Digitized by the Internet Archive

in

2011 with funding from

University of Toronto

http://www.archive.org/details/parmenidesOOplat

THE PARMENIDES OF

I'LATO

PUBLISHED BY

JAMES MACLEHOSE AND SONS, GLASGOW,

JJoblishers to tht ambtruitg.

MACMILLAN AND
London, Cambridge, Edinburgh,

CO.,

LONDON AND NEW YORK.

Bvzues.

Simpkin, Hamilton and Co.

Macmillan and

Douglas and Foulis.

MDCCCXCIV.

One hundred and fifty

copies printed.

No.5L,

UC,r

.-:>:
THE PARMKNIDKS
()l

PLATO
.ii'i

wrik THE PAGING OF THE CLARKE MAM

WI

II

INTRODUCTIONS, FACSIMILES, AND NOTES

WILLIAM WARDLAW WADDLLL

M.A.,

GLASGOW AND OXFORD

*&
GLASGOW

JAMES MACLEHOSE AND SONS

_$nblis!urs to the &nitocrsitjj

1894

PRE FAC
The
author
in
first

studied

the

Parmenides
all

in

college

days

loi

an
1":

exercise

metaphysics;
the

Inn

such

occupations

had

to

renouu
1,

when he took up

practical

duties of his calling.

As time

how-

ever, the speculative interest revived, the subject

was resumed, and he found

before he had
realized that

himself most

unexpectedly committed
In the

to

publication

what such a step involved.

meantime he had become

satisfied

the highest manuscript authority for the text

his leisure

was accessible

at

Oxford, and
zeal

moments had now

to

be given to palaeography.

With the

of a beginner he decided to reproduce the form of the manuscript, a resolution

rendered feasible by the condition of the

of his page
;

text.

This fixed

for

him the

size

and that

in turn

suggested facsimiles and a regard to outward

aesthetics

appearance.

Metaphysics,
:

palaeography,

such
errs
It

was

the
the.

writer's

downward course
taking.

it

remains to hope that the result may justify

the

under-

So

far

as

contents are concerned

work

both by excess

and by

defect,

and that largely through circumstances.

if

was compiled

in
in

spare hours, at long intervals, while the writer was,

he may so speak,

bondage under the elements of the world.

occasionally
to

During

its

progress effort was

standpoints

misdirected,

notes

lost

their

first

significance,

had

be abandoned,
in

and the

literature

of

the

subject

proved unmanageable.
feels
ecu

And
while

the end, with

little

no mere affectation of humility, the writer

ep

he presents
his

upon philosophy save

to

that

contributions

palaeography

have

still

to

be

tested

by

the

PARMENIDES.
experts.

At most he can but rank with the untrained boxers of Aristotle,

who

7Tf

,'
all

A
detect

commentator on Plato must beware of two

in

.
dangfers.

If

he does not
he

his

author the

latest
;

developments

of

metaphysics

may be

adjudged ignorant of these

'historic sense.'

if

he does he
is

may be

taxed with a want of the

The dilemma

not an agreeable one.

The

writer

is

perhaps
is

imperfectly informed upon recent metaphysical theories, but his ignorance

not

proved
case,

by a

failure

to

read
little

Hegel

into

the

Parmenides.

In

a
but

parallel

he might

know

of renaissance architecture in

Italy,

that

could

not

be

properly

inferred

from his

inability

to

find

a place on

the Acropolis for half the public buildings of Vicenza.

if

On

the other hand,

Plato

himself escapes
his

being

Hegelian,

it

must be granted that the

It

comments of
is

Neoplatonic followers have a strangely modern character.

part of the wonderful suggestiveness of Plato's contributions to philosophy

that

they act

contagiously upon
'

the

imagination of readers
'

and even the

Parmenides, perhaps the most

sawdustish
the

among them,
field,

is

no exception.

Toward previous workers

scholars of the highest
rank,

in

same
is

many

of

them

critics

and

the writer

not consciously chargeable with

discourtesy or

disingenuousness.

But

if

any expression should be thought

to

wanting

in

respect, or

any view appear

desires
to
will

be appropriated without acknowthe

ledgment,

he

sincerely

recall

one and give up the other.

Among

his

brightest

memories

be the days of lovely autumn weather

which his work led him to pass, from time to time, among the quiet and
impressive surroundings of great libraries.
It
is

no

less

a pleasure than a

duty to acknowledge here the very great consideration and kindness shown

him by the

authorities of

all

these noble institutions.

In particular, he will
officials

always remember with gratitude that at Tubingen the time of the

was drawn upon and the

rules of the library

were relaxed to oblige him, and

that from Venice, through the personal kindness of

Count Soranzo, a photo-

graphic negative was received within a fortnight of the date on which the

/.

7
foi

request

for

il

was posted

in

Scotland.
ol

His

tl

obli

communications from
M.ili.iii\

Mr. Warnei
oi

the

British

Museum, and loan lv

is

While the character

revision,
to

the

letterpress
fitful

such as to
l

demand
volume
the

m<

attentive
it

the

protracted
assistance

and
from
are

pi

the

made
pro
in

impossible
printed
of

ask

friends
.ill

in

looking

ovei
t"

The

authorities

consulted
luit

named from time

calls for
<>i

time

the
ition

course
in

the

work,
with
the

Professor

Schanz
The

Bpecial

connection
net

manuscripts.

writings

som

mmentato

could

be

had

separately,
in

and

an quoted

from the

variorum edition "f

at
all.

Valpy.
.ne the

Others, cited

turn

by tin,,
in

. mid not he procured

provincial
that of

.Sin h

disadvantages
the

>>

living

a
is

town.

>i

English

editions

o( the dialogue a century ago.

edition
in
;

only one used

writer

Thomson, published more than

The

remembers

seeing,

when

a student, a small

modern

but
to

he.

did not note the author's or publisher's name, and

has tried
sources

vain

obtain a copy since.

He
is

owes very much

ended, he
is

to

all

these

of information.

Now
in
all

that the

work

satisfied that the

standard
t>

aimed

at

is

deserving

of respect;

but

when he

thinks

of

the

extent

which learning

branches has latterly become specialized, and of the

the

many

pitfalls

lying

in

path
is

of

imprudent amateurs,

his

satisfaction
'

is

tempered with anxiety, and he

almost ready to say with Thomson.

nee

laudem quaero, sed pro laude veniam.'

STIRLING, October

ra,

18

NT NTS
Entrobuction

PARI
.

FIRS1

rHORSHIP OF
SEQ!
ITS
l

W( >uk.

II.

)i

nil.

work,

111.

CHARACTER AND CQNT1

PART SECOND
I.

SOURCES OF THE TEXT,

Ixxin

II.

THE CHIEF MANUSCRIPTS,

\\1.

Jloii

1.

TEXTUAL,

41

II.

EXPLANATORY,

nkx.

'77

facsimiles
I.

LAST PAGE AND SUBSCRIPTIO OF CLARKE

MS.,

facing p. cxvi
p.

II.

SPECIMEN OF VENICE
PAGE
154

MS
..

xxii

III.

OF CLARKE

MS.,

/.

exxviii

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTK

l\
in

writing an

introduction

to

the

Parmenidei of Plato
no doubt

il

in

irtunatcly
y of

n
t'

view
far

o\

modern
best

controversies, to
is

begin by discussing the auth

rk.

So

as

Antiquity

con<

irn

upon

th

would appear
Ion;

to
I

hav

arisen

The

manuscripts give the dialogue without hinting a

>n

an

can be traced back, with reasonable certainty, to

tirst

fountain
>r

dating from the

thirty-six years of our era.

all

Within that period one Thra

Platonic writings held

Thrasyllua dn

up an arrangement of

by him to be genuine, which ins to be the source of most or .ill of our existing texts. According to L.iertius this arrangement took the form of tetralogies, and was .is follow;
those
I :

I.

Kuthyphro.
Cratylus.
l'armcnicles.

Apologia.

Crito.

ha
Politicus.
1'iiaedrus.

II.

Theaetetua
Philebus.

Sophist

III.

Symposium.
Hipparchus.
Laches.
Gorgias.
Io.

IV. Alcibiades .

Alcibiades n.

Antcrastac.
Lysis.

V. Thcages.
VI. Euthydemus.
VII. Hippias major.
VIII. Clitopho.

Charmides.
Protagoras.

Meno.

Hippias minor.
Respublica.

Menexenus
Critias.

Timaeus.
Epinomis.

IX. Minos.

Leges.
It
is

.
Se,
:

Epistolae.

indeed indicated by Diogenes

;

place

that

Thrasylus

had doubts about one of these dialogues

but that was the

Anterastae, not the Parmenidcs^

Immediately
ot

much
'

" earlier date.

after giving this

called

of Byzantium,'

whose prime we may place between 220 and 190

.
V. Crito.

list,

however, Diogenes goes on to record a second How

6

says he r

According, then, to Aristophanes the grammarian,

B.C.,

,
'

in

another

II

(:<t it

can !

as

trace

back

the order

o( the dialogues should be this

I.

Respublica.
Sophista.

Timaeus.
Politicus.

Critias.

III.

Leges
Epistolae.
it

Minos.

Epinomis.
Apologia.

II.

S'

'

ev
;

does not appear

and we have to consider whether it was likely to be found among the remainder which were placed not in groups but singly.' The ordering of the Platonic

Cratylus.

IV. Theaetetus. Euthyphro.

Phaedo.
In the trilogies,

will

be observed, the Parmenide?

ii

THE PARMENIDES.
among
the scholars

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . : ^ ' ', , , ' ', , ,, ), , , '' ,
writings would seem to have been almost an industry in itself
flourished after the founding of the great libraries.
First

we have Thrasylus
'

who

next

and Aristophanes

,
'

while immediately after the word

{i.e.

Diogenes goes on

the

evioi),

56-62.

Diogenes Laertius upon the canon of Plato's works.

and detailed statement he

arranged by Thrasylus
:

.
His
(2)
'

'

(Thrasylus and his followers)

'

final

remark

is

as follows, continuing from

(some read

Thus we have got before us a complete deliverance by

Now

in

the course of this connected

(1) gives

a long
list

list

of dialogues held to be genuine and

a shorter

of those arranged
:

by Aristophanes,

after which'
;

he says,

'

the rest
will

were placed one by one

dialogues,
'

(3)

enumerates other arrangements

some of
(2)
:

which as
(4)

be observed, begin from dialogues

named
is

in (1)

although not named in

gives

the

names of those

'the' dialogues, which

Grote's)
:

were 'declared to be
lastly (5) indicates the

spurious

by common consent

(the translation

and

great importance which was attached to the ordering of these works

antiquity.

by the scholars of
bearings.

In a word he has the subject fully present to his mind in

all its

And

the question comes to be

if

Aristophanes had omitted from his

list

the Parmenides, or

any dialogue included

have
3

in the list of Thrasylus,

would Diogenes under these circumstances

failed to

say so

work

as .genuine in

That does not seem probable, more particularly since he treats the his Lives of Parmenides and Zeno and we may thus infer that the
;

Parmenides existed among 'the

author

rest' of

Aristophanes at

have, moreover, the following very comprehensive decision ascribed by Diogenes to an

who

lived

not include the

It

may

perhaps be asked at
all this
?

,
half a

century or so later than Aristophanes,

etc.

but cannot well exclude any others.

this stage

,
let

us say

210

B.C.

We

This verdict

may

those copies

of Plato's works which formed

?

the text for

deliberation

and arrangement, where were they to be seen

is

to

whom
very

did they belong

Although the conclusion

not based upon positive testimony,

it is

generally assumed that the copies were those contained in the Alexandrian, and perhaps
in

the Pergamene, library.

The year 2S3

B.C.

marks the point

;

at

which the throne of

Egypt passed from the First Ptolemy to the Second and it appears to be accepted that by this date the library at Alexandria had taken definite form. While owing its origin to
the tastes and munificence of the Ptolemies, that great collection seems to have been

much

indebted for

its

actual character and contents to Demetrius of Phalerum.

Of this man

born

in

Attica shortly after Plato's death, for years conspicuous and popular at Athens, an

orator, a

voluminous author, a student of philosophy, and

finally a protector of Plato's

successor Xenocrates

we

do not indeed know, but may with every

right assume, that he

WTHORSHiP
was familiar with Plato'

01

THi

Academy when
hi
t

14

when
ure

In

later

life

he had the eai and rapport

ol

Ptol

foi

Alexandria the

copy which
oi

care, ikill,

and
tl

the Platonic writin

tbove,
from,

Exclusive

Demetrius,

Vristophanes
;

was fifth curator of the Alexandrian collection and hie period we shall suppose, his fiftieth yeai thai It, from aboul an
have
ige,

of

We
this

jusl

seen what an object

are
.it

oi

itudy the
entitled

Platonic
to hold

writin

.nni

we
one,

the
at

same time
s

th

that
in

.1

careful

ted

Alexandria as

irly

at least
re.

the

year 347 B.C, or about

hundred
quoted

yeai
to

interval?

Although
oral,

pa
instruction

are
in

prove that

Plato

written,

compared with

philosophy, he wa

luminous Author;

and both from the style

<

his

works and from familiar anecdob

about him,

we
in

are justified
life

in

saying that he was a most careful

middle

founded

an

institution

at

the

He Academy which would have many

and
critical

one

al

hi

common
here
ries

with a University.

and

beyond

all

rational

Here he lectured to numerous and enthusiastic student doubt would be collected, as they were written, the
This would seem to give a greater
e,

'.

of his published works.

initial

probability

oi careful transmission than could be affirmed in the ca

or

for

example, of Herodotus
passed

Thucydides.

But further

on

its

founder's

death

the

institute

under the

charge of a nephew, Speusippus, and thereafter, as we have seen, of a disciple, Xenocrates

;

the consecutive presidency of

whom

brings us to the

year 314 B.C

Nor

d<

Academy seem to have been broken or its abode disturbed until On what precise material the works at the Academy when comthe time of Sulla. plete were engrossed may be uncertain, but there can be no extravagance in assumir
the
career of the
that
full
it

was capable of

lasting for

century;

and

if,

as seems highly probable,

the

list

carried

was made up under Speusippus by the year 340 B.C., we would thus have it safely down within the period during which Demetrius could have it tranPtolemy.

scribed for

Few whp have

find

read

the vicissitudes which

in

have been survived

assumption,
at

by the Clarke MS. would

least

any

difficulty
all

accepting

the

that

at

two well authenticated copies of

Life of Democritus, that Plato

Plato's

works existed

the year 200 B.C,

one at Athens and one at Alexandria.

in his

Nay

to
it

judge from the remark of Diogenes

was persuaded not to burn the works of Demowas probably much

is

critus,

because

'

many had

copies

'

With such an argument

satisfied.

as this

the number indeed

if

greater.
is

substantially his

Grote
;

perfectly

He

considers that few

authenticity of their

any authors of the Greek classic age have the writings placed upon so substantial a foundation and unhesitatingly
series,

adopts the entire

Thrasylean
to

rejecting

only the works which

in

Alexandrian

by common consent' And surely his verdict is weighty. Few have had better means of knowing the amount of evidence on which the facts of Greek history depend. It is worth adding that the Scholiast on Aristotle's
times were 'declared

be spurious

"

IV

THE PARMENIDES.

^tootle,
Berlin Edit.,
'

Metaphysics
top.

though,

of course, he

is

comparatively late

7P6

a.

some investigation. With such guarantees for authenticity, how did spurious works come to exist at all? Unless Plato himself left authoritative testimony that he had published all he wrote, or at
calls for

This topic of the spurious dialogues, however,

speaks

of

And

other passages might be cited.

had destroyed anything which he did not wish published, it might well enough be affirmed after his death, if any one had an interest in advancing such an assertion, that some hitherto unpublished work had been discovered. A student in the Academy or a contemporary of Plato might do so, if either desired to attack some statement by
least

Speusippus about his uncle's views.

Gaien on
pocr.
1

f^
and

de

nat.
:

p assa g e usually cited

hom. L oi

!5entley, Phalar.

\
forgery

which he makes reference

' " ' .

in

this

But even more unworthy reasons were not wanting. connection since Bentley's time is from Galen:

'

/'?
A.D.)

Galen certainly lived (130-200+

:

long after the date to

still

he was born at Pergamus, which favours the idea

Later writers
unless they derived their

that he had local tradition in support of his assertion, while the motive assigned for
is

unhappily only too probable.

also,

Ar.st. Berlin.

Ed., vol.

iv.

28

a.

See also

tes of

Ammonius and
c
t!,e

'
>

authority
?

from

this

passage, confirm
\

Galen's statement, and even

\

give
r

some
*

details

upon the

subject.
\

Thus David when commenting upon the works of

a
\ r
'
.

Aristotle, says,

0?

c,

'

'

and proceeds
time

to specify these.
libraries
it

It will

be observed that Galen dates forgeries

of
royal
rejected

from

the

when

had
this

already

expenditure.

Perhaps

is

on

become recognized channels ground that Grote would hold the

late

dialogues to have
libraries.
'

been

set

aside

simply because of their

admission into the

It

is

the transmission, the externally attested

that

we doubt'

so

he seems to make the librarians

that our catalogues were completed

speak 'and

authenticity, of these

works
are

our

doubts

based on the

fact

before they appeared.

" Platonisches

With
Gefiihl

their internal character

the

presence or absence
this

in

them of a
so.

we
these

take no concern.'

And

may

possibly be

Nay, the date

at

which

dialogues appeared might perhaps be brought within narrower compass

of

by

the

reference

Diogenes quoted above to the judgment of Panaetius.

The

inference

from the words of Panaetius,

either

who

died

before

1 1 1

B.C.,

would seem to be that he

did

not concur in the rejection of the spurious dialogues, or else

knew nothing

'-

'

In this way Aristophanes also them that they had appeared after his death. would know nothing of them, nor does Diogenes say anything to contradict this. But ' on the other hand what is to be said of the following?
of
(pupil of Socrates)

&

,.
<
1

,''
\

.////

'/

III

l:

1,,

rout
Bei

Si

/
yf,

\
U,

..
\

./
'

'/'/,
\.
;

/|
Of
'.

ft)l

"/
...
;

>

it]

('

,
otaf!

.
1
1

.,
<
;

\- '(,
y(

yapoit
.

oyxyi

".

..

1(.''
Sfvi

<
op,

rot

T&V
-. /

-'-

rows

us-,

",

,,

s,

"
this

'

'

raf#<
to

(Ueberweg
rovs
"

makes the Btrange mistake

dial

oi
\>y

supposing
the

be

thi

Phaedo, instead of the

written

person
for

of that

nan

rairac : to which we

may add

completi

(\ /> \ >
1

.nit

Ttfiov,

<
a7T(></'t'/" iT() "'

<<

From
was

these
:

/
<\
Mil

t<V

'\('
oucauot
it

-,

<\\
(i)

/
<<,

/< /,

passages
that

would seem clear

the
his or to

that

dia

before

Plato

born

(2)

about

time of Socrates' death, there sprai

up a perfect literature of them purporting to be

plagiarism
(4)

embody

his teaching

(3) that
:

existed and
tests

was exposed
this

at the time, in connection

with these dialogues then

that

the

by which

exposure was effected were

:

both

and

in

the
list

time of Diogenes

internal
list.

not external

(5)

and, finally, that in comparing the

given here with that given above, of the spurious Platonic works,
are
certain

we

find

that there

names common
given
in

to

both,
all

and that a reference

it

to
falls

and

eirru occurs in each

From
for

this

will

be seen that a shadow

of

upon the
to
Plato.
his

argument
great

but

now

the

authenticity

the writings

ascribed

Accordingly,

modern
to

times,

and more especially since

self-consistent

Schleiermacher made

scheme of reasoned truth from those writings, the whole question o( their reliability has been reconsidered. In arriving at a judgment, the tests applied have been both external or historic, and internal
attempt
construct a

or literary and speculative.

On
again,

the historic side, the great question has been,

Can we
other
is

find

evidence for the u

byAns:

existence of Plato's works prior to the time of Aristophanes the grammarian? which
for

practical
to

purposes,
in

resolves

itself

into
?

the
It

question,

Can we
an

find

references

them
is

the

works of Aristotle

obvious

that

authentic
the
less

reference

gleaned

from such a source would be of great authority.

not without
difficulties
;

At
is

same
fully
e

time the subject

for

the

text of

Aristotle

assured than Plato's own.

text,

Besides the facts already enumerated in support of Plato's

,.

we have

the further circumstance, that

according to the testimony of

Hermann

neberdie
",

and Zeller as quoted 'in der by Ueberweg gesammten alten Literatur, soweit sie ^ ' * uns erhalten ist, keine gesicherte Beziehung auf ein Platonisches Werk sich findet,

chl

"

"

Platon.Sc.
r

n**-

vi

THE PARMENIDES.
'

welches heute nicht mehr existirte

so that
be.

we now

possess at least

all

the genuine

works of
c

Plato,

whatever those

may

No

such affirmation can be

made

in the
list

case of Aristotle.
is

In the Berlin Edition,

among

the fragments, quite a considerable

given of works referred to in ancient writers as by Aristotle, which have not

down
is
note 22, Enj.

Again a considerable quantity of what actually appears under doubtful, either absolutely or else in the precise form in which we find
to us.
list

his
it.

come name
Zeller

Th gives a
this

of references to

Plato in Aristotle which he holds to be discredited on

in

ground.

Let us now take two cases

with which compare

which clear references do occur.

A.

404 b, 16.

Anima we have
yap

,
But

n. t,

n6x

a, 4.

/
Can any
can
not.
it

case of both these dialogues, references might be multiplied.

,
we
the

'
V.

Timaeus 35

Again

in

the

Politics

with which compare Republic, Book

,
we
in

In

De

find

In the
is,

For us the problem

is

similar reference be quoted of which the Parmenides

the object?

There

might, of course, happen that Aristotle, while really having in his

in the

eye a work by Plato, might be less precise

form of his
references

allusion, trusting that,

from the context or other circumstances, those for

real

whom

he wrote would understand

to

his

intention.
all
is

Accordingly,

find

many

alleged

Plato which range

through
w.
a,

the grades of likelihood from practical certainty downwards.

12= b, 26.

example
instance:

one which has given

in

rise

to discussion

.380139

a.

but

the Parmenides

,
Undoubtedly the
[81 c-d.

we

.
is

Here

for

in

the Topics, Aristotle says,

No work
ye

find

is

cited

by name
ev

this

....

....
passages
is

identity, while

".
umcrsuch.
150,

sense of

on the other hand there

Ueberwcg
is

not sure that any more

] , . . , ,, two
the

',...

' '
,
ev

same, but there

is

no verbal

.
...

another similar passage in the Theaetetus

'

'

made
ton.

orally at the

Academy; but
is

if

meant than a reference to some statement a work is alluded to, he thinks that a reference
is

Parmen-

to the
i

Parmenides

'etwas weniger ungenau.'

fc

Again, Stallbaum,

in his

copious and

idescuraGodofr.
St-illbaumi, Lipsiae, 1848, pp.

earneci introduction to the dialogue, cites various passages from Aristotle, which clearly t> I
to treat of questions within Aristotle's knowledge, very closely resembling those
in this

seem

which are discussed

Sophist.
:o, >.

Eknch.

the distinction between

Tt?
TrXe/fc,

170 b, 20.

'

, ' , , ,
dialogue.

Of

these

we may quote

two.

Controverting

and

Aristotle says, Et

AUTHORSHIP OF nil
,,',,,

:,
|

,;,,(,.,'

poC

.',.<,.;,. ><i,

work,
)'()!'

In
(till
1

Toff
l.l/i/li
I

Mint'
.1

'
7'/>
la

,,

,;<,

y//.'i..v

And
re

tb

OVurei
(>,.<

T<>

7.

n<U

TO

fl

"i

doubted y there
I

is

strong

r<

icmblance here i"

author
that
ii

oui
tl

pp
is

but
not
i,.

unfortunately
close point

neither
to

the dial
us

oamed, and
All

ai

satisfy

without

additional

security,
in

tl.

"ut,

as Zellei

careful

to do, that

sllu Ions
writ

th
ire

uncertain
the

gain'
"l
ly

in

force

from

the school

circumstance thai
to

'the

Platonh

only writingi

the

Socratic

which he ever refers

really

This circumstance
.ill

m
[uoted

probable thai
this

Aristotle

intends

to
is

ascribe
is

the

writi

by him

In

form (here however the quotation

what
a

doubtful) to Plato.'
reference,

Admitting, however, the

Thus we find

absence of

clear

we
the

ill

entitled
in

plead, that, as was mentioned above,

form.
7re/)i

iteru

we but these two hooks, the apparent

anxiety.

^
in

we do
no,

not

Aristotle's
in

works
Berlin

the

list

of lost

works tabulated
Metaph.
the

Edition
vcrot ~

(Michael

Ephesius
silence

in

VI.

and othei
can

II
<:
:

of

Metaphysics might
that he never did
cases.

But taking matters at their worst

assuming
by
is

refer to
Zeller,

tl

Parmenides

we

might

still

meet the

difficulty

parallel

Thus

who
'

has carefully treated the question, says, '.Aristotle

not passing judgment on Plat

works as a
...

literary historian

who

is

bound

to furnish a complete catalogue of them,

them as a modern writer of the history of Philosohe only phy, whose object it is to combine their whole philosophic content ... mentions them when occasion offers... He owes his knowledge of the Platonic
deal

Nor does he

with

doctrines in the

first

place to verbal comnrmication and personal intercourse

in

the

second place only, to the writings of Plato....

The metaphysical bases of the system ... are ... searchingly criticised, ... but in by far the greater number of cases on the ground of Plato's discourses ... Only one of the many passages from which we sq. in derive our knowledge of the theory of ideas is quoted by him [Phaedo,
Met.
I.

9,

XIII.

5,

Gen. et Corr.

9];

he makes no allusion to what

Philebus, though there

is

said
;

on the
nor
to

subject

in

the

Republic,

Timaeus, Symposium, Phaedrus, and

Theaetetus

the explanations of the Sophist, Parmenides," and

was abundant
Plato
in

opportunity for

it...

It is certainly surprising

that Aristotle should

assert that
;

never enquired wherein the participation of

things

in

ideas

consists

while

the

Parmenides [130
clearly

sqq.]

the difficulties with

is

which

this

theory

has

to

contend are
assail

pointed

out.

But.it

not
:

more surprising than that he should

"

the

doctrine of
pattern

ideas with

the question
I.

Who

formed though

the
it

things of
is

sense

after
in

the
the

of

the

ideas?" [Met.
sq.]

9,

991a,

20],

distinctly

stated

Timaeus [2S C
irehetypes.

that the Creator of the world did this in looking on the eternal
that

Nor again
in

he
[100

should
etc.],

maintain,
often

notwithstanding
to

the

well-known

explanation

the

Phaedo

alluded

by himself,

that

viii

THE PARMEN1DES.
is

the final cause

not touched by the ideas [Met.

I.

9,

992a 29

oi)<5e

].
to

to

...

We

should have expected that

in

attacking Plato about the

*,
ideas

Aristotle,

had he been acquainted with the Parmenidcs, would have

the

referred

the fact that in that dialogue

same objection
stricture,
"

is

raised.

But might we not

also

have expected after the further

art

Plato

ought

then

assume

of

productions, mere
his writings

relations,

etc.,

which he does not," some such remark as

this:
15. i*

"In

+-

pected
certain

forgetfulness

other facts

peculiar to

hear of lost works

that
his

to

suppose that Plato was not well acquainted with the tenets of a

.
confined
" '

he certainly does speak of such ideas?'"

Nor

is

such unex-

'
may
is

to

Aristotle.

Diogenes
case,

Laertius

enumerates
seen,

Plato

in

whose

as has been

The

,
is

among

we do not
impossible

illustration

seems very pertinent

it

celebrity

Beriin Ed.

mentaries upon Aristotle's Physics Simplicius says,

57><?

Scholia 111b,

who was

contemporary

for

some

sixty years.

But something further

be urged
/

in relation to the question.

'

'

Ph>s.

i.

9.

191 b,

Aristotle to which Simplicius

[

sc.

' . ], . ,
or
y

referring are

, .
'"\

man

of great

Thus

in his

com-

'__***
The words
of

yap

Simplicius has said that the commentators regard

this
achFrgm.of
04

as a reference

to the historical

we have quoted.
a being which

Certainly Parmenides rejected

had

no

We may

observe also that Aristotle puts the words

...

,; ,

Parmenides, and then makes the remark which

,s.

and that the process of becoming and change is discussed more than once in the Parmenides, particularly in the argument marked in our marginal summary, III. iii., where the language used is in conformity with Aristotle's observation. We shall venture, however, to take a wider sweep in
under the government of
our reflections.
It
is

,
or

\,

',
is

ov entirely, and contended for

conceded that the Parmenides

a very important dialogue

It

in

connection with the characteristic

Ideas included in
its
title,

Platonic doctrine of ideas.

alone has the word

and some objectors can hardly be alive to the blank which would be caused in our conception of the ideal theory had this work not come down to us. They first read into that theory all the light this dialogue sheds, and then
extinguish
this
in
it,

but without forgetting what

reflect for

it

has shown them.

Let us now, bearing

In

mind,

moment upon
that

the character of Aristotle's Metaphysics.

composing the
strictness

treatise

of which

was perforce led

the

to dwell at

work represents all that we possess, Aristotle length upon the views of Plato, because Plato was in

His predecessors, with partial exceptions, were more properly investigators of physical facts and causes. Accordingly we find that the doctrines of Plato upon ideas are discussed pointedly and in detail in a
first

of the

metaphysicians.

WTHORSHI?
pass igc
in

m
thi

In.

li

twice
the

>

peated,

and

thai

other

p. ui

"i

work.

And
Is

yet,

throughout
n.t

thi

whole,

or

named
will

the

Hippiai,

which
thai

lurely

ol

vital

con
dial
ii

and

the

i'ha

it

not

be

maintained

the

Phaedo [ the only

expected.
I

would under the circumstances

tion
wiiii
.1

be
the

ven

il

referred

to

only

In

ipecial
.1

point,

.iml

allusion ol
.till

similar nature,
citation

argum nt which precedei and Suppose the Parmenidei dropt from

from the Meno, the
lus,

(:'.
the

moment,
Philebu

why have we no
mi. i.u
.

the

Republic, the

tin

to

say nothing

ol

the Sophistea and

tin

Politicus,

which, like the Parmenidi

are suspect?

Surely, to
tin-

repeal

contention

of Zeller, with

unmentioned,
tin-

ai

[umenl from silence

in

much
the

ol

it*

force.

And

it

we
arc

coi

substance of Aristotle's criticisms

just

indicated,

we

justified

in

contending
obvious
portions,

th.u

and
sial

text

no dialogue which Plato ever wrote would form a more natnr.il Apart now from it^ controverfor them than the Parmenides.
is

what

the

character

of

Aristotle's

very

artistically

compacted,

but

it

exhibits
V,
<'ir,

handles repeatedly the conceptions

stood,

*
one
'is

Parmenides

at

large.

(2)

It

defines or describes certain

prominent

among which besides

jrepay,
etf,

and

farrtpa,

~,

moment

consider the. part played by these ideas

,
i\
is,

*
and
that
'is

treatise

as

whol

It

is

not
It

several

will

marked

features,

, , ,
Zv

For these we

may

refer

terms liable to be misunder-

stand
of

oXov,

y<Vo

Let any one

(3)
It

*
(n
to
;

the

for

in

the Parmenides.

emphatiui.

cally

presses,

a plusiettrs
inquiries,

rrfriscs,

the vital

importance
for

the

law of contradiction
insistence

to

metaphysical

although the natural place

such

would be a

treatise

on deductive

logic.
in

Now
and

a prominent

objection

urged by Grotc against the

arguments advanced

the

Parmenides
is

they constantly violate this law

like

the
but

and

is

not,'

'moves
the

still,'

and

unlike,'

'one

and

main.'

The law

&

,
our supposition
tions

of contradiction had
all

hardly received definite form before

to give
it

Aristotle might feel

more bound
(4)

prominence
it

conspicuous

had been exemplified.

physics

and

mark the employment

known statement en

, , , >,
of

instance in which

Let any one glance

such

'/,
ol It
is

the text of this dialogue. physics

is

not meant, by this line of argument, that the Meta-

,,
in

neglect of
at

the vocabulary of the Meta-

words

as

taking along with

,,, ,
in

Plato's time

view of the

under

metaphysical investiga-

it

the well

and then compare

a polemic directed against the Parmenides alone

would have been named

in

but

in

that case the dialogue

it

is

meant

that

the

substance of the

Parmenides

is

distinctly included with that of such dialogues as the

Republic, Phaedo, and Philebus,

in

Aristotle's

mental picture of Plato's views, and forms a prominent feature

his

controversial allusions;

and that but

its

for the existence of the

Parmenides.. the polemic

of Aristotle would lose half

point and value.

THE PARMENIDES.
Yet, probable as these arguments

may

be, so

long as actual demonstration

is

is

not

reached
relation

objections

may be

raised.

The

chief of these

that, while

the

points of

between the Parmenides and the Metaphysics are undoubtedly

striking, they

are due, not to the fact that the author of the latter

had the former

so

in his

mind, but
either read

rather to a very different cause, to wit that the author of the former

had

the

latter

or

had

heard

Aristotle

lecturing,

and
to
it

could

not

be

Plato.

This

objection and

any answers that may be made

In reply

rest not

upon

historical

but upon

internal evidence.
it

we may argue thus

referring
He

to the notes for details,

look

i.

Had
is

the author of the Parmenides been a student of Aristotle he would in

as

discussing,

he does, ideas of relation have naturally called them ideas

which

their technical

name

in Aristotle's

works.

the preposition

of Aristotle

,,,.
was yet unselected, we

',

in

a less

formal

way

and so on

way which

suggests that, while the technical phrase

it

?
work.

does not do
al

so.

But he uses

ew,

may

have here the very source from which

was drawn.

Again,

we

find scattered

word

in

But we do not find the coalescing with the following the manner which is familiar to readers of Aristotle, in such words as

through the work such names for the ideas as

,
they
in

Here
this

seems unknown to the writer of

is

where
alone, there
in
is

said

to

be opposed as a

no allusion to the well-known technical phraseology of the Categories,

the chapter upon

2.

,
of

with regard to

And
less

'
the

as with

the terminology, so with the conceptions, of the dialogue

.
to
in
first

also the technical terminology

Similarly in

the passage

and to that

seem
i

developed and analysed than similar conceptions

discussion

3 8.

corap.
ui.
0.
1

Thus the

',

the works of Aristotle.

which

is

begun

in

argument and resumed

etc.

Met. x.

44E-I45.

Comp.
jo
1

other p ar ts of the work, does not reveal a logical division of the subject as clear as that which we find in the Physics. The same seems to hold good in regard to
trie

Met.

iv. 26,

relations

of

to

when compared with

ov ergo

the

c.

Metaphysics.

Nor could the argument

'

treatment of them

in

the

have been employed by

anyone who was familiar with the Sophistici Elenchi, particularly chapter V. But specific evidence is produced, chiefly by Ueberweg, which tends to show that
statements
dialogue.
in

the Metaphysics are irreconcilable with the Platonic authorship of this

speaking of
i.

6,

087 b

9.

clause.

Ueberweg gives no verbal translation of the words but in order to make out case from them the rendering would need to be that Plato and the Pythagoreans
:

' , . , .
1.

Thus

Ueberweg quotes the following remark made by Aristotle when the manner in which, according to Plato, things participate in the ideas

'.

, ',
'

The

objection here hinges on the sense of the last

. ..
ipenlng
,,<

iii

omitting
the
to

t"

in'.

'

tli

part

ol

Pai menid<

b< ai

being
In itanl

In

expn
in
1

ten
in
ibl

tlon

omei
erroi

Ing

mal

inadvertent
ic.it ,uil

on

Am

totle'a
sp<

part

tly

pon

man

somewhat
has
laid
tin

hostile

ulation

not

opponent
night
ft[

and done.

Any modern
tuch an

philosophi

illustrate

Again
ground;

argument might

be

perceptibly

weakened by
.1

repetition.

We

would

dialogues

on

such

and

as

.t

fact

Uebei

Aristotle explicitly states that

like
flesh

Plato never invc

himsell
to that

or bones, but confined

.1

o(
I

Timaeus 73
>\

work which
ol

ebci

;
on
tl

not

wil

has

that

difficulty

which
I

is

conti

of those

authentic

Aristotle,

because
'theils

the

number
dies

ol

his

.ill.

to

it.

H<
l<

himsell

thus:

lntn.it

ink-

Fra
Plato
it

tui

Uebersehen
hi

leichter

erklarlich ware, (surely to

would be a question of

both places) theils bestimmt Aristoteles im

mit

Polgendi
\
r

Meinung naher dahin,

el
I

&
in

dass

Ausnahme
'worin,'

des

Demokrit
1

keiner

seiner

iftlich

Bedeutsames daruber gesagt habe.

Philebus,

Again, the nature of

&
noch
kein

in

th

however,
is

pleads

Ueberweg,

'Aristoteles

finden

mochte.

Probably he

contending for a foregone conclusion.

<

may be attacked on closer grounds. The words be made to bear the meaning above given to them
but
the
feel

But

the

argument
>ly

may

that another

is

preferable.

Aristotle,

if

fairly

same time one cann understood, simply means that

at the

Pythagoreans and

Plato were

not

wedded

to

particular view

on this matter.
tried

They held the doctrine, believed that it contained the key of their problem, and no doubt. Yet they acknowledged the to make their meaning intelligible;
whelming
Bonitz
difficulty

over-

of the

subject

and

'

left

the

matter as an open question to be

investigated in

common' by
to

philosophers.

'In

medio reliquerunt' says the Index of

'

under
is

(though a different view would seem to be taken under

find

and

it

satisfactory

that

Dr.

Jackson

in

one of

his

very

able

articles
,

translates the passage thus,

i'lato

'but what this participation or imitation was to be, both

left

and the Pythagoreans

doe's

an open question.'
in

With such
with
his

a rendering there
;

is

no

No.

so,

difficulty

about Plato's discussing

discuss
fresh light
it,

the

Parmenides or elsewhere
conclusions,

he

may
IO0 .,

uid

welcome

from any friendly quarter.

especially IOO D,

already said

' . , ,',
but

he

is

far

from

satisfied

and would

Appeal might be made

.
2.

)'

\]
by

etc.

The

objection, in fact, cannot be sustained.

,
that

to the Phaedo,

'

(he had

Again,
is

it

is

contended

very

plausibly

Ueberweg

an

argument
is
:,.

which

put forward in the Parmenides against the tenability of the ideal theory

xii

THE PARMENIDES.
is

simply an adaptation of what

Aristotle,
indtv Aristoteii

called the

confutation employed

by

Aristotle

and must therefore have been employed by some forger who had read not by Plato. In Bonitz we find the following cases in which Aristotle
refers to this

cussu

makes use of or
o.

Met

i.

990 b

()

"

Met

xii

(2)

Which we

.
e
1

argument.
(i.e.

,
place

of those in which

'

,
'

are maintained)

Mei

vi

'3

,"
(3)
ev

... .

]
Met.

. ,

59 b
>,

(4)

.
'

,, ,
,

next as a mere repetition of the previous one

'

.
Sophist. Eiench.

,.
the idea)

(5)

' " ''

//
(Met. .)

.
(i.e.
<5e

, '
.}

.
. .

,
'

, , .
,
'
others

" '
\

oi

'

namely, among

(6)

Alexander commenting upon

be conducted,

Now by
we have not
argument

) , .
first

'

(i) says, after illustrating

.
it

''
<

This he goes on to

how

the argument

(i.e.

Aristotle)

'
in

interpret.

may

any one looking over these passages

will

probably be admitted that

is

discovered the origin of the name.

if

The

fourth

the only one in which

Aristotle speaks in terms which look as

for the

he were making use of the name or the

so, for

time
it

yet he can hardly be doing

first

this is

in the tenth

Book, and we see that

already appears in the

and

sixth.

And
in

these (we
well

may

bracket

I.

and
(5)

XII.)

he speaks of 'the'
refers

. .

as of a

method of reasoning

known, while

in

he

to

it

as
it

being used quite

commonly

a sophistical

manner

and

finally

Alexander says
in

was used by others as well

as

by

Aristotle.

was used by others, is simply adopting the language of the passage (1) on which he is commenting. It is hard to understand how anyone reading Met. I. 9 could assume that the argument called . . originated with Aristotle. It is an argument of general bearing, to which a particular application
Perhaps however Alexander,
saying
it

has given a pithy name.

The name may be due

it

to Aristotle, although his existing

works seem to give no proof that

is;

but of the thing he expressly declares

.//

THORSHIP

Ok

in

''

rw\

\.'<<...

,
If
II

tli*

tin

iiincnt

in
.

tli.

hit h

..
point

I'.utii. ni.l. I
..

<!

'

Wfith

th(

"|" "
tli
i!t---t
1

'"
.
1

a
: :

i.

mi ,l\

.tun h\<\

and

which
render
.

Ml
thai

foi

Aristotle

to

out

But
ihall

Aristotli

nothing
set,

which
to

ihould
other

in
tl

objection;

and,

we
.

presently

applies

v.-.ii

\,<

id

Parmenides.
a<

Accordingly we

may meel
in

ebei

objection thu
it

[f

the

argument occurs
even,

the

Parmenid*

does no1 follow thai

oi

it

was

derived from Aristotle, ilnce he speaks

f-i.

ol thai

argumenl
the

known independently
In

him

We

mighl

as

has

been hinted above,

ol

find

the

words

ol

wcptfifortpo*

tot \oywv the

correct

missing

reference

Aristotle

description

[ackson

holds

expression used by Aristotle

the
following
...

speaking acknowledge the existence of ideas

in

,
y.

Parmenides

^
thai

of the dialogue could

be given than these words convey;

there

is
it

n<>

doubt

upon the

may

phrases:

perhaps be interesting to quote from the dialogi

ywo$
. . .

oWrOTe/a
ease.

...

meets

the

Aristotle

declares

, ) .
to

Parmenides

certainly

no

mon
tin

and Di
v.ith

matter.

In

connection

axptptt

/^
he
cli

Ill

other

JSO the

that

these

of

which

and the definition given

the Categories enables us to determine that

and
Republic.
*/

',
ih

the ideas of
all

<>/9,
in

/*<",'

of which this dialogue speaks, are

:

ideas of that

Hut we

so does the
says, $vo

\
question

' ,,

up the Republic or Timaeus with it ? Fortunately it is not incumbent on us to do so. Already a clear reference to each of them from Aristotle as'genuine has been cited, and they stand at the head of Ueberweg's list as being more frequently and clearly referred to by Aristotle' than any other Platonic works. And if they stand, then, so far as this
repetition.

4..
whether
there
are
ecrrai

,,' , .
if

may go

further

the

Parmenides contains the argument

question
*

Plato

is

arguing about the construction of

by God and
...

irXetovi otrre

So likewise
or

in

the

several

hcavons

one

there

must be but one,

'

yap

'
we

'. ,
is

Timaeus a propos of the

Here, as before, the argument

are
to give

\veakened

by

We

might surrender the Parmenides;

p vi

above,

argument

is

concerned, the Parmenides

may
is

stand with them.

not

Admitting, however, that the work

than Aristotle, scholars
still

proved to be of a date more recent

it

couid Plato have

maintain on various grounds that

at least could not ****''

out,

have been written by Plato.

does
a

Thus Socher,
it

as

Stallbaum points

considers

the
it

Parmeo.
I " trod
**"

work spurious on the ground that while

so
in

treats of a subject
"
is

eminently Platonic,

33;

trenchantly destructive
zu Leibe " (Socher).
!

spirit.

steller sich selbst

This

So derb geht doch wohl kein Schrifta plausible argument To anyone who

\iv

THE PARMENIDES.
to

seeks

arrange

the

works of

Plato

so

as to give a complete and self-consistent

scheme of philosophic reasoning, a criticism such as he is here found directing against the basis of his system cannot but cause some embarrassment. And Stallbaum's
explanation of the difficulty must be regarded as unsatisfactory.
ri.ito

According to him

here criticises not the actual theory of ideas but merely something which to an
reader might be mistaken
his, to

inattentive
like his

for
if

own, yet not

appear as

But that Plato should allow views so rejected by himself, without clearly indicating
it.

their points of divergence,

trifling
It

seems very improbable, and amounts almost

to deliberate

with the convictions of those

who were
is

his pupils

and devoted

followers.
like

may
out

be pointed out that there

of a

no exceptional keenness, nothing

It
is

animus,

in

the

phraseology of the Parmenides.

theory of ideas, and

simply a discussion of the

difficulties

acknowledgment of their gravity. In the Theaetetus Plato exhibits as untenable every definition of knowledge; yet he believed in knowledge and in knoAvledge of ideas. In such a case we must take account of the mental detachment, the humorous sense of self-depreciation, which shows itself at
arising

an

intervals

in

all

Plato's

writings.
is

We

hear of the

irony of Socrates

and no doubt
artistic

much
arises

that

Plato

writes

written

artistically in

character.

But

his

success

largely from personal

sympathy with the

faculty,

feeling

delineated.

Moreover he had
gifted

remarkably developed
life

dialectical

and no thinker so

could

reach

middle

without being forcibly impressed

by the conviction that

if

in the last resort

metaphysical questions must be dropped with a sigh, rather than argumentatively set
Works of

. h.
'

at
'

rest.

'I

thought,' says Prof. Green, an earnest metaphysician

I

ever one existed,

as
I

had got hold of a key which

find

now

will not

unlock so

much

fancied
light

it

would.'
his

And

just as Socrates in the course of conversation

playfully

made

of

own knowledge,
this

so

Plato,

when impressed by
it

a sense

of metaphysical
If,

failure,

gives

feeling

from
is

time to time ample but also playful expression.

strong within him
asserts itself

on the

other hand, conviction

defects of
pbto
etc., u.

by

rising

above conscious
liveth'

argument

in great

declamatory bursts

know

that

my

redeemer

dogmatism of a professor. As Grote says, 'Plato is, he has also great negative fertility in occasionally, abundant in his affirmations but the affirmative current does not come into conflict with the starting objections
or again

by taking refuge

in the

negative.
vivid

His belief
fancy.
his

is

enforced

by

rhetorical

fervour,
in

poetical

illustration,

and a

emotional

These elements stand to him

full

the place of positive proof

and when
stated
in

mind

is

of them, the

unsolved

objections,

which he himself had

life

elsewhere, vanish

out of sight.
the

Towards the
of dialectic,

close of his

(as
for

we

shall see

the

Treatise

De

Legibus),

love

and

the

taste

enunciating

even when he could not clear them up, died out within him. He becomes ultradogmatical, losing even the poetical richness and fervour which had once marked
difficulties

his

affirmations,
is

and substituting

in

their

place a strict and compulsory orthodoxy.'

life

And what
applicable

here truly said

of Plato's

and speculation as a whole

criticism
is

is

equally

to

any dialogue wherein destructive

followed by a

constructive

II.

ut.

W
l

111

ii

tin

l.dl

in

III.

ill.

mi.

Lticj

tip thi

unlntei estin

catei hi im.

Drop
.1
I

th<

na

from
the
1

ol
I

tu

v.

nun
.it

.1.1

\{\

up

and
or

iu

leave

omit

the

tin

Republic
the
facl

Parmenidei
while
in

and

you
1

have
In

treat! e

lil

overlook
in.

thai

Plato'i

Enter

philosophy was undoubtedly profound,

rival

feeling

for

and delighl
time

literary

to

it,

and
be

from

time

to

even

took

control

oi
it

the
I

argument
ed that

Thii
in

may

called
Is

externa]

way

of putting
of

the

and

may

Plato the form

the

necessary counterpart

the matter, that

It
is

the two

compose an organism which cannol

this

be

levered

Into

its

elements,

doubtful whether
early
times,

alters
its

th<

qu<

tion

much.

Philosophic

enunciation

In

partly

from

fragmentary

and

inspired character, partly from

the undeveloped
thi
hi

state

of prose composition, was eithei

in

aphoristic

or

poetical.

Its

next form, during

Plato with

generation prior to Plato, became

it

the

main

that

of

the

dialogue.
verse,

natural

genius had almost no

in

philosophic

reading

except

and

for

years
in

witnessed
his

the dialogue

the
of
poetic

picturesque

and

lively

operation.

The

result

hands

was

sort

apotheosis of the dialogue.

the

Yet, soon afterwards, this form of expression ceased from

domain of speculation.
that

That
even

Plato was

not straining

his

convictions

when

re-

claimed

dialogue,

and

spoken
But, on

dialogue,

was

the

only

true

vehicle

for

speculation

we may
quite
think,

quite believe.

the other hand, Plato

write

sometimes
cannot
dialogue
narrative

aware

of

his

ability
felt

to

dialogue,
artificial

but

must
at

have
second,

dialogue

an

we can imagine was and occasionally, as we encumbrance. At times

us

runs

away with him.

the
essential
itself

At times again he
third, or

gives

not
If

dialogue

but

of dialogue
is

even

fourth

hand.
at

at

such

times his

expression

clothing

of his thought

then

such

times his thought

this

must

have

been
is

rather
in

artificial.

Let

us

be

frank

on

matter.

The
does

difficulty that

found
but

arranging his works ma}

published

in part

be due to the

fact that he-

lectured

constantly

only portions of his views.

That, however,

not meet the whole case.

Professors do not usually give to the world of their worst.

As
in

to

what has been most carefully matured and has produced their experience the deepest impressionA perhaps even what old pupils urge them put in a permanent form. but assuredly he was Plato may not have done this
a
rule

they publish

no child
polished.

in

authorship.

His works are voluminous, of

brilliant

ability,

and

carefully

while his
leave
his

Yet while he is often as detailed as any philosopher who ever lived, and works give much more than mere fragments of his views, he has seen fit to writings to the world as if they were in the main mere detached and
conversations

fortuitous

between

groups of persons

whom
it

accident

threw together.

Socrates

conversed at random.
in

Granted

but Plato was not

conversing.

Yet

his

works are
the

such a state of mutual detachment, that

needs a cumbersome literary

finesse in order to allude to

is

one

in

the other, and after

all

we

are left in doubt which

referring

dialogue and

which the object of the reference.

Surely

if

we

are

XVI

THE
at

ARMENIDES.
this
is,

now
at

issue
in

about the order of his writings and the growth of his views,
not

least

part,

but the penalty justly incurred by Plato the philosopher to

It
is

Plato
;

the literary

man.

meant
'

that

he was

often

or

consciously

sophistical
like

but

it

is

though
omitting
ing
to

meant that he was not infrequently artificial. pronounced to be terribly in earnest,' had a
to

Carlyle in

manner,
habit

very

artificial

of

specify

the persons whose views

Sauerteig and

he was controverting, and

friend.

of

affect-

quote

from

Our
then,
in

earnest

Leaving
Plato
as

this

slightly
'in

un-

congenial
*eii,

argument

on

one

side,

and

accepting

also

earnest,'
still

by Hill,

although Johnson does not admit that

regard to Greek thinkers,

we have

to

do not represent even to his own mind an elaborate 'system of reasoned truth,' in which every step is a logical necessity logically made good, where there are no defects and no excrescences, known or unknown to the author, and where the end is clearly in view from the beginning but that rather they

remember

that his works

exemplify the lifelong growth of a great mind, which had indeed a prevailing bias

and

aspiration,

but

little

demonstrable certainty about systematic

truth, yet often

details,

which was
it,

always feeling after the

confessed that

it

had
its

failed

to find

which

sometimes contradicted
as

itself,

sometimes ironically gave up

faith
in
old'

quest,

and sometimes

under new circumstances

it

lost

conclusions, which

was

as

much

sceptical
;

was dogmatic, which was influenced by literary as well as philosophic impulses It is a truism to but which always strove to be found On the side of the angels.' say that no theory of the universe has yet met all objections. Plato might well be
sensible

that objections could be raised to his,

;

yet

cling to

it

as

still

on the whole
says

the best
Mod. Paim.
iv.

nay, even as an anchor of his soul, although entering into that which was
veil.
'

within

the

Behold
explain

the
the

cloud,'

and

again

'

behold

the

cloud,'
;

Ruskin

when
resent,

called on to

ultimate character of geological forces

'

but he does

not therefore dispute the reality of their action.

the true reverence for
it

The true eye for Heavens, presupposes so many things

!

talent
'

presupposes

exclaims Carlyle

yet
to

he does not therefore cease to hold that heroes are to be found, and therefore be sought.

We

do not then admit that the Parmenides

;

is

spurious because

it

controverts doctrines elsewhere urged by Plato

in
.

on the contrary we conclude by

citing,

addition to the
Sophistes,
is

Theaetetus, other passages indicating a similar tone of mind.

idealists

In

2^6 -;.}

the

he contrasts materialists with

as

two opposing

schools, each

of which
(against

extreme
certainly

the
calls

.
of
in

the

former),

latter

\
than
without.
his
their

He

them
as

opponents
the

yet

all

along he

speaks of them
the

critically
is,

from
is

Nevertheless,

soundest

explanation
thing
recurs
in

passage
Politicus.

that

he
in

criticising

own

views.

The same
his

p^ed..

roo-ioi.

the

Again,

the

Phaedo
in

he

clearly
rest.

shows that
his

favour of the ideas have not laid his doubts to

to

Having already had occasion

speculative anxieties,

quote

the striking
cite

language

which he there admits

we need

here only the

closing words

en

arguments

aXX'

AUTHORSHIP 0/
.

.
'

''.

7IXS

/
on

axuplaVt

Hereafter
oi

*
"<"

<

<<."
diecuM
in

\\\
e
<i<t.ul
th<

in

we

shall

which

tru

criticism
difficulty,

the

Parmenidea standi
the work.

to

Plat

tern
"i

as

whole.
chai

Aparl

from

thl

there

appears to be no good
oi
It

reason

an
d
oi

Internal

the authenticity

li

.t

philosophical
En
Is

on

bearing

upon
character,
it

Intimately associated

with

Plato's

name
Noi

point
this

importance and
matter:

eminently worthy of his reputation

inferior
eat

small
rate

we can ima
ing
it

an
to

writer

trying
but

to

gain
that

currency

for

second

work by
I

author,

who

could

rival

Plato

would

to

remain
rged

unknown?
than
to
!

\. Mi.

[owett says:
while,

'Shorter works are more likely to have been

thru[3

ones

...

perhaps,

no instance
excellence

of

an

ancient

writing
length.

proved

be

forgery,
writer

which

combines great
have no object
in

with
his

considerable

A
to
tl

really

would

fathering

works on

Plato;

and

or

imitator, the "literary

nius.'
is
it

hack" of Alexandria or Athens, the Gods did not grant original Not only Again, it is in Plato's style, by which arc meant several things. dialogue and no philosophic dialogues have come down to us with any name

but Plato's
in

the

type of dialogue likewise, and the characters, are Platonic.

in

It

begins

a lively dramatic fashion, such as might be paralleled

introduced, the

many

of his works, then,

as

when the theme proper has been

So
in

dramatic character,

was said
begins,

above, becomes subordinate and ceases to be an essential feature of the composition.

the

Republic

when

preliminaries

are

settled,

and constructive work

They simply confirm what importance have the answers of Glauco or Adimantus ? Socrates, give him an opportunity for restating an argument, save the work from
being a mere treatise, and furnish
service

the chief speaker with an

done by Aristoteles in the Parmenides. Even the artificiality of the narrative may be made an argument in its favour. An imitator would hardly be likely to

raised,
:

Such

is

the

make

work a Having now

his-

report of a report of a report.

dealt with

most of the objections which are

let

us conclude

Does piato else

where
refer t0
lI

by asking whether there are any traces in Plato's other works of a reference to the Parmenides. Such references can, as we have seen, be only indirect. Bearing that fact in mind we may place side by side the following passages

. ..
.

Piiilebus, 14C-15.

ev

>],

,
ev
II.

, < 7
...

Xe\;)tr,

,,

elvai

, '
.

^ ,
Ue

Parmenides,
eivat

... el

,
oe
;

129.

...

'

,
...

XVU1

THE PARMENIDES.

',
. . .

nut

...

'
...

7
ei

...
;

....

,
.
.

'
...

,
.

...

',

], - \ ,.
....
,

, ,,
,

'

,'
...

\...
...

&

'.

Again 131

'
'

'
Plat. Trans, p.

, ,
,
....
first

'
''
To
this

- ,\
\
might
?

',

,
...*
'.

perhaps be added Sophist. 251.

What
designed.
that the
70 and note 56.

does the reader think here

Zeller holds that

we have a
194,

reference directly-

have already supported

part of the
I
still

this in
is

my

Platon. Stud.

by the argument

129
14

i3o

sq.

Parmenides
is

as

c-15

and

this

reason

think
;

quite valid.

good as directly cited in the Philebus, Schaarschmidt (Samml. d. plat. Schr.

277) also
direction'

agrees with

me

he,

however, makes use of this supposition in a different

Again, turning to the Phaedo

'

to

discredit both dialogues.

we may make

a further comparison

Phaedo, 102 .

Parmenides, 130

...

, ,

'...

, .

, ,

, ,

{],

'

. . .

See also the previous quotation.

AUTHORSHIP 0/ THl
-

.
'

ri.it>'

,>\\

h.it
.II

t<

lit

. thai

the

hi.

the

Parmcnldei are

Independent colloquiei between d

be

could

referencei

from one to the othei

Indicate
thai

more

direel

than

tl

zording

seem
>>

t>>

the

referem

n. .1'

Th<

bul

quotations

thii
\i

nature that need detain ua:

'I'm

n
Si

ii

',
1\

\\ujuu\'ioij<

Tt

, &
i.i.
oeivo's

I'm mi

.
veot

,
'\<

,
'

.:

\\

yap
"//,

''/

.-
i'.

KCU
1 1

.. /)!

",
.'
...
Si

<\
<u.</

/..;;

V901
*

oOPHISTES, 21/

, * .
.6*
\6

II

exi
<>

3,

<
,\7"/
a-<w
,

<

Xeyw
6\

epoyry\rev,

...

Xoyovs

irapeycvopjjv

n;
;

;
T/s

<"

<.-<.).

& oierat

,
also 237

/
may
it.

<
jy

exeivou

] , '
oiavtwrcu
-,
<>

pay

The

parallel could hardly

be more complete. be

On
1.

the question of authenticity, then, our argument

is

summed up

thus

There

good ground

for believing that this dialogue existed,

and was accepted

of Byzantium.

as genuine, in the arrangement of Plato's works

made by Aristophanes

Nor does any scholar

2.

in

antiquity raise an objection to

While

it

cannot

be proved

that

Aristotle

names the Parmenides,

priority

it

seems
;

at least

very probable that the arguments of the dialogue arc controverted by him

and

they

appear

to

bear

internal

evidence

of

when compared with

his

works.
3.

There

is

no reason to doubt the Platonic character of the views and language

is

which the work exhibits, and there

strong reason to believe that

Plato alludes to

this dialogue in other portions of his writings

which are admitted to be genuine.

II.

the sufficiently complex problem of authenticity to consider the sbqdkkcsof position which the work is to hold in the series of Plato's writings, the first difficulty' E WoRK

When
is

we pass from

to conquer a feeling akin to despair.

?

What

can we say upon

this question

\Vhat

has not been already said

Are we
?

to be launched

of ordering Plato's collective works

upon that

the task

Siaveu<rai

xx
;

THE PARMENIDES.
At
the outset

we

are troubled
is

by the consciousness that a work whose authenits

ticity

has been gravely questioned

not likely to have

after

date or sequence very clearly

since the narrator describes

defined.

We

know, indeed, that

it

was written

403

B.C.,

Aristoteles,

one of the interlocutors, as

does not mention any attempt to get from Socrates personally a verification of details

.
may
;

And

as Cephalus

circumstance with which the opening of the Theaetetus

that Socrates

be contrasted

we

are

left to infer

was dead. This, however, does not carry us far. Every one would be prepared to assume that the work was of later date than 399 B.C. The field
being thus unrestricted,

for speculation

we have such

a crop of theories that even their

:

enumeration would fatigue.

Philosopher
dialogue which

To
is

take representative cases

effort

Schleiermacher regards the

Zeller holds
it

Parmenides as a rude, unfinished

'
'

of Plato's youth

to be the
;

promised as a sequel to the Sophist and Statesman

while, in a series of articles already referred to, Dr.

Jackson contends that

it

must be

placed extremely

late,

as

embodying

its

author's final views on the ideal theory.

Each

of these scholars has his

following, while

other writers adduce reasons for choosing

intermediate dates.
it,
'

The
in

disturbing feature in the case

each has a story

will.'

a dispute, and a true one, too,

Henry Esmond puts and both are right or wrong as

is

that, as

you

The

various conclusions rest mainly on one or other of three argumentative

foundations
called
Arguments from
Style

that

of the style and language of the dialogue, that of what

its

may

be

its

scenery or setting, and that of

philosophic contents.
is

I.

It is

pointed out that the form of the dialogue

;

artificial

that

of a conversa-

hand and the inference drawn is that it is later than those which are more direct and natural indeed one of the latest of all, inasmuch as there are none, whose form deviates more from that of simple dramatic treatment. Well, the fourth hand may by possibility indicate that Plato does not wish to be committed to the historic accuracy of the details, or seeks to give the work the air of an echo
tion reported at fourth
;
' '

from the past, but

it

gives

little

clue to the date.

first

Republic at second, and the Timaeus at

hand

The Symposium is at third, the we need say no more. Nay, one

in writing

might rather
part of a
in

ask,
in

would an old man endure the constraint involved

complicated oratio obliqua
It is
?

large

work

Again, regard

may be
is

directed to style

a stricter sense.
stiffness,

and

by immaturity or by crude exuberance of language, and by the placing of pictorial and

maintained that as a youthful style
revealed
in

dramatic vividness

the foreground, the

its

Parmenides could not be a youthful work,

its

but might rather, from

difference
to
pictorial

command

over language, coupled with

comparative
elderly
is

in-

display, be

ranked among the

later writings

an

man

ceasing to think of style and attending more to substance.

But answer

plausibly

made

that Plato

is

here adopting for the time the style of Zeno and the Megarians,
is

with whose views he

dealing.

Independently of
life

that,

arguments from style need

of writing

tender handling.

Up

to at least middle

a man's

mode

may

vary pretty

widely through mere temporary causes, or in conformity with varying subject matter,
without any inference about age being worth serious consideration.

Even the discovery

//. Si QUI NCI

tli.it

AMONG
method
no

PLATO'S "
ll

rn i\
lh
It
t.
1
1

:;..
ol
,,
,,

conf<

it)'

to

scientific

tO

I"'

found,
I

freedom
in,),,,!

conversational

discou
it

nec<

ary
|

to
I

th<

the author's
Mine,
ti,

mind,
-

t,>

anything, or

may

even be explained
ial

b
tie

hi

oi

given work with

Plato's pr<

in

traction

.it

furthei

step
(

li

taken when

vocabulary and turni

"i

expr<

lion

an
tion

put

->

t!

proof.

Profi

ampbell has gone with some minuteness into the que

<

i.ny in

Plato's writings.
tin

He

treats

the

Hmaeus,

Critiaa,

and La*
La a
it

Imittcdly Ut<

and

tests

other

works by comparison with

ratios... according
t>>

he
<<f

li

'approximately the numerical

tin.

number
In
i,,.

word,
list

at

once

common and
with
i,

peculiar to

each with' the

tin-

works

just

named.
Cratylus,

this

the dial

which stands nearesl t"

ranks

three

Is

Hi,

Politicus,

with a ratio of

The Parmenidi
-

very low,

having, besides

others, the

Protagoras,

i.

Philebus,

Symposium,
it.

Phaedo,

Republic,

Sophistes,
tin

Phaedrus, and

Politicus,

in

that
le

order above

But when we perceive that

only works which are apparently

I.,

associated than our

own with

the three latest are the (haimides, Alcibiadcs

1

and the

Meno, while the

conclude that the
ditTicult

Laches and
list

.ysis

are about

onedialf nearer,

we
to

are constrained to
us.

contributes

little

which can be of service to

Indeed,

it

is

even to weigh the significance of the evidence.

with
a

Are we

assume that Plato

to

began authorship

minimum
'

of unusual

terms

and gradually advanced

Professor

maximum
bell

Clearly the subject matter would

fall

to be considered.
list,

Campwhat

himself admits that

is
?

the position of the Parmcnides in this

for

like that of the

Phaedrus,

partly

accounted

by exceptional
is

circumstances.'

But

by

circumstances

Another attempt
which are referred to

in

the

same

direction

that of

W.

Dittcnbcrger of Halle, who,

after a few separate objections to the authenticity of our dialogue

in

on

linguistic grounds,

the notes, seems inclined to regard

parison of the use of a series of characteristic phrases

and others
a later
in

it

as doubtful

upon a com;

ye

,
and

Herme

in

the various works of Plato.

The

result of his investigation

is

to throw
;

the works into two great groups-^-an earlier, with few signs of these expressions

two

divisions, with

many.
spurious

(It

ought to be said
he excludes

that, besides rejecting ten

dialogues in

addition

to

the

seven,

from comparison such as

in

contain small proportions of conversation.)

The Parmenides stands

Politicus,

the later division

is

of the second

group along with the Philebus, Sophistes,

its size.

and Laws, and

very heavily weighted for

He

follows the inquiry

up

in

other directions with

is

much

ingenuity and learning.

One

result

which arrests the attention of a reader

Lysis forms, with the
division

that the

Phaedo stands
Phaedrus,

in

the earliest group, while the

posium,

Republic, and
criticised

Theaetetus, the

first

of

the

later.

SymThe
Fieckeisen,
J ahrbScher
i2=, p. 534, iS8r

argument has been

by A. Frederking, who shows that by dealing with the subject in more minute detail, while employing the same materials, individual books of the Republic and Laws may be made to stand in different groups. Further, by
taking account of the isolated use of the particle

in

such phrases as

r&voe re

xx

ii

THE PARMENIDES.

epyov

he

succeeds in placing the Parmenides, which has but few cases, in a very early

position, while

he makes the Phaedrus almost take rank with the Timaeus.

dis-

tinction of Frederking's

between
it

and

is

discussed in the notes.

With

results

so

conflicting

to

deal with,

must appear
fields,

statistics in

language, as in other

most readers that the treatment of requires extreme caution, and has not thus far
to

afforded
Arguments from
: '

2.

much assistance towards the solution of the question under discussion. Of the argument from scenery or setting one branch is that which deals
assigned
to

with
that

the

position

Socrates

in

the

several

dialogues.

It

is

contended

Socrates has a more prominent role in the earlier works, or rather that those works in

which he plays such a part are earlier

less

while his presence tends to become less and

is

important as Plato's

ment.

Undoubtedly

this

by time and by original developseems a reasonable contention, and one in harmony with what
effaced

memory

of him

would independently appear to be the proper

likewise

order

of

many

dialogues.
action.

But here
In any Socrates

the question

of subject matter might well influence

Plato's
is

case the position of the Parmenides in regard to the argument

peculiar.

does not, indeed, occupy the foremost place throughout, but he does hold that position

during the very important introductory part, while he

is

referred to

by no means as a
still

thinker whose period had gone by, but rather as one for
in store.

whom

great things were

An

interesting train of inference, which deals with the Parmenides alone,

to

is

based

upon consideration of the time which may be assumed

conversation,

have passed between the

various stages suggested to us in the construction of the dialogue

that
is,

between the
'

original

and the
it.

narrative

of

this

by Cephalus, which
either,

constitutes

the

dialogue as

we have

This estimate of time

may be viewed

with Steinhardt,
look far

from the

final point
'

backward, as suggesting that Plato seeks to make us

;

back into other years

a
late

or,

with Ueberweg, from the starting point forward, as involving

date for the composition of the work.

feel

As

Plato might at any period in his

it

literary life

the boyhood of Socrates to be remote from himself,

is

clear that

only the latter form of the inference has

Untersuchungen,
222-2.-4.

much

practical bearing on our present inis

quiry.

Ueberweg reasons
B.C.

thus.

The

point of departure

the original conversation,

which, on the assumption that Socrates was twenty-five at the time, must have occurred
in

446-5
B.C.

This point we shall hereafter see reason for placing as early, at

to Antipho,

least, as

451

Then comes

the period which comprised the repeated rehearsals of the conuntil

versation

by Pythodorus
it

the latter had committed

Conjecture alone can determine the length of this interval,

estimate of

memory. and Ueberweg makes no

it

to

must be considerable. It seems unlikely that it could exceed half a century for Pythodorus had been the host of Parmenides, so that he might have been thirty or so at the time, and fifty years more would make him an old man. This, then, may bring us to 400 B.C. Next comes the narrative by Antipho to Cephalus and his Clazomenian friends, which, as we have seen, Ueberweg
it
;

beyond suggesting that

places later than 399 B.C. from the circumstance that Cephalus does not think of going

ii

x>
tii'

direct

i"

-"in.
oi

Oner more we have

the
narratJ
tin.
tl"

Interval

which

the

repetition

ephalui himself;
last

and

finally,
oi
th<
tl

ipace

elapsing

between
t<>

and
oi

tin

composition

makes no attempt
cannot
eine
iu
I

fix
.

duration

eithei

period, further thai

I

very

since

t<>

make them
'

ol

one, 01

oi

auffallende

LTngleichm&ssigkeit
he

when
'very

(pared
late
i

with
1

th<
.1

if-

century.

Accordingly
In

concludes

for

date

always

uming,

whi<

however
If

does no! believe, that the work

rhis rea*

the whole lapse of time involved were optional

if
it

Hut

it

is

n<i.

The

period
is

bd
ubji

the original conversation

to

ever occurred
that

and the death of S

the
t"

not

Plato's

controL

say,

thei
is
t<>

remaining interval
saying
that

upon

corresponding

scale

tantamount

Plato

is
.1

by some over
di
I

mastering necessity forbidden

make

allusion in the
li
I

framework of

eh
thii
tl

an (assumed) historic event until time

interval
artistically

sufficient to

form a second or
that

proportioned
is

to the

first.

Further,

Ueberweg postulates

narrative by Cephalus
to

one thing and the written dialogue another.

ol'

But they purport

truth
i.

be the same the narrative

Cephalus

is

the

dialogue.
is

The

that

the
I

period

between the youth ami the death of Socrates

Plato
is

historical

one,

and one

which
simple.

free

to

Cephalus after
information

quent occasion repeats,

total of our

when and how he thinks fit. The facts before us are399 B.C hears from Antipho a narrative which he on a subseand this repetition constitutes our dialogue. That is the sum
allude
;

and despite Ucberweg's ideas of proportion,

'

nur eine oder

Once again, therefore, we arcganz wenige Jahre' are sufficient to include it all. deprived of any authoritative basis for determining the date of which we are in search.
3.

We

have only the philosophic contcius of the work to

;

fall

back upon, then,

Argumer

as a guide in our inquiry

and, alas,

it

precisely

is

from these contents that inferences

so widely divergent as those of Schleiermacher, Zeller, and Jackson have been drawn.

Of

the

first

of

these,

the

author of which seems to have been governed

Plato's

by prosay with
(the
Panne.
289"

crustian

Stallbaum
a

theories
'

about the ordec of

works,

it

will

be enough to
qui
ita

neque
juvene
is

enim

Schleiermacheri

iudicio

licet

acquiescere,
vel

eum
multo

dialogue)

Platone paullo ante

Sqcratis

obitum

non

post

(though this

a question of degree) scriptum esse statuit, adeoque habuit pro opere

paene nidi

et

tantummodo
Zeller

inchoato.'
is

The Parmenides
that
it

certainly

is

not written

by

a mere beginner; and the probability

is

later
is

by

several years than 399 B.C.

The
it.

authority of

on

Platonic
in

questions

such
us,

that

greater weight

may
the

perhaps be attached to his View,

the case before

than intrinsically belongs to

the

One may go

long

way

with

him

in
;

associating

Parmenides with
it

subject matter of the Sophistes

and

Politicus

but to say that

is

the 'Philosopher'
latter,
is

dialogue promised in
startling

p.

217 of the former, and at the beginning of the

pronouncement.

These two works are

direct

and avowed attempts to discover

each receives
its

and define the

Sophist and the Statesman respectively, and

title

XXIV

THE PARMENIDES.
that

from

circumstance.

To
is

this

there

is

nothing

analogous

in

the

Parmenides.
is

That
true
all
;

Plato entertains a deep veneration

for

Parmenides as a philosopher

quite

and that Parmenides

is

introduced discoursing of
so.

the discipline necessary to

differs

philosophic progress,

equally

But the method of the work

funda-

mentally from that of the others, nor

which each of them directly

Philosopher
Politicus as

leads.

If

any conclusion arrived Plato meant this dialogue

is

at such

as that to

to be the promised

why

should

he not
latter

have said

so,

and coupled
?

it

as clearly with

the

he does the

with the Sophistes

In regard to subject matter one

It
is

might almost as well pitch upon the Timaeus as the missing work.
that

possible
for

our

dialogue
;

represents
if

all

that

Plato

ever

wrote

as

substitute

the the

Philosopher

but,

so,

his

plan has been

altogether changed.
in

With regard
rest in large

to

very suggestive argument of Dr. Jackson,

exposition of Plato's final and
Parm. 130 c-D.

which he views the Parmenides as an

views,
it

much modified
and even

seems to

measure

upon a misunderstanding.
were ideas
ideas for
'

It

assumes that Socrates had held at one time that there

for 'hair,

for

'man,

fire,
;

water,'

mud,

filth,'

just as there were

good but that he had now renounced this hypothesis, and even The Republic and Phaedo are taken as examples fled from it as from destruction. of the views renounced, and the conclusion is drawn that the Parmenides must be
one, like,
'

a late work.
in

Surely this perverts the sense of the passage appealed to

Socrates

answer to Parmenides describes, not a past and discarded hypothesis, but a present

belief.

Parmenides

tells

him
he

that

by and

by,

when he grows

older and becomes

less sensitive to criticism,

will

not be afraid to entertain the thought of ideas for

will learn to call nothing

even the most undignified objects

that he
;

common
if

or unclean.

And

this

state

of

mind, predicted

as in

store

for

Socrates,

is

the one which the

Republic and Phaedo exemplify

so that these works

are

later,

not

necessarily

than the dialogue as a whole, at least than the state of mind depicted in the passage

upon which
of

maintaining that while the Phaedo reveals no sense of a difficulty about the nature
or

Parmenides which forcibly presses that

Phaedo,
100.

,
No

Dr.

Jackson

relies.

He

pushes

his

contention even

further,

however,

the method

according

to

which objects participate

in

the ideas,

the

difficulty

must on that ground be a

later work.

Is this really a possible contention in

view of that remarkable passage

in the
all

Phaedo,
Plato's

already quoted above, which contains one of the most candid avowals in
writings, to the effect that, despite the almost

the doctrine of
?

overwhelming

difficulty
it

which surrounds
kcu

he nevertheless despairingly clings to

Platonic

Arguments of
Teichmuller.

observations upon

chronology would be complete which failed

'

to

reckon with the arguments of Teichmuller in his

nature so striking,
special

Literary Feuds.'

They

are

of a

LiterarischeFeh

den im vierten
Jahrhundert vor
Chr.

and are advanced with such confidence and

notice, in place of being distributed

ability,

as to claim

and connected

piecemeal under the various

Gustav

Teichmf.ller,

divisions

which have just been engaging our attention.

Dealing with Plato's writings

Breslau, i83i.

as

whole,

Teichmuller contends that they are for the most part directly contro-

VI
ill.

<
t"

AMONG PLATO
from
.1
.

"
!
l<

x>.

.ni.l

.11.

i..

I>.

dftted

Chiclly

..ii.

1. 1,

. ill

hi

tli

.'

lik<

Kenophon,
\n.i

[socrates,

tnd

which
In

tl

l>

turn rcfei

to

iuch ciom refereno

Interest
Ii

he detecti
it

abundance,
l><-

On

tin.

point
t

much
lil

tint

.
.,

.it

advanced which
the

would

Impossible
Icnowli

justly
ol

appraise,

withoul
oi

minute and
Platonh
thai
till

extensive

the

entire
.1-.

literary

history

era.
all

Such

oi

knowledge we
leeming
allu
I

m>t
oi

and
it

irdlngl)

can

only

say

allusions,
lei

Ion
th<

this

tuggestlvi
uld

and captivating
collecl

we

those thai ma)

the

theor

doubtless

such.

Fortunately
thia

Parmenidea

Is

nol

one

oi

tl.

which Teichmuller has dealt with by

theoretically

line of
us,

argument
which

Another point on which,

h<

though,

in

the

work before
is

nol

practically -

lays
d
is

much
In

itre

an

interna]

evidence of date,

the

pi

may
to

be
tin's
it

Plato

views upon the question of u,H.;k or wapovrla.

ject;
.u

Undoubtedly
In

weighty
s

the

same time our author's conclusions

character.

regard
in

appear to be of

somewhat sanguine

He seems

to
;

find

Plato's

works a very complete

a result not altogether in harmony with and satisfying elaboration oi the doctrine the language just quoted from the Phaedo, but certainly in accord with his own

finding of his
chiefly

upon the philosophic position of Aristotle to wit, that Aristotle derived most conceptions complete from Plato and other predecessors, and deserves credit
for
in

feature

cardinal power of methodizing what these thinkers had supplied. Teichmiiller's argument is the use which he makes of the statement at
his

the

opening of the Theaetctus with regard to the composition of that work.

author of

professed

phrases as

actually conversing with

versation with them.

,,
it,

Euclid of Megara, says that he has purposely

of Terpsion.
a

Here, says Teichmuller (following out to some extent,

,
the

Theaetetus and others, rather than as describing his conis

,
it

The

left

out such

and adds that he represents Socrates as

This course

adopted
is

tJj

{]
as

and

represented

receiving the hearty

it

assent

would seem,

previous hint of Schlciermachet's),

we

see on

Plato's part a

new

step in authorship.

method of Socrates in giving his dialogues at second conspicuous examples of the method being the Republic and Phaedo. Hereafter there may be some brief prefatory narrative of that kind, but the bulk of each work will purport to be a first hand reproduction of the
Till

now he had followed hand by means of

discussion as

it

took place.

The announcement
as an

of this intended change

is

put into

the
to
is

mouth of Euclid designedly,

the
later
in

acknowledgement of indebtedness
all

in the

matter

Megarian school.
than
turn
'

Accordingly we are to understand that as the Theaetetus

all

such works as the Republic, so than

it.

works which follow

later

its

method

are

later

Among

those thus marked out as

stands the ParVo l

u.

im Euthydem die Disputation erzahlt, im Parmenides aber dramatisch behandelt wird, kann .doch ein Jeder leicht bemerken.' The first thing which strikes one is that the author is disposed to use this argument in too uncommenides,

denn dass .

B.

xxvi

THE PARMEN1DES.
If

promising a manner.

taken as evidence of a fresh tendency

if

in

Plato's

mind

it

may be welcomed.
after so

But

we

are

to

accept as binding on us the idea that Plato,

speaking
feel

in

the Theaetetus, never could recede from the position thus taken
is

up,

we

that

much

doctrine of

King

Jamie 'We

expected of

us.

Plato might appropriate the language and

are a free King,' and not 'thirled' to

any system

in-

volving mechanical uniformity of style.

to

He was

at liberty to write with variety,

and

make dramatic
dry
details.

apology, as he does in more places than one, for the tediousness

of
the
It
is

But
the

granting the most conclusive force

to

this

argument, even so
is

position
is

of

Parmenides towards

it,

as towards

some
is

others,

exceptional.

true that in the larger or second part of the dialogue the direct dramatic form

adopted, and that with no such preliminary warning as

in

given in the Theaetetus.

But
as

the

first

part,

which

is

nearly one third of the whole, and which consists of

theory, not only are phrases such

a very weighty and

'

careful

discussion of the ideal

said

he

'

inserted, but they are inserted at third hand, so that

they stand not in

second degree

the indicative but in the infinitive

of that.

Thus we have
it

.
If,
I.

mood

and,

as one
ev

might say,

in the

6
is

and
artificial

Nay, such and so embarrassing

fairly

the

character of the

i"

a.

style

that

sometimes
then,

breaks down, and

we have

,
so
to

el-rev,

instead

of

eiireiv,
;

while every

now and then the elirelv is involuntarily dropped, as in eoinev we are to place the Parmenides after the Theaetetus on this
that
his

ground,

we must assume
that he
allays

Plato's

Socratic conscience,
for

speak,

is

pricking

him, and

qualms

abandoning

his

master's

method by the
in his

penance of walking nearly a third of

But,
again,

his prescribed

journey with peas

shoes.
in

Teichmuller expressly accepts the mention

to the

made

of

Parmenides
so,

the

Sophistes as an allusion
183
sec P
.

Parmenides dialogue.
in

That being
the
is

what

is

to be
at

made
x\x.

of
in

the
part

allusion,

equally specific, contained

?

Theaetetus, and
not,
;

given

length

above
to

The
as

date of

the

Parmenides

however, discussed
that

by Teichmuller
incidental

in

detail,

those of

allusions

the matter.
it

some other works Thus he holds that

are
it

all

we

find

are

precedes the

Laws, and
Uebervveg
is

we have
also

seen that he puts

before the Sophistes.

Again, he dwells

does

upon
to

as

the

appearance of Aristoteles as an interlocutor, and

that

strongly

disposed .
24-5

assume

we have

here

an

indirect

but intentional allusion to the

philosopher Aristotle.

This leads to the inference that the work must be later than
;

136 d-e.

and that it was written about when Aristotle became known to Plato With this is intended to accord his assumption that Plato refers to 366-65 B.C. himself when he makes Parmenides plead age as a reason for excusing himself from entering upon a protracted argument. Such a view presents much that is attractive; and we must concede that \JsevSerai. At the same time he weakens his case by going on to affirm that this is the work irepi from the reading of which by Plato all are said to have withdrawn except Aristotle. By common consent, and in accordance with the title, that work is assumed
267
B.C.,

AMONG
to have
ill,.

//<<

/i'/v///.\

been the Phaedo,

Plato was
.ill

Mrork

which
,

reichmUllei

pi

'%

Again, as
-it

born about
hii
activity
in

c
to

hit

age
lasted
a1 d>l>
:

>y

advanced;
1
1

eventa

authoi hip

luunlK .

own

ihowing,
.1

he
ol

had
his

still

writ

lea
ii

th<

tophi

t<

is
I

and
.is

Laws, or about
a
iiotn r.iMr
In

fourth

collective

worka
nol

must
far

b
short

admitted
"l
tli.it

inuiu-.t.ince,

thai

his

age would
the

fall

.1

to

Parmenides
person
to
ol

the

dialogue,

Bui

assumption
pen

thai
to

meed
doubt
that

al

in

the

the

young

Aristot
oi

greal

declared

have been one

the thirty tyrants, and

we know

Plato intra
for

more than one public character of that type into bis writingi If, then, it had not happened that Plat and Aldbiadea to be likewise called Aristotle, should we have found anything
in
tin's
ie

Critias,

exampl
pi

cholar
to

attract

attention
in

circumstance?

Had Shakespeare
longer
his

survived

till

1645
not

and he would not

have maintained,
1

that
di

have lived

much
in

than

Plato
the

who would
reference

in

cussing moot
fling
if

points

works, that

famous words 'Cromwell,

charge the

away ambition!' had

meant
to refer

a very different
to

bom
he
has

the

ible
a

one?

A
a

ain,

Plato

the

philosopher here,

not

him

very

appropriate position.
in

Socrates, although 'very young,' plays a part of great importance

Aristoteles
is

the

dialogue:

but

mere lay
an
essay.

figure.

He

elicits

nothing, he main-

tains nothing, he controverts nothing; but merely,

by

interjecting formal verbal replies,

prevents the dialogue

from becoming
as giving
is

How

Plato could

treat

young
fair

man whom he viewed

promise of

ability,

we know from
Nay,
it

the

Theaetetus

and Charmides; and that

not

how he

treats Aristoteles.

would be a

contention to affirm that he would not so have represented anyone called Aristoteles

had he known the historic Aristotle at the time. Another argument advanced by Teichmuller
noch, dass der Timaios
.

is

the following,

'

Ich crwahne hier

i:

bei der Erortcrung des Begriffs der Zeit eine spiitere

Untersuchung verspricht, die wir im Parmenides (151 bis 157B) vorhnden. Es folgt ? daraus von selbst die Prioritat des Timaios The Timaeus gives a promise which
the Parmenides
conclusion
is

incontestable.

should

be definite and the fulfilment reasonably to the point.

to in the

Timaeus

various relations, the remark

ev

because

time

.
fulfils,
is

'

therefore the latter

is

the later work.

to

If the premises hold the

But we are entitled

one

expect

that

the

promise given
referred

The passage
en]

as piece justificative

is

in

which, after a reference to

Time

inss*.

made
This
the
in

irepi
is

peioi

all;

and from

this

'it

follows of itself that

is

is

discussed

'

in

Parmenides that discussion

the words just given. inherently

fulfilment,

the

fulfilment,
this

of the 'promise'

made

Surely a conclusion like

it

seems

predetermined.
of
little

And

while

weak

has

to

overbear
ethics

con-

flicting
politics,

appearances

and not a

some weight. Plato has written much upon and if we are upon physics and metaphysics
:

and

to take the

Laws

as his last utterance

on the former,

it

seems

at least as clear that the

Timaeus

xxviii

THE PARMENIDES.
development of his views on the
in

gives the furthest

almost desperate attempt to elaborate

and
the

which
Parmenides.

the Parmenides

,
is

latter.

It

is

one long, earnest,

to bridge over the

chasm between
only

left

yawning.

Nor

is

this Teichmuller's

sanguine inference.

He

places the Phaedo, as

we have

seen, considerably earlier than

:

One

of his

arguments we have already given

here

is

another.
it

Finding reason

for considering the

Symposium a comparatively

early

work he lays
'

down that the Phaedo follows closely upon it. Everyone will recall the inimitable humour with which the Symposium closes. All the other banqueters being under the table,' Socrates is left demonstrating to the almost insensible Agatho and Aristophanes that it is the function of the same poet to write both tragedy and
him and drop asleep. Teichmuller regards this as a promise on Plato's part that as he had written a comedy in the Symposium he would supplement it by a tragedy; that tragedy is none other than the Phaedo, which accordingly we ought to place in the following year. While thus reading promises and specific statements into scraps of artistic by-play, he seems to treat
they

comedy:

cannot

follow

very distinct declarations with but slight regard.

The only

specific indications

which

Plato personally supplies in reference to the sequence of his writings are those which

mark

the intimate connection between the Theaetetus, Sophistes, and Politicus on the

one hand, and the Republic, Timaeus, and Critias on the other.
Teichmuller

These indications

would appear to
fail

set

almost entirely aside.

No

one

who

studies

his

arguments can
not unlock as

to

be impressed by their brilliancy and power, but his key 'will

it

many

things as he thinks
be,

will.'

Must our conclusion

reasonable
estimate

then,

that

no

satisfactory

data

exist

from which a
to reach at

may

be

formed of the position which the Parmenides should

?

occupy among Plato's writings

least
in

Some attempt must

:

certainly be

made
is

an approximate solution of the question

spirit,

but the undertaking

full

entered upon

anything but a dogmatic

inque

and with a
crura

consciousness of the conditions

caedimus

vicem

praebemus

sagittis.

To

enter

at

this

stage

upon a

detailed analysis of the dialogue

Some
object.
Reasons which
bouid weigh
'.'I

reference,

however, to

would be to anticipate the natural order of inquiry. the contents of the work is indispensable to our present
the ideal theory which
it

The dialogue opens with a statement upon

subjected to scrutiny.
to

is

afterwards

In connection with this opening statement

intimation
of

seems impossible
it

th Ui

overlook

the

emphatic
is

"

accompanied.
promising lad

He

described as
at

by which 'extremely young,' and Parmenides treats him

the

youth

of

Socrates

is

as a

who

present

is

deterred, through boyish fear of established views,

from accepting conclusions to which his reason seems to point, and who has, with youthful impetuosity, plunged into metaphysical speculation before passing through
such
a
course
of
training
as

alone

would

fit

him

for

the

undertaking.

It

may,

no doubt, be said that Socrates must be represented as young if any regard is to be paid to the assumed date of the meeting between him and Parmenides. But Plato

rrS

V(

AMONG PLATOS u/
"i

///:.

x>.

was not

it

down
the

\<>

,u<
.

method
ol

dealing with the personality snd doctrine

Kurther,

ol

Parmenldes
the

method wa
to

his

own choosin
are
entitled
in

held
to pei
tin
li.il

views here ascribed

youthful
not
Plato,
iln

Mm, we
to

the

youthful
ol

the

and

regard
of

the
the

opening
<li.ii.utM

itatemenl
"I

. an
lipOfl

intrntioii.il

alion

by
it

PlatO
ti

In

own
Ides

early

theorizing
the only the

metaphysical questions
urged here ai
one,
led

consistent
.it

with

this

assumption thai
that

metrj So<

meani

of

arriving
the

the conviction

of generalisation Plato

from

world of experience
to

Thai
it.

iras

the

path
the

which had
Ides

onward, and

hence the present allusion

Again, while
firsl

treated as realities ol
to

some Kind
Is

affecting our sensible sphere, the

in

attempt clearly
wl

define

their

nature
<V

that
Is

which
.1

they

oiV.iu,,'

,\WoOt

\'n'\ui\:

not this

n.itiiral

just

come from

the school o( 'general

definitions'

Socrates- what
Toi'v

could

such

definitions

be but

'

wok tucovs

ecu

to
this,

}
as
its

arc

called
for

abode

is

COUrSC

one to pursue who' had

which Aristotle directly ascrib

We

have before

us,

in

fa

Aristotle describes them.

to this

, ' ,
cine,

when

the writer, driven

from

goes on to exclaim that

In

that

the ideas are patterns set up

nature;
to

taken

which Aristotle
of
ideas,'

existence

'

proceeds to ascribe

we seem to find the decisive 'those who first pronounced for

exotei,
-

6'

first

sketch of the ideal sphere

we

find

scope to be at once restricted and

.
now he
that
it

And
thi

thinks he has

step

/
the

Looking next

imperfectly defined.
ideas
for

The speaker cannot

bring himself to recognize the existence of

physical

objects, but only for abstract

mental and moral conceptions

and

even these exist confusedly, without being dominated by any regulative principle.
the

Here
final ly

new doctrine stands

forth just such as

it

might have sprung from the unsystematic

This then, while not the point

moral speculations of the historic Socrates.

reached in the dialogue,
deal
;

is

the condition of things with which the dialogue goes on to

of the results

and
in

may

be described as a somewhat hasty and crude

It
is

reached
receives,

the Socratic speculation.

the treatment which this opening statement

we must look for assistance in determining the problem before us. Thus far all that we have gathered is that Plato's early views were of a certain character, while we may infer from what follows that they had been exposed to some public criticism. I. The first comment which Parmenides, or Plato in his person, makes upon the theory put before him, and he makes it indirectly in passing, is that it is incomplete.
to

which,

if

to

anything,

He
until

implies that
as well

it

might have been expected to include and account

for physical

objects,
it

as

moral or intellectual conceptions;

will

not be complete
;

does include such objects, even the most insignificant of them

to

and that he

looks forward
aversion
tation
to

a time

when Socrates

will

so far gain the victory over his boyish

If this
is

as

to

make

that important stride in speculation.

it

a just interprefollow

i?qa-b.

put

upon the language of the text

would

seem

to

that

the

xxx

THE PARMENIDES.

dialogue can at least be no later than any of those in which ideas for physical objects
are accepted

by

Socrates.

Were we
is

to

push the argument to

all

its

utmost we might
it

even infer that the Parmenides

than none of them
students of Plato^s
in
Cratyius, jS 7 etc.

prior to

such dialogues, inasmuch as

;

looks

forward to a consummation which they

embody

and

it

is

obvious that

if

it

be later

such
%<jtiv

Phaed.., 6 5 d,

human maker fashions occur among others the well known cases of the Phaedo repeated reference is made to ideas for various
are included, which the
2.

,,,,
works
as

must of necessity be prior to the majority of them. works are aware that those ideas are accepted without
it

Now

all

hesitation

the

Cratylus,

Republic and Phaedo.

so

In

that even objects of art

and

.
the

Cratylus

we have

and manufacture
In the Republic
;

and

in

the

physical objects.

Nothing

could

be

more abrupt than

the

severance

which

Parmenides

and

Socrates agree to recognize between the ideas and the world of sense.
led

You may be
;

by generalization to approach gradually towards the conception of the idea but when you find it you also find that between you and it there is a great gulf fixed. Nor is there so much as a hint of difference in this particular between one idea and Here is the sensible sphere, yonder is the ideal even God cannot bridge the another. chasm that yawns between them. All the satisfaction vouchsafed to us in these circum;

rarm. 133-135

c stances

is

the admission

that such a conclusion does appear to be paradoxical, and

skill

that

it

will

need extreme

to deal with that

and similar

difficulties.

It

does not

seem an unfair inference to assume that on this point Plato was still unprovided with a definite theory, and that any dialogue in which a positive attempt is made to deal with the problem is later than the Parmenides. This would include all dialogues
phaedo, 72.76.
Phaedrus, 249
c.

example the Phaedo, Phaedrus, possibly also those that speak of 'divine madness,' as the Phaedrus and ancj Meno Symposium. It would include the simile of the cave in the Republic, and all those attempts to construct a sort of Jacob's ladder, or graded means of descent from the higher sphere to the lower. Such attempts are to be found in the divided line of the
which discuss or accept the doctrine of
:

for

Republic, the construction of

in

above

in

the Phaedo, and the declaration

the Philebus that

wc must

not proceed at once from the one to the unlimited

'^

in

whatever
it

this description
3.

may

be held to mean.
the criticism brought to bear upon
is

Neither in the opening sketch nor

there

any

serious attempt to introduce gradation or

is

method

into the ideal sphere.

The
latter

nearest approach to that

to

be found
;

in

the various groups into which Parmenides

throws the ideas

in

questioning Socrates
is

and between the two groups which the

not very obvious.

accepts the rationale of the distinction

seem a
which
is

fair

argument

to

maintain that the setting

in
is

master ideas must indicate a speculative advance

doubtful, that the
'

Once more, then, it would up of one or more dominant or Now, even granting, the theory.
it

one

'

of this dialogue

designed as such a master idea,

would

still

seem that the

of the Republic and the small group of dominant

//..

Vi

A
9i

MONG

//.!/,>.

II

>
Sophist*
,

[deal
.

>">.

i;.(Kn. /'/

dwelt upon

In

th<

an

much
<d
I-

ases oi
.|.

.ui

attempt

thai

din

tion

Near the beginning

to

<

the

Parmenidei we have an earn

mingle,
Jfet

'

Socratei
sphere,

lee

the

process

'mingle,

mingle,'

which

prevails

In

made

applicable to the ideal.

oi

In

throwing out
mingli

not even a whispei

the

restriction
elSccn

'ye thai
warn
the

7/
Hon enforced
tinctions
in

avroit

.
ma)
it

iuch
'

tion

th<

the

expr<

ion

uch

r<

the latei
in

pr

oi

argument
this

does not appear

is

inni.itui.il
in

to

contend that works

are

which a discrimination on
that

point

revealed,

which

di
it,

drawn between ideas

in

admit

communion and
virus.

those

that

Indicate a later stage

the evolution

of

Plato's

Here again the Phaedo and

*

Sophlstes are
5.

.it

once recalled to mind.

ol

The type
further.

argument which we have

Aristotle

just

been using

may
in

I"

developed

what

We

have above seen some reason to assume that the difference betn
in

any given conception

question
of

and the corresponding one

precision.
It

Plato
of

is

largely
is

.1

greater

clearness,

definiteness,

The view

Aristotle

in

precipitate' what

the view of Plato represents in 'solution.'

would naturally follow

to

that

if

in

different

works

Plato's
is

views

in

regard

to

any conception seem

is

be at
in

variance,

the

view which

the

more

clear

and definite

the

later.

Now,

the

Parmenides we have a somewhat vague and confusing use of the correlative terms 'whole' and 'part.' It is not clear whether the two represent merely a greater and a
lesser

portion

of extended

matter, or

bear a more

logical

relation
find

such as that of

genus to species or body to member.

tinction

In the Thcaetetus

we

a very definite dis-

drawn between that which as a mere sum of parts is called which as something distinct from such a sun is called 6. We have seen above, and shall have occasion to see again, that
from time to time
indication
in the reasoning.

and that
faults

These
law of
in

faults resolve

of the law of contradiction and of logical division.

of
the
it

We

nature
as
is

of

tl^e

contradiction,

statement of
irepi

contained

avruh
insists

the

Sophistes

method in reasoning, the method of logical division is not consciously and persistently employed as it is in the same dialogue. We have 7. But on the question of reasoning a more important point arises. already had under review an argument by Teichmiiller in which the Theaetetus was
strongly on
the
necessity

of

.
have
in

appear

themselves largely into neglect

the

Parmenides an

but

by no means so

And

()
clear

Parm

> ..,.:

while Parmenides

soph. **

made

a turning point, in consequence of a remark in

it

affecting the style of composiit

tion adopted.

That argument
But there

is
is

not unimportant, although

cannot be applied safely

to the Parmenides.
will so apply.

a means of inference of an analogous character which

i'

The

great objection which Parmenides urges against Socrates and his

action

is

the

inconsiderate haste with

which he

that

is,

Plato

had

constructed his

theory, without

anything

like

the argumentative training which such an attempt re-

VXX11
quired.

THE PARMENIDES.
Plato had, however, from
his

youth enjoyed the discipline of the

;

'

Socratic

elenchus.'

Yet

this

was not

sufficient

he must consent to

sit

at the feet
is

before he

ventures upon

constructive

metaphysics.

The

point

Zeno pressed upon our

of

attention in the utmost detail,

and

is

obviously a question of
or second hand.

much
if

greater weight than

that of reporting discussions at

first

Here,
it

anywhere, we have the

in

intimation of a

new departure on
It

Plato's part.

And

comes

connection with a

metaphysical problem.

would appear that while the methods of argument practised

are
sufficient

by the

meet the wants of unsystematic ethical inquiries, they must be supplemented or elaborated if ethics and politics are to be built up firmly upon a basis of reason. And the inference would seem to be that such dialogues as deal firmly with these abstract questions without making special
historic

Socrates

to

reference to the

necessity for preliminary training are

written

after

the experience

described in the passage under discussion

after Plato

had

realized the necessity

which

he here points out.

This would give a fresh reason for placing the Parmenides prior

to the Timaeus, Politicus, Sophistes, Theaetetus,

and Philebus, and to the metaphysical

is

portions of the Republic.

The

the statement of Aristotle about the methods and arguments of Socrates, where he says
Anst.
mi.
4.

Metaph

\
fail

always just and faultless in his arguments

to

.
but
On
of

feeling

which Plato here indicates

in

harmony with

We

do not contend that Plato henceforth was

,
inter-

few

even of the most expert dialecticians

reason badly at times

simply that hereafter he was more searching and

methodical.
ciples

We

could imagine the Republic, for example, begun upon Socratic prinfar as the point

and carried on so
fresh

where advantage
which carried
his

is

taken of the argument

from the analogy of a State, but thereafter becoming gradually modified and
penetrated .with

metaphysical matter

the

speculation

past

the

Socratic standpoint into regions of pure thought.

8.

While Plato
are

in

this dialogue
less

criticises

own

early views, and

assumes that

his

readers

more or

acquainted with them, he does not refer to them as

the contrary the phrase used by Parmenides after

matters of public notoriety.

Parm. 130
E.

hearing

the

opening

not
.aedo.ioo
etc.

the sort of language used

CO rit: r ary

etc.

,
manner
work
to be
in
9.

we have such
in

'

which

It is

not unnatural to view such expressions as pointing to a later date for the
or patterns would

. ' '
statement
Socrates
is

interrogative

Now

under similar circumstances

in

the Phaedo.

expressions as

...

And we

that

is

On

the

have referred more than once already to the

which had
been raised

he

'

alludes
07177

to

objections

'

which they occur.

that the ideas consist of
first

The suggestion

seem
is

thrown out here for the

time.
is

Where

it is

mentioned elsewhere the reference

hardly of such a nature, but the subject

touched upon as a thing needing no introduction.

Ok
latei
t'.
tll<
III.
Ill'
:

l.
I

ii

nol

reasonable to
I
1

Infei
K't
I

thai
U
1

nich allusiot
.it

than

tl

Mil tin

1.

.1.

t<

til

.Mill

1.

1,

c||. C '" fai

HI

Finally,

what has been

at

jed thus

m
I

t.

nun

1 1

ju

tifn

ition foi

\i

tl

upon the quotations given

Theaetetus, and Sophist*
,

the close oi
is

Part

"i

tin.

introduction, from ;!
natural

I'ha
foi

what

alter all
,

theii

mosl
as

construction
"i

hold
".ill

tii.it

..

tint

they

are

refereno
i<>

as

clear

ri.it.'.

mod<

authoi hip
t"

permit,

from

those

dialogues

the

Parmcnidi

si

work

alrcad)

the

public

Such are some arguments which may be adduced

Parmenidea
writings.

in

favour
<.f

"I

the view tint

takes

.1

distinctly
!><

early

position
<>t

in

tin

ranks

Plato's

metaphy
it

ical

Whatever may
so that

observed tint

they are largely cumulative, and

body of evidence, 7(((

-^
oi~

the facts
at

experience harmonize, but with a

It
is

,
true that
in

thought

their

force

when viewed
in

separately,

will

be

present

that

light

no incontfderabl<
y>n>

one

is

reminded of the Aristotelian dictum

St
>ff\)iti

&*\
false
in

\*
ily

TaKtfit?

with a true theory all'

fact
i

theory the truth of

discord.

some discover
with

the substance of the

I'.innenih-.

<

v\>:

of very late authorship, basing their contention largely on the prominence given

in

tin-

work

to

number,

connection

references

made by
ideas and

Aristotle

to

which Plato came

latterly to

recognize

between

number.

some relation.;, Undoubtedly tin

argument contained in the dialogue is throughout of an extremely subtle character. But is it more so than that of Zeno, from which it takes its rise ? It is not clear that
the scope

of

it

exceeds what

might

fairly

be looked

for

from
at

the

operation

of the

doctrine of Farmenidcs and the dialectic of

Zeno upon a mind

number,
is

once so delicate and

in

so powerful as that of Plato.

As

for the question of

that such an exotic

in

the speculation of the Greeks as to excite suspicions?

the numbers came':
in

'They thought

numbers

for

long before Plato's time every recess of numerical extravagance

philosophizing had been ransacked by the Pythagoreans.

And

surely

it

is

sufficiently

natural to discuss
is

many
,

points respecting
is

number when the

is

basis of the

whole argument

the nature of One. the

it

Nor

^here anything which can be called a mixing

said.

up of number
that on the

with

ideas

in

the

course of what

Our

contention, then,

is

whole
place

seems most consonant with evidence

Plato's ontological speculations
:

to assign to the to place

it,

Parmenides a very early

example,
earlier than the

among

for

Theaetetus, Sophistes, Politicus, Phaedo. Philebus, and Timaeus, and at least not later

than the more abstract discussions

in

the Republic.

If scholars

are right in speaking

of a specially Megarian stage in Flato's intellectual development

there

is

nothing to

prevent this dialogue forming a representative product of that period.

say, as

It is correct to

Dr. Jackson

does, that

the work
his

marks a break
system.

in

the

continuity of Plato's

views,

and a reconstruction of

ideal

But while Dr. Jackson represents

Plato here as breaking with most of the opinions which ating with his name, in favour of a theory for which
evidence,
it

we

are in the habit of associlittle

we have

or no documentary

seems more natural to hold that Plato here parts company with an earlv

xxxiv

THE PARMENJDES.
for

and immature conception,

favour of those

which we have

little

or no documentary evidence,

in

more comprehensive and connected

doctrines which

we

are in the habit

of associating with his name.

III.

Character
;
'

We

and contents of the work. The Parmenides purports to be a narrative by Cephalus of a conversation which occurred between SocIs that meeting rates, Zeno, and Parmenides at a former time, in a specified place.

come now

to consider the character

is

dialogue
:ardej

historical,

and

is

the narrative authentic

Plato's account

is

certainly circumstantial.

The
works

transmission, too, of the narrative would seem to be guarded with the most jealous vigilance

as historic. tl'

against the intrusion of foreign matter.

are to be judged

But no one can profess a

belief that Plato's

light

by a severe

historic standard. not,

They may throw

upon

historic events
in ancient

and personages, but they are

by many removes, themselves

history.

Even

times this was understood, as

d. l.
iii.

we

learn from the anecdote, whether authentic

or not,

3s.

',
''

recorded in Diogenes Laertius, that Socrates on hearing Plato read the Lysis exclaimed,
6
It
!

similar

remark

is

ascribed to
fact

Athen. Deipn.

both Gorgias and Phaedo by Athenaeus.

should be admitted
in

may, however, be urged that a basis of

in

many

dialogues, and that something

is

beyond that may be looked

the author.

for

those in which a serious profession of veracity

made by

There

is

such a

profession here.
respective ages
refers to the

Plato seems quite grave as he describes the meeting, and gives the

and

characteristics of those
in

who were

present

nay, as

we have

seen, he

matter again

two of

his other works.

But with regard to the

last point

some deduction must be made. It has been mentioned that in Plato direct references from one work to another cannot occur. Accordingly we do not know whether these allusions
constitute a reassertion of a fact, or simply a reference, as perspicuous as the circumstances

permit, to a previously-written dialogue.

assertion of fact, not three.
little,
Staiib.

If the latter be the case, then

Were we

dealing with a professed historian

we have one this might mean

but

we

Parmen.

historical

seem inclined to think that Plato meant to be here: Stallbaum, Mullach, Clinton, and Ueberweg are at one so far. But when
are not.
Scholars, however,

Muiiach.Poeseos
Phiiosoph. quae
'

we come

to details difficulties arise.

life

Of

the three principal characters in the dialogue the

is

only one regarding whose

^ Socrates
lies

we have

definite information
B.C.,

the youngest.

The

birth-year

ciinton

Fast.
.

within the limits 471-468

is

with apparently a preference for 469.

Heii. 11. Kd. 3

the date of the meeting he

*Y*
*

nd compare p.
448; Ueberweg,
2
'

&v

>

described in the several references as

, ,
'

At

''/

*~

ottrtv,

and the whole setting of the dialogue accords with these

this to

emphatic phrases.

Ueberweg, indeed, considers

mean

that he

compared with the mature or advanced age commonly assigned to and cites though admitting the authority to be second-rate the statement of Synesius,

Syn.

Encomium

:aJvitii,c. 17.

,
. .

'

' , .

was young only when him in other dialogues,

Clinton, Mullach,

and

Zeller,

on the other hand,

rrs
ree in rejecting this do<

ch

\r ( // a

xxxv
and certainly with
a.
I'.i

much
ol

too advanced
..

!y

ii

add

i<>

the

diffi< ultii

the situation,

i.u

nid
ui

rn< d,

but

it

intrinilcally

Improbable

Even among oui

man
ol

could hardly,
at

purpose, be called extremely young

still

student

philosophy

fiv<

and twenty; and

Uu
'

leaf

among
find
it

the

Greeks
ot
iii<

The whole atmosphen

Interlocutors an

>

Plato'i

writ

Impression thai
tables

man]
set

mere
at

lads,

while

we

down

that Pindar

waa an author
seventeen
Clinton and

tixteen, that

Dcmosthei
'il

it

iitrrn.th.it

Epicurus took to philosophy at twelve, and that

Aro
is

the

numbers
idied

are accurate,'

had won a reputation

tri

at

Democritus, too,
Mullach, whil
fifteen,
;
1

laid

toh
the

theology and astrology

aide, are

irate &v*

erne on

oth

much nearer the

first,
.is still

truth in calling Socrates

is

1<

could not well have been

*. -t 1.

ao young
described
hteen

because the age

extremely boyish
is

and, second, becau

younger, which on that supposition

hardly credible.

If

we

call So<

the age of the ephebi

and Aristoteles seventeen, we strike a very reasonable

.151

mean.

This

will

assign the meeting to the yen-

n.c,

from which, as point ofdepartun

we have

to reckon

the

ages of the other speakers.

Zeno

is

said
n.c.

to

be Syyvt

Sri

TfTTu/civoiTd at the time, so that he would be horn about

49
fair

Our chid external

evidence upon the question

is

the statement of Diogenes Laertius that he 'flourished about

n.c.
It

the nine and seventieth Olympiad,' or 464-61

to suppose

seems a

and moderate calculation

him

thirty at that time,

which would place

Plato's language.
irep]
li.c.

his birth

somewhere about 492

a result not out of

satisfactory.

harmony with

Plato describes him as

tV/

With Parmenides the case is le which would xtWe

fat

assign his birth to

is

some date about 516

it

Here, likewise, our best independent witness

*3-

,
516
least

i;.C,

Diogenes,
If this

who
it)

says that he 'flourished about the nine and sixtieth Olympiad,' or 504- 1

B.C.

be correct

renders the assumption of his birth

in

li.c,

or even
in

(as

Clinton gives

519, absolutely out of the question.

He
Even

could not 'flourish'

for his birth

his teens,
for his

and the most favourable view which could be taken

'floruit'

makes

519

and 501

him but eighteen

If,

at the time.

this will accord with our other

dates only on the assumption that Socrates was fifteen and Aristoteles fourteen

when

they met him.

as

seems to be imperative, we make Socrates at

'

seventeen at the

time of meeting, and Parmenides thirty when he only by a change

in

flourished,' the result

can be achieved view

the text of either Plato or Diogenes.

is,

To

alter texts with the

of harmonizing dates

while a tempting, an extremely dangerous course.

In this case

the Clarke Ms. offers no justification for a change, and, so far as can be judged from

Huebner's edition, the Mss. of Diogenes furnish no variants, although editors

differ freely

from the

text.

Moreover, Athenaeus, who seems to be at least as old an author as

tell

Diogenes, rejects the idea of the meeting, and his attitude would rather
the text of the latter as
it

in

favour of

stands.

If a

change

is

to be made, perhaps the simplest

in

would

be the following.
rather crowded

The words

7rtWe kcu

the Clarke Ms. are at the end of a

to be analogous in the case of

line.

If the circumstances

happened

some

older Ms. from which the Clarke has descended,

we might imagine some

contraction being

\V1

resorted

of

thus

'
to,
';

THE PARMENIDES.
might by possibility have resulted from the running together
N's

so that

two
fall

when placed sideways very much resembling the majuscule ,

:

|.

This would give us for the age of Parmenides ninety-five instead of sixty-five
in 545 B.C.,

his birth

would

and

his

age at his
all

'floruit'

would

be, let us say, forty-two.

Nor would

there be any impossibility in

philosophers will show that they were a long-lived generation.

Parmenides as
however,
Athen. Pcipnos.
\i1

-,
;

labour of discussion, agree better with the greater than with the lesser age.
is

,
this.

A
and

glance at the ages of the Greek

The

description, too, of

his professed shrinking

from the
change,

l'.iuchn.

makes Parmenides about forty-five years older than Zeno, which introduces fresh complications. So much for dates. Athenaeus is justified in declaring, yap
quite gratuitous

]
I

and

it

He

does not stop there, however, but regards the topics discussed as

equally improbable
as unlikely
;

\
in

and, in addition, he cannot believe that either Socrates or Parmenides said

? , .
He
rejects the

The

meeting

what

is

ascribed to
ease,

him

the dialogue.

Socrates

is

represented as handling familiarly

and with

although no doubt with a suggestion of youthful hesitancy, conceptions to

which, unless our whole

modern view of the

subject be a delusion, he could advance no

his

claim at any time

Parmenides.

to which,

on the contrary, Plato himself found

labour.

way only

after his

master's decease.

This point

Parm. 128
etc.;

a,

more must be
of doubt
;

said.

we need not That Plato knew what

made by Parmenides

In regard to Parmenides something

the tenets of Parmenides were does not admit

Theaet.

152 E, 180 E,

he refers to them repeatedly, and even quotes from them.

to those tenets
is

And

the relation of

133

Sophist.

the statements here

unquestionably more than

237 a, 241 d, 242

c, etc.;

Sympos.

merely nominal.

Great weight attaches throughout to the doctrine of the One.

195 c.

may

also catch echoes of Parmenides in points of detail.

somewhat

uncertain, lines

Mullaeh, Fragm.
28-32.

(So Mullaeh, although

Parm.

13

a-c.

Here we seem to find an analogy, and perhaps a hint, for Plato's antithesis between and while the last line taken in connection with what Socrates says of the relation between Zeno's method and that of Parmenides may contain a suggestion of the maxim, so emphatically laid down, about the duty of testing all sides of
;

.)

may

-, , . , --.

And we

Take the well-known, although

would be a possible reading, and

liker the original

every hypothesis.

intervals,
Parm. 133
A-B.
n. 40. 94
B, 135

,two

Again, the words

not have been without some influence upon two passages

and

-, when
the words

coupled with the phrases

which immediately follow, and others at

in

the dialogue

. '
So

where, in addition to the general purport,

also in
lines of the

we have

and and
the original of

poem,
it is

not impossible that

we may have

N.it.

>

hi

to

minx

h<

idi a

/.<
verbal

'.

tl<

haw
pa he

various
b(

resemblance!

which
nl
u<

ar<

merely,
ip< al

tli

ing u idel)

divcrgi
it

Pai m( nid<
h p
f

in

ol

..

crltli

lai

<

or reject!
u

u
th<
.it

in h,
ii

whili
al

gradually
01

onvini

thai thi

hi itoi

Parm
in
hi

no connection with what Plato

let

feels

liberty to put

mouth

might be made:

ua take the Following.

Repeatedly Parmcnidi

affirm*

Lli

alone exists, and that

Not being
t<>

is

without existence, unthinkable, unnan

and

di

clares emphatically with regard

Being that

\<m
,

avwKtupoi

<

jtm

/ton iiy
<"/r

(V

mu
<

iit/ii mi

tot'
(
I

'.'

("rnn,

ii

ur

V
lit I
I

\.

f.

This description
viction.

Staiptrov e&riv
ev

^
down
is

is

reiterated

in

varying language, but with unvarying strength

oi

con-

We

gain additional clearness from such

<
:

Si

ierriv eoVroe

l'\n

oy^<. ,

**

</>\

<Y/>y<

iVoraXes

<

yap

<

phrases as
/txtm'

7rni(i'(v

// '
ti

y<

yivotr

To harmonize

these

numerous

*\ \
and explicitly
is

characteristics

no part of our duty

lays

Parmenides

is

satisfied of their necessary co-relation,

the

dogma

scope,

a subject of
etpyt

that whatever deviates from then, and cannot be included in their

of the non-existent,
falls,

mere opinion and a branch

Under the head of

so far as can be gathered from the

fragments, a general survey of physical nature, analogous to that which

met with

in

most systems of Greek philosophy, including those of Plato and

through the synopsis of
will suffice to

Aristotle.

Now

a glance

this dialogue,

which has been placed

in

the margin of the text,

show

that Plato ascribes to the

One

every characteristic which Parmenides

thus rejects,

in

addition, or in alternation, to those which the latter accepts.

Again, while

we might
a

at first be

tempted to suppose that

of which Plato speaks correspond

roughly to the Not-being, or to the domain of

whereof Parmenides bids us beware

the fact that
in

moment's
or

reflection will recall to our

minds

Plato does not assign these

to a sphere of

distinct

from the region

which the One

In short,

is

found, but

that so
the

far as their truth or falsity, their

"knowability or unknowability, are concerned

One and

these Others stand upon a perfectly equal footing.

we

find that

Plato "while putting his argument into the

begins, advances in the course of
it

mouth

of Parmenides, from

whose

thesis

it

against which the venerable

conclusion, then, are

speaker would at once have raised an urgent protest.

led

To what

we

upon the matter of historic veracity ? It is just a possibility that Socrates may as a boy have chanced to meet Parmenides, when (or if) the latter was at Athens, as Scott tells us he met Burns at Edinburgh Virgilium vidi tantum.' But it is extremely improbable, all but inconceivable, that the two had any conversation upon philosophy. Plato, however, having, like all contemporary thinkers, a deep veneration for Parmenides, seeks, when

'

xxxviii
discussing his doctrines, to

THE PARMENIDES.
make
that respect manifest, while at the

same time giving

Parmenides
;

dramatic force to his work, by dwelling upon this possible meeting, so as to suggest that
his
is

own master might advance a claim

Plato's starting-point,
is

to be the other's disciple.

The
to
it

thesis of

and there

is

show of adherence

throughout

but the
fact as a

adherence
test

verbal chiefly.

Accordingly we need not bind ourselves to historic

by which

to try Plato's assertions, but

it is

may

deal with the Parmenides freely

upon the

assumption that

Plato

who speaks

throughout, and that the various interlocutors are

but his dramatis personae.

Zeno.

What now

of Zeno in the

same connection

If

we

are

hampered

in alluding to

Parmenides by the fragmentary state of

his writings, our position as regards

more unfortunate. Brief quotations which scarcely profess to be exact, mere accounts, avowedly in the language of the narrator, are all that have reached us from It is generally assumed that Plato refers to Zeno this famous fountain-head of dialectic.
Phaedr. a6i d.

Zeno is still and sometimes

in the query,

be

so,

and

if

the description be designed as historic

, ,
ev

" *]
it

though

may

well be but another

;
With

If that

involved allusion to this dialogue

then
in the

its

resemblance to what Plato puts into the

mouths of Zeno and Parmenides

independent historical

work .before us is very striking. But there is no corroboration of that. Our authorities tell us that Zeno had two
Phaedrus might cover both, though principally the

groups of contentions, directed, one against the existence of multiplicity, the other against
that of motion.
former.
Plato's language in the

Between the accredited statements of Zeno and the argument in our dialogue the following items of correspondence may be noted. It is a well-known assumption of his
if

that space and extended objects,

Parm. i 4 a
b,

such exist, are infinitely divisible.

this

we may

etc

compare the opening of what Grote calls the Second Demonstration in the Parmenides. Again, Simplicius, in his commentary upon Aristotle, represents Zeno as maintaining that
if

Berlin Anstoiie,

the

Many

exist they are both limited

and

limitless,

which corresponds with what we find

this

iwv&5.
Comp. Parm.

in

Plato, but with a difference.

is

Zeno seeks

to

make
flying

good with respect

to the

Many,

Parmenides

represented as demonstrating

familiar Achilles paradox,

points out, on the assumption that time consists of an endless series of points
As above
foi.

(the

paradox

is

reached)
6

parm. 152

b,

Parmenides.

At

quite similar to

same time these arguments of Plato, when viewed in detail, are not those of Zeno while we have also to remember that they are boldly
the
;

.
way

its

applicability to the One.

Finally, the

and that of the Arrow

and

at rest, are based, as Simplicius

'

Se

This at once recalls two striking passages of the

attributed to Parmenides himself, and that they are applied to the

One

as straightforward

reasoning, not to the

Melissa.
rheaet. 180 e,

Many

as paradoxical confutation.

Plato

makes no

allusion to Melissus in the Parmenides; but he twice refers to as to indicate a

him
of

elsewhere, and in such a

his view that
this

knowledge of

his writings

in particular

motion was impossible

for lack of

empty

space.

Much

of the argument in

dialogue has quite as close a likeness to the tenets of Melissus as to those of Zeno.

tTS
Hi.
1 1 1 1
1

CHAHAi TKR
Ufl
I
t
.

,
, l

o|
'

Mcll
li.'

1 1

uli.il
llS

.'
(

<

.1

become,'

Old

tli

l>.

|><

ii

.nitl

h<

11(1

(1
ills

end cannot be limited, therefore the Oiv

opening
ol

'limit li
o(

at

ona what
from
th<

'
tin

fi

the
.

Firel

Demonstration: while the fallacy

use of

ai

u
ii.l.

to the

ambiguou
>r

roMi

foi

the
in

same thing and

Again, the contention against

motion

wth, or change,

finds

parallel in both the

the language, although with s difTerence;

fi

<<V

./>

,
Wt
i.

may
we
feel

' &

euffi ring,

on the ground thai

any form, whethci 1 affi what

.
-

annol

Firsl

Demonstration and the Third

for

example

>i

Ttvot

& \

There

even an

tov nh

tivui,
I

^
th<

-/

'
.

