Heraclitus' Cosmology and Cosmogony

EURORGAN s.p.r.l.
- Éditions OUSIA
COSMOLOGY AND COSMOGONY IN HERACLITUS

Author(s): Theodoros Christidis
Source: Revue de Philosophie Ancienne, Vol. 27, No. 2 (2009), pp. 33-61
Published by: EURORGAN s.p.r.l. - Éditions OUSIA
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24358483
Accessed: 20-03-2019 19:50 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24358483?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
EURORGAN s.p.r.l. - Éditions OUSIA is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
This content downloaded from 190.119.190.27 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 19:50:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
COSMOLOGY AND COSMOGONY IN HERACLITUS
1. Introduction
Cosmology, as the more recent term for the study of the cosmos,
encompasses cosmogony, and uses the astronomical and ail other
physical data in order to formulate laws and théories about the origin,
the évolution, and the physical content of the universe. Cosmogony
has a more restricted field of reference by focusing rather on the origin
of the universe.
The two terms are used in philosophy in various contexts to mean

either a theory of évolution of the universe (cosmology) or, simply, a
theory of the genesis of the universe (cosmogony). Thus, in the case of
Heraclitus' philosophy, in its traditional interprétation, according to
which the universe will be reabsorbed into fire and then the emergence
of a new world will start, is characterized as cosmogonical. The new
interprétation supports the idea that Heraclitus' theory is about one,
unique and infinite in time world (thus, rejecting the theory of ecpyro
sis) typically called cosmological1. The argument is about the issue of
ecpyrosis: Did Heraclitus mean that at some time the world will be
reabsorbed into fire and, if he did, how could we conceive the very
idea of ecpyrosis?
In our approach the idea of ecpyrosis is less important than the
corresponding idea of coming into being and decaying: "as Empedocles
of Acragas and Heraclitus of Ephesus [believe] that [the world] alter
nately is now in this State (that is emerging) and then in another (in the
course of destruction)"2. Actually, in this passage Aristotle does not
1 See in Aryeh Finkelberg's paper On Cosmogony and Ecpyrosis in Hera

clitus, AJP, Vol. 119,N°2 Summer 1998,pp. 195-222.
2 Arist., De Caelo, 279bl2-17.
REVUE DE PHILOSOPHIE ANCIENNE, XXVII (2), 2009
34 Theodoras Christidis
refer to ecpyrosis, but gives emphasis t

destruction of the world, an idea which
But, in another passage, Aristotle says
world] either be or become one of them
says άπαντα γίνεσθαί ποτ ε πϋρ"3. Th
of the idea of a récurrent conflagration
view, according to which "a portion of fir
other substance; [and] of course, this is
his paper criticizes Mondolfo's argumen
idea of ecpyrosis in Heraclitus. In partic
totle certainly assigned ecpyrosis to He
then either Plato was wrong or Aristot
he found in Heraclitus - perhaps tho
Theophrastus"5. As Kirk tries to prove
more reliable than Aristotle, as the for
from Heraclitus, whereas the latter was
them the idea of alternate succession of
the worlds. Reading the arguments of
Mondolfo) we have the impression that
he concludes by saying that "this is the
doctrines (Empedocles' and Heraclitus'),
only in part, and which does not in fa
exclude from Heraclitus the idea of a cy
phase, if there is one, of reabsorption o
principle (fire), there would be a diver
convergence of the divergent, no less th
precisely for that reason Aristotle, wh
and divergence like Plato, is asking wh
unity or séparation, but looking to the
3 Arist. Pys., 205al-4: everything, that is

sometime fîre.
4 G.S. Kirk, Ecpyrosis in Heraclitus: Som
n° 2 (1959) 73-76.
5 Kirk, ibid.
COSMOLOGY AND COSMOGONY IN HERACLITUS 35
and destruction of the cosmos, can attribute that cycle to Herac

and Empedocles equally and in this aspect assimilate them to
another, without thereby Coming into conflict with Plato, who
opposing them to one another from a différent aspect"6.
However, as argued above, we are not properly interested in the is
of ecpyrosis as in the more important issue of the perpétuai successi
the worlds in Heraclitus' cosmology. Most certainly the two thème
closely linked to one another. Our view is that perhaps the concep
ecpyrosis should be further analyzed in order to take into account
tional information and hints provided by Aristotle, Theophrastus
Clement, some of which were until now disregarded.
2. Fragments 30,31, and 124
Heraclitus' physical theory is unified, and complété, but we sho

distinguish in it two phases, which are mutually consistent:
(a) The first phase refers to the processes by which the initial s
of the uni verse is described, and in which the world is led when
everliving fire is kindling in measures. It is the cosmogonical pha
which fire is prépondérant among the other elements, which are s
water) and earth. This phase terminâtes in the formation of the b
of the world. In this phase we can rank the following fragment
cite first the introductory remarks of Clement, for frr. 30, 31
Theophrastus for fr. 124, before giving the fragments in italics):
Clement, Strom. V, 104,1-3:
«Heraclitus of Ephesus is most clearly of this opinion [se. that th

will some time be a change into the essence of fire]; he considered
the world order in one sense is eternal, but in another sense is in
6 R. Mondolfo, Evidence of Plat ο and Aristotle relating to the Ecpy ros

Heraclitus, Phronesis 3 (1958) 75 ff. Italics are ours.
course of destruction, knowing that th

none other than that of the former; he m
composed of the totality of the essence
Fr. 30: This world-order, the same of

make, but it always was and is and will
in measures and going out in measures.
And that he pronounced the opinion tha

and destructible, the following words tell
Fr. 31a: fire's changes: first sea, andof

other halfis Iightning flash (πρηστήρ).
For he says that fire virtually, by the

things, is turned by way of air into flui
world-ordering process, and which he
sea), earth comes into being and heaven
That these things are taken up again a
clearly with these words:
Fr. 31b: <earth> is dispersed as sea

understood] and is measured so as to
existed before it became earth.
Similarly too about the other elemen

Opinions kindred to those of Heraclitu
most renowned of the Stoics, with their
into fire and the arrangement of the wo
Theophrastus, Metaph., 7a:
7 Cf. Gregory Vlastos, On Heraclitus, Am

