Review

Author(s): Jaap Mansfeld

Review by: Jaap Mansfeld
Source: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 62, Fasc. 1 (2009), pp. 113-116
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27736303
Accessed: 03-03-2015 21:14 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:14:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BRILL

62

Mnemosyne

novis

De

S. 2006.

Mouraviev,

III.3.B/?,

p. Pr.

xxviii,

59.00;

libris iudicia

III.

III.3.B/?.

Apparatus

livre d'Heraclite.

traductions,

IV-V:

formae

traduc

Textes,

du

fragments

I-III?Textes,

apparatus

Heraclitea.

Fragmenta

superstites?Les

reliquiae

versiones,

Textus,

375

B: Libri

113-116

(2009)

Recensio

Heraclitea.

tions et commentaire.

MNEMOSYNE
A Journal
of
ClassicalStudies
www.brill.nl/mnem

I-III.

apparatus

et

orationis?Langue

forme:apparats IV-V et sch?mas, xxviii, 178 p. Pr. 39.00; III.3.B/iii. Ad lectiones

adnotamenta?Annotations
Academia

The

44.00.

Sankt

Augustin,

Verlag.

first of

believes

p. Pr.

209

xxxiii,

critiques,

the

three

to be either

volumes

ipsissima

announced

verba

contains

above
or

of H(eraclitus)

what

information

M(ouraviev)
that can

some

how be linked to a definite though not (yet) located passage in the originalwork,
with

meticulous

transcriptions

in Renaissance

French,

lists of ancient
times),

and

second

is a

sources,

ing translations
on four

based

the

and

references

Ionic
in

English

and Attic

alphabets

(!), translations
and

characters,

antiquated

Russian,

and reminiscences
(some
doxography,
parallels
to earlier editions
and secondary
literature. The

metrical,

generous
two

and

language

related

early

and
poetological
to
each
tropes, etc.)
fragment,
were
and textual choices.
They

linguistic,

eration, wordplay,

Petrarca,

full

very

in

Ye Olde

volumes

containing

equally

generous

poetics'

of H.1}

volumes

(pertaining
the third a commentary

preceded
by and
source
texts from

dealing

Reasonably

to allit

commentary

with

said

to be

Epicharmus

to

the life and

respectively

the

enough,

are

elucidat

'fragments'

are

in

listed

the ordering and with thenumbering of theFragmenteder Vorsokratiker,

which, as
we know, lists them in themelancholy order determined by the
alphabetical
sequence

of

the

(most

to these DK

appended

important)
fragments

from each other

distinguished
at the end of the set.
printed

source

authors.

and
by

given
means
of

Further

the same

texts

source-based

letters, while

other

added

by M.,
are
number,

such

texts

are

1}A CD-Rom

are accessible at www.

is provided with vol. II.A.3; the texts of vols. A.II.1-4
comments. Vols. II.A.1 and 2 (Sankt
where M. also welcomes
academia-verlag.de/heraclitea,
have been reviewed by me in Phronesis 45 (2000), 346-7, vol. III.
1999-2000)
Augustin
A.3

(Sankt Augustin

2002)

in Phronesis

2003) inPhronesis49 (2005), 336-7.

? Koninklijke BrillNV, Leiden, 2009

48

(2003),

165-7,

and vol. ULI

DOI:

(Sankt Augustin

10.1163/156852508X321284

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:14:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

De novislibrisiudiciaIf.Mansfeld IMnemosyne62 (2009) 113-116

114
M.

has done

the earlier

amount

staggering

volumes,

of work,

and

a bit
daunting

though

of source

his collection
of

because

its size,

is

texts in
useful.

certainly

But his edition of the fragments isdisappointing. Virtually all his editorial choices
are

in the

found

already

of the

edition

preliminary

in a slim volume

fragments

une
published fifteenyears before the present editiomaior.2) Tant de bruitpour
to

in order

from

evidence

the abundant

omelette:
collected

underpin

seems

to Petrarca

Epicharmus

these preferences.

M.

