The Theology of Heraclitus: a Presocratic Pantheism

B. AO|OI: ACC0Ui{I 0R CosuIC PRIA-CIPLE? (see above, p-40 n.26)aa n.- .ri'rd.nfor^.,oh ro have read thus ta( oay undersrandablybe wondering irhat happened to lleraclitus' logoslehre, ttlaL fanous docErinethat is usually iaken to be absoluEely central to both his netaphysics andhis theology.The reason that iE has hardly even been inentioned up to thispolnt is that I do noc believe that E. espoused any such thtug, This appendixl"'ill be devoted to an explication of rhis view.There is no denying thac lhisopinion is heterodox. Almost everyin!erpreter sioce Sextus Enpiricus has thought that li. $as proclal.ning theexlstence of a cosiric principle called lhe LoSos (usual1y capltalized toloake it look more powerful (?) and not underltned) that steered the i"/ot1dand i!s flox. Nonetheless there have beeo dissenters fron chis v1ew,though conpaled to the nunbex of coEmentators lrho have held thatlhetedoes exist a logos-doclrine in ll. the nudber is quite smal1. (Thesecondary literature on the logos-doctrlne ls vast, adding up to over onehundred itens in Roussost Ileraklit-BibliographleI Darns t ad E , I9 7 I ] ard thalwould no! include passing references or rorks aflet 1970.) The 1is! ofthose w\o say H. does not have a logos-docLrine are:J. Barnes, I, 59Burnet, 133 n.I; !&, I5(I90I), 423+H. conperz, lhilosophical studies, (Bostoo,1953), 94-5owerrs, "IdEerpretaEion of Heracliteen Frr.",I56 & n.2I_, History oI AnciFnt lJest, Philos., (\.Y.,1959), 45 n. l0J. sheerin,"stud, in the rnterp.et. of Heraclilusr ?roem", (diss.,1957)q. surig, De betekenis var Losos bii lt-, (Nijneser,1951)' i.rl Dulch w.--"^5-l IA. raylor, ep. classon, l- 9l f!e9_!-!!!9.,i(1952),217west, EGPo, I24-9.Any reference in this appendir to the above oanes I,iEh pages refers tolhis list. A speciaf case is represented by lhose who claim that logosin E. has no special neaning but end up reifying it in some way (ofEen by