(1955) 345 and n. 21.
8 Translation of Kirk, with slight différen
«It would be unreasonable to think that, although the whol

heaven and each of its parts are ail ruled by order, logos, forms, p
and periods, in the principles nothing of the sort occurs, but,
clitus says,
Fr. 124: thefairest order in the world is a heap ofrandom sweepings».
(b) The second phase comprises what fr. 80 describes, namely

the processes by which the totality of beings are formed from the élé
ments, and also every other fragment, which refers to the functioning
of the world.
It is true that in the preserved fragments there is no conspicuous réfé

rencé to this distinction, which differentiates cosmogony's phase from
the général cosmological scheme of Heraclitus. Thus, we take it as a
hypothesis, which we hope will be vindicated by what follows. Our main
argument is based on fr. 124, which, as far as we know, is neglected by
the majority of scholars, when they are dealing with Heraclitus' cosmo
logy9. In fact, Kirk gets over this difficulty by accepting the explanation
of this fragment given by J. MacDiarmid and P. Friedländer.
In our approach, fr. 124 plays a master rôle in the attempt to achieve
a consistent interprétation of Heraclitus' cosmology, and especially the
cosmogonical phase. According to fr. 31a, fîre tums first into sea (or
water) and then to earth according to the scheme described there:
πυρός τροπαϊ πρώτον θάλασσα, θαλάσσης δε τό μεν ήμισυ γή, τό δε
ήμισυ πρηστήρ. This phase, where the fire's changes begin, is what
follows when the άείζωον πϋρ άπτεται μέτρα. This expression in fr.
30, άπτόμενον μέτρα, precludes the case of a total conflagration, and,
in our view, it does mean that in this phase fire plays a prépondérant
rôle by its exceedingly higher analogy in this mixture of the elements.
Clement clarifies the processes taking place during this phase by these
words:
9 E.g., Kirk, who omits the discussion of this fragment in his book Hera
clitus, The Cosrnic Fragments, Cambridge University Press, 1954.
όννάμει γαρ λέγει ότι το πϋρ υπό τοϋ δ

τα σύμπαντα δι' άέρος τρέπεται εις
διακοσμήσεως, δ καλεί θάλασσαν, έκ δε
ουρανός και τ à εμπεριεχόμενα.
We could not overlook the point that

there are influences from Stoic sources. B
influenced by Heraclitus' ideas and it is h
of Cleanthes (331-232 B.C.), according to
things but this is followed by a period of
of everything remain. These seeds begin to
and eventually the cosmos is restored to
called spermatikoi logoi or principles. Th
and self-destructive.
In what degree do these ideas echo Her

openly: from the extant fragments of t
about his ideas. He had expressed them in
Sibyl, and we strongly believe that from
alternative interprétations: the one supp
successive, self-destructive and self-emer
adducing arguments in favor of one and
probable that Heraclitus had taken this s
he be sure about the answer one could gi
Thus, he restricted himself to give the co
and, speaking like a Pythia or Sibyl, leav
interprétations. Consequently, one can c
tation by making some hypothèses and gi
from the ancient writers and doxographe
the same time underestimating the other
opposite view.
3. Our interprétation
In our approach, fr. 124 plays a décisiv

make some constructive hypothèses, wh
pretation of Heraclitus' cosmology and cosmogony. Theophrastus

his introductory remarks makes the point that, although what is m
fest in the senses is that the world is ruled by order, and this is
evidence for him and the other philosophers, Heraclitus believes tha
the principles this does not corne true, and on the contrary the fair
order in the world is a heap ofrandom sweepings. The principles
the elements/ire, water and earth, which, according to fr. 31a, are
dynamical equilibrium during this phase of his cosmogony. The ide
dynamical equilibrium cornes up (a) from the expression Clement u
immediately after quoting fr. 3la, as he says: δυνάμει γαρ... τό πϋρ
τρέπεται είς υγρό ν, (b) from the reasonable hypothesis we are mak
that the proportions under which fire is changed in sea and then
earth could not hold for every moment in the second phase, where
world has already emerged, and during which the transformations
the elements in order to form the diversity of the beings could not b
constant as these described by fr. 31a, and more impor-tantly, (c) fr
fr. 51 (see below).
The meaning of dynamical equilibrium is that the transformatio
occur in both directions, vis. that fire is transformed into sea, then
into fire and earth, and vice-versa. This idea is conspicuously descri
by fr. 51 :
Ov ξυνιάσιν οκως διαφερόμενον έαυτω σνμφέρεται· παλίντροπος

άρμονίη δκωσπερ τόξου και λύρης.
They do not apprehend how being at variance it agrees with itself; there
is a connection working in both directions, as in the bow and the lyre}0
This fragment, combined with fr. 50
ουκ εμον άλλά τον λόγου άκούσαντας όμολογεΐν σοφόν έστιν εν

πάντα είναι
Listening not to me but to the logos it is wise to agree that ail things
are one,
10 Kirk's translation; note the expression 'a connection working in both

directions'.
gives the following meaning, according

everything, whether an element (sea, ea
piece of bread), the fundamental constitu
transformation of fire11. As Heisenber
equality fire - energy): "Energy is in fa
elementary particles, all atoms and ther
energy is that which moves..." We thin
view, when he formulated in fr. 50 the
thing is made out of fire, and so even t
But let us retum to fr. 51. We think th
relations of the elements during this fir
fr. 124 also refers. We thus read fr. 51
formed to sea, for example, it is at variance
it agréés with itself12, because sea is but
very sound simile, the two forms of fire
'connection working in both directions
This expression gives us the right to sp
Then, after this first phase, the who
according to fr. 80:
είδέναι χρή τον πόλεμον έόντα ξννόν

