CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND GIVEN IN 1891 BY HENRY WILLIAMS SAGE Cornell University Library PA 4279.P2 1894 3 1924 026 679 393 ......2 DATE DUE PRINTED IN U.S A. ,'iWWilL_-3i The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924026679393 nAATQNOS HAPMENIAHS THE PARMENIDES OF PLATO PUBLISHED BY JAMES MACLEHOSE AND SONS, GLASGOW, J^ttbUshets to the anilttsity. MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON AND NEW YORK. I^ottdoK, - ■ • Simpkitli Hamilton and Co. Cambridge, • • Ma^millan atid Bowes. Edinburgh, • • Douglas and Foulis. MDCCCXCIV. One hundred and fifty copies printed. No. ^1 HAATHNOS nAPMENIAHE THE PARMENIDES OF PLATO AFTER THE PAGING OF THE CLARKE MANUSCRIPT WITH INTRODUCTIONS, FACSIMILES, AND NOTES WILLIAM WARDLAW WADDELL M. A., GLASGOW AND OXFORD GLASGOW JAMES MACLEHOSE AND SONS ^ttbliBhita to the aniietaitg 1894 PA I in t PREFACE. The author first studied the Parmenides in college days long ago, as an exercise in metaphysics ; but all such occupations had to be renounced when he took up the practical duties of his calling. As time passed, how- ever, the speculative interest revived, the subject was resumed, and he found himself most unexpectedly committed to publication before he had realized what such a step involved. In the meantime he had become satisfied that the highest manuscript authority for the text was accessible at Oxford, and his leisure moments had now to be given to palaeography. With the zeal of a beginner he decided to reproduce the form of the manuscript, a resolution rendered feasible by the condition of the text. This fixed for him the size of his page ; and that in turn suggested facsimiles and a regard to outward appearance. Metaphysics, palaeography, aesthetics — such was the writer's downward course : it remains to hope that the result may justify the under- taking. So far as contents are concerned the work errs both by excess and by defect, and that largely through circumstances. It was compiled in spare hours, at long intervals, while the writer was, if he may so speak, in bondage under the elements of the world. During its progress effort was occasionally misdirected, notes lost their first significance, standpoints had to be abandoned, and the literature of the subject proved unmanageable. And in the end, with no mere affectation of humility, the writer feels that he presents little upon philosophy save ra SeStj^evfi'eva irepi ro ev koI voXXd, while his contributions to palaeography have still to be tested by the G PARMENIDES. experts. At most he can but rank with the untrained boxers of Aristotle, who Tre picpepofxevoi tv-tttouo-i /caXas TrXtjydi, aW ovk a-rro eTria-nj/J-ri'S. A commentator on Plato must beware of two dangers. If he does not detect in his author the latest developments of metaphysics he may be adjudged ignorant of these ; if he does he may be taxed with a want of the ' historic sense.' The dilemma is not an agreeable one. The writer is perhaps imperfectly informed upon recent metaphysical theories, but his ignorance is not proved by a failure to read all Hegel into the Parmenides. In a parallel case, he might know little of renaissance architecture in Italy, but that could not be properly inferred from his inability to find a place on the Acropolis for half the public buildings of Vicenza. On the other hand, if Plato himself escapes being a Hegelian, it must be granted that the comments of his Neoplatonic followers have a strangely modern character. It is 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 ' among them, is no exception. Toward previous workers in the same field, many of them critics and scholars of the highest rank, the writer is not consciously chargeable with discourtesy or disingenuousness. But if any expression should be thought wanting in respect, or any view appear to be appropriated without acknow- ledgment, he sincerely desires to recall the one and give up the other. Among his brightest memories will 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 always remember with gratitude that at Tubingen the time of the officials 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 PREFACE, 7 request for it was posted in Scotland. His thanks are also due for obliging communications from Mr. Warner of the British Museum, and from Professor Mahaffy. Wliile the character of the letterpress is such as to demand most attentive revision, the protracted and fitful progress of the volume made it impossible to ask assistance from friends in looking over the proofs. The printed authorities consulted are all named from time to time in the course of the work, but Professor Schanz calls for special recognition in connection with the manuscripts. The writings of some commentators could not be had separately, and are quoted from the variorum edition of Valpy. Others, cited in turn by these, could not be procured at all. Such are the disadvantages of living in a provincial town. Of English editions of the dialogue the only one used is that of Thomson, published more than a century ago. The writer remembers seeing, when a student, a small modern edition ; but he did not note the author's or publisher's name, and has tried in vain to obtain a copy since. He owes very much to all these sources of information. Now that the work is ended, he is satisfied that the standard aimed at is deserving of respect ; but when he thinks of the extent to which learning in all branches has latterly become specialized, and of the many pitfalls lying in the path of imprudent amateurs, his satisfaction is tempered with anxiety, and he is almost ready to say with Thomson, ' nee laudem quaero, sed pro laude veniam.' STIRLING, October 12, 1894. CONTENTS, introiiitction— PART FIRST— I. AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK, II. SEQUENCE OF THE WORK, . III. ITS CHARACTER AND CONTENTS, PART SECOND— I. SOURCES OF THE TEXT, . II. THE CHIEF MANUSCRIPTS, Ixxiii %txi, #otcs— I. TEXTUAL, II. EXPLANATORY, . 41 75 itticx, 177 I. LAST PAGE AND SUBSCRIPTIO OF CLARKE MS., II. SPECIMEN OF VENICE t MS., ... IIL PAGE 154 OF CLARKE MS., facing p. cxvi ,, p. cxxii „ /. cxxviii INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION. I. Authorship of THE Work. In writing an introduction to the Parmenides of Plato it is unfortunately necessary, in view of modern controversies, to begin by discussing the authenticity of the work. So far as Antiquity is concerned, no doubt upon the subject would appear to have arisen. The best manuscripts give the dialogue without hinting a suspicion ; and these can be traced back, with reasonable certainty, to a common fountain dating from the first thirty-six years of our era. Within that period one Thrasylus or Thrasyllus drew up an arrangement of all those Platonic writings held by him to be genuine, which seems to be the source of most or all of our existing texts. According to Diogenes m s6-6i Laertius this arrangement took the form of tetralogies, and was as follows : — I. Euthyphro. II. Cratylus. III. Parmenides. IV. Alcibiades I. V. Theages. VI. Euthydemus. VII. Hippias major. VIII. Clitopho. IX. Minos. Apologia. Theaetetus. Philebus. Alcibiades II. Charmides. Protagoras. Hippias minor. Respublica. Crito. Phaedo. Sophista. PoHticus. Symposium. Phaedrus. Hipparchus. Anterastae. Laches. Lysis. Gorgias. Meno. lo. Menexenus. Timaeus. Critias. Epinomis. Epistolae. Leges. Koi oStos fiev ovrw Siaipei Kai rcvei. It is indeed indicated by Diogenes in another place that Thrasylus had doubts about one of these dialogues; but that was the Anterastae, not the Parmenides. Immediately after giving this list, however, Diogenes goes on to record a second of a much earlier date. "Hvioi Si, says he, uv ecni kou. 'Apia-To^dvtig 6 ypafx.fiaTiic6?, eig TpiXoyias eXKOvcri. tou? SiaXoyovs- According, then, to Aristophanes the grammarian, called ' of Byzantium,' whose prime we may place between 220 and 190 B.C., the order of the dialogues should be this : — » I. Respublica. Timaeus. Critias. HI. Leges Minos. Epinomis. II. Sophista. PoHticus. Cratylus. IV. Theaetetus. Euthyphro. Apologia. V. Crito. Phaedo. Epistolae. ra S' aXKa Kaff ev koI aruKTm- In the trilogies, it will be observed, the Parmenides 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 How far can we trace it back ? ii THE PARMENIDES. writings would seem to have been almost an industry in itself among the scholars who flourished after the founding of the great libraries. First we have Thrasylus km Tives, next evioi and Aristophanes; while immediately after the word aTa/crcoy Diogenes goes on apxovrai Se oi fxev, iy ir poeipriTai {i.e. the evioi), airo Tijs IIoXtTe/ay' ot S' cltt' 'A-Xki^iciSov Tov fjLsl^ovoi' ot S' avo GeayoW evioi S' (Thrasylus and his followers) 'Ev6vos), 'A£loxos, ^cdaKes, Atj/aoSokos, XeXt^wi/, 'Yi^SopLi], 'Ex£/x.ef/(?);y" &p fj 'AXkvcov Aeovros tlvos elvai SoKei, KuOd (pwi ia^wplvos ev rw iii. 56-6=. TrefiTrrw rwv aTro/uLVfj/novev/xaTuiv. Thus we have got before us a complete deliverance by Diogenes Laertius upon the canon of Plato's works. Now in the course of this connected and detailed statement he (i) gives a long list of dialogues held to be genuine and arranged by Thrasylus : (2) a shorter list of those arranged by Aristophanes, after which' he says, ' the rest ' were placed one by one : (3) enumerates other arrangements ; some of which as will be observed, begin from dialogues named in (i) although not named in (2) : (4) gives the names of those dialogues, 'the' dialogues, which were 'declared to be spurious by common consent ' (the translation is Grote's) : and lastly (S) indicates the great importance which was attached to the ordering of these works by the scholars of antiquity. In a word he has the subject fully present to his mind in all its bearings. And the question comes to be — if Aristophanes had omitted from his list the Parmenides, or any dialogue included in the list of Thrasylus, would Diogenes under these circumstances have failed to say so ? That does not seem probable, more particularly since he treats the IX. 23, =5. work as genuine in his Lives of Parmenides and Zeno ; and we may thus infer that the Parmenides existed among 'the rest' of Aristophanes at — let us say — 210 B.C. We ii. 64 have, moreover, the following very comprehensive decision ascribed by Diogenes to an author who lived half a century or so later than Aristophanes, Trdvrwv ixivroi twv 'EooKpaTiKwv SiaXoycav THavaiTioi aXrjOecs eivai SoKei roi/s UXoltuivos, etc. This verdict may not include the voOevo/nevoi, but cannot well exclude any others. It may perhaps be asked at this stage — those copies of Plato's works which formed the text for all this deliberation and arrangement, where were they to be seen ? to whom did they belong .' Although the conclusion is not based upon positive testimony, it is very generally assumed that the copies were those contained in the Alexandrian, and perhaps in the Pergamene, library. The year 283 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 AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK. Ill was familiar with Plato's Academy when Xenocrates was its head (B.C. 339-314), and that when in later life he had the ear and support of Ptolemy Soter he would be at pains to secure for Alexandria the best copy which care, skill, and money could command of all the Platonic writings. Exclusive of Demetrius, Aristophanes the grammarian, mentioned above, was fiftli curator of the Alexandrian collection ; and his period of office might date from, we shall suppose, his fiftieth year — that is, from about 210 B.C. We have just seen what an object of study the Platonic writings were to scholars of this age, and we are at the same time entitled to hold that a copy of them, and that a careful one, existed at Alexandria as early at least as 250 B.C. Plato died in the year 347 B.C., or about a hundred years before. How do we bridge over the interval.' Although passages are quoted to prove that Plato despised written, as compared with oral, instruction in philosophy, he was certainly a voluminous author ; and both from the style of his works and from familiar anecdotes recorded about him,^ ' Dionys. Haii we are justified in saying that he was a most careful and critical one. He also in p^verboruT,' middle life founded an institution at the Academy which would have many points =<>. Schaefer, in common with a University. Here he lectured to numerous and enthusiastic students ; ^^"''^ ^iso comp. and here beyond all rational doubt would be collected, as they were written, the Q"'"'- "»■ *■ «4- series of his published works. This would seem to give a greater initial probability of careful transmission than could be affirmed in the case, for example, of Herodotus or Thucydides. But further : on its founder's death the institute passed under the charge of a nephew, Speusippus, and thereafter, as we have seen, of a disciple, Xeno- crates; the consecutive presidency of whom brings us to the year 314 B.C. Nor does the career of the Academy seem to have been broken or its abode disturbed until the time of Sulla. On what precise material the works at the Academy when com- plete were engrossed may be uncertain, but there can be no extravagance in assuming that it was capable of lasting for a century; and if, as seems highly probable, the full list was made up under Speusippus by the year 340 B.C., we would thus have it carried safely down within the period during which Demetrius could have it tran- scribed for Ptolemy. Few who have read the vicissitudes which have been survived by the Clarke MS. would find any difficulty in accepting the assumption, that at least two well authenticated copies of all Plato's works existed at the year 200 B.C., one at Athens and one at Alexandria. Nay — to judge from the remark of Diogenes in his Life of Democritus, that Plato was persuaded not to burn the works of Demo- ij=- 4° critus, because 'many had copies' — the number was probably much greater. With such an argument as this — indeed it is substantially his — Grote is perfectly satisfied. He considers that few if any authors of the Greek classic age have the authenticity of their writings placed upon so substantial a foundation ; and unhesitatingly adopts the entire Thrasylean series, rejecting only the works which in Alexandrian times were 'declared to be spurious 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 iv THE PARMENIDES. Aristotle, Mctaphysics — though, of course, he is comparatively late — speaks of tov e-iriypa^ofievov iv^/se a. top™ 'n.apfjLevlStiv rj Trepl iSewv rov HXaTwrns SiaXoyov. And other passages might be cited. This topic of the spurious dialogues, however, calls for 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 least 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 Speusippus about his uncle's views. But even more unworthy reasons were not wanting. Galen on Hip- j^g passage usually cited in this connection since Bentley's time is from Galen : hom. i. 92 : and '''P''' "/o^P Tovs ev 'AXe^avSpeia re /cat ILepydfiw yevecrOai ^acrtXeig eTrl KTwei ^ipX'mv Bentiey, Phaiar. (jjiXoTifiijOivTas ovSeTTW yp-evSu)^ eTTeyeypaTTTO iTeov Kui TO yvricriov oia Tijv yiyvofJLev>]V voveiav voveiiovTai yap Ta pipAia Ammoniusand TTevTaxH'S' and procceds to specify these. It will be observed that Galen dates forgeries Smphc.us at the £-j.Qj^ the time when libraries had already become recognized channels of royal expenditure. Perhaps it is on this ground that Grote would hold the rejected dialogues to have been set aside simply because of their late admission into the libraries. 