Date post: | 04-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | lactacidemia |
View: | 219 times |
Download: | 0 times |
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 126
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 226
PRESOCRATICS ND PLATO
Festschrift at Delphi
in Honor of Charles Kahn
Papers presented at the
Festschrift Symposium inHonor of
Charles KahnOrganized by the HYELE Institute for Comparative Studies
European Cultural Center of Delphi
June 3rd- 7 th 2009
Delphi Greece
Edited by
RICHARD PATTERSON VASSILIS KARASMANIS
and ARNOLD HERM NN
P RMENIDESPUBLISHING
as Vegas I urich IAthens
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 326
PARMENIDES PUBLISHING
Las Vegas Zurich Athens
copy 2012 Parmenides Publishing
All rights reserved
This edition published in 2012 by Parmenides Publishing
in the United States ofAmerica
ISBN soft cover 978-1-930972-75-9ISBN e-Book 978-1-930972-76-6
Library Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Presocratics and Plato festschrift at Delphi in honor of Charles Kahn
papers presented at the festschrift symposium in honor of Charles Kahn
organized by the Hyele Institute for Comparative Studies European Cultural
Center of Delphi June 3rd7th 2009 Delphi Greece I edited by Richard
Patterson Vassilis Karasmanis and Arnold Hermann
p em
Includes bibliographical references (p ) and indexes
ISBN 978-1-930972-75-9 (pbk alk paper) -- ISBN 978-1-930972-76-6(e-book)
1 Plato--Congresses 2 Pre-Socratic philosophers--Congresses 1 Kahn
Charles H II Patterson Richard 1946- III Karasmanis V (Vassilis) IV
Hermann Arnold
B395 P732012
182--dc23
2012033336
Typeset in Adobe Garamond and OdysseaUBSU (Greek)
Printed and lay-flat bound by USBookPrint wwwusbookprintcom
1-888-PARMENIDES
wwwparmenidescom
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 426
Heracl itus on the Sun
nrique Hulsz Piccone
In the first part of this brief approach to the solar fragments I will
propose a different reading of B6 recovering the truly Heraclitean
idea that the sun is always new which I will interpret along
more Platonic than Aristotelian lines as having a metaphysical
import (rather than being merely a piece of physical doctrine) The
second part revisits briefly Column IV of the Oerveni papyrus
questions the unified version of B3 and B94 and keeping closer
to Plutarchs version of the latter finally suggests a less physicalistic
scenario as a better-fitting context for the text of the solar fragments
themselves bringing them together through BI6s cryptic reference
to an ever-shining analogue of the sun
PART THE SUN IN FLUX
Among Heraclitus fragments [OK] B6 ( The sun is newevery day ) has been long recognized as authentic Possibly just a
paraphrase and not a verbatim citation2 it is transmitted by Aristotle
I am referring to modern editors and interpreters at least since Ingram
Bywater whose work is earlier than Hermann Dielss (our fragment 6 corresponds
to number 32 in his edition Heracliti Ephesii Reliquiae (Oxford 1877) t is
crucial to have in mind that all Heraclitus fragments have come to us only
through doxographical tradition which is indirect by definition2 Cf M Marcovichs classification Heraclitus Editio Maior (MeridaVenezuela 1967 from now on referred to as HEM which specifies the status
of each fragment according to its probable degree of accuracy by the variablesof quotation [ cita J (C) paraphrase (P) and reminiscence (R) See also S
Mouraviev Heraclitea III3Bi ii iii (Sankt Augustin Academia Verlag 2006)
whose version differs from Diels-Kranz (DK) only in word order and who takesnotice of and differs from my own poin t of view cf below note 13) t should
not be forgotten that in the ancient tradition the difference between indirect
is cf
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
who refers explicitly to Heraclitus by name at the end of a passage
in the second book of his Meteorology Most recent interpretationshave read it as a relatively straightforward statement of physical
doctrine taking for granted that a cosmological (astronomical
and meteorological) scenario must be the appropriate one rather
than seeing it as an illustration of a general truth or even as a
critical reflection on the temporality of human life and experience
Almost all have agreed what the extent of the quotation is 3 t will
be instructive to remember here Kirks cautious but optimistic
conclusion at the end of his long and detailed discussion When
all is said we still do not know the exact purpose of the declaration
that the sun is new every day but the number of possible purposes
has been substantially limited 4 and contrast it with Marcovichs
remarkable confidence The meaning of the fragment seems to
be clear enough ifwe bring it together with Theophrastus account
on Heraclitus meteorology 5 an opinion further supported by
interpreting the saying as an intended attack on the popular beliefin the suns divinity
To begin with I reproduce the Aristotelian passage in full
This is why all of those who came before are ridicu-
lous too for they supposed that the sun is nurtured
by the moist And some say that this too is why
solstices happen For the places of the solstices arenot always capable of providing nourishment for
the sun But it is necessary that this happens or the
Kahn Anaximander and the Origins Greek Cosmology (Indianapolis Hackett
1994) 172 One should not dismiss Proclus version (in Tim Vol 3 311 42nd
veoc e p ~ [ J e p 7 1 ~ A ~ O C new every day is the sun which differs only in word
order from Aristotles the version preferred in DK Cpound Agustin Garda Calvo
Heraclito Razon Com un [HRC] (Madrid Lucina 1985) 190-192
3 There are some exceptions to this generalized tendency A Garda Calvo
HRC Marcel Conche Heraclite Fragments (Paris PUF 1986) Jean Brun
Heraclite ou e philosophe de eternel retour (Paris Seghers 1969) ad B3 among
others The line I will pursue is actually considered by G S Kirk Heraclitus
The Cosmic Fragments (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1978)266 but
dismissed implicitly
4 Kirk Cosmic Fragments 264-279
5 Marcovich HEM 316 and 318
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 626
Heraclitus on The Sun
sun would be destroyed Because the visible fire as
long as it has nourishment to that extent it livesand the moist is the only nourishment for fire As
if the moist that goes upwards could reach to the
sun or as if its ascent was like that of the flame
when this is produced Because they assumed that
the flame is alike they supposed it likely that the
same would happen in the case of the sun But this
is not so For flame is produced by the continuousinterchange of the moist and the dry and it is not
nurtured (because so to speak it never stays the
same) but in the case of the sun its impossible that
this would happen since if it were nourished in
the way they say it is its evident too as Heraclitus
says that the sun is not only new every day hut
always new continuously 0111-01 o t ~ xoct I 1 i A I O ~au 00 XOC17OC7tep p o c x l e ~ t o ~ ltPlJOW V O ~ Eqgt n H TJIIoEP fl E ( J ~ L v tlll laquoEl E O ~ r J U l e x w ~ ) 6
Interpreters have stressed the need to take the whole passage as
a unity to make good sense of Heraclitus words so-for the sake
of the passages internallogic-Aristotles presentation of the saying
has been sometimes considered to imply that Heraclitus himselfmust be included among those who believed that the sun (a) is
fiery and (b) is nurtured by moisture Now this claim could in
principle be challenged wholly or partially especially since neither
6 Aristotle Meteorology B 2 354b33ff
7 Harold Cherniss Aristotle s Criticism o Presocratic Philosophy [ACPP] (Baltimore The John Hopkins University Press 1935) 134 with n541) maintained
that Aristotles reference to Heraclitus and his followers is exclusive (a thesisthat seems excessive) Marcovich (HEM 312-318) accepts that an allusion toHeraclitus is intended (315) as do Kirk (HCF 265-266) and R Mondolfo
Eraclito Testimonianze e mitazioni (Firenze La N uova Italia 1972 119-123
with n156) but they all leave other possibilities open Inclusion ofAnaximanderAnaximenes Xenophanes Antiphon and perhaps Alcmaeon does not precludethis notion from being a common bdief in the air so to speak in pre-Aristotelian times Hippocratic treatises also provide evidence for the view that the moist
feeds the hot Now whether Heraclitus hdd a similar view or not is ofcourse
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 726
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 826
eraclituson The un
he scholiasts take on the relevant point is quite straightforward
Heraclitus the Ephesian a physicist said that the
sun as it comes to the Western sea sinks in it and
is extinguished then it goes under the earth and
as it reaches above the Eastern horizon it kindles
again and this happens forever9
More is going on here than meets the eye First it is noteworthythat the scholiasts point of view is considerably more explicit than
Platos and brings with itself the whole Aristotelian-Theophrastean
physicalistic interpretation of Heraclitus he epublic passage is
centered on the key words extinguished ( amp 1 t o c r ~ i I V u V t ~ ~ ) and
kindled ( l ~ ~ 1 t t o v t c x ~ ) which imply only that the fiery Heraclitean
sun was cyclically quenched and re-kindled (but not necessarily that
the sun dives into the sea or that it continues unlit under the earth onits way back to the East) So even if there was in Heraclitus lost book
some statement to the effect that the sun dies out and is re-kindled
it is still doubtful whether it really belonged in an astronomical
meteorological model ofexplanation such as the scholiast describes
A second relevant observation is that Platos allusion to the
sun-theme is subtly framed lO to fit within a proportional triadic
relationship between cosmos polis and individuals which looksquite Heraclitean and which Plato appropriates as the backbone
of the alternate utopian philosophic model Platos allusion
to B6 is quite oblique but he seems to intentionally recall the
language of fragments B30 and B26 (which deal respectively with
the fiery cosmos eternally going out and again re-kindling and
the proportional relationship of the waking man the sleeper and
the dead) he brief reference to the Heraclitean sun anticipates
the famous set of analogical images the Platonic sun the divided
9 H p O C X A e V t O ~ 6 E lt p i O ~ o ~ lt p u O ~ x o ~ WV EAeyeV on 6 A ~ O ~ V fj ounxjj~ ~ A O C O 0 7 J E A ~ O O V x ~ t x ~ ~ o u ~ V ~ l h j j O ~ i v V J ~ ~ e h ~ O ~ e A ~ O O V 0 U1tO y1jvx ~ t ~ amp V ~ O A ~ V lt p ~ o c O ~ ~ E O C 1 t e ~ 1 t O C A ~ V x ~ t 00 0 ~ ~ y L y v e ~ ~ 10 It is not often remarked that the verbs Plato playfully uses here X1tW and
EOC1tW in the double sense of touching being in contact with set fire to
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 926
Enrique HGlsz Piccone
line and the cave So it seems that Platos information is likely to
be true which provides a meaningful complement to the new sun( ~ A W e viae) ofB6 In the case of the scholiast the function of the
sun-symbolism within Heraclitus philosophical framework could
still have been missed A fragment from Democritus might also
echo Heraclitus B6 in a non-cosmological contextl suggesting a
connection with B1712 and so could perhaps be a useful counter
point to the physicalistic perspective on the Heraclitean sun
Up to now a minimalistic estimate of the actual extent of B6
(6 ~ A W e vEae europ ~ f 1 E P 1 l euroOt[v) has been the predominant trend
among scholars a reading thought to be backed by the so-called
internal logic ofAristotles argument l3 Taken on its merits however
the argument is not a particularly good one The notion attributed
to Heraclitus taking the whole passage as a unity (and leaving
aside for the moment the details of the conjectured mechanics
of the process) is that assuming that the fiery sun is born as it
is kindled at dawn and dies out as it is quenched at nightl4 it
11 DK 68B158 (Plutarch De Latenter Vivendo 5 p 1129pound) verx trp ~ - l e p 1 J ~rppoveonee ocvamppw7tm (Men have new thoughts every day)
12 DK 22B17 ou yocp rppoveoucn CmrxuCrx 7tOAAOL o x o O o ~ t y x u p e u O ~ v ouoe
-lrxampovCee y ~ v w O x o u O ~ v ewuCo O ~ oe o o x e o u O ~ (Many dont understand suchthings as those they encounter nor do they know them once they have learnedbut think themselves they do) Cf also DK 22B72 6 J ~ - l c X A ~ o C r x o ~ t J v e x w e
O - l ~ A O U O ~ lt A 6 y w ~ C w ~ C oc OArx o ~ o ~ x o u v n gt C o h w ~ o ~ r x r p e p o v C r x ~ xrxt ore xrxamp
~ - l e p r x v t y x u p o u O ~ C rxu C rx rxuCoie ~ e v r x r p r x L v e t r x ~ (That which they meetmost frequently ltthe logos that governs alb from this they differ and the thingsthey meet every day these seem foreign to them)
13 f M Q U f a v Heraclitea IILBiii (2006) 14 Certains auteurs [ J incluent u -lovov et ampAJampd veoe Ouvexwe (contexte dAristote) dans la citation cequi semble confirme Pyen Plotin (ampd x r x ~ v o v y L v e O amp r x ~ ) Cette opinion ne resistetoutefois pas it l a n a l y s ~ du contexte aristotelicien OU la conception dun soleilen r e n o ~ v e l e m e n t permanent joue Ie role de reductio ad absurdum dune application s i ~ t a n e e s6leil de la theorie (quAristote critique) dun solei de feunourrissant dexhalaisons humides et de la theorie (aristotelicienne)
selon laquelle la Hamme serait un echange perpetuel entre Ihumide et Ie sec14 Both Kirk and Marcovich thought it likely that B6 was preceded or followedby some such assertion about the suns extinction and rekindling This is stageone in Kirks interpretation of Aristotles argument stage 2 is represented by the
O x c X r p r x ~ theory stage 3 by the amp v r x amp u - l L r x O ~ e theory These are followed by the onlyexplicit piece of reasoning in the Meteorology passage climaxing in the quotationgiven in note 6 above David Sider has proposed a different reconstruction Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus in Studies on the erveni Papyrus [SDPJ (OxfordClarendon Press 1977) 129-148 on which see further below note 43
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1026
Heraclitus on The Sun
canbesaid that it is VeuroOe eurocp ~ f J euro P 1 l neworyoungatdawn
becauseregularlyquenchedandreignitedaccordingtofixedtemporal
successiveperiodsThe earlierthinkersmentioned byAristotle
denouncedforhavingsupposedthesun is nourishedbymoisture
have sometimes been thought toincludeHeraclitusbut this is
doubtfulAnd anyway even if we dosetaside theattributionof
the nourishingof thesun on moisture (alongwith theJingleor
doubleexhalation [ r i v c x f ) u f J L c x O ~ e ] doctrine)to H e r a ~ f u u s w e a ~stillleftwiththenotionthatthesunis fiery and b e ~ a u s e of thisitis newnotonlyeveryday(atdawn) but alwaysSoaccordingto
theusualreadingAristotlewouldbecharging e r a c l i t ~ withnot
beingradicalenoughForwhenhesaidthesun is new v e [ y - d ~ Yheshouldhaverealizedthat thisis agrossunderstatementofwhat
is metaphysicallyneededwithin hisown frameworkwhich-as
interpretedby Aristotle-would be an extremeform of theall
thingsflow ( 1 t ~ V t c x p e ~ ) therheontologicalmodelPointingto
HeraclitusshortcomingsAristotlewouldbe putting forwardhis
own criticism correctingthesayingwith whatHeraclitusshould
havesaid that thesun is alwaysnew (ridVeuroOe
Thereis someindication(intherelevantdoxography though
notintheauthenticfragmentsthemselves) that suchaconception
of adailydifferentsun washeldbyXenophanesHis reported
viewwas that afierysunl5 is generatedliterallyeveryday (xcxf)
h ~ O t l ) v ~ f J euro p c x v ) fromsmallsparks in theclouds so an entirely
differentsunshinesoverandwarmseachmorningtheearthbelow
theoldonebecominglostfrom our viewinthe infinitedistanceit
travels in astraightline beingsubstitutedbyan entirelynewone
thenextday16 Xenophanes thesisentailsthesuccessive existence
of an infinitenumberof suns eachirreducibletotheotherseach
sun correspondingto eachday canthusbe saidto benew(that
is other thanordifferentfrom theothers)Heraclitus few
relevantso-calledphysicalorcosmicfragmentsareundoubtedly
hardtoassessbut onemightquestionthelikelihoodof aprimarily
cosmologicaland doctrinalinterpretation of histhinkingrather
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1126
nrique Hli lsz Piccone
than simply take for granted that the details of just that sort of
account have not reached us That he stated nothing clear1 7 about
these matters represents a more credible possibility
We know from the fragments themselves that Heraclitus was
extremely critical of the reputedly wise men from the distant past and
from his own time and that he explicitly denied that Xenophanes
understood anything even if he qualified as a polymath (B40)18
That Heraclitus held a similar belief in infinite suns (parallel to the
sequence of days) is an unlikely hypothesis not just because of his
manifest disdain ofXenophanes but also in virtue of something that
is implied in his criticism of Hesiod who according to B57 did not
even know Night and Day for they are one 19 In B106 Hesiodsignorance concerns not only the uni ty of Night and Day but also
the single nature (cpUOt0 common to all days20 This suggests that
the Heraclitean sun (recognized as the cause ofdaylight B99) 1 too
is one and the same every day and it has a distinctive cpuOtc of its
own The upshot is that Heraclitus thought of the sun as a single and
persistent being which retains its selfhood through its change just
as he thought of the same river as a flux of ever different waters22
The Aristotelian passage implicitly suggests several possible
Heracleitean theses The most basic assumption I label
17 Cf eg DL 98 altxltpwe S ouSev euro x t W e t lt X ~ (he doesnt set forth anythingclear) ibid 911 mpt Se t1je y ~ e ouSev a 1 t o lt p lt x L v e t lt X ~ 1tOpoundltx t Le euronv aAAouSe 1tept twv axltxltpwv (he doesnt show anything clear about what sort of
thing is the earth nor about the bowls)
18 DK 22B40 1 t O A U P lt x ~ t L I ) voov ou S ~ S 6 t a x e v HaLoSov yiXp v euro S L S lt X ~ E xltxL
TIuampltxyop1JV ltxotpounde tE Eevoltpdtvedt tE xltxL EXltXtltXLOV (Much learning doesntteach intelligence For it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and againXenophanes and Hecataeus)
19 DK 22B57 S ~ M a x lt X A O e Se 1tAELat6gtV HaLoSoe toQZGV euro 1 t L a t ~ t lt X ~1tAeLatltX dSivltXL (Jane ~ p i p l ) v xltxL eultppOVl)V oux euro y L ~ M c r X e V Ecru YOCpEV
(Teacher of most men is Hesiod They think he knew plenty he who dilt-nt
recognize day and night for they are one)
20 DK 22B106 c X y v o o Q v t ~ ltpUcrLv ~ p i p lt x e cX1tdtcrl)e pLltxlt oucrltxv ( [HesiJ)d] ignored that the nature of any day is one)
21 DK 22B99 et ~ A t O e ~ V evexltx tWV (lA-WV (latpwv ~ ( p P O V I ) XV (Ifthere were no sun for the sake of the other stars it would be night)
22 DK 22B12 1tOtltXPOLcrL tOLcrtJ lt X U t O L c r ~ v euro P ~ lt x L v o U c r L V hepltx xltxL Etepx
6SltxtltX eurotLppeL (On those who step into the same rivers other and other waters
flow )
10-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1226
Heraclitus on The Sun
(0) The sun is fire or fiery or made of fire
Other theses extend this fundamental idea(1) The sun feeds on moisture
2) Solstices are explained on this basis
(3) The (false) grounds for this view are
(3a) A supposed analogy of sun-fire with everyday
ordinary fire and
(3b) an assimilation of the ascent of atmospherical
vapor on the one hand and the upward movement
of flame in combustion on the other
After a denial en bloc of the truth ofall this Aristotle concludes
critically that
(4) Heraclitus in saying the sun is new merely every
day failed to reach the necessary conclusion that it
would have to be always new (that is not the same
at any moment)
Some comments are in order First that Heraclitus and his
alleged followers (but who are they) are alluded to in the reference
to all those earlier thinkers who assumed the sun was nourished
by the moist m x Y - r ~ ~ o O o ~ -rbJY 7 r p 6 - r ~ p o y l ) 7 r D C l ~ O Y -rOY ~ W Y- r p e q l e O amp C l ~ rc1gt uypc1raquo seems to be unanimously accepted It should
be noted though that strictly speaking this remains an inference
for neither Aristotle nor any of the preserved fragments actually
states just that On the further assumption that the moist is the only
nourishment for fire (-ro 0 uypov rc1gt 1tUpt - r p O q l ~ v e t v C l ~ J6vov)
we arrive at the conclusion that the sun lives at the expense of (sea)
moisture which ascends and feeds the fire ofwhich the sun is made
(As to the extinction during night-time the doxographical report
t1tt Jepouc in Diogenes Laertius links night and the dark exhala
tion [IX 11]) The Heraclitean fragments that seem to be echoed
are B31 (both parts) B36 and (for the idea of nourishment) B114
Strangely enough none of them deals with the sun but instead
respectively with the turnings of fire 1tUPOC -rP01tClL) the cycle
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
of birth and death of soul ( ~ u X ~ ) and the nurturing of all human
laws (VO JOL) on the single divine one common to all (the Logos as
lex naturae The unity-in-opposition theory construed as a narrowphysicalistic explanation is also in play although only obscurely
hinted at in Aristotles interpretation The grounding of this in
Heraclitus seems very vague but it might further reflect B60 and
B126 A somewhat slighter anomaly would seem to be that the
moist requires as contrary the dry (not the sun) Insistence on the
exclusive relationship between contraries (each thing has only one
contrary) is reminiscent of Plato but not of Heraclitus
Secondly as to solstices being explained in this way (that is solelyon the view that the sun is nurtured by moisture) by Heraclitus
in particular this point seems especially far-fetched Perhaps the
closest we can get to solstices in Heraclitus is B94 (The Sun will
not overstep its measures [tJ-eurotpoc)) and BlOO23
In the third place 3a and 3b seem to be entirely due to Aristotles
own conjecture Perhaps there is a fusion here of other sources-
Heraclitus B16 and B54 immediately come to mind not exclud
ing views in other authors The theory implied in 3b could be ahistorical antecedent of Aristotles own exhalation doctrine but it
is more likely than not that there was no such thing in Heraclitus
view in spite of the commonplace physicalistic interpretation of
the way up and down o M ~ avw xoc tw) of B60 Heraclitus own
approach to such meteorological phenomena (in B31 B36) seems
hardly usable for restoring Aristotles credibility Some form ofvapor
( i h t J - ~ ) however is quite possible in Xenophanes
And last with all this in mind we may appreciate that Aristotlesfinal move (charging Heraclitus with not being radical enough) can
do without the assumptions just listed as 1-3 The only premise really
needed is that the sun is fiery Aristotles dissent from Heraclitus
which is the immediate basis for actually mentioning him by name
and quoting him need not be interpreted within a meteorological
framework and makes perfect sense when limited to the very basic
notion of the sun as fiery Besides the well-known metaphysical
23 DK 22BlOO (Plutarch Quaestiones Platonicae 8 4lO07D) c ) p o c ~ oct 1tIxvtoc
ltPEPOU(H (the seasons bringers of all things)
2-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1426
Heraclitus on The Sun
hostility to the allegedly Heraclitean Universal Flux for Aristotle
himself (according to at least one interpretation) 24 the sun is made
of ether (ocUtYjp) not fire and is neither hot nor dry A simpler
reading of the final statement presents itself if one assumes (with
Heraclitus) the suns fiery nature then one should go on to say
(as does Heraclitus) that the sun is not only new every day (as
Xenophanes said) but it is always new Read in this way Aristotles
final point turns out to be not a criticism but the actual report of
Heraclitus extreme but self-consistent (even if false) view
It could be conjectured that Heraclitus is reacting to Xenophanes
and expressing in his own coinage the true view brings out the suns
nature by calling it always new This recalls t i d ~ ( l ) o V ( ever-living )
from B30 and farther still the ever real logos A y o ~ EWV o c ~ e L of the Proem) t is well to remember that B99 proves Heraclitus
awareness of the sun being the true cause of night (by absence) and
(by presence) of day too f the nature of all days is one B106) it
would be natural enough for Heraclitus to think of the sun as being
endowed with a permanent identity So the Heraclitean sun is as
the fiery eternal cosmos ( x o O f J O ~ ) the same for all or as in B89
one and the same (for those who are awake)
It is not so easy to assess with confidence what the limits of
Aristotles quotation are f his rendering ofHeraclitus is close we
could expect an expanded original along these lines ou fJOVOV v i o ~Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO nV ~ ) w ~ ti)) tid i o ~ (xoct w u t o ~ ) ( the sun is not
new only every day but it is always new and the same ) A simpler
alternative could be perhaps ) ~ o ~ v i o ~ Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO t Lv tict v i o ~(xoct wuto) ( the sun is new every day always new and the same
My preferred conjecture would be something like ~ ) w ou fJovov
vio Ecp ~ f J i p Y l ti)) tict vio EO t Lv (the sun is not only new every
day but it is new always ) What is most important is not to pass
silently over Heraclitus characteristic style of which there could
4 Already known to Plotinus who alludes to t o 7tefL7t t ov crwfLlX see below
note 26 For Aristotles theory of a 7tpw t ov crwfLlX cf e caelo 269bff
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be traces in Plato25 Plotinus26 and LucretiusY My point is that
a reasonable version of B6 should include the formula rid veo
These last two words just by themselves actually make an excellent
synthesis ofHeraclitus philosophy as a whole and describe perfectly
the suns CPUcrL which mirrors the whole xocrfLo So I conclude
that Heraclitus basic assertion is that the sun is forever the same
precisely in that it is always new persistently changing every day and
at every given moment just as the flux of the river constitutes its
dynamic identity and just as the xocrfLo itself is ever-living fire
so Heraclitus presentation of the nature of the sun symbolically
harmonizes sameness and difference
PART 2 THE SIZE OR THE LIMITS OF THE SUN
HOW GOOD IS THE EVIDENCE OFTHE DERVENI PAPYRUS
In 1981 almost twenty years after the Derveni papyrus
was discovered Walter Burkert gave a short paper in the Chieti
Symposium Heracliteum in which he presented the text reconstructed
by Parassoglou and Tsantsanoglou and made publicly known the few
lines in column IV containing the Heraclitus quotation28 Until then
the dominant approach to these two Heraclitean solar fragments[DK 22] B3 and B94 was to treat them separately Of course the
fact that both deal (although in very different ways) with Helios
25 Symposium 207d3 m I X t I X A e L 1 t E ~ Enpov vtt toO 1tIXAIXWU
( always leaves behind a different new creature instead of the old one 207 d7
l X ( m ) ~ X I X A E i t I X ~ ampAAIX vEo ampEt y ~ y v 6 f J E V O ~ ( Its called the same but it be
comes always new ) Cpound also Cratylus 409b5-8 Neov 16 1tOV XlXt EVOV dd eO n1tEpt -djv O E A ~ V Y j V toOto to p w ~ [ 1XUXACJl yocp 1tOV dd X U t ~ V 1 t E P ~ ~ W V veov
dd1 t L ~ amp A A E ~
( The light about the moon is always new and old [
] for in itscourse around it the sun always sheds on an ever new light )
26 Ennead II 1 2 lO-13 lvyxwpwv xlXt e7tt t01hwv o Y j A o v 6 t ~ tijl
HPIXXAELtCJl oC etpYj ampEt xlXt tov A ~ O V y L v E a ~ I X ~ 1 p ~ a t o t E A E ~ fJEV Y XP OUOEV
O V 1tpliyfJ1X dYj d nc IXIJtOO t XC ) 7 t o ~ E a E ~ C toO 1tEfJ7ttou 7 t l X p l X o e C l X ~ toawfJIXtoc ( He [sc Plato] evidently agrees with Heraclitus who also said that the
sun is always coming into being For Aristotle there would be no problem if oneadmits the theories of the fifth body )
27 De natura rerum V 662 (semina ardoris) quae fociunt solis novasemper lumina gigni
28 W Burkert Eraclito nel Papiro di Derveni due nuove testimonianze tti
del Symposium Heracliteum vol I (Rome Edizioni dell Ateneo 1983 31-42
14-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1626
eraclituson The Sun
naturally invited a connection but as the texts ofB3 (from Aetius)
and B94 (one among several versions in Plutarch) were presented in
Diels-Kranz mere juxtaposition did not seem appealing to editors
commentators and interpreters With the partial publication of the
Derveni papyrus things took a different direction A new line of
interpretation relied on the possibility that the author of the papyrus
intended the quotation as a continuous unity29 But even after
the official publication which benefitted greatly from applying
multi-spectral imaging to the remains finally came out in 2006
the papyrus bad physical shape still left enough room for almost
total uncertainty about some parts within the quotation itself (a
fact that has led to several versions which differ in their proposed
conjectures and supplements)
In Gabor Beteghs version lines 7-9 of column IV read
~ A ~ [ O ~ ] ~ o u xcxtoc cpuow cXIamppw[1t1ltou] ~ o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ [eat ] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ oux 0 1 t C p ~ amp A A W V e [ ]pouae[ 8
[ t ] y [ ~ ~ a e t c x ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v t ~ e u p ~ a o ~ [ a L L x 1 l ~ t1tLxoupO ] 9
The sun according to nature is a human foot in width 7
not transgressing its boundaries If 8
oversteps the Erinyes the guardians ofJustice will find it out30 9
29 Cpound D Sider (1997) Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus who referst a paragraph at the beginning of line 7 indicating a quotation (at least inintention) reinforced by the apparent lack of space for ~ A ~ O t in lines 8 and9 and suggesting that B3+B94 formed a connected thought in Hs originaltext (131) but see G Betegh The Derveni Papyrus Cosmology Theology andInterpretation (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004) 326n3 ALebedev did overstate his case when he wrote Any serious edition ofHeraclitusto come will cite B3 and B94 only as testimonia under the most complete andauthentic verbatim quotation of PDerv (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrififor Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79 (1989) 42) S Mouraviev (2006) and ABernabe De Tales aDemocrito Fragmentos Presocrdticos 2nd ed (Madrid Alianza2001) have followed this general line of interpretation in their editions ofHeraclitus treating B3 and B94 as a single continuous fragment
30 Gabor Betegh The Derveni Papyrus 10-11
5-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1726
Enrique HQlsz Piccone
There are some other possibilities (not exhaustive) First the
long awaited official reading by Kouremenos Parassoglou and
Tsantsanoglou
~ A ~ [ O ~ ]ou X(xt IX cpuow ampI-9pw[mJCou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
t o f 1 [ i y e - 9 o ] ~ oUx U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o u ] p o u ~ e [ u p o u ~ ] 8
[EoG d ~ E J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v euro ~ e u p ~ c r O I [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ eurotLxoupm] 9
The sun in the nature of is a human foot width 7
not exceeding in size the proper limits of its width 8
or else the Erinyes assistants of Dike will find it out 31 9
Jankos version
~ A ~ [ O ~ Ewu]WG X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v ampySpw[7teLou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [ecrn] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ OUX U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d Y[IXp t ~ e u ] p o u ~ e[wutoG 8
[ euro ] ~ [ ~ ~ c r e t ( x ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v e ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
The sun in accord with its own nature is in breadth the size 7
of a human foot
and does not surpass its limits for if it surpasses its own 8breadth at all
(the) Erinyes (the) allies ofustice will discover it32 9
L Schonbecks proposal
~ A ~ [ O ~ v i o ] ~ o u X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v amplSpw[7tdou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
tQQ[crxotou] OUX U 7 t e p ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o ] p o u ~ Mcp ~ J i p ( J (ampet)] 8
[ c p ] ~ [ e ~ d J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] vw euro ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
31 Theokritos Kouremenos George M Parassoglou Kyriakos TsantsanoglouThe Derveni Papyrus Edited with Introduction and Commentary [TDP] (FlorenceLeo S Olschki 2006) (Greek text of lines 7-9 apud Lakss review in Rhizai2007 vol IV 1 153-162 at 155)
32 Richard Janko The Derveni Papyrus an interim text ZPE 141 (2002)1-62 and The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logoi)A New Translation Classical Philology Vol 96 No1 (Jan 2001) 1-32 Greektext of col IV apudMouraviev (2006) This is also Bernabes reading Poetae epicigraeci testimonia etfragmenta (Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2007) Pap Derv colIV 188-192)
6-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1826
Heraclitus on The Sun
The new sun is not by nature the width of a human foot 7
from darkness not ever surpassing its proper limits every day 8
it shines if not the Erinyes Justices helpers will find him out33 9
Finally Mouravievs alternative reconstruction of the passage
and his French translation34
~ A [ O ~ 8 o8]e 00 Xoctoc cpuO v ampySpw[1tdou] e o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ 7
[lucetmouet]
t Q ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ ouJ t ) 1 t e p ~ O C A A W V d y[ocp e ~ e u ] p o u ~ 8
e [ ~ L - r l L L x 1 J ~[ e ] ~ [ L x o u p o ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v e ~ e u p ~ 0 0 4 [ 0 middot e1tLOxo1touO yocp] 9
ltCegt Soleil dont par nature la largeur (est) dun pied 7
dhomme duit I avance (raquo
sans outrepasser ses limites car sil ltsortait de sa largtgeur () les 8
Furiesltservantes de Justicegt Ie recaptureraient 9
Car elles veillent 35
The importance of the discovery has perhaps been somewhat
exaggerated36 at least concerning Heraclitus (as opposed to
Orphism) Nevertheless the papyrus is certainly one of the oldest
kstimonia on Heraclitus possibly even predating Platos writings
(of which the Derveni author does not show any knowledge) The
identity of the Derveni author is still very much a matter of debate
and conjecture37 but there is no doubt he is commenting on an
33 Loek Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11
ZP 95 1993 20
34 Serge Mouraviev Heraclitea HAl (Sankt Augustin Academia 1999 con-tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n 1 [CD 2001]) ch 1256-59
35 My translation This sun here whose size by nature is of a human foot
ltshinesmoves (raquo not overstepping its limits for i f he ltwent beyond hisgt size() the Erinyes Justices servantsgt would catch him
36 For instance R Janko wrote The Derveni papyrus is the most important
teXt relating to early Greek literature science religion and philosophy to havecome to light since the Renaissance BMCR 20061029 Review of TDPJ
37 The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier or even in
7-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 226
PRESOCRATICS ND PLATO
Festschrift at Delphi
in Honor of Charles Kahn
Papers presented at the
Festschrift Symposium inHonor of
Charles KahnOrganized by the HYELE Institute for Comparative Studies
European Cultural Center of Delphi
June 3rd- 7 th 2009
Delphi Greece
Edited by
RICHARD PATTERSON VASSILIS KARASMANIS
and ARNOLD HERM NN
P RMENIDESPUBLISHING
as Vegas I urich IAthens
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 326
PARMENIDES PUBLISHING
Las Vegas Zurich Athens
copy 2012 Parmenides Publishing
All rights reserved
This edition published in 2012 by Parmenides Publishing
in the United States ofAmerica
ISBN soft cover 978-1-930972-75-9ISBN e-Book 978-1-930972-76-6
Library Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Presocratics and Plato festschrift at Delphi in honor of Charles Kahn
papers presented at the festschrift symposium in honor of Charles Kahn
organized by the Hyele Institute for Comparative Studies European Cultural
Center of Delphi June 3rd7th 2009 Delphi Greece I edited by Richard
Patterson Vassilis Karasmanis and Arnold Hermann
p em
Includes bibliographical references (p ) and indexes
ISBN 978-1-930972-75-9 (pbk alk paper) -- ISBN 978-1-930972-76-6(e-book)
1 Plato--Congresses 2 Pre-Socratic philosophers--Congresses 1 Kahn
Charles H II Patterson Richard 1946- III Karasmanis V (Vassilis) IV
Hermann Arnold
B395 P732012
182--dc23
2012033336
Typeset in Adobe Garamond and OdysseaUBSU (Greek)
Printed and lay-flat bound by USBookPrint wwwusbookprintcom
1-888-PARMENIDES
wwwparmenidescom
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 426
Heracl itus on the Sun
nrique Hulsz Piccone
In the first part of this brief approach to the solar fragments I will
propose a different reading of B6 recovering the truly Heraclitean
idea that the sun is always new which I will interpret along
more Platonic than Aristotelian lines as having a metaphysical
import (rather than being merely a piece of physical doctrine) The
second part revisits briefly Column IV of the Oerveni papyrus
questions the unified version of B3 and B94 and keeping closer
to Plutarchs version of the latter finally suggests a less physicalistic
scenario as a better-fitting context for the text of the solar fragments
themselves bringing them together through BI6s cryptic reference
to an ever-shining analogue of the sun
PART THE SUN IN FLUX
Among Heraclitus fragments [OK] B6 ( The sun is newevery day ) has been long recognized as authentic Possibly just a
paraphrase and not a verbatim citation2 it is transmitted by Aristotle
I am referring to modern editors and interpreters at least since Ingram
Bywater whose work is earlier than Hermann Dielss (our fragment 6 corresponds
to number 32 in his edition Heracliti Ephesii Reliquiae (Oxford 1877) t is
crucial to have in mind that all Heraclitus fragments have come to us only
through doxographical tradition which is indirect by definition2 Cf M Marcovichs classification Heraclitus Editio Maior (MeridaVenezuela 1967 from now on referred to as HEM which specifies the status
of each fragment according to its probable degree of accuracy by the variablesof quotation [ cita J (C) paraphrase (P) and reminiscence (R) See also S
Mouraviev Heraclitea III3Bi ii iii (Sankt Augustin Academia Verlag 2006)
whose version differs from Diels-Kranz (DK) only in word order and who takesnotice of and differs from my own poin t of view cf below note 13) t should
not be forgotten that in the ancient tradition the difference between indirect
is cf
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
who refers explicitly to Heraclitus by name at the end of a passage
in the second book of his Meteorology Most recent interpretationshave read it as a relatively straightforward statement of physical
doctrine taking for granted that a cosmological (astronomical
and meteorological) scenario must be the appropriate one rather
than seeing it as an illustration of a general truth or even as a
critical reflection on the temporality of human life and experience
Almost all have agreed what the extent of the quotation is 3 t will
be instructive to remember here Kirks cautious but optimistic
conclusion at the end of his long and detailed discussion When
all is said we still do not know the exact purpose of the declaration
that the sun is new every day but the number of possible purposes
has been substantially limited 4 and contrast it with Marcovichs
remarkable confidence The meaning of the fragment seems to
be clear enough ifwe bring it together with Theophrastus account
on Heraclitus meteorology 5 an opinion further supported by
interpreting the saying as an intended attack on the popular beliefin the suns divinity
To begin with I reproduce the Aristotelian passage in full
This is why all of those who came before are ridicu-
lous too for they supposed that the sun is nurtured
by the moist And some say that this too is why
solstices happen For the places of the solstices arenot always capable of providing nourishment for
the sun But it is necessary that this happens or the
Kahn Anaximander and the Origins Greek Cosmology (Indianapolis Hackett
1994) 172 One should not dismiss Proclus version (in Tim Vol 3 311 42nd
veoc e p ~ [ J e p 7 1 ~ A ~ O C new every day is the sun which differs only in word
order from Aristotles the version preferred in DK Cpound Agustin Garda Calvo
Heraclito Razon Com un [HRC] (Madrid Lucina 1985) 190-192
3 There are some exceptions to this generalized tendency A Garda Calvo
HRC Marcel Conche Heraclite Fragments (Paris PUF 1986) Jean Brun
Heraclite ou e philosophe de eternel retour (Paris Seghers 1969) ad B3 among
others The line I will pursue is actually considered by G S Kirk Heraclitus
The Cosmic Fragments (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1978)266 but
dismissed implicitly
4 Kirk Cosmic Fragments 264-279
5 Marcovich HEM 316 and 318
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 626
Heraclitus on The Sun
sun would be destroyed Because the visible fire as
long as it has nourishment to that extent it livesand the moist is the only nourishment for fire As
if the moist that goes upwards could reach to the
sun or as if its ascent was like that of the flame
when this is produced Because they assumed that
the flame is alike they supposed it likely that the
same would happen in the case of the sun But this
is not so For flame is produced by the continuousinterchange of the moist and the dry and it is not
nurtured (because so to speak it never stays the
same) but in the case of the sun its impossible that
this would happen since if it were nourished in
the way they say it is its evident too as Heraclitus
says that the sun is not only new every day hut
always new continuously 0111-01 o t ~ xoct I 1 i A I O ~au 00 XOC17OC7tep p o c x l e ~ t o ~ ltPlJOW V O ~ Eqgt n H TJIIoEP fl E ( J ~ L v tlll laquoEl E O ~ r J U l e x w ~ ) 6
Interpreters have stressed the need to take the whole passage as
a unity to make good sense of Heraclitus words so-for the sake
of the passages internallogic-Aristotles presentation of the saying
has been sometimes considered to imply that Heraclitus himselfmust be included among those who believed that the sun (a) is
fiery and (b) is nurtured by moisture Now this claim could in
principle be challenged wholly or partially especially since neither
6 Aristotle Meteorology B 2 354b33ff
7 Harold Cherniss Aristotle s Criticism o Presocratic Philosophy [ACPP] (Baltimore The John Hopkins University Press 1935) 134 with n541) maintained
that Aristotles reference to Heraclitus and his followers is exclusive (a thesisthat seems excessive) Marcovich (HEM 312-318) accepts that an allusion toHeraclitus is intended (315) as do Kirk (HCF 265-266) and R Mondolfo
Eraclito Testimonianze e mitazioni (Firenze La N uova Italia 1972 119-123
with n156) but they all leave other possibilities open Inclusion ofAnaximanderAnaximenes Xenophanes Antiphon and perhaps Alcmaeon does not precludethis notion from being a common bdief in the air so to speak in pre-Aristotelian times Hippocratic treatises also provide evidence for the view that the moist
feeds the hot Now whether Heraclitus hdd a similar view or not is ofcourse
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 726
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 826
eraclituson The un
he scholiasts take on the relevant point is quite straightforward
Heraclitus the Ephesian a physicist said that the
sun as it comes to the Western sea sinks in it and
is extinguished then it goes under the earth and
as it reaches above the Eastern horizon it kindles
again and this happens forever9
More is going on here than meets the eye First it is noteworthythat the scholiasts point of view is considerably more explicit than
Platos and brings with itself the whole Aristotelian-Theophrastean
physicalistic interpretation of Heraclitus he epublic passage is
centered on the key words extinguished ( amp 1 t o c r ~ i I V u V t ~ ~ ) and
kindled ( l ~ ~ 1 t t o v t c x ~ ) which imply only that the fiery Heraclitean
sun was cyclically quenched and re-kindled (but not necessarily that
the sun dives into the sea or that it continues unlit under the earth onits way back to the East) So even if there was in Heraclitus lost book
some statement to the effect that the sun dies out and is re-kindled
it is still doubtful whether it really belonged in an astronomical
meteorological model ofexplanation such as the scholiast describes
A second relevant observation is that Platos allusion to the
sun-theme is subtly framed lO to fit within a proportional triadic
relationship between cosmos polis and individuals which looksquite Heraclitean and which Plato appropriates as the backbone
of the alternate utopian philosophic model Platos allusion
to B6 is quite oblique but he seems to intentionally recall the
language of fragments B30 and B26 (which deal respectively with
the fiery cosmos eternally going out and again re-kindling and
the proportional relationship of the waking man the sleeper and
the dead) he brief reference to the Heraclitean sun anticipates
the famous set of analogical images the Platonic sun the divided
9 H p O C X A e V t O ~ 6 E lt p i O ~ o ~ lt p u O ~ x o ~ WV EAeyeV on 6 A ~ O ~ V fj ounxjj~ ~ A O C O 0 7 J E A ~ O O V x ~ t x ~ ~ o u ~ V ~ l h j j O ~ i v V J ~ ~ e h ~ O ~ e A ~ O O V 0 U1tO y1jvx ~ t ~ amp V ~ O A ~ V lt p ~ o c O ~ ~ E O C 1 t e ~ 1 t O C A ~ V x ~ t 00 0 ~ ~ y L y v e ~ ~ 10 It is not often remarked that the verbs Plato playfully uses here X1tW and
EOC1tW in the double sense of touching being in contact with set fire to
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 926
Enrique HGlsz Piccone
line and the cave So it seems that Platos information is likely to
be true which provides a meaningful complement to the new sun( ~ A W e viae) ofB6 In the case of the scholiast the function of the
sun-symbolism within Heraclitus philosophical framework could
still have been missed A fragment from Democritus might also
echo Heraclitus B6 in a non-cosmological contextl suggesting a
connection with B1712 and so could perhaps be a useful counter
point to the physicalistic perspective on the Heraclitean sun
Up to now a minimalistic estimate of the actual extent of B6
(6 ~ A W e vEae europ ~ f 1 E P 1 l euroOt[v) has been the predominant trend
among scholars a reading thought to be backed by the so-called
internal logic ofAristotles argument l3 Taken on its merits however
the argument is not a particularly good one The notion attributed
to Heraclitus taking the whole passage as a unity (and leaving
aside for the moment the details of the conjectured mechanics
of the process) is that assuming that the fiery sun is born as it
is kindled at dawn and dies out as it is quenched at nightl4 it
11 DK 68B158 (Plutarch De Latenter Vivendo 5 p 1129pound) verx trp ~ - l e p 1 J ~rppoveonee ocvamppw7tm (Men have new thoughts every day)
12 DK 22B17 ou yocp rppoveoucn CmrxuCrx 7tOAAOL o x o O o ~ t y x u p e u O ~ v ouoe
-lrxampovCee y ~ v w O x o u O ~ v ewuCo O ~ oe o o x e o u O ~ (Many dont understand suchthings as those they encounter nor do they know them once they have learnedbut think themselves they do) Cf also DK 22B72 6 J ~ - l c X A ~ o C r x o ~ t J v e x w e
O - l ~ A O U O ~ lt A 6 y w ~ C w ~ C oc OArx o ~ o ~ x o u v n gt C o h w ~ o ~ r x r p e p o v C r x ~ xrxt ore xrxamp
~ - l e p r x v t y x u p o u O ~ C rxu C rx rxuCoie ~ e v r x r p r x L v e t r x ~ (That which they meetmost frequently ltthe logos that governs alb from this they differ and the thingsthey meet every day these seem foreign to them)
13 f M Q U f a v Heraclitea IILBiii (2006) 14 Certains auteurs [ J incluent u -lovov et ampAJampd veoe Ouvexwe (contexte dAristote) dans la citation cequi semble confirme Pyen Plotin (ampd x r x ~ v o v y L v e O amp r x ~ ) Cette opinion ne resistetoutefois pas it l a n a l y s ~ du contexte aristotelicien OU la conception dun soleilen r e n o ~ v e l e m e n t permanent joue Ie role de reductio ad absurdum dune application s i ~ t a n e e s6leil de la theorie (quAristote critique) dun solei de feunourrissant dexhalaisons humides et de la theorie (aristotelicienne)
selon laquelle la Hamme serait un echange perpetuel entre Ihumide et Ie sec14 Both Kirk and Marcovich thought it likely that B6 was preceded or followedby some such assertion about the suns extinction and rekindling This is stageone in Kirks interpretation of Aristotles argument stage 2 is represented by the
O x c X r p r x ~ theory stage 3 by the amp v r x amp u - l L r x O ~ e theory These are followed by the onlyexplicit piece of reasoning in the Meteorology passage climaxing in the quotationgiven in note 6 above David Sider has proposed a different reconstruction Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus in Studies on the erveni Papyrus [SDPJ (OxfordClarendon Press 1977) 129-148 on which see further below note 43
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1026
Heraclitus on The Sun
canbesaid that it is VeuroOe eurocp ~ f J euro P 1 l neworyoungatdawn
becauseregularlyquenchedandreignitedaccordingtofixedtemporal
successiveperiodsThe earlierthinkersmentioned byAristotle
denouncedforhavingsupposedthesun is nourishedbymoisture
have sometimes been thought toincludeHeraclitusbut this is
doubtfulAnd anyway even if we dosetaside theattributionof
the nourishingof thesun on moisture (alongwith theJingleor
doubleexhalation [ r i v c x f ) u f J L c x O ~ e ] doctrine)to H e r a ~ f u u s w e a ~stillleftwiththenotionthatthesunis fiery and b e ~ a u s e of thisitis newnotonlyeveryday(atdawn) but alwaysSoaccordingto
theusualreadingAristotlewouldbecharging e r a c l i t ~ withnot
beingradicalenoughForwhenhesaidthesun is new v e [ y - d ~ Yheshouldhaverealizedthat thisis agrossunderstatementofwhat
is metaphysicallyneededwithin hisown frameworkwhich-as
interpretedby Aristotle-would be an extremeform of theall
