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<5yov, MS has ddyfiarog^ corrected by Bernays, followed by all critics except Bergk.
Fbagment 2.
Note 2. — The ^yog of Heraclitus stood for the element of order or law in the ever-shifting world. Our word Reason may express the same idea more in accord with the thought of that time (see Introduction, p. 59 ff.). Zeller and Pfleiderer understand by it, Reason ruling or immanent in the world ; Heinze, the objective (unconscious) law of Reason ; Bernays, conscious Intelligence ; Teichmiiller, self-conscious Reason ; Schuster, on the other hand, regards it as the " revelation offered us by the audible Speech of Nature.'* In the present passage, Zeller is inclined to understand by Toif X6yov TovSe^ primarily the discourse of the author, but contain- ing also the idea of the content of the discourse, i, e. the theory of the world laid down in his book (Vol. 1, p. 572, 2). For fuller account of the ^yoc, compare Introduction, pp. 8, 12, 28, 45, 59, 61.
Fragment 13.
Note 3. — Bvwater reads, "Oauv d'lfjig d/cor) fiddf^aic, ravra ky^ Trporifdo ;
Compare Introduction, p. 19 f .
Fragment 15.
Note 4. — Compare Introduction, p. 48. Bernays (Rhein. Mus.
ix. 261 f.) offers the explanation that the eyes are more exact
witnesses than the ears, because by the eyes we have the only pure
cognition of fire, in the perception of which is the only true
knowledge.
Fragment 18.
Note 5.— See Introduction, p. 36 ff.
Fragment 19.
Fragment 20.
Note 7. — The sense of dndvruv is uncertain. In the citations from Plutarch and Simplicius, the word is omitted ; they read
116 HERACLTTUS.
K6afiov Toude, Zeller, whose interpretation of the word we have followed, takes it as masculine, referring to the gods and men, the meaning then being, that since gods and men are included in the world as part of it, they could not have created it. Schuster, on the other hand, renders it as follows : ** Die Welt, die alles in sich befasst [die neben sich weder f iir andre Welten noch fiir einen Schopfer Kaum hat],'* etc. •
Fragment 21.
Note 8. — TiprjGTijp is rendered by Schuster "fiery wind'* such as forms the stars. Zeller (Vol. 1, p. 588, 1) believes it has essen- tially the same signification as Kepawdg in frag. 28, both words being other terms for the world-ruling fire or formative principle of the
world.
Fragment 23.
Note 9. — Eusebius omits yv, and is followed by Lassalle and
Heinze. The former (Vol. 2, p. 63) translates, ** Das Meer wird
ausgegossen und gemessen nach demselben Logos, welcher zuerst
war, ehe es (selbst) noch war," and finds here a confirmation of his
interpretation of the Logos as the eternal preexisting law of the
identity of being and not-being. Heinze understands it as follows :
"Das Meer verwandelt sich in denselben Logos, also in dasselbe
Feuer, von welcher Beschaffenheit es vorher war, ehe es selbst
entstand." Schuster reads yv^ and translates, " Das Meer ergiesst
sich und nimmt sein Maass ein im selben Umfang, wie damals als
noch keine Erde war'* (p. 129). Zeller reads 7^ and understands
the passage to refer to the return of the earth into the sea from
which it sprang. By ^6yog here he understands "proportion of
magnitude "or " size," so that k t6v avrbv X6yov means that the sea
returns "to the same size" as before it became earth (Vol. 1, p.
Fragment 24.
Note 10. — See Introduction, pp. 15, 22, 68.
Fragment 25.
Note 11. — ^This fragment is not accepted by Zeller, who holds that air was not recognized by Heraclitus as one of the elements, but that he accepted only the three, fire, water, and earth. Air was added, Zeller thinks, by later writers, who confused it with the " soul " of Heraclitus (Vol. 1, p. 615). Schuster, who thinks Hera- clitus did not teach a specific number of elements after the manner of Empedocles, regards the passage as trustworthy (p. 157 flf.). Teichmiiller gives to air an important place in the system of Heracli- tus, distinguishing the upper pure air, which is not different from fire, and the impure lower air (Vol. 1, p. 62).
Critical Notes. 117
Fragment 27.
