MASTER NEGATIVE NO. 93-81672- MICROFILMED 1 993 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK as part of the n ^*r> Toundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project Funded by the NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES Reproductions may not be made without permission from Columbia University Library COPYRIGHT STATEMENT fSlr reproductions of copyrighted material. under certain conditions speciffed in the 1^^^^^ archives are ^"»">"^^JL°J'l"^i^^*^^mns is that the reproduction. One of »hese speci lea cora ph'itocopy or otherrepro^^^^^^^^^^ Sfh^^rrS a rej est for. or .a;e-es.^ gsTt^°ars;rTne^°«^^^^^^^^^ This institution reserves t^^^^^^^ rrinv^ol'e lloJltlo^W copyright iaw. A UTHOR: HEIDEL, WILLIAM ARTHUR TITLE: ON CERTAIN FRAGMENTS OF THE PLACE: [BOSTON] DA TE: 1913 ~1 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT ^ifiUQGRAPHicjviiaiomRMJDy^ Master Negative U 5 5_-_|J C_|_J - I Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record D109 H36 ^^ '•,"'"''>' "• fh='osorhy PJiMlJI I ■■! WL ■ I II iiii "m « ■ Heiuel, William Arthur, 1868-ig^ j ... On certain fracnents of the'pre-Socratios: , critical notes and elucidations... p. [6813-734. 24cm. Proceedings of the American academy of ' arts and sciences. Vol. XLVIII, no. 19. i.iay. 1913 Restrictions on Use: _ »- REDUCTION RATIO: fC>'. TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA FILM SIZE: ~_5£Cl^y:i_ IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA IIA^Ib IIB DATE FILMED: _T^ ^ ^ INITIAI q FILMED BY: Iin_SEARaIPuEiCASoS^^ CT k " ' ' * ■.■■.■ — ■• 'SUSitiS^S^fii; c Association for information and Image {Management 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 301/587-8202 Centimeter 12 3 4 iin ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii mi liiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil 7 8 9 liliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliii 10 11 12 13 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 14 15 mm Inches I I 1 2 I I I I I 3 .0 I.I .25 TTT 1^ 2.8 2.5 m u^ 3.2 2.2 u^ 3.6 UL illl 4£ 2.0 I& *^ ^ mi^u 1.8 1.4 1.6 T MfiNUFPCTURED TO flllM STfiNDRRDS BY fiPPLIED IMOGE, INC. 48-19 Proceedin ;s of the Americar Academy of Arts and Sciences. Vol. XLVIII. No. 19 ~ May, 1913. ON CERTAIN FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOC\ATICS : CRITICAL NOTES AND ELUCIDATIONS. By WiLL^v^f Artiiub I'eide^. PkDFESSOR of GkEKK. in \\\--^i:^i'AN UxiVERSll .V ft . . ;i. ■f ""*% % J— ^^C>v \ ^ ■■^ ^w^ tttmni h »'/-#»•- 5^gg2^g^>si".,_ \ - ' S^ is- Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. ^ Vol. XLVIII. No. 19 — May. 1913. M ON CERTAIN FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS : CRITICAL NOTES AND ELUCIDATIONS, By William Arthur Heidel, Professor of Greek in Wesleyan Universi TY. / L I . . ^ I I I '"'Si .■J / f f 1> I 0^. \ o .4 III i ON CERTAIN FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS : CRITICAL NOTES AND ELUCIDATIONS. By William Arthur Heidel. Presented April 9. Received February 28, 1913. The collection of notes here presented owes its origin to a request for suggestions from Professor Hermann Diels when he was engaged in revising Die Frar/mrnfr f/cr Vorsokmfikrr for the third edition, since pui)lished (1912). In response to his courteous invitation 1 sent, together with a list of errors noted in the second edition, a number of proposals for the emendation of texts and the interpretation of douht- ful passages. Had I then had the requisite leisure it would have heen my duty to explain and defend my suggestions; since that was im- possible, the notes then submitted were in effect mere marginah'a, to notice which as fully as Professor Diels has done required uncommon courtesy. To be permitted to contribute even in a small measure to so excellent an instrument of scholarship is an honor not lightly to be esteemed. The renewal of certain suggestions previously made but not accepted by Professor Diels is due solely to the (h\sire to enal)h^ him and other scholars to judge of their merits when the case for tliem is ])r()perly presented; others, in the correctness of which 1 stil! have conhdence, are here left unnoticed because, as referred to in the third edition, they are already reconh'd and bear on their face such creden- tials as are necessary for a j)roper estimate of tluMr claims. Hut \ here present for the first time a ccmsiderable number oi proposed readings and interpretations, the importance of wliich, if approved by the judgment of competent scholars, nuist be at cmce aj)parent to the historian of Greek thought. If it were customary to dedicate such studies, I should dedicate these notes to my honored teaclier and friend, Professor Diels, to whom I owe more for instruction and inspiration during a quarter of a century than 1 can liope to repay. In the following ])ages reference is made to chapter, page, and line 682 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. of his second edition (V^), because the pages of this edition are noted also in the margin of tlie third (V*^). c. 2. Anaximander. V^ 12, 28. niii. N. H. 2. 31. ()l.]i(iuitateni eius fsc. zodiaci] intellexisse, hoc est rerum foris aperuisse, Anaximander Mik\sius traditur primus. Perhaps the full significance of the chiuse 'lioc. . .aperuisse/ wliat- ever the source of the sentiment, is hardly appreciated. The Delphin edition refers to PHn. N. H. 35. 30 'artis foris apertas ah Apollodoro Ztuixis intravit'; hut that is not a real paralleh For such we turn rather to Lucrct. 1, 66 sq. Grains homo [sc. Epicurus] . . . ' CO magis acrcui irritat aiiiuii virtutem, cflVingere ut arta naturae primus ])ortjirum claustra cupirct. ergo vivi(hi vis animi pervieit, et extra processit longe flanuuautia moema luuiidi atque omne immensuin pc ragravit mcnte animoqiie, uufh^ ref(Tt uohis victor (pild possit oriri (juid neciueat, finita potcstas deni(iuc cuicpie quanam sit ratione atque alte teriuinus haerens. The same conception recurs Lucret. 3, 14 sq. nam simul ac ratio tua coepit vociferari naturam rerum, divina mente coorta, diHugiunt animi terrores, moenia nnmdi discechnit, toLum \ideo per inane geri res. For the:5t' passag€^s 1 would refer the reader to my essay, Die Be- kchrung iin klassischcn AHcrtuvi, mit hrsondercr BcrnrhsichiiqiuKj dcs LucrdiuSy Zeitschrift fiir Rehgion.sj)sychologie, Bd. Ill, Heft 11, p. 13 sq. Hcinze's parallels to Lucret. 3, 14 sq. ought to have made clear to him that there is \\eve an allusion to the ecstatic eTroTrreta of the mysteries evoked, as I pointed out, by the pronouncement of the Upos \6yos (ratio. . .divina mente coorta), coming as the climax of the rites of initiation, when the mvstae catch a vision and seize the significance of the world iiiroirTeveu' oe Kal irepLuoelv ttjv re cjyvaLV /cat rd Trpayfiara), according to (1cni. Alex. Strom, o. 11. Miilleron Lucil. 30, 1 compared Lucret. 1, 66 sq., and the editors of Lucretius have HEIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 683 copied the reference, although the resemblance is altogether superficial and without significance. Recently Professor Reid, Lucrciiana, Har- vard Studies in Class. Philology, Vol. 22, p. 2, has once more drawn attention to Sen. Dial. 8. 5. 6, Cogitatio nostra caeli munimenta per- rumpit nee contenta est id, quod ostenditur, scire: illud, inquit, scru- tor, quod ultra mundum iacet, utrumne profunda vastitas sit an et hoc ipsum terminis suis cludatur, etc. I doubt, however, the correctness of his statement that Seneca was here imitating Lucretius. It seems to me more probable that both authors are reproducing with some freedom the thought of an earlier, perhaps Stoic, writer, who may have been Posidom'us. Be that as it may, the thought common to Lucre- tius,^ Seneca, and Pliny (and I may add, Pishop Dionysius, ap. Euseb. 1*. E. 14. 27. 8) is that a great revelation has come, rending as it were the curtain or outer confines of the world and permitting a glimpse into the utmost secrets of nature. Such a revelation, according to Pliny, ensued upon the discovery of the oblicjuity of the ecliptic; and a study of early Greek cosmology clearly demonstrates the capital im]jortance attached to it. To some aspects of this question I drew attention in my article. The Mvr] in Anaximcurs and A?ia.viwandrr, Class. Philol., \'ol. 1, p. 279 sq. Very much more remains to be said, but I shall liave to reserve the matter for a future occasion. '^ »f V 13, 2. 'Apa^Lp.audpos . . . apxvu re /cat (ttolx^Iov etprjKe toou 6pto:v TO aiTHpov. For the meaning of apx-q Dicls refers in \^ to the preliminary statement in my Kept ^vaeo^s, Proceed, of Amer. Acad, of Arts and Sc, \ ol. 45, p. 79, n. 3. The subject has now received a fuller treatment in my essay On Anaximander^ Class. Philol., Vol. 8 (1912), p. 212 sq. To the statement there given, though nujch might be said l)y way of enlargement and confirmation, I tliink it unnecessary to add anything, except to say that the results of my investigations dovetail admirably into certain other observations recently made by different scholars. I refer among others to the A'iews of Otto Gilbert as to tlic original meaning of the 'elements' set forth in his Gricch. JMigion 6' philosophic, 1911, which reached me at the same time with tlie off-prints of my essay; and to Mr. (Vjrnford's conception of MoTpa as developed in From Religion to Philosophy, 1912. Unfortunately both these authors accept the Peripatetic tradition regarding the meaning of Anaxi- mander's apxr]\ consequently their observations remain fruitless when they proceed to interpret the early history of Greek philosophy. 684 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. V^ 13, 7. didouaL yap clvto. dLKrjp Kal tIolv aWrjXoLS rrjs d5i/vtas /card TTjV TOV XP(>^OV TCL^LP. In his note on tliis passage* (V^ 1"), 2(S) Dicls repeats liis former explanation, "dXXT]Xots: clafiiu.s coinmodi: das T^nterviously on the assumption that the preeedinii: sentenee in SimpHeius, ej 03v be rj yeveais eari rots ovcL, Kal r'f]v *] scj., \ showed ('()n( lusively (1) that it is not in rjp aPTibiboaaLP aWrjXoLSy which Philo attributes to Heraclitus and the Stoics, applies with equal propriety to Anaximander, and ex])lains his meaning. These different factors, combated also with the seasonal changes, are mentioned by Plato, Legg. 9()() (', cjyapep 6' elpai tov to pvp opopa'^^bpepop dpapTrjpa, TTJV irXeope^iap, ep pep aapKLPOLS acopaatp poarjpa KaXovpePOP, ep be oopais eTOiv Kal ePiavTols Xoipop, ep be iroXeaLP Kal TroXiretats tovto avTO, prjpaTL peTeaxvpo.Ttapepop, dbiKiap. The connection, here hardly more than suggested, is clearly noted by Plato, Symp. bSS A, eirel Kal rj toop copu)p TOV epiavTOv avaTaats pecTTrj ecFTLP dpcfyoTepoop tovtcop, Kal eireibap pep Tpos dXXy]Xa tov Koapiov tvxV epcoros d pvpbrj ey(h eXeyop, to. re Beppd Kal TO. \l/vxpd Kal ^-qpd Kal vypd, Kal dppopiap Kal Kpdaip Xd^lrj acc(l)popa, rfKet (j)epoPTa eveTrjpiap re Kat vyieiap dpdpoowoLs Kal-Toh dXXots i'ojots re Kal (/)i'rots, Kat ovbep -qbcKyjaep • OTap be 6 peTa rrjs vf-ipeojs "Epcos eyKpaTe- crrepos Trept rds tov epcavTOv copas yeprjTat, bLe4)6eipep re iroXXd Kal r)blK7](7ep. On this passage cp. Hirzel, Thcniis, Dike inid WrwandtcSy ]). 