UNNOTICED QUOTATIONS FROM HERACLITUS IN PLATO AND THE PLATONIC

TRADITION. (COMMENTARY TO FRAGMENTA PROBABILIA 1-15 LEB.)

ANDREI LEBEDEV

This is English translation of the portion of our commentary to the new edition and collection
of fragments of Heraclitus relating to the group Fragmenta Probabilia. Our edition of the
fragments of Heraclitus comprises three sections: 1) The main corpus of authentic fragments (1-
160) quoted with Heraclitus’ name. 2) Fragmenta probabilia (1-15) and 3) Dubia et spuria. We
have distinguished ‘Fragmenta probabilia” from “Dubia et spuria” because we regard them as
authentic rather than not, but we have not included them in the main corpus because they are
quoted without Heraclitus name. The attribution of each of these fragments to Heraclitus is argued
for in the commentary, the assessment of the probability of their authenticity and the textual
“authenticity grade” (verbatim quotation, paraphrase, adaptation, reminiscence etc.) may vary
from case to case.
For the convenience of reader I have added to the commentary to each fragment the Greek text
with translation which in the original published version are printed separately from the
commentary as a continuous text. Please, refer to the pages of the published version indicated for
each fragment. А.В.
Лебедев, Логос Гераклита: реконструкция мысли и слова (с новым критическим изданием
фрагментов), Санкт-Петербург, «Наука», 2014, 533 с.

A.V.Lebedev, The Logos of Heraclitus: A Reconstruction of his Thought and Word (with a New
Critical Edition of the Fragments), St. Petersburg, “Nauka” Publishers, 2014, 533 pp.

Fragmenta Probabilia: pp. 224-251; Commentary to Fragmenta Probabilia: pp.463-472.

The complete published text of our edition, as well as English translation of introductory chapters,
is available on our personal page at https://varetis.academia.edu/AndreiLebedev

2019 ADDENDUM! To this 2014 Collection of “Probabilia” should be added now three plausible
quotations/paraphrases from Heraclitus in the Derveni papyrus col.V, XX and XXII.

See our study “The authorship of the Derveni papyrus, a Sophistic treatise on the Origin of
Religion and Language…” (2019), section 10, pp.578-586, the full text is available on this site.

1
 Heraclitus. Fragmenta Probabilia 1–2 Lebedev.

Plato, Resp. 607b

προσείπωμεν δὲ αὐτῇ, μὴ καί τινα σκληρότητα ἡμῶν καὶ ἀγροικίαν καταγνῷ, ὅτι παλαιὰ μέν τις
διαφορὰ φιλοσοφίᾳ τε καὶ ποιητικῇ· καὶ γὰρ ἡ
(a) “λακέρυζα πρὸς δεσπότεα κύων“ ἐκείνη «κραυγάζουσα»
(b) καὶ “μέγας ἐν ἀφρόνων κενεαγορίαισιν”
(c) καὶ ὁ “τῶν διασόφων ὄχλος κράτων“
(d) καὶ οἱ “λεπτῶς μεριμνῶντες,” ὅτι ἄρα “πένονται,”
καὶ ἄλλα μυρία σημεῖα παλαιᾶς ἐναντιώσεως τούτων.
__________
δεσπότεα scripsi : δεσπόταν codd.

[context: the expulsion of poets from the ideal state, Socrates speaks]
‘We will also address her [= the Poetry], so that she does not accuse us of cruelty and bad manners,
and recall her the ancient enmity between philosophy and poetry.
And the notorious
(a) “dog barking at her master”, and the one who is
(b) “great in the idle talk of fools that lack understanding” and the
(c) “crowd of pseudo-wise (?) heads,” and
(d) “those who are subtle thinkers” in the sense that “they are penniless”,
and a myriad of other indications of the ancient quarrel between them [= poetry and philosophy]’

Commentary to fr. Prob. 1-2 (The Logos of Heraclitus, pp.464-64)

Attribution. Text. The famous passage of Plato's Republic, in which Socrates speaks of the
“old quarrel” between philosophy and poetry and condemns poetry to eternal exile from
Kallipolis. To avoid accusations of cruelty and lack of culture (agroikia), Socrates points
out that the quarrel has long roots and that he did not start it. In support of this claim, he
cites four quotations. Page includes all four quotations in PMG fr. 987 (Adespota, 69),
assuming that the first two quotations (a-b) derive from choral lyrics, and quotations (c)
and (d) from a tragedy or comedy. However, the character of the first two quotations,

2
 imbued with sarcasm and the spirit of controversy, does not fit well with choral lyrics. We
believe that these two quotations are prosaic and we see in κενεαγορίαισιν traces of the
Ionian dialect. We correct the allegedly Dorian form δεσπόταν to the rare Ionian form
δεσπότεα (Acc. masc. sing. in Herodotus), the “correction” of which to δεσπόταν during
transmission can be easily explained. According to Powell (Lexicon to Herodotus 82) the
form δεσπότεα occurs 4 times out of 8 cases of acc.sing. from δεσπότης in Herodotus, 3
times we have δεσπότην 3 and once v.l. It is reasonable to assume that the lectio difficilior
δεσπότεα was the original reading in all 8 cases and that some of them have been trivialized
in transmission. The first two quotations we attribute to Heraclitus, both are invectives
against Homer. The citations (c) and (d) derive almost certainly from comedy and are
directed against philosophers. If this is an ancient comedy, then the “crowd of pseudo-wise
heads” and “subtle-thinking” beggars are the disciples of Socrates (cf. Socrates'
Phrontisterion in the Clouds of Aristophanes). If this is a middle comedy, then Plato's
Academy may be the target. In the first case, Socrates has every reason to commit a just
act of “retaliation” by sending the poets into exile. [The series of four quotations is arranged
as “exchange of fire” between philosophers and poets or as a judicial agon presided by
Socrates as a judge who, upon hearing both contending parties, finds poetry guilty and
condemns poets to exile. By adding some comic overtones to the scene, by turning the trial
of poetry into a kind of joke, Plato himself tries to avoid accusations of agroikia and
cruelty, and at the same time engages in a comic agon with Aristophanes to whom Socrates
points in the Apology as the main culprit of his prosecution. This does not mean that the
condemnation of poetry should not be taken seriously. The “ancient quarrel’ of “poets” and
philosophers was not a joke, in the last third of the fifth century in Athens it took the form
of a series of “impiety” trials and prosecution of philosophers (Anaxagoras, Protagoras,
Diogenes of Apollonia) by religious conservatives like Diopeithes who regarded the new
Ionian science περὶ μεταρσίων as “unholy” on the ground that it posed a threat to the
traditional Greek views (πάτριοι λόγοι) about the gods found in Homer, Hesiod and
“Orpheus”. In a sense, Socrates lost his life in this very “quarrel” (Meletus was a poet),
although the grotesque image of a godless meteorosophistes in Aristophanes’ Clouds had
little in common with its prototype. In the Republic X Plato engages in counter-factual
history projected into utopian future: history is reversed, this time “poetry” is on trial
accused by philosophy, Socrates wins, Socratic philosophy is alive and flourishes in Plato’s
Academy.]
The quote (a) may come from the context of the Heraclitus' fragment 126 Leb./B 97 DK (see
commentary on this fragment). Λακέρυζα is a rare poetic word, κραυγάζουσα is a common

3
 and later word which looks like a gloss on the poetic λακέρυζα (κραυγάζω is not attested
elsewhere in Plato). The dog barking at his master is Homer who curses “Strife” (Eris) in the
Iliad and thus the cosmic law of the universal war conducted by Father of gods and men
Polemos on which, according to Heraclitus, the world is based and behind which stands the
Wise Being (To Sophon) that governs the Universe (see below fr. 35 –36 Leb./A 22 DK with
comm.).
Quote (b). Κενεαγορία is an absolute hapax, not found elsewhere not only in Plato, but nowhere
else at all (teste TLG online). The compilers of LSJ q.v. should have quoted the real (attested)
source, i.e. Plato, and not a hypothetical one (Lyrica adespota), which, as we have seen, turns out
to be imaginary. A more common variant is κενολογία, κενολογεῖν and the phrase κενὸς λόγος
(Plat. Laches 196b7, Legg. 683e10 etc.). The man who is “great in the idle talk of the fools” is also
Homer. In fr. 20Leb./B56 DK Heraclitus repudiates the popular view about Homer as the wisest
of all Greeks. ἀφρόνων is a close synonym of ἀξύνετοι, Fr. 2Leb./B1 DK, 9Leb./B34 DK and is
also found in Heraclit. Probabilia fr. 15 Leb. discussed below (θυηπολίαι ἀφρόνων).

