On HeraclitusAuthor(s): M. MarcovichSource: Phronesis, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1966), pp. 19-30Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4181774 .Accessed: 12/09/2011 18:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

On Heraclitus M. MARCOVICH

Fr. [91b) DK Plut. de E 392 B no7tsP.( yxTp o0)x ganLv e[p5vaa & GL Lurt xcxo'

'Hp0CXevrLov, ou Ov)TYg ovua(c, &K & csaOau xovroc LEtv o@k &nurl'n xcd TC [3rQOXY 8aE7 XC'L xa(i 7LV GaUlV yEL, a&Xov gi o068i 7v

ov8' U,aopov aXX {pa v a aUV xa0Cr0CL xcil 0rO?dnet xcd 7rpOt6aL XOcL &7cLa. Schleiermacher (fr. 20)1, R. Walzer2, C. Mazzantini3, G. S. Kirk4, R.

Mondolfo5 and W. K. C. Guthrie6 accepted the three pairs of verbs as Heracitean7; K. Reinhardt8 only the pairs 2 and 3; and Bywater (fr. 40), Zeller (16, p. 797 n. 2), Diels (Heraklit2 = VS4) and Kranz (VS5-10) the pairs 1 and 3. The editors of Plutarch coincide in seeing in pairs 1 and 3 some reference and in considering pair 2 as a comnmen- tary (correction) by Plutarch himself; so G. Bernardakis (Teubn. 1891 = 1894), W. R. Paton (Weidmann 1893), W. Sieveking (Teubn. 1929), F. C. Babbitt (Loeb 1936), R. Flaceliere (in the version)."

I think none of these verbs is likely to be by Heraclitus. (1) The reference to Heraclitus ends with xO"Hp&x?Xseov. The words ov8e - 9Etv (sc. &aAv) are a continuation (application) of Plutarch's own (o68i = 'so too; in like manner')10. We find a similar comparison in the preceding text (392 A): 6&iep (plus a concrete example) ... ourcoll. Also in 392 C Plutarch (= his source) applies a Heraclitean saying12 to his own purpose (ov' yap I.6vov, s 'HpdxX?Ltoq 9),ye... &?X s

I Museum der Alterthumswiss. 1 (1807), 357f. Sdmmtliche Werke, III, 2 (Ber- lin 1838), 30f. 2 Eraclito (Florence 1939), 126 (with an improbable text). 8 Eraclito (Turin 1945), 83 f.; 175. 4 Heraclitus, the Cosmic Fragments (Cambridge 1954; reprint 1962), 381 ff.; Kirk- Raven, The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge 1957), nr. 217. b Zeller-Mondolfo, La filosofia dei Greci, I, 4 (Florence 1961), 46.

A History of Greek Philosophy, I (Cambridge 1962), 441. 7 Improbably Cl. Ramnoux, H6raclite ou l'homme entre les choses et les mots (Diss. Paris 1959), 222; 457. 8 Parmenides etc. (Bonn 1916), 207 ff. n. 9 Annales de l'Universitd de Lyon, III s6rie, Lettres, 11 (Paris 1941). 10 Cf. e.g. xal +uXml 8' x'X ('and souls also,,,') in fr. [12b] and Kirk 372. Il Cf. also ?mr3aOaL = &4a=Oau (cf. 1086 A); tAvov'oq x'X = xam-& *Lv. Is The Stoic distortion of fr. 36 = [76].

19

aocxpk=epov Er' ucv &v). Thus the words from ou8& onwards are not meant by Plutarch as a reference to Heraclitus, and the Ovq ouicm appears as the common subject to all the pairs of verbs (as becomes clear from 392 C T6 yLyVO,LsVov MUT% ... p?X&2uav).