220 s(|. The medical doctrine expounded by Kryximachus in the Symposium, although perhaps slightly colored with Heraclitean thought, is that of the Hippocratic treatises, notably of Ilept (fyvdios dpdpcoTov, from whicli we may quote one i)assage, c 7 (6.48 L.), KaTa 4>V(np yap avTeco Taind eaTt paXtcra tov ePiavTOv . . . exet pep ovp raura Trdj^ra atet to aoopa tov dpdpcoirov, viro be tyjs irepuaTapeprjs c6pr/s vrore pep TrXeio) yipeTai aurd eoovTcop, vrore be eXdaaoo, eKaaTa KaTa pepos [= ep P-epet] Kal KaTa (jyvaip [sc. tov eviavTOv] . . . laxv^L be ep t(2 ePLavT(2) totI pep 6 x^tpcbi^ paXiGTa, TOTe be to rjp, TOTe be to Oepos, totI be to (pdipo- TTixipop ' ovTCi) be Kal ep t(2 dpOpcowcx) TOTe pep to (f)Xeypa laxvec, TOTe be to alpa, TOTe be 77 xoXi], irpooTOP pep 77 ^apOrj, eTretra 5' rj peXaipa KaXeopePTj. Not to repeat what I ha\ e elsewhere said in I'cgard to the doctrines of Heraclitus and Empedocles, I refer the reader to my essay QuaUtative Chnufjc in Prc-Socndic Philompluj, Archiv fiir (jcsch. der Pln'Ios., Vol. 10. pp. 3()() s({. and .']65. Since the d5tKta and the biKr] Kal tlcfls of Anaximander refer not to the origin and destruction of individual objects but to the successi\ e encroachment of the elemental opposites 686 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. HEIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 087 one on another in the seasonal changes of the year, it follows that the words of Anaximander cannot be used to support the interpretation of his aireipov-apxr] as a metaphysical world-ground in which the sin of indivi(hial existence is punished by the reabsorption of the concrete objects of experience. For this see Oit Aiuhvimander, p. 225, n. 3, and my review of James Adam, The Vital if y of Platomsm and Other Essays, Amer. Journ. of Philol., Vol. 33 (1912), p. 93 sq. V^ 13, 34. [Plut.l Strom. 2, 4)^1 be to h rod didiov -yovifiov Oep^ov re /cat \pvxpov Kara ttjv yheaiu rovde rov k6(J}iov airoKpidrivaL Kai nva eK Toi'TOv 0X0765 Gcpalpav irepKtyvqpaL tlo irepl Ti]v yrjp depL cos T(2 devdpcp 4)\ol6v . rjajLvos dTvoppaydcnqs Kal eh nvas OLTroKXeLadeicTrjs kvk\ovs VTTOGTr\vaL TOP r]\iov Kal ttju ae\r]pr]u Kal tovs daTepas. The words to . . . xj/vxpov have been niucli discussed and variously interpreted. Zeller, I" 220, n. 1, pronounces the text corrupt and suggests cj)T]al 5' e/c tov aLoiov to ybvLp.ov OepjjLOU re Kal ypuxpoVy rt^jecting Neuhiiuser's obviously correct proposal to take the genitives Bep^xov and \pvxpov us depending on yovLfxov. I^urnet, Early Greek PhUo- sojjhy"^, p. ()(), retaining th<' traditional text, renders, "Something capable of begetting hot and cold was separated off from the eternal." If we were dealing with a jjoct we might take such liberties, but we may safely dismiss the interpretatioji as impossil)le for prose. Diels gives no definite indication of his understanding of the words, but claims youtpov as j)()ssil)ly belonging to Anaximander, certainly to Theophrastus, referring in support of his contention to Poiphyr. l)e Abstin. 2. 5. The text of Porphyry, however, throws no light on ours, and there is good reason to doubt whether we may attribute the word to Theophrastus. In all probability we are dealing with a Stoic source, however related to Theoj)hrastus; for yovi/jLOP seems to be a congener to the Xoyo'i aireppaTiKos of the Stoics. Cp. Marc. Aurel. 9. 1. 4, X€7co 5e to xpwO'^'- tovtols emorjs ttju Koivrju (pvaip clvtI tov avfi- pa'ivHv €TrLar]s Kara to e^rjs rots yivop,kvois Kal kinyLVopevois opufj tlvl dpxala TTJs irpopoias, Kad' rji' ciiro tlvos dpx^'i oopprjaep iirl TTjvde ttjv OLaKoaprjaLP, avWa-iovad Ttpas \6yovs tcop eaopepoop Kal dvpapets yoplpovs cKpopiaaaa vwoaTdaeiOP re Kal peTa^ioXCop Kal otaooxcop tolovtoov. It seems fairl\- certain that to . . . yoptpop Oeppov r€ Kal \pvxpov is the Stoic aTTOLOs v\r] which contains bvpdpti xhv hot and the cold of the cosmos. We thus find masked in Stoic jjhrasi'ology the \ol6p ' fjaTLPos diroppaydd-qs Kal eh TLPas dwoKXeLadeiarjs kvkXovs VToaTrjpat top tjXlop Kal G8S PKOCEEDINGS OF THE AMKKICAX ACADEMY I r7]v aeKrjv-qv Kal rovs aarepas. The orthodox view appears to })e tliat a sphere of fiai lie is somehow exphxk^d and (rather eiiriouslyl) re(hiced to a sueeession of eireles of fhiiiie coiifitied within an envelope of mist; these circles being those which constitute sun, moon, and stars. We have come to expect definite analo^jfies and clear 'Anschauung' among the early Greek pliilosophers; and tlie severe strain which the current view puts on the imagination would of itself cast suspicion on it. We might nevertheless feel compelled, however reluctantK', to accept it, if the details of the account itself pointed to it or were even consistent with it. It will prohahly be conceded that — the term acpalpa apart — it is vastly simpler to conceixe of a wide annu- lar mass breaking up into annular parts than to inuigine the same result enduing from the destruction of a sphere. But as a matter of fact our text says nothing that may fairly be interpreted as implying the breaking or exploding of tlie sphere. The crucial words are TreptcpL'TJt'at and aTroppayeiarjs. Pt^liaps the real force of neither word has been appreciated, llcie Trept^u^i^at means that the "sphere" at first "snugly fitted" or was "closely attached to" the "air" which encircles the earth; wlun-eas airoppayeiar]s states merely that subse- quently it became detaclied, as even a superficial attention to the nor- mal nu^aning of the terms will con\ince the reader. The contrast may be illustrated by Arist. Hist. Animal. 5. 11). 552^3, ravra de xpovov jikv Tiva KivelraL irpoairectuKOTa, eireir' airoppayevra (fyeperaL Kara to vdo:py at KaXoi'iJiepaL ddKapioes. Besides, oLTroppr^yvvvaL is not the proper word to use of the tearing of such an envelope as a sphere of flame; Greek writers so use prjyuvpat, diappr^yvvvaL, and irepLpp-qyvvvaL, especially the last-mentioiKMl, as nu'ght be shown by a long list of examples derived from Aristotle and other authors. The same general concep- tion is implied in the simile cos ru) SepSpcp (pKoiov. We may not press similes beyond the inunecliate point of comparison, which in this instance is the suugness of the fit; i)Ut if one is to press it, it is obvious that the bark of a tree is annular rather than splu^rical. It will hardly serve the interest of the objector to refer to Anaximander's notion of the prickly integument of the first aninuds, \- 17, 18, kv vypQ) yevr^drjPOL rd irpoora {opa (p\oio2s TeptexoiJiepa aKapdoibeai . . . TrepLppyjyi'Vjuevov rov qXolov ; for there, as Tvepippy]ypvpLkpov sufficiently shows, the conception is altogether different. It is quite possible, as later Greek thinkers [)rove, to conceive of the cosmos and the human embryo as equally inclosed in a vixi]p w ithout pressing the comparison beyond reason. 1 luive noted with some interest another passage in which the meaning of diroppr^ypvpaL has been similarly misconceived. HEIDEL. — ox FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 6S9 Arist. Hist. Animal. 5.1S. 549^^ 31 sq. the spawning of the octopus and the development of its young are /:lescribed. There we read 550^ 3, rd fxev ovv rcop ToXvirodcop fxed' rjpepas /ddXtara TrePTrjKOPTa yiperai €K 7(hv dwoppayePTWP iroXvTodLa, Kal e^epreL, ccawep rd (t)aXdyyLa, iroXXd TO ttXtjOos. i'rofessor Thompson in his recent translation renders it thus: "Some fifty days later, the egr/s hurst and ihe little polu puses creep out'' [italics mine]. In fact there is no reference to the bursting of the eggs. Aristotle's meaning is that that which develops into the indi\idual polyp becomes detached from the vine-like mass which he has previously described, and that the young crawl forth (not from the egg^, but) from the hole or vessel in which the spawn was deposited. To return to the cosmology of Anaximander: the words Kal eU nvas diroKXeLaOeiarjs kvkXovs refer not specifically to (j0atp'a l;ut to 0X6f. The Waberlohe by some means, doubtless identical with that which detaclied the envelope of flame from the envelope of "air" was segre- gated into a number of annular masses, each like the earth inclosed in an envelope of " air." This segregation is not specifically mentioned but nuist be inferred; and we can guess only at the immediate cause of it. Now it is fairly certain that Anaximander knew the obliquity of the ecliptic or, as the early Greeks seem regularly to have called it, the inclination or dip of the zodiac or ecliptic. Pliny, as we have seen, attached great significance to its discovery, and so far as we know all the early Greek philosophers regarded it as an actual dipping resulting from some cause subsequently to the origin of the cosmos. Such an event would amply explain the initial break between the respective envelopes of "air" and flame; what caused the subsequent chsmtegration of the circle of flame into separate rings we do not know and perhaps it were idle further to speculate. V 17, 18. Aet. 5. 19. 4, 'Xpa^lfxapSpos kv vypQ yeprjdrjpaL rd wpoora fa3a (t)XoLo'LS irepLexofxepa dKapdojdecn, irpo-SaLVOvarjs de rrjs T^Xi/ctas d-Ko^aipeiv em to ^rjpOTepop Kal TrepLpprjypv/jLepov tov (J)Xolov ew' oXiyop pLeTa[ho)paL. jj^ y 1 and 2 ^1^^ ^^.^^j,^j ^p^^Q^ ^^.^^ omitted by mistake after eir' oXiyop; his attention having been called to the omission by me, Diels has re- stored it in y\ Ordinarily a fact of this sort would luirdly deserve to be noted; but since the false reading has found its way into Kranz's Jf ortindex, s. v. ixeTa^Lovp, and has been quoted without question by various writers, as e. g. by Otto Gilbert, Die meteoroL Theorien des gr, Aliertums, p. 332, n. 1, and Kinkel, Grseh. der Philos., I. p. 7*, it calls for more than a tacit correction. This is the more necessary because 690 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. HEIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 691 the text has been very generally misunderstood and false eoneluslons have been (h'awn from it. It is perhaps unnecessary to recount in detail this chapter of curious errors. I have no means of knowing what interpretation Diels now puts on the text; but in tlie absence of any indication in liis notes it seems reasonable to assume that he still adheres to the \ iew briefly set fortli in the index to his Do.vo- graphi Gracci,ii.\\ jderal^Lovv: **mutare ^ itam [cf. /xeraStatraH." This may be said to lia\ e been the common vi(nv of recent interpreters, until Ihirnet, Fjtrh/ Greek Philo.wplnr, p. 72 scp, correcting- the version of his first echtion, returned to the correct rendering of Hrucker, ''ruptocjue eortice non nuiltuni temporis supervixisse," which Tcich- miihcr with characteristic ignorance of Greek sharply condenmed, Studien zur Gcscli. drr Begriffe, p. ()4, n. Tannery, Po?/r rin'sfoirr dc la .science hellene, pp. N7 and 117, gi\t's in eifcct two renderings, each incorrect. The important j)oint to note is that riXiKia can refer to nothing but the age of the in(h\i(hial; and that en' oXiyov xp^^ov can have but one meaning, to wit, *'for a short time only." The force of ideraSLoovai nuist, therefore, be determined with reference to these knoAvn (juantities of the problem. This once granted, the (kvision between the rival claims of nt(f})i luidas'.se and s'Uperr}\vi,sse is easy and certain. To be sure, yutrd in composition far more frequently implies change than it denotes 'after'; but iieTaben:vtl.v is as well attested as ^erabiaiTav. However if, as seemed plausible from Diels's earlier editions, it were possible to conceive that tlie correct text was e-w" oKiyov }jL€Ta^iLcovaL, one might have inclined to take evr' oXtyov in the sense of "to a small extent," as in Arist. Meteor. )i')()'' 28 and Alar- cellinus, Vita Thucyd. 