The Cosmos as a Stadium: Agonistic Metaphors in Heraclitus' CosmologyAuthor(s): Andrei LebedevSource: Phronesis, Vol. 30, No. 2 (1985), pp. 131-150Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4182224Accessed: 23/12/2008 13:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phronesis.

http://www.jstor.org

The Cosmos as a Stadium: Agonistic Metaphors in Heraclitus' Cosmology

ANDREI LEBEDEV

Manibus magistri carissimi Aristid Ivanovich Dovatour XaxlpE ', 'ApLoaeior, ?roT'L Ep[co 8potv fLOLTOLO

'EXX,djvwv oo(pi9s X oMr(6'& T' E VrrTP(XpOUVS &S -yp VLXGOotS 7OX'XXtVTOV XaG"' 'Axoto VVXT' O"XOqV 'E8XtO,-3 as JO T'6+ Cfp 9O'tS.

Fragment 62 Marcovich (B 120 DK) = Strabo I, 1, 6 reads: q'ovis xOi EGITEpOXS T1t?pLXTXY j OpXTOS XMi XVTLOV TrS (pXTOV OVpOS OuapLOV AIOs.

There is much disagreement among scholars as to the meaning of oipos o.A. but most interpretations agree in taking 'ois xoa ?arrp(Xs as cardinal points thus making the fragment cosmographic. However, a statement like "The limits of East and West are North and South (?)" smacks of scientific positivism (i.e. pure iorTopi), lacks philosophical sense and has nothing to do with Heraclitus's style of thought. To get such a poor sense one must do great violence to the natural meaning of T'paTot and oipos odi. A. I am at a loss to understand why Heraclitus (if he was thinking of cardinal points) did not use the common Greek word for "South" - [tEani4pLa - which was also current in Ionian prose (e.g. Hecat. fr. 108 Jac.; Herod. I, 6, 1). It has been overlooked that the archaic phrase &1OpLOs ZEVs (dL?aplOs = v?W?pros, ZE?Vs = sky) has a temporal rather than a spatial meaning and denotes "fair weather" (syn. oi0pq, EVi&n, Opp. VTILOS ZEVs: De mundo 401 a 17); cf. the proverbial line in Theocr. IV, 43: XX' ZE?s a'XXoxx pt?v 'TTXXL a'1apLos &XXoxox 5' V?1. In this case oivpos should denote the terminal point in a stretch of time; this usage is well illustrated in Herodotus I, 32, 2 ?s E438oRXOVTot rrTEt

OVpOV TrS CONqS &V'aqvpcW"WpOTL,[itLL (cf. I, 216, 2 oipos qIXLxLiNs), and also in an astronomical context (Thales's prediction of the eclipse) I, 74, 2: oivpov

* Thanks are due to Dr. Emily Grace who has been kind enough to read the paper and to improve my English.

Phronesis 1985. Vol. XXX/2 (Accepted February 1985) 131

?TpohLIEvos eVLCWVTOV TrOUTOV. So oVpoS ai. A. may be understood as "the end of fair weather". Within the year-cycle the period of ati,pLos Ztvs is roughly that et npos ?s 'Apxroipov (Soph. OT 1137), i.e. from vernal to autumnal equinox. Thus "Apxros and oi,pos al0p.AL6Os should refer to the vernal and autumnal equinoxes respectively. That is what we might expect, since the culmination of the Great Bear ("Apxros pwaovpavei) falls on the vernal equinox (LSJ gives no parallels for "ApxToS, but cf. the similar temporal usage of 'ApxToi3poS, Kvwv etc.).

It turns out that nxs and E'awipx are not cardinal points either, but Morning and Evening which are equal at the equinoxes but constantly increase and decrease &vT%LoLlj ("by loan") of one another in between. The author of De victu seems to have had in mind this passage of Hera- clitus's book in I, 5: XWPi 8& ITavTO xai #?ia xvi &v0pU'MLVX &vW xvL xa&T

04E3pto'vcK. '

iUpii xiL rV'qp6Fvi 'eIL TO 1AqXILCTOV XtML EXaXLUTOV V 'S Xat '

rEX'iv1 TO >XL'p.TOV X(XL E?X(XLUTOV, 0VrvpO6s Epo8os Xal ViaToS, 1Xws isi Tr

,axp6TaTov xi P TxvTarov, 0trvta ravTr& xvi ov ravxrra. As interpreted above the fragment turns out to be a symbolon to fr. 52 Mch (B 94 DK): "'HXLOS ovX vlYTEprjGETaL I.&rpa (cf. 6povs i.e. oDipovs test. a2) El 8? Jil 'EpLvwEs

IUv Ai'Xs 1TSLXOVpOL i?Vp,YOVuGL- iois xai t rT&pxs T'rptu'ra xTX. That is why Heraclitus says iois xai 'Eurrepas, not qWpqs xaL e6po6vs, the reference being to the advancing and retreating starting points and OVpOL of day and night determined by the Sun's risings and settings. At the same time iqWs xai Ea'rrlpa (as pars pro toto) represent the "light-time" and "darkness-time" of vvX,fhwpov and as such are equivalent to "day and night".

The referential meaning of the fragment is clear, but there is also a metaphorical sense, 'rpuotrat being a transparent metaphor of an agonistic code. We must take the word in its most concrete, visual and archaic meaning of "goal" or "turning post" in racing (1 309; LSJ 1, 1). The term TpO1TaL was applied not only to solstices, but also to equinoxes (LSJ, I): that is why the vernal and autumnal equinoxes are metaphorically conceived as "turning posts". It would be hazardous, however, to connect them with the chariot of the Sun (I do not speak at present about fr. 52): we are explicitly told in fr. 62 that the runners (or racers) who have to turn the termata are Morning and Evening, not the Sun; and the termata-tropai of the Sun would be rather summer and winter solstices, not the equinoxes. It is only natural that Heracitus makes the rival cosmic forces compete in an agon: the leitmotif of his philosophical Musa - the palintropos harmonia, the eternal pendulum of gain and loss - has already been "played" in different metaphorical keys (military, dicastic, lend/borrow,pesseia) and modulates now into the agonistic key. One terma would suffice for a stadium-race, but

132

Day and Night 8oXLtxrvovGL, and b6`Lxos requires two termata at opposite ends of the stadium (as, e.g., in Olympia): that is why the autumnal terma is said to be &vriov, i.e. opposite to the vernal one. As F. A. Wright in Oxf. Class. Dict.2, s.v. "Stadium" puts it: "In the sprint race. . . the competitors ran the length of the track; in the longer events they went up and down the straight, turning sharply round pillars at the end". It seems that "Sup and down" is Dr. Wright's own expression which he has found natural to describe what happens in the stadium. And so did the Greeks: cf., e.g., Plato, Rep. 613 b 10: ovx Ot JIEV &ELVOL TE XviL &BlOL &pClV OITP OiL 8pFLEs

o0o0 av NwAmv E' &sro TCov Xat, T r &?Io v v ; TWV X&M ; TO LEyV ITp(TOV &'0rm-

&xJtv xTX. The course &vx ('rrv ( r' v (TX&TU 'rpbs T'r &vw) and the course xmTW

(a'rro TCrv &v' rp 'rpOS T'a X&TW) were technical racing-terms denoting two parallel stadium-lengths of a single track: from the starting post (&qPELs) to the turning post, and from the terma to the finish (in the diaulos which is what Plato had in mind) or the next turn (in the dolichos). Take two runners, set them back-to-back in the middle of the track and make them run with equal speed in opposite directions, one avw and another xa&,, and they will meet face-to-face in the middle of the stadium thus proving that 6o&s avQ xamT pin, xvi (A)VT1 (fr. 33 Mch.). Apart from this mental experi- ment there was the familiar fact that in the diaulos or any kind of dolichos with an even number of stadia start and finish coincide (cf. fr. 34 Mch. Uv6ov apx'q xvxi EpPas es; xvxXov. I do not pretend that fr. 34 is specifically

agonistic; it states a general truth which may have been exemplified by Bpop?is as it is exemplified by -aXomis in De victu I, 19. Soph. El. 686 8po6iv yap Giox0s T&qeGEL Ta TEparxa "having made the winning-post one with the starting-post, i.e. having completed the &LaAXos and come back to the starting-post" (LSJ, s.v. PWaLS I, 5). Philo, De opif mundi, 13, 44 OoAXV yap 0 &O'S SOXLXEVEPLPV TV qVGLV . . . OV XpLV xvi aPX'V lpOS TEXOS 'yE XviL