(3)
Plato, Cratylus, 408 c 2

{ΣΩ.} Οἶσθα ὅτι ὁ λόγος τὸ πᾶν σημαίνει καὶ κυκλεῖ καὶ

πολεῖ ἀεί, καὶ ἔστι διπλοῦς, ἀληθής τε καὶ ψευδής.
{ΕΡΜ.} Πάνυ γε.
{ΣΩ.} Οὐκοῦν τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς αὐτοῦ λεῖον καὶ θεῖον καὶ
ἄνω οἰκοῦν ἐν τοῖς θεοῖς, τὸ δὲ ψεῦδος κάτω ἐν τοῖς πολλοῖς
τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τραχὺ καὶ τραγικόν· ἐνταῦθα γὰρ πλεῖστοι
οἱ μῦθοί τε καὶ τὰ ψεύδη ἐστίν, περὶ τὸν τραγικὸν βίον.
{ΕΡΜ.} Πάνυ γε.
{ΣΩ.} Ὀρθῶς ἄρ' ἂν ὁ πᾶν μηνύων καὶ ἀεὶ πολῶν
“Πὰν αἰπόλος” εἴη, διφυὴς Ἑρμοῦ ὑός, τὰ μὲν ἄνωθεν
λεῖος, τὰ δὲ κάτωθεν τραχὺς καὶ τραγοειδής.

[Context: etymology of the name of the god Pan whose upper part of the body is human, and the
lower part is goat-like].

{Socrates}You know that logos means «Universe» and that it goes in circles and revolves always,
and is of double nature, true and false.
{Hermogenes} Sure.

4
{Socrates} Its true part is smooth and divine and dwells in the sky among the gods, whereas the
false part lives among the crowds of men, and is coarse and goat-like [= tragic]. Indeed, myths and
lies are related to this region and concern the tragic [= goat-like] life.
{Hermogenes} Sure.

Commentary to fr. Prob. 3 (The Logos of Heraclitus, p.464-465)

Attribution. We consider this passage of Plato’s Cratylus to be an interpretive paraphrase and

adaptation of Heraclitus’ fragments 1–2 Leb. (B 50, B 1 DK) and their context on the following
grounds: 1) οἶσθα; "you know?", that is, "you probably heard that ...", indicates a quote. 2) The
identification of this logos with the “Universe” or “this cosmos” is peculiarly Heraclitean: it is
based on the metaphor of the book of nature and the grammatical analogy between the world and
text. Plato freely adapts Heraclitus’ conceptual metaphor to his context - the etymology of the
name of the god Pan - but also combines it with some genuine ideas of Heraclitus. Neither
Heraclitus’s interest in Pan’s name, nor the etymology αἰπόλος from ἀεὶ πολῶν are attested in
parallel sources, therefore they cannot be attributed to Heraclitus. On the other hand, in the third
chapter of his treatise (“On the Gods”), Heraclitus may have dealt with allegorical interpretation
of various names of traditional gods, therefore one cannot exclude that Pan was mentioned in this
context.
The fragment Probabilia 3, like fr. Probabilia 4, proves that Plato knew and understood the
fundamental doctrines of Heraclitus’ metaphysics and epistemology, and did not reduce it to the
relativist thesis about the universal flux. Unlike most modern interpreters of Heraclitus, Plato
perfectly understood the metaphor of the "book of nature." According to the Plato’s paraphrase,
the logos can be true (ἀληθής) or false (ψευδής). This corresponds exactly to the Heraclitean
doctrine that “this logos” (the visible world), when read (“heard” or “divided”) correctly, is One,
and when read or “divided” incorrectly, is many. Plato at the same time combines the Heraclitean
metaphor of the cosmic logos with the axiological dualism of the heavenly and terrestrial (or
superlunary and sublunar, pure and impure) world attested for Heraclitus in independent sources
(cf. D.L.9.10, Apollo the Sun in fr. Prob. 13 below etc.). Exactly as in Heraclitus, the phenomenal
world of plurality is correlated with poetic fiction (μῦθοι καὶ ψεύδη), and the divine world with
philosophical truth.
David Sedley, Plato’s Cratylus, Cambridge, 2003, p. 96 translates τὸ πᾶν as “everything”, but
this is linguistically doubtful, and, what is even more important, flatly contradicts the context,

5
since in the following lines we have a description not of “everything”, but of the cosmos or the
Universe, one part of which is celestial (divine) and another earthen (mortal).

(4)
Plato, Theaet. 201d

{ΣΩ.} Ἄκουε δὴ ὄναρ ἀντὶ ὀνείρατος. ἐγὼ γὰρ αὖ ἐδόκουν ἀκούειν τινῶν ὅτι τὰ μὲν πρῶτα
οἱονπερεὶ στοιχεῖα, ἐξ ὧν ἡμεῖς τε συγκείμεθα καὶ τἆλλα, λόγον οὐκ ἔχοι. αὐτὸ γὰρ καθ' αὑτὸ
ἕκαστον ὀνομάσαι μόνον εἴη, προσειπεῖν δὲ οὐδὲν ἄλλο δυνατόν, οὔθ' ὡς ἔστιν, οὔθ' ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν·
ἤδη γὰρ ἂν οὐσίαν ἢ μὴ οὐσίαν αὐτῷ προστίθεσθαι, δεῖν δὲ οὐδὲν προσφέρειν, εἴπερ αὐτὸ ἐκεῖνο
μόνον τις ἐρεῖ. ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ τὸ “αὐτὸ” οὐδὲ τὸ “ἐκεῖνο” οὐδὲ τὸ “ἕκαστον” οὐδὲ τὸ “μόνον” οὐδὲ
“τοῦτο” προσοιστέον οὐδ' ἄλλα πολλὰ τοιαῦτα· ταῦτα μὲν γὰρ περιτρέχοντα πᾶσι προσφέρεσθαι,
ἕτερα ὄντα ἐκείνων οἷς προστίθεται, δεῖν δέ, εἴπερ ἦν δυνατὸν αὐτὸ λέγεσθαι καὶ εἶχεν οἰκεῖον
αὑτοῦ λόγον, ἄνευ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων λέγεσθαι. νῦν δὲ ἀδύνατον εἶναι ὁτιοῦν τῶν πρώτων
ῥηθῆναι λόγῳ· οὐ γὰρ εἶναι αὐτῷ ἀλλ'
ἢ ὀνομάζεσθαι μόνον — ὄνομα γὰρ μόνον ἔχειν — τὰ δὲ ἐκ τούτων ἤδη συγκείμενα, ὥσπερ αὐτὰ
πέπλεκται, οὕτω καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα αὐτῶν συμπλακέντα λόγον γεγονέναι· ὀνομάτων γὰρ συμπλοκὴν
εἶναι λόγου οὐσίαν. οὕτω δὴ τὰ μὲν στοιχεῖα ἄλογα καὶ ἄγνωστα εἶναι, αἰσθητὰ δέ· τὰς δὲ
συλλαβὰς γνωστάς τε καὶ ῥητὰς καὶ ἀληθεῖ δόξῃ δοξαστάς. ὅταν μὲν οὖν ἄνευ λόγου τὴν ἀληθῆ
δόξαν τινός τις λάβῃ, ἀληθεύειν μὲν αὐτοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν περὶ αὐτό, γιγνώσκειν δ' οὔ· τὸν γὰρ μὴ
δυνάμενον δοῦναί τε καὶ δέξασθαι λόγον ἀνεπιστήμονα εἶναι περὶ τούτου· προσλαβόντα δὲ λόγον
δυνατόν τε ταῦτα πάντα γεγονέναι καὶ τελείως πρὸς ἐπιστήμην ἔχειν. οὕτως σὺ τὸ ἐνύπνιον ἢ
ἄλλως ἀκήκοας;
{SOCRATES} Listen then to a dream in return for a dream. In my dream, too, I thought I was
listening to people saying that the primary letters (stoicheia), so to speak, of which we and
everything else are composed, have no logos. Each of them, in itself, can only be named; it is not
possible to say anything else of it, either that it is or that it is not. That would mean that we were
adding being or not-being to it; whereas we must not attach anything, if we are to speak of that
thing itself alone. Indeed, we ought not to apply to it even such words as ‘itself’ or ‘that’, ‘each’,
‘alone’, or ‘this’, or any other of the many words of this kind; for these run up and down and are
applied to all things alike, being other than the things to which they are added, whereas if it were
possible to express the element itself and it had its own proprietary logos, it would have to be
expressed without any other thing. As it is, however, it is impossible that any of the primaries
should be expressed in a logos; it can only be named, for a name is all that it has. But with the
things composed of these, it is another matter. Here, just in the same way as the letters themselves

6
are woven together, so their names may be woven together and become a logos of something — a
logos being essentially a complex of names. Thus, the letters (stoicheia) have no logos and are
unknowable, but they are perceivable, whereas the complexes are both knowable and expressible
and can be the objects of true viewpoint (doxa alethes). Now when a man gets a true viewpoint
about something without a logos, his soul is in a state of truth as regards that thing, but he does
not know it; for someone who cannot give and take a logos of a thing is ignorant about it. But
when he has also got a logos of it, he is capable of all this and is made perfect in knowledge. Was
the dream you heard the same as this or a different one? [tr. Levett and Burnyeat with alterations].