36, and to interpret jiera^iCovaL as referring to a change in the mo(k' of life. AnotluT possibility, which I have con- sidered, would be to take evr' oKlyov and ideTaSioovaL in the st^nse just indicated and to read XP^^^ l<'i* XP^vov, thus obtaining the sense "they changed their mode of life to a small extent in course of time." This suggestion was very tempting to one who was prej)ared to find an antici])ation of Darwinism in Anaximanih^r; but against all these proposals riXida stands with its inexorable \'eto. The sort of change contemplated would require more than one life-time, and riXtKla limits the action of jiera^ioovaL to tlu^ life-period of the individuaL We must therefore content ourselves with the renckTing '*As they advanced toward maturity the first animals proceeded from the wet on to the drier ground and as their integument burst (and was sloughed off) they survived but a little while." Perhaps this interpretation may be further supported by a comparison of the view thus obtained with II that of the origin of animal life attributed to Archelaus, V^ 324, bS, irepl be '^ooo^v (j)ri(jlv, otl depjjLaLVOjukvrjs ttjs yrjs to TTpooTOU ev rco koltco /jLepeiy OTTOv TO depidov Kal TO xpvxpov e/diayeTO, di^e0at^'ero to, re aXXa fcja ttoXXol Kal ol avdpoiTTOL, airavTa tyju avT-qv blaiTav exovTa e/c rrjs tXi'os Tpecfyoimeva {y]v be bXiyoxpovLa) ' VGTepov be avToh rj e^ dWijXccp y heats avveaTrj. c. 3. Anaximenes. V 17, 37. ovTOs CLpxv^ aepa elirev /cat to aTeipov. In his note in V^ Diels says: " Missverstiindnis oder Verderbm's statt Kal TOVTOV aireipov:' This suggesticm is plausible, but far from certain. As I showed in my study of apxr], On AmLviinander, various vestiges of an earlier cosmological, non-metaphysical, sense of that word survive in Aristotle; it can hardly be thought impossible that the same should be true of Theophrastus, from whom this statement of Diogenes ultimately derives. Indeed, as we shall see when we discuss Diogenes's account of the cosmology of Leucippus (cp. p. 732, on V^ 343, 1), there is at least one such vestige, though almost obliter- ated by the unintelligence of excerptors or copyists. Ihit, leaving that for the Dresent aside, we are crediblv informed that Anaximenes regarded the outer "air" as boundless, upon which fact Diels relies for his proposed correction; and we know that Anaximenes held the doctrine of the cosmic respiration, in accordance with which the cosmos subsists, as it arises, by receiving its substance from the encircling aireipov in the form of Trvev/da or breath. This Trvevixa comes from and returns to the aweLpov, which is therefore nothing else but an apxi 1^0.1 TTjyrj, or reservoir, of irvevixa. We thus have a complete parallel, so far as concerns the Tvevjjia-arjp, to the doctrine of the early Pythagoreans reported by Aristotle. Cp. my Antecedents of Greek Corpuscular Theories^ p. 139 sq. In V^ I. 354, IG sq. Diels has corrected the text of Aristotle along the lines I suggested. I cannot, liowever, approve of the bracketing of xp^vov, il). 22, as proposed by Diels. V2 18, 30 sq. Hippolytus, Ref. 1.7. The corrupt state of the text of Hippolytus's Philoso])humena, especially in the first l)ook, is wxll known. With the aid of Cedrenus Diels has been able to set many passages right; yet much remains to ))e done. In 1. 7, the chapter devoted to Anaximenes, several additions or interpolations which ought to be removed or bracketed 692 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. Still encumber the text, though we cannot determine to wliom they are due. Diels formerly bra(^keted irvKvoTarov (V- 18, 39), hut now contents himself with diaracterizing it as an inaccuracy of the late compiler. There are, however, two larger additions which are false and misleading. V- 18, 31, akpa awapov €4>-n ry apxv^ elvat, e^ ov TCL jLVO^jLeva Kal ra ye-^ovoTa Kal r a eaofxeva Kal deoys Kal Oela ylveaOaL, ra di Xoittci k r^^v rovrov [so Diels, following C: TOVT03V T] aiToyovo^i^. It is ob\ious that in the statement of Theoph- rastus the airoyovoL were those of the first generation, and not the absurd list we here have presented to us. The primary forms of existence are afterwards mentioned, V 18, 35-40: the report of Theophrastus is even better preserved by Cic. Acad. 2. 37. 118 (\ - 19, 16), "Anaximenes inhnitum aera, sed ea, quae ex eo orerentur, dcfi- nita: (ligni autcm irrmm, aqumn, igncm, tum ex iis onniia. The variant readings above noted are probably due to the intrusion of the impertinent clause, which clearly does not derive from Theophrastus. \Miether llippolytus or some other made the addition I find it diffi- cult to decide. A second instance of the same kind occurs V- 18, 35, KLveladai Se ael ' ov yap juera^^aXXeti^ oaa juera-^aXXet, d fxi] klvoIto. This sentence is awkward and intervenes between two parts of the exposition of the changes to which " air'' is subject. What we expect from Theophrastus is something about the Kivrjais dtStos, and doubt- less he did refer to it here. The clause KLveiadai de dd in all i)robabil- ity is sound and derives from him; but the sentence ov yap . . . klvoIto introduces a foreign element. Perhaps Hippolytus found it in his immediate source. I add heie a note on V- 19, 2, where the :MSS read dvefxovs 5e yevvd- cdaL, orav kKTeirvKVO^idhos 6 dr]p dpaLoodds (/>€pr]Tat, and Diels prmts orav fi TT€7rvKvo)iJievos 6 dijp Kal (hadeU c/jcpryrai. This reading seems to me to depart farther than necessary from the AIS. text. I would propose orav r) tt. 6 d-qp r) dpaio:dels 4>epy]TaL. Though a greater degree of rarefaction or condensation would, according to Anaximenes, re- sult in fire or cloud respectively, it does not appear why he might not have held that a more moderate change in either direction gave rise to wind. c. 11. Xenophanes. V^ 34, 16. Dinr]vaTO otl irdv to yLvofiePOP (t)dapT6v eari, m which Otto Gill)ert, Dk mctcorol. Tluorun dcs gr, Alt erf inn,',; p. 98, n. 1, sees "nm- ein ungenauer Ausdruck fiir die Riiekbildimg der Eleinente in den Urstoff " (!), appears to be nothing but an echo of the anecdote related by Arist. Hhet. 2.23 1399^ G (A'- 3.'), 21), olov 'Eevo(t)avrjs eXeyev otl ''6/xotcos aae[iov(TLV at yeueadat (jyaaKovTes tovs Oeovs ToTs a-Kodavelv UyovcLv/' and of De Melisso, Xenophane, Gorgia, 977'' 14 sq., which latter passage in turn incorporates arguments derived from Plato. This fact should give us pause, and suggests that Diogenes's account of the philosophy of Xenophanes is derived from a source which, like that of Hippolytus (\''-41, 25 sq.) and Simplieius (V2 40, 21 sq.), sought to eke out the scanty Theophrastean siunmary witli information coming from the spurious De Melisso, Xenophane, Gorgia, and idtimately from the Timaeus and Parmenides of Plato. I am tlierefore inclined to believe that the statement of Diogenes, fiij likvToi avaiTveiv, rests solely on the Timaeus, which the compiler regarded as a trustworthy source for th(^ philosophy of Xenophanes. I may add a brief note on the word T:pQ.^TO bpoloos. c. 12. Heraclitus. V 61, 35. Fr. 1, okoIo^v eyd dirjyevpaL biaipeoiv eKaoTov /card (j)vocrates where the ^ucrts of things is to be explained, when nothing but the context, and often not even that, makes it possible to decide whether erepov erepov hiac^'epeiv tl, Kal, rjv firj tccvto vovarj^xa doKerj elvai, pi] tcjOvto ovvopa ex^tv- V^ 65, 10. Fr. 18, kdv prj eX7rr/rai, dveXirLarov ovk e^evprjaeL, dve^epev- vrjTOV eov Kal airopov. Here, as in fr. 27, Diels and Nestle translate eXirop-ai with 'Miope." Burnet' here renders the word witli ''expect," there with "look for," in either case correctly. I am not sure, however, that he understands our fragment as I do.^ It is well known that eXTris may signif\- any degree of expectation ranging from \ ague surmise to li\ ely hope or fear. In leading this fragment I am constantly reminded of a story which Tyndall tells of Farada\-, who recpiired to be told precisely what to look for before observing an experiment which was in prep- aration. All scientific observation, whether assisted or not assisted by HEIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 697 carefully controlled experimentation, presupposes an kXiris — surmise or clearly formulated anticipation — of that which observation will show. To form such a conception is to exercise the scientific imagina- tion, and the findings anticipated assume the shape of a theory or an hypothesis. Early Greek philosophy was so prolific of nothing else as of hypotheses, and the philosophy of Heraclitus in particular is nothing but a bold hypothesis, whatever concrete observations may liave led him to propound it. Now, that is precisely what I conceive our fragment to mean: ''Except a man venture a suDnlse, he will not discover thaf which he has not surmised; for it is un discover able and haffltng.''' Fr. 123, ^ucts KpvTreadaL ^tXei, 'the processes of nature are not to be read l)y him who runs, for the true inwardness of things does not appear on the siu'face', is probably to be understood in the same sense; for dppovir] d(/)a^?7s (paveprjs KpeirToov (fr. 54). So, too, fr. 86, dinaTLrj ha(f)vyydveL prj yiyvdcGKeodai, probably lefers not to faith in a dogma or a revelation but to the scientific faith which is the evidence of things not seen. V^ 64, 1. Fr. 10, (Tvvd\pL€s 6\a Kal ovx oXa, avp(f)ep6ij.epov bia(j)ep6' pevov, ovvabov diadov, Kal e/c ttolvtoov ev Kal e^ evos iravra. I do not recall seeing anywhere a reference to the evident reminis- cence of this fragment in Seneca, De Otio, 5. ('», utrum contraria inter se elementa sint, an non pugnent, sed per diversa conspirent. V^ 66, 13. Fr. 28, boKeovroiv yap 6 doKLpccraros ytvccaKeL (jivKdaaeiv Kal pevTOL Kal diKr] KaTa\r]\peTaL \pevho:v reKiovas Kal paprvpas, 6 'E0ecri6s (prjaLV. The text of this fragment is regarded by all critics as desperate, and desperate measures have been taken to restore it. I have no desire to canvass them, but shall offer an interpretation which, with a minimal alteration, appears to render it intelligil)le and quite as defensible as the texts obtained by introducing more radical changes. First of all, it seems clear that yap is due to Clement, who quotes the sentence, and must be set aside as not belonging to Heraclitus. This is the view of Bywater, who omits the word. If that be true, what is there to hinder our taking doKeovro^v as an imperative? It wants a subject, but that was doubtless supplied by the context from which the sentence was obviously wrested. A plausible conjecture is made possible by the reference in the last clause to the inventors and supporters of lies, who are clearly contrasted with those who receive 698 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY the philosopher's scornful permission to hold an opinion. If boKwvro^v has that meaning, it is transitive as in IhTod. 9. (io, SoKeco Se, ei n Tepl To:v eelo:v Trpy]yiiaT(^v boKkeiv Set Whether we shall read 6 for o or assume that 5 was omitted hy haplo^raphy before 6 SoKiMc^^raros is difHcult to (hH'ide; for, as Diels has remarked, Hi^raclitus is spar- ing iu die use of the article. I incline to insert <6>, or possibly , the onlv change I consider necessary in the text. Critics appear to consi(k^V yLVLcaKei (t>vUaaeLP impossible or unintelligible. It is well known, however, that oUa and eTriarapai are used with the infinitive in the sense of "knowing how" to do anything, and in some cases the nuance given bv these verbs is so slight as to l)e best disregankHl in translating the thought into English. It is dillicult to see why yiVicdKo: should not be used in the same construction as olda and emarafJiaL. In fact we have two passages which are calculated to support the assumption that it was so used. Sophocl. Ant. 108/, tVa TOP dvfjLov ol'TOS es veo)Tepovs d^fj , /cat yvLO Tpk(j)Hv r-qu yXioaaav rjavx^^Tepav. Eurip. Bacch. 1341, el 5e ao:4)pove'LV eyvoiO', or' ovk r]Oe\eTe, rov Aids ybvov evdaLpouelr' av ai'ppaxoi' KeKrrifxevoL. Goodwin, Greek Moods and Trim's, 915, 3 (c), mentions the first passage onlv and takes yiyvdoaKo: ityvo^v) in the sense of "learning." The ingressive aorist naturallx' bears this sense; but it does not ex- clude the same construction with the present, as may be seen by comparison with emara^xaL, which shows the same meaning in the ingressive aorist, Herod. 