HEIDEL. — ON FILVGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 705 



iravra ovrws, e^ iKaarov ykvov^ 'irepop tolovtou tKyopou, eav nif repas 

 yevrjraL' KXrjTeov dij Tavra ovonara. iroLKlWtiv be e^ecTi rats 

 (TvWajSats , ioare 56^at ai' to) lSiootlkcos exoPTi ere pa elpai 

 aWijXcop TO. avTO. opra' ibcxwep 'qp.'ip tcltuip larpCiP 4)apfj.aKa 

 XP<jOiJLacrLP Kal da ^als 7^€7^ot^'t\/xe^^a dXXa ^talptT ai to. avr a 

 opra, T(2 Seye laTp(2, are ttjv dvpa/jnp tojp (f)apfxaKcop aico- 

 TTOvnePLO, TO. avTCL <))aipeTaL, Kai ovk eKirXrjTreTaL viro rdv 

 IT poaoPTCjOP. ovTOJ 8^ 'lacos Kal 6 eTLaTap.epos irepl ovofxaTOjp Tr]p bvpapLLP 

 ai'TOCip aKoiret, Kai ovk bcTrXrjTTeTaL et tl irpbaKUTai ypafxixa fj fxeTaKtiTai 

 r\ a(})fipT]TaL, t] Kai kp aXXots iraPTaivacnp ypa/dpLaaip eanp rj rod OPOfxaros 

 8vp a iJL IS. cbaTep 6 pvpSt] kXeyo/JLep, ' 'Aarvapa^" re Kai '"E/crcop" ov8iv 

 rwp avTCJp ypa/ufxaTCOP ex^i TrXrjp rod rav, dXX' oyucos ravTOP arj/jLaipet. 

 Kai '* 'ApxeTToXts" ye tcop /jLep ypapfxarcxiP tl einKOLPoopet ; drjXoX 8e o/xcos 

 TO avTO' Kai dXXa TroXXd ecTLP a ov8eP dXX' rj (SaacXea ayjfjLaipeL' Kai 

 aXXa ye av aTpaTrjyop, olop "^AyLs" Kai "IloXe/xapxos" Kai Ei^TroXe- 

 Idos". Kai laTpiKa ye eTepa, "'larpo/cX^s" /cat " 'AKeai/ulSpoTOs" ' Kai erepa 

 ap laws avx^a evpoip-ep rats ixep avXXa^als Kai rots ypanjiaaL 8La4>co- 

 povPTa, TTJ 8e bvpaixet TavTOP (f)deyy 6iJ.eva. The general con- 

 nection of this passage with the Heraclitean doctrine of the epyop 

 was noted above in the discussion of fr. 48. The 8vpafXLs or specific 

 physiological action of the drug is compared to the 8vpap.Ls of a word, 

 its "force" or meaning. The identity of meaning in words that are 

 different {8ia4)wpovPTa, TapavTia airaPTa), and the methods employed 

 to produce variation {iroLKLXXeLP, dXXotoOrat), — these are the themes 

 common to Heraclitus and Plato. We naturally think of Heraclitus, 

 fr. 15, oiVTOs 8e 'Ai8r]s Kai Aiopvaos, and fr. 57, ocrrts r]p.ep7]P Kai ev4>p6pr]V 

 OVK ey'iPoiGKep- Icttl yap ep. The second passage from Plato, to which 

 I referred above, is Tim. 49 sq., where the relation of the elements 

 to the 8e^ap.epri or the eKp.ayelop is under discussion. It will suffice 

 for our purpose to quote a sentence from 50 E, 8l6 Kai ttclvtup e/cros 

 elbup eivai XP^<^^ to to. iravTa eKbe^ofxepop ep avTW yeprj, Kadarrep irepi to. 

 aXeip.p.aTa oiroaa evrjbr] Text^V P-rjxapCiPTaL TcpCiTOV tovt' avTO virapxop, 

 iroLovcTLP OTL /jLoXLCTTa ao^OT] TO. be^ojiepa iiypa rds bazas' o<jol re ev tlclp 

 T<ap /xaXaKcip crxiyAtara airofxaTTeiP ewixeipodai, to irapairap (TXVf^o- ov8ev 

 epSriXop vwapxecp ecocrL, TpoofxaXvpaPTes 8e otl XetOTaTOP arrepya^oPTaL. 

 Plato here employs two comparisons to illustrate the relation of the 

 substratum to the elemental forms, l>orrowing one from the manu- 

 facture of unguents, the other from the art of moulding figures in a 

 matrix. The first of these is obviously similar to that above quoted 

 from the Cratylus, and was repeated by Lucret. 2, 847 sq. 