'<

,
com

and ,
.

be compared with the phrases use.

throughout the Third Demonstration

already touched upon, the diver-

that in the case of Melissus, as in

es are quite as

noteworthy as the coincidences

And

our general

lusion

upon the
Plato
oi

evidence must be that

treats the

so far as can be ascertained from the fragments preserved

Klr.it u-

works of the throe

philosophers rather as su

tive texts

and point,

departure, than as systems accepted

to the questions of metaphysics.

in their

entireness and containing a sattsfai tory answer

is

The Parmenides
basis.

after all

a
'

Platonic speculation,
is

although resting upon an Eleatic

the Kleatics ascribed to
it

In

Plato's view the

One

and

is

not

'

all

that

and

to the

Many

conjointly.
^nt
a nd
,

Of
**

the two great exponents of

Platonism for the English-speaking world of our

Plato's works to generation the one, while striving J & to maintain a historic attitude, subjects a scrutiny having for basis a sensational conception of knowledge, and for weapons the

the work.

laws of formal logic

as anything

the other does not shrink from hinting his distrust of metaphysics

more than a mental gymnastic, and regards Plato by preference as the untrammelled 'poet or maker of ideas.' The two are agreed, however, in putting aside any suggestion of system in Plato's mind, so far as that is unfolded in his writings and in regarding each of his works as an independent inquiry undertaken to meet an independent, perhaps even a transitory difficulty. This view, while countenanced, as we have seen, by
;

the peculiar form of authorship which Plato has thought

fit

to adopt, hardly

seems

in

harmony with the two important facts, embodied in practical legislation, and devoted his
perfect
in

that

he both strove to get his views

best energies to professorial instruction

philosophy.

It

is

doubtless true that he

;

is

not systematic after the conscious and preis

determined fashion of Kant or Spenser

yet he

manifestly anxious to consider

all

aspects of the philosophic problem, as these are successively brought under his notice.

He

earnestly seeks to attain philosophic certainty on

all

points,

and

if

he

fails, it

is

less

from a want of systematic grasp of the subject, than because, with the means at bis
disposal, he finds success

beyond

his reach.

He

is

a consciously unsuccessful seeker after

reasoned truth, not a mere

*

if it

be permissible to say 'mere'

I.'

metaphysical Ariel

singing
that he

Where

the bee sucks there suck

sought to rectify his

The Parmenides alone is sufficient to show own mistakes and make definite progress towards truth.

In

it

we

]
find,

THE PARMENIDES.
beyond
dispute, an intentional review of past difficulties,
is

and a conscious step

in

advance, so far as the doctrine of ideas

concerned.
it is

Before entering upon a detailed discussion of the work,

necessary to explain that

no attempt

is

here

made

to put before the reader a complete description or co-ordination

of the views of previous writers upon the question.

The

task of reading over

all

that has
is

been written
limited

in

explanation of the Parmenides becomes

helpful to the mind.
;

where
little,

time for consideration

confusing rather than

at has

As

on the other hand,

is

any

pretension advanced to the merit of originality

to that special information, or clearness

of penetration, which might justify the setting of previous expositions aside.

The

object

aimed

been to acquire, so

far as

time might permit, a sufficiency of information from

authoritative sources,

and

after assimilating that, to take the course

which seemed marked

out by personal study of the work.

Pan
First:

The

dialogue opens with a reference to the speculative relation in which Zeno stands

rtobiem
126-129 e.

* Parmenides.

The former

is

declared to be the negative, as the latter

is

is

the positive,
in

supporter of the thesis that Being

after setting forth this

One.

Parmenides, as we have seen,

his

poem,
of the

dogma

in

detail, feels constrained, like

many expounders

problem of existence, to admit that ordinary experience yields no support to his chosen
view.

Accordingly

in the

second part of his

poem he
which

takes up the facts of nature as

we

find them,

and

offers his explanation of

this

before him.
is

But the whole of

as Not-being,

classified

and relegated to the sphere of opinion, while

re

the judgments of opinion that Zeno, and Melissus with him, has directed attention.

,
wide

them, just as the physical philosophers had done

rejects incorporation with his doctrine

field

its

votaries

It is to the further refutation of

He

seeks to prove the doctrine of the One-Being by elaborating the contradictions latent in
its

counterpart, the Many-Not-Being.

To

his

arguments Socrates

is

here represented as
in effect

partly assenting and partly taking exception.

to a
'

The
call

attitude

assumed amounts

solvitur ambulando.'

Practically Socrates says, I find no difficulty in accepting the

statement that sensible objects have what you

the contradictory attributes of

and one

it

represents a fact in experience of which

difficulty?
If
it

we

are daily conscious.

it

many They are

many and one, and where is your One might, indeed, at first suppose
he
offers

exists, is

of essential importance?

that Socrates

was admitting the unanswerable character

;

of Zeno's reasoning as regards the world of sense

a vindication of
is

but really that

is

not

so.

Virtually

the

sensible,

material world

against the contention of the

'

Eleatics, as
130 u.

clear from the statement a little further on, that

existing.'

those things which

we
felt
it.

see

must be accepted as

Although the two chief auditors are said to have

Plato's

a
130 a.

little
it

annoyed
It

at this line of argument, they are not represented as controverting

their views,

Yet

conflicts with

and can hardly be reconciled with

objective tendency

own opinions
early Greek

elsewhere.
thinkers,

follows, however, the

common among
'

who

are prone to reason, like the Scottish school, about an

external world,'
feeling

whatever that world may, upon examination, be found to comprise.

is

The same

behind the statement that the ideas are 'set up

in nature.'

Plato's verdict

upon Zeno's

lis CHARAi
contention would seem to bo, imt
ill.
t

\ND CONTi
theyprovi
hci
that,
hi

)>.it

theb

it, II

bj

pi

int

iliahing

the

ilble

sphi
t"

but

ii

bet

applied
Involve

b)

their

authoi

<

iphen when
N<

the

would ha\
in

valu<

ml

argumentative
In
In
li

subtli ty

that

iphen
nl

be none othei than the

to

One

Being, to which

Zeno's Intention hia argumi

the discussion
In

wen
in

form

.1

ior1

"I

phyla*
the

The next
partly overlaps
invites

tag*
it

which arises

connection

with

that

which Socrati

brings forward the question ol Ideas

He

Zeno to say whether he recognises their existence, and whether he holds thai it hara< ri ti< from participation of some kind in them that ext< mal obj< ctad< rive th< it Scottish fashion, by puttii To the query it Is Parmenides who replies, and h< doctrine, ai such another, He passes over the question whether he and Zeno
1

1 <

>l <

.t

asks whether Socrates himself d

Receiving an affirmative answer, he

It
is

on to

interrogate Socrates upon the scope of his theory,

suffers the

probable that Plato designedly

could
n<>t

query of Socrates

to

pass unanswered.

He

truthfull)

>

is

ideal

theory to the Eleatic thinkers, while to have openly admitted that they did not
it.

hold

would have given rather a shock

is

t<>

the series of assumptions upon which the

feel

setting of the dialogue

it,

based.

And
is

he might
into

that,

if

not the theory

he-

held
,

at

least

germ which could develop

For the ideal theory

that,

was

to

be found

in

the view

ol

Parmenides.

put forward as a simplifying, unifying principle,

and the ideas are 'apprehended by the intellect'; in both which respects its affinity to the Eleatic doctrine is obvious and close. The questions put to Socrates by Parmenides
in

regard to the ideas are four

(i.)

Are

ideas admitted for likeness, one,

It

many, 'and

all

of the qualities of which

Zeno was speaking'?

may

be remarked that Zeno has specified only likeness and

is

unlikeness, but has admitted that he

'.
proceed,

resisting the
(2.)

existence of

Many

r-apu
just, the
I

beautiful, the

good? 'Yes.'
a difficulty.'

Socrates answers,

Yes.'

And

for all

such qualities as the

(3.)
(4.)

have often

By no means. others. At present

'

felt

And for man, fire, water, And for all such unworthy

and the

'There like?

things as hair, mud,

filth

Indeed, the case of such sometimes makes

I

me

tremble even for the

devote

my

attention to those just admitted.'

will

While the scope of the

ideal world

be found to be insensibly enlarged as

we
it:

it

seems that we are to accept

this as the original

immature conception of
First,

and

in

regard

to this conception several remarks suggest themselves.

it

the

object

With which
to

has been referred to at

it.

all

is,

that the dialectic of

is,

Zeno may be
nor

brought to bear upon

According to Socrates
as

that

Plato

neither advantage
;

honour

is

be derived from a dialectic treatment of the sensible sphere

is,

what he would
cannot

wish to see demonstrated

series of qualities

we have
is

said

above, the existence of a conflicting

'winding

in all directions'

through the ideal region.

Next,

it

but be

felt

that

if

the purpose of the ideas

is

to explain,

and almost

to create, our ordinary

world, the outline here furnished

wholly inadequate.

And

this

inadequacy

is

due

not

more

to inherent difficulties than to sentiment.

Ideas are rejected because of their

xlii

THE PARMENIDES.
;

u worthiness

and where there

to be

is

no unworthiness, ideas are readily accepted even

required.
It
is

when they would seem

ideas
for

least

conceded at once that there are

or
aesthetical,

intellectual

or

mathematical,

and

for

moral

conceptions

which conceptions are already themselves abstract

it

and products of the mind.

the

And
for

is

gravely doubted whether there be ideas for even the most important classes of
associated
that
it

objects
objects

with

physical

impressions
is

while

suggestion

of
like

ideas

seem 'common and unclean'

:

rejected with

something

a shudder.

To

put

otherwise

Plato accepts with

greatest pleasure ideas for such conceptions

as Socrates had been in the habit of attempting to define, and rejects with emphasis
ideas
for

such

objects

or

impressions as
relation
said,

fall

within

the

sphere
the

assigned

by Partends to

menides to opinion.

The
must be

between
in

the

One and

ideas

thus

become

domain of ideas, as thus far mapped out, has, in the language of modern diplomacy, an intelligible frontier,' it can hardly boast a scientific one. The mere putting of the question whether there are ideas in cases (3) and (4) shows what the form of rejection confirms that Plato had come to feel some further step to be a necessity.
closer.
It

however,

the third

place, that if the

'

'

'

Enlargement
of the ideal

And we
tells

have evidence that such a step

it

is

in

contemplation.

Parmenides plainly

Socrates that

is

his

youth and speculative timidity which disincline him to

sphere.

accept the existence of ideas for the humblest physical phenomena, and that years will
1300.

bring
find

conviction
incidental

with

them.
to

And
ideas

gradually as
for

the

disputation

unfolds
for

itself,

we
and

references

'bigness,

smallness,
'truth.'

equality';
all

'slave

slavery,'

'master and mastery'; for 'science' and

of the theory, alike on the abstract or conceptual,

while finally the expression

eco?

not with, absolute certainty, in the direction of admitting ideas for every clearly dis-

,
fire,

This

increases the scope

and on the concrete or physical side

it,

with others like

seems to

point, although

tinguishable

division

into which

our experience

may

be found to part

itself.

That

would, of course, include ideas for man,

water, and even for their humbler congeners.

At

the

a fact

same time this conclusion is one that is glanced at rather than definitively stated, which, as we have urged above, makes for the view that the work ranks early
Plato's metaphysical writings.

among
he

For Plato

is

not here drawing back from a wider

conception of the ideal sphere, which he had formerly recognized, to a narrower which

now regards

as

more

correct

but

is

advancing from the narrower to a wider under

a sense of intellectual
still

pressure which he cannot resist but which his fastidious feeling

renders distasteful.
feel

While, however, the horizon

is

undoubtedly expanding we
example, that there

cannot but

that the features of the landscape are far from clearly defined, or given

with a due sense of relative importance.

but a single idea of
form, of colour
;
'

Are we to assume,
of

for

is

beauty

'

to which all types of beauty bear a relation

;

beauty

of

implement and product ? If so, what are we to think of separate ideas for bigness, smallness and equality, where we might imagine a single idea of 'size' more appropriate? The parsimony in the one case
of man, of animal, of plant

hardly accords with the plethora

in

the other.

<

,
wide
01

ii

.-.
,

//,./(

AND
content
it

Oh
Plato'
let
Id

howevefi and the

"i

>rld

>

Inconsistent,

narrow, one thing about

ours.
l'

world quite apart

process
tion'
i.nnili.M
\<>y/)ii.'

Wi
Ii

arrhn

Indeed
<l< >\\

ond
conception
"i

di
it

tc,

that

ii

by

nd

enough
\,m
>.d,./,,
;

clearly

laid

that

the idcus an

These ire the meant

and

th<

pro
cout
ol in
thi

with them
not

We
it

proceed by comparison and abstraction.

clear,

absolutely

and

comments
it

are

made upon
while
th<

it

charactei
tin-

th<

not*
is

Hut

iq long as

resembles 'abstraction and generalization,'

to

rem

nidi one
familial
th<
I

naturally tempted

make upon
'

is,

that

iul(

i.i

unique.
its

The
first

process teems quite analogous to thai

for

which

Aristotle refei

rat
justly

expositor
inductive
to

there
ol

are

two things which one might

and
1

ascribe

Socrates;

trains
bi

reasoning

universal

definition.

Acquired
that
is

by such

means, ideas ought

notions.

what

we mean when we use

not

the

term

To

Plato they are something wholly different

us.

Here again Aristotle describ

universale nor yet the defini
idea.)

the facts for

tions
sorts

'Socrates, however, did

make

the

separate
of

or

transcendental;

but

they (the

makers of

did

this,

and such
italic

entities

they named

ideas.'

Like Jack, we climb up the familiar bean

is

into

wonderland: only that

is

his bean-stalk
in

itself

wonder, while ours

is

not

This

break
in

mentioned repeatedly

the dialogue, and the reader can judge whether Aristot

to

what we have quoted from him seems

. . .

have

this

dialogue

St

.And

their

characteristic

peculiarities
:

are

noted

agree with this act of

of ideas, which

'.
this.

we have
then,

Socrates,
is

has got

,
in

?
in
;

his

mind.

/
Thu

ftena. say d.

).

three

forms of

expression

which
,a

,
ill

and as above
and
ill

(i)

an

defined

regulated
3)

world

(2) reached

by an

intellectual

effort

of abstraction, but

found when reached to be 'like a star that dwells apart.'

interrogate Socrates
difficulty
is

Parmcnides proceeds

to

upon the subject and to raise objections. To his mind a great Postulating the two spheres, ideal and sensible, fully developed
to

what
by
in

must we hold

be the nature of the participation or

?

of the ideas

or our world of sense the whole or in

:

First
If
in

he
the

asks,

do objects of sense share

then
is

a part of the idea

in

whole,

the

idea

many-

wheres at once
contradictions

if

a part,

the

effect

upon them may be fraught with ludicrous

a
is,

twofold

difficulty
is

which Socrates frankly admits.

participating
into

The assumption
to

underlying this dilemma

sensible
enter.

that

the

object

represents, so

speak, a
to

material

body of death ready made,

of course, dualism
in

which

the

idea

is

supposed
of

That
is is

pronounced form.
for

The world

sensible

objects

somehow already
his

there, waiting

the

advent of the
to

intelligible

element.
to

And

it

noteworthy that Parmenides gives point

from

illustrate

argument, the ideas of physical bigness, smallness, and equality.

anomaly

resulting

the

paradox by choosing,
notice

The
or

by parts might have escaped

had

justice

' :

XllV

THE PARMENWES.
But absurdity
us.'
is

beauty been selected.

is

elicited at

once when

'

a portion of smallness

'added' to 'one of

Smallness should be the irreducible

minimum

of extent;

but matter being infinitely divisible you get parts of smallness, and never reach your
goal.

Again, for the moment, participation

size

is

regarded as physical addition, which

Ought to increase the

be reduced,
if

of an object

while yet by hypothesis the object should

smallness.'

things 'become small

by partaking of

Having thus an easy

each of which has

victory over the doctrine of participation, Parmenides turns to look at the character

of the ideas.
the

These are assumed to be a

series of ultimate

units,

power of influencing the nature of an and each of which is reached, as we have

indefinite

multitude of sensible objects

seen,

by the process of abstraction and

referred

generalization.
to,

We

are accustomed

to

draw diagrams of the operation here

which represent a gradual convergence from the

after

many

of sense to the one of abstrac-

tion,
hat.

the fashion of a genealogical

this

tree or the to

gorgeous tassels of a cardinal's

is

That

progress leads from

many

one there
to

no doubt.

But
first

it

seems

as

is

further pointed out in the notes

in

not
all

be the progress or the process which

step in the

Parmenides has

mind.

He

would appear to imply that the very

stride.

generalization includes a comparison of

available physical data, so that

you would

hope to reach what

Parmenides, you
fail

will

prove to be your idea at a single

This, however, says

to do.

What you have now

got

is

a fresh field for comparison

the

mass of sensible things on the one hand, on the other the abstract which, you have just made. Compare these two and a third is the result. This process
indefinite

repeats

itself

indefinitely

'all
is

men,' 'man,' and a 'third

man'

or
is

so that the

one idea which

supposed to terminate the inquiry

it

never reached.
real

Whether
difficulty.

this

contention be just or not,

first

seems to be a formal rather than a

Your

act of abstraction has

by hypothesis exhausted the data

What Parmenides contends is paring a with A a new result is obtained. Is that so ? You import no new element by your second comparison. It may be that the process admits of indefinite repetimand
;

from a" you have extracted A.

n

comthat by comat

tion,

but what does

a
sufficient

it

yield

It

would not prevent you from

a,
if

justly using

your

first

A
.Met. xii. 4.

as

type for every participating

feasible.

The

objection of Aristotle to the doctrine of ideas, that in each case

adds one more object to the sensible objects,

''
get
rid

be doubly applicable to
Are ihe ideas
notioas?
F'.rm
132
I!.

this theory.

,/ -,
it

participation

be

itself

otherwise

merely

wairep

el

<5e

would

Socrates attempts

to

of this

difficulty

this,

at

least,

seems to be what

he

is

meeting, and

not the previous question of

division

through participation
or notion, and
it

by
may
the

urging that each idea

may be simply
contention

a mental conception
;

so

be

one.

very

odd

indeed

however

faithfully

'universal' or 'general definition' of the historic Socrates.

These endless comparisons

on no
other,

and successive

results

are

possible

just
is

on the assumption, and

not converted by

each abstraction remains mental and

may

reflect

that

into an objective

is
thing

<

u.ih.l

1 1

u
in

AND

<

VI

xlv

entity
to

<>i

'

in

it

>

If.'

If,

as
to

I'l.it

it

point

the

mind'i

attention

.m

iit.i If

which

up
facl

iii

nature'

and
ofl

\,,</>\.

manifestly
thing
ii

indefinite

comparison
Independent
it,

by
any

that

topped
Into

objective

wholly
to
.tini
it.

ot

future

comparison!
unaffected

wh
ubj

ir

Ingenuity
activity,
tint

ma)

seek
it

inveigle

and

stands

there

by
erved
\.1

oui

me

Is,

one

it

remains:
fact

our comparisons have

only to draw

veil

from

before
that
it

The
in
Its

that
in

we thus
hardly

discus, but

it

may
roch

sound
to
il

reason
it

for

doubting

'stands

there

nature';
will

grant
it

existence
it

.m<l

our further speculations

'still

d
Like

make

uneasy,
(i.dlic
It
if
i.

and

are

sitting,

still

are

sitting*

the

senate during

the
1

invasion,

>r

lil

'dukes,

whom

are

do not
is

criticise,

but

only contemplate.

singular
ideas

to

not

however, that

Parmenides

not

represented as doubting that

the

were but]
>n.

notions his difficulty would be removed.

He
all

seeks rather to demolish that su

will
all

All
case

conceptions, he says, are conceptions of an object; and that object

in

each

be the idea.
in

If

it

be mental, and

things participate in

it,

then

thin

sharing

thought should have the power of thinkingthe contrary would be absurd.

idealist

modern
that
that

finds

no

difficulty in conceiving all things as built

up of connect

and coordinated conceptions.

thoughts should

But

be able to

demands a Greek to urge as nece iquel Would it not be an analogous contention think.
it

words should be able to speak?

with
fact
:

How
it

plausible soever the hypothesis,

is

it

is

in

direct conflict

the

Ego

alone

that

thinks and

speaks.

It

may

be

noted
to

in

passing, however, that Plato seems to have in the end

the view that thought

in

somehow

constitutes

the

universe.

come gradually round This appears to some

thinking

extent

the

Timaeus.

And

the

suggestion

about

thoughts

may
is

helped to persuade him that the universe must in that event be a creature or
It
is

have
ne
tr

admitted by Socrates that these objections baffle him;

his
final

and he

thus led

idea

to

propound what would seem to be

of ideas.

and abiding view of the nature and

in

function

'They
of

are

set

up as patterns
to

nature' after the similitude of

in

which sensible objects are framed, 'and the participation of objects

other

them
note

is

none

than

that

being

likened

them.'

It

is

interesting

to

that
for

as
the
p
.

remarked
first

above

this

important

suggestion

seems to be put forward here

difficulty.
is

time, as a novel expedient to

meet a pressing

That

fixes the position

of the

work

as earlier than others in which the theory

mentioned.

On

this

new-

development
into his

of

the doctrine
far

Parmenides continues his attack.

'partake

The arguments put

the objections the
difficulties

mouth thus
assumption

have had two tendencies.

objects

They have exposed

ideas,

to

the

that

of

and

likewise

besetting
one.

the attempt to

construct a

simplified

ideal

world aloof from the Sensible

He now
is

urges what
truth

takes for a

moment

the appearance of a

new
are

contention,
,

but what
ideal

in

merely an elaboration of the former of these.

is,,

Between the

33 A

and the sensible there

that

as

we know,

a great gulf fixed.

it
:

We
is

now

told in

regard to this gulf

God

himself

cannot bridge

that he

debarred from

xlvi

I'HE

PARMENIDES.
it.

contact with the sensible sphere, even to the extent of knowing

clearly

And

it

is

now

acknowledged that
objection

this

is

due to the original severance of the two spheres.

Nor can the

join

be rebutted.

what man has put asunder.

in

The verdict of reason is absolute The ideal sphere pays the penalty of
it

let

no god

all

privilege,

even the privilege of unsullied purity, that

flows
is

is

out of contact with the stream which

is

the river of
to

life

that
It
'

circumstance too
is

emphasized just as the sphere

march,
cried

expanding
French
the

completeness.
it

a perfect and immaculate Constitution, but like

'

the

one
foot

will

not

march.'

He

shall

my

uncle

Toby,

marching
shall

which

had

shoe

on,

though without

advancing an inch

he

Parm. 13s

b-c.

march to his regiment. An' please your honour, said the Corporal, he will It certainly will, as Parmenides declares, be the never march but to his grave.' to bridge over this difficulty, if he goes about it work of a man on the foundation here laid down. Yet Plato while clearly alive to the difficulty On the contrary he is far from making it a reason for renouncing his hypothesis.
maintains that with the rejection of an intellectual idealistic standpoint the possibility
all its rational activity

of philosophy and

disappears.

TV
is

he exclaims: and
Critical

in

a sense

though

scarcely in his

he

perfectly right.

Having now reached the end of

two remarks upon
it,

Plato's course of self-criticism,

little

which forms the

to

comments.

important introductory section of the dialogue, we pause for a

in addition to

make one

or

Met.

i.

9.

any that may have been dropped in passing. 1. Reference has been already made to certain objections on the part of Aristotle. Taken as a body his adverse comments are very comprehensive and pointed. The substance of them may be given thus, (a) We do not really reach the ideas by the
methods which Plato suggests.
true,

And

that statement, as
it

we have

just seen,

is

perfectly

whether our reasons

for accepting

are those of Aristotle or not.

No

advancing

chain of abstraction will conduct us logically to another and absolutely separate world,
to \vhat

moderns would

call

the sphere of the unconditioned,

If

() The

character of the
ideas

ideas

corresponding to every branch of

)
'

is

objectionable in various ways.

we are to have, as Plato implies, knowledge we must have ideas of negations

;

(-

such as

'

unlikeness,'
is

feature of the theory

smallness,'
'

while a prominent and of things that have perished that which comprehends ideas of relations, such as 'motion/
if

truth.'

But

the use of the ideas

is

that they are to be participated in

by objects of
ideas in the
things,
is

sense, they

ought to comprise substances

is

(')
'

alone.

That we possess
all

modern

sense, that

conceptions, of unlikeness, motion and

is

similar

quite certain.

But to affirm that there

is

thing in itself set up

use of the ideas
is

in

nature

called

motion or smallness,

a hard saying,

() The
;

and

to aid

us in knowing, the world of sense

and they do not

The
Plato

talk about their being patterns, to be partaken of

it

the like of

himself partially suspects this to

be

so.

Thus

.
by

to constitute,

fulfil

that function.

sensible objects

that

and

And we

have seen that

Aristotle attacks at once their

existence, their character

and

their function.

2.
tlicii,

The world
from
to
wh.ti
}

ol

Prom
In

hand

partake

hended by sensible perception Suppose Socrates entering upon

from tome sensible objeel
'shape,
1
1

(
ITS
kit
<

CHARACTER AND C0NTKN1

I

.n
traction

to

retched, we

ar<

told,

by
<

.ii-

\'

tin-

world of ordinary
v

rlen<

wluih

i.

-.aid

on
to

th<

<o)

th<

ideas, to
li<

and on the othei

outid<
l>\

be
"i

appn
icieno

and so
<
.

tli<

iphcre
u<
<

his

>m

.(

oi

piixcdtiie

abstracting
wi
hall
I

such as
1

man.
1

He
Itself

abstracts,
,'

ay,

'one/

'limit,'

'bigness,

'likeness,'

'beauty,

'justice,'
ts
'

*goodn<

'ms
it

indefinitely

onwards.

And when
l>y

the process exhau

what

is

that

remains, to be appn

hended
gone;

sense lmt

ignored
it

by thought
to

ither there

must be

primal

unmodified

matter whose function

01

is

'partake of' ideas, and which remains when they are

runs
ideal,

our

sensible

world

serious

risk

of
are

being
aware.

'abstracted'
Plato docs
I

from

us

and

becoming
pronounce
in
fact,
iA~

intellectual,
for

or even

before we

not explicitly
nception,
uid

either alternative, yet

tin-

he

seem.',
is

to

favour the former.

in

what

sensible

world

actually
i^n

resembles

want

of

consistency

the

view

entertained
the ideas

the

subject

lie affirms

that without

we must

sacrifice

again of these ideas he declares emphatically

is
is

led

that the

want oi ideas
discussion,

will

do away with
it

*
and
:

by non-metaphysical
avrSav thai

reflection.
/u,

h>

while

No
some

proof

dialectic

and philosophy:

this result
diffi-

assumed without
Plato's

and

certainly leaves us in a position of

culty.

In favour of the opposite conclusion

we have

the following curious deductions

from

own

line of

reasoning

()

both exist apart

:

from the

ideas,

and are our means of discovering them

(2)

in

making

that discovery

these faculties are employed upon the world of sense, which thus succeeds in furnish-

ing a field of exercise for the speculative

a sort of science suited
to
its

intellect

(3) this

world of sense contains

is

wants, and

to

which the only limit

that

it

cannot

know a world which is expressly placed absolutely out of connection with it. circumstances do we need the realm of ideas ? If they cannot be brought
upon the world of sense, and
of science,
if

In these
to bear

the latter

is

sufficient

unto

itself

even

in

the matter

argument

why At

retain

them

\ Has

not Plato over-reached himself in this part of his

the very

moment when he
scientific,
it

seeks to

magnify

his

world of ideas as

unapproachably pure, rigidly

it

without one taint of sense to sully or confuse

when

he seeks to enthrone

as the dominating influence in speculation

has

he not

been unconsciously enriching the world of sense to an alarming degree with qualities
to which
to
it

can lay no claim, and which are assigned to

?

it

solely because they

seem

him unworthy of the other sphere

The

contents of the ideal

world we have
.

already collected above.

1

What

are those of the

call

you and me, and the

rest of

what we

phenomenal world? They consist ofp arm the many,' stones and pieces of wood and
'

29 .

such things.'

them
mud,

To

these

'

likeness, one,

we add by many justice,

;

inference

since
may
their

there are
;

ideas corresponding

to
;

13

beauty, goodness

master, master)', slave, slavery

'

133 D-134 B.

science, truth.'
filth,'
it

Finally,
is

whether or no there

be ideas for

man,

fire,

water

hair,

certain that they, as

we accept

meaning, belong to the sensible

xlviii

THE PARMENIDES.
them

sphere, for Socrates says of

,
' :

what we call the many,' the world which is or whatever you call it, of the ideas,' which we handle
the world of
' '

,
'

And
Harm, ijo
a.

>

b.

some parts of it this is expressly affirmed while for others there are ideas corresponding, whose distinctive feature it is that they are known and Such a conception of a world of sense is manifestly untenable and indeed it speedily breaks down. For when Plato goes on to insist, by the mouth of Parmenides, upon the absolute separateness of the ideal sphere he announces that the latter is known by 'the idea of science,' while the ordinary world is known (not by sense, but) by our science,' tq And it would hardly avail to urge that this latter science is mere 'opinion,' as Parmenides calls it
this

world we

know by

.
;

the senses

of

()
with
us,'

.
'

Such
and
'

is

which

partakes,
see.'

'

in
Tim. 53
b.

his

poem, or to translate

tji

phaedo

109 sq.

means that we have discovered the ideas. The fundamental difficulty lies in the relation, or rather want of relation, which Although Plato would is originally assumed as existing between the two spheres. deny that ideas exist corresponding to individual sensible objects, such ideas after all are the goal to which things seem to be tending. He has ideas for the qualities of objects, and ideas for motion and rest ;, and if he goes on, as Parmenides urges, to admit ideas for man, hair, mud, why should he not translate in its most literal sense and acknowledge the existence of ideas for 'you, and me, and would at least not be the rest of those present ? An and when we have got that length we should have in the ideal world, what we can hardly help feeling as if we were intended to have, a detailed duplicate And do we not seem of the sensible world complete to the minutest ramification. There he launches to attain ,to this consummation in the latter part of the Phaedo ? into a rhapsody upon the future dwelling-place of the soul, which is made to appear
phrase from the Timaeus

because

it

is

]
by
its

).

into

to quote a

;
q

'

as an idealized sensible sphere, where our world

attractions.
Is this

the

or heavenly counterpart, as in the

}
q,

is

repeated in detail with transcendental

If so, then each blade of grass has an

land of Beulah.
stars

Those there have

and behold the sun, moon and

sensible
quality, could

ola

On

this

assumption our

One, \vhich for argument's sake might be supposed to contain but a single

be represented by

and Socrates with

his indefinite qualities

H
.

by q n

while over against this would stand the idea of each, represented by q and q so our worlds would run side by side
q*

And

q3

q\

qs

q&

q
If

q3

q4

qs

q6

q ~z qn-3

q n -* qn-2
is

q"->

qn
qn

qn-i

we

are to have two worlds with the theory that the one

the model or pattern

of the other

then

no

fitting

conclusion but this seems to be possible.

italics
it ?
'

What

advan-

tage, now, has the world

in

over that in roman type that such pains should

be taken

in
is

the elaboration of

What's q to

q,

or q to

q,

that
it

q should weep

for

qV

It

not simple as opposed

to

the other's complexity,

is

not pure as con-

//.
trasted

CHARACTk R Ah
ii

with the other'i unworthiness,

there
.-.
.

is

not

...-

h-i

from

tin

mutability
i
,

Ii

actually an
.1 1.

tWoj
.1

*<*}<
<iii

What
..tin
'.

then

It?

iiiti-IU-ftu.il

. iti.ulr.il ;; m
Ii

in

the

dependent
the

consideration,
distinction.
..

it

not

that

eith<
(a
,,i
'

No!
having

between

two

thci
th<
ol

. niiih ,.'

The world In . what

1
1

ltali(

rhe-idea-ol
'

tcientincal':
thai

(.inn

made
tin

distinction

on
for

ti.

rtain

Ideas;

on

the

other, things partaking oi

e':

and here

the

pr<

must leave the question.

rhe
Ideas
.it

as

patterns arc

said

<V

//

</>'<<.

What does
one
of

this

One would
we
see

firsl

be disposed to fancy that 'nature' could be nothing

but

the world

it:

>ut

obviously thai
for

sense cannot
it

be the right
the exercisi

As
the

little

can
that
as,
I

mean

the

human mind;
In

although

Is

l>y

intellect

reach a conception oi the Ideas, they are

In

themselves quite separated from

-<'<-

H<
with

speaks repeatedly
the iparit.
not

the

Republic and elsewhere of a

with
the are

Should we identify that

Its

mind of the Creator?

patterns

Even
the

thi

without

difficulties;

for

the

creates,

a description
is

which

gives

them

where he

concerned.

The

subjects which

Plato raises as to whether the ideas arc

if

not

not such objects, and in the given circumstances must they not, be themselves
or
?

'

,
a
is

ideas

Great

certain

externality and

Independence even
of the

carry a certain

suggestiveness

Granting, too, that

again, and
in

the

mind
with

Creator

connection

the

question which

What

should occupy a
objects,
still

rarof

must have

we ask
this

may
intel-

Nay, even the

likewise

seem not

to be perfectly excluded

from

lectual influence.

Granting that we perceive them by sense; do we not, even according

to

Plato,

form abstract conceptions of them, when discovering

affirmed that they are

the

ideas

\nd are they not the objects of our thought at that time, and so
of thinking?

Further, of the ideas

is

it

and the mode of reaching them

also an-

-}

whereby God knows them. theory be abandoned man

discussion
will

Finally

-()
we
Siavoiav

in his

view capable

iSeiv.

There
the

is

are

told

that

if

ideal

and so the

possibility

oi

be absolutely destroyed.

Plato
in the

is,

of

course,

committed

to

tin-

position that the ideas are not

mere notions
of

human mind, but

difficulty

objective entil

We
up

nun- grant
in

him that;
Still

we may even
being
if

raise

no

about their being 'set

they

nature.'

to

admit

discussed

at

all

must

imperatively
if

be either 'mental' or 'physical'; and

mental, he grants
one.

physical they are perceived

by

sense, while,

them the power of

is

thinking.

The

subject

is

a supremely difficult

say when we speak of things 'unconditioned,' 'in ordine ad universum,' 'seen as tbey

appear to the creative

seen above,

Probably Plato

all

along struggling to say what we also are struggling to

intelligence.'

In

\?

the Phaedo such expressions occur as

and, as

we have

THE PARMENIDES.
4.

It

has been pointed out that the reason assigned by Socrates for raising the
ideas
in

question of

here at

all

is

that

he

may

see the

same contradictory

qualities

proved to exist
such effect
reference
is

them which Zeno shows

All that
is

to exist in sensible objects.

No

proof to

forthcoming.
ideas

said in reference to conflict

in

between ideas has

Doubtless
it

to

which encounter each other

objects

of sense.

is

shown

that there are difficulties in the

difficulties

way

of our conceiving an ideal world at all;

but these

do not quite involve the fundamental contrariety which Plato The argument which most nearly supplies a through Socrates sees fit to suggest. result of this nature is the one in which it is pointed out that if we reach the ideas
series

by a
But
in
it

of comparisons and
is

abstractions
in

each idea must be

spirit

many and

not one.

this

argument

not prosecuted

such a

as to indicate that
'

Plato sees

the presentment of an internecine struggle between

absolute one and absolute

many.'
Phaed. 1023.

We

come more nearly

is

within

sight of such

proof as
in

we

are looking for in

the Sophistes, Philebus, and Phaedo, than here.

js

Even

the Phaedo, however, what

pointed out

principally that there are ideas which will not inhabit the

same body
explanation

together,

while others do not show a similar mutual repugnance.

One

of the failure to satisfy expectation

the sphere of 'our science.'
till

may be

that the
to
lie

ideas are found to be

beyond

Another seems

in
'

the aversion which Plato up

now

exhibits

against

the acceptance of ideas for

man,

fire,

water

hair,

filth,

and such

things.'

The
is

ease with which contradictory characteristics

mud, are shown

difficulty

to exist in sensible objects arises from the complexity of those objects.

in

The

the case of the ideas

caused by the comparative simplicity of those ideas which

If Plato accepted ideas for
'

are accepted as existing.

man,

fire,

mud,' he would apidea of

in

proximately reach the concreteness of the sensible sphere.

readily be

The

man

could

shown

to

be both one and many: and so with others,

their inherent complexity.

5.

Such ideas

as these would be ideas of

,
?

proportion to

which according to Aristotle are

their admission

the only ideas that should be admitted at

all.

And when
It
is

would be

an advantage,
smallness'
for

why

does Plato raise any difficulty

not altogether because of

their physical character.

Some

of those which he admits most readily

'bigness

and

Met.

i.

6.

Probably the abstractness of the example are in origin physical. latter veils to his mind the fact that they are physical, while the concreteness of the former gives that fact full prominence. And we know from Aristotle why it was that Having from his youth Plato felt a distaste for ideas of a concrete physical type.
'

become acquainted with Cratylus and the views of Heraclitus, that all objects of sense are in perpetual flux, and that in their regard, science does not exist, he ended by adopting this theory as correct.

And
in

accepting as his guide Socrates,

who
in

busied himself

about ethical questions to the exclusion of nature at large

universal and
led

the

way

turning attention to
all

and definitions on

these sought the

some such ground

definition

as this Plato took

up the view that

this

applied to a separate class of facts, and

not to any of the sensible objects, as one could not attain a

common

of

us CHARACTER AND
.my of them fiom
foi

ONTl
.

Ii

tin

..

iiMit.ilhui.'

In
,

tli<

explanation
till

.,f

thr d
that mcfa

ph)

lical

Ideal which
earlier
it

appeari

In

this dialogui

and
as

ii

mak<
can

clcarci

w.i,

ri.it>>'.

view,
U)
',

which

he

finally
in

overcame.
it

One

bow much
<

BlOre
il

limple
'

is
./"

a>>>|>l

'imallncss

ell'

an abstract

ntity

than

'

in.

iii

(II

./'

than

10 tO

ipeak
the ideal pattern, an expedient of
ty, its

(>.

The expedient

<

calling

the utra

;ni

ficance In Plato'i eyes, traces, as wt

.1

origin

to this dialogue

it

mdden
it

inspiration
to exi
it

<<W.
In

t5

.96,
.1

V"<y
influence
in

<

<<

<;
<>i

and

appean
lias

the end

potent

expanding the contcnti

the ideal

sphere

true that In the

Republic we are pointedly told that only one

all;

couch

been

created
is,

still

model
a

ii>r

but

in

the
this

Timaeui we can observe ai

ii

change.

There

indeed,

single
ii

pattern,

but

pattern
for

for

the

whole
01

world, of which

pattern
is

the world
to

an

image.

Now

pattern

the world,

cannot but

feel,

likely

be

much more complete and comprehensive

thing than

could be elaborated consistently with the assumption of solitary patterns for vast masses

phenomena]
in

objects.

It is

quite unnecessary to enlarge upon the difficulties involved

its

this doctrine of the

pattern so far as
all

application

is

concerned.

But the necessity

for

postulating a pattern world at

to

seems inconsistent with philosophic parsimony.

in

The tendency
at

imitation

must indeed be firmly rooted

it

us

if

we cannot look

the world without

it

regarding
is

as a

copy, and
for
it.

calling
like

into

being another world

whose only function

to act as

model
to

Yet

the 'scheme' or 'method'

of salvation so dear to the heart of scientific theologians, such a view as this contains

much

that

is

attractive

and

satisfying

the

uneasy lay mind.

possibly on

It

seems so
ground

far

analogous to a constitution with two chambers, and

that

may

commend

The world of sense is a fact which we have always with us, and somehow or other we make a That is our but apparently we cannot so long at least as we shift to know it. And so we postulate, hold that world to be sensible rest satisfied without a
itself

as conservative.

But ho.v does

it

add to our security?

.
it,

deduce, or hypostatize a secojid world, as a species of pattern-shop or

.-)world, by

whose function
it

it

is

to fortify

us in

our convictions about the

first

giving

the appearance of being in turn deduced and not a mere fortuitous creation.
is

Such a pattern world

Plato's,

in

imminent
in
is

danger of becoming a museum.

the

So
there

far
is

as

view

in

this

dialogue and

Republic

is

concerned

that

one

pattern for
poetical
other.

many

copies

it

certainly, as Aristotle

puts

a mere talking of empty

metaphors.

All copies of a pattern ought to be exact duplicates of each

is

Now

the very characteristic of the copies in the case before us

if it
is

that they
all,

diverge widely from each other; and the pattern,

in that

to be a pattern for

must
Ka:u K

act cease to be a pattern very for any. We are reminded, in this view of the r ' J subject, of the 'schematism' of Kant. 'There can never, says Kant, be an adequate

Pure R^.
Translated .,

picture 4

for

the

notion of a

triangle

in

general.

For

it

would never attain

to

that

J H Sur Text-book
"
'

>

generality which enables the notion to hold good of any triangle, right angled, oblique

Kant, P

=5

i.

Hi

THE PARMENIDES.
etc.,

angled,

but would be limited always to a part of this sphere.'

it

One cannot

avoid

the suspicion that

is

precisely this impossible 'general picture' which Plato's pattern

;

in its present stage

aims at being

and that he has been gradually forced onward to

of the
'

this
'

position as a
'

consequence of having made

of abstract qualities like
this difficulty
fire,
'

'

general

notion

'

or

general definition

the good

which he received from Socrates.

its

Perhaps a lurking sense of

may have had

has

influence in

making him

averse to admit ideas of 'man,

Resumption of

water.'

To
to make.

resume, then,

we
his

see that

Plato

made

the mistake which later thinkers

place intellect or
all

'
men
in

have repeated without

excuse, and which less disciplined intellects are ever prone

refers far
it;

He

on the one hand

than actually belongs to

more of our world of experience to sense or while he on the other hand feels constrained to
of observation.
:

in a hostile

camp

The
and

result

is
is,

to him, as to

so placed, a feeling that contradictions multiply

to reconcile those contradictions without

his

aim

as

is

also the

aim of such men,

Mr.
that of a

changing his original position.

Archer Hind appears to contend that he did

consistent
idealist.

finally

change

his

standpoint for

Whether or not he may have done this elsewhere, it seems certain that he does not do it here. The dualistic assumption was to him the natural, traditional, unquestioned one. The -reconciliation was the great problem presented for discovery and it was sought for as was the philosopher's stone in a subsequent age hope never died though fruition came not.
:

a more searching

looking about for his solution, he proceeds to advance the contention that

dialectic, or discipline in following

al
J'a-m.

up

trains of reasoning about metaphysical problems,

is

an essential

towards success.

He

presses this point with

it

much

earnest-

, 35

U . I3 6.

ness and illustrative detail, and his pronouncement upon

seems

in

effect

to be

an
It

admission' that the Socratic type of inquiry was inadequate for the present need.
is

not without a

certain

significance

that

Parmenides,

in

now putting

the subject

before Socrates, chooses as examples with which to test the method the ideas of 'the
beautiful,

the just, the good.'

Hitherto these have yielded place to others:

Socrates

but

we
fact

know
which
in

that
is

they were topics upon which

at
in

also hinted

the reference to previous discussions with Aristoteles

the words

/,

Aristotle's description of

what

'

may

,
is

had been wont to dwell

a
;

and
at

one almost
'

recalls

justly be ascribed to Socrates.'

But to nature

large' Socrates

had not turned

his attention.

Plato

now

discovering not only that

'universal definitions' 'on the ethical virtues'

such a basis cannot be constructed at

must have a metaphysical basis, but that haphazard, or by taking up any question that
This
is

chance

may

suggest, as Socrates had been accustomed to do.

a point upon

which Parmenides
to

so

Plato was beginning to find

is

might

act legitimately as a
but,
it.

mentor
if

Socrates.
is

'What

the

just?'
'

may
is

be a most instructive inquiry;

?
'

the

answer

to be

satisfactory,

What
that

being
Plato

must precede and support

discarding
the

There
con-

seems no necessity to contend

inquiries of Socrates

is

reasoning used in the

sphere, or as
ill

on moral questions as

fallacious in its

own

//.'.

CHARAi
Rathei
>
t
<

AND
h<

ducted within
detached,

Its

presuppositions
wantinj;
hli
<\\n
in

Ing
.1

th.it

tho

fortuitous,
thai

without

would appear,

previous
that

fjropings
th<

in

tii<

mcl
\x

open

t<

tin-

tame objection; and

Parmenides;
their

defects can

removed only
pi

l>'

a fresh

and better advised beginning,

Thai he noi
ol
is

The
t

bs

he

from
oi

the

method
he

testing
not
thai

lii.

infc

from

But

the details

historic

position

confined,

Noi

histoi

leads to the compliment

disi
is

from

Parmenides

has done

well

in

away from the

a

physical into the metaphysical

iphen
,

To Parmenidi
Zei
led to

One' was
doctrine
eno's

faith

quite as
as

much
detailed

as

it

was an infer

nor had
are

ipport

the

been

quite

and
.

many-sided

as

we
1

here

b
to
th<

dialectic

instead
'if
tin

of

following
are,

four-fold

direction
to

had
It

been

confined

single

contention

many

what follows

them?

appears to be

Plat
I

own advance upon both these thinkers, that on the One itself, and, on the other, recognizes the
all

the one

hand he applies
in

dialectic

necessity of dealing

argument with
second

sides

ot"

a question.

We
accident,

are

now more
is

in

position to understand
first.

the

relation of the

division o( the dialogue to the

it

While

it

is

made

conversationally to appear
this

in

reality part of the design

that the

argument should from

point

Parmenidean doctrine or 'hypothesis' of the One. And the connection of that subject with the one hitherto under discussion has been treated

onward be devoted
though

to the

it

were more of a

difficulty
is

than

it

is.

If
it

\ve

are

to

assume, with

Grote

that the remainder of the dialogue

simply what

affects to

be

an example, namely,
'

of the mental discipline which

Parmenides deems indispensable to the philosopher

is

then

its

relation to the earlier portion

determined at once beyond the need of argu-

ment.

Put

in

pressing his view with grave persistency, Grote seems rather to manifest
;

Not only does he miss the literary finesse of the composition heeven raises in a gratuitous manner the question 'si un Grcc peut avoir de l'esprit.' What Plato seeks is to reach his real end by apparently accidental steps, to guide the listener to a predetermined issue while seeming to let him wander at his will. The fact that much has been written upon the_ question is due to a belief, prevalent among students of all ages, that something more and higher is intended than a mere dialectical exercise. In very early times among Neoplatonists, for example the remainder of the dialogue was viewed as something allegorical, symbolical, enigmatical, in which hidden meanings lurked. Something analogous, although less credulous and whimsical, has occurred in our own time in the region of comparative mythology. The Iliad is a solar myth in which Achilles represents the sun: Antigone is the 'afterglow' of the dying day, who insists on burying her brother in the west and so in other cases.
a want of
tact.

'

'

Apart from any value which

similitude and

may

attach to such elucidations,

in

it

may

be conceded that
in

they are at once most fascinating

adaptation
to

themselves and most

plausible

their

veri-

the outlines of the various stories.

But they have the

liv

THE PARMENIDES.
drawback of seeming
if

serious
like

to support us in

making anything out of anything.

In

manner,

we

are free to regard Plato's discussion as allegorical, sober criticism

If such a conception as the
is

must quit the

will

field.

One

is

spoken of
it.

'in

a mystery,'

it

be found equal to any demand that

made upon

Last century, no further

gone,

Thomson

in

his

edition of the

dialogue

extravagances

while
as

duly setting aside Neoplatonic

feels entitled to

regard the
says,
is

One

synonymous with the Deity; and

sine figura

assigns his reasons.

The One, he

here represented as

universitatis unica causa

simplex ac perfectum
sine principio et fine

immobile
aeternum
corruptibile.

non genetabile nee

must on the one hand begin by discarding all mythic and hidden meanings. Plato introduces myths repeatedly into his works, and when doing so he makes no secret of it. On the other hand we decline to have it
is

And

not the Deity

all

these

We

exacted of us that we shall show between the two portions of the disputation a connection

more

precise

and intimate than Plato has thought necessary

in other writings.

What

is

the proper subject of the Republic, the definition of justice or the construction
?

{of

a state

How

are love and rhetoric connected in the Phaedrus

Why

are the

Theaetetus Sophistes and Politicus so closely associated by their author?

nothing in the sequence of parts
in the

There

is

Parmenides which need cause more embarrassin dialectical

ment than any of these problems.

Certainly the second
point seems
to

part
:

is

an exercise
to

inquiry,

and as such
all

its

be twofold

(i)
it

show that the very simplest of

viewed
;

conceptions
of inquiry

has

many

aspects from which

may be

(2)

to

embody a type

more subtle and abstract than any with which Plato had been familiarized in the practice of Socrates. But everyone must feel that if it be this it is likewise something more. Plato had begun, as we have said, to realize that the Ethical
inquiries

and definitions of
tried

his

master stood
clear

in

the midst of nebulous surroundings.

He had
nature':

to

render
first

everything
in that

but his

efforts

by the expedient of ideas 'set up in Could any direction would not bear criticism.
might bind
all

regulative or unifying principal be found which

firmly and harmoniously

&7C

That question seems to represent his present frame of mind. We know from the Phaedo that he had turned to Anaxagoras in search of such a principle, not with perfect satisfaction. Here we find him approaching the problem through the dogma of Parmenides. The former had said apa
together,

and remove complications

Neither
gives
is

re

and
;

'$,
:

the latter declares

S'

voeiv

ev

consistent

neither can elaborate in detail his

own

convictions

but each

.
re

suggestions for constructive idealism.

Plato making confession here of his

own

shortcomings practically approaches Parmenides with the request, Can you help

me?

And

to

whom

could he more naturally go than to him

who

professed to'^have reduced

// CHAKACTMR AND CONTl x

tin

lv

whole problem of Being to Unity?

nature
at
it

Thl
o(
tb<

an obvioun reason

the

the
I

One,

Again, however, one

1
.

foremost

'.

Socrates

the

><

in

ol

the dialogue

If

t"

108

ZODO'l diak<ti<

tiiimd upon
Parmcni<
t

tl*

Intelligible

iphere.

And
it

here
not
ideal
in

turned:
the
Platonic
to

turned
li

upon
.it

wt\

intelligible

sphere, which

lea

wid<

1>

from

the

iphere of opinion, and

Socratea
in

may
to

be
tee

laid

be

on

the

Moreover
exiating

waa

anxioua

the
<Y

iaropia

which

way Zeno had

Platonic
it

m
r
\.

.ill

the

lenaible iphere

running

riot

iroif rott rf&ari:

and here aomcthii

idea,

of the
.it

kind
a

actually

leaat

very

abundance.
of

Any

Torroiarwt

van

be described

,
ia

exhibited.

The One may

and
under

not

in-

but

it

abstract

conception,

treatment

pn
the
full

aTopltu

in

reader of what

remaina of the work must

the
result

feel

significanc

while
the

upon

the

One and
with

the

Many
theit,

only

in

complicated

aentence

which the dialogue clo

This aeema not

an

unreasonable account of the connection

in

between

two

par"

He who demanda
find
it
;

a 'truer inwardness'
will

the

matter, and seeks for

may
the

possibly

but,

if

so,

he not find
feel

more than

Plato

is

elsewhere

in

habit
ti

of

providing?
connection

If

indeed we

compelled to continue the search we might make

of

by assuming that the remainder exemplification of the method according to which the
complete
connection with the sensible sphere.

the
is

work
to

is

practical

ideal

be brought into

The want
this

of such connection has been strongly

it

emphasized, and Parmenides has declared that to supply

we

are

to

assume that
the

in

the sequel

we must hold
involved
in

that the connection implied between the spheres

doctrine

of

mere action of the laws of thought must hold that the one factor when clearly realized by the mind postulates the other for its own completeness. 'One' and 'Many' demand each the other as poles or sides of a single complex conception, reminding us of the Unity Plurality Totality which we find in Kant. This surely . would complete the connection of parts in a degreesatisfactory to the most exacting, and would at the same moment solve Plato's problem for him in a novel and cogent_ manner. But while a tempting, it is a
resulting inevitably from the
:

or

be

is

all

but impossible.

If

difficulty

is

supposed to be surmounted,

which

is

the question
necessity,

is

one

of

dialectical

questionable theory.

In
is

the
so

first

place
as

it

supplies, as substitute for Platonic

conception which

modern

to

suspicious

upon
be

that

ground alone.

Even Aristotle's doctrine of away from such a standpoint

in Plato.

and
as that.
it
.

evepyeia
it

must

regarded as a falling

Assuredly

leaves far behind anything else

all

In the second place

lavished

at

once renders nugatory

difficulty

the intellectual distress

which has been

upon the
is

which

while at the same time not a hint

given at the close

was found to involve that a problem so remarkable

has been deftly and

completely dealt with upon a basis which changes the whole

aspect of the question.

Had

Plato really

made

out such a connection between ideas

it

and sense

it

seems

likely that

he would have announced

more

explicitly.

Finally

Ivj

THE PARMENIDES.
renders inevitable a conclusion which finds favour with some, that the
idea while
is

is the

One

ai

it

One

repre-

sents an

the

many

are the sensible world.

?

Is

it

the case that the

One

of this dialogue

to be regarded as an idea

The

point

is

not absolutely clear, but

for

on the whole the answer must be No.

First
:

Various reasons

make

that

conclusion.

the discussion upon the

that

One
of a

is

undertaken, as
the
ideas has
less

we

see, just

after the decision

has been reached

the

sphere of
is

no connection with
sets

ours,

and

that the science found with us

much
is

exact type than the other.

it

To

begin

immediately after such a pronouncement a discussion which

a questionable step.

at

naught seems

Again

the

One

expressly said to be the hypothesis of Par-

menides, and although he placed

of his predecessors had

Being much' nearer to the "ideal region than any

it

placed their principles, and separated

from the sphere of

;

opinion in a
distinction
Plato's

way which must have proved very

of
the
it

suggestive for Plato

yet the actual

find
in

which Plato drew has never been ascribed to him.

Moreover we
of an

discussion
at

One bonds which connect

from the sphere of
if

it

with space and time, a fact

ev,

which
<">

once parts

off

ideas.

Nor do we hear
fulfil

ev at

this point,

where,

the intention was to

the expectation expressed

essential.

above by Socrates, some reference to such terms seems almost

do we hear of the
contrary

difficulties

we

are told
like

that

eyyiyveTai

.
'

other

The passage where

less

of knowing the One, or of the

idea of science.'

As little On the
with

One
in

partakes of various ideas

el

apa

ev

'evi

which respect
this

it

occupies a position

identical

statement
Finally
it

is
is

made seems
'

to leave

no ambiguity,
both

although others are

specific.
'

expressly said

that

One and

Others

grow older and younger,'

become and perish

this

and exhibit other

characteristics

of sensible existence.

From

all

the natural conclusion

appears to be that the

One,
is

Many and

Others are notions corresponding to physical originals, and that Plato

dealing with

them
to

and

Siavola but only

is

What he seems
with advantage.

be aiming at

to

up to the turn the Parmenidean

can incorporate
it

limits of

'

our

science.'
all

principle
into
his

on

sides

with the view of

ascertaining whether he

ideal
is

system

The odd

feature of the business

upon the other hand

of
in
its its

that after

disparaging 'our' science as he does he should proceed to a detailed use of that science
the course of which

tends to enhance our estimation

efficacy.

remember that
that
to

Plato's

theory of

ideas

is

so

exacting
it

But we must nature and conditions

his

maintain a consistent attitude towards

is

quite

beyond
his

power.

The

exigencies of such a position compel

him

to fall

away from

theoretic distinction

between two degrees of science, and to go on reasoning with such sublunary intellect as mortals possess, upon topics with which it can deal, and to give this as the best
substitute he can supply for a dissertation
ditioned.

upon what moderns would

call

the

Uncon-

In

surveying the second and

be possible to enter into

most important division of the work it will not Certain general lines of remark alone can be every detail.

pursued, lesser issues being dealt with in the notes.

"

/ /

A"

. /

. -.
the
definite
is

we have already
li

noticed,
thai

the
topi<
h<-

Parn
ch<

the

thrc

'

li

'.

nibject,

to

In

any

debate must
did
.is
.1

historic
f.i<

ed
,

In

nn-tlnHiir.il

manner.

Thii

never

matin
ol

oi

there evidence thai

Plato

Zeno elaborated any luch scheme

methodized
the
investigation
.it

Inquiry,

We m
from
'/.<
1

that
Its

hai

himself

while

appropriating

keen dialectical character.

.

His scheme
In
,.

Its
I

fullest

may
it, it,

be formulated thus
\
I

It

what follow
\
I

(a) to
(a) to
(o) tO

and

not
\

..

and
and

i, is

,.

it,

.|.

It

not-A

not

..

(a) to

it,

and

() () ()
.1

to not tO to

moment's
a
it

reflection will

show us
Its

thai

this,

while doubtless

ymmetrical,

U
it

really

redundant form of discussion.

further than
It is

results
I

may
tabic-

be fully attained without our carrying

Plato, In

the

first

two

point of fact, carry

or,

further

here.

true he

maps out an elaborate

in

of eight heads

as GfOtC calls them,

Demonstrations, which might be supposed to correspond to

with an odd

(i, 2, 3,

4W
15,

and

(i, 2, 3, 4)/3:

one thrown
in
tl.

after

the

first

two.

These have been arranged

in

our

marginal

summary
l.

two groups which may be called

iv.
v.,

A
;

and

having under

A
v.,

Demonstrations
as
li

and under
really

B,

1.

II.

in.

IV.

while

the odd one appears

I.

Demonstration
I.

III.

Hut, as will be seen, Demonstrations

IV.

A
\\c

and

II.,

IV.

and

and

II.,

III.

and

exhibit

respectively

contradictory discussions

a changed

hypothesis.
reality to

Thus

setting
i/3,

on

one side
through

A
a

ill.

upon

have the argument

in this

reduced

in
its

followed by
are

and 2a followed by
in

2/3.

Even

reduced

shape

closing

divisions

hurried

rather

perfunctory

manner
ovoe
1&5 d

with the remark

eu

SieXOeiv einreTeg

',
is

or again

6'\>. The

discussion

is

indeed protracted beyond these

Plato enters

66

b.

limits

not however from the necessity of the case, but because

upon
it

what, while nominally a revised statement of each argument,

arising

really a reversal of

from a modification

in

the sense of
I.,

its

terms.

Demonstration
it

II.,

while

professedly a restatement of

is

in

fact a
II.

transformation of
IV.

covertly brought
respectively

about
with

and the same

IV.,

is

true

of

A v.,

and

when compared

A
2.

. and

in.

sent

The course of on the one hand

a.

the discussion,

when these
'

points are cleared up,

'

comes to pre'

The bquiry and

negative, partly

a deductive, negative, destructive,

on

the other an inductive,

positive, constructive aspect.

Thus

poskie.
is,'
is,'

A A V.,
I.,

'if
'

the

if
if

the the the

.,
IV.,

'

'if

One One One One

ends by annihilating the One:

ends by cancelling the Others

not,' likewise
not,'
it

is is

destroys the

One

while

again does
will

away with

the Others.

On
in

reference to the marginal summaries

be seen that these results are reached

the two former cases through a resolute keeping of the

One

to to

its
its

oneness, and

in the

two

latter

by an equally tenacious holding of Non-existence

nothingness.

'

Iviii

THE PARMENIDES.
is

So
as

rigidly
itself;

the

One

to remain

one that
is

it

is

not allowable to call

to

it

even

the

same
in

while 'the
of.

One
is

is

not'

defined

mean

utter absence of being

the
all

thing spoken

And

practically the reason assigned for this stern repression of

that, unless

expansiveness in sense
will

we guard

ourselves with ceaseless care, the

One
in

reveal such diverse characteristics as to

it.

become Many while we are occupied

examining

Put

in

terms of Logic, the conclusion thus reached

assertion of

may
One

be called a

denial of the possibility of predication, or the concession in the case before us of such

predication alone as

amounts to the

an identity

'the
Plato

is one.'

But

we must be
be jealous
will
in

careful not to

make

this denial

unconditional.
:

tion against the possibility of predication per se

makes no declarahe merely says that, if we are to

It
is

guarding the absolute unity and simplicity of our conception, the result
it.

be that we can say nothing whatever about

natural

that on

its

way

\toward this consummation the

all

One

should become aireipov, or should gradually lose

definite

characterization.

In

terms of Metaphysic, again, our conclusion

may be
is

stated

thus

that

with

bare uncompromising oneness Being or positive existence

unthinkable and
plexity
:

incompatible.

Existence waxes

and wanes

pari

passu with
is

com-

do away with complexity,

relationship, multiplicity,

and Being
It

no more.

The
rigid
row
rhiioi xi
p. 31
1.

point thus reached would, were Plato in reality confining himself to the position

of the historic Parmenides, form the conclusion of the work.

shows what comes of

adherence to a hastily assumed simplicity and unity.

is

As

Dr. Jackson says, 'when

tne Eleatic principle

strictly interpreted

it

is

as complete a denial of philosophy as

No

Heracliteanism or Cynicism.'

In All.,

'if

the

One

is,'

the result proves that the

One

'is

and

is

not' in an

indefinite

number of ways

In In
In

iv.
.,
'

a similar result arises in the case of the Others

if
it

the

One

is not,'

the

same conclusion

still

holds of the

III.,

arises

from

this latter

hypothesis that the

One while Others 'seem' many con:

tradictory things.

This

is

the positive or constructive limb of the argument.

In

it

the

One forms

centre for multiplex

lies

and even

conflicting existence.

And

the principle which under-

the process

is

the counterpart of that which has led to the negative conclusions.

will

We
save

have simply to concede to the One so much of positive characterization as

it

from extinction, and to the Not-being such a sense as

This slight concession proves to be the letting
to the
in

will allow us to

speak

about
so

it.

of water.

Make
it

over but

much

One

as will let

you discuss
For even

it,

and

this

apparently rudimentary conattributes

ception will develop a complexity which confounds you, and carries with
as contradictory as

Yes and No.

its

Not-being,

if

a not-being with which

negatio est determinatio.
is

you can

deal, proves a source of fresh

predications

omnis
we

Thus, Logically, we reach the conclusion that where predication

a mere statement of identity
entities
;

possible

it

is

not

and, Metaphysically,

perceive that the simplest of

can have being only as part of a complex whole.

fTS
I

<

.'/./a./.

TER AND
upon

"A

/'

lix

it

III

dwell

fen

iii.niic

lit

longei

tin',

double
formei

till

il

imp

in

'

ri.it..'.
,i

reasoning cannot well

!>

crated,

In the

portion "i the argument

to .

w<

have .m attempt (A
.lull

'

t"
<

think

back, undei
,'

Parmenidean conditions,
existence
'be,
1

Oi
.1

which

prove

uc can conceive.
into

01 an 'minimum i>;;it.ii>ii< While this One Is assumed to

in

.1

t.it-

imphto
rel

Its

being

Is

luflered
to

the

background, ai

Plato

busies

himself

in

redui

character

the

mo
1

naked simplicity with which being may be found compatible. When be hai tin e, however, he comes to find that being no longer Is compatible with it.

Thl

minimum
it

cogitabile haa
"tit

become
it

minimum
1

focogitabile,

and byth<

lame gate
qualiti
rej<

wh
from

passes

of thought,

vanishes
us.

from existence
result
l>y
is

When and where

I))-

then and thru- being leaves

the conception of
rigidly
outer,
tin

his

attained
it

consistently

One

every means

which

might break away from the mi

in

unmodified oneness.
change,

On

thi

He withholds it from any share Und that it must be truly one: he

harmless
be,
in

parts, whole, inner,

will
it

not

suffer

it

to

he
a

denoted
'different.'

by the
its

most

looking

synonym

to

call

'same'

invoK
let
it

The One must

ma)' say
Preserve
find

Bacon's

language, strictly a vestal virgin:

;

but 'change

name,' so to say, and at once pulcra faciet te prole parentem

it
'

or,

to

vary the figure, unbuild

it

secretly

laugh at

my own

cenotaph. ...
in
its

arise

and

again.'

it,

on the other hand, immaculate

vestal

condition,

and you speedily

be known.
It
is

that

it

cannot be, cannot be one, cannot be named, cannot

its

own has dragged all other existence (A V.). This case is put If this be so when the One 'is,' shall we fare better when it 'is not'? As he has shut out existence II.: the reasoning is short and has the same result. in by pressing home the absence of qualities, he now excludes qualities by emphasizing If the One is not, nothing is existence is impossible for anything non-existence. The converse view of the problem is brought apart from association with unity. out in the latter half of the argument (), by simply urging that the One must not The element be pressed out of existence, since in terms of our hypothesis it 'is.' The of existence being transferred to the foreground a revolution follows (A IL). One is now no longer the minimum incogitabile but the minimum cogitabile and
gone:

and with

as a consequence

it

has parts,

is

a whole, exists in time, and

in the absorption of

in

a word, goes off at

once conquering and to conquer

that
'

characteristics, until

it. is

the
is

Many
not
'

or the Others.

Would

all

this

be upset,

we discover now, should we say again

sufficient

if

the

One
I.)

By no means
follows.

necessarily.

Grant but a meaning to that assump-

tion

(B

and

all

let it but have individuality admit of discussion and it will give itself variety The whole tendency of the reasoning is and it will not long want for multiplicity.

to

very prettily summarized by Plato himself in the Sophistes,

OiaXveiv

^ . '
-

Give to the non-existent One but definiteness

:

\ \

?/

yap

>]

\\\

yap,

'",

to ye

59

yeyovei

THE PARMENIDES.

'.
It is

from being logical the statement becomes metaphysical without losing any of
not at
all

his eye, as the

Met.
iv. 29.

to

him almost suggests that he may be

Parm. uiD.

ably apposite when compared with

the opening of Demonstration

. , -.
For
in this

passage read

and

for 6

put
its

then

value.

improbable that Plato

in

the Sophistes has Antisthenes the Cynic in

Nay, the language of Aristotle

in

regard

referred to in our
eV

own

'

Certainly the phrase

''
put.

dialogue,

is

remark-

,
a bearing which
follows, however,

at

II.

Relation of the

Such
physical

is

the general bearing of the discussion,

It

modern meta-

theory confirms.
is

by no means

that each step in the

reasoning

a safe one

that
is

the details fully accord with the sketch.

Of

the two
naturally

divisions the negative

so.

one

that which seems the

to

more cogently

And

It

is

simpler,

more human,

take to pieces than to construct, to see flaws in

creation

than to create, to be deductive than to be inductive, to converge upon a

point than to

expand over a wide horizon.

Such flaws

in details of the

argument as

can be detected will be found mentioned

to >*

in the notes,

but there

is

a grave drawback

its

general character which calls for notice here.

This consists, as we have already

hinted, in a doubtful attitude towards the logical law of Contradiction.

Not only do
the

the statements

in

the

positive

limb of the

inquiry conflict with

those which

due largely to the ambiguous use of the terms One and Not-being to which we have just referred but the repeated assertion,
negative one seeks to establish
issue

an

which marks the positive limb, that the One

way, seems to clash with what
of
all
is

'

both

is

and

is

not

'

affected in a given

the earliest accepted and most comprehensive dictum Plato

formal

logic.

It

is

not that
it

was ignorant of
all

this

technically
155 e, a.

enunciated or not
it
I.,

must form the basis of

just

whether argument on the

principle

contrary he expressly states

both elsewhere and in this dialogue.

II.

Of

the series of
latter
is

arguments the two

in

first

are
it

the

most elaborately

developed, the

particular,

and

at their close

Plato seems to realize the difficulty with which he

is

confronted.
inserts

In the opinion of Grote

with the view of clearing this up that he

III.

unsymmetrically

Demonstration

In

this

he

points

out

that

when
feature

the

One 'becomes' as one, it 'perishes' maybe; and he leaves the impression that

as

many, or whatever the

special

the contradiction involved in 'both becomes

and perishes' can be disposed of by

into

this interposition of time.

We
'

are here brought

contact with a very important distinction, that

between knowledge as a com;

becomes and perishes should be impossible and knowledge as a progressive acquisition, in which the contradiction is not so easily If we are to assume that the One, or any other entity, exists in an eliminated.
pleted result, in

which a simultaneous

'

unchanging form
or contradiction. arc what

like
It is
:

one of Plato's

ideas, then

it

comes under the law of identity

which individually
is
'

what

it

is,

as a

sum

total of characteristics,

they are

time has nothing to do with the matter, and

or

is

not

'

must

H.IU.U //
oui

<//
knowl
is

take
.,
oi

tin

place
.

ol
>
;

'

i-

and
.

ti

not'
il.

peri

at
ii"
li

it

witllOUl

Bui
ii

the <"iiti.iiy,
is

WC do

not

actually

any othei

entity;

our
.t

knowledge
fuin<
* l *
-

growth
d,
th<

<
>i

activity,

which advani

imall beginning

toward!

th
>.ii

characterise
ol

and each time we

the
in.iin

with
ai

it.

deal
it

>ly

with

tin

in

we are

likely

we diacuai
i"i

to

be

advancti
not

which Includes

few

characteristics

to

one which
from what

include

m<

When we
lie

reason deductively
ii

we

start

our purpo

of knowledge, as
implicitly
up,
in

it

urn complete, and draw from that conclusion

if
it

which already

it

we are dealing with our knowlei

simply satisfying
enter, .mil
oui

wei

and
it
i

stored
l

and

are

to

the

details

which

lore time does not

tin.

the formal rules are the sole legitimate guides.

Wl

on

other

hand, we

reason

inductively or

synthetically,

confessedly

imperfect
in

and

strive to enlarge
'is'

our mental
our

we advance from a b Here we cannot

.
I

always speak
process oi

terms of

or 'is

not':

knowledge does not

this

but

i.

in

formation:

time enters as an element, and the laws of formal logic must

be charily applied.

And
the

if

he won

receive

it,

i-,

the direction

in

which

Plato

would have
and

^.
he
is

to

look for a reconciliation of the conflict he recognises between

In

former he

is

at

what miners

call

the 'working
lies

face,'

and

is

quarrying out new knowledge from the ungauged

latter

sum which

before him.

In the

dealing with the 'bing' of coal

already raised

to the

pit-head, which he
It
is

weighs and

measures as a definite quantum by definite

tests

and standards.
its

patent at a glance that the result in the latter case might from

greater definiteness

be called knowledge or science, while that

ness and confusion, might

in

the former, from

its

constant incompletein

seem

to

a methodical

mind unsatisfactory

comparison.

As time goes on
sents a different

the working face advances, while for each generation the bing repretotal.

The
at

point, for us,

is

is

that

when knowledge
uncertain
:

is

in

process of
strict
is

becoming,

its

condition

any moment
deductive

sufficiently

to

render a
it

application of the

law's of

logic uncertain

and unfair

and that

not

necessarily to the prejudice of a line of argument, in such circumstances, that technically a

little

it

seems
such.

at fault.

In arguing thus,-however,

we

are not to be held as admitting

is

that

each seeming violation by Plato of the law of contradiction

in

reality

Another glance
they

may
far

be taken at the subject from a somewhat different standpoint.

logic

While the laws of formal

are

invaluable as tests of an intellectual conclusion,

may
to

yet
the

be

from conveying a just picture of the activity which leads the

of
that
conclusion.

mind

acceptance

They

represent

the

dissecting imple-

ments of the anatomist, or the solvent appliances of the chemist, much more than they exemplify the natural process by which is produced the complex organism
with which anatomist or chemist has to deal.
that

And
may

if

an attempt be made to exhibit

process

in

operation, the

attempt does not at once stand condemned by reason

of imperfect

conformity to them.

That

it

be inherently defective as a repre-

THE PARMENIDES.
sentation
is

possible

enough,

but

not

because

it

happens

to

jar

with

deductive

formulae,
he Mgnitkance 3.

Grote,

we have

said, regards the

argument

III.

as an attempt on Plato's part

to explain apparent violations of logical law.

its

That
;

is
it

not an unfair account to give of

is

rather unexpected occurrence in this place

yet

one that

may be

overpressed.

Plato no doubt feels that his previous arguments seem contradictory, and seeks to
elucidate

them.

But the course he takes partly tends to show that the charge of

inconsistency would be in
is

some degree out of

place.
'

What he wants
it

us to understand

that he has been dealing with the

One

as in

process,' a condition in

which contra-

dictory
is

or

seemingly

contradictory

affirmations
sincerely

about

are

inevitable.

And

he
fair

less

concerned
than he

though
is

no doubt

concerned

to

prove himself a

reasoner,

to
It

account for this phenomenon of process or

is

becoming with

which he has to do.

Parm. ia7D.

another manifestation of the influence of Zeno's dialectic

first

upon him.
multiplicity.

'The

first

hypothesis of Zeno's

argument' had been directed against

Plato, however, has accepted

it

multiplicity;

and what he sees

all

is

that his

acceptance carries with

manifestations.

the necessity for some theory of change in

its

various

This brings him face to face with another group of Zeno's arguments,

that denying the possibility of motion.

Zeho endeavours to show that because of the infinite divisibility of space you cannot admit that in any given time a swift runner can overtake a slow runner, as the apparently small space which divides them can itself be so divided as to become infinite. And from this he deduces the impossibility of motion. It may be urged in an ex parte manner that if Achilles cannot overtake
the tortoise in a limited
difficulty

time, having

unlimited space to cover, you can

as

evade the

by dividing the limited time

ov

you do the
it.

limited

space,

and so showing

that he has unlimited time in which to

,

do

As Being and One

ovre
cue)
if

so
is.

'

are equally divided

space and time

this

may be
to

equally divided, the one becoming infinite

the other
is

But

P xxxwii.
.

time

xiv.., xii*., Hi.

isolated

made up moments are

is

not Plato's

difficulty.

He

accepts here the doctrine that

and has

ask himself

how

the gaps between these

to be bridged.

Thus we again

see the consequence of beginning

;

30

they refuse to by making divisions etire, reunite. But Plato here offers us his theory in explanation. After the first instant or during which the moving arrow is at rest, there comes or the momentary suppression of time, in which timeless flash of unaccustomed liberty the arrow (or the One) bridges over the barrier between the first instant and the second, thus making a start and by similar means it retains its acquired motion through after And what is true of physical motion is true, says Plato, of other types of change.

,
.

'

'

We

thus explain Becoming.

solution

This reasoning

will at

once suggest a comparison with

Aristotle's

of the same appparently unanswerable

is

And
There

there cannot
is

be a doubt that the latter

the more philosophically matured.

something

almost absurd

unless

it

is

intentionally

humorous

in

the suggestion

that the

One

fTS
I

//.//./

\ND
foi
.1

Ixl

uric,

behind the
Plato
t-

..

me

RlOflK

l\\

t"
h

<

hai

knew
null".,

it.

than
u.r.

tii.it,
.ilt.

howevei
it,

hi

tantaneoui
b)
little

in

able

charactei
reflect
>

hi

<

hand,
that
Is
.

would
the two
pi

'

minimum

of Htm,
at

v.t

when we
ii

we
practically

are substantially

one

Aristotle's reply

t<>

Zeno

that the
1>

latt

dividedness
out
of vi.u,

"i

time against

conneel
as

much
divided

t" pu

th

ly

and make ua think of time

merely, while

connected.
but
is
li-

Now
th

Plato

In

speaking of time
<

Zeno

eparation

moments
This

is

overcome by
but

9,
ol
it

lomcthing
\<>r

th

not

divided nor even divisible.

i.

an awkward way
are

recalling
..
,

other aspect

the continuous side

of time.

We
;

made

to figure tim<

divh

nd

continuous not simultaneously but alternately.

We

think of

as di

mtinuou

discrete
.(.

continuous, and so ad infinitum

only that he gives to the second limb

the antithesis the

it

name of a

timeless

'

instantaneou

was

s.ii.l

negative limbs

o\

above that the divergence in the results between the positive and For< the argument was due largely to ambiguity in the terms.
is

amon; these ambiguous terms

are chiefly two.
It
is

the

One
it

itself.

Its different

meanings

in

thisdialo

used

in

more
ami

or less logical sense as a unit of measurement,

is

or terminus a

quo

in

speculation:

used

in

a metaphysical sense a, an entity

re

whose existence and composition are

as a terminus ad quern.

to

be comprehended gradually by
it

arch, or

In the former of these senses

is

of course quite immaterial

it

to consider the positive character of the

in
itself.

One
is

it

may

be concrete,

may

be abstract
It
it
i-

For us

it

is

used abstractly when used as a unit of measurement.

its

more important
as
is

to observe that \vhile such

function you cannot do with

what,
it

to be feared, Plato
its

sometimes assumes the right to do.

\'ou

cannot divide

and then treat

parts as on an equal footing with itself as

new Ones.

The

parts

of a unit are fractions, and are not to be treated as new

units on

a level with the

whole from which they are taken.

be most simple and elementary
characteristic of unity.
If
it

It is

when viewed

as a unit that the

really one, with
feel

One seems

to

in

constitution

most

but the single

be used merely as a counter we

almost entitled to
to

consider that
It certainly

we have reached a One which no argument can prove

it

be man)-.

should not be many, but

cannot avoid implying or presupposing main.

it

We

must remember that even as so conceived

and

cannot be spoken of save as

It

in

relation to other similar ones in endless succession.

itself,
it

forms one of a multitude like

may be any

one of that multitude.

Plato

may be

right or

wrong

in his
Parm.
:.
.

method of reaching number by 'two twice and three thrice' and 'every combination of even and odd'; but it is true that One carries number with it. To say 'one'
involves
plurality.

the

mental act of numeration

mental process.
first,

and

numeration
'

is

the

act
'

of

reckoning

In this sense one and many, one and

limitless multitude

are but the two

factors of a single

Each

involves the other, and the question

Whether

One does

not

come

is

inept.

When

thought has reached the stage of reckoning

lxiv

THE PARMENIDES.
impressions,
its

its

consciousness that they are

decision.

many and

that each

is

one constitutes

single

simultaneous

When

it

goes on to deal with any given set of

are, one, in that sense, or

impressions and seeks to find

two.

how many they

But number and the unit of number take form together.

as

comes before Thus we are far removed

I,

from perfect simplicity in dealing even with the one of number.

in
I

Plato admits this

there are

practice, as well

maintains

it

in

theory,

by assuming that
the

Many

or

it

Others standing over against the

One from

the very threshold of the inquiry.

to

Nor do we mend matters on passing istence, or what we hope may prove the
have
still

metaphysical One, the one of exof Being.

simplest form

In that case we

to
it
it

reckon with the problem of numeration, just discussed;

the problem of existence, which was there in abeyance.
is

added

to

and we have What is Being ?

being with

At
it.
'

least

not identical with unity:

that

unity does not carry objective

Plato

is

quite right in saying

the statement 'the

One

is'

already involves

something more than One.

As

Aristotle points out

whether with
To judge by

this dialogue in his

mind or

not, readers

must decide
:

even

when

in

search of an

or

first

principle

we

cannot accept a single one

the case requires several.

Plato's language, the

One to him in this aspect consists of a mental picture of a physically existing One of a One in space and in time. Now the very simplest conception which can be formed
of such an entity must treat
the circumstance that
it
it

as a

homogeneous extended
is

thing.
is

But

in

that case

is

viewed as one

not essential

it

accidental.

We

are in

search of the smallest unit of being and have happened to stop at this point.
the unit used as measure this

Unlike

One may be broken

One.

And

such divisibility

is

and each portion may be called co-extensive with thinkability. You may go on dividing
up,

what you divide can form an object of thought; while again it is only as an object of thought that you can deal with the matter at all. Thus multiplicity dogs this One out of the confines of existence we cannot reach it, do what we may.
so long. as
;

But
with

further,

it

is

certain

(unless

it

be pure space) to have as a physical existence

:

various characteristics in addition to mere extension

it,

and these characteristics

reach.

will abide

like those of water, in the smallest part

you
not

Thus

in itself,

and apart

from

its

further divisibility, this smallest part

is

One

in the sense of

having but

\tiv., sc

we may we cannot arrive at what we seek to adapt the language of Edgar in King Lear, 'the One is not, so long as we can say This is the One.' Strip it of quality after quality, as we have already stripped it of part after part still it remains a complex so long as we can form such a cona solitary quality or feature.

Simplify as

ception of
featureless

it

as will admit of discussion.

it

Strive to reduce

it

step

by

step to absolutely

Being and
Plato
is

vanishes at the back door of thought as Nothing, as the

of his argument, although he

unthinkable.

right as regards the scope

may
it

take doubtful steps from time to time.

The Many

also

is

a term which

is

not very consistently used.

Frequently

is

transformed to the Others, a step which, in a work dealing with the most elementary
distinctions of thought,
it

is

not permissible to take.

By

so treating this

conception

you

Require

greatei
tn
tin-

freedom

In

developing
Identical

from
with
1
1

it

ti<

character!

ti<

Th<
to
th<

as opposed

Many
t<>

not
that

>
-

Otu
I"

opposed
othei

Other.
tfa

Plato

hlmsell

rightl)

only the otha

can
ill

than
In

the

othet

being other than

opposed
they.

the

Others the
i.
.1

One

oneness

Bui
Plato
a

then

further confusion of thought in this connection,

v.

have

noted
the

how

accepts
oi

.iliu.>.t

unconsciously
taki to
its

at

starting

the

view
a

tl

rfnst

One

body
ot

Many

01

Others

place

Th(

whoU
oi

it

.
is

th.it

model scheme

argument, which ought

form the discipline

all,

the philosophi

based on the assumption that the

One

is

not

but

has Others with which

to be contrasted.

Noi we have
different

also

een that the

into
chat

Many.

Wli.it

there
nally

One itself under treatment between the Many into which the One
in

th

nd the

Man]

existing

contradistinction

to

it?

That,

is

not a
fixed

thing

easy to decide.
as

We

have a

many

of ones,

any one

of

which

may

be

when we examine it separates into a new Many in Have we not here, after all, the same Many or Others viewed at tl Our hands. The development of these from a separate logical moments of their existence ?
upon
the
(.hie;

this

again

careful

consideration of
call

all

that

is

involved

in

the

conception of the
or Others.
fails

One

gives

us

what

Kant would

the 'deduction' of the

Many

The

contention that

no argument about the

necessary to deduce,

One

will

be complete which

to ask

'what follows to the

which we are able

Others,' simply exhibits us as

if

assuming without deduction a

to speak as
if

fact

Yet Plato seems

this identity
is

between the two

mental position
in

sets of

Many were

not present to his mind.

If that

really his

perhaps the inconsistency

abstract thinking.
in

may

be due to a cause which produces difficulty

that discussions about

most
be
our

One would suppose

from the
fact

abstractions would
qualities

sense

easy,

that

we

ourselves

choose

the

which

abstractions shall comprise, and dispense with whatever might prove superfluous.
difficulty
is

The

that, abstract as

we may, we never can

get the existence of these surplus

qualities,

and of a whole surplus world, swept clean out of our thoughts.

qualities

This back-

ground of superfluous

and existences colours our abstraction in spite of our will. The analogies and materials of our ordinary experience, which our abstraction is supposed for the time being to have flung aside, dog our argument like the consciousness of evil deeds, and force themselves surreptitiously into trains of reasoning

which purport to disregard them.

level

We

cannot keep our thinking consistently at the

of
reflection

of our abstractions.

Could we do so we might find arguing about them to be

This
line

tolerably

simple

and

satisfactory.

may

partly explain

the

introduction

by Plato of the conception of Others

seems to be that the One
is

or

Many

even at the

moment when

his hypothesis

exists alone, the

sophism being partly veiled

under the plea that every side of a question must be considered.

Yet another ambiguous term

it

Not-being.

It

need not detain

us.

Sometimes
under

Not-being

is

used comprehensively as
it

-an
in

absolute denial of existence to

the

subject

review, at other times

is

used

a restricted sense as meaning a something which

lxvi

THE PARMENIDES.
In the former case
discussion.
it

is

not the same with that subject.

it

closes

the discussion, in

the latter

forms

in itself

fruitful

theme of

On

this topic Plato's

views are
is

much more
unvarying,
is

clearly

elaborated

in

the Sophistes.
in

One's

first

impulse undoubtedly

to think that while

Being

may

be exhibited

always

eat

many

shapes and degrees, Not-being

signification.

is

and has but one

But we come to

learn that in this as in the popular contrasts between the sexes great error

may

be

committed.

It

is

fallacious

in

discussing the characteristics of humanity to devote

a chapter a piece to the soldier, the explorer, the lawyer, the statesman, the trader,
the

man

of letters, the poet, the

man

of science, and then to round off the work with

a supplementary chapter on woman.

'You

clash

them
In

all in

one, that have as

many
that

differences as we,' says Tennyson's prince.

And

so with each tint of Being a separate

shade of Not-being will be found to

Soph.
i 5 *.

correspond.

the

Sophistes

we

learn
is

while each order of Being necessarily

yet

ever

standing by which

\
But

side

other

and the number of the latter whatever number of times that Opposed to
ov in an equally absolute form,
for

\ .

Nay, while

it

is

not otherwise on the negative

ov,

For we have on the one hand

but on the

it

be represents the exact

its

in

most abstract form

stands

modified or definite Being you have similar Not-being.

he says,
science a suitable variety of negation
what
is

is

and the

latter is the

negation of existence.

for

every

'

The named

,
'

variety

of

told off as partner.

the

One

5,

What, we may

ask, are the characteristics

which as the work progresses come

in atom?

One? When viewed metaphysically it is, as we have said, an extended unit. The characteristics which distinguish it beyond this are few and simple, as will appear from the marginal summary of the
*
ati;

ach themselves to the conception of the

text.

First
it

it

has existence, parts, whole, beginning

(in space), middle, end,

:

and shape.
thus
it

Then same

has various qualities which Aristotle would describe as

is

age younger.
any
r

different, like

unlike,
it

greater

equal
It

less,

fewer

as
;

many

more,
;

older
it

same
touches
all

Again
is

has position relative to

itself

and does not touch,

one

still

and
of

in

motion, in space

()

and others
while

thus

it

has also
it

the

affections incident to existence in time.

would appear then that

is

one

and
it

of

multitude
in

extremely

existing and

moving
It

space and time.

homogeneous extended things While such a One is in certain ways much

elementary
feel

more than the One of Parmenides, we cannot but

that

in

a vital respect

is

much
as

less.

has altogether ceased to symbolize the Universe.

fail

No

one on

the

other hand can

this

to

see

the strong general

resemblance between such a picture

True,
Plato does

and the doctrine

is

of the

Atomists.

not specifically say

in that direction
;

that space

empty, but his discussions of touch and motion tend

nor does he set a limit to divisibility, yet neither does he allow division to swallow

up the One or the Many.

It

is

impossible to imagine that Plato was ignorant of

//. CHAJtAi
ill.

it

AND CONTSA

.m

viewi

oi

in
Is

contemporary Democritua
to

though, aa we have teen, he never name*

it
\%

him
.it

and one
tin.

almost tempted to suppose that

.it

least

one

among

th<

<

dialogue

show how
found

Zeno'i dialect i<

it

perfected

and

applied

to

thi

would

from

the

Eleatk doctrine develop the

be
In

Atomistii
affiliate
tin

An analogy
ftfonada ot

from

modem
tl

ipeculation

might
ol

an attempt to

Leibnita to

Subatan<
Hut
wi

Spino
the

One
ii

i^

thus
Plato

reduced
tin

in

many

reapecta

very

much

to an

atom,
for
it,

v.

may

-till

ask,

to
t<>

moat fundamental requisite of existence

itself?

>,r

for

anything;
to

and how

him does existence develop

.ill

We
()
it

cannot
vital
ii

ingle out an)

one characteristic from which

others are to be traced, but

(a)
it

tin:

ppeu
ipace, (y)t*it ha

reduce themselves to three at most:

is

in

time,

in

individuality.

From

these
(a

characteristics

the
is

others

are
logical

variously

deduo
Iiis

it.

individuality, however,
is

very elementary, and

more
1

than physical: the

course
of

One

'different

from the others' and 'one with

three

itself.

In

the
suits

argument
l""rom

Plato adopta either of those

one,

characteristics

which

him

as the fundamental
his

ami from that establishes the existence or non-existence of others.

it

reasoning
for

would appear to
is
it,

result

that

the
it

beginning of

existence

to

our minds

anything whatever
our knowledge of

the acquisition
or
its

by

of distinctness in

And

existence for

us,

some form or other. grows with the increasing number of

relations in

which
in

this distinctness

can be affirmed.

Of

the three characteristics given

is

above we are
they are

the habit of thinking that the order of natural priority

that in which

named

that

quantity has a more elementary character than quality.

Plato
that
a

does not appear to share that preconception.

distinctness of quality or individuality

He would seem

to

imagine

might be to us the primary ground

for assigning

to a sensation a distinctness of quantity.

From having

a sensation of such and such

a quality

we

are led to ascribe to

it

such and such a quantity or succession in space

as

and

time.

This
rests

is

not laid

down

a principle by Plato, but the course of his

it.

argument
6.

upon a

tacit recognition of

The

point at which

Pl&to looks most as

division
is

if

he
call

were

going

to
III.,

abolish

his

units

by the process of endless

in

what we

argument

which deals

with the condition of the Others on the assumption that the

that assumption this

One does

not exist.

On

and

it

argument represents the more favourable possibility for the Others, reduces them to an unmanageable phantasmal chaos bordering upon annihilation.
IV.

In the less favourable possibility which follows in

with, the conclusion being that 'if the

they are actually done away

is.'

One

is

not nothing
of

This, however, seems

rather to
division

be a

negative

argument

in

favour

the

Democritean

contention

that

must stop somewhere. Nor is the conclusion unsound, although both Plato and Democritus support it in a somewhat mechanical and materialistic fashion. Stated in terms of modern Metaphysics it would stand pretty much as we have put it already

that

, ,

simultaneously

with

the" removal

of definiteness,

numerability,
best
there

clearness;

of

thought and existence vanish.

At

can remain that

Ixvm

THE PARMENIDES.
it

chaotic multiplicity Avhich carries with

please,

the possibility of existence, and which,

if

we
is

we may

call

'sense,' or in Platonic

terms that 'which seems to be One, but

not.'
is

not
.ry of

to have beginning, middle

It

and end, but has

may

be

said, then, in

general terms, that the work

undertaken

in the interests

of the ideal theory and consists in an attempt to appropriate to the uses of that theory
the doctrine and dialectic of the Eleatic school, as a unifying, regulating, harmonizing

and sustaining

influence.

But the process of appropriation brings

into

relief

a fact
its

startling indeed, yet not unperceived

by
it

Plato.
is

This

dialectic,

when turned upon

own dogma, demonstrates

of which
to solve
its
it

that while unity

very possibility of thought and being,

sponsors did not dream
:

is

beyond doubt a principle essential to the at the same time parent to a complexity

the problem of philosophy, even

when we seek

with the weapon of unity, unfolds as

we

deal with

it

deeps within deeps

of unexpected multiplicity and complication.

ment

ev

to
it.

To

adapt a familiar and weighty judg',

We

must accept the One,

for

we cannot dispense with

ultimate conclusion
will
;

s.nd, if

But the atomistic element likewise claims a voice in the we are to repose upon the doctrine of Unity, that unity
as
these,

not be the mere absence of plurality and diversity, but a something capable of
a

reconciling in

new whole such elements'

its

and such contradictions as are

formulated

in

the closing sentences of this dialogue.

The

general scope of the dis-

cussion from the beginning, with

thus.

successive exponents,

may

not unfairly be presented

ZENO

Can a

sensible
?

contradictions in thought

Many be assumed to exist without involving hopeless No yet what we see does exist. Socrates Can even
: :

an ideal

Many
there

be postulated without leading to

it
is.

difficulties

equally insurmountable
of

No

yet

PARMENIDES
its

Setting aside Manies

both

kinds,

can so
its

simple a hypothesis as the existence of

train

One be maintained
is

without bringing in
?

every complication of which

presence

expected to relieve us

No

yet

without the
Divergences
from
'

One nothing

is.

It

has been said above that no attempt

commentators.
Dr. Jackson,
.

the views and reasoning of previous

made to reproduce in orderly sequence commentators. One or two points of divergence

is

here

from them, however,

22.

may

perhaps be referred

to.

reader of Dr. Jackson's remark-

Philol.,

No.

ably acute analysis and criticism of this dialogue will have his attention arrested by the following among other conclusions. The One is regarded as an idea, or as
representing

the ideal
it

sphere,

and

there

is

assumed a graded

progress

%v,

from
existence.
:.

l6.

with the statement

,
links.
its

through 'kinds' or 'classes' to the 'limitless multitude' of sensible This theory is undoubtedly attractive, especially when read in connection
in

the Philebus that

from

to

But

reflection

tends rather to discourage belief

we must not proceed

in

at once

from

to

but must interpose certain definite

this

as connecting

hypothesis.
is

We

have

p. Ivi.

already given

reasons for questioning the view that the

One

an idea

certain of

seem to preclude that supposition. Again, Zeno at the beginning and of the work places in such contrast as to leave no doubt that in his mind
characteristics

?& CHARACTER
they comprise |oIntly
oi
i\'

''

CONTi
ol
th<-

lx:

.ill

existence,
siiuilai

At

th<

cIom

first

part,
di
i><-

.ind

T.i

tiWtt

in

while

throughout

the

!" exi me,

it

used

as

convertible
difficult
t>

term

Whatevei

at

m.i>'

lymboliied
eithei
ol
tl

i<>-

th

would

be

draw

distinction
Intervals;
difli

between

the

phrase frrmpa

*Xif6f<

which occurs

nor does Dr. Jacl

lerically
In

to cite

any evidence that

Dr.

iroXXd
Is

and tmtpa
t<>

theii

In oth
d
I

respects also

Jackson

Inclined

discover
it

finer

and more detailed

view, accordin
luch

throughoul the work than in these pages

has been found pos Ible to recogn

ol

may
the

be

natural,
i-

even perhaps imperative, from his point

s

dialogue
nti.il.

late

work;

on

the

opposite

supposition,

distinctions

are
,

Throughout
the text
.ml

this

introduction, the

doctrine

that

the

id<

lutely
th<

'

from the sensible sphere has been emphasized, but not more so than

would seem
a

to

require.

Speaking of

Plato's

works

at

large, Zeller

does

n<

such

doctrine

with

favour.

He

admits,

indeed, that

arguments OCCur which point towards such

question
Its

doctrine; but adds,

many expressions and 'We must ncvertheh

in

correctness.'
is

He
in

goes on to explain his contention by showing that the

reality Not-being,

supposed sensible world

sphere.
its

and that

all

Being centres
all

the ideal
in

To
it

elucidate his position would

still
it

lead us far:

but when

has been urged

difficulty so

favour,

lies

open
Zeller

to the objection of not explaining the

is

much
is

as explaining

away.

himself constrained to say

all,

'

whether the above-mentione

in

difficulties as to

the theory of Ideas do not, after

reappear

an altered form,

another question.'
other, arise but
like other

From what does

by an attempt

the necessity for philosophic inquiry, idealistic or

?

from a sense of

difficulty

When
it.

Plato feels that difficulty, he begins

is

thinkers

to solve

But he

soon led to shake

its

dust

from
is

his feet

and

flee

towards 'a city which hath foundations whose builder and maker
is

God,' and of which the characteristic

its

that

it

shuts the original and

Zeller

now somewhat
3>;

despised difficulty outside

[in

everlasting
to

doors.

urges that 'these objections

ideas would

the

Parmenides and

elseVhere]

the doctrine of

not

have been

suggested by Plato, had he not been convinced that his theory was unaffected by them,'
a view with which
Dr. Jackson
is

sympathizes.

But

is

it

the

case that every thinker,

all

even every great thinker,

driven from his position
fail

fully provided

with a reply to

objectors

He

is

not

by objections: he

feels, it

to shake.

But he
a

may

be sensible that

maybe, a conviction which objections he has not met the objections, nevertheless.
fact

Galileo was a very great man, yet

would not

rise in

when he was questioned about the pump beyond thirty feet, and reference was made
but say, half
left

that water

to the doctrine

that 'nature abhors a vacuum,' he could

in

jest,

that nature

seemed to

abhor only a thirty foot vacuum.

mystery.

It

A\as

for Torricelli

to

throw light upon the

actually says on

We

must
it

not,

then, attempt to explain

difficulties

the ground

that

involves

for

away what Plato which we think we have

solution

after

the lapse of two millenniums.

'

THE PARMENIDES.
'

The

difficulties

reappear in an altered form.'

:

What

difficulties

metaphysician spring eternal

those which centre in the relation

Those which to the of subject and object,

?

which are so protean, and of which the solution looks so like juggler's work, that one
Life of sterling,

almost

takes

refuge with

laughter in

Carlyle's

sarcasms about

"

sum-m-mjects

and

in

om-m-mjects" 'uncertain whether oracles or jargon.' Perhaps the sharpest form of this contrast with which philosophy is acquainted is that between Plato's ideas and the many of sense. A less pronounced type of the difficulty is that which arises between the cognitive faculties of more modern speculation what Plato would call our science and an 'external world.' In the latest stages of metaphysical evolution, the great
'
'

'

problem has been to reclaim the external world from

include
it

its

antagonistic externality, to

in

a revised sphere of consistent idealism.

is

But granted that we are right

all

taking this course, admitting that thought

object
;

the parent of

things, even of its

own

still

'

the difficulties reappear in an altered form.'

nounced unmanageable sense of objectivity and separateness

sense
is

Why this persistent We demonstrate

prothat

swallowed up

in thought,
?

and yet suspect that we have achieved but a Pyrrhic

is

victory.
its

What

is

sense

That

the mystery of mysteries.

sensible
perception,'

We may
We
it

eat

away

all

substance with our 'forms of

spectre expellas
'

and

our 'categories,' but we

cannot lay the

p. xiviii.

furca

tamen usque

recurrit'

have been saying

and have seen Plato admitting that the world as we know

sense.
Is
it

cannot be a world of

meant then
It
fire,
is,

to affirm that sense has

Parm.

134 f.

bound

to exclaim
?

no existence? Or are we not rather

fj,

6
'

et

*?
are not perceived

of course, granted that

beauty, goodness, slavery, bigness,' and

even that

'

man,

water, hair,
lies

mud,

filth/ in their collective sense,

by the

senses.

Sense

in

the sphere of 'you and me, bits of

wood and

stone.'

Now
'

while 'beauty'
'

may

comprise

many

qualities,

'man' comprises many more; and

you

still

more, more indeed than anything except another you.

Do we
?

then approach

to sense as
'

Beauty

'

we add and man

'

qualities,
'

and recede from

they were

it

as

we remove them

Not

properly.

are simply figments

of the mind and have no connection with

sense other

than

this,

that

deduced from the

of the

observation of

individual
of,

'sensible objects.'

'You'
you.

also can

become a figment
their

mind when one thinks

and does not

things with

see,

But

it

is

true that sense attaches only to individual things, to several

kinds, in short to existing

maximum

of qualities in

as
?

opposed to conceived or imagined

If not,

things.

Are such

things then sensible objects

Let us take a simple case as put by a thinker of anything but transcendental tendencies. According to Dugald Stewart, when you read a letter that which can be referred to sense is not the comprehension of the contents, but
no other such
exist.

simply the perception of 'black marks upon white paper.'

liberal

In reality this

is

much

too

to

Not by sense but by judgment do we recognize the substance be paper and the marks to be black upon white. And our judgment would not
an allowance.
all

cease to operate, however visionary the distinction might become, until

distinction

had vanished

that

is,

until

sense ceased from exercise for want of any object.

The

>

//
verj

(//.//,/< //

/,

AND

ONTi

recognition

thil

tin.

state

bad supervened would

In
.1

Itscll

\\

it

might - delivered with hesitation,

word
n<

a.

..
ll

i<.icm

last

thought

.it

work, .uid the more

contciou

with
it

>

view to detect
oi

end

sense
say,

may become,
'had ye but

the

more completely doei

remalneth.
1

fall

purpo
i>ut

A
y<

lit

seen, then

had ye been without thought;

All
thai

now

ray
.

therefore your
the

thought
point
>>f

wc

<
my

declare about
ill

lense

that

it

vanishing

knowledge
feel

'who

iteali

trash,

methini
all

nothing:' while yet we

that

from that very vanishing point, the guarantee of

thou rather pure etherial itream wl
the world
is

knowledge
shall
tell?'

ia

given

'or

hear'sl

fountain
Plato

who
been
ti

Thus
in
all

we

may
is

say that
ideas,

of experience,
;

which
thl

has
thAt

eking
risible

to

dominate by
it

his

all

intellectual

if

by

mean

element
it

reduced to a
it'

tively

that

is

sensible

by

this

minimum we mean
ilu.ilistic

incogitabile at
that
it

the start:

or altera;

never becomes transcendental.

l

hither view

is

an

advance
Vi
t

upon the

hypothesis of a

Ite

world, half

'mind,' half 'matter.'

this

neither solves the problem of

control of the

absolute freedom of sense from the

Whence all comes, and why will The sense function is

?

within us like a well of water springing up unto everlasting

life.

So we must
it

confet

nor

is

it

part of our duty to pursue the inquiry further.

the

Of

Parmenides

it

may

be said

among

other things that

forms as

it

were

a vestibule to those vast and mystic halls which are

trodden by the metaphysician.

And

already while passing through

it

we

see the corridors appear which lead respect-

ively to

the courts of Being and Becoming.

So impressive and

intricate are the sur-

roundings that we pause for breath, uncertain whether the building has
co-ordinate wings, or whether
it

two great

consists of an inner court approached through an outer.

Certainly there arc those

called forth

who have sought

either are

by the image of
still

home in each mansion, and the thoughts such as may separately dominate the mind.
a

Few can
of Being.

form, fewer
It is so

can convey to others, an adequate conception of the sphere

completely withdrawn from experience.

At

best

we must shadow
'

it

forth to ourselves as

some Hall of the Chosen, some

stirred since time began.
is

consistory, so to speak, of

Egyptian
'

Deities
is

who have not

In such a picture an

idea of motion

a fatal flaw: the stillness there

the atmosphere of a

museum?
kill

and may not be disturbed. But has it not In the midst of Being we are in death. It is said
absolute,

that certain subtle poisons

by preserving the

tissues,
?

by stopping the action of

is

growth and also of decay.

being.
it

Are we thereby the

in
?

gainers

Our gain
;

loss

our being not-

Can anyone have

truth seen this hall of Being

or do those

who

depict

dream that they were there

in

Not even Parmenides can

It
is

vivify the description.

The

other to us seems less remote.

through a chink

the

floor,

though the well of sense bubbled upward bursting into the air and rippling over the pavement
as

with multiplex undulation

and ceaseless sound, reflected and reechoed from the roof and walls. To that we have seen something analogous we are in sympathy with it, if imperfectly. But always the question returns upon us Wo kommst du her ? wo gehst
;

xxii

THE PARMENIDES.
?

du hin
it

And

Heraclitus our interpreter cannot

?

tell.

What
to

after all

Being, but

Are we

Becoming on the analogy of the 'continuous-discrete' in antithesis Being and Not-being, with Becoming as bridge ? Is that odd tiling the instantaneous,' another name for Becoming ? Or are both awkward adumbrations of the Ego that one among many, that whole among parts, that amid Or does reasoning perhaps end here, and do we in the language of 'divine madness rave about things unutterable ? Finally, does speech fail, and must we wander backward in the expressive silence of to God who is our home ? Such are among the thoughts which suggest themselves to those who have come under the influence of Platonic speculation thoughts tinged indeed by modern currents, and pressing forward through modern channels, but not the less truly tracing their
'

Becoming ? Is solve the enigma of Beingspace and time? Or is the

is

this

'

source to the great fountainhead of

all

metaphysics.

:
In

TEXT.
.

an

edition,

even

of

single dialogue,

which bean a relation

so

unusually

cl

to a special
neral,

manuscript, some Introductory remarks upon the manuscripts of Plato in'

in

with details

regard to certain of them

It
is

in

particular, are

not only

natural
serviceis

but

will

almost
in

be

expected
in

hoped
textual

that

what

follows

may

he

of
it

to beginners

palaeography and

in

criticism.

At

the

same time

the

work not o( an expert The writer knows only

under
all

these hranches of study hut of a tolerably instructed layman.

Platonic manuscripts at
first

six

hand, and these he has studied

the difficulties

and disadvantages which attend a comparative beginner, and

of Plato's

with but a limited time at his disposal.

i.

The

earliest

edition
in

works appears to be that of Aldus Manutius,

work which must have cost infinite labour, and in regard to which its editor says that he would wish its errors Perhaps this edition was published removed, even at the price of a gold piece each. too soon at all events the one which caught the attention of the \vorld of letters was not it but that edited by Serranus and Henricus Stephanus, and published at Paris in This has ranked 1578, in three volumes folio, with a dedication to Queen Elizabeth. ever since as the editio princeps, and constitutes the standard of reference for all succeeding scholars. The dialogues are arranged in what the editor calls of
published at Venice
15 13

the

year of

Flodden

which the

fifth

'ad

q.uam

coqtulimus

Timaeus Locrus, Critias, Parmenides, Greek has a Latin version running in

margin.
It

,
parallel
in

Physica et Theologica,' includes the Timaeus,

Phaedrus, and
it,

,
in
lines,

Hippias Minor.

The
of the

columns with
letters

and the
D,

lines

page are subdivided into successive groups by the

intervals" of ten lines

A^

B, c,

placed

the

would seem to be the intention that these

;

letters

should be placed at

but they often stand opposite the space between two

and

the contents of division

vary considerably, as the Latin and Greek, according as each

Gompact, expand
is

happens to be the
at the foot.
lines

less

turn to the whole breadth of the page

In our text

omitted, and the other letters are placed opposite those

division, so far as
vol.
iii.,

which include what seems to be the commencement of each

can be determined,
126.
in

that

the original.

Ste.

III.

126

means

Stephanus,

page
as,

These great editions of Aldus and Stephanus

with fond familiarity,

we may say

are
/

or

of Bauldie and Steenie

not

'critical

editions' in the

modern sense
partly
Ixxiii

of that term.

They appear each

to be based

largely

upon one

Ms., selected

THE PARMENIDES.
on grounds of convenience
of

Schneider

considers that in the

Laws

at least the original

Aldus was the Venetian Ms. called by Bekker S, No. 184, which has no special authority and where a difficulty arose any other accessible Ms. was consulted, or resort was had to conjecture, no great care being taken in giving references. Stephanus says

that he puts in the

margin conjectures that occurred as the book was passing through

self-reliant

the press.

This somewhat easy-going and

till

method of constructing a text

it.

appears to have continued

according to modern
2.

the close of last century, the edition of Heindorf being,

authorities, a brilliant
if

German
and

example of

Immanuel Bekker represented,

for

he did not inaugurate,

new

era

in

this

respect, alike for Plato

emendation
collated
-

to

Greek texts in general. He subordinated conjectural thorough- going comparison of manuscript data. Personally he
less

in

completeness some 77 Mss., and classified their readings the apparatus criticus of his edition, which was published early in the present
with more or

century.

Of

all

the important Mss. the only one apparently which Bekker never saw

was the Clarke manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. It had been brought to England a few years before, and Bekker used the collation of it published by
Gaisford, saying
'

nolui

actum

agere.'

His method seems to be

in his text

in

some sense that of

page.
are

a dispassionate eclectic.
best,

He
it,

inserts

the reading

which he considers the

wherever he

may

find

and

classifies
is

the others at the foot of the

its

No
for

manuscript which he has collated

ignored on the ground that

clearly indicates

readings

any reason
various

valueless.

At

the

same time he

that his

study of the
level

codices had led

him

to place

two or three of them on a much higher

than the remainder.

3.

Editors since Bekker have largely acted upon the result of the comparison

of

manuscripts at which he had arrived.

Ms., constitute their text
for

They
it,

select

what they regard as a pre-eminent

in

mainly from
illustration.

and use the remainder only

for
all

extremity or

purposes of subsidiary
the Clarke

Hermann,
for

example, selects without hesita-

tion

Ms. as his authority

in selecting

those works
less

which
critical

it

contains.

While

Aldus and Stephanus appear to have been guided

by

principle

than by

some form of convenience

have reversed
the
process,

one codex as their

basis, editors like

Hermann

and decide entirely upon the apparent strength of the

earlier

evidence in favour of the manuscript which they elect to follow.

by German Good examples scholars as the forerunner of yet another method in textual criticism. of how he deals with Ms. data are to be found in his editions of the Testament and of Lucretius. There he endeavours to simplify the materials available by classifying
4.

Lachmann, who comes rather

than Hermann,

is

referred to

the

various codices, and affiliating

is

them one

to another.

On

this

principle a derived

manuscript

at

once
be

set aside in favour of its original.

of manuscripts
possible

may

made with some approach

who
first

to

Such genealogical groupings certainty, and inferences even are

According to Schanz
dealing with the text of Plato

from existing ones backward to their

critic

lost

archetypes.
in

and Jordan the

adopted this method

/>

Of

'it'

ii

Ixxv
ibue.
In
tl

was
..

Peipers

In

hii

Quaestlonei
<>ui

cHticac

<!<

Platonl

i.miiIh
tii<

simplification ol
text
"i
I'l.it..''.

authorities has been the

prevailing tcndcnc)

constitu

hi

works,
at
at

What, then, are the material

the
.1

our disposal?
least

On
tt-.n

the

mere announcement
t..

that

known
i.>t

Mas,

oi

Plato

numbei
tin-

\\,\
>

one would be disposed

Infci

tl

s.. mi.

text
us.

cannot be extracted from luch

Hut
iii

>il<

Individual
.1

<onj.itui< will
ol
tl

little

reality

number mentioned
Isolated

gives

fal

For no portion of Plato's writings are there nearly

of these
In

\\j independent
frs

authority
,

codices

consist

of

mere

and constantly varying

are of

bound up
Evan the
not
all

miscellaneous collections.

Others again
early originals

very late date, and

is

the probability

that

such are derived

from

now

loal

extremely remote.
be
all

seventy seven collated by

covet

Bekker,

supposing

them

to a

independent, do

the

same ground.
a score,

The

codices which contain

half or

more of
to

Plat

number about
dialogue
given

while those which can

be drawn upon
1 he

illustrate

any given

form

an

uncertain
is

ami shifting quantity.

text

of the

Parmenides, as

by Bekker,

by SchanS as
scholars since

The number not upon the evidence of seventeen The number employed or discussed by available amounts to thirty-two. Bekker varies between these two totals. Prom the entire number of 147
based

three

have been

position of clear

upon by the unanimous verdict of scholars as occupying pre-eminence. These three, like almost all the large Mss., follow the
pitched
.

order of the dialogues

given at the beginning of this work as that of Thrasylus, and

:

may

be briefly described as follows

Designation.

Abode.

Contents

in Tetralogies.

A %
t

(Bekker), or 1807.
,,

Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris.

VIII., IX.
I.-VI.

or Clarke 39.

Bodleian Library, Oxford.

1.

,,

or Append., Class IV,

Biblioteca Marciana, Venice.

I.-VIII. (as far as Rep.

iii.
:

the rest

of the

v It will
VI.,

works by other hands).

be seen that

?l

and

contain in the aggregate, with the exception of tetralogy

the whole of Plato's works, to which

t

adds the Definitions and seven Spurious

later

Dialogues, while

gives

nearly

all,

but partly by

hands.
:

The grounds upon

Their age
:

which scholars select these three from the mass are several
first

(a)

the two

are

clearly the oldest in existence, while the third,

if

younger than
original

these,

seems
earliest

older than almost any other.

at

The

transmission of written works, however careful, tends

each fresh step

to

introduce fresh departures

from

the

and the

copies reduce that

written,
careful)
:

danger to a minimum,
feature

() The

care with which

they have been

taken
this

in
is

conjunction with their age (for texts admittedly late

a

may

also

be
to

which

impresses the most

casual

observer,

and tends

inspire great

confidence,
if

(y)
all,

The evidence adduced by modern

scholars with a view

to

show that many,

not

of the remaining Mss. can be traced back to these.

The

lxxvi
relative
sizes of these

THE PARMENIDES.
very famous codices

may
at

be pretty accurately estimated from \ of

their actual

the following diagram, which represents

them

measurements
t

Further back in the history of Plato's text

attempts are

made

to

do so constructively.
it

we cannot go directly As A and % are among the

but ingenious
earliest

extant

examples of minuscule Mss.

may
t

seems not improbable that any Ms. from which they have been copied would be written in' majuscules or capitals. This would tend to

increase
f. 197 verso,

their

and as each of them archetype or archetypes would be

its

bulk,

is

a large volume,

it

seems very
in
t

likely that at

in

two volumes.
hand,
cites

Now

we have

the
:

col. 2, line 4

from

foot.

close

of

the

Menexenus,
is

in

the

original

the

words

Stud. p. 24, and

yet this Ms.

in

one volume.
I

Schanz

the

Hermes

x. 1876.

from Ms. Angelicus c

59.
1.
;

4,

which also consists

same phrase at the same place of but one volume from Laurent
;

and

finally

from the Vatican

inference

-,

Nos. 225 and 226, where, although the Ms.

consists of

two volumes, the words

#
is

occur
that
in

on

folio

196

r.

of

the second.

The

drawn by Schanz

we have here an
two volumes, the

old
first

tradition

that the works of Plato had been at

some time

of which

contained Tetralogies

and the second the remainder. To such a second volume Paris A actually corresponds, while the Clarke Ms. represents the first, save that it would appear to have been taken from a copy from which the short Tetralogy VII.,
i.-vn.,

which closes with the Menexenus, had dropped away.

called stichometry.

Various scholars attempt to

fix

the probable length of the lines in the early copy or copies

is

Mss. were measured by the unit or line in which the earliest

is

copies were written, that

Wachsmuth
Rhein. Mus.
xxxiv, p. 38, 481
in

meter, and Galen

He

says that two, one of thirty-nine, and another of eighty-four syllables, are

nde
"

put

vuT

considerably less than the length of line used in the Clarke Ms.,

.
is

by

quoted as giving the length of some medical definitions This gives sixteen or seventeen syllables to the

now

lost,

on the basis of what

corresponding to the average length of a hexain this

way.

line,

which

is

but exactly cor-

responds to that of the passage omitted by this Ms. on page 33 of this edition. But the subject is not without difficulties, and controversy upon it is keenly kept up.

Schanz thinks he can form an estimate of the probable date of the archetype

in

the

'/

111-

I I

|.

following manner

Krom the
in
\
1

uniformil
In

im
the

m
readln

tain

|.i

:<

nally
al.

conclude! that they faithfully represent

finds the
|>.i

these

Bui

question quoted by writers like

in-

Kusebiir.

and
hat
quotatioi
it

Ith

words omitted.
as
to
h.ivc
it

irdinigly

considers thai

the

archetype cannot

formed
li

the

text

from

which
A.D.

therefore,

more recent than 400

of which
Is

men drew theii That may I" correct, but

these
thai

postal
prior
to

things, neither

quite

certain

there

wai but
it

one

text

our

existing
first

Mss.,
th

and that

those Christian
is

writers

quoted

with

verba]

preci Ion

The
he
1

of

tumptions
is

altogether

disputed

by A. Jordan on the undei itandin

tint

the second

correct: bul

both

may

be erroneous

one

scholar

that
to
thej

can detect

two features of the archetype of K that it did not belong and that it was not easily legible Another statement is m.hlc by Galen which is very Interesting. He
.

most

fragment upon the medical passages

in

the

Timaeus to
reads
this

*
tv

Arructov avrtypafw

and says that

other

in

the
give

Timaeus
t
for

this
t'</>'.

edition

m
where 77*
of

authorities

Upon

has

been

reared

structure

very

tempt in:; hypothesis which

may

be thus summarized.
their

Our Mss.
speaks.

all

read

i\V

and thus show

readings of

connection with the edition of which

i.i

Scholars} including Cobet, are strongly of opinion that 'ArrutSv

to

and

Harpocration refers

remarks on the resemblance between

both from
celebrated
Others,

.
is

Demosthenes found
Lucian EEpos

rots

and codex 2 of Demosthenes, and holds

in

,
if

Galen
'

short for 'Arrucuumv,

while
that

Dobree
they are

1Jd

Now we
called

find

two references to a very

hold to be the person
that T.

Atticus,

whom some
in
:

here

spoken
is

of.

among whom

are Birt

and apparently Cobet, think

referred
his

Pomponius Atticus
elsewhere
adds,

meant.

Kin,
'

Amike
'

and regard the editions here orders, not copies written by

to

the

light of publications

carefully effected
that

by

his

hand

to

which
to

opinion

Birt

these

Attic editions were noted as written in the

of which traces are pointed out in the Clarke Ms.

which reference has just been made, and The same view has been recently maintained by
N.ic hrichtenv.

H. Usener, who constructs

texts
his

in

this

connection a theory about the transmission of our Platonic

which

eminently

fascinatirfg,

but dependent a good deal upon assumptions in excess ofderKonig.

to

the other the assumptions.

...
data.
i.

It

may be
.

well to give

on the one hand what seem

_

be the data, and to add on

'

Wissensch.

G6ttLng

No

Data.
Apellicon's
private library, which comprised
to

Assumptions.
those of

This library included careful

s-.raboxiii, P .

Aristotle

and Theophrastus, was taken

Rome

by

Sulla,

not

original

copies

of

608

and submitted to the editorial scrutiny of the celebrated scholar Tyrannion of Amisus;

Plato's works,

2.

Diogenes Laertius does not

invented
the

really affirm

that
in

Thratetra-

Varro knew the arrange-

sylus
logies,

arrangement

of Plato's works
it
:

but only that he adopts

adds words
in
it,

in

any case Diogenes

Again, Varro,
in

ment of dialogues by logies, and his learned

Tyrannion was
its

tetra-

friend
,

i-tves)
.

which show that others had a part

Dercyllides.
says,

originator.

A!l>.

Isagoge.
.

of

whom Albums names

Phaedo,

(We may add

that

Cobet holds

Varro l.l.
3-

when

referring to the

Plato

quarto

Thrasylus to be quite distinct

lxxviii
appellat

THE PARMENIDES.
' :

and the Phaedo

is

the

fourth in the Thrasylean

from

the

contemporary
;

and

arrangement.

Finally, speaking of the possible origin of this

friend of Tiberius

so that in

grouping by fours, Usener says (referring to his

Philologie

the case that he really invented the arrangement,

it

und Geschichtswissenschaft, p. 22), 'nun kennen wir einen bedeutenden griechischen Granimatiker, der sein noch in vielen versprengten Resten erkennbares System der Philologie mit durchgefiihrter Viertheilung aufgebaut hat. Das war Tyrannion von Amisos.' like Aldus, 3. Atticus was a great scholarly publisher and had in his service a large staff of trained copyists and
assistants, either

might

still

be as old as Varro.)

The
are
his

editions

Tyrannion
this

paid or bought.

was

his editor.

Our Mss. of
through
the
library

Plato

descend
from

channel
Aristotle.

of

How much
a single

one desires to accept

'

all

this as historical fact

Yet even the

initial

assumption of an

'

Attic

'

origin for

all

our Mss. rests on no broader foundation than

for
:

e
the following are the characteristic
titles

To resume
in

the three chief manuscripts.

'
In

21
t

but

in

that work read

the original the word

? ,
A
'.
t

and endings of the works

[?] .
51

[?]
t

occurs in the case of the

in

it

reappears at the Republic as

the second gives

appeared at the beginning, and at the Republic and

:

.
trace
says,
:

.
dialogue and
first
is

first

then
third

dropped
books

A, and while the

and

of

We may

thus infer (1) that in

Laws which have more than one book

?l

(2) that the adjectives in

unsymmetrically, are not original, but

t

may

their

occurs in
title

after

the

title

of the

Euthyphro,

Xo'yoy

of each of

' , '
lies

in

the form
;

work

and

this

exactly corresponds with the description given

the

titles

employed by Thrasylus.

that

is

, , , ,
He
the
title

both at the beginning and at the end

.
origin
on.
titles

-/coy,

which occur

in

to such

a phrase as

The

kernel of the

, '
Here
it

by Diogenes

and so

is

quite clear

from 'name' and 'subject' given by Thrasylus,

are explanatory words added
etc.,

while the words

in

giving his account, which dwindle to

We
in

thus see that the phrase

Xo'yoy

,,

by Diogenes

as the description proceeds.

t,

at the beginning of

and the adjectives

throughout

21,

have been added to the original

of Thrasylus

by some

////

//

one who
th.it
.ill

had
exi

probably read
text!
.1

Diogcm
d l>"
tii<i<

Thli drcumstano
h

trcn

tin

may
to

be tnu

to

the

hrasyl< an

recen ion, 1>

decide

th<-

qui ition
fai

whethei
to an

was

numerically bul

one

archetype.

one .. bo

backwards
copies

original

source, th<
verj

chancei
so
to

ol

appreciable

dh
l<-

between

separate

of

it

become
the

small, so

thai

out

be due to different originals

to

oi

same edition

speak,
it

without oui
leans

bl<

detect

it

from
written

their
in

text

Nay, the evidence rather,

ol

anything,
t

thai
<f

since

A
Wli.it

Is

pagi
is

two narrow columns, and

in

in

l.ir

:< r

i>.i;;<

tw<.

broad ei columns, while

written

smaller
for
tin

without columnar divi

now
by

are

the

materials
in

available

Mss.

used

Bekkei

editing

the

Parmenidi

their designations

from him.

