The Fragments of the Work of Heraclitus of…

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http: //books .google .com/I

THE FRAGMENTS

Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http: //books .google .com/I

THE FRAGMENTS

OP THE WORK OF

HEEACLITUS OF EPHESUS

ON NATURE

TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK TEXT OF BYWATER, WITH AM INTBODUOTIOM HISTOBIOAL AMD CRITICAL

a. T. W. PATRICK, Ph.D.

FB0FBS80B OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE STATE UNIYEBSITY OF IOWA

* •••

• • #

• •• • • • •

» • • •• ••

' - ^ • "

• • • • • ( • - • •

• *

• • • •'•- •• •

,••

• • • • • •• •

« j[II, 1-397 ;-^eichmuller^Neue Stud. z. Gesch. der Begnflfe, Heft I, Glotha^876, and II, 1878)-^y water : Heracliti Ephesii Reliquiae, Oxford, 1877)-^dmund Pfleiderer\ Die Philosophie des Heraklit vgn Ephesus im Lichter der My sterienidee, (Berlin, 1886 j-^Eduard Zeller : Die Philosophie der Qriechen^Bd. I, pp. 566-677.

/There may be mentioned also the following addi- tional writings which have been consulted in the preparation of these pages :-^ottlob Mayer) Heraklit von Ephesus und Arthur Schopenhauer ^^ Heidelberg, 1886 ])(Campbell : Theaetetus of Plato, Appendix A, Oxford, 1883 ; A. W. Benn : The Greek Philosophers, London, I882)

2 HERACLITUS.

vAfter the introductory collection and arrangement of the Heraclitic fragments by Schleiermacher, and the scholarly discriminative work and additions of Bernays, four attempts have been made successively by Lassalle, Schuster, Teichmtiller, and Pfleiderer, to reconstruct or interpret the philosophical system of Heraclitus. The positions taken and the results arrived at by these eminent scholars and critics are largely, if not wholly, different and discordant. A brief statement of their several positions will be our best introduction to the study of Heraclitus at first hand, and at the same time will offer us incidentally some striking examples of prevalent methods of his- toric criticism. )

A brief statement of their several positions will be our best introduction to the study of Heraclitus at first hand, and at the same time will offer us incidentally some striking examples of prevalent methods of his- toric criticism. )

^ One of the greatest evils in circles of philosophical and religious thought has always been the evil of over- systemization. It is classification, or the scientific method, carried too far. It is the tendency to arrange under any outlined system or theory, more facts than it will properly include. It is the temptation, in a word, to classify according to resemblances which are too faint or fanciful. In the field of historic criticism this evil takes the form of over-interpretationA Just as in daily life we interpret every sense perception according to our own mental forms, s(\we tend to read our own thoughts into every saying of the ancients, and then proceed to use these, often without dis- honesty, to support our favorite modern systems. j The use of sacred writings will naturally occur to every one as the most striking illustration of this over-interpre- tation. Especially in the exegesis of the Bible has this prostitution of ancient writings to every man's religious views been long since recognized and condemned, and if most recently this tendency has been largely cor-

HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL. 3

rected in religious circles, it is all the more deplorable, in philosophical criticism, to find it still flourishing. ^Unfortunately, this vice continues, and it appears nowhere more plainly than in the interpretation of Greek philosophy. There is a great temptation to modem writers to use the Greek philosophers as props to support their own systems — a temptation to inter- pret them arbitrarily, to look down upon them patron- izingly, as it were, showing that what they meant was this or that modern thought, having only not learned to express themselves as well as we have. Among his- torians of philosophy this appears as a one-sidedness, so that it is commonly necessary in reading a history of philosophy to maj^ a correction for the author's " personal equation." /The histories of Schwegler and of Lewes are examples — the one biased by Hegel- ianism, the other by Positivism. Undoubtedly, a cer- tain personal equation is unavoidable, and it is as impossible for an interpreter of Greek philosophy to make himself wholly Greek as it is unfair to represent the ancient thinker as wholly German or English. But when this becomes complete one-sidedness, or blindness to all but one series of an author's thoughts, or a willful or even unintentional perversion of his words, vigorous remonstrance is called for.

But when this becomes complete one-sidedness, or blindness to all but one series of an author's thoughts, or a willful or even unintentional perversion of his words, vigorous remonstrance is called for.

This attempt to fully understand the ancients, to make them speak in the phraseology of some modern school, must be distinguished from the recent move- ment, represented by Prof. Lagarde and others, in interpreting historic thought and historic events psychologically. This movement is certainly legiti- mate, based as it is on the truth of the similarity of constitution of all human minds, and the probability that underlying all representative historic creeds are great related if not identical' thoughts. Even here, of

4 HBRACLITUS.

course, the attempt to express these thoughts in the set phrases of any one people is inadequate.

We proceed, then, tcQook at some of the work done upon the philosophy of Heraclitus. Here we shall not attempt any examination of Zeller's exposition, since his work, though it is perhaps the very best that has been done in this field, is critical rather than recon- structive, and like his whole history of Greek philos- ophy, is a marvel of candor as well as of immense research. Even Zeller, however, has not wholly escaped the charge of one-sidedness, since Benn, in the preface to his work on the Greek philosophers, has accused him of never having outgrown the semi-Hege- lian prejudice of his youth/)

Lassalle.

(Lassalle, in two ponderous volumes )noted above (page 1), Vjiade the first and most elaborate attempt to reconstruct the system of the Ephesian philosopher.) His work exhibits immense labor and study, and (extended research in the discovery of new fragments and of ancient testimony^together with some acuteness in their use. ^assalle has a very distinct view of the philosophy of Heraclitus. But it is not an original view. It is, in fact, nothing but an expansion of the short account of Heraclitus in Hegel's History of Phil- osophy, although Lassalle makes no mention of him,y except to quote upon his title-page Hegel's well-known motto, ^* Es ist kein Satz des Heraklit, den ich nicht in meine Logik aufgenommen." ^egel's conception of Heraclitus is, in a word, as follows : Heraclitus' ♦ Absolute was the unity of being and non-being. His

whole system was an expansion of the speculative thought of the principle of pure becoming. He appre- hended, and was the first to apprehend, the Absolute

HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL. 5

His

whole system was an expansion of the speculative thought of the principle of pure becoming. He appre- hended, and was the first to apprehend, the Absolute

HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL. 5

as a process, as the unity of opposites, as dialectic itself. His great contribution was the speculative transition from the being of the Eleatics to the idea of becoming?) Now how does Hegel support this position ? There is in his Logic but one passage referring to Hera- plitus. There he says, *^ Glancing at the principle of the Eleatics, Heraclitus then goes on to say, ^ Being no more is than non -being ' (oudeu fiaXXov to 8v too fxi] oi^roc iau), a statement expressing the negative nature of abstract being and its identity with non-being'' (Wallace, The Logic of Hegel, p. 144 ; cp. Science of Logic, Hegel's Werke, Vol. 3, p. 80). Hegel omits, in the Logic, to give the reference to the above quotation, but in his History of Philosophy (Werke, Vol. 13, p. 332) he quotes the same passage with the reference. It is to Aristotle, Metaph. i. 4. We turn to the same and find that it is a passage which Aristotle quotes from the Atomists, Democritus and Leucippus, and that it has not the slightest referenc e to Heraclitus, who, indeed, is not mentioned in tlie same chapter. This is rather discouraging, but the account in the History of Philosophy, to which we now turn, is scarcely less so. There Hegel begins his exposition of Heraclitus as follows :

**1. Das allgemeine Princip. Dieser kiihne Qeist (Heraclitus) hat zuerst das tiefe Wort gesagt, * Das Seyn ist nicht mehr als das Nichtseyn,' es ist ebenso wenig, Oder, * Seyn und Nichts sey dasselbe,' das Wesen sey die Veranderung " (Gesch. d. Phil. Vol. 13, p. 332).

Now it happens that Heraclitus said nothing of the kind. As references Hegel gives Aristotle, Meta- phys. i. 4; iv. 7; iv. 3. The first passage, as we have already seen, is from the Atomists. The second turns out upon examination to be simply the expression,

6 HBRACLITUS.

** All things are and are not" {nduza elvat xai fjtrj ehat)y and the third is a statement of Aristotle that some people supposed Heraclitus to have said that the same thing could both be and not be the same. Moreover, neither of these passages is Heraclitic in form, and they are not even mentioned in Bywater's edition. The only expression of Heraclitus that resembles in form the above passage from Aristotle is that of frag. ^ 81, " Into the same river we step and we do not step.

^ ^ We Are and we. a re not." The over-interpretation by OO is which this simple passage, expressing incessant phys- . V '- ical change^ is transformed into the logical principle

^ 81, " Into the same river we step and we do not step.

^ ^ We Are and we. a re not." The over-interpretation by OO is which this simple passage, expressing incessant phys- . V '- ical change^ is transformed into the logical principle

--1 ^^ . ■ / of Hegel, "Das Seyn ist nicht mehr als das Nicht- ^ "^ seyn," "Sgyi V und Nirhtn nny flnnnMb fi," is audacious --at least. Furthermore, we may say here in passing, that neither the expressions zb 8v, (jltj ov, nor even rb ^vi^'l xq-vofjiei^ov, occur in any genuine saying of Heraclitus; - V.V. .4 although if they did occur, it would be easy to show cVv-t-. /that they could not mean at all what Hegel meant by (VlVu.f'1/f ^^^^Sy non-being, and becoming. Even the Eleatic '^j Being was not at all the same with that of Hegel, but ^ was finite, spherical, and something very much like that which we should call material. But Heraclitus, who indeed preceded Parmenides, said nothing of being nor of non-being, nor did he speak of becoming in the abstract, although the trustful reader of Hegel, Lassalle, or Ferrier, might well suppose he spoke of nothing else. That which these writers mistook for becoming was, as we shall see later, only physical change. With the loss of this comer-stone, the Hera- clitic support of the Hegelian Logic fails, and Hegel's boast that there was no sentence, of Heraclitus that his Logic had not taken up becomes rather ludicrous, especially if one will read through the remains of

jVo-i 0pco7roc xal 7tp6(T0£i> 7] dxouaac xal dxouaauTe^ to TtpcoToi^. yo^ofxivayv yap ndi^Tcou xara rbv koyou t6v8s dTtecpocac ioixaac nzcpcofxevoe xal inecou xal ipymv zotooricDV bxoicjv iyo) dajYZUfiae^ dcaepecjv sxaiTTOu xazd (puacv xal fpd^mi^ oxa}(; ij^ee (Ref . haer. ix. 9 ; = frag. 2). -

This is the passage of which Schuster says that if Heraclitus had written nothing mor6 it would have given him a place of honor in philosophy, for here for the first time appeared the thought that has inspired speculation and modern science since the Renaissance, that truth is to be sought in the observation of Nature. But we are unable to find here any such meaning. The sense of the passage depends upon the sense of Logos. Of course, if Schuster is free to translate this word in any way he chooses, he can get from the pas-

HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL. 21

But we are unable to find here any such meaning. The sense of the passage depends upon the sense of Logos. Of course, if Schuster is free to translate this word in any way he chooses, he can get from the pas-

HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL. 21

sage almost any meaning. He chooses to render it the Voice of Nature or the Speech of the visible world. In this he is not supported by any other critics. By ancient commentators of Heraclitus the Logos was understood as Reason, and in this general sense it is taken by modem commentators including Heinze, Zeller, Teichmiiller, and Pfleiderer, although more specifically they see that, in harmony with the whole Heraclitic philosophy, it is to be taken as Reason immanent in the world as Order or Law. Schuster objects that Logos could not mean Reason, since before the time of Heraclitus it had never been so used, and no author would venture to introduce at the very beginning of his work words with new meanings. But precisely the same objection applies to its meaning the Speech of Nature, for the whole point in Schuster's exposition is that this was an original idea with Heraclitus. If the Logos is conceived as Order, this objection is met, since this meaning is given in the derivation of the word. Moreover, if Schuster could show that the word meant ^' speech " or ** discourse," then the discourse referred to must have been not that of Nature but of the author himself. Finally, if we adopt Reason as the meaning of Logos here, the whole passage, so far from supporting, directly refutes Schuster's sensational theory of knowledge. Another argument for the empiricism of Heraclitus, Schuster seeks in his denunciation of the people for their failure to interest themselves in acquiring knowledge by empirical investigation of the things that surround them, which he bases on a couple of passages from Clement and M. Aurelius (see above, p. 12). Heraclitus, in fact, said nothing of the kind; but Schuster, by conjectural reconstruction of the text and an arbitrary

22 HERACLITUS,

translation, extracts a theoretical meaning from simple sentences which no one who had not a preconceived theory to support would ever imagine to mean more than a reproach upon the masses for their superficiality and neglect of interest in a deeper knowledge of the world (see Schuster, p. 17, and cp. frags. 5, 93). What Heraclitus' theory of knowledge really was we shall see more fully in the examination of Pfleiderer's posi- tion later. Here it is sufficient to add that, whatever empirical tendency his philosophy may have had, any such positive doctrine as that which Schuster ascribes to him was far beyond the time of Heraclitus.

