Editing Heraclitus (1999–2012): Ten Volumes Plus One1 SERGE MOURAVIEV Gaillard, France; Moscow, Russia
I shall tell you the story, propose an overview, and show the structure, goal, and peculiarities o this monstrous edition that I undertook orty-our years Heraclitea,, o which ten volumes have appeared since 1999. One volume was ago: the Heraclitea published in November 2011 and a ew others are still in preparation. While telling you this story, I shall strive to show the radical dierences between my approaches and the standard ones taught worldwide in the departments o classics and ancient philosophy in universities. Abstract:
1. The Prehistory of the Heraclitea
F
irst, or the record,what record, what II am. A Russian, Russian, born in France rom rom émigré parents, who spent thirty-two thirt y-two years in the USSR when his parental amily repatriated there, and who was able to return to France in 1992. My working languages are French Fre nch and Russian, occasionally English. Eng lish. It so happened many years ago, circa 1967, that I embarked on what turned out to be a lielong experiment. exp eriment. I was neither a proessional classicist, classic ist, nor a proesproessional philosopher; my background was, rather, philological and linguistic. But disconcerted by the at contradictions contradict ions I had ound in the literature li terature on Heraclitus Heraclitus that was available to me, I once set up my mind and ventured to really understand understan d 2 him mysel. Understanding implied taking ta king nothing nothi ng or granted, learning Greek, collecting and assessing the sources, extract extracting ing the ragments rag ments and other pieces o inormation, reading, analyzi analyzing, ng, and interpreting texts, even attempting at reconstructing reconstruc ting the lost book, and o course arguing every step to the best o my ability. It also
© 2013. Epoché, Volume 17, Issue 2 (Spring 2013). ISSN 1085-1968. DOI: 10.5840/epoche20131724
195–218
196
Serge Mouraviev
implied—not an easy task—getting thoroughly acquainted with the vast feld o early Greek civilization. Thus, little by little, I became an independent sel-taught historian o early Greek sapiental and philosophical texts. My frst scholarly paper in Russian appeared in 1970, the frst one in English in 1973, the frst one in French in 1976. 3 What contradictions was I disconcerted by? Here is how I presented them to colleagues eight eig ht years ago, at a symposium sy mposium near Ephesus (Ku şadası, in Turkey): •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Was Heraclitus a philosopher? —Some —Some scholars say he wasn’t (or instance Georgopoulos4), Patricia Curd on the other hand considers the problem pertinent with respect to the Presocratics as a whole but inclines to the opposite view.5 Was he the author o a book? —Some book? —Some critics (notably Georey Kirk 6) say the content o Heraclitus’s book had been gathered by some pupil o his. Was this book a continuous treaty or a collection collect ion o aphorisms? aphori sms? —Both —Both answers have had their partisans part isans (e.g., Diels on the side o aphorisms, ollowed by by a lot o people, including Kirk, and recently Granger, and by Kahn, Barnes, and mysel on the other7). Did Heraclitus write predominantly on nature, on ethics, or on politics? (C., e.g., the opinions o Kirk with those o Capizzi or García Quintela 8) Is he the author author o a philosophical system or only o a collection o unsystematic uns ystematic utterances? Can we speak, speak , as an Italian colleague put it, o the “disunity” “disunity” o o his thought? And in the latter case, did he discuss a variety o philosophical subjects or merely things said or believed by other people? —All people? —All o these possibilities have been advocated in the twentieth century (the ( the last two ones are deended respectively by Rossetti and by Bollack Bol lack and Wismann9) but no agreemen ag reementt has yet been reached. Was Heraclitus logically consistent? as consistent? as Graham believes, or was he guilty o a certain “metaphysical looseness,” as looseness,” as Marcovich put it?10 Did he violate the Law o Contradiction, Contradiction , as Aristotle suspected?, suspected?, or did he ollow another kind o logic o his own making? or was his logic a mythological one, e.g., the “logic o ambiva ambivalence lence”? ”? (C. (C. the contradictory contradictory opinions o Barnes, B arnes, Marcovich, Rossetti, Bartling, Couloubaritsis, Dilcher, and Graham, 11 not to speak o Hegel’s and Marx’s appropriation o his “dialectic.”) Did he propound a Logos doctrine? —Martin —Martin West, Jonathan Barnes, Thomas Robinson and some others think he did not. 12 Did the theory o universal lux belong to him and constitute his main contribution to philosophy, philosophy , as the doxographical tradition has it and as nineteenth-century scholars s cholars frmly believed, b elieved, and some researchers researchers continue
Editing Heraclitus (1999–2012): Ten Volumes Plus One
197
to believe (e.g., Barnes 13)—and i yes, to what extent and what was its real place in his doctrine? •
•
•
•
•
And how many “river and ux ragments” is there really—one, two or three, or more? There are partisans o one, F 12 (rom Gigon and Kirk to Marcovich and Graham14), o two excluding F 12 (Bywater, Guthrie, Barnes) or F 91 (Reinhardt15), or o all three (the traditional view). I personally believe there are more than three. 16 Or was H. the constancy theorist depicted by Reinhardt, Kirk, and Marcovich?17 Or perhaps we should better identiy him with the radical Heraclitus imagined by Daniel Graham, who used Milesian language to conceal his revolutionary criticism o the “Generating Substance Theory” o his predecessors under the guise o his “ake principle Fire” and who built the frst ever “metaphysics o the Process”? 18 Did Heraclitus believe in world conagration as some scholars (Kahn, Robinson, Finkelberg,19 and mysel) are convinced, or is this Stoic slander, as a majority o writers20 think, or an invention o Aristotle (an opinion held by Marcovich 21), in spite o the ancient evidence to the contrary? Was Heraclitus a rationalist, a conceptualist, an intellectualist? or was he a sensualist, an empiricist, a solipsist (as Colli hinted22)?—or perhaps rather an empiriocriticist?—or an irrationalist? was he a materialist or an idealist? was he a hylozoist? was he a theist or a pantheist, a mystic or an atheist? was he a pessimist or an optimist? and so on and so orth;—almost any o these and many other labels have been pasted on him. He has even been termed “eleatic ” by some and “ post-modernist ” by others.23
The situation was no better in 1968 than in 2005. (Or than it is in 2013. There are new labels, others disappear.) But these were mostly problems o philosophical interpretation o the sources which I thought I would solve mysel ater having studied the texts. But which texts? I had access almost rom the start to the editions by Schleiermacher, Schuster, Bywater, Diels, Walzer, Kirk, Marcovich, later by Bollack and Wismann, Kahn, Colli, Conche, 24 and others, but they all disagreed on almost every word, on the authenticity o almost every ragment, they used dierent corpuses o texts. They ignored or discarded scores o sources and almost totally neglected the doxography. So either I had to believe someone at random, or see or mysel. I chose the latter. It was then that I made an observation which played an important role in my uture activity: I discovered that many Heraclitean ragments could be assembled so as to produce a continuous text and I established mathematically, on the basis o the testimonia published by Bywater and o some other considerations, that
198
Serge Mouraviev
we possess no less than two thirds o Heraclitus’s original text. So I devised a frst variant o what was to become the reconstruction o his book. In 1970 I published in Russia a summary o it. 25 All my knowledge had come rom books. But I soon ound out that books had nothing to tell me about how I should proceed with my search. So I had to gradually devise my own deontology and methodology. This had many advantages and many drawbacks. For lack o classical education, I remained ignorant o a lot o very useul things which any scholar is supposed to know proessionally. And this was an enormous impediment. But or the same reason I remained ignorant o some o the prejudices and harmul practices which are also taught in the universities. Or elt ree to reject them. And this was an immense advantage. I began with a tabula rasa, implying three requirements: •
•
•
(a) maximum knowledge o the relevant ancient and modern literature; (b) a priori trust towards the ancient sources in so ar as they do not contradict each other, and (c ) a priori distrust towards the modern interpretations o these sources, owing to their permanent state o mutual disagreement and their dependence rom the uctuating to-and-roes o academic ashion.