K,

Oxford:
t,

rBCDEFHIQR,

Paris:

Rome:
g,

he added

Venice, which

Bekker does not

collate for this dialogue;

,
the
i,

construction

of

our

t<

Tin
[tceivi

following,

which

Venice.

To

mis:

and others whicl

a,

ho did not know, as those collated by Stallbaum

a,b,c,

Florence, Zittav.,

with Tub..

Tubingen, and

Ces.,

Cesena, which have

come
a

into
list
r

notice

more

recently.

Here then.
the quest;
it

without reckoning one or two others,

to be determined
is

we have

of twenty-seven, and
other.

the relation

in

which the)

stand to each

As
tells

happen
as
usual.

only the

first

is

dated, and while the subscriptio containing the date

the
writer,

us as usual

Something

about

his

employer, and

his

pa),

it

tells

us,

also

nothing about the place of writing, and nothing of the Ms. copied, two points which
for textual criticism

would be more important.

its

We

are thus

left

to deal with circum-

somewhat inconclusive character, has all its value dependent upon the assumption, natural enough no doubt, but not inevitable, that.
stantial evidence,

which, besides

in

the absence

of evidence to the

contrary, a Ms.

is

likely to

trace

its

origin as a

whole to a single source, and that thus proofs for parts hold good for the whole.

No

one can give even a glance at the collation printed

struck

in

Bekker's edition without being

by the remarkable recurrence of the group 21AIIDR in support of the same readings. Not only do they oexur together 85 times alone, but they appear in many
varying groups of other authorities.
It
is

other cases along with

evident that they

inner circle.

are a closely related family.

But

in

that -family there appears to be an

:

This

will

be clearer from a glance at the following figures

ilAIIDR-f- various others occur together

many

times.

21AIIDR

85

8
Manifestly
the

ilAIID

57

3
of these
is

connection

between

the

first

three

extremely intimate.

Not only the number but likewise the character of their coincidences testify strongly on the point. Now, as is noted -by Schanz, there is at the same time quite a different and equally strong bond of union between them. All three give the Theaetetus with

lxxx

THE PARMENIDES.
D
in

a gap of considerable extent, from 208

ovv to 209

nearly half a page of Stephanus.

All the rest which contain the Theaetetus, however not having this gap, and accord-

,
on
all

or

they
StuJieii, 46
ff.

may

otherwise

differ,

would appear to agree

ingly Schanz here finds proof of the existence of two families tracing their origin to
different sources
a.

that of which

21
t

is

the chief

member and which has

the gap

Tub. does
grounds.
widely.

not the gap.

refers
it

not

give

the
in
it

Theaetetus

but

Schanz

to

family

other
differ

And

he says

general, that while family

agree closely, family

In this edition

has not been possible to deal comprehensively with

personal study has been
is

the

existing Mss.

The
t

writer's

confined to 2IAIITub.t.
that all other

Upon
given
in

family
traced

he takes the testimony of Schanz, which back to

as
original.

members can be
is

Evidence of a very convincing character

it

support of this conclusion, and whether

is

actually established or not, there can be

no doubt at
investigation

by many degrees the most important member, of the group. In the case of a dialogue which has a text so little injured as that of the Parmenides
all

that

is

need go no

further.

We

pass then to the consideration of family

a.

Here also subject to the exclusion of certain dialogues in certain Mss. the decision of Schanz is similar. All can be traced back in the last resort to 21. Let us take them in the order AIITub.DROg. It will be sufficient to give selected specimens
of his evidence.
Schanz on the
Manuscripts.
1

A. (Our

dialogue occurs in vol.

is,
21.

of the
1.

Mss.

-.)

This codex, which he places in the

transcript

2th

century,

except in tetralogy

and the Gorgias, a

short gaps,

direct
360 verso
361 rect.

from
leaf.

though

not necessarily

(1)

In the

Philebus

it

has a series of
21
its

filled

in

by a younger hand, which

edge

and

correspond to similar gaps existing in

of the

and caused by
original,

injuries to the lines at the outer

vers.

Jl 184

r.

and
E,

v.

Steph. 34

36

B.

would seem to have found those injuries and has to have left spaces which he thought sufficient for them, and these a later reader of similarly but very coarsely itself has been completed filled up from another source. since 21
writer of

The

or of

the date of
433
v.

or of

its

original.

434

(2)

In the Phaedrus two similar blanks occur which

2(

have never been

filled

up.

They
condi-

31 235, 237.

represent an injury in
tion of

caused by the dropping of some dark acid upon the

time the injury had affected
gives

text.

The

253 R, 254 E.

shows that
of
the

at the

only the back of the

one leaf and

the

front

other,

since

the

words
its

which

were on the other sides of these

leaves.

respectively.
(3)

In our time the acid has eaten

to

also omits from time

time words which form

first

this are the following

404

Cratylus,

123 C Theages,

though -,
it

the
T

",
ye

seems a very long

198 D Laches, ykyovev,

All these statements
Philologus

81

was intended

to verify in

" . ,,
way through both
line

complete lines of 2L
:

Examples of

eyoiye.

but through unavoidable circumstances the

for holding

task was omitted.

Schanz concludes by giving reasons

that

the derivation of

xxxv,

1876.

from

2( is

mediate rather than immediate.

////

//

\
I

II

iir,

Schan

held
it,

il

one

lime

that
rith

th<
it

while
thei

closcl)

related

to
i>,

directl)

tramcripti from

but

connected
nil hii

in

manner.
both <<>uM
|,

however,
ii.ti

Schani has changed

VI,

opinion and
r<

finally

holdi

that

to

but

without itating

aaon

I in p. ntiMii.it These Schani holds to be closer) connected with H. win, with 11. and where it differs, the difference betrays the connection. A

DR.

ny

in

the
Ipoc
ol

Parmenides,
\<<>

row
part
to

".

.'.

<

krriv,

roi tVot]
eye,
after
tin-

tjv.

The words
thi

in

bracl
.

what precedes.
first,

The

writer's

he wrote

have caught the

in

and so he repeated
in

won

he teems to have caught

the

place

ol

on looking up,

forty;

then glancing

up
:iy

and so he wrote
Ifv,

he seems to have caught

D, and
it

second
ll

Ivot,

and so he went on
than to
are

This mistake reappears

source,
for

in

seems
the

to

originate with

rathei

come from some common

n
it

largely characterised
ll

by such

blunders which
the

sometimes corrected and sometimes not

reproducing so peculiar an error reveals
the

be indeed
origin.

source,

then
not

own
:in

Now
e.ises

does
in

younger I> extend beyond

l>y

its

Parmenides,
from

and
II.

Schanz gives from

His
inference
that

this

dialogue several
other

wliieh

II

DR

combine
last

to
in

present

readings peculiar tO themselves, and

is

e.ises

in

which

the

two

agree
its

differing

I>

Coming from

develops

new

features

of

own, and that

far

being

drawn from
of

I)

exhibits

some

ot

the tatter's peculiarities.

is

Q
remarks

a
a

Ms. cited by Bekker

note,

in

the

Parmenides as

as to

120 a:

it

Schanz merely

Q..gehort D. Ms. collated which Schanz places in the same group with Stallbaum, by g but as it contains only a fragment of the Parmenides, those of which we have been speaking and is not intrinsically very important, no more need be said of it.
in

/ur Sippe

is

Florentine

Such then
recent

is

an

enumeration of thos^ codices, which, according to the greatest

the
question,

authority upon

rank apart as the most reliable guides for the

formation of our text.

Does

a minute study of

them

in

so far as the Parmenides

is

concerned

yield

any further evidence tending to support, or alternatively to weaken

the verdict given

by Schanz

They may be

dealt with in the

same

order.
:

As confirming
(i.

the division into classes,

Kdi

we may
all
its

take the follo\ving evidence

Fresh compel
son.

/'(
,,

81s ti'Yiu
.,

.
Miss,
late.

to

Sis

Sisj so all

.H-MlTub.l)R.
followers.

so

and

This case
cTvai

appear

all

be wrong, the true

reading
?l,
j

SU
it

'

is

important, because the

143

being

preserved

or suggested very faintly in the margin o(

Again we have
A.
1.

where

->J

and

has

been either overlooked or inserted which are also

>39

iSs

noteworthy.

Let us now take the members of the

5(A,
;

family in order.

Vat No.
In

225. In regard to this codex, various facts are to be noted.

For the word

2.

the phrases

and they
;

alone, read throughout

^.
it

all

occur as questions or as parts of questions.

The

last

is

much

the most frequent,

occurring twenty times, and being in each case, with a single

other phrases.

doubtful

exception,

a substitute upon an erasure for one of the

In everything
written aUi.
line than

but the erasure

3.

faithfully

reproduces

this peculiarity of

%
first

The word du
rest,

occurs forty-three times.

first
is

In the

twenty of these
joined to

is

In the

beginning 147 d, the

erased and the

by a longer

Ixxxii
usual,
^

THE PARMENIDES.
save in the solitary case 147
difference of usage
is

where

del

looks original.

Apart from signs of erasure,

ss

this

striking
out.

exactly copied in

only that in one place the word has

dropped
4.

We

find a series of patches or mistakes occurring in

words

at the outer

ends of the

first

lines in the following

pages of

this edition.

p.

16
17

-?
rot
76/3
(1.

' ?

2)

.
,,

21
"
,,

is,

7
many

25

patched

.
Tub.

28

On

each of these pages there

as on

others,

a stain at the corner of the Ms. which

precisely covers the letters misread.

be compared in a number of places where they are such as to arrest attention. More examples might be quoted, but the most striking only are given, and Tub. are added. and for convenience the readings of
5.

The

readings of

2( may

Text.

127 c

128
129 D

7TC/D

,
(1

- -,
31

^/)
>

->>

))

</>ys

[ for

ft

frequent].

30
C

',

.
">/
'/)

//?
TySe

C
1

32

133

] &
*

/? .
.

- . . . . /
V

in all.

; (
(1/

>>

-.

o/t.

erased)

>)

erased)

('patched)

,.
.

(a

on ).

.
6MJ
J

.
so
all
>)

. .

( patched)
. . .=
2 letters
it] /l.

as

changed

save

-,

on

eras.)

[eras.

asSi.

with

on

135 D 5tos,

136
C

'

.
-#
-OS'

- (
-Kt

1J

>>

voetv

on eras

)>

5J

)>

5>

V
>>

-?7
adds
later
5>

->

patched,
8.

erased.

? -'

' -

'(
5>

later).

>)

(contracted)

>

))

a gap here.

cu

>>

(no

(at altered)
-os
(latei

-?

')

-# (at later).
-os.

'.<</

Ol

rm
II
I

>

1.11,711

,!

f'.l

Ml,
11

.
I

I.I .11

><

bed)
,,

>

(
I

'''

\'l
II
1"/;

<

[1J
< V

II

I I

tt8

D
1

t<~>

<

,,

1. hed) (./ |mi. bed) (7

1

,u

UN

/
n'/ii
i

-I

/ .1 (

hangi d to
I

to "i

"

above

later}

D
JvyiyvojtMi
.(I

/'..

"i

'

'

'

)
'

y~

139
I

//

hi'

mi
OS

Slj

T 'l'

( '

oi"r<

i>.)ovV

'

[40

'.
I Mii
u'l

.
\.

niur
. ,

i/ros-

'

.".

7.

-r<-

(ends

line)*.

as
II

II II

II

,
i/mriy
;

.\;>

yap
;

II

II

1.

i/xtru 7

11

II

or yap

omitted
wonls dotted
undotted
rtvc(ii ...

...>:
T(i>

words omitted

words omitted.
Tii'o.r

rnno

...

-repa

-repa

( added

later

D trovSvo

17
i.|S
\

149

150 D (

]
t

...

'
e<s

-Tf/NZ

II

-'
To

... -toil

II

II

(
II II I) II

twice,avra).

(U'O/iOHll

d/(.

II

II

(')
II

as A.

^CTOV

\')
>

I52D
ovirep

,
T7(pl

II

)|

II

7/3(
:

erasures)

(\
(yiyvertu

el

TTtpuy-,

154C
155 A

vuorepov

'

(V

"

{yiyverai
marg.,

in

above, later)
157 C fieT(\ei av -y

later).

15s
1 60 D

_
yn/i

yap avrotv as
-t\t7,U
77)/
v *

II

II

1)

51
I

(7/).

avro^ev

erased)
as

II

tv
text,
all

/> ]'...

yap omitted

but in

omitted

as . as .

eiVai

l6l

prreoj

102 A

)/

U(tt

/
.

pm'u
so: corr. in

marg.

no

corr,

orig.

( eras)
C
l6 3 C
eivai
11

(-)

D
164
l65

''
,
trep

omitted

II

efvui in

II

= (no
II

')

as 91

} el

as

(patched)

marg.

as as

.
?(.
2(.

5(.
II

&)^tei',

II

II

and-

II

11

omitted

lxxxiv
Text.

THE PARMENIDES.
Tub.
as as

.
21.

.
Adding
to
facts
this to the

>>

Se?

as

evidence which Schanz has produced, readers will be disposed

is

admit that his case

exist
:

established

that
first

is

derived from 21

At

the same time

which slightly weaken the

vivid

sense of conclusiveness.

Take

the

following
i.

The

scribe in

forms chiefly as
practice in
2.

',

in very
Zolkcv

many cases, though not when the succeeding word

in

all,

omits the

at

the end of such

;

begins with a consonant

although the

2t is

different.

A A

few cases occur in which the verbal endings

few such divergences as

and

and

similar ones are transposed

in the
3.

two Mss.
for
for

Also mere blunders such as

for
;

,
5.

and

varieties of spelling

such

as,
:

The

136

[]

137 C

D
138

. . . .
]

following small words are

left

[/]
'

out

, , for

(middle), Tts for

.
for

occasionally,

145 C

d
148

[]

[]

. ^
'

[\
K

So

.
on an

149 E
152

/..
'

, -,
for
line.

for

[]

4V.

[yap]

ends a
ye

"

[] ' []
yap

on a cleaned space
(a

So

[']

immed-

part of a phrase written

erasure.

142 C
6.

[)]

150 d After writing the

158

. Two
ixxxii.

142

[ '] ' //^3^ [ .^. '. :

Two

larger gaps occur

first

^ ^ ^
158 c

164

''
...

iately above).

[/^)J

^. '.
[]
the second
...

the writer goes on at

thus omitting nearly four lines.

transpositions occur
for
:

This ends the third line of 162 recto in

of the two lines preceding

this edition)

and

as

shown above the ends

ev

166

reads

^
we may say
slips

(1)

.
2i

21

(page 17 of

it

are also patched.

Of

these

that

has

no significance:

a scribe with

bias

on

the question of using

ephelkystikon might give effect to his views on principle.

as occur in

The
of

remainder are such

every Ms., even

the most careful.

itself,

Some

them
large
21

easily explain

themselves, and might be paralleled from

and they give

to the
first

no suggestion tending against the idea of a derivation from

21

With regard

gap

in

150 D, the second

docs not come so nearly below the

;

in

as to give a ready explanation of the error

first

but the writer of

has, after writing

the

of them, to turn his

own

page, which gives

his

room

for a mistake.
is

So too

at

166

after writing ecrrtv'

he has to turn
errors

page, besides which he

(5), (6),

hurrying to

be done.

At

the utmost, the

marked
2( is

(7)

may

support the theory of

Schanz, that the derivation of

from

at

second hand.

mi
II

ll

;xv
tali

\..

.".
I
,

In

in

llic

.il

il

'..i<

<

in

il<

in

islj

wnllrii.
fa< ta

rhe following

deserve

noti< c in
<)'

r<

gard to

it

. The

title,

while omitting
oi

/, ">.

hu

ornaments end mi ornamental

initial

letter

...

lembloni e t" those

X
et

/he dialogue opens with three lines which are verbatim

first

literatim
oi

identical with

tl

in

VI

tin

the writing ol
fourth
line
i^>

above the
longei

'"
7,

"

and the omission

bj
1

adscript
lint
1

difference.
\ ii

The
again

by

the

iiiiii

and then the

gradually divi
ntity
;

m
1

ipite "i

gaps

in

the

text

they always

tend

me back
the

to

tl

whirli

the)

separate

themseh
:

'rims,

taking

edition,

the follow

are identical in the two Mss.

Paob,
6

I.

INI
1

Paob,

I.i

.1

.tnd first of a

8
9
1

'.;.

'1

22
.
1

3-

1.

3 7
10,

The opening 3. The

and twice
in

three

and the consecutive

spelling

130

while the

*
j5

3 20

new page

in

II.

sg
3>

new
|

37

six

occurs, though in a

on pages 31-32 are very noteworthy. way that might escape

is

notice, in

the

title,
is

of the diphthong

erased

in

127

Elsewhere the spelling

4.
is

The word
in A.

ucl varies its spelling,

but not with that adherence to the changes of

act

observed
5.

We

have

a'ul

34 times,

with erasure twice, and

(for

The

original

hand
is

in ?( writes

almost invariably

it.

This accentuation

in

so uniform that after a certain point

for

collation.
6.

Much

the

same holds with

,
dtl

which

seven times.
while a later hand corrects
it

ceased to be noted

in

A
11

glance at the comparison of readings given above will show that in the great majority
agrees with VIA
in
;

of cases
7.

and more might be given.

differs

Cases occur

138

''
tn

which

from

but agrees with

21
"Jl.

tu'-u

with erasure after

3111.

II.

1301:

ov& mjKtv

i43 D
1

V 7 ta

5 2

155
1

ev

mrtpprjarenu

65

Here
from
31.

again
It
is
is,

we have very considerable support

however, not quite so strong as
in

,
tri
'

/)

fvy* "

31,

erasures at the gaps

eras.

%
3UI.

{for

on erasure
3(

8L

()

and

after a.

a line through

from

to

II.

patched.

the view that

descends

the case of

and the counter

evidence
1.

stronger.
is

In every case

wanting, being replaced by

.
a good

2.

Exclusive of considerable repetitions and omissions, there are about a hundred small diver-

gences in the text including (a) some small blank spaces or blots,

many

variations in

lxxxvi
the use of final

THE PARMENIDES.
(not always ephelkystikon),
for -os,

() some transpositions, () several variations in some patchings, () () some omissions of single words, () a number of obvious blunders, () a good many deviations that do not admit of any classification. While many of these differences are of little moment and a good many suggest their own cause, not
terminations as
eu$e'<os

a few are not easily explicable, nor can

original writer or another.
is

it

always be determined ;vhether they are due to the

called suggestive or symptomatic.

At the same time few can be

Here

one, however,

137

ijxol

,
,.
,
it

changed

in different

ink to

i.

.
two was in

palaeographer

will at

once see that the meaningless

This makes

could

much more

readily be derived from

(carelessly written or read) in old minuscules than in majuscules, nay, that in minuscules the

words are remarkably similar

it

at least

probable that the original of

21.

minuscules, and thus at least improbable that

3.

was older than

disproportionately large

number

of important omissions occur, which will be discussed

immediately.

If any of these were in the original of

have been a somewhat careless copy of

4.

The word

160 d, which appear in the margin of

hardly be accidental.

it

could not have been

21

and must

at least

%
21

if

not from a distinct source.

efvai,

148

and the phrase

are entirely wanting in

a circumstance which could

and fourth do not count. is always on an erasure in 21, and the words just quoted are in the The word margin in an old, but not the original, hand. We have only to suppose that or Arguments (2), (3) are its original was copied before these changes were made in 2.
from
the
first

Of

these arguments against deriving

by the allegation of downright Its writing is of very unequal size, and to one who has seen carelessness in II. Apart from that, marks of inattention really fine caligraphy, repulsively ill formed.
more
serious;

but

they

may be

greatly weakened

are frequent.
129 d
differ.

and

'

reads ev

helps to explain several cases where 2( has the infinitive and

130 d

The words The first has

and

iav

...

are written twice,

and the two

:

editions

before

and
is

-vet,

altered

-.

-,

for the infinitive

the second omits

The second

coarsely scored out.

This oscillation between

and
in

Perhaps the writer intended

ets Ttv'

is

in

ets

possibly be intended for the old minuscule form of

the other termination

familiar

as

to insert his

by the
is

above, and forgot.

But the

carelessly written,
u.

and may quite

135
1

appears as

44

has one of the syllables

147 d

The words
some form from

...

together with half the following line to

P
.

2i.

for a derivation in

the be seen from our text that after writing would lead to the repetition. which it, caught the above by scribe's eye might very readily be in following form lines The 149
2(.

,
It will
:

,.

which resembles our

ve omitted.

which form a

line in

are written twice,

and then,

are coarsely ruled out.

This blunder rather makes

'

evos
evos]

[,
evos

/xev ev efvai

ev

Tt

01
Here
h,
\

III

lxxxvii
<>i

tin
.Hi-

words

In

1
| |

\ <

obviously been Inserted oul

lino

place,

and

obliterated bj

mil dots.

This

Is

anothei
r

derivation from
in
.

the

ad<

look si <>m text.

Aft<

wi
lin

eye caughl
through the

>

in the following line.

He
two

then wrote on in that

above.
)

when, looking up,

writing
circle
>

hii

eye caughl

lines

He

then

sli

and wi

nl '"
it

with the words

ii

<

and found

oul his mistake,

the double

parallel "i position in oui

tjui

which speaks
152 c
1

foi

as the original.
in
li
is

oear an injury in the pan hment and

is

written ,/.,

lias
01'
-

""'
<Y

S/M rur KTOV

\/'

*"i "yiyw/M
tpov
ely cancelled.

" (Pii.

vttaTtpov

urn
after

This

is

repeated with rd Rrov, and the repetition

Hi

in

our

how

the mistake

may hm
which
is

arisen

writing the second

01

tpov the scribe

mayhai
p-

reverted to the

157
in

165 a

directly above in K. Here comes the case cited by Schanz in which I) agrees. divided between two lines 11 gives 4-. For 11 reads which suggests mere inattention. For
t"irst,

165

For

rfiv to or 11 gives

r&v

8V.

Before dealing with the cases of omission

it

will

be convenient to speak of the

next Ms. on our

Tun.

list.

This

codex, which

is

also called Crusianus from having

viz., the Euthyphro, what it calls Crito, Thaedo, Parmenides, Alcibiades I. and 11., and the Timaeus. The writing which is very and carefully neat formed is regarded by Schanz and Fischer as belonging to the 1 1-1 2th centuries, which would make it older than EL Its numerous omissions are supplied, when they are supplied, by a much later hand. A comparison of the readings given above will show that this Ms. stands

a professor at Tubingen, in 1560, contains

(?,

been got by Martin Crusius,

very closely related to

?lll.
1,

It is

to

be added that the name

is

always written with

an erasure before the

connection with SL
connection with
Text.

so that the text

had

originally given the diphthong,

which shows a clear

But, on the other hand, evidence

is still

may be adduced which

the following
:

tends to show that the

i:S D iVu. li'or ovros

129 D

130 A TOV

130 D
133 D

)/

(
)
rn
*5

more

intimate.

Thus we have
Tub.

II
... J'COl'TOS
...

...

1>

i'e6

...

let'ovroi

...

-veiv

... -1')/

-ret

changed
with
is

to

-.

so

so

130 D tlv omitted

so

( /8#'
...

...-

later

on

)
1
,

-T7/^

cancelled.

(above
as

cyw

).

added

later

Tub. (but as Tub.

may be ).

135 136 C 136 C

is

letters o-ev

so

OTtouv (scrape after

at

and

be] lOW ")

patched.

put above 0e later

$e

changed

in orig. to

or the reverse

ixxxvm

THE PARMEN1DES.
21
. . .

136 D

136
137 C

/
Text.

.
...

Tub.
-yuevos

on
I'

eras.

changed from

[-/
efvai
... tt

/
later in

as Tub. as Tub.
>)

-/^
...

138

D 142 D
141

[
'

148
152
13

]
'

/,

changed to

>)

SO
?)

(but

omit
...ivy

154 c
155

veioTC/oov
7re 5 '
/

:
eivai

..(. .eras.)
so

on

eras.

158 C

.
SO
. . .

on
eras.

/
omit
ye
it.

added

marg.

'
!>

)>

( patched).
later above.

>>

-.
?> >>

159
1

??
17/

6D
62 D

marg,

>>

-??
5)
:
:

165

:
uniformly for the
of

patched and

dots below

).

'5

These

striking coincidences are sufficient to establish

an unusually close connection between

in the use of

the two Mss.

Again, both differ in various ways from

21.

'
we

,
,

and both read

Yet

if

we seek to infer the derivation of either from the other

arise

are

met by very

serious difficulties.

These

more
21

especially in connection with omissions.

We

have found reason to regard

from
1

as a very carelessly written codex.

prettily written, gives

proof of similar inattention.

:

arising

this source

repetition, 142 d, the omission of

is

phrase,

60 d.
find,

AVhat the condition of

147

with regard to repetitions

1

Tub. we
re

/'#,
It
is,

evos

and

161

, ,
In
50

Tub., while

much more

there are but three serious cases of error

148

and of a considerable has been already seen. In

/, 156 ,

twice written, not to speak of smaller signs of

is

carelessness^

however, the question of omissions that

the vital one, and here the Mss.

IITub.DR
will,

are

all

brought under consideration.

The

blanks which exist in one or more of these

for the

sake of clearness, be referred to both according to the paging of Stephanus and

this edition.

according to that of
p. 2.

127

[]
]

DR

are quoted from Bekker.

I28CD

129

/.]
c

][

[
evos,

os

?-

omitted in Tub.

added

later at foot.

added

later in margin.

added

later in margin.

*6

3-1

not added.

*33

']

[' added
later in margin.

</

////

[
omitti

inTub,

'

'

iddcd

u
}<>

; aV
<>

'/

added
jooi

Utter,

brown,

in

"
^7

[&
KCII

'
|

Vpv%

'"/|
"y
.

Tub.

not

138
|8

[
|>

!.\i/(';y]

II

DR.
Tub.
not
d

yap

<v

"<

fy

ti"'/'|

4<|

( (
[
to/]

D.

13,

13')

][

loLKtv

:....,
Tub.

added coarse

in

ma

added

in margin.

11

[
avtStfotovj
?
[)/

added

in lower

margin

.<

.
141 ;

]
]
8

[
[
,,

']
[
/?]

not added

words patched

to give sense.

144

47

[
\

>

>>

seems to be noted.

7?;
-

added

later in margin.

147

[ ;

evus

added

in orig. (?) in

marg.

147 D

-]

ro

D /
II

cf.

.-5.

148 D

^]
-.'

added, dark in margin.

.3.

150

Tub.

not added.

\\

THE PARMENIDES.
[tVetO'

152 c

av
-Q

26.

153 A

53

]
ev J

]
/i>/

['

:]

omitted

in

Tub.

added

late, rude,

ktyeiv
III)

not added in

11.

['?

?/ ytyvtoOai

).

2 '

153

154 A [orrt

]
[
:]

ciktt

Tub.

not added, not added.

154 C

156 1

'
yiyverat
:]

ovv

',

not added.
0

jo.

156 D
157

/s

/]
ev

added

later in margin.

added

late.

30.

[9 '

}.

158 159

(a

gap of three words, but?)

39

3j

60 c The words

in

margin of
.

[ev

,,

not added.

Ivos

added

in margin.

[?
re]

IID

not added in margin

nTub.DR.
added, brown
in margin.

J4

161

[rrt

<

ir/xiK/xm/s]

15.

102 A

[(?$
?vat]

35

162 A

35-

62

how much? [

,
/r/)

R.
. .

....

'

[ ',
el
:]

(
Tub.

added

later,

outer margin.

added added brown

later.

3<5

163
164

[yiyvtrai

ev

]
[?'}

37

]
is

in margin.

Tub.

not added.

From
at intervals

this synopsis

seems clear (1) that ten passages at least of which there

it

cannot be derived from Tub. since it contains in Tub. no trace ; (2) that Tub. is not likely

It is conceded come from since it gives three passages which are not found in that % is much older than either and accordingly two conclusions are open to us as alternatives, (a) either Tub. and both come from 2i, or an early copy or copies of it now lost () or all three descend from one original now lost. In the former case indirect descent seems the more and likely, because while all three closely resemble in many ways, the divergences between

to have

Pub.,
\

when
ii

ompared
ad rect
.
.

with

H,

do

nol
\\<

wily
Infei
si

,,,,.,,

,
niii'.i

ly

|u >tl)

thu

mm

thai

tl

v\in h

ome

have be<
ri

tak<
<

from
to

before

"

was

hanged

from
;.

i-.i.

, onward
.il
|

,:,
rtpi

\..i

\..
w.i'.

m.eited

ill

the margin
,
,:

".

ri
...

hangi d to

in

<'
to

1U..1 w.r. inserted in

the

m
from
|

An attempt might be made

omissiom above, but the
from
hut
.1 ii

reason to the exact

connection

the

result

is

not clear,

We
oi
\,

should have almost

line
ol

anj
in

oi

the blanks consisted oi an exact

H, not merely the equi

line

line
is

point of fact

We
to

have no gap
at

that

character.
is

Our m
equivalent

the

one

common
1
to

[ITub.

134

which
is

the exact

of a

lin
tl

actually one.

Such

gap may be bu
see
that

but

no proof

One

has only to glance at

various
nerallj

gaps given

the

mistakes which the eye of a copyist

1

may

:uls

ader no rule connected with one another by the bond of a repeated word, the relative positions in which the two cases of the repeated word stand to each othi
/>',

\s

respects supposition
say that even
it'

there does

not appear to be anything which

makes against

it.

But

we may
o(
81
is

it

be the fact that HlITub. tome from a

common

original, the superiority

so undoubted and the errors in the text of this dialogue are so few and unimportant that
for

reasons

considering

the supposed

independent evidence of the two

latter

M>s.

are

almo

non-existent.

What

then

is

to

be our verdict upon the authority of the various Mss. of the

?

first

family .HAlLTub.DR...
satisfactory as to

Something
little
:

like for

this:

is

far

and away the

:

best,

and so
from
to
it,

give
aside

occasion

extraneous support
like
it,

is

derived

and

may

be

set
it,

II

and Tub. are extremely

if

and almost seem

:

he-

derived

from

while even
out
for

not they are far less valuable

DR whose
II

case

the

student
the

may work

himself

are

closely associated with

but of less value

Practically,

remainder

besides

being of secondary value

;

are

mere fragments.

therefore,

we rest upon ( but, in as much as a collation of Tub. has not yet been published we give its readings in full. which Outside of this circle we appeal to in some ways is more careful even than il and as a last resource in one or two cases we resort to conjecture. Perhaps our adherence to *K would have been less decided and the results as a whole more in keeping with the character of a critical edition,' but that our text is in form so closely connected with that codex. The testimony of
t
;
'

C. G.

Cobet

in

favour of
is

and

?l

as the sole satisfactory authorities for those

works

Mnemosyne, ix.
,Son
'

which they contain

frequent and exceedingly emphatic, even exaggerated, in character.

The grounds upon which he

bases

his

decision

seem
test

to

be two

that

these Mss.
likewise
scribes

not only give the soundest text as judged

by the

of intelligibility, but

preserve more faithfully than others the true Attic forms of

many words which

had a tendency to modify.

31

Thus, speaking of

A though

other passages show that

also

is

to

some extent included

he

says

XC11

THE PARMENIDES.
Namque non tantum
locis plurimis

Mnem Nova
,,;

manifesto veras lectiones solus servavit, sed etiam antiquae

dialecti

Atticae rationem et

usum
et

in

iis

quae constanter
est.

in

caeteris scioli

et

inepti correctores

contaminare solent intactam

inviolatam solus

omnium ad nos

propagavit.

Quod

quale

sit

paucis exemplis demonstrare operae pretium

Parisinus.

Critias 108

log

log U log D
111 C

]
}<$

-Aeis.

-.
crwa.

-.

,
etc.

caeteri.

-,
.
.

112
121

,
-eiv

,
in
futilis

Plusquam perfectum apud Platonem more majorum exibat

et

,
-,

etc
persona ante vocalem
et

tertia

in

sententiae exitu

in

....

In Platonis Codicibus duobus optimis Clarkiano

corrector fere semper

Parisino

formae

in

saepe comparent, sed in Parisino

criticizing the edition of

suo -av substituit

....
Schanz
:

eraso de

Again he says when

Itaque speraveram fore ut in prima Tetralogia, quae prodiit,

.iodieianum.

unum solum
satis

testem produceret

egregium ilium Clarkianum

et

ex caeteris paucula quaedam sumere

haberet sicubi boni

aliquid aut lacunae supplendae aut ab acuto lectore feliciter

emendatum

contineret.

fleck. Jahrb.
'
I.

A. Jordan likewise uses this argument about old Attic forms as evidence of the
superiority of

113, 1876.

A%, while he points out

question of the use of

forms

{]},
21

much vexed
form in

^, , , ,
a two-fold peculiarity;
its

that Schanz on the authority of

ephelkystikon.

,
is

31

reproduces the
is

and

others.

Again, there

the

is

the
is

used

What we find in regard in many cases where no

is

to this

hiatus

would be caused by
indicates

absence, and

omitted where a hiatus

the result.

This

method when compared with many authorities, and is on that ground regarded as evidence of the age and purity of its source, the tendency of Alexandrian and other early commentators being to establish and adhere to an
a distinct absence of
intelligible rule.

Suppl.
873-5,

any independent readings found in less valuable Mss. are due to conjecture alone is emphatically put aside by both Wohlrab and Jordan on the ground both of inherent improbability and of the
the

On

other

hand,

the

contention of

Cobet

that

and as above.

incontestable fact that blanks

ones, which

in

the best

Mss. have to be supplied from the inferior

ivii.

must have got the material from a source distinct from that of the others. Again, as we have seen already, it is pointed out that we find Plato cited by authors like Stobaeus and Eusebius who lived long before our earliest Mss. were written, and
if

the texts of these authors can be

relied

on,

he

is

sometimes quoted
in
a, at
t

in

form

different from the text transmitted

by
in

A 21

Also cases arc given

which the 'old

least as repre-

Attic forms' have been preserved

the family
:

when family

sented by SiTITub.

etc.,

give an inferior form

thus in certain places

reads

and

III

rifnr\>i'ii
I))

where
while most

*
the
in

>n

this

um

oth< to

iome

ili.it
.it

family are inferioi

kx
.t
..

thoit

>(

th<
till
'

docs not

.ill

hold

regard to

the

<-

thai

family, and

it

hold when the respective kourci

oi

the two

familiea

an

considered.

Indeed

Jordan

nn
for

it

turni the tables

In

the following manner

authorities both
t

He
t:

takei up tin
after a

which we po

and

and

compari on

he ("inc. to the conclusion that

in

Is

actually a copy of A.
aa

He

contends that both

little

text

-hhI

scholia

the

two

completely as

i
t

humanly po
had
t

mistakes occur which

read
it.

tend to show that

infer
it

the writer of
i.-vn.

A
a

before him, but

ml

He

goes on to

that

In

tetralogies

is

copy of the
it

lo

volume of A, from which whole to be preferred to

Jordan
iloes

seems
if

to follow that

even for these works

K,

Cobet'a verdict
it,

upon the authority of

content to place

A
the
first

is

accepted
l

not seem quite tO accept

S

hut

is

At

in

ame da
the
hi
>

Contradistinguished from

.H.

There

is,

of course, no proof that

had a

volume.
in

The
Petrie

latest

episode, and one of the

is

most Interesting and unexpected,

tony o( the

Platonic text

that arising from the discovery in

Egypt

<>f

the

Flindi
era.

papyri, which

seem

to

date

from the third century before the

things

Christian
in

These
at

papyri

contain

among

other

fragments

of

the

Phacdo

very
glance
Mss.

dilapidated condition, extending over pp. 6j D-Cx) \,

these

S0D-84A

of Stephanus.

documents

at

once reveals that they

differ

from the text of our best

both by transpositions, by omissions, and by various readings, while the gaps

occur compel us to infer that the contents destroyed must have
extent from
the corresponding passages
in
?(.

which

been

of

different
;

Nor

are these divergences superficial

Such a discovery tends to make students of Plato most uneasy. Is our text, preserved in three of the most valuable Greek Mss. in existOne ray of comfort ence, so little entitled after all to our confidence and support ? appears in the fact that the differences though numerous do not affect the argument
they are numerous and striking.
;

the substance of Plato's reasoning remains as

it.

we have been accustomed

little

to understand
in

further study of the papyrus tends rather to re-assure us.

Although
for

some
One-

respects

the sense seems slightly to gain by

is

omissions, the general

character of

the text
is

not such as

we should be disposed

to take in
it

exchange

our own.

tempted to consider that although an early

to wait
for

is

yet a careless transcript, and one

before deciding against the
,

feels entitled

much more

extensive

materials

show how
speech
detailed

,
for

testimony of our highest authorities.

. .

Where

the value of the latest discovery seems pronunciation.

unquestionable

is

in

matters of spelling and

-,
in

ovdev

and

their cases.

dewy

",
On
this

For indications of sound again we

,
we may
refer

the writer's time

assimilated in pronunciation.

and by persons among whom he moved sounds were And they may, though not certainly, represent the actual
to

Thus we have

e/i

Usener,
(

'e>ellsch.

der

v
(

\<.

find

e
";

6|:

These

last
luass,

^ussprache des

of

Plato.

subject

Plass and

Meisterhans,

whose

M^

terh

Gian

and sometimes even

statistical

treatment of Greek spelling and pronunciation

tdioiu-

XC1V
as

THE PARMKN1DES.
in

exemplified

the

inscriptions

of the time

is

most

instructive.

But assimilation

would go further with stone-cutters and scribes than with high-born authors.

II.
descriptive.

We

propose

now,

for

the

information

of any

who may
the
in

take an

interest

in

such

matters, to give a

more or

less detailed description of

three great

manuscripts to

which reference has repeatedly been made, taking them

order.
I.

the

assumed chronological

Paris A,
i3oj.

Paris A.

This volume
it

is

strongly and handsomely

bound
label,

in

red leather tooled with gold.

;

No

On

the back

is

marked, upon a small round paper

first

GR
'

but

we

find

written in the

number xciv, while in the outer margin, opposite, 94.2087 appear upon an erasure. Before the text come four plain leaves of vellum. A Latin table of contents on paper is pasted on the face of the first, while near the top of the second face of the fourth is written in a very careless and late hand a in
middle of the upper margin of the
leaf of the text

an

earlier

Greek.

The

following are the contents, no attempt being

is

made

to reproduce the style of writing.

in

The heading
begins,

invariably written
text begins with the

in

the upper margin

line of the
title,

of the column

which the dialogue

some-

and the

first

column.
3,

Pale and rather coarse lines in red

ink are

made
the

in the

margin to receive the

sometimes

one

for

each line of the

title,

times
Contents.

2,

title

going above, between and below them.

Ending.

)9
Heading.
y

fol.
J-col.

1
i.

recto,

"j

2 vers vers.,c.

ii.l.

^40. includes

.
as

3 red lines

+ I1Atojvo5 +
Ktpl
scr.
J-

r.,

1.

A
exactly, including scratch
1

?
as

small flourish

.1

flourish.

-14 .,

i.

44

above

14

r.,

ii.

above exactly

B] 24
I

v.,

ii.

12.

25

no scratch

r.,

1.

PJ37

v.,

i.

17.

v.,

iii.

hangs
lines

'] 48
J

v.,

i.

24.

J37 /from 3 red

48
)
v.,

ii.

E] 61

v.,

i.

17.

red lines

////

/////

.1/

le.i.lii.

.is

above exai

tly,

n<

t<

ll

(>

II

tl\

nil

lint

ii

II

>>

l/JI.,1.
1

Il.ll...

'
1 j

AS

from (red

lin

11

I83
1

\.,

red mult

ll|,,

11

AX

first

and throu

II.

ll.lli

it<

ll

'

'
1

-..

Ml

from

red

liiu

,103

r.,

1.
I

[
Tl/iOMK
is

as in last

os

.
145

-..ii..i

red line

>"/

irtpt
I

.)

v.,

4.}

./>r.r,(pis

and below
I

is

darker th;m others

secondlineof title
not repeated

above
>}

r.,

i.

title

15

r.,

ii

KptTIOf

j-as

above

The margin

of 151 is< ul off close to the

MA
as

text, which isslightly injured

on both pages.
154 v., 11

above
TTtpl

151
-as

V.,

1.

Mirois

-cp]

M<

reus

above

somewhat dark

MB
as

above
y)
1

]*55
OjM
j

r ->

'

h.\

165

r.,

u .-hangs

A
as

from 3 pale red lines

165

as above

above

)
j

r.,

ii.

as

above

H) 173

v.,ii.

4:

as above

but dar leer

\i74
I

r,

'4

,
r..

as

above

as above

)
1

1S4
2

v.,

ii.

A) 193
dark

j r

MS

red lines

\i9$r.,ii.

) 202
S1
.

.,

1.

MZ
darker

as

above
''

202

1.,

ii

MH

XCV1

THE PARMENJDES.
Heading.
as above, darker

Ending,

216
J

r., ii.

as

above

Z|23iv.,ii. 24

as above

last

word dark

1
J

232

r-i

>>

241

v.,i.

44

dark
dark

241
1

v.,

ii

II

255

v.,

ii.

NA
NB
dark

256
)

r., i.

))

dark

II267

r., i.

43

267

r.,

II

278

v.,

ii.

IA
279

r., i.

IB

hangs from a red line: no flourish/

+
EiTtVO/LUS

+
*l

291

r., 11.
it

]
A

291
299

r.,i.

24.

v.,

i.

18

NE
as

above
IB

299

>

NS

' ' ,, ' '

Kj Kj

299 300
302

>

en ^s line
28
18

25.

Letter

although on the

first

r., r.,
r.,

i.

15
12. 19.

i.

304

i.

14 22

column has a red line coarsely drawn through the title has a red line below the first and through the
line of the
:

304

v.,

second line of the title SZ are,

:

upper margin,

like the titles of dialogues, in

35 / 2 red lines, ends 44. in upper margin,

305v-,i/ 2 red lines, ends 3 1 7 r.

the
lines.

upper margin, with red

has what seems to be an ending with the word

scribe or his original seems to have
vol.
6),

where Plato
lines

refers

317 r. as noted. But the had some 311 v. 34 (339 b, Hermann, to a letter of Dionysius, as to whether the letter did not there end.
p.

(;
11.

5.

on

difficulty at the point,

in line up by putting -r -f -f 34, giving twelve -f in each of lines 35, 36, 37, and beginning 38 with on 317, we have four vacant lines as if it were the title of a new letter. After ' and then etc., which Hermann treats as the beginning of the letter H, and to which he prefixes a title which is the duplicate of that given to It is not so treated in the above.
left

gap of four

was

which was

filled

?; ',

? ,

-j-

-5-

Ms.

nor are the numerical capitals

but by a later hand.

that

stand

opposite the remaining letters written in

the

original,

in

//// /

MANUSCRli
|0

1*1
|

Ij

mil
" d
lin

mi. mil |

II

II
|

.. rwi

hang

ii

l<

"

hfc h

'"'

""'

'"""

'"

pal in ".

'

/''

m
"

.n
,,

ript

m
tv
7/>.<

Apt romnfum

II

i'^
**"
r

mi'

m
[IB]

,,

\3191

Ii

33

"

TtVOM

/\'

/
,

Tii/ini
'

1.

11.

,,

3*0 r.

ii.

35

Aioritrnm rr/Mirn.w
n i|iiiMii>MHi
<

hrurroXai
flourish.

I332
(

:/>'

,,..,

r.

. uppe m
followed
l>y
;i

V""

NZ.

flourish.
j

Each definition ends with

vo&vo/MVOt'
I

slight blank.

Above
)
I

the usual position of the

title

as

if

added

later

by the
)

srribc.

7>! AiMIU'l

MI
t

-/
/

Apm/s+

7re/><

; 7/)

.
)

^ -'
7(>1
>/

325 r. i. upper marg. hangs from a red line.

77t/)!

326

r.

. 4.

flourish.

326

v.

i.

as above.

r.

'.

"J328

r.

i.

32.

)
|

3-8

r.

ii.

as

. .
.
) r.

. .

133' r.L
/

23.

above.

}
|

33 1
j

0.

ri 43

red

J333
lines.

-'
to

7/>

)')

"
;

\$2$ .
J

ii.

as

.
K.
)'}

7. /.
J

above.

334 r. ii. below line 44

341
r. ii.

~)

334

as

-.

.(

tpatnprpaTos

"|

27.

above.
title

in outer margin).

In the middle space opposite the

are

feV
[rj

which the words

irepl

in the

margin at the end correspond,

as

kpaaiprpur.

<$

name
in

^
|

34 !

.
folio 344.
is

. .
There
is

"|344
J

v.

i.

27.

above.

So ends the Ms. on

line 27 of the first

column on the back of

smaller style and yellow-brown ink as follows

' ?' .
)
.

or a date of any kind

but in the outer margin opposite there

:

no trace of a a statement by a later hand

Kj

,/

=
-

//

Upa(cr)

xcviii

THE PARMENIDES.
name
of the city
is

Authorities differ as to whether the

one word or two, Cobet being of the

Montr. A;
pendix,
cf.

If he is right it must be the Hierapolis near Laodicea which, according to Le Quien, was erected into a metropolitan see in the 5th century. No Constantine, however, is named as in office there. But we find mention made of Constantinus sacerdos and calligraphist, in

former opinion.

\\2$

a.d.,

and of another, a presbyter and

calligraphist, in

1326 a.d.

The

text

is

followed by

three clean

sheets of vellum, which, like those at the

beginning, have probably been inserted

style and details.

memini me videre integriorem librum necpje emendatiorem.' It has suffered a little at the beginning by damp creeping in from behind; it has lost the margin of fol. 151, which has slightly injured the end of the Critias and the beginning of the Minos, and in various places small holes have been drilled in the sheets by insects but for all practical purposes it is as perfect and legible as when it was written, now more than a thousand years ago. The size of the volume exclusive of the binding is 35*5 24*8 8*8 centimetres. The material is firm yellowish vellum. The page consists of two columns, each containing 44 written lines, which are bounded perpendicularly by double lines at each side; the length of each col. is 26-5 and its breadth according as both perpendicular lines at each side, or only the inner ones are included,
indeed, Cobet says, 'non

when it was last bound, The codex is in fine preservation;

is

8*i

or 6*8, while the free space between the cols, from outer to outer perpendicular line

is

2*3

centimetres.

The

breadths of the free margins are

inner

i*6,

upper

3-5, outer 4-8,

is

under 57.

All

these figures, especially the last group, are slightly variable.

that
is,

The vellum
and

made up

in quaternions,

sets of

four pieces laid together, then folded across

stitched, so as to give 8 leaves

and 16 pages; there are 43 quaternions, but the 43rd wants the 8th leaf. Originally each quaternion would be lettered, but the only trace of this which seems to remain is at the outer upper corner of fo}. 177 r. where the following having been cut off in binding represents the 23rd; more recently they have been numbered by small figures 2, 3, 4, placed at the inner upper corner. A late reader has carelessly numbered the front side of the leaves: after 243 he puts 245, but there is no gap Each piece of and in the third hundred the hundreds figure is often corrected. parchment before being folded as part of its quaternion has received a complete set of rulings which are colourless, being, as usual, indented on one side by some blunt pointed instrument so firmly as to project on the other. This ruling seems to have been done on the outer or hair side of the vellum. The bounding lines are the following, on each unfolded piece

1. 2.

8 double perpendicular lines to mark off the sides of the four cols.
Single perpendicular lines near the outer edge of the two outer margins, 3*8 removed from

the outer boundary of the cols.

3.

horizontal line about 1*9 above the writing.

lines of

4.

Double horizontal
44

which the lower

is

2-6

below the

writing.

All these are carried from edge to edge of the vellum.

5.

lines for writing,

which begin

at the left side of the

first col.

and go

right across the four

cols.,
E.M.Thon.p..,!.,

ending somewhat unevenly at the outer edge of the fourth.

In laying the ruled pieces together for stitching, indented side touched indented, and projecting

Paleography,
p. 63, ttc.

toucHcd projecting,
.

or,

as

Mr. Thompson puts

it,

hair

side

touched hair side and

c

flesh

side

flesh side.

The

writing hangs from the lines, save that the upper parts of the letters

77

project

above them.

The

text

is

written in dark

brown ink ; the

scribe,

titles

and some
to

of the notes are reddish.

One commentator writes in dark green. The text is written throughout by the same
i^ody of the

who seems
to

have added the

failed,

titles after

the

work was

finished.

Sometimes

his ink

seems

have

and he has retouched

'

mi
1<

////

<

////.
,

-is,

as

on
lli.it

iS.j .,

i.s<)

190

iftei

refilling hit

pen.
<-nl in

Aftei learning
'pat.
Peris.
I

mon
I'

ol

H,

Bekkci chan
111

<l

In-,

m.-w

thil

Ml MTU
eltt\>ris

written

in

the

tenth

primum

(A),

qui

omnei hebet
n.ist
.id

vetustatii notes,
p.

perperam

in

catalogo
'pr.ustani

sd
(

decimum
*<xlc
ell

1 r 1 1

Coni.

Corinth.,

Hi.'

Beet here speaks

the Peleeogrephii
el

ul

1H07 (scculi noni

'<
-

After looking ovei the plates

>

s. lety

end

<

ompering

three
thii
\

need,

we have

one

to the conclusioo thet the writing

which

mblei thel
et
tin-

ol

<><<
o.
ir<<

jg

th.it ol

the Clerke

Ms. ami of the Oxford Euclid, whoee detei ere fixed

<

Boj end S88

<

lively.

But the Peril one leemi to be

.1

u K-r

then

eith<

< these.
mail,

judgment
tin

is

difficult

to

form.

The]
in

tie

erect,

So fax 11 end rather

.i|>it.ii

letteri

otu

<

m<

stiff,

bat

preeent

no

specie]

feature leve tint A,

a ami
which
is

not terminete in a point at the top, but

in a

short horisontel itrol

in

body of the
At

text,
.1

minuscules
the
first

in all

three Mss.,

we heve
is

bettei

meeni

ol

reaching

eonelusion.

general glance
-s

observation that occurs

tins

thet

in

whatever order

A
I

end

may

itand, the Euclid

]

between themi
having their

amounts

to the verdict that

A comes

lii

The

Euclid ami

\ [

differ

from

in

letters of a

uniform thiekness

while usu
is

apparently a broader pen, aims at varying his strokes to

some

Blight extent.

In all three the writing

most Carefully formed ami

ol
letters,

erect, but

inclines

more than
this

either of the others to round off the

while

A makes them
finish in

as abrupt as a continuous stroke will permit.

in
il

In

all,

the lines of the

letters generally

a dot or 'blob,' but

its

seems to be often managed by carrying

the pen a

little

back upon

stroke, while in
<r,

A
;

the scribe ends his lines with a distinctly formed

?l

dot

and Euc agree

in writing

as

""

gives

" .

In

is

written

^,

in

it

is

G
:

The

initial letters in

stand in the space between the perpendicular lines which bound the columns

like those of the Euc. they are quite plain,

and

differ

from the text only by being considerably

larger.

There
forms
nouns,

is

an even more noticeable formality

in the

breathings and accentuation.

While
its

( and Euc
care by the

give these with

*""'

some

variety
^**;

and inattention

as seen in the facsimiles,

emphasizes

*,

*"

*,

and Schanz says

that while 5lt often omit accents

is

on prepositions before
is

never does.

Ligature of letters

employed

freely

here, for example,

the opening

oi the Republic, the ligatures being indicated by a closer position of the letters so treated.

\0a

tl

at

/
s

dp

0(
Ot

(.
are not invariably so divided or

>/'

Composite names in the titles are marked by a line below the junction also they are marked when they are divided by the end of a line Opuar

marked

the Ms. but what occurs at the conclusions of the various works, a sample of which
It
is

almost uniform throughout. "

'

in the text.

There

in

the text

Ordinary words

is

almost nothing ornamental about

may be

given.

cv

THE PARMENIDES.
3
:n

iliU BJU

,i

We
of

pass

now
|

to

the

margins:

i.

(i)

The

speakers

are

usually

named

at

the

beginning

the margin.

each dialogue, the names being placed as a rule between the columns under the heading

TA TOT in two lines of small capitals, being contracted. The names are in minuscules. Changes of speaker are marked in the text by and in the margin by between the double bounding lines of the column, while outside these lines the name is generally
: ,

given, in full for the

first

appearance, and often, though not invariably, in contracted form afterwards,

thus

.%
(2)

Margin.

,
These are

^ ?
Col.
:

Margin.
\

Col.

The same hand,

or one indistinguishable from

for

it,

also puts in the margin a

number of scholia
has given at

and

brief notes,

and synonyms

words

in the text,

the spaces for these being sometimes ruled

in red.

in small capitals with ordinary contractions.

in the margin.

intervals various

symbols and remarks

Such are those

A
,
1.

ov

= XPWWV

82

V.

#=

Two

(3)

The same hand

for

Tip.

and the following

'

3*8 .

ii.

'
1

of these signs

may be compared
pp.
6,

^3f TH

with their counterparts in the mar6

v.
i.

gin

of our text,

15,

25;
the

'
18 27
r.
ii.

and the comparison

the

will

strengthen
of

TO

evidence

in

favour

r.

ii.

greater age of this codex.

OP,
3
1

24

r.

ii.

Other hands also appear, but it would need considerable expertness to distinguish them accurately. There appear to be two which use dark brown ink, one small and delicate, the other
ii.

Errors and
corT'C'iors.

We have seen that the owner somewhat larger both of a date decidedly later than the first. of the book claims to have revised it, and there are distinct traces of corrections upon erasures in the text, which are in the same ink as his closing statement, notably a considerable sprinkling Notes of his seem to occur on 10 r. i., 17 r. outer margin, 20 r., 25 v., of a thin capital h. Then there is the green hand already mentioned, and one which makes a few ugly notes 131 v. Schanz points out that the Ms. after being completed has been compared with other in pencil. ' V texts, and entries appear such as While the codex is written with admirable care, one can see on turning over its pages that
:

?,/

there are several sorts of errors in

it

which recur pretty frequently,

(a)

Omissions inadvertently

///

////

1/

.'/
.

iii.ulc
l

.11.

lupplied
"i
<

by running
iii.

th<

omitted words out

cut
al
\

into
;,

the

murgin

cithci
r.

I)

ill

>\

tome
Othei

in

hindi
corrected
by

,, .
theii

185
b

,
-

ii

\i,

>

(/)

irroi

are

erasurei

nrith

01

without

placed

(to

uu
t)

linguists

are concerned, Cobel holdi that erron arc perpetrated thui

cur
"J

1S5

r.,

107
liis

r.

(apparently
interest
ri

l>y

Conttantine),
i.

f, ii.

\\,

131
rl

r.

.1

othen
15
.1

which
sin. ill
i.

most
foi
i.

01 us
the
ii.

th.it

in

which the form

iSj

rep<
<
1

itedly

lubstituted
r.
i.

in

neali
51

letter

8...

original

being
i.

indistinguishable;
v.
ii.

>'<nr

twice,
oth<

1:,

55

r.

ii,
rfi

56
SeU,

v.

.jo,
r.
ii.

57
^

1.

if),

20 and 35,

with
In

nol

few

We
been
in

have likewise
left

15^

ami

13,

and elsewhere

()

leveral

ca
tied
V.
i.,

foi

wordi about which

(
:

for

some reason
rate
oi

the icribc was uncertain.

Tl

by
"<
1

1
ur,

ipedei Of asterisk
another is)
v.,
ii.

),

at

the

twelve to a line:
oZv

22,

is

f + +

^.,

one <ase
r.

is
i.

54
;

where
linei
line
is

five
<>,

another 240
;

where

10

ii

drawn from twelve each, 1 fourth in one case the one referred to above in epistle The most serious patch in the codex, combining the word before the ipace to that after it. both erasures, blank spaces, ami words entered on nich ipaces, occurs in the last of the ipurioi
and extends over eleven lines, the last three of coL i. and first eight of <ol. ii. in There are, of before him. 1 v. It seems clear that here the writer had an incomplete text J S< han/ hi course, gaps in the text which only one who has collated it carefully can discover. * ivolov Rep. IIL, 400 A, and done so, ami finds at least the following of 15 lettersrota <, and 783 B, wai8er 783 , two large gaps from Laws VL, 745 , Ouus 745 c,
dialogues,
1

*{

of

which

674 699 and afterwards supplied, he finds that they contain respectively, 17, 17 or 16, 15, 17, 18, 18 letters. He then assumes that these represent lines of A's original, and that the large gaps In A the lines are about represent columns which at the same rate would have about 40 lines. original was of the same size that the has lines. thinks Schanz 21-3 letters, and the page 44
letters

represent

and

respectively

Taking

several

the

passages

omitted

and arrangement, but written

in

majuscules and so containing less per line and

col.

He

cites

omissions of 46, 41, 39, 37, 35, 39, 4S, 46, 44, 35 letters, which seem to him multiples of lines. It is noteworthy that the unmutilated lines in the Flinders Petrie papyri comprise 22-26 letters.
It

may be added
'

that
...

Graux, a high authority on palaeographic questions, considered that two

le
le
is

j.u,

unsigned Mss.

Palatinus des Paradoxograph.es (No. 398, a Heidelberg), et de Venise (Afardatms 246) are by the same hand as Paris A. So far as the latter
savoir
'

Damascius
concerned,

the facsimile given in the

'

Melanges Graux

'

seems

to

leave no

room

for doubt.

We

conclude Pam,
'"" i''r

Cobet with very slight At the left side 145. the writing begins uniformly from the inner of the two perpendicular bounding lines of the column, but on the right it stops irregularly at any point between the inner and outer of these lines which may be found convenient. The same holds of all manuscripts as a rule and the
our description

by giving

the

contents of one page of the

Ms.,

after

corrections.

It

represents the opening of the Critias on the face of

foi.

practice

is

exemplified in our text.

are of a strictly regulated size

But the printed reproductions, as is natural where the letters instead of being hand-made in each case, exaggerates the inequalities

which occur.
original;

We do not undertake that the stops are invariably correct. Commas are rarely and while there are in use three points, upper, middle and lower ('.), the second is
When
to

not represented here.

In

have inverted what was the original significance of the first and last. The middle one, is considered to have been the least forcible, and the comma, for greater clearness no doubt, gradually superseded it.

modern times we appear

//

,
letters

are not large

it

is

not easily distinguished from the

first.

cu

THE PARMENIDES.
+ +

'.
TIM

'
, ,^ .

.
>

Changed

to

7'

'

' #
'

?/
/>

,'

6eo>v

,
*

Should be

CobeL

,
~<

' , '(
>)

' '
'

?,

, ', ' , ' , / / , '

'
:

'

'' , '
2

' ^,

.
'

//^

' . /

, ],

' .
yap

dypoi

yap

ti's

'

'

, *

, //^
>/

.
'

'-

. '
tow

. '

////

CHIEF MANUSi
peat

MPT
own
manuscript, which n
it

Tin
is

.-

1.

\,
<>i

\\
;).'
\<

now

to what maj be called our

certain
ol

known
'.li.ill
..(,

'VI'

'Clarke
a

Eta

hiitory
I
..",

hai

romantii
a
s<

interest

was written
"I
tl,.
I

Ire

about
li

thousand

"

the ordci
hii

liolarly

d igniter)

in

Church, and
pages.

believed ill to beat

historic

tracee oi
is

ownership.
r.

These Cuts we
In

learn

from

its

own

Oui

tirst

trace of
tin-

it

many
title,

centui
it

the

Vatican

library

there
thin
n.i
T/ -.

codex DUmbered 1105, of catalogue oi books with the following

.1

sixteenth century, which,

Hn-.
<

app
-.//...r,,/..

among
,,.,
<

<>tii.-r

rQv
gUC

,,

rfji

s, r i.,
ln<

'/>""'
nante

cr/.i.rM./Mvcii

/)/..

)f

this

.it.il<

>

Ml
1
1

'

<

onl.

tti

>

luit

Catalo-

it gi?ee the >c*r recentiot occorrit' foanne Palaeologo, <iui anno 1355 floruit j nee names of 58 woiks (n).); and among the entries is the following, the only one which COrrespOfl
1

to .mv

item
n.

in

(.'Luke's

list,

Aiiyix

StMcpdrovt,
i"i\/'t

sw

1)

<</>\'i'

&**,
/}%'
"\<s

7rt/.i

.'.<n'.)i.

'\\

vm$repol

<*>

-"

NMTff'

TOU

Alt'i-wi-,

"

<)>1

/'"i

o.tim

(si<

).

we thus learn that the no possible doubt about manuscript was in the library ol the Monastery of St. John at I'atmos in the middle of the In this library, sad to say, fourteenth century, being then more than four hundred years old. rot, had it not, like the Elgin marbles, been carried off by it would probably have been left to
There can
be
the identity
of the work, and

At the opening of the present century Dr. Edward Daniel Clarke, in the course of his long visit to the countries lying round the Levant, met with the following in< ident A poor little shopkeeper in Cos had been mentioned, by the French in the island of Cos Consul, as possessor of several curious old books. We therefore went to visit him, and were Surprised to find him in the midst of his wares, with a red nightcap on his head, reading the
a

countryman of our own.

'

'

rtL,p
fr

'

<i.
1

Odyssey of

Homer

in

manuscript.

This was

fairly written

upon paper, with

interlineary criticisms,

and a commentary
rhetoric,

in

the

margin.

He had

other manuscript volumes,

containing works upon

poetry, history,

books.
I'atmos,

Nothing could induce him to part with any of th< The account he gave was that some of them were copies of originals in the library

and theology.

at

and
to

that his father

had brought them to

Cos.

They were
library,

intended, he said,

for

Ins

son,

who was

be educated
;

and the Holy Land in Cos and making arrangements

4

Patmos monastery.' The but they did not forget the Patmos
in the

travellers

went on their way to Egypt

in

and

1801

they were again

officer of Discovery

to visit

it.

On

Tuesday, October the

of Riley arrived.
to visit

sixth, as

we were

sitting

with

the Governor, a

Greek

or the

the
that

name

He

conversed with great fluency in the Turkish language.

Hearing
raos

CTip ''

Patmos he requested a passage thither. On Wednesday our interpreter, Antonio, returned in a small caique, manned by a single family of the Island of Cases. The vessel was old, and the large triangular sails were tattered and rotten. was, in fact, nothing It more than an open boat a man of middle stature with his feet in the hold had at least the half of his body above the deck. [We are reminded, indeed, of Lord Dundonald shaving on board the Speedy, "with his looking-glass on deck and his feet in the cabin.] We hired this vessel, and by the next evening we were desired to embark. At eight o'clock we were under weigh a land breeze drove us smoothly along; and the Casiots began their evening hymn. This reminded us

we intended

of a passage in Longus,

who,

custom

'

while they rowed, one of the crew sang to them

ol 6e
.

_,
1

he next morning, October the ninth, Samos appeared most beautifully

Scala 1
in

-,
in

the

very seas

we were now
:

traversing,

describes

similar

Lib.
I7 ~ s "

HL Peri*,

\poS,

_<

_ r>is (Keivov
> '

,
>)'

>

Ic ma y haw been so called

'
.

from the steep

in view,

covered by a

^^
wUc!

the

silvery mist, softening every object, but concealing none.

At eleven o'clock

a.m.

we entered the
at,

Monastery

port of

Patmos.

In

order to prevent our caique from being fired

as a pirate

the landing

civ

THE rARMENIDES.
(which she probably had been),
the

vessel

we had

selves

taunts

of

Frenchmen on

their

hoisted an English flag [thus drawing upon themway home from the campaign in Egypt, " Pavilion

Anglais!

Tremblez, Messieurs!"].

The monastery

of the Apocalypse
the highest
for the

is

situate

two miles and a

half from the quay,

upon the top of a mountain

in

part of all the island, close to

the town of Patmos. The ascent is steep When we arrived at the monastery, we were and rugged, but practicable for asses and mules. It may be explained that Patmos has a quite struck by its size and substantial appearance.' west coast running pretty fairly north and south, from the extremities of which two lobes run off irregularly to the eastward, being separated by a deep bay, which almost cuts the island in The very innermost recess of this bay is the harbour of two, like an ill-shaped sand glass. La Scala, from which the town and monastery lie due south. Whilst the travellers are enjoying
set off, without further

We

delay,

Convent.

their unequalled prospect

we may

seize the opportunity of throwing our extracts into such divisions

as will contrast the view seen from without with the circumstances existing within.

Without.
and
to

'It

is
;

very powerful
if

fortress,

built

upon a steep

rock,

with

several

towers

lofty thick walls

and

duly mounted with guns, might be

made

impregnable.

According

Tourne/ort,

it

is

said

to

have been founded by Alexius

;

Comnenus, in consequence of the

himself founded the monastery,

persuasion of

St.

Christodulus

but Dapper

relates, that the saint

towards the end of the tenth century, when he retired to Patmos, to avoid the persecution of Nothing can be more remarkable than the situation of the town, built upon the the Turks.

edge of a vast

crater,

sloping

off,

on

either

side like the

roof of a tiled house.

Perry has

compared
inhabitants

it

to

"an

asses

hack": upon the highest ridge of which stands the monastery.

for

The

have

no space

exercise,

they can

only descend and ascend to the harbour.

is

On one

of the towers of the monastery, a look-out

regularly kept for pirates.

to enjoy the prospect from this place.

The

sight

was extremely magnificent.

We returned We commanded

the whole island of Amorgos,

which

is

nearly forty miles

from the nearest point of Patmos:

and were surrounded by many of the grandest objects in the Archipelago. As we descended off, upon our right, to visit a smaller edifice from the great monastery of St. John, we turned of the same nature, erected over a cave, or grot, where the Apocalypse is said to have been written. As to the cave itself, it may be supposed that any other cave would have answered have afforded a habitation even for a it is not spacious enough to the purpose fully as well like school something a held in the building erected about this hermit. There seemed to be cave but the only monk w ho showed the place to us, and who appeared to superintend the
: r

seminary, was not

much

better informed than his godly brethren in the parent monastery.

it

The

women
that
it

of the island, here collected as

is

were upon a single point, are so generally handsome,

an uncommon sight to meet with any who are otherwise. There are several bells at The enjoyment of the noise is the monastery, which the monks are frequently ringing. bells being prohibited by the Turks. Perhaps there is not a considered a great indulgence spot in the Archipelago with more of the semblance of a volcanic origin than Patmos, the ports In the evening we amused ourselves in fishing. of the island have the appearance of craters.
;

The harbour appeared

swarming with the most beautiful fishes, of all colours; the water being as clear as crystal, the fish, tempted from their haunts among the marine plants We were much struck by the extraordinary were seen distinctly whenever they took the snare. intensity of the deep blue colour of the sea, which is as much a distinguishing characteristic of
as
literally

the Archipelago as the brightness of

Within. 'We

its

sky.'

refectory.

We

were received by the Superior and by the Bursar of the monastery in the asked permission to see the Library, which was readily granted. We entered
having a
vaulted
stone roof;

small

oblong chamber,

and found

it

to

be nearly

filled

with

////

CH
ted

..,
.iii.l

..

.ill

mo
I

ii

itate;
.

tome
but

lying

upon the
lem,
t,

floor,

pi

>i'

to woi

indin

upon

ih< Ive
Cot

without

the shelves
valuable,
onlj as

were

nil

printed

volume;
itation

these
d

being

more
the

and had
10

ttei

them than
bo
hi

many

ol

which
n

much
to

rubbish
Superioi

Some
said,
theii

ol

the

printed

bound, and

in

condition

these

were
.

but
that

when we took
neithei
th

down
the
ity

two

them
were
them,

examine
t<>

content

we discovered
confused

colleague

able
l>ut

read

Thej
ol

had
theii

traditional")

recollection

<
At

some
ol

knent
is

no more
opposite

contents than the Grand Signior.

this

chamber, which

to

the

window,
thai

considerable

parchment,
disorder;

some with covers and some and there were evident proofs
purpose
for

without,

were
might

heaped
been
be

numbei ol old upon the floor, in

cast

volun
the

utroo

these

had

aside,

and

condemn
we
I

answer

an)

which
was,

the

parchment
a

requi

When
ion
literar)

Superior what the)

were?
1
1

he replied, turning up his nose with an

It

of ind
travelli
hi

contempt,

JO to

indeed,
his
set

moment
for

in

which

supposed
entirely
ol

doubt the evidence of

the

whole of
ol

this

contemned
habituated

Greek manuscripts, and some of them were

the

highest antiquity.
in

What
with

be

done?
nificant

We

referred

the

matter

to

Mr,
a

RL
it

to

person
place,

knavish

Greeks;

and
author,
ol

presently

such

jabbering

took

accompanied
lik

with
'

ny

shrugs, winks,

nods, and grimaces, that

was plain something

inspect

going
the

on.

The

meanwhile,
Grecian
first

continued

to

fairest

specimen
character;
in

caligraphy
of

which
Piata,

has

the heap; and had soon It was descended to modern times.

copy of the twenty-four

exquisite
single
a

Dialogues
with
in

written

throughout

upon vellum,
caligraphist

in

the
It

san

concluding

date,

and

the

name

of

the

was
pie*
:

volume
label

folio,

bound
the

wood.

paper

appeared on

back,

inscribed,
stars,

The cover was full of worms and in a modern hand,

all

falling

to

b
tl

the letters of
first

Plata S name, separated by

appeared very distinctly as a head piece

further enquiry

to

page of the manuscript.

Alter removing these volumes

was stopped

Mr. Riley. lie concealed two of the smaller volumes in his Turkish habit, entrusting to the honour of the two Caloyers the task of conveying the others on board our vessel. The next day we were again admitted to the Library. Some of the inhabitants of the town thought

proper

accompany us. The Superior took occasion Bursar were willing enough to part with the brought them any gain, the people of Patmos, acting as
to

.',

to

assure

uSj
if

that
it

both

he and

the

but that

were known to ha-

make

it

the

spies for the Capudan Pasha, would cause of a very heavy imposition upon the monastery. This day we dined

with the monks.'

The scene now changes

no doubt,

to

the deck

of the caique.

The Capudan Pasha

in

referred

to,

is,

identical with the Capitan

Pasha often mentioned

Finlay's

History.

He

seems

to

have been a sort of high admiral with charge of the islands and coasts of the Aegean.

and
to

'The Capudan Pashas letter enabled us to order bread from the island for our voyage: this the monks promised to see provided. The whole of Sunday, October the
.

eleventh,

was
the

passed

in

great

anxiety,

being

the

day on which had

the
left

the

Superior

had engaged
to
fear,

send

remaining
that

manuscripts.
his

Mr.

Riley

and

we
for

began
breach

as

evening approached,

absence

might

become

pretext

of

contract.

Towards sunset,
discerned
presently,

a
as

person

the deck of our caique and looking towards the mountain, we coming down the steep descent from the monastery towards the port he drew near, we perceived that he had a lar^e basket upon his head, and that
:

being upon

CV1

THE PARMENWES.
Upon

he was coming towards the quay, opposite to the spot where our vessel was at anchor.
his
arrival,
;

we saw him making signs for a boat and we sent to him the little skiff belonging As he came alongside, he said, aloud, that he had brought the bread ordered to our caique. for us but coming upon deck, he gave a significant wink, and told us the Superior desired that we would 'empty the basket ourselves, and count the loaves, to see that all was right.' We took the hint, and hurried with the precious charge into our berth; where, having turned
;

bottom upwards, we found, to our great joy, the manuscript of Plato, the Poems of Gregory, the works of Phile, with the other Tracts, the two volumes containing the Greek Musical Notes, and the volume of Miscellanies containing the Lexicon of St. Cyrill: these
the basket

we

one of our cots; and making a grand display of the loaves, returned with the basket upon deck, giving a handsome present to the porter, and all was desiring he would inform the Superior, with our most grateful acknowledgments, that
instantly concealed beneath a mattress in
'

perfectly right!

Having

set

him again on
In

shore,

we gave
design

orders to our captain to have every-

thing ready for sailing the next morning, possible;

and
this

to stand out of the port as

soon

after sunrise as

intending to leave Patmos.

we

were, however, disappointed.'

\Vhen

a few days later they insisted on putting to sea, they found, as their captain had predicted, that a
furious storm

We [ch. ii.] passed like lightning within a cable's length of was raging outside. some dreadful rocks, over which the sea was dashing as high as our mast head until getting under the lee, to the south of Naxos, we ran the vessel aground, close to a small creek, upon
'

some
thread

white

sand.

Like

true

shipwrecked
all

mariners,

wet

to

the
to

skin,

and without

dry

on

board,

we opened

our

stores

upon the rocks

expose our clothes to the

;

but, to our great joy, beams of the sun. Every article of our linen was completely soaked We had put them into a small but stout the Patmos Mam/scripts had escaped, and were safe. wooden box in the stern of the vessel; and had covered this with every article of canvas, etc., In a note, Dr. Clarke adds, 'This manuscript [the Plato] after the that could be collected.' author's return to England, remained in the hands of his friend the late Professor Porson until In 1809 it was bought by the Curators of the Bodleian Library. his death.'
:ents.

M.S.
A.C. D.CCC.XCVI.
MS.
Clark.

The
Library
/->
:

following

is

Gaisford's

entry

in

the

Catalogue

of

the

Platonis Dialogi xxiv. hoc ordine The book then follows the list, to which the scholia are added. which is bound somewhat handsomely in leather of a chocolate brown
has the annexed
title

^ Oy

Codex membranaceus

ff.

418, anno 896 exaratus

....

on

its

back.

The boards
1.

are lined with vellum.

:

On

the lining of the

first

are the following interesting entries

At the top Clark

'

39.

Totum hunc codicem ad edit. H.

diligenter contuli.

Stephani

T. G.

31 Aug. 1813.'

Prof. Gaisford published this as Lectiones Platonicae.

2.
'

little

lower, apparently by Porson,

comes

Idem

scriba, qui

totum codicem exaravit,

also

tetralogias et dialogos

numeravit.'
3.
'

Near the middle,

by him

(?)

39

Humeri, atramento

scripti,

e registro evanuere.'

Which seems

to refer to the register of quaternions

on the

flyleaf opposite.

Then

follow four leaves of clean vellum, the face of the

it

first

being occupied by an index of the

dialogues in two columns, and below

the register just mentioned, chiefly in red but with

some

nu
black
i.\

C/lil !

1/

..( hll
and
eal
I..

entri

TheM

an

moil

exquisitelj

written

have

si

the

top

thi

note,

ipporcntly

laiiford

'Tabula quae lequitur, a nanu m. A.M., n.li Poi

(

eruditii imi

viri

ProC

ml.'

\iu-i

these

leaves
i">

come i"

imallei
ii

onei

terribly

discoloured,

and

covered

wi(

Aristotelian natter
re

a late hand, which

ditcueacd by Schanx,
that

Wt now
in

reach the text, which

u
th<

tabulate by
that

title

and conclusion, premising

all

the ityle maj

tin

be gathered from oui

nedlj
in

and

the titles occur at

position in the

page) only

margin, others being there by accident merely

Title

02
\
.

top

.
faded,
tl

')
[A]
I

>

'<

)>n'oi'

rctpaoTtKos

The

title

is

very

mm h

iu!

;v.

'"<//'>>'

-'

(,

"

uonl having lost all iti mk. The e11tr.1l marks the tetrali
first
<

the marginal

of the

dial

Foot

gone.
the

Below the Hourish

conclusion
stands
in

alter

the

r.

%
r.

middle of the page formed A, with leaf ornament.

Ii

a very finely

faint,

reddish.
;

Here also
for

top

follows a beautiful
^o/v/ic'tois

orna-

20

ment see

text, p. 29, top.

foot

20
lop

V.

in

:6r.

jt

/(>
?'j

The

outer margin of 20
is

is

gone

but

there

room

for

in the

/)(

title,

of which,

however,

there

seems no trace, either directly or by marks of damp ink (as there is

of

and -) on next page.

follows again.
is

A
j dr. 2 7

and seems to have been touched before it was

clearly later,

5 8r.i 3

K/XITvAoS

./

'

0eaiTi/TuS
)/

/)<

\]$

dry,

again.

II.

Contractions for want of room.

Con-

clusion on a scrape in lower margin

^v.34

below the usual ornament, whose

left

side

is

very elaborate, there

is

83 r. top
1

'^*
r.

another long scrape.

///)/5
7/>

The

title

on a scrape

in

upper margin

has lines ruled for

it.

patch at

7>;/>/

the outer part of the vellum hides

any adjective

in

-#cos.

CV111

r.

"

THE PARMENJDES.
7
tov"Oi'tos

/^
Orros

The

adjective
rest.

is

clearly redder than

the
-if>l

136

v.

36 v. 30

BcuriAetas
/

Second

half
is

of

title

is

dark

the

adjective
e

as in the last case.

154

r.

6?
III.

See the text and facsimile.

The

adjective as above.

73 . 13
I

-'HSovrjs

)
e

Adjective clearly different ink.

198

v.

7 'HSom'Js

98 V. 30

223V.34

,
V

" "
7
e
s

The mark
title in

refers to

the outer margin

flour.

which, like the

Four

leaf

ornaments follow the

^ ,
an alternative

is

reddish.

conclusion instead of the usual

224 .
top

/305
IB

?
flour.

flourish below.

Title in upper margin with a red

line for
is

it

Above
red.

it

is

FA.
sign

faint

The
is

248^34

above
swer
it,

has nothing to anas the margin

cut away.

248
top

v.

'

No

flourish

below the ending.

a.

IV.

\
~

'
/

Title in upper margin with a coarse

263

r.

red line through

it.

Above A
conclusion

is

a careless IE.

The

is

darker than the text

203.2

'.

269

V.

'

'

The

adjective differs
title

and

is

redder

both

and

conclusion
text.

are

darker than the

////

C///A7

.)

[
'
"

<</> \

*
\% *
*/

'
IS

'/

!
.

In

the
uiili
<:

rr/>'

darl
V.

7
77 >

ftatcvTiK

In

the

margin
rest

ii

.'''

with the adjet

ti\<

r.

/''/'

'/

<>'/>/

'"""

'/.

the

The

coni

darker.

>8ar.37
111

1 1'</)/)"<

rtipOOTtM

The adjective differs, and U The conclusion is darker.

redder.

.'94

ff

995
top

'

\<
10

p/uvrtK4

307 .

.\\<;

i'j

t /!

307 9

'?

?
Ai'tri?

?
6

Title

in

upper margin with

red

line:

above

it

KA

slightly dim,

by
is

a later hand.
faint red.

The

adjective

fuuevrue.

The

317 .

317 top
0J 6

.
r.

and is redder, the conclusion comes below the flourish, but is in the same ink as
adjective differs
the text

VI.

/)"?

^'/?

?
h'StLKTiK

Title in
in

upper margin
This

S of tetralogy
Ev^vS^/ws,
leave a clear

red.

letter,

and

initial T, all

impression on the next page.

The
care-

336 . 7

?
rji

name, whose ink

lessly

is

gone,
in

is

rewritten

later

brown.

resembles the
is

title.

The

conclusion

below the

flourish.

The

adjective differs.

3 6Sv.

cx
e

THE PARMENIDES.
/ryias

368v.11

'>///5

//^
7 Fqropunp
/

The

adjective differs, and

is

redder.

To
405
r.

get the conclusion

into the

Topyias
( e

line the usual

preceding : _, has

ben eraseti

405 r.

'/

77 r

'A/jeTiJs

The

adjective differs,

and

is

redder.

4S

v.

See facsimile

Here

follows the

Colophon

or

Subscriptio, of which hereafter.

Then come three leaves covered with quorum secundo index dialogorum inscriptus in a reversed position, as some of the letters
attitude.
style and details.

stains,

and

'

manibus

inelegantissimis

polluta

in

These have been formerly bound of the colophon are impressed upon them in that Finally three clean leaves have been inserted at the end by the binder,
est
'

(Schanz).

The vellum
Setting

of

21

is

distinctly

less

robust than that of A, and sometimes rather delicate.

21*6
7-6

aside

the binding, the measurements of the codex are 32*2

33-6
23-3

centimetres,
leaves

or

with

the

binding,

8 q

in

the

course

of binding some
will

of

the
is

have got
with

slightly out

of true line laterally or vertically.

As

be seen, the writing

not in columns

the

written

space measures pretty exactly 20*3

inner
2,

i4"6.
7 6
-

The
;

widths of the margins are,

slight

variations,

upper

4*5, outer

7,

lower
or,

the

upper and

still

more the lower

and

are curtailed in the facsimiles.

The

quaternions

as Porson calls them, plagulae, are 52

Porson has missed two, and afterwards marked them in*, in the table above, the paging is after Porson's. The 359*, so that the total comes to 420 twentieth quaternion, beginning after fol. 151, has got displaced, and is bound up after the
half.

In numbering the leaves

Porson at first thought it lost, but found out and 352-59 noted the' facts in his exquisite hand. Thus eight leaves in our table, representing, according
forty-fifth,
ff.
:

so as to be

numbered

to to

Porson, Steph.
the
Politicus.

11.

289D

307A
list,

The
:

quaternions were lettered

Porson's

nearer the outer edge

lost in black,
1.

must be taken from the Protagoras and added as in our edition, page 29, but very much which gives those that remain in red and those that are
facts,

?,

2.

no longer quite agrees with the has been renewed. A MS, MZ, IA, IB,

which are these

3.

, MH , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
MB,

can be read with ease.

easily.

ME,

can be read but not

KA, KB,

S,

IZ,

KZ, AA, AB, KE, AS, AZ,

show NB,

,
v.,

slight or all but invisible traces.

with others that are legible,

show a reversed
4.

trace of themselves

, ,

I,

IH,

KH, AH,

MA

are totally

on the previous page. gone, and in the places where

is

IE, IS,

, KS, A
which
injur}'

were the vellum has become perforated or

of 184
torn away, yet

otherwise injured.

The

letters

are entire closely resemble those of the second part of the subscriptio.
is

The margin

KE

show reversed on 183

which proves that the

was
P
.

later

than the lettering.

is

xcvi.i

The method

of ruling

quite analogous to that of the Paris Ms.,

but simpler from the

perpendicular
lines

absence of columns in the page.

In each page there

are

two

double

bounding the written space on left and right. These and the first and last of the lines used for writing extend to the edge of the vellum, while the other lines for writing are drawn exactly on

nil
the

run
The arrangement
,;

/,///

principle

ol

thoie

in

Paris
fl

ol

the

*i

Xhe
ins
ii.

i'u<
7

eontaininj

end

li

laid

with the projcctii

piece*
repeal

down*
thin
in
1

has
.1

them

upwards,

end the two remaining

line,

an

writing hangi
ol

little

Irregular!)

from the

and

Is

ol

dark brown

the

marginal addition; there are, however, ai we h

scholit eb
are
in

red

in

th

tome
(

black
the

others
the

in

green.
will
l>.

the

charactei

o(

writing

examplei

the

ng

letten have two forms

>>

the latter rare and generally

a1

the endi of

lint

the lattei the

latter

rare,

sometimes marking paragraph.

rare,

G
li

<S-

verj

cursive;

Plate

111.

footj

third

form

bination.
(

two forma analogous

Jc

to

those

ol

;-

In-low:

see Plate

in

11

both are found

both
the

the lattei

not frequent

/
u

common,
lattei

singlj

or double
after
,

common
hi.

aa

in

ovv

wv,

with

which
form

it

combines:
of
is

it

Plate

and elsewhere.
/>'

This

almost

in

tinguishable from

and

in

sunn

3^,5

ri.uo in.

3,

5j

former

less

frequent

Compare .
It
is

the latter cursive, chiefly in combination.

In the cases of
a, y,
c",

almost identical with

7.

one of the forms

Its

is

a survival

of the older majuscule writing

in

common up
Mss.

to

the

eighth century.

forms gradually reasserted themselves

later

minuscule

There

is

considerable

amount of
a,
or,

ligature
<nr,

used
]5ut

in

the
is

writing

the

connection

being

specially close

usual

for

between the

letters

cut.

there
line

almost no contraction save the

a

and

that

generally

at

the

end of a
even
if

with

view to

economise room.
Iota subscript

Words divided between

can be
initial

lines

are the

not connected in any way, and

next line
:

all

consonant groups which

is

are

carried

to

in

owe

is

so

treated.

always postscript, and

sometimes small and dark as

inserted

afterwards.
""

Both

and

arc
letters

usually larger at the beginning of a word,

and then have

a rule,

as a rule

over them.

The

which project into the

or
in

left

margin indicate that a new paragraph has begun, either with them

the

previous

line.

They
;

are

not,

as
like

majuscules, but minuscules of consideral

larger size

than the
after

text.

While very

the

text,

they look in

a good

many
8
v.

cases

as

if

patched on

an erasure 220

which seems to point to the idea that the constitution of a para-

graph
23,

in

the
v.,

particular case

was an afterthought
v.

Instances are
a'),

r.

25,

31,
29,

or.

7, v.

16, 14,

74

20S

r.

20,

iS (this

is

an

'

Arethas

231

v.

16,

240

r.

256

2 57 v. 17,

than
in

The Ms. is quite appreciably more ornamented 295 r. 27, 395 v. 8, 400 v. 27. this appears not merely in the flourishes which are seen in the facsimiles, but likewise

letters of the dialogues. The first of these is illegible, but most of the others are and handsomely formed, although in the usual brown ink of the text The following general observations on the writing may be useful, while there are minor variations in size, colour, and such matters 1. The text seems to be by one hand throughout. 2. The titles, endings, flourishes, and initial letters seem to be by one hand very likely the original one, but after the text was finished. The concluding adjectives in however, are by a different hand.

the

initial

clear

-,

CX 11
3.

THE
While the capital
tetralogies
letters

ARMENIDES,
strong
general

have a

resemblance,

those

which

mark

the

of the subscriptio

and dialogues have no ornament and bear a closer likeness to the first part those which number the quaternions always have a leaf ornament
:

4.

below and bear a closer likeness to the second part of the subscriptio. While the impression of a letter on the page opposite, from the ink being wet, is pretty frequent, this affects the body of the text only at outer corners, probably from damp
getting in
;

in other cases

The

accents and breathings are not quite uniform in character,

so carefully done as those of comma-shaped. A hyphen _

190

r.

34,

',
is

A
is

271

The punctuation
It
is

(:)

for

original they certainly are not always so,

difficult

to

decide

Some

are clearly very old, others

the text, as is done comments and both are As a rule the antique

patches

i.

in the text, either

So

far
5
v.

On
31
in

hand or by one so like it as to make distinction very difficult. as corrections are concerned, there are two at least which seem almost certainly original. and in the margin stands v. 31 the text gives Again on opposite which and the two following lines stands 32 we have in the text
by the
original

the outer margin Tp.

for

the hand of the text.

symbols

and it is noteworthy that they are often, together with such phrases as which accompany them, smaller and finer than many of the old notes, in which respect they correspond exactly with similar entries on the margin of the Lucian in the British Museum, of which hereafter. Some of these comments, like those in A, run perpenlarge

on too

, , *
On
a
scale,
:

. ,
V.
8,

a change of speaker;

;
used

it is

confined to letters of quaternions,

titles,

and marginal
in

the apostrophe,
at times

if

it

is

of equal age with the text,

in

to

mark the junction

V. (.),

275

^3>
()

34

<

and never, save

compound
and
If (
laid

and
the

() elsewhere.

.
notes.

the
is

titles,

always
e.g.,

words,

,)

are ever

and

in

the

first

comma seems

on
in

its

back.

how many

hands,

and
:

of

what ages,
page,

appear
the

the

margin.

more or

less recent

of the latter are the black hand

which

for

instance

on the
in

closing

and

green

hand which

scholia are entered

the

margin, and certain corrections

a par with these old scholia and corrections seem to stand the usual
etc.,
;

-, |

ttvai

\.

made

It is

impossible to distinguish these from

such as are given in the margin of our text.

There they appear

however

dicularly.

Samples are

(3

64

r.

317 .

In some cases, as on 10 v., such a note has been

neatly

impressed
position

in

217
32 .
<

reversed

upon
1 1 r.

the page opposite,

A
2

the
all

original

being

left

25

but blank. of the old

scholia

"0

S
.*

Some
are

tr

/.,
2
\

kv

,;
I

disposed

in

orna-

225 V

mental shapes, and some

are
illustrated

'

by

dia-

These

last are in capitals,

"

grams.
II

and introduce various readings.

'

////

Cllll -

VI

A/,

v.
ill,

nl\

..
71

beloi

ItttCn

.il|.li.il.cli.

ill

of

Cratylui *nd Symposium, to which Schani refcra

iiw

m<

in

rhcnctctus he regards ua divisions

ol

the

argument
including
the
in

They occui
from
ft
to
I

at

aim
irhich
h

il

intei
<d< Ith

varying

from 68 to
in ol

lines,

but occasional!}

uniform quantity
then
the

previoui
letten
in ol

Ma,
text

Supp<
Included
in

numbering
division

line,

numbei
ol
.;,'

each

yields

line

the Cratylui and

this

the late Ch.

Graux on

iii

34] subject, 'donneni regulierement

revienl

the

Symposium,
pour

Now
la
.'

when divided by < known .ill

which forms the
in

s,

says

valeur du
avi

de

;j

,\

38

is

environ, ce qui

a quinze ou
that
this

length of the hexameter

for tin great
ii.

And

Birt

considen

was the normal length

literarj

market,
noting the speakers
1

Besides the late black and green hands (the latter of which, b
.it

at

the opening of the Cratylus, appears on the following pages

1.,

least

r.,

8
v.,

r.,

15

r.,

14

v.

2.x,

and next 368 v.), brown hand which inserts in contracted form between the lines the names of the there is speakers in the Phaedo, Hipparchus, Theagea j patches the words which happen to be injured at His symbols, C^/, the outer ends of the top lines; supplies gaps (236 7), and makes notes.
53

60

v.,

65

v.,

7.1

v.,

83

v.,

then on

t4

v.,

long

note on

225

a brutal

etc.,

seem
iii.

to begin at
is

956.

It

may be

said that wherever the speakers arc noted

it

is

done by

a late hand, which

very different from the practice in

is

.
at

The

last
it.

hand

that of Porson,

who

uses bright red ink, and adorns the page wherever

several points the corresponding

he touches

Besides numbering the leaves, he has noted

pp. of Aldus.

Tims,

at the beginning,

he enters

'

AG

ed. Aid).,'

on

p.

r.

he has 'o ed. Aid).';

finally

sometimes, as in the

Parmenides, he inserts the number of the page alone;

he points out

the misplaced quaternion.

There are also evidences of correction in the manuscript; and here a nice question arises. We have seen above that the dialogues of the first tetralogy are marked at the close with a very elegant It is clear that this letter is not a numeral, both because of its recurrence and

.
it

because

has not the usual stroke above

Not improbably. It is a tempting thing to suppose that at the top of 224 r., which precedes but this is far from likely. The A does not look old, the Phaedrus, means and we must note that above the next dialogue in the same position stands IE, while above the Laches stands KA, all which facts point to a numerical signification in this case. 1. As in the Paris Ms., there are additions made in the margins to complete the text where We give noteworthy cases of this without pretending omissions had occurred in transcription.
that they form a complete to
4
its
list.

;
'?;

it.

Does

it

represent the word

or

While the

text

is

put on that side of the page which corresponds

position in the original, the marginal additions are distinguished

rbv
iv

by smaller type.

r.

15

''

.
dition
is

Caused by the double

The adminuthe

in small

scules inclining to

5 v.

32 (following the correction

).
.
eivai

right

not

original.

Caused by the
double
Style
like

;.

~
ye

iyi) otv
-rj'

eiVo

somewhat No. .

!
2

(..

yap

Bios'

CXIV
3

THE PARMENIDES.

Apol.

16 . 15
Tt

8\
?'

4.

Crito

22

r.

24

?
ov
""
;

??

'"

, . '
00

Small, not very neat,

1

Trap

dark red brown.

Seems to be the same hand as No. r. (?)

'

, . ,^
24
V.

14

otroi

Caused by double
1

oCSels

Opposite

iarV.

'

vb

11.

6-1 8

small,

and

tU

like

Nos.

1, 4.

This hand appears twice on 32

additions
;

on 48

r.

r. ; on 23 v it gives a various reading ; on 46 a correction, and appears repeatedly in this dialogue the Phaedo.

v.

three short

6.

Phaedo.

and v. (34-1) This hand is very small and neat it makes many
51
r.

,' ' '

[gap of 6 letters]

/ '

/?
Same as No.

small changes from

page to page.

7.

Cratylus.

58

r.

21
1

ye

. $
.
as 6,
7.

8.

61

r.

14

?
105
v.

9.

Theaetet.

91

r.

16

On

106

r.

by what seems to be

, ? ,
ov.

'

is

the note.

Between the Seems the Dots show scrapes.

'

'

same hand,

ouV

,'

Same, but

less careful.

this

hand gives three various readings of considerable and another by

?.

length, prefacing

one

10.

Parmen.

one see our text page 33. It stands below line 26 and on on which its first portion rests. It closely resembles No. 3.
For
this

line 27 with

dumb

line

between

II. Philebus.

Caused by
This
is

.
178
V.
r.

6
the

hand

' : $
V

'

ei

<.

6.

of 6-9, but some-

what rough.
v.

On

188

r.

the
:

preceded by

At 229 r. there is a long same hand gives a various reading with a very fine pen has been used, the writing being smaller and neater than

the one on 105-6.

////

cm
fjpai

:'*

, /.

...

'.

oi

ink
r6
>

'V "/'"

but
1

t!

tbi

hand.

Ink law nv ;uul

writing
;

7 ttfC

ilightly

are
>

last

y r
It

in

apitals.

.
7

eea

'.

'7

An

addition
inly early.

it

>

>|U1

|4<

\7Tkttu

'/

7</y

>'

a are
capitals.

lo/u\>;v

Certainly early.

, another form
frequently occurs

of correction
It

is

erasure.

We

have seen that

this

occurs in the
is

titles

or

endings of several dialogues.

also appears in the

body of
hand.

the text, nor

the alteration that

upon

it

always the work of the

first

Thus
is

in

the Parmenides

and also

elsewhere, besides repeated changes of Ti 8i into

bat,

very frequently altered to

.
'

Of

the
3.

in

we have already spoken.

gaps
occur without
erasure
:

Sometimes

thus

Schanz says
igitur
p.

'

in

Protagora

lacunas complines
derivatus est hie

manu

recentissima suppletas

non potuisse

-[/]; ]; [(].'
]
;

4.

fruitful

post spatiam vacuum; p. 3 2 9 D \} In the same dialogue we have 341 r., 6 [space of 3 letters] source of difficulty is, as under the circumstances was natural, external injury (

[]

'^
legi.

concludere

debes codicem e quo Clarkianus

:

Suppleta autem sunt

329 c haec

'--

[ -]

]
;
'

[ .
licet
;

vidcre

[yap

The codex

has received at some time a severe squeeze which has

left

a bend or

crumple

ir.

the parchment

up the middle of the pages.

lines

The

outer angles also have both suffered from

first

z.

'dog-ear' fold which almost always reaches and has injured the

or last letters in the

first

and

last

two

of the page, which

letters

accordingly are

often

patched in a recent hand

is

either

brown or

black.

The

injury just noted,

is

especially at the upper corners,

all

considerably

increased by the action of damp, which

traceable

through the Ms., and has often destroyed

matter written in the upper margin.

From

the beginning to foL 44, and from

end
lost

in particular the leaves are so injured

by

damp and

friction

been necessary, as may be seen from facsimile 1. All the ink is gone from the initial word and only the shapes of the of p. 418 v. The parchment at its thinnest parts has holes which seem original, and which letters remain.
that a great deal of recent restoration has

413 to the probably the boards had beer.

fol.

accordingly cause no injury to the text

since

but a good deal of damage to the thinner sheets has

slight loss to

been done, often accompanied by

is

there

a hole with
2
r.

this result

32 Euthyphr. 5
33

<<

the text.

Thus near the

foot of

fol.

v.

Euthyphr. 6 6
ereioori

34

CXV1

THE PARMENIDES.
(underlined) in
1.

The gaps
xxx.

33 are supplied
this affects

in

the outer margins, those in 34 below, by the

ugly brown hand.

Again,

we have
:

to in connection with Vat.

236

r.

9 Phaedr.

252

II

r.

254

10
II

"
ToTeert
ita

the part destroyed by a dark acid, which has been referred

both sides of two leaves.

236

v.

Phaedr. 253

237

2 55

. -1,
2,

<(

Of
to
is

these the second and third passages together with discoloured words in lines 8 and 12 are
the first and last are not supplied, which seems had not at the time eaten through the two leaves. Sometimes the injury made good by adding new parchment and writing upon that. This is so in the outer margin fol. 20, but the injury is confined to the beginnings of lines 1-17 on the back, and is greatest
:

supplied by a later hand in the outer margin

show

that the acid

of

towards the'_top.
of lines

Again,

f.

21 (Crito 45
:

etc.) is

so patched, the injury being at the beginnings

etc.) on the front has lost letters at the f. 8, 9 on the back 35 (Phaedo 73 ends of 11. 1. 3-24, and on the back letters at the beginnings of 1-11: f. 38 (Phaedo 79 c, 80 c) has a hole filled up near the ends of 1-6 on the front, and near the beginnings of 1-7 on the back: f. 83, see title of Theaetetus: f. 178 r. (Phileb. 21 e) 'schedula allita abscondit

i-6,

literas
fol.

extremas versuum septem

r.

tamen ut
8,
ff.

folio

contra lucem verso possint

legi,'

(Schanz)

189

(Phileb. 45 e) a patch at the outer side conceals four letters in lines

two

letters

in lines 3, 4, 6,

one

letter in

lines 5,

7,

9.

There are
159
are
is

or worn away without being replaced:

ixxx.

157,

injury has

ensued.
is

The
is

chief scene of such accidents

f.

where the margin is cut the Parmenides but no the Philebus in f. 184 the text on
also places

cut

away

in

both sides
Part of
a"

injured for 13 lines: in

lost

185 for two, 186 for one, 187 for three, 188 for two.

scholium

by a cutting of the margin of

oil

A
Subscript, with
Dotes, chiefly on
t

good many yellow spots of wax, cedar pages of the Ms.

224 at the beginning of the Phaedrus. or some such substance are scattered over the
f.

We now

come

h e original than in the facsimile.

21.

Arethas, owner
of the Ms.

'
25.

' .
..

to the Subscriptio.

The

writing

is

small majuscules, which are clearer in

The words are as

follows,

and
letters

to these notes are

added:

The

' ^
ire

' *

30.

'

'
-

,,
fly-leaf,

are
oe,

retouched

and

are impressed on the

reversed.

Here are some small letters which canThere is an abrasion not be read.
at the end.

w
4>>
Wr
JK

Kv

>

V
^^^i^ipclJ|-aTT^c<iy1y-yn^lTyVv^jf1u ^m}
/*f>yfcr-aC

.^"^>"

I tr

ci^i

imAf

^^^ "

^"pp oiacr- luairf^oij-urisilC"

jp-oooip T-otUTTipaLiJ Let*

&&*& Gumcr* ca
r

-un*p ou <74u<*r'<U*.-6<fr'

a~tCp^urni puxj

^
r

\a ylouou cr>p pP"6"<Cct)

l/i

U^upft><up&*

-rt3ti^j-tipatrYH'y|jojJ&jjU.

cip ftU. fa cara? cu\rt

-rlu

|'iTD^ee-ouro*rG-

"^
'

"-
^^U

T-nfc- cr^<ir"aiG|>i
cL^rft-p co
<r*

T*j^tljyri'y^ftTXicipfrliT3D^O-r6po^6ar1'V^p^Crt
TiTEm-r<6lpctp6rl^L piLj tuo"i
pfiy

copaLami

^ ^^

6"DUJTT>

^U.

ou

"7>otr- L

.1

000

(r**y JpjfviL* cnurrtsy cfrlp oniluUcirMuijCLiaucropVur^c^-.r

.

xi5r*Si*/S^
-<_> 's^v

*>

i i

'*'

<>>*

^<> uttti,^ million*/ .

"*

7E

NV

b^'\

I-*
-

^
-

ci

w-tH

nijev

^v

&

'

3V-.

'

////

II,

.
(.mi
.
| > l

'Jolm, calligraphus,
i

(.Kin

was oul

.mi

adhibetui
:

//.//

tltgantiam

ut

,
.

////

A//'/

the

write]
in

<

the

Ms.

According
which
dictu
tub

ol

date

the timet

<

phy

chicflj

Calligraphus, iu

habel Theophylactus Simocatta, qui

8.
<
.

Maui

.
Ol

iinpci.itiHii.u.
1

il.iicli.it,

lib.

ubi
<

de ncce
"'

sfauricii
>

1|

Vpa(f>oyr<uVt

OV

/.
>l

calligraphi

were called John:

his nearest

Montfaucon'i
is

lilt,

ho
is in

include

one.

The date

ol

Joannes

955 to.
ol

mentions two beiidei oui Joannes, both

whom
ir

973 ld. are dated as 'saec ix.

writing

The next

G
..'

11

neither

*c

be the same as onn

not appeal
that

and we know nothing

Plato

oi th<

they would be conto

it

course the Clarke

was not

di

covered when

Montfaucon wrote, and

to

d
the

John has signed any other

warpti,

evidence of the writing the Laurentian Aristides

$,
1

.
Sti.il>o

. '..

llxT/uis & iwh

&,

'For deacon
>)

Arethas

Uarpti,'
s

town on the N.W. of Achaea,

describes as

few

miles

trr&But

Corinth and Actium.

One might almost suppose

is

as

be

identified*

but

on

held to have been written by him.

Let
ns

of

Patrae.'
in

go

backward
is

here.

Patrae

our period Patrae-

a very old

west of the promontory of khium, which and is about half way between
that the introduction of the silkworm

It was preceded by an irruption ofssA.a under Justinian had a baleful effect upon Greece. Sclavonians and Huns, and followed by terrible earthquakes, by one of which Patras] Wa*' *" was overwhelmed Yet the town recovered its strength so far as to repulse unaided

a siege by the Sclavonians in the course of their further aggressions A.D. 807, at which

time
it

'" the most flourishing Ecclesiastically harbour on the west coast of Greece.' / under was the supposed scene of St. Andrew's Crucifixion, and had become a Christian Bpant Emp.,
it
'
'
1

was

"

Andrew, as early at least as 347 a.d. ** Judging from the places in which inscriptions have been found it must at one time or , ., Ul vo1 "> ,rt other have had, besides the cathedral, at least three monasteries and nine churches, one 9 of which was dedicated to St. Basilius Magnus. St. Andrew having visibly interposed during the siege in S07 it pleased the Emperor Nicephorus and we must remember p .,. No IS5 that Constantinople was the ... to cede Codin his own share of the spoils to the see, and to make various bishops suffragans of '* Patras. This was confirmed by the Leo vi. of our subscriptio, in whose ordering of the church Patras was clearly recognised as a metropolitan see. By Andronicus ir. Palaeologus the rank of the see among the metropolitans was lowered as on the other hand its archbishop is now one of the exarchs under the patriarch of Constantinople. (there was In this list he is classed as '. 6 Here Arethas also a New Patras) and is one of the The church of the Nicene age was vexed with the peculiar presumption Stanley, was deacon.
archbishopric, with a cathedral

dedicated to

St.

r.

'

'

(
'

-, - ?,
What

'

of the order of Deacons.'

their relations to the bishops often

were we gather from Ch

dicitur

Montfaucon 'In Actis vero Concilii Nicaeni secundi, quidam diaconus

Later in life, as we shall see, Arethas had himself him who copied Mss. for and from what we know of his own tastes he a deacon In regard to Arethas probably acted in this among other capacities when at Patras. personally, we know something of his rank, his library, and his literary work. \tipl In the Bodleian Euclid we find in small majuscules i f&:.
;

.'
|

?
in

--

Pat.

Gra=

3:7

v.

top.

_
cti
{

^^

This means, as we shall see, that

it

was written

'

CXV111

THE PARMENIDES.
E. Maass, who writes with the authority of an expert, but at the same time much in the spirit of a special pleader, considers that these words were written by Arethas. However that may be, there is no doubt about those which follow them,

IgesGtMlXi

885 a.d.

7*5-56

rather too

00

On

line

5 of

the

same page,

Tt]V

.
'

If

not a native of Fatras, then, Arethas was certainly a resident there in 888 a.d. and

got

a beautiful copy of Euclid for a price which -we shall not discuss.

If

he held any

office

he does not say

him

in

895 a.d.

a vast stride.
1

As our subscriptio tells us, he had the Clarke Plato written for When next we hear of him he has made and now he is a deacon. The fine Ms. of Clement of Alexandria at Paris, commonly called Paris
so.
:

45i, bears in beautiful small

*
apiiruTKj
Oxford,
p. vi.

V
|

for

says

copied in facsimile
a.d.,

the

fact

that

Our note of the words was from the Ms. Maass also has the genitive. Here we have, in 913-14 Arethas had a notary who copied Clement's works for him when
sic

"..
J
tci
|

majuscules the following note

The
in

contracted words Stand

his

Dindorf

edition of

Clement

codex,' but

he

is

wrong.

he was archbishop of Caesarea

four Patriarchs or

in

Cappadocia.

He now

occupied one of the most

exalted positions in the whole Eastern hierarchy.

Unless he had been

made one

of the

CgltilHH, 406.

had been granted some great office at court he could not have stood higher. The archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia stands first on the list of metropolitans under the patriach of Constantinople, he has 41 bishops under him, and is Styled With regard to notaries Montfaucon says Aliud scribarum genus erat ...
s
ypa<f>eiv

Erant autem Notarii arcatwrum Scribae^ unde vox Notarhis. .... Notariorum quidam numerus penes Imperatorem erat' He goes on to cite this case as proof that archbishops and patriarchs had private notaries. The name is transliterated by Finlay in another connection as Vahan, and oddly we notice in recent papers a reference to one Wahan Effendi. At Moscow there is a Ms. of dogmatic works, the subscriptio to which as given by Maass is
Scribae,

Notarum

'

,
\

is

...

vocantur item

eodem

sensu,

quasi

dicas

eypaxfa
|

\ ?
?.
may
?)
s s

This

our

last certain

date in the

life

to

be taking a
point,

the

Chrysostom,

The date is now a.d. 939, and new master and calling himself
other

hand, if Maass and ascribing the note

in which it occurs in Luciani Cod. Vindobon. to Arethas, it is clear that Arethas survived a person of that name. But he is obviously in error. Transiit a Turcis Du Cange under the word Officiales Turcici, .... says eadem appellatio, atque adeo dignitas, in Aulam Imperatorum Constantinopolitanorum.
'

* ' ( ( (-? . ??
clerical

of Arethas, a.d. 932.

the

He

has

now

a deacon as calligraphus and his library seems

quote, on the chance of
Paris
its

turn.

Perhaps we

being to

following passage from

ov

the subscriptio to
|

781,

Ms. of John

ei

?)

?)

jaw.

'

in

that year

we seem
it

could

have a Stylianus writing for a be that Arethas was dead ? On the

to
for
...

is

right

in

reading

(),

Nam ut

omittam Stylianum, cujus

filiam

Zoen

in

uxorem duxit Leo Philosophus, quem

////

////

;//

Uai
el

iv
<

vocat Leo
ertutn
lil
t<

Iramraatii us (ul

/<>ii. ii. is)

mil

in.

an
.

men
his
<

fu

liani
in

iint
\
<

\.
1

ropolita
.

CAp

learly

the pcr<
the

to

im
ol

refen,

and, as he was lather-in-law to

Kmperoi
..

I^eo

tint

Irethas

mighi
to
ol

have

alluded

to

bin evei
(

the d

according
the

('..niltii.ni.ru

tome

>s

dated

Greek

have

period
\utii.is.

ad.

We
.;

have non leen thai

foui
threi

The
note
is

Vatican
.
h

codex
are

containi

Palatini
.1

marginal
tins
is

whu appended
'

entitled

i?iei
are

km

ai lk<

To

tl

li

really

an early note, based on knowledge,

bul

nol only h

nail

poems

b)

Arethas,

strong
is

confirmation
the

it will same in all the above the years 888 the word deacon thai these poems must have been written ><>\ . two are epil i)i n A.i). No. 34 is entitled tit pun. chat Ann. who upon the authi rred to as a widow of tei There is a family burying-pla< .is dying recit rpos

thus fax gone, that the person

'
to

t^s-

of

the

supposition,

on

wh
I

\.; /

.,.s

r&ytviw

<rr>"V'i r.v

>;.'.

A.;..'.i'

"Avkijs (No.

33).

Besides having anacreoi

others, Arethas wrote or helped to
this treatise,

ascribed to him referring to the

write,
i

Emperor Leo among

one
treatise.
It
is

when archbishop,

at least
at

which

"AyycAos rbv

['

/ti

Arethas In the

.
.1

small

Ms. exists

the author observes

J>,

non

est in

note]

^*

on the Apocalypse. In Oxford, when commenting on the words

'AvSptas
<>

. ;$
prefixed
.

is

known

have written

marginal

notes on the volumes in his possession.

prefixed
to
c

ATs.
'

of Clement, Paris 451, three such notes have the word of Arethas, however,
is

them.

The name

....
.'

, '

ucoorov

also to several in the Vatican DiwL

codices of Aristides, according to A.

Mains

Accordingly,

Maass regards

not

xy

indeed these Vatican Mss., which are ascribed to the

the Laurentian
in Vat.

nth and
the

12th centuries, but

60,

3 of the

10th century (which contains

same note

as appears

1298) as having belonged to Arethas.

Pursuing
in

this line of investigation

Maass
Harieian

identifies the writing of

an undated Ms. of Lucian

the British

Museum

with that of

He then Baanes in Paris 451, and concludes that it also was written for Arethas. compares the Mss. either known or supposed to have belonged to him, and finds that
all contain examples hand which makes their notes in margins this hand is very old and of one Maass holds that it is the hand of the owner Arethas. writes in small majuscules. In this way he opens up quite a mine of Arethean scholia and says among other things Morem sequebatur Arethas cum auctoribus suis colloquendi,' e.g. 'Ad Apologiam 27 D ye oVois Clarkiano adscripsit Arethas

while they differ in themselves, as the works of different scribes, they

particular
;

' .'
'

Miianges
i 58

?,

This certainly savours of Christian authorship, and there are

others like

Cobet points out that the remark, on Euthyphro, 14 E, every good and every is really a quotation of the phrase perfect gift,' etc., James i. 17. Although the subject is a fascinating one and treated We may say, however, that with the greatest ingenuity, it cannot be pursued here. long before we knew anything of this question we made copies of words and letters in Paris 451, and recognized on comparing these with the Harleian Lucian that the
it
:

in

particular

CX
resemblance
is

THE PARMENIDES.
very strong.

The

scholia too in the margin of that

Ms. frequently

ter-

minate with the leaf ornament, which Maass

indeed between

identifies with the writing of Arethas.

A
21.

detailed inspection of this Ms. of Lucian, moreover, brings out a very close resemblance

much contained on
the usual

The forms of
letters,

symbols

and M, could hardly be more alike. from handwriting is periculosae plenum opus aleae
as the

..
its

margins and similar notes on the margins of

etc.,

the leaf ornament

and

certain capital

At the same time the argument and Maass proceeds to tie his
necessary distinction
in

scribes

down

to

absolute uniformity in
;

order to secure the

quill

favour of this separate hand

in the writing

while a
It
is

new
also

might make an appreciable difference

of the same man.

before a few scholia

may

name
So Par.

be pointed out that the occurrence of the rather an argument against the same authorship in
signature.
Finally, the leaf

the case of those which, while resembling these, bear no

See

xc'ix. foot.

ornament is not confined to books owned by Arethas but appears elsewhere, e.g. in the codex Alexandrinus. Thus far we have assumed the existence of but one Arethas were there several ? Some references on the point are given in the margin. Cave cites
Coccius to the
effect

Oudinus, Script.
Eccles. torn.
cols. 426,
II.

that Arethas, archbishop of Caesarea, flourished about 540 a.d.

'

540;

but adds that he and his followers

Fabricius,

incertis prorsus nituntur conjecturis.'

Cave, Oudin,
;

Cams,

Script.

and Baronius
first

all

agree as

to

Eccles. His:oria
Literaria,
p. 407;
1.

apparently the
it

three refer to his

Fabricius,

owed

to his predecessor Andreas.

and treatise on the Apocalypse and the debt which Cave and Fabricius with Baronius seem to hold
the existence and date of our Arethas

Bibl.
p.

Graec. vn.
:

that

our Arethas
or

may be
'

the

same with a presbyter Arethas of Caesarea who wrote

'

751

and
f '7.dot-

homilies

orations

Haronius, xv.
513,
s 6 '

died
as

--,

in 911 a.d.). deacon or presbyter.

de translatione Euthymii Patriarchae Constantinopolitani (who In that case he must have been translated to Caesarea from Patras
Oudin, while admitting that the dates allow of
then
;
'

this authorship,

denies that these homilies were written

habitae
.
.

illae

sunt centum annis postea,

Eustathio primo Papa novae Romae praesente sedit autem post Sergium nominis secundum ab anno 1019 ad annum 1025. Spectant ergo hae homiliae ad Aretham
. .

Caesariensis Ecclesiae Presbyterum integro seculo juniorem altero Arethae ejusdem sedis

Archiepiscopo.'

Accordingly he has an

article

on

this

presbyter Arethas, under date

it

23.
Finlay, Byz.
F.mp., pref.

..
cross,

would be pleasant We should then have the picture of an Arethas family for centuries connected with the greatest see in Asia Minor, one branch or one member of which family had migrated to Patras. In Patras there were several churcnes called by the name of Basil, one, as we have seen, dedicated to St. Basil, the Great. As St. Basil was both a native and, in later life, an archbishop of Caesarea we catch a glimpse of a possible reason why an Arethas in ecclesiastical employment might pass back and
sentimental grounds
to retain all

1020, where he returns to the charge.

three Arethae.

On

forward between the two

Scko.

cities.

.
+

'

For

13

byzants.'
grains.'

The
Finlay
gives

or

byzant was a
having

gold coin weighing 'on

an average

68

an

example,

obverse a bust, bearded

and crowned, bearing in the right hand a globe with the whole surrounded by the legend in mixed letters AEON EN

BASILEUS
blessing,

();
it

reverse,

a female bust with both hands held up as

Qeov).
in

Leo
24.

tion, in the

.
vi., it

and the legend

is

-,"
{

probable that
1.8.

IvSikt.

hu

was the money actually used

()
is

patriarchal

if

As

this

a coin of

paying for our Manuscript.

the 14th indic-

^.

In the month of

November of

year of the world 6404.'

By Byzantine

writers the year of the world

when

in

////

F
reckonin
li
.

wu
ti
t

given iccording

t..

Byzantine

which

uaumed

th(

.in

Septerabei
\

u.

lion,

I'm

, The word alio meani

oi
ii

>
indictio
ii

Non
u
01

6 \o ,

imonly held to mean the '.hum.'

cycle

the

p<

<

fifl

which lhat
the admitted
11
'

in

the hiatorj

indictional dating,

we ma) begin with

"

The
15
it,

period
thia

calculated

from
that

nt Septembi

doh
ninth

ml by

from

date,

we
tat

find
1,

897
extend
it

ui.

(39

will

from
is

5853 September, 895,

t

the thim an indictional cycle |th indiction 5S5 The 897). ^

1

<]
1

<>u
ti

'

oJ

od

t<>

.}im

Augu

which

require,
is

obvioua,

however,

th.it
1

For an] date from 11, >m the given yeai < the world j
oi

importance.

when dealing with Byzantine datii st September to 311! Decembei we

anj

eth
aul

foi

between
ol

>t

January and

.\<

suhtr.ni

5508.
\.i>.

Failing

to

note

tin

importance

our

Ma.

896.
it

Aa
is

the

indictional
:

iphic interest

given entire

From

Sept. to

ivoW.

...

88a-3
883.4

\..
I

Ms. No.
J

8,

Chalke,

p.

344.

)
<><le
i.,

here

under discuaaon

lias

some

pala

written

'a.

883.'

Gardth.

5'.

= 8S
=886-7

Leo

vi.

succeeds Basil

March

1,

-86.

)' Laurent. 28, 26 Thcon,'

I

..
s'.

written 'a. 886.'

Gardth.

887-8

f,
7/.

888-9

Bodleian Euclid written September, 888.

= 889-90 0'. = 890-91 = 891-2 '. = 892-3 '. = 893-4 ^' = S94-5
1'.

Ms. Paris 1470 (and 1476?) written April, 890.

S. tt
ic'.

=895-6

= 896-7
is
.

Prom what has been

by Baanes
26-7.
.
.

not explicit to us

Basil of happy memory.'

For the persons named see byzant On the coin the words lv 'both being analogous to most Christian
the sense.
'

Library at Paris there

servantur ornatissimus

which seems to have belonged to Basil

three
full

on gold ground, representing with --?/? 7)/9 and on either side. On the second side of the third folio three more figures on gold appear, representing the crowning of Basil by Gabriel and Elias. A note says, ex his figuris apparet hunc codicem scriptum esse ante annum Christi 886 quo anno obiit Basilius Imperator cognomento Macedo, maritus Eudociae,
page
figures
'

' '
said
it

Glarke Plato written November, 895.

will
:

appear that the dating of the Ms. written for Arethas

hit
^\[3 might

mean

'of

the reign

This

is

rather a

of

the

913 or 914 a.d. most Christian Leo, son of

either
it

modern
',

rendering, but

above and the description of Leo's

here
:

correspond to
king,'
'

defender of the

()
Christ,

pretty fairly gives

faith.'

In the National

is

a gorgeous Ms.

Omnium

quotquot in Bibliotheca regia Graeci

'

of Gregorius Theologus, with

1.

comments by Gregorius Nyssenus.

full

p a risDX(= 5 ioX

Facing a

page painting of

it

has

Pater Leonis

et

Alexandria

cxxii
29-30.

THE PARMEN1DES.
With
line 27 the subscriptio

was probably intended to

close.

flourish extends along

28, and goes down through lines 29-30. But something had been omitted the price. What follo\vs we had thought, until we saw Maass' essay, to be a discovery of ours. Maass properly rejects the reading accepted from Gaisford by Schanz, which makes the words = both as not being clear and because he saw that more letters were there. If the page, which has long been subjected to friction until all but the indentations of the letters is in some cases rubbed away, be held up to the light and examined with armed eyesight,' the actual letters can be pretty clearly seen, as given above. Being in doubt as to the two last marks, which are on an abrasion of the parchment, Maass adds revera scriptum fuisse postea cum impetrassem, ut tinctura chemica huic codicis loco admoveretur, meis oculis vidi,' and renders the whole credo octo.' He believes that neither the main subscriptio nor this addition was written by Joannes, and holds that both are by Arethas. His grounds are At diversse sunt non solum ab Joannis et atramento et calami ductu, verum inter ipsas certissima Sic igitur habeto,' he adds scornfully, intercedunt discrimina. scriba postea quam uno tenore totum exaravit codicem, bis earn mutavit ut eadem scribendi supellectile
line

.
'

'

'

'

'

scilicet

parvulas istas notulas adjungeret.'

;

This

is

strong language.

The page

has been

much rubbed and the letters patched under eadem manu sed paullo negligentius et dierum
second subscriptio in relation at least to the
form of subscriptio
the
writer
in

the circumstances Gaisford's remark,

aliquot intervallo scripta,'
first.

ab

may

cover the

", ',
fact

We

must note, however, that the

Baavovs

is

common

to three Mss.

which belonged to the same individual, a

each case.

which may incline us

the subscriptio,
it

to hold that

he was

If Arethas wrote

follow that he likewise lettered the quaternions of the Ms.

would almost seem to We might add some facts

about

this literary archbishop's

book account,

as well as about other interesting matters,

but space imperatively forbids.

in. Codex

Codex
brief.

Venetus.

It

remains to deal with the third of the great Platonic Mss., and

venetos.

a fi er the details given in connection with the two older ones the description
It
is

may be

comparatively

described in

the

Catalogue as append, class.

4.

cod.
is

bound in wood covered with dark brown stamped leather which back and at the corners. The contents fall into four portions

membr. in fol. It is a good deal injured on the

i.

of the dialogues in the Thrasylean order, followed by the epistles and definitions, to which succeed
ovtol
arovTfiS,

^ ,,
2.