thingsflow ( 1 t ~ V t c x p e ~ ) therheontologicalmodelPointingto
HeraclitusshortcomingsAristotlewouldbe putting forwardhis
own criticism correctingthesayingwith whatHeraclitusshould
havesaid that thesun is alwaysnew (ridVeuroOe
Thereis someindication(intherelevantdoxography though
notintheauthenticfragmentsthemselves) that suchaconception
of adailydifferentsun washeldbyXenophanesHis reported
viewwas that afierysunl5 is generatedliterallyeveryday (xcxf)
h ~ O t l ) v ~ f J euro p c x v ) fromsmallsparks in theclouds so an entirely
differentsunshinesoverandwarmseachmorningtheearthbelow
theoldonebecominglostfrom our viewinthe infinitedistanceit
travels in astraightline beingsubstitutedbyan entirelynewone
thenextday16 Xenophanes thesisentailsthesuccessive existence
of an infinitenumberof suns eachirreducibletotheotherseach
sun correspondingto eachday canthusbe saidto benew(that
is other thanordifferentfrom theothers)Heraclitus few
relevantso-calledphysicalorcosmicfragmentsareundoubtedly
hardtoassessbut onemightquestionthelikelihoodof aprimarily
cosmologicaland doctrinalinterpretation of histhinkingrather
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1126
nrique Hli lsz Piccone
than simply take for granted that the details of just that sort of
account have not reached us That he stated nothing clear1 7 about
these matters represents a more credible possibility
We know from the fragments themselves that Heraclitus was
extremely critical of the reputedly wise men from the distant past and
from his own time and that he explicitly denied that Xenophanes
understood anything even if he qualified as a polymath (B40)18
That Heraclitus held a similar belief in infinite suns (parallel to the
sequence of days) is an unlikely hypothesis not just because of his
manifest disdain ofXenophanes but also in virtue of something that
is implied in his criticism of Hesiod who according to B57 did not
even know Night and Day for they are one 19 In B106 Hesiodsignorance concerns not only the uni ty of Night and Day but also
the single nature (cpUOt0 common to all days20 This suggests that
the Heraclitean sun (recognized as the cause ofdaylight B99) 1 too
is one and the same every day and it has a distinctive cpuOtc of its
own The upshot is that Heraclitus thought of the sun as a single and
persistent being which retains its selfhood through its change just
as he thought of the same river as a flux of ever different waters22
The Aristotelian passage implicitly suggests several possible
Heracleitean theses The most basic assumption I label
17 Cf eg DL 98 altxltpwe S ouSev euro x t W e t lt X ~ (he doesnt set forth anythingclear) ibid 911 mpt Se t1je y ~ e ouSev a 1 t o lt p lt x L v e t lt X ~ 1tOpoundltx t Le euronv aAAouSe 1tept twv axltxltpwv (he doesnt show anything clear about what sort of
thing is the earth nor about the bowls)
18 DK 22B40 1 t O A U P lt x ~ t L I ) voov ou S ~ S 6 t a x e v HaLoSov yiXp v euro S L S lt X ~ E xltxL
TIuampltxyop1JV ltxotpounde tE Eevoltpdtvedt tE xltxL EXltXtltXLOV (Much learning doesntteach intelligence For it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and againXenophanes and Hecataeus)
19 DK 22B57 S ~ M a x lt X A O e Se 1tAELat6gtV HaLoSoe toQZGV euro 1 t L a t ~ t lt X ~1tAeLatltX dSivltXL (Jane ~ p i p l ) v xltxL eultppOVl)V oux euro y L ~ M c r X e V Ecru YOCpEV
(Teacher of most men is Hesiod They think he knew plenty he who dilt-nt
recognize day and night for they are one)
20 DK 22B106 c X y v o o Q v t ~ ltpUcrLv ~ p i p lt x e cX1tdtcrl)e pLltxlt oucrltxv ( [HesiJ)d] ignored that the nature of any day is one)
21 DK 22B99 et ~ A t O e ~ V evexltx tWV (lA-WV (latpwv ~ ( p P O V I ) XV (Ifthere were no sun for the sake of the other stars it would be night)
22 DK 22B12 1tOtltXPOLcrL tOLcrtJ lt X U t O L c r ~ v euro P ~ lt x L v o U c r L V hepltx xltxL Etepx
6SltxtltX eurotLppeL (On those who step into the same rivers other and other waters
flow )
10-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1226
Heraclitus on The Sun
(0) The sun is fire or fiery or made of fire
Other theses extend this fundamental idea(1) The sun feeds on moisture
2) Solstices are explained on this basis
(3) The (false) grounds for this view are
(3a) A supposed analogy of sun-fire with everyday
ordinary fire and
(3b) an assimilation of the ascent of atmospherical
vapor on the one hand and the upward movement
of flame in combustion on the other
After a denial en bloc of the truth ofall this Aristotle concludes
critically that
(4) Heraclitus in saying the sun is new merely every
day failed to reach the necessary conclusion that it
would have to be always new (that is not the same
at any moment)
Some comments are in order First that Heraclitus and his
alleged followers (but who are they) are alluded to in the reference
to all those earlier thinkers who assumed the sun was nourished
by the moist m x Y - r ~ ~ o O o ~ -rbJY 7 r p 6 - r ~ p o y l ) 7 r D C l ~ O Y -rOY ~ W Y- r p e q l e O amp C l ~ rc1gt uypc1raquo seems to be unanimously accepted It should
be noted though that strictly speaking this remains an inference
for neither Aristotle nor any of the preserved fragments actually
states just that On the further assumption that the moist is the only
nourishment for fire (-ro 0 uypov rc1gt 1tUpt - r p O q l ~ v e t v C l ~ J6vov)
we arrive at the conclusion that the sun lives at the expense of (sea)
moisture which ascends and feeds the fire ofwhich the sun is made
(As to the extinction during night-time the doxographical report
t1tt Jepouc in Diogenes Laertius links night and the dark exhala
tion [IX 11]) The Heraclitean fragments that seem to be echoed
are B31 (both parts) B36 and (for the idea of nourishment) B114
Strangely enough none of them deals with the sun but instead
respectively with the turnings of fire 1tUPOC -rP01tClL) the cycle
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
of birth and death of soul ( ~ u X ~ ) and the nurturing of all human
laws (VO JOL) on the single divine one common to all (the Logos as
lex naturae The unity-in-opposition theory construed as a narrowphysicalistic explanation is also in play although only obscurely
hinted at in Aristotles interpretation The grounding of this in
Heraclitus seems very vague but it might further reflect B60 and
B126 A somewhat slighter anomaly would seem to be that the
moist requires as contrary the dry (not the sun) Insistence on the
exclusive relationship between contraries (each thing has only one
contrary) is reminiscent of Plato but not of Heraclitus
Secondly as to solstices being explained in this way (that is solelyon the view that the sun is nurtured by moisture) by Heraclitus
in particular this point seems especially far-fetched Perhaps the
closest we can get to solstices in Heraclitus is B94 (The Sun will
not overstep its measures [tJ-eurotpoc)) and BlOO23
In the third place 3a and 3b seem to be entirely due to Aristotles
own conjecture Perhaps there is a fusion here of other sources-
Heraclitus B16 and B54 immediately come to mind not exclud
ing views in other authors The theory implied in 3b could be ahistorical antecedent of Aristotles own exhalation doctrine but it
is more likely than not that there was no such thing in Heraclitus
view in spite of the commonplace physicalistic interpretation of
the way up and down o M ~ avw xoc tw) of B60 Heraclitus own
approach to such meteorological phenomena (in B31 B36) seems
hardly usable for restoring Aristotles credibility Some form ofvapor
( i h t J - ~ ) however is quite possible in Xenophanes
And last with all this in mind we may appreciate that Aristotlesfinal move (charging Heraclitus with not being radical enough) can
do without the assumptions just listed as 1-3 The only premise really
needed is that the sun is fiery Aristotles dissent from Heraclitus
which is the immediate basis for actually mentioning him by name
and quoting him need not be interpreted within a meteorological
framework and makes perfect sense when limited to the very basic
notion of the sun as fiery Besides the well-known metaphysical
23 DK 22BlOO (Plutarch Quaestiones Platonicae 8 4lO07D) c ) p o c ~ oct 1tIxvtoc
ltPEPOU(H (the seasons bringers of all things)
2-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1426
Heraclitus on The Sun
hostility to the allegedly Heraclitean Universal Flux for Aristotle
himself (according to at least one interpretation) 24 the sun is made
of ether (ocUtYjp) not fire and is neither hot nor dry A simpler
reading of the final statement presents itself if one assumes (with
Heraclitus) the suns fiery nature then one should go on to say
(as does Heraclitus) that the sun is not only new every day (as
Xenophanes said) but it is always new Read in this way Aristotles
final point turns out to be not a criticism but the actual report of
Heraclitus extreme but self-consistent (even if false) view
It could be conjectured that Heraclitus is reacting to Xenophanes
and expressing in his own coinage the true view brings out the suns
nature by calling it always new This recalls t i d ~ ( l ) o V ( ever-living )
from B30 and farther still the ever real logos A y o ~ EWV o c ~ e L of the Proem) t is well to remember that B99 proves Heraclitus
awareness of the sun being the true cause of night (by absence) and
(by presence) of day too f the nature of all days is one B106) it
would be natural enough for Heraclitus to think of the sun as being
endowed with a permanent identity So the Heraclitean sun is as
the fiery eternal cosmos ( x o O f J O ~ ) the same for all or as in B89
one and the same (for those who are awake)
It is not so easy to assess with confidence what the limits of
Aristotles quotation are f his rendering ofHeraclitus is close we
could expect an expanded original along these lines ou fJOVOV v i o ~Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO nV ~ ) w ~ ti)) tid i o ~ (xoct w u t o ~ ) ( the sun is not
new only every day but it is always new and the same ) A simpler
alternative could be perhaps ) ~ o ~ v i o ~ Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO t Lv tict v i o ~(xoct wuto) ( the sun is new every day always new and the same
My preferred conjecture would be something like ~ ) w ou fJovov
vio Ecp ~ f J i p Y l ti)) tict vio EO t Lv (the sun is not only new every
day but it is new always ) What is most important is not to pass
silently over Heraclitus characteristic style of which there could
4 Already known to Plotinus who alludes to t o 7tefL7t t ov crwfLlX see below
note 26 For Aristotles theory of a 7tpw t ov crwfLlX cf e caelo 269bff
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be traces in Plato25 Plotinus26 and LucretiusY My point is that
a reasonable version of B6 should include the formula rid veo
These last two words just by themselves actually make an excellent
synthesis ofHeraclitus philosophy as a whole and describe perfectly
the suns CPUcrL which mirrors the whole xocrfLo So I conclude
that Heraclitus basic assertion is that the sun is forever the same
precisely in that it is always new persistently changing every day and
at every given moment just as the flux of the river constitutes its
dynamic identity and just as the xocrfLo itself is ever-living fire
so Heraclitus presentation of the nature of the sun symbolically
harmonizes sameness and difference
PART 2 THE SIZE OR THE LIMITS OF THE SUN
HOW GOOD IS THE EVIDENCE OFTHE DERVENI PAPYRUS
In 1981 almost twenty years after the Derveni papyrus
was discovered Walter Burkert gave a short paper in the Chieti
Symposium Heracliteum in which he presented the text reconstructed
by Parassoglou and Tsantsanoglou and made publicly known the few
lines in column IV containing the Heraclitus quotation28 Until then
the dominant approach to these two Heraclitean solar fragments[DK 22] B3 and B94 was to treat them separately Of course the
fact that both deal (although in very different ways) with Helios
25 Symposium 207d3 m I X t I X A e L 1 t E ~ Enpov vtt toO 1tIXAIXWU
( always leaves behind a different new creature instead of the old one 207 d7
l X ( m ) ~ X I X A E i t I X ~ ampAAIX vEo ampEt y ~ y v 6 f J E V O ~ ( Its called the same but it be
comes always new ) Cpound also Cratylus 409b5-8 Neov 16 1tOV XlXt EVOV dd eO n1tEpt -djv O E A ~ V Y j V toOto to p w ~ [ 1XUXACJl yocp 1tOV dd X U t ~ V 1 t E P ~ ~ W V veov
dd1 t L ~ amp A A E ~
( The light about the moon is always new and old [
] for in itscourse around it the sun always sheds on an ever new light )
26 Ennead II 1 2 lO-13 lvyxwpwv xlXt e7tt t01hwv o Y j A o v 6 t ~ tijl
HPIXXAELtCJl oC etpYj ampEt xlXt tov A ~ O V y L v E a ~ I X ~ 1 p ~ a t o t E A E ~ fJEV Y XP OUOEV
O V 1tpliyfJ1X dYj d nc IXIJtOO t XC ) 7 t o ~ E a E ~ C toO 1tEfJ7ttou 7 t l X p l X o e C l X ~ toawfJIXtoc ( He [sc Plato] evidently agrees with Heraclitus who also said that the
sun is always coming into being For Aristotle there would be no problem if oneadmits the theories of the fifth body )
27 De natura rerum V 662 (semina ardoris) quae fociunt solis novasemper lumina gigni
28 W Burkert Eraclito nel Papiro di Derveni due nuove testimonianze tti
del Symposium Heracliteum vol I (Rome Edizioni dell Ateneo 1983 31-42
14-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1626
eraclituson The Sun
naturally invited a connection but as the texts ofB3 (from Aetius)
and B94 (one among several versions in Plutarch) were presented in
Diels-Kranz mere juxtaposition did not seem appealing to editors
commentators and interpreters With the partial publication of the
Derveni papyrus things took a different direction A new line of
interpretation relied on the possibility that the author of the papyrus
intended the quotation as a continuous unity29 But even after
the official publication which benefitted greatly from applying
multi-spectral imaging to the remains finally came out in 2006
the papyrus bad physical shape still left enough room for almost
total uncertainty about some parts within the quotation itself (a
fact that has led to several versions which differ in their proposed
conjectures and supplements)
In Gabor Beteghs version lines 7-9 of column IV read
~ A ~ [ O ~ ] ~ o u xcxtoc cpuow cXIamppw[1t1ltou] ~ o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ [eat ] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ oux 0 1 t C p ~ amp A A W V e [ ]pouae[ 8
[ t ] y [ ~ ~ a e t c x ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v t ~ e u p ~ a o ~ [ a L L x 1 l ~ t1tLxoupO ] 9
The sun according to nature is a human foot in width 7
not transgressing its boundaries If 8
oversteps the Erinyes the guardians ofJustice will find it out30 9
29 Cpound D Sider (1997) Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus who referst a paragraph at the beginning of line 7 indicating a quotation (at least inintention) reinforced by the apparent lack of space for ~ A ~ O t in lines 8 and9 and suggesting that B3+B94 formed a connected thought in Hs originaltext (131) but see G Betegh The Derveni Papyrus Cosmology Theology andInterpretation (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004) 326n3 ALebedev did overstate his case when he wrote Any serious edition ofHeraclitusto come will cite B3 and B94 only as testimonia under the most complete andauthentic verbatim quotation of PDerv (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrififor Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79 (1989) 42) S Mouraviev (2006) and ABernabe De Tales aDemocrito Fragmentos Presocrdticos 2nd ed (Madrid Alianza2001) have followed this general line of interpretation in their editions ofHeraclitus treating B3 and B94 as a single continuous fragment
30 Gabor Betegh The Derveni Papyrus 10-11
5-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1726
Enrique HQlsz Piccone
There are some other possibilities (not exhaustive) First the
long awaited official reading by Kouremenos Parassoglou and
Tsantsanoglou
~ A ~ [ O ~ ]ou X(xt IX cpuow ampI-9pw[mJCou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
t o f 1 [ i y e - 9 o ] ~ oUx U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o u ] p o u ~ e [ u p o u ~ ] 8
[EoG d ~ E J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v euro ~ e u p ~ c r O I [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ eurotLxoupm] 9
The sun in the nature of is a human foot width 7
not exceeding in size the proper limits of its width 8
or else the Erinyes assistants of Dike will find it out 31 9
Jankos version
~ A ~ [ O ~ Ewu]WG X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v ampySpw[7teLou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [ecrn] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ OUX U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d Y[IXp t ~ e u ] p o u ~ e[wutoG 8
[ euro ] ~ [ ~ ~ c r e t ( x ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v e ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
The sun in accord with its own nature is in breadth the size 7
of a human foot
and does not surpass its limits for if it surpasses its own 8breadth at all
(the) Erinyes (the) allies ofustice will discover it32 9
L Schonbecks proposal
~ A ~ [ O ~ v i o ] ~ o u X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v amplSpw[7tdou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
tQQ[crxotou] OUX U 7 t e p ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o ] p o u ~ Mcp ~ J i p ( J (ampet)] 8
[ c p ] ~ [ e ~ d J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] vw euro ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
31 Theokritos Kouremenos George M Parassoglou Kyriakos TsantsanoglouThe Derveni Papyrus Edited with Introduction and Commentary [TDP] (FlorenceLeo S Olschki 2006) (Greek text of lines 7-9 apud Lakss review in Rhizai2007 vol IV 1 153-162 at 155)
32 Richard Janko The Derveni Papyrus an interim text ZPE 141 (2002)1-62 and The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logoi)A New Translation Classical Philology Vol 96 No1 (Jan 2001) 1-32 Greektext of col IV apudMouraviev (2006) This is also Bernabes reading Poetae epicigraeci testimonia etfragmenta (Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2007) Pap Derv colIV 188-192)
6-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1826
Heraclitus on The Sun
The new sun is not by nature the width of a human foot 7
from darkness not ever surpassing its proper limits every day 8
it shines if not the Erinyes Justices helpers will find him out33 9
Finally Mouravievs alternative reconstruction of the passage
and his French translation34
~ A [ O ~ 8 o8]e 00 Xoctoc cpuO v ampySpw[1tdou] e o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ 7
[lucetmouet]
t Q ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ ouJ t ) 1 t e p ~ O C A A W V d y[ocp e ~ e u ] p o u ~ 8
e [ ~ L - r l L L x 1 J ~[ e ] ~ [ L x o u p o ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v e ~ e u p ~ 0 0 4 [ 0 middot e1tLOxo1touO yocp] 9
ltCegt Soleil dont par nature la largeur (est) dun pied 7
dhomme duit I avance (raquo
sans outrepasser ses limites car sil ltsortait de sa largtgeur () les 8
Furiesltservantes de Justicegt Ie recaptureraient 9
Car elles veillent 35
The importance of the discovery has perhaps been somewhat
exaggerated36 at least concerning Heraclitus (as opposed to
Orphism) Nevertheless the papyrus is certainly one of the oldest
kstimonia on Heraclitus possibly even predating Platos writings
(of which the Derveni author does not show any knowledge) The
identity of the Derveni author is still very much a matter of debate
and conjecture37 but there is no doubt he is commenting on an
33 Loek Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11
ZP 95 1993 20
34 Serge Mouraviev Heraclitea HAl (Sankt Augustin Academia 1999 con-tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n 1 [CD 2001]) ch 1256-59
35 My translation This sun here whose size by nature is of a human foot
ltshinesmoves (raquo not overstepping its limits for i f he ltwent beyond hisgt size() the Erinyes Justices servantsgt would catch him
36 For instance R Janko wrote The Derveni papyrus is the most important
teXt relating to early Greek literature science religion and philosophy to havecome to light since the Renaissance BMCR 20061029 Review of TDPJ
37 The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier or even in
7-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 326
PARMENIDES PUBLISHING
Las Vegas Zurich Athens
copy 2012 Parmenides Publishing
All rights reserved
This edition published in 2012 by Parmenides Publishing
in the United States ofAmerica
ISBN soft cover 978-1-930972-75-9ISBN e-Book 978-1-930972-76-6
Library Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Presocratics and Plato festschrift at Delphi in honor of Charles Kahn
papers presented at the festschrift symposium in honor of Charles Kahn
organized by the Hyele Institute for Comparative Studies European Cultural
Center of Delphi June 3rd7th 2009 Delphi Greece I edited by Richard
Patterson Vassilis Karasmanis and Arnold Hermann
p em
Includes bibliographical references (p ) and indexes
ISBN 978-1-930972-75-9 (pbk alk paper) -- ISBN 978-1-930972-76-6(e-book)
1 Plato--Congresses 2 Pre-Socratic philosophers--Congresses 1 Kahn
Charles H II Patterson Richard 1946- III Karasmanis V (Vassilis) IV
Hermann Arnold
B395 P732012
182--dc23
2012033336
Typeset in Adobe Garamond and OdysseaUBSU (Greek)
Printed and lay-flat bound by USBookPrint wwwusbookprintcom
1-888-PARMENIDES
wwwparmenidescom
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 426
Heracl itus on the Sun
nrique Hulsz Piccone
In the first part of this brief approach to the solar fragments I will
propose a different reading of B6 recovering the truly Heraclitean
idea that the sun is always new which I will interpret along
more Platonic than Aristotelian lines as having a metaphysical
import (rather than being merely a piece of physical doctrine) The
second part revisits briefly Column IV of the Oerveni papyrus
questions the unified version of B3 and B94 and keeping closer
to Plutarchs version of the latter finally suggests a less physicalistic
scenario as a better-fitting context for the text of the solar fragments
themselves bringing them together through BI6s cryptic reference
to an ever-shining analogue of the sun
PART THE SUN IN FLUX
Among Heraclitus fragments [OK] B6 ( The sun is newevery day ) has been long recognized as authentic Possibly just a
paraphrase and not a verbatim citation2 it is transmitted by Aristotle
I am referring to modern editors and interpreters at least since Ingram
Bywater whose work is earlier than Hermann Dielss (our fragment 6 corresponds
to number 32 in his edition Heracliti Ephesii Reliquiae (Oxford 1877) t is
crucial to have in mind that all Heraclitus fragments have come to us only
through doxographical tradition which is indirect by definition2 Cf M Marcovichs classification Heraclitus Editio Maior (MeridaVenezuela 1967 from now on referred to as HEM which specifies the status
of each fragment according to its probable degree of accuracy by the variablesof quotation [ cita J (C) paraphrase (P) and reminiscence (R) See also S
Mouraviev Heraclitea III3Bi ii iii (Sankt Augustin Academia Verlag 2006)
whose version differs from Diels-Kranz (DK) only in word order and who takesnotice of and differs from my own poin t of view cf below note 13) t should
not be forgotten that in the ancient tradition the difference between indirect
is cf
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
who refers explicitly to Heraclitus by name at the end of a passage
in the second book of his Meteorology Most recent interpretationshave read it as a relatively straightforward statement of physical
doctrine taking for granted that a cosmological (astronomical
and meteorological) scenario must be the appropriate one rather
than seeing it as an illustration of a general truth or even as a
critical reflection on the temporality of human life and experience
Almost all have agreed what the extent of the quotation is 3 t will
be instructive to remember here Kirks cautious but optimistic
conclusion at the end of his long and detailed discussion When
all is said we still do not know the exact purpose of the declaration
that the sun is new every day but the number of possible purposes
has been substantially limited 4 and contrast it with Marcovichs
remarkable confidence The meaning of the fragment seems to
be clear enough ifwe bring it together with Theophrastus account
on Heraclitus meteorology 5 an opinion further supported by
interpreting the saying as an intended attack on the popular beliefin the suns divinity
To begin with I reproduce the Aristotelian passage in full
This is why all of those who came before are ridicu-
lous too for they supposed that the sun is nurtured
by the moist And some say that this too is why
solstices happen For the places of the solstices arenot always capable of providing nourishment for
the sun But it is necessary that this happens or the
Kahn Anaximander and the Origins Greek Cosmology (Indianapolis Hackett
1994) 172 One should not dismiss Proclus version (in Tim Vol 3 311 42nd
veoc e p ~ [ J e p 7 1 ~ A ~ O C new every day is the sun which differs only in word
order from Aristotles the version preferred in DK Cpound Agustin Garda Calvo
Heraclito Razon Com un [HRC] (Madrid Lucina 1985) 190-192
3 There are some exceptions to this generalized tendency A Garda Calvo
HRC Marcel Conche Heraclite Fragments (Paris PUF 1986) Jean Brun
Heraclite ou e philosophe de eternel retour (Paris Seghers 1969) ad B3 among
others The line I will pursue is actually considered by G S Kirk Heraclitus
The Cosmic Fragments (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1978)266 but
dismissed implicitly
4 Kirk Cosmic Fragments 264-279
5 Marcovich HEM 316 and 318
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 626
Heraclitus on The Sun
sun would be destroyed Because the visible fire as
long as it has nourishment to that extent it livesand the moist is the only nourishment for fire As
if the moist that goes upwards could reach to the
sun or as if its ascent was like that of the flame
when this is produced Because they assumed that
the flame is alike they supposed it likely that the
same would happen in the case of the sun But this
is not so For flame is produced by the continuousinterchange of the moist and the dry and it is not
nurtured (because so to speak it never stays the
same) but in the case of the sun its impossible that
this would happen since if it were nourished in
the way they say it is its evident too as Heraclitus
says that the sun is not only new every day hut
always new continuously 0111-01 o t ~ xoct I 1 i A I O ~au 00 XOC17OC7tep p o c x l e ~ t o ~ ltPlJOW V O ~ Eqgt n H TJIIoEP fl E ( J ~ L v tlll laquoEl E O ~ r J U l e x w ~ ) 6
Interpreters have stressed the need to take the whole passage as
a unity to make good sense of Heraclitus words so-for the sake
of the passages internallogic-Aristotles presentation of the saying
has been sometimes considered to imply that Heraclitus himselfmust be included among those who believed that the sun (a) is
fiery and (b) is nurtured by moisture Now this claim could in
principle be challenged wholly or partially especially since neither
6 Aristotle Meteorology B 2 354b33ff
7 Harold Cherniss Aristotle s Criticism o Presocratic Philosophy [ACPP] (Baltimore The John Hopkins University Press 1935) 134 with n541) maintained
that Aristotles reference to Heraclitus and his followers is exclusive (a thesisthat seems excessive) Marcovich (HEM 312-318) accepts that an allusion toHeraclitus is intended (315) as do Kirk (HCF 265-266) and R Mondolfo
Eraclito Testimonianze e mitazioni (Firenze La N uova Italia 1972 119-123
with n156) but they all leave other possibilities open Inclusion ofAnaximanderAnaximenes Xenophanes Antiphon and perhaps Alcmaeon does not precludethis notion from being a common bdief in the air so to speak in pre-Aristotelian times Hippocratic treatises also provide evidence for the view that the moist
feeds the hot Now whether Heraclitus hdd a similar view or not is ofcourse
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 726
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 826
eraclituson The un
he scholiasts take on the relevant point is quite straightforward
Heraclitus the Ephesian a physicist said that the
sun as it comes to the Western sea sinks in it and
is extinguished then it goes under the earth and
as it reaches above the Eastern horizon it kindles
again and this happens forever9
More is going on here than meets the eye First it is noteworthythat the scholiasts point of view is considerably more explicit than
Platos and brings with itself the whole Aristotelian-Theophrastean
physicalistic interpretation of Heraclitus he epublic passage is
centered on the key words extinguished ( amp 1 t o c r ~ i I V u V t ~ ~ ) and
kindled ( l ~ ~ 1 t t o v t c x ~ ) which imply only that the fiery Heraclitean
sun was cyclically quenched and re-kindled (but not necessarily that
the sun dives into the sea or that it continues unlit under the earth onits way back to the East) So even if there was in Heraclitus lost book
some statement to the effect that the sun dies out and is re-kindled
it is still doubtful whether it really belonged in an astronomical
meteorological model ofexplanation such as the scholiast describes
A second relevant observation is that Platos allusion to the
sun-theme is subtly framed lO to fit within a proportional triadic
relationship between cosmos polis and individuals which looksquite Heraclitean and which Plato appropriates as the backbone
of the alternate utopian philosophic model Platos allusion
to B6 is quite oblique but he seems to intentionally recall the
language of fragments B30 and B26 (which deal respectively with
the fiery cosmos eternally going out and again re-kindling and
the proportional relationship of the waking man the sleeper and
the dead) he brief reference to the Heraclitean sun anticipates
the famous set of analogical images the Platonic sun the divided
9 H p O C X A e V t O ~ 6 E lt p i O ~ o ~ lt p u O ~ x o ~ WV EAeyeV on 6 A ~ O ~ V fj ounxjj~ ~ A O C O 0 7 J E A ~ O O V x ~ t x ~ ~ o u ~ V ~ l h j j O ~ i v V J ~ ~ e h ~ O ~ e A ~ O O V 0 U1tO y1jvx ~ t ~ amp V ~ O A ~ V lt p ~ o c O ~ ~ E O C 1 t e ~ 1 t O C A ~ V x ~ t 00 0 ~ ~ y L y v e ~ ~ 10 It is not often remarked that the verbs Plato playfully uses here X1tW and
EOC1tW in the double sense of touching being in contact with set fire to
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 926
Enrique HGlsz Piccone
line and the cave So it seems that Platos information is likely to
be true which provides a meaningful complement to the new sun( ~ A W e viae) ofB6 In the case of the scholiast the function of the
sun-symbolism within Heraclitus philosophical framework could
still have been missed A fragment from Democritus might also
echo Heraclitus B6 in a non-cosmological contextl suggesting a
connection with B1712 and so could perhaps be a useful counter
point to the physicalistic perspective on the Heraclitean sun
Up to now a minimalistic estimate of the actual extent of B6
(6 ~ A W e vEae europ ~ f 1 E P 1 l euroOt[v) has been the predominant trend
among scholars a reading thought to be backed by the so-called
internal logic ofAristotles argument l3 Taken on its merits however
the argument is not a particularly good one The notion attributed
to Heraclitus taking the whole passage as a unity (and leaving
aside for the moment the details of the conjectured mechanics
of the process) is that assuming that the fiery sun is born as it
is kindled at dawn and dies out as it is quenched at nightl4 it
11 DK 68B158 (Plutarch De Latenter Vivendo 5 p 1129pound) verx trp ~ - l e p 1 J ~rppoveonee ocvamppw7tm (Men have new thoughts every day)
12 DK 22B17 ou yocp rppoveoucn CmrxuCrx 7tOAAOL o x o O o ~ t y x u p e u O ~ v ouoe
-lrxampovCee y ~ v w O x o u O ~ v ewuCo O ~ oe o o x e o u O ~ (Many dont understand suchthings as those they encounter nor do they know them once they have learnedbut think themselves they do) Cf also DK 22B72 6 J ~ - l c X A ~ o C r x o ~ t J v e x w e
O - l ~ A O U O ~ lt A 6 y w ~ C w ~ C oc OArx o ~ o ~ x o u v n gt C o h w ~ o ~ r x r p e p o v C r x ~ xrxt ore xrxamp
~ - l e p r x v t y x u p o u O ~ C rxu C rx rxuCoie ~ e v r x r p r x L v e t r x ~ (That which they meetmost frequently ltthe logos that governs alb from this they differ and the thingsthey meet every day these seem foreign to them)
13 f M Q U f a v Heraclitea IILBiii (2006) 14 Certains auteurs [ J incluent u -lovov et ampAJampd veoe Ouvexwe (contexte dAristote) dans la citation cequi semble confirme Pyen Plotin (ampd x r x ~ v o v y L v e O amp r x ~ ) Cette opinion ne resistetoutefois pas it l a n a l y s ~ du contexte aristotelicien OU la conception dun soleilen r e n o ~ v e l e m e n t permanent joue Ie role de reductio ad absurdum dune application s i ~ t a n e e s6leil de la theorie (quAristote critique) dun solei de feunourrissant dexhalaisons humides et de la theorie (aristotelicienne)
selon laquelle la Hamme serait un echange perpetuel entre Ihumide et Ie sec14 Both Kirk and Marcovich thought it likely that B6 was preceded or followedby some such assertion about the suns extinction and rekindling This is stageone in Kirks interpretation of Aristotles argument stage 2 is represented by the
O x c X r p r x ~ theory stage 3 by the amp v r x amp u - l L r x O ~ e theory These are followed by the onlyexplicit piece of reasoning in the Meteorology passage climaxing in the quotationgiven in note 6 above David Sider has proposed a different reconstruction Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus in Studies on the erveni Papyrus [SDPJ (OxfordClarendon Press 1977) 129-148 on which see further below note 43
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1026
Heraclitus on The Sun
canbesaid that it is VeuroOe eurocp ~ f J euro P 1 l neworyoungatdawn
becauseregularlyquenchedandreignitedaccordingtofixedtemporal
successiveperiodsThe earlierthinkersmentioned byAristotle
denouncedforhavingsupposedthesun is nourishedbymoisture
have sometimes been thought toincludeHeraclitusbut this is
doubtfulAnd anyway even if we dosetaside theattributionof
the nourishingof thesun on moisture (alongwith theJingleor
doubleexhalation [ r i v c x f ) u f J L c x O ~ e ] doctrine)to H e r a ~ f u u s w e a ~stillleftwiththenotionthatthesunis fiery and b e ~ a u s e of thisitis newnotonlyeveryday(atdawn) but alwaysSoaccordingto
theusualreadingAristotlewouldbecharging e r a c l i t ~ withnot
beingradicalenoughForwhenhesaidthesun is new v e [ y - d ~ Yheshouldhaverealizedthat thisis agrossunderstatementofwhat
is metaphysicallyneededwithin hisown frameworkwhich-as
interpretedby Aristotle-would be an extremeform of theall
thingsflow ( 1 t ~ V t c x p e ~ ) therheontologicalmodelPointingto
HeraclitusshortcomingsAristotlewouldbe putting forwardhis
own criticism correctingthesayingwith whatHeraclitusshould
havesaid that thesun is alwaysnew (ridVeuroOe
Thereis someindication(intherelevantdoxography though
notintheauthenticfragmentsthemselves) that suchaconception
of adailydifferentsun washeldbyXenophanesHis reported
viewwas that afierysunl5 is generatedliterallyeveryday (xcxf)
h ~ O t l ) v ~ f J euro p c x v ) fromsmallsparks in theclouds so an entirely
differentsunshinesoverandwarmseachmorningtheearthbelow
theoldonebecominglostfrom our viewinthe infinitedistanceit
travels in astraightline beingsubstitutedbyan entirelynewone
thenextday16 Xenophanes thesisentailsthesuccessive existence
of an infinitenumberof suns eachirreducibletotheotherseach
sun correspondingto eachday canthusbe saidto benew(that
is other thanordifferentfrom theothers)Heraclitus few
relevantso-calledphysicalorcosmicfragmentsareundoubtedly
hardtoassessbut onemightquestionthelikelihoodof aprimarily
cosmologicaland doctrinalinterpretation of histhinkingrather
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1126
nrique Hli lsz Piccone
than simply take for granted that the details of just that sort of
account have not reached us That he stated nothing clear1 7 about
these matters represents a more credible possibility
We know from the fragments themselves that Heraclitus was
extremely critical of the reputedly wise men from the distant past and
from his own time and that he explicitly denied that Xenophanes
understood anything even if he qualified as a polymath (B40)18
That Heraclitus held a similar belief in infinite suns (parallel to the
sequence of days) is an unlikely hypothesis not just because of his
manifest disdain ofXenophanes but also in virtue of something that
is implied in his criticism of Hesiod who according to B57 did not
even know Night and Day for they are one 19 In B106 Hesiodsignorance concerns not only the uni ty of Night and Day but also
the single nature (cpUOt0 common to all days20 This suggests that
the Heraclitean sun (recognized as the cause ofdaylight B99) 1 too
is one and the same every day and it has a distinctive cpuOtc of its
own The upshot is that Heraclitus thought of the sun as a single and
persistent being which retains its selfhood through its change just
as he thought of the same river as a flux of ever different waters22
The Aristotelian passage implicitly suggests several possible
Heracleitean theses The most basic assumption I label
17 Cf eg DL 98 altxltpwe S ouSev euro x t W e t lt X ~ (he doesnt set forth anythingclear) ibid 911 mpt Se t1je y ~ e ouSev a 1 t o lt p lt x L v e t lt X ~ 1tOpoundltx t Le euronv aAAouSe 1tept twv axltxltpwv (he doesnt show anything clear about what sort of
thing is the earth nor about the bowls)
18 DK 22B40 1 t O A U P lt x ~ t L I ) voov ou S ~ S 6 t a x e v HaLoSov yiXp v euro S L S lt X ~ E xltxL
TIuampltxyop1JV ltxotpounde tE Eevoltpdtvedt tE xltxL EXltXtltXLOV (Much learning doesntteach intelligence For it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and againXenophanes and Hecataeus)
19 DK 22B57 S ~ M a x lt X A O e Se 1tAELat6gtV HaLoSoe toQZGV euro 1 t L a t ~ t lt X ~1tAeLatltX dSivltXL (Jane ~ p i p l ) v xltxL eultppOVl)V oux euro y L ~ M c r X e V Ecru YOCpEV
(Teacher of most men is Hesiod They think he knew plenty he who dilt-nt
recognize day and night for they are one)
20 DK 22B106 c X y v o o Q v t ~ ltpUcrLv ~ p i p lt x e cX1tdtcrl)e pLltxlt oucrltxv ( [HesiJ)d] ignored that the nature of any day is one)
21 DK 22B99 et ~ A t O e ~ V evexltx tWV (lA-WV (latpwv ~ ( p P O V I ) XV (Ifthere were no sun for the sake of the other stars it would be night)
22 DK 22B12 1tOtltXPOLcrL tOLcrtJ lt X U t O L c r ~ v euro P ~ lt x L v o U c r L V hepltx xltxL Etepx
6SltxtltX eurotLppeL (On those who step into the same rivers other and other waters
flow )
10-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1226
Heraclitus on The Sun
(0) The sun is fire or fiery or made of fire
Other theses extend this fundamental idea(1) The sun feeds on moisture
2) Solstices are explained on this basis
(3) The (false) grounds for this view are
(3a) A supposed analogy of sun-fire with everyday
ordinary fire and
(3b) an assimilation of the ascent of atmospherical
vapor on the one hand and the upward movement
of flame in combustion on the other
After a denial en bloc of the truth ofall this Aristotle concludes
critically that
(4) Heraclitus in saying the sun is new merely every
day failed to reach the necessary conclusion that it
would have to be always new (that is not the same
at any moment)
Some comments are in order First that Heraclitus and his
alleged followers (but who are they) are alluded to in the reference
to all those earlier thinkers who assumed the sun was nourished
by the moist m x Y - r ~ ~ o O o ~ -rbJY 7 r p 6 - r ~ p o y l ) 7 r D C l ~ O Y -rOY ~ W Y- r p e q l e O amp C l ~ rc1gt uypc1raquo seems to be unanimously accepted It should
be noted though that strictly speaking this remains an inference
for neither Aristotle nor any of the preserved fragments actually
states just that On the further assumption that the moist is the only
nourishment for fire (-ro 0 uypov rc1gt 1tUpt - r p O q l ~ v e t v C l ~ J6vov)
we arrive at the conclusion that the sun lives at the expense of (sea)
moisture which ascends and feeds the fire ofwhich the sun is made
(As to the extinction during night-time the doxographical report
t1tt Jepouc in Diogenes Laertius links night and the dark exhala
tion [IX 11]) The Heraclitean fragments that seem to be echoed
are B31 (both parts) B36 and (for the idea of nourishment) B114
Strangely enough none of them deals with the sun but instead
respectively with the turnings of fire 1tUPOC -rP01tClL) the cycle
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
of birth and death of soul ( ~ u X ~ ) and the nurturing of all human
laws (VO JOL) on the single divine one common to all (the Logos as
lex naturae The unity-in-opposition theory construed as a narrowphysicalistic explanation is also in play although only obscurely
hinted at in Aristotles interpretation The grounding of this in
Heraclitus seems very vague but it might further reflect B60 and
B126 A somewhat slighter anomaly would seem to be that the
moist requires as contrary the dry (not the sun) Insistence on the
exclusive relationship between contraries (each thing has only one
contrary) is reminiscent of Plato but not of Heraclitus
Secondly as to solstices being explained in this way (that is solelyon the view that the sun is nurtured by moisture) by Heraclitus
in particular this point seems especially far-fetched Perhaps the
closest we can get to solstices in Heraclitus is B94 (The Sun will
not overstep its measures [tJ-eurotpoc)) and BlOO23
In the third place 3a and 3b seem to be entirely due to Aristotles
own conjecture Perhaps there is a fusion here of other sources-
Heraclitus B16 and B54 immediately come to mind not exclud
ing views in other authors The theory implied in 3b could be ahistorical antecedent of Aristotles own exhalation doctrine but it
is more likely than not that there was no such thing in Heraclitus
view in spite of the commonplace physicalistic interpretation of
the way up and down o M ~ avw xoc tw) of B60 Heraclitus own
approach to such meteorological phenomena (in B31 B36) seems
hardly usable for restoring Aristotles credibility Some form ofvapor
( i h t J - ~ ) however is quite possible in Xenophanes
And last with all this in mind we may appreciate that Aristotlesfinal move (charging Heraclitus with not being radical enough) can
do without the assumptions just listed as 1-3 The only premise really
needed is that the sun is fiery Aristotles dissent from Heraclitus
which is the immediate basis for actually mentioning him by name
and quoting him need not be interpreted within a meteorological
framework and makes perfect sense when limited to the very basic
notion of the sun as fiery Besides the well-known metaphysical
23 DK 22BlOO (Plutarch Quaestiones Platonicae 8 4lO07D) c ) p o c ~ oct 1tIxvtoc
ltPEPOU(H (the seasons bringers of all things)
2-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1426
Heraclitus on The Sun
hostility to the allegedly Heraclitean Universal Flux for Aristotle
himself (according to at least one interpretation) 24 the sun is made
of ether (ocUtYjp) not fire and is neither hot nor dry A simpler
reading of the final statement presents itself if one assumes (with
Heraclitus) the suns fiery nature then one should go on to say
(as does Heraclitus) that the sun is not only new every day (as
Xenophanes said) but it is always new Read in this way Aristotles
final point turns out to be not a criticism but the actual report of
Heraclitus extreme but self-consistent (even if false) view
It could be conjectured that Heraclitus is reacting to Xenophanes
and expressing in his own coinage the true view brings out the suns
nature by calling it always new This recalls t i d ~ ( l ) o V ( ever-living )
from B30 and farther still the ever real logos A y o ~ EWV o c ~ e L of the Proem) t is well to remember that B99 proves Heraclitus
awareness of the sun being the true cause of night (by absence) and
(by presence) of day too f the nature of all days is one B106) it
would be natural enough for Heraclitus to think of the sun as being
endowed with a permanent identity So the Heraclitean sun is as
the fiery eternal cosmos ( x o O f J O ~ ) the same for all or as in B89
one and the same (for those who are awake)
It is not so easy to assess with confidence what the limits of
Aristotles quotation are f his rendering ofHeraclitus is close we
could expect an expanded original along these lines ou fJOVOV v i o ~Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO nV ~ ) w ~ ti)) tid i o ~ (xoct w u t o ~ ) ( the sun is not
new only every day but it is always new and the same ) A simpler
alternative could be perhaps ) ~ o ~ v i o ~ Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO t Lv tict v i o ~(xoct wuto) ( the sun is new every day always new and the same
My preferred conjecture would be something like ~ ) w ou fJovov
vio Ecp ~ f J i p Y l ti)) tict vio EO t Lv (the sun is not only new every
day but it is new always ) What is most important is not to pass
silently over Heraclitus characteristic style of which there could
4 Already known to Plotinus who alludes to t o 7tefL7t t ov crwfLlX see below
note 26 For Aristotles theory of a 7tpw t ov crwfLlX cf e caelo 269bff
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be traces in Plato25 Plotinus26 and LucretiusY My point is that
a reasonable version of B6 should include the formula rid veo
These last two words just by themselves actually make an excellent
synthesis ofHeraclitus philosophy as a whole and describe perfectly
the suns CPUcrL which mirrors the whole xocrfLo So I conclude
that Heraclitus basic assertion is that the sun is forever the same
precisely in that it is always new persistently changing every day and
at every given moment just as the flux of the river constitutes its
dynamic identity and just as the xocrfLo itself is ever-living fire
so Heraclitus presentation of the nature of the sun symbolically
harmonizes sameness and difference
PART 2 THE SIZE OR THE LIMITS OF THE SUN
HOW GOOD IS THE EVIDENCE OFTHE DERVENI PAPYRUS
In 1981 almost twenty years after the Derveni papyrus
was discovered Walter Burkert gave a short paper in the Chieti
Symposium Heracliteum in which he presented the text reconstructed
by Parassoglou and Tsantsanoglou and made publicly known the few
lines in column IV containing the Heraclitus quotation28 Until then
the dominant approach to these two Heraclitean solar fragments[DK 22] B3 and B94 was to treat them separately Of course the
fact that both deal (although in very different ways) with Helios
25 Symposium 207d3 m I X t I X A e L 1 t E ~ Enpov vtt toO 1tIXAIXWU
( always leaves behind a different new creature instead of the old one 207 d7
l X ( m ) ~ X I X A E i t I X ~ ampAAIX vEo ampEt y ~ y v 6 f J E V O ~ ( Its called the same but it be
comes always new ) Cpound also Cratylus 409b5-8 Neov 16 1tOV XlXt EVOV dd eO n1tEpt -djv O E A ~ V Y j V toOto to p w ~ [ 1XUXACJl yocp 1tOV dd X U t ~ V 1 t E P ~ ~ W V veov
dd1 t L ~ amp A A E ~
( The light about the moon is always new and old [
] for in itscourse around it the sun always sheds on an ever new light )
26 Ennead II 1 2 lO-13 lvyxwpwv xlXt e7tt t01hwv o Y j A o v 6 t ~ tijl
HPIXXAELtCJl oC etpYj ampEt xlXt tov A ~ O V y L v E a ~ I X ~ 1 p ~ a t o t E A E ~ fJEV Y XP OUOEV
O V 1tpliyfJ1X dYj d nc IXIJtOO t XC ) 7 t o ~ E a E ~ C toO 1tEfJ7ttou 7 t l X p l X o e C l X ~ toawfJIXtoc ( He [sc Plato] evidently agrees with Heraclitus who also said that the
sun is always coming into being For Aristotle there would be no problem if oneadmits the theories of the fifth body )
27 De natura rerum V 662 (semina ardoris) quae fociunt solis novasemper lumina gigni
28 W Burkert Eraclito nel Papiro di Derveni due nuove testimonianze tti
del Symposium Heracliteum vol I (Rome Edizioni dell Ateneo 1983 31-42
14-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1626
eraclituson The Sun
naturally invited a connection but as the texts ofB3 (from Aetius)
and B94 (one among several versions in Plutarch) were presented in
Diels-Kranz mere juxtaposition did not seem appealing to editors
commentators and interpreters With the partial publication of the
Derveni papyrus things took a different direction A new line of
interpretation relied on the possibility that the author of the papyrus
intended the quotation as a continuous unity29 But even after
the official publication which benefitted greatly from applying
multi-spectral imaging to the remains finally came out in 2006
the papyrus bad physical shape still left enough room for almost
total uncertainty about some parts within the quotation itself (a
fact that has led to several versions which differ in their proposed
conjectures and supplements)
In Gabor Beteghs version lines 7-9 of column IV read
~ A ~ [ O ~ ] ~ o u xcxtoc cpuow cXIamppw[1t1ltou] ~ o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ [eat ] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ oux 0 1 t C p ~ amp A A W V e [ ]pouae[ 8
[ t ] y [ ~ ~ a e t c x ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v t ~ e u p ~ a o ~ [ a L L x 1 l ~ t1tLxoupO ] 9
The sun according to nature is a human foot in width 7
not transgressing its boundaries If 8
oversteps the Erinyes the guardians ofJustice will find it out30 9
29 Cpound D Sider (1997) Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus who referst a paragraph at the beginning of line 7 indicating a quotation (at least inintention) reinforced by the apparent lack of space for ~ A ~ O t in lines 8 and9 and suggesting that B3+B94 formed a connected thought in Hs originaltext (131) but see G Betegh The Derveni Papyrus Cosmology Theology andInterpretation (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004) 326n3 ALebedev did overstate his case when he wrote Any serious edition ofHeraclitusto come will cite B3 and B94 only as testimonia under the most complete andauthentic verbatim quotation of PDerv (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrififor Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79 (1989) 42) S Mouraviev (2006) and ABernabe De Tales aDemocrito Fragmentos Presocrdticos 2nd ed (Madrid Alianza2001) have followed this general line of interpretation in their editions ofHeraclitus treating B3 and B94 as a single continuous fragment