'It is the transmission, the externally attested authenticity, of these works that we doubt' — so he seems to make the librarians speak — 'and our doubts are based on the fact that our catalogues were completed before they appeared. With their internal character — the presence or absence in them of a " Platonisches Gefiihl" — we take no concern.' And this may possibly be so. Nay, the date at which these dialogues appeared might perhaps be brought within narrower compass by the reference of Diogenes quoted above to the judgment of Panaetius. The inference from the words of Panaetius, who died before iii B.C., would seem to be that he either did not concur in the rejection of the spurious dialogues, or else knew nothing of them — that they had appeared after his death. In this way Aristophanes also would know nothing of them, nor does Diogenes say anything to contradict this. But i.fo,6i,64. on the other hand what is to be said of the following? Aie/3d\\eTo S' 6 Aierxim (pupil of Socrates) km fxaXiaO' inro MeveSi^fiov tov '^perpiews ws rovs TrXeiaTovs StaXoyovi oi/ra? SwK-paTOt;? VTro^dXXoiTO, Xaix^uvwv irapa Sai/0/xx)?y' wv ol /xev KaXovnevoi aKev ^aiSwvos (Ueberweg makes the strange mistake of supposing this to be the dialogue called Phaedo, instead of the dialogues written by the person of that name) koI EvKXeiSov, TOVS S' dXXovs avaipel irdvTas '■ — to which we may add for completeness SiaXoyovs toIvvv m. 48. ^acrt irpwTOV ypayfrai Zy'jvwva tov '^XeaTtjv' ' Api(TTOTeX)]S S' ev irpwTCp xepJ iroitjTwv ' AXe^afjLevov "ZiTvpia r] Tij'iov, ojj koi ^a^wpivos iv airop.vtinovevfj.acri. SoKei Si pot IIXaTW^ OKpipwaas TO eJSos Kai Ta irptOTela SiKaims av cccnrep tov kuXXovs ovtw kui t^? evpeaeoos cnro^ipecrOai. From these passages it would seem clear (i) that dialogues existed before Plato was born : (2) that about the time of Socrates' death, there sprang up a perfect literature of them purporting to be his or to embody his teaching : (3) that plagiarism existed and was exposed at the time, in connection with these dialogues : (4) that the tests by which this exposure was effected were — both then and in the time of Diogenes — internal not external : (5) and, finally, that in comparing the list given here with that given above, of the spurious Platonic works, we find that there are certain names common to both, and that a reference to dxe^aXoi SidXoyoi and eiTTa. occurs in each list. From all this it will be seen that a shadow falls upon the argument given but now for the authenticity of the writings ascribed to Plato. Accordingly, in modern times, and more especially since Schleiermacher made his great attempt to construct a self-consistent scheme of reasoned truth from those writings, the whole question of their reliability has been reconsidered. In arriving at a judgment, the tests applied have been both external or historic, and internal or literary and speculative. On the historic side, the great question has been. Can we find evidence for the is it referred to existence of Plato's works prior to the time of Aristophanes the grammarian? which ''^^'"°"°- again, for practical purposes, resolves itself into the other question. Can we find references to them in the works of Aristotle? It is obvious that an authentic reference gleaned from such a source would be of great authority. At the same time the subject is not without difficulties; for the text of Aristotle is less fully assured than Plato's own. Besides the facts already enumerated in support of Plato's u^Jr^chungen text, we have the further circumstance, that according to the testimony of Hermann ueber die and Zeller as quoted by Ueberweg 'in der gesammten alten Literatur, soweit sie p;^'j'j;_"g';j^;^^^_ uns erhalten ist, keine gesicherte Beziehung auf ein Platonisches Werk sich findet, p. 131-2. VI THE PARMENIDES. welches heute nicht mehr existirte ' ; so that we how possess at least all the genuine works of Plato, whatever those may be. No such affirmation can be made in the V. 1474 etc. case of Aristotle. In the Berlin Edition, among the fragments, quite a considerable list is given of works referred to in ancient writers as by Aristotle, which have not come down to us. Again a considerable quantity of what actually appears under his name zeiier, jg doubtful, either absolutely or else in the precise form in which we find it. Zeller Plato, etc., p. 54, note 82, Eng. Tr. gives z. list of rcfercuces to Plato in Aristotle which he holds to be discredited on this ground. Let us now take two cases in which clear references do occur. In De i. 2, 404 b, i6. Anima we have tov avrm Se Tpoirov kou JiXaTwv iv ra> Ti/Aalcp t/jv '^vxhv eK toiv (TToixeLwv TToiel, with which compare Timaeus 35 A. Again in the Politics we find ii. I, n6i a, 4. evSexerai yap Koi tskvoov koi yvvaiKwv kcli KTri/xariov KOivwvetv touj TroXtraj aXX?}XoepoiTO to ev, ^TOi ev Tip avTio av irepK^epoiTO kvkXw rj p.eT(xk\aTTOi xcapav erepav e^ eTepas.... 'AXXa Sr/ X'^P"-" o.fieil3ov aXXoT aX\o9i yiyveTat Koi. ovtw KiveiTai;.,. Kara Traaav apa Kivrjcnv to ev aKivijTOv. Undoubtedly the sense of the two passages is the same, but there is no verbal i8i CD. identity, while on the other hand there is another similar passage in the Theaetetus dpa KiveiaQai /caXeis, oTav ti X'^po-" ^k x'^P"? fieTU^aXXn rj ko.) iv tw avTw oTpe^ijToi ; Eytoye. Tovto p.ev toivvv ev earoo elSoi. oTav Se y fiev iv tw avTM, ytjpaaiqj 5e...? TLva aXXriv aWoiwaiv aWoiiJoTai, dpa om a^iov sTepov etSos ^dvai Kiv^aews ; "Ejtiotye SoKel. AvayKahv fxev ovv. Svo Sri Xeyw tovtoo e'tSr] Kivricrem, aXXoiooartv, Ttjv Se irepi^opdv. unterauch. 150, Ucberwcg is not sure that any more is meant than a reference to some statement ''*■ made orally at the Academy; but if a work is alluded to, he thinks that a reference piaton. Parmen- to the Parmcnldes is ' etwas weniger ungenau.' Again, Stallbaum, in his copious and 'stliibrttmi.^ip^- ^^^'■"sd introduction to the dialogue, cites various passages from Aristotle, which clearly siae, 1848, pp. seem to treat of questions within Aristotle's knowledge, very closely resembling those 339-40. which are discussed in this dialogue. Of these we may quote two. Controverting Sophist. Eiench. the distinction between Xo'yoi Trpoj Towofxa and irpo? t^v Siavoiav, Aristotle says, El S^ .0, a. 170 , 2o. ^^y TrXeio) (TijfiaivovTOi tov 6v6/jLaTOs o'Ioito ev a-rjfialveiv, Kal 6 ipayrwv koi 6 epwTw/uievos — OLOv ((70)? TO 6v ij TO ev TToXXa OTj/xalvei, aXXa Kal 6 aTroKpivo/mevog Kal 6 epwrwv Z^voov ev oiofxevo? etvai ^pdrrriae, Kal ea-Tiv 6 Xo'yoy otj ev irdvTa — oiJtoj irpo? Tovvofia earai tj AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK. vii irpo? rijv Sidvoiav tow ipwrwuevov Siei\eyfievoi. And again, near the end of the same 33. 4. 182 b, 35 work, he says, To?? fiev yap Soxei ravrbv oTj/nalveiv to 6v koI to ep' ol Se rov Zi'/voovoi Xoyov KM TLapfieviSov Xvovcri Sia to 7roX\ax«y ^dvai to ev XiyearOat Ka) to ov. Un- doubtedly there is a strong resemblance here to the course of our dialogue pp. 127-9: but unfortunately neither the dialogue nor its author is named, and the reference is not so close as to satisfy us without that additional security. All that we can do is to point out, as Zeller is careful to do, that allusions in themselves uncertain gain p'"'°. ='<:•. p S9 in force from the circumstance that ' the Platonic writings are the only writings of the Socratic school to which he ever refers. This circumstance makes it extremely probable that Aristotle really intends to ascribe all the writings quoted by him in this form (here however the quotation is what is doubtful) to Plato.' Admitting, however, the absence of a clear reference, we are still entitled to plead, that, as was mentioned above, we do not possess Aristotle's works in a perfect form. Thus we find in the list of lost works tabulated in the Berlin Edition to. ^- 'sob b. irep\ Twv eiSSiv ypav(TiKa crvvTa^eoag (Michael Ephesius in Metaph. N. VI. and others). Had we but these two books, the apparent silence of the Metaphysics might cause no anxiety. But taking matters at their worst — assuming that he never did refer to the Parmenides — we might still meet the difficulty by parallel cases. Thus Zeller, who has carefully treated the question, says, ' Aristotle is not passing judgment on Plato's pi., etc., p. 73 works as a literary historian who is bound to furnish a complete catalogue of them, ''' ... Nor does he deal with them as a modern writer of the history of Philoso- phy, whose object it is to combine their whole philosophic content ... ; he only mentions them when occasion offers... He owes his knowledge of the Platonic doctrines in the first place to verbal communication 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 derive our knowledge of the theory of ideas is quoted by him [Phaedo, 100 B sq. in Met. I. 9, XIII. S, Gen. et Corn II. 9]; he makes no allusion to what is said on the subject in the Republic, Timaeus, Symposium, Phaedrus, and Theaetetus ; nor to the explanations of the Sophist, Parmenides, and Philebus, though there was abundant opportunity for it... It is certainly surprising that Aristotle should assert that Plato never enquired wherein the participation of things in ideas consists ; while in the Parmenides [130 E sqq.J the difficulties with which this theory has to contend are clearly pointed out. But it is not more surprising than that he should assail the doctrine of ideas with the question: "Who formed the things of sense after the pattern of the ideas.?" [Met. I. 9, 991a, 20], though it is distinctly stated in the Timaeus [28 C sq.] that the Creator of the world did this in looking on the eternal archetypes. Nor again that he should maintain, notwithstanding the well-known explanation in the Phaedo [100 B etc.], often alluded to by himself,— that viii THE PARMENIDES. the final cause is not touched by tlie ideas [Met. I. 9, 992a 29 ovSk Stj o Trepl ... ovdev d-TTTerai to. e'lSr]]. We should have expected that in attacking Plato about the rphoi avQputTTO'} Aristotle, had he been acquainted with the Parmenides, would have referred to the fact that in that dialogue the same objection is raised. But might we not also have expected after the further stricture, " Plato ought then to assume ideas of art productions, mere relations, etc., which he does not," some such remark as this : " In his writings he certainly does speak of such ideas > " ' Nor is such unex- iii. 25, ix. 40. pected forgetfulness confined to Aristotle. Diogenes Laertius enumerates among certain other facts peculiar to Plato — in whose case, as has been seen, we do not hear of lost works — that Trpwroi re avreiptjKm arxeSov diraa-i roli irpo avrov, ^riTeirai Sia ri ixr] efi.vrifj.6v€vae Aij/noicpiTov. The illustration seems very pertinent : it is impossible to suppose that Plato was not well acquainted with the tenets of a man of great celebrity who was his contemporary for some sixty years. But something further may be urged in relation to the question. Thus in his com- Beriiii Ed. mcntarics upon Aristotle's Physics Simplicius says, rax" ^eyoinev on irpo'} ra ev tw SiaXoyip Scholia 343 b, 37. _^- TLapfievlSii Tvapa rod HXdrcovoi eipt]/j.eva aTrerelvaTO wv 6 'ApiaroTeXris, ev ois to ev ov inroTiOifievov tov ILapfievlSijv km cnroSeiKvvvra 6avfia^eiv eoiKev 6 IIXaTwi/. The words of Phys. i. 9, 191 b, Aristotle to which Simplicius is referring are ^/ucfievot fMev ovv km erepol rtves elcnv avrrjt ^'' [sc. Trji yeveaeuis or yuexa/SoX^?], aXX' ovx tKavwi. TrpHorov /xev yap ofioXoyouaiv airXHos yiveardai eK fjLT] ovTOi, y HapfxevlSrjv opOwi Xeyetv. Simplicius has said that the commentators regard this as a reference to the historical Parmenides, and then makes the remark which MuUachFrgm.of we have quoted. Certainly Parmenides rejected rb fiij 6v entirely, and contended for Parmen. 59-64. ^ being which had no yivea-n, ^6opd, or fiera^oXi'i — w? dyevriTOv eov km avaikedpov ecTTiv — Tiva yap yivvtjv Si^t'ij-eai avTOv ; tt^, iroOev av^tjOev ', out eK fxi] ovto? eatrto (paaOai (T ovSe voelv. We may observe also that Aristotle puts the words TLapfieviSrjv Xiyeiv under the government of eTepoi ... o/uio'Xoyovcriv, and that the process of becoming and change is discussed more than once in the Parmenides, particularly in the argument I56C-D-E. 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 our reflections. It is conceded that the Parmenides is a very important dialogue in connection with the characteristic Platonic doctrine of ideas. It alone has the word Ideas included in its title, 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 it, but without forgetting what it has shown them. Let us now, bearing this in mind, reflect for a moment upon the character of Aristotle's Metaphysics. In composing the treatise of which that work represents all that we possess, Aristotle was perforce led to dwell at length upon the views of Plato, because Plato was in strictness the first of the metaphysicians. 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 AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK. ix passage which is twice repeated, and that they are over and over again referred to \. 6-9, 987 tic, in other parts of the work. And yet, throughout the whole, only two dialogues are """''"'* '"'=• named — the Hippias, which is surely not of vital consequence, and the Phaedo. It will not be maintained that the Phaedo is the only dialogue to which a reference would under the circumstances be expected. Even it is referred to only in connec- tion with a special point, and the argument which precedes and follows contains no allusion of a similar nature. Suppose the Parmenides dropt from view for the moment, still why have we no citation from the Meno, the Cratylus, the Republic, the Philebus, the Timaeus — to say nothing of the Sophistes and Politicus, which, like the Parmenides, are suspect? Surely, to repeat the contention of Zeller, with such a series of works unmentioned, the argument from silence loses much of its force. And if we consider the substance of Aristotle's criticisms in the passages just indicated, we are justified in contending that no dialogue which Plato ever wrote would form a more natural and obvious text for them than the Parmenides. Apart now from its controver- sial portions, what is the character of Aristotle's treatise as a whole.? It is not very artistically compacted, but it exhibits several well marked features, (i) It handles repeatedly the conceptions %v, ov, api6/x6i. For these we may refer to the Parmenides at large. (2) It defines or describes certain terms liable to be misunder- stood, prominent among which — besides 'iv and ov — stand apxti, ravTov, avrtKei/uLeva, iv. irporepa and vcrrepa, Trepaj, efjy, TraQoj, a-Teprja-K, fxepoi, oKov, yevos- Let any one for a moment consider the part played by these ideas in the Parmenides. (3) It emphati- cally presses, d plusieurs reprises, the vital importance of the law of contradiction m. 3 ., etc., x. 5. to metaphysical inquiries, although the natural place for such insistence would be a treatise on deductive logic. Now a prominent objection urged by Grote against the arguments advanced in the Parmenides is, that they constantly violate this law — the one ' is and is not,' ' moves and is still,' ' is like and unlike,' ' one and many.' The law of contradiction had hardly received definite form before Plato's time ; but Aristotle might feel all the more bound to give it prominence in view of the — under our supposition — conspicuous instance in which neglect of it in metaphysical investiga- tions had been exemplified. (4) Let any one glance at the vocabulary of the Meta- physics and mark the employment of such words as aKpi^h, votip-a, TvapaSeiy/xa, 'Trpay/J.aTevea'dai, Trpay/j-arela, ein(TTi'}fJiT], Kivtja-L^, fxeTa/3oX)j, taking along with it the well known statement ert Se oi aKpt/Sea-repoi toiv \6yiav ol fxev rSiv "Trpos tl iroiovaiv <v ou ^a/xev etvai Kad' avTo yevos, 01 Se tov rpiTov avQpunrov Xeyovcriv, and then compare the text of this dialogue. It is not meant, by this line of argument, that the Meta- physics is a polemic directed against the Parmenides alone — in that case the dialogue would have been named — but 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 in his controversial allusions; and that but for the existence of the Parmenides, the polemic of Aristotle would lose half its point and value. X THE PARMENIDES. Yet, probable as these arguments may be, so long as actual demonstration is not reached objections may be raised. The chief of these is that, while the points of relation 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 in his mind, but rather to a very different cause, to wit that the author of the former had either read the latter or had heard Aristotle lecturing, and so could not be Plato. This objection and any answers that may be made to it rest not upon historical but upon internal evidence. In reply we may argue thus — referring to the notes for details. Does it look I. Had the author of the Parmenides been a student of Aristotle he would in Aristotle'" discussing, as he does, ideas of relation have naturally called them ideas t/jo? tj, IJ3C-E. which is their technical name in Aristotle's works. He does not do so. But he uses the preposition Tr/oo? in a less formal way — tt/oo? aXXi/Xa? eiViV al tiaiv, irpos avras, irpoi Tii Trap' tjiuv, and so on — a way which suggests that, while the technical phrase was yet unselected, we may have here the very source from which "it was drawn. Again, we find scattered through the work such names for the ideas as air)} ofAoiorvi, avTo TO ev, avra to. e1S>]. But we do not find the avro coalescing with the following word in the manner which is familiar to readers of Aristotle, in such words as avTodvdpwiroi, avTo^wov, avToSnrXdo-iov, avroSo^a. Here also the technical terminology of Aristotle seems unknown to the writer of this work. Similarly in the passage MIC. where -Trpea^vrepov is said to be opposed as a Sia^oporijs to [vedrepov, and to that alone, there is no allusion to the well-known technical phraseology of the Categories, Cat. 7. 6I1, 36. in the chapter upon xpo's ti, with regard to ra oiVei'w? avTiarTp€ovTa. 2. And as with the terminology, so with the conceptions, of the dialogue — they seem less developed and analysed than similar conceptions in the works of Aristotle. 138. comp. Thus the discussion of Kivrjo-i?, which is begun in the first argument and resumed in Phys. iu. I etc. other parts of the work, does not reveal a logical division of the subject as clear Met. X. 9. 1+4E-145. Comp. as that which we find in the Physics. The same seems to hold good m regard to Met.iv.=6,io24.i (.jjg relations of irav to o\ov when compared with the treatment of them in the 1. 146 C- Metaphysics. Nor could the argument eTepwOt Sv ergo erepov 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 in the Metaphysics are irreconcilable with the Platonic authorship of this dialogue. unteisuchungen I. Thus Uebcrweg quotes the following remark made by Aristotle when ''*■ speaking of the manner in which, according to Plato, things participate in the ideas Met. i. 6, 987 b 9. Kara fueOe^iv yap elvai tu TroXXa twi" avvcavvfiuiv tois eiSeaiv. T^i/ Se fieOe^iv Touvofia fiovov fierelSaXev' ol /xev yap TLvQayopeioi fAi/x^a-ei tu ovra ^acrlv etvat tHov apiOp-wv, nXaTftJi/ (5e fxeOe^et, Touvofxa fxeTa^aXwv. Tr/v /xevroi ye fieOe^iv tj Ttjv fil/ULijcriv, tJTts av eii; rwv eiSwv, cKpecaav ev koivu) ^ijTeiv. The objection here hinges on the sense of the last clause. Ueberweg gives no verbal translation of the words : but in order to make out a case from them the rendering would need to be that Plato and the Pythagoreans AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK. xi •were at one in omitting to investigate' the nature of ^kQe^n and ////x^/o-ty. The opening part of the Parmenides being in express terms a discussion of fxkQe^i^, the objection comes to a bearing instantly. Now in making this statement mere inadvertent error on Aristotle's part is perfectly possible. A man busy with his own great and somewhat hostile speculations does not always keep in mind all that an opponent has said and done. Any modern philosophic controversy in a magazine might illustrate this. Again such an argument might seem effective if it stood alone, yet be perceptibly weakened by repetition. We would not willingly surrender three dialogues on such a ground; and as a fact Ueberweg has that difficulty to face. Aristotle explicitly states that Plato never investigated the genesis of concrete things, De cener. « like flesh or bones, but confined himself to that of uroix^ia ; which is contradicted by '^°"- '• =■ 3"5 " Timaeus 73 — a work which Ueberweg places first on the list of those authenticated gee also Tim. by Aristotle, because of the number of his allusions to it. Here Ueberweg extricates ss-s- Piwedo himself thus: 'theils betrifft dies eine Frage von geringerer Bedeutung, so dass ein Uebersehen leichter erklarlich ware, (surely to Plato it would be a question of /xiOe^it in both places) theils bestimmt Aristoteles im Folgenden seine Meinung naher dahin, dass mit Ausnahme des Demokrit keiner seiner Vorganger etwas wissenschaftlich Bedeutsames dariiber gesagt habe.' Again, the nature of fjLeOe^t^ is discussed in the Philebus, ' worin,' however, pleads Ueberweg, ' Aristoteles noch kein ^ijretv finden ph;i. is b. mochte.' Probably he is contending for a foregone conclusion. But the argument may be attacked on closer grounds. The words av Xoyoov ol fxev Tm irpo's ri iroiovcrLv iSea?, &v oij ^acriv elvai KaO' avro ■yeVos, ot Se t. t. a. X. Met, vi. 13, (3) "OXtoj ^e avji^aivei, el eerTiv ovcrla 6 SvdpooTro? koi oaa ovto) Xeyerai, fiTjQev rwv Toi9a3. ^^ _^„ Xo'yo) eivai p-rjOevos ovcrlav, ptjSe X'^/"'? virapxeLV avTwv p.r]S' ev aXKcp, Xeyw S' oloy ovK eival Ti ^wov -jrapa. ra Tiva, ovS aX\o twv ev roii \6yots ovQev. ' Ek re Si] rovTOiv dewpovcn ?