The first which Schanz .3 V. Locrus

1.
:

calls

consists of four leaves

eViTO/ir)

consisting

of

and twenty more, extending from

, ,,,,
3
V.

on which are written the Timaeus

an index

ME

to

and concluding

7:

The second and

chief part, called by Schanz

tx

of which the contents are these, written,

as will be seen

from the specimen, in two columns.

The

titles
first

are in red, the

first

one being
not, with

double, and are repeated in black at the ends.

After the

the author's

name does

one exception, recur until the Republic. We shall give details only where there is a divergence from the titles in the other Mss. ; referring to the facsimile for the general style. The dialogues are lettered in red in the margin, while the letters are repeated by a later hand at the top of
the pages.

,
|p

1.

Too

^ *<

M^y-t C

tr

to tu>

// <*>

<*f/

/Aft
1 J

<

V*y-Wopo"c/^tp

$^V<f rw^^effpv

'

- LumJjmJ Umn m^/OLt&^j ^

at^t

A y f-

$* f op

frroor<rt

^>

k*<

^ ~* <*>\6*

> f

AV * \jy \&

- *4-mr&+ %*

pi.%

^ f

^p UV^* ft* Tef"

o^ y> pro - <) ^*u

cny>
.

^^, ^

i.-r^V

T"VT* f^'T^
'
'

<rV- <fU&y JviiryG'

pou d^^rr^u.*M fyiyu6-^t>y ^cr{^rrUf ou JCe^/rr^

a^^p.'ro\rx-^A^*r&IC^Jr^^HY %JfAiM yy v fJJTtJ

jf-6

yi^{oSip^ cop

"
U
o~fTo*J
okj-ero r^^jf^/;

SVf V r- i

e^^xfrrj- L'frL crfyo a)p*J

ViiTor-

^ <i~*~S,

'

**JC ti

U* <r

*^ y*f^ Vi^ ^ f ^
w^f^
v

^^

"l

'/C m^*vou\6- \xml*oryL\4i *&&*< >^

/-'<*r

:toL47-t-

*er><0't >>iji^^fjurteui

*"

p f^tr^jg

+^

^*F ^\ Woo .^ ? 7^P*

,

np^wevU^-^

ff

.^v^V;pT^rwpoa7i yP
<^t&t^mttL*ty9p*\^*pe^vr^aujTr'C0f'<*40V 1*

'-^ -'^ ^ ^JUf/- *^*^ >

-d^ovrop

J<oir//o//,Totr-T? vi^e *"

V netVoreyt^f

In^^

_ o^\ <;* uro-u, ^^6

-mV. oTft^<rrov^V^oi.To <r^i^ ,^oi^J1
,

^-:

/C^t <r^
/

<

1"

^-^/*//:

* T*^^'""f*^T' a*"'Sr*f

^- vote

^.

$3
'

.aroy

^^ y^rWeurr WT ^*^ p4y*r

^*^W^ M*< HmHroWvvi4i. 6

^$6-

THE CHIk
..

/,""

'/

W
III.
I

All
\

U|
lll.ll

IpUJ

Xi

111.

'

tparovt'A

8
14

r.

ii.

up.

14

11

, , *,
in
ij

r. ii

the margin bj another

w<p\
\
,

hand

is

17

r.

i.

etc

ii 3

.'.

56

v.

ii.

The ending
etc

is

*/
.simply

- nrumj
56

'

"" 6

<

"

The ending
etc

is

r.

ii.

25

See facsimile

1
BI

Zvfurartov, etc.

",

SI ZI

HI

, : ,- j3 etc
etc. Ottiyi/i
1/

, ^
<*
\>/;
etc
etc.

78

v.
r.

ii.

40
27

etc.

87
[numerals so]
97

i.

v.
v.
r.
r.

ii.

etc
a
*,

108

i.

33 36
33

. .

119

125

i.

87 97 108 119 125

127

78

v.
v.

ii.

ii.

v. v.
r.

ii.

i.

i.

r.

i.

i.

50
up. marg.
17

V.
r. r.

i.

127

v.
r. r.

ii.
i.

129

TTtpl

130
(or

ii.

40
4
1

Avcris,

KB

?, []
KE KS

, '?
"

, ",
Ttpl

etc.

-)

32

r.
r.

ii.

137
141
1

i.

26
20
10
up. marg.

v.

i.

etc.
etc.

45

v. v.
r.

i.

152

ii.

etc.

163

i.

43
22 25

[numeral faded]

17S
1S4

v. v.

ii.

Mevcevos )

'

, ? ?.
The
that
last four

? '
,,

i.

,,

1S9

v.

i.

25
up. raarg.

192 .

ii.

194

-9
is

represent Tetralogy vn. which

not found in

ends on

line 44,

then a line

is

missed, and on line 46 comes, in the

which gives the ending of the dialogue,

etc.

19S

r.

i.

up. marg.

:
31.

129 130 132 37 141 145 152 163 17S 184 1S9 *9 194 *97
1

1.

ii.

r.
r.

ii.

i.

v.
v.

i.

i.

v.

i.

v.
v.

i.

ii.

v.
v.

i.

i.

'

44

The Menexenu.s
same hand
v.
ii.

as

8
}'}

199 .

i.

198 205
212

V.
ii.

205

V.

.
i.

24

r.

i.

?,
.

7/

212 .

The closing words of this part of the Ms. The endings of the two first books are

?
45
are

->
>J

22

/A and

Steph. 389
B.

vepl

cxxiv

THE PARMENIDES.
next
portion
(t,)
r.

The

includes
v.
:

the rest

of the

gives the Timaeus,

256

265

Republic, 213

r.

255 v.;
all

and the

last (t 3 )

so that the Ms. does not contain

that

is

specified in the

-^'.
the.

These two portions are

clearly distinguishable
refers

from the oldest by the character both of

to the 15th

parchment and of the writing: Schanz

It is

them

16th

century.

with the oldest portion alone that

tint
#

we have

to do.

and of the same yellowish

as

that
:

of the other

The vellum is firm, well two codices. The dimensions

is

preserved,
tested
is

by

28*5 fol. 67 are in centimetres 37 while the breadth of the two columns

the length of the writing space in the columns

is

25 '4,

9*3,

9*4:

the space between the columns

2$.

The
last

margins as usual come in the order inner, upper, outer, lower, and the breadth of the two
is

considerable,

more than

4,

but

it

varies with the cutting

and binding

in

each

leaf.

The

ruling

is

done much

after the fashion

lines,

described in A, only that the writing lines number 50.

All the
1st

perpendicular

which include one near the outer edge of each outer margin, and the

and 50th writing lines, together with two more in the upper and one in the lower margin, are drawn from edge to edge of the vellum the other writing lines as in A. The leaves have been numbered by a late hand in the outer upper corner after the parts were bound in their present order. Our portion extends over 5-212 inclusive, or 208 leaves. This would give 26 quaternions exactly; but that is not quite how they have been arranged. Originally the 1st and 24th had been quinions but have each lost a leaf the first and second respectively; while the 26th
;

quaternion has

its

two

last leaves

cut away.

The 208

leaves thus consist of 2 nines, 23 eights

hand both on the face of the first leaf and the back of the last in the inner lower corner, and have a small cross in the upper margin. As in the Clarke Ms. the pieces of parchment are laid indented side pairs, and two pairs are stitched as a quaternion. The lines, as will be seen from to indented in While the headings and numerals are, as we the facsimile, almost cut the writing in the middle. have seen, in red, the colour of the initial letters varies between very dark brown, as in the Paragraphs Parmenides, and red as in the Philebus and the body of the work is in dark brown. ornaments initial letters the Ms. takes In point of and are not marked by projecting letters. The character of the writing will be seen from the facsimile. a middle place between A and 2
six.

and a

These

divisions

are

except

where injured

lettered

in

the

original

Khan. Mus.

Schanz

after

a careful study of

all

three codices
'

is

not satisfied with the date assigned in the

The text as haben ein hoheres Alter anzunehmen.' incomplete has no date, so that this judgment must be based on the character of the writing. There is certainly a very considerable resemblance in general style between 2t and t, and one
catalogue,

12th century, and says

wir

may

note that in both there are the same double forms for the letters

, , , ,
we
the

v.

time the letters in t are

much

less neatly finished

while not only have

At the same modern printed

form for
to the

the c form for

and the
/cat,

capitals

,,

at intervals in the text, but in addition

ordinary abbreviation for

2i at all.

which

is

constant,

many

contractions are employed which

never appear in

Thus the

facsimile alone gives examples of the following terminations

-<=

-=

-|<

/= -

>5=
=
/

and of some of the following words

fiev

avSpes

=
= av

5e
etvat

=
= =

J-L

S7\J
yfl

ort

u*
J

= {X 1/

(j/

to-Ti(v)

ovv

In the text of the Parmenides the

name

Socrates appears indifferently as

Cw, and many compound

contractions such as of

ovv,

ov, etc.

occur.

^, ,

Cw

,>

Sometimes

either

convenience
Olumn,
in
,

<>
\

to
,

supply an omii

word
;

<

p!

pui

bel

i.

ii.

from time to time

.i.i. Hi,

u
'

to

til

Ms.
in

"'
ich
ra

.uul

which
not

may
put

the
r<

exampli
ul trity.

\,

.uul

.in-

with abaoluti

in

in
ill.

the
in .

margin, save

when a double chang<

tin

occurs

in

on

seven dialoguei ami

in

two
in

tail

ti>.

interlocutor! are

when named
.iihI
it

'

.nil.

the outei margin

e.

the middl

ami
In
th<

usuall) aftci
I

th<

that
tw.>

pui mi.
inu-s,

.1

in

the

WOrd
tin

and below follow

names

in

succession.

tin-

Symposium
So
<

t!i

opposite the place where each speech

tiippis

abbreviated names
contracted

come

in

su<

down

tin-

outei

margin.
tin-

banz points ool

uid

names appear From time to time throughout Finally, in mgei band puts them in the Sophist, 57 r.

margin, stands

''

Republic,
5 r.

wh
1.

opposite the words *E/>ycw

the

Mem
all

oil

we nave the usual

those
in

onj/Mtoxrai

and

/xuov

in

more than one

early form,
e.g.
7

more or
.|
|

less

r<

The expression Cn 'J appears more than once, refers to we had not time to note, but it may be it a proverb. Again, we have such expressions as Cn 3/x>s and Cn r! \fyci' 155 v. The &p, is usually neat and
H

,
ii.

.,

v.

ii.,

54
(all

v.

ii.:

what

(?),

to

attention to

noting a definition,
as

105
r.
i.

r.

it,
1

i.

small,

168

r.

i.,

204

and other notes are many, and seem, as Schanz decides, to be in most cases original. Such are the examples in the facsimile. There are other hands, one a very small neat one; and several much later, one which writes two or three notes in green. As in the Clarke Ms. some
scholia

ii.

small diagrams occasionally illustrate the notes,

in

e.g.

121
to

r.

Cases occur of numeral

letters

on 113 r. i. in the (Joryias, from to A, 166 v. i., and in the second book of the Republic, 210 r. i. Whether they represent divisions of the argument or point towards stichometry we had it not in our power to decide,
but they seem too close together to warrant
the latter supposition.

the margin, thus in the Phacdrus they run from

The

scholia

on the Par-

menides

will

be referred

to in the notes.

NOTE.

The
is,

text

is

printed line for

line, as

well as page for page, with the Manuscript.

The

accentuation
to

where

necessary,
that
is

adapted to the orthodox standard, and the punctuation

original
:

differs

some
in

extent
letters

from

of the

but any divergence of reading which involves a change

is

or words

underlined.
is

It

to

be noted that

marks the end of speeches, and

the

same where there

adhered
7rws )/
:

to,
it

Sometimes the scribe's view on these matters has not been and the stops have been changed accordingly. In clear or brief questions such as has not been thought necessary to put if It will be observed stands in the original.
a
question.

that capitals are not

used

for

proper names.

-^cry,

^
it

-^

>>

>.'

isy

>

J>

>

> \

in

~t\

in

v>

'

^H

o>

>>>

,.

... tl

'"in

"V>

*\

4
k.

/'
ri;

~\

rr

Fxe/iij aft/ya^e

& , ' ' , , , , ' , ' ' ,, ] ' , ', , ,, ,,

~
>:<

II

JAEON

AOriKy-

'

eic-

tjSb;
..'.
1

', ,
:

^'.

, , ,
>)

,
\

'

Sejj

/,

asked Adi-

mantus, on meeting him and

Glauco
Athens,

at
if I

and

some philosophic

yap

townsmen from
Clazomenae
could hope

hear his half79 3

1

VOS

brother Antipho
repeat a discussion

,
:

ye

which once

occurred between
Socrates, Zeno,

,
:

--

and Parmenides and which he

'/

had committed
to

memory from

the dictation of

'

one Pythodorus,

))

.
,

'

',

, '

an associate
cf Zeco's.

'.' ,
\
Yielding to persuasion Antipho

'

>).
"

. -,
6

e-

127

spoke as follows.

Zeno and Parmenides came

once to the great Panathenaea,

Parmenides being about sixtyfive

and Zeno
forty,

near

and

stayed with

Pythodorus.
Socrates, then

very young, and

others had gone
to hear Zeno's

writings; and

Pythodorus with

Parmenides and
Aristoteles en-

' , '
.

'

-, , .

' \ , \-

tered as

Zeno

was nearly done

reading,
I
.y.

'

. ' '
,

. '
-

Do

rightly take

you, Zeno, to

say that unless

existing things

are at once like

and unlike
which
is

im-

possiblethey
cannot be
'

many';

that

it

is

your aim to
that

/
'
79 a 2

show thus

they are not

many

and

that

each of your

arguments

is

so

much proof to
this effect?

,, , )
,
,

' .
'

,
,
,

/?

, ;
'

'

;
;

'

O00tt>(

(fa

ran,,

,
"

,'"""

'

'"

'/'"'

VHKat tfXov
/,/,

/uawa

,..

(,
''..

<">

'

'
T
<

Til

\,

>.,.:.

,
"V'/'-i
tu/)i'\ii Mi\i.v ri
mi

'/"-

/
r'
'/;/s'

;
1

0OU

rawTO

ya/s
r/>OI

..,<;

7Ni-,".i;(i -r

u'nii

TO TOV, KOU TOVTM

|il}p(a

mi! ('

/,
xo'j

Ot

iutuWu
il
.

./.t'l.ti

^/
\.

'<'/

-i'W.i.mu 0UTf

\.>

/.,,'/

'
</)
ye
<'

.' '

01

tii.Wk

rn/n'y
/iih

(, TW
TO

OW TO*
''

'"i
.(I

,/
"/

/M/l'l

//""s

fCparrtS'

\(\
.
<ui efares

(
\(

/
"
U
:

./.
0V

T0V

0/"',

7<<<\<"'

* <\ ?

\'

\avuavtt,

<< (tn'itrai

tru

Xeyeis

'
pOTOJ
>

.'

"4t

UL

Torcine

tile Koflit

of

mi,

,
'

>
((',

who
titttj

"

oe,

( ye

;?,

7/\ TOVS

.
Vv/e
veOM

jrocwrt?,

fi

Uai,

, , ' -, ' ,, . ' ' '6 , , ,

tVo

\,
)

,7 * ?"

>;

if it b:
I

'

one

'.

say were
'many'
re-

their hypotheti
of

/ctu

assumed, the

airtXcyet ; ><

sults if followed

out must be

still

<"

more laughable.
Cut the work

"

eV

/,

e'/

/? ,"

. ? , /
/?

was written
fit

in

a
I

of zeal

when

was young, and

some one published

it

without

my
S.

sanction.
I

. ]]
\

understand-

But do not you

accept the exist-

ence of some
absolute etSos

706-

of likeness, and

again of unlikeness
;

and the

fact that

we

the

,)
;

"

many partaking
of these, are like
or unlike in

ewe

"

.-

79

proportion

'.

Nor would
did

there

be any wonder

we partake of
;

both
with

and so
f

all

!.

The

strangeness
arise

would

were the pure

1

like or absolute
'

'

one ' shown to

its

be

opposite

but not so in the

case of mere
participants.

Of

me,
it

for

example,

were easy to

prove that having

left-right, front-

back, top-foot
'

am many' and
;

again that as
distinguished

from the others

present
'

am

one.'

Such a

proof will hold

for all natural

objects
that
'

it

proves

many'
exist.

and 'one'

, , , , , ,' 7 . , 7 . , , ' , , , , , ' ,' ' ,

;

, ,
',

$,
6

, ')

'

'

But were one

first

to partoflf the

eiorj

which are

apprehended
mentally, and

next to prove
that these are

equally subject

among themselves to union

and severance
then, Zeno, with-

out depreciating

(,

your valuable
work,
I

should
filled

indeed be

with admiration.
After listening
carefully, with

what seemed a
mixture of

],

annoyance and
pleasure, Par-

menides said

, , , , . ,, \ ,. , , , ' , , ' ,
)
7/?
',

'

' -

,
'

'
6

'\

130

'

7'(7(/<< Vol'
0cu
'"
<

"'

./" "
rowi

',

'"'//";'

"

"

>

\"7"

'"

'

'""/

'"

}{
/\
/MC

. |

'.

<(

<
:

7S

1:

>)

<
(*'

,
in

'/'"'^

<"'"" / rov
i,//r(f'i()s

,
kou
\"V'>.'
j

../-,,

<
dni

KCU

<>/

///.'

flVffr Tin'

</'<<

', <>
.

utVc,

(
(>',

'
(OiOJ
irepi

1(001
>

murrw
'/'"''

,
..
()

,.

'd/MOTTOU

<<'.'<),

ICCU

','

&
fell

'!,

twos
<)/,

mtpot
'

'"

9'>
yeyovat
/Of,

difficult).
-

,/'. !
.'

/'

nets

' , , , ,
</""'"'
.'/,

7<</

mpt

\/>>'/

/..(..

(/)

>\(((.'
b\v

0(

*<<<

abturd '.

yeXoia

elvai,

S.

Tho*

*i

/\
tow
c t"uo9

/>/

v<jl

rot/Tew

<

.'<><

<

.</

/tw

ye-,

aVe/a
/>)

Oi'fdqval

efWu //

'

{(,

',
-

, ': ,
,
^,

7'.

,
teat

,//'

eii/ur

^*

, <.
,

, ,
;

,
'

, ,
.

, ,' .
-

}-

Kem

Indeed

!.

\
eij

it

might be to
all.

with

The

other

<f>ptvat

classes form

my

-an

will
in

strengthen

yoa

the philosophic

mind. You hold,

then, that there

are

(-,

and

that things

around us derive
their

names from

participation in

these big things,

for

example, from
'

>]'-

'

bigness

S.

By

all

means.

P.

That which partakes must

in either

do

so

whole or

part of the etcOy.

Which do you
choose? S.

,
:

, \

Why

not the whole"

P. Then while
itself

one

same the elcot

is

wholly

oXov
in

many
-

se

thin:

becom
itself.
5".

, ,
'
:

':

e'l

How
is

so?

Day

everywhere,

yet not thus

divided.

,
:

What You cover men with a sail

!

does
on each

the whole

'
:

or a portion rest
?

S.

A
The

portion.

P.

(I5r), then, are

divided

and

thus things are

big or equal

when
big-

So a

possessing a mere
fraction of
'

ness'or 'equality'

which cannot be
equal to the

whole

and when

anything has a fragment of

'

, . '' ) , ,, , , ,' ] ' , :

ye,

, ,

, )
ye,
ev

ei

ev

ex'

',

ev

'

ye

>]

'

yap,

',

;
'

' ,
:

smallness,'

'

smallness' must

be larger than
this part,

while

that to which the

part accrues
is

thereby smaller
than before
.>.

This cannot

be.

P. But
:

again

do you

. ] ', , , (,
:

',

'

reach your
several

by comparison
'

bigness,' for

example, being
the appearance

common

to

many
If

big things?
so, talcing

',
:

the

bigness thus

reached you will

always get another by a

new
;

comparison
that your
in

so

each case

will

prove innumerable.
if

S.

v.

each
inception

, '
,
>]
:

) / '
'

' , , ^, ) ,, ' ,
ye
:

>)
-

'
:

, -

'3?

existing only in
!s?

,, ,

,,

,,

,;;,

.'\.'y<

,;,,

,;;

..',;.

..\
;

'

ro

r/oto

/""
.

.'..:.'..;....

,\

,.; ((:
,.,,
.

<\ <.

1'
;\

(MM,',,...
>
,'

.<..,

5
.,
in

,/
;',
j

\A

Piwrl

<"

.'.,;

.,
tire

,'.
-

"\

'

jj

ro

Sat

5lj

Wv
1

TOK

-.</... /,/. <m\

.<.}/t,(TU.ur i.(K.'/r.<nar

/[, /1(

,|,\
,

,,

Tra/Mio./yu.

rival

tiowv owe
0/.

'
oIoVti

: '
;

W iroWj
,
ly*/

avay*j <

V "'"
"'

"
(Mot.

\\
,'\.
I

</'.'/>

"

wm *
.... ./..in

01

\. .'y..i

>

.../....
<V
/y

\- . '<
yi' ./,
<>'.

./.',/

. .'...
*<<<
'/

TOVTOIf
ttSq

/ 0| /:
<
;

Kt
'1

<<

<,
etww

t-

up

./- foi,

"

ctVavoVvTti '''

$5
efvaij

,/

)
:

tWi ?

6
:

7 ! "\
/tti'
t
S
:

>),

OWC

'
'/,

\,
,.

' , , ]: ,
/,
'<('

/>

,
etoo?j

--

then.

thus ibi (loot

DM
ble the re*era-

bbnee mu_st
blance

and
will

what they both

resemble

now be

the eioos.
...

ea)o?
:

Xtye.?

':

' '
,
-

an

thii

infinity of

is

participation by

resemblance

hardly possible,
i".

It

seems not.
is it

P. So hard

even
such

to

hold that
ex.
dif-

oWu 7/-((
aiet

tz/s'

>/

. ,

~, &:
/'
ei'
'/

ct".

.'''

'$/,

,
ezo\?,

-17

Vet are there

ficulties

toy

fTro? ei7reu',

greater

Se roSe.

? 0/;
Seiv

'

t/s"

/ , \ , ' \) ev

/;

enreiv:

/xer atu!

far if

we emphaS.

size their sepa-

rateness.

How?

P. VThy,

/x>/5e

'^

one might say

that in such a

case they cannot

even be known.

t'uTrei-

To answer
extreme
S. In

this

oe

7\\.

}]

objection needs
skill.
':

what way

;;

,
P. Of course

'
'
;

,
:

Being which

is

'

absolute has no
place in our

world.

those

Even
whose
is

very essence

co-relation are

related in their

own

world, hav-

ing no connection

with so-called

'. * '

,' ,

, , , , \ .' '
:

,
-

'

resemblances of
themselves here.

And
t'

the case

is

parallel with

ese resem-

blances.

Human

shve implies

, ,
,
3o b

human master
mastery per se,
slavery per se

and the converse.

No

crossing of S.
I

worlds.

understand.
P. Will not absolute

knowledge

then,

and

all its

sub-divisions,

deal with absolute truth

all its

and

branches?

Of necessity. P. The or
S.

"5

7e'v7jaccordingly
are

known by the tWoS cf knowledge

not
;

this
;

have

we

hence

absolute'beauty,'

'goodness' and
all

such

t'o^cu

are
us.

unknown

to

S. I fear so.
still.

, ,, , ' , , ' ' , ' ' )

'

. \ , '' ', ', , . . , ' \

',

, , , , , '
) ;
''
'

, '

, ,
',
:

'-

34

' '-,

):

P. Worse

Absolute knowledge
is

more
:

100

';

accurate by far

than ours.

fCal

'
:

,
;

, :

-)
-

<>\

<>, ,'!

./.,(

','s

\
,''/

/!'

.'A/

;'

('
.''
r/90J

tt,

OVM
"i.<

"

run

,''
/,'

7.

,ir <".>;<i<

0ffdf
'

PO

rap'

'/,'")'

ya/>
,\,.i,,

vr.i/)ar(i'<>'/v,

pa

iiji)

jp/oof

no

'// /// 7/\

</'
;

.r

''
'

/' jjpiv
.

/^ ^
yiyi.

'/""'

'"

'"'

OVTO
#}

3,
>'/

"
,.'

<

/><,'"><

. <>;
OUT*

-<

..

'

,, '
'<.'

<

*
>)

*
*
>

** $v #,

a*'/t

/'/

'"

'/

CfllW

',/*''

yi
'/

<('/

"i Off

<

'.

;;iui.

ii\V

';\
TOV

ffCc/vOW >'\

>( //

VM
\i

'.
i,i.'

Oitdw

Ttf
/,u

yi
c"</w/.

/) //*
ri

a2

KOTO TOM

diViH' Xo'yor OVTff

7r/)iiy/iitT(<

/?
TW
en],

'

,, /
Ao'yov

<?

*<

OVTO

.
0ffO<

oWtOTOJ

ikt/i' OUTff

<>

) ,
7ra// ty/MV

/
e-

By

mom

y<

/UIJ

a coocliuioo
/'.

'

Vet,

if

we

WOV

TOO

fftoevai

.Uolule llli),

7/09 TOV-

ilicie

are count

eo/.

ft

//^

leu u
very haul

'
[

, ']
et

to meet,

and
a

rri

, ' , , , ,,
:

,' :
;

ne"ling

gifted opponen.
I

admit

ic.

/".

Wertrtrwleiii

as you of all

men must

,.

, -

8h

realized, be
a

in

consequence

denies the
will

have nought

to

which his

intellect

cantum

and

will thus

annihilate the
possiLility of dis-

cussion.

S. Yo*.

-,

Ic

truth.

P. Yes, So
'rates;

you have

been precipitatt

, .
:

\ ,,\
:

'

.,
).

^
-

10

)
While
still

young

you must rack

yourself with the

type of training

which Zeno has

illustrated.
I

Yet

'

admired your

forcing the question

away from

the sensible to the intelligible

sphere.

S.

I
it

did

so because

seems so simple
to

,,. , ', , , ,, : ] )
el

. \
yap

',

'

show

contra-

dictory qualities
in the former.

P. Yes; but,

if

:
'

'

,,

your training

is

to be thorough,

you must follow

up the consequences not of

,
'

'
:

one hypothesis
alone but of
opposite.
its

Thus
in the

you must,

case of Zeno's
hypothesis, ask

not only

'

if
'

the
'

many are the many

not
to
'

but
are

if

what follows
to

'

,
'

'
' ,

,
;

, ', ,,
,

136

,
,

them and

the one, both

severally

and

reciprocally.

And
ness,
rest,

so with like-

ness and unlike-

motion and
existence

8r a

itself

and non:

existence

in

short, with every

possible hypothesis.

S. Pray, do

you

illustrate

by

some hypothesis
of your own.

, , ^ _ , , ,, ,,
',

, ,
'

],

'

, ,

?]

11

.,>

y /...

l/

..."

0',,\l',

//MM
,,,(',(

<
;;u (

T-O

'.!< I'l

'V'

"'
,

iimimmu
-

uiyyapov

jyoXt y<
,

?/

<>.\ /.,.'">"
.,.!
.;

""

<"/"

/i.r n.'f r<(v

<>
'

wXttOi
'""

.,""
"''"

....('.,

-/), rij

yap
uyi
r<

t.'<

roid

|
I

:<

'' ti|\imiiti;|'

t.nr.jii

yap

01'

.
\''
<>'/

My*w

,">

am

Jia
i

/run.
"'

rXaVijt

,\;('<

<"\<.

,
,.

\.!
,',;.;

at/rot
,'.

*
:

*
</.<

"'
"

7.(/><(<

<

/</,

rrii'v/iart/

(...//.,

\/" <"'

tnrowroi

/.
7('

Tor
tovj

'\
/

*
\ryoi,

SoKt

<"<

rat

,
7.<.
f<V

(.'<'\;

, , , , , , , , , , * ,,
Tor

, ) '* *90 / &' ' '

<('<<<

*<

><!,
caVTOV

uiuyv//,

TfttW&U.

wtmvOtvat,

emivot,
KOI

'
may
well
1

t'</>'

'

/;

MM

OVTOf

>-

the \j)ing of
111

when

venturing thu, it

V'tuds'

',

, .;

my yean, to swim
through Mich a

'

mass
ment.

of

argu-

Let

me

start,

then, from

my
I

own hypothcu

the one
not exist
:

and, again,

what
?

must follow

and

Aristoteles,

as the youngest,
shall reply t

So.

A
i.

I.

If the
is,

one

then,

The one cannot be many

' '

11.

it
'

cannot have
nor be
'

:
:

otrre
: :

'\
:
:

: ;\ '

"

a a

part,'

'

whole

as

both these imply

many.
cannot.

A.

It

],

::

/'

7
-

'

12

,
^

,
: :

'
:

] :
)
',
:

ill.

N'or
'

on

it

have beginning
'end' or 'middle,' these

O7ro

^
'-

'
:

being

parts.

A.
P.
it

Right.
iv.
is
'

Therefore
limitless'
;

'
\
',

'
:
:

rj]

and
v.
'

also

shapeless

'

since shape,

,
:

38

whether round or
straight,

needs a

middle and ends,

-i.

Right.

P.

vi.

N'ow

if it

were

in

another, then
it

were

\
:

,'
:

enclosed

in a circle

and

touched at many
points;
itself, it

and

if in

'

would

both inclose and

be inclosed, thus

becoming two.
Accordingly
cannot
where." cannot.
vii.
'
'

'
:

it

be any-

,
:

''
:

A.

It

P.
it

Can
still*

then
'

'
: :

be

or
1

be
If
: :

in

motion'

in

motion

it
: :

would be either
clianged thus
ceasing to be
:

,-

one

or borne

along, in which

case

i) if it

moved
it

in

a circle

would turn on

a centre

and 2)

as for going from

place to place.

, \

\,
:

'
:

',

, ]

,
: :

' ' : '

: :

13

TcSrt/MN

OVU iWOtC
.

.'...

.>

it .11

.'
|

yyiyn.'u,
i

y/yvcreuj

>, ,'//' />*

*V

MM

Uljn

7r '"

fM imip

1.

ravyoi oi

/<<'/>/

<

?;

to imc ya/)
\">
"</"/

cm

rov

>,

>
oiVcli

/ <Vu. r
u.\(M'

t.i

i''

/<'/

<

'"'

"i"i/

Trot

forcu

aita

//
.'\.)i

Ti>V

.
ui/n

TfVOf /"/
<

/'

;/:

<Se

$
'

,"'/>/ fieri

/"/,-<

yu.Tf'.u' tup, in/

r<

mi r.'i

"<'/"/

\<> <'yyiyi<>u<

a pa

mpioipOfiMVOV, oirt

TO
OR/TO
t'l.Vi

: .
ior Mii (V
9V
j

y<yi(,u<

ov \"V' n
!

ii.Wiiiiiiiiiiiir

OWE tOUCC

\
',
!

aowarwrepov
>
;

tyy*
:

oirr

<

ry

<<
</><"<:

',

OVO

! :

'

W
7rai u /utf

I9TIVS
:

<
(

>! ', '

'/
*

>

'

'
ayei
:

)
:

airy

evetvcn

' yap ow:

//!'

eV
:

:
'

ye
:

hing.

/ yap

Comequer.
cann
I

'
:
:

, ,
\

'
:

/ \ /:
<r

: '
it :

,'
4
,
>/

A. S
would seem.

/'.
it

or will

be 'different from

itselfeUe
were
i

er

,
V

or

'

the

tan

the different'
else

were

it

that

different thing

)
:
:

or 'different froia

77

}]

' , , '
:

:
:
:

,
'
:

:;
: :

': :
'
tv

the different

'

since thedifferent

alone can have

difference
'
:

or

the same as
if

itself for

same were
tical

iden-

with one,

,
-

what of things
that are

same

with the

many ?

: '
'
'

\ / '-

14

So

\
:
:

ere

the one

is
:

neither 'different'

from, nor

'

the

<ame,' as, either

itself

yap
:

'
:

or the dif.!.

ferent.

N\>
/'.

indeed.
be.
'

Nor

will

it

be

like' either to

itself

or the dif-

ferent.
is

For that
which has

81 b ;

like

:'
:

} \:
]

6
:

,:
:

yap

,
:

been affected by
the same,

and
is

as the

same

:.

distinct

from the

one,

if

the one
it

were

like

were

more than one.

Again, since that
is

i]

unlike which

has been affected

by the
the

different,

one being in no way so affected

' ' , ', ':

V
'
f
:

7rXei-

'
:
:

'

is in

no respect

unlike' either

itself

or the dif-

'

' ,

ferent.

A. So

it

appears.
x.

P.
:

Now
will

if

equal to anything
it

be of the

same measures
with that thing,
but
it

has no part

in 'thesame':
if

and
less,

greater or

then,

however
it

(]
,
',

$
:

:
:
:

>/,

'
:

,
:

:
:

7177

measured,

will

have as
parts as

many

measures, and
so will not

be one
it

while

if

has but one

it

::
''

,,
',
: ;

',
t

measure
which
sible
is

will

impos-

be equal
Being
it is,

to that.

such as
it
'

then,

is

neither
'

equal
'

nor un'

,
,

//

: ' ' , , ' '

f Sf
:

equal

whether

to itself or an-

other.
ly so.
\i.

A.

Clear-

p.

Recalling

now

10]

<,
.1

yu/B OWl

\**\
'

,., .>(.!
\,.

<<
(\

/""
'!'"

'/

"''*

/"' " ".

>/

'

/ff|j

<
an
'i/i
<

III

.!/..(

'
ft

,,,',','

ro<

ft

rtpov ouSt
</>.<ll

\>>;

ro

""<
OWPOITO

,'(\\...

OV

T<(f

I'll

<"

'

.ii

rival

TO

t'r.

TimiiTor

iiu

awro
//mi

/"" yiyvwBai]
in T. '/>.
>i

, ',
.

\'/>"l">

TO

TTH/i'i.T.II

<'"' Tt

fi

W \/'"i"> a<<< y

own

-u
m<1
I

'

Tt

'

'

TO

iirriir

yiyin'iu
.'..'

hi'

n.iVi/inr

taWTOU
:

"itu

tTt/uti

i't./ii'I'

/ .'
v>/

Vrt/i.'i

y:'yiiTiii

1M9f

y-

<~ yiyyevoxu

/<>>/

ovros

(hi

/;(>/

en

(uWiMTnv'

Xnv owre

tnu/' 7('
!

(uayvv ya/> or

,
:

,
tow
;'

',

,* "
TfitCTpi
'/''

mV .

trpttrpn
'

/>

/.''

''

or

'

tow

tl a

the

'

yeyoKOTOf ytyovtvai,
yiyrouc'iiii

owt yeyovevai out* fuXow/c

OvSwos

TO ye
:

;': :

.
:

It

hVui

will not
..(

be
all

'

in
:

for

get older and

if

then

wise younger

'

" : , : ,: , ] ] ,
: :

, , ,
)

';

\\
'.

than itself;
while yet
ii

must ever be

, :

itself.

A.

according to the

argument.
xiii.

P.

But those

states of be

was, has become,

will be,
is,

be-

comes, and so

'^

'

on

all

indicate

some

participa-

tion in time.

])

That, therefore,

\6yot alpei.

which

in

no way

partakes of time

has no share
in these.

, ,

?} -

, )

'

16

(
Thus
A.
not.
xiv. Neither,

:yap

the one

will not 'be.'

'

It

tppewi

'

then, can
one.'
not.
xv.

it

'

be

A.

fear

P.

As there can

be nothing either
of or for the nonexistent, so there

can be
for,'
'

'

no name

no science,

perception,

opinion
one.

of
It

the

A.

seems not.

P.

Now

are

all

these things
possible?
at least,

A.

I,

do not

think so.

, :, , ,
:

6 :
:

,
:

: :] ]' )
',

'
'

,
:

'

'

_\]]

'.

II.

P. Shall

we

then take a

, . ) :
;

. ,
:
'

'.

second survey

from the beginning

?

,'
;

Our
is.

hypothesis was
that the one

Now

this in-

volves the separate existence of

82 a a

being, for

'

the

one

is'

and 'the
'

one one are not

identical.

A.
/'

,
'

Quite
i.

so.
if

But

'is

'be

) ' ,
:

,
,
-

: :

said of the one-

existent

and

'one' of the
existent-one

:) .
,

the two elements

being distinct
clearly one
is

and

,
)
: : :

,
:

are

'

parts,'

and the existentone a

'

whole.'

A. Undoubtedly.
P.
ii.

But neither

,
\
':

, ,

{.

,
y,

part ever lets the

other go.

/
.

, ,

:
,

tu>

/
(

60\

(
\"'

Su
,/<
!
:

tun

firm:
<>

7((
<"'

' ..
:

<\
,

'"

<

iv
ru>

OU*

OVV n.-.n/xn
vr//
;

&

,<>

wQUCtv

Iw

<"</

mh
1
1}

/<<

\<n 70

,
<></;

in/: a.u I'M

TO
/<<
.-

V "i
<\ -,
*

:
/.
(

bui

\\
<
/

64

ouwv

ecu

'

trrtpov
/<>;

)
,

/
*/'

<< *,
elvat
<

.u-

Tg

, h
ryeiyn
:

rtpov
.

-rt

<!/>

,<<\\'

<\ <V oumaf

</

erepov
</'

/>

ertpa

:
)

trtpov

/<<

\<

<<<-/>/

tuat

TOW epos

wow
:

* '.
yap
erepov,
:

,
<'

iV

/}

$ *
:

Ce-

it

an.
<Ji

arc liirn

cl

i/Ter

ve

OVTfl

//

trepoy

OW\

eav
ev,

different ha in

tTepov,

ev

/Cat

'
]

,
\

',

"
;

':
//
:

turn a distinct

.
:

,
8

jrjat*

than both.

Take
:

any pair of

being-different,

ev]

'

el

ye:

'
'

,
:

being-one, one
-different
:

they must be
spoken of as both,
or two.

But of
is

two each

ne-

cessarily one.

,
S
;

,,
:

'

Now

if to

:.

these pairs

some

\
\

fob;

one be added
the result
three
:

is

and three

are odd, while

two are even

and twj give
tice,
thrice

:
\

,
'

"

and three
:

,\

,
:

so there

will be

two twice
thrice,

and three

and three twke

and two

thrice.

'

18

Svo t(m

7>/

ye:

re a pa

:
:

\
oiei

,
\ ']
:

44

Vai
Having, therefore,
-/

by the

existence of one

every combination of

'
'.

even and

odd,

we have
;

number

and so

OUpa

limitless multi-

tude, whoseevery

,'
: :

,
: :

''

portion par-

V
is

takes of existence,

which

thus endlessly

subdivided into
parts.
is so.
iv.

,
{:
\
:

A. That P.

,
:
'.

But of neceseach of these

is

',

sity

parts

one.

Thus

the one

clings to every
single portion of

,
:

' , ,, ' ,
:

being, and has

a-i

',

many
sion
:

parts a:

there are divi-

is,

in

short, not a

whole

but a limitlc?
multitude.

',
:

,'
',

Accordingly wc

V
>/

show not merely

the one-existent,

but the one

itself

through the
action of existence, to be

'many.'
tirely so.
v.

A. EnP.

But parts are

7' , ,
'.

parts of a whole,

which circumscribes

them

::
:

' , , ' ,' ,

:
:

''

\
'
'

-2

'

'
:

, :

45

ll

,',.,

.'r iff

TTl'

/<<,.

iirrtfHH'

.,,., . !

..-.
01

]
.

TH'H Ml)

/.

<>\.\(, Ml)

""/"'
"

</'""""
:

'

'

/'

* /'
7

CM "V*'/

'
,

,,,
,>\;
''}.

'

<'(

''

\.

iMvrpiMi
J

<(7<//, '' \'!<.>" \/ "<

U> VCU
,'"""'
j

01*

<\:
j

' .

*or <

<"\'><

AVt<
"\
\

\'"
'

*
"
((/

(otn-nnnjr,

,
,

(/>
/

) }/(
Itr6r0fi
'/
)'

, 9/\,
;

,,

\.<

\<

in-

ya/9 HI
01

/(
\:

ad)
-,

0lj

."/, TOtOVTO

"<<

"'

t '

<
:

<

t*mt
y<</>
hav
r

to.

,'
;

(/

\
Trill'
i

7(

<

(I

f UI'Ti;'

rTTUI Mil

ffl

(\\'"'
;

77"

ui/nri
:

mi

-i

Tin

04
/<*'/>/

'

(
faro <V

oV"

'

mii OI/OCV MCTOJ TOO

<it

OAOV)
A.

:u*
It

</'\( rui;

ye

7(((
:

"/, /) o^Tf

\
7((
eY
tVj
t

OWC

001

)
oVra, earn

o't

'
*

] /
mu
CH/T
ol/
!

// </
vii.
'/

P.

And

vi will

CMKI ~<<

..jht,
il or
..

<

irtu

A.

It

*
:

will.

OVTC0f aV

'

ye
*
*

Te er Tiic

ei

,
:

oe

ev ev

ye

'
evi,

,
ev

all
'

thi

.:

p<j*e ihe w;

'in it,

the one
is

en
ev

ei

oe

'

which

both

whole and pans,

U
?i is

'in itself

as the

whole

ye
ev

ovSe
ev

ev
eo/,

\"
ev

\
:

ev

,.
>
'

,
ye
:

eTi

oe

{}

]: ,
\,
ev

/
ev

not in the

parts
all

whether
if it is
ii

or some or

one
:

to be

anywhere

n.u -

(viewed as a
whole) be in the
different, or 'in

another.'

A.
P.

Inevitably.
.x.

\,
:

Eut

i) if

always

in itself in the
'

it

'
,

}]\

-,

is

always

same, or
:

is

while

=;

if

always

in the
it is

different

never in the same,

: ] :
:

20

ev

,
/}
:

83 a
so
is
'

in

motion.'
.1

So.

P.
is

x.

Everything

to everything

either the

same
is

: ) ',
,

\' ,' ' , ] ,'\

8e
) :

aid

'
:

or different, or

part or whole to
that which
is

'
: :

'

,
',

)
:

so
i)

now
is
itself,

as the one

yap

not part of

nor a whole to
itself

':

as part, nor

different

from
it is

the one,

the

same as
but

itself:

2) the

one
in

was both
not in
differs
itself

and
so
it

itself,

from
3)

: but

,: :
)
:

that which differs

: ;

differs

from the
;

different

the
differs
11

me, then,

',' , , , ' ,
',

'
)

6
)

'

not from itself

but from the

(triers
:

4)

the

'

different, again,

cannot be

in

tither the not:

ones or the one,

else
it

were the
:

^ame with them

will not these,

then, escape alto-

gether from
differing?

Nay
must
all

,
: : :

'

'
*

,'
)
:

'

,
:

'

::
'

thenot-ones.tobe
truly such,

be without

share in the one

they cannot
even be number
for that

''

'

,
:

reason

, ]
$
:

,:
>
rr

'47

nor can they be

parts of the one,

\\\,

or the whole of
it,

nor the con-

verse.

,
: ;

;
: \

/ /
(\\

>'

<

<<

''

'

f/LOfita'

../:

' yap
"'/

"/""
('.((

\ \ij\ois'

"-/<(/*(

/'</)

''

'\<'
mWi.'I
<

'.

iVf/lll'l

/
.\'

/
-.;
>>

!
CH/TO
.

. /

OVTOi

', //
.\iiyni
:

''
HIT
'/

II,

./.

i.rl*,//

//
!

.1/1

//

/> , >, n /,, /

<

I/V

mWo/vj
"///
/>

OVV tTtpOV TO

* ,'.

/, \.

tu\\u
'.'.

'' 0U

(;>|
';

" \\<',
<<).//
tti

(/

.\ \'

TtyapaV: ttapa/iifn
TiiV

iua

Wm

, ,]
'/';
'

'

00*

Ol/V 01/

/'/
'
'

tTtpOV
TiiiTi'n

ur
'

toi

(.

1'<

7' \eytit
yt!

KCVTTO
;

/ ' ,'
Tf tV
(II

uYVit

KOI Ti\\u MCttVOU

'(.Wilis'

-,
M/At/V;

bcrfh

OVK

<

7'

'
/

//

';'

"/'''"

, / ,
,
tav /uey
tav St

/-/
*/~//v,

iu'

'"/"'".
to.
I'.

dVaf

aceUO
;

ir/KMrayo/woeis
v f(l/
"'" '

ovrtp

,
1
'

\\, \\
trepov
re
:

7,\
\

Mike 'an J 'unlike' to itself

and

theoi
i)

Ktu

evi Ttvi]

ye:
'

the one

and

the ethers mutu-

tav

7/9, owe e~
:

oi^oe

ally differing to

]
,

"

eiOS

#:

, ' >)
//

,
tol
' :

me degree
are like ly this

equal difference

difference having the

same

meaning whether
used of the others
or of the one.

: -
:

And

2) if dif-

ference give
likents-s

same-

ness must yield

\ ] ?:

):
yap
ye
:

unlikeoess
the one

now

was the

same as the
otherit is

unlike them.

\ : ,
>}

yap:

<

.
: :
:

t)

, -

22

Hut

3)

it

am
so
it

also different

from
ts
'

itself,

like itself 4) the

and

same

.s i:>elf,

thereit

, , , ' , , ,
:

]
:

' , , , ,
?/

,
$
: :

fj

avo-

<S'

Se

ev

Te

'

ye:

eTepov Te

8jb

lure finally

umst be
itself.'

'

unlike

A. NeP.

cessarily.
xii.

, :,
;

Sai

Since the one

in itself as
it

was

whole

touches

itself;

but being also

in the others
it

:
:

touches them
likewise.
to

Now
itself

touch

"^

:^
ev
ft ft
:

the one must

lie

next

itself,

liut this
it

make

two

as
it

, ~,
:

surely as

one, so surely

caO

it

not touch

itself.

And, a>

, : , , '
: :

~ ' , ) ,
8

: ,,
:

,
ev
ev

<

ev
;/

'

:y

,
'\

:
'>

ev

'

>)

tietween two

things which

touch no third

can come, two

things will yield

one touch, and

threetwotouci.es

always one
:

,,
:

'
el

,
:

49

touch fewer thai

the things
thing,
:

,
\

one

no touch.

\:\

,
: :

"

? ", ' ~'

aei

Leo

n>i

forty, /('/'( qvh .a

('
(
1
1

<

>/

'
or
1
<

nv

o"t< in
iv

'\>

rott
1

yqp ovVap
!

Pa i'i'Wk. port

< , /
-..'s

yap! mm
rtp

'"

po

aoroit:
<

iwf "v tvovrot

1

>

'''".

ofo

\
>

pa

mmi
uriii

iiiV.'i

ow:

''\

dWn'i dhrn reu

'

',
*V
<i/>'

iv,

mm ouay owe a? ay
:

',

/ oVtoiv

owe

mi

/
01
>

>
dpi
Till

aparofi
rrtv.

roi fwl

rep ayrif
V.

<m'\
\
.

'/

MITll TTillTK

TOVra TO
6Sv
'//

IV
IVroi

\"M Ml'
pi

Kl'T"
/rea

Tf Mil

rrrra*: ui/m :
> ;

<
1

,.\;

^'

>'

J)

'',
tlVQi
<

< <W

ye

/
>
06
f|

\iirrn, ii/>u OVA

\
[\\.]
m
.

'

'

i'cruT'

,
OS ix'ri
tyoifi'
: :

any

ownaff
i'cra

uV

el'/

7/>

*
ei'
:

t\uTT<>i uv

<>t

(ttyeOo? yuev

i 5

''
'.

rive

' \\\ :
'
'.

, ,
/xty St

\\ /
at
-

than r,

-4ely from

<>-

.
.

the poesMon b>

of the

iloot of bigneM
allnevl.
i)

Now

naU
in

nest cannot

appear
one
:

the
it

for if

tended through
the wlmle
it

\
:

'
: :

: ,
)
)

'f

, /]
\

would be equal
to
it,

wliiic if
it

it

(urrounded

u
,

would be greatei

and
if it

so likewise appe;::

j part

hut small

,',, \ :
:

\
"

"
:

y
:

)0

'

,
,
:

,-

ness

is

never

equal or greater

Again,

if bigiii

ness appeared

'

, ,

.
-

the one then

were the one

ger than
it,

big-

aV

and

that without

any

sraallness to sur-

pass

which

is

impossible.

24

neither bigness

: )' :
.

nor smaltness
exists in
it

the

one cannot lw
either bigger or

smaller than the

others, nor they

than

it

hence
!je

the one must

equal both to
itself

and the
2)

, ,, , ]: fj
: :

\]

'

',

'

others.

>.
:

however, the

one

is

within,

it

:
:

must also be
around,
60
it

itself;

must be

bigger and
smaller than
self.

,
'
',

'

Again

outside of the

one and the

others nothing
exists
;

and that

which exists

must be somewhere
;

and
S^'a
1 :

,
'

'

:'

.
:
:

'

] 15
:
:

being somewhere
it is

\
,

::

a smaller

within a greater.
(Iearly, there:

fore, the

one and

the others are

reciprocally each
in

the other, and

alternately
i'igger

and

smaller each than

the other.

Accordingly the

one

is

'

equal

to,

,,
',

, ,
\

'

, ] '
'

' ',

,
:

greater and less

than

'

itself

and

the others.

A.

It

seems

so.

P.

xiv. But, if so,

'
:

): '
,
'

'

,
/,

:)

1M

Utlt
,.

\, !,>,<')

/[<('

Mil

,/<<

;/>

ill

//

Ml

/ ..'I

.
,

Ml!

I
I

,'ui-i in

l!

t'\il

'
.
l!

\(
01

A"!
<"-!'

A.l!

'

'

,;'

od

,. mm'
dj

/>

>'\

'

7.\

' :

7'->.
01
'

*
i\mr

fXcmrW
CDOat/Tttf
<

i/iiiiVinii

ah!

'' /'
ON

,
:

Wpot ru\\u

ii'nu mj!

./>/>.
T04J iiWoiv
mi! xXe'oi' mi! i"\htti)I'

Yaw

0
TtfiW

<!/>'

Tt ah!

7'\

: .

nViu

'
Ow mi!
/ueV

;:
Tor

* ,
&t>

"<./-''!.

'"'

,/,.'
*/ ( in

<

Tim

"
ty
fit

'

<

r.

fit

tiTt

Yaw
,

ah!

to

7;"
i'.Vj.

OvTMf A(

OV|

Mf

avrov rrcu
%
>

\/)o'i <'

fU Ti'\u

TO W%

tern

OVTO Ti
OOTf

tutTOi' KOI

WTOO OUT*

',
eOTfPj

< '*
<

OUH

ft

aui firo*
th*

aAAM*

.V.
'

11

in I

k<u

nwn

equal

(TO

OOTf

7>

/xera

TOO WapoVTOf

is

'/'' / tfTii

TOO

7ra/)e\i;\i/(J<)TO?,

/
:

yap

eivai

xaw

'

' ], ,
,

' : : ,
ye:
'.

yiyverai

,
,
:

';

, ,
cm:
j

',
Vfft)-

the othrr, and

more and
'

'fewer.
will.

A.

It
1

xv.

ILt

the one
that

MM
it

kliarct in ex-

time that

it

at

enrep

any moment
present.

partaki:

time,

and of
it

time as
it
'

panes,

becomes,' as
at

we argued,
once 'older
'

yiyverai

younger than
'

yiyverai

itself.
'

But

it

is

'

both only
in pr
it

yiyverai

when,

{)

,
)

eon

'
ei

>'
;
;

'

of becoming,
alights at

now

'

:
-

a point which in
passing from
past to future
it

t
-

84 a 2

cannot skip.

Thus, when
.

at

its

becoming

: '

ye
#,

26

, , ,
and
is

, ]:
' \ ',
#:
:

^ ;:
\ '
: :

\ -

both older
:

and younger than

itself.

And
it

this

process

repeats

'

through

its

whole
But

existence.
it

must always be

and become the

same length
time as

of

itself.

Hence the one

is

neither older

'

',
,
,
:

:
']

)
:

nor younger
than, but has
'

the same age

'

] , :
;

as

itself

whether being or
becoming.
2).

The

others,

again, as plural,
are more than

,
'
:

', :
,
.
:

.
:

,''
:

S3

one

possess

more number
than the one.

But the fewer

comes

earlier,

and the fewest

first.

So the one,
is

as earlier,

,
;
:

: : : ' :

'

older than the

others,

and they

are younger than

it.

Again, how-

ever, the one

parts,

had

and so a and

beginning end

'' ,
,
'
:

and middle

by

its

nature the

:
:

,
'

beginning comes
first,

and the end

last

, , ,,
-

'
:

'

8b

',

'

:-

::v

.)',',

ii'iuni y<

00 <<
,

mi

y. yi

<

:
1

1,

1 1

;.

/>

< u y//
1

<< If

//

7</

'//

ytyovoj wo

(.'( /
h

ii^uc

oW

>

vpvrtpa

<>

:
- \

\<

\ ,
01

y. yi

<

t''.

<
'''"'

>>>
\

yiyw

<>

V"

fVOf

/
>
.
1

tvos

(\

, /Mpof yt
t/mvtoi yiyvo/Mvoj yiyvoiT

ovj
<<i'

! /
rai
:

ooi

<"/

/>,

/
/<>/

/)
our

/"/"

yiyvo/uurvwi

ovV|

OVTM

,
ua.

/xw
OVTI

ojrn

fff^OTOW OUT

avoXuoVovv

\
'

tv

//

ywon

^}
', W

cuf,

*
'"

/*

1.

<

ihjin

'/

OUoVvOf

okWr

id an

, o&Tf
KOI

;/,
:

TO

*.

/*'/

flortpov

/
evor

ytyovoc
OUT

/ '
:

'

with

ourf vttuTcpov

TOW
TTf/al

,
<J>;

TOV \oyOV

(be

/?

/?
yeyovo'?.

..II

It

,
).
llic

arnl h.t

TOW

kui
evo?'

<,

>;

: ,
:

/>/

>1

SvvaiTO,

(6 :
'
tv
:
:

, ,
:

/ / '
;/

ei

5 \\,

of

amr
.

with then,
different,
rse
it

and

ih:

but

docs

become

too y<yvea$at

olderor

eyto TocrovSe ye.

younger iit

,
:

cannot be
;

more so

for if

equals be put to

unequal*

always
as

differ

by

much
:

as at

first

and equal
but when
is

times are added

here,

KCU
:

the one

older

yt'yore

,
6

"

/#>7

>)

:
'

>'/

'
:

>'
(3

>)

'

'

28

than the others

it

has existed
r

than they,
to these

8.(

b?

and

if

unequals

we add
differ

equal times the

wholes will

by a

less part
first.

than at

The

one, then,

would always

become

less

and

less older

than
;

the others

that

is,

would

Income younger
in respect to

them, while they

grew older
tively to
it.

rela-

But

though always
having this

tendency they
never are
so,

<ince they con-

tinue to differ

by the

original

interval, albeit

that interval

. , : :' , ' ,, ' , , , , ' ' upa

ire

, ? ,
:
:
'

,
:
: : :

kv

\)

'

'

'

'55

'

'-

\-

forms an everlessening part of

their respective

ages.

Thus
is'
'

. ,
,
\

'

the
'

one

'

and

i-

not,'
'

becomes

and does not

become,'
in
'

'

equal

age

'

and

' , ,
:

ft

'
:
:

older

'

and
in

younger'

regard to the
others

and
it.

they to

A.
/'.

Perfectly so.
xvi.

, ,
:

As partaking

of time

'
,

', \
: :

Lea

,
fCa\

("m<i<

&',
KM
f
y'y M TtU KOI

/yi'yi

ytvfetTUl
rraii

7/
<"/

nm
/
<'m
.

mii n//
<

<'

ami

/',
tt/mittoih

)
<!/)('<',

Kan

rawyi!

r5oa mi)
r
:

nmp
,\/yus'
^ <*)

mi) ovo/iayrrai

Xcyrrai'

raw TvyyaMi

'
1

"

<>/

<
\"i

<

*.
*

;(

KOI

OVOtfa

<

AoyOf

Ol

7r</>i

twtomm
/*'

(
\/\''<'<v

'

<\,

nim ("

//

ai

/]

IV Tt 5* KOI
/<<'

KponoV] ori

if
;

trrii'

pq /itn
,*'/

TOT

<(/><

\-/><<

OVTOV

/uert-'yi

^ '
,

7 ovavaf "<( \</, 0 / iKTi\fi

owtaf

:
'

) ;/
<</>

'/'

mrt, <>
or /*<<

7 /
\<<
ft'
>/

COI
/.

<"-

'Ay:

OV
'.

/' /
/nert^i'i':

oToVTfJ

</>

TOO

7<
OMC OVV

\<
/
OV
/u? />' ^"

TOT

/At"'

<
:

TOTe
:

<5e

/;

; ,
>/

KOI

</>

5^

Vov

<

#
)

oe
eV
"/,

oV

,
ye
: :

, '
ytyi'o/xeiOi/ /cat

KOI

raw

ye

?
:

eoie,

/
<
be

and,
I

not, not.

79

both at once.

Thu
which

there will

time at
it

Lakes

hold on existence,

and one
it

at

which

lets go.

one, there
'

becomes and
'

/// '
ye
:

5e

'perishes.'

A.
/'.

Ofnece^sity.

Heing both

one and many,

when
as

it

becomes
perishes

as one

it

many, and the

In
it

ye
:

converse.

which process

must

'

be separ-

..:

}]

)}

ytxj/Te

, ,
:

ye

~ "

ated and

united
like,

' ;

'

grow

and un'

like

'

wax,

'
;

ye

oi^oe)?

yu?/Te

:'
:

-\

wane and grow

equal.'

A. Yes.
iii.

.
in pass-

But

ing to rest or

motion
change.

it

suffers

When
it is

changing

neither in motion

nor at
this
it

rest,

and

cannot be

in time.

30

. . ,'
ovv
When changing,
then,
it

' ore

must

l>e

out of time, and

in that

odd thins

the instantaneous, which

lurks between
:

motion and

lest

apart from time.

And when
out of time
'

it is it

',
-

: ' '
'

'

,
:

, '

*si

neither

is in

'

'
:

, ,

motion nor at
rest,'

'neither

becomes nor
perishes,' nor

possesses

any

other such
characteristic.

, ,
1

'

So

fares the one,

if it is.

A.

How

could
wise
?

it

be other-

IV. P. Rut now,

if

the one

is,

what
t

of the others
i.

, '

'

, -

,
\
y/

,
-

yf

30

They are
Right.

not

,
yf

30

^
:

the one.

A
ii.

P.

Yet as others

they must have

parts, else

were

they completely

one

and parts

are parts of a

whole

a whole
For they

,'
:

,
:

,
:

which must be
one.

cannot be parts
of a

many which
were

,
:

, ,
$
:

', '

'

:
:

*
ji

c
:

includes themselves, else

each part part of

itself

and of each

of the others.

'

, , , ,
]

>

\\.
.

,
m'.'<

oirTMf t vot

mrrat
/"/'"'
'

\
'

>'

'
of ci'(i(V roTii

<'s

'

owe

nil.

i/iiii'nTiii'

VI //:

<(/((

\ \"'

> /uiac Tivof iotas < < < < \<' y<yoro\\ TOITOU
rt

<

^
**'*

/ ">
"

:.'
,

/ <<

TO

"'\<,

'

airamn>

<'

/
)

<

<"\(

'

row

(''
7< /)

/t'/i'

<>~

liiiiyM/

inn \(/

5
OV

VTOV
'*

'!<<

/ 7/
(!'

',
!

, </> acaoTOw
'/

1;

' \
hi
KOI

*
y<

\'

<
<>

<

ical

\
*

^!
< *

y<

imv

arayint:

4.

caoTow

atrrof Xoyot"
at

(<\.

<>

a.VWr
<>V

ftao

/
-

y< f/ca
ooene,

'IOC
if

<;

,:

irj ir pari

opuwt

y' aY
<

toC oj
IVV

oV

/'
V ftvat
f
lli

yap av /u T<i\(
:

OVTO
!

J"

WOV

'.

"

<)t

tVi

troy

0M,
S.,.
:

wliil

OVK

"' /,

/
:

iiXov
()

/
:
'

OV

it.

A.
.

than
one, arul

tlir

'

di

'

/
C
;
:

]\

, ,
T(j
:

.
:

, ,
\
:

'

unlimited

in

s-,

number.'
if

we

cut off in

our mind

era
tli..'

the smallest of

which has no
-hare in one,
will
it

be a multi

'/

,
\ /^ '

;ude.

A.

Quit.
/

,,
:
:

..

Yet

a*,

all

parr

in

turn

become
-

one tbey posses

limit toward.

each other and

,
>

>

' /

,\ ,
-

-e?-

the whole, conversely.

s

and

related

one, the

ot:
dill

become
in

themselves

32

and produce
'

'
:

limit

'

even

while their

] ,
A.
P.
\

nature

is

un-

limitedness.

Quite
vi.

so.

And

as being

all

limited

and

all

unlimited they
are
'

like'

while, as being

both at once,

they are
like'

'

un-

to themand each

selves other.

A.

fear so.
vii.

/\
so

And

we

shall find

same-

ness and difference,

, ' , ,
'
: :

,
'
: :

. )
'
'

:
:

)
\

159

"

and

all
:
:

other contradictory qualities in

the others.

,
\
:

A.

Right.

V. P. Yet again
i.

The one and

the others are

quite separate,
as there
is

nothing to contain both.

, \ ]

: :

A.
P.

Yes.
ii.

.
:

,
-

The

true one

has not parts

nor
is it,

as
85 b 2
1

whole, connected with the others.

Hence the others

have
in
'

no one
at

'

them

all.

'
P.

: : ] : :
:

,
D

A. No.
iii.
'

Nor are they many for

'

having no one,
neither have they

Civ
:

,
: :
:

, '
,

two,three A. So.

, .

'

*
^
tV ovtoic

ii

"'

".

/'

<'><><<>'r>/v

'!

<>">>/<'

|/04

\\/\ <"\<
y
-,

'
);

<

, /
'">

,<

\,

<><

< two

'/.

'

'>,

lavroif

<

tpw rvot!

fi

^* tvof
noouf
>

tertv our

yao
St

luiiuDM

<<r

mooo
irivovMva

oWa

otaii too

<

"

<

. :
j

aoWa

and
*

"

frtpa,

uiroWi'fina,

irout'ict

,
ev

Ot

/
<

irtVotOf

torwra, ovA

<^>

ovSi t\<iTT(i) ovot

yiy><>
01

a\\a,

\<ii

tvOf KOI

KOI

(irroiV
:

,
ft'

ye Tramru
:

'

or any

ihoe needing
one,
.'

f!

],

] , ,
:

\ , ' :
:

0|

odd

ar.d

even

'
:

,
'
:

have

r.ot.

A. Mo.:
vi.
is

true.

ThuJ

the one
e

at

once

thin;;

nothing,
itself

t<

]
,

,
'.

and

Xl.er-.

A.

tirely so.

'

B.
'

I.

P.

E
.

if

the one
foil'

,
,
,

'\ , \
:

,
:

,
:

6: ,
),

{]

,
:

,)' ,
\
:

what

To

legin with,
r.

the phrase

indicate some-

thing separate

yap
\ty6nevov

ywdo-Kercu
eh*i,

-.

and know

>]
:
'

;>/

]
:

'
-

Hence
i.

there must be
of
i:.'

a 'science

A. True.
ii

P.

The

others

also

must be
from
'.t

different
else
ifi -

it,

were

not

different from

them
'

i:

ha>i
'

differentneis

o:

its

own.
seems

A.
^o.

It

'

34

'
ui. It

ev.

,'
:

)
:

must

like-

).
6

wise partake of
'that' 'some'
'

for this,'

and so

, , ,
:

,
:

)
)

, ,
,

' ),' ,ye

on, if

we may
it

speak of
iv.

at all

and

so,

while
it

non-existent,

partakes of
'

.
'

many."

A.

\Jr.
/'.

, '
:

,)
'

doubtedly.
v.
'

1 1

must have

unlikeness

toward the
other:- -

'
'
:

:
:

,
'
:

, '
: :

]
'
: :

different are

.
P.

unlike

and.
'

therefore,

like-

ness

'

to itself.

A.

it

must.

]]
'

vi. It is

not equal

to the

others-

else

it

would

both exist and be

(so far; like

an
'

so

partakes of
inequality,

, )
:

'

' ,'
: :

towards them.

A.
vii.

It does.
It,
'

'
'
ICa)
:

'

,'
)
:

' ', '

'

) ' : : :

therefore,

has

bigness
^rnallness'

]:
:

]
]

'

:
:

viii.
it

having these.

must have
which

equality.'
lies

betweer.

them.
appears
ix.

A.
so.

It

) )

)
)
)

D
:

P.
:

Hence

it
;

must somt

partake (even)

] ,
: :

' ' '

uv

,
:

) ,)

:
)

7177)

"yl 004
i.h
<('
<".'

hi

,\\>i<hi

\,'y,,tfltl>

/;..

/0T*1

ItflJ

It

/('/,

OjjXoV

on

T'

u(

t>ry

iirttoi)

<V
J

<\
oVlM

(< '/.
\iynv uut'
*<"**.
''">'

<<\ QPTttj

/
'

t'ptn

0OWM
n'

\<
//
Si

\<'y<ii:

)
/

ravrctiratf
or, ti

). u

$ \\
or,

font <V">
1

"

*'

oY.
1

yap
.

|)

ttiai

/<< ITOOf TO
'7/> To

'"'/

uVdi, fOOt/f |<TT04

<"/>

4W/iioi'IxvtoS
iIcto //

ghat,
OVTtff

*'\ <
(

"'

ar

7
/;

Tot~ fi'-dt

Tttvai fS
:

: ,!
tT/,

/'
ft

3,

</>

' <
Ot
ei"

/
ftvat
,n>;

<

'^
flWU

ffvai

<<,
/<!/

or / KXU

rd

u>'\\ti

.' (
or,
I

TOM

, !)
or
AUJ

or /u/
UI)

''

/or tow
/''/
n.it!

u;

oV,OvV/af

&

TOM t?KU ;
TTf/i

**|

OUR

T<p

Tf orr< TOW
OVK
(5/;

TO

filj

rat

: <, '

"

' tw
/tf-

TOO cadi

KXM OVOia

rat
:

,
:

0)
D

, , , ,
:

, \ , ,
: : :

: : \
:

"

, -,
rat
:

'.

,
\

fnun
alike

and not

OVTtO

1.

Now 1)
c:
:
'

involre
I

\:

the other

'

',
<:

nont
'mo;,
z),

therefore,

as non-

existent

and
i:

nowhere,
not chan t
place
;

nc

7
:

revolve in the

'
:

same plac

'

elvat:

, ,

:
:

, :
or
:

the same

nor yet
its

ci.

ruture.

should ccl
talk,

of the

so

it

must

'

be

still.'

A. Of
I'-

necessity.

,.

The

existent one,

then, both moves

or changes,

63

'
:

>]

--

36

\~
)
*nd

wtill

or

changes not! audi

.is

changing,

it

Incomes' n.-

other,
'

and
'

perishes
t-

from
;

former state

while, as not
(.hanging,

it

6\
'

neither becomes

: , , ' ,, ,
:

owe

,'

'

'

: )] ] '
*,:

:
'
'

nor perishes.'

A. Inevitably.

'

II.

P. Let us

, , ,

revise

from the

beginning,
.
'

When we
is

sny

,
;

:
-

,
>]

not'

we mean
the thing

utter absence of

being

in

spoken of: therefore the non-

,
:

existent one
'

cannot Lecome

or per.sh.'

A.

It
/'.

appears not.
ii.

It

'

cannot
'

change

in any-

way
ni. it

'

cannot

move,' nor yet

'

be

still
'

'

iv. it

has not
small-

ess,

ness, or equally':
v.

nor

'

likeness

or differentness'

either towards
itself

or others.

A.

Cle.iily not.

;:
:

'

,
:

_ ),
'
:

?
\

y
:

:
:

,
:

'

, :

<
: :

' , ) ,
'

af

'

87

|
|

0/4040
:

<i'

01 o.uooi. *

\.
#/

.
#}

'/>

Ct/vOW
";

'/

'/

'/

/
;//!'/
;

1/

Toir.il',

iiWni'

<')'';/.,
<

rail

ovn ftrrcu

' ,
i't\\i.\
\

' '.

'/''

'

/;

<

OVV

n/u

OVj Si

*
<<

lourcy

<
:

ovoa/ug <"\<n

fn

ii \yf4fi
/"/

lv

/"/

<<

,\7"/

<'*
in'*

>-

<</ ,:

<\\(
.'.

! \.' <
<W;

< Trt/w <

.'-)

uW.M

'
OVA*

tow
:

ya/ uj
lbm( 'one'
'

"<>

ft

-/<

\\.( <"(/ /.'

,

m <

a. 1

1?

(/)
a

./x(/uiTo tTipOV iinti

/ ,
OV

7/>< TOJI

KCU

Ti'h'Wii

'

Wo (' .'iWoi'";
:

,/

(1

yt

yap',

^
\

no':

TOIf

'"</"'.

"

'"

<<,
1
1

iij

ovV

.
:

t<i)

<<<

yap

of owe

TOWToyapooToiipTiX
U
ti.
'

TTfTdi,

jbUfOfVOS

(M(U

)/\"
00$

*
-"/
,

/*

Qpv&f'.

0*1

/Ca\

^ , , : , ( . , , , , . > . \
oyKOf

TOT0V

\apff

'

oca/o tV

evoj

7,

- to/,

uij

ovroievof.

<'

/
-

not
-

'

what of

They muil
ai there

be

othe
is

ii.

no

one, must be

/7;)

60 b
'

other than each

other.'
iii.
'

But each

must be so

by multitudes,'

eren the smallest

breaking into
countless

number

and acquiring
boundless
ir.
'

size,

etVat

These

will

seem

to be one,
;

delusi\e!y
v.

Bad

number, odd,
even,' fulsely.
vi.

'seeming

smallest

'

'

'appear
while a

^
,

';.

ot/Te

,
//;/

: :,

mal

'

equal will
'

seem

to

come

between.
rii.

Each bundle
'

will

seem

to

have a limi
have cob:;

yd

ning

38

since these persistently reverse

their nature

OD

closer mental scrutiny,

viii.

They
.is

will

regards

both themselves

and each other,

'

seem

like or
'

,
11

, , ,
,

,
:

different

accord-

ing as they are

seen far off cr nt

hand.
ix.

,
:

,
'.

,
:

,:

'
^
:

They
'

will, in

.iort,

seem the

ame and
different, touch-

ing and separate,

\
:

,
:

D
:

moving

in

a'.l

ways and standing,

becoming

perishing and
neither'
all
;

and
;

such

thir.gs

if

they exist

while the one

(
87 a

,
'
:

does not.
.4.

Most

tr ,e.

IV.

/'.

Once
finally:
is

,
'

, \ , :

more and
'

if

the one
'

not

while the

others are
i.

,'
:

\
:

they will 'not

:

be on;,' nor
'

many,' which

involves one.
ii.

'
,

'//
:

.
'.
cv
:

Nor will they

either,'
c

seem

having no

nection with the

non-existent,
ni.

There

no opinio

'
in

'

semblance
:ion-existe
it

.hem.
I

hey
'

wi'.l

::'

neither
.

seem

many,'
..
'

like or

: ^

, :
:
: :

1 66

,
.
:

19

uoia

ov

yap
\

< rd
\

." y<

/
'.

'.
(MM
.'

/
.'

/
:

\.
OUT!

anTo*u*m

,,.('<<!

-i.it

-(

/'
Te

/
Tfiof

.. ' > fou ',

(.
:

<

61\

/..,

/\'

'.

/"- ;< (.\>,

/<;/<">,

>

(blljle

'
(ecu

"

"

</".
-

./

ttiiith

,,.

oXifOtWerra:
~^_
>
>

'
ttp
tu

TQiVW TOVT0

<

Km

Tf auj
forty,
1
1

<

ircu

irpof

/
-

MX,

ureu
<

may

>

r.

>-*-

il.ai,

"J.

' <

.1

111(11

-^~'
IOW .: xlve
id!
-

..
,

and err
not eem.

NOTKS.
I.

TEXTUAL
the

THE
'me
not

following
for

is

detailed

presentation of the readings in

Manuscripts

}[

Tun.

t,

given

line with

the printed text.

The

readings of

i(t

ind accentuation! in which these Mss. differ from the text.

including

show the points, including punctuation Those of Tub. give the panic.
letter,

punctuation but including every divergence of a

in

which that Ms.

is

at

variance with
are

&

The
;

readings of Tub. are in different type from those of the other two.
c.

Erasur^

shown by a *

while

after a

word means

that

it

is

contracted in the Ms.

For the usua.

contractions see pp. cxi. exxiv. above.

HI
'

-,
-.
'

Tub.

t.

-)/<0
[small

-uvro? X't'V

'/"/

'

T V^ (
'

) eftrOV ',

-(.

'

-'
-)

,
1

.
>

on *

^ dark,

["

/^ OOKt*
1

to

wide,

ace. patched.
[III.
1

ye:

. --.
-,
'
1

-<,

oJSe cftrov ',

'

. -. /
'

-0am:

, "

no
subss.
' '

.
8'
-?f
'

-.
c.
'

. .
C.
'

-.
}
' '

->
'

\))'

'

'

TJJ

TOl'TO 0-

-OTvk.

'

'

'

'

rough, PI.

l<rl

no

subs.

[a little, darker.

' -,
'

'

/-

.'
last

patched

.
'
-0}
c.

-). . ?.
c.
'

</)>/

.
'
'

/^

/'
[-V
/xot cur!

V"?

.
8ey
eraiptp.
>;?

'

TtVi

last

added?

two words
little.

[patched a
Set.
'

last ecurs., see

. ~
'

)
.

---. ; ?: -.
1

-( . \ .
[out

i.

througi

C.

.
C

</"/'

'

'

--?.

-'>/

[PL

'
1 '

] ,
'

-' -. .
'

<
1
-

-Xayij.

8
'

'

'

-?.
-rot.

-yen'
'

?"

-Vt.

-,"

tall

and narrow.

'

later.

'" "
:
'

-
?,
'

'

->/.
'

?.

)-'
'

'

-$.

41

42

PARMENIDES.
SI.

..
'

Tub.

-^*

-.

*
' '

'
8.
ISctv
'

?"

-.
'

vSov

. .# . . .
'

-.
C.

t.
'

-^'

'

'

'

'

,. -vof
'

-'
-,
-/.

-$.
had been ,
[row.
'

-paler,

tall,
'

, *
1

-6*]*
'

,5
nar,

.-mucm
c

. -' -' -'

'

-"
yap

- .

,-8,
-TeAij,
'

-?,
[neat,

-
fainter.

and first ' and

-5>

small,

--''
'

c.

. . ..
'
'
'

C.
'

'

-^
'

-.

-. -, -* -.
j^Jvovos*

-*

-6*.

-.

* *
&7
'

'

, . .
-.

'

,
'

,
gap, see p. lxxxviii

- - -. -*
'

'

. '

c.
'

'

C.

'

-. [
-a.
'

'

very like
'

'

-'*

-*
-/,
,

?
iravras

p. 3.

' :

*
-,

'

=
'

* -. * ? , . \-, -* -* / . , ' . [, . . - --* , ' ,& ; . -* .-' ' . '

/3
'

.
'
' ' '

-?

- , -.
'

-.
'

? -.
"

'

changed to ot oroi

, '
'

faint.

-'

*
:
'

changed to
[orig.
t

* ' *1

* * . -* -*
c.
'

.
*

, so next case.

~ fainter.

C.

ahasbeenT?
[

-. -6
:
'

bothc, end aline

'

-6*.

'

?.
[^

faint

patched, darker
,

-.

. -,
'

faint.

-* [ - -, 8'
no

subscripts.'

later.
*.

-' -^
-7/

'

later

[later.

'

?*

'
68

so but altered

^. . * ' /3 .
'

-'
'

had been
<ys

[
c
'

'

'

-.

so but altered
= 2) ai*ov

'

(*

changed
[on

-.

or

liker

later to

[former.
'

'

'

'

c
'

'

close and

faint

changed
*

'

on

'

C.

same

as above,

-"

C.

'

'

'

'

ends

line.

-?.'

lat-

-/5.

[faint,

reddish, near edge

<raic.
1

'

>;^- [terhalfoffirst~ darker.

The marg. note is <S-On*"

faint.

--

-OkvTo:

'

-6avei.

no note in marg.

-9 -?.
'

'

'

-0,

Stops

ta .
1/1
.1

.
.! nil'
'

Tun.

.. -/uvul'.

'

-.'/'" "''

lias
fin

been .
..
(

OW
, I

\\

>.1.

'

( >

//.

'

no
'.iil>
'

m.

'

.,

nut.

-v(Soi>

faint
'

,
..

taint.

' -;.
1
1
'

<>.
"

'

raCra,

rovro
'

t.unt.
'

'

(/ciriv

<',r

rii.

>}

m.o-,

'

ic.v 5i

res

light anil

[*'
.

./>)/.'

uiTo # h.ul been

,

" ,?
'

)'

gap

/'"

,.
*/;,

yoi
<.j.

both

<
'

"

taint.

7..1 r.<

f\

later.
'

'

U-

do

imb v0ovtos

- in
\fn

i'.

'

.,

'

-y'-tn),
'

bint
'

-{'
kVoi.
' .

-K/>aTt%\

-(.
Vci fiat

faint. taint.

oirif) y'

[
1

, / small
,
1

//
[taint

"faint.

ot-

orig.

on

,
'
'

/.

, ' <
'
' '

//-

- /? patched,
.'ii,
'

< <

qu.

/t//"

tir

'

later,

faint.

'

-<'/?
iVtu' ur.i/ioiov;
'

no

subs.
'

ft,

Si,

'

'/it.

mu
no

-/ -//.

.
' >

'/
.'

-'>.
or
'

'

t\tiV
' ' '

'

'

['..

0.
>

'

*\

-T/tos*

om.)

uvtois.

. -. -* -' -. , tri.
'

-AoviMV
'

'

sub.

\')
'

'

-/,

-0.
?,
(V
,

,.
->/$.
'

'
1

-'. -#
'

( widely spaced

. [/. -

both
'

>,

-)'
'

-repa'

faint.

.
'

,
[
faint.

later.

'

faint.

'

last half
'

of

on *

faint

{vos*

? . -. -# , . ' , .
-*'
'

,
faint,

. . / -(
?.'
'

-. -' -. '.
tis,
"
'

'

-t/tos.

/"
faint
-

iyV

'

'
[
allc.
-oeifci.

'

-0.
'

^i
V( p\
"
"

'

patched
later ?

gap.

[," faintish

later?

$ -\.

'

ttrough'

-line.

'liter?

'

5
-repa'
,

ends

line.

- ends

' , -? ?[ -. .
tis.
'

ye

evos"

-\iv
ev. 1

.
ev
'

torn- ,

'

t<5>7-

'

'

'

cVaptirrepa
faint,
'

'

'

very

>s

faint.

'

"

. / #. ,
c.

("'

' , -? -. - ' -* ' , }0$.

,

faint.

'

-.
'
'

'

evos*

dvos

'

ivos"

-Tfjoa

'

-/,
'

['

-vciV
'

^"
'
'

and on
'

faint,

-\";'
-

no Stops

till

'

[,

faint

-' ' ,
C. C.
'

^ (8~
'

'

-,'

/3
'

' "
=
1

'

transpose)

'
'

os

C.

[/

y>

C.

'

'

ciSr/

'

'

-^

-^,

'

stops faint,
faint

and

'

'/ ' '

'

"

Orig.?

'.
'

-.
C.

-;]

-/

'

'

[crowded.

44

PARMENIDES.
21.

p.

-- ' - ' ' . ? - -, * * #, -.-. -, -' -' . -' ' .*'

]
).
'

Tub.

dots note an error ? cp.

'

[above.

Written to dictation

[subs.all faint.

'

'

uv

and

*-

'

'
.
8
' '

'

(,

faint,) '

' ^
j
'
' '

t.

'

,
[later.

^^.

-/?
,
'

'

-?
'

faint.

'

faint.

'

'

'

-tiStjV'

'

dark.

1*

.
17

-?

- -[
'
:

'

or

doubtful
faint.
'

probably
'

'

^
1

subs.?

'

. -8 ?. * ?? *
:
'

-(
"
' '

/ .
or

looks

?)

'

'

-^
:

"

'

'

'

'

^ rather faint

second

faintish.

""/

last half
'

-, , -*
'

of " darker

'

[
1

, , ,

faint.

'*

-*'
'

. . '

-,
,

^? C
[majusc.

differs.

[-^.

-?7
orig.?
1

?}

C vat

'

'

'
5
'

-1

- -, . , - -, .-/
>/

--. -?
'
'

-'

-1

: ;''
'

'

-
)
1
'

'

-yova'

[fainter,

-*

on both

:
S

- "

: [ '. ,
c
-'
'
'

'
'

[all

'
second half of
'

C
"

?.

-c
'

added.
1

-pus,

'

' * . ' ?. ?-. *

'

-.

'

''
'

C.
[,

"
[

differs.

'

'

'

'

C.

very faint

'

'

end of line

-7'

*'

-.
'

-'
1 '

*.
' '

'

-.

Note near

<-

[marg.:

-? '.
-8

-eras,

'

,
'

-, -as and - (4) all c.

'

-*

last

[faint.

'

-?'
'

-^ '

< -*
'

,
*.
'

No

note.

(p. lxxxvii).

(p. lxxxvii)

c
[ends
line.

' , . *' ) [
"
'

usually patched, with

ye
'

dark.
C.

'

'

[(,
C.
'

C.

'

in mid. marg. ?

-* ?
'

-C.

fainter,
'

fainter.

'

-^?.

-. '

-?. -8 .

"points to gloss

'

-'
8.
'

to

later,

-/
-*

VI.
1

t.

(-(,4'

././s,

'

OTTO,

I.

nut.

.,

l.iintt
'

'

\..

/)','.(

r. 1,

.'/<"""'

"',/"
(

/s,
,S,,i s

'

).
1/

./....
/if,...

uiniii.i.

v
1

'

,
'".
.
'
'

;".
\.
.

.'
'

,
[/

I.

lint.

-/i.'.i

7.1,

..//..Li

/.

\
,

faint
I.

'V

lint.

.1

1)

'

r/t

,uut

'

mto:
[itaic

V
"

:
1

f"

ii.'pouf

...,
"'
rj
1

vet) faint
'

itm*

f\
1

'
ifirei
'

/'/-./'

.'i.'i.
*

lainiisll.
1

11/./..1

'

/""/

Vbv

"../-

..
i->
.

-\,

[faint

(m

meant
1

U
-

I
-

nark OVei
*.
.

-
ovt^s
'

%
'

..
end',
[line.
1

/..'

.'.

..,,,

-/.,,

'

-n.

..
otov

[Had been iveo andavi

1

ir

>'/

/
<;

below
(

r)

CM

darker,
'?)

patched

at

font

Same ai 91 throughout save

[land

had been
urn),
1
'

4/*/~ *"/ /"'" *!

tfy

o&ro.

1 '

\
-1
v
'

uiTi/s

T-ui

on

)
.

I.

nnt.
later.

taint.

for*'

c
yt

ruiTiV

'

'

/xiTis"
(

ti',

tuitoi,

'

>

'

/>

.
' '

'

/.
c.

'/'".
fixTitji
1
1

faint
subs.

roicfc.

otovci (as in 2)

1
gap.

yellow, squeezed.

/
ci

"

.
'

>/

'

-<<r:
'

'/

</>1

'

-[

.?
:

-** -row

$
<"
'

-1

avOpttrovt,

</-

(
,
:

-rb
'

'

/'

-pos

ert

faint.'

'.

--

'
1

-<u:

'

( , *- :
?]

.
C.
'

'

</)

&;2
</-

'

ctoi/

c
'

'

c '.

-tree
1

'

SvCiiJ

)
'

'

-ireis'
'

<4
'

faint.
'

no.

Slll)S.

->

ewreiv:

/>

</>-

-put;'

lower
.

-.

'

[point in

and
"
, ,

last

faint.

-,'

' ,"
'

pipfi,*

faint.
*

vs
n'povs later
'

apa,

latter half of
ffaint
:
'

with y
'

"dark, patched

[':
-?
)
-#
'

VeiV:

yap

'
'on

trftMC

'

-pith'

['

inserted.
1

?'

';

]>

f^et,

faint.

^),
ti's
'

";
;
'

-,
ttrov

faint.
'

'

( ->,
-9
'

faint.

-,

<
-TO

faint.

[faint,

* irpCv
'

' '

a faint

on tVcw
'

'

-"

IS

&
'

?"
-pedev
yi
:

. ''
^

''

'

' . . . -.
rw
1 1
1

'

[fainter,

'

'

'

i7TiV

&v,

ovv
?

'

yevoiTO

-,
-Tis"
'

*">]'
(' faint)
'

'

'
,

ends

line,

forgot

'

faint,

8 -;
---:

'

line,

-.
-p.eva

'

'

. -/ .
'

,"/

on

[and also put in marg.

faintish.

ends

)/ 7/)$

'

4G

PARMENIDES.
a.
'

.
>3 a

Tub.

-,
'

had been
'

-,
-

'

*
'

T*S

6
faintish.
'

-?"

in orig. ?

$5

'

'/
'

-5 - -,

, ,".
'

to.

'

-*
no
'

ss

.
'

& <$
:
'

ci

to

. * )
t.
'

tis
'

(ends line)
'

subscripts.

'

? -.
'

$
'

[.
,
' '

'

'

'

/s,

'

. .
"
*
Vi

-)
'

'

-'
'

'

'

faintish

faintish.

-0

1
'

?/.

'

faintish.
is

[on hi which

-,
C

faintish
'

:
'

'

ovv
:

</>-'

' A stain
-.
patched.
:

-*

'

- -*

, '
-.
:
'

'

[ -?.
c.
'

/ -^:
'

so our notes,

tivos

-vos

'

Tivbs

'

ovtos.

"

on
'

has

ovtos
*

70

,
first
in.

. . '. -* c.

, -8 -'
y
'
'

'

'

'

'

'

tivos

half faint.
-Tos' Svtos

seems crowded

'

'
'

:
'

-vos tivos

ovtos
irbv

:
'

tivos*

'

e-

(next line)

This

voeiv nearly

above

next, but error unlikely at a dis-

'

'

:
1 ' '

,
'
'

(rough,
,

no patch
faint.
'

[/ ; 4 8 -^ -*
'

?)

'

'

'

-i

:
' '

' 5 8
8e

tance of 6
del
' '

lines.

'

ISeav \

'8'
'

D -;*

.', -. ', ' ''

-,
?.
'

faint.
'

'

faint.

>/,
'

faint

<17]

e'oef

faint
tis

on

*
'

'

eiSos,
'
,

faint.
*

*' | -* . ' -' 5. '8 [line.

'
' 1

-* >

-, .'.
-8.
'

.
'

V
'

'

c.

'

*
rj

</>jjs
'

' [* *
'

'

ends

[.

tis.

'

'

no

subs.

'

/>>7

'

-,
p.

'

'

'

faint.

no

subs.
'

-,

'

taint.

faint.

/iv

'

.
,33

'

" - 5*
(
,

'

)
:
'

later ?

-'

'

'

rough)
faint.

'

[at.
,

faint.

-fuvov,

. -. . - ? "
'
'

'

'

/.
'

tis

-).
/3
1

"accidental?
:

.
*

'

(. . Such

ab-

-,

cioos
y

etoos
\

'

T(f)

c.

sence of

subs, will not

be further noticed.)

'<

'

'

.
,

'
'

'
.
,

'
nut.
I.

'

//

r.

delicate

'

("
'"'/

./inn

'

.'

.'.
'in

I.

uvtl\
,

rmtl

'

vw
iv

Erfl

.
,11/

/s,
..

'

/'
'

UUt.

|]

|.
(;)
I.

nut.
At

/xiVM.
ir"./i
'

'

<('<

,, DM &" 0*,
' '

//'
.

(tOtl

faint

\'
/,
'

.
1

.
.

7 '

'

!.
7'.<

<
/(

\
I

'

Serai*'
(
'

ISi/TiuV.

</>

iSi/

-'
'

(will

note

now
'"/
'

"/

'

only where no patch.)

)
;

'

t<s.
1

'

irt.

Slops
,

;ill

l.iint

'

ti'i'.u.

'

fiint.

(here.

y(
'

is

'
,

turiv,

-ini'

l.unt.

'//"',

faint
'

) -Tut -( (
'

-Tt-i,

faint.
1

cursive maj.)
t!oi/;'

'
faint.
, .

' ,
1 '

-
'

['
Liter.
'

6* j

1,'U'T.
'

/.

IStov

"

later.

later.

ill]

4
ttpcurti
:
'

(
'
'

'

<<

04'

'

later.

c.

line

ends

at

iOTtr.
-JCfiVtuV

'

'

Atyets",
'

ofov </>'

/77

-,
'

-(,

faint
,

'

-<.

faint

"

. next

oil
'

[
'

Will not note again.

later
first
So"*

t>

-tj>s

cirrii''

'

tern
'

'

'

tcrnv

t'oTf

-.'

&* , -,
-//
' '

'
,

'

'. , , .
-Tela. la int.
'

added

' , ' -. ? : ;7
ruiTa.
'

(' .
C.
'

-]]

'

?
a
1

['
tlrtlV

irtv. <u

turiv

D
1

'

-<.
1

fKUVOVS.
'

[ov/c

patched ^pos

''

'

c. el

'

'

same

'

--</.
'

line.

[paler.

'
gap.

added changed to

-Ttv.
c.

'

faint

/'

'

'

''
faint.
'

'"added.

'

COT*.

'

irpos

'

'

'

-*"1

-,

\
'

^
'

1'

ends

line.
'

'

-/);.

'

twice.

-.
first

' 8*. '? " " . -. ' '

'
1

[
-\ef'
>

- .

, ' ('

[line;

eVrtV
t,

;
'

(next
7/

'

-cia.

looks like

latter part very faint,

-$.

(|

slid,
>

mark
*

b , not as
'

in text.)

>

fj

'
:

eo~ri*

'

'

'

eiV'

'

'

-/x>j

o-TV -/dj

)?

faint. (= -#??) commas here faint,

, ,
'

-.

faint.

, -.
;
'
'

-;
,

faint.

'

-yets*

'

-,

: ,

"

'

added.

. -].
'

-]

-.
'

:
:

[-*,

-/

'

"

-].
e'oj;

'

-voi e'vai c.
'

faint.
elvai
;

? -yen'

l^o/xev
:

"

'
,

and next

faintish.

upper marks
:
'

7;yxiv

c/vat

later.'

Sr/

'

'

4s

PARMENIDES.
%\.

%. ' -; , .
'

Tub.

t.

"

o.

very

faint.

-,

(
[
faint.
*
'

'

-. 'ft*
.
'

'

faint.
ISias

-Ttpov.
"

'

,
'

r)/xiv
'

'

and

first

half of
"
.

on
of
ctir'p

and
'

'

. .' "//: 0 - ?, ' /) -.

C.

'

)5

c.

,}

ay

(then follows next line),

'

"'faint.

-,

'

-*
1

-$"

'

-?"
ink.

'

<>Cv

-.

'

-/at/ v.

'

c.

'

first (,)

faint:

second

= other
stain.

rewritten in other ink

on
'

hand and
p. 9.

ofvitVi/s

-ovat end amid brown stains.

ip ovv

0$,
!,Y,er

'

v
'

stained
'

[(,)
;

original,

stained.

The

-.
'

, other ink.
v.
' ' '

/)
'

}?
up

'

-( '

written over in

...

to

end

no

stops.

))/
irpos

last
'

ovv

-*
r

/)?

. ,
.

'

breathing
'
.

'

[changed
''
,

later

-
'
'

-,
,

faint.
'

later?

-)

?
135

, -/?"
}
'

,
'

-,
,

-,
faint.

-'
had been
stop,

ouVdv

-, -. -. '
'

-.
'

[patched, had been

'

yvoir/

faint.

}/
-

Kiv-

* at

end of a

line.

'

-/?/

then

put and a

new

. -' ..
' '

[-/.

'

faint.

'

-yos'
-TS'
,

'

?.
</>/

-TOt

'

//.
1

-,

faint

t3)/.

'

-lv

'

18-

/"
patched,
"

ei

'*

'
=
...

C.

, -/,
tus

faint.

so in

my notes

,
'

very

faint.

'

. -' - "
from ,
C.
'
'

very close,

changed
?

had been \

stand separate.

-yovTa,
fis,
,

faint.

,
,

[-yo

very
'

faint.
'

ii

-, -, -) -?,
-rkpov,
-(at.
'

faint

faint.

faint.

'

'. $
c.

patched from

ir<r

" have

been added

. -' '
11/.

'

-'
'

-,.
on
'

'

'

-rkpov.

'

had been

ends

line.

[faint.
'

-?5'

'

'

-?

'

'?

-/

'

tis

-. -,
'

C.

[ pj </
/) y Tis

\"/
t.

...|
y'

'

U
'

..

ml' IS

/.it

t/if

/,

.1

'

l.imlr.li

l"4")

rui

<

Ill

III

III.

by
71
1

'

MIL.

'.'.
, , ,

I.

llllt.

\'/M

Is.

'/'

'

*(
tl'i
.

itained.

[outer

orner.

r itainedi stain
.

creep
/i.i
'

in

from
ft

faint

'

-...oc

(kU

\
8
(

ii

id vbs.
*.
<

or id vbs.)

(no

ease to note
''"'

Orig,

'

v.

'

uVtu,
art
.

,'

aptfrrori Kit

','":

''

'

with
,

;,

iii

middle
'.
< .

taint.
c

i.ii/i

iwA.'

l.untish.
'

roWwi
ii
(
.

subs, dark
</uui
'

.
!
'

<r t

held as SUbs.)

'

'.is

'

<i

un
|

in
li<i;
I

(nns"

OVTCOf

WFtV
taa

TpOVO%

i/xi'i'ii

(3

l.l

'

-,
ye.
.

'

ti'urti'

-VOtS,
,
.

faintish.

-rots

,
<

'

-/tt
'

>

7'
'

-.,'

-//.

faintisli.

iuc

-,
'
'

faintish.
'

[faint.
'

-/uotu'

and

'

Oil

km

"

<//

-"

*$
UKTTIV
faint.
,

'/
"/
it

0*<
i</<iy.

AU/j'i.'.

rni

-,
Aeycts
'

-iiiti

(rnos-

-yifi

'

4,
choc
IV

'

""

-(
'

c.

'

</>>/,

taint.

-All COTt.
-l

C4V

rpos ye
--tl'l'.

-'
1

httiv.
.

airru
.

"

patched

"added.
'

.
gap

-AoiV
-n^s

patched.

'
-(/
-
7
n-pos
hj>
i

'

-6W0at,
<//.
et
'

136

c.

'

wreoVro"

cart.
ev'

7roAAots
'

nyjosrc

yti.#y

eirrt

roAAa.

-Ait

n-pos

-trTtc

[faintish.

gap

[had been

-6tunr.
-/tot'or,
,

-'
faintish.
,
'

gap

-twice
u>

patched,

on

-$.
.

'

rcpi

-^*

'

(}*
'

'

avtU^i'

/"
'

ti
J

ir-a

-crerat,

SAAotS'

'

-;
'

n-ipC

-trews"

-/.)
'

'

-nt(,

faintish.

yv.ia-twi
'

rough

-V0~Cb>5
>
t

-pas'
'

Aoyo>,
'

had been

-fy.

del

'

/cat ii'i A.lyt;)

urou oil

ouct

xai

us

-vovto,

kovtos'

-TOS'
'

very faint.
faintish.

r
I

'

<\

"

. , -
'

rros'
'

.
'

'

poeX'j'
ai

jtAcmu,

wtruinis'

\
'

7t.
\-

atei

us

,>)

o>,

faint.

-^^

altl

SO.

(ft; Trpoaipyj.
0'
'

ov.

'

/wvos.
3

added

"/"/\' y

to<;

.
;

50
21.

PARMENIDES.

riav.

P
V
II

'' [faint
ci
'

changed by

first
/tot,

hand
,

(?)
'

to a

-&
$

Tub.

-/

c.

faint

%.

'

'

-yor
stain.

-Tcs

-9.
'

-/ on a
'

-VOIV.

-its.

-
-,
-,'

T61S'
'

'

.
c
/
,

" '

ya/>.
'

Orig.

*.

ya/o,
faint.

faint.

'

-ye/v

\'
' ' '

'

-v>/s.
1

[
'

-;'

small on * same ink.

/
,

<
altered later
'

tered later from

--

- -. ' .^ -. . -' -. , . /5.

"
'

-.
c.
'

-ttcis.
'

'

'

Aeyef

-Tcn-Teis
'

'

c.

'

'

re.

al
'

.
'

'

'

/s

C.

'

[c.

'

-,
'

-vos'

'

-veiSov

137

-, - ,
'

-/>ov

-?,

faint,

-'
-vos

faint.

'

faintish.

'

V7T-

, -.

-, -. -, . -' -. * /
'

'

'

?'

-,

added

later

'

; -=a - -. -.
...
' '

-" -.

rb

'

'

'

,
"

. - -' - . -.
-vos.
'

-.
'

'

-8. -^
'

C.

Toi's

-"/

-'

Aeyot

-vos

...

line with

- opposite.

U'vai.

-ytuv

'

/
'

faint

-/xevos.

8
tir-

-<'
--

<' [4' '

. .
'

tevaf
'

C.

'

'

-r#ai

-' -.
'

-'
,
'

faint.

ay

-? -5"
'

-rrtiv

fir/.

'

-yets.
7/

'

;
:
'

<-

, -' , -; . .
-/tat,

/ on a

faintish. [roughish stain,

-'

added)

-' -^. / ^. '/' '

/ *.
'

Aeyet.
1st half of an

(
c
'

'

/)-

removed.

ev

faintish.

-$.
'

, */

'

Ji

-5'

[ends
faint,

line.

'

ew/,

late

On

*.

'

rb[2v

'

-.

faintish.

ev

-'
:
'

av

'

altered

or ig

hand on *

faint.
'

'

'

?/,
'

'

p. 13.

. .-?,
ev
:
'
'

,
'

ye,

commas faint.
,

faint.

rb

'

'

'

All the

'

'

'

8 . ' ^ .. .
' '

// -.

-.

'

-vot.

'

or)

, / -; . . [
Tts

-?'
C.

et

C.

'

C.

C.

,
:

'

'

//.
>/.
'

'

[the

ends a

line.

^.
'

.
*
:

'

.,.

'

^
*

'

'
,'

and the subs, tv on stain on a stain

in this line faintish.

^*

//

/ on

-... . mill

ill

*
tvwAvht*
(

\.
'.

I.

null.

.
'

bH

TOVTO'
fainter.
.

(jl

''>'\u
'

\n

fainter.
"'
,

/
,
,

altered from
/"/>
;iik1
|

Ji
'

Note

"in.

','
I

'"/;'

mi
l.iinl.

(will

not note again).

hand

<
.

roii
.'.

bad been toh

'

'

t'lj.

'

fluffs

fv

"'.
a ..

*//

,M,\.
1

gap.

*
...
.

.,/

(/

..

'

-.,.

\<>

,
roe.

faint.

'

-t\oiTO

8l

had

fainter.

av
'

c/
|

,
(II)

g,

faint.

y.i
'
'

fainter,
*.">/

'

after

6V*

..,

hit.;

,T/Kt\.M-,
t"i/

'

i/mT'V ,"fainter.
subs.
.

}-.i/>

p>)

7/)(\, ri and
|

, (,
to

TO

-Vol
t/i'u

I'hailgcd

y<'/j

'

,
:

ovv

fainter

and

put

later.

-t\or

<\ov.
,

/" h ".

u/<</>i:>,

ravrbv
1

faint
'

" '.
7>><>.
ce
1

ti

'

ovyapovv:

tV,

', taint.

O)/.

Mioi/uroi' *

yt,

had been
[changed
to

ovre,

,
'

' - '

7e
:
'

(V.

OVK

III'

IV.

6
faint.

'

'

el

--

cti

'

, \

.
'
'

apu

squeezed

in.

of

neat dark on

'

'

-,
->/
,

[faint
.

faint.

'

oZv

-fKVOV
'

'

avrb

,
'

faint

'

-<nj\ii.
:

-)
e&rep
'

,
ovv
'

'

8
i
:

. ( , -. .
'

'
t<ii

c.

'

|.

'

"
'

' .
OU
y\
(

tiJTIV Jui'T'
r

\
c.

KtVO

'

yup).
'

[<
C

C.

tTi

eu'cu

'

pip'
'
'

ey.

Ol'KOlV c

'

-vcrcu,

'

faint.
'

on *
:

'

'

ovv,
'

-'
'

-.

-Ktvai c.

'

' '

-_\#>p'Ui

OU
.

".

'..

yiyvcrar
faint
'

subs.
a

Sin]

OU

'

squeezed and
stain.

mt u on

neat dark

.
-

ytyvcTot.
C.
'

. (
V!
:
'

'

'

'

-rtir^at.

-Tcarepoi'

yty^fTui.

tn,

6i'}iy-

'

-ttcktm'
'

<Y yvyvcraij

,
'

faint.

'

tovto

'

tyyiyvopti'
v

''

-
1

later?

jJS;

eyyi'yviTcu

'

--<.

'

'

-"

at Tiros

(,

or.

'

-,

'

( large,

'

.
>

(\. '

'

'
|

t>y
'

'

uirrov'

']6
'

pepi/

otorTe

'

- Ttvos

faint.

-\dviv

on

(IWLV

.
.

-,2

PARAfEXIDF.S.
Tub.

-di'-

'

//>>/,

'|
'

rot

faint.
'

'

.
'

t.

"'/
'

ypv . ;
'

.
,
'

-,
'
'

tov

same hand, neat on *

TTOUOV

'

-pevov.

-"
'

'

both
,
,

subs.
faint.

added, yellow, squeezed.

-.
2.

c
'

faint

/>/.

<
t

ev

subs, inserted,
'

r.

/)

(SeVore

[pale

and squeezed.
'

"
.

'

.
'

ye
'

.
.
'

17

clvai

ev
i'.

gap.
c.

subs, added.

uyet.
'

pa.*

/.
,

[in pale ink.

first
'

/.
<

.
'
'

oepip/TuvTOvyc,
[(t
7ii'i
'

faint.
?)
or.

added

<''/''
e v.

< *
ovyap
[pov.
'
:
'
'

'
)

/
:

"
' '

.*
'

has

on

it

to
"

-.

[first

.
on
ye.

later

'

pale

=.

eTepoV
orig. =
''

'

':
'

[ends

line, ri

'
/.
>/.
.
'

. /'" .
:
' '

' [/ .
c. c.
'

'

[
C.
'

ovv

c.
:

crowded

in.

irg

/
'

:' or.

had been

'

fainter.

-ovyi

gap.

.
''

.
is

subs, squeezed.

ov yap

.
on
'

,
6c.

':

yap
'

dark

at the turn.

>/;,

eivai.

>'

last

-'. -/.
f)

'

): /, . ' [subs, fainter

. .
c.
'

ecus
'

and squeezed.

t'lat.

'

v/(hadbeen

'

oltoj.

'

and

Orig. -

///

last part of + faint,

subs, fainter

and squeezed.
" -/]7

:
'

fainter and squeezed.'

'

'/,7
'

faint.

'

[ . .
'

ovxeti

-('
*

:
'

' '

//.
'

'

[,

and

last

faint.

yevop.evov.

eytyvem changed on a *

:
in one,

clear,
later,

.
-veo

, . . ;>
Va(.

'

/cat

:
'

c.

'

-.
'

patched
line.

-.
'

[has been

ends

-/>.

-.
'

>.

4.

; , , ' . -,
,

~.
'

faint,

twice second

'

added,

faint.
'

'

last

blurred.

'

& -

* . (
.
c.
'

.
'

'.
'

ye.
c.

'

oih-'dv

'

'

added ?

'

'

140

evos,

'

latter
,

<
'

-. '
T
'j
'

[part of
'

+and

'

-.

ttt<\\

-,
,

faint.
,,,,

\.

[faint.

'

XOJ
I
<*.
,

...

Il

'

004, ) ii

I.

mil

r6

i|

tv

last

on

la

i"

'

rovi

'

u,
'
'

faint

darker, orig.?
.ii.
'

,
,

,
'

Jv
(

'

n.irovOin

'

'"'.<

il.u leer.

'

'

\*(*

(.

0Of,

.'/

I.

nnt.
'

'

...

'

../.

. '

'

(\*

'

"
toie

'
pale
'

gap,

.'
t

md

ovyap
'

c,

'."

'

n
r<>...
'

t\vi( .

/.linn
ii

'

ia

. unit

'

rtn*

,
>)
,

'

ry

twice

'

alter this

.
or.

'

'

fir
<
'

. leaf cut out, but

do gap.
Inn-

77
in
I

t"r-

..

(>

'

'

/
</.

margin
1
.

'

iii.

fainter.

lo-ov

'

nV
<
'

<*

]],
1

fainter.
'

-.;
:
'

, ,

ov.
,

'

,
/
fir'

iT',

fainter.

e' -/uTpuv. twi'C.

tVmu

on
ti'nr
{'

fainter.

.
:

m'ror,

'

fainter,

'

fainter) per.

A
'

stain

covers

, <

.
line Olig.
?
'

<

in /ici (in

,.

rtptuv.
'

<

<

.t

'

T< 1

~'

lo-ov

C.

and

-ri>

<i'i

&mu,
(],

'

-,
'

-.

[lower half of

above.

faintish.

.
'

accident.

'

under

[the

'
'

c.

8
1>

' (.
'

'

-.
:
'

.
'

...

('(

to-ov

. . :,
'
'

,
'

tiro'

'

fainter.
,

-, -,
'

'fainter.
,
1

faint.

-t\or -1

7
c

-'

'

patched

_ Orig. ?

'

[>;

faint,
hi

small and on

*' -Tepov,

-Tepov,
'

'

'

. ( . -.
'

' \.
in
I
'

.
'

fir-

*'
'

writing

and

//
'

partly cursive.

-. .
7T0TC
C.
'
'

uxor,

-'.

oe

ON

'

'

squeezed and pale

e'\or,

'

-,
evi'

'

[/ -,
'

'

7,

-tos.

,
, , ,

ri

efi'at

faint.
,
,

1"-

(\.

C.

.
eve

'Vo-

[faint
-.

'

roughish.

, -,
'

faintish.
,

'

fainter.

stain

on

,
do.
'

-'^
oiv
:

-yo/ur.

(VrOT-

-'//'
- ;

p. 15.

and

at

end of

lines

r,

2. 3.

,
t\t<i.

laint.
1

'

eu'itf

tvaiS7 last
faint.

(=| Oil
'

-.

gap ovv
1

C.

'

.
C.
:

\".
'

t'rai. C.

-Tipor"
'

-/(05

c.

'

'

'

traces '.

had been
Orig. ?

If.

'

<
:

c.
'

c.

'

'
ap'av

'4>
-^e

'

54

PARMENIDES

. $ , -. " -. :

fainter.

'

'

;/.

>)

'

"
darker.
'

Tub.
'

t.

.
orig.?

'

/
'

-Tepov

'

[.on*
:

-.
'
'

'

$
'

same ink but

iris

-,

'
:

-)t*V0V.

fainter.

'

orros'

-?, --*
'

" / -'
:
'

-T/0
'
'

17

later.

'

-Kr/.

'

.
lower half
patched.
C.

-ViTCU.

'

vi'vai

gap

[for

sense

-Aoi'Tos.

resumes

-( 0UI
'

,
faint,

- altered
on
c is

put a pale

, -.
?
/'

ovtos.

' '

-Aoi'tos.
'

'

C yap

-puevov'
'

, ,
' '

-repot:

w-

(i).

" -.
/3
:

-. -' -. -.
'

.
-voros.
'

-"
c.
'

[of

'

iirov

'

fainter.

e'rui

'
.
that

C.

'

c.

" does not always include

[subs.

.,
'

clear

-.
D
'

--
ws
,

fainter.
,

, -,
,

-,
.

fainter.

'

-' -,
,.
1

-.

fainter.

ink?

'

on a
'

scr.

, ?.
'

- -,
[rjv,
'
'

-ovv'
'

[',
all

-,
ink.
[fainter,

'

on

on

*,

same hand and

'

-Tat

6.

-' -( -, ?' ;
' ' '

- -*
'

twice

,
,

-*
:

().

[had been

'

-.
ei't,

^.
[here
?
c.
'

Orig.
'

)
no
in marg.

an

erased

'

paler

-70s

commas

- > > ;
'

-tos
'
' '

[-.
'

' -*
'

-( V.

yfyove

broad
[on *

'

'

accents on
fainter.
'

['
,

-
the

'
'

rb

-. 7 -*
'

7
7.
'

ykyovtv.

'

-yvcTO

'
off.

-(*
on *

'

faint, 0-iasa.t
1.

, .
'

beginning and
'

faint
'

and rough,
,

'

742

, '
/)<
'

'

, ,
,

on

on a

stain.

?v
;

[again)
;

'

(will

not note this stop

faint,

on *
'

'

'
, ,

faint.

ov

aKk'us
1

'

"

fainter.
'

'

"later.

'

-yos.

'

-'

fainter,
TIS

, $. -. .
.
'

[ .
ov.
C.

?
.
'

-yovcv
'

-/
'

-yvTaf
-

'

C.

[wax
:

(?)

which has come

on a small spot of

(,

). ?"
'

-ycrtu"
'

-
:

-"
,

-
SO
orig.,

*
'

C.

'

-'

'

-'
C.

'

7tojs

:
'

'

-*

'

F.

. .
;
'

[but altered,
fainter.
'

and the other

very
faint.

-.
'

'

'

. .
'
'

] ,

opposite oSv in inner space.

'

'

NO!
I,
I

t.

\<

faint.
i'mi'i
'

'ui...
'

ul

&dde<

IVvdp

'/

"
<
.

<

uibdv
, ,

.11(1

KUI

<

[faint.

>,
i.it<

iv
1

en
orig.
t

added

&.

'

('..'!.

(('

.'(

[I

'

1(11

<

ri

LOT
i

'

'"

pJ
,
,

\Au.

'

ro |y,
tftrn

faintish.

'

subs.
'

squeezed
I '

in
. I '

afterwards
crrrat'

ie< in

itm

:
;

last* had \>

/"
List

"'
'

both

<

CTOWdcd

"'/<"'

[in later.'

iMVOV.

'

hi

(urn-.

'

<Vti

wits'
gin.

('"" to

ytTot'
\

from be
line.

<l

later?

ttTTt.

U*

rfis

scratch above

mitt

<

No injury.
]

Dots over texl

rae.
'

dele

added by

omros

'

),
>VOV
err,
'

'

'

faint
'

ro
01
'

.
'

fa

no repetition
Ti>

lure.
<V*
'

-/,

faintish.
'

<><>,

avro*

pa faint

>.

and the other

'

rOVTWV'

pi'i'/ttV

/t<!/)ioi',

[seems a

faint * at

'

on

ton
ori
'

'

'
TO
'

+ latter part fainter

text

hesitaand
try.

tion between
1

^
:

tvai
1

added.
(2nd)

' , ' *.
U/IU
c.

-'
c

/'; 7<

',

.
C
C.

'

altered
[later
"

"7

<

""

'

' 1

'

,:

"

"

'/

'

^t
,

ov
-ov
:

)}

\ (
The
at

'

"'
'

ori

T><

OV

ov.

had been
fainter.

:
TXtfV C.
'

-. '

nave,
\

through

et"/

end and the

[and on *

<alfl

'. ,
:

likely

by accident.
r

'

'.-^-'.
[

never

atci

on

TT(p

- -;)
juotocipotc

'

of next line on a stain.

will

aUl
-I'liTat,

'

uu\ (2nd) /smaller 1 -- twice.

aUl
etvai
.

-iryec

'

) , .
)*
C.
TJj

not be noted further.

had been
' '

C.

.
143

pijot-

stop

later.

/nil-

ovv
:

(both
'

c.)

rijSe
tv,

seems squeezed

in.
, ,
'

'

eoiKeye
tv
:

/;/

"
mas

'-rtv;
on
'

fainter.

81'

8 tori,

'.

1H0 earn;
0)i

or,

t<fxifi)

same hand.
'

and com'

^' -("

fainter.

Si

'

'

-\
1 '

,( ,

,
pOV'

*
,

added

'

apaye
"

er
,
,

'

eivat,

fainter.

.
,
I-

it

-own' euaf shakes,

later,
'

-.
er.
o>/

C.

'

-\etv.

dpayt

'

er,
'

and the others

'

fainter.

slightlyabove in outer marg.

oro-i'd,

'

'
ev
'

'

6
'

?r.

<r\(v

[
[
:

eY,

fainter.

ends

I.

[is

owria"

(,
''

'

2v
I

&

later.

-pov

eivai.

"

c. ereptu c.

'

PARMENJDEl.

. '.
'

a.
'

Tub.
evl

ovv
C

-,
icy
1

faint.
'

'

erepov

[ev,
,
,

. ..
erepov.

.
1

(both

C.)

'

'

ev
,

times

'

ev

erepov'

-:
:
'

? :

faint,
&>
"

erepov
later.
'

commas
?

fainter.

'

'

?&
'

'
' '

(last
'

*
later)
/>

#$

'

'

7?

.
'

,
D

['-

ev.

-^0
:
'

'

,
'
'

commas

fainter

[mas
eivat,

fainter.

7rep

], [\, ,
'

com-

'^

'
Si
'

last

'

added, and so
[line 2

V
11

. -~0.
1
'

' :
:

'
'
1

ev

'

'

erepov'
'

ev.

2nd

'

added?
'

'

tis

'-

etvai.

,
,
'

+
'

i/Ttvi

latter

half of +
fainter.
t

and the commas

yi*a,

on

*
faint.
:
'

the

-.
faint.
Sis.
'

/
c

'

* ' ^. ?
'

[/")

/\7;,

'

written under low2.

'

ottoiouoUV
' ',

82 a ****** -.
test line of

had been

as for separate words.

first *
;
'

1 let.,

subs, orig.?

',
;

all

commas
'

seems changed from

at

[- ?

same hand
;

-,

?;
in.

'

Tpls

-. ?

Tpis.

commas

fainter.

ev

'

paler and squeezed

SVsiv

enrep
first

ev

ev
;

he

[ev:

three words have scratchings.

|_1

The words from

which follows

corresponding to a similar
the scholiast.

mark rather above and before ? ', which can hardly be the
margin
after

to

stand in the mid space with

at the

end

right reference as the re runs straight out into the

See Schanz.
'

SU

,
8.

$*
Sal

"
T

Written,

should say, by

Tpls

$.
'

'

'

at first

[,
' '

hand on
re,

*,

fainter.
fainter,

'

Ji

'

commas
,

fainter.

..
'

ei'?y

A
,

stain Over
[
, .

eiv.

fainter,

'

'

. Sis
:
'

addition

later.

'

(ist)

(gap.)

' , ? ?" -9. .

?

'
ois
c.
'

twice

'

tc

my notes
'

'

'

'

-Treadai,
'

?
,
1

dub.
ettj.

fainter.

'

oi'V C.
ev.

\1.

-:
'

ev.

'

ovtos.

//.

ovroi.
-Treipov

7'
'

ehy
c.

C.

-,,
-^i,
'

Of ,

"

et

commas

-?

'

X ei-

fainter, latter

had been a period.

ovSevos
'

-.

'

->; commas fainter.

[mas
'

'

avTrjs
oi'Oevos

-T'V

T'LTOV
fainter.

-.

TOTcf:

ye.

'

Tfi:

ir.k?

VOTHA
I

onuDfti bintei
Mil

' l

Am
'
''

||1
'

fainter.
**

[faintei
:
; ,

'

an
u
'

avTi)f

.)
.ii

|'

1.

'
1

m .

'

.lllil

<

iillllu

yiTi
[

'

in

-.t

on

.mil

darker

'/
'

all

At

(i

ii

mii here

no
in.)
JH.S
"
| .

<
1

"
.
\.

"".
utpo\

il

t.imtish.
1
1

'

flipovt'
'

/ >

-,

'

i/iu,

<

'
;

and
a
Willi'

uou

/." '/".
'
'

9'
irr.ii.

Mii
*
Ills'

i'i/hj.

[all stop, t.unlisli.

"/"
111)!'

'

-<,
.

fainter.

|
'

VOV (,

II1V
<

uAnuri raptrrat

fainter.

[altered.

MUTCU

.
'
I

i.r.t
'

('>s

f'ut

aCCCnt

i"l

'""' l

" .'
:

'

<rBw,
?

' (

yn /rct<H<litil.

"

erased

UlfTOt
(U*

''
'

'
.
Ixilli

blf

<

''"i

tu/>u
iritis-.

dot accidental

lll'l/I.IV.

iirrir:
/UIMI'.

"

',

<>Tiyc
<

Tn

il'

'

CO

IIU'UI'.

(
[faintish.

/lie ori
c'r'

' .

.
'

rr<
/ifl'i-l

?)

7 . -. '
' '

/,
on
'

-<,

'

fi/'
;

commas
?)

(dots ink

< ?'

fiv.

'

TC

'

-'
S.Xip
'

'

/mi'

-puC

-/> at

end, and

I.

stain.

/[>'

6VK

-iriuior"

'

Sar
'

ot*

orig.on
'

fMOOV*

CIVCU'

'' '
'

'

f\Ot'

c.

commas
>;., iirov
'

taint.

[faint

-ooi\
'

commas
c"//
:

/tiiiror.

faint.
'"

"
' '

* *
'
'

"

altered.

-//.('

'

./ '

'

&

-/

OVM

e^ov:

tdi'tidv

on an .
'

'

[/ -.

'
'

oAoi".

\
:

JicrcoiKi'
'

'

/xiiror.

'

(2nd)

/'.
-^eoi

. --, '^, , *
TIVOS UK
'

' C

-<'('
.
\
'

C.

>'\

Tiros oktcoikcv

ev

'

commas faint. twice, had been ev -<-, commas faint. / commas faint.
'

[*:

io

- *

. ,
'

-.
"

'

Ill

'

'

tcrrr

ovtcto -

'

-.

'

//))/.
'
'

'|

'

"
'

<>

c.

<c
:

rws"

'

.
:

'

yap
'

icrri

' :

'

-,

faint.

'
-.
l'
' '

&*,

faint.
,

-,
(

faint.
'

'

'*
\
J

-. .
'

. -

-(TIV.

.
*

'

& '
'

tv
'

(V

'.
IV.

*
'

< t''

u\

--

*
f
11

ivy<

(*

/- c

'

'

' ' '

58

PARMENIDES.
31

"
>)
or

tVf

"'

Tub.
?v

'

twice

'

'"'/'

twice,

but* on

/a)

faintish

'

commas

'

to

. ,.
faint.
1

-vet.

:
.

ev

taint.

6
'

'

iv

altered to

'
'

'

-*>y,

-#,
ov,

'

7T1J

'
ivl

altered.

- -. -'
'

.'..
c.
c.

C.

.
ei>y.

'

*
evf
'

ev

c.

aorvaTyap:

/my
'

'

'

. . . <
C.
'

C.

ev.

'

'

'

'

C.

.
etvy
'
'

'

yap

ao.

)
'

'-;

awl

rroi'

"

or,

slight.

fainter.

at
'

on

[*
ev at

ev

-! ov

twice.
'

'

-#
'

, '6
"

-.
j
:

xry

^
.
'

[.

ev
:
'

c.

c.

ttrrbs

twice.

.
?

ev

--

patched
twice

twice.

.
. :

[beginning and
cu'et

of 2 on stain,

?)
-cos'

~$
.'/'

'

,
t
'

of at on *
faint.

yxe'pos.

'

. . >/*' , ',
'

'

&cl

'

'

[been

had

'

c ) -*
'

- to

ev

'

--

ev.

C.

[?

y,

-,'
,
,

'

fainter,

pepos,

"
etry
;

'

eiry

fainter.

' 3
:
' '

air-

"

patched
"

patched

"
iy

*
j
'

'

.
c
C

'

\#
had

eTepov.

e^et.

'

etTy.

been

-pov,

-,
oat'
'

fainter.
'

-?*

,
d

-"
,
'

'

' .
'

, ''?.

[fainter.
irpbs

"

and 5
[on

'

'
'

[
'

apa
5

>'

'

6vtos

pale,

'

blotted.

[
and commas

in outer

marg.
'

patched
line,
'

. . ^)
:
'
'

-*
'

'

.
ei
'

'

'

-tos,
'

fainter.

Ivbs,

'

several aces,

'

breaths., as well as
'

fainter.

'

and commas, fainter.

