HEIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCKATICS. ()95 



Xenophanes to he tlio originator of this doctrine is al)snnl and opposed 

 to statements of Aristotle and Tlieoplirastns. How eanie the claim 

 to he made'/ During,' the sixth and fifth centuries B. C, as we well 

 know, nuich interest attached to the inventors of contrivances and 

 the first propounders of ideas, as was entirely natural in the fine hurst 

 of individualism characteristic of the epoch. We coimnonly think of 

 the passionate quest for tvp-qixara durin<>- the Alexandrian Age, hut 

 Herodotus (1.25; 1.171; 2.4; 2.24; 2.109; 3.131; 4.42; 4.44) and 

 the earlier logographers display tlie same interest. The exaggerations 

 to which claims of this nature led ha\e been well illustrated by Pro- 

 fessor J. S. Reid, Lucrctiana, Harvard Studies in Class. Philol., 

 Vol. 22 (1911), p. 1 sq. in his note on Lucret. 1, 66 sq. Certain 

 peculiarities of phrase used in such connections deserve attention. 

 Thus Herod. 1.25 says, Y\avKov rov Xtou, 6s /xoOj'os hi] iravTcov avdpco- 

 TTojv aibripov KoK\t](nv e^eOpe, using /xoOws, where we might have ex- 

 pected TrpoJTOs, to denote the sole original authorship of Glaucus. 

 When data were collected for the later compilations such turns may 

 ha^•e given rise to errors. In some such way we may perhaps account 

 for the embarrassment of Simplicius (\- 18, 19) in regard to Anaxi- 

 menes: e-jrl yap tovtov pbvov Qe6(j)pa(TTOs . . . rrju jxavwcLV eipr^Ke Kal 

 TTVKVOiaLV, brfKov be u>s Kal ol aXXot rfj fxaporrjTL Kal TrvKVOTrjTL exp^vro. 

 Here Diels formerly accepted Usener's suggestion of irpcoTOv for pouov, 

 but has latterly with good reason returned to the MS. reading, which 

 the context requires. 



V^ 36. De Melisso, Xenophane, Gorgia 977* 18, raura yap airavTa 

 ToTs ye 'lctols Kal opoloos virapxi'-v irpos aWrjXa. 



Here Uiels follows the reading of L, except that he rightly changes 

 ravTa to Tavra : R, which is second only to L, gives 'LaoLs r) ohoLols. 

 Probably neither reading is correct. Arist. De Gen. et Corr. 1. 7. 

 323*' 5 has -iravTa yap ojjloIoos virdpx^LV Tavra rots ohoLols. Both pas- 

 sages, however, rest upon Plato, Parm. 139 E-140 D, where the 

 implications of the optoLOv and avbpoiov are first considered, then those 

 of the laov and avLcrov. In view of this fact I think we should read 

 ToTs ye "lctols Kal KopoioLS^ opolcos. 



c. 12. Heraclitus. 



V^ 61, 35. Pr. 1, oko'lojv e7w bLr]yevpaL Staipecoi' eKaarov Kara 4>v<7lv 



Kal 4>pa'^(jiv OKCos €Xtt- 

 These words have l)een variously interpreted. So far as I am aware 