/x>;?) aKpi^earepov, . . . aKpi^ecrTOLTriv 132 a-b. hTi(TTriiJ.riv ... aKpi^eaTomi Sea-woTela ... aKpi^eaTarri eTria-ryjfiri. In other respects also the Parmenides meets the case. Aristotle declares that these Xo'yot of which he is speaking acknowledge the existence of ideas twv tt/joj ti, and the definition given of irpoi Ti in the Categories enables us to determine that the ideas of ofxoiorijs, juiyeOo^, Sea-TToreia, arda-ts and Kivijaii, of which this dialogue speaks, are all ideas of that class. y. But we may go further : if the Parmenides contains the argument in question so does the Republic. Plato is arguing about the con.struction of kXivui by God and ^- 597 c. says, Svo de TOiavrai rj -TrXelovg ovxe e]iTav vwo tov deov ovTe fxi] ^voicriv ...' On ... el Svo /jLovas TTOiriareie, ttoXiv av p.ia avaipavei}], rj^ eKeivai av av afKpoTepai to elSoi e'xoiev, Kai e'lri av o ecm Kkivrj eKelvi], aW ovx at Suo. So likewise in the Timaeus d propos of the Tim. 31 k question whether there are several heavens or one — eiVe/) Kara to nrapaSeiyna SeStip.iovpyrjp.evos eo'Tai there must be but one, to yap irepiexov iravTa, oirotra vorjTa fwa, pe6' eTepov SevTepov ovk av ttot e'li]' iraXiv yap dv eTepov eivai to irepi eKeivw Seal ^wov, ov pepoi av e'lTrjv eKelvco, Kat ovk dv eVt eneivoiv aXX eKeivw to) irepiexovTi toS' av cKpwpoioopevov XeyotTO opOoTepov. Here, as before, the argument is weakened by repetition. We might surrender the Parmenides; are we to give 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 p- vi. abcv^-. 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 argument is concerned, the Parmenides may stand with them. Admitting, however, that the work is not proved to be of a date more recent couidnatoiu^ve than Aristotle, scholars still maintain on various grounds that it at least could not^'""'"'" have been written by Plato. Thus Socher, as Stallbaum points out, considers the Parmen. work spurious on the ground that while it treats of a subject eminently Platonic, it '''"°'' "• ^^' does so in a trenchantly destructive spirit. "So derb geht doch wohl kein Schrift- steller sich selbst zu Leibe ! " (Socher). This is a plausible argument. To anyone who xiv THE PARMENIDES. seeks to 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. According to him Plato here criticises not the actual theory of ideas but merely something which to an inattentive reader might be mistaken for it. But that Plato should allow views so like his own, yet not his, to appear as if rejected by himself, without clearly indicating their points of divergence, seems very improbable, and amounts almost to deliberate trifling with the convictions of those who were his pupils and devoted followers. It may be pointed out that there is no exceptional keenness, nothing like animus, in the phraseology of the Parmenides. It is simply a discussion of the difficulties arising out of a theory of ideas, and an acknowledgment of their gravity. In the Theaetetus Plato exhibits as untenable every definition of knowledge; yet he believed in knowledge and in knowledge of ideas. In such a case we must take account of the mental detachment, the humorous sense of self-depreciation, which shows itself at intervals in all Plato's writings. We hear of the irony of Socrates; and no doubt much that Plato writes is written artistically in character. But his artistic success arises largely from personal sympathy with the feeling delineated. Moreover he had a remarkably developed dialectical faculty, and no thinker so gifted could reach middle Hfe without being forcibly impressed by the conviction that in the last resort metaphysical questions must be dropped with a sigh, rather than argumentatively set Works of T.H. at rest. 'I thought,' says Prof Green, an earnest metaphysician if ever one existed, Gree.i,iii.cxxvi. , j j^^j g^j. j^^y ^j- ^ j^^^ which I find HOW wiU not unlock so much as I fancied it would.' And just as Socrates in the course of conversation playfully made light of his own knowledge, so Plato, when impressed by a sense of metaphysical failure, gives this feeling from time to time ample but also playful expression. If, on the other hand, conviction is strong within him it asserts itself by rising above conscious defects of argument in great declamatory bursts — ' I know that my redeemer liveth ' — Plato etc., ii. or again by taking refuge in the dogmatism of a professor. As Grote says, 'Plato is, pp. 393-4 on occasionally, abundant in his affirmations : he has also great negative fertility in Theaet- starting objections : but the affirmative current does not come into conflict with the negative. His belief is enforced by rhetorical fervour, poetical illustration, and a vivid emotional fancy. These elements stand to him in the place of positive proof; and when his mind is full of them, the unsolved objections, which he himself had stated elsewhere, vanish out of sight. Towards the close of his life (as we shall see in the Treatise De Legibus), the love of dialectic, and the taste for enunciating difficulties 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 his affirmations, and substituting in their place a strict and compulsory orthodoxy.' And what is here truly said of Plato's life and speculation as a whole is equally applicable to any dialogue wherein destructive criticism is followed by a constructive AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK. xv effort. When the latter begins the drama ceases, and the conversation becomes as uninteresting as a catechism. Drop the questions from the catechism of the West- minster Divines and you leave a treatise: omit the answers from the latter portions of the Republic or Parmenides and you have a treatise likewise. Nor must we overlook the fact that while Plato's interest in philosophy was undoubtedly profound, his feeling for and delight in literary expression was a keen rival to it, and perhaps from time to time even took control of the argument. This may be called an external way of putting the case, and it may be urged that in Plato the form is the necessary counterpart of the matter, that the two compose an organism which cannot be severed into its elements. It is doubtful whether this alters the question verj' much. Philosophic enunciation in early times, partly from its fragmentary and inspired character, partly from the undeveloped state of prose composition, was either aphoristic or poetical. Its next form, during the generation prior to Plato, became in the main that of the dialogue. Plato with his great natural genius had almost no philosophic reading except verse, and for years witnessed the dialogue in the most picturesque and lively operation. The result in his hands was a sort of poetic apotheosis of the dialogue. Yet, soon afterwards, this form of expression ceased from the domain of speculation. That Plato was not straining his convictions when he claimed that dialogue, and even spoken dialogue, was the only true vehicle for speculation we may quite believe. But, on the other hand, Plato we can imagine was sometimes quite aware of his ability to write dialogue, and occasionally, as we cannot but think, must have felt dialogue an artificial encumbrance. At times dialogue runs away with him. At times again he gives us not dialogue but a narrative of dialogue at second, third, or even fourth hand. If at such times his expression is the essential clothing of his thought then at such times his thought must have been itself rather artificial. Let us be frank on this matter. The difficulty that is found in arranging his works may in part be due to the fact that he lectured constantly but published only portions of his views. That, however, does not meet the whole case. Professors do not usually give to the world of their worst. As a rule they publish what has been most carefully matured and has produced in their experience the deepest impression, perhaps even what old pupils urge- them to put in a permanent form. Plato may not have done this ; but assuredly he was no child in authorship. His works are voluminous, of brilliant ability, and carefully polished. Yet while he is often as detailed as any philosopher who ever lived, and while his works give much more than mere fragments of his views, he has seen fit to leave his writings to the world as if they were in the main mere detached and fortuitous conversations between groups of persons whom accident threw together. Socrates conversed at random. Granted: but Plato was not conversing. Yet his works are in such a state of mutual detachment, that it needs a cumbersome literary finesse in order to allude to one in the other, and after all we are left in doubt which is the referring dialogue and which the object of the reference. Surely if we are xvi THE PARMENIDES. now at issue about the order of his writings and the growth of his views, this is, at least in part, but the penalty justly incurred by Plato the philosopher to Plato the literary man. It is not meant that he was often or consciously sophistical ; but it is meant that he was not infrequently artificial. Carlyle in like manner, though pronounced to be ' terribly in earnest,' had a very artificial habit of omitting to specify the persons whose views he was controverting, and of affect- ing to quote from Sauerteig and Our earnest friend. Leaving this slightly un- congenial argument on one side, then, and accepting Plato as also 'in earnest,' B^sweii, by Hiii, although Johnson does not admit that in regard to Greek thinkers, we have still to "' '"■ remember that his works 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 exemplify the lifelong growth of a great mind, which had indeed a prevailing bias and aspiration, but little demonstrable certainty about systematic details, which was always feeling after the truth, yet often confessed that it had failed to find it, which sometimes contradicted itself, sometimes ironically gave up its quest, and sometimes under new circumstances lost faith in old conclusions, which was as much sceptical as it was dogmatic, which was influenced by literary as well as philosophic impulses ; but which always strove to be found 'on the side of the angels.' It is a truism to 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 the best; nay, even as an anchor of his soul, although entering into that which was Mod. Paint. IV. within the veil. ' Behold the cloud,' and again ' behold the cloud,' says Ruskin ""■ when called on to explain the ultimate character of geological forces; but he does not therefore dispute the reality of their action. ' The true eye for talent presupposes Pastand Present, the true revercnce for it — O Heavens, presupposes so many things!' exclaims Carlyle; ■ ■■ ^- 1"- yg|- ]^g does not therefore cease to hold that heroes are to be found, and therefore to be sought. We do not then admit that the Parmenides is spurious because it controverts doctrines elsewhere urged by Plato; on the contrary we conclude by citing; in addition to the Theaetetus, other passages indicating a similar tone of mind. In pp. 246-48. the Sophistes, he contrasts materialists with idealists as two opposing schools, each of which is extreme — the latter ii.aXa euXa^wi aviaQev e^ aopdrov Trodev a/nvvovrcu (against the former), voira arra kui aawfiaTa e'lSrj /3ia^6/j.evoi t»;i/ aX^divijv ova-lav ehai. He certainly calls them ^fxepwTepoi than their opponents ; yet all along he speaks of them critically as from without. Nevertheless, the soundest explanation of the passage is, that he is criticising his own views. The same thing recurs pijaedo, lOQ-ioi. in the Politicus. Again, in the Phaedo he clearly shows that his arguments in favour of the ideas have not laid his doubts to rest. Having already had occasion to quote the striking language in which he there admits his speculative anxieties, we need cite here only the closing words— oi3 yap en tovto SiKrxvpl^o/xai, aW ort AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK. xvii TO) KoXu) TvavTa Ta KoXa y'lyverai KoXd ... Ta? roiavra? KO/n.'yp^elas iwtji uv xa'pe"') Trapels a-KOKpivacyOai xoii a-eavroO ao^corepoii' ah Se SeSiw? av, to \ey6fxevov, tjju eavTov crKiav, Kai rrjv aTreipiav, exofJi-evoi eKetvov tov acrcpaXovi Trjs vTrodeaeuif, ovtw9 airoKplvaLO uv : and so on. Hereafter we shall discuss in more detail the relation in which the self- criticism of the Parmenides stands to Plato's system as a whole. Apart from this difficulty, there appears to be no good reason of an internal character for doubting the authenticity of the work. It is a philosophical discussion bearing upon a subject intimately associated with Plato's name. In point of importance and character, it is eminently worthy of his reputation. Nor is this a small matter: we can imagine an inferior writer trying to gain currency for a second rate work by assigning it to a great author, but who that could rival Plato would consent to remain unknown .-' As Mr. Jowett says : ' Shorter works are more likely to have been forged than longer p'=«°' "^'^ Edit., ... iji" . r . .. 11 vol. ii. pp. 413-15. ones... while, perhaps, there is no instance of an ancient writing proved to be a forgery, which combines great excellence with considerable length. A really great writer would have no object in fathering his works on Plato ; and to the forger or imitator, the " literary hack " of Alexandria or Athens, the Gods did not grant original genius.' Again, it is in Plato's style, by which are meant several things. Not only is it a dialogue — and no philosophic dialogues have come down to us with any name but Plato's — the type of dialogue likewise, and the characters, are Platonic. It begins in a lively dramatic fashion, such as might be paralleled in many of his works, then, when the theme proper has been introduced, the dramatic character, as was said above, becomes subordinate and ceases to be an essential feature of the composition. So in the Republic ; when preliminaries are settled, and constructive work begins, what importance have the answers of Glauco or Adimantus ? They simply confirm Socrates, give him an opportunity for restating an argument, save the work from being a mere treatise, and furnish the chief speaker with an ava-wavXa. Such is the service 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 make his work a report of a report of a report. Having now dealt with most of the objections which are raised, let us conclude Does piatotise- by asking whether there are any traces in Plato's other works of a reference to t^g ^^ ^"■^''^f^'o^- 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 : — Philebus, 140-15. Parmenides, 129. S. ToUtov roLvvv TOV \6yov ■ ■ ■ tov vvv St} 2. Oi) vo/j.i^eis ehat avTO kuO' ovto elSos Trapa-wea-ovTa Xeyoo, toiovtoi au aXXo ti OavfjLaa-Tov. ev yap S^ to. TroXXa elvai Kal evavTiov, o ecTTiv avop-oiov' ... el 8e km TrdvTa TO ev TToXXa Oav/naa-TOV XexOev, km paSiov evavTiwv ovtwv afj.(t>0Tepu)v fxeTaXafx^avei, koi a/j.(pia-^riT>]crai. II. "^Ajo' ovv Xeyeis, OTav 'icni tw fxeTexeiv d/ii, UpwTapxov, eva yeyovoTa ^varei, uvtu avTOis, t'l dav/xacTTov ; ... dXX' ei o d XVlll THE PARMENIDES. TToWovs eivat ttoKii' tov? e/j.e km evavTLOVS aWriXois, /xiyav /cat arfxiKpov TiOejuLsvos ■ . . tov avTOV Koi. aXXa fivpia ; S. 2i/ fiev . ■ ■ etpr]Kaf TO. SeS>]iJ.evfjLeva twv 6av/j.a(rTU>v Trepi to ev Kai -TToXka . . . OTUV T19 eKacrTOV ra /neXt} re KOI aXXa peptj SieXwv tSs \6yw — .... II. Su ^e Srj TTOia . . . erepa \eyeis ••■', 2. OTrorav, cb irai, TO ev firj tcov yiyvop-evuiv re Kai a'TToWvpLevcov tis TidTjTai ... oTav Se ti? eva avOpanrov eirixeipu TiBeaQai /cat ^ovv eva Kai TO KaXov ev Kai to ayaOov ev, "Trepi tovtmv Twi/ evdSwv ... ri iroXXr] aiuL(j>i]cn9 y'lyve- Tai. II. IlaJy; 2. IlyOWTOi' p.ev ei Tiva? Sei TOiavTas eTvai /jLovdSas vTroXafx/Saveiv aXriOoos ovcras ' eh-a ttco? av raJra? fiiav eKaaTrjv ovcrav ael Trjv aiiTrjv . . . ofz-w^ eivai jSe/SatOTaTa fi'iav TaiiTrjv' fieTO. Se tovt ev TOii yiyvo- fuevoii av Kai cnreipois eWe Siea"waa-fxevr)v Kai TToXXa yeyovviav OeTeov, e'ld oXrjv avTtjv avTrjs X'^P'^^t *> ^1 'a'avTWV aSvvaTWTaTOV ipaivoiT av, TavTOV /cot ev afxa ev evi re /cat ■rroXXois yiyveaOai .... To this might perhaps be added Sophist. 251. What does the reader think here? Zeller holds that we have a reference directly Plat. Trans. p. designed. 'I have already supported this in my Platon. Stud. 194, by the argument 70 an notes, ^j^^^ ^j^g ^^^^ p^j.