πάντα κατ' εριν και χρεών.
11 We should mention here the view Heisen

cists of 20th Century, had phrased in his bo
and Brothers, N.Y., 1958, p. 63): "[But] the
cause and therefore is represented in the phi
the basic element, which is both matter and
this point that modem physics is in some wa
of Heraclitus. Ifwe replace the word 'fire'by
repeat his Statements word for word from
are ours).
12 If you are confused, don't worry, but read again Heisenberg's explana
tion: 'fïre, as the modem concept of energy, is the substance from which ail
things are made'. Sea is a mode of existence in a liquid State; but at the very
depth of sea and of ail things there is but fire.
COSMOLOGY AND COSMOGONY IN HER ACUTUS 41
One must know that war is common and right (justice) is strife and that
ail things are becoming by strife and necessity.
This is the second phase: the universe emerges according to the same
always world-order, and continues to work according to laws encom
passed in the term of logos. And then cornes fr. 31b, which introduces
the idea that the universe will turn into fire, as: <earth> is dispersed as
sea ['sea is dispersed', Clement understood] and is measured so as to
form the same proportion as existed before it became earth, that is
again a State of dynamical equilibrium, and now 'the fairest order in
the world is a heap of random sweepings' (fr. 124). We, therefore,
return again in the first phase of dynamical equilibrium and disorder.
From there on, a new universe will start his life; as Clement says: εκ ôè
τούτου αύθις γίνεται γή και ουρανός και τα εμπεριεχόμενα. The
question now is: why the orderly world is led to this quasi-ecpyrosis,
i.e. why the order is destroyed and how a new order can emerge? Isn't
the universe stable?
4. Is the world in equilibrium or is it far from equilibrium?
Many cri tics consider that the universe is stable. There are changes
in it, but in général the sum total of the elements is conserved quantita
tively, according to the interprétation which considers that there is a
unique and eternal universe13. Some quantity of fire is changed in
13 See, for example, in Kirk Heraclitus, the Cosmic Fragments, p. 348:

"Fire always turns into sea, and indirectly into earth, earth and sea turn back
into fire: therefore sea and earth are 'the same' as fire, and 'this order' can be
described in fr. 30 as being 'an ever-living' fire (though parts of it at any one
time are not fire in the füll sense but are extinguished, have been 'exchanged'
for something eise). To this extent, and to this extent only, are frr. 88 and 90
compatible. There remains one slight difficulty with fr. 90 (italics are ours).
Fire is said to be an exchange for 'all things'; but fire itself must be one cons
tituent of 'all things' if this means all the individual things in the world, which
are not restricted to water and earth alone. We know so little about Heraclitus'
water here, but in another place water ch

balance in all the changes of the elements
mical equilibrium; the world is stable, af
consistent with the interprétation of Her
only one, unique and etemal uni verse, to
do agree as well as many other scholars.
But, is this the only acceptable interpr
that Heraclitus stays in a position, which
views on any except large-scale cosmological c

elucidate this difficulty; but probably it is si
ness of speech, and Heraclitus might argue
exchanged for gold might themselves contain
not therefore be called gold, so rà πάντα in
however, can quite legitimately be contrasted
isolated only in thought or also in fact, e.g. as
views Vlastos made the following comments:
is it 'slight' and is it 'simply due to an unav
The real difficulty is of quite another order. I
fire so unique and prééminent a place, when
components of the cosmos whose mutual tr
Why should not water or earth have as good a c
since either one of them becomes in due cou
why should any one of them be singled out a
the whole world be 'ever-living fire'? Are
living', each of them, like fire, everlastingly
footnote 49 he remarks:] The more common
would exempt nothing from change, he would (a
rapidly than anything eise, and (b) choose fire
need not doubt that Heraclitus believed (a),
between fire and water is higher than of that
he never says this. Nor do I think that (b) is
incomplète answer to the question raised in te
76,4, n° 304, p. 361). We should notice that Vl
the prédominant element and the arche of the
fire changes to the other elements according t
the world must be in a sort of dynamical equi
to be consistent with his sayings, as he chose to formulate them i

oracular and, for that reason, ambiguous manner of expression. L
see the arguments for the case, where the world of the Ephesian i
in equilibrium, but a world far from equilibrium. We cite fr. 91 wit
comments of Plutarch (in italics are the words of Heraclitus):
Fr. 91: πάσα θνητή φύσις έν μέσω γενέσεως και φθοράς γενομέ
φάσμα παρέχει καί δόκησιν άμυδράν και άβέβαιον αύτής... ποτα
γαρ ουκ εστίν έμβήναι δις τφ αύτφ καθ' Ήράκλειτον, ούδέ θνητ
ούσίας δις άψασθαι κατά έξιν άλλ' όξύτητι κα'ι τάχει μεταβολ
ακίόνησι και πάλιν συνάγει, μάλλον δέ ούδέ πάλιν ούδ' ύστε
άλλ' άμα συνίσταται κα'ι άπολείπει και πρόσεισι και απεισυ δ
ούδ' εις τό είναι περαίνει τό γιγνόμενον αύτής ...
Every mortal nature, being in the middles of coming-to-be and pass
away, provides a phantom, a dim and uncertain apparition of itself
for it is impossible to step twice into the same river according to H
clitus, or to lay hands twice on mortal substance in a fixed conditio
but by the swiftness and speed of its change it scatters and aga
gathers, or rather not 'again' or 'afterwards', but at the same time
cornes together andflows away, and approaches and départs; theref
its becoming does not terminate in being ...
In the same direction does fr. 125 point:
και ό κνκεών διίσταται μη κινούμενος - even the barley-drink dis

tegrates if it is not moved.
Similarly we can add here the fragments 84a,b with Plotinus co

ments:
ô μέν γάρ Ηράκλειτος, δς ήμίν παρακελεύεται ζητεΐν τούτο,

άμοιβάς τε αναγκαίας τιθέμενος έκ τών εναντίων, όδόν τε άνω καί
κάτω είπών καί μεταβάλλον άναπαύεται καί κάματος έστι τοις
αντοϊς μοχθείν και αρχεαθαι, είκάζειν δοκεΐ άμελήσας σαφή ήμΐν
ποιήσαι τόν λόγον, ως δέον ι'σως παρ' αύτοΐς ζητεΐν ώσπερ καί
αύτός ζητήσας εύρεν.
Now Heraclitus, who bids us seek this, supposing necessary exchanges
from the opposites and talking of a way up and down and changing it
rests and it is weariness to toilfor and

conjecture - though neglecting to mak
though we should perhaps seek in ou
found.
As Heraclitus' sayings are often am

account the comments of the ancient
meaning expressed in his short phra
pointing that every mortal nature is
and after quoting fr. 91, he spécifiés
is changing all the time, from the age
On the other hand the image given by
more expressive in dealing with som
mical and even turbulent flow: "but b
change it scatters and again gathers,
wards', but at the same time it come
approaches and départs". This image
in which the waters are scattered an
and flow away, approaching and at th
kind of flow, which is characterized a
This is not a unique reference to thi
is found in fr. 80, where it is said th
ding to conflict and necessity (και
χρεών). If χρεών means something l
we would say 'a deterministic law'
parallel action of conflict (ερίς) gives
agents during the becoming of all th
elements that take part in the cosm
becoming is a process of continuous
these elements of which the beings
process the environment has its role, a
εν το σοφόν έπίοτασθαι γνώμην δκη

