 116;
A 16 DK) δνπερ οδν τρόπον οί ά νθ ρ α κ ες π λ η σ ι ά-
σ α ν τ ε ς τώ ι πυρ! κ α τ’ ά λλοίώ σ ιν διά πυρ οι γίν ο ν τα ι,
χω ρισ θέντες δέ σβέννυνται, ο ϋ τω . .. This was adopted by
Kirk-Raven 209 n. 1: “Conceivably the word ά γχιβ α σ ίη ,
‘going near to’, which Heraclitus used (fr. 122) according to
the Suda, belonged to the same image” . This supposition is
not likely, because the embers-simile is most likely spurious
(as is the whole fr. 116).
(l) A l i t e r A. N. Zoinnpos, A n tiq u itf, vivantr, (Skoplje) 12 (1962), 6,

and S o p h ia (Padua) 31 (1963), 46 f.
566
GROUP TWENTY FIVE
Frr. 112 (115); 113 (47); 114 (46); 115 (67a);
116 (A 16); 117 (0); 118 (126a); 119 (127);
120 (132); 121 (133); 122 (134); 123 (135);
124 (130); 125 (138).
DUBIA ET SPURIA
F rr. 112; 113 and 114 are suspected of not being

genuine.
Frr. 115 and 116 are most likely spurious.
Aλ for the rest of fragments, they have been in
antiquity either mistakenly attributed to Heraclitus
or with the purpose of forging.
567
112
(115 DK; 0 Β)
(a) Stob. III, 1,180“ (III, ρ. 130 Η .), post fr. 23 (1J4).
Σω κράτους"
ψυχής έστι λόγος εαυτόν αϋξων.
568
112 (115)
Soul has a (numerical) ratio which increases itself.
#*
House, Schcnkl and Diels attributed this saying to He

raclitus, with reference to Hippocrat. de victu I, 6 (DK I,
p. 183,27) δ ιά τούτο άνθρώ που ψυχή έν ά νθρώ πω ι αυξε-
ται, έν ά λλω ι δέ ούδενί; epid. VI, 5,2 (V, ρ. 3.14 L.) ά ν
θρώ που ψυχή σίε'ι φύεται μ έχρι θανάτου' ήν δέ έκπυρω-
θήι, ά μ α τήι νούσωι καί ή ψυχή τό σώ μα ψέρβεται. What
is more important, also fr. 67 (45) speaks of a λ ό γο ς τής
ψυχής.
Nevertheless I think that the saying might be spurious

(cf. Phronesut 11, 29): (i) because it is transmitted under
the name of Socrates; (ii) because of the similarity between
Ibis fragment and such instances as: Plotin. VI, 5 |23|, 9, 13
διό καί οί μέν ά ρ ι θ μ ό ν Ιλ εγο ν, οί δέ α ύ τ ό ν α υ-
ξ ο ν τ α τήν ψύσιν α υτή ς (sc. τή ς ψ υ χ ή ς ) (cf. 11Γ,
6 (26], 1,31; V, 1 [10], 5,Π ff.); Flut, de an. procr. 1012 D
τή ς ψυχής τήν ουσίαν άριθμόν αύτόν ύφ’ έαυτοΰ κινού-
μενον άποφηνάμενος (sc. Xenoerates Aeademicus, fr. 60
Heinz»*); Aristot. de anitna A 2, p. 404 b 29 άποψηνάμενοι
τήν ψυχήν άριθμόν κινοϋνθ’ έαυτόν; Α 4, ρ. 408 b 32 ff.;
Act. IV, 2, 3-4 ( Dor. 386) Π υθα γόρ α ς άριθμόν αύτόν κι
νο ύ ν το . . . όμοίω ς δέ καί Ξ ενοκράτης; Macrob. in somn.
Scip. I, 14,19. (iii) The measure seems to imply something
constant in Hcraclilus’ Physics (cf. e. g. fr. 53 [31] μετρέεται
εϊς τον αύτόν λ ό γο ν όκοΐος κτλ.): a ‘measure which in
creases itself’ is not likely l'or Heraclitus.
Diels’ interpretation of λ ό γο ς as ‘reason’ (//.- ad fr.:

“d. h. in reiferem Alter zuzunehmen am Verstände") is out of
569
the question, and Find. .Y. 7, 32 has nothing to do with this
saying, contra Ramnoux 116. Alitcr Snell, Die Entdeckung3, 39.
• The reason for Stobaeus to attribute the saying to Socra

tes might consist in that he took λ ό γ ο ς to mean ‘reason’: cf.
such dicta as e. g. Stob. IV, 39,19 Σ ω κ ρ ά τη ς έρω τηθείς
τίνες εύδαίμονες, είπ εν- οίς καί φρένες ά γ α θ ο ΐ και λ ό γο ς
πρόσεστιν.
570
r
113
(47 DK; 48 B)
(a) Diog. Laert. IX, 73. post Empedoclis fr. 2,7 et

ετι μήν Η ράκλειτον"
μή είκη περί των μεγίστων συμ-

/ β α λ λ ώ μ ε θ α 1.
(Schl. ρ. 527 = 141 η.).
1 συμβσλώμεθα S ch leierm aelier, B y w a te r, W ila m o w itz ( m s .), W alze r,

K r a n z (VS«, I , p. 4 93,13)
571
113 (47)
Jjd us not conjecture at random about the greatest (or most

important) things.
Schleiermacher refused 1o accept the saying as a frag

ment (“Dieser hot auch nicht die mindeste Spur von herakli-
tischer Manier an sich"), hut Bvwater and Diels accepted it.
I think it is highly suspected of being spurious, because:
(i) the use of the first person plural here is not likely for
the archaic prose style (so (ligon 97: “Auch der rein litera
rische ‘Bcschcidenhoitspluralis’ dürfte später sein, so dass Frg.
47 unecht wäre”): (ii) συμβάλλεσθαι meaning ‘conjecture’,
‘infer’ (LS-1, I ll, 3) occurs in Herodotus with accusative
(e. g. II, 33 τον δέ δή ποτα μόν τούτον τον πα ρ α ρ ρ έο ντα
καί Έ τ έ α ρ χ ο ς συνεβάλλετο είναι Ν ε ίλ ο ν ...) but never
with π ερ ί τίνος; (iii) the saying seems to be a late iambic
trimeter (μή είκη is synizesis). Guthrie 482 seems to accept
the saying as genuine.
572
114
(46 DK; 132 B)
(a) R Diog. Laert. IX, 7. post fr. 67 (45). τ η ν

τ ’ ο ϊ η σ ι ν ί ε ρ ά ν ν ό σ ο ν έλ εγε ( s e . 'Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς ι
καί την δρασιν ψεύδεσθαι (cf. fr. 13 [107] c ) . [ = Hcsych.
Miles., FUG IV, p. 165, nr. 32] (Schl. fr. 65).
(b) R Gnom. Vat. 753 nr. 294 (L. Sternbach, Wien.

St. 10 [1888], p. 242) = Flor. Mon. nr. 195 Meineke. Ε π ίκ ο υ
ρος ό φιλόσοφος τ ή ν ο ϊ η σ ι ν ί ε ρ ά ν ν ό σ ο ν έλ ε
γε. (Of. fr. 224 TIscner).
(c) R( Philo, de spec. leg. 1, 10 (V, p. 3 Cohn) . . ,τοΰ

γνώ να ί τινα έαυτόν καί τ ή ν βαρεΐαν ν ό σ ο ν 1,
ο ϊ η σ ι ν , ψυχής άπώ σ ασ θαι.
Cf. Clem, ström. VII, 98,5 (III, p. 69 St.) τριττή δε

θ ερ α π εία ο ί ή σ ε ω ς, κ α θά περ καί πα ντός π ά θ ο υ ς...
1 c f. τ ύ φ ο ς = ο ϊη σ ις , Ο Ϊη μ α : de congnssu erudit. gratia 138 ( I I I ,

p . 100 W . ) ; P lu t. de mdiendo 39 D ; quomodo quis sent. prof. virt.
81 C ; P ; S ex t. B m p. adv. math. V I I I , 5 ; E p ic te t. I , 8 ,6 ; Clem, strom.
I I , 52,5 (IT , p. 141 S t.) et at.
(Λ') R? (131 1)K; 134 B) Gnom. Par. (Suppl. 134)

nr. 209 (L. Stcrnbach, Acad. Cracov. 20 [1893], p. 152). ό δέ
γ ε Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς έλ εγε τ ή ν οϊησιν προκοπής
εγκοπήν.
(d2) R Flor. Mon. nr. 199 Meineke Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς έφη'

οϊησις προκοπής έγκ οπή [προ κ ο π ή ς]1.
1 π ρ ο κ ο π ή ς del. Α . D y r o f f (Bert. Ph. W. 37 [1 9 1 7 ], p. 1215)
573
(d3) R Maxim. Conf. serm. 34, p. 624 (PG 91, p. 897
A) = cod. Par. 1168, nr. 66 (cf. H. Schenkl, SB Wien 115
[1887], p. 484). Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς ό φυσικός οΐησιν έ λ ε γ ε έγ-
κοτχήν προκοπής. (Schl, ad fr. 65).
(d ' ) R Pliilo ap. Ioann. Dam. sacra parall. 693 E

( = fr. p. 652 Mangcy) οΐησις, ώ ς ό τω ν ά ρ χα ίω ν λόγος,
έστίν έγκ οπή προκοπής.
(d5) R Isid. Peius, cpist. IV, 6 (PG 78, p. 1053 C)

ή οΐησις προκοπής έστιν έγκ οπή . ώστε κενώ σσι χρή τον
όγκον κ α ί τήν φ λεγμονήν (cf. Plut. de aud. 39 D). Cf. Guill.
Schmid, Berl. Ph. W. 49 (1929), p. 495.
(d") R Diog. Laert. IV, 50 τήν οΐησιν έλ εγε (sc. Βίων

6 Βορυσθεν(της) προκοπής έγκοπήν.
Cf. Stob. I ll, 4,87 (III, p. 239 Η .). Βίων έρω τηθείς
τί έστιν άνοια, εΐπ ε' π ρ οκ οπή ς έμποδον. Maxim, serm. 34
(PG 91, ρ. 893 D) μ έ γ α το ΐς ά νθρ ώ ποις ή κενοδοξία πρ ός
ά ρετήν έμπόδιον. Pint, quomodo quis sent. prof. virt. 76 D
α ί δ ’ ά νω μ α λ ία ι κ α ί ά μβ λύτη τες τω ν φιλοσοφοΰντων ού
< μόνον> ’ μονάς ποιοΰσι < κ α ί > 2 έπ ο χ ά ς ώ σπερ έν όδώ ι
τή ς προκοπής, α λ λ ά καί άναλύσεις.
1 μόνον add. Babbitt 2 καί add. Paton
**
Cf. Diog. Laert. VII, 23 ( SVF I nr. 71) έλ εγε δέ (sc.

Ζήνων) μηδέν είναι τή ς οίήσεω ς ά λλοτριώ τερον πρ ός
κατάληψ ιν τω ν επιστημών. Epietct. II, 17,1; 39; I ll , 14,
8-9; fr. X, 3 Schenkl; Cic. Acad. I, 42; Tnsc. IV, 26 et al.
574
114 (46)
Conceit (or vague opinion) is a falling sickness (epilepsy).
If ο ΐ η σ ι ς means here ‘mere opinion’, ‘conjecture'

( = δόκησις), then the saying might be related with such
ideas as fr. 20 (28a) δοκέοντα κ τ λ .; fr. 3 (17) έωυτοΐσι
δέ δοκέουσι. But since οΐησις is not documented until Plato
(the late Hippocratic treatise π. εύσχημοσόνης 4 [IX,
1). 230 L.] οΐησις γ ά ρ καί μά λισ τα έν ίητρικήι αίτ(ην μέν
τοΐσι κεκτημένοισιν [Coray : κεχρημένοισιν mss.] δλεθρον
δέ τοΐσι χρεω μένοισιν έτηψέρει, quoted bv Diels, being not
an exception), I would agree with Sternbach 1. c., AVilamowitz
(Hermes 40 [1905], 134; 62 [1927], 276) and Deichgräber
(Hermes 70 [1935] 110 n. 4) in believing that the saying is
spurious. Diels (in VS' ) rejected οΐησις but kept ιερ ά νόσος
as genuine, whereas Kranz accepted even such a forgery as
id'), as ‘vollwertig’ and ‘echt’.(,)
I think it is much more likely that the saying (attributed

by test, b to Epicurus) is Stoic in origin, and was ascribed to
Heraclitus by the Sceptics (say Aenesidemus), who are also
responsible for the obvious distortion of fr. 13 (107): και τήν
δρα σ ιν ψεύδεσθαι (cf. Sextus’ context to fr. 13). Thus οΐησις
would mean the Stoic, ‘self-conceit’ (κ ενο δο ξία ), and its com
parison with epilepsy would belong to the same class as the
descriptions of οΐησις ns: τυψος, ψυχής β α ρ εία νόσος, animi
aegrotatio etc.
(!) F. Diimmler, A k a d e m i k a (Giessen, 1889), 257 n. 1 referred to Eurip.

fr. 279 ή δόκησις άνθρώποις κακόν as a reminiscence of this
saying; but this was a common idea.
or!)
115
(67a DK; Ο Β)
(«) Hisdosi Seholastici de unima mundi Plat, (ad

Chalcid. in Plat. Tim. 34 B ss.), cod. Par. Lat. 8624 (s. XII-
X III) f. 17'·, v. 18 ss.
alii autem dicunt quod mundi medietas est sol, quoin

cor totius mundi esse volunt. quemadmodum enim, inquiunt,
anima hominis sedem et domicilium in corde habet, unde per
membra corporis vires snas spargens in omnibus corporis inem-
bris tota sua membra vcgctnt, ita vilalis calor a sole procedens
omnibus quae vivnnt vitam subministrat. eui sententiae Era-
clilus adquieseens optimam similitudinem dot de aranea ad
animam, de tela araneae ad corpus: sicut aranea, ait, stans in
medio telae sentit qm m cito musca aliquem filum sunm cor-
rumpit itaque illuc celeriter currit quasi de fili persectione1
dolens, sic hominis anima aliqua parte corporis lacsa illuc
festine meat quasi impatiens laesionis corporis, cui firme et
proportionaliter iuncta est. Cf. M. Pohlenz, Berl. Ph. TP.
23 (1903), p. 972.
1 p c r fc c tio n c cod., corr. Diels
Cl. Chrvsippi dc anima ap. Chalcid. in Plat. Tim. c. 220

Wrobel ( = SV E II nr. 879). solus voro homo ex mortalibus
principal! mentis bono, line est ratione, utitur, ut ait idem
Chrysippus: sicut aranea in mediotate cassis omnia filorum
tenet pedibus exordia, ut cum quid ex bestiolis plagas incur-
rerit ex quacumque parte de proximo sentiat, sic animae prin-
cipale, positum in media sede cordis, sensuum exordia retinerc,
ut cum quid nuntiabunt de proximo recognoscat.
576
115 (67η)
As I already suggested in Phronesis, 11 (1966), 26 f„

there is nothing from Heraclitus in this fragment (contra
Pohlenz, 1. e.; Diels; Kranz, Hermes 73 [1938], 112 f., and
others). Namely:
(i) - In the Stoic spider-simile (ef. Chrysippus de anima,
([noted above) aranea plays the role only of the ήγεμονικόν
(animae principale), not of the soul as such.
(ii) - The final words of the fragment: cui (corpori) firme
et proportionalster inncta est {anima), which Kranz 113 trans
lates into Greek as δηπερ σ υνέζευκται ίσχυρώ ς τε καί
κ α τά λόγον, only repeat the Stoic common images about the
hegemonicon, and have nothing to do with Heraclitus’ fr. 53
{31) εις τον αύτόν λ ό γο ν {contra Diels, VS4, and Kranz).
For example, the image of the spider’s well, or that of a
tree with its ramification (ef. Chalcid. in Tim. 220 .. .totaque
anima sensus.. .velut ramos ex principals parte ilia tamqsiam
trabe pandit) imply enough proportionality and symmetry by
themselves.
(iii) - The words of the fragment: impatiens laesionis cor
poris (sc. anima) and de fils persectione dolesis {sc. aranea)
presuppose frr. 110 and 111 Wehrli of Straton of Lampsacus(1):
Σ τρ ά τω ν καί τ ά πάθη τή ς ψυχής κ α ί τά ς αισθήσεις έν
τώ ι ή γεμονικώ ι, ούκ έν το ΐς πεπονθόσι τόπ οις συνίστασθαι
( = Aet. IV, 23,3 [Όοχ., ρ. 415]); Σ τρ ά τω ν ό φ υ σ ικ ό ς ... καί
τ ά ς λ ύ π α ς . .. κ α ί πόνους κ α ί όδύνας (Wyttenbach: ήδο-
νά ς eodd., Wehrli) καί ά λ γη δ ό να ς καί όλω ς πά σ α ν αϊσ-
θησιν έν τήι ψυχήι συνίστασθαι . . . έ λ κ ο μ έ ν η ς έ π ’
έ κ ε ΐ ν ο τ ή ς ψ υ χ ή ς ά φ ’ ο δ π έ π ο ν θ ε cv> anima
aliqsia parte corposis laesa illuc festine meat ( = Ps. Plut.
an. an corp. sit libido 697 B ) .
(iv) - The name of Heraclitus came to Hisdosus Scholas-
ticus (about 1100) through the Sceptics (say Aenesidemus).
They ascribed to Heraclitus the idea of soul diffused in the
577
body, just to make it possible for the individual soul to commu
nicate with the cognate and all-encompassing cosmic Soul
through the passages of the senses (this presupposes the
pneumatic conception of soul). The Sceptic forgery can bo.
clearly seen in the following passages:
Sext. Empir. adv. math. VII, 349 Tertull. de anima 15,5; 14,5 ( =
. ..ά λ λ ’ ol μέν έκτός του σ ώ μ α Straton. fr. 108 W ehrli). .. .ut neque
τος (sc. τήν διάνοιαν), ώ ς Αίνη- cxtrinsecus agitari putes principele
σίδημος κατά ' Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι- istud secundum IJeraclitum.
τ ο ν1, ol δέ έν δλω ι τώ ι σώματι,
κ α θά περ τινές κ α τά Δ ημόκρι
τον2. ..
(350) . . .ο ί δέ αύτην είναι τά ς non longc hoc cxemplum (sc. Ar-

αίσθήσεις, κ α θά π ερ διά τινω ν chimedis organum hvdraulicum) est
δπώ ν τω ν αισθητηρίω ν προκύπ- a Stratone et Aenesidemo et llera-
τουσαν3, ή ς σ τ ά σ ε ω ς ή ρ- dito, nam et ipsi unitatem animao
ξ ε Σ τ ρ ά τ ω ν τε ό φυσι tuentur, quae in totum corpus diffu
κός καί ΑΙνησίδημος. sa et ubique ipsa, velut flatus in ca-
(Cf. Diels, Box. ρ. 209 ss.).V
I, lamo per cavemas5 ita per sensualia
variis modis emicet3, non tarn concisa
quam dispensata. (Cf. Schleierma
cher p. 489 f. = 116; Waszink-
p. 217 f.).
VII, 127 ά ρ έσ κ ει γ ά ρ τώ ι φυ- Chalcid. in Tim. c. 237 \Vr. at

σ ικώ ι (sc. τ ώ ι Ήρακλεί- vero Heraclitus intimum motum, qui
τ ω ι) τό π ερ ιέχο ν ή μ α ς λ ο γ ι cst intentio animi sive animadrer-
κόν τε δν κ α ί φ ρ ε ν ή ρ ε ς '... (130) sio, porriqi dielt per oculorum mea
έν δέ έγρ η γό ρ σ ει π ά λ ιν δ ι ά tus atque ita tangere tractareque
τώ ν α ι σ θ η τ ι κ ώ ν π ό ρ ω ν risen da.
ώσπερ διά τινων θυρί
δων προκύψας (sc. ό έν
ήμΐν νοΰς) Καί τώ ι περ ιέχοντι
συμβαλώ ν λ ο γικ ή ν ένδόεται δυ-
ναμιν.
578
1 cf. fr. 116 (A 16 DK) 2 cf. Theophrast. d e s c n s ib u s 57 (DK
II, p. 116,23) ; Lucret. III, 350 ss. 3 cf. Philon. fr. 615 Mangey
a t αισθήσεις θυρίσιν έοίκασι' διά γά ρ τούτων ώσανεί θυρίδων
έπεισέρχεται τώι νώι ή κατάληψις των αίσθητών καί πάλιν 6
νους έ κ κ ύ π τ ε ι διά αύτών; Cic. T u s c . I, 46; Lucret. Ill, 359 s. dicere
porro oculos nullam rem cernere posse, / sed per eos animum ut foribus
spectare reclusis... (cf E. Heinze p. 103 f .; Bailey p. 1052); A n o n ,
p h y s io g n o m . II, p, 17 Förster, hos enim (sc. oculos) tamquam fores
anitnae vidcri volunt: nam et animam dicunt per oculos emieare et
solum hunc aditum esse per quern animus adiri atque introspici possit;
Philon. d r p l a n t a t . 169 (II, p. 167 W.); ei a l. 4 cf. fr. 116 et
Heracliti frr. 1; 23 ( ß ) 5 of. S V F I I nr. 885 (Galen, d e p la c .
H i p p . e t P l a t . I ll, 1 [112], p. 251 Miiller) ή ψυχή πνεΰμά έστι σύμ-
φυτον ήμΐν, συνεχές, παντί τωι σώματι διήκον; Aristid. Quintal.
d e m u s ic a II, 17 (ρ. 64 J a h n ) . . . ν ε υ ρ ώ δ ε ι ς τινάς καί άραχ-
ν ο ε ι δ ε ΐ ς υμένας σωληνοειδεΐς κάν τώι μέσωι πνεύματος δντας
περιεκτικούς, δι* ών ή ψυχή κινείται; e t a l.
The Hippocratic passages de victu I, 6 (DK I, p. 183,21)

έκάστη δέ ψ υ χ ή .. ,περιψ οιτα ι τά μ όρια τ ά έω υτή ς (quoted
by Pohlenz), and epidem. VI, 5,5 (V, p. 316 L.) ψυχής π ερ ί
π α το ς φροντίς άνθρώ ποισιν (quoted by Κ. Deichgräber,
Die Epidemien und das Corpus Hippocraticum, Berlin, 1933,
61; cf. also H. Diller, Gnomon 18 [1942], 76) need not speak
pro the authenticity of the fragment.<2)
(i) Cf. Fr. Solmsen, M a s . I l e l v e t . 18 (1961), p. 181 ff. ( c o n tr a p. 157

n. 46, and c o n tr a II. Diller, U r r m c s 76 [1941], 378).
Cf. e. g. Aristotle d e so m n o 1, p. 454 a 9 ή δέ λεγομένη αίσθησις,
ώς ένέργεια, κίνησίς τις διά τοΟ σώματος τής ψυχής έστι
and Solmsen, ‘Αίσθησις in Aristotelian and Epicurean thought’,
M c d r d r U n g c n N c d c r l. A k a d . , Afd. Letterk. 24,8 (1961), p. 18 n, 3.
579
116
(A 16 DK)
(a) (A 16 DK) Sext. Empir. adv. math. V II, 127 τόν

δέ λ ό γο ν κριτήν τή ς ά λ η θ εία ς ά ποφ α ίνετα ι (sc. ό Η ρ ά
κ λειτος), ού τόν < δ '> 1 όποιονδήποτε ά λ λ α τόν κοινόν
κ α ί θειον.2 τ ίς δ ' έστίν οδτος, συντόμω ς ύποδεικτέον.
ά ρ έσ κ ει y a p τώ ι φυσικώι τό περ ιέχον ή μ ά ς λ ο γικ ό ν τε
δν κ α ί φρενήρες3. . .
(129) τούτον οδν4 τόν θειον λ ό γο ν κ α θ’ Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι

τον δι* άναιτνοής σ πά σ α ντες5 νοεροί γινόμεθα, κ α ί έν
μέν ΰπνοις λη θα ΐοι0, κ α τά δέ έγερ σ ιν π ά λ ιν έμφρονες.
έν γ ά ρ το ΐς υπνοις μυσάντων τω ν αισθητικώ ν πόρω ν
χ ω ρ ίζ ετα ι τή ς π ρ ό ς τό π ερ ιέχο ν συμφυΐας ό έν ήμΐν
νους (μόνης τή ς κ α τά άναπνοήν προσφύσεω ς σωιζομέ-
νης5 οίονεί τίνος ‘ρ ίζη ς), χω ρ ισ θ είς τε ά π ο β ά λ λ ει ήν
πρότερον είχε μνημονικήν δύναμιν' (130) έν δέ έγρη-
γό ρ σ ει0 π ά λιν δ ιά τω ν α ισθητικώ ν πόρω ν ώ σπερ διά
τινων θυρίδω ν προκύψ ας κ α ί τώ ι περιέχοντι συμβαλώ ν
λο γικ ή ν ένδύεται δύναμιν.
*
δνπερ οδν τρόπον οί ά νθ ρ α κ ες7 πλη σ ιά σ α ντες τώ ι

πυρί κ α τ’ άλλοίω σιν διά πυρ οι γίνοντα ι, χω ρισ θέντες δέ
σβέννυνται, οϋτω καί ή έπιξενω θεΐσα τοΐς ή μετέρ οις σώ-
μασιν ά πό του περ ιέχοντος μοίρα κ α τά μέν τόν χω ρ ισ
μόν σχεδόν ά λ ο γ ο ς γίνετα ι, κ α τά δέ τήν δ ιά τώ ν πλείσ-
τω ν πόρω ν σύμφυσιν όμοιοειδής τώ ι δλω ι8 κα θίσ τα ται.
(131) τούτον δή τόν κοινόν λόγον καί θειον καί

οδ κ α τά μετοχήν γινό μ εθ α λ ο γικ ο ί κριτήριον ά λ η θ εία ς
φησίν ό Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ο ς’ δθεν τό μέν κοινήι πα σ ι φαινόμε-
νον, τοΰτ’ είναι πιστόν (τώ ι κοινώι γ ά ρ καί θείω ι λ ό γ ω ι
λ α μ β ά ν ετα ι), τό δέ τινι μόνωι προσ πΐπτον ά πιστον ύπάρ-
χειν δ ιά τήν έναντίαν αιτίαν, seq. frr. 1 et 23 (2).
(Schl. p. 518 f. = 136; Kirk-Raven nr. 237).
580
1 δ· addidi 2 cf. frr. 1; 23 (1 1 4 ) 3 cf. frr. 1 et 23 (2) :
λόγος et φρόνησις 4 οδν ΝΕς : δή L 5 sc. ut aera vol
πνεϋμα (cf, X, 233 τό τε δν .κατά τόν 'Ηράκλειτον ά ή ρ έστιν)
6 of. fr. 1 όκόσα εϋδοντες (sc. ποιοΟσιν) έπιλανθάνονται; fr. 24
των δέ κοιμωμένων έκαστον είς Ιδιον (sc. κόσμον) άποστρέφεσθαι;
fr. 48 ζών δέ άπτεται τεθνεώτος εΰδων 7 οΐ άνθρακες : cf.
Xenoplian. 21 A 38 (Agt. II, 13,14, D o x . p. 343); Aristoph. n«&. 96 s. et
Tzetz. i n n u l·. 96a ( = Hippon. 38 A 2; Cratin. fr. 155 Kock; cf. Π.
Holwerda p. 404); Epictet. III, 16,2; (Hippocrat. d e v i c t u I, 29 [VI,
p. 504 L.]) 8 όμοιοειδής τώι δλωι : cf. ψυχή όμογενής ap.
Agt. IV, 3,12 ( D o x . p. 389); IV, 7,2 ( D o x . p. 392 = 22 A 17 DK);
Tlieodoret. G r. a f f . c u r . V, 23 δλωι : λόγωι Nauck
(ft1) V III, 286 κ α ι μήν 'ρητώ ς ό Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτό ς φησι

τό μή είναι λ ο γικ ό ν τόν άνθρωπον, μόνον δ ’ ύπά ρχειν
φρενήρες τό περιέχον. Apollon. Tynn. epist. 18 (ρ. 113
H erchcr). Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς ό φυσικός ά λ ο γο ν είναι κ α τά φύ-
σιν έφησε τόν άνθρω πον. (Schl. ρ. 474 = 106; fr. 133 Β ) .
VII, 349 . . ,ά λ λ ’ οί μέν έκ τός του σ ώ μ ατος (sc. είναι

την διάνοιαν), ώ ς Αίνησίδημος κ α τά Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν ; Ter-
1nil. de anima 15,5; cf. fr. 115.
(b) X, 233 τό τε öv κ α τά τόν Ηράκλειτον

άήρ έστιν, ώ ς φησιν ό Αίνησίδημος.
IX, 360 Ά ν α ξιμ ένη ς δέ και Ί δ α ΐο ς ό Ί μ ε ρ α ΐο ς καί

Δ ιογένη ς ό Ά π ο λ λ ω ν ιά τη ς1 καί ’Α ρχέλα ος ό ’Αθηναίος,
Σ ω κ ρ ά το υ ς δέ κα θηγητής, καί κ α τ ’ έ ν ί ο υ ς Η ρ ά
κλειτος ά έ ρ α 1 (sc. έλεξα ν πάντω ν είναι άρχήν
καί στοιχεΐον), " Ιπ π α σ ο ς δέ ό Μ εταποντΐνος καί κ α τ’
ένίους Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς πϋρ.
Tertull. de anima 9,5 non ut aer sit ipsa substantia eius

(sc. animac), ctsi hoc Aenesidemo visum cst et Anaximeni,
puto secundum quosdam et H eraclito... (cf. I. H. Waszink2,
p. 174).
581
1 cf. 64 B 4 et 5 DK et I. Diller, H e r m e s 76 (1941), p. 370 ss.; <J.
Reinhardt, K o s m o s u n d S y m p a t h i e , p. 192 ss.
(c) (A 20 DK) Chalcid. in Plat. Tim. c. 251 Wrobel.

Heraclitus vero consentientibus Stoicis rationem nostrum cum
divina ratione conectit regente ac moderante mundana: propter
inseparabilem comitatum consciam decreti rationabilis factam
quiescentibus animis ope sensuum futura demintiare. ex quo
fieri u t adpareant imagines ignotorum locorum simulaeraque
hominum tarn viventium quam mortuorum. idemque adserit
divinationis usurn et praemoneri meritos instruentibus divinis
potestatibus. (Ex Posidonio: cf. C. Reinhardt, Kosmos und
Sympathie, pp. 200; 400).
116 (A 16)
As I said in Phronesis 11, 27 f., DK A 16 is a sheer

forgery by Acnesidemus, without any evidential value for
Heraclitus (contra e. g. Burnet 153; Kirk 311; Kirk-Raven
208: “Sextus’ information. . . is obviously important”; Guthrie
430: “an account of his doctrine by Sextus Empiricus, whose
genei'al sense there is no reason to s u s p e c t...”).
As a matter of fact, the nucleus of (a) is reducible to a

few among the preserved fragments of Heraclitus (1; 23 in
the first place). As for the rest, it is no more than Aene-
sidemus’ speculation which presupposes: (i) The discovery of
the ‘channels of the senses’ (probably by Straton of Lamp-
sacus).
(ii) The doctrine on άήρ or πνεύμα as cosmic principle
(after Diogenes of Apollonia frr. 4 and 5, and probably
much later).(,) Kirk 341 wrote: “for Heraclitus the soul’s
efficacy depended on contact with the outside world and
with the material Logos, possibly by the medium of breath,
as Sextus tells us”. To m y way of thinking, such phrases
of (a) as: “we become intelligent by draining in this divine
reason through breathing” ; “in sleep, when the channels (pas
sages) of the senses are shut, our mind is cut off from its
natural connexion (or kinship) with the surrounding (breath
ing being preserved as the only point of attachment, like a
kind of root)” (VII, 129) strongly suggest that the common
and divine Reason or Logos was thought of by Aenesidemus
as air (ef. testimonium b: ‘according to Heraclitus the Being
is air, as Aenesidemus says’). Now, a Logos thought of as
air is out of the question for Heraclitus.
(iii) Also the embers-simile is elsewhere known (cf. note
7 ad a ); contra e. g. Burnet, 1. c.: “And we can hardly
doubt that the striking simile of the embers which glow when
brought near the fire is genuine”; Gigon 113; Kranz (Hermes
73 [19381, 113); Diller 377.<*>
583
(1) Cf. W. Theiler, Z u r G eschichte d e r teleo lo g isch en N a tu r b e tr a c h tu n g
b is a u f A r is to te le s (Zürich, 1924), 6; 58; Diller, H e rm e s 76 (1941),
' 376.
(2 ) Against the reliability of A 16 DK ef. also Diels, D o x . 209 f.;
H. von Arnim, Q u e lle n s tu d ie n z u P h ilo (Philol. Unters. 11, Berlin,
1888), 88 f.; 92 η. 1; A. Goedeckemeyer, D ie G e sc h . d e s g r ie c h .
S k e p t i z i s m u s (Leipzig, 1905), 230 n. 3; Beinhardt, K o s m o s u n d
S y m p a t h i e (Munich, 1926), 192 ff.; K. von Fritz, C P 40 (1945), 235.
584
117
(o) Olynipiod. in Plat. Phaed. p. 57,27 Non-in. τρίτη
δόξα ή λ έγο υ σ α τήν μέν άπαίδευτον ψυχήν έξιοΰσαν τοΟ
σ ώ μ ατος ευθύς φθείρεσθαι, τήν δέ πεπαιδευμένην στο-
μω θεΐσαν τα ΐς ά ρ ετα ΐς έπιμένειν τήν έκπύρω σιν του
π α ντό ς κόσμου, ή ς δ ό ξ η ς ήν καί ό Ηρά
κλειτος.
Cf. Aet. IV, 7,3 (Dox. ρ. 393) οί Σ τω ικ ο ΐ έξιοΰσαν εκ

τω ν σω μάτω ν (sc. ψυχήν) οΰπω φθείρεσθαι1 * * *- τήν
μέν άσθενεστέραν < έ π ’ ό λ ίγ ο ν > 3. .. (ταύτην δέ είναι
τω ν ά π α ιδ εύ τω ν), τήν δέ ίσχυροτέραν (οΤα έστί περί
το ύ ς σοφούς) κ α ι μ έχρι τή ς έκπυρώ σεω ς.
Theodoret. Gr. aff. cur. V, 23 οί δέ Σ τω ικ ο ί τ ά ς χωρι-

ζομ ένα ς τω ν σω μάτω ν ψ υχά ς δια ρ κεΐν μέν καί καθ’ έαυ-
τ ά ς ζην έφασαν, ά λ λ α τήν μέν άσθενεστέραν έπ ’ όλίγον,
τήν δέ γ ε ίσ χυροτέραν μ έχρι τή ς του πα ντός έκπυ
ρώσεως.
Diog. Laert. VII, 157 ( = &'VF I nr. 522 = 11 nr. 811).