30 Gabor Betegh The Derveni Papyrus 10-11
5-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1726
Enrique HQlsz Piccone
There are some other possibilities (not exhaustive) First the
long awaited official reading by Kouremenos Parassoglou and
Tsantsanoglou
~ A ~ [ O ~ ]ou X(xt IX cpuow ampI-9pw[mJCou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
t o f 1 [ i y e - 9 o ] ~ oUx U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o u ] p o u ~ e [ u p o u ~ ] 8
[EoG d ~ E J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v euro ~ e u p ~ c r O I [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ eurotLxoupm] 9
The sun in the nature of is a human foot width 7
not exceeding in size the proper limits of its width 8
or else the Erinyes assistants of Dike will find it out 31 9
Jankos version
~ A ~ [ O ~ Ewu]WG X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v ampySpw[7teLou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [ecrn] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ OUX U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d Y[IXp t ~ e u ] p o u ~ e[wutoG 8
[ euro ] ~ [ ~ ~ c r e t ( x ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v e ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
The sun in accord with its own nature is in breadth the size 7
of a human foot
and does not surpass its limits for if it surpasses its own 8breadth at all
(the) Erinyes (the) allies ofustice will discover it32 9
L Schonbecks proposal
~ A ~ [ O ~ v i o ] ~ o u X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v amplSpw[7tdou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
tQQ[crxotou] OUX U 7 t e p ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o ] p o u ~ Mcp ~ J i p ( J (ampet)] 8
[ c p ] ~ [ e ~ d J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] vw euro ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
31 Theokritos Kouremenos George M Parassoglou Kyriakos TsantsanoglouThe Derveni Papyrus Edited with Introduction and Commentary [TDP] (FlorenceLeo S Olschki 2006) (Greek text of lines 7-9 apud Lakss review in Rhizai2007 vol IV 1 153-162 at 155)
32 Richard Janko The Derveni Papyrus an interim text ZPE 141 (2002)1-62 and The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logoi)A New Translation Classical Philology Vol 96 No1 (Jan 2001) 1-32 Greektext of col IV apudMouraviev (2006) This is also Bernabes reading Poetae epicigraeci testimonia etfragmenta (Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2007) Pap Derv colIV 188-192)
6-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1826
Heraclitus on The Sun
The new sun is not by nature the width of a human foot 7
from darkness not ever surpassing its proper limits every day 8
it shines if not the Erinyes Justices helpers will find him out33 9
Finally Mouravievs alternative reconstruction of the passage
and his French translation34
~ A [ O ~ 8 o8]e 00 Xoctoc cpuO v ampySpw[1tdou] e o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ 7
[lucetmouet]
t Q ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ ouJ t ) 1 t e p ~ O C A A W V d y[ocp e ~ e u ] p o u ~ 8
e [ ~ L - r l L L x 1 J ~[ e ] ~ [ L x o u p o ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v e ~ e u p ~ 0 0 4 [ 0 middot e1tLOxo1touO yocp] 9
ltCegt Soleil dont par nature la largeur (est) dun pied 7
dhomme duit I avance (raquo
sans outrepasser ses limites car sil ltsortait de sa largtgeur () les 8
Furiesltservantes de Justicegt Ie recaptureraient 9
Car elles veillent 35
The importance of the discovery has perhaps been somewhat
exaggerated36 at least concerning Heraclitus (as opposed to
Orphism) Nevertheless the papyrus is certainly one of the oldest
kstimonia on Heraclitus possibly even predating Platos writings
(of which the Derveni author does not show any knowledge) The
identity of the Derveni author is still very much a matter of debate
and conjecture37 but there is no doubt he is commenting on an
33 Loek Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11
ZP 95 1993 20
34 Serge Mouraviev Heraclitea HAl (Sankt Augustin Academia 1999 con-tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n 1 [CD 2001]) ch 1256-59
35 My translation This sun here whose size by nature is of a human foot
ltshinesmoves (raquo not overstepping its limits for i f he ltwent beyond hisgt size() the Erinyes Justices servantsgt would catch him
36 For instance R Janko wrote The Derveni papyrus is the most important
teXt relating to early Greek literature science religion and philosophy to havecome to light since the Renaissance BMCR 20061029 Review of TDPJ
37 The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier or even in
7-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 426
Heracl itus on the Sun
nrique Hulsz Piccone
In the first part of this brief approach to the solar fragments I will
propose a different reading of B6 recovering the truly Heraclitean
idea that the sun is always new which I will interpret along
more Platonic than Aristotelian lines as having a metaphysical
import (rather than being merely a piece of physical doctrine) The
second part revisits briefly Column IV of the Oerveni papyrus
questions the unified version of B3 and B94 and keeping closer
to Plutarchs version of the latter finally suggests a less physicalistic
scenario as a better-fitting context for the text of the solar fragments
themselves bringing them together through BI6s cryptic reference
to an ever-shining analogue of the sun
PART THE SUN IN FLUX
Among Heraclitus fragments [OK] B6 ( The sun is newevery day ) has been long recognized as authentic Possibly just a
paraphrase and not a verbatim citation2 it is transmitted by Aristotle
I am referring to modern editors and interpreters at least since Ingram
Bywater whose work is earlier than Hermann Dielss (our fragment 6 corresponds
to number 32 in his edition Heracliti Ephesii Reliquiae (Oxford 1877) t is
crucial to have in mind that all Heraclitus fragments have come to us only
through doxographical tradition which is indirect by definition2 Cf M Marcovichs classification Heraclitus Editio Maior (MeridaVenezuela 1967 from now on referred to as HEM which specifies the status
of each fragment according to its probable degree of accuracy by the variablesof quotation [ cita J (C) paraphrase (P) and reminiscence (R) See also S
Mouraviev Heraclitea III3Bi ii iii (Sankt Augustin Academia Verlag 2006)
whose version differs from Diels-Kranz (DK) only in word order and who takesnotice of and differs from my own poin t of view cf below note 13) t should
not be forgotten that in the ancient tradition the difference between indirect
is cf
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
who refers explicitly to Heraclitus by name at the end of a passage
in the second book of his Meteorology Most recent interpretationshave read it as a relatively straightforward statement of physical
doctrine taking for granted that a cosmological (astronomical
and meteorological) scenario must be the appropriate one rather
than seeing it as an illustration of a general truth or even as a
critical reflection on the temporality of human life and experience
Almost all have agreed what the extent of the quotation is 3 t will
be instructive to remember here Kirks cautious but optimistic
conclusion at the end of his long and detailed discussion When
all is said we still do not know the exact purpose of the declaration
that the sun is new every day but the number of possible purposes
has been substantially limited 4 and contrast it with Marcovichs
remarkable confidence The meaning of the fragment seems to
be clear enough ifwe bring it together with Theophrastus account
on Heraclitus meteorology 5 an opinion further supported by
interpreting the saying as an intended attack on the popular beliefin the suns divinity
To begin with I reproduce the Aristotelian passage in full
This is why all of those who came before are ridicu-
lous too for they supposed that the sun is nurtured
by the moist And some say that this too is why
solstices happen For the places of the solstices arenot always capable of providing nourishment for
the sun But it is necessary that this happens or the
Kahn Anaximander and the Origins Greek Cosmology (Indianapolis Hackett
1994) 172 One should not dismiss Proclus version (in Tim Vol 3 311 42nd
veoc e p ~ [ J e p 7 1 ~ A ~ O C new every day is the sun which differs only in word
order from Aristotles the version preferred in DK Cpound Agustin Garda Calvo
Heraclito Razon Com un [HRC] (Madrid Lucina 1985) 190-192
3 There are some exceptions to this generalized tendency A Garda Calvo
HRC Marcel Conche Heraclite Fragments (Paris PUF 1986) Jean Brun
Heraclite ou e philosophe de eternel retour (Paris Seghers 1969) ad B3 among
others The line I will pursue is actually considered by G S Kirk Heraclitus
The Cosmic Fragments (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1978)266 but
dismissed implicitly
4 Kirk Cosmic Fragments 264-279
5 Marcovich HEM 316 and 318
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 626
Heraclitus on The Sun
sun would be destroyed Because the visible fire as
long as it has nourishment to that extent it livesand the moist is the only nourishment for fire As
if the moist that goes upwards could reach to the
sun or as if its ascent was like that of the flame
when this is produced Because they assumed that
the flame is alike they supposed it likely that the
same would happen in the case of the sun But this
is not so For flame is produced by the continuousinterchange of the moist and the dry and it is not
nurtured (because so to speak it never stays the
same) but in the case of the sun its impossible that
this would happen since if it were nourished in
the way they say it is its evident too as Heraclitus
says that the sun is not only new every day hut
always new continuously 0111-01 o t ~ xoct I 1 i A I O ~au 00 XOC17OC7tep p o c x l e ~ t o ~ ltPlJOW V O ~ Eqgt n H TJIIoEP fl E ( J ~ L v tlll laquoEl E O ~ r J U l e x w ~ ) 6
Interpreters have stressed the need to take the whole passage as
a unity to make good sense of Heraclitus words so-for the sake
of the passages internallogic-Aristotles presentation of the saying
has been sometimes considered to imply that Heraclitus himselfmust be included among those who believed that the sun (a) is
fiery and (b) is nurtured by moisture Now this claim could in
principle be challenged wholly or partially especially since neither
6 Aristotle Meteorology B 2 354b33ff
7 Harold Cherniss Aristotle s Criticism o Presocratic Philosophy [ACPP] (Baltimore The John Hopkins University Press 1935) 134 with n541) maintained
that Aristotles reference to Heraclitus and his followers is exclusive (a thesisthat seems excessive) Marcovich (HEM 312-318) accepts that an allusion toHeraclitus is intended (315) as do Kirk (HCF 265-266) and R Mondolfo
Eraclito Testimonianze e mitazioni (Firenze La N uova Italia 1972 119-123
with n156) but they all leave other possibilities open Inclusion ofAnaximanderAnaximenes Xenophanes Antiphon and perhaps Alcmaeon does not precludethis notion from being a common bdief in the air so to speak in pre-Aristotelian times Hippocratic treatises also provide evidence for the view that the moist
feeds the hot Now whether Heraclitus hdd a similar view or not is ofcourse
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 726
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 826
eraclituson The un
he scholiasts take on the relevant point is quite straightforward
Heraclitus the Ephesian a physicist said that the
sun as it comes to the Western sea sinks in it and
is extinguished then it goes under the earth and
as it reaches above the Eastern horizon it kindles
again and this happens forever9
More is going on here than meets the eye First it is noteworthythat the scholiasts point of view is considerably more explicit than
Platos and brings with itself the whole Aristotelian-Theophrastean
physicalistic interpretation of Heraclitus he epublic passage is
centered on the key words extinguished ( amp 1 t o c r ~ i I V u V t ~ ~ ) and
kindled ( l ~ ~ 1 t t o v t c x ~ ) which imply only that the fiery Heraclitean
sun was cyclically quenched and re-kindled (but not necessarily that
the sun dives into the sea or that it continues unlit under the earth onits way back to the East) So even if there was in Heraclitus lost book
some statement to the effect that the sun dies out and is re-kindled
it is still doubtful whether it really belonged in an astronomical
meteorological model ofexplanation such as the scholiast describes
A second relevant observation is that Platos allusion to the
sun-theme is subtly framed lO to fit within a proportional triadic
relationship between cosmos polis and individuals which looksquite Heraclitean and which Plato appropriates as the backbone
of the alternate utopian philosophic model Platos allusion
to B6 is quite oblique but he seems to intentionally recall the
language of fragments B30 and B26 (which deal respectively with
the fiery cosmos eternally going out and again re-kindling and
the proportional relationship of the waking man the sleeper and
the dead) he brief reference to the Heraclitean sun anticipates
the famous set of analogical images the Platonic sun the divided
9 H p O C X A e V t O ~ 6 E lt p i O ~ o ~ lt p u O ~ x o ~ WV EAeyeV on 6 A ~ O ~ V fj ounxjj~ ~ A O C O 0 7 J E A ~ O O V x ~ t x ~ ~ o u ~ V ~ l h j j O ~ i v V J ~ ~ e h ~ O ~ e A ~ O O V 0 U1tO y1jvx ~ t ~ amp V ~ O A ~ V lt p ~ o c O ~ ~ E O C 1 t e ~ 1 t O C A ~ V x ~ t 00 0 ~ ~ y L y v e ~ ~ 10 It is not often remarked that the verbs Plato playfully uses here X1tW and
EOC1tW in the double sense of touching being in contact with set fire to
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 926
Enrique HGlsz Piccone
line and the cave So it seems that Platos information is likely to
be true which provides a meaningful complement to the new sun( ~ A W e viae) ofB6 In the case of the scholiast the function of the
sun-symbolism within Heraclitus philosophical framework could
still have been missed A fragment from Democritus might also
echo Heraclitus B6 in a non-cosmological contextl suggesting a
connection with B1712 and so could perhaps be a useful counter
point to the physicalistic perspective on the Heraclitean sun
Up to now a minimalistic estimate of the actual extent of B6
(6 ~ A W e vEae europ ~ f 1 E P 1 l euroOt[v) has been the predominant trend
among scholars a reading thought to be backed by the so-called
internal logic ofAristotles argument l3 Taken on its merits however
the argument is not a particularly good one The notion attributed
to Heraclitus taking the whole passage as a unity (and leaving
aside for the moment the details of the conjectured mechanics
of the process) is that assuming that the fiery sun is born as it
is kindled at dawn and dies out as it is quenched at nightl4 it
11 DK 68B158 (Plutarch De Latenter Vivendo 5 p 1129pound) verx trp ~ - l e p 1 J ~rppoveonee ocvamppw7tm (Men have new thoughts every day)
12 DK 22B17 ou yocp rppoveoucn CmrxuCrx 7tOAAOL o x o O o ~ t y x u p e u O ~ v ouoe
-lrxampovCee y ~ v w O x o u O ~ v ewuCo O ~ oe o o x e o u O ~ (Many dont understand suchthings as those they encounter nor do they know them once they have learnedbut think themselves they do) Cf also DK 22B72 6 J ~ - l c X A ~ o C r x o ~ t J v e x w e
O - l ~ A O U O ~ lt A 6 y w ~ C w ~ C oc OArx o ~ o ~ x o u v n gt C o h w ~ o ~ r x r p e p o v C r x ~ xrxt ore xrxamp
~ - l e p r x v t y x u p o u O ~ C rxu C rx rxuCoie ~ e v r x r p r x L v e t r x ~ (That which they meetmost frequently ltthe logos that governs alb from this they differ and the thingsthey meet every day these seem foreign to them)
13 f M Q U f a v Heraclitea IILBiii (2006) 14 Certains auteurs [ J incluent u -lovov et ampAJampd veoe Ouvexwe (contexte dAristote) dans la citation cequi semble confirme Pyen Plotin (ampd x r x ~ v o v y L v e O amp r x ~ ) Cette opinion ne resistetoutefois pas it l a n a l y s ~ du contexte aristotelicien OU la conception dun soleilen r e n o ~ v e l e m e n t permanent joue Ie role de reductio ad absurdum dune application s i ~ t a n e e s6leil de la theorie (quAristote critique) dun solei de feunourrissant dexhalaisons humides et de la theorie (aristotelicienne)
selon laquelle la Hamme serait un echange perpetuel entre Ihumide et Ie sec14 Both Kirk and Marcovich thought it likely that B6 was preceded or followedby some such assertion about the suns extinction and rekindling This is stageone in Kirks interpretation of Aristotles argument stage 2 is represented by the
O x c X r p r x ~ theory stage 3 by the amp v r x amp u - l L r x O ~ e theory These are followed by the onlyexplicit piece of reasoning in the Meteorology passage climaxing in the quotationgiven in note 6 above David Sider has proposed a different reconstruction Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus in Studies on the erveni Papyrus [SDPJ (OxfordClarendon Press 1977) 129-148 on which see further below note 43
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1026
Heraclitus on The Sun
canbesaid that it is VeuroOe eurocp ~ f J euro P 1 l neworyoungatdawn
becauseregularlyquenchedandreignitedaccordingtofixedtemporal
successiveperiodsThe earlierthinkersmentioned byAristotle
denouncedforhavingsupposedthesun is nourishedbymoisture
have sometimes been thought toincludeHeraclitusbut this is
doubtfulAnd anyway even if we dosetaside theattributionof
the nourishingof thesun on moisture (alongwith theJingleor
doubleexhalation [ r i v c x f ) u f J L c x O ~ e ] doctrine)to H e r a ~ f u u s w e a ~stillleftwiththenotionthatthesunis fiery and b e ~ a u s e of thisitis newnotonlyeveryday(atdawn) but alwaysSoaccordingto
theusualreadingAristotlewouldbecharging e r a c l i t ~ withnot
beingradicalenoughForwhenhesaidthesun is new v e [ y - d ~ Yheshouldhaverealizedthat thisis agrossunderstatementofwhat
is metaphysicallyneededwithin hisown frameworkwhich-as
interpretedby Aristotle-would be an extremeform of theall
thingsflow ( 1 t ~ V t c x p e ~ ) therheontologicalmodelPointingto
HeraclitusshortcomingsAristotlewouldbe putting forwardhis
own criticism correctingthesayingwith whatHeraclitusshould
havesaid that thesun is alwaysnew (ridVeuroOe
Thereis someindication(intherelevantdoxography though
notintheauthenticfragmentsthemselves) that suchaconception
of adailydifferentsun washeldbyXenophanesHis reported
viewwas that afierysunl5 is generatedliterallyeveryday (xcxf)
h ~ O t l ) v ~ f J euro p c x v ) fromsmallsparks in theclouds so an entirely
differentsunshinesoverandwarmseachmorningtheearthbelow
theoldonebecominglostfrom our viewinthe infinitedistanceit
travels in astraightline beingsubstitutedbyan entirelynewone
thenextday16 Xenophanes thesisentailsthesuccessive existence
of an infinitenumberof suns eachirreducibletotheotherseach
sun correspondingto eachday canthusbe saidto benew(that
is other thanordifferentfrom theothers)Heraclitus few
relevantso-calledphysicalorcosmicfragmentsareundoubtedly
hardtoassessbut onemightquestionthelikelihoodof aprimarily
cosmologicaland doctrinalinterpretation of histhinkingrather
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1126
nrique Hli lsz Piccone
than simply take for granted that the details of just that sort of
account have not reached us That he stated nothing clear1 7 about
these matters represents a more credible possibility
We know from the fragments themselves that Heraclitus was
extremely critical of the reputedly wise men from the distant past and
from his own time and that he explicitly denied that Xenophanes
understood anything even if he qualified as a polymath (B40)18
That Heraclitus held a similar belief in infinite suns (parallel to the
sequence of days) is an unlikely hypothesis not just because of his
manifest disdain ofXenophanes but also in virtue of something that
is implied in his criticism of Hesiod who according to B57 did not
even know Night and Day for they are one 19 In B106 Hesiodsignorance concerns not only the uni ty of Night and Day but also
the single nature (cpUOt0 common to all days20 This suggests that
the Heraclitean sun (recognized as the cause ofdaylight B99) 1 too
is one and the same every day and it has a distinctive cpuOtc of its
own The upshot is that Heraclitus thought of the sun as a single and
persistent being which retains its selfhood through its change just
as he thought of the same river as a flux of ever different waters22
The Aristotelian passage implicitly suggests several possible
Heracleitean theses The most basic assumption I label
17 Cf eg DL 98 altxltpwe S ouSev euro x t W e t lt X ~ (he doesnt set forth anythingclear) ibid 911 mpt Se t1je y ~ e ouSev a 1 t o lt p lt x L v e t lt X ~ 1tOpoundltx t Le euronv aAAouSe 1tept twv axltxltpwv (he doesnt show anything clear about what sort of
thing is the earth nor about the bowls)
18 DK 22B40 1 t O A U P lt x ~ t L I ) voov ou S ~ S 6 t a x e v HaLoSov yiXp v euro S L S lt X ~ E xltxL
TIuampltxyop1JV ltxotpounde tE Eevoltpdtvedt tE xltxL EXltXtltXLOV (Much learning doesntteach intelligence For it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and againXenophanes and Hecataeus)
19 DK 22B57 S ~ M a x lt X A O e Se 1tAELat6gtV HaLoSoe toQZGV euro 1 t L a t ~ t lt X ~1tAeLatltX dSivltXL (Jane ~ p i p l ) v xltxL eultppOVl)V oux euro y L ~ M c r X e V Ecru YOCpEV
(Teacher of most men is Hesiod They think he knew plenty he who dilt-nt
recognize day and night for they are one)
20 DK 22B106 c X y v o o Q v t ~ ltpUcrLv ~ p i p lt x e cX1tdtcrl)e pLltxlt oucrltxv ( [HesiJ)d] ignored that the nature of any day is one)
21 DK 22B99 et ~ A t O e ~ V evexltx tWV (lA-WV (latpwv ~ ( p P O V I ) XV (Ifthere were no sun for the sake of the other stars it would be night)
22 DK 22B12 1tOtltXPOLcrL tOLcrtJ lt X U t O L c r ~ v euro P ~ lt x L v o U c r L V hepltx xltxL Etepx
6SltxtltX eurotLppeL (On those who step into the same rivers other and other waters
flow )
10-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1226
Heraclitus on The Sun
(0) The sun is fire or fiery or made of fire
Other theses extend this fundamental idea(1) The sun feeds on moisture
2) Solstices are explained on this basis
(3) The (false) grounds for this view are
(3a) A supposed analogy of sun-fire with everyday
ordinary fire and
(3b) an assimilation of the ascent of atmospherical
vapor on the one hand and the upward movement
of flame in combustion on the other
After a denial en bloc of the truth ofall this Aristotle concludes
critically that
(4) Heraclitus in saying the sun is new merely every
day failed to reach the necessary conclusion that it
would have to be always new (that is not the same
at any moment)
Some comments are in order First that Heraclitus and his
alleged followers (but who are they) are alluded to in the reference
to all those earlier thinkers who assumed the sun was nourished
by the moist m x Y - r ~ ~ o O o ~ -rbJY 7 r p 6 - r ~ p o y l ) 7 r D C l ~ O Y -rOY ~ W Y- r p e q l e O amp C l ~ rc1gt uypc1raquo seems to be unanimously accepted It should
be noted though that strictly speaking this remains an inference
for neither Aristotle nor any of the preserved fragments actually
states just that On the further assumption that the moist is the only
nourishment for fire (-ro 0 uypov rc1gt 1tUpt - r p O q l ~ v e t v C l ~ J6vov)
we arrive at the conclusion that the sun lives at the expense of (sea)
moisture which ascends and feeds the fire ofwhich the sun is made
(As to the extinction during night-time the doxographical report
t1tt Jepouc in Diogenes Laertius links night and the dark exhala
tion [IX 11]) The Heraclitean fragments that seem to be echoed
are B31 (both parts) B36 and (for the idea of nourishment) B114
Strangely enough none of them deals with the sun but instead
respectively with the turnings of fire 1tUPOC -rP01tClL) the cycle
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
of birth and death of soul ( ~ u X ~ ) and the nurturing of all human
laws (VO JOL) on the single divine one common to all (the Logos as
lex naturae The unity-in-opposition theory construed as a narrowphysicalistic explanation is also in play although only obscurely
hinted at in Aristotles interpretation The grounding of this in
Heraclitus seems very vague but it might further reflect B60 and
B126 A somewhat slighter anomaly would seem to be that the
moist requires as contrary the dry (not the sun) Insistence on the
exclusive relationship between contraries (each thing has only one
contrary) is reminiscent of Plato but not of Heraclitus
Secondly as to solstices being explained in this way (that is solelyon the view that the sun is nurtured by moisture) by Heraclitus
in particular this point seems especially far-fetched Perhaps the
closest we can get to solstices in Heraclitus is B94 (The Sun will
not overstep its measures [tJ-eurotpoc)) and BlOO23
In the third place 3a and 3b seem to be entirely due to Aristotles
own conjecture Perhaps there is a fusion here of other sources-
Heraclitus B16 and B54 immediately come to mind not exclud
ing views in other authors The theory implied in 3b could be ahistorical antecedent of Aristotles own exhalation doctrine but it
is more likely than not that there was no such thing in Heraclitus
view in spite of the commonplace physicalistic interpretation of
the way up and down o M ~ avw xoc tw) of B60 Heraclitus own
approach to such meteorological phenomena (in B31 B36) seems
hardly usable for restoring Aristotles credibility Some form ofvapor
( i h t J - ~ ) however is quite possible in Xenophanes
And last with all this in mind we may appreciate that Aristotlesfinal move (charging Heraclitus with not being radical enough) can
do without the assumptions just listed as 1-3 The only premise really
needed is that the sun is fiery Aristotles dissent from Heraclitus
which is the immediate basis for actually mentioning him by name
and quoting him need not be interpreted within a meteorological
framework and makes perfect sense when limited to the very basic
notion of the sun as fiery Besides the well-known metaphysical
23 DK 22BlOO (Plutarch Quaestiones Platonicae 8 4lO07D) c ) p o c ~ oct 1tIxvtoc
ltPEPOU(H (the seasons bringers of all things)
2-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1426
Heraclitus on The Sun
hostility to the allegedly Heraclitean Universal Flux for Aristotle
himself (according to at least one interpretation) 24 the sun is made
of ether (ocUtYjp) not fire and is neither hot nor dry A simpler
reading of the final statement presents itself if one assumes (with
Heraclitus) the suns fiery nature then one should go on to say
(as does Heraclitus) that the sun is not only new every day (as
Xenophanes said) but it is always new Read in this way Aristotles
final point turns out to be not a criticism but the actual report of
Heraclitus extreme but self-consistent (even if false) view
It could be conjectured that Heraclitus is reacting to Xenophanes
and expressing in his own coinage the true view brings out the suns
nature by calling it always new This recalls t i d ~ ( l ) o V ( ever-living )
from B30 and farther still the ever real logos A y o ~ EWV o c ~ e L of the Proem) t is well to remember that B99 proves Heraclitus
awareness of the sun being the true cause of night (by absence) and
(by presence) of day too f the nature of all days is one B106) it
would be natural enough for Heraclitus to think of the sun as being
endowed with a permanent identity So the Heraclitean sun is as
the fiery eternal cosmos ( x o O f J O ~ ) the same for all or as in B89
one and the same (for those who are awake)
It is not so easy to assess with confidence what the limits of
Aristotles quotation are f his rendering ofHeraclitus is close we
could expect an expanded original along these lines ou fJOVOV v i o ~Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO nV ~ ) w ~ ti)) tid i o ~ (xoct w u t o ~ ) ( the sun is not
new only every day but it is always new and the same ) A simpler
alternative could be perhaps ) ~ o ~ v i o ~ Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO t Lv tict v i o ~(xoct wuto) ( the sun is new every day always new and the same
My preferred conjecture would be something like ~ ) w ou fJovov
vio Ecp ~ f J i p Y l ti)) tict vio EO t Lv (the sun is not only new every
day but it is new always ) What is most important is not to pass
silently over Heraclitus characteristic style of which there could
4 Already known to Plotinus who alludes to t o 7tefL7t t ov crwfLlX see below
note 26 For Aristotles theory of a 7tpw t ov crwfLlX cf e caelo 269bff
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be traces in Plato25 Plotinus26 and LucretiusY My point is that
a reasonable version of B6 should include the formula rid veo
These last two words just by themselves actually make an excellent
synthesis ofHeraclitus philosophy as a whole and describe perfectly
the suns CPUcrL which mirrors the whole xocrfLo So I conclude
that Heraclitus basic assertion is that the sun is forever the same
precisely in that it is always new persistently changing every day and
at every given moment just as the flux of the river constitutes its
dynamic identity and just as the xocrfLo itself is ever-living fire
so Heraclitus presentation of the nature of the sun symbolically
harmonizes sameness and difference
PART 2 THE SIZE OR THE LIMITS OF THE SUN
HOW GOOD IS THE EVIDENCE OFTHE DERVENI PAPYRUS
In 1981 almost twenty years after the Derveni papyrus
was discovered Walter Burkert gave a short paper in the Chieti
Symposium Heracliteum in which he presented the text reconstructed
by Parassoglou and Tsantsanoglou and made publicly known the few
lines in column IV containing the Heraclitus quotation28 Until then
the dominant approach to these two Heraclitean solar fragments[DK 22] B3 and B94 was to treat them separately Of course the
fact that both deal (although in very different ways) with Helios
25 Symposium 207d3 m I X t I X A e L 1 t E ~ Enpov vtt toO 1tIXAIXWU
( always leaves behind a different new creature instead of the old one 207 d7
l X ( m ) ~ X I X A E i t I X ~ ampAAIX vEo ampEt y ~ y v 6 f J E V O ~ ( Its called the same but it be
comes always new ) Cpound also Cratylus 409b5-8 Neov 16 1tOV XlXt EVOV dd eO n1tEpt -djv O E A ~ V Y j V toOto to p w ~ [ 1XUXACJl yocp 1tOV dd X U t ~ V 1 t E P ~ ~ W V veov
dd1 t L ~ amp A A E ~
( The light about the moon is always new and old [
] for in itscourse around it the sun always sheds on an ever new light )
26 Ennead II 1 2 lO-13 lvyxwpwv xlXt e7tt t01hwv o Y j A o v 6 t ~ tijl
HPIXXAELtCJl oC etpYj ampEt xlXt tov A ~ O V y L v E a ~ I X ~ 1 p ~ a t o t E A E ~ fJEV Y XP OUOEV
O V 1tpliyfJ1X dYj d nc IXIJtOO t XC ) 7 t o ~ E a E ~ C toO 1tEfJ7ttou 7 t l X p l X o e C l X ~ toawfJIXtoc ( He [sc Plato] evidently agrees with Heraclitus who also said that the
sun is always coming into being For Aristotle there would be no problem if oneadmits the theories of the fifth body )
27 De natura rerum V 662 (semina ardoris) quae fociunt solis novasemper lumina gigni
28 W Burkert Eraclito nel Papiro di Derveni due nuove testimonianze tti
del Symposium Heracliteum vol I (Rome Edizioni dell Ateneo 1983 31-42
14-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1626
eraclituson The Sun
naturally invited a connection but as the texts ofB3 (from Aetius)
and B94 (one among several versions in Plutarch) were presented in
Diels-Kranz mere juxtaposition did not seem appealing to editors
commentators and interpreters With the partial publication of the
Derveni papyrus things took a different direction A new line of
interpretation relied on the possibility that the author of the papyrus
intended the quotation as a continuous unity29 But even after
the official publication which benefitted greatly from applying
multi-spectral imaging to the remains finally came out in 2006
the papyrus bad physical shape still left enough room for almost
total uncertainty about some parts within the quotation itself (a
fact that has led to several versions which differ in their proposed
conjectures and supplements)
In Gabor Beteghs version lines 7-9 of column IV read
~ A ~ [ O ~ ] ~ o u xcxtoc cpuow cXIamppw[1t1ltou] ~ o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ [eat ] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ oux 0 1 t C p ~ amp A A W V e [ ]pouae[ 8
[ t ] y [ ~ ~ a e t c x ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v t ~ e u p ~ a o ~ [ a L L x 1 l ~ t1tLxoupO ] 9
The sun according to nature is a human foot in width 7
not transgressing its boundaries If 8
oversteps the Erinyes the guardians ofJustice will find it out30 9
29 Cpound D Sider (1997) Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus who referst a paragraph at the beginning of line 7 indicating a quotation (at least inintention) reinforced by the apparent lack of space for ~ A ~ O t in lines 8 and9 and suggesting that B3+B94 formed a connected thought in Hs originaltext (131) but see G Betegh The Derveni Papyrus Cosmology Theology andInterpretation (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004) 326n3 ALebedev did overstate his case when he wrote Any serious edition ofHeraclitusto come will cite B3 and B94 only as testimonia under the most complete andauthentic verbatim quotation of PDerv (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrififor Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79 (1989) 42) S Mouraviev (2006) and ABernabe De Tales aDemocrito Fragmentos Presocrdticos 2nd ed (Madrid Alianza2001) have followed this general line of interpretation in their editions ofHeraclitus treating B3 and B94 as a single continuous fragment
30 Gabor Betegh The Derveni Papyrus 10-11
5-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1726
Enrique HQlsz Piccone
There are some other possibilities (not exhaustive) First the
long awaited official reading by Kouremenos Parassoglou and
Tsantsanoglou
~ A ~ [ O ~ ]ou X(xt IX cpuow ampI-9pw[mJCou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
t o f 1 [ i y e - 9 o ] ~ oUx U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o u ] p o u ~ e [ u p o u ~ ] 8
[EoG d ~ E J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v euro ~ e u p ~ c r O I [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ eurotLxoupm] 9
The sun in the nature of is a human foot width 7
not exceeding in size the proper limits of its width 8
or else the Erinyes assistants of Dike will find it out 31 9
Jankos version
~ A ~ [ O ~ Ewu]WG X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v ampySpw[7teLou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [ecrn] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ OUX U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d Y[IXp t ~ e u ] p o u ~ e[wutoG 8
[ euro ] ~ [ ~ ~ c r e t ( x ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v e ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
The sun in accord with its own nature is in breadth the size 7
of a human foot
and does not surpass its limits for if it surpasses its own 8breadth at all
(the) Erinyes (the) allies ofustice will discover it32 9
L Schonbecks proposal
~ A ~ [ O ~ v i o ] ~ o u X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v amplSpw[7tdou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
tQQ[crxotou] OUX U 7 t e p ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o ] p o u ~ Mcp ~ J i p ( J (ampet)] 8
[ c p ] ~ [ e ~ d J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] vw euro ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
31 Theokritos Kouremenos George M Parassoglou Kyriakos TsantsanoglouThe Derveni Papyrus Edited with Introduction and Commentary [TDP] (FlorenceLeo S Olschki 2006) (Greek text of lines 7-9 apud Lakss review in Rhizai2007 vol IV 1 153-162 at 155)
32 Richard Janko The Derveni Papyrus an interim text ZPE 141 (2002)1-62 and The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logoi)A New Translation Classical Philology Vol 96 No1 (Jan 2001) 1-32 Greektext of col IV apudMouraviev (2006) This is also Bernabes reading Poetae epicigraeci testimonia etfragmenta (Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2007) Pap Derv colIV 188-192)
6-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1826
Heraclitus on The Sun
The new sun is not by nature the width of a human foot 7
from darkness not ever surpassing its proper limits every day 8
it shines if not the Erinyes Justices helpers will find him out33 9
Finally Mouravievs alternative reconstruction of the passage
and his French translation34
~ A [ O ~ 8 o8]e 00 Xoctoc cpuO v ampySpw[1tdou] e o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ 7
[lucetmouet]
t Q ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ ouJ t ) 1 t e p ~ O C A A W V d y[ocp e ~ e u ] p o u ~ 8
e [ ~ L - r l L L x 1 J ~[ e ] ~ [ L x o u p o ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v e ~ e u p ~ 0 0 4 [ 0 middot e1tLOxo1touO yocp] 9
ltCegt Soleil dont par nature la largeur (est) dun pied 7
dhomme duit I avance (raquo
sans outrepasser ses limites car sil ltsortait de sa largtgeur () les 8
Furiesltservantes de Justicegt Ie recaptureraient 9
Car elles veillent 35
The importance of the discovery has perhaps been somewhat
exaggerated36 at least concerning Heraclitus (as opposed to
Orphism) Nevertheless the papyrus is certainly one of the oldest
kstimonia on Heraclitus possibly even predating Platos writings
(of which the Derveni author does not show any knowledge) The
identity of the Derveni author is still very much a matter of debate
and conjecture37 but there is no doubt he is commenting on an
33 Loek Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11
ZP 95 1993 20
34 Serge Mouraviev Heraclitea HAl (Sankt Augustin Academia 1999 con-tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n 1 [CD 2001]) ch 1256-59
35 My translation This sun here whose size by nature is of a human foot
ltshinesmoves (raquo not overstepping its limits for i f he ltwent beyond hisgt size() the Erinyes Justices servantsgt would catch him
36 For instance R Janko wrote The Derveni papyrus is the most important
teXt relating to early Greek literature science religion and philosophy to havecome to light since the Renaissance BMCR 20061029 Review of TDPJ
37 The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier or even in
7-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
who refers explicitly to Heraclitus by name at the end of a passage
in the second book of his Meteorology Most recent interpretationshave read it as a relatively straightforward statement of physical
doctrine taking for granted that a cosmological (astronomical
and meteorological) scenario must be the appropriate one rather
than seeing it as an illustration of a general truth or even as a
critical reflection on the temporality of human life and experience
Almost all have agreed what the extent of the quotation is 3 t will
be instructive to remember here Kirks cautious but optimistic
conclusion at the end of his long and detailed discussion When
all is said we still do not know the exact purpose of the declaration
that the sun is new every day but the number of possible purposes
has been substantially limited 4 and contrast it with Marcovichs
remarkable confidence The meaning of the fragment seems to
be clear enough ifwe bring it together with Theophrastus account
on Heraclitus meteorology 5 an opinion further supported by
interpreting the saying as an intended attack on the popular beliefin the suns divinity
To begin with I reproduce the Aristotelian passage in full
This is why all of those who came before are ridicu-
lous too for they supposed that the sun is nurtured
by the moist And some say that this too is why
solstices happen For the places of the solstices arenot always capable of providing nourishment for
the sun But it is necessary that this happens or the
Kahn Anaximander and the Origins Greek Cosmology (Indianapolis Hackett
1994) 172 One should not dismiss Proclus version (in Tim Vol 3 311 42nd
veoc e p ~ [ J e p 7 1 ~ A ~ O C new every day is the sun which differs only in word
order from Aristotles the version preferred in DK Cpound Agustin Garda Calvo
Heraclito Razon Com un [HRC] (Madrid Lucina 1985) 190-192
3 There are some exceptions to this generalized tendency A Garda Calvo
HRC Marcel Conche Heraclite Fragments (Paris PUF 1986) Jean Brun
Heraclite ou e philosophe de eternel retour (Paris Seghers 1969) ad B3 among
others The line I will pursue is actually considered by G S Kirk Heraclitus
The Cosmic Fragments (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1978)266 but
dismissed implicitly
4 Kirk Cosmic Fragments 264-279
5 Marcovich HEM 316 and 318
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 626
Heraclitus on The Sun
sun would be destroyed Because the visible fire as
long as it has nourishment to that extent it livesand the moist is the only nourishment for fire As
if the moist that goes upwards could reach to the
sun or as if its ascent was like that of the flame
when this is produced Because they assumed that
the flame is alike they supposed it likely that the
same would happen in the case of the sun But this
is not so For flame is produced by the continuousinterchange of the moist and the dry and it is not
nurtured (because so to speak it never stays the
same) but in the case of the sun its impossible that
this would happen since if it were nourished in
the way they say it is its evident too as Heraclitus
says that the sun is not only new every day hut
always new continuously 0111-01 o t ~ xoct I 1 i A I O ~au 00 XOC17OC7tep p o c x l e ~ t o ~ ltPlJOW V O ~ Eqgt n H TJIIoEP fl E ( J ~ L v tlll laquoEl E O ~ r J U l e x w ~ ) 6
Interpreters have stressed the need to take the whole passage as
a unity to make good sense of Heraclitus words so-for the sake
of the passages internallogic-Aristotles presentation of the saying
has been sometimes considered to imply that Heraclitus himselfmust be included among those who believed that the sun (a) is
fiery and (b) is nurtured by moisture Now this claim could in
principle be challenged wholly or partially especially since neither
6 Aristotle Meteorology B 2 354b33ff
7 Harold Cherniss Aristotle s Criticism o Presocratic Philosophy [ACPP] (Baltimore The John Hopkins University Press 1935) 134 with n541) maintained
that Aristotles reference to Heraclitus and his followers is exclusive (a thesisthat seems excessive) Marcovich (HEM 312-318) accepts that an allusion toHeraclitus is intended (315) as do Kirk (HCF 265-266) and R Mondolfo
Eraclito Testimonianze e mitazioni (Firenze La N uova Italia 1972 119-123
with n156) but they all leave other possibilities open Inclusion ofAnaximanderAnaximenes Xenophanes Antiphon and perhaps Alcmaeon does not precludethis notion from being a common bdief in the air so to speak in pre-Aristotelian times Hippocratic treatises also provide evidence for the view that the moist
feeds the hot Now whether Heraclitus hdd a similar view or not is ofcourse
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 726
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 826
eraclituson The un
he scholiasts take on the relevant point is quite straightforward
Heraclitus the Ephesian a physicist said that the
sun as it comes to the Western sea sinks in it and
is extinguished then it goes under the earth and
as it reaches above the Eastern horizon it kindles
again and this happens forever9
More is going on here than meets the eye First it is noteworthythat the scholiasts point of view is considerably more explicit than
Platos and brings with itself the whole Aristotelian-Theophrastean
physicalistic interpretation of Heraclitus he epublic passage is
centered on the key words extinguished ( amp 1 t o c r ~ i I V u V t ~ ~ ) and
kindled ( l ~ ~ 1 t t o v t c x ~ ) which imply only that the fiery Heraclitean
sun was cyclically quenched and re-kindled (but not necessarily that
the sun dives into the sea or that it continues unlit under the earth onits way back to the East) So even if there was in Heraclitus lost book
some statement to the effect that the sun dies out and is re-kindled
it is still doubtful whether it really belonged in an astronomical
meteorological model ofexplanation such as the scholiast describes
A second relevant observation is that Platos allusion to the
sun-theme is subtly framed lO to fit within a proportional triadic
relationship between cosmos polis and individuals which looksquite Heraclitean and which Plato appropriates as the backbone
of the alternate utopian philosophic model Platos allusion
to B6 is quite oblique but he seems to intentionally recall the
language of fragments B30 and B26 (which deal respectively with
the fiery cosmos eternally going out and again re-kindling and
the proportional relationship of the waking man the sleeper and
the dead) he brief reference to the Heraclitean sun anticipates
the famous set of analogical images the Platonic sun the divided
9 H p O C X A e V t O ~ 6 E lt p i O ~ o ~ lt p u O ~ x o ~ WV EAeyeV on 6 A ~ O ~ V fj ounxjj~ ~ A O C O 0 7 J E A ~ O O V x ~ t x ~ ~ o u ~ V ~ l h j j O ~ i v V J ~ ~ e h ~ O ~ e A ~ O O V 0 U1tO y1jvx ~ t ~ amp V ~ O A ~ V lt p ~ o c O ~ ~ E O C 1 t e ~ 1 t O C A ~ V x ~ t 00 0 ~ ~ y L y v e ~ ~ 10 It is not often remarked that the verbs Plato playfully uses here X1tW and
EOC1tW in the double sense of touching being in contact with set fire to
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 926
Enrique HGlsz Piccone
line and the cave So it seems that Platos information is likely to
be true which provides a meaningful complement to the new sun( ~ A W e viae) ofB6 In the case of the scholiast the function of the
sun-symbolism within Heraclitus philosophical framework could
still have been missed A fragment from Democritus might also
echo Heraclitus B6 in a non-cosmological contextl suggesting a
connection with B1712 and so could perhaps be a useful counter
point to the physicalistic perspective on the Heraclitean sun
Up to now a minimalistic estimate of the actual extent of B6
(6 ~ A W e vEae europ ~ f 1 E P 1 l euroOt[v) has been the predominant trend
among scholars a reading thought to be backed by the so-called
internal logic ofAristotles argument l3 Taken on its merits however
the argument is not a particularly good one The notion attributed
to Heraclitus taking the whole passage as a unity (and leaving
aside for the moment the details of the conjectured mechanics
of the process) is that assuming that the fiery sun is born as it
is kindled at dawn and dies out as it is quenched at nightl4 it
11 DK 68B158 (Plutarch De Latenter Vivendo 5 p 1129pound) verx trp ~ - l e p 1 J ~rppoveonee ocvamppw7tm (Men have new thoughts every day)
12 DK 22B17 ou yocp rppoveoucn CmrxuCrx 7tOAAOL o x o O o ~ t y x u p e u O ~ v ouoe
-lrxampovCee y ~ v w O x o u O ~ v ewuCo O ~ oe o o x e o u O ~ (Many dont understand suchthings as those they encounter nor do they know them once they have learnedbut think themselves they do) Cf also DK 22B72 6 J ~ - l c X A ~ o C r x o ~ t J v e x w e
O - l ~ A O U O ~ lt A 6 y w ~ C w ~ C oc OArx o ~ o ~ x o u v n gt C o h w ~ o ~ r x r p e p o v C r x ~ xrxt ore xrxamp
~ - l e p r x v t y x u p o u O ~ C rxu C rx rxuCoie ~ e v r x r p r x L v e t r x ~ (That which they meetmost frequently ltthe logos that governs alb from this they differ and the thingsthey meet every day these seem foreign to them)
13 f M Q U f a v Heraclitea IILBiii (2006) 14 Certains auteurs [ J incluent u -lovov et ampAJampd veoe Ouvexwe (contexte dAristote) dans la citation cequi semble confirme Pyen Plotin (ampd x r x ~ v o v y L v e O amp r x ~ ) Cette opinion ne resistetoutefois pas it l a n a l y s ~ du contexte aristotelicien OU la conception dun soleilen r e n o ~ v e l e m e n t permanent joue Ie role de reductio ad absurdum dune application s i ~ t a n e e s6leil de la theorie (quAristote critique) dun solei de feunourrissant dexhalaisons humides et de la theorie (aristotelicienne)
selon laquelle la Hamme serait un echange perpetuel entre Ihumide et Ie sec14 Both Kirk and Marcovich thought it likely that B6 was preceded or followedby some such assertion about the suns extinction and rekindling This is stageone in Kirks interpretation of Aristotles argument stage 2 is represented by the
O x c X r p r x ~ theory stage 3 by the amp v r x amp u - l L r x O ~ e theory These are followed by the onlyexplicit piece of reasoning in the Meteorology passage climaxing in the quotationgiven in note 6 above David Sider has proposed a different reconstruction Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus in Studies on the erveni Papyrus [SDPJ (OxfordClarendon Press 1977) 129-148 on which see further below note 43
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1026
Heraclitus on The Sun
canbesaid that it is VeuroOe eurocp ~ f J euro P 1 l neworyoungatdawn
becauseregularlyquenchedandreignitedaccordingtofixedtemporal
successiveperiodsThe earlierthinkersmentioned byAristotle
denouncedforhavingsupposedthesun is nourishedbymoisture
have sometimes been thought toincludeHeraclitusbut this is
doubtfulAnd anyway even if we dosetaside theattributionof
the nourishingof thesun on moisture (alongwith theJingleor
doubleexhalation [ r i v c x f ) u f J L c x O ~ e ] doctrine)to H e r a ~ f u u s w e a ~stillleftwiththenotionthatthesunis fiery and b e ~ a u s e of thisitis newnotonlyeveryday(atdawn) but alwaysSoaccordingto
theusualreadingAristotlewouldbecharging e r a c l i t ~ withnot
beingradicalenoughForwhenhesaidthesun is new v e [ y - d ~ Yheshouldhaverealizedthat thisis agrossunderstatementofwhat
is metaphysicallyneededwithin hisown frameworkwhich-as
interpretedby Aristotle-would be an extremeform of theall
thingsflow ( 1 t ~ V t c x p e ~ ) therheontologicalmodelPointingto
HeraclitusshortcomingsAristotlewouldbe putting forwardhis
own criticism correctingthesayingwith whatHeraclitusshould
havesaid that thesun is alwaysnew (ridVeuroOe
Thereis someindication(intherelevantdoxography though
notintheauthenticfragmentsthemselves) that suchaconception
of adailydifferentsun washeldbyXenophanesHis reported
viewwas that afierysunl5 is generatedliterallyeveryday (xcxf)
h ~ O t l ) v ~ f J euro p c x v ) fromsmallsparks in theclouds so an entirely
differentsunshinesoverandwarmseachmorningtheearthbelow
theoldonebecominglostfrom our viewinthe infinitedistanceit