Commentary to fr. Prob. 4 (The Logos of Heraclitus, p.465)

Attribution. The famous “dream theory” in Plato’s Theaetetus has been often attributed to
Antisthenes (Burnyeat 1990: 164 ff.). However, the grammatical or alphabet analogy is attested
for Heraclitus better than for Antisthenes. It is directly attested in a verbatim quotation in fr. 106,
106A Leb., cf. Β 10 DK where συλλάψιες means “syllables” (rather than mysterious
“Verbindungen” of Diels-Kranz), an Ionian equivalent of Attic συλλαβαί, whereas οὖλα καὶ οὐχ᾽
οὖλα means “loud (or voiced)” and “voiceless” letters, i.e. vowels and consonants, the elementary
opposites out of which the art of grammar is constructed, just as the art of music is constructed
from high and low notes. This interpretation is the only one that agrees with what the author of De
mundo explicitly states in the context: he quotes Heraclitus as agreeing with the thesis “art imitates
nature” (ἡ τέχνη μιμεῖται τὴν φύσιν), as providing concrete examples from concrete tekhnai of
music and grammar. No Greek writer ever speaks about “wholes and non-wholes” instead of
“whole and parts”. And again, only in Heraclitus the analogy between the structure of speech or
text (logos) and that of the world is found in combination with another conceptual metaphor of
“dreamers” (εὕδοντες) (Fr. 2, 3, 4 Leb. = B 1, B 72-73, B 89 DK). This explains why Socrates in
Theaetetus says that he “heard” this theory in a dream. According to Heraclitus, most humans are
immersed in a dream of doxastic imagination and are incapable of “hearing”, i.e. perceiving the
truth of All-Unity spoken out by the “words-and-deeds” (ἔπη καὶ ἔργα) of the divine Logos-
Universe. In Socrates’ introductory words “I dreamed that I heard from someone…” (ἐδόκουν
ἀκούειν τινῶν) traces of the original wording of Heraclitus fr.2 Leb. (B 1 DK) are preserved:
ἀκούσαντες ... ἀκοῦσαι. Socrates, in his typical manner, ironically admits that he, as a mortal, is
also “dreaming” and therefore “heard” this theory in a “dream”. The attribution to Antisthenes or
any other philosopher, except Heraclitus, should be abandoned since it cannot explain the unique
association of the Logos/Universe analogy with the epistemological image dreamers. Additional
confirmation of the Heraclitean origin of the “dream theory” in Theaetetus is provided by the

7
Cratylus passage on “logos = Universe” (λόγος σημαίνει τὸ πᾶν) in fr. Prob.3 discussed above.
For a comprehensive discussion of the logos analogy in Heraclitus with a complete set of ancient
testimonia supporting our reconstruction see our investigation “The Liber naturae metaphor and
alphabet analogy in Heraclitus logos-fragments” (2019). The Heraclitean origin of the thesis “art
imitates nature” in Hippocratic De diaeta, Book 1 is argued for in detail in our introduction to
“The logos of Heraclitus” (2014), chapter on Heraclitus’ book (pp.27-42). Both the English
translation of the latter and the text of the former are available on our personal page at
academia.edu.
(5)

Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata 1,13, 57 (I, 36, 17 – 37, 2 St.)

πάμπολλα γὰρ τῶν παρὰ ταῖς αἱρέσεσι δοξαζομένων εὕροιμεν ἄν … εἰ καὶ ἀλλήλοις ἀνόμοια εἶναι
δοκεῖ, τῷ γένει γε καὶ ὅλῃ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ ὁμολογοῦντα· ἢ γὰρ ὡς μέλος ἢ ὡς μέρος ἢ ὡς εἶδος ἢ ὡς
γένος εἰς ἓν συνάπτεται. ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἡ ὑπάτη ἐναντία τῇ νεάτῃ οὖσα, ἀλλ' ἄμφω γε ἁρμονία μία, ἔν
τε ἀριθμοῖς ὁ ἄρτιος τῷ περιττῷ διαφέρεται, ὁμολογοῦσι δὲ ἄμφω τῇ ἀριθμητικῇ, ὡς τῷ σχήματι
ὁ κύκλος καὶ τὸ τρίγωνον καὶ τὸ τετράγωνον καὶ ὅσα τῶν σχημάτων ἀλλήλων διενήνοχεν. ἀτὰρ
καὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ παντὶ τὰ μέρη σύμπαντα, κἂν διαφέρηται πρὸς ἄλληλα, τὴν πρὸς τὸ ὅλον
οἰκειότητα διαφυλάττει. οὕτως οὖν ἥ τε βάρβαρος ἥ τε Ἑλληνικὴ φιλοσοφία τὴν ἀίδιον ἀλήθειαν
σπαραγμόν τινα, οὐ τῆς Διονύσου μυθολογίας, τῆς δὲ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ὄντος ἀεὶ θεολογίας
πεποίηται. ὁ δὲ τὰ διῃρημένα συνθεὶς αὖθις καὶ ἑνοποιήσας τέλειον τὸν λόγον ἀκινδύνως εὖ ἴσθ'
ὅτι κατόψεται, τὴν ἀλήθειαν.

'Among the heretical views ... we will find a lot of those which, although seem to be dissimilar,
by genus and by the whole truth are in agreement with each other: either as members, or as parts,
or as species, or as genera they are combined into one. For example, the lower string is opposite
to the upper one; however, both form a single harmony, and even numbers are different with odd
numbers, but both agree with the arithmetic art, and <in geometric art> differ by shape from each
other circle, triangle, square and other shapes. In the same way in the whole cosmos all parts,
although different from each other, nevertheless maintain a harmonious connection with the
whole. In the same way the philosophy of the barbarians, and the philosophy of the Hellenes, have
dissected the eternal truth not of the myth of Dionysus’ mythology, but of the theology of the

8
“Logos that exists forever and ever”. Someone who will put together the separated parts and
unite them will undoubtedly see the complete logos, the truth.

Commentary to fr. Prob. 5 (The Logos of Heraclitus, p.465-66)

This text of Clement contains an unnoticed (as far as we know) quote from Heraclitus fr.
2 Leb./B 1 DK τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ὄντος ἀεὶ and is noteworthy in that, for all the eсcentricity of this
Christological adaptation of the Heraclitean metaphor of the cosmic logos, it is based on a correct
understanding of this metaphor. This becomes obvious only if we properly understand the
grammatical (alphabet) analogy in Heraclitus and follow the correct text of Hippolytus (διαρέων
scil. ἔπη), and not the text of Sextus (διαιρέων ἕκαστον) with a wrong explicative insertion.
The division of the divine logos into parts Clement compares with the Orphic sparagmos
myth of the tearing of Dionysus by the Titans. An interesting convergence with this Clement’s
passage is found in the Heraclitizing theology of Apollo vs. Dionysus in Plutarch, De E apud
Delphos 388e = Heraclit. Probabilia fr. 10 Leb. In Plutarch, Apollo is allegorically interpreted as
ekpyrosis (unification of being), and Dionysus as diakosmesis, that is, the dismembered world of
plurality in which we live. In the text of Clement, Apollo is not explicitly named, but the “single
harmony” (μία ἁρμονία), which corresponds to the undivided logos, is connected with Apollon,
as it is illustrated by musical arts, precisely as in De mundo 5 = Heraclit fr. 106 Leb. (B 10 DK).
Theoretically, Clement may depend on Plutarch, but against this in this case speaks the absence of
the grammatical (alphabet) analogy in Plutarch’s context (although there is a mention of the logos).
(6)

Porphyrius, De abstinentia, 3,21 καίτοι Στράτωνός γε τοῦ φυσικοῦ λόγος ἐστὶν ἀποδεικνύων, ὡς
οὐδὲ αἰσθάνεσθαι τὸ παράπαν ἄνευ τοῦ νοεῖν ὑπάρχει. καὶ γὰρ γράμματα πολλάκις
ἐπιπορευομένους τῇ ὄψει καὶ λόγοι προσπίπτοντες τῇ ἀκοῇ διαλανθάνουσιν ἡμᾶς καὶ διαφεύγουσι
πρὸς ἑτέροις τὸν νοῦν ἔχοντας· εἶτ' αὖθις ἐπανῆλθεν καὶ μεταθεῖ καὶ διώκει τῶν προειρημένων
ἕκαστον ἀναλεγόμενος· ᾗ καὶ λέλεκται,νοῦς ὁρᾷ, νοῦς ἀκούει, τὰ δ' ἄλλα κωφὰ καὶ τυφλά· ὡς τοῦ
περὶ τὰ ὄμματα καὶ τὰ ὦτα πάθους, ἂν μὴ παρῇ τὸ φρονοῦν, αἴσθησιν οὐ ποιοῦντος. Schol. αd
loc. P. 195 Bouffartigue-Patillon οἶμαι Ἡράκλειτον τοῦτο λέγειν.