8',
'

'[:

c.

ends

2nd

'
147

t'Tov
'

'

-*
eay,

'

*' .

7 ' /y
' :
'

dark added.

' . added.
'

'

' ,
C
'
'

-,

?
:

[c.

'

itotJ

fainter,

'

'
2nd
'

.
.
'

>)

C.

-.
e

-yot,

[ ,,

subs, faint.
at

'

'

'

faint.

end = maj.

curs.

fainter.

'
1

pale.
1

'

(2nd)

-'

, [ ) .
-

' -Aois
'

eiiy.

[ : .7 [
c.
C.

'

.
'

is

'

--

. ?
\

C.

w ei?y

C.

'

C.

.
'

'

[.
C.
:

e"v,

"

patched.
C.

'

'

last

patched had begun

'

'/

on

fi
.

before
'

>)'

faintci

V
-

).~i/>

/
[,
,

[twl
>.

] Rdl

..

f.llllti'I
'

ri/,

'

fori'

'

'

/.

...

n ..
.

1^

md)
.

ri
.
.

.1
1

uid

ending n

(1
between
,

vi>%

|iO|iiou

itain.

rejx ated.
line

.
and

\.l

inoutei

\.,,.

rovra
,

eni
line.

'

'

&

o"
, ,

fainter,

,)

ciui
'

.
,

'

'\ ov

'

fi /"J

.'

y,\

f-roi,:

fainl

dp

W*t%
[fainter.

:
: '

(<
'/

Mil

accents on

".

*
'

wrw<

.'.
, ,

C.

lainU'i

^TTOV

Mm.
ravrbv

'

nit,
'

-?

fine.

\\

< V

-%\

'

'

'

'

-.

'
.

, . - aftei
is

7-t.i,

above

thus

?
(
.

c.
:

'

yii/i

(t

TOV <<

'

,
C.

-.
C.

'

'

!$.

>

'

-,
?

again, smaller.

to

which a
-vis",

Marks the stop

refers in marg.
:

'
:

'

/
ttVi /.

'

r0VW0/*a'
'

-5
-/.
'

.'"
'

'

,
'

/
:

7, *aei
:

-1?..

~ ,
'

differs.
~

<Vuv

>

'

*'*

'

'

/u:,

'patched'
-Ay,
'

. ',
'

"8
'

ovv

uru^

2nd patched.
'

'

'
-ij.
'

ovv

'

iiVys.

-.
'

) aid ''' (Ttpov

' '

'
' '

CKCtVo'
:

'
'

ISt.

<T/)ov
-TS.
'

'

'

-tcs.

'

'

--yo/iev

'.]
:
1

Oos

'

roi'roua:

'

differ,

$,

[.
'

/
, ,

-Ocvat,
differ.

(in

gives

-vo/xa

marg.

later

hand

ctvai

..
:
'

aWrj.
/

(
C.
-

-/xi

irepov

'

trvbs.

In outer marg.
efvcu

faint

and

careless

raVTOV

'

:
'

Tf'

'
'

patched

'

'

dark.

,
;
'
'

-&o?,

later

ends

line.

. <7/' .
-o~.

\:'
:

C.

'

rvat.c.

C.

C.
;

C.

,.
:
'

-'

(not
'

-)
'

'

-'

'

:
'

-V7/.

ev

$.

"

"

-.

[by same hand in margin

'

to

tO"TlV.

TO

cu>-

'

80

PARMEiMDES.
Tub.
:

),
>/

avoftotwr

, .
ercpov

roi>i

"

added.

'

dark.
'

-Aots.

added.

a I'M

O/iOlOl

C -AoiS"

v)*/te Tf/jor.
<i'-

'
Se
[ "
.

'
i)6e

later

'

ends
[line.

TuiTor.
0i)

at

beginning on

stain.

JtscoiKCV
:

[0evai'

) (" darker)

-$>$.

'

-.
a

ev

- * ,
'

-'
'

7reVov#e,
1

'

.ink?'

'}*

&
ends
line.
'

KC

.. , -. ' '. ' :.

t.
'

erepo"

'

C.

'

-.
:

'

'

'

c.

c.

'

;)

-#ev*
'

-"
C.
[

'

C.

-#

'

dark.

ov.

'

ink

dark

'-

-.
2nd
'

?' <
'

'.

77'

[added and so
>
'

line 9.
-repot
'

darker and crowded

[cases,
'

in
'

both dark on
*

2nd half of

-5.
-'//
1

'
,
]

-,

'

-'

-?"

'

-\

or only a stop cancelled?

.

Mark =

a,

poiov

centred below

last line

8
e\ei.
'

,
ttV

83 a
'

2.

darker on
,

'

'

'

}
"

c.
'

c.

dark and

tine

76/31.

dark and
-Aots\

fine.

,
.
n
1

;;*

-.
'

-, -' .
1

?
2
c.
'

c.
'

"

later ?

'

&v

later ?

-Acus.
C.

-. -' .
' '

c.

'

0()/
-I'M,
'

eopa

,
up'
'

or
1

'?

patched.

'

V.

TiVOS"

diner.

ev

apa

.,41 -trei

,
in
'

.
in.

'

dlir-

C.
-

ov

'

almost
note.

//
-

'
1

'

tivos,

hid in

*
'

marg., no

'

e8pav

&
had been

'

!8.
'

' '

'

. . . , -^ , . '" [

7s

//

dark and crowded

'
S
:

-'

'

'

-'
io

Keio On
:

tv q
oti 8e

(end)

V/ys

yap

'

tv.

yap

"

seems

orig.

ev

'

'

.
and dark.

- &
'

'

&
faint
if

[:
ev.

'

ev),

fine

'

-'*
'

'

ov
any.

vi,

ctvat.
c.

-$
lav

dark, patched ?

'

(1st)
'

'

,
'

tJs

aUl
irpos

-ViTUf

put

civai'

up

'

'
/xev

eivat'

cancelled.

Ol'O,

- ( -//<
'
'

' ~, . . -' -.
'

-.
' '

[efvat
'

c
'

'

-^6
ctvat.
'

c.

efvat
'

c.

'

erjs

ai'ti

'

C.

.
^-

C.

,
\.
'

tytov,

'

Inu

, ,
<

1< \
List

Memi

pat<

hed

parch

<

nenl worn and itained

"irrri.
'

,,,''

.'

.' ,:
.

mVf i/ilr
1

'

(,
'

I'.llllt.

rough:

-,
o(pt
'

'

<

>.

~ < THI'.

II,'

[pat<

hed?
!v

had been
faint

fi

&

oVtos

.(
' \<

,
th\-,

An

'

8vo'
,
'

iimv

fv.

'

8vdc
fori

'

KTTiV,

'

...

01((( MW
.

ll

)H/I
.

\-<
of 4
77<\
'

(
>

(?) letteia like

+
*

.'
?)

squeezed
;

>/

-: * ( IVOS, ovTCTI
</

,<

'

in.

-roi'

>}

,
'

'

*
eras.

4'

tcoV

, .
' '

.
'
'

111*1 '
.

TWV

' .

.
'/'.

"

'

>

UTOV

'

f.

/'''.

oi'TCTt

' ,&
' '

*-)'
eVOS"

rwv

'

>

.
,

'

[ -'

OVKaV
'

\\

oiViTi

''
'
'

tAii'-Tiu

'

rwcCor/.
etSi;?

[-

-^.
1<'

1
'

-tfos,
'

'

-.
-toy.
'

'

',
,

faintish.

'

eof
'

-/x^OTi/S.

(XT()V

TTll

<
gap.
.

"

/" '. /< ptytU ? -; , -.

*

. ':
'

(.

'

i";y.

'

ovkoui

[,

had been

<.
ciViyi.

, --,
'

(,

t'r
'

/',
'

'

bad been

8:
subs.
in.

tvi,

"/.

fainter.
1

[squeezed
,

*
:

-"
i>y
' '

-;.

'

.
\
-

up
ivi.
/.

to

<

Ttvos*

-/*,
,

fainter.

-<5-

[and pretty large.

?
;'
.

evl
-Tiys.

tbe

of

differs.

uAA (i ~tp

oi'Teye

/.>/'
'

' 1
1

8
.

the
. .

is

rough

>

-.
'
-;?
'

])
a*i
-/Oil.
' 1

[phrase twice written.

subs, squeezed.
'

'
-./?"
'

C .
kv
'

7
' '

0"1

-./?

'-
'

-'
-en/

'

''

-.

[,
'

to

7} .
ovocvt'
ev
tiv;T

[
'

/i>y

-.
C.

>

'

-pots.

aid

ovScvl

iiv

"

- -.
-/-

C -'-' c

'

-.

'

'

squeezed.

oVros

piytOos

c
'

-.
TOS.

PARMENIDES.

-\.
of
'

'

81.

Tub.
remains of

-.
.
-TITOS'

'

.
t.
'

'

-.
-.

on a -(95.
'

stain

and

tear.

--./
w
/
:

oi'oe
c

.
J'.
'
'

-0os"

'
'

tvwi.
-1

..
'

[
r

"
'
'

'

C.

(end)

-,

'

/5
'

-,

-.
-,

. -.
'

6117

'

.
.

, -#
:

fainter,

-,

' 1

[ -.
-*
"

-,
'

-TJ/S.
'

-.
'
'

'

'

'

patched,
ist

'added?

C.

-9
-,
.>

. ,
'

-#
'

c
C. C.
'

'

'

['"/
'

'

twice

, -.
. * .
' '
'

tcrov
,

'

fine,

-"
'

,
,

ovV&v

'
*
1

2nd
"

'

added
'

?
'

, *
:
'

-.

'

'
.
*
'

'

.
[-:
?;

added?

-. '

'

-.

'

[and next
fine.

line.

added
from

orig.

; -.

,
'

- c . .
C.

later.

>.

, ,
'

..
*

-.
'

.
C.
'

/ ' ^

C.
'

:
'

attl

:
'

5
so
:

'

patched from
later

"

- -?. . : [,
' 1
'

'

C.

had been signs of change but no *.

1

* ,.
.

.
'
'

'

'

'

<$?'

'

-,
'

.
'

rb

' -,
'?.
'

'

.
:
'

(as
'

above)
'

-,
C

- -:
' '

on *

-,

'

'

. -,
-,
1 '

-.
fine

,.
-,
, ,

$ .. -?"
' ' ' '

. :.
c
'

to
'

'
'

.
:

'

C.
:

-,
'

had been
,

fine.

tcrov. tcrios fiv

.
?
(.".

C.

c
'
'

'

-$.

'

-.
and
line.
^

Sou

I<rov

has been

put above

-.
25

,
'

. .

-.
' '

'

'

$ -.
:
'

on

stain.

to-

[, ends

'

had been

'

-,
,
'

faint.
'

faint.

"'

. . -. ? .
C.
'

C.

'

'

'

-.

'

*
-

from
faint.
'

to

scraped,

very
c).

'

'

. .

- $'
a Stain
'

(as

above
'

^)
C.

'
:

'

t.
.'I

,1

\,l

<

It"

I. II

rtpov.
,|i'

'

1.

1, l|

I><1

to-ov

twice

((

i!'s

i'"IM

r.i

}|

'

m.'i

,111..

___ )
1

&p'
i
\

'

dark,
,

patched

IV,

'

Ap'

'

\..ll

poV
twl
<
1 .

JtpOi

1
,

'

(
'

'

,11,

\ \

..

',i

'

t;

lil-l

put

"I

.ldilr.1

'

<<,
fjv

f|

/
fi'iTiiv
'

'

04,

'

!
,

TOf,

' /s
/ZtTe\<U''
'

'

.
>

in

the two

the

diffen frora

,
&'

1'/'

7Tp'/<p\CTUl

'

dp'

(and
'

-'.
'

pov'TrptirfivTtp

OVKOVI

/
fioy
t'lrruf

ytyvotro

<7,

',

'
1

'

, 60V,

-Ttp

. -\

,
I

meant?
oi'toj".

[lighter.

'

rtpov.

up
'

[dark.

junction at

-yvcrui.

'

))
,

'

K(U*7TOTi

< ' -,, -. ," -^

'

.'
'

added.

'

dp'

"

'
'

'

[last
'

added.

patched)
'

'

t~tiTa.

'

-&

-"'

*'
,.
'

- or

'

])

<tfi

'

.
finer.
,
'

-
on a

-.
'

.
.
'

-.
|iev

-.
gap.

, -# ;
?

VUV.

-1

stain.

'

6
'

'

finer.

finer.

- <:
;
'

( ( 1<

viv iiri<r\i

- 5
'?)

.
Se

'
'

y
p.

Ms.

-'
;
wv

'

upon c

'

repov.

'

-.
-.

'

ccrrt

,< ,
'

5^
'

-Tp -/xcvov.

-?.
'

aUl
t

and twice next

twice
'

earn

darker.
"

-yvcrot,

-",
-yverat.
1

; :

line.

niet
'

[ added
later,

.
'

c. evi.
'

aiei

1
'

-Tfpov.

(,
on
S

added?

:.
}
|

first

half of

-'
1

eoikcv
:

C.

Traces of

twicci.

\povov,
'

oi'

TO^T>;r

e\o;\

'

repot-

--

'

|- --'

as in
ecTTiv
'

.
1

'

*
line.
'

151 c and D but not

"

'

[changed from
(ends line)

rewTfr
:

[ending

'

?.
c.

-.

'

64
-.

PARMEAWtS.

pevov
5!rm''
rooeye
'

curs.

'

'

-.
on
*
'

Tub.
OV.

t.

-Tip
'

-yeiv

'

('
-

$,
;
ov

darker.

t8c
<$

8
'

ecrrtv"

*
' '

c.

aAAojv

..
'

[
e

differs.'
e

pev
iiuij.

ivbs"

'

'

-pov

fOS
ov.

.
:
I

c.

evos'

curs,

'

~ first

half darker.

8
-re/501'.

ovv dp-

'

ev
'

curs.

fj

first

half darker.
,

[ -.
'

Soli
'

,
-ve.

"

fainter. , second half darker.

:
'

8'<'

&

'

. -.
ovv
-Tepov.

.*
'

-.
-vev
'

eo

c.
'

j)
'

'

c.
'

'

-yorev.
'

-.
-.

'

'
C
fiffv.

-,
'

-.

-.
on
ij
'

yc

yeyoio?.

'

(
evos"
*
:

.
ev.
'

ye

'

-.
c.

ivirpe-

.
['
' '

traces Of
*

8<

dp'

'

'

*
line.

8e.

'

'

-vos

-yovos.

both

patched.
c.

?,
'

ends

-'
'

'

--'

-.

evos,

tail

added
'

'

'

fainter,

patched.

'

: 5.7. / -*
' '

evbs"

'

aPXV v

'

,
C.
' '

?-

-pev

curs.

'

'

evos"

'

-vevat.
.

ev

.
D

ok.

'

ye
'

ve at
'

oVt'

-.

end on a

stain.

large

on

.. -. ~
c
oe ye
'

yivyveo~6ai.

eiTre

ytvy
:

#
so

my
'

notes,

first first

patched
meant.

yive-

"
-vos,
,

'

--,
'

-yoviis.

-.
at

<TTIV

c.

/
ovv

darker on
///

.
c.
'

had been
c.
'

last ia letter?

Tt
evo?.
'

>)
'

.
t

differs.

:
&
[e'yyeV;/
1

eav

.
' '

eTvai c.
c.
'

orarep

darker and squeezed.

'

'

'

-,
ei

-TOT',

-,
eu/.

ev"

-Tepov

'

Tepov,

.
-it

t<rI

c.

ovv.

'

Ong.
:

-Tat'

?.
'

. - -, -. '^. '
'

ov

.
[s

ends
'

line.

c.

ev

.
:

jr/)Oiyi-

ev.

gap.

oVt'ci'

.
/.
and next ehy
[line.

/}
C.

'

c
'
'

e "(/

'

-pov

'

oe

gap

^.
'

c.

'

etv/.

'

[line).

(next

c.

-o-Oev.
'

VOf'

rl.irk.

'

-.'-

'

)Tf/1')|

Tepov.

C. C.
'

t'l'os

'

.
.(',!/

t'i>H

'

II.

.\..

tint half dark.

'

0
/"
91
,

,. ,.<\,.\

/urn
I*

8
1
'

'

darker and

'

*
[tquei
-.
.

t.

.;".u'
1
'

'

.-

(
1

<,

'

/1

*
:

'
/m,i

'.
'

/
-,

i'

'

lni;!it

he

6V.

-<'

daiki-r
'

and
&il

lusrr.
'

-;/;

so,
so.

and
'

Inn.

20.

Ill'tl.

.-

(iii

*,

had been fv?

rt /..
'

Iv&i

ivbt
s.uiu-

t4v
UVTl
late in
S'oC
-

Tin.
'

<

In* 01

rtpov

iiroiiS-

all
'

[hand
r.'uV

mi *, "',
'

..
TTort
]

'!
at

[4 .

Ti/Kil.

'
yiyicu
I
Mil

in.

.',
"
>)
'
1

end

maj. curs.

accents retouched.

}
'

later.

yiyort -TtpiiV T^SivtUTtpoV

rvy
:

oiTwr.

all c.

cU

'

'
C.

c.

r
first

jron stain.
'

firov

darker
>}

'

>rovoc

'
'

6
Aoisi;
'

iCovi

ytyoviv

c.
'

'/

Ipa

t'A'iTTOt't

-TOJ'OS.
'

'

rb

irnrtp

'

To
del

c'a
III'.

'

-,

'

>repov.

; -.
"

first

half darker.
'

-*
6

'

-'

so.

last

'

added.

*. '

'
'

-tc/iov.
'

c.

<y

'

<<-.

'

ci\

'

"
'

c.

'

'

'

'

"

-vo,

I St.

il 8k

:
'

-yovos.

-'
' '

-TCpoV
'

-yovos.
'

-rcTiK,
.
'

-TtpOV
'

l
7/1'

-'.
-pov
'

-. -,
'

TO

'

-. -#. -,
'

-*"
,

6
fainter. otuTi

-VCTat.

-Tfpo

alt I
'

-pvTtpov

am
'

-po

'

'

yap.
'

-pov

-.
t's
'
'

-
-,
-

-10
' ' ' 1 ' '

-. . -
'

Tepov

.1

"

'

06,

- .''
-Tfpov,
-I'OtiTO.
'

7/
C.
'
'

'
' 1

-.

-
IvaVTMV
'

fvavTi'ov.
.

.
'

citt/v

-.

'
t

'

,-.
-pV"
-por.

'

'

'

, -"

removed? so below.

, -1

,
}
1

. yyovV -.
'

t<r-

'''
'
'

aid

"
'

. ' ^ .
' '

'

-Tfpa.

'

later? dark.
later
'

-.
-'.
'

'

C.
'

-?/,

'

aid

'

-;,
c

'

-^

C.

'

-.
C.

act (sic),
C.
c.

'

-#.
tvos.
'

\
:

6V0S.

C.

'''

'

PARMENIDES.

,-* -, -, , , - -# -, * . * [
Tub.
'

had been

'.

'

'

-,

'

'

-rar

'

-.
,

'

-7,

'

'

-,

dp'

. #. '
'

liner.

'

'

'

'
-'
8'
..
'

'

on brown
'

blots.

V(0'

'

-"

ends
?<rri

line.

-.
'

. -, ' -, -? . . .
t.

C.

C.

'

-*
'

'

'

all C.

'

[
'

'

8
'

,
or

patched

had been

'

-$.

-,

'.
.

-" 7*;
,
*
' '

-/

-" -.
'

had been

-$

'

-\
line.

- c

'

'
twice.

ends

itnwov-

-?'

-vox'

. 7.
'

*
(

of "added.)
, ,

-"
-.
;6

orv

-,
-".

" '

cv

)
ovo-Cos

* [:
'

'

"
' ' '

C.
'

'

dp*

'

'

.
'

-.

last

two

differ.

pdvos

rough

(ff.

174

175

-. -.

have been stuck together,

latter is injured).

-5'

" ,
' '

. , -

[darker,

V
"'.

of last

. ..
-.
'
'

-.
'

'

'

:
'

'

twice,

C.

.
C.
,

[
'

.
:

'

, -?, ' -*
-

looks patched
'

'

-?:

'

dpa
dp'
'

'

-.
-$.

look patched

^,
'

-,

* 7 ' ,
'

-
,

faint

'

. .
?
"

'

-0 -$
'

-',

has been added.

'

twice.

'

'

thick,

-,
of
"

[patched,
darker.
'

-'

. * ,
'

. .'
1

'

'

'

-.
-$

, -'
'

'?'
'

,
:

fainter.
'

'

darker.
'

[,

-,

seems uniform.
'

'

'

-.
["

, , ; . . 8 ? . '
-.
.
' '

dp'

'

brav

gap

-* ' -"
'

C.

'

dp'
.

'

'

written twice,
'

dotted, later

-^.
'

-,

Ur-

(so twice)

'

'

-. -. -. - -'
'

-'

'

-. - -; -.

-~'

'

-,
<

'

)? .

'

'

'

-*
'

-'

*
:
'

*yap

'

?. :

'

'

-.

has been

'

-; -" ?,
'

'

'

'

'

vorxA
!\.

Tin
>
*

.
ilfi'

tp'

faint,
'

allow

'

>/>';>"

/" V s
'

71/1,

>l

ill,

\.i

l\\

'

<l
I

;
'

Tordv

oil 10
I

tji

</ ..

ov

'

foL

/.|

<
I
.

Xti

gap

io

tu
f/./r.u
H'.^
'

below the
twic C

injury

.11.
'

ft,

Glint

'

'"

la-r

Tl/S,

T'.,

0404'

'
I .

ip

,,
dark and

'
1()

rat

iu*
,'

'II
inj,

late
'

erased.

'

OVOi
c/

>

ovh&v and

added

'

T'iTC.

[Ap'oCv

V'
Kg'
j

unalL
'

'

oflr

added

orig.
.a

has
?
'

been
"V"<.

/ScUty,

.'dlcr.

t<u,

'

(jTwrrav
'

}itui.
..
'

'

49'
-yoi,

''

TOW
roTC

] ovw ton
:
'
'

[lorTtV
'

-.
i-trl
.

-.riiuv KCU
:

added.

'

"^.

forty.
-<>r,
'

-
-oi'.
'

tov

[crowded into

iirni.
ot,
,

'

-I'tTtii'

'

-"
'

had been

'

:
.
:
'

line.

-3 "
'

once

Vtiv

ji'Ti.

'

'

'

\6yov.
'

'

dark on
,
'

tov.

altered to

'
1

>jtuvoy.

own
'

twice.

iVu-,

'

.
'

Ll

);irt

* ^ ^ smai On
l

-/uitu,

fainter.

'

ev.

?
'

-
at

and

to-
'

,
'

-"

'

'

-uotOV
'

(**U

,
'

ovopotov
has been

/tcya.

toy
'

altered to
&v

to-ov
:

uror.

ravaiTM
ovrc
' '

tin'

gap

-,
patched
'

-#cev

-Xots,

'

-,'

8' km'
crov
'

.
'

'

"of "darker, com[mas all

yap
v
:

tviw.

fainter.

'

-\tv \iv

'

ev.
'

c.
'

'

-/
j

-tcoi

'

-.

vos
[er.

-,
'

[patched on
:

orig.

-.
ye

-. , . (( .
tnj
'

/\ .
tvb$
,

differs.
'~>/

dark-

&

added.

'

.
-.

.
C.
'

-U(

'

(^( rg
<("
c.
'

:
'

'

cav

..
'

. *
'

.
:

:
'

;J

yep

C
<
.

'

T.ul'C.

C.
'

eivai'

eftj"

/.
c
'

/.

-ptpv,

-.
'

'

-<,
-

-ptov //

httov

'

'

Tl iTl'CM, OV

'

VOS.

.
'

-. -.
101
'

&t cncl

"
-.
:
'

'

-.
.

'

-.

'

pop \.

[on a stain,
fainter.
on,

'

(" -,
' ' '

['
C. C.

'' c
'

.
l

ovBevbs

'

'

'
-.
'

':
tivos
'

c
Tivos

-.

'

tivos.

-,

ISt'as'

'

ivos tivos

-.
'

'

?"

c
1

'

aTravTiuvc.

-vbs.

,
"

seems patched.

'

'

added

&

-$.
do.
'

\.

"

'

68

PARMENIDES.
ft.

$3

, ->. . -" -, # .,
apa
'

Tub.
'faint.?
1

'

ivis:

'

jvoV

'

() '-

t(Jt

'

'

,
e

'

.
'

?)

Sf

"

[ -

<Jtc
' 1

changed to added
'

Seyav

'

patched, added.
'

CVI.

.. -'

'

.
of
"

'

,
'

patched.

'

avri ?V

8t

'

, $ -. ? -. ?' . - . [ . - ?.
'

t.

TOl'TOV
1

orig.?

'

C.
'

#
'

()

[
C.

'

'

C.

.
C.

c
last
'

C.

darker.

added. not
ivis

-.
It

evos.

'

(gap

accurately
first
'

, 5.
'

'.
.
'

rj

'

-.

[.

'

noted)

can-

" $, -.
.
'

celled

',

, .
:
'

. , /* -, ,
'

,
'
'

*
'

'

added.

'

evos.

:
'

'

'
?
'

2nd

'

. -;
:

.
'

* -?* , /.
' '

-*
'

>

/ & -* ,
'

,
,
' '

-,
,

'

-ktj,

' *
' '

[added. Ivbs

--^ . 5
'

added.
"

ivbs.

'

patched
'

differs.

<5'2
-Ul
'

atcl

, -,

-,

'

'

subs, small, squeezed.

'

.* 5$
'

' (:

C.
'
' ' '

' -. :
'

-. -.

5.

'

[tu

2nd

added.
'

-.
-.

added,

comma ad. ['

'

8
[on *
is

-^.
-?.

"!* -.
*
'

. '
C.
' '
'

C.

[^
diff. ink.
'

strong,

?, -.
(
at be-

at
f.

foot,

-* ?.
c.
'

-tois*

- ''

s inner,

177.)

ginning and

of next line

.-:
'

.
-.
'

'

on
evos,
I.
' 1

stains.
-1

, -.

-,
fainter.
'

.
j

acc. Orig. ?

'

irep

ends
?

5?

,,
,

[line. =

commas here

differs.
'

dark and squeezed.

&

first

'

faint.

'

-, -?#
'

'

-pa.

the two

-repa,

. -*

differ.

- 8'-

-*
1

? -,
'

-vbs.

-, */

-.
:

-: c

'

-ry

""
'

jj
'

6
:
'

2nd

'

ad.

'

-^.
.

-,
' '

'

ends
[line. =
-Tots.

'

-?.

originally ?

6'-

on

*,

1st

'

ad.

-repa.

'

.*

'/'/.'.

VI.

"r(,
<>l

'

/'.
'

j
.'..

.ill

(l.ukti.

<
'

.
Avopoiu

' :

|i.it<
'

"

very
[(I.IlL

,
-,\..>
' ' .

"(lark

hcd.

'<
:
:

'

l>ij-

added.

Mr
pi,

^
tl
/it V
'

wide.

* of
1,>
.

"

d.nki .
apll,

7>/|'
/
'

-,

e'r/TM.

&

'

>

/ s.

'

.
,'

.
"

"'

'

eeemi patched
-

'
lorn.

1
'

'

'"'/T'l,

*/-'!

and
rb

'

added

'

',

"
'

'

dark.
-Ami

fnpov.

of

"

(lark.
1

'

'.
<y>u/ui',
<ir,
'

,
1

6
:
'

' .

-i'iv.
'

'

iff

'

r>~>v

lv6t\

-\.

'

ya / C.

<"/"/

"

[have near this

<<1
:

TO

crowded.
fcmv,
1

-'
1

rA-ai above
a/*-

<'
|

'

:' )
T<;<

'

.
/
/r
:

<

[so below

mynol
(?

yi/'^i

c.

Vr

C. hi'tm, C. mi!
tctv
:

of

-. . ' . -' ". (( '

'

Of,

[darker.

seems uniform.

'
;

urTi

c.

-/til',

a pa C
'

'

-Tin'
:

t\u tniV

-( ?
vds
-

'

-pis' c.
'

tv\

'

ovSfvl

c.

'

t'irTil'

-8
i<rrV

'

'

" \

'

'
'

[-

.
ov
' '

(\n
'

mZt yap
C.

'

-viV

'

TOV'

X (i
1

"

(no

<. in marg.)
'

-1

ivos.

'.I

'.

.*/*
'

* \ \

ev

'

.
-/?
1

'

-'
ci

'

'

-Ta\'y

squeezed.
stain.

[Final

on a

.
o
.
'

* '
2nd
ad.
*

-* -.
/Ji'a,
'

cv

' - * (~ -.
'

C.

-.

'
'

(V.

V.

C.

'

-, (

'

-cttiv

C.

'

eu/.

'

-'
,

-,

'

[or pchmt. rough ?

-
,

*
C.

[iVi'TTlV

/ri/Sevos

tine.

upper half of

on

"

"'

. Svotv

dots very
'

rrtv*
-\ot*

-peva,

,
.
'

fine.
'
1

-\<,

'

ends

[V

ends

line.

line.
'

-,
yap

''

-(.
'

-Tcpa,

'

-/icra,

'

-'/'*

-^"

'

-^evai,

. -' ( [
-'
i'vos.
1
'

!<*
-.
'

-]]]

- -.
'

-.

' '
' '

-(. .
-uci'a*

017

-f5tv
iviis
.

c
'

'

' .,
'

"
-

-\
^'

\~

-/leva*

C.

[.

dots meant?
'
'

'

cancelled

-.
-ei

-oivue^ei.
eo-T(V
.

T*
'

?.
'

('
'

*
up
ace. patched
?
tl

\.

('.
erased.
8c

t v.

'

'

'

'

ev.
\

/Liv

. c
c
< eicv

'

-*

ev.

a/

70
St.
:
'

PARMENIDES.
Tub.

-0*?'
1

of

"

darker.
'

'

/*//
'

'

-',

, ,
'
'

[-*
'

'

'

/at?
'

twice

,
of

-yol,

:
'

/
-.

t.

c
'

'

'

-#.

'

twice.

-.
-.

'

'

'

'

dots small
differs.

on
'

*.

'

dpa

-,
D

* '

twice.
'

.
'

,
-{?$.

.
'

"

darker.
fori"
for:
'

'

-$'
'

* * . -8 * 8( , ]' ,
ginal

addition has no

-* c, and
'

* ,
"

'

'
'

-yoi.

-.
C.

-.
' '

C.

c
-#$.
'

eV

'

Marhas

8&
ofl

'

on . no words in marg. or
[in text, =
ctvai

-.
C.

'

*
'

\~
c

" <
-

'

/*'//

'

*
dark,

'

of

and
tis
:

[angle sharp.

-#.
'

'

. '
C.
' '
'

" . '.. C.
'

c
'

'

patched,

-' (): c
' '
'

'

'

-.

C.

in lower

margin

'

6
'

of 85 b 2 stands
c.

-;

p.

a.

tivos.

'

'

ov patched on a yy and trace of accent ? -vov

'

" '
-//'
c.
'

'

stain.
all

'

'

-*
'

'

-*
'

Tivb?.

'

-*
'

'

c.

'

'

-
'

-*
'
'

-.
6:

'
'

darker than

*
(so

'

OV ov
/V
.
1

'

-.

[my
'

notes.)

orig.

-, -'

[fainter.

-
>

,
-vo,
'

ev,

and the other are

aces, differ from
[others.

-$.

-* --" -?
'

'

'

[-. -
'

small, crowded.

'

-^.
;

all

'

'

-;.
'

.
'

'
C.

'

'

-yos.

'

*
'

'

-,

tail

of

scraped.

'

[-.

-*

'* * -^. -,

* c.
'

-.

-*
'

- () -.
'

]'
(iSt)
ttws
:

'is

sharp and dark,

-, -. :

-. -.
c
C.
:
'

C.

C.

.
^

'

eot/cev

-?.

'

(,
ivos

'

?*
vosj
'

ftp'
'

.
(ist)

c c
' '

-?"
-vos.

c
c.
:
'

'

'

-c'

': :

-1

yej

different.

cvos*

-?.

aces, different,

N01

.
, ,.
I
'

1;.
un-l
'
.

Aiils

'

/<'">>/,

1<\
'

'

<

'

.
"'
/xt,
'

;,.

in' \

'

in.
:'

in

"

the

'

darker.

urn

'

lin.m
IT/ IDS'

' inn,

4
'

OV

tV

nx

j
,

( <\
'

'
.

/.
'

'

'
:(

'

.
[the
,
.

'

'

In

'

raAAa

'',

err

<

injured

yi ten

....
Tl

(.

Pt

HfTl

'

'
I

KpOT,

lightei

al.l
'

-/> '
'

Ml

'I

'

il. <l

Tl

..
Tim'
7i/s.

/..

/
:

r;ru

OV*
'

'

-*.
oiVn
1

small fine

'

1<-

-: .
'

'

1<-

urn

wihHMi'

/"T'y,

.small

fine.

-.

tve

-Tl OXTflHKiV.

l-s

ivf,

'
iv. cet

('

or

'

[patched)'

t)\nasye.
iri)
'

tr>/

'

OVTWC.

'

-/it'

-Ttus.
'

'

-/<
-/is.

/ (
t'\;/.
'

/ui\-,
>}

at

cud on a
1

stain.

.
'

-'

/ui
1

'of "dark.
'

-:

no note
in

t"

_</.

written
[twice.

-ftl,
(Si

'

-'
'

-ytir.

i/m/ier

-yet i'.

[yap

c.
>

if.

OVKoV'

eirTtr

* -,

'

jt/ichttc)

'

eirai.

marg.

ov.
(
->'

'

)
s

6V
C.

'

IT eirai.

'

avairet

'

opp. foot-line,

inner marg., small majs.)

In lower marg.

ia

or.

'

tout

,
5
>"/
'

oCv Set
,

fine.

'

ov

'

-wu
in
*j.

->
6,
st.

l\t\.

elvai
1

ovv:
OV"
,
'

c.

'

Seoyi

'

-rat.
C.
'

covers a

-vat

/?*
en/.

'

uvai.

c.

a3

eirai

&V,

'

a/.

Nothing

tvo (will note only use of")

TO,

[marg. corresp. to mark above

[ no
gap.

mark

.
.

O I'*

'
ov
*
.
I '

e'v/
*
.

-.

/ter oiVrt'a?.

'

or

'

oe.

or, twice.
oi'

ov'
oe.

.
'

or

'

et

-(uvai'

ov'

'

OV
:

ei't'

'

eirrt

'

*
jt(i)
'

-,

-,
'

.
'

ei /ir/ e'o

_
j

c
I

evt
'

'.

~
'
:

ovv
'
\

c.
*

'

eu -.

c.

etrat c.
'

last

differs.

&
gap.
'

'

Ow,

?'

-raf
.
.
.

et's

eirai

c.

Tip c. eri.

'

-< injured,
[seems =
91

ecTTti'

rw?.
-Tor.

TO)'

-ref

Te,

/ierov

or

Se,
*

-7

/o-ts.

'of

darker.

Ti

-<rts.

ev

patched.

evivre
Ioikc
:
'

c.

-r>/
'

apa

&pa

C.

twice

'.
/t

'

eo-at,

eirl

ev7re</>avTai'

orig., SUgg.

~?

72

'

- '

'

-*
>;
'

.
'

had been

1 '

'.
-,
'

^ / ? TUB.
rather dub.
'

PARMENIDES.

if

or

c.

prob. former.
'

-Tiv

-.
yap.
C.

'
'

c.

c.

'

'

v.

'

c.

-*
6v

'

'
C.

[*
c.

?
:

yap

C.

'

'
,
'

6 tv

repeated in marg.
,

"

and

differ.

'

: :

Over

c.

C.

.
vos.

ov'

ov
tivos
4p'

tvos,

-,
,. -yetv"
'

-"
-" -.
1

-'
.
163
P 36
'

-.
\1,

( )(
'

-V77TOV
:
' '

[line retouched.

'

-.

ovyap

)
:
:
'

-{).

Several letters in this

$ '.
upa

''

-. / -* -* -* -. ' -.
' '

-*

-Kt

:
'

.
y

ayetv
'

'

-.
.

'

'
-.
'

"

in the

differ.

- '

'

-.
'

ev.

C.

'

? '.

'

OV
.
'
'

ovyap

of

darker.
'

'

.
,

and

line 5

-*
-.
'

as above.

-pov,

differs.

-' - -.
' '

. -*.
' '

ovyap
'

. '

patched.

-, -,
'

'

'

"

of
'

"

darker.

- .
'

of

darker.

-,
' '

d
-viv,

?
'
'

vios twice.

,. '

-
'

- . 8'
ov
:

-c
:

-' $

.
'

-,
C.
:

c
-?.

<5< a word on

*,

had been
'

, -"

-^ , /. -*

-"
'

. . :
'

''
'

'

c
:

on

.
:

yap

C.

-.
1

'.

'

of

"
'

dark.

-, ,
'
'

8
'

.
1

'

-.

of" dark.

-$,
"

'

'

: ', ,
'
'

.
'
'

:
.

'

On

.
-"

changed
[to'
C.

?,
:
'

7rt3s

-*
'

*
: :
'
'

-? -

-#, -#,
:

'

<}

of last
[
,

dark.

differs.

last

}
.
-,
'

'

TOV

-"

dark

'

'
'

-. ' )..
'

two dots very

fine.

<TO/XV,

'
:

'

-^

''

'

-*
' '

changed from
' ' '

-tos
'

attl

*.
-tS,
C.
:

C.

-.
C.

'

<

'

'

'

'

V.

/ /

0
,.'/
!/
'

|.
yap'.
'

t.

,
in
\

)'.

'

\.

|d

.
.,

\>

">/<..
"'

'

/
HoV
1
'

.11

(1.11

Jed

OH

ol

81
"

'

''.
ill

titei
,.',
'

"'

*
1

,
1

'

'

,
'

:'
:

'

-'

:,

1;',

||>. gap.

'

';''

Jr..T'

.
'
'

/
-

I.

is!,

pit.

<

TW
-

'

' ; '

'

mailer
f.
'

-,

//

.*

/<

'

Sn.u. h oblique
r.

down
).
'

From
,

in .
'

on
'

'.'

.
<
\

'

'

atv
C

y,

'

-/..

VAu. ri

ol

d.irk.

', <<
'

Uljl'.
.'

)
'

'

^,
'

t'

'

-/"
.
!

'

''

vVTMl

rdH

OtMCOVV
\/../

//
/'.

-rt.
?>*

Til
'

Jo-riv.

('
-,
-pov
:

'
'

'

TMV
-/>

C.
<.

of
'//

dark.

'

.;'.

pov

'

Btw>
'

'

'

r<pov

^
-<rr.ii.

-.
fti/.
'

-Til-'

[.
UWM
'

yiuyc

6'y<
C.
'

7r<n

to'

o7y,
'

ii'iui.

[""'/'

iWi

<"'(,
'

second
iHT.'xr-

blotted,

-,
-.
-<rra<
'

.
'
'

/t>/<S-

'

,
'

urrlr.

* 5.
:

t.rTii'
'

'

,
'

Oil
'

(>
(rdvTO

icrrl

'

-'

-..

-(,

?
-

'

ilJ

-.
-1

/.
-TIM
';

'

'

-.

t''//.

GUM

c.

KTTIV.

-Tuc /

- (
'

C.

'

C.
'

'

OtJCaV
c.
'
'

'

ti"'/.

T*S

'

-vtTui,

(. -. -atop
i>S!
'

(.lark.

of

dark.
subs,
'

dark,

<Sv

Se

"

added
'

:
later.
ooeitfy.

is
'

-ros uxreoucev

-<.
'

ttrrt c.

'

-<?

C. ii'vai C.

Tts.

-rat.

-. -
'

-O^iS.

'

uvtuv
C.

-'.
-cos,
'

Turn
c.
'

<

OVKOVV

-TILL
'

'

-" ,
'

ptrra

'

,
-.WV

-*
next
'

-- - -.
:

'

'
-Tta

.
'

[(
c
[ooct*

c.
\

\\
e
',

-.
'

arid

with

some

'

ptjv

letters.retouched.
-V04

ye^aaev oo*etev

/
c.
'

'

3
C.

^
C.

MTOS

:
yap c.

tiVai'
-/.liVuS.

ends

line.

-.
(no
Iv)

euai*
:

65

eivat* C.

^,

-/>*,
'
\

,.
'

-vos.

aUTos Tt
atlso.

'

a*ei
*
\ >

'

'

act

>/.

'

-l'T>/V.

-fl'Ti/

-Tpa

,
\

'

-^.^.

.
ison*
-vota
'

'

,
*

ovkoi'v

C.

C. atet

$ ) aUl

'XV'

'

"'/

''? . ./. .^.

C.
1'
'

cvbs

/^ ]',
'

-'4

:
'

-Tpa
c.

. -.
,

C.

'

-\/5.
'

aid

-)/"

'

-rcpa

8(.

ot^tai
'

one

'

seems added.

-'

vos.

ate

74

PARMENIDES.
8L
'

-. C ^,;; ,
'

,
-vat,

- -?
=

Tub.
:
'

(:
:
'

C.

'

* - - , ?
'

.
:
'

-.
'

[t.

'

, .
'

dark.
'

-' -"
a faint

. [ C.
'

(next line).

'

>

is

loosely written
first

'

'

-'

.
,

on

'

7,

'

-/*, /

c Clirs.

fine.

-/.

--,
-?,
'

-?"
E

'

,
'

?-' ]
a
fine
.

in marg.

-?
'

'

- ? " ?-<5$
above
"

ad.?

some
1

marks
" al-

? -. . -, -* -. ?
' ' 1
'

.
eivai
'

C.

of

'

'

ist

tered and doubtful.

Tots

'

'

'?,

had been had been

'

'

some stains on 188 scraped,

-?' -? -?" -*
' '

66 ,

darker
"

'

- /. '. -, -, ?
C.
'

?
-
-.
.

c.

-?.
'

'

?
C.
:

C.

-?'

'

.'

[but text clear.

'

-? -.
'

, ,
'

* ' ,
dark.

.
-?.
'

'

8. ['()
'

C.

c
:

'

'

8'
1

'

"

darker,

&'
'

2nd

'

ad.?
:

..
'

c
'

-?.
-':

-
ovyup
/?;

p. 39.

. , -' 08' . : ~ , -* ' , - , . , [

'

'.?.
'

yu.?J

ye.

-?*

*
1

: .*
:
'

St

'

- . --' . -" -. ': .

:
'

'

'

C.

'

'

C.

'

C.

C.

'

'

C.

C.

'

'

..

'

.
.

-.

[.?'

'

had been

.,
'

Ivbs.

'

'

-.

-/.
C.

'

,
' '

curs.

'

'

-. -/
'

'

,
c

'

'

'

'

faint

'

-,

'

' >
'
'

, . .'

'

'

'

ad.
'

2<nv

last

curs.

: No

title.

^-.
-.
Slight flourish.

INATORY.
iocs the various medieval
ol
01

modem
But

commentariei tad tnnilationi available

thinker,

for

the elucidation
fur..

the

Parmenides, the writings of lucceeding Greek

apt
to

more
ol

particularly

Aristotle,

many

nous and

illustrations.

there

are

likewise

works

i.iiiy

the explanation of the dialogue

the

commentary by
ku!

Proclus, which

is

Oi Of these two have been cited in this edition. with Stallbaum's text, printed, somewhat inaccurately, along
oi

and

is

here referred to according to the paging

Cousin.

iiropim
edited,

Xtkms
the greatest

rt3v

rpurtnv

its

1.<
1

The

,&,
This

other, entitled
h.is
is

been more recently

less

*
uiy
s
is

date

devoted

.>

with

care,

by C.

E,

Ruelle (Paris,

889).

latter

commentary
Plato's work.

than a discursive consideration of speculative questions more or less connected with

which

it

has not been possible for us to study with

physics,

suffii

u nt

thoroughness.

It

a strange

com-

theosophyj extremely subtle and provokii The nature of the avopiat will be gathered from the following examples: What is an confused. is it one; is it Is it knowable ,)\/, and what is its relation to that of which it is </>\>/?

pound

oi

metaphysics,

and

mythological

Is

it

Ktviprcws,

ami how are we

has
it

constitutes

and are these represented by Do we ever really attain to the and Iv, or do we stop short at a lower, tam-ov? x\t what point in development doe^ more concrete, phase of each? How know ioiw, and with it appear , >, iwvs? or is even further removed from the What is pc&ts, Does knowledge not involve division, as opposed to simple oneness? and what is comprehended in ytyvaxrxeti How things go in triads etvoi,
existence;

phases;

?
first,

-,

is
is

rpoooos,

stand related ?

What

order of development

correspond
as

as

traots,

numerous and

bodies

? ;, , , , -, (^ . , , -,
the relation of
eveis,

How
are

, ?
--,
but
the

to

advance downwards from

it

,,}

$}
What

to concrete things?

aV/?

,How

,
th

the

last

triad

and the like?

Whether
is

How
one,

the

vovs,

d-av, to which series, excluding

or

ev

produces not

ev

and how there are both

specified?

cvaoVs

which

/teriyi/iccu

by
passu

all

grades
a

of existence just

How

(apparently)
i

--?
the

process

ideal

moves

pari

with
fact

process

phenomenal
if
it

How
What and how

Whether the
of

must not be

in
v.

complex
?),

causes the complex?

ad, and so on. Through all which runs on the one hand a disjointed reference to special passages of the dialogue, and on the other a strange artless appeal to mythology and the old poet-seers would like to combine faith and reason.
is

character

and

(discrete

continuous

of

yevanv

And

The
spelling

Title

^?
Cp.

has been already discussed.

is

used throughout the dialogue

t

except in one case (131 b) where the

scratch.

127

c,

patched, apparently by the

first

The
side

for

the usual -<5?/

and

e.g.

s.

is

on a
is

himself,

by side with Oat. 418

on
b.

this page.
ei

Cp. Plato
trace their

The forms

where the hand also 137

:

origin to different sources in different words,

and

B,

may have been

75

differently treated

by

later writers

,1)

PARMENIDES.
consequence.

no doubt that these and other vowel sounds showed a strong tendency to approximate under certain circumstances, as time went on and Blass (Aussprache des Griein

But there

is

he

is

younger than Socrates.

It

is

objected, too,
that Antipho,

by Stallbaum, Hermann, and others

Plato's youngest brother, could hardly
to

be old enough
set of

have learned the conversation from Pythodorus,

chischen,

1888),

p.

58,

says:

Diese Schreiber

a friend of

Zeno

and Hermann assumes a

des

Jahrhunderts [h.c] wussten durchaus nicht

three brothers of Plato's mother, called by these

mehr,

wo

sie

und wo

sie

ei

setzen sollten, sondern

T
Lois,

names, as the true interlocutors both here and

the Republic.

in

schrieben, Eip?, rei/xas [for

derum Again, Meisterund etc. hans (Grammatik der Attischen Inschriften, 1888), in der romiDieses ei nimmt dan p. 30, says
:

$],

und

wie-

Antipho, the brother of Plato, could

hardly have been born

much

before 420

B.C.,

neither

schen
(

Zeit,

wie verschiedene Versehen

, ),
ist

)rthographie zeigen

(?,

die Aussprache

,,in

could he have learnt

this

dialogue

much sooner
the other

than

404
old

B.C.

so that Pythodorus must have been an

the two met.

der

man when
earlier

On

hand

we cannot
Athens
been
alive,

well place the arrival of Cephalus in

an.

Gleichwohl

die

gewonliche Schreibweise, wenigstens bei

in der Kaiserzeit, die

than 399 B.C., since, had Socrates the inquiries might have been addressed

den Eigennamen auch

That the quantity need not trouble us is clear from Meisterhans, 54 Dass in der Kaiserzeit die Quantitat der vokale sich mehr und mehr vermischt, geht hervor aus Messungen wie,
:

().

mit

to him, in which view

an older Antipho seems

See
Zeller's Plato,

to
his

For us the point of interest

is

indicate that at any stage of

Platonic text had been written to dictation

.
t,

^'

/zei'at.

/ ? '?"
'
does
its

this spelling

transmission our
?

. ,
references
:

be rendered unlikely.
also

and
1. 1

Stallbaum's

Parmenides.
to Alcib.

For
19
a,

Pythodorus, Proclus
i'

iv. 13, refers

says a

Schol.,

and Rhunken's

collec.

Anaxagoras was
igitur

born here.

Stallbaum says fuerunt

Possibly.

haud

depend upon the participle 'taking me by the hand,' or the noun 'taking my hand ? For the former we have Laws 1. 637 c,
'

- ^? . $
yeyovcvat,

; [.]

ry

yeyovev.

Does

dubie Anaxagorei, and seems to find in that a

point specially appropriate.

haps the town

\aipeiv.

is

mentioned merely

of reality to the work.

Cp. Ion 530

of

be
the

yap
/ifvos,

Yet peran

to give

,
;

rj

" ",
air
...

although the sense of the verb

is

different.

Parallel passages are

etc.

The

question of the

identity

where
in
V.

,
,
'

Charm. 153

,
ttjs

/xevos

Rep. . 3 2 7

/,

>

seems

to

be the adverb, as

the

interlocutors
Plato's

cannot

clearly

deter-

449

, ,
gives ofov el

,& ,

,
,

mined.

brothers

and

Cephalus of

although here the pronoun depends upon the noun.

the Republic naturally suggest themselves;

and

But Cratyl. 429

for the

perhaps we

may

claim

it

so far as an evidence of

the authenticity of the work, that the difficulties.

view that

.
' ;

'
is
'

which makes
AVe
'

onnected with such an identification must have

forger's

have no means of translating neatly the force of the

aorist in these cases
after taking
'

been present to a
concern.

mind and

yet cause

no
in

To go no
is

further

the Cephalus of the

Republic

described by Socrates as resident

an intimate acquaintance of his, and as considerably his senior; while our Cephalus is now irparepov) from Clazomenae, his second visit and his own language would convey the idea that
Piraeus, as

do not usually associate this form of greeting with Greek life as in 127 a, is more common and more suggestive of
are too formal.
;

We

southern feeling.

and

...

,
TJSt
is

a phrase.

having taken

It

seems
Yet

to

be accepted that
a peculiar

are neuter.

/077
expression, which Ait, Muller,
.m.i hui..

s.

and

the F.ngelmann

tin

Parmenidi
mnl.
II

aa ijj

where

tl

translators
rfiv

all

give
,:

u ly,
11

avoiding the

strut tion
1

plural hi ipite ol
i.

and

". while
i"i

appears that
.,"

(iid
..

mil
.

i\

iii

equivalent
I

Si

'"

(.
.1).
*

ml mini
m.i

irds

the

(Xl

though
\

..

thai
It
\

any

hange would be
Bui
as
foi

luded
rable
:

not
p

he

num
r.

be

in s t

possible thai
here.
1

mean
is

yel
t<

we
tl)

belonging

to to
'it

those
oui

there

any

n.
,

illative at
nil.

Mil

h
1

md.
il

I'l.ito

also

qt
'

objection
translating

taking

rov

you are seeking

tins
will

masculine and anj one ol thi

have anj

sp u

<

libi

pan nthetic use

ol

..
</. 'in
o<
c

mid. 16
,,

end
,,
1 .

belonging to
interest'?
follows.
it

place with

whom we

All

word

be observed thai

*6*
imperative as
precepts,

ii

non

urenthetii ally
tn

Sometime
of
</*">'"

fv

.
notion
of
here.
It

The

use

ol

the

prescnl
is

131

comes between Little can be c).

required
variety;

(130

b,

inferred except that Plal

contrasted with the aorist

said to suggest 'the

in
it

ear

and possibly a

later

work

permanence]

.is

general

might hive fewer instances simply because do need

arose for the usage.
Foi ietprapxvot v/twvep.
130"

advice, rules, etc' (Jelf), bul

<. hardl) do so

we are
that

to Bee

any special purpose we

explanation by Cephalus

avrav

[lapptvtlSov.

We may complete
infill.,
is

the

must suppose
will

be an act occupying some time: cp. Theaet.

c,
77iu",

143
Atyt
orr,

may be taken .,

,
...

the

struction by

with or without an

Plato intend-; to suggest

tial

/,
A

unl

which

not essen-

/'(/))

At'yt,
it,

where
gives

where

it

stands,
in.

('p. for

somewhat analogous
('rat.

/. *.
/
:

as present

ro

,
But

Phaed. 61
Polit.j

passages, Hipp.

373

and

391

c.

263

c,

7<$

&v,

Roth Heindorfand

stallb. cite instances

where time enters

thus

of this polite imperative.

Thus

Ayoi?

more clearly than here.

occur Phaedr. 227

c,

Polit 267 d, 268

y'fiiov

We may render

'Why in

point

Aevots

,
.
269 2S3

</"/,

ms

of fact

am

here (y) for this very purpose.'

here, rather
Scg etc.
cp.

Rep.
Poht.
Polit.

6 14 A.
C.

So
Also Aeyots

, Rep. .

,
291
s

alone

68

D,

may be used
backwards
Scipropevos
to
j

,
p.

Eilthyd. 274

'.-'

w hrifcigovrt

ye

parenthetically as

.
...
,

,
ye

than
less

,
.

as referring

no

than forwards to
Stallb.

127

cites
~t'>-

sentences.

~,
cp. Gorg.

and

447
is

-'
be-

...

tional

anus

d.
iron
. .

Siaipwiv cm
unfinished conditio,

They seem
:

Construe, easy and conversaS ye

:

being a parenthesis

eurov

compared with

inserted

needed only from a picturesque point of view.

eyu>

-'

The

speaker, seeking to strengthen his claim

low, which forms an integral part of the narrative. This parenthetic use occurs again in

attention, lets the sentence get so

and c and

in

the important

becomes formally a mere

the form

vmp
)

y' efu-ov,

12S

E.

Arthur Frederking

(Jahrbucherfur Philologie

Fleckeisen, cxxv.,1882,
whether
in

534

sviq.

treats of this use,

the mi

i.

or at the end of a sent., as an evidence of date.

While not over confident he urges that

this

usage

is

although conversationally very natural, really confuse

the construction,
/iovr

.
adjunct.
OOS
...

Strictly
otl

we should have

(.,

Cp.Apol. 21

unknown
greater
as

in

Protag., Charm., Phaedo,

and occurs
works
such

only once each in Lysis and Euthydemus, while

liberty
is

re

<;
'

(
6

aopvijpovevei.
A, where

'
yap
kui

broken up that

-or,

oZSc

tovs Aoyois.

TOVmv

8(

the parts bracketed,

taken

in

other
the
as
it

(/)'

Sympos.

and

Repub,
is

In

Phaedo, he
is

points out, the case

tive at

striking,

a narra-

second hand.

Here

are the statistics for

.
)]

veov,

'

* ^^ .
7[.
eh

[.1
[.

'

Tis epov

, '. ,
;

,
It
'

PARMENIDES.

"
that

yap

?},]

.
yap
giving

pot,

would seem

is

used

ye

predicatively here,

what was name

Cp.

to your brother,
Crat.,

ye

to

Adimantus

"
;

...

So 51 ye, which
:

what had he as name?'

'?
)

'

...

rues

...

',
".
Unless we are to take
;

(
=

opening

we make
Adim.
ye,

interrogative, to Ceph.;
;

and the
but
t

rest to

This gives excellent sense

to

disagrees,

inserting (as the printed texts do) '>/ after

and giving the whole

ye
...

Adim.
:

It

may be
'

said

it

as

that the

upper point of the second

ye =
l

in 51 is

weaker
his
?

Had
;

PlatO said

than the lower,

Oi'S.

tlie

sense would have been

the subject.

The
...

much
ably,

the same, but

Is
rjv

new
?

paragr., as

irais 8 irov

ist or

3rd person
the
latter
:

Probbeing

though not
likely

certainly,
in

the

more
310

Prot.

'

form
yap

Plato for the

yap

ore

?/. , /
ist.

pot,

and

. - '
quite so,'

And

placed in the margin indicates a

below marks one

.

at

So

51

reads

gives

this or

pot,

niei)

Cp.

pot (strangely) appears in most texts.

right, yet the

It

may be

may have
illustration

crept in to balance the

is

following one.
latter
is

If the text

as here given the

an

the only other in Parm.

The

constant use of

with no reference to place

to that of 'there':

occurring
p.

131 a

of

a use which Frederking (as

bears

some analogy

'A

time

there was, ere England's griefs began,' etc.

We

He counts 200 77) cites as a mark of lateness. cases of it in Timaeus e.g. at the opening, 2.

might trace the original sense perhaps by saying

'

he was somewhere

years ago.

.
may
it
...

in his

boyhood.'

and 1 27 , Cp. C. had been only once at Athens,

whether

with hesitation, that

early date for the work.

'

Stallb. raises the question

cites

not be the reading.

fact that
this

appears only in

Apart from the Sr2, Mss. of no authority,

;

reading would injure the sense

for

what matters
if

the length of time since the

had

first

visit,

C. had

later opportunities?

could stand alone

while

the add. of Stdpo

may

be compared with
the place;
early gloss

.
omitted,
to

>/ above for

may

insistance

just possibly

upon the other two words.

Here, as with
sense being

the

,)
is
;

on be an
is

# . . , , #, /
its

o-ov

etc.

and

argues, but

rarity in

Parm. suggests an
a.

Cp. on 127

has had

many a

meeting.'

Ast

1.

Phaedo 61 C, and Crat. 396

e.g.

yap

>}?/

/pca

D,

yap

Naturally

we

rind also

Plato in this sense seem to be

pat,

have the definition

the article

Gorg. 448 d-e, and again Rep. v. 454 a, from which we see that it is not rhetoric, nor yet wrangling.
Later we find, 135
in
C,

Are we
;

to

understand

after eneivov

either absolute

. '.

being usually
case from

.
late;

wpoTepas

used thus parenthetically

?
'

or to assume a neuter construction,

and

from then,' or having reference

as a sort of neuter equivalent for

* '.
(

# . ^ ; , / :

'-, ?;,

Sophist. 251

c,

and Menex. 249 d.

The

tenses of this verb used by

the

form

never occurs.

In Alcib.
but this

1.

129 c we

is

modified

in

Theaet. 161

/}
it

to

Te

?/?

aeye-a
c,

In short,

(')
III.

Laws
This

687

E,

,) ,
(or

rare, the

phrase

argument on philosophic questions.

guage here compare Theaet. 142

Ast gives a

is

no evidence

that the Parm.

is

Stallb.

cites

a like use in Theages

121 d,

-0} ' >) ?,

...

.)

vyevev

Te

? . #/ , -.
is

methodical conversational

For the

lan-

yap

Te

6\>

.
in lidei

>

Comp.

the

by

hi

re<

onatru< ting
,

t!i<

din union between

in

I'lu.

The

143 a

He

took

n<

had

8t,

.
,nl

in
ri

f]'

d! wii

ii

So<

iti

told him,
<

expanded these

ar< full)

mil
1
.

proposal to
authority,

both
be<
ill)

from memory,
.111

oniulted So< ratei whenever

1

opportunity and
Mi.is

om
'

ted hia narrative.

\
i"

in

and

IV.

mil
habel
Ailiin.

78, .mil hi)

bl

in in
1

Ii

m
a

them by heart

.is

not able

0
,

'ia

able to-n peat

ooi

'

u<

dam dem
KOI
t/i'.r

ion

m, quan

inn,

i|in

tCtnpUl
vult

'
'
)

Critiaj aaya,

Tim 16

<'}

roi,

re Xryit/Mvov, r4
jivtjjmny
...
r'

studio
..
1

11. ur.i.it,

non utatim
Surely
th<

una

um
1

riir \< mUowV /11W1//111 iii rOV WOWpVTOV WpoBv/i&tt /<

.'.:

edi

.n

</".'

i'.ni

r.

IVKaV

/
-

ivWvS*

..
fault
in

Plal
<>(

mnal
drst
I

been

at

collocation
Kt'itpoTi

tin-

;*,""

Cp.

I'li.udr.

words.
b)

.///
Rhunken.
iy\

r.,

d,
'

The word

alao

means

'to repeat from

Suidaa

s.v.

quotes

memory .is Critiaa had /;/ wpb%

ills
1
,

already aaid
''/,"*<

(id

ypo>v:
...

cp. l'h.u'dr.

owl /< a Aiim.is

7///>
...

<

ti

...

irnd'i|M
is
-

/ .'
10
1

),

*.
to

,'

.'.(....
1

utv H<r<
t\toV TOV

-'..'.
the
I

It

lain
:

the

of the Areopagua, and to the E. of

iwrwv must mean

I,

the
in

Ceramicua.

From

they

would

accusative would have been equally natural, as

north, K. of Areopagua,
Itt6vts

W.

of the Propylaea.
in

Tim. 16
rov

.
:

and Rep.

336 ,

/MVcov
is

.
78,

Produa
it<m

his

overstrained

ij

Perhaps the construction

being

varied

manner
((/><<

says,

IV.

designedly,

the accus, so recently,

roivw

/.
'

then

it
t

refers

<.
13.

reads
...

, , , ~ .
roivw, as in Gorg. 45.4
irei#ovs

so far associated with

'

<,

it,

((')77
Te

TOV K&yoV
us ftw^cv,
(i/toroj?

e/Vi'ir,

'

well

'

'well

oKoixravreSj

back to Aeyois
etc.

3v, this

forms

'
'

'

but Proclus

eurovTCS

, ,
speak
p.

and

etc.

. explains ^.
date.

explains

said this

Bupvekerifrev

seems

to

it

occur only in Critias and Laws, which

for

may perhaps
iv.

late

v 7r/>< >s

'A#T/veuos

evyereip.

us

',
)

-Proclus
7rept

we began walking' unless (spite of aor. means we were walking as we said these words.' . some bit or other,' a bit or some
;
1

,
Tiyi'

-,
eiTOVTffS*'
'

' /rrn

throVTt

"

Having

'

such matter.'
tech., as

Ceph.

is

not a horsey man.

'

ycwouots

'Aifyraitur

/'.
'non

the correl. being, though not in Plato,

To

mean
:

Heind. and Ast note, 'locare faciendum,

/ieiv.
I

might

explain the absence of >/ Stallb. says

the important

?,
:

refer either to the xoAictvs, or

or in a general

way

to

that

opus articulo ante artium nomina, ubi significatur

weighty matter.'
T.

quempiam
earum

eas

attingere

tantum,

non omnem
Is this likely ?

case of Te used as introductory with no

virfi et

ambitum

complecti.'

Like other such adjectives

the article so long as Te\r?/,

word was supposed to follow, a naturalized noun it might take other nouns
;

quently so used, and Plutarch, Mus.

, -,
'.
iVia-nJ/ioi-as,

,
it

(Introd.'xxi.)
iraptiptv.

which Frederking has overlooked.

t

would require
or
to

So

some such but when used as

or want
it

that

dotted for ejection, and the circumflex put as for

tiptv

like

optative

are frec. 2,

begins at
8>..

speaks of

.... The
to

attingere tantum.

which does not mean For the language here cp. Lach.

. '' . (
in

/-

gives

was

,
first

which seem-

written, then

was

either

case.

The apodosis

full constr.

would be

'

180 D, are

began

make

excuse,'

'

decline.'

With

showed a disposition to we must

)
supply rb
tenses from
tive,

PARMENIDES.

.
:

as subject.
to

Stallb.

notes the

doubt,

;.

The

impfs. are descrip-

posed by Plato's contemporaries,

and suggest continuance,

eye

as of acts going

on

.inder the
tacts

the aorists merely record necessary

filling

without dwelling upon them as

'

in the act of...':

7>//

we also say 'was done' as well as 'had done.' The language of this introduction may be compared with that of Protag. 310 , 311 A, Some of which We may add has been already quoted.

' ' ... ,

Rep. . 3 2 ^

always consistent;
says,
IV.

. # ? ' ? ]?
,

...

.
to
is

". ? , , . . / ' ' ', , . ', . , ',

time:
for plupf.

? 7/'? ?
'
1

. ,
if
t,
...

we possessed any

'^ ' ? . ^
of the dialogues com-

?/?

Schol.

...

What

Cp. also

...

#'?

,
7.
'

[]

,
...

with contracs., top, 79 a 2, and Rhunk. connection has the last sentence ?

kui

Si

etc.

From

here

the

beginning of

Part

II.

137

c,

the construe,

involved, and not

the reason being, as Proclus

13,

that

' / " ' ? ? . ^? ?, ^ , ". ? ', , <' , , . ' .

?)
...
.

?
"
//

#?,

]
()

We may

/jvata

(Harp.)Suid.S.V.

See the histories of philos.

quote Diog. Laert.

...

/ '. '? ' /?

)?

>7? /
ix.,

' ,
,
,
(26 1

Parm. 21-23,

,
'

etc.
.

(. C. 504-1).

25-29

"
....

(2)

(3)

;
...

'

(4)

.)

(seems a

lost dial.

'
(b.c.

We

have a change from

instead of
first
;

cp. D. L. vin.

57 under Empedocles, and Bekk.

to

...

Arist. V. 1484).

Plato gives US dialogues at

hand, such
at second,
third,

as Crito, Cratylus, Philebus, as

Phaedrus
;

',

Phaedo, TheaetetUS,
;

Republic

at

as

Symposium

and here
literary

at fourth hand.

The

reason

seems rather

than philosophical.

Here

the repeated transmissions suggest that remoteness

which Plato desires to

versation.

set

up

for the original conc,

' ?, ? ' ? #. ...

?
...

...

(which need not be taken too

literally)

The

Theaet., 143

alludes to the

diffi-

464-1).

culty of sustaining a second-hand narrative

copied
had
4
A,

by Cicero
already

which
that

8
with
otherwise.

is

not a usual combination.

seems

to imply that Plato

it

frequently, both in regard to age (Euthyphro

:

tried

method, although
artifice

may be
variety,

Tim. 22

B,

with

simply another literary

to secure

Again, Sophist. 217

c,

we have

Some

light

would be thrown on the matter, no

used of Parmenides

):
We
find

and

/..
<'/

In
|C
In.
I
.

.
'//

-.|

SoCl

Myi
.

ft
t

dOi'p r
<

>

ptiptimo\

.iii.I
I.-

text read

' /..
Bui
>/
i\

iJASj

here

\\

ah

I,

,
like thai "t
)>

I'll.
il

whu

in. iv

correct
in

need not
ol

"' I"
I

in 01

'

tloselj

with

n .pi in)
<|'
1

/.., The only

' .

'you are to
\

,
/../..
,.i

;o

\,

.iii>i

analog) which

quob
.mil In
\ 1.
j
.

Uil

f)

pars
.

I.

mi,.

OV Wtpi TpirOV /'

.<

i/s

'

in Latin
1

ijO,,\

Ii

tin

-.until
;

Stallb. renders 'circit

annos
ruiTii
/uTii.'r

el

quod
But

excurril

authorities.

()
|

quinque

el
cil
[.

inta

ill
I

1 J

1 1

ilrinil IpCI niii l"i

natus'

Tivtn
t.

< -

ainov

,
...

lb
Ii

.nd

s.

quote Thucyd.
WtVTtJKOVTa
'

118,

ikm

uiiii

nun
<

Ilk

<i.r.i
/s

.".
-a

/i'iAi.it.i,
r

other*

ftwSi row

/, where
at

mStpfcov

\"V"/ i">\
is

KOI
j8<

\
;

"'
/

mi to lash with ro) render 'a number ol less important

ise
il

the time

the phrase
<>i

is

odd, .mil uuonsist. u.th

airoi

yean the 400

to

most.

So vn.
is

68, the constitution

t>

which closes with hntt^

lain

,
.

"'

at

Athens
..*.,

^ml

have occured
I

the text Standing

earl)
iel.

7m.,
in
I

>(>
that is

(TOOt) 01

/ml

'/,

.n

some

ader writing
to the

th<

5x0
is

or 99 years.
is certain,

Although (Introd,
but th ink
ft)

axxv.) the text here

that there
ti'wi

something wrong,

,
?
is
>/

one cannot

1
,

-/mr-

together with the phrases

from Sophist above and Theaet, 183

sixty-five,

raw

.
Plato.

with a

above

then ov
I

-..A.

getting incorporated,

and

finally loaing
d, that

Socrates says, iay

they wen
introduction
1

Here we have the

first

rai - wpmrfivTfa suggest an age decidedly

eiJieorT

of

'/.
...

may be very early corruption Or may it have ere] in from some

early reference to the

rriaSu of Diog.

'
'

Laert

subject to XiyorOai.

vtfXtuuv xal Vt apptnav

Scucas,

*>6)/5
ys
It
is

literally.

more irregular, following Aeyeiv . above. Note the absence of the article with the nouns -rctyous and contrasted with the use of it with the names of the
use in
6
is
still

^ ,.
Sch.
t,

.
re.
...

,
1

jraw
7} iSe

^ , ' ,
sal cvl

^it

beyond

.
2.

into Athens, about 450

B.C. ac:<

For Socrates' age, see Introd.

...

Tu

flfimVOS

tu octu,

aSvvarov

tTvat

.
)

\.

ordin.

~.

Sch.

t,

with contractions, top.

79 a

ux-tuv, 'himself.'

Is

tw
if

\oymv

practii

the

same

as

before and after it?

the

i~l

'

*(

The
in

point would be clearer

(agreeing with

ahem, reading
were adopted

eiri

eirl

rwv

'sermonum, vel potius disputationum quura recitarentur,' which itself is ambig.j

(Stallb.

with contrs. foot of 79 a, Rh. clear that Diog. Laert. took the statement

but
in
1

d seems

...

translates

-(
'

stands
infin.,

aiayvtuvai

to decide for the identity.

Verti
left

pob
of
t

So does Athenaeus, Deipn.

B(

<\,
6
<//

xt.

505 end,
ovSquas

litterae,'

sa)s Ast,

very

little

was

still

enrctv,

ycyoYoi

^Its

v<oy.

breaks the constr.

next

various persons,

cV

corresponds with
out of doors.'

sv

, ( &)
The
constr.

arguments as they were being

read.'
irreg. again,
It

becomes
127

shaking off the gov. of

shoi

have been
...

ercureXd&v
it

vOufrnpov

ov

ye.

As

it

gives a

good

illustr.

of the nom. before the

is

when

the subject

of the principal verb

the accus.

referred

to, in

contrast witn

of any other person.

throws Pythod. once more into the bac<;

above, and mis

with our
1.
'

may be compared
'

^round

the

out of town,'

We

have

mands

;#'

6 r. almost, as
yevo/t.

Heind. says, deto

seems

be used as

s
hist.
ref. to

FARMEXIDES.
something in the past, but has
little
el

ion

weight in fixing the date, since (Introd. xx.) the

dial,

must be supposed

to be written after the

death of Soc.
of

r>

..
120
C.

If special force lies in the prefix

it

may be
constr.

contrasted with

avTo's ye (sc.

,
left.
'

popular view

the view of Parmenides (Introd. xxxvii.).

diately

,
i.
...

Zeno assumes
below)
in

this as

the

opposition to

Imme-

below the construe,

.
...

is

yap

()

eVa-

is

usually two words in

The
...

of the

thing heard with

ace.

vetustissimi.

and most codices With our punctuation the word may

31
...

varies throughout

between
It

and gen.

does not appear that

any fragments of Zeno's writings are

We

be made to explain its origin ei But we might also take ... ; the beginning of an inference resumed at
words
i

and description, ancient historians and commentators giving in many cases descriptive summaries which may or

know them only by

reference

what

is

inferred,

apa
;

...

may
is

;
...

coming
...

in

as

the
as

the purport of this

not include

the actual

expressions of their

inferential
...

author.

According to Grote (Plato, Parm.) Zeno

the self

here confuting the assumption that

,
if

query being yet further explained by

In the sentence
is

yap

...

*
'

the condition

as clearly held to be denied as

ei

existent

and absolute ens

is

plural.'

This seems a

the form had been

rather unfortunate

account of the matter.

rule,

ponents of Parmenides did not, as a

a 'self existent

Opset up

of

'
it

...

and absolute'

plurality,

but rather

. . , , ,
^
Heind. treats
this
to, in

.
'

on the analogy
beyond,

contrary

opposition

to, all

received views
'

that every-day plurality of sense

unity of being was vainly put forward to account

lor:

.
129
seem,
to
re

which

his absolute

but

seems better

to say with Stallb.

matter out along the whole line of popular opinions,'

or 'from front to rear of their array

In dealing with the question Zeno com-

and each of had more than one perhaps refer to such an argument
posed several
he shows that the
infinitely great;

epe

ere

-.

these,

it

would

This

may

as that in

which

many must be both

(1) infinitely

where 'the first small, and (2) hypothesis' would be the working out of No. i. would be likely According to this view each
have two iVo0reis, each setting out one side of
But
in the case before us,
eivui alone,

. .
...
/i.

where of ov and
eio

:
an d

it is

said

so too Rep. VII. 514 A,

(
'

to fight the

as in 144 E,
altl
e'v

pron.

is

omitted in

[ere]

the contradiction.

uvaL

be the

a different view of

would be perhaps the whole argument against multiplicity, of which the contention from likeness and unlikeness would form the first
-is;

/ , .
not

this

sense intended

/*
to

[ ].
i27
>

seems

?,

This would necessitate

according to which the

seems to recall our 'come down upon,' 'drop upon,' whether what is so 'dropped
has a definite purpose,
it

.,
means
is,

- '' ?
It

may be doubted whether

eo

-,

or whether the

as above,

?
with

For the

of

see Introd. cxi.

may be compared

132 d; where,

,
if

}.

the prep,

upon' be a person or the sense of a statement.

while the next

argument against motion, of which the 'Achilles'

would rank as one

/s.

pounded from

?? ? ?;
;

Xiytis

,
;
:

?
;

sc.

negatur
Heind.,

'

'

says

might be the whole

.
is

and compares Gorg. 453 D, .,

;

must be read along with It seems com5 and ;

below.

outojs

or

<I>s

?. ,
8 ?
>/#?
phrase

simplify the sense to ourselves

for

Stallb.

adds other cases.

by putting

?
:

We may
or

Partly under each verb

the

not simply

but includes

}?

in

We

have the former construe, alone

.
in -.

,
ID

."
1

-
loi
,

..,
ii

I"
1

<

'.<

nil. ill

Ite

'

(1

ifiil

'

ItrU

'y

wiinc note
dontble
.
c ;

tin
lli<
/..

modified
.m-ulii

relative

qu<

should

"i
.

tin.

writing.

Wo

have

u
double
that

ht

without

/-

mrnon enough
ked

!
\. n.

)/"// ten
iv

tlic

plural bcin
It

unusual
to

ov
tai

in

Memor

to

correipondi

rfin

thi
Ii

I"

<
Raf,

AD^or, where the arguments ore regarded without

reference to then written form
rptSroi
I

whi<

folio

ipondi

ro

>,
G.

when viewed
ECaibel

.
"i,

Then con
to

. W
the en
h<

airrii

>

:\>\

the
ii

*"

I" m;.'

rwv
Finally

which corre

contrac whose form (Introd

type
ol

we
1

suppo.<

writti n

In

minui

ulc

wou
8*

ai

whole, ere called up by

l.nnili.ir in

ai))/>.i/i/utrt

With which we. iii

(Hermes \w.
the

Zeno introduce
But
it

word Socrates quietly corrects once by

is
it

;, 1890) holds that u local idiom, which

<>

not

so that,
that

Zeno who the argument

.is

first
is

uses the word

.
~>
(

<

help tn explain

how
tor 1

.'(

Thucyd.

by mistaking

it

superfluous
b

may have on '

simplified

ni'mv.

read

The whole would * ...

this

could

wapt\opxv<
in-,

form

o<

on. C ofteneT,
thi
fine!

17 c),

to Ast, than the

l" in,; in this

fonn nyiftfyat, two of the

dialogue (164
d).

and used
gloss, of
St

was the accepted title of Zeno's work, such. ECaibel adds that 1 mutilated
...

Phrynicus gives

. The
ov
tij
"

\\>j

for

":

Stallb. rightly objects:

te cupit se
'

, , ^
1
(leg. al)

to hold,

we must assume

cases

*.)% though nine h more

and
ing

without any
sentence
is

*.
r.iri-ly
is

We

also

than waptrokvt

The follow
It
is

hrurrokml

loosely

constructed.
to

Ufi

absolutely certain whether

or with </>urm

whole might be arranged thus

, [].

go with understood, nor whether htartpav

.
no:

rw

masc. and subject, or neut and object to \iytw.

Heind. would read

'

non modo

in

uuiversum amicitia erga

insinuasse,

insinuare (better
Ast's rendering
:

gratum

tibi feeisse)

is

'
an
(

'? ' .
Again, while
is

-^
it

may

in a

vague way qualify

if

would be better

And

while the whole

to

begun as subject

desires to have secured to

him
t

a place in your

added, he suddenly introduces a sort

*
II.

written

'

down

to

with perhap
o:

flection,

not merely
In both

by

his

general
the

friendship
syllable of

resume* of the subject in the words

towards you.'

and
is

'.
SI

seems to have been originally

...

.
...

first

),
by

replace

-,
t
:

of course parenthetic.
is

reads Sv vep, and in

there

a scratch

between
led
cp.

and

in

astray by

Theaet. 152

?. .
,
' '

. *
:

no doubt an early scribe was For the expression

Twisting
but
t

it

about under our very

eyes

so to speak

a different

?:
tv

has

constr. of this

word, Phaedr. 241

.
...
;

'

, /'. ^?
,
,
Stallb. says

331

and Theaet. 144

good, To yap

, ? , ' ?, ?
a,

(.
'

which again prompts him to

Stallb.

compares Rep.

1.

the latter being very

avoptutv ~ac
.

? ;
and
...
.

For the language cp. Crat. 429

Arist.

Met.

We
...

have

-.

What

is

it

that

.
4,

(
:
.

1000

a,

15,

confirm

'

'
a,

'

recte

quidem nos
e.

fere

arbitraris etc.'

cp.

mutare sententiam with mutat quadrata

Procl.

and refers to would be clearer if we take

(nous autres)
etc.,
'

idem dicere 8 oh But the

as affirming
:

rotundis.

Quite true

our position
'.2

and
has

21

was he or

his orig.

does seem to transcend the comprehension of yo

outsiders.

thinking of the
noticing

poems
?
t

as already finished, without

<pys.

You

at least, for one,

have not

in

Ast prints Iv

points perceived the true purport of the writing.'

As

to the

dogs Suidas quotes Soph. (Aj.

8),

kotos

<

S4

ra Zv>a, p. 607 a

/ .
t

3,

jiuv

,
)

I.

608 a

27,

781 b

9>

suits

the age of Socrates.

'

,"5 A

oll o'' 1 Tt >

is

^l

1'

"

the comp. in detail

the action of the dogs, cp. Politic. 263

'>

In these the order of the two verbs

in

of

\, /?' ' :
:

and

3
--.

, ,. . ' ', , ?
Aristotle says

VII.

PAKMENWES.
Symp.
193

' . ,,
Ilepi

,
;

{"
:

and

d,

Theaet.

64

C-E,

The
II.

. . .

'
8rj

ye.
... ...

...

So Rep.

'
'

for

*\

...

where see

''

also

Phaed. 88

,
is

and

',

539

personification of

&,

id.,

87 a and 89.

In Symp. 193

the constr.

much

as

...

act.

The actual words occur Xen. Cyneg.

els

iv. 9,
...

is

better than

. ^ , , \ .' . , ,
here,
to

For

means where Avould seem to supply

to

the effect that.'

;

Ast

but

it is

simplest

suppose

.
to

as below

Heind. says,

'

i.e.,

ut

yap

semper

fere

Graeci dicunt

Parmen.

Stallb.

quotes several examples in Plato

followed by

Symp. 177
etc.,

e,

Euthyin as

phro 3

c,

Phaed. 68

e,

69
8'

a.

Here, however, the

or

rather answers

comes

?.,
.
nom.
ace; and,
if

Are

as a personal verb, or are they related to

far imperson.,

the latter,

how

seems to be so

and

the constr.

the arrangement being a

a parenthesis,

referring

back independently.

Platonic hyperbaton.

has no second objection answering to

it,

and

hut so one begins a defence,

of What follows.
...

,
;n
1

writing takes

.
no
piyu
...

seems

to

admit that

it

is

So

21

the only one

satisfactory.

and t: neither We must read

it

nor

used like
that the
it

and render
antagonistic, as

may be
airs

,
.
Mss.

into
T7j

=
to
its

, ,
seems

freely

rendered
itself as

'

whatever to

though

phrase

yet

were written with the aims which you mention

head, while at the
the dark, as
lie

if

that

same time ("-) keeping people were some great achievement'

yap
...

context (a-b,
8.

that

success of the concealment;

hardly be the object of

to

and these words can the thing which is be concealed, though some translators seem so
Cp. Gorg. 511 c-d,
auVr;

to take them.
...

<;>
jrt of

-.
is

seamanship are personified, as

is

stances attaching to

tne true

.], .
.,
Here
Above,
the

mean

chiefly, if

in its

might be object of
It

would, however, strengthen the case of those

critics

who wish

to read

, ,
ev

inherent nature.

seems to be accepted as one might stand alone, and

'retorts this difficulty.'

immediately follow-

suggests

ing, against the

not entirely, the

tovs

.
and

'the asserters of
are predicates of

The Many.'
;

here

are used in substantive independence

and perhaps the

,
An

last el

the

same
ev

light,

with the following

are to be regarded in

having dropped away.

1.

For

the

and the below

?.

the language, cp. Arist. Met.

3.
...

984 b ,

one of the accidental circumit, ye opposed to

aim

we come very
not

technical Aristotelian sense of

. /.

-is

anchor to the agitated thinker,

trv

close here to the

according to Phaedo 101 d,

/-,
Cp.

>)

,/
,

<

Tis
.iinl
\

.il'n/s
il

/s

'
.

.'.,....
D

,'y..

,.,,
''".

I pin

| lk(

"
<><
'''<

In re

In

ihow
.'

In.

him

ii<

il

,/-

mi the important
".<

e ol

question and
ipeei h,

And
en
Plato
i>.

/.'.
(

!.

/
-,
r

fin

01 .

throughout So<
in
(9)
(1

iti

cp Dior
d,

) (\|
. is

.m obj.

to

.'"", as

Rep w
'..

,
,

|)j

alio Ph u

do 78
'

es

wiiii.is

ths '/</(/{,//<^
/iiU'.Vc nniii '.

<;..
..

So

woXXa

The

world

ol

multipltl
III

1 (\|1
Euthyd.
<

IS

(yi.n)
.i/i.

lxlov
/'

*
in

.
win
h.'

tin

w.i)

.Hid

U>

the

im

<

r.i

oo 0oi

/iiyf'iyl

HI

I;

/(

UXtN

ltd,

Stallb.

get hactenus in
tioin r.MTi/.
.Vni''i''m ?
llOin. tO
Is

not

and Ast render hactenus, but we

rtxrovrov,

119

\,

which
ro

difl

ratlin

m
Am

Plato'l

mind with

*p Mote the change froi out the idea thai there are two oppo ittea to now Ins mind dwells on them as oppotites and ol more than one. recalls the Immediately
ivavriuv
j
;

.
;

Stallb.

and others supply

ir<

(hint,

;l||(l

f'u'l'ii

\ ouls
not

-.
'

yet lliind. better suggests ro

Relative to viov, Zeno wrote 'from :m

in

,
a
I

dual idee,

"

\\in<

h isi pain merged

in

the pluraL

He dors
is

not, prohubly,

mean

tliat

any single object

that

like

and unlike
of

itself

though

might be taken as a sort

transcendern
the

eagerness for controversy pardonable

a youth,
in

completion of the caae

likeness'

-became

sharing

in

from a desire
iwtp
\,

tor

notoriety undignified

makes
;

it

like
if

another thing which also

that thing agrees with
it

mature man.'

y' c&rov,
...

probably
:

'

as
it

said

shares likeness

and
'

above
l>e

-is8

/SovActm

yet
1

might

further in sharing

unlikcness,' the two will be at

If

'the actual purport

ot

my argument

as

opposed
?

once

like

and
it

unlike.

<'
to

avroM

is

tO

tO its

motive

Can

Plato be writing historically

pressed, then

would seem

when he

puts this apology into Zeno's

mouth

He

selves as a world of sensible objects

certainly conveys that Zeno's contribution to philo-

sophy has been overrated.

...

..
\\)
my
ot'

avrd
ri

Is the construction

Aeyas

adjust

belief,'

accordance with your account of the matter

question
etc. is

and Plato can hardly be serious in ascribing such doctrines to him. If we are to hold that Parmenides, and even Socrates as a lad, had got so far in speculation, what is left as Plato's own contribution
to

,
full

() (

(\iv

)
:

(
'I
'

or

in

'

The

? ,
the
us.
t ...

, <<$

mean 'among them

'

as against

etc.
;

which follow.
far

Thus

he readily accepts a world

In

of sense so sharing in

speaking of

eiSiy.

does he assume numerous

he

is

ot

Probably not.

Put
like to see

among
thought out.
will

which he would

not answered by Zeno,

must lead to complications.

There

be as many
with

among the fie?/ as there are derived And due to the same cause?

as hopeless

the
II
its

subject?

Cp. Introd. xxx.-xxxi., xxxiv.,

sense of
eicios

ug and

The
130

but

strongest feature

'',
\(opii

Death
c,

language,

Phaedo 64
yeyorercu,

'/'''X'/S

.
unde
and the
ois

retracto accentu

editors follow him.

classical

(
We
passage

Stallb. 'H.e.

, : ' , . , , ;

must grow upon us

it

is

that
is
.
.

is

described

'' ')
;

,
rial
j

...

fiv ijv
...

rejects the supposition

...

ei

;
;

speaks as of a thing actually going on

...

...

^- [

takes a hopeful view

is

*>/]

quite impar

in similar

tl

...

region of
1

fact, cp. eT-e/)

~;

is

back

in the

.'

55

In treating of participation he uses

two verbs

and

each of which
theory on the
;

gives a

noun

No

scripsimus.' in

which
b,

kind of relationship

is

have
is

eaTtv lv below

present he does not seem to think any necessary.

Phaedo 75

d,

Phaedo, 100

c-E, directly states that

renounced and gives

implied in either word

at

any theory

i?

as alterna-

86

,
tives.

PARMENIDES.
tivai

<

-/(

<

the views of Socrates on

in the

.
ff.

tyioi

"

...

?(
wrongly

^?,
The form may have D
and
partly
It enters as

In Other respects

seem much

clearer

*!

is

in 21

.
;

to

Here he draws no distinctions as compatible and incompatible combinations, but

Phaedo.
as

arisen partly from a mistake in dictation,

from an association with

versational

speaks of

anything; in Phaedo 102 d

that there are (104

, , ~
del

though anything might share

in

he shows not only

)
kv

-opev

~,
;

. ^
which are
/ievois
fj,

/? < ) ' '

passage should grammatically run

,'

, / , .
relief,

''.

a con-

but breaks the construction.

ei

The
...

'

...

...

...
;

ev,

yap

We can name only five Parmenides, Zeno,

...

Pythodorus, Socrates, Aristoteles.

.
(

= eav
this

)
ev,

that

-.
'

tv

So too 103 A and Sophist. 253 n-254. Note the emphasis in this and in

many and one of

type, in this sense of the

terms, are the same.'

We

have here another

series

These

latter are of

course quite other

/xev

of conditional sentences whose shades of thought

the reader can work out.

in

sense from
the

above, which

mean
Zeno

many

of sense,' whose real existence

rejects.

Socrates assumes that these draw

with them as real counterpart an abstract ideal

many which he

8 ,.

here calls

and
are as far as

'

When you

this, I shall

be at the wondering point,'

have begun to wonder.'

Ast cites no other case

by

this

time

^ ' . $ , ^
Of
93

the form

Jelf (854. 2b) gives a case,

{()

'

'
;

, ^

...

...

Phaedo

tc

where note

also the

change

to ei

shall

Of

the future of

in Plato

but Euthyphro 15

b,

In the fully elaborated Aristo-

The verb examples of; in the next

in the sense of
'

, .

,
So

Cp. Phaedo 74 A-B,

'

'

etva

2>
etc.

means 'gives us
clause
it

is

understood

telian terminology these differ as the

and the more

specific,

as

more general genera and species.

to this

prove that the one

21

vvv

8f|

and

Even ., however, does not always adhere

Vett. editt.

use, nor does Plato speak in such a sense here.

interpretans per
i.e.

The two words are merely a comprehensive phrase for the world of ideas. If there be a distinction,
perhaps

and

,
etc.,
;

?)

plexus est explicandi rationem

placere possit.

re.

.
,

is

many,'

Stallb.

quod Heindorfius
duriorem am-

..

,
is

says

brings out the generality of the ideas,

Recte aliquot

quam quae cuiquam codices , quod etiam

--,

their

outward aspect so to speak.

Cp. Apol.
/yTai

Bekkerus

restituit.

2 2 C,
:

hoc

Heind. adds

Ita recte

habet
mani-

quod jam nolim mutari

and he
refers to

in

,
'

quum

Socrates' language about his

own

plurality,

and for Phaedo

festo

?,
it

opponatur praecedd.
130 c-d, where
reading
re.

-'
\>
(

102 B; also Soph. 251

A, Ayo/xiv

for
suitable,

are rejected.

The

may be

/5,

,
...

)/

but we have shown that

is

.'

no

and Phileb. 14

C,

dp'

tis

epk

?, ? , ,

authority

likely a conj. of a reader of

H. seems
which
I

right in saying that

etc.,

and the tense of

does not

refer to

confirms him,
i.e.

was speaking about

just now,'

before
r>,

referred to stones

and wood.

Cp. Gorg. 485

:/

fV

y // til
1

'

/'./"'
<

:/.

''"
.

'

refei
1

to
,

; I
'
.

], rli

\,

Inn

tfM
<

\s

tin

itljr

refers to

133

below

OUpl(
.

itli

8it\i|.i)nu

m
tins

has Sicupcirai, which cannol

.1

;.,"

with
It

.is

ili<

lation erroi

on is6 a?
till

|l\

UK

111".

Ill

Will.

Il

..(.!.,..../..

m
cune
ir<(,
it

nol

to

been
the

u-.

. -.t

the w

in

the

'

tcllcctual

iinna

to <!/:"/""

'

.7,

ol

which
-;/

ii

inclosed

in

in.

three doti

He would
th.it

see thai

disagreed with
in
.

^.
nt.
iniv
'

From
e,

'

11

two a
(be
d

then seeing

was wrong
*

orre< ted

proi

show, demonstrate

>jTm.

In Statural

with the middle) 8 times, and

in

we have
theory.

the

What
s.iiil

do with is the
m.iy be

*
to
<rc

mosl characteristic step

the unphilosophic
sense

Plat
1

times.

[ere the

preru
-it

is

i^h
th<

mind

dail) h

Socr. were

now
liis

looking

the prool tor

.is

ideal
>.\r

Philosophy thought

world as something added on

surcrotl for spei
ial

an
prool

have begun

.
on

Plato

with

the

tion
tli.it

to the
11

for

general definitions which Socrates extracted from

those

the phvsK

.il

world.

Note

while Zen
tio

What
iv.
6,

Arist. s.us
.

tins point
1.)
;

has

Ins proofs in regard

to the latter as

ad

been seen (Introd.

\\i\.

p.

xxxii., \liii.,

(Mem.

13) says
S.V

something

faroeWtv t-<u)/yr

-uiTii r.V

Platonic contribution was the

Why

the speedy change to

XcYCIS iV

, ,
is

Xen.
ml

absurdum, Socrates tikes them up seriously and

wants similar entanglements carried into the

similar,

'-;

.
Apol. -t'ooKfi

Si",

TW

The

} -.
again used
aVTOts

The

sj>c

which the one of Parmenides is supposed to l>e Supreme (Introd. si.). For it seems dear that he
in

does desire

it

the

change
his

to

perf. inf.

of this verb
ovv

consciousness

, % , ,
spl

and merely indicate

that

the

topic

difficulties.

One cannot

help contrasting this whole

both

passage with Phaedo 1024, Sophist. 248-52, Phileb.

14-16.

are passive, although the verb

called in
S
I

is
:

what would be
e.

In the two latter dialogues the service to

in

.at.

a trans, deponent

cp. 130

philosophy here spoken of

Of

such terms as

Such is the spelling of 21 (not so in t), and if the word be formed from uSe on the analogy of Tiyie, Stallb. y, it seems reasonable.

,
But
I

ptv

ridiculed as an occupation for children

punctuates so as to
I say.'
it

make

'

o9ev

-ye,

parenthetic,

might equally be &Se

$ =
is

the

way

'

mention.'
raoe

The

expression
(or !)

careless for

cp. 135

D and

Perhaps he would have preferred

felt

that he

t tis

130

and so most
that the
VI.

\
vi.

had used
t

inserts

editors,

would suggest

are in space, but cp. vo>rros toVos, Rep.

C, VII.

50S

517

B,

and

below.
ovtms

.,..
cp.
iyiri

?
already.

, ,#.,
'

as
in

'

\ ?

/,

to?s T vcois

~\.
eivai,

,involves

great

is

Soph. 25
yap

?
1

B,

ei'tfvs

tv

\
etc.; Phileb.

'.

etSvTCS

Xryetv

ayaOhv
14 ',

',

, ?,
...

epi

etc. (Introd. lx.).

And

in all three
is

the carrying of the matter into the world of ideas

treated very differently (Introd. xxxi., and on 129

above).

break the constr., but add a

further detail to our

knowledge of the
496
d,

ideas.

the language

Rep.

(''
^;
'

also

Phaedo 79

>

young.
252-53 A
ing,

Thus Socrates old repudiates Socrates In Sophist, he makes distinctions, 251 v,

For

finding

that to

deny
to

all

forms of mingl-

and

to affirm all, lead equally to absurdities,

is

and

that the true course

admit certain combin-

ations

and

to reject others.

88

'
cvv

''

The

Cp. 160 c and Theaet. 204

is

these are not quite parallel,

to a cause,

and our phrase

'
' :

PARMEX/DES.
c,
;

But
yap
in

, '
/? ?
Again,
...

?", ?
....

refers

Again,

while there
dat. is

a feeling of locality

them.

'
tovs Si

crowd of >/. Stallb. and Heind. would prefer the future, on the brink of being annoyed'; but is that better?
of the sphere of the one by a

, -,
more
...

general, as Rep. v. 457

...

'

at the invasion

'?

known usage

here

precedes and

follows.

How
,

uses the article with the proper names.

. ? ??
ry

?, #, ?. . ?
etc.

Cp. Phaedo 62

86

D,

?
On
inf.

, (,

? ? ??
steadily Plato
1

?
.
,

etc.
ties

" ^ '# ? ;. , ? ' ? / ?, 6

yap

....

/
that

Once more,

In a word
or

'

as

opposed
'

to

what we call qualithose complexes which are called

are
'

things

'

objects.'

And

it

may be observed
in the '-17

Socrates feels most confidence

which are

, and least

in

those which are objects or

.
.
=
...
;

Sophist., 255

.,
cp.

.
In
21

the breathing
Authorities
latter

is

speaks of 5 as a minimum. patched (Notes I.), t reads

say
is

,
-

Phaed. 88

But the
tions.

form alone

found

in Attic inscrip-

(Gramm. der
'

Att. Inschr., p. 123, Meister8.

...

? /?
r

...

hans.)
vidit

Recte Stephanus
.'

scribendum
I.e.

pro vulgato not quid?

Stallb.
is

the

iircp
'

SC.

. as Heind. points
Parm. declared
with
inf.,

aliquid,

out,

which

in point of fact (ovv)

relat.

they did.'
5

Here again we have

127

c.

climv

This Frederking regards as the

in

,
80'

The
/n?

constr.

...

}?
orig.

This seems to have been the

article led to all the changes.

normal usage of these verbs

part of the narrative,

such cases

from which the variants come.

Stallb. thinks the

parenthetical.

want of the

Notes

1.

C, Schol.

outer marg.
'

Yet the verb seems active worthy 1, and Rh. cp. Lys. 207 , to wonder at etc. Donaldson in a like case Waverley, cites 'a Prince to live and die under.' Still ei we have Alcib. I. 105 , etc.
79 b
'

,
;

Zeno has urged only

'

that the

sensible

We may

ordinary govt, of

ably 'your zeal for discussion

:

# )
take the

' ?

as in the gen., both from the

,
D

many must be like and unlike, which is impossible.' Even if we suppose Parm. to allude he can only mean to all the or

Do you assume ; for those qualities which Zeno was proving to be inseparable from a sensible
many, with a view
this latter ?
'

?,

and from

eujv

' ? ?,
it

e.g. Phileb.

14 A,

cp. 135
'

(?

but

attack

upon Zeno's

Grote
;

.'

might also mean

distinction

?
if

Prob-

=6

?
in

'

your eager

' ,
Phaedr.
is
xlii.

to disproving the existence of

From Phaedr. 261

),
to

D, tov

()
(3)

if
1

(2)
;

see that the only remaining

would be
your own?' says
ask

?
p.

we
list

>7

be covered by
the

Is

this
it

but does
:

not

mean

'

You

Zeno has
'

done

this

follows

have you yourself done it What upon the ideas comes clearly under the
?

criticism of Aristotle,
xlvi.)

who
6t

defines

,
Met.

a. 9,

990 b 15 (Introd.
:

thus

Cat.

7,

6 a 36,

? ' /?

For the general vagueness and absence of order and gradation in the ideal sphere as here embodied cp. Introd. xxx.,
exhaustive.

Damasc,

95,

237,

speaks of a

?, ,

? -

but

we have here

rather a refer-

MM
|.i-.il..

ill'

(
III
.1

tell.

ill

1)1

ill

I,

hi.
,\
t

I,

-...

t,.
III

Ii.hii
til. Ill

purfl .ii'r.'.M'
'.II.
I

l.i
III

..in
I

'.

.-,

J .'.!,.,

III.

wvf^,
in

ii

inua

'

<

ign
111

rotai.ra,

..
l>ui

in.

Mr

umi.i1

I.

l.i

wli.it

<|H.i

ilr

foUowi

fell

,.

<<

%mrnttm

.
it
.i

.\.l|s

u
1

aouni without art betide

1

"-

.
I.

sin
I

ii

r,

th(

learly,

.>ihl
Al

hard

rationale.

6(

..,
.

,i

>/..n

.y

KOI

I'li.uiln ;d D
rat

/
Is
r..n

more aimpl)
rationale of

This
s.

list is
<

srp.u.ltr

ll

nil
<

/ill

i's

.. r.i
?

-.

ies "i
.

/
'

bearing on
l.('.

ondui

'

0(0/
I
>

Opi|
1/

Whit
rr/.i

ii

the

tl

al tw> otoi
roiiu

.Tiiinni

nun

I'n'tis

.'.iii.'i.

nn
grammaticae
:

iron

it

mi

Tin
<
'

(ego, tn, ceterique qui adsunt)

..;
i'i/',.i..ri.ii.'

b) the inten ening

TjjS

\t /-

only here
I.)

in

Plato

Heind.
potiua
/>"<
}
'.,

wv

Both VU (Notes

li.ive

'Soil

rationi convenientiua

it.

interpretabena

\m/n\
<

r*v

ravrvv,

<"<><

which can hardly be right Editors with drop >y even so is rither unsuitable.
;

./
nibtis

h.e.
iis,

i"

u'ni

sejunctam

nobia

el

ab onv

quae

talis

sunt, qualea noa

tumus,

quo

claiiiin
;

eat,

ui

deinde adiiciatur
vult

Ex
...

hoc vide an rectius mutetur in <Y y< <<\ Theaet 204 1, ravrov

<
it

rfir.
/t

',' etc, Heind.

turn pro rovrwv

Hut Stallb. defends

paullo alia

ormvpo
vi et

Sfiares

Etenim Parm.
sul>

non tantum homines,

intelligi.'

quanquam
this

signm
<

scd omnia, quae

Stalll).

. '
V

aensua subjecta sunt

catione.
1

We
Yet

have had

above, and

04

tan in

This

is

better,

except

as

to

The

SCI1SC

Seems
(i.e.

tO be

\<'>/><s"

)/

-nr/ih

(i^xitc!')
it

Stallb. so translates.

to

read

improved by omitting
etoos

,
,
ptv

twvS

Failing this

would be better The constr. would be

,
>y

nS*

iyyiiui'

and

ravTMV*

tiri\ipy

'/

))
3,

See Phileb. 15

ideas of physical qualities

\\>

vjfuav

e28os,

or transposing

, ' ,
al
OVK

eioos

Tvpbi
to

<*
Si

&v$pwrov
er

ere,

>y/xt*

,
so near.

below.

But this rather makes against I third case

< seems harsh, and

is

un-

explained.

Our T.yrtf justifies both the y and the and makes excellent sense see Phaedr.2491).
fia'po

Sij oi'r

'
too,

< /(;
;

tt.'s

<

?
etc.

VCOi Tnf TtrapTlfi

Proclus, too, rejieatedly uses

sion for

(>

(
;

e"6?y)

wo
6

, '
;

</yyo>

OVOCV

>'

TOt<

Tff&

T;yo as

.
and
...

//"<.>

and 250 ,
an expres-

e.g. v. 5.
Tiyrte,

on 130
ti's

7(,5 ptcrcgcrai
;

Tyxj7ros

^ ((
like H.

ylyvtTai.

We

have got
qualities

So,

Damasc,

91, p.
ekci

226,

Vci oroe
cioo?,

Trjot

and of moral

for sensible things or

we now take the important step of assuming ideas complexes of qualities. Such Arist. calls (Met. II. 2, 997 b 10) the same with the
sensible objects but eternal,
eivai

'
(.

yap

itceivoi ovtitv

1070 a 18) that such ideas according to Plato

eo

rriv oirwra

, -,
am

-,

, ,
etc.

">;

' ~)

>'y

-,

else-

where.
tracted

A
/ycSe

palaeographer
in majuscules

will

know

that a con-

class of things here discussed

irotovvres
Se"

of d-yj

an

eioos

might be very
is

The

if

an

eZSos

merely another type -vpos be granted so mav

difference
is

The only

the greater

aicaoxs,

unworthiness (Introd.

-(
II.

Cp. Damasc.

,
'

He

adds

85

appears to deny the question

tlvai
'

SC.

course occurs even to a Zeno

, ,'
;

xli. tf.).

;
it

Heind.

This of
other-

indeed were

02, p. 263,

wise there would be no problem. thai

Although a passive sense would

is

That ideas
2,

for

'

things

are an

advance upon ideas

for single qualities is the

view

be quite good, the active One might supply (/^)

which
is

meant.

See Ast.
or

implied in Arist. Phys.

193 b 36,

yap

to hand.

Grote refers here to the note

90
of Alexander on Arist. Met.
I.

PARMENJDES.
991 a 23, Bekker

/, ' .

575 a 30,

,
;

Proclus expands on the question of what

but his views, incorpo-

?(
far in

. in

summary
tenable
:

gives

another view, which also seems

so great that he

the difficulty involved in the conception

etc., is
is

of ideas for

sometimes driven
ideas for

to think
is

that as there are

for

ideas are to be admitted

rating all that appears in

them so there

Timaeus, and indeed

referring to

generations of commentary, are

Plato's present stage.

advance of
urging that

In this case the

( ..
'

none

anything
...

would

no

the

arise

from the sea

He

explains the hesitation

of sensible perceptions unregulated by any idea.

of Socrates about an idea of

man by

man

as

known

to us
is

is

at the

of which the idea

the upper (cp. on ),

and thus

7/

being a mere part of that which comes from a

rational pattern

\
,

while there

and none of the latter as being a to be cleared away of there are no ideas (v. 61) he affirms. ... Heind. would read
because
is

,
'
>
..'.

(.

41)

Again he
as a

,* lower end of a series

ov yap

,
0
..

Cp. Timae. 51C,

?, ...

''

'?,

,
-,

>

...

...

! ;
a y
t

rejects hair as

and
is

/?
;

and

all

removal of

,
is

,
,

compromise between

finally

.
'

votjto'v,
;

The language seems

..
%
is

and

The

reading of
initial
1-,

as given with the

aspirate and long

an idea of the former there

and (although

gives

an

effort

should be

made

to maintain a

form so clearly given.

It

after

Phaedr. 242

.
in

'.
C,

may be noted

that

Proclus quotes
is

.
,

scarcely used

' yap #
}

or

;
'

with a verb of rest like

1331,

AVith which cp.

has to admit that Theaet. 187 c

nom.
is

to the verb.

,
it

etc.,

,, '
and 103
C.

Philoct.

r^ios
the verb
is

. ;
it

Even

in

/,
'

Phaedo 86

>}

one of motion

But he

and so generally when used of place

this direction,'

differs,

Could an object be understood with

specific

where there

is

no

Stallb. objects that the

does not improve the sense, and also that the subj.
contained
Heind.'s assumption would be in appos. with
t

'
,
in

place of our Schol.

:

so Rhunk.

and adds

of Timaeus also gives

# '
. .
convey
i.e.

the words

gives

Suidas gives the same meanings,

, )\, .
...

,
'

change

either
'

,
'when
I

means

in

'by

this road,'

with a verb of motion.

such as

The

sense would be

place matters in this fashion' or

in this

when

weigh the subject

which on

Euthyphr.
use,

In
'

'

c we come within sight of the

'^?,
,

and

Prot. 35 6

The

glossary

where the context gives the meaning.

former sense cp. Theaet.

lest

something the same

all,'

might be the case

sense does

in regard to

Ob es nicht
;
'

'
.
is
'

'
171 d,
...
;

#manner.'
In

',

latter

bei

The

alien dasselbe ware' (Engelm. Transl.)

?

but what
sit

common,

Heind. says

ne idem

sense see Phaedo 98

omnibus,
ratio, ut

ne eadem

rerum

suum quaeque

(
sit

omnium omnino
habeat
'
:

especially

meaning
their

. .
and

*/

For the

participle with this verb

is

>)

/.
is

(,

For the

Phileb.

3 D,

that after all

etc.,

may have each

In this case the

There

no doubt of the reading

is

idea (he almost needlessly guards us from reading

of the theory

(?) y . .
would
arise

).

(Notes

1.),

though
clear,

found, probably by

confusion of the old minuscule

with a cursive

from the hopeless complication

thus extended.

The sense

although the adjective seems

when

Our marginal

unique.

Denique Synesius qui ad hunc locum

\
ri

re ipexil

>.

el

m>n
.

&\
.>,.

Ori

ml im
'

ipii

quoquc

(inidctii dixil
.1
\

./.

In S)

in

.11

sunt, *a
.is

ilnii/.i'.^nyi

.11

k.ii
ii

<0<)1
Ins

/
kit Inns,
pni.ili.it

'& *
ex
-

;;'",
[lap
<ro

&vbpa%,

mi!

Ziivwva,

Atque

locii

Vytten
p,
7.*,

eel

"/"/
,,../. y

>t

id Plutarch, dc s

N. V.,

sin
ifi

.ipp. urn,

apud

Platonern
\t

reponi
neuter,

"'

debere
verba

rva

81/
>)

rtcque Orig. neque Syne,

Platonis,

retinuiue videtur ipsa

imit.iri

...

'V'';

imroo

utrumque

tantura
it.i

voluisse arbitror

nun dubitarinl adjectivi loco mbstantiva ponere.'

Fisch.
<

6
1

..

the text of

,
and
S.
...

omnino forrnam loquendi,

ut

suggest that are should read

which

h.is

some support from

suggested
<>f

and the reading

urn/ cotiv

by the words of Synes.

\

Hut the text

<v\

reads Aoifov

& * ? ,)
;

* $ *%
r

*,
/"/

'v"<

""

'"*/'

/"\" /"""

r
fcjJ

*
*
>)

nji

'\

/'\-

re.

r</is

>)

rovrmv
..

r.i

Proclui

ti

oropifrn

alriw
>/>,

<\

etc

- '
...
t

US <
oS
is

US

<'//<
8*

rpotAnAwe,
ytVMTIV,

<
<'>s"

<(

ovros

ravr

</>."

*>

\('

T>/t'

/"/" {

("

7 ''"'

VOTIOV
II.

Ktiirt
.

..

Til

VW

8 \''7
ooV?

t5n

MToVrnUTtV.

&TW9 t~l>(~(
w

\ti ...

What

the exact

sense of *
(about
I

Per-

haps 'however that

destruction, etc.) at
safer

may be
all

my

fear

of

events

get back to the are probably

ground

just referred to.'

The
in
it

the

two groups referred to

There

above

Zeno's
for

,
-.,

"

tlSttv

"'
/f

"';

T<)

ctoos

Sia

utra

ctouv

/)

'

)
8
C.

^
ti'

<

or

yevomv,

group and the next.

iripWKeiva

lAeyo/tev, cp. note,

is

129 d.

(better, not worse, than ideas?)

taking this either with

vt'os

So Theaet. 162
ovv

-
etc.,

What does yap meet?

or the
f;

8?

sense of contempt for the suggestion of ideas which

are

? ?
or with
D,

.
;

good Platonic authority

/.

'>/
ation

Neos /> ,
the

the

etc.,

Perhaps the general

. *
</>/

little

See Notes
<.

Platonic Socrates, not the Socrates of history,

, ,
1

cTSos

votpiv

vror

tin

k<u

>~>t>i

vovs ....

and above
etc.,

The

obser\for

must be

who
ot

had

regard for the conventional dignity

cmS*
irepl

common and
<rov

Tt/irt(reis

which follows.

.
ovros
/uvs

unclean

this

would appear from

D,

*/

philosophy, and
vepi

So Phaedo 8S

'>$
\

ucvos iVo

yap
...
.

' '

who

did not touch these inquiries

ravrwv

rAetorot, otcAfyero

'

,(
f/^ep
...
.

avrof

ail oieXiyiro.
i.

evecpes,

...

Xen. Mem. .

i-i6,

We are to hold

On

'
~pos

the whole passage see Procl.

7(J

. 777/()'

, ,
.
...

v. 65-7,

> avros
...

not that Plato draws no distinctions between diverse

objects, but that he sets

>

< , )(
/>/.

in the interests of

philosophy.

"(

avairtov

(meaning
is

all

has a

cause, but that cause

not necessarily an idea?

u, '*) etc.; cp. Soph.

'
Thus
...

any such distinctions aside

in Polit.

26

p.

}
epxXrxnv

::;.\.

On

the other hand

Questionable.),

~oV yap

iV

when looking

at

them from the standpoint of

92
character he speaks
tical'

r.lRMENIDES.

iv

,
...

Theact.
ov

174 c-D

of 'prac-

matters with scorn,

etc.

one feels instinctively that Plato is here somewhat governed by physical analogies, and tends to think
of the idea as extended.

On

((,
tlvai

On
207
;

.
is

we may
differ,

see for variants

Stallb. well cites

use a phrase of

Dam.

87,

individuals
yap

Notes

' , )
1.

For

constr. cp. 127 c.

he suggests, only by place

tis

Phaed. 102

see Soph. 257 C,

VII.

noteworthy,

you see the process going on, and with the process comes the name is a narrative refer:

. , (.( , ' ? / , , / . . ' ' ' . . / . ,

and Symp.
iv

2-2 ,
...

At

'
'

126,

,, '.
9

the idea

225 be distinguishes y

$ ^. /
the same,

Also

ii.

2,

without actually dealing with participa-

For the language

tion of ideas, he discusses the

meaning of the word

-is,

17

(.^

tioi

and the possible

but adds

varieties of the fact

...

and

finds difficulties

on

all

sides;

121,

...

'

Herodt.

'

...

yap

Dam.,

86,

205, says

(( yap
152,

In fact

the present

is

descriptive

we

lx.), for,

ence to the description given, the participation has

place,

now taken
that the

whence the

likeness.

cause there

also

; /?
is fairly

, , , ?/ ;) ( ( ##
is

are

much

fewer than

It is clear

,
,

are back at the negation of predication (Introd.

he says elsewhere,

70,

which makes
...
:

it

two

at least.

preceded by
leads one to expect
;

" Be-

and followed by
;

only one idea for each class of things

in

place of
is

But the context

;

(Rep.

VI.

493

might suggest that

superfluous

4'cr(9*

he means

to

begin

ovv

and that
for the

and

is

ideas are

present taking up only the former alternative of

termed

or

Tts

and dwelling not on

that alternative but

on
is

...

the question of the idea remaining one in the process

15 A."Zeller.

;
/
\opls

such cases

211

of a conception that

, ,, ^ , / ; .
...

/iaveiv

'? ?,
etc.),
1,

( ov =

ita

enforced by

Phileb.

changes to

This, with

and Others
17,

hit

by

Arist. Phys. iv.

209 a

'

' ;
iv

, '
ut

unum

sit.

Heind.)

This view

which, again, Schleiermacher

against
2lt.

Stallb.

agrees

Heind. dissents, giving as the meaning

(V

(
has
;

Heindorfii interpretatio.

if

the idea in

$
-.
;

of which

Stallb.

says (why?) contorta est

c.

before

is

an
'

entity.

force.

h. e.

praeter haec,' Stallb.

Symp.

gives a vague suggestion of the

So

21

also,

but on eras.

be better
the ev

but Plato

may be
is
'

purposely harping on
it

"
>/

which adds b might

being
'

if

there
'

nothing to prevent
in

// ((
it

one, at least

it

will

be one

such a way as to be

separate from

itself.

It

may be

true

even
2lt

,
}

etc.

As

to the text, setting aside stops,

whole or a part of

you must possess either the if you possess it at all yet ;

agree on the following

while

begins with

( '

.'

i.i'/s.ii

..

./..'.

follOWCd by A

.
J

.Sulll.

ll.llli'i

mi needed, And < > teems preferable Ism ki Platonii authority, and The phi am a&i tgain th< been changed b) tome to A
<"
>).

following has
f'^u,..!,

been omitted 10
'/

/u,i

&
ailed
foi
,

u
>/

in y.wr

itipei

</

thil

leema

Male
Mint
\

Si hoi.
1

Ironice
Ii

ln<
'

quoque adhibetui
tl;

duous, while the omisi.

s.iiiu-

ol ttr\

que itionable.

et

\,

leind

pide,

>tit

on

omission
ol

and we maj note the

<"//'

ol

ours, to

pn
sail

"',

putt

repeated use

',

),

and

the collocation

in

undei a
oio
it
1

and
been
\..i,

saj ing,
'

eti
1

quick luccession.

Any

text involvi
ii

mewhat
al
<'

ti

The
n

here are
<.;<-i ..'

ep u

ite,

n
t

broken construction which

in Proclus'

pit

ked up

ovtm,
<<">/

they would
n,
..
.

li.t\

.ii<)\<
I

(or as Plato
y

comments the
v.

phrasi
a.

In iet.

without article occurs

The

text

given de
nse,

,',r:,

i.r.is

roAAovi
avroin

aunda
</>ctu,

little

change, and yields

/"'

a satisfa<

the break

in constr.
iij

being as follows
(>')
//

*&
avrnt
I

reversal,
I

and
3

recalls
3,

, *
101
<"

hi

phi

seems an
r. ,.(."</>>,
57^,
I

.int. vi.
1

otov

>}/</'

ofoa roAAa
K**pii

yor a/in fori,

otKMi

to

Wtv)

(',

'not
...
it

were tome such thing as

in

. '
inf.
;

.md

still

better

Choeph.

Mun'iAII

-Ijillj

\>>V yi.Ull/l'ITl.

One
as
1

almost wishes
j;
1.

.,
yoa

hut cp

day, which, etc

such

a fashion as this,

say,

the

each of the ideas preserved us identity

in all things,'
</"y r '

Prod
yap
11.,

says

ru

SAov o*wairT*ov
<V aroiroy,

,
"si

/<y

ay
)/tt/>n

merry over such an idea, does not

.
see Rep.
iV.ii,
h.l.

without the pron. as suhj. to

338

\,

e^i
.\i.

and a

little

lower ^yovfiooi

Although Parmenides
his

in.

own

tv

} {^^ ' .
tV

rartv
)

)
tv

otov

tu/, oi'7w

rowrov toy" (where the interpretation

differs a little

from ours).

Sevreoov
t\tiv

re "ei
" El

"
'

hear some colourable resemblance to it?

it

quod trvrtpov. Heind means rather more, wotdd the whole rta/Iy be
)

idem

est

'

irpo-

present then, or only a part?'

it

Immediately below

Ktijttvov,

rais

Std

rXetoKos

ajroooawiv
)

recurs, hut this time suggesting the improbability

7(\ /
(

" fiia

)
<7us,

of the other alternative,

tOTt"

In illustrating he reminds

, \ ^ , (. , , , 7/ ?" '
though without referring to the Rep., of the analogies

r//\ios

', (8( ).

t'o5

(()
lie

(8,

And

adds (.

)
next

'
Is

owe

So

for owccri.
in

Note the change of reference

cti kv

ei'/),

.: ( (

cSSovs

<

!.

yt 'according to this reason-

111

>/</>,

ovv- -}(

ei'

o?t', t

7}

ori-

another error by diet

If so,
tv

(on what authority

?)

/>

to-Tir

QtCKmjKCl

' ? '
eVi

this

word parenthetic?
is

one of
...

two things follows; (1) either the phrase

as

/y-

a whole

an ohject to

',

7 .iv

apelvat

'

>;' tvfppavjjv

...

', /, .
o~ep
...

'<

while that verb generally governs, at least in Attic,

mere

infinitive

(0

'

etc.)

(2)
:

\'
...
-eipov

or

which

is

rare,

an active sense must be used it might although if taken with

in

aW^eiai

tv

2.

evos

/,

Arist.,

Phys. in.

yield a

good sense

Do you

wish then to be

in

6,

206 a 30, says of the

.
,

very truth a party to our splitting up the one idea

among us?'

ofov

-^-

), ,
verb like tOiXeiv
8'

governing an

But we have parallels to the use

inf.

or

and

itself

governed by

Rep.

vi.

510

^
\


"

14

r.lRMENIDES.
171

I'heaet.

.
;

.,.
Polit.

latter is the case

it

follows that 'smallness' itself

still

276

...

eivai
is
is

.
...

would reduce the object

smaller than
its part,

...

The

only

referred to.

'hjection to this construction

cu

the other use of

so repeatedly

and there
the one

a further argument
(to

in its

favour that

it

gives a definite sense to

divide
in the

among

us

all

other case would seem a mere adjunct to

)
;
:

which

t8os='our one
below,
...

'
:

.'
it

' , / , ' . 0
is

more, and

is

therefore

the

just

Cp. Ar., Phys.

tivos

1.

4,

187 b

35,

ei

'

jliik-

Trjs

Proc.

Yet

for

such a use see

a fresh

etc.

cliriiv

We may make
;

interrog. sent.

but

is

as likely to be part of the

? .
while

previous one with the constr. varied

see Riddell's
etc.

Platonic idioms, 277 b (Apology, Clar. Press)

gives a denial to both

and

We
...

bring out the force of yap thus

y,

opa yap.

ditions of the problem here with great point, but

.
proper.'
is

'and each of the many objects

will

without answering this question,

which rank as " big "

be such in virtue of a
bigness"
but the point

dimensions)

portion of bigness which

is smaller than "

better,
lxxxi.

and Notes 1. pipovs etc. So 3it, though t has os above -ovs. The reading is rather difficult, and it is just possible that an orig. os has been changed through the ambiguities arising from and If retained the phrase must mean the " equalsection of our ideal kingdom.' The order of words
small,

<

See Introd.

) ( ( ) , ,

.
()
;

, ? ?. / . 7. ? ' '
V.

yap

115)

7 ? ? [,
,
...

yap

'

ueij^ov

^ ,

...

Bekk.]

Proc. (116) dwells on the con-

7'

'

(without

yap

.'
7.
above so
reason.

/s

...

ye

yap

'
jraVTOS
by-

...

is

!,

As

Heind. notes
...

might be omitted.

dvTos.

i.e.

[sc.

'] .
'

( ()

)
thus
in

, '
if

yap

far that the ideas are certain

.
is

' , /
We
have learnt

Tives

moulding

formative entities existing apart, and grasped

Their function
without cv

to

introduce method,
of sense (but

smallness

'

will

become bigger
it

form, meaning into the

many

how
is

a change which should be impossible to

it

one

etc. ?),

and we see

that this

of two ways
greater than

(i) either
its

part, (2) or

by being, as we have seen, by having something

grows
bit

done by

their entering into these, or giving the

latter a share in

taken from

it,

for like a negative quantity

by deductions
of smallness

as he goes on, the addition of a

it.

them, and that either

all.

'

or

at

The whole argument suggests

and analogies, none the
less so

physical conditions

(i.e.

of a negative quantity) lessens the

because of the special ideas selected

for treatment;

size of that which receives

This
'

is

partly jocular.

and Proc. enters a caveat that such physical conditions as space, time, dimensions are out of place.

