HEIDEL. — OX FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 097 



c«irefully controllod oxporiniontation, presupposes an eXiris — surmise 

 or clearly formulated anticipation — of that wliicli ohservation will 

 show. To form such a conception is to exercise the scientific imajiina- 

 tion, and the findings anticipated assume the shape of a theory or an 

 hypothesis. Early Greek i)hilosophy was so prolific of nothing else 

 as of hypotheses, and the philosophy of Heraclitus in particular is 

 nothing l)ut a bold hypothesis, whatever concrete observations may 

 ha\e led him to propound it. Now, that is precisely what 1 conceive 

 our fragment to mean: "Except a man venture a surmise, he will not 

 discoi'cr thai which he has not surmised; for it is undiscoverable and 

 baffling.'^ Fr. 123, 4>v(jls KpvTTTeadai ^tXet, 'the processes of nature 

 are not to be read by him who runs, for the true inwardness of things 

 does not appear on the siu'face', is prol)ably to be understood in the 

 same sense; for apixovl-r] a(f)avr]s 4>aveprjs KpeirTCOv (fr. 54). So, too, fr. 86, 

 aTLaTLji SLacftvyyaveL jii] yiyvioa-KeadaL, probably lefers not to faith in a 

 dogma or a revelation but to the scientific faith which is the evidence 

 of things not seen. 



■o'- 



V 64, 1. Fr. 10, avvarpies 6\a Kal ovx o^o-, crvfx4>ep6iJLevov 5ta0ep6- 

 (xevov, (TVVaSov 8lS.8ov, /cat Ik tolvtoov ev Kal k^ evos Tavra. 



I do not recall seeing an^-where a reference to the evident reminis- 

 cence of this fragment in Seneca, De Otio, 5. 6, utrum contraria inter 

 se elementa sint, an non pugnent, sed per diversa conspirent. 



V 66, 13. Fr. 28, ooKeovrcov yap 6 SoKLiJLOJTaTos yivdaKei 4>v\daaeLv • 

 Kal fxtVTOL Kal SIkt] KaTa\r]\peraL xpevSoov reKTOvas Kal /jLaprvpas, 6 

 'E0€crt6s ct)r](nu. 



The text of this fragment is regarded by all critics as desperate, 

 and desperate measures have been taken to restore it. I have no 

 desire to canvass them, but shall offer an interpretation which, with a 

 minimal alteration, appears to render it intelligible and quite as 

 defensible as the texts obtained by introducing more radical changes. 

 First of all, it seems clear that yap is due to Clement, who quotes 

 the sentence, and must be set aside as not belonging to Heraclitus. 

 This is the view of Bywater, who omits the word. If that be true, 

 what is there to hinder our taking boKebvTOiv as an imperative? It 

 wants a subject, but that was doubtless supplied by the context from 

 which the sentence was obviously wrested. A plausil)le conjecture is 

 made possible by the reference in the last clause to the inventors and 

 supporters of lies, who are clearly contrasted with those who receive 