^. ^^ ^j^^ Parmcnides is as good as directly cited in the Philebus, and this reason I still think is quite valid. Schaarschmidt (Samml. d. plat. Schr. 277) also agrees with me ; he, however, makes use of this supposition in a different direction' — to discredit both dialogues. Again, turning to the Phaedo we may make a further comparison : e], Qavp-auTWi, w Tirivwv. Again 131 A, TloTepov ovv SoKei aroi oXov TO etSoi ev eKacTTip eivai toov ttoXXHov ev ov, ^ TTO)? ; i t yap KwXvei , ... Jiiv apa ov /cat TOVTOV ev "JToXXotg X**/"'? ovcriv oXov afia evecTTai, /cot ouTwy avTO avTov X'^P'^ «'' ^'V- 129 B . . 130 E 14 C-15 B. Phaedo, 102 b. Kat od/jLoXoyeiTO eivai ti eKuaTOV tmv eiSwv Kai TOVTwv TaXXa fxeTaXafi/SdvovTa avToov TOVTOOV TTjv eTTicvv/Mav 'icrxeiv...dp' ovx, OTav ^tfji./ui.iav Sw/c/aaTOU? ^^9 fxei^w eTvai, ^aiSoovoi Se eXaTTio, Xeyety tot' efvai ev Tft) ^ifjLfiLa. a[x0Tepa, Kai fieyeOoi Ka\ o-fjiiKpo- Trfra; ... ov yap -ttov TreipvKsvai 'Lip.ix'iav inrepexeiv tovtw tw lii/x/xiav elvai, dXXa tu> /xeyeOei o Tvyxavei ex<^v. PARMENIDES, 13O E. Ao/cet crot, to? ^^j, elvai e'lSi] aTTa &v TaSe Ta aXXa fieTaXajm^avovTa to? eTroowfiia^ avTwv 'icrxeiv, oiov OfioioTtp-os fiev fieraXa- l36vTa 0/J.oia, fjLeyiOovs Se /ueyoAo ... y'lyve- aOai. See also the previous quotation. AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK. xix Under Plato's somewhat affected literary assumption, that the Philebus, the Phaedo, and the Parmenides are all independent colloquies between different groups of persons, could references from one to the other be more direct than these are; does not the wording seem to indicate that the reference is designed? There are but two more quotations of this nature that need detain us : — Theaetetus 183 E. Parmenides, 127 b. 2. JlapfievlSri^ Si fioi (paiverai, to tov Tov fxh ovv HapixevlSriv ev fJiaXa Stj Trpea-- Ofiripov, aiSoiOi re fxoi a/j.a Seti/os re. avfi- ^vrw etvat crcpoSpa ttoXjoV, koXov Se KayaOov ■Trpoaefii^a yap Si] rSi avSpl wdvv i/e'oy vdvv rr/v o^iv, irepl err/ fxaXia-ra Trevre koi e^KOv- Trpecrpv-q}, km fioi eavti ^dOoi ti exeiv ra' ... J^ooKpari] Se ehai Tore a^oSpa veov. TravTonraari yevvaiov. ^37- SOPHISTES, 217 c. TT TT' ' s -^ ' '\ — HoTepov eiwOas i'lSiov auToy eiri cravrov ^o^elaQai, Trwy xph TrjXiKovSe ovra Siavevaai (xaicpw Xoyai Sie^ievai \eywv tovto, o av toiovtov re koi roaovrov ttX^Soj Xoyaiv' evSei^aa-Qai tw ^ovXijOrj^, r/ Si epwTr'icrewv, ... Tt? ovv, etirecv, fiol aTrOKpiveirat ; rj 6 oTov TTore kui TLapfievlSu XP^f^^^V "^"^ Sie^iou- vecoTaroi ; rJKiara yap av irdKvirpayfj.ovol, Ti Xoyovs -TrayKoXovi Trapeyevo/xtjv eyco veo? Kal a o'lerat /xaXicrr av cnroKplvoiro' Kal dfjLa luv, eKEivov fiaXa St] Tore ovtos Trpecr/3vrov ; e/jLo} avdiravK' av elr] rj eKeivov diroKpicri^. also 237 A. The parallel could hardly be more complete. On the question of authenticity, then, our argument may be summed up thus : 1. There is good ground for believing that this dialogue existed, and was accepted as genuine, in the arrangement of Plato's works made by Aristophanes of Byzantium. Nor does any scholar in antiquity raise an objection to it. 2. While it cannot be proved that Aristotle names the Parmenides, it seems at least very probable that the arguments of the dialogue are controverted by him ; and they appear to bear internal evidence of priority when compared with his works. 3. There is no reason to doubt the Platonic character of the views and language which the work exhibits, and there is strong reason to believe that Plato alludes to this dialogue in other portions of his writings which are admitted to be genuine. II. When we pass from the sufficiently complex problem of authenticity to consider the sequence of position which the work is to hold in the series of Plato's writings, the first difficulty '^'"^ ^°'"'- is to conquer a feeling akin to despair. What can we say upon this question .? What has not been already said .? Are we to be launched upon that iroXv ireXayos the task of ordering Plato's collective works ? Ilwy xph Siavevcrai toiovtov re Kal toctovtov ttX^Oo? XX THE PARMENIDES. \6yi3iv ; At the outset we are troubled by the consciousness that a work whose authen- ticity has been gravely questioned is not likely to have its date or sequence very clearly defined. We know, indeed, that it was written after 403 B.C., since the narrator describes 127 D- Aristoteles, one of the interlocutors, as tov twv TpiaKovra yevo/xevov. And as Cephalus does not mention any attempt to get from Socrates personally a verification of details — a circumstance with which the opening of the Theaetetus may be contrasted — we are left to infer that Socrates 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 for speculation being thus unrestricted, we have such a crop of theories that even their enumeration would fatigue. To take representative cases : Schleiermacher regards the Parmenides as a rude, unfinished effort of Plato's youth ; Zeller holds it to be the ' Philosopher ' dialogue which is 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. The disturbing feature in the case is that, as Henry Esmond puts it, ' each has a story in a dispute, and a true one, too, and both are right or wrong as you will.' The various conclusions rest mainly on one or other of three argumentative foundations — that of the style and language of the dialogue, that of what may be called its scenery or setting, and that of its philosophic contents. Arguments from I. It is pointcd out that the form of the dialogue is artificial — that of a conversa- ^'^'^ tion reported at fourth 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 from the past, but it gives little clue to the date. The Symposium is at third, the Republic at second, and the Timaeus at first hand : we need say no more. Nay, one might rather ask, would an old man endure the constraint involved in writing large part of a work in complicated oratio obliqua ? Again, regard may be directed to style in a stricter sense. It is maintained that as a youthful style is revealed by immaturity and stifi'ness, or by crude exuberance of language, and by the placing of pictorial and dramatic vividness in the foreground, the Parmenides could not be a youthful work, but might rather, from its command over language, coupled with its comparative in- difference to pictorial display, be ranked among the later writings — an elderly man ceasing to think of style and attending more to substance. But answer is plausibly made that Plato is here adopting for the time the style of Zeno and the Megarians, with whose views he is dealing. Independently of that, arguments from style need tender handling. Up to at least middle life a man's mode of writing 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 ITS SEQUENCE AMONG PLATO'S WRTTINGS. xxi that greater conformity to scientific method is to be found, as compared with the freedom of conversational discourse, is no necessary proof of age. It testifies to the mood of the author's mind, if to anything, or may even be explained by the greater or less connection of a given work with Plato's professorial instruction at the Academy. A further step is taken when vocabulary and turns of expression are put to the proof. Professor Campbell has gone with some minuteness into the question of vocabu- Sopinstes and lary in Plato's writings. He treats the Timaeus, Critias, and Laws as admittedly late, ^°'''''"'; ^T ^ ' ' ^ ' ral Introd. §§ 6-7. and tests the other works by comparison with these. As a result he gives for each 'approximately the numerical ratios ... according to the number of words at once common and peculiar to each with' the works just named. In this list the dialogue which stands nearest to the three is the Politicus, with a ratio of i,^. The Parmenides, with \, ranks very low, having, besides others, the Cratylus, Protagoras, Theaetetus, Philebus, Symposium, Phaedo, Republic, Sophistes, Phaedrus, and Politicus, in that order above it. But when we perceive that the only works which are apparently less associated than our own with the three latest are the Charmides, Alcibiades I., and the Meno, while the Laches and Lysis are about one-half nearer, we are constrained to conclude that the list contributes little which can be of service to us. Indeed, it is difficult even to weigh the significance of the evidence. Are we to assume that Plato began authorship with a minimum of unusual terms and gradually advanced to a maximum ">. Clearly the subject matter would fall to be considered. Professor Camp- bell himself admits that ' the position of the Parmenides in this list, like that of the Phaedrus, is partly accounted for by exceptional circumstances.' But by what circumstances } Another attempt in the same direction is that of W. Dittenberger of Halle, who, after a few separate objections to the authenticity of our dialogue on linguistic grounds, which are referred to in the notes, seems inclined to regard it as doubtful upon a com- Hermes, xvi., parison of the use of a series of characteristic phrases — koI fxriv, aXKd ixqv, rl /miv ; ye fx.riv, and others — 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 ; and a later in two divisions, with many. (It ought to be said that, besides rejecting ten dialogues in addition to the spurious seven, he excludes from comparison such as contain small proportions of conversation.) The Parmenides stands in the later division of the second group along with the Philebus, Sophistes, Politicus, and Laws, and is very heavily weighted for its size. He follows the inquiry up in other directions with much ingenuity and learning. One result which arrests the attention of a reader is that the Phaedo stands in the earliest group, while the Lysis forms, with the Sym- posium, Phaedrus, Republic, and Theaetetus, the first division of the later. The argument has been criticised by A. Frederking, who shows that by dealing with the Fieckeisen, subiect in more minute detail, while employing the same materials, individual books J^'i-'Mcher, No. ^" J 125, p. 534, 1882. of the Republic and Laws may be made to stand in different groups. Further, by taking account of the isolated use of the particle re — in such phrases as a-ov rwvSe re xxii THE PARMENIDES. 'ipyov — 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. A dis- tinction of Frederking's between elirov and e(priv is discussed in the notes. With results so conflicting to deal with, it must appear to most readers that the treatment of statistics in language, as in other fields, requires extreme caution, and has not thus far afforded much assistance towards the solution of the question under discussion. Arguments from 2. Of the argumcnt from scenery or setting one branch is that which deals with dramatic Setting, ^j^^ position assigncd to Socrates in the several dialogues. It is contended that Socrates has a more prominent rdle in the earlier works, or rather that those works in which he pla3's such a part are earlier ; while his presence tends to become less and less important as Plato's memory of him is effaced by time and by original develop- ment. Undoubtedly this seems a reasonable contention, and one in harmony with what would independently appear to be the proper order of many dialogues. But here likewise the question of subject matter might well influence Plato's action. In any case the position of the Parmenides in regard to the argument is peculiar. Socrates 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 thinker whose period had gone by, but rather as one for whom great things were still in store. An interesting train of inference, which deals with the Parmenides alone, is based upon consideration of the time which may be assumed to have passed between the various stages suggested to us in the construction of the dialogue — between the original conversation, that is, and the narrative of this by Cephalus, which constitutes the dialogue as we have it. This estimate of time may be viewed either, with Steinhardt, from the final point backward, as suggesting that Plato seeks to make us ' look far back into other years ' ; or, with Ueberweg, from the starting point forward, as involving a late date for the composition of the work. As Plato might at any period in his literary hfe feel the boyhood of Socrates to be remote from himself, it is clear that only the latter form of the inference has much practical bearing on our present in- untersuchungen, quiry. Ueberwcg reasons thus. The point of departure is 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 least, as 45 1 B.C. Then comes the period which comprised the repeated rehearsals of the con- versation by Pythodorus to Antipho, until the latter had committed it to memory. Conjecture alone can determine the length of this interval, and Ueberweg makes no estimate of it beyond suggesting that it 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 places later than 399 B.C. from the circumstance that Cephalus does not think of going ITS SEQUENCE AMONG PLATO'S WRITINGS. xxiii direct to Socrates. Once more we have the interval which extends between that and the repetition of the narrative by Cephalus himself; and finally, says Ueberweg, the space elapsing between this last and the composition of the written work. He makes no attempt to fix the duration of either period, further than by saying that they cannot be very short, since to make them consist of one, or of a very few years ' ware eine zu auffallende Ungleichmassigkeit ' when compared with the preceding half- century. Accordingly he concludes for a 'very late date' — always assuming, which however he does not believe, that the work is genuine. This reasoning might convince, if the whole lapse of time involved were optional. But it is not. The period between the original conversation — if it ever occurred — and the death of Socrates is not subject to Plato's control. To say, therefore, that the remaining intervals must be conceived upon a corresponding scale is tantamount to saying that Plato is by some over- mastering necessity forbidden to make allusion in the framework of a dialogue to such an (assumed) historic event until time has passed sufficient to form a second or third interval artistically proportioned to the first. Further, Ueberweg postulates that the narrative by Cephalus is one thing and the written dialogue another. But they purport to be the same — the narrative of Cephalus is the dialogue. The truth is that the period between the youth and the death of Socrates is a historical one, and one to which Plato is free to allude when and how he thinks fit. The facts before us are simple. Cephalus after 399 B.C. hears from Antipho a narrative which he on a subse- quent occasion repeats, and this repetition constitutes our dialogue. That is the sum total of our information ; and despite Ueberweg's ideas of proportion, ' nur eine oder ganz wenige Jahre' are sufficient to include it all. Once again, therefore, v/e are deprived of any authoritative basis for determining the date of which we are in search. 3. We have only the philosophic contents of the work to fall back upon, then, Arguinen(s from 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 by pro- crustian theories about the order of Plato's works, it will be enough to say with Stallbaum — ' neque enim Schleiermacheri iudicio licet acquiescere, qui eum (the Parmen. imrod. dialogue) a juvene Platone paullo ante Socratis obitum vel non ita multo post °^'' (though this is a question of degree) scriptum esse statuit, adeoque habuit pro opere paene rudi et tantummodo inchoato.' The Parmenides certainly is not written by a mere beginner; and the probability is that it is later by several years than 399 B.C. The authority of Zeller on Platonic questions is such that greater weight may perhaps be attached to his view, in the case before us, than intrinsically belongs to it. One may go a long way with him in associating the Parmenides with the subject matter of the Sophistes and Politicus ; but to say that it is the ' Philosopher ' dialogue promised in p. 217 of the former, and at the beginning of the latter, is a startling pronouncement. These two works are direct and avowed attempts to discover and define the Sophist and the Statesman respectively, and each receives its title XXIV THE PARMENIDES. Farm. 130 c-D. from that circumstance. To this there is nothing analogous in the Parmenides. That Plato entertains a deep veneration for Parmenides as a philosopher is quite true; and that Parmenides is introduced discoursing of the discipline necessary to all philosophic progress, is equally so. But the method of the work differs funda- mentally from that of the others, nor is any conclusion arrived at such as that to which each of them directly leads. If Plato meant this dialogue to be the promised Philosopher why should he not have said so, and coupled it as clearly with the Politicus as he does the latter with the Sophistes .? In regard to subject matter one might almost as well pitch upon the Timaeus as the missing work. It is possible that our dialogue represents all that Plato ever wrote as a substitute for the Philosopher; but, if so, his plan has been altogether changed. With regard to the very suggestive argument of Dr. Jackson, in which he views the Parmenides as an exposition of Plato's final and much modified views, it seems to rest in large measure upon a misunderstanding. It assumes that Socrates had held at one time that there were ideas for 'man, fire, water,' and even for 'hair, mud, filth,' just as there were ideas for ' one, like, good ' ; but that he had now renounced this hypothesis, and even fled from it as from destruction. The Republic and Phaedo are taken as examples of the views renounced, and the conclusion is drawn that the Parmenides must be a late work. Surely this perverts the sense of the passage appealed to .'' Socrates in answer to Parmenides describes, not a past and discarded hypothesis, but a present belief Parmenides tells him that by and by, when he grows older and becomes less sensitive to criticism, he will not be afraid to entertain the thought of ideas for even the most undignified objects — that he will learn to call nothing common 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, if not necessarily than the dialogue as a whole, at least than the state of mind depicted in the passage upon which Dr. Jackson relies. He pushes his contention even further, however, maintaining that while the Phaedo reveals no sense of a difficulty about the nature of fjLeOeits, or the method according to which objects participate in the ideas, the Parmenides which forcibly presses that difficulty must on that ground be a later work. Is this really a possible contention in view of that remarkable passage in the Phaedo, already quoted above, which contains one of the most candid avowals in all Plato's writings, to the effect that, despite the almost overwhelming difficulty which surrounds the doctrine of /xeOe^is, he nevertheless despairingly clings to it aTrXto? koi. arexvm Koi icro)? ew?0ft)? ? No observations upon Platonic chronology would be complete which failed to reckon with the arguments of Teichmiiller in his 'Literary Feuds.' They are of a nature so striking, and are advanced with such confidence and ability, as to claim jahrhundertvor special and counected notice, in place of being distributed piecemeal under the various Chr. Gustav .... 