E?E0'rEV8E XaiX TE'XOS E-S &px,V I Vax a,L7T1TELP E?ToLEL XTX. (&vaXt&fTELV

alludes to xaxhrrnp "turning-post"; cf. also &Vaxcx}'rrTW "to walk up and down"); Nemes., Nat. hom. 5 = test. 33 d6 Mch bnExa[t4Pc; Seneca, NQ III, 10, 3 omnium elementorum alterni recursus sunt. On the palindromia of the Morning and Evening cf. Anth. Pal. V, 171 "OpOpe . . . E frr&a'X,v

aTpEcs TavXLv`v p6hov "EU?epos ; . . . ovx &&ais EUGL 'aLv&polis.)

Since Hippolytus quotes fr. 33 immediately after fr. 32, which contains game-metaphors from pesseia, it seems almost certain that both fragments stood in a series of metaphorical variations of one and the same leitmotif, b8OS &vV XXTw being an agonistic metaphor from racing. So XwPEi be rrT&VTaL

&vw xaL xairw xa'ELo0'pxva (e.g. 'fjpkpi xvL ?VqpO6v) is an excellent commen- tary on oijs xai ion'pas TepFmra. The agonistic imagery and the

133

metaphorical meaning of 686s avw x&aw have been perfectly understood by Philo's source: De aetern. mundi 109 (= test. 66 /b/ Mch.), xaO&amep yap aL ETI1LOL Wa)OLXL xvxXov JitoEL'OVLV &XX'XOS aVTLIapa[EX0v ITpos TOM v-

LAXVTWV OVUITOTE X'q-yoVTAV 'TEpLO6OVS, E'L TOV Ov1T'OV TPO1OV &VTrLEOVL

(scripsi, TLRitL codd., 'rrEpL&ouVaL Diels; cf. Herod. 5, 22, 2) xtui Tr& uo)X.EiL Tov xO6Guov TOLs eis KXXqXa e~Tar4oXxats, TO IMrXpaOL aO(TOV, *OV'fjX?LV

8oxoi3vTO &4alXVaTLtETcxL SoXtxe5v'rTa &'i xai 'MV avrrP 6&? &vw xai xamTW

a,cifOPTa.

Dolichoi of 7, 12 and 24 stadia are known; any of these figures is capable of astronomical interpretation, but this cannot be proved, and there is no need to press the comparison in this direction, the dolichos of Day and Night being endless, without start or finish. A more difficult question to decide is the relative positions of Morning and Evening (Day and Night) on the cosmic track and the synchronization of their movements. That Heraclitus did not speak loosely of a cosmic dolichos, but had in mind a concrete image of a stadium with the figures of Evening and Morning on the track, is fixed beyond any doubt by the identification of the tennata with the equinoxes: we are faced with an elaborate dynamic model of the cosmos, a pendant to the lusoria tabula. Let us consider three possibilities. (1) M and E (running with constant and equal speed at a distance of one stadium from one another) never occupy the same (i.e. up or down) part of the track simultaneously; as soon as M "turns" from up-way to down-way, E turns from down-way to up-way. They will regularly pass the middle of the stadium-track (running in opposite directions) simultaneously. According to Schol. Soph. El. 691, there was a third pillar in the middle (besides the two at the ends): in Heraclitus' model it would mark summer and winter solstices, i.e. the peaks of gain and loss in the duration of Day and Night, when Evening runs the &vw 0`0s and Morning the xOtrw; the passing of the middle pillar would mark the winter solstice and vice versa. At the equinoctial termata both are equal, i.e. symmetrically equidistant from the midday (or midnight) point: 6 a.m. and p.m. respectively. This possibility may find confirmation in the (presumably) chiastic semantical structure of the fragment (a b : b a) which seems to correlate &iopTpas 'Eplua

with "ApxTos, and 'oi5s '_ppPa with oipos ai. A.: i.e. each has its own terma in the strict sense (a turning post opposite to the aphesis and marking the beginning of the down-way). The correlation is correct, since day (ic6s) starts becoming less than its adversary after ovpos (i.e. turns from up-way to down-way), and Night (EisOcpa) after "ApxTos. This means first, that M and E "start" from opposite apheseis; second, that there is no &vw and xa'rw 60s objectively, but only with regard to the runner: what is "up" for M, is

134

"down" for E, and vice versa. In this sense, again, o0os avw x'Vw m xai

Besides Philo, there is an interesting trace of Heraclitus's racing imagery in Placita Philosophorum I, 7, 22 (= 22 A 8 DK; p. 96 Mch.). . . eLpapprvijv 86 XOyov ?X ris E'PaPTLo8pOtU'aS RIOvpyOV -rCv OVTWV (Diets's conjecture EvarrLo8poFIa for ivarLoTpo1 in DL IX 7 = DK I, 141, 10 cannot be substantiated). Eudorus (Arius or their Posidonian source) was clever en- ough to interpret 'b0os &avw x&'rw as vva'rLo8po,uLa. Herodotus's &vtrL-

va?VO6EVL (5, 22, 2) (and Philo's &VTrL&oVaL if my conjecture is correct) is modelled on &vWrrsaXot and means no more than "rival in racing". The verb EKVoWTL08pOpLEIV, however, can be used of "two-way traffic" on the road (LSJ, s.v. EVaVTLO0pOILeG@ citing Strabo 16,1,5), i.e. of running in opposite directions. If ?VaVTW8poRL'a is the doxographer's own expression (and not a translation into modern language of the rather archaic and uncommon

VTL'adV, whether Heraclitean or not) he must have had certain reasons for preferring the above interpretation. At any rate he recognized the universal meaning of the stadium image.

(2) The apparent defect of the above interpretation is that, e.g., M passes the vernal equinox when E is passing the autumnal one. An improvement: let M and E "run in opposite directions" in the strict sense (i.e. one of them clockwise and another counter clockwise) and "meet" regularly now at vernal and now at autumnal equinox (much of [II remains valid). The "meeting" of the x*-XEu'voL of Day and Night was a familiar Greek idea: x 86, 'yyvs yap Nvxro' sr xai "H[tour's clm Xt\EXVoL; Parmenid. B 1, I 1, Evia UlvXaL Nvxr6t re xaiL "HLotr's ?aL xXnEVXOwv (with Taran's note p. 12); Hesiod, Theog. 748 with West's note, p. 366 (note that in Hesiod and, perhaps, in Parmenides, Day and Night ivarvnopop.oin at the threshold).

(3) There is the third possibility which would make M and E compete in a most natural way (without ivavno8po,u'a). Both M and E "start" (i.e. are synchronized) from the same aphesis and run kyyis in parallel paths, in one direction, passing one another but always coming to the next terma simultaneously. At the point of the summer solstice the Morning outdis- tances the Evening iln 'T 'IXLUTOV, but in the next stadium (i.e. half-year) the Evening has its revenge, leaving the Morning behind at the point of winter solstice; still, they will come to the vernal equinox together: 'rrxXvApo[os appovi( x6uoav OXWUf?EPp &VTL8OrVTwV 8potL&.V.