Though

to have

been

states

repeatedly

that

his work is not definitive and {moreheracliteo) constantlymoving and changing,

and

that one

so that

scholars

is to put

of his chief aims

can make

they

the available

their own minds,3)

up

at the
disposition

evidence

is in fact

there

of

little or no

development from 1991 to 2006. And there ismuch special pleading, e.g. in the
on B55

commentary

or even no

and B76,

pleading

at all

is the

(why, for instance,

proposed participle swap rejected for B21?), and much hedging of bets. And
the

1991

vant

also

so

ismuch

edition

no
texts where
modifying
to
tends
preserve word-forms
sense. Emendations

good
tary

inMarcovich's

The

good.

of the rele

presentation

better.4)

is quite often disinclined to leavewell alone, and willfully rewrites the

M.
Greek,

is sorry to say, is not

one

edition,

evidence

to B80

mettent

vol.

DK,

s?rieusement

of other
B/iii

p.

intervention
in the MS
scholars

la fiabilit?

are often

du

sens

the other

On

e.g.

rejected,

corrections

"Deux

92:

is needed.

text of a source which

obtenu".

aussi
Some

he

hand

fail to make

in the commen
compro

drastiques

of his

examples

own

corrections in vol. B/i: inB12 he needlesslywrites \jn)%oci

S? <oo(poc?> (so already
fr.87 inM. 1991). In Bl 5 hewrites thefirstwords as et uri<v>, though \ii\isquite
intelligible (atM. 1991 fr. 142 he wrote si <koc?>). In B23 he changes ?vouec to
ocvouoi,

while

loi n'auraient

point

text M.

ft. 51)

tean
into

1991

original.
the

??naav

keeping

besoin

text M.

1991

de

thus producing
justice',
an
sentence
explanatory
a
he
word which makes
changes

he adds

In B31

awkward

(same

8'

ocia

x?exai,

and

unnecessarily

fr. 2),
a

and

translates

platitude.

of Clement
good
adds

sense,

Tes

In B29

sans
(same

to the Heracli
viz.

Siax?exai,

<7tupo9ev>

before

TCp?oGev (betterM. 1991 fr. 151). In B44 he reads a doublet, viz. vrcep [sic] zov
v?uoD, \)7C?p[sic] xo\)ye vou?uoi) (as already inM. 1991 fr.53; similar avoidable

2)
Mouraviev,
(Moscou/Paris),

S.

1991. Heraclitea,
xxviii, 39 p. +

ou ?De la nature?
d'Eph?se, ?les Muses?
a
xxiii-xxvi
with
brief
pp.
analysis
'd?pliant',
poetological
The blurb among other things tells us that the author is
IV.A: Heraclite

the large vol. ULI.

anticipating
en
"autodidacte
classique".
philologie
3)
II.3.B/?
p. xi.
E.g.
4)
Esp. the corrected Italian edition, Marcovich,

M.

1978. Eraclito: Frammenti,

a.c.d. M.M.

(Firenze).

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:14:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

De novislibrisiudiciaI].Mansfeld IMnemosyne62 (2009) 113-116

115

doublet inhis textof B86, as alreadyM. 1991 fr.67). In B49A he insertsa phrase
fromSeneca,5) retrovertingit intoGreek aswell (fr.130 inM. 1991 has this trans

latedGreek too, but here the Latin is still in the apparatus). In B50, where he
attributesHippolytus' 0?ov ?ixociov toHeraclitus (rejecting the suggestion that
Hippolytus means theGnostic 'justGod' of theOld Testament), he inventsand
adds a whole colon afterHippolytus' S?kociov, thus: O?kociov<?oxi too Soyuocxo?
ocuxo?

?icouoavxa?

is

which

?ikouo\)v>,

aocp?v

to mean

supposed

'juste

est <que

les ?couteurs de son dogme le jugent sage>'. The author of thisdogme is 3.B/iii
p. 50 claimed to be Xenophanes, a fanciful idea based on a misinterpretation of

9.5, forwhich see below. In B51 (same textM. 1991 fr. 110) he insertsev
from a parallel in Plato into the text of Hippolytus, and adds the superfluous
at the end of B73 + 74 is
<noKkoi> "metrigratia". The addition of <\)A,ockx??v>

D.L.

bizarre ('barking' kids already atM.