travels in astraightline beingsubstitutedbyan entirelynewone
thenextday16 Xenophanes thesisentailsthesuccessive existence
of an infinitenumberof suns eachirreducibletotheotherseach
sun correspondingto eachday canthusbe saidto benew(that
is other thanordifferentfrom theothers)Heraclitus few
relevantso-calledphysicalorcosmicfragmentsareundoubtedly
hardtoassessbut onemightquestionthelikelihoodof aprimarily
cosmologicaland doctrinalinterpretation of histhinkingrather
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1126
nrique Hli lsz Piccone
than simply take for granted that the details of just that sort of
account have not reached us That he stated nothing clear1 7 about
these matters represents a more credible possibility
We know from the fragments themselves that Heraclitus was
extremely critical of the reputedly wise men from the distant past and
from his own time and that he explicitly denied that Xenophanes
understood anything even if he qualified as a polymath (B40)18
That Heraclitus held a similar belief in infinite suns (parallel to the
sequence of days) is an unlikely hypothesis not just because of his
manifest disdain ofXenophanes but also in virtue of something that
is implied in his criticism of Hesiod who according to B57 did not
even know Night and Day for they are one 19 In B106 Hesiodsignorance concerns not only the uni ty of Night and Day but also
the single nature (cpUOt0 common to all days20 This suggests that
the Heraclitean sun (recognized as the cause ofdaylight B99) 1 too
is one and the same every day and it has a distinctive cpuOtc of its
own The upshot is that Heraclitus thought of the sun as a single and
persistent being which retains its selfhood through its change just
as he thought of the same river as a flux of ever different waters22
The Aristotelian passage implicitly suggests several possible
Heracleitean theses The most basic assumption I label
17 Cf eg DL 98 altxltpwe S ouSev euro x t W e t lt X ~ (he doesnt set forth anythingclear) ibid 911 mpt Se t1je y ~ e ouSev a 1 t o lt p lt x L v e t lt X ~ 1tOpoundltx t Le euronv aAAouSe 1tept twv axltxltpwv (he doesnt show anything clear about what sort of
thing is the earth nor about the bowls)
18 DK 22B40 1 t O A U P lt x ~ t L I ) voov ou S ~ S 6 t a x e v HaLoSov yiXp v euro S L S lt X ~ E xltxL
TIuampltxyop1JV ltxotpounde tE Eevoltpdtvedt tE xltxL EXltXtltXLOV (Much learning doesntteach intelligence For it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and againXenophanes and Hecataeus)
19 DK 22B57 S ~ M a x lt X A O e Se 1tAELat6gtV HaLoSoe toQZGV euro 1 t L a t ~ t lt X ~1tAeLatltX dSivltXL (Jane ~ p i p l ) v xltxL eultppOVl)V oux euro y L ~ M c r X e V Ecru YOCpEV
(Teacher of most men is Hesiod They think he knew plenty he who dilt-nt
recognize day and night for they are one)
20 DK 22B106 c X y v o o Q v t ~ ltpUcrLv ~ p i p lt x e cX1tdtcrl)e pLltxlt oucrltxv ( [HesiJ)d] ignored that the nature of any day is one)
21 DK 22B99 et ~ A t O e ~ V evexltx tWV (lA-WV (latpwv ~ ( p P O V I ) XV (Ifthere were no sun for the sake of the other stars it would be night)
22 DK 22B12 1tOtltXPOLcrL tOLcrtJ lt X U t O L c r ~ v euro P ~ lt x L v o U c r L V hepltx xltxL Etepx
6SltxtltX eurotLppeL (On those who step into the same rivers other and other waters
flow )
10-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1226
Heraclitus on The Sun
(0) The sun is fire or fiery or made of fire
Other theses extend this fundamental idea(1) The sun feeds on moisture
2) Solstices are explained on this basis
(3) The (false) grounds for this view are
(3a) A supposed analogy of sun-fire with everyday
ordinary fire and
(3b) an assimilation of the ascent of atmospherical
vapor on the one hand and the upward movement
of flame in combustion on the other
After a denial en bloc of the truth ofall this Aristotle concludes
critically that
(4) Heraclitus in saying the sun is new merely every
day failed to reach the necessary conclusion that it
would have to be always new (that is not the same
at any moment)
Some comments are in order First that Heraclitus and his
alleged followers (but who are they) are alluded to in the reference
to all those earlier thinkers who assumed the sun was nourished
by the moist m x Y - r ~ ~ o O o ~ -rbJY 7 r p 6 - r ~ p o y l ) 7 r D C l ~ O Y -rOY ~ W Y- r p e q l e O amp C l ~ rc1gt uypc1raquo seems to be unanimously accepted It should
be noted though that strictly speaking this remains an inference
for neither Aristotle nor any of the preserved fragments actually
states just that On the further assumption that the moist is the only
nourishment for fire (-ro 0 uypov rc1gt 1tUpt - r p O q l ~ v e t v C l ~ J6vov)
we arrive at the conclusion that the sun lives at the expense of (sea)
moisture which ascends and feeds the fire ofwhich the sun is made
(As to the extinction during night-time the doxographical report
t1tt Jepouc in Diogenes Laertius links night and the dark exhala
tion [IX 11]) The Heraclitean fragments that seem to be echoed
are B31 (both parts) B36 and (for the idea of nourishment) B114
Strangely enough none of them deals with the sun but instead
respectively with the turnings of fire 1tUPOC -rP01tClL) the cycle
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
of birth and death of soul ( ~ u X ~ ) and the nurturing of all human
laws (VO JOL) on the single divine one common to all (the Logos as
lex naturae The unity-in-opposition theory construed as a narrowphysicalistic explanation is also in play although only obscurely
hinted at in Aristotles interpretation The grounding of this in
Heraclitus seems very vague but it might further reflect B60 and
B126 A somewhat slighter anomaly would seem to be that the
moist requires as contrary the dry (not the sun) Insistence on the
exclusive relationship between contraries (each thing has only one
contrary) is reminiscent of Plato but not of Heraclitus
Secondly as to solstices being explained in this way (that is solelyon the view that the sun is nurtured by moisture) by Heraclitus
in particular this point seems especially far-fetched Perhaps the
closest we can get to solstices in Heraclitus is B94 (The Sun will
not overstep its measures [tJ-eurotpoc)) and BlOO23
In the third place 3a and 3b seem to be entirely due to Aristotles
own conjecture Perhaps there is a fusion here of other sources-
Heraclitus B16 and B54 immediately come to mind not exclud
ing views in other authors The theory implied in 3b could be ahistorical antecedent of Aristotles own exhalation doctrine but it
is more likely than not that there was no such thing in Heraclitus
view in spite of the commonplace physicalistic interpretation of
the way up and down o M ~ avw xoc tw) of B60 Heraclitus own
approach to such meteorological phenomena (in B31 B36) seems
hardly usable for restoring Aristotles credibility Some form ofvapor
( i h t J - ~ ) however is quite possible in Xenophanes
And last with all this in mind we may appreciate that Aristotlesfinal move (charging Heraclitus with not being radical enough) can
do without the assumptions just listed as 1-3 The only premise really
needed is that the sun is fiery Aristotles dissent from Heraclitus
which is the immediate basis for actually mentioning him by name
and quoting him need not be interpreted within a meteorological
framework and makes perfect sense when limited to the very basic
notion of the sun as fiery Besides the well-known metaphysical
23 DK 22BlOO (Plutarch Quaestiones Platonicae 8 4lO07D) c ) p o c ~ oct 1tIxvtoc
ltPEPOU(H (the seasons bringers of all things)
2-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1426
Heraclitus on The Sun
hostility to the allegedly Heraclitean Universal Flux for Aristotle
himself (according to at least one interpretation) 24 the sun is made
of ether (ocUtYjp) not fire and is neither hot nor dry A simpler
reading of the final statement presents itself if one assumes (with
Heraclitus) the suns fiery nature then one should go on to say
(as does Heraclitus) that the sun is not only new every day (as
Xenophanes said) but it is always new Read in this way Aristotles
final point turns out to be not a criticism but the actual report of
Heraclitus extreme but self-consistent (even if false) view
It could be conjectured that Heraclitus is reacting to Xenophanes
and expressing in his own coinage the true view brings out the suns
nature by calling it always new This recalls t i d ~ ( l ) o V ( ever-living )
from B30 and farther still the ever real logos A y o ~ EWV o c ~ e L of the Proem) t is well to remember that B99 proves Heraclitus
awareness of the sun being the true cause of night (by absence) and
(by presence) of day too f the nature of all days is one B106) it
would be natural enough for Heraclitus to think of the sun as being
endowed with a permanent identity So the Heraclitean sun is as
the fiery eternal cosmos ( x o O f J O ~ ) the same for all or as in B89
one and the same (for those who are awake)
It is not so easy to assess with confidence what the limits of
Aristotles quotation are f his rendering ofHeraclitus is close we
could expect an expanded original along these lines ou fJOVOV v i o ~Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO nV ~ ) w ~ ti)) tid i o ~ (xoct w u t o ~ ) ( the sun is not
new only every day but it is always new and the same ) A simpler
alternative could be perhaps ) ~ o ~ v i o ~ Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO t Lv tict v i o ~(xoct wuto) ( the sun is new every day always new and the same
My preferred conjecture would be something like ~ ) w ou fJovov
vio Ecp ~ f J i p Y l ti)) tict vio EO t Lv (the sun is not only new every
day but it is new always ) What is most important is not to pass
silently over Heraclitus characteristic style of which there could
4 Already known to Plotinus who alludes to t o 7tefL7t t ov crwfLlX see below
note 26 For Aristotles theory of a 7tpw t ov crwfLlX cf e caelo 269bff
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be traces in Plato25 Plotinus26 and LucretiusY My point is that
a reasonable version of B6 should include the formula rid veo
These last two words just by themselves actually make an excellent
synthesis ofHeraclitus philosophy as a whole and describe perfectly
the suns CPUcrL which mirrors the whole xocrfLo So I conclude
that Heraclitus basic assertion is that the sun is forever the same
precisely in that it is always new persistently changing every day and
at every given moment just as the flux of the river constitutes its
dynamic identity and just as the xocrfLo itself is ever-living fire
so Heraclitus presentation of the nature of the sun symbolically
harmonizes sameness and difference
PART 2 THE SIZE OR THE LIMITS OF THE SUN
HOW GOOD IS THE EVIDENCE OFTHE DERVENI PAPYRUS
In 1981 almost twenty years after the Derveni papyrus
was discovered Walter Burkert gave a short paper in the Chieti
Symposium Heracliteum in which he presented the text reconstructed
by Parassoglou and Tsantsanoglou and made publicly known the few
lines in column IV containing the Heraclitus quotation28 Until then
the dominant approach to these two Heraclitean solar fragments[DK 22] B3 and B94 was to treat them separately Of course the
fact that both deal (although in very different ways) with Helios
25 Symposium 207d3 m I X t I X A e L 1 t E ~ Enpov vtt toO 1tIXAIXWU
( always leaves behind a different new creature instead of the old one 207 d7
l X ( m ) ~ X I X A E i t I X ~ ampAAIX vEo ampEt y ~ y v 6 f J E V O ~ ( Its called the same but it be
comes always new ) Cpound also Cratylus 409b5-8 Neov 16 1tOV XlXt EVOV dd eO n1tEpt -djv O E A ~ V Y j V toOto to p w ~ [ 1XUXACJl yocp 1tOV dd X U t ~ V 1 t E P ~ ~ W V veov
dd1 t L ~ amp A A E ~
( The light about the moon is always new and old [
] for in itscourse around it the sun always sheds on an ever new light )
26 Ennead II 1 2 lO-13 lvyxwpwv xlXt e7tt t01hwv o Y j A o v 6 t ~ tijl
HPIXXAELtCJl oC etpYj ampEt xlXt tov A ~ O V y L v E a ~ I X ~ 1 p ~ a t o t E A E ~ fJEV Y XP OUOEV
O V 1tpliyfJ1X dYj d nc IXIJtOO t XC ) 7 t o ~ E a E ~ C toO 1tEfJ7ttou 7 t l X p l X o e C l X ~ toawfJIXtoc ( He [sc Plato] evidently agrees with Heraclitus who also said that the
sun is always coming into being For Aristotle there would be no problem if oneadmits the theories of the fifth body )
27 De natura rerum V 662 (semina ardoris) quae fociunt solis novasemper lumina gigni
28 W Burkert Eraclito nel Papiro di Derveni due nuove testimonianze tti
del Symposium Heracliteum vol I (Rome Edizioni dell Ateneo 1983 31-42
14-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1626
eraclituson The Sun
naturally invited a connection but as the texts ofB3 (from Aetius)
and B94 (one among several versions in Plutarch) were presented in
Diels-Kranz mere juxtaposition did not seem appealing to editors
commentators and interpreters With the partial publication of the
Derveni papyrus things took a different direction A new line of
interpretation relied on the possibility that the author of the papyrus
intended the quotation as a continuous unity29 But even after
the official publication which benefitted greatly from applying
multi-spectral imaging to the remains finally came out in 2006
the papyrus bad physical shape still left enough room for almost
total uncertainty about some parts within the quotation itself (a
fact that has led to several versions which differ in their proposed
conjectures and supplements)
In Gabor Beteghs version lines 7-9 of column IV read
~ A ~ [ O ~ ] ~ o u xcxtoc cpuow cXIamppw[1t1ltou] ~ o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ [eat ] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ oux 0 1 t C p ~ amp A A W V e [ ]pouae[ 8
[ t ] y [ ~ ~ a e t c x ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v t ~ e u p ~ a o ~ [ a L L x 1 l ~ t1tLxoupO ] 9
The sun according to nature is a human foot in width 7
not transgressing its boundaries If 8
oversteps the Erinyes the guardians ofJustice will find it out30 9
29 Cpound D Sider (1997) Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus who referst a paragraph at the beginning of line 7 indicating a quotation (at least inintention) reinforced by the apparent lack of space for ~ A ~ O t in lines 8 and9 and suggesting that B3+B94 formed a connected thought in Hs originaltext (131) but see G Betegh The Derveni Papyrus Cosmology Theology andInterpretation (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004) 326n3 ALebedev did overstate his case when he wrote Any serious edition ofHeraclitusto come will cite B3 and B94 only as testimonia under the most complete andauthentic verbatim quotation of PDerv (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrififor Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79 (1989) 42) S Mouraviev (2006) and ABernabe De Tales aDemocrito Fragmentos Presocrdticos 2nd ed (Madrid Alianza2001) have followed this general line of interpretation in their editions ofHeraclitus treating B3 and B94 as a single continuous fragment
30 Gabor Betegh The Derveni Papyrus 10-11
5-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1726
Enrique HQlsz Piccone
There are some other possibilities (not exhaustive) First the
long awaited official reading by Kouremenos Parassoglou and
Tsantsanoglou
~ A ~ [ O ~ ]ou X(xt IX cpuow ampI-9pw[mJCou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
t o f 1 [ i y e - 9 o ] ~ oUx U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o u ] p o u ~ e [ u p o u ~ ] 8
[EoG d ~ E J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v euro ~ e u p ~ c r O I [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ eurotLxoupm] 9
The sun in the nature of is a human foot width 7
not exceeding in size the proper limits of its width 8
or else the Erinyes assistants of Dike will find it out 31 9
Jankos version
~ A ~ [ O ~ Ewu]WG X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v ampySpw[7teLou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [ecrn] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ OUX U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d Y[IXp t ~ e u ] p o u ~ e[wutoG 8
[ euro ] ~ [ ~ ~ c r e t ( x ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v e ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
The sun in accord with its own nature is in breadth the size 7
of a human foot
and does not surpass its limits for if it surpasses its own 8breadth at all
(the) Erinyes (the) allies ofustice will discover it32 9
L Schonbecks proposal
~ A ~ [ O ~ v i o ] ~ o u X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v amplSpw[7tdou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
tQQ[crxotou] OUX U 7 t e p ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o ] p o u ~ Mcp ~ J i p ( J (ampet)] 8
[ c p ] ~ [ e ~ d J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] vw euro ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
31 Theokritos Kouremenos George M Parassoglou Kyriakos TsantsanoglouThe Derveni Papyrus Edited with Introduction and Commentary [TDP] (FlorenceLeo S Olschki 2006) (Greek text of lines 7-9 apud Lakss review in Rhizai2007 vol IV 1 153-162 at 155)
32 Richard Janko The Derveni Papyrus an interim text ZPE 141 (2002)1-62 and The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logoi)A New Translation Classical Philology Vol 96 No1 (Jan 2001) 1-32 Greektext of col IV apudMouraviev (2006) This is also Bernabes reading Poetae epicigraeci testimonia etfragmenta (Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2007) Pap Derv colIV 188-192)
6-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1826
Heraclitus on The Sun
The new sun is not by nature the width of a human foot 7
from darkness not ever surpassing its proper limits every day 8
it shines if not the Erinyes Justices helpers will find him out33 9
Finally Mouravievs alternative reconstruction of the passage
and his French translation34
~ A [ O ~ 8 o8]e 00 Xoctoc cpuO v ampySpw[1tdou] e o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ 7
[lucetmouet]
t Q ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ ouJ t ) 1 t e p ~ O C A A W V d y[ocp e ~ e u ] p o u ~ 8
e [ ~ L - r l L L x 1 J ~[ e ] ~ [ L x o u p o ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v e ~ e u p ~ 0 0 4 [ 0 middot e1tLOxo1touO yocp] 9
ltCegt Soleil dont par nature la largeur (est) dun pied 7
dhomme duit I avance (raquo
sans outrepasser ses limites car sil ltsortait de sa largtgeur () les 8
Furiesltservantes de Justicegt Ie recaptureraient 9
Car elles veillent 35
The importance of the discovery has perhaps been somewhat
exaggerated36 at least concerning Heraclitus (as opposed to
Orphism) Nevertheless the papyrus is certainly one of the oldest
kstimonia on Heraclitus possibly even predating Platos writings
(of which the Derveni author does not show any knowledge) The
identity of the Derveni author is still very much a matter of debate
and conjecture37 but there is no doubt he is commenting on an
33 Loek Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11
ZP 95 1993 20
34 Serge Mouraviev Heraclitea HAl (Sankt Augustin Academia 1999 con-tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n 1 [CD 2001]) ch 1256-59
35 My translation This sun here whose size by nature is of a human foot
ltshinesmoves (raquo not overstepping its limits for i f he ltwent beyond hisgt size() the Erinyes Justices servantsgt would catch him
36 For instance R Janko wrote The Derveni papyrus is the most important
teXt relating to early Greek literature science religion and philosophy to havecome to light since the Renaissance BMCR 20061029 Review of TDPJ
37 The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier or even in
7-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 626
Heraclitus on The Sun
sun would be destroyed Because the visible fire as
long as it has nourishment to that extent it livesand the moist is the only nourishment for fire As
if the moist that goes upwards could reach to the
sun or as if its ascent was like that of the flame
when this is produced Because they assumed that
the flame is alike they supposed it likely that the
same would happen in the case of the sun But this
is not so For flame is produced by the continuousinterchange of the moist and the dry and it is not
nurtured (because so to speak it never stays the
same) but in the case of the sun its impossible that
this would happen since if it were nourished in
the way they say it is its evident too as Heraclitus
says that the sun is not only new every day hut
always new continuously 0111-01 o t ~ xoct I 1 i A I O ~au 00 XOC17OC7tep p o c x l e ~ t o ~ ltPlJOW V O ~ Eqgt n H TJIIoEP fl E ( J ~ L v tlll laquoEl E O ~ r J U l e x w ~ ) 6
Interpreters have stressed the need to take the whole passage as
a unity to make good sense of Heraclitus words so-for the sake
of the passages internallogic-Aristotles presentation of the saying
has been sometimes considered to imply that Heraclitus himselfmust be included among those who believed that the sun (a) is
fiery and (b) is nurtured by moisture Now this claim could in
principle be challenged wholly or partially especially since neither
6 Aristotle Meteorology B 2 354b33ff
7 Harold Cherniss Aristotle s Criticism o Presocratic Philosophy [ACPP] (Baltimore The John Hopkins University Press 1935) 134 with n541) maintained
that Aristotles reference to Heraclitus and his followers is exclusive (a thesisthat seems excessive) Marcovich (HEM 312-318) accepts that an allusion toHeraclitus is intended (315) as do Kirk (HCF 265-266) and R Mondolfo
Eraclito Testimonianze e mitazioni (Firenze La N uova Italia 1972 119-123
with n156) but they all leave other possibilities open Inclusion ofAnaximanderAnaximenes Xenophanes Antiphon and perhaps Alcmaeon does not precludethis notion from being a common bdief in the air so to speak in pre-Aristotelian times Hippocratic treatises also provide evidence for the view that the moist
feeds the hot Now whether Heraclitus hdd a similar view or not is ofcourse
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 726
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 826
eraclituson The un
he scholiasts take on the relevant point is quite straightforward
Heraclitus the Ephesian a physicist said that the
sun as it comes to the Western sea sinks in it and
is extinguished then it goes under the earth and
as it reaches above the Eastern horizon it kindles
again and this happens forever9
More is going on here than meets the eye First it is noteworthythat the scholiasts point of view is considerably more explicit than
Platos and brings with itself the whole Aristotelian-Theophrastean
physicalistic interpretation of Heraclitus he epublic passage is
centered on the key words extinguished ( amp 1 t o c r ~ i I V u V t ~ ~ ) and
kindled ( l ~ ~ 1 t t o v t c x ~ ) which imply only that the fiery Heraclitean
sun was cyclically quenched and re-kindled (but not necessarily that
the sun dives into the sea or that it continues unlit under the earth onits way back to the East) So even if there was in Heraclitus lost book
some statement to the effect that the sun dies out and is re-kindled
it is still doubtful whether it really belonged in an astronomical
meteorological model ofexplanation such as the scholiast describes
A second relevant observation is that Platos allusion to the
sun-theme is subtly framed lO to fit within a proportional triadic
relationship between cosmos polis and individuals which looksquite Heraclitean and which Plato appropriates as the backbone
of the alternate utopian philosophic model Platos allusion
to B6 is quite oblique but he seems to intentionally recall the
language of fragments B30 and B26 (which deal respectively with
the fiery cosmos eternally going out and again re-kindling and
the proportional relationship of the waking man the sleeper and
the dead) he brief reference to the Heraclitean sun anticipates
the famous set of analogical images the Platonic sun the divided
9 H p O C X A e V t O ~ 6 E lt p i O ~ o ~ lt p u O ~ x o ~ WV EAeyeV on 6 A ~ O ~ V fj ounxjj~ ~ A O C O 0 7 J E A ~ O O V x ~ t x ~ ~ o u ~ V ~ l h j j O ~ i v V J ~ ~ e h ~ O ~ e A ~ O O V 0 U1tO y1jvx ~ t ~ amp V ~ O A ~ V lt p ~ o c O ~ ~ E O C 1 t e ~ 1 t O C A ~ V x ~ t 00 0 ~ ~ y L y v e ~ ~ 10 It is not often remarked that the verbs Plato playfully uses here X1tW and
EOC1tW in the double sense of touching being in contact with set fire to
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 926
Enrique HGlsz Piccone
line and the cave So it seems that Platos information is likely to
be true which provides a meaningful complement to the new sun( ~ A W e viae) ofB6 In the case of the scholiast the function of the
sun-symbolism within Heraclitus philosophical framework could
still have been missed A fragment from Democritus might also
echo Heraclitus B6 in a non-cosmological contextl suggesting a
connection with B1712 and so could perhaps be a useful counter
point to the physicalistic perspective on the Heraclitean sun
Up to now a minimalistic estimate of the actual extent of B6
(6 ~ A W e vEae europ ~ f 1 E P 1 l euroOt[v) has been the predominant trend
among scholars a reading thought to be backed by the so-called
internal logic ofAristotles argument l3 Taken on its merits however
the argument is not a particularly good one The notion attributed
to Heraclitus taking the whole passage as a unity (and leaving
aside for the moment the details of the conjectured mechanics
of the process) is that assuming that the fiery sun is born as it
is kindled at dawn and dies out as it is quenched at nightl4 it
11 DK 68B158 (Plutarch De Latenter Vivendo 5 p 1129pound) verx trp ~ - l e p 1 J ~rppoveonee ocvamppw7tm (Men have new thoughts every day)
12 DK 22B17 ou yocp rppoveoucn CmrxuCrx 7tOAAOL o x o O o ~ t y x u p e u O ~ v ouoe
-lrxampovCee y ~ v w O x o u O ~ v ewuCo O ~ oe o o x e o u O ~ (Many dont understand suchthings as those they encounter nor do they know them once they have learnedbut think themselves they do) Cf also DK 22B72 6 J ~ - l c X A ~ o C r x o ~ t J v e x w e
O - l ~ A O U O ~ lt A 6 y w ~ C w ~ C oc OArx o ~ o ~ x o u v n gt C o h w ~ o ~ r x r p e p o v C r x ~ xrxt ore xrxamp
~ - l e p r x v t y x u p o u O ~ C rxu C rx rxuCoie ~ e v r x r p r x L v e t r x ~ (That which they meetmost frequently ltthe logos that governs alb from this they differ and the thingsthey meet every day these seem foreign to them)
13 f M Q U f a v Heraclitea IILBiii (2006) 14 Certains auteurs [ J incluent u -lovov et ampAJampd veoe Ouvexwe (contexte dAristote) dans la citation cequi semble confirme Pyen Plotin (ampd x r x ~ v o v y L v e O amp r x ~ ) Cette opinion ne resistetoutefois pas it l a n a l y s ~ du contexte aristotelicien OU la conception dun soleilen r e n o ~ v e l e m e n t permanent joue Ie role de reductio ad absurdum dune application s i ~ t a n e e s6leil de la theorie (quAristote critique) dun solei de feunourrissant dexhalaisons humides et de la theorie (aristotelicienne)
selon laquelle la Hamme serait un echange perpetuel entre Ihumide et Ie sec14 Both Kirk and Marcovich thought it likely that B6 was preceded or followedby some such assertion about the suns extinction and rekindling This is stageone in Kirks interpretation of Aristotles argument stage 2 is represented by the
O x c X r p r x ~ theory stage 3 by the amp v r x amp u - l L r x O ~ e theory These are followed by the onlyexplicit piece of reasoning in the Meteorology passage climaxing in the quotationgiven in note 6 above David Sider has proposed a different reconstruction Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus in Studies on the erveni Papyrus [SDPJ (OxfordClarendon Press 1977) 129-148 on which see further below note 43
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1026
Heraclitus on The Sun
canbesaid that it is VeuroOe eurocp ~ f J euro P 1 l neworyoungatdawn
becauseregularlyquenchedandreignitedaccordingtofixedtemporal
successiveperiodsThe earlierthinkersmentioned byAristotle
denouncedforhavingsupposedthesun is nourishedbymoisture
have sometimes been thought toincludeHeraclitusbut this is
doubtfulAnd anyway even if we dosetaside theattributionof
the nourishingof thesun on moisture (alongwith theJingleor
doubleexhalation [ r i v c x f ) u f J L c x O ~ e ] doctrine)to H e r a ~ f u u s w e a ~stillleftwiththenotionthatthesunis fiery and b e ~ a u s e of thisitis newnotonlyeveryday(atdawn) but alwaysSoaccordingto
theusualreadingAristotlewouldbecharging e r a c l i t ~ withnot
beingradicalenoughForwhenhesaidthesun is new v e [ y - d ~ Yheshouldhaverealizedthat thisis agrossunderstatementofwhat
is metaphysicallyneededwithin hisown frameworkwhich-as
interpretedby Aristotle-would be an extremeform of theall
thingsflow ( 1 t ~ V t c x p e ~ ) therheontologicalmodelPointingto
HeraclitusshortcomingsAristotlewouldbe putting forwardhis
own criticism correctingthesayingwith whatHeraclitusshould
havesaid that thesun is alwaysnew (ridVeuroOe
Thereis someindication(intherelevantdoxography though
notintheauthenticfragmentsthemselves) that suchaconception
of adailydifferentsun washeldbyXenophanesHis reported
viewwas that afierysunl5 is generatedliterallyeveryday (xcxf)
h ~ O t l ) v ~ f J euro p c x v ) fromsmallsparks in theclouds so an entirely
differentsunshinesoverandwarmseachmorningtheearthbelow
theoldonebecominglostfrom our viewinthe infinitedistanceit
travels in astraightline beingsubstitutedbyan entirelynewone
thenextday16 Xenophanes thesisentailsthesuccessive existence
of an infinitenumberof suns eachirreducibletotheotherseach
sun correspondingto eachday canthusbe saidto benew(that
is other thanordifferentfrom theothers)Heraclitus few
relevantso-calledphysicalorcosmicfragmentsareundoubtedly
hardtoassessbut onemightquestionthelikelihoodof aprimarily
cosmologicaland doctrinalinterpretation of histhinkingrather
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1126
nrique Hli lsz Piccone
than simply take for granted that the details of just that sort of
account have not reached us That he stated nothing clear1 7 about
these matters represents a more credible possibility
We know from the fragments themselves that Heraclitus was
extremely critical of the reputedly wise men from the distant past and
from his own time and that he explicitly denied that Xenophanes
understood anything even if he qualified as a polymath (B40)18
That Heraclitus held a similar belief in infinite suns (parallel to the
sequence of days) is an unlikely hypothesis not just because of his
manifest disdain ofXenophanes but also in virtue of something that
is implied in his criticism of Hesiod who according to B57 did not
even know Night and Day for they are one 19 In B106 Hesiodsignorance concerns not only the uni ty of Night and Day but also
the single nature (cpUOt0 common to all days20 This suggests that
the Heraclitean sun (recognized as the cause ofdaylight B99) 1 too
is one and the same every day and it has a distinctive cpuOtc of its
own The upshot is that Heraclitus thought of the sun as a single and
persistent being which retains its selfhood through its change just
as he thought of the same river as a flux of ever different waters22
The Aristotelian passage implicitly suggests several possible
Heracleitean theses The most basic assumption I label
17 Cf eg DL 98 altxltpwe S ouSev euro x t W e t lt X ~ (he doesnt set forth anythingclear) ibid 911 mpt Se t1je y ~ e ouSev a 1 t o lt p lt x L v e t lt X ~ 1tOpoundltx t Le euronv aAAouSe 1tept twv axltxltpwv (he doesnt show anything clear about what sort of
thing is the earth nor about the bowls)
18 DK 22B40 1 t O A U P lt x ~ t L I ) voov ou S ~ S 6 t a x e v HaLoSov yiXp v euro S L S lt X ~ E xltxL
TIuampltxyop1JV ltxotpounde tE Eevoltpdtvedt tE xltxL EXltXtltXLOV (Much learning doesntteach intelligence For it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and againXenophanes and Hecataeus)
19 DK 22B57 S ~ M a x lt X A O e Se 1tAELat6gtV HaLoSoe toQZGV euro 1 t L a t ~ t lt X ~1tAeLatltX dSivltXL (Jane ~ p i p l ) v xltxL eultppOVl)V oux euro y L ~ M c r X e V Ecru YOCpEV
(Teacher of most men is Hesiod They think he knew plenty he who dilt-nt
recognize day and night for they are one)
20 DK 22B106 c X y v o o Q v t ~ ltpUcrLv ~ p i p lt x e cX1tdtcrl)e pLltxlt oucrltxv ( [HesiJ)d] ignored that the nature of any day is one)
21 DK 22B99 et ~ A t O e ~ V evexltx tWV (lA-WV (latpwv ~ ( p P O V I ) XV (Ifthere were no sun for the sake of the other stars it would be night)
22 DK 22B12 1tOtltXPOLcrL tOLcrtJ lt X U t O L c r ~ v euro P ~ lt x L v o U c r L V hepltx xltxL Etepx
6SltxtltX eurotLppeL (On those who step into the same rivers other and other waters
flow )
10-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1226
Heraclitus on The Sun
(0) The sun is fire or fiery or made of fire
Other theses extend this fundamental idea(1) The sun feeds on moisture
2) Solstices are explained on this basis
(3) The (false) grounds for this view are
(3a) A supposed analogy of sun-fire with everyday
ordinary fire and
(3b) an assimilation of the ascent of atmospherical
vapor on the one hand and the upward movement
of flame in combustion on the other
After a denial en bloc of the truth ofall this Aristotle concludes
critically that
(4) Heraclitus in saying the sun is new merely every
day failed to reach the necessary conclusion that it
would have to be always new (that is not the same
at any moment)
Some comments are in order First that Heraclitus and his
alleged followers (but who are they) are alluded to in the reference
to all those earlier thinkers who assumed the sun was nourished
by the moist m x Y - r ~ ~ o O o ~ -rbJY 7 r p 6 - r ~ p o y l ) 7 r D C l ~ O Y -rOY ~ W Y- r p e q l e O amp C l ~ rc1gt uypc1raquo seems to be unanimously accepted It should
be noted though that strictly speaking this remains an inference
for neither Aristotle nor any of the preserved fragments actually
states just that On the further assumption that the moist is the only
nourishment for fire (-ro 0 uypov rc1gt 1tUpt - r p O q l ~ v e t v C l ~ J6vov)
we arrive at the conclusion that the sun lives at the expense of (sea)
moisture which ascends and feeds the fire ofwhich the sun is made
(As to the extinction during night-time the doxographical report
t1tt Jepouc in Diogenes Laertius links night and the dark exhala
tion [IX 11]) The Heraclitean fragments that seem to be echoed
are B31 (both parts) B36 and (for the idea of nourishment) B114
Strangely enough none of them deals with the sun but instead
respectively with the turnings of fire 1tUPOC -rP01tClL) the cycle
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
of birth and death of soul ( ~ u X ~ ) and the nurturing of all human
laws (VO JOL) on the single divine one common to all (the Logos as
lex naturae The unity-in-opposition theory construed as a narrowphysicalistic explanation is also in play although only obscurely
hinted at in Aristotles interpretation The grounding of this in
Heraclitus seems very vague but it might further reflect B60 and
B126 A somewhat slighter anomaly would seem to be that the
moist requires as contrary the dry (not the sun) Insistence on the
exclusive relationship between contraries (each thing has only one
contrary) is reminiscent of Plato but not of Heraclitus
Secondly as to solstices being explained in this way (that is solelyon the view that the sun is nurtured by moisture) by Heraclitus
in particular this point seems especially far-fetched Perhaps the
closest we can get to solstices in Heraclitus is B94 (The Sun will
not overstep its measures [tJ-eurotpoc)) and BlOO23
In the third place 3a and 3b seem to be entirely due to Aristotles
own conjecture Perhaps there is a fusion here of other sources-
Heraclitus B16 and B54 immediately come to mind not exclud
ing views in other authors The theory implied in 3b could be ahistorical antecedent of Aristotles own exhalation doctrine but it
is more likely than not that there was no such thing in Heraclitus
view in spite of the commonplace physicalistic interpretation of
the way up and down o M ~ avw xoc tw) of B60 Heraclitus own
approach to such meteorological phenomena (in B31 B36) seems
hardly usable for restoring Aristotles credibility Some form ofvapor
( i h t J - ~ ) however is quite possible in Xenophanes
And last with all this in mind we may appreciate that Aristotlesfinal move (charging Heraclitus with not being radical enough) can
do without the assumptions just listed as 1-3 The only premise really
needed is that the sun is fiery Aristotles dissent from Heraclitus
which is the immediate basis for actually mentioning him by name
and quoting him need not be interpreted within a meteorological
framework and makes perfect sense when limited to the very basic
notion of the sun as fiery Besides the well-known metaphysical
23 DK 22BlOO (Plutarch Quaestiones Platonicae 8 4lO07D) c ) p o c ~ oct 1tIxvtoc
ltPEPOU(H (the seasons bringers of all things)
2-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1426
Heraclitus on The Sun
hostility to the allegedly Heraclitean Universal Flux for Aristotle
himself (according to at least one interpretation) 24 the sun is made
of ether (ocUtYjp) not fire and is neither hot nor dry A simpler
reading of the final statement presents itself if one assumes (with
Heraclitus) the suns fiery nature then one should go on to say
(as does Heraclitus) that the sun is not only new every day (as
Xenophanes said) but it is always new Read in this way Aristotles
final point turns out to be not a criticism but the actual report of
Heraclitus extreme but self-consistent (even if false) view
It could be conjectured that Heraclitus is reacting to Xenophanes
and expressing in his own coinage the true view brings out the suns
nature by calling it always new This recalls t i d ~ ( l ) o V ( ever-living )
from B30 and farther still the ever real logos A y o ~ EWV o c ~ e L of the Proem) t is well to remember that B99 proves Heraclitus
awareness of the sun being the true cause of night (by absence) and
(by presence) of day too f the nature of all days is one B106) it
would be natural enough for Heraclitus to think of the sun as being
endowed with a permanent identity So the Heraclitean sun is as
the fiery eternal cosmos ( x o O f J O ~ ) the same for all or as in B89
one and the same (for those who are awake)
It is not so easy to assess with confidence what the limits of
Aristotles quotation are f his rendering ofHeraclitus is close we
could expect an expanded original along these lines ou fJOVOV v i o ~Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO nV ~ ) w ~ ti)) tid i o ~ (xoct w u t o ~ ) ( the sun is not
new only every day but it is always new and the same ) A simpler
alternative could be perhaps ) ~ o ~ v i o ~ Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO t Lv tict v i o ~(xoct wuto) ( the sun is new every day always new and the same
My preferred conjecture would be something like ~ ) w ou fJovov
vio Ecp ~ f J i p Y l ti)) tict vio EO t Lv (the sun is not only new every
day but it is new always ) What is most important is not to pass
silently over Heraclitus characteristic style of which there could
4 Already known to Plotinus who alludes to t o 7tefL7t t ov crwfLlX see below
note 26 For Aristotles theory of a 7tpw t ov crwfLlX cf e caelo 269bff
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be traces in Plato25 Plotinus26 and LucretiusY My point is that
a reasonable version of B6 should include the formula rid veo
These last two words just by themselves actually make an excellent
synthesis ofHeraclitus philosophy as a whole and describe perfectly
the suns CPUcrL which mirrors the whole xocrfLo So I conclude
that Heraclitus basic assertion is that the sun is forever the same
precisely in that it is always new persistently changing every day and
at every given moment just as the flux of the river constitutes its
dynamic identity and just as the xocrfLo itself is ever-living fire
so Heraclitus presentation of the nature of the sun symbolically
harmonizes sameness and difference
PART 2 THE SIZE OR THE LIMITS OF THE SUN
HOW GOOD IS THE EVIDENCE OFTHE DERVENI PAPYRUS
In 1981 almost twenty years after the Derveni papyrus
was discovered Walter Burkert gave a short paper in the Chieti
Symposium Heracliteum in which he presented the text reconstructed
by Parassoglou and Tsantsanoglou and made publicly known the few
lines in column IV containing the Heraclitus quotation28 Until then
the dominant approach to these two Heraclitean solar fragments[DK 22] B3 and B94 was to treat them separately Of course the
fact that both deal (although in very different ways) with Helios
25 Symposium 207d3 m I X t I X A e L 1 t E ~ Enpov vtt toO 1tIXAIXWU
( always leaves behind a different new creature instead of the old one 207 d7
l X ( m ) ~ X I X A E i t I X ~ ampAAIX vEo ampEt y ~ y v 6 f J E V O ~ ( Its called the same but it be
comes always new ) Cpound also Cratylus 409b5-8 Neov 16 1tOV XlXt EVOV dd eO n1tEpt -djv O E A ~ V Y j V toOto to p w ~ [ 1XUXACJl yocp 1tOV dd X U t ~ V 1 t E P ~ ~ W V veov
dd1 t L ~ amp A A E ~
( The light about the moon is always new and old [
] for in itscourse around it the sun always sheds on an ever new light )
26 Ennead II 1 2 lO-13 lvyxwpwv xlXt e7tt t01hwv o Y j A o v 6 t ~ tijl
HPIXXAELtCJl oC etpYj ampEt xlXt tov A ~ O V y L v E a ~ I X ~ 1 p ~ a t o t E A E ~ fJEV Y XP OUOEV
O V 1tpliyfJ1X dYj d nc IXIJtOO t XC ) 7 t o ~ E a E ~ C toO 1tEfJ7ttou 7 t l X p l X o e C l X ~ toawfJIXtoc ( He [sc Plato] evidently agrees with Heraclitus who also said that the
sun is always coming into being For Aristotle there would be no problem if oneadmits the theories of the fifth body )
27 De natura rerum V 662 (semina ardoris) quae fociunt solis novasemper lumina gigni
28 W Burkert Eraclito nel Papiro di Derveni due nuove testimonianze tti
del Symposium Heracliteum vol I (Rome Edizioni dell Ateneo 1983 31-42
14-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1626
eraclituson The Sun
naturally invited a connection but as the texts ofB3 (from Aetius)
and B94 (one among several versions in Plutarch) were presented in
Diels-Kranz mere juxtaposition did not seem appealing to editors
commentators and interpreters With the partial publication of the
Derveni papyrus things took a different direction A new line of
interpretation relied on the possibility that the author of the papyrus
intended the quotation as a continuous unity29 But even after
the official publication which benefitted greatly from applying
multi-spectral imaging to the remains finally came out in 2006
the papyrus bad physical shape still left enough room for almost
total uncertainty about some parts within the quotation itself (a
fact that has led to several versions which differ in their proposed
conjectures and supplements)
In Gabor Beteghs version lines 7-9 of column IV read
~ A ~ [ O ~ ] ~ o u xcxtoc cpuow cXIamppw[1t1ltou] ~ o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ [eat ] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ oux 0 1 t C p ~ amp A A W V e [ ]pouae[ 8
[ t ] y [ ~ ~ a e t c x ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v t ~ e u p ~ a o ~ [ a L L x 1 l ~ t1tLxoupO ] 9
The sun according to nature is a human foot in width 7
not transgressing its boundaries If 8
oversteps the Erinyes the guardians ofJustice will find it out30 9
29 Cpound D Sider (1997) Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus who referst a paragraph at the beginning of line 7 indicating a quotation (at least inintention) reinforced by the apparent lack of space for ~ A ~ O t in lines 8 and9 and suggesting that B3+B94 formed a connected thought in Hs originaltext (131) but see G Betegh The Derveni Papyrus Cosmology Theology andInterpretation (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004) 326n3 ALebedev did overstate his case when he wrote Any serious edition ofHeraclitusto come will cite B3 and B94 only as testimonia under the most complete andauthentic verbatim quotation of PDerv (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrififor Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79 (1989) 42) S Mouraviev (2006) and ABernabe De Tales aDemocrito Fragmentos Presocrdticos 2nd ed (Madrid Alianza2001) have followed this general line of interpretation in their editions ofHeraclitus treating B3 and B94 as a single continuous fragment
30 Gabor Betegh The Derveni Papyrus 10-11
5-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1726
Enrique HQlsz Piccone
There are some other possibilities (not exhaustive) First the
long awaited official reading by Kouremenos Parassoglou and
Tsantsanoglou
~ A ~ [ O ~ ]ou X(xt IX cpuow ampI-9pw[mJCou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
t o f 1 [ i y e - 9 o ] ~ oUx U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o u ] p o u ~ e [ u p o u ~ ] 8
[EoG d ~ E J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v euro ~ e u p ~ c r O I [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ eurotLxoupm] 9
The sun in the nature of is a human foot width 7
not exceeding in size the proper limits of its width 8
or else the Erinyes assistants of Dike will find it out 31 9
Jankos version
~ A ~ [ O ~ Ewu]WG X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v ampySpw[7teLou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [ecrn] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ OUX U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d Y[IXp t ~ e u ] p o u ~ e[wutoG 8
[ euro ] ~ [ ~ ~ c r e t ( x ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v e ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
The sun in accord with its own nature is in breadth the size 7
of a human foot
and does not surpass its limits for if it surpasses its own 8breadth at all
(the) Erinyes (the) allies ofustice will discover it32 9
L Schonbecks proposal
~ A ~ [ O ~ v i o ] ~ o u X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v amplSpw[7tdou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
tQQ[crxotou] OUX U 7 t e p ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o ] p o u ~ Mcp ~ J i p ( J (ampet)] 8
[ c p ] ~ [ e ~ d J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] vw euro ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
31 Theokritos Kouremenos George M Parassoglou Kyriakos TsantsanoglouThe Derveni Papyrus Edited with Introduction and Commentary [TDP] (FlorenceLeo S Olschki 2006) (Greek text of lines 7-9 apud Lakss review in Rhizai2007 vol IV 1 153-162 at 155)
32 Richard Janko The Derveni Papyrus an interim text ZPE 141 (2002)1-62 and The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logoi)A New Translation Classical Philology Vol 96 No1 (Jan 2001) 1-32 Greektext of col IV apudMouraviev (2006) This is also Bernabes reading Poetae epicigraeci testimonia etfragmenta (Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2007) Pap Derv colIV 188-192)
6-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1826
Heraclitus on The Sun
The new sun is not by nature the width of a human foot 7
from darkness not ever surpassing its proper limits every day 8
it shines if not the Erinyes Justices helpers will find him out33 9
Finally Mouravievs alternative reconstruction of the passage
and his French translation34
~ A [ O ~ 8 o8]e 00 Xoctoc cpuO v ampySpw[1tdou] e o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ 7
[lucetmouet]
t Q ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ ouJ t ) 1 t e p ~ O C A A W V d y[ocp e ~ e u ] p o u ~ 8
e [ ~ L - r l L L x 1 J ~[ e ] ~ [ L x o u p o ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v e ~ e u p ~ 0 0 4 [ 0 middot e1tLOxo1touO yocp] 9
ltCegt Soleil dont par nature la largeur (est) dun pied 7
dhomme duit I avance (raquo
sans outrepasser ses limites car sil ltsortait de sa largtgeur () les 8
Furiesltservantes de Justicegt Ie recaptureraient 9
Car elles veillent 35
The importance of the discovery has perhaps been somewhat
exaggerated36 at least concerning Heraclitus (as opposed to
Orphism) Nevertheless the papyrus is certainly one of the oldest
kstimonia on Heraclitus possibly even predating Platos writings
(of which the Derveni author does not show any knowledge) The
identity of the Derveni author is still very much a matter of debate
and conjecture37 but there is no doubt he is commenting on an
33 Loek Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11
ZP 95 1993 20
34 Serge Mouraviev Heraclitea HAl (Sankt Augustin Academia 1999 con-tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n 1 [CD 2001]) ch 1256-59
35 My translation This sun here whose size by nature is of a human foot
ltshinesmoves (raquo not overstepping its limits for i f he ltwent beyond hisgt size() the Erinyes Justices servantsgt would catch him
36 For instance R Janko wrote The Derveni papyrus is the most important
teXt relating to early Greek literature science religion and philosophy to havecome to light since the Renaissance BMCR 20061029 Review of TDPJ
37 The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier or even in
7-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 726
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 826
eraclituson The un
he scholiasts take on the relevant point is quite straightforward
Heraclitus the Ephesian a physicist said that the
sun as it comes to the Western sea sinks in it and
is extinguished then it goes under the earth and
as it reaches above the Eastern horizon it kindles
again and this happens forever9
More is going on here than meets the eye First it is noteworthythat the scholiasts point of view is considerably more explicit than
Platos and brings with itself the whole Aristotelian-Theophrastean
physicalistic interpretation of Heraclitus he epublic passage is
centered on the key words extinguished ( amp 1 t o c r ~ i I V u V t ~ ~ ) and
kindled ( l ~ ~ 1 t t o v t c x ~ ) which imply only that the fiery Heraclitean
sun was cyclically quenched and re-kindled (but not necessarily that
the sun dives into the sea or that it continues unlit under the earth onits way back to the East) So even if there was in Heraclitus lost book
some statement to the effect that the sun dies out and is re-kindled
it is still doubtful whether it really belonged in an astronomical
meteorological model ofexplanation such as the scholiast describes
A second relevant observation is that Platos allusion to the
sun-theme is subtly framed lO to fit within a proportional triadic
