].44bodles. ODce the real referents are known, the 0rphlc interpre!ationbecoEes a1l but untena!1e, even though there havebeen sone modern connentators who have tried to shore up thispopular aIIcient explenat ion.I0iii) yen are gods. Seelng bo!h parts <strong>of</strong> the saying at'the same t1Ele, then, allor.rs us !o know that the subject underdiscussion is not souls but alhanatol and thnEtoi, As wasnentloned above, these rords have a wlde range <strong>of</strong> shsdes <strong>of</strong> meanin8dependlng upon ehere lre choose to understand sone sort <strong>of</strong>copula!ive. Io addltlon to this fact we Inust conslder the_polnt !hat athanatol tras connon parlance for !hlg!, lust asth.Ie-toi !'as for aothrdpol. This 1s so cornrnon a custoo fronllomer through all <strong>of</strong> anriquity that il hardly needs pro<strong>of</strong> (1toccurs over one hundred tl,nes in ilomer). IndivldualIy, thewords dld ndt have to rnean rBods' and'hum3ns',but irhen pulslde by side this neaning could oot be absent from the ninds<strong>of</strong> the listeners. Hence it seeEs inconceivable to ne !hat H.should have used this particular pair <strong>of</strong> !rords and not to haveintLnded for then to stand, at least 1n part, for gods andl0th.ro.. extrene orphlc lnterpletatlons <strong>of</strong> this fr. are those <strong>of</strong>Ada,', SCfig-.--I!gg!e!9,(Edinbursh, 1908), 238 and Macchtoro, [raclito' (Barl,1922), 87-94; From orpheus to Paul, (|i.r.,1930), 172-3. Uore noderate andcaulious slale.nenEs can be found-in Gurhrie, I,478 and Pdpin,39' For crlticlsn<strong>of</strong> )tacchioro' general thesls naking H, a latter day orphlc see Cuthrie,Orpheus & ck, Rel1g,,(2na ea.; Lond on , 1952 ) , 228 ff. and I,478 n.2-ilarcovich calle? tris theory "far-fetched" (stud, Patr lst ica ,711966),262 n.2),and there are really very few scholars no\tadays uho belleve orphiclsr canbe sho!,'n to have exelted nruch <strong>of</strong> an influence on H, cuthrie Is probablythe nos! open to the ldea, saying "the parallel with orphic notlons isstrlking'I (T,480). But Klrk flatly states that "orphic influence is not.., appa.ent 1n lleraclitus" (355). Rannoux would reverse the Problen:"ne pas derander si Hereclite est un orpiique, nais sl 1es orphlques sontbdraclltdens" (Ramoux, H6rac11te, [2nd ed.; Paris,l968],407),
145nen. SorDe <strong>of</strong> our anclent sources <strong>of</strong> this fr, were so convlnced<strong>of</strong> this that somewhere along the line <strong>of</strong> transrolttlngthe text the very words rgodsand nenr have replacecl the ortBinallocutionsI ironortals, rnor!a1sr (11. 47b4-7, c) . Thts substltutionnust be deebed a corruption, but thls is not to siythat n. did not intend us to understand these rords ln lustthis way. He would scarcely have chosen the gords he did tfhe dld not want'gods,rnenr to be implied in the thought --assuEing, as ue nust, tha! H vas not aleliberatly obfuscatlng.lI"Actua]Iy, solne have sald tllat H. lras in fact deliberately obscure.For exanple, Diogenes clalned lhat he dld thls so as to avold belng easilyhated (D.L.9,6), Clcero mentions that the obscurlly was dellberate butglves no noilve, though he does say that 1t was not due to the abslruseness<strong>of</strong> the subject Datter (fin,T1,5,l5; cf, N,D.I,26,74 & ITI,l4,35). Ploltnussays thet H. did not care to nake his lo?os cfea! for us so tha! perhaPs eeshould bave to i'see In ourselves'i as he l.ad done (Enn.IV,8,l; cf,fr.l0l).Sbllarly, it was schuster's oplnion thnt H. rnust have been obscure o.I Pur_pose ln order to conceal his radlcal opioions and so avoid the charge <strong>of</strong> ;athelsn (Schuster, 75-6). 