these were quoted at firsthand. In the _Protreptikos_ we find Herakleitos
fragments 122, 124, 125 together, and a little farther on 126-127 (cf.
122 _ap._ Clement 680, and 123 _ap._ 649) on the topic of popular
worship. These are clearly quoted from a connected passage, and not
phrases that have been passed on as proverbs. Moreover 124-127 are
somewhat closely connected with each other (perhaps 122 belongs with
them). It is evident that Clement (or possibly the immediate source of
Clement) drew them from a somewhat extended passage in the original.
Another series of passages from Herakleitos and Empedokles (_ap._ Clement
516 and 520) are quoted as illustrating the misery of human life. They
occur together in a long series of quotations on this topic, and at
least one line, Empedokles 404, is not quite pertinent; its lack of
fitness in this connection may mean that Clement is adapting a collection
of passages made (wholly or in part) by another hand for a slightly
different purpose. Again, a considerable number of fragments, especially
in books ii. and v. of the _Stromata_, are pithy proverbial statements
of the fundamental attitude of Herakleitos toward other men (cf. Herakl.
5-8, 104, 2-3, 49, 111 b with its addition from Demosthenes _de corona_ p.
324). These are all marked by their proverbial form, and are many of them
quoted by other writers. It is most natural to think that they were drawn
from a collection of Herakleitean sayings such as is presupposed by the
allusions of Marcus Aurelius and perhaps by the parody of Lucian.
As to the poetic citations in the fifth book of the _Stromata_ it seems
to me wholly likely that the verses of Xenophanes, and Parmenides
133-139, are quoted from the original poems. Empedokles lines 74 and 165
are repeated as proverbs; lines 33, 74, 104 (quoted with Herakleitos 68)
are often-quoted verses on the favourite topic of the elements; lines
342-343 are quoted with Herakleitos 49, lines 16-17 with Parmenides 28-30
and Herakleitos 111, and it is quite probable that Clement found the
topical groups of quotations ready to his hand. Empedokles 26 f., 55 f.,
81, 130 f., are all _introductory_ lines, and these too may have been
collected by some earlier writer. We may conclude, then, that many of the
citations in Clement were not taken from the original works, but that
some may have been; the most important fact is that Clement transcribes
his quotations with great faithfulness.
§ 10. The citations given in the works of Sextus Empiricus are important
because they are in a measure independent of the Stoic line of tradition;
we may even say with confidence that some of them are cited from the
original works. For Herakleitos there is only one important series of
fragments, namely that found in _adv. Math._ vii. §§ 126-134. Fragments
52 and 54 of Herakleitos are indeed mentioned in a series of epigrams
with no name attached to them (_Pyrrh._ i. 55), and a little later
(_Pyrrh._ iii. 115 and 230) there is an allusion to the well-known Fr.
42 and a statement of Herakleitos’ opinion as to life and death (cf. Fr.
78). The discussion _adv. Math._ vii. §§ 126-134 is a statement of the
doctrine of sense-perception which Sextus attributes to Herakleitos.
Diels has given good reasons (_Dox._ 209-211) for believing that this
passage is based on Aenesidemus, a skeptic philosopher with strong
Herakleitean leanings of the first century B.C. In it are contained
the full form of Fr. 2 (cited in part by other writers) and Fr. 4 and
92 (with comment based on a longer passage); there is also a phrase
reminding the reader of Fr. 77 in § 130. This is the fullest extant
material for reconstructing the introduction to Herakleitos’ book, and
was evidently based on the text of Herakleitos. While it is cited quite
accurately, it is probable that Sextus took the citation from the same
source as the rest of the discussion; still, when we remember Sextus’
fondness for citing proœmiums, we cannot say definitely that he did not
take it himself from the work of Herakleitos.
Xenophanes is cited in passages varying in length from one to four lines.