1 • t 1 • 1 Teichmuiier, divisions which havc just been engagmg our attention. Dealing with Plato's writings as a whole, Teichmiiller contends that they are for the most part directly contro- Phaedo, loo. Arguments of Teichmiiller. — LiterarischeFel: den im vierten Breslau, i ITS SEQUENCE AMONG PLATO'S WRITINGS. XXV versial, and are to be dated chiefly from a consideration of the writings of men like Xenophon, Isocrates, and Lysias to which they refer, or which in turn refer to them. And such cross references he detects in abundance. On this point much that is of great interest is advanced which it would be impossible justly to controvert, or even to appraise, without a minute and extensive knowledge of the entire literature and literary history of the Platonic era. Such a knowledge we do not possess, and accordingly can only say that all allusions, or seeming allusions, of this nature are suggestive and captivating till we see those that make against the theory. An expert could doubtless collect such. Fortunately the Parmenides is not one of the works which Teichmuller has dealt with by this line of argument. Another point on which, theoretically — though, in the work before us, not practically — he lays much stress, as an internal evidence of date, is the progress which may be detected in Plato's views upon the question of lu-ide^is or vapovala. Undoubtedly this is a weighty sub- ject; at the same time our author's conclusions in regard to it appear to be of a somewhat sanguine character. He seems to find in Plato's works a very complete and satisfying elaboration of the doctrine ; a result not altogether in harmony with the language just quoted from the Phaedo, but certainly in accord with his own finding upon the philosophic position of Aristotle — to wit, that Aristotle derived most of his conceptions complete from Plato and other predecessors, and deserves credit chiefly for his power of methodizing what these thinkers had supplied. A cardinal feature in Teichmiiller's argument is the use which he makes of the statement at the opening of the Theaetetus with regard to the composition of that work. The 143 bc. professed author of it, Euclid of Megara, says that he has purposely left out such phrases as Kayo) ev \6yoov Sirjyi'jcreii, and it is represented as receiving the hearty assent of Terpsion. Here, says Teichmiiller (following out to some extent, it would seem, a previous hint of Schleiermacher's), we see on Plato's part a new step in authorship. Till now he had followed the method of Socrates in giving his dialogues at second hand by means of Stj^ytja-is — 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 discussion as it took place. The announcement of this intended change is put into the mouth of Euclid designedly, as an acknowledgement of indebtedness in the matter to the Megarian school. Accordingly we are to understand that as the Theaetetus is later than all such works as the Republic, so all works which follow its method are in turn later than it. Among those thus marked out as later stands the Par- menides, 'denn dass z. B. im Euthydem die Disputation erzahlt, im Parmenides aber v„i. u. 323. 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 uncom- e xxvi THE PARMENIDES. promising a manner. If taken as evidence of a fresh tendency in Plato's mind it may be welcomed. But if we are to accept as binding on us the idea that Plato, after so speaking in the Theaetetus, never could recede from the position thus taken up, we feel that much is expected of us. Plato might appropriate the language and doctrine of King Jamie— 'We are a free King,' and not 'thirled' to any system in- volving mechanical uniformity of style. He was at liberty to write with variety, and to make dramatic apology, as he does in more places than one, for the tediousness of dry details. But granting the most conclusive force to this argument, even so the position of the Parmenides towards it, as towards some others, is exceptional. It is true that in the larger or second part of the dialogue the direct dramatic form is adopted, and that with no such preliminary warning as is given in the Theaetetus. But in the first part, which is nearly one third of the whole, and which consists of a very weighty and careful discussion of the ideal theory, not only are phrases such as 'said he' inserted, but they are inserted at third hand, so that they stand not in the indicative but in the infinitive mood — and, as one might say, in the second degree of that. Thus we have tov fiev ovv TLap/meviSiiv ev /xaXa Srj ■Kpecr^vTriv eivai and ovrw, (pdvai TOV Z}]vcova. Nay, such and so embarrassing is the artificial character of the MIA. style that it sometimes fairly breaks down, and we have km. -ttuh av, elirev, instead of elireiv, while every now and then the eiTrelv is involuntarily dropped, as in eoiKev: TO TTotov ; If, then, we are to place the Parmenides after the Theaetetus on this ground, we must assume that Plato's Socratic conscience, so to speak, is pricking him, and that he allays his qualms for abandoning his master's method by the penance of walking nearly a third of his prescribed journey with peas in his shoes. But, again, Teichmiiller expressly accepts the mention made of Parmenides in the Sophistes as an allusion to the Parmenides dialogue. That being so, what is to be .33 F. made of the allusion, equally specific, contained in the Theaetetus, and given at ■-'. p vix. length in part I. above ? The date of the Parmenides is not, however, discussed by Teichmiiller in detail, as those of some other works are ; all that we find are incidental allusions to the matter. Thus he holds that it precedes the Laws, and we have seen that he puts it before the Sophistes. Again, he dwells — as Ueberweg also does — upon the appearance of Aristoteles as an interlocutor, and is strongly disposed to assume that we have here an indirect but intentional allusion to the '•■ =4-5 philosopher Aristotle. This leads to the inference that the work must be later than 367 B.C., when Aristotle became known to Plato ; and that it was written about 366-65 B.C. With this is intended to accord his assumption that Plato refers to ,j6D-i>. 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 too tuvtu XeyovTi ovk av e'xoi th evSel^aa-dai oti \}f€vSeTau At the same time he weakens his case by going on to affirm that this is the work Trepi ^KXW fron^ 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 ITS SEQUENCE AMONG PLATO'S WRITINGS. xxvii to have been the Phaedo, a work which TeichmuUer places relatively early in Plato's life. Again, as Plato was born about 427 B.C. his age at 366 B.C. would not be very advanced ; at all events his activity in authorship lasted considerably longer — on Teichmiiller's own showing, he had still to write at least the Sophistes, Politicus and Laws, or about a fourth of his collective works. It must be admitted, however, as a noticeable circumstance, that his age would not fall far short of that assigned to Parmenides in the dialogue. But the assumption that Aristotle is glanced at in the person of the young Aristoteles is surely open to great doubt. Aristoteles is declared to have been one of the thirty tyrants, and we know that Plato introduces more than one public character of that type into his writings — Critias, for example, and Alcibiades. If, then, it had not happened that Plato's greatest scholar proved to be likewise called Aristotfe, should we have found anything to attract attention in this circumstance.' Had Shakespeare sui-vived till 1645 — and he would not in that case have lived much longer than Plato — who would not have njaintained, in dis- cussing moot points in his works, that the famous words ' Cromwell, I charge thee, fling away ambition ! ' had a very different reference from the ostensible one .? Again, if Plato meant to refer to the philosopher here, he has not assigned him a very appropriate position. Socrates, although ' very young,' plays a part of great importance in the dialogue : but Aristoteles is a mere lay figure. He elicits nothing, he main- tains nothing, he controverts nothing ; but merely, by interjecting formal verbal replies, prevents the dialogue from becoming an essay. How Plato could treat a young man whom he viewed as giving promise of ability, we know from the Theaetetus and Charmides; and that is not how he treats Aristoteles. Nay, it would be a fair 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 Teichmiiller is the following, ' Ich erwahne hier " 360. noch, dass der Timaios . . . bei der Erorterung des Begriffs der Zeit eine spatere Untersuchung verspricht, die wir im Parmenides (151 E bis 157 B) vorfinden. Es folgt daraus von selbst die Prioritat des Timaios.'' The Timaeus gives a promise which the Parmenides fulfils, therefore the latter is the later work. If the premises hold the conclusion is incontestable. But we are entitled to expect that the promise given should be definite and the fulfilment reasonably to the point. The passage referred to in the Timaeus as piece justificative is one in which, after a reference to Time in 38 ■>• various relations, the remark is made xepJ lAv ovv tovtwv rax ^'^ ""^"^ ^'"? x^o.i-po'S TrpeTrwi/ eV TftJ vupovTi SiaKpi^oXoye'iadai. This is all; and from this 'it follows of itself that because time is discussed in the Parmenides that discussion is a fulfilment, the fulfilment, of the 'promise' made in the words just given. Surely a conclusion like this seems predetermined. And while inherently weak it has to overbear con- flicting appearances of some weight. Plato has written much upon ethics and politics, and not a little upon physics and metaphysics : and if we are to take the Laws as his last utterance on the former, it seems at least as clear that the Timaeus xxviii THE PARMENIDES. gives the furthest development of his views on the latter. It is one long, earnest, almost desperate attempt to elaborate jue'Se^t?, to bridge over the chasm between i'l^t) and at(T6r]Ta which in the Parmenides is left yawning. Nor is this Teichmiiller's only sanguine inference. He places the Phaedo, as we have seen, considerably earlier than the Parmenides. One of his arguments we have already giyen : here is another. Finding reason for considering the Symposium a comparatively early work he lays it 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 ii. 307-9- comedy : they cannot follow him and drop asleep. Teichmiiller 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 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. These indications Teichmiiller would appear to set almost entirely aside. No one who studies his arguments can fail to be impressed by their brilliancy and power, but his key 'will not unlock as many things as he thinks it will.' Must our conclusion be, then, that no satisfactory data exist from which a reasonable estimate may be formed of the position which the Parmenides should occupy among Plato's writings .-' Some attempt must certainly be made to reach at least an approximate solution of the question : but the undertaking is entered upon in anything but a dogmatic spirit, and with a full consciousness of the conditions — caedimus inque vicem praebemus crura sagittis. To enter at this stage upon a detailed analysis of the dialogue would be to anticipate the natural order of inquiry. Some reference, however, to the contents of the work is indispensable to our present object. Reasons which The dialoguc opcus with a statement upon the ideal theory which is afterwards should weigh subjected to scrutiny. In connection with this opening statement it seems impossible with us. .... .... to overlook the emphatic intimation of the youth of Socrates by which it is jjjc. accompanied. He is described as 'extremely young,' and Parmenides treats him as a 128 K. promising lad who at present is deterred, through boyish fear of established views, from accepting conclusions to which his reason seems to point, and who has, with 135 c-D. 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 ITS SEQUENCE AMONG PLATO'S WRITINGS. xxix was not tied down to such a method of dealing with the personality and doctrines of Parmenides : the method was of his own choosing. Further, as Socrates never held the views here ascribed to him, we are entitled in the youthful Socrates to perceive the youthful Plato, and to regard the opening statement of the dialogue as an intentional notification by Plato of the character of his own early theorizing upon metaphysical questions. It is consistent with this assumption that the only method urged here as a means of arriving at the conviction that ideas exist is the Socratic T32 a. one, of generalization from the world of experience. That was the path which had led Plato onward, and hence the present allusion to it. Again, while the ideas are treated as realities of some kind affecting our sensible sphere, the first attempt clearly to define their nature is that in which they are called vomara whose abode is X32 b, ovSanov aWoOi rj ev ^Jrvxaif. Is not this a natural course for one to pursue who had just come from the school of 'general definitions' which Aristotle directly ascribes to Socrates — what could such definitions be but voi^/jLara? We have before us, in fact, Tovi T eTruKTiKovs \6yovs /cat to opi^ecrdai KadoXov as Aristotle describes them. And Arist. Met. xu when the writer, driven from this, goes on to exclaim that now he thinks he has the t- clue, — that the ideas are patterns set up in nature; we seem to find the decisive step taken which Aristotle proceeds to ascribe to 'those who first pronounced for the existence of ideas,' aXX' 6 fiev XwKpdrtif ra KadoXov ov x'^P'^'^'^^ iirolei, ovSe roi/y opuTfiovi' 01 S ex(iopiarav, Kai to TOtavTu twv ovtwv ISeag 'Trpocniyopevcrav. Looking next to this first sketch of the ideal sphere we find its scope to be at once restricted and imperfectly defined. The speaker cannot bring himself to recognize the existence of ideas for physical objects, but only for abstract mental and moral conceptions ; and even these exist confusedly, without being dominated by any regulative principle. Here the new doctrine stands forth just such as it might have sprung from the unsystematic moral speculations of the historic Socrates. This then, while not the point finally reached in the dialogue, is the condition of things with which the dialogue goes on to deal ; and may be described as a somewhat hasty and crude x^'pttr/xo? of the results reached in the Socratic speculation. It is the treatment which this opening statement receives, to which, if to anything, 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. He implies that it might have been expected to include and account for physical objects, as well as moral or intellectual conceptions; that it will not be complete until it does include such objects, even the most insignificant of them ; and that he looks forward to a time when Socrates will so far gain the victory over his boyish aversion as to make that important stride in speculation. If this is a just interpre- isoae. tation to put upon the language of the text it would seem to follow 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 to push the argument to its utmost we might even infer that the Parmenides is prior to all such dialogues, inasmuch as it looks forward to a consummation which they embody; and it is obvious that if it be later than none of them it must of necessity be prior to the majority of them. Now all students of Plato's works are aware that those ideas are accepted without hesitation in such works as the Cratylus, Republic and Phaedo. In the Cratylus we have cratyiu5,3S7etc. 'i e'cTTtv oi/o/xa, Kspm, TpiiTTavov, v(f>aa-fj.a, so that even objects of art and manufacture ^*"''"'^' are included, which the human maker fashions Trpoj to elSos ^XeTroov. In the Republic Rep. X. 5q6. ' ' / G 1 • 1 Phaedo, 63 n, occur among others the well known cases of the k\iv>] and rpa-n-e^a ; and m the 74-78.100.106. Phaedo repeated reference is made to ideas for various physical objects. 