Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DEONTOS
A New Reconstruction and Reading
of Heraclitus Fragments B 1 and B 2 DK1
In this article we would like to reopen the question of the reconstruction and interpretation of
the first lines of Heraclitus famous fragment B 1 which stood most probably at the very
beginning of his whole book. The text is preserved in quotations by six different authors (some
however dependent on one another) and may be reasonably reconstructed in the following way:2
B 13:
always men fail to comprehend,
as I set forth 5
The group of majuscule letters the
moment most probably represents the form how the text appeared in antiquity. As it is a usual
case, it was transcribed to minuscule at the beginning of Byzantine era. It was also the time when
the ancient scriptio continua was divided into the separate words and the punctuation, antecedent to
the modern one, was to be inserted. In our case this can be reasonably done in two ways:
a)
b)
The first reading is usually adopted in the editions of Heraclitus whereas the latter one is being
neglected. This may seem strange since in the second case the division of the word appears more
natural. The first reading is rather awkward since the demonstrative pronoun
is in
postpositive position and elided because of the following word beginning with a vowel (
).
This fragment describes a similar situation as B 1 those to whom Heraclitus speaks, should
listen to the account (
own words what matters but the Logos in general, presumably the order of the world.7
Some roughly contemporary authors starting their books with the expressions like I write these
things (
) or my account (
) and
thus guaranteeing the validity of their exposition through their personal authority.8 However, as
5
the comparison with fragment B 50 shows, in the case of Heraclitus the situation is more
complicated as he seems to regard himself as a kind of prophet of a deeper Logos than his own.
Furthermore, the subsequent text of fragment B 1 is the only another occurrence where
the term Logos appears together with the pronoun this. But one may wonder why such a
skilful writer as Heraclitus certainly was did not avoid a word to word repetition of this account
) with the pronoun in postpositive position in both cases. Could it perhaps be that
the second occurrence of the expression in question helped the editors to decipher the
might be difficult to explain why and in what sense this Logos exists always although one could
contrast its eternal existence with the temporal becoming of humans (
the epithet always existing (
).9 Moreover,
would give to the Logos with a divine status which is in a good accord with what Heraclitus
claims about it. Finally, one could point at the parallels with the expression to tell the existing
account (
.12
Let us now turn to the textual tradition of Heraclitus fragment B 1. Nearly all the
important manuscripts of the authors who preserve the beginning of Heraclitus B 1, namely,
Hippolytus,13 Clemens,14 Eusebius (who takes the passage from Clemens),15 Aristotle16 and the
Byzantine anonymous commentator to him17 adopt the reading
being almost unanimously corrected by editors to
. However, it is
judgment, many and ridiculous. Ion of Chios, DK 36 B 1: The starting point of my discourse (
).
9 But see Kirk (1954), pp. 40-41.
10 Cf. Kahn (1979), p. 97, (2003), pp. xxi, 242, 354, n. 26, 379, (2009), pp. 28-29, 126-127, 174, 204, Tarn (1986), p.
6, with the references. According to Kahn the expression is used by Heraclitus in B 30 about the cosmos.
11 Herodotus, Hist. I,95, 116. See Kahn (2003), p. 354, with further references.
12 One may note that the two last interpretations of
are classified into two different categories according to
Kahns in his studies of the semantics of Greek word be. They are, however, blended in the case of Heraclitus B 1,
cf. Kahn (1979), p. 93-95.
13 Hippolytus, Refut. IX,9,3.2 Marcovich:
P;
Sthlin.
15 Eusebius, Praep. ev. XIII,13,39.2 des Places:
codd.;
Sthlin.
16 Aristotle, Rhet. 1407b16-17 Wartelle:
(: Parisinus gr. 1741, X.-XI. century, : texte conjectural
de la Vetusta translatio, XIII. century, : scholia);
(: all the MSS from XIII-XVI. century without
;
scripseris, ei necessario
adhaeret, neque ambiguum est quod
auctor vituperat, Spengel (1867), vol. II, p. 379.
17 Anonymus, In Arist. Rhet. 183.19-21 Rabe:
Vn;
Victorius.