relationship between cosmos polis and individuals which looksquite Heraclitean and which Plato appropriates as the backbone
of the alternate utopian philosophic model Platos allusion
to B6 is quite oblique but he seems to intentionally recall the
language of fragments B30 and B26 (which deal respectively with
the fiery cosmos eternally going out and again re-kindling and
the proportional relationship of the waking man the sleeper and
the dead) he brief reference to the Heraclitean sun anticipates
the famous set of analogical images the Platonic sun the divided
9 H p O C X A e V t O ~ 6 E lt p i O ~ o ~ lt p u O ~ x o ~ WV EAeyeV on 6 A ~ O ~ V fj ounxjj~ ~ A O C O 0 7 J E A ~ O O V x ~ t x ~ ~ o u ~ V ~ l h j j O ~ i v V J ~ ~ e h ~ O ~ e A ~ O O V 0 U1tO y1jvx ~ t ~ amp V ~ O A ~ V lt p ~ o c O ~ ~ E O C 1 t e ~ 1 t O C A ~ V x ~ t 00 0 ~ ~ y L y v e ~ ~ 10 It is not often remarked that the verbs Plato playfully uses here X1tW and
EOC1tW in the double sense of touching being in contact with set fire to
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 926
Enrique HGlsz Piccone
line and the cave So it seems that Platos information is likely to
be true which provides a meaningful complement to the new sun( ~ A W e viae) ofB6 In the case of the scholiast the function of the
sun-symbolism within Heraclitus philosophical framework could
still have been missed A fragment from Democritus might also
echo Heraclitus B6 in a non-cosmological contextl suggesting a
connection with B1712 and so could perhaps be a useful counter
point to the physicalistic perspective on the Heraclitean sun
Up to now a minimalistic estimate of the actual extent of B6
(6 ~ A W e vEae europ ~ f 1 E P 1 l euroOt[v) has been the predominant trend
among scholars a reading thought to be backed by the so-called
internal logic ofAristotles argument l3 Taken on its merits however
the argument is not a particularly good one The notion attributed
to Heraclitus taking the whole passage as a unity (and leaving
aside for the moment the details of the conjectured mechanics
of the process) is that assuming that the fiery sun is born as it
is kindled at dawn and dies out as it is quenched at nightl4 it
11 DK 68B158 (Plutarch De Latenter Vivendo 5 p 1129pound) verx trp ~ - l e p 1 J ~rppoveonee ocvamppw7tm (Men have new thoughts every day)
12 DK 22B17 ou yocp rppoveoucn CmrxuCrx 7tOAAOL o x o O o ~ t y x u p e u O ~ v ouoe
-lrxampovCee y ~ v w O x o u O ~ v ewuCo O ~ oe o o x e o u O ~ (Many dont understand suchthings as those they encounter nor do they know them once they have learnedbut think themselves they do) Cf also DK 22B72 6 J ~ - l c X A ~ o C r x o ~ t J v e x w e
O - l ~ A O U O ~ lt A 6 y w ~ C w ~ C oc OArx o ~ o ~ x o u v n gt C o h w ~ o ~ r x r p e p o v C r x ~ xrxt ore xrxamp
~ - l e p r x v t y x u p o u O ~ C rxu C rx rxuCoie ~ e v r x r p r x L v e t r x ~ (That which they meetmost frequently ltthe logos that governs alb from this they differ and the thingsthey meet every day these seem foreign to them)
13 f M Q U f a v Heraclitea IILBiii (2006) 14 Certains auteurs [ J incluent u -lovov et ampAJampd veoe Ouvexwe (contexte dAristote) dans la citation cequi semble confirme Pyen Plotin (ampd x r x ~ v o v y L v e O amp r x ~ ) Cette opinion ne resistetoutefois pas it l a n a l y s ~ du contexte aristotelicien OU la conception dun soleilen r e n o ~ v e l e m e n t permanent joue Ie role de reductio ad absurdum dune application s i ~ t a n e e s6leil de la theorie (quAristote critique) dun solei de feunourrissant dexhalaisons humides et de la theorie (aristotelicienne)
selon laquelle la Hamme serait un echange perpetuel entre Ihumide et Ie sec14 Both Kirk and Marcovich thought it likely that B6 was preceded or followedby some such assertion about the suns extinction and rekindling This is stageone in Kirks interpretation of Aristotles argument stage 2 is represented by the
O x c X r p r x ~ theory stage 3 by the amp v r x amp u - l L r x O ~ e theory These are followed by the onlyexplicit piece of reasoning in the Meteorology passage climaxing in the quotationgiven in note 6 above David Sider has proposed a different reconstruction Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus in Studies on the erveni Papyrus [SDPJ (OxfordClarendon Press 1977) 129-148 on which see further below note 43
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1026
Heraclitus on The Sun
canbesaid that it is VeuroOe eurocp ~ f J euro P 1 l neworyoungatdawn
becauseregularlyquenchedandreignitedaccordingtofixedtemporal
successiveperiodsThe earlierthinkersmentioned byAristotle
denouncedforhavingsupposedthesun is nourishedbymoisture
have sometimes been thought toincludeHeraclitusbut this is
doubtfulAnd anyway even if we dosetaside theattributionof
the nourishingof thesun on moisture (alongwith theJingleor
doubleexhalation [ r i v c x f ) u f J L c x O ~ e ] doctrine)to H e r a ~ f u u s w e a ~stillleftwiththenotionthatthesunis fiery and b e ~ a u s e of thisitis newnotonlyeveryday(atdawn) but alwaysSoaccordingto
theusualreadingAristotlewouldbecharging e r a c l i t ~ withnot
beingradicalenoughForwhenhesaidthesun is new v e [ y - d ~ Yheshouldhaverealizedthat thisis agrossunderstatementofwhat
is metaphysicallyneededwithin hisown frameworkwhich-as
interpretedby Aristotle-would be an extremeform of theall
thingsflow ( 1 t ~ V t c x p e ~ ) therheontologicalmodelPointingto
HeraclitusshortcomingsAristotlewouldbe putting forwardhis
own criticism correctingthesayingwith whatHeraclitusshould
havesaid that thesun is alwaysnew (ridVeuroOe
Thereis someindication(intherelevantdoxography though
notintheauthenticfragmentsthemselves) that suchaconception
of adailydifferentsun washeldbyXenophanesHis reported
viewwas that afierysunl5 is generatedliterallyeveryday (xcxf)
h ~ O t l ) v ~ f J euro p c x v ) fromsmallsparks in theclouds so an entirely
differentsunshinesoverandwarmseachmorningtheearthbelow
theoldonebecominglostfrom our viewinthe infinitedistanceit
travels in astraightline beingsubstitutedbyan entirelynewone
thenextday16 Xenophanes thesisentailsthesuccessive existence
of an infinitenumberof suns eachirreducibletotheotherseach
sun correspondingto eachday canthusbe saidto benew(that
is other thanordifferentfrom theothers)Heraclitus few
relevantso-calledphysicalorcosmicfragmentsareundoubtedly
hardtoassessbut onemightquestionthelikelihoodof aprimarily
cosmologicaland doctrinalinterpretation of histhinkingrather
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1126
nrique Hli lsz Piccone
than simply take for granted that the details of just that sort of
account have not reached us That he stated nothing clear1 7 about
these matters represents a more credible possibility
We know from the fragments themselves that Heraclitus was
extremely critical of the reputedly wise men from the distant past and
from his own time and that he explicitly denied that Xenophanes
understood anything even if he qualified as a polymath (B40)18
That Heraclitus held a similar belief in infinite suns (parallel to the
sequence of days) is an unlikely hypothesis not just because of his
manifest disdain ofXenophanes but also in virtue of something that
is implied in his criticism of Hesiod who according to B57 did not
even know Night and Day for they are one 19 In B106 Hesiodsignorance concerns not only the uni ty of Night and Day but also
the single nature (cpUOt0 common to all days20 This suggests that
the Heraclitean sun (recognized as the cause ofdaylight B99) 1 too
is one and the same every day and it has a distinctive cpuOtc of its
own The upshot is that Heraclitus thought of the sun as a single and
persistent being which retains its selfhood through its change just
as he thought of the same river as a flux of ever different waters22
The Aristotelian passage implicitly suggests several possible
Heracleitean theses The most basic assumption I label
17 Cf eg DL 98 altxltpwe S ouSev euro x t W e t lt X ~ (he doesnt set forth anythingclear) ibid 911 mpt Se t1je y ~ e ouSev a 1 t o lt p lt x L v e t lt X ~ 1tOpoundltx t Le euronv aAAouSe 1tept twv axltxltpwv (he doesnt show anything clear about what sort of
thing is the earth nor about the bowls)
18 DK 22B40 1 t O A U P lt x ~ t L I ) voov ou S ~ S 6 t a x e v HaLoSov yiXp v euro S L S lt X ~ E xltxL
TIuampltxyop1JV ltxotpounde tE Eevoltpdtvedt tE xltxL EXltXtltXLOV (Much learning doesntteach intelligence For it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and againXenophanes and Hecataeus)
19 DK 22B57 S ~ M a x lt X A O e Se 1tAELat6gtV HaLoSoe toQZGV euro 1 t L a t ~ t lt X ~1tAeLatltX dSivltXL (Jane ~ p i p l ) v xltxL eultppOVl)V oux euro y L ~ M c r X e V Ecru YOCpEV
(Teacher of most men is Hesiod They think he knew plenty he who dilt-nt
recognize day and night for they are one)
20 DK 22B106 c X y v o o Q v t ~ ltpUcrLv ~ p i p lt x e cX1tdtcrl)e pLltxlt oucrltxv ( [HesiJ)d] ignored that the nature of any day is one)
21 DK 22B99 et ~ A t O e ~ V evexltx tWV (lA-WV (latpwv ~ ( p P O V I ) XV (Ifthere were no sun for the sake of the other stars it would be night)
22 DK 22B12 1tOtltXPOLcrL tOLcrtJ lt X U t O L c r ~ v euro P ~ lt x L v o U c r L V hepltx xltxL Etepx
6SltxtltX eurotLppeL (On those who step into the same rivers other and other waters
flow )
10-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1226
Heraclitus on The Sun
(0) The sun is fire or fiery or made of fire
Other theses extend this fundamental idea(1) The sun feeds on moisture
2) Solstices are explained on this basis
(3) The (false) grounds for this view are
(3a) A supposed analogy of sun-fire with everyday
ordinary fire and
(3b) an assimilation of the ascent of atmospherical
vapor on the one hand and the upward movement
of flame in combustion on the other
After a denial en bloc of the truth ofall this Aristotle concludes
critically that
(4) Heraclitus in saying the sun is new merely every
day failed to reach the necessary conclusion that it
would have to be always new (that is not the same
at any moment)
Some comments are in order First that Heraclitus and his
alleged followers (but who are they) are alluded to in the reference
to all those earlier thinkers who assumed the sun was nourished
by the moist m x Y - r ~ ~ o O o ~ -rbJY 7 r p 6 - r ~ p o y l ) 7 r D C l ~ O Y -rOY ~ W Y- r p e q l e O amp C l ~ rc1gt uypc1raquo seems to be unanimously accepted It should
be noted though that strictly speaking this remains an inference
for neither Aristotle nor any of the preserved fragments actually
states just that On the further assumption that the moist is the only
nourishment for fire (-ro 0 uypov rc1gt 1tUpt - r p O q l ~ v e t v C l ~ J6vov)
we arrive at the conclusion that the sun lives at the expense of (sea)
moisture which ascends and feeds the fire ofwhich the sun is made
(As to the extinction during night-time the doxographical report
t1tt Jepouc in Diogenes Laertius links night and the dark exhala
tion [IX 11]) The Heraclitean fragments that seem to be echoed
are B31 (both parts) B36 and (for the idea of nourishment) B114
Strangely enough none of them deals with the sun but instead
respectively with the turnings of fire 1tUPOC -rP01tClL) the cycle
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
of birth and death of soul ( ~ u X ~ ) and the nurturing of all human
laws (VO JOL) on the single divine one common to all (the Logos as
lex naturae The unity-in-opposition theory construed as a narrowphysicalistic explanation is also in play although only obscurely
hinted at in Aristotles interpretation The grounding of this in
Heraclitus seems very vague but it might further reflect B60 and
B126 A somewhat slighter anomaly would seem to be that the
moist requires as contrary the dry (not the sun) Insistence on the
exclusive relationship between contraries (each thing has only one
contrary) is reminiscent of Plato but not of Heraclitus
Secondly as to solstices being explained in this way (that is solelyon the view that the sun is nurtured by moisture) by Heraclitus
in particular this point seems especially far-fetched Perhaps the
closest we can get to solstices in Heraclitus is B94 (The Sun will
not overstep its measures [tJ-eurotpoc)) and BlOO23
In the third place 3a and 3b seem to be entirely due to Aristotles
own conjecture Perhaps there is a fusion here of other sources-
Heraclitus B16 and B54 immediately come to mind not exclud
ing views in other authors The theory implied in 3b could be ahistorical antecedent of Aristotles own exhalation doctrine but it
is more likely than not that there was no such thing in Heraclitus
view in spite of the commonplace physicalistic interpretation of
the way up and down o M ~ avw xoc tw) of B60 Heraclitus own
approach to such meteorological phenomena (in B31 B36) seems
hardly usable for restoring Aristotles credibility Some form ofvapor
( i h t J - ~ ) however is quite possible in Xenophanes
And last with all this in mind we may appreciate that Aristotlesfinal move (charging Heraclitus with not being radical enough) can
do without the assumptions just listed as 1-3 The only premise really
needed is that the sun is fiery Aristotles dissent from Heraclitus
which is the immediate basis for actually mentioning him by name
and quoting him need not be interpreted within a meteorological
framework and makes perfect sense when limited to the very basic
notion of the sun as fiery Besides the well-known metaphysical
23 DK 22BlOO (Plutarch Quaestiones Platonicae 8 4lO07D) c ) p o c ~ oct 1tIxvtoc
ltPEPOU(H (the seasons bringers of all things)
2-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1426
Heraclitus on The Sun
hostility to the allegedly Heraclitean Universal Flux for Aristotle
himself (according to at least one interpretation) 24 the sun is made
of ether (ocUtYjp) not fire and is neither hot nor dry A simpler
reading of the final statement presents itself if one assumes (with
Heraclitus) the suns fiery nature then one should go on to say
(as does Heraclitus) that the sun is not only new every day (as
Xenophanes said) but it is always new Read in this way Aristotles
final point turns out to be not a criticism but the actual report of
Heraclitus extreme but self-consistent (even if false) view
It could be conjectured that Heraclitus is reacting to Xenophanes
and expressing in his own coinage the true view brings out the suns
nature by calling it always new This recalls t i d ~ ( l ) o V ( ever-living )
from B30 and farther still the ever real logos A y o ~ EWV o c ~ e L of the Proem) t is well to remember that B99 proves Heraclitus
awareness of the sun being the true cause of night (by absence) and
(by presence) of day too f the nature of all days is one B106) it
would be natural enough for Heraclitus to think of the sun as being
endowed with a permanent identity So the Heraclitean sun is as
the fiery eternal cosmos ( x o O f J O ~ ) the same for all or as in B89
one and the same (for those who are awake)
It is not so easy to assess with confidence what the limits of
Aristotles quotation are f his rendering ofHeraclitus is close we
could expect an expanded original along these lines ou fJOVOV v i o ~Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO nV ~ ) w ~ ti)) tid i o ~ (xoct w u t o ~ ) ( the sun is not
new only every day but it is always new and the same ) A simpler
alternative could be perhaps ) ~ o ~ v i o ~ Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO t Lv tict v i o ~(xoct wuto) ( the sun is new every day always new and the same
My preferred conjecture would be something like ~ ) w ou fJovov
vio Ecp ~ f J i p Y l ti)) tict vio EO t Lv (the sun is not only new every
day but it is new always ) What is most important is not to pass
silently over Heraclitus characteristic style of which there could
4 Already known to Plotinus who alludes to t o 7tefL7t t ov crwfLlX see below
note 26 For Aristotles theory of a 7tpw t ov crwfLlX cf e caelo 269bff
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be traces in Plato25 Plotinus26 and LucretiusY My point is that
a reasonable version of B6 should include the formula rid veo
These last two words just by themselves actually make an excellent
synthesis ofHeraclitus philosophy as a whole and describe perfectly
the suns CPUcrL which mirrors the whole xocrfLo So I conclude
that Heraclitus basic assertion is that the sun is forever the same
precisely in that it is always new persistently changing every day and
at every given moment just as the flux of the river constitutes its
dynamic identity and just as the xocrfLo itself is ever-living fire
so Heraclitus presentation of the nature of the sun symbolically
harmonizes sameness and difference
PART 2 THE SIZE OR THE LIMITS OF THE SUN
HOW GOOD IS THE EVIDENCE OFTHE DERVENI PAPYRUS
In 1981 almost twenty years after the Derveni papyrus
was discovered Walter Burkert gave a short paper in the Chieti
Symposium Heracliteum in which he presented the text reconstructed
by Parassoglou and Tsantsanoglou and made publicly known the few
lines in column IV containing the Heraclitus quotation28 Until then
the dominant approach to these two Heraclitean solar fragments[DK 22] B3 and B94 was to treat them separately Of course the
fact that both deal (although in very different ways) with Helios
25 Symposium 207d3 m I X t I X A e L 1 t E ~ Enpov vtt toO 1tIXAIXWU
( always leaves behind a different new creature instead of the old one 207 d7
l X ( m ) ~ X I X A E i t I X ~ ampAAIX vEo ampEt y ~ y v 6 f J E V O ~ ( Its called the same but it be
comes always new ) Cpound also Cratylus 409b5-8 Neov 16 1tOV XlXt EVOV dd eO n1tEpt -djv O E A ~ V Y j V toOto to p w ~ [ 1XUXACJl yocp 1tOV dd X U t ~ V 1 t E P ~ ~ W V veov
dd1 t L ~ amp A A E ~
( The light about the moon is always new and old [
] for in itscourse around it the sun always sheds on an ever new light )
26 Ennead II 1 2 lO-13 lvyxwpwv xlXt e7tt t01hwv o Y j A o v 6 t ~ tijl
HPIXXAELtCJl oC etpYj ampEt xlXt tov A ~ O V y L v E a ~ I X ~ 1 p ~ a t o t E A E ~ fJEV Y XP OUOEV
O V 1tpliyfJ1X dYj d nc IXIJtOO t XC ) 7 t o ~ E a E ~ C toO 1tEfJ7ttou 7 t l X p l X o e C l X ~ toawfJIXtoc ( He [sc Plato] evidently agrees with Heraclitus who also said that the
sun is always coming into being For Aristotle there would be no problem if oneadmits the theories of the fifth body )
27 De natura rerum V 662 (semina ardoris) quae fociunt solis novasemper lumina gigni
28 W Burkert Eraclito nel Papiro di Derveni due nuove testimonianze tti
del Symposium Heracliteum vol I (Rome Edizioni dell Ateneo 1983 31-42
14-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1626
eraclituson The Sun
naturally invited a connection but as the texts ofB3 (from Aetius)
and B94 (one among several versions in Plutarch) were presented in
Diels-Kranz mere juxtaposition did not seem appealing to editors
commentators and interpreters With the partial publication of the
Derveni papyrus things took a different direction A new line of
interpretation relied on the possibility that the author of the papyrus
intended the quotation as a continuous unity29 But even after
the official publication which benefitted greatly from applying
multi-spectral imaging to the remains finally came out in 2006
the papyrus bad physical shape still left enough room for almost
total uncertainty about some parts within the quotation itself (a
fact that has led to several versions which differ in their proposed
conjectures and supplements)
In Gabor Beteghs version lines 7-9 of column IV read
~ A ~ [ O ~ ] ~ o u xcxtoc cpuow cXIamppw[1t1ltou] ~ o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ [eat ] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ oux 0 1 t C p ~ amp A A W V e [ ]pouae[ 8
[ t ] y [ ~ ~ a e t c x ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v t ~ e u p ~ a o ~ [ a L L x 1 l ~ t1tLxoupO ] 9
The sun according to nature is a human foot in width 7
not transgressing its boundaries If 8
oversteps the Erinyes the guardians ofJustice will find it out30 9
29 Cpound D Sider (1997) Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus who referst a paragraph at the beginning of line 7 indicating a quotation (at least inintention) reinforced by the apparent lack of space for ~ A ~ O t in lines 8 and9 and suggesting that B3+B94 formed a connected thought in Hs originaltext (131) but see G Betegh The Derveni Papyrus Cosmology Theology andInterpretation (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004) 326n3 ALebedev did overstate his case when he wrote Any serious edition ofHeraclitusto come will cite B3 and B94 only as testimonia under the most complete andauthentic verbatim quotation of PDerv (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrififor Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79 (1989) 42) S Mouraviev (2006) and ABernabe De Tales aDemocrito Fragmentos Presocrdticos 2nd ed (Madrid Alianza2001) have followed this general line of interpretation in their editions ofHeraclitus treating B3 and B94 as a single continuous fragment
30 Gabor Betegh The Derveni Papyrus 10-11
5-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1726
Enrique HQlsz Piccone
There are some other possibilities (not exhaustive) First the
long awaited official reading by Kouremenos Parassoglou and
Tsantsanoglou
~ A ~ [ O ~ ]ou X(xt IX cpuow ampI-9pw[mJCou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
t o f 1 [ i y e - 9 o ] ~ oUx U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o u ] p o u ~ e [ u p o u ~ ] 8
[EoG d ~ E J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v euro ~ e u p ~ c r O I [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ eurotLxoupm] 9
The sun in the nature of is a human foot width 7
not exceeding in size the proper limits of its width 8
or else the Erinyes assistants of Dike will find it out 31 9
Jankos version
~ A ~ [ O ~ Ewu]WG X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v ampySpw[7teLou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [ecrn] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ OUX U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d Y[IXp t ~ e u ] p o u ~ e[wutoG 8
[ euro ] ~ [ ~ ~ c r e t ( x ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v e ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
The sun in accord with its own nature is in breadth the size 7
of a human foot
and does not surpass its limits for if it surpasses its own 8breadth at all
(the) Erinyes (the) allies ofustice will discover it32 9
L Schonbecks proposal
~ A ~ [ O ~ v i o ] ~ o u X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v amplSpw[7tdou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
tQQ[crxotou] OUX U 7 t e p ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o ] p o u ~ Mcp ~ J i p ( J (ampet)] 8
[ c p ] ~ [ e ~ d J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] vw euro ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
31 Theokritos Kouremenos George M Parassoglou Kyriakos TsantsanoglouThe Derveni Papyrus Edited with Introduction and Commentary [TDP] (FlorenceLeo S Olschki 2006) (Greek text of lines 7-9 apud Lakss review in Rhizai2007 vol IV 1 153-162 at 155)
32 Richard Janko The Derveni Papyrus an interim text ZPE 141 (2002)1-62 and The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logoi)A New Translation Classical Philology Vol 96 No1 (Jan 2001) 1-32 Greektext of col IV apudMouraviev (2006) This is also Bernabes reading Poetae epicigraeci testimonia etfragmenta (Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2007) Pap Derv colIV 188-192)
6-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1826
Heraclitus on The Sun
The new sun is not by nature the width of a human foot 7
from darkness not ever surpassing its proper limits every day 8
it shines if not the Erinyes Justices helpers will find him out33 9
Finally Mouravievs alternative reconstruction of the passage
and his French translation34
~ A [ O ~ 8 o8]e 00 Xoctoc cpuO v ampySpw[1tdou] e o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ 7
[lucetmouet]
t Q ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ ouJ t ) 1 t e p ~ O C A A W V d y[ocp e ~ e u ] p o u ~ 8
e [ ~ L - r l L L x 1 J ~[ e ] ~ [ L x o u p o ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v e ~ e u p ~ 0 0 4 [ 0 middot e1tLOxo1touO yocp] 9
ltCegt Soleil dont par nature la largeur (est) dun pied 7
dhomme duit I avance (raquo
sans outrepasser ses limites car sil ltsortait de sa largtgeur () les 8
Furiesltservantes de Justicegt Ie recaptureraient 9
Car elles veillent 35
The importance of the discovery has perhaps been somewhat
exaggerated36 at least concerning Heraclitus (as opposed to
Orphism) Nevertheless the papyrus is certainly one of the oldest
kstimonia on Heraclitus possibly even predating Platos writings
(of which the Derveni author does not show any knowledge) The
identity of the Derveni author is still very much a matter of debate
and conjecture37 but there is no doubt he is commenting on an
33 Loek Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11
ZP 95 1993 20
34 Serge Mouraviev Heraclitea HAl (Sankt Augustin Academia 1999 con-tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n 1 [CD 2001]) ch 1256-59
35 My translation This sun here whose size by nature is of a human foot
ltshinesmoves (raquo not overstepping its limits for i f he ltwent beyond hisgt size() the Erinyes Justices servantsgt would catch him
36 For instance R Janko wrote The Derveni papyrus is the most important
teXt relating to early Greek literature science religion and philosophy to havecome to light since the Renaissance BMCR 20061029 Review of TDPJ
37 The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier or even in
7-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 826
eraclituson The un
he scholiasts take on the relevant point is quite straightforward
Heraclitus the Ephesian a physicist said that the
sun as it comes to the Western sea sinks in it and
is extinguished then it goes under the earth and
as it reaches above the Eastern horizon it kindles
again and this happens forever9
More is going on here than meets the eye First it is noteworthythat the scholiasts point of view is considerably more explicit than
Platos and brings with itself the whole Aristotelian-Theophrastean
physicalistic interpretation of Heraclitus he epublic passage is
centered on the key words extinguished ( amp 1 t o c r ~ i I V u V t ~ ~ ) and
kindled ( l ~ ~ 1 t t o v t c x ~ ) which imply only that the fiery Heraclitean
sun was cyclically quenched and re-kindled (but not necessarily that
the sun dives into the sea or that it continues unlit under the earth onits way back to the East) So even if there was in Heraclitus lost book
some statement to the effect that the sun dies out and is re-kindled
it is still doubtful whether it really belonged in an astronomical
meteorological model ofexplanation such as the scholiast describes
A second relevant observation is that Platos allusion to the
sun-theme is subtly framed lO to fit within a proportional triadic
relationship between cosmos polis and individuals which looksquite Heraclitean and which Plato appropriates as the backbone
of the alternate utopian philosophic model Platos allusion
to B6 is quite oblique but he seems to intentionally recall the
language of fragments B30 and B26 (which deal respectively with
the fiery cosmos eternally going out and again re-kindling and
the proportional relationship of the waking man the sleeper and
the dead) he brief reference to the Heraclitean sun anticipates
the famous set of analogical images the Platonic sun the divided
9 H p O C X A e V t O ~ 6 E lt p i O ~ o ~ lt p u O ~ x o ~ WV EAeyeV on 6 A ~ O ~ V fj ounxjj~ ~ A O C O 0 7 J E A ~ O O V x ~ t x ~ ~ o u ~ V ~ l h j j O ~ i v V J ~ ~ e h ~ O ~ e A ~ O O V 0 U1tO y1jvx ~ t ~ amp V ~ O A ~ V lt p ~ o c O ~ ~ E O C 1 t e ~ 1 t O C A ~ V x ~ t 00 0 ~ ~ y L y v e ~ ~ 10 It is not often remarked that the verbs Plato playfully uses here X1tW and
EOC1tW in the double sense of touching being in contact with set fire to
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 926
Enrique HGlsz Piccone
line and the cave So it seems that Platos information is likely to
be true which provides a meaningful complement to the new sun( ~ A W e viae) ofB6 In the case of the scholiast the function of the
sun-symbolism within Heraclitus philosophical framework could
still have been missed A fragment from Democritus might also
echo Heraclitus B6 in a non-cosmological contextl suggesting a
connection with B1712 and so could perhaps be a useful counter
point to the physicalistic perspective on the Heraclitean sun
Up to now a minimalistic estimate of the actual extent of B6
(6 ~ A W e vEae europ ~ f 1 E P 1 l euroOt[v) has been the predominant trend
among scholars a reading thought to be backed by the so-called
internal logic ofAristotles argument l3 Taken on its merits however
the argument is not a particularly good one The notion attributed
to Heraclitus taking the whole passage as a unity (and leaving
aside for the moment the details of the conjectured mechanics
of the process) is that assuming that the fiery sun is born as it
is kindled at dawn and dies out as it is quenched at nightl4 it
11 DK 68B158 (Plutarch De Latenter Vivendo 5 p 1129pound) verx trp ~ - l e p 1 J ~rppoveonee ocvamppw7tm (Men have new thoughts every day)
12 DK 22B17 ou yocp rppoveoucn CmrxuCrx 7tOAAOL o x o O o ~ t y x u p e u O ~ v ouoe
-lrxampovCee y ~ v w O x o u O ~ v ewuCo O ~ oe o o x e o u O ~ (Many dont understand suchthings as those they encounter nor do they know them once they have learnedbut think themselves they do) Cf also DK 22B72 6 J ~ - l c X A ~ o C r x o ~ t J v e x w e
O - l ~ A O U O ~ lt A 6 y w ~ C w ~ C oc OArx o ~ o ~ x o u v n gt C o h w ~ o ~ r x r p e p o v C r x ~ xrxt ore xrxamp
~ - l e p r x v t y x u p o u O ~ C rxu C rx rxuCoie ~ e v r x r p r x L v e t r x ~ (That which they meetmost frequently ltthe logos that governs alb from this they differ and the thingsthey meet every day these seem foreign to them)
13 f M Q U f a v Heraclitea IILBiii (2006) 14 Certains auteurs [ J incluent u -lovov et ampAJampd veoe Ouvexwe (contexte dAristote) dans la citation cequi semble confirme Pyen Plotin (ampd x r x ~ v o v y L v e O amp r x ~ ) Cette opinion ne resistetoutefois pas it l a n a l y s ~ du contexte aristotelicien OU la conception dun soleilen r e n o ~ v e l e m e n t permanent joue Ie role de reductio ad absurdum dune application s i ~ t a n e e s6leil de la theorie (quAristote critique) dun solei de feunourrissant dexhalaisons humides et de la theorie (aristotelicienne)
selon laquelle la Hamme serait un echange perpetuel entre Ihumide et Ie sec14 Both Kirk and Marcovich thought it likely that B6 was preceded or followedby some such assertion about the suns extinction and rekindling This is stageone in Kirks interpretation of Aristotles argument stage 2 is represented by the
O x c X r p r x ~ theory stage 3 by the amp v r x amp u - l L r x O ~ e theory These are followed by the onlyexplicit piece of reasoning in the Meteorology passage climaxing in the quotationgiven in note 6 above David Sider has proposed a different reconstruction Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus in Studies on the erveni Papyrus [SDPJ (OxfordClarendon Press 1977) 129-148 on which see further below note 43
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1026
Heraclitus on The Sun
canbesaid that it is VeuroOe eurocp ~ f J euro P 1 l neworyoungatdawn
becauseregularlyquenchedandreignitedaccordingtofixedtemporal
successiveperiodsThe earlierthinkersmentioned byAristotle
denouncedforhavingsupposedthesun is nourishedbymoisture
have sometimes been thought toincludeHeraclitusbut this is
doubtfulAnd anyway even if we dosetaside theattributionof
the nourishingof thesun on moisture (alongwith theJingleor
doubleexhalation [ r i v c x f ) u f J L c x O ~ e ] doctrine)to H e r a ~ f u u s w e a ~stillleftwiththenotionthatthesunis fiery and b e ~ a u s e of thisitis newnotonlyeveryday(atdawn) but alwaysSoaccordingto
theusualreadingAristotlewouldbecharging e r a c l i t ~ withnot
beingradicalenoughForwhenhesaidthesun is new v e [ y - d ~ Yheshouldhaverealizedthat thisis agrossunderstatementofwhat
is metaphysicallyneededwithin hisown frameworkwhich-as
interpretedby Aristotle-would be an extremeform of theall
thingsflow ( 1 t ~ V t c x p e ~ ) therheontologicalmodelPointingto
HeraclitusshortcomingsAristotlewouldbe putting forwardhis
own criticism correctingthesayingwith whatHeraclitusshould
havesaid that thesun is alwaysnew (ridVeuroOe
Thereis someindication(intherelevantdoxography though
notintheauthenticfragmentsthemselves) that suchaconception
of adailydifferentsun washeldbyXenophanesHis reported
viewwas that afierysunl5 is generatedliterallyeveryday (xcxf)
h ~ O t l ) v ~ f J euro p c x v ) fromsmallsparks in theclouds so an entirely
differentsunshinesoverandwarmseachmorningtheearthbelow
theoldonebecominglostfrom our viewinthe infinitedistanceit
travels in astraightline beingsubstitutedbyan entirelynewone
thenextday16 Xenophanes thesisentailsthesuccessive existence
of an infinitenumberof suns eachirreducibletotheotherseach
sun correspondingto eachday canthusbe saidto benew(that
is other thanordifferentfrom theothers)Heraclitus few
relevantso-calledphysicalorcosmicfragmentsareundoubtedly
hardtoassessbut onemightquestionthelikelihoodof aprimarily
cosmologicaland doctrinalinterpretation of histhinkingrather
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1126
nrique Hli lsz Piccone
than simply take for granted that the details of just that sort of
account have not reached us That he stated nothing clear1 7 about
these matters represents a more credible possibility
We know from the fragments themselves that Heraclitus was
extremely critical of the reputedly wise men from the distant past and
from his own time and that he explicitly denied that Xenophanes
understood anything even if he qualified as a polymath (B40)18
That Heraclitus held a similar belief in infinite suns (parallel to the
sequence of days) is an unlikely hypothesis not just because of his
manifest disdain ofXenophanes but also in virtue of something that
is implied in his criticism of Hesiod who according to B57 did not
even know Night and Day for they are one 19 In B106 Hesiodsignorance concerns not only the uni ty of Night and Day but also
the single nature (cpUOt0 common to all days20 This suggests that
the Heraclitean sun (recognized as the cause ofdaylight B99) 1 too
is one and the same every day and it has a distinctive cpuOtc of its
own The upshot is that Heraclitus thought of the sun as a single and
persistent being which retains its selfhood through its change just
as he thought of the same river as a flux of ever different waters22
The Aristotelian passage implicitly suggests several possible
Heracleitean theses The most basic assumption I label
17 Cf eg DL 98 altxltpwe S ouSev euro x t W e t lt X ~ (he doesnt set forth anythingclear) ibid 911 mpt Se t1je y ~ e ouSev a 1 t o lt p lt x L v e t lt X ~ 1tOpoundltx t Le euronv aAAouSe 1tept twv axltxltpwv (he doesnt show anything clear about what sort of
thing is the earth nor about the bowls)
18 DK 22B40 1 t O A U P lt x ~ t L I ) voov ou S ~ S 6 t a x e v HaLoSov yiXp v euro S L S lt X ~ E xltxL
TIuampltxyop1JV ltxotpounde tE Eevoltpdtvedt tE xltxL EXltXtltXLOV (Much learning doesntteach intelligence For it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and againXenophanes and Hecataeus)
19 DK 22B57 S ~ M a x lt X A O e Se 1tAELat6gtV HaLoSoe toQZGV euro 1 t L a t ~ t lt X ~1tAeLatltX dSivltXL (Jane ~ p i p l ) v xltxL eultppOVl)V oux euro y L ~ M c r X e V Ecru YOCpEV
(Teacher of most men is Hesiod They think he knew plenty he who dilt-nt
recognize day and night for they are one)
20 DK 22B106 c X y v o o Q v t ~ ltpUcrLv ~ p i p lt x e cX1tdtcrl)e pLltxlt oucrltxv ( [HesiJ)d] ignored that the nature of any day is one)
21 DK 22B99 et ~ A t O e ~ V evexltx tWV (lA-WV (latpwv ~ ( p P O V I ) XV (Ifthere were no sun for the sake of the other stars it would be night)
22 DK 22B12 1tOtltXPOLcrL tOLcrtJ lt X U t O L c r ~ v euro P ~ lt x L v o U c r L V hepltx xltxL Etepx
6SltxtltX eurotLppeL (On those who step into the same rivers other and other waters
flow )
10-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1226
Heraclitus on The Sun
(0) The sun is fire or fiery or made of fire
Other theses extend this fundamental idea(1) The sun feeds on moisture
2) Solstices are explained on this basis
(3) The (false) grounds for this view are
(3a) A supposed analogy of sun-fire with everyday
ordinary fire and
(3b) an assimilation of the ascent of atmospherical
vapor on the one hand and the upward movement
of flame in combustion on the other
After a denial en bloc of the truth ofall this Aristotle concludes
critically that
(4) Heraclitus in saying the sun is new merely every
day failed to reach the necessary conclusion that it
would have to be always new (that is not the same
at any moment)
Some comments are in order First that Heraclitus and his
alleged followers (but who are they) are alluded to in the reference
to all those earlier thinkers who assumed the sun was nourished
by the moist m x Y - r ~ ~ o O o ~ -rbJY 7 r p 6 - r ~ p o y l ) 7 r D C l ~ O Y -rOY ~ W Y- r p e q l e O amp C l ~ rc1gt uypc1raquo seems to be unanimously accepted It should
be noted though that strictly speaking this remains an inference
for neither Aristotle nor any of the preserved fragments actually
states just that On the further assumption that the moist is the only
nourishment for fire (-ro 0 uypov rc1gt 1tUpt - r p O q l ~ v e t v C l ~ J6vov)
we arrive at the conclusion that the sun lives at the expense of (sea)
moisture which ascends and feeds the fire ofwhich the sun is made
(As to the extinction during night-time the doxographical report
t1tt Jepouc in Diogenes Laertius links night and the dark exhala
tion [IX 11]) The Heraclitean fragments that seem to be echoed
are B31 (both parts) B36 and (for the idea of nourishment) B114
Strangely enough none of them deals with the sun but instead
respectively with the turnings of fire 1tUPOC -rP01tClL) the cycle
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
of birth and death of soul ( ~ u X ~ ) and the nurturing of all human
laws (VO JOL) on the single divine one common to all (the Logos as
lex naturae The unity-in-opposition theory construed as a narrowphysicalistic explanation is also in play although only obscurely
hinted at in Aristotles interpretation The grounding of this in
Heraclitus seems very vague but it might further reflect B60 and
B126 A somewhat slighter anomaly would seem to be that the
moist requires as contrary the dry (not the sun) Insistence on the
exclusive relationship between contraries (each thing has only one
contrary) is reminiscent of Plato but not of Heraclitus
Secondly as to solstices being explained in this way (that is solelyon the view that the sun is nurtured by moisture) by Heraclitus
in particular this point seems especially far-fetched Perhaps the
closest we can get to solstices in Heraclitus is B94 (The Sun will
not overstep its measures [tJ-eurotpoc)) and BlOO23
In the third place 3a and 3b seem to be entirely due to Aristotles
own conjecture Perhaps there is a fusion here of other sources-
Heraclitus B16 and B54 immediately come to mind not exclud
ing views in other authors The theory implied in 3b could be ahistorical antecedent of Aristotles own exhalation doctrine but it
is more likely than not that there was no such thing in Heraclitus
view in spite of the commonplace physicalistic interpretation of
the way up and down o M ~ avw xoc tw) of B60 Heraclitus own
approach to such meteorological phenomena (in B31 B36) seems
hardly usable for restoring Aristotles credibility Some form ofvapor
( i h t J - ~ ) however is quite possible in Xenophanes
And last with all this in mind we may appreciate that Aristotlesfinal move (charging Heraclitus with not being radical enough) can
do without the assumptions just listed as 1-3 The only premise really
needed is that the sun is fiery Aristotles dissent from Heraclitus
which is the immediate basis for actually mentioning him by name
and quoting him need not be interpreted within a meteorological
framework and makes perfect sense when limited to the very basic
notion of the sun as fiery Besides the well-known metaphysical
23 DK 22BlOO (Plutarch Quaestiones Platonicae 8 4lO07D) c ) p o c ~ oct 1tIxvtoc
ltPEPOU(H (the seasons bringers of all things)
2-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1426
Heraclitus on The Sun
hostility to the allegedly Heraclitean Universal Flux for Aristotle
himself (according to at least one interpretation) 24 the sun is made
of ether (ocUtYjp) not fire and is neither hot nor dry A simpler
reading of the final statement presents itself if one assumes (with
Heraclitus) the suns fiery nature then one should go on to say
(as does Heraclitus) that the sun is not only new every day (as
Xenophanes said) but it is always new Read in this way Aristotles
final point turns out to be not a criticism but the actual report of
Heraclitus extreme but self-consistent (even if false) view
It could be conjectured that Heraclitus is reacting to Xenophanes
and expressing in his own coinage the true view brings out the suns
nature by calling it always new This recalls t i d ~ ( l ) o V ( ever-living )
from B30 and farther still the ever real logos A y o ~ EWV o c ~ e L of the Proem) t is well to remember that B99 proves Heraclitus
awareness of the sun being the true cause of night (by absence) and
(by presence) of day too f the nature of all days is one B106) it
would be natural enough for Heraclitus to think of the sun as being
endowed with a permanent identity So the Heraclitean sun is as
the fiery eternal cosmos ( x o O f J O ~ ) the same for all or as in B89
one and the same (for those who are awake)
It is not so easy to assess with confidence what the limits of
Aristotles quotation are f his rendering ofHeraclitus is close we
could expect an expanded original along these lines ou fJOVOV v i o ~Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO nV ~ ) w ~ ti)) tid i o ~ (xoct w u t o ~ ) ( the sun is not
new only every day but it is always new and the same ) A simpler
alternative could be perhaps ) ~ o ~ v i o ~ Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO t Lv tict v i o ~(xoct wuto) ( the sun is new every day always new and the same
My preferred conjecture would be something like ~ ) w ou fJovov
vio Ecp ~ f J i p Y l ti)) tict vio EO t Lv (the sun is not only new every
day but it is new always ) What is most important is not to pass
silently over Heraclitus characteristic style of which there could
4 Already known to Plotinus who alludes to t o 7tefL7t t ov crwfLlX see below
note 26 For Aristotles theory of a 7tpw t ov crwfLlX cf e caelo 269bff
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be traces in Plato25 Plotinus26 and LucretiusY My point is that
a reasonable version of B6 should include the formula rid veo
These last two words just by themselves actually make an excellent
synthesis ofHeraclitus philosophy as a whole and describe perfectly
the suns CPUcrL which mirrors the whole xocrfLo So I conclude
that Heraclitus basic assertion is that the sun is forever the same
precisely in that it is always new persistently changing every day and
at every given moment just as the flux of the river constitutes its
dynamic identity and just as the xocrfLo itself is ever-living fire
so Heraclitus presentation of the nature of the sun symbolically
harmonizes sameness and difference
PART 2 THE SIZE OR THE LIMITS OF THE SUN
HOW GOOD IS THE EVIDENCE OFTHE DERVENI PAPYRUS
In 1981 almost twenty years after the Derveni papyrus
was discovered Walter Burkert gave a short paper in the Chieti
Symposium Heracliteum in which he presented the text reconstructed
by Parassoglou and Tsantsanoglou and made publicly known the few
lines in column IV containing the Heraclitus quotation28 Until then
the dominant approach to these two Heraclitean solar fragments[DK 22] B3 and B94 was to treat them separately Of course the
fact that both deal (although in very different ways) with Helios
25 Symposium 207d3 m I X t I X A e L 1 t E ~ Enpov vtt toO 1tIXAIXWU
( always leaves behind a different new creature instead of the old one 207 d7
l X ( m ) ~ X I X A E i t I X ~ ampAAIX vEo ampEt y ~ y v 6 f J E V O ~ ( Its called the same but it be
comes always new ) Cpound also Cratylus 409b5-8 Neov 16 1tOV XlXt EVOV dd eO n1tEpt -djv O E A ~ V Y j V toOto to p w ~ [ 1XUXACJl yocp 1tOV dd X U t ~ V 1 t E P ~ ~ W V veov
dd1 t L ~ amp A A E ~
( The light about the moon is always new and old [
] for in itscourse around it the sun always sheds on an ever new light )
26 Ennead II 1 2 lO-13 lvyxwpwv xlXt e7tt t01hwv o Y j A o v 6 t ~ tijl
HPIXXAELtCJl oC etpYj ampEt xlXt tov A ~ O V y L v E a ~ I X ~ 1 p ~ a t o t E A E ~ fJEV Y XP OUOEV
O V 1tpliyfJ1X dYj d nc IXIJtOO t XC ) 7 t o ~ E a E ~ C toO 1tEfJ7ttou 7 t l X p l X o e C l X ~ toawfJIXtoc ( He [sc Plato] evidently agrees with Heraclitus who also said that the
sun is always coming into being For Aristotle there would be no problem if oneadmits the theories of the fifth body )
27 De natura rerum V 662 (semina ardoris) quae fociunt solis novasemper lumina gigni
28 W Burkert Eraclito nel Papiro di Derveni due nuove testimonianze tti
del Symposium Heracliteum vol I (Rome Edizioni dell Ateneo 1983 31-42
14-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1626
eraclituson The Sun
naturally invited a connection but as the texts ofB3 (from Aetius)
and B94 (one among several versions in Plutarch) were presented in
Diels-Kranz mere juxtaposition did not seem appealing to editors
commentators and interpreters With the partial publication of the
Derveni papyrus things took a different direction A new line of
interpretation relied on the possibility that the author of the papyrus
intended the quotation as a continuous unity29 But even after
the official publication which benefitted greatly from applying
multi-spectral imaging to the remains finally came out in 2006
the papyrus bad physical shape still left enough room for almost
total uncertainty about some parts within the quotation itself (a
fact that has led to several versions which differ in their proposed
conjectures and supplements)
In Gabor Beteghs version lines 7-9 of column IV read
~ A ~ [ O ~ ] ~ o u xcxtoc cpuow cXIamppw[1t1ltou] ~ o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ [eat ] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ oux 0 1 t C p ~ amp A A W V e [ ]pouae[ 8
[ t ] y [ ~ ~ a e t c x ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v t ~ e u p ~ a o ~ [ a L L x 1 l ~ t1tLxoupO ] 9
The sun according to nature is a human foot in width 7
not transgressing its boundaries If 8
oversteps the Erinyes the guardians ofJustice will find it out30 9
29 Cpound D Sider (1997) Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus who referst a paragraph at the beginning of line 7 indicating a quotation (at least inintention) reinforced by the apparent lack of space for ~ A ~ O t in lines 8 and9 and suggesting that B3+B94 formed a connected thought in Hs originaltext (131) but see G Betegh The Derveni Papyrus Cosmology Theology andInterpretation (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004) 326n3 ALebedev did overstate his case when he wrote Any serious edition ofHeraclitusto come will cite B3 and B94 only as testimonia under the most complete andauthentic verbatim quotation of PDerv (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrififor Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79 (1989) 42) S Mouraviev (2006) and ABernabe De Tales aDemocrito Fragmentos Presocrdticos 2nd ed (Madrid Alianza2001) have followed this general line of interpretation in their editions ofHeraclitus treating B3 and B94 as a single continuous fragment
30 Gabor Betegh The Derveni Papyrus 10-11
5-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1726
Enrique HQlsz Piccone
There are some other possibilities (not exhaustive) First the
long awaited official reading by Kouremenos Parassoglou and
Tsantsanoglou
~ A ~ [ O ~ ]ou X(xt IX cpuow ampI-9pw[mJCou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
t o f 1 [ i y e - 9 o ] ~ oUx U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o u ] p o u ~ e [ u p o u ~ ] 8
[EoG d ~ E J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v euro ~ e u p ~ c r O I [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ eurotLxoupm] 9
The sun in the nature of is a human foot width 7
not exceeding in size the proper limits of its width 8
or else the Erinyes assistants of Dike will find it out 31 9
Jankos version
~ A ~ [ O ~ Ewu]WG X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v ampySpw[7teLou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [ecrn] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ OUX U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d Y[IXp t ~ e u ] p o u ~ e[wutoG 8
[ euro ] ~ [ ~ ~ c r e t ( x ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v e ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
The sun in accord with its own nature is in breadth the size 7
of a human foot
and does not surpass its limits for if it surpasses its own 8breadth at all
(the) Erinyes (the) allies ofustice will discover it32 9
L Schonbecks proposal
~ A ~ [ O ~ v i o ] ~ o u X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v amplSpw[7tdou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
tQQ[crxotou] OUX U 7 t e p ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o ] p o u ~ Mcp ~ J i p ( J (ampet)] 8
[ c p ] ~ [ e ~ d J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] vw euro ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
31 Theokritos Kouremenos George M Parassoglou Kyriakos TsantsanoglouThe Derveni Papyrus Edited with Introduction and Commentary [TDP] (FlorenceLeo S Olschki 2006) (Greek text of lines 7-9 apud Lakss review in Rhizai2007 vol IV 1 153-162 at 155)
32 Richard Janko The Derveni Papyrus an interim text ZPE 141 (2002)1-62 and The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logoi)A New Translation Classical Philology Vol 96 No1 (Jan 2001) 1-32 Greektext of col IV apudMouraviev (2006) This is also Bernabes reading Poetae epicigraeci testimonia etfragmenta (Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2007) Pap Derv colIV 188-192)
