On certain fragments of the pre-socratics: critical notes and elucidations

"On Certain Fragments of the Pre-Socratics: Critical Notes and Elucidations," Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 1913, 48, p 681-734. GaG \ AES DEL yw A: UM OO» m Goo TAÈ Lao

On Certain Fragments of the Pre-Socratics: Critical Notes and Elucidations Author(s): William Arthur Heidel Source: Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 48, No. 19 (May, 1913), pp. 681-734 Published by: American Academy of Arts & Sciences Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20022872 Accessed: 27-08-2015 09:08 UTC 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 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 support@jstor.org. American Academy of Arts & Sciences is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. http://www.jstor.org

ON CERTAIN FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS : NOTES William Arthur Heidel. 9. Received February CRITICAL By Presented The for of notes here presented collection from suggestions April ELUCIDATIONS. Hermann Professor 28, 1913. owes its origin to a request Diels when he was engaged in revising Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker for the third edition, since In response to his courteous invitation I sent, (1912). published a errors a number of in of noted the list second with edition, together proposals for the emendation of texts and the interpretation of doubt ful passages. Had I then had the requisite leisure it would have been to since that was im my duty explain and defend my suggestions; To courtesy. so excellent be submitted were as fully as Professor Diels notes the possible, notice which be The esteemed. and other is properly to permitted an instrument but not accepted him then of certain presented; to judge others, of to marginalia, in a small measure is an honor not suggestions to to lightly made previously is due solely to the desire to enable by Professor Diels scholars even contribute of scholarship renewal mere in effect has done required uncommon their merits when in the correctness the of which case for them I still have are here as referred to in the third left unnoticed because, are already on their recorded and bear face such creden edition, they tials as are necessary for a proper of their estimate claims. I here But a considerable for the first time of proposed number present readings confidence, and interpretations, judgment of competent the importance scholars, must of which, be at if approved once apparent by the to the If it were customary to dedicate such of Greek thought. these notes to my honored teacher and studies, I should dedicate to whom I owe more for instruction and friend, Professor Diels, inspiration during a quarter of a century than I can hope to repay. In the following pages reference is made to chapter, page, and line historian

OF AMERICAN ACADEMY. are noted of his second edition (V2), because the pages of this edition also in the margin of the third (V3). c. V2 12, 28. N. H. 2. 31. hoc est rerum foris eius Obliquitatem [sc. zodiaci] Anaximander aperuisse, Milesius primus. the Perhaps Anaximander. Plin. intellexisse, traditur 2. full of significance the . 'hoc. clause what .aperuisse/ ever the source of the sentiment, is hardly appreciated. The Delphin edition refers to Plin. N. H. 35. 36 'artis foris apertas ab Apollodoro For such we turn but that is not a real parallel. Zeuxis intravit'; rather to Lucret. 1, 66 sq. homo Graius irrit?t animi naturae primus vivida vis ergo processif omne atque virtutem, . . [sc. Epicurus] .eo acrem magis ut arta effringere claustra portarum et animi pervicit, flammantia moenia longe immensum . cupiret. extra mundi mente peragravit animoque, unde refert nobis victor quid possit oriri quid nequeat, finita potestas denique cuique sit quanam The same simul ac tua ratio divina diffugiunt animi terrores, discedunt, totum video I would passages 14 3, coorta, mundi moenia per refer sq. vociferan coepit mente rerum, haerens. terminus Lucret. naturam these alte atque recurs conception nam For ratione inane the res. geri to my reader Die essay, Be des kehrung im klassischen Altertum, mit besonderer Ber?cksichtigung Heft Bd. f?r Zeitschrift 11, p. III, Lucretius, Religionspsychologie, to made have 14 to Lucret. 13 sq. Heinze's sq. 3, ought parallels clear to him that there is here an allusion to the ecstatic eiroirreia of of the the mysteries evoked, as I pointed out, by the pronouncement as (ratio.. .divina mente initiation, when the mystae catch of world (?iroirreveiv to Clem. Alex. b? Kai irepivoelv Strom. 5.11. tep?s X070S rites of significance r? irp?ypara), 30, 1 compared the according Lucret. coorta), coming the a vision 1, 66 sq., and the editors of the seize the climax and rrjv M?ller re cfrvaiv Kai on Lucil. of Lucretius have

copied reference, the although THE OF FRAGMENTS ON PRE-SOCRATICS. 683 is altogether resemblance superficial and without significance. Recently Professor Reid, Lucretiana, Har vard Studies in Class. Philology, Vol. 22, p. 2, has once more drawn to Sen. attention nee rumpit suis more been probable that thought of an the etc. cludatur, I doubt, are authors with some may have who writer, common thought et hoc It seems reproducing Stoic, earlier, perhaps as it may, the that Be Posidonius. both per scru correctness the however, that Seneca was here imitating Lucretius. of his statement freedom est mundum ultra quod terminis ipsum tor, to me nostra caeli munimenta 5. 6, Cogitatio scire: illud, ostenditur, id, quod inquit, vastitas utrumne sit an iacet, profunda 8. Dial. contenta to Lucre tius, Seneca, and Pliny (and I may add, Bishop Dionysius, ap. Euseb. P. E. 14. 27. 8) is that a great revelation has come, rending as itwere the curtain or outer confines of the world and permitting a glimpse into of study importance attention Class. V in my have ' 13, 2. kva%??xavbpos ro aireipov. the meaning in my 45, p. 79, in Aivrj 1, p. 279 sq. Very to reserve the matter For of . . . ?pxw ?pxv Diels Qvaeoos, Uepi n. 3. a Such The subject of the this Anaxwiander, more remains for a future occasion. re Kai aroLx?iov much now capital I drew question and Anaximenes to be said, e?prjKe roov ovrocv in V3 to the preliminary of Amer. has to and demonstrates refers Proceed, according of the ecliptic; revelation, of the obliquity cosmology clearly some To it. aspects The article, Vol. statement Vol. nature. of Greek early to attached Philol., I shall but secrets ensued upon the discovery Pliny, a utmost the of Arts Acad. a fuller received and Sc, treatment in my essay On Anaximander, Class. Philol., Vol. 8 (1912), p. 212 sq. To the statement there given, though much might be said by way of enlargement to except into and say certain the other I refer among essay; and I think confirmation, that observations others to the to add it unnecessary investigations made recently dovetail of Otto as of my results views by Gilbert different to anything, admirably scholars. the original ' ' set forth in his Griech. Religionsphilosophie, meaning of the elements 1911, which reached me at the same time with the off-prints of my to Mr. Cornford's conception of Mol pa as developed in From Religion toPhilosophy, 1912. Unfortunately both these authors the the of Anaxi tradition accept Peripatetic regarding meaning mander's ?pxv; when they proceed consequently to interpret their observations the early history remain fruitless of Greek philosophy.

V2 7. 13, bibbvai rrjv rod XP0V0V y?p avr? THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. b?Krjv Kai riaiv rrjs ?biK?as ?XXrjXois Kar? r?^iv. In his note on this passage (V3 15, 28) Diels repeats his former " dem ?XXrjXois: dativus commodi: das Untergehende explanation, und dieses wieder untergehend dem k?nftig Entsteh ?berlebenden enden. Vgl. Eur. Chrysipp. fr. 839, 13." This interpretation, which is now that that currently accepted, the preceding sentence /cat rrjv rots oucrt, the authentic on obviously radra yiveaBai of Anaximander and <t>Bop?v eis words rests in Simplicius, the assumption ecrrt ?? o?v b? r) y'eveais Kara rb in that, preserves xpt?v, it consequence, is individual things or objects (r? bvra) that mutually exact and pay the On that view Diels's elab penalty for injustice done to one another. oration of the implications of ?XXrjXois is both obvious and necessary. I believe, however, that in my essay On Anaximander, p. 233 sq., I not showed conclusively that it is individual (1) objects but the contraries, and hot that cold, on encroach one and another suffer periodic punishment inflicted by each on the other (wherefore ?XXrjXois is here to be interpreted as a strict reciprocal and not as Diels pro poses), and (2) that when this mutual KoXaais is said to recur Kara rrjv rod XP0V0X) r??iv, reference to is had the seasonal excess of the hot in summer and of the cold in winter. The strict limitations of space imposed upon my essay led to the exclusion of many things which I reluctantly omitted, and did not admit of a full statement of my views. I propose, here therefore, and confirm them. explain the pair of contraries only, to add Zeller hot and a few insists the points that cold, which may for Anaximander serve at as prima existed, least to one from the aireipov; this would rule out the moist and rily proceeding the dry, which are mentioned with the first pair by Simplicius, as due to Aristotle. This may be true, but it is not necessarily so; for the and Empedoclean and attested, if, as of four group Hippocratic seems Anaximander certain, contraries had in mind is too well the sea sonal changes it is hard to conceive of him as overlooking the differ ences in drought and moisture which Simplicius mentions with those of heat and cold. A passage strikingly illustrating and interpreting that of Simplicius is found in Philo, De Anim. Sacrif. Idon. II. 242 rj on r) b? eis p?Xrj rod fc?ou biavopr) brjXo?, rjroi cos ev r? ir?vra * /cat ets ev oi 07rep ot p?v K?pov Kai xPV(rlJL0(7vi;Vv eKaXeaav, * Kai biaKoaprjaiv rrjv rod Beod bvvaareiav eKirvpooaiv eKirvpooaiv p?v Kar? roov rerr? roov aXXoov eiriKparrjaavros, b? Kar? rrjv biaKoaprjaiv Mang. evos re poov aroixe?oov ?aovopL?av, rjv ?vribibbaaiv ?XXrjXots. Philo This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:08:33 UTC

FRAGMENTS THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 685 and has in mind is of course far from thinking of Anaximander and the Stoics only; but we know that the conception of Heraclitus Heraclitus was older than the fifth century, being traceable to Alc a contemporary maeon, of Anaximander. The roov bvv?piecov iaovopia (Alcmaeon, fr. 4), as the condition of health, and the ?iriKp?reia and of the human body as the cause irXeove&a of the several constituents of disease, are fixed factors of practically the whole medical tradition of Greece. We may therefore confidently affirm that the iaovopia <joov or aroixdoov roov rather rjv ?vribibbaaiv ?vavriorrjroov> ?XXrjXois, which Philo attributes to Heraclitus and the Stoics, applies with equal and explains his meaning. These different propriety to Anaximander, correlated factors, Legg. rrjv irXeove?iav, ?roov Kai C, the cfrap?v ?v p?v ?viavro?s seasonal acopaaiv aap?vois ev b? irbXeaiv ?bidav. is clearly The noted are mentioned changes, by vdv bvopa?bfievov ?p?prrjpa, ?v b? oopais KaXovpevov, vbarjpa irov rb ?V elvai Kai iroXire?ais rodro connection, here hardly Xoipbv, pLereaxw0Lri(TlJ'^V0Vi suggested, with also 906 Plato, by Plato, oopoov rod ?viavrod avaraais pearrj Tjb'iKTjaev. On passage cp. Hirzel, 188 A, Symp. prjpari avrb, more than ?irei Kai rj ro?v ?ariv Kai ?ireib?v rovroov, ?pitpor?poov r? re Beppi? pkv irpbs ?XXrjXa rod Koap?ov rvxv '?pooros ? vvvbrj ?yoo eXeyov, Kai r? xj/vxp? Kai ?rjp? Kai vyp?, Kai ?ppioviav Kai Kp?aiv aoo(?)pova, Xa?rj re Kai Kai ro?s ?XXois rjKei 4>?povra everrjpiav vyieiav ?vBpcoirois f coots re ' Kai (frvro?s, Kai ovb?v rjbUrjaev brav b? b per? rrjs v?peoos "Epcos ey/cpare re rod ?viavrod iroXX? Kai arepos copas y?vrjrai, irepi r?s bi'efyBeip?v this Themis, Dike und Verwandtes, in the p. 220 sq. The medical doctrine expounded by Eryximachus colored with Heraclitean Symposium, although slightly perhaps thought, is that of the Hippocratic treatises, notably of Ilept <j>vaios ?vBpooirov, from which we <j)vaiv y?p ir?vra aiei avr'eco ravr? ?ari rb p?v irXe?oo y?verai p?pei] Kai Kar? aoopa avr? rod may one quote p?Xiara rod ?vBpooirov, viro iror? passage, ?viavrod b? rijs b? ?X?aaoo, c 7 (6.48 L.), . . . e% t pi?v ovv irepuarapi?vrjs eKaara Kar? Kara radra ooprjs iror? [= ev . . . b? ror? iaxvei ?^tauroO] b? rb rjp, ror? b? rb B'epos, ror? b? rb <f)Bivb ror? p?v b xtw?v p?Xiara, ' ovroo b? Kai ?v rco ?vBpooiroo ror? p?v rb <?)Xeypa iaxvei, ror? b? rb iroopov ror? b? rj x?^Vf tV rj p?Xaiva npoorov alpa, pi?v rj ?avBrj, eireira KaXeop?vrj. 4>vaiv ?oovro?v, [se. rod pi'epos ?v rco eviavrco Not to repeat what I have elsewhere said in regard to the doctrines of Heraclitus and Empedocles, I refer the reader to my essay Qualitative Archiv f?r Gesch. der Philos., Change in Pre-Socratic Philosophy, Vol. 19. pp. 360 sq. and 365. Since the ?bida and the bUrj Kai riais of Anaximander refer not to the origin and destruction of individual to but the of successive encroachment the elemental objects opposites

THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. one on another in the seasonal changes of the year, cannot be used to support words of Anaximander of his as aireLpov-?pxv of individual of objects a For experience. On Anaximander, V2 13, 34. [Plut.] Strom. n. 225, p. my review of James Adam, The Vitality of Platonism Amer. Journ. of Philol., Vol. 33 (1912), p. 93 sq. sin of the concrete by the reabsorption see this the in which world-ground metaphysical is punished existence it follows that the the interpretation 3, and and Other Essays, c?rjai b? ro ?/c rod aib?ov ybvipjov depfxov 2, Kal nva rodbe rod Koapiov airoKpidrjvaL \pvxpov Kara rrjv y'eveaiv rco irepi rrjv yrjv ??pL cbs rco eK rovrov wepufrvrjvaL <t>\oyds acfra?pav Kai eis rivas rjanvos airoppayeiarjs ?iroKKeiaBeiarjs b'evbpco 4>\oibv. re Kai kvkKovs The rov viroarrjvaL . . . ro words ypvxpov Ia 220, have been n. Zeller, 4>rjai ?' eK rod interpreted. Kai rovs Kai rrjv aekrjvrjv r?\iov much ?arepas. discussed the 1, pronounces and text variously and corrupt re Kai aib?ov ro y?vifxov depfiov ypvxp?v, rejecting to take the genitives correct deppiov obviously proposal as on Philo Greek and Burnet, ybvi\xov. Early \//vxpov depending traditional the text, renders, p. 66, "Something sophy2, retaining was the eternal." off from hot of and cold separated begetting capable suggests Neuh?user's If we were dealing with a poet we might take such liberties, but we may safely dismiss the interpretation as impossible for prose. Diels of the words, but gives no definite indication of his understanding claims as yovL/jLov Theophrastus, and is good there to De text of Porphyry, to doubt to Theophrastus. source, certainly to Porphyr. to Theophrastus; of airep/dariK?s related a congener to 9. 1.4, rovrois be ro xPV^aL Kara r? ?^rjs ro?s the \6yos ?alvetv eir?arjs ?pxa^a TV* TTpovolas, biaK?a?xr?aLV, avWa?odaa viroar?aecov ?(f)opiaaaa seems fairly certain throws however, we whether In all probability however \eyco to belonging reason The 2. 5. Abstin. Anaximander, in support of his contention possibly referring we the may no are dealing for ybvi\xov Stoics. Cp. on ours, light the word attribute with a Stoic seems Marc. to be Aurel. eiriaris rrjv KOivrjv cfrvaiv avri rod avfi Kai ?'Kiyivopkvois yivopJevois opjifj nvi eiri rrjvbe rr?v Kad' rjv air? rivos oopfirjaev ?pxys roov ?aopkvcov Kai bvv?p,eis rivas yov?piovs X?yovs re that Kai ro ?iera?o\oov . . . ybvi\xov Kai btabox?v re Kai deppiod roiovrcov. if/vxpod It is the Stoic airotos v\rj which contains bwafxet the hot and the cold of the cosmos. We thus find masked in Stoic phraseology the 4>vais ?bpiaros of Theophrastus. This yovipiov depptod re Kai \pvxpod is, at least in off" extent, not identical with the aireipov itself, but was "separated It must, therefore, be that por from it at the origin of our cosmos.

tion nery, Zeller, the aireipov, which aireipov-apxy thinking PRE-SOCRATICS. 687 world. Tan rise to the present e/c rod ?ibiov as to the referring regard to Xenophanes, certain passages referring gave others and Burnet, THE OF FRAGMENTS ON of perhaps and Anaxagoras ; but Zeller at least perceived that this was Melissus, I main not to be accepted without considerable violence to the text. tain the correctness that we are ever stood stands of my to supply in the text just where suggestion, rod aireipov airo or not, means it belongs, p. with whether ?iroKpiBrjvai, e/c rod that the phrase "from We eternity." and n. On Anaximander, 229, 2, it ?ibiov, which are familiar with es ?ibiov, "forever," and Marc. Aurel. 2. 14; 4. 21; 10. 5 thrice uses ?? ?t?lou in that sense, and numerous other instances might be cited. It happens that I cannot point to another instance of e/c rod ?ibiov, but the analogy of parallel expressions occurring with and without the article would render it not at all surprising if such should be found in late authors. under The consideration The of remainder this also be may expression " The eternal substratum taken with confidence to mean hot and cold." evolution dynamic of producing capable by deserves renewed generally passage interesting ' It speaks of a sphere of flame/ and this appears to be the sphericity of Anaximander's accepted as establishing cosmos. Diels meaning 'round' consideration. has to not, in un himself my knowledge, expressed " mistakable terms; but his description of the <?>Xoybs acj>a?paas a Wa berlohe" would be best taken as applicable to a circle. A conclusion so opposed to the apparent meaning of the word a<?>a?pawill surprise no one who is familiar with the general ambiguity of words in Greek provided a than that the sphere. which the uncritical to earlier of the remainder no habit among cosmologists statement points of intention discussing examination later and authors of astronomers, to a circle rather here whole the a connected of all the data require to confine but propose to this attention my cosmology, It on is pertinent, to remark that other how7ever, reasons found for doubting elsewhere the correctness which the earth in Anaximander\s account, places would I have grounds of the Aristotelian at the notions I have subject, of early Greek one passage. scheme and Eudoxian attributing center of a sphere; if Aristotle's for authority is accepted as final, the interpretation here offered will be ruled out of court a hearing. without See my essay, The Aivrj in Anaximenes and Anaximander, us then Let acjoa?pav airo p pay Class. Kai eh rivas irepi 1, p. 279 the text: to ourselves rco wepi?pvrjva? eiarjs Vol. Philol., address rrjv yrjv ?iroKkeiaB ??pi eiarjs sq., especially p. 281. /cat rt^a e/c rovrov <f>Xoybs ' cos rco b'evbpco cfkoibv r/arivos kvkXovs vToarrjvai rbv rjXiov