the problem.18 The main counterevidence is provided by Sextus Empiricus who preserved the
fragment in the greatest length which is also probably the reason why it is his text which is usually
taken as the ultimate source of B 1. However, its beginning as found in his text is clearly
defective. If we compare it with the other witnesses, some words are plainly missing (<
elision in
< >
>
closely after B 1 another fragment follows, B 2, which is not preserved anywhere else and in
which a similar problem occurs. We will have to return to it in the due course.) The manuscript
tradition thus points rather to
different ancient authors the Byzantine scribes who were responsible for the transcription of all
these different texts to minuscule and the subsequent recopying chose independently this reading
whereas
Now, let us look at the contexts in which the fragment B 1 was preserved. If we are to
judge how these writers themselves understood Heraclitus saying while commenting upon it the
situation is no less puzzling. Apart from Sextus, Hippolytus may be claimed to read the
20
but the text of the manuscript is corrupted and other readings are possible. The situation is
further complicated by the fact that the manuscript gives a different reading of the fragment itself
(
basis of a corrupted context that itself needs an emendation which considerably undermines the
reliability of this author for the reconstruction. The alleged echo of Heraclitus B 1 in Cleanthes
Hymn to Zeus (v. 21:
the state of the text. It contains two conjectures and one may doubt whether if an alternative
18 For the major exceptions cf. Dufour Wartelle (1973), p. 107, n. 6 (to p. 52) (author of this note is A. Wartelle):
Tout en conservant ici la leon de Vettori adopte par M. Dufour et la traduction de ce dernier, on se demande
cependant sil ne vaudrait pas mieux suivre la leon du mss. A,
: que la raison leur
fasse dfaut toujours, les hommes en sont inconscients . La remarque dAristote garderait dailleurs toujours la
mme ambigut : que la raison leur fasse dfaut, les hommes en sont toujours incoscients . Diels et Kranz (fr. 22
A 4) adoptent la leon
, mais la suite est significative : de cette raison qui leur manque toujours [= leon de
A] les hommes sont inconscients, aussi bien avant den avoir entendu parler quen en entendant parler pour la
premire foi; bien que tout arrive selon cette raison (
) les hommes ressemblent des
ignorants, en sessayant des paroles et des actes pareils ceux dont moi je fais un expos conforme la nature, en
distinguant chaque chose et en expliquant comment elle est; les autres hommes nont aucune conscience de ce quils
font quand ils sont veills, tout de mme quils oublient ce quils font dans leur sommeil . Cest bien dire que, selon
Hraclite, la raison reste toujours pour lhomme un besoin, mais la difficult majeure est encore de savoir ce
quHraclite entend exactement par raison [Note rdige en collaboration avec P. Thillet].
19 Sextus Empiricus, Adv. math. VII,132.26-27 Mutschmann:
NLE;
(XV.-XVI. century).
20 Hippolytus, Refut. IX,9,3.1:
,
The
is a
reasonable emendation by Miller adopted also by Marcovich for the obviously corrupted
in the only extant
manuscript P. However, an alternative
has been suggested by Bernays.
emendation were adopted, on could find any parallel with Heraclitus at all.21 The only conclusive
evidence that an ancient author was able to read
anonymous author uses it with a definite article, that means, as a metalanguage or a quotation (
, i.e. deontos).25 This testimony is even more valuable since both, Aristotle and the
anonymous commentator, are discussing the very text of Heraclitus fragment and not
interpreting his teaching. Nevertheless, if we count Sextus in, both ways how to interpret the
beginning of B 1 seem to occur in antiquity or Byzantium. We thus may conclude that, despite
the way the text of B 1 is usually treated in modern editions, the
is confirmed not
only by the manuscript tradition but also as a reading of the anonymous commentator to
Aristotles Rhetoric which is an important testimony indeed.
Since the version of the fragment as it is preserved by Sextus is the longest and obviously
also the trickiest one, it is useful to look on the treatment of Heraclitus by this ancient sceptical
philosopher in more depth. Sextus seems to be much preoccupied to show that Heraclitus is a
dogmatist, presumably because his otherwise revered predecessor Aenesidemus thought the
contrary and followed Heraclitus in certain points.26 For this reason Sextus tries to show, most
fully in his Pyrrhonian Hypotheses, that Heraclitus thesis that the contraries may be attributed to the
Cleanthes, Hymn. Iov. 21 Zuntz (Marcovich, Heraclitus B 1 = 1 (e)). The manuscript reading is:
. Whereas
really seems to be corrupted because of the meter and
the emendation to
by Ursinus is an obvious and natural correction, Bruncks emendation of
to
may not be necessary. Thom (2005), pp. 110-111, argues for the traditional emendation supported by
Heraclitus B 1, however, at the same time he claims: A strict Heraclitean interpretation is forced to admit a
tenstion between vv. 18-21 and the surrounding context. Although Cleanthes may have been influenced by
Heraclitus, he gives a different interpretation to the role of Zeus. His phraseology is also much closer to that of
Hesiod and Solon than to that of Heraclitus. Ibid., pp. 23-24. Thom also quotes a line from Hesiod, Theog. 21,
closely resembling the unconjectured text, ibid., p. 37, to v. 21, p. 111, n. 338:
.
22 Amelius ap. Eusebius, Praep. ev. IX,19,1 (= fr. 1 Zoubos):
,
,
,
.
