The Theology of Heraclitus: a Presocratic Pantheism

72until ?1ato. Kahn, the uost recent cornDentator on ll., hasalso thought the wording ln fr.l02 is not tha! of H. (heguesses a Stoic source) and that "we canno! know hoa' well ttref lects rhat Ileraclitus saidrr(Kahn,183).Even so, I ilo not thlnk these reasoIls are nearly strongenough to doub! !he tranEmltted text, ot , woEse y9t, toflddle wllh Lts wordlng. ltrst of all, the suspecr verb,hvpolambaneln, 1s used by llerodotus (2,55) \rith the sane senseofrttosuppose". this fact 1s soEetlnes taken as constLtutlngslender evldence. Vlas!os ca11s lts use in ll. "barely possib1e"('r0n H.",367 n.65) and Kl!k notes that l! "cannor beregarded as lnpossiblert(Klrk,IBI). Before lre !ry to nlnlrnlzethe evldence fron Herodotus, it rrould be good to tenlnd our-6elves of a couple points.' Flrst, the vasr nalortty of cleekLlteratu!e is Iost; a slngle extaIr! use 1n a context that shonsno slgns of Ehe use belng unusuel or technlcal probably shouldnot be construed as a rale usage -- especially slnce the nordbecohes qui!e conBon lri!h this seltse in laler authors. Second,Herodolus 1s a near conternporaty of ll., and he wrote 1n Ionicprose as did Il. This nakes Herodofus lnpo!tant !o us if weare to try to deternine possible expressions and vocabularyin the words of l{. (On the tnportance of Rerodotus in !hisregard see Kahn,92.) Itence I fail to see any possible goodreason for suspec!ing the velb hvpolanbaneln of not beirgHeraclitus',Secondly, Kiikr s objectlon that ll. would tlot have usedso many exaltrples of ggq/lg ts difficult !o accept as a trust-