6-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1826
Heraclitus on The Sun
The new sun is not by nature the width of a human foot 7
from darkness not ever surpassing its proper limits every day 8
it shines if not the Erinyes Justices helpers will find him out33 9
Finally Mouravievs alternative reconstruction of the passage
and his French translation34
~ A [ O ~ 8 o8]e 00 Xoctoc cpuO v ampySpw[1tdou] e o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ 7
[lucetmouet]
t Q ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ ouJ t ) 1 t e p ~ O C A A W V d y[ocp e ~ e u ] p o u ~ 8
e [ ~ L - r l L L x 1 J ~[ e ] ~ [ L x o u p o ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v e ~ e u p ~ 0 0 4 [ 0 middot e1tLOxo1touO yocp] 9
ltCegt Soleil dont par nature la largeur (est) dun pied 7
dhomme duit I avance (raquo
sans outrepasser ses limites car sil ltsortait de sa largtgeur () les 8
Furiesltservantes de Justicegt Ie recaptureraient 9
Car elles veillent 35
The importance of the discovery has perhaps been somewhat
exaggerated36 at least concerning Heraclitus (as opposed to
Orphism) Nevertheless the papyrus is certainly one of the oldest
kstimonia on Heraclitus possibly even predating Platos writings
(of which the Derveni author does not show any knowledge) The
identity of the Derveni author is still very much a matter of debate
and conjecture37 but there is no doubt he is commenting on an
33 Loek Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11
ZP 95 1993 20
34 Serge Mouraviev Heraclitea HAl (Sankt Augustin Academia 1999 con-tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n 1 [CD 2001]) ch 1256-59
35 My translation This sun here whose size by nature is of a human foot
ltshinesmoves (raquo not overstepping its limits for i f he ltwent beyond hisgt size() the Erinyes Justices servantsgt would catch him
36 For instance R Janko wrote The Derveni papyrus is the most important
teXt relating to early Greek literature science religion and philosophy to havecome to light since the Renaissance BMCR 20061029 Review of TDPJ
37 The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier or even in
7-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 926
Enrique HGlsz Piccone
line and the cave So it seems that Platos information is likely to
be true which provides a meaningful complement to the new sun( ~ A W e viae) ofB6 In the case of the scholiast the function of the
sun-symbolism within Heraclitus philosophical framework could
still have been missed A fragment from Democritus might also
echo Heraclitus B6 in a non-cosmological contextl suggesting a
connection with B1712 and so could perhaps be a useful counter
point to the physicalistic perspective on the Heraclitean sun
Up to now a minimalistic estimate of the actual extent of B6
(6 ~ A W e vEae europ ~ f 1 E P 1 l euroOt[v) has been the predominant trend
among scholars a reading thought to be backed by the so-called
internal logic ofAristotles argument l3 Taken on its merits however
the argument is not a particularly good one The notion attributed
to Heraclitus taking the whole passage as a unity (and leaving
aside for the moment the details of the conjectured mechanics
of the process) is that assuming that the fiery sun is born as it
is kindled at dawn and dies out as it is quenched at nightl4 it
11 DK 68B158 (Plutarch De Latenter Vivendo 5 p 1129pound) verx trp ~ - l e p 1 J ~rppoveonee ocvamppw7tm (Men have new thoughts every day)
12 DK 22B17 ou yocp rppoveoucn CmrxuCrx 7tOAAOL o x o O o ~ t y x u p e u O ~ v ouoe
-lrxampovCee y ~ v w O x o u O ~ v ewuCo O ~ oe o o x e o u O ~ (Many dont understand suchthings as those they encounter nor do they know them once they have learnedbut think themselves they do) Cf also DK 22B72 6 J ~ - l c X A ~ o C r x o ~ t J v e x w e
O - l ~ A O U O ~ lt A 6 y w ~ C w ~ C oc OArx o ~ o ~ x o u v n gt C o h w ~ o ~ r x r p e p o v C r x ~ xrxt ore xrxamp
~ - l e p r x v t y x u p o u O ~ C rxu C rx rxuCoie ~ e v r x r p r x L v e t r x ~ (That which they meetmost frequently ltthe logos that governs alb from this they differ and the thingsthey meet every day these seem foreign to them)
13 f M Q U f a v Heraclitea IILBiii (2006) 14 Certains auteurs [ J incluent u -lovov et ampAJampd veoe Ouvexwe (contexte dAristote) dans la citation cequi semble confirme Pyen Plotin (ampd x r x ~ v o v y L v e O amp r x ~ ) Cette opinion ne resistetoutefois pas it l a n a l y s ~ du contexte aristotelicien OU la conception dun soleilen r e n o ~ v e l e m e n t permanent joue Ie role de reductio ad absurdum dune application s i ~ t a n e e s6leil de la theorie (quAristote critique) dun solei de feunourrissant dexhalaisons humides et de la theorie (aristotelicienne)
selon laquelle la Hamme serait un echange perpetuel entre Ihumide et Ie sec14 Both Kirk and Marcovich thought it likely that B6 was preceded or followedby some such assertion about the suns extinction and rekindling This is stageone in Kirks interpretation of Aristotles argument stage 2 is represented by the
O x c X r p r x ~ theory stage 3 by the amp v r x amp u - l L r x O ~ e theory These are followed by the onlyexplicit piece of reasoning in the Meteorology passage climaxing in the quotationgiven in note 6 above David Sider has proposed a different reconstruction Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus in Studies on the erveni Papyrus [SDPJ (OxfordClarendon Press 1977) 129-148 on which see further below note 43
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1026
Heraclitus on The Sun
canbesaid that it is VeuroOe eurocp ~ f J euro P 1 l neworyoungatdawn
becauseregularlyquenchedandreignitedaccordingtofixedtemporal
successiveperiodsThe earlierthinkersmentioned byAristotle
denouncedforhavingsupposedthesun is nourishedbymoisture
have sometimes been thought toincludeHeraclitusbut this is
doubtfulAnd anyway even if we dosetaside theattributionof
the nourishingof thesun on moisture (alongwith theJingleor
doubleexhalation [ r i v c x f ) u f J L c x O ~ e ] doctrine)to H e r a ~ f u u s w e a ~stillleftwiththenotionthatthesunis fiery and b e ~ a u s e of thisitis newnotonlyeveryday(atdawn) but alwaysSoaccordingto
theusualreadingAristotlewouldbecharging e r a c l i t ~ withnot
beingradicalenoughForwhenhesaidthesun is new v e [ y - d ~ Yheshouldhaverealizedthat thisis agrossunderstatementofwhat
is metaphysicallyneededwithin hisown frameworkwhich-as
interpretedby Aristotle-would be an extremeform of theall
thingsflow ( 1 t ~ V t c x p e ~ ) therheontologicalmodelPointingto
HeraclitusshortcomingsAristotlewouldbe putting forwardhis
own criticism correctingthesayingwith whatHeraclitusshould
havesaid that thesun is alwaysnew (ridVeuroOe
Thereis someindication(intherelevantdoxography though
notintheauthenticfragmentsthemselves) that suchaconception
of adailydifferentsun washeldbyXenophanesHis reported
viewwas that afierysunl5 is generatedliterallyeveryday (xcxf)
h ~ O t l ) v ~ f J euro p c x v ) fromsmallsparks in theclouds so an entirely
differentsunshinesoverandwarmseachmorningtheearthbelow
theoldonebecominglostfrom our viewinthe infinitedistanceit
travels in astraightline beingsubstitutedbyan entirelynewone
thenextday16 Xenophanes thesisentailsthesuccessive existence
of an infinitenumberof suns eachirreducibletotheotherseach
sun correspondingto eachday canthusbe saidto benew(that
is other thanordifferentfrom theothers)Heraclitus few
relevantso-calledphysicalorcosmicfragmentsareundoubtedly
hardtoassessbut onemightquestionthelikelihoodof aprimarily
cosmologicaland doctrinalinterpretation of histhinkingrather
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1126
nrique Hli lsz Piccone
than simply take for granted that the details of just that sort of
account have not reached us That he stated nothing clear1 7 about
these matters represents a more credible possibility
We know from the fragments themselves that Heraclitus was
extremely critical of the reputedly wise men from the distant past and
from his own time and that he explicitly denied that Xenophanes
understood anything even if he qualified as a polymath (B40)18
That Heraclitus held a similar belief in infinite suns (parallel to the
sequence of days) is an unlikely hypothesis not just because of his
manifest disdain ofXenophanes but also in virtue of something that
is implied in his criticism of Hesiod who according to B57 did not
even know Night and Day for they are one 19 In B106 Hesiodsignorance concerns not only the uni ty of Night and Day but also
the single nature (cpUOt0 common to all days20 This suggests that
the Heraclitean sun (recognized as the cause ofdaylight B99) 1 too
is one and the same every day and it has a distinctive cpuOtc of its
own The upshot is that Heraclitus thought of the sun as a single and
persistent being which retains its selfhood through its change just
as he thought of the same river as a flux of ever different waters22
The Aristotelian passage implicitly suggests several possible
Heracleitean theses The most basic assumption I label
17 Cf eg DL 98 altxltpwe S ouSev euro x t W e t lt X ~ (he doesnt set forth anythingclear) ibid 911 mpt Se t1je y ~ e ouSev a 1 t o lt p lt x L v e t lt X ~ 1tOpoundltx t Le euronv aAAouSe 1tept twv axltxltpwv (he doesnt show anything clear about what sort of
thing is the earth nor about the bowls)
18 DK 22B40 1 t O A U P lt x ~ t L I ) voov ou S ~ S 6 t a x e v HaLoSov yiXp v euro S L S lt X ~ E xltxL
TIuampltxyop1JV ltxotpounde tE Eevoltpdtvedt tE xltxL EXltXtltXLOV (Much learning doesntteach intelligence For it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and againXenophanes and Hecataeus)
19 DK 22B57 S ~ M a x lt X A O e Se 1tAELat6gtV HaLoSoe toQZGV euro 1 t L a t ~ t lt X ~1tAeLatltX dSivltXL (Jane ~ p i p l ) v xltxL eultppOVl)V oux euro y L ~ M c r X e V Ecru YOCpEV
(Teacher of most men is Hesiod They think he knew plenty he who dilt-nt
recognize day and night for they are one)
20 DK 22B106 c X y v o o Q v t ~ ltpUcrLv ~ p i p lt x e cX1tdtcrl)e pLltxlt oucrltxv ( [HesiJ)d] ignored that the nature of any day is one)
21 DK 22B99 et ~ A t O e ~ V evexltx tWV (lA-WV (latpwv ~ ( p P O V I ) XV (Ifthere were no sun for the sake of the other stars it would be night)
22 DK 22B12 1tOtltXPOLcrL tOLcrtJ lt X U t O L c r ~ v euro P ~ lt x L v o U c r L V hepltx xltxL Etepx
6SltxtltX eurotLppeL (On those who step into the same rivers other and other waters
flow )
10-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1226
Heraclitus on The Sun
(0) The sun is fire or fiery or made of fire
Other theses extend this fundamental idea(1) The sun feeds on moisture
2) Solstices are explained on this basis
(3) The (false) grounds for this view are
(3a) A supposed analogy of sun-fire with everyday
ordinary fire and
(3b) an assimilation of the ascent of atmospherical
vapor on the one hand and the upward movement
of flame in combustion on the other
After a denial en bloc of the truth ofall this Aristotle concludes
critically that
(4) Heraclitus in saying the sun is new merely every
day failed to reach the necessary conclusion that it
would have to be always new (that is not the same
at any moment)
Some comments are in order First that Heraclitus and his
alleged followers (but who are they) are alluded to in the reference
to all those earlier thinkers who assumed the sun was nourished
by the moist m x Y - r ~ ~ o O o ~ -rbJY 7 r p 6 - r ~ p o y l ) 7 r D C l ~ O Y -rOY ~ W Y- r p e q l e O amp C l ~ rc1gt uypc1raquo seems to be unanimously accepted It should
be noted though that strictly speaking this remains an inference
for neither Aristotle nor any of the preserved fragments actually
states just that On the further assumption that the moist is the only
nourishment for fire (-ro 0 uypov rc1gt 1tUpt - r p O q l ~ v e t v C l ~ J6vov)
we arrive at the conclusion that the sun lives at the expense of (sea)
moisture which ascends and feeds the fire ofwhich the sun is made
(As to the extinction during night-time the doxographical report
t1tt Jepouc in Diogenes Laertius links night and the dark exhala
tion [IX 11]) The Heraclitean fragments that seem to be echoed
are B31 (both parts) B36 and (for the idea of nourishment) B114
Strangely enough none of them deals with the sun but instead
respectively with the turnings of fire 1tUPOC -rP01tClL) the cycle
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
of birth and death of soul ( ~ u X ~ ) and the nurturing of all human
laws (VO JOL) on the single divine one common to all (the Logos as
lex naturae The unity-in-opposition theory construed as a narrowphysicalistic explanation is also in play although only obscurely
hinted at in Aristotles interpretation The grounding of this in
Heraclitus seems very vague but it might further reflect B60 and
B126 A somewhat slighter anomaly would seem to be that the
moist requires as contrary the dry (not the sun) Insistence on the
exclusive relationship between contraries (each thing has only one
contrary) is reminiscent of Plato but not of Heraclitus
Secondly as to solstices being explained in this way (that is solelyon the view that the sun is nurtured by moisture) by Heraclitus
in particular this point seems especially far-fetched Perhaps the
closest we can get to solstices in Heraclitus is B94 (The Sun will
not overstep its measures [tJ-eurotpoc)) and BlOO23
In the third place 3a and 3b seem to be entirely due to Aristotles
own conjecture Perhaps there is a fusion here of other sources-
Heraclitus B16 and B54 immediately come to mind not exclud
ing views in other authors The theory implied in 3b could be ahistorical antecedent of Aristotles own exhalation doctrine but it
is more likely than not that there was no such thing in Heraclitus
view in spite of the commonplace physicalistic interpretation of
the way up and down o M ~ avw xoc tw) of B60 Heraclitus own
approach to such meteorological phenomena (in B31 B36) seems
hardly usable for restoring Aristotles credibility Some form ofvapor
( i h t J - ~ ) however is quite possible in Xenophanes
And last with all this in mind we may appreciate that Aristotlesfinal move (charging Heraclitus with not being radical enough) can
do without the assumptions just listed as 1-3 The only premise really
needed is that the sun is fiery Aristotles dissent from Heraclitus
which is the immediate basis for actually mentioning him by name
and quoting him need not be interpreted within a meteorological
framework and makes perfect sense when limited to the very basic
notion of the sun as fiery Besides the well-known metaphysical
23 DK 22BlOO (Plutarch Quaestiones Platonicae 8 4lO07D) c ) p o c ~ oct 1tIxvtoc
ltPEPOU(H (the seasons bringers of all things)
2-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1426
Heraclitus on The Sun
hostility to the allegedly Heraclitean Universal Flux for Aristotle
himself (according to at least one interpretation) 24 the sun is made
of ether (ocUtYjp) not fire and is neither hot nor dry A simpler
reading of the final statement presents itself if one assumes (with
Heraclitus) the suns fiery nature then one should go on to say
(as does Heraclitus) that the sun is not only new every day (as
Xenophanes said) but it is always new Read in this way Aristotles
final point turns out to be not a criticism but the actual report of
Heraclitus extreme but self-consistent (even if false) view
It could be conjectured that Heraclitus is reacting to Xenophanes
and expressing in his own coinage the true view brings out the suns
nature by calling it always new This recalls t i d ~ ( l ) o V ( ever-living )
from B30 and farther still the ever real logos A y o ~ EWV o c ~ e L of the Proem) t is well to remember that B99 proves Heraclitus
awareness of the sun being the true cause of night (by absence) and
(by presence) of day too f the nature of all days is one B106) it
would be natural enough for Heraclitus to think of the sun as being
endowed with a permanent identity So the Heraclitean sun is as
the fiery eternal cosmos ( x o O f J O ~ ) the same for all or as in B89
one and the same (for those who are awake)
It is not so easy to assess with confidence what the limits of
Aristotles quotation are f his rendering ofHeraclitus is close we
could expect an expanded original along these lines ou fJOVOV v i o ~Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO nV ~ ) w ~ ti)) tid i o ~ (xoct w u t o ~ ) ( the sun is not
new only every day but it is always new and the same ) A simpler
alternative could be perhaps ) ~ o ~ v i o ~ Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO t Lv tict v i o ~(xoct wuto) ( the sun is new every day always new and the same
My preferred conjecture would be something like ~ ) w ou fJovov
vio Ecp ~ f J i p Y l ti)) tict vio EO t Lv (the sun is not only new every
day but it is new always ) What is most important is not to pass
silently over Heraclitus characteristic style of which there could
4 Already known to Plotinus who alludes to t o 7tefL7t t ov crwfLlX see below
note 26 For Aristotles theory of a 7tpw t ov crwfLlX cf e caelo 269bff
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be traces in Plato25 Plotinus26 and LucretiusY My point is that
a reasonable version of B6 should include the formula rid veo
These last two words just by themselves actually make an excellent
synthesis ofHeraclitus philosophy as a whole and describe perfectly
the suns CPUcrL which mirrors the whole xocrfLo So I conclude
that Heraclitus basic assertion is that the sun is forever the same
precisely in that it is always new persistently changing every day and
at every given moment just as the flux of the river constitutes its
dynamic identity and just as the xocrfLo itself is ever-living fire
so Heraclitus presentation of the nature of the sun symbolically
harmonizes sameness and difference
PART 2 THE SIZE OR THE LIMITS OF THE SUN
HOW GOOD IS THE EVIDENCE OFTHE DERVENI PAPYRUS
In 1981 almost twenty years after the Derveni papyrus
was discovered Walter Burkert gave a short paper in the Chieti
Symposium Heracliteum in which he presented the text reconstructed
by Parassoglou and Tsantsanoglou and made publicly known the few
lines in column IV containing the Heraclitus quotation28 Until then
the dominant approach to these two Heraclitean solar fragments[DK 22] B3 and B94 was to treat them separately Of course the
fact that both deal (although in very different ways) with Helios
25 Symposium 207d3 m I X t I X A e L 1 t E ~ Enpov vtt toO 1tIXAIXWU
( always leaves behind a different new creature instead of the old one 207 d7
l X ( m ) ~ X I X A E i t I X ~ ampAAIX vEo ampEt y ~ y v 6 f J E V O ~ ( Its called the same but it be
comes always new ) Cpound also Cratylus 409b5-8 Neov 16 1tOV XlXt EVOV dd eO n1tEpt -djv O E A ~ V Y j V toOto to p w ~ [ 1XUXACJl yocp 1tOV dd X U t ~ V 1 t E P ~ ~ W V veov
dd1 t L ~ amp A A E ~
( The light about the moon is always new and old [
] for in itscourse around it the sun always sheds on an ever new light )
26 Ennead II 1 2 lO-13 lvyxwpwv xlXt e7tt t01hwv o Y j A o v 6 t ~ tijl
HPIXXAELtCJl oC etpYj ampEt xlXt tov A ~ O V y L v E a ~ I X ~ 1 p ~ a t o t E A E ~ fJEV Y XP OUOEV
O V 1tpliyfJ1X dYj d nc IXIJtOO t XC ) 7 t o ~ E a E ~ C toO 1tEfJ7ttou 7 t l X p l X o e C l X ~ toawfJIXtoc ( He [sc Plato] evidently agrees with Heraclitus who also said that the
sun is always coming into being For Aristotle there would be no problem if oneadmits the theories of the fifth body )
27 De natura rerum V 662 (semina ardoris) quae fociunt solis novasemper lumina gigni
28 W Burkert Eraclito nel Papiro di Derveni due nuove testimonianze tti
del Symposium Heracliteum vol I (Rome Edizioni dell Ateneo 1983 31-42
14-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1626
eraclituson The Sun
naturally invited a connection but as the texts ofB3 (from Aetius)
and B94 (one among several versions in Plutarch) were presented in
Diels-Kranz mere juxtaposition did not seem appealing to editors
commentators and interpreters With the partial publication of the
Derveni papyrus things took a different direction A new line of
interpretation relied on the possibility that the author of the papyrus
intended the quotation as a continuous unity29 But even after
the official publication which benefitted greatly from applying
multi-spectral imaging to the remains finally came out in 2006
the papyrus bad physical shape still left enough room for almost
total uncertainty about some parts within the quotation itself (a
fact that has led to several versions which differ in their proposed
conjectures and supplements)
In Gabor Beteghs version lines 7-9 of column IV read
~ A ~ [ O ~ ] ~ o u xcxtoc cpuow cXIamppw[1t1ltou] ~ o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ [eat ] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ oux 0 1 t C p ~ amp A A W V e [ ]pouae[ 8
[ t ] y [ ~ ~ a e t c x ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v t ~ e u p ~ a o ~ [ a L L x 1 l ~ t1tLxoupO ] 9
The sun according to nature is a human foot in width 7
not transgressing its boundaries If 8
oversteps the Erinyes the guardians ofJustice will find it out30 9
29 Cpound D Sider (1997) Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus who referst a paragraph at the beginning of line 7 indicating a quotation (at least inintention) reinforced by the apparent lack of space for ~ A ~ O t in lines 8 and9 and suggesting that B3+B94 formed a connected thought in Hs originaltext (131) but see G Betegh The Derveni Papyrus Cosmology Theology andInterpretation (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004) 326n3 ALebedev did overstate his case when he wrote Any serious edition ofHeraclitusto come will cite B3 and B94 only as testimonia under the most complete andauthentic verbatim quotation of PDerv (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrififor Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79 (1989) 42) S Mouraviev (2006) and ABernabe De Tales aDemocrito Fragmentos Presocrdticos 2nd ed (Madrid Alianza2001) have followed this general line of interpretation in their editions ofHeraclitus treating B3 and B94 as a single continuous fragment
30 Gabor Betegh The Derveni Papyrus 10-11
5-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1726
Enrique HQlsz Piccone
There are some other possibilities (not exhaustive) First the
long awaited official reading by Kouremenos Parassoglou and
Tsantsanoglou
~ A ~ [ O ~ ]ou X(xt IX cpuow ampI-9pw[mJCou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
t o f 1 [ i y e - 9 o ] ~ oUx U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o u ] p o u ~ e [ u p o u ~ ] 8
[EoG d ~ E J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v euro ~ e u p ~ c r O I [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ eurotLxoupm] 9
The sun in the nature of is a human foot width 7
not exceeding in size the proper limits of its width 8
or else the Erinyes assistants of Dike will find it out 31 9
Jankos version
~ A ~ [ O ~ Ewu]WG X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v ampySpw[7teLou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [ecrn] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ OUX U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d Y[IXp t ~ e u ] p o u ~ e[wutoG 8
[ euro ] ~ [ ~ ~ c r e t ( x ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v e ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
The sun in accord with its own nature is in breadth the size 7
of a human foot
and does not surpass its limits for if it surpasses its own 8breadth at all
(the) Erinyes (the) allies ofustice will discover it32 9
L Schonbecks proposal
~ A ~ [ O ~ v i o ] ~ o u X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v amplSpw[7tdou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
tQQ[crxotou] OUX U 7 t e p ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o ] p o u ~ Mcp ~ J i p ( J (ampet)] 8
[ c p ] ~ [ e ~ d J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] vw euro ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
31 Theokritos Kouremenos George M Parassoglou Kyriakos TsantsanoglouThe Derveni Papyrus Edited with Introduction and Commentary [TDP] (FlorenceLeo S Olschki 2006) (Greek text of lines 7-9 apud Lakss review in Rhizai2007 vol IV 1 153-162 at 155)
32 Richard Janko The Derveni Papyrus an interim text ZPE 141 (2002)1-62 and The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logoi)A New Translation Classical Philology Vol 96 No1 (Jan 2001) 1-32 Greektext of col IV apudMouraviev (2006) This is also Bernabes reading Poetae epicigraeci testimonia etfragmenta (Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2007) Pap Derv colIV 188-192)
6-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1826
Heraclitus on The Sun
The new sun is not by nature the width of a human foot 7
from darkness not ever surpassing its proper limits every day 8
it shines if not the Erinyes Justices helpers will find him out33 9
Finally Mouravievs alternative reconstruction of the passage
and his French translation34
~ A [ O ~ 8 o8]e 00 Xoctoc cpuO v ampySpw[1tdou] e o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ 7
[lucetmouet]
t Q ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ ouJ t ) 1 t e p ~ O C A A W V d y[ocp e ~ e u ] p o u ~ 8
e [ ~ L - r l L L x 1 J ~[ e ] ~ [ L x o u p o ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v e ~ e u p ~ 0 0 4 [ 0 middot e1tLOxo1touO yocp] 9
ltCegt Soleil dont par nature la largeur (est) dun pied 7
dhomme duit I avance (raquo
sans outrepasser ses limites car sil ltsortait de sa largtgeur () les 8
Furiesltservantes de Justicegt Ie recaptureraient 9
Car elles veillent 35
The importance of the discovery has perhaps been somewhat
exaggerated36 at least concerning Heraclitus (as opposed to
Orphism) Nevertheless the papyrus is certainly one of the oldest
kstimonia on Heraclitus possibly even predating Platos writings
(of which the Derveni author does not show any knowledge) The
identity of the Derveni author is still very much a matter of debate
and conjecture37 but there is no doubt he is commenting on an
33 Loek Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11
ZP 95 1993 20
34 Serge Mouraviev Heraclitea HAl (Sankt Augustin Academia 1999 con-tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n 1 [CD 2001]) ch 1256-59
35 My translation This sun here whose size by nature is of a human foot
ltshinesmoves (raquo not overstepping its limits for i f he ltwent beyond hisgt size() the Erinyes Justices servantsgt would catch him
36 For instance R Janko wrote The Derveni papyrus is the most important
teXt relating to early Greek literature science religion and philosophy to havecome to light since the Renaissance BMCR 20061029 Review of TDPJ
37 The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier or even in
7-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1026
Heraclitus on The Sun
canbesaid that it is VeuroOe eurocp ~ f J euro P 1 l neworyoungatdawn
becauseregularlyquenchedandreignitedaccordingtofixedtemporal
successiveperiodsThe earlierthinkersmentioned byAristotle
denouncedforhavingsupposedthesun is nourishedbymoisture
have sometimes been thought toincludeHeraclitusbut this is
doubtfulAnd anyway even if we dosetaside theattributionof
the nourishingof thesun on moisture (alongwith theJingleor
doubleexhalation [ r i v c x f ) u f J L c x O ~ e ] doctrine)to H e r a ~ f u u s w e a ~stillleftwiththenotionthatthesunis fiery and b e ~ a u s e of thisitis newnotonlyeveryday(atdawn) but alwaysSoaccordingto
theusualreadingAristotlewouldbecharging e r a c l i t ~ withnot
beingradicalenoughForwhenhesaidthesun is new v e [ y - d ~ Yheshouldhaverealizedthat thisis agrossunderstatementofwhat
is metaphysicallyneededwithin hisown frameworkwhich-as
interpretedby Aristotle-would be an extremeform of theall
thingsflow ( 1 t ~ V t c x p e ~ ) therheontologicalmodelPointingto
HeraclitusshortcomingsAristotlewouldbe putting forwardhis
own criticism correctingthesayingwith whatHeraclitusshould
havesaid that thesun is alwaysnew (ridVeuroOe
Thereis someindication(intherelevantdoxography though
notintheauthenticfragmentsthemselves) that suchaconception
of adailydifferentsun washeldbyXenophanesHis reported
viewwas that afierysunl5 is generatedliterallyeveryday (xcxf)
h ~ O t l ) v ~ f J euro p c x v ) fromsmallsparks in theclouds so an entirely
differentsunshinesoverandwarmseachmorningtheearthbelow
theoldonebecominglostfrom our viewinthe infinitedistanceit
travels in astraightline beingsubstitutedbyan entirelynewone
thenextday16 Xenophanes thesisentailsthesuccessive existence
of an infinitenumberof suns eachirreducibletotheotherseach
sun correspondingto eachday canthusbe saidto benew(that
is other thanordifferentfrom theothers)Heraclitus few
relevantso-calledphysicalorcosmicfragmentsareundoubtedly
hardtoassessbut onemightquestionthelikelihoodof aprimarily
cosmologicaland doctrinalinterpretation of histhinkingrather
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1126
nrique Hli lsz Piccone
than simply take for granted that the details of just that sort of
account have not reached us That he stated nothing clear1 7 about
these matters represents a more credible possibility
We know from the fragments themselves that Heraclitus was
extremely critical of the reputedly wise men from the distant past and
from his own time and that he explicitly denied that Xenophanes
understood anything even if he qualified as a polymath (B40)18
That Heraclitus held a similar belief in infinite suns (parallel to the
sequence of days) is an unlikely hypothesis not just because of his
manifest disdain ofXenophanes but also in virtue of something that
is implied in his criticism of Hesiod who according to B57 did not
even know Night and Day for they are one 19 In B106 Hesiodsignorance concerns not only the uni ty of Night and Day but also
the single nature (cpUOt0 common to all days20 This suggests that
the Heraclitean sun (recognized as the cause ofdaylight B99) 1 too
is one and the same every day and it has a distinctive cpuOtc of its
own The upshot is that Heraclitus thought of the sun as a single and
persistent being which retains its selfhood through its change just
as he thought of the same river as a flux of ever different waters22
The Aristotelian passage implicitly suggests several possible
Heracleitean theses The most basic assumption I label
17 Cf eg DL 98 altxltpwe S ouSev euro x t W e t lt X ~ (he doesnt set forth anythingclear) ibid 911 mpt Se t1je y ~ e ouSev a 1 t o lt p lt x L v e t lt X ~ 1tOpoundltx t Le euronv aAAouSe 1tept twv axltxltpwv (he doesnt show anything clear about what sort of
thing is the earth nor about the bowls)
18 DK 22B40 1 t O A U P lt x ~ t L I ) voov ou S ~ S 6 t a x e v HaLoSov yiXp v euro S L S lt X ~ E xltxL
TIuampltxyop1JV ltxotpounde tE Eevoltpdtvedt tE xltxL EXltXtltXLOV (Much learning doesntteach intelligence For it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and againXenophanes and Hecataeus)
19 DK 22B57 S ~ M a x lt X A O e Se 1tAELat6gtV HaLoSoe toQZGV euro 1 t L a t ~ t lt X ~1tAeLatltX dSivltXL (Jane ~ p i p l ) v xltxL eultppOVl)V oux euro y L ~ M c r X e V Ecru YOCpEV
(Teacher of most men is Hesiod They think he knew plenty he who dilt-nt
recognize day and night for they are one)
20 DK 22B106 c X y v o o Q v t ~ ltpUcrLv ~ p i p lt x e cX1tdtcrl)e pLltxlt oucrltxv ( [HesiJ)d] ignored that the nature of any day is one)
21 DK 22B99 et ~ A t O e ~ V evexltx tWV (lA-WV (latpwv ~ ( p P O V I ) XV (Ifthere were no sun for the sake of the other stars it would be night)
22 DK 22B12 1tOtltXPOLcrL tOLcrtJ lt X U t O L c r ~ v euro P ~ lt x L v o U c r L V hepltx xltxL Etepx
6SltxtltX eurotLppeL (On those who step into the same rivers other and other waters
flow )
10-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1226
Heraclitus on The Sun
(0) The sun is fire or fiery or made of fire
Other theses extend this fundamental idea(1) The sun feeds on moisture
2) Solstices are explained on this basis
(3) The (false) grounds for this view are
(3a) A supposed analogy of sun-fire with everyday
ordinary fire and
(3b) an assimilation of the ascent of atmospherical
vapor on the one hand and the upward movement
of flame in combustion on the other
After a denial en bloc of the truth ofall this Aristotle concludes
critically that
(4) Heraclitus in saying the sun is new merely every
day failed to reach the necessary conclusion that it
would have to be always new (that is not the same
at any moment)
Some comments are in order First that Heraclitus and his
alleged followers (but who are they) are alluded to in the reference
to all those earlier thinkers who assumed the sun was nourished
by the moist m x Y - r ~ ~ o O o ~ -rbJY 7 r p 6 - r ~ p o y l ) 7 r D C l ~ O Y -rOY ~ W Y- r p e q l e O amp C l ~ rc1gt uypc1raquo seems to be unanimously accepted It should
be noted though that strictly speaking this remains an inference
for neither Aristotle nor any of the preserved fragments actually
states just that On the further assumption that the moist is the only
nourishment for fire (-ro 0 uypov rc1gt 1tUpt - r p O q l ~ v e t v C l ~ J6vov)
we arrive at the conclusion that the sun lives at the expense of (sea)
moisture which ascends and feeds the fire ofwhich the sun is made
(As to the extinction during night-time the doxographical report
t1tt Jepouc in Diogenes Laertius links night and the dark exhala
tion [IX 11]) The Heraclitean fragments that seem to be echoed
are B31 (both parts) B36 and (for the idea of nourishment) B114
Strangely enough none of them deals with the sun but instead
respectively with the turnings of fire 1tUPOC -rP01tClL) the cycle
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
of birth and death of soul ( ~ u X ~ ) and the nurturing of all human
laws (VO JOL) on the single divine one common to all (the Logos as
lex naturae The unity-in-opposition theory construed as a narrowphysicalistic explanation is also in play although only obscurely
hinted at in Aristotles interpretation The grounding of this in
Heraclitus seems very vague but it might further reflect B60 and
B126 A somewhat slighter anomaly would seem to be that the
moist requires as contrary the dry (not the sun) Insistence on the
exclusive relationship between contraries (each thing has only one
contrary) is reminiscent of Plato but not of Heraclitus
Secondly as to solstices being explained in this way (that is solelyon the view that the sun is nurtured by moisture) by Heraclitus
in particular this point seems especially far-fetched Perhaps the
closest we can get to solstices in Heraclitus is B94 (The Sun will
not overstep its measures [tJ-eurotpoc)) and BlOO23
In the third place 3a and 3b seem to be entirely due to Aristotles
own conjecture Perhaps there is a fusion here of other sources-
Heraclitus B16 and B54 immediately come to mind not exclud
ing views in other authors The theory implied in 3b could be ahistorical antecedent of Aristotles own exhalation doctrine but it
is more likely than not that there was no such thing in Heraclitus
view in spite of the commonplace physicalistic interpretation of
the way up and down o M ~ avw xoc tw) of B60 Heraclitus own
approach to such meteorological phenomena (in B31 B36) seems
hardly usable for restoring Aristotles credibility Some form ofvapor
( i h t J - ~ ) however is quite possible in Xenophanes
And last with all this in mind we may appreciate that Aristotlesfinal move (charging Heraclitus with not being radical enough) can
do without the assumptions just listed as 1-3 The only premise really
needed is that the sun is fiery Aristotles dissent from Heraclitus
which is the immediate basis for actually mentioning him by name
and quoting him need not be interpreted within a meteorological
framework and makes perfect sense when limited to the very basic
notion of the sun as fiery Besides the well-known metaphysical
23 DK 22BlOO (Plutarch Quaestiones Platonicae 8 4lO07D) c ) p o c ~ oct 1tIxvtoc
ltPEPOU(H (the seasons bringers of all things)
2-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1426
Heraclitus on The Sun
hostility to the allegedly Heraclitean Universal Flux for Aristotle
himself (according to at least one interpretation) 24 the sun is made
of ether (ocUtYjp) not fire and is neither hot nor dry A simpler
reading of the final statement presents itself if one assumes (with
Heraclitus) the suns fiery nature then one should go on to say
(as does Heraclitus) that the sun is not only new every day (as
Xenophanes said) but it is always new Read in this way Aristotles
final point turns out to be not a criticism but the actual report of
Heraclitus extreme but self-consistent (even if false) view
It could be conjectured that Heraclitus is reacting to Xenophanes
and expressing in his own coinage the true view brings out the suns
nature by calling it always new This recalls t i d ~ ( l ) o V ( ever-living )
from B30 and farther still the ever real logos A y o ~ EWV o c ~ e L of the Proem) t is well to remember that B99 proves Heraclitus
awareness of the sun being the true cause of night (by absence) and
(by presence) of day too f the nature of all days is one B106) it
would be natural enough for Heraclitus to think of the sun as being
endowed with a permanent identity So the Heraclitean sun is as
the fiery eternal cosmos ( x o O f J O ~ ) the same for all or as in B89
one and the same (for those who are awake)
It is not so easy to assess with confidence what the limits of
Aristotles quotation are f his rendering ofHeraclitus is close we
could expect an expanded original along these lines ou fJOVOV v i o ~Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO nV ~ ) w ~ ti)) tid i o ~ (xoct w u t o ~ ) ( the sun is not
new only every day but it is always new and the same ) A simpler
alternative could be perhaps ) ~ o ~ v i o ~ Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO t Lv tict v i o ~(xoct wuto) ( the sun is new every day always new and the same
My preferred conjecture would be something like ~ ) w ou fJovov
vio Ecp ~ f J i p Y l ti)) tict vio EO t Lv (the sun is not only new every
day but it is new always ) What is most important is not to pass
silently over Heraclitus characteristic style of which there could
4 Already known to Plotinus who alludes to t o 7tefL7t t ov crwfLlX see below
note 26 For Aristotles theory of a 7tpw t ov crwfLlX cf e caelo 269bff
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be traces in Plato25 Plotinus26 and LucretiusY My point is that
a reasonable version of B6 should include the formula rid veo
These last two words just by themselves actually make an excellent
synthesis ofHeraclitus philosophy as a whole and describe perfectly
the suns CPUcrL which mirrors the whole xocrfLo So I conclude
that Heraclitus basic assertion is that the sun is forever the same
precisely in that it is always new persistently changing every day and
at every given moment just as the flux of the river constitutes its
dynamic identity and just as the xocrfLo itself is ever-living fire
so Heraclitus presentation of the nature of the sun symbolically
harmonizes sameness and difference
PART 2 THE SIZE OR THE LIMITS OF THE SUN
HOW GOOD IS THE EVIDENCE OFTHE DERVENI PAPYRUS
In 1981 almost twenty years after the Derveni papyrus
was discovered Walter Burkert gave a short paper in the Chieti
Symposium Heracliteum in which he presented the text reconstructed
by Parassoglou and Tsantsanoglou and made publicly known the few
lines in column IV containing the Heraclitus quotation28 Until then
the dominant approach to these two Heraclitean solar fragments[DK 22] B3 and B94 was to treat them separately Of course the
fact that both deal (although in very different ways) with Helios
25 Symposium 207d3 m I X t I X A e L 1 t E ~ Enpov vtt toO 1tIXAIXWU
( always leaves behind a different new creature instead of the old one 207 d7
l X ( m ) ~ X I X A E i t I X ~ ampAAIX vEo ampEt y ~ y v 6 f J E V O ~ ( Its called the same but it be
comes always new ) Cpound also Cratylus 409b5-8 Neov 16 1tOV XlXt EVOV dd eO n1tEpt -djv O E A ~ V Y j V toOto to p w ~ [ 1XUXACJl yocp 1tOV dd X U t ~ V 1 t E P ~ ~ W V veov
dd1 t L ~ amp A A E ~
( The light about the moon is always new and old [
] for in itscourse around it the sun always sheds on an ever new light )
26 Ennead II 1 2 lO-13 lvyxwpwv xlXt e7tt t01hwv o Y j A o v 6 t ~ tijl
HPIXXAELtCJl oC etpYj ampEt xlXt tov A ~ O V y L v E a ~ I X ~ 1 p ~ a t o t E A E ~ fJEV Y XP OUOEV
O V 1tpliyfJ1X dYj d nc IXIJtOO t XC ) 7 t o ~ E a E ~ C toO 1tEfJ7ttou 7 t l X p l X o e C l X ~ toawfJIXtoc ( He [sc Plato] evidently agrees with Heraclitus who also said that the
sun is always coming into being For Aristotle there would be no problem if oneadmits the theories of the fifth body )
27 De natura rerum V 662 (semina ardoris) quae fociunt solis novasemper lumina gigni
28 W Burkert Eraclito nel Papiro di Derveni due nuove testimonianze tti
del Symposium Heracliteum vol I (Rome Edizioni dell Ateneo 1983 31-42
14-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1626
eraclituson The Sun
naturally invited a connection but as the texts ofB3 (from Aetius)
and B94 (one among several versions in Plutarch) were presented in
Diels-Kranz mere juxtaposition did not seem appealing to editors
commentators and interpreters With the partial publication of the
Derveni papyrus things took a different direction A new line of
interpretation relied on the possibility that the author of the papyrus
intended the quotation as a continuous unity29 But even after
the official publication which benefitted greatly from applying
multi-spectral imaging to the remains finally came out in 2006
the papyrus bad physical shape still left enough room for almost
total uncertainty about some parts within the quotation itself (a
fact that has led to several versions which differ in their proposed
conjectures and supplements)
In Gabor Beteghs version lines 7-9 of column IV read
~ A ~ [ O ~ ] ~ o u xcxtoc cpuow cXIamppw[1t1ltou] ~ o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ [eat ] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ oux 0 1 t C p ~ amp A A W V e [ ]pouae[ 8
[ t ] y [ ~ ~ a e t c x ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v t ~ e u p ~ a o ~ [ a L L x 1 l ~ t1tLxoupO ] 9
The sun according to nature is a human foot in width 7
not transgressing its boundaries If 8
oversteps the Erinyes the guardians ofJustice will find it out30 9
29 Cpound D Sider (1997) Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus who referst a paragraph at the beginning of line 7 indicating a quotation (at least inintention) reinforced by the apparent lack of space for ~ A ~ O t in lines 8 and9 and suggesting that B3+B94 formed a connected thought in Hs originaltext (131) but see G Betegh The Derveni Papyrus Cosmology Theology andInterpretation (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004) 326n3 ALebedev did overstate his case when he wrote Any serious edition ofHeraclitusto come will cite B3 and B94 only as testimonia under the most complete andauthentic verbatim quotation of PDerv (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrififor Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79 (1989) 42) S Mouraviev (2006) and ABernabe De Tales aDemocrito Fragmentos Presocrdticos 2nd ed (Madrid Alianza2001) have followed this general line of interpretation in their editions ofHeraclitus treating B3 and B94 as a single continuous fragment
30 Gabor Betegh The Derveni Papyrus 10-11
5-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1726
Enrique HQlsz Piccone
There are some other possibilities (not exhaustive) First the
long awaited official reading by Kouremenos Parassoglou and
Tsantsanoglou
~ A ~ [ O ~ ]ou X(xt IX cpuow ampI-9pw[mJCou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
t o f 1 [ i y e - 9 o ] ~ oUx U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o u ] p o u ~ e [ u p o u ~ ] 8
[EoG d ~ E J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v euro ~ e u p ~ c r O I [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ eurotLxoupm] 9
The sun in the nature of is a human foot width 7
not exceeding in size the proper limits of its width 8
or else the Erinyes assistants of Dike will find it out 31 9
Jankos version
~ A ~ [ O ~ Ewu]WG X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v ampySpw[7teLou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [ecrn] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ OUX U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d Y[IXp t ~ e u ] p o u ~ e[wutoG 8
[ euro ] ~ [ ~ ~ c r e t ( x ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v e ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
The sun in accord with its own nature is in breadth the size 7
of a human foot
and does not surpass its limits for if it surpasses its own 8breadth at all
(the) Erinyes (the) allies ofustice will discover it32 9
L Schonbecks proposal
~ A ~ [ O ~ v i o ] ~ o u X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v amplSpw[7tdou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
tQQ[crxotou] OUX U 7 t e p ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o ] p o u ~ Mcp ~ J i p ( J (ampet)] 8
[ c p ] ~ [ e ~ d J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] vw euro ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
31 Theokritos Kouremenos George M Parassoglou Kyriakos TsantsanoglouThe Derveni Papyrus Edited with Introduction and Commentary [TDP] (FlorenceLeo S Olschki 2006) (Greek text of lines 7-9 apud Lakss review in Rhizai2007 vol IV 1 153-162 at 155)
32 Richard Janko The Derveni Papyrus an interim text ZPE 141 (2002)1-62 and The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logoi)A New Translation Classical Philology Vol 96 No1 (Jan 2001) 1-32 Greektext of col IV apudMouraviev (2006) This is also Bernabes reading Poetae epicigraeci testimonia etfragmenta (Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2007) Pap Derv colIV 188-192)
6-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1826
Heraclitus on The Sun
The new sun is not by nature the width of a human foot 7
from darkness not ever surpassing its proper limits every day 8
it shines if not the Erinyes Justices helpers will find him out33 9
Finally Mouravievs alternative reconstruction of the passage
and his French translation34
~ A [ O ~ 8 o8]e 00 Xoctoc cpuO v ampySpw[1tdou] e o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ 7
[lucetmouet]
t Q ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ ouJ t ) 1 t e p ~ O C A A W V d y[ocp e ~ e u ] p o u ~ 8
e [ ~ L - r l L L x 1 J ~[ e ] ~ [ L x o u p o ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v e ~ e u p ~ 0 0 4 [ 0 middot e1tLOxo1touO yocp] 9
ltCegt Soleil dont par nature la largeur (est) dun pied 7
dhomme duit I avance (raquo
sans outrepasser ses limites car sil ltsortait de sa largtgeur () les 8
Furiesltservantes de Justicegt Ie recaptureraient 9
Car elles veillent 35
The importance of the discovery has perhaps been somewhat
exaggerated36 at least concerning Heraclitus (as opposed to
Orphism) Nevertheless the papyrus is certainly one of the oldest
kstimonia on Heraclitus possibly even predating Platos writings
(of which the Derveni author does not show any knowledge) The
identity of the Derveni author is still very much a matter of debate
and conjecture37 but there is no doubt he is commenting on an
33 Loek Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11
ZP 95 1993 20
34 Serge Mouraviev Heraclitea HAl (Sankt Augustin Academia 1999 con-tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n 1 [CD 2001]) ch 1256-59
35 My translation This sun here whose size by nature is of a human foot
ltshinesmoves (raquo not overstepping its limits for i f he ltwent beyond hisgt size() the Erinyes Justices servantsgt would catch him
36 For instance R Janko wrote The Derveni papyrus is the most important
teXt relating to early Greek literature science religion and philosophy to havecome to light since the Renaissance BMCR 20061029 Review of TDPJ
37 The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier or even in
7-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1126
nrique Hli lsz Piccone
than simply take for granted that the details of just that sort of
account have not reached us That he stated nothing clear1 7 about
these matters represents a more credible possibility
We know from the fragments themselves that Heraclitus was
extremely critical of the reputedly wise men from the distant past and
from his own time and that he explicitly denied that Xenophanes
understood anything even if he qualified as a polymath (B40)18
That Heraclitus held a similar belief in infinite suns (parallel to the
sequence of days) is an unlikely hypothesis not just because of his
manifest disdain ofXenophanes but also in virtue of something that
is implied in his criticism of Hesiod who according to B57 did not
even know Night and Day for they are one 19 In B106 Hesiodsignorance concerns not only the uni ty of Night and Day but also
the single nature (cpUOt0 common to all days20 This suggests that
the Heraclitean sun (recognized as the cause ofdaylight B99) 1 too
is one and the same every day and it has a distinctive cpuOtc of its
own The upshot is that Heraclitus thought of the sun as a single and
persistent being which retains its selfhood through its change just
as he thought of the same river as a flux of ever different waters22
The Aristotelian passage implicitly suggests several possible
Heracleitean theses The most basic assumption I label
17 Cf eg DL 98 altxltpwe S ouSev euro x t W e t lt X ~ (he doesnt set forth anythingclear) ibid 911 mpt Se t1je y ~ e ouSev a 1 t o lt p lt x L v e t lt X ~ 1tOpoundltx t Le euronv aAAouSe 1tept twv axltxltpwv (he doesnt show anything clear about what sort of
thing is the earth nor about the bowls)
18 DK 22B40 1 t O A U P lt x ~ t L I ) voov ou S ~ S 6 t a x e v HaLoSov yiXp v euro S L S lt X ~ E xltxL
TIuampltxyop1JV ltxotpounde tE Eevoltpdtvedt tE xltxL EXltXtltXLOV (Much learning doesntteach intelligence For it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and againXenophanes and Hecataeus)
19 DK 22B57 S ~ M a x lt X A O e Se 1tAELat6gtV HaLoSoe toQZGV euro 1 t L a t ~ t lt X ~1tAeLatltX dSivltXL (Jane ~ p i p l ) v xltxL eultppOVl)V oux euro y L ~ M c r X e V Ecru YOCpEV
(Teacher of most men is Hesiod They think he knew plenty he who dilt-nt
recognize day and night for they are one)
