708 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



Restoring to Heraclitus what rightfully belongs to him, we should 

 therefore write the fragment thus: 6 deds rnxep-q ev(j)p6vr], x^tM^i' depos, 

 TToKepLos elprivrj, KOpos Xl/jlos ' Tavavria airavTa, couros 6 vovs • oXkoLomaL be 

 CKOiairep KjjLvpov^, biroTav avpixiy^ dv6)p.a(jLV, ovofxa^eTaL Kad' rjSovrjv (.ko.- 

 CTTOV. " God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, satiety 

 and hunger, — oj^posites quite, hut the sense is the same; he changes, 

 however, just as the neutral base employed in making unguents, when it 

 is mixed with volatile essences, receives a name in accordance with the odor 

 of each." 



In regard to the philosophical interpretation of the fragment, which 

 thus assumes a rank of capital importance for the thought of Heracli- 

 tus, it is hardly necessary to say more at present, than that we must 

 henceforth build upon the foundations laid by Plato, Tim. 48 E-52 C. 

 Plato and Lucretius prove that the same thought lay at the core of the 

 atomic theory, and it is evident that Heraclitus here touched one of 

 the basic conceptions of metaphysics in so far as it is concerned with 

 the relation of the One and the Many. We are therefore called upon 

 to consider the questions which crowd upon us with sobriety and 

 careful discrimination, unless we are to efface the mile-stones that 

 mark the progress of speculation. Such an inquiry is, however, too 

 far-reaching to admit of discussion in this connection. 



V 72, 18. Fr. 71, fxefxprjadai 8e Kal tov kTn\avdavop.kvov fj 17 656s ayeu 



The meaning, apparently missed by some scholars, is made clear 

 by fr. 117, ovk kTatwp oKrj ^aivei. He forgets whither he is going. 



V 73, 14. Fr. 77, \pvxfio'i- • • • Tkp\pLV r) dauarov vypfjcri. yev'tadai. 



It seems very probable that we are here dealing, if one may so 

 express it, with a conflate text; that is to say, two utterances of 

 Heraclitus, otherwise essentially identical, but differing in this, that 

 one related to Tepxpis, the other to davaros, appear to have been merged 

 in one. Either statement, taken by itself, is entirely intelligible; 

 but it is improbable that Heraclitus combined them in the manner of 

 this 'fragment.' 



V 73, 19. Fr. 78, rjdos yap avOpuireLov jxiv ovk ex^t yvuiixas, delov 

 oe exet. 



The word ^9os is difficult and improbable. I suspect that we should 

 write Wvos; cp. Eurip. Orest. 976, 



