La sapienza greca.
Volume III: Eraclito by Giorgio Colli
Review by: Miroslav Marcovich
Gnomon, 59. Bd., H. 2 (1987), pp. 149-150
Published by: Verlag C.H.Beck
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27689509 .
Accessed: 20/02/2015 17:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Verlag C.H.Beck is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Gnomon.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:26:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
149
VORLAGEN UND NACHRICHTEN
III:
Colli: La sapienza greca. Volume
Giorgio
Milano:
Eraclito.
215 S.
1980.
Adelphi
30000 L.
Basically,
Heraclitus.
a total of
this
is another
The
book
minor
consists
of
edition
text of
of Greek
and testimonies
(no
is
the two categories
a
in the book),
made
by
facing
accompanied
a selective
Italian
translation,
apparatus
by
sources
and modern
literature
criticus,
by
of brief notes, called cAppunti per un
(20-133);
an
commento*
(133-168);
finally, of
Appendix
six
from
books
passages
previous
comprising
147 fragments
between
clear distinction
by Colli
(171-198).1
Colli died in 1979 before
?torso?
This
(p. 13) was
the book.
finishing
then published
by
who
the gratitude
Dario Del Corno,
deserves
of the reader for an impeccable
and a
printing
errors.
text free from typographical
Greek
C.'s
last book does not ad
Unfortunately,
vance
our
of
the thought
of the
knowledge
it is confusing
the contrary,
Riddler.
On
and
due to the lack of criticism on the
misleading,
a shaky
part of its author. Too often it displays
and the interpretations
advanced
Greek,
by C.
attest to a rather dilettantic
in futility,
exercise
so common
in Heraclitean
scholarship
today.
are
First of all, the fragments
in
arranged
otju.uxxto: crcax
with
accordance
the principle
TOL In his cCriteri dell' edizione',
C. states (10):
una
per parte mia,
?Proporr?,
presentazione
a
tes
diversa dei testi, rinunciando
distinguere
e
timoniale
dei frammenti,
parlero soltanto di
intesi in un senso pi? ampio. Una
frammenti,
(A) offrira i testi pi? antichi, sino
prima sezione
una seconda
all' ?poca di Aristotele;
sezione
?
i
testi
offrira
da
tratti
fonti posteriori.
(B)
Such a chronological
is
distinction,
however,
a
the body of evidence on
fallacy. It contradicts
thinker,
any Presocratic
including Heraclitus.
out of a total
itwas refuted by C. himself:
And
of 121 fragments placed by C. in section A, no
to
less than 117 come from sources posterior
and 4 from Aristotle
himself.
Aristotle,
More
C.'s Greek
importantly,
simply does
are a few
convince. Here
examples.
A 3 Colli = B 50 DK = 26 M.2
reads: oiw
axoTjaavxac
e\iov, oXkh too \6yov
{?uoXo
C. de
ye?v} oxxpov ?axiv ev Jt?vxa ei??vai.
in the text of Hippolytus
letes o\ioXoyE?v
(Re
?Per chi ascolta
and translates:
9.9.1),
futado
non
?
bensi
me,
l'espressione,
sapienza
not
riconoscere
che tutte le cose sono una sola.?
That means
his Greek
that C. had understood
text as follows:
ev Jt?vxa
oocp?v ?oxiv ei??vai
is
Such an interpretation,
however,
(sc. eivai).
first, ?uo^oye?v
For,
(seil,
self-destroying.
sum and, more
x?) ^vv?)
both
importantly,
of
X?y?u) is one of the 'programmatic
puns'
As such it was recognized
Heraclitus.
already
:x? o^oXoyov?evwc
?fjv xo?xo ?5
by the Stoics
?oxi xa?' ?va X?yov xai oij^qpcovov ?fjv (Mar
covich 78 f). And
ei??vai
in Hippoly
second,
tus (p. 344.4 Marcovich3)
is a clear scribal error
for eivai. For (1), the same scribal error is re
two more
times in the Refutado
peated
(pp.
75.7 and 133.3). And
(2), the text, ?v Jt?vxa
con
is confirmed
both by Hippolytus'
eivai,
... eivai x? Jt?v ... fteov
text (Tioaxtaixoc
i.e., ?v) and by Philo Leg. alleg. 3.7
?ixaiov,
... ?v x?
bo\a
fHoaxXeixeio?
Jt?v). Conse
text is sound and should not be
quently, Diels'
xov X?yov
oiw
?uo?, ?Xk?
tampered with:
?xo?aavxac
eivai.