20 DK 22B106 c X y v o o Q v t ~ ltpUcrLv ~ p i p lt x e cX1tdtcrl)e pLltxlt oucrltxv ( [HesiJ)d] ignored that the nature of any day is one)
21 DK 22B99 et ~ A t O e ~ V evexltx tWV (lA-WV (latpwv ~ ( p P O V I ) XV (Ifthere were no sun for the sake of the other stars it would be night)
22 DK 22B12 1tOtltXPOLcrL tOLcrtJ lt X U t O L c r ~ v euro P ~ lt x L v o U c r L V hepltx xltxL Etepx
6SltxtltX eurotLppeL (On those who step into the same rivers other and other waters
flow )
10-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1226
Heraclitus on The Sun
(0) The sun is fire or fiery or made of fire
Other theses extend this fundamental idea(1) The sun feeds on moisture
2) Solstices are explained on this basis
(3) The (false) grounds for this view are
(3a) A supposed analogy of sun-fire with everyday
ordinary fire and
(3b) an assimilation of the ascent of atmospherical
vapor on the one hand and the upward movement
of flame in combustion on the other
After a denial en bloc of the truth ofall this Aristotle concludes
critically that
(4) Heraclitus in saying the sun is new merely every
day failed to reach the necessary conclusion that it
would have to be always new (that is not the same
at any moment)
Some comments are in order First that Heraclitus and his
alleged followers (but who are they) are alluded to in the reference
to all those earlier thinkers who assumed the sun was nourished
by the moist m x Y - r ~ ~ o O o ~ -rbJY 7 r p 6 - r ~ p o y l ) 7 r D C l ~ O Y -rOY ~ W Y- r p e q l e O amp C l ~ rc1gt uypc1raquo seems to be unanimously accepted It should
be noted though that strictly speaking this remains an inference
for neither Aristotle nor any of the preserved fragments actually
states just that On the further assumption that the moist is the only
nourishment for fire (-ro 0 uypov rc1gt 1tUpt - r p O q l ~ v e t v C l ~ J6vov)
we arrive at the conclusion that the sun lives at the expense of (sea)
moisture which ascends and feeds the fire ofwhich the sun is made
(As to the extinction during night-time the doxographical report
t1tt Jepouc in Diogenes Laertius links night and the dark exhala
tion [IX 11]) The Heraclitean fragments that seem to be echoed
are B31 (both parts) B36 and (for the idea of nourishment) B114
Strangely enough none of them deals with the sun but instead
respectively with the turnings of fire 1tUPOC -rP01tClL) the cycle
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
of birth and death of soul ( ~ u X ~ ) and the nurturing of all human
laws (VO JOL) on the single divine one common to all (the Logos as
lex naturae The unity-in-opposition theory construed as a narrowphysicalistic explanation is also in play although only obscurely
hinted at in Aristotles interpretation The grounding of this in
Heraclitus seems very vague but it might further reflect B60 and
B126 A somewhat slighter anomaly would seem to be that the
moist requires as contrary the dry (not the sun) Insistence on the
exclusive relationship between contraries (each thing has only one
contrary) is reminiscent of Plato but not of Heraclitus
Secondly as to solstices being explained in this way (that is solelyon the view that the sun is nurtured by moisture) by Heraclitus
in particular this point seems especially far-fetched Perhaps the
closest we can get to solstices in Heraclitus is B94 (The Sun will
not overstep its measures [tJ-eurotpoc)) and BlOO23
In the third place 3a and 3b seem to be entirely due to Aristotles
own conjecture Perhaps there is a fusion here of other sources-
Heraclitus B16 and B54 immediately come to mind not exclud
ing views in other authors The theory implied in 3b could be ahistorical antecedent of Aristotles own exhalation doctrine but it
is more likely than not that there was no such thing in Heraclitus
view in spite of the commonplace physicalistic interpretation of
the way up and down o M ~ avw xoc tw) of B60 Heraclitus own
approach to such meteorological phenomena (in B31 B36) seems
hardly usable for restoring Aristotles credibility Some form ofvapor
( i h t J - ~ ) however is quite possible in Xenophanes
And last with all this in mind we may appreciate that Aristotlesfinal move (charging Heraclitus with not being radical enough) can
do without the assumptions just listed as 1-3 The only premise really
needed is that the sun is fiery Aristotles dissent from Heraclitus
which is the immediate basis for actually mentioning him by name
and quoting him need not be interpreted within a meteorological
framework and makes perfect sense when limited to the very basic
notion of the sun as fiery Besides the well-known metaphysical
23 DK 22BlOO (Plutarch Quaestiones Platonicae 8 4lO07D) c ) p o c ~ oct 1tIxvtoc
ltPEPOU(H (the seasons bringers of all things)
2-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1426
Heraclitus on The Sun
hostility to the allegedly Heraclitean Universal Flux for Aristotle
himself (according to at least one interpretation) 24 the sun is made
of ether (ocUtYjp) not fire and is neither hot nor dry A simpler
reading of the final statement presents itself if one assumes (with
Heraclitus) the suns fiery nature then one should go on to say
(as does Heraclitus) that the sun is not only new every day (as
Xenophanes said) but it is always new Read in this way Aristotles
final point turns out to be not a criticism but the actual report of
Heraclitus extreme but self-consistent (even if false) view
It could be conjectured that Heraclitus is reacting to Xenophanes
and expressing in his own coinage the true view brings out the suns
nature by calling it always new This recalls t i d ~ ( l ) o V ( ever-living )
from B30 and farther still the ever real logos A y o ~ EWV o c ~ e L of the Proem) t is well to remember that B99 proves Heraclitus
awareness of the sun being the true cause of night (by absence) and
(by presence) of day too f the nature of all days is one B106) it
would be natural enough for Heraclitus to think of the sun as being
endowed with a permanent identity So the Heraclitean sun is as
the fiery eternal cosmos ( x o O f J O ~ ) the same for all or as in B89
one and the same (for those who are awake)
It is not so easy to assess with confidence what the limits of
Aristotles quotation are f his rendering ofHeraclitus is close we
could expect an expanded original along these lines ou fJOVOV v i o ~Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO nV ~ ) w ~ ti)) tid i o ~ (xoct w u t o ~ ) ( the sun is not
new only every day but it is always new and the same ) A simpler
alternative could be perhaps ) ~ o ~ v i o ~ Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO t Lv tict v i o ~(xoct wuto) ( the sun is new every day always new and the same
My preferred conjecture would be something like ~ ) w ou fJovov
vio Ecp ~ f J i p Y l ti)) tict vio EO t Lv (the sun is not only new every
day but it is new always ) What is most important is not to pass
silently over Heraclitus characteristic style of which there could
4 Already known to Plotinus who alludes to t o 7tefL7t t ov crwfLlX see below
note 26 For Aristotles theory of a 7tpw t ov crwfLlX cf e caelo 269bff
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be traces in Plato25 Plotinus26 and LucretiusY My point is that
a reasonable version of B6 should include the formula rid veo
These last two words just by themselves actually make an excellent
synthesis ofHeraclitus philosophy as a whole and describe perfectly
the suns CPUcrL which mirrors the whole xocrfLo So I conclude
that Heraclitus basic assertion is that the sun is forever the same
precisely in that it is always new persistently changing every day and
at every given moment just as the flux of the river constitutes its
dynamic identity and just as the xocrfLo itself is ever-living fire
so Heraclitus presentation of the nature of the sun symbolically
harmonizes sameness and difference
PART 2 THE SIZE OR THE LIMITS OF THE SUN
HOW GOOD IS THE EVIDENCE OFTHE DERVENI PAPYRUS
In 1981 almost twenty years after the Derveni papyrus
was discovered Walter Burkert gave a short paper in the Chieti
Symposium Heracliteum in which he presented the text reconstructed
by Parassoglou and Tsantsanoglou and made publicly known the few
lines in column IV containing the Heraclitus quotation28 Until then
the dominant approach to these two Heraclitean solar fragments[DK 22] B3 and B94 was to treat them separately Of course the
fact that both deal (although in very different ways) with Helios
25 Symposium 207d3 m I X t I X A e L 1 t E ~ Enpov vtt toO 1tIXAIXWU
( always leaves behind a different new creature instead of the old one 207 d7
l X ( m ) ~ X I X A E i t I X ~ ampAAIX vEo ampEt y ~ y v 6 f J E V O ~ ( Its called the same but it be
comes always new ) Cpound also Cratylus 409b5-8 Neov 16 1tOV XlXt EVOV dd eO n1tEpt -djv O E A ~ V Y j V toOto to p w ~ [ 1XUXACJl yocp 1tOV dd X U t ~ V 1 t E P ~ ~ W V veov
dd1 t L ~ amp A A E ~
( The light about the moon is always new and old [
] for in itscourse around it the sun always sheds on an ever new light )
26 Ennead II 1 2 lO-13 lvyxwpwv xlXt e7tt t01hwv o Y j A o v 6 t ~ tijl
HPIXXAELtCJl oC etpYj ampEt xlXt tov A ~ O V y L v E a ~ I X ~ 1 p ~ a t o t E A E ~ fJEV Y XP OUOEV
O V 1tpliyfJ1X dYj d nc IXIJtOO t XC ) 7 t o ~ E a E ~ C toO 1tEfJ7ttou 7 t l X p l X o e C l X ~ toawfJIXtoc ( He [sc Plato] evidently agrees with Heraclitus who also said that the
sun is always coming into being For Aristotle there would be no problem if oneadmits the theories of the fifth body )
27 De natura rerum V 662 (semina ardoris) quae fociunt solis novasemper lumina gigni
28 W Burkert Eraclito nel Papiro di Derveni due nuove testimonianze tti
del Symposium Heracliteum vol I (Rome Edizioni dell Ateneo 1983 31-42
14-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1626
eraclituson The Sun
naturally invited a connection but as the texts ofB3 (from Aetius)
and B94 (one among several versions in Plutarch) were presented in
Diels-Kranz mere juxtaposition did not seem appealing to editors
commentators and interpreters With the partial publication of the
Derveni papyrus things took a different direction A new line of
interpretation relied on the possibility that the author of the papyrus
intended the quotation as a continuous unity29 But even after
the official publication which benefitted greatly from applying
multi-spectral imaging to the remains finally came out in 2006
the papyrus bad physical shape still left enough room for almost
total uncertainty about some parts within the quotation itself (a
fact that has led to several versions which differ in their proposed
conjectures and supplements)
In Gabor Beteghs version lines 7-9 of column IV read
~ A ~ [ O ~ ] ~ o u xcxtoc cpuow cXIamppw[1t1ltou] ~ o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ [eat ] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ oux 0 1 t C p ~ amp A A W V e [ ]pouae[ 8
[ t ] y [ ~ ~ a e t c x ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v t ~ e u p ~ a o ~ [ a L L x 1 l ~ t1tLxoupO ] 9
The sun according to nature is a human foot in width 7
not transgressing its boundaries If 8
oversteps the Erinyes the guardians ofJustice will find it out30 9
29 Cpound D Sider (1997) Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus who referst a paragraph at the beginning of line 7 indicating a quotation (at least inintention) reinforced by the apparent lack of space for ~ A ~ O t in lines 8 and9 and suggesting that B3+B94 formed a connected thought in Hs originaltext (131) but see G Betegh The Derveni Papyrus Cosmology Theology andInterpretation (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004) 326n3 ALebedev did overstate his case when he wrote Any serious edition ofHeraclitusto come will cite B3 and B94 only as testimonia under the most complete andauthentic verbatim quotation of PDerv (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrififor Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79 (1989) 42) S Mouraviev (2006) and ABernabe De Tales aDemocrito Fragmentos Presocrdticos 2nd ed (Madrid Alianza2001) have followed this general line of interpretation in their editions ofHeraclitus treating B3 and B94 as a single continuous fragment
30 Gabor Betegh The Derveni Papyrus 10-11
5-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1726
Enrique HQlsz Piccone
There are some other possibilities (not exhaustive) First the
long awaited official reading by Kouremenos Parassoglou and
Tsantsanoglou
~ A ~ [ O ~ ]ou X(xt IX cpuow ampI-9pw[mJCou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
t o f 1 [ i y e - 9 o ] ~ oUx U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o u ] p o u ~ e [ u p o u ~ ] 8
[EoG d ~ E J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v euro ~ e u p ~ c r O I [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ eurotLxoupm] 9
The sun in the nature of is a human foot width 7
not exceeding in size the proper limits of its width 8
or else the Erinyes assistants of Dike will find it out 31 9
Jankos version
~ A ~ [ O ~ Ewu]WG X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v ampySpw[7teLou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [ecrn] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ OUX U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d Y[IXp t ~ e u ] p o u ~ e[wutoG 8
[ euro ] ~ [ ~ ~ c r e t ( x ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v e ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
The sun in accord with its own nature is in breadth the size 7
of a human foot
and does not surpass its limits for if it surpasses its own 8breadth at all
(the) Erinyes (the) allies ofustice will discover it32 9
L Schonbecks proposal
~ A ~ [ O ~ v i o ] ~ o u X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v amplSpw[7tdou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
tQQ[crxotou] OUX U 7 t e p ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o ] p o u ~ Mcp ~ J i p ( J (ampet)] 8
[ c p ] ~ [ e ~ d J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] vw euro ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
31 Theokritos Kouremenos George M Parassoglou Kyriakos TsantsanoglouThe Derveni Papyrus Edited with Introduction and Commentary [TDP] (FlorenceLeo S Olschki 2006) (Greek text of lines 7-9 apud Lakss review in Rhizai2007 vol IV 1 153-162 at 155)
32 Richard Janko The Derveni Papyrus an interim text ZPE 141 (2002)1-62 and The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logoi)A New Translation Classical Philology Vol 96 No1 (Jan 2001) 1-32 Greektext of col IV apudMouraviev (2006) This is also Bernabes reading Poetae epicigraeci testimonia etfragmenta (Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2007) Pap Derv colIV 188-192)
6-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1826
Heraclitus on The Sun
The new sun is not by nature the width of a human foot 7
from darkness not ever surpassing its proper limits every day 8
it shines if not the Erinyes Justices helpers will find him out33 9
Finally Mouravievs alternative reconstruction of the passage
and his French translation34
~ A [ O ~ 8 o8]e 00 Xoctoc cpuO v ampySpw[1tdou] e o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ 7
[lucetmouet]
t Q ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ ouJ t ) 1 t e p ~ O C A A W V d y[ocp e ~ e u ] p o u ~ 8
e [ ~ L - r l L L x 1 J ~[ e ] ~ [ L x o u p o ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v e ~ e u p ~ 0 0 4 [ 0 middot e1tLOxo1touO yocp] 9
ltCegt Soleil dont par nature la largeur (est) dun pied 7
dhomme duit I avance (raquo
sans outrepasser ses limites car sil ltsortait de sa largtgeur () les 8
Furiesltservantes de Justicegt Ie recaptureraient 9
Car elles veillent 35
The importance of the discovery has perhaps been somewhat
exaggerated36 at least concerning Heraclitus (as opposed to
Orphism) Nevertheless the papyrus is certainly one of the oldest
kstimonia on Heraclitus possibly even predating Platos writings
(of which the Derveni author does not show any knowledge) The
identity of the Derveni author is still very much a matter of debate
and conjecture37 but there is no doubt he is commenting on an
33 Loek Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11
ZP 95 1993 20
34 Serge Mouraviev Heraclitea HAl (Sankt Augustin Academia 1999 con-tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n 1 [CD 2001]) ch 1256-59
35 My translation This sun here whose size by nature is of a human foot
ltshinesmoves (raquo not overstepping its limits for i f he ltwent beyond hisgt size() the Erinyes Justices servantsgt would catch him
36 For instance R Janko wrote The Derveni papyrus is the most important
teXt relating to early Greek literature science religion and philosophy to havecome to light since the Renaissance BMCR 20061029 Review of TDPJ
37 The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier or even in
7-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1226
Heraclitus on The Sun
(0) The sun is fire or fiery or made of fire
Other theses extend this fundamental idea(1) The sun feeds on moisture
2) Solstices are explained on this basis
(3) The (false) grounds for this view are
(3a) A supposed analogy of sun-fire with everyday
ordinary fire and
(3b) an assimilation of the ascent of atmospherical
vapor on the one hand and the upward movement
of flame in combustion on the other
After a denial en bloc of the truth ofall this Aristotle concludes
critically that
(4) Heraclitus in saying the sun is new merely every
day failed to reach the necessary conclusion that it
would have to be always new (that is not the same
at any moment)
Some comments are in order First that Heraclitus and his
alleged followers (but who are they) are alluded to in the reference
to all those earlier thinkers who assumed the sun was nourished
by the moist m x Y - r ~ ~ o O o ~ -rbJY 7 r p 6 - r ~ p o y l ) 7 r D C l ~ O Y -rOY ~ W Y- r p e q l e O amp C l ~ rc1gt uypc1raquo seems to be unanimously accepted It should
be noted though that strictly speaking this remains an inference
for neither Aristotle nor any of the preserved fragments actually
states just that On the further assumption that the moist is the only
nourishment for fire (-ro 0 uypov rc1gt 1tUpt - r p O q l ~ v e t v C l ~ J6vov)
we arrive at the conclusion that the sun lives at the expense of (sea)
moisture which ascends and feeds the fire ofwhich the sun is made
(As to the extinction during night-time the doxographical report
t1tt Jepouc in Diogenes Laertius links night and the dark exhala
tion [IX 11]) The Heraclitean fragments that seem to be echoed
are B31 (both parts) B36 and (for the idea of nourishment) B114
Strangely enough none of them deals with the sun but instead
respectively with the turnings of fire 1tUPOC -rP01tClL) the cycle
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
of birth and death of soul ( ~ u X ~ ) and the nurturing of all human
laws (VO JOL) on the single divine one common to all (the Logos as
lex naturae The unity-in-opposition theory construed as a narrowphysicalistic explanation is also in play although only obscurely
hinted at in Aristotles interpretation The grounding of this in
Heraclitus seems very vague but it might further reflect B60 and
B126 A somewhat slighter anomaly would seem to be that the
moist requires as contrary the dry (not the sun) Insistence on the
exclusive relationship between contraries (each thing has only one
contrary) is reminiscent of Plato but not of Heraclitus
Secondly as to solstices being explained in this way (that is solelyon the view that the sun is nurtured by moisture) by Heraclitus
in particular this point seems especially far-fetched Perhaps the
closest we can get to solstices in Heraclitus is B94 (The Sun will
not overstep its measures [tJ-eurotpoc)) and BlOO23
In the third place 3a and 3b seem to be entirely due to Aristotles
own conjecture Perhaps there is a fusion here of other sources-
Heraclitus B16 and B54 immediately come to mind not exclud
ing views in other authors The theory implied in 3b could be ahistorical antecedent of Aristotles own exhalation doctrine but it
is more likely than not that there was no such thing in Heraclitus
view in spite of the commonplace physicalistic interpretation of
the way up and down o M ~ avw xoc tw) of B60 Heraclitus own
approach to such meteorological phenomena (in B31 B36) seems
hardly usable for restoring Aristotles credibility Some form ofvapor
( i h t J - ~ ) however is quite possible in Xenophanes
And last with all this in mind we may appreciate that Aristotlesfinal move (charging Heraclitus with not being radical enough) can
do without the assumptions just listed as 1-3 The only premise really
needed is that the sun is fiery Aristotles dissent from Heraclitus
which is the immediate basis for actually mentioning him by name
and quoting him need not be interpreted within a meteorological
framework and makes perfect sense when limited to the very basic
notion of the sun as fiery Besides the well-known metaphysical
23 DK 22BlOO (Plutarch Quaestiones Platonicae 8 4lO07D) c ) p o c ~ oct 1tIxvtoc
ltPEPOU(H (the seasons bringers of all things)
2-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1426
Heraclitus on The Sun
hostility to the allegedly Heraclitean Universal Flux for Aristotle
himself (according to at least one interpretation) 24 the sun is made
of ether (ocUtYjp) not fire and is neither hot nor dry A simpler
reading of the final statement presents itself if one assumes (with
Heraclitus) the suns fiery nature then one should go on to say
(as does Heraclitus) that the sun is not only new every day (as
Xenophanes said) but it is always new Read in this way Aristotles
final point turns out to be not a criticism but the actual report of
Heraclitus extreme but self-consistent (even if false) view
It could be conjectured that Heraclitus is reacting to Xenophanes
and expressing in his own coinage the true view brings out the suns
nature by calling it always new This recalls t i d ~ ( l ) o V ( ever-living )
from B30 and farther still the ever real logos A y o ~ EWV o c ~ e L of the Proem) t is well to remember that B99 proves Heraclitus
awareness of the sun being the true cause of night (by absence) and
(by presence) of day too f the nature of all days is one B106) it
would be natural enough for Heraclitus to think of the sun as being
endowed with a permanent identity So the Heraclitean sun is as
the fiery eternal cosmos ( x o O f J O ~ ) the same for all or as in B89
one and the same (for those who are awake)
It is not so easy to assess with confidence what the limits of
Aristotles quotation are f his rendering ofHeraclitus is close we
could expect an expanded original along these lines ou fJOVOV v i o ~Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO nV ~ ) w ~ ti)) tid i o ~ (xoct w u t o ~ ) ( the sun is not
new only every day but it is always new and the same ) A simpler
alternative could be perhaps ) ~ o ~ v i o ~ Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO t Lv tict v i o ~(xoct wuto) ( the sun is new every day always new and the same
My preferred conjecture would be something like ~ ) w ou fJovov
vio Ecp ~ f J i p Y l ti)) tict vio EO t Lv (the sun is not only new every
day but it is new always ) What is most important is not to pass
silently over Heraclitus characteristic style of which there could
4 Already known to Plotinus who alludes to t o 7tefL7t t ov crwfLlX see below
note 26 For Aristotles theory of a 7tpw t ov crwfLlX cf e caelo 269bff
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be traces in Plato25 Plotinus26 and LucretiusY My point is that
a reasonable version of B6 should include the formula rid veo
These last two words just by themselves actually make an excellent
synthesis ofHeraclitus philosophy as a whole and describe perfectly
the suns CPUcrL which mirrors the whole xocrfLo So I conclude
that Heraclitus basic assertion is that the sun is forever the same
precisely in that it is always new persistently changing every day and
at every given moment just as the flux of the river constitutes its
dynamic identity and just as the xocrfLo itself is ever-living fire
so Heraclitus presentation of the nature of the sun symbolically
harmonizes sameness and difference
PART 2 THE SIZE OR THE LIMITS OF THE SUN
HOW GOOD IS THE EVIDENCE OFTHE DERVENI PAPYRUS
In 1981 almost twenty years after the Derveni papyrus
was discovered Walter Burkert gave a short paper in the Chieti
Symposium Heracliteum in which he presented the text reconstructed
by Parassoglou and Tsantsanoglou and made publicly known the few
lines in column IV containing the Heraclitus quotation28 Until then
the dominant approach to these two Heraclitean solar fragments[DK 22] B3 and B94 was to treat them separately Of course the
fact that both deal (although in very different ways) with Helios
25 Symposium 207d3 m I X t I X A e L 1 t E ~ Enpov vtt toO 1tIXAIXWU
( always leaves behind a different new creature instead of the old one 207 d7
l X ( m ) ~ X I X A E i t I X ~ ampAAIX vEo ampEt y ~ y v 6 f J E V O ~ ( Its called the same but it be
comes always new ) Cpound also Cratylus 409b5-8 Neov 16 1tOV XlXt EVOV dd eO n1tEpt -djv O E A ~ V Y j V toOto to p w ~ [ 1XUXACJl yocp 1tOV dd X U t ~ V 1 t E P ~ ~ W V veov
dd1 t L ~ amp A A E ~
( The light about the moon is always new and old [
] for in itscourse around it the sun always sheds on an ever new light )
26 Ennead II 1 2 lO-13 lvyxwpwv xlXt e7tt t01hwv o Y j A o v 6 t ~ tijl
HPIXXAELtCJl oC etpYj ampEt xlXt tov A ~ O V y L v E a ~ I X ~ 1 p ~ a t o t E A E ~ fJEV Y XP OUOEV
O V 1tpliyfJ1X dYj d nc IXIJtOO t XC ) 7 t o ~ E a E ~ C toO 1tEfJ7ttou 7 t l X p l X o e C l X ~ toawfJIXtoc ( He [sc Plato] evidently agrees with Heraclitus who also said that the
sun is always coming into being For Aristotle there would be no problem if oneadmits the theories of the fifth body )
27 De natura rerum V 662 (semina ardoris) quae fociunt solis novasemper lumina gigni
28 W Burkert Eraclito nel Papiro di Derveni due nuove testimonianze tti
del Symposium Heracliteum vol I (Rome Edizioni dell Ateneo 1983 31-42
14-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1626
eraclituson The Sun
naturally invited a connection but as the texts ofB3 (from Aetius)
and B94 (one among several versions in Plutarch) were presented in
Diels-Kranz mere juxtaposition did not seem appealing to editors
commentators and interpreters With the partial publication of the
Derveni papyrus things took a different direction A new line of
interpretation relied on the possibility that the author of the papyrus
intended the quotation as a continuous unity29 But even after
the official publication which benefitted greatly from applying
multi-spectral imaging to the remains finally came out in 2006
the papyrus bad physical shape still left enough room for almost
total uncertainty about some parts within the quotation itself (a
fact that has led to several versions which differ in their proposed
conjectures and supplements)
In Gabor Beteghs version lines 7-9 of column IV read
~ A ~ [ O ~ ] ~ o u xcxtoc cpuow cXIamppw[1t1ltou] ~ o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ [eat ] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ oux 0 1 t C p ~ amp A A W V e [ ]pouae[ 8
[ t ] y [ ~ ~ a e t c x ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v t ~ e u p ~ a o ~ [ a L L x 1 l ~ t1tLxoupO ] 9
The sun according to nature is a human foot in width 7
not transgressing its boundaries If 8
oversteps the Erinyes the guardians ofJustice will find it out30 9
29 Cpound D Sider (1997) Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus who referst a paragraph at the beginning of line 7 indicating a quotation (at least inintention) reinforced by the apparent lack of space for ~ A ~ O t in lines 8 and9 and suggesting that B3+B94 formed a connected thought in Hs originaltext (131) but see G Betegh The Derveni Papyrus Cosmology Theology andInterpretation (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004) 326n3 ALebedev did overstate his case when he wrote Any serious edition ofHeraclitusto come will cite B3 and B94 only as testimonia under the most complete andauthentic verbatim quotation of PDerv (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrififor Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79 (1989) 42) S Mouraviev (2006) and ABernabe De Tales aDemocrito Fragmentos Presocrdticos 2nd ed (Madrid Alianza2001) have followed this general line of interpretation in their editions ofHeraclitus treating B3 and B94 as a single continuous fragment
30 Gabor Betegh The Derveni Papyrus 10-11
5-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1726
Enrique HQlsz Piccone
There are some other possibilities (not exhaustive) First the
long awaited official reading by Kouremenos Parassoglou and
Tsantsanoglou
~ A ~ [ O ~ ]ou X(xt IX cpuow ampI-9pw[mJCou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
t o f 1 [ i y e - 9 o ] ~ oUx U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o u ] p o u ~ e [ u p o u ~ ] 8
[EoG d ~ E J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v euro ~ e u p ~ c r O I [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ eurotLxoupm] 9
The sun in the nature of is a human foot width 7
not exceeding in size the proper limits of its width 8
or else the Erinyes assistants of Dike will find it out 31 9
Jankos version
~ A ~ [ O ~ Ewu]WG X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v ampySpw[7teLou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [ecrn] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ OUX U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d Y[IXp t ~ e u ] p o u ~ e[wutoG 8
[ euro ] ~ [ ~ ~ c r e t ( x ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v e ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
The sun in accord with its own nature is in breadth the size 7
of a human foot
and does not surpass its limits for if it surpasses its own 8breadth at all
(the) Erinyes (the) allies ofustice will discover it32 9
L Schonbecks proposal
~ A ~ [ O ~ v i o ] ~ o u X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v amplSpw[7tdou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
tQQ[crxotou] OUX U 7 t e p ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o ] p o u ~ Mcp ~ J i p ( J (ampet)] 8
[ c p ] ~ [ e ~ d J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] vw euro ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
31 Theokritos Kouremenos George M Parassoglou Kyriakos TsantsanoglouThe Derveni Papyrus Edited with Introduction and Commentary [TDP] (FlorenceLeo S Olschki 2006) (Greek text of lines 7-9 apud Lakss review in Rhizai2007 vol IV 1 153-162 at 155)
32 Richard Janko The Derveni Papyrus an interim text ZPE 141 (2002)1-62 and The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logoi)A New Translation Classical Philology Vol 96 No1 (Jan 2001) 1-32 Greektext of col IV apudMouraviev (2006) This is also Bernabes reading Poetae epicigraeci testimonia etfragmenta (Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2007) Pap Derv colIV 188-192)
6-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1826
Heraclitus on The Sun
The new sun is not by nature the width of a human foot 7
from darkness not ever surpassing its proper limits every day 8
it shines if not the Erinyes Justices helpers will find him out33 9
Finally Mouravievs alternative reconstruction of the passage
and his French translation34
~ A [ O ~ 8 o8]e 00 Xoctoc cpuO v ampySpw[1tdou] e o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ 7
[lucetmouet]
t Q ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ ouJ t ) 1 t e p ~ O C A A W V d y[ocp e ~ e u ] p o u ~ 8
e [ ~ L - r l L L x 1 J ~[ e ] ~ [ L x o u p o ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v e ~ e u p ~ 0 0 4 [ 0 middot e1tLOxo1touO yocp] 9
ltCegt Soleil dont par nature la largeur (est) dun pied 7
dhomme duit I avance (raquo
sans outrepasser ses limites car sil ltsortait de sa largtgeur () les 8
Furiesltservantes de Justicegt Ie recaptureraient 9
Car elles veillent 35
The importance of the discovery has perhaps been somewhat
exaggerated36 at least concerning Heraclitus (as opposed to
Orphism) Nevertheless the papyrus is certainly one of the oldest
kstimonia on Heraclitus possibly even predating Platos writings
(of which the Derveni author does not show any knowledge) The
identity of the Derveni author is still very much a matter of debate
and conjecture37 but there is no doubt he is commenting on an
33 Loek Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11
ZP 95 1993 20
34 Serge Mouraviev Heraclitea HAl (Sankt Augustin Academia 1999 con-tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n 1 [CD 2001]) ch 1256-59
35 My translation This sun here whose size by nature is of a human foot
ltshinesmoves (raquo not overstepping its limits for i f he ltwent beyond hisgt size() the Erinyes Justices servantsgt would catch him
36 For instance R Janko wrote The Derveni papyrus is the most important
teXt relating to early Greek literature science religion and philosophy to havecome to light since the Renaissance BMCR 20061029 Review of TDPJ
37 The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier or even in
7-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
of birth and death of soul ( ~ u X ~ ) and the nurturing of all human
laws (VO JOL) on the single divine one common to all (the Logos as
lex naturae The unity-in-opposition theory construed as a narrowphysicalistic explanation is also in play although only obscurely
hinted at in Aristotles interpretation The grounding of this in
Heraclitus seems very vague but it might further reflect B60 and
B126 A somewhat slighter anomaly would seem to be that the
moist requires as contrary the dry (not the sun) Insistence on the
exclusive relationship between contraries (each thing has only one
contrary) is reminiscent of Plato but not of Heraclitus
Secondly as to solstices being explained in this way (that is solelyon the view that the sun is nurtured by moisture) by Heraclitus
in particular this point seems especially far-fetched Perhaps the
closest we can get to solstices in Heraclitus is B94 (The Sun will
not overstep its measures [tJ-eurotpoc)) and BlOO23
In the third place 3a and 3b seem to be entirely due to Aristotles
own conjecture Perhaps there is a fusion here of other sources-
Heraclitus B16 and B54 immediately come to mind not exclud
ing views in other authors The theory implied in 3b could be ahistorical antecedent of Aristotles own exhalation doctrine but it
is more likely than not that there was no such thing in Heraclitus
view in spite of the commonplace physicalistic interpretation of
the way up and down o M ~ avw xoc tw) of B60 Heraclitus own
approach to such meteorological phenomena (in B31 B36) seems
hardly usable for restoring Aristotles credibility Some form ofvapor
( i h t J - ~ ) however is quite possible in Xenophanes
And last with all this in mind we may appreciate that Aristotlesfinal move (charging Heraclitus with not being radical enough) can
do without the assumptions just listed as 1-3 The only premise really
needed is that the sun is fiery Aristotles dissent from Heraclitus
which is the immediate basis for actually mentioning him by name
and quoting him need not be interpreted within a meteorological
framework and makes perfect sense when limited to the very basic
notion of the sun as fiery Besides the well-known metaphysical
23 DK 22BlOO (Plutarch Quaestiones Platonicae 8 4lO07D) c ) p o c ~ oct 1tIxvtoc
ltPEPOU(H (the seasons bringers of all things)
2-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1426
Heraclitus on The Sun
hostility to the allegedly Heraclitean Universal Flux for Aristotle
himself (according to at least one interpretation) 24 the sun is made
of ether (ocUtYjp) not fire and is neither hot nor dry A simpler
reading of the final statement presents itself if one assumes (with
Heraclitus) the suns fiery nature then one should go on to say
(as does Heraclitus) that the sun is not only new every day (as
Xenophanes said) but it is always new Read in this way Aristotles
final point turns out to be not a criticism but the actual report of
Heraclitus extreme but self-consistent (even if false) view
It could be conjectured that Heraclitus is reacting to Xenophanes
and expressing in his own coinage the true view brings out the suns
nature by calling it always new This recalls t i d ~ ( l ) o V ( ever-living )
from B30 and farther still the ever real logos A y o ~ EWV o c ~ e L of the Proem) t is well to remember that B99 proves Heraclitus
awareness of the sun being the true cause of night (by absence) and
(by presence) of day too f the nature of all days is one B106) it
would be natural enough for Heraclitus to think of the sun as being
endowed with a permanent identity So the Heraclitean sun is as
the fiery eternal cosmos ( x o O f J O ~ ) the same for all or as in B89
one and the same (for those who are awake)
It is not so easy to assess with confidence what the limits of
Aristotles quotation are f his rendering ofHeraclitus is close we
could expect an expanded original along these lines ou fJOVOV v i o ~Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO nV ~ ) w ~ ti)) tid i o ~ (xoct w u t o ~ ) ( the sun is not
new only every day but it is always new and the same ) A simpler
alternative could be perhaps ) ~ o ~ v i o ~ Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO t Lv tict v i o ~(xoct wuto) ( the sun is new every day always new and the same
My preferred conjecture would be something like ~ ) w ou fJovov
vio Ecp ~ f J i p Y l ti)) tict vio EO t Lv (the sun is not only new every
day but it is new always ) What is most important is not to pass
silently over Heraclitus characteristic style of which there could
4 Already known to Plotinus who alludes to t o 7tefL7t t ov crwfLlX see below
note 26 For Aristotles theory of a 7tpw t ov crwfLlX cf e caelo 269bff
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be traces in Plato25 Plotinus26 and LucretiusY My point is that
a reasonable version of B6 should include the formula rid veo
These last two words just by themselves actually make an excellent
synthesis ofHeraclitus philosophy as a whole and describe perfectly
the suns CPUcrL which mirrors the whole xocrfLo So I conclude
that Heraclitus basic assertion is that the sun is forever the same
precisely in that it is always new persistently changing every day and
at every given moment just as the flux of the river constitutes its
dynamic identity and just as the xocrfLo itself is ever-living fire
so Heraclitus presentation of the nature of the sun symbolically
harmonizes sameness and difference
PART 2 THE SIZE OR THE LIMITS OF THE SUN
HOW GOOD IS THE EVIDENCE OFTHE DERVENI PAPYRUS
In 1981 almost twenty years after the Derveni papyrus
was discovered Walter Burkert gave a short paper in the Chieti
Symposium Heracliteum in which he presented the text reconstructed
by Parassoglou and Tsantsanoglou and made publicly known the few
lines in column IV containing the Heraclitus quotation28 Until then
the dominant approach to these two Heraclitean solar fragments[DK 22] B3 and B94 was to treat them separately Of course the
fact that both deal (although in very different ways) with Helios
25 Symposium 207d3 m I X t I X A e L 1 t E ~ Enpov vtt toO 1tIXAIXWU
( always leaves behind a different new creature instead of the old one 207 d7
l X ( m ) ~ X I X A E i t I X ~ ampAAIX vEo ampEt y ~ y v 6 f J E V O ~ ( Its called the same but it be
comes always new ) Cpound also Cratylus 409b5-8 Neov 16 1tOV XlXt EVOV dd eO n1tEpt -djv O E A ~ V Y j V toOto to p w ~ [ 1XUXACJl yocp 1tOV dd X U t ~ V 1 t E P ~ ~ W V veov
dd1 t L ~ amp A A E ~
( The light about the moon is always new and old [
] for in itscourse around it the sun always sheds on an ever new light )
26 Ennead II 1 2 lO-13 lvyxwpwv xlXt e7tt t01hwv o Y j A o v 6 t ~ tijl
HPIXXAELtCJl oC etpYj ampEt xlXt tov A ~ O V y L v E a ~ I X ~ 1 p ~ a t o t E A E ~ fJEV Y XP OUOEV
O V 1tpliyfJ1X dYj d nc IXIJtOO t XC ) 7 t o ~ E a E ~ C toO 1tEfJ7ttou 7 t l X p l X o e C l X ~ toawfJIXtoc ( He [sc Plato] evidently agrees with Heraclitus who also said that the
sun is always coming into being For Aristotle there would be no problem if oneadmits the theories of the fifth body )
27 De natura rerum V 662 (semina ardoris) quae fociunt solis novasemper lumina gigni
28 W Burkert Eraclito nel Papiro di Derveni due nuove testimonianze tti
del Symposium Heracliteum vol I (Rome Edizioni dell Ateneo 1983 31-42
14-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1626
eraclituson The Sun
naturally invited a connection but as the texts ofB3 (from Aetius)
and B94 (one among several versions in Plutarch) were presented in
Diels-Kranz mere juxtaposition did not seem appealing to editors
commentators and interpreters With the partial publication of the
Derveni papyrus things took a different direction A new line of
interpretation relied on the possibility that the author of the papyrus
intended the quotation as a continuous unity29 But even after
the official publication which benefitted greatly from applying
multi-spectral imaging to the remains finally came out in 2006
the papyrus bad physical shape still left enough room for almost
total uncertainty about some parts within the quotation itself (a
fact that has led to several versions which differ in their proposed
conjectures and supplements)
In Gabor Beteghs version lines 7-9 of column IV read
~ A ~ [ O ~ ] ~ o u xcxtoc cpuow cXIamppw[1t1ltou] ~ o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ [eat ] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ oux 0 1 t C p ~ amp A A W V e [ ]pouae[ 8
[ t ] y [ ~ ~ a e t c x ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v t ~ e u p ~ a o ~ [ a L L x 1 l ~ t1tLxoupO ] 9
The sun according to nature is a human foot in width 7
not transgressing its boundaries If 8
oversteps the Erinyes the guardians ofJustice will find it out30 9
29 Cpound D Sider (1997) Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus who referst a paragraph at the beginning of line 7 indicating a quotation (at least inintention) reinforced by the apparent lack of space for ~ A ~ O t in lines 8 and9 and suggesting that B3+B94 formed a connected thought in Hs originaltext (131) but see G Betegh The Derveni Papyrus Cosmology Theology andInterpretation (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004) 326n3 ALebedev did overstate his case when he wrote Any serious edition ofHeraclitusto come will cite B3 and B94 only as testimonia under the most complete andauthentic verbatim quotation of PDerv (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrififor Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79 (1989) 42) S Mouraviev (2006) and ABernabe De Tales aDemocrito Fragmentos Presocrdticos 2nd ed (Madrid Alianza2001) have followed this general line of interpretation in their editions ofHeraclitus treating B3 and B94 as a single continuous fragment
30 Gabor Betegh The Derveni Papyrus 10-11
5-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1726
Enrique HQlsz Piccone
There are some other possibilities (not exhaustive) First the
long awaited official reading by Kouremenos Parassoglou and
Tsantsanoglou
~ A ~ [ O ~ ]ou X(xt IX cpuow ampI-9pw[mJCou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
t o f 1 [ i y e - 9 o ] ~ oUx U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o u ] p o u ~ e [ u p o u ~ ] 8
[EoG d ~ E J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v euro ~ e u p ~ c r O I [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ eurotLxoupm] 9
The sun in the nature of is a human foot width 7
not exceeding in size the proper limits of its width 8
or else the Erinyes assistants of Dike will find it out 31 9
Jankos version
~ A ~ [ O ~ Ewu]WG X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v ampySpw[7teLou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [ecrn] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ OUX U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d Y[IXp t ~ e u ] p o u ~ e[wutoG 8
[ euro ] ~ [ ~ ~ c r e t ( x ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v e ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
The sun in accord with its own nature is in breadth the size 7
of a human foot
and does not surpass its limits for if it surpasses its own 8breadth at all
(the) Erinyes (the) allies ofustice will discover it32 9
L Schonbecks proposal
~ A ~ [ O ~ v i o ] ~ o u X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v amplSpw[7tdou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
tQQ[crxotou] OUX U 7 t e p ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o ] p o u ~ Mcp ~ J i p ( J (ampet)] 8
[ c p ] ~ [ e ~ d J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] vw euro ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
31 Theokritos Kouremenos George M Parassoglou Kyriakos TsantsanoglouThe Derveni Papyrus Edited with Introduction and Commentary [TDP] (FlorenceLeo S Olschki 2006) (Greek text of lines 7-9 apud Lakss review in Rhizai2007 vol IV 1 153-162 at 155)
32 Richard Janko The Derveni Papyrus an interim text ZPE 141 (2002)1-62 and The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logoi)A New Translation Classical Philology Vol 96 No1 (Jan 2001) 1-32 Greektext of col IV apudMouraviev (2006) This is also Bernabes reading Poetae epicigraeci testimonia etfragmenta (Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2007) Pap Derv colIV 188-192)
6-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1826
Heraclitus on The Sun
The new sun is not by nature the width of a human foot 7
from darkness not ever surpassing its proper limits every day 8
it shines if not the Erinyes Justices helpers will find him out33 9
Finally Mouravievs alternative reconstruction of the passage
and his French translation34
~ A [ O ~ 8 o8]e 00 Xoctoc cpuO v ampySpw[1tdou] e o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ 7
[lucetmouet]
t Q ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ ouJ t ) 1 t e p ~ O C A A W V d y[ocp e ~ e u ] p o u ~ 8
e [ ~ L - r l L L x 1 J ~[ e ] ~ [ L x o u p o ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v e ~ e u p ~ 0 0 4 [ 0 middot e1tLOxo1touO yocp] 9
ltCegt Soleil dont par nature la largeur (est) dun pied 7
dhomme duit I avance (raquo
sans outrepasser ses limites car sil ltsortait de sa largtgeur () les 8
Furiesltservantes de Justicegt Ie recaptureraient 9
Car elles veillent 35
The importance of the discovery has perhaps been somewhat
exaggerated36 at least concerning Heraclitus (as opposed to
Orphism) Nevertheless the papyrus is certainly one of the oldest
kstimonia on Heraclitus possibly even predating Platos writings
(of which the Derveni author does not show any knowledge) The
identity of the Derveni author is still very much a matter of debate
and conjecture37 but there is no doubt he is commenting on an
33 Loek Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11
ZP 95 1993 20
34 Serge Mouraviev Heraclitea HAl (Sankt Augustin Academia 1999 con-tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n 1 [CD 2001]) ch 1256-59
35 My translation This sun here whose size by nature is of a human foot
ltshinesmoves (raquo not overstepping its limits for i f he ltwent beyond hisgt size() the Erinyes Justices servantsgt would catch him
36 For instance R Janko wrote The Derveni papyrus is the most important
teXt relating to early Greek literature science religion and philosophy to havecome to light since the Renaissance BMCR 20061029 Review of TDPJ
37 The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier or even in
7-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1426
Heraclitus on The Sun
hostility to the allegedly Heraclitean Universal Flux for Aristotle
himself (according to at least one interpretation) 24 the sun is made
of ether (ocUtYjp) not fire and is neither hot nor dry A simpler
reading of the final statement presents itself if one assumes (with
Heraclitus) the suns fiery nature then one should go on to say
(as does Heraclitus) that the sun is not only new every day (as
Xenophanes said) but it is always new Read in this way Aristotles
final point turns out to be not a criticism but the actual report of
Heraclitus extreme but self-consistent (even if false) view
It could be conjectured that Heraclitus is reacting to Xenophanes
and expressing in his own coinage the true view brings out the suns
nature by calling it always new This recalls t i d ~ ( l ) o V ( ever-living )
from B30 and farther still the ever real logos A y o ~ EWV o c ~ e L of the Proem) t is well to remember that B99 proves Heraclitus
awareness of the sun being the true cause of night (by absence) and
(by presence) of day too f the nature of all days is one B106) it
would be natural enough for Heraclitus to think of the sun as being
endowed with a permanent identity So the Heraclitean sun is as
the fiery eternal cosmos ( x o O f J O ~ ) the same for all or as in B89
one and the same (for those who are awake)
It is not so easy to assess with confidence what the limits of
Aristotles quotation are f his rendering ofHeraclitus is close we
could expect an expanded original along these lines ou fJOVOV v i o ~Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO nV ~ ) w ~ ti)) tid i o ~ (xoct w u t o ~ ) ( the sun is not
new only every day but it is always new and the same ) A simpler
alternative could be perhaps ) ~ o ~ v i o ~ Ecp ~ f J i p Y l EO t Lv tict v i o ~(xoct wuto) ( the sun is new every day always new and the same
My preferred conjecture would be something like ~ ) w ou fJovov
vio Ecp ~ f J i p Y l ti)) tict vio EO t Lv (the sun is not only new every
day but it is new always ) What is most important is not to pass
silently over Heraclitus characteristic style of which there could
4 Already known to Plotinus who alludes to t o 7tefL7t t ov crwfLlX see below
note 26 For Aristotles theory of a 7tpw t ov crwfLlX cf e caelo 269bff
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be traces in Plato25 Plotinus26 and LucretiusY My point is that
a reasonable version of B6 should include the formula rid veo
These last two words just by themselves actually make an excellent
synthesis ofHeraclitus philosophy as a whole and describe perfectly
the suns CPUcrL which mirrors the whole xocrfLo So I conclude
that Heraclitus basic assertion is that the sun is forever the same
