To Eleonora Fiorani, 9 marzo 2021
References:
● Marcovich, Heraclitus. Greek Text with a Short Commentary, The Los Andes
University Press, Merida, Venezuela, 1967. [M]
●
King, The Cosmic Fragments,
Cambridge University Press, 1962. [K]
1 The Logos
1.1
If in [M] Group One: The Logos is an
objective Truth (έών) operating and apprehensible in the world of our daily
experience ... Nevertheless men fail to recognize it (pag.1), then:
a MG1 = {fr|that say: Logos is knowable but not known}
If
in [K] Group One: The Logos according to
which all things come to be is ‘common’
in two senses: it is universal and it is equally apprehensible by all ... yet
men still fail to recognize it. (pag. 32), then:
b KG1 = {fr|that say: Logos is knowable but not known}
c if a ⊻ b, then: MG1 = KG1, but:
d c ₣,
in fact:
e MG1 = {(1 DK+73 DK), 34 DK, 17 DK, 72a
DK}
KG1 = {(1 DK+73 DK), (114 DK+ 2
DK + 113 DK), 89 DK, 50 DK}
MG1≠KG1 and only (1 DK+73 DK) ∊
MG1∩KG1
Comment
α Marcovich and Kirk do not operate in the
same ∃. M pag. XV: I tried to give a critical text of all
the extant fragments of Heraclitus. K pag 46: These criticism of the generality of men occur again and again in the
extant fragments; many of those fragments are not treated in detail in
present work since they add little to our knowledge of the Logos ...
then: ∃K ⊆ ∃M.
In detail, 34 DK; 17 DK; 72a DK; not treated in detail by K.
β γ 114 DK
+ 2 DK = 23 M,
in Group 5 (ξυνός of the Logos), M p. 97:
In conclusion, the objective of all the apparatus applied by Heraclitus in fr.
23 (114 + 2) was to impose the new doctrine on the Logos. 114, K p. 51: The fragment may be paraphasable thus: Man
who want behave intelligently must base their behaviour on the formula or rule which
operates in (and can detected in) all things ... [like in] the law of their
city. But the reason to following the rule underlyng all things is even
stronger that for obeyng city laws. 2, K p. 59: There is a close parallelism in structure between fr. 1 and fr. 2, and,
The fact that τ^_ ξυν^_ has just been mentioned makes
it permissible that the phrase refers primarily to the Logos.
δ 113 DK (= d1 23 M) is
doubt, M p. 96: It seems to me that the
later imitators of the saying ... 113
K, and K p. 55: In fact, the so-called
fragment is suspect whether or not is connected with fr. 114.
ε 89 DK = M 24, Group 5. K p. 67: H. is trayng to say that the truth which
he wants to propagate is not just some idea of his own: it can be detected in
many different ways, for it is common to all things ... howeer, should make it
more readily comprehensible.
ζ 50 DK = M 26, Group 6.
η linguistic comparison of sets:
|
K 114 DK Those of speak with sens must rely
on what is common... 2 DK Therefore it is necessary to follow
the common ... but although ... 50 DK Listening ... to the Logos it is wise
to agree [but ...] |
M 34 DK People who remain uncomprehending
... 17 DK The majority of men do not notice
the things ..... 72 Men are at variance with that
... |
|
K 114 DK Those of speak with sens must rely
on what is common... 2 DK Therefore it is necessary to follow
the common ... but although ... 50 DK Listening ... to the Logos it is wise
to agree [but ...] |
M 34 DK People who remain uncomprehending
... 17 DK The majority of men do not notice
the things ..... 72 Men are at variance with that
... |
King’s
fragments tell us what men should do (and they dont) to understeand the Logos,
Marcovich ones, what men actually do (and they shouldn't). From this point of
view, the starting sets should be corrected in a diametrically opposite way,
obtaining these two
complementary sets:
KG1a =
{fr|that say: what man should do to
understand the Logos}
MG1a = {fr|that say: what man should not do to
understand the Logos}
Conclusions
King's
∃ set is smaller than
Marcovich's one. Marcovich favors an interpretation of Logos as a manifestation
of transcendental force, while Kirk considers it, above all, as a natural law. For