Here it is sufficient to add that, whatever empirical tendency his philosophy may have had, any such positive doctrine as that which Schuster ascribes to him was far beyond the time of Heraclitus.

Schuster's interpretation of the Heraclitic '/^pyjafioaovr] and x6po efore metaphysics, when the latter did come, men were compelled to express its truths in such physical terms as they were in possession of. He therefore who will see in the sentences of Heraclitus nothing beyond their physical and literal meaning, will miss the best part of his philosophy. For instance, Teichmiiller interprets the saying that day and night are the same, as meaning that they are made up of the same physical constitu- ents (see above, p. 24). If possible, this is worse than

HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL. 33

Schuster's explanation that they are the same because they are each similar divisions of time(!), an explana- tion which Teichmiiller very well ridicules (Id. I, p. 49). No such childish interpretations of this passage are necessary when it is seen that this is simply another antithesis to express Heraclitus' great thought of the unity of opposites, on the ground that by the universal law of change, opposites are forever passing into each other, as indeed is said in so many words in a passage from Plutarch which these critics seem to have slighted (Consol. ad Apoll. 10, p. 106; see frag. 78). Equally unnecessary and arbitrary is Teichmiiller's singular attempt to prove on physical grounds the identity of the two gods, Dionysus and Hades (see above, p. 24).

In pursuance of his method, Teichmiiller supposes that the Heraclitic fire was real fire sucH as our senses perceive, fire that bums and crackles and feels warm. No other critic agrees with him in this. Zeller espec- ially opposes this conception (Vol. I, p. 588). It is not to be supposed that Teichmiiller understands Hera- clitus to mean that the present world and all its phenomena are real fire. Fire he conceives to be, rather, the first principle or d.pyrj^ the real essence of the universe, chosen as water was by Thales or air by Anaximenes, only with more deliberation, since fire has the peculiarity of taking to itself nourishment. In a word, since anybody can see that our present earth, water, and air, are not fire that burns and crackles, all that Teichmiiller can mean is that this kind of fire was the original thing out of which the present world was made. But there is not the least support for this meaning in any saying of Heraclitus. In all the sen- tences, fire is conceived as something of the present,

34 HERACLITUS.

But there is not the least support for this meaning in any saying of Heraclitus. In all the sen- tences, fire is conceived as something of the present,

34 HERACLITUS.

something directly involved in the ceaseless change of the world. "Fire, {i, e,, z£/?ayv6c, the thunderbolt),'* he says, "rules all" (Hippolytus, Ref. haer. ix. 10; = frag. 28). "This world, the same for all, neither any of the gods nor any man has made, but it always was, and is, and shall be, an ever living fire *' (Clement of Alex. Strom, v. 14, p. 711; =frag. 20). "Fire is exchanged for all things and all things for fire'* (Plutarch, de EI. 8, p. 388 ; = frag. 22). These passages are sufficient to show that Teichmiiller's conception of the fire is untenable. We may, however, mention the fact noted by Zeller (Vol. I, p. 588), that both Aristotle (de An. i. 2, 405, a, 25) and Simplicius (Phys. 8, a) explain that Heraclitus chose to call the world fire " in order to express the absolute life of Nature, and to make the restless change of phenomena comprehen- sible."

Another point that demands criticism is the idea of actuality and potentiality which Teichmiiller finds hidden in Heraclitus' philosophy and metaphorically expressed by sunset, death, sleep, etc. Since there is a qualitative interchange of the elements, they must be in some sense the same. Water is fire and fire is water. But since water is not actually fire, it must be so potentially. Therefore, water is potential fire. Such is Teichmiiller's reasoning, as we have seen. Of course, it can be reversed with equal right. Since fire is not actually water, it must be so potentially. There- fore, fire is potential water. Which is to say that we have h^re a simple reversible series in which there is not only an eternal progress (or regress) from fire to water, but equally, and under the same conditions, an eternal regress (or progress) from water to fire. Either, therefore, may, with as good right as the other,

HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL. 35

Either, therefore, may, with as good right as the other,

HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL. 35

represent actuality or potentiality. In other words, actuality and potentiality are superfluous ideas in this system. In fact, this antithesis has no place in meta- physics outside the philosophy of Aristotle, and he who has failed to see that right in this connection lies the main difference between the philosophy of Aris- totle and that of Heraclitus, has missed the most vital part of the latter. With Aristotle there is an eternal progress but no regress. The potential is ever passing into the actual, but not the reverse. To be sure, a thing may be both actual arid potential, but not as regards the same thing. The hewn marble is potential as regards the statue and actual as regards the rough marble, but of course the hewn marble and the statue cannot be reciprocally potential or actual. Matter is eternally becoming form, but not the reverse. Thus follows Aristotle's necessary assumption of a prime mover, an inexhaustible source of motion, itself un- moved — pure actuality, without potentiality. Hence the mainspring of the peripatetic philosophy is the unmoved moving first cause. But the philosophy of the Ephesian is the reverse of all this. With him there is no fixed being whatever (see Teichmiiller him- self, I, p. 121 : " Es bleibt dabei nichts Festes zuriick," etc.), no unmoved first cause outside the shifting world which is its own God and prime mover. Thus Teichmiiller, in identifying the Heraclitic fire with the Aristotelian pure actuality, overlooked the slight differ- ence that while the one is absolute motion, the other is absolute rest ! We are glad, however, not to find this Aristotelian notion, which, though prevalent in meta- physics, has never added a ray of light to the subject, present in the philosophy of the Ephesian, and we see here another case of over-interpretation by which

36 HBRACLITUS.

Heraclitus' innocent use of such terms as sunset, death, and self-conceahnent, caused Aristotelian metaphysics to b0 forced upon him.

In tracing the history of ideas, much emphasis has been laid by Teichmiiller, as we have seen, upon the idea of purification {xdOapac(:) as it appears in Hera- clitus, and in connection therewith he has found the beginning of the idea of the " apartness " or " separa- tion " of the inunaterial world, an idea so enormously enlarged by Anaxagoras and Plato. As regards the Catharsis proper, Teichmiiller has rendered a service by pointing out Heraclitus' connection with the idea ; but in reading Teichmiiller's book, one would be easily led to believe that the Catharsis idea is much more prominent in Heraclitus than it really is, and as regards the doctrine of " separation," it seems at once so incongruous with the system as a whole that we must inquire what foundation, if any, there is for it. The student of Heraclitus knows, although the reader of Teichmiiller might not suspect, that the words xddapffe^j xadap6(;, tihxpcvi(:^ eckxpii^eea, y^copcazov^ y^coptadii^j ixksxToiy themselves do not occur in the authentic remains of his writings. One exception is to be noted. The word xey^copcaiihov occurs in the passage from Stobaeus already noticed (see above, p. 25). It is as follows : ^'Oxoacov X6'fou(; fjxouaa oudsci; dipexi^itzat ic roDro, ctJore yci^waxscu ore (T0 ou (Stobaeus Floril. iii. 81). This passage TeichmuUer uses as his text in establishing the connection of Heraclitus with the doctrine of '' separation," unfortimately, however, first because he has not found the correct interpreta- tion of it, and second, because, if he had, it would stand in direct contradiction to the doctrine of imma- nence which he spends all the next chapter in estab-

HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL. 37

lishing for Heraclitus. Io • 7ji> di as fjLU £pou lapLupbrep^ 'fje?Jou. — ix. 16.

With the religion of the Mysteries, in its older and purer form, Heraclitus was in full sympathy. By his

HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL. 41

family he was brought into close connection with it. Ephesus, too, his city, was a religious centre. Dio- genes (ix. 6) relates that he deposited his book in the temple of Artemis. Heraclitus, indeed, was not a friend of the popular religion, but that was because of its abuses, and it was in particular the popular Olym- pian religion that he attacked. The connection of the Ephesian with the Mysteries may be considered as a deep-seated influence which their underlying princi- ples exerted upon him. These religious principles he turned into metaphysics. His system as a whole was religious and metaphysical (Pfleiderer, p. 32 f.).

The connection of the Ephesian with the Mysteries may be considered as a deep-seated influence which their underlying princi- ples exerted upon him. These religious principles he turned into metaphysics. His system as a whole was religious and metaphysical (Pfleiderer, p. 32 f.).

With this introduction, Pfleiderer proceeds as fol- lows. Heraclitus' starting point lay positively in his theory of knowledge, which was a doctrine of specu- lative intuition and self -absorption. In this sense our author understands the fragment from Plutarch (adv. Colot. 20, p. 1118 ; = frag. 80), ' Edc^Tjadfjoju ifxtwoTov, " I searched within myself," that is, I wrapped myself in thought, and so in this self -absorption I sought the kernel of all truth. Hence his contempt for the masses who act and speak without insight. But does not this conflict with those Heraclitic sentences which place the standard of truth and action in the common or universal {^oi^ou) ? (cp. frags. 92, 91). Do these not lead as Schuster holds, to the rule, Verum est, quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est? No, says Pfleiderer, the common here does not mean the general opinion of the majority. All such interpret- ations are sufiiciently refuted by that other passage, ^' To me, one is ten thousand if he be the best " (frag. 113). What Heraclitus really meant by the common (f ?>i^6i^) was "the true inward universality." Absorp- tion into one's inner self was absorption into that

42 HERACLITUS.

ground of reason which is identical with the divine principle of the world. By this universal reason under which he contemplated all things, Heraclitus meant nothing different from what by Spinoza was expressed by "sub specie aetemitatis/' and in subsequent phi- losophy by "intellectual intuition" and "the stand- point of universal knowledge.'^ Heraclitus fell back upon that universal instinct which in the form of human language is exhibited as the deposit of succes- sive ages, and which again he did not distinguish from the voice of the Sibyl, representative of divine revelation. As respects the source of knowledge, Heraclitus as little as Spinoza, Fichte and Hegel, looked to himself as individual, but rather to that singular and qualitative, divine source in which the individual participates (Pfleiderer, p. 46 flf.).

The senses, though they do not give us the whole truth, yet furnish the sufficient data that are to be interpreted by the light of reason. The errors of the masses do not arise from trusting the senses, for the latter give not a false, but a partial account. Their error lies in missing the spiritual band which unites the manifold of sense into the higher unity, an error distinctive of the popular polytheism as against the religion of the Mysteries (Id. p. 70).

Their error lies in missing the spiritual band which unites the manifold of sense into the higher unity, an error distinctive of the popular polytheism as against the religion of the Mysteries (Id. p. 70).

The theory of knowledge, Heraclitus' starting point, being thus disposed of, Pfleiderer proceeds to discuss the material principles of his philosophy in their abstract metaphysical form. The keynote here is the indestructibility of life. The oscillating identity of life and death, a truth adopted from the Mysteries, is taken up by Heraclitus and elevated into a universal and metaphysical principle. It is based on the simple observation of Nature, which sees the life and light

HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL,

warmth of summer pasBing into the death and darkneBS and cold of winter, only to be revived and restored in the never-failing spring. So on a smaller scale, day passes into night, but night ever again into day, So everywhere in Nature nothing passes away but to revive again. From this follows the hope of the universality of this law, the indestructibility of human life, and the resolution of the opposition be- tween the light, warm life here above and the dark, cold death below. This is the hopeful element which characterizes the philosophy of the Ephesian. Over against it was the hopeless creed of the masses, whose complaint over the inexorable destiny of death found expression from the earliest times in the despairing lines of the poets. The conunon view does not see too much continuance and constancy in reality, but too little. " What we see waking," says Heraclitus, "is death, what we see sleeping is a dream " (Clement of Alex, iii, 3, p. 520 ; =frag, Gi). Which means, that like the unreality and inconstancy of dreams is this ephem- eral and perishing existence which we, the vulgar people, see when awake. Reversing this gloomy view, the Mysteries taught that Hades and Dionysus were the same (cp. frag. 127), That is, the god of death feared in the world below, is identical with the god of life and joy of the world here above, which is to say that the regenerative power of life persists even in death and shall overcome it (Pfteiderer, p. 74 fF.},

From this theory of the indestructibility of the fire force of life, Heraclitus passes to the ancillary truth of the unity of opposition in general. Hence he asserted the identity of day and night, winter and summer, yoiing and old, sleeping and waking, hunger and satiety (cp. frags. 36, 78), His whole theory of the

HERACUTUS.

harmony of opposites was, as it were, apologetic. life rules in death, why does death exist 'i It was in answer to this question that Heraclitus developed his science of opposition and strife, by showing the pres- ence here of a general law {Pfleiderer, p. 84 ff.).

