Aither is a double-blind peer review, Open Access online academic journal. It is indexed at ERIH+ and Scopus. It is published by the Faculty of Arts of the Palacký University in Olomouc in cooperation with the Philosophical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. It comes out twice a year. Every second issue is international and contains foreign-language articles (mainly in English, but also in German and French). The journal is registered under the number ISSN 1803-7860.

Aither 2/2009:37-77 | DOI: 10.5507/aither.2009.011

Readings and Interpretations of Heraclitus Text: Fragments DK 22 B 1, 18, 26, 29, 33, 35, 41, 50, 80, 112

Helena Kurzová

The article deals with some of Heraclitus fragments having more interpretational possibilities. In several cases the reading of the manuscripts is preferred before the "emendations", so especially ὁτέῃ κυβερνῆσαι before ὁτέη ἐκυβέρνησε in B 41, εἰδέναι before εἶναι in B 50, ὲρεῖν before ἔριν, χρεώμενα before χρεών in B 80. It is shown that in all these cases the manuscript reading gives the sense more corresponding to Heraclitus intentions. In B 26 the proposed deletion of [ἀποθανὼν] disturbs the structure of the text which is organized in the oppositions dead - alive (sleaping - awake). Some variants are caused by the morphological homonymy or polyfunctionality. In the fr. B 29 the plural genitive θνητῶν is most probably to be identified as neuter, from the interpretations based on its understanding as masculine. the quite widespread interpretation as |'glory among mortals' is not supported by the linguistic data (gen. is not attested after κλέος), whereas the acceptable interpretation as 'glory of mortals' is rather neglected. In B 33 we read nom. sg. βουλή, not dat. sg. βουλῇ and ἑνός is taken for neuter and connected with ἓλ (τὸ) σοφόν (fr. B 32, B 41, B 50, B 108). In another group of fragments it is the syntactic ambiguity which motivates the interpretational variants. In. B 18 the syntactic boundary after ἔλπηται and the absolute value of the verb, without the object implied, are preferable features. In B 35 εὖ μάλα πολλῶν ἵστορας, not φιλοσόφους ἄνδρας are taken for the subject in the acc. c. inf. construction depended on χρή. In B 112 the bipartite structure of the sentence with the syntactic boundary after σοφίη is posed, which was thoroughly analysed by the late Jan Janda in 1963 before this art of reading becomes familiar.

Published: September 30, 2009  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Kurzová, H. (2009). Readings and Interpretations of Heraclitus Text: Fragments DK 22 B 1, 18, 26, 29, 33, 35, 41, 50, 80, 112. Aither1(2), 37-77. doi: 10.5507/aither.2009.011
Download citation

References

  1. Bollack, J. & Wismann, H., 1972, Héraclite ou la séparation, Paris.
  2. Conche, M., 1986, Héraclite, Fragments, texte établi, traduit, commenté par M. Conche, Paris 1986.
  3. Diels, H., 1877, recenze na "Heracliti Ephesii reliquiae, rec. I. Bywater" (Oxford 1877), Jenaer Literaturzeitung 4, s. 393-395.
  4. Diels, H. & Kranz, W., 199619, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Zürich.
  5. Döring K., 1972, Die Megariker. Kommentierte Sammlung der Testimonien, Amsterdam.
  6. Gomperz, H., 1910, "Zu Heraklit". Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien 61, s. 961-973, 1057-1067.
  7. Gomperz, H., 1927, ἖δηδεζάκελ ἐκεσπηόλ, in: Festschrift für Julius Schlosser zum 60. Geburtstage, Zürich & Leipzig & Wien, s. 11-18.
  8. Günther G., 2001, Grundfragen des griechischen Denkens. Heraklit, Parmenides und der Anfang der Philosophie in Giechenland, Würzburg.
  9. Heidegger, M. 1954, "Logos (Heraklit, Fragment 50)" in: Vorträge und Aufsätze, Pfullingen, s. 207-229.
  10. Held, K., 1980, Heraklit, Parmenides und der Anfang von Philosophie und Wisenschaft. Eine phänomenologische Besinnung, Berlin & New York. Go to original source...
  11. Hussey, E., 2008, "Hérakleitos o poznání a smyslu", in: Pokorný M. (ed.), Hérakleitos z Efezu: Zkušenost a řeč, Praha, s. 10-39.
  12. Hussey, E., 1982, "Epistemology and meaning in Heraclitus", in: Language and Logos. Studies in Ancient Greek Philosophy to G.E.L. Owen, vyd. M. Schofield, M.C. Nussbaum, Cambridge, s. 33-59. Go to original source...
  13. Janda, J. 1963. "Jak číst Hérakleitův zlomek 112 (něm. résumé Wie das heraklitische Fragment 112 D zu lesen ist) ", Listy filologické 86, s. 25-33.
  14. Kahn, Ch. H., 1979, The Art and Thought of Heraclitus. An edition of the fragments with translation and commentary, Cambridge.
  15. Kirk, G. S. & Raven J. E., 1957, Presocratic Philosophers, Cambridge.
  16. Kirk, G. S. & Raven, J. E. & Schofield, M., 1983, The Presocratic Philosophers: A critical history with a selection of texts. Cambridge. Go to original source...
  17. Kirk, G. S. & Raven, J. E. & Schofield, M., 2004, Předsókratovští filosofové. Kritické dějiny s vybranými texty, Praha.
  18. Kratochvíl, Z., 2006, Délský potápěč k Hérakleitově řeči, Praha.
  19. Kühner, R., 2004, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache 2. Satzlehre sv. 1, upravil B. Gerth, Hannover & Leipzig.
  20. Lallot J., 1971, "Une invective philosophique (Héraclite, Fragments 129 et 35 D.-K.) ", Revue des études anciennes 73, s. 15-28. Go to original source...
  21. Philippson, R., 1920, "Zu Philodems Schrift über die Frömmigkeit", Hermes 55, 225-278.
  22. Robinson, T. M., 1987, Heraclitus, Fragments: A Text and Translation with a Commentary, Toronto (Phoenix Suppl. 22).
  23. Snell, B., 1926, Heraklit Fragmente. München.
  24. Stork, P., 1987, An Index to Verb Forms in Herodotus: On the Basis of Powell's Lexicon, Amsterdam 1987.
  25. Svoboda, K., 1944, Zlomky předsokratovských myslitelů, vybral a přeložil K. Svoboda, Praha.
  26. Thurner, M., 2001, Der Ursprung des Denkens bei Heraklit, Stuttgart & Berlin & Köln.
  27. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von, 1904, Griechisches Lesebuch II. 1. Erläuterungen, Berlin.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.