Κλεάνθης μέν οδν π ά σ α ς έπιδιαμένειν μ έχρι < τ ή ς > 4
έκπυρώ σεω ς, Χ ρύσιππος δέ τά ς τω ν σοφών μόνον.
1 οΰπω φθείρεσθαι Diels : ύποφέρεσθαι cocld. 2 lanmam imlic.

Keiske 3 έπ’ όλίγον add· Diels 4 τής add. Meibom.
117 (0)
I t seems to be clear that (a) goes back to Chrysippus. But

where comes the name of Heraclitus from? Perhaps ή π επ α ιδευ
μένη ψυχή or ή τοΟ σοφού recalled to somebody’s mind fr. 68
{118)·. αϋη ψυχή σοφωτάτη κα'ι άρίστη (as opposed to
fi·. 69 {117})? In its turn the έπιδια μένειν-idea might have
been influenced by such a saying like fr. 73 (63)?
586
118
(126a. !)K; Ο Β)
(α) Anatol. de decade p. 36 Heiberg (Annates internal·,

d’ histoire. Congres de Paris 1900: 5.® section, Hist, des sc. 5
[19011). ά ρ κ το ς έπ τά σ τερ ο ς- Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι τ ο ς - κ α τ ά
λόγον δέ ώρέων1 συμβάλλεται έβδο
μός- κατά σελήνην, διαιρείται δέ κα
τ ά τ ά ς 3 ά ρ κ τ ο υ ς , ά θ α ν ά τ ο υ μ ν ή μ η ς ση-
μ ε ί ω.4 π λ ειά ς έξάσ τερος.
I j . Valine de expctendis et fugiendis rebus III, 17. sep-

tentrio stellarum septeni. Heraclitus rationem nnnonae colli-
gendac ad septeni lunae transfcrt mutationcs. Pleades septeni
stellae... Cf. H. Diels ad fr.
1 ώρίων cocl. Monae. 2 έβδομάσι cod. 3 τούς cod. 4

άθανάτου μνήμης σημείω : cf. inscript. Sicili (\V. Fischer, I n n s b r .
B e i t r ä g e I [1953], pp. 153-165) μνήμης άθανάτου σήμα πολυχρόνιον;
Diod. IV , 85,5 διά δέ τήν δόξαν έν τοΐς κατ' ουρανόν άστροις
καταριθμηθέντα (sc. Ώ ρ(ωνα) τυχεΐν άθανάτου μνήμης
(b) Suda s. 'ρυμός του ά ρ μ α το ς- . . . κ α ι τή ς "Α ρκ

του οί κ α τά τήν ουράν γ ' ά σ τέρες ύπ ό 'Η ρ α
κλείτου.
(ο) (139 DK) C a t a l o g , c o d d . a s t r a l , ( i r a c c . IV, 32 Η ρ α

κλείτου του φιλοσόφου π ερ ί ά ρ χώ ν άσ τέρω ν; VII, 106
Η ρ α κ λ είτο υ φιλοσόφου, επειδή φασί τινες εις ά ρ χ ά ς
κεΐσθαι τά ά σ τρ α . .. Cf. Fr. Cuniont et Fr. Boll ad loc.
(d) Georg. Pachymer. quadrivium: astronom. 14 (Έ. Ste-

phanou p. 385,22 [Studi e testi 94, 1940]). γίνο ντα ι δέ
587
π ο λ λ ά κ ις καί κ α τά διά μετρόν τισί τινες (sc. των πέντε
πλανήτω ν) καί τώ ι ήλίω ι καί τήι σελήνηι, πλήν ούχ ά μ α '
τερα τεόοντα ι γ ά ρ ο ι π ε ρ ί τόν Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι τ ο ν
τήν συντέλειαν του πα ντός εί κ α τά διάμετρον πά ντες
γένο ιντο ’ διά ταυτα, φασί, καί παραλλάσ σ ουσ ι πάντοτε,
συμβαίνει δέ καί δύο κ α ί τρ εις κ α τά διάμετρον γίνεσ θα ι
καί σ υ μ π ερ ιά γεσ θα ι Ιω ς τινός, καί ποιεΐν έντεΟθεν πρ ος
τά ύποκείμενα π α ρ α λ λ α γ ά ς καί χειμώ νω ν καί καυμάτω ν,
ώ σπερ φασίν’ όμοτροχάοντος του πυρόεντος "Α ρεος τώ ι
ήλίω ι ύπερβ ολικά κ α ύ μ α τα γίνεσ θα ι καί α ύχμ ούς καί
ά λ λ α π λ εΐσ τα έκ τής τού ά έρ ο ς έκκαύσ εω ς' καί α δθις
συνοδεύοντος Κρόνου τώ ι ήλίω ι τά ς θερείους ή μ έρ α ς
ύποψύχρους γίνεσ θα ι καί μάλλον εύκρατους, ώ ς καί
οψιμον ά ποτελεΐσ θα ι τό θέρος.
588
118 (126a)
In accordance with the rule of the (seven)-days-perjolj

the Hebdomad (or number seven) is brought together %n fju,
case of the moon, but it is divided asunder in the case of the
two Bears, the constellations of immortal remembrance.
I tn Ice ώ ρ α i (since applied to σελήνη) in the mean

ing of ‘seven-days-\>ev\od’, i. e. one phase of the moon: of.
Theolog. arithmet. p. 45 Ast ε π τ ά ω ρ ο ι αί τέσσαρες
σεληνιακαί φάσεις ύπά ρχουσ α ι (the translation of Dids
and Kranz: ‘nach dem Gesetze der Zeiten’ is not precise
enough).
σ η μ ε ϊ ο ν means the same as σήμα, LSJ, 6: ‘heavenly

body’, ‘constellation'.
I utterly agree with Diels’ comment on the fragment ( t ’,SM).

especially with his final words: “Aber auch so ist das Ganze
wunderlich verzwackt wie auch der Gegensatz von διαιρεΐσ-
θαι und συμβάλλεσθαι spiclei’isch.” Indeed the saying is no
more than a late and naive fake, which cannot be claimed
to reflect anything genuine; contra IT. Gomperz (ap. VS',
p. XXVI = VS" i, p. 180, app. ad fr.); Kranz (Xachr, Gött.
Ges., N. F., I, 2,7 [19381, p. 157; VS", I, p. 494,45: “aus
dem Anfang ergibt sieb, dass ein Satz über die Tlebdomas
im Irdisch-Menschlichen vorausging, vgl. A .18; dies spricht
für Echtheit”); 11. Muth (Anzeiger f. d. Altertumswiss. 7
[1954], 68).
The forgery is based on Heraclitus' interest in astronomy

(cf. frr. 62 [120]·, 63ab [1 0 5 and 3 8 ] ) , and in t h e hebdoma
dary reckoning too (cf. fr. 108). Testimonia (b), (c), and (d)
are some more evidence of Heraclitus’ fame as astronomer in
the late antiquity and Byzantine time. As for (d ), Hera
clitus’ frr. 65 (on the Great Year) and 64 (100) might have
played some part too (the phrase ή συντέλεια του παντός,
‘the end of the woi-ld’, seems to allude to ecpyrosis).
500
119
(127 DK; Ο B)
(«*) Theosophia 69 (p. 184 Erbse), post fr. 86 (5).

ό α ύτός (se. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) πρ ος Α ιγυπτίους έφη' ε ΐ
θ ε ο ί εί σι ν , ΐ ν α τί θ ρ η ν ε ί τ ε α ύ τ ο ύ ς ; εί
δ ε θ ρ η ν ε ί τ ε α ύ τ ο ύ ς , μ η κ έ τ ι τ ο ύ τ ο υ ς ή-
γ ε ΐ σ θ ε θεούς.
(ft-) Epiphan. Ancorat. c. 104,1 (I, p. 124,17 Holl [GCS

251) ά λ λ ο ς δε Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς Α ίγυπτίοις φησίν· εί θεοί
είσι, διά τί θρηνείτε αύτούς;
(6) Clem, protrept. 24,3 (I, ρ. 18 St.) ών ό μέν τις

π α ρ ε γ γ υ δ ι το ΐς Α ίγ υ π τίο ις’ εί θεούς νομίζετε, μή θρη
νείτε αύτούς μηδέ κόπτεσθε’ εί δε πενθείτε αύτούς, μη
κέτι τούτους ή γεΐσ θε είναι θ ε ο ύ ς ...
(c1) Plut. de Is. 379 B εδ μέν οδν1 Ξ ενοφάνης ό

Κολοφώνιος ήξίω σε2 τούς Α ιγυπτίους, εί θεούς νομίζουσι,
μή θρηνεΐν, εί δέ θρηνοΰσι, θεούς μή νομίζειν.
1 εδ μέν οδν Bornardakis : ού μόνον codd. 2 ή έζής ol eodd.,

corr. Wyttenbach
(e-) de superstit. 171 Ε Ξενοφάνης δ ’ ό φυσικός τούς

Α ιγυπτίους κοπτομένους εν τα ΐς έο ρ τα ΐς καί θρηνοΰντας
όρων ύπέμνησεν οίκείω ς. ‘ο δτο ι’, φησίν, ‘εί μέν θεοί είσι,
μή θρηνείτε αύτούς, εί δ ’ άνθρω ποι, μή θύετε α ύ το ΐς.’
(c3) wnat. 763 C Ξενοφάνης Α ίγυπτίους έκέλευσε τον

’Ό σ ιρ ιν, εί θνητόν νομίζουσι, μή τιμ ά ν ως θεόν, εί δέ
θεόν ήγουνται, μή θρηνεΐν.
591
(d) (21 A 13 DK) Aristot. rhet. B 23,27 p. 1400 b 5
olov Ξενοφάνης Έ λ ε ά τ α ις έρω τώ σιν εί θύωσι τήι Λευ-
κοθέαι κ α ί θρηνωσιν ή μή, συνεβούλευεν, εί μέν θεόν
ύπολαμβάνουσι, μή θρηνεΐν, εί δ ’ άνθρωπον, μή θύειν.
(e) Ps. Plut. apophthegm. Lac. 26, 228 E το ΐς δέ συμ-

βουλευομένοις τω ν Θ ηβαίω ν π ερ ί τή ς ιερ ο υ ρ γ ία ς καί
του πένθους, ήν ποιούνται τήι Αευκοθέαι, συνεβούλευσεν
(sc. ΛυκοΟργος), εί μέν θεόν ήγοΟνται, μή θρηνεΐν, εί
δ’ άνθρωπον, μή ίερουργεΐν ώ ς θεώι.
592
119 (127)
This is a dictum originally attributed to Xenophanes. It

was transferred to Heraclitus by somebody who lived between
Clement (died before 215 A.D.) and Epiphanius (died 403
A.D.): the reason was a supposed similarity with Heraclitus’
fr. 86 (5): το ΐς ά γ ά λ μ α σ ι. . .εύχονται and οϋ τι γινώ σκω ν
θεούς. .. οΐτινές είσι. Both Epiphanius (α2) and the author
of Theosophia (about 500 A.D.) (a1) go back to a common
source (x), which seems to depend both on Clement (b) and
on Plutarch’s (c2) . In his turn Clement is depending on
Plutarch’s (c1) and (c2) . Finally, Aristotle (d) is a common
source both to Plutarch (c2) and to Pseudo-Plutarch (e),
who combines (d ) with Plutarch’s (c3) . The stemma of the
transmission of the dictum seems to be as shown on p. 594.
Also H. Erbse (Fragmente griech. Theosophien, Hamburg,

1941, 24 ff.) supposed the succession Aristotle > Plutarch >
Clement > Theosophia (cf. also K. J. Neumann, Hermes 16
[1881], 159 f .; Wilamowitz, SB B A 1911, p. 762 n. 3; AViese.
Heraklit bei Klemens, 43 η. 1). Unlikely K. Bureseh, Klaras
etc. (Leipzig, 1889), 118 (who supposed Heraclitus as the
starting point); Nilsson, Griech. Feste etc. (Leipzig, 1906),
432 n. 4 (who supposed test, (e) as original version). Cf. also
F. Lortzing (Bursians Jahresb. 112 [1902], 305).
Xenophanes
Heraclitus
ad Aegyp-
120
(132 DK; 0 B)
(α) Gnom. Vat. 743 nr. 312 Sternbach (Wien. St. 10

[1888], p. 249 = Texte und Komm. 2, Berolini, 1963). post
fr. 13 (107) (δ1), ό α ύτός (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) £φη'
τιμ α ί θεούς κ α ι ά νθρώ πους κ αδδουλουνται1.
Cf. Hesiodi fr. 272 Rz.3 δώ ρ α θεούς πείθει, δώ ρ ’ αΐ-

δοίους βασιλήας (Plat. remp. 390 Ε; Eurip. Med. 964; Suda s.
δ ώ ρ α ) ; Ovid. art. amat. I ll, 653 numera, crede mihi, capiunt
honiinesque deosquc.
1 κ α δ δ ο υ λ ο υ ν τ α ι se rip si m e tr i g r a ti a : κ α τ α δ ο υ λ ο ΰ ν τ α ι cod.
595
121
(133 DK; Ο B)
(a) Gnom. Vat. nr. 313 Sternb. post fr. 120 (132).
ό α ύ τός (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) εΐπεν' άνθρω ποι κα κοί Αλη
θινών άντίδικοι.
596
122
(134 DK; 135 B)
(a) Gnom. Vat. nr. 314 Sternb. post fr. 121 {133) =
Flor. Mon. nr. 200 Meineke (in Stob. Flor, ed., IV, p. 283)
post fr. 114 (46) (ds) = cod. Par. 1168 nr. 67 Schenkl (cf.
SB Wien 115 [1887], p. 484) post fr. 114 (d3) . Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς
τήν π α ιδεία ν έτερον ήλιον είναι τοΐς πεπα ιδευμένοις
έ'λεγεν.
(ft1) Ioann. Daniasc. exc. Flor. II, 13,80 Meineke (in

Stob. Flor, ed., IV, p. 200). Π λάτων είπε τήν π α ιδεία ν
το ΐς άνθρώ ποις δεύτερον ήλιον είναι.
(ft2) Anecdota Graeca, ed. Boissonade, III, p. 471,3 [γνω-

μ ικά τιν α ]. τήν π α ιδεία ν δεύτερον ήλιον είναι τοΐς άν-
θρ ώ ποις φαμέν.
597
123
(135 DK; 137 B)
(a) Gnom. Vat. nr. 315 Stemb. post fr. 122 (134) =
cod. Par. 1168 nr. 68 Schenkl post fr. 122 = Maxim. Conf.
serm. 46 p. 646 (PG 91, p. 938 C) = cod. Vat. Gr. 1144 f. 228’.
ό α ύ τό ς (sc. Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς) συντομω τάτην όδόν έλ εγ εν εις
ευδοξίαν τό γενέσ θα ι1 ά γα θόν.
1 an γ ε ν έ σ θ α ι < τ ι> άγ.1
Xenopliontem male intellexisse videtur auetor: cf. Xenopli.

mem. I, 7,1 ά ει y a p έλ εγ εν (sc. Σ ω κ ρ ά τη ς) ώ ς ούκ εΐη
κα λλίω ν δ δ ό ς έ τγ’ ε ύ δ ο ξ ί α ν ή δ ι’ ή ς ά ν τις
ά γ α θ ό ς τ ο ύ τ ο γ έ ν ο ι τ ο δ κ α ί δοκεΐν β ο ύλο ιτο ;
II, 6,39 ά λ λ ά σ υ ν τ ο μ ω τ ά τ η τε καί άσφαλεστάτη
κ α ί καλλίστη ό δ ό ς, & Κριτόβουλε, δ τι άν βούληι
δοκεΐν ά γ α θ ό ς είναι, τ ο ΰ τ ο καί γ ε ν έ σ θ α ι ά γ α
θ ό ν ττειρασθαι; Cyropaed. I, 6,22 ούκ έστιν, έφη (sc.
Κ αμβύσης), ώ παΐ, σ υ ν τ ο μ ω τ έ ρ α ό δ ό ς 1, περί
δ ν βούλει δοκεΐν φρόνιμος είναι, ή τ ό γ ε ν έ σ θ α ι
π ερ ί τούτω ν φρόνιμον.
1 όδός < έ τ ιΙ τ ό > A. H ug (acc. Ε . C. M a rc h a n t, W . M ille r)

124
(130 DK; 0 B)
(α) Gnom. Monac. Lat. I, 19 (f. 84r) E. Woelfflin (Cac-

cilius Baibus, Basileae, 1855, p. 19). non convenit ridiculum
esse ita ut ridendus ipse videaris, Heraclitus dixit.
Cf. Plat, sympos. 189 B έγ ώ φοβούμαι. . .oö τι μή

γ ε λ ο ία ε ίπ ω . .. ά λ λ α μή κ α τα γ έλ α σ τα et Η. Diels (Η.2
ad f r .) .
125
(138 DK; Ο B)
(a) A. G. IX , 359 ( = Stob. IV, 34,57 [V, p. 842 H .])

tit. Ποσειδίππου, οί δέ Π λάτω νος τοΟ κω μικού : Ποσει-
δίΐΓπου, οΐ δέ Κ ράτητος τοΟ κυνικοϋ antli. Plan. : Η ρ α
κλείτου τοΟ φιλοσόφου cod. Par. 1630 s. XIV f. 191r (et.
Par. 1191). Cf. P. Schott, Posidippi epigrammata collecta et
illustrata (Diss. Berol., 1905), epigr. 21, p. 79.
600
125 (138)
The reason for ascribing the epigram to Heraclitus ό

ά γ έλ α σ το ς might consist in its pessimistic tone: cf. e. g. v. 9 f.
ήν ά ρ α τοΐν δισσοΐν ένός αΐρεσις" τό γενέσ θα ι

μηδέποτ’, ή τό θανεΐν α ύ τίκ α τικτόμενον
with Heraclitus’ frr. 99 (20); 105 (121); Luc. vit. auct. 14

σύ δέ τί κλάεις, ώ β έ λ τ ισ τ ε ;... Η ρά κλειτος" ή γέομ α ι
Υάρ, δ> ξεΐνε, τά ά νθρω πή ϊα τιρή γμ α τα όϊζυρά καί δα-
κ ρυώ δεα κ α ί ούδέν αύτέω ν δ τι μή έιτικήριον. .. έγοο
δέ κέλομαι πασιν ήβηδόν οίμώζειν. Cf. Marcovich, RE,
254,61 ff.
601
APPENDIX
NOMEN HERACLITI UAPSU SCRIPTUM
(i) Plut. adv. Colot. 1115 A . . . Ή ρ α κ λ είδο υ 1 δέ τον

Ζωροάστρην, τό ττερί τω ν έν ‘Ά ιδ ο υ , τό π ερ ί τω ν φυσι-
κώ ς άπορουμένω ν.
1 ή ρ α κ λ ε ίτ ο υ Ε Β , e o rr. B eisk e
(ii) Diog. Laert. I, 76 . . .είπ εΐν (sc. τόν Πιττακόν)*

σ υγγνώ μ η μ ετανοίας κρείσσων. Ή ρ α κ λ είδ η ς1 δέ φησιν,
’Α λκαίον ύποχείριον λα β ό ντα κ α ί ά πολύσ α ντα φ ά να ι-
σ υ γγνώ μ η τιμ ω ρ ία ς κρείσσων.
1 Ή ρ α κ λ ε ί δ η ς Βορροι· : ‘Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι τ ο ς οο<1<1. odd.
(iii) Macrob. in somn. Scip. I, 2,20 adeo semper ita se

ct sciri et coli numina maluerunt qualiter in vulgus antiquitas
fabulata est, quae et imagines et simulacra formarum talium
prorsus alienis, et aetates tarn increment! quam diminutionis
602
ignaris, et aniietus ornatusque varios corpus non habentibus
adsignavit. (21) secundum haec Pythagoras ipse atque Empe
docles, Parmenides quoque ejt Heraclides‘ de dis fabulati sunt,
nee secus Timaeus. . .
1 Heraclides (sc. P o n tic u s ) le g e n d u m esse v id it L. J a n (1848, I , p. 23) :

Heraclitus codd.
(iv) I, 14,19 Heraclides1 Ponticus lucem (sc. dixit ani-

mam) [cf. Aet. IV, 3,6 (Dox. p. 388); Tertull. de anima 9],1
1 Heraclitus codd.
(v) Orion, etymolog. s. κάμηρος ( = Cyrilli lex.: Anecd.

Gr., ed. Cramer, IV, p. 184) Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς cod. : Ή ρα κ λείδη ς
recte F. .Sturz (1820, p. 254) et I. By water ad fr. 138.
(vi) Aet. II, 13,15 (Dox. p. 343) Ή ρ α κ λ είδ η ς Ps. Plut.

codd. : Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς perperam solus cod. Petavianus
(vii) II, 25,13 (Dox. p. 356) Ή ρ α κ λ είδη ς Stob., Tlioo-

doret. : Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτο ς Ps. Plut., Lydus, eorr. Fabrieius (cf.
F. Jacoby, Apollodors Chronik, p. 274 n. 7).
(viii) Olympiod. in A m to t. meteor, p. 151,3 Stüve ά λλοι

δ ’ ελεγον, &v εΐς ύπήρχεν Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ς, δτι ίδρώ ς υ π ά ρ
χ ει τή ς γ η ς ή θ ά λασ σ α : immo Empedocles (fr. 55): cf.
p. 155,5; Aristot. meteor. B 3, p. 357 a 25 ss.; Aet. III, 16,3
(Dox. p. 381); Alexand. in meteor, f. 91r ( = Dox. p. 495,4 ss.).
603
NOMEN HERACL1TI IURE SCRIPTUM ESSE VIDETUR
(i) Theophrasl. de sensibus 1 (Dox. p. 499,2) Π αρμε

νίδης μέν καί Ε μ π ε δ ο κ λ ή ς κ α ί Π λάτω ν τώ ι όμοίω ι (sc.
τήν αϊσθησιν ποιοΰσιν), οί δέ περί ’Α να ξα γό ρ α ν καί
Η ρ ά κ λ ειτο ν 1 τώ ι έναντίωι.
1 'Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι τ ο ν : Δ η μ ό κ ρ ι τ ο ν ci. P h ilip p s o n : Κ λ ε ίδ η μ ο ν ci. D iels

coni. c. 38 : a t c f. A lb in i isag. ( V I , p . 169 H e rm a n n ) τ ώ ι ά ν ο μ ο ί ω ι
τ ό ά ν ό μ ο ι ο ν (sc. γ ν ω ρ ί ζ ε τ α ι ) , ώ ς Ή ρ α κ λ ε ί τ ω ι τ ώ ι φ υ σ ικ ώ ι
(ii) Diog. Laert. V III, 52 ’Α ριστοτέλης γ ά ρ αυτόν

(sc. τον Έ μ π εδ ο κ λ έα ) [έτι τε Η ρ ά κ λ ε ιτ ο ν ]1 έξή κοντα
έτώ ν φησι τετελευτηκέναι.
1 Ετι τε 'Ηράκλειτον seclu si ut glo ssem a ( c f. I X , 3) : Ετι τε ήρά-

κλειτον BiPF, ήράκλειτος Β 2 : (Ετι τε Ηράκλειτον) K r a n z (VS»,
1, ρ . 27 7,17) : Ε τι τε Ήρακλείδης Ρ . S tu rz (1805, ρ . X X I s .) coni.
V I I I , 5 1 ; 60 -6 1 ; 67, a g n . Ε . D. H ic k s, F . J a c o b y ( F G r H 244 f r . 3 2 ),
H . S. L o n g , e t a n te a eg o ip se
604
A LIBERALLY SELECTIVE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A a u , A .: ‘D or L o g o s b e i H e r a k l i t ’, Zeitschr. f. Philosophie 106 (1 8 9 5 ),

217-252.
A a ll, A .: Geschichte der Logosidee in der griech. Philosophie, I (L e ip z ig ,
1 8 9 6 ), 7-56.
Adam, J . : ‘T h e D o c trin e o f th e L ogos in H e r a c litu s ’ : The V itality of
Platonism, and other Essays (C a m b rid g e , 1 9 1 1 ), 77-104..
A lla n , D. J . : ‘T he P ro b le m o f C ra ty lu s ’, Amer. Journal of Philology
75 ( 1 9 5 4 ) , 271-287.
A ubineau, M .: ‘L e th e m e d u b o u rb ie r d a n s la lit t £ r a t u r e g re c q u e ’,
Recherches de Science Religieuse ( P a r i s ) 47 ( 1 9 5 9 ), 185-214.
( O n f r . 36 [ 1 3 ] ) .
A u erb ach , W .: ‘D e p rin c ip io H e r a c lite o ’, Eos 32 ( 1 9 2 9 ), 301-314.
A u erb ach , W .: ‘Z u r G e g e n ü b e rste llu n g v o n S e in u n d S ch ein b e i H e r a
k l it ’, Eos 33 ( 1 9 3 0 ), 651-664.
Axelos, K.: B&raelite et la philosophic ( P a r i s , E d . d e M in u it, 1962),
pp. 275.
B a tt is t in i , Y .: H&raclite d’ Ephese ( tr a d u c tio n av ec n o te s ; P a r i s , C ah iers

d ’ A r t , 1 9 4 8 ), p p . 1 0 4 . - Id e m , Trois contemporains: Heraclitc,
Parmenidc, Empcdocle ( t r a d , avec n o tic e s ; P a r i s , G a llim ard ,
1 9 5 5 ), p p . 2 0 4 .
B erge, D .: ‘A v id a d e H er& clito d e E fe s o ’, Verbum I V , 3 (R io de J a
n e iro , 1 9 4 7 ), 4 7 -85.
B erge, D .: O logos Beraclitico (R io d e J a n e ir o , U n iv e rs. do B ra sil,
1 9 4 8 ), p p . 3 2 4 .
B ergk, T h .: ‘H e r a c lite a ’ : OpuscvXa (Kleine philol. Schriften, ed. by
R . P e p p m ü lle r, H a lle , 1 8 8 6 ), I I , 83 -9 0 ; 302-4.
B e rn a y s, J . : G e s a m m e lte A b h a n d lu n g e n , ed. by H. Usener (Berlin,
1885), I, 1-108 and 291-326.
B e rn a y s, J .: D ie h e r a k litis c h e n B r i e f e (Berlin, 1869).
B ise, P.: L a p o l i t i q u e d ’ H S r a c lite d ’ E p h & s e (Paris, Alcan, .1924),
pp. 281.
B la s s , H .: G o tt u n d d ie G e s e tz e (Bonn, Bouvier, 1958), pp. 69 (On
fr. 23 [1 1 4 ] ) .
B oeder, H .: ‘Der frühgricchischo Wortgebrauch von Logos und Alethcia’,
A r c h i v f ü r B e g r i f f s g c s e h i c h t e , IV (Bonn, Bouvier, 1959), 82-112.
Booner, H .: ‘Heraklit 85’, H e r m e s 77 (1942), 215 f.
Bonetti, A.: ‘La concezionc dialettica dclla realtä in Eraclito’, B i v . d i
F ilo s . n e o s c o la s tie a 51 (1949), 289-310.
B re c h t, F.-J.: H e r a k l i t . V e r s u c h ü b e r d e n U r s p r u n g d e r P h ilo s o p h ie
(Heidelberg, Winter, 1936; 2nd ed. Wuppertal, 1949), pp. 148.
B rieo er, A.: ‘Die Grundzüge der lieraklitischen Physik’, H e r m e s 39
(1904), 182-223.
B ro eck er, W.: Review of Gigon’s U n te r s u c h u n g e n : G n o m o n 13 (1937),
530-535.
B roecker, W .: ‘H eraklit zitiert Anaximander’, H e r m e s 84 (1956), 382-
384. (On fr. 42 [1#G]).
B ro eck er, W.: Review of Kirk’s H e r a c l i t u s : G n o m e n 30 (1958), 433-438.
B u rc k h a rd t, G.: H e r a k l i t . S e i n e G e s ta lt u n d s e in K ü n d e n (Einführung,
Übertragung, Deutung) (Zürich, Füssli, 1925), pp. 86. 2nd ed.:
H e r a k l i t , ü r W o r te d e r P h ilo s o p h ie (griechisch und deutsch; Insel-
Bücherei 49, Wiesbaden, 1951), pp. 61.
B ü r k e r t, W.: ‘Platon oder Pythagoras! Zum Ursprung des Wortes Philo
sophie’, H e r m e s 88 (1960), 159-177. [Cf. frr. 84 [ S i f]; 85 {4 1 } ].
B u rn e t, J . : E a r l y G r e e k P h ilo s o p h y (1892); 4th ed. by W. L. Lorimer
(London, 1930; a reprint with corrections of 3rd ed., 1920),
130-168.
B u rn e t, J . : Review of Diels’ H e r a k l e i t o s : C la s s ic a l E e v ie io 15 (1901),
423b-424a.
B usse , A .: ‘Der Wortsinn von λ ό γ ο ς bei Heraklit’, B h e in . M u s e u m 75
(1926), 203-214.
B ywater, I . : ‘Heraclitus and Ammianus Marcellinus’, J o u r n a l o f P h il o
lo g y 6 (1876), 88-90. (On fr. 70 [£5]).
BYWATER, I.: H e r a c l i t i E p h e s i i R e liq u ia e (Oxonii, 1877).
B y w a te r, T.: J o u r n a l o f P h ilo lo g y 9 (1880), 230 ff. (On fr. 38 \ 4 1).
Calogero, G.: Review of Macchioro’s books: A r c h i v f . G esell, d . P h il o

s o p h ie 40 (1931), 139-141.
Calogero, G.: ‘Eraclito’, G io r n a le c r itic o d e lla F i l o s o f i a I t a l i a n a 17
(1936), 195-224.
C alogero, G.: Review of Kirk-Raven, T h e P r e s o c r a tic P h ilo s o p h e r s :
G n o m o n 34 (1962), 323-325.
606
C ap elle, W.: ‘Heracliteum’, H e r m e s 59 (1924), 121-3. (On fr. 40 [ l i b] ).
C ap elle, W.: ‘Das eiste Fragment des Herakleitos’, H e r m e s 59 (1924),
190-203.
C ap elle, W.: ‘Aelteste Spuren der Astrologie bei den Griechen’, H e r r n /s
60 (1925), 375. (On frz 63a [ 1 0 5 ] ) .
Capelle , W.: D ie V o r s o k r a tik e r (Stuttgart, Kroner, 1935; 4th ed.
1953), 126-157.
Capone B raga, G.: ‘L ’ eraclitismo di Enesidemo’, E i v i s t a d i F il o s o f i a
(Milano) 1 (1931), 33-47.
C a p p e lle tti, A. J . : E p is t o l a s P s e u d o - H e r a c lite a s (Universidad Naeional
del Litoral, Rosario, Argentina, 1960), pp. 64. [Greek text after
R. Hercher, E p is t o l o g r a p h i G ra e c i, Paris, 1873, pp. 280 ff.;
introduction, Spanish translation, and notes].
C a r lo tti, G.: ‘L’eleatismo di Eraclito’, G io r n a le c r itic o d e lla F il o s o f i a
I t a l i a n a 3 (1922), 329-357.
C a sa l MuSoz, J . : H c r d c lito y e l p e n s a m ic n to m e t a f l s i c o (Montevideo,
Atlantida, 1958), pp. 282.
C h ern iss, H .: A r i s t o t l e 's C r itic is m o f P r e s o c r a tic P h ilo s o p h y (Balti
more, 1935), p a s s im .
C h e rn iss, II.: Review of Gigon’s U n te r s u c h u n g e n : A m c r . J o u r n a l o f
P h ilo lo g y 56 (1935), 414-6.
C h ern iss, H .: ‘The Characteristics and Effects of Presocratic Philo
sophy’, J o u r n a l, o f t h e H i s t o r y o f I d e a s (New York) 12 (1951),
319-345 (on Heraclitus: 332-338).
C h ern iss, H .: ‘Aristotle Metaphysics 987 a 32 - b 7’, A m c r . J o u r n a l o f
P h ilo lo g y 76 (1955), 184-186 (cf. Allan, D. J .).
Cleve, F .: T h e G ia n ts o f P r e - S o c r a tic G r e e k P h ilo s o p h y , I (M. Nijhoff,
Hague, 1965), 31-129.
C ornford, F. M.: P r i n c i p i u m S a p i e n t i a e : T h e O r ig in s o f G r e e k P h ilo s o
p h ic a l T h o u g h t (Cambridge, 1952), 113-150.
C orte, M. de: ‘La vision philosophique d’ Heraclite’, L a v a l T h fo lo g iq u e
e t P h ilo s o p h iq u e (University Laval, Quebec) 16 (1960), 189-236.
C ovotti, A.: ‘Intorno al framrnento 30 (Diels) di Eraclito’, A t t i d e lla
A c c a d e m ia d i A r c h e o lo g ia d i N a p o l i 54 (1931), 171-180.
‘Bemerkungen zu Diogenes' Bericht über Heraklit’,