Kai rovs rrjv aekrjvrjv a sphere of flame a succession these circles to OF PROCEEDINGS 688 We ?ar'epas. of have AMERICAN The orthodox of flame circles those view confined which to be appears an within constitute definite expect ACADEMY. exploded and (rather curiously!) is somehow being come to THE and analogies of mist; envelope moon, sun, clear that reduced and stars. ' Anschauung ' among the early Greek philosophers ; and the severe strain which the current view puts on the imagination would of itself cast suspicion on it. We might nevertheless feel compelled, however reluctantly, to accept it, if the details of the account itself pointed to it or were ? even consistent with it. It will probably be conceded that the ? annu to conceive it is vastly of a wide a^a?pa apart simpler mass same to imagine lar into annular than the up parts breaking a sphere. as a the from of matter destruction result But of ensuing term fact our text says nothing that may the breaking or exploding of the and irepic?vrjvai has been airoppayeiarjs. Here fitted" encircles earth; the it became quently of mal meaning irepicfrvrjvai means or was "closely as detached, even of the neither that reader. to The Animal. p!ev riva ?iroppay?vra airo pprjyvvv ai is not the a sphere of flame; ai KaXov/jievai to use of the so writers the of tearing use prjyvvvai, tion from and Aristotle is implied in the as envelope and biap prjyvvvai, as might last-mentioned, derived Besides, an such ?aKapibes. subse the <fr?perai Kar? ro vbcop, that irepipprjyvvvai, Greek especially be shown by a long list of examples other authors. cos rco simile of bark the a word proper bevbpco The same general (fkoibv. We may concep not press similes beyond the immediate point of comparison, which instance is the snugness of the fit; but if one is to press obvious nor 5. 19. 552a 3, raOra be xp?vov eireir' irpoaire(f)VK?ra, at contrast may be illustrated by Arist. Hist. Kive?rai word "sphere" merely attention a superficial convince the will terms states eiarjs force that to" the "air" which attached airo p pay whereas the real the Perhaps appreciated. first "snugly fairly be interpreted as implying sphere. The crucial words are tree rather is annular than in this it, it is It spherical. will hardly serve the interest of the objector to refer to Anaximander's notion of the prickly integument of the first animals, V2 17, 18, ev vypco 'Kepipprjyvvpkvov ir poor a r? yevrjdrjvai rod ftkoiod shows, the conception later Greek thinkers as equally reason. which the meaning embryo . . It is quite possible, as different. to of inclosed I have ?Kavdcobeai. </>Xoio?s irepiexa?eva as irepipprjyvvjxevov there, sufficiently is altogether prove, beyond fo)a ; for conceive in a vpirjv without noted writh some the cosmos and the pressing another interest the human comparison passage of ?iropprjyvvvai has been similarly misconceived.

fragments pre-socratics. the 689 Arist. Hist. Animal. 5.18. 549b 31 sq. the spawning of the octopus There we read of its young are described. and the development 3, r? p?v o?vv roov iroXvirbboov K roov airo p pay ev roov iroXvirbbia, 550a rb Professor ttXtjBos. peB' rjpepas Kai eC?pwei, yiverai iroXX? r? 0aXa77ta, ooairep recent in his Thompson irevrrjKovra p?Xiara it renders translation "Some fifty days later, the eggs burst and the little polupuses In fact there is no reference to the bursting out" creep [italics mine]. is that that which develops into the of the eggs. Aristotle's meaning individual polyp becomes detached from the vine-like mass which he has previously described, and that the young crawl forth (not from the eggs, but) from the hole or vessel inwhich the spawn was deposited. thus: return To to The Waberlohe not specifically to a<t>a?pa by some means, doubtless identical with of flame from the envelope a annular number of masses, gated " of This in an envelope air." segregation the detached into must but be the words of Anaximander: the cosmology refer kvkXovs ?iroKXeiaBeiarjs and inferred; we can guess eis rivas Kai to but $Xo?. that which was of "air" segre envelope inclosed like the earth each is not mentioned specifically cause the immediate at only knew the obliquity of it. Now it is fairly certain that Anaximander of the ecliptic or, as the early Greeks seem regularly to have called it, the inclination or dip of the zodiac or ecliptic. Pliny, as we have attached seen, great to significance its know all the early Greek philosophers some from resulting an event would Such respective disintegration regarded subsequently amply explain to it were far as we it as an actual dipping the origin of the cosmos. the initial break between of "air" and flame; caused what the envelopes of the of flame circle into separate rings know and perhaps V2 cause so and discovery, the subsequent we do not idle further to speculate. r? ir poor a yevrjBrjvai b? fcoa (jyXoio?s ?KavBoobeai, rrjs rjXiK?as irepiexbp,eva irpo?aivovarjs eiri rb Kai irepipprjyvvp?vov rod <pXoiod kir' ?rjpbrepov airo?aiveiv 17, 18. Aet. 5. bXiyov piera?icovai. and 2 the word In V1 19. 4, 'Ava&pLavbpos XP0V0V was omitted ?v vypco after by mistake e7r' ?X?70?>; his attention having been called to the omission by me, Diels has re stored it in V3. Ordinarily a fact of this sort would hardly deserve to be noted; but since the false reading has found its way into Kranz's s. v. Wortindex, various writers, Altertums, for more and pera?iodv, as e. g. by Otto has p. 332, n. 1, and Kinkel, than a tacit correction. been Gilbert, without quoted question Die meteorol. des Theorien Gesch. der Philos., This is the more by gr. I. p. 7*, it calls necessary because

text been very have been has drawn from detail this chapter of THE OF ACADEMY. AMERICAN and misunderstood generally it. It is perhaps curious errors. false conclusions to unnecessary no means I have recount of in knowing what interpretation Diels now puts on the text; but in the absence of any indication in his notes it seems reasonable to assume that he still adheres to the view briefly set forth in the index to his Doxo graphi Graeci, s. v. said to have be may Burnet, m?ller with Studien zur la science returned non Gesch. incorrect. of 72 sq., temporis der Begriffe, 87 and p. 117, point important one to wit, meaning, of must, pera?ioovai known quantities of between claims the rival certain. To be change than sure, it denotes it were editions, cellinus, a change Vita sidered, would and changed their suggestion anticipation proposals contemplated mutasse as seemed possible one might to conceive have as extent," only." reference force to these and plausible that the to inclined in Arist. from Diels's correct eir' take Meteor. earlier was text 350b e7r* in bXiyov 28 and Mar the was very and 36, of life. rjXiK?a stands would to tempting of Darwinism one who was in Anaximander; with its inexorable require more than veto. one to prepared but against sort The and life-time, the action of pera?ioovai to the life-period of the individual. therefore The as referring to interpret to pera?ioovai con I have which Another possibility, sense eir' bXiyov in the and pera?ioovai be to take just " to read XP?V0? f?r xpbvov, the sense thus obtaining they extent in course of time." mode of life to a small This Thucyd. in the mode indicated time with once This problem. of vitam if, bXiyov pera?ioovai, " sense of to a small short determined the decision granted, is easy and supervixisse more in far per? composition implies frequently as is as well but attested perabeiirve?v 'after'; the However pierabiair?v. be Teich condemned, sharply and that eir' bXiyov XP0V0Vcan a "for therefore, which Pour l'histoire de 64, n. Tannery, in effect two each gives renderings, to note refer to is that rjXiK?a can but the age of the individual; but until version of Brucker, rendering supervixisse," of Greek ignorance This [cf. perabiair?v]." recent interpreters, the correcting to the correct pp. The view p. multum characteristic hell?ne, nothing have Philosophy2, edition, cortice "ruptoque common Greek Early of his first "mutarevitam pera?iodv: been the content ourselves with the rendering "As they find an all these of change rjXiK?a limits We must advanced toward maturity the first animals proceeded from the wet on to the drier ground and as their integument burst (and was sloughed off) this interpretation may they survived but a little while." Perhaps be further supported by a comparison of the view thus obtained with

that of the origin of animal (firja?v, on 7rept b? ?oocov oirov rb Beppbv Kai rb Kai o? ?vBpooiroi, ?iravra (rjv b? /cat rovrov certain. As I showed vestiges of word survive an earlier ?/c rrjs iXvos rpec?bpeva r) ?? ?XXrjXoov y?veais avv?arrj. rb aireipov. oder Verderbnis "Missverst?ndnis says: is plausible, suggestion far but study of ?pxr), On Anaximander, in my cosmological, sense be thought same be true of Theophrastus, should derives. Indeed, Diogenes ultimately account of the cosmology discuss Diogenes's the from whom of as we from various of that impossible that non-metaphysical, it can hardly in Aristotle; V2 324, 18, ?v rco Karoo p!epei, re ?XXa f coa iroXX? r? ?xovra Kai elirev This aireipov." 691 Anaximenes. ??pa in V3 Diels In his note statt 3. ?pxrjv to Archelaus, ?vecpaivero rrjv avrrjv biairav ' b? avrb?s varepov ouros 37. PRE-SOCRATICS. rb irpoorov rrjs yrjs ?piayero, xpvxpbv bXiyoxpbvia) 17, THE life attributed Beppaivopevrjs c. V2 OF FRAGMENTS statement this see when shall of Leucippus (cp. we p. 732, on V2 343, 1), there is at least one such vestige, though almost obliter of excerptors or copyists. ated by the unintelligence But, leaving that for the present aside, we are credibly informed that Anaximenes regarded the outer "air" as boundless, upon which fact Diels relies held the for his proposed correction; and we know that Anaximenes in accordance with which the doctrine of the cosmic respiration, cosmos encircling from and aireipov returns /cat irrjyr), so far ?pxv parallel, early as it arises, in the form to aireipov, subsists, or as Pythagoreans the by of its receiving or breath. substance This irvedpa is therefore nothing have a irvedpa which reservoir, concerns of irvedpa. We the reported by irvedpa-?rjp, Aristotle. thus to the Cp. my from else doctrine the comes but an complete of the Antecedents of Greek Corpuscular Theories, p. 139 sq. In V3 I. 354, 16 sq. Diels has I cannot, corrected the text of Aristotle along the lines I suggested. however, approve of the bracketing of xpbvov, ib. 22, as proposed by Diels. V2 18, 30 sq. Hippolytus, Ref. 1.7. The corrupt state of the text of Hippolytus's Philosophumena, in the first book, is well known. With the aid of Cedrenus especially Diels has been able to set many passages right; yet much remains to be done. In 1. 7, the chapter devoted to Anaximenes, several additions or interpolations which ought to be removed or bracketed

OF AMERICAN ACADEMY. still encumber the text, though we cannot determine to whom they are due. Diels formerly bracketed irvKvbrarov (V2 18, 39), but now contents himself with characterizing it as an inaccuracy of the late are two There additions which false are, howTever, compiler. larger V2 and misleading. aireipov 18, 31, ??pa ecprj rrjv ?pxrjv elvai, e? ov Kai Kai r? r? r? Kai Kai Beovs yeyovbra yivbpeva ?abpeva Be?a r? yiveaBai, ?/c roov b? Xoiir? rovrov [so Diels, C: following rovroov T] ?iroybvoov. It is obvious that in the statement of Theoph rastus the ?irbyovoi were those of the first generation, and not the to us. The primary forms of absurd list we here have presented are existence afterwards infinitum "Anaximenes 16), nita: gigni autem terram, aquam, wrhich clause, impertinent 18, 35-40: by Cic. Acad. sed aera, readings above noted variant V2 mentioned, is even better preserved Theophrastus ea, ignem, quae turn ex the of report 2. 37. 118 (V2 19, eo ex orerentur, defi omnia. The iis are probably due to the intrusion of the clearly does not from derive Theophrastus. or some other made the addition I find it diffi Whether Hippolytus A second instance of the same kind occurs V2 18, 35, cult to decide. b? Kive?aBai ov y?p is awkwTard sentence This ' ?ei baa pera?aXXeiv and intervenes ei pr) pera?aXXei, between two Kivo?ro. of parts the exposition of the changes to which "air" is subject. WThat we expect is something about the dvrjais ?ibios, and doubt from Theophrastus less he did refer to it here. The clause Kive?aBai b? ?ei in all probabil is ity sound and Kivo?ro introduces in his immediate derives from him; a foreign element. but the sentence Hippolytus the MSS read ?v'epovs b? yevv? b ?rjp ?paiooBeis eKireirvKVOop?vos c?eprjrai, b ?rjp Kai ooaBeis This 6ra?> fj ireirvKvoop?vos (p?prjrai. from me than the MS. farther to depart necessary of orai> rarefaction . found Perhaps brav propose . . it source. I add here a note on V2 19, 2, where aBai, ov y?p and Diels reading text. a greater rj it. b ?rjp rj ?paiooBeis 4>?prjrai. Though or condensation to Anaximenes, would, according prints seems to I would degree re it does not appear why he might sult in fire or cloud respectively, not have held that a more moderate change in either direction gave rise to wind. c. 11. V2 34, 16. ?rpibos Xenophanes. Diog. L. 9 .19, {<?>rjai)r? v?fyrjavviaraaBai ?va4>epopi?vrjs Kai aipovarjs avr? eis rb rrjs ?<t>'rjX?ou irepi?xov. as de Diels still regards this doxography preserved by Diogenes line of tradition. rived from Theophrastus through the biographical

THE is, as Diels, Doxographi The whole account remarkable OF FRAGMENTS ON statements. curious PRE-SOCRATICS. 693 out, Graeci, p. 168, pointed I confess if it be that, really it seems to me to have suffered changes derived from Theophrastus, similar in character to those of the doxography of Hippolytus (V2 41, 25 sq.), which owes much of its data to the Pseudo-Aristotelian But first let us speak of treatise De Melisso, Xenophane, Gorgia. the transcribed above. the origin of clouds is clearly ?veXKop'evov y?p passage eK rrjs BaX?rrrjs vecfrrj re avviaraveiv biaKpivbpevov viro iriXrjaeoos Kai to which two vapors clouds from concerning rb yXvKv bi? rrjv Xeirrop?peiav /cat Karaar?'?eiv bp?povs It also fr. 30. is clear Cp. vypod irvevpara. process, ac simply stated the theory of the meteoric from originate WTe inaccuracies. rising taught 3. 4. 4 (V2 43, 20), by Aet. bpixXovpievov sun the should are vapors under rising the read doubtless sheer nonsense. ?c/>' for The action we readily In the text of Diogenes of solar heat and lifting skyward. note Xenophanes stated rod r? biarpi?eiv that Theophrastus cording What since ac/>', other difficulty for a vapor lifting clouds skyward is non is at first more puzzling; sense likewise. The vapor condensed to mist or fog (bpixXovpevov) is I therefore suggested to Professor Diels that we bracket avr? cloud. and take aipovarjs its in intransitive sense: he but records, not does It is at once clear that this accept, the proposal in his third edition. would remove all difficulties from the passage. Probably Professor Diels wras doubtful about the intransitive use of atpco,which the l?xica almost entirely ignore. Of that usage I gave examples in a Note on Menander, Epitrepontes 103 sq., published in Berl. Philol. Wochenschr., 1909, No. 16, col. 509 sq. I there cited Plato, Phaedr. 248 A, Arist. 1330. To these in Respir. 475a 8 and 479a 26, Sophocl. Philoct. stances I would now add Sophocl. O. R. 914 and the Schol. to in Tim. I. 78, 2 Diehl. Sophocl. ad loc. and p. 239, 4; Proclus Other examples, but may omit, question, which there subject atpetz^ was another concerning recur to the therefore, that used be may some There time. intransitively, doubt, can and I now be no in our passage the change appears to be demanded by the sense. Probably some one not familiar with the usage added avr? in order to supply an object, but in so doing In this same paragraph bXov ?Koveiv, p,r) p.?vroi he gave us nonsense. occur the words ?vairve?v. (V2 34, 18) bXov b? bp?v /cat I discussed this passage briefly in Antecedents of Greek Corpuscular Theories, p. 137 sq., pointing out its agreement writh Plato, Tim. 32 C-33 C. I ought in justice to say that the parallel had been previously noted by Tannery, Pour l'histoire de la science hell?ne, p. 121, though the fact had slipped from my memory.

THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. Since my previous discussion I have come to doubt whether the words of the Timaeus may be used to support the statement of Diogenes. the About however, itself agreement mention Xenophanes, no can be and there there Plato question. is no indication does not, in his text that what he says is to be taken as a correct statement of his doctrine. came materially If we were quite sure that the report of Diogenes the parallel would unquestionably from Theophrastus, unchanged expressly denied the doctrine of the cosmic prove that Xenophanes then be justified in holding, as he did, would Tannery respiration. that the brief notice of Diogenes was a precious document showing was engaged in a sharp polemic beyond question that Xenophanes whose doctrine, amply attested by Aristotle, against the Pythagoreans, denied. he emphatically Tannery's position would be untenable on that himself proposed the the Pythagoras except assumption of theory cosmic the respiration: of Aristotle, testimony however, but to the Pythagoreans, who refers (as always) not to Pythagoras is scarcely adequate to establish it. On the other hand, as has already is been said, the accuracy and integrity of the account of Diogenes statement with which The it to that opens, grave suspicion. subject held the doctrines of the four physical elements (aroixe?a) Xenophanes and of innumerable worlds, cannot be reconciled with other data the sentence from Theophrastus. derived Again, unquestionably V2 19, 34, re irpoorbs on airec?rjvaro ir?v rb yivbpevov in eari, 4>Baprbv which Otto Gilbert, Die meteorol. Theorien des gr. Altertums, p. 98, f?r die R?ckbildung n. 1, sees "nur ein ungenauer Ausdruck der in den Elemente the anecdote *Eevo(t)?vrjs ?iroBave?v 14 sq., which appears to Rhet. 2.23 bpoioos and Xeyovaiv," latter passage This Plato. from on eXeyev ro?s (!), Arist. "by Urstoff" related fact be nothing an but of echo 1399b 6 (V2 35, 21), oiov oi yeveaBai <f)?aKovres rovs Beovs aae?odaiv 977a of De Melisso, Xenophane, Gorgia, in turn derived arguments incorporates should give us pause, and suggests that is derived from account of the philosophy of Xenophanes Diogenes's 25 a source which, like that of Hippolytus 41, (V2 sq.) and Simplicius (V240, 21 sq.), to sought eke out the scanty summary Theophrastean information coming from the spurious De Melisso, Xenophane, of Plato. from the Timaeus and Parmenides and ultimately Gorgia, of Diogenes, I am therefore inclined to believe that the statement with ixrj pevroi ?vairve?v, rests solely on the Timaeus, which the compiler of Xenophanes. regarded as a trustworthy source for the philosophy in on the sentence just word a note the brief irpooros I may add the claim of that observed Diels long ago (V2 34, 19). quoted

statements of Aristotle to be made? much know, OF FRAGMENTS THE PRE-SOCRATICS. to be the originator of this doctrine Xenophanes to ON and is absurd and opposed came How Theophrastus. During the sixth and fifth centuries B. C, interest attached to the 695 inventors of the claim as we well contrivances and the first propounders of ideas, as was entirely natural in the fine burst of individualism characteristic of the epoch. We commonly think of the passionate quest for evprjpiara during the Alexandrian Age, but Herodotus (1.25; 1.171; 2.4; 2.24; 2.109; 3.131; 4.42; 4.44) and the earlier logographers display the same interest. The exaggerations to which claims of this nature led have been well illustrated by Pro fessor J. S. Reid, Lucretiana, Harvard in Class. Philol., Studies Vol. 22 (1911), p. 1 sq. in his note on Lucret. 1, 66 sq. Certain of peculiarities Thus Herod. used phrase 1.25 says, in such TXavKov connections os rod Xiov, deserve attention. brj ir?vroov ?jlovvos ?vBpoo we ex where have K?Wrjaiv ?^edpe, using podvos, might to denote the sole of irpooros, Glaucus. original authorship 7TCOV aibrjpov pected data were When have for the embarrassment menes: Here formerly but has latterly with context the V2 36. ro?s : R, of laois which is 61, 35. Gorgia irpos vir?pxtw y?p rest the bpoicos upon bpoiov Kai <bpio?ois> Fr. is correct. vir?pxtiv ravr? Parm. Plato, are and avbjxoiov reading, which aX\rj\a. to that he rightly changes taois L, De gives Gen. ro?s bpoiois. 139 E-140 first considered, et D, In view of this fact I think we rj bpoiois. Corr. 1. 7. Both pas where the then those should read ojjlo?oos. 1, oko?oov cjyp??cov okcos second only Arist. c. 12. Kai expc?vro. for pbvov, 977a 18, ravr? y?p ?iravra bp, o i cos of the laov and ?viaov. V2 e?prjKe Kai Xenophane, reading however, ye (V2 18, 19) in regard to Anaxi follows the reading of L, except ravr? implications rots account perhaps to the MS. Kai ?ao?s neither Probably 323 5 has ir?vra sages, such turns may may good reason returned De Melisso, ye to of Simplicius we way requires. Here Diels radra such . . . rrjv pbvov Qeb<j)paaros pi?vcoaiv cos Kai oi ?XXot Kai irvKvbrrjn rr? fxavbrrjri Usener's of irpoorov accepted suggestion b? brjXov Diels some In rovrov eiri y?p irvKVooaiv, for the later compilations collected to errors. rise given ?y? Heraclitus. biyjyedpiai biaipeoov eKaarov Kar? <?>vaiv exei These words have been variously interpreted. So far as I am aware

regarded cfrvais as acceptations and PROCEEDINGS 696 has everybody its numerous correct. meaning eKaarov as The Kara eKaarov phrase in various shall have to discuss a similar phrase connections, v, as ?Laipk "nature" of in the being I believe, has in Empedocles, object been misin its kind." We fr. 110, 5. The in is contained of is the current after "each one some immediate c?vaiv, which means terpreted of ACADEMY. respect to neither word, With of ?LCLipec?v. opinion AMERICAN eKaarov which bar]yevpLai, oko'lcov, " : Making trial of such arguments and facts as I recount, them each after its own kind and declaring the nat distinguishing object distributes ure of each." I have rendered 6/oos with exec ambiguously "nature," in Hippocrates for the phrase occurs frequently where the 4>vats of things is to be explained, when nothing but the context, and often not even that, makes it possible to decide whether (?>vaishas regard primarily to the process of growth or to the constitution of the thing the in which eventuates. process In this the fragment precise impli below (V2 91, 23) in Epi cation of oKcos exet cannot be determined; charmus, fr. 4, 6, we shall find an instance of obse%et in which the I referred briefly to this question in intended. process is obviously n. Qvae and 180 s, p. 126, p. 127, n. 185, and illustrated the my Uepi and simplifying ideal of dividing scientific by complex problems between classes and individuals, ibid. pp. 123-125. distinguishing text is the following, Hippocr. Uepl the most noteworthy Perhaps ov?? irepi bia?rr?s oi ?pxcuoi v, 1 (2. 226 L.), ?r?p %vveypa\pav rovro ras pJevroi iro\vr poirias Kairou iraprJKav. fi?ya \oyov, a^iov v ovk rjyv?eov v Kai rrjv Tro\vax^b?r?v roov vova evioi \ avr? ev ?Kaarrj ras ovk ?pdoos v roov eKaarov ro?s de aptd/JLOvs a?cfra c^p?Ceiv WeKovres, vovarjjjiar ' irai ovk evapi?fxrjrov res ar\?xav rr?v rcov jjltj y?p eir?, ei rovreco eypaxpav v vovaov, t?) erepov erepov r?, /ecu, rjv ?jl?jtcout? vovar??ia bia^epeiv KapLvbvr ?iairTjs o^? ovhev jjltj tco?to boK'er? elva?, V2 10. 65, Here, in either 18, exeiv. eav pjt] eKirrjraL, ?veXinarov ovk e?evpr?aei, ?ve^epev ebv Kai airopov. vrjrov Burnet Fr. ovvofia as in fr. 27, Diels and Nestle here renders the word with case correctly. I am not with translate e\-Ko?iai expect," there with " sure, however, that he " "hope." look for," understands It is well knowrn that eKirismay signify any our fragment as I do. ranging from vague surmise to lively hope or degree of expectation fear. In reading this fragment I am constantly reminded of a story tells of Faraday, who required to be told precisely which Tyndall what to look for before observing an experiment which was in prep aration. All scientific observation, whether assisted or not assisted by

carefully controlled experimentation, or clearly formulated To show. form anticipation PRE-SOCRATICS. an presupposes ? a conception such THE OF FRAGMENTS HEIDEL.? ?\7rts of that which is to exercise 697 ? surmise observation the scientific will imagina tion, and the findings anticipated assume the shape of a theory or an Early Greek philosophy was so prolific of nothing else hypothesis. as of hypotheses, of Heraclitus in particular and the philosophy is concrete observations may nothing but a bold hypothesis, whatever have led him to propound it. Now, that is precisely what I conceive our to mean: fragment Fr. baffling." a man "Except 123, c?vais for he will not it is undiscoverable and 'the (?yike?, KpvivreaBai a surmise, venture he has not surmised; discover that which of processes nature are not to be read by him who runs, for the true inwardness of things not does same on for sense; ?inariri surface', is probably ?pfxovir) ?cfravrjs (fraveprjs Kpeirrcov prj yiyvcoaKeadai, bia<j>vyy?vei dogma or a revelation things not seen. V2 1. Fr. of 64, avvabov not recall I do of this se elementa 66, 13. pkvroi 'Efectos seeing in the is the evidence ovx oka, avjjL(f>ep??jLevov bia<pep6~ ev Kai ?? ?vbs ir?vra. to the evident 6, utrum Otio, 5. per diversa reminis contraria inter conspirent. o boKipiooraros yivcoaKei Kai \pevboov reKrovas y?p b?Krj KaraXrjxf/erai desperate to canvass measures defensible as the is regarded have them, alteration, the sed understood (fr. 54). So, too, fr. 86, not to faith lefers in a <?>v\aaaeiv o pi?prvpas, c?rjaiv. minimal First De be faith which a reference anywhere boKe?vrcov 28, Kai Kai eK rtavrcov text of this fragment The desire oka avv?\[/ies Kai biabov, Fr. probably but to the scientific in Seneca, fragment an non pugnent, sint, Kai V2 and 10, fxevov, cence to the appear but shall texts offer obtained by of all, it seems clear that y?p sentence, and must be set aside This is the view of By water, who what is there to hinder our an to render appears taking by all critics as desperate, to taken been restore it. with a it intelligible and quite as more radical is due to Clement, omits no which, introducing as I have interpretation not belonging the wrord. boKe?vrcov as an who changes. quotes to Heraclitus. If that be true, imperative? It wants a subject, but that was doubtless supplied by the context from which the sentence was obviously wrested. A plausible conjecture is made possible by the reference in the last clause to the inventors and supporters of lies, who are clearly contrasted with those who receive

THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. If boKebvroov the philosopher's scornful permission to hold an opinion. it is transitive as in Herod. 9. 65, ?o/c?cob?, ei ri has that meaning, roov irepi Beioov boKeeiv irprjyp?roov be?. we Whether shall ? for read ? or assume that ? was omitted by haplography before ? boKipcoraros is spar is difficult to decide; for, as Diels has remarked, Heraclitus I incline to insert <o>, or possibly <a>, ing in the use of the article. in the text. Critics appear to the only change I consider necessary consider yivooaKei known, however, sense of in the or It is well impossible unintelligible. are and used with the infinitive ?iriarapai to do anything, cases in some how" and the <?>vXaaaeiv ot?a that "knowing by these verbs is so slight as to be best disregarded It is difficult to see why the thought into English. nuance given in translating yiv?oaKco should not eiriarapai. In fact used in have two be we as construction are which passages that it was support the assumption same the so used. ot?a and calculated to Ant. Sophocl. 1087, tva rbv Bacch. es veoorepovs rpk(j>eiv rrjv yXooaaav Bvpbv Kai yv Eurip. ovros ?cfrrj rjavx^repav. 1341, et b? aoo(t>pove?v or' eyvooB', ovk rjB?Xere, ?v avppaxov evbaipove?r' and only passage The ingressive takes yiyvcoaKoo 915, 3 (c), mentions naturally construction comparison with eiriarapai, ingressive aorist, in (eyvcov) this bears aorist same the clude ybvov KeKrrjp?voi. and Tenses, Greek Moods Goodwin, rbv Aibs with sense the as which present, shows the 15, et b? Kai rjiriarrjBrj Herod. 3. line of argument would tural introduction of yivcbaKei into the text, but defense of a MS. We have then to consider <j)vX?aaeiv. Here since resource, reading. are we the verb throwm has the variety to be a slight clue in the last clause. that assuming Kai pi?prvpes. \//evboov xpevbo?v must Homer, and Hesiod, characterizes ix?prvpas can hardly them mean rather refer to the witness iroXvirpaypov?eiv. it adequate of the meaning as our itself only fragment of meanings. Diels like, as inventors those who seems There appears are is an the to be right xpevboov of commit they bear to falsehoods in r'eKroves to see that be true, it is not difficult If this conjecture r'eKrovas the prj by the in meaning suffice to justify a conjec not upon a great seen be may same This perhaps "learning." ex not it does but sense; the the first of and that perjury, but lies, by recording

them verse. their OF FRAGMENTS In other PRE-SOCRATICS. THE the woe words, 699 the upon pronounced false views, whether they poets is for originating and perpetuating relate to the gods, to the desirability of banishing discord, or what not. But does c?vXaaaeiv bear this sense precise of we and "perpetuating," may be justified in accepting it as referring to the irap?boais of poetical I think it probable that ? boKipooraros refers to Homer as tradition. the coryphaeus of the group of false teachers of the multitude whom Heraclitus is denouncing, and that the epithet signifies nothing more than that he is held in the highest esteem, although fr. 57 would per The subject of boKe?vrcov,then, is the haps rather suggest Hesiod. uncritical multitude, who live according to the tradition of the fathers (fr. 74) and may be pardoned for what they do in ignorance, though woe shall be unto those through whom offence cometh. Accordingly I should translate the fragment rather freely somewhat after this " manner : Ay, let them think as he who is most highly esteemed among them contrives to report; but verily, judgment shall overtake those who invent and attest falsehoods." It is hardly necessary to add that was not threatening Homer with hell-fire, as Clement Heraclitus would us have V2 68, 11. Fr. bi? ir?vroov. ir?vra ?v rb aocfrbv, 41, zu Vernunft als erkennen, translates yvooprjv welche with alles yvooprjv, to note how in a number his conception of for knowledge 17, ov y?p 4>pov?ovai ovb? paBbvres true in contradistinction kind [this, I think must Bergk we add so ot], of his wisdom, br'erj eKv?'epvrjae who die oK?aoi iroXXo?, b? boKeovai, lenken with weiss." "thought." it is needful first of all meet they eyKvpedaiv, of man V3] [so Diels, " The majority of iroXXoi,whether or not with such not be the meaning as Burnet, zu are concerned with which fragments, the terms he surcharges with meaning or to sense-perception opinion. ?oovro?ai far jedes of Heraclitus, roiadra yivcoaKovaiv, und and "Geist"; In order to arrive at the thought Fr. eiriaraaBai I accept the text, but not the interpretation of Diels, the fragment thus: "In Einem besteht die Weisheit, Here renders Nestle suppose. problems, do compre hend them even when instructed, though they think they do." Fr. 34, " They that lack understanding (??vveroi) hear, but are like unto them are that deaf." acquired true ?aropas elvai). Fr. 35, "Men of knowledge But Heraclitus (cp. paBbvres, fr. 17) does not vbov exeiv ov bib?aKei 'Raiobov are who full many is well lovers aware that impart understanding y?p ?v ?biba?e must of wisdom matters" (eu much ju?Xa have v iroXX instruction (fr. 40, iroXvpiaBirj Kai HvBaybprjv avris

Eevocfr?ve? re self-styled and Hesiod, iaropirj same The pregnancy standing. in fr. yivooaKeiv where Kai THE else 'EKara?ov), 108, Heraclitus beyond superficial uncritical fancy, the more at that Hesiod, wrhom men are have in fr. one. It is thus a cognitive an 17 and in fr. 57, belowr, as most regard knowing, or of act under by which penetrates to sense and present and truth, for, contrary that shown clearly faculty core inner new, length and distinctions, differences ths under got to attaches (ovk eyivooaKev)day and night; means to of champions coryphaeus, as of meaning discussed says they opinion, Heraclitus standing would ACADEMY. their to be did not really comprehend to his AMERICAN is characterized by the apprehension of a fundamental unity. Again, the same point of view finds expression in fr. 56, where he likens mankind, readily duped it comes when to a true oi avBpooiroi (??rjir?rrjvrai of irpbs rrjv yvooaiv roov could not read a foolish riddle propounded fr. 18,1 in discussing p,rj ylyvcoaKeaBai, true meaning have things of fr. 86,a7rtcrrtr7 meant things wTho to Homer, to him by gamins. to Above, biac?vyyavei imply act of a confident for want is missed show surface <j>avepoov), on touched already that Heraclitus maintaining of the understanding that of the imagi native anticipation, whereby that which does not obtrude itself on our senses is brought home to the understanding. It is perhaps not too sense and under between fanciful to detect the same distinction the where involves synthesis of apperception, understanding standing, fr. in 97, 103, (V2 Kvves y?p phvov 25), ??vvirjai, to cj>rjai roov y?p aiaB?verai pev, fr. 41 a after it means or "Geist," "Vernunft," of the external object, ? KVKrjrrjs does tinctions, but to me this interpretation than ment ov ^vvirjai a Heraclitean and of fr. 32, not which in holding yvooprjv much H. naturally is the real that, whether is an accusative entity which rules dis fine encourage seems to yield a Stoic rather reminiscence In obvious thought. ovk ?v rb aofybv podvov X?yeaBai Zrjvbs bvopa, Cleanthes, we d?tour, yvooprjv, in fact, the divine being, Heraclitus on fcoco?>) biacfr?peiv be. (se. "thought," fr. Ia of Alcmaeon, considerable world. the ?XXoov before ?iriaraaBai the phrase again to be fairly unanimous Scholars appear pause crux. Heraclitus ??rj yivooaKooai. the distinction repeating ?vBpooirov r? b' ?XXa now Returning oov ?v Kara?avCovaiv thus be merely would in Iov. 30 could of our ?B'eXei Kai frag ?B?Xei say, bos b? Kvprjaai yvooprjs, rj ir?avvos av b?Krjs p?ra ir?vra Kv?epvas. But Cleanthes was clearly writing from a different, point of view, for which the ovk ?B?Xei of Heraclitus and a later, had no real