0n the queslion <strong>of</strong> atheism and whether H. wasever thought <strong>of</strong> as being one, see below p.216 n,1.\o! all lhe anclents consldered <strong>Heraclitus</strong>' obscurlty a product <strong>of</strong>r,rIII. <strong>The</strong>ophlaslus credited lt !o'rinpulsiveness" (gglg!.9!9119; D.L.9,6).So too hoderns have found excuses for i! od varlous grounds. For lnstanceit was the vieo shared by Dicls and Burnet that his oracular styfe wass):rptonatic <strong>of</strong> hls tlne (!urnet,132; Diels, IgIg\!gL!g!, [2nd ed.; Berlln,!9091, p.vi-vii). On the other hand Hegel supposed that the obscurily !esultedflon "there belng pr<strong>of</strong>ound specul,ative thought contained ln it [1.e.ln his wordsl; the Notion, the ldea, is forelgn to the understandinB. andcanno! be grasped by it" (Leclures on lhe ntst. <strong>of</strong> ?hilos., trans. E.lLaldaoe,llondon, 18921, I,283). Various verslons <strong>of</strong> Hegelrs opinion are <strong>of</strong>ten heald!oiced roclay whenever lteracliiusr obscurity is excused wlth the observatlonlhat he \ras grappling to express great thoughts wilh a puny philosophicelvocabulary. so, e.9., cuthrle, I,413, 428.l{oreover, not evelyone has considered Ii. obscure. Nletzsche toPsthis tist by having said that "probably no nan has ever wrj.tten clearerand ino!e illuninatingly" (Early ek. Ph1los., trans, M. ltugge, ILondon,l911],1i0 I- VoI.2 <strong>of</strong> CompLete worksl). Few would go that far, bul othets haveag!eed that the proverbial obscurity has been oversEressed (so Dlel6,f!14., p.rr \tho compares the epiSran in D.L.g,16).For ny part, I can only say that I iind the saylngs not as obscureas the)r are rich in meaning. l{e are faced l,ith the unusual Problem <strong>of</strong> anauthorrs noEds having too nuch meanlng, no! no neaning at a11,, ll. secms tohave cultlvated this sort <strong>of</strong> obscurlty into an alt form (cf. stanford,Albisuity in ck, Lit., Ioxford,1939], ll7-9).
- Page 1 and 2:
(srrv auTJ to unasnK tsadepng) sntl
- Page 3 and 4:
TSE TIIEOLOGY OF HER.{CLITUSA PRESO
- Page 5 and 6:
LIST OF AB BREV IAT I ONS_ID_order
- Page 7:
INlRODUCTIONAs far as we kno1.r, He
- Page 11 and 12:
5the flood of nords on I{. shou any
- Page 13 and 14:
1belng xouddled to say that the eor
- Page 15 and 16:
9and Thales phrsikol wh1le nen llke
- Page 17 and 18:
l1rabble would not read 1t. As the
- Page 19 and 20:
l3eleBeots. Eowevet in the huhan sp
- Page 21 and 22:
CEAPTER lrPIi-TEEISMIn thl.s chapte
- Page 23 and 24:
17A. The Text of F!.67There Ls only
- Page 25 and 26:
19of god and fire (cf. above, p.17
- Page 27 and 28:
2Ithen trying to smel1 the nost obt
- Page 29 and 30:
the large number of people irho acc
- Page 31 and 32:
25have transnl!ted these sayings. A
- Page 33 and 34:
27ts, rne uontext ot !r.b/lllppolyt
- Page 35 and 36:
C. The lnterpretation of 1r.67ttavi
- Page 37 and 38:
31.acknorledged, though "dic!un" (s
- Page 39 and 40:
33The fourth arld flnal potnt is re
- Page 41 and 42:
35L'i11 add the verb and bope for t
- Page 43 and 44:
37translation that reflects this fa
- Page 45 and 46:
a scalene trlangle. This i{ou1d exp
- Page 47 and 48:
u) xdooe I uuo'e4tThis ts the final
- Page 49 and 50:
