The Theology of Heraclitus: a Presocratic Pantheism

hunan capabllities even though it is the litmus tes! for divintty.And third, divinity and hunanity are on a continuum,This last point is shown in fr.79.\^/.a!-r. /9 reads: Gvnp vnlLog n ouoE rlpog octtuovog or,a(l)qll€p^\t-/nq.Lg npog d.vbpos. One dlfflcufry with rhts saylng 1s rryirgto decide the exact neaning of dainonos here. Thls r^roril too,111 be discussed in detail when lle come to fr.l19. There itui11 be proposed !bat lre conslder the word as a general synonymfor !b!!9, inplying divine power ralher than a dlvlne entity,cf. beIow, p,156-62. Hor^rever, what 1s most 1rlterestlngabout this sentence Ls the facl tha! the contrast of god andnan is cashed out ln !erns of a propoEt!on o! tnean, A:B :: B:C,Thts observalton was, of course, the lmpetus for Frlnkeltsfanous study "A ThoughE Pu!Eern in Heracli!us" in uhich hetraced thls pa!tern through many frr. of H. 0ne of the mostsuggestlve aspec!s of thls pattern is that i! sets 8od and rnanon the same scale of nature6, on a contlnuun, naklng the differencebe!ween !he !no one of ilegree anil not klnd,57 p..79tells us, then, that just as both child and nan dLffer by thea2)/lor frUnkel's article see 4J!, 59(1938),309-37 (parts reprintedin Presocrarics, ed. A. Ilourelatos (N.Y.,1974),214-28), Frunkelis study tsvaluable because 1t is lhought provoking, but Kirkrs crlllclsm lhat he"tries !o brinB under lhis heading many fragnents \rhich are equally susceptibleof other explaratlons" (Ki!k,78) i6 justiJied,)lalcovich de[ies that lt lles Fr5nkel's lntentlon to 'lake lt look asif god and oan eere on a conlinuum, though he admiis that "tt lright lookso" (l.Iarcovich,488). I.Ihether or not Frlnkel did nean thls (11 obvlouslye:as not his entire objective) ls not very inportant. We are lnterested inuhat H, inlended. And I believe that this lnterpretatlon of fr.79 correctlyleilec t s HeracfiEusr aIn.