Soph. fr. 1 regard to Antipho him and having Following significance. PRE-SOCRATICS. THE OF FRAGMENTS ON HEIDEL.? one might and V2 592, 4, yvcoprj vooaai) 18, yvcoprj yivcoaKei, (V2 591, in Hera eiriaraaBai read to emend to propose incline yvcoprj yvooprjv and clitus. I should yvooprjv is an aBai of eiriaraaBai had not yet in philosophical bore it means "be to object. for yivooaKeiv. skillful." latter rovrov in fr. 57, in fr. 19, sense In from Kai rjvop?rj re KeKaap?vos (joB?pevos e?irep UvBaybprjs ovb' Homer eib'evai, to eiire?v, the onward, that Heraclitus A similar turn rjb? Kai aib?i e%et ?iorov, \?/vxv Tepirvbv ervpoos b aocpbs irepi ir?vroov ?vBpcoircov yv?op,as whose emendation, Here it later irXe?ara It is not surprising, therefore, former in Herodotus. should wish to reinforce it with a cognate substantive. recurs in Ion of Chios, fr. 4 (V2 222, 28 sq.), oos b p?v of Heraclitus sense which ?iriar?pevoi is common eiriara words, time ?ir'iaravrai ovk ?Kodaai that for I hold other the the technical acquired prose: "fancy"; The In inner the is a periphrasis yvooprjv as an error; regard that, however, accusative K???p,aBev. ybee y bee for et<5e I approve, Diels, heartily " Einsichten erworben und erforscht renders yvcbpas fjbee K?^?paBevwith hat." I believe we have a sort of hysteron proteron, and that Ion (for, herein differing from Diels, I believe the verses are his) meant "if Pythagoras was well informed and really knew whereof he spoke." This interpretation of Ion's phrase is proved correct beyond a doubt 59, by Theognis, b' ?irarcoaiv ?XXrjXovs ovre KaKoov yv pas ?ir' ?XXrjXoiai couplet was reproduced with 1113, ligent imitator, Theognis The b' ?iraro?vres ?XXrjXovs ovr' ?yaBoov pvrjpirjv we Here must without pvrjprjv. The imitator original, which sought ance of good and evil doubt ovr' eibbres yeXcovres, ?yaBoov. by an unintel slight modifications eir' aXXrjXoiai yeXooaiv, ovre KaKoov. eibbres adopt Hecker's emendation yvooprjv did not perceive the true significance to hold up to scorn the blissful Edenic of characteristic the new-made lords for of the ignor of Megara, who but recently, clad in goat-skins, lived like pasturing deer in the wilds without the city walls, but now in the city light-heartedly hood one wink eibevai. another. A similar Clearly reinforcement yv?opas of eib'evai eib'evai is a mere occurs for periphrasis in the LXX. account

Gen. Eden, rb 2. 9, ^vXov THE AMERICAN rod eib?vai but for the confirmation where, one 27, OF be might or yvooprjv. yvooaiv to inclined If that Kai text by Philo was yvooarbv us of reminds phrase koXov yvooarbv of the MS. suspect Ion's ACADEMY. such irovrjpod, 1. 55, Jud. a of corruption Homeric locu tions as vorjpara fjbrj {? 121) and prjbea olbe (2 363), we find something in Plato, Apol. 20 E, ov y?p br) closely analogous to that of Heraclitus eyooye the avrrjv rrjv aoc?iav) 20 D, (sc. with comparison that Plato in mind had However, view ordinary take rj ye, elvai however, phrase, aocfrbs, may "be suggest skillful." ir?aav aocjyirjv 1157. requires. to equivalent last this same has the ?iriar?pevov, we so eiriaraaBai If, then, interpret as the with the relative yvcopxjv br'erj so closely rather I should that say br'erj was roughly ibid. Cp. cannot we yvooprjv, In ravrrjv the old force of eiriaraaBai, 564, Theognis construction. eiriarapai. Kivbvvevoo as quae, quippe 57 means in fr. bans ut pote qui, and render the fragment somewhat as follows: "One thing only is to get Understanding : she it is that pervades all things and wisdom: all." governs V2 2. 69, Fr. rco ovv 48, b? Bavaros. epyov ?ios, rb^oo bvopa Diels, Die Anf?nge der Philologie bei den Griechen, Neue Jahrb?cher, xxv (1910), I. x\bteilung, p. 3, says, "Der Gleichklang der Worte ?ibs (Pfeil) und ?ios (Leben) war ihm ein ?usseres Zeichen f?r seine Leben and Tod im Grunde eins seien." Lehre, dass die Gegens?tze Zeller no I, n. 2, expresses controvert this 640, to desire to me seems that the ov rpo(f>r) rpo4>r), ov rpo4>r), rjv pr) bvvrjrai, be ovx'i' epyov rpo<fir), Heraclitean doubtedly aves tales pulvere and dust vel are not with it. Fr. 13, be? y?p rbv xaptezra %atpeti> KaB' 'Hpa/cXetro^, where to Heraclitus, may but it In V3 re ovvopa fj rp'efyeiv this passage With take fr. 37, sues caeno, rjv olbv for the water, bvbpari prjre pvir?v ?op?bpoo thought are but rpo<f>r), of un prjre cohor is apparently identical epyco prjre ?op?bpoo avxpt?v seems to belong %atpet*> alone to reference have conceivably much imply I have way. it goes; more. 2 (V2 86, 1 sq.), rpoc?r) Ilept rpocj>rjs, ' we should origin ci?ere lavari; mud as far b? ovx'iovvopa that same the so interpretation, of Heraclitus words refers to Hippocrates, Diels properly epyov in much himself the same problem, the philosopher meaning to imply that we should call things and men to their epyov: by their fruits ye shall know by names conformable them! Plotinus aco(j)poavvrj Kai ai 1. 6. Enn. Kai r) ?vbpeia reXerai 6, Kai ir?aa a?v?rrovrai eort Yap br), cos b Kai ?perr) K?Bapais rbv pr) KeKaBapp?vov 7raXatos Xbyos, Kai ' r) r) (?pbvrjais avrr) bib Kai ?^?] abov eis [an bpBoos ' KeiaeaBai ?v ?op?bpoo, bri rb pr) KaBapbv ?op?bpoo bi? K?Krjvcfr?Xov ola br)

ov KaBapai ves, ON OF FRAGMENTS rb aoopa, THE rco roiovroo, x^ipovai PRE-SOCRATICS. obviously 703 at glancing fr. used the words in connec 13, suggests the possibility that Heraclitus tion with a discussion of the mysteries, with the intent of which he seems to have been satisfied, while he denounced their forms. Thus, fr. 5, ?9 aXXoos KaBaipovrai a'Lpari olov piaivbpevoi el ris ep?as irrjXbv irrjX?) ?irovi?oiro, we find a context in which he may have distin the form and the substance, the bvopa and the guished between pyov. Be that as it may, there is abundant evidence that Heraclitus had grasped the fruitful principle that the true nature of a thing is to be understood in relation to its function or epyov. We are familiar enough with his interest in etymologies, which reveals the desire to detect the true meaning of objects in the derivation of their names; the but necessarily of study involved our which homonyms, a corresponding attention reveals, fragment to synonyms, almost in which words of very different origin and etymology are shown to have a common meaning. The test of identity or difference of meaning Heraclitus found in the epyov of the thing. Plato, in a passage clearly under the influence of Heraclitus, Crat. 394 A sq., develops this two fold principle, which underlies the study of homonyms and synonyms, referring to the law of uniformity in nature, in accordance with which like begets like, and concludes therefrom that, as the physician recog nizes drugs by their physiological action (bvvapis = epyov), not allowing himself to be deceived by their several disguises, so the philosopher must apply the same name to parent and or at offspring, any rate he must learn to detect the identity of concepts by whatever names they may go. Plato is obviously developing ideas derived from Heraclitus, partly such as are expressed in the fragments above cited, partly those of fr. 67, which we shall presently discuss more at length. In Tim. 50 A-51 B Plato combines in a highly suggestive way Heracli tean and Eleatic concepts, very much as he develops the law of in the Cratylus, into the principle of interac uniformity, mentioned tion (iroie?v Kai iraax^iv) in Gorg. 476 B sq. In the living tissue of so vital a tradition as Greek philosophy presents we expect to find con tinuous developments of this kind. What ismore difficult is the task of discriminating the stages marked by the individuals who contributed to the total result. In regard to the particular question with which we are now concerned, it is clear that Heraclitus and the Heracliteans laid the foundations for the Socratic procedure of definition by noting the essential importance of the epyov in determining the meaning of a concept. It was Socrates, however, who elaborated the method of definition on the basis of dialectic, thus in turn laying the foundations of the science of logic.

V 10. 69, Fr. 50, THE AMERICAN *Hpa/cXetros ?biaiperov, biaiperov ir arepa vibv, Bebv bUaiov* Xoye?v ao(j)bv ?ariv yevrjrbv ACADEMY. ovv <?V> pi?v <t>rjaiv elvai ?y ?vrjrov, Bvrjrbv ?B?varov, Xbyov ovk ?pod, ?XX? rod Xbyov ?Kovaavr ?v ir?vra b elvai *Hp?/cXetr?s irav rb aioovay as bpo <j>rjai. It is agreed that the authentic words of Heraclitus begin with ovk who obviously modeled ?pod: what precedes we owe to Hippolytus, on fr. 67. The comparison of the two statement his introductory shows passages The sary. <ev>, Bergk's of rb irav are, predicates in contrasted gible principle, the that K?apos which Diels as sees one at is unneces adopts, a glance, arranged In the fourth pair, XcVyosis of course the intelli pairs. the K?apos vorjrbs, opposed to a??ovwhich is virtually next The aiaBtjrbs. course is of vibv, irar'epa pair, of Chris tian origin. Apparently the last, Bebv bUaiov, has puzzled Professor now to insert [?biKOv]after bUaiov. I for he Diels; (V3) proposes saw was or his source this that ago pair long suggested to Hippolytus by Plato, Crat. 412 C-413 D, but had taken for granted that this was a matter until Diels's common of too to mistaken clearly not of worthy notice, special me. I observe that Otto Gilbert, Griech. He there p. 62, n. 1, also noticed the connection. of atcb^, but his suggestion I take interpretation Religionsphilosophie, proposes a different to be and knowledge note undeceived to In reference refutation. require Bebv = bUaiov, it ought to be said that Hippolytus possibly wrote biaibv ( no to bUaiov and but is that the there be due may rjXiov), copyist; a change in the text. Diels for making is sufficient justification elvai for the eib'evai of Par.; but probably right in adopting Miller's eib?vai may been have possibly a gloss originally on for bpoXoye?v; if bpoXoye?v is sound it must be interpreted here, as in fr. 51, with " as reference to Heraclitean sharing in the (a) common etymology, XcVyos." V2 15. 71, K?pos Fr. ? 0eos 67, Xipibs (r?vavria birbrav oKOoairep <7r9p>, rjp'eprj ev<t>pbvrj} xetjucov ovros b ?iravra' Bepos, irbXepios eiprjvrj, ?XXoiodrai b? vods), KaB' rjbovrjv avppiyfj Bvcopaaiv, bvop??erai I hope to make it clear that ?K?arov. is the text of Diels. This and correct, In order to show to understand pare two passages 394 Crat. ?aaiXeoos also A, ovkovv ?aaiXevs, Heraclitus what and reconstruct from Plato, Kai Kai ?? ?yaBod what it is not he meant. fragment we must com alludes to it. b avrbs ?yaBbs, and he obviously this in which irepi ?aaiXeoos wrote Kai -wore eK ; ecrrat y?p Xbyos /cat eK koXov raXXa /caX?s,

FRAGMENTS eKaarov yevovs HEIDEL.? w?vra ovroos, ef ravr? brj Kkrjr?ov ooare bb^ai avr? bvra' r? ykvrjrai' avXXa?als, ?XXrjXcov Kai Xp?opaaiv rco bvra, aKoire?, rj ?cj)fjprjrai, bvv a pi is. iarpco, b? exovri r?-ro?v ?X?yo^ev, "'Aarv?vai;" ye ?jlos". Kai tarpt/c? olov arparrjybv, ?aoos avxv? ye erepa, ra?s erepa elvat $ap/xa/ca iarpoov avr? ?ariv aKo viro roov rrjv bvvapiv rj y?ter?/cetrat rj rod bvbparos re Kai ""E/crcop" ovb?v Kai UiAKeaip^?poros" Kai avXXafia?s p?v ravrbv bvv?p,ei /cat "??virbXe ' Kai erepa /cat "IloX?juapxos" "^Ayts" "Tarpo/cXr?s" rats evpoipev b? jarj repas e?eari ravrbv e%et 7rX?7?>rod rad, ?XX' bpoos arjp,aivei. roov p?v ypapp?roov b? bpcos ri ?iriKoivoove?; brjXo? Kai ?ariv ? ovb?v ?XX' rj ?aaiXea iroXX? arj?aivei' ?XXa Kai rfj rjp,?v b vvvbrj av vodvra, ooairep yp?ppaaiv ?XXa ?v ibiooriKCos iravr?iraaiv ooairep avrb' bvbp.ara. rco ?v ??v eKyovov, ToiK?XXeiv rj Kai ?v ?XXois roov avro?v ypappi?roov ' Kai ,Apx 7^oXts,, Te rb roiovrov erepov 705 ovk Kai ?KirXrjrrerai <j)aiverai, ovrco b? tercos /cat ? ?iriar?pevos irepi bvop?roov et ri irpbaKeirai Kai ovk eKirXrjrrerai yp?pipia irpoabvroov. avro?v PRE-SOCRATICS. avr? r? irovp?vcg, THE r? ?XXa ireiroiKiX?'eva 4>aiverai roov are rrjv bvvapiv <j>app?Kcov bapa?s beye OF ro?s yp?upaai The c?Beyybpeva. general bia(f>oo con doctrine of the epYoi' nection of this passage with the Heraclitean was noted above in the discussion of fr. 48. The bvvapis or specific action of the drug is compared to the bvvapas of a word, physiological or in words that are The identity of meaning its "force" meaning. different to (biac?oovodvra, r?vavria variation (iroiK?XXeiv, to Heraclitus and Plato. produce common fr. 15, b? ovk ?yivooaKev cofres 'Aibrjs Kai Aibvvaos, ev. eari y?p The the methods and airavra), ? employed the themes are these ?XXoiodrai), naturally fr. 57, second passage think of Heraclitus, We and cVrts rjpeprjv from Kai ev4>pbvrjv to which Plato, I referred above, is Tim. 49 sq., where the relation of the elements It will suffice to the be?apevrj or the eKpaye?ov is under discussion. for our purpose elvai XPe&v eiboov ?Xeippara iroiodaiv roov a quote Tb r? ir?vra to birbaa on evrjbrj r?x^V here employs substratum to the E, b? r?s ?/cr?s KaB?irep r? on avrb ' bapi?s rb baoi Xeibrarov to illustrate elemental borrowing one irepi vir?pxov, re ev riaiv axyp*a irap?irav two comparisons forms, bib Kai ir?vrcov y'evrj, rodr irpcorov prjXav?ovrai irpoopaXvvavres 50 ?v avreo be^bpieva vyp? ?irou?rreiv ?irixtipodai, eooai, vir?px^iv evbrjXov eKbe^bpievov ?oobrj r? pi?Xiara pLaXaKOov axvpara Plato from sentence ovb?v ?rrepy?'?ovrai. the relation from the of the manu the other from the art of moulding figures in a facture of unguents, The first of these is obviously similar to that above quoted matrix. from the Cratylus, and was repeated by Lucret. 2, 847 sq.

THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. sicut amaracini blandum stactaeque liquorem et nardi florem, nectar qui naribus halat, cum facer? quoad nullam naturam, quae mittat naribus rem debent eandem propter non suum adhibere gignundis the suggestions afforded seem which Lucretius, to me est, par inolentis olivi mixtos possit suo contractans concoctosque Heeding quaerere primis reperire, ut minime quam cum instituas, licet ac possis in auram, odores corpore viro, rerum perder? primordia rebus odorem, etc. by these passages to clearly from Plato however reproduce, and freely, in our fragment, it should be possible with the thought of Heraclitus considerable certainty to restore the text and to determine its meaning. It is obvious that in the Cratylus Plato slightly changed the figure, of thus substituting drugs for unguents, because of the advantage to to able the of the He expert knowledge appeal being physician. in elements may have been influenced also by certain Heraclitean the medical literature, such as we find in Hippocrates Ilept biairrjs and Ilept rpo^rjs. At all events, it is clear that <irdp>, which Diels has from adopted the of Dr. conjecture Thomas and<ot^os>, Davidson, which Bergk proposed, are alike inadmissible. The latter part of the defines with pivpov fragment and the use of Bvoopa,which Hesychius and ?poopa, to clearly point the that conclusion as Heraclitus, we should infer from Plato and Lucretius, referred to an unguent. The instances of Bvoopa (Herod. 2. 86; Lucian, De Dea Syra, 8 and 46) to refer one If unguents. or the other of the in Lucian passages there can be no question should be doubtful, in regard to Hippocr. TvvaiKeioov ?, 209 (8, 404 L.), ?\//e?vr? Bv?opara ? es rb pvpov kp?aXXerai, with which compare ibid. 202 (8, 386 L.) and 206 (8, 398 L.) In the (see Bl?mner, Technologie und Terminologie der making of unguents und Gewerbe K?nste2, resulting product L, from the as the neutral base, sq.), union of aromatic substances 359 well as with it, was the called pvpov or eXaiov. The finished product bore a variety of names determined Ilept bapoov, ingredients. by the volatile Theophrastus, we may from which information, ample gives be roov pvpcov V. 25, 7rpos eKaarov kp?aXXovai roov, o?ov Tcp evcobei. ets rrjv ?ev VI. 27, Kvirpov ?iravra Kapb?poopov, b? avvriBevrai a quote r? irpba<?)opa ?air?XaBov r? few pivpa sentences. roov ?pco/x? ?va<j)vp?aavres r? ?ev ?ir' ?vBcov r? b? ?irb 4>vXXcovr? b? ?irb kXoovos r? b' ?irb pi?rjs r? b' ?irb ??Xoov r? b1 ?irb Kapirov r? tV ?irb baKpvoov. puKr? b? ir?vB' oos eiire?v. In inten

therefore, tion, THE OF FRAGMENTS ON HEIDEL.? of Bernays, conjecture PRE-SOCRATICS. 707 <Bvoopa> Bvoop,aai, avppiyfj was better than either of those which we noticed above; but Diels is right in assuming that the desiderated word is to be supplied after The oKooairep. only is that of <irvp> in favor point its can omission so easily be explained; but with almost equal ease we can account for the loss of <pvpov>, which is obviously required by the sense and by the Platonic and Lucretian parallels. The But we must now return to the earlier part of the fragment. words ovros ?iravra' r?vavria b have vods a been stumbling-block. and Diels bracket them, since they can make nothing of Bywater the same result by making two frag them. Mullach accomplished But a ments instead of one, and omitting the troublesome words. should prove beyond reference to the passage from the Cratylus question that they belong just where they stand; only one slight change is required, Kleine Philol. ?iravra, ovros existimo, quae ita ?iravra' oovrbs vbos' as Bergk ovros, IL 86, n. 4, Schriften, r?vavria for obvrbs viz, b vods non sed interpretis, He perceived. etiam "Ceterum videntur corrigenda: ? ?XXoiodrai be, OKooairep o?vos Bebs ipsius . . . ktX." says, illa verba esse Heracliti /copos, r?vavria LTnfortunately Bergk did not interpret his proposed text; but judging by his punc tuation and the absence of any remark about the force of vbos, I venture to suggest that what he had inmind was something like this : " alle Gegen und Hunger, mit einem Worte, Gott ist. . . ?berfluss If this suggestion does him s?tze. Es ist derselbe Geist," usw. justice, it will be seen that he did not really anticipate my proposal to in regard except the of change ovros into oovrbs; and with working the text of Diels, who did not even record the proposal, I did not come upon his emendation until I had reached the same conclusion independently and the passage from ideas for and led me saw at I a different route. the Cratylus which by to once the that obviously vods had As correct no a matter disclosed reference text of it was fact, of the connection and whatever interpretation; to Bebs and mean as ovros in Herod. 7. 162, b? b vbos rod "Geist," but, " " or once cleared sense" this point prjparos, But, signified meaning." it followed at once that read that we must and oovrbs for ovros, up, did not r?vavria bill of plural variant ?iravra did not which particulars form of rovvavriov for 3. 12. 4 and 317 B. the more add merely precedes. which airav, usual phrase (for the adverbial a generalization r?vavria short, to Plato, Polit. rovvavriov; cp. occurs, irdv sum is the 310 D, Xen. force of iras or cWas) Plato. the up airavra In as a Mem. Protag.

THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. to Heraclitus what rightfully belongs to him, we should Restoring therefore write the fragment thus: ? Bebs rjp?prj ev<?>pbvrj, xew?v 0?pos, ' * r?vavria ?XXotourat b? oovrbs b vods ?iravra, /copos Xipbs irbXepos dprjvrj, o/ccoo~7r p <ipvpov>, birbrav KaB' rjbovrjv eKa Bvoopaaiv, bvop??erai avppiyfj " war and peace, arov. winter and summer, is day and night, God satiety sense the and but the he changes, is same; opposites hunger,? quite, however, just as the neutral base employed in making is mixed volatile with essences, receives a name say more at unguents, when it in accordance the odor with " of each In regard to the philosophical interpretation of the fragment, which thus assumes a rank of capital importance for the thought of Heracli it is hardly tus, to necessary that than present, we must laid by Plato, Tim. 48 E-52 C. henceforth build upon the foundations Plato and Lucretius prove that the same thought lay at the core of the here touched one of atomic theory, and it is evident that Heraclitus in so far as it is concerned with the basic conceptions of metaphysics We are therefore called upon the relation of the One and the Many. to consider the questions which crowd upon us with sobriety and we careful discrimination, unless mark the progress of speculation. to admit far-reaching 72, 18. V The fr. by V of discussion 14. Fr. 77, a it, with . . . tfsvxvai otherwise essentially to the related r?pits, that too is, however, connection. Fr. 78, some forgets that is made scholars, whither he is going. rj B?varov is identical, to B?varos, other in one. Either taken statement, but it is improbable that Heraclitus this 'fragment/ 19. by r?pxpiv text; one 73, mile-stones vyprjai that we are here dealing, conflate Heraclitus, V2 the efface in this missed apparently ?ira?cov okjj ?aivei. He It seems very probable express to Such an inquiry Fr. 71, pepvrjaBai b? Kai rod ?inXavBavop?vov f? rj bbbs ?yet. meaning, ovk 117, 73, are rjBos y?p to if one may so utterances of but differing appear to have in this, that been merged is entirely intelligible; them in the manner of by itself, combined ?vBpcoireiov yev'eaBai. two say, clear p?v ovk exet yv?opas, Be?ov b? exet. The word write eBvos; rjBosis difficult and improbable. cp. Eurip. Orest. I suspect that we should

FRAGMENTS ico ico, iravb?Kpvr iambic movement somewhat 709 ?<j>ap,kpoov of the fragment is obvious, and the position of forced. One is tempted to write the sentence jjLevappears as PRE-SOCRATICS. iroXvirova. Wvrj The THE verse, eBvos pi?v ?vBpcoireiov 0etoi> ov yvcopas exet, b' ex^t. This may, of course, be nothing more than the work of chance; but the entire cast of the sentence suggests that we are dealing with verse converted into we Now prose. that know were there those who versified the philosophy of Heraclitus. One of their number, Scythi nus, a writer of the fourth century, is known by name; and one of the fragments of Scythinus (fr. 2, V2 86, 22 sq.) has come down to us reconverted into prose, which Wilamowitz has again rendered in verse. I do not suggest, though it is possible, that we have before us another reconverted version of Heraclitus for the cases by Scythinus; of whose Cleanthes, do that of Plato, of us caution a verse are in part little more than and of 'Epicharmus/ among whose reproduce the thought of Heraclitus to avoid hasty conclusions. original; for there are at least para fragments as others Neverthe that fr. 78 is in fact a thinly disguised less, I incline to think rendering verses Stoic phrases of Heraclitus, there are some which two other prose frag ments' of Heraclitus (80 and 100) whose form suggests a versified As it is best to discuss them separately, I will add only original. that one of them, like fr. 78, is quoted by Origen Against Celsus. If be approved how accurately my suggestion to wit, arises, to reproduce the thought scholars, by the versifier, of Heraclitus, an question inteiesting if he was actually trying or his as Celsus source sup posed, succeeded in rendering it. In the case of fr. 78, it is a nice would have said what is here imputed question whether Heraclitus to him. Origen seems to be clearly right in interpreting yvooptaswith <7oc/>ta; but Heraclitus, whose doctrine of rb aocfrbv we considered above in the note on fr. 41, although unsparing in his denunciation of the of the crowd, clearly believed to that he had attained stupidity wisdom. We naturally think of him as declaring with the Hebrew prophet that he alone was left. We may note that fr. 78 seems to have served as a model for the spurious fragment of Epicharmus, 57, 7, which Diels (V2 99, 4) writes thus : ov y?p avBpooiros rexvav riv evpev, b b? Bebs roir?v.

710 In the same way Epicharmus, AMERICAN ACADEMY. fr. 64 (V2 100, 5 sq.), likewise at Heraclitus, glances the anecdotes to anecdote the veKves y?p fr. 96, Koirpicov to the manner relative about the and eK?Xrjrbrepoi, at also of his death, V2 54, 29 sq., and were there also where oven, spurious, eariv veKpbs be K?irpos, yrj b' rj KOirpos eipi veKpbs' ov veKpbs, ?XX? Bebs, ei b' rj yrj debs ear', (V2 58, gods It seems altogether 36 sq.). is in likely that the case of Heraclitus this a close parallel to that of Pythagoras, that myth soon began to weave about legends his by other supported that For forgeries. see Norden, to Heraclitus, goreans and name, given above and to be discussed probable that adespota, charmus. becoming Others were attached went under the Vita 23. 73, This Fr. verse in to various name of in Suidas has fragment reference possible. of Heraclitus, If The as current and such names, refers 1. it extremely Heraclitus, as Epi and it is (V2 56, 46), eypaxpe be like and has rightly that an utterance is confirmed rb ?vri^ovv avpfyepov Kai ir?vra Kar' epiv yiveaBai, which is itself H. in Iov. to into his text yv?opirjs, fj ir?avvos ai) Diels I proposed Here. F. Eurip. KaXXiarrjv quite obviously I was struck ago Kai yivbpeva bUrjs pera read after 1155b 4, ?pp,o a not by ir?vra the Kar* 36, and in a letter to Professor p?ra, to admit biafyepbvroov a summary. but quotation Long /ecu bkrjv epiv, in thought between xPe&v fragment Schuster's by fr. 8, Arist. Eth. Nie. viav Cleanthes, prose accept it as complementary take refused eK roov Kai bos be Kvprjaai particu to be im for xpec?^a. of all First proposed iravra so Kai yivbpeva not Kar' epiv does look as like an attempt to summarize of Heraclitus 'HpafcXeiTOs similarity and more is conceded substitutes noted this impression verbatim %vvbv, Kai b'iKrjv innumerable, as an authentic regarded cannot do better than for xPe?pe?>a, however, numerous the it should details; probably Karaxptcopeva Diels, times discussed be ?bvra irbXepov Kai xpec?/xe^a. epiv to the last word, which sentence we conjecture, yivbpeva. much the been tov b? XPV Kar ir?vra larly with of eib'evai 80, Kai yivbpeva epiv, epiv n. 345, presently make written the late Pytha iroirjriKO?s. V2 any these time to them that probably iroXX? of in p. were up which of the Theos, Agnostos examples some sprang forgeries the relation ir?vra Kv?epvas, instead of xptu?tva 20,

FRAGMENTS eW Kevrpois THE PRE-SOCRATICS. viro "Hpas per a. ?tre rod xPe&v bapaaBeis 711 in prose. of pera was impossible He replied that the anastrophe This is of course true, as I well knew, assuming that we are dealing At that time, having nothing more definite than the with real prose. of certain fragments vague impression that the diction and movement of Heraclitus were distinctly poetic, and the statement in the Vita of Suidas, which I then interpreted as referring in a general way to poetic diction, I dropped the matter, though I still felt that xPe&v Mera was probably the true reading. Recently Dr. Bruno Jordan, Archiv f?r Gesch. der Philos., 24 (1911), p. 480, has independently made the same suggestion. In view of the probability that in this 'fragment/ in fr. 78, we as prose, recover to feasible cated a versified version emendation as all but certain. have I regard my verse the /cat yivbpeva above, of Heraclitus original ir?vra Kar' reconverted into I do not think it as I indi because, to be a summarizing throughout, epiv appears formula; but it is easy to pick out parts of the sentence which almost without change into iambic verse: fall eib?vai b? XPV rbv bvra irbXepov %vvbv. .Kai b'iKrjv epiv .<rov> xPe&v p?ra. It must be said that the text of the fragment is not absolutely certain, as the Mss. of Origen Against Celsus read et b? XPV and bUrjv ?pe?v; but the emendations adopted by Diels and reproduced above are so obvious that we may with confidence make his text the basis of our in the light of the poetic tags which have just been study. Regarded we noted, V2 76, This The a close again I hazard but have fr. 2; Scythinus, fied version. 12. Fr. 100, at is preserved fragment movement copas is clearly to as ir?vra (?)epovai. by Plutarch, dactylic, the parallel no guess and to who one may prose the author paraphrase of the to it. again alludes that suspect of versi it formed part of an hexameter, though its brevity forbids dogmatic conclusions. In view of the experiments of Cleanthes it is not improbable that there were form of certain possible that this fragment or unconscious versions course, to chance to Heraclitean sayings owes poetical in heroic verse. its rhythmical influences not It is, of or metrical unnatural

THE ACADEMY. AMERICAN in the early stages of prose when verse was still the prevailing medium of artistic expression. This is perhaps the most probable explanation of the hexameter fr. 5, of ending noted long ago and find referred Agnostos is much Theos, p. 88, n. 1. Dactylic more thus accounted easily Beovs rjpoo as ovb' to Homeric than or iambic which eiaif I by Norden, to due movement, for olrives influence models, epic such trochaic, as have been noted above in fragments 78 and 80. Of the latter sort there is perhaps another example in fr. 120, quoted by Strabo, ijovs Kai Kai rj ?pKros reptara ?air'epas ?vriov rrjs ovpos ?pKrov Aibs. aiBp?ov The general trochaic or iambic rhythm is at once apparent, and the close at least is faultless and strikingly suggestive of a trochaic verse. See infra, p. 714 sq. One may recast it into trochaics quite as easily ? as Wilamowitz did the second fragment of Scythinus, ijods [possibly eco b?] x?awkpas reptar ?pKros This has been much fragment I. 629, Zeller, n. 1. Gomperz those who All interpolation. ?pKrov ovpos At?s. aiBp?ov es rovro, rjKovaa, ovbeis ?(j)iKve?rai 108, OKoaoov Xbyovs or? aocfrbv kan ir?vrcov Kexcopiap?vov. 11. Fr. 77, coare yivooaKeiv V2 Kavri cp. Schuster, discussed; proposed retain on to bracket the words pp. 42, 44; as an ktX. aocfrbv as them regard an they may put upon it. Diels object clause, whatever interpretation the fragment as de identifies (rb) aoc?bv with God, and understands divine the claring This transcendence. view has naturally provoked for it is incompatible with all that we otherwise vigorous protests; I think X?yofs is here used as know of the thought of Heraclitus. uses Heraclitus to refers the for phers; a says his Weltanschauungen does not : of written message philosophic of the great teachers to refer actual necessarily explained " Of all those in the discussion whose force pregnant message hearing philoso of the (by himself was of yiv?oaKeiv of fr. 41. regarding it gospel: and but includes the reading The records. above or own sets forth his views, slave) sufficiently then, of rjKovaa person who or by X?yos Heraclitus, the nature of things it has been my fortune to learn about, not one has attained to the point So much seems to be clear from a survey of the of true knowledge" of But, conception knowledge which he is continually proclaiming. once we seize the import of his use of yiv?oaKeiv, it is equally clear that or 1 is not "that"; it is causal, and the obvious conclusion to his sentence follows: "for wisdom is far removed from all" ("men" or "of them"). One may illustrate this use of Kexoopiapievovby a pas

-sage from ?coov o Cleanthes avdpcoiros, by Kai Philostratus 9. Sext. Empir. Kexcopiajievov 4. rod ov reheiov re\eiov. The and the quotation ovn re ?vi 13, 713 coare 90, quoted by Diels, E. P. Euseb. ap. PRE-SOCRATICS. ttoXv fragment of Philolaus, questionable from quoted b? ?reX?s THE OF FRAGMENTS ON Kai Kexcopiajievco ir?vrcov,made by Norden, Agnostos Theos, 39, n. 3, afford but weak In printing the support for so unlikely a theory as that of Diels. I should fragment, a colon place between on. and yivcoaKeiv sen The thus furnishes a new illustration of the difficulty, noted by Diels mentions, but does not adopt, Aristotle, of phrasing Heraclitus. in V3. my interpretation tence V2 19. 77, Kai Fr. acocfrpove?v ?perrj Kai ao(f)?rj ?\r]S'ea pieyiarrj, \eyeiv eira?ovras. (f>vaiv here, as in fr. 116, show acoc?povetv. Diels The Mss. ro 112, TToie?v Kar? to in order there the here substitutes to diction of He that <j>povelv, adapt " ist der gr?sste Vorzug, und die He renders : Das Denken zu sagen und nach der Natur zu besteht darin, die Wahrheit <t>povelv, raclitus. Weisheit auf handeln, he gives sie hinh?rend." a forced to ro <t>pove?v, aco^povelv changing serves to and which eira?ovras ?perrj Besides of rendering conceal the obvious Stoic character of the saying. Again, there is no other instance of aocfrirj in the supposedly genuine fragments of who seems to have used (ro) ao<\>bvinstead : it does recur Heraclitus, in fr. 129, which Diels reckons doubtful or spurious but others accept as Yet, genuine. different: very thing of reproach. admit granting it One who ?perrj means that may perhaps defend Kai in ???prvpas fr. that is, it like is genuine, aocfrirj there iroXvpLadeirj and reads the sentence without an virtue. ethical As but it is doubtful some a bias will for ?Xrjd?a term readily one Xe7etz/, reKrovas of the \//evbcov it by citing the denunciation 28; means Kamrexvirj, so whether an obviously ethical virtue would have counted as a mark of aoftirj in the days of Heraclitus. In opposition to this it may be said that 'Kkrjdeiawas the ideal of the Greek philosophers from the beginning. True; but it was objective Truth which they sought, and not the virtue of truth The fulness. iroietv Kar? it is hardly The word it juxtaposition a reference suggest not does cfrvaiv ?iratovras to defensible has regulaily bai/jLOv?v diaKpiveiv. be Kai The akrjdea to abstract bears render all the marks e-watovras iroielv and Xe7e^ or objective with of Kara truth. Stoic "auf sie 4>vaiv Finally, doctrine; hinh?rend." for the sense which 117, ovk kiraicov oktj /3a?m, to wit, Xen. 1. 1. 9, Mem. cp. "knowing"; rovs ? rots oi Beoi jiadodai ?vdpcbwois fxavrevofxevovs mean then "to act in accordance words with clearly here, bears of as in fr. in Plato,

THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. nature consciously and with full knowledge." This thought is, however, in substance and in form entirely Stoic, corresponding in the ethical to Fate, in the religious sphere to the injunction to submit willingly as sphere, in Cleanthes's expressed to Fate. lines One of may, course, discover the germs of this view in genuine fragments of Heraclitus; but Diels's alterations in the text and his interpretation do not meet the reasonable objections long since urged by others to the genuine ness of V2 this fragment. 8. 78, Fr. 116, ir?ai ?vBpoowoiai Kai ?oovrovs yivooaKeiv p'ereari aoo<j)pove?v. This fragment, like the preceding, is derived from Stobaeus, and like it, too, has been by many regarded as spurious. As I have al Diels stated, ready obvious if the writes criticism. as passage for (jypove?v a whole a created to meet an be justifiable, however, only in order aoo^pove?v, This procedure would in favor presumption of Heracli tean authorship, which is supported solely by the lemma of Stobaeus. In fact all indications point to the period after Socrates. Whoever attributed the saying to Heraclitus doubtless did so in view of fr. 101, the ejxeoovrbv, but ?bi?rja?prjv as an injunction to recognize of interpretation one's limitations the Delphic to and yvooBi aavrbv oneself occupy with that which lies within one's proper scope and power, ? this is, so far as we know, Socratic: he who would claim it for Heraclitus assume must the will fragment burden to express that precise aoo(?)pove?v to come they different to due must V2 ?oovrovs cannot to us from heads, it is plain a mere mistake Stobaeus, that in charged to 78, 16. 120, rjods aiBp?ov At?s. ?pKrov Fr. ovpos of was intended as fragment of genuine. 112 and 116 as doubtful. both who the changing justify quotes their assignment lemmata of ?air'epas reppara his them under widely to Socrates is not the error text, but sources. be his the reader the accept our unbiased Kai aoofypove?v I cannot thought. and ypove?v, no But proof. yivooaKeiv was clearly right in marking Bywater Since of that doubt Kai rj ?pKros Kai ?vriov rrjs of ovpos aiBp?ov Ai?s as In V3 Diels briefly notes my interpretation "wind of heaven," which was proposed in my review of his Herakleitos von Ephesos2, in Class. Philol., 5. p. 247; but he appears still to prefer referred to Mt. Olympus. As I his own suggestion that Heraclitus regard my proposal as almost certainly right, I offer here a few addi

observations tional OF FRAGMENTS my supplement THE PRE-SOCRATICS. former statement, 715 exi which of gencies of space then compelled me to omit. For the meaning I would refer to Schmidt's See also ovpos, "wind/' Synonymik. Index Bonitz, /cat 7rpos ?pKrov Aristotelicus, Kai irpbs vbrov. v. ap/cros. The phrases s. was It common to say by Herodotus employed I have in speaking of the cardinal points are especially interesting; made a complete list of them, and they seem to me to be decisive. to but a few by way of illustration: 1. 148, I will refer, however, 7rpos ?pKrov . . . rerpapp'evos re Kai vbrov irpbs peaep?pirjs 7rp?s ??cfrvpov ; 3. ?vepov 7rp?s ?pKrov 102, ; 2. 8, <?>'epov ?ir' ?pKrov re Kai ?op'eov ?v?pLov. Cp. Hesiod, Theog. 378-82. Though I do not accept the suggestion of Diels that the oupos A tos I will refer to a passage which might possibly be isMt. Olympus, used to support it, to wit, Hippocr. Ilept e?bopaboov, 48 (9. 462 L.), Definitio autem It would be interesting some or superiorum other et partium to know of medical ransacker inferiorum the Greek umbilicus. corporis text: perhaps Helmreich may manuscripts recover yet It occurs in a part of the treatise much discussed of late; see ?ber Alter, Ursprung und Bedeutung der hippokr. Schrift R?scher, von der Siebenzahl, p. 37, n. 67, who of course, in relating this to his refers to the bp<j>aXosyrjs or BaX?rrrjs, and believes that "Weltkarte/' the writer had inmind (not Delphi, but) Delos or Teos. Mt. Olympus might well serve as a landmark to divide the "upper" or northern parts of the earth from the "lower" or southern; but it does not it! for a zero meridian. so suitable seem clitus had any "Greenwich" that and "east" I doubt, in mind: "west" are is merely this, delimited by a north and south line drawn in question. be may rapher as may be was know, phers. see above in the V2 not For thought the on sense 80, Various 10. ?KOvoiev, fr. Hera relative terms and are through any point that useful meridians, at a comparatively a zero meridian, but special were mariner, recognized seen from Herodotus; and whether moreover, what he seems to have meant to the geog date, early so far as I of before suggestion 100. This the time of the Alexandrian geogra verse of a possible for the fragment, original would account for the use of oupos readily of wind. Fr. evxovrai 128, baipbvcov ?y?Xpcaaiv ovk ?irobibodaiv, ooairep ovk ?irairo?ev. ovk ?Kovovaiv, ooairep In regard to the text of this spurious fragment I agree with Diels, except that I would set a colon after ?Kovoiev; from his interpreta tion I dissent, because it seems to me obviously at fault. In some

he appears unaccountable way the American to have academy. overlooked note my in Class. 5. p. 247, for he renders the text thus: "Sie beten zu den G?t terbildern, die nicht h?ren, als ob sie Geh?r hatten, die nichts zur?ck The saying is a close geben, wie sie ja auch nichts fordern k?nnten," parallel to fr. 127, likewise spurious, in that it charges men with in ovk ?irobibodaiv in their dealings with the gods. Hence consistency Philol. = ?irobibbaaiv; ( answers ro?ev not to !) answers the partie. ooairep to and ?Kovoiev, as ooairep evxovrai as the I ovk ?irai said in my meaning, " former note, is : They make vows to the images of the gods, that hear not, as if they heard; they pay not their vows, as if they (the gods) can it not" required Everyone for evxovrai, ?irobibodaiv, Deuter. LXX., ?irobodvai and 23. 21, or? eK^rjroov avrrjv, ??v the necessary classical supply examples one I will ?irairo?ev. from the quote b? evxv tvxyv Kvp?co reo Beoo aov, ov xpovie?s b Bebs Kvpios eK?rjrrjaei Kai aov, earai ?v aol apapr?a. [Hippocrates.] 16. For this passage, see my Antecedents of Greek Corpusadar Theories, Harvard Studies in Class. "Philol., 22 (1911), p. 148 sq. It is to this article, and not to Class. Philol. 22. 158," that Diels should have referred V3 106, 16, note. V2 81, 36?82, c. 13. V2 91, 23. Epicharmus. Fr. 4. 6, rb b? ao(?)bv ? (jovais rbb' olbev cos exet ' viro. avravras ireiraibevrai y?p pbva Diels weiss die renders, "Doch wie Natur allein. Denn is, perhaps, rests translation a matter to the former, it has It but, like thing recondite above, in my the on "how alone of in which cos exet 1. 1. with verh?lt, das selbst but gelernt." I believe his and cos ex^t. rbbe rb ao$bv of in common little von ganz consequence, great a misconception it comes knows this mysterious related phrases it baffled the copyists Possibly Mem. and no hat's As (rb) aocfrbvof Heraclitus, some ovb? ao<j>bv, denotes ovb?v iroidXov phrase or cunningly to cos ex^i, I remarked In regard devised. to the process on Heraclitus, refers fr. 1, that note it here "Nature the way sie familiar of becoming, mean, of dieser Weisheit sich's mit 11, ovb? y?p irepi about." The words of the fragment the of this device, secret cunning result is brought about." appears to have also in certain rrjs roov ir?vroov escaped many or This use scholars. instances. Thus Xen. 4>vaeoos, roov fjirep aXXoov

bi?keyero KaL T?aiv irXe?aroi, K?apos '?xeh FRAGMENTS THE OF PRE-SOCRATICS. 6 ir cos ? aKoiro?v, ?^a7/cats viro KoXovpevos roov y?verai eKaara 717 roov ao4>iaroov Kr\. ovpav?cov Here the Mss. are divided between %et and ecfrv,and the editors find it dif I believe that exeh which has the better credentials, ficult to decide. is the true reading, though one may question whether the unfamiliar force of %a or the similarity of sound led to the substitution of ecfrv. As I pointed out in my study Uepi Qvaecos, the same duplicity as in appears force the occurs cos exet of in also use the of cfrvais, which to a predominantly signifies that which a thing is, but, pursuant constant habit of the human mind, is most frequently and naturally defined by recounting the story of its birth. c. 18. V2 34. 105, L. Diog. aBai' avrbv ir?vra avvear?vai. b? Parmenides. 9. 22, y'eveaiv to vir?px?t<v Various proposals have been made which iXvos is the most probable. or rjXiov, denote we whatever the ircov ?? rjX?ov irpo?rov yev? Kai rb xpvxpbv, ?? coj> r? for the emendation of rjKiov, of It is obvious, however, that e? substitute may elemental ?vBp Bep/jibv it, was for of man, constituents since not to intended are they expressly If the writer had in mind merely mentioned later in the sentence. the source of the force which led to the origin of man, e? rj\iov, however singular, may be allowed to stand. But Diels is quite right in regarding avrbv as corrupt. The language of Aristotle and his commentators referring the suggests to the V2 115, 10. aroixtla Fr. obvious 'KhrjBe?rjs rjb? ?poroov Something must of pied his The phrase be ae ir?vra irvBeaBai evKVKkeos rais bb?as, rjrop ?rpeles ovk evi iriaris akrjdrjs. depends upon the precise meaning to a considerable Parmenides cV evvir?px^^v, 1, 28, Xpecb rjpi?v avro?s correction, evvir?pxovra. extent toward the our determine ?poroov ?o?cu, of iriaris ?\rjBrjs ; for it conception seem which of the to have thought in much the larger part of his philosophical recurs, fr. 8, 26 sq., avr?p eariv ??vrjrov pey?Xcov ev ireipaai ?vapxov ?iravarov, eirei y'eveais rrj\e p?V eiik?xdrjaav, ?iro?ae attitude occu poem. beapo?v b? iriaris Kai okeBpos ?\r/Brjs.

THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. Diels renders it with "verl?ssliche Wahrheit" and "wahre ?berzeu Burnet and Nestle do not vary the phrase but give "true and "des Wahren Gewissheit" in both cases. Two other of to the be passages poem ought compared, to wit, fr. 8, 12, gung^; belief" ovbe tot' eK jxrj ebvros yiyveaBai ri wap' iriarios ecj)rjaei iaxvs avrb, and fr. 8, 17, ov y?p eariv In the passage 'AXrjBeirjs last mentioned as bbbs, in aXrjBrjs bbbs. fr. aXrjBrjsbbbs is clearly 4 we 4, have eari UeiBods to equivalent KeXevBos. So in Sophocl. O. R. 500, cV on ?vbpo?v ovk Kpiais the meaning where of the contention to mind the me." outstrips the fact that Parmenides ?voovvpov ?vbrjrov rrjv b' coare ireXeiv context appears for Parmenides iriaris to me clearly sends aXrjBrjs of juxtaposition or dence proof to furnish the clue has in mind an action Kpiais as may and y'eveais and iriaris be cian, feeling that than the syllogism, and cogent, continued to is for him ireiBovs adduced in into In much fr. 8, 15, forensic oratory that use iriaris court, a the employed in consequence iriaris for the meaning of law in which rhetorical So fr. 8, 27 sq. banishment. that KeXevBos, the method proper like the plea of the rhetor, has for its object eUbs. calls Kpiais at is rendered. bXeBpos shows to meaning the same way the arjp.ara are the arjpe?a of forensic argumentation, manner and for the same reason distinguished such evi which the Aristotle, the logi enthymeme rather its deductions were proof to The means to ?irbbei?is, the stricter proof of logic or science. tinction the truth (ov y?p aXrjBrjs Kai ?rrjrvpov elvai. word quite regularly bore in legal argumentation. less of the same word, employs the issue is sharply drawn and judgment the use This * ?v rcp<5' eariv rj b? Kpiais irepi rovroov * b' ovv, coairep ?v?yKij, rj ovk eariv Kenpirai eariv iriaris; is no proving is that "there seer a rrjv p?v ??v eariv bbbs), Here aXrjBrjs, obviously that irX'eov rj 'yoo (fr?perai, ji?vris eariv a in contradis Thus procedure iriaris which, the establishment of Parmenides, which Aristotle from the more of the fr. 8, 2, in like certain

we Thus reKprjpia. FRAGMENTS that THE OF the PRE-SOCRATICS. of dialectic 719 which Parmenides, in the Aristotelian eventuated logic, employed the forms and termi of forensic rhetoric, nology though with an evident effort to reduce to the argumentation exactitude of demonstration; just this demonstration of truth. to the ?poroov <5??cu,it is because or dialectic or evidence, V2 115, 19. Fr. that 7rt?Tts aXrjBrjs and is When, therefore, Parmenides objects they do not carry the force of logical such is against evidence them. 1, 37, pbvos b' en Bvpbs bbo?o Xeiirerai. V2 118, 38. Fr. 8, 1, b' en pvBos podvos cos eariv. Xeiirerai, It Of best, to be appears of one ruptions conceded generally the same word; the seems suggests that Plato, we rb all are p?a ?papr?veiv are cor rj irvXrj arevrj it for granted of Truth as obviously thinks of 6, 2 the sq., "'mortals, he knowing so to likely word nought, give iaBpbs. Plato, 100, 19, taBpiov is called of the rise narrow ?irb Xeiirerai rod the povax?s, calls rj bbbs rj ?ir?yovaa strait the way of The Homeric regarded of Error path, just as, as broad, since un it with along Bvpbs for his purpose, and pddos, it of the human the rrjv rpotfrijv and narrow so suitable corruptions orifice eiaievai and (irX?rrovrai) 69 E, uses to KaropBodv that Parmenides a stagger to Tim. of a necklace. iaBpbs, and Kai reBXippevrj I can think of nothing steady minds." a correction, stress rb eari, woXXaxoos saying, way fr. pddos is unintelligible. to propose on pbvos about The certain. eis rrjv ?oorjv. I take uses and rate, any to a way that barely remains. Similarly rco rjper?poo vbpoo bbbs, reinforced b? Xeiirerai by . . . ?XXoBi b? ovbapod, like the Aristotelian evradBa the Gospel I am olpos. but characterized or Bvpbs at reduced 184 B, povaxod dictum, as corruption to me Symp. E, mind fr. that Bvpbs, the numerous emendations proposed Platt's olpos is doubtless the seems to prefer pvpbs; but pu/x?s does not so well though Diels explain which 184 and bbo?o clepsydra, scholiast cV avrod. and says as the neck, Emped. Horn., that the The a 300, throat correspond ing use of avxyv (Herod. 7. 223) and of fauces in Latin in speaking of a narrow defile or 'isthmus' is sufficiently well known. it Now happens that in Emped. fr. 100, 19, iaBpbs has become corrupted in a part of the MS. tradition, and in Sophocl, fr. 145,

THE ? Bvaro?s where iaBjxbs refers AMERICAN b? fJLv?aris evTor/abrara ?vexovaa ?iov to narrow "the ACADEMY. /?eX?cov ?aB/Ji?v, ?paxvv of span modern life," scholars here something else. Nauck ignorantly sought to substitute But the MS. reading proposed oijjlov, as Platt does for Parmenides. have is confirmed ?(j)'iKero by Aelian, irpo\eyov rrjv angnstiae V. H. rod ?iov ore 2. 41, ro avroo and arevox^piav, eK BouroDs Cicero's by ?xavrelov use of temporis. I should therefore anyone be disturbed that we find another read iaB/jios o bol o in both fragments. Lest by the hiatus between en and iaB?n?s,I remark instance of it in fr. 4, 6, rrjv brj roi iravairevB?a 4>p??co ejx?ev ?rapirbv, in each case in the bucolic diaeresis. Diels, Parmenides Lehrgedicht, p. 67, in his note on the latter passage, well says: "Der Hiat in der the collision of bukolischen Di?rese nicht anzutasten!" Indeed, words ending and beginning with the same vowel was even regarded See Christ, Metrik by ancient grammarians as peculiarly justifiable. der Griechen and Romer2, p. 41, ? 55, and the remarks of ancient on Horn. grammarians X 595, Od. Verg. 1, 281, Georg. and H?r. C. Lexicon Gr. Suppletorium, 1. 28, 24. Herwerden, p. 400, suggests that ?aBpL?s may have had the digamma, referring to Pindar, Isth. 1. 10, 32 and Bacchyl. 2, 7 Blass., but continues, "Sed fortasse hiatus nominum Pind. propriorum 14 et p. II. p. scendit a verbo V2 7. 117, Fr. tribuendus. licentiae 17. levai." sane Nee I do not believe 5, ro y?p avrb voeiv eariv O. Schroeder, ProL habere potuit, si des Cf. digamma it had the digamma. re Kai elvai. obvious, however, discussed below. It is of this sentence has occasioned difficulties. that it is identical in meaning with fr. 8, 34, to be I think we have here a case of brachylogy, and that we voeiv The must construction supply before elvai from the preceding voeiv. "For it is one and the same thing to think and to think that it is." See II. p. 565, ? 597, h. Burnet, the examples cited by K?hner-Gerth, 1 notes and 3, propounds syntactical Greek 198, p. Early Philosophy2, doctrines and puzzles which one ought in kindness to ignore. Any examples of the substantive good grammar will supply abundant use of the infinitive, with or without the article, earlier than the date of Parmenides. For Greek lyric poets, see Smyth, Greek Melic Poets,

note on Alem?n, fr. XII. consult the articles of Professor Philol. V2 117, 14. view of to equivalent sentence PRE-SOCRATICS. the articular Gildersleeve 721 infinitive in general, in Amer. Journ. of Fr. 6, 1, XPV to Xe7et^ re voe?v p,rjbev b' ovk eariv. The THE OF FRAGMENTS ON ' ?bv epiuevai ecrrt 7ap which Burnet, to me to be appears Diels and e?ecrrt, thus becomes weak exists, and "For existence with elvai and prjb?vmakes tence, we must, r' out and in absence The ecrrti> as and the for says: the of article In regard to the first sen no difference. acquiesce perhaps, ecrrt takes unsatisfactory; character. Parmenides of is not." nought etVat, the of Diels, view who regards rb as the epic pronoun, and renders: "Dies ist n?tig zu sagen und zu denken, das nur das Seiende existiert"\ but this use of rb would be in whom we expect the articular infinitive. unique in Parmenides, It is possible that he meant "Speech and thought must be real"; for, of the corporeal though we do not otherwise find the recognition existence of thought and speech clearly expressed before the Stoics it is by no means certain that Parmenides would not and Epicureans, ' ' be called upon to defend his materialistic doctrines by asserting the of corporeality himself with and thought predication, V2 117, 21. he since speech, concerned expressly fr. 8, 35 sq. Fr. 6, 8, ots rb re Kai ovk ireXeiv ravrbv elvai vevbpiarai Kov ravrbv. Burnet, in order ovk elvai; eliminate but his reluctance . . . ovk to rb but the rj ir?pirav p. 198, n. 3, tortures Greek Philosophy2, Early to his the articular elvai, others responsibility ireXevai xPe&v the articular before rests and is impossible, interpretation to admit infinitives with ?ari him have (fr. in it a rock If he 11) could alongside eariv re Kai oosxPe&v ?ari p r) elvai (fr. 4, 5) it is difficult he should not V2 119, 6. have said rb ovk elvai instead of rb have is indefensible. found 8, this passage solecism as we and, infinitive Parmenides. rj ovxi the rb prj . . . seen, As of offence; ovrcos say, r) b' oos ovk to see why elvai. Fr. 8, 9, rt varepov b' ?v piiv Kai xp'^os rj irpbaBev, rod p,rjbevbs oopaev ?p%?p,evov,