3. L5, d be Kal i]mGTi)Qr] pi] iroKvirpaypoveeiv. This line of argument would perhaps not suffice to justify a conjec- tural introduction of yivi^oKeL into the text, but it is an adequate defense of a iSIS. reading. We have then to consider the meaning of v\a(j(jeiv. Here we are thrown upon the fragment itself as our only resource, since the verb has a great variety of meanings. There seems to be a slight clue in the last clause. Diels appears to be right in assuming tliat Homer, Hesiod, and the like, are the yPevb^hv reKjove^ Kal pdprvpes. If this conjecture be triic, it is not difhcult to see that x^evdan' reKTOvas characterizes them as iin entors of lies, aiu. that xPevd^u paprvpas can hardly mean those who commit perjury, but must rather refer to the witness they bear to falsehoods by recording HEIDEL. — OX FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 699 them in their verse. In other words, the woe pronounced upon the poets is for originating and perpetuating false views, whether they relate to the gods, to the desirability of banishing discord, or what not. But (l)v\aa(jeLP does bear this precise sense of "perpetuating," and we may be justified in accepting it as referring to the Tvapaooais of poetical tradition. I think it probable that 6 doKLpcoTaros refers to Homer as the coryphaeus of the group of false teachers of the multitude whom Heraclitus is denouncing, and that the epithet signifies nothing more tlian that he is held in the highest esteem, although fr. 57 would per- haps rather suggest Hesiod. The subject of boheovro^v, then, is the uncritical multitude, who live according to the tradition of the fathers (fr. 74) and may be pardoned for what they do in ignorance, though woe shall be unto those through whom offence cometh. Accordingly I should translate tlie fragment rather freely somewhat after this manner: ''Ay, hi fficm think as he who is most highly esteemed among them eontrives to report; hut verily, judgment shall overtake those who invent and attest falsehoods.'' It is hardly necessary to add that Heraclitus was not threatening Homer with hell-fire, as Clement would have us suppose. V" 68, 11. Fr. 41, eu to ao(t)6v, eTrlaTaadat yvcop-qv, OTerj eKv.3epvr]ae iravra bta iravrccv. Here I accept the text, but not the interpretation of Diels, who renders the fragment thus: "In Einem besteht die Weisheit, die Vernunft zu erkennen, als welche alles und jedes zu lenken weiss." Nestk' translates yvcop-qv with "Geist"; and Burnet, with "thought." In order to arrive at the thought of Heraclitus, it is needful first of all to note how in a number of his fragments, which are concerned with his conception of true wisdom, he surcharges with meaning the terms for knowledge in contradistinction to sense-perception or opinion. Fr. 17, 01' yap (t)poveovaL roiaOra ttoXXoi, oKoaot [so Diels, \^] eyKvpevatv, oi'be paOovres yLvooaKovaLV, eoovrolaL be boKeovac, " The majority of man- kind [this, I think must be the meaning of ttoXXoi, whether or not with Bergk we add at], so far as they meet such problems, do not compre- hend them even when instructed, though they think they do." Fr. 34, "They that lack understanding (a^vveTOL) hear, but are like unto them that are deaf." Fr. 35, "Men who are lovers of wisdom must have acquired true knowledge of full many matters" (ei; /xdXa iroWccv loTopas elvai). But Heraclitus is well aware that much instruction (cp. padovres, fr. 17) does not impart understanding (fr. 40, Tro^vpadir] voov ex^i-v ov bibaaKeL' 'llaiobov yap av ebiba^e Kal Jlvdayoprju avris re 700 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMEHICAX ACADEMY. 'E€VO(t)avea re Kal 'EKaraToi'), else woiiM the champions of th? new, self-styled laropirj and Hesiod, tlieir corypliaeus, have ^ot under- standing. The same pregnancy of meaning as in fr. 17 attaches to jLvcoaKeLv in fr. 108, to he discussed more at k'ngth l)elow, an<] in fr. 57, where Herachtus says that Hesiod, whom men regard as most knowing, did not rc;dly comprehend (ovk eylvo^aKeu) day and night; for, contrary to his opinion, they are one. It is thus clearly shown that by under- standing Heraclitus means a cogniti\efarulty or act which penetrates beyond superficial differences and distinctions, present to sense and uncritical fancv, to an inner core of truth, and is characterized bv the apprehension of a fun(hunental unity. Again, the same point of view finds expression in fr. oti, where he likens mankind, readily ckiped when it comes to a true understanding of the surface show of things {e^rjTTaTrjvraL ol avdpooiroL irpos Tr]i> yvcoaw tcou 4>avepo:v), to Homer, who could not read a foolish riddle pro|)ounded to him by gamins. Above, in discussing fr. IS, 1 have already touched on fr. Hij,dTLaTlr] 5ta0L'77d^et fxij yLypa>aK€(TdaL, maintaining that Heraclitus meant to imply that the true meaning of things is missed for want of a confident act of imagi- native anticipation, whereby that which does not obtrude itself on our senses is brought home to the understanding. It is perhaps not too fanciful to detect the same distinction between sense and under- standing, where understanding involves the synthesis of apperception, in fr. 97, Kvves yap Kara^lav'^ovcni' oov av p-i] yLPcoaKcocn. Heraclitus would thus be merely repeating the distinction of Alcmaeon, fr. 1^ (\ - 103, 25), aiOpojirop yap 4)r\Gi rccu aXXcot' (sc. fojcoz^) dtacfyepeLU otl jjLOvov ^vvirjai, rd 5' dWa aladdveTai pkv, ov ^vdrjai de. Returning now to fr. 41 after a considerable detour, we naturally pause again before the phrase eTriaTaaOai ypcoprfu, which is the real crux. Scholars appear to be fairly unanimous in holding that, whether it means " Vernunft," "Geist," or " thought," yvcop,r]v is an accusative of the external object, being, in fact, the di\inc entity wliich rules the world. Heraclitus 6 KVKr]Tr]<; does not much encoiu'age fine dis- tinctions, but to me this interpretation seems to yield a Stoic rather than a Heraclitean thought. In obvious reminiscence of our frag- ment and of fr. 32, ev to ao(t)6v povvov Xeyeadat ovk edeXet Kal edeXet Zrjvos ovopa, Cleanthes, H. in lov, 30 could say, 56s he KVprjaaL yi'coprjs, f) Trlavvos av diKr]s per a irdura Ki\3epuas. But Cleanthes was clearly writing from a different, and a later, point of view, for which the ovk kdeXet of Heraclitus had no real HEIDEL. — ox FRAGMENTS OF THE PKE-SOCRATICS. '01 significance. Following him and having regard to Antipho Soph. fr. 1 (V- 591, 18, ypcopr] yivoxTKei, and V- 592, 4, ypccprj vooaai) one might incline to propose to emend yvccprjp and read yvdcpr] eTTlaraadai in Hera- clitus. I should regard that, however, as an error; for 1 hold that yv(!cpr]v is an accusative of the inner object. In other words, eTriara- crOaL yvcoprjv is a periphrasis for yivdcaKeiv. In the time of Heraclitus emaTaadaL had not yet acquired the technical sense which it later bore in philosophical prose: in fr. 57, tovtov eirlcrTavTaL TrXeTara eldevaL, it means to "fancy"; in fr. 19, dKovaat ovk einaTdpepoL ovd' elireiv, to "be skillful." The latter sense is common from Homer onward, the former in Herodotus. It is not surprising, therefore, that Heraclitus shoidd wish to reinforce it with a cognate substantive. A similar tiu-n recurs in Ion of Chios, fr. 4 (V^ 222, 28 sq.), ois 6 ph rjpoper) re KeKaaphos r]de Kal aldol Kal (t)6Lpevos ^fxf? repirvov exet ^Slotov, eiirep Ilvdayoprjs krvpois ao(j)ds irepl irdvTOiv dvOpcoTTCjOp YJ'cbjuas fjdee Kd^epaOev. Here Diels, whose emendation, fibee for dbe I heartily approve, renders yvdcpas f}5ee Kd^kpaOev with " Einsichten erworben und erforscht hat." I believe we have a sort of hysteron proteron, and that Ion (for, herein differing from Diels, I believe the verses are his) meant " if Pythagoras was well informed and really knew whereof he spoke." This interpretation of Ion's phrase is proved correct beyond a doubt by Theognis, 59, dWijXovs 5' dirarcbaLP evr' dXXrjXoLac yeXooures, ovTe KaKoou yvccpas eldores ovr' dyadoov. The couplet was reproduced with slight modifications by an unintel- ligent imitator, Theognis 1113, dXXrjXovs 6' dirarcJovTes ctt' dXXrjXotaL yeXcoatPf ovt' dyadojv pvrjprjv eldores ovre KaKoov. Here we must without doubt adopt Hecker's emendation ypicp-qv for pvqpriv. The imitator did not perceive the true significance of the original, which sought to hold up to scorn the blissful Edenic ignor- ance of good and evil characteristic of the new-made lords of Megara, who but recently, clad in goat-skins, lived like pasturing deer in the wilds without the city walls, but now in the city light-heartedly hood- wink one another. Clearly yvdcpa^ dbevai is a mere periphrasis for dbevai. A similar reinforcement of eibevai occurs in the LXX. account '02 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. of Eden. Gru. 2. 9, to ^v\ov tov eldeuai '^vcoarov koKov nal iroprjpovy where, but for the confirmation of tlie MS. text i)y Philo Jud. 1. 55, 27, one might he inclined to suspect that yvooaroi^ was a corruption of yvoooLv or yuccinju. If li>n> phrase reminds us of such Homeric locu- tions as voTjidara fjdrj (0 121) and jurjdea oUe Cl 363), we find something closely analogous to that of Heraclitus in Plato, Apol. 20 E, ov yap 8rj eyccye avrrjp (sc. ttjv aor] ov Tpo (t)yicrLU eluat to irav diaiperov adiaiperov, yevvrov ayevy^rov, dv-qTov aSavarov, \6you atcoj^a, irarepa vlov. deov diKaioi" ovk e^od, ciXXa rov \6yov aKovaavras b}io- \oyelv aocpou earw eu iravra dpai 6 Mlpd/vXeiros (prjaL. It is agreed that the authentic words of HeracHtiis be^In with ovk kfjLov' what precedes we owe to Hippolytus, who obviously uuxU'hHl his introductorv statement on fr. (w. The comparison of the two passages shows that Berok's <6.>, wlmh Diels adopts, is unneces- sary The pre(Hcates of ro irdv are, as one sees at a -huice, arranged in contrasted pairs. In the fourth i)air, \6yos is of course tlic mtelli- gil)k' principhN virtualK- tht^ Koa^uos I'ovros, opposed to atuju which is the KocTMOS aladiiTOs. Tlie next pair, irarepa vlSu, is of course ot Chris- tian orioin. Apparently the last, deov diKacou, has puzzled 1 rofessor Diels- for he now (V'^) proposes to insert [adLKOu] after SiKaLov. I Ion- ago saw that this pair was suggested to IIipi)olNtus or his source bv Plato, Crat. 412 C-413 D, but had taken for grantcMl that this w^s a'matter of common knowledge and not worthy of special notice, until Diels's note undeceived me. I ol)serve that Otto Gilbert, Gnvch. Religionsphilosophir, p. ()2, n. 1 , also noticed the connection. He there proposes a different interpretation of ata^z', but his suggestion 1 take to be too clearlv mistaken to reciuire refutation. In reference to deov dkaLov, it ought to be said that Hippolytus possibly wrote ^laiou (- ri\L0p), and that dkaiov uvay be due to the copyist; hut thei-e is no sufficient justification for making a change m the text. Diels is probablv right in adopting IVIiller's elvai tor the eldevai of Par.; but eldevai imiv possibly have been originally a gloss on dfxoXoyelv; tor if ofxoXoye^v is souml it must be interpreted here, as in tr ol, with reference to Heraclitean etymology, as "sharing in the (a) common X670S." V^ 71, 15. Fr. 67, 6 Beds Vfjieprj ev4)p6vr], xetju^i^ Oepos, iroXefios dprjvr], Kopos XtMOS {ravauria avrarra- ovros 6 vovs), dXXotoDrat de OKO^airep <7rDp>, OTrbrav avptfjuyfj Ovccfxaatv, bvoixa^erai KaO' 7]8ovrjv iKaarov. This is the text of Diols. I hope to make it clear that it is not correct, and to show also what Hoiaclitus wrote and what he meant. Tn order to understand and reconstruct this fragment we must com- pare two inissages from Plato, in which he obviously alludes to it. Crat. 394 A, ovkow Kal izipl ^aaiUw 6 avros Xoyos ; icrai. yap ttots eK I3aai\kws >ia beye larpQ), are ttjv bvva^iv roov (j)ap/jLdK(j:v gko- irov/JLevco , t d avT d 0atj^erat, Kai ovk eKwXrjTTeT at vwb roiv IT poabvToov. ovTbi be lacos Kai b eTnardidepos irepl bvoixaTOOv ttjp 6vvap.LV avTOOv GKoirel, Kai ovk eKwXrjTTer at el tl wpbaKeLTai ypd/jLjjta r) yuerd/cetrat r) dcfyfipiqTai, r\ Kai ev dWoLs TravrdTraaLV ypd/dpLacrlv eariv r} rod bvo/daros bvvajJLLS. ooairep 6 vvvdi] eXeyopev, ^' 'Aarvdva^^' re Kai "E/crcop" ovbev Tcov avTcov ypapiddroov ex^t irXrjv rod rav, dXX' o/jlcos ravrbv arj /jLaiveL. Kai ' 'ApxcTToXts" ye roov fiev ypa/ji/idTCOv ri eTLKOLVoovel; 6ri\ol be o/xws rb avrb' Kai dXXa ttoXXol eartv d ovdev dXX' rj (SaaiXea arifjLaivef Kai dWa ye av arpaTriybv, olov 'A7ts" Kai TLoXefjiapxos'^ Kai EuTroXe- /ios". Kai larpLKd ye erepay ' 'laTpOKXrjs^' Kal"^ 'AKeai/ulSpoTOs'^ ' Kai erepa dv lacjos avxi'd evpoifiev rats piev (7uXXa/3aTs Kai rots ypdppaat diacfyo:- vovvTa, rfi be bvvdpei ravrbv (fideyyb/jLeva. The general con- nection of this passage with the Heraclitean doctrine of the epyov was noted above in the discussion of fr. 48. The bvvapus or specific physiological action of the drug is compared to the bvvapL<; of a word, its "force" or meaning. The identity of meaning in words that are diiferent {biacfioovovvra, rdvavrla diravra), and the methods employed to prodtice variation {-KOLKlWeiv, dXXotourat), — these are the themes common to Heraclitus and Plato. We naturally think of Heraclitus, fr. 15, cburos be 'Aibrjs Kai Atbvvaos, and fr. 57, ocrrts rjpeprjv Kai ev(^pbvriv OVK eyivcoaKev eari ydp ev. The second passage from Plato, to which I referred above, is Tim. 49 sq., where the relation of the elements to the be^ajjievr] or the eKpayelov is under discussion. It will suffice for our purpose to quote a sentence from 50 E, bib Kai rrdvro^v e/cros elbo2v elvai XP^^^ '''b rd irdvra eKbe^b/ievov ev avrO) yevrj, Kaddirep wepl rd dXeipLpara birbaa evrjbr] rex^V M^X^i^^^'cit irpcorov roOr' auro virdpxov, TTOLOvaiv on jutdXtara dcobr] rd be^bjieva vypd rds bajids ' baoi re ev rtacv rCiv paXaKcbv axVfJ-CL'i'^ diropidrreiv eirix'^ipovai, rb irapdirav axVfJ-o. ovbev evbrfKov UTrdpxet^' tcodt, wpoopaXvvavres be on Xeibrarov direpyd^ovrat. Plato here employs two comparisons to illustrate the relation of the substratum to the elemental forms, borrowing one from the manu- facture of unguents, the other from the art of moulding figures in a matrix. The first of these is obviously similar to that above quoted from the Cratylus, and was repeated by I.ucret. 