In the same spirit Pfleiderer interprets the much ^ contested figure of the harmony of the world as the j harmony of the bow and the lyre (see frags. 45, 56). Without rejecting the interpretation suggested by I Bemays (Rhein. Mus. vii. p. 94) and followed by most other critics, which refers the figure to the form of ' the bow and of the lyre, their opposite stretching arms producing harmony by tension, Pfleiderer finds in the comparison still another meaning. The bow and the lyre are both attributes of Apollo, the slayer and the giver of life and joy. Thus the harmony between the bow and the lyre, as attributes of one god — symbols respectively of death and of life and joy — expresses the | great thought of the harmony and reciprocal inter- change of death and life (Pfleiderer, p. 89 ff.).

The Heraclitic flux of all things, says Pfleiderer, was 1 not antecedent to his abstract teachings, but the logi- j cal consequence thereof. The identity of life and 1 death led him to the identity of all opposites. But opposites are endlessly flowing or passing into each other. Hence from the principle that everything is opposition, follows the principle that everything flows. The universal flux is only a picture to make his relig- ious metaphysical sentences intelligible (Id, p. 100 ff.).

The Heraclitic fire is real fire as opposed to the logical symbol of Lassalle, but not the strictly sensible fire that burns and crackles, as Teichmiiller supposes. It is rather a less definite conception, which is taken now as fire, now as warmth, warm air or vapor. It is

HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL. 45

the concrete form or intuitional correlate of the meta- physical notion of life (Id. p. 120 flf.)-

" The way up and down " refers not only to the trans- mutations of fire, water, and earth, but holds good in general for the oscillation of opposites, and particularly for the polarity of life and death (Id. p. 140).

As one result of his investigation, Pfleiderer affirms a strong optimistic element in the philosophy of the Ephesian. He contests the opinion of Schuster and Zeller that the endless destruction of single existences is kindred to the pessimistic doctrine of Anaximander, of the extinction of all individuals as an atohement for the ** injustice " of individual existence. The pro- cess indeed goes on, but it has a bright side, and it is this that Heraclitus sees. Life, to be sure, is ever pass- ing into death, but out of death life ever emerges. It is this thought, the powerlessness of death over the indestructible fire force of life, which Heraclitus em- phasizes (Id. p. 180 flf.).

Life, to be sure, is ever pass- ing into death, but out of death life ever emerges. It is this thought, the powerlessness of death over the indestructible fire force of life, which Heraclitus em- phasizes (Id. p. 180 flf.).

Still more decided is his rational optimism, his un- swerving belief in a world well ordered and disposed. A deep rationality characterizes the universe (cp. frags. 2, 1, 91, 92, 98, 99, 96, 19). To express this idea, Hera- clitus used the word Logos, which after his time played so prominent a part in the older philosophy. This word, passing even beyond its signification of " well ordered relation," conveyed finally with Heraclitus, as ^oT-oc f yvoc, rather the idea of Reason immanent in the world (Pfieiderer, p. 231 flf.).

In the invisible harmony we find the same general thought. As distinguished from the visible harmony, which meant that external order of Nature insuring to the trustful peasant the never failing return of summer and winter, heat and frost, day and night,— the invisi-

46 . HBRACLITUS.

ble harmony was that all-embracing harmony which is revealed to thought as the rational union of all oppositions. Against this theodicy there is no valid objection to be derived from the accounts which repre- sent the Ephesian philosopher as sad and complain- ing, nor from the passages descriptive of the evils of life and the weakness of men (cp. frags. 86, 55, 112, etc.). In all cases these refer not to the philosopher's own opinions, but to the errors of the ignorant masses (Pfleiderer, p. 235 f£.).

The future existence of the soul, though not consis- tent with his physics and metaphysics, was neverthe- less held from the religious and ethical standpoint. In fact it was involved, as has been shown, in Heraclitus' point of departure, so that we have less reason to com- plain of inconsistency in his case than we have, in reference to the same matter, in the case of the Stoics later (Id. p. 210).

We have given, perhaps, more space to the exposi- tion of Pfleiderer's work than it relatively deserves, because it is the last word that has been spoken on Heraclitus, because, also, it has deservedly brought into prominence the optimism and the religious char- acter of his philosophy, and because finally it presents another instructive example of over-systemization. It claims our attention, too, because the view it proposes is a complete reversal of the prevalent conception of Heraclitus, and if seriously taken, chknges the whole tenor of his philosophy.

In what follows we shall examine chiefly the two main points in Pfleiderer's work, namely, the theory of knowledge and the connection with the Greek Mysteries ; the latter, because it is Pfleiderer's particu-

HISTORICAL. ANB CRITICAL. 47

lar contribution, and the former, because it will open to us an important aspect of the Ephesian's philosophy. In the first place, however, it can by no means be admitted that the doctrine of the flux and the harmony of opposites represent the negative side of his system, and are secondary to his theory of knowledge and his religious dogmas. The unanimous testimony of the ancients cannot be thus easily set aside. That of Plato and Aristotle alone is decisive. Pfleiderer objects that Plato's purpose, which was to establish the changelessness of noumena against the change of phenomena, led him to emphasize the flux of Hera- clitus. But if Heraclitus' positive teachings were, as Pfleiderer says, first of all the theory of knowledge, this and not the flux must have been emphasized in the Theaetetus where the theory of knowledge was Plato's theme. It is sufficient, however, here to note that what Heraclitus has stood for in philosophy from his own time to the present, is the doctrine of absolute change, and this doctrine may, therefore, properly be called the positive side of his philosophy. If what Pfleiderer means is that the theory of knowledge and not the flux was his starting point, he would have a shadow more of right. It is, however, misleading to say that his theory of knowledge was his starting point, for, as we have indicated in our examination of Schuster's work, Heraclitus was not concerned with a theory of knowledge as such. To state in a word what his point of departure really was, regarded from a common-sense view, it was his conviction that he was in possession of new truth which the blindness and ignorance of men prevented them from seeing (the point of departure indeed of almost every one who writes a book), and the three leading ideas in this

Lr> 5/ philosophy has well said that "philosophy did not

,) ,; . A ' sliced the myth of Kore and Demeter to make known

the alternation of natural conditions, the passage from

death to life and life to death ; daily observation taught it" (Vol. 1, p. 60).

The intrinsic weakness of Pfleiderer^s position is best seen when he attempts to pass to the doctrine of the flux. It taxes the imagination to see how the identity of life and death should lead to the universal principle ndi^ra ^(opet xae ou8ki^ /lii^sc. Pfleiderer would have us believe that the eternal flux was a subordinate thought — a mere picture to help the mind to conceive

HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL. 56

It taxes the imagination to see how the identity of life and death should lead to the universal principle ndi^ra ^(opet xae ou8ki^ /lii^sc. Pfleiderer would have us believe that the eternal flux was a subordinate thought — a mere picture to help the mind to conceive

HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL. 56

the primary metaphysical truth of the unity of oppo- sites. We have already attempted to show that any explanation of the Heraclitic philosophy must be wrong which reduces the doctrine of the flux to a subordinate position. Here it is sufficient to add that if Heraclitus iiad been seeking a picture to illustrate the optimistic endurance of life even in death, and the rational unity and harmony of opposite powers, he could not possibly have chosen a more unfortunate figure than the ever- flowing river into which one cannot step twice. Pflei- derer, in saying that Heraclitus chose the picture of the evanescence of things to illustrate his law of opposites and the endurance of life, seems to have forgotten that on a previous page (above, p. 602) he said that the hopeless creed of the masses, against which the Ephe- sian was trying to establish the triumph of life, saw not too much permanence and constancy in the world, but too little.

We are forced, therefore, to conclude not only that Pfleiderer has failed to establish any especial depend- ence of Heraclitus upon the religion of the Greek Mys- teries, but also that his supposed discovery that we have here a metaphysical philosophy developed from the material principle of the oscillating identity of life ^ QYcS't and death, is an assumption without basis in fact. ^ 'P^y'-

In redeeming the Ephesian from the charge of pessi- p^O mism, Pfleiderer has done a good work. But here again he has gone too far, in finding not only a well grounded rational optimism in the doctrine of a world- ruling Order, but also a practical optimism in the idea of the indestructibility of life, an idea which, although it appears on every page of Pfleiderer's book, is not to be found in any saying oi Heraclitus or in any record of his philosophy.

c'.y

i I

56 HERACLITUS.

Section II. — Reconstructive.

c'.y

i I

56 HERACLITUS.

Section II. — Reconstructive.

^ Alaving examined the four preceding fundamentally ^ different views of the philosophy of Heraclitus, and having discovered that the opinions of modern critics on the tenor of this philosophy furnish a new and un- expected illustration of Heraclitus' own law of abso- lute instability, it remains to be considered whether it is possible to resolve^as he did/ this general diversity into a higher unity, and in this case to verify his law that in all opposition there is harmony. If such a unity is sought as that attempted by Lassalle, Schuster, and Pfleiderer, it may be said at once that the task is impossible. All such ambitious attempts in construc- tive criticism in the case of Heraclitus are certain to result, as we have seen, in over-interpretation, and while they may leave a completed picture in the mind of the reader, they do not leave a true one. Not only is such a unified view of the philosophy of the Ephe- sian unattainable, but it is unnecessary. It is quite certain that had we before us his original book in its entirety, we should find therein no fully consistent system of philosophy. Yet it is just this fact that modem critics forget. While they point out errors and contradictions by the score in the books of their fellow critics, they allow for no inconsistencies on the part of the original philosopher. Presuppositions of harmony between all the sentences of an ancient writer have led to much violence of interpretation. Our interest in Heraclitus is not in his system as such, but in his great thoughts which have historic signifi- cance. These we should know, if possible, in their

RJICONSTRUCTIVB. 67

original meaning and in their connection with preced- ing and succeeding philosophy. Before concluding this introduction, then, it will be of advantage to re- capitulate the results of the foregoing criticism, and to place together such conclusions concerning the chief Heraclitic thoughts as we have drawn either from the agreement or the disagreement of the various criticerj ''^We shall best understand Heraclitus if we fix well in mind his immediate starting-point. As we found |

above in the examination of Pfleiderer's position) (p. I

47),(the Ephesian philosopher was first and primarily a, preacher. To him the people almost without excep- ^^ "^"^ tion, were blind, stupid, and beastly. Heraclitus "^^^ ^^ hated them. They got no farther than crude sense SCc* A' pBrception)(cp. frags. 4, 6, 3), failing not only to recog- Tq PC'C nize the invisible harmony of the changing world, but Uf-xj ft/ even the change itself (cp. frag. 2). They believed ^..