D E IC H G R A E B E E . K .:
93 (1938: Festgabe E. Schwartz), 12-30.
P h ilo lo g u s
D eiohoraeber, K.: ‘Similia dissimilia’, E h e in . M u s e u m 89 (1940), 44-51.
(On frr. 51 [.70]; 53 [S l]).
D eiohoraeber, K .: ‘Persönbehkeitsethos und philosophisches Försehertum
der vorsokratLehen Denker’, D e r lis te n s in n e n d e T r u g d e s G o tte s
(Göttingen, 1952), 68-69 and 147 f.
D eiohoraeber, K .: B h y t h m i s c h e E le m e n t e i m L o g o s d e s H e r a k l i t (Aka
demie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, Abhandl.
607
der Geistes- u. sozialwissenseliaftlichen Klasse, Jalirg. 1962,
Nr. 9, Wiesbaden, 1963), 479-553.
D e la tte , A .: L e s c o n c e p tio n s d e V e n th o u s ia s m e c h e z le s p h ilo s o p h e s
p r i s o c r a t i q u e s (Paris, Les Beiles Lettres, 1934), 6-21.
Dieckhoff, M.: ‘Heraklit und seine Lehre’, W is s . Z e its c h r . d e r ü n i v .
L e i p z i g (Gesellscli- u. Sprachwiss. Beihe), 11 (1962), 547-555.
B iels, H .: J e n a e r L i t t e r a t u r - Z e i t u n g 1877, p. 394. (On fr. 28 [S O ] ).
Diels, H.: D o x o g r a p h i G r a e d (Berolini, 1879) [reprint Berlin, 1958].
D iels, H .: ‘Zwei Fragmente HeraklitV, S i t z u n g s b e r i c h t e B e r l i n e r A k a
d e m ie 1901, 188-201. (On frr. 25 [1 0 ]; 80 [71]).
D iels, H .: H e r a k l e i t o s v o n E p h e s o s (griechisch und deutsch), 2nd cd.
(Berlin, Weidmann, 1909).
D iels, H .: ‘Heraclitus’, in Hastings, E n c y c lo p a e d ia o f B e l ig i o n a n d E t h i c s ,
VI, 591-94.
D IE L S . H.: D ie F r a g m e n t e d e r l'o r s o k r a t i k e r , 4th cd. (Berlin, Weidmann,
1922); 5th ed. by W. KllANZ (Berlin, 1934) ; 6th to 10th edns.
reprints with N a c h tr ä g e (Berlin, 1951-1901), I, 139-190 and
491-495. [12th ed. reprint, Weidmann, Zürich-Dublin, I960].
Dili.er, If.: ‘Die philosophiegeschiclitlichc Stellung des Diogenes von
Apollonia’, H e r m e s 76 (1941), 359-381.
D ille r , H .: ‘Weltbild und Sprache im Heraklitismus’, D a s n e u e B i l d d e r
A n t i k e (ed. by H. Berve, I, Leipzig, Köhler & Amelang, 1942),
303-316.
Dodds, E. E .: T h e G r e e k s a n d t h e I r r a t i o n a l (Berkeley, 1951), p a s s im .
DYROFF, A.: ‘Zu Herakleitos’, P h ilo l. W o c h e n s c h r i f t 37 (1917), 1211-1216.
D y ro ff, A .: ‘Zum Prolog des Johannes-Evangeliums’: P is c ic u li F . J .
D ö lg e r (Münster, 1939), 86-93. (On the Logos).
E goers Lan, C.: ‘Fuego y L o g o s e n Herüclito’, H u m a n i t a s (Tucuman,

Argentina) 10 (1958), 141-183.
E rb se, H .: F r a g m e n t e g r ie c h is c h e r T h e o s o p h ie n (Hamburg, 1941).
F ra c c a ri, G.: ‘Logos o culto rcligioso in Eraclito’, A c m e (Milano) 9

(1956), 3-35.
F r a e n k e l , H .: ‘Heraclitus on God and Phenomenal World (Frag. 67
Diels)’, T r a n s a c tio n s A m e r . P h ilo l. A s s o c ia tio n 69 (1938)) 230-
244. German version in W e g e u n d F o r m e n , 237-250.
Fkaenkkl, II.: ‘Heraclitus on the Notion of a Generation’ (on fr. 108
[A 19]), A m e r . J o u r n a l o f P h il o l o g y 59 (1938), 89-91. German
version in W e g e u n d F o r m e n , 251 f.
F ra e n k e l, II.: ‘Λ Thought Pattern in Heraclitus’, A m e r . J o u r n a l o f
P h il o l o g y 59 (1938), 309-337. German version in W e g e u n d
F o r m e n , 253-283.
F r a e n k e l, H.: D i c h t u n g u n d P h ilo s o p h ie d e s f r ü h e n G r ie c h e n tu m s
(Amer. Philol. Assoe. Philol. Monographs, nr. 13, New York,
1951) j 2nd ed. (Munich, Beck, 1962), 422-453.
G08
F kaenkel, Η W e g e u n d F o r m e n f r ü h g r ie c h is c h e n D e n k e n s , cd. by F.
Tietze, 2nd cd. (Munich, Beck, i960), 253-283.
Fredrick, C.: I I i p p o k r a t i s c h c U n te r s u c h u n g e n (Pliilol. Unters. 15, Berlin,
1899), 81 ff.; 112 ff.;' 146 ff. (On d e v i c t u I, 5-24).
Frenklyn, A. M.: E t u d e s d e p h ilo s o p h ic p r e s o e r a tiq u e . H e r a e lite eV E p h e s e
(Paris, Vrin, 1934), pp. 62.
F riedlaender, P .: ‘Hiracliti F rg. 124’, A m t r . J o u r n a l o f P h il o l o g y 03
(1942), 336.
FnJTZ, K. von: ‘Μοΰς, νοεΐν and their Derivatives in Presoeratic Philo
sophy (excluding Anaxagoras)’, C la s s ic a l P h ilo lo g y 40 (1945),
230-236 (Heraclitus).
" Georgoules, K. D .: ‘Η ρ α κ λ ε ίτ ε ια ’, P la t o n 3 (1951), 274-281. (On

frr. 19 and 20 f .?,¥'“>]; 48 [2 6 ] \ 62 [1& > ]; 84 (.751).
Georooules, K. D.: ‘Μαρτυρϊαι Σέξτου τοΰ Ε μπειρικού περί Η ρ α
κλείτειων δοξασιών’, P la t o n 8 (1956), 222-230.
Georooules, Κ. I).: ‘φιλολογικά σημειώματα’, P la to n 12 (1960ι,
265-289. (On frr. 27 (.77]; 32 f.7.9]; 33 [6(1]; 66 (iff]).
G e o ro o u le s, K. D.: ‘ Ηρακλείτεια’, P la t o n 14 (1962), 445-455. (On
frr. 63a [ 1 0 6 ] ; 73 [65]; 77 [67]).
G e o ro o u le s, K. D.: ‘Η ρακλείτεια’, P la t o n 17 (1965), 274-287. (On
frr. 48 [56]; 14 [Λ7]; 49 [57]).
GIGOlf, 0.« U n te r s u c h u n g e n z u H e r a k l i t (Piss. Basel: Leipzig, Dieterich,
1935), pp. T ill + 163.
GuiOX, O.: I l e r U r s p r u n g i h r g r ie c h is c h ! n P h ilo s o p h ic (von Hesiod bis
Parmenides) (Basel, Schwabe, 1945), 197-243.
Gilbert, O.: ‘H eraklits Schrift π. φύσιος’, Λ’c u e J a h r b ü c h e r f . d . kleiss.
A l t e r t u m 12 (1909), 161-179.
G ladioow, B.: ‘Aescliylos und Heraklit’, A r c h i v f . G csch . d e r P h ilo s o p h ie
44 (1962), 225-239.
Gomperz, IT.: ‘Zu Heraklit’, X c its c h r . f , d . Ö s te r r e ic h . G y m n a s ie n 61
(1910), 961-973 and 1057-67.
Gomperz, 11.: ‘«Heraklits Kinheitslehre» von Alois Palin als Ausgangs
punkt zum Verständnis Heraklits’, W ie n e r S tu d i e n 43 (1922-23),
115-135.
Gomperz, H .: ‘Über die ursprüngliche Reihenfolge einiger Bruchstücke
lleraklils’, H erm es 58 (1923), 20-50.
Gomperz, Η.: ‘Έδίζησάμην έμεωυτόν’: F e s t s c h r i f t f ü r J u l i u s S c h lo s s e r
(Zürich, Amalthea, 1927), 11-18.
Gomperz, II.: ‘Zu Heraklit Frg. 129’, t ’h ilo l. W o c h e n s c h r ift 48 (1928),
156-9.
Gomperz, H .: ‘Heraclitus of Kphesus’: T e s s e ir a k o n ta e te r is T h e o p h . Höre p
(Athens, 1939), II, 47-70 = P h ilo s o p h ic a l S tu d ie s , cd. by
I). S. Robinson (Boston, 1953), 88-107.
609
Gompkhz, Th.: 1866, p. 698 =
Z e i t s c h r i f t f ü r d ie Ö s te r r e ic h . G y m n a s ie n
T lc lh n ik a (Leipzig, 1912), II, 230 f.
Gomperz, Th.: ‘Zu Horaklits Lehre und den Überresten seines Werkes’,
S i t e t m g s b c r i c h t e W ie n e r A k a d e m i e 113 (1886), 997-1055 (Wien,
1887).
Gomperz, Th.: G r ie c h is c h e D e n k e r (Leipzig, 1896; 4th cd. by H. Gom-
perz, Berlin, 1922; Italian version by L. Bandini, 3rd ed.,
Florence, 1950), I, 94-122,
GnßooiRE, F .: ‘Hdräclite et les cultes enthousiastes’, R e v u e n e o s c o la s tiq u c
d e p h ilo s o p h ic (Louvain) 38 (1935), 43-63.
GuiRIN, P .: I . ’ id e e d e j u s t i c e d a n s la c o n c e p tio n d e V im iv e r s c h c z les
p r e m ie r s p h ilo s o p h e s g r c c s (Paris, Alcan, 1934), pp. 115.
Guthrie, W. K. C.: O r p h e u s a n d G r e e k R e lig io n (2nd ed., London, 1952),
224 ff. (cf. Macchioro, V.).
G U T H R IE , W. K . C .: A H i s t o r y o f G r e e k P h ilo s o p h y , 1 (Cambridge,
1962), 403-492.
IIaussleiteu, .1.: ‘Zum Tode Beraklits v. Kph.’, A l t e r t u m 10 (1964),

9-13.
Heidegger, M.: ‘Logos, Heraklit Frg. 50’: V o r t r ä g e u n d A u f s ä t z e
(Pfullingen, Neske, 1954), 207-256.
Heidegqer, M.: ‘Heraklit’: ΆντΙδωρον. F e s t s c h r i f t z u r F e ie r d e s 350-
j ä h r i g e n B e s te h e n s d e s H e in r ic h - S n s o - G y m n . z u K o n s t a n z (Kon
stanz, Merk, 1954).
Heidel, W. A.: ‘On certain fragments of the Prc-Socratics’, P r o c e e d in g s
o f t h e A m c r . A c a d , o f A r t s a n d S c ie n c e s 48 (1913), 695-716
(Heraclitus).
H einem ann, J.: P a u ly - W is s o w a E E , Suppl.-Bd. V (1931), 228-232 (On
the Pseudo-Ileraclitean Letters).
H einim ann, F .: N o m o s u n d P h y s i s ( D ie s . Basel, .1945), p a s s im , (esp.
p. 61 f f . ) .
HEINER, M.: D ie L e h r e v o m L o g o s i n d i r g r ie c li. P h ilo s o p h ie (Olden
burg, 1872), 1-57.
Hercher, R.; E p is to lo g r a p h i G r a e c i (Paris, 1873), p. 280 >ff. (The
Pseudo-Heraelitenn Letters].
11ERTEII, 11.: ‘Das Leben ein Kinderspiel’, B o n n e r J a h r b ü c h e r 101 (1901),
73-84. (On fr. 93 j 5 a ! ] ) .
1loEEER, Q .: H e r a k lit, I le r a k litr e r und h ip p o k r a tis c h e s C orpus (l)iss.
Bonn, 1950; typewritten), 1-102.
IIOEl.sciiER, U.: ‘Der Logos bei Heraklit’: V a r ia V a rio ru m ., F e s tg a b e
f ü r K a r l R e in h a r d t (Münster-Köln, Böhlau, 1952), 69-81,
Hoffmann, E .: ‘Das Kulturideal Horaklits': P ä d a g o g is c h e r H u m a n i s
m u s , ed. by W. Rüegg and A. Stein (Ernsimut-Bihl. 11, Zürich,
1955), 99-109.
«10
Howard, E .: ‘Heraklit und seine antiken Beurteiler’, N eue Jahrbücher
f . d . k la s s . A l t e r t u m 21 (1918), 81-92.
IbmscHEK, J . : ‘Heraklit in Byzanz’, TPis«. Z e its e h r . d e r ü n i v . L e ip z ig

(Gesellsch.· u. Sprachwiss. Reihe) 11 (1962), 559-565.
.Taeger, (The Gifford

V f.·. T h e T h e o lo g y o f t h e E a r l y G r e e k P h ilo s o p h e r s
Lectures 1936, Oxford, 1947), 109-127 and 228-233.
J eanniere, A.: L a p e n s i e d ’ I l e r a c h t e d ’ E p h e s e (avec la traduction
intigralc des fragments. Paris, Aubier, 1939), pp. 125.
.Tones, W. H. S., H c r a c l e i t u s O n the. U n iv e r s e [Greek text with an
English translation]: in H ip p o c r a te s , vol. IV (Loeb Class.
Library N* 150, 1931), 451-509.
Kamekbeek, J. C.: hSophocle et Hdraelite’: S t u d i o V a r ia C. G. V o ll g r a f f

o b la ta (Amsterdam, 1948), 84-98.
K E R S C H E N S T E 1 N E R . /.: ‘Der Bericht des Theophrast über Heraklit’,
H e r m e s 83 (1955), 385-411.
Keuschenstkineu, .T.: K o s m o s (Quellenkritisehe Untersuchungen zu den
Vorsokratikern) ( Z e t r m a t a 30, Munieh, Beck, 1962), 97-114.
Kikk, G. 8.: ‘Some points raised by Heraclitus fr. 12 D', P r o c e e d in g s
o f t h e C a m b r id g e P h ilo l. S o c i e t y 180 (1948-49), 1-2.
K ikk, G. S.: ‘Heraclitus and death in battle (fr. 24 D )\ .4 » k t . J o u r n a l
o f P h il o l o g y 70 (1949), 384-393.
K irk , G. S.: ‘The Michigan Alcidamas-Papyrus; Heraclitus fr. 56 l>:
the riddle of the lice’, C la s s ic a l Q u a r te r ly 44 (19.50), 149-167.
Kirk, G. S.: ‘The Problem of Cratylus’, A m c r . J o u r n a l o f P h il o l o g y 72
(1951), 225-253 (espec. 239 f .) .
K irk , G. S.: ‘Natural change in Heraclitus’, M in d 60 (1951), 33-42.
K IR K , G. S.: H e r a c litu s , t h e C o s m ic F r a g m e n t s (Cambridge, 1954;
reprint with corrections 1962), pp. XVI -(- 424.
ICikk, O. 8.: Review of Rivicr’s T7n cmploi archa'ique: Journal of Helle
nic Studies 74 (195-1), 199.
K irk , G. S.: ‘Logos, άρμονίη, bitte, dieu et feu dans Israelite’, Rena
p h ilo s o p h iq ttc (Paris) 147 (1937), 289-299.
Kirk, G. S.: ‘Mon and opposites in Heraclitus’, M u s n tm H r lv c tic u m 14
(1957), 155-163.
K IR K . G . S ., and R A V E N , 1. t h e P r e s o e m t i e P h ilo s o p h e r s (Cambridge.
1957; reprint with corrections 1963), 182-215.
Kikk, G. 8.: ‘The extent of Heraclitus fr. 92 D’, A n a h s d e F ilo lo g ia
C ltisie a (Buenos Aires) 7 (1959), 5-12.
K ikk, G. S.: ‘Ecpyrosis in Heraclitus: some comments’, P h r o n e s is 4 (1959),
73-76.
K irk , G. 8.: ‘Popper on Science and the Presocratics’, M i n d 69 (1900),
318-339. (On Heraclitus: 333-339).
611
K irk , G. S.: ‘Sense and Common-sense in the development of Greek
Philosophy’, J o u r n a l o f H e lle n ic S t u d i e s SI (1001), 108-110.
K irk . G. S.; ‘Heraclitus’ contribution to the development of a language
for philosophy’, A r c h i v f ü r B e g r i f f s g e s c h ic h tc (Bonn), 9 (1964),
73-77.
K irk Jr., W. C.: F ir e i n t h e C o s m o lo g ic a l S p e c u la tio n s o f H e r a c lc itu s
(Biss. Illinois Univ., Minneapolis, Burguess Publ., 1940), pp. 60.
K ran z, tV.: ‘Vorsokratisches’, H e r m e s 69 (1934), 115-117 iind 226-228.
(On fr. 17 [ 1 2 9 ] ) .
K ra n z , W.: ‘Kosmos und Mensch in der Vorstellung frühen Griechen
tums', N a c h r ic h te n v o n d e r G e s e lls c h a ft d e r W is s e n s c h a f t e n z u
G ö t t i n g e n , Philol.-hist. Klasse, N. I’., I, 2,7 (1936-38), 121-161.
K ranz, W . : ‘Kosmos als philosophischer Begriff friihgriochischor Zeit’,
P h ilo lo g u s 93 (1938), 430-448.
K ran z, W.: ‘Gleichnis und Vorgleichnis in der frühgrieehischon Philo
sophie’, n e r m e s 73 (1938), 111-113. (On fr. 115 [67a]).
K ranz, IV.: ‘Der Logos Hernklits und der Logos des J o h a n n e n ’, N h rin .
M u s e u m 93 (1949), 81-95.
Kranz, \V.: ‘Παλίντροτιος άρμονίη’, J llie in . M u s e u m 101 (1958), 250-
254. (On fr. 27 [51] ).
K ran z, W.: K o s m o s (Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, II, 1-2 Bonn, Bou-
vier, 1958), 37 f.
K ran z, W.: V o r s o k r a tis c h e D e n k e r , Griechisch-Deutsch. Ausgewählt und
lirsg. von W. K. (Weidmann, 2nd ed. Berlin, 1949; 3rd ed.
Zürich-Dublin, 1959) .
Kranz, W.: se c a lso Diels, H.
K drtz , E .: I n t e r p r e t a t i o n e n s u d e n L o g o s - F r a g m e n t ( n H e r a k l i t s (Biss.
Tübingen, 1960; typewritten), pp. 179 78.
Lascaris Comneno, C.: ‘Los perros filosofos de Platon’: A e t a s I C on-

g r e s o E s p . d e E s tu c lio s C ld s ic o s (1956; Madrid, 1958), 338-342.
(On fr. 22 [.97]).
LasSALI.E, F .: D ie P h ilo s o p h ie H e r a k l e i t o s ’ des D u n k le n v o n E p h e s o s ,
2 vols. (Berlin, 1838) — G e s a m tw e r te , ed. by Schirmer (Leip
zig, 1905), vol. C.
T.E.SKV. A.: ‘Dionysos und Hades’, W ie n e r S t u d i e n 54 (1936), 24-32.
(Oll fr. 50 f / 5 |) .
Ι,εγζκ, O .: ‘%u Ileraklit Frg. 26 !>.’, Hermes 50 (1915), 604-625.
Lloyd, G. E. 15.: P o l a r i t y a n d A n a l o g y (Cambridge, 1966), 96-102.
T.OEW, E .: ‘Ileraklit von Ephesus, der Entdecker des empirisch-physika
lischen Weges der Forschung’, Ith e in . M ie se itm 79 (1930), 123-152.
Loew, E .: ‘Bas Verhältnis von Leben und Logik bei Ileraklit’, W ie n e r
S t u d i e n 51 (1933), 14-30.
Lo.mmer, F .: ‘Tn quantum Euripides 1[eraeliti rationem auctoritatemque
susceperit’, l ’ r o g r . d . S t u d i e n a n s t a l t M e i l e n , 1878-79, pp. 36.
i>lL>
Lr'rz, E.: ‘Democritus and Heraclitus’, T h e C la s s ic a l J o u r n a l (Evan
ston, ill.) 49 (1953-54), 309-314.
Macchioko, V.: E r a d i l o . K u o r i s t n d i s id l'o r fis m o (Bari, Laterza, 1922).

pp. 139.
M acciiioko, V.: Z a g r c u s . S t u d i in to r n o a l l ’o r fis m o (Firenze, Valleeelii,
1930), 369-436.
Maccihoko, V.: ‘Per Eraclito’, C i v i l t a M o d c r n a (Florence) 3 (1931 ).
789-797. (A reply to Cftlogoro's objections).
Maddai.ena, A.: ‘Eraclito nell’ interpretazionc di Platone e d' Aristotelo'.
A t t i d d l ’I s t i t u t o V e n t to (Venice) OS (1938-39), 1, 309-335.
Mamiamsna, A.: S u lla c o s m o lo g ia io n ie a d a 2 'a lr tc a E r a d i l o (Padna,
Cedant, 1940), 127-268.
Majnakic, X.: ‘Ileraejitea’, K a il (The Yugoslav Acad, of Sciences, Za
greb) 293 (1953), 281-301.
M akcovich, M.: ‘Note ou Heraclitus’, C la s sic a l P h ilo lo g y 54 (1959),
259. (On fr. 86 \ J>]).
M akcovich, M.: ‘On lleraclitus fr. 66 D lv’, Paper to 3rd Internat.
' 'ongress of (Ilassic.al Stuilies, London, 1959 (Merida University
Press, 1959) , pp. 11.
M akcovich, M.: ‘Zu Ileraklit Fr. 62 DK’, A n t i q u i t e v iv a n te ( Z i v a a n t i l a )
12 (1962), 51-56.
M akcovich, M.: llevit-w of Wheelwright's //< r a d i i u s : A n u r. J o u r n a l
o f P h ilo lo g y 83 (1962), 205-209.
M akcovich, M.: ‘Sobre el texto del fr. 59 1)K de Heräclitn-, A iu ia r io
d e F ilo lo g ia (Universidad del Zulia, Venezuela) 3 (1964), .347-
364.
Makcovich, M.: ‘Pythagorica’, Philologus 108 (1964), 39-43.
M A R C O V 1 C H , M .: ü e r a k l e i t o s : Pauly-Wissowa, E e a l- E n c y c lo p ä d ie d e r
c la s s is c h e n A lt e r t u m s w i s s e n s c h a f t , Suppl.-Bd. X (1965), 246-320.
M akcovich, M.: ‘Aetna and Heraclitus’, A n t i q u i t e v i v a n t e ( Z i v a a n t i l a i
15 (1965), 29-31.
M akcovich, M.: E s t u d i o s d e E ilo s o fia g r ir g a , 1 (Merida, Venezuela,
1965), 17-55.
M akcovich, M.: ‘Hippolyt us and Heraclitus’: S t u d i o Patristica VI1, ed. by
F. L. Cross (Texte und Untersuchung! n 92, Berlin, 1960), 255-261.
M akcovich , M.: ‘Zmn Zoushvmmis des Kleantlies’, T h r m e s 94 (1966),
245-250.
M A R C O V 1 C H , M .: ‘On Heraclitus’, P h r o n e s is 11 (1966), 19-30.
M abcovich, Μ.: ‘τρόπου κ ό σ μ ο ς’, A n t i q u i t e v i v a n t e ( Z i v a a n t i l a ) 15
(1966), 281 f.
M akcovich, M.: ‘Aristotle o n E c p y r o s i s ’, M n e m o s y n e .19 (1960), 47-49,
M akcovich, M.: ‘What Heraclitus said’: Invited Paper, The Seventh Inter-
A m e r ic a n C o n g r e s s o f P h ilo s o p h y , P r o c e e d in g s , I (Quebec, Los
Presses do 1’ Universit e Laval, 1967), 301-313.
Clo
M a rtin , V.: ‘Un recueil de diatribes cyniques: pap. Genev. inv. 271’,
M u se u m . H e l v e tic tim 10 (1959), 77-115.
M atso n , W. I.: S e e Eabinowitz, VV. G.
M azzan tin i, C.: E r a c l i t o . I f r a m m e n t i e le te s ti m o n i a n z e (Torino, Cliian-
tore, 1945), pp. 311.
M cDiarmid, J. B.: ‘Note on Heraclitus fr. 124’, A m c r . J o u r n a l o f P h il o
lo g y 62 (1941), 492-4.
M cDiarmid, J. B.: ‘Theophrastus on the Presocratic Causes’, H a r v a r d S t u d i e s
in C la ss. P h il o l o g y 61 (1953), 93-96 and 137 f. (Heraclitus).
M enzel, A.: ‘Heraklits Kechtsphilosophie’, A n z e i g e r d e r A k a d . W ie n 69
(1932), 157-163, and Z e its e h r . f . ö f f e n t l . B c c h t 12 (1932),
177-220 = H e l l e n i k a (Baden, 1938), 125-159.
M e rla n , Ph.: ‘Ambiguity in Heraclitus’: A c t e s d u XIe C o n g r e s I n t e r n a t .
d e P h i l o s o p h i e (Bruxelles, 1953: Amsterdam, 1953), XII, 56-60.
(On fr. 14 [93] and others).
M inar, E. L., Jr.: ‘The Logos of Heraclitus’, C la s s ic a l P h il o l o g y 34
(1939), 323-341.
M ondolfo, R.: ‘La giustizia cosmiea secondo Anassimandro ed Eraclito’,
C i v i l t a n ta d e r n a (Florence) 6 (1931), 109-424.
MONDOLFO, R.: ‘El primer fragmento de Ileriiclito’, B c v i s t a d c la U n i-
v e r s id a d d e B u e n o s A i r e s , 3rd Series, 3 (1945), 43-50.
MoNDOLFO, R.: ‘Interpretaciones de Heniclito en el ultimo medio siglo’:
O. S pen g ler, H e r d c lito , Traduccion de Augusta de Mondolfo
(Buenos Aires, Espasa-Calpe, 1947), 11-84.
M ondolfo, R.: ‘Dos textos de Platon sobre Heräelito’ [ C r a t. 412 C - 413 C;
T h c a e t. 152 D - 153 D], N o t a s y Est u d i o s d e F i l o s o f i a (Tucu-
mdn, Argentina) 4 (1953), 233-244.
M ondolfo, R.: ‘II problems di Cratilo e l’interpretazione di Eraclito’,
B i v i s t a a r itic a d i s t o r ia d e lla f i l o s o f i a 9 (1954), 221-231. -
Spanish version in A n a le s d e F ilo lo g ia C ld s ic a (Buenos Aires)
6 (1953-54), 157-174.
M ondolfo, R.: ‘Evidence of Plato and Aristotle relating to the ekpy-
rosis in Heraclitus’, P h r o n e s is 3 (1958), 75-82.
M ondolfo, R.: ‘Eraclito ed Anassimandro. Ileracliti B 124 e 126’, S t n d i
c r ic e r c h e d i s to r ia d e lla f i l o s o f i a 30 (Ed. di Filosofia, Torino,
1959), pp. 7.
M ondolfo, R.: ‘La conflagracidn universal en Ileriiclito’, P h ilo s o p h ic
(Mendoza, Aigentina) 23 (1959), 14-25.
M ondolfo, R.: “El sol y las Erinias segiin Ileriiclito (Fr. 94)’, U n ite r -
s i d a d (Santa Fe, Argentina), .1959.
M ondolfo, R,: ‘1 frammenti del fiume e il flusso universale in Eraclito',
B i v i s t a c r itic a d i s t o r ia d e lla f i l o s o f i a 15 (1960), 3-13.
M ondolfo, R .: Z e lle r, E .: L a F il o s o f i a d e i G r e e t n e l su o s v ilu p p o s to r ic o ,
Parte I, vol. 4: E r a c lito . A cura di R, Mondolfo (Florence, Ln
Nuova Italia Ed., 1961), pp. 437.
614
M ondolfo, R.: ‘Testimonialize su Eraclito anteriori a Platone’, R iv . c r it.
d i s to r ia d e lla filo s . 16 (1961), 399-424.
M ondolfo, R.: ‘Her&clito y Parmenides’, R e v i s t a d e l I n s t i l , d e F ilo s . <l<
R o s a r io(Argentina), 1963?
M ondolfo, R.: ‘Le testimonialize di Aristotele su Eraclito’, S t u d i <
r ic e r c h e d i s t o r i a d e lta f i l o s o f i a 70 (Ed. di Filosofia, Torino,
1966), pp. 24.
M ondolfo, R.: ‘La testimonianza di Platone su Eraclito’, D e D o m in i
(Tstituto di Filosofia della University di Roma), 1966, pp. 35.
MONDOLFO. R.: U e r d c lito . T e x t o s y p r o b le m a s d e s u in te r p r e ta c io n ,
(Mexico, Siglo XXI Editores, 1966), pp. XVI -f- 369.
Moukison, J. S.: ‘The origins of Plato’s philosopher-statesman’, C la s sic a l
Q u a r te r ly 52 (1958), 198-218. (Cf. frr. 84 [33]; 85 [ 4 1 ] ) .
MOUHELATOR, A.: ‘On Heraclitus fr. 114 I).’, A m c r . J o u r n a l o f P h ilo lo g y
86 (1965), 258-266.
Mullaoii, F. W. A.: F r a g m e n t a P h ilo s o p h o r u m G r a e c o r u m , 1 (Parisiis,
1860), 310-329.
Mutii, K . : ‘ H e r F o r s c l n m g s b e r i c h t : H e r a k l e i t o s I (1939-1953)’, A n z e i g i r
f . (I. A l t e r t u m s w i s s e n s c h a f t ( I n n s b r u c k ) 7 (1954), 6 5 - 9 0 .
Muth. H.: ‘Heraklits Tod’, A n z e i g e r f . d . A lt e r t u m s w i s s . 7 (1954), 250-3,
and ‘Nochmals Heraklits Tod’, A n z e i g e r 8 (1955), 251 f.
N estle,' W.: U n te r s u c h u n g e n ü b e r d ie p h ilo s o p h is c h e n Q u e lle n d e s E u r i