(2) Now, it could be that Plutarch in the pairs 1 and 3 is paraphrasing somebody's words (since he corrects them in a;XXov 8'e - a7obto; cL), but these words are taken from his Sceptic source for the whole of chapters 18-19 (= Aenesidemus?), and not from Heracitus' river- simile. The water in a river flows in one direction, and does not behave as described in these six verbs, which rather imply a movement (or action) in opposite directions:13 'it scatters and gathers again... it comes together (=- takes shape) and fails (deceases)... it approaches and departs'. Especially auv(=armt (which implies a formation, organ- ization etc., cf. LSJ s.v. IV-V) is unsuitable to the shapeless water.

Since the whole ch. 18 deals with the Sceptic topic'4 of &acra OvV)rT (t?mq IV La(O ysvkazo XOCa L xdOop& yevop.'vn, with t6 yLyvo6uvov xxL so pOetLp6tievov 'exc'a'ou 'Cv m07'trCov xal 1Lerm),q it is reasonable

enough to see in these six verbs the behaviour of the mortal substance as the object of perception. It is said to provide only a phantom or apparition of itself, dim and uncertain ((pa[,O 7CPEeL xacl a6X7aLV &(Lu- 8pm&v xocd &3?a3ocLov mu&Tir): thus exactly like a phantom the mortal sub- stance 'approaches' the knowing subject (npZv or 'Fo o6yco&) and 'de- parts', it 'takes a certain shape' and 'fails' again etc. As for the third pair, already von Arnim'6 had referred to Philo de Ios. 126 (IV, p. 87 Cohn) jXOov &a7i XOov, &epa v Tac v a7r&en-'aGv (sc. ME cpv'a(ra )16,

Obviously np6aeLaL, avvi=ovrou and auva&yL imply TO yLyv6Pevov of the mortal substance, and their opposites r6 ?pOzp6pevov au&vG. If so, then we have the same Sceptic terminology also in de comm. not. 1083 B

t eV zpet waos ouatacx peLV oXi' epaaOLr TX 0&iv a&vrv z0Oz'ar e 7ro0ev ErL6v'c 7poaC8Xop6voc- ot, 8i 7p6aeLGL XxL &7r{LGLV mptoxtoz6 i 7AOemL, toa&X& 8LoX[lVeLV &?X 9repa, yEVeaOau, TaoC, ?Lp-%LEUVMLt 7pOa68oL F,a;XXy4 v -ri o'tuacx X;vao.avou0'%7; the word ax2vwa is also Sceptic: 1085 B oAaEcc O'MaOrp&a xali cixe8maJ4

13 As correctly pointed out by A. Rivier, Mus. Helv. 13 (1956), 161 n. 50. '1 Cf. J. Schroeter, Plutarchs Stellung zur Skepsis (Leipzig 1911), pp. 11; 20; 49f. 15 Quellenstudien zu Philo (Philol. Unters. 11, Berlin 1888), 94ff. 16 Cf. also de spec. leg. I, 26 (V, p. 6 C.). 17 Cf. also Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. hyp. III, 115. The source is probably Plato Tim. 42 A xcc so ,uiv rport(OL TO 8'&7toL 'Oi ac'tLMoq a&T,v (quoted by Reinhardt); 33 C; 82 B &=6nv % npomL6v; 43 A 17rEppu'rov aCatm x.a &7n6ppvrov; Phileb. 42 C etc.

20

%odMt yepo?V xeL xoL pxod oa0V ; the same is true of the {arzo t po8papc& - simile (392 A)18 and of the phrase 60U'Tnq %t x rod-t z pc3oXq19.