A prerequisite to points (a) and (b) was: assembling the ullest possible corpus o ancient sources about Heraclitus . Thus began the Heraclitea project.26 I published various exploratory articles in Russian, French and English on a variety o sources. A collection o Testimonia de Vita et Libro Heracliti with Russian translation. I even began publishing by piecemeal Traditio, the ull edition o the sources, and went as ar as Aristotle. And then ell the Berlin Wall and I returned to France. In 1996 I obtained at the Sorbonne a doctorate with a dissertation on H.’ language and in 1998 I was approached by Heinz Richarz, the publisher o Academia Verlag, who proposed printing the Heraclitea as a separate series o books. (For a complete list o published and planned volumes, see p. 199.) This took years and led, frst, to the publication in 1999–2003 o Traditio Heraclitea. So much or the prehistory. 2. The History
When completed, the Heraclitea will be divided into fve main blocks: Parts I and V are reserved or the Prolegomena and the Indexes. The others are Part II, Traditio; Part III, Recensio; and Part IV, Reectio, each o them subdivided into a section oering an edition o the texts and a section containing the commentary. (See synopsis, page 199.)
Editing Heraclitus (1999–2012): Ten Volumes Plus One
199
HERACLITEA
Édition critique complète des témoignages sur la vie et l’œuvre d’Héraclite d’Éphèse et des vestiges de son livre et de sa pensée •
I. PROLEGOMENA: l’outillage [Structure, Méthode, hiStorique, concordance, BiBliographie] ••
II. TRADITIO: la tradition antique et Médiévale [corpuS coMplet deS SourceS ancienneS Sur héraclite priSeS danS leur contexte. Édition par auteurs et écoles, dans l’ordre chronologique] (A) Textes. Témoignages et citations II.A.1—D’Épicharme à Philon d’Alexandrie. 1999. XXVI + 270 pp. II.A.2—De Sénèque à Diogène Laërce. 2000. XXXIV + 367 pp. II.A.3—De Plotin à Étienne d’Alexandrie. 2002. xv + 196 pp. II.A.4—De Maxime le Conesseur à Pétrarque. 2003. xxii + 166 + xlii pp. (B) Textes. Allusions et imitations—( C) Commentaire (D) Supplément: La Tradition orientale et renaissante (textes et commentaires) •••
III. RECENSIO: leS veStigeS [texteS relatifS à la vie, à la doctrine et au livre d’héraclite. Édition systématique avec commentaire, en quatre parties] (III.1) M eMoria H eraclitea. III.1—La vie, la mort et le livre d’Héraclite. (A) Textes et (B) Commentaire. 2003. xxxviii + 232 pp. (III.2) Placita Heraclitea. III.2—Thèses et doctrines attribuées à Héraclite par les Anciens . (A) Textes et (B) Notes critiques. 2007. XXII + 195 pp. + 1 tabl. h.-t. (III.3) F ragMenta H eraclitea. Les ragments du livre d’Héraclite III.3.A—Le langage de l’Obscur . Introduction à la poétique des ragments. 2002. XXVI + 438 pp. [avec CD-R, Heraclitea.Suppl.Electr . 1.] III.3.B/i–iii —Les textes pertinents. 2006. (i) Textes, traductions et apparats I–III.xxviii + 375 pp.; ( ii ) Langue et orme. xxviii + 178 pp.; (iii) Notes critiques. xxxiv + 211 pp. (III.3.C)—Les dossiers des ragments (III.4) F ontes H eracliti . Sources utilisées par Héraclite Textes, traductions et commentaires ••••
IV. REFECTIO: le livre et la doctrine [reconStruction à partir deS fragMentS et téMoignageS]
IV.A—Le livre «LES MUSES» ou «DE LA NATURE». Texte et traduction, Commentaire. 2011. XXXI + 209 p. (dont 1–30 doubles) (IV.B)—La doctrine •••••
V. INDICES
200
Serge Mouraviev
Traditio collects, edits chronologically and comments in contextu all the sources o our knowledge on Heraclitus; Recensio collects, edits and comments all thespecifcally Heraclitean inormation which can be extracted rom those sources; and Reectio is meant to reconstruct, out o the texts o Recensio, the closest possible approximation to what the book written by Heraclitus must have been like, at least in my opinion, beore it was lost—and to argue this reconstruction and use it as a basis or restoring the doctrine. (Or, i the reconstruction o the text ails, to address directly the restoration o the system.) Traditio is subdivided into A. Established Sources (testimonia) and B. Non Established Sources (reminiscences, allusions and imitations); Recensio is subdivided into: 1. Memoria, 2.Placita and 3.Fragmenta. The main material or Reectio obviously comes rom Fragmenta and to a lesser degree rom Placita. When I devised this plan I naively thought I would publish it in that order. But I soon ound out that you need to have edited the ragments to be able to identiy the reminiscences and to have edited all the sources beore you can comment on them. Similarly, even though Memoria and Placita lend themselves easily to separate commenting, this is not the case or Fragmenta which badly need the commentary to the sources and have much to gain rom the commentary to Re ectio. Hence the apparently hectic order in which the Heraclitea volumes appear. Here is an overview o their content. I begin with Part II, Traditio. Volume 1 o Traditio contains 350 sources on H. belonging to authors ranging rom Epicharmus to Philo o Alexandria. Volume 2 contains 375 sources belonging to authors ranging rom Seneca to Diogenes Laertius. Volume 3 contains 305 sources belonging to authors ranging rom Plotinus to Stephen o Alexandria. Volume 4 contains 260 sources belonging to authors ranging rom Maximus the Conessor to Petrarch. Traditio is thus a collection o over 1230 excerpts naming Heraclitus and containing inormation about him rom texts by over 250 ancient authors, with ull relevant contexts, ull translation and three apparatuses. 27 The next step was Part III, Recensio: extracting rom these sources the ullest possible corpus o (1) inormations about the man, his lie and his work, (2) o accounts concerning the tenets o his doctrine, and (3) o quotations rom his lost book. This led (a) to the publication, in 2003, o Memoria Heraclitea, and in 2008, o Placita Heraclitea. The frst is a collection o over 300 testimonia (including 22 tables o efgies) on Heraclitus’s lie, his portraits and his book, with translations and a detailed commentary.