Heraclitus "^^^ ^^ hated them. They got no farther than crude sense SCc* A' pBrception)(cp. frags. 4, 6, 3), failing not only to recog- Tq PC'C nize the invisible harmony of the changing world, but Uf-xj ft/ even the change itself (cp. frag. 2). They believed ^..

things were fixed because they appeared so at first *^''^ ^ *" sight. They preferred the lower passions to the higher "^ " ^^ ^ senses (cp. frag. lll)^JIe is from first to last a misan- U^Hv.-/'s/^ thrope. He despises the people, yet as if constrained "^-^'J wXa by a divine conmaand, he must deliver his messag^(cp. ', -.. ^ '': c r frags. 1, 2)./To understand Heraclitus we must free our i^j a ^ f^ minds from conceptions of every other Greek philoso- »/^^ .j pher, except, perhaps, his fellow lonians. Never after- /^ / cu wards did philosophy exhibit such seriousness.) We ^ . can no more imagine Heraclitus at Athens than we . ^.^^ can think of Socrates away from it. ^Althoughjas we . ^ shall see,\the philosophy of Plato stood in vital con- nection with that of Heraclitus, no contrast could be greater than the half playful speculative style of the former, and the stem, oracular and dogmatic utter- ances of the latter. jWe shall find no parallel except in Jewish literature. Cindeed, Heraclitus was a pro-

\>l t-^

^ ri \\

58 HKRACLITUS.

. phet. As the prophets of Israel hurled their messages

' ^.^-^ in actual defiance at the people, hardly more does the

Ephesian seem to care how his words are received, if

only he gets them spokenA Not more bitter and mis-

^^ ^ anthropic is Hosea in his denunciation of the people's

' sins (cp. ch. iv. 1, 2 flf.), than is our philosopher in his

contempt for the stupidity and dullness of the masses.

(At the very opening of his book he says, from his lofty

position of conscious superiority : " This Law which I

unfold, men insensible and half asleep will not hear,

and hearing, will not comprehend'^ (frag. 2 ; cp. frags.

3, 5, 94. 95).

NoTvCa^hat was the prime error of the people which so aroused the Ephesian, and what was the message ck which he had to deliver to them f^ Zeller is wrong in

2 ; cp. frags.

3, 5, 94. 95).

NoTvCa^hat was the prime error of the people which so aroused the Ephesian, and what was the message ck which he had to deliver to them f^ Zeller is wrong in

saying (Vol. 1, p. 576) that, according to Heraclitus, the radical error of the people was in attributing to things a permanence of being which they did not possess/in no passage does he censure the people for this. I What he blames them for is their insensibility, for looking low when they ought to look high — in a word, for blindness to the Divine Law or the Universal Reason • 7 (frags. 2, 3, 4, 51, 45, 14).^ (He blames them for not recognizing the beauty of strife (frag. 43), and the law of opposites (frag. 45). He blames them for their grossness and beastliness (frags. 86, 111). Finally, he blames them for their immorality (frag. 124), their silliness in praying to idols (frag. 126), and their imbecility in thinking they could pimfy themselves by sacrifices of blood (frag. 130)j/(jVe *y see therefore how wholly impossible it is to under- stand Heraclitus unless we consider the ethical and ^ f religious character of his mind. Thus Zeller, in as far as he has attempted to give us a picture of Heraclitus'

i ta

I'f

RECONSTRUCTIVE. 69

system, has failed by starting with the doctrine of the flux and overlooking the religious motive^) This is not to say, as Pfleiderer has done, that Ijhe flux/ was

/ ^ merely a negative teaching, (jf ext to the recognition of the Eternal Law, it was the most positive of his teachings, and was the groimd of his influence upon subsequent thought.^ As such it is of chief interest to us ; but as far as we wish to get a picture of Heraclitus himself, we must think first of his religious and ethical point of departure. Thus(i^ content of Heraclitus' message to his countrymen was ethical. It was a call to men everywhere to wake t^p,jto purify their ^ap^dpoui; ^y;fcfcj^and see things in their reality.^ /What now was this reality which he with his finer

I jL insight saw, but which ruder souls were blind to ? This brings us to the theoretical side or the philo -^»

It was a call to men everywhere to wake t^p,jto purify their ^ap^dpoui; ^y;fcfcj^and see things in their reality.^ /What now was this reality which he with his finer

I jL insight saw, but which ruder souls were blind to ? This brings us to the theoretical side or the philo -^»

/ V sophical content of Heraclitus' messagejWHere comes in the contribution of Teichmiiller, who^as we saw^, /clearly pointed out that the great new thought of the jlphesi an was the unit xJZL^he manifold, as opposed to the unity over against the manifold, taught by Xenophanes. It was the unity of opposition, the harmony of strife. ' Tt was Order immanent in cease-^ less" change.^ To use a phrase of Campbell's, " The Idea of the universe implies at once absolute activity and perfect law " (Plat. Theaet. Appendix, p. 244)^his was the central thought of Heraclitusy** the grandeur of which," says Campbell, ** was far beyond the com- prehension of that time." But, it may be said, if we have rightly apprehended Heraclitus' position as a prophet and preacher, this was rather strong meat to ' feed the masses. But the 7:o)J.oc with Heraclitus was a very broad term. It included everybody. The arro- gance of this man was sublime. Neither Homer nor

60 HBRACLITUS.

But the 7:o)J.oc with Heraclitus was a very broad term. It included everybody. The arro- gance of this man was sublime. Neither Homer nor

60 HBRACLITUS.

Hesiod nor Pythagoras nor Xenophanes escaped his lash (cp. frags. 16, 17, 119, 114). He had especially in mind the so-called '*men of repute," and said they were makers and witnesses of lies (cp. frag. 118). The whole male population of Ephesus, he said, ought to be hung or expelled on account of their infatuation and blindness (cp. frag. 114). Addressing such an audience, indeed, his message had to be pitched high. I >z (jVe have in the Ephesian sage a man who openly claimed to have an insight- superior to all the world, and the history of thought has vindicated his claim. Furthermore, it must be remembered that Heraclitus did, in a measure, try to make the world-ruling Law intelligible. He pictured it now as Justice, whose handmaids, the Erinyes, will not let the sun overstep his bounds (frag. 29) ; now as Fate, or the all-determin- ing Destiny^Stobaeus, Eel. i. 5, p. 178 ; cp. frag. 63) ; /now as simple Law (frags. 23, 91), now as Wisdom Ifrag. 65), intelligent Will (frag. 19), God (frag. 36), Zeus (frag. 65). Respecting the latter term he ex- pressly adds that it is misleading. So we see that Heraclitus did what some modem philosophers have been blamed for doing — he put his new thoughts into old religious formulas. But it was more justifiable in the case of the Ephesian. He did so, not to pr.esent a semblance of orthodoxy, but to tify to make his idea intelligible/) In fact, Heraclitus, no less than Xeno- phanes, was a fearless, outspoke^ enemy of the popular anthropomorphisms. " This world, the same for all,'' he says, '' neither any of the gods nor any man has made, but it always was, and is, and shall be, an ever living fire, kindled and quenched according to law *' (frag. 20 ; cp. frag. 126). At this point it is natural to ask ourselves/ what,

KECONSTRUCTIVB. 61

" This world, the same for all,'' he says, '' neither any of the gods nor any man has made, but it always was, and is, and shall be, an ever living fire, kindled and quenched according to law *' (frag. 20 ; cp. frag. 126). At this point it is natural to ask ourselves/ what,

KECONSTRUCTIVB. 61

more exactly considered, Heraclitus meant by his Uni- versal Order, his Divine Lam xoci^6 pf these the first i^Ahe notion of JLaw and Order absolute and immanent in the world, an idea so large that no Greek follower could grasp it, and yet vital to Heraclitus' system,yfor without it his philo- sophy becomes the philosophy of desperation, the source among the ingenuous Greeks of the nihilism of Gor- gias or the universal doubt of the skeptics, and among the brooding modems the source of the pessimism of Schopenhauer. ^\To Heraclitus again we trace) as Teichmiiller has shown/the closely related doctrine of the immanence of God in the world, so that we have in him one source of the pantheistic systems. 6,To Hera- clitus, finally, we trace the physical law of opposites, > the thought that all order and harmony and apparent permanence are the result of opposite tension, the bal- ance of centrifugal and centripetal forces. (Less in- volved in the history of philosophy, though most im- portant to Heraclitus, and in themselves most interest- ing to us of modern times, are his great ethical thoughts ) Thich we have already outlined. The determinative ideas of the Ephesian may be summed up in ^ word by saying that they represent all that way of thinking against which Socrates and Plato raised the whole weight of their authority/ Without repeating here the facts, well enough known to everybody, of the Socratic reaction in Greek philo- sophy, we must sketch one or two phases of it in order to establish the influence and explain the final defeat of the Heraclitic philosophy. /^In Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, philosophy underwent a change more radical

76 HERACLITUS.

than any other in its history, a change that was ulti- mately to revolutionize all thought, and through its influence on Christian theology, to enter as a large determining element into all western civilization. Heraclitus is the representative of what philosophy was before that change.^

Socrates said he couTd not understand the book of Heraclitus. ^That was not strange. The Ephesian could have told him the reason why. The man who could learn nothing from the fields and trees (see Plato's Phaedrus, p. 230), who spent all his time in the Agora conversing with other men about virtue, and who never seemed to realize that there was a world above the heads and under the feet of men, was not likely to understand the book of Heraclitus. Could the Ephesian philosopher have taken the Atheni- an logician out and given him a few lessons from Nature at first hand, could he have induced him to desist for a while from his boring into human intellects in search of a definition, and got his gaze lifted up to the clouds and stars, and put him in actual contact with the nepci^oi^, he would have been an apter scholar with the book. But it is quite impossible even in fancy to think of these two men together. The conmiuner with Nature, the stern misanthropic sage and prophet of Ephesus had no points in conunon with the society- loving Athenian sophist. They were radically differ- ent, and on this difference hangs the secret of the development of philosophy for two thousand years. Socrates was not a Greek at all. He denied the most characteristic traits of his nation. He was a modern in many true senses. He was a curiosity at Athens, and consequently very much in vogue.

Socrates represents the birth of self -consciousness. In

RECONSTRUOTIVB. . 77

Socrates was not a Greek at all. He denied the most characteristic traits of his nation. He was a modern in many true senses. He was a curiosity at Athens, and consequently very much in vogue.

Socrates represents the birth of self -consciousness. In

RECONSTRUOTIVB. . 77

practicing his maieutic art to this end, he little thought that he was giving the death-blow to the most beauti- ful trait of his countrymen, namely, the instinctive, the unconscious, the naive. No doubt this new birth had to take place some time, but under Socrates' direction it was premature. The old methods were not yet dead. Here historians of philosophy err. They say the pre-Socratic philosophers of Nature had in vain tried to solve the problems of the world, and it was high time for a critical philosophy that should begin with man. In vain, indeed ! Had the naturalists labored in vain when the foundation of the atomic philosophy had been laid in Abdera, that of mathematics in Italy, and a far-seeing metaphysics and ethics in Ephesus ? Soc- rates and Plato took fright too easily at the Sophists. Their philosophy would have died with them. Not so that of Democritus, Pythagoras, and Heraclitus. Soc- rates was a professor of clear thinking. Clear thinking is in itself well, but two solid centuries of clear think- ing from Descartes to Hegel have in modern times ended in failure. We long to know what natural thinking would have accomplished if it had been left an open field a while longer in Greece. Then again clear thinking was overdone. It was, to be sure, not Socrates' fault that his method was afterwards abused, but as a matter of fact it took in later history a patho- logical turn that has resulted in wide-spread evils. Over self-consciousness, too much inwardness and painful self -inspection, absence of trust in our instincts and of the healthful study of Nature, which in ethics are illustrated in modern questions of ta0aTeiv, hioc to afi(j>ialiijTeiv 'Icjveg 6e nal ayxt-PcLTelv^ nal ayxi-Paaii^ *B.pdK7ieiTog,

X. — Themistius, Or. v. p. 69 (=r xii. p. 159). Context : — Nature according to Heraclitus, loves to conceal herself ; and before nature the creator of nature, whom therefore we especially worship and adore because the knowledge of him is difficult.

Philo, Qu. in Gen. iv. 1, p. 237, Aucher.: Arbor est secundum Heraclitum natura nostra, quae se obducere atque abscondere amat.

Compare idem de Profug. 32, p. 573 ; de Somn. i. 2, p. 621 ; de Spec. legg. 8, p. 344.

XI. — Plutarch, de Pyth. orac. 21, p. 404. Context : — And I think you know the saying of Heraclitus that ** The God," etc.

lamblichus, de Myst. iii. 15.

Idem from Stobaeus Floril. Ixxxi. 17.

Anon, from Stobaeus Floril. v. 72.

Compare Lucianus, Vit. auct. 14.

XII. — Plutarch, de Pyth. orac. 6, p. 397. Context; — But the Sibyl, with raging mouth, according to Heraclitus, uttering things solemn, rude and unadorned, reaches with her voice over a

ON NATURE. 87

Ixxxi. 17.

Anon, from Stobaeus Floril. v. 72.