Most of these passages are not known from other writers or known only
from late Homeric commentators. Where the same passage is cited twice,
there is no variation except in the arrangement of the lines. Fr. vii.
is given in part twice—once lines 3-4, and again lines 1, 2, and 4 (see
_supra_ p. 66).—From Parmenides (in addition to the line 132 given by
Plato and Aristotle) Sextus gives the proœmium of his work. Although
earlier editors have extensively rearranged this passage, I believe it
is substantially correct in Sextus, and I see no reason to doubt that it
was taken from the work itself. The citation of other lines before 53
by Plato and by Simplicius confirms the suspicion, however, that Sextus
had omitted something at this point. From Empedokles’ main philosophical
work Sextus gives a portion of the proœmium (lines 2-23), as well as four
lines from the introduction to the καθάρματα. It is reasonable to believe
that these lines with 428-435 were cited from the original poem; the
only errors are copyists’ blunders. Sextus also cites Empedokles 33-35
and 78-80. These are much copied lines, and the form in Sextus includes
some obvious errors, e.g. ἀήρ for αἰθήρ (l. 78) and φιλία for φιλότης
(l. 80), (cf. ἤπιον l. 79)—errors which very likely were found in the
source from which Sextus drew the lines.[119] We may conclude that Sextus
cited sometimes from the original, sometimes at second hand; and that his
citations reproduce his source accurately except that he sometimes omits
verses from their connection.
§ 11. The quotations in the _Refutatio omnium haeresium_, which is now
attributed to Hippolytos, include some that are very accurate and others
of which the text is hopeless, an anomaly that is very difficult to
explain. In the fifth book one phrase reminds the reader of Herakleitos
71, while Herakleitos 68 a is quoted with the author’s name, and 101
without it. In the sixth book there is an allusion to two forms of fire
(Hera. 21), and Herakleitos 29 combined with 95 is quoted under the
name of Pythagoras. Most of the quotations from Herakleitos, however,
are closely grouped in ix. ch. 9-10. Some of these are phrases familiar
in earlier writers (e.g. Hera. 3, 47, and 69); 2, 44, 45, and 35 are
passages of some length which Hippolytos gives in accurate form; 24 is
accompanied by a Stoic explanation, and probably the phraseology of 28
and 36 is Stoic; in most of the citations in this group the text is
very carefully given, even to the connecting particles, but besides the
fragments in Stoic form just mentioned, the text of 123 is corrupted
beyond possibility of restoration, and 58 is almost as bad. These
fragments are consistently interpreted as anticipating the views of a
Christian sect, and it is possible that the κρινέει of 26 is due to
this influence rather than to the Stoics. Bywater (p. ix) suggests that
Hippolytos drew his quotations directly from the work of Herakleitos;
but it is not easy to regard the difference in accuracy as wholly a
difference in the accuracy of one man’s copying.
The quotations from Empedokles, as indeed from other poets, show that
Hippolytos was often very careless. The omission of a word (e.g. lines
334, 335 _ap._ Hipp. 165, l. 84 _ap._ 246) is too common to be attributed
wholly to the carelessness of copyists, nor would the rest of the text
of Hippolytos justify this supposition. Lines 33-35 are quoted twice
(p. 246 and p. 318), and the last line differs in the two cases; such a
change as from τέγγει to σπόνδε (p. 313) is not one that a copyist would
be very likely to make. On the other hand, it is hardly conceivable that
the errors in ll. 110 f. _ap._ p. 247, 222 f. _ap._ p. 251, 338 f. _ap._
p. 254 existed in any text that Hippolytos copied. The only possible
explanation for this phenomenon is that sometimes Hippolytos quoted
from memory, paying no attention either to metre or to phraseology, and
sometimes (as in his quotations from Herakleitos generally) from either
the original or a source that was very close to the original. Since so
many of the Empedoklean passages are not cited by any other writer, we
may suppose that Hippolytos drew them from the original.
§ 12. Of the quotations in Diogenes Laertios from Herakleitos, Bywater
says (p. x): ‘Laertium ... libro pervetusto usum esse nemo jam
adfirmaverit.’ We do find four sentences of some length from Herakleitos,
the genuineness of which is not questioned (Fr. 16, 17, 112, 114); it is
noticeable that these fragments, together with the allusions to Fr. 33
and 119, all refer to particular men, and so possessed a special interest
for the biographical writers, who were Diogenes’ main source. Three other
fragments of more than two words are given by Diogenes (71, 100, and
103), and these are not found in any other Greek writer. The remaining
fragments consist of only one or two words (22, 48, 62, 69, 80, 113), or
are now regarded as spurious (131, 132). There is no reason to think that
the fragments of Herakleitos contained in this work are not copied with
reasonable accuracy; on the other hand, we may assume from what we know
of Diogenes’ method of work that they were not drawn directly from the
writings of Herakleitos.