p i d e s : Philologus. Suppl. VIII (Leipzig, 1902), 621 ff.
N estle, W.: ‘Heraklit und die Orphiker’, P h ilo lo g u s 64 (1905). 367-
384 = G r ie c h is c h e S t u d i e n (Stuttgart, 1948), 133-150.
N e s tle , W.: ‘Bemerkungen zu den Vorsökratikern und Sophisten’, P h ilo
lo g u s 67 (1908), 533-537.
N estle , W.: D ie V o r s e k r a tic r (Jen a, 1908; 3rd. ed. 1929), 113-123 and
238.
N e s tle , W.: ‘War Heraklit «Empiriker»?’, A r c h i v f ü r G e sc h . d e r P h ilo
s o p h ie 25 (1912), 275-304.
N e s tle , W.: V o m M y t h o s z u m L o g o s , 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, Kroner, 1942),
95-104.
X F.STLE, W.: s e e a lso Zeller, E.
N orden , E.: A g n o s t o s T h e o s (Leipzig, Teulmer, 1913: reprint 1956,
Stuttgart, Teulmer), p a s s im .
O m ans, R. B.: T h e o r ig in s o f E u r o p e a n th o u g h t a b o u t t h e b o d y , I h r
m in d , th e s o u l, th e w o r ld , tim e and fa te (Cambridge, 1951),
p a s s im .
Ow e n s, J . : ‘The interpretation o f the Heraclitean fragments’: A n E tie n n e
G ilso n T r i b u t e (Milwaukee, Marquette Univ. Press, 1959), 148-168.
PaoLiaro, Λ.: ‘Logica (' grammatic.a’, R i e t r e l i c L i n g u i s t i c h c (Roma) 1
(1950), 1-57. (On l'r. 1). Cf. Idem, ‘Eraelito e il logos’: S a g g i
d i c r i t i c a s e m c . n t i c a (Messina, d ’Anna, 1953), 133-157.
PALM, A .: S t u d i e n z u r h i p p o k r a t i s c h e n S c h r i f t ix. δ ια ίτ η ς (Diss. Tübingen,
1933), 50 ff.
P atin , A .: ‘Quellenstudien zu Ilc ra k lit; Pseudohippokrat. Schriften’:
F e s t s c h r i f t f ü r L u d w i g U l r i c h s (W ürzburg, 1880), 46-82.
P a tin , A .: H i r a k l i t s E i n h e i t s i c h r e , d i e G r u n d l a g e s e i n e s S y s t e m s u n d t i e r
A n f a n g s e i n e s B u c h e s (Program m des Ludwigs-Gymn. zu München,
1885 = Leipzig, 1886), pp. 100.
P a tin , Λ .: H e r a k l i t i s c h c B e i s p i e l e , 1 and 11 (Program m d. Gynin. zu Neu
burg a. I)., 1892 and 1893), pp. 108 and 93.
P a tr ic k , G. T. W .: T h e F r a g m e n t s o f t h e W o r k o f H e r a c l i t u s o f E p h e s u s . . .
[Introduction, Translation and Greek Text from Bywater] (B alti
more, 1889 = A m e r . J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y 1 [1888], 557-690) .
P e te r s e n , E .: ‘Ein missverstandenes W ort des lleraklit.’, H e r m e s 14 (1879),
304-7 (On fr. 92 [7 5 ]).
P fle id e re r, E .: D i e P h i l o s o p h i e d e s I l c r a k l i t v o n E p h e s u s i m L i c h t e d i r
M y s t r r i t a i d e r (Berlin, 1886) .
P h o tia d e s, P . : ‘Los diatribes cyniques du pap. de Geneve 271’, M u s e u m
H e l v c t i c u m 16 (1959), 136-190.
P o h le n z , M.: P h i l o l . W o c h e n s c h r i f t 23 (1903), 972. (F r. 115 [6 7 a ]).
Popma, K. J . : ‘Heraclitus fr. 126’: H a n d c l i n g e n 21. N e d e r l a n d s P h i l o l . ·
C o n g r e s (Groningen, Veren, 1950), 47.
Popper, K. R .: ‘K irk on Heraclitus, and on Fire as the cause of balance’,
M i n d 72 (1963), 386-392.
P r a e c h te r , K .: ‘Ein unbeachtetes H erakleitosfragm ent’, P h i l o l o g u s 58
(1899), 473 f. (F r. 96 b [ I S 6 } ) .
P r a e c h te r , K .: D i e P h i l o s o p h i c d e s A l t e r t u m s (Uebenvegs Grundriss d.
Gesell, d. Philosophie, I : 12th ed. 1926; 14th ed., B asel-Stuttgart,
Schwabe, 1957), 53-60 and 42s f.; 206*.
P raechter, K .: ‘H eraklit F r. 51 D. und die Aristoteleskonimentatoren’,
P h i l o l o g u s 8 8 (1933), 342-346.
Q uiring, H .: Heraklit. Worte tönen durch Jahrtausende. Griechisch und

deutsch (Berlin, De Gruvter, 1959), pp. 164.
Raiiinowitz, W. G., and MatkoN, W. I.: ‘Heraclitus as CosmologisC,

l i t r i e w o f M e t a p h y s i c s (Y ale) 10 (1956), 244-257.
R aderm aoiikr, L .: ‘Lebende Flamme’, l l ’i e n e r S t u d i e n 49 (1931), 115-118.
JlAMNOUX, C.: Hcraclite on I'homme entre h s chos/s et les mots (Paris,
Les Belles Lettres, 1959), pp. IX - f 503.
BamnouX, C.: ‘Un episode de la rencontre Est-Ouest. Zoroastre et Hera-
clite’, Revue de la Mediterraner (A lgiers) 19 (1959), 329-364.
GIG
Κ λμ νογχ, C .: ‘Etudes presocratiques, I I Γ,’ R e v u e p h i l o s o p h i q u e 151 (.1901),
93-107; 152 (1962), 76-89.
H eich, K .: ‘Ώ υ τ ό ς δ έ Ά ίδ η ς κ α ί Δ ιό νυ σ ο ς’, H n - m i s 80 (1952), 103-9.
(On fr. 50 [ I S ] ) .
R e in h a rd t, K .: P a r m e n i d e s w u f d i e G e s c h i c h t e d e r g r i e c h i s c h e n P h i l o
s o p h i e (Bonn, 1 9 1 6 ; reprint 1959).
Reinhardt, K.: ‘κοιτίδω ν άρχηγός’, H e r m e s G3 (1928), 1 0 / - 1 1 0 —
. V e r m ä c h t n i s d e r A n t i k e , cd. by 0. Becker (G öttingen. I960),
98-100. (On fr. 18· [ 8 1 ]) .
REIN H A RD T, K .: ‘Hernklits Lehre vom Feuer’, H e r m e s 77 (1942),
1-27 = V e r m ä c h t n i s d e r A n t i k e , 41-71.
R e in h a rd t, K .: ‘H eraclitca’, H e r m e s 77 (1942), 225-248 = V e r m ä c h t n i s
d e r A n t i k e , 72-97. (On frr. 92 d [70]; 64 [/(«)]: 58 [ 6 ];
53 [ S t ] ) .
R e in h a rd t, K .: ‘Heraklitnotizcn aus dem Nachlass’ ap. H. Wiese, I h m -
k l i t h e i K l e m e n s . 315-321. (On frr. 7 [.55]; 15 [ 1 0 1 ) ; '5 [fli]:
87 [ 1 4 ] ; 93 [ U S ] ) .
Rivikr, A .: V n c m p l o i a r e l i a ' i q n e d e V a n a l o g i c e i n s I l c r a c l i t e e t T h u n e -
d i e l e (Lausanne, 1952), 9-39. (On fr. 40 [/-? ]).
Kl vier, A .: ‘L ’ komme et 1’ experience humaine dans les fragm ents d 'H e-
raclite’, M n s c n m H c l v e t i c u m 13 (1956), 144-164.
R itte r , H., et P r e l l e r , L .: H i s t o r i a p h i l o s o p h i a e G r a c c a e e t R o m a n e u
e x f o n t i u m l o e i s c o n t e x t a (Hamb., 1838; 9th ed. by E. Wellmaim.
Gothae, 1913), 24-41.
Rohde, E .: P s y c h e , f t e e l e n k u l t u n d U n s t c r b l i c h k i i t s g l a u b e d < r G r i e c h i n
(Tübingen, 1893 ; 9-10tli ed. 1925; English translation by W . B.
Hills, London, 1925), p a s s i m .
Rudberg, G .: ‘Herakleitos und Gorgias’: S c r t a E i t r e m i a n a ( S y m b o l e n
O s l o c n s e s , Suppl. X I, 1942), 128-140.
Rudberg, G .: ‘P arallela’: C o n i e c t a n e a N c o t e s t a m e n t i c a V II (Uppsala
Semin. N T, 1942), 11-13.
Schaefer, Ο. T .: H ie P h ilosoph ie des H era k lit e. Kph. und d ie m odi rm

lle r a k lit forsch ung ( Leipzig-Wien, 1902).
S ch lei er MACHER, F . : ‘Herakleitos der Dunkle von Ephesos, dargcstellt
aus den Trümmern seines Werkes und den Zeugnissen der Alten’:
M u s e u m · d e r A l t e r t u m s - W i s s e n s c h a f t , ed. by F. Λ. Wolf and
Pli. Buttniann, I (Berlin, 1807), 315-533 — S ä m t l i c h e W e r k e .
Abt. H I, Bd. 2 (Berlin, 1839), 1-146.
Schmid. W. and S ta e h lin O.: G e s c h i c h t e d i r g r i e c h i s c h e n L i t e r a t u r ,
T, 1 (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft Müller-Otto, VIT, T, 1.
Munich, Beck, 1929; reprint 1959), 745-755.
Schm idt, E. G .: ‘H eraklit über qualitative V eränderung’, W i s s . Z e i t s e h r .
d e r ü n i v . L e i p z i g (Gesellsch.· u. Spraehwiss. Reihe) 1 1 (1962),
579-582.
617
Schottlaender, R .: ‘Drei vorsokratisehc Topoi’, H e rm e s 62 (1927),
443 f. (On fr. 19 [28»]).
SCHUHL, P.-M .: E ssa i su r la fo r m a tio n de la p e n se e grecq u e (2nd cd.
Paris, Presses Universitaires, 1949), 278-284.
S chuster , P . : H e r a k lü v o n E p h e s u s (A cta Societatis Philol. Lipsiensis,
ed. by F . Ritschl, 3, Leipzig, 1873), pp. 394.
S nell , B . : D ie A u sd rü c k e f ü r d e n B e g r i f f d es W isse n s in d e r v o rp la
to n is c h e n P h ilo so p h ie (Pliilol. Untersuch. 29, Berlin, 1924; reprint
Weidmann, Zürich, 1966), p a ssim .
S nell , B .: ‘Die Sprache H eraklits’, H e rm e s 61 (1926), 353-381.
S n e ll, B .: J Je ra k lit, F r a g m e n te (griechisch und deutsch) (Tusculum-
Bücher, Munich, Heimeran, 1926; 5th ed. 1965).
S n e ll, B .: ‘H eraklits F r. 10', H e rm e s 76 (1941), 84-87.
S n e ll, B .: D ie E n td e c k u n g des G eistes (3rd cd., Hamburg, Claassen,
1955), p a ssim .
Solovine, M.: H e r a c litc d ’ Fph&sc (P aris, Alcan, 1931), pp. XL - f 100.
[Introduction and French tran slatio n ],
Somigi.iana, A.: M o n ism o in d ia n o e m o n ism o greco n e i fr a m m e n ti di
E ra c lito (Padua, Codam, 1961), pp. 246.
Sorge, C .: ‘II logos e gli opposti nel pensiero di E raclito’, G iornale d i
M e ta fis ic a (Genova, University) 12 (1957), 367-383.
S o u lie r, E .: E ra c lito E fe s io (Roma, 1885).
S panar, X : ‘H eraklit F r. 114’: C h a riste ria F r. N o v o tn y (Prague, 1962),
123-6.
S p en g ler, O .: H e r a k lit (Diss. Halle, 1904). S e c also Mondolfo, R.
S te fa n in i, L .: ‘L a nascita del logos in E raclito’, G iornale c ritic o d e lla
F ilo s o fia I ta lia n a 5 (1951), 1-24.
Surig, H. W .: D e B e te k c n is v a n L o g o s b e j H e r a k le ito s v o lg e n s de T ra-
d itie c n d e F r a g m e n te n (Nijm egen, Holland, 1951).
T a n n e ry , P . : ‘Hdraclite et le concept de Logos’, B e v u e p h ilo so p h iq u e

(P aris) 16 (1883), 292-308.
T a n n e ry , P . : P o u r V h isto ir e d e la S c ie n c e H e lle n e (P aris, 1887; 2nd
ed. by A. Dies, Paris, 1930).
T a te , X : Review of K irk ’s H e r a c litu s : C lassical R e v ie w , N. S. 6 (1956),
2 1 f.
T ekuimuei.I.ki:. (I.: N e u e S tu d ie n z u r G eschichte d er B e g r if f e , I (Gotha,
1876), pp. 269.
T rabucco, F .: ‘Intorno al fr. 53 d ’ E ra d ito ’, R iv is ta e ritie a d i sto ria
d e lla filo s o f i a 11 (1956), 121-5.
T r il li tz s c h , W .: ‘H eraklit der ‘weinende’ Philosoph’, W iss. Z e its c h r . der
■Dniv. L e ip z ig (Gesellsch.- u. Sprachwiss. Reihe) 11 (1962),
573-5.
618
V a le n tin , P .: ‘Hdraclite et Clement d ’Alexandrie’, E ccherches de Science
E elig ie u sc (P aris) 46 (1958), 27-59.
Vekdenius, W. J . : ‘A Psychological .Statement of H eraclitus’, M n e m o
sy n e 1943, 115-121. (On fr. 70 [8 5 ]).
V erdenius, IV. J . : ‘Kotes on the Presocratics’, M n e m o sy n e 1947, 271-284.
(On frr. 1; 7 [5 5 ]; 1 6 '[ 4 0 ] ) .
V erdenius, W. J . : Beview of K irk's H e r a c litu s : M n e m o sy n e 1958, 349-
351.
V erdenius, W. X : ‘Heraclitus B 82-83 and 15’, M n e m o sy n e 1959, 297.
V erdenius, W. J . : ‘Her Logosbegriff bei H eraklit und Parmenides Τ’,
P h ro n e sis 11 (1966), 81-98.
V la s to s , G .: ‘Equality and Justice in Early Greek Cosmologies’, Classical
P h ilo lo g y 42 (1947), 156-178 (H eraclitus: 164-168).
V L A S T O S . G . : ‘O n H eraclitus’, A m e r . J o u r n a l o f P h ilo lo g y 76 (1955),
337-368. (On frr. 24 [89]; 27 [57]; 28 [8 0 ]; 40 [ I t ; 49a; 97];
51 [ S O ] ; 54 [9 0 ]; 85 [4 7 ]).
V la s to s , G.: Beview of K irk’s H e r a c litu s : A m e r. J o u rn a l o f P h ilo lo g y
76 (1955), 310-313.
Vookl, C. J. do: G reek P h ilo so p h y ( A C ollection o f T e x ts ) , 1 (2nd ed.
Leiden, Brill, 1957), 23-30.
V o llo ra w , W .: ‘He duobus H eraeliti fragm entis’, M n e m o sy n e 1916. 423-7;
1917, 166-180. (On frr. 101 [704]; 103 [4 4 ]).
W aerpen, Π. L. van der: ‘Has Grosse Ja h r und die ewige W iederkehr’,

H e r m e s 80 (1952), 129-155. (On fr. 65 [A 1 3 ]).
WALZER, R .: E r a c lito . E a c c o lta dei fr a m m e n ti e tr a d u iio n e ita lia n a
(Firenze, Sansoni, 1939; reprint Olms, Hildesheim, 19641, pp.
V I I I + 157.
W a.sserstein, A .: ‘Pre-Platonic literary evidence for the flux th e o r y
of H eraclitus’: A t t i d e l X II C ongrcsso I n t e r n a l, d i F ilo so fia
(Venezia, 1958: Firenze, .Sansoni, I960), XT, 185-190. (On
Epicliarmus fr. 2 D K ) .
W eerts, E .: H e r a k lit m u l H c r a k litc c r (Klass.-Pliilol. Studien 7, Berlin,
1926), pp. 73.
W e e rts, E .: P la to u n d d e r H e r a k litis m u s (Philologus Suppl. 23, Leipzig,
1931), pp. 84.
W kndland, P .: ap. Π. (iressmann, S t u d i e n i n K i t s c h s T h r o p h a n i e (Texte
und Untersuchungen 23,3. Leipzig, 19031, 153. (On fr. 92 h . e
[S i-8 8 ]).
W heelwright , P li.: H e r a c litu s (Princeton, 1959), pp. X III + 181.
W I E S E , H.: H e r a k lit bei K le m e n s vo n A le x a n d r ie n (Hiss. Kiel, 1963;
typew ritten), pp. X IV + 328.
W ilam ow itz-M oeL lenoorff, U. von: G riechisches L ese b u c h , I (Berlin,
Weidmann, 1902; several rep rin ts).
61Π
W i IjAMOWITZ-Moellendorff , l ’. von: ‘L osefrüchtc’, H e r m e s 40 (1905),
134, nml 62 (1927), 270-78.
W ilam o w itz-M o ellen d o rff, U. von: D e r G l a u b e d e r H e l l e n e n , 2 vols.
(Berlin, Weidmann, 1931 and 1932; 3rd cd., Darm stadt, 1959),
passim.
Winterhalder, L .: D a s W o r t H e r a k l i t s (Zürich, Rentsch, 1962), pp. 160
[German translation with K o te s].
W olf, E .: ‘Der Ursprung dos abendländischen Heehtsgedankcns bei A naxi
mander und Jleraklit’, S y m p o s i o n (Jahrbuch fü r Philosophie;
Freiburg, Alber) 1 (1948), 35-87.
W olf , E . : G r i e c h i s c h e s E e c h t s d c n k e n , I (F ra n k fu rt a. M., Klostermann,
1950), 239-246.
W undt, M .: ‘Die Philosophie des H eraklit v. Eph. im Zusammenhang
mit der K ultur loniens’, A r c h i v f . G e s c h . d e r P h i l o s o p h i e 20
(1907), 431-455.
ZELLER, E.: D ie P h ilo so p h ie der G riechen in ihrer g e sch ieh tlich en E n t

w i c k l u n g , T, 2 ; 6 th eil. b y W . Nestle (Leipzig, Reisland, 1 9 2 0 ),
783-939.
Z e lle r. E .: s i e a l s o Mondolfo, Ii.
Z ille s , W .: ‘Zu einigen Fragm enten H eraklits’, R h e i n , M u s e u m 62 (1907),
54-60. (On fr. 92 b [<?£-&?]).
Zor.upos, A. N .: H e r a k l e i t o s v o n E p h e s o s a l s S t a a t s m a n n u n d G e s e t z g e b e r
(Athens, Chrestos, 1956), pp. 58.
Zoumpos, A. N .: D a s 106. F r a g m e n t d e s H e r a k l e i t o s u n t e r d e m L i c h t
d e r n e u e r e n K r i t i k (Athens, Mtesialis, 1956), pp. 59.
Z u n tz, G .: ‘Zum Klcanthes-Hymnus’, H a r v a r d S t u d i e s i n C l a s s . P h i l o l o g y
63 (1958: F estschrift Ja e g e r), 289-308.
ZuRETTI, C. O .: M i s c e l l a n e a S a l i n a s (Palermo, 1907), 218. (F r. 106
[*«*])·
620
INDICES
ί
INDEX VERBORUM HERACLITI
AD FRAGMKNTA 1-114 8PECTANS
(P - in paraphrasi: R - ox recordatione; add. - vox additiv,

dub. - vox dubia; em. - vox emendata).
άγαθοί 101. Αγαθόν η. 44. Αγα- άκούω : ήκουσα 83. ήκουσε

θά dub. 91 Ρ. 92. άκοΰσαι 1 ( I ) . Ακούσαν-
ΛγΑλμασι 86,7. τες 1 ( I ); 2. άκούσαντας
Αγέλαστα 75 Ρ. 26.
Λγχιβασίην 111 Η. Ακριβέστεροι 6 Ρ.
άγω ; άγεται 69. Αλλά 14; 26; 51.
άγώνων 30 Ρ . άλληι 105 Ρ.
"Αιδης 50. "Αιδην 72. άλλοιοϋται 77,4.
άδικα 91 Ρ. άλλος : άλλους 1 (IV ). άλλων
Αεί 51. σΐεί 1 ( I ). ui. 100; 105 Ρ; ιι. 60 Ρ.
Αείζωον η. 51. άλλως 86,7.
άέναον η. 95. Αμοιθίην 110.
άθάνατοι 47 bis. άμεινον 71; 110.
αΐδοίοισιν 50. Αν 16; 22; 37 Ρ; 45; 60 Ρ; 67:
αίθριου 62. 70; 78 Ρ; .31 ; 86,5.
αΐματι HO, I . Αναιδέστατα 50.
αίρέω : αίρεΰνται 95. έλέσθαι άναζ 14.
37 Ρ. Ανάπαυσιν 44.
αιών 93. Αναπαύω : Αναπαύεται 56» Ρ.
άκεα 88 R . Αναστρέφεσθαι vnr. loot. 24 Ρ.
Ακοή 5. Ανέλπιστον η. 11.
άνεξερεύνητον n. 11. άρηϊφάτους 96.
άνηβος : άνήβου 69. άνήβοις άριστος 98 R. άριοτοι 95. άρίσ-
105 Ρ. τη 68.
άνήρ 69; 92. άνδρα 105 Ρ. άν- άρκτος 62. άρκτου 62.
δρός 92. άρμονίη 9; 27.
άνθρώπειος : άνθρωπείου m. 57 άρχή 34 Ρ.
Ρ . άνθρώπειοι 25,5. άνθρώ- ά ρ χ η γ ώ ς 1 8 1’.
πτιον ιι. 90. ’Αρχίλοχον 30 Ρ.
άνθρωπος 48; 109. άνθρώπωι άρχω : άρχεσθαι 56b Ρ .
94. άνθρωποί 1 ( I ) ; 21,1; άσκέω ·- ήσκησεν 17.
91 Ρ ; 96. άνθρώπους 1 (IV ); άισμα 50.
29; 74; 87 Ρ. άνθρώπων 17; άστρολογήσαι 63b R.
51; 86,6. άνθρώποις 35; 71. άστρολόγον 03α R.
-οισιν 13. άοτρων 60 Ρ.
άνιερωστί 87 Ρ. αΰαίνεται 42.
άνταμοιβή ein. 54. αϋη C1U. 68.
άντί cm. 95. αΰτις 16.
άντίον 62. αυτός : αύτών in. 101. αύτοΐσι
άνω 33. in. 2. — ώυτός 50. τόν αυτόν
άξιον in. 30 Ρ ; 46; ιι. 105 Ρ. 51; 531). τοΐσιν αύτοΐσιν ιπ.
άξύνετοι 1 ( I ) ; 2. 40; τοΐς αύτοΐς m. 56b Ρ .
άοιδοΐσι cm. 101. ή αυτή 32. ώυτή 33. ταύτό
άπάγχω : άπάγξασθαι 105 Ρ. 41,1 Ρ. ταΰτά cm. 46.
άπας : άπάντων m. 51; η. 54; αΰζω : αΰξων dub. 112.
cm. 95. άπάσης 59 Ρ. άφανής 9.
άπειμι : άπείναι 2. άφικνεΐταί 83.
άπείροισιν 1 (II).
άπιστίηι 12 Ρ.
άποθνήίσκω : άποθανόντας 74. βαθύν 67.
άπολείπω : άπολείπομεν 21,4. βαίνει 69.
άπονίζω : άπονίζοιτο 86,4. βαρβάρους 13.
άπορον ιι. II. βασιλεύς 29.
άποσβέννυμι : άποσβεννύμενον βασιληίη 93.
51. άποσβεσθείς 48. βαΰζουσιν 22.
άποστρέφεσθαι24 Ρ . Βίας 100.
άποτον 35. βίος 30. βίον 47.
άπτω : άπτεται 48 ter. άπτόμε- βλάξ 109.
νον 51. βόες (boves) 38 R .
024
βορβόρω ι 36 Ρ. διαιρέων 1 (111).
βουλήι 104. διαφέρω : διαφέρονται 4 Ρ .
διαφερόμενον η. 25; 27.
διαφυγγάνει 12 Ρ.
γά ρ 1 ( I I ) ; 16; 21,3; 23,5 et 7; '
διαχέεται 53b.
41,5 Ρ; 43; 70; 90.
διδάσκαλος 43. διδασκάλωι 101.
γε cm. 103.
διδάσκω : διδάσκει 16. έδίδα-
γενεά 108 R.
ξε 16.
γή 53a; 53b; add. 531). γην 10;
66. γης 66. δίζημαι : διζήμενοι 10. έδιζη-
γηραιόν η. 41,4 Ρ. σάμην 15.
γίνομαι : γίνεται 66. γίνονται διηγεΰμαι 1 (ΙΤ1).
1 (I ) . γίνεσθαι 71; 73. γινό διηνεκώς 4 Ρ.
μενα 28. γινομένων n. 1 (Π ), διίστημι : διίσταται 31 Ρ.
έγένετο 21,2; 100. γένοιτο 78 δίκαια 91 Γ bis.
Ρ. γενέοθαι 531>: 66 bis; 99. Δίκη 19. Δίκης 43; 52. δίκην
γενόμενοι 99. 28.
διά cum een. 85.
γινώσκω : γινώσκει 2 0 . γινώσ-
κουσιν 3. γινώσκωσι 22. γι- διό 23,10.
νώσκειν 83. γινώσκεσθαι 12 Διόνυσος 50. Διονύσωι 50.
Ρ. γινώσκων 86,9. έγίνωοκεν δοκέω : δοκέουσι 3; 74. δοκέοι
43. cm. 86,5. δοκέοντα n. cm. 20.
γνάφος : γνάφων cm. 32. δοκιμώτατος 20.
γνώμην 85. γνώμας 90. δόμοισι 86,8.
γνώσιν 21,1. δούλους 29.
δύνω : δΰνον 81.
δαίμων 94. δαίμονος 92.

δέ 1 (1) et ( I V ); 3; 21,5; 23,1 1; έάν 11; 98 1!.
24 1*; 29 te r; 35; 39; 43; 17; εαυτόν dub. 112. έαυτοϋ m. 17.
48; 49; 50; 52; 53a bis; 66 ter; έαυτώι m. 48; έωυτώι η. 27.
73; 77,-1; 79; 86,1 et 5 et 7; έωυτών m. 105 Ρ. έωυτοΐσι
90; 91 1* bis; 95; 101; 105 I*. ιιι. 3.
δει 23,10. έγείρω : έγρηγορώ ς 48. έγρη-
δείκνυμι : έδειξε 29. γορόσιν m. 24 Ρ. έγρηγορός
Δελφοΐς 14. 41,3 Ρ. έγερθέντες 1 (IV );
δήμον 103. δήμων 101. 49.
διαγινώσκω : διαγνοϊεν 78. έγερτί cm. 73.
διδιδον 25. έγκυρέουσιν em. 3.
εγώ 1 (Π )); 5. έμοΟ 20. έμο! έλ ευ θ έρ ο υ ς 29.
98 Β. Ε λ λ ή ν ω ν 2 1 ,2 .
έθέλω : έθέλει 23,7; 84 bis. έθέ- έ'λπομαι : έλπονται 74. έλπη-
λόυσί 99. θέλουσιν 71. θέληι ται 11.
70. έμβαίνω : έμβα(νουσιν part. 40.
εΐ 45; 50; 52; βΟ Ρ ; 78 Ρ ; 86,3 έμβάς 86,3.
et 6 ct 8; 105 Ρ. έμεωοτόν 15.
*εΙδω : είδέναι cm. 28; 43. έν 14; 48; 100.
είδότες 101. εΤδομεν 21,4 et ένεκα 60 Ρ .
5. ήιδεσαν cm. 45. έ ν θ α 73.
είκήι 107; dub. 113. ένι 41,1 Ρ.
είμί : έστί 14; 26; 29; 32; 4.1,5 ένια υ τό ν 65 R. ένια υ τώ ν 65 R.
Ρ; 43; 49; 51; 561) Ρ; 58 Ρ; έ ζ α π α τ ά ω : έξ η π ά τη σ α ν 21,3.
83; 93; dub. 112. εΙσ( 80,9. fji έξηπάτηνται 21,1.
98 R. έστω 105 Ρ. είναι 7 Ρ; έξαρκεΐ 23,8.
24 Ρ ; cm. 26. έόντα ηι. 28. έξελέγχω : έξελέγχοισθε 106 Ρ.
έόντος in. 1 (1); 23,11. έόντι έξευρίσκω : έξευρήσει 11. έξευ-
ηι. 7 73. έόν 11. έ'σται 51. fjv ρήσουσιν 52. έζεύροιο cm. 67.
45; 51; 531>; 60 Ρ bis. έοίκασι 1 (Τ Ι); 2.
είμι : Ιών cm. 67. έιταιτιάομαι : έπαιτιώνται 46.
εΐιτον : είπόντες 21,3. έπάΐων 69.
ειρήνη 77,3. έπανίστασθαι 73.
εις 24 Ρ ; 53b; 86,3. ές 83. έπέρχομαι : έπελθόν 82.
εις 9S It; 105 Ρ. ‘έ ν α 24 Ρ. έπί cum gen. 34 Ρ. cum d»t.
ένός m. 23,6; 104. S v 25; 5,8 Ρ ; 109.
26; 43; 84; 85; cm. 95. ένός έπ ίκ ο υ ρ ο ι 52.
n. 25. μ(α 32: 33; 59 Ρ. έπ ιλ α ν θ ά ν ο ντα ι 1 ( I V) .
έκ (έξ) 25 bis; 30 Ρ; 05 R ; έπ ιλ είπ ω : έπ ιλ ίπ ο ι 106 Ρ .
60 bis. έπ ιπ ο ρ ευ ό μ ενο ς 67.
έκαστον m. 24 Ρ; n. 1 (111). έ π ιρ ρ εΐ 40.
έκάοτου η. 77,6. έπ ίσ τ α μ α ι : έπ ίσ τα ν τα ι 43. έ π
Έ καταΐον 16. ί σ τα σ θα ι 85.
έκ βάλλω : έκ βάλλε σθαι 30 Ρ. έπ ιφ ρ ά ζω : έπ ιψ ρ ά σ α ιτο 8 6 ,0 .
έξέβαλον 105 Ρ. έπ ο ς : έπ έω ν 1 ( I I ) .
έκβλητότεροι 70. έπ ο μ α ι : έπ εσ θ α ι 23,10.
έκεΐνον 21,3. έκείνων m. 47 bis. έ ρ γ ά ζ ο μ α ι : έ ρ γ α ζ ό μ ε ν ο ι 46.
έΙτεΐνα 41,5 ct 6 Ρ. εϊργασται 50.
έκλέγω ·■έκλεξάμενος 17. έργον 39. έργων 1 (II).
G2ß
Έ ρινύες 52. η μ είς : ή μ έω ν 105 Ρ .
ί ρ ι ς : ίρ ιν 28 ; βΛ. 28. ή μέρη 77,2. ή μ έρη ν 43. ή μ έ ρ α ς
Έρμόδωρον 105 Ρ. 59 Ρ . ή μ έρ η ι 58 Ρ .
έρττετόν 80. ήμισυ 53a bis.
έστιέρας 02. ή ρ ω ς = ή ρ ω α ς 86,9.
ίτερ α 40 bis. Η σ ίο δ ο ς 43. Η σ ίο δ ο ν 16.
έτος ■ έτη 108 Β . ή ώ ς : ή οϋς 62.
εϊ5δω : εϋδων 48. εϋδοντος m.
48. είίδοντες 1 (IV ); 49.
εύθεϊα 32. θ ά λ α σ σ α 33; 5 3 a; 53b. θ α λ ά σ
εύρίσκουσιν 10. σης 53a.
εδρος 57 Ρ. Θ α λ ή ς 63b R .
εύφρόνη 60 Ρ ; er». 77,2. εύ- θ ά ν α το ς 39; 49; 6 6 bis. θ ά ν α το ν
φρόνην cm. 43. εΰφρόνηι cm. 47.
48. θ είο ς ■· θείου m. 23,6. θειον
εϋχονται 86,7. π. 90.
Έφέσιοι 106 Ρ. Έφεσίοις 105 Ρ. θ εό ς 77,1. θ εώ ι 91 Ρ . θεο ί 96.
έχω : έχει 1 (ΙΠ ); 67; 90 bis. θ εο ύς 29; 86,9. θεώ ν 51.
έχε ιν 99. έχων 69. έχοντες θερ μ ό ν η. 42.
23,12. έχόντων τα. 13. θ έ ρ ο ς 77,2.
θέρ ω : θ έρ ετα ι 42.
θνήισκω : τεθ νεώ το ς m. 48.
Ζευς : Διός 62. Ζηνός 84.
τεθ νεώ τες 47. τεθ ν η χ ό ς 41,2
ζώω : ζώουσιν 23,12. ζώειν 99.
Ρ.
ζών m. 48. ζώντες 47. ζών-
θνητοί 47 bis. θνη τώ ν η. 95.
των m. cm. 73. ζών η. 41,2 Ρ.
θ υμ ό ς : θ υμ ώ ι 70.
θυώ μ α σ ιν 77,5.
ή 1 (I ) ; 36 Ρ; 37 Ρ; 53b; 100;
101 ; 102 .
ήβηδόν 105 Ρ. ια τρ ο ί 46.
ήδομαι : ήδονται 36 Ρ; 38 R ? ίερ ά ν <lub. 114 Κ .
( fclic cs). ίδιον in· 24 Ρ . ιδία ν 23,12.
ηδονήν 77,6. ίν α 106 Ρ.
ήδό 44. ίσ το ρίη ν 17.
ήθος 90; 94. ίσ τω ρ : ίσ τ ο ρ α ς 7 Ρ .
ήλιακών m. 65 R. Ισ χυ ρ ίζεσ θ α ι 23,2.
"Ηλιος 52. ήλιος 57 Ρ; 58 Ρ; ίσ χ υ ρ ο τέρ ω ς 23,4.
60 Ρ. ίχθύσι 35.
027
καθαίρονται 80,1. κορέννυμι : κεκόρηνται 95.
καθαρός : καθαρώι »· Γ.6 Ρ. κόρος 77,3. κόρον 44; 55 R.
καθαρώτατον ιι. 35. κόσμος 107. κόσμον 24 Ρ ; 51.
' καθεΰδον 41,3 Ρ . κρατέω : κρατεί 23,7.
καί 1 (I) bis; 1 (II) bis; 1 κρεάτων 9.
( I I I ) ; 10; 11; 13; 16 bis; 17; κρίνω : κρίνει 82.
19; 21,4; 22; 23,4 et 8 et D; κρύπτω : κρύπτει 14. κρύ^ιτειν
24 P ; 23 bis; 27; 28 ter; 29; 110. κρύπτεσθαι 8 Ρ.
30 P bis; 32 bis; 33; 34 P ; 35 κτήνεα 95.
ter; 40; 41,2 P ; 41,3 P bis; κυβερνησαι corruptum 85.
41,4 P bis; 41,6 P ; 43; 44; κυκεών 31 Ρ.
46; 50 ter; 51 ter; 53b; 54 bis; κύκλος : κύκλου 34 Ρ.
55 R; 56b P ; 62 bis; 68; 73 κύνες 22.
bis; 82; 84; 86,7; 91 P ; dub. κωφοΐσιν 2.
91 P ; 96; 99; 101; 104; 105
P bis.
λαγχάνω : λαγχάνουσι 97.
καίοντες 46. λαμβάνω : λαμβάνειν 46. έλά-
κακοί 13; ιο ί. βομεν 21,5; ein. 21,4.
κακοτεχνίην i t . λανθόινω = λανθάνει 1 (IV ).
καλά 91 Ρ. κάλλιστος 107.
λάθοι 81.
κάματος 44; 56b Ρ. λέγω : λέγει 14. λέγεσθαι 84.
καπνός 78 Ρ. λέγοντας 23,1.
καρφαλέον η. 42. λεσχηνεύοιτο 86,8.
κατά cum ace. 1 ( I I ) ; 1 (H I); ληναΐζουσιν 50.
28; 72; 77,6; 87 Ρ. λιμός 44; 77,3.
κατακτείνοντες 21,3. λόγος 100; dub. 112. λόγον 1
καταλαμβάνω : καταλήψεται ( I I); 531»; 67. λόγου 1 ( I ) ;
19; 82. 23,11; ein. 26. λόγωι 109.
καταλείπω : καταλείπουσι 99. λόγους 83.
καταλιπεΐν 105 Ρ. λύρης 27.
κάτω 33.
κεραυνός 79.
κινέω : κινούμενος 21 I’. μάθησις 5.
κλέος 93. μαίνομαι : μαίνονται 50. μαί-
κοιμάω : κοιμωμένων m. 24 Ρ. νεσθαι 86,5. μαινομένωι 75 1*.
κοινόν in. 24 Ρ. <·ί. ξυνός. μανθάνω : μαθόντες 3.
κόπις : κοπίδων 18 Ρ. μάλλον 36 Ρ ; 37 Ρ ; 102. μά
κόπριον : κοπριών 76. λιστα 4 P ; 17.
μ α ντεΐο ν 14. νέο ς 58 Ρ . νέον η. 41,4 Ρ .
μ ά ρτυρες 6 Ρ ; 13. μ άρτυρας νή π ιο ς 92. y
10. νο μ ιζό μ εν α 87 Ρ .
μ α ρ τυ ρ έω : μ α ρ τυ ρ εί 2. νό μ ο ς 104. νόμου 103. νόμωι
μ ά χ εσ θ α ι ΤΟ; 103. 23,3. νόμοι 23,5.
μ έ γ α ν 65 R. μ έζο ν ες 97. μέζο- νόος 101. νόον 16. νόω ι 23,1.
ν α ς 97. μ εγ ίσ τω ν η. dub. 113. νο τίζετα ι 42.
νοΰσος 44, νόσον dub. 114 17.
μ εθύσκω : μεθυσθήι 69.
μέν 29 tor; 35; 53a; 91 Ρ bis. νόσοι ein. 46.
μένω : μένει 74.