2, 847 sq. 706 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. sicLit amaracini blandiim stactaeque liqiiorem et lumli fiorem, nectar qui narihiis halat, cum facerc instituas, cum primis ciuaercrc par est, quoad licet ac possis reperire, iuolentis olivi naturam, nullam quae mittat nnrihus auram, (luam miuime ut possit mLvtoa in cor pore odorvs concoctosque suo contractans perdere viro, propter eandem reui (lel)ent priinordia rcrum non adhibere suum gignuudis relju.^ udorem, etc. Heeding the suggestions afford(Ml by these passages from Pinto nnd Lucretius, whicl^ seem to me clearly to reproduce, however treely, the thought of Ileraclitus in uur fragment, it should be possible \yith considerable certainty to restore the text and to determine its mcanmg. It is obvious that in the (^-atylus Plato slightly changed the figure, substituting drugs for unguents, because of the advantage of thus beinr able to appeal to the expert knowledge of the physician. He mav^have been influenced also by certniii IbTaelitean elements m the inedical literature, such as we f^nd in 1 lip i)oe rates Ilept halr-ns and Kept Tpo(/)^s. At all events, it is clear that <7rDp>, which Diels has adopted from the conjecture of I >i-. Gliomas l)a\ idson, and , which Bergk proposed, are alike inadmissible. The lattiM- part of the fragment and the u^e of ^i-coMa, which Hesychius delines with ^vpov and cipcoMa, point clearly to the conclusion that TTeraclitus, as we should infer from Plato and Lucretius, referred to an unguent. The instances of Qvi^^xa (Herod. 2. 86; Lucian, De Dea Syra, 8 and 46) refer to unj^uents. If one or the other of the passages m Lucnin should be doubtful, there can be no question in regard to Hippocr. VvvaiKelicv /3, 209 (8, 404 L.), ty^eiv ra dvcofiara a es to ^vpov kfipaWeraL^ with which compare ibid. 202 (S, 386 L. ) and 206 (8, 39S L.) In the making of unguents (see IMiimner, Trchuolonic unci Tcrminolo(jie iUr Gewcrbc inid KilnsU^ L, 359 sq.), the neutral base, as well as the product resulting from the union of aromatic substances with it, was called Mi'POi' or t\aLov. The finished product bore a variety of nanies determined by the volatile ingrcMlii^its. Theophrastus, Hept baixCiv, gives ample information, from w hieh we may quote a few sentences. V. 25, Trpos eKCLGTOV be rcov fivpc^v €fx(3a\\ovaL ra 7rp6a0opa Tcbu dpco^a- rccu, olov eU ueu Tr]V KVirpov Kapbafiu:pLOV, daTraXaOov ava4)vpa(javTes to; 'evccdet. VI. 27, awavra 6e awrWevTai to. pi'pa Ta ^tv dyr' avOCiv ra de avro (l)v\\o:v to. be otto kXloi'os ra 5' aTro pt^^/s ra 5' aivd ^vXoju rd. 5' OTTO KOpTTOV TO 5' OTTO boKpiiCl'. /^LKTO. be TTCLPd' COS elwelu. lu iutCU- HEIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. '07 tion, therefore, tlie conjecture of Bernays, avppLLyrj dvccfxaaL, was better than either of those which we noticed above; but Diels is right in assuming that the desiderated word is to be supplied after oKwo-Trep. The only point in favor of <7rvp> is that its omission can so easily be explained; Init with almost equal ease we can account for the loss of , which is obviously reciuired by the sense and by the Platonic and Lucretian parallels. But w^e must now return to the earlier part of the fragment. The words ravaPTla airaPTa' ovtos 6 vovs have been a stumbling-block, l^ywater and Diels bracket them, since they can make nothing of them. Mullach accomi)lislied the same result by making two frag- ments instead of one, and omitting the troublesome words. But a reference to the passage from the Cratylus should prove beyond (juestion that they belong just where they stand; only one slight change is required, viz, cburos for ovtos, as Bergk perceived. He says, Klciuc riiiloL Schriftcn, IL 86, n. 4, ^Xeterum etiam verba ilia ravavTia diravTa, ovtos 6 vovs non interpretis, sed ipsius HeracHti esse existimo, quae ita videntur corrigenda: 6 deos • . . Kopos, TavavTia diravTa- o^vtos poos' dXXoioDrat be, OKO^airep oIpos /crX." I nfortunately Bergk did not intt-rpret his proposed text; but judging by his punc- tuation and the absence of any remark about the force of poos,^ I venture to suggest that what he had in mind was something like this: "Gott ist... ijberfluss und Hunger, mit einem Worte, alle Gegen- siitze. Es ist derselbe Geist," usw\ If this suggestion does him justice, it will be seen that he did not really anticipate my proposal except in regard to the change of ovtos into couros; and working with the text of Diels, who did not even record the proposal, I did not come upon his emendation until I had reached the same conclusion independently and by a different route. As a matter of fact, it was the passage from the Cratylus which disclosed the connection of ideas and led me to the obviously correct text and interpretation; for T saw at once that povs had no reference whatever to debs and did not mean "Geist," but, as in Herod. 7. 102, ovtos be 6 poos tov pmaTos, signified '' sense" or '' meaning." But, this point once cleared up, it followed at once that avc must read cburos for ovtos, and that TOPaPTla diraPTa did not merely add a generalization to sum up the bill of particulars wdiich precedes. In short, TdvaPTia diraPTa is the plural form of tovvoptIop dirav, which occurs, Plato, Polit. 310 D, as a variant for the more usual phrase ttolp tovpoptlop: cp. Xen. ^lem. 3. 12. 4 and (for the adverbial force of Tras or avras) Plato. Protag. 317 B. 708 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. HEIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 709 Restoring to Heraclitus what rlglitfully belongs to liiin, we should therefore write the fragment thus: 6 deos rjixtpri evcppovn], x^^M*^^ O'tpos, TroXejjios dpTjurj, Kopos Xipos' Tdpapria airavTa, cburos 6 vovs' dXXotoDrat be OKfjoairep , birbrav avpptyfj dvccpaaLV, opopa'^eraL KaO' rjbovriv e/cd- GTov. " God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, satiety and hunger, — opposites quite, hut the sense is the same; he changes, however, just as the neutral base employed in making unguents, when it is mixed with volatile essences, receives a name in accordance with the odor of each.''* In regard to the philosoplucal interpretation of tlie fragment, whieli thus assumes a rank of capital importanee for the thought of Heracli- tus, it is hardly necessary to say more at present, than that we nmst hencefortli build upon the founchitions laid by Plato, Tim. 4S E-52 C. Plato and Lucretius prove that the same thought lay at the core of the atomic theorv, and it is evident that Heraclitus here touched one of the basic conceptions of metaphysics in so far as it is coneerned with the relation of the One and the Many. We are therefore called upon to consider the questions which crowd upon us with sobriety and careful discrimination, unless we are to efface the nu'le-stones that mark the progress of speculation. Such an inquiry is, however, too far-reaching to admit of discussion in this connection. V^ 72, 18. Fr. 71, pepvyjaOat de Kal tov eTrikavOavopkvov fi 17 odds d7et. The meaning, apparently missed by some scholars, is made clear by fr. 117, ovk eira'Coou okt) i^alvei. He forgets whither he is going. V^ 73, 14. Fr. 77, \I/vxwl . . . T'ep\pLv r) Bavarov vypfjai yei/eadat. It seems very probable that we are here dealing, if one may so express it, with a conflate text; that is to say, two utterances of Heraclitus, otherwise essentially identical, but differing in this, that one related to repi/^ts, the other to Oaparos, appear to have been merged in one. Either statement, taken by itself, is entirely intelligible; but it is improbable that Heraclitus combined them in the manner of this 'fragment.' V^ 73, 19. Fr. 78, rjdos yap ai'dptcireLOP ph ovk ex^L yvoopas, Belov The word 77^05 is difhcult and improbable. I suspect that we should write Wvos\ cp. Eurip. Orest. 976, I / tcb icb, iravbaKpvT ectyapepojv Wvrj TToXvirova. The iambic movement of the fragment is obvious, and the position of fxh appears somewhat forced. One is tempted to write the sentence as verse, eOvos pev avBpoiiveiov oh yvoopas ex^L, Belop 5' exet. This may, of course, be nothing more than the work of chance; but the entire cast of the sentence suggests that we are dealing with verse converted into prose. Now we know that there were those who versified the philosophy of Heraclitus. One of their number, Scythi- nus, a writer of the fourth century, is known by name; and one of the fragments of Scythinus (fr. 2, V*^ 86, 22 sq.) has come down to us reconverted into prose, which Wilamowitz has again rendered m verse. I do not suggest, though it is possible, that we have before us another reconverted version of Heraclitus by Scythinus; for the cases of Cleanthes, whose Stoic verses are in part little more than para- phrases of Heraclitus, and of 'Epicharmus,' among whose fragments there are some which reproduce the thought of Heraclitus as others do that of Plato, caution us to avoid hasty conclusions. Neverthe- less, I incline to think that fr. 78 is in fact a thinly disguised prose rendering of a verse original; for there are at least two other 'frag- ments' of Heraclitus (80 and 100) whose form suggests a versified original. As it is best to discuss them separately, I will add only that one of them, like fr. 78, is quoted by Origen Against Celsus. If my suggestion be approved by scholars, an interesting question arises, to wit, how accurately the versifier, if he was actually trying to reproduce the thought of Heraclitus, as Celsus or his source sup- posed, succeeded in rendering it. In the case of fr. 78, it is a nice question whether Heraclitus would have said what is here imputed to him. Origen seems to be clearly right in interpreting yvcopas with (70(/)ta; but Heraclitus, whose doctrine of to ao XP^^^ jdeTa, It must be said that the text of the fragment is not absolutely certain, as the Mss. of Origen Against Cclsiis read el be xPV ^^^^1 biKr]p epelp; but the emendations adopted by Diels and reproduced above are so obvious that we mav with confidence make his text the basis of our study. Regarded in the light of the poetic tags which have just been noted, we have again a close parallel to the prose paraphrase of Scythinus, fr. 2; but 1 hazard no guess as to the author of the versi- fied version. V^ 76, 12. Fr. 100, copas at irdpTa (pepovaL. This fragment is preserved by Plutarch, who again alludes to it. The movement is clearly dactylic, and one may suspect that it formed part of an hexameter, though its brevity forbids dogmatic conclusions. in view of the experiments of Cleanthes it is not improbable that there were versions of certain Heraclitean sayings in heroic verse. It is, of course, possible that this fragment owes its rhythmical or metrical form to chance or to unconscious poetical influences not im natural 712 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. in the early stages of prose when verse was still the prevailing medium of artistic expression. This is perhaps the most probable explanation of the hexameter ending of fr. 5, deovs oi'5' rjpc^as dirivks elat, which I noted long ago and find referred to Homeric influence by Norden, Agnostos Theos, p. 88, n. 1. Dactylic movement, due to epic models, is much more easily thus accounted for than iambic or trochaic, such as have been noted above in fragments 78 and 80. Of the latter sort there is perhaps another example in fr. 120, cfuoted by Strabo, rjovs Kal eairepas repiiara i] apKios Kal clvtIop rrjs apKTOV ovpos aWpiov Slos. The general trochaic or ianil)ic rliythm is at once apparent, and the close at least is faultless and strikingly suggestive of a trochaic verse. See infra, p. 714 sq. One may recast it into trochaics quite as easily as AVilamowitz did the second fragment of Scythinus, — i]ovs [possibly eoj 8e] x^^^repas Ttpfiar' apKTOs kolvt'C apKiov ovpos aWpiov Atos. V^ 77, 11. Fr. 108, oKoacou \6yovs rjKOvaa, ovdels 6.