Diogenes quotes Xenophanes xiv. 1-2, and Empedokles l. 6, in a series
of passages on skepticism, Xen. xviii. in a series on Pythagoreanism;
Fr. xxiv., the only one not found elsewhere, relates to the life of
Xenophanes. From Parmenides are quoted lines 28-30 and 54-56. The last
passage does not really illustrate the point for which it is quoted (the
senses inexact), and our text of Diogenes contains two blunders from some
copyist. Portions of the proœmium of Empedokles’ main work on philosophy
(1, 24-32, _ap._ viii. 60 and 59) are mentioned in connection with the
name of Satyros. It is pretty clear (_ap._ viii. 62) that a ‘Herakleitos’
is the source from which lines 352-363 are taken; if so, the statement
viii. 54 that this is the beginning of the καθάρματα comes from the same
writer. Lines 384-385 are quoted much in the form in which they appear
in Athenaeos, though with one copyist’s error; from the same work of
Empedokles we have also lines 355, 415, 417 in passages where Diogenes
had just mentioned Timaeos. The familiar lines 35 and 67-68 are found
here—line 35 in a very confused form. In general these lines from poetic
writers show numerous small errors, which may be due to the state of our
manuscripts. Both the fragments from Herakleitos and those in poetic
form are of great value, though we are in the dark as to their immediate
source.
§ 13. The works of neo-Platonic writers frequently mention the earlier
philosophers, but yield few fragments of value. Plotinos refers to
ten fragments of Herakleitos. Four of these (80, 82, 83, 85) have the
form of quotations, and in two instances the name of Herakleitos is
mentioned; they are, however, very short, and give no clue to their
source. Sometimes Plotinos plays on words that were evidently known as
Herakleitean, e.g. Fr. (47?), 54, 69, 80; or again an Herakleitean idea
is stated in his own words, Fr. 32, 83, 99, 130. The manner in which
these quotations and allusions are made shows that the phrases were
very familiar, either in earlier writers or possibly in some collection
of sayings. Line 81 b of Parmenides is quoted with no name; line 40 b
is quoted with the author’s name, and is followed by an account of the
context which shows that it was drawn from a passage of some length. From
Empedokles we find only two phrases, taken from lines 381 and 382, that
are worked into the text of Plotinos.
Porphyry quotes from Herakleitos only familiar phrases, and these in the
briefest form (74 ap. _de antr. nym._ xi. and 72 ap. _de antr. nym._
x.). The phrases were so familiar that it was only necessary to suggest
the idea (e.g. 56 ap. _de antr. nym._ xxix.) without mentioning the
name of the philosopher. Parmenides is not so well known; Greeks and
Egyptians, we read, say that he mentioned the two gates in his _Physika_
(_de antr. nym._ xxiii.). Only the καθάρματα of Empedokles is quoted,
but here Porphyry knows the subjects treated in the work (_de abst._ II.
xxi.), and sometimes the full context of the passage he quotes (e.g.
_de antr. nym._ viii.). In the case of lines 415-420 we are not sure
that Porphyry was right in applying the verses to Parmenides; still, the
quotations would seem to be taken directly from the καθάρματα and copied
with fair accuracy.
Iamblichos draws a few quotations from his predecessors in the
neo-Platonic school (Empedokles, lines 415-420 from Porphyry; and
Herakleitos, Fr. 69, 82, 83 from Plotinos, if Stobaeos is correct in
attributing this group of fragments to Iamblichos). Most of the allusions
to fragments of Herakleitos, however, cannot be traced to this source.
The combination of Herakleitos 29 and 95, which Hippolytos had attributed
to Pythagoras, Iamblichos also attributes to the same thinker; his
language, however, differs in detail from that used by Hippolytos. Two
words of Herakleitos 114 (which had been cited by the Stoics and by
Diogenes) are given, with the additional statement that Herakleitos gave
laws to the Ephesians. Bywater’s number 128 is an allusion probably
including a single word from Herakleitos, as does 129 also. Two words
each from Fr. 11 and 12 (both found in Plutarch) are worked into the
text of Iamblichos—in the former instance with the name of Herakleitos.
Finally 105, which also appears in Plutarch, is given here in more
accurate form. These references to Herakleitos, like those of the earlier
neo-Platonists, are all made to fragments assumed to be familiar because
they had been quoted often by earlier writers.
The writings of his predecessors in this same school are frequently
mentioned by Proklos, but his quotations from pre-Sokratic thinkers seem
not to be derived from them. In the commentary on Parmenides several
scattered lines are quoted from the works of the original Parmenides.