Compare Lucianus, Vit. auct. 14.

XII. — Plutarch, de Pyth. orac. 6, p. 397. Context; — But the Sibyl, with raging mouth, according to Heraclitus, uttering things solemn, rude and unadorned, reaches with her voice over a

ON NATURE. 87

XIII. — Whatever concerns seeing, hearing, and learning, I particularly honor."

XIV. — Polybius iv. 40. Especially at the present time, when all places are accessible either by land or by water, we should not accept poets and mythologists as witnesses of things that are unknown, since for the most part they furnish us with unreliable testimony about disputed things, according to Heraclitus.

XV. — The eyes are more exact witnesses than the ears.*

thousand years, because of the God. And Pindar says that Cadmus heard from the God a kind of music neither pleasant nor soft nor melodious. For great holiness permits not the allurements of pleasures.

Clement of Alex. Strom, i. 15, p. 358.

lamblichus, de Myst. iii. 8.

See also pseudo-Heraclitus, Epist. yiii.

XIII. — Hippolytus, Ref. haer. ix. 9, 10. Context: — And that the hidden, the unseen and unknown to men is [better], he (Hera- clitus) says in these words, " A hidden harmony is better than a visible ' ' (= frag. 47). He thus praises and admires the unknown and unseen more than the known. And that that which is discoverable and visible to men is [better], he says in these words, "Whatever concerns seeing, hearing, and learning, I particularly honor," that is, the visible above the invisible. From such expressions it is easy to understand him. In the knowledge of the visible, he says, men allow themselves to be deceived as Homer was, who yet was wiser than all the Greeks ; for some boys killing lice deceived him saying, ** What we see and catch we leave behind ; what we neither see nor catch we take with us " (frag. 1, Schuster). Thus Heraclitus honors in equal degree the seen and the unseen, as if the seen and unseen were confessedly one. For what does he say ? "A hidden harmony is better than a visible," and, " Whatever concerns seeing, hearing, and learning, I particularly honor," having before particularly honored the invisible.

XV. — Polybius xii. 27. Context : — There are two organs given to us by nature, sight and hearing, sight being considerably the more truthful, according to Heraclitus, **For the eyes- are more exact witnesses than the ears."

Compare Herodotus i. 8.

88 HBRACLITUS.

XVI. — Much learning does not teach one to have understanding, else it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, and again Xenophanes and Hecataeus.

XVII. — Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchus, practised investigation most of all men, and having chosen out these treatises, he made a wisdom of his own — much learning and bad art.

XVIII. — Of all whose words I have heard, no one attains to this, to know that wisdom is apart from all.^

XVII. — Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchus, practised investigation most of all men, and having chosen out these treatises, he made a wisdom of his own — much learning and bad art.

XVIII. — Of all whose words I have heard, no one attains to this, to know that wisdom is apart from all.^

XIX. — There is one wisdom, to understand the intel- ligent will by which all things are governed through all.«

XX. — This world, the same for all, neither any of

XVI. — Diogenes Laert. ix. 1. Context: — He (Heraclitus) was proud and disdainful above all men, as indeed is clear from his work, in which he says, " Much learning does not teach," etc.

Aulu^ Gellius, N. A. praef. 12.

Clement of Alex. Strom, i. 19, p. 373.

Athenaeus xiii. p. 610 B.

lulianus, Or. vi. p. 187 D.

Proclus in Tim. 31 F.

Serenus in Excerpt. Flor. loann. Damasc. ii. 116, p. 205, Meinek.

Compare pseudo-Democritus, fr. mor. 140 Mullach.

XVII. — Diogenes Laert. viii. 6. Context : — Some say, foolishly, that Pythagoras did not leave behind a single writing. But Hera- clitus, the physicist, in his croaking way says, "Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchus," etc.

Compare Clement of Alex. Strom, i. 21, p. 396.

XVIII.— Stobaeus Floril. iii. 81.

XIX. — Diogenes Laert. ix. 1. Context : — See frag. 16.

Plutarch, de Iside 77, p. 382. Context : — Nature, who lives and sees, and has in herself the beginning of motion and a knowledge of the suitable and the foreign, in some way draws an emanation and a share from the intelligence by which the universe is governed, according to Heraclitus.

Compare Cleanthes H. in lov. 36.

Compare pseudo-Linus, 13 Mullach.

XX. — Clement of Alex. Strom, v. 14, p. 711. Context : — Heracli- tus of Ephesus is very plainly of this opinion, since he recognizes

ON NATURE. 89

the gods nor any man has made, but it always was, and is, and shall be, an ever living fire, kindled in due measure, and in due measure extinguished.'

XXI. — The transmutations of fire are, first, the sea ; and of the sea, half is earth, and half the lightning flash.8

XXII. — All things are exchanged for fire and fire for all things, just as wares for gold and gold for wares.

that there is an everlasting world on the one hand and on the other a perishable, that is, in its arrangement, knowing that in a certain manner the one is not different from the other. But that he knew an everlasting world eternally of a certain kind in its whole essence, he makes plain, saying in this manner, " This world the same for all,'' etc.

Plutarch, de Anim. jjrocreat. 5, p. 1014. Context : — This world, says Heraclitus, neither any god nor man has made ; as if fearing that having denied a divine creation, we should suppose the creator of the world to have been some man.

Simplicius in Aristot. de cael. p. 132, Karst.

Olympiodorus in Plat. Phaed. p. 201, Finckh.

Compare Cleanthes H., lov. 9.

Nicander, Alexiph. 174.

Epictetus from Stob. Floril. cviii. 60.

M. Antoninus vii. 9.

Just. Mart. Apol. p. 93 C.

Heraclitus, Alleg. Horn. 26.

XXI. — Clement of Alex. Strom, v. 14, p. 712. Context : — And that he (Heraclitus) taught that it was created and perishable is shown by the following, ** The transmutations," etc.

Compare Hippolytus, Ref . haer. vi. 17.

XXII.— Plutarch, de EI. 8, p. 388. Context :— For how that (scil. first cause) forming the world from itself, again perfects itself from the world, Heraclitus declares as follows, " All things are exchanged for fire and fire for all things,'* etc.

Compare Philo, Leg. alleg. iii. 3, p. 89. Context, see frag. 24.

Idem, de Incorr. mundi 21, p. 508. — Lucianus, Vit. auct. 14.

Diogenes Laert. ix. 8.

Heraclitus, Alleg. Hom. 43.

Plotinus, Enn. iv. 8, p. 468.— lamblichus from Stob. Eel. i. 41.

Eusebius, Praep. Evang. xiv. 3, p. 720.— Simplicius on Aristot. Phys. 6, a.

90 HERACLITUS.

XXIII. — The sea is poured out and measured to the same proportion as existed before it became earth.*

XXIV.— Cravmg and Satiety.^®

XXV. — Fire lives in the death of earth, air lives in the death of fire, water lives in the death of air, and earth in the death of water.^

XXVI. — Fire coming upon all things, will sift and seize them.

XXIII.— Clement of Alex. Strom, v. 14, p. 712 (= Eusebius, P. E. xiii. 13, p. 676). Context : — For he (Heraclitus) says that fire is changed by the divine Reason which rules the universe, through air into moisture, which is as it were the seed of cosmic arrangement, and which he calls sea ; and from this again arise the earth and the heavens and all they contain. And how again they are restored and ignited, he shows plainly as follows, " The sea is poured out," etc.

XXIV. — Hippolytus, Ref . haer. ix. 10. Context : — And he (Hera- clitus) says also that this fire is intelligent and is the cause of the government of all things. And he calls it craving and satiety. And craving is, according to him, arrangement {6LaK6Gfiriaiq)j and satiety is conflagration {eKnvpoxjig). For, he says, " Fire coming upon all things will separate and seize them" (= frag. 26).

Philo, Leg. alleg. iii. 3, p. 88. Context: — ^And the other (scil. 6 yovoppvifq)j supposing that all things are from the world and are changed back into the world, and thinking that nothing was made by God, being a champion of the Heraclitic doctrine, introduces craving and satiety and that all things are one and happen by change.

Philo, de Victim. 6, p. 242.

Plutarch, de EI. 9, p. 389.

XXV. — Maximus Tyr. xli. 4, p. 489. Context: — You see the change of bodies and the alternation of origin, the way up and down, according to Heraclitus. And again he says, "Living in their death and dying in their life (see frag. 67). Fire lives in the death of earth," etc.

9, p. 389.

M. Antoninus iv. 46. Context, see frag. 5.

Plutarch, de EI. 18, p. 392.

Idem, de Prim. frig. 10, p. 949. Comp. pseudo-Linus 21, Mull.

XXVI. — Hippolytus, Ref. haer. ix. 10. Context, see frag. 24.

Compare Aetna v. 536 : quod si quis lapidis miratur fusile robur, cogitet obscuri verissima dicta libelli, Heraclite, tui, nihil insuper- abile ab igni, omnia quo rerum naturae semina iacta.

ON NATURE. 91

XXVII. — How can one escape that which never sets?"

XXVIII. — Lightning rules all.

XXIX. — The sun will not overstep his bounds, for if he does, the Erinyes, helpers of justice, will find him out.

XXX.— The limits of the evenmg and morning are theTBear, and opposite the Bear, the bounds of bright Zeus.

XXXI. — If there were no sun, it would be night.

XXVII.— Clement of Alex. Paedag. 11. 10, p. 229. Context :— For one may escape the sensible light, but the Intellectual it is impossible to escape. Or, as Heraclitus says, ''How can one escape that which never sets?'*

XXVIII. — Hippolytus, Ref . haer. ix. 10. Context : — ^And he (Hera- clitus) also says that a judgment of the world and all things in it takes place by fire, expressing it as follows, " Now lightning rules all,'* that is, guides it rightly, meaning by lightning, everlasting fire.

Compare Cleanthes H., lovem 10.

XXIX.— Plutarch, de Exil. II, p. 604. Context .-—Each of the

planets, rolling in one sphere, as in an island, preserves its order.

* " For the sun,'* says Heraclitus, ** will not overstep his bounds,'* etc.

Idem, de Iside 48, p. 370.

Comp. Hippolytus, Ref. haer. vi. 26.

lamblichus, Protrept. 21, p. 132, Arcer.

Pseudo-Heraclitus, Epist. ix.

XXX. — Strabo i. 6, p. 3. Context : — And Heraclitus, better and more Homerically, naming in like manner the Bear instead of the northern circle, says, "The limits of the evening and morning are the Bear, and opposite the Bear, the bounds of bright Zeus." For the northern circle is the boundary of rising and setting, not the Bear.

XXXI. — Plutarch, Aq. et ign. comp. 7, p. 957.

Idem, de Fortuna 3, p. 98. Context : — And just as, if there were no sun, as far as regards the other stars, we should have night, as Heraclitus says, so as far as regards the senses, if man had not mind and reason, his life would not differ from that of the beasts.

Compare Clement of Alex. Protrept. II, p. 87.

Macrobius, Somn. Scip. i. 20.

92 HBRACLITUS.

XXXII. — The stin is new every day.

Compare Clement of Alex. Protrept. II, p. 87.

Macrobius, Somn. Scip. i. 20.

92 HBRACLITUS.

XXXII. — The stin is new every day.

XXXIII. — Diogenes Laertius i. 23. He (scil. Thales) seems, according to some, to have been the first to study astronomy and to foretell the eclipses and motions of the sun, as Eudemus relates in his account of astronomical works. And for this reason he is honored by Xenophanes and Herodotus, and both Heraclitus and Democritus bear witness to him.

XXXIV.— Plutarch, Qu. Plat. viii. 4, p. 1007. Thus Time, having a necessary union and connection with heaven, is not simple motion, but, so to speak, motion in an order, having measured limits and periods. Of which the sun, being overseer and guardian to limit, direct, appoint and proclaim the changes and seasons which, according to Heraclitus, produce all things, is the helper of the leader and first God, not in small or

trivial things, but in the greatest and most important. |

XXXV. — Hesiod is a teacher of the masses. They ; suppose him to have possessed the greatest knowledge,

who indeed did not know day and night. For they !