(3) The verbs of 392 B are used elsewhere by Plutarch: he uses the form axavca&L (qu. conv. 688 B; de fac. in orbe 933 D; 939 C)20; oM7o)XZ- 71nLV in this sense ('be wanting', Odyssey VII, 117) we have at 688 A (W'q Mse'LTi &ZtoUX7Lr[OVrO4 &VoX ?cp&C0V '; UcpLa ?ZoL); 1067 C; Anton. 78 ('to decease'); Demetr. 45. Cf. also auva&yeLv xc aUVLntaVOL (de an. procr. 1025 C); T ,?v yocp (sc. ytX'L?) aUv&yst xoYL auvEa-t xa aUV?ZeL (de amicor. multit. 95 A); 8aXLa -? x'p1oW-. V, n a'&pVOvLc auvLar-XawV (non posse suaviter vivi sec. Epic. 1096 B); de tuenda sanit. 129 C.21

(4) Further, axtLavna and auv&ysr are undoubtedly transitive; no instances for their use as intransitive are known (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 und sammelt sich wiederum"22 etc.). I would suggest the reading CaTLV% L xoa WOTV uvayeL < oCUcv>23. J. Bernays24 has supposed tenta- tively , and Flaceliere 62 renders "en dispersent les elements, puis les reunissent 'a nouveau".

As already said, the subject of these verbs is Ov?yr- oUaLoc; Bernar- dakis and Diels have supposed Oseo (taken from Ps.-Heracl. epi. VI, p. 74,1 ff. Bywater, quoted by the same ad fr. 40; but this Posidonian passage has nothing in common with Heraclitus, contra Kirk 383); and Reinhardt (209 n.), Mazzantini and Kirk suggested the river as subject; both are improbable.

(5) The words p3EXXov a? - a0oXsL7rL are a clear correction of 7'JX&V by Plutarch himself. The parenthetic character of these words might have been the reason for their omission in all the existing manuscripts (Paton even deleted them, but his reasons are not convincing enough). While correcting his Sceptic source Plutarch has at the same time changed the order of words adjusting the second pair of verbs

18 Cf. 1082 A. 19 Cf. de virt. mor. 446 F; Sext. Emp. adv. math. VIII, 7; Philo de spec. leg. I, 127 (V, p. 7 C); Sext. Ph. III, 115. 20 Quoted by Reinhardt 208 n. 21 This is probably again Platonic terminology, cf. e.g. Tim. 66 C 606TOCV ... 1ca 8 7oCp& (p6aLv iUVeaTCOTOC X SxUV'voc T p?v EUVM'y?L -T a' xOXaL. 22 So already Schleiermacher; but correctly Diels H.2 = VS4. 23 Cf. perhaps Philopoem. 20 auvxocyy&v o6XLq scxuTOv ('to collect oneself'); 1077 C a5bMcyop?6v5 ... ?et ?ocU v C7) 5ATj. 24 Die heraklitischen Briefe (Berlin 1869), 55.

21

both to the third one and to the general theme of y6veaq xocd pOop&i. In conclusion, in Plutarch's 392 B no reliable Heraclitean material

is contained (contra e.g. Guthrie l.c.: "[392 B] ... reveals in contrast to most contemporary testimony the true Heraclitean conception" or Kirk, who puts these six verbs at the end of fr. 12a making out of them one single (and impossible) saying).

Fr. [49a] Heraclit; qu. Hom. 24 7co-CoC,uoL

-CoLq ocuto 25 EPCXVOF.6v -e xocL OUX p4oLvOVev, Pip?Lv tI xoOt oUx eYev Sen. ep. 58, 23 in idem flumen bis descendimus et non descendimus.

0. Gigon26 and Kirk 373f. were right in rejecting the fragment (contra e.g. DK; G. Vlastos, AJP 76, 1955, 343; G. Calogero, Gnomon 34, 1962, 324): its first part is reducible to the Platonic-Aristotelian (= Cratylian) summary of fr. 12a; as for the second part ('we exist and do not exist'), Kirk thinks that it "very probably" comes from Aristotle e.g. metafph. F 7, 1012 a 24 0otxe a' 6 p' 'HpocxXzV0ou Xoyoq, ?T.yOV 7=6v7C eLVOL xOd' e sivox, &7Uzv'rO X&?O6 7toeZv. I think it is impro- bable.

