A Note on Heraclitus

7/29/2019 A Note on Heraclitus

1/4

A Note on Heraclitus

Author(s): G. L. J. SchnbeckSource: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 51, Fasc. 5 (Oct., 1998), pp. 574-576Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4432882 .

Accessed: 31/03/2011 11:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4432882?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4432882?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap


2/4

MISCELLANEA

A NOTE ON HERACLITUS1)

1. An unpublished Heraclitus textA text which, up until now, has been left outside of consideration in theliterature on Heraclitus can be found in codex Marc. gr. 250 (s. XI/XTV)2).This text is written in the margin of fol. 73r as a scholium about Plut. Desera num. ?nd. 559c: ? ??s??e? e??t?? ??a??e?te??? (fr. 91) ?pa?ta p????a-ta p?ta??? ???a???te?, e??d? ?? f?s? d???????a? tf p??ta ???e?? ?a? ?te??????

t?? f?s?? ?eta??????sa?. and reads: ?????e?t?? f?s?? dt? ??te p?ta??? d??d?a??s?? t?? a?t?? (1) ??te ?????p?? ??e? t?? a?t?? (2), t?? ??s?a? d??ad? ?e??e??s?? (3). Since this text contains annotations by the X3 corrector, it canbe rated as being very old3). The first two parts of this text show similari-ties to one of Gregory of Nazianzus' texts (CarmenXIV De humana natura 31-32; Migne PG 37, 758, 1. 31-32): ??te d?? d? t? p?????e, ???? p?ta???? pe-??se?? ? ??pa???, ??te ???t?? d?ea?, d? t? p????., which is mentioned byKirk 384 n. 1 and Marcovich 203/4 among others. The third part showssimilarities to Sext. Emp. Adv. Log. II. 7: ? d? ???t?? d?a t? ????es?a? ?e? ae?ta a?s??t?, ??d?p?te d? e??a?, p?ta??? d???? ?e??s?? t?? ??s?a?, ?ste ta?t? ??d?? t??? e?a??st??? ??????? ?p????e??,. The whole text shows similarities toPlut, de E 392b which, moreover, is included in the same codex: 'p?ta?f ?a???? est?? ?????a? d??tf a?tf* ?a?' ?????e?t?? (fr. 91) ??d? ???t?? ??s?a? d????as?a? ?at? ?'??? ???' ???t?t? ?a? t??e? ?eta????? 's??d??s? ?a? p????s????e?', ?????? d' ??d? p???? ??d' ?ste??? a??' ??a s???stata? ?a? ap??e?pe??a? 'p??se?s? ?a? ?pe?s??*.The similarity makes a link between these texts inevitable. However, itis also clear that Gregory's words are partly inspired by metre and maytherefore be not authentic. Possibly this is why the second part was con-sidered to be non-Heraclitean (cf. Marcovich 204). The words in the sec-ond part of the scholium, however, may have been used by Heraclitus, andcould therefore be authentic. Gregory's text and the scholium could thusgo back to a common source. The use of the verb d?a?a??? (Gregory:pe???) is striking. The objection that the scholiast quoted from memoryand thus used d?a?a??? instead of ???a??? does not hold true: the scholi-um stands in the margin of Plutarch's text, which has the verb ???a???; thescholiast seems rather to indicate critically that he has another text at hisdisposal. On what his authority is based is not clear. However, it is tempt-ing to conclude that a form of d?a?a??? was found in an authentic passageof Heraclitus other than that containing a form of ???a???, and that theimpossibility of seeing the same person twice goes also back to an authen-tic passage of Heraclitus. The discussions about the river fragments are? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 1998 Mnemosyne,Vol. LI, Fase. 5


3/4

MISCELLANEA 575numerous. However, it is outside the scope of this article to enter into moredetails4).

2. PDerveni IV. 8: ?e?.[?In the Studks on the Derveni Papyrus the text of the first seven colums of theDerveni papyrus is given5). However meticulous it has been researched, some

passages leave room for uncertainty. As a sign of the care used in editinga warning is explicidy stated on p. 96: "Many supplements are no doubtprovisional and are published here merely for the sake of discussion". Thisis not only a warning but also an invitation.One such point of discussion might be col. IV. 8 where the reading e???[? is presented, with which I have occupied myself before6). Points ofdoubt are the ? (1), the a (2), and the space between ? and a (3).-I. A part of the horizontal stroke of the supposed G is missing.Moreover, there is a break on the papyrus in a SW-ne direction which cros-ses the vertical of the supposed G and extends as far as where the horizon-tal of ? should have been. The height of the horizontal is of influence whendeciding whether reading p is an option7). The height of the break is deci-sive for ruling out or not ruling out its covering the SW-NE hasta of a ?.Both decisions deal with the regularity of the scribe's writing, which leavesroom for uncertainty. It might be expressed by the transcription ?.-2. As has been pointed out in Sch?nbeck 14, the black dot*which isinterpreted as the bottom left-hand tip of the oblique of A is, in all likeli-hood, not ink, but shadow caused by the surrounding parts.-3. There is another reason to question whether the bottom dot wouldbelong to an A: the short distance between the supposed G and the sup-posed a. There is an extremely crowded G?? at the end of VI. 9. However,the scribe usually writes more crowdedly at the end of a line, whereas in 1.8 G? would be in the middle of the line. So it seems that the two letterswould have been too close to each other in IV.8. There are no other let-ters which would account for both the dot and its position: d, ? and ? arenot to be expected here (e???[?tt?? would be too long). Therefore, thissupposed dot does not likely belong to a letter.