Wisdom is one thing, to be skilled in t
steered through all.
The meaning is clear: everything in the world interacts with ev

thing. It is true that Heraclitus had made some important empir
observations, which have anticipated some of the most fruitful id
contemporary physics. This fragment is an example of such a case
do not know the context this saying was referring; however, we
assume that he was conscious of the meaning of his words in this
ment, which means that he was accepting that in every physical pr
these interactions play an important rôle. This thought leads to the t
that what now is in a state of equilibrium could not remain there as
and it is not known to what extend ail these interactions will affect
it. This thought can lead us to admit that in Heraclitus' physical theory
the most probable state of the universe is a state far from equilibrium
rather than that of a state of equilibrium.
The case of a system far from equilibrium is directly exposed in fr.
125 cited above: 'the kykeon disintegrates if it is not moved'; this can
be expressed in another way by saying: if we move, that is shake or
stir, the mixture of ingrédients of which this drink is composed, then
we have the kykeon. If we leave it unmoved, that is if it reaches equili
brium, then kykeon disintegrates. Thus, the condition, in order to have
a new thing (here the kykeon), is to make it go in a state far from equi
librium. This is again an empirical observation of Heraclitus, which is
also akin to contemporary ideas14.
In agreement with these thoughts about the fragments we have
dealt with tili now we can interpret frr. 84a,b quoted earlier (p. 42). The
'μεταβάλλον άναπαύεταϊ gives the outcome of processes of beco
ming, which is a new form, a new entity, a new thing; the formation of
this thing is foliowed by a period of rest, that is of a stable state; but
only for some period; because change is always awaiting everything,
even the apparently stable structures. This is the meaning of fr. 84b: it
is weariness to toilfor and be ruled by the same; nothing can stay infî
14 Of course, Heraclitus did not think in the same way we think today,
using terminology like 'dynamical equilibrium'or 'farfrom equilibrium'. The
case of kykeon is best described, we think, by using this expression of contem
porary physics.
nitely in a stable State, everything is le

tegration, to decay: even the universe it
concluding paragraphs, in which we wi
from Aristotle and Theophrastus in fa
which is repeated at the end of some per
of the Great Year.
5. Σάρμα εική κεχυμένον ό κάλλιστος
Now we come to examine the meanin

sage in which Theophrastus quotes this
Theophrastus, Metaph. 7a:
Πώς δέ ποτε χρή και ποίας τάς αρχά

ρήσειέν τις, πότερον άμορφους και οίον
και γήν, η μεμορφωμένας, οι ς μάλιστα
περ εν τω Τιμαίω φησίν τοις γαρ τιμιω
και το ώρίσθαι... οί μεν ούν εμμόρφο
νλικάς· οίδ' αμφω, τάς τ' εμμόρφονς και
το τέλεον <ον>· οίον γαρ έξ άντικειμ
αλογον δε κάκείνοις δόξειεν αν, ει ό μ
των μερών απαντ' εν τάξει καί λόγω κα
περιόδοις, έν δε ταϊς άρχαις μη θ εν τ
εική κεχυμένον ό κάλλιστος», φησϊν Η
Perhaps one would wonder how and which
that is which of the two, the amorphou
they say those who speak about fire and
mainly ought to be defined as (Plato) say
the most decent things the most proper
Thus, some people define that all the prin
that they are only material; but others a
and the material, because according to
the side of both; for essence as a whole
And it would seem to them absurd, if the
part ofit were all ofthem in order and a
and to powers and periods, but in the pr
but "the fairest order in the world is a h
Heraclitus says.
From the context in which Theophrastus quotes Heraclitus' phr

it is clear that he is referring to the order in the world; and he finds
when Heraclitus speaks about the principles, that is the fundam
elements (fire, water, earth), then he refrains from the ideas of o
and instead he says that "the fairest order in the world is a hea
random sweepings". What is the meaning of this simile? In orde
make it clear, we should at this point make a digression; because t
must be a reason for the orderly universe to decay in a State of diso
One possible reason could be that the processes in the orderly w
overstep some limits and thus punishment follows. Additionally
find a reference in the cosmological scheme described in the Papy
of Derveni, a scheme referring to the Orphie theory.
The papyrus contains a philosopher's work written circa 400 B
The philosopher cites some phrases from Heraclitus' work; in parti
he cites the following: "the Sun... according to nature has the wid
a human foot, not overstepping his measures; if he does, the Erin
the minions of Justice, will find him..It is a pity that the papyru
significantly destroyed; thus it is difficult to read it and be sure
the meaning of the saved words15. Of those lines that were save
reads: "sacrifice... of justice"·, or, in another rendering: "it will
an overstepping... of justice"16. In either case we could hypothes
the following: what would happen, if the Sun oversteps its measu
This brings out the issue of the meaning of the expression εί δε
Vlastos17 in his critic of Kirk's views makes the point that "no par
nature can 'overstep its measures', which is surely the point of
and not as Kirk understands it, that 'long term excess is punished
reduced)" (p. 402), which is precisely what Anaximander had taug
not Heraclitus". In footnote Vlastos quotes Reinhardt, according
15 See, The Derveni Papyrus, Edited with Introduction and Commen

by Th. Kouremenos, G. Parassoglou, and K. Tsantsanoglou, Firenze
S. Olschki Editore, 2006.
16 See in Gabor Betegh, The Derveni Papyrus, Cosmology, Theology
Interpretation, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
17 G. Vlastos, On Heraclitus, AJP, vol. 76,4, p. 358.
which the expression 'εί δε μη in fr. 94 "ex