Plato

knows

that
its

if

'

smallness

proper be indeed

atcr than

part,

then the part cannot reduce

it

He

adds an elucidation of the

this, that

difficulty,

which
in

the size of that to which

accrues

while

if

the

amounts to

the

many may be ranged

'
idc ,
.

the
tO
in

more exalted
the
il

ol

hi

ii

<

ome

loie in
Ol
tliciii

,
.11

help

'

h.n.i.
|

tl

uuli

toward

mere

,
in.
...

id(

.niil

in. i\
,

ill il..

I..U k

In tin

id<
I

completely

the

othi ra
l<

tail

oil

be

ill

el in

1.1

'!
In
lit

tin

thii

mi ,
ol

.mil partake ol

leu and

through

win'

li

we
..

a<

l>

tl"
,

m.

the ideas,
\

Parmenidi
-'/.

in. 11k

11

/it/H.ii

?>
got
Tijui

( ,
ti;s

\>^ *0*\
the whole
7.ns

mm WpOKO

rjj

(lyxirtv

who understand

and

par!

U)

til

.1

1. y...

\n

is

here identical with

wpo<nftop<a%

votpai\

the texl ol

ra r|/oi

HmyiM
riuv

*
^icrfvoi

Mi!

in

/
in

Will start

..,
no!
is

[as

up beyond the end of th< no meaning here distini

t

ro

ft

\< rn

Tin

rapaMyuATOt (we have

<

idea
ii

is

nol 'different

in

kind from Lheothi

'

tin-,
c'a.

length yet
in. i.n'v

the text) oWo/mis, rd

ami
othei

(.in
<

be called

'

second
tin

only

ii

we

He

even supposes

nun

in

trarilj

.ill

...

the

first oi

parti

the universe

r.^ -./%

dirtipa

should

in stiu
is

and so partaking of /. iuk, and 1}

IBiui,
.nlils

/u\/>i
l

.''

.1/>. (Uto\

US'

TOV

...

(if

11.

/uvai
irn^iiii

,"<\/>

/ / >>(
^
ravra

rapaoccyjuaTttfv, ra

nri
rotci /imi'
Sc),
>/

V.

rys

, ,,
'/',
tMi.rrm

&^
yap

it

rktiox

".'.., but

attracted

into the

plur.

by

iiiw"n

mw'./mi

mean, and
the

1\

rfii
<.

Having
or

dealt a

Mow
:

this

h'-u

uha

ol

/"".

ParuiennU

Mil ,*-,

7'

"''

<

0*TOIYCM>V

<-<-

up the nature of the ideas themselve apprehended by reason. Cp. Phaedo 74 B-C,
takes
on

((^
so

1UTCVCI

.T.ys-

raw
urtavt

.
</>'/,

...

y*,

ti/>//,

uias

cKTcivouevns,

1/

Tor

htov,

0/mus

aimni

trttpdv.

And

Dam.
this.

206
tw

re

(!.;
n,
ij

^ /,
<> tern

mptav wtmv ckcu arurrnttnv imroni

Xrycif.

Syn
e/Mwrtx
7

-}(>;
fv

(\>,
The
ck.

trtipa

tirrtv ovartas a~'*' evus

211
itrat

tovto

PI.

has nothing of

wr

ayvrOai,

\
/)"(" t-l
ui
eiravtevat,
!

latter is part of subj., the

former

131

gested dependence on the sense of the clause ev

or a lapse into orat. obi.

the fact that

, ' ' . , 7 < , , ^ .; . . , ' ^- of pred.

/xcvov,

18

'h.

1.

non

est

idem quod

tlSos

sed potius

conspectus sive species quaedam menti objecta.'

Heind.

But we get here the origin of the technical

that of the idea
it

*
eVi

6Kctvov

'

' (

e'~i

&(\
(
)

~ -, ('-,
tvos t

uoti <-'

<

term, as

we do

represents,

hti

EKCIVO

with

does not seem to be a

L.

common
14;,,

phrase with
I

PI.

and

S.

quote Iliad XXIII.

TcXfvTi'/ir

eirn

(Soil'

7Tt
8'

7TOVTOI'.
;

yi'i/)

...

He

seems
-t

at

first

to

have

(07/ '
lirauiiyin?

'
or

Phaedr. 249

6V

meant

...

to

be subj. to some such

verb as

to

which

would be the

obj.

\) a\/iopevOei(ra

\-/ ' ~/5

ctoos

)/(

as

he wrote he made the

latter

replaced

by

as

and though he had

the subj.

?.

In

all

th.

generalization

is

regarded as a certain and

:

fruit

begun

' " /)
with

...

But again,

method, not a hopeless one

that

also the objection

...

its

relative

would more naturally be

Either there
is

we merely read

into sensible objects what wc

or

sug...

wish to find there

doctrine of

is

parried in a fashion by the

and the walking of the

sou",

Either

way

with God.

It will

be

felt

that they are in advan

precedes and

of our passage.

In particular the rising gradatu

9
ai

\\
1

,, ,
the Sympos. from

-/

through

and

while resembling roughly the

as
+

PARi\fENIDF.S.
regard to the whole passage

which

has so struck

of Our

some reader (Arethas ?) that he has marked it with '. .' note that the process of reach-

30

b,

in

crescendo abstractness, show a much

In the Parmenides
a
treated

ing

by the method

eirJ

tinner grasp of the subject.

treating of

them as

?//

is

much

the

process

is

almost hopelessly

the

and the

chasing of the rainbow.

contention.

Nor must we mistake the

mind here
(Introd. xliv.)

ascribed by Arist. to Socrates (Introd. xxix.,

Plato does not accept the theory; but
it is

Our

ideas of generalization are not

in

what Plato has

assumes
ing

his

point at which the conception of an extended idea

is

though they do seem to be something like what he

in the dialogues just quoted.

definitely excluded.
Arist.

Grote refers to Simplicius

81

His mean-

on

would be better suggested thus

'
T& rrjSi
II

(+1
in

then come successive generalizations.

4
I

etc.
I

;, ', , /
Categ. 8 b, 25,
'

'

'

, , and the
in

accord with

xliii.).

the

first

ttillll llllllllll

r&Wa
Here the new

from a fresh generalization based on a new set of

exhausted
the only

.
the

does not arise

in

each case

.
know

'

etc.

Here

would be a
etc.,

voijpa, or

with Porphyrius Simplicius

or
'

Referring to kv

Grote says
calls the
;

Here

we have what Porphyry

for the first time.'

deepest question

The
at

latter are

supposed to be

of philosophy explicitly raised

first

view

and
is

and so

far as

we

new element

each step

the

Categ. begin.) are

just previously reached.

In this way not only does

it is

the process never end, but

sense.

unfruitful in another
is

what Kant calls analytic, not synthetic. All the evidence was led when the first was formed in going on to a second and a third you add to that evidence merely a synopsis.of itself. We may compare here although
fresh

Each

judgment

'

Categ.

it is

used rather of the countless types of

than

of the countless replicas of one

Arist. already quoted,

, >
6>
?'

.,.
say
...

So

or so
fj

is

omitted.
...

, .* , , <, , '
and
Met.
1.

the

language of

'

'
9,

990 b ,

after referring also to

, \ ,; , ^ . ? }< , ,
/ )

xf

Porph.'s words (Isag. to

Grote

refers

to

Simpl.

on

8,

8 b

0'

Dicaearchus and Theop. he

adds

.>

/?
,
:

'What if.... Should we perhaps in Dam. often as 4.2, 84,

...

ouScvos

etc.

See Theaet. 163

;

the text

is

the

tinguished.
>
%v yt
t i'

Te.

",

it is
I.

not clear that

That the must be it must be ovtos so

is

clear

Arist.

See Notes

1.:

the order of
to say, dis-

9,

990 b

25,

more euphonious, and, so Is of both Mss. due to

dictation ?

,
'?/?
-.

tionis

posterius hoc
ro

He adds

membrum
ut

But Heind. says prius proposiyap ... explicatur per

'

...

(not

parum hie apta videatur vocula .' knowing 2() scripserim . With

what Proc. urges against the advance by generalization from (v. 131) is true here

, . .

sc.

tu-ai

> ', , , , ,

Met.

And

>

SO

Ml
'

"
<i,ri
r

"

""

TO
I.

yap MM

MI. ill Mill. .M||i.

I

<
:

-/

||

DIM
.

01

HI
,

We "/"
...

,....1

.'!

IflftUi

"'

U
Plato
ll

i.',.i('/Kus

>)

Si

tltr\

i./i.

li.ii
<

had no doubts as to
ObjeCtl

llu
is

Ol

i("//i'iru

'

/iir

(/(,
c

/o/r. ;.,

dv (\

,
If. ii.
1/

separate

cm -.l.-m ("p. Kep

ol

"
I

-,

says of

tl

/''/"

/
. ..Ml

VVIiXTtl
illll

!
All

roCro
it

'

./,.
>
t

,^,
<:<

"|/>

.,.;
oiros
I

./

ir,

and
it

certainl)
is
(

it
'

inir.t

'knOH
alia

CVCB If also

known
Introd.

'

The word should be taken

fi

thus

[<

the hiitotii

Paim

Tiios"

-.i.'o

JVOV

/mo Tin
\t

oicTi

who
beitself
V.
.|

hold, tint

thought

is

identical with b<

r, (

,;,//!,!

,;

For the u
votl

iec Notes

certainly

that

being includea thought aa pari

leexni here nearer the orig

nay have
/'

Of a much

come
the
Death, and
this

by

a confus,

with either the

in
t

ol

Mil or

.
in

iDtTi'
in.

below (which
have been so
to
is

is

nearly undei
;

in the archet.)

and

'
1.

us

&mp
mi
s

%
xh.).
it

later date

we have
yi /

Plotifi

'' '
rw
<

Ti'i'

WpUVflaTtev

vurBifTttv wpoovr

(ftVTOI

rr/iii-z/i'tTn

tl

But

in

our
the powt:
1

would tend

produce ttwov

to

govern

PlatO assumes that a thought has

its. If

the

ini'm.

Again o&rov

probably rightly explained

thinking (Introd.
^o
it,

For the language

rvpurtctv

p.

1 im.

byHeind.

'legitimo modo positumestprooV(agree

('',
tot'iu,

Xoyurautvot ovv

ing with 8) propter praecedens failing that it must have the same sense as oVroa above, and be

taken closely with

Oftransls.
rei

orirui'-tV'ou'
'

existent

we may

give Ast

Nonne
'

unius cujusdam

. %
and
For

/''

vow
tpyov

tvovrot

connection, Arist. Phys.

omnibus exstantem cogitatio ilia cogitat, ut quae una quaedam sit species ? Heind. Quod tanquam omnibus rebus inditum cogitatio ilia cogi'

imam

tat?' 'of
all

some one

existent thing,
in fact

which resting upon

server detects as

.,, .
:
t

VOW

><

\'"/

''

also in another

III. 3,

202 a 30,

oV

KtVOW

KiVTKTlV or

klvi'j<T(T<li.

'p.

with note on

\2;
ob-

contr. with

132 a and

The

were by looking from above,

objects

teristic

of them

being that
',

thought dwells upon.'

c,

the language see Theaet. 203

7,
';

(, '- ,
single visible charac-

some

while the

new
C,

object will emerge from below.

Phileb. 16

-ri]v

402

'
liquet

...

it8os

Stallb.
It

'

Itaque ex

??
fact

of Soc,

existere.'

seems to be the

that

the

when these two words are not used as synonyms former., has more of the sensible in it. Heind.
'

adds
to

..

ita

rursus
iv tvai,
'

existunt, a vojjmckti diversa.'

this object

tos

perceived by thought

be one.'
fl"

so read for
to
el ...

with

with Phaedr. 264

,
;

editors

.
fj,

to save altering

that of holding

, -. ' :

a.

Proc,

v.

/iiv and 6 D, followed by and Crat. 4 01 the sudden boldiu 160, notes

, ?

See

((

But

is

this

accural

Rep.

596 a has

after

a reference to those

'

5 .
-ti,

oios

who

...

Two

difficulties arise here,

on

to the intelligible character of

The

sense

the ideas

when

called models,

and

that of distin-

seems good, and the language may be compared

,
,

guishing between Plato's concep. of

our own.

We

here and would naturally think of physical

Fhaedo 76

'

trap

patterns to be found in the sensible world, in spite

of the \varning of Proc,

98

\
till

well

' (,
cites

Rep.

59S

a,

and Phaedo 103

' ,
.
,
yap
in
'

597

984 b 15, again, comes nearer our conception when he says of Anaxag. Novv

(. .)
...

,^.
Theaet. 176

,
Suid.
familiar
'

, ,
etc.

, ,
(
.
Arist.

'. , ?
Stallb.

PARMENIDES.
argument? He does remove the necessity for ideas, which is much ; but his own contention is not a disproof that two separate and apparently unconnected like objects were by some divine moulded consciously upon a
assumes by
his

and SO
Met.
1.

3,

divine pattern

known

to him.

Alexand., in com-

We may also cite

menting on A. (574-5, Berlin), admits the connection which exists in nature

says of

,
To
apply
:

Aphrod. on Top. 254,

.
'

.
is

but says to deduce

therefrom

we know]
...

Tts

He quotes Alex.

our case, the word

but as =
as opp. to

not be rendered
the reading

.
...

noted

(?

early testimony in favour of the Mss., as

by Fischer

the passage

must For we have

;,
...

? , . ',
[so far as

), '

, ,
.
rejects the

idea of calling the action of nature

p. 31,

He ?. #
and

being quoted by Stobaeus, Eclogg. Phys.

is

who
or

Are

put roughly at the beginning of the 6th century

above also noms. before

is this

their infins. like

A.D.

above)

,# ?
On

Proc. says, V. 161,

' ,..

...

This closely corresponds with

Rep.

595

etc.,

where there

each class

but he adds, 597

,
.

.
>

^>S

. , ? . , ' ', , ,
the others
in

" ),
ovv
(as
is

the begin, of a

new

direct constr.

?
which

he mentions

relapses into the form of the previous sent.?

The

sense

is

clear,

'

and

this participation of the ideas

accrues to the other existences in no other form

than that of resembl. to them,'

'

this particip.

by

the ideas proves to be a simple

resembl.'

'

Et communitas ipsa qua ceterae res

but one

of

cum cum

formis teneantur alia nulla esse nisi similitudo

ipsis,'

Ast.

The form which would be gram-

and

matical with least change would be

'

tois

Note the difference between

and
a fact with
is

a mere

fact,

which being so owe

producing cause.
called here a

What
found

,
it

modelled on the
is

6,
Against
this

hypothesis

Arist.

urges

991 a 20

(Introd.

xlvi.),
;

'

Met.

sensible objects
after

, ' ,

ovtos
is,

That

apparently,

admits that

' ' ,
1.

9,

is

but the

word

does not occur.

Yet

this latter

was accepted

finally as

Dam.

83,

p.

190, ofov

might be modelled
:

but sees nothing to necessitate this

and

as the only expl.

But does A. make as much as he

93

. '' . ..
in e.g.

and

said

Tim. 29
is

the term which

:

,
,

.
.

its

ovv

the technical one

thus

23

>

"".

Is this not another evidence

thai \ .. licir

.ii

ih.

be [inning

"i

PI

'

th<

did
ii

on

the lubject?

"/"/

Parmen., nol

PythocL, tins

...
.1

/.

po
froi

and ha

.1

d< 11
i

tunc
oliiv

11 1-,

ttvai

1'ior. maintain;

thr pOSSlbllit)
in

.|

one
in

iid<

d connei tion
ota
,

e\

en

the

-.11.

l;utn ipation

propei

a
\

\pm nv
.)

mould
though
PL'i in.

ontributin

to the forn
t

\.

r.~i

it \..i

and Dai
)

"
ii

one

<

laimi
in

l
'

tx ttei

thi

p. 77, di.iw. tlislim lions Mil

u/>i<r

yap row
. . .

V....
r

. /u

f'.t

u'c/im T.i/n

or

Mil
ii/r
<

.ys

0
,
.

.""/

mere

m<

"i

bui Itram
>

one
.hi.

l"
.1

ing
.

but 1 reflect ii
ol
in
>

in ol
[1

the* e befoi

MttltflWOtTai
v>/>

ovn

'

'

ItOOt OVN IVOlVriK

>'/

.'/>.

..

..

/..

in.

own
.

they resei
ti

/i.M..i

./ tavroti iu
.;> ^.,
">/ *

tin

twewv o/ytotovrai
jt.

./ /
/
]

tiKui.i
;

root

("//'

|*.^' |'7/>0\

[<;
ftijynvij
ClTif/]

/,.
just

,] /
(iS5<t]

,
t
;
|

in

better perhaps opposing nun. .-.

still
ii.
.

th< refle<

tin-

figure

,,
re

/,
ravrn

tions

ire

the iu< cessive

endle

yet

none ol them contributes an atom of new icfoi

tms
1

.itiim to

to be
sVttf,
it

.is

common

\
Sf.

iiMi.rf'ti

/ irTt

TH
";'

be very

much upon
:

the analogy ol Zeno'i imop

a

<>

iimliCi]
With the simple

[&
is

on motion

Zeno would prevent

man

going from

illf. SCi'Ill-i

to

not by adding to the distance but by dit

in

PL

as

it

Note the want of the art. in because these words arc part of the predicate?

6.

with ..71 nr
Is

the given space into an endless succession

mailer and smaller

parts.

Or, as

we have

resembles an analytic judgment which brings

distance from

m
I

\>
0//OH.I,

&

...

<"

OjUOlOV

condensed
ov

"

where
for

however

((\ ((\
The

The connect ion

the
last

is

ip' or /uyn'Aij

clearly before us all the possibilities latent in

foot (loot's TOl>

'*

tm
still

to

1!,

or from

voAJU

to

but

words are

does not synthetically increase our acquaintar.

with the unexplored region beyond.

4vos ciSovs
first
<"/t.

As

to

(\(.

is

eucaurtfev,

mutual likeness,

it

is

plain that an tucmv (such

the second which the original

we have extracted from no

on which

/*.

is

the copy of a picture) has been

original,
it

was modelled,

without the other having been

here
is all

made like made

the
like

while the two cases are combined in the

the likeness
is

on one

side.

But PL's

which immediately follows.

xxii.

Jackson (Jour. Philol.

Cer-

view

that the original must, not so transparently

291) would bracket eJSovs 'as a premature

yet really,
its

be
;

itself

a copy of

anticipation of Parmenides' next question.'

tainly the

model
kqI &v

and
It is

that both are like that,

striking

to

word might be dropped, if we are always assume that an author said what centuries of
have
said.

criticism discover that he should

l

changed within twenty words. Probably the cat has something to do with the difference ; yet Ast
gives Polit. 292

An odd
,

ovk

oiovrc

<> = aliter,'

'
' '

neg.

it

denies the previous one

We

must take the el 8 and transl. with Stallb. 'sin

Are we certain that such uses are not sometimes due to the scribes?
which reverses the case.

,
to

some idea which was and so on. find av and inter-

( ),

or with Ast

alioquin.'

reasoning and
see Notes the i?os
is
1.

So

t,

which seems clearly the better

question throughout

>....
in the

etc.

The same
above
a.

The

same language

to

be similar to

The idea seems what we observe when a company

as
'

new

ioo?
so,

from column into line as each comes up and takes his place and dressing, the officer at the pivot can say of him and if he is not sufficiently visible the officer will bid him dress up.' The
of soldiers forms

new

file

being

becomes
odd,

and here is the which is assumed to be that both are like some other thing which
like the
;

(
is

whether

eTSos trepov av.

...

alii etc.

The language
ov&t

'

eiBoi ovoerroTe
it

7*

is

aiel

might have been

-aiWrat 7- ratvov

a
little

100
aUl
all will

.'

grammatically confusing to say

,
a fresh

-,
As
it

PARMENIDES.
omitting

'

and never
is

at

relation

desist from always turning up.'

which Soc. assumed that sphere to have with the world of sense. If again we are to assume
that the insistence

the sole

here

that of

upon the

which
is

arises out

would be more correct though

in
Par.'s

..
to
it

of the V
suggest that

meant

to

some
in

'?;

may be in connection

with our

Here comes

a pause

Soc's

world while others admittedly are not

this

then, while
that the solu-

assumption of the ideas.

Soc. gives

ment, and does so because he cannot conceive

how
ea

remaining ultimate absolute entities

iv ry

- .
opqLs

the ideas can influence the many, while yet

The

else the ideas get

resemblance else we have a progressus in infinitum

or

,
'

?
+
etc.

broken up

and so on

It is

not clear whether

form an attribute to

understood, a part of the predicate with

Engelm.

wenn Jemand
;

die Begriffe als an

t

sich seiend gesondert hinstellt.'

and SO most texts but it does not seem a gain, and may have arisen from a confusion of the eye
with

'

below.
dirrti etc.

Of course

mid.

Stallb. says 'h.e.

while Heind. quotes as analogous Apol. 20

yap

>.

Cp. as odd Crat. 413

vi. T4,

...

...,and Ar. Met.

from a strong desire to follow

a meaning.

But the constr.

which also corresponds with

iv elSos
...

, . , , . . , , . , , ?.
cannot be physical
nor can
ladders, as
it

,,
Introd.
or,

up the argu-

would be

harmony with the constant conten-

tion of Proc. that there are ascending or descending

grades in the ideality of the

tion of the

,
to

and

problem
were

that there are Jacob's between the ideal and sensible

is

be by

would place us under the necessity of assuming that Plato really was inclined to believe
spheres,
it

yielding a

that

indefinitely.

xii.

that

you do ascend from sense

by a graduated

series of existences; a supposition

which isnot only at

with

variance with the whole tone of his reasoning above,

but

is

in

absolute antagonism to what he advances

It

und

fur

for the next page.

affinity

would however have some

reads lav

with his later views, Phileb. 16 d,

tis

the verb

is

' ,'
,
C,

2nd

sing.

' /^
'
seems
to

>

As

to language,

mean

the ideal not

, '

the sensible sphere, while

if

would be
etc. is

'^
Vi^ei-

simpler
as
if

changed

to

he had said
tis

e'i

'

...

or

...

The

persons here are not

1039
21

b,

easily kept distinct.

It is clear that tis

is

given

and

wherever

it

yields

same; and equally so that

'

are the

tis

is

another,

is

unusual, and
tis

reads

Which
'

is

Heind. says

above.

is

qui contendit ne cognosci quidem haec posse'

potius
is

-iis

The most

natural un-

Stallb. says

qui istius rei sententiam in

derstanding of this would be that of Heind.

arranges thus
'if

who

dubium vocat

et impugnat.'
'

So again on

Heind. says

SC.

you are always going to set up each several eu$os of those which exist, as an exclusive isolated entity.'
This
is

quite clear, but

' .
this

Can

the words

,
it is

,
'

a mere repetition of

manifesto enim hoc

' :

spectat ad prae-

cedens

while Stallb. contends

refert

"

quod prave Heind.

illo

ad adversarium,
Stallb.

strengthened by
that that

intelligendum est de

ipso qui cognitionem ea

mean then

former phrase admitted intercommunion of

'

ratione sublatam esse contendere fingitur.'

sees the necessity for acuteness
chiefly

winch by

amended form

is

disallowed?

If so,

who

undertakes to prove the error of saying

they are at variance with the whole purport of the

following argument, which admits co-relations in
the ideal sphere,

that the

urging this necessity the clear connection of

with

and

is

directed to destroy only the

on the

part of

him
in

cannot be known, and neglects

out.

which Heind. points

10]

Then
Both

<

an

i>c

little

doubt

that
(

Heind
ii

li

right

.In.

hi,
I

men

require to be acute and

the

nu
t.iv

who

.".fin
IMC. Ill
. '

1 1

denies the possibility of knowing the vinced

foif is

to be con

.1.

.nun.

>ll

|,m

ll

U
Ill
(

UC*

>
t
*

in-,

en"!

will

only be by arguments
it

which cone w6ppv$w and which

intellect

will

hii

.
su<
<

>

|\

;,,
Ii

win

|.

1';:.

Ollli

I'd *

llll

follow.

Arist. himsell
in

could not see the

ol

ton. ol

the
y

argument
->/ *.

favour

whit h were

ra

and

PI. clearly point outi

,
on
Svi

thai
tins

the cleverneai
point

ol

row

&
oi

knowing

iv ;s

(
I

othei phrases as
:

So

Ay.

111

lol

ill'

lll'ilf

II'

'III

VOf

'//"V.
diffi

ie<

ond only

to that

i/irn/u'i.ii
is

.,',.
(<//,

The
.

paralleliara
i
<

complete

a/*04O"/8irr4v

l'"/>

,
135

foes'

<

<

<<

or

>

'/

,
Cm
of the

pis
ulties

PL's

interior ul
ieh< 1

hen he a
rte.

them

to

1571:.
|

,.&

Intiod. \l\ .

and on
Phaedi
think

pai

Kui. in both Mas., where

.'

we would rathei
as in

01

la riv

but the

fintUti

fawrpVlt,

aViiirrm
is

itr.

that the alternative to

0.11,
lull

...

11111

be DOt I

"i

regards language rpay/taTtvo/ti'vov

iirnrOai
is

gen. absoL

and

and

that

<

le.iriy

this

would be wrong.
lur/v, as in

used without a ease.

'

dritfafOf,
'

though

phrase WOUld be iUr\v

D| \/""/" v 'v "'"* '''/A'A./iti'

generally meaning

unpersuasive

rather than 'un-

533

persuaded,' clearly corresponds to Swrwdirtumv,

a,

^
1

Rep
li,

and 130

and Ast renders

'

it

'is cui

while Muller gives

Scholiast tOO has

unwiderlegbar

7(/,
Phaedr.

and

Stallb. agrees.
I>.

,
Scirat
1),
'

non
'
:

persuaseris,'

scripserirn
is

proavral Heind.
is

There
iu\

the Rhunk.

no need

still

there

s( rati

h over ai in H.

><<\
TOIOVTa

roos airras combines the sense of

7r/)os

*0
Si
><>-;

vapUvru
rdVv
>) terns
C

(
SaO
etc.
; '

For expressions cp,

MV

.'yw

S< ...

/tat,

octvov
oVo/toY.

nruroiwu

Phaedo 70

<>'>/<

$
>
s.

after

t.

& /.
It

Cp. Soph. 241

246

jo>;tu
OVfTiav

/ / .
:

< ?.

' ' <

00V,

(./.
itoi)

We may
tarn

cp. Hani. $ 93, p. 231, ipm

Icrrt,

<7)

ti(p

iiKMV

.; (* (, <1~ (,
KOMff,
8)

TO "t <>.

should suppose

recurs in place

The

usual reading

is

owroS

so

seems to make the passage tautological,

in

,
=

and

'
alio

'

~.

yap
'

i.'.

(.

...

Quorum dum nos partem >

habemus, singulis appcllamurnominibus

parvi similes etc.

v.cmagni
ad

Trahendum hoc
'

tVut

Heind.

Sive simulacra sive

quo cmis

modo

ea statuat

quorum dum
'

participes sumus,

singulis

appellamur nominibus

Stallb.

and may have crept

abstractness

from a zeal

for

exaggerated

a separate existence, apart, of each

separate

eiSos.'
'

The

text

makes

would omit the first itYt. See for lang. Phaedo 100 c-d, more than once referred
Stallb.

Our idiom the idea and

and

= each several class of beings

ible world.'
i}$

in the sens-

ev6ev8e cere

' '/

Cp. 135

b,

also

avri}S

)
93

($

$)

eivai,

Phaedo 78 d, and 9 2 D

also cites

6,

Crito

50

a,

u
oVws

/
to
:

citf

and

others.

One would suppose

that the

were the individual things of sense which,

as

we have

learnt to think, partake of

and are
>v

called after ?/.

But they are

131

is

habitually used in this sense, as

'

some

/5,

<

which throws us back on the explanagrades of abstractness in the

or

English writers use

with
C,
it.

posit
is

'

but etvai rarely appears

tions of Proc. already quoted,

effect that there are

The phrase

not similar to

e.g.

Phaedo

where the
a,

/,

some "; being

here.

last

three words are the judgment

must be understood
saying

Plato must be held as

,
etc.,

to the

which

put as object of

nor to Crat. 385

all

our discussions on

?/ thus

far turn out

102
to

PARMENIDES.

be discussions upon spurious semi-sensuous models for the more clearly we grasp the separate;

then not to
as

ness which

we

ascribe to the ("8, the

do with our world. jam in mente habebat' Stallb. These are the real irpbs include the sense for we
see that they have nothing to
iKtCvois,

we

'Ceterum

?
The

more

clearly

? . -- make

the

usages of

dixit quia

are

dealing with

('

'
quod
nicht

which
aliquis

,/
.
sit

?
to

...

See on 130 . We may note here these

originals

find in

and

The

134
is

accurately observed,

concords of
rel.

'? and

where Concord and we have throughout

[],

we

taken separately.
in the neuter

The
first,

seems

have been fixed

for PI. often uses

absolutely, e.g.

Phaedo
:

'Temere
(after

), quum

inserendum conjectabat

75 D,

hoc loco idem

transls.

...

?
All

'

Heind.
deal loosely with
sich selbst,

and we have here phrase must be distinguished,

e.g.

this; closest

comes Engel. 'und von

erhalt gleichfalls

von jenen,
wird.'

den Namen, was

...

mean

'are what they are,' 'is what

?
etc.,
:

?.
above and

This

as Stallb. says, from

below, which
it is.'

Again we

benannt

seem

tives are equivalent to

= and
'

\,\
like
etc.)

to suggest that the geni-

have had, 130

'

such expressions as

and
?

all

things again in our world which are so

small,

which, with the constant neuter forms such as

named
abstract

(large,
(i.e.

are

named

after

themselves

.'

each other), and not after those

Is there
It

Prot.

any

justification for this

construction?

? / , ' /? ? /, passage thus

[i.e.

tois

? ,[i.e.

seems

better

to

?/] '

extend the

SC.

etc]

unless

we

prefer

and

360

,
,

and

, serve as bridges to phrases like

...

7'

where Herm. puts a

comma after

Crat. 411 D,

?.

In Arist. the phrases have advanced

6

beyond themselves for and beyond

'

No
is

in 2, but

gives

, . ,
we

get

and

clearly this

It

will

be observed that Engel.

Heind. says

severs

from

and puts

it

as gleich-

falls in

another connection.

abessenr haec
is

added by
Categ.

adds

? ? ?- ' ?7 , : ' 7 , wanting

in 2i: in

often

scribes.

, .' ' . , ;
wanted.
et et
(sc.

On

these two phrases

Epexegesin referunt praecedentium

in

quibus

commode

=
above.
:

),

The example chosen by

Arist.

irpbs

again involves

7,

6 b 28 on

'

like

in

our (or the other) world

he

= towards
[

each other,

but

converse,

>/

>

, 8 )/ ,
We
...

...

//)>

even coin to get the antith.

, , 7 . .

...

Sometimes

yap
...

(^). ' '

avrtjv

would

be ]

'/)

or

].

Cp. Arist.

Met

but

] ,
}?
XI. 7,

and the

In order the words

1072

b,

Stallb. is prob.

right in saying that

is

so closely after

in regard to

to point the distinction

between
'

if

we

say
:

and

.
ut sexcenties.'
;

He

adds

sunt

but with

7>/.

we

are right

...

Steph. notes that

We

must be

careful

might equally

be

'//"

>

trap' ///mi
Ii.i-,

7/"/'
I

ilr.it
>i

I'M

.nihil.

...
lies)
ill
t

i.mlty

.11

Milton'i

entrapp<
lli
lie

.
.

into

uii
<>

"i

nsible

met,
in. in ni
ll.lll
111

Ad im
)

things,
.lllil

M>

had
trap'

BvTHH

above,
line,

nun

tiro

<

born
I 1

'ill it

.
I

I"
rv.

where his usual guarded phra

/', would
'

have done
,

'.
j

v' //'"

111

in) othei thing [th

1

in

>]

p<%*ciwc

/!',

ws '/

.
1

;<

t"yi/ier V|

'
Ml

^*<

";

would
It

s.iv
(

tii.it

UK one
'

en-

'"/, '"

titled

t'l

|")SCS,

ill. Ill

.ml

V.

Il.lt

(to

7<) rap
I'''/,

)/"

III "I
.111.',

would be
lll.i\

clearer
Tiyl-

thus
iihpi/lfi
,

,
"
,

IStOA

.lllii

Yin/

I""

'/',
n. vn.

equiv.

when
dI

thai

ti

desirable
tui'

Hera yhnj n used

has

very ten

are jumbled.
In
<>r

prohahly

because

preceded
<

the

^
with
1I1

0j>

the '"/,
'</':'

'/.

power
the

knowing being for the- momenl sn object! of know ledge are for the time

p.

.;

<.

[ni
alter

532 etc, Intiud.

tins,
it

Whatever maybe meant

is
<

sentence we return to
passing i&as
6

come
GlOte
ipo Tins

to

itSce*

and

is

cleat that
\.

God

loselj
i-

t<

-i

with

yivot iwtorr,

Thus Rep.
ii

51/7 S,

i'm.i

T/iiTT'n'

Tuts

it.

ete.
<>

eites hen Aiisl.

Met. vni.

8, p.

tui

ytyvovrat'
un

n
tpyturatrSai,
.

1050 b 34
IS
t;r<irTi//ii>l'
1}

1111 i/.i'inis roiavrat,

i'iVuv,

AtyiMirn >oi . roig

"

1}

aVTO

Kin/iris

fOWTO \/> jycoVflMU

Ona/uis
SvvaiMtis

>.

&
tos

...

auras iVuA.' perhaps rightly

take
1

SetV+VS

plv OVV

7ruiriys"

Heind. says

, ;, .
///,
tMi'm
i)

>)

ourtai

mi 4,

(%

KiVOViMVOV

if

'"

)7.///
-/i'i/iik, (-..

Tip-

II

(VOUTt'
)//"'<

tvtpyim

or rpot

>/ '7. AeytTui /

(-<'' :
)'
we

*\ 0V ,<

/
Mil

,'

TWV

. <<
/'

V,

fVOVTa

'i.e.
:

but perhaps we
'abstract

should

2&M$-avr*f-ovvs

existent ideas.
after the

We
J)S

There may be point in argument that the i0>/ cannot be known. only assume their existence after all.

vow Schol. Rh. from Proc. v. 2 20, who adds /3 tiwa' #etov etc. OMtm^a The punctuation is left as in % This is clearly a question and so in other cases. as we talk of the exact sciences.' The sense is very clear in Phileb. 23 ,

' . ,\

?
tois

/ui<'ovos"

>

closely

us

.
...

/
'

(Wn-OT., <> VlVVOMTKOVtrW

->

or

y.?)

This holds only

what-

transl. the

major (here second) premiss

ever has absolute science and power has a science and power which have no connection with us.' Dam. 70, p. 154, doubts if even God can know

aVo/)ov,

. '&
the real

One

!>
comes before

It

.
felt

The hypothetic The form even redundant, and that after ! ... cond. is assumed as true God has perfect knowoiV

ledge
able

the consequence

is

to

be question-

he surely cannot be ignorant of our world.

raises the question
it

While Plato
ledge

apropos of knowwith
the

he soon makes
elastic

co-extensive

[//]
u-vry

/)/
oiV
1

So Nubes 130,

? . .
;

...

cp.

53

Ar. Met. XII.

From our
i

,
^
" 1

3,

whole scope of the two worlds.

guage

context

-) '1078
a,

. '

is

throughout

Indeed his laneven becoming

Tjneis

etc.

Observe the precision of

the inference.

other holds.

Is that a fact?

.,

)
:

be powerless to
but does

one assumption holds the 'Our science' may know the divine, though in conjuring
If the
all this it

--

up and discussing
it

seems

to

do pretty

well

follow that the perfect divine science

104
must
less,
fail

ARMENID ES.
in

knowing us

The

greater includes the

jungere in altero orationis

Might be either because, or although, they are gods we may say gods though they be.'
-is
:

though not the

less the greater.

?
borum
structura
'

.
:

membro

volebat haec

Sed mutata
here of

etc.

'
:

' ?' )' ' .'

rob
less

'

Sokciv tc

Several cases

run together.
expect
...

Stallb. rightly says

we

are not to

Proc.

V.

237"9 "

above.

"'"

and

,
ut
left

because we have
is

the subject of both

'
],
in-

nihil

ver-

while
'

=
Ficinus
et viri

not 'to say that

'

God

is

without know-

avSpbs etc.

admodum
si

ledge
his
it.'

'

but

to

God

of some knowledge

knowledge

than universal

(Proc. V. 240)

'

(-?) '.
knowledge of
position of

This recalls the Phileb. as to

the relative dignity of voxk

and seems in the judgment of Proc. to merit the same rejection. 'The inference here drawn by Parmen. supplies the first mention of a doctrine revived by (if not transmitted to) Averroes and various scholastic doctors of the middle ages, so as to be formally condemned by
theological councils.
.

..

M. Renan tells Quod'Deus non cognoscit singularia

' ' . , ^' ? ' 0 , . . ^? . ,? , :.

...

make minish aught of

yap

. Stallb's.,

geniosi esse, percipere posse etc.

'#.

Bene

legeremus

Nunc

adest unde genitivi hi pendeant, neque structurae

ratio constat, nisi post

excidisse

putemus
is

Charm. 169 a' Heind. Menex. 235 D,

better case

'/^?.
^.

The

may have

been

out by his change of struct.

after

He meant

to put

but having

and

1780107.

Here the

got so far wrote

point for

after passing the proper

is

put in the

Another

irreg.

He

mentally

re-

calls

when the

constr.

is

no

longer parallel.

He should

have said

Proc. V. 240, says

we must add

some such phrase

So Sophist. 253

as

us "

En 1269
(Ren.

" etc.

Averr. p. 213).

The
it

acuteness with which these

is

.
with
the hearer

objections are enforced

remarkable.

know

pect the genitive,

nothing superior to

in all the Platonic writings.'

reversed this and written

obviously wrong.

Grote PL n. 275. mentally with

to write
is

Of course y must be

supplied

0/05.
etc.

Heind. wishes
others.

it,

and

well cites 132

and 136 d with

again
the

ii

tUrlv

...
is

Once
a-b

we have
exist,

the

, .
C,
;

,
at

The Mss.
t

agree

yet one would exfirst is

shows traces of having

stands, this part,
it

which

As

it

must agree

whilst

one would expect

to agree with
:

distinction noted in 133

if

each of them

others.
tainly,
is

. / -
to

()
...

It gives,

however, a good sense

has so profited and has so clear

if

and

a conception of the case that he believes, after

'

be held as separate from the

probably, though not cer-

having sufficiently analysed or investigated.'

Here

The
L.

order of the next words

ing

()

.
S.

,
is

Notes .

Sit

agree in read-

which

is

impossible, as

due probably to dictation and is follows. The precedes and

etc.

this constr.,

and

Stallb.

shown here by separating both that they do not exist and if they did exist ever so much.' Cp. L. and S. 4. Stallb. raises difficulties, and proposes ei 'Subthe copulative force
'

....

,
and
cites

give examples of
v.

phrase

Rep.

476

and
is

VI.

502

-,

^,

counterp. of

...

133
cp.
in

c.

Looking away from favourable points

;

and confining his view to objections

cp.

the repeated use of

A,

'

130

e.

and

2lt

might suggest

',

above; yet

Notes .

seems to decide that

'

..

I'..

all

through
1

.in (in-

ten

liblc

world

'

"i

c u

ii

niim.il

* 1

icnaible,
. |

.m Ic tsl ol
8i>><f.tf.

mihlunai
in
.

rf\v

Tin, in,
<.ii

tin iK mctfl
,
ii

dyvoou^vuv

'

|h\

Jim
<

ii

r ,iIki\ r

th.-

phi
'

stallk

ltd

Phileb.
>/'

^;
1

fffuii ...

'<>

-}

mat)
denial ol
e
thi
\

>

Pi

.
1.

.
\
.

I"

l>

desi ribed

npl

'
!

;.
''

w< re

pronoum d unknown,
<

new

VI.

5* 1

" in

roC

.',.

.., which become

nft iff
'

he follow
ion,

['he

r<

.-"
Arist,

clearlj given

in

etc) OVTWS
u

(6}
l6l
,

pov

.., ad y<
>';

fniKpa /ui KOI

*. .
S

.'V'N-.i.r.t

rur Sta

,
ol
its
<

"

tlm
<

. ii.
tin

.
int. n,
(

in-

tern
entities
infl

Met

. 6,

.)

(ov

^
987
..

omplete destruc
1 33

represent
nti.illy

rl

tual

(Introd

the world
tl

whii h

we apprehi nd
ol

' 'C'y r

Of

iiu

mi,
<

In

Mum
bei ODD

olijii ti\ e,

but
re

ov
totally

it

annot

.,'.,.
Met.
\. 6,

tl

akriSijt
l>

1063

10,

oaAyerpa
ol

\ .
ProC
"'-<>-

'

separate from

it

known, are known not by

fiulvoia

but by

,/-./.

4.

the
1

best conception of the influenci

i

bytl
ai
*

For the object

philosophical discussion you need

an
v.

I'l'vmi

aj3 58 discusses the question as regards

require ro

8ciis,

that

,
(>r
ti'

aim;

awi oiVm.

upon our world mnd to be that they models alter the pattern of which its Several
.

fi

all

yu'/>

urri

ocaipeiv,
oeis

??
fie

8iaipt<ri9}

and

etc. for their action,

6 ^^
>*9,
(

tuents are framed.

5.

We

advani

e to a

knot

and

finds

of the "'/

reAciov

and comparison
that there

from our side by a process of inference and it seems to be ted

;

may be
or
is

Stages in this

advance an
whilst a
etSos.

early

xtrTtpoyeiij

ai'iri/iyTa)

one being the sensible picture or what

the
effios,

l'roclus calls

kiu etrumutoviKiis Tas owi<outtupeiv etc.

more ade6.

'\>

--8

quate one
'

the
:

or

But

in

Stallb.

quotes Ficinus
'

tu

the end

praecipue sensisse

naihi

videris

but suggests that

ad infinitum
as

may

also

mean

justo magis, nimis.

In the
tripov

former case we must understand

cease to be what they are

their duty to remain,

:
'

we

are battled

lor (a) the process runs on

so,
if

and naturally
the

(^)

reached would thereupon

does he allude to the search for general definitions

and would become tainted

,
the
far

effiij

being given

which

it

is

on the part of the

historic Socrates as the reason ?

with a sensible flavour.

However

we prosecute

in the latter case

he

shown

signs of being very

may be supposed to have much impressed by the

and philosophy are
ye
re
r

our

victorious analysis,' or rather synthesis, the

result

when

force of Parmenides' argument.

of

our science.'
to

$ -.
one, Sophist. 253
...

..':

for dialectic

ditioned,
7.

This

</>c,

analysis

will

attained will remain at best an object

The world of ei&j is the unconknow it would be to condition it. follows its own course of victorious
not
'

burn so high and no

eio>/

hi-her.'
it

K
is
2,

? ?
~( ?

8. ;
8
T

For the language see Rep. vn. 539

Cp. Met. yap
is

After separating the

the vo>/tos

from our sphere

enters

-os

itself

and runs

riot there, parting

.,

I.

min.

the ideal sphere into as

many

isolated units as will

aireipa

ioS6b, there

culty both with

tis

and without the ideas d uev yap

eivui
...

^,

diffi-

dvat-

match the divisions of the sensible world. This involves an ideal knowledge which we don't possess, and whose possessor does not know us. 8. Thus to solve the riddles of world a, of which we know

IOG
little,

PARMENIDES.
we
call

up world
left

, of which we cannot know

la.

It is

not always clear in the Mss. whether

anything, and are

to call

plantes

While

if

we
:

refuse
us.

an
it

is is

subscript or not

all

being postscript.
:

Here

up the

latter, rational reflection is

denied

clearly a separate syllable

it

while in

We may
We

note several facts in passing

though we have spoken of two worlds here, Plato

does not so speak

two worlds or whose model for the etc.). This may be an is a 1 (30-3 advance. At least it organizes the two spheres. Is
for the

-:

he says merely

must go to the Timaeus

,
i.

Al-

immediately below

Plato leading to this theory by his present

2.

We

have not a whisper of

as a bridge

For that and the immortality of the soul we must go to the Phaedo and Philebus. Is not it an advance also? 3. There is no suggestion philosophic that the world of sense has any worth
between the spheres.
worth, at least

? .,
yois

must be meant as subscript for the accent is upon the . This in each case accords with Curtius, s.v. But what of d, where the is inserted on a scratch ? See L. and S. Heind. says vox haec rariore On significatu h. 1. sonat nimis mature,' and aptly yap quotes Sophocl. Trach. 631,

-,
\

'

(,

etoevai

tie

which also supports

his preference for

so from the Mss. reading

Te

with most editors.

in itself.

Yet

individual objects with an

When
may
no

contrasting

voi>s

and
all

)
it is

yevos

But cp. Heind.

h.
1.

'

Vulgo
seu

Sed

est

i.

q.

De

pulchri justique et boni

a vast series of of
its

definitione in his
is

non

est sermo.'

That

is,

although

own

the verb used, PI. does not here speak

;

in the

Philebus he

of defining
to
tis
is

presses the point that

lurk in the latter

trace of the former

which

must be eliminated, and has

yet there

room

'
is

the phrase corresponds

in 135 A.

And
what

for doubt, as

Parm.

refers to

difficulty

then in degrading the latter completely.

Soc. had been attempting in another discussion and

But here we have the world of sense consisting of

such objects as
as these are
us,

the attempt to define

the historic Soc.
nition, V. 261,

the great characteristic of

Proc. too assumes a

70)?,
;

understood by

and yet we need another world in order to make such a one an object of thought. Or does he mean that what knowledge we have
here
is

tis,

due
it

to that other world,

whether we can
'

explain

or no ?

have only

4.

Science or knowledge can

for its object,

,
'

yap

? ref.

to defi-

etc.

and has no

7ry

proper sphere in a world such as ours

:

not only must

its

it

have something unchangeit

able for

object, but

is

something essentially
this

,' 7 /
the word

?
' '

or exact in

itself.

Does not
starts

look too

exclusively at science as a result, forgetting science

as a process ?

Knowledge

from ignorance

mean

, .
...

etc.

,
yap
'

D.

<

in training

Proc. V. 267.

But does
It

to to

drag himself away from his

preliminary exercises'?

and does not reach perfection per saltum. However immutably existent its object may be, how does that object look in the process of becoming
knoAvn
is,

It

can appear only as a

in
it

under the character assigned to an object of sense a sensible world. Then how can we be sure that
is

is

present

studies
rather, as

means
'

we

say in Scotch, 'rax yourself

pull yourself about' as a

that

Liebhold (Fleckeisen's Jahrb. 123, 1881, as always involving rep. 561) objects to sistance, which no doubt it does to some extent;
do.
J.

K.

not such

Alternatively,

if

science

always

and proposes
t!/s

and not a process, does not that make it a mere analytical thing, and deprive it of the power of advancing synthetically into the unknown ? See Introd. xli.-li.
a fact or result

Trjs

but

$ <$
it

disturbs the metaphor.

etc.

' '.
4',
etc.,

gymnast

must

citing Lach.

194
2 2 D,
is

c,

and Tim.

ingenious,

This

We

can hardly suppose

tii

1 1

46
'.hi

107

[
fl

the lobst.

meanl

here,
,

><

thai

but

man)
more, and ai
in
it
<

ill

thai he dire

il>

would not
nc

>-m, but

in. illy be,

.,

probably
yvuvaa

md
11
1 .

h
!

WOrd
t,

one

li" "

Plal

was designed
otro\,

;"
el.

^ a

"

'.

'

ui<
.

li

rrote.
a,

reator of ideal dwell

siiuplii'ii
.

itrongly
thai

on

their

<

bar*

so

no doubl
'

ightly
\

rot.
(

oi

phenomena,

- <$
save
il

mi

.\
I
.

,,,

in jin In

urns

d'etre

but they grow un

is

nd
1

until

tl

in

one point with which was. itruck': >v the sentiment fOVTO /urn
tin,

implii ny
otov,

not

th<

ir

motl marked

rhaedo 89

7/))
and
R

/ei-

thai

in

speaking.'

, .
,
and
tias

lywyi
1

and above
/..

.<
(

regard to

himtelfi

<>i

whom

) ,
l

The

inn

.t

be Hunt. illy supplied.

fairly I'l.Mo '.
r/ys

The
otoi
/vtov

following

represent

thought

am

ztjn niiTijv

en
ti

mrtOtTo
1

[/
I

(unless

be taki n
"./i-i.,i|
'

irenthi

'dass

in. in ...

doin

Indium
iropia
<Y

ally),
int.

\p<) itkut.

7.

etc

nachspiire
(Engelro.),

'

(Miiller),

'den [rrthum xu erforschen'

has

been

held

/)

, ^
raVrooaiT(uc

Stallb. says

**,
v.

'',

i.

q.

antithesi

almost needlessly elaborate;

This makes the

trvapmrenu

words run

(/ias)

truricomtv
27. j,

rots

Proc,

again,

says Sci

?
Bwaptav

Iv

7<(

/s"

wv

...

root

& &}
ota
...

/)

&,
aiOis

%
I.

over to

vmnrtw.

The

would
>'--."</,

etC
cp.

See

Notes

<'
oi
...

above and

\orra
)

...

',

TrAiJf^os

'/
TtyS
oi'oe
...

? &, / - * (/' /,
oieooots
...

(,

iv

On
251

t''/.'

hcaripat Stallb. cites 160 c

i'l>'

iv

nuas

iKcumv
rotf

tfrittiho)

!-7(0("

o*kowciv,

things

postulated and

tKirtpirpeytiv
?/

given case.
-tpl

...

...

ei's

avTiKctueva

set/ Heind., and editors omit

is

2nd
si;

below

and 9

to the

to

their

antithesis

in

the

'

Posterius

-f/)i
it,

elcgantius abesits

yet

retention

>}

quite reasonable.

oStvoiva

details,

we have had some That here begins a summary statement.

Hitherto
is

iVotfiVrcioi'.

OVCT
1

7raVT0jy
'

^'
in
it,

So

136

we have '^,
has

statement

introduced by

comes
Set
...

the first step in the

libera disputatio

Ast
in

calls

while

in the

repeated

descent; the second

then follows the bald

the

same sense as
tias

thus run

/?
In

the argument to investigate merely in the

...

=
in

place of

,
eSSn,

?.
...

159

b.

The words would

etrurmnretv Iv Tots
suffer
'

enumeration.
uxravTos
It
is

not easy to think out the

'

You would not

:

details

of this dictum.

Take
If

the case actually'

etc.

selected in this dialogue.

you

posit

'

the

'

one/
to

>7

eZvui

but

and argues for (the read, of % and t agree on the text.

Heind.

says

that
e)

then
posit

its

antithesis

the
'

others which
'

you don't

is

certainly

many

and what he seems

say

is

that you must institute an inquiry in which

this

--}.
many
as

to

etc.

'>;
etc.,

= eavrts

VCpi

you compare

one with

'

each one of the others,

Cp. 129 c-D

where he showed
qualities.

be one

in their collective capacity,

having numerous

Now, he

rejects ideas for stones etc.,

world of ideas

the world of sense.

eiSos

in its degree.

,
is

and

to that extent the

less

open to this treatment than But he holds that there is an and this is one and many

and with several, and with the whole mass of them,' and the converse. But the dialogue, although it is pretty detailed, does not fulfil the pledge. Yet the We do not truly know anystatement is sound. thing, however small, until we have viewed it in
relation to all other things whatsoever.

And

the

It

has not as

many

qualities as

extent to

which we
is

fall

short of that standard of

knowledge

what divides us from omniscience, and

'

108

PARMENIDES.
'

makes
C
is

our

little
lii.-lx.

systems

'

'

but broken

lights.'

Cp. In trod,
corrupt.

-well

is

probably correct

gives

it,

while

51

Heind. wishes the

aorist,

but he might

as

change
;

to irpoeXy.

The

aorist

simply notes an item

the present or imperfect

'

.'
...

where we have the rationale of

'

i/T7yxu

Stallb. gives others, e.g.

...

irXitovs

gives to that pictorial reality.

Whether you
riot
:

as-

sumed
in

as existing what you actually were assuming

where the conclus. is seems to clash with 127

A ''
c, if

Cp.

Polit.

374 , 263 A above. model condit.

,
:

etc.,

and

' -

ovv

.
Ast,

sent,
It

we are

to press that

the

^&
'

given case
is

or whether as

existing.'

as alluding to the auditors of this discussion

no doubt correct

gives

it,

not the visitors of Parmen.

'

is

corrupt,

to see through and through the truth

with the eye of a master,' so to speak,

finished his apprenticeship.
...

who has
of awful

and
...

...

such

things

are

unbecoming to

utter.'

--,
;

See Notes

I.

...
reads with
t

would have been simpler.

'i\tw.

etc.

'A work

und Einsicht zu

erlangen.'

'Die Wahrheit zu treffen Engelm. ut quis verum

'

magnitude,' Grote

my

an undertaking with which resources cannot cope.' We might perhaps

'

adipiscatur et intelligentiae
:

compos

fiat.'

who
or

have printed
writes
;

-,
gives

and others take

yet

21

-;

do not completely understand.'

...

.) '. ' , . > ,,

\'
58 D,

>(
137

as 5i

is

corrected and

.
t

so
'

in a similar sense.

Proc. too, v. 311, uses

such phrases as

So Phaedr. 263

D,

/^

...

'. .
The
(sc.

...

Phileb.

words however, with

point to the reasonableas

'

SO Sophist.

25 1

quoted above on
to

The
;

aorist
c,

be

part of the phrase.

Thus Gorg. 468

y
'

]
seems
'

ness of taking

on discovering the

Thus Phaedo 79
etc.,

an entirely different sense why do you make no reply?,' While Protag. 310 , ov
lias

54

>

Phaedo 86
'

why have you not done

-n-poo-TaTTeis
<I>s

Tt

' , ' )
c,
...

to

keep one's head

truth, as

opposed to

the soul

when contaminated by
which
is

.
is

last

Symp.

73

(similar); Phileb.

0VK avTus

.
pray do

D,

and

,
:

-)

all
;

are

all

a form of imperative
it ?
it

he needed y least worth considering.

V.

, ? .
altered
j

SO Prot. 339 e Kat *7

at

This view

On

this

passage Proc,

in Sophist., e.g.

.
rc5

234 , ? spoken by Theaet. a youth.

jovv

; ,.
:

at once.'

311, says,

beyond PL, ov yap

Several parallels occur

226

C,

Polit.

263

Of

the demonsts.

8
phrase,
in the
1

This cannot be
after

.
,
'
:

.
...

historical.

For the

(below),

it

often

happens that

we

also sometimes say

'

through time,' not

'

the former stands like

iike oC-tos

for the

2nd 'a

for the 1st pers., the latter

man

years.'

Yet see Apol. 25

d,

.
Rep.
II.

etc.

;
^,

sense of

a long interval

but in that of

of my, of your,

/; ^parallel,

as time goes on.'

So

t,

clearly better than 2.

Notes
y

We
368
B-C,

have a double

yap,

'

1.

Why

.
8

,
I.

Indirect for

Cp. Rep.

338

ovv

''

is

. 77?.

the

first inf.

aorist

and so elsewhere. and the second present?

perf. inf. slightly differs 137

The

ii,

nn

,..i.<
1

\<m
ri

' ,

tO li.ur
/<
I

m.

unli
'!/>''

.u

in
/"/

like

KUI
ili< ib.

ii.it

of

rofi

tot

n8 ,
:
'

rata

<6*%
'
'

/-//"""
\

'

'

\||

.'/

/l.'ir

,;,..s

faros
x
.,.,
|..

*6%
v
,,./.,
.'.'.<.

I;.,/-..)

II

'

II

...

/ \"/<

"I

'

rorl
.;s

} -//''<
.,

""-

4f|A|ula

<<

So

HI

mo

t'

|.;.
1

,.;. ,,, ,,,

0ooii

r
'

Sch.

Si .

.
I

Proc.
Ic,

omita wv and

tp\ 4s twice,

;-//'"'.

.'(,./., /;,.<, }</,'", in Rhegium but lived at Samoa,

rtpl

neque deformem adoleacentem quisquamamat, neque form osum sen em?... maxime vero omnium flagraaae amore Rheginum [bycum, /"/'"/ Cic. Tusc. tv. 33. apparet ex acriptis etc pivog Docs this refer to timea when /. formerly

amor

amicitiae ? cur

.
.
It

Po tae Lyrii , read *nd dividei into lioea ending

[bycua belonged

when*

e then

we do
In
thia

whal ihallbeotu
conro

od
of expi

illu
<

iming that commentators had

Suidaa.

Quia

eat

enim

ill

which thej

Pri
*
'

(quoting), v. 320,
ri
j%

*riwpSerov

<

wh

what we quote below.

Pi

neither repreaenta hia text,

*.
Grote.

*{{*,

'Operosum
1.

lud

ram'

heard the discussion ?

-..
.,

Stallb., 'to
t,

amuse ourselves with a lab

:nt
tur,

Sch.

in

mg. 8i s

ircoot
'

'Nihil viderunt, qui ex

ami Rh.

& has -vvo-at:

sea

by Hesiod, as

even this is used of the and S. show; but the text

demonatrare,

universam,

quae deince]
nisi

disputationera nihil esse

artificium,

dialecticum aliq

makes the metaphor Ficinus quo pacto tarn grandis natu tam profundum disserendi pelagus
clearer.

quo

art

ticorum, imitatione sci

Stall!).,

transnatare

queam

had rXoyos
the metaphor.
Stallb.

.
'

delusae exagitarentur.'

and

rightly

but the
issue.

has suggested to

many

that he

phrase detracts from the seriousness of the

He may
this,

he had

well quotes Phaedr.

Siavfiv
filv

apa

...

poyis

. (,
264

be merely pointing where did he get it?

We

never quite allow metaphysics to overwhelm

the laws of nature will continue to
is

us, feeling that

8s

...

c
v.

act until our system

ready.

Rep.

441

c,

Polit.

307

d,

)*
-

And

yet, as PI. says,

?)

-.',

with Others.

(.\
Laws
VII.
...

8e

vi'xros

In
'

Thus
itself

jreXoyos

is

not needed

nay, Stamxrat

may
it

be an

early error suggested by such passages

as an improvement.
is

Put

if

Siavwat be correct

raiyvtov

the sole case of this

8e' ...

word

in PI.

nxuovra 5

etc.

This seems the best solution

us proceed), for
says,

'

'

but however,' with an aposiopesis, and 5

'

as relative.

However

(let

needs
are
is

must comply, and moreover, as Zeno

we

dispute together,

by
that

ourselves.'
will

The

only difficulty in the way

article,

have no
Crit. p.

which
'

is

unusual

hitherto.

On

, ) ' .
where Soc. says
to

Perhaps the point

yap Heind. says

10) post

ut bene monuit
8e elliptice

are mostly young.

*'

Heusd. (Spec.

/?

omissum est vel simile quid, ab eoque vim suam accipit hoc yap,' and he very aptly quotes ^e rai'Ta^y yap Charm. 175 evpuv etc. We may add for an aposiop., resumed by breaking the constr. later, Theaet. 143 d,
> '

'

$
yap

is

,'
8eiv

'

ylyveo

TaU roAertv.

803 c he speaks of man as ,

Theaet 16S
r:.

that referred to in

Theod. that they may have

ye l\y

&-

uv

Parmenides' auditors

etc.

Proc. v. 326,

'

'

'

d-'
'

'/'/

,'
tt)s

^,
'
...

'

'

/s

repyeias

Sew *

110

think of
strained

this, his

]'
next remark
6

PARMENIDES.

Whatever we may
is

>
ov
vii.

' .
kayos

/?
'

suggestive,

yap

Parm. imitating the divine says

yap

, ,
Aios

irpay.

' , .add 47
here
>

*7

y*Pi

2.,

is

emphatic), and above 135 D,

6
;
. . .

if

over-

see Sophist.

217

c-E,

the
is

passage which
in

?
el

(but

,
:

alludes

to the meeting that

Introd. xix.
:

assumed

our dialogue,

this

It is too

long to quote, but should be

^.,

read

there

is

a strong resemblance.

That Plato

was serious

in his insistence

upon the importance

S03C, which

',

'
; ...

[text gives
is

-, but see above, Laws

clearly

?
'

referred to]

?
II.

yap

of dialogue must be presumed, both from these

passages and from such phrases as

:

yet the value of

;

it

could hardly be put

lower than here

to the description.

etc.

There may be
...

to Homer's and Pindar's

The constr.
e.g.

- -|
142
ircpl

, / ,
...

henceforward we have the

in fact a playful allusion

IX.

and the
tToi|xos

97,

why should
...

Nem.

v. 45.

. ,
it

and

Aristoteles certainly acts

up

Hitherto

we have had
dialogue
is

dialogue

And

if

important,

be laboriously told at fourth hand?

etc.
:

The
it
it

text,

including c

has ample parallels,

stops,
(t

is

that of
21

also Phaedr. 228

;

has none,

Herm. none but

repeated 263
:

;
3 22

and
>

others,

Mss. with perfect clearness.

to

Proc,
says

v.

says one

may
like
PI.

ask

Hap.

.Gorgias

; and
etc.

am
some suggest that Parm. becomes in

',
at

mean

,)
As

and but

for the stops

is

that of the
it

stands

seems
'

your service in that capacity

'

'

or

this is at

your command,' where we

the whole descrip.

Protagoras

etc.,

PI. sees that

' ?

may assume

to refer to

given by Parm. of what he wants, and the adj. to

Stallb.,

again,

says that

be attracted into concord with the nouns he starts in agreement with them and then

while Parm. does not seem to have called his ov

.
it

finds the neuter better.

Both, however, are forced

tamen
complecti
1

quoniam to

quam nihil esset, a Platone narratur docuisse omnia unum esse;and cites Theaet.
praeter

',
'

ov volebat

omnem omnino

interpretations.

.=
But

Another course is to read Aristotle am at your service

' :

and Sophist. 242

tos

? . '
80

'

said this.

Stallb.

is

right in calling this a

(.

,
D, to

'
,
b,

, ,, )
y
required.
:

strange use of the parenthetic

to give

an

object in a sort of apposition to the object-clause,

as he seems to

mean when he says The next step is to read

would be
(sc.

with one or two Mss.,

see the force of

question, Ar.'

This gives a good meaning, although

Proc. raises a difficulty too soon

Plato

Heind.

fails to

clearly holds this to

have been

historically the case, ev

H, read
a good solution.

and

are Par-

which must mean

.
'

said the

one

in

Two

Mss.,
line

the former with

"

above the

menides'

own

words.
if

But we should probably be

ev
1

nearer the truth

ev,

we understood
28

'(
which

as in

which would modify

the argument a good deal.

;

etc.
e.g.

For the position of the

Clitoph.

pron.

Stallb.
tis,

cites

409

d,
:

Another possible change would and the change would be ... be were the small one like u, and easy enough if the might then be misin were coupled to Here ends the bridge between part 1. taken for For of the dialogue and part II. (1350137 c).

(sc.

.), not

.,

to

the nature of the relation between these parts see

'

.
,
and
Ii
v.

Ill

lnliml.
talk
1 1

\\\
t

ii,
.
. .

In.

v.
.1

DOCS Plato DOW gO OB tO

mystery, dot
oi
le
ii

tm

m
ii

with oui hun

in

he

refuti

Pai

badly.

said by

some
ol

menides' doctrine out

oi

it-,

author's

own mouth,
ti<

woik
ol he,

an imitation
1

/'
ni.iy

'
be
e,
1
1

thai wh.it follow

dial)

ol

.a

doet be merelj jive

s,>mc
ol

on

in diale<

Sin
tl

ill. ill

In

In,

BO,

though

it

would

the

suggest

epl

th

the
ii

nut be
(

mm
h

to

prove

>t

but

ti

so

tcond

might bettei run, dote he develop what

a ,r

ol

imitation

in Plato.
is

latent in tin do< trine Oi

Patnnnidis

there
all

DO
the
the as

oi

the Republic, fa instant

inconsistent

in

supposing thai he does

hii

th oi

anal

be
oih-,

in i

step

to

mak<
<y
fcx
fi

once, and advances

own conception
time
in

thai on,-

by

freeii

iik-.il

problem

at

the

same
is

Among
his

extraneous.
oi the

ha<

is

what
mi

this divi
><<

thoughts which succeed each other

mind

argument
.'.
,

<1

ri

he writes, one
nle.il

is

thai there

complexity within the

in

Irote says oi

(Jnum and In
...

world analogous to that

is

our sensible one:

fai

wonis are essentially

ind< terminate

are d>
u

second

that the ideas having so

been held
at the

by Aristotle to he not Nnivocal

iimn etC
(Ins

word

to be isolated, as

sina

qua

lion

ol

then purity,

and of the same words and idem Diversum Contra*

equivalents lor PL's terms) 'I'
neither notices noi dis< riiiiinates their mull

hopeless contradictions thus arise which cut

very loots oi philosophy
:

a third

is

that

some such

trenchant dialectic as that exemplified by Zeno's

writings
is

essential

if

these difficulties are to he

and fluctuating significations ..., the purpose of the Platonic Parmenides is to propound difficulties
,

overcome] and
with
the ideal

that

laborious discipline

in

it

is

while that of Aristotle

is,

not merely to propound,

th< rn up.'

the sole training adequate for him

theory,

who would
is

deal

but also to assist in clearing

(PL Par;
.

or (which to Plato

the
It

same
is

thing) with metaphysical problems at

all.

OfGr.'s many references to Arist.and his S< hoi may he enough to cite Met. IV. 6 sqq., 1015 b
Sv

clear from the detail given that Plato has this

To (UV

((%

kw
all

last

subject deeply at heart.

it

As upshot, Parm.

is,

in

the

former case Coriscus, musician, Cor. the

'

as

were, put to revise his

own

doctrine in the

musician, Cor. the just musician, etc. are

'one
I

light

of more

recent

developments.

And
it,

the

as

it

happens.

True, these words are ind<

all

result

seems

to

be that even the simple idea of

possibilities latent in

minate, but only in the sense in which

are so, unless

words
In

'one' has indefinite

that, so far

from

its

being possible to

and regard any

we define them and

stick to that.
refer

speaking of Cor.

many might
who knew

only to his

idea as isolated, an almost Heraclitean complexity

in the ideal
sities is

appearance
to his

many
;

(never having seen him) only

sphere arising through dialectical neces-

fame

others,

him, to both

etc.

says
tins
;

now the real problem to be faced. Dialectic, Aristotle (Met 6 xn. 4), did not exist before
i.
;

That PI. does not notice or discriminate the senses He is no: of One' etc. is true only in a sense.

and the more Plato looks

the

into

it

as a factor
is

in speculation

more impressed he

with
it

its

we have learned but he sees, and means us to

explicit, as

to count explicitness
see,

much both
is

of the

transforming
infinitely

powers

in

physical

matters

has

different senses of the

words and of the

but he
that
tries

results of

divided the space between Achilles and

the inquiry.

the tortoise, so that

we can

hardly think of the one

'

His intention clearly

as an

and

',
so

to treat of

one

(Introd.

overtaking the other

in the intellectual

sphere

it

lvii.dxiv.) to simplify

converts even the simple unity of being as put

forth
is

the possibilites of the case

48, 98,

by Parmenides into endless

multiplicity.

It

curious to observe, however, that the 'idea of

'

science

Nothing has expelled it, for the separateness between the ideas and our world continues, though that between idea and idea does not but somehow it has served its
quietly drops out of sight.
;

,
says
ev

It is
eirai

* *;

*'
it

much

he overpasses

consciously.

~pu>Ti)V

. "

As Dam.,

-,
<5e

ev,

and

108, 280)

io

'

act

6e

?.

ya.fi

-.

117, 34 ttw

11:2

? ',
"
121, 3 12 ))

such an undertaking

(Dam. speaks

. .]
(

; . ? ,, ' 'also of

?),
(

, .
119, 307)

PARMENIDES.
circular or spherical,

In

eulogizing these as

.
more
if

Cic, N. D. than
all

11.

18,

perfect

other

forms, says his duabus formis contingit solis, ut

omnes earum
...
;

partes sint inter se simillimae.

i.e.

for (39)

It is

^?
tis

yap

<

you put your eye at either end and look towards the other the middle will lie right in the way. Or as Heind. puts it 'cujus media pars extremae utrique ita objacet, ut tegat

"

quasi utramque et obumbret.'

--.
Theaet. 203
C,
;

as

^?
if

were dropped

)
'

...

?;.
:

We
d,

look for
el

'
,
;

' ? >] - 8 '

;

,, .
below.
:

Euclid says

,
21

In

stands for

they oft; wrongly: perhaps from confusion with

the

so

The
it

has a force of

its

here,

138

not easy to render:

or
'

might be put
straight

It
it

must be without both

is
it.

and

for
etc.
,).

neither this nor above

;

round, since
is.

also without parts,'

would be our

being normal

below
21
t

way of
Phys.

jiepos,

has

and must therefore know that what he gives is not the view of Parm. and he refers to Simplicius' comm. on Arist. Phys. " pag. 1 2 " (cannot verify), in which it is said that PI. must be practically refuting Parm. in this part of the work and quotes Dion. Halic. ita de Platone
etc.,

right without

',

gives

k"xQ

which cannot be

Thomson

that PI. quotes

Parmen.

in

Soph. 244

]]

,
recalls
'

.
III.

putting

He

of these qualities.
ii.

201 b 26,

[],
etc.

dwells on the convertibility For the language cp. Arist.

So

21

without doubt

and

it

is

perfectly admiss.

We

scribens

, ?,
bat,

? ,
:

confirmat Eusebius Praeparat. Evangel

...

,,quae

when

goes with the

relat.

that, or to

drop

7'
II.
i.

22,

^/
it is

But J elf cites Thucyd. in. 59, and Xen. Mem.

indeed lay down that in such

and
rel.

others.

He does

. .
:

oftener find a subjunct.

Heind. would prefer

cases the
:

goes in sense with the vb. not with the

difficult to

but

draw such a

line precisely.

,':

Herm. adds

1.

xiv. c. 4.'

See also Riddell, Digest of Idioms,

:

68.

reads

vel contra
is

possibly

Oxon. cum

VS

retineri structurae concinnitas jube-

quite clear,
it

and

is

may have arisen from . one among many cases

eidemque mox, 138 a, debebatur ... circumscripto cujus ut omnino vel optimi codices leges ignorarunt, ita nunc ne conjunctis quidem

editorum
is

omnium
that
;

auctoritatibus concedi poterat.'

If
it

a delicate subject.
it

be imperative here,

open to doubt whether or (as 'Heind. and Herm.) should be used. Each case apart been viewed and kept wherever it gives has PL when discussing sense: cp. on 131 a, b. might sometimes strain his language to emphasize the
in

which

is

we might urge

be

decide when a statement

ditional element
;

dantly repeated
etc.
:

curved or straight

'

may be understood from

It is
is

''

word,

;
?

above
like

or alternatively that

might
subj.

has

for subj.

? .-

...

has

the

same

above.

sometimes hard to
to
is

being =

meant

have a conoften redunrepressed.

change to
former
notes,
is

or does the
being =
;

??

subj. here

The
Heind.

while again as
it

the more grammatical

but, as

may sometimes be
:

has the surrounding

as quasi-obj.
is

as subj.
is

it

can have no boundaries whether

here the curved boundary
is

and

Either way there

clear.
It is

hitch, although the sense

hard to see

a disttnc between
imiiii.

and

v/.

'

*
t<>

ii

that

Is

il

parti bu,
set

multiforiam.

Heind.

As

the

ument he
c .
InIi
.

In-.

.11

ki to rao\ e itep bj
tin
1
1

itcp, d<

might
'

have proved
From

thai

tin

...

cannot 'be
it

*
retur
el Is lli
il

4>|

ay

'

nil

any where
nol

from the original assumption that

<>i

ii

turn uti
II
it

many,

tin

...

..ml

ih.it

it

hoi no part
i

te

in-

shows
.

tint theie

on

in his

mind

;<

tting

but

.1(1.

sri

.in.l

a/Mpovt,
iauri rtf.

Iv

K&V
:

.1

it

and

Stallb.
>

admits
pry
7rt/)i

nl

&
But
so,
t/
>

transl. as
'}

tin-

instr.

o<! "/

&
ing obj
ii
it

in. rely

hj perb.
'

urr.i, tin- List

wordi

I"

ilce

\..

gives the tr\t, and

whole
.;.

better,

tawd being nom.

reverie

and read

unleai

ow
Stallb.

Some

e.g.

and
t

Bekk.

take
out

and read wipUxov

Ms. auth.
...

*,
ovn
its
:

<>n

the
consisting of th
,'

tical

wh

we exactly
rt/...
t>>

and leave
I

ti.

with

no

obj.

One
I

f<

els
:

thr<

ol

seem

ping

the so
i.

faultless

when
1.

with-

what
l'liys.

is

very

liable

tO

CG <>:

Cp.

Arist.

apparent
r.T

for

6V.
all

looking

tA]

are after

The redundant significant The

inherent
it.

in.

:oi a 20,

rd *<"
Si ...

(| T</\t\t<a

'., >\
ttAAljAwV'

wordi

.11',-

i tv merely put the altera sugseen to llow from

itself

KOI TrttiriTui

hwafui ra
-<inp

f.rT"t

<iyt..

ited above, while the repet brings out

! nxunriKOV.
<rriv

impossibility in view of what

1

is

rov here
A above

is

strictly local, referring to

Put the case that

it

is

within

then

it

itself
if it
...

will

be
is

in the position

of surrounding what

...

really
after

within

itself

can
tij'>

*
;

not as below
.

.
'

all.'

So

D,

ev

ti

'is t

be nothing but
...

itself

sonal to give a subj. to the verbs

ty-

ytyvcrvu.
'

ttvai
itself

and seems
is

correct.

see 141

,
ye

'^
;

,
ti

must be

pertv)

(6
'

has
:

it
'

in its
et

power
infra

to

etc,
;

ov

sic

(140 e)
illud

say surrounding

for

it

impossible that

nam

alias fere in

hac formula omittitur

from
2it it

<).'

anything can be within a thing which does not

surround

it.'

The

of

51

may be due

to a confus.

with the same word above and below.

This

more

likely as

a confus. has arisen about

written
rb

>

, cp. lines above and below.

irepit'xov
:

,
is
it

Heind.
their orig.

would seem that

'

had

Fischer says of ye
est.

posterior

the

emendatio

haud dubie vera

p. 30,

At

etiam

in
...

Stobaei Eclogis Physicis,

vat laudantur, legitur re.'
-iis.

ubi verba

etc.

So

31 1.

Heind. thinks

which surrounds needs a It is the mere little emphasis, for it is impalpable. rim of what is surrounded not even so much, it is
tautological

yet

that

says that Galen calls these kinds of motion

phrases from Arist. Fhys. in., avev

an imaginary

line,

the whole
is

(whatever

may

be)

being that which

Schleiermacher's

surrounded.
'

Heind. leans to

that of the
thing, that
if

which surrounds

is
;

one

one which

()
is
it

sur-

rounded
is

is

another

'

which,

a change be needed,

a good one.

Stallb. retains
'

obj. of

thing'

a very good

7,

making

the

that

which surrounds

idea, but involving,

the mental add.

('

it is one he thinks,

while at the

same time the

colloc.

,
.

~ .,
and

. .
.

Heind. would reject

vi.

re.

See Introd.

Thorns. C

Here

are

some

kivjjtoi,

Dam.

262, says

' . , '^
Kivei
/xevov
'

'^
.

. .'

114

,
c,

PARMENIDES.
V

difficulties.

and
163

...

he

yet here too arise

...

still

()

entering; nor
if it

wholly without,
ftvai

means, as Heind.

Stallb. suggest,

, --.
where also
Kimja-is.

s.

,
'

21

vyiyvojaevov,

both cases.

Both give

/,
is it
is
:

any longer

(/

2)
in.

actually
t

(8) passing

rightly gives

in

which Heind.
Arist.

rightly

This constr. recurs 162 D,

urges
the
unity of

'-? and

divides as in the text, saying egregie hoc

spondeat praegresso
1063 a
17,
8' el

*
x.

re6,

Cp.
is

To

say that the one, whilst

passing through

the

process of change,

cannot

remain one,

is

to use the

word one
' '

in

two senses

that of one numerically, and of one

in

or the

same

appearance.

S.

called himself
;
'

one as

distin-

) /" , <
Ttvos

,
'

Met.

'?

guished from those present

he does not cease to

though idiomatic cp. 134 c seems specially de trop here, where

"
if
it,

- >.
,

be so by growing older or stouter or balder.

the change goes he ceases to

He

follows.
is

The fut.

is

little

odd,

anything at

all

remains one numerically, but to the extent to which

to

be the same

S.

We

can assent to Plato's concl. rather than to his argument, and our assent
obviously ruling his
is

8
Si
...

have such an experience.'

Heind. would expect a reply
...

after this.

vtos

...

?.

based on the understanding,

thing 'coming to be inside'

one

is

mind at this moment, that the to be one not in number alone. rri'pas This illustrates, and may have
:

other thing.

Arrest

it

at

Suppose the case of a passing into any any moment and part

of

it

will

'be'

inside,

part outside.

But here
to pass
it

the thing has no parts, and cannot take that position.

helped to suggest, the argument 139 c, that only the different can differ from the different. He
could say
uses one ireoa he needs two.

$
(distinct

The

only course open to

is

if it is

inside something else,

'

that in the process

must

but
13

if

he

be

'

wholly in and also wholly out.

is

This he here

Phileb.

c,

>}$,
;

?
we

says

impossible.

'

There

is

no

possibility at all

that a thing which lacks parts can as a whole

be

at

is

not an exception.
Tivas,
'

the

same moment neither

ov 81
'is it
...

in

nor out of another

Ttvas balances

comes
In Latin too

in

parenthetically

from them) bad.'

See

'
:

while

thing.'

is

...

and

if

that

some good, some

below.

be so

not

much more
it

impossible that what

has no parts, and

we have
is

alia-alia

but in English

anywhere, since

no whole should come to be comes to be neither part by part

can say 'change to one place from another,' and

the

German

tauschen.'
rl

must be that in being carried round in a circle the one has gone off upon motion \vhich leans upon a centre.' In the equivalent which follows, ., the centre has
'

'-

itself

nor whole by whole?'

peculiar.

'einen Ort mit einem anderen ver-

versialist's luxury, it slays the slain.

little

The argument is a controThe lang. is a

Both Mss. have

below.

before an

It

aspirate,

so

Both have
latter vis

where

become

definite,

other parts of

carried round the centre.'

can hardly be wrong

irp

'
:
...

still

and possess as those portions which are being

. . .

-,
is

Stallb. supports the former, as

multitudinis emergat.

'

simpler thus,
...

etc.

the reading of

21

has the masc.

are one phrase.

KLVtLTai.
sc.

SC

dp' ov

<,
less

' . , .
150

'
t,

and

+ linear-motion here he puts linear-motion and circular-motion + change. Heind. says

circular
:

is

normal.

Heind. puts the

put quo clarius

The

construction would be

etc.
139

is

to

be understood, or even inserted,

yi

from

Ficinus transl.

If

it

cannot be in
'

Heind. thinks he read

anything,
P
.

13.

can

it

'

come

to

be

so.
in,

138
while

., after
'

In 138 c we have change and

asseveravimus
the
ref.

'

whence
would

'

etc.

But

8 *.

It

is

not yet

()

need

yap below

both

Mss. = ye

.
this

being to

N01
Iv
I

"
I ,

' I

'
1
1

'

(
pi

r;

Lin.

..

'

..'.
t

it .1

Sl.illt).

II.

[is.

Gorg, 483
OnKCUfl

\,

"7
I

"

"'

i"

ro

rh

&
1

Mini

<

MiM>iy>
(
' 1

'

the latter oi
ol
all,
^

tin-

two,

below

"

'

'".

Thii

on.

scans
Ik

\> i\

probable
different

yet the
vis. that

bm

might poMibly
print
'

iyyytripta

rtthei
'
.

we ihould
.-

iy\

TtpOV

n'liij,

iirr..

repeating literally the

|uit

beforei

gem
dieted
;

...

SMSM
I:

>

Sound, as

wor<l.
it

at.-

Instead oi changing
OciS' a|iu

il

to re

<
|

awTtt

, <
re
far
l

gram, requii
i/"i/

hut re shall soon see

COtti

enj V

oUv

*
t.

<r ijm

in.

shall then learn

!

ttrxiv,

present position
but both
this
.11

why in elucidating do not run 111 tl.

reasoning holds, nv

Jviivai

So editors
is

print

above (Proc).

The

Mss. read hr ifou, and

is

it

From certain that

impossible for
it

over, only lioin the Standpoint Oi the

On.';

<

bai

not correi

Pi thinks
in itself
'

it

(the
is

ing that standpoint

we can

see that

.muh
Iv.

iroold in

one) to be 'one'
nothing save
'

tv
/*ev

or in mother.'

What
\

turn cease to he itself and would be

U

one

cannot be localised) 138

the
.114.
1

etc
111

42, 85, oiVt

PrOC. elaborates
tv

here

/'(Kir.

SyllogS. VI.

l(>},

> uttiv iv

nw

tiM ort^Vort iv

km
loTWS'

(he has said above

/(tv yu/>

saury '(',

(St

(.)/<()^

premisses to PL's concl.

'.
(PI.)

rotOVTOS'
TTOTt tv T(to
<Se

rruvai
(V

( .
8
:

' ' ' /

PrOC. goes
tv

Tttl

' (()

*
TO

iv iv
-Civ
II

'
:

'

Cp.

Dam
</."

lit)

mtn
right
in

hat:

This too

is

ordinary

usage

but the words have scarcely been uttered

that he should not

'..'.

when he shows
OS

have used them

Unjipo.
>v

-these are the

<

to <v v

on
tv

or OVV Uttijkc to OUKX ev OVV

'

owe?

/MVCtV

'
(V

18,
and

*'

./.

?
its

tl irpoiri'jKli iTtfXf Tti'os (ii't,

rovro, says l'roc. 174-176,

tv

iiA

6]0<;
ivos'

'

...

OVM

tv TO
tv,

!6**

T/ys

.-

Civv<lt<>v ... ijV

Tt -/.

avoooi tin
St

OUR

/itvov.

St

Although

PI.

has treated of motion with

sees clearly

sufficient care for his purpose,

it seems very unlikely that he ; would have made no alius, to the more elaborate classification which Arist. gives e.g. Phys. in.

two great divisions

/,
...

yevos

tv

...

avTijV

tar'T;)v ...

[. . J

??

, " ^?
'

?
ptvg tv
TatVo-

TO

')/
...

tijv

itVcp

7'
.

rri

/
'

had that been known

irrj

to him.

In this the Parm.

agrees with the Theaet.

So

21
is

has rivi
Try.

which

in uncials, if
tl

written closely,
...ivbs

very like
etc.

Introd. lxxxi.

The concep.
it

of the V

is

here

much more

abstract than

was above.

Refs.
eiy

and position, are now pointless the 'one' has been driven from the physical sphere and is now a pure logical entity.
to physical conditions, such as size

arg.

be due to the Greek idiom alluded to

tTtpav i
is is

The

args.

used

will

apply

if

we regard

their terms

cussing
says
'

' , ' ' . .. , ,

tKttvov
tl

,,
est.

t%ti

...

... <>-

t\ti

tv

iv

tv tiStt,

' '
may
this

etc.

How

far

in dis-

138 C?

Our idiom

as terms merely, or the

positive content.
'

one as a thing having no

is

the one

larger than

the other,' but the

This part of the argument

the
four

classic

idiom

tTtpov trtpov

alteram

extreme of dialectic subtlety' saysGrote.

parts of the

Of the

altero

majus

And

this is the truer statement,

argument

Proc.,vi. 172, points out that

he

a clearer perception of which

may have

fixed the

'

116
idiom.

PARMENIDES.
When we compare
if

one with another the

283 d)

act places the former in a position of otherness to

the latter, even

the result be that the two are

between, and even that hardly meets the case.

is

;
of
ei oe

PI. has to put

He

pronounced

similar.

We may

use a physical
fair,

illus-

tration which,

though not quite

may

help to

?
that

right if
is

he means that the sole

tivos,

magnetized in the same way place them together and polarization occurs, when each becomes 'other than the other,' while yet the same as the other.' t has which Stallb. and Heind. defend. The former says 'Nimirum quod unum est, hoc, ob id ipsum quod est unum, ab altero differre nequit. Quocirca post deinde rursus infertur quo magis urgeatur notio diversitatis quae in Unum
explain the idea.
similar pith balls are
:

Two

but wrong if he thinks anything can be inserted between the terms not

,
ei

when saying Can he be thinking

and

'

...

.
'

being one': after

. ? ?
antith. to
vi.

'by the fact of

underst.

We

have seen that Proc,

177, speaks of

'one' as not 'other' in two ways.

that here

He
it

holds, 179,

we have
ei

infinitum cadere negatur.'

'

The
est

latter

translates

Neque enim

quod unum
est,'
'

convenit diversum convenit quod ab

h.
1.

ab aliquo

esse,

sed huic

soli id

altero diversum

adding quippe

unum

per se sine ulla alia qualitate intelligendum,' and

giving a very acute reason for the
illud post
ita interpretetur
:

'
illud

.,
evi

Otherness,'

,'

. . .

si

deleas vereor ne quis haec falso

ab aliquo
nihil."

esse,
is,

neque enim uni convenit diversum sed tantum diversum aliud autem
title

is

'' ' , ' , ,

the proof that
evi

,
'

,
is

not

itself

...

'
ei

evi

$.

etc.

He has said that only the

That

the one has no

to

be 'other than

other can be other than anything; he has next shown

that the

something,' but only to be 'other'

and nothing

more.
likely
;

But the context renders such an error unand would not the Gk. have been
to bring out the

no way other; he now infers that thus it cannot be other than anything, this comes, says Proc, more closely home to
one
in

mean-

the one than even the last arg.

Proc, 177, points out that this third arg. takes more discussion than the first two as being
ing?

.
is

, , , , ? .
...

Of ()

and

erepov

not 'other than' anything

^? .
erepov

'

(
:

Ivos)
...

says that here (1) the one

. .
Proc,
'

VI.

182-186,

is

proved not to be 'the

'

he says

(2)

Thus

far the

one

(179)
erepov
erepov.

same would need which becomes to be the same as the many becomes so by becoming many, not by becoming one; so that 'same' and

same

'

to

be

'

one and
'

to

be

rigidly convertible, but that

TepoTTjTos.

yap

'

which phrase may perhaps support

72, 159, says
ei

'

one are not

'

rigidly convertible

(PI.)

Dam.,

ovtos*

'

erepov, erepov

Ivos

,
etc.,
<s.

We may
'erepov.

cp. Theaet.

158

separate arguments in his text, but Proc. rightly adds

that

.
it

, ^? ,
'
...

(2)

ev,

...

PI.

may give the purport of these

Assuming that PL has proved same on the ground
further

</

With such cases of

7,

one not to be convertible with

that, if
it

n we must guard, as Arist. says, Categ.

against giving
is

6b 35

given

?,

otherwise than

but not (Polit.

and say

he does

briefly.

were, then

Proc asks what right he has to go

'

The addition

is justi-

'

NO J
iic
ii

tin
.t

two

ii.

nugg<

.in

alternative whi< h
...

viyviutvov tnpov

/
<
.

onvertible

but

Pro
>>"<

roth<

is
is
.1

int<

rpo
'"i 7

in
I I

populoi

' c

ol

In

h di

roAAuv
prloritj

lil

hold,
l"

and

tl"

one, ,

In

.i.hl

.,

b]

waj

o(

marking the

and

pui

i\

Id
ii.
.

itself) ai
ii"t,

to ipeak, oi the

one
itrai

here viewed,
.,'.!
\
,

uld

then, have put his <

li

to the

In

fourth, u
n<

whu
I

On
the
latt

tin.

ot:,

mind

')
|

OVA 8v

..,>-,

'
ui

(
|(OV

)'

xal
)
'/',

hand
...
. . .

epl
tin

avTO

T"

}</'

>.'>"'

not to

form
."

to Ian
fuerit
:

.
it

ir/miTiyy'

TWV

tr/90f

Tt

TO!

.
oi

how
one
in

ire

mutt,

deinde
t.ni
ii.u

6*
k

yl

ynrw,
t'

pro ytvipmvuv

un
irrol
.1

possible, conceive of the

our pretenl
rAiftfovt
>'/

upon
'

tin

distinc between m< re

argument
[we can saysomethiri
t'i
|

..

or

u
when
llciml.
it

ms
pa
is

(oorift)
>

and

pi< tor,

for

6J

he also
<

says <

bi

>/

<

>

*.(
tavrg
t>>

iXXofa],

(present),
thing,

io

into somen*

ith

anj
>r<

up

.mi.

/)

TTfn>

;.
its

<rvvtt(r<f>tpu
tul

our
ferable to

so Wi

OK
.is

think ol the

following hierarchy of existences, each step down-

improvement before rdVvyc.

,
tv

in that very pi

adds that
while a 8io

&**
Proc,

wmiil

wards

(,
:

it

bringing in
avrijs

wo own

trr.it

the

first

lowest,

upwards)

why say

roSg

roAAoii

special characteristic

~>

answers by saying that we don't here deal with a

existing
t'i

rb tv
I

\ ,.-.
.

rb

roCs
V-i'X')

''
"yiVeffis

,,

^ (
rou for

an owTibiScs

)
,,

( rb tv
,,

ovcriav

6(

,,

,,

'

'

or

* , ,
i'A'mv
'

.uld
vi.

be

instead ot irov,

-finyp'tirii-,

but With

and

that
6e

lie probably gets

in
...

this

artly

from

tie-

language
,,

,,

)
oovpavas.

'
140
b.

all 111

Heind.

smaller change would do,

) tTpOV

,,

From
'eWepov.

the dats. govd. by ravrdv

we supply

gens, for

In this difficult section PI. does convince us that

same and one are not

VcioWv

''
as

by popular usage say 'what becomes the same as anything becomes one with it' but not 'becomes

The statement
...

is

a condensation of the one

b.

rigidly convertible, that owe

with which the arg. began 139

ev yiyverai.

We may

' are an enlargement of

tire ehe,

above.

might have had

anyhow
what
is

etc.

and also ovSevl for Because to be affected

'

.We
;

me* \ and
.the

that being realized,

itself,

when we say one

ev
is

same

we add a

fresh quality to one.

etrrai

of

el

ev

So
as
'

is

in the

same way
'

is

resemblance,'

'

because
'

similarly affected in

any way

is is

like

or as

Jowett translates
affections.'

Because likeness

sameness of
this asserdiffer-

popular language says that a thing

itself.

the
'

same
is
'

Plato exposes his arg. to needless danits

But Proc.
if

truly holds that

is

'

same

ger by resting
tion.

further progress

upon

''
and
call

that our duty here

to think of

one as

The

reasoning used about 'same and

:

we

can, as an entity rigidly unmodified

If

by extraneous comparisons.

we

do, then

when

we

it

seem

we have caused
ev ov
ev
last.

innocent as
it

the act

may

to be no longer iv

eir

-.

Proc. accounted for

would amply cover 'like and unlike' but he seems to wish each step to lean, as far as may be, on its predecessor. If we are to define likeness this def. will do very well. Arist., Met. iv. 9, 10 1 e~uvAeyeTui -ij re a 15-19, says
ent'

the order of the args. by their relative difficulty, the

hardest coming

But there seems

to

be another
b,

reason at work.

The second

contention, above

'
TrXeiu)

Tre

(5

eTepa,

iv

evC>e\eTai

xAcmi e\ov

118
ouoiov

He
'

says briefly,

&

. ($ ,,
id. 15,

102 1 a 10-12,

yap $>

1054

t>

5-1

1,

he speaks of things as
rj

tSos

...

tv

seems

to

mean appearance.

We must note through-

,
like

. ,
In

PARMENIDES.

ask whether the measure

weight,
ois
...

IX. 3

which

where

out the adherence to the perfect tense

the
thus
is like.

never

$ and
...

/ ,
ing e.g.
adj.
(ofs)
:

commensurable, or has a common Met. 1. 2, 983 a 15, we begin, he

...

,
It

is

of length, capacity, or
it

those with which

unit.

yap

and end by reversing our wonder.

etc.

thing has been so affected,

sentence the

-' ,

'
Cp.
says,
will

is

Arist.

by wonder-

foil,

In the previous

belonged to the
is

Cp.

which occurs, with our

etc.

here they are separate, referring to the things

with which the one

'the t'other' and the Scottish 'the t'aeane and the

t'ither.'

'jungas hunc in

modum
ivos.'

adjs. qualify

ye
Stallb.,

()
who
cites for abs. of ov

incommens., while the

might have read

165 D,

and
etc.

66
ev
ev.

Mo

, 7#
iri'irovOc

=
is

.
'

.
'

He

assumes, as dealing

now

with equality, that a stan-

dard
ev

is

chosen in each case which

measure the

objs. the
objs.

same number of times; but

this

balance of

the main point of Demons. 1. and is stated pp. 139 d, 140 a compared with 137 c' Grote.

ev
is

not

. or one must be either it cannot be at once * But the objection lies

to

.
r

little

Jowett.

One

-'
moods

The
ev

Strict
is

have not a
size.

common measure

as these
one
'

will vary in

broken,

This

absolute

That which measures the

given number of times will in the cases of larger

things be smaller, in the contrary case be larger,

is

etc.

...

than that which measures those things an equal

ov

number of times.
throughout.
less'

We may

note the use of

ambiguous: 'non videtur' Ast, 'clearly

if

not

'still

tempted to relapse and hold that the

Lov
Lois
...

.
in the

and that
that regarding
'

'

_
L

depends on

be one, as we are striving to regard

be
indeed

ev

is

,
tv:
this

. and
:

This

argt.

that,

it

must

admiss. that
whole,

same and different,' while the orig. the one had no parts would cover the

770, and
The

ev

not

'
:

if

part; the rest the consequent,

would look
dats. are luckily

4...4
suited to both adjs.

' .,.
is

the conditional

one
it

for the repet. of

or for e.g.
'

0'

well

()
is

reads

we

lapse

and mingle

speak of eTepov
physical

features

inequality

they come

what Proc. said (above) about

defin. (also

above)

Categ.

6,

6 a 26,

is still

used

, ?. , , : ' .
here.

We

time; not as 139 E. 21 are not far past the argt.

139 with
C,

does not seem

throughout,

()

so.'

true

the hiatus clear in both Mss.

...
'

and already and even

...

quoniam ita ei accedat aliud quiddam, videlicet mensurae ratio, quum tamen ipsa (unitas) ab omni ratione libera sit atque
immunis,' Stallb.

With likeness and unlikeness recur; and with equality and

to the front.

We may
and
ev.

recall

Arist.'s

He

says,

when not used

of
units,

,
(-

'
?)

strictly

so

it

,'
tis

Proc. says here

,
,

', (vi.

210-12),

ev

PL regards

all

as estimated

by

and does not here

?,

lltt

!'
i'l.is
,1

,.\

"..

>

...

iavrov utrpov/itvoVf

<
/< //.,

\
..
<

/'<

^.
. akfi
I

Here two
'.a*

rp*

,
1

/) /'\
. .

<-.

II

~/
/i')

>/

<iy
1}

above,
n,...
(

vrith

wb'u U

is

part ol

the pred

t\\

UtpOi OVH loTtV, 'in

rOll

Mii iiriAi's

Mil
,!is

-'', IM,
iii'n
."

Willi yiyi
)

Miinl.ii
(

./.UI.^MM'

],

N. M.

Kal vwt.

...v

l>

April

(I'.iMH.

del

"J

Weini

irda tins ai

ftipot

'
Hut
krov

'" r!

row

nuyrui'

,';
;

,"/"

iron

,^,

>

to the idiom,

whu
S u,

ot

<

un

above,

"
tvolvea

//
1

/ / rpov,
fvoTi/roi

'.
&
So

....
ravTof

and

wlni h

"

element
,

w&v

uirpov rtaat

Athingbecomi not than It is. Hut Wt

o(
II

tunc

than

itself

'0I..1I1I,
<
i

fpOVlMI 0V

(<
t

think
itvai
:

ol tin- ..

'

in

the instant ol
d,

, retained as intelligible.
:

its

age (on the analogy of 138

ted at the

irherc

it

ii

ar

:;i\i's
is

"iror

ry m'ru

which

(if

read

;is

moment
that

oi

pfvHrg
it

fitom

one thing into

rded
itsdf.

?,;>)

preferable

And

the reading
firov

firov

avry
r<>

another):

at

instant

may

' .,
in. iv

perhaps be an erroi from

tum y/>.
|v

(U'uroi-

<(7', (7</

.
'/

. '
etC,

iv above

becoming both older and younger than

/uXXti etc
'

<iV/>

tMiii. Sell.
VI.
:

Rh.
s.i\s

it

it

is

to

have anything than wh

is

\<, />)
rn

^,

5tA

&

it

grows

older.'

Not only

this

lause curtailed
;

Ml!
ora

by the want of a proper object to e\eiv

(,
.

His

first

statement was
it

()

odd in the use of the pres. indie, This td would be natural if the clause stood tbnp << but
with

but he followed

by

{)

The

as Stallb. says,
full

the passage in

is.

i4i

? ' , , , ] ' .,. . , . . , ' . ,

is

' (or
;

>
151
226)
:

depends on

might run
ctvai

2)

one expects

clear

as below.

<r Sojcci

notionem
immediately.

\;

Perhaps

it is

as in 141

Stallb. cps.

-end.

...

ctvai,

! ,.
(
Stallb.
If

yti'i/Ttraior 0V0V

and admissible, although

.
;

but

it

1^

has

'preniit

And

so
is

we

see

'

nom.

tautol.

short for e.g.

ai'r

belongs to

/.

etc

It is

not clear

if

or only to

-.

Proc. however

below,

needing also
(vi.

and so the word rar&uas in c.

:

rightly says that likeness in time

is

as

much

to

be

After pointing out

235) that

PI. lays

down

here

weighed as equality
/nai

(vi.

Proc. urges that this affects

as their

which

Trout

must 'become' is so, and if

(mortal)

image becomes

etc.

If this

The

<Sv

does not include

then

'

are not to be affected by

<

tti3s

...

Proc,

after saying that

has no

equality or inequality in time

may

still

these of a non-temporal kind, adds

'

] ]
op'

(vi.

22S)

?
oiSl

?
in''
.

--

what

have

unless the
is

latter

does

not

itself

partake of becoming, but

its
t,

of the same-

nature as
:

model.
has
:

so

$1

the two words, however written,

(such

as

time)

might easily be interchanged,

.
;

on

. ^* '
tv

Fischer and Heind. cite Moeris Atticista

'.

adds

'scilicet

apud nullum veterem scriptorem

Phileb. 3 et 4 est

cum Platonique aequalem.

etrj

might be dropped.

At Theaet. 209A he quotes Thomas Magister

Atti-

Fischer

discredit the authenticity of the

, ' .
120
the others.

PARMENIDES.

,
to

instantaneous transition to ten years, which makes

its still-at-that-instant-subsisting-age-of-nine

These statements might appear

Parm.
;

younger
This
has no

but prob-

than
is

its

at-that-instant-emerging-age-of-ten.
;

ably the case in Theaet. was better

known than
foil.

just

what has been urged above

...

but

it

Besides ours, Ast gives the

necessary connection with circular motion.

:

latter

Theaet. 209 a, d, e, 210 a; Phileb. 12 E, 14 A (the passages referred to by F.); Rep. ix. 587 e: a list which sets aside any argt. as to authenticity. The

For

this

abbreviated

express.

Heind. quotes
kv

parallels,

word does not seem AVould any

to occur in Arist,

who

uses

5
'

and Rep. vn. 519

...

Aristotelian, familiar with the

to ?

Quae

in

tempore sunt atque hoc

'

,
in
:

Gorg. 475

oi
a.

, Laws x. 899 What does

refer

tali partici-

word, go back, even

of Plato, to this rare word,

habitually used
is

when writing when

in imitation
is

likewise

pant,' Ficinus: 'quaecunque in tempore sint hujusWas in der Zeit besteht que partem habeant,' Ast
:

not likely to
veioTtpov

&

by Plato ? If not, then the Parm. have been written by a later imitator.

und deren
are in time

theilhaftig

ist,'

Miiller

'

things which

and partake of
der Zeit
this is

time,' Jowett.

These

The

adv.

is

important.

He

has

agree more or less in referring

directly.

to

been narrowing the question to the very instant of the change. But to such an argt. we may apply the lang. of Arist, Poet. 7, 1450 b 39, when
discussing a brief plot

mind the reasoning of Zeno upon space?

says, VI. 231,

out (233) that

ation in time,

case the object sharing in time would not both older and younger)

,? ? ^
yap

? .
'
6

.
?

'Was
word

Theil hat,' Engelm.

refer the

und an so etwas less definite and may

ist

to the process of

becoming older and

Has

PI. in

younger just described. We might then supply which occurs in the plural just mentally
below.

^,
"

Proc.

But perhaps the former view 'and partakes

'

of such a thing as

we have shown time

to be'

is

the

He

points

more
has

correct, considering

there

are

two views of

particip-

oiSe fipa... xp<5vj:

ets

(in

which

"PXV S KaL
[>";

?]

, , ? ,(
,
ovtos,
is

become

, -?
,
'

?,

much

to say, e.g.

(which

PI.

meant

explicit.

of the year brings

, ) . ,
,)
the

tvepyovv

yap tyyiov

This

is

ingenious

but had

it

he surely would have been more

, ^ ,.
on
here refers
6
to,

, , ,

. ? , ,
yap

? . ", 7 ,
...

On

what follows. this Proc, vi. 215 seqq.,

,
...

Besides,

when life is advancing, do we grow younger as the end round our birthday ? Does the

to raise the question

Proc. goes on to urge that whatever becomes ten years old becomes older

explanation explain?

than
-

itself

as

nine-years-old

yiyverai

by

follow him, both because PI. says nothing about

, ?. ?
6

, .
'
this

ovre

,
goes
PI.

He
that

what manner of time

and decides apparently

,
it

is

But into

we cannot

NOT!
tunc win.

m
1

dOM
the one
on<
1.'.
l

IMM
,

, l

,, >'

"

<

"

nr >" M
.it

"''
lie
it.

[,

1,.

ttftei

tin,

by lw luding

in

in

sun

knOW, Mid
dc(
l.ii..

I.e. .in..

in

llir

in.'.uilim.

I..

it,

but he

>'"'
lir
.1

t.>

line 00
,

.>mi.

<

1,

with

.,,|.!

tic

..-.

PrO<

'

Is

'>!:

Foj

tin-

I'""
t'.\

>;.

,'',/(.

/io

.
.

f|

Mll.t
''
.

Ktti

''

'./.

V'A

/
,

ro wap6>

.">

Un

.iiViiir

ir.

V " ''' (. Hut we

"

/'"

'"'

'

'.

tlOt

foi

but

j.j \)
j

h
71

IS

doul
ropii
I
"/

that this

severance from time speedily costi

..

thi

one

..s

ae

.. >,

existent

[e further points out

that
1

thii

r. it

Aoir.u
. . ,

nay, so to speak, be 'in nun yet not ol it, may exist contemporaneously with time yet Dot be tem
poral
i'i.u
|

T'.l

\/.:

'-

y.i

/(7
njt
|<<..,, .,
.

ro

ifi

<>

\i

.,
Turri.rri
tl

an) more than ri

tCTTlK,

'
To

..

WIOI 0T<

((,/(7('

'.
\i

?
'.;
<

is

not the

same

as r4

(1
t

./.

"

;(
'/

7.

^ evTWf WHf
roc
I

./>./.

ro/ltl

/nil, OlOTI ToTTOC UITUV

ravrcAwt dvx

Ti]V

Viv

'.<'

|(

rOVTOV
'-'....-

rpi

row \/>oioc.

rws

fiv
<;>

TOW

/";
/)

I'r.uViri /o/Tt < \/>

,
"Ck
r
.1' t

.>
ui
t

, .'.
... ...-,

throughout as

ol

<'

&
,
tins

<
).
>

<<'

''\""'. not oi
is

though

constituted on the
\-

same analogy, or rather

gested by

\
<'

wpb% .
is

which conc-s l.-twcen.

I

.>/<.

...

KOIVWVMV; <-

) "/>

'

Kili/.rti,
y.\/j

OTOOtt' /ui'm

,
:

oi'tcis"

0V0
>

OHM*,

.
un
OlT|J
1?

\/>

t<
/t>/
t

wotnmif
atwvof

Any

tiKOfil, TOCToi' oi'

further discussion of these problems

may be deferred.
ovtws
To
C,
...

but

TTf/n

/ ''

...

aipci

So

Ht,

and
48

there are several instances

c,

of the phrase.

'.

'
It

need be said only because tpci was an early reading, and seems to be transl. by Ficinus non sane, ut
'

'
text,

Crit.

Phlleb. 35 D,

BtxfrQV

or-

'. Rep. . 604 ? see also 607

,
it

excuse for changing

.
un. 37 D, tlicm

This

probably

Kul

ouueocpuv

' 3

XpOVOV

OVN

into
orros,

hrivoa Ktnjrov

nva

Unxmv tManot and SO

like

to/ K'npwi

One would

an

7/)^'\vith
This
use of yeyoi.

etc.

ratio dictat.'

Cp. Phaedr. 274 will be seen that a reader of

% (Arethas
vi.

goes on to
T(i>s

7
. . .

?)

struck

with the

?
VI.

' , , . ' 7) .
etc.

>

'
...

makes a note of
Cp. Rep.

in the marg.

TOtWV

. '
>)\'

-ytyorti' into

'

fvcyovci

and

t'ycyocfi.

This would furnish

499

C-D,

C(

yeyovev

' ^ , ;
''

and remove the double But the text is certain, and Proc. comment upon it -tj/i' Sc t\a
past tenses
:

& .
ct

'

'
?

/
OAut

yiyvcTo

ytr>/o-Tai

, ,
,
'
PI.

617

where

aSav

'

7
Q

{<.

,
,
Proc,
VI.
:

',

242, cites Rep.

''
7

and says ~

ei's

'
'

, .
...

yeyovc,

Of the second yeyovfi- he

[]
07/,
non

yiyveTai,

But

in the case of

has only two subdivisions

and

inter yevi

/)

, ]
yeyoi-e.

.-

yeyov-t

t^.

says

yeyovo,

\
ycv -^- .
intersit

Srri,

et ycv//#i/xrTai

quid

video.

Vere, opinor, Schleierm. correxit ycyc-

122
m'ja

-, quod
it

in

textum recepissem,

si

aliud

in

promptu
it

esset formae hujus

Proc. views

regarding

form

, ^ 'yap

as giving the continuance of a process

-^
is

as parallel with

.
Ttjv
'

exemplum.' Heind.

and

? / ,
PARMEN1DES.
usquam

It
(vi.

,
it

...

etc.

etc.

seems clear that

250) regards
Si

this argt. is

&

He

adds

,
;

meant
ate
it
'
:

to banish the

one from existence,

to annihil-

but Proc.
'

as raising the
6

('
ytvta
but that the

one

.
used

above

existence,

.
is

This must apply here

apay].
kv
'kv

in

not always strictly so

;

appears from Theaet. 158 D,

...
opuiTai

But perhaps the form

confined to the mid., as in 190

^
the case, renders yevifaiTai
sein

((.
forms

e,

tis

in

Stallb.,

overlooking what Proc. says and the demands of

es

wird im

Werden

,,
'

and

'

es wird werden.'

He

cites

cases of

verbs

possessing both

Crito 54 a etc.)

which (Gorg. 509 D, the shorter form is used, and that

in

such

? ) , , , . ? ? ? /? , ' ? , ' ,
kv

'

eiVai, ...

>

kv

...

the Rep.

is

VI.

509

as

distinct from that of ours,

is

,
'
'

. ^
6

...

The passage

the spirit of which

is

totally

where the assumption

(we must assume)

in

the sense of continuance.

to time in

adds

But there
those
merely.

is

no importance attaching
:

instances

they

are

cases

of

statement

(leXXovros

So

2it,

and the sense

is

clear.

/^ ?
Still

Heind. says with reason 'Articulum

male

intrusit librarius.

respondebit praegresso

subsequenti
ovv
'

<

...

Stallb. agrees, but

. ren-

ante

' ,
that the

one has been

ovv

logically abolished.

.
,'

Tyv

'
text
is

yap

'

Proc.
...

'

...

(But the
being
argt.
:

''
that
is

yeyovoVos et
1.

in the

seems quite a case of

apart from time has any

.
figure
!

Thucyd.

123,

Nothing
the one

...

adds

ratio

G. Hermanni ad

Eurip. Iphig. Taur.

ut

corrigentis

solum

referatur.'

,
'

apart from time, therefore the

first

nisi forte praestat

one has not any being = Ferio of the

1234,

ad

and meaning both quite clear, 'denn dann ware es doch seiend und des Seins theilhaftig,' Engelm. Heind. would prefer
...

.'

The

text

...
quidquam
aliquod
take

'But are there any forms

:

yap
needless.

,
'

of being other than these?' Jowett

essentia aliter

'Num

potest

?,
Engelm.
It

neat

but

quam secundum
Fie:
in

istorum
clearly

participare?'

and others
PI.

such cases

Our idiom is the indef. art. in and so wenn man einem solchen
darf,'

'* j

of the phases of time just noted.

;

This

Schlusse vertrauen

would agree
tl

seems the natural sense

as

which case

imagines

with our ideas to explain the usage thus,

here no existence save one in time, and time such

reference to a time other than

entire series of aspects in

we know

it.

Proc. has

no

basis for his repeated

probably used

. ?, ?
the
:

The demonstr.

being personified

as one of the company as referring to the

Yet he regards
249

be more
*..
exist

in place.

which the one has been

etc.),
-l

thus far considered (vi.

could

otherwise

is

would

literally

but what does not

there be to this non-existent thing

.
laying
.1

12.1

anything
Simplify
1
1

either
n
*

'fot

It'

'o(
rii..\,
<

It'?
f.y

We
n
'

night

'the
h. in

mm
.1

bi

Ml many
snd

is

to

spproaca
to
it

im

/' OITOI
iil'n'
.1/

.b
I

distant c

in d

], ^
.'I'
,

IM
.

'

form,

and
(iii

thai tins tails in rith the

il

du turn
is

So

ib

l8 S

.! rov avupwwov """ ins no m have do wotirrn 'neque ab aliquo ex iii quae sum

.\..

\
,

m
>
,

.1.

by /

thai
tly
t<

'

the srhok

nut

Pstm many II
oi
1

Wli.it

linlj .h!

oui
l>

<

'-nv in<

cm<

tmili
lenti

should

seem
the
it

reached
'

gradually
far as

bj

cumulative evidence. understand

demonstration,
oi
/

<ii

tur,' Kit .,

win must
ol
'

t.iki tin-

words

thus,

.nV.,

bearing

<
>

this

leli-contradictorj

(subject
.mill. itiv

sent.)

-tT'ii

hi'tmi":

and
eive

appears

rtductio n<i tilnurdum

[owett,

noi does anything thai

Hut Engelm. 'noch one': and Miiller and Ait (wird) etwai von dem Seienden an ihm irahrgenom

Now lfttifa. Ututm V.v or '////; ,t///.7/ is not Multn designates the A vrh mini ilr. lie \n Iik h PL Inm H allirmrd and wlm
the

proposition

i.

men

'

clearly aaiuraei

rat to

be passive

and

verj naturally in view of the connection,

st.illl.

without
</u(tt

remark

renders

'nee

quidquara

eorum,
1

die impugned. H tlii^ be srhal in other plao logue Parm. would present hens, as a statement <>i difficulties understood by PLai attM h
t.

ntvtra sun/, in eo percipitur et animadvertitur.

tli.u

ing to Ins
at

own

doctrines etc
USStng

Plat
views

Vol

il

Without

PL's point siinis to be

nothing winch

is

can

present

<lo<

.'

U|ioii

the uvroiv

perceive what
fj

...

is

not
:

we can only repeat that the argt lure says ncjthing Here we have
ravra
a conclusion;

and
(10)

it

is

unsatisfactory.

Proc. (vi. 141) thus traces

ivos
l

back the argt|

/<trt\t/i'
(<))

raftt

upon the question of a 'one' whi< h should be 'super sensible' and jrtKCtva T^sovirat: it simply shows how by pressing the Oneness' of the 'one' we
press
it

, ( />/ // (
aire

tow

Tt

irptvportpov

out of existence.

One might quote many

7,

tuai

aire

TOW

phrases from
avwroTiyTOS

KTOTY/TO S
181

/<>/

^
'
<1 '
('.'

Dam.

5,

/>
or"cis"
...

...

'
yap

/n\ur,

rev

/t'jre
>;

KtvtMTVai

? />/ ~ ( />\
ev

/u/o\'/t(?)>>,

(5)

//3/ ()

( , ,
dtri
(S yu>/

avurov

ojuotov

avouoiov
airu
uij

aoiKxrct,

// hrtpov, (7) ravra Tor , (6) TOVTO

?,

7> 5

'.

...

?/
'

/}

ev

(4)

\,

(3)

(2)

answers

? " ?
25
'

ne aSKS,

irotav

( \]-,
'

WS

? ( .'
/

<></>,

wro^eriv

yap

'
$

, ,
)^9.

/) At

'
and
tv/s"
1

>}

>y

,
, evpev
/>$
7y

;,

.
'"

>

. ' . \' '# -,

like Proc. treats the

. \/ * ( .
vat'
'

(/7 ' ^ ( ' ' ,'

''
?
'

';((>

""*/'"*

, ~
... i

avry
...

<^
...

OUM aVTOS
/s

vofs
fV

, . // '
//
/j

....

25

bis,

43>

2J, 48,

...
'

29,

55 >;

y vtocrr K

Toe

/>/(/,
He

one here as transcendental,

ovv

...

So

t.

which seems essential

51

Cp. Phaedr. 263 Tim.

;

, /'
1

/s

oiVi'a?

'.
yap

He

gives,

then,

two reasons

for the order; that to begin

by

,'
Arist.

Met.

I.

end,

] '
7

like
:

<

etc

We

must suppose something

(Riddells Digest,
64,

etc.

124
'

PARMENIDES.
si

Considerantes

quid forte redeuntibus (Stallb. 'a

nobis
this
aliter
:

we

like their character or

lies

principio

repetentibus')
t

se

videatur.' Fie.

marks

by
si

opp.

...esse

habere

here

in
it

'

Nonrie,

ipsum unum

est,

,.
...

.
if

not?'

The weak
for
for

point

would be met
ovo-Cas

we read
'

confessi sumus, quae circa illud eveniunt, cujusmodi

etc.

In primo supposito

oporteat?'

Fie, which Heind. says would

ref. to

unum
cum

supra ens efferebat et a rerum universitate

;

imply

with a

137

,
c.

press Fie. too closely,

2.

. )
We
'

but that a similar case recurs 163

We

need not

who almost

omits

MulltT,

es liege uns

verstandigen

wenn das Eine

Dasselbe daraus

(. )), ( )
ob
ist

'

Behaupten wir nicht

folgt

;)?'
same
'

This

(
(ev
ei

vollstandig daruber uns zu

. (
etc.,

eximebat Parm.

in

hoc secundo vero unum vult

essentia conjungi.' Thorns.

He

professes to

have just discovered a grave blunder, and to be

astonished at the consequences which flow from
it.

He

said the
it.

one existed
lviii.

and

this time

he won't

was etwa
in

forget

Introd.

Bezug auf
follows.

The Yet had he made it

lv
;

point

is

vital to
evi

what

>
this

he might

is

very

literal,

and gives the

have contended
it

interpretation as (3) Jowett, who is very brief, say that we have to work out all the conse-

as above that
yap av
...

did not
SO
t

make
be

but not

quences that follow, if one exists.' 4. Engelm., Also " Fins, wenn es ist " sagen wir, und mussen
das was dasselbe

seems essential. either (i) ei yap

21
:

The
if it
it,

protasis might

immer

sein

mag, bestimmen.' This makes

'

the object of

one is" and we are bound to follow out the consequences of it whatever they may be.' This yields
excellent sense (though
less)
1

,
si

trifft,

von welcher Art

es

auch
the

or

if it

did not belong to

ev ei
if

)'...
the sentence
17

this is

our hypothesis "

is

normal we see by vPv

:

/
;
this
Tt

or (2) ' yap

were one with the one,

in either

case

mat
c

is

but

it

inserts
esset,

after

N'onne,

rentur rajione ipsius, qualia

oportere inter nos convenire haec?'

partly
'

quod dictum

ei

,]
pro

like

ex abundanti adjectum
gitur etiam

legendum statuit, minime necessarium esse. Ceterum cp. Rep. vn. 527 , fri etc' There is room for still another rendering, which would be brought out by arranging the words thus,
;

ei

, / /
(4). 6.

unum

ring to

treated as need-

referwhere further note the what follows; but that repeats what precedes. ... Fie. 'nonne ita is irregular.

Ast,

dicitur

tanqunm aliud
But

diximus quae consequeea

ipsum unum?'

cumque

essent,
(t

This seems

Stallb.

rearranges,
:

and says

ev

est per attractionem pro

;
Ex

Etenim

[ev
little
...

below.

) , ]'
would need
;

significet

ipsum

est,

?
aliud
it

or yet again

ev

as

we have

That

is all

but as primitive as

granted by

est.

his vero intelli-

alteram Heindorfii conjecturam, qua

Yet we ask

'. ,
all

?.
17

the ancients,

"

#
1

is

yap
yap
I.

'185 a 3 1.
ev

Ar. Phys.

2,

...

[]

ttotc

by the following paraphrase

,
'

for

,
PI.

In making distinctions we are beginning

(Dam. 32, 62) and we get

calls

and

oiVe

ev ouVe

let

us review our

,. ' .
,

ev

II.

4>
'

process,'

'
'

compound which
ev

66, 144)

We
evos
:

see

67,

hypothesis again in the light of our conclusions

and do we not maintain in it that if the one exists we must perforce agree that the conclusions flowing
from
it

'
comes
is

145) ^ov
(

while next
ev

108, 280)

?.

The
117,

are those which

we have just

stated,

whether

one

not a mere single quality of a thing

"

30)
I. Ill

TO

yi\/>
(

*l

in

A.

lOiOTiyi

/"'

'

:>

||M i|l|ni|

T-

nmru

)m tenl

implies

thm

tl<

preceding one

mi / my

OVTttlf

'.!'.

',.''

RXoy

\
is.,
ii

Thoill
ith

Probably the hanga arose partly through

*;
md
parti)
fi

conj

which
if lenae

8, which he had

coming between
to avoid the colloc
it

*
0
At

and

ov* 0S1
Iv
;

.'...

the wordi

Am and
(

are,

.,/<
.

were, in inverted commas.

.

Eine set'

MUHer.

But the emphatu word

text, naturally interpreted,
it

ifo

...

iirnv

rt, t rif,

One can

be

flAor,

which the
the
-

how
ordei
bfl

nay have dropped out before <>\. The which would beat give a value to each would '.,. ,./ ris
>;

gives.

Jowetl boldly puti

being
01
luu-.t
:

aa

we would
'

wish

it,

'must not
%v
1 1

existence of unity be a

'
.is

>/

";

) .'>iu

..

,&

r*

tins
-'.

WC
..

,.',;/,^
is

/.tr.yti

nut followed by

-d, View Tu /" the words would thru stand

-"-

Ii

Stallb.

suggests.

av

ctij

lofter for

(to/*
>

with

theemphi

Irrat,

also have

]
The
...
:

text should read rtf not

i.e.

6.
<r>//<m'it<r

'ia it
In
.1

iir(U<m
i\ir.

TO

II*

should
the

not imperative first that the thing il [sc(ond) that it our, and rr//<>,

/.,/

Might we not
tiov
ti|>

"one" and "being" become

.

/'</"/

\"> '?

^...
After writing
is

-/
is

parti ol th
ises the

y<

italii

noun, 'or

lo-rv ... Atytnu mu ro

Jvos,

this

part

['

part,'

observe] to he (ailed part of the

tautol.,
(

?y tot
first

ton-,

his

eye
i'r

rest

on the

John on glancing

let

whole?'

and wrote Xcyerai

If

"

wporrp.

p,

Theaet 204
<'/

E, M.'/.<.\
:

tins,

tirn etc.

he corrected the

ravros yc.Aoicct

mistake by inserting points above the words to be

**
*
;
'

-"-</>

ptovMc o\atfnptiv rawn *et oA

ne
illud
in

.Ned

omitted (there are 00 brackets)

lie

must have gone

2nd
Xryrrat.

est,

quod mutandum
is

on at least to tm before noting his error, otherwise

he need have cancelled
only
the

quidem
nisi

6.