It is clear that both Seneca and Heraclitus Homericus have used a common source. Now, from the context of Seneca (58,22: quaecumque videmus aut tangimus, Plato in illis non numerat quae esse proprie putat. fluunt enim et in assidua deminutione atque adiectione sunt... corpora nostra rapiuntur fluminum more... rem fugacissimam cor.Pus...) it be- comes highly probable that this source was a Sceptic one (Aeneside- mus?). Thus I suggest that the phrase eT,uev -cs xoca OAx elysv comes from a source which was common also to Plut. 392 E... ou`-e toca3?Xov o ocu-r64 ear&v. ? et' o otux eaT-.TLV, oU' ?CTIaV ...

25 < > Schleiermacher (fr. 72), accepted by Walzer. 26 Untersuchungen zu Heraklit (Leipzig 1935), 106 f.; 97. 27 The probable source for the Scepsis was e.g. Plato Theaet. 152 D ... nkvaoc a &) (pm?ev etVaL, oiX 4p06)q 7pOGOyOpeOVT?4 gaTL [I.V yp o08'7OT' 0o8?V, e 8 YEyve'?oa.

22

Fr. 12a

HO-?OLtcL '0oZLv aO OZaLV .Lf3C4VOULmv 1T?pot zXoc 8eptp OC'Txa ?7rLppZL.28 This is the only original form of the river-statement (correctly Kirk 374

contra Vlastos 338 ff.). I think we can explain the genesis of other existing versions. Obviously the present tense 4LfP3VOUatV was meant by Hera- citus as 'cursive' (Brugmann): 'Upon those who are (in the process of) stepping into the same rivers...' But it was understood (say by Craty- lus) as iterative ('Upon those who several times step into the same ri- vers...). That is why we have since Piato onward the form with 8C5 plus Aorist: Crat. 402 A lg ec T6v UoTOv 7oaoy.GV oux Ov E[PaG (Plut. qu. nat. 912 A; Simplic. in Phys. p. 1313,11 Diels); Aristotle metaph. r 5, 1010 a 14 8AK not xit nooctuot oux macv 4iPvoar (Plut. de E 392 B; de sera num. 559 C; Simpl. in phys. p. 77,32; Olympiod. in cat. p. 4,33 Stiive; Philopon. in cat. p. 2,7 ff. Busse). Cratylus must have known the version with 8&s, because he corrects it: O'Cr6q yap Cro o u' &wai (Aristotle I.c.). As for the words oux I=Lv ,uLpv=, they were deduced from trepot xoct 9sspa {3cx'.

The Scepsis (probably Aenesidemus) was an important transmitter of the saying (in the distortion of Cratylus). But if both Plutarch 912 A (OGT0Cp06GL... &q5 TOZq CU'TO-K O'UX a'v 44POE-j... 9TEpO yap C"MppC-L 58aCTa) and fr. [49a] come from a Sceptic source (as I would say they do)29, then we may suppose that Aenesidemus, besides Plato, has used Hera- clitus' original saying as well (in view of the plural nora,uoLq, of the present tense e[oc(voCuev and of the phrase 9Xgpa eimppdZ turoc as well).

Thus the stemma of the transmission of the river-statement might look grosso modo as follows. Reinhardt30 was not conclusive enough, and Kirk's useful attempt (p. 375) seems to be incomplete (since he did not count with Cratylus and Aenesidemus).