a fall, which will ne ver happen, as in fr
sion occurs"18. But here Reinhardt and V
considération that 'εί δε μή' expresses ju
assert: Hermodorus was indeed the best
he had overstepped the measures they had
of this overstepping, [he] was punished. T
would agree with this interprétation, th
process or a physical body does overstep
the nature or the society, then this entity
that we could assert that Heraclitus would
is expressed in the same part of Theoph
quoted, as we shall see.
To the Orphie cosmogony we will corn
return to Theophrastus text. After quotin
the following comments: [Some philosop
in the same way for the inanimate and
everyone is determined, although they a
and the principles are indefinite..." Then
comment foliows:
και ταϋτα μεν ένταϋθά που ζητεί την σκέψιν, άφορισμόν άπαι
τούντα μέχρι πόσου το τεταγμένου, καϊ δια τί το πλέον αδύνατον ή
εις τό χείρον ή μετάβασις.
And these phenomena askfor a scrutiny,for it is demanded to be defi
ned up to which degree the order ( is présent there) and for what reason
it is impossible to have more order than to go over to the worst.
We have seen at the beginning of the passage that Theophrastus

makes a clear distinction between the other philosophers, who see in the
(one and unique) world order, andforms, and periods, and Heraclitus,
18 Fr. 121: "The Ephesians, every grown man of them, deserve to be hanged
and leave the city to beardless youths; for they have exiled Hermodorus, the
best man among them, saying: 'no one should be best among us; if there be any
such, let him be so elsewhere and among others'.
for whom 'thefairest world-order is a heap ofrandom sweeping

is (we could take for granted) a phase of the world, in which t
disorder (the worst, in Theophrastus opinion). Thus, one may
that Theophrastus phrase we just quoted {'and the se phenome
for a scrutiny... to the worst') is likely to refer to Heraclitus.
If this is so, then we could suppose that what Theophrastus m
in the last phrase is that Heraclitus viewed that at some mom
limits (measures) are overstepped and then the universe is led to
State19 (as far as the order is concemed), that is to a disorderly
The meaning then of the whole passage could be this: Her
world, as we see it now, certainly has order {'This world-orde
same ofall...' fr. 30). This is the current phase of the universe, in
the totality of entities emerge (the stars, the earth and the liv
inanimate beings on it) and evolve. At a given time, this order
universe, as we perceive it, are destroyed: it is the moment, wh
fire is kindling in measures (fr. 30); this means that, combini
event generally described in fr. 30 with what follows as fr. 31a,
imagine that a mixture of fire and water (initially) and earth (i
tely afterwards) is produced. Fire is seen as the prépondérant e
in a mixture, which is in a state of dynamical equilibrium, as fr
tifies. This is exactly the phase which fr. 124 describes in an
and, certainly, obscure wording. Thus, in this case we have not
ecpyrosis, but a quasi-ecpyrosis, as we characterize it. Fr. 66 qu
Hippolytus describes the process of the ecpyrosis {'fire will com
and lay hold ofall things'), but this Hippolytus' biased descripti
intended to relate Heraclitus' cosmology with his religious
Fr. 30 {fire is kindling in measures') supports our hypothesis o
ecpyrosis and makes the/«//-ecpyrosis thesis rather weak.
There is another hint supporting our interprétation of the frag
already mentioned, in that there is an initial (and final, after som
of time) phase of the world, the one described by fr. 124. We
already mentioned the Papyrus of Derveni. There Heraclitus i
1 Worst according to Theophrastus, of course.
explicitly. And it seems that the Orphie

there, has important links with Heraclitu
Papyrus author mentions that air is the a
ment of law-like character (κείμενα). Th
with Νοΰς (Mind) and the author of the
an allegory of air/Mind invented by Orph
"Air/Mind never came to be: it existed before the cosmos came to be

and will always exist. It dominâtes all derivative entities...; in other
words, the wise air détermines the behavior of the other basic entities
from which the derivative entities come to be and into which they
eventually dissolve... If air/Mind did not want it to, the universe
would not be as it is now, for it is air/Mind that caused the other basic
quantities to be configured into the cosmos. As is explained in col.
IX.5-10, they were originally dominated by fire which caused them to
mix together and prevented the formation of coherent structures (fire
era). Air/Mind opened a new chapter in the history of the universe
(Mind era) when it came to dominate all other basic entities and caused
them to condense out of their primordial mixture. The first to separate
out was fire. When the fire content of the mixture dropped to a suffi
ciently low level, the other basic entities would not be prevented any
more from accreting to form the large-scale structures we see in the
universe. Since the existence and size of the Sun are thought of as
necessary conditions for the génération and existence of all other deri
vative entities, the quantity of fire air/Mind caused to separate out first
can be plausibly assumed to have become the Sun"20.
Let us give the crucial verses, in which the transition from the fire
to the Mind era is described:
Γινώσκων ovv το πϋρ άναμεμειγμένον τοϊς

άλλοις ότι ταράσσοι και κωλύει τα δντα συνίστασθαι
διά την θάλψιν έξαλλάσσει όσον τε ίκανόν εστίν
έξαλλαχθεν μη κωλνειν τα δντα αυμπαγηναι.
20
The Derveni Papyrus, ib., p. 30.
[Thus] knowing that thefîre when is mixed with other entities agita
(i.e. stirred or churned) them andprevent the entities from assembli
because of the heat, (Zeus, i.e. air/Mind) removes a sufficient quant
of fîre in such a distance so that it (flre) could no longer prevent t
entities to clump.
We have held the issue of the relationship of the two cosmogon

the Orphie and the Heraclitean, as important because both of th
refer to a primordial universe (or pre-world), explicitly in the Or
version and implicitly or allusively in the Heraclitean case. The Or
cosmogony, as described above, urges towards an understanding o
Heraclitean cosmogony. Heraclitus' fr. 124 speaks about a state o
allusively given primordial world: it is about the state of dynam
equilibrium between the elements of fire, water and earth, which a
a mixture, with fire being the prépondérant one. The Orphie parad
gives explicitly the explanation why the fire-dominated mixture o
the elements is in a disorderly state; the excess of fire signifies h
température21. Thus, the process leads the mixture to a highly dis
state and prevents the elements to interact with each other giving
to the beings we now see in the universe. Heraclitus does not pr
his ideas in detail. Below we gather the relevant (according to
opinion) fragments that can support a similar cosmogony in Herac
theory. These are:
(a) fr. 124, which is disregarded by many writers involved in

study of Heraclitus' work. The fragment supports the idea of
disorderly state in some phase of the development of the unive
σάρμα εική κεχυμένον δ κάλλιστος κόσμος says Heraclit
What could be this 'heap of rubbish'? Theophrastus says: the pr
cipes, which in the context of Heraclitus' times means: the el
ments fire, water (sea) and earth.
(b) fr. 30, which defines that, at some moment,fire is kindling in
21 Note especially the phrase: 'και κωλύει τά δντα συνίστασθαι δια