this reason Marcovich's G1 should be integrated with his G5 (ξυνός):
e1 MG1⋃MG5
= {(1 DK+73 DK), 34 DK, 17 DK, 72a DK, (114 DK + 2 DK), 89 DK }
KG1 = {(1 DK+73 DK), (114 DK+ 2
DK + 113 DK), 89 DK, 50 DK}
P = {(1 DK+73 DK), (114 DK + 2
DK), 89 DK} ∩ MG1⋃MG5
⋃ KG1
2 The opposites
|
KING |
MARCOVICH |
||||
|
Groups 2-8 Reasons for accepting the conclusion,
connec-ted with the Logos, that ‘all things are the same’ |
Group
2 The same
thing is regar-ded in opposite ways by different types of obser-ver ... |
Group
6 A unit can be made of each pair of
opposites |
|
|
|
|
|
Group 3 The
same observer may ascribe opposite attribu-tes to the same objet in special
cases ... |
Group
7 tÕ pal…ntonon, Polemos |
|
|
|
|
|
Group
4 ... opposites are comple-mentary
each other |
Groups 8 Opposites
pairs mani-festly present in a single object |
Groups 8-12 Exempla
coincidentia oppositorum. |
|
|
|
|
Group 5 ... opposites invariabily
succeed each other |
Group
9 The same thing is regar-ded in
opposite ways by observers ... |
|
|
|
|
|
Group
6 Opposites are exentially connected |
Group 10 Convertibility,
two sides of the same coin |
|
|
|
|
|
Group
7 Tension between opposi-tes |
Group
11 Correlative opposites |
|
|
|
|
|
Group
8 ... war or strife |
Group
12 Opposites that presuppo se each
other |
|
|
|
From
desxriptions we find some similarities:
● KG2 ≈
MG9 opposites are result of different points of view (by different subjects );
● KG3 ≈
MG8 opposites are result of different funcional valutation (by the same subject);
● KG4 ≈
MG11 opposites are complementary and correlative phenomena;
●KG5 ≈
MG10 opposites are successive degrees of an implementation;
● KG6 ≈
MG12 opposites are connected each other (that is, they have the same substrate);
●KG7 ≈
MG6 opposites are dialectical polarities;
● KG8 ≈
MG7 opposites are manifestations of an
immanent tension (Polemon).
Let's
test these hypotheses.
2.2
Different points of view
If:
a KG2 = {fr|that say: opposites are result of different points of view} and
b MG9 = {fr|that say: opposites are result of different points of view}, then:
c KG2 = MG9.
But:
a1 KG2 = {61 DK, (13 DK + 37 DK),
(9 DK + 4 DK)} and:
b1 MG9 = {61 DK, (13 DK+ 37 DK), 9 DK, 4
DK, 48 DK, 12a DK}, then:
c1 KG2 ⊆ MG9
Comment
α 48 DK:
Marcovich himself [pag. 127] admits the poor compliance, in the set, of this
fragment (and also of 12a DK). There is here no perceiving subject who may have
different points of view. His explication (name and function as inseparable
parts of the object) is an assist for Kirk, who places the fragment in his
Group 3. Kirk's choice is defensible
because for the threatened man or the hungry hunter, the bow has vital
functions.
β 12a DK:
the perceptions of the subject do not change, the object does. This fragment is
out of place. With more reason, Kirk puts it in his Group 12, reserved to the
the river-analogy.
Conclusions: Marcovich does not respect the
conditions of belonging to the set.
2.3
different
funcional valutation
If:
a KG3 = {fr|that say: different percepcion for different function or aspect}
and
b MG8 = {fr|that say: different percepcion for different function or aspect},
then:
c KG3 = MG8.
But:
a1
KG3 = {58 DK, 59 DK, 60 DK, 103
DK, 48 DK}
b1 MG8 = {59 DK, 60 DK, 103 DK}
c1 MG8
⊆ KG3
Comment
α 48 DK supra.
β 58 DK: the opposing characteristics of such objects belong to the objects
(Kirk pag. 87), but doctor’s function (or aspect) isn’t double. If anything, it
is the patient who perceives it differently (although Heraclitus does not think
so). Marcovich places fr. 58 DK in his Group 11 (opposites are correlative) for
medical treatment and disease both produce pain. It is a more happy choice.
Conclusions: Kirk's choice about 58 DK is
questionable.
2.4
successive degrees
of an implementation
If:
a KG5 = {fr|that say: opposite is a degree of an implementation} and:
b MG10 = {fr|that say: opposite is a degree of an implementation }, then:
c KG5 = MG10.