In Heraclitus the conflict of &vrr('rrxXoL buvv&VxLs always comes under control of a Mediator (a natural metaphor for cosmic Divinity) who sets the maximum and minimum of gain and loss within fixed I,Lrpx, which apart from the amount of damage and reparation, include pre-fixed terms (o'pos,

135

pqeis XoXyos), i.e. temporal limits of poverty and surfeit, thus protecting both from hybris and annihilation and saving "this set-up" (x6OPv To'v8e), based on the palintropos harmonia of opposites, from collapse (ocx- ilWEaOaL). Military code: the avTi'axoL alternately "share" the help of kvv6s "Apgs (loXEps) who prevents the final victory of the one side and final defeat of the other (that is why 160,Xepso is identified with Ze6s and stands "over" the opposites in fr. 29/B 53). Dicastic code: the &VTL'rXOL litigate in aykxLaaa presided over by the Judge and under the patronage of Nomos which is "shared" (vvo's) by both parties. Economic code: the Creditor and the Debtor are bound by "common consent" or "treaty" (kvv6s x6yos) which sets forth the term and the amount of debt. Game code: the cosmic pesseia is conducted by an innocent and impartial child Aion probably conceived as &ci x,Sv (cf. the role of "innocent" child in the kleromanteia). The different metaphorical names of the Mediator have one and the same referential meaning: the cosmic Divinity. The metaphorical equivalent of Mediator in agonistic code should be "Umpire", a kind of 'EXXxvo&xip1S. The presence of an Arbiter in the cosmic stadium might remain a mere guess if it were not attested clearly by Plutarch, Plat. Quaest. VIII 4, 1007 DE (Mor. VI/ I p. 132, 21 sq. Hubert-Drexler) = fr. 64 Mch = B 100 DK: OVTWS OVV vrvayxacav TP'OS TOV oUpaVOV E"Xj(V (lV4LTXOX'V Xx" L cn av(ap1LOy'Iv 6 X,povos OVt)( ?ITX.os karL XiVqOLS, cxXX' WG?TEp ?upWTO(L XL'V'aLs iV T(XLEL ILETPOV

exoVu xi 'rrpr xI rTplOaOVS Xv 6 "XLOS &ITLaTaC'rS 'WV xti "axos'n 6pigfLv

xOi gpa43E'FLv xa' &va8XIxvivaL xaL &vacpaiveLv rtafiOX4os xfiL SWpas at T4'XvTa

WEpOVUL' xx@' 'Hp&xX?tov, ov Xwv o ii8E, LLXpWV &XX& TCv y;umv xa;

xvpL()T(XT(v 1w ny'EsLoVL XaL Tp(A)(. i. YLYVETOXL uVVEpyOS.

The first question to decide is how much is quoted by Plutarch as Heraclitean; the second - the degree of authenticity of what he claims to be Heraclitean. The common view that Plutarch quotes as Heraclitean only the phrase JWpaL al 'rr&v?a qpepoVoL is in flat contradiction with Plutarch's context and cannot be taken seriously. When reading the fragment as torn out of the context one may hesitate whether xa-a' 'Hp&XXElTOv applies to WpOUO or to xv (i.e. XIOS O'. XV xci or . . . xa&' 'HpixXevrov). However, the character and the aim of other quotations in VIII 4 set the second possibility beyond any doubt. The subject of ? 4 is IXLos (not ̀ pad!) and its relation to Xpovos. Apart from Heraclitus and Plato himself, seven authorities are quoted, sharply divided into two groups: I) Aristotle, Speusippus, the Stoics; 2) Pindar, Pythagoras, Euripides, Xenocrates (anonymously). All quotations are to the point, none of them is a rhetorical embellishment. The first group is rebuked for the positivistic conception of time as mere accidens; the second is intended to be a series of wptpvpla in

136

support of the opposite view, i.e. of time as real and divine dynamis and arche immanent to cosmos and ouranos. It is manifest that Heraclitus belongs to the second group and that the Heraclitean saying about IXLOS

xoxrros etc. is quoted as a FaoprvrpLov in support of the Platonic thesis auvrrXoxii xpovov SpOS To'v owpavo'v and the conception of Sun as OOLXEV'S (Rep. 308 a). There is another point: the proverbial phrase Wpai ai rx&vTa cpOuVL hardly needs Heraclitean authority (cf. Plut., Def or. 416 A and Xenoph., An. 1, 4, 10 quoted by Marcovich, p. 241) whereas the words iXLos et seq. display an elaborate series of (neglected and misunderstood) agon- istic metaphors relating to the peculiarly Heraclitean image of the cosmic stadium. Ixosois and OpaxveLv, when juxtaposed, can be understood only as game-terms. The most natural meaning of uxo'rTos construed with OipatOevEL ("to act as arbiter", "to judge") is "the watcher (of an agon)", "arbiter", cf. I 358-361

I:TfXV BE 6? pTOJTLXT,I Iqve, 8E TE'rpJuaT' 'AXLXXEVS

vX6'&EV 'v XrEW1T, rr'& I'rrxp& 8ic OX1O,6v EtLOCV

OVnOV ?V OLVLXcL, O8;O- 'Tpa LOW,

WS p.RjVEWTO 8p6LOV xvi &XijaECiev &?oe'MsroL.

If so, the metaphorical sense (connotation) of 1) op(Petv, 2) &LvcIELxvVaxL,

3) &VYaXpoYiVELV seems to be 1) "to delimit", "to determine (the distances)" , i.e. to mark the racing-field with termata (as Achilles did); 2) "to give signs" (e.g. for a start), Herod. 7, 128, 2 &Fv8?&ke rl 'lov - cf. 6, 115; 121 of military signals (all examples in LSJ from Herodotus!); 3) "to proclaim, declare" whether someone as victor or something as prize (cf. LSJ, s.v. &vxwyivW I, 3 and especially the passages from Pindar quoted ib.; in agonistic contexts &tvacpaivw belongs to the semantical field of vixT). The language is old, highly sophisticated and formal; to suppose that Plutarch invented this brilliant series of agonistic metaphors ad hoc, inserting an archaic word for "arbiter" and (probably) Ionic &Va8ELXVVVLL "to signal", is risky to say the least. There is no good reason to suspect the authenticity of any of these five words explicitly ascribed to Heraclitus. I take ATinar6TITs as a Plutarchan gloss on axoIo's, RErapoX&s as a probable substitute for rpomr&s (but v. infra on RrxTapoXotl WpE'v), the three xvi may well have been added by Plutarch to eliminate Heraclitean asyndeton. So we reach something like this:

'IXLOS UXO'rrOS OV1pitELV, IpaCEVELv, &Va8?ELXVV'VL, &VcXqOLLVELV Tpoffas xai wpas (vel p'r4aOoX&s WpF&1v) oi iraivra cpe pOVOL.

The archaic hardness of syntax is another feature of authenticity: the omission of the copula is typical; the old nominal usage of the infinitive

137

(caDv,a 'U6aO?a, cf. Parmenid. B 2, 2. 3 with Tardn's note p. 43-44) is not unparalleled in Heraclitus: fr. 26 (B 50) ovx ip.oi &XXx oroi Xoyov

axovaavTas o[toXooyEiv aoqpov E'rLv EV 1T&v'rTa E8i&vaL, "Listening not to me, but to the Logos, one should confess: there is but one Wise Being to know (= to control) all things". Perhaps also fr. 85 (B 41), ECTL yap Ev T'O aOq6V

EirTLG?acTaaaL yv(a4vqV OTE?n XVepvv1UL 'i&vTa &l& 'rav'rwv, (there is but) "One Wise Being to know the Plan how to steer all things to the last". Fr. 30 (B 42) "O,uRpos &'LOS ex'x&XXEoaaL; fr.46 (B 58) &ELot XXJ43VELV (I take E'fTLxvTLCTvaL abs.). Fr. 99 (B 20) yEvOivoL mc?1V, once bom for life; in a final clause ibid. 6opovs yEvEura&c.

