Understanding Diels-Kranz (DK) numbering
  • Jean-Jaques Rousseau
    1
    I understand the lettering; that As are direct quotations and Bs are references or comments or paraphrases in regard to certain philosophers.

    What I don't get is how to distinguish the Bs?! (pun not intended)

    Example:

    Heracleitus B50 - 'Listening not to me, but to the logos, it is wise to agree that
    all things are one.'
    (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 9.9.1)

    ... this is paraphrasing; Hippolytus is saying that Heracleitus SAID this.

    While this...

    Heracleitus - B70 '[Heraclitus judged human opinions to be] children’s
    playthings.
    (Stobaeus, Selections 2.1.16)

    ...this is quite clearly referencing; Stobaeus is talking ABOUT Heracleitus.

    Those examples are obvious, the former is a famous reflection of Heracleitus, the latter explicitly refers to Heracleitus, so no issues in understanding these.

    However, these are the exceptions. To the laymen, like myself, for most entries I can't tell the difference; if the entries are paraphrases or comments. Is Stobaeus saying that Heracleitus said this, or is he saying that Heracleitus was this?

    Am I misunderstanding something here, or that just the way it is and something to contend with?

    Thanks for getting to the end.
    Jean-Jaques Rousseau Options
  • tim wood
    8.7k
    From Heraclitus Translation and Analysis: "Recognizing that any thematic arrangement of the fragments involves a good deal of speculation and interpretation on the part of the arranger, Diels presented them (more or less) according to the alphabetical order of the names of the sources from which the fragments were derived. This arrangement has, to a large extent, become the standard in Heraclitian scholarship." Dennis Sweet, 1995, preface.

    Sweet continues, noting that Diels' intention, given that any other arrangement is speculative, was not to infect Heraclitus with his (Diels) interpretations "and to present them in an hermeneutically neutral fashion."

    Sweet observes that Kranz edited Diels, but says nothing more in the preface about him.

    I read all this as saying there is a standard arrangement (Diels) that is neutral in terms of interpretation. Some translators have attempted different arrangements based on their own ideas of interpretation.
    tim wood Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

Sign In Create Account

Categories