. .

sanuin

quis I'latonem

scripsisse conjiciat

.'

Heind.

But the

singular

probably due to the vis inertiae, so to

The Ms. from which he copied could hardly have

speak, of the three immediately preceding cases of

the

same length as ours, for in that case would not be likely to cause confusion. But if we assume what is prima facie probable, that the archetype had two cols., then the words might have stood in some such form as
had
lines of the

same word.

the second ovros

...

dual, while the verb

latter is altered

ci

cotc

cvos ovtos Acycrai

oVtos
eo-Tt

,
oVtos
illi

Bekker reads iv fat [Stallb. winch gives a but sense: then he says, 'otros good om. mei omnes,' and Heind. non sane iv est pars

, , .
It

has a part, whatever more.

The noun
is.

is

not hitherto in the

Ul

so

and

I,

but the

],

or

<JhV

to

fos"

orros
so that
Stallb.

of-ossed
sed ejusdem
etvat

,
'

neque

pars

est,

Xeyerai

tv

oVtos

fos.'

Perhaps the ofTos before

to say tv

a mistake

might easily happen.

'si

rightly
est,

may have been an

It is

early marginal substitute for

renders thus,
et vicissim

ova

- tribuitur nni
'

quatenus

dvai.

.unum
ivbs

quatenus in se suscepit

than

unura.'
to

would be
Fic. est autem idem esunum, eodem existente uno quod suppo...

less diffic. if the following

- U ov
(2)

?,

eios

sentia et

The
or

sense

is

suimus' which'
ov,

differs

from the text

...

(1)

by omitting
omits

erosj

and

by treating

absolute.

The
ofv

and the
above,
oio-a
eft

'

on-os as genitive

Bekk., or
rejects B.'s

is

needed, although

depend upon
'

evls eh)

: ,

so in

'
it;

sententiae Schleierm., Heind., et Bekkeri, qui istud

et

, -- . ,
words were
cfvcu,

more symmetrical elvat ., when

(vis follows.

There

bnt here both Mss. read

apa

6 iv

and Schleierm. would omit

(as

as Stallb.) in each case.

Stallb.

but adds 'nunc suffragan dubito

post uvai et post vos tanquam insiticium

Stallb.

sed ad ipsum illud pertinet

delendum censuerunt.

Nam

quod

Fic. illud inter-

126
pretatione sua omisit, vereor ne id
consilio

PARMENIDES.
non tam
deliberate
(p.

129 b-d) had pronounced to be utterly inadmis-

quam propter inertiam quandam ita ab eo factum sit. Quod autem codices omnes earn vocem
onstanter utroque loco tuentur [they are equally

sible.

[Had he
into

He

desired to see Z. carry the

discussion

that

field.]

The
is

essential

char...

acteristic of the Platonic

PI.

Idea

here denied.

decided

in omitting oVtos], id

mam suadeat
;

prudentiam

et cautionem.

quod sentio legendum est genitivo casu, juod jam in ed. Basil. 2. evulgatum nuper codicum quorundam egregiorum auctoritate confirmatum est.' He interprets perinde ac si scriptum
'

,
et

ejusmodi est ut sum-

here reasons upon two contradictory assump:

Sed dicam

tions

first

that

Unum Ens

is

a total
...

composed of
;

two

parts
is

separately

assignable

next,

that

Unum

not assignable separately from

first,

Ens

Proceeding upon the

to be divisible
:

he declares

Unum Ens

esset

ovtos eZVai

u>s

.'
tv
it

proceeding upon the second, he

declares that this division must be carried on ad

infinitum, because

This seems to mean that the sense

ttvai

is

you can never reach

either the
PI.

OVtos

designed as a reply to
eiVai

and to be Heind.'s remark above.

o'js

etc.,

separate

Ens or

the separate
:

Unum.
is

But

must
in

make
its

his

election

either

he takes the

first,

oVtos

is

intelligible,
:

but

does

which case the

total

not meet Heind.'s objection

for

and

using both dw-oAeor. and tivai with

difT.

chief

in the text

is

the form would have justification

.
is
;

there authority

??
:

two

factors,
;

Unum Ens Unum and Ens,

divisible,

and

can be assigned

The

separately

or he takes the second, in which case

Were both
were both

Unum and Ens cannot be assigned separately ... so that Unum Ens instead of being infinitely divisible,
is

Herm. defends the text Mihi librorum lectio idoneum sensum praebet ex duabus unius-entis partibus neque unum, quia

all

would be

clear.

not divisible at

all.'

Grote, PI.

11.
(I.

Thorns, cps.
81 Mullach)
:

'

pars est
:aret
[ =

[ =

, .
; '

this

passage with the

\>vt\t<;

poem
tuv
(Is
it

of Parm.

yap

which
ov.

i.q. ?

oV],

essendi notione

seems to show that

physical turn
Simpl.,
is

also Grote's view?) a

eivai],

parte sui uno.'

that
'

That is should we not need apa

'

neque ens, quia unum est, the meaning but to reach

tv
'

given to the division of tv and

1.

on

Arist. Phys.

2,

185 b

division of a
that
is

tivai

/xoptoii]

]
And
:i

[ ], )
meaning of
is

tvb$'

why then

the capricious omission?

the natural

.
;

by that of a line and if the division which is meant in our text, then
tv
:

?
it

5, illustrates

the

you cannot take up the

maintain
that

first

half of the line

and
does

\v

tivai

contains the ov of the second.

would be 'does either the one recede from

being a part 'or
part,'

either the

one deprived of being

ov
tvis

which does not balance

On

the whole, unless

some

.
c,

Now

PL's repeated use of the word

;

suggest physical analogies

the relation of the

but his detailed argt. for

to a

which

is

a tvov

serious error lurks in the

show
sion.
'

that

he means a

logical not a physical divi-

text, the

simplest correc. would be to read either

in
t

or
.simpler

both cases

and the former

Perhaps 144
particulis.'

and has
'

in its favour.
is

decide that airo\tiirto-6ov

s

passive ?

adverbial,

ex duabus saltern

is

'One' and 'being' are the two distinguishable

'

moments

of a single complex but indissoluble

conception.
difficulty

Yet

this

does not remove Grote's

argt.

about the second half of PL's

PL

Fie.

seems

to hold that

when he has

established the

>i

Notes

I.

Does

the subj. with

irep
is it

(quaecunque particula
?

occurrit
1

alii
,

. ,
Fie.) or
SC.
'

pred. with
i.e.

p.

143 D 0>

.
1.
is

form part

separateness of being and one in his existent-one

he introduces thereby into the latter a capacity for indefinite sub-div. which was not there before.
Grote seems right
in rejecting the argt. as thus

On

the

elis.

put

tJtov,

1 49 A Bvo

tivat,

Svo

and perhaps the

argt.

which immediately succeeds

quite satisfied,

xpa

cVAeo- etc.

Leichtere Klisionen werden

(143) shows that

PL was not

and

mit der grossten Inkonsequenz bald

l

>ald nicht.
di.Tipov

Meisterhans 54, dv 'This

vorgenommen,
...

sought to secure divisib. otherwise.

concep. tv

But again

23,

granted that tv ov are distinct and essential elements

in the
ov,

exactly what S.

are they co-ordinate as Being

'

"

/.
.mil

Nothing are
PI
o!

in

the

Hegelian
so,

concep.

tin
1

form

in

tl

Becoming?
Mil
li v.

must regurd them

1
1

since ever)

*
.

one
Ml

itill

in 11
1

being as factoi
'/

.
/,

...
.

Km
ul
<>i

l>.im. vi.
s

158
-.

he

Omi
ru

1.

., end.
T11 "'

ri

bin, in

Ri

fi

rem

e i" ellips

<l

Mil

"yn.il,

Mil

Utdfttpoi

run

.,...

!
At
y'/'

a$0ii

the
|o
.

lull

thought
..

bar
./,..

would
11
./

need
ind
rightly

|<

...,
irn
ri|t

.^/-

'
was
v\e

Mil

.
'
;
.

rAi|K tbtrwyt
<yi in

tin

pun

ul

,,

..//.
re. ul.
VI

.,
Stallb.

mii
...

VWIOOWi
<

KCU

nil

.,-. the
'

old

was
t.

'

OV

/<\

'

rA>/pwTa T(tt,
\ct
it

count

VcL)
<

)'"/

';'

/"/';'

To
lie

* without knowing
.1
1

Nome prorm

111(1

<|UI(1

tjui

"

and therefore

it

'

Jowett

Thiiwetna
.1

per se (aero), siquidem ri rV

son

eel

owm,

translators forsake, the sense from

taoquam unum, quod

h.ibet, .'..
partii ipat

mum nbi propriam natm

?
(

Heeling that

should be the convene

not
it

on,

ni'in'nv

/\<

Otn tssump. on the contr.

the
vat altv

o(tm
niiiii.,
..i'.m.i.

Ty

at

t.

fv

.111(1

OvVfa are 10 th*

reached the
tv

lattei
-<

from
<</"i

having assumed

connected bj subtt verb with

former -14s

toTtv

tl

se.

Bwfal
'

8J

/o/

/uri\(i;
in

bit

gives

'

Diximus unimi
Milller,

post

ilia .iiTi

ry

h>

and

iiY'ti,

quod

etsi

statiui

ilil-Ttu'
<

tauien lllud et hie

Ul
;

essentia

participare

quantum est?'
das

sermonts ratio requirebat

quara
h.
1,

Commodius
Heind.
Stallb.

cert
pr(.

Behaupten
because
...

wir

nicht,
ist ?
'

Eine

sei

des

Seins

abesset'

Fot die
ites
~^i>,
~<

theilhaftig, weil es
-

and so Bngelm.

But can

miscuous use
auth
,

oi

'</>' and
47^,

smple
r,
r

lav

'
rovro
;

e.g.

II.

ix.

own
t

war*

The
ttnff

context suggests that

pmi' goes
:

with

vro, not with ry

if

...

'
/>

ITOOOOfMp,

yap iTtpov
tirri'

yet

pen.

'

has scarcely
the sense

left

his

Tfi

would not
yet

suffer

In the argt PI. reverts to the line taken in

^
t<r(ii/

and

Soph.

2.J5

I'hileb. 57

"/'

7(';////
1.

the article were absent.

The

separation of
:

tv

and introduces
mately than
differentiae,

plurality into the

Dem. one more legit

'

from

or here
mirifice,

is

put with emphasis

'

we must
velle

in 142

Stallb.

speaks of the
in

noti"
in

take with us the caution of Stallb.

Fallitur igitur,

quae tamen neque

uno neque

Heind.

existimans, etiam to

hoc jam Parmenidem docere ?v, quatenus absque

essentiae natura continetur, sed accedit extrinsecus.

<

Est enim quasi negans quaedam utriusque

per se intelligatur, multa esse numeroque

Licet enim

infinita.

COpula

:'

Cp. Soph. 257 B-C,

evos natura per se spectetur tarn en

toiKev,
...

ea ab
divulsa,

quod

vel

minime prorsus sejuncta est aut propter sumtionem Y d urn

licuit.'

namely '

...

nullo
cated.
at

modo

poni

The

position

is

compli;

wrrtpov

t>Js

The one has been assumed

as existent

that

exclude the
create another

involved

. , ' / - .
illiu^

ov

Tfpoi

/Z7yi'i-ei

~tf>\

ljut

why
1
,

in
?

ei

?v

and
?

the:

once confers upon it a more definite nature than was the case previously, and the definiteness clings
to
it

^ after

that

Would he
Se

not hav
Prot

got his

even when we consider

definiteness
that

it

apart

from the
it.

or

element of existence which we have added to

And
in

is all

we

require to

work upon
it

order to transform one altogether.

if

Stallb. urges

goes on

that
4

there be any want of clearness

' ;

arises

aptorum vocabulorum penuria which is likely, and makes for the authenticity of the work, 8 Notes 1. 21 ei, and eds. generally
iSoywv.

,
TiJ

-' / , '-, , ?/ /, ... ', ( '? , (,

Te/)oi'

with the original ov as well

Dam.

"

vi.

259 says

<

tl

en

and

'

ei'i

Ty

etc.)

-n)s

TrapturaytTai
...

yiyvovTat.
in

tTtpov

Confus.

may have

arisen from diet.

but

here the dat.

is

used

connec. with the idea of

128

PARMENIDES.

com par.
e.g.
...

material,

Notes . seems to be required

dual.

-'

. .
;

not, as above, to express the instrum. or

tav

etc.

our idiom would choose

rj

so
21

,
,
Arist.

or Dam.,

...

((.
it

he says yrivioiv

patched), and

...-.

We

have

.
.

[;] 260, seems to take the second

PrOC

altern., as

...

He

chooses

now

to speak of

seen (142 e) a similar confus. of dat. sing, and accus.

The

is

often almost indisting. from

For the express, cp. Crat. 392

6
Laws
V.

744 D

'

quoting the Pythagoreans, that

below
constr.

'

.
],
...

. , ,

>

&,
;

two and three as singular and in inverted commas he might almost as well have put

?,

ovtos above

and
;

<

and below. etc. So

21

the T might quite well

like
PI.

[^?]

be misplaced, as we often misplace a word

'both' 'both
as regards time

and
is

space.'

So

De Coelo

might wish to associate

Tpis.
t

he has said above,

cp.

'^
nom.
:

reads

as closely as

the text of

2lt, p. is.

but

21

has

Tpis very small

and neat

in marg.

The

correc.

may have been

Ms.
is

very old without being

seen, as the

both stained and creased there.

;

Schleierm. anticipated the change

necessity.
Stallb. says
'

and

all

admit

its

, and
Prot. 317 C etc.

again

the

veram lectionem habuisse

seems

free

and

capricious, e.g. Theaet. 147 A,

videtur Dam., aut quisquis Procli

commentarium
tois

resumes the

D
ut

.
ad Remp.

,
first.

the second

Stallb.

et

?/ , '
('likewise')
p.

inde ab secundae sumtionis exploratione continuavit,

T.

VI.

260,

quotes

De Corona

317,

Tpis tois

.'

=
tfvai
;

The words
Tpis.

are merely for

symmetry, as

SIC

centenis locis.

est

'quodcunque simul commemoratur,'

( ),
6

tc

...

non opus

desiderabat Heind.
V.

&

.
;

sit

numero

duali

quern
tivos
v.
1

Proc-Dam. goes
[sc.

De

formula
...

<!

475

,
:

Stallb.

seems necess.
so 2, but

2 ,

.
if is

...

<S;T7yTov
is

ehai

\- or
un likely, out after

as first syll. This would , t perhaps be one of the cases relied on by Kroschel
21

<8

.
t

-, ,
it

can hold only

the constr.

which from the position

very

and

may

easily

have

fallen

.
is

, ,? *, ,
9
Tpis),

After noting that

and

on, VI. 260,

?]

.
6

(^? =

we have
Tpis),

,
Tpis

ai5#is

, 6

?
:

Is

not six
etc.

when
Yes

?
141

- ,

a definite,

thinkable, usable

number, or many ones,

(Introd. lxxvii.) as proof that the source of 2i

ill

was

8...
:

written,

as in

might be suggested by the

later Hellenistic use of this

L.

and
'

S.

word separately see = each group, = each facas our selections each prove

tor,

now

in as

much

'

'one'

is

such only as having

for

background.
is

The

subst. verb

important
basis that

throughout

he

.
;

up multitude on the here seems =

sets

a hyperb. for
;

binary, surely of these factors each

tv

must be

one.'

.
...

etc.

subj.
;

'

pred. as 131

c,

= Or

^
...

is

it

not

SO, that

number boundless
ence arises?'

amount and sharing in existThorns, says 'Numerus Platonicis et

in

'

if

to whichever couple

we

Pythagoreis denotabat essentiam,

please be

not the total

added whichever factor we please, does become three?' or alternatively 'do

Stallb. cites Prot.

Damascius
express

.'

inquit

That may be so
tot

(though the language of Dam. does not necessarily

it,

not three arise in all?'

317

but

may merely mean quot numeri

tesentiae), but

PI,

makes
In-

i>

such
oiuii-i

utump
ol
I

'

utiquc

,
.

'

II

mil

pari

thet

be

Mr

is

.it

lini
,

tO piciM

(In

in

In

-.

tint this

men
;
-.11

Ij

cm|
a

with one
(in c w nil
,.,.

(lic-ic.illi

t<

>

"I

ol tin division,

hole
,

numbei
.1

01

many,
-t(
.

<

Sophii

,
"1/

>.i.v

<tf

ii n-|.iov

'quod

si

totui

of.

157

A,
if

mum-ins

eil eetentiae

particepi tinaquaequc etiara

participabit.
1

i/m

particula numeri
.irpt.

essentia

Pic

The
Upt$pO

seems curious,

He began
next
9,

bj establishing tiw

.,

/<

OV* iiTti

eonnec oi &* with fc, of numbei by t, 3, 4, na<i !/>''' numbei as

argues
fore
l'lus

In* built

up the
et<
all.
,

exist* n< e

6, odd, even,
last ol

read

^(111

fu

whole,
tra%
^,
.},

<
it,

now
it.

''
.Ti.rri;/ini.

has ivt therefore

dpttyas has

th
i.is

"

*
/'/"'

hi

.'57
II

( ,

"

,it

TtO

/roiliy

.1

Tifl

ftiptw iMiirTor (j,

,
;

6 etc etc)

etC

/<

Toi

'

pluriinac certe
'

...

assumes

that
it

Fie

is

right

with him.

but

every,
;

we must deal with fractions some support in trputp&rurow,

ln\

'.
in

'

Exscripsit haec
p.

.
is
:

and Jowetl then in ff/nm <V

a view which funis

in mi

tauten pars etc'

deili

pro r
;

Fie

rot

r w i aV rotot

rovro, quia

intetTOg, ierri
v-l

non potent

quanquatn Gtteot etian re iwevro

resinhi h< ui.se.' Herm.
<",

...

(whole
Stalll.

of 14^ iO Stobaeus
'

Eclogg. Phys.

30.'

'

means rwf Av rt ?
/
pis

^
in

.-^
So
VI

He

"l>
.

Siil

legitur ibi owrie tUi^ ovrwv rou ilrou raroti)

-,
;

etc.
it

but

.
with
'

clearly a very old error has to be dealt with.

.
-

RCKCOMartora
i"re,\

k<u /itpurra wavTtvt

a Strange phrase

though

may be compd.

Et

ii7T(\rrnTi)u/

qutdem placet:
vitia.'

such early expressions as everilk or everich, and

caetera sunt manifests librariorum

Fischer.
;

even everichone, as
efterthis, the birdis

Notes
early

i.

The

optat.

necess.

but
If in

Kings Quair, stanza 64, And everichone. Heind. says hu

essentiae, sed illius etiam

non solum ergo universae

singulis partibus
(i.e.

some very
under

--,

copy
two

stood as closely
31,

unum

adest.
ttj

lines above, as in

the mis-

^) -<
integrum
i.e.

Qvtasi legerit rpit

take might be due to misreading.

have come through

Jungattischen

diet.

'
v.

It

might also
=
bei

. '-.
cum

...

neque

satis

hoc
.--- 'in

sporadisch
haufig,

Menandros,
For
the

Svciv

Inschrift des Jnhres

100

sense

Thorns,

Areopagtta dictus,
To

de

l)iv.

.,

.
bus

eivat

=.

ov.

? ', .
fur ot k

mint auch im
auf einer
56-7.

<;)
?

junctum

videtur.'

tot

oilcet

addition to the whole.'

the text

But cannot

Cp. Rep. vn. 514

this

be got from
\oiVj
637 , which
8i

Chr.'
'

Blass, p.

says

Dionysius,
c. 5,

vulgo

yap

'

eib>pev

(
kiy
esse

and Laws

Nom,

To thai
oioV T

oVe

yap arroXeixfu

explained below
Stallb.
'

ov

, ...
I.
;

li

itaque suspicari licet aut

ex

apa

in full

oi'tri'a

etc.- Stallb. cites

', .,
pendent a verbo

. .
See Jelf
d,

Rep.

III.

395

'

Accusative ailtetn

e'n ye

natum nunc unumquodquc

glossemate
corrigi

quae constans prope

structurae est ratio in verbis divisionetn significanti-

',
:

.
L.
e

velut

[l>]

AeyovTes

.'

Heind.

583 48 on
ovv
al

.
Fie,

^
...

oportere

quod vocabulo significanti additum esset; aut -, quo facto haec eodem
ilia

rnodo dicta erunt atque antecedentia

aUl ev ye
uvat.'

This would do
the verb

but the In
'

change cannot be
. . .

at

once accounted
:

for.

is

middle, partem

nullam deserens.' Fie.

<

Transls. divide di/Terently.

and

S. cite

Symp. 191
7ravra\ws

The
'

pith of the question lies in the last

is

cvos

Phps. the best grouping

quomodocunque

ovv ev

eo

two words

5v

but

might be taken with

ISO

PARMENIDES.
'

;
and
sein
( =

Can one be

in

many
?
'

places at the
'

same time
das

{ml rfjs

-Cas

strong,

still

be a whole

Jowett.

Kami nun
ovv
;

contained in

'.
Svtos

when he excluded the Even after that is in

its

') ' ( "., . .

vielerwarts
?
'

befindliche Eine zugleich ein Ganzes

thought removed the influence of

Miiller.

Some

divide thus

ence can revolutionize the nature of the one.

'

1st

. ..
latter

original pres-

'Then not only

is

the

es nun,

indem

es

Eines

ist,
:

an vielen Orten zugleich

Stallb.

unity-of-being many, but absolute unity, divided

existence,
to 143 a,

ganz?' Engelm.
148
D,

cps.

and Soph. 268 A, "Opa ovv ... etc. So

>

must also be many.' Jowett. where after showing that

This refers

ovv

142

above, also Crito 49

25

<*

Phileb.

8(

etc.

Rep.

VII.

8y),
'

and many

Malim

usquam
:

which something has been said above, Fischer says,

'

reperias

. .'

5 23

. ,
[].
in

he proceeds to discuss
This

'.
is
it

,
is,

by

one it is which has now been made an ovtos innumerable multitude, and that too = '?). Thorns, would read as in (
143

others.

,
that

the
he had

Certe alias vix

the language of Proc.-Dam. vi.

Heind.
the construe, on

show

one would expect

etc.,

see c above.

On

aliud est

>/
genere,

,^ .
non
vid.

Nam

'

(.)

'

? ,'
it,

text

is

very well as

and 262, would seem to

'

etc.

Stallb.

would read

aliud

alone, which seems to

hoc quidem

be a missing of the sense,

or
for
is

might have been

:

quum totum

in partes dividi dicitur, verbis

eivai.

divisionem declarantibus additur fere simpliciter,

activis quartus casus,

the adj. in this and the previous case

primus passivis,

ita ut

by

/. .
or
cp.

,
With
to ask

not govd.

after the anals. in b-d.

nominativi

sint,

non animadvertissent grammatici

tiores, tentare

temere ausi sunt.

hujusmodi locos scriptorum veterum

/) (

he quotes Herod,
Cyrop.

)
ad
121,
?

accusativi.

Quod quum
d -

the assertion that

et veteres et recen-

of

Politic.

24 [283

are

where

/3]5 apud Xenoph.

est

' '/, '

Rep.
...
'

alone becomes

524
is

- 5 25 A,
because

where the study

called

one of those which

and we are compelled

5 7 (?

3)> recte legitur in libris editis

'

antiquis

? ? ?,
temere.'

omnibus sed Hutchinsonus edere ausus

terminatum, secundum totum,

finitum
fuerit

,.
est.'

...

unum

He

is

right

about the prep., but surely

the pass, would be

(Heind.)

ratione

?0 ,
erit
'

?7

"
i.e.

Fie, or

not about the nom. case

quatenus totum

PL's statements

here and

being the

act.,

or

above on whole and parts may be cpd. with those of Arist. (1) The most comprehensive def. of a
whole by A.
he says

the sense being

In the examples chiefly cited of the pass, the case

cannot be determined.
...
:

fermo

-.
'

with either voice.

,
is
;

Phys.

III.

, '
6,

207 a

9,

and just below '. With this cp.

It
'

is,

as

it

and

'

counterpoint,'

note against note

et

through the compos.

tantae

?.

PI.

quot

quanta

We may

understand

'., a verb which

elsewhere

seems to use only twice

A,

^
,
not so

were,

'

canto
'

above 137
In
being

C,

^.
, 1274 b
4>

(2)

all

Polit. in.

speaks of a city as

tot et

'
with which cp. our
etc.

with
(3)

Yet again, Poet.

^ at
'

(Rep. vm. 563

act.

never in the

Eds. give

'

Laws

xi.

927 e)
2lt.

and

'
which cp. 14S
>

>

^, & - '
7,

1450 b 26,

with

'
K,i,

131

(4) Qui
1

'

Mcl

i'

11

(>

7,

b JI| J07 b
.11
.'.
,

.
,'i t

.1

di.iu

.1

1I1

.1

iiu

linn
'

<\

iMQnoi 'MO

OI

, '

Moti
from

,,,/.,.^,

,ii,

.1

unit
.1

105
I.

j
I

I'

(e.g. llU'lllbelS

()|

bod)

m
/nuis
if

aVTl)

K1MM1
JTUI'

/"
*

/"in

j/

/m f.il'niii
i

1)

81

/'"/"/>/

...

"i

>>

tiff

I"',

'\..n

ilyllf'/lns
..

MM

)(,
Now

/
! /uovd'&v,
thai

leu and good distini

.ill

,
ia/mi
'
-ly
I

.1

numerii
lip

.il

unit >
-

u lion

ol

If it is

III'

the

mi

lil'

thought
here,
that

in

deal, then
1

he

may

plead,

out whole passage and

before shows

PL

knows
r)

mo smb.

speaking

oi parts

falls their

sum

-.
<^

4v ov row!
But

we

are not

,
tint
lei)

tion.

thi

ondition

baa

gone
lie
yet
is

admitting
parts

oi furth

(.Hid
1

not

the

and ever furth( assumed whole)

1
1

lie

One
this

and so mi
it

<**

TO

to

inter-

divisible
is

must be

U existent
il

.
.

nee,
\< is

in Theaet. 204 a- 205

<^'}

b,

after direetl) raising

equally true
that
it

his

second

<

the question re
1)

>
;

;/)' ravrov
is

hold

is

/*-'/"", lor,
its

il

tin

'
1

be

frtoov iMirt/iDi

(which
hero

marked advance
.wxi.),

an arithmetical unit,
alone, in
parts,

must be
in

1:

upon anything we

find

Introd.
rSAov
in

he

/ie//

declares
:

Soicei

moi

wv

ovoiv ota^cMtv rap re

)}

and

after asking
tv

koJ

\tywi ytyovos
cludes for
tu

noos tTtpov TWV ffavrwv ptptov

(which would correspond to

some
the
TTur

and

/it/"/

J,

-. No
;

no
:

)
rav
distinc.
h.
1.

rev

*
;

no sense units whose sole raison

(3)

one.

As

to his third

he con7T(Utu

doubt he deals with numbers to

he also discusses the
finds
this largely

extent, but

and one

jam
tl

. (
207 a
to
tv,

7<)(
<Siu

we may quote

14), Te'Aciov

"

ovolv

yap

(.)

of

~tirtpavt)ai

between

Parm. 102-4 Mullach,

-^ /' .,
il'etie
is

and by

then,

to be joined

in

COnd.

Arist.

(as

above

i\OV

'9

Uapptviotp UtXiaro
'

6,
6v
...

and

raises A.'s point of divers kinds of

y. 19.

143

>
ilia

&

dimpov

.
'

because he never

,
'

Quum

Parm. however, here speaks of

dialogue he strives as
ignoring
raised by Arist.

?
oV,

This

refers

-(>

<>1<;

/-/

etc

while in the

2v or,

sed ipsum
(i.e.

?v
a,

a Parm.

intelligi

superiora

declarent
'

non dubitavi
of his tv
first
t

143 Heind.

144
is

e), istud

ov expungere

It

true he excludes the oV

in the passages cited, but his

to

having

of

all

emphasized the
tv

- has

/
it

in his

view given does not

to

one here as aVeipov

lang.

,
.
eis

far as

may be

to speak of tu

Without discussing the question whether ofov rt thai artipov evrcAc-

we may note
rrj
init.

that PI. holds the

8iatptcrti,

to

quote A.'s

a new character
forsake
it

to the tv which,
1

even when he

proceeds to dwell on
again.

cp. De

Coelo ad

o-wt\t<s ptv ovv tori

i.e.

to Siaiptrbv
indefinite

Siaiptra.

as admitting of
arrtipov in
this

It still is the tv

of his tv

-,

sub-div.

And
hand

if

it

is

and he reminds us of that in here summing up ov is to be retained therefore. 142 B-145 a. (1) Thus far his first result is that ?v ov is and so he has made it to appear, not unjustly. Yet if he still speaks of it as
:

sense
unit.

cannot, says Arist., be a mere numerical

the other
is,

On

Arist. points out that the

latter unit

like a

moment

of time, aiztipov

the V of which of
it

into

we speak in arithmetic, his many is open to objection on

lxiii.)

division
Arist.'s
'

.
(.

infinitum

wHle
v.

you

can add on successive units ad

this

cannot be said of an
in

here a single antithesis under three forms

V.

ground (Introd.
indivisible

that, in

number,

'

one

is

an

minimum, a

unit of measurement

, ,
For the
rest

It is to

be noted

conclusion that

we have
tv v.

avtipov
laid

to

Phys.

we have no duty

on us

'

1.32

PARMENIDES.
PL's

discuss

doctrine
it

on

the
'

development
two twice
calls
etc.

of

number
Arist.

whether
xn.
units, 6

grows by

and

every combination of even and odd,' or, as in what

(Met.

6,

1080 a 30)
evi

mathem.

number, by
ro iv

?.
ras
is

, $

He

?
'

/
ev,

,
this
is

6
;

wants to develop multitude

special device

he

tries is indifferent to us.

gets the length of thinking

he has multitude already

'
:

as

no question above of

ideal time, there

.
Dam.
number
in

the

1{

he

?- . ? , , ? ' ,
The
ref.

?,
rTi

is

IV.

715

rekevrrfv

The words

as given by

. are
11.

thus seen to be misleading, and

turn to

more

clearly so
line

when we
33
etc.

Orpheus' Mullach
' '

Frag.

tvl

'

that

is,

God

one, that two

says 96, 240,

having their
hand.

upon earth, beginning, middle, and end in his own

accomplishes
all

things

If this

be really old

it

may be

the source of

As
is

there

the phrase in both PI. and Arist.

tow iv
iv (so Sit)
vertit Fie.
:

none

ita scripsi
sit

cum

Schleierm. pro

here of ideal number, or of

with the ideal theory.
...

connection

ne opus

corrigere

quod
sense
as in

" et

si

quid ipsorum ab eo, quod unum,

etc.

This feature of a whole has

It

distat "

'

etc.
e'av

Heind.
ev

already been noted.

(or

involves a

mental picture of one), or ev

^.

being
It

seems

144

is

oVt.

natural to say that a whole has beginning, middle,

neglected above
...

' .
143
b,

Perhaps

this

is

best, the

?,
ev,

Still

we have concords
and

e.g.

and end, yet it is rather pedantic. The sort of whole to which it applies strictly is that to which
Arist. especially applies
it

and
ev.

21
Sit
:

the Mss. reading as turned by

Fie.

quite good, being

eav

(Poetics), viz.
it

an

action.

For
in, which

Cek. represents
.
Put

and
he

To an
sent an

action, occurring as

does

in time, begin-

other Mss. as reading

give

both

ning. and

end are not convertible terms, but repre-

inherent distinction.

other hand, extended in

as

on the space, beginning and end

object,

To an
lies

Heind. cps. 149 begin.

also cps. 148

,
...

so long organic structure out of the question are very much what you please make them.
Such objects would be more simply described as having a or '?, and a yap or Proc.-Dam. VI.

23). upon

Why
(cp.

, , ,
to

adds, 147

. '.
may
For
ev
...

justify either reading.

,.,:
and
77

Stallb.

...

But where more than the

the
given, e.g. below,

verb

is

repeated
ev

we have

...

yap
first

tivos etc.

with the

emphasizes the fact

the special one being

then

is

this

triple distinction

dwelt
think-

that

it

must have some shape,

137 d)?
as

Possibly PI.
in

may be

ing of the

motion, or in process of

growth or change
side

as

138 c-e

in

which case the

first,

which entered another position

or with

gone with either of the other cases of the emph. would have fallen on that particular see 137 E. ev shape cp. 131 A. For the art. here and 145 E, the want of notes Stallb.
indiff.
:

Had

which change began, would be the beginning and

the other side the end.
in

and, contrasting this with to?s

D, says the art.
is

?
and

, ;
...

etc.,

146

and
id,

This idea appears clearly

omitted 'quia non significatur

simpliciter

hibit a

153 b-d. At the same time the Greeks often extendency to dwell upon the number three,

quod omnino ac
while

ab ipso uno discrepat,

significant ea

quae formis

unitatis

and Thorns, may be right in referring here to Oriental and other mystical speculations. He cites
'

Iambi, sect.

.
,
ii.

intelligibilis, h.e. ideis,

is,

plane opposita sunt.'

That
as the

c. 7,

ev

he takes

Sv to represent the unity or unifying

principle involved in the ideas,

many
sense.
is

of sense,

and declares
so

that

in this pas-

Ideo veteribus deus dicebatur

sage means something different from the

It

many
141

ol

apud

Plat. lib. iv.

may be
and

the variation as to the

art.

<ie

Leg. quae autem desumpta sunt ex Urpheo.'

fact,

occurs often

e.g. 138, 140,

"

'
but
("p.
it

. doubtful
tin,
;.
ii ..
li

il

such

.1

dr. iin.

if

mMfll

b)

it

th<

rtibility

1>*-

r.

uilh

sanation
.iii.l

tli.it

lulu
thai

in

'

),
r>

/t,..'i
.i

\.\o

again

between
\\

ri

\..

as usiil

largely
tly

through the
iliiil
iii

",
a,
it is

.mil
01

in both

'

doubtful
be
in
it

it

so dittiin
distinct,

spi "i

i<>

wln< h
|uil

pn

d.

Wh;.

not to

be

<

u|
.

convey bo changi
that

meaning,

with

the

potiible

here mi.
iew
)

The

is

printed
art.

Hut what doee Stallb. gain by hii

No

*l

>u

wckXi and
multiplicity oi

are terms often used o( the

lenae
there
e.g<
in

the

opening

<>t

the

'inneo frequent use c4 the may have misled or his orig. iv e\y Why no art? On could

hereabo

better

ui

dial

but

Soc

wishes to lee thai

diitinc.
w/<

beginning with
.hole'
a

'

whole

'

and
so,

ihowo

to exist within the ideal oil!,

and we

re

he hat already

told that the ideal world could not be known by

bat here he bat need the art torn timet

<

our faculties, so tint

m am

ate our COUTSe hai BOt

the

same
-i

oiinc<

before thus omitting

it.

been

rigidly

consistent

Nor

is

anything

iv

lavrrj

Not within

itselt

as the

<

entr

throughout which should distinguish

V as sense

from r

is

within

the circle, but

only as 'the

rectang

simply bringing our mental faculties to bear upon

the relations of 'one' with

these 'one,' 'many,' and 'others' being

are

exhaust existence between them

,
is

divided from the ideas.

We

are

contained by the wliole and each of the parts

together within the square on the whole
argt.
OVTttft

line.'
it

'many'

or 'others,'
all

would DC more
<y0V OVK
;

just thus tp' soV (sec

<

sucl.

aboi
SUM
I

i<JT<u

and being understood in the same way

II '
it

tO
in

iv Toit

tv

<>

tvaf

PI.

has just

which

A and

not-A do

so.

refers to

some-

urged that
thence inferred that

, and
If*
I

thing different from

must
?v to

refer to another

are iv <;).

? such
character

as Stallb. holds

be

but

in that
its

now

denies the converse.

This would be corre<

case there should be a great gulf fixed between

were the whole something other than the sum of the

parts.
PI.

and

theirs.
is

Where

is

that gulf?
art.

The
would

only difference

the omiss. of the

It

But that distinc, as we have seen on 144 > does not recognise, and here it is expressly exye

seem

that

PL having

( ),
so. in

started with the antithesis V

cluded.

Proc.-Dam.
'

vi.

264,

does not always thrust that

argt.,

distinc.

forward in his

but occasionally forgets

tv

toiovtos

,'

&c

the

art.

without giving up any feature of the anti-

text of this

comment
;

in Stallb.

thesis in

doing

Arist.

Phys.

iv. 3, init.

reckons
in

the various ways

which one thing may be

ev fioei

another

iv

c
as

too? tv "yoii

nothing so clear as this.

.

was

'

tv

?
;

'' tioos

iv tv

riXti

iv

vAy
PI.

the argt. is obscure but we get = must remember that part is also V and 1). says >
:

tv

75
'

is

has

mean
in
is,

as a whole which

'

\
tv,

". Thf seems unsound and

it.

/ (\

a sugg. from

We

and that each tv an

;

Can he

one

" is

not found in

one part,

how can you expect

first

to find

it,

being "one,

We

have seen that the

tv

a nuviber of parts (which are not one)?'

after

That

in the sense of

being endlessly

viewing the several parts of one as

divisible.

The

fact

that all as a

its

parts are rigidly

circumscribed by
idea of
its

its iripas

whole precludes the

being airtipov in the sense of being of

:

unlimited extent

01 yap

art,
.

81 , .
art.

'

del

Arist. Phys. in. 6.

>

The

here with both subj.

Synt., Art. 9)

and pred. indicates (Clyde Greek

mere parts whose sum makes the one or whole, PI. it seems now turns round and regards each part as one,' and therefore more likely to contain a whole which is one than a plurality of them is each was a mere portion of a tv now each is tv. This, while sophistical, would be intelligible. And two lines of argt do seem to be used. A word
1

134

PARMENIDES.
text. so,

on the
doing

If there

were any authority

in 2lt for

eva

that 'the
'

one could almost read with Schleierm. PI. would thus state a general concl. whole is not in the parts either in all or in
to prove the
. . .

some and then proceed

his concl. in
ei

first
:

yap

iv

/^?
;

half of

is is

Such a remark gives a force to and marks his line of argt. If this one but a sample of the entire number, and the whole
...
.
:

,
yap
it,

'.
ev
eivai

Met.

XII. 8,

1083 a

2,

and the

not in

how

second

in

...
for the
text,

yap

But besides
evi

together?

He

be in all the ones seems to be back for the moment

after that will
it

the want of authority, the succeeding words, after

, .

at the old argt

on the

particip. of
It

Has he

make As

ev

... e'v

...

iv

made
more
as in
cl

out his contention?

to the point to
is

would have been

that to speak of
it

to the

he proves

this

by saying
it is

whole not being

'

in all the parts,

in all
it

have urged that a whole when

if it

were

must
it is

reached

new

creature,
is

and

needs be in one,' and leaves us to add the other

limb of the argt, 'but
not in
all.'

all its
...

parts

not in one therefore

it

39,

to disintegrate
: '

and destroy

it.

One can understand how

it

is

not in

would have
Euclid,
e<TTiv,

justified
I.

one, as he next declares that

is

not in some, beless.

e.g.

cause the greater would thus be in the

if

But
is

the only reason for

its
it

not being in one or in some

is

'

etc.

of the parts be that

pressly said not to

bigger, then, as
all

it

ex-

step in the

be bigger than
?

the parts,

why
ev

'

One would almost ' ... argt. Thus ' e'v yap
:

, . [
for

The which is imposs.' The lang. recalls

urov

may
if

]
as
(as

expect another
e'v

it

not be in them
it

Because, according to PL,

in each.
'

etc.
etc.

in all

must also be
'

But
sail

if

that

is

so

the character of the

treating
it

whole

is

quite altered.

After

like the

day and the

131 part

of which rested on each portion of space covered

Thus the ev under conditions of space and 151 e) time, and is not an ev is repeated twice and
followed by

exists shall

we

by them, and the whole upon all the portions collectively, he now implies that it is not extensive but intensive, that the whole has an essence which is
imparted
d
fi Si

...
:

e'v

with no
ev)

(sc.
'

for

but

cave corrigas

,
.
p. 91 c,
eivai
a.

?.
diff.

see

See also 151 A. is preceded and

of meaning.

One would

look

Sic solent Graeci

perfectly to each of

its

portions.

et verba et participia praegresso

proxime nomini
ye

...8.$:
'

This he regards as clear proof

accommodare.
Te

Menon.

of his contention.
est

Si

de

his

omnibus
illud
e'v

'

praecedens

autem haec una pars aliqua ev ad Refertur hoc evi, ad autem sup'

He also cps.
ctc/jov

/.'
.
'

eWi
Heind.
2,

153 a below, which is cited J elf 389, which is said of evos.

:

more pervulgato. Heind. Vulgaplendum est jam Thorns, vidit in tum ev eo mutari evi evi,' Pro autem Heind. restituit Stallb. oportere. while 21 gives evi and t vl 2it both read ev eo The change to evi is a great improvement. With ecrrai see on 131 A etc Here it is poss. regard to that ev may have been confused with the ev above but it is also poss. that this very juxtaposition and the fact that e'v and ev recur, may have put the scribe (either John or a predecessor) on his guard. And

Te

...

ev rep

As
Te

Stallb. says, the order

would

be better
that

ev

But he adds
ut

-,

(
notionem

Te

e'v

e'avry

form a phrase such

unam
and

cites 151 b, e, 155 c,

efficiant

nee

commode

possint divelli,'

and 159
e

It is stationary in the

,
$

sense that ov

this argt. goes)

it

is

quite free, as
(sc.

<

one may even sugg. that the constr.

'the entire

is

?
in

own

lang.
its

138

c.

It

might even be maintained,

iv

view of

number of

ones,' as
:

ev 143 b.

He
etc.

that

'
...

double char, as
ye
alel etvai
;

could hardly say tois

and

146

We
ev

he speaks of
of
eva

ev. Arist.
III.

again has got the length

7,

may be
need

stationary

if aiei

Phys.

7,

207 b

'

. ,

) ,
in

but (so far as

to use his

and
it 46

have admitted that

but in truth

it

eoriv

not.

Admitting that such a thing as motion

exists
in
t.ui,.!,,,

win.

I.

here
ii

.1.

.inn. in spilt-

..I

difl
1

then
but

A< hillei
ill

In

motion wh<
ii

>

nin
ii

1><-

id
4}

below

the while he

"

".

owrJl

thai

: 1

kv

tfj

nil ccrir
\

to m<
f

im

.
cr,
it

in from
.

beii
.'...

1 1

two thing

we

thai d
,

howe\

that

mean
ii

related eith
ii

\.

<.r

which PL must give

ordei to infei ol the
alel
'

in
'

his thai

lecond use

<

in
\

,
.

not
n

not

(not

not
r1

., ),
it,

one

Q
<

....

PI,,

as the

Theaet shows, knoe

ii

what
ord
id

on quod

|-art<
1

111

vel totuin

iims])iaiii

onli<

the Eleatics think, and

foi the
ol

moment
Perm,

in ai

nee mere

omnino irtpov.'
iiis

Stallb.

with them.
\'<>>

Thus
iyr.ir /<<

th(
\..n
.

after saj
I

BO on thus, S^ etC,

'.
lavs

n/.yti.

'
it

.' '
/
1

iv

''
nvtU /, hi
<"\<

etc
>

depends on our adopting i oSrtH >\

further

rba
iav
/*-/

<
,'

<

rtpov,' in a
wiil

very definite sense.

that these might
se<
<

A momei
to
,

Minn-

'

oi'ton

-c

thou jht

show

oik i.-ivaMy

Swooktiv

<
:

grammatically mean that the

he
the
lirst

ond thing stood

. inn.
is

doos not prove this dialectically

in either
it

of the following relations

is

down
tv

as his view.

the
it

<'

bereft of motion,
v

The

neuter

i.rr<

w
Sv

for

^
;

PL seeks to prove that

and he
in

lias

not Aonc

A-

', since

only

A and A

- not-A that

seems, from Veitch,

this dial., in
7r.u',

represent accurately the rases of

and

/*.!,

to be confined to

PL

It

ocean

Theaet.

183

B,

ot

(ores

Xfyowrt
24.) n,

said

of the EUeatics, and Sophist

where llenn.
in

PL having chosen to raise the ques. of |iart v. whole. At the same time what PL means is that anything, whether having the marks of not or
will

reads rd rat* umfitfa.

the sense
first

Note above

further iYui
its

be (Ttpov to

,
;

and

that

it is

only where there

sense

is

would be
question of

but for difference of size that the

.
p.

rb

<v

is

...

tcrrbs

*
it

-;
it

and

enters at

all.

This ap-

If the

one

iv
;

Another sophism. cannot indeed be iv t

iV

pears from the following words.

But how again

does
ov

this

square with his argt 145 D,

iv
if it is
'

but

can be
it is

/,

and
it

7
all

h
tiVai ?

ivi

iv

would be
Tots

the govt, of

* ',
if

always there'
'always
...

as

much

motionless as

'

whole,' regarded

even

in
its

its

extended sense

in itself.'

merely, must be in each of

parts under penalty

ttvai,

The
for
is

dat.

then

need not be under must be

ref.

of not being in

of them taken together,

if

much

more must

this

hold true

the 'whole' be regarded

i.e.

underst. after btpov, but

?
'

rather a dat. of gen.

Stallb. says
aliis ideis

as the 'same' intensively,

part irrespective of area.

in character, as its
it

and

as regards

the others.'

of to?s
diversas

In that view of

size has

here 'non esse ideas ab

nothing to do with the question.

Arist.

Met.

ix.
:

aut

iis
if

contrarias, sed potius res sub sensus subjectas.'

Yet

the argt. hitherto in regard to hepov

and
samedid

does not refer to sens, objects but to the ideal

world, how- do

we

get from

it

any

infer, as to

-( ,.
3,

1054 b 15 (see above) continues as follows

pev ovv T(pov
iv

ness or difference of the one in regard to the sensible

world?

The whole
says,

argt.

moves on
6e -n)v

previously

Met.

Dam.

VI.

the only change being the art 266 " 7 irepov

yap Tin
irpos

'-

just as

it

8i

Proc-

euai

?
quired,

.
.,

5.
.

...

*
.

piv

5
;

.,
t

. ^
!

As regards
has

text

reads

if
;

but

which

is

clearly re-

?)

',

iripoi' erepov.
...

Tcpov
15,

Thorns, well cps. Arist

piv

IX. 3,

1054 b

pas

and the

dictated

?-

might easily have dropped

representing three very similar

vowel sounds.
ovS'&pa
s... pipes 6v
:

This

is

perfectly clear

and

(although Comarius Suggested

iavro

t36

PARMENIDES.
meaning of
its

, which yields a good

it

own

'

since

a semet ipso diversum esse.' Stallb.

Arist.

is

not a part towards itself) the reading

is

not

Soph. Elench.

doubtful.

But the intricacy of the statement may

cause confus., and the constr.

PI.

may be

disputed.
efty,

has

all

words reading as
equal to
is

! ,,
if

he needs when he has reached

they stood

'

the

, , ? ? ' ' ) , $
cite

We may
(

the last three words being

as in 147

just poss. that the

may

not be the subj. of

pepos

.
say,

Proc.-Dam.

It

</,

but

may be
Hut
this

in
is

the ace. as part of

unlikely, both because

would

'
(

have been the better reading, and because the

of

'

of the prev. sent makes for the parallel use

in this one.
;

PI.,

as

we

might

have stopped here

phatic,
trad,

but, wishing to

be very emppos

among

and

to bring

more

clearly forward the con-

involved in the case, he adds

.
iv

The

constr. here might

it
'

be =

or as Heind. puts

?
it

pepos

redundantly,
since

yap

!,

would thus be a
in

part towards itself

which we have just declared

it

' . , . . , , .
,
yap ytyoviV

. . , " ?
.
267 puts the present
argt.

5,

167 a

n,

ofov ,

thus,

2,

. *

yap

But he prefixes yap

this

Arist.

Soph. Elench.

166 b 28, gives

the

yap

' ,

How to meet
itself

these he shows
PI.

chap. 24.

Proc.-Dam. means that

difference of place
is

here proves

the previous sentence that

could not

be.'

It

a thing to be different from

might also be taken

with the prev.

in close epexegetic

turned for the

not be whole of itself

as towards a part, rather

connec.

by a mere
to Arist. this

thus

-.

'

It

could
to-

'?
.
which

no ground of

wards

itself

moment

into a part.'

So

Met.

IV. 9,

, ?
1018 a
10.
(1.

while

according

difference.

"

},
2It

Stallb. following
is is

Schmidt, in which view ppos

Either way there

8- , .,. &:
andTa

.
*

Thorns, speaks here of

in the ace.

agreeing with

being used for the objects of sense,

some awkwardness.

not with

, ? ,
...

&vtos

agrees with

,
and
is

and quotes appositely Proc.

which

is

really redundant,

present only in obedience to the Greek idiom.

sense
is
'

If a thing be elsewhere than itself

The when

'
32)

"
is

is

quite true (as Stallb. says

yap

)
(in

that self

is in

the

same place with

itself, is

not that

[. . he does not say

-? and said above); Parm. Ms. Lib. v. fol.

tois

].

But what

evi-

thing of necessity other than itself?'

oCtw
refers
...

>'=
E,

.
17

'
He

dence

there throughout of a distinc. between V

both back and forward, what follows being

but a restatement of what has just been said.

points back to 145
p-ev
:

-.

',
gives
poi

of this fundamental kind ? The or and one and the many are contrasted, but as correlatives and, to use a modern phrase, on the same platform:
if

the one

is

an

? the many are other '^,

is

if

they

Here pjv = attamen

cases, e.g. Soph. 217 V,

/3
,
rei

Ast.

several

are sensible objects the one

better
uti

such.

He

does

when he

with which cp. 216

the sense would be brought out by using

...

..

'Non

sine caussa

In

all

quam Parm.
,

dicit.

Significat

enim huius tantum

habita ratione

unum

, ? ? ' ,
says 'differunt hie

ab uno

differt

ab

unitate.

Ita

Dam. de hac

statuit differentia aperte scribit.

'

'

\
: \nl>,

then the different

dill,

/"

"

nut

lh.

>
the
pi

\\
'

in.
>

lieu
ii"
'

the

'

nmpli< uioi
'

dill.

lh- ilii:
'lit

diffi
'

rem

is
'

'

diffi

m
'

from the
fereni

diff<

rem

'

(s)
'

the

nol onei
<

sre

dii

.lily

|l|.

ill

.III!

from the one

is
1

tnd
from

tin

om
others
'

the
':
(

the out
\
.

not

cli

one
tree

'different

the

\)
V(

the

..., ioualj
1

'opposed to the
'

different

tnd

iew

"ii this

relation ol

onti

in

therefore (5) the

same

'

is

nevei 'in the different

tin-

Phacdo, slthou

eased

in

Mid vice versa : therefore

'

(6) the 'different'

ism

theory.
t.illt
T<;>
1

There he
rati
.

ii<

.n\

existeni thing': therefore (7) the 'different'

'
' :

than So<

Simmias but
.Old
if

is

never

tin

in the not ones 01 the one 'one tnd the not-one do not
1
'

therefore (8)

frOm

'diffei

by the
'

he bc< omes

le

different

and
'

as () the

'

one and the not ones

cannot
it

differ

by themselves idiom the different'

(10)

follows

that

the

One

and

the

not oiks

..'.-.,

\.
this

escape rron uiffering (and are therefore 'the same').

Applying

here we
it

'
is

from

tV TOVTIf
ii

7',"

~" "<///.

may say,
so,

thi

one

Why
Hi.

this

series

oi

rather sophistical statements?

'differ' at

from the not-one

not qua one but

dm

being to infer that the one dors not

riyyuti

and so

on.

Th
the Soph. 252 c-260.

from the not ones, he might have founded

once

possible and impossible combinations with a like

on the concession that Only and differs from the different nor one is the different these sibly because this might seem
widely different
After the admiss. that
It is

the different differs,

rudeness oflang. appears

As neither not-ones

says
pres.

'

[\/><] etc.
iv

do not
is

differ.

Pos-

ov&imm
and

abrupt he chooses a
itself

abs. in space

and time with

*.
werov
tl

in

PrO'.-Dam.

VI.

|4

PL mixes up
logical agree-

course which

startling.

ment and

difference.
ti

We
...

have here an accurate

the different that differs,

condit. sent,

ej

...

**ij

irytov.

he

flies off at

a tangent, affirming that

The
;

not-ones

less

accurate one precedes

still

apa

...

fcrrau, 01

differ

from the one

and

the converse

and

that

the one differs from the others.

Next he

finds that

the 'same' will be of use, and declares that the

one follows tret&tf 0" (. Throughout ovSeror* ... ftmV, ovoeror* ... there are several only the apod, of which appear-. and a
less careful

same and the different are nvm'o which obviously means that they differ, since he has assumed above
that, setting aside the possibility of
part, everything
is

is
it

tv

etc.

He

quibbles again.
it

The

dif-

ferent
for if
it

not in the 'same' so

in

can be

in nothil

whole versus
be that one,
etc.

were

anything
in the
;

for so

much

as an instant

either

same
truth

or different relatively

would thus be

same.

'The same'

to everything else.
other,
all

The

seems

to

is

a thing so called

many,

different, whole, part,

not-one

are

different: but that

differing

when we speak of them as each becomes for the moment the different,
from which
it

(('>

relatively to that

differs,

and so only

the different differ mutually.

Returning

now

to

themselves.'
erepov after

, , ' ? We
-//.
...

it

changes to

Proc.-Dam. explains
el

at first

roros or

yap

60T4V

Irtpov

No.

above we see

PI.

quibbling with 'the same'

as he has

done

before.

If the
it

same and the

it

different

&
the answer
is

are two entities, no doubt

may

follow that the one

Yes
u>)

of them will never be in the other; but

follow that either of
different position.

does not

quam parum
effugerint, ut

*
L

by reason of the different ... of must, as Heind. says, suppose

'

from

...

.
'

question to which

:^-

[].
:

Latine,

Cornarius

Recte, quan" penitusne jam

them is never in the same or a It would be quite fair to retort

is

ne

inter se alia sint."

usus est voculae

et similia illatae.

post verba fujaidi abstinendi

B,

upon him
s

thus, If the different

never

in the

same,

Soph. 235

fore

'

Frequens hie

138

? 7
better case
is

ye

...

ov

...

ttvai etc'

Heind.
c,

examples, and Stallb. cites Crito 43

Phaedo 117

says

extfievyoi

^ ,
e-epa'
erepa.'
...
'

.,
c,

Proc.-Dam.
Tt

eivai erepa'

'

'

. ^
'
..
'

PARMENWES.
adds
has
for

He

, and Proc.-Dam.
ev.

ovSkv

.,.
PL's reasoning,
itself

also reads

That

Common

sense, as well as
is

rt

tells

us that the one

the same with

VI.

268

and

different

from the others.

But the others

here must stand for the different, and as the argt.

tivai

advances, another
the one
is

synonym
from

is

the not-ones.

yap

'

els

eivai

different

itself

has been

made out
and the one

Again we have variety

(
el

in the condit. sents.

By
...
:

strict rule

we should have
yap

evos y(

.
yap

(V

(
V
ye

'
(ei is

)
it

above only
that,

sophistically, apart

from the objection

different

on PL's own showing, only the

differ.

not the one can

is

His

final thesis that

same with the others requires much argt. He starts by laying down four possibilities (practically three) as open to two things when under comparithe

The

first

sent,

the basis of

son

they

may be

the same, or they

his

premiss That the not-ones have no connection

related as whole to part, or they

may stand may be different.

and the result is naturally a foregone conclusion (av ). Having fortified his premiss he draws as inference That the not-ones will not be number but puts that in a politely problematic
with the one,
;

He

then aims at reaching the truth by elimination.

First the different

must have no connec. with the

(or,

one and the others

the not-ones),
*

as the latter are

now

called,

and thus the one and the not-ones

form

('

...

).

But he at once clinches

a reason which he holds as unanswerable

by

escape altogether (he feels

how

narrowly) from

yap
just

differing.'

Next he takes up the question of whole

... ). The
above.

refers

back to the
if

yap

and

part.

He

gets rid of the possibility that the

They can no more be not-one

if

they possess

not-ones or others can be simply a

instead of a single one
are never called

number of ones
here.

number than they can

they share in one.

We

it

is

noteworthy that they

may

put his syllog. in Aristotelian form,

ev'
ev.

vos ye

ov /iT^t

vis

the form throughout: he speaks hypothetically.

ev

)
...

p. si.

.
easily

like the

The

' ,
=
(

'

or

They

must have no connec. with one

inary to their being the

curious prelim-

ev

not

= el

. The answering omits . Above on 145 .

21
...

...
Whether
have

text

seems clearly needed.

in majusc. or in early minusc.

a strong likeness.
corrup. of

omitted the

.
,
and

and

It is less

easy to explain the

Perhaps an early scribe had

after writing

MOPIX had
in majusc.

placed

same with it. But the absence of connec. is needed to prevent their standing related as whole and part there is no one in the not-ones, no not-ones in the one, so they canIt remains then that they not be whole and part. must be the same. No wonder Aristoteles says from the course of the argument there is a risk of which is but another way of their appearing so' saying that PL knows how narrowly he has escaped We may meet his reasoning in several failure. It is ways. 1. The one and not-ones are different.
;
'

c;

a diminutive

above.
for

little

might

a
different has

to say that the

be taken

e.g.

Joannes

and a later scribe might so read it and think that

(or a),

was to be put

in place of the

N, thus giving

The repeated
constrs.

use of the same word in different

difficulty.

.
it.

it

no connection with them, and that they cannot differ. The term 'different' is applied to two
objects as a result of their comparison.

They

are

found not to have the same

applied to them

qualities,

and

to express
is

might naturally cause

vi.

of Proc.-Dam.

269 reads

ev
iv

Vel yovv
t!>s

So

t,

and the sense requires

The

note

that fact they are called different

a term which
2.

ev ovWe

and adds nothing

to their characteristics save the accidental circum21

stance that they have been compared.

PL would

XOJ
have made out
bett<
ti
ii

qu

irtetts ol
tl

dla

tinguiahing two obje<

the
i>

he had laid
t.
)

be
</)
If
it
1

thii

not

the othei
I.
)

1
.1

iMi-,

(/)

different,

pari

whole,
.Uf
on<

not thi

..

In ilc.

In .

one and not ones

al

with |U<

.1

m
<

parti

not extended but logi<

put.

<

on

quite |K>i*iblc.
e'iri

Pro<

tam.

plea concep.

Give
<

ii.it

name you
.iu-

please to tins
u<

"

ob<

'

ii
it,

ertaio thai they

the two
tin-

1. 1,

tors in

lh.it

von c.innol think

\.

mi/

ol
iii

them
iv.
it

ttlXoVV
lj,

,
1

"

ji<j

"A.'

without

tin-

Other to help von.

Ami r

If

'//"I f

'/>!

we chooie,
they play
in

call

tin

them in Mix leme the tame, bo at iame part <>i have the tame fun< tion
But our calling
fulfil

trXiov.
1

.,

I'h

'

-1

in.,

and Jowett
)

1 5

would

the thought in which the) oc< ur,

not this need

the
lion e

\\

wXtovditti
t(

*;?
whu
' '

As

it

them the iame because ol the function they docs not prevent them from differing when
pared each with the other.
5
:

lusive, in

>>ni

no meaning, and the answer would be rAi

Muller gives
'

)
:

inchr

als

cintnal

oftener

than

'

'Very

like

Aiistotclcs,

once,' with which cp. Rep. in. -ton d,

WVtnjpoii
Tt/tos

like

one who docs not

really sec his w.iy but gives

up courting controversy.
replies

'Well, at

all

events,'

seen

it

(Ttpov

Pmm., 'they both differ equally.' The meaning Of this answer will he we put the passage differently. <>'* oZvo&nn <' rrepov ovn wv *i7f

*\

wX*ov4*h

\//\

-y \'iii.j|-

ttvat uvrtf

< Per-

This seems preferable, the important thing be

that a

name may be

given oftener than once.

'
...
'

i^ttch

Tl

yap
ivl
:

* /( />'
. .

haps the

transl. incline to the

other because <ijrand

follows.
if

are contrasted
is

in

what

But that
which

=y

>/

dv in)
tlVOA

met

in the

latter

rendering

you use a word

once
ovo/Lia

tTfpov TttV
T( tv
rti evi,

oftener than once you must use

gives the material for contrast.
oiirip
i/i'
1

tKUVOV
<ir
<">/

((

r(s",

tuvtij

iwu roos

txhs

4$,

In the way

in

which the one has the experience of

like-

,
e.

it

also,

Cp.
in

and

TfTTTtp

in

Taking these

order Fie. gives

est,

being different from the others and the others

wise than
it,

cujus est nomen, cujus hoc

est';

nomen

cujus pro-

in

that

experience identical

way the one would have an with (that of) the others and
Fie:
jj,
'

prium nomen

Ast repeats 'cujus est nomen,'

Subyet one feels a difference in
it

and others
mental

treat

the phrases as identical.

;

the others with (that of) the one.'

uni contingit
'

Porro

si

stantially they are

etc.

so he read

c(

for

which would

attitude,

although

is

hard to define.
part

need other changes.

The two

are sometimes inter-

Should not
of the pred.
following,
?

be the subj. and

changed

but the Mss. agree here.

...
;

Cp. on 126 u; and contrast the

Ltetvos

D
KaXeiv

We

find in this connec.

(or Tt).

= to

call
is

one a name, something:

and
ovirep

' -ep

/ / /.
if

The

tuc which
'

much
to
'

the same, but re'

:

sembles out
art

to call

names

one

>

formula might be completed thus,

'

which gives

Tin which Jowett renders here You give a name Heind. also gives Unumquodque to a thing ? cuipiam tribuis?' And L. and S. nonne rei nomen
'

material for both expressions.

in all three cases,

Heind. would read

'

and
where
-.1'
270.
is

seem to agree. Would it not be better thus, with Ast and Engelm; Of the names in use you employ each on some ground'? Thus in Soph. 218c, of
the

) )
'

])

Tairrov

seems capricious. might be expected,

below.

Here

So

in Proc.-Dam.'s notes, vi.

)
and

the use of
anycp.

The common

distinc.

between

aor.

pres.

name

Sophist he says vvv

o-v

that the former

makes a passing
it

alius, in narrat,

irepi (sc.

/iovov
</>'

koivtj'

81

tpyov

the latter rather a pictorial alius, in descrip.

there be any distinc. here

If

may be shown by

the

HO
conjuncs.

PARMENIDES.

iv
=
ovv

'should you

ever, as often as,

you are
'

Dam.,

eW

avTy ?)

.
]
vjs

-,
=

/<'
...

ys

,]
...

' () .
utter,'

'whenso-

evos as a single supposition

from which some

uttering.'

'-

other conclus. follows, not as containing both sup-

Proc-

pos.

and conclus.
onward.

?
21

]]
eir

They have
'

thus to alter from

Thorns, says
7re7rov#evai.

Melius legeretur

'

4s

hanc esse lectionem, Oxford) earn suo comprobet

ing

Nee dubitandum veram maxime cum Dam. (in Ms. at

suffragio
':

Bek., follow-

eV

act

Heind. and followed by Ast, reads

Is the precisely similar

above

and the sense

... A number of more or less synonymous verbs have been used in the course of this illustration from names, and it is not easy to

.9
in
etc.

,
is

''?

'

to

the

extent

of ex-

Prob. not,

periencing the

same

difference': Stallb.
'

clear otherwise.
videlicet
their

77#

secundum

id

ipsum quod
all,

habet etc'

After

accepting

view of what goes before, the Ms. reading

in the sense
'

preserve

the

distinctions
it

in

translating.

wavers

sense as

repeats itself;

and

both apply here to physical utterance.

Here and

here and

wavers, reading y in the three following cases, the first of

in

148

a,

^
'

/3-77-#
...
'

'

-'?'. ,
8 irov
...

might almost do as
either

it is.

may mean

Everything
is

is

like everything

them having an
after,
t

eras,

above, and the second one

because

everything

different
;

from everything

reads y here and y in the others,

Fie.

necess.

y seems and editions before Steph. seem to

y,

Any two
This
147

things mutually differ

and

this

sameness

have had
easy.

- '',
In y
...

between which and

V tois

?
r),

of difference makes them pro tanto like each other.

y,

confus.

is

may be
c,

so,

but

it is

reads
evos,

tois

not the conclus. proposed

That implied
of

that

there were but two sides to the antith., V

as a group.
If

v.

? ?"
fainter

which needs

ation

,t

reads y
ivbs

margin a

],
.'/

later

tois

.
and
less
is

hand

^
^?

alter-

we must apply

the

we are to speak same reasoning

relations to each part of the others

[in the

these in relation to every other.

to one in its and to each of His one becomes

writes carelessly

a selected atom, and his others are the remaining

infinity of

atoms, which

may each

in turn

be chosen
if

the marginal read.,

Except as regards y for y and the two agree. The words as

is

as the one.

At

this point

he does look as
2(

would carry out

136
for
c.

in detail the original

printed

show

change from Mss. than

y

Their construe,
ivos

,
kWtpov

[]
the

ev

usual.

SO t;

paradoxical state of the argt. there

>/
in

has in the marg., by a similar

tois

'

in

same way therefore

which
the

the one
are

is

different

from the others they likewise

;

different

from the one

while again to

Arist.

extent

of this experience

of difference

the one

would have, not another

with the others.'
the argt.
iota
({/,

but, the

same experience

This gives the proper course to

and

that with virtually

(rj)

no change

for the
in

. ' .' ? .
;

it.

(sc.

)
suit

,
is
2it,

he

scheme of and in the some excuse

This would

above; but
IV. 9,

Met.

1018 a

II,

^
if

so

but the latter

not the same hand,

the repeated use 01

that.

may mean

Cp.

...

etc.

is

subscr.
aZ)

is

often

omitted,

while accents

|-

This word,

'praeter analogiae leges

'

and word

division are matters

editors

which
...

et propter oppositionis rationem formato

(Stallb.),

scribes vary.

The

and Dam. regard y

seems peculiar

to PI.

Rep. vm. 546

.
..
Stall b.
,

/"""

"

ia

the onl) othei

<

..
p

ol

the act
p.i
.

thai

but there

ei

tin-

howevei

refera

to

Lobeck

Phrynich

thin

and
that
th

lli.it

I-

Bj

praetei analogiae legea doea he

mean
ia

thai

you

em

i,

by

mom

thi
il

don't have privative verba formed from affirmative

one?
o/m)40(u
.

ii

10)

it

raaj

be that

**

oral

pari

<>i

the dial and in

1

not

fi

he would
dill

by having

lmi from
i'y

h'i.'/i.'i.'s
,11

aa the othei

OUN

is

haa ro ravroV,
y&p
...
:

.is

above ry

From

,
il
t
'

ia

from

ftotof
|

h ol CO

lint

one

il

tempted

to think

that

PL a

in

mai
lli.il

onfound
extent.
c.u h
<

tins with the idea ol dil

m<, two*

the nSvOV

Mini,

and

th

rotovrov

form one express, and

But
the

li.it

rotoi

from the other, but one and tWO

diffi

U
that in pn

not

.i

neut nom. descriptive of the argt

expression
'

just
ut

in

the extent oi their

rent e

from three.

closed.

is

odd.

'Talem

aa usual
in e

videtur rationem habet

Fie,

whom

Thorns,
force ol the
I

do woid the

when he notes
'different
'

and

this

is

the best rendering.

The

while PL proves likem

en.e,

>s

through aami
that
1

particles might be brought out thus:

agree j

for,

and

recalla
r,

hia

own remark

strange as

it

may seem,
or

it

is

true that the statement

-tjrui"

lave foi his wish to

has

some such reason

in

its

one expect
sage,

,,.
his

wva

with

.
favour.
1

Instinct bids

new
is

quality of the

one spring from

its

predi
ITOU

In this pas
vi. j 7 i,

then an) need for the argt?

One

nor t'nu, Proc.] tam. seems,

inclined to take \n...t\ t i as spoken by l'arm.,

sameness includes likeness, and, .h he proved dso sameness, he might infer likeness. \\'c may
that

leaving only

rt'voj

to

Aristoteles;
to

and

if

we may
<\tt

judge by
ovv
(Siy

words he seems

have read

ask,
like,

supposing one and not ones (or Othei

how

like are

they?

PL would lead us

to

fan

here.

-iHHrStaXtyojuvov,

'
~

ivtpxwt
avros hrutpivtt
irov
'

that they were so like as to exclude divergent e

although, of course, unlikeness

is

proved very BO
such a view
in

'
Atyci,

aWo&iAu.
KaraveixrtS

ivtt

And
ness

there

is

something to

justify

Ovv

b)j

'

Trpwr6mXc-

this case, for,

when

speaking of
it

mere

existent one-

'

ri^cpei
e\(t
'

and comparing

with mere existent other-n<

awoKpunv

citc oer

ovnas

and proving these

latter qualities

like or unlike,

iVii'rws,

tvvoia

<^(6.

The

has

no

may rank on
we say
as
it

the

we feel that same level with

the

very definite subj. here or above.

'

your contention.'
v
;

We may supply Then we must add some words,

former,

and

that

e.g.

7i

tV,

,
rat,
...

jj

ravrov t-oi(h,

(S

OMOiOV
it or

cfvai*

6'
>J

,
:

when we
'

call

'like' as

much about a monad we do when we call it

for

--or/oy

one.'

On

the other hand he has been speaking

about one and not-ones

now

some
has

time,

and we

~(~oi(kv
-

have had a sense of growing complexity in these as

the argt. has advanced.

One

become One-

on. ertpov

eo

-,

the

particip.

constr.

is

being-whole-parts-different-same-in-itself-possessi re-

exactly parallel to
indie, giving a reason,

or rci as below, with the so both Mss.

editors give

shape

etc.,

and

if

to all these qualities

little,

we add but

as

(
so

one more

The

'.
'

likeness we add
all

something that

insistence

on the

clear recognition of each

'

Note this method

might be called a mere separable accident, not an

essential feature.

and both, repeated also below. Secundum ambo haec et secundum horum utrumque Fie.
/oov

outcome of

31

repeats the

combined

probably

rightly.

very important feature in

,
was
like,

Of course

if

likeness were the

like not-ones

if

one were

then likeness would be a

its

character.

2.

He

147C-148D.

one

is

like

Here we have a demonstr. that the and unlike itself and the others. How

next proves unlikeness between one and othersvery briefly

it

in virtue of difference that they

does he reason?

. He

takes pains to establish

appeared to be

that being so they

must

in

142
virtue of

rARMENIDES.

sameness be unlike (148 a-b). This would PL if we were sure of our terms. has said that all words retain the same sense through

,
is

as a phrase equivalent to a

be unanswerable
all

and which

is

govd. by

'

yap
,

uses.

Now when we
we
is

speak of two things as

different

think of the characteristics in which

square-white-flat, the other
is

, , ,.
noun whose =
' '

art.

SC.

. ,

...

See

45

"

Heind.

they don't agreed-one

round-black-solid,

objects to the repetition of

and
'

that

the sense in which

due

to the fact that

when

the one was

PL uses the word at present. On the other hand we have used the word different in regard to both these things, and not a bit more or less in regard to the one than in regard to the other, and to that
'

in itself as

whole

it

was so as

when

7 ,
shown
it

But

it

may be
to

be

while

it

was shown to be
ov.

in the others

was again

extent the two things resemble of their difference.

by the
It

\
clus.

...

6
2

Thorns, refers to the opp. con1.

reached in Dem.

was

in this latter
it

sense that PL used the word when he proved by

that

one and others were

like

like.

In other words he

proved them

by difference not qua difference

it

' '
But
'is.'

Theol. Plat. Lib.

tv
jj

> ,
Cap.
1,

138 a and cites Proc.

'ubi

in

tandem

ita

concludit

yap

y
one
deal
in

' .'
We
now
whose case existence with the one which
'alia
est ratio
/

but qua the sameness which

suggests.

If then

this refers to the

they were like in virtue of the sameness of their

difference

was not pressed.

they need not necessarily be unlike

1

Again he points out that

\
*

through sameness.

2.

show

that

one and others are both

Having now sought to like and unlike,

it

materialium alia immaterialium.

he shows his doubt as to the result by re-proving

on the converse ground (148

y

c).

The two

are 'like'

(leaving the
' '

out of sight),

/, , .
' (7
Ita in Phaed.

and unlike
sight)
:

rj

(leaving
is

out of

is

of course true, and the

^ ,

Sic Porph. Sent.

de Anima

.'
in the

Which Phaedo is
the
?
is

'

a proof which

assented to with

much

a metaph.

greater readiness than the previous

(.y.

and unlike
itself

, ( ) ). ) -^ , . ) ' '. ., ,. , , ' , ; /

)
trary

? ,.
case

And
;

so of any
is

among
it is

one
VI.

Whether the one

hard to say
but
272.

here to be material or not

if it is

not material

at least a

But he won't give up the former proof: on the con-

he maintains
that

the

methods

jointly

(
is
;

PrOC-Dam.
...

mental picture of an extended thing to which the

idea of touch has a natural application.

VI.

Proc.-Dam.
38

made

out by the two

273 says

+ 4-

and severally In proving that one is both

he says merely

)
"

'

...

(but see

A)

like

itself

See
146 c

previous
is

(positive side,

argts. jointly

and

severally (148 d).

One

like

(negative side,
in

both by equality of difference from

itself

As

to

lang.

which must be held as proved

ness with itself (146

and

by

the position of
directly, as

and unlike

itself

by same-

would suggest that they depend

But the constr.
:

b-c),

and by

Proc.-Dam.

vi.

272 says

they might, on

being =
is

probably

But when he adds

'

yet here

we miss a

neg. with the vbs.

But both usages are found

tis
..

cp.

Laws

XI.

929

C,

',
837 d
j

(?)

?,
We

and

VIII.

--ipl

etc.

he surely mistakes. must take

...

as 147

**

,,
tii,-

wuv
.

..'.!
f|

1'lic
t-

.
<.

|>'.
|

..

opus

lb

[c

"
1
1
1

the verb to

ii

urn cru
|..

pa

a hill

1,

bul n.
lli'

throughout, 148
.

149
'

[
Qa
1,

pre havi

IiikI

..

; (

,n

'

/.

ro

/
ii

0
but
Willi
fi

do
141
,

.ui.i

the future

.111

mi.

,.
i\
l

part

crip,
in

ol

the

\i

tins

we
,'ij
.

\
1

for the tiling thai

..
s

/<

\<
<

ft

\,

win.

Ii

.il

thin
thi

Hcind.,
I

recognised
1

onstrw
but reads
V \<

corr ipond
follow
1

|S

-,

in

A^CUT&ai, oS /<

Thus
ol
hist,

.ill

possible construes, appear,

,
149

ia

the

it!i

lli

Um
111

to

iccui

"i

omit

it.

leind
.

reads

a^n

tad

in

ordei
tins

their

normal frequency
is

fut,

pus.,

aor.s
its

mi

;hl

< been
but
that
pi
I

<m. tin
1

nth

however

probablj wrong considering

v
(

nu

the one above,

[eind.

roundings,

01 course /" A

here means purpe

<<

.
as

to notice,

iwrtrm must
in

in

thai

be

rather than futurity.

Some would change

tyis

uiXXu

made
it

fut

The
and

ad

lil

imrmrBtu to futj but

while Proc-Dam.
thrice.
)
in His

note uses otfUXAei arwtrfltu

r^v

Next we have the words

'
to

^
tSSf/,

still

remains,

.stands,

for the interpr.

ii.

puts upon
virtually

11,

notwithstanding 1ns tanget

PL says
it

one
a
is

thin

to

touch another

must take up

;/

t'V".

.7

ltl

|4 dVrmu.

position by the side of that in which the ot!

(Cp.

Dam.

>?

14, 18,

/<><<

r.\

rAv r-o\ti/tn
text

(r/*oTos

shows that
it

Notes t. The boon omitted; nor had

/)

when
it

there

it

touches?

Heiixl.

mikes
lies

it

'by

the side of that position in which

the thin?,

which
the

is

going

to touch.'

It is

just possible that

does

scom
\.i.

have been soon supplied

is

Introd.

text

may once have stood

Iwwi..
agrees,

Otherwise the text

as in 8, save

eViu.ti or

y ur

***
KtrfTO*

<"<<"

and

that y has a
t

smooth breath, as well and y in the having

as the rough,
text

and the

an early reader, not being certain of its meani: added a gloss borrowed from the lang. of the foil,
that
sent.,

remainder of the sent, also corresponds, with iv

in i this last y has the added before y As % has omitted ace. above a scrape. t seems in this place the better authority, and probably V should be read. But granting this, the words quoted above still contain some ambiguity. Their general purport is clear, and corresponds to what Fie, as Stallb. says, seems follows about the one.
:

,
'

which gloss after being

in the text in the

itself

patched has
...

been inserted

form

I8pa,

And

it

is

follows

worth noting that

not

in the

passage which
actinp y

(-,
.

is

used twice,

Bek. and Stallb. read

t

eV y

though neither collated

irreg.

in this dial.

?
'

6v...tivai:
/ois

Clear but
eivai

The

might be
regular
else

td

to render correctly, the crux of the passage being

in y
est,

second introduces

as a
either

new

.
6
eu -,
after
'

first

half >

The

subj.

To
etc.

be
or

etc.

'

Nonne quodcunque tacturam

quod tacturum

aliquid

we should have

prope
in

illud

est jacere oportet,

illius

atque earn -sedem occupare quae sequitur

sedem
descrip.
sent,
it

qua cum primum

But
it

fuerit,

tanget?'

of the position ends with

PI.

might end there.

146

and the chooses to add if

This surplusage

The

assumes that position

e.g.

touches.'

has parallels,

,
;

,
The
is

]. , ' ,
-riv

So 2, Notes . wrongly puts the accent on .

21

Bek.

Gais.
...

oddly writes

fjs

but both Mss. give

Istud

of which Heind. says

and

quis ferre potest,

quum de

rebus ipsis non de earum

?'

146

C,

iVp

only difficulty

terminis hie agi appareat

ed.

After the 2nd Bale

in the

way

of this interpr.

the use of
or

he omits

and reads

where one would rather look

circtvov

for per'

while Bek. and Stallb. bracket

, .
Herm.

says

referring to

above.

Nee tamen

librorum consensu traditum nee

cum

Tur. in

144

PARMENIDES.
mutare nee cum
Stallb.

libuit;

quarum ipsarum absentia

trum
ipsos
opes accedit, sed'accedendo

nunc opponuntur ut Phileb. c Rep. VIII. 3 et Tim. C 8

offendit, quia tertium illtul

cancellis notare
7,

oriuntur; nee neu-

,
fit.

(though by editors

one discusses

the sense obvious, but does

probability that eh

non tanquam

explaining
in

('

pro numeris accipi ostendunt sequentia

\1(
ubi recte

eivat,

jam

/
is

demum

opos

Immo

^, may

view of the

((
who had
at all.
it
...

not collated

^-

t)

while no

certainly

makes

not also suggest the

a^tts
?

is

a gloss,

Alternatively,
..rise,

fact that the conflict

over

that not

have been put

the text having been

(~

in the margin,

*.

Stallb.

Heindorfii

thai
for 5t having

etc.,

a reading which would account

conj.
retain

,
?

BT

receptam
..bove

abjecit.'

We

although Herm.

not quite clear.

The

refers to

and means

Observe that

is

introduced only after the

lv

suggest, of a

coming

-.

end of the verb ? But again, when from the nature of the case only one touch can be meant; and - what of the lang. of Proc-Dam. above,
at the

what of the repeated

plural,

May

not this

ev

convert the previous

of three
PI.

into the

two

of a

row
objec. but

-yiyveTat?
it

It

would not meet thL

'
ii

last

wishes us to see that he means those

would simplify matters otherwise

them opou- (below we may not suppose one of them and the to be meant for if we did the conditions of would not be violated, only another than the original would be meant. That existed at an early date is
two, so he uses the dual

and

calls

some such view

as the following were adopted.

he calls them

),

that

He

is all

the while discussing the relation of ev to

'

made

,
(?)

prob. by Proc.-Dam.

vi.

~1
as
Toi'S

275,

>

[he uses
uj-eis

it

= terms?],

[sense

\<
=
this
...

. '
eri

del

' .
e<TT(U,

at

eXeye

T
eV

eV]

yiyvtTai.
'

After

quoting this Stallb. adds

matis explicari poterit,'

ex his verbis origo glosseopoiv crept into the text

i.e.

and he wishes to bring out two facts of the case, if the one touches the others (1) that there will always be one touch less than the whole number (of others, let us say), (2) that number does not exist in the others on both of which grounds, but chiefly on the second, the idea must be abandoned. Suppose now that some early reader had put in the margin as a gloss on to show that, so far as the present argt. goes, the latter must mean the former. Without following the argt. one would not see the point of this, and at the same time one might note that had no case. Assume further that was in old minuscule, but written small and
;

.
Fie.

from

passage?

In that case

Dam. must have

with a slight running of the ink at the

written prior to the date of the archetype of both

when

occurs

double
to

it

our Mss.

Do we know

that?
cite

And
him

if

he

is

to

both being approximately a +.

account

for glosses

ing the text?

tols

rum multitudine uno

govs,

which word means the

1

*, .
can we

as corroborat-

comes
scribes think
it

be read and copied both

;

belongs to

'

ipsos tactus a
Fie.

exsuperari.'

That

and
et

that
etc.

that touch.

,
is,
t

numero-

them reads it sees no sense

correctly
in
it

and puts
it

closely

Now

resembles

When

then this

one of

it

down, the other

and takes

for

a blotted

^,
to

which he thinks more suited to the context. In any case this paragraph on touch has been some-

Non opus est cum Heind. omnium librorum corrigere

follows].' Stallb.
etc.

Bek. praeter fidem

[i.e.

what tampered

with,

refers

back

'quanto,

tanto';

but

'by

this

equal

on the analogy of the phrase which

. .

Notes

1.

So

2i

with

AIIDR,

reads

The latter is universally adopted

amount' seems an odd phrase. Might be ', and alone refer to , by an govd. by amount equal to this, by the equal of this amount'? like The amount of course is one.
'

,!,. out

(In-

ic!

.i

ol

Mniin.
">
<

.it

one
,

.111,

adding
line

oi

Dumbei from

the
H,

othen ihuti out

aftei
/

c on number!

>

in

row,
tli.it

of two
others, he said,
ii,

directl)
ttifot

implies
...

tin.

unit-,

follow in
tile
tl

.1

,.

o>

'
is

*, would
1

ref<

ing

to

be

alltls

/"/'".
//**
*

in e

Wi

as

unmix

,,

makes
ttu tin

it

govern the
/'/

sent.,
<>

and assumes

|n

148

>i4f
1

<>

The
in

question

<

touch

w.r.

anawei
conitr.

fat

parenth. as to leave
ii
it

Honed
the

\i a, but
in in
1

only to prove thai the one could

seit 01

independent) and the lent,

in original torn.
'

neg

in

not be e

n
ll

in in

another
the

Here wi
therefore
is
it

sense but inteno;;.

ease
then,

Is

not the

one

iim

and
.iv.

oihers,

we

s.iy,

that

the

others than the one

totu lies in cm. h

neilhei aie

one nor have prut

in it?'

Hut as a

t,

from the point

oi

riesi oi

we

s.iv,

the

Othen neither
as one, the

roe

ate nor haver

In

thing outside another,and

is

.".% are intentionally

7.\.;
is

added
Notes

to fortify the
...

concL So il, but with

<>

the one
'

in
.

'the Others,

.
1

Thus
in

far tOU< h
ii

dealt

Willi

one thing
.

13H a the

phn
11

Now

he

,
toucl
is,

.md therefore
prove that
it

and

'

patched.

them,

4S
it

He
lioin

does not

but
I.

1.:

givei

torn

and

Jrrot

One can
feeling that

assumes
138
II.

what has gone before

sympathize with the uncertainty.

the sense might be
ovS'
itself.

The
'

It

kmv

&% *
ill

he speaks of the one being

145 I he says

'.

may
ut

present

Tie.

K\

COnficitUr

non

ill is

numerus unus quippe cum umiin niinime adstt'j and Thorns, adopts ft 'non
sit in aliis

we have otra </

/
M.u;

-
the

eigO uiuun numerus est in

aliis

'

both apparently
the purport of the

that can be urged as proof that

,
tv
is

iv

\ ,
and
iv
:

iv

>
:

In
>,
:

hem.
46 D

,-md in
1

rr /,
<

>r

tv6ft *t*/h,i
pi/
...

oiV ipa

;m,

but that seems to be the UtsnOM

meaning

'

the

Dumber

one.'

On

We

must assume that

statement

Thorns,

refers to

Plotin. Enn. v. 5, 4,

and quotes Hierocles

yap
/xets

floras'

iv

(ami)

Kmp. Contra Phys. Lib. x., following the Pythagorean yxoVas and Seas, and finally cps. It must be remembered that if number 147 a.
even to the extent of
the argt.
' '

. ;
^?
in

Aur. Carm.

xx.,

'

ptv

same thing and the toueh is that of neck and necklace. 2. Next the one is in itself, and touch of the same kind occurs. 145 c affirms that
one as parts
within itself as whole
:

mean

, ,
it

is

in

the others.
iv

iv

,
is
it.

He

further quotes Sext.

which

true

in the sense that the bricks are in the wall.

But

the wall does not touch the bricks, nor they

get touch

To
But
ov*

one

'

crept into the others

to the parts, as at

we must have at least a we have in the roe

eZi)

one with the one = two,' and two give touch. But if PL had meant (v he would have worded his statement more clearly.
is

upset, for that

once the objection urged

ovv tTtpov ptv

] ^^
<
etc.
tv
...

...

ovScV

The
ovStv

\.
it

in

138

So

far his

case

,
of a
is

film in addition
fish.

applies

not strong.
it.

constr.

is oi'tc

[ecrru-

He now
Touch,
touch

chooses a way of
seems,
is

his

own
:

to subvert
if

=
Heind.

i\n

Exspectabam

ovSevoc.

etc.

Heind. and Bek. following

V referring to c,
in

Schleierm. reject the second

Iv

<

y
:

one cannot touch

but he seems to treat the words as

wrriv,

Stallb.

seems right

objecting

= To
:

4. But the stress comes when he seeks to show that the one cannot touch Touch being external, it is immaterial the others.
itself.

.
is

external only

and

itself

tv6vs

one

is

to

iv 0101%
:

The

touch

is

now

that of

two beads

and

Why

not
is

'

only the one, therefore (and

exist
?

to say that the

one

is

in the others locally

it

his

cue

not the others),

one; and thus two cannot

PI.

now
it

to

prove that

is

not in them logically.

In c on number

declared that

if

we had only

Three ideas run through

needs number as
line,

his argt.

touch
two

is
:

external
it

one and no two, touch vanished. He now applies this to the one and the others, and finds that, so
far as

far at least as
is

goes

in

a straight

so that there

one touch

less

than

they are concerned, (1) the necessary one

the things touching.

He

then shows that the others

exists only in the one, (2) the

absence of one and

have no number

in

them, on the logical ground

146
that the idea
'

PARMENWES.
others
'

excludes

If this holds, his case

1,
1

is

see 147 a. one made out. 'The one' gives

' '

form expecting an
understand
etc.

affirm,

twice

and

if

'

the others

'

yielded even another

1,

then

Both Mss. read

its

... ') ( ,

answer correct, we must

which would be better

and touch may exist. Why then the idea of a straight line ? There seem to be two reasons. 1. If touch went in a circle, as we have it in a rosary, there would be as many touches as there are things touching, and this would seem to him somehow to clash with the idea that two things are needed to make one touch, while he must have two or his

but for

position.

Considering the repetition of

avand the awkward turn of the sentence, the reading would be welcome if there were any authority for it. And all objecs. would vanish if we
simply omitted
ap' ovv
...

here as an early confus. with

or alternatively read
.

above

ei

'

'

...

As

Stallb. says,
eivai

argt.

from number
a

fails.
'

2.

If

he can make out

'

=
words

that

given

number of

ones
;

there

will

be a

touch less than that number

then in the event of

'?
their

'kv ...

,
:

.
ye

The

and

explain each other

the one and the others

the others being such a collection of ones, touch

will fall short of

are not equal or unequal

#'

or in virtue of
into themselves

overtaking them.

If these

do not
hard

own

nature, but

account for the introd. of

to explain
its

this bizarre idea

it is

equality etc.

[]
efvai.

by receiving
is

bracketed as having no
to confus. with the

presence.

We

might ask, Would the

Thorns,
tactus

meaning.
above.
sing.
;

It

may be due

one touch the others as a body or as individuals?

For
but

one would almost expect the

are themselves plural,

But
says

this is shut
'

out by his line of argt.

Unum

quatenus est

supra

omnia

decide

the writer's bias.

The word goes

omnis
Plat.
ev,

est expers,

jungitur tangere dicitur et tangi Procl. in Theol.

Lib. 6, cap. 24,

,
In
21

quatenus autem

cum

aliis

con-

not with
Mss.,
to

and the

(1.

-).
argt.;

read

6.
t

,
to

may be used
it

,
[

which may
with

SO both

carelessly in antith.

though
Phps.

refers to the one,

and edd.
as well

it is

a feeling of this

diffic.

Super and
PI. professes to

as a sense of the repeated use of

that leads to write

in the sent,

imply something above

argue throughout.
rrt

but

as a guide to the

and

-e'o

connec.

The
lv

relation of the particles throughout

(Notes

i.)

the gap between

seems
&>

be as follows

represents an eras, of several letters.

Some
state-

>
[

'

had been made. As to the Thorns, says 'in semet ipso esse, i.e. ment
early blunder
transire seu

stare
ei

' '/
bant.

Pythagoraei aequalitati tribuebant, in alia autem

.']

'
)
|

el

moveri inaequalitati competere credeapyeiv

kv

Sext. Empir. Lib. x. adv. Phys.,

, /
it is

"

\.
5
...

kv

,
ev

? '

yevovs

'

[]
.

^
...

,] ]
or

.1
...

yap
kv

and the whole might stand

eir/

eViSe^eTai yap

odd to find espec. when the

evos.

genit. of

,
-iais
ei
;

thus followed by

,
^(
begins
in-

4',

ye

comp. occurs immediately, Notes I.

here goes with what

'

,
ev

ei

ev
evos,

ev

eivai

,
is

' '
e^eiv
e^eiv

'

.
it

peyeis

rats
is

follows

to tell at
...

*,)
and
ci

strengthened by ovre

and the whole might stand

...

dicates interrogation

but, to

make

;
:

his

second

altern.,

but

one

which would not apparently be thought of by a

Pythagorean.

Thorns, quotes Sext.

Emp.

as above,

t?Js
:

the interrog.

also

Auctor Theol. Arithm.

'(

>

1 1

/./....

.
Kui
./

,..

in-ii

.'V..M..I1
\

''!'
[...
;;

'./.

.>

..
.

',''

the

i-MiK ipalf

in

on

.|.
;

./y.
/<

unmentiom d
^1
f)

.,,

,.

..

..,'.

Cffow

[thing
in <\
is

til
I

..
. (An,

,.,,
tea
..

(like the

hearth)

a
is

/>.

posing that

when one
d, 01
>(

in

anotha
>

the two

may be equ
quoted by
<]

one

l>c
vi

nn
is
'
1

bo both
>.l

Mai. and the word

.')

the othi

dwelt ;.
'

hen
'"

>*

PrOi

Ml

,'.;;
,

, </';>
/n )''

IN

TQVTWV,

and

,"'/"/

-IS)

'

"
the win

/ Tin*

..\
word
in

.;())
I

Ye!
<

two
outains
all

lews

ot

the

.sain-

have- the

the next
uK-.il
:

line.

There "

the

pans and not the

es the view ol

in its well

known

sense
it

"'

*
Ol

r.'.

md
'

u must
that he
11

i"

the bigget ol the two.

.
ui't/

)'/

ii/iiN/i.'.Ti/s

lnii

is

Uied

and

hen
ijl.

in

which these ideas air to he lound.

Thus
then ire
the

in

There

the

diffil

was how

*
1

oa

It

lb)
ol
t

to dJVM

(i)

it

tin-

have quite unexpectedly end

illnstr.

of

at

the beginning, which dispose a! once of the view

Stallh.'s

this

ienM

is

tin

sanu

Kotli

nasty

part ikei
tttof
in

of ilSe by

&

in isolation

practical
s. s|>oki oi

whether the partaker receives the whole

the whole or
p. ut

iu<

li

.is

ol

itself.

L'ontrad. arises un<.

both views.

which pervades
an
but

commentary
:

that !> iY

i|

/
perform the function
to

etc
of.

-=

to

assume the
lie

role

not

these arc on the

:

looting in that respect both or neither

have not

*;

(2)

same if we
in

Does
its
I

mean
affairs

playfully
*ui

then
CSff,

eiaei

must be used

7/'?
aVTOU ~ jxiTTtiv

bid

sinalhiess

mind
Rep.

own

v.

a different sense from

,
it
'
'

the expression with such as

class.'

speak of to lv as an

shape'?

use of

entering into

(
It is
(r.)

/'
'

and

as a fact Ast (lasses

<^<
;

&0
class
'

433 , Tpa '//'"i *

ye
<.

,
<>
t

urn
oCt

c2Sos

while Jowett calls

etc.

The

oare
is

Hut why choose

this particular place to

'

The
ing

sense of course
it) o\">T

appearance
little

or

'

certainly as

reasonable as the

which troubles edd.

Yet

lv

below makes
is

for this view,

eio )/

, ? ?
or

ev

which has good parallels

ei/viii

SlD,

/xeYroi, ...

>;

sound Platonic doctrine

be themselves
e>>;
it

says
'

'

but

if

; are
is
is

in this case to
little

ov5e ye

the fact
is

broached with

ceremony, while

editi

Malim tamen.' Herm. says Herm. ex Oxon. vestigiis ubi est -re ye ye, quod foret certe non ut Phaed. c. 30
ye
cf.

.
S. cite

('

is

unusual standing alon

...

ml
in

scarcely break-

oiTe ye eY

(.
ye

reads

PL, e.g. Phaed.

...

So Bek. reads

while Heind.

= neque

as well worthy of elucidation as the question

[the passage quoted above];

nos ad Lucian.
that 2t

whether one

in

equal to the others.

etc.
ye.
is

Hist

Conscr. p. 183.'

If he

means

shows
-re

d
t

tw<

naturally prefer

Both Mss. give n, yet edd. Heind. wishes before ei8>/

erased and

signs of patching he

seems wrong.

Perhaps
as

may
on.

stand, as showing the orig. design of the sent.,

...

and
ecrrov

e"

written.
stress
?,

The
upon
its

which was found to need

L. and
lit.

' *
-e

article

however would throw the whole

these

a case of

alone, Arist.

= do not absence makes

two

et

exist

while

Phys.

8,

I,

orre yap
arretpov

yeveo-?
eivai

noun part of the predicate = Tire ei"6}/. Below he says ovkovv = ei which in turn rather makes for oiTe ye tjw in the sense of existence. Nothing would be
the

evepyeia

(,

With

',

eiVep Stallb. cps.

138 D,

e'irep

.
ye

it

went

lost to the present argt.

if

and Heind. quotes many cases of we may add Arist. Met. vi. 1, 3.
el Si

ellipse with u-tp

yap

for this
e,

phrase after a neg.

were dropped.

It is

a mere aside, to justify once

Heind. cps. 132

5,

and we may add

Be

again the existence of

(.

If

it

does anything
view that

1030 b 34.

Aiu
el

more it adds Y and

to the unlikelihood of the

eii'ai*

are meant here to be

(,

ei?

^?
(

= otherwise),

Arist.

Met.

vi.

eipov

efcriv.

<

by

its

>;,

Notes .

must be wrong.

148

PARMENIDES.
The proof
really
is
lv.
:

a general

one,

although he deals only with

C
etc.

may

with the main ovre

like a

above a that when one thing is in another it may he ' The argt. holds, however, as cannot be any more than
can.

'

In

. ,
He
:

overstrains

he has admitted

Heind. wants

first.

So t which

2
if

.
So

etc., lest

confus. should arise

so

t.

Notes

1.

There

is

a small

final v

written after an

might be taken
p. cxi.

for the latter half of a careless

lv,

which cannot be
three entities,

right.

gives emph. in either case,

it

and where
just

it

stands

, ,
Notes
1.

t.

21

deals with
i.e.

He

and

smallness

point the anal, to

and
below
...

bigness.
etc.

which precedes
stronger;
(Ktivo,
is

is

i.e.

to

ev.

The
Bek.,

idiomatic,
all

we use the

sing.

y Heind.,

still

Thorns, quotes Porphyr. Sent.

36,

ovre

peya

and Stallb. take to be the read, here, and Heind. shows acuteness in changing it to But see Notes . The [ = sense is nor will bigness be in it either. For thus there would be something else bigger ay, in-

.
Notes .

yap

etc.

We

must supply

55

].
;

mentally something with

141 c
there are
tvav
...

.
:

Stallb. justly cps.

many examples.
seen, several antith. to the one,

'

uses, as

dependently of bigness

itself

that

which bigness was

essential that

and

this

namely within moreover when it is

if it

7,
last
is

we have
eVepov,

best here
all

, -,
for lv
iv. 6,

This

is

explicit.

He
The
in-

and

lv.

= A not-A,

not furnished with smallness, the thing which

it

should surpass

really

Of course a plea might be urged

Stallb.

for

reads.

He

it

is

clude

possibilities.

Arist. indicates in various

in different senses, generally

is

big.'

places that giving four.

ev

is

used

which
is

Thus Met.

rightly notes that smallness

not here annihilated, but only excluded from meeting bigness within the one.
4.

(,

avrb urycSos In
...

etc.

Stallb. justly cites

ev PI.

133 c. chooses to begin

on which he has led no explicit proof, ev on which the whole proof has and end with turned. We would expect tv ... ovre
with
...

ovre

(which are included

but by implication only

see
is

ovS' Ivl

...

).

' ? , ' . . ' 6 , ... We

ev,

yevos,

, ,
(
:

and below

10 16 b 10,

yap
ev

81
oe

etoos,

etoei

is,

yevei

So again Met.

, .
, 1052

e^ei

a 34

-ei,

have more than one

This freedom of order

common
one
Met.
vi.

in PL,

and

still

condit. of exist, laid

down

in the dial, for to lv.

more

that of passing from

analogous.

' '0>
>

, ,
So
Arist., e.g.

illustr.

to another
7, after

Here we have apparently the

have
speaks metaphor, of a

condit. of space (we

chap,

148 ), and although he

ofov

gives

and again

[usually

and

the negs. here.

?]
first

followed by

' ?
:

SO

)
Note
:

be held as speaking so here.

then

lv

cannot be an
as
'

.
be
in
first

?
is

he can hardly
literally

If

he speaks

But

Stallb. interprets

aliquam habere

cum

alio necessi'

are interchanged.
:

tudinem
in

et

conjunctionem,' which

a logical

being

First oore oure oire

then within

the sphere of the

finally within

and

last

of these
last

((

somewhere,' not a spacial one.

8
different.

St

etc.

The one

has been proved

the sphere of the

and be that had he been using would have put

urjTi

somehow
inference

or other to

another, or in the

The

may
he

This

is

the

case in which
lv

in the last cases

proved
argt.

But he cannot use

and

is

per imposs. to be must that

all

?.

it

is

The
:

exists

be somewhere
:

the

one and the others are

all that exists

therefore the

>
sbsurdity
in
lh

one

..

the other.
his

Vt

III

ft'
'
:

li

other.

too

fsn<

ty
In

as
r
|

St.illl).

holds
est
I

ground
imtiOTiei
'

Mruiinciiinii.

mm
m
,

whole

ol

one. .Unl

occupy ii
III
it

to
/<

ll

neces.e
MHII1I
i.intui.'

lure omnia

it.t

disputari Ul leium lllb

-i'l

absurdity
...
.

here

would

arise

only

.idciitiuni

iptll

idl

i'

ti.ur.l

upied thr

mom
1

ground and be
the
srhol to

<<>

t<>

I'lnims. aiguc.,

'mini .|in.lcm etl

Plotin
.

aliis

equality

wc

over

ltd mini.
;.
I

implet
rap.

el
J,

nusquam est
I ">\

Ennead.

from

iv

/""'""' y 150 d,
th<
*
.r

.il>.

),

WTAVOV

.
.'.

BV )/
V V.

< /
TuiTu

hardly help feeling, notwithst

pi
h
),

'*s-..

on...-

'.

7THI

th.it

uroTTji

/uytl,,

doit'

hit.

<
Vti

y!/!

..

../

stand

in

one

class,

and
as
is
<

that

'.

.md
.1

.:cu

\., aura

OVMUMll

},
(\>.
ex His

.
so

/
.

,>
rayra'

Si

an

grouped together
<lass
(if

ord. iiieinlnr, of
right in thinking

7Tuit<i\<u

totally

diil'.

Stallb.

,
it.

Patebit

TheoL Plat Lib. , cap quomodo respondendum fuisset sd

in
sibi sit

.,

then again

must
ti.

fu:i<

with
1
1

for

they are treated alike), and (or

is

rn

nropositam quaestionem anne aequale

et
aliis

unum
sit

proved

thai

'"<"/

h ive

no

useful

tion

in

et

inaequale, quae
in
sit

his
aliis,

praemissis

oititur,

metaphys.

In arguing thai the

one and the Othcn

to

quod unum
minus

et

quod

inajns

et

are not e<|ual

or unequal because they don't possess

etc.,
I'l.

so ipso et

aliis.'

the ideas of equality

seems

make two
have a
a small
is

149 E-151 b.

and inequality
the others,
if

The stages oftheargt upon equality arc as follows:*. (1) The one and

mistakes.
single

He

fails

to see that he should

this

idea of inequality, though

:

equal or unequal between themselves,

matter

and he

fails
'

to ask
'

how then
others
'

are the one

are so only through having in them the ideas equality,

bigness, or smallnetS
existence.

and the others

interpos.

one

and
tu>r)?

without the
of their

for

there are such ideas in

of suitable
V til

He

speaks

(2) But the existence of these ideas in

being such
this

- and
call their
is

the one and the others leads to a series of contrads.,

then what Arist. would

fVOf ittai

is

the

iiru-

and 3) one and the others cannot be equal or unequal one

the conclus.
is

that

(149 E-150

D.

the
size in

which
its

is

postulated as a substance whereof

various forms

towards the other, because they have not equality,

bigness, or smallness in them,

aid of
l>.

ti<5>/?

'

to

be predicated by the
as he

would

say.

and because those

startling return to

(1)

The one and

the others, not having in

them

ideas have
other.

their respect, relats. only towards each

bigness and smallness, cannot exceed or be exceeded.

(2)

Here we have an almost

first sect,

Two

things which mutually neither exceed nor

3) the

the argt. of the the

of the dial.

In Dem.

1.

are exceeded must be equal: so (150 d-e.

present

conclus.

was reached without

argt.

this

machinery.

There (140 b-d) the

which im-

one and the others are equal. Here we have the argt. by exclus., as we have had on several occasions:
but
it

mediately succeeds this did effective duty

equality

will

scarcely serve in

its

present position.

meant the same number of measures, and so of Here that argt. parts, and the one had no parts. the one as existent has will not apply, because
already been proved to have parts.

Why
ness
'

does he not say

size,

Things
'

which, viewed
'

in

regard to

possess neither

bigness

nor
if

'

small-

must possess 'equality'?

lv tiVai

And

they are

Now
PI.

it

may

equal merely by not possessing bigness or smallness,

are they not equal
cooi,

be granted
argt.

that the conceps. of one and others

do not involve
it

although
does so
it

this is

not

how
and

uses the
in

and

ivis

themif

selves
is

ref.

to size

that

size

to enter

-\<<;.
that the only
enter, size

To

PL, for

which was impossible? It is true that the and one the others when viewed as the two factors of a compound concep. may be called equal, in the
sense of being co-ord. or equally essential.
is

the present,
size

seems
in is

means by which
But
is

But

PI.

can come

by the entrance of three ideas

remains out.

speaking of equality not logically but spaciallv.

c.

and as these cannot

rOTr/s

(1)

The

one, being in
e.

itself,

is

also

around

note that he does not argue out the case as regards

itself:

so (150
itself.

2)

the one

is

bigger and smaller

perhaps

for the

reason that there

no

than

Here we get

clear

away from the

150

PARMENIDES.
again.

(
the

The

process began with the absence of

rov

(
if

it is

your terminus a quo.

exceeding and being exceeded as steps to prove

But
call

and now it is complete. We may talk of one and the others as being equal and unequal without reference to But his conclus. is at all. reached by falling back on the view which he took in 138 a and 145 c, and which he adheres to in what remains of the argt. (</), that if one thing be
equality,
in

you are searching for that which you may one because it does not admit of being made

smaller

for

atom

is

you

Now
That

this

has a bearing on PL's idea of

^
(?)

one as your terminus ad quem, as an

it;
(Is

will fail to find

ad

an idealized minimum of extens.

another, or in itself viewed as another, bigger

the process by which

and smaller are the only terms which can be used

in describing the situation.

comparison

smallness

^.
(Phys.
is

VI. I etc.).

are reached

said to

At 132 be
things.

then should be gradually

Now

he has just con-

attained by compar. of smaller

and smaller

tended (150 a) that 'smallness' might, if in the one, play the part of equality,' because of being
'

He

T<j>

6V

^.

If then
it

Since then he has (144) exhibited the one as And smallness is by the nature of

smallness might thus be equal to the one,

still

seems

be smaller than the smallest part of one

then to be got at ?

.
is

admitted there that

this

was an endless process.

to

it

how
it is

is it

more
(1)

natural that the one might in the

to itself,

same
that
:

Again when got

at

not to
in

way be equal
d.

and not bigger or

exists

smaller.
all

be smaller than anything save bigness, which

turn

The one and

(2)

the others represent

exists.

Whatever

so (151 a-b.
in

3) the one

each other,

must be somewhere and the others must be and thus (4) must be greater and
in

bigger

than the biggest of sensible objects.

this to

Heind. would change

to accord with
2It

and rov
to

are clear,

and

be consist, he needs

smaller than each other.

This cancels the idea of

the argt.

Wov
kavTu>

etc.

As

Stallb. notes

we must underst.
and

which was assumed

e),

on touch

with

from the preceding

for

(148

where the one and the others lay outside

conversely extract

of each other

and the

latter

occupied

from

,
...

the last construe, being (Heind.) ident,

, (
and
Just be-

, .
in

but

p =5

to the former.

Or

alternatively the

one and

the others must include space between them.

Yet

he adheres to the view indicated at several points that existence is spacial whatever is must be some-

(
140

with

...

fore that in

we have the other

E.

where

and as this
in a

is

contrary to the nature of the

the one

which are
as Stallb.

,
is
;

summing up below
151 b-e.
c.

6$

above.

altern.,

(
in the

and again

This

argt.

may be compd.
something

with that at
or

and the

He

uses the concep. of

else,
it

others cannot be

eio/.

If they are,

we must suppose
?.

solely as a lever to prove

not as a
in quite

PL,

does,

to

be speaking figuratively

separate attrib. of the one,

and brings
But

throughout

yet what would be his motive

Eut

incidentally as a thing of course.

sesses a
'
'

if

he pos-

again he does not prove his conclus.

the others comprise all that

The one and

but they are not

necessitated to
first

be in each other unless they are

itself,

measure without assistance from the can he not determine equality and inequality without reference to them? And does he not perceive
that in
1

(,

precluded from being each in

to

while the
It

a well-regulated world of
' '

an

of

one has been expressly declared

be

in itself.

measure
bigness,'

must be admitted that the lang. throughout Dem. 11. Before leaving the subj. we is ambig. and confus. point on this reappear, of the may raise another
dor)

'

would be much more useful than one of smallness,' and equality '? Again, is
Is
it

not a measure simply a unit, a one?

suspicion of this that causes

of smallness,

bigness,

and

equality.

Since
for

( (
he
is

yos

(
?

PL

to insert (140 d)

mentioning these before he has talked freely of the

infinite divisib.

measuring a one

When
:

he speaks of one

out (Met.

ix.

Now, as Arist. points of the one. and elsewhere), if you speak of one
measurement, aoW/sc-

as the source of
treating his

one as
of his

number (148 E-149 r>), he is and when again itself a

one as
divisible into parts

as a starting point, a unit of

he speaks

he

is

(
.-.
t|iicst.
.

.'

'
]

it

II
ill\

/.,. ./.
e

.,

,,, ,,

^
PI

ot
tl

two
itlimil

ttrnitieti but tini

natui
in
>

why
In

m
In-

both

Bll

is
is

know.

n| the

1'it

imus
.uui

.mi

alter

referred

to
ill

equality

onl) that
it
1
.

it

tin

next

Inequality.

An extended thing
thai
init

contain
t<>

the Mini "f the

measures whethei we know

other thing
or

ii

equal

any

iwiaxK

.
nt
1

'

moment, and oi th moments up to tl Hoc signincat Farm

r>ne
tie

not

Phpt,

docs so

became
.
*-ii

temporis
r

artfo

alum
.

1 nitui
,

equality and inequality

more
/'yii

ii.m

any other termi

\i,t.
;
,

Hum,

it

duffl
sit

in
1

lum
Stallb.

apply

to
.

extension
;,

Arist

sn..

temporis

futuri.

he
|

./

mi TO
Rtti

WM

"

*
1 1

/'/'",

tii

moment
in

is

1
1

punctum
in
.

saliens:
I

we must
s
>1<

think
1/1
it

oi
|
I

/ii\\>r

Mil

)/.
extends
etc
10

lAiirrm,

K&V

lO-r.i

Mil

rocrov

k&v
he

.'.

/, ((/ Winn l'l.

his

both

its

spat

separate entity, being in

ins inference

about measures ind Bumbers

<>!

rri.T

the

others,

coiuse turns

back

the question on whi< h

dwelt,
in

.
tl
1

nil

world doCI
is

That

th' a

.'

Ol
1

[emclitus and

ins follow

upon
tlvai

the contention in i.iu B-C that the latter had

RO one and no number.

The
it

..

so

much
in

that Cratylus re

rvKov

tKtvtt

\
roriM
fisd

rot)

here has not the lOCfJ ten

It

(Tttta

tiwovn
atTtVf

<">r,

avrti
'<-<>
><','

which

had

\,
<>i"

Kwl ttvoi ro* let

means
>

sume,' as in
>)
...

yap

t*o

15s n below.

*
'

pre...

owe

firTo
III.

4V*A At
the

Met.

5,

1010 a

12.

Ol course as a
rvr:

<(4.
There

Analog, would require

is

infins.
:

present

is

good deal more than

it.

our men
vt.

throughout.

of course no infin. for

but he conies nearer to uniformity in

ciVui
is

etc. relied

:
A

unconsciously extends
ok

Proc-Dam.
yiyvtrai
ti<i

2^2 says
">

141

c,

*<t\

\.(\(
'

to

i<rrtv,

t<m
-

Viyoi'ti.u ROM

MlfllAu,

The Mss. on
have
:

which" Aldus, Stephanas

tuendus nomin.,' and so

t

and others read

to a reading

pett\u>

does not doubt 'quin post

, -.
2lt.

but Steph. said

'

(\( pev

which apparently has led

Heind.
ipso esse
parti-

;
apud

vvv

ktrrai'
'

yap ViyvofttV*V
...

Xcvmu

tt

yap
bra

fxidiri

substi-

iraiTtot OV

It

does

not occur to PL, either here or above 141, to discuss

what time

is

he merely treats of one as influenced

textu exciderit
Fie.
:

quod
ceps."
ko-rl.'

expressit in vers.

" ergo

si

by an accepted conception called time. We gather incidentally that time is to him a something which may be partaken of, which passes, and which has
.1

participat, necesse est temporis

quoque esse
:

positum esse dicebat

Nisi quis scribere maluerit

present

moment

of brief duration called now.

The
:

one, again, while passing through time,

becomes

good case of conjecture going wrong. Thorns. Strato tempus com' ;

but when at now,

is.

We shall hear of this later,

156.

The
for

passage seems to have struck some reader

Dam.

fob 280.'
;

((
etc

perhaps Arethas

as 'seasonable' and
it
(
:

suggestive,

refers to 141 a-b.

Had
:

archet. ?
lo-ri

21

the pron. been ill-formed in the

and

*.

...
kvus

from preceding
tv

.
it is

The

ko

8k

.
is

he has marked

with the usual contr. for

'

...

0
etc.

in

Dam.)

.
ft

i.e.

yap

gains force

though he must assume the condit. as denied.

Ast cps. 147 a above,

rriv
/ievoi',
;

pkv

.
>/,

he does not use the indicative,

either in the ace. as subj. to

may be

apa

and

cites other cases of

while understood in the nom. as subj. to

the usage,

= iv

y yiyvto

the part,
;

predicative

-,

kv

being a stage more

is

indep. of y than

of

'?/

in

'>;

iVtVx and

or the exact converse.

is

In favour of

the former view

the point that

would
left

have to wait

for its subj.

it

and be

below.

It is

only to onlookers that

this is

in favour of the latter

an isolated act on the part of the one, as he says kvl etc. yt vvv del below D, Carlyle
fond of calling the present time the meeting point

present position, following

should rather have been

//

may be urged dvay^ and

safer

grammar would have been

had he written rSv

.
,

unprovided
that in
its

the phrase

The

152
h\

FARM ENIDES.

<

makes the phrase nom. to vvv, etc. So t, and

31

,.

^]

..
last is

etc

Our pointing
clearly necess.

for while re has a coupling

it is

be confused with
going with

ance of the

.
is

If the passage

were dictated

> might
in
its

power and is repeated, has a disjunctive power and may stand alone. lv where the connec. is ovre Heind. cps. 155
...

, and

vvv taken

momentarily as

This

a sudden appear-

have on the one hand

...

aorist,

and may be used both

. (
ovre

evos

...

yiyvoir

(-(
',

And

cp. further 150 d,

...

where we

...

, and

twice repeated, and on the other a single

momentary and in its iterative capacity. It is an odd instance of the difficulty we have in expressing
vvv
:

twice repeated,

.
for

Certainly as a rule

requires
singly.

the present tense

is

too

and
sari

it is

continuous, and whilst

we

are using the instantane-

this rule

ous aorist the present has become the past.

present

The

moment
it

a present
it

moment

to realize

and think of

as such,

moment, and retain this to be dwelt on as an atom of the past, eyiyvcTo so t, and it can hardly but be right: Notes
the next
ye

but if we are we do that in one in the memory

;

'
(.

,
:

?
so.'

which can be used

act

But does
only
<I>s

hold

latter
it

(Arist.) or

If the
.

may have

exceptions

and while we often have

'

...

we may perhaps have a

in the sense of a single

single
it

We

have

in

poetry, see L.
I.

vvv del etc.

Thorns. 'Hinc illud Platonicum

If the text is and S. ovre 11. 5 b. to be changed it seems all one as to sense which neither is nor becomes will change is adopted
:

'

"aeternitas manet in uno."

Quod enim nee

est

nee praeterito tempori

in praesenti est, id

est

obnoxium, sed semper

aeternum.

'

Ennead.
to

3,

.
Dam. foL
irXci Si
...

' , ? "
Lib. 7, cap.
2,

demum

is

Hinc

,
, ,
; '

futuro

suit

as well as

'

is

neither younger etc. nor yet

becomes

Plotin.

8,
habet?' Fie.

Edd. read quo autem modo ad

:

alia se

loose rendering:
ceteris?
(i.e.

Ast's

is

better,

'Quid vero? num

est vel

Junius aut senius

dicitur.

fit).'

Gen. govd. by compars. underst.

...
:

'

Nusquam Parm.
Cujus
rei

282.'

aut
;

erepov in

hac disput. sua memoravit, sed conplurali usus est.

vel brevius

tempus

est

Quin etiam longiusne aut fit quam ipsummet an

Fie.
'

stanter

numero

causa

posita est in eo

quod ideae natura sua unitatem

potius

aequum?'
in the

From

this

appearance of vel
more,
less,

habent, res adspectabiles autem per se omni carent

unitate,

brevius and from the general use of

and equal'
suggested

2lt

quam
or

per idearum
It

demum

vim

accipiunt.'

work, Cornar.-, followed by Steph.,

after
;

Stallb. as usual.

and

Heind.

say
says

may be that Parm. does not krepov, but we have seen that he
while meaning apparently the
for

would agree but

occur neither in

finds

no

authority.

The words

and Proc.

needs by the words as they stand, and cps. 157 B, ( ... for needless meddling by Cor.

,
changes.
etc.,

Dam.

.
(
it,

nor in any of Bekker's Mss.

VI.

283 says

yap ov

'
he
Blft

same
with

thing.

,
'.

and

As

ov agreeing with Hrepov, not

Heind. contrasts 145

is

where

(CTTiv

said
ov.

of

v.

The concord
[

Stallb. thinks PI. gets all

recurs in
in the COtld. sentS.
T/)ov

Note the change of form

yap ov

0 .

...

scholars find a

:
is

kWepov
ev

and

eTfpa o

So both Mss.

diffic. in

the last
to

(1) If

and give altern. stand we must have

cps. 155 c,
II.

(Tepa

iO"TiJ

vos

[et

= el

(
I

yap

tt

voi iO"TiJ

(2)

In

()

the suppos.

is

held as denied
in (2) the
is

and the
suppos.
directly

concl. as
is

one to be rejected

to balance

while Stallb. quotes Rep.

If

no

precedes

? ,

and Heind.

? ^, ' '.
382

held as true and a very obvious concl.

:

drawn
is

in (3)

from that concl. as a suppos.

a new concl., to which exception has formerly been

taken,

we must read

yiyvtrat,

again

is

drawn but not dogmatically. This followed by another in the same form.

last

,.>\
the one ol
tin-

%
ili.il.

Till'.

OTV

t,

"I

CO!

ill

thin
!

'

Prob

il

I'm the

one

ol

number.
the
Pro<

Vel

>

mi

he might equally neve said

one
wavra
I
I
1

(vi.

wXntoVOt

'
184)
it
sit

the dial
ii

would ba>
I

been

rn<

ant

D
ni

mi

distinct,

rA^i
1

\
Motes ,

i"ir.

ir

Thi
1

has a scratch ovei o*which

recalls the

<
the second

149
.

bul then

nous sent h

these

be no

eras, in

Pro<
l

Dam
'

iri
Ms.fol.
a,

id,

'

all

tli<

i'i'

Si.illl).

rhomi
invehitur in Speusipp.
duxeril
in.ijus

(are, rspi

V\
nihil

'<[tii<
ipsum quoque
ir

quod unum omnium

Parm.
in

reran]

iniriura

minimum, cum Parm.

defenderit
l'l.

Parm. de
1
1

loquitur qt
ight

Sic
in

vei libus
h.
I.

spud
Parm.
that

piunt ?'
little

about the
is

/\

SimpL
non
in
il/ui'/iur

Hon.

Soph.

Sed vocal

But

Dot Stallb. think

unum minimum
-us-

utpote primum, cujusque magnitudo

he would rather
1

'iraportunum istnd
tv

ex molemetienda.

,'.

Bi

,
tts

A.uct rheol, Arithm.

standing for anything but sensible objects?

tv

Heind. would make

It
is

gloss

Et ut evincat

Parm.

unum

wrongly included.

the only use thus far of

omnium primum,
quod antea

SUpponit hie

alii niinn ro roust. ire,

sustuli-r.it,'
1

quoted, Sophist. 144

The passage Le. 149 bc. r ",v nihil not say o( does
as

nse is not and its nat but 'the one itself as distinct from the parts wh(
genesis he describes,

.,.
i.e.

probor*

uno esse majus, but

*6*
as
if

rcAci

...

icrrtpov so 31 with

with

5 >)}/
>

. ( ), \ /, ' ' , & ' . , . \

till

nothing had intervened to interrupt,

, *6
T(J)

that

regards shape

it

is

ably the repeated of growth for the one

is

to

enforce the nat.

and

;
t

/)

.
yeyove

its
it

it

follows the two important

words.

His

argt.

has

been
has

Every
;

whole must
;

refers

back to

come

into being in
all

natural order

cannot

"

have come
-Ti

of

come

i.e.

must come

HA, but

(whence the other

in

last in order.
...