Diels renders as phrase 1. 9. D. N. Kar? sort of rb piaK?piov, ?inxtipt?v irp??eaiv. In the for cp. /catvats rb Keva?s; The 5, ?XXeiiroov Keva?s 168 tanto post ante quietos ut cuperent vitam mutare gaudere novis rebus deber? cui veteres obsunt; add that cum novitatis amor clearly priorem? videtur aevum, pulchre degeret em accendere tali? fr. 8, 7, Parmenides, epeXXev sed cui nil accidit aegri in anteacto, potuit ov sq., novi potuit quid Kal ovre 2, eis evbaipov?av I think w7e should last passage Lucret. 5, 165-180; 301, p. Gr., was question eXXe?irov inlicere tempore for I regard the cp. Lucret. Dox. Diels, Burnet, sp?ter"; Quidve nam I may sq.; b Bebs, rb y?p ' bevrepov prjb?v y?p ?ariv ovre read oder compendiaria. 16 305, paK?pibs Kar? "fr?her by later philosophers; V2 21; irpoorov ACADEMY. rather than sooner"; comparatio and amplified repeated Cic. a "later AMERICAN wdth rj irpbaBev varepov I believe, with correctly THE ovveKev ovk ?reXevrrjrov ecrrt y?p ovk ?inbeves, irfj irbBev avi-r?ev, rb ?bv B'epis ?bv cV ?v and elvai iravrbs 8, 32 sq., * ?be?ro, is expanded by Plato, Tim. 32 C-34 A, wTith an obvious addition 33 A, which is apparently drawn from the Atomists. Cp. V2 343,4 sq., and in Studies my Antecedents of Greek Corpuscular Theories, Harvard 22 (1910), p. 139. See also the discussion Class. Philol., above (p. 693 sq.) of V2 34, 18. V2 120, So far 13. as Fr. I am 8, 34, awrare, all ovveKev in course, we are but we quite possible; to adopt the Neo-Platonic gested the the sense of "that accepted ?V ecrrt voe?v ravrbv /cat ovveKev of Parmenides interpreters for the of sake ?crrt vbrjpa. have taken which." This is, sense unless conceptions satisfactory which Probably no obviously of ancient thus rendering. re no obtain student of sug philosophy who has learned the rudiments of historical interpretation would go so far afield. Only the natural obsession that we must take our cue from the ancients, whose incapacity in this regard should no longer obvious be a secret, suggestion can account for we take that seems clear that Parmenides the object of thought exists, are the meant, one failure of some one to make as ort, and read ecrrt; ovveKev and " the for it Thinking and the thought that the same." K?hner-Gerth, p. 356, and the lexicons give the examples II. for this use of ovveKa; for

dependence THE ON FRAGMENTS OF a substantive clause PRE-SOCRATICS. on a verbal 723 substantive, Stahl, Krit.-histor. Syntax des gr. Verbums der Mass. Zeit, p. 546, ? 2, gives abundant examples, to which a careful reader will be able to add largely in a week. The parallelism of infinitive and substantive is no than Mimnermus, closer avrUa If the inverted him recall 2, reBv?pevai fr. O. R. this regard Xeyoo as of ir?vroov, irepi 500 sq., quoted construction let 2, 34, /cat ?crcra I rj ?ioros. ?'eXnov should cause any one to hesitate, order of words Xenophanes, and Sophocl. 10, p. 718, on fr. 1, 28 sq. above, especial the because importance, frank equivalence of the infinitive with the substantive would seem to render for all time impossible the strange acrobatic feats performed in his endeavor to eliminate the substantival infinitive, by Burnet wdth or without the article, from the text of Parmenides. c. V2 b avrbs Kai y?p Fr. Xbyos. 1, /cat 7rept rod wpovxovros ri. re avrod Kai irpoe^ei bpoiov brj rodro e?et p'eyeBos ?Va? earai ovre avrod roiovrov Kai ?ei X?Yet^. ovb?v y?p ?axarov ovk earai. ovroos et iroXX? avr? eariv, irpbs erepov ?v?yKrj eiire?v erepov piKp? re elvai b? ooare ?ireipa The question Kai pey?Xa There is precise tomed conception to think of of the second of rb irpovxov eaxarov 1, or, more to this argument 599; doctrine extremum cacumen of Zeno's. The b? ooare pey?Xa pey?Xa here repro elvai. ?ireipa scholars among some opinion For irpovxov. the Lucretius the prj ex^iv peyeBos, of the fragment alternative, of difference hold that the Epicurean of ooare p?v in the portion discussed concerns some piKp? elvai. duced definition Zeno. 8. 133, eKe?vo cacumen 19. years as the of Zeno the regarding accus I have been extremum I have exactly, of the partes minimae, is a part, discussion owed of the held quodque and still of which the its in part origin partes minimae by the view of Pascal, Studii Critici Giussani had never satisfied me; sul Poema di Lucrezio (1903), p. 49 sq., seemed to me essentially sound (see Amer. Journ. of Philol., 24, p. 332). He drew attention to Aristotle's arguments 326b 1 sq., Phys. (De iinim. 409a 240b 8 sq.) to prove 13 that et Corr. the ?pep?s cannot have sq., De

motion, PROCEEDINGS OF can have at most THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. Kara avjx?e?rjKbs motion which only, Pascal himself did not see that would be fatal to the older Atomism. 11 MXG. derived his arguments from Plato, Aristotle 977b (and sq.) Parm. 138 BC. With these we must clearly associate the questions the touching of a circle rotation or a Arist. sphere, 240a Phys. 29 sq., c. 1; Plotin. Ennead. 265b 7; Simpl. Phys. 1022; [Arist.] Qu. Mech. But Plato clearly had inmind positions taken by the younger 2.2.1. What these were in detail I am Eleatics, which he was developing. unable to say; but the argument of Zeno which we are considering to me seems to present same the from problem another if the angle; criticisms of Plato and Aristotle, applied to the atom, as an ?juepes, which the Atomists rendered motion, regarded as inherent in it, that impossible, the criticism of Zeno made it necessary apparently there should be a limit to the number and the divisibility of the parts of which a revised atomism might concede that it was composed. In fr. 1, genitive, for ovre I therefore, and the accept erepov avrod regard emendation I conceive As erepov. irpbs in irpo??ei of Gomperz, avrod ri as a partitive coare erepov the matter, irpb ?r?pov Zeno not does think of a cacumen as being added; but, since every extended part is susceptible of division, that which we regard as the irpovxov must always have an outer and an inner half, and so by the division ad it and the infinitum of the irpovxov itself there is crowded between next inward 'unit' an infinitude of parts which, from Zeno's point of must view, in 10. 145, c/jlos Fr. ? irpbaBev irpoay?verai xoajxrjB?v the things c. 20. Melissus. ovb? 3, ?XX' ?cov ovk ?irbWvrai 7. pLrjb?v prjre roov ?bvrcov ?irbWvrai e?rj or cacumen jue7aXa coare irpovxov become Consequently infinitum. V2 advance effect pieraKoajxiqBrjv ai ?vvarbv ovre b ?i] ecov yiverai. prjre ; ei jji?v y?p ?repoiovr ai, ri eyivero ad outward ai^ai. aweipa iro?s * ? y?p ore ?v ?repdiov, k? be pjrjre /xera rjbrj ?v ?Kai fxeraTKoajJLrjBeirj. A careful reading of this passage will convince any scholar that there is something wrong with it. The difficulty, however, lies entirely in the clause iro?s . . . elrj, where the MSS. read \ieraKoa\xr\Bevrcov ?bvrcov re rj. Mullach and Ritter-Preller present the same text as Diels, rt renders the clause thus: "wie Diels read that eirj. they except noch zu dem Seienden z?hlen?" sollte es nach der Umgestaltung and Ritter-Preller, Burnet, apparently accepting the text ofMullach

FRAGMENTS ON PRE-SOCRATICS. 725 "how can any real thing have had its order changed?" translates is I do not believe this rendering, which agrees with that of Mullach, no as of for I such form know peraKoaprjB?v elrj periphrastic possible, (?TapvrjBeis, Plato, Soph. 217 C, is aor. pass, in form only); that of Diels, on the other hand, though clearly necessary if one adopts his I incline to text, does not yield the thought required in the context. think that rt and rj are marginal corrections which have been misread and and misplaced, we that should V2 1. 149, aoopa Fr. prj 9, et p,?v ovv et exet?>. 7rcos ?v read rt peraKoaprjBeirj roov real suif er change of order?" kbvroov; "How should anything avrb e?rj, be? <5?exot 7raxos, ?v exot ?v elvai' ?v pbpia, b? bv avrb ev e?rj. Kai ovKen twice so quotes Melissus, and we cannot Although Simplicius therefore doubt that his text so read, I cannot believe that Melissus wrote cre?la That p,rj ex^iv. the Neo-Platonists understood as him holding that the existent is incorporeal is of course well known, but the doctrine to him. for attributing is insufficient warrant Zeller and Burnet seek to obviate the difficulty by referring the fragment, not to the Eleatic One, but to the Pythagorean Unit. this Against view there are two objections which appear to me to be fatal to it: first, we should have to suppose that Simplicius, who read this passage in its context, did not grasp its import, which must have been fairly clear; second, even if Simplicius should have erred in this respect, the argument of Melissus must have been applicable to the Eleatic One, and so Simplicius would be substantially right in quoting the words in order to prove that the Eleatic One was incorporeal. This of Eleatic very conception doctrine, however, would sufficiently account for a <rcop,a as must an of corruption I conceive is what That ?dpoiapia be tridimensional (whether Eleatic aOpoiapa. See the text, to have of parts such as Melissus, because divisible which, or "have thickness," years ago, has now been c. 21. made by Diels for et^at. understanding ad infinitum, a true Unit says that or Pythagorean) cannot be conceived Amer. of Philol., Vol. Journ. 28, p. 79. ning of the same clause the MS. tradition clearly points ing ?v b' ?bv rather than ?v b? bv. This correction, which .several extiv reading occurred. as At a aoop,a the or begin to the read I had noted in V3. Empedocles. V2 203, 13 sq. Arist. De Anima 1. 2. 404b 8 sq., asserts that Em pedocles regarded the soul (^vxrj) as compounded of all the elements,

THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. and quotes fr. 109 to prove it. So far as I can recall, all scholars of Aristotle, have been content to accept this deduction although the words quoted offer not the slightest confirmation of it and the is diametrically doctrine thus ascribed to Empedocles opposed to his in matters This conflict has been of of \pvxv religion. conception often noted, but no one seems to have seen that the solution of the did not connect lies in the simple fact that Empedocles difficulty the \pvxv, which he, like many other early these functions with Greeks, thought of as the entity only which escapes from man at the Fr. 110, 10, moment of death and survives the body. iravra shows what laOi y?p exei*v KaL vcopiaros (f>p?vr?aiv alaav, has used: cfrpovrjais and everything language Empedocles in remarks Journ. Amer. of Philol., not See my \pvxrj. and Scient. of Philos., Journ. and Methods, sq., Psychol. v?rjjjia, but 33, p. 94 10, p. 107. Fr. V2 203, 34. el y?p 110, Kev aft vir? ?bivfjaiv irpair?beaaiv eiroTTrevarjs ev/iev?cos Kadapfjaiv re aoi ir?vra radr? ?i?\a airo roovb' aXXa re ir?W 5 raur' eis eKaarov, rjOos e? be ai) 7' aWo?cov aura y?p 07177 4>vais eariv eK?arco. ola Kar' au?e?, ?vbpas pep?pivas, ap?Xvvovai TvepurXopevoio xp?voio * ?KeaOai (frikrjv eiri 7ewaz> alaav. (?yp?vrjaiv exeiv Kai violaros iroO'eovra ir?vra ladi y?p ivapeaovrai, eKrr?aeai ? r' acf)oov avroov 10 bi' a?oovos errope^eat, irekovrai beik? pvp?a eKkeixf/ovai r? a' ?(pap epe?aas peX?rrjaiv, is extremely text of this fragment as given by Hippolytus corrupt; but I accept the text given by Diels everywhere except in The verses 4 and 5. read the MSS. Here and Wos: av^ei Diels the retains former and adopts Miller's suggestion of rjdos for the latter. This text I think is clearly wrong, as the difficulties experienced by Diels the in rendering seem to me converse are to of the considering. passage show what statement I am v. But reader. to convince any ought we contain for obviously they require; in the sentence made the poet which that convinced Empedocles ca>?ei;with regard to Wos, one may hesitate claims nept of edvos and r?TCOv roov Kara rjdos. avdpcoirov, before deciding favor of Wvos 1 (6, 278 L.)> In wrote 8 sq. the we a?ei, not between the one may quote Hippocr. av n rovro b' oiro?ov ir?drj,

FRAGMENTS ON PRE-SOCRATICS 727 eKaarov irpbs rrjv ecovrod, rjv eiravac?epei irpbs rrjv bpoeBvirjv apiKpbrarov ' re KaKOV rjv re ?yaBbv Kai 01X7666 Kai rjberai viro eBveos rod fj Kai bi? radra evi r? pepea, ro aoopa, on ev rco apiKpor?rco Kai radra ir?vr apiKpor?rov to acfroov avroov es r? eiravafyepovaiv Kai eKaara, ir?vra. ?^ayy?XXovai are the following. be compared passages which may Other Uepi Hippocr. es rrjv ?irox^peeiv ro re vypbv rod acoparos rod ?vBpooirov, ?covrod c?vaiv eKaarov, reXevroovros Kai rb %rjpbv irpbs to %rjpbv Kai to Beppbv wpbs to Beppbv Kai irpbs rb vypbv be Kai roov ?opoov eariv rj c?vais Kai roov rb \pvxpbv irpbs to \pvxpbv. roiavrrj ' ' re bpoioos w?vra ir?vra Kai reXevra ir?vroov ?XXoov bpoioos yiverai ?vvi re y?p avrecov Kai ararai rj 4>vais ?irb rovr'ecov roov irpoeiprjp?vcov ir?vrcov, (f>vaios ?vBpooirov, reXevra Kar? Kai r? Uepi pJevrj viro rod irvevparos 00s rb bpoiov, rb tvvkvov ' to vypbv nai eKaarov Kai eyevero. es roovrb eiprjpeva ?irexuprjaev. 4>vaios cos rb avyyeveiav. avyyev'eas. Plotin. Ennead. nand. 7 Irris. rj b? a?p% av?o eKaarov rb bpoiov to vypbv cos ?paibv, cos to rb ?paibv rb ibirjv Kara rj irpbs rb avyyev?s Herod. 4. 147, 3. ets rbv 24, d</>' ov Ibid. 90 A, ?woirXevaea?ai^ avroo es tous eiravioov Me irpoarjKovra avrod fybaiv e?s be rrjv avrod ri roXprjaei <pvaiv eis b? rrjv ?uYYe^?s, bbbs. ?rjp. rbirov. ?XeiBepbv rcoe?v. 1112, nam sua corpora These 4. ovv ?vradBa eKaarov, ^vvearrj (7, 496 L.), ev avrerj epxercu Kai E, 14), (V219, ?pas 2, 17 105, Epitrep. Lucret. irep ?v?yKrj es XUPVV 63 Plato, ev ovpavco ye bBev irvKvbv, epxtrai Tim. ir?Xiv iraibiov ?pBpodrai, 7rpos rrjv Hermias, Kai (6, 38 L.), 3 eis which examples would besides, the (II. 7, 312; epic locis cuique distribuuntur ex omnibus et ad sua omnia saecla plagis recedunt. that one can draw prove sufficiently serve to decide the respective claims use of ets with reference open. his poem poet means as Lucretius The inference from of eBvos; rjBos and as places as well to persons 15, 402; Od. 14, 126 sq.), which would leaves the question cles, to whom he addresses no in Empedo obtain to say addressed that his Pausanias, to Mem mius, if he gives heed to the instruction of his master, will find that it will lead him into all truth, since each truth will seek its fellows, each after its own kind; but if he deserts the living truth, it will in turn desert him, each truth, as before, longing to join its kindred. There are two passages in which Lucretius has plainly derived inspiration and suggestion from these words of Empedocles.

