HEIDEL. — OX FU.VGMKXTS OF THE PUE-SOCRATICS. "07 



tion, therefore, tlie conjeetiire of licrnays, avf^myfj <Ovccixa> QvC^naai, 

 was better tlian either of those w hieh we noticed tihove; l)iit Diels is 

 riglit in assinninji; that the desiderated word is to be suppHed after 

 oKoocnrep. The only point in favor of <7r0p> is that its omission can 

 so easily be explained; I)ut with almost equal ease we can account for 

 the loss of <nvpov>, which is ob\iously required by the sense and by 

 the Platonic and Lucretian parallels. 



But we nuist now return to the earlier part of the frap^ment. The 

 words TavavTla diravTa' ovtos 6 povs have been a stumbling-l)lock. 

 Bywater and Diels bracket them, since they can make nothing of 

 them. Mullach accomplished the same result by making two frag- 

 ments instead of one, and omitting the troublesome words. But a 

 reference to the passage from the Crat^dus should prove beyond 

 question that they belong just where they stand; only one slight 

 change is required, viz, oivtos for ovtos, as Bergk perceived. He says, 

 Kleinc Philol. Schriftcn, II. 86, n. 4, "Ceterum etiam verba ilia 

 TavavTia airavTa, ovtos 6 vovs non interpretis, sed ipsius Heracliti esse 

 existimo, quae ita videntur corrigenda: 6 deos . . . Kopos, TavavTla 

 airavTa' (^vtos poos' dXXotoDrat 5e, 'oKOiairep oLpos ktX." L nfortunately 

 Bergk did not interpret his proposed text; but judging by his punc- 

 tuation and the absence of any remark al)out the force of poos, I 

 venture to suggest that what he had in mind was something like this: 

 " Gott ist . . . U})erfluss und Hunger, mit einem Worte, alle Gegen- 

 siitze. Es ist derselbe Geist," usw. If this suggestion does him 

 justice, it will be seen that he did not really anticipate my proposal 

 except in regard to the change of ovtos into oovtos; and working with 

 the text of Diels, who did not even record the proposal, I did not 

 come upon his emendation until I had reached the same conclusion 

 independently and by a different route. As a matter of fact, it was 

 the passage from the Crat\lus which disclosed the connection of 

 ideas and led me to the ob^•iously correct text and interpretation; 

 for I saw at once that povs had no reference whatever to deos and 

 did not mean "Geist," but, as in Herod. 7. 162, ovtos 5e 6 poos tov 

 pT]fj.aTos, signified " sense" or " meaning." But, this point once cleared 

 up, it followed at once that we must read cburos for ovtos, and that 

 TCLPaPTla (XTraPTa did not merely add a generalization to sum up the 

 bill of particulars which precedes. In short, Tapavria airaPTa is the 

 plural form of rovpapTiop awap, which occurs, Plato, Polit. 310 D, as a 

 variant for the more usual phrase irdp Tovpapriop; cp. Xen. Mem. 

 3. 12. 4 anfl ffor the adverbial force of ttols or ciTras) Plato. Protag. 

 317 B. 