Editing Heraclitus (1999–2012): Ten Volumes Plus One
201
The second assembles 250 clusters o doxographic opinions attributed to him by over 900 sources, ollowed by a commentary. And this led, (b) to the publication, in 2002–2006, o Fragmenta Heraclitea, a ull-scale edition o the more or less literal remnants o the book. Volume A o these Fragmenta Heraclitea is a monograph, an enlarged version (over 450 p.) o the doctoral dissertation I deended in Paris in 1996, on the language and poetics o H.’ ragments. The three books o volume B o Fragmenta Heraclitea are a critical edition o 206 H.’s ragments. Book B/i contains the ragments themselves with translations and three apparatuses. Book B/ii—two apparatuses devoted to the language and poetical orm o the ragments. And Book B/iii—consists o short commentaries on each ragment, plus an Index uerborum Heracliti and a bibliography. For comparison with predecessors, here is table showing the approximate numbers o edited items: Diels & Kranz 1935 and Mondolfo & Tarán 1972
Marcovich, Heraclitus
Mouraviev, Heraclitea
Traditio (Sources)
226 items
ca. 650 items by ca. 200 authors
1230 items by 250 authors
Memoria (Lie and book)
12 items
0 item
over 300 items and 22 iconographical tables
Placita (Opinions)
69 items = 110 opinions/sources
4 items
250 items from over 900 sources
Fragmenta
145 items
125 items
206 items
This makes ten volumes o Heraclitea containing the corpus o all the established (warranted) sources, testimonies and quotations. Last but not least came (c ) the “plus one” volume, IV.A, Reectio, containing the latest version o my reconstruction o the book, integrating not only the ragments but all the relevant doxographical inormation as well and ollowed by a detailed commentary on the restoration procedures I used. Thus, still lacking are: vol. II.B and II.C (Traditio, Imitations and allusions [= non established texts] and Traditio, Commentary), vol. II.D (Traditio, Orientalia and Renaissance), vol. III.C Les dossiers des ragments (Fragmenta, Commentary to individual ragments), vol. III.D Fontes Heracliti , vol. IV.B La doctrine reconstituée, not to speak o the Prolegomena and Indices. So much or the scale o the edition and its statistics. We shall have a look at its intrinsic value in a ew minutes. But let’s make frst an intermezzo on Heraclitus’s poetics.
202
Serge Mouraviev
3. Poetical Intermezzo
This dimension o H.’s prose was known very superfcially. Nobody ever studied it. I did not intend to spend much time on it either, but its magnitude came as a surprise. And its philosophical role soon became so obvious that I couldn’t ignore it. I’ll show you just a ew tiny parts o this iceberg, centered on sound and order. All Heraclitus’s literal ragments have one or more sound patterns: a syllabotonic rhythm, chimes, alliterations, rhymes. Some o them are both audible and visible, as are the syllabotonic rhythm and other phonic eatures in the fve ragments I shall now read in Greek. Τοῦ δὲ λόγου τοῦδ᾿ ἐ όντος αἰεὶ ἀξύνετοι γίνονται ἄ νθρωποι καὶ πρόσθεν ἢ ἀκοῦσαι κ(αὶ) ἀκούσαντες τὸ πρῶτον. Γινομένων γὰρ π ά ντων κατὰ τὸν λόγον τόνδε, ἀπείροισιν ἐ οίκασι πειρώμενοι κα(ὶ ἐ)πέων καὶ ἔργων τοιούτεων ὁκοίων ἐγὼ διηγεῦμαι, διαιρέων κατὰ φύσιν καὶ φρά ζων ὅκως ἔχει. [F 1a] Πυθαγόρης <ὁ> Μνησ ά ρχου ἱστορίην ἤσκεσ[εν?] ἀνθρώπων μά λιστα πά ντων καὶ ἐκλεξά μενος ταύτας τὰ ς συγγραφὰ ς ἐποιήσατο ἑωυτοῦ σοφίην πολυμαθίην κακοτεχνίην. [F 129] Καθαίρονται δ᾿ ἄλλως αἵ ματι μιαινόμενοι <ὁκ>οῖον εἴ τις ἐς πηλὸν ἐμβὰ ς πηλῶι ἀπονίζοιτο. Μαίνεσθαι δ᾿ ἂ ν δοκοίη εἴ τις αὐτὸν ἀνθρώπων ἐπιφρά σαιτο οὕτω ποιέοντα. Καὶ τοισ᾿ ἀγά λμασι τούτεοισιν εὔχονται ὁκοῖον εἴ τις τοῖσι δόμοισι λεσχεν εύοιτο
Editing Heraclitus (1999–2012): Ten Volumes Plus One
203
οὔ τι γινώσκων θεοὺς οὐδ᾿ ἥρωας οἵ τινές εἰσι. [F 5]
Κόσμον τόνδε τὸν αὐτὸν ἁπά ντων οὐτέ τις θεῶν οὐτ᾿ ἀνθρώπων ἐποίησεν ἀλλ᾿ ἦν αἰεί, καὶ ἔστιν καὶ ἔσται πῦρ ἀείζωον ἁπτόμενον μέτρα καὶ ἀ ποσβεννύμενον μέτρα. [F 30]
You certainly heard the rhythm, and some o the chimes and rhymes. Here are examples o a more sophisticated type o sound eects, which are inaudible to us even when read aloud: palindromic consonances. F14 ta mystêria anierôsti myewntaj
F29 thnêtôn de polloj kekorêntaj hokôsper ktênea
F9 onoj syrmat' an helojnto mâllon ê khryson
F 14 reads ta mysteria anierôsti myeyntai . Did you notice that all the phonemes on the let side (or a majority o them in the other ragments) recur on the right side in reverse order ? F 29 and F 9 are two other examples o the same pattern. Read them and check the repetitions. And I can adduce a dozen o other similar examples, which, though inaudible, are still visible. The ollowing one is literally gigantic.
204
Serge Mouraviev
F 32 hen to sophon munon legesthaj uk ethelej kaj ethelej dsênos unoma
F 32 is incidentally the central ragment o H.’ whole doctrine and we shall meet it again soon. Here you have 10 palindromic recurrences below, plus 3 above. Heraclitus used not only inaudible sound eects but also invisible ones. And which, moreover, were heavily laden with meaning. Such is F 22. F 22 Χρυσὸν γὰρ οἱ διζήμενοι γῆν πολλὴν ὁρύσσουσι καὶ ἑυρίσκουσιν ὀλίγον (Because those who search or gold dig out a lot o earth and fnd little )
Some o you may have noticed the isocola, the rhythm, the our rhymes: -on -oi | -oi -ên | -ên -ousi | -ousi-on Some o you may have wondered heuriskousi oligon ( fnd little) what o?
? γῆν ¦���éµ πολλὴν �ƒƒÕ«� ὀρρύσουσι «§ καὶŠ`® εὑρίσκουσιν ὀλίγον��ßz� ? zïµ |Ã߫Š� «§µ d
D r S
d R
R
D r
P
The ragment does not give the answer, even though we clearly understand that what is meant is gold. But the act is that the ragment not only hints at but shows this gold to those who have good ears or proper eyes: the word CHRYSON is anagrammatically incorporated into the last line just as the word GÊN in the frst and second lines. ΧΡΥΣΟΝ Γὰρ οἱ διζΗμεNοι ΓΗΝ πολλὴν ὀρύσσουσι Χ᾿ εὑΡίσκοΥΣιν ὀλίγΟΝ.