26 Cf. Aenesidemus apud Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrh. Hyp. I,210, Adv. math. VII,349-350, VIII,8, IX,337, X,216-217, 233.
21
) cannot be taken as a
sceptical position as Aenesidemus and his followers would like to. According to Sextus this
alleged sceptical thesis of Heraclitus is in a blatant contradiction with other dogmatic statements
of his.27 Similarly, in his other work, in the passage where Heraclitus fragments in question are
preserved, Sextus tries to demonstrate that Heraclitus does not differ in any way from other
dogmatists as regards the criterion which enables us to attain truth.28 On the basis of fragment B
107 he claims that according to Heraclitus the criterion of truth cannot be senses but reason
(logos).29 He even provides the reader with a kind of physiological interpretation of Heraclitus
thought by claiming that according to him we acquire reason through respiration and lose it when
) is thus supposed to be
31
the criterion of truth for Heraclitus. After this introductory remarks Heraclitus fragments B 1
and B 2 are evoked and commented in a way that (as Sextus claims after quoting B 1) everything
we do or think is due to the participation in this divine reason (
) and that (after B 2 is quoted) this is the explanation of the order of the Whole (
we are able to tell the truth only through the relation to the Logos that is common and we lie if
we stick to our private opinions or individual matters in general. Thus in Sextus interpretation
Heraclitus Logos becomes the criterion of truth.32 This also explains why Sextus says elsewhere
that man is not rational, the only thing that is reasonable is the circumambient (
take up again the problem of Heraclituss thought as expounded by Sextus in due time.
*
Now, let us have go back to the fragment B 2 which we have ignored so far and which, if we are
to believe Sextus, followed closely after B 1:
B 2:34 {
}35
<
>
27
math. VII,133):
28
common
<
>
< >
B 2:
In both cases the word Logos is in genitive case and followed by the ( )
text that follows the
. In the
authors where the fragment is preserved. If we compare the three remaining pairs, in the case of
the first of them uncomprehending (
) and many (
) and live (
),
)
2 Heraclitus takes up B 1 again. We should not, however, overweight this parallel too much since
in the case of fragment B 1 the missing
the
defective state too. This counts also for the interpretation of the
as
in B 2
which is the sole variant in manuscripts according to the editors. Given the obvious bad
treatment of Heraclitus text by Sextus in the case B 1, this might not be the only possible
reading. In fact, as far as the ancient text is concerned, there seems no obstacle that prevents us
to read the original
as the
both cases, the fragment B 1 as well as B 2? As we have seen above when going through the
context in which both fragments are preserved, Sextus wanted to show that Heraclitus is not a
sceptic as the followers of Aenesidemus would like to claim, since he, too, accepts a criterion
36
which is supposed to be the circumambient divine reason which is able to correct the
information coming to us from senses. This aim of Sextus might help to explain why in the case
of B 1 he has chosen the reading of the logos that (really) exists humans always prove to be
uncomprehending (
), omitting
always ( ). In the case of B 2 the situation is analogous since Sextus reads: although the
Logos is common (or alternatively even: although there exists the common Logos), the many
). The reading
that is, exists, or is common which is to show that there is a criterion of truth of things even for
Heraclitus. This is perfectly in accord with Sextus overall interpretation of Heraclitus thought.
Needless to say, one may not find such an interpretation of his the only thinkable. And given the
differences shown by comparison with other authors one also cannot exclude the possibility of
Sextus deliberately modifying the text.
*
Yet should we rather trust the majority of Byzantine scribes or an otherwise unknown late
commentator to Aristotle who, in B 1, seem to read
much they pondered over the meaning of the sentence in question. When transcribing the
commentator but is it viable in the perspective of correct grammar? In the standard Greek to
English dictionary the verb
(B) to lack,
(A) two other
important words are derived (with independent entries in the dictionary): impersonal
is need, one must and participle
meaning based on the second entry
there
) as
has been suggested by some,39 does not seem to be possible since according to the dictionary
entry, including the examples listed in it, this meaning designates an object missing to the subject,
not the fact that the subject itself is missing. Let us therefore turn rather to the first entry
(A) and its derivatives. The attractive reading of B 1 based on
what is needful/right (
of B 2 where
obstacle since it is preferable to find the meaning applicable in both fragments because of their
38
analogous structure we have observed above. The same holds about the similarly attractive
fit/proper Logos. What remains is thus the verb
(A)
in the first sense the binding Logos. Such a reading fits well into both fragments.