A
ouoXoyeiv
=
?axiv
?v Jt?vxa
28 M reads: ei ?? xqt)
Jt?Xefxov
?uv?v xai ??xt]v ?oiv xai
Jt?vxa xax?
fxeva ...
yiv?fieva
{?oiv} x? xQe
to be a
C. takes the sentence
for
which
protasis
an
is missing:
il frammento
?Intendo
apodosis
come mancante
di una conclusione,
cio? in
7 Colli
x?v
80 DK
ooqp?v
??vxa
he translates:
(138). Consequently,
completo?
?E se ? necessario
che la guerra sia concatenata,
e la
e che tutte le cose
sia la contesa,
giustizia
...?
i vaticinii
secondo
sorgano
a
is another
with
example of meddling
text. For
no
Heraclitus
has
(1),
satisfactory
doubts
about the necessity
of war as a universal
as
che ...?),
(contra ?E se ? necessario
principle
it is witnessed
affirmation
of
by the emphatic
This
the universality
of war in his B 53 DK
(29 M;
19 Colli):
Jt?^euo? Jtavx v [lev Jtaxr)Q ?axi,
Jt?vxcov ?? ?aadeTJc.
sup
(2) Schleiermacher's
are: Physis
Studi
They
kryptesthai
philei.
sulla filosof?a greca, Milano
1948; Filosof?a del
Milano
Nietzsche,
1969; Dopo
l'espressione,
Milano
1974; La nascita della filosof?a, Milano
1975; La sapienza
greca I, Milano
1978; II,
Milano
1978.
2
M. Marcovich,
Eraclito:
Frammenti,
Firenze
1978.
3
Refutado
omnium haeresium,
Hippolytus,
ed. M. Marcovich,
PTS 25, Berlin
1986.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:26:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
150
V. Langholf:
Pigeaud,
xqt], reflects Heraclitus'
Ei??(vai)
plement,
?Homer
is
antihomeric
polemics,
by implying,
Aristotle
It is supported
damn wrong?.
by
E. E. H i, 1235 a 25: xai TioaxXeitoc
emupi?
x?) JtOLT|oavTL '(b? 8Qi? ex xe de
?vfroo?jtcuv
?jt?Xoixo*
18.107),
(Iliad
own ironical sneer directed
Heraclitus'
xai
and by
against
xo?xov
jtXetoxa Ei??vai,
?moxavxai
... aux
?axi?
?yivwoxEV
(B 57 DK; 43 M; A 26
C).
(3) The transmitted
reading, xai ywofXEva
xax'
is confirmed
jt?vxa
eqiv,
by Aristotle
Hesiod:
1, 1155b 6 (= B 8 DK; A 5 C): xai
xax' eqiv yiveoftai.
C.'s,
(4) Finally,
i vaticinii?),
x? xQE^neva
is
xax?
(?secondo
in a sentence
of 'war and
senseless
speaking
emendation
of
strife*. The most
convincing
E.N.
jt?vxa
xai
is Diels'
xai
A,
XQ^jiEva,
I think
it is strongly
by
supported
Laert.
Jt?vxa
??
9.7
(Heraclitus):
Diog.
xa#' E?^aQ^?vriv.
yivEodai
=
'= B
28 Colli
A
reads:
59 DK
32M
xai
tdE?a
C.
YQacp?wv o???
axoX,if|, which
Origen's
XQEorv.
translates:
?La
sinuosa.?
First,
9.10.4)
strada
dei
pittori
since
Hippolytus
the object in question
? diritta
(Refut.
as a tool
explains
in afuller's
(ooyavov)
shop (x? Yvaq)E?ov, ?nel
it becomes
la gualchiera?,
clear that he
C),
wrote
'the path of the
down,
yv?cpcov o?o?,
sec
1.92.4). And
carding roller' (cf. Herodot.
from Hippolytus'
words
(p.
introductory
xai Etjfti) ??, cpn?iv, xai oxqe|3
346.15 Marc):
X?v (ev xai)
x? atjx? ?axi, it becomes
clear
that the rest of the fragment
should read as in
Eir?E?a xai
i.e.: yva(Pwv
o?o?
Hippolytus,
ond,
\i?a ?axi xai r\ avxr\.
oxoXif)
A 38 Colli: ?vajtauXa
?v xr? <$vyr\, ?Ristoro
is no new
It is
nell'esilio?.
This
fragment.
a reminiscence
of B 84 a
merely
by Plotinus
DK = 56a M, paraphrased
by him earlier (at
?va?Exai.