precisely in that it is always new persistently changing every day and
at every given moment just as the flux of the river constitutes its
dynamic identity and just as the xocrfLo itself is ever-living fire
so Heraclitus presentation of the nature of the sun symbolically
harmonizes sameness and difference
PART 2 THE SIZE OR THE LIMITS OF THE SUN
HOW GOOD IS THE EVIDENCE OFTHE DERVENI PAPYRUS
In 1981 almost twenty years after the Derveni papyrus
was discovered Walter Burkert gave a short paper in the Chieti
Symposium Heracliteum in which he presented the text reconstructed
by Parassoglou and Tsantsanoglou and made publicly known the few
lines in column IV containing the Heraclitus quotation28 Until then
the dominant approach to these two Heraclitean solar fragments[DK 22] B3 and B94 was to treat them separately Of course the
fact that both deal (although in very different ways) with Helios
25 Symposium 207d3 m I X t I X A e L 1 t E ~ Enpov vtt toO 1tIXAIXWU
( always leaves behind a different new creature instead of the old one 207 d7
l X ( m ) ~ X I X A E i t I X ~ ampAAIX vEo ampEt y ~ y v 6 f J E V O ~ ( Its called the same but it be
comes always new ) Cpound also Cratylus 409b5-8 Neov 16 1tOV XlXt EVOV dd eO n1tEpt -djv O E A ~ V Y j V toOto to p w ~ [ 1XUXACJl yocp 1tOV dd X U t ~ V 1 t E P ~ ~ W V veov
dd1 t L ~ amp A A E ~
( The light about the moon is always new and old [
] for in itscourse around it the sun always sheds on an ever new light )
26 Ennead II 1 2 lO-13 lvyxwpwv xlXt e7tt t01hwv o Y j A o v 6 t ~ tijl
HPIXXAELtCJl oC etpYj ampEt xlXt tov A ~ O V y L v E a ~ I X ~ 1 p ~ a t o t E A E ~ fJEV Y XP OUOEV
O V 1tpliyfJ1X dYj d nc IXIJtOO t XC ) 7 t o ~ E a E ~ C toO 1tEfJ7ttou 7 t l X p l X o e C l X ~ toawfJIXtoc ( He [sc Plato] evidently agrees with Heraclitus who also said that the
sun is always coming into being For Aristotle there would be no problem if oneadmits the theories of the fifth body )
27 De natura rerum V 662 (semina ardoris) quae fociunt solis novasemper lumina gigni
28 W Burkert Eraclito nel Papiro di Derveni due nuove testimonianze tti
del Symposium Heracliteum vol I (Rome Edizioni dell Ateneo 1983 31-42
14-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1626
eraclituson The Sun
naturally invited a connection but as the texts ofB3 (from Aetius)
and B94 (one among several versions in Plutarch) were presented in
Diels-Kranz mere juxtaposition did not seem appealing to editors
commentators and interpreters With the partial publication of the
Derveni papyrus things took a different direction A new line of
interpretation relied on the possibility that the author of the papyrus
intended the quotation as a continuous unity29 But even after
the official publication which benefitted greatly from applying
multi-spectral imaging to the remains finally came out in 2006
the papyrus bad physical shape still left enough room for almost
total uncertainty about some parts within the quotation itself (a
fact that has led to several versions which differ in their proposed
conjectures and supplements)
In Gabor Beteghs version lines 7-9 of column IV read
~ A ~ [ O ~ ] ~ o u xcxtoc cpuow cXIamppw[1t1ltou] ~ o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ [eat ] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ oux 0 1 t C p ~ amp A A W V e [ ]pouae[ 8
[ t ] y [ ~ ~ a e t c x ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v t ~ e u p ~ a o ~ [ a L L x 1 l ~ t1tLxoupO ] 9
The sun according to nature is a human foot in width 7
not transgressing its boundaries If 8
oversteps the Erinyes the guardians ofJustice will find it out30 9
29 Cpound D Sider (1997) Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus who referst a paragraph at the beginning of line 7 indicating a quotation (at least inintention) reinforced by the apparent lack of space for ~ A ~ O t in lines 8 and9 and suggesting that B3+B94 formed a connected thought in Hs originaltext (131) but see G Betegh The Derveni Papyrus Cosmology Theology andInterpretation (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004) 326n3 ALebedev did overstate his case when he wrote Any serious edition ofHeraclitusto come will cite B3 and B94 only as testimonia under the most complete andauthentic verbatim quotation of PDerv (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrififor Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79 (1989) 42) S Mouraviev (2006) and ABernabe De Tales aDemocrito Fragmentos Presocrdticos 2nd ed (Madrid Alianza2001) have followed this general line of interpretation in their editions ofHeraclitus treating B3 and B94 as a single continuous fragment
30 Gabor Betegh The Derveni Papyrus 10-11
5-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1726
Enrique HQlsz Piccone
There are some other possibilities (not exhaustive) First the
long awaited official reading by Kouremenos Parassoglou and
Tsantsanoglou
~ A ~ [ O ~ ]ou X(xt IX cpuow ampI-9pw[mJCou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
t o f 1 [ i y e - 9 o ] ~ oUx U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o u ] p o u ~ e [ u p o u ~ ] 8
[EoG d ~ E J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v euro ~ e u p ~ c r O I [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ eurotLxoupm] 9
The sun in the nature of is a human foot width 7
not exceeding in size the proper limits of its width 8
or else the Erinyes assistants of Dike will find it out 31 9
Jankos version
~ A ~ [ O ~ Ewu]WG X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v ampySpw[7teLou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [ecrn] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ OUX U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d Y[IXp t ~ e u ] p o u ~ e[wutoG 8
[ euro ] ~ [ ~ ~ c r e t ( x ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v e ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
The sun in accord with its own nature is in breadth the size 7
of a human foot
and does not surpass its limits for if it surpasses its own 8breadth at all
(the) Erinyes (the) allies ofustice will discover it32 9
L Schonbecks proposal
~ A ~ [ O ~ v i o ] ~ o u X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v amplSpw[7tdou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
tQQ[crxotou] OUX U 7 t e p ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o ] p o u ~ Mcp ~ J i p ( J (ampet)] 8
[ c p ] ~ [ e ~ d J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] vw euro ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
31 Theokritos Kouremenos George M Parassoglou Kyriakos TsantsanoglouThe Derveni Papyrus Edited with Introduction and Commentary [TDP] (FlorenceLeo S Olschki 2006) (Greek text of lines 7-9 apud Lakss review in Rhizai2007 vol IV 1 153-162 at 155)
32 Richard Janko The Derveni Papyrus an interim text ZPE 141 (2002)1-62 and The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logoi)A New Translation Classical Philology Vol 96 No1 (Jan 2001) 1-32 Greektext of col IV apudMouraviev (2006) This is also Bernabes reading Poetae epicigraeci testimonia etfragmenta (Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2007) Pap Derv colIV 188-192)
6-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1826
Heraclitus on The Sun
The new sun is not by nature the width of a human foot 7
from darkness not ever surpassing its proper limits every day 8
it shines if not the Erinyes Justices helpers will find him out33 9
Finally Mouravievs alternative reconstruction of the passage
and his French translation34
~ A [ O ~ 8 o8]e 00 Xoctoc cpuO v ampySpw[1tdou] e o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ 7
[lucetmouet]
t Q ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ ouJ t ) 1 t e p ~ O C A A W V d y[ocp e ~ e u ] p o u ~ 8
e [ ~ L - r l L L x 1 J ~[ e ] ~ [ L x o u p o ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v e ~ e u p ~ 0 0 4 [ 0 middot e1tLOxo1touO yocp] 9
ltCegt Soleil dont par nature la largeur (est) dun pied 7
dhomme duit I avance (raquo
sans outrepasser ses limites car sil ltsortait de sa largtgeur () les 8
Furiesltservantes de Justicegt Ie recaptureraient 9
Car elles veillent 35
The importance of the discovery has perhaps been somewhat
exaggerated36 at least concerning Heraclitus (as opposed to
Orphism) Nevertheless the papyrus is certainly one of the oldest
kstimonia on Heraclitus possibly even predating Platos writings
(of which the Derveni author does not show any knowledge) The
identity of the Derveni author is still very much a matter of debate
and conjecture37 but there is no doubt he is commenting on an
33 Loek Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11
ZP 95 1993 20
34 Serge Mouraviev Heraclitea HAl (Sankt Augustin Academia 1999 con-tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n 1 [CD 2001]) ch 1256-59
35 My translation This sun here whose size by nature is of a human foot
ltshinesmoves (raquo not overstepping its limits for i f he ltwent beyond hisgt size() the Erinyes Justices servantsgt would catch him
36 For instance R Janko wrote The Derveni papyrus is the most important
teXt relating to early Greek literature science religion and philosophy to havecome to light since the Renaissance BMCR 20061029 Review of TDPJ
37 The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier or even in
7-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be traces in Plato25 Plotinus26 and LucretiusY My point is that
a reasonable version of B6 should include the formula rid veo
These last two words just by themselves actually make an excellent
synthesis ofHeraclitus philosophy as a whole and describe perfectly
the suns CPUcrL which mirrors the whole xocrfLo So I conclude
that Heraclitus basic assertion is that the sun is forever the same
precisely in that it is always new persistently changing every day and
at every given moment just as the flux of the river constitutes its
dynamic identity and just as the xocrfLo itself is ever-living fire
so Heraclitus presentation of the nature of the sun symbolically
harmonizes sameness and difference
PART 2 THE SIZE OR THE LIMITS OF THE SUN
HOW GOOD IS THE EVIDENCE OFTHE DERVENI PAPYRUS
In 1981 almost twenty years after the Derveni papyrus
was discovered Walter Burkert gave a short paper in the Chieti
Symposium Heracliteum in which he presented the text reconstructed
by Parassoglou and Tsantsanoglou and made publicly known the few
lines in column IV containing the Heraclitus quotation28 Until then
the dominant approach to these two Heraclitean solar fragments[DK 22] B3 and B94 was to treat them separately Of course the
fact that both deal (although in very different ways) with Helios
25 Symposium 207d3 m I X t I X A e L 1 t E ~ Enpov vtt toO 1tIXAIXWU
( always leaves behind a different new creature instead of the old one 207 d7
l X ( m ) ~ X I X A E i t I X ~ ampAAIX vEo ampEt y ~ y v 6 f J E V O ~ ( Its called the same but it be
comes always new ) Cpound also Cratylus 409b5-8 Neov 16 1tOV XlXt EVOV dd eO n1tEpt -djv O E A ~ V Y j V toOto to p w ~ [ 1XUXACJl yocp 1tOV dd X U t ~ V 1 t E P ~ ~ W V veov
dd1 t L ~ amp A A E ~
( The light about the moon is always new and old [
] for in itscourse around it the sun always sheds on an ever new light )
26 Ennead II 1 2 lO-13 lvyxwpwv xlXt e7tt t01hwv o Y j A o v 6 t ~ tijl
HPIXXAELtCJl oC etpYj ampEt xlXt tov A ~ O V y L v E a ~ I X ~ 1 p ~ a t o t E A E ~ fJEV Y XP OUOEV
O V 1tpliyfJ1X dYj d nc IXIJtOO t XC ) 7 t o ~ E a E ~ C toO 1tEfJ7ttou 7 t l X p l X o e C l X ~ toawfJIXtoc ( He [sc Plato] evidently agrees with Heraclitus who also said that the
sun is always coming into being For Aristotle there would be no problem if oneadmits the theories of the fifth body )
27 De natura rerum V 662 (semina ardoris) quae fociunt solis novasemper lumina gigni
28 W Burkert Eraclito nel Papiro di Derveni due nuove testimonianze tti
del Symposium Heracliteum vol I (Rome Edizioni dell Ateneo 1983 31-42
14-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1626
eraclituson The Sun
naturally invited a connection but as the texts ofB3 (from Aetius)
and B94 (one among several versions in Plutarch) were presented in
Diels-Kranz mere juxtaposition did not seem appealing to editors
commentators and interpreters With the partial publication of the
Derveni papyrus things took a different direction A new line of
interpretation relied on the possibility that the author of the papyrus
intended the quotation as a continuous unity29 But even after
the official publication which benefitted greatly from applying
multi-spectral imaging to the remains finally came out in 2006
the papyrus bad physical shape still left enough room for almost
total uncertainty about some parts within the quotation itself (a
fact that has led to several versions which differ in their proposed
conjectures and supplements)
In Gabor Beteghs version lines 7-9 of column IV read
~ A ~ [ O ~ ] ~ o u xcxtoc cpuow cXIamppw[1t1ltou] ~ o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ [eat ] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ oux 0 1 t C p ~ amp A A W V e [ ]pouae[ 8
[ t ] y [ ~ ~ a e t c x ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v t ~ e u p ~ a o ~ [ a L L x 1 l ~ t1tLxoupO ] 9
The sun according to nature is a human foot in width 7
not transgressing its boundaries If 8
oversteps the Erinyes the guardians ofJustice will find it out30 9
29 Cpound D Sider (1997) Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus who referst a paragraph at the beginning of line 7 indicating a quotation (at least inintention) reinforced by the apparent lack of space for ~ A ~ O t in lines 8 and9 and suggesting that B3+B94 formed a connected thought in Hs originaltext (131) but see G Betegh The Derveni Papyrus Cosmology Theology andInterpretation (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004) 326n3 ALebedev did overstate his case when he wrote Any serious edition ofHeraclitusto come will cite B3 and B94 only as testimonia under the most complete andauthentic verbatim quotation of PDerv (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrififor Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79 (1989) 42) S Mouraviev (2006) and ABernabe De Tales aDemocrito Fragmentos Presocrdticos 2nd ed (Madrid Alianza2001) have followed this general line of interpretation in their editions ofHeraclitus treating B3 and B94 as a single continuous fragment
30 Gabor Betegh The Derveni Papyrus 10-11
5-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1726
Enrique HQlsz Piccone
There are some other possibilities (not exhaustive) First the
long awaited official reading by Kouremenos Parassoglou and
Tsantsanoglou
~ A ~ [ O ~ ]ou X(xt IX cpuow ampI-9pw[mJCou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
t o f 1 [ i y e - 9 o ] ~ oUx U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o u ] p o u ~ e [ u p o u ~ ] 8
[EoG d ~ E J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v euro ~ e u p ~ c r O I [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ eurotLxoupm] 9
The sun in the nature of is a human foot width 7
not exceeding in size the proper limits of its width 8
or else the Erinyes assistants of Dike will find it out 31 9
Jankos version
~ A ~ [ O ~ Ewu]WG X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v ampySpw[7teLou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [ecrn] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ OUX U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d Y[IXp t ~ e u ] p o u ~ e[wutoG 8
[ euro ] ~ [ ~ ~ c r e t ( x ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v e ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
The sun in accord with its own nature is in breadth the size 7
of a human foot
and does not surpass its limits for if it surpasses its own 8breadth at all
(the) Erinyes (the) allies ofustice will discover it32 9
L Schonbecks proposal
~ A ~ [ O ~ v i o ] ~ o u X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v amplSpw[7tdou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
tQQ[crxotou] OUX U 7 t e p ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o ] p o u ~ Mcp ~ J i p ( J (ampet)] 8
[ c p ] ~ [ e ~ d J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] vw euro ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
31 Theokritos Kouremenos George M Parassoglou Kyriakos TsantsanoglouThe Derveni Papyrus Edited with Introduction and Commentary [TDP] (FlorenceLeo S Olschki 2006) (Greek text of lines 7-9 apud Lakss review in Rhizai2007 vol IV 1 153-162 at 155)
32 Richard Janko The Derveni Papyrus an interim text ZPE 141 (2002)1-62 and The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logoi)A New Translation Classical Philology Vol 96 No1 (Jan 2001) 1-32 Greektext of col IV apudMouraviev (2006) This is also Bernabes reading Poetae epicigraeci testimonia etfragmenta (Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2007) Pap Derv colIV 188-192)
6-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1826
Heraclitus on The Sun
The new sun is not by nature the width of a human foot 7
from darkness not ever surpassing its proper limits every day 8
it shines if not the Erinyes Justices helpers will find him out33 9
Finally Mouravievs alternative reconstruction of the passage
and his French translation34
~ A [ O ~ 8 o8]e 00 Xoctoc cpuO v ampySpw[1tdou] e o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ 7
[lucetmouet]
t Q ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ ouJ t ) 1 t e p ~ O C A A W V d y[ocp e ~ e u ] p o u ~ 8
e [ ~ L - r l L L x 1 J ~[ e ] ~ [ L x o u p o ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v e ~ e u p ~ 0 0 4 [ 0 middot e1tLOxo1touO yocp] 9
ltCegt Soleil dont par nature la largeur (est) dun pied 7
dhomme duit I avance (raquo
sans outrepasser ses limites car sil ltsortait de sa largtgeur () les 8
Furiesltservantes de Justicegt Ie recaptureraient 9
Car elles veillent 35
The importance of the discovery has perhaps been somewhat
exaggerated36 at least concerning Heraclitus (as opposed to
Orphism) Nevertheless the papyrus is certainly one of the oldest
kstimonia on Heraclitus possibly even predating Platos writings
(of which the Derveni author does not show any knowledge) The
identity of the Derveni author is still very much a matter of debate
and conjecture37 but there is no doubt he is commenting on an
33 Loek Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11
ZP 95 1993 20
34 Serge Mouraviev Heraclitea HAl (Sankt Augustin Academia 1999 con-tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n 1 [CD 2001]) ch 1256-59
35 My translation This sun here whose size by nature is of a human foot
ltshinesmoves (raquo not overstepping its limits for i f he ltwent beyond hisgt size() the Erinyes Justices servantsgt would catch him
36 For instance R Janko wrote The Derveni papyrus is the most important
teXt relating to early Greek literature science religion and philosophy to havecome to light since the Renaissance BMCR 20061029 Review of TDPJ
37 The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier or even in
7-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1626
eraclituson The Sun
naturally invited a connection but as the texts ofB3 (from Aetius)
and B94 (one among several versions in Plutarch) were presented in
Diels-Kranz mere juxtaposition did not seem appealing to editors
commentators and interpreters With the partial publication of the
Derveni papyrus things took a different direction A new line of
interpretation relied on the possibility that the author of the papyrus
intended the quotation as a continuous unity29 But even after
the official publication which benefitted greatly from applying
multi-spectral imaging to the remains finally came out in 2006
the papyrus bad physical shape still left enough room for almost
total uncertainty about some parts within the quotation itself (a
fact that has led to several versions which differ in their proposed
conjectures and supplements)
In Gabor Beteghs version lines 7-9 of column IV read
~ A ~ [ O ~ ] ~ o u xcxtoc cpuow cXIamppw[1t1ltou] ~ o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ [eat ] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ oux 0 1 t C p ~ amp A A W V e [ ]pouae[ 8
[ t ] y [ ~ ~ a e t c x ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v t ~ e u p ~ a o ~ [ a L L x 1 l ~ t1tLxoupO ] 9
The sun according to nature is a human foot in width 7
not transgressing its boundaries If 8
oversteps the Erinyes the guardians ofJustice will find it out30 9
29 Cpound D Sider (1997) Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus who referst a paragraph at the beginning of line 7 indicating a quotation (at least inintention) reinforced by the apparent lack of space for ~ A ~ O t in lines 8 and9 and suggesting that B3+B94 formed a connected thought in Hs originaltext (131) but see G Betegh The Derveni Papyrus Cosmology Theology andInterpretation (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004) 326n3 ALebedev did overstate his case when he wrote Any serious edition ofHeraclitusto come will cite B3 and B94 only as testimonia under the most complete andauthentic verbatim quotation of PDerv (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrififor Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79 (1989) 42) S Mouraviev (2006) and ABernabe De Tales aDemocrito Fragmentos Presocrdticos 2nd ed (Madrid Alianza2001) have followed this general line of interpretation in their editions ofHeraclitus treating B3 and B94 as a single continuous fragment
30 Gabor Betegh The Derveni Papyrus 10-11
5-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1726
Enrique HQlsz Piccone
There are some other possibilities (not exhaustive) First the
long awaited official reading by Kouremenos Parassoglou and
Tsantsanoglou
~ A ~ [ O ~ ]ou X(xt IX cpuow ampI-9pw[mJCou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
t o f 1 [ i y e - 9 o ] ~ oUx U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o u ] p o u ~ e [ u p o u ~ ] 8
[EoG d ~ E J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v euro ~ e u p ~ c r O I [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ eurotLxoupm] 9
The sun in the nature of is a human foot width 7
not exceeding in size the proper limits of its width 8
or else the Erinyes assistants of Dike will find it out 31 9
Jankos version
~ A ~ [ O ~ Ewu]WG X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v ampySpw[7teLou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [ecrn] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ OUX U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d Y[IXp t ~ e u ] p o u ~ e[wutoG 8
[ euro ] ~ [ ~ ~ c r e t ( x ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v e ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
The sun in accord with its own nature is in breadth the size 7
of a human foot
and does not surpass its limits for if it surpasses its own 8breadth at all
(the) Erinyes (the) allies ofustice will discover it32 9
L Schonbecks proposal
~ A ~ [ O ~ v i o ] ~ o u X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v amplSpw[7tdou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
tQQ[crxotou] OUX U 7 t e p ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o ] p o u ~ Mcp ~ J i p ( J (ampet)] 8
[ c p ] ~ [ e ~ d J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] vw euro ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
31 Theokritos Kouremenos George M Parassoglou Kyriakos TsantsanoglouThe Derveni Papyrus Edited with Introduction and Commentary [TDP] (FlorenceLeo S Olschki 2006) (Greek text of lines 7-9 apud Lakss review in Rhizai2007 vol IV 1 153-162 at 155)
32 Richard Janko The Derveni Papyrus an interim text ZPE 141 (2002)1-62 and The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logoi)A New Translation Classical Philology Vol 96 No1 (Jan 2001) 1-32 Greektext of col IV apudMouraviev (2006) This is also Bernabes reading Poetae epicigraeci testimonia etfragmenta (Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2007) Pap Derv colIV 188-192)
6-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1826
Heraclitus on The Sun
The new sun is not by nature the width of a human foot 7
from darkness not ever surpassing its proper limits every day 8
it shines if not the Erinyes Justices helpers will find him out33 9
Finally Mouravievs alternative reconstruction of the passage
and his French translation34
~ A [ O ~ 8 o8]e 00 Xoctoc cpuO v ampySpw[1tdou] e o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ 7
[lucetmouet]
t Q ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ ouJ t ) 1 t e p ~ O C A A W V d y[ocp e ~ e u ] p o u ~ 8
e [ ~ L - r l L L x 1 J ~[ e ] ~ [ L x o u p o ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v e ~ e u p ~ 0 0 4 [ 0 middot e1tLOxo1touO yocp] 9
ltCegt Soleil dont par nature la largeur (est) dun pied 7
dhomme duit I avance (raquo
sans outrepasser ses limites car sil ltsortait de sa largtgeur () les 8
Furiesltservantes de Justicegt Ie recaptureraient 9
Car elles veillent 35
The importance of the discovery has perhaps been somewhat
exaggerated36 at least concerning Heraclitus (as opposed to
Orphism) Nevertheless the papyrus is certainly one of the oldest
kstimonia on Heraclitus possibly even predating Platos writings
(of which the Derveni author does not show any knowledge) The
identity of the Derveni author is still very much a matter of debate
and conjecture37 but there is no doubt he is commenting on an
33 Loek Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11
ZP 95 1993 20
34 Serge Mouraviev Heraclitea HAl (Sankt Augustin Academia 1999 con-tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n 1 [CD 2001]) ch 1256-59
35 My translation This sun here whose size by nature is of a human foot
ltshinesmoves (raquo not overstepping its limits for i f he ltwent beyond hisgt size() the Erinyes Justices servantsgt would catch him
36 For instance R Janko wrote The Derveni papyrus is the most important
teXt relating to early Greek literature science religion and philosophy to havecome to light since the Renaissance BMCR 20061029 Review of TDPJ
37 The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier or even in
7-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1726
Enrique HQlsz Piccone
There are some other possibilities (not exhaustive) First the
long awaited official reading by Kouremenos Parassoglou and
Tsantsanoglou
~ A ~ [ O ~ ]ou X(xt IX cpuow ampI-9pw[mJCou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
t o f 1 [ i y e - 9 o ] ~ oUx U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o u ] p o u ~ e [ u p o u ~ ] 8
[EoG d ~ E J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v euro ~ e u p ~ c r O I [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ eurotLxoupm] 9
The sun in the nature of is a human foot width 7
not exceeding in size the proper limits of its width 8
or else the Erinyes assistants of Dike will find it out 31 9
Jankos version
~ A ~ [ O ~ Ewu]WG X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v ampySpw[7teLou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [ecrn] 7
t o ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ OUX U 7 t e P ~ ~ A A W V d Y[IXp t ~ e u ] p o u ~ e[wutoG 8
[ euro ] ~ [ ~ ~ c r e t ( x ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] v ~ v e ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
The sun in accord with its own nature is in breadth the size 7
of a human foot
and does not surpass its limits for if it surpasses its own 8breadth at all
(the) Erinyes (the) allies ofustice will discover it32 9
L Schonbecks proposal
~ A ~ [ O ~ v i o ] ~ o u X(Xt IX c p u c r ~ v amplSpw[7tdou] e o p o ~ 7 t o 0 6 ~ [eurorn] 7
tQQ[crxotou] OUX U 7 t e p ~ ~ A A W V d ~ [ o t ( X ~ o ] p o u ~ Mcp ~ J i p ( J (ampet)] 8
[ c p ] ~ [ e ~ d J ] ~ E p ~ v u e [ ~ ] vw euro ~ e u p ~ c r o l [ c r ~ L l L x 1 J ~ e 7 t L x o u p o ~ ] 9
31 Theokritos Kouremenos George M Parassoglou Kyriakos TsantsanoglouThe Derveni Papyrus Edited with Introduction and Commentary [TDP] (FlorenceLeo S Olschki 2006) (Greek text of lines 7-9 apud Lakss review in Rhizai2007 vol IV 1 153-162 at 155)
32 Richard Janko The Derveni Papyrus an interim text ZPE 141 (2002)1-62 and The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logoi)A New Translation Classical Philology Vol 96 No1 (Jan 2001) 1-32 Greektext of col IV apudMouraviev (2006) This is also Bernabes reading Poetae epicigraeci testimonia etfragmenta (Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2007) Pap Derv colIV 188-192)
6-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1826
Heraclitus on The Sun
The new sun is not by nature the width of a human foot 7
from darkness not ever surpassing its proper limits every day 8
it shines if not the Erinyes Justices helpers will find him out33 9
Finally Mouravievs alternative reconstruction of the passage
and his French translation34
~ A [ O ~ 8 o8]e 00 Xoctoc cpuO v ampySpw[1tdou] e o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ 7
[lucetmouet]
t Q ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ ouJ t ) 1 t e p ~ O C A A W V d y[ocp e ~ e u ] p o u ~ 8
e [ ~ L - r l L L x 1 J ~[ e ] ~ [ L x o u p o ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v e ~ e u p ~ 0 0 4 [ 0 middot e1tLOxo1touO yocp] 9
ltCegt Soleil dont par nature la largeur (est) dun pied 7
dhomme duit I avance (raquo
sans outrepasser ses limites car sil ltsortait de sa largtgeur () les 8
Furiesltservantes de Justicegt Ie recaptureraient 9
Car elles veillent 35
The importance of the discovery has perhaps been somewhat
exaggerated36 at least concerning Heraclitus (as opposed to
Orphism) Nevertheless the papyrus is certainly one of the oldest
kstimonia on Heraclitus possibly even predating Platos writings
(of which the Derveni author does not show any knowledge) The
identity of the Derveni author is still very much a matter of debate
and conjecture37 but there is no doubt he is commenting on an
33 Loek Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11
ZP 95 1993 20
34 Serge Mouraviev Heraclitea HAl (Sankt Augustin Academia 1999 con-tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n 1 [CD 2001]) ch 1256-59
35 My translation This sun here whose size by nature is of a human foot
ltshinesmoves (raquo not overstepping its limits for i f he ltwent beyond hisgt size() the Erinyes Justices servantsgt would catch him
36 For instance R Janko wrote The Derveni papyrus is the most important
teXt relating to early Greek literature science religion and philosophy to havecome to light since the Renaissance BMCR 20061029 Review of TDPJ
37 The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier or even in
7-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1826
Heraclitus on The Sun
The new sun is not by nature the width of a human foot 7
from darkness not ever surpassing its proper limits every day 8
it shines if not the Erinyes Justices helpers will find him out33 9
Finally Mouravievs alternative reconstruction of the passage
and his French translation34
~ A [ O ~ 8 o8]e 00 Xoctoc cpuO v ampySpw[1tdou] e o p o ~ 1 t o M ~ 7
[lucetmouet]
t Q ~ [ ~ o u p o u ] ~ ouJ t ) 1 t e p ~ O C A A W V d y[ocp e ~ e u ] p o u ~ 8
e [ ~ L - r l L L x 1 J ~[ e ] ~ [ L x o u p o ] ~ E p v u e [ ~ ] v v e ~ e u p ~ 0 0 4 [ 0 middot e1tLOxo1touO yocp] 9
ltCegt Soleil dont par nature la largeur (est) dun pied 7
dhomme duit I avance (raquo
sans outrepasser ses limites car sil ltsortait de sa largtgeur () les 8
Furiesltservantes de Justicegt Ie recaptureraient 9
Car elles veillent 35
The importance of the discovery has perhaps been somewhat
exaggerated36 at least concerning Heraclitus (as opposed to
Orphism) Nevertheless the papyrus is certainly one of the oldest
kstimonia on Heraclitus possibly even predating Platos writings
(of which the Derveni author does not show any knowledge) The
identity of the Derveni author is still very much a matter of debate
and conjecture37 but there is no doubt he is commenting on an
33 Loek Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11
ZP 95 1993 20
34 Serge Mouraviev Heraclitea HAl (Sankt Augustin Academia 1999 con-tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n 1 [CD 2001]) ch 1256-59
35 My translation This sun here whose size by nature is of a human foot
ltshinesmoves (raquo not overstepping its limits for i f he ltwent beyond hisgt size() the Erinyes Justices servantsgt would catch him
36 For instance R Janko wrote The Derveni papyrus is the most important
teXt relating to early Greek literature science religion and philosophy to havecome to light since the Renaissance BMCR 20061029 Review of TDPJ
37 The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier or even in
7-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 1926
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Orphic poem and that he shows the influence of Anaxagoras and
Diogenes ofApollonia (whom however he does not actually quote)
Although the acquaintance of the commentator with Heraclitustext confirms the authenticity ofB3 and B94 it is not obvious at all
that both fragments must have formed a single continuous passage
in the original and the possibility that they have been joined by
the commentator himself (prompted by the common thread of the
sun-theme) cannot be set aside
In Aetius version DK 22B3 consists merely of three words
e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ocv-9pCll1tdou which betray a dactylic rhythm38 and
could be connected to the enunciation of the subject (6~ A O ~ )
and the verb ~ O n The version from the papyrus (line 7) differs in
word order o c ~ - 9 p C l l 1 t d o u e ) p o ~ 1 t o M ~ ) and includes the adverbial
phrase XIX tOC cpuO v by nature used elsewhere in Heraclitus (BI
BI12) The papyrus has a lacuna at this crucial point immediately
after ~ A ~ [ O ~ ] where no less than six readings have been put
forward (tau epsilon zeta xi gamma and sigma) for the faded
letter preceding the more clearly legible omicron and ypsilon OT)
If these are read either as a relative pronoun (00 Mouraviev) or as
a genitive ending of a reflexive pronoun such as e C l l u ] ~ o ) (Janko)
the assertion would appear to take on a stronger more dogmatic
sense the suns size is by nature that of a human foot 39 However
we would get the opposite meaning if the same letters were read as
a negation (ou) the sun is ot by nature the size of a human foot
the last years of the fifth century Several hypotheses have been put forwardabout the identity of the Derveni commentator C H Kahn proposed someonelike Euthyphro (Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus SDP55-63) D Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus(Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus SDP 137-138) R Janko (The DerveniPapyrus (Diagoras of Melos Apopyrgizontes Logon) A New TranslationClassical Philology Vol 96 No1 Qan 2001) 1-32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist Gabor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expertand an Orphic The Derveni Papyrus 87) W Burkert considered Stesimbrotos(Der Autor von Derveni Stesimbrotos TIepL TeAetWV ZPE 62 (1986) 1-5)
38 This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus39 A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX142 )
~ A ~ 6 ~ ecrn to f L euro y e O ~ o t o ~ lt p o c L v e t o c ~ (The sun is the size it appears to be)
8-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2026
Heraclitus on The Sun
(Burkert Schonbeck) 40 The conjecture x6cr]fJou (Lebedev) after
~ A ~ [ O C in line 7 (preceded by his supplement [ o c p x euro ~ ] at the end of
line 6 yielding the sun rules by nature the universe) is interest
ing but more risky One conjectured supplement in particular for
the lacuna at the start of line 7 is appealing given the reading of
B6 sketched above ~ A ~ [ O C veo]c 00 (Schonbeck)41 This would
yield something like the new sun is not by nature the size of a
human foot which if correct would strengthen the likelihood
that the commentator is paraphrasing freely and fusing not two
but three different Heraditean passages (one could go all the way
with Schonbecks conjectured reconstruction and read e[cp ~ f J e p 1 J( d)] at the end ofline 8) If the negative reading is right we could
further interpret e0pOC as width and speculate whether Heraclitus
could be critically reacting to previous theories such as Anaximenes
view on the flatness of the earth and the heavenly bodies-the sun
in particular which he described as riding on air fiery and
flat like a leaf 42 Or alternatively we could wonder if Heraclitus
was raising the question of the elementary fallacy of judging the
sun to be a small object because one can cover it with ones foot 43
But regardless ofhow one chooses to deal with these questions and
whether one is tempted to credit Heraclitus with a naive thesis on the
sizewidth of the sun or not it is hard to see how this notion could
40 A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev the reading ou XOC CIX ~ u n vis out of the question (Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 79 [1989] 46)
41 L Schonbeck Heraclitus Revisited (Pap Derveni col I lines 7-11)
Zeitschrift for Papyrologie undEpigraphik 95 (1993) 7-22 at 17-20
42 C DK 13A7 (Hippo Ref I 7) e r t o x e ~ c r S o c ~ C W ~ O C euro P ~ DK 13A15 (Aet II202) (Aet 22 1) A1tAOC CVV we mhocAov Cov ~ A ~ O V (= DK 13B2a)
43 In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments DSider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3s state
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size he then connectsB94 to B43 (about quenching ) ~ p ~ e ) interpreting that the suns transgression is
the so-called moon illusion which was then punished by the coming of nightand followed by B6 To this it may be objected (1) that what B94 actually statesis that the sun shall nor overstep or surpass its limits and (2) that the moonillusion would apply also to dawn not only to sunset (cf Betegh The DerveniPapyrus 328n4 the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn)
9-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2126
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
be the same as or equivalent to the reference to the boundaries or
limits ( O ) p o ~ ) the sun does not transgress or overstep
In lines 8 and 9 there are significant differences from Plutarchs
text which reads H A ~ O ~ (tXP oux 1 t e p ~ ~ O e t c u f L e t p ~ middot e ~ Se f L ~ E p ~ l u e - f L ~ I 1bcl)- l 1 t L x o u p o ~ l ~ e u p ~ O o u O w ( The sun will not
overstep his measures if he did the Furies servants of Justice
will find him out )44 Apart from the syntax the use of the verb
u 1 t e p ~ ~ L l w ( overstep ) instead of the verb 1 t e P ~ ~ A A W ( pass over
exceed ) some wordplay involving oupou--eupou- and a slight
variation in word order in the final clause perhaps the most notice
able change in the papyrus reading is the use of the ionicism o u p o ~( boundaries ) instead of f L E t P ~ ( measures ) and even that makes
little difference in meaning The general sense in most reconstruc
tions of line 8 seems sufficiently close to the pre-Derveni reading
whether one reads to [J[e(eampo]- oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ~ [ 6 t ~ - ou]pou-
e[upou-] (KPT) or to0[- O)pou]- OUX U 1 t ~ p ~ ~ A A W I d ([tXp eu]
pou- l[wutou (Janko Bernabe) oT t o0[- oupou]C oUX U 1 t ~ p ~ 6 A A 6 l l middotd ([tXp l ~ eu]pouc l [ ~ b l ~ 1Lx1JC (Mouraviev) For on any of these
readings the essential meaning still is the sun will not transgress
or overstep its limits or boundariesStructurally B94 (Plutarchs version) consists of two different
and complementary assertions First we have a categorical proposi
tion Helios will not overstep the measures (or the boundaries )
and then a hypothetical negative clause which reinforces the point
if not the Erinyes Justices servants will find him out From
the point of view of form Plutarchs version seems more likely to
be authentic In point of content it is not immediately clear what
exactly the reference of L e t p ~
(or opou-) is (the same is true for therestored O)POU- in the papyrus)-whether it refers to the increasing
44 DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch De exilio 11 604A There is a different ver
sion in De lside et Osiride 370D3-1O in oratio obliqua with two variants 0POU1
( boundaries ) instead of JCtPIX ( measures ) and KAOOloc1 ( Spinners ) instead
o f E p ~ l U E 1 H p O C X A E ~ t 0 1 [ J cp1JOL [ J A ~ O l OE J ~ J 7 t E P ~ ~ O E O l I X L tOU1
1 t p o O ~ X O l t I X 1 OPOU1 d OE [ L ~ KAOOloc1 [ L ~ I tlLXI)1 emxoupou1 e E u p ~ O e ~ I( Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries if not theSpinners servants of Justice will find him out ) KAoo1toc1 is an emendation of
the manuscripts presumably corrupt YAWttIX1 ( tongues ) For other possibilities see D Sider Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus 143n42
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2226
bull
r
Heraclitus on The Sun
sitt of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called moon illusion
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon) rather than to
the cnreme southern and northern points marking the solstices But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author
and dear enough illustrated here by the suns constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice Heraclitus cosmos is governed by law45
In spite of Lebedevs vehement assertion it is quite unlikely that
tOr Heraclitus the sun even if viewed as a god is the ruler of the
xOom-46 He may be the cause of day and night as B99 implies
bm as B94 itself makes clear he is presented not as a king but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (LlLxlJ who is identi
fied with E P ~ in B80) reigns supreme The bold personifications
cLNXlj the Furies ( E p w u e ~ ) and the sun CHAW) which have
ocbcr parallels in the authentic fragments47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version
So to conclude this brief approach the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus text is very problematic to say
the least It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments In particular the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity
~ I borrow this phrase from Kahns treatment ofAnaximanders fragment
4Ii A Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni Zeitschri t for Papyrologie un~ i t 79 (1989) 39-47 at 43ff The notion of the sun as supreme rulerof the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator but as
ldledcv himself acknowledges The initial words [OCPXeL] ~ A ~ [ O lt xocr ]pou
lUi qoow are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation (43) The alleged~ e v i d e n c e n in the Heraclitean tradition is not always focused on the sun but
on fire and it has little weight against the fragments themselves in which we
find that it is nOAefJ0lt who is called the king of all (1tIXvtwv ~ o t c r L A e U lt B53)though A1Wv is also depicted as such (B52) which might suggest they are thesame
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previousDOte) nOAe Lolt ~ E p L lt and L1Lx t) in BSQ and Kepotuv6lt in B64 all of themoonsistently characterized by their governing functions
2 -
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2326
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
Although the point is overstated I sympathize with Lebedevs
claim that Heraclitus view of the Sun has nothing to do with
natural science48 The idea that the character ofHeraclitus thoughtas a whole is fundamentally misrepresented by physicalistic interpre
tations of the crucial fragments is nothing new Although the histor
ical impact ofAristotles interpretation ofHeraclitus as a p u O ~ x 6 is
huge modern tributaries of this view seem to be running rather dry
nowadays Some recent interpreters (Betegh Finkelberg Mouraviev)
have pursued physical-eschatological lines of interpretation which
remain open but it would be hard to consider any results as conclu
sive at least in what concerns Heraclitus sun Much ado has beenmade about Orphic influence on Heraclitus but the opposite and
complementary possibility (a Heraclitean influence on later Orphic
writers such as the Derveni commentator) has not been sufficiently
explored As for the general nature of Heraclitus views on the
sun I would say they are more metaphysical I mean ontologi
cal because they concern the suns nature or genuine being) than
physical without denying they have some relevance in the latter
field Looking at our three fragments once again they do not seemto cohere with one another in a dogmatic fashion as if they were
parts ofa wider astronomical theory But the way Heraclitus presents
the sun and especially the idea that its movement and change are
rationally grounded on its own nature and on universal regularity
certainly provide a solid basis for physical science At least relying on
the fragments themselves (rather than on doxographical reports and
interpretations) it does not seem that Heraclitus is very interested
in the detailed mechanics of cosmic processes Instead he is rather
conspicuously committed to finding out and expressing the p u O ~ ofthings and the workings ofA6yo as the single unifying universal law
His interests lie in what could be called the ontological framework
that is the necessary basis for human knowledge and human action
I will end by quoting Heraclitus once more I propose that there
is another solar fragment of sorts that we ought to take into account
What Heraclitus says here is enigmatic but it is also undoubtedly
relevant and suggestive for my chosen theme
48 Lebedev Heraclitus in P Derveni 44
-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2426
eraclituson The Sun
How could anyone be unaware of that which never
sets49
This question suggests the strange image of a source of light
more constant than the sun a hyper-sun so to speak to L ~ SOvov
Ttote what never sets which constitutes an unmistakable contrast
ing reference to the setting sun B16 also connects again by way
of a contrast this absolute presence with lethargic human experi
ence so it sounds like a warning not to overlook the evident Now
reproaching most men for their epistemic negligence and contrasting
this with the sufficiency of the absolute divine point of view is a
recurrent theme in the fragments so perhaps the A6yoc interpreted
as the law of the fiery cosmos itself is the object of the allusion and
the intended symbolic counterpart of the Heraclitean sun50 The
contrast is more complex and intricate than it would seem at first
sight since it not only suggests a cluster of referents which stand for
ontological rationality (A6yoc xoO Loc ~ u O t c ) but it may also imply
an analogous link between human nature and the Heraclitean sun
And this brings us right back to some of the contents of our three
basic texts B3 can be aptly described as a voicing ofa measurement
of the sun according to an all-too-human standard B94 states Helios
49 DK 22B16 t0 f L ~ oOvov 1ton 1t(ic ampv nc A l amp O ~ if there is some ambiguity
n the sense ofAowamplvOl one could alternately translate How could anyone everbe hidden from that which doesnt set Cpound Hesiod Erga 267-268 1t lVtCl ~ o w vlLO o ~ amp o L A f L o C xClL 1t lVtCl V O ~ C I C l C xClL vu tl0 Clt x eampEA7JCI E m o E p x E t C l ~ aMi E
A ~ L(The eye of Zeus seeing all things and understanding alllooksupon these things too if he wants to and fails not to notice) Cpound Homer II
III277
50 In the Cratylus Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to thecontention that justice (O[XClWV) is in fact ~ A L O C (413b4) for then there wouldbe nothing just among men after the sun has set (ouov O[XClLOV [ J euroV t o ~ c bamppW1tmc eurotELOOCV 6 A W C ov-n 413c1) This looks like an echo of BI6 andimplies a connection between A ~ O C and justice This objection is embedded ina longer passage (412e-413d) which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collection of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agentqualified as AE1ttOtCltOV andtlXLCItov (lightest and swiftest 412d5) anddescribed as passing through all things OLOC t00 oVtOC L E V C l ~ 1tClVtOC 412d6)and concludes after explicit identification of justice and fire that this is hard tounderstand (t00t0 o OU p ~ O L O V eCInv d O E V C l ~ 413c2)
On the face of B94 together with B43 it is clear that Helios (unlike humanbeings) is not prone to U ~ p L C
3-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2526
Enrique Hulsz Piccone
submission to Justice (who must stand for objective and univer-
sal rationality) within the framework of an analogy between the
cosmic and the human and B6 by stressing continuous alterationfocuses on the permanent identity of the suns nature as a universal
paradigm Under the light ofB16 a pattern ofproportional relation
ships begins to take shape human incomprehension the sun as
mirror of the cosmos and the all-encompassing unifying law My
last point will seem far-fetched to some I grant that in any case
it would take at least another paper to develop it more fully but
I will take the risk of insisting on a possible connection of all this
with the famous Platonic image of the sun in the Republic 52 For if
there really is such a connection it might turn out (in spite of the
dominant trend of interpretation) that Platos Heracliteanism is not
after all limited to the flux of Becoming but reaches deep into the
theory of Forms And Platos use of this Heraclitean image might
prove useful for a better understanding of its earlier philosophical
use in the fragments themselvesY
52 This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif
ferent implications by A Lebedev ( Heraclitus in P Derveni 44) for whom
Heraclitus sun is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Platos Politeia(the humorous remark about H p l X x ) e v d o ~ ~ ~ o ~ in epublica 498b seems tobe a masked recognition of Platos debt)
53 I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations comments and objections I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text
4-
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626
8132019 Huumllsz Piccone Enrique_Heraclitus on Sun_2012_Presocratics and Plato Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Ch K_pp hellip
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhuelsz-piccone-enriqueheraclitus-on-sun2012presocratics-and-plato-festschrift 2626