Furthermore, we have seen that the verb
and the
which means that apart from the physical literal meaning it may well have more abstract ethical
or normative overtones. Thus the Logos may be binding not only because it binds or
connects together the humans as well as the things together, but also because it binds or
obliges someone to do what is proper. This meaning may be supported by
B 2, which is exceptional for Heraclitus who otherwise prefers
at the beginning of
B 1:
<
>
) appearing in B 8,44 B 51,45 and B 54,46 the latter being derived from the
41
Cf. Conche (1986), p. 57. This is also reason why this fragment was also sometimes considered as spurious.
For a basic overview see Kahn (1979), pp. 97-102, Fronterotta (2013), pp. lii-lxviii.
43 = 25 Marcovich, CXXIV Kahn, 127 Conche, 16 Fronterotta.
44 = 27d1+28b1 Marcovich, LXXV Kahn, 116 Conche, 14a Fronterotta.
42
verb
meaning join, or fit together. These two terms have both a literal, almost
bodily and physical meaning and a more abstract one. Thus, according to Kahn, in the case of
syllapsies the sense may be seizing, laying hold of, arresting, apprehending, but also
comprehending in a cognitive act whereas harmoni may be understood as a physical fitting
together of parts, as a principle of reconciliation between opponents, and as a pattern of musical
attunement. In Heraclitus both terms are supposed to describe the united order of the world
emerging from (competitive) relations among many things.47 It seems that the notion of biding
Logos fits well into this picture. It represents a cosmic order which unites various things within
itself, each getting to its proper place which is delimited against the others. Everything is thus
bound, that is, entangled or even seized in an overall structure. At the same time it is bound,
because it is constrained and forced not to transgress the proper limits (see further B 30, 41, 53,
66, 80, 94, 124). Furthermore, the one who listens to Heraclitus logos is bound, that means,
obliged and compelled to accept it as true and act according to it (see further B 108, 114).
To summarize, we have made an attempt to show that the manuscript variant (
) of Heraclitus fragments B 1 and B 2 is a viable one and gives a satisfactory sense in
both cases (the binding Logos). It is not only the majority reading of medieval manuscripts but
is also supported by the Byzantine commentator to Aristotles Rhetoric. The only important author
who thus seems to prefer the standard scholarly reading (
the existing
Logos) is Sextus Empiricus whose text is nonetheless obviously corrupted or even deliberately
altered and who chooses such a reading because he is lead by his own general interpretation of
Heraclitus. (The same case seems to be a loose paraphrase of Amelius.) Although in the end the
reading chosen naturally depends on the overall interpretation of Heraclitus thought, we have
tried to show that there are some reasons to reconsider the other variant, mostly neglected so
far.48
45
), connected with the Olympian gods, could still have been associated to an ancient reader due to a close
vocal resemblance with the
.
46
10
M. Conche, ed., (1986), Hraclite, Fragments, Paris: PUF (3rd edn. 1991).
H. Diels W. Kranz (1951), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Berlin: Weidmann.
M. Dufour A. Wartelle, ed., (1973), Aristote, Rhtorique, III, Paris: Belles lettres.
F. Fronterotta, ed., (2013), Eraclito, Frammenti, Milano: BUR.
Ch.H. Kahn (1979), The Art and Thought of Heraclitus: An Edition of the Fragments with Translation and
Commentary, Cambridge: CUP.
Ch.H. Kahn (2003), The Verb Be in Ancient Greek, Indianopolis Cambridge: Hacket (2nd edn.,
1st edn. 1973).
Ch.H. Kahn (2009), Essays on Being, Oxford: OUP.
G.S. Kirk, ed., (1954), Heraclitus, The Cosmic Fragments, Cambridge: CUP.
LSJ H.G. Liddell R. Scott H.S. Jones R. McKenzie (1996), Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford:
Oxford University Press (9th edn., with a supplement).
M. Marcovich, ed., (1967), Heraclitus, Greek Text with a Short Commentary, Merida: The Los Andes
University Press; 2nd edn. with addenda, corrigenda and bibliography: Sankt Augustin: Academia
Verlag, 2001; Italian translation: Eraclito, Frammenti. Introduzione, traduzione e commento, Firenze: La
Nuova Italia, 1978.
S. Mouraviev (1999), Heraclitea, I, Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 1999.
H. Rabe, ed., (1896), Anonymi et Stephani In Artem rhetoricam commentaria, Berlin: Reimer
(Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, XXI,2).
T.M. Robinson, ed., (1987), Heraclitus, Fragments, Toronto Buffalo London: University of
Toronto Press.
L. Spengel, ed., (1867), Aristotelis Ars rhetorica, I-II, Leipzig: Teubner.
L. Tarn (1986), The First Fragment of Heraclitus, in: Illinois Classical Studies, 11, pp. 1-15.
J.C. Thom (2005), Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus: Text, Translation and Commentary, Mohr Siebeck:
Tbingen.
11