28 This rhythmical and balanced Heraclitean saying consists of 2 x 13 syllables: the phrase 1cepa xa) 9-cepo (= Xtfpa &.t) is due to the stylistic reasons. Kirk's interpretation (p. 378): this repetition "strongly suggests the regularity" of the passage of water seems unlikely to me; the same phrase in Aristotle meteor. B 3, 357 b 30 &Ct yip &Wo xOa &)Xo y[yvVt7L TO6T@CV 1Xama-ov is, according to Kirk 379 "strongly reminiscent of #sepa xxl crepm in fr. 12"; but this is a common phrase in Greek: cf. Aristotle 341 a 8; 342 a 6; Plato Laws 632 E 9T?epov xxl o0cLt 9Tcpov

?8oq ^ 4 &.peqj-; Menand. fr. 536,8 Kock (= 656,8 Korte) &tFpav 7rCpLtLC1VaL (-i?Levm Edmonds) X&'Fpav 'vrpLxuodazv etc. 2* In view of 8ig and oux &v &ItLpodi (912 A); of bis and etlv re xxl oiux euev (fr. 49a). *0 Hermes 77 (1942), 18 n. 2 = Vermdchtnis derAntike (G6ttingen 1960), 60. n.24.

23

Heraclitus (ap. Cleanth. ............... SVF I, nr. 519) fr. 12a ., I~~~~~~~~~~~~4

will be true also of EN ex -Cov 8tm?poVvc (sc. t6vwv) xoxMa'lv &pFov'Lv = fr. [8].35

(2) Now, at EN 7rtv1Ta x' gpLv yLVeaOot Aristotle just paraphrases by memory fr. 80; but in the EE passage he attempts some sort of commentary on the same fragment: xoL 'HpO(xXevToq EnLtLMLCL O)t nOl- aocvm II. XVIII, 107. No new material from Heracitus himself is present here. As for the words ou'K 'ro ~Caoc (&Ov elvoa) &veu OXeoq xcxL &ppevoq 'vocv'wv 6,vrv ib., they are another explanation by Aristotle: cf. [demundo] 5, 396 b 9ff.

(3) Plutarch is proabbly depending on Aristotle EE: his words rr nvTh.)v yev6aeL xovrpcp(evov (sc. rov "Op.pov) come from ou yrp &v ?eVXLc...

& Loc; as for the words ix VuaXn xxcx &vTLvtaOeLo 'rv ykveaLv &x6v'rcov, they are an explanation of Plutarch's own: cf. de soll. anim. 964 E 67tOU XOC

'rJ7V yevSaLv OWurrv g OXLOaq auWtv1uyXQvetv ?kyouaL (sc. 'Eprz8ox- Xiq x%l 'HpOCXvr'oq), 'cot 09nTUL auvepxoCevou Troi &OCV&0,ou tX.

(4) Further, Numenius and Schol. AT depend on Plutarch: optaverit and e5XeaOt come from Plut. eVx6o' v; mundum deleri and yxuaLv x6apuou or &,t&v'r(xv: from 'fl) 7rv-vrwv yeviaet x ap?4evov; quod non in- tellegeret from XavOvetv.

(5) Finally, Simplicius combines the EE topic with the Peripatetic rafters-simile:

Simpl. in cat. p. 412,23 Kalbfl. ?L yap T6 9repov -r)V e'vxv'd&v brtXet- 4JUf OtXOL'O aV 7'V'Ot &cpO vocva- Oiv'Toc. 86 XoC pLe4 T6L 0o-

up6c'Hpax),etSroq sc7m6v-rL " qg ptg XX Te Oerv gx r' vOpCrowv &7r6?Xot- T~O'. Oty)ScrEaOO yap pist. wav- Ta I

Philopon. in cat. p. 104,34 Busse kmetxmcxaouaL m& ous (sc. ra' 7tpo6 ,n) XOC't roq06 MVTpelaoVlV W-XCa 0u?)otq tOu&,rcV y&p T 'OV U &pou &cvoLpeOkv'roc o1x ~a-r or 'r 6 avt), vo o u tsz 7c6

Alexand. ap. Elias in cat. p. 242, 14 Busse MOV'rLKetiVaC, g5 xoL drc xmaomaL t6Am 7rmpm8r.LytLm Xoap- p &Vet, &'TLVM 0Le?Tm MvTLOe, as TLVOq aC,)Let &;XJqXo36.