Editing Heraclitus (1999–2012): Ten Volumes Plus One
205
Though they look like innocent riddles, these anagrams in F 22 are in act a paradigm used by H. not only to tell us plainly that fnding a grain o truth requires a lot o earth, a lot o digging, but also to show us the very object and the method o this work: the thing one must dig is the text —H.’s text or the text o reality—and the things to be dug out and deciphered are the hidden patterns o this reality. In short what we have here is a model o the hidden harmony. A model which nobody had noticed beore I published it (1991)—and very ew ater. Here is another example which will also show how helpul is poetics to text criticism: F 26, which a Dutch scholar called Crux philosophorum. Clem. Strom. IV, 141,2 Ἄνθρωπος ἐν εὐφροσύνηι φάος ἅπ τε τα ι ἑαυτῶι ἀπ οθαν ῶν ἀποσβεσθεὶς ὄψεις ζων δὲ ἅπτεται τεθνεῶτος εὕδων ἀποσβεσθεὶς ὄψεις ἐγρηγορὼς ἅπτεται εὕδοντος. Wilamowitz 1906 Ἄνθ ρωπος ἐν εὐφρόνηι φάος ἅπτεται ἑαυτῶ ι [ἀποθανῶν] ἀποσβεσθεὶς ὄψεις, ζων δὲ ἅπτεται τεθνεῶτος εὕδων [ἀποσβεσθεὶς ὄψεις], ἐγρηγορὼς ἅπτεται εὕδοντος. Leuze 1915 Ἄνθρωπος ἐν εὐφρόνηι φάος ἅπτεται ἑαυτῶι ἀποθανῶν ἀποσβεσθεὶς ὄψεις, ζων δὲ ἅπτεται τεθνεῶτος εὕδων ἀποσβεσθεὶς ὄψεις, ἐγρηγορὼς ἅπτεται εὕδοντος. Somigliana 1961 Ἄνθρωπος ἐν εὐφρόνηι φάος ἅπτεται ἑαυτῶι. ἀποθανῶν ἀποσβεσθεὶς ὄψεις, ζων δέ. ἅπτεται τεθνεῶτος εὕδων ἀποσβεσθεὶς ὄψεις, ἐγρηγορὼς ἅπτεται εὕδοντος.
On the top is the text as transmitted by the single MS o Clement’s Stromata. Follows the still most popular reading where three words have been deleted (deletion is signaled by square brackets). I have collected fty-two dierent modern readings o this ragment, a majority o which also suppress parts o the transmitted text. Below that are two not very popular readings, which have at least the merit o keeping the text (almost) as transmitted. This is not the place to enter into details. But the three frst readings (including the MS one) have in common the idea that one should punctuate beore zôn de and egrêgorôs. Somigliana’s innovation28 is to puncuate beore the second haptetai . But all these conjectures are dictated by the resulting sense (which everyone, moreover, agrees is not clear). This is a typical petitio principii: begging the question. And no one has had the curiosity to look at the orm o the ragment. Here it is:
206
Serge Mouraviev
Mouraviev 1973 Ἄνθρωπος
ἐν εὐφροσύνηι
φάος
ἅπτεται
ἑαυτῶι
ἀποθανῶν, ἀποσβεσθεὶς ὄψεις, ζων δέ, ἅπτεται τεθνεῶτος· εὕδων, ἀποσβεσθεὶς ὄψεις, ἐγρηγορὼς, ἅπτεται εὕδοντος. Man He is dead:
in the night
a light
kindles-or-himsel
by means o himsel.
he touches29
the dead;
he touches
the sleeping.
eyes extinguished, but alive,
He’s asleep: eyes extinguished,
awake,
C. F 61: Θάλασσα ὕδωρ καθαρώτατα ἰχθύσι μὲν πότιμον ἀνθρώποις δὲ ἄποτον
καὶ καὶ καὶ
μιαρώτατα· σωτήριον, ὀλήθριον
Sea (is)
water
the-purest
and
the-oulest:
or fsh
yea
drinkable
and
salubrious
or men
though
undrinkable
and
disastrous
And here is one last example o the philosophical weight o poetics: F 32, whose phonetic wealth we already saw above. Ἕν τὸ σοφὸν μοῦνον λέγεσθαι οὐκ ἐθέλει καὶ ἐθέλει Ζηνὸς οὔνομα
The one only wise does not want and wants to be called by the name o Zeus The only wise does not want to be called one, and wants the name o Zeus The one wise does not want to be called alone, and the name o Zeus wants it
The Greek text is ollowed by three translations.All o them are dierent and all o them are correct. And there are at least fteen other possible translations, because: 1. Subject and predicate (or complement) are interchangeable; 2. Mounon can go either with to sophon or with legesthai ; 3. Mounon can be an adjective or an adverb. It can even be a noun (a “name”); and 4. The frst three or our words can orm an independent proposition with an elided copula. It goes without saying that this plurivocity is absolutely deliberate and that all the complementary or conicting meanings must be accepted simultaneously and understood as expressing together the philosopher’s real thought. 4. Difficulties and Principles
What ollows this brie visit into an unexpected dimension o Heraclitus’s text is a short overview o the real difculties encountered by the students o Heraclitus
Editing Heraclitus (1999–2012): Ten Volumes Plus One
207
and o the rules I’ve been trying all these years to devise or mysel and to ollow—oten in contradistinction with the tacit practice o our discipline—in order to cope with them. Three difculties are particularly obvious. The frst and main difculty is the one caused by the ragmentary state o the Heraclitean heritage; the second difculty is due to Heraclitus’s idiosyncratic language and logic; a third one has no other cause than the defciencies o our own ways o dealing with these aspects o the material we are working on. The difculty due to the gap between the original Thought and the remaining tits and bits o the lost Text and Doctrine which we managed to collect—can be remedied to a certain degree by philological means: rom: 1) evaluating the amount o documentation lost (my latest conclusion is: we possess in various guises ca. 4/5 o the original); through: 2) collecting a complete corpus o the sources; to: 3) reconstructing i possible the lost book, with all the intermediate stages implied; i not, then reconstructing the doctrine. The goal is to do the ullest possible stocktaking o what we have, keep it all and see to using it in the best possible ashion. This is the rule o Completess or Fullness o the sources or the principle o putting to maximum use at least those sources which we do have. It requires no urther elaboration. Difculties o the second kind—due to the distance separating the poetical Form (o the literal ragments) rom the philosophical Content we need to extract out o it—can be alleviated by using the analytical means oered by Linguistics and the Theory o the literary language (or Poetics), the problem being to understand how literary (poetical, rhetorical) means based on plurivocity are used by the philosopher—in the absence o any logico-deductive method based on univocity—to create not simply an artistic eect, but truly philosophical meaning . This is the task o the systematic Poetic analysis o the literal ragments. Difculties o the third kind—created by the Traditional ways o interpreting Heraclitus and our modern Failure to reach any kind o certainty and consensus—imply (I’m sorry to have to say so) a ull Revision o the methods we use. I have three particular targets in mind: hypercriticism (hyperscepticism) towards the sources, the (vicious) hermeneutical circle, and the (just as vicious) preliminary Quellenorschung supposed to ascertain the reliability o the sources. I shall now dwell a little more on these three. I begin with Hyperscepticism, the name I give to the suspicion towards the sources which prevails almost everywhere. The eect is the same as that o the loss o the book, but the reason is quite dierent: it is due to the gap between the
208
Serge Mouraviev