(t)iKVtiTai es rovTOy oodre yivcoaKeiv otl (Tocfyov eari iravrojv Kexo^piaiikvov, This fragment has been much discussed; cp. Schuster, pp. 42, 44; Zeller, I. 629, n. 1. Gomperz proposed to bracket on ao(f)6u kt\. as an interpolation. All those who retain the words regard them as an object chiuse, whatever iiUerpretation they may put upon it. Diels identifies (to) aocpoif with God, and understands the fragment as de- claring the divine transcendence. This \ iew has naturally provoked vigorous protests; for it is incompatible with all that we otherwise know of the thought of Heraclitus. I think \6yovs is here used as Heraclitus uses \6yos of his own philosophic message or gospel: it refers to the Weltanschauungen of the great teachers and philoso« pliers; for rjKovaa does not necessarily refer to actual hearing of the person who sets forth his views, but includes the reading (by himself or by a slave) of written records. The pregnant force of yLvcoaKeLu was sufficiently explained al)ove in the discussion of fr. 41. Heraclitus, then, says: *' Of all those whose message regarding the nature of things it has been my fortune to learn about, not one has attained to the point of true knowledge.^' So much seems to be clear from a survey of the conception of knowledge which he is continually proclaiming. But, once we seize the import of his use of yiuccaKeLv, it is equally clear that OTL is not "that*'; it is causal, and the obvious conclusion to his sentence follows: "for wisdom is far removed from alV^ (**men" or **of them"). One may illustrate this use of KexojpLajjLevov by a pas- HEIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 713 sage from Cleanthes quoted by Sext. Empir. 9. 90, cocrre ov TeXetou fojoi^ 6 dvdpcjoiroSy areXes de Kal ttoXu KexoipiCfJievov tov reXelov. The questionable fragment of Philolaus, quoted by Diels, and the quotation from Philostratus ap. Euseb. P. E. 4. 13, evi re ovtl Kal Kexc^pLcr/JLeucx) ttclptcjov, made by Norden, Agnostos Theos, 39, n. 3, afford but weak support for so unlikely a theory as that of Diels. In printing the fragment, I should place a colon between ytvooaKeLv and otl. The sen- tence thus furnishes a new^ illustration of the difficulty, noted by Aristotle, of phrasing Heraclitus. Diels mentions, but does not adopt, my interpretation in V^. V^ 77, 19. Fr. 112, (70^(1) povelv apeTrj iieyiaTT], Kal aocpi,] aXrjdea XeyeLV Kal TTOLelv KaTCL (f)vaLV eTatoPTas. The Mss. here, as in fr. 116, show (7o:(t)poveLv. Diels here substitutes TO (jypovelv, there (fypovelv, in order to adapt the diction to that of He- raclitus. He renders: "Das Denken ist der grosste Vorzug, und die Weisheit besteht darin, die Wahrheit zu sagen und nach der Xatur zu handeln, auf sie hinhorend." Besides changing (joi(()poveLv to to cppovelvy he gives a forced rendering of aperrj and ewatovTas which serves to conceal the obvious Stoic character of the saying. Again, there is no other instance of (70(t)ir} in the supposedly genuine fragments of Heraclitus, who seems to have used (to) ao(f)6v instead : it does recur in fr. 129, which Diels reckons doubtful or spurious but others accept as genuine. Yet, granting that it is genuine, aocpii] there means some- thing very different: it is, like TroXvfjLadeirj and KaKOTexvlr], a term of reproach. One who reads the sentence without bias will readily admit that apeTi] means an ethical virtue. As for aXrjOea XeyeLv, one may perhaps defend it by citing the denunciation of the \pevbCiv TeKTouas Kal fiapTVpas in fr. 28; but it is doubtful whether so obvioifsly an ethical virtue would have counted as a mark of aocfyir) in the days of Heraclitus. In opposition to this it may be said that 'AXyjdeLa was the ideal of the Greek philosophers from the beginning. True; but it was objective Truth which they sought, and not the virtue of truth- fulness. The juxtaposition of dXrjdea X'eyuv and TOLelp /card (t)vaLV does not suggest a reference to abstract or objective truth. Finally, TTOLelv KaTCL pov€lv, and cannot accept the fragment as genuine. Bywater was clearly right in marking both 112 and 110 as doubtful. Since they come to us from Stobaeus, who quotes them under widely different heads, it is plain that their assignment to Socrates is not due to a mere mistake m the lennnata of his text, but the error must be charged to his sources. V 78. 16. Fr. 120, tJoDs Kal lawepas reppara rj apKros Kal olvtIov ttjs apKTov ovpos aWplov Alos. ^^ Til V^ Diels briefly notes my interpretation of ovpo^ aWpiov Slos as "wind of heaven,'' which was [)roposed in my review of his llcrahklios von Ephesos-, in Class, riiilul., o. p. 247; but he appears still to prefer his own suggestion that Heraclitus referred to Mt. Olympus. As I regarrl my proposal as almost certainly right, 1 oflVr here a few addi- HEIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 715 tional observations to supplement my former statement, which exi- gencies of space then compelled me to omit. For the meaning of ovpos, ''wind,'' I would refer to Schmidt's Synonyniik. See also Bonitz, Index Aristotelicus, s. v. apKros. It was common to say Kal Tvpos apKTOv Kal irpos votov. The phrases employed l)y Herodotus in speaking of the cardinal points are especially interesting; I have made a complete list of them, and they seem to me to be decisive. I will refer, however, to but a few by way of illustration: 1. 14S, Trpos apKTov rerpappepos • • . Trpos ^e(f)vpov avepov ; 2. 8, (pepop air' apKTOv TTpos pea€pPpLr]S re Kal votov ; 3. 102, Trpos apKTOV re Kal (Sopeov avepov. Cp. Hesiod, Theog. 378-82. Though 1 do not accept the suggestion of Diels that the ovpos Atos is Mt. Olympus, I will refer to a passage which might possibly be used to support it, to wit, Hippocr. Ilept ifidopadoou, i8 (9. 402 L.), Definitio auiem superiorum partium ct infcriorum corporis umJ)Uicus, It would be interesting to know the Greek text: perhaps Helnn*eich or some other ransacker of medical manuscripts may yet recover it I It occurs in a part of the treatise much discussed of late; see Iloscher, Uhcr Alter ^ Ursprung und Bcdeutung dcr hippokr. Schrift von dcr SiebenzaJd^ p. 37, n. 67, who of course, in relating this to his "Weltkarte," refers to the 6yU(/)aXos yrjs or daXan-qs, and believes that the writer had in mind (not Delphi, but) Delos or Teos. Mt. Olympus might well serve as a landmark to divide the ''upper" or northern parts of the earth from the "lower" or southern; but it does not seem so suitable for a zero meridian. I doubt, moreover, whether Hera- clitus had any "Greenwich" in mind: what he seems to have meant is merely this, that "east" and "west" are relative terms and are delimited by a north and south line drawn through any point that may be in question. Various special meridians, useful to the geog- rapher and mariner, were recognized at a comparatively early date, as mav be seen from Herodotus; but a zero meridian, so far as I know, was not thought of before the time of the Alexandrian geogra- phers. For the suggestion of a possible verse original for the fragment, see above on fr. 100. This would readily account for the use of ovpos in tlie sense of wind. V^ 80, 10. Yr.Vl^ybaLpopuiv ay oXpaaiveuxovraLOVKaKovovcriv J (bairep OLKOvoLeu, ovK dTrodidovaLV, cbawep oi'K air aiTolev . In regard to the text of this spurious fragment I agree with Diels, except that I would set a colon after aKoimev; from his interpreta- tion I dissent, because it seems to me obviously at fault. In some 716 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. unaccountable way he appears to have overlooked my note in Class. Philol. 5. p. 247, for he renders the text thus: "Sie beten zu den Got- terbildcrn, die nicht horen, als ob sie Gehor hatten, die nichts zuriick- geben, wie sie ja auch nichts fordcrn konnten," The saying is a close parallel to fr. 127, likewise spurious, in that it charges men with in- consistency in their dealings with the gods. Hence ovk aTrobibovaiv (= airobiboacnv; not the partic. I) answers to ei'xoi^rat as coairep ovk aTrai- Tolev answers to cbairep aKoioLeu, and the meaning, as I said in my former note, is: " They make wws lu fhr images of the gods, that hear not, as if they heard; thry pay not their vows, as if they {the gods) required it not.'' Everyone can supply the necessary classical examples for evxopraL, dTodidovaiu, and dwaLToleu, I will quote one from the LXX., Deuter. 23. 21, edv de evxv ^^xv^ k-vp'kjo tco deoo gov, oh xpoi^t^ls dirodovi^aL avrrju, on eK^rjTOOU hK^rjTTjaet KvpLOs 6 deos gov, Kal earat kv aol didapTLa. [Hippocrates.] V" 81, 36 82, 16. For this passage, see my Antecedents of Greek Corpuscular Theories, Har\'ard Studies in Class. Philol., 22 (1911), p. 148 sq. It is to this article, and not to " Class. Philol. 22. 158," that Diels should have referred V^ 106, 16, note. c. 13. Epicharmus. V^ 91, 23. Fr. 4. 6, TO 5e G0(t>6v d (ftvats rob' oldev ws ex^t jdova ' TreiraldevraL yap avravras vtto. Diels renders, "Doch wie sich's mit dieser Weisheit verhalt, das weiss die Natur allein. Denn sie hat's ganz von selbst gelernt.'* It is, perhaps, a matter of no great consequence, but I believe his translation rests on a misconception of to aot'crecos, riirep tC^v dWcov IlEIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 717 ol irXelaTOL, dteKeyeTO aKoircbv, ottcos 6 KaXovptevos vtto Tihv aocjiLGTUiv Kocrjjios ex^h '^'cit Tiaiv avdyKais kacrra ylpeTat toov ovpavicov kt\. Here the Mss. are divided between exei and epa^(jo Tavawevdea ep,pev arapTov, in each case in the bucolic diaeresis. Diels, Pannrnidcs Lrhrgrdichf, p. 07, in his note on the latter passage, well says: " Der Hiat in der bukolischen Diiirese nicht anzutasteni" Indeed, the collision of words ending and beginning with the same vowel was even regarded by ancient grammarians as peculiarly justifiable. See Christ, Mcfrik der Gricchcn and Homer, p. 41, § oo, and the remarks of ancient grannnarians on Hom. Od. X 595, Verg. Georg. 1, 281, and Hor. C. 1. 2S, 24. Herwerden, Lexicon Gr. Suppletorium, p. 400, suggests that ladjjLos may have had the digamma, referring to Pindar, Isth. 1. 10, 32 and Bacchyl. 2, 7 Blass., but continues, "Sed fortasse hiatus nominum propriorum licentiae tribuendus. (1. O. Schroeder, ProL Find. II. p. 14 et p. 17. Ne^c sane diganmia habere potuit, si des- scendit a verbo levaL.'^ I do not beheve it had the digamma. V" 117, 7. Fr. 5, to yap avro voelv (.cftlv re /cat elvac. The construction of this sentence has occasioned difficulties. It is obvious, however, that it is identical in meaning with fr. 8, 34, to be discussed below. I tliink we have here a case of brachylogy, and that we must supply roelp before elvat from the preceding poelv. * "/or it is one and the same thing to fhinl: and to think that it is/' See the examples cited by Kiihner-Gerth, II. p. 5(15, § 597, h. l^urnet. Early Greek Philosophic, p. 198, notes 1 and 3, propounds syntactical doctrines and puzzles which one ought in kindness to ignore. Any good granunar \\ill supjily abundant c.