xxMeaTy OpCowtvx cf. e.g. Laches 188 D. Cf. also [de mundo] 5, 396 b 15 jiotastx3 ... &v a6pom; qcavov 4k,uv &-ircTXc"cv &pLovEacv and Hippocr. de victu I, 18. - As for the words of EN sr &v'tiouv auLFpov, they probably also come from symp. 187 A, namely from Heraclitus' fr. 51 8Locxp6Levov ... kuLppea6OaL para- phrased by Plato there. 36 Cf. also Chrysipp. ap. Gell. VII, 1, 3 et quasi mutuo adverso quaeque fulta nisu consistere (SVF II, nr. 1169), and K. Praechter, Philol. 99 (1933), 342ff.

25

Simplicius' evidence is highly misleading; he changed the Aristotelic terminology: vxtpe0e'os into e' kmXeC[LeL, OUX araL into OLXy-aeaktL... McpvLaOvto, and (what is worse) TO Xocorv into nm&vta (under the in- fluence of the topic ar'yxumL x6apou). For him gptq is only the av'dOLeaL or &vCY peta of the relatives, and pnvat = 'he means' (and not 'he ex- pressly says').

Consequently, no new material from Heraclitus is contained.

Fr. [67a] Nothing is here from Heraclitus (contra M. Pohlenz37, Diels, Kranz38, Kirk-Raven p. 160 etc.) .

(1) In the Stoic spider-simile (cf. Chrysipp. de an. ap. Chalcid. in Tim. c. 220 Wrobel - SVF II, nr. 879) aranea plays the role only of the 4qy'uoVLxOv (animae principale), and not of the soul as such.

(2) The words cui (corpori) firme et proportionaliter iuncta (anima) only repeat the Stoic images of the hegemonicon, and have nothing to do with Heraclitus' fr. 31 sK ro'v ouvrov ?oyov (contra Diels, VS4, and Kranz 113): cf. Chrysipp. I.c. animae principale, positum in media sede cordis, sensuum exordia retinere; animae partes velut ex capite fontis cordis sede manantes per universum corpus porriguntur... totaque anima sensus... velut ramos ex principali parte illa tamquam trabe pandit... The image of the spider's web or of the tree implies enough proportion- ality and symmetry by itself.

(3) The words impatiens laesionis corporis (sc. anima) and de lii persectione dolens (sc. aranea) presuppose frr. 110 and 111 Wehrli of Straton from Lampsacus (1-rpX&OV xact T 7rtcaOY 'rr x xac -ak aOCaULc &v eVGL j,Y eyOVLX(dl, OVx eV tOLt 7rsMV06oOL 'r6tLt ovLavxa'OaL and

;parOLv... xxi .ac, x6nacq ... xKG 7t6vou x0a 68Cvxc39 xoi L &Xyiot v Gt 6X4 7tO,xaIOV MtaOv aV IV 'flXr mJUX7t aUVLAO... xo .tpvic, 'o ' -7 F X Vo

Puxsk occp ' o6 rr'rovOe anima aliqua parte corporis laesa illuc festine meat fr. 67a).4?

37 Berl. Ph. W. 23 (1903), 972. 30 Hermes 73 (1938), 112f. 39 Wyttenbach: t8ov&4 codd. 40 Cf. Fr. Solmsen, Mus. Helv. 18 (1961), 181ff.; H. Diller, Herm. 76 (1941), 378. - Hippocr. epidem. VI, 5,5 (V, p. 316 L.) tuxn4 neprovro5 ppov-di &vOp'TrOLaLV (cf. de victu 1,6 = DK I, p. 183,21) is not an argument pro the authenticitv of fr. 67a (differently K. Deichgraber, Die Epidemien u.d. Corpus Hippocr., Abh. Akad. Berlin, Phil.-hist. Kl. 3 (1933), 61; Diller, Gnomon 18 (1942), 76).

