We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
This article has been prompted by two recent interesting papers on the reading off Heraclitus' fragment B 125 as quoted by Theophrastus, De uertig. 9. Here are, with; full apparatus (such as they will appear in the Theophrastean chapter of my Traditio Heraclitea) the three main texts I shall be dealing with.
1 Mackenzie, M. M, ‘The Moving Posset Stands Still: Heraclitus Fr. 125’, AJPh 107 (1986), 542–51;Google Scholarder Ben, N. van, ‘Theophrastus, De vertigine, Ch. 9, and Heraclitus Fr. 125’, AJPh 109; (1988), 397–401. Having been strongly advised to give up the initial goal of this paper—to pinpoint some rather typical logical flaws in both former and present day textual criticism of our Heraclitean I sources—I cannot but refer the interested reader to my earlier publications on the subject: S. N. Mouraviev,’ Comment interpréter Héraclite: vers une méthodologie scientifique des études: héraclitéennes’, Ionian Philosophy (Athens, 1989), 270–79; id., ‘Comprendre Héraclite. [Réflexions sur la méthode des études héraclitéennes suggérées par deux éditions francaises des fragments de 1'Ephésien],’ Âge de la Science 3 (La philosophie et son histoire) (Paris, 1990), 181–232. It is a pleasure to acknowledge here my debt to an anonymous referee [Rec. an.] of an earlier version of this paper whose remarks and queries helped me to get rid of some blunders and omissions (the blame for the remaining still lies on me of course).Google Scholar
2 See S. N. Mouraviev (Murav'00EB;ev), ‘Traditio Heraclitea (A). Corpus fontium veterum de Heraclito’, Vetnik DrevnejIstorii (1984) no. 171, 31–44; (1985) no. 173, 16–28; no. 174, 30–5; no. 175, 35–42; (1986) no. 178, 33–67; (1990) no. 193, 41–60; (1992) no. 200, 36–52. These sections contain the whole of the Heraclitean direct tradition (without the uncertain allusions and reminiscences) from Epicharmus to Aristotle (full texts, with relevant context, full apparatus, and Russian translation). An improved and enlarged edition with French translation and commentary of the whole of Heraclitus’ tradition is now underway. See: S. N. Mouraviev (ed.), Heraclitea, Edition critique complete des temoignages sur la vie et Vceuvre d'Heraclite d'Ephese et les vestiges de son livre, II, La Tradition antique et medievale, A. Temoignages et citations, 1. D'Epicharme a Platon et Heraclide le Pontique (Moscow, Paris, Myrmekia, 1993); Aristotle, Theophrastus and the Hellenistic tradition of Heraclitus will constitute the bulk of the forthcoming vol. 2 (i.e. of Heraclitea II.A.2). The apparatus criticus is ‘full’ in the sense that I have included all the MSS readings and modern conjectures which I found in the extant modern editions of our three texts (see references in the main text) and of Heraclitus’ fragments (see upper apparatus) as well as in the relevant literature (see footnotes); no collation or autopsy of the MSS is implied and involuntary omissions and errors are always possible. In the present case, I have drawn some additional information from (i) Schneider's old edition of Theophrastus, (ii) Forster's 1933 CQ article (see n. 7, below), and (iii) the critical remarks of Rec. an. [n. 1] who cited his own unpublished collations of the MSS of De uert. (Mackenzie used those of R. W. Sharpies). The point of giving such a ‘full’ apparatus is, of course, to provide the reader with the means to form his own opinion on the subjects treated and the way they are treated (see n. 4). Collating the innumerable manuscripts of the many hundreds of texts we have on Heraclitus is unfortunately out of the question.
3 For the context, see Mackenzie, op. cit. [n. 1], 542, and below. With the exception of the quotation (where she reproduces Wimmer's reading) I depart from her text only twice: in line 76 003D; 48, where I restore
after kai 1 and in line 86 003D; 3 where I correct the corrupt 
into 
(an obvious reading suggested both by the context—cf. lines 90 003D; 7 and 95 003D; 11—and palaeography: ΛΛ is often a corruption of M). See below, n. 4.—Another emendation I suggest is 
(for ov8efj.tav…KwtiTen) in lines 21–2 of Pseudo- Alexander's Probl.
4 Since Wimmer refers only to AQ Aid and Rec. an. [n. 1] to ABCDE Aid, but not to Q, it is not altogether impossible that Q coincides with B C D or E. It goes without saying that a new edition of the De uert. is badly needed and would probably entail many improvements in my apparatus. Until then I prefer to retain Wimmer's text whenever it makes little difference.
5 Bernays, J, Heraclitea. Diss. (Bonn, 1848), 6–7 003D; id., Gesammelte Abhandlungen, I (1885), 6.Google Scholar
6 Lassalle, F, Die Philosophie des Herakleitos des Dunklen von Ephesus (Berlin, 1858), 75ff.;Google ScholarSchultz, W, ‘DieKosmologie des Rauchopfers nach Heraklits Fragm. 67’, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 22 (1909), 202–3, n. 15;Google ScholarWismann, J. Bollack-H, Héraclite ou la Séparation (Paris, 1972), 340f.Google Scholar
7 Forster, E. S, ‘Further Emendations in the Fragments of Theophrastus’, CQ (1933), 140–41; Mackenzie, op. cit. [n. 1], 549–51; van der Ben, op. cit. [n. 1], 397, 400–401.Google Scholar
8 Cf. Kirk, G. S, Heraclitus. The Cosmic Fragments (Cambridge, 1954; 21962), 255. Before Bernays the reading 
(with an additional 
before 
) was already used by Heinse—whose other emendation 
had an effect somewhat similar to that of Bernays’Google Scholar
9 Cf. Mackenzie's formula quoted below (n. 12).
10 Kirk, op. cit. [n. 8], ib.
11 Though Schultz, op. cit. (n. 7), 203 n. 15, seems to make the same point.
12 'The present version… is manifestly false… Heraclitus was certainly addicted to paradox …, but his paradoxes are of a veridical type—that is they do not assert falsehoods, whether obvious or otherwise’ (Mackenzie op. cit. [n. 1], 548f.). That this is patently false is proven, e.g., by fr. B 3 which states that the Sun is the width of a human foot. This example is enough to show how slippery are arguments of this kind.