Note 12. — Schleiermacher, followed by Mullach, reads TLva for Tig, so that the sense becomes, "How can that which never sets escape any one?** This is unnecessary and violates the context in Clement. That which never sets is the eternal Order or Law, con- ceived here as Destiny or Justice. According to Zeller (Vol. 1, p. 590), that which never sets is fire. According to Schuster (p. 184), it is Relation or Law, and the riq refers to Helios, which, though itself the centre of power and intelligence, is yet subject to law. Teich- miiller (Vol. 1, p. 184) understands it to refer to Justice or Destiny, which never sets like the sun, and which none can escape.
Fragment 35.
Note 13. — UMoTuv may be taken as neuter: "Hesiod was a
teacher of the greatest number of things." On the unity of day
and night, compare Introduction, p. 32 f .
Fragment 36.
Fragment 38.
Note 15. — Schleiermacher and Zeller think it doubtful whether any sense can be made out of this fragment. For Schuster's fanciful explanation, see' Introduction, p. 18 f. Bernays (Rhein. Mus. ix. p. 265, 6) interprets it to mean that the perception of fire, upon which depends the existence of the soul, is gained after death and the extinction of the sense of sight, by the sense of smell, just as the passage from Aristotle (frag. 37) teaches that in the conflagra- tion of the world, all perception will be by the nostrils. Pfleiderer (p. 218) suggests dacovvrat for baficjvrai.
118 HERACLITUS.
Fbagmsmt 40.
Note 16. — Of this passage from Plutarch only the words aKiSvffat ml awdyet, irf,6aeiai ml aneiaij can with any certainty be attributed directly to Heracliuis. The rest bears marks of later hands, as shown by Bernays (Heraklit. Brief e, p. 65), and Zeller (Vol. 1, p. 576, 2).
Fbaqment 45.
Note 17. — Bernays' explanation of this passage (Rhein. Mus. vii. p. 94 ; compare Introduction, p. 44 f .) has been followed by Zeller, Schuster (partly), and Arnold Hug. According to this interpretation, the association of the bow and lyre lies in their form, which in the case of the old Greek or Scythian bow with its arms bent back at the ends, was like that of the lyre. Hence we have in the bow and the lyre, two distinct illustrations of harmony by opposite straining tension. Lassalle (Vol. 1, p. 113) understands it to refer to the harmony between the bow and the lyre ; the bow and the lyre being symbols in the Apollo cult, the one of singularity and differ- ence, the other, of universality and union. On Pfleiderer's modi- fication of Lassalle' s view, see Introduction, p. 44. In place of t6^ov Kol XvpijCj Bast reads rov b^iog re koX ^apkog, Bergk conjectures t6^ov kol v€^)pf/g. On the interpretation of this passage by Plutarch and Plato's Eryximachus as the harmony of sharps and flats in music, compare Hug (Platons Symposion, p. 77, 5) and Zeller (Vol. 1, p. 578, 2). Compare frags. 56, 43, 59.
Fbagmbnt 47. Note 18. — Schuster (p. 24, note) reads k tI yap (pijaiv^ apfiaviri CKftavrjq
(^avEpTjq Kpeirruv ; See Introduction, p. 20, and Zeller, Vol. 1, p. 604, 1.
Fragment 50.
Note 19. — MS reads ypa<ftiov ; Duncker and Bywater, yva<pio)v ;
Bernays, yva^e/^.
Fragment 55.
Note 20. — The common reading is Trdv ipirerbv t^ y^v vifierat^ which Zeller retains, understanding it to refer to the beastliness of men, who "feed upon the earth like the worm " (Vol. 1, p. 660). Pfleiderer likewise accepts this reading, quoting Sallust, Catil. 1 : Vitam silentio transeunt veluti pecora, quae natura prona atque ventri obedientia finxit. That TTAnytji, the reading of Stobaeus, followed by Bywater, is correct, however, is shown by comparison with iEschylus, Ag. 358, ^ibg TTAayav exovaiv emelv, and Plato's Criti. 109 B, Kaddirep noi/uiveg ktt^vt] nAijyy vijuovreg. With this reading, the sense then becomes that man is subject to eternal divine force or law.
Critical Notes. 119
Fbagmbnt 56.