26

(4) The name of Heraclitus came to Hisdosus Scholasticus (about 1100) through Aenesimedus; cf.: Sext. Emp. adv. math. VII, 349 &XX' o'L tuiv sCxrO'q rG5 CT(O[ovr (sc. 'Tv &xVOLaV), @6 AivsaL8Tog xa-

(350) o'L 8i oc6 'v elvoc TOCq alo-' CUEt, XOCOM7ep 8gt TLVOV 47t(V TOV O~aOinrpl&)v spoxus7t

(Xenophan. A 38; Hippon A 2 = Cratin. fr. 155 K.; Aristoph. Clouds 96f.; Tzetz. in nub. 96a cf. Holwerda p. 404; Epictet. III, 16,2).44

Fr. 35 Clem. strom. V, 140,6 Xpy yap ei [LM?X cno?XiWv tatopacM rpt?oa6Ocouq &v8poxq etvct xoc6`Hp ?Eev'rov, xacl rL 6vrLO'C &v'CyxN "t7COX& TCXOvCi0-vML &8T')JVOV *p~i.evm& 'AOX6v1.45

Only the words 7rto?XXv tsaropc Xp' e.g. MivOp(7rouq (cf. frr. 1; 107) eltvL might be by Heracitus." Although Xp' could well belong to Clement47, nevertheless it is more probably authentic: because of the analogy to &vxcyx- (Xp' Anecd.: aeZ Plut.) in Phocylides, and because something like this must have existed in Heraclitus' saying justifying its use by Clement here. The same will be true of 7t. . On the other hand, ?5 tiAop (which goes rather with Xp 48 than with noXLXv, as usually interpreted) and the clX6co?ot Uvpeq probably belong to Clement. Contra of e? ciXoca it can be said that it is very common in Clement (22 instances in Stahlin's Index) and that it has here much the same function as rc-ot 6V-r.49 And against 'the philosophers' in the text of Heracitus can speak strom. I, 68,3 yev' ycpoa6oq&c &v pCv and Clement's predilection for 9LX6aocpoq as adjective.50

Fr. 23

AEX4 6vom oux &mv ?C&acxv El Trak oc v. Pseudo-Heraclitean letter VII (p. 76,14 Byw.) and Clement, strom. IV, 9,7 coincide in interpreting

'" Cf. Diels, Dox. 209 f.; H. v. Arnim, Quellenst. zu Philo 88 f.; 92 n. 1; A. Goedec- kemeyer, Die Gesch. d. gr. Skeptizismus (Leipzig 1905), 230 n. 3; Reinhardt, Kosmos u. Sympathie (Munich 1926), 192ff.; K. v. Fritz, CP 40 (1945), 235. 4 Phocylid. fr. 13 D.; cf. Plut. 47 E; Cramer, Anecd. Par. I, p. 166,17; Wila- mowitz, Sappho u. Simonides (Berlin 1913), 174 n. 2. 46 Similarly H. Wiese, Heraklit bei Klemens v. Alex. (Diss. Kiel 1964), 258ff. (typewritten). K. Reinhardt, Nachlass ap. Wiese 317f., took only ra'ropmq for genuine. 47 In view of e.g. strom. VI, 65, 1 ,ro?u?a&x 8i etvcx Xph 'r6v VOarKx6V (cf. Wiese 260 n. 3). 48 So also Wiese 256; 260 n. 2. 4 Against this word also Reinhardt 318; Wiese 258 n. 4. 60 Wiese 259 n. 3 referred to Plato Phaed. 64 D. - Porphyr. de abstin. II, 49 seems to be of no evidential value, since probably depending on Clement (cf. Wilamowitz, Philol. Unters. 1, 1880, 214ff.; Platon, Berlin 1918, I, p. 107 n. 1; K. Deichgraber, Hermes 70, 1935, 110 n. 4, contra DK ad fr.). 28

gtx- as x6X=aL4 or vo4w; (i.e. punishment), and rat-U as &&LxLa, [ap- 'Ltx; thus they have understood Heraclitus' saying as follows:

Clem. St a4?aprEOC , v, x6?,ocL4 oix &v 2tv. vo6kov evexx &xycO&v oiux av yevAOoic.