* i

are one.^^ *

— . j

XXXII. — Aristotle, Meteor, ii. 2, p. 355 a 9. Context: — Con- cerning the sun this cannot happen, since, being nourished in the i same manner, as they say, it is plain that the sun is not only, as Heraclitus says, new every day, but it is continually new. j Alexander Aphrod. in Meteor. 1. 1. fol. 93 a. j Olympiodorus in Meteor. 1. 1. fol. 30 a. ! Plotinus, Enn. ii. 1, p. 97. ' Proclus in Tim. p. 334 B. Compare Plato, Rep. vi. p. 498 B.

Olympiodorus in Plato, Phaed. p. 201, Finckh. i

XXXIV.—Compare Plutarch, de Def. orac. 12, p. 416. |

M. Antoninus ix. 3. !

Pseudo-Heraclitus, Epist. v. i XXXV. — Hippolytus, Ref . haer. ix. 10. Context : — Heraclitus says

that neither darkness nor light, neither evil nor good, are different, i

but they are one and the same. He found fault, therefore, with '

ON NATURB. 93

XXXVI. — God is day and night, winter and sum- mer, war and peace, plenty and want. But he is changed, just as when incense is mingled with incense, but named according to the pleasure of each.^*

XXXVII.— Aristotle, de Sensu 5, p. 443 a 21. Some think that odor consists in smoky exhalation, common to earth and air, and that for smell all things are con- verted into this. And it was for this reason that Heraclitiis thus said that if all existing things should become smoke, perception would be by the nostrils.

XXXVIII.— Souls smell in Hades.^*

XXXIX. — Cold becomes warm, and warm, cold ; wet becomes dry, and diy, wet.

XL. — It disperses and gathers, it comes and goes.^®

Hesiod because he knew [not] day and night, for day and night, he says, are one, expressing it somewhat as follows: *' Hesiod is a teacher of the masses," etc.

— Cold becomes warm, and warm, cold ; wet becomes dry, and diy, wet.

XL. — It disperses and gathers, it comes and goes.^®

Hesiod because he knew [not] day and night, for day and night, he says, are one, expressing it somewhat as follows: *' Hesiod is a teacher of the masses," etc.

XXXVI.— Hippolytus, Ref . haer. ix. 10. Context :— For that the primal (Gr. irparov, Bernays reads irotrrrbv^ created) world is itself the demiurge and creator of itself, he (Heraciitus) says as follows: " God is day and," etc.

Compare idem, Ref. haer. v. 21.

Hippocrates, ^epl SialrTig i. 4, Littr.

XXXVIII.— Plutarch, de Fac. in orbe lun. 28, p. 943. Context :— Their (scil. the souls') appearance is like the sun's rays, and their spirits, which are raised aloft, as here, in the ether around the moon, are like fire, and from this they receive strength and power, as metals do by tempering. For that which is still scattered and diffuse is strengthened and becomes firm and transparent, so that it is nourished with the chance exhalation. And finely did Heraciitus say that '' souls smell in Hades."

XXXIX. — Schol. Tzetzae, Exeget. Iliad, p. 126, Hermann. Con- text : — Of old, Heraciitus of Ephesus was noted for the obscurity of his sayings, "Cold becomes warm,*' etc.

Compare Hippocrates, 'J^epl diairifg i. 21.

Pseudo-Heraclitus, Epist. v. — Apuleius, de Mundo 21.

XL.— Piijtarch, de EI. 18, p. 392. Context, see frag. 41.

Compaire pseudo-Heraclitus, Epist. vi.

94 HBRACLITUS.

XLI. — Into the same river you could not step twice, for other waters are flowing.

XLII. — fTo those entering the same river, other and still other waters flow.f

XLIII.— Aristotle, Eth. End. vii. 1, p. 1235 a 26. And Heraclitus blamed the poet who said, ** Would

XLI.— Plutarch, Qu. nat. 2, p. 912. Context :— For the waters of fountains and rivers are fresh and new, for, as Heraclitus says, " Into the same river," etc.

Plato, Crat. 402 A. Context :— Heraclitus is supposed to say that all things are in motion and nothing at rest ; he compares them to the stream of a river, and says that you cannot go into the same river twice (Jowett's transl.).

Aristotle, Metaph. iii. 5, p. 1010 a 13. Context :— From this assumption there grew up that extreme opinion of those just now mentioned, those, namely, who professed to follow Heraclitus, such as Cratylus held, who finally thought that nothing ought to be said, but merely moved his finger. And he blamed Heraclitus because he said you could not step twice into the same river, for he himself thought you could not do so once.

Plutarch, de EI. 18, p. 392. Context :— It is not possible to step twice into the same river, according to Heraclitus, nor twice to find a perishable substance in a fixed state ; but by the sharpness and quickness of change, it disperses and gathers again, or rather not again nor a second time, but at the same time it forms and is dissolved, it comes and goes (see frag. 40).

40).

Idem, de Sera num. vind. 15, p. 559.

Simplicius in Aristot. Phys. f . 17 a.

XUI. — Arius Didymus from Eusebius, Praep. evang. xv. 20, p. 821. Context : — Concerning the soul, Cleanthes, quoting the doctrine of Zeno in comparison with the other physicists, said that Zeno affirmed the perceptive soul to be an exhalation, just as Heraclitus did. For, wishing to show that the vaporized souls are always of an intellectual nature, he compared them to a river, saying, "To those entering the same river, other and still other waters flow." And souls are exhalations from moisture. Zeno, therefore, like Heraclitus, called the soul an exhalation.

Compare Sextus Emp. Pyrrh. hyp. iii. 115.

XLIII.— Plutarch, de Iside 48, p. 370. Context :— For Heraclitus in plain terms calls war the father and king and lord of all (zzfrag. 44), and he says that Homer, when he prayed — ** Discord be damned

ON NATURE. 95

oc ^i re rerpaKSpaw og Tpelg 6* kXdijMvg 6 Kdpa^ yrjpdai^Tai, dvrdp 6 ^ivi^ kwea Tovg KdpoKa^ • SsKa 6* TJfxelg Tovg ^ivucag vvfjL(f>ai €V7r?i6Kafioif Kovpai Atbg diyid^oio,

Censorinus, de D. N. 17.

Compare Plutarch, Plac. Philos. v. 24, p. 909.

LXXXVIIL—Crameri A. P. i. p. 324.

Compare Philo, Qu. on Gen. ii. 5, p. 82 Aucher.

Plutarch, de Orac. def . 12, p. 416.

LXXXIX.— Philo, Qu. in Gen. ii. 5, p. 82 Aucher.

XCI.— Stobaeus Floril. iii. 84.

Compare Cleanthes H., lov. 24.

Hippocrates, tt. Tpo ^g 15. Plutarch, de Iside 45, p. 369.

Plotinus, Enn. vi. 5, p. .668. Empedocles v. 231 Stein.

ON NATURE. 107

a city holds fast to its law. For all human laws are dependent upon one divine Law, for this rules as far as it wills, and suffices for all, and overabounds.

XCII. — Although the Law of Reason is common, the majority of people live as though they had an under- standing of their own.

XCIII. — They are at variance with that with which they are in most continual association.

XCIV. — We ought not to act and speak as though we were asleep.

XCV. — Plutarch, de Superst. 3, p. 166. Heraclitus says : To those who are awake, there is one world in common, but of those who are asleep, each is with- drawn to a private world of his own.

XCVI. — For hiunan nature does not possess under- standing, but the divine does.

XCII. — Sextus Emp. adv. Math. vii. 133. Context : — For haying thus statedly shown that we do and think everything by participa- tion in the divine reason, he (Heraclitus), after some previous expo- sition, adds : It is necessary, therefore, to follow the common (for by |wdf he means 6 Koivdg, the common). For although the law of reason is common, the majority of people live as though they had an understanding of their own. But this is nothing else than an explanation of the mode of the universal disposition. As far, there- fore, as we participate in the memory of this, we are true ; but in as far as we act individually, we are false.

As far, there- fore, as we participate in the memory of this, we are true ; but in as far as we act individually, we are false.

XCIII. — M. Antoninus iv. 46. Context, see frag. 5.

XCIV. — M. Antoninua iv. 46. Context, see frag. 5.

XCV. — Compare pseudo-Pythagoras from Hippolytus, Ref . haer. vi. 26.

lamblichus, Protrept. 21, p. 132, Arcer.

XCVI. — Origen, c. Cels. vi. 12, p. 291. Context : — Nevertheless he (Celsus) wanted to show that this was a fabrication of ours and taken from the Greek philosophers, who say that human wisdom is of one kind, and divine wisdom of another. And he brings forward some phrases of Heraclitus, one where he says, "For human nature does not possess understanding, but the divine does.** And another, " The thoughtless man understands the voice of the Deity as little as the child understands the man " ("i^ifrag. 97).

108 HERACLITUS.

XCVII. — The thoughtless man understands the voice of the Deity as little as the child understands the man.®

XCVIII.— Plato, Hipp. mai. 289 B. And does not Heraclitus, whom you bring forward, say the same, that the wisest of men compared with God appears an ape in wisdom and in beauty and in all other things ?

XCIX. — Plato, Hipp. mai. 289 A. You are ignorant, my man, that there is a good saying of Heraclitus, to the effect that the most beautiful of apes is ugly when compared with another kind, and the most beautiful of .earthen pots is ugly when compared with maiden- kind, as says Hippias the wise.

C. — The people must fight for their law as for their walls.

CI. — Greater fates gain greater rewards.

CII. — Gods and men honor those slain in war.

CHI. — Presumption must be quenched even more than a fire.^

XCVII.— Origen, c. Cels. vi. 12, p. 291. Context, see frag. 96.

Compare M. Antoninus iv. 46. Context, see frag. 5.

XCVIII. — Compare M. Antoninus iv. 16.

XCIX. — Compare Plotinus, Enn. vi. 3, p. 626.

Aristotle, Top. iii. 2, p. 117 b 17.

C. — Diogenes Laert. ix. 2. Context : — And he (Heraclitus) used to say, ** It is more necessary to quench insolence than a fire '^ (= frag. 103). And, ** The people must fight for their law as for their walls."

CI. — Clement of Alex. Strom, iv. 7, p. 586. Context : — Again Aeschylus, grasping this thought, says, "To him who toils, glory from the gods is due as product of his toil.'* " For greater fates gain greater rewards," according to Heraclitus.

TheodoretuB, Therap. viii. p. 117, 33.

Compare Hippolytus, Ref. haer. v. 8.

CII. — Clement of Alex. Strom, iv. 4, p. 571. Context : — Heraclitus said, " Gods and men honor those slain in war."

Theodoretus, Therap. viii. p. 117, 33.

cm. — Diogenes Laert. ix. 2. Context, see frag. 100.

ON NATURE. 109

CIV. — For men to have whatever they wish, would not be well. Sickness makes health pleasant and good ; hunger, satiety ; weariness, rest.

— Diogenes Laert. ix. 2. Context, see frag. 100.

ON NATURE. 109

CIV. — For men to have whatever they wish, would not be well. Sickness makes health pleasant and good ; hunger, satiety ; weariness, rest.

CV. — It is hard to contend against passion, for whatever it craves it buys with its life.

CVI. — fit pertains to all men to know themselves and to learn self-control, f

CVII. — t Self -control is the highest virtue, and wis- dom is to speak truth and consciously to act according to nature. t^

CVIII. — It is better to conceal ignorance, but it is hard to do so in relaxation and over wine.

CIV.— Stobaeus Floril. iii. 83, 4.

Compare Clement of Alex. Strom, ii. 21, p. 497.

Theodoretus, Therap. xi. p. 152, 25. Context: — Heraclitus the Ephesian changed the name but retained the idea, for in the place of pleasure he put contentment.

CV. — lamblichus, Protrept. p. 140, Arcer. Context: — Heraclitus is a witness to these statements, for he says, "It is hard to contend against passion," etc.

Aristotle, Eth. Nic. ii. 2, p. 1105 a 8.

Idem, Eth. Eud. ii. 7, p. 1223 b 22.

Idem, Pol. V. 11, p. 1315 a 29.

Plutarch, de Cohib. ira 9, p. 457.

Idem, Erot. 11, p. 755.

Compare Plutarch, Coriol. 22.

Pseudo-Democritus fr. mor. 77, Mullach.

Longinus, de Subl. 44.

CVI.— Stobaeus Floril. v. 119.

CVII.— Stobaeus Floril. iii. 84.