2. Nothing could be more abrupt than the severance which Parmenides and Socrates agree to recognize between the ideas and the world of sense. You may be led 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 another. Here is the sensible sphere, yonder is the ideal ; even God cannot bridge the chasm that yawns between them. All the satisfaction vouchsafed to us in these circum- Farm. 133-135 c. stanccs IS the admission that such a conclusion does appear to be paradoxical, and that it will need extreme skill 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, 7276. which discuss or accept the doctrine of ava/j.vj^ai'; — for example the Phaedo, Phaedrus, phaedrus, 249 c. and Mcuo I possibly also those that speak of ' divine madness,' as the Phaedrus and 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 Republic, the construction of inroOecrii above inrodecri^ in the Phaedo, and the declaration in the Philebus that we must not proceed at once from the one to the unlimited -Trplv av Ti? Tov aptO/iiov avTov Travra KarlSr] tov ixera^v tov cnrelpov re km tov evog — whatever this description may be held to mean. 3. Neither in the opening sketch nor in the criticism brought to bear upon it is there any serious attempt to introduce gradation or method into the ideal sphere. The nearest approach to that is to be found in the various groups into which Parmenides throws the ideas in questioning Socrates ; and between the two groups which the latter accepts the rationale of the distinction is not very obvious. Once more, then, it would seem a fair argument to maintain that the setting up of one or more dominant or master ideas must indicate a speculative advance in the theory. Now, even granting, which is doubtful, that the 'one' of this dialogue is designed as such a master idea, it would still seem that the ayadw of the Republic and the small group of dominant ITS SEQUENCE AMONG PLATO'S WRITINGS. XXXI ideas oi', crracrt?, Kivricn's, ravrov, Odrepov — dwelt upon in the Sophistes, are much clearer cases of an attempt in that direction. 4. Near the beginning of the Parmenides we have an earnest wish expressed by Socrates to see the process 'mingle, mingle, mingle,' which prevails in the sensible sphere, made applicable to the ideal. Yet in throwing out such a suggestion there is not even a whisper of the restriction 'ye that mingle may' — the expression rather is niv avrriv airop'iav ev avToii roh e'lSecri -n-avToSa-wwi TrXeKOfiivtiv. Nor is any such restric- tion enforced in the later progress of the argument. It does not appear unnatural to contend that works in which a discrimination on this point is revealed, in which dis- tinctions are drawn between ideas that admit communion and those that reject it, indicate a later stage in the evolution of Plato's views. Here again the Phaedo and Sophistes are at once recalled to mind. 5. The type of argument which we have just been using may be developed some- what further. We have above seen some reason to assume that the difference between p. ..2 above, any given conception in Aristotle and the corresponding one in Plato is largely a question of greater clearness, definiteness, precision. The view of Aristotle is in 'precipitate' what the view of Plato represents in 'solution.' It would naturally follow that if in different works Plato's views in regard to any conception seem to be at variance, the view which is the more clear and definite is the later. Now, in 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 such as that of genus to species or body to member. In the Theaetetus we find a very definite dis- Theaet. 204. tinction drawn between that which as a mere sum of parts is called wav and that which as something distinct from such a sum is called o\ov. 6. We have seen above, and shall have occasion to see again, that faults appear from time to time in the reasoning. These faults resolve themselves largely into neglect of the law of contradiction and of logical division. We have in the Parmenides an Pa™. 135 1-. indication of the nature of the law of contradiction, but by no means so clear a statement of it as is contained in the Sophistes — einSeiKvvovcriv avrai (ras So^as) soph. 230 b. avrais dfia -rrepi twv avTwv •jrpo? tu avTo. koto. Tavra evavria?. And while Parmenides insists strongly on the necessity of method in reasoning, the method of logical division is not consciously and persistently employed as it is in the same dialogue. soph. 226etc. 7. But on the question of reasoning a more important point arises. We have already had under review an argument by Teichmiiller in which the Theaetetus was p- "•"■ ^bovc. made a turning point, in consequence of a remark in it affecting the style of composi- tion adopted. That argument is not unimportant, although it cannot be applied safely to the Parmenides. But there is a means of inference of an analogous character which will so apply. The great objection which Parmenides urges against Socrates and his Paim 135 c-13 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- xxxii THE PARMENIDES. quired. 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 of Zeno before he ventures upon constructive metaphysics. The point is pressed upon our attention in the utmost detail, and is obviously a question of much greater weight than that of reporting discussions at first or second hand. Here, if anywhere, we have the intimation of a new departure on Plato's part. And it comes in connection with a metaphysical problem. It would appear that while the methods of argument practised by the historic Socrates are sufficient to 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 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 portions of the Republic. The feeling which Plato here indicates is in harmony with the statement of Aristotle about the methods and arguments of Socrates, where he says Arist. Metaph. SioXeKTiK}] yap (Vxy? ouTTOt) TOT ^v wcTTe SuvaaOuL Kui X*"/"? Tov Ti ecTTi TavuvTia e-KLaKOirelv, Kcu Twv evavTLwv el rj avTrj eTnaT^/j-tj. We do not contend that Plato henceforth was always just and faultless in his arguments — few even of the most expert dialecticians fail to reason badly at times — but simply that hereafter he was more searching and methodical. We could imagine the Republic, for example, begun upon Socratic prin- ciples and carried on so far as the point where advantage is taken of the argument from the analogy of a State, but thereafter becoming gradually modified and inter- penetrated with fresh metaphysical matter which carried the speculation past the Socratic standpoint into regions of pure thought. 8. While Plato in this dialogue criticises his own early views, and assumes that his readers are more or less acquainted with them, he does not refer to them as matters of public notoriety. On the contrary the phrase used by Parmenides after Farm. 13a B. hearing the opening statement of Socrates is interrogative— /ca/ fioc el-we, wto? ah Sir'tprja-ai w? Xeyeis, x^pi? fiev e'lSt] avTo. uttu x^^P'? <5e Ta tovtwv jueTexovTa ; Now that is not the sort of language used under similar circumstances in the Phaedo. On the Phaedcoo Bete, contrary we have such expressions as dVep ael koI aWoTe . . . ovSh TreTravfiai Xiywv.—elfii TraXiv iir' eKetva to. irokvd pv\r]ra. And we have referred more than once already to the manner in which he alludes to objections which had been raised— toS kuXov ehe Trapovarla, ehe KOivmla ehe oTry Sh kui ottws Trpoa-yevofiivir ov yap eTi tovto Siurxypl^onai etc. It is not unnatural to view such expressions as pointing to a later date for the work in which they occur. "'""' 9- The suggestion that the ideas consist of -rrapaSelyixaTa or patterns would seem to be thrown out here for the first time. Where it is mentioned elsewhere the reference is hardly of such a nature, but the subject is touched upon as a thing needing no introduction. SEQUENCE OF THE WORK. xxxiii Is it not reasonable to infer that such allusions are of later date than this one? Here Rep. i;i.59J». again the Theaetetus and Republic at once occur to the memory. '^'"=''"- '''^ '■ lo. Finally, what has been urged thus far seems to furnish a justification for putting upon the quotations given at the close of Part I. of this introduction, from the Phaedo, Theaetetus, and Sophistes, what is after all their most natural construction — for hold- ing, that is, that they are references, as clear as Plato's mode of authorship will permit, from those dialogues to the Parmenides as a work already given to the public. Such are some arguments which may be adduced in favour of the view that the tl* work pro- Parmenides takes a distinctly early position in the ranks of Plato's metaphysical*""'"^"^'"'''' among^ the meta- writings. Whatever may be thought of their force when viewed separately, it will be physical du- observed that they are largely cumulative, and present in that light no inconsiderable '"^^ body of evidence, so that one is reminded of the Aristotelian dictum rw fxev yap aX?i6ei Ari^t. Eth. nic. iravTa (rvvaSei ret inrapxovTa, tw Se \p-evSet Ta)(y Sia It is not clear that the scope of it exceeds what might fairly be looked for from the operation of the doctrine of Parmenides and the dialectic of Zeno upon a mind at once so delicate and so powerful as that of Plato. As for the question of number, is that such an exotic in the speculation of the Greeks as to excite suspicions > ' They thought in numbers for the numbers came': long before Plato's time every recess of numerical extravagance in philosophizing had been ransacked by the Pythagoreans. And surely it is sufficiently natural to discuss many points respecting number when the basis of the whole argument is the nature of One. Nor is there anything which can be called a mixing up of number with the ideas in the course of what is said. Our contention, then, is that on the whole it seems most consonant with evidence to assign to the Parmenides a very early place among Plato's ontological speculations : to place it, for example, earlier than the 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 Plato's intellectual development there is nothing to prevent this dialogue forming a representative product of that period. It is correct to say, as Dr. Jackson does, that the work marks a break in the continuity of Plato's views, and a reconstruction of his ideal system. But while Dr. Jackson represents Plato here as breaking with most of the opinions which we are in the habit of associ- ating with his name, in favour of a theory for which we have little or no documentary evidence it seems more natural to hold that Plato here parts company with an earl>' / xxxiv THE PARMENIDES. and immature conception, for which we have little or no documentary evidence, in favour of those more comprehensive and connected doctrines which we are in the habit of associating with his name. III. chabacteb We come now to consider the character and contents of the work. The Parmenides A.ND Contents, py^po^s to be a narrative by Cephalus of a conversation which occurred between Soc- rates, Zeno, and Parmenides at a former time, in a specified place. Is that meeting Is the dialogue historical, and is the narrative authentic .'' Plato's account is certainly circumstantial. The to be regarded transmissioH, too, of the narrative would seem to be guarded with the most jealous vigilance as historical ? , ,, - , -^, , against the intrusion of foreign matter. But no one can profess a belief that Plato s works are to be judged by a severe historic standard. They may throw light upon historic events and personages, but they are not, by many removes, themselves history. Even in ancient times this was understood, as we learn from the anecdote, whether authentic or not, D. L. iii. 35. recorded in Diogenes Laertius, that Socrates on hearing Plato read the Lysis exclaimed, 'H/oct/cXei?, w? TToXXct fuov Kara^evSerai 6 veavia-Kog ovtos ! A similar remark is ascribed to Athen. Deipn. both Gorgias and Phaedo by Athenaeus. It may, however, be urged that a basis of fact xi.8ii3Tauchn. gj^Q^j^j ]-,g admitted in many dialogues, and that something beyond that may be looked for in those in which a serious profession of veracity is made by the author. There is such a profession here. Plato seems quite grave as he describes the meeting, and gives the respective ages and characteristics of those who were present : nay, as we have seen, he refers to the matter again in 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. If the latter be the case, then we have one assertion of fact, not three. Were we dealing with a professed historian this might mean little, but we are not. Scholars, however, seem inclined to think that Plato meant to be staiib. Parmen. historical here : Stallbaum, Mullach, Clinton, and Ueberweg are at one so far. But when MuHachrPoeseos ^c come to details difficulties arise. Of the three principal characters in the dialogue the Phiiosoph. quae only One regarding whose life we have definite information is the youngest. The birth-year supersunt, p. log; rr^if-i'iT* ^ Clinton, Fast. °f Socratcs lics Within the hmits 471-468 B.C., with apparently a preference for 469. At Hell. II. Ed. 3. the date of the meeting he is described in the several references as 6Spa viov, iraw veo?, i84i,underdate5, , \ / ,r \ t ~ ^ 1111 rf and compare p. ^7^' "^"^ wv, Truioriv >]fj.tv ovatv, and the whole setting of the dialogue accords with these 448; Ueberweg, emphatic phrases. Ueberweg, indeed, considers this to mean that he was young only when Unter.such.p.222. J . , , j_ 1 1 O J compared with the mature or advanced age commonly assigned to him in other dialogues, and cites— though admitting the authority to be second-rate — the statement of Synesius, Syn. Encomium ^wKpari]^ . . . Trivre KOI. e'lKoarw eTrj yeyovwi, o-wtiViKa ILap/j-eviSiji koi 7J)viiiv %kov ^ AO^va^e, wy avui., C.17. nXaToii/ 4iri , t ,t • ^^ ' l^t. • .. 11 , , -i • , , iv. 1, 3. conip. y^P '''ovTov OVK ecTTai o crvWoyKr/uLOi. 1 his at once recalls two striking passages of the Farm. 159 a, Parmcnidcs. At the same time these arguments of Plato, when viewed in detail, are not ''* "■ quite similar to those of Zeno ; while we have also to remember that they are boldly attributed to Parmenides himself, and that they are applied to the One as straightforward reasoning, not to the Many as paradoxical confutation. Meiissus. Plato makes no allusion to Melissus in the Parmenides ; but he twice refers to him Theaet. .80 E, elsewhere, and in such a way as to indicate a knowledge of his writings — in particular of '^^ '■ his view that motion was impossible for lack of empty space. Much of the argument in this dialogue has quite as close a likeness to the tenets of Melissus as to those of Zeno. ITS CHARACTER AND CONTENTS. x.w'ix Thus the reasoning of Melissus that what ' is ' cannot ' become,' and therefore has no Muiuch, m.ii... beginning ; cannot ' perish/ and therefore has no end ; and as having neither beginning nor ^'"^'°- ' ^■ end cannot be limited, therefore the One is 'limitless' ; recalls at once what we find at the opening of the First Demonstration : while the fallacy of arguing thus from time to space Pa™. 137 d. is analogous to the ambiguous use of ravrov for the same thing and the same place in the Second. Again, the contention against motion in any form, whether as destruction, or Parm. 746 a. growth, or claange, or suffering, on the ground that whatever is so affected cannot be One, finds a parallel in both the First Demonstration and the Third. There is even an echo of Parm. 138, 156. the language, although with a difference; for example el yap n Tovrcav -rracrxoi, ovk ac Muiiach, s 4 and €C eiri' TO yap rjvrivaovv Kivrjiriv Kiveofxevov sk rtvos /cat e? erepou ri /xera^aXXet : and el yap ^ "' eTepoiovrai, avdyKt] to eov fj.^ 6/j.oiov ehai, aW aTroWvcrOat to -wpoaQev eov, to Se ovk iov ylvecrOai may be compared with the phrases used throughout the Third Demonstration. Parm. 156 b-c. Yet we feel that in the case of Melissus, as in the cases already touched upon, the diver- gences are quite as noteworthy as the coincidences. And our general conclusion upon the evidence must be that — so far as can be ascertained from the fragments preserved — Plato treats the works of the three Eleatic philosophers rather as suggestive texts and points of departure, than as systems accepted in their entireness and containing a satisfactory answer to the questions of metaphysics. The Parmenides is after all a Platonic speculation, although resting upon an Eleatic basis. In Plato's view the One 'is and is not ' all that the Eleatics ascribed to it and to the Many conjointly. Of the two great exponents of Platonism for the English-speaking world of our The contents generation the one, while striving to maintain a historic attitude, subjects Plato's works to ''"'^ ^<=°p"''' a scrutiny having for basis a sensational conception of knowledge, and for weapons the laws of formal logic ; the other does not shrink from hinting his distrust of metaphysics as anything 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 perfect harmony with the two important facts, that he both strove to get his views embodied in practical legislation, and devoted his best energies to professorial instruction in philosophy. It is doubtless true that he is not systematic after the conscious and pre- determined fashion of Kant or Spenser; yet he is 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 his 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'— metaphysical Ariel singing ' Where the bee sucks there suck I.' The Parmenides alone is sufficient to show that he sought to rectify his own mistakes and make definite progress towards truth. In it we xl THE PARMENIDES. 