‘There is an argument of Straton the physicist, proving that even sensory perception is completely
impossible without an attentive mind. It often happens that when we pass by, some letters occur
to our sight, and some speeches (logoi) to our hearing, but they escape our attention, since our
attention (nous) is directed to another object. But the next time, when we return to the same place,
we are chasing and following all this, while reading. Therefore, it is said: “The mind sees, the mind

9
hears, everything else is deaf and blind”. This means that when intelligence is not present, our eyes
and ears do not produce perception. Scholia to this passage: “I think, Heraclitus says this”.

Commentary to fr. Prob.6 (The Logos of Heraclitus, p.466)

It is unclear what the word “this” (τοῦτο) refers to in the scholia to the passage of Porphyry.
If it refers to the verse of Epicharmus “The mind sees, mind hears, everything else is deaf and
blind” (Epicharmus 23 B 12 DK), then it is of little value. However, even if we leave aside the
scholium, the argument of Straton as such contains a reminiscence of Heraclitus’ epistemological
metaphor of the “language of senses”: eyes and ears, according to Heraclitus, are “bad witnesses”,
i.e. are deceptive if those who use them have “barbarian souls”, i.e. lack understanding (are
axynetoi), like barbarians who hear, but do not understand the Greek language (fr. 2–4, 19 Leb. =
B 1, B 72-73, B89 DK). The verse of Epichrmus essentially expresses the same thought and
presents an interesting parallel to Heraclitus along with other “Heraclitizing” fragments (Epich. B
4, 17, 57 DK).
(7)

Synesius, De insomniis, 2. 40.

διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁ σοφὸς οἰκεῖος θεῷ, ὅτι πειρᾶται σύνεγγυς εἶναι τῇ γνώσει, καὶ πραγματεύεται περὶ
νόησιν, ᾗ τὸ θεῖον οὐσίωται. Αὗται μὲν ἀποδείξεις ἔστων τοῦ μαντείας ἐν τοῖς ἀρίστοις εἶναι τῶν
ἐπιτηδευομένων ἀνθρώποις. εἰ δὲ σημαίνει μὲν διὰ πάντων πάντα, ἅτε ἀδελφῶν ὄντων τῶν ἐν ἑνὶ
ζῴῳ, τῷ κόσμῳ, καὶ ἔστι ταῦτα γράμματα παντοδαπά, καθάπερ ἐν βιβλίῳ, τοῖς οὖσι, τὰ μὲν
Φοινίκια, τὰ δὲ Αἰγύπτια, καὶ ἄλλα Ἀσσύρια, ἀναγινώσκει δὲ ὁ σοφός· σοφὸς δὲ ὁ φύσει μαθών·
καὶ ἄλλος ἄλλα, καὶ ὁ μὲν μᾶλλον, ὁ δὲ ἧττον, ὥσπερ ὁ μὲν κατὰ συλλαβάς, ὁ δὲ ἀθρόαν τὴν λέξιν,
ὁ δὲ τὸν λόγον ὁμοῦ· — οὕτως ὁρῶσι σοφοὶ τὸ μέλλον ἔστι γάρ τις ὡς ἐν συγγενείᾳ τοῖς μέρεσι
καὶ διχόνοια· οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος τὸ ἁπλῶς ἕν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐκ πολλῶν ἕν. καὶ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ μέρη
μέρεσι προσήγορα καὶ μαχόμενα, καὶ τῆς στάσεως αὐτῶν εἰς τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ὁμόνοιαν
συμφωνούσης, ὥσπερ ἡ λύρα σύστημα φθόγγων ἐστὶν ἀντιφώνων τε καὶ συμφώνων· τὸ δ' ἐξ
ἀντικειμένων ἕν, ἁρμονία καὶ λύρας καὶ κόσμου.

‘For this reason, the wise is akin to the God because he seeks to be kindred to him in knowledge
and studies thinking that makes up the essence of the deity. Let this be taken as proof that the art
of divination is one of the most exalted pursuits of humanity. But if all things signify through all,
since they are united by brotherly kinship in a single living organism, the cosmos, and these signs
are like all kinds of letters written as if in a book in reality itself – some Phoenician, other Egyptian,
and other Assyrian – then it is the wise who reads them, and the wise is he who learned from

10
nature. They read in a different way, and one reads more, another less, just as one reads by
syllables, another by a whole word, and someone (grasps) the complete speech (logos) at once. In
this way the wise men foresee the future, for with all the common kinship in things there is also a
discord between the parts: the cosmos is not simply one, but one from many. And its parts are at
the same time in agreement with each other, and in a conflict, and their contention contributes to
the universal agreement (homonoia), just as a lyre is a system of sounds that are dissonant and
consonant, and it is from the opposite principles that comes the One, the harmony of the lyre
and of the cosmos’.
Commentary to fr.Prob.7 (The Logos of Heraclitus, p.466-67)
At the end of this passage from Synesius the fragment of Heraclitus about the “reverse
harmony” (palintropos harmonia) of opposites is quoted (fr. 29 Leb./B51, cf. 106 (a) Leb.) In the
preceding context we find the Heraclitean metaphor of the book of nature from Fr. 2 Leb./B 1 DK
(γράμματα παντοδαπά, καθάπερ ἐν βιβλίῳ “all kinds of letters, as in a book”), which is read by
the philosopher, and the teacher of the philosopher is nature itself (ἀναγινώσκει δὲ ὁ σοφός · σοφὸς
δὲ ὁ φύσει μαθών), cf. the Heraclitean motive of autodidact (fr. 97Leb./B15 DK with our comm.).
The distinction of “reading by syllables” (κατὰ συλλαβάς), reading of the whole word (ἀθρόαν
τὴν λέξιν) and even of complete logos at once (τὸν λόγον ὁμοῦ) reveals a profound understanding
of the meaning of the Heraclitus’ metaphor of “this logos”. The text of Synesius is especially
noteworthy in that it clearly connects the metaphor of the book of nature with the mantic (oracular)
metaphorical code, exactly as in Heraclitus’ book, i.e. interprets the logos of nature as an oracle:
σημαίνει in Synesius is a reminiscence of the Heraclitus’ fragment about the symbolic language
of Apollo, fr. 27Leb./B93 who “neither speaks out, nor conceals, but gives signs”, οὔτε λέγει, οὔτε
κρύπτει, ἀλλὰ σημαίνει.

(8–9)
The text of the Heraclitizing chapters of the Pseudo-Hippocratic treatise On Diet (De diaeta I. 3–
24) is based on the edition of Joly – Byl, with some new proposals and departures from the CMG
text, which are specified in the notes. On the value of these chapters for the reconstruction of
Heraclitus’ book and on the Heraclitean origin of the fundamental thesis “art imitates nature” see
our introduction to “The logos of Heraclitus”, especially the chapter on Heraclitus’ book.

(10)

(a) Plato, Resp. 533d

11
ἡ διαλεκτικὴ μέθοδος... τῷ ὄντι ἐν βορβόρῳ βαρβαρικῷ τινι τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ὄμμα κατορωρυγμένον
ἠρέμα ἕλκει καὶ ἀνάγει ἄνω...

‘The dialectical method ... gently draws and raises up the eye of the soul, which indeed (as they
say) is buried in a kind of barbaric filth ...’