Taking these considerations together, I would prefer the reading e?.[ byMouraviev in view of the data now available8).1015 NH Amsterdam, Anjeliersstraat 62a"1 G.LJ. Sch?nbeck

1) I am very grateful to C J. Ruijgh who was good enough to offer me his helpin deciphering the codextext. Any mistakes are of course entirely my responsibility.Cited literature: W.R. Pat?n, M. Pohlenz, W. Sieveking, PkUarchiMoralia (Leipzig,1929) = Paton-Pohlenz-Sieveking; E. Mioni, Bibliothec?e ivi Marci Venetiarumodkesgraci manuscripti, (Roma 1981) = Mioni; G.S. Kirk, Heraclitus(Cambridge [1954]19704) = Kirk; M. Marcovich, Heraclitus(Menda 1967) = Marcovich; L. Sch?nbeck,Heraclitusrevisited,ZPE 95 (1993), 7-22 = Sch?nbeck.


4/4

576 MISCELLANEA

2) Cf. Mioni, 365: "Priorem partem (ff. 2-316) librarius sacc. XI exaravit, sedmanus sa;c. XIV ff. 21-22, 53-54, 69-70, 117-118, 124?125, 148-149, 180-181,308-3.16 inseruit, ut codicem in integrum restitueret". Among the scholars whohave laid eyes on this manuscript are Bernadakis (1895), Pohlenz (1908; April 1927),Heiberg (1926), Sieveking July 1927), Einarson (1948), Kidd (1952). However, Iknow of no publications of theirs in which they consider this text.3) Cf Paton-Pohlenz-Sieveking XIV: "adnotationes quasdam marginales atqueverba a librario omissa ex ipso eius exemplari supplevisse videtur, ceteroquin pau-cissima tantum menda sustulit [se. homo librarli fortasse aequalis (atque certe cor-rectore X3 vetustior)]", and Mioni, 365: "In ff. 2-316 Spiritus et accentus nescioquis retractavit".4) A few indirect comments are to be found in notes 1337 and 2031 of my dis-sertation, Sunbowlor Symbol(Amsterdam 1998).5) K. Tsantsanoglou, The First Columnsof the DerveniPapyrusand theirReligiousSignificance,n Andr? Laks, Glenn W. Most (ed.), Studieson theDerveniPapyrus Oxford1997), 93-128. An overview of the literature is provided in o.e., 130 n. 5.6) The article written by me, Sch?nbeck, is based on an autopsy and containsdetailed sketches. As I wrote in Sch?nbeck 10, two series of photographs of thePDerveniexist, one from the 1960's and the other from the 1980's. In general, thesephotographs do not correspond with each other, even after a suitable enlargement.By cutting one of the two photographs into segments they can, however, be madeto correspond. The borders of the segments show evidence of rips in the papyrusand, by this, show places where the effects of shadow influence the interpretation

of the photographs. Photographs therefore serve as an indication only.7) The horizontal of ? is usually curved and somewhat lower than the hori-zontal of G. It would, therefore, have left some visible traces. However, it is possi-ble that it had been written higher than normal.8) Serge N. Mouraviev, Heraclited'?ph?seI (Moscou/Paris 1993), 60. My grati-tude goes to K. Tsantsanoglou and G.M. Par?ssoglou for their kind help during thelast 10 years for giving me insight into one of the most fascinating papyrus texts:the PDerveni.

FIVE NOTES ON CONJECTURES IN ARISTOTLE'S ?????d*)

In his edition of Aristotle's Poetics1), Rudolf Kassel succeeded in restoringto their original auctoresseveral conjectures that had been attributed to laterscholars. While working on a bibliography of the Poetics that will appear ina few months (Brill, Leiden 1998), I found, however, that even Kassel hasnot been able to give all p??t??? e??eta?? their due.Kassel attributes the conjecture a?a??a?a? in 54a29 to Thurot, who didin fact propose this reading in the Revue arch?ologiqueof 18632). Susemihl,however, noted in 1871 that "his former auditor" Vorl?nder had made thesame suggestion earlier3) and, in the notes a.l. in his editions of the Poetics,he consistently mentioned the name of Vorl?nder before that of Thurot4).It is not easy to find out when Vorl?nder was among Susemihl's "listeners",but he could be tracked down in 1862. In an article dating from that yearSusemihl calls him "one of my auditors", and mentions that he had pro-posed to omit ?a? d??at? ?e??s?a? in 51b325). In KasseFs edition, Vor-

Documents

A Note on Heraclitus