Ξ ενο ψ ά νεα .16.
μ ετά emu gen. 105 Ρ .
ξύν 23,1.
μ ετα β ά λ λ ο ν 56a 1 \
ξυ νίη μ ι : ξυ νιδσ ιν 27.
μ ετα π ίπ τω : μ ετα π εο ό ν τ α 41,5
ξυ νό ς : ξυ νό ν m. 28. ξυνοΰ m.
ot 6 Ρ .
23,11. ξυνόν η. 34 Ρ . ξυνώ ι
μ ετρ έω : μ ετρ έετ α ι 53b.
η. 23,2 et 10.
μ έτρ ον : μ έτρ α 51 bi»; 52.
μή 11 ; 12 Ρ ; 22; 51 1>; 45;
ό 14; 20; 31 Ρ ; 33; 50; 58 Ρ ;
50; 52; 60 Ρ ; 81; 105 Ρ ; 106
77,1; 100; 107. τ όν 1 (ΤΤι:
Ρ ; dub. 113.
28; 47 bis; 51; 53b; 63a Ρ ;
μηδά 105 Ρ . 65 17; 103. τοΰ 1 ( I ) ; 23,6
μ η δ είς : μηδέν’ om. 46. et 11 ; 26; 103. τώ ι 39: 91 Ρ .
μ ια ινόμ ενοι 86,2. ο ί 10; 21,1; 23,5 et 12; 46; 95
μ ια ρ ώ τα το ν η. 35. bis; 101. το ύ ς 1 ( I V) ; 29
μιν 52; em. 86,6. quater. τω ν 21,2; 24 Ρ ; 30
μισθόν em. 46. Ρ ; 100. τ ο ΐς 24 Ρ ; 56b Ρ :
Μ νησ άρχου 17. add. 86,8; 105 Ρ . το ΐσ ιν 40.
μ ο ίρ α ς 97. τό 1 (Τ) ; 14 bis; 41,1 Ρ ; 41,3
μόροι 9 7 . μ ό ρ ο υς 9 9 b i s . Ρ bis: 53;ι bis; 81; ,82: 8 4 :
μοΰνον η. S4. 85. τώ ι η. 23,2 et 10. τά 42:
μ οχθεΐν 50b Ρ . 46; 79; 87 Ρ ; ein. 54. τώ ν
μυοΰνται 87 Ρ . II. 6 Ρ ; 21,1; 60 Ρ ; dub. 113.
μ ύριοι 98 1ί . μ υρ ίω ν 65 Κ. τ ο ΐς η. 86,7. — ή 32; 62; 93.
μ υσ τή ρ ια 87 Ρ . τήν 21,1; 69; 105 Ρ ; dub. 114
17. τή ς 62. α ί 72; ein. 46.
νε κ ρ ό ς : νεκ ρ ώ ν in. 73. τ ά ς 17. — τ ο υ ς μ έν. . . τούς
ν έ κ υ ες 76. δέ 29 bis. τό μ έν. . . τό δέ
νέμ ετα ι 80. 53a.
62!)
δδε : τόνδε 1 ( I I ) ; 51. τοΰδ' 01 Ρ Ins. a t 64 Β, — & μέν. . .
m. 1 ( I ) . τάδε 41,5 Ρ. δ δ έ 91 Ρ.
όδός 32; 33. 6δόν67. δσμώνται 72.
οίακίζει 79. δστις 43. δτεωι m. 50. οίτινες
οίησιν dub. 114 Β. 86,9; 105 Ρ. δ τι em. 70. δσσα
δκη 69. 74. δτέη s. δτέηι dub. 85.
δκοΐος 53b. όκοΐον n. em. 86,3 8τι 83; 101.
ct 8.δκο(ων η. 1 ( I I I ) . δκοί- ο ύ (ούκ, ούχ) 3; 11; 16; 25;
οις η. em. 3. 26; 27; 43; 45; 52; 67; 69;
δκδσοι corruptum 3. δκόσων ηι. 71; 74; 84; 86,9; 90; 101.
83. δκόσον η. 23,7. δκόσα 1 ούδέ 3; 74; 86,9.
(IV) bis; 49 bis; 71. δσα 21,4 ούδείς 83.
et 3. δσων η. 5. οδρος 62.
δκδταν 69; em. 77,5. οδς : ώτα 13. ώτων 6 Ρ.
δκτακισχιλίων dub. 65 R. ο ΰ τ ε ... οότε 14; 21,5; 51.
δκτακοσίων em. 65 R. οδτος ·· τοΰτον 43. τοϋτο 83.
δ κ ω ς ΐ ( I I I ) ; 27. τούτωι n. 1 4. ταϋτα 5; 21,4
δκωσίτερ 1 (IV ); 23,3; 27; 77,4; et 5; 41,6 Ρ ; 45. τουτέοισιν
92; 103; em. 54 et 95. η. 86,7. ταύτας 17.
δλα 25 bis. οϋτω 67; 86,6.
δλέθριον η. 35. όψθαλμοί 6 Ρ ; 13.
δλίγοι 101. όλ(γον η. 10. δψις 5 ■δψεις 48.
"Ομηρον 30 Ρ ; 63a Β. Ό μήρω ι
21, 2 . παίζων 93.
δμιλέω : δμιλοΰσι 4 Ρ. •παΐς 92; 93. παιδός 69; 93.
δμιλος · δμίλωι 101. ιταϊδες 21,3; 89 Ρ . ιταΐδας 99.
δμοίως 30 Ρ. τταλίντονος 27.
δμολογέω : δμολογέει dub. 27. παλίντροπος var. lect. 27.
όμολογείν 26. τταραπλησίως 21,2.
δνήιστός 105 Ρ. όνήιστόν 105 Ρ. πάρειμι : πάρε όντας 2.
δνομα 39; 45; 84. π δ ς : παντί m. 109. πάντες
δνομάζεται 77,6. 23,5. πάντων m. 17; 21,2; 20
όνους 37 Ρ. bis; m. 1 23,2 et 85. πδσι m.
όρέομεν 49. 105 P; m. ? 23,8. παν 80. πάν
όρόβοις ί (orobum) 38 Η. τα n. 25 ; 26 ; 28; 54; 64 Κ;
ό ρ ύ σ σ ο υ σ ι 10. 78 Ρ; 79; 82; 85; 91 Ρ. πάν
δς 21,2. δν 22. οδ m. 14; 100. των n. 1 (II); 25; 83. πασοτν
δ add. 75,5. δ ι n. f 4 Ρ. & 67.
630
π α τ ή ρ '29. π ΰ ρ 51; 54; 77,4; 82. πυρός
π ε ίθ ω : π είθ ο ν τα ι em. 10Τ. π εί- 53ιι; 54.
θ εσ θ α ι 104. π υ ρ κ α ϊή ν 102.
π ειρ ώ μ ενο ι 1 ( Π ) , π ώ ς 81.
π έ ρ α ς 04 Ρ . π ε ίρ α τ α em. 67.
π ε ρ ί evrni gen. dub. 113.
π ε ρ ιγ ίν ε τ α ι 23,9. 'ρ α π ίζ ε σ θ α ι 30 Ρ .
"ρίνες 78 Ρ .
π ε σ σ ε ύ ω ν em. 93.
π η λ ό ν 86,3. π η λ ώ ι 86,4.
π λ η γ ή : π λ η γ ή ι 80.
σ ά ρ μ α em. 107.
π λ ο ύ το ς 106 Ρ .
σβεννύναι 102.
π οιέω : π οιοΰσιν 1 ( I V) . ποιέ-
σημ αίνει 14.
οντα in. cm. 80,0. έποιοΰντο
Σ ίβ υ λ λ α 75 Ρ .
30. έποίη σε 29; 44; 51. έποιή-
σ κ ά φ α ι 61 R.
σ α το 17.
σκολιή 32.
π ό λ ε μ ο ς 29; 77.3. π ό λ εμ ο ν 28. σοφίην 17.
π ό λ ις 23,3. π ό λ ιν 105 Ρ . σοφόν ιι. 26; 83; 84; 85. σ ο φ ό
π ο λ λ ο ί 3; 23,12; 93; 101. π ο λ ύ τ ε ρ ο ς 21,2. σοφ ω τά τη 68.
*'ΐιι. 23,4. π ο λ λ ώ ν η. 7 Ρ. π ο λ σ τό μ α τι 75 Ρ .
λή ν 10. π λέω ν 100. π λ είσ τω ν σ υ γ γ ρ α φ ά ς 17.
in. 43. π λ ε ΐσ τα 43. σ υ λ λ ά ψ ιες 25.
ττολυμαθίη 16. π ο λ υ μ α θ είη ν 17. σ υ μ β α λ λ ώ μ εθ α <lub. Π 3 .
π ο μ π ή ν 30. σ υ μ μ ίσ γω : σ υ μ μ ιγ ή ι 77,3.
πονη ρ ευόμ ενοι dub. 106 Ρ . συμφ έρω : σ υμ φ έρ ετα ι cm. 27.
π ο τα μ ο ί σι 40. συμ φ ερόμενον ιι. 25.
π ο τέ 81. σ υνδιδο ν 25.
π ό τιμ ο ν 35. συνόιψιες var. lect. 25 .
π ο ύ ς : π ο δ ό ς 57 Ρ . σ ύ ρ μ α τ’ 37 Ρ .
π ρ η σ τή ρ 53::. σ φ α λ λ ό μ ενο ς 09.
Π ριήνηι 100. σω τή ριον η. 35.
π ρ ό ς (-uni !«·.(·.. 21,1. cum gen.
92 bis. τε 16 bis; 41,1 Ρ ; 99; 105 Ρ.
π ρ ό σ θ εν 1 ( 1) ; 53b. τ ε ίχ ε ο ς 103.
προτιμέω 5. τέ κ τ ο ν α ς 19.
πρώτον n. 1 (Τ ); 53a. τέμ ν ο ντες 46.
πτοέω : έπτοήσθαι 109. τέρ μ α τα 6 2 .
Πυθαγόρης 17. Πυθαγόρην 16. Τ ευ τά μ εω 100.
631
τιμ ώ σ ι 9:i. φ θ εγ γ ο μ έ ν η 75 Ρ .
τ ις 101. τ ις 51; 81; 86,3 ct 6 et φ θεϊρ ■· φ θ είρ α ς 21,3.
8. τ ι 86,9. φ ιλέω : φ ιλ εΐ 8 Ρ ; 109.
το ιο ΰ το ς : το ια ΰ τ α 3. το ιο υ τέω ν φ ρ ά ζω ν 1 (IΓΤ).
η. 1 ( I I I ) . φρήν 101.
το κ εώ ν ω ν em. 89 Ρ . φ ρονέουσι 3.
τό ξ ο υ 27. τό ξ ω ι 3 9 .' φρόνησιν 23,12.
τοσ οΰτο ν η. 23,7. φ ύ λ α κ α ς 73.
τρ έφ ο ν τα ι 23,5. φ υλά σ σ ει 20.
τ ρ ιά κ ο ν τ α 108 Ρ . φ ύ σ ις 3 Ρ ; 59 Ρ . φύσιν 1 ( I Ί ι ·
τ ρ ο π α ί 53a.
χ α λ ε π ό ν η. 70.
ββ ρ ιν 102. χ ειμ ώ ν 77,2.
ύ γ ιείη ν 44. χ έ ω : κ εχυμ ένο ν em. 107.
ύ γ ρ ό ν η. 42. υ γ ρ ή ν 69. χ ρ έ ο μ α ι : χ ρ ε ίω ν τα ι em. 1 0 1 .
Οδωρ 35; 66 h is. ϋ δ α το ς 66. χ ρ ε ώ ν οηι. 28.
β δ α τι 36 Ρ ; 66. β δ α τα 40. χ ρ ή 7 Ρ ; 2 3 ,2 ; 2 8 ; 1 0 2 ; 1 0 3 .
β ες 36 Ρ. χ ρ ή μ α τ α 5 4 . χ ρ η μ ά τω ν 5 4 .
ύ μ ε ϊς : ύ μ δ ς 106 Ρ. χρ η σ μ ο σ ύνη ν 5 5 R .
ϋμ νέω : βμνεον 50. χ ρ υ σ ό ς 5 4 . χρ υ σ ό ν 1 0 ; 37 Ρ .
β π α ρ em. 49. χρ υ σ ο ΰ 54.
ύ π έρ cum gen. 103. χ ω ρ ίζ ω : κ εχω ρ ισ μ ένο ν η. 83.
ύ π ερ β α ίν ω : ύ π ερ β ή σ ετα ι 52.
βπ νο ς dub. 49.
ψ εΰδος : ψ ευδώ ν 19.
ύπό cum gen. 23,6; 69.
ψυχή 66; 68. ψ υχήν 69. ψ υχή ς
υπολαμβάνω : ύπ ειλ ή φ α σ ιν 91
67; 70; dub. 112. ψ υ χα ί 72.
Ρ.
ψ υ χ ά ς 13. ψ υχήισιν 66.
ψ υ χ ρ ό ς : ψ υ χ ρ ά η. 42.
φ α ν ερ ό ς : φ α νερώ ν η. 21,1. ψ ύχω : ψ ύ χετα ι 42.
φ α νερ ή ς 9.
φ ά ο ς 48.
φ ά τις 2. ώ ν εΐτα ι 70.
φ έρω · φ έρομ εν 21,5. φέρουσι ώ ρ α ς 64 R.
64 R. ώ ς 23,12.
φημ ί : φ ά ν τες 105 Ρ . ώ σ τε 83.
INDEX LOCORUM
.1e t a A p o U o n ii 451; (980), 431; (1002 f.),.

19 (p. 106 Klptte), 458 452
AKUAN N r p te m e o n tr a T h e h a s (202),
V a r ia H i s t o r i c VI (12), 266 13; (343 f.), 463 n. 1;
ii. 3 (608), 429
F r . (317), 54 S itp p lie e x (254 f.), 95; (457),
AENEAS OE GAZA 105; (584 f.), 445
T h e o p h r a s tu s (p. 5 Boissona- F r . 44,6 Nauck (125,23 Met to I,
ile) 170; (p. 9), 293; 302; 221; 70 (105 M.), 118 n. 2;
(p. 11), 302 90 (316 M.), 545; 225 (373
AESCHYLUS . M.), 311; 333; 22S (377
A g a m e m n o n (106), 493; (160 M.), 254; 390 (667 M.), 65;
/.), 445; ( 1 7 0 ) , 9 6 ; ( 1 9 0 401 (679 M.), 545
f.), 197 n. 2; (274), 245; AETIU8
(367), 429; (479), 529; I (3,11), 104 (b) n. 1; 264;
(609), 192; (675), 28 ii. 3; 278 n. 4; 2S1; (7,11) 398
(849), 233; (868), 252; ii. 1; (7,22), 125; 135;
(1051 and 1060), 47; (1256) , 264; (7,33), 432 n. 2
348; 4 3 5 (9,2), 201 n. 21; (23,7)
C h o e p h o r i (5), 115; (30), 405; 204; (27,1), 135; (28,1)
(161), 129 n.5; (535), 561; 135; 432 n. 2
(882 f.), 13, (911), 314; (0,3), 331 (b>) n. 1
(1045), 543 (11,4) 330; (13,8), 330
H u m a n itie s (181 I.), 192; (13.14) , 317; 581 n, 7;
(455), 28 n. 3; (1045), 433 (13.15) , 603; (17,4), 330;
I ’e r s a r (13), 86; (263), 493; (20.3) , 317; 318 n. 4;
(454), 28 n. 3; (599 f.), (20.4) , 331 n. 3; (20,15),
433; (600), 348 318 n. 5; (20,16), 330;
P r o m e th e u s V in c tu s (91), 431 (21), 307; (22,2), 330;
n. 1; (265), 451; (448), 114 (23.5) , 318 n. 6; (24,3),
f.; (681 f.), 429; (840), 330; (25,13), 603; (27,2),
633
330; (28,6), 323; 330 f.; A n e c d o ta G ra c c a cd. Boissonado
(29.3) 331; (32,1-2), 347; HI (p. 471,3), 097; IV (p.
(32,2-4), 316 172), 179 (<r,3) n. 1; 182
III (3,9), 331; (16,3), 603 A n e c d o t a G ra cca ed. Matranga
IV (2,3-4), 369; (3,12), 35S; II (p. 392), 190
581 n. 8; (7,2), 581 n. 8; A n e c d o ta P a r is ic n s ia cd. Cramer
(7.3) , 585; (23,3), 577 1 (p. 166,17), 25 η. 1; (p.
V (23), 553 1(57,17), 413 n. 0; H I (p.
ALBERTUS MAGNUS 24), 134; ()>. 122), 190; IV
D c V i rfi tc ib iU h u x YI (401), 1S8 (p. 184), 603
ALHINUS ANONYMUS
I n t r o d u e t i o VI (p. 169 Iloi- A llr ffo r ia e J lo m tr ic a e , in I I.
ra imi), 604 ( I, 14 Ludwicli), 307
ALCMAEON A NONYMUS ARABUS
F r . (1 DK), 474; 484; (2), D ic ta s a p ie n tin G r a e c i I (89),
101 ; (A 15), 554 n. 5 302
ALCMAN ANONYMUS lAMBLIUUI
F r . (36 D i e h l ) , 490 ( a ) η . 1
89 (0,2 DK), 006
ALEXANDER OF APIIROOI- ANONYMUS
SIAS In A r is to te lis R h e to r ic a m (p.
D e F a t o (6), 500
183,19 Rabe), 4
In M e ta p h . (p. 38,19 Hay-
ANONYMUS
duck), 555; (p. 308,28), 197 InP la t o n i s T h r a c t c tn m (col.
I n M e te o r , (p. 72,31 Hayduek),
63,25 Dicls-Schubart), 180
312
In l ib r u m D e S e n s it (p. 92,22 ANONYM. PHYSIOGNOMICUS
If (p. 17 Förster), 579 a. 3
Wendland), 418
[ALEXANDER] ANONYMUS
P r o b l e m a t a IV (42), 153 D e S u b l i m i t a t c (44,9), 383 n. 4
AMBROSIUS A n th o l o g i e G r a c c a
JC pist. (6,39), 555 ΠΤ (6,155 Cougny), 433 η. 1
AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS VH (79,3 f.), 83; 471 and n.2;
XXI (16,14), 3,84 (127), 246 11. 3 ; (128), 170;
ANATOLIUS 516; (408,3), 85; 471 n.2;
D r D e c a d e (p. 36, Heiberg), 472; (479,6), 85; (622,6),
587 383 n.4
ANAXAGORAS IN (51), 491 (<■} m l; (359),
F r . (8), 99; (12), 270; 478 6 0 0 ; 601
ANAXARCHUS XIV (100,3), 182