available sources and the sources really used . Some available sources are oten simply ignored, others are rejected as untrustworthy. Nobody can help ignoring unknown sources. Neglecting known sources must remain on the conscience o whoever neglects them. But rejecting them means throwing away the baby with the dirty water. This led me to suggest our very important working principles: the principle o precaution, the presumption o innocence, the rule o the non-identity o almost similar texts, and last but not least the dangerousness o excessive confdence in the preliminary results o modern Quellenforschung . The principle o precaution is akin to the old traditional principle o generosity (or charity), but its justifcation is dierent. It consists in abolishing the “death penalty” in order not to run the risk o killing innocent people who can still be o some use to society. It springs rom the ollowing indisputable act: without the sources we have, we would be completely ignorant of who was Heraclitus and of what he said . This simple act amply justifes the conclusion that any exclusion, rejection, drastic modifcation o any source considered to be alse, corrupted or redundant, in case such an opinion is erroneous, would deprive us o a possibly important part o the inormation on which all our knowledge is to be built. Whence the necessity: (1) not to exclude anything even i it looks patently alse or erroneous, so that other researchers might, i needed, reconsider and revise your verdict. Whence the necessity (2) to thoroughly argue—particularly by explaining its causes, motives or mobiles—any accusation o allacy, error or corruption, so that other scholars have the means they need to appreciate how well ounded it is. Whence the necessity (3) to abstain rom any peremptory categorical excommunication even when the case against authenticity or trustworthiness seems absolutely indisputable, and the more so when it is open to objections. The goal —I repeat it—is to avoid any risk o killing innocent people, o throwing away potentially useul inormation. The presumption o innocence is also a barrier against miscarriages o justice or errors o judgment. It springs rom the same indisputable act I already mentioned (without the sources we have we would be completely ignorant o who was Heraclitus and o what he said ), but it goes much arther and concerns any text, not only suspect ones. This is the dominant principle o any justice (jurisprudence). It does not mean—I insist on this—that the suspect or the deendant is really innocent. But il promulgates his innocence and rejects a priori , prior to any examination o the case and without requiring proos, any condemnation o him or any presumption o his guilt. And it proclaims him innocent a posteriori in deault o any tangible proo that he is guilty (it grants him the beneft o doubt ).
Editing Heraclitus (1999–2012): Ten Volumes Plus One
209
But it is more than that. It is also a much saer way, as compared to the opposite presumption, to establish the truth. Why? Because presumption o innocence is a blank page implying truth without excluding the possibility o guilt, and it keeps its environment unchanged. Since truth is always coherent, coherence is a good, even i not sufcient, guarantee o truth. Fallacy on the contrary can appear coherent only at the cost o deorming its environment, o adapting, conorming this environment to its own image. Presumption o guilt is thus quite the opposite o a blank page, it is a page ull o suspicions (allowing moreover hundreds o dierent confgurations o guilt), it introduces in the trial elements o incoherence, uncertainty and disorder (arbitrariness) which, even when based on serious suspicions, may distract our attention rom, or even obuscate, the real challenges and the real problems. Presumption o guilt has a blinding eect and avors alse simplistic solutions. The second principle consists thereore not only in granting the beneft o doubt to anything which may look alse, incorrect or biased, but in addition in accepting in advance, as an axiom requiring no proo, the opposite presumption: that o the innocence, exactness, intelligence, competence, aithulness to the original and honesty o the citator and o all the ancient authors and scribes to whom we owe all our knowledge on Heraclitus. It consists in other words in giving up the principle o generalized suspicion, the automatic presumption o guilt, incompetence and stupidity which prevails almost unchallenged in certain quarters o that modern philology which deals with ancient philosophical texts. Whenever a problem o interpretation or understanding arises, the frst suspect must thereore be the modern interpreter. The next suspects (to be suspected o incomprehension and involuntary errors) will be (and in this decreasing order o unreliability): other modern interpreters and editors o Heraclitus; the modern editors o the source; some Renaissance or Medieval corrector o the manuscript; some Medieval scribe; some Ancient scribe; the author o the ultimate source; the source he used himsel. To my mind deliberate distortion and dishonesty should never be considered, except in very special cases (such as fction, satire, and obvious slander), while lack o discernment is always possible, though it is much less likely coming rom people who had access to uller and better sources than those we have and who bathed in an atmosphere much more akin to Heraclitus’s own world than the sources and environment we shall ever have a chance to painstakingly reconstruct or ourselves. The third principle I should like to advocate and recommend is the non identifcation (and [non] suppression) o similar texts whenever their resemblance is not confrmed by identity o meaning and sometimes even o orm. It is directed against a rather new trend in hyperscepticism. Thus Marcovich30 labeled as reminiscences o F 1 such ragments as F 19, F 73, F 75 and a part o F 112. But nowhere in F 1 do we fnd the assertion that men
210
Serge Mouraviev
are incapable o speaking (F 19), that we must not speak like sleepers (F 73), that sleepers take part in whatever happens in the cosmos (F 75) or that we must speak and act “according to nature” (F 112). These assertions may belong to the same context as F 1, but instead o repeating what is said there, each o them adds a new trait, a new content which is worth keeping and putting to test. The “negative” results o preliminary source-criticism ( Quellenorschung) are another very common argument o hyperscepticism or discarding testimonia or casting doubts on the reliability o our sources. I shall not develop it here. I shall only remind some truths which in their turn will hopeully cast doubts on its own reliability and which in my opinion nobody either can reute or has the right to ignore. a. Even the worst author o the most inaccurate work can make a correct quotation rom a book he knows. b. Even the latest doxographical report using a heavily modernizing language can accurately reect an archaic conception its author ound in some earlier work, lest in the philosopher’s original . c. Even the most erroneous or “dishonest” (“highly prejudiced or biased” would be more correct and charitable) later presentation o an archaic philosopher’s views must needs be based on some knowledge o his doctrine and thereore contains valuable inormation. But the most obvious truth, and the most ignored o all, is the ollowing. To orm a correct opinion on the reliability o the inormation o a given source you need to compare it with the original, an original which either you have already rom (an)other source(s)—or an original you lack. In the ormer case, the source is redundant, in the latter, unverifable. Indirect judgments are allible (c. a, b, and c above). They will, thereore, suggest exactly what you had expected, give you the very answer you had begged or in ull agreement with the eects o petitio principii . So much about Hyperscepticism. All this explains, I hope, the large number o texts usually considered to be dubious I included in my edition o the ragments and used in my reconstruction o the Book. To wind up I should like to mention shortly a fth and a sixth principles o mine. The frst concerns reconstruction, the second interpretation. The fth principle, that o the necessary completeness o any reconstruction, says that “any reconstruction o the book (or, in deault o ragments, o the doctrine) should be a reconstruction o the whole book (or doctrine), not o parts o it; it should include all the genuine ragments and comply with all the relevant doxography; otherwise it is doomed to ailure.” The book has been now reconstructed to the best o my ability out o all the sources that seemed relevant. It is not my task to decide how successul I was. But, unless new texts are ound, any improvement will require only relocations o already located elements.