He

applies this in condensed fern,

Mss.) has

which also occurs

Proc.-Dam.
vi.

Proc.-Dam.

yiyveaOai: 'Thus, assuming that the one

itself (the

whole one) must come into being

...

in its

Tb

285 says of

this

natural order alone

[it

would
it

proof

arrive simultaneously with the end, and] if

has
it

tv ov jiyovev,

come

into being simultaneously with

the end,
last

...

OUteibv

(?)

would be its nature to come into being The Greek would be

-ij

of

all.'

',

e<^o;roi>/#v

,
or

yeyovos

yeyovevai,

. . .

This should
:

etc.

As

,
c

201 says

, \> )
yap

\,-

r44

be

or

but

PI.

to the natural order of the

one Dam.

86,

wishes

(whether
>;

...
it

he wishes

.
eirei 5e

to

make

sure of
to

its

being

last,

and

say

\
-

els

...

toi'tois

etc.

Heind. would like

but the statement
is

here,

in general terms,

and
or
'

may

simply resume the word

Do

7.

. mean
u

immediately before.
'

^ ,
vciT.

...

Proc.-Dam.

vi.

(?

tv

as

we say

first

of

all

'

in the

"

crvy

)
yap
ev

[efvai],

'

285-6

s.v

.yeyovt,
-

1.54

tibi

with

. .
...

ARMENIDES.
He
;

sees the double dealing

accept this

and

ye gives emphas.
It has

to
antith.

which

suits the passage.

pt'pos
is

The order
...
...

, ^/
make
vi.

'

put

Note the growing

to

dence

in the

change from yiyvoir*

Or
in

are

we

to

a break in the sense, as though

the words were

,, .
Proc.-Dam.
7T)

'?

. .
?

first

rhetorically.

in oi'k

-.

Ji-n ...

older,' as

, . .
ov below.

an exact

means
it

confi-

plained by
with

The

ind.
ev

goes the second would no longer be able could not go the further length of becoming still makes the constr. ... older. The clause
...
;

}
The
e'v

still

means younger, and

'still
is

ex-

and means

286 takes preced.

ev

#,
see L.

tivos

the sense of
ing words

and

.
?v
part,

^For

awkward, =

yet

,, .
-,
may agree
with
times,

close con nee. here almost

-ots;

gives a plural sense such as

we need two

S. C.

11.

mean

'

the others as

they

The followcome into

:

the circs.,
is

used

being, whichever

which.

'

The

sent,

might end with

omitted, since,
sixth
it

might be So also of course, if the one chosen be the

fifth, if
:

.
it

be that
is

in

each case succeeds

it

of time and of everything

redund. for emphasis

not

must follow the

on.
ev
t

the ninth the eighth,

its

and so

21

and

family
1.

with which contrast 138 d, Notes

Here we have

a glaring double use of

ev.

ev, first

as

any
eVei

The end

of Proc.-Dam. 's note just cited

this

,- ' .
evbs
...
:

evo9 here

,, ?
in the sense of

and two of everything in which makes it more likely that the dat.
or

'

= in

the case

else.

For

why

with

...
reject

edd.

after

Schleierm.

but the Mss. are clear.

is

On

the other
21,

hand the preceding suggests an orig. ev.

upon

a scratch in
is

and

The

sense

then as

shows that he sees

)4

.
two
:

yiyvopevov
...

infins. inclus.

. ;
change.
evos,

- .
oi'n-e

For

yiyveTai

152 e; and here t gives does just the same duty as t-q
TOSe,

ov:
the

yeyove

. .'
21

'

21

.* .
8

8 .
yi'yvoiT'
is

'
'.

here cp. on C
above.

The words between

;

And
and

form a noun govd. in the gen. by

and

might

in the circs,

the sent, divides at

:;

after

,
.

ei

...

. , ',
have been

.,
is

so the edd., supplying mentally

as
is

before
quite
satisf.,
is

not rarely done.

This

are subjs. to the infins.

very likely the true reading.

so as to yield a

The
satisf.

text

an

In

...

attempt to adjust

an

being underst.

is

quite clear, only

after

must understand a second

II.

supplies at the
t
1.

wrong place
before

. '
et

After pointing out the scope of the

we

Dam.

VI.

287-8 says

which

(
come
relatively older

,
yeyove
possible for what
still
!],

places the
It is to

el

and so the

edd., Notes

be said

for 21 that its read-

ing

is

the less likely to have been invented, and

that the

from

its

position in the line

new

paragr.

could hardly have been the subject

make
148
the statement

marking

, '
[it
is

is

)
meaning.
argt.,

Proc.-

older to be-

[
)
in

yeyovevai
?],

of a blunder,
general, as

,
,

t
'

seems
at

to

have

.
1.

Notes

Herm. defends

respondent inter se

quanquam
addidit.'

gradatio structurae ad posterius

This would seem to

stands for

mean

that

, ' '
21

has

[]

[yet this
!].

is

but the correlative of the pre-

vious statement

This can hardly mean that he

21

had the reading of

he soon adds

It is difficult to

154

c,

'

ov; for
1

yeyovevai

'

[the reading of

,.
\

.,'"

) Uf<

ly I

IT

,...
.

Mvroi
..

rwi

w'...

and
ill.,

it

would
&v

l>

to

omit one

ol

In

./.<

Kolln)
.

The
<

text of U.,

in>l
.-

.ilw a\

qUltC

I'M
'

""
>
>

V i..',ii
8i

;.

he dual
foi

.ill. .\

w - inn-.

'J

tOOV

understand

lb
a.

gives an
1 1 1

odd

th<

ii

not

.
Spa

tu

to

trai
iii
\

their

h
it fcx

llr

1.

mj;

.!

|.>
<>i

tide,
tlu-

we might
but

expect

7
v\

with the opening

d.r.i

nl,

more nearly within reai would seem, not,

ol

opposite

argt.

Heind.
right
i.e.

the adjs. in the

in

then

limit

which, while admitting

infii

siiii;.,

suppressed subj.

*,

i)

elder, the

^ .- ,
Si. ill!-,

seems ^

assuming
v.

1h.1t

the

proportional reduction, cannot be surmounted,

the shape ol th
il

re Iv

riAA
refers

different t

time

al birth

..

The

to the

but because WC are speaking of

at

l"'<

innin;
if

to the

younger; and we add equal

it

present and not as

become
to

No doubt
Cupar': but

they

times.

lie

now

asks
:

thev differ In

the

same
"t

became
that
will

differently placed
to

they would be so: 'h<

that

portion as before
the

word
a

i/AtM.i,

ami here we Bee that his use above B, was a little unhappy.
dill,

Cupar maun

If

hardly an

argt.

he wished to prove that the

and

between an older younger never changed, he should have said

rui
\(i.i'iui,
;

.
pi

-.
\

'he

/*<

has no answering
C,

Oi>jryM

-<.)

0*
while

with which Heind. cps. Tlu act. 197 ai

:s

dtl Toy

Vpivov
it

and
onee

'

.
<

mv
it

...

mpaycyovtvat,

and there
...

no doubt
conceded ..> fto KM
t

that

that the
[ti]v

do continue to differ boy is one year old when

younger
in

]
two

what he meant.

Here
is

is

at

TheaeL 20
37
li,

not continue to differ

it

>&
;

certain that thev

his brother

,
two
.
;

I'hileb.
C>tl

Up'

, //

ovSapum

rturat

...

etc.

other

Strrepa, a

neat paradox.

a lead
is is

by having a lead

You can only 'reduce The constr. to reduce.

and
to avoid
:

is

he

is

interrupted to emphasize die parad.

time by a year, and in age by

He
in

hopeless involution of relations

the omission of
piece.

79 when his brother is 80 he by a year, and in age by b\,.

...

applic. to the case,

vctOTc/oov ...

course, relative

155

. , , , / : >/ ; ' .
Trpbs
CCS
;re/>

>

,= ,'

is

younger

time

would make
irpos

it

more of a
t if

For

gives

,
all

rrt/>

ye

gives a

good meaning

=
'V\ei.
:

, '
is

which

7/>
...

and

might

This senL

balanced
:

be replaced by

and

as a whole, though with variation in detail, thus

,

tirTir

becomes

at

once,

it

( eg.)
,

in

OVK Oil

LoiT

In

/ier

(pos.
Lkui

the change of age

is,

of

and

irpos

must be underyap
et's

The

irreg. arises
rj

from the

diff.

of form in the words

stood although not used thus

...

far.

following

and y

respectively.

etc.

/.

yiyvctrdov,

second corresponded
ravros

would have run thus

yiyv^Tai.

Our

text

makes

by reading what follows.

admits of
connects

, -

and connecting yiyveu

t

But

repeats

in a sense equivalent to

.
:

this clearer

with

.
...

yiyreTai
etc.,
is

,:
Had
.

the
o

rj

evos

i.e.

the numerical
it

di.T.

This
;

between them
surely

constant

but

is

an ever

lessen-

ing frac. of the ages under discussion.

is

with the latter word

and makes

wrong

(ut sup.

290)

>*

Proc.-Dam. yip

156

PARMENIDES.

\ ,
this in
infers.

<.
For the

...

^? (,
He

iv
etc.

a subj. of

and

no

less

than of
is

tend to support the view that the one

idea
?

not an
et quot-

has just inferred

go together
in aliis reperiuntur
if
it
'

repet.

ops.
p.

rj

138 '

, ...6

*( // :
it

ranks with the succeeding

;

cunque ejusmodi
It

etc. in

Thorns.

Stallb.

does not seem as

sense here
:

were used

a techniis

ov

...

(.
statere-

cal

rather

means

that the one

Here are general

;

ments followed by
versed order of

and
ris.

, ?,
and

partic. illustrs.

but in the

named, discussed etc. just like any other thing. 142 B-155 e. Here closes what Grote calls Dem.
11.

is

exemplified in

Proc.-Dam. says (291)

[so

'
is

in
ci?/

He

points out that while

1.,

starting from a neg.

propos.,

proceeds (like the second figure in the

yap
Apelt for

$ and
etc.

exevio

other variants]
etc.,

yap

says would preclude the idea that

are
It is true that
;

.
'

.
and

-yos

syllog.) to

prove double negs.

the concls. are
all

nor
4

Unum
both
...

is

neither

...

in

11.

and.

Of two

contrads.

first

both are

false,

next both are true.

This offends doubly against the logical canon,

the other must be

which declares that of two contradictory propositions

Nothing he

one must be

true,

false.

We

the preds.

must remember that in the Platonic age there existed no systematic logic...' 'Prantl (in his

are also

but

that sense

conveyed here ?

Dam. seems

to hold that the constr.

makes

explanatory of

Perhaps his reason

(if we construe =

is

the

diffic.

noted by Heind. that

repeat

^ . /
in

sound,
ilia

verba

efy

But Heind.'s explan. seems in universum <W,

i.e. if

, ) we

Geschichte der Logik,

tains, if I rightly

vol.

i.

3, 3,

pp. 70-73) mainPI.

understand him, not only that

...

did not adopt the principium identitatis

but that

one of PL's express objects was

contrary of
in the
it,

to

demonstrate the

partly in the Phileb. but especially

I

really

Parm.
to

...

understand these Antinomies as

in

be cleared up, but

no other

character.

Prantl speaks (p. 73) of "die antinomische Begriin-

temporis rationem designant,'

the one (or the others) be in time there would be some-

dung der Ideenlehre im Parm. " etc. This is the same language as that used by Zeller...' Introd.
lx.-lxiii.

thing for

it

and

of

it,

and
for
;

that

something was and

'

is

The

and will be of it and was or is or will be

aliquid et
in the
illius,

it

according as the one

itself
ill

one to being.
reference to
ev

or as Fie.

Esset quoque

eratque
is

et est et erit.'

Any

diffic.

, ;
One

ancients are clear for the priority of

After arguing the point with special

Dam.

says, 21, 37,

this is the

?
11.,

way of and

this interp. arising

out of the use of

if

'.

much

less

than would arise

take Dam.'s view.

etc.

are
as

are
. .

we

said

by

be taken as Dam. takes them, not only

) .
(

),
:

PI. expressly says that

and

that
is

and

?,
we

Proc. speaks in the

this Iv the tv

pared with
is

- of Dem.

same

sense.

Com-

or ev

markedly

less abstract in their eyes.

While

to later students the materials for this distinc.

the passage

thus balanced
are to
is

appear

in PL's text,
if,

it is

not drawn by him,

it

may and we

Now
is

if

may doubt

as thus formulated,

was even present

is

the balinfer, to

to his thought.

In Hegel the distinc.

first,

transposed.

ance disturbed, but there

dtrtp

nothing save

decide whether they are examples of

.

i.e.

'
:

or

. is
is

There Being comes

appreciably before

and

'process' has
:

advanced
the latter
abstr.

is

reached

and

if

be
in

as abstract as ev the

former must be more

itself

says Heind. rightly.

rather a bizarre

argts. against the existence of the

argumentum ad hominem Parm.'s one would fall

frank admiss. that the one

equally well under the categ.

But does not

this

.
This

not only than

but than Iv

Dam. sometimes
is

a sort of despair admits that the elementary to be grasped or defined.

note that H., constructing ab
intra,

too

We may
No
thought

says

no being

these ancients, surveying ab extra, hold

.V.'.

tli. il

pi.),

eil

tlftl

''

'

'
llv

'.1

<

run
theii
\\ In

ad\

..

md
..

""

ere
in
.

vovt cnv
1

on

(Mi
. ,

t.

%
hi

[
(il
I

||?

\:

lh

1,11,

10

li

><

i"

I.?

i\.

end)

/<>/
<

cal

hi(

li

PI.

do<

not
I

fOV
>J

Al 0|()
,

..

.'..

.
oi
.1

to be

speaking
iiui
.is

both as

a logician
.

and
[ntrod.
v.

<nyi

[e
.v.

makes
,..
r
\

a further

dirw

onoi

/6,
oi

metaphj
w.is
i.

.mil
in

Now
the
thai

,.

it

said

//'.
iv

/
'

L)era,

v.

Dean.

synthel

construct,

analyl

foil

/'/"/.
1

deatruct
or halt so,
loan

This is true; and PI., eithei conscioi shows u by his efforts to make ea< h sup
the

which
,11

cp.
i
1
1

.;

..

. ."
it

re /"i

: ?]
avttpov
1

tana

on

previous
is

one.
that

But
ol

the

great
to iv.
JUCVOV,
7*>

tractive Btep

the

first,

adding

U4CT0V IN
I

//>

flTOiCI

All else might almost be Called

that synthesis implies.

analysis of what

when
7.

And

while

from

it,

the

ti

<'h

even

at the

close remains a very

way more advanced than atoms and the void. When Dam. talks ( 88-89, not as a commentator of a atipa. through II4-17)
abstract concep., in no

.:, irnu\ua,
he
is

iSlj

towards

far

beyond

this

dial.

As

and secures progress by assumed that his first distinc.

step,

can make
is

it.

We

shall not

the most elementary difference from one

one, many, others, or what not.

speaks in

this

connec. of

otK

,.
ov,
t)

yap

/,

/iT\oueras

.
143

,
to

\ . ,
is

. -,
pov
(<

much

is

extracted

XfVO/MV

<'/

/10

/,,
yap

jtlkov' OV
...

. . .

m
this

we must qualify his words,

does not

ft

airuv

is

true that PL, 143 a, speak-: of iwtipoV

tx

PI.

goes step by
it

fore he elaborates

number; but

may be

the one from the other.

as primary as he

min. of the deduc. of

)y

seek to determine what

not-

...

On
...

the contrary the culis

number

stated thus (144 a;

;

...

As he does not

qualify

Dam.

104, 270)

we must hold
the argt.

that he refers to the

whole course of

.
11.

ev

up to the present

stage.

Of

this

\
ptU'

e7C/>>T>/Ta

assumes that every aspect has been established

ev

and

is

to be accepted
1.

he does not regard Dem.

the answering

eira

as abrogating

iv

tovs

etc. at greater

length than

we can

^
etc.

e<fterjs

' ? quote.

'
-)

'
it

ovv

8$:
it

From

-, but
it

seems that
'will

'

does not agree with

'will

means

be possible' not

be able.

He
This
is

here suggests an explan. of the contrad.

in his

in-

an early form of Grote's objec. to PL's course

a,

and seems

mean

that if PI. took that to

in

course he should have gone from tv (without

place of running

'

kva&es then to at

downwards
ov,

,
ets

volved

conclusions regarding the one.

Grote

at

has urged that they imply disregard or ignorance

of the law of contrad.

Now, men reasoned before

;

they wrote logical treatises

dialectic of
tice

and, although the

in prac-

Zeno was a great advance, yet

a-eipov.

they were always guided by innate feeling for

so that this law would be accepted in fact
it

PL's course indeed seems almost to refute the im-

logic,

portance of the addition of

and

to

make

us ask,

before
is,

was formulated by
III. 3,

Arist.

And

his

Does he

really

add a

vital

new

predicate to tv which

Met.

05 b

19,

yap avrb

formula

158

ARMENWES.

'
avru.
Arist.

being
is all

We

thus see that

argt.

that

sible one.

adds to the
applying

which

PI.

here employs.
is

we would need
is

PL knew in principle the law of contrad., and

iiore
it,

although when in 'his altitudes'

it.

he does not always regard

There
is

Cp. Introd.

lx. etc.

. , .
to treat
in the accus. of descrip.,
'

if

even that be a pos-

But on the suppos. that

ev is the subj.

as a phrase

dies so far as being

many

concerned.'

The

altern. is to

make

that subj. to

as Jowett and Miiller do the only objec.

is

diff.

between science
says,

in process of be-

to

which

the sudden change in that respect.

this view,
'

coming, and science when checked by

results.

,
/
is
is

tests in its

As

Arist.

Met.

ill.

5,

1009 a 35,

vSe\Tai

eivai
is

'

But there

a flaw in the reason-

Stallb.

seems to take

posteaquam

Unum

ipsum

et oriri et interire docuit,

etiam singula ejus

attributa
instituit.'
fv Si
...

eandem

subire vicissitudinem ostendere

ing of a different kind.

He

has said that the one

--

Two
'

examples of
infins.

occur

one and many, and neither one nor many.

Now,

here in the arrangement of the

Proc-Dam.

although this

may exclude
not, unless
...

the possibility of exist-

ence for the one, he does not actually say that the

one

and

is

'

'

we

interpret the

words

in that sense, in

spite of their manifest reference to

what has

preceded.
he, as

Yet with

this limitation

of his language

Proc.-Dam. (293) points out, goes on to infer non-existence absolutely from non-existence as one,
though the
latter

may merely mean

'

existence as

many

by saying that
but

'? ? . ??
'/xiJT-i

'

67}

','
Ms.],

[-vciv

-,-os

Stallb. explains the

is

want of the

loco subjecti while

instar praedicati.
is

This would

justify the omiss.;

' , , . ' , . ? ,
just

, ,

293-4,

' ,

kv

?
'

and

'

'

? ,'

0 (
yap,

yap

iv eavrtji

'/),

yap

yap

TC

He

urges two points

art.

here:

(1) that PI. gets in all his predications in

is

the wake of

(2) that these are here

like,

used abstractly
6Y &v
said,

ovtos thus subject?

The

sense

is

'is there

but not to anything.

Z\
...

not then also this point of time,

in better

viz.' etc.

which
not

the

one becomes
etc.

equal

etc.,

civai

As Proc.-Dam. has c
PI.

Eng. becomes, as
Fie,

'

in Jowett, 'is there

and says

in his

next note,
far

has carefully

also a time?'
J elf says

numquid
1,
'

est

id

tempus?'
it is

developed everything thus

through

of the art,

453,

In prose

some-

times omitted
ive
In-i

when

the substantive
;

is ...

a collect-

note
what

he adds
the last words.
PI.

moment
very em-

now assumes motion

noun used as a proper name as Thuc. 11. 74, This comes nearer what we need. y

.'
...

abruptly, without reference to becoming, or to any

For the lang. cp. Arist. Phys.

jJev

vi.,

10,241 a 17,

yap
KLViurOai.

iv Zk

is it

both yiyverat and

of yiyv., but

of

>
it

?
then Fie,

other source.
sort of

It is

not even certain at the

motion he means.

The

lang. suggests

Tray iv

?.
phatic.

(138 ), but the associations would favour Not till we reach is the ref. to motion
expression

Just above

is
it
'

the subj. of
is

in space established,

.?
is

here

the subj.

The

',
kv
:

is

used

in 152, is not

Fie,

desinit esse

adequate, and must be replaced by a better,

?;

multa' and 'desinit esse unura,' which might seem

to favour the
: are

does not seem to mean 'how should

acquiescence

view that
of the

the subj.
eivai of

What

as ?
In

it?'

implying

seems to do

but rather
foil,

we

to

make

one would think, must have read

2?

'how can

that be?' implying doubt, which the

the constr.

sent, clears up.

...

-:

the

Y(>/

i.r.i
it

two wordi tre (Si

.1

illb.) superfl.

were, broken >

dash.
I

, which
.

<
u\
\

ontti

is,

till

betti

mighl be followed
objci ting
l!i
il

l.v
I

Stallb.
nl
l>v

t"

rtum

f|U

ddaii

1, in,

r /i./r,

.111.1
-'

111

111;

ill.

quo
1
.

18

taken up

\/">ro|
>',

which follows.

Pi

thai
in,

utnunque transitui the one (< -"i\ thit

in

l>.im

iqi says
II

..

li

be
'

Ml.,:
.111.1

Ml

.,|'H.

fa

<
'(>

.IV. llll
,.*

mi
.
ftt

\/'.'l

"i

>

II

111

between,
oC y
.,,

He made me
..

bl<
III,

and broki mj
i'"

mill

Mi'"

,;l|

.
oi
,,1

...
1

lui:
1

w5t'

otv |k

This opening use

etc.

the

in
1

'

still

until

quest, .nul rathei arrests Attention.

)
.i

rei

taneoualy

mol sudden

in

full
si

Prot
that,
in
or

itrrh*
.in

'

' Whi<

It

ni.iki

points the paradox by

effect this

adj.

such as

ii/roi.

No one seems
we have
...

bold enough to take

tins view, yet

.u',

analogy

in
1*7

157
<ii'
:

b,

cvn
and
159

ii..m.i.i

$
<u-

transfer.,
in

motion and
).

real
/'/

a fail
...

themselves not be

time

895

,-/

<>

rovro

royjMvov

in e.g. rauroi'

rciroypora
k.c
*''/.

VA'U,

...'

/ 158
t

indeed

in

Mioiyun

Mi..,-''.. /KT.i/i.iAAi.t,

and again on

tl

arc directly under the iml. of the preced

Of

tl

'"'
.

/"'/'

seems to give <"> for oV, and the accepted course is to adopt this and read /*/3*. We hesitate il and so read o8v, to make a double change
not with any
strained
great eonvietion, the position being

<
yt'yvrrai

.?,

tM'.n,

<>
>

<

.."

.
V
is

Tin

r. -

"<>

9VTt

*
;

*.
its

ylyvurUai. in all

forms

PL begins by assumii he is now is in time

to rest with

and the word occurring four times

Possibly the orig. might be ovrt yap ovv to

dp'
...

?.
may
hard to

rapidly.
?

eager* to effect the

change from motion

absolutely perfect abruptness,

and

says

that the

seems to express
to

point at which the one

in time.

in neither state

cannot be

existence here,
as

naturally be used for

Thus

rest

endures

in full force until the

some

descrip. precedes,
It is

back

which
from
a vvv

one
lias

is

already in the instantaneous, while motion

(
vvv,

partly refers.

disting.

acquired perfect action before

rest,

save so far as the latter refers to the

of the present, while the former
is

other words, motion and

comes out in which we might infer

it
:

were in time, are

now shown

to

be in the instan
i.e.

not necessarily contemporaneous with our sensations.

t. is

taneous and therefore out of time.

non-existent.
all

Yet a

distinc.

is

necessary, both because

And

with the disappearance of time disappear

assumed not

to

be in time, and because you

vSv,

the characteristics just assigned to the one

yiyveo-itai

construct time out of successive

which you

cannot
'

do
hoc

if

these

have individually no time.

a

Differt

/ >/,

mentionem

Ac
1

fecerat l'armen.

fob 295.' Thorns.

instantaneous as

Arist., gives

?
.

Proc.-Dam. 295 describes the ev duapd, and V dve-

, ,
pkv

'...

...

. '
or

The sense
kvl.

of

...
;

o*>tc is

not

cujus ante aliquoties

quite given here in the last two cases

the

first

of

6.

course coalesces with

ue

would,

scribit

Damasc, Ms.

( ' ' ,
if

The

sense of the whole

:

accurately stated, stand thus

. (~ '

ev

'

. and if
a,

? ^ ''
ei

ot

(-

ev

("

it

were

in

no portion

but this last,

which conies from

PI. is

of time, neither would

it

move

then, nor yet stand.'

up the point.
OT.
...

Even when speaking of

forced to say

We

have learned, 152

that a thing

that
(V

which must have no time,

TOT

irpos

^. \
re-

eiVai.
..

?,

He

introduced motion and

els

This

is

not easy to

transl.

rest abruptly without any statement that they

The meaning would be

got better from

sembled the characteristics already assigned

to the

60
one
;

here he assumes that they do, and are but one

type of
reach
57

These seem to constitute two pairs, and may without violence be rendered strictly and neither is then nor is not, neither becomes nor perishes.' The same arrang. is
ot
...
...

. ,
He
'

PARMENIDES.
Platonic

Parmenides, as ingenious, original, and

effort,

He
more

seems to think that he can

readily through them.
ofrrc

provocative to intellectual

but

it

did not

'

acquire any permanent footing in Grecian dialectics.'

etc.

Something must be said here, but within modest limits, on Time and Change.
Time.

1.

Both
PI.

PI.

and

Arist.

accept the popular

it

continued.
eVi

, .
md

Contrast

'

ev with eVi

and the repeated cases of

does not say eri

tvavria

being used apparently

much

like

wards big and towards equal, and the converse

vice versa.'

ing 'alia est lectio

,
11.

., ,

idea of time.

hardly discusses

now

A. after

/.,

disc, decides thus,

unelided.

'
VI. 2).
;

'
Both are influenced by
six (our three)

the phrase
'

(Phys.

to-

the analogy of space

but A. notes (what PI. as-

sumes) that while space has

sions
(iv.
1),

Steph. reads

say-

quam

et Fie. agnoscit': this give us

and

and Bek. says

155E-157B.
with
1.,

orn.

AEF.'

Does

we speak
whether

,
if

dimen-

time has but two (our one)

and
10

that neither of these exists while

etc.).

(iv.

He

also raises the question

it

the Ms. authority on which Steph. 's edition rests?

motion and souls observant of

(iv.

ceased

We
'

have seen Dem.

itself

conflicting

time would remain

14)

step towards the

and within

containing contradictory
is

Kantian standpoint.
'

Of time
A.'s

PI.

assumes that

proofs that the one

or other.

both

and

is

not

'

something

passes,' the

one

PL
'is
*

in

Dem. m., while not

*

giving up any

quite a popular view.

but
is
it

may come to the same,

analysis

,2
(.
connec.
...

it

previous conclus., calls in a reconciling element.

If

involves

much deeper

the one

it

partakes of time and

our measure of change

(152
that 'is

a),'

and we have only

'

to understand
2.

and

is

not

apply to different portions of

Over against

time in order to comply with the law of contrad.

:nd to save every characteristic of the one.
PI.
is
'

our eternity.

But

seems to be possessed by the concep. of is and not,' and he has already dealt with that very

-,
this

. . . ,
both elsewhere speak of
this

he says time yap 6 .,

:

1 1).

A. draws a fine distinc. in

--6-.y

,
3

small portion of time called

Apparently under these two influences he proceeds to prove even here that the one 'both is and is not,' the

...

. (.
Supply
thereby

2).

Thus the law of contrad.

of

exists

during the writing of this note and the discuss, of

in the

medium of proof being a refinement upon The more one thinks of the less one
to distinguish
it

from

as the point at which the one

.
is

House
6v.

it is

is

able

PI.

describes

which seems
we have a

'
in-

,
larly

Commons, but is unaffected Of Dam. says (150, ii. 31)

effective existing portion of time is

.
:

clearly to
:

assume

that at
is

Now may

include a good deal,

it

Popubut PL and A.

To

both the

and

simply

agree in treating

technically as a part of time, but

part.

reduced to so
If

fine

a point that time vanishes.

has duration, and before
past, has

But can
stant?
it

itself

be other than a timeless

it

can, then

we reach
be

it*

end its beginning and become

says Grote,
'

'.he Stoics,'

considered

.
He

an extremely small
probably agree
time being divisible

that

may be

ceased to
'

play a part in his reply to Zeno

Some

viV as

and

^
rine

nothing in time to be real except

of

makes a
and
he

further step in

, .
A. says

and
6

PL would
this

infinitely small,

and makes
etc.).

(vi.

4.

PL

It is

not easy to

say whether he
infinitely

means by

reduced

this

merely a generalized
latter, as

or whether he creates a

and
(of

(Plut.

De Commun.

Notitiis

timeless time, so to speak

calls
it

ontra Stoicos, p. 1081

.)

d).'

adds 'The doc-

probably the

'

served

the purpose of the

uses the term, but in the other sense,

'

>

itta

(huntin

\.'
in

the

iolulilc

nix, the
'If,

ital

onve)

the iam<
pri.m|

id<

question

the philosopher's brief.

instruct thai point, Mr.

indeed, you

able to

Fairbrothei
chart

0.

<>

PL

tl

.mi indeed able to instruct that point, in) Lord,

>lved

into

the

'

series

trust

not

onl\

tO

client,

but

..

.'

We
(Introd.
it

ml perhaps on<
IK
1

influi

lim

cannot instrud thai point.

it

PL does not even b

Metaphys,
it

p,

m
u

iv

l-<

thai

while
'

lei

in

strictly

metaphys, manner.

p.

I.)
t

had taught bin

oi

that

planations do nol so
iu.i\

much
bj

explain

as explain

not

.1

subjo
is "i

e,

becoming' may
l
'

'<<

PL

is

lino ted

towards physu

al

subjei

u dm e.

Another

mil;,

is

oi

co

becoming or change, whether in the form oi are ')7 Mii/.ns hi ul uAA.kuxiis he dOCS Hot admit
Z.'s

hand

in the

Gut

that,

when PL lands
is

th< cl

thing in that which

not time,
oi

h<

may

hat
it

reduction

oi

il

to

impossibility

he seeks to

made time
not'
in in

condition

being

de< hire that

is

construct

physical theory which will explain the

[e said

an absolute sense.
in. as
is

He

thus able to

physical facts,
the one
itself,

(15a

etc) that

in

past time

Dem.
is

lias

been becoming

older anil

younger than
it

both

and
...

but that
'

when

it

reaches 'now'

'ceases to

6ol

become and is older and younger for if it went on becoming it 'would not be caught by now.' And this now holds 00 tO it as long as it is,' which seems to moan that to us at each successive now the one 'is,' while when we look back, from each to all that have
'

not.
is

m .
;

that each attribute of the

For -

e pp. lxxxi..

But this rase

peculiar.
is

Elsewhere the
01/,

either stands alone, or

coupled with

or again

with

Tijfx

or

rrfsV,

to form a brief prelim, question

is

introducing a longer one which

passed,
while.
is

it

seems
is

to

have been 'becoming'

:

all

the

'There

the crux

it is

conceded
13S
that
c,

that change

:
.

otfre

complete

in itself.

The only apparent excep. seems to be This however does not mean C 53 a).
1

gradual and takes time

passim), but

(e.g.

iv.

when you put

at

and A. Phys. time under the

***
-<-\'.

'but what of the others?'

in the line

is

is

govd. by

above and corresponds with

In the present case

an integral part

microscope you find that

ing thing
'

each instant the changis.'

of the main quest., in close

ceases to

become and
(1.
'

To
if

put

it

in

terms of A.'s dictum

'

above),

'now' as a

might have been

measure of change reveals change going forward,

eo ipso breaks up into as
reveals,

it

of change which
thing 'ceases to
to the next

many nows as the stages and at each of these the it become and is.' From one now
'

seems to show that and so t. than

)
So 8t
ev

conned with

Had

it

been
Sou
:

like the others the lan_.

up'

* *
whence

~d<r\LV, iv

icrriv

This case

&

was the

orig.

word rather

'

but nothing responds

we

find,

it

may
is

be, different being; but

find
:

Buttm. (Heind. agreeing) reads [oiVe

ev]

being, not becoming,

what we

we can not

catch change

in the fact.
:

PL then in despair says

time advances thus
e'a

been

Change is i\v/r<j-temporal

.,
each

rev,
each
at

reads

vvv,

(.,

vvv,

/>.
'

aantpov

at

requirements
to

the changing thing

is

'

in

some phase

(not the

same phase,

(.

yet not

more than one

It

phase),

and

-'
suggests
its

in PL's

,
is

which may perhaps have

surely redundant.
Stallb.
all

mind, but

May

not the following ovSi meet

.

the intervening
referring

being a mere
?

Parm., and no interrup.

Engelm.
of

back

to 150 b.

The note

the change from phase to phase (or from

is

Proc.-Dam. 297

which
upon

as usual reflects the text

it,

place to place)

effected.

would need a minute

while commenting

contains

'

knowledge of A.'s works to ascertain clearly his final view on change, but he seems to be driven to the

but the lang. seems to need correc, which takes

same

conclus. as

PL
(iv.

He
13),

says
iv

Se

from

value as evid.

For the sense Thorns,

iii.

Plotin.
ei

Ennead.
Tt

5, lib.

cap. 15,

and again

8s

6VOS,

' '

cites

ph> ovv
Oe

1()2

SUppl.

. , . ... :
yap
r/v

PARMENIDES.
With
t

yap

...

different length of lines to imagine the

second nearly

Notes

I.

gives
:

.
in

below the

first,
;

and so

to account for the presence

of the latter

but the Mss. agree, and (as Stallb.

The

text

is

as near 21 as possible

it

assumes that
the

adds) Proc.-Dam. agrees with them.

The
all

sent,

orig., that

seems to go closely with yet it may be a case of hyperbaton any case would be given thus
tvos
:

, ,
&

not unsuitable to the context had been

it

may be rendered and

'

to

be something of

those

had been overlooked and inserted in the marg. or above, and that the writer, influenced by had supposed the intention to be that
(av

= ot)

should be the reading.

,
.
it.

none of which it is anything whether that something be a part or what else you please is a thing which cannot happen.'
things, of

and

7
:

the sense in

8
is
'

etc.

show that seemed to

argt.

find

So
t
;

and the sense needs

argt. is

This intricate
are

meant

to

strictly

correl.

He
is

no

diffic.

before (145 a), and his

now
it

not easily followed.

'

part of a
297),
if it
it

whole

^?,
'

If a part

not

. ^ ,
'
Plut. in

'.

() yap

Proc.-Dam.

This does not seem to be used technically,

'

Thorns, quotes here his Dam.,

,,
,

Inde Pythagoraeis Monas dicebatur

test.

, 7
aperit

Proc.-Dam.
:

?,
,

Macrob. ...Totam rem vero yap Quaest. Platon. inquit,

must be part of a
not part of a

'

many or

'all'

that

is,

is

many

in their collective

sense

must be so
so

in their distributive

sense
if

must be part of each, including

much
'

and individual itself. For

So , and Dam. 298 says

, , ? .
$,
rightly.

? , ? ' '/^
On
Proc.-

[MS.

as

part of
'

all,'

one be excluded then it cannot be and by hypothesis it is not part of the

is

Others
t
:

whole.'

If the argt.
it

sophistical (Stallb.)

it

is

so mainly because

undertakes to prove that which

it.

hardly admits of proof, or needs

arises in t'he
it

The

sophistry

statement that

'

if it is

not part of each

will

not be of any.'

different view.
'
'

He

some one thing

yap
to

?
It

Proc.-Dam. takes (298) a says the parts must be part of

...

if
'

therefore
it

, , ? , ? )
i.e.

'\

?
?.
none of these So

he

calls

i.e.

15

,
...

less

good,
fcV =

easily confused, p. cxi.

yap

etc.

The _

suggests that

some

writer

or reader thought the form

in Arist.

the

like
Notes
1.

proper one.

The word,

it is

however, would convey the idea of an

?,

It

, . ,
'

be part of

'

all

which are not a

whole,'
all.

must
This

which
1

is

not meant here, but rather that the others

be so by being part of each 'one' of the

cannot be
>

in place of being partakers of the

itself.'

one would be

[]
is

the one

Proc.-Dam. 299 says

thus

not part of each one,

8c

'

()

and

so can be part only of the whole-less

masse

yap
u /,

3.

, .
seems
after

?
It

many en

In the closing sent.

essential.

Heind. and

? -

etc.
(t)

;
is

# ? .
In
a notable case of attrac.
yet the dative
writer's

...

... the first We expect with

'-

upon the

thought of the succeeding constr.

,
is

is

used through the action

.
in

The

of vCv

answers to a suppressed

Stallb. object to

yap, while the

previous

as useless,

and as probably due to the would be easy, with a slightly

in taking

...

answered by
:

.
is

Heind.

prob. right

as separate from the following

ponding
to
<

onl)

il

icein
hi

ouple
i"
'

with the
i"i

tatter.

a
b<

ill

ihll

thui

the formei
I

(the

a hole)

one
u
li

whole
4
)j

ol whii

the

|>.

mi,
\
>

.mc parte, whil<

ignin
a hole

the latter,
/, ,.. .
.

e.

a hati

pan

ol

.'.Ami will
.

be one pari
but exi ep.
?ll
ii

"i the whole.'

1
1

;
1

eh several Ij
etl
.
I

'

is

quite intellig.

taken to the
\
esl
<

dimin.
.'".

It

nm
',.

>
I I

perlat.
.

simpb - Ikmh

in brai kets,

although

agr<

il

leind. totiua

\. jit

Ami

ij

Ota

renders
live in

it

'

quaecunque tandem

pari

ilia

l!.

parva

lii e ei

ommensurabili

Proc.

lam.

explai
I

ro
excellent

ive

non

orami

tui ibile,'

and
size

th h

sense, although no

rel

to

Bide
SXov
oi
'

hitherto

Bek. again, following

fierm.,
ol

X^i and
*

followed by As! and

will

&
whole
I ol

"..
i'.,Viy...r r.'.i

''.'-',.

ftCl
\,

has prob. be< n

th

ifl

unless indeed that

one,

cue may have

no
2

influenced

thi
is
I

be one pari of the whole

it

that

following thus
illuttr,

upon

**1
..

which
justify

is

a p. hi,' but

there

is

no

bu< h

neat

to

the change.
8 fiv
;/

And

Schleierm.,

&
to
like-

so oi the
(altered to

and
ifMir.<ii-i

called egregia by Stallb.), 'one pari of the whole,

and

of that one which happens

(or p.uts).'

be whole of the part

The

clause,

some we have met,

is

-'
of
it

Thomson's Dam. reads oworovprtt, Proc Dam.li thi. lm.i: Here

which

: ,
it

the fact that

aor. pai

of

Tiie <orv.tr. changes

while

<<
,

betwei
eitl

will

suit

redund., but neither of these changes helps much.

ii

...

'

Steph. (leaning, as Fischer says,

on Fie) wishes ivbs twice, the former being govd.

by
tre/ao,

the latter by
in

also

must

that case be repeated, while there

sunt

but

(1

leind.) the art.

is

, *.' (
I

and

>/

is

that aspect of

is

separate from the one' quatenus roAI

ivfcs

leind.

The former goes

with tv

htamv

but
tv

it

is

(by linguistic necessity) used prematurely.

no dime,

in treating

as govd. by both part,

cannot properly apply to any

and verb.
even

element of
iv<Js
;

.,.

This might end

at (Kttva or

with the one, nor even totc CVe

but his argt. seeks to emphasize the

is

Only

paradox

that this

their nature, while yet

it

is

they
is

whether

this transform,

/.
before
it

comes

into connection

He

occurs
is

that partake of the one.

The

tense of the part,

import, and

is

dwelt on in what follows.

The

sent,

!\
as

contends
one,

that, as

both the whole of the

each portion of them turns out to be more than

we may Dam. (300)

well say they are

puts
v6s

jukt\ov

evbs
iros ko-TLV
ei'bs

ttSuficv.

So both Mss. as
it

.
it

differently

( (

), )
euoi

.
d,

and
Proc-

than the

, .
of 157
:

oAov etc.

This

the
it

5
so,

.
TtXtiov
:

but

does not say

and of course

does not, any more

exist until the latter are

In the phrase
dial.

in

thought of
is

tvbs the tv

of course the 2v of the

refer to that also?

Does

Perhaps
also of the

prev. express,

and

which could cover

really
is

his recent argt

view of the

ivbs

difhe. to say.

of t6 tv for

in 143

Edd. give

even the
speaking

tv

and so Dam.

might be replaced by
:

&

any
ev

some
ev,

He

has not been speaking

ev

time,

and the

of which he has beer,

fact

,
We

yet

it

or

in

would

do.

must
that
in

or the like

introduces the quest, and

will

remember
even

too,

though he chooses to

assumes what the answer

otherwise interfere.
[ae

be,

but does not

only gets

So Theaet. 159

/?>;]

connec. with
if

forget,

its

when thought of
it

and

that the nature of either,

we

strive to think of

out of such connec,

is

1(34

so
used in
this

much

woulil not be permissible.

absolute
'

municantibus

manner to mean in uno com(Fie.). Proc-Dam. puts

'

' ? (. ? -/ , >;. ? , ?
'',
r

under the govt, of

/ . ?
so that the very

PARMENIDES.
gives

names he
is

of

these

perfunctory.

His

difficulties

here,

as

seldom

formerly, are that he must

make

ordinary lang.

express abstruse ideas, and that he must treat as

successive, thoughts that are correlative

(301)

and simulthat
'

taneous.

We

see

still

more

clearly

now

the

one'

is

but a counterpart of each of 'the others'

Stallb.

or 'the many.'

persists

in regarding the

<3.

,? . ' .( ' )
We might expect
for

latter as the sensible

world and the former as the

ideal

there

but

immediately precedes.

In

we have

to justify this.
I
...

which a verb must be sought from

iiruj

which the former seems

latter

is

no

distinc. in the treatment of

Both Mss.
diffic.

...

to explain

,
(303) savs

them
of

and the

Tt

...

formula with which cp. the

familiar

must be wrong, unless we assume that some words have dropped out, which would account for
both.
It will

be seen that

has an

- nearly above

\Uv

So 2:

y,

which certainly

suits

-nj.

The same
this

diverg. occurs in

'

ye, ei

below.
twice,

In

sent.

Heind. would read

with
the

?
all

is
...

'
as

the other with

following.
it

,
In

one

to

corresp. with
. . .

the force

if

read

'

;
:

i.e.

so long as

we consider
in

them
in

either as
;

or as

both
all

cases they are like

but when we regard them

and an nearly below it ; if this was so in the archet. one of these might explain this one. To account for some would read But we have below; and the subjunc.is employed in 142 and 155 e. It is curious that in the former case in 21. is followed by It is just conceivable that may point in some way to a lost ovv But Heind. or ovv , which of course carries the optat. suggests the order seems In in both verbs.

. .

both
as

lights at

and

as possible.

quaque ratione similia erunt sibi ipsis et inter se, ex utraque autem utrinque maxime contraria et dissimilia.'

.
?
etc.
a.

once

both then
Stallb.
is

-)
they are as unlike

inverted

it

would
[i.e.

at least

be equally clear thus,

Here (Heind.)
brief,
'

=
Itaque ex

,
)
S'

#$ 7

Proc-Dam.

...
:

'

Up

to

this preserves

the

163

,
;

?}
is

connec. with the

above, and

should

under

or

have had a colon.

157 B- 159

...

In pursuance of the dictum 136 a-c,

entered upon his consideration of
(i.e.

'
Iv Tots

Hyperbaton for effect = in quo velut in eadem sede

'

. .,'
Cp.
:

in the prev. sent.

'

Fie.

Parm. has

now

This

is

hardly proved.

He

has

urged that they are not, as separate things, in one

third thing;

But we find that the discuss, becomes more and more a recapit. of argts. dealt with at length in Dems. I., II. is its key note, and inevitably. He cannot define

).

'

and he has added

that the
;

one has
lias

not parts which could be in the others

but he

not said

till

now

that the

be

in the others,
it till
:

and he gives no reason

...

his

save in relation to
Iv

, but he has already

by continuous
ref.

justify

he says

set forth the nature of

:

to

a complete discuss, of the one, however

formally isolated, involves so
as to

archet.

Both Mss. had been partly written

) /

one as a whole may not

that could
:

phps. shows that the

to diet.

it

may be

much

ref.
is

to others

and many

make a

separate treatment

govd. by

.
Not

in this case

one phrase,
to this

In

ref.

and what

XOJ
follows

[uol
!
Kill
/<
'
'

his

fol

yap

Mf|

.
J

<
Kill

/'!

".//'.

>/llll

fiM>|
.

,.!

" \
>

II '

<

||IOM
/inl"

|'

fp

i.r

'

h
i'
'

.
VV

.
IV OVM
Is

'\

'''

it

the

"I
it

lhr.

sent.
ire

which ins led to the marg

note?

we

lo

)'y

'..,
i/"iy.ri

/%

ij

'!'/*'

ml
ted

the words
\

complete they are oddlj

betta arrang, would be

\
t
!

Ml
h
1

T'U

!
p.jv

mil again
.

jo
..
,

llTi('HMI

'

'/.

SVTtUV \

We
mi
v

tii.it

the lease required, which

iv

demand!

(ai in Fi<

that

Ciyiri

should bo the pred,

)> i/>

must then road thus:

r
:

oCt

...

oCv
It

This summing up
I

MW1W . im.
1

.'( \
(304)
or

or as
4V iv

a lion BequitUT.

which omits avrwv,

-^ rial'

Here again the lang. is diffic Fie. does not injure the sense and aids tin grammar ami mentally arranging the last by neglecting words as t'-K.S) too cvof ovSojaq /rt'\u. Possibly wo should treat rofi fvis as one phrase, since as it has often been used as such, ami hold
8i
.

' '
:

Ay fu&pmv
rWV

iv

not the

facts

may ttata t if so on which the argt has dwi

eel.
to
is

..

must be regarded as

Dam., cited by Thora

to that of

sim;

Dem.

I.

lint

make
.-.

it

tin

very

important

really rotor to

wo Dom.

4m The
Hut
arc

iv.,

must be omitted

remainder

forms a comprehensive negative prowi.

rr

nouncement
granting
it

esponds with that of .

it

to

be true

speaking now

of the others,

sufficiently explained

'
1

&pa

...

iv

?,
duo

by the occurrence of? andcVos.

Stallb., neatly,

would have been

r

'Ergo
in

neque

ipsa sunt

se complectuntur.'

dw

()
eWrrtV

oi'T

4
...

neque hos numeros The simplest order would be

vol tria

It is

very natural, then, that Heind. should expect

:

roos

( ).

ovre

Here

' />

<

,
et

7/)9

''

is

not relevant.

We
<

and the natural cond.

/"<?

t< tirrt

>

wrauVwt

the mtrod. of
of

(2)

being but a modest acknowledgment

in this last

their

prominence

Dem.

He also

point

connects a new neg. sent, to previous ones, as above;

and
a
,

'

is left

$ 8|.
plan.

|>$
correl.

out before
is

.
>/

another sent, on the same

Hut the
to use

nature of
it

-.
~ov.

summary comprehends the ar_'ts. in Indeed Thomson's Dam. says that both iv. and v. it amounts to a summary of the whole five,
out that this

and the

corresp.

nouns makes
for
:

easier than in the case of

ev

own.
has

ti

vos

which makes the

apod, begin here instead of at

better.
'

The

text

is

) ~ '
~:
7TOOS

(3)

o-vjLtjXi.rrji.a

yap tort to

?r,

()

(2)
-c/x

. ,

tSv tiTi
in

\tto>'-

The

contention is where you have not

(305-6) observes at this stage trea

tVo^ecreii too
ei ev

two you cannot have two of anything, and we saw that there could be no two where there was no one.
'

(2)

may
is,

or

Svoiv

of course, gen. by

toi'tois
oCt'

govd. by
...

cessive cases of

*
Do

may

' '',
Te

)}?

?.

CTai (
ev*

'

ocie^a
< -

errrir,

Proc.-I)am.

or/

eOTl, (i)

Tt'va irrer

not be used technically.

:

Below
a

we expect

as anteced. to a.
:

(y)

We

have here three suc-

'(
(j-eJ.XXei

>
pus

(3)

()

()

followed by ten successive

i-7eTai()/'.oi'<i)'iTrp<iY(ijs[i.e.3

cases of ovSe.

the former three suggest the

connec.

'

neither-nor,'

while

the

others

are

~\,
/< too

ev

^ \= / \ ~,
'

()
"\;

12].

ii-

wv

Tils

.>/.

(H>

PARMENIDES.
etc.

Gram, requires
it

either that eiVeiv should

be om. or that

8 . ...

should be underst. after

Proa-Dam. (307)
'that
;

may be rendered ()

he speaks of non-existence as something distinct in

its

etc.

An

extens.

of 142

a,

155 d-e.

says

'
' '

,
etc.

nor
'

w-

nature' or (Muller) 'dass er unter

dem

Nichtthis

seienden etwas Verschiedenes versteht.'

But

would it be called or spoken of as it had no share in something.'

ctvai
eZ
...

something

if

would rather require

case) he says that this which
distinct,'

is
sit.'

(2)

'

that (in each

is

&.
ubi

Stallb. says

'

quum

formula

not

something
In

significet

negativa

habere praedicata,

or (Ast) 'se diversum ac proprium quid

non

est difficile

ad intelligendum,

nunc esse

dicere hoc

quod non

This

is

the better.
is

aientibus gaudere attributis.

Iraque sententia ver-

the case before us the thing which

spoken of as ov is and to it we must attach an intellig. separate meaning as compared with ind L'pon Heind. cps. Theaet. 153 d,

borum haec

' , ()
'
/
\

)am. (36) says

>

rt

,
With
this argt. cp.

Soph. 257

..
\
\

.
\

sumserimus non nisi negantibus notis esse detenninatum, aientibus s.

est
:

positivis utique carere.

...

Quod autem

addit Parm.

.
,
*r

his verbis significat

>

Procearn

[] ,
exist,

efvai

ideam negando finitam cum ideis aientibus eatenus habere com.munionem quandam quod per has ipsas negando determinetur.' But is the one here defined by negative qualities? On the contrary, having made the single stipulation that we must know what we are talking about when speaking of the
'
'

non-existent one, PI. proceeds to affirm for

it

all

etc.,

where he not

only brings out the definite

,
case

is

described as being

6v

of what in each

but clearly shows that he

is

aware of

, ;
then

the qualities ascribed to the existent one.

Does he
a definite
it

mean

that

when he

says

'

the one

is,'

thing with the characteristics claimed for

exists

while

when he

says 'the one

is

not'

his divergence in this

Parm. by quoting

'

>)*?

, , ... .

his
2i,

from the views of the historic

:

(in his

present acceptation of the term) he means

well-known words

''
yap
is

that this

same thing has no

on the one hand a
'
'

exist,

in nature
I

and

exists only as a subject of our

thought?

assume,

he

says,

definite set of qualities

There has been an

omiss. here in
xci.
It

cp. pp. lxxxiii., lxxxvi., lxxxviii.,

probably arose from a confus. in connec.

with the double

later date supplied the

the second

in
t,

and no doubt it would be from the second family which t represents that the passage would be supplied. The word seems necessary.
absent from

.
.
it

reader of the Ms. at a

one sum of things by me, and on the other hand that same set of qualities to be withdrawn from the sum of things ; and in each case I ask What follows ?
which
I call

to enter into the

as pictured

blank but omitted yap and

cl

.
...

After insisting that

'

that one,'

The yap

also

,
(s

Heind.

refers to a reading

refers

and no other thing, is non-existent, he goes on, For if the thing which is to be non-existent be neither one nor that, but rather the talk is about some other thing, then we have not a word to say.' And so Proc.-Dam. (308), eZ yap
'

and says

?
We
from

The

already given in

and must get a governing word for

:

would cover the following

, . , . /
that

probably points to
better.

text
...

seems

',

civai,

forward to

tivos

but the substance of this

is

...

etc.,

Stallb. suggests

which

finds a diffic. here,

and says
is

,.

that

Stallb.

what we require

infins. also.

from the passage

this,

'

Si vero praeter

unum

ell

IJC

llldo d.l.i

nun

nil in In

1<- .i| >\

>.n

holds equal

<>iiiv

ii

th

iblatia

afltrni
I-iiiii
ii

mtibui notts omnibui) futurum

.

ut

in

\ii

|ii

Icm

- 'ii
iV

oporter
in

Uo
not eq
ial

doubtedl)

both one and othera were

little to

ind like to thai

there would be

ipe

about, bul

thi

one
should

"i

tl
,';

hardly
I

hat the
;

mplified already

in

",

.,
to

ii

eerni

odd

that crtoa and

have
are

&,
is

be called

in befoi

m
much

admit thai
boldei

ira
ii.-.

-|<%
. ii
.in iiiii.
'

'It

.,

'.
havi

v.l,

He makei
It

itep
Infet

with inequality thai we

mediately.
Ti>
Ii

(Arcp

etc) he can
are
it

that

iv
.

because ra
not mill .a

in

nitudo

<

[am vero ad inaequ ditatem pan itas

tui

why

once

that

is
'

rwi

because rd
directly undei

are

This con
in

/<.

<

>

d that the different differs only

addition (to what has already been

from the different, and so below c

II

etc
tills

vm opated perfe
present sense.

Cp.

argt.

The

One almost
1

fe
.1

*^<

form with

words below,
differing
slightly

admit of two sen (i) about such .1 thing the a]

...

row

ivrfs,

low were one word and avrotv

following words
Si

dative.

But the

ontradu
In

the
.,

it!

could not be conducted

(

<7
The

as

it"

it

were
to

the

one

Ivl

...

'

Hcind
his,

and with him DM

fie: t/m
d<
"ii

>}v

tv).

This seems
'

be Midler's

vAd. read r$
1

view, 'so konnte wold nicht von so etwas die

scin,

Rede

wic von

ck-ni

Kincn

(a) the argt.

could no

scripsi pro dentium continetur, A good change; but igitur etc

longer be held as dealing with such a thing as the

one.
latter suits otbv

Mss.

(( comes
...

from

ivis better.
in

Both

Mss. and edd. seem agreed that

we
Hoes not
this

have the
argt.

art.

yet

it

might be rou

) $
The
is

136 c and

&
t:
:

quibus com
8c.
it

oth
cp.

lor the furrtg of

-j

which cannot stand.

text gives
is

Both Mss. read "vtu-, Edd. change to \ot

usage
justifies

cancel the preceding one?

If the

one must

a form which

and

lie like itself, it

and so With
above.

<
...

must equally be unlike the others,

are unnecessary.
cp.
...

which

closer to the Mss.

The

subject to

omitted.

The contention
but
it

here recalls that of

elvat

Descartes, that the concep. of

God

postulates his

the latter the <Vai

[ .
lies

in

the

]:
tivat

In the former the dat. avry

is

wanting, in

existence

is

more

extrav. both because of

the

full

evi

[]

constr. being

Sd

the less vital nature of the concep.

its

neg. charac.

upon

...

The odd
*}>;

part of this argt.

it

a f;ro0rts, and

and because
ev
it

of

The

fallacy lies in the sense put

We
fact,

were told that

learn that

is

we now
is

">/

-e

>

if

the one were equal

it

statement of a
that issue.

because our veracity hangs upon

so then any hypoth. which

would already have acquired being, which

not.

has

Stallb. points to this as coinciding with his

may

set

we up about Hippocentaurs, Chimaeras, and

If that

view that
qualities

one has only neg. equality being positive. But surely likethe
non-existent
is

the Other

referred to in the Phaedr. (229), carries with

it

(
is
it

not, but a

ness to itself

a positive quality, to say nothing of

objective validity.

The

only truth with which

Besides PL has not yet decided whether the others exist or not, and yet has brought them into compar. with the non-existent
the others referred to 160 e.
one, a course which ought to involve
diffics.

we have

to deal in arguing

from an assump.

is

the

truth involved in consistent

adherence to the terms

and conditions

it

imposes upon us

a truth which
in

Again

he

infers

immediately that

if

one and others are

does not carry us into the region of objective reality. No doubt PL and still more Parm. set great store

not equal they must be unequal; but that altera.

by the one, and would not place

comparison

108
with a Pegasus or Gorgon

PARMENIDES.
:

but the argt.

'

If

the

of the argt. he says

one does not

exist,

what follows?

The objective
'

existence of the non-existent one follows

circle of rather contracted radius.

seems a

The

and
the discuss.

illustrate the unreal

character of

/ , ' , , ( --) )
'

yap

If Parm. wishes to push on or to change the subject Aristoteles will say to the most paradoxical assertion ; if Parm. would like to

?
,
yap
[

ov

ov.

el

yap

enlarge a

little,

he

will

say

?)

in a

much
of

ev.

simpler case.
in

And

this in detail,
is

though not always

character

, ( ---),
5
ei

yap

the

main
...

outline,

largely the

eivai

riatonic dial.

two senses

'
text

()
ov

The

,
;

first

sent, here

this jars with the

context

(2) to

, , , ,
may have

-,
one
SO

\>

^
=
one

>)

?
el

[Ms. ov]

eivai

,
ev

-PI.

ev

but

yiyveTai

-.

here

?]

This means that

'

gets round to the doctrine that

exists in

the non-existent
(1) If

'The one

is

non-existent, then, as

a sense' by two paths.

that

would appear.'
is

It is diff. to

form a theory of what

truth then the non-existent

underlies the correc. of ; in the marg.

In

the

we show

it

, so that the error does not go back to the

Perhaps some scribe had been writing

?
The

we speak
and

is

non-existent,

(2) If

we

reaffirm the

archetype.
to dictation,

more strongly that the non-existent one does not exist,' we by our double neg. let exist'

and

after confusing the

that of >; (an easy matter)

latter,

with sound had decided for the

ence at the one again.

Set

from some odd passing notion that was the dat. of a fern. noun. As to the corrector
there
is

?}

no sign of correc. in or whence we infer that it was not in the marg. of 2 at the time when or its orig. was copied. But there is another

In the third
necessities,

the missing accus. to

?/.
possibility.

Proc.-Dam. (below) seems to have read

,
:

and

61

gives

For the

: ---() ? ? .
...
[i.e.
:

first

statement

is

this 8ei

ev]

() ebv
ov
eivai .

and the second

refers to

these two assumed

and

is

explained by the following

ei

which (Heind.) would be clearer as

modern reader (whatever might be the case

still
...

Does
or

we have
pretatur

/.
orig.

and is added, and was the

explain
?

for the ancient one) this

rendered

more trying by the

...

On
1.)

in the marg. of
'

tn (Notes

the schol.

librarium Codicis Augustani perperam

sisse

. .'
.
a.

Scholiastes Augustanus inter-

ut HesychlUS
Fisch.

Quae

pro

diffic. lies in

that suits

,
it

quidem interpretamenta docent,

scrip-

Why
it is

and

better than

sense be

? .
hound
an error

,
S.

statement,
first
:

cies

and additionally so by the closing redundanand ...

the want of abstract terms, which leads
in a

We
ner.

feel also

to the use of parts,

The only not easy to see how

and in fins, As regards grammar

May

not the

'if

shall let loose a portion of being

against non-being'
ill.

2).

To
:

this

while

might mean
'

like

a dog? (L. and

would be a suitable
'

,
equiv.,

omitted, or if it had would be clearer were The whole means much the same as before it. Again the phrase
etc.

? ? ? . ? ?.
introd. of Chiasm

complicated statement

is

referring to

the second
to the

confusing man-

<

rj

'

of the actuality of being

existent,
existent.'

ward

unless by chance

Proc.-Dam. (310) has

which seems an equiv.

' .
it

on,'

'

urge

is

fpr

-. for-

>)

eivai

for

On

the substance

, , - ?
.

and of the non-actuality of being nonThe whole might run thus

-]

-eivai-

yap

SO J
Ml

/
II

.|| tlH

turns the
01
'

'

Num
1
hi

IMI
ii

01

"

8l

,"

'/

Oil

/"/

in

lit)

Sv,

in

nl nl

quod sliquo
1

^11/

*
u

/''

row

i'iiii

rou

..

ii.ii.i

. hi, nisi
to
.

/"/ *'.
il

\>

ordingly

it

to

<

*.

non
In
.it

be
w

ii"
Ii

spi
'

ial
/'

ti

ns<

me
i"f
/'

*
\v

existent

muil have the

bi in

[-non-exi

nl
tin

bond

"i iti

non existem
il

e, |uil

u
e,

the existem must,

\> ond

look

> ,>.,

in ordei

to perfei
ol

existem

have as bond the

in

the

and

i"i
<>.

ime
l

"!

as

non-existence

not-being;
be,

foi

this

way

rathei

than

The
in
>1

>uld im|

would both the existent

and the non-existent

s<

form 'ever) such case,

mil the
1

not be namely, where being shares the

tualitj
e,

ol
il

al

a quality,
*

'

existence and the non sctuality

it

ol

non existem
absence

11

':.

/"

"

-,

to

prove truly existent, and where not-b(

the
non-actuality
ol

<>

lharei

the

ol
e,
il

non
not

existence snd the actuality of non existem

PL accepts
if the

being also

in turn is to

be completely such.'
(310,

Alter
ri

paraphrasing,
tildi

Proc-Dam.
ttvm,
tvptftUt

311) says
Of,
ii

. :
.
in
in.

subst the law

.
.'

which we nave the prea en Pro* Dae

.'/
<<
1

rt|

Here again
SCeflQ

<>i

contrad
It

NotCf L
cli

WOUld

archet had not been quite

m;

TuiTii TO

AtyOUMVOV
rrrropa
OV
"irrir,

KIM

Am OV

and we have

my

ties
If
ill

"i
is

hesitation bet wee n

rtra

and
ir-ru-,

rv in

the dial.

right this
perf. of

IfKtOV <>'\

OVM
...

owrtav [Ms.

'

ov urn,

ov OVK

>$
-tr
]

7./)*(<, <-

owrias
/>)
...

4*%
'
:

" ? ($ .
&
c?rai

<, '
ft

\6

mm

to

be the only case of the

Ollttt

ur)

while
repeatedly.

and other

parts of the tense 0CCU1

find
lv

would appear
in PL,

No

doubt that very

a change here.
Sv

rarity might suggest Again we might expert to find to

it

[Ms.

iirt]

here, as

is

the subj. of discuss,

ai

/'>)

occurs just above.

irws

Ileind. supplies mentally

OVTI Tor e?pai
[/iiy

cause the scribe

or].

in

Yet the very expect, of it might to write it wrongly (i.e. he exit,

emu [/tiy The phrase

e'mi above.

Of],
es

pected the form and put

himself)
;

but afterwards corrected

>) ffvoi corresp. to il T Heind. suggests iut as underst. with

This
Stallb. rejects, giving
fiir
'

while on the other hand

we

oV

and
in

ov without

evi.

also

162 A above,

erscheint audi ein Sein

ist.'

das Eins, wenn es nicht

is

than
yet

in print.

In either case the sense

clear.

When PL

one almost looks

... irot
:

wishes to say that the non-existent one has being

both Mss. read Ti for

he presses the
to say that
it

in

er

<<, when he

has not he presses the

tirtttp

.
}

Proc-Dam.

goes on (311)
etvai

[Mss.

,
evl

''
the
last

, ?

e/s
ei

iti'at]

[]

wishes

blundered
stands as

in
it

" -.
for

(v,

and following and ev differ much

corresponds with

,,
In
3i

less in

Ms. and
has

after iwurep.
ye,

and

The
:

clause dwtp

*
last

were

in brackets.

...

67ro\j

It is

<( , . , #9
/MV

(,

'the same' here were

read

'' ''

in the

may mean

the

same of which we are

iv

.
is

If all three

forms for D

same case they would

Perhaps the
the marginal
:

Both Mss. read

neg. keeps

speaking.'

What
ov
...

mark

like a small 5 here ?

the former

This commentary

as printed by Stallb. seems to have

many

errors

clause has probably something wrong.

...
:

up the hypothetical nature of the case the latter is as it were a quot of the former, and is as if in inverted commas.

'

otov re oCv
is

not clear whether ofoVrc

...

impers., followed

by an accus. and
as subj.

infin.

motion be non-existence that reason

exclude the idea of
rest.

If the reason for

absence of

will equally

clause,

or personal with

understood

is

from

- wrongly.

to the

PI.

of a def. kind between

draws no distinction and n-aVat, but

170
his terms

0,
is

distinction.
ijpepdv,

Prob. the last corresponds to Arist's

the true antith. to
It is

which

the state of being

which admits of
that
its

-)

unmoved on being moved

included in

, .
.
;

PARMENWES.

imply a

the latter being the form which

,
...

'
;

would agree with

PL's former definitions.

the part of a thing

>

imply duration
iVrturtftu is

and It would seem motion, and means

both
-ts

stands for
to hold.

,. -^-^^
But
if

Here again
if

so

. .
and
ov
:

the conversion

is

are used to

mean

(1)

any change (even one of

ykv

place), (2) the

momentary arrestment
;

renewal

on the other hand

ecrrW
(V

~'
elsewhere.
103
.

place of

oV/,

or ravrg in place of
that the orig.

:
-

'

' '
One

with the expectation of

very special change implied in death-birth.

...

8
yap
...

ore

Here while the

IV. 8,

positive

are repeated twice, the negs. vary

...

from
latter

to
is

...

.
...

Of

the negs. the the former cp.

2,

Phys.

expects

The words used show

form had been so
p. 3 6.

far modified.

meaning of each The two presents

.
:

and
in

form

the normal one.

On

on 150B.
is

Jelf rightly says, 775, Obs.

often ident. with

,
'

that oi

...

the

merely
of

linking the sent, to a previous one.

The want

are retained as intelligible

of

t is

better.

Both Mss. read

'

Edd. prefer 8, and Fie. renders ergo unum movctur,' which is more approp. 2i has no
gives
it,

Proc.-Dam. (312) says

(
to

statement being (necessarily,

ground of the charge;

otl
Kivtp-Ls

? , ) , -. /
and
it

//, .
;

but the

symmetry here is often paralleled in English Does not become nor perish might well be followed by neither becomes nor perishes.' t gives
'

...

in
b.

both cases.

dum
t

160 B-163

Dem.
11.

is

to the hypoth.

'

if

the

seems necessary.

ei

; ' / '
On
the argt.

one one

is
is.'

not' what A

was to the hypoth.

'if

the

It is synthet. or

construct, being based

as admits of

upon such a concep. of the hypoth.

discussion.
clearly discussed,
less antithetic

Grant that the subject admits of being

and

it

has in
it

it

a capacity for endis

The

brackets are put

:

development,
But like
is

'both
.
is

and

is

not'

bring out what must be the sense

if it
is

the last

many
to

things.

.,

much

harder

to hold) the

work out than

the corresponding analytic one.

his points in various
(2)
if

He no doubt refers

, where
is

to

138

r,

The author makes

'

ways

(r)

by stipulating for definiteness,

is
'

is

the genus of which

his

one

in

'

is

not' as he did in

'

by pressing the the one is,' (3) by

'

species

and

charge

is

that this

is

here reversed

in order to establish

from a conceded

attempting determination through negation, (4) by claiming that the object of thought if you are truthful' exists,

/;,
charge

while

all

that
in

can be inferred

is

either

and withal

(5)

by sophistry.

These

change or motion
is

space.

Despite Stallb. the

various methods run into each other.

With regard

just, if PI.

/)
...

and he has just renewed that by saying, 162

cp. Arist.

Phys.

[3;
,

>, .
. . .

, (
it

adheres to his terminology:

d,

to the fourth, while the proposition that thought

and

existence are one

may be

strongly

and legitimately
PL's statement
state-

and then
1,

treating of
8,

III.

201 a

'
. . .

>};
...

its

kinds

defended,
of
it

it is

not easy to

feel that

ovtos

6',
//,
:

,
...
:

is

legitimate.
c,

One

is

reminded of the

ment 132
itself,

which he regards as
'

sufficient to refute

about

thoughts that are without the power

...

of thinking.'
is

What

he seems rather to contend for

lay

and

satisfies the passage.

other case the lang. must have been either

or

does (mite well

t rj ... 77,

which also
is

that

if

any persons choose to

seriously about
it,

down a

hypoth.

If this conversion

to hold

and reason
just,

their reasonings, if

and

must be convertible.

In any

will lead to

conclusions possessing objective

reality.

In that sense thought and being are not

identical.

Even

Arist.'s strong assertion,

Phys.

111.

.'.

171

*
,

flat

ill!

roti

(iiVuoit,
l

ii

guarded

b)
"i

the

ling
ite

wi
in
-.it

>'/

illy

Grote sms'
!. .11

he meaning
11
it

the predii
bi

have run

iced
il

had been
il
.

in

Numb
Il\

.urn.
I

tell
... t'>

wli.il

In.

d>

Bled
1

wtov
1.

he
re id
p.

fern,
/-.

mi^hi

about

iium
ai

the proposition C/num ton <>/

md. would
<

but

on
.

deny nothing
sj Hi,
-

>/

the neuter.
oOt'

1^7

d, /
I

on\

alon
C/nitm

nli

mi
<>(

it

denial

&v

BO

farther

affirmation
//..

mm

I'm.
<

imething to be
)

d for the
.pared.

ompound

vi rb,

tiuiiM tsi

aV can hardly be
,

Pro*

Dam
<if

(315)1 how-

lubstnv Here thia aiujuid xcibiU is assumed tum underlying Unum, and remaining even when Unum is taken away: contrary to the opinion that liium was . sep.n.it. inline and the tund.i-

in

paraphrasing

1.

it* iwokXvtl,

Was
ri

Ins text that

trai k

tin
hi

fiiiulv'

li

he

is

on the

'.(

we would
1.

un

Attic form in "'-...'.

\.>tes

menl

il

Subject of

.ill

which

Arist.

announces

as

ivi

Ikos

It

is

hard

t<>

bring out the distim

as

having been held by

PI.

(Met

a,

a 6*so)>

There

between
this passage.
'

and ouoafA

used

throughout
tllb.

must be always eome meaning (the Platonic Parm, ues) attached to tin word Unum, even when you
talk of

Aui ketne

Art

und Wei
'

above: 'dass das Nic htseiend- keiw

warts
ist

nd

Uttum non

/>/>.

ami

that

meaning

is

equiv-

und nirgendwie an detn Sein Theil hat'

'

alent to

.///<////./ sti/'h'.

nsahaiiis,

From this
in

Muller:
1

he proceeds

to evolve, step

by step, though often

his

a manner obtCUre ami inconclusive,

contradictory affirmations respecting

regards terminol. the close association between the

ideas

the old physical philosophers.

gest the

',
first,

roiavSe
el

>,
/uov

/
:

series of

Unum'

As

and yivens

while Arist. Phys.

,
is
i.

way or kind Jowett, including rg. nowise? As to /ug Is nohow, and the argt., Proc-Dam. (.^14), after saying that the previous Dem. discusses tnwrat <"< ivi //</
in

no
IToJt,

nullo prorsus

modo USquam
'

est'

lie.

sort or

derived from

goes on

avoid itwtrt
-

.
rovrtf

etc. sug-

odd but

4, 1S7 a 29, <> yivardai

'
fol.

intelligible phrase)

...

yap
-

couples the others,

right in

)
iv

ptZptv

So both Mss.
but there
yjwj
:

Edd. may be

reading

is

nothing to

call for the

change.
C

For

one would expect some

</>'

.
( &V
XoyvTai 6
8,

Xryoucv

wis'

( -'/'
(tvat.

(
etc.

ovmas airowtav

OVK tivai yoil'

...
j

,
(an
fori,

, -'

(,

UttAw?,

/o/(S/iiJ

such echo of the previous statement as

.
so far to
is

etc.
. .

The query =

roSe

. 6
mere
are,

ieytev

.
it

8(
...
ofl
:

Thorns, quotes his Dam., Ms.

not
2(,

owriaf.

In
in B.

he carries out

his

remarks
second

Aeyo/tei'or corresp.

above, and phps.

variety after the repeated
in inverted

used
:

for

etvai

icrri
;

is
it

commas.

As

...5

to the reply

essential, while Stallb. gives

to the

omission of the prep.

sense
fully

we

here as at 161

from existence
is

may be hoped, speaking as truthe, yet we can banish the one with some success. The etvat below
;

yh'jTe

...

.
...

e.g. Crat.

(<
yap
'

ye

,
%

,
The
t,

assigning of the

is

and

it

seems

ample authority
408
D,

for the

.,

^.

a neat
'

illustr.

of the

compound
not
'

character of

found in

D
can
h.l.

&

t,

and seems necessary. etc. So both Mss.

'

rather than

neither,

as = both nor.' The

not,

and

in the

yet Heind.

ans. takes

justify

i}r,

Ita correxi

vulgatum

y,

quoniam

leaves the tc

interrogandi vim habet

(Stallb.) refer to

non

dubitandi.'

The
interIt is as if

of the statement, and up the double as mere copulatives. ... and it seems quite satisf. &v ... 6vtos So

would

rogans in

156 a. Certainly Ast goes always with the indie. As

he said

ynp

Stv
t

for the

being predicative,

can hardly be

the

right.

172
Bek. adopts
serts

PARMENIDES.
from
're.
'

while Stallb. in-

It

was

said,

Introd.
;

lxvi.,

that

not-being

is

as

before oVtos, which seems to take from the

diverse as being
here,

and

that PI.

assumes

this in part

significance of the passage.

164

oCrt
is

&...&

:
t

and more
not-being
2).

clearly in the Soph.

In the

first

sent, the triple

has the advant. in scient. clearness when he says

that

reg.: in the

second there would be two cases of

a double oiVe, but in the former of

them the

first

ouYe

(Met.

.
If

??
If

Arist. as usual

your
is

Categs.

are

becomes

ov8c so that the 81

first,
:

may couple
and

the second

sent to the

balances this
for ye

by a second
for

before trepou

...
be a
which
'

and gives
;

deduced the statement

complete.

In this

we

deal with not-being in the Categ. of

the prev. one

we did not

,
.
It

properly

Dem.
in

this corresp. with

Grote
i.-n,

tlvcu

'Is
it

it

possible that there should

if it
it ?
'

above.
is

The most

import, declar. in Dems.

for

at all,

be necessary that there

'is there
if it

that (162) being

should be nothing for

in
it

any respect
to

other.

can have

behoove

have

phenom. sense

nothing?
P
.

37.

irtpl

8v

variety from

155

and

often.

Thorns, cps. Soph. 238 c for a

ovre ovre

series ot negations,

oi'mTuv

7)163
II.,

' ' , ' ((

.
and
1.

164

These two Denis., marked

ev

8 8] ?
ovn.

,
being
PI. in

and not-being imply each the we speak of being in the popular

this

holds even under the Categ. of

it

while of course

holds in the sense of the

So

dictum Omnis determinatio est negatio.

does

not hold (Grote above) in the Parm. sphere of

;

hence the abortive char, of that system. this dial, has a presentiment that it will have
in

to hold

the ideal sphere

ev

. and
to,

where the other

under the hypoth. of

1.

present

correspond to
V et

...

Dems. a
to the

11.,

under the hypoth.

would

suit

8k

' .
failed.

??
is

if

his

system

to

succeed

which (Heind.)

The

has probably not a

but in a reversed order.

The

11.

corresponds

local meaning,

former

Both are analytic or destructive,

one by pressing
V.

such at

first.

though occurring thus it suggests To be consist. PI. should say

has proved, or assumed, that this

and
the

attain their object, the present

?*
alone
br\

7rr;.

He

the former by pressing the

And

the

is

result

is

much more

easily

and

satisfactorily got at

needed 161 E-162. Cp. on 147 d

...
:

than in the corresponding synthetic or constructive

cases. to

Indeed the course of reasoning merely tends give clearness to the conception with which we
In this case
is

begin.

eivai

there

an end.

Grote says
(6-7),

?;
'

ih-epov SI

The

(t)

on the same ground.' seems needed to mark

'

the subject.
is

that

'

For the terms see 143 B. The argt. must have a correl. others as a
'

and
last
etVai

oVtos

These two

applied to the one

counter-demonstrations

forming the third Anrespect

ceding
...

tinomy deserve attention

seventh

in this

That the
[sic]

>3
...

[i.e. this one] is founded upon the genuine Parmenidean or Eleatic doctrine about Non-Ens, as not merely having no attributes, but as being un-

.
In this
:

Dem.
is

then the sense off)

the

same as

in the pre-

Proc.-Dam. (316)
tois
...

etVai)

knowable, unperceivable, unnameable

sixth
is

while the

,
...
;

? / />
eV
8i

rel

It

seems to be idiomatic
sense of
literary

founded upon a different apprehension of

is

in this

Non-Ens, which
in the

explained and defended by

for,

PI.

Sophistes (pp. 258-9) as a substitute

of,

and

cp. Arist. Phys.

refutation

the Eleatic doctrine

...

The

negative

results of the 7th follow properly

enough from the

contrast of hiatus and elision.

...

assumed premisses
jumps

but the affirmative results of

. $
/
/iey.

,
while

'',

to use the pres.

cp. Ast.

So
eivai

for the

III. 6,

the 6th are not obtained without very unwarrantable

in the reasoning, besides its

redundancies for emph.

is

:8

' '?8
give
eivai is

remains of an author
a sharp

one of PL's
It

extreme

subtlety.'

surely a confus.

of ideas.

t>

grows

>

.'

.V.

,., and exhibits

.,,,..

cam
i.ui

ol

what Ariel
do
.

calls
lo

or

may

In
"
1
1

,.
in
l>

....u/.i.mi

iurel)
.1

.,

luilk.

No doubt An
. .

i\

(>,

mu

.(

iy.

.
v.i
<

oVO

"
\

i
,
1 1

"
Kill

\
.

Phj
.

III.

",'">; SoKIt ' .,"',

T>yi'
.'.
..

"

'

'
'

t'ni

k.il'.u,,.,!,!

,,

vn\

* ,
tin
III

w.mlil tuppl)
1

on

fn
"it In.
11

miii

'

would

'

;li

'

will

'

lil.l\
t]i

lie

ln.iv

Malli

in

ard

uiii
<

tivel)

ri

itvoi u.
I

but he

.in

hardl)

mean

thai ri <ry**{

In-

dd.

became
finitely

li

divisible

indefinitely,

become! inde
to

,
l

nrhii

111.

iv

possibly

1"

best, bin

nd

larger

Hii

words are

probably
It

be
in

are debatable throughout the dial

Prw
I

qualified by

becomes On the othei hand finitely big bj companion. paradox, aa Ariet Phya in. extraord. have the
rpii re

lam. in Ins
t<ro
.

note follow

are
'>,

..

trpHtpoit

here Schleierm.

zoo

1)

5,

points out,

>

a limited

ml k divisible

in-

ted that lor

finitely,

siatr

ouupovutvov

* >%'
oyn.i/u'i or.
,

and then

(aa

regarded from the divided

infinitely
/<>.
fi

backwards) augmentable
(it

awtipoVj rairrj

he says above]
quotes
'

Cap.

'
v

Thorns,
r,\>/('i>\

Prod,
II

/urt \i -;/ TOV

ii

furi\oL
Ann'

ovn

JoTat,

^ '&

'
ro

we must note that nunt that the

infei

,
:

Without kllowihL'

thai

(whom

edd. follow
t

.mil

iking

if

6%

we

from ha\

small, after passing through equality,

that
it

we can
wi

irpos

doe. from the following

(317) Says

[nst.

Theol.

assume
form
iv

it.

I'loc.-I ).im.

0$' li yn/>

run

--

><';
ii..:
;

.]'-

0CI Ul

?,
Th
IS

ich

,ros
DO
I

7/', '
lis cbrci/oov

forai kou

t'/v

'/<>(

.iir(/,)iriT.u,

anil this passive voice

>]><
tVuirroi'

mu
aircipov.

more frequent

in

PL than one would

the

infer

from

raAtv

must have believed

as Arist. also puts

in the aircipov <Vi rijv

it,

?
(S'

/,

Democr.
or

L.
big

and
it

S.
is

When
it

passes from

little

being closely observed and

passes from big to
is

becoming
(Heind.)

many; when
each of the
one.
afl*6i/M>vs etvai

aui
he held

/.. ,
DlOg.
I

tVni'

^<o,

since starting with

uto/aovs

,;iert.

IX. 44.

idiom

Fie. 'talibus,

inquam, acervis

diverse invicem alia praeter

viceni rather avoids the difficulty.

we had
the order
is

after

.
PI.
is

unum

erunt,'

where

in-

Heind. wishes

part,

Stallb. objects

and says
in

phantasmal course,
unless indeed

>;

but does not transl.

Jowett

'

And

such

strange

aggregations the others will be the others of one

another,' which

gives

the gist but does not ex-

plain the structure.

has already said that the

others are other than one another,

and he does not

wish to part with the phrase, but he seeks to add

his elucidation of the true character of the

What we seem

to

need

either a mentally repeated

, 6 ? ^
or a different case
...
:

.
.

cases are there of

the fut.?

. . . * , . ,
little

many

being momentarily viewed as

partly recalls the

The

constr. of
for

The words

are fairly equiv. to

but

we might bring out

'for
it

the force of

t.ic

by rendering

could not cross over

in

as

in its

progress of make-belies

we

are

to

suppose that by some

lis

whim
are

the words

-or meant for its Edd. do not comment upon -plv

is

Sofieip

yet the express,

with the

If again
t

we

take

deal with

very well but that one would then expect

the whole Sent, being

...

for the first

words

ti

Si]

whether the
part,

gives

,, fut.

peculiar.

How many
still

infm.;

and why

ivplv

how

which would do

...

^.
may
so
far,

It

is

worth asking

orig.

not have been

of the

to;

31 may be a reminisc. which has occurred more than once,

balancing

but agreeing with

the

assumes
right
is
;

17+
. .

PARMENIDES.

jitVov

?
if,

Heind. would understand

eivai with the first

, while

Thus we might render

it

'crumble away': which the

Stallb.

group does, as Proc.-Dam. (319) says

)/

it

with the latter only.

is

Heind. seems
all

yet

it

hard to make any distinc. where

with Stallb.,

-,
1

.
1
:

He
a.

twice uses the phrase

cp.

30
?

has a

seeming.

But

we assume

that each

nre not physical

least

Does he mean that the Whether so or not they are

"Avev
t
'

at

limit towards every other, a consider-

mental pictures of physical objects.

able step has been taken towards making each 'one.'

Yet Proc.-Dam.

(318)

takes

this

view,

(\
before
ye for

'\

(. .
comma
and
ivos
:

If

we

)
It

unius expers accipitur.'

21

take this view

we
it

looks like a small aspirate.

must remove the

from

and place

has

also perhaps with

6 .,.
to

against both Mss.

What

is

far as

form goes,

?
is

Herm. put
might, so
refer to

use the word at

required here
t

, ,
,

, and
it

so 3, while so Fie.

gives

semper enim acervus

where the small mark c Although Proc.-Dam.

right.

can hardly be
all

PI.

does not

elsewhere, and in the sense

it

does not seem to be used anywhere.

gives

vooiWi.

Perhaps the

little

sign

is

all

like the following

that

is left

of a misunderstood

or

which had
else
it

it

='

preceding, but
as often as

it is

better to refer

been omitted and was placed above, or

be a sign of a
parallel
lost

may

one takes hold mentally

marginal correction.
in this connec. as
: : :

of any part of them (the groups), as being one of

these parts
(i.e.

seems better too

:

as being beginning, middle, or end),

so often does another beginning appear before the

the lang. cp. Rep. X. 596

A,

beginning
i-

[if it

is

as a beginning that

we have
is

viewed our part] etc'

unintelligible

The

reading of

from which edd. omit the

leaving what
the reading of
t.

The
a

text gives a reading which, with a very slight

for the

', ,
Theaet. 165 D,

',

change indeed, both accounts

and

yields

Sti

much

better parallel to the two previous expres1

by

n-e

, #
el

. ,
sense

The aorist we have the

For

and

So

t.

21

has

above, or by dictation.
. .

sions.

For yap

the lang. cp. Arist. Met. ix. 4,

1055 a 20,
Tt.

oiov

''
t

The
For the

cal with Toi>s

?
:

The
or

) .
(
The
;

wrongly

explained
are identiis

that

is

added from

as apparently necessary.
Fie. gives
'

closing words from

quia nequit

aliquid in his accipi etc.'; but

quire

mid., as Ast assumes,

a subj. for
sent.

0 . .
?

'#

would not

If

it

stands as in the text

.
unum
must be
be
'

as outlined roughly to one at a dist, they have

a sketchy resemblance to units, and that as thus

affected similarly they are also like

this re-

but that

when

one goes up to them they

multitudes,

split into differentiated

and by an appearance of
is
is

difference besubj. to

and we must borrow mentally

Tts at the beginn. of the

from

.
,

#
is

come

Unlike,

e.

and

pred.;

the conclus. drawn in conformity with 139

...

There seems
d-e,

to

in PI.

but

We must assume

another case of
pieces,' viz. Crat.

used for

break to

which changes as we go on to
Heind. cps. Theaet. 208
E, Arist.

426

where he

is

speaking of
or

the p-sound as indicating

cites pilv por)

movement

//,

<

Vtciv,

"

. ', ,
and

, ,

show
and

that

a distance.
adjs.

-/
In
oZv

from above to gov. the

Rhet.

.
ill.

infins.,

12, to

were meant to be seen

at

...

the parts.
to

yap,

. ,,
6pave.iv,

seem throughout
In

/?
while

be govd. by

we have an

alius, to

the distinc. in 138 b-c, 139

(t

,)

Vi

'

(</4
164
1I1.
.il

in

orrcspond

IIAj

b)

this

tint

0t

f-w

the prai hi c
11

we have hid
d
[
'
I

.
1I1
il

.*
II

II

to,

I"
'

i<

Lull

<>t

thii

in

pin

\m

in iy

affirm 01
truth.

den) an)
Bui
in l"

thing

.1

ii

it

In-

othen with equal

w

hii

'.

Prom
li

anxietj to
In

make

lure thai the lattei cannol

-1
.1

oue

is

result ol
that

permits himsell to
righl

u
do.

11

thej

wen many,
h(
.ill

>
made.
(

/"/

told

to

which he hai do
undefinable ai

to
ri

They are limplj

Bui
thai
in>
ih<
11

be carried on

lacking
1

pirpov,
bj

huh.
thi

un

be<

In

the

onti

hmiM
onl\
li

li

from

tell

ontrad

ia

.
1

perroitti d to

thai f/pU ...a

1

apparent, and

does nol stand

tion.
Bull

ro/uv,

and
Vet
should

you are to have othen without one

strange and eubtle chain

insl

the

it ii

a wiKl phantasmagoria or chaos.

'This Dem. 8
inferem
ol
es,

thai

haw
1

,
nol
1

rm.

in

r<

in

with

n->

ol

pur-

we

'

han
l.i

porting to reel

upon the admission

Caetera with

e
I .

ing

<

out

in

in

.;'

wap

out LJnum, brings out the antithesis

ol the

Apparent

ami
nian.

the

Real, which had not been noticed in the

'&
'no,
1101.'

Note the series of similar

'nor yel
Iv
et<
.

preceding Dems.
it
is

Dem.
...

is

in

its

character Zeno

iv

probably coincides with the proof which

reported
to have given (p

The sent
t

no

r*7

1,

cp.
....

gives

.,
tl
t(

. .
it

and

, *
%
n<

vmrOai.

seems

better.
:

..

165 e) against the'existence of any real

Malta

etc

Zeno probably showed

supposition arc nothing

...

that

Multa under

this

real,

but an assemblage ot

t'Atyt

indefinite, ever-variable, contradictory

appearances

an 'Amipov

...

relative

and variable according

('.rote.

to

of the result to the one

fashion

.
sa\s

'

This summarises

the dial.

orn
in

Ka0(*s

,
it

Proc Dam. (331)

irpexrUtv
i
.

-.''<
'/

tV OVN

UTTIV K*QOi%

TaWTttU

this

As

Denis.

i>,

t.

and
is

11.

he had
first

if

not,

after

the point of view ol the subject'

tv

iv.

an echo of
view
it

? (,
oiVir or ev yap
says of this

The opening means el tv oiVie is evos tori. The -, we might and

el

as equivalent either to iv yap avrois

foriv.

Proc.-Dam. (320)
(in the last)

so he deals in and second absolutely Penis, in. and iv. with the late of the others under corresponds with ML similar conditions. That is, With regard the last sent., sum11. with iv. to and marising the whole, it must be regarded as held subject to the conditions indicated in Dem. A IIL
;

1.

Dem.

elmov

what he means, though as above

160

... .
"
evt

/,
The
etc.

156
odd.
is

a-h, viz. that the

law of contrad. operates at

and one sees

is

his lang.

As Grote points out that Dem. which breaks up the harmony of the antinomies
least roughly.

order here

-.
to
either
Stallb.

and

both by
'

1.

-11.,

iv.-v.,

. -., in. -iv.

must

so far apply to

each pair of contrary proofs as these occur.

the conclus. he says
as
it
'

Of

The

argt.
;

rebuts

the assump.
'

The close of the Parmenides

fairly

whole and part

the
is

have

nothing whatever

stands here,

may be

compared
his

to the
v.

do with what

non-existent, nor has any part of

enigma announced by Plato

47 Q

any connection with any part of the other. would read ov8e for but the Mss.
Heind. in order to
justify pepoi,

C, [eoiKe

in

Republic

tVVOV)(OV

agree.

thinks superfluous, suggests that follow

, ((
Dam.
etc

may be regarded
ei

as

which he

And

(321)

-yoiV

$ $?
etc.

which

enigma propounded
gence
pose
to find out.

for youthful auditors to guess

intelli-

.
>
....

epi
i<p'

liKTtpioui,

This

is

an

so Proc-

stimulating their curiosity and tasking their

As
is

far as I

can see, the puzzling

antinomies in the Parmenides have no other pur....

There

however

this difference

...

The

176

PARMENIDES.
recognise in them,
ing.

constructor of the enigma had certainly a preconceived solution to which he adapted the conditions of his problem
:

We

find in

we have no means of determinthem many equivocal propositions

inferences

whereas we have no

sufficient

and unwarranted

much

blending

of

ground
in his
self

for asserting

that the author of the anti-

truth with error, intentionally or unintentionally.

nomies had any such solution present or operative

mind.

The

veteran Parmenides

imposes the severance

How much

of truth Plato

may him-

of the two as a lesson upon his youthful hearers.'

Surely this
is

have recognised, or may have wished others to

too pessimistic.

Errata.

The

following errors have been observed

care has been taken.
,

no doubt there are

'

others, although

much

It

should be noted that, in giving

where

no attempt has been made to give the middle stop I. seemed to occur. This is due partly to doubts as to the facts, partly The upper or lower to the trouble which would have been caused in printing. stop has been used according as the position in the Mss. seemed to incline.
the punctuation in Notes
it

Page
J

xxvii., line 30, for

liv.,
j j

premises
principal
VI.

read -isses
1 >

31.

,,

-pie
VII.

>>
f f

lxxv.,
ci.,

!
1)

30,
38, 22,
14,
I,

,,
,,

I
1

16,
1

>> >>
5> >>

32,

,,
,
,

it If

"5.
139,
8.

,
tis

reproductions

-tion
tis

> )

-'

17.

II

29.
1

,,

than
'

I
'

from

The

80 b

and

belong to

\{yw

in line

INDEX
references references
in
in

>l

SI

BJ1

CTS.
the

the index of subjects

of

are
to

to

the
<>i

Introduction and
rhich

the

that

Greek words are

the

Ste|

include

Texl

Help may

also be got

from the marginal notes ;m<l summari

absolute, The, xlv., \ivi.-i., too,

totle,

on Ann. th.,
:

I\.

OB 160
, ;

Reii

.117,1.
-

IO&
Ahstt.ii
t

Kiv.
science,
xiii,
:

on

<

hange,
:

Ixii.,

on
117
1

-v.),

thinking, Kv.

divisib.,

173

on
xxix.,

dog

s
t
1

Dialec, Science.
abstraction and generaliz., wix., xlh..
.\1\ ii.
c

Idea,
xlvi.
,

x.-xi.,

xxxiii.,
;

xliv.,

,167,

'

'

'.

88, 89, 96, 98

"
.,
;

lil

lxvii., lxxi., 106. 127,

[31,156

lomp.
iii.

leneralia.
PI.,

ti7

n motion,
1

vi.,

;.

17

academy, The,

Text.

on One,
liis

n,

14S, 157
t

on PL and
;

Cekki

r,
.

I.,

lxxiv., lxxv.
xliii.,
1.,

Occident, S4, 136,

1 38,

141.
135

works,
102,

vi., x., xi.

I,

on

xlii.,

or.

Achilles paradox, Uii.,

Motion,

lion,

116;

on Socr.,
Iii.
;
;

Ideas,
;

Smalh
76,

Zeno>

xxxii., xliii., L,
xvii., 70.

on time, 160
viii.
x.

Blass, P., xciii., 129.

Adimantus,
leechines,

on whole
iv.

etc., x.

Metaph.,
?

Body,

xliii.,

91,

131-2.

Seme

philos.,

Dial

refers to the Parin.

xliii.;

v., vi.,

viii.,

etc.

Panaetiua,

terminoL later than PL's,

x.,

Bond, 168.

Being.

Age,

lxvi., 119, 154-5.

Time, Younger,
lxxiv., cxiii.

Aldus

Manutius,

lxxiii.,

Edits.

.
ti

\xxi., Ixii., S6, 120, 134, 141,

\t

l6o;
U>-

Boundary, 132, 133.

Byzants., cxx.

Limit

etc.

dub.,

iv.

vi.,

vii.

rphr.

Subscrip.
Indie.

in, xii.

Byzantine reckoning, exxi.

Alexandria,

ii.

Libraries, Thrasylus.

Arrow
.

par.nl., x.xxviii.

Motion, Zeno.
Caesarea, cxviii.-xix.
Aretha*.
^raphists, -phy, cxvii.

All, 97, 150, 102.

Whole.
etc.,

Article. Si, 109,

Ambiguities,

Ixiii.

13S.

On

Athenaeus, xxxiv.,

1323, 155, 139, 158. jr.xxv.-vi. Parm.

,
Antipho,

Not-being

etc.
lvii.,

Atoms,
96, 99, 157, 170.
the,

lxvi., lxviii., 140, 161.

Democ.,

Campbell, Prof.,
Cause,

xxi.

Analysis-synth.,

One.
Atticus,
-cian.'.,

Categories, lxx., 172.

lxxvii.

Construe, Farm.,

Apellic., Text,

lxiv.
xxii., xxxiv., 76.

xxx., 95, io6.

liv.
,

Usener.
Attraction, syntact., 102.

Cephalus,
Sentences.
i.-xix.,

Anaxagoras,

Chains of being

etc., 75, 90, 95,

100.

xxii.

76.
lx.

Authenticity
Predic.

of

Farm.,

n 7>
105.

57

of ideas, xxx., 95, 101.

Antisthenesjjr.,

Aristoph., Galen, Grote, Thrasylus,

Antithesis, xwvi., 131, 13S, 148.

Uebenveg.
xxviii.,
xl., lxxiii.,
l'ref.

Change, 159, 161, 170, 171.

ing, Process etc.

Becoir.

Aoristv. pres., imperf., 80,92, 117, 139.

Apellicon, lxxvii.
Vposiopesis, 109.
Attic, Texl. L'sener.

Author's attitude,
lxxx.

Sentences.
lxviii.,

Chiasm, 156, 1 58. Chronology, Platonic,

Mss.
lxxi., 1050, 151, 153 and perishing, xxxix.,

xxiv.

Sequ^:

Appearance (seeming),
Being, Cratyl.
Arethas, cxvii. etc.

173-4.

Bast, F.,

xci.x. Ixii.,

Parm., the; TeichmuMler.

Circle,
1

Becoming,
Mss.,
i.

12, 133.
ciii.

l'atras.
etc.

etc.,

161

Clarke, Dr.,
,,

Aristophanes of Byzant,
braries.

Li-

lx., 15S,

159, 171.

Change, Mo-

Ms., xxxv.,

lxxiii. -vi.,

ciu.

tion, Process,
Iii.
;

Time.
lix., lxiv., lxvii.

Clazomenae, 76.
,75,
Clinton, xxxiv.

Aristoteles, xvii., xx., xxxv.,

istotle? xxvi., xxvii.

= Ar-

Beginning, xxxix.,

153, 156; in spare, lxvi., 132.

Cobet, C. G.,

lxxvii. , xcL, xcviii.

177

178
Comparison and generaliz. (q.v.), xxix., 116; not same as ours, xliv., 95,
99.

PARMENWES,
Finite-infinite, lxii.

Divisib.

Jackson, Dr.,

xi.,

xx.,

xxiii.,

xxxiii.,

Finlay's Hist., civ., cxvii., cxviii., cxx.,

exxi.

lviii., lxviii.

Abstrac
argt.,
lvii.,
lviii.,

Areth., Mss., Patras.

Petrie

Joannes,
Mss.,

cxvii., exxii.

Caligr., Subscr.

Constructive

157.

Flinders

papyri,

xciii.

Jordan,
etc.

.,

lxxiv., lxxvii., xcii.

Schanz

Analys.
Continuity, -uous,
lxiii.

Text, Usener.

Time.

Forgery, Literary,
Fractions,
lxiii.,

iv.

Antisth., Galen.
131.

Jowett, B., xvii., xxxix.

Contradiction,
156, 157.

Law

of, etc., xxxi., lx.,

Divisib.,

Minim.
li.,

Kant,

li.,

Iv., lxv., 96,

l6o.

Copies of patterns,
Cratyius,
1.

99, 101.

Frederking,

.,

xxi.,

77,

78,

88.

Knowledge,

lx., 106.

Arist.,

PL

Lang.

Damascius, 75; Dam. (Ms.), 140.

chis.

Day, 93, 134. Ideas, Decay, viii. Change, Motion.

Deductive
argt.,
lvii.,

.
lxv.
ii.,

Pro

Gaisford, T., lxxiv., cvi., exxii.

Clarke.

Galen,

iv., lxxvi.-vii.

Lachmann, lxxiv. Edits. Language as test of date, xxi. Campb. Leo VI., cxx., exxi. Stylianus.
Libraries,
ii.,
iii.,

Gardthausen, cxix.
Analys.

Palaeography.

iv.

at

Patmos,

civ.

Generalization, xxix., xxx., xliv., 95, 96, Abstrac., Compar. 99.

Alexand., Apell.
Like-unlike, -ness,
140, 141.
xli.,

85,

117,

118,

Construe.
Definition, xxix.,
xliii., 1., Hi.
iii.

Genus, 86, 103.

Glauco,
xvii., 76.

Idea.

Same,

Different.

Limit,
Idea, Science.

-less, xxxviii., lxii., lxiii., lxvii.,

Demetrius of Phalerum,
thent., Libr., Text.

Au-

God,

xlv., 103, 104.

126, 130-1, 157, 163, 164, 173, 174.

Graux,

C,

ci.

Melanges.

Lines of Mss. (q.v.), lxxvi.,

ci.

Graux,

Democritus,

iii.,

viii.,

xxxv., Ixvi.-vii.

Green, T. PL, xiv.

Grote, G., 82, 96; on the Demonstra-

Schanz.
Little, 118, 173.

Atoms.
Demonstration, S7;
Description
-tions.

Small, Big, Minimum.

lviii., lx.-lxi., lxiii.,

Parm.,The.
xciv.-cxxv.

tions, lvii., lx., lxii., 123, 126, 156,

Logic, -cal, xxxi.,

lxv.,
lxvii.

of

Mss.,

171, 172, 175

liii.,

on the Parm.,

ix.,

Analys.,

Contrad.,

Mss.
Dialectic, xxxii., xlvii.,
Iii., liv.,

lxviii.,

175; on PL's methods, xxxix., lx., 104 ; on PL's

ii.

xiv.,
text,

Metaph.
Maass, E.,
Mai, Card.,
cxvii:., cxix., exxti.

78, 81, 105, ill,

xli., xlvii., lv.

117;

its

object,

-iv.

PL, Parm.
Being.
Edits.
,

Arethas,

Melanges, Palaeogr., Subscrip.

Hegel, 156.
Heraclitus, L,
ciii.,

Dialogue
1

in

PL

(q. v.), xv., xvii., xx.,

cxix. Arethas, Vatican.

cxvii.,

10; system
i. ;

in, xvi.
of,
ii. ;

Heindorf, lxxiv.
spurious,

Majuscules, lxxvi., xcix.,

138.

Dialogues,
ii.,

sequence

lxxii.

161.

Becom.

Mss., Minusc, Palaeogr., Writing.

iv.-v.

Parm., The

PL

Hermann,

lxxiv.

Edits.

Manuscripts, archetypes,

lxxvi.,

Dictation in Mss., 76, 96

Different,

etc.

144 ; comparison
Ibycus, 109.

of,lxxxii.

,.
;

126,
;

The, 115, 116, 119, 127, 135,

i.-iv., viii.,

descrip. of Paris
xli. -xliv., xlviii.,

A,
;

xciv.-cii.

of
t,

J37-I39, 140, 167.

Ideas and ideal world,

xxxiv.-v.,

Clarke,
exxii. -v.;

ciii. -exxii.

of Venet.
of,

Diogenes Laert.,
lxxvii.

94,97> 105, 147, 149; Arist.'s(q.v.) objecs., xlvi., 88; extended? 92, 94,

families

lxxx.
;

etc.;

form

of, xcviii., ex., exxiv.

gaps

Discipline of philosopher,
Hii., lxv., 106,

xxxii.,

Hi.,

96; growth

of, xlii.,
;

L, 89, 90;

how
in-

in, lxxx., lxxxviii. etc.; great, Ixxv.,

107.

reached, xxix.

incomplete and

lxxviii.,

cxvii. -xxii.

measurement
lxxiv.,

Dittenberger, W., xxi.

Divisibility, lxiv.,

Language.
126,

consist., xxix. -xxx., xli., Hi., 149,

Ixvi.-vii.,

130,

133

0es(q.v.)of,

Dogs, 84.
Editions of PL,
Ixxiii.

Aldus, Bekker,

xlix., 96,

?
xliii. -vi.,

150; intermingling, xxxi.,

xliii. ;

1.

of, lxxvi., xcviii., ex., cxiii., exxiv.-

v.

treatment

of,

lxxix.,

name, 97, 103,

xlix.
xliii. -iv.,

lxxxiv.-vi., xci.

105; necessary

for philos.,

Many and One

(q.v.), xl., lxiv.-v., 86,

xxix., xxxvii.,

105; patterns

Heind., Steph.
Elcatics, xli.,
lissus,
lviii., lxvii., lxviii.

nature? xxix., xxxii., xlv.,

Me-

Ii.,

93, 97;
Hi.,

Parm., Zeno.
x., 76.

?
Ixix.,

107, 130-1, 136, 162; of sense (q.v.),

xxxviii., 106, 133.

set

up

in

Multit.,

One,

xlix.,

Others, Stallb.
Matter, xliv.,
xlvii.

xxix.-xxx.,

Sense

etc.

87,

100,

105.

Elements,

One, Parm., PL, Sense, Sensible

Objects.

Measure, 118, 150, 175. Little, Small etc.

Meisterhans, K.,

Idea, Limit,

Enclitics, 78.

Megarians, xx., xxv., xxxiii.

Aorist.
xciii., 76.

End, xxxix.,

lxvi., 132.
-lity, xlii., xliii.,

Imperfect, 80.
92, 118,
Indiction, exxi.

Blass, Pro-

Equal-unequal,

Subscr.

nun., Flinders Petrie.

141, 149, 151.

Inequality,
Infinite.

18.

Equal.

Melanges-Graux
lxxii.,

(q.v.), ci., cxviii., cxix.

Euclides, xxv., 79.

Finite.
lxii.,
1

Maass, Subscrip.
59,

Even-odd, 128.
iies,

Number.
Limit
etc.

Instantaneous, The,
160.

Melissus, xxxviii.

Eleatics.
li.

132.

Now, Time.

Metaphor,

xlvi.,

Arist., Idea;-,

, ;

INI
Mataphyili
laill

.
Ivin.,

xxii
Ill,,

111.

Ivlll.,
I ;

Op|
Din
I

\\ .,

I"',

1,1.

with

PI.

(q t

).

*">

li(|

M.i.i|.ii\ ile

of \n .

(q.v.)

)"

Hli.

:>,

Farm. ? \ 111 lx. v, xxlv,, \\\..

iv
.

I',

xwiii.,
'

ill!
'

in,
l I

rIIv.,
PI,

5 94
;

".

1/

Id

'

Mi. I. II.

l\\ .,

..

n.l.
;i
;

Minimum
Ol

ol

being (q.v.), bdv,

lix.

Pale

thought,
ul. .,

Sin. ill.

Muni

..

Ixxvi., \.i\.

Mil,

Pal
1

II., lv.

Aulhent.,

Writing.

Pan
Pala< ogr etc
111.,

Parm
\

mil. in. on, cx>

ii.

Parr
^s,
.
1

Motion,

xxxix.,
.-.'.

xh
171,

>>,

;,

..,

xxxvi,

eti

xl., Ilii

/.

Becon
Parmi

10.
.

Mull.i. h, /

,7
of,

11;

;..,

i'/j,

l6l.

Proeetii Reek

nirli

The, nnalj
l.\
'

,
hi

Mullach, xxxiv., xxxvi.

Multitude,
157.
ixill.,

Parm., Zeno.
ia8,

r.'ii

loped th

A
-

105
xiv.
lvii.,

Pi

ta6,

130-1, 13a,

v.,

1151
the

ont< nl

Many, Number.

Ixxii.)

Dem
164,

int,

-'',

Names, naming, 139-40,

Nature,
xlix., 97.

142.

.;. 156, growth of

lii.
:

[60,

;, 172, 175;
xliii.,

iz'j.

Flan,

ideal theory (q.v.),

.'

Metsterh.

Idem, Pattern.

historical
of,

\\
piOtfri
(q.v.)
:

lanin,

Pyth
Pytl
.....

Natural order, 153.

ning.

Becoming, Begin-

guage
xi,
;

\\i.;

~o.

Parm.,

need of discipline,
vi.
II..

lii.

nol

IV
PI.?

Negation,

&
Now,

-ive, xl., xlvi., lx., lxvi., Ixvii.

by Arist.?
xvii.
;

i\., lid.

\ni.

by

Being, Not-being.
Toiroi,

Tail

etc, 109, III;

liii.-

Quality,
89.

xlviii., lxiv., lxv., lxvi.-vii.,

88,

xlix.,

105,

Ideas,

relation to Parm., xxxvi, etc.,

iv.j results

Nature.

of argt.,

lxviii.:

scenery

Quantity,

lxvii.

Not-being,

xl., Iviii.,

lxiv., lxix.,

166;

of, xxii.
Ii.,

sequence
;

of, xix. -xxxiv.,

Quaternions,

xcviii. , ex.

exxi v. , 29. Ma*.

ambig.
xxxvii.

(q.v.), lxv., 172;

of Farm.,

S6, S7, 95

speakers, 86, 108

1

Being, Neg., One.

spurious?
xiii.
,

xiii.,

19

.,
129,

Readings, 41-74, S3, 86, 89, 90, 93, 97,

125, 129, 138, 140, 144, 153. 154,
162, 164, 166, 16$, 174.

Not-one, 138.

Many, Others.

xliv.

Arist., Being, Dialect.,

Editions,

xxxviii., lxii., 151 etc., 158, 160.

Ideas, One, Tlato etc.

Tart,
xliii.,
Ixiii.,

Mss., Text.
125.

Instant,

Time.
,

94,

"4.

Reason.

Science, Thought.
Ixiii.,

Number,
145.

xxxiii.

Ixiii.,

12S

etc.,

132,

I30. 133 135, I3S, 153, 155. 162.

Relation, xlviii.,

l.wi.-vii.,

102;

Many, Two.
Becom., Time, Younger.
lv., Iviii., lix., Ixiii.,

Many, Others, Whole

Fatmos,
ciii.

etc.

ideas of, x., xlvi., 8S.

Clarke, Mss. etc.

Relative terms, 102, 116, 117.

Ideas.

Ari

Older.

Fatras, cxvii.,cxix.

Arethas, Subscrip.
Ideas, Farm., the.
xlvii.

One, abstract,
115, 120,

in,
150;

Fattern-world,

li.

Resemblance.

17.

Like.
Arist.,

156;
(q.v.),

all

(q.v.),

Perceive, -ception,

Sense

etc.

Rot,

134, 159, 109.

Becom.,

ambiguous
148;

Ixiii.,

Ill, 114,

Perfect whole (q.v.), 163.

Motion.
xlvi.,
xxiii.

116; antitheses

to, lxv., lxviii., 13S,

Philosopher, -phy, xv.,

*

xl.,

105;
etc.

Ruelle. C.

75.

atom

(q.v.)? lxvi.-vii.,

140;

Philosopher,'

the,

+ being, Iviii., lxiv.,

lxvi., 124, 126,

Dialec, Discipl., Ideas,

Physical ideas (q.v.), 91, 101
xxix. -xxx.

Zeller.
;

127, ISO, I3 1 141 156, 157, 167;

cancelled, lxvii., 122-3; exists, nonexistent,
lvi., lxiv.,
Iviii.,

objects,

Same, 116-17,134,140; ambig., xxxix., Differ, Like, One. 137.

Schanz,

16S,

170;
;

idea?

Place, xlix.,

147, 149, 156

149, 150, 104

in others

,
xvii.,

Chains, Sense.

.,.
cxii.,

etc., lxxx., cxiii., cxv.

103, 114.

Motion,

voyjrbs

56.

Clarke,

Ms

Rest.

Schleiermacher,
of, xvi.
;
:

v., xx., xxiii., xxv.

etc., 14S,

like-un-

Plato,

iii.;

bent

cause of ideal
in, xv.,

Scholia,

exix.,
15,

exxii.,

c\xiv.

like,

141

of

it,
;

for

it

etc.,

156;
parts,

theory, lxix., 105

xx.,

dialogue
liii.,

series of, 3, 5,

71, 76, 79. 80.

symbolical
133.

? liv.

whole of

xxii.,

S5,

no;
lxii.,

Si (two), SS, 90, 93, 109 (two).

nee, Idea of,
xiii., xlviii., xlix., lvi.,

Being, Idea, Many, Others,

differences from Arist., xxxi.,

Farm.
Opinion, xxxvi., xxxvii.,
Science.
xli., xlviii.,

130
175.

dualistic inconsistencies, xiv.

Ivi.
;

Ill

our,

xlvii. -viii.,

lvi.,

105

xl., lii.,
x'i.,
1.,

early views, xxix.,

family.

process

v. result, lv.. 106.

Dialer..

S7

76:

knows

Go

:
.

LSU
See,

PARMENIDES.
iL|
106.
xlviii.,

Uviii.,

89, 96,

Stylianus, cxviii.

Arethas, Leo.
,

Tyrannion,

lxxvii.

Apellic, Atticus.

Ideas,

Knowl.,

Science,

Subscriptio, lxxix. , cxvi. cxviii.

Areth.

Two,

128, 144, 145, 165.

Number.
xxii.,

Sense.

Clarke, Maass, Mss.

Sense,

xlvii. -viii., lxviii., lxx., 106,

xlviii.

17s;
131

Syllogism, xxxviii., 138.

Synesius, xxxiv., 91.

Ueberweg,
xxxiv.

v.,

x.,

xi.,

xxvi.

transcendental,

Authent., Parm., the.

as, Ixiii.-iv.

Sensible objects,
exist.,
xl.,

xl., xliii.-iv., 1.,

Synthesis,

lx.

Anal.

Unit,

One

xlvii.,
xliii.,

106

sphere,
I.,
li.,

xxx.,
lv.,

xli.,

xlvi.-ix.,

rd.

,
iii.,

Unity,
xliii.

lxviii.

Others,

Sense,

Universe a creature, xlv.

Usener, H.,
lxxvii.

Ideas.

106.

Ideas,

Many,

One,

Stallb.

Attic, Flinders

Science.

Teichmiiller,
of, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82,

xxiv.-xxviii.

Dial.,

Se-

Petrie.

Sentence*, forms

quence.
Tetralogies,
exxiii.

8S. So, 93, 95, 98, 103, 107, 109,

IIO, 112, IlS, 124, I36, I38, I43,

trilogies,

i.,

lxxv.

etc.,

Varro, lxxvii.

146, 148, 152, 155,

169.

Vatican Mss.
Ixxiii.-xciii., lxxvii.
,

etc.,

Ixxvi.,

lxxx.

etc.,

i6l,

i<'5,

Text of PL,

98;

cxix.

chief sources,
(q.v.
),

Ixxviii.

etc.

com

Venice Mss. (q.v.)

lxxxv. etc.,
ci.

etc., lxxiii.-vi. etc.,

Sequence of dialogues
xxxiv.

ii.,

xix.-

pleteness

of,

v.-vi.

Atticus, Edi-

Schanr.

tions, Flinders Petrie,

Grote, Mss.

Void, xxxviii.,

lxvi.

Atoms, Democr.
125,

Setting of dialogues (q.v.), xxii.

Shape,

lxvi., 112,

132.

Thompson, E. M., xcviii. Dam. (Ms.), Thomson, liv.

(Ms.).

Proc.

Whole,

xxxi., xliii., 94,

in

129-135,
133-4,

Simplicius,

viii., xxxviii.

162;
xliii., xlix.;

the parts (q.v.)?

Siie, xlii., 92.

Bigness, Smallness.
92, 94,

Thought, apprehends ideas,

147.

One.
lxxv., lxxxi., xcii.

Small, -ness,

xlii., xliv., 1., li.,

and sensible objects?

lx.x.-i.
;

xlvii.,

lvi.,

Wohlrab, M.,
Worlds, 106.

Jor-

118, 149, 150.

position of thought (voCs)

liv.,

dan, Mss., Schanz etc.

Socrates,

met Parmen.
of,

xxxiv.

etc.
lii.

in

being,

75,

117,

156;

views

xxix., xxxii., xliii.,

,

thoughts thinking, xlv.

Ideas, Science.

Dialec,
AlexCobct,

Writing of Clarke Ms.,

Paris A, xcviii.
;

ex.,

128;
1,

of

views as PL, xxix., xxxvi.

xlix., lv., in the

xl. etc.,

of Ven.

exxiv.

87, 91, 100; youth of,

xxvii.-viii.

Thrasylus,
and.
,

i.,

lxxv.,

lxxvii.-ix.

Caligr., Joannes, Palaeogr.

Parm.,

Arist.,

Atticus,

Authent.,

Ideas, PI.

Mss., Ueberw.

Xenocrates,
119,

iii.

Academy.
etc.

Soul, xxix., xlix., 90, 117.

Time,
I

xxvii., lvi., lxii., lxvi.-vii.,

Space, xxxviii.,

lvi., lxii., lxvi.-vii., 99.

5I
;

53>

'5^>
of,

Becoming, Motion, Time, Touch.

Speusippus,
Stallbaum,
iii.

121

kinds

divisions of, 120; non-temporal

>

Younger, 119, 120, 153 Change, Time.

xviii.,

Becoir...

Acad.
,

things,
,

121.

Arist.,

Becom.,

vi. xiv.

xxxiv.
)

75; places

Change, Instant.,
PL, Process, Space.

Motion,

Now,

Xeller,

vii.,

xx.,

xxiii.,

lix.

One and Many (q. v.

in diff. spheres,

Philosopher.

132-3. 135 47, 149. 152

Touch,
Mss

Stephanus, Kxiii., Ixxiv.

Stichomctry, Ixxvi.,
Stops,
ci., exxviii.

.,
Ms.,

lxvi., 112, 142-46.

viii.,

Space.
xliv.

Zeno,

v., xxxiii.

age

of,

jxxt.

vie*'

xii.-xiii.,

of,

xxxviii., xl.,

liii.,

lv., lxiL, 80,

cxiii.,

exxv.

Arist., Dials., Ideas.

82, 85, 88, 93, 99,

Mss., Writing.
Dial.

Tubingen

lxxix.,

Kxx.,

lxxxi.,

Arrow,

Dialec,

in. Achilles Many, Motion,

Style for date, xx., xxv.

lxxxvii.

Mss.

Parm., Time.

INDF.X

GREEK WORDS
,

*
,;,

fkvaplmp, 130

i>.

135

"
1

aiVt'.iif rat,

, ,
\\;
|

Vy

.
;

i>.

f'aiti

...

',
I).

IwWiKT),

'auroiT' ...
i>.

tUartfyai, 132

\\

ri

37
i

Ct
]$),

(>.
t'

133

"

<ifd7*tp

139
1J7

0;'(
dvjjtrii,

, , , !, ,
1(:.

dfSpOS

^, /,
...

;.

, .
1?5

-, (' ',-,
(Opa^t, 130
ifA)

^*.
I4S

157 C.
|

Iff-r/y

,
Kal

,
IJI

y,

>

13

''

orai'T.. (JO
I.

|l

(Mat,

52 c.

-,

135 135
(

'

I.J3 "

n'trl

for

I2U.

jS

artwd rv, is?

roivwi'rj(rcivru)i',

163

1'

IXxwor, 135

"

48 .
1

44 C

I4S
"

.
I4S
etc.

4(, (,
133
jo

tv

ap row, 132.

-),
<;
I

TTJ5e

<I>y,

30

C.

,
'2

, ,
(V

airtp,

139.

, ,
*a\6v

-,

rat (cp.

128), 13-

I48

.
I2 W
.

158 D.
\07oi'.

with

138.

tV f&CU, 131 A1

II.

A^yw
C.

62

\<iTfrat, 164

133 R
1

eZrat,

5S.

156 D.

tvtaxtv, 152 D.
Vi rt^t KaXeis
fVXftWKTTjo-fi',
tiroi Ofi,
;

130
133

B.
B.

147 D.

cu-rijs

...

jj,

149
C.

B.

eV,

58.

ifo-TOrow

...

fori,

133

,
^7;',
Tf

, <>5<,

,
...

141 U-K.

*> -, , ,
132 129
I).

, . ,
!
XoiV

,
',
...

127
('.

\.

127

.,
157
\2<)
C.

165

131.

(,
jt

(,

157
1

26.

ecrros

129 c

>

'34
fri

128.

, -',
1

,
...

146.

56 D.
13S C.
138 D.
. . .

,
iv,
...

.
:

, ,
*
Aft dpa
...

*(
37

,
.

5
102.
?Xc

,
:

"0

137 C.
...

;;, 127

-,
127
eir;

129

5S.

C.

us

!*,
1

163.

136
1

Star/jt/ieu'

,
143.
B.

*-,

126 C.

(
5

50 D.
145
p.

ax

...

Jia^opurr/s, 141 C.
oifXt'xJr/jav,
3to
;

*
i\v-.i-,

126

C.

'Hi Iv

AfTjrai,
...

148

K.

120

eVos" 147 R.

,, ,5- ire/},

etc., 151

.
49
1

o\iyoo-Tov (cp. 153),

37-

165 C.

128.

Voiv, 149

152 D.

owria,

etc.,

143 B-C.

&0fSr,

$.

rji^wi,

131 B.
F,

3v' aifi,

43

Vi^iar 47r, 139

161

*'.

' -,
o6r
...

(cp.

150 ), 157

156.

181

182

^, ,
...
...

/, 7*076, -,
a-Xfovdm )

?;

, ,
12S

146

,
C.
1

PARMENIDES.
05

152

Te, 126

.
dXXois, 157

~.,

27

...

127

. .

tjj

155

139

' . , -, , --,
; 1

,
136 D.
;

135

Ttvas
1

44

147

D
C.

, ,
;

, ,

efvai,

,
1

162.

153-

26

.
C.

136 D.

...

127

120

?,
143

36 D.
:

'
:

154

C.

148 C.

56

C.

tois

126

'7
elvai

136

C.

, ,
1

45

*>

,
,
$ $

, , ', ,, *,, ,
...

143

149

152
C.

36

66.

165.

...

142

126.

129

50.

135 c

...

126.

etc., I2S.

142

147

/s

' $

129 D.
eVjuev
/*epos,
...

-,
.

l$&

C.

146

GLASGOW: PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS BY ROBERT MACLEHOSE.

GllMUl<*ft

University of Toronto

Library

DO NOT

REMOVE
THE

CARD

FROM
THIS

POCKET

Acme

Library Card Pocket

LOWE-MARTIN CO. umited