Letter ot v4tmoL aQ&x1ocq eiat Tex0vptov. What follows in the Letter (ei yap ,j 2aocv [sc. oL v6,uot] xwr.) has no more close relation to Heraclitus' saying. Consequently, both the Letter and Clement have understood 'o65oc as e.g. &L&X-UXtw, and they do not provide support for taking rockoa to refer to Law or laws (contra Schuster5l; Zeller 913 and n. 4; Diels, H.2 "Entweder die Gesetze . . ."; and Kirk 125 f.).

Now, that the word which lay outside the quotation of Clement, and to which this siTa. refers, was really something like 'a& aLx rocia, we may infer from Chrysippus (SVF II, nr. 1169): nullum adeo con- trarium est sine contrario altero. quo enim pacto iustitiae sensus esse posset, nisi essent iniuriae?52

Fr. [115]? Stob. III, 1, 180a (III, p. 130 H.) Zwxpacous- QuX4 SaL XOyos SMU'r6v au'cov. Hense, Schenkl and Diels attributed this saying to Heracitus. But I think it might be spurious; not so much because it is transmitted under the name of Socrates, but because of the following instances: Plotin. VI, 5 (23), 9 za x. oc Civ a pL0 L4v geyov, ot3& xo 6 v cx uo vT swv vp:iatv ou's6 (III, 6 [26], 1; V, 1 [10], 5); Plut. de an. procr. 1012 D r4 Puxn- rv oCaLxv O apt,v CPLO.L4 (irO&V 1(P,'9aOt)o5 XLVOUELVOV 7O9C7VOVLEVO (sc. Xenocrates Academicus, fr. 68 Heinze); Aristotle de an. A 2, 404 b 29 axo:prjvOxCjVOL , v uPuxrv &ptop)v xwoUVO' zvut6v; A 4, 408 b 32ff.

According to Heracitus' fr. 45 the soul has a 'measure' (logos), probably for the change water-fire and vice versa (fr. 36). But the measure implies something constant, and a 'measure which increases

"I Heraklit v. Eph. (Acta Soc. Philol. Lips., 3, 1873), 304. " Cf. J. Burnet, The Ethics of Aristotle, London 1900, I, p. 351 n. - No change of 'Xoc' is necessary (correctly Kirk 125 ff. contra 'r&vTEa 'das Ent- gegengesetzte' of Diels, t&fwxx of Kranz). Improbably Reinhardt, Parmen. 204 n. 1 TT')rc, and Bignone (ap. Diels, VS4 p. XXIII) 'the opposites (cf. fr. 80)'.

29

AlejandroResaltado

itself' seems unlikely to me. Thus here I suppose this )Ayo4 comes from Xenocrates' Ip Lo f.53 University of Merida, Venezuela.

I' The Hippocratic instances quoted by Diels (epidem. VI, 5, 1 _ V, p. 314 L.; de victu I, 6 and 7) seem not to belong here.

30

Article Contentsp. 19p. 20p. 21p. 22p. 23p. 24p. 25p. 26p. 27p. 28p. 29p. 30

Issue Table of ContentsPhronesis, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1966), pp. 1-80Volume InformationFront MatterEditores Lectoribus [pp. 1-2]A Note on Zeno's Arrow [pp. 3-18]On Heraclitus [pp. 19-30]"Philebus", 35a6-10 [pp. 31-34]Die Aristotelische Theorie der Notwendigkeitsschlsse [pp. 35-60]Did Plotinus Believe in Ideas of Individuals? [pp. 61-80]Back Matter