43could be used, For it could be ar
- Page 51 and 52:
as single'th!ngs' be1ov, pp.57-8. )
- Page 53 and 54:
47p.24. Even though they do not rep
- Page 55 and 56:
49Even thouah the gloss corfidently
- Page 57 and 58:
follons:ou.Ll.duLES o),q' xq.r ouxa
- Page 59 and 60:
53terl.on of banality,assunes r,hat
- Page 61 and 62:
55from hen !3!!3". Yet thl6 seens v
- Page 63 and 64:
clains?" I think he did believe rhi
- Page 65 and 66:
59oppos ir es i this is the neanlng
- Page 67 and 68:
6lhave been re-introduced falsely o
- Page 69 and 70:
63freenan), but it cantrot be rlght
- Page 71 and 72:
obher exanples fronl tragedy could
- Page 73 and 74:
67to theos are to god.But lrhat are
- Page 75 and 76:
seeEs inescapable then that divintt
- Page 77 and 78:
71bet\reen H. and Porphyry some cor
- Page 79 and 80:
73worthy crlterlon of genuineness,
- Page 81 and 82:
75B. The Context of fr.l02As was ne
- Page 83 and 84:
77that elLLEg and dikaia funcrion a
- Page 85 and 86:
79tlariesthattleantin that one telm
- Page 87 and 88:
8lacter does not have true understa
- Page 89 and 90:
83aoount of naturlty, insight, or w
- Page 91 and 92:
aII; it is divine. cod and man are
- Page 93 and 94:
left nith the problen of how Il. co
- Page 95 and 96:
89by berit of thel! being at least
- Page 97 and 98:
9lli.teral interp!etatlon of Eetacl
- Page 99 and 100: 93lrolld view.only then n11I we be
- Page 101 and 102: additton of the \rord ln the other
- Page 103 and 104: 97seems to me to be thatthe nordsrr
- Page 105 and 106: 99stood the lrord. l.Je find thar h
- Page 107 and 108: 101he!e not as a description of lLL
- Page 109 and 110: 03C. lnEerpretation of Fr.30As ls o
- Page 111 and 112: meanings and have been underslood,
- Page 113 and 114: 107for this lack of support. lirst,
- Page 115 and 116: 109certaln early Aon-techolcal Elea
- Page 117 and 118: lrlau thor .Therefore Lt seen6 prob
- Page 119 and 120: 113gods or men llade this kosmos'r
- Page 121 and 122: ll5rsystenof 1awsr. Understood in t
- Page 123 and 124: 1t7So far so good, but the saying g
- Page 125 and 126: atrd being so rarified could be see
- Page 127 and 128: to his nind the more probable origi
- Page 129 and 130: althar ras an entrenched popular no
- Page 131 and 132: t25aBythLn8 nithout beginnlng and e
- Page 133 and 134: tz7active as r,re1l as a power of d
- Page 135 and 136: t29!tna11y, the conclusion to the g
- Page 137 and 138: . 131at 1arge, but n. 1s the flrst
- Page 139 and 140: to be the nnost original, dlsplayin
- Page 141 and 142: 135ls far nore problematlc. How can
- Page 143 and 144: 37odd syntax rhich seeus to give ac
- Page 145 and 146: 39have not found the opposite expre
- Page 147 and 148: 141nhat life and death really are.
- Page 149: of 362 packs a punch that lhe plaln
- Page 153 and 154: 47These fr!. rdight indeed suggest
- Page 155 and 156: I49tha! humans have a divine elemen
- Page 157 and 158: l,)rhe denied that L|Eh! IIow ue ar
- Page 159 and 160: 53insteadof d evot ingsPecia 1 sect
- Page 161 and 162: this sense. When the word appears i
- Page 163 and 164: 157etyEology of the l'oril Irom Lhe
- Page 165 and 166: t59Early ek. Thoughr", f43A, 80t194
- Page 167 and 168: 61dairn6n in fr.II9 to mean rluck'o
- Page 169 and 170: After a1t, Stobaeus is not a parric
- Page 171 and 172: noEinal sentences. For an author to
- Page 173 and 174: t67D, fr.l19 lnterpretedIlaviIIg ex
- Page 175 and 176: 169daiuones (so cuthrie, I,482; cr.