θάλιριν'.
sures, which we interpret that there is

a partial one, a quasi-ecpyrosis.
(c) fr. 31a, which describes the measures
fire to water-sea, sea to earth and pre
dynamical equilibrium, the State abou
interprétation, fr. 124 speaks.
(d) fr. 51, which describes this proc
providing (in a simile) the paradigm
directions: παλίντροπος άρμονίη δκω
(e) Further, there is a set of other fragm
in the line of the view supported here
There is a gap in the sériés of fragme

cutive steps by which the pre-world des
ments would evolve to the cosmos, the
A corresponding gap exists likewise in t
the orderly universe to that phase, whi
A hint to cover the latter gap has been
as mentioned above (p. 46, και ταύτα
σκέψιν... ή εις το χείρον ή μετάβασις):
says, to investigate if, at some point of t
more order, and thus it is possible to go o
without order. However, one could argu
nable. In addition, it does not provide a m
transition from a state of order to that of disorder could be realized.
And there is also the gap in the opposite transition: from disorder to
order. We will corne now to these issues.
6. Heraclitus' ideas vs. Anaximander and the Orphies
Gregory Vlastos has pointed out the influence of the works of

Anaximander and Anaximenes to Heraclitus' thought. Confronting this
problem he says:
"A proper answer to this question would call for a much more extens
investigation than I could carry out in this paper. All I can do here i
propound a hypothesis, and follow it out, in the hope that the results
obtained will commend it to others. It is that the main historical
influences on Heraclitus' thought were the great Milesians, Anaximander
and Anaximenes, and that our best chance to understand the problems
which confronted him and the meaning of his own answers to them is
to discover as best we can the links which connect his thought with
theirs..."22
Adopting this hypothesis we try to find the similarities between

Anaximander's and Heraclitus' cosmology. The cosmogonie phase of
the theory of the Milesian is described in various texts; we give below
Simplicius' text:
Simpl. Phys. 24,13
[Anaximander] principle and element of the beings said the άπειρον,

and was the first to give this name for this principle; he says that this is
not water nor any other from the so called elements, but of some other
nature unbounded, from which become ail the heavens and the world
order in them; to those elements, from which become the beings, these
beings are decayed according to necessity; because (the elements) are
punished and pay back the injustice they made between them accor
ding to the order oftime.. .He does not make the genesis by altering the
element, but by the séparation of the opposites because of the eternal
motion...
The process follows this pattem; the first principle (άρχή) is the
άπειρον, from which the γόνιμον23 of the warm and cold is separated;
these opposites are the elements from which the beings are made. Thus,
from a State of high symmetry and less order arise the beings we see in
cosmos, which have less symmetry and more order. This leads to diffé
rent states, in which some elements are in greater quantifies than others;
22 Gregory Vlastos, Studies in Greek Philosophy, vol. I, The Presocratics,

Ed. by Daniel W. Graham, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1993, p. 140.
23 This term, γόνιμον, is quoted in Plut., Strom. 2.
and this results to the introduction of i

course will pay for their injustice and the
of cosmos; the orderly beings will disint
eventually we will have again a State of less
In our contemporary language of physics
ment with the theory of thermodynamics: Th
and total disorder, i.e. the phase in whic
mixture, is the one characterized by a m
When the structures of the beings are form
means that locally we have a decrease of
duces a kind of injustice: globally (in the u
system) entropy is always increasing (the
The following step is the dissolution of th
cosmos, according to the order oftime. Af
start to follow the steps of a new générat
One can now wonder if Anaximander's
Heraclitus. We can go along the same ste
description to see if there are similarities
clitus' theory instead of άπειρον we have
Heraclitus has extraordinary qualities;
"fire is, in and through itself, a unity o
concord, a war and peace, a harmony and
also steers the world and everything in it
air/Mind in the Orphie cosmogony. Thus,
can give the other elements, water and e
the initial high température of the mixtu
tion of the beings and so the world-orde
the right process, but Heraclitus did not
author of the Derveni Papyrus. We are thus
24 For more détails and the rebuttal of Co

Christidis and Demetrius Athanassakis, A C
about the Cosmological Scheme of Anaximan
XXIX, Summer-Fall 2007, No 3-4, σελ. 5-8.
25 R. Mondolfo, Phronesis 3 (1958) 75 ff.
that described by Plotinus, and say that Heraclitus, exposing so el

cally his views about his cosmogony, "seems to conjecture - thou
neglecting to make the argument clear for us - as though we sh
perhaps seek in ourselves, as he also sought and found".
Have we the right to compare Heraclitus' cosmogony with tha
the Orphies? Is there some evidence for assuming that Heraclitus
some ideas in common with those attributed to Orpheus? David
has examined this possibility and concluded that this could be the
to some degree, at least. He wrote26:
"We have seen why the commentator on Orpheus [i.e. the author of
Papyrus] would be drawn to Heraclitus: not only do both poet an
philosopher express interest in the same topics (most notably, t
harmony of opposites and the rôle played by Justice and the Furies
maintaining this harmony), they both do so, according to the Comm
tator, in enigmatic language which needs unpacking. (The dou
meaning of αίόοϊος, for example, occurs in both Heraclitus and
commentary.) Note too how often the Commentator adopts the sam
tone as Heraclitus in distinguishing himself from the ignorant man
Cols. VIII.6, IX.2, XII.4-5, XVII.16, XXIII.1-2. He doubtless thoug
himself a kindred spirit to a famous predecessor. It may also be poss
to infer that Heraclitus was himself drawn to Orphie writings beca
he found therein a truer grasp of the workings of the cosmos than
found in Homer, Hesiod, and the other authors he criticizes. How
much he borrowed and adapted from Orphie texts, and from the relate
Bacchic and Pythagorean beliefs and practices, we shall probab
never know for certain. Clement, it is true, claims that Heraclitus deri
most of his doctrines from Orpheus27, but Clement was probably read
much late Orphie poetry modelled on Heraclitus as though it we
Heraclitus who learned from Orpheus... None the less, for ail o
uncertainty, it seems fair to state that Heraclitus was stuck by the
26 David Sider, Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus, in: Studies on