Note 21. — Compare frag. 45 and note 17. Bywater reads fraXlvrovoi etpfioviri^ here ; but though in three passages, those namely given under this fragment, iraXivTovog is found in the MSS, yet the context even in Plutarch, where sharps and flats are spoken of, calls for the meaning "harmony of oppositions," as explained in note 17, for which we should expect iraUvrponoQ rather than Tra^vrovog,
Fbagmbnt 60.
Note 22. — What is referred to by ravra^ " these things," has been questioned. Teichmiiller, followed by Pfleiderer, has given the true explanation. Tavra refers to some idea the opposite of "justice." Clement is illustrating the Pauline principle that without law there would have been no sin. For this, Heraclitus, whose prominent thought was, no war without peace, no good without bad, etc., served him as good authority.
Fragment 62.
Note 23. — The original text is as follows : Ei 6k xf^ tov ir67^fiov
Schuster (p. 198) — ** In dem Falle muss man also den gemeinsamen Krieg sogar Recht nennen und [sagen] das alles [nur] in Folge des Streites entsteht und sich aufbraucht."
Lassalle — "Man muss wissen dass der Krieg das Gemeinsam ist, und der Streit das Recht, und dass nach dem Gesetz des Streits ajiles wird und verwendet wird (or lit. und sich bethatigt)."
Aw6i in this passage has almost the signification "common good."
Fragment 64.
Note 24. — Critics have expended their ingenuity in trying to make something out of this obscure fragment. Teichmiiller (Vol. 1, p. 97 fE.) says that we have here the distinction of the intelligible from the sensible world. The former is the pure, light, fiery and most incor- poreal being, compared with which the world of the senses is death. Zeller (Vol. 1, p. 651) similarly refers it to the testimony of the senses, which see the world as something " stiff and dead," when really everything is in constant motion. Schuster (p. 276) labors with a far-fetched interpretation to show that the passage does not
120 HBRACLITUS.
cast any disparagement upon the senses. For Pfleiderer's explana- tion, see Introduction, p. 43. All these interpretations look for a theoretical meaning, when it is quite possible that no theoretical meaning was intended. It is simpler to compare it with frag. 2, and refer it to Heraclitus* repeated charge against the people, of their sleep-like condition when awake.
Feagment 65.
Note 25. — We have followed Schuster's punctuation of this frag- ment. • Bywater, with other critics, reads, "Ev to ao<^v fiovvov A^yeaOai ovk ediXei Koi kOiXu 7ti]vog ovvofia. To ao<p6Vf here, is the WOrld- ruling Wisdom or Order, to which Heraclitus applies many names. (See Introduction, p. 60 f .) It wills and wills not to be called by the name of Zeus, because that name, while it points towards its true nature, yet but partly indicates it, or in part wrongly. The variety of meanings, however, which have been drawn from this fragment may be shown by the following translations. Schlei- ermacher (and Lassalle): "Das Eine Weise allein will nicht ausgesprochen werden und will ausgesprochen werden, der Name des Zeus." Schuster: **Nur eines ist die Weisheit; sie lasst sich nicht und lasst sich doch auch wieder benennen mit des Zeus Namen." Bernays: "Eines, das allein Weise, will und will auch nicht mit des Zz/v Namen genannt werden." The poetical form TiTTvog is chosen, thinks Bernays, to indicate that the One Wise is the source of " life." Zeller : " Eines, das allein Weise, will und will auch nicht mit dem Namen des Zeus benannt werden." Pfleiderer : "Als Eins will das weise Allwesen, Zeus genannt, nicht bezeichnet werden und will es." Teichmiiller: "Die Weisheit, Zeus genannt, will allein eins heissen und will es auch nicht."
Feagment 72.
Note 26. — This fragment is connected by Schuster and Zeller with the group of passages concerning rest in change (see frags. 82, 83), and refers to the pleasure which the rest and change of death bring to souls. They therefore reject the pti) Odmrov of Numenius as not Heraclitic. (Schuster, p. 191, 1. Zeller, p. 647, 2.) Pfleiderer, how- ever (p. 222), retains the /^v Odvarov as genuine, and explains that it is a pleasure to souls to become wet, because so by pursuing the way down into apparent death, they attain their new birth of life in death. He therefore retains also the ripipiv de elvai avraig ttjv elq t^v yevEGLv TTToxjiVt of Numenius, as expressing the true sense of the
passage.
Fragment 74.