126-129 E. find, beyond dispute, an intentional review of past difficulties, and a conscious step in advance, so far as the doctrine of ideas is concerned. Before entering upon a detailed discussion of the work, it is 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 been written in explanation of the Parmenides becomes— where time for consideration is limited— confusing rather than helpful to the mind. As little, 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 at has 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. Part First: The dialogue opens with a reference to the speculative relation in which Zeno stands Analysis. ^^ Parmenidcs. The former is declared to be the negative, as the latter is the positive, Zeno's problem. ■ i.' supporter of the thesis that Being is One. Parmenides, as we have seen, m his poem, after setting forth this dogma in detail, feels constrained, like many expounders of the problem of existence, to admit that ordinary experience yields no support to his chosen view. Accordingly in the second part of his poem he takes up the facts of nature as we find them, and offers his explanation of them, just as the physical philosophers had done before him. But the whole of this wide field which rejects incorporation with his doctrine is classified as Not-being, and relegated to the sphere of opinion, while its votaries (popevvrai Kw 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 hardly accords with the plethora in the other. ITS CHARACTER AND CONTENTS. xliii Let the scope, however, and the contents of Plato's ideal world be consistent or The ideas form inconsistent, wide or narrow, one thing about it at least is beyond dispute, that it is a " "°''''' "P"'- world quite apart from ours. We arrive indeed at a conception of it by means and a process familiar enough. It is clearly laid down that the ideas are "grasped by reflec- P^m. 130 a. tion ' — \oyi(T/j.w \a/x^av6fjieva. These are the means, and the process is in accordance with them. We proceed by comparison and abstraction. Tiie course of this process is not absolutely clear, and comments are made upon its character in the notes. But so long as it resembles ' abstraction and generalization,' the remark which one is most naturally tempted to make upon it is, that while the process is familiar the result is vmique. The process seems quite analogous to that which Aristotle refers to Socrates Met. xu. 4. as its first expositor- — 'for there are two things which one might ascribe ju.stly to Socrates ; inductive trains of reasoning and universal definition.' Acquired by such means, ideas ought to be what we mean when we use the term — that is, vm^fiara or notions. To Plato they are something wholly different. Here again Aristotle describes the facts for us: 'Socrates, however, did not make the universals nor yet the defini- tions separate or transcendental ; but ^^'^J (the makers of ideas) did this, and such sorts of entities they named ideas.' Like Jack, we climb up the familiar bean-stalk into wonderland : only that his bean-stalk is itself a wonder, while ours is not. This break is mentioned repeatedly in the dialogue, and the reader can judge whether Aristotle in what we have quoted from him seems to have this -dialogue in his mind. Thus eav Si Tii . ■ • irpwTOV fxev SiaipijTai x^P'? cetera kuO' avTa ra e'tSij. — avTOi av ovtoo Siyprjuai Farm. 129 d. ft)? Xiyei's, X'^P'y M^" ^"^'Z o^^to. arra X'^P'? ^e to. tovtvov av fierexovTa ; — elSoi eivat x'"/"'?- |'° ^ And their characteristic peculiarities are noted in three forms of expression which agree with this act of x^joicyuo? : we have mrrj o/noioTtjf, o 'ianv eV, and as above e'lSri 129 b. ovTa avTCL kuO' avrd. Socrates, then, has got (i) an ill defined and ill regulated world of ideas, which is (2) reached by an intellectual effort of abstraction, but (3) found when reached to be 'like a star that dwells apart.' Parmenides proceeds to interrogate Socrates upon the subject and to raise objections. To his mind a great difficulty is this. Postulating the two spheres, ideal and sensible, fully developed what must we hold to be the nature of the participation or imeOe^i? of the ideas by rdSe to. aWa or our world of sense ? First he asks, do objects of sense share in the whole or in a part of the idea.? If in the whole, then is the idea many- wheres at once : if in a part, the effect upon them may be fraught with ludicrous contradictions — a twofold difficulty which Socrates frankly admits. The assumption underlying this dilemma is that the participating object represents, so to speak, a sensible material body of death ready made, into which the idea is supposed to enter. That is, of course, diialism in a pronounced form. The world of sensible objects is somehow already there, waiting for the advent of the intelligible element. And it is noteworthy that Parmenides gives point to the paradox by choosing, to illustrate his argument, the ideas of physical bigness, smallness, and equality. The anomaly resulting from /mede^f by parts might have escaped notice had justice or 133 A- xliv THE PARMENIDES. beauty been selected. But absurdity is elicited at once when 'a portion of smallness' is 'added' to 'one of us.' 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 is regarded as physical addition, which ought to increase the size of an object ; while yet by hypothesis the object should be reduced, if things 'become small by partaking of smallness.' Having thus an easy victory over the doctrine of participation, Parmenides turns to look at the character of the ideas. These are assumed to be a series of ultimate units, each of which has the power of influencing the nature of an indefinite multitude of sensible objects : and each of which is reached, as we have seen, by the process of abstraction and generalization. We are accustomed to draw diagrams of the operation here referred to, which represent a gradual convergence from the many of sense to the one of abstrac- tion, after the fashion of a genealogical tree or the gorgeous tassels of a cardinal's hat. That this progress leads from many to one there is no doubt. But it seems — as is further pointed out in the notes — not to be the progress or the process which Parmenides has in mind. He would appear to imply that the very first step in the generalization includes a comparison of all available physical data, so that you would hope to reach what will prove to be your idea at a single stride. This, however, says Parmenides, you fail to do. What you have now got is a fresh field for comparison —the indefinite 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 repeats itself indefinitely — 'all men,' 'man,' and a 'third man' or rpiTOi avOpwrrog — so that the one idea which is supposed to terminate the inquiry is never reached. Whether this contention be just or not, it seems to be a formal rather than a real difficulty. Your first act of abstraction has by hypothesis exhausted the data at com- mand ; from a" you have extracted A. What Parmenides contends is that by com- 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 repeti- tion, but what does it yield .' It would not prevent you from justly using your first A as a sufficient type for every participating a, if participation be itself otherwise feasible. The objection of Aristotle to the doctrine of ideas, that in each case it merely Met. xii. 4. adds one more object to the sensible objects, /cat irapaTrXwiov wcnrep av el t«? api6fJi.>j(Tai /SovXofxevoi eXuTTOvcov _ fiev ovtwv o'Ioito fxij Suvacrdai, TrXew) Se iroiijcTai apid/j-olt], would be doubly applicable to this theory. Are the ideas Socratcs attempts to get rid of this difficulty — this, at least, seems to be what notions? jie is meeting, and not the previous question of division through participation — by urging that each idea may be simply a mental conception or notion, and so may be one. A very odd contention indeed ; however faithfully it may reflect the 'universal' or 'general definition' of the historic Socrates. These endless comparisons and successive results are possible just on the assumption, and on no other, that each abstraction remains mental and is not converted by xw/wcrMoy into an objective P.irm. 132 D. ITS CHARACTER AND CONTENTS. xlv entity or 'thing in itself.' If, as Plato insists, our series of comparisons serves but to point the mind's attention to an idea which is 'set up in nature' and exists Xwp«V, manifestly indefinite comparison is by that very fact stopped off. That objective thing is wholly independent of any future comparisons into which our ingenuity may seek to inveigle it, and stands there unaffected by our subjective activity. One it is, and one it remains : our comparisons have served only to draw the veil from before it. The fact that we thus discuss it may be a sound reason for doubting that it "stands there in nature'; but grant such existence to it and our further speculations in its regard will hardly make it uneasy. It and its peers 'still are sitting, still are sitting' like the senate during the Gallic invasion, or like ■dukes, whom we do not criticise, but only contemplate.' It is singular to note, however, that Parmenides is not represented as doubting that if the ideas were but Pa™. 13. bc. notions his difficulty would be removed. He seeks rather to demolish that suggestion. All conceptions, he says, are conceptions of an object, and that object will in each case be the idea. If it be mental, and all things participate in it, then all things as sharing in thought should have the power of thinking — the contrary would be absurd. A modern idealist finds no difficulty in conceiving all things as built up of connected and coordinated conceptions. But it demands a Greek to urge as necessary sequel that thoughts should be able to think. Would it not be an analogous contention that words should be able to speak .'' How plausible soever the hypothesis, it is in direct conflict with fact: the Ego alone it is that thinks and speaks. It may be noted in passing, however, that Plato seems to have in the end come gradually round to the view that thought somehow constitutes the universe. This appears to some extent in the Timaeus. And the suggestion about thoughts thinking may have helped to persuade him that the universe must in that event be a creature or ^wov. It is admitted by Socrates that these objections baffle him; and he is thus led iiie ideas are in to propound what would seem to be his final and abiding view of the nature ^nd '™"' '"'"^™'' function of ideas. 'They are set up as patterns in nature' after the similitude of 13a u. which sensible objects are framed, 'and the participation of objects in them is none other than that of being likened to them.' It is interesting to note that — as remarked above — this important suggestion seems to be put forward here for the p. xxxii. first time, as a novel expedient to meet a pressing difficulty. That fixes- the position of the work as earlier than others in which the theory is mentioned. On this new development of the doctrine Parmenides continues his attack. The arguments put into his mouth thus far have had two tendencies. They have exposed the objections to the assumption that objects 'partake of ideas, and likewise the difficulties besetting the attempt to construct a simplified ideal world aloof from the sensible one. He now urges what takes for a moment the appearance of a new contention, but what is in truth merely an elaboration of the former of these. Between the ,33,. ideal and the sensible there is, as we know, a great gulf fixed. We are now told in regard to this gulf that God himself cannot bridge it: that he is debarred from xlvi THE PARMENIDES. contact with the sensible sphere, even to the extent of knowing it. And it is now clearly acknowledged that this is due to the original severance of the two spheres. Nor can the objection be rebutted. The verdict of reason is absolute — let no god join what man has put asunder. The ideal sphere pays the penalty of all privilege, even the privilege of unsullied purity, that it is out of contact with the stream which flows in the river of life : that circumstance too is emphasized just as the sphere is expanding to completeness. It is a perfect and immaculate Constitution, but like the French one it will not ' march.' ' He shall march, cried my uncle Toby, marching the foot which had a shoe on, though without advancing an inch — he shall march to his regiment. — An' please your honour, said the Corporal, he will never march but to his grave.' It certainly will, as Parmenides declares, be the Farm. 133 B-c. work of a man -Kavh fiXv eu(pvov9 to bridge over this difficulty, if he goes about it on the foundation here laid down. Yet Plato while clearly alive to the difficulty is far from making it a reason for renouncing his hypothesis. On the contrary he maintains that with the rejection of an intellectual idealistic standpoint the possibility of philosophy and all its rational activity disappears. T/ ovv iroirjorei^ ^tXocro^/ay vepi ; he exclaims: and in a sense — though scarcely in his — he is perfectly right. Critical Having now reached the end of Plato's course of self-criticism, which forms the comments. important introductory section of the dialogue, we pause for a little to make one or two remarks upon it, in addition to any that may have been dropped in passing. Met. i. 9. I. 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. And that statement, as we have just seen, is perfectly true, whether our reasons for accepting it are those of Aristotle or not. No advancing chain of abstraction will conduct us logically to another and absolutely separate world, to what moderns would call the sphere of the unconditioned. (j8) The character of the ideas is objectionable in various ways. If we are to have, as Plato implies, ideas corresponding to every branch of knowledge we must have ideas of negations {airo- (pda-eii) such as ' unlikeness,' and of things that have perished; while a prominent feature of the theory is that which comprehends ideas of relations, such as 'motion,' ' smallness,' ' truth.' But if the use of the ideas is that they are to be participated in by objects of sense, they ought to comprise substances (ova-lai) alone. That we possess ideas in the modern sense, that is conceptions, of unlikeness, motion and all similar things, is quite certain. But to affirm that there is a ' thing in itself set up in nature ' called motion or smallness, is a hard saying, (y) The use of the ideas is to constitute, and to aid us in knowing, the world of sense ; and they do not fulfil that function. The talk about their being patterns, to be partaken of by sensible objects — that and the like of it KevoXoyetv ia-Ti koi fji.eTa(jiopai Xeyeiv TroirjTiKa^. And we have seen that Plato himself partially suspects this to be so. — Thus Aristotle attacks at once their existence, their character and their function. ITS CHARACTER AND CONTENTS. xlvii 2. The world of ideas is to be reached, we are told, by abstraction. By abstraction, then, from what ? From the world of ordinary experience ; which is said on the one hand to partake in {jmeraXafi^aveiv, fierexeiv) the ideas, and on the other to be appre- hended by sensible perception (aia-dria-is), and so to lie outside the sphere of science. Suppose Socrates entering upon his course of procedure by abstracting successive ideas from some sensible object such as a man. He abstracts, we shall say, 'one,' 'limit,' 'shape,' 'bigness,' 'likeness,' 'beauty,' 'justice,' 'goodness,' 'mastery,' and so indefinitely onwards. And when the process exhausts itself what is it that remains, to be appre- hended by sense but ignored by thought > Either there must be a primal unmodified matter whose function it is to ' partake of ' ideas, and which remains when they are gone ; or our sensible world runs serious risk of being ' abstracted ' from us and becoming intellectual, or even ideal, before we are aware. Plato does not explicitly pronounce for either alternative, yet he seems to favour the former. His conception, in fact, of what the sensible world actually is resembles in its vagueness and want of consistency the view entertained on the subject by non-metaphysical reflection. He affirms that without the ideas we must sacrifice t>]v tov SiaXiyea-dai Suvafiiv, while again of these ideas he declares emphatically ovSefilav avrtav elvai iv rnxtv. No proof is led that the want of ideas will do away with dialectic and philosophy : this result is assumed without discussion, and it certainly leaves us in a position of some diffi- culty. In favour of the opposite conclusion we have the following curious deductions from Plato's own line of reasoning — (i) Sidvoia and to StaXeye(Tdai 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 intellect : (3) this world of sense contains a sort of science suited to its wants, and to which the only limit is that it cannot know a world which is expressly placed absolutely out of connection with it. In these circumstances do we need the realm of ideas ? If they cannot be brought to bear upon the world of sense, and if the latter is sufficient unto itself even in the matter of science, why retain them > Has not Plato over-reached himself in this part of his argument ? At the very moment when he seeks to magnify his world of ideas as unapproachably pure, rigidly scientific, without one taint of sense to sully or confuse it — when he seeks to enthrone it as the dominating influence in speculation — has he not been unconsciously enriching the world of sense to an alarming degree with qualities to which it can lay no claim, and which are assigned to it solely because they seem to him unworthy of the other sphere.? The contents of the ideal world we have already collected above. What are those of the phenomenal world .' They consist of pam,. 1=9. ' you and me, and the rest of what we call the many,' ' stones and pieces of wood and such things.' To these we add by inference— since there are ideas corresponding to 130. them—' likeness, one, many ; justice, beauty, goodness ; master, mastery, slave, slavery ; science, truth.' Finally, whether or no there may be ideas for ' man, fire, water ; hair, mud, filth,' it is certain that they, as we accept their meaning, belong to the sensible 133 D-134 1 xlvlii THE PARMENIDES. sphere, for Socrates says of them Tmra fiiv ye, d-rrep opw/utev, Tavra koI eiuai. Such is the world of ' what we call the many,' the world which is ' with us,' which ' partakes, or whatever you call it, of the ideas,' which 'we handle' (fieTaxeipi^ofAeOa) and 'see.' And this world we know by the senses : of some parts of it this is expressly affirmed ; while for others there are ideas corresponding, whose distinctive feature it is that they parm. .30 *. are known Xoyia-fiw and Siavoia. 