Derveni Papyrus, edited by André Laks and Glenn W. Most, Oxford Unive
Press, N.Y. 1997, pp. 146-7.
27 Strom. 6.2.27.1 (OF 226) σιωπώ όε Ήράκλειτον τον Έφέσιον, δς
Όρφέως τα πλείστα εϊληφεν.
spare Orphie oppositions, which seemed

and basic truths about the cosmos. Heracli
like few others, recast these dark sayings in
some ways even more enigmatic, but also b
religious sphère into one that attempted a
human and cosmic matters - a sphere of a
to regard as that of philosophy."
The interprétation developed so far de

transition from disorder to order. We did not find such a reference in
Heraclitus' sayings. All that we have is fr. 124, in which a primordial
State of disorder is alluded, and fr. 80, in which Heraclitus présents his
view of how the beings are formed in the universe in order to constitute
a cosmos, a world-order (fr. 30). The fact that the Ephesian characterizes
this State of the pre-world as 'thefairest order' is a question, to which
one answer could be given by the fr. 54:
'άφανής άρμονίη φανερής κρέσσων'

The unapparent harmony (connexion) is better than the apparent.
This fragment is saved by Hippolytus, who, before citing it, makes

a reference which should not be totally contingent28, namely the
conclusion of fr. 51:
άρμονίη, δκωσπερ τόξου και λνρης.
Thus, eventually it is plausible to combine these fragments (frr.

124,31a, 51 and 54) and to come to the conclusion that in the phase of
the pre-world: (a) the elements' mixture is in a State of dynamical equi
librium characterized by disorder; (b) the dynamical equilibrium is
like the equilibrium in the bow and the lyre, which means that the
connexion (in the mixture of elements) works in both directions, that is
at any time the change of fire into sea could work the other way
28 It is not contingent, because some lines earlier Hippolytus cites the whole
fr. 51.
around, and so on; and (c) this state of 'disorder' (according

contemporary théories in physics) is characterized by Heraclit
'the faire st order' in accordance with fr. 54, in which the una
harmony is better than the apparent29.
7. Some further evidence from Aristotle
Is there any other evidence of this transition from disorder to order?

Aristotle makes a crucial comment on this issue; and because this com
ment is referred in a context, where Heraclitus appears by his name30, we
could consider that the comment refers to the Ephesian. Aristotle says:
εξ άτάκτων γάρ τεταγμένα γενέσθαι φασίν, άμα δέ ατακτον είναι

και τεταγμένον άδννατον, άλλ ' ανάγκη γένεαιν είναι την χωρίζυυ
σαν και χρόνον έν δε τοις διαγράμμασιν ουδέν τφ χρόνω κεχώρι
σται. δτι μεν ονν άδννατον άμ' άίδιον αυτόν είναι και γενέσθαι,
φανερόν.
Because they say that from disorderly things are becoming orderly
things, but it is impossible one thing to be at the same time disorderly
and orderly, but it is necessary that there be a genesis that separates
them and time; in the geometrical figures nothing separates them by
intervais of time. Thus, it is obvious that it is impossible that the world
is eternal and, at the same time, has been generated31.
29 We do not maintain that Heraclitus had considered the State described in

fr. 124 in the same way we think of it today. But it would not make us wonder
the corrélation of the 'disorder' alluded by the reference to 'a heap ofrandom
sweepings' with the expression 'the fairest order' Heraclitus uses in fr. 124.
Here the Ephesian seems to apply his principle of the identity of the opposites.
30 De Caelo, 279b 12-17: Γενόμενον μεν ovv άπαντες είναί φασιν, άλλα
γενόμενον οί μεν άίδιον, οί δε φθαρτόν ώαπερ ότιονν αλλο τών συνισταμέ
νων, οί δ' εναλλάξ ότε μεν όντως ότέ δε άλλως έχειν [φθειρόμενον], και
τοντο αίει διατελεϊν όντως, ώσπερ 'Εμπεδοκλής ό Άκραγαντΐνος και
Ηράκλειτος ό Έφέσιος. Empedocles and Heraclitus, as Aristotle says here,
support the theory that the world alternately becomes and decays and this
happens so always.
31 Ibid., 280a 7-11.
It may be possible to conclude the fo

there are philosophers who support that
generated orderly things; but he finds th
to be disorderly and orderly at the same
forms are separated by a genesis and time
of one and unique and eternal world an
those who say that the world, being gen
sound. Thus, for him, the conclusion is
world is eternal and, at the same time,
that Aristotle sees a kind of paradox in
tries to confront the paradox using logica
- and in our case the world - could not b
same time; genesis is also excluded. Thu
unavoidable.
Heraclitus likes to deal with paradoxical situations. For him, there

is no paradox in imagining the world being in a disorderly and in
orderly State at différent times. The problem is that he didn't want to
clarify his thoughts. So, if one could enter in a dialogue with Aristotle,
he would say that in Heraclitus' cosmology the disorderly State of the
uni verse, which is described by fr. 124, is merely a phase in the deve
lopment of a sériés of universes, and the emergence of an orderly
world is indeed separated by the preceding disorderly State by a genesis
and time. One cannot be sure, though, that Heraclitus would in fact
want to explain how this transition from the disorderly State to the
orderly one would happen. If he wanted to do it, he would have done it
by describing in detail his cosmology.
Now, let us continue our arguments to touch upon this issue of the
relation of order and disorder with time. Aristotle in his Physics,
dealing with the issue of time, has written this astonishing phrase32:
φθοράς γαρ αίτιος καθ' εαυτόν μάλλον ό χρόνος- άριθμός γαρ

