Mouraviev, Serge N._heraclitea. Recensio III. Fragmenta Heraclitea [...]_2006 [Mansfeld, Jaap_Mnemosyne, 62, 1_2009_113-116]

8/9/2019 Mouraviev, Serge N._heraclitea. Recensio III. Fragmenta Heraclitea [...]_2006 [Mansfeld, Jaap_Mnemosyne, 62, 1_2…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mouraviev-serge-nheraclitea-recensio-iii-fragmenta-heraclitea-2006 1/5

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

http://www.jstor.org

ReviewAuthor(s): Jaap MansfeldReview by: Jaap MansfeldSource: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 62, Fasc. 1 (2009), pp. 113-116Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27736303Accessed: 03-03-2015 21:14 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:14:11 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27736303

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/27736303

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/



MNEMOSYNE

A Journal

of

Classical tudies

Mnemosyne

62

(2009)

113-116

www.brill.nl/mnem

De

novis

libris iudicia

Mouraviev,

S.

2006. Heraclitea.

Recensio

III.

Fragmenta

Heraclitea.

Textes,

traduc

tions et commentaire. B: Libri

reliquiae

superstites?Les

fragments

du livre d'Heraclite.

III.3.B/?,

Textus,

versiones,

apparatus

I-III?Textes, traductions,

apparatus

I-III.

xxviii,

375

p.

Pr.

59.00;

III.3.B/?.

Apparatus

IV-V:

formae

orationis?Langue

et

forme:

apparats

IV-V

et

sch?mas,

xxviii,

178

p.

Pr.

39.00;

III.3.B/iii.

Ad lectiones

adnotamenta?Annotations

critiques,

xxxiii,

209

p.

Pr.

44.00. Sankt

Augustin,

Academia

Verlag.

The first of the three volumes announced above

contains

what

M(ouraviev)

believes

to

be

either

ipsissima

verba of

H(eraclitus)

or

information

that

can

some

how be linked to a definite thoughnot (yet) locatedpassage in theoriginalwork,

with meticulous

transcriptions

in

early

Ionic

and

Attic

alphabets

( ),

translations

in

Renaissance

French,

Ye

Olde

English

in

antiquated

characters,

and

Russian,

lists of

ancient

sources,

related

doxography, parallels

and

reminiscences

(some

times),

and

very

full references

to

earlier

editions and

secondary

literature.

The

second

is

a

linguistic,

metrical,

and

poetological

commentary

(pertaining

to

allit

eration,

wordplay,

tropes,

etc.)

to

each

fragment,

the third

a

commentary

elucidat

ing

translations and

textual

choices.

They

were

preceded by

and

are

said

to

be

based

on

four

generous

volumes

containing

source

texts

from

Epicharmus

to

Petrarca,

and

two

equally generous

volumes

dealing

with

respectively

the

life and

the

language

and

poetics'

of

H.1}

Reasonably

enough,

the

'fragments'

are

listed

in

the

ordering

and

with the

numbering

of the

Fragmente

der

Vorsokratiker,

hich,

as

we

know,

lists

them

in

the

melancholy

order determined

by

the

alphabetical

sequence

of the

(most

important)

source

authors. Further

texts

added

by

M.,

appended

to

these

DK

fragments

and

given

the

same

source-based

number,

are

distinguished

from

each other

by

means

of

letters,

while other

such

texts

are

printed

at

the

end of

the

set.

1}

A

CD-Rom

is

provided

with vol.

II.A.3;

the

texts

of

vols. A.II.1-4

are

accessible

at

www.

academia-verlag.de/heraclitea,

where

M.

also

welcomes

comments.

Vols.

II.A.1

and

2

(Sankt

Augustin

1999-2000)

have been reviewed

by

me

in

Phronesis

45

(2000),

346-7,

vol.

III.

A.3

(Sankt

Augustin

2002)

in

Phronesis

48

(2003),

165-7,

and

vol.

ULI

(Sankt

Augustin

2003)

in

Phronesis

9

(2005),

336-7.

BRILL

?

Koninklijke

Brill

NV,

Leiden,

2009

DOI:

10.1163/156852508X321284







114

De

novis

ibris udicia

f.

Mansfeld

I

Mnemosyne

2

(2009)

113-116

M.

has done

a

staggering

amount

of

work,

and

his

collection

of

source texts

in

the earlier

volumes,

though

a

bit

daunting

because

of

its

size,

is

certainly

useful.

But

his edition

of

the

fragments

s

disappointing.

Virtually

all

his

editorial

choices

are

already

found

in

the

preliminary

edition

of the

fragments

in

a

slim

volume

published

fifteen

years

before

the

present

editio

maior.2)

Tant

de

bruit

pour

une

omelette: the

abundant

evidence

from

Epicharmus

to

Petrarca

seems

to

have been

collected

in

order

to

underpin

these

preferences.

