The Theology of Heraclitus: a Presocratic Pantheism

24The words in l ine 3, td,uor",.lo' olr.o'r.l.o' orr?.og 6 uo6g,preEent us $ith another textual problen, As they star|d these\dords cannot be Heraclltusr. First of all such an opelr expficitconclusion seens out of place ln 8., nhose usual Dodeof dlscou!se was a terse one that pieferred inpllclt discouiseover explicit statement (so Kahn coDlrenting on ao ioterpolatlooby sextus iu fr.2; 307 n.60). In addirlon to this sllnargunent there is lhe fact that, as Klrk IIotes (185), thenolds sinply 199\ 1lke a gloss. Although we do not haveHlppolytus interjectlog hls lnte!pretatlons ln the nlddle ofa slngle fr. elsewhere, we do flrd h10 glossing other frr.lnnedlately afterwards (see frr,64, 65 aDd thej.! context6).A1so, the possibility exlsts that !he lnterpolation had ltsorlgin no! with Hlppolytus but wlth some later scrlbe who nodoubr found !he lrords ln the nargln and who !ook thell not asa gloss buL es a eorrectlon of the copy and so lntroducedtbem lnto the text.Mondolfo has argued, however, that the fir6r rlro word6of llne !hree are genulne since the renlnlscence of thls fr.ln ?hlloderous also has tdnantla, but as Stokes renarks, "asan lnterpre!ation Ithls word] 1s sufficieDtly obvlous to occurto nore !han one writer tndependently'i.ll t'to..o.,.., the t'ordenantia does not occur elsewhere ln the frr..and thoughth16may be a r0ere accident as I(lrk [lentlors( I73) , 1t does seenodd that if H. had talked of enantia thedoxo g raphy lrouldrtot"Stokes, one & llanv, 299 i.1O. The reference to Phllodenus ls deg!*,6a, (p.70 conperz). The heavily damaged papyrus has been varlouslyleconstructed. however. Ior two other versions besides that of conperz(gp. Dox.,I25) see DK I,165 n.8 and west, EGPO, 134 n.l