On certain fragments of the pre-Socratics : critical notes and elucidations / [William Arthur Heidel].

  • Heidel, William Arthur, 1868-1941.
Date:
[1913]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: On certain fragments of the pre-Socratics : critical notes and elucidations / [William Arthur Heidel]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    32/68 (page 704)
    69, 10. Fr. 50, 'Hpa/cXetros fib ovp <!iv> (1>7](xlv elvaL to irav bLalperov adLaiperov, yevrjTOV aykvriTOP, dpr^rop adaparop, \byop alupa, irarkpa viop, deop SUaLOP' ovk epov, ctXXa rod \6yov aKovaapras bpo- Xoyeip ao(f>bp karip %p Trapra elpat. b 'Hpd/cXetros It is agreed that the authentic woi’ds of Heraclitus begin with ovk epov: what precedes we owe to Hippolytus, who obviously modeled his introductory statement on fr. 67. The comparison of the two passages shows that Bergk’s <y>, which Diels adopts, is unneces- sary. The predicates of to irap are, as one sees at a glance, arranged in contrasted pairs. In the fourth pair, \byos is of course the intelli- gible principle, virtually the Kbapos porjibs, opposed to aioop which is the Kbapos aiadt^rbs. The next pair, irarepa vlbp, is of course of Chris- tian origin. Apparently the last, deop blKaiop, has puzzled Professor Diels; for he now (V^) proposes to insert [dSt/co;/] after hUaiop. I long ago saw that this pair was suggested to Hippolytus or his source by Plato, Crat. 412 C-413 D, but had taken for granted that this was a matter of common knowledge and not worthy of special notice, until Diels’s note undeceived me. I observe that Otto Gilbert, Griech. Religionsphilosophie, p. 62, n. 1, also noticed the connection. He there proposes a different interpretation of atcor, but his suggestion I take to be too clearly mistaken to require refutation. In reference to debp bUoLop, it ought to be said that Hippolytus possibly WTOte bidibp ( = rfKiop), and that blKaiop may be due to the copyist; but there is no sufficient justification for making a change in the text. Diels is probably right in adopting Miller’s elpat for the eibepat of Par.; but eibepat may possibly have been originally a gloss on bpo'KoyetP] for if bpo^oyelp is sound it must be interpreted here, as in fr. 51, with reference to Heraclitean etymology, as “ sharing in the (a) common X670S.” 71, 15. Fr. 67, 6 debs vpepri ev(f)pbpr], x^t-pdp d'epos, irbXepos eipijpr], Kbpos Xi/x6s {rapaPTLa aTrapra' ovros b povs), dXXotoOrat be OKwaivep <7r0p>, birbrap avpptyg dvuipaaLP, bpopa^erat ko£' ribop-qp eKaarov. This is the text of Diels. I hope to make it clear that it is not correct, and to show also what Heraclitus wrote and what he meant. In order to understand and reconstruct this fragment we must com- pare two passages from Plato, in which he obviously alludes to it. Crat. 394 A, ovkovp /cat irepl jSacrtXeo/s 6 auros \byos; ecrrat yap irore e/c /SacrtXecos /SatrtXeus, /cat e^ ayadov ayadbs, Kai e/c /caXoO /caXos, /cat rdXXa