The quotations are very brief; they include in all only parts of six
or seven lines, and sometimes these are cited more than once. It is
therefore quite unlikely that Proklos drew them directly from the poem of
Parmenides. In his commentary on the _Timaeos_ Proklos uses the form of
quotation from Herakleitos six times (alluding to Fr. 16, 32, 44, 68, 79,
80), but only 32 and 44 can be called quotations, while even these are
very brief. On p. 106 E we find part of what Diogenes gives in connection
with Fragment 80, but no part of 80 itself; 79 was cited by the early
Christian writers, and Proklos interpreted it in the same manner that
they had done; 68 also had been paraphrased in the source from which
Proklos drew it. So far as Herakleitos is concerned, we see how far from
their origin the tradition of the fragments had gone, but we get no new
light on their original form.
A few lines of Parmenides we know only from Proklos. Verses 29-30 had
been given by Diogenes and Clement, but some of the verses 33-40 are
new. In these instances, as is usually the case with the quotations in
Proklos, the text of the quotations is in a condition almost hopeless.
Indeed, at p. 160 D a line and a half of Parmenides are filled out with
half a line from Empedokles under the name of the former writer. From
Empedokles only single lines (once two lines together) are given, and
they aid but little in the reconstruction of the text. Proklos, like
Plutarch, is very careful to cite the name of his authorities; but the
text of the quotations is so carelessly reproduced that they are of
little value.
§ 14. The commentators on Aristotle early began to illustrate his
statements about earlier thinkers by passages copied from their works.
Alexander of Aphrodisias and Joh. Philoponos seldom add fragments not
contained in the works of Aristotle himself; but Simplicius copies long
extracts, so that, except for Herakleitos, his commentaries are the most
important source for our knowledge of the writings of the pre-Sokratic
philosophers. There can be no doubt that most of these quotations—at
least in his commentary on the _Physics_ of Aristotle—were drawn from
the original works. The most careful scrutiny of the passages from Zeno,
Melissos, and Anaxagoras fails to reveal any reason for questioning
their character as genuine quotations, except in the case of some of
the fragments of Melissos. Pabst (and independently Burnet) has shown
that the so-called Fragments 1-5 of Melissos, though given in the form
of quotations, are in reality an epitome covering more briefly the
same ground that is covered by the following fragments, and adding
almost nothing to our knowledge of Melissos. It is wholly unlikely that
Simplicius made this epitome himself, for that would be at variance
with his ordinary method of work, and with his custom later in dealing
with Melissos. So we are driven to assume either that he drew them from
some epitome of Melissos to which he had access, or, what seems to me
more probable, that he copied them from an earlier commentator, whose
habit it was to condense his quotations rather than to copy them at full
length. If now we examine the quotations in Simplicius’ commentary on
the _de caelo_ (Melissos Fr. 17 and numerous lines from Parmenides and
Empedokles), it is noticeable that a considerable number of them occur
also in the scholia to Aristotle. It is possible that as they appear in
our scholia they all come from Simplicius. One long quotation (Melissos
Fr. 17) is, however, taken by Eusebios from Aristokles, a much earlier
commentator on Aristotle. This fact of course confirms the belief that
earlier commentators on Aristotle accessible to Simplicius already
contained quotations from the philosophers in question;[120] and the
presence in our scholia of so many fragments quoted by Simplicius on
the _de caelo_ would at least suggest an investigation of the question
whether our scholia drew them from an earlier source than Simplicius—in
other words, whether Simplicius did not in all probability take them from
the commentaries of his predecessors. So when we find Parmenides line
78 _ap._ Simplicius, _Physica_ 29, 18 in the form that Plato had quoted
it,[121] when we find line 60 _ap._ 120, 23 quoted from an indirect
source (cf. p. 145, 4, where it is quoted in context), we may conclude
that Simplicius took those quotations from Parmenides at second hand,
and not improbably from earlier commentators on Aristotle. The quotations
from Herakleitos are all of them in a late form, and show that Simplicius
was not familiar with any work under the name of Herakleitos.[122] Nor
did Simplicius know Xenophanes at first hand. The two quotations from
his poem occur in the discussion of a passage from Theophrastos, and are
probably taken from him. The quotations show, however, that Simplicius
knew at first hand the works of Zeno, Melissos, Anaxagoras, Parmenides,
and Empedokles, and it remains to examine the numerous quotations from
the last two thinkers in order to form some idea as to the probable
accuracy of Simplicius’ method of quotation.