But:
a1
KG5 = {88 DK, 126 DK, (57 DK + 106
DK), 99 DK }
b1 MG10 = {88 DK, 126 DK, 57 DK}
c1 MG10
⊆
KG5
Comment
α 106 DK... fr. 106 belongs to the same context as fr. 57... is simply another form
... (King, page 159, with the support of Reinhard and Kranz). Marcovich (320, 321): I think it is not likely; because: (а) In fr. 43 (57) Heraclitus is
speaking of the opposites day and night, and here only of the day (Gigon 133) (b)
There Hesiod’s teaching on the mother-child relationship of Night and Day
(Theog. 123 f.) seems to have been criticized, whereas here Heraclitus is
likely to rebuke Hesiod’s belief in good and bad days (Erga 765 ff.).
Heraclitus could well have attacked Hesiod for different reasons, as he did
with Homer too: cf. e. g. frr. 28 (80) and 29 (53) against fr. 21 (56). (c) In
fr. 43 (57) day and night are said to be one probably because they invariably
succeed each other (the level of the coincidentia oppositorum); in this fr. 59
(106) the real essence (φύσις) of the day is concerned, which is probably fire
(the level of Heraclitus’ Physics).
β 99 DK, from Pseudo-Plutarchus. Marcovich
(322-324): eê μή ήλιος %hν, ›νεκα τÏν ¥λλων ¥στρων εÙφρόνη
¨ν
%hν.
(If there were no sun, for all the other
stars it would be (perpetual) night.) That is: the other stars are unable
to illuminate the sky; rightly in G. 14, astronomical opinions. Kirk (162): eê μή ήλιος φησìν %hν εÙφρόνη ¨n %hν.
(If the sun did not exist it would be
night). Therefore: light is a necessary assumption of darkness and vice
versa; acceptable in this set.
Conclusions: contradictions by philological choices.
2.5
opposites are connected
each other
If:
a KG6 = {fr|that say: opposite is connected at ...} and:
b MG12 = {fr|that say: opposite is connected at ... }, then:
c KG6 = MG12.
But:
a1
KG6 = {10 DK, 102 DK, 67 DK}
b1 MG12 = {62 DK , 26 DK, 21 DK, 15 DK }
c1 KG6
≠MG12
Comment
α 10 DK. Kirk puts it in this set (dialectical
analysis), Marcovich in his 6th (dialectical synthesis).
β 102 DK. (To
God all things are fair and just, but men have supposed, some things unjust and
some just.) God
and men, two subjects, Kirk privileges human subjectivity (but better in Group
2); Marcovich chooses divine objectivity and put it in his theological Group
21.
γ
67 DK. (God is day and night, winter and summer, war
and peace, satiety and hunger ...) As above, Kirk chooses phenomenological
reality, Marcovich transcendental unity (G. 17).
δ
62 DK. ε 26 DK. ζ 21 DK. η 15 DK Not treated
in detail by Kirk (see α 1.1).
Conclusions: analysis and synthesis
– as well as immanence and transcendence – can induce different options.
2.6
opposites are dialectical
polarities
If:
a KG7 = {fr|that say: opposite is a dialectical polarity } and:
b MG6 = {fr|that say: opposite is a dialectical polarity }, then:
c KG7 = MG6.
But:
a1
KG7 = { (51 DK + 8 DK), 54 DK, 123
DK, 7 DK}
b1 MG6 = {10 DK, 50 DK, (51 DK + 8 DK) }
c1 MG6
∩ KG7 = 51 DK + 8 DK
α 54 DK. Marcovich: Invisible connexion is stronger than visible; Kirk: An
unapparent connection is stronger than an apparent. Little difference, but enough: Kirk is in the physical
world, Marcovich in the one governed by Logos immanence, Group 3. The same in
the next:
β 123 DK. The
real constitution of thing is accustomed
to hide itself.(Kirk), The real constitution of each· thing is accustomed to hide
itself (Marcovich, Group 3).
γ 7 DK. If all things where to became smoke the nostrills would distinguish them,
they agree on translation, but not on interpretation. For Kirk (pag. 202) fr. 7 is a hypothetical specific example of
the fact that unity and pluralty can coexist ... it puts a case where the unity
of connexion would be the superficial aspect, while the differentation lies
beneath the surface. Instead, Marcovich (pag. 420) write: All things are made up of fire though our
eyes do not see it. But suppose that everything turns to smoke: then one organ
of ours, the eyes, would see the universal underlying stuff, smoke, whereas
another organ of ours, the nose, would perceive different kinds of matter, i. e.
different smells or scents within this smoke.