CVIII. — Plutarch, Qu. Conviv. iii. proem., p. 644. Context : — Simonides, the poet, seeing a guest sitting silent at a feast and con- versing with no one, said, " Sir, if you are foolish you are doing wisely, but if wise, foolishly,'* for, as Heraclitus says, "It is better to conceal ignorance, but it is hard," etc.

Idem, de Audiendo 12, p. 43.

Idem, Virt. doc. posse 2, p. 439.

Idem, from Stob. Floril. xviii. 32.

110 HERACLITUS.

CIX. — ^flt is better to conceal ignorance than to ex- pose it.f

ex. — It is law, also, to obey the will of one.*^

CXI. — For what sense or understanding have they ? They follow minstrels and take the multitude for a teacher, not knowing that many are bad and few good. For the best men choose one thing above all — immortal glory among mortals ; but the masses stuff themselves like cattle.

CXII. — In Priene there lived Bias, son of Teutamus, whose word was worth more than that of others.

CXIII. — To me, one is ten thousand if he be the best.

CXIV. — The Ephesians deserve, man for man, to be hung, and the youth to leave the city, inasmuch as they have banished Hermodorus, the worthiest man among them, saying : " Let no one of us excel, and if

CIX.— Stobaeus Floril. iii. 82.

ex.— Clement of Alex. Strom, v. 14, p. 718 (Euseb. P. E. xiii. 13, p. 681). Context, see frag. 65.

13, p. 681). Context, see frag. 65.

CXI. — ^The passage is restored as above by Bemays (Heraclitea i. p. 34), and By water (p. 43), from the following sources :

Clement of Alex. Strom, v. 9, p. 682.

Proclus in Alcib. p. 255 Creuzer, = 525 ed, Cous. ii.

Clement of Alex. Strom, iv. 7, p. 586.

CXII. — Diogenes Laert. i. 88. Context: — And the fault-finding Heraclitus has especially praised him (Bias), writing, "In Priene there lived Bias, son of Teutamus, whose word was worth more than that of others," and the Prienians dedicated to him a grove called the Teutamion. He used to say, " Most men are bad.'*

CXIII. — Theodorus Prodromus in Lazerii Miscell. i. p. 20.

Idem, Tetrastich, in Basil. I (fol. k 2 vers. ed. Bas.).

Galenus, ^epl dcayv^aeug af^vyfiuv i. 1 ; t. 3, p. 53 ed. Bas.

Symmachus, Epist. ix. 115.

Compare Epigramm. from Diogenes Laert. ix. 16.

Cicero, ad. Att. xvi. 11.

Seneca, Epist. 7.

CXIV. — Strabo xiv. 25, p. 642. Context : — Among distinguished men of the ancients who lived here (Ephesus) were Heraclitus,

ON NATURE. Ill

there be any such, let him go elsewhere and among other people."

CXV.— Dogs, also, bark at what they do not know.

CXVI.— By its incredibility, it escapes their knowl- edge.*"^

CXVII.— A stupid man loves to be puzzled by every discourse.

CX VIII.— The most approved of those who are of repute knows how to cheat. Nevertheless, justice will catch the makers and witnesses of lies.^

CXIX.— Diogenes Laert. ix. 1. And he (Heraclitus)

caUed the obscure, and Hermodorus, of whom Heraclitus himself said, "The Ephesians deserve,** etc.

Cicero, Tusc. v. 105.

Musonius from Stob. Floril. xl. 9.

Diogenes Laert. ix. 2.

lamblichus, de Vit. Pyth. 30, p. 154 Arcer.

Compare Lucian, Vit. auct. 14.

Pseudo-Diogenes, Epist. 28, 6.

CXV. — Plutarch, An seni sit ger. resp. vii. p. 787. Context : — ^And envy, which is the greatest evil public men have to contend with, is least directed against old men. "For dogs, indeed, bark at what they do not know,** according to Heraclitus.

CXVI. — Plutarch, Coriol. 38. Context ;— But knowledge of divine things escapes them, for the most part, because of its incredibility, according to Heraclitus.

Clement of Alex. Strom, v. 13, p. 699. Context, see Crit. Note 36.

CXVII.— Plutarch, de Audiendo 7, p. 41. Context :— They re- proach Heraclitus for saying, " A stupid man loves,** etc.

Compare idem, de Aud. poet. 9, p. 28.

CXVIII.— Clement of Alex. Strom, v. 1, p. 649. Context :— " The most approved of those who are of repute knows how to be on his guard {(pvXdaaeiv, see Crit. Note 37). Nevertheless, justice will catch the makers and witnesses of lies,*' says the Ephesian. For this man who was acquainted with the barbarian philosophy, knew of the purification by fire of those who had lived evil lives, which afterwards the Stoics called the conflagration {kKnipuaiv).

Note 37). Nevertheless, justice will catch the makers and witnesses of lies,*' says the Ephesian. For this man who was acquainted with the barbarian philosophy, knew of the purification by fire of those who had lived evil lives, which afterwards the Stoics called the conflagration {kKnipuaiv).

CXIX. — Schleiermacher compares Schol. Ven. ad Iliad xviii. 251 and Eustathius, p. 1142, 5 ed. Rom., which, however, Bywater does not regard as referring to Heraclitus of Ephesus.

112 HERACLITUS.

used to say that Homer deserved to be driven out of the lists and flogged, and Archilochus likewise.

CXX. — One day is like all.

CXXI. — A man's character is his daemon.®

CXXII. — There awaits men after death what they neither hope nor think.

CXXIII. — And those that are there shall arise and become guardians of the living and the dead.^

CXXiy. — Night-roamers, Magians, bacchanals, rev- elers in wine, the initiated.

CXX. — Seneca, Epist. 12. Context : — Heraclitus, who got a nick- name for the obscurity of his writing, said, **One day is like all.** His meaning is variously understood. If he meant all days were equal in number of hours, he spoke truly. But others say one day is equal to all in character, for in the longest space of time you would find nothing that is not in one day, both light and night and alternate revolutions of the earth.

Plutarch, Camill. 19. Context : — Concerning unlucky days, whether we should suppose there are such, and whether Heraclitus did right in reproaching Hesiod who distinguished good and bad days, as being ignorant that the nature of every day is one, has been examined in another place.

CXXI.— Plutarch, Qu. Platon. i. 2, p. 999. Context :— Did he, therefore (viz. Socrates) call his own nature, which was very critical and productive, God? Just as Menander says, " Our mind is God." And Heraclitus, " A man's character is his daemon.'*

Alexander Aphrod. de Fato 6, p. 16, Orell.

Stobaeus Floril. civ. 23. Comp. pseudo-Heraclitus, Epist. 9.

CXXII.— Clement of Alex. Strom, iv. 22, p. 630. Context :— With him (Socrates), Heraclitus seems to agree when he says in his dis- course on men, " There awaits men," etc.

Idem, Protrept. 2, p. 18. Theodoretus, Therap. viii. p. 118, 1.

Themistius (Plutarch) from Stob. Floril. cxx. 28.

CXXIII. — Hippolytus, Ref. haer. ix. 10. Context: — And he (Heraclitus) says also that there is a resurrection of this visible flesh of ours, and he knows that God is the cause of this resurrection, since he says, ** And those that are there shall arise," etc.

Compare Clement of Alex. Strom, v. 1, p. 649.

CXXI V. — Clement of Alex. Protrept. 2, p. 18. Context : — Rites worthy of the night and of fire, and of the great-hearted, or rather

ON NATURE. 113

CXXV.— For the things which are considered mysteries among men, they celebrate sacrilegiously.

CXXVI.— And to these images they pray, as if one should prattle with the houses knowing nothing of gods or heroes, who they are.

113

CXXV.— For the things which are considered mysteries among men, they celebrate sacrilegiously.

CXXVI.— And to these images they pray, as if one should prattle with the houses knowing nothing of gods or heroes, who they are.

CXXVII.— For were it not Dionysus to whom they institute a procession and sing songs in honor of the pudenda, it would be the most shameful action. But Dionysus, in whose honor they rave in bacchic frenzy, and Hades are the same.*®

CXXVIII.— lamblichus, de Mysteriis v. 15. I distin- guish two kinds of sacrifices. First, those of men wholly purified, such as would rarely happen in the case of a single individual, as Heraclitus says, or of a

of the idle-minded people of the Erechthidae, or even of the other Greeks, for whom there awaits after death what they do not hope (see frag. 122). Against whom, indeed, does Heraclitus of Ephesus prophesy? Against night-roamers, Magians, bacchanals, revelers in wine, the initiated. These he threatens with things after death and prophesies fire for them, for they celebrate sacrilegiously the things which are considered mysteries among men (= frag. 125).

CXXV.— Clement of Alex. Protrept. 2, p. 19. Context, see frag. 124.

Compare Arnobius, adv. Nat. v. 29.

CXXVI.— Origen, c. Cels. vii. 62, p. 384.

Idem i. 5, p. 6.

Clement of Alex. Protrept. 4, p. 44. Context ; — But if you will not listen to the prophetess, hear your own philosopher, Heraclitus, the Ephesian, imputing unconsciousness to images, " And to these images," etc.

CXXVII.— Clement of Alex. Protrept. 2, p. 30. Context:— In mystic celebration of this incident, phalloi are carried through the cities in honor of Dionysus. ** For were it not Dionysus to whom they institute a procession and sing songs in honor of the pudenda, it would be the most shamful action," says Heraclitus. ** But Hades and Dionysus are the same, to whom they rave in bacchic frenzy," not for the intoxication of the body, as I think, so much as for the shameful ceremonial of lasciviousness.

Plutarch, de Iside 28, p. 362.

fp-

114 HBRACLITUS.

certain very few men. Second, material and corporeal sacrifices and those arising from change, such as are fit for those still fettered by the body.

CXXIX.— Atonements.*!

CXXX. — When defiled, they purify themselves with blood, just as if any one who had fallen into the mud should wash himself with mud 1

- - - — - - - _ _^ - - - — ^

CXXIX.— lamblichus, de Mys. i. 11. Context : — Therefore Hera- clitus rightly called them (scil. what are offered to the gods) ** atone- ments," since they are to make amends for evils and render the souls free from the dangers in generation.

Compare Hom. Od. xxii. 481. See Crit. Note 41.

i. 11. Context : — Therefore Hera- clitus rightly called them (scil. what are offered to the gods) ** atone- ments," since they are to make amends for evils and render the souls free from the dangers in generation.

Compare Hom. Od. xxii. 481. See Crit. Note 41.

CXXX. — Elias Cretensis in Greg. Naz. 1. 1. (cod. Vat. Pii. 11, 6, fol. 90 r). Context : — ^And Heraclitns, making sport of these people, says, "When defiled, they purify themselves with blood, just as if any one who had fallen into the mud should wash himself with mudr* For to suppose that with the bodies and blood of the unreasoning animals which they oflfer to their gods they can cleanse the impurities of their own bodies, which are stained with vile contaminations, is like trying to wash off mud from their bodies by means of mud.

Gregory Naz. Or. xxv. (xxiii.) 15, p. 466 ed. Par. 1778.

Apollonius, Epist. 27.

Compare Plotinus, Enn. i. 6, p. 54.

CRITICAL NOTES. 115

CRITICAL NOTES.

Fragment 1.

Note 1. — Instead of X vla y Kid tpy dTis avToi(ri fiaprvpefi Trapfdvrag dTTiivai,

I V • KoKoi fjLdpTVp€s dpBpdmoUTi 6 ois xprjtrSai /xapruat TTfpi r5>v ayvoovfiivtoVf onrep oi npo rffi&v TTtpi r&v nXeioTtov, dmiTTOvg dfKlnaprjTovfiivtov 7raptxdfi€Voi ^ciSaioarar Kara r6v 'HpaicXetTop.