('n?cessaire

Justice

construction

Greek

there

Naturally,

1991 fr. 16). The love-affair(s)ofWar

ce Conflit,

et Justice

l'universel,

soient

amants')

and

in B80,

1991 fr.24) sticks to transmitted?pe?v, is/arebizarre too, and

(as inM.

whereM.
qua

est que

unthinkable.

quite

is the occasional

locus

and one

desperatus,

with M.'s

sympathizes

valorous attempts at healing. Hippolytus' evooc?eovxi at the beginning of B63 is

virtually

But M.'s

incomprehensible.
in H.'s

words

mouth,

writing

corps?>'.

his

by him

and

?ovxi,

here,

est dans

'qui

for he puts

la tombe

<du

some
it is not clear
tenets are admitted
why
physical
though
are not; to what
extent these echo the
work
verbatim
original
are at any rate to be
Some
added
seen, or so I believe.
fragments

thought,
others

to be

remains

8'

certainlybelong with the tradition con

Some of the fragmentsadded byM.

cerning

is too drastic

medication

?v 0?<7tcoi>

rejected.D.L. 9.5 tellsus thatH. 'was nobody's pupil (fjKODa?xe o?Sev?c)?no,

he said he inquired of himself [cf.B101 DK], and learned everythingfromhim
self.But Sotion [fr.30Wehrli] says that some people said he had been a pupil of
Xenophanes (Sevo?avou? oc?xov ?cicr|Ko?vai)'. This typicallyDiogenean report
about

contrasting

Sotion,
to

people

views

is clear
was

is that Heraclitus
who

for us

remain

enough.

self-taught,

The
but

he was

nameless

view,

general
Sotion

also

reported

Xenophanes'

shared

evidently

pupil.

that
M.

by

according

argues

that

thisderives from somethingH. himself said inhis book, 3.B/iii p. 131 ad fr. 107E:
"H.

n'a

sans doute

certainement

jamais

lu, voire

affirm?

?cout?".

avoir

?t?

de

disciple

de z?le_This

Trop

X?nophane.
to

desire

Mais
enlarge

il l'avait
the

set of

fragmentsmay also be responsible for the inclusion of thenew fragment 13A,Nui;

5) In the
commentary
l'attribution

? Heraclite".

he says that these

True

enough,

lines "n'ont

rien qui en interdise formellement

in this form, or precisely here?

but why precisely

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:14:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

De novislibrisiudiciaIf.Mansfeld IMnemosyne62 (2009) 113-116

116
9e?

rapc?xioTTi,

sippus'

est la tout
premi?re

Ta Nuit

Piet.

ap. Phld.

argument

cols.

From

d?esse'.

6-7', with

the report
to Books

references

about

Chry

2 and

1 of his

On Nature, itclearly follows that (as isonly to be expected) the author of thisview
is

one

'Orpheus',

of the authorities

views

whose

to accommo

tried

Chrysippus

date' with Stoic theory (cf.Cic. N.D. 1.41).

At B59 M. retainsMS ypoccp?cov
and rejects the splendid and often accepted
yvacpeicoi.

conjecture
of the word
Latin

may

be,

He

argues

its first
meaning

for 'letter', elementum,

means
this also

element'
holds

both

as follows,

also means

in the sense

for another

Greek

'way' of these ypoccpecov, 'both

what we have here is a horizontal
complementary

to their famous

of'letter'
word

the

be

'physical

'letters'. Everyone
knows
that the
as Greek axoi%eiov
element',
just

and

meaning

in that
of'physical
Now

Tetters'.

Heraclitean

straight

a line, even
writing
as curved
strokes.

here: when
as well

element'.

So

the text says

that

is one and the same',

straight and crooked,
movement
of the
elements which
physical
way

and

up

down.

M.
suggestwe need not thinkof the physical elements even if

are meant

the nominative

p. 59: whatever

3.B/iii

must

Heraclitean
therefore,
Unfortunately,
to the text of the
approaches
fragments,

in an archaic

studies
nor

Greek

are

not

criteria
by his

UtrechtUniversity,Department ofPhilosophy Jaap

Heidelberglaan 6

So

far M.

so

But

is
I

is rightthatTetters'
script,

one

furthered

inscribes

by M.'s

for inclusion.

Mansfeld

3584 CS Utrecht, TheNetherlands

]aap.Mansfeld@phil. uu. nl

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:14:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions