Heraclitus' usage of ὅστις in fragments DK B 5 and B 27

Abstract

In their basic senses the difference between ὅστις and ὅς is straightforward, corresponding to that between whichsoever/whosoever and which/who. But in usage it is often much subtler and at times negligible, both because ὅστις can like ὅς be used for a definite referent and because in certain constructions ὅς can like ὅστις denote an indefinite one. There are five certain uses of ὅστις in Heraclitus' surviving fragments, and it is notable that in each case translators do not render the term in its basic, indefinite sense but in a sense akin to ὅς. While in most cases this is clearly right, I question it with regard to B 5 and B 27, and explore what these fragments may have to say to us beyond prevailing interpretations if ὅστις is read as a true indefinite pronoun. In the case of B 27 this may, I argue, force us to revise our understanding quite radically. The paper also examines Heraclitus' use of other terms with a similarly indefinite reference (ὅς with ἄν, ὁκόςος, ὁκοῖος, ὅςος), for the purpose of establishing whether he would have used one of these in B 5 and B 27 instead of ὅστις if he intended indefinite objects there. I argue against this, since the connotations of these terms would be inapposite in these fragments in comparison with the root sense of ὅστις.