X V • *0(j}6aXfio\ tS>v ooTiov aKptfieartpoi pApTVp€S>

XVI. IJdKvfiaBitj v6ov tx^^iv ov bidd(rKH * 'Hcriobov yap &v idiba^e koi TlvBayopijv aZrls re ^^vo^dvta Koi 'Eiearaiop.

X V II. TlvBaydprjs Mvrj(rdp)(ov iaropirjv flaKrja€ dvBpmnav fmKiara TrdvTojv, Koi iicKe^dfKvos ravrag rds ovyypa v»

XX. Kdarpiop t6v avrov dirdvTtav oijrt rts B(S>v oSt€ dvBpGainav (iroiTjo'ff oXX ^v a(€t koi t Vt &an€p x.pv(Tov Xpiipjora KcX xpr^pjcertav xpv€f6s»

XXIII. QaXaacra diax^^Tai koX ficrpcerai is tov avTov \6yov okoios irpdoBev rjv ^ ytveaBai Ty^y.

XXIV. XprjapoavvTj . . . Kdpos,

XXV. Z^ irvp TOP yrjs BdvaTovj Koi d^p Cfj tov irvpos Bdvarov * vdtop Cjj TOV depos BdvaTOVf yrj t6v vbaTog,

XXVI. UdvTa t6 TTvp infXBov Kpivtei koL KaToKrj'^eTai.

XXVII. T^ fiiy bvvdv TTOTc 7rS>s av Tig \dBoi ;

XXVIII. Ta de irdvra olaKiCd K€pavv6g.

XXIX. "HXiof ovx vTrep^^flrerai ptTpa * e/ dc /xi/i ^Epivv€g pty bUrjg fTTiKOvpoi f^evprjo'ova'i.

XXX. * Hovg Ka\ iaTTeprjs T€ppaTa ^ tipKTOg, Ka\ dtrrlop Trjg apicrov oZpog alBpiov Ai6g,

XXXI. E^ prj rfKiog rjvf ^v^p6vri hv ^v»

126 HBRACLITUS.

XXXIII. Diogenes Laert. i. 23: doicct de (scil. eoX^y) Kara

Tivas np&Tos daTpo\oyrj v avp.Tr\oKriv kclL (rvvapfioy^v 6 xp6voi ov\ &n\S>s ioTi Klvrjais aK\\ aawep eipi/rai, Kivrjcris iv ra^et fxtrpov fX^^^ *°'

•

iripara kclI 7r€pi6bovs. &v 6 ^los cViardri;; a>p Koi iricoTruf , 6pi(€iv koi Ppafievtiv Koi dvadfiKvvvai Koi dva(f)alv€tv fifrafioXas Koi &pas at ndpra ^ipovdiy Kad *Hpa/cX€irop, ovbe Vf dWa tS>v p.^yltrrtav Koi Kvpiayrdrav r^ ^efidvi koi 9rpa>ra> ^e^ yiverai avv€py6s*

AiddfTKaXos be nXtioTciv 'Haiobos ' tovtov fTrlirravTcu TrXeiora fldfvaif oaris fifjjprjv koi evtppdvrjv ovk eyiWcrice * ?(m yap ev*

XXXVI. 'O Bchs Tipjfpri evKJypdvfjj ;(ci/liq>i/ BepoSt TroXc/xof €lpTivrj, Kopos XifjLos * aXXoiovrai de oKcaarrep SKdrav avfjLfJuy^ Bvoap.ao'i ' 6vop.d(eTai KaB rfbov^p tKaarov.

XXXVII. Aristoteles de Sensu 5, p. 443 a 21 : doK€l d' hiois

rj KaTTvoadrjs dvaBvp.laais uvai 6 koi ndvTts €'!n €povTai iifi rovro irtpX 6(rp.TJs ' di6 Kal 'HpdieXeirof ovrcar ftprjKtv, cDf e^ ndvra ra Svra Kairvhs yeVoiro, pilv^s hv diayvoUv.

XXXVIII. At yjrvxal ocrfwivrat KaB* qdrjv,

XXXIX. Ta yjtvxpa Beperaiy BtppJov ^v;(CTat, vypov avaiveraij KOp- €p6fi€Pov €a>ura> o/xoXoy/ci * naXivrpoiros dpfiopii} oKoxnr^p t6^ov Koi Xvprjs,

XLVI. Aristoteles Eth. Nic. viii. 2, p. 1155 b 1 : koi ttc/jI

avTojp TovTOP dpoartpop cVi^i/rovcri koi (pvaiKOirepop * Evptiridrjs p^p (jidtTKoop ipap pip Spppov yaiap (ffpapBeia'aVf ipdp de (r€pp6p ovpaphp ttXj;- povpcpop SpPpov rreaeip es yalap * Koi 'HpaieXciror t6 dpri^ovp avptfytpoPy Koi €K tS>p dia(f)€p6pT(0P KoKXiaTTip &ppopiap^ Koi ndpra kot tpip ylptaBai,

XL V II. 'Appopii] difyap^s (papfprjs Kpdaatop,

XL V III. Mrf €iKri n€p\ t5>p pcyicrrap avpfiaXapfBa.

XLIX. Xp^ €^ pdXa TToWStP toTopas ^(Xoiro^ov; apdpas tipat,

L. Tpa p dppcaarovPTcaPy ravra ipya^dpepoi rd dyaBd koi I ra? p6 €p6fi€vov bia(l>€p6fi€P0Vy avv^dov di^dop * €K irdvT(OP cv icai €^ tvos Trdpra, ^

LX. AiKrjs odvofia otK hv jjdeaaVf et ravra, firj rjv>

LXI. Schol. B. in II. iv. 4, p. 120 Bekk. : dnpms a s Tt noXepoi Koi fidx^^ '?/**" M^" dcti'a boKfiy r^ de ^eoJ ovde ravra ddvd, crvi'TcXet yap dnavra 6 Be6s npbi dppoviav tS>v oXcdv, oIkovo- ponv ra avp.(l>€povraf oncp Kal *H/>a#c\€tTOff Xeyct, wy t^ fUv $€(0 KtiKa irdvra Kal dyaOa Kal d/xaia, avOptonoi be d pev dbiKa imeikriclyaaiVj a dc dt#caia.

LXII. Eldfvai xph '■o*' TToXepop iovra fwov, kcll diKrjv tpiv ' Ka\ yivd- pfva irdvra Kar tpiv KaX J ;^pf w/iiei/a J.

LXI 11. *EoTi yap (Ipappeva trdvras * * * *.

LXIV. Qdvaros iari 6x00*0 iyepBevrfs 6p€op.ev, oKoaa de evdopres

VTTVOS.

IjXV. *Ei/ ro (TO^hv povvov ' XeytfrBai ovk e^eXct Kal eBfkei Zrjvoe oHvopa,

LX V I. ToO /SioO oHifopa PloSf tpyov be Odvaros*

LXVII. *K.6dvaroi Bvrjroif Bvrjfroi dBdvaroi, CSiirrcs r6v eKtipiOP Bdparop rhp be iK€lpv>p filov reBpewret.

LXVIII. S^vxtjo"^ y^p Bdvaros vbaap ycveV^at, vbari be Bdvaroi yrjp yepeaBai ' eK y^s be vbfop yiperai, e^ vbaros be ^v^q*

LXIX. *0b6s dpca Korto pia KaX cavr^.

LXX. ^vpov dpx^l KOi trepas,

LXXI. "^vxj^s neipara ovk dp i^evpoio ndcap eimropevoptpos obdp,

LXXII. ^vxii rdrrj KaX dpiarr} "f". • LXXVII. "ApBpioiroff oK aKOVT€S (apud Hesiod. ff. 163 Goettling) trrj TpidKovra iroiovai t^p ytpcap KaO ^HpajcXeirop * ip S XP^^V yepp&pra napt^fi t6p €^ avTov yeyepprjp^pop 6 ytpp^tras,

^vxii rdrrj KaX dpiarr} "f". • LXXVII. "ApBpioiroff oK aKOVT€S (apud Hesiod. ff. 163 Goettling) trrj TpidKovra iroiovai t^p ytpcap KaO ^HpajcXeirop * ip S XP^^V yepp&pra napt^fi t6p €^ avTov yeyepprjp^pop 6 ytpp^tras,

LXXXVIII. lo. Lydus de Mensibus iii. 10, p. 37 ed. Bonn :

6 TpuiKopra dpiBp^s (fyvaiKdyrards icmp ' h yap ip popdai rpidsy rovro eV dcKdai TpiaKoprds. irrtX koI 6 rov prjphs kvkKos (ntpt(rniK€P iK T€a' p Tr€ioi pdpoi im6 Ms rov Btlov * Kpar€€i yap ToaovTOP oKoo'op iBiXii Kal i^apK€€i iraat Kal nepiyipfrai,

XCII. Tov \6yov d' idpTos ^vpov, ^coovo'i ot ttoXXoI cos Ibirjp cxpprts ^povr^aip,

XGIII. *Qi /LtdXiora 8iriP(K€ v cKaarrov els XBtov d7roaTp€(l)far6ai,

X'C VI. H^of yap dv6pam€iov pjev ovk e;^€4 yvcjfia?, Btlov bt ex««

XC V II. 'Avffp vTfinos IJKovtjc irphs balpxivo^ oKtoawcp irais irp6s dvdp6£,

XC VIII. Plato Hipp. mai. 289 B : fj ol Koi ^Upd^XeiTos tqMp

TovTo X«y€t, hv (TV endycif ori dv6pd>ir ^^ "P" mB^KOiv 6 KoWicrros al(rxpo5 oXXo) yevei avfipdXXeiv, Koi x^p^^ h 'caXXion; alo'XpO' TrapBevcav yivu (rvfifidWeiVf &? (I)rj(riv iTnrias 6 tro^s*

C. Md^etrOai, xph '''^^ brjiJLop virtp rov vdfiov okchs imtp Ttix^os,

CI. Mopoi yap fjLt(ou€s fjJ^ovas polpas Xayxdvovai*

CII. ^KpriK^Tovs Beoi ripSi(n xai duBpairoi.

cm. ^Yfipiv xph O'fifwveiv fiaWop § frvpKaXrfv.

CI V • *AvBpamoia'i yiveaBai OKdaa BeXovai oi>K ap^ivop* povtros vyUiav €iroirja€ ^dv Ka\ dyaBdpj Xifibs K6pop, Kdfiaros dvdiravaip*

C V. Qvfi^ fidxf(rBai ;^aX€7r(5v* o rt yap hp XP^^Cv ytVccr^at, yjfvx^s

U>P€€Tai,

CVI. J*ApBpoimoia'i Trdat /xtVecrrt yiypa>aK€tp eavrovs Ka\ (roxftpopeipj,

C V II. I ^cafftpopcLP dp€Tri fieylcrrrj ' koi tro^iri dXijBea Xeyeip Kal noielp Kara (jivo'tp etratopras "f .

C V III. *ApjaBlrip afi€iPOP Kpxmrtw * epyop bi ip dpeati Ka\ trap' oIpov, CIX. "I" Kp\mr€ip dfmBlrjp Kpttraop rj «V rh fUaop (f>€p€ip "f.

ex. Nd/L(of Kal fiovkj irclBcarBai tpos,

CXI. Tis yap avrSiP p6os tj (l>priP', ibrffuopj doidolai eiroprai Kal dtdacTicaXa) ;(p€a>vrai 6/LuXa>, ovk tlBdrcs ort TToXXot KaKol oKiyoi de dyaBoL aip€VPTai yap $p dpria irdprtop ol apiorroty JcXeof depaop BprjfrSiP, ol Be ttoXXoi K€K6priPTai oKoairep Krrjpea.

CXII. *Ep Ilpi^yj; Bias iytpfro 6 Tevra/ico), oZ nXemp \6yos ^ tS>p SKXiop,

TEXT. 131

CXIII. Elf €fio\ fivpioif iav apiaros 77.

OXIV. "A^iov 'Efftealots fj^rfdhv aTray^aaOai rracri Koi toIs avri^on rriv ir^Xii/ KaToKiiruvy CiTiveg *'Epyu6b aK v 6 boKifi^aros yipa> v dyoiPfav eiejSaXXco'dai koi pamC€(r3ai, koi ^Apxt^o^ov ofioioos.

CXX. Unus dies par omni est.

CXXI. *Hdor dvBpamt^ daifiav.

CXX II. *Ap6pmrovs fuvci Tekfvr^aavras &a(ra ovk eknovrai ovdt BoK€ovcn.

CXXIII, "EvBade idvrai eTravlaraa-Bai koi v\aKas yivetrOai cycprt ( p diroK€KaBappApap TraPTdnaaiP dpBpmraPt out £0 €p6s ap TTorc ycpoiro airapitosj &s (^i/crip 'HpaieXcirof, ^ tipcup 6\iyci>p evapiBjxrjrap dpdp&p ' ra ^ €Pv\a kA\ (T p.aros dpfioCci.

The Fragments of the Work of Heraclitus of Ephesus on Nature — G. T. W. Patrick (1889)

The text