F r . (1 DK), 65 ANTI PI IO SOPH1STA
ANAXIMANDER F r . (26 DK), 318 n. 5
F r . (1), 131 η. 2; 138 f.; APOLLODORUS
483 f. B ib l i o t h e c a I (7,1), 363
ANAXIPPUS APOLLONIUS RHODIUS
F r . (2 Kork), 106 1 (993), 129 n.5
634
APOLLONIUS TYANENSLS D r C a r lo A 10 (279 b 14), 173;
E p i s t . ( 2 7 Kayser), 457 262; B 13 (295 a 7), 551;
ap. Euseb. P . E . (IV, 13,1), 440 Γ 1 (298 b 29), 198
APULEIUS C a tc g o r ia r 11 (14 a 7), 142
D e M u n d o (20), 103 f.; (21), E tiiic a E u d r m i a B 7 (1223 b
161; (36), 426 22), 384; Η 1 (1235 a 4 ff.),
A p o l o g y (39,1), 471 140 f.; (1235 a 25), 133;
ARATUS Table (after 160), n.3; 321;
(61 f.), 337 f.; (536), 315; (1235 a 27), 124
(899), 338 E th i e a K ie o m a c h e a B 2 (1105
S c h o lia (61 f.), 338 a 7), 384; Θ 1 (1155 a 32
ARCHILOCHUS ff.). 140; (1155 b 4), 121:
F r . (38 Dielil), 151; (41), 151;
133; I 2 (1164 b 22), 473;
(57), 151; (68), 14 n.3; 15; K 5 (1176 a 3), 184; K 10
151; (74,1), 40 (1179 b 15), 554 n .l l
AUTST 1DES
D r G e n e r a tio n r A n im a li u m A
O r o t. (26,11 Keil), 343 n.4;
22 (73Π b 29), 217 n.9; Γ 11
(32,25), 343 n.4; (33,31),
(762 a 21), 398 n .l
182; (44,16), 343 n.4
D r G n ie r a tio n e r t C o r r u p tio n <
AKLSTI DES QU1NT1L1ANUS
11 5 (332 a 6), 262; 11 V)
D e M u s ie a II (17), 354; 374;
(337 a 1), 281
579 n.5
H i s t o r i c A n im a li u m E 14 (544
ARISTO CHIUS
ap. Stob. (IV, 25,44), 84; 471 b 25), 554; Η 1 (581 a 12),
ARISTOXYMUS G n o m o lo g u s 554; (581 a 14), 554 n.5;
Θ 6 (595 a 31), 180 (5i)
ap. Stob, (H I, 21,7), 53
n.2; Θ 8 (595 b 6), 188 n.3
ARISTOPHANES
M a g n a M o r a lia B Π (1208 |,
B ir d s (1106), 545
7 i t ) , 140
C lo u d s (96 f.), 581 n. 7; (580),
93 M e ta p h y s ic a A 3 (983 b 8),
E c c lr s ia z u s a e (563), 192 172; 272; (983 b 23), 316;’
F r o g s (534), 528; (1010 1 ), (b 23 ff.), 161; A 5 (986
147; (1052), 9 a 25), Table (after 160) n.3;
K n i g h t s ( 1 1 1 0 f.), 13 (980 a 20), 224 n .l; A 6
P lu t u s (33 f.), 192; (539), 397 (987 a 32), 198; P. 4 (1000
IV a s p s (1324), 379 n.2 b 5), 378; Γ 5 (1010 a 7),
S c h o lia in F r o g s (145 f.), 183 197; Γ 7 (1012 a 24), 2 1 1 ;
η. I Γ « (1012 b 20), 198; jtf 4
ARISTOTLE (1078 b 13), 198
D r A n im a A 2 (404 b 29), 569; M c tc o r o lo g ic a A 3 (339 b 30),
(405 a 25), 166 n.4; (405 a 307 f.; (341 a 9), 212; A 4
28), 198; 357; (405 b 4), (342 a 7), 212; B 2 (354 1 ,
362; A 4 ( 408 b 32 ff.), 33 ff.), 312; 315 f.; (354 1,
569; A 5 (411 a 7), 397 f. 34), 332; (355 a 18), 334;
1 1 .1 ; r 3 (428 b 2), 308 B 3 (357 a 25 ff.), 603·
635
(357 n 35), 338; (357 li 30), ΛKl UH 1)1 DYMUS
212; B <5 (364 b 29), 338 F r . (21 Diels), 280; (29), 273
D e P a r tib u a A n im a U u m A 5 n .l; (33 and 34), 331 n.3;
' (045 a 17), 397 (38), 109 n .l; 279; (39),
P h y s ic a A 2 (185 b 19), 159; 357 f.; (39,2-3), 194
A 4 (187 a 12), 173; A 0 ARNOBIUS
(189 b 8), 173; Γ 5 (204 b A tlv e r s u s N a t i o n c s II (10),
33), 172; 272; (205 a 1), 293; (01), 309; V (29), 251
262; (205 n 6), 125; K 4 ASCLKPIUS
(228 a 8), 197 n .l; 198; Θ 3 I n A r i s l o t . M i t a p h . (p. 278,32
(253 b 9), 198; Θ 8 (265 a Maydue.k), 197
2), 198 f. ΛΊΊ1EXAEUS G r a m m a tic u s
P o li t i c o A 2 (1253 a 29), 440 I (19 A), 494; V (178 E),
( a ) n.2; E 11 (1315 a 29), 181; XI (470 C), 333; (495
384; II 17 (1330 b 37), 554 D), 541 f.; X 1(1 (610 B),
n .ll 01 f.
F h c to r iv a A 10 (1308 b 7),
95; B 23,27 (1400 b 5), 592; BOETHIUS
Γ 5 (1407 b 14), 3; Γ 10.7 Do C o n s o la lio n e P h ilo s o p h ia c
(1411 a 17), 545; Γ 10 (1417 III (2,13), 379
b 1), 197 n .l BURLEY, ΛΥ.
D e S e n s u 5 (443 a 21), 418; Dc V ita et M o r ib u s P h ilo s o -
(444 a 22), 3 9 3 p h o r tim (Pytliag. 10), 181
D c S o m n o e t V ig i l i a 1 (454
a 4), 579 n.2; (458 b 28), CALLIMACHUS
338; 2 (460 b 16), 308 F r . (191,72 Pfeiffer), 471 n.2
S o p h i s t i c i E lc n c lti 15 (174 b C arm en A n re u m
2 ) , 473 (53), 40
T o p ir a A 11 (104 b 21), 197; C a ta lo g u e C odieum , A s tr n lo g o r u m
Γ 2 (117 b 18), 485 n .l; IV (32), 587; VIT (106), 587
Θ 5 (159 b 30), 159 CKLSUH P h ilo s o p h iz e
1 'r. (62 Rose), 65 v. Origen
S c h o lia A r a b ie n in A n a iy li e n cK N som xus
J ’o s tc r io r a l! 7 (93 b 5), 314 De D ir N a t a l i (14,4), 555;
[ARISTOTLE] (17,2), 553; (18,11), 340
De M undo 5 (396 b 7), 122; C rrta m rn H o m rri et U rsio d i
124; (390 b 7 25), 102 f.; (p. 238, 328 Allen), 81 n .5
(390 h 9 rr.). I l l ; (390 I, OIIALOIDHIS
15), 124 f.; 0 (491 a 8), 420; In T im a r u m (220 Wrobel),
7 (401 a 17), 33S 570; 577; (237), 578; (251),
De M undo, S ir g ii J ie s a in e n s is 582; (297), 133
(6), 426 f.
i n t e r p r e t . S y r ia e a CICERO
P r o b le m a ta 13,6 (908 a 30), A c a d e m ic a P r io r a II (32), 33;
358; 17,3 (916 a 37), 174 (82), 309; (123), 309;
T h e o lo g in 1 (27), 55 (137), 535
636
A u u d r m ic a F o s te r i o m .1 (-12), yiiiK 11 in s .Saiuctur (36,1), 42
574 (6), n.2
Ad A ttic u m II (5,1), 516; S t r o m a t c is I (2,2), 179; (18,1),
XVI (11,1), 516 43; (20,4), 43; (21,2), 43;
B r u t u s (191), 516 (49,1), 520; (61,4), 27;
D c F in ib u s B o n o ru m it M (d o - (08.3) , 27; (70,3), 403; (03,
ru m I (20), 309 1), 62; (129,4), 63; (158,1),
N a t urn D r o r u m 11 (42) 42 ( b ) n .l
374 n.8; (51), 347; (84), II (2,3), 55; (8,1), 14; (17,4),
166; 281; (118), 392 n.5; 39; (24,5), 4; (52,5), 573
(119), 121 ; H I (31), 166; n .l; (68,3), 179; (130,2),
281; (37) , 318 n.6; (94), 184
535 m (14,1-2), 521; (21,1), 247
F r o S e s tio (91), 535 IV (4,2), 37; (9,1), 27; (9,7),
T u s r u U in a c D is p u ta tio n e s I 227; (14,4), 510; (15,1),
(4»), 392 n.5; (46), 579 511; (16,1), 509; (49,2-3),
ii..'!; (104) , 409; IV (26), 512; (50,2), 505; (141,1).
574; (43), 535; V (105), 248; (141,1-2), 242; (144,2-
539 3), 399
(ΈΚΑΝΤΗΕ8 V (8,1), 75; (9,2), 78; 262
H y m n to Z e n s (2 oil. Zvmtz.), n.5; (9,3), 74; (17,6), 517;
89; (5), 428; (7 f.), 428; (59.4) , 526 f.; (59,4-5), 505;
(9-13), 422 f . ; ( 1 0 ) , 266; (88.4) , 42; (103,6 - 104,3),
(11), 428; (19), 480; (21), 261; (104,2), 268; (104,3-
4; (24 f.), 89; 97 n.7; (34 105,1), 278; (105,2), 247;
f . ) . 44,8; (39), 89
(111,7), 3; (115,1), 444:
7Ύ. (100 Pearson), 517; 526 (115.2) , 536; (115,3), 12:
n.5; ( f t V F 1 nr. 497), 109 (140.5) , 25
n.l VI (17,1-2), 352; (27,1), 352;
(31.2) , 466; (65,1), 28 n .l ;
OLKMENT OP ALEXANDRIA
F iu d a n o p u s I (21,4-22,1), 490
(81,1), 179 («■«) n.l
f .; (99,2), 402; 11 (29,3), VII (9,1), 89; (37,6), 370 n.2;
(98.5) . 573
373 ; (86,3),, 248;I (90,5),
/■’<·. (5), 248
431 :; III (1,5 ), 238
I C L E M E N T O K t;O M |
I ’r o t n p tic u x (2,1), 43; (11,2),
I lip is t. (40,1), 42 (b ) n.2
522 ; (17,2), 480 ( d ) n .l; CLKOMEDEK
(22, 1), 400; 522 1 (22,2-3), lh Mot ii Cirruluri Vorporum
464 : I-AV>: 522 1 (Ü4.3), 1 ( l i p . 112,1 Zieg
( 'ii i t r s t i u m
591 ; (34,5),, 250 ; (40,1), ler), 167 f . ; ΤΙ (1 pp. 126,
465 ; (41,1), 465 f (50,4), 27 ff. mill 134,13), 309; (3,
456 f.; (58,3), 406; (00,1), 99), 392 ( b ) n.2
15; (92,4), 179; (102,3), (O L U M E L L A
248; (109,3), 486 ( d ) n .l: D c B e B u s tic aVII (1,1), 186;
(113.3), 322 V lll (4,4), 180
CORNUTUS DIOGENES LAERTIUS
T h e o lo g ia c G raecae C om pen 1 (12), 27; 445; 452 f.; (23),
d iu m (11), 431 f.; (17), 341; (27), 398 n .l; (76),
.281; (18), 265 n .2 602; (88), 524; (120), 67
C o r p u s H e r m c tic u m i l l (85), 233
Vol. I (X, 25 Nock), 237; TV (50), 574
(Χ ΙΙ,Ι), 237 f. VI (39), 183 n .l ; (79), 409
CRATINUS VII (23), 574; (114), 354
F r . (155 Kock), 581 n.7 n.3; (136), 280; (137), 273
C y p r ia fr. (4,3 Alien), 343 n. 4 n .l; (137 f.), 269; (138),
CYRILLUS 273 n .l; (142), 279; (145),
C o n tr a l u U a m m 8 (p. 283 Au-
331 n.3; (157), 585
bert), 4 VIII (6), 67; (30), 362; (34),
146; (49), 542; (51), 604
n .l; (52), 604; (60 f.),
DAVID 604 n .l; (67), 604 η. 1
P ltilo s o p h ia e (p.
P r o le g o m e n a
IX (1), 61; 137; 150; 447;
4,2 Busse), 187 (1-2), 66; (2), 531; 533;
DEMETRIUS OF PlIALERUM 539; (3), 221; 232; 492;
IV B lo c u lio v e (101), 4 604 11.1 ; (4), 232; 246 n.3;
DEMOCRITUS (5), 5; 54; 55; (6), 66;
F r . (7), 8; (11), 48; (04 unit 526 n .6: (7), 46; 125; 135;
05), 63; 05; (70), 386; 309; 365; 397; 573; (8),
(98), 517; (108), 213 n.2; 116; 129 n.2; 135; 173;
(117), 33 n.5; (147), 182; 204; 263; 292; 300 n.2;
(182), 68; (213), 234; (8-9), 165 f.; (9), 278 n.4;
(214), 386; (236), 385; 279; 289; 311; 317; 329;
(268), 234; (298a), 386; (10), 323; 325; 344; (11),
(302a), 517 317; 329 f.; (12), 121 n.2;
DEMOSTHENES 266; 423; (15), 66; (16),
(18,324), 528; (19,337), 151; 170; 516; 519; (28), 66;
(24,139), 240; (33,27), 97 n.4 (73), 571
DIO CASSTUS X (8), 154
VII (fr. 30,3), 237; LVI (41,
9), 240; LXIX (19, 2), 522 KLIAS
1)10 CHRYSOSTOMUS InC a tr i/o r ia s (p. 242,14 Bus
Or«t. (12,71), 24 n.l; (38,1-2), se), 141
55 f. ELIAS CRETENSIS
DIODORUS SICULUS In (tn gor 'd Nazianzi ni Oratio-
IV (85,5), 587 n.4 i o s (25,15), 457
DIOGENES OF APOLLONIA EMPEDOCLES
F r . (1), 8; (2) 99; (4 and F r . (3,6 f.), 508; (3,10), 24;
5), 582 n .l ; 583 (17,11), 493; (26,10), 493;
[DIOGENES] C y n ic u s (55), 603; (105,3), 362;
B p is t . (28,6 Horcher), 540 (109), 378; (110,5), 33 n.2;
038
(111,0 ff.), 221; (115,13 f.), IH n siis (464 f.), 430; (524),
301 (at) η .1; (129), 70 n.2; 397
(129,6), 493; (134,5), 99; S u p p lie r s (277), 80
(135), 94 T r o a d e s (434), 51
KP1CHAKMUS F r . (257), 383 n .l; (279),
F r . (17 DK), 501; (32), 543 ' 575 n .l; (420,2-3), 109;
KPICTETUS (472.11) , 466; (495,40), 449 :
T (8,6), 573 n .l ; 11 (17,1), (584), 517; (761), 40; (912,
574; (17,39), 574; ΙΤΓ (14, 2 f.), 445; (979), 76
8-9), 574; (16,2), 581 n.7; S c h o lia in F ü r . IJ e c u h a m (131),
IV (7,27), 509 n .l ; (11), 71
182; (29), 182; (31), 182 EUSEBIUS
F r . (8 Schenkl), 167; 281; (10. P e m o n s tr a tio E v a n g e lie n 111
3), 574 (3.11) , 440
S c h o lia i n E p i c U t i D is s . IV (7. P r a e p a r a tio E v a n g e lie n 11 (3,
27), 509 36), 400; (3,37), 404
KIM O l’ KUH IV (13,1) 440
E p i s l . a it P y U io c le m (91), 308 Γ. VIII (14,66). 372
E ly m u l o g ie u m G iid ia n in n X (2,6), 352; (4,25), 403
x. v. κόπις, 71 ΧΓ (11,4-9), 201 n .l ; (11,7).
E Iy m o lo /iic n r n M a g n n m 350; (19,1), 4
». v. βιός, 190; s. v. κόπις, 71 X III (13,30 f.), 261; (13,31),
EPIPHANIUS 270; (13,32), 247; (13,39),
A n c o r a t n s (104,1), 591 3; (13,42), 12 n.l; 444; 536
EUNAPIUS XIV (3,8), 292; (4,8), 121
V i t a e S o p h is ta r u m (p.113 Büis- n .l
soindi·), 370 n.2 XV (13,3), 273 n .l ; (20.2),
EUKIPIDES 194; 357 f.; (24,3), 307;
A n d r o m a c h e (906), 86 (29,4), 330 f.; (48,2), 330;
lla e c h a e (8), 271; (72 ff.), (50,3), 330; (51,2), 331
467; (472 and 474), 467; De T h r o p h a n ia T (73 G ress-
(1108 f.), 467; (1331), 352 mann), 486
ii. 4 EUSTATHTUS
I h c a h a (131 f.), 73 Ad I l ia ,In n (1, 49), 190 f . ;
H c r a e tid a c (709), 529 (II, 85). 397; (XVIII, 251).
H i p p o l y t u s (944 f.), 545 341; (XXIII, 261), 375:
U m (718), 400; (1049), 400 (XXIV, 54), 408
I p liig c n io T a u r ic a (1004 »ml
1071), 450 KICINO, MAUSIUO ( O p e r a , lln-
.1fc d c a (447), 385 n .l; (964), fdiRae, 1576)
595; (968), 383 n.4; (1079 E p is t u l a c 1 (1, p. 612), 375; 3
f.), 383 n.l (1, 725), 204
O r e s te s (696 f.), 532; (970 D e i m m o r la l i t a t c a n im o r u m VI,
f .), 477; (1406), 9; (1635) 2 (T, p. 162), 374; VIII, 13
-! 15 (I, p. 197), 374; XI, 6 (!,
G3f)
p. 259), 204; XV, 4 (I, p. Q u a tlc iiittm : Astronom. 14 (p.
393), 121 η .2 385, 22 Steplianou), 587 f.
I n P la t o n e m (IT, p. 1228), 385 G n o m o lo g iu m M o n a c e n s c L a t . (T,
In P in t . S o p h is ta m (IT, p. 19 f. 84>·, Woelfflin), 599; (1,
1287), 121 f. 31 f. 84' ), 45
In P la t . T im a c u n ι (II, P· G iw m o lo g iu m c o d . P a r is . 1168 (66
1439), 143 SeliPiikl), 574; (67), 597; (68),
D e S o le 6 (I, p. 969), 323 598
D c S tu d io s o r u m S a n i t a t e T u e n - G n o m o lo ffiu m cod. P a r is . S u p p l.
d a I, 5 (I, p. 498), 375 134 (209 Sternbacli), 573
D c V o h tp ta te 8 (I, p. 1000), G iw m o lo g iu m V a ti c a n n m 743 (294
183 Sternbacli), 573; (310), 54;
M o n a d n s r (rd. Moi-
P lo r ile g iu m (311), 45; (312), 595; (313),
neko) (193), 573; (199), 590; (314), 597; (315), 598
573; (200), 597 G iw m o lo g iu m c o d . V a t. 1144 (f.
228'), 598
GALEN GORGTAS
D c A l i m e n t . P e n u lt. (I, 29), 188 P r . 6 (11, p. 285,17 UK), 94;
11.3 11a (II, p. 302,29 f.), 435
De D itm o s c c n tlis P u I.si b u s GREGORY OP NAZIANZOS
(V III, p. 773 Kiilm), 515 C a r m in a 1, 2 (14,25 ff.), 203
D c H le m c n tis I, 4 (1, p. 443 f.; II, 1 (85,11), 491
K.), 281 O r a l. (25,15), 457
I n l l i p p o c r a t . D c N u t'r im . I ll, GREGORY OF NYSSA
24 (XV, p. 357 K.), 281 I n E c c le M a s t. R o m i li a (V, p.
D e P la c . T lip p . r t P la t . (11,8), 290 Alexander), 486 ( d ) n .l
362; (111, 1 ), 579 n.5 In H e ra t m cron { P G 44, p.
P r o t r c p ti c u s 13 (p. 19 Knibcl), 108 A), 281
ISO
S c r i p ta M in o r a (IV, p. 786 K.), II ELI ODORUS P h ilo s o p h us
373 In EN P a r a p h r a s is (p. 164,34
D e T r e m o r e (VII, p. 617 K.), Heylbut), 133; (p. 219,13),
265 184 (ri) n.l
1GALENJ 11E({ACL I ΠES PONT (CUM
II is t. P h ilo s . (127), 553 P r . (87 Welirli), 27; 29 n. 6;
OELLTUS 438; 445; 452 f.
Nnetrs Atticai (p rao f., 12), J HERACLITUS EPHKSIUSI
61; VII (1,2), 142 n.6; 227 E p is h iln e (III od. liyuatcr),
f.; XIV (4), 103 (,,i) n.l 540; (IV), 458; (V), 220;
(1 KOKOl US <’EDI.’E N 'l'S (VI), 20] 11.21; 210; 217
(137 (1
I li/tto r ia e C o m p iiu liu m 11.9; 221; 232; (VII), 150;
llokkor), 408; 409 228; 543; (VIII.), 404; 543;
GEORGIUS PACHYMERES (IX), 274; 309; 501; 540
D e M ic h , P a la r o l. (I, p. 340,6 HERACLITUS HOMERICU8
Hokker), 197 Q u a c s tio n r s I lo m e r ic a e (22,4),
(540
281; (24), 199 f.; 236; (26, n.5; (124 f.), 504; (252 f.>,
7), 265; (43,7), 292 396; 465; 504; (254 f.),
IIERMIAS ALEXANDRINUS 504; (267), 432 n .l; (267
In P la t o n i s P h n e d r u m S c h o lia f.), 433; (275 ff.), 131;
(p. 73 Ast), 374 137; (276), 270; (293 i t ) ,
I r r is i o G c n til. P h ilo s . (7), 289 10; (606 f.), 186; (668),
n.l 130; (765 ff.), 319; 320;
ITERM1PPUS 321
F r . (4,4 f. Koek), 175 n .l Theogony (74), 270; (123 f.),
IIERODAS 222; 320; (212), 248; (468),
(7,61), 386 130; (748 ff.), 223; (756
HERODOTUS ff.), 248;(853-7), 429;
I (5), 2.1; (8,2), 23; (22,1), (886), 130; (923), 130
550; (30,2), 26; (62,4), 51; F r . (272 Rzach), 595
(74.2) , 341; (92,3), 164; IIESYCHIUS M1LESTUS
(95.1) , 9; (96,2), 229; (116, (F U G I V , p. 1 6 5 ), 5 7 3 ; (p.
5), 9; (122,1), 223; (129, 166), 516
2) , 09; (186,2), 172 n .l TIESYCH1US L e x i c o g r a p h us
II (24,2), 214 11.20; (33), 572; s.v. δ ιίσ τα τα ι, 156; έδ ίζη σ α
(55), 481; (75,4), 115; (89, έμ εω υτόν, 56; έ ρ π ε τά , 429;
1), 525; (99,1), 69; (104, κνάφοι, 164 η .2 ; τιεττεύει,
3) , 115; (108,4), 214 n.20; 494; σ α ρ μ ό ς, 550; ώρο-
(174.1) , 545 βισμένοι, 1 8 8
III (15,1), 522; (20,2), 441; HIEROCLES PLATOX1CUS
(66.3) , 223; (80,2), 225 n.2; I n C a r m e n A u r e itm (24 Mul-
(81.1) , 526 n.5; (82,5), 105; lftch), 239
(146.3) , 525 HIPPOCRATIC CORPUS
IV (48,1), 9; (95), 70 n.2; A p h o rism i (1,23), 205 n.3; (7,
(151), 58 n .l 33), 156
V (18,2), 97 n.7; (61,2), 441; D c C a rn ib u s (2), 335 n.2; (8),
(77,4), 532; (87,1), 115 448; (16), 393
VI (9,3), 522; (34), 365 n.2; D c D e c o r e (4), 575; (5), 29
(138,2), 64; (139,4), 223 29 n.6
VII (ΙΟγ,Ι) 105; (21), 545; E p id e m ic s V (19), 205 n.3;
(09.1) , 129 n.5; (103,2), VI (5,2), 569; (5,5), 579
57; (142,1), 57 n .l; (208), Dc F l a t i b u s (8), 286
21 D e L o c i s i n I l o m i n e (1), 174
/III (53, υ , 40; 172 n .l D c ,1l o r b i s IV (51), 156
(58,2), 69; (77,1), 532 Dc M o rb o S a c ro (4), 459;
(86), 65 ; 93l; (128,2) , 21 (7), 205 n.3
(138,1), 65; !1)3 D c N u t r i m c n t o (9), 174; (18),
X (32,1), 525 ; (89,4), 226 165; (19), 178; (21), 191;
H E SIO D (40), 110 n.5; (45), 165
E rg a (42), 43 n .l; 399; (122 D e O ss. N a t u r a (11), 174
f.), 396; 504; (123), 395 D e S t c r i l i b n s (234), 311; 333
641
D e Y U ·t ur (3), 315; (5>, 1-i; jjjftllOSUS SCHOLASTTCUS
D e A n i m a i l u n d i P la t . (cod.
205; 295 n.l; 437 n.l; (6),
■ 107; 569; 579; (8), Table Par. Lat. 8624 f. 17»), 576
(after 160), n.3; (9), Ta jIOMEK
ble n.3; (10), 177; 418; I l i a d 1 (273), 9; (290), 9;
(11), 121; 480; (15), 107; (314), 159; (544), 130
(17), 107; 121; (18), 110 II (85), 397; (204), 537;
n.5; 121; (19), 174; (24), (480), 16 n.l; (483), 16 n.l;
230; (29), 581 n.7 (485 f.), 474; (547), 400;
D e V i c t n A c u t. M o ri). (11), (669), 510
78 n.4; 80 III (17), 129 n.5; (98), 16;
D e V e t . M e d ic in a (8), 188 n.3; (277), 431 n .l; 432 n .l
(20) ,29 n.6 V (199), 213 n. 2; (209), 129
HIPPOLYTUS n .5
B e fu ta tio O m n iu m I la c r c s iu m VI (488 f.), 341
T (1,3 Wendland), 204 n .l; VII (99), 363; (102), 151;
(4.1) , 5; (4,2), 204; (4,3), 367
328; 392; (7,3), 289 n .l; VIM (266), 129 n.5
(14,3), 318 n.4; (15), 113; X (459), 129 n.5; (470), 365
(21) , 432 n.2; (23,2), 201 n.2
n.21 XI (639 f.), 157
IV (48,1), 113 XII (37), 429; (241), 537
V (7,8), 366; (7,20), 554 n.3; X III (812), 429
(7,21), 554; (8,6), 404; (8, XIV (201), 195; 217 n .l l ;
42), 512; (8,44), 512 f.; (231), 248; (302), 195; 217
(9, 12), 513 n . l ; (16,4), n .l l ; (414), 429
353 f.; (19,4), 414; (21,2-
XV (117), 429; (362 ff.) 491
3) , 414
n.l; 493; (363), 486 ( d )
VI (26,1), 100; 275
n.l; (443), 129 n.5
IX (7,3), 182; (9,1), 111; (9,
1 ff.), 3; (9,2), 119; (9,3· XVr (46), 487; (255), 386;
4) , 490; (9,4), 143; (9,5), (387 f.), 138; (672 = 682),
20; 34; 81; 120; (9,7), 296; 248
(10.1) , 20; 34; (10,2), 222; XVII (446 f.), 429
(10,2-3), 231; (10,4), 162; XVIII (107), 131; 133; 137;
165; (10,5), 177; (10,6), 139; 141; 152; 321; (251),
236; 395; 434; (10,7), 422; 341; (309), 151; (489), 336
(10,8), 413 f.; (11,1), 113; n.l
(24.1) , 113 XIX (418), 277
X (1 1 ,2 ), 4 M ; (1 1 ,3 ), 414 XXI (05), 386; (573), 370 n.l
D e U n iv e r s e (p p . 139, 4 9 ; 140, XXII (123), 365 n.2
56 and 63 Hoil), 395 n.2 XXIII (88), 494; (775), 550
HIPPON O d y s s e y 1 (107), 494
F r . (3 DK), 65; (A 2), 581 III (82), 97 n.9
n.7 IV (246), 383; (314), 97 n.9;
642
(350), 43 n .l ; (656), 213 (9 ff.), 318
C a r m e n S a c c u la r c
n.2 I (2,26), 182; (12,
E p is t u l a c
V (248), 36 n .l; (272-75), 19), 121; 125
342; (275), 336 n .l ; (361), HYPERIDES
36 n .l; (369), 221 P r o E u x e n ip p o (4), 97 n.4
V ir (31), 461; (117), 209
V III (94), 461; (533), 461 lAMBLIC'HUS
IX (44), 487; (131), 343 n.4 D e A n im a (ap. Stob. I, 49,37),
X (86), 337; (234 f.), 157 302; (49,39), 169; 293; 302;
XI (38 f.), 362; 393; (98), (II, 1,16), 486
362; 393; (109), 431 n .l; E p i s t . a d D e x ip p u m (ap. Stob.
432 n .l ; (153), 362; 393; II, 2,5), 49
(228), 362; 393 D e M y s t e r i i s I (11), 469 f.;
XII (323), 431 n .l III (8), 404; (15), 50; V
XIII (213 f.), 432 n .l ; (237), (15), 518
487 Protrepticus (20), 506; (21),
XIV (83 f.), 138; (153), 365 3S4; (21,14), 100; 275
n.2; (228), 151 l ) r V i t a P y t h a g o r ic a (89), 69;
XV (400), 226 (172), 540
XVI (4 1 ), 86; (15), 245
D iu I 'c r s is fr. (5,7 Allen), 21
XVII (39), 245; (141), 43
I n s c r i p t io n s
n .l; (297 f.), 550
GT)1 Collitz (1149,7), 163:
« V I I I (130 f.), 429; (136
(1151,19), 163; (1156,2 ami
f.), 151 3), 163; (1157,6), 163
XIX (155), 435; (417), 245
I G I Suppl. (334^), 532; V, 2
XX (15), 86
(343,18 t ) , 163; IX (1201),
XXI (11), 129 n.5; (59), 129
240; XII, 3 (863), 240
n.5; (85), 16; (264), 129
I n s e r i p t io S i c i l i (Seikelos) pii
n.5
Fischer, 587 n.4
XXIII (365), 461
H o m e r ic H ym ns: to A r te m is
10ANNES DAMASCENES
E x o c r p t a F lo r e n t i n a II (13,80
(16), 129 n.5
Meineke), 597
t o D e m e te r (62), 343 n.2;
(365), 429 ION
F r . (1 DK), 8; (4,3 f.>, 67;
S c h o lia in I l ia d c m 1 (49:
A n e e d . P a r is . I ll, p. 122),
478
190; X (149: T ) , 155; 543; ISIDOR OF DELUSION
X III (812: A B T ) , 429; XV E p is t. IV (C: P G 78, p. 1053
(189: A ), 356; XVIII (107: C), 574

A T ) , 133; 141; (251: A T ) , ISOCRATES
341; XIX (292: « ), 23; 6 (109), 500 n.2
XXII (414: I t T ) , 408;
XXIV (54: J I T ) , 408 JULIAN
HORACE O r a t. 2 (101 C), 343 n.4; 5
A r s P o e tic a (374), 121 (165 CD), 354 f.; 6 (185 A),
643
03; (187 I)), 63; 7 (216 C), 369; 374 n.8; 569; 603;
32; 7 (226 C), 408 f. (20,3), 322 f.
JUSTIN MANILIUS
A p o l o g y I (60,8 f.), 266; II I (142), 121; IV (869 f.), 32
(7,3), 266 MARCUS ANTONINUS
II (17), 201 n.21
LACTANTIUS IV (23), 343 n.4; (27), 154;
D iv . I n s t i t . II (9,17), 121 (29), 18; (43), 201 n.21;
E p ito m e In s tit. D iv . (24,6), (46), 4; 14; 17; 168; 356;
228 n .l 379; 471
[LINUS] V (33), 362
ap. Stob. 1 (ΙΟ,ο); 104; 134; VI (10), 154; (15), 362; (17),
168; (22), 379; (31), 4;
448; V (46,1), 40
(42), 4 f.
LUCAN
V IΓ (9), 266; (48), 122
I (98), 121
I X (3), 343 n.4; (21), 201
LUCIAN n.13; (28,1), 108; (39), 154
A n a c h a r s is (1), 182
X (11,4), 97 n.7
D e m im a x (09), 227 n.O
XII (12), 18; (13), IS; (14,
le a r o m e n i p p u s (8), 144
1), 154'
Q u o m o d o U is to r in C o n s c r ib c tid e
M A im A N U S CAPELLA
S it (2), 144 D e N w p tU s M e r c u r ii e t P h ilo -
Dc (78), 23
S a lta tio n e I (87), 437 n.3; H
lo g ia e
V it a r u m A u d i o (14), 50; 154; (213), 437 n.3; VI (597),
168; 204; 237; 293; 354 333; VII (738), 281
n .3 ; 490; 540; 601 MAXIMUS CONFESSOR
LUCRETIUS Serm oncs 34 ( P G 91, p. 897 A),
I (664 f.), 357; (782 ff.), 280 574; 46 (p. 938 C), 598
f.; I l l (350 ff.), 579 n.2; MAXIMUS OF TYRE
(359 f.); 579 n.3; V (564 O r a t.(1,2 g), 167; (4,4 h),
ff.), 309; (1052), 13; VI 236; (10,5 c), 167; (41,4 i),
(976 ff.), 180 167; 236 f.; (41,4 k), 167;
LYCOPHRON 356 f .
A le x a n d r a (334), 352 n.4; MEL1SSUS
(763), 73; (1464), 73 F r . (8,1 DK), 8; (8,3), 218
LYDUS MENANDER
D c M r n s ib n s III (14), 552; (738 ff.), 501
K p itrrp o n trs
IV (7), 169 (r>) n.l Fr. (70 Nock), 501; (S3),
LYSIAS 147; (530,8), 212; (550),
14 (44),18 502; (780), 385 n.l
M o n o stich a (18), 21 ».2;
MACBOB1US (434), 501; (582), 433 n .l
In S o m n iu m S c ip io n is I (2,20 MICHAEL ACOMINATUS
f.), 602 f .; (6, 71), 553 (170,1 Lampros), 408;
E p is t .
n.3; 555; (14,19), 359; 363; (173,6), 376
644
MICH ΛKL OF EPHESUS OCELLUS LUCANUS
In Ε Ν (p. 570,21 Hcylbut), 184 (15), 281; (24), 281; (31),
ln lib r o s D e P a r t i b u s A n im a - 281
H um (p. 22,28 Hayduck), OLYMP IODORUS
3 9 7 n .l I n A lc ib ia d . (T, p. 178,17 Creu-
MICHAEL GLYCAS •/.ar), 427
A n n a te s (I, p. 40 Bekker), I n C a te g . (p. 4,13 Stüve), 202
307; (p. 141,11), 375; (p. f.
219,14), 376 I n G o r g . (p. 103,16 Korvin),
516; (p. 142,7), 356; (p.
MIMNERMUS
F r . (10,5 ff. Diehl), 333
237,6), 355
I n S t c t 'o r o l . (p. 136,6 Stüve»,
I MUSAEUS] 313; (p. 151,3), 003; (p.
(A 4 DK), 109 n .l 155,5 ), 603
MU80NIU8 RUFUS I n P h a e d o n e m (p. 57,27 Kor
F r. (9 ITcnso), 539; (16), vin), 585; (p. 158,9), 56;
473; (18a), 371; (42), 167; (p. 237,7 ff.), 265; 314
281 ORIGEN
C o n tr a C e ls u m 1 (5), 456; V
(14), 407; (24), 407; VT
XEMESIUS (12), 476; 485; (42), 132;
De N a t u r a I l o m i n i s (2), 358 274 n .l; VII (62), 456;
(/») n .l; 491; (5), 168; (65), 456
281; 357; 359 n .l D e O r a tio n c (6), 201 n.21
D c P r in c i p i i s Π (1,4), 281
X1CANDER
A te x ip h a r m a c a (173 f.), 266 ORION
S c h o lia in A le x i p h . (172 and s. v. κάμηρος, 603
174), 134 O r p h ic a
F r. (4 and 5 Kern), 183 n .l;
NICEPHORUS CHUMNUS
(226), 352; (235), 183 n .l
E p is t. (39 Boissonade), 517;
O s tr a c o n A e g y p t . (12319,12), 182:
(44), 516 f.
183 n.3
N o v m n T c s ta m c n tm n
ovru
c v . S t a t t . (13,13),
13 A r s A m a to r . II (573), 431 n .l;
E l) . H orn. (3,5), 230 n.2; (6, I II (653), 595
2), 244; (11,33), 42 (ft) n.2
M r ta m o r p h . I (432 f.), 121;
1 E p . C o r. (2,10), 42 (ft) n.2; VII (19 f.), 387; XV (214-
(3,19), 476 n .l; (12,2), 458; 16), 201 n.21
( H ,ll), 47
E p . G a t. (2,19), 244 P a p yri
2 E p . P e t . (2,22), 180 (IP) 271: f I le r u c tiU ] ep.
G r n a v c n s is
n.2; 182 VII (col. 13, 12 f. Martin),
NUMEN1US 228; (13,37 ff.), 543; (14,
F r. (16 Thedinga), 133; 141; 13), 543; (14,15 f.), 150;
321 ; (35), 239; 354 (15, 36 and 44), 543
G45
M ic h ig a n Pap. 2754: [ . l l c i - Dc M u ta tio n e N o m in w m (60),
i l a m a s ] (1 ff.), 81 n.5 31
PARMENIDES Dc, P l a n t a t i o n s (40), 372 n .l;
F r . ( 1 , 1 4 ) , 277; (1,28), 137; (169), 579 n.3
277; (5); 175 n .l; (6,1), D e P o s t e r i t a t e C a in i (163), 201
137; (6,7), 13; (6,9), 119 n.21