1, 400 Multaque sunt per cum satis nos vestigia parva haec inveniunt semel commemorando corradere sagaci tute, ferarum persaepe fronde quietes, intectas institerunt tris, cetera cognoscere possis ut montivagae quae canes namque 405 naribus dictis fidem ACADEMY. AMERICAN tibi possum praeterea argumenta verum animo THE certa vestigia viai, sic alid ex alio per te tute ipse videre in rebus talibus insinuare 1, 1114 Haec sei pernosces alid namque latebras caecasque poteris et verum protrahere omnis ex inde. parva perductus alio clarescet opella nee caeca tibi nox iter eripiet quin ultima naturai : ita pervideas res rebus. lumina accendent After 1, 1114, with Munro, I assume a lacuna; for it appears obvious But in the absence of more certain that the sentence is incomplete. indications I refrain from speculating as to what and how much may Yet perductus, which is clearly right have perished in the breach. and ought not to be changed to perdoctus, and iter, like the words of suggest guidance on the way of truth: it is possible that Empedocles, Lucretius a hint, taken have may as 75 2, ancient from sq., relay torch races, in which one runner handed over his torch or ignited that to illustrate the way in which a truth once known of his team-mate, In 1, 400 sq. flashes light far along paths hitherto shrouded in night. Lucretius cleverly a adapts to conception his own uses. he As did in nature, of intelligence not accept the doctrine of the ubiquity he was obliged to intro which underlies the thought of Empedocles, of facts and truths duce a simile in lieu of the bold personification which renders memorable the of his passage natur We predecessor. to suggest the in his model there was anything ally ask whether it must be confessed that simile which he chose. Now, particular there is a possible point of contact, if Empedocles wrote rjBos rather than ter" case for in that certainly rjBos would eBvos; but as has or "heart," been supposed, not mean "haunts" "charac or "lair," In that event we should according to a usage familiar in Greek. as like mountain-ranging or truths have to think of facts having, their hide where their lairs young and to which they they beasts, If Empedo themselves return and guide the man who follows them. cles used the word rjBos, one might see in v. 4, ?XXare 7T?XX' ?wbro?vb'

kKrrjaeai, reference Aeschin. 8. 35, ON PRE-SOCRATICS. 729 as one may r?/cos, usury; for, perceive by oov ovk bXiya, eKe?vos the t?kovs ?<j>' eXapi?ave, were aware Ancient writers, however, fully to baveiapiara it. suggests phraseology THE OF FRAGMENTS which was still alive, and played on the word, of the metaphor, as Ar. Thesmoph. 842 sq., Plato, Repub. 555 E, Arist. Pol. 1. 10.1258b 5 sq.. This metaphor would well lead up to that of rjBos, as the lair From this too, it would be easy to explain the figure of wild beasts. hounds tracking the of Lucretius, who substitutes mountain-ranging beasts to their lairs (quietes, 1, 405, and caecas latebras, 408). Indeed, it is possible that Empedocles may have used the simile of the hound in this very fr. connection, Keppara <oo>ia0'> 101, Brjpeioov pieXeoov pLVKrrjpaiv epevvoov iroboov ?waXfj baa1 ?irkXeiire irepi iroirj. the context in which the fragment is quoted by our ancient as well as Lucret. 4, 680 sq., suggest rather that Empedocles illustrating his doctrine of universal ?iroppoiai. I find it difficult, therefore, to decide between the claims of eBvosand rjBos; but incline on the whole to favor the former because of v. 9, But authorities, was there iroBeovra I may makes add that Mr. Cornford, an interesting suggestion b' ?XXrjs riprjs he where Now be renders no prout 7rap? ?XXo From Religion to Philosophy, p. 64, in regard to Emped. fr. .17, 28, p?bei, . . . ?/caorco, that the general doubt about irap? 'each cuique natura sense of Emped. the meaning est, "each c. 32. V2 U?aBai. ?' rjBos emaroo, has its wonted range/ See 34. p. ibid., <j>iXrjv ?iri Y^a^ 239, 31. Fr. 1, ? of v. after its fr. 110 is clear, 5, 67177 <?vais kind." ?ariv there eK?arco. can It is Philolaus. <j>vais tV ?v rco Kbapicp. In V3 Diels adopts certain suggestions made in my Notes on Philo laus, Amer. Journ. of Philol., 28, p. 79, to which he refers, but rightly retains b' ?v reo Koapicpinstead of b? reo K?api?),which I formerly pro posed; but in sense reo Kbapxawas more nearly right than his rendering In the notes he now cites parallels, which "bei der Weltordnung." I furnished, for <?>vais?v ro} K?apLco.They the sufficiently explain

8. 1, ir?vra brj rrjv irai?ovres ?XXoya vooaav yrjv ktX. Thus Plotinus there is probably irpiv the that rj ?v reo phrase V2 240, 5. ACADEMY. = (?>vais rj rod of suggestion itself in plant-life; does not mean the eXXoya ?XX? radra yev rrjv In (frvais. K?aptov universal common, but all these passages "bei alike der Weltordnung." ev ro?s Fr. 2, btjXo?b? Kai r? Kai (frvaiv Ennead. ei Xeyoipev airovb??eiv ov pbvov ?Xeireiv, (f>vro?s K?apoo a ?irixtipt?v rodro fcoa cfrvais as manifesting prove irpdorvv Kai eis r?Xos ec?ieaBai /cat rrjv ?v ro?s Beoopias Kai AMERICAN I will now add another, Plotin. and fix its meaning. phrase THE OF epyo?s. Since Diels has now (V3) adopted my interpretation of these words, I might allow the matter to rest there; but the observation that this and similar phrases have been unduly pressed in other contexts leads me to illustrate it further. Nestle, in Philol., 67, 544, writing as it seems in ignorance both of Newbold's article and of mine, arrived at the same conclusion with myself. It would carry us substantially too far afield to consider in detail the passages which I have studied; hence I will give a list of those only which serve to illustrate Greek when used erally ?v ro?s epyois and to facts of to theory, argument, are these references or that is made appeal as opposed of fact, knowledge, x\s a matter amount seen be It will usage. to nothing or confirms but bald the contradicts that assertion the which I have to specify the facts passages particular are open find it difficult to agree about purposes. See many scholars for valuable especially does to our in to which different the gen or statement. that they or knowl observation proposition context the cases are observation unsupported so general usually edge few noted ewi roov epyoov common In question. to suffice writer enable to affects and interpretations them. They Plato, Protag. very one appeal: competent are therefore 352 A, Soph. 234 E, Gorg. 461 D, Repub. 396 A, 599 B, Phaedo 110 A, Tim. 19 E, Legg. 679 D, Axiochus 369 A; Xenoph. Hiero 9. 3; Bonitz, Index Arist. 286a 27 sq., Gen. Animal. ro?s viro biac?)epei airiav ucts on Arist. sq.; Bywater, 11. 762a ovB?v 15, y?p rrjs r'exvrjs brjpiovpyovpevois. rexviKo?s art Poet. earai. and Such of See Hippocrateum. the writer his theory, ' b? ravra radra per? nature Meteor. rj (pvaiKo?s, general abound irpbs 4. in 3. works Ilept (t)va?oov, 5 7rept p?v ovv bXov rod avr? r? epya reo avreo Arist. De ev ovb' 381a 10, Kai ovb?v * bi? rrjv avrrjv y?p e?v yiyvrjrai to the certain Cp. KaB?irep references also Hippocr. says), 17. 1453a eK iravrbsyiverai, 3. ?v bpy?vois ir?vra of 40 similarity of the (where, after irprjyparos Xbyop wopevBeis of prod Corpus stating ?pKe? poi eiribei^oo

rovrov voarjpara he ?bvra. ir?vra eKyova to which "facts" THE OF FRAGMENTS ON PRE-SOCRATICS. this In are mentioned. appeals 731 the particular to hear is interesting ' rb alriov eirk (jyp?aeiv instance It b? roov vovaoov vireaxbprjv Kai ?v ro?s acopaai bvvaarevov bei^a b? rb irvedpa Kai ?v ro?s bXois irprjypaai ' roov ?ppooarrjp?roov, roov ?opoov ?v o?s ?iri r? yv?opipa b? rbv Xbyov rjyayov ' roov ir?vroov ei 1. rj ?ppoo efyavrj y?p irepi virbaxeais aXrjBrjs virbBeais) (v. his c. conclusion, Xeyoipi, arrjp?roov ovb? ovbapoos Diels of not bporayrjs, observe, however, Nicom. 51. 19. 319, y'evoiro, b? ?rptKearepos that knowing that Fr. 13, ?ireKpivero, Kivovp?voov b? Kai 46. itself iaorayrjs Greek Sophocles, for MS. iaorayrj iaoraxv relying on the analogy the suggestion it, I ventured c. iravrbs emendation my adopted I proposed V2 ?v X?yos Fr. 6, iaorayrj. now has ? p?v paKpbrepos iriarbrepos. V2 241, 12. When 15, was Lexicon, now attested. I s. v. cites it from airo rod Kivovp?vov rodro bieKpiBrj Anaxagoras. /cat e7ret rjp^aro Kai baov b vods eK?vrjaev b Kive?v, rj irepixcopr?ais biaKpivop'evoov ir?v vods, ' ?iroiei iroXXcp p?XXov biaKpiveaBai. It seems to me clear that ? vods is the subject of ?ireKpivero in the second clause. "After the vods gave the initial impulse to the motion of the world, it began to withdraw from all that was set in and all that to which the movement initiated by the vods motion; was extended, As this motion segregated. revolution increased the greatly the tinued, the first impulse only, gives once the revolution, tion; in the segregation of like rj irepixooprjais fr. 12, V2 avrrj, c. 51. V 2. 334, ?pxrjv /x?xpt epirpoaBev, ?r?p rod Xbyov started, to like 319, iravrbs con segregation segregation." The to its condition of isola vods of itself accelerates and its effects in the ir?vra increase. Cp. 4 bpov sq. of Apollonia. boKe? poi ?pxbpevov xPe&v tlvai rrjv irap?x^aBai. avapcf>ia?rjrrjrov r? then withdraws Diogenes 1, Xbyov this statement With 'Eyco Fr. and compare Hippocr. rovrov Kai ?peoovrod Koivfjai ?vayKaioos Ilept aapKoov, 1 (8. 584 L.), yvooprjai y?p xp?opai ?r?poov e%et Koivrjv ?pxrjv re roov viroBeaBai

?ovXbpevov ?vvBe?vai yvcoprjai rfjai Ilept LrjrpiKrjs. Kai PROCEEDINGS irap? bpoXoyrjBrjaerai AMERICAN rbv ACADEMY. rbvbe Xbyov rrjs r'ex^rjs irepi rrjs ?crrt p?v ovv /-tot ?pxv rod Xbyov, (6. 6 L.), 2 iv?aiv. rbiroov roov Kar? ?vBpooirov, Uepi 4 r?xvrjs, THE rj (6. rod ?v IrjrpiKrj Xbyov. Ion of Chios, <t>vais rod acopiaros, ?pxv L.), 1 (V2 222, Kai 1 sq.), rod ir?vra ovb?v irX?ov b? /-tot Xbyov rp?a ?pxv ' * roov rpioov avveais rovroov Kai ?vbs e/cacrrou rj eXaaaov rpias ?perrj 278 fr. Kai Kp?ros rvxrj* c. 54. V 343, 1. rb ir?v pi?v rb pi?v irXrjpes elvai, rovroov elvai ?ireipovs Leucippus. rovrov b? rb irpoeiprjrai' ta <?>rjai, K?apiovs re eK ?ireipbv <f>rjaiv, obs b? Kevbv, <a> Kai Kai biaXveaBai eis radra. crrot% time I have felt that there was some confusion and corruption in the text, and that the last sentence must refer to the rise of the worlds out of the aireipov and their return into it at dissolu alone of the text of Diogenes difficulties tion. The well-known from deterred me from proposing a change. Now Diels, apparently some For restores the MSS., e/c rovrov correct reading, whatever the however, conceived as the Aristotelian his who epitomator the mind words regions of spatial e/c rovroov. the is obviously raura. ets the it should of course go The The aireipov preceding is clearly ?pxrj Kai aroix?iov by the interpolator the supplied rovrov That but with ets rodro for reading suffered. likewise has complementary sentence, or for its source; clause <a> rb rb p?v wXrjpes, but extended? aireipov, /cat arotxeta b? Kevbv do ontological cprjai; for to not suggest y'evrj of the as were ?pxh> His addition was absurdly misplaced, metaphysical once it text but in the of there, corrupted the many Diogenes; on 37. V2 sentence. See 17, above, 691, p. following V2 344, 14. Kai irepi Arist. De ir?vroov Gen. ?vi Xbyop et Corr. bioopUaai 1. 8. 324b 35, bbco b? jxaXiara AevKiiriros Kai ArjpL?Kpiros. eVt Xbyco has here been strangely of the phrase The meaning it "in einer Begr?ndung"; renders Prantl Zeller, misconceived. lb 847, n. 1, "aus den gleichen Principien"; D?ring, Gesch. der gr. Burnet, Philos., I. 238, "die von einem Princip ausgehende L?sung"; same theory." I have failed Early Greek Philosophy2, 385, "on the to find this passage noted in Kranz's Wortindex, but in a similar one he gives (V2 83, 8, eVt b? Xbyco ir?vra /crX.), omitting to quote ir?vra, the meaning of Xbyos as "Vernunft" Similarly (V2 II. 2, 357, 30)!

Burnet, in his note and effect in a in that obvious, on Plato, false PRE-SOCRATICS. 65 D, Phaedo roov he aWoov is what overlooks, ?vi \6yco phrase ?vi \6yco is to be taken as emphasizing on Menander, 197 sq. Epitrep. 733 a false emphasis gives because interpretation, Kai phrase the THE OF FRAGMENTS ON the airavrcov, ?w?vrcov; and Capps, Kara?evoo, orco ?ovXead' avpiov evi \6yco ?irirpeireiv eroLfxos, Curios takes ?vi \?ycp with eroi?os instead of orco ?ov\ead\ wrongly made in scholars connection awakened false the by by points ity, led me to make with the Aristotelian passage we are considering, a of collection cases evi \oycp, of value in my as except sight an hensive the instance every or universal expression, evi \6yco does phrases similarly used; not the illustrate stand Tv?vras aaiy irav construction. ibid. 2. Keiv?v e?prjrcu; ras; Xenoph. 7 Kock, ibid. be may meant merely was not only prehensive a compre contained But 7ra>, ovb'ev, ?ivpla, etc. of number is a considerable context as such there P. Herod. cos b? V. employed. to say that that 3. 6, ibid. in the olvrjp?v 3. ?vi b? eire? oKlyov avr 82, reciting passage we more \6yco X?ycp means "one into Uepi ?-Kra\?T\vovy formula (?>aai y?p of Kr\. ovb'ev /crX.; Amphis, Adverbs like considering and Democritus com but also those who have words 3 been receive some if one should might be iroiaaL xpeo^rat L.), context the shows that (7. 438 But expression." I Aristotle (obep p,a\iara), Possibly Aristotle's ir?vra v ?irav this list of passages are of Leucippus procedure methodical apud/jico ?vi \6yco. After the exceedingly ?vi . . . \6yco ei> Kep?puov eiaiv y?p (rrepl iravrcov ?vi \6yco). ?vi serve to should ?os aifKco 46, eos ?xev vvv ev eXax?arcp 2. 24, br?\oo ev rrXeovi \6yco cobe exet; brfkooaai, ?vbpo<f>ovoL sure something from Hippocr. irepi rovreov reading comfort Suffice it to say that ?v?co iravra avWrj?briv fiad?; ibid. 975, ?7r\?5 225, ?iravres efi?axv are similarly we the 22 B, cos eiros elireiv eLire?v; Plato Apol. 4. 3. 7, cos y?p Mem. avveX?vri eiire?v, 30, think to ibid. 37, jjLvp?as eos elwe?v \6yco; ovk eari elire?v eos \?yco ibeadau; avWa??vra fr. serves Aeschyl. deovs; exOa?pco no context of in question. for propor possess immediate alone, considerable of these I give a few which ovb?v; ibid. 505, ?pax&be X?ycp to grew since such collections examination the sense of the locution determine in almost which a list here, I will not print tions. Even insist on taking Aristotle's words as a parallel to this, it would affect the traditional interpretations of the passage. greatly

the of et Corr. Gen. De Arist. p?v ro?s (?aivopevois, ?vev Kevod, rb K?vrjaiv ovaav elvai. I cannot retain this ro?s KVpioos bv understand how it we be Kai b ?ra?pos AevKiiriros Kevbv elvai Kai irXrjpes 4>aai, p?XXov KeXarrov cos vXrjv. rb rb Kevbv avrod rb bv, bv rod Diels> Whether ovb?v p?XXov ro?s yivopevois was rb bv ?p^oo. bv eXeyev irXrjprj viroBepevos Kai ovk eK?Xei prj to the true the same p?v rb wXrjpes rovroov b? rb aroixe?a b? prj bv, Kai bv rb prj (fiaaiv, ore pavbv elvai b? roov acoparos), in proposing to right Kai p?v Kai (bi? ovb? rb radra bvroov we eXarrov insert 28, 11 (V2 345, 5), en SimpL Phys. Kai a?na bpoioos vir?pxtiv, roov oba?av Kai vaarrjv p?v y?p ?rbpoov Kai ev rco Kevco 4>epeaBai, ptrj bv birep rj rb rrjv elvai prj bv ovros rod eXarrov content 1. 4. 985b 4 (V2 343, 44), a?na to inquire. shall have presently elvai Kevbv ovros rod Diels b? be long suggests in which passages Arjp?Kpiros p?v bv rb rb so been so clearly Arist. Met. Xeyovres arepebv ovB?v have scholars is under consideration. bv. irapirXrjpes no sense and yields must other compare which text, With reading. matter rb rb y?p 1. 8. 325a 25, bpoXoyijaas b? cos ovk ?v b? rb ev KaraaKev?'?ovaiv ov re Kevbv prj ?v Kai rod ovros oiB?v prj radra (prjaiv academy. American elvai are <j>rjai. We familiar to enforce this point of the pun which Democritus employed rb b?v fr. 156 rj rb pijb?v elvai. doctrine, (V2413, 11), prj p?XXov with seems It to me under passage prj bv consideration I am inclined to think Indeed, rb re Kevbv prj the pun the same fertile found in the by itacism for pe?bv. that thus that obvious is a corruption derives ovB?v pe?ov bv Kai rod ovros that we as prj p?XXov rb b?v rj rb prjb'ev, and converted of Democritus partially fragment brain another from have into it seems more probable that the Attic dialect. If this be conceded, we should supply pe?ov than eXarrov (with Diels) inMet. 985b 9. Aristotle used the word, Eth. Nie. 5. 1. 1129b 8, boKei Kai rb pe?ov KaKov ?yaBbv to be had Aeschyl. P. prjb?v pe?ov ovxbaa ovb?v iroos elvai, recovered V. iaxvaeiv ?arrjaaro eKp?rei b' extL pe?ov 508, where the from the true corrupted and reading, commentaries roovbe Aibs; Ages. Xenoph. ocra ?arparevaaro 3, rpbwaia bUaiov vopi?eiv. | eveXwis ?XX' ktX.; Herondas ri. rovrov j 3, 59, ejet 6. 7?p Cp. en \XvBevra eK beapoov a' eipi cos eyoo in the MSS., versions. ovb?v pe?ov; prjv 'AyeaiX?ov pe?ov p?v y?p ibid. 15, 2, MlDDLETOWN, CONN., Feb. 25, 1913.