714 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



nature consciously and ivithfull knoivledgc." This thought is, however, 

 in substance and in form entirely Stoic, corresponding in the ethical 

 sphere to the injunction to submit willingly to Fate, in the religious 

 sphere, as expressed in Cleanthes's lines to Fate. One may, of course, 

 discover the germs of this view in genuine fragments of Heraclitus; 

 but Diels's alterations in the text and his interpretation do not meet 

 the reasonable objections long since urged by others to the genuine- 

 ness of this fragment. 



V 78, 8. Fr. 116, audpcoTroLcn irdcn /jLerearL jLvcoaKeLV ecovTOvs Kal 

 aojcppovelv. 



This fragment, like the preceding, is derived from Stobaeus, and 

 like it, too, has been by many regarded as spurious. As I have al- 

 ready stated, Diels writes (ppoveZu for aojcjjpoveZv, in order to meet an 

 obvious criticism. This procedure would be justifiable, however, only 

 if the passage as a whole created a presumption in favor of Heracli- 

 tean authorship, which is supported solely by the lemma of Stobaeus. 

 In fact all indications point to the period after Socrates. Whoever 

 'attributed the saying to Heraclitus doubtless did so in view of fr. 101, 

 ebL^7](jap.y]v kjieo^vTOv, but the interpretation of the Delphic 'yvCidi cravTOv 

 as an injunction to recognize one's limitations and to occupy oneself 

 with that which lies within one's proper scope and power, — this is, 

 so far as we know, Socratic: he who would claim it for Heraclitus 

 must assume the burden of proof. But no unbiased reader of our 

 fragment will doubt that yivooaKeip ecovrovs Kal aco(f)povelv was intended 

 to express that precise thought. I cannot justify the changing of 

 crcocppove'Lu to (j)poveiv, and cannot accept the fragment as genuine. 

 Bywater was clearly right in marking both 112 and 116 as doubtful. 

 Since they come to us from Stobaeus, who quotes them under widely 

 different heads, it is plain that their assignment to Socrates is not 

 due to a mere mistake in the lemmata of his text, but the error 

 must be charged to his sources. 



V 78, 16. Fr. 120, rjovs Kal ecnrepas repfxara 17 apKTOS Kal avriov ttjs 

 ixpKTOV ovpos aldpiov Alos. 



In V^ Diels briefly notes my interpretation of ovpo'^ aldpiov Atos as 

 "wind of heaven," which was proposed in my review of his Heraldcitos 

 von Fyphcsos'^, in Class. Philol., 5. p. 247; but he appears still to prefer 

 his own suggestion that Heraclitus referred to ]Mt. Olympus. As I 

 regard my proposal as almost certainly right, I offer here a few addi- 