Editing Heraclitus (1999–2012): Ten Volumes Plus One
211
The sixth principle, on which I shall dwell a bit longer, is that o the dangerosity o the (very popular) hermeneutical circle. I will soon be beginning the philological preparatory work prior to the interpretation proper o the reconstructed book. I underscore the word begin. All these years I have systematically avoided adopting defnite hermeneutical positions on most o the controversial issues (except in cases o overwhelming evidence). I reconstructed the text and, in doing so, I based mysel on its linguistically most superfcial meaning. And this I did because my sixth principle says precisely this: “In the case o such ragmented sources as those o Heraclitus’s book, one cannot build any valid and appropriate interpretation ramework, and thereore there can be no legitimate single hermeneutical circle, beore the whole philological preparatory work, including the reconstruction o the Book or at least o a book, is over”. Why? Charles Kahn wrote in his amous edition31 (and I ully agree with him): “The hermeneutical circle is constituted by the act that it is only within the presuppositions o a meaningul ramework that we can make sense o a given text; and it is only by its applicability to the text in question that we can justiy the choice o a particular ramework.” Quite right. But the snag is that we have no given text , we have 1230 separate ancient pieces o inormation out o which we can build hundreds o seemingly meaningul rameworks, and particularly so i we are ree to arbitrarily reject some o the sources as alse or unreliable, to dispense using some others, to correct third ones, to interpret dierently those we do not correct etc., a phenomenon we have been witnessing or over two centuries now. In other words: i we are ree to use our sources as building blocks not o the lost book but o some “meaningul ramework” o our own making, then we can just as well use the stone blocks o the Samos temple o Hera to reconstruct a church or a mosque and interpret it as the architectural achievement o Theodoros o Samos. This does not imply that the hermeneutical circle is o no use, but only that it must wait until all the preliminary work has been properly conducted without the intererence o any general all-embracing interpretative ramework which can only distort this mainly philological work. Separate independent hermeneutical circles can be useul at the preliminary stage when examining separate sources or separate authors o sources. But there can be no single meaningul ramework o Heraclitus’s text beore we have this text, or o his doctrine beore we have combined all o its elements. A collection o ragments and testimonies is not such a text, it is only a catalogue o building blocks the places and the orms o which are still to be established or reconstructed. Trying to extract directly their combined meaning is like trying to reconstruct a sentence out o an alphabetical list o a part o the words it was made o without paying any attention to our complete ignorance o its syntax. I understand how dangerous it is to deend such views beore people eager to get at the core o a
212
Serge Mouraviev
philosopher’s doctrine despite the ragmentary state o his legacy. But this is my deep conviction and it would have been dishonest had I tried to hide it rom you. Maybe all this reasoning o mine is sheer nonsense. I you think so, please, do not hesitate to explain to me rankly what is wrong with it. But the proo o the pudding is in the eating. You will fnd a part o this pudding in the articles I published, another in the apparatuses o Traditio (A), a third one in the commentary to Memoria and the introduction to the language o Heraclitus. Three other big lumps have now become available: the edition o the ragments, o the opinions and o the frst ever complete reconstruction o the Book. A large part o the pudding is still in the process o cooking: the assessment o all this in the commentaries to the sources, in the commentary to the ragments and opinions and in the overall interpretation o the reconstructed book.
Editing Heraclitus (1999–2012): Ten Volumes Plus One
213
A Selection of Addenda and Corrigenda to vols. III.3.B/i–iii (June 2011)
I have already published in Mouraviev (2008) 208–217, reerences to over 80 more late sources o Traditio I had overlooked, and in (2003) xxxviii – xlii and (2008) 226–228 a body o corrections to the frst nine books o the edition presented above. Most o the latter are just ordinary typos, errors o ont substitution, cut o lines, incorrect text styles or line numbers, misspellings, unsatisactory translations, and the like; a ew are more serious blunders o mine that I have discovered in the meantime, or improvements and additions I have ound necessary to make. Since then, another three years have elapsed with their new harvest o points to be corrected. In the ollowing list, which deals mainly with (2006/i–iii), I have omitted all those that the reader is able to notice and correct or himsel and I concentrated on those which should have a real impact on our perception o Heraclitus’s text and doctrine. I shall present them here in an order o decreasing importance. 1. The most important are o course the new readings I advocate. There are three o them, all as yet unpublished. I now read F 80 [i, 195; c. iii, 92] εὖ δὲ χρὴ τὸν πόλεμον ἐόντα ξυνὸν καὶ Δίκην ἐρεῖν. That War which is universal (c. Il. XVIII 309 and Archil. r. 110 West) and Justice must be well in love… and united by Eris (not by Eros). With an obvious allusion to the love story o Ares and Aphrodite, the parents o Harmonia (c. F 8 ἐκ τῶν διαφερόντων (γίνεται) καλλίστη ἁρμονίη ). I now correct F 120 [i, 302] οὖρος αἰθρίου Διός into qόρος (= κόρος) αἰθρίου Διός the sureit o brilliant Zeus, i.e., the excess o sunlight during the day which blocks o the stars o the Bear and o the whole Arctic circle (Strabo was quite right) and is the sole cause o all the dierences between day and night. C. F 99 and F 57. For a similar idea in Parmenides, c. 28 B 10,3 DK and Mourelatos (2008) xxviii ., 237–240. And I decipher now PDerv. col. IV, lines 5 . thus: λέγων· [εἴ γ’] / ἡλί[ου αὑ] του κατὰ φύσιν ἀνθρω[πείου] εὖρος ποδός, [εἶσι] / τοὺ[ς οὔρου]ς οὐχ ὑπερβάλλων . . . , whence F 3–94 [i, 9] should begin: < εἴ γε> κατὰ φύσιν ἡλίου ἑωυτοῦ εὖρος ποδός ἀνθρωπείου, τοὺς προσήκοντας οὐχ ὑπερβήσεται οὔρους . . . Even i the size o the sun himsel is by nature that o a human oot, he will not transgress his proper boundaries. . . . 2. I would now split F 83A [i, 214] into two variants: (a) [as printed] and (b) (ἥλιος) ἁπτόμενος μέτρα καὶ σβεννύμενος μέτρα . See T 924C [Addenda ad Traditionem: III.2, 210] = Damascius in Phaed. (uersio 2) 128,6 Westerink, without committing mysel as to the literality or possible misreadings either o F 30 (T 942?), or o F 123A, or o F 106A. Formally (b) diers rom these three by its content (ἥλιος) and rom F 83A(a) by its wording.