'E1rrTLar&-s "overseer" "umpire", is pleonastic (the same as uxo'rors) and not attested in Ionic prose (cf. LSJ, s.v. II, 2); Ps.-Xenoph., Lac., 8, 4 &XX'

OTEP Ot TvptVVOL XL ol h' TO-L yVUVLXOLS &y&XOL tlaTTalTaL I'V nTLva cdaaa- VOVT'cL ITpVOxO[LOiVTOL TL, IR%S IrMpaXOpi>x XOX&tOVOL. Plat. Leg. 948e-949a VO6OS &E XEL'(hOA &BXaafv l1v ,IEV O1.LVVVOL 8lX&ELV tLEXXOVTR . . . XOLL (yvLVLXC,V TE

XviL Lr?LXWV &.XAv 11r7Taras xai j3pafe'ear (on the "oath" of the Sun see below). The construction iErLUO?&rrS ppa3EELV is analogous to Plat. Prot. 312 d eSrrLa-rs Toi `TOL1UtL 8ELvOv XyeILV. However, it cannot be ruled out that brrLGTra1s in this passage of Plutarch is a more general term with political connotations as well (cf. rrp'TavLS, v. LSJ, s.v. rmoTaris III and De exilio 601 A). I think the word should be restored in the following corrupt text which seems to be a parallel reflection of the Heraclitean saying: Heraclit., Hoom. Quaest. 7, 8 (p. 8 Buffiire; etymology of 'ExiEpris) TOYE'TL 6 1XLOS, Os [scripsi, 6 Aldina] nOpp -ev &q)wrTh)o rs T?wrEpts yps,

WpCOV 1mT<a'Tqs Er>eL@v [supplevi, ?1TLYE'WV Ga: ... Eu,v AB: rnti86wv 0; cf. tpos aSTEovs DL IX, 10 = DK I, 142, 5] yEwpyo;s [02; yEwpyos cett.I

EVXaLCPGS epLOaTaxTRL, ITVL;y1 XELLoLV &VTLtMTpWV X;L &pOTOV TE XavL airop&s [cf. cpaLl uOpwv WpOL WVTTEWCV De exilio 601 A] &pOIV Te xvi Tcv xrT& yeW-

,uopLOLV EpyWv OX'L;TLOS &VOpw1TOLS yevotvoS. Note that 0 has E'frif'TaTaL - a trace of the originalfigura etymologica TrL?Ta'r1S kq#TrrraL: that is why

e?O'arrs is preferable to e'rraxo'ros (at any rate yEwpybs xpav and cWpxv ,ILy?ECwv in Buffi6re's text is nonsense). It is not easy to see whether &VTL-

,TTpWV alludes to p.&rpa of fr. 52, or is an echo of &v?cTpOtLfLO (fr. 54) and ILETPE-TOXL (fr. 53b) - metaphors of the lend/borrow code. Cf. also Ps.- Heraclit., Epist. VI, 3 (p. 329, 27 Taran): 5E6s . . . &?XVLGOL aTCdv (=

elements) TO aLETpov . . . Ta& 'OXLUNoavTa 610oq)&s TVLE'tEL. The "oppression of slips" refers to the x6XuaLs of tresspassers by the Umpire; but &L6XEL Ta'

cpevyovrTa are dicastic rather than racing metaphors. Another authentic feature of the new fragment is its striking

resemblance to the enumerations of professional operations typical of a

138

certain skill in the "technological" chapters of the De victu I, 12-24, no doubt inspired by Heraclitus: e.g. 12 (uYlpoUpyoL) rinXoVuu . . . ITrxouva xai avveXcvxvoVuL; 14 -yvopEs . . . X0tXTL;OvGL, XOrTToVUL, EXXOVuL; 19 VaXO8E4iaL

eLvovL, Tp;OVUL, XTEVLtOV0L, ?IXVOVUL; 20 Xpv('ov epy(xovraL, XOITOUL,

ITVVOVUL, TYXOV0L; 24 TpEXOVUL, ?aXaXiOVaL (agonistic terms?), 1L&xovTroL, xXE'rTovoL, EirrafaTOL xTX. One might continue: oxoEroi oVpltoval,

,BpaPEV3OVOL, &Va0ELXVVOVJL,, 0XV0L4faLVOVGL TUTO6 1qXLOs 'iToLEEL. 'p(XL, aiL 'Tr&vT'r

qPEpOVUL, OXVTL4DEOVaL, BOXLXEV1OVYL 'V Ot1 V 6O'V &VC XaiL XaT) &I4LC0oIEvaL. There are traces of the model in the fragments: fr. 46/B 58 LOTpoOL TELVOVTES,

xotiovTEs, U(XVLtOVTES 'iTotLE'ovTnL; fr. 10/B 22 XpvoLov oL 8tvLE ..VOL

OpVOUoVUL. . . ErVpLxoVuL and apart from gold-seekers we hear of those who "smelt gold- dust", 4iy,ua oL GVLq)VGW(UEVOL (Arist., De Caelo 304 a 21) and in doing so imitate the cosmic Epya of Fire; cf. also nrrc(v, 'wEriaEVWv.

MeTooXai Xp?ov attested in Herod. 2, 77, 12, is a common phrase in the Corpus Hippocraticum, especially in wTppi &?pwv c. 11, 13, 16, 19, 24 etc. cf. Hum. 15; Aphor. 1II, 1; De victu, I, c. 2; III, c. 67. Galen, In Aphor. III, 1 commented on the phrase (thus implying that this was not a common usage in his time) and distinguished two meanings in Hippocr.: 1) the actual changes from season to season; 2) sharp contrasts of weather during the seasons (see Jones's note on Hipp., vol. I, p. 68-69 where he infers that "the notion underlying it is that of violent change in the weather"). On the other hand we have fr. 56 (B 84) RETa0a'XXov &vaiTotV'uL where 11ET(XIaKXXOV means "shifting" (in space), "migration", connected with 686s &vw x&mw in test. a, a2. Cf. also Plato, Phileb. 43a . . . 'S oiL 0pooL (i.e. Heraclitus) mawLv &EL tyaXp arOr(XVTO( OXVW TE XaiL XOXTa pEL TO VV&r L?V, (S al LEaOX(i xam' TE

XvXi a`v W yLyVO[LEvaL xrX. To sum up: iwraxoX&s xaL Wexpas in Plut. is not too far off the mark, though prTaioX&as opewv would sound more authentic. Without this conjecture it might be thought that pwraNoXas is Plutarch's substitute for Tpo'r&s, denoting the solstices and equinoxes, an ambiguous allusion to the turning-points in racing. 'Avaxaqxvewv. . . wpas seems to be a deliberate ambiguity: "to proclaim" (as victor) - "to make reappear". The reappearence of summer is its victory over the winter in racing (or in cosmic war; "gain" and "wealth" in the economic code etc.). Such prima facie catachrestic and bizarre, but in fact ambiguous and metaphoric usage of verbs is consciously imitated in De victu e.g. I, 13 &vOpumos vn'Vo IrraLo- TpL,Ot1. . . VpaXo14LEVOS XO%TETaL, Tpq3E'raL, x(i%XapETaL (scil. "as if he were iron"). In like manner, Sun the Arbiter "proclaims the seasons" (as if they were runners).

