IIEIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 693 



Tlic wliolo account is, as Dicis, Doxographl Gracri, p. 108, pointccl out, 

 remarkable for its curious statements. I confess that, if it be really 

 derived from Theophrastus, it seems to me to have sufi'cred changes 

 similar in character to those of the doxography of Hij)polytus (V^ 41, 

 25 sq.), which owes much of its data to the Pseudo-Aristotelian 

 treatise De ISIolisso, Xenophane, Gorgia. But first let us spi-ak of 

 the passage transcribed above. What Xenophanes taught concerning 

 the origin of clouds is clearly stated by Aet. 3. 4. 4 (V- 43, 20), 

 aveKKOfxevov yap e/c rrjs daXaTTrjs rod vypov to yXvKV Sia Tqv XeTrrofxepeLav 

 biaKpLVOjXivov vk4>ri re avvLOTavtiv 6fj,LX^ovfj.€vov Kal Karacrrdfeti' 6/x)3pous 

 i»7r6 7rtX770"eaJS Kal dtaTnl^ttv to. Truevp.aTa. Cp. also fr. 30. It is clear 

 that Theophrastus simply stated the theory of the meteoric process, ac- 

 cortiing to which clouds originate from vapors rising under the action 

 of solar heat and lifting skyward. In the text of Diogenes we readily 

 note two inaccuracies. We should doubtless read i;^' for a,0', since 

 vapors rising from the sun are sheer nonsense. The other difficulty 

 is at first more puzzling; for a vapor lifting clouds skyward is non- 

 sense likewise. The vapor condensed to mist or fog (duLx^oufxevov) is 

 cloud. I therefore suggested to Professor Diels that we bracket aura 

 and take alpova-qs in its intransitive sense: he records, but does not 

 accept, the proposal in his third edition. It is at once clear that this 

 would remove all difficulties from the passage. Probably Professor 

 Dicls was doubtful about the intransitive use of a'ipco, which the lexica 

 almost entirely ignore. Of that usage I gave examples in a Note on 

 Mcnander, Epitrepontes 103 sq., published in Beil. Philol. Wochenschr., 

 1909, No. 16, col. 509 sq. I there cited Plato, Phaedr. 248 A, Arist. 

 Respir. 475" 8 and 479" 26, Sophocl. Philoct. 1330. To these in- 

 stances I would now add Sophocl. O. R. 914 and the Schol. to 

 Sophocl. ad loc. and p. 239, 4; Proclus in Tim. I. 78, 2 Diehl. 

 Other examples, concerning which there may be some doubt, I now 

 omit, but may recur to the subject another time. There can be no 

 question, therefore, that oUptiv was used intransitively, and in our 

 passage the change appears to be demanded by the sense. Probably 

 some one not familiar with the usage added avra in order to supply 

 an object, but in so doing he gave us nonsense. 



In this same paragraph occur the words (V^ 34, 18) oKov 5e bpav Kal 

 6\ov aKovHv, fxi] jxkvTOL avairvetv. I discussed this passage briefly 

 in Antecedents of Greek Corpuscular Theories, p. 137 sq., pointing out 

 its agreement with Plato, Tim. 32 C-33 C. I ought in justice to say 

 that the parallel had been previously noted by Tannery, Pour Vhistoire 

 de la science hellenc, p. 121, though the fact had slipped from my memory. 