(b) Plotin. Enn. 1.6.5

Ἔστι γὰρ δή, ὡς ὁ παλαιὸς λόγος, καὶ ἡ σωφροσύνη καὶ ἡ ἀνδρεία καὶ πᾶσα ἀρετὴ κάθαρσις καὶ
ἡ φρόνησις αὐτή. Διὸ καὶ αἱ τελεταὶ ὀρθῶς αἰνίττονται τὸν μὴ κεκαθαρμένον καὶ εἰς Ἅιδου
κείσεσθαι ἐν βορβόρῳ, ὅτι τὸ μὴ καθαρὸν βορβόρῳ διὰ κάκην φίλον· οἷα δὴ καὶ ὕες, οὐ καθαραὶ
τὸ σῶμα, χαίρουσι τῷ τοιούτῳ. Τί γὰρ ἂν καὶ εἴη σωφροσύνη ἀληθὴς ἢ τὸ μὴ προσομιλεῖν ἡδοναῖς
τοῦ σώματος κτλ.

As the ancient doctrine says, chastity, courage and all virtue consist in purification (katharsis), as
well as the moral prudence itself. Therefore, secret rites rightly hint that one who has not been
purified, will lie in the filth in Hades, since impurity, by virtue of its viciousness, is akin to filth.
Pigs provide an example of this: since they have filthy bodies, they enjoy what is similar to them.
What else might be genuine chastity if not a refusal of bodily pleasures?

(c) Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata II, 20, 118, 5

οἳ δὲ εἰς ἡδονὴν τράγων δίκην ἐκχυθέντες, οἷον ἐφυβρίζοντες τῷ σώματι, καθηδυπαθοῦσιν, οὐκ
εἰδότες ὅτι τὸ μὲν ῥακοῦται φύσει ῥευστὸν ὄν, ἡ ψυχὴ δὲ αὐτῶν ἐν βορβόρῳ κακίας
κατορώρυκται, δόγμα ἡδονῆς αὐτῆς, οὐχὶ δὲ ἀνδρὸς ἀποστολικοῦ μεταδιωκόντων.

‘And those who, like goats, are mired in pleasures, as if having abused their body, indulge in
voluptuousness, not knowing that the body is decrepit, being transient, whereas their soul is buried
in the filth of vice ...

Commentary to fr. Prob.10 (The Logos of Heraclitus, p.467-468)

Attribution. The conjecture that the metaphors of the Platonic passage (a) derive from Heraclitus,
belongs to Hermann Fraenkel (Fraenkel 1939: 311 ff.). Fraenkel believed that τῶι ὄντι ‘really’
(with the implied “as someone said”) points to a quotation and sees in the “barbaric filth”
(βόρβορος βαρβαρικός) a double reminiscence of pigs enjoying the mud (Fr.93Leb./B13, 37 DK)
and barbarian souls of fr.19Leb./B107 DK. According to Fraenkel, the words βορβόρῳ
κατορωρυγμένον 'buried in the filth' in the passage of Plato are a quotation from Heraclitus: it was
12
on the basis of this text that Hellenistic biographers of Heraclitus constructed a surrealistic episode
about his death: “buried” in mud and torn apart by the dogs who did not recognize him. The stable
Platonic metaphor of mind as “eye of the soul” (ὄμμα τῆς ψυχῆς), according to Fraenkel, also goes
back to Heraclitus, namely to Fr.19Leb./B107 DK. Hence his conclusion: “the ordinary man
cannot perceive metaphysical reality because he has buried himself in filth” (Fraenkel 1939: 312).
Accepting Fraenkel’s argument as generally convincing, we supplement it with a reference to two
additional reflexes of Heraclitus’ original in Plotinus (b) and Clement (c). Both Clement and
Plotinus understand “filth” as a metaphor for sensual pleasures and “bestial” life, while Plotinus
connects it with the mysteries, which promise to those who have not been “purified” in this life
eternal punishment in Hades: they will be lying in filth (ἐν βορβόρωι κείσονται). This
eschatological association of the filth metaphor must also go back to Heraclitus. Since Heraclitus
condemned the mysteries of his time as "unholy", it can be assumed that he proposed a paradoxical
polemical reinterpretation (peritrope) of the image of the "buried in the filth" The doctrine of the
Mysteries stated that sinners in the next world will "lie in the filth". Heraclitus with his prophetic
pathos stated that hedonistic hoi polloi already in this life are “buried in the filth” of pleasures and
bestial life, and therefore are blind. Presumably, this anti-hedonistic invective of Heraclitus was
connected with the allegorical interpretation of Hades as sublunary world (the so-called Diesseits-
Hades theory), and Hades was at the same time identified with the chthonic Dionysus in
fr.148Leb./B15 DK. The antithetical pair of Zeus and Hades conceived as bright heavenly and
dark earthly world is attested in De victu 1.5 See also commentary to fr.155Leb./B98DK, as well
as Heraclit. Probabilia fr. 12, 13 Leb.
(11)

Plato, Leges, 715e

ὁ μὲν δὴ θεός, ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ παλαιὸς λόγος,

(a) ἀρχήν τε καὶ τελευτὴν καὶ μέσα τῶν ὄντων ἁπάντων ἔχων,
(b) εὐθέα περαίνει κατὰ φύσιν περιπορευόμενος·
(c) τῷ δὲ ἀεὶ συνέπεται Δίκη τῶν ἀπολειπομένων τοῦ θείου νόμου τιμωρός,
(d) ἧς ὁ μὲν εὐδαιμονήσειν μέλλων ἐχόμενος συνέπεται ταπεινὸς καὶ κεκοσμημένος, ὁ δέ τις
ἐξαρθεὶς ὑπὸ μεγαλαυχίας, ἢ χρήμασιν ἐπαιρόμενος ἢ τιμαῖς, ἢ καὶ σώματος εὐμορφίᾳ ἅμα νεότητι
καὶ ἀνοίᾳ φλέγεται τὴν ψυχὴν μεθ' ὕβρεως, ὡς οὔτε ἄρχοντος οὔτε τινὸς ἡγεμόνος δεόμενος, ἀλλὰ
καὶ ἄλλοις ἱκανὸς ὢν ἡγεῖσθαι, καταλείπεται ἔρημος θεοῦ, καταλειφθεὶς δὲ καὶ ἔτι ἄλλους
τοιούτους προσλαβὼν σκιρτᾷ ταράττων πάντα ἅμα, καὶ πολλοῖς τισιν ἔδοξεν εἶναί τις, μετὰ δὲ
χρόνον οὐ πολὺν ὑποσχὼν τιμωρίαν οὐ μεμπτὴν τῇ δίκῃ ἑαυτόν τε καὶ οἶκον καὶ πόλιν ἄρδην
ἀνάστατον ἐποίησεν.

13
---------------------------
εὐθέα περαίνει Suda : εὐθείᾳ περαίνει codd.

Plato, Laws 715e. “God, according to the ancient doctrine, combining the beginning, the
middle and end of all things, accomplishes right deeds according to nature revolving in a circle,
forever and ever followed by Justice (Dike), who punishes the apostates from the divine law. A
man who intends to be happy, follows her humbly and decently, but there is another one, swollen
from boasting, elated by wealth or honors, or by beauty of his body, inflamed in his soul by
youthful recklessness combined with insolent arrogance (hybris). [He behaves] as if he did not
need any ruler or leader above him, as if he himself were the leader for everyone. This man is left
alone abandoned by god. Abandoned by god he accepts in his company others like him, and then
he riots crushing everything around. For a while many think he is something, but after a short time
he bears a fair punishment and destroys both himself and his family, and his hometown”.

Commentary to fr. Prob.11 (The Logos of Heraclitus, p.468-470)

Attribution. Text. The words ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ παλαιὸς λόγος apparently indicate that what
follows is a quotation. Orphic theogony has been commonly identified as a source on the ground
of the supposed verbal affinity of the words ἀρχήν τε καὶ τελευτὴν καὶ μέσα with the hymn to Zeus
in Orphic theogony (fr. 243 F Bernabé = Orpheus 1 B 6 DK Ζεὺς κεφαλή, Ζεὺς μέσσα, Διὸς δ ̓ἐκ
πάντα τέτυκται). But the formula “beginning, middle and end” is widespread and very common,
whereas the Orphic verse does not even contain the words ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος. In our estimate the
complex of texts (a)+(b)+(c) represents a quotation from Heraclitus. The central part, the words ὁ
... θεός ... εὐθέα περαίνει κατὰ φύσιν περιπορευόμενος (text b) looks like a verbatim quotation
because of the typical Heraclitean syntactical ambiguity or hyperbaton produced by the position
of κατὰ φύσιν. The texts (a) and (c) may be partly paraphrases. ὄντων ἁπάντων in (a) is Platonic,
Heraclitus would have written just ἁπάντων without ὄντων. The words τῷ δὲ ἀεὶ συνέπεται Δίκη
τῶν ἀπολειπομένων τοῦ θείου νόμου τιμωρός (text c) represent a Platonic paraphrase close to the
original text with authentic Heraclitean phrase θεῖος νόμος attested in fr. 131Leb./B114 DK. All
the rest ἧς ὁ μὲν… ἐποίησεν (text d) are formally free Platonic variations on the Heraclitean theme
with some reminiscences of the original, but still densely packed with genuine ethical and political
ideas of Heraclitus.