\ami)les of the substantive use of the iniiniti\e, with or without the article, earlier than the date of Parmenides. For Greek lyric poets, see Smyth, Greek Melic Poets, HEIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. '21 note on Alcman, fr. XII. For the articular infinitive in general, consult the articles of Professor Gildersleeve in Amer. Journ. of Philol. V^ 117, 14. Fr. 6, 1, XPV TO Xkyetv re poelv r' eov eixpepaL ' jJL-qdep 5' OVK eaTLP. etJTi yap eipai. The view of Diels and Burnet, which takes eort and eaTip as equi\alent to ejeort, appears to me to be unsatisfactory; for the sentence thus becomes weak and out of character. Parmenides says: ^' For existence exists, and nought is not.'' The al)sence of the article with elpai and prio'ep makes no difference. In regard to the first sen- tence, we must, perhaps, acquiesce in the view of Diels, who regards TO as the epic pronoun, and renders: "Dies ist notig zu sagen und zu dcnken, das nur das Seiende existiert"; but this use of to would be unique in Parmenides, in whom we expect the articular infinitive. It is possible that he meant "Speech and thought must he real"; for, though we do not otherwise find the recognition of the corporeal existence of thought and speech clearly expressed before the Stoics and Epicureans, it is by no means certain that Parmenides would not be called upon to defend his ^materialistic' doctrines by asserting the corporeality of thought and speech, since he expressly concerned himself with predication, fr. 8, 35 sq. V2 117, 21. Fr. G, 8, ols TO ireXeiP r€ Kal ovk elpat TavTOP pepopaaTaL KOV TaVTOP. Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy-, p. 198, n. 3, tortures this passage in order to eliminate the articular infinitives and the solecism to . . . OVK elpai; but his interpretation is impossible, and, as w^e have seen, his reluctance to admit the articular infinitive is indefensible. As to TO .. . OVK elpat, others before him have found in it a rock of offence; but the responsibility rests with Parmenides. If he could say, ovroos rj ird/jLTTap ireXepaL XP^^^ ^^ti- ^ oux^ i^'^- ^y H) alongside rj 5' cos ovk eaTLP re Kal cbs XP^<^^ ^(^t- f^V ^Ivo.l (fr. 4, 5) it is difficult to see why he should not have said to ovk eipat instead of to prj elpai. V2 119, 6. Fr. 8, 9, TL 5' ap fjLLP Kal xP^os ojpaep vaTepop rj irpdodep, tov prjdepos ap^apiepop, (f)vp. 722 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMKKKAX ACADEMY. Diels renders varepov rj irpoadev witli ''friilier oder spiiter"; Burnet, corrt^ctly I helieve, with "later rather than sooner"; for I regard the plirase as a sort of comparatio compcndiaria. The question was repeated and amphfied !)y later philosophers; cp. Lucret. 5, 165-180; Cic. N. D. 1. 9. 21 ; V-^ 305, 16 sq.: Diels, Box. Gr., p. 301, 2, Kal ovre Kara to wpooroi' ^aKapios eariv 6 Oeos, to yap eWeTwov els evdaL/jLOvlav ov txaKapiov, ovTe KaTO. to devTepov • ix-qbev yap eWdircov Kevals efxeWev eTTLx^Lpelv irpa^eaLV. In the last passage I think we should clearly read Katvah for ^e^'ats; cp. Lucret. 5, 168 sq., Quidve no\ i potuit tanto post ante quietos inlicerc ut cuperent vitam mutare priorem? nam gaudere no vis relnis dehere videtur cui veteres obsunt; sed cui nil accirlit aegri tempore in anteacto, cum puklire degeret aevum, quid potuit novitatis amoiein accendere tali? I may add that Parmenides, fr. 8, 7, irfi irbOev av^rfikv, and S, 32 sq., ovveKev ovk aTeXevTrjTOV to kov defjLts eluat ' €(JTL yap OVK eTideves, ebv 5' av ivavTOs edelro, is expanded by Plato, Tim. 32 C-34 A, with an obvious addition 33 A, which is apparently drawn from the Atomists. Cp. V'-343, 4 sq., and my Antecedents of GreeJ: Corpuscular Theories, Har\ard Studies in Class. Philol., 22 (1910), p. 139. See also the discussion alcove (p. 693 sq.) of V2 34, IS. V 120, 13. Fr. 8, 34, Tamov 5' eort voelv re Kal ovveKev eaTL vorj/jLa. So far as I am aware, all interpreters of Parmenides have taken ovveKev in the sense of "that for the sake of which." This is, of course, quite possible; but we thus obtain no satisfactory sense unless we are to adopt the Xeo-Platonic conceptions which obviously sug- gested the accepted rendering. Probably no student of ancient philosophy wlio has learned the rudiments of historieal interpretation would go so far afield. Only the natural obsession thai we must take our cue from the ancients, whose incapacity in this regard should no longer be a secret, can areount for the failure of some one to make the obvious suggestion that we take ovveKev as on, and read ecn; for it seems clear that Parmenides meant, " Thinking and the thoughf that the object of thought exists, are one a/id the same/' Kuhner-Gerth, II. p. 356, and the lexicons give the examples for this use of ovveKa: for HEIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 723 the dependence of a substantive clause on a verbal substantive, Stahl, Krit.-histor. Syntax des gr. Vcrhums dcr Mass. Zeit, p. 546, § 2, gives abundant examples, to which a careful reader will be able to add largely in a week. The parallelism of infinitive and substantive is no closer than Mimnermus, 2, 10, avTLKa TedvajjLevai ^ekTiov t) ^'lotos. If the inverted order of words should cause any one to hesitate, let him recall Xenophanes, fr. 34, 2, Kal daaa Xeycjo irepl tclvtccv, and Sophocl. (). 11. 500 sq., quoted above, p. 718, on fr. 1, 28 sq. I regard this construction as of especial importance, because the frank equivalence of the infinitive with the substantive would seem to render for all time impossible the strange acrobatic feats pei-formed by Purnet in his endeavor to eliminate the substantival infinitive, with or without the article, from the text of Parmenides. c. 19. Zeno. V 133, 8. Pr. 1, Kal irepl tov irpovxovTos 6 avTos \6yos. Kal yap eKeTvo e^eu jieyedos Kal irpoe^ei avTOV tl. o/jlolov drj tovto dwa^ re eiirelv Kal ael \eyeLV. ovdev yap avTov tolovtov eaxaTOv eaTai ovTe eTepov irpos eTepov ovk eorat. ovtcos el ttoXXol eaTtv, dvayKrj avTa jjiLKpd re elvat Kal iJieydXa ' puKpd fxev cbaTe fxi] ex^tv jjieyeOos, jdeydXa de ihaTe dwetpa etvaL. The question discussed in the portion of the fragment here repro- duced concerns the second alternative, /jteydXa de wore diretpa elvai. There is some difference of opinion among scholars regarding the precise conception of to irpovxov. For some years I have been accus- tomed to think of the ivpovxov eaxarov of Zeno as the extremum quodque cacumcn of Lucretius 1, 599; or, more exactly, I have held and still hold that the Epicurean doctrine of the partes miniiyiae, of which the definition of the extremum cacumcn is a part, owed its origin in part to this argument of Zeno's. The discussion of the partes minimae by Giussani had never satisfied me; the view of Pascal, Studii Critici sul Poema di Lucrezio (1903), p. 49 sq., seemed to me essentially sound (see Amer. Journ. of Pliilol., 24, p. 332). He drew attention to Aristotle's arguments (De Anim. 409^ 13 sq., De Gen. et Corr. 326^ 1 sq., Phys. 240^ 8 sq.) to prove that the dp.epes cannot have '< m» i , pbviri(jiv Ix^^^ ^'<^^ i^co/zaros alaap, shows what language Empedocles used; everything has (j)p6vr]aLs and v6ir]fjLa, but not ipvxv- See my remarks in Amer. Journ. of Philol., 33, p. 94 sq., and Journ. of Philos., Psychol, and Scient. Methods, 10, p. 107. V^ 203, 34. Fr. 110, el yap Ktv crc/)' abivfiv(7ls earlv eKaano. el Se av 7' 6XKolo:p eirope^eaL, ola Kar' aphpas pvpia detXa ireXopraL a r' ap^XvpovaL pepippasj 77 (j' a(j)ap eKKel\j/ov(n irepLirXopePOLO xPOpolo acbp avTCOP iroOeoPTa (I)l\t]p ewl yeppap iKeadai * 10 TTCLPTa yap tadi (fypoprjaLP ex^f-P Kal vcjoparos alaap. The text of this fragment as given by Hippolytus is extremely corrupt; but I accept the text given l)y Diels everywhere except in verses 4 and 5. Here the MSS. read av^ei and Wos: Diels retains the former and adopts ^Miller's suggestion of ridos for the latter. This text I think is clearly wrong, as the difficulties experienced by Diels in rt'Tidering the passage ought to con\'ince Jinv reader. But v. 8 sq. seem to me to show what we require; for they obviously contain the converse of the statement \n hieh the poet made in the sentence we are considering. I am convinced that Knipedocles wrote a^ec, not aujet; w itli regard to Wos, one may hesitate before deciding between the claims of edpos and rjdos. In favor of e^i^os one may (piote Hippocr. riept TOTOOP Toop Kara apdpojiroPf 1 ((3, 278 L.), tovto 6' birolop ap tl iraOri, HEIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS 727 TO apLKpOTaTOP eirapacfyepeL irpos T-qp opoedpirjp eKacFTOP irpos ttjp ecouroD, tjp re KaKOP r/p re ayadop rj ' /cat 5td raura Kal dXyeei /cat 7;5erat viro edpeos tov apLKpoTCLTOv TO ac^pa, OTL ep T(2 apLKpoTCLTCx) ttclpt' ePL TO, pepea, Kal Tama eTapa(t)epovatP es to. a(j)cop avTojp eKaaTa, Kal e^ayyeXXovac irdPTa. Other passages which may be compared are the following. Hippocr. Ilept fxeXeoov p.vKTr\pGiv epevvoov <6afjLdO'> oaa' aweKeLire irodoju airaXrj irepl Toirj. But the context in which the fragment is quoted by our ancient authorities, as well as Lucret. 4, 680 sq., suggest rather that Empedocles was there illustrating his doctrine of universal aToppoLai. I find it difficult, therefore, to decide between the claims of Wvos and rjdos; but incline on the whole to favor the former because of v. 9, TToOkovTa 4>l\y]v eirl ykvvav iKeaOai. I may add that Mr. Cornford, From Rdigion to Philosophi/, p. G4, makes an interesting suggestion in regard to Emped. fr. 17, 28, TLfjLTJs 5' aWr]s aXXo jjcedeL, irapa 5' rjdos eKaaro), where he renders irapa . . . eKaaroo, 'each has its wonted range.' See ibid., p. 34. Now that the general sense of Emped. fr. 110 is clear, there can be no doul)t about the meaning of v. 5, oirrf (j)vaLs earlv eKaaru). It is prout caique natura est, "each after its kind.'' c. 32. Philolaus. V^ 239, 31. Fr. 1, d ^ucts 5' kv tQ Koafxc^. In V^ Diels adopts certain suggestions made in my Xotes on Philo- laus, Amer. Journ. of Philol., 28, p. 79, to which he refers, but rightly retains 5' ev tQ Koafxc^ instead of de too /c6(T/xco, which I formerly pro- posed; but in sense rco koc/xco was more nearly right than his rendering "bei der Weltordnung." In the notes he now cites parallels, which I furnished, for (pvcLs ev tQ Koa/JLO). They sufficiently explain the 730 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. HEIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. '31 phrase and fix its meaning. I will now add another, Plotin. Ennead. 3. 8. 1, Tal^ovres 6?) r-qv irpoorvv irplv emx^f-pelv awovda^eLi^ el XejOL/jLev Trdvra decopias €(t)ieadaL Kal els reXos tovto fiXeireiVy ov jjlovov eWoya dXXd Kal aWoya tv(tlv Kal T-qv ravra yev- vihaav yriv kt\. Thus rj ev to; Koapco 4>v(ns = rj rod Koafxov cfivcFLs. In Plotinus there is prohahly a suggestion of the common, universal (i>v(jLs as manifesting itself in plant-life; but all these passages alike prove that the phrase does not mean "bei der Weltordnung." ft V 240, 5. Fr. 2, b))\6i be Kal tol ev toIs epyots. Since Diels has now (V^) adopted my interpretation of these words, I might allow the matter to rest there; but the observation that this and similar phrases have been unthily pressed in other contexts leads me to illustrate it further. Nestle, in Philol., 67, 544, writing as it seems in ignorance both of Newbold's article and of mine, arrived at substantially the same conclusion with myself. It would carry us too far afield to consider in detail the passages which I have studied; hence I will give a list of those only which serve to illustrate Greek usage. It will be seen that ev tols epyots and em tcov epyoov are gen- erally used when appeal is made to facts of common observation or knowledge, as opposed to theory, argument, or unsupported statement. As a matter of fact, these references are usually so general that they amount to nothing but the bald assertion that observation or knowl- edge confirms or contradicts the proposition in question. In very few cases which I have noted does the context sufiice to enable one to specify the particular facts to which the writer afl'ects to appeal: many passages are open to difierent interpretations and competent scholars find it difficult to agree al)out them. They are therefore especially valuable for our purposes. See Plato, Protag. 