It must be emphasized that Fire is metaphorically conceived as the Supreme Judge in the dicastic key as well: fr. 82 (B 66): 'rTavTa HI'p kireX06v

139

XplVct Xti XOITOnA4ETOIL, the legal metaphors being a sphragis (recte DK, Marcovich, contra Reinhardt, Kirk, West et al.). Further evidence for the Sun the Arbiter in the cosmic agon is supplied by Macrobius, In Somn. Scip. I, 20, 3 (p. 79, 3 Willis) ... "princeps et moderator liminum reliquorum". adeo et ceteras stellas scit (sc. Cicero) esse lumina sed hunc ducem et principem quem Heraclitus "fontem caelestis lucis" appellat. "dux" ergo est ... "moderator reliquorum" dicitur quia ipse cursus eorum recursusque certa spatii definitione moderatur. Marcovich regards "fontem caelestis lucis" as a reminiscence of fr. 60 (of which the preferable text is apparently that of test./b/), but "appellat" implies a verbatim quotation, not an opinio. Further on (p. 79, 27-28 Wil.) Macrobius quotes Heraclitus's appellatio of the Sun in a somewhat different form: solem autem "ignis aetherii fontem" dictum esse rettulimus. We get an impression that Macrobius had before him a Greek expression which he found difficult to translate; the result of his hesitation are the two variants: "fons caelestis lucis" and "fons aetherii ignis". This expression was no doubt oivpos alOpiov

AO's misunderstood as an appellatio of the Sun (the sun was mentioned in the context, i.e. fr. 52 and 64): the error of the Neoplatonists has been repeated in modern times, e.g. by Kranz (DK I, 177, note 8). There is no need to emend "fontem" to "montem" (oi'pos), since: 1) Macrobius knew fr. 52 at second hand and quite probably found the fragment accompanied by a Neoplatonic comment; 2) he may have translated the obscure word oipos ad sensum. Martianus Capella I, 87, (Hephaestus = "fire") totius mundi ab Heraclito dictus est moderator (demorator - codd.), probably derives from the Macrobius passage at issue (if so, the word demorator should be excised from TLL). Macrobius refers "cursus recursusque" (which in this context seems to be something more than dead metaphor) to the "course" of the planets (nam certa spatii definitio est ad quam cum una quaeque erratica stella recedens a sole pervenerit, tamquam ultra prohibeatur accedere, agi retro videtur, et rursus, cum certam partem recedendo contigerit, ad directi cursus consueta revocatur, p. 79, 10-14 Will.), but Cicero's "luminum reliquorum" probably alludes to the "day- light" as well, and further on (p. 79, 18) Macrobius himself speaks of "day and night as well as planets". The "physici" quoted in the explanation of "mens mundi" are the Stoics, most probably Posidonius (p. 80, 8 "physici" include Eratosthenes and Posidonius fr. 116 Edelstein-Kidd) and Cle- anthes (Sat. I, 23, 2 = Posidonius fr. 118 Ed.-K. = SVF I, 501: Macrobius quotes a Placitum on "solis meatus" common to Cleanthes and Posidonius) as referred to by Posidonius. Since the Heraclitean phrase "ignis aetherii fontem" reappears in the Posidonius passage, it is reasonable to suppose

140

that Macrobius owes his knowledge of the Heraclitean fr. 52, 62, 64 complex to Posidonius (quoted by Porphyrius in the Comm. on Timaeus?), and earlier we found traces of Heraclitus's racing imagery in the presum- ably Posidonian source of Philo. The Posidonian passage under "mens mundi" is of interest and contains other Heraclitean reminiscences as well: p. 79, 16, 31 Willis, mens mundi ita appellatur ut physici eum cor caeli vocaverunt, inde nimirum quod omnia quae stata ratione (xrvr& Xyov) per caelum fieri videmus, diem noctemque et migrantes inter utrumque prolixitatis brevitatisque (cf. IAxmarov xaiL WXytw'rov, xopos xi XpaoL u vi) vices (cf. iFvoaXX&, a&.e46LPioeva) et certis temporibus aequam utriusque mensuram, dein veris clementem teporem, torridum Cancri et Leonis aestum, mollitiem autumnalis aurae, vim frigoris inter utramque tem- periem, omnia haec solis cursus et ratio dispensat. iure ergo cor caeli dicitur, per quem fiunt omnia quae divina ratione fieri videmus. est et haec causa propter quam iure cor caeli vocatur, quod natura ignis semper in motu perpetuoque agitatu est (cf. Arist. Parv. nat. 470 a 3 ro 'nip &ei &LrTeXCi yLvo>Evov xxi PEov WO,Iep Iso 6os - compared with vital heat; De victu I, 10 iaXvpo6TOrov 'rrvp TMEP ?rXVT&V xpLTEI [= iXLos = 'Toi3 xo6u.ov

xap&a1 s'rrv'rt &t& Trrcv?os xvEpvQ ov1UxoEn &rpe 'iov), solem autem ignis aetherii fontem dictum esse rettulimus, hoc est ergo sol in aethere quod in animali cor, cuius ista natura est, ne umquam cesset a motu, aut brevis eius quocumque casu ab agitatione cessatio mox animal interimat. "Cor caeli" is something more concrete and poetie than the usual Stoic 'ryeFIOVLxOv roTO

x6oi,v (principale). Cleanthes may have held the doctrine of the Sun as xctp&x TOD x6o6uoV (cf. SVF I. 499), though the "cor caeli" definition is not attested anywhere else for Cleanthes. Even if he held the doctrine, he owed it to Heraclitus, since the conception of the Sun (peaOL rrepio8oL) as analogon cordis in the cosmic Megasoma is attested in De victu 1, 10 (I hope to discuss the biological model of the cosmos in Heraclitus elsewhere). Note that in I, 14, 19 Macrobius names Heraclitus physicus and quotes a Heraclitean placitum "(anima) scintilla stellaris essentiae" (= 22 A 15 DK; p. 252 Marcovich; p. 139 Mondolfo-TarAn) which is an exact counterpart (on the microcosmic level) to the Sun as "cor caeli".

So fragments 52, 62, 64 cannot be separated (I do not pretend to an exact reconstruction of the original text, but attempt to recapture the unity of thought): qXLOs OvX IITEEpRiTaL 'LE,r paL , el 8? tLin 'EpLvv'Es Fv A;xs E;TLXOVpOL

pEVpiAOVOL- UXO'To <y&p) OVpLElV, L 3pGf?10ELV, &Vt8ELXVVVaL, &VCtqXNLVELV

twErapoMIs xoS XLLpos, tL sirVTa qpEpova; oin0s xfli eaU?epas ?eptmrTt "ApxTos

xaL avrLov 'ris "Apxrou oivpos aLOpLov ALOS.

MErpo may allude to the "measured distances", "lengths" or else

141

"terminating limits", "goals" of the cosmic stadium (cf. LSJ, s.v. [Lp?TPOV I, 3, a-b) which the Sun "will not overstep" (literally), as it has its own "turning posts", termata, i.e. the winter and summer tropai. And yet the primary meaning of metra seems to be that of "due measures" (LSJ I, 4; esp. Hes. Erga 694 E'TpOt pVX XaaoL with West's note p. 326), i.e. once-agreed "principles", "rules" of the cosmic agon, which the Sun will not transgress in its capacity of Supreme Arbiter who is bound by the umpire's oath, opxos. The possibility cannot be ruled out that Heraclitus inserted in the text pieces of the actual opxos 3poa 's which is likely to have run like this:

ORVVW '00VS &ELVc XOL 8ELVO OpL'?ELV X0tL p E?V?iV XOtL c'Vct8ELXVVVOL XiL

(XVoqo0LVELV . . . 6LXLLSM XOT XXTOX Vopov . . . oIV8 cp dLVEtV ?&rpx T O i - 18?