13 To the texts cited by Marcovich, M {Heraclitus. Editio Maior [Merida, 1967] 003D; Eraclito. Frammenti [Firenze, 1978]) under fr. 31 should be added Plat. Crat. 439 C 5 (cf. 411 B 7).Google Scholar
14 Cf. text (b), IX.
15 Cf. n. 6 and 11, above.
16 Taking this text by itself does not imply neglecting the fact that it is a paraphrase of another text, the one we just examined, but only considering it for its own sake. The disastrous effects of such a neglect are well illustrated by Emminger who believed he had discovered an unknown fragment (See A. Emminger, Die vorsokratischen Philosophen nach den Berichten des Aristoteles [Wiirzburg, 1883], 148, and H. Diels, rev. of Emminger, Jenaer Literaturzeitung 5 [1878], 9). More astounding and absolutely untenable is the attitude of Bollack-Wismann, op. cit. [n. 6], 340 who, while knowing (?) that it is a paraphrase, still retain the corrupt reading 
and translate ‘(l'animal) qui tourne (l'âne?), s'il n'y a personne pour l'exciter, il s'arrête'. Unless the French scholars are just pulling our leg to show what ‘animaux qui tournent’ we also are, they are defying any logic. Logically much sounder is Forster's reverse procedure: he emends 
in Theophrastus into 
according to the Probl. (and then 
into 
)—’ the man who whirls round stands still while moving'—but it fails to cope with two facts: the opposite roles played by the quotation in these texts (see below in the text) and the existence of a number of other testimonia showing that Heraclitus did indeed use the kykeon simile (see n. 13 and the corresponding text).
17 Mackenzie, op. cit. [n. 1], 549 also believes that ‘to say that if the posset is not shaken it stands still…[is an] awesome banality’, but since she needs the word 
to support her reconstruction of Heraclitus' ‘original’ wording, she proposes to read it ‘figuratively’ as ‘it preserves its nature’, but even this figurative reading, if possible, does not work without the correction she makes to the text (see below n. 20).—And may I point here to another logical flaw in her reasoning: how could such a secondary source as Pseudo-Alexander have preserved a correct Heraclitean reading 
if, according to herself, the author of the primary source had deliberately altered it (into 
‘to make his case about natural motion’ (ib.)? Unless the paraphrast knew Heraclitus’ supposed original saying from somewhere else and corrected his main source (Theophrastus) on purpose—an unwarranted supposition which Mackenzie's appeal to a ‘current'—but wholly unattested—'Peripatetic tradition’ (550) does not help to save,—this is sheer nonsense. See also n. 21.
18 Had Mackenzie applied to the context of the quotation in Pseudo-Alexander the method she so successfully used in Theophrastus, she would have seen that the former cannot be 'announcing a falsehood’ (549) since it lacks the very thing which motivated her conclusion concerning the latter: a denial of the fact that natural movers are preserved by their motion.
19 That such an irreal apodosis does not necessarily require here 
optative has been convincingly shown by Mackenzie, op. cit. [n. 1], 546–7.
20 This refutes the correction advocated by Mackenzie, op. cit. [n. 1], 549 and v.d.Ben, op. cit. [n. 1], 400 n. 5 (who would both delete this 
21 It would certainly be interesting to know what triggered this rewording of Theophrasus' original. (A study of the paraphrast's method might be helpful, and a possible explanation is suggested at the end of this paper.) Yet, as already said (n. 17), nothing so far indicates that he has had any independent knowledge of Heraclitus’ saying. Therefore, and even though such an independent knowledge is not altogether impossible, before this is confirmed by some newly found evidence we must stick to the one we have and consider the original quotation in Theophrastus as being more true to Heraclitus than its rewording by Pseudo-Alexander. Otherwise, we would be building on sand.
22 See apparatus to (a) lines 54 and 1.
23 I.e. at the philological stage as opposed to the hermeneutical (for this distinction and the problem of the relation between textual criticism and philosophical interpretation, see Mouraviev, ‘Comment interpréter Héraclite…’ [n. 1], 273–7).
24 Neither Lassalle, op. cit. [n. 6], I 76 (who equates 
with 
nor Schultz, op. cit. [n. 6], 203 n. 15 (for whom H. used this image ‘um zu zeigen, daβ auch die stets wirbelnden Dinge, die Gestirne und die Himmelswölbung, nicht ewig sind'), nor Bollack-Wismann, op. cit. [n. 6], 340 (who see in it a paradox illustrating, ‘par l'exception, la Constance d'une loi') found it to be such.
25 Private letter to author (July, 1994).
26 One should not forget that unless you used separate scraps of papyrus, and particularly when you were completing a scroll, accidental omissions while copying created serious problems. If you did care about preserving the omitted part, either you had to rewrite the whole roll, or to modify the original in order to insert it where it was still possible.