352 A, Soph. 234 E, Gorg. 461 D, Repub. 396 A, 599 B, Phaedo 110 A, Tim. 19 E, Legg. ()79 D, Axiochus369 A; Xenoph. Hiero9. 3; Bonitz, Index AriM, 2m' 27 sq., 40 sq. ; Bywater, on Arist. Poet. 1453^ 17. Cp. Arist. I)e Gen. Animal. 3. 11. 762^ 15, ovdev yap k wavros yiveraL, Kaddwep ovd' ev rots vwo TTJs TexvTjs drjfXLovpyovjjLevoLs. Aleteor. 4. 3. 381^ 10, Kal ovbev btacfyepec ev opydvocs rexviKols ^ (t)V(jiKois, edv ylyv-qraL ' bid ttjv avrrjv yap air Lav irdvTa earai. Such general references to the similarity of prod- ucts of art and of nature abound in certain works of the Corpus Hippocrateum. See also Hippocr. Ilept cfyvaecov, 5 (where, after stating his theory, the writer says), wepl fxev ovv 6\ov rod ir p-qy naros apKel /jlol Tavra * /icrd be ravra wpos avrd rd epya rco aura) \6yco wopevOels eTLdei^oj rd voG'qp.ara rovrov eKyova ivdvra ebvra. In this instance the particular "facts" to which he appeals are mentioned. It is interesting to hear his conclusion, c. 15, vweaxopw be rcbv vovaoov rd ainov ^pdaeiv * eTre- bei^a be rd irvevpia Kal ev rois oKois Tvpr]yp.a(jL bvvaarevov Kal ev roTs aicpacn Tcov ^cocjov ' riyayov be rdv \6yov ewl rd yvcopLfxa rCov dppooarrjpdro^v, ev ols d\7]dr]s rj V7r6ax^(yi'S (v. 1. viroBeais) ecfidvr] * el ydp irepl iravrcov rccv dppco- arrjfxdroov XeyoLfxi, jjiaKporepos pev 6 \6yos dv yevoiro, drpeKearepos be ovbapobs ovbe inarorepos. V2 241, 12. Fr. 6, laorayrj. Diels has now adopted my emendation laorayrj for MS. laoraxv- When I proposed it, I ventured the suggestion relying on the analogy of opLorayrjSy not knowing that laorayijs itself was attested. I now observe, however, that Sophocles, Greek Lexicon, s. \'. cites it from Nicom. 51. c. 46. Anaxagoras. V^ 319, 19. Fr. 13, Kal ewelrip^aro 6 vovs Ktvelv, diro rod Ktvovpevov Travros direKplvero, Kal oaov eKivqaev 6 vovsy irdv rovro bieKpWr] * KLVovpevcov be Kal biaKpivop'evicv tj irepLxoopV^^'-^ ttoXXw pdWov eiroieL biaKpLvecdaL. It seems to me clear that 6 vovs is the subject of direKplvero in the second clause. "After the vovs gave the initial impulse to the motion of the world, it began to withdraw from all that was set in motion; and all that to which the movement initiated by the vovs extended, was segregated. As this motion and segregation con- tinued, the revolution greatly increased the segregation." The vovs gives the first impulse only, then withdraws to its condition of isola- tion; the revolution, once started, of itself accelerates and its efi'ects in the segregation of like to like in the irdvra bpov increase. Cp. i] 7repLX(j^pf]CFt'S avrrj, fr. 12, \^ 319, 4 sq. c. 51. Diogenes of Apollonia. V^ 334, 2. Fr. 1, \6yov iravros dpxdpevov boKel poi xpecui/ elvai rrjv dpxv^ dvajjL(j)La(3r]rr]rov irapex^o-Bat. With this statement compare Hippocr. Ilept aapKibv, 1 (8. 584 L.), 'E7cb rd pexpt- rod \6yov rovrov KOLvfjai yvccprjat xP^opat erepoiv re ru)v epTpoaOev, drdp Kal epeoovrov • dz^a7/catcos ydp ex^t kolvtjv dpxw viroOeadai 732 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. TJjaL yvoojjLijaL fiouXofxevov ^vvdelpaL top \6yov TovSe wept rrjs rex^rjs ttjt irjTpLKTJs. Uepl Texi^rjSy 4 (6. 6 L.), earl fxev ovv jjlol dpxr} rod \6yov, rj Kal 6jjLo\oyr]6'r]aeTaL Tapa wdaLP. Ilept tottccp toov Kara dvOpooirov, 2 (6. 278 L.), r]aLU, cos irpoeiprjTaL' tovtov de to fiiv irXrjpes eiuat, to 8e Kevbv, Kal aTotx^ld ^rycrt, Koapovs re eK TOVTcov OLTeipovs elvat Kal diaXveadai els raDra. For some time I have felt that there was some confusion and corruption in the text, and that the last sentence must refer to the rise of the worlds out of the direipov and their return into it at dissolu- tion. The well-known difficulties of the text of Diogenes alone deterred me from proposing a change. Now Diels, apparently from the MSS., restores k tovtov for k tovtoop. That is obviously the correct reading, whatever its source; hut with it should of course go the complementary reading els tovto for els raDra. The preceding sentence, however, has likewise suffered. The direipov is clearly conceived as the Aristotelian dpxr] Kal aToixelop by the interpolator or epitomator who supplied the clause Kal aroLxeld (i)r](jL\ for to his nund the words tovtov to pev TXrjpes, to de Kevbu do not suggest spatial regions of the extended aireipov, but ontological yev-q of the metaphysical apx^?- His addition was absurdly misplaced, as were many in the text of Diogenes; but once there, it corrupted the following sentence. See above, p. 691, on V^ 17, 37. V2 344, 14. Arist. De Gen. et Corr. 1. S. 324^35, obQ 5^ pdXiaTa Kal irepl irdvToov evl Xoyo) bioiplKacn AevKLWTos Kal ArjpoKpLTOs. The meaning of the phrase epl Xoyco lias here been strangely misconceived. Prantl renders it *'in einer Begriindung"; Zeller, 1 847, n. 1, "aus den gleichen Principien"; Doring, Gcsch. dcr gr, Philos.y I. 238, '*die von einem Princip ausgehende Losung"; Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, 385, '*on the same theory." 1 have failed to find this passage noted in Kranz's Wortinchw, but in a similar one (\ 83, 8, evl be Xoyco iravTa ktX.), omitting to quote irdpTa, he gives the meaning of Xoyos as "Vernunft" (V^ II. 2, 357, 30)1 Similarly HEIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 733 Burnet, in his note on Plato, Phaedo 65 D, gives a false emphasis and in effect a false interpretation, because he overlooks, what is obvious, that in the phrase /cat roov aXXoji^ evl Xoyo) dwavTOiVy the phrase IpI Xoyco is to be taken as emphasizing dirdvTWP; and Capps, on Menander, Epitrep. 197 sq. KaTapepoo, avpLOP oTCx) jSovXead' einTpeTreiv epl Xoyco eTOLpOSf 1 I wrongly takes epl Xoyco with eTocpos instead of orco fiovXead'. Curios- ity, awakened by the false points made by scholars in connection with the Aristotelian passage we are considering, led me to make a collection of cases of evl Xoyco, which grew to considerable propor- tions. I will not print a list here, since such collections possess no value in my sight except as an examination of the context serves to determine the sense of the locution in question. Suffice it to say that in almost every instance the immediate context contained a compre- hensive or universal expression, such as irdp, ovbep, pvpia, etc. But IpI Xoyco does not stand alone, for there is a considerable number of phrases similarly used; of these I give a few which should serve to illustrate the construction. Aeschyl. P. V. 46, cbs aTrXo; Xoyco . . . ovbep; ibid. 505, (Spax^l be pvBco wdpTa avXXrj0b7]P pade; ibid. 975, aTrXo; Xoyco TdpTas exOalpco deoi's; Herod. 2. 24, cos pev vvv ev eXaxlcrrco b-qXco- o-at, irdv eiprjTai; ibid. 225, cos be ev irXeoPi Xoyco brjXcoaai, o)be exet; ibid. 2. 3V, pvpias cos elTelp Xoyco; ibid. 3. 6, ep Kepdpiop olprjpop dptdpco Keipov ovK eaTL cos X67C0 elrelp IbecrOai; ibid. 3. 82, epl be ewei irdvTa GvXXafioPTa elivelp; Plato Apol. 22 B, cos evros elirelp bXlyov avTcop dirap- ras; Xenoph. Mem. 4. 3. 7, cos Tap avveXoPTi elwelp, ovbep ktX.; Amphis, fr. 30, 7 Kock, dwaPTes dpbpo(j)6poi ydp elatv evl Xoyco. Adverbs like ep^axv are similarly employed. After reciting this list of passages I think we may be sure that in the passage we are considering Aristotle merely meant to say that the procedure of Leucippus and Democritus was not only exceedingly methodical (65co /xdXtcrra), but also com- prehensive (Trept irdpTcop epl Xoyco). Possibly those who have been reading something more into Aristotle's words might receive some comfort from Hippocr. Ilept ewTaprjpov, 3 (7. 438 L.), xP^^'^o.i be irdaai epl Xoyco irepl TovTeov ' (paal ydp ktX. But the context shows that epl Xoyco means "one formula of expression." Even if one should insist on taking Aristotle's words as a parallel to this, it would greatly aflect the traditional interpretations of the passage. 734 PROCEFDIXGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. V 344, 21. Arist. De Gen. et Corr. 1. 8. 325''* 25, 6/xoXo77?(7as 8e Tavra fiev roTs aLVo^evoLs, rols de to ep KaraaKevd^ovaiP ws ovk av KLPTjaLP ovaap dpev nevov, to re Kevov /jltj ov Kal tov optos oiBev fxij op (t>r](JiP elpau to yap Kvpicos op 7ra,uTr\rjp€s op. I cannot understand how scholars have been so long content to retain this text, which yields no sense and so clearly suggests the true reading. With it we must compare other passages' in which the same matter is under consideration. Arist. Met. 1. 4. 985^^ 4 (V^ 343, 44), AevKLTTos de Kal 6 halpos avTov Ar^poKptTos aTOLxela pep to 7rX^p€s Kal TO Kepop elpai 4>aaL, UyoPTes t6 p^p 6p to be prj op, tovtc^p 8e to pep TrXijpes Kal aTepeop to op, to de Kepop Kal papop to pij op (Sta Kal ovd^p pdXXop t6 op tov pi) oPTos elpai ct>aaLP, ore ovbe to Kepbp KeXaTTOP Diels> tov ad^paTos), ama be t^p optc^v TavTa cos vXrjp. Whether Diels was right in proposing to insert eXaTTOP we shall have presently to inquire. Simpl. Phys. 28, 11 (V^ 345, 5), 'eTi 6c ovb^p pdXXop TO OP i) TO prj OP viTdpxeLP, Kal ama opolccs eiPai TOLs JiPopePOLs apcf^co. ttjp ph yap t^p aTopccp oiaiap paaTrjp Kal TX-qprj VTTodepePos OP eXeyep elpai Kal ep re? KepQ> ct^epeadai, owep prj op kKaXeL Kal ovk eXaTTOP tov optos elpai (fyrjai. We are familiar With the pun which Democritus employed to enforce this point of doctrine, fr. 156 (V2413, 11), pij pdXXop to bep r) Td p^bep elpac. It seems to me obvious that in the passage under consideration prj op IS a corruption l)y itacism for pelop. Indeed, I am inclined to think that the pun to re Kepop prj op Kal tov optos ovdep pelop derives from the same fertile brain as pij pdXXop to bep rj to prjbep, and that we have thus found another fragment of Democritus partially converted into the Attic dialect. If this be conceded, it seems more prol)able that we should supply pelop than eXaTTOP fwith Diels) in Met. 985*^ 9 Aristotle used the word, Eth. Xic. 5. 1. 1129^ 8, boKel Kal to pelop KaKOP dyaSop ttojs elpac, where the true reading, corrupted in the ^MSS., had to be recovered from the commentaries and xersions. Cp' Aeschyl. P. V. 508, cos 67^^ i eveXwis elpt T^pbe a eK be Wedge Photometer, pp. 301-324. November, 1886. 25c. Part 6. No. 7. Wyman. M. — Memoir of Daniel Trej^dwell. October, 1887. $2.00. Vol. 12. 1. Sawyer. E. F. — Catalogue f the Magnitudes of S from 0° to — 30"* Declination, to the Magnitude 7.0 inclusive, pp. 1892. $1.50. 2. Rowlaua, H. A. — On a Table of Standard Wave Lengths o: Lines, pp. 101-186. December. 1S96 .J2.00. 3. Thaxter. R. — Contribution towants a Monograph of the Lz •oulb'^ '-cea?. pp. 187-430. 26 pis. December, 1896. $6.00. 4. Lowell, P. — New Observations of the Planet Mercury, pp. 43 -466. 8 pl«» June. 1898. $1.25. 5. Sedgwick, W. T.. and Winslow. C. E. A. — (I.) Experiments or the Effect of Freezing and other low Temperatures upon the Viability of tiie Bacillus of Typhoid Fever, with Considerations regarding Ice as a Vehicle of Infectious Disease. (II.) Statistical Studies on the Seasonal Prevalenct of Typhoid tever in various Countries and its Relation to Seasonal Temperat' pp. 467- 579. 8 pis. August, 1902. $2.50. Vol. 13. 1. Curtiss. D. R. — Binary Families in a Triply connectet Hegiou with Especial Reference to HypergeometricFymilies. pp. 1-60. January 1904. $1.00. 2. Tonks. O. S. — Brygos: his Characr.-Lsvics. pp. 61-119. 2 pk 1904 $1.50. 3. Lyman. T. — The Spectnm^ of Hydrc .mi in *he Region of Ex Wave^ Length, pp. 121-148. pis. .a-vu-. February. 1906. 75c 4. Pickering. W. R. — Lunar and Ha'./s.Jan Physical Featurt pp. 149-179. .x-xxiv. Novemb'^r, 1>;3. $1.10. p. 325-523. itheru Stari^ 100. May, •.he Spectral- .^'ovfmber. wiiily dhort Compared. 5. Trcwiui.jse, High Elec-ro-raotive rorce. pp. 181-215. .v.xv-xxvil. May, 19U- 6. Tcf^-^i •" Part 1'. '■ '.c K.- — Coil ;t.' tion tovvard a Monograph of the La ulbenia. '^ee. PROCFJDIKGS 25 %; to m^'mbers 5- The ind. An?,) ^ct'das u: pp. 2i7-4r'> pis. xxr''.i-ixxi. Jr.ae, 1908. $7.00. ^-47, ^5 ei'fi. Discount to b, or for whol' rets 60%. vo )o '0 oksellera ari.cies is X on •:. hc 1-8 Newburv Street, Boston, Masnachusett f::m- Pz-f. |,«f ml M'