The words εὐθέα περαίνει κατὰ φύσιν περιπορευόμενος cannot derive from an epic source. The
word περιπορευόμενος is almost certainly a verbatim quote from the “ancient logos”, since it is
not found elsewhere in Plato. At the same time, for metric reasons, it could not stand in a

14
hexameter. Therefore, this is a quote from a prosaic writer, and this writer was most probably
Heraclitus.

Text (a) Cf. Heraclitus fr. 65Leb./B103 ξυνὸν γὰρ ἀρχὴ καὶ πέρας ἐπὶ κύκλου. The formula
“beginning and end” also appears in the imitation of Scythinus (Probabilia fr.13 below) and in a
possible reminiscence from Heraclitus in comic poet Hermippus fr. 73 K.-A. ὀνομάζεται δ'
ἐνιαυτός, ὢν δὲ περιφερὴς τελευτὴν / οὐδεμίαν οὐδ' ἀρχὴν ἔχει, κυκλῶν δ' ἀεὶ τὸ σῶμα / οὐ
παύσεται δι' ἡμέρας ὁσημέραι τροχάζων. With ὁ θεός compare ὁ θεὸς ἡμέρη εὐφρόνη χειμὼν
θέρος Heraclit. fr. 75Leb./B67 DK.

Text (b) reveals a resemblance to a quote from Heraclitus in the papyrus from Derveni (col.IV),
in which the expression κατὰ φύσιν describes the regularity of cosmic cycles and solstices. Note
that the position of the phrase κατὰ φύσιν is syntactically ambiguous: it can be construed both with
the preceding περαίνει and with the following περιπορευόμενος. This is a peculiar feature of
Heraclitus’ style noticed already by Aristotle and the Derveni author (hyperbaton), it imitates the
ambiguity of Apollo’s oracular responses. Περιπορευόμενος is a very rare verb in classical authors,
it can be compared with ἐπιπορευόμενος in Heraclitus fr.66 Leb./B 45 DK. The path of the cosmic
god in Plato's quote is simultaneously straight and circular, cf. the identity of the straight and the
curve in Heraclitus fr.113 Leb./B 59 DK. Περιπορευόμενος can mean both ‘revolve’ and ‘go
round’, that is, it is semantically close to the "road up and down" (ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω), a standard
formula for cyclic change and regularity in Heraclitus.
Text (c) in combination with (d) reveals a striking parallel to Heraclitus. In Heraclitus, the cosmic
Justice (Dike) controls the movement of the Sun (Fr. 56Leb. which incorporates both the Derveni
quotation and B94DK) and punishes those who violate the divine law. We also note the literal
coincidence with θεῖος νόμος in Heraclitus, fr. 131Leb./B114 DK.
Text (d) contains several reminiscences of the Heraclitean ethics of self-restraint, σωφρονεῖν
(Fr.100Leb./B112DK), the condemnation of wealth, luxury and hedonism (Fr.102Leb./B29 DK),
honors that enslave gods and men (Fr.133A Leb./B132 DK), condemnation of insolence (ὕβριν fr.
135 Leb./B43 DK) and the observance of the law as a vital principle for the survival of the polis
(fr.134Leb./B44 DK). Cicero’s friend Diodotus provides an invaluable evidence that the book of
Heraclitus was not so much about nature, as about the form of government (περὶ πολιτείας D.L.
9.15).
Both the macro-context and the quotation from the "ancient doctrine" in the Platonic passage
under discussion have a pronounced ethical-political-theological, and not cosmogonic character,
therefore Heraclitus seems to be a much more likely source than the Orphic Theogony. The special
value of the Plato’s passage is that it is more than just a quote, it contains a concise exposition of

15
the main ethical and political doctrines of Heraclitus: the paradigm of the ideal polis is the polis
of Zeus, that is, the cosmos, and the model and norm for human justice and the righteous behavior
of people is the divine law of the universe (θεῖος νόμος, fr. 131Leb.). Those who depart from this
law will destroy themselves and their hometown.
It remains to some extent uncertain whether Heraclitus spoke in the original about the cosmic god,
understood as the whole cosmos, or about the sun. The language of the fragment, especially the
word περιπορευόμενος, “revolving”, “going around”, rather speak in favor of the second
possibility. Incidentally, this is a catch-word of the palaios logos exposed by Plato, and it is linked
with the idea of regularity of cosmic cycles, with what Heraclitus dabbed “the road up and down”
(ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω), prefixed τροπαί, τέρματα, οὖροι (= ὅροι) and ἀμοιβαὶ ἀναγκαῖαι, inevitable
“reversals” of contending opposite powers, that preserve the cosmic justice and prevent any kind
of pleonexia in the politeia of Zeus. This idea is fundamental to Heraclitus’ philosophy of nature
and it serves as a theoretical foundation of his theory of natural law on which his political
philosophy is based. There is no trace of this theory in the mythopoetic and ritualistic Orphic
theogony. Both Plato and Heraclitus could speak about the sun as ὁ θεός, especially if they had in
mind the identity of the Sun with Apollo. The ruling cosmic god and the Sun in Heraclitus are
inextricably linked: both in fr. 57Leb./cf.B 100 DK (as quoted by Plutarch and as reconstructed in
our edition, not in the mutilated form, as in Diels-Kranz, Marcovich and other editions!) and in
Heraclitus quotation in Derveni papyrus col.IV, it is the personified Sun-god who acts as a cosmic
Mind and Moderator (Skopos, Brabeus, Epistates) of the opposite cosmic forces, and controls the
cosmos. In the versified exposition of Heraclitus’ book by the poet Scythinus (Probabilia fr. 13
below), Zeus and Apollo are allegorically identified with the cosmos and the sun respectively,
while the cosmos is understood as the “lyre of Zeus” which Apollo “tunes up, connecting the
beginning with the end and having as a shining plectrum the light of the sun”, ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος /
συλλαβὼν, ἔχει δὲ λαμπρὸν πλῆκτρον ἡλίου φάος. Note that συλλαβών is a reminiscence of the
term συλλάψιες in Heraclitus fr.106 Leb./B10 DK where it is also applied to the conjunction of
opposites: of vowels and consonants in the grammatike techne, and of high and low notes in
mousike techne.

(12)

Plutarchus, De E apud Delphos, 388e.

[NB context: right after the quotation of Heraclitus fr. 42Leb./B 90 DK on the eternal cyclical
alternation of cosmos and fire, gold and property]