4.8.1.14):
nexa?aXkov
A 60 Colli = B 15 DK = 50 M punctuates
so: el \ir\ y?o Aiovu??)
xai
jcojutfrv ?jtoio?vxo
ai?oioiaiv
?vai??axaxa
?3|iveov aiafxa,
e?q
yaox' av. ?Se non fosse compiuta
per Dioniso
e se non fosse rivolto
a lui il
la processione,
canto dell' inno, in realt?, senza nessuna
ven
erazione
venerabili?.
oggetti
maneggerebbero
means
is wrong.
Ai?o?a
interpretation
'If
here pudendum
virile, and goes with ?o\ia,
in procession
for Diony
they failed to march
sus and to sing the hymn
to the phallus,
(such
This
an omission)
be called an act of the ut
would
most
irreverence'.
For
(1) that ai?oioioiv
means
Adv.
is supported
by Arnobius
phallus
: hi
nat. 5.29 (Heraclitus)
is a
(2) There
phalli.
chiastic
?jtoio?vxo
between
parallelism
and ujxveov ?o\ia
Aiov?o?)
ai?oioioiv
JtO|XJtf)v
(abc:
La maladie
de l'?me
c b a). And
a
misses
(3), C.'s
interpretation
as a matter
of
pun of Heraclitus:
is an ?o\ia
a?oo?oiaiv
which
is
?vai??axaxov.
= B
=
A 61 Colli
46 M: 01 yovv
58 DK
?In
...;
xaiovxe?
?axQO? x?jxvovxe?,
jr?vxr|,
caso i medici,
e bruciando
in
ogni
tagliando
...? The
xeuveiv xai
tutti imodi,
expression,
significant
it
fact,
cto amputate
is a
and then cauterize1,
xaieiv,
term of
technical
since, e. g.,
war-traumatology
849. And
Jt?vxr) is part of
Agam.
Aeschylus
(not Heraclitus')
(p.
Hippolytus'
explanation
346.12 Marc):
(xoux?oxi)
Jt?vxrj ?aaavi^ov
? xo?? ?QQcoaxoijvxa?.
xe? xax
= B 11 DK = 80 M:
A 83 Colli
jr?v y?g
?ojtex?v
C.'s
(deou)
n\?)yr\ v?^exai.
supple
ment deo?
is unwarranted.
Heraclitus
is sim
common
wisdom:
ply quoting
cEvery animal is
to pasture by a blow5, where
driven
cfrom the
is to be understood.
So was the say
shepherd'
Critias
109 be,
ing understood
by Plato,
xaft?jteo
xxr|vr] n\r\yr\
jroiji?ve?
v?uovxe?.
What
Heraclitus
had
in mind
is probably
Cleanthes
Hymn.
y?? vno 7ikr\yr\?
B 64
Heraclit.
qp?oecoc Jt?vx3 SQya (xet?xai);
DK = j<)M, xa?e Jt?vxa oiaxi?ei
xeoauv?c.
keqclvvov
JtXt)ytj. Compare
11 xov
Iovis
(se. KEQavvov)
qpooviuov
87 Colli:
l'immediatezza?.
x? kvq.
This
sperimenta
?Il fuoeo
is no new
of Heraclitus,
but only Hippolytus'
fragment
on B 64 DK: Aeyei
?? (se. Herac
commentary
litus) xa? (jpQ?viuxrv xotixo etvai x? kvq xai
tcdv oX v a?xiov,
xfj? ?ioixT|oe(j??
X?y v
otJxco?-
jcavxa
cxa?e
'xeoauvoc'
xaxeuduvei)
The
is
terminology
oiaxiCei*
(xoux?oxi
(p. 347.32-34 Marc).
as G. S. Kirk,
Stoic,
The
cHeraclitus,
1954),
bridge,
A 117 Colli
Cosmic
Fragments*
out.
353, had pointed
= B 121 DK =
105 M:
\ii\ ?? ei? ?vf|ioxo?
non deve eccellere
EOXCL),?fra noi,
uno solo?. Read:
(Cam
fjuiov
in verit?,
\ir\be etc
L. 9.2.
A1 122 (Plato Symp.
than a
187 a) is no more
Platonic
reminiscence
of B 51 DK = 27 M, no
new
fragment.
= A
...
A1
??
5 DK:
138 Colli
"Ijuraoo?
xai
6 MexajrovxLvoc
?
kvq
eHoax?.eixo?
a
can
How
such
5E(p?ato?.
doxographic
be granted the status of a fragment?
platitude
D.
University
of Illinois,
Urbana
Miroslav
Marcovich
sur
de Tarne. ?tude
Jackie Pigeaud: La maladie
la relation de l'?me et du corps dans la tradi
tion
Paris:
m?dico-philosophique
antique.
Les Belles Lettres
1981. 590 S. (Coll. d'?tu
des anciennes.)
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:26:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
