704 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



V 69, 10. Fr. 50, 'Hpa/cXetros iJ.ev ovv <^lv> (prjaiv elvai to toLv 

 SiaipeTOv adLalperop, yevrjTOV ayevrjToi', dvrjTov adavarov, Xoyov aloova, 

 warepa vlov, deov b'tKaiov ovk kp.ov, dXXo, tov Xoyov aKovaavras 6/j,o- 

 Xoyelu oo(j)6v eariv ev Travra elvau 6 "HpaKXetros 4>ri(n. 



It is agreed that the authentic words of HeracHtus begin with ovk 

 e/jLov: what precedes we owe to Hippolytus, who obviously modeled 

 his introductory^ statement on fr. 67. The comparison of the two 

 passages shows that Bergk's <ep>, which Diels adopts, is unneces- 

 sary. The predicates of to irdv are, as one sees at a glance, arranged 

 in contrasted pairs. In the fourth pair, \6yos is of course the intelli- 

 gible principle, virtually the Koa/xos votjtos, opposed to alojv which is 

 the Koa/jLos aiadiiTos. The next pair, xarepa vlop, is of course of Chris- 

 tian origin. Apparently the last, dedu dUaiov, has puzzled Professor 

 Diels; for ' he now (V^) proposes to insert [aSuoj'] after dlKaiov. I 

 long ago saw that this pair was suggested to Hippolytus or his source 

 by Plato, Crat. 412 C-413 D, but had taken for granted that this 

 was a matter of common knowledge and not worthy of special notice, 

 until Diels's note undeceived me. I observe that Otto Gilbert, Griech. 

 Religionsphilosophic, p. 62, n. 1, also noticed the connection. He there 

 proposes a different interpretation of ai6:v, but his suggestion I take 

 to be too clearly mistaken to require refutation. In reference to deov 

 biKaiov, it ought to be said that Hippolytus possibly wrote bidibv (= 

 t]\lov), and that Skatoj' may be due to the copyist; but there is no 

 sufficient justification for making a change in the text. Diels is 

 probably right in adopting Miller's et vat for the dbevai of Par. ; but 

 elbevai may possibly have been originally a gloss on bpioXoyelv, for if 

 6iJ.o\oye7v is sound it must be interpreted here, as in fr. 51, with 

 reference to Heraclitean etymology, as " sharing in the (a) common 

 \6yos." 



V 71, 15. Fr. 67, 6 Beds ViJ.epr] evcppovrj, xupiwv depos, TroXe/ios eiprjvrj, 

 Kopos Xtyuos {TCLvavTia airavTa' ovtos 6 vovs), dXXotoOrat 8e 

 OKOOffTrep <7ri)p>, b-KOTav avpLfxcyfj dvo^fxacnu, bvop.a^eTai Kad' i]8ovr]V 

 eKaaTOV. 



This is the text of Diels. I hope to make it clear that it is not 

 correct, and to show also w^hat HeracHtus wrote and what he meant. 

 In order to understand and reconstruct this fragment we must com- 

 pare two passages from Plato, in which he obviously alludes to it. 

 Crat. 394 A, ovkovu Kal Tepl ^aaiXecos b avTos Xbyos ', eaTai yap Trore e/c 

 (SaaiKtus jSaaiXevs, Kal e^ ayadov ay ados, Kal e/c /caXoO /caXos, Kal rdXXa 