Stein in his attempt to restore the text of Parmenides finds numerous
misarrangements of the lines and breaks where one or more lines have
dropped out. Certainly there is evidence that Simplicius omitted four or
more lines between 89 and 94, nor does he indicate the break in any way.
Several times a phrase of his own is inserted in the middle of a line
(e.g. _Phys._ 39, 28; 143, 22), and once a line is filled out metrically,
according to our manuscripts, by a phrase which is generally regarded as
a comment from Simplicius (_Phys._ 145, 16). The text itself of these
fragments is often very dubious in our manuscripts (e.g. lines 96, 98,
100), but Simplicius may not be responsible for this. In our manuscripts
also we read sometimes ωὐτός, sometimes αὐτός, and when either ὤν or ἐών
(ὄντα or ἐόντα) is metrically possible, the shorter is usual; here again
we cannot with any confidence hold that Simplicius is responsible.
The quotations from Empedokles shed more light on the method of
Simplicius. Not infrequently lines are omitted in sequence, as two
lines between 68 and 70 (_Phys._ 158, 1 f.), and again in the same
quotation one line between 90 and 92, and two lines between 93 and
94. According to Bergk the line between 174 and 176 should be omitted
(it is identical with 184); and Schneidewin inserts here line 175 (of
Stein) from Stobaeos; the passage occurs twice in the same form in
Simplicius, however (and once in the scholia to Aristotle), so that this
error probably existed in the text from which Simplicius copied. On p.
33, 19 of the _Physica_ two passages from different parts of the poem
of Empedokles are joined without break, and the end of line 95 (Stein
115) is modified to make the connection between the two passages. In
two instances I believe that Simplicius (or some copyist) has repeated
in a quotation some lines from the last previous quotation. On p. 159
of the _Physica_ the end of the first quotation is repeated as the end
of the second, except that a summary phrase is substituted for the last
half-line; again on p. 160 (lines 6-8) we find three lines which had
occurred in the last previous quotation, and which are inserted here with
the change of a connecting word. Sometimes we can point out an error that
probably existed in the text from which Simplicius copied, as in the
case of line 175 mentioned above. Thus ἐδεῖτο in line 99, κῆρυξ in 93,
βεβλάστηκε at 105, and probably ἤερος in 78 appear in repetitions of the
same quotation at different points, and so may be assigned to the source
of Simplicius. In other instances we may say that Simplicius copied
carelessly, as in the case of line 89, which is corrected in the prose
paraphrase, and possibly 138, where the curious text in the _Physica_
may be corrected from the _de caelo_. The state of our manuscripts of
Simplicius, however, is probably responsible for most of the numerous
errors in the forms of words.
From this survey of the sources I have omitted the names of many writers
who furnish some little addition to our knowledge of the fragments, for
their method of quotation is relatively unimportant, nor have I thought
it necessary to consider later writers who throw light only on the later
history of the fragments. Accordingly I have not spoken of Eusebios,
who repeats quotations from Plutarch and from Clement, or of Theodoret,
who drew from Clement, or of Julian, who drew from Plutarch. Again, I
have not spoken of Stobaeos, or Eustathios, or the scholia generally,
as sources, for we are not at present able to determine the line of
tradition for these fragments. I have, however, examined the more
important sources of fragments, in order that the student may be able to
estimate the relative value of the sources, both as to text and as to
directness of transmission, in his own study of them.
II.
§ 15. Turning now to the doxographic tradition, we may state the problem
as follows:—In the _Placita philosophorum_ attributed to Plutarch, in
the _Eclogae physicae_ of Stobaeos, in fragments from Arius Didymos, in
Hippolytos, and in other writers, we find copious statements as to the
_opinions_ of the early philosophers. These opinions shed light on many
points not mentioned in the fragments of their writings now remaining,
and so they have great importance for the student of their systems. At
the same time they are often confused and unreliable. The problem is
to determine the relation of these writers to each other, as well as
to the source of the whole series, in order that we may estimate their
relative value. This work has been most successfully accomplished in the
Prolegomena, to Diels’ _Doxographi Graeci_, a work that is absolutely
indispensable to the student of this subject. There is no occasion to
reopen here a question that Diels has so successfully solved, but I
propose to state briefly a few of the conclusions which the reader will
find substantiated in the work of Diels.