214
Serge Mouraviev
3. Next comes a more defnite interpretation o the meaning (translation) o F 101 [i, 252, c. iii, 121]. I resolutely opt now or “I sought by mysel” (i.e., independently, without recourse to other people’s help, except or divine help). C. F 16A in the context o F 93 and F 92. The same interpretation also applies to F 116 (i, 295) γινώσκειν ἑωυτοὺς. 4. Less important are some previously overlooked restorations o Ionian dialectal orms (in accordance with the results o III.3.A [2002] 174–184): F 24 (i, 71) τιμέουσι; F 31 (i, 87, 89) ἐς RP2–5 Byw; F 63 (i, 156, 157) ζωόντων Byw; F 64–65 (i, 160, 161) οἰηκίζει? (c. Herodotus I, 171, 4); F 72 (I, 176) τούτεωι?; F 132 (i, 333) καταδουλέονται . 5. Typos, omissions and blunders in text and translation. Read Text: D 125 (p. 59) Text accentuation: F 107D (i, 276) ἀποθνήισκομεν Tagging: F 37 (i, 99) the brace bracket } should be one line lower. First edition: F 80B already in Schleiermacher [1808] 421. Sources: F 83A (and F 123A?) add (b) Damasc. In Phaed. 128,6 ; F 95–109 add to 1, 4 Apostolii Centuria II, 70 CD ; F 107C, c. Philop. Phys. P. 41 (T 975); F 114 add 1–2 Apostolii Centuria XII, 26a Translation: F 154 (i, 353) Read “L’ de Dionysos a été construit en Thrace . . .” 6. I leave out apparatuses I–III (i) and IV–V (ii)—they require a serious revision and a thorough updating—and come to the Notes (iii) 7. It is obvious that the Notes o the newly amended F 80 (§§2–4), F 101, F 120 (§§1 and 2) and F 3–94 will require some changes or which there is no room here. Here are some other corrections. F 45, §1 (iii, 54) Betegh 2009 has convincingly shown that, contrarily to what I thought and wrote, the reading inuenies in Tertullian is a modern emendation triggered by the version o Diogenes. This is a good point. Yet it does neither disqualiy the reading ἐξεύροιο, nor necessarily imply his other suggestions (the superuity o ἰών, his interpretation o logos, or the ambiguity o the subject o ἐπιπορευόμενος—as a matter o act the latter is a side eect o the reading ἐξεύροι ὁ). The conclusion is thus a non liquet with three possible solutions: (a) ἐξεύροιο , (b) ἐξεύροι ὁ or (c) the deliberate ambiguous combination o both. The solution must be looked or in the textual or doctrinal context. F 85A, line 10. Read: c. T 512. F 90, §3, line 2: I am now inclining in avour o “gold coins”, though not o “money” as such (in the economical sense). Coins and other golden objects are made o gold and can be melted or pulverized back into native gold or gold dust and then reused to make other coins and other objects. F 118, §1, line 2. Replace Traversari by Trincavelli. Line 7. Add: “Et idem chez Porphyre (T 735,10) et Synesius (T 894).”
Editing Heraclitus (1999–2012): Ten Volumes Plus One
215
Notes
1.
2.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
My presentation on April 15, 2011, in Sundance, Utah, which owes much to an unpublished paper presented at the 2005 Symposium on Pythagoras and Heraclitus held in Samos (Greece) and Ku şadası (Turkey), was originally a slide show, but the important part, except or some slogans and Greek quotations, was what I said, not the images on the screen. The text o my perormance is reproduced here with only small corrections and adaptations, taking into account some recent developments. I became something o a heretic whose approaches and results very ew colleagues dared either to criticize or to approve o. Even true riends who supported me and helped me did not always manage to understand my ways and wises, so dierent did they appear to them rom what they had so long been used to. My Heraclitean bibliography consists presently o about a hundred titles, including ourteen books. Georgopoulos 1989: 136–41. Curd 2002: 115–37. Kirk 1954: 7. Diels 1901: VIII; Kirk 1954: 7; Granger 2002; Kahn 1983; Barnes 1983. Already the Ancients did not agree: Sextus Empiricus suggested adding ethics to “physics” ( AM vii, 7), an unknown Diodotus believed it was all politics (ap. Diog. Laert. IX, 15). Kirk (1954) and a majority o critics were/are convinced o the predominance o physics (cosmology); Capizzi (1979) and García Quintela (1992) avored politics; there is presently a tendency to treat Heraclitus as having been mainly a religious thinker (see, e.g., the contributions o Granger and Finkelberg to the Proceedings o the 2005 Symposium [see n. 1], ed. D. Sider and D. Obbink [De Gruyter, orthcoming]). Rossetti 1989, Bollack and Wismann 1972: 49 et alibi. Marcovich 1967: 111, Marcovich 1978: 489. Barnes 1978: 63–4, Rossetti 1989, Marcovich 1967: 111, Marcovich 1978: 489, Bartling 1985, Couloubaritsis 1992, Dilcher 1995, Graham 1998. West 1971: 124–9, Barnes 1979: 58., Robinson 1987: ix. Barnes 1979: 65–9. Gigon 1935: 106–7, Kirk 1954: 357–80, Marcovich (1967, 1978) r. 40, Graham ap. D. Sider and D. Obbink (still orthcoming in 2012). Bywater 1877: c. r. 41; Guthrie 1962: 489, 491–2; Barnes 1979: 76–84; Reinhardt 1916: 207–9n. Mouraviev 2006: F 3A, F 3B, F 12, F 49A, F 81B, F 83, F 84A, F 91ab, F 125, F 126. Reinhardt 1916: 207n., Kirk 1954: 369–80, Marcovich 1965: 289–91. Graham 1997: 1–50. C. now Graham 2006: 113–37. Kahn 1979: 134. et passim, Robinson 1987: ix, Finkelberg 1998. E.g., Dilcher 1995: 53. Marcovich (1967, 1978) ad r. 51; c. Marcovich 1965: 297–8. Colli 1980: 177.
216
Serge Mouraviev
23. I could adduce literature or each o these qualifcations. But this is hardly necessary to substantiate the point I am making. Heraclitus’s eleatism is asserted by Carlotti (1922), his post-modernism by J. Waugh (1991), c. O’Connell 1996. 24. To name only the most prominent editors o Heraclitus’s ragments between 1808 and 1986. For a uller list and reerences, see Mouraviev H (2006) III.3.B/i p. xxvi–xxvii; B/iii, p. xiii–xxxiii. 25. SM (1970) 139. The two next variants appeared in 1983 (in Russian) and 1991. The ourth in 2009. The fth and last variant came out at the end o 2011, ater this paper had been read in Sundance. 26. See below, section 2. 27. Some eighty additional sources belonging to over fty authors, over twenty o whom had been overlooked earlier, are reerenced in vol. III.2 (2008) pp. 208–14 ( Addendorum Synopsis). 28. He was preceded in this by Schwartz (1906), whose ull reading is unknown, and by Diels (1909), who suppressed two words. Wilamowitz owed the popularity o his reading to Kranz, who adopted it in Diels and Kranz 1935. 29. Heraclitus plays on the two meanings o the verb. I translated it touches or the sake o brevity, but is in touch with would probably be better. 30. Marcovich (1967, 1978) r. 1(a, g , h1, h2, k). 31. Kahn 1979: 88.