Though

M.

repeatedly

states

that

his work

is

not

definitive

and

{more

heracliteo)

constantly

moving

and

changing,

and that

one

of his chief

aims is

to

put

the available evidence

at

the

disposition

of

scholars so that

they

can make

up

their own minds,3) there is in fact little or no

development

from

1991

to

2006.

And

there

is

much

special pleading,

e.g.

in

the

commentary

on

B55

and

B76,

or

even no

pleading

at

all

(why,

for

instance,

is

the

proposed

participle

swap

rejected

for

B21?),

and

much

hedging

of bets. And

the

1991

edition,

one

is

sorry

to

say,

is

not

so

good.

The

presentation

of the rele

vant

evidence

in

Marcovich's edition

is

much better.4)

M.

is

quite

often disinclined

to

leave well

alone,

and

willfully

rewrites

the

Greek,

modifying

texts

where

no

intervention is

needed. On

the other hand

he

also tends

to

preserve

word-forms

in

the

MS

text

of

a

source

which

fail

to

make

good

sense.

Emendations of other scholars

are

often rejected, e.g.

in

the

commen

tary

to

B80

DK,

vol.

B/iii

p.

92:

"Deux

corrections aussi

drastiques

compro

mettent

s?rieusement

la

fiabilit?

du

sens

obtenu".

Some

examples

of his

own

corrections

in

vol.

B/i:

in

B12

he

needlessly

writes

\jn)%oci

?

<oo(poc?>

(so

already

fr.

7

in

M.

1991).

In

Bl

5

he

writes

thefirst ords

as

et

uri<v>,

though

\ii\

s

quite

intelligible

(at

M.

1991

fr.

142

he

wrote

si

<koc?>).

In

B23

he

changes

?vouec

to

ocvouoi,

while

keeping

??naav

(same

text

M.

1991

fr.

2),

and translates Tes

sans

loi n'auraient

point

besoin de

justice',

thus

producing

a

platitude.

In

B29

(same

text

M.

1991

ft.

51)

he

adds

an

explanatory

sentence

of

Clement

to

the Heracli

tean

original.

In

B31

he

changes

a

word

which makes

good

sense,

viz.

Siax?exai,

into

the

awkward

8'

ocia

x?exai,

and

unnecessarily

adds

<7tupo9ev>

before

TCp?oGev

better

M.

1991

fr.

151).

In

B44

he reads

a

doublet,

viz.

vrcep [sic]

zov

v?uoD,

\)7C?p sic]

xo\)

ye

vou?uoi)

(as

already

in

M.

1991

fr.

53;

similar

avoidable

2)

Mouraviev,

S.

1991.

Heraclitea,

IV.A:

Heraclite

d'Eph?se,

?les

Muses?

ou

?De

la

nature?

(Moscou/Paris),

xxviii,

39

p.

+

'd?pliant',

with

pp.

xxiii-xxvi

a

brief

poetological

analysis

anticipating

the

large

vol.

ULI.

The

blurb

among

other

things

tells

us

that the

author

is

"autodidacte

en

philologie

classique".

3) E.g. II.3.B/? p. xi.

4)

Esp.

the corrected Italian

edition,

Marcovich,

M.

1978.

Eraclito:

Frammenti,

a.c.d.

M.M.

(Firenze).







De

novis

ibris

udicia

].

Mansfeld

I

Mnemosyne

2

(2009)

113-116

115

doublet

in

his

text f

B86,

as

already

M.

1991

fr.

7).

In

B49A

he

inserts

phrase

from

Seneca,5)

retroverting

t

into

Greek

as

well

(fr.

130

in

M.

1991

has this

trans

lated

Greek

too,

but here the

Latin

is

still

in

the

apparatus).

In

B50,

where

he

attributes

Hippolytus'

0?ov

?ixociov

to

Heraclitus

(rejecting

the

suggestion

that

Hippolytus

means

theGnostic

'just

God' of the

Old

Testament),

he

invents

and

adds

a

whole colon

after

Hippolytus'

S?kociov,

thus:

O?kociov

?oxi

too

Soyuocxo?

?icouoavxa?

ocuxo?

aocp?v

?ikouo\)v>,

which

is

supposed

to

mean

'juste

est

<que

les ?couteurs de

son

dogme

le

jugent

sage>'.

The

author of

this

dogme

is

3.B/iii

p.

50

claimed

to

be

Xenophanes,

a

fanciful

idea

based

on

a

misinterpretation

of

D.L. 9.5, forwhich see below. In B51 (same textM. 1991 fr. 110) he inserts v

from

a

parallel

in

Plato

into

the

text

of

Hippolytus,

and

adds

the

superfluous

<noKkoi>

"metri

gratia".

The

addition

of

<\)A,ockx??v>

t

the end

of

B73

+

74

is

bizarre

('barking'

kids

already

at

M.

1991

fr.

16).

The

love-affair(s)

f

War

and

Justice

('n?cessaire

est

que

ce

Conflit, l'universel,

et

Justice

soient

amants')

in

B80,

where

M.

(as

in

M.

1991

fr.

4)

sticks

to

transmitted

?pe?v,

is/are

izarre

too,

and

qua

Greek

construction

quite

unthinkable.

Naturally,

there is the

occasional locus

desperatus,

and

one

sympathizes

with

M.'s

valorous

attempts

at

healing.

Hippolytus'

evooc?eovxi

at

the

beginning

of

B63

is

virtually incomprehensible. But M.'s medication is too drastic here, for he puts

words

in

H.'s

mouth,

writing

?v

0?<7tcoi>

8'

?ovxi,

'qui

est

dans la tombe <du

corps?>'.

Some

of the

fragments

dded

by

M.

certainly

belong

with the

tradition

con

cerning

his

thought,

though

it is

not

clear

why

some

physical

tenets are

admitted

by

him and others

are

not;

to

what

extent

these echo the

original

work

verbatim

remains

to

be

seen,

or so

I

believe. Some

added

fragments

are

at

any

rate

to

be

rejected.

D.L.

9.5

tells

us

that

H.

'was

nobody's

pupil

(fjKODa?

xe

o?Sev?c)?no,

he

said he

inquired

of

himself

[cf.

B101

DK],

and learned

everything

fromhim

self.But Sotion

[fr.

0

Wehrli] says

that

some

people

said

he had been

a

pupil

of

Xenophanes

(Sevo?avou?

oc?xov

?cicr|Ko?vai)'.

This

typically

iogenean

report

about

contrasting

views is

clear

enough.

The

general

view,

evidently

shared

by

Sotion,

is

that

Heraclitus

was

self-taught,

but

Sotion

also

reported

that

according

to

people

who

for

us

remain

nameless he

was

Xenophanes' pupil.

M.

argues

that

thisderives from

something

H.

himself

said

in

his

book,

3.B/iii

p.

131

ad

fr.

107E:

"H.

n'a

sans

doute

jamais

affirm?

avoir

?t?

disciple

de

X?nophane.

Mais il

l'avait

certainement

lu,

voire

?cout?".

Trop

de

z?le_This

desire

to

enlarge

the

set

of

fragments

may

also be

responsible

for

the

inclusion of the

new

fragment

13A,

Nui;

5)

In

the

commentary

he

says

that

these lines "n'ont rien

qui

en

interdise formellement

l'attribution

?

Heraclite". True

enough,

but

why

precisely

in

this

form,

or

precisely

here?







116

De

novis

ibris udicia

f.

Mansfeld

I

Mnemosyne

2

(2009)

113-116

9e?

rapc?xioTTi,

Ta Nuit

est

la

tout

premi?re

d?esse'.

From

the

report

about

Chry

sippus'

argument

ap.

Phld.

Piet.

cols.

6-7',

with references

to

Books

2

and

1

of his

On

Nature,

it

clearly

follows that

(as

is

only

to

be

expected)

the

author

of

this

view

is

'Orpheus',

one

of the authorities whose

views

Chrysippus

tried

to

accommo

date' with

Stoic

theory

(cf.

ic. N.D.

1.41).

At

B59

M.

retains

MS

ypoccp?cov

nd

rejects

the

splendid

and often

accepted

conjecture

yvacpeicoi.

He

argues

as

follows,

3.B/iii

p.

59:

whatever the

nominative

of

the word

may

be,

its

first

meaning

must

be

'letters'.

Everyone

knows that

the

Latin for

'letter',

elementum,

also

means

'physical

element',

just

as

Greek

axoi%eiov

means element' both in the sense of'letter' and in that

of'physical

element'. So

this also holds for another Greek

word

meaning

Tetters'.

Now

the

text

says

that

the

'way'

of these

ypoccpecov,

'both

straight

and

crooked,

is

one

and the

same',

so

what

we

have here

is

a

horizontal

movement

of the

physical

elements which

is

complementary

to

their

famous Heraclitean

way

up

and down.

So

far

M. But I

suggest

we

need

not

think

of the

physical

elements

even

if

. is

right

that Tetters'

are meant

here:

when

writing

a

line,

even

in

an

archaic Greek

script,

one

inscribes

straight

as

well

as

curved strokes.

Unfortunately,

therefore,

Heraclitean

studies

are

not

furthered

by

M.'s

approaches

to

the

text

of the fragments,

nor

by his criteria for inclusion.

Utrecht

University, epartment

of

hilosophy Jaap

Mansfeld

Heidelberglaan

6

3584

CS

Utrecht,

The

Netherlands

]aap.Mansfeld@phil.

uu.

nl





Mouraviev, Serge N._heraclitea. Recensio III. Fragmenta Heraclitea [...]_2006 [Mansfeld, Jaap_Mnemosyne, 62, 1_2009_113-116]

Documents