16
ἀκούομεν οὖν τῶν θεολόγων τὰ μὲν ἐν ποιήμασι τὰ δ' ἄνευ μέτρου λεγόντων καὶ ὑμνούντων, ὡς
ἄφθαρτος ὁ θεὸς καὶ ἀίδιος πεφυκώς, ὑπὸ δή τινος εἱμαρμένης γνώμης καὶ λόγου μεταβολαῖς
ἑαυτοῦ χρώμενος ἄλλοτε μὲν εἰς πῦρ ἀνῆψε τὴν φύσιν πάντα ὁμοιώσας πᾶσιν, ἄλλοτε δὲ
παντοδαπὸς ἔν τε μορφαῖς καὶ ἐν πάθεσι καὶ δυνάμεσι διαφόροις γιγνόμενος, ὡς γίγνεται νῦν,
κόσμος ὀνομάζεται [δὲ] τῷ γνωριμωτάτῳ τῶν ὀνομάτων. κρυπτόμενοι δὲ τοὺς πολλοὺς οἱ
σοφώτεροι τὴν μὲν εἰς πῦρ μεταβολὴν Ἀπόλλωνά τε τῇ μονώσει Φοῖβόν τε τῷ καθαρῷ καὶ
ἀμιάντῳ καλοῦσι, | τῆς δ' εἰς πνεύματα καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ γῆν καὶ ἄστρα καὶ φυτῶν ζῴων τε γενέσεις
τροπῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ διακοσμήσεως τὸ μὲν πάθημα καὶ τὴν μεταβολὴν διασπασμόν τινα καὶ
διαμελισμὸν αἰνίττονται, Διόνυσον δὲ καὶ Ζαγρέα καὶ Νυκτέλιον καὶ Ἰσοδαίτην αὐτὸν ὀνομάζουσι
καὶ φθοράς τινας καὶ ἀφανισμοὺς εἶτα δ' ἀναβιώσεις καὶ παλιγγενεσίας οἰκεῖα ταῖς εἰρημέναις
μεταβολαῖς αἰνίγματα καὶ μυθεύματα περαίνουσι· καὶ ᾄδουσι τῷ μὲν διθυραμβικὰ μέλη παθῶν
μεστὰ καὶ μεταβολῆς πλάνην τινὰ καὶ διαφόρησιν ἐχούσης· ‘μιξοβόαν’ γὰρ Αἰσχύλος φησί
‘πρέπει διθύραμβον ὁμαρτεῖν σύγκωμον Διονύσῳ’, τῷ δὲ παιᾶνα, τεταγμένην καὶ σώφρονα
μοῦσαν, ἀγήρων τε τοῦτον ἀεὶ καὶ νέον ἐκεῖνον δὲ πολυειδῆ καὶ πολύμορφον ἐν γραφαῖς καὶ
πλάσμασι δημιουργοῦσι· καὶ ὅλως τῷ μὲν ὁμοιότητα καὶ τάξιν καὶ σπουδὴν ἄκρατον, τῷ δὲ
μεμιγμένην τινὰ παιδιᾷ καὶ ὕβρει [καὶ σπουδῇ] καὶ μανίᾳ προσφέροντες ἀνωμαλίαν ‘εὔιον
ὀρσιγύναικα μαινομέναις Διόνυσον ἀνθέοντα τιμαῖς’ (Lyr. adesp. 131) ἀνακαλοῦσιν, οὐ φαύλως
ἑκατέρας μεταβολῆς τὸ οἰκεῖον λαμβάνοντες. ἐπεὶ δ' οὐκ ἴσος ὁ τῶν περιόδων ἐν ταῖς μεταβολαῖς
χρόνος, ἀλλὰ μείζων ὁ τῆς ἑτέρας ἣν ‘κόρον’ καλοῦσιν, ὁ δὲ τῆς ‘χρησμοσύνης’ ἐλάττων, τὸ κατὰ
λόγον τηροῦντες ἐνταῦθα τὸν μὲν ἄλλον ἐνιαυτὸν παιᾶνι χρῶνται περὶ τὰς θυσίας, ἀρχομένου δὲ
χειμῶνος ἐπεγείραντες τὸν διθύραμβον τὸν δὲ παιᾶνα καταπαύσαντες τρεῖς μῆνας ἀντ' ἐκείνου
τοῦτον κατακαλοῦνται τὸν θεόν·ὅπερ τρία πρὸς ἐννέα, τοῦτο τὴν διακόσμησιν οἰόμενοι χρόνῳ
πρὸς τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν εἶναι.’

'We hear from theologians, some of whom praise God in verses, while others say in prose that God
is an imperishable and eternal being, but obeying some fateful decree and reason, undergoes
transformations of his being: now he incinerates all nature in fire, erasing all the differences
between things, now he is born in a variety of guises, passions and powers, as it happens now, and
is called by the most famous name, kosmos. The wise, trying to conceal this from the crowd, call
the transformation of God into fire Apollo, and - pointing to his solitude and immaculate purity –
Phoebus. As for his transformation into winds, water, earth, stars and the birth of plants and
animals, they enigmatically call these passions and transfiguration “tearing apart” and
“dismemberment”, and [at this stage] they call him Dionysus, Zagreus, Nocturnal and Equal-
sharing, and speak about his disappearances, revivals and new births, covering these
transformations by riddles and myths. And to one of them they sing dithyrambic songs full of

17
passions and transfiguration, accompanied by wandering and devastation - according to
Aeschylus, “in the festive procession one should accompany Dionysus with dithyramb...” And
they sing paean to another, the pure and strict music. And Apollo is always depicted in the
paintings and statues as ageless and young, whereas Dionysus as assuming many shapes and
various forms. And in general, one is credited with uniformity, orderliness and impeccable
seriousness, and another is disordered, mixed with jokes and impudence, they invoke him like this:
"Evios, exciting women, blooming with crazy honors Dionysus!" And since the periods of
transformations are unequal, but the one that they call “abundance” is greater, and the one that
“poverty” is less, they, observing the proportion here / in Delphi / use paeans for most of the year
in worship, and with the beginning winter stop the paean and awaken the dithyramb, and for three
months they pray to this god. So, three to nine - that is, in their opinion, the ratio of the duration
of the period of ordered world-formation (diakosmesis) to the period of conflagration (ekpyrosis)”.
Commentary to fr. Prob.12 (The Logos of Heraclitus, p.470)
This inspirational and stylistically brilliant passage of Plutarch about the conceptual antithesis of
Apollo and Dionysus in the Delphic theology of his time follows immediately after quoting the
cosmogonic fragment of Heraclitus 42 Leb./B90 DK. Plutarch claims that he is reproducing the
doctrine of ancient theologians who wrote in verse and in prose. By theological poets, he could
mean Orpheus (allegorically interpreted) and, maybe Empedocles, and by “those who speak
without meter” (ἄνευ μέτρου λεγόντων) Heraclitus is undoubtedly and primarily meant. According
to context, Plutarch explicates here the contents of Heraclitus’ fragment 42Leb./B90 DK. This
unique evidence on the cosmogonic cycle and theology of Heraclitus has been mostly ignored for
an obvious reason: for those who follow the positivist interpretation of Heraclitus as “physicist”
in the tradition of Burnet-Kirk-Marcovich, the mere presence of the words “diakosmesis and
ekpyrosis” is enough to discard the whole text as a “Stoic” aberration. But this is a mistaken and
hypercritical approach. Plutarch’s dependence on Stoic sources in his interpretation of Heraclitus
should be ruled out for various reasons. Firstly, Plutarch was an admirer of Heraclitus, he
undoubtedly had in his library Heraclitus’ book, he is one of the three best sources of authentic
fragments of Heraclitus together with Hippolytus and Clement of Alexandria. Secondly, as a
Platonist (he did not know that he was a “middle Platonist”) he was a theoretical opponent of the
Stoics, especially in philosophical theology: for a Platonist the very thought of the identity of god
and matter in Stoic pantheism is revolting. The terms ekpyrosis and diakosmesis by the time of
Plutarch had already become the common property of the philosophical lexicon. Otherwise, in the
Plutarch’s exposition of Heraclitus’ cyclic cosmogony there is no trace of Stoic terminology. It is
indicative that instead of the Stoic term for divine providence πρόνοια, Plutarch uses the authentic
Heraclitus’s term γνώμη from fr. 140Leb./B41 DK. The most valuable information that can be

18
extracted from Plutarch’s testimony is the correlation of the unified “fiery” stage (Abundance)
with Apollo and of the stage of plurality (Poverty) with Dionysus. It agrees with the Heraclitizing
etymology of the name Pan in Plato’s Cratylus 408c (see above fragmenta Probabilia, 3) in which
the sublunar world of plurality is also correlated with Dionysus and poetic lies, although Plutarch’s
detailed exposition cannot be based on a brief remark in Plato. Other unique information contained
in the text of Plutarch relates to the duration of the ekpyrosis and diakosmesis, that is, the structure
of the Great Year (Megas Eniautos). According to Plutarch, diakosmesis corresponds to three
winter months, that is, the ratio of the duration of diakosmesis to ekpyrosis is 1: 3. However, this
proportion is based on the ritual calendar in Delphi of Plutarch’s time, so to attribute it to Heraclitus
without independent additional evidence would be risky.

(13)

(a) Plut. De Pythiae oraculis 17. 402A = 22 С 3 DK... περὶ τῆς λύρας,

ἣν ἁρμόζεται Ζηνὸς εὐειδὴς Ἀπόλλων πᾶσαν, ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος

συλλαβών, ἔχει δὲ λαμπρὸν πλῆκτρον ἡλίου φάος.

…about the lyre, ‘which harmoniously tunes up / The beautiful-faced son of Zeus Apollo, /
Connecting the beginning and the end, and the light of the sun he uses a shining plectrum’.

(b) Cleanth. ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. V, 8, 47 (II,358,12 St.).

καὶ <πλῆκτρον> οἳ μὲν τὸν πόλον, οἳ δὲ τὸν ἀέρα τὸν πάντα πλήσσοντα καὶ κινοῦντα εἰς φύσιν τε
καὶ αὔξησιν ἢ τὸν πάντων πληρωτικόν. οὐκ ἀνέγνωσαν δ' οὗτοι Κλεάνθην τὸν φιλόσοφον, ὃς
ἄντικρυς πλῆκτρον τὸν ἥλιον καλεῖ· ἐν γὰρ ταῖς ἀνατολαῖς ἐρείδων τὰς αὐγάς, οἷον πλήσσων τὸν
κόσμον, εἰς τὴν ἐναρμόνιον πορείαν τὸ φῶς ἄγει· ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου σημαίνει καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἄστρα.