'EpLvics w AI'xqs ?'rTrXOVpOi ?EVp'(tLEV ([tETEXEVcaaLVTo). Marcovich (Era- clito, p. 195) is right in saying that the Pythagorean precept (ap. Hippol.,

Ref. VI, 26, 1) ?X TrS iL'8L&S ?&V &'1o&0p4%S, [d ITa'Tpi4OV, ?i 8vq 'EpLvvi$s ALX,1s E'iXOVpOL GE [tETEXEVUOVT'XL is not an imitation of Heraclitus (contra Kranz, Gigon, Kirk), but it is impossible to reduce the "traditional formula anterior both to Heraclitus and the Pythagoreans" to the words 'EpLvvFs

ALxNs 'aixovpoi only and to regard c8 [ti? as coincidence. The whole clause is a typical "prophylactic" &xp' which stood at the end of an oath. Accord- ing to one theory (H. J. Rose, contra Rohde, Nilsson et al.) the Erinyes were from the first personified Curses. At any rate the association of Erinyes with oaths was a popular belief of great antiquity (T 259; Hes., Erga 803-804 with West's note p. 359), one of their primary functions being the punishment of E1'opxmo; and the word VX'ppotivEiv displays palpable con- nections with the semantic field of iopxos, &aopx(lot (Dem. 11, 2). Of special interest is the absolute usage of the verb in I 501 ("to sin", "to trespass", cf. Plato, Rep. 366a, Vi1TpI3E'V0VTES X&tX &[LUpTxOpVTES, and fr. 52 test. /b/, after

'atTp(X|oXivLv ITrrp ovTOL, rToLpol(Xs: roX-Xoxi A'xtqs 'EpLvvvEs 5ctLp'lT7r(xTv

(pv X ox Es):

XulCo0O[pEVOL, 0TE XEV TLTS V'TrEpI3? XAL &[LOXpT'fl.

X01 -Y(Xp TF A LT(XOL ?iL(1Y l'OS XOVpOM [LEy >?OL0 XTX.

The Homeric ALTUL are akin to 'Apm'. Since Plutarch has correctly under- stood the Heraclitean imagery of cosmic agon and is likely to have recognized the implications of fr. 52, he seems to have written in De Iside 370 D (= fr. 52 test. a2 Marc.) ? 1[i' ALT&s (scripsi, yXCOTTs codd.) [uV ALx,1s E?rLXOVpOVS tiEVp'rELV (other conjectures are enumerated by Mar- covich, p. 195; Mouraviev, REG, 1977, p. 81-82). ALTIU is an Ionic and poetic word, more liable to corruption than any of the formerly proposed conjectural readings. Nevertheless 'EpLvvFs is authentic, since ALTXi are A\Los xoipx, not Atixs E'rixOvpoi. However, Heraclitus hardly laid much

142

stress on the concrete mythological image of Erinyes as such, just as he is hardly thinking of Zeus when he says oipos aiOpiov ALO'S "the end of fine weather". The old traditional curse he quotes is a stylistic tour de force, the meaning being "because the Sun is bound by an oath which cannot be violated". And "oath" is a metaphor of "Divine Law", synonymous with Xoyos, "treaty", from the lend/borrow metaphorical code. Cf. Empedocl. B 115 ?rTiV 'Av'nxls Xpis', &?h(v iPnpITapX aOV, / &V,&OV, TXxtaTEa'

X0LTaPP'ytu F_VOV OpxoIS. The competitors - Day and Night, Summer and Winter - may have had their own athletic oath, and so the whole cosmo- stadium is bound for ever by inviolable >?Xpt of Evv6s opxos.

Excursus 1. The confusion of "flux" and "running": a warning.

The stadium image reconstructed above is in a sense a counterpart to the river image of fr. 40 (B 12; 49a; 91 DK); both display a number of common implications such as the high speed and incessant character of flowing/ running. In different languages "flowing" and "running" are contextual meanings of one and the same verb: Latin aqua currens etc., Engl. "running water", Sanskr. dhavati, "flow, run", etymologically akin to Greek &',,

common Slavic teko (the same ambiguity) etc. Seneca's "quidquid vides, currit cum tempore" and "velox cursus" (Epist. 58, 22-23 = test. 40 cl Marc.) refer to the river-image, and "cursus" may well be a traslation of pol. Fortunately, the Greek is more precise in differentiating the two notions: in common usage ?', Tp?XW, 8ptpliV, 8po'[os are never applied to "river" or "water", just as 'pe and its derivatives cannot refer to runners; the case of XwpEL is somewhat more ambiguous (cf. below), whereas such abstract terms for movement as ?pp?ao% (popt) and xLVLaOott (xirvis) in secondary sources may allude to either image or to both at once.

Nevertheless there is a danger of confusion, or even conscious con- tamination, of the two images in secondary sources on the level of philo- sophical interpretation. The two images are originally distinct in two respects: 1) the river image is a simple symbol and as such not capable of analysis or inner differentiation; the stadium is, on the contrary, a complex dynamic model of the cosmos. 2) The stadium is a cosmological model, whereas "the river" is originally a symbol of the human body, including Avx as its integral part, which is in constant flux-evaporation as well (the "flux" of body primarily implies the epirrysis of food and aporrysis of excreta, the balance remains 6o ovTos). The human body as referential correlate of "river" is attested in our best source (test. 40a) and in- dependently in test. (cl), (C2 FtEv i.e. "we, men"), (C3: aVfTT OV'Ot= = t,

143

cf. the parallels from Philo and M. Ant. quoted by Marcovich ad loc., n. 21). It is only with the Heracliteans and Plato that "flux" was extrapolated to 'r&v'xTa ?a ovra (aloaftr&). Admittedly, the extrapolation is not illegitimate, since the structure and function of the cosmic Megasoma are isomorphic with the structure and function of its microcosmic counterpart, the cosmic 4wxi (= "air", fr. 66-67 Mch) being in constant flux-evaporation as well; and yet the original application of the "river"-image should not be neglected.

Whenever we are told, not of "river" and po', but of "road", "running", " going", and especially of the "way up and down", the reference is prob- ably to the stadium-, not to the river-image.

It must be emphasized that, apart from Plato (who depends on Cratylus) and Aristotle (who depends on Plato) we hear very little of cosmic flux, i.e. rhoe and potamos (DL IX 8 = DK I, 141, 19 being a notable exception): the usual manner of describing the transmigration of cosmic elements and cosmic change is 686s &vw x&'rw, i.e. by "running", not "flowing", metaphors. Plato's &rrovrot ivw TE xai x&Ta be, Phileb. 43a, is a playful contamination of two images, apparently based on the hydrologic para- doxon of the Euripus: Phaedo 90c 'rravTar 'a dv'a &texvws WarEp iv EOp'Irrw &v, X)l XviTh OTp&apErnL. A modern Greek treatise on the hydrology of the Euripus (by D. Aiginetos) bears a quasi-Heraclitean title To 'np6OIXq #ris 'rraXLppoias Toi Evpi'rrov (flpryp. 'Axob. 'A^vxv, T. 1, 1935). rIXappo(i (attested in Herod. 2, 28) sounds an excellent Heraclitean word, and its metaphorical use is similar to that of 'iaXLvpo'rros: Polyb. I, 82, 3 -uap&8oEos raxXppoLa T(V lTpCLyJaTh3v; Diod. Sic. 18, 59 j i'rr' &tuLp&Epx Ta Oi.pii iS

fvxs ffa)XppoIx (quoted in LSJ, s.v., 1,3). But in fact there is not the slightest reason to postulate a 'naX(ppoL-connotation in fr. 40; and the image of two rivers in Cons. adApoll. (= test. 41a Mch.) flowing in opposite directions (6 -rrs yEvEiEWX SioTLOs. . . xaL '&XLv 6 &E ivaVn cSiwi4/(iWv/6