- Page 177 and 178: 71are, to have gnonE (878), then ne
- Page 179 and 180: t7 3The meanlng of datnonos hereis
- Page 181 and 182: 175is ca 1I ed dain6n" (crat. 398c1
- Page 183 and 184: 177and therefore unquestloned, In !
- Page 185 and 186: Fr.l5 (50II, 127Br)The best place t
- Page 187 and 188: punctuatton is correct since e have
- Page 189 and 190: the ntne vat. 6If any doubt .ernain
- Page 191 and 192: 185u. svnEax oI Ir.I)Thls saying is
- Page 193 and 194: 187!eve1ers, or perhaps tden genera
- Page 195 and 196: 189but such a translation can be mi
- Page 197 and 198: 91Itr additlon to tlese neanings, t
- Page 199 and 200: 193enbarrassment and s}lar e of the
- Page 201 and 202:
195iii) ANAIAETTATA. When we cone t
- Page 203 and 204:
t97says that !hese people would do
- Page 205 and 206:
199p9]f91r not the cerenony. The cl
- Page 207 and 208:
201the particle 68. Early style did
- Page 209 and 210:
203clearest example of this type of
- Page 211 and 212:
205Nike, a satyr, and two Maenads.
- Page 213 and 214:
,1The eonnection of llades rith dea
- Page 215 and 216:
209their rites are non-harnful Jusr
- Page 217 and 218:
2tl(aoaidestata) if they did not do
- Page 219 and 220:
person 1s free to read fr.68 in any
- Page 221 and 222:
CHAPIER 4:C0NCIL:S IO)lour iovestlg
- Page 223 and 224:
217Another conioon Greek belief fro
- Page 225 and 226:
has argued (Kahn, 11, 19, 269, 277)
- Page 227 and 228:
221tire conEon state of affairs aro
- Page 229 and 230:
223na ric rr^^ai af..i.,L.rion that
- Page 231 and 232:
225bl-ri in iris lnplicacion that u
- Page 233 and 234:
227rarae aves ilr ancient tioesr an
- Page 235 and 236:
229us off fror the naLural Civinity
- Page 237 and 238:
23rDiogenes ln B5 (DK: II,6I, l1-4)
- Page 239 and 240:
233says in his Ck, Lexicosraphical
- Page 241 and 242:
235srressing thaE it is idenlica1 o
- Page 243 and 244:
,Jv* -c6g' doiroe ori &.(r"-or y r'
- Page 245 and 246:
Ilouever, Ehe precis€ relat lonsh
- Page 247 and 248:
24Ithat was a1k'ays preselrt ilr th
- Page 249 and 250:
243New TestanenE sense, a sense rxi
- Page 251 and 252:
245ignorant of it. The question is'
- Page 253 and 254:
241an account.'r once se suppose \r
- Page 255 and 256:
249c. NoTE 0n PERStrIIoNE A-'D HnAK
- Page 257 and 258:
25rThe reason that the nentlonof Pe
- Page 259 and 260:
253very si:ilar,ihaE Ephesur' cuLE
- Page 261 and 262:
255tieraclitus of Ephesus. Intro. a
- Page 263 and 264:
257Erffa, C. E. F. von. AfAOt und v
- Page 265 and 266:
259"Gr Certain FragEen!s of the Pre
- Page 267 and 268:
261McKay, K. J. "Anbivalenr AIACI i
- Page 269 and 270:
negnJrr, tuns.1967 -Ancieo! Views o
- Page 271 and 272:
26sr2(19s9) , 297 ."Ileraclitus B 8
- Page 273 and 274:
TIIE THEOLOGY OF HEMCLITUS: A PRESO