δ 10 DK. see α
2.5.
ε 50 DK. see ε 1
Conclusions: Some problems arise from different
philosophical sensibilities of the authors. But it must be said that the domain
of Kirk’s set it is not strictly defined.
2.7 opposites
are manifestations of an immanent
tension
If:
a KG8 = {fr|that say: opposite is
manifestation of an immanent tension } and:
b MG7 = {fr|that say: opposite is
manifestation of an immanent tension }, then:
c KG8 = MG7.
But:
a1
KG8 = {80 DK, 53 DK, 84ab DK, 125
DK, 11 DK }
b1 MG7 = {80 DK, 53 DK, 42 DK, 125 DK}
c1 MG7
∩ KG8 = {80 DK, 53 DK, 125 DK}
Comment
α 84ab
DK. Kirk (p. 250): [a] Changing it rests [b] It is weariness to toil for and be ruled by
the same. His explication (p. 252): It
is restful for things to change. Marcovich (p. 303): [a] In
changing it [fire?] is at rest. [b] It
is weariness to toil for the same (masters) and he ruled by them. And adds,
I don’t think change in general is meant,
as Gigon and Kirk interpreted. I
would agree with Diels that πυρ might
be the invisible subject here. Consequently, he places the fragment in his Group
13[1]. See α
and β 2.5.
β 11 DK. This
fragment cannot be assignate with certainty to this group – Kirk p. 258 –
and adds (262): I think it as likely as
not to be a concrete illustration of the universality of strife: the opposition
between man and beast may typify that between man and his sourroding, or the
action and reaction between all things absolutely. Marcovich (p. 430): I
think that πληγή
might
hint at πληγÕ κεραυνoû, ‘stroke of the thunderbolt.’ Consequently, the saying might imply:
Thunderbolt {Fire) is the Supreme Grade (Shepherd) of mankind.
In Group 18[2]. As above.
γ 42 DK. The emphasis made by Heraclitus on Polemos (of. ξυνός etc.) can be
explained [also] by Heraclitus’ polemic with traditional opinions
of the Epics (Marcovich, p. 130). We are in a subset.
Conclusions: Polemos
is a limit concept between dialectic of material nature and action of a
higher transcendent intelligence.
3 Astronomical
phenomena and their laws (KG9,
MG14)
If:
a KG9 = {fr|about astronomical phenomena} and:
b MG14 = {fr|about astronomical phenomena }, then:
c KG9 = MG14.
But:
a1
KG9 = { 6 DK , 3 DK, 94 DK, 120 DK
, (100 DK + 137 DK) }
b1 MG14 = {3 DK, 6 DK , 106 DK , 99 DK, A1 DK, 120 DK, (105 DK
+ 38 DK), 100 DK, A 13 DK}
For:
1)
doxographical quotations are widely treated by Kirk ad frr. 6 (A 1 DK), 100 (A
13 DK)[3];
2)
137 DK, dubium, Kirk (p. 304) : It is clear that no study of the
doxographical material is going to show whether this alleged quotation is
genuine. Marcovich (137 DK = c1 28 M): no new material from Heraclitus is contained in testimonia c1-6.
(pag. 142).
I propose:
a2
KG9 = { (6 DK + [A 1 DK]) , 3 DK,
94 DK, 120 DK , (100 DK + [A 13 DK])}
b2 MG14 = {3 DK, 6 DK , 106 DK , 99 DK, A1 DK, 120 DK, (105 DK
+ 38 DK), 100 DK, A 13 DK} whith:
c2
P = { 3 DK, 6 DK, 100 DK, 120 DK, A
1 DK, A 13 DK} ∩ KG9 ⋃
MG14
[1] The fragments of this Group
deal with three basic principles of Heraclitus’ Physics: Fire, Measures, and
Change.
[2]
In Group 18 God appears
as separated from world, as the supreme Steersman, Shepherd and Judge of men,
very alike to the Homeric Zeus.
[3]
p. 270
and passim: All relevant information is
contained in ... Diog. L. IX, 9-11
(= A 1 DK) ... p. 300 and passim: Censorinus de die nat. XVII, 11 (= A 13
DK) ...
α 94 DK. 52 M, Group 13 (Fire,
Measures, and Change). Ελιος, Έρινύες,
Δικης the context is mythological, see conclution 2.7.
β 106 DK. Not trated in detail by
Kirk.