Trisj qop&s) probably derives from Plato's construction (from Crantor?). Plato, Cratyl. 402a - test. 40b1 Mch. X&yeL rroV 'Hp&XXEVrn b'TL ?rrv'arc

XW X-i xi ov8EV lEVEL, xvl 1oT0Twv LOU o &'fftLXOtawv rt 6V0a XEyEL xs &SEi T&v arxov %oraO.Iov ovx av i,uf3a;s. The words -rarvrx Xwped, paralleled in De victu, are ascribed to Heraclitus in LSJ, s.v. XwPew II, 1 b; and Burnet regarded X(pel . . . &"LP40Leva in De victu as "surely Heraclitean utter- ance" (EGPh, 151, n. 1). This view is rather exceptional; most scholars at present agree in taking n&vfaira Xwpe! as a reminiscence of the potamos- image. Strictly speaking, we must distinguish two questions: 1) is the In&vTx

Xwpet thesis in Plato and De victu reducible to Heraclitus' fr. 40? 2) if not, how much of it is authentic in wording? The first question must be ans-

144

wered in the negative. Admittedly, ywpeLv is sometimes applied to rivers (cf. Eurip. Med., 410; Plato, Phaedo 113 b 1; c 4); yet primarily it implies "road" rather than "river". The two XiyeL presuppose two quotations rather than one (by "quotation" I mean what Plato claims to be a quotation from Heraclitus; the river-fragment is not quoted verbatim either). And the parallel passage, Cratyl. 401d (p. 138 Mch) T'a ivT IEvVOL rravra xai p.vElv

oiElv, makes it clear that xwpei is used by Plato in its primary sense of "going forward", "passing", without any implication of "flowing"; cf. also CratyL 439 c; 412d.

We have seen that De victu 1,5, xwpe 6e s'rrvrt xviO da xvi &v'L pW'rrLva avw xvi xarw aELOO pevct, has nothing to do with the river-image either; moreover there is no reason to suppose that the Hippocratic writer shared Plato's ontological interpretation of the potamos-image. The iravrXwp CL thesis is found in the cosmological chapter of the De victu and refers not to the body, but to "day and night" etc.

And there is a third independent reader of Heraclitus who explicitly combines 'rE,pLXWpEovPa with &vw x&m,: Lucian., Vit. auct. 14 (= test. 33d8 Mch.). The result is that Bumet's thesis is by no means an absurdity.

Another example of the racing imagery contaminated with the flux- motif is found probably in fr. 40 c3 Mch = B 91 DK ... .r&CL . larIoXi

. Sp6uELoL xvi &?lvJl. 'ArLvvxL and IpoUvaL correspond with 6b8s &vw and xa&, respectively (cf. C ov &LO6vrv 680's in Max. Tyr. quoted in Excursus 2). E.g., in Aristophanes' Knights Demos gives the command airrov to Cleon and the Sausage-Seller, who are ready to compete in racing and stay at the IaxXOis (starting-line): v. 1159 sq., cf. 01ovr' &v ibidem. The simultaneity (alla) of the "approaching and the departing" probably points to the Fvavno8pop.(a interpretation as the one adopted by Plutarch (an alternative, economic, interpretation must be postponed for another occasion).

Excursus 2. The Torch of Life.

A special question is whether the racing imagery occurred in anthropo- logical and eschatological contexts as well, and if it did, whether it was the same stadium-model or something distinct from the dolichos of Day and Night, Summer and Winter etc. The Neoplatonists explicitly refer the "way up and down" to anodos and kathodos of souls: see test. 56 a-a5 Mch and Max. Tyr. 41,4 i (= test. 33 d4 Mch.) where the "way up" is explained as ij TWV a&lTOVTCv 6b6s, i.e. death, while the "way down" as xB6oxii rCv pmX- Xov,v. To be sure, the Neoplatonic evidence on such matters is not

145

persuasive by itself; yet, even without this evidence the way of elements in Heraclitus should be parallel with the way of souls. Plotinus' &v&'rrxvXa &v epvyjj is not impossible as an interpretation of wrafxi&XXov &vaiTa etaL; cf. especially [E?axaIXXELv applied to the seasonal migrations of animals (this usage is not illustrated in LSJ): Arist. Hist. anim. 596 b 25; 597 a 4; a 23. Thus REraOA&Xov &vasave'raL is a kind of xiVaUaS aX&v'qos; the semantical opposition of "migration" (= movement) and "rest" confirms the above interpretation. Fr. 56 does not contain peculiar metaphors from racing, and yet it presupposes the "migration" or "flight" (semantically akin to "run- ning") which may have been illustrated by racing imagery in another "fragment".

The comparison of human life with a race ("birth" being aphesis and "death" being terma) is a wide-spread folk-motif: cf. the proverbial rerp[= O;ov, Aesch., fr. 362, 2, and further evidence collected in LSJ, s.v. 'eippa, II, 2. The ancient topos survived in Christian Lives of the Saints (cf., e.g. the Life of St. Melanie of Rome, sub. fin.), and the traditional brabeion of a good athletes, the stephanos, was assimilated to a nimbus. A more elabo- rate comparison of the "three lives" with the three sorts of men at a Game-festival is ascribed by Sosicrates (Heraclides Ponticus?) ap. D.L. VIII 8 to Pythagoras: xvi TOV Il'ov ioLvX?VOLL ITXMVp?L- WS OVV E1S rctVT'qv OL ILV

&yGaVLOuv.EVOL, oi be xar' L' rlopiav, o' be ye RiXrLOToL IpXOV1rL OEara' XTX. A somewhat more sophisticated development of the bios-dromos motif is

the famous simile of lampadedromia (with the "torch" as a metaphor of life, and the diadoche of runners in team-racing as an image of successive human generations) best known from Lucretius II, 75-79

sic rerum summa novatur semper, et inter se mortales mutua vivunt. augescunt aliae gentes, aliae minuuntur, inque brevi spatio mutantur saecla animantum et quasi cursores vitai lampada tradunt.

(Varro RR 16,9 "nunc cursu lampada tibi trado" and Persius 6, 61 "cur me in decursu lampada poscis" are not exact parallels; cf. C. Bailey, v. 1, 812; W. A. Merrill, p. 405). The simile is old: Plato, Leges, 776 b yEvvCvorrs re xai

ixTpixpov'ras irTol8as, xax&%Mep XoLRiar&8a 'orv j3(ov fnapacL86TvOas &XXOLS t aXXwv, and, as one might expect, occurs in epitaphs: Epigr. Gr. 231 (Chios) (quoted in LSJ, s.v. Xa,Lvra's II, 2) XXal?lxaba yap ta&s t? BpoLE-v . . . 1exe ba&wv. The Heraclitizing context in Lucretius is striking; "flux" and "srunning" are, as usually, juxtaposed: v. 69 fluere omnia; cf. also v. 76 mutua inter se = &v'rapL.f

146

There is a drastic description of the succession of generations in Hera- clitus' fr. 99 (B 20) yEv0'R?voL 43-eLV 'EOEXOvL FOpovs r' EXELV xvi x at8as xaT\XeisrovGL 1.opovs yrvEoahL. "Once born for life, they are liable to (premature) death, and they leave behind children in order that (new) death come into being" (I suspect that &vrrTraEav'0aL has been inserted by Clement or his source from a Heraclitean context, i.e. fr. 56/B 84; the original reading is, perhaps, A_TrI>a&X0ov be &avafav'eo1L). It would be tempting to interpret &vOpwsos Ev E'Vppovi paos &frer7aL ... (fr. 48/B 26) as "Man kindles up a torch at night . . ." (that is the meaning of the phrase Q1ffTEUaiaaL Ta&os in Callimachus, Hymn. Dian., 116; cf. Aristoph., Nub. 1490 and LSJ, s.v. waos I, 2), but I cannot interpret the whole fragment in this way. As a matter of fact, we lack direct evidence on torch-racing in Hera- clitus.