n.2; 126; (8,14), 277 D e P r o v id e n tia II (66 f. Col
P a r o e m io g r a p h i G ra c c i
son), 372
G e n e s in (trans
Q u a e s tto n e s i n
(ed. Leutsch and Schneidewin)
I (p. 284), 186; (347), 13; lated by R. Marcus) II (5),
(376), 180 (&i) n.2; 182; 552; III (5), 122; 158; IV
(446), 13; II (p. 563), 186; (1), 31; (152), 239
(705), 182; (744), 24 n .l; (Infs H e m m D i v i n . I h r e s (208
(766), 13 ff.), 177; (214), 158
Q uod D ew s S it I m m u ta b ilis
P a r o e m io g r a p h i L n lin i
(46), 372 n .l
(Otto, Sprichw. cl. Römer),
Dr S a c r ific iix A b r lia it C a in i
(nrr. 1273 and 1274), 24 n.l ;
(34), 23
(1715), 13
Dr S o m n i i s I (6), 31; (53),
FAUSANIAS 307; (153), 168 f.; (156),
III (18,1), 248 169; II (109), 201 n.21
PERSIUS D e S p e c ia M b u s L e g i b u s I (10),
6 (75), 383 n.4 573; (26), 214 n . l l ; (27),
PHERECRATES 214 n.14; (148),181; (208),
F r . (69,5 Kock), 156 109 n .l; 112; 296; IV (51),
PHILEMON 31; (60), 24 n .l; (137), 24
F r. (185 Kock), 385 n .l; n .l
(188), 186; (204), 132 n.3 D c V i t a H o s t s I (31), 169;
PHILO 491; (274), 24 n .l ; II
D e A b r a h a m o (150), 23 (213), 24 n .l
D c A e te r n ita te M u n d i (42), F r . (615 Mangey), 579 n. 3;
491; (109), 292; (109 f.), (652), 574; (p. 20 Harris),
166; (109-111), 353; (110), 552
281; (144), 181 PI11LODEMUS
D e C o n f u s i o n e L i n g n a r u m (57), De Ira (27,17), 385
23; (141), 23 Dr D ic ta te (6a), 274; 414;
De C o n g rrssu E r u d itio n ix G ra 422; (14), 144; (433 II«),
tia (138), 573 n.l 132
Dc F u iin i t l i i r c n t i o n i (55), K h c l a r i c a (I, 57 nn<l 62), 71
23S (</'), n .l: (61), 409; D r S i f in is (IX, 13 ff.), 309
(179), 31 IP111LOLAUS]
D c I o s c p h o (126), 209; 249; F r . (20 DK), 442
(127 ff.), 201 n.13 PHILOPONUS
L e g u m A l l e g o r i a e I (107 f.), I n U b r o s D e A n i m a (p. 67,16
238; H I (7), 111; 292; 296 Hayauck), 357 (/»), n .l
646
I n ( ’« t r y .(p. 2,7 Busse), 203; 96; (714 A), 97 n.3; (715
(p. 104,34), 141 B ) , 94; (715 E), Π8 n.2;
l n P h y s . (p. 433,5 Vitelli), 262 (716 A), 94; (732 C), 502;
PHOCYLIDES (804 A), 502; (811 AB),
F r . (13 Diehl), 25 n .l; (16),^ 65; (819 A), 65; (835 D),
502 532; (849 E), 291 n.6;
PHOENIX OF COLOPHON (863 B), 383 n .l; (877 A),
F r . (5 Diehl), 451 f. 502; (899 B), 398 n .l; (903
PINDAE D), 493; (906 AB), 96; (957
I s t h m . (5,33), 148 n .l
C) , 97 n.3
N c m . (3,22), 147; 240; 510; L y s i s (214 A ■ 216 A), 140
(6,1), 477; (6,1 f.), 474; P h a e d o (60 B), 226; (64 D),
(7,32), 570; (10,40 f.), 245; 29 n.7; (67 C), 399; (69
(10,71), 429 C) , 1 8 1 ; 1 8 2 ; 193 n .l ;
O l (1, 64 f.), 433 n .l; (11, (70 C), 218; (79 C), 252;
19 f.), 478; (13,13), 478 (80 D), 240; (85 E), 35;
P y th . (5,122), 452; (10,29 f.), (90 B), 196 f.; (90 C), 167
365 n.2 n.3; (95 CD), 247; (96 B),
l 't n t m (6,51 ff.), 474 362; (107 D), 503; (108 B),
F r . (130 Si'll roinler = 114b 503; (109 D), 205 n.2;
Bowra), 413 n.5; (169 = (111 B), 335 n.2; (112 E),
152), 95; 145; 534 217 n.14; (113 C), 217 n,14;
S c h o lia i n O l. (1,1), 281 (113 D), 50.3
PLATO P h a c d r u s (229 E - 230 A), 53
A p o l o g y (17 C), 75; (26 D), n . l ; (241 B), 219; (251 B),
318 447 (b) n .l; (266 B), 75;
C r a ty lu s (396 AB), 445; (398 (278 D), 27; 438; 445; 453
A), 396; (398 B), 514; P h ile b u s (42 C), 214 n.-12;
(400 E), 445; (401 D), 194 (42 CD), 197 n .l; (42 I)),
f.; (402 A), 132 n.3; 194; 167 n.3; (43 A), 197; (43
(402 CD), 230; (411 BC), AB), 167 n.3; 205 n.3;
195; (413 BC), 431; (439 (43 B), 197
CD), 196; (440 A-D), 196 P o litic u s (293 B), 233
C r itia s (109 BC), 427 P r o ta g o r a s (333 D), 96; (354
C r ito (48 C), 65; 93 A), 233
G o r g ia s (456 B), 233; (479 R e p u b lic (330 E), 399; (331
A), 233; (480 C), 233; (490 D ) , 75; (363 D), 183 n .l;
Λ), 517; (492 E - 493 Λ), (375 B), 383 n .l; (375 E -
247; (49.3 Λ), 169 (/*), n.2; 376 B), 86; (390 E), 595;
(521 E - 522 Λ), 233 (406 D), 233; (426 B), 233;
L a c h r » (188 D), 140 (468 E), 509; (469 Λ ),
L a w s (625 E ), 142 n .l ; (626 396; (479 E), 313; (497 E -
A), 142 n .l; (632 E), 212; 498 A), 245; (408 A), 313;
(644 D), 94; (645 A), 94; (517 B), 169 ( f i ) n.2; (521
(649 D ff.), 562; (712 A), C), 247; (530 B), 314;
647
(533 !>), 18-; 183 n .l; (040
BO ), 347; (5 8 8 Λ ) , 75; K nncads I, 6 [1] (3,28), 34;
(617 E ), 503; (619 B), 65; (6,3), 181
.93; (620 DE), 503; (621 II, 1 [40] (2,8), 314; (4,12),
C) , 169 (/i) n.2 300 n.3; 3 [52] (13,14),
S o p h is t (242 D), 118 n.2; 428; 9 [33] (18,20), 404
(242 DE), 108; 120 f.; 262; III, 2 [47] (16,48), 122; 5
(249 B), 196 [50] (6,17), 398 n.2; 6 [26]
S y m p o s iu m . (187 A), 108; 140; (1,31), 569
(187 AB), 120; 124; (189 IV, 8 [6] (1,8), 301; (1,11),
B) , 599 54 f.; 169; 293; (1,17), 301
T h e a e t e t u s (144 C), 75; (152 («1) n .l; (5,5), 301
D) , 214 n.17; (152 DE), V, 1 [10] (2,40), 408; (5,9),
193; 201 n. 18; 217 n . l l ; 569; (9,3), 267; 9 [5] (5,
(156 A), 196; (160 D), 195; 29), 54
(162 D), 219; (177 C), 196; VI, 3 [44] (11,22), 486; 5
(179 D), 196; (180 A), 196; [23] (9,13), 569; (10,11),
(181 A), 190; (181 C), 196; 90
(182 A), 196; (182 C), 196; PLUTARCH
(183 A), 196 M oralia
T i m a e u s (29 A), 550; (33 C), A d v . C o lotem (1115 A), 602;
214 n.12; (42 A), 214 (1118 C), 53
n.12; (43 A), 214 n.12; A m a to r in s (755 D), 384;
(45 D), 217 n.18; (49 BC), (763 0 ,5 9 1
281; (50 C), 201 n.15; (64 D e A m ic o r u m M u ltit. (95 A),
D), 233; (65 B), 233; (66 209 f.
C) , 214 \\. 15; (82 B), 214 De A n im o c Procreation»' in
n.12; (90 A), 503; (90 C), T im a c o (1012 D), 569;
503 (1014 A), 265; (1025 C),
[PLATO] 209; (1026 A), 123; (1026
A lc ib i a d c s 1 (113 C), 75 0 ,3 4
Λ I c ib ia d c s J I (146 DE), 65; /)( A tn lic n d is P o c tis (28 D),
(147 A), 65 560
A m a t o r e s (133 C), 65; (137 D c A u d ie n d o (39 D), 573
B), 65 n .l; (40 F · 41 A), 560;
Ilippias Maior (289 AB), 485 (43 D), 562; (47 K), 25
Iheagcs (127 B), 75 n .l
Scholia in llcmpublicam (498 P c C a h ib c n d a Ira (457 11),
A), 61 ; 313; 330; (600 A), 3.33
398 n .l P r C om m u n i t>ii.i N o t i l i i s a d v .
S c h o lia i n T in in h h i n t (179 K), (1067 O , 209;
S lo ic o .i
Cl (1077 O , 214 n.16; (1082
PLINY A), 214 n .l3 ; (1083 B),
Nat. Hist. IT (104), 166; 209; (1085 B), 209; (1086
XXXI V (21), 538 ii.4 A), 214 ii.7
648
De Defect//, Oraculorum (-115 .ln S rni N it G rri nda B espnb-
K ) , 5-33; (4 1 6 Λ ) , 175 lira (787 C ), 84

n . l ; 343 n . 4 ; 344; 359; De Sera X u m in is V in d ie ta
(416 C ), 3 4 8 ; (4 3 2 A B ) , (559 C ), 201
203 n . 2 ; (4 3 2 F ) , 372 , De S o lh rtia A n im a l. (964
Dr E apud Delphos (3 8 8 B E ) , B ), 136; (9 6 4 E ), 141
2 9 1 ; (3 8 8 E F ) , 2 6 4 ; (3 8 9 De S to ic o ru m B e p u g n a n tiis
C ) , 296 f . ; (3 9 2 A - E ) , (1 049 F ) , 1 5 3 ; (1053 A ) ,
200 f . ; (3 9 2 B ) , 206 f f . ; 279 ( c l ) n . 6 ; 280
(3 9 2 C ), 3 5 6 ; (3 9 2 E ) , De S u p erstitio n s (166 C ),
2 1 1 ; (3 9 3 E ) , 491 9 8 ; (168 C ), 4 2 9 ; (171
De Esu Cnrninm (9 9 5 E ) , 372 E ) , 591
Dr Exilio (6 0 4 A ) , 274 D e T ra n q u ill. A n im i (4 7 3 F ) ,
Dr F ade in Orbr. Lunar (9 2 8 122
B ) , 392 ( 5 ) n . 2 ; (9 3 3 B ) , De Tuende S a n i t a t e (129 C ),
2 0 9 ; (9 3 9 C ), 2 0 9 ; (943 210; (1 3 6 B ) , 221
( ') , 392 (b ) 11.2; (943 An V irtu s D o crri P o ssit (439
B K ), 392 B ) , 562
Dr Fortuna (9 8 C ) , 322 De V irtn tc M orali (4 4 6 F ) ,
De GarruHtate (511 B ), 154 f. 214 n .1 4
Dr Isidr et Osiride (362 Λ ) , V ita e
250 f . ; (3 6 3 B ) , 3 5 6 ; (3 6 9 A n to n iu s ( 7 8 ) , 209
Λ ) , 8 9 ; (3 6 9 A B ) , 12 2 ; C a m ü h ts (1 9 ,1 ) , 319
(3 7 0 B ) , 1 3 3 ; 1 4 1 ; 14 3 ; C o rtoiaints (2 2 ,1 -2 ), 3 8 3 ; (3 8 ,
2 7 4 ; 3 2 1 ; (379 B ) , 59.1; 4 ) , 4 2 ; 440
(3 8 2 A B ) , 4 4 9 ; (382 B ), D em e triu s ( 4 5 ) , 209
447 Xuma ( 9 ,7 ) , 333
Non F o s s e S n a v i t e r Vivi s e c . P h ilo p o cm e n ( 2 0 ) , 214 n .l f i
Epieurum (1096 B ) , 210 K o m u lu s (2 8 ,7 ), 372 f.
Dr Prime Frigida (948 F - F r. D e A n i m a a p . S tob. I V ,
.04.9 A ) , 3 5 0 ; (950 B E ) , 231 5 2 , 4 9 ( V H , p . 27 B e m n i · -
Dr Pythiar Oraculis (397 dnkix), 399 f .; fr.' 22.1
AB) , 4 0 3 ; (4 0 4 B ), 49 ( V I 1, p. 125), 562; 34,3
Onrest. Conviva/rs (6 4 4 F ) , (V ll , p . 151), 4 9
5 6 2 ; (66.8 F - 669 Λ ) , 4 0 7 ; [ PLUTARCH|
(0 7 1 A ) , 18 1 ; (6 8 8 Λ ), A n im in e att C orporis S it L ib i
2 0 9 ; (6 8 8 B ) , 209 do (6 9 7 B ) , 577
(J/tarst. Natural/s (912 Λ ), A p o p h th i g /n a ta L aeo n ica 26
202 228 E ) , 592
(Jurist. (999 B E ) ,
P la to n iea e Aquanr a n I g n i s V t i l i o r (956
500; (1007 B E ) , 343 A ) , 32 5 ; (957 Λ ) , 322;
Q tio m o d o Q u is S en tia t Pro- 32 5 ; (957 A B ) , 328 n .2
feetn s in (7 6 B ) ,
Y irtu tc C o n s o l a t i o a d A p o l l o n i u m (104
5 7 4 ; (81 0 a n d F ) , 573 n . l A ) , 169 ( e r ) n . l ; (1 0 6 D E ) ,
64!)
201 η . 1 3 ; (1 0 6 D — F ) , 21« SEM O N 1D ES
f . ; (1 0 0 E ) , 401 n . l Fr. (7 ,2 f f . D ie h l), 1 8 2 ; (7 ,
71 f f . ) , 489 n . l
PO LLUX
V. ( 1 6 3 ) , 408 SENECA
P O L Y B IU S
Dialogi V I ( 2 1 ,7 ) , 1 9 9 ; V I I I
I V (4 0 ,2 ) , 2 2 ; (3 3 ,3 ) , 433 n . l ; ( 5 ,6 ) , 121; I X ( 2 ,2 ) , 380
X I I ( 2 7 ,1 ) , 22 Epist. Morales (7 ,1 0 ) , 5 1 7 ;
( 1 2 ,7 ) , 3 1 9 ; (2 4 ,2 0 f.), 1 9 9 ;
P O M P O N IU S , S E X T U S
(58,22 f . ) , 1 9 9 ; ( 9 8 ,1 0 ), 380
Digeata I , 2 ( 2 ,4 ) , 538 n . 4
Quaest. Naturales I (3 ,1 0 ) ,
P O R P H Y H IU S
3 0 9 ; I I (5 6 ,1 ), 3 3 1 ; I I I (1 0 ,
De Abstinentia I I ( 4 2 ) , 39 4 ;
1 ) , 2 8 1 ; (2 9 ,1 ), 3 4 8 ; V I I
( 4 9 ) , 25 (2 7 ,4 ), 1 2 1 ; (3 0 ,4 ) , 32
De Antro N ym phanm ( 1 0 ) , SERV 1U S
2 3 9 ; 3 5 4 ; ( 1 1 ) , 331 n . 3 ; In A cn cid . (X , 3 5 0 ), 338;
3 7 5 ; 392 ( 6 ) n . 2 ; ( 2 9 ) , 123 ( X I I , 3 6 6 ), 338
Quaest. Eomericae ad II. ( IV , S E X T U S E M P IR IC U S
4 ) , 4 8 0 ; ( X I V , 2 0 0 ), 174
A d v . ' M a th em a tieo s V I 1 (1.26),
Sentcntiae ad IntelKgibilia Du-
45; (1 2 6 f f .) , 363; (1 2 7 ),
ccntrs (2 9 ,3 ) , 374
5 7 8 ; 5 8 0 ; (1 2 7 -1 3 4 ), 91 f . ;
PRO CLU S ( 1 2 9 ), 1 0 0 ; 5 8 3 ; (1 2 9 -1 3 1 ),
I n Aleibiad. ( I , p. 255,14 Creu- 580 f.; ( 1 3 0 ) , 5 6 6 ; ( 1 3 2 ) ,
z e r ) , 5 2 6 ; (p . 2 7 9 ,1 8 ), 427 2 ; (1 3 3 ), 88; (3 2 9 ), 517;
In Cratyl. (p . 101,22 P a s q u a - (3 3 4 ), 517; ( 3 4 9 ), 581;
l i ) , 35 5 7 8 ; ( 3 5 0 ), 578
In Bempublicam ( I , p. 127,4 V I I I ( 5 ) , 573 n . l ; ( 7 ) , 214
K ro ll), 491; (p . 1 4 0 ,1 4 ), n . 1 4 ; ( 2 8 6 ) , 9 1 ; 581
4 0 4 ; (p . 1 6 6 ,2 0 ), 4 0 4 ; ( I I , I X ( 7 3 ) , 392 n . 5 ; ( 3 3 7 ) , 110
p. 2 0 ,2 3 ), 4 2 7 ; (p . 1 0 7 ,5 ), n . 4 ; ( 3 6 0 ) , 217 n . 1 6 ; 581
3 2 ; ( p . 2 7 0 ,2 8 ), 355 X ( 2 3 3 ) , 217 n . 1 6 ; 581 a m i
In Timaeum ( I , p . 76,20 D ie h l), n .5
1 4 3 ; (p . 102, 2 2 ) , 6 2 ; (p . Pyrrhon. H ypotyp. I ( 5 5 ) , 1 7 7 ;
1 1 7 ,5 ), 3 5 5 ; (p . 1 7 4 ,2 0 ), 14 3 ; 1 7 9 ; ( 5 8 ) , 1 7 8 ; ( 2 1 7 ) , 197
(p . 3 3 4 ,1 ), 4 9 1 ; (p . 3 5 1 ,5 ), n . l ; 214 » .1 2
5 ; ( I I I , p . 310, 3 0 ) , 313 I I ( 4 3 ) , 517
PH O TA G O R A 8 I I I ( 5 4 ) , 214 n . 1 4 ; (1 1 5 ),
(A 14 UK), 197 n .l 214 n n . 12 a n d 1 4 ; (2 3 0 ),
PTOLEMY 239
Tctrabiblos IV (10 p. 205,13 SEXTUS ΡΥΊΊΙAGORICUS
C n m c r.u iu n ), 55-1 n .3 linehiriilion (4 0 3 C h a d w ic k ),
305
S IM O N ID E S
RHINTHON Fr. (5,10 D ie h l), 4 9 9 ; (4 9 ),
Fr. (2 5 K a ib e l) , 550 54 5 ; ( 1 0 0 ,3 ), 532
650
SIMPLICIUS 2 8 0 ; (1 7 ,3 ), 2 7 9 ; (1 9 ,1 ),
In lib ro .t De A n im a (p . 31,27 204 n . l ; (2 1 ,5 ) , 279 ( c i)
H a y d u c k ) , 357 ( f 1 ) n . l 11.7; (4 0 ,5 ), 103 n . 2 f f . .
ln W bros D e C a rlo (p . 294,4 (4 7 ,8 ), 2 3 7 ; (4 9 ,3 7 ), 3 0 2 ;
H e ib e r g ) , 1 7 3 ; (p . 294,4 f f . ) , (4 9 ,3 9 ), 16 9 ; 2 9 3 ; 302
2 6 3 ; (p . 3 0 7 ,1 5 ), 2 6 2 ; (p . ' II (1 ,1 6 ), 4 8 6 ; ( 2 ,5 ) , 4 9 ;
3 6 7 ,9 ), 263 f. (3 1 ,1 1 6 ), 62 f . ; (7 5 ,1 1 ), U 5
In C a te g . (p , 412,22 K a lb IT I (1 ,1 7 2 ), 524 n . 3 ; 526 n . 5 ;
f le is c h ) , 1 3 4 ; 141 (1 ,1 7 4 ), 4 4 0 ; ( 1 ,1 7 5 ), 5 6 3 ;
ln P h y sic a (p . 23,33 D ie ls ), (1 ,1 7 6 ), 38 9 ; ( 1 ,1 7 7 ), 2 2 5 ;
1 7 1 ; 291 f . j (p . 2 4 ,4 ), 2 6 2 ; (1 ,1 7 8 ), 5 ; 9 0 ; (1 ,1 7 9 a ),
( p . 5 0 ,1 0 ), 1 2 3 ; (p . 5 0 ,1 5 ), 8 9 ; (1 ,1 7 9 b ), 8 8 ; (1 ,1 8 0 a ),
121 n . l ; (p . 7 7 ,3 0 ), 2 0 2 ; 5 6 8 ; (1 ,1 9 9 ), 4 9 ; (4 ,5 4 ) , 4 5 ;
(p . 8 2 ,2 3 ), 123 ( / ) n . l ; (p . (4 ,8 7 ), 5 7 4 ; ( 5 ,6 ) , 5 6 ; 9 0 ;
8 8 7 ,1 ), 2 0 2 ; (p . 1 1 2 1 ,1 2 ), ( 5 ,7 ) , 37 9 ; ( 5 ,8 ) , 3 7 1 ; ( 1 7 ,
2 0 4 ; (p . 1 1 8 1 ,1 4 ), 2 8 1 ; (p . 4 2 ) , 3 7 1 ; (1 8 ,3 1 ), 5 6 2 ; (2 1 ,
1 2 5 7 ,1 7 ), 2 0 2 ; (p . 1 3 1 3 ,8 ), 7 ) , 5 3 ; (3 7 ,1 8 ), 501
202 IV (2 5 ,4 4 ), 8 4 ; 4 7 1 ; (2 9 a ,1 1 ),
SO LO N 44 9 ; (3 4 ,5 7 ), 6 0 0 ; ( 3 9 ,1 9 ;,
F r. (1 9 ,3 f. D ie h l), 5 5 4 5 7 0 ; (4 0 ,2 3 ), 5 0 0 ; (4 1 ,1 ),
SOPHOCLES ■ 169 ( e i ) n . l ; (5 2 ,4 9 ), 399 f.
A ja x ( 1 3 7 ) , 4 2 9 ; (2 7 8 f . ) , 429 V (4 6 ,1 ), 40
A n tig o n e ( 4 0 9 ) , 5 5 0 ; ( 5 4 7 ), STRABO
6 9 ; ( 7 5 4 ), 5 2 9 ; ( 8 1 9 ) , 5 1 0 ; T (1 ,6 p. 3 C a sa u b o n ), 3 3 6 ; χ
(1 3 5 3 ), 96 (3,10 p .4 6 8 ), 468 n . 2 ; X IV
E te ctra ( 1 7 5 ) , 432 n . l ; (2 1 4 (25 p. 6 4 2 ), 5 3 8 ; X V I (2 6
f.), 478 p. 7 8 4 ), 407
O e d ip u s C o lo n eu s (1 5 5 9 f . ) , 156 STRA TO N O F LA M PSA CU S
F h ilo c tctes (8 3 0 f .) , 245; F r . (1 0 8 W e h r li) , 5 7 8 ; ( l l o
(8 3 7 ), 478; (9 3 1 ), 192; a n d 1 1 1 ), 577
( 9 3 3 ) , 1 9 2 ; ( 9 9 1 ) , 8 6 ; (1222 Suda
f . ) , 126 -s .v . ά μ φ ισ β α τ ε ΐν an d ά γ χ ι-
T ra ch in ia e ( 1 0 1 ) , 431 n . l ; β α τ ε ΐν , 565; s .v . ά ν α ρ ίθ -
( 5 1 1 ) , 129 n . 5 μ η τ ο ς , 5 1 6 ; s . v . Δ η λ ίο υ
Fr. (5 7 6 ,5 P ea rso n ), 125; κ ο λ υ μ β η τ ο ΰ , 266 n . 3 ; s . v .
( 7 7 1 ) , 5 2 ; ( 9 1 9 ) , 365 n . 3 ; δ ώ ρ α , 5 9 5 ; s . v . ‘Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι
( 9 6 1 ) , 4 2 9 ; ( f r . in v e rt. 870 τ ο ς , 5 6 ; 121 n . 2 ; 4 0 9 ; s.v.
N a u e k ) , 338 “ Ο μ η ρ ο ς , 81 n . 5 ; s . v .
SO SIT TT K U S 'ρ υ μ ό ς τ ο υ ά ρ μ α τ ο ς , 5 8 7 ;
F r . (1 N a u e k ), 517 s . v . Π ό σ τ ο υ μ ο ς , 54
S T K S IC IT O ltlJS S to ic o ru m V eteru m F ra g m en te
F r . ( 6 D ie h l), 333 (S V F ed. AI» A rn im )
STOBAKUS l ( n r . 7 1 ), 5 7 4 ; ( 1 0 2 ) , 27 9 ;
I (1 0 ,5 ) , 1 0 4 ; 1 3 4 ; 4 4 8 ; (1 0 , (1 3 3 ), 553; (1 4 0 ), 362;
7 ) , 104 ( 6 ) n . l ; (1 0 ,1 6 ), ( 1 4 1 ), 213 n . l ; ( 1 7 9 ), 115;
651
( 3 2 4 ) , 201 i i .2 1 ; ( 3 8 0 ) , 8 4 ; V ( 1 8 ) , 3 5 8 ; ( 2 3 ) , 358 (f s)
4 7 1 ; (G 01), 318 η . 6 ; ( 5 1 9 ) , n . 2 ; 581 n . 8 ; 585
1 9 4 ; 357 f . ; 5 8 5 ; (5 5 9 ), V I I I (3 9 ), 509; 512; (4 1 ),
• 517 3 9 9 ; 5 0 9 ; 512
I I (n r. 4 1 3 ), 280; (4 3 0 ), 356; X I ( 7 ) , 185
(5 7 9 ), 280; (6 1 6 ), 296; TH EO D O RU S PRO DROM US
( 6 3 6 ) , 1 4 4 ; ( 6 5 0 ), 331 η . 3 ; Epist. 1 ( P G 133, p . 1240 A ) ,
(8 1 1 ), 585; ( 8 7 9 ), 5 7 6 ; 515
( 8 8 5 ) , 579 η . 5 ; ( 9 3 7 ) , 1 5 3 ; T e tr a s tic h , i n Basil. I , 515
( 9 8 9 ) , 201 η . 2 1 ; (1 1 0 8 ), T H E O G N IS
8 9 ; ( 1 1 6 9 ), 142 η . 6 ; 227 1 (1 4 1 f . ) , 4 7 4 ; (1 6 1 -6 4 ), 5 0 2 ;
I I I ( n r . 1 2 ) , 115 ( 1 6 3 ) , 5 0 4 ; (1 6 5 f . ) , 5 0 2 ;
SY M M A CH U S (4 7 5 f .) , 3 8 1 ; ( 1 1 3 5 ), 2 1 8 ;
Epist. I X ( 1 1 5 ) , 515 f. (1 1 9 1 -9 4 ), 410
S Y N E S IU S Theologumcna Arithmeticac (p. 45
De ln so m n iis ( 2 : D G 66, p. A xt,), 589
1285 D ) , 12 3 ; ( 5 : p. 1293 T I IK O N O F S M Y R N A
A ) , 375 Mathemat. (p. 104,6 Ilillcr),
555
THEOPH RASTUS
T A C IT U S
A nna!, X V (2 0 ,2 ), 230 n . 2
De Cansis Plantarum V I (1 9 ,
3 ) , 156
T A T IA N U S
M c ta p h y s ic a 15 (p . 7 a 10 Use-
O ra tio ad G raeeos (3 p. 3
n e r ) , 547
S c h w a r tz ) , 55
De S e n s i h u s (1 D ie ls ) , 6 0 4 ;
T E R T U L L IA N
( 5 7 ) , 579 n . 2
De A n im a ( 2 ,6 ) , 3 6 5 ; ( 5 ,2 ) ,
D e V c r t i g i n c ( 9 ) , 153
3 5 8 ; (9 ,5 ) , 5 8 1 ; (1 4 ,5 ), 5 7 8 ;
P h y s ic o r u m O p in io n e s f r . (1
( 1 5 ,5 ) , 5 7 8 ; 5 8 1 ; (1 7 ,2 ),
D ie ls ), 134 f . ; 1 7 1 ; 2 6 2 ;
46
291 f .
A d v . M a r c i o n e m I I ( 2 8 ,1 ) , 165
Theosophia (43 E r b s e ) , 433 η. 1 ;
A d N a t i o n e s I I (4 ,1 5 ), 309
( 6 7 ) , 1 2 ; ( 6 8 ) , 455 f . ; ( 6 9 ) ,
T H E M T S T IU S
5 9 1 ; ( 7 4 ) , 457
ln A ritstol. P h y x ic a P a r a p h ra s is
THUCYDIDES
( y . 86, 31 Scheukl) , 437 n . 3
I (7 3 ,2 ) , 24 n . l ; I I (3 5 ,3 ) ,
O r a t . 5 (6 9 B ) , 3 2 ; 12 (159
97 n . 7 ; (4 0 ,1 ) , 29 n . 6 ; I I I
B ) , 32 (8 2 ,6 ), 94
De V irtu te (p. 40 Sachau), 155 T IM A E U S Grammaticus
T H E O C R IT U S L i r. P l a t . s . v . κ ν ά φ ο ς , 104
4 ( 4 3 ) , 3 3 8 ; 15 ( 5 9 ) , 213 n .2 T I ΜΑ E U S Jl istoricus
T IIK O D O R E T U S Pr. 132 (P Gr llis t 506 Jn eo -
G ra eca n ica ru m A ffectu u m Cu- R y ), 71
ra tio I (7 0 ), 12; (8 8 ), 4 ; T IM O N
3 7 ; 39 Fr. (2 0 D ie ls ), 6 2 ; 6 5 ; (4 3 ),
I V ( 2 2 ) , 3 0 7 ; ( 2 3 ) , 331 526 n . 6
652
T r a y ie a A d e s p o ta 246,22; 249,42 and 253,61
F r . (517: T G F Nauck), 13 Allen), 81 n.5
TYRTAEUS
F r . (6,4 ff. Diehl), 146 XENOCBATES A c a d c m ie u s
TZETZES F r . (60 Heinze), 569
C h ilia d . X III (662 Kiessling),