γ 99 DK = β 2.4.
δ 105 DK + 38 DK = 63ab M. Not
trated both in detail by Kirk.
Conclusions: osmosis between physics and metaphysics,
as already mentioned, and different purposes of the authors.
4 Cosmic Fire
Marcovich
Doctrine On Fire is a macrostructure:
|
13 |
fragments
of this Group deal with three basic principles of Heraclitus’ Physics: Fire,
Measures, and Change |
|
14 |
deals
with the astronomical and meteorological views of Heraclitus. |
|
15 |
deals
with Heraclitus’ Psychology. |
|
16 |
the
cryptic sayings of this Group seem to deal with the eschatology of man. |
|
17 |
links
Heraclitus’ God with his Physics. |
|
18 |
God
appears as separated from world, as the supreme Steersman, Shepherd. |
|
19 |
speaks
of God-Fire as absolute Wisdom. |
|
20 |
contains
the criticism of the traditional beliefs, cults and rites. In the rest of
these groups the features of the new doctrine on God-Fire are expounded. |
|
21 |
emphasizes
the essential difference betiveen the true knowledge which has only God, and
the false or incomplete knowledge of man. |
The
comparison must be made between Kirk Group 10 (fragments of this group deal
with the characteristics of cosmic fire)
and Marcovich Group 13.
3.1
If:
a KG10 = {{fr|about cosmic fire} and:
b MG13 = {{fr|about cosmic fire}, then:
c KG10 = MG13.
But:
a1
KG10 = {30 DK, 31 DK, (36 DK + 76
DK), 90 DK, 64 DK, 65 DK, 16 DK}
b1 MG13 = {30 DK, 94 DK, 31 DK, 90 DK, 65
DK, 84ab DK}
c1 P
= { 30 DK, 31 DK, 90 DK, 65 DK} ∩ KG10 ⋃ MG13
Comment
α 36 DK. Marcovich (p. 360):
For souls it is death to become
water,
for water it is
death to become earth;
but
out of earth water comes-to-be,
and out of
water, soul.
in Group 15
for evident psychological content. Kirk (p. 339) Water is death to soul ...
from water comes earth, from earth again comes water, from that comes souls,
leaping up to the whole aither. Marcovich cycle: soul – water – earth – soul. Kirk cycle:
water – soul – earth – aither. β 76
DK = e1 66 M (36 DK).
γ
64 DK. χρησμοσύνην
καὶ κορόν, Marcovich (Group. 18, p. 424 ): This saying be taken as a typical
case of Heraclitus’ midway theology: the word κεραυνός looks like a
‘common denominator’ of both the traditional Zeus and the new Fire. Namely, the
thunderbolt is Zeus’ main weapon and, pars pro toto, recalls easily the
idea of Zeus as the Supreme Divinity. Kirk (p 356): thunderbolt is
simply a symbol for fire, and that Heraclitus means only to assert that fire
(and not Zeus, or the deity, or fate) steers all things, in the sense of is
responsible for the way in which all things behave.
δ 16 DK. Marcovich (Group. 18, p. 433): Thus
Heraclitus substitutes the traditional Helios by his new god Fire, which never
sets. But in spite of all Heraclitus’ radical criticism the new Watchman does
not seem to be much different from the traditional Ζεύς. Kirk (p. 365): This
fragment is placed in this group partly because it may bear upon the nature of
Heraclitus’ fire, partly because of its traditional (and fallacious) connexion
with ecpyrosis-interpretation.
ε 94 DK. See α 3. ζ 84ab DK See α 2.7.
Conclusions: Marcovich theologizes, Kirk
rationalizes.
5 The River
If:
a KG11 = {{fr|about river analogy} and:
b 40 M ∩ MG9 = {{fr|about
river analogy}, then:
c KG11 = 40 MG9
And:
a1
KG11 = {(12 DK + 49a
DK), 91 DK}
b1 40 M = {40 M (= 12 DK), c2 40
M (=49a DK), c3 40 M (=91 DK)}
c1 KG11 = 40 M ∩ MG9
6 The Divine Entity
If:
a KG12 = {{fr|about divine entity } and:
b MG19
= {{fr|about divinne entity},
then:
c KG12 = MG19
And:
a1
KG12 = {(41 DK + 112 DK), 32 DK,
108 DK}
b1 MG19 ={108 DK, 32 DK, 41 DK }
c1 MG19
∩ KG12
Commenti
Posta un commento