Thales, as the legend has it, died when observing a gymnikos agon, Xenophanes damned the Olympic games; while Heracitus, as a basileus, possessed irpoespiav 'EV &y(OL (Strabo XIV 3 = 22 A 2 DK); and he made use of his privilege in a manner worthy of a philosopher.

Excursus 3. Echoes of the Stadium image in later Presocratics.

Two persons are of primary importance for the question at issue, Zeno and Empedocles. Both are likely to have been acquainted with Heraclitus's philosophy, the former being sarcastic about, the latter sympathetic towards a cosmic race. It is hardly a mere chance that two of the four arguments against the possibility of motion display racing imagery. Given that the purpose of Zeno's book was to reduce ad absurdum and xwW8dLV the views of his Master's adversaries (29 A 12, 14 DK), and also that one of these adversaries was Heraclitus or his adherents ('rrLX;v'rpo'rroS xeXevOos 28 B 6, 9 DK refers to Heraclitus' fr. 27/B 51 and 6s &vw x&X, at once), it is permissible to ask whether the "Achilles" and the "Stadium" were aimed at Heraclitus and were intended to be a xwK.ua of the Cosmostadium, i.e. of the main Heraclitean philosophema concerning cosmic motion. Neither the xxs srro6as, nor the mysterious 5yxoL can run at all: thus the Cosmo- stadium proves to be ?'r yEXOLO'T?pOV than Parmenides' &'rpqzkS Being. There is a comic flavour about the defeat of the heroic Sprinter by a miserable tortoise. And oL iv ra&y XLVOV'LVOL { &'avaiais 6yxos (29 A 28 DK) seem to be a deliberate parody of Heracitus's kvav'rw6poxa.

The scattered remains of Empedocles' racing imagery are as follows: 1) The motion of the elements is metaphorically described as "running" in fr. B 53 e'wv (&iAp); BL' &XXiXwv Oiovra B17,34 = 21,13. 2) In the agon

147

between Love and Strife the latter retreats to the EaxrTrd E'pa'ra xvxXov (B 35, 10), cf. mexipOKoL v. 12 and 8LaXX6vtravra XA64ovs v. 15 (of ele- ments), i.e. "turning from the up-way to the down-way"9, "running in the opposite direction", hence "turning into its opposite". 3) In the corrupt fr. B 46 the cosmos is a hippodromos, the Moon is a chariot, and its orbit a race-course. This is but an explication of the current Greek expressions urXAv'qs or 'Xov bpo6p.os (cf. DK 1, 371, 22; I, 462, 16) which are petrifications of old mythology. 4) In the clepsydra fragment (B 100) "Le sang et l'air qui le suit se comportent comme deux heros dont l'un s'enfuit (&ifo-) et dont l'autre se pr6cipite aussitot A sa poursuite (xaxa-)" (J. Bol- lack, Empedocle, 3/2, p. 483). We see that in Empedocles, as in Heraclitus, irv'rra 4fi. It is a question, however, whether (I) and (2) are sporadic metaphors, or pieces of a single elaborated model, expounded in a lost simile 'Ws 8' T6o'rav SpoRkES . . .

Excursus 4. The evidence of the Derveni papyrus.

This paper having been sent to the Editor, I learned of the exciting publi- cation of fr. A of the Derveni papyrus, containing two quotations from Heraclitus: vide W. Burkert,Atti del Symp. Heracl. 1981, p. 37-42; ZPE, 47 (1982), p. 1-12*. I propose to read in fr. A, line 9 o'VX viep3O&XXwv i(<8ouS> opovs "not overstepping its own (or "proper") limits" (will &iiovs fit the space better?); cf. a similar translation of the archaic Rkrpa into modern language by Plutarch, De Iside, 370 D - test. 52 a2 Mch 7roiS ponl'xovras opovs. The addition of an explanatory "his" is required by the modern linguistic mentality as well: "seine Masse" (DK), "le sue misuri" (Marc.), "his measures" (Kahn), etc. At any rate, the reading TpWV 6pous, apart from being a cumbrous tautology, contaminates variae lectiones.

The juxtaposition of fr. 57/B 3 and 52/B 94 provokes a new line of inquiry. If we trust Burkert's restoration in general, they seem to be quoted as a cryptic description of the measurements of the cosmos (6 xo6vpos . ocos). Now, the stadion, presupposed by fr. 52, is not only a race-course, but also a measure of length which contains 600 n6&ts (if we accept Herodotus' a'rn&ov kk&rrXeApov, 2.149). Hence the relation of the Sun's e?pos to its

8p6oos (equated by the Commentator with the perimeter of the cosmos?) should be 1: 1200. But as the Commentator may have understood the Sun in fr. 52 not as an Arbiter in a stadium, but as a Chariot-driver, the relation meant is probably 1:2400, the race-course of a hippodromus consisting of 2 stadia. And according to Pindar (01. 3, 33 etc.) one had to turn ipiafta 12 times. All these figures are a godsend for an Allegorist. It might be thought

148

that in fr. A he is commenting on Helios the Chariot-driver (cf. col. IX sq. and Orph. fr. 236 ovpav'LOLS 0TpoWaXXALk Lf?pi8popOv acLv WX(uYawv), striving to explain away mythology and to interpret the dromos of the Sun as a "physical allegory" of cosmic measurements; Heraclitus bears witness to this mode of expression of Orpheus.

It is quite another question whether all this has anything to do with Heraclitus. One who believes in the real connection between fr. 52 and 57 may refer to the discovery of the "divine proportion" 1/720 ("quoties sol magnitudine sua circulum quem permeat metiatur") attributed to Thales (11 A 19; cf. DL I 24); on the other hand we hear of Heraclitus as a "'witness" to Thales' astronomy (63 b Mch = B 38 DK). Be that as it may, the proportion Tro(s: ora'&ov (or pop6pos) = Sun: the Cosmos may provide us with a clue to the interpretation of fr. 57 "The Sun is one foot in breadth as compared with its daily dromos" (the relativity of "the great and the small"?). As we know, Herakles measured the Olympic stadion by his own foot.

Excursus 5. The Stadium as Cosmos.

Thus far we have discussed cosmology modelled on agon. This is only one side of the coin, for there is also a reverse one. The Greek Games were a part of religious festivals, the agon was rooted in cult and ritual (cf., e.g., L. Drees, Ursprung der Olymp. Spiele, Stuttgart, 1962). Traces of the cosmo- logical symbolism are clearly visible in Olympia where the opposite ypaXRa of the stadium are marks of east and west. The competitors ran up and down the course of the Sun, and the opposite u'pFara were those of iis xai airripa not in a metaphorical but in a literal sense. The periodical Games, the basis of Greek chronology, were held at a certain date after the summer Tpo'rrri, but not later than the middle of September, i.e. oivpos atiEpCov AL6S. It would be no surprise for us to learn that in the pre-Dorian times the competitors were actually conceived of as "Morning and Even- ing" (or "Summer and Winter"), and that they were not competitors at all, but performers of a magical ritual, whose purpose was to restore the cosmic balance and to prevent the Sun from "overstepping due measures", or to reinforce him in the period of "fatigue" (x&k'ros). This we shall never find out, but there is a popular Greek game "day-and-night" (ostrakinda) with two teams running, one east-to-west and the other west-to-east. The choice of the Stadium as a cosmological model was not casual. The Greek philo- sophers modelled the Cosmos on the Stadium because the Stadium had been originally modelled on the Cosmos. Heraclitus "deciphered" the

149

I&7rpLos pLXo0o0pqLa concealed in the Greek agon, and at once reconstructed the forgotten ritual (though of the latter fact he was hardly aware).

Moscow University

150