XENOPHANES
F r . (1,17 f. DK), 381; (8,2),
81 n.5
I n A r i s t o p h . N itb . (96a Hoi·
529; (14-16), 454; 462;
(23), 438; 443; 445; 446;
werda), 581 n.7
454; 463; (25), 445; 528;
I n A r i s t o p h . P l u t . (90a Mas-
(29), 363; (33), 363; (34),
sa Positano), 543 80; 474; (45), 529; (A 33
E x e g . i n I l ia d c m (p. 37 Her
DK), 318 n.4; (A 38), 581
mann), 81 n.5; (p. .101), 190 n.7; (A 40), 318 n.4; (A
S c h o lia a d E x c g . i n I l ia d , (p. 50), 363
126 Hermann), 220 XENOPHON
A n a b a s is I (4,10), 343 n.4;
VALLA, LAURENTIUS 345; I I I (2,17), 460; IV
l i e E x p e t e n d i s v t F u g ic n d is F e (2,5-6), 96; V (4,34), 96;
in s , III (17), 587 VI (1,31), 51; (8,18), 234;
V c tn s T c s ta m c n tu m G raecc llc d - VII (7,40), 47
d itu m (LXX) C y n c g c tic u s (5 ,3 4 ), 343 n .4
G e n . (18,1), 31 n .l
C y r o p a e d iaI (6,22), 598; III
D e u te r o n . (32,22), 266
(1,36), 383 n.4; VIII (1,
H a b a k k u k ( 2 ,1 8 and .19), 458
28), 252
U e lle n ic a V (4,17), 51
I s a i a h (7,9), 13; 43; (55,8-9),
M e m o r a b ilia I (1,9), 51; (2,
475 n.3 54), 233; (4,1 1 ) , 4 2 9 ; (4,
J u d i t h (8,14), 370 n.2 13), 21; (7,1), 598; II (6,
VINCENTIUS BELLOVACEN- 39), 598; IV (2,9), 478; (6,
SIS 12), 535 n .l; 537 n .l
S p e c u lu m M o r a le III (9,3
Woelfflin), 181 ZACHARIAS OF MITYLENE
V it a e H u m e r i D r M u n d i O p ific io (p. 89 Bois-
(p p . 1 0 0 ,1 8 ; 2 1 5 ,4 9 9 ; 24 2 , 6 7 ; soinule), 491
653
INDEX NOMINUM POTIORUM
ADAM, J.: 347 285, 287, 295, 324, 326, 333, 339,
ALLAN, D. J.: 193 n.2 307, 386, 387, 410, 494, 507, 583
ARNIM, II. von: 209, 249, 423 BY WATER, L: 18, 43, 91, 188,
n . 3, 584 n . 2 189, 213 n .l, 261 n .l, 275, 324,
AUERBACH, W.: 221 352 n.4, 381, 384, 447 n .l, 449,
485 n .l, 489, 493, 564
BECHTEL, F .: 450
BEKKER, I.: 89 n .8, 485 n .l CALOGERO, G.: 171, 192, 193 n .l,
BERGK, T.: 14 n .3, 220 416, 445, 451
BERNAYS, J.: 81 n.3, 100 n .l, CAPELLE, P.: 392 n.2
111 n.5, 153 n.7, 162 n.2, 210, CAPELLE, W.: 342
252, 320, 365, 395 n.6, 396, 440, CIIERNISS, H.: 116 f., 159, 193
445, 467, 470, 494, 505 n.5, 520 n:2, 279 nn.5 and 6, 282, 283,
n.2 295, 315, 357, 360, 384, 392 n.2,
BIGNONE, E.: 129 n.2 419
BOEDER, H.: 422 n .l CLASSEN, C. J . : 494
BOGNER, XI.: 386 f. CLASSEN, .L: 47
BOLL, F.: 328, 335 n .l, 555 CO11ET, C. O.: 505 n.5
BOOTH, N. B.: 126 <OLSON, F. H .: 249
BRECHT, F.-J.: 86 n.2, 221 COKNFOKD, F. M.: 27
BREITHAUPT, O . : 11 n n . 1 1 n n d
12 DAVIDSON, T.: 413 n.5
BRIEGER, Λ.: 119 n.2, 300 DECANI, K.: 493 f.
BRINKMANN, Λ.: 75 DEICIIGKAEBKK, K.: 04, 66,
HKOKCK Elf, W.: 221, 328, 442, 283, 285, 286, 310, 415, 447 n.l,
447 n .l, 450 f., 483 f. 449, 488', 494, 575, 579
BURKERT, W.: £0 n.ö, 65, 69, DKLATTE, A.: 08, 254, 468
70, 453 n .l, 406 DIELS, IL: 72, 76, 78 n.4, 93, 105,
BÜRNET, J.: 47, 6<8, 69, 119 n.2, 129 n.3, 132 n.3, 156, 193 nn.l
138, 147, 218, 228, 278 n.4, 282, nnd 2, 210, 218, 245, 248, 249,
654
279 (c*) 11.7, 288, 291 n.4, 318, 295, 299, 300 n.2, 303, 310, 316,
324, 326, 342, 347, 359 n.2, 365 318, 320, 326, 328, 333, 337, 348,
π.2, 368, 381, 386, 390, 393, 397, 362, 390, 397, 401, 410, 419, 420,
413 n.5, 415, 429, 433, 447 n .l, 425, 430, 433, 435, 436, 441, 442,
449, 494, 507, 508, 510, 514, 526 ' 446, 447 n .l, 449, 451, 462, 482,
nn.2 and 3, 533 n .l, 534, 547 483, 508, 528, 551, 558, 566, 572,
n.3, 551, 552 n.5, 564, 569, 575, 583
577, 584 n.2, 589 GLADIGOW, B.: 65
DILLER, H.: 193 n.2, 579, 583, GOEDECKEMEYER, A.: 584 n.2
584 n .l GOMPERZ, H.: 57, 65, 171, 225
DIRLMEIER, F.: 124, 142 n.5, n.2, 271, 360, 364, 450, 470, 519,
387 525, 547 n.3, 589
D1TTENBERGER, W.: 76 GOMPERZ, T.: 40, 43, 360, 494
DODDS, E. R.: 254, 454 n .l GREGOIRE, F.: 254, 468
DUEMMLER, F.: 575 n .l GUTHRIE, W. K. C.: 69, 70 n.3,
DYROFF, A.: 84, 471, 573 n .l 95, 126, 211, 270 f., 276, 288,
303, 310, 317, 320, 325, 326, 333,
ERBSE, If.: 462, 593 349, 369, 381, 386, 387, 390, 401,
419, 433, 436 f., 442, 445, 451,
FARQUHAKSON, A. H. L.: 379, 460, 462, 470, 473, 482, 489, 494,
473 503, 504, 507, 510, 528, 532
FISCHER, W.: 587 n.4
FOERSTER, R.: 418 nn.2 nml 5 HARDER, R.: 304
FONTEEROSE, J .: 255 HEADLAM, W.: 471 n.2
FRAENKEL, H.: 68, 95, 282, 310, HEIDEL, W. A.: 76, 96, 339, 413
326, 386 f., 402, 405, 413 n.5, n.5, 415, 451, 477
415, 422 n.2, 424, 433, 442, 445, HEINIMANX, F .: 94, 95, 96, 192
455 n .l, 482, 487 f., 489, 493, HENSE, O.: 569
508, 528, 529, 552 n.5, 557, 558 HERTER, H .: 493, 494
FRANCOIS, G.: 503 HIRZEL, R.: 273 n.3, 277
FRIEDLAENDER, P.: 82, 468, HOEFER, G.: 109 n .l
547 nn.3, 4 and 7, 548 HOELSCHER, U.: 41 n.6, 83 nn.l
FRITZ, K. von: 69 f., 584 n.2 and 2, 113 f., 244, 405
FRUECHTEL, L.: 75, 244, 520, HOUSMAN, A. E.: 129 n.2
522
1DELER, I. L.: 315
GAISFORD, T.: 467
GANSOIIINIETZ, R.: 218, 510 •TAEGER, W.: 76, 92, 96, 140, 146,
GATAKER, T.: 18 277, 479
GIGANTE, M.: 535 JEANMAIRE, H.: 255
GIG ON, O.: 30, 77, 92, 95, 96, .TONES, II. I,.: 339
105, 114, 129 and n .l, 131 n .l,
137, 142, 146, 147, 148 n.2, 152, KAHN, C. H.: 140
157, Table (after 160) n.3, 175, KALLENBERG, H.: 450
211, 213 n.3, 218, 240, 245, 269, KEMMEB, E.: 273 n.3
270, 271 f., 275, 282, 283, 288, KERENYI, K.: 255
655
KERSCH ENSTEINEK, J.: 125, LORTZ1NG, F .: 593
129 η .2, 172, 2 6 9 , 5 4 9 , 551 LUCE, J. V.: 193 n.2
KEYSSNER, K.: 445
KIESSLING, A.: 129 η .2 MACCHIORO, V.: 465, 494
KIRK, G. S.: 16 n .l, 33, 36, 48, MADDALENA, A.: 216 n.3, 218,
64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 81 n .5, 82, 95, 221, 241 n.2, 248
96, 97, 99, 100, 105, 106 f., 108, MAJNARTC, N.: 459
114, 115, 116, 117, 118 n .l, 124, MARKLAND: 447 ( b ) n.2, 449
126, 127, 128, 129 and n .l, 137, MAUERSBERGER, A.: 23
138 f., 140, 142, 145, 147, 156, MAZZANTINI, C.: 57 n .l, 230
157, 159, 160 n .l, 163, 171, 172, n.2, 282
175, 178, 183, 186, 189, 192, 193 MCDIARMJD, J. B.: 547 nn.3, 6
n n .l and 2, 206, 210, 211, 212, and 7, 548
213, 215, 218, 219, 221, 223, 224, MEERWALDT, J. D.: 194 n.2
226, 229, 234, 245, 249, 254, 208, MERLAN, P.: 52
269, 270, 271, 272, 275, 276, 282, MEZ1RIAC, BACHET DE: 328
281, 286, 287, 288, 290 n.3, 294, n.2
295, 298, 299, 303, 310, 315, 316, MILLER, E.: I l l n.7, 222 n.3,
317 f., 320, 321, 324 f., 327, 332, ·) 13 11.3, 554 1111 . 1 sind 2
333, 334, 337, 339 f., 344 f., MONDOLFO, R.: 193 n.2, 272,
348, 349, 352 n.2, 357, 360, 362 368, 393, 431, 551
f., 364, 368, 369, 387, 393 f., MORRISON, J. S.: 29 n.6, 453
405 f., 415, 416, 417, 419, 420, n .l
425, 429, 433, 435, 442, 445, 446, MOURELATOS, A.: 95
449, 450, 451, 453, 467, 468, 479, MUTH, R.: 589
481, 482, 483, 488, 503, 507, 511,
532, 534, 544, 549, 557, 559, 566, NESTLE, E.: 413 n.5
583 NESTLE, W.: 51 f., 138, 223, 247
KOWOLSKI, G.: 324 n.2, 254, 277, 339, 368, 379 n.2,
KRANZ, W.: 65, 129 n.3, 270, 510
275, 318, 321, 335 n .l, 339, 342, NEUMANN, K. J.: 593
429, 442, 493, 519, 549, 577, 583, NILSSON, Μ. P.: 514
589 NORDEN, K.: 109 n .l, 440
KURTZ, E.: 129
ONI ANS, R. B.: 367, 386, 387
LASGAR1S COMNENO, C.: 86 OTTO, W.: 250 n.3, 255
I, ASSALLE, F.: 349 OWEN, G. E. L.: 126
LEE, II. 1). P .: 315
l.ESKY, Λ.: 250 ii.3, 253 P A ΡΛΒΛΗ1 L E I O S : 417 ( b ) n . l
LG11ZE, 211, 215 P A S C A L , C . : 17
LLOYD, G. E. 1L: 100 n.2 PAT IN, A.: 223,, 284, 324, 327,
LLOYD-JONES, II.: 184 n.2, 186 460
LONG, A. A.: 126 PATON, W. R.: 217 n.17, 403
LONG, H. S.: 67, 129 n.3, 449, nn.3 and 6
604 n .2 PETERSON, S.: 487
LORIMER, W. L.: 103 n .9 PFLEIDERER, E .: 254
656
POHLENZ, Μ.: US, 576, S77 SOLMSEN, F .: 579 lin.l anil 2
PRAECIITER, K.: 142 n.6, 509, SPANAR, J.: 95
511 STAHL, J. M.: 250 n.3
STKMPLIXGEB, E.: 352
RADERMACHER, L.: 271 STENZEL, J.: 193 n.2, 244
RAMNOUX, C.: 43, 231 n . 7 STEPHANOS, H.: 371 n .l, 377
RATHMANN, W.: 69 STERNBACH, L.: 575
RAVEN, J. E.: 126 STURZ, F.: 604 n .l
REICH, K.: 126, 250 n.2, 254 SYLBURG, F.: 227 n.3, 242 n.3
REINHARDT, K.: 29 n.5, 41 n.4,
43, 64, 68, 70, 72, 75, 171, 178, TANNERY, P-: 11 nn.3 und 4,
206, 209, 212, 213 n.3, 218, 223, 346 n .l, 347
245, 254, 261 n.2, 268, 271, 275, TETCHMUELLER, G.: 324, 338
2S2, 283, 286, 289 n .l, 310, 316, THEILER, IV.: 584 n .l
317, 320, 327, 344, 348, 386, 393, THOMPSON, S.: 510
403, 419, 435, 436, 442, 450, 451, TRTNCAVELLI, V.: 371 n .l, 377
465, 466, 467, 482, 488, 495, 557,
558,559,584 11.2 U8ENER, IL: 153, 547 nn.4 nnd 0
UEISKI·:, .T. .1.: 67 n.2
REN DALE, Ο. H.: 471 n.2 VERDKNIUS, \V. .1.: 27 f., 125,
RI VIER, A.; 213 nn.2 and 3, 214 253, 254, 387, 489, 532
n. 8 VLASTOS, G.: 99, 125 f., 13S, 2.12,
ROBERTSON, D. S.: 455 n .l, 459 221, 269, 272, 277, 279 n.6, 282,
ROE Dl GER, R.: 445 283, 285, 349, 449, 451, 484, 534,
ROIIDE, E .: 403 542 n .l
RUDBERG, G.: 182, 458 VOGEL, C. .T.: 29 n.6, 453 n .l
SANDBACH, F. H.: 36, 67 (5) WAERDEN, D. L. VAN DER:

n .l, 324, 392 n.3 347 f.
SAUPPE, H.: 217 n.10, 231 nn.4 WACHSMUTH, C.: 279 (c»> n.6
anil 7 WALZER, R.: 175, 178, 282, 314,
SCHADEWALDT, \V.: 33, 555 544
SCHKNKL, H.: 509, 569 WARBURG, M.: 193 n.2
SCHLEIEUMACIIKU, F.: 64, 78 WEBER, F.-.T.: 10
n .l, 88 11.3, 96, 132 n .l, 200 WEKRTS, E.: 213 n.3
n .l, 253, 268, 339, 419, 522, 571 WENDLAND, P.: 371 («i) n.4,
n .l, 572 486 (c) n .l, 488, 552 n.3
SCITOTTLAKNDER, R.: 76, 542 WESSELING, P.: 371 n .l
n .l WIESE, II.: 28 nn.4 and 5, 251,
SC1I KADER, II.: 342 269, 279 nn.5 and 6, 282, 283,
SCI|K’OETER, .1.: 214 n.9 28« f., 290 n.2, 324, 399, 402,
SCJ1UHL, P.-M.: 254, 255 403, 433, 465, 468, 489, 507, 508,
SCHWARTZ, E.: 66 529, 593
SNELL, B.: 51, 105, 106, 108, 287, WILAMOWITZ - MOELLENDORFF,
360, 367 f., 455 n.5, 461, 475 U. VON: 27, 64, 65, 69, 218,
n .l, 502, 503, 507, 570 225 n.2, 231 n.7, 242 n.7, 243
657
η. 11, 250 η .2, 254 f., 387, 430, ZELLER, Ε.: 27 f., 47, 57, 69,
481, 494, 503, 506 η .2, 507, 541, 119 η.1, 178 η.1, 213 η.1, 245,
544, 561 η.1, 564, 575, 593 250 η .3, 254, 310, 326, 333, 339,
WORDSWORTH, C.: 231 ηη.4 348, 349, 357, 360, 368, 386, 401,
and β 442, 568, 484, 494, 510, 551
WUNDT, Μ.: 8 ZILLES, W.: 488
ZOUMPOS, A. Ν .: 566 η.1
XYLANDER (HOLTZMAN, W .): ZUCKER, F.: 367
560 η .2 ZURETTI, C. Ο.·. 543
658
INDEX RERUM MEMORABILIUM
Aenesidemus, and the distortion Comparisons, as a pattern, in He

of Heraclitus’ sayings, 206 f., raclitus, 488, and cf. I n t l r r V r r -
577 f., 580 f., 583 f . b o m m s. οκοοπερ
Alliteration, in Heraclitus, 0, 148 Corporeality, of Law and Logos,
n . 2, 271, 435, 547 in Heraelitus, 95, 97 n .l, 117
Anaximander’s dictum, 138 ff. Cratylus, 193, 206 f.
Archilochus, borrowings from, 15 δίκη and Δίκη, 76, 138, 229 f..
f . ; attacked by Heraclitus, 151 277
Diogenes Laertius, his account on
άρετή, 148, 504
Heraclitus, 65 f., 172 f. n.3,
Aristocracy, praise of by Hera
320 f., 334
clitus, 351, 499, 507 f., 520, 523,
E c p y r o s is , or consumption of the
525, 532, 537, 541 f., 544
world by fire, n o t likely for
άρμονίη, ‘connexion’, 36, 125, 127 Heraelitus, 2 7 1 f., 289, 295, 299,
ff. 348, 436; first ascribed to He
Article, use of liv Heraclitus, Hi raclitus by Aristotle, 262, 272
n.l Emendated texts, 62 ( 0 2 ) n .l (Cle
Astronomy, Heraclitus’, 305 f., ment) ; 85 (!>-) n.3 ( A G ) ;
310 f., 316 ff., 320, 325 ff., 153 (a) nn.2 and 5 (Tlieo-
332 ff., 339 f., 342, 347 f. phrast.); 1 6 2 ( a ) n .l, 163 f.
Bias, mentioned with appreciation (Heraclit. ap. Hippol.) ; 2 0 1
by Heraclitus, 525, 526 n . 6 , 529 (t'3), n.7, 2 1 0 (Plut.) ; 2 0 1 (<Η)
Change, qualitative, of fire, in He n.2 ( P l u t . ) ; 2 0 4 ( < / i ) n .l
raclitus, 260, 287 f., 289, 294 f., ( A e t . ) ; 2 3 6 ( h i ) n.3 (Heraclit.
303 f., 415, 417 Homeric.); 247 ( a ) n.3; 284 (He
Chiasm in Heraclitus, 7, 94, 138, raclit. ap. Clem.) ; 297 (c) n.l,
142 11. 2 , 149, 242, 244, 253, 298 (Plut.) ; 319 (n) n.l (Plut.) ;
415, 460, 494, 514 322 ( a ) n.3, 328 n . 2 [Plut.];
χρεών, 131 n.2, 138, 142 330 (a) n.2, 334 (Diog. Lagrt) ;
χρή, 6 6 , 137, 530 343 ( a ) n.3 (Plut,); 372 («5 )
659
η .3 (Plut.),* 373 (οβ) n n .l and 273, 289, 294, 415. Cf. God,
2 (P lat.); 383 (oi) n.2 (Hera- σκάφαι, Soul
clit. ap. P lu t.); 404 (b>) nn.l Flux, constant, of all things, not
and 2 (Iambi.); 413 (a) n.5 likely for Heraclitus, 194 ff.,
( A n e c d . P a r . ) ; 414 ( a ) n . 6 , 212
416 (Heraclit. ap. Hippol.); 414 Folk beliefs, used by Heraclitus,
(b) nn.1,2 and 3 (Hippol.); 218, 254 f., 271, 276, 363, 436,
422 ( a ) n.2, 424 (Hippol.); 474 f., 556
458 (p2) n.3 ( A c t a A p o l l o n i i ) ; Fragments of Heraclitus, new in
464 (a) n.2, 466 (Clement); terpretations of, attempted, 24,
477 (Heraclit. ap. Origen.) ; 480 26 ff., 51 f., 69 f., 76, 91 f.,
(a) n . 8 , 481 (Heraclit. ap. Por 96, 99 f., 106, 109, 127 f., 138
phyr.); 505 ( a ) n n .l, 2 and 3, ff., 146, 148, 149, 182, 208 ff.,
507 (Clement); 513 (b) n.4 211, 213, 229, 240 f., 244, 253
(Hippol.); 515 n .l, 519 (Hera ff., 284 f., 287 f., 298 f., 304,
clit.); 533 ( a ) n .l, 534 (He 310 f., 320 f., 326 f., 344 f.,
raclit. ap. D L); 540 ( d ) nn.2, 347 { ., 366 f., 378, 401 f., 406,
3 and 4 (Iambi.); 542 n .l 416 f., 452 f., 484, 488, 493 ff.,
(Phoenix of Colophon); 543 504, 528 f., 534 f., 541 f., 557
(b) n n .l and 2 [Heraclit. ff., 561, 585 f.
epiel.]; 547 (a) n.5 (Theo- Fragments, Heraclitus’, edited by
phrast.); 552 ( a ) n .l (Lydus); Diels-Kranz, rejected:
552 (a) nn.2 and 4 (Philo); A 16 (116) - 583 f.
554 (c) nn . 8 , 9, 10 ad 11 22 (28 c2 -6 ) - 140 ff.
(A et.)l 581 (a) n .l (Sext. B 8 (27 d>); 28 (ci) -121,133
Emp.); 595 ( a ) n .l ( G n o m . 12b ( 6 6 p ) - 360
V a t.) ; 598 ( a ) n .l (G n o m . 14» (87) - 465 f f .
V a t . ) ; 603 (iv) n .l (Macrob.); 19 (1 g ) - 1 0
604 (ii) n .l (DL) 37 (36 ci) - 180
Ethics, the martial and aristocra 49a (40 C2) - 211
tic, of Heraclitus, 499, 504, 507, 67a (115) - 577 ff.
510, 514, 520, 523 69 (98 g ) - 519 f .
ήθος, 478, 502 ff., 544 70 (92 d) - 489
Exhalation, hot from the sea, in 71 (69 bi) - 381
HeTaelitus, 305, 320, 332 f., 72b ( 3 c) - 14
344, 348 73 (1 fti) - 10
Fire, its dual character in Heracli 75 (1 h - ) - 10
tus: immaterial, divine and ai- 76 ( 6 6 c ) - 360
tliorial as extra-cosmic, and sub 77a (60 d') - 360
ject to changes obeying the 77b ( 4 7 <j4 ) . 239
principle of constant measures 82-83 (92 b) · 488 f.
(along with sea and earth) 91 (40 c3) - 206 ff.
when cosmic, 259 f., 284 f., 287, 112 (23 f ) ■ 96
350; the basic, underlying sub 113 (23 Φ -) - 96
stance of all things, 259 f., 116 (23 e ) - 96
660
126α (118) - 589 rent from any other idea, 438,
127 (119) - 593 441 f., 446; human wisdom
128 (86 0ΐ) - 462 consists only in trying to grasp
130 (124) - 599 God as absolute Wisdom, 438
131 (114 (Ji) - 573 f., 452 f. Cf. Insight
132 (120) - 595 Great Year in Heraclitus, its Ba
133 (121) - 596 bylonian origin and astronomi
134 (122) - 597 cal meaning, 347 f .
135 (123) - 598 Headings in Heraclitus, 16 n .l,
136 (96 b) ■510 f. 105 f.
137 (28 di) - 142 Hecataeus, attacked by Heraclitus,
138 (125) - 601 64 f.
139 (118 c) - 589 f. Heroes, cult of, in Herfftlitus, 147,
Fragments, Heraclitus’, ed. by DK, 240, 391, 396 f., 462 f., 510,
rejected by other scholars, de 514
fended : Hesiod, attacked by Heraclitus,
66 (82) . 435 f . 64 f., 131, 223, 270, 320; in
89 (24) - 99 f . fluence of, upon Heraclitus, 396
106 (59) · 320 f. f.
125a (106) - 544 f. Homer, attacked by Heraclitus, 82
129 (17) - 68 f. f., 130 f., 137 f., 140 f., 148,
Fragments, Heraclitus’, ed. by DK, 151 f., 528 f., mentioned as
suspected: astronomer, 342; influence of,
46 (114) - 575 upon Heraclitus, 145 f., 343
47 (113) - 572 n.4, 393, 421, 461, 537
115 (112) · 569 f. Insight, true, has only God, a
Generation, human, based on the folkloric commonplace, in Hera
hebdomadal reckoning, in He clitus, 474 f., 477 ff., 484, 487
raclitus, 556 ff. f., 495
γνωσις τού όμοιου τώι όμοίωμ Law, 94 f ., 534 f .
in Heraclitus, 378, 439, 453 λόγος, meaning ‘an objective
God, thought of as fire (aitherf), truth (or law)’, 1, 8 , 113 f., 118;
by Heraclitus, 411, 412, 416, its content and scope, 1, 6 , 8 , 9,
420, 421, 424 f., 433, 435 f., 87, 93, 96, 115 f., 118; is em
439, 446; as inherent in things, pirically apprehensible, 1, 15 f.,
4M, 412, 416 f., 419 f.; as 19, 27 f., 126 f., but is not
separated from things, 411, 421; self-evident, 1, 10, 28, 30, 33,
as Steersman of the physical 36, 38, 40, 47, 51 f., 59, 64,
world, 424 f., 451, 453; ns Shep 65, 69, 82; as opposed to ‘false
herd and Judge of the man opinions’, 1, 15, 59 f., 70, 72
kind, 429 i . , 433, 435 ff.; very f., 76, 80, 99 f., 151 f.; is
alike to the epic Zeus, 421, 424 not to be identified either with
f ., 429 f ., 433, 438, 446, 452; as Fire, 117, or with Law, 95, or
absolute Wisdom, 438 f., 441 f., with War, 130, T a b le aft. p.
445 f., 449 f f .; essentially diffe 160; meaning 'proportion' or
661
‘measure’, 8, 282, 289, 350, 367 ; (objectively) the opposites make
without philosophical implica one whole, 176, 178, 183, 186,
tion, 525; suspect or spurious, 189, 192, 213; convertibility:
18, 569 f., 589. Cf. also άρμο- the opposites necessarily replace
ν(η, σύλλαψις, φύσις one another, 215, 218 f., 221,
Mathematical proportions, not like 223; eorrelativeness: one oppo
ly for Heraclitus, 148, 178, 186, site cannot be properly either
348 { ., 487 ff., 558 f. Cf. Com known or valued without the
parisons other one, 224, 226, 229; the
Measures, constant, of the quali opposites are one because they
tative changes of fire, sea, produce the same effect, 224,
earth, in Heraclitus, a more ope 233; they are one because they
rative principle than tho divine condition each other, 235, 241 ;
fire itself, 259, 271 f., 273, 275 they are one because their mean
f., 295, 305, 332, 334, 344, 348, ings overlap, 235, 245, 249;
350, 351, 361, 367, 369, 378, they are one because of a tra
381 f., 387, 425; the necessity ditionally accepted truth, 235,
of, 259, 276 254 f. Of. War
Meteorology, Heraclitus', 289, 290 παλίντονος, KM, 125 f., 127 f.,
n.3, 332 ff. 129 n .5, 130
Metric, in Heraclitus’ sayings: Paradox as pattern in Heraclitus:
( a ) Being necessary, due to the
hexameter, 310, 344, 461 f.,
463 n.2; iambic trimeter, 477, objective law of the unity of
opposites, 36, 101, 124, 126, 145,
515, 519, 534, 536, 537, 564,
163, 171, 175, 178, 192, 206,
571, 572, 595; trochaic f, 337
218,-221, 223, 226, 229, 233,
Microcosm, its parallelism with the
240 f., 244, 248 f .; due to other
Macrocosm, in Heraclitus, 350,
objective reasons, 40, 303, 360,
360 ff. 445 f. ( b ) Being unnecessa
Name, of a thing, reveals a part ry, due to the unreasonable be
of its very essence, 192, 193 haviour of people, 1, 6 , 7, 13,
n.l, 416; implying ‘idea’, 230 15 f., 18, 79 f., 82, 91, 96,
όμολογεϊν, 115 f., 124 f. 252 ff., 459 ff., 522 f., 528 f.,
Opposites (and extremes) in He 544 f., 548, 550 f .; the para
raclitus, 158, 160 n .l; simul dox dvr|p £ 2 άνηβος, 82, 382,
taneous and successive, T a b ic 487, 493, 541
aft. p. 160; their unity, 1 0 1 , People (άνθρωποι, oi πολλοί,
1 0 0 ; the metaphysical looseness the lOphesiun.x) are rebuked by
of, .15,8 f.; symbol (or example) Heraclitus: for failing to grasp
οΓ, T a b l e ; formula for, 159, l.ogus, 0, 7, 10, 13, 15 f., IS,
Reasons for the unity of oppo 17 I'., 82, 91, 90, 121, 120 f.;
sites, 159 f., T a b l e ; tension, 101, for false religious views and
126 ff., 130; their evident pre practices, 252 ff., 441, 459 ff.,
sence in tho same object, 161,163, 467 f .; for ethical-political rea
171, 175; taken by themselves sons, 507 f., 522 f., 520 t , 5-H
662
f 544 f .; for unknown rea the souls of the dead are nou
sons, 550 f., 561 rished, 393 f.
Personification in Heraclitus: of σύλλαψις, 101,105 f.
the Divine principle, 445, 451; Sun, 276, 305, 310 f., 316 ff., 320,
of Fire, 425; 433, 436; of Lany 325 f., 334
95; of L o g o s , 18, 114; of War,
‘Sutures’ between different teach
330, 145 f .
ings in Heraclitus, 269 f., 273,
φρόνησις, ‘religious-ethical norm
417
o r wisdom’, 91, 96
φύσις, ‘the real constitution of a Textual criticism, 15, 43, 64, 6 6 ,
thing’, 10, 33, 320 f. 72, 75, 79, 8 6 , 91 f., 105,
Polemic, Heraclitus’, as a Logos- 113, 124 ff., 140 ff., 156, 163
propaganda, 59, 60, 64 f., 6 8 f., .186, 206 ff., 218, 229, 233,
ff., 72 f., 75 ff., 80, 82, 130 f., 240, 268 ff., 282 ff., 294, 315
137, 148, 151 f., 223 f., 321, 324 f., 377, 405, 424,
Political views, Heraclitus’, 530, 449 f., 459 f., 465 ff., 522, 544,
532, 534 f., 537, 541 f., 544 f. 548 ff., 569 f., 577 ff., 593 f.
Popular adages, used by Hera Thales, 342
clitus, 13, 23 f., 38, 40, 70, 81, Theophrastus, his account on He
SO, 182, 343 n.4, 383 nn.l and raclitus, 142, 171 f., 207, 262,
4, 386. 406, 473, 477, 528, 537 291 f., 332, 334. Cf. also Dio
πρηστήρ, ‘burning’ 284 f., 288 f. genes Laertius
Pythagoras, heavily attacked by θυμός, ‘heart's desire’, 386 ff.
Heraclitus, 60, 64 f., 6 8 ff., 72 Unity of opposites, v. Opposites
f., 80; his influence upon Hera War (Strife, War-vortex), as a
clitus, 347, 438 f., 452 f. necessary condition for the unity
Hites and religious practices, tra of opposites, 130, 137 ff., 145
ditional, rejected by Heraclitus, ff., 157
254, 410, 454, 459, 462, 468,
Word-play, intended, in Heracli
470; reasons for, 454
tus, 10, 17, 79, 93, 94, 115 f.,
Biver-simile, Heraclitus’, 194-214 245, 253, 460, 514, 541; not
σκάφαι, ‘basins' f, of the hea intended by Heraclitus, 445 f.,
venly bodies, 305, 311, 316 f., 460
320, 326, 333 f.
Soul, Heraclitus’ views on: is fie World-order, eternal, 259, 270 f.,
273; unity of, 99 f., 101, 106,
ry, 361, 377 f .; the dual charac
109, 116 f., 118, 269 f., 273
ter of, 350; soul comes to be
and is nourished from tho hot Xenophanes, attacked by Heracli
blood-exhalation in man, 361 f f .; tus, 64, 441; his influence upon
in allotted measures, 367, 378, Heraclitus, 306, 317 f., 438, 441,
381 Γ.; soul implies ‘intelligen 445, 446, 454, 462 f.
ce’, 47, 378; ‘memory’ and ξυνόν as a sacred principle, in
‘attention’, 381; ‘living strength’, Heraclitus, 92 f., 96; ζυνός,
351, 387; the survival of, 391, ‘common’ and ‘universally valid,’
393 /., 396 f., 401 f.; how 92, 94, 137 f.
663
ADDENDUM
Ad fr. 22 (b2) and fr. 89 (cz): M. L. West (Class. Review,

N. S. 17 [1967}, 127 f.) defends Headlam’s (and almost the
transmitted) text: λ ά ξ γ ά ρ καί τοκεω νας, ΐώ ξένε, δύσ-
«ρρονας ά νδρα ς, / ύλάκτευν. (low-l’agc (Meleager 121 [465-1])
referred to A. G. IX, 270,2 (for λ ά ξ ), and to A. G. X III, 23,1;
W. Peek, Griech. Vers-Inschriften (Berlin, 1955), I, nr. 701,1
(for ίώ ξ έ ν ε ) . I still think that the apposition καί τοκεω νας,
δύσφρονας & v δ p α ς, is not a likely reading in view of
A. G. VII, 408,3 ( = fz·. 89 c3) ό καί τοκεω νε β α ΰ ξα ς (Head-
lam) ; cf. also fr. 22 (61) .
665

Heraclitus - Miroslav Marcovich - Heraclitus - Greek Text With A Short Commentary (1967, Los Andes University Press)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heraclitus - Miroslav Marcovich - Heraclitus - Greek Text With A Short Commentary (1967, Los Andes University Press)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heraclitus - Miroslav Marcovich - Heraclitus - Greek Text With A Short Commentary (1967, Los Andes University Press)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the document about?

What is the document about?

What topics are discussed in the document?

What topics are discussed in the document?

iMiT.

KSO εν V enezuela / T allehes GrAficos U niversitarios / M erida

TH E LOS ANDES UNIVERSITY PRESS, MERIDA, VENEZUELA

XX. K. C. GUTHRIE, Cambridge

PART ONEcTlIE DOCTRINE ON THE LOCOS

PART TWO: THE DOCTRINE ON FIRE

PART THREE: ETHICS, POLITICS, AND THE REST

C roup T w en ty Two 499

G roup T w en ty F o u r : ΑΔΗΛΑ 546

G roup T w en ty F iv e : D ubia et S puria 567

Table of Opposites in Heraclitus’

(i) In the first place this is a source book.

(a) The basic criterion has been the degree

(b) In accordance with the principle of C,

(c) The derivation of the sources

(ii) The sayings are divided in three Parts

(iii) The Commentary is as short as possible,

In short, the emphasis is made on a more cri­

τοΐος ydcp νόος έστίν έπιχθονίων άνθρώπων

I owe my gratitude to Professor G. S. K ir k ,

B I. By water, Iferacliti Ephesii Reliquiae

DIKLS-KRANZ ΜAIKOVICH DIELS-KRANZ MARCOVICII

THE DOCTRINE ON THE LOGOS

(a) C Sext. Emp. adv. math. VII, 132 έναρχόμενος

(ΐ) τοΰ δέ-' λ ό γ ο υ το ΰ δ ’ έόντος -

Seq. fr. 23 (2). (Schl. fr. 47).12

1 γοΰν Kayser : οΰν codd. 2 τοΰ δέ Hippol. : τοΰ Clem., Aristot. :

1 ξετοί Ρ, corr. Miller 2 άκούσαντας Ρ 3 γινόμενον Ρ

(C) C? Clem. ström. V, 111,7 (II, ρ. 401 Stählin3) άν-

(Λ) Ρ (A 4 DK) Aristot. rhet. Γ 5, p. 1407 b 14 Ross

1 αύτήι ßichards : αύτού codd. 2 ποτέρωι Susemihl : προτέρωι

1 λόγω ν 1', corr. Ursinus 2 έόντων Ρ, corn Brunek

(/') R Amelins ap. Euscb. praep. cv. XI, 19,1 (IT, p. 45

1 άξ. είναι Cyn 2 Δί’ δν : Δία Tlicod., Cyv. 3 καί ό Tliooil.

(flf) R? (19 DK; 6 B) Clem. ström. II, 24,5 (II, p. 126

(h1) R (73 DK; 94 B) M. Ant. IV, 46. post fr. 4 (72)

(h-) R (75 DK; 90 B) VI, 42 πά ντες εις Sv άποτέλεσ-

1 οΐμοα cf. A.S.L. Ifarquliumm ρ. 708

(t') ID Hippol. ref. I, 4,1 (ρ. !) AVcndl. = Vox. ρ. 558)

1 Jio<’p<’v : α ύτόν LBO, τό ν Τ

(ΐ·) Proei. in Tim. I, ρ. 351,5 Diehl Πλάτων μέν οδν

(?)' Diog. Laert. IX, 5 . . . τέλειος μέντοι γενόμενος

(/,·) R? = fr. 23 (/) (112 DK; 107 Β) . .. καί ποιεΐν

(i) Of this Truth, real as it is,

(ii) For, although all things come to pass in accordance with

(iii) whereas I, for my'part, explain such ivords and things

(iv) As for the rest of men,

ό λόγος Opposition άνθρωποι

και πρόσθεν ή άκοΰσαι

κατά φύσιν λανθάνει (αύτοΟς) όκόσα

φράζων δκωσπερ όκόσα εϋδοντες

Now, since men can also know the Logos by themselves

Among the preserved sayings of Heraclitus there is no

On the other hand, λ ό γ ο ς in fr. 53 (31 DK) means

In short, the emphasis is made on a more cri

κ ω φ ο ί ; ef. Pannen, fr. 6,7 (quoted by Diels, Parme

καί οΐς καθ’ ή μέραν έγκυροϋσι,1 τα ϋτα αύτοΐς ξένα φαί

2S1 ff. opposed ίστορίη, as ‘das eigene Forschen’, to πολυ

(d ) R Iulian. or. 7, 216 C φ ι λ ε ΐ γ ά ρ ή φ ύ