BiBliography
Barnes, Jonathan. 1979. The Presocratic Philosophers, vol. 1 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul). Barnes, Jonathan. 1983. “Aphorism and Argument,” in Language and Thought in Early Greek Philosophy, ed. K. Robb (La Salle: Hegeler Institute), 91–109. Bartling, H.-M. 1985. Der Logosbegri bei Heraklit und seine Beziehung zur Kosmologie (Göppingen: Kümmerle). Bollack, Jean, and Heinz Wismann. 1972. Héraclite ou la Séparation (Paris: Éditions de Minuit). Bywater, Ingram. 1877. Heracliti Ephesii Reliquiae (Oxonii: E Typographeo Clarendoniano). Capizzi, Antonio. 1979. Eraclito e la sua legenda (Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo & Bizzarri). Carlotti, G. 1922.“L‘eleatismo di Eraclito,” Giornale critico della Filosofa Italiana 3: 329–57. Colli, Giorgio. 1980. La sapienza greca, III (Milano: Adelphi). Couloubaritsis, Lambros. 1992. Aux origines de la philosophie européenne (Bruxelles: Ousia), 50–9. Curd, Patricia. 2002. “The Presocratics as Philosophers,” in Qu’est-ce que la Philosophie Présocratique? , ed. A. Laks and C. Louguet (Lille), 115–37. Diels, Hermann. 1901 (2nd ed., 1909). Herakleitos von Ephesos, griechisch und deutsch (Berlin: Weidmann).
Editing Heraclitus (1999–2012): Ten Volumes Plus One
217
Diels, Hermann, and Walther Kranz. 1935. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker , I (Berlin: Weidmann). Dilcher, Roman. 1995. Studies in Heraclitus (Hildesheim: Olms), 24. Finkelberg, Aryeh. 1998. “On Cosmogony and Ekpyrosis in Heraclitus,” American Journal o Philology 119: 195–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/ajp.1998.0025 García Quintela, Marco V. 1992. El rey melancolico (Madrid: Taurus Humanidades). Georgopoulos, N. 1989. “Why Heraklitus Is Not a Philosopher,” in Ionian Philosophy, ed. K. Boudouris (Athens: International Association or Greek Philosophy), 136–41. Gigon, Olo. 1935. Untersuchungen zu Heraklit (Leipzig: Dieterich). Graham, Daniel. 1997. “Heraclitus’ Criticism o Ionian Philosophy,” Oxord Studies in Ancient Philosophy 15: 1–50. Graham, Daniel. 2004. Review o Marcovich 2001: Aestimatio 1: 80–5. Graham, Daniel. 2006. Explaining the Cosmos (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press). Granger, Herbert. 2002. “On the Nature o Heraclitus’ Book,” Society or Ancient Greek Philosophy, newsletter 2001/2.4 (April): 1–22. Hülsz Piccone, Enrique, ed. 2009. Nuevos ensayos sobre Heráclito. Actas del Segundo Sym posium Heracliteum (México-ciudad, Junio 2006) (México: UNAM). Kahn, Charles H. 1979. The Art and Thought o Heraclitus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Kahn, Charles H. 1983. “Philosophy and the Written Word,” in Language and Thought in Early Greek Philosophy, ed. K. Robb (La Salle: Hegeler Institute), 110–24. Kirk, Georey. 1954. Heraclitus: The Cosmic Fragments (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Leuze, Oskar. 1915. “Zu Heraklit Fragm. 26 (Diels),” Hermes 50: 604–25. Marcovich, Miroslav. 1965. “Herakleitos,” in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschat , Suppl. Bd. 10: 246–320. Marcovich, Miroslav. 1967. Heraclitus, Editio Maior (Merida: Los Andes University Press; reprinted St. Augustin: Academia, 2001). Marcovich, Miroslav. 1978. Eraclito, Frammenti (Italian translation o Marcovich 1967, with corrections and additions) (Firenze: Nuova Italia [reprinted Milano: Bompiani, 2007]). Mondolo, R., and L. Tarán. 1972. Eraclito: Testimoniaze e imitazioni (Firenze: Nuova Italia). Mouraviev, Serge. 1970.“What Was the Beginning o the Book o Heraclitus” (in Russian), Vestnik drevney istorii 113: 135–58. Mouraviev, Serge. 1973. “New Readings o Three Heraclitean Fragments,” Hermes 101: 122–5. Mouraviev, Serge. 1976–1977. “Clément, Protréptique 34,2 ss.= Héraclite, r. B 15,” Revue des Études anciennes: 78–9, 42–9. Mouraviev, Serge. 1991. Heraclitea, IV.A, Reectio: Héraclite d’Éphèse, “Les Muses” ou “De la nature” (Moscou-Paris: Myrmekia). Mouraviev, Serge. 1999–2003. Heraclitea, II.A, Traditio(A), Témoignages et citations, textes et traductions, vols. 1–4 (St. Augustin: Academia).
218
Serge Mouraviev
Mouraviev, Serge. 2002. Heraclitea, III.3.A, Recensio: Fragmenta (A), Le langage de l’Obscur (St. Augustin: Academia). Mouraviev, Serge. 2003. Heraclitea, III.1, Recensio: Memoria. Textes, traductions et commentaires (St. Augustin: Academia). Mouraviev, Serge. 2006. Heraclitea, III.3.B, Recensio: Fragmenta (B), Textes, traductions et commentaires , vols. 1–3 (St. Augustin: Academia). Mouraviev, Serge. 2008. Heraclitea, III.2, Recensio: Placita, Textes, traduction et commentaire (St. Augustin: Academia). Mouraviev, Serge. 2009.“Le livre d’Héraclite 2500 ans après. L’état actuel de sa reconstruction,” in Hülsz Piccone 2009: 11–73. Mouraviev, Serge. 2011. Heraclitea, IV.A, Reectio: Liber, Texte reconstruit, traduction et commentaire (St. Augustin: Academia). Mourelatos,Alexander P. D. 2008. The Route o Parmenides , 2nd ed. (Las Vegas: Parmenides). O’Connell, E. A. 1996. “Herakleitos and Derrida: Presocratic Deconstruction,” diss. (Santa Cruz). Osborne, Catherine. 1987. Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy (London: Duckworth). Reinhardt, Karl. 1916. Parmenides und die Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie (Bonn: Cohen). Robinson, Thomas More. 1987. Heraclitus: Fragments (Toronto: University o Toronto Press). Rossetti, Livio. 1989. “About the Disunity o Heraclitus’ Thought,” in Ionian Philosophy, ed. K. Boudouris (Athens: International Association or Greek Philosophy), 353–62. Schwartz, Eduard. 1906. Name o article missing, cited in O. Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus , Werke, II, 1. Au., p. 310; c. Diels 1909: 22, 23n. Somigliana, A. 1961. Monismo indiano e monismo greco nei rammenti di Eraclito (Padova: Cedam). Waugh, J. 1991. “Heraclitus: The Post-Modernist Presocratic?,” Monist 74: 605–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/monist199174436 West, Martin L. 1971. Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient (Oxord: Clarendon). von Wilamowitz-Moellendor, U. 1906. Name o article missing, cited in O. Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus, Werke, II, 1. Au. p. 310.