‘And by “plectrum” some understand the vault of heaven, others air, which “strikes” and sets
everything in motion, prompting to birth and growth, or “fills everything ”. But they have not read
the philosopher Cleanthus, who directly calls the sun “a plectrum”: emitting rays from the east, it
strikes the cosmos and leads the light to a harmonious course, and through the sun it also shows
other luminaries’.
Commentary to fr. Prob.13 (The Logos of Heraclitus, p.471)
In the imitation of Scythinus, Zeus is allegorically understood as cosmos, and Apollo as the sun.
The text is a rather elegant combination of reminiscences of several fragments of Heraclitus: first
of all, the fragment about the harmony of cosmos and lyre (Fr. 29 Leb./B51), then Fr.

19
109Leb./B110 συλλάψιες, cf. συλλαβών, fr. 65Leb./B103 ἀρχὴ καὶ πέρας, also the ideas of the
“God's scourge” and “strike” governing the world (Fr. 62Leb./B11 πληγῆι, Fr. 40Leb./B64
κεραυνός). It should be borne in mind that for Heraclitus the fire of the sun is “Keraunian”. But
Scythinus’s text also contains additional information, which can be traced back to the Heraclitus’
original and, therefore, should be considered as a possible independent fragment. Firstly, this is a
metaphor of the “plectrum” - a metaphorical synonym for the “scourge” of the shepherd in Fr.
62Leb./B11, the word is derived from the same verb πλήσσω. This rare metaphor is also attested
to by another attentive reader of Heraclitus, Cleanthes. It is unlikely that the metaphor of the solar
plectrum was invented by Scythinus and borrowed from him by Cleanthes. Cleanthes and
Scythinus agree only in that they connect the metaphor of the “plectrum” with the sun and the
harmony of the cosmos, but there is a difference in the details. Therefore, they independently
interpret common Heraclitean original. In this case, the word πλῆκτρον should be recognized as a
verbatim quotation from Heraclitus, that is, as an independent fragment. The allegorical
interpretation of the names of Zeus and Apollo as cosmos (Keraunian fire) and the sun,
respectively, most likely also goes back to the third chapter of Heraclitus’ book.

(14)
Plotin. Enneades 2. 9. 9.

Πῶς οὖν ὀρθῶς ἔχει μέμφεσθαι πόλει διδούσῃ ἑκάστῳ τὴν ἀξίαν; Οὗ καὶ ἀρετὴ τετίμηται, καὶ
κακία τὴν προσήκουσαν ἀτιμίαν ἔχει, καὶ θεῶν οὐ μόνον ἀγάλματα, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοὶ ἄνωθεν
ἐφορῶντες, οἳ «ῥηιδίως αἰτίας, φησίν, ἀποφεύξονται πρὸς ἀνθρώπων, πάντα ἄγοντες τάξει ἐξ
ἀρχῆς εἰς τέλος μοῖραν ἑκάστῳ τὴν προσήκουσαν διδόντες κατὰ ἀμοιβὰς βίων τοῖς
προϋπηργμένοις ἀκόλουθον· ἣν ὁ ἀγνοῶν προπετέστερος ἀνθρώπων περὶ πραγμάτων θείων
ἀγροικιζόμενος».

Is it right to be angry with the state for giving to everyone what he deserves? Both virtue of
everyone is awarded, and vice is punished by appropriate dishonor, and the gods - not only their
statues, but they themselves, looking from heaven above - as he says, "will easily avoid
accusations from humans: they perform everything in the right order from the beginning to the
end, giving to everyone the appropriate share (moira) as retribution for their lives according to
previously committed deeds; one who ignores this, is most reckless of all men, an illiterate person
in things divine. ''

Commentry to fr. Prob.14 (The Logos of Heraclitus, p.472)

20
Text. Φησί “he says" indicates a verbatim quotation. In the quotation introduced by this word, there
are 4 words that are never used by Plotinus elsewhere: ῥηιδίως (poetic and Ionian!),
προϋπηργμένα, προπετέστερος, ἀγροικίζομαι, as well as two phrases alien to his language: πρὸς
ἀνθρώπων in the sense of ὑπ᾽ἀνθρώπων, and ἀμοιβαὶ βίων. Meanwhile, this use of the preposition
πρός in the sense of ὑπό is attested in Heraclitus fr. 20 Leb./B56DK (accepting our reading
ἐξηπάτηνται πρὸς τῶν φανερῶν “have been deceived by the appearances”), and the second
expression is close to ἀμοιβὰς ἀναγκαίας in the Plotinus quote from Heraclitus, fr. 52 Leb. (not in
DK or Marcovich). There is no doubt that Plotinus quotes verbatim an Ionian prose writer, a moral
philosopher. Ionian dialect, prophetic style and ethical content with a high degree of probability
point to Heraclitus as the most plausible source. In the text of Plotinus’passage we print in bold
what seems to be certainly a verbatim quotation, and underline what maybe a paraphrase close to
the original text.

Interpretation. As a parallel from Antiphon’s court speech shows (De choreuta, 36 ῥαιδίως
ἔμελλον ἀποφεύξεσθαι καὶ δίκην οὐ δώσειν), the expression ῥηιδίως ἀποφεύξασθαι was an idiom
in legal language for being acquitted. The Ionian moral philosopher quoted by Plotinus alludes to
the well-known moral and theological dilemma known from the time of Homer: who is to blame,
the gods (destiny), or the person himself? He wants to say that if sinners try to shift their own
blame on the gods, the gods will easily reject these accusations, since they accurately determine
the responsibility of everyone. In other words, the triumph of the divine justice and divine
retribution are unavoidable.
The fragment can be conveniently localized in the final eschatological section of the third
chapter (Λόγος θεολογικός) of Heraclitus’ book (fr.150-160 Leb., cf. also fragments on heroic
death in battle, fr.102-105Leb.). In this section Heraclitus promised “greater shares” (μείζονας
μοῖρας) in after-life to those “slain by Ares” in the fight for freedom during or after the Ionian
revolt, as well as sojourn in the region of Apollo the Sun to the purified souls of the wise (the
ethical topos “commensals of the gods”, fr.159-160Leb.). To the “inventors and witnesses of lies”
(ψευδῶν τέκτονας καὶ μάρτυρας, probably Pythagoras & Co), to Bacchic initiates “wandering at
night”, as well as to Persian magi he promised punishment by “keraunian fire”, presumably at the
time of “Abundance” of Fire (Koros, ekpyrosis in later terms) conceived as a Last Judgment and
cosmic Katharsis.

(15)

Porphyrius, Ad Marcellam, 19: θυηπολίαι δὲ ἀφρόνων πυρὸς τροφὴ καὶ τὰ παρὰ τούτων
ἀναθήματα ἱεροσύλοις χορηγία τῶν ἀκολασιῶν.

21
“The sacrifices of the fools are food for fire, and their offerings to the gods are sponsorship for the
licentiousness of the temple thieves.”

Commentary to fr.Prob.15 [The Logos of Heraclitus, p.473]

We know from the Neoplatonic paraphrase of Jamblichus that Heraclitus contrasted the sacrifices
of "completely purified" (performed “by one or by few only”) with sacrifices of the crowd:
Jamblichus, De mysteriis, V, 15 (219, 12-18 Parthey), p. 170 De Place; Heraclit. Fr. 1542Leb. =
B 69DK. The anonymous quotation in Porphyry may well be the original text (or part of the
context) of Heraclitus paraphrased by Jamblichus in Heraclit. fr. 142Leb./B69 DK. Note the
asyndeton typical for the style of Heraclitus. Ἄφρονες is synonymous with ἀξύνετοι. Θυηπολία is
a rare poetic and Ionian word, in fr.43Leb./B67 DK Heraclitus speaks about θυώματα “incenses”
thrown into altar fire. As a priest (basileus) he may have performed this ritual himself. There is no
doubt that Heraclitus rejected the sacrifices of the crowd with the same indignation as he did the
kathartic rituals in Fr. 144Leb./B5 DK. Like Pythagoras, Heraclitus probably condemned animal
sacrifices and recommended a vegetarian philosophical diet. This can be deduced from
fr.143Leb./B96 νέκυες κοπρίων ἐκβλητότεροι “corpses should bet thrown out more promptly than
dung” where “corpses” refers to meat and animal food teste Plutarch, who was a subtle interpreter
of Heraclitus. The biographical tradition on Heraclitus’ vegetarianism (D.L. 9.3 πόας σιτούμενος
καὶ βοτάνας) may be partly based on the relevant passages in Heraclitus’ book.
‘

22