κινήσεως και ή κίνησις έξίστησι τό υπάρχον.
1 Arist., Phys., 221b 1-3.
Time by itself is for the most part the cause of decay; for it is the
number of change and change gets the existing off itself.
Surely, in this passage Aristotle speaks about the world of change,

as he urges to add that the eternal bodies are unaffected by time and
remain unchanged, eternal. A brief comment is needed for the fact that
we have stressed the words for the most part'. Most certainly, Aris
totle was conscious of the fact that in the world of change (in the
sublunary région) order is generated everywhere (as, e.g., the living
beings), but also the order, in the course of time, decay s (e.g. after the
death of the living beings), that is disorder is produced. The point
is that, according to Aristotle, in the course of time, more disorder is
produced than order.
The idea contained in the above phrase of Aristotle, applied to the
whole universe (and not only to the sublunary région), if combined
with the necessity to investigate "up to which degree the order (is présent
there) and for what reason it is impossible to have more order than to go
over to the worst" (Theophrastus), leads to a vindication of Heraclitus'
cosmology, in which the orderly universe could be developed to a
disorderly state of a pre-universe.
8. Epilogue: the crucial rôle of fr. 124
Goddess Dike and the Heraclitean concept of dike, which is identi

fied with conflict (και δίκη ν εριν), play, we could surmise, this rôle in
Heraclitus: they fonction as Wardens of the measures as well as forces
of création and dissolution of order. And this is not at ail something
unexpected; for it was very well known that these forces, or some
variants of them, create order in the universe. However, it was also
known that they are responsible for the decay of the order, i.e. for
disorder, as in the case of the decay of orderly things (for example the
dissolving of snowflakes is a transition from order to disorder - an
ex-perience common to ail); Heraclitus has given another example of
dissolution of order in the case of kykeon of fr. 125. A more common
experience is the decay of every living b

χρεών must be responsible for everythi
Είόέναι χρή τον πόλεμον έόντα ξννόν,

πάντα κατ' εριν και χρεών (fr. 80).
Thus far, we have tried to establish ou

physical theory, according to which his
universes. This cosmology comprises a
foliowed by the emergence of the world
a system far from equilibrium, in which
ted as the universe is evolving. Finally,
ped, the universe decay and reach its in
mainly by fr. 124. Thus, in our interp
rôle in disclosing one of the successiv
logy, which is a period common as begi
πέρας επί κύκλου (fr. 103).
Let us remind this fragment: σάρμα ε
κόσμος. So far we have thoroughly anal
meaning without any appeal to hypoth
what it seems to be something given: in
text, the fragment says that there is a
State of disorder (expressed by the sim
and this State is what Heraclitus cha
κόσμος'33. But, this State is not the on
follows that here (in fr. 124) Heraclitus
which was the starting phase of the co
33 We already mention the unease of the

ment on this fragment. T.M. Robinson (in H
Translation with a Commentary, Universit
suggests an additional phrase in order to mak
he considers Heraclitus' line of thought, nam
the most beautiful order is But this gue
phrastus' context in the passage, where he ci
driven at some era, let call it thefire er a. This implies that it

sary to reckon that there must be two phases to which the co
spends his 'life': a phase of disorder and a phase of order. But
phases are consistent with the overall physical theory of Hera
so long as we take into account the following: that the fairest
cosmos (of fr. 124) is a quasi-preworld, a version of the cosmos
plan, which is shaped by the one and only agent responsib
capable for that, that is by fire (the άείζωον πϋρ).
Theodoras Christidis
Umversity οί Ihessaly, ureece.
E-mail thchrist@uth.gr.

Heraclitus' Cosmology and Cosmogony

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heraclitus' Cosmology and Cosmogony

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EURORGAN s.p.r.l.

COSMOLOGY AND COSMOGONY IN HERACLITUS

The two terms are used in philosophy in various contexts to mean

1 See in Aryeh Finkelberg's paper On Cosmogony and Ecpyrosis in Hera

REVUE DE PHILOSOPHIE ANCIENNE, XXVII (2), 2009

refer to ecpyrosis, but gives emphasis t

3 Arist. Pys., 205al-4: everything, that is

and destruction of the cosmos, can attribute that cycle to Herac

2. Fragments 30,31, and 124

Heraclitus' physical theory is unified, and complété, but we sho

Clement, Strom. V, 104,1-3:

«Heraclitus of Ephesus is most clearly of this opinion [se. that th

6 R. Mondolfo, Evidence of Plat ο and Aristotle relating to the Ecpy ros

course of destruction, knowing that th

Fr. 30: This world-order, the same of

And that he pronounced the opinion tha

Fr. 31a: fire's changes: first sea, andof

For he says that fire virtually, by the

Fr. 31b: <earth> is dispersed as sea

Similarly too about the other elemen

Theophrastus, Metaph., 7a:

7 Cf. Gregory Vlastos, On Heraclitus, Am

«It would be unreasonable to think that, although the whol

Fr. 124: thefairest order in the world is a heap ofrandom sweepings».

(b) The second phase comprises what fr. 80 describes, namely

It is true that in the preserved fragments there is no conspicuous réfé

όννάμει γαρ λέγει ότι το πϋρ υπό τοϋ δ

We could not overlook the point that

In what degree do these ideas echo Her

In our approach, fr. 124 plays a décisiv

pretation of Heraclitus' cosmology and cosmogony. Theophrastus

Ov ξυνιάσιν οκως διαφερόμενον έαυτω σνμφέρεται· παλίντροπος

This fragment, combined with fr. 50

ουκ εμον άλλά τον λόγου άκούσαντας όμολογεΐν σοφόν έστιν εν

10 Kirk's translation; note the expression 'a connection working in both

gives the following meaning, according

είδέναι χρή τον πόλεμον έόντα ξννόν

11 We should mention here the view Heisen

4. Is the world in equilibrium or is it far from equilibrium?

13 See, for example, in Kirk Heraclitus, the Cosmic Fragments, p. 348:

water here, but in another place water ch

views on any except large-scale cosmological c

to be consistent with his sayings, as he chose to formulate them i

In the same direction does fr. 125 point:

και ό κνκεών διίσταται μη κινούμενος - even the barley-drink dis

Similarly we can add here the fragments 84a,b with Plotinus co

ô μέν γάρ Ηράκλειτος, δς ήμίν παρακελεύεται ζητεΐν τούτο,

rests and it is weariness to toilfor and

As Heraclitus' sayings are often am

εν το σοφόν έπίοτασθαι γνώμην δκη

The meaning is clear: everything in the world interacts with ev

nitely in a stable State, everything is le

5. Σάρμα εική κεχυμένον ό κάλλιστος

Now we come to examine the meanin

Πώς δέ ποτε χρή και ποίας τάς αρχά

From the context in which Theophrastus quotes Heraclitus' phr

15 See, The Derveni Papyrus, Edited with Introduction and Commen

which the expression 'εί δε μη in fr. 94 "ex

We have seen at the beginning of the passage that Theophrastus

for whom 'thefairest world-order is a heap ofrandom sweeping

1 Worst according to Theophrastus, of course.

explicitly. And it seems that the Orphie