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 134 E. is known (not by sense, but) by 'our science,' t^ ^fieripa eTri(TTi]fit]. And it would hardly avail to urge that this latter science is mere 'opinion,' as Parmenides calls it in his poem, or to translate rij fifxerepa eTrimnfJ^y into Xoyicrfilp rivi voOcp, to quote a Tim. 52 B. phrase from the Timaeus ; because it is by its means that we have discovered the ideas. The fundamental difficulty lies in the relation, or rather want of relation, which is originally assumed as existing between the two spheres. Although Plato would 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 elSos evoi eKaarTov in its most literal sense and acknowledge the existence of ideas for 'you, and me, and the rest of those present'? An etSos ^wKparov? would at least not be anixoTaTov re Koi fpavXoraTov ; 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 of the sensible world complete to the minutest ramification. And do we not seem Phaedo 109 sq. to attain to this consummation in the latter part of the Phaedo .■' There he launches into a rhapsody upon the future dwelling-place of the soul, which is made to appear as an idealized sensible sphere, where our world is repeated in detail with transcendental attractions. Is this the toVo? votjtos^ If so, then each blade of grass has an elSos or heavenly counterpart, as in the land of Beulah. Those there have aia-Oija-en tu>v Qeujv and behold the sun, moon and stars ola Tvyxdvec ovra. On this assumption our sensible One, which for argument's sake might be supposed to contain but a single quality, could be represented by q, and Socrates with his indefinite qualities by q" ; while over against this would stand the idea of each, represented by q and q". And so our worlds would run side by side q q'^ q^ q* q^ q^ q"-^ q'^--' ^«-i ^« q q^ q3 q* qs q« qn-3 qn-2 qn-i qn If we are to have two worlds with the theory that the one is the model or pattern of the other — then no fitting conclusion but this seems to be possible. What advan- tage, now, has the world in italics over that in roman type that such pains should be taken in the elaboration of it .> ' What's q to q, or q to q, that q should weep for qV It is not simple as opposed to the other's complexity, it is not pure as con- ITS CHARACTER AND CONTENTS. xlix trasted with the other's unworthiness, it is not stable as distinguished from the other's mutability— there is actually an e?(5o9 Kivhatm. What then is it? Shall we say it is intellectual as contradistinguished from the other's dependence on sense ? Well, after consideration, it is not that either. No: between the two there is indeed a vital distinction.^ The world in italics is ' The-idea-of-scientifical' : the other is 'The-our- scientifical." This is what comes of having 'made that distinction— on the one side, certain ideas; on the other, things partaking of these': and here for the present we Pam.. 130 must leave the question. 3. The ideas as patterns are said Icnavai ev rxt (pvaei. What does this mean.? One would at first be disposed to fancy that 'nature' could be nothing but the world as we see it: but obviously that sense cannot be the right one. As little can nature mean the human mind; for although it is by the exercise of the intellect that we reach a conception of the ideas, they are in themselves quite separated from us. He speaks repeatedly in the Republic and elsewhere of a i/o^yro? to'tto? as contrasted with the opaTOs. Should we identify that with the mind of the Creator.? Even this is not without its difficulties; for the ideas are patterns irpo? & pkeirwv the Creator creates, a description which gives them a certain externality and independence even where he is concerned. The vorfrw roiros, again, and the mind of the Creator are subjects which carry a certain suggestiveness in connection with the question which Plato raises as to whether the ideas are vor^fiaTa. What should occupy a vorirbs roiro^ if not voijfiara? Granting, too, that vovjuara must have objects, still we ask — may not such objects, and in the given circumstances must they not, be themselves vorinara or votjTd? Nay, even the aicrOrp-a seem not to be perfectly excluded from this intel- lectual influence. Granting that we perceive them by sense ; do we not, even according to Plato, likewise form abstract conceptions of them, when discovering the ideas.? And are they not the objects of our thought at that time, and so in his view capable of thinking.? Further, of the ideas it is affirmed that they are Xoyia-fiu) Xaix^avofieva ,,9.,3o and the mode of reaching them is t^ '^v)& ext vavra {to. opwueva) ISeiv. There is '32*. also an eTnai^/jLtj whereby God knows them. Finally we are told that if the ideal theory be abandoned man ovSh oiroi rphlrei rriv Sidvoiap e^e<, and so the possibility of discussion will be absolutely destroyed. Plato is, of course, committed to the position that the ideas are not mere notions in the human mind, but objective entities. We may grant him that; we may even raise no difficulty about their being "set up in nature.' Still to admit of being discussed at all they must imperatively be either ' mental ' or ' physical ' ; and if physical they are perceived by sense, while, if mental, he grants them the power of thinking. The subject is a supremely difficult one. Probably Plato is all along struggling to say what we also are struggling to say when we speak of things 'unconditioned,' 'in ordine ad universum,' 'seen as they appear to the creative intelligence.' In the Phaedo such expressions occur as avrd TO -Trpay/xaTa, o Tvyxavei sKaa-TOv ov, elXiKpu'es eicacrTOv tuiv ovtcov, and, as we have seen above, ola Tuyxdvei ovra, h 1 THE PARMENIDES. 4. It has been pointed out that the reason assigned by Socrates for raising the question of ideas here at all is that he may see the same contradictory qualities proved to exist in them which Zeno shows to exist in sensible objects. No proof to such effect is forthcoming. All that is said in reference to conflict between ideas has reference to ideas which encounter each other in objects of sense. Doubtless it is shown that there are difficulties in the way of our conceiving an ideal world at all; but these difficulties do not quite involve the fundamental contrariety which Plato through Socrates sees fit to suggest. The argument which most nearly supplies a result of this nature is the one in which it is pointed out that if we reach the ideas by a series of comparisons and abstractions each idea must be many and not one. But this argument is not prosecuted in such a spirit as to indicate that Plato sees in it the presentment of an internecine struggle between ' absolute one and absolute many.' We come more nearly within sight of such proof as we are looking for in the Sophistes, Philebus, and Phaedo, than here. Even in the Phaedo, however, what Phaed. 102-3. is pointed out is principally that there are ideas which will not inhabit the same body together, while others do not show a similar mutual repugnance. One explanation of the failure to satisfy expectation may be that the ideas are found to be beyond the sphere of 'our science.' Another seems to lie in the aversion which Plato up till now exhibits against the acceptance of ideas for ' man, fire, water ; hair, mud, filth, and such things.' The ease with which contradictory characteristics are shown to exist in sensible objects arises from the complexity of those objects. The difficulty in the case of the ideas is caused by the comparative simplicity of those ideas which are accepted as existing. If Plato accepted ideas for ' man, fire, mud,' he would ap- proximately reach the concreteness of the sensible sphere. The idea of man could readily be shown to be both one and many: and so with others, in proportion to their inherent complexity. 5. Such ideas as these would be ideas of ovaiai, which according to Aristotle are the only ideas that should be admitted at all. And when their admission would be an advantage, why does Plato raise any difficulty .-• It is not altogether because of their physical character. Some of those which he admits most readily — 'bigness and smallness' for example — are in origin physical. Probably the abstractness of the latter veils to bis 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 Met. i. 6. Plato felt a distaste for ideas of a concrete physical type. ' Having from his youth 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 adopt- ing this theory as correct. And accepting as his guide Socrates, who busied himself about ethical questions to the exclusion of nature at large — and in these sought the universal and led the way in turning attention to definitions^ — on some such ground as this Plato took up the view that all this applied to a separate class of facts, and not to any of the sensible objects, as one could not attain a common definition of ITS CHARACTER AND CONTENTS. \{ any of them from their ceaseless mutation.' This gives the explanation of the dislike for physical ideas which appears in this dialogue; and it makes still clearer that such was Plato's earlier view, which he finally overcame. One can also see how much more simple it is to accept ' smallness in itself as an abstract entity than 'man in itself — ^ than q^-^, so to speak. 6. The expedient of calling the ideas patterns, an expedient of the utmost signi- ficance in Plato's eyes, traces, as we say, its origin to this dialogue. It occurs to Socrates as a sudden inspiration — aXX', w ILapfievlSrj, fiaXia-ra e/xoiye Kara^alveTui wSe e'xeiv, and it appears to exercise in the end a potent influence in expanding the contents of the ideal sphere. It is true that in the Republic we are pointedly told that only one couch has been created as a model for all ; but in the Timaeus we can observe a Tim. 28-2 change. There is, indeed, still a single pattern, but this is a pattern for the whole world, of which pattern the world is an image. Now a pattern for the world, one cannot but feel, is likely to be a much more complete and comprehensive thing than could be elaborated consistently with the assumption of solitary patterns for vast masses of phenomenal objects. It is quite unnecessary to enlarge upon the difficulties involved in this doctrine of the pattern so far as its application is concerned. But the necessity for postulating a pattern world at all seems inconsistent with philosophic parsimony. The tendency to imitation must indeed be firmly rooted in us if we cannot look at the world without regarding it as a copy, and calling into being another world whose only function it is to act as model for it. Yet like 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 to the uneasy lay mind. It seems so far analogous to a constitution with two chambers, and possibly on that ground may commend itself as conservative. But how does it add to our security.? The world of sense is a fact which we have always with us, and somehow or other we make a shift to know it. That is our on ; but apparently we cannot — so long at least as we hold that world to be sensible — rest satisfied without a Siori. And so we postulate, deduce, or hypostatize a second world, as a species of pattern-shop or Trapadeiy/xarv- piov, whose function it is to fortify us in our convictions about the first world, by giving it the appearance of being in turn deduced and not a mere fortuitous creation. Such a pattern world is in imminent danger of becoming a museum. So far as Plato's view in this dialogue and in the Republic is concerned— that there is one pattern for many copies — it is certainly, as Aristotle puts it, a mere talking of empty poetical metaphors. All copies of a pattern ought to be exact duplicates of each other. Now the very characteristic of the copies in the case before us is that they diverge widely from each other; and the pattern, if it is to be a pattern for all, must in that very act cease to be a pattern for any. We are reminded, in this view of the p\7^''j^^"^'^^ °' subject, of the ' schematism ' of Kant. ' There can never, says Kant, be an adequate Translated m picture' for the notion of a triangle in general. For it would never attain to that J;^:,'*";/^ o-enerality which enables the notion to hold good of any triangle, right angled, oblique Kant, p. .3.. Analysis. Ijj THE PARMENIDES. angled, etc., but would be limited always to a part of this sphere.' One cannot avoid the suspicion that it 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 this position as a consequence of having made x«/"0'/«o? °f ^^ 'general notion' or ' general definition ' of abstract qualities like ' the good ' which he received from Socrates. Perhaps a lurking sense of this difficulty may have had its influence in making him averse to admit ideas of ' man, fire, water.' Resumption of To rcsumc, then, we see that Plato has made the mistake which later thinkers have repeated without his excuse, and which less disciplined intellects are ever prone to make. He on the one hand refers far more of our world of experience to sense or dia-0>icrii than actually belongs to it; while he on the other hand feels constrained to place intellect or Sidvoia in a hostile camp of observation. The result is to him, as to all men so placed, a feeling that contradictions multiply : and his aim is, as is also the aim of such men, to reconcile those contradictions without changing his original position. Mr. Archer Hind appears to contend that he did finally change his standpoint for that of a consistent idealist. 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 pre- sented for discovery : and it was sought for as was the philosopher's stone in a sub- sequent age — hope never died though fruition came not. A more searching In looking about for his solution, he proceeds to advance the contention that [^"5° Jji^„ dialectic, or discipline in following up trains of reasoning about metaphysical problems, essential. js an csscntlal ■Kpoirapaa-Kevi] towards success. He presses this point with much earnest- Parm. 135 D.136. ncss and illustrative detail, and his pronouncement upon it seems in effect to be an admission that the Socratic type of inquiry was inadequate for the present need. It 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 133c beautiful, the just, the good.' Hitherto these have yielded place to others: but we know that they were topics upon which Socrates had been wont to dwell — a fact which is also hinted at in the reference to previous discussions with Aristoteles ; and in the words opl^ea-Oai iirixeipets koXov re ti, koI Sikmov, koi ayaOov one almost recalls Aristotle's description of what ' may justly be ascribed to Socrates.' ' But to nature at large' Socrates had not turned his attention. Plato is now discovering not only that ' universal definitions ' ' on the ethical virtues ' must have a metaphysical basis, but that such a basis cannot be constructed at haphazard, or by taking up any question that chance may suggest, as Socrates had been accustomed to do. This is a point upon which Parmenides — so Plato was beginning to find — might act legitimately as a mentor to Socrates. ' What is the just ? ' may be a most instructive inquiry ; but, if the answer is to be satisfactory, 'What is being.'' must precede and support it. There seems no necessity to contend that Plato is discarding the reasoning used in the inquiries of Socrates on moral questions as fallacious in its own sphere, or as ill con- ITS CHARACTER AND CONTENTS. liii ducted within its presuppositions. Rather he is feeling that those inquiries had been detached, fortuitous, wanting in system, without a secure foundation; feeling also, it would appear, that his own previous gropings in the metaphysical region had been open to the same objection ; and that these defects can be removed only by making a fresh and better advised beginning. That he now proceeds to attempt. The base idea he gets from Parmenides ; the method of testing his inferences from Zeno. But to the details of their historic position he is not confined. Not history but expediency leads to the compliment from Parmenides that Socrates has done well in forcing the discussion away from the physical into the metaphysical sphere. To Parmenides ' Being is One' was a faith quite as much as it was an inference, nor had Zeno's support of the doctrine been quite as detailed and many-sided as we are here led to believe. Zeno's dialectic instead of following a four-fold direction had been confined to the single contention 'if the many are, what follows to them.?' It appears to be Plato's own advance upon both these thinkers, that on the one hand he applies dialectic to the One itself, and, on the other, recognizes the necessity of dealing in argument with all sides of a question. We are now more in a position to understand the relation of the second great Rctation of the division of the dialogue to the first. While it is made conversationally to appear an ^"'^""'^ ^''" '° accident, it is in reality part of the design that the argument should from this point onward be devoted to the Parmenidean doctrine or ' hypothesis ' of the One. And the connection of that subject with the one hitherto under discussion has been treated as though it were more of a difficulty than it is. If we are to assume, with Grote, that the remainder of the dialogue is simply what it affects to be — an example, namely, of the mental discipline which Parmenides deems indispensable to the philosopher — then its relation to the earlier portion is determined at once beyond the need of argu- ment But in pressing his view with grave persistency, Grote seems rather to manifest a want of tact. Not only does he miss the literary finesse of the composition; he even raises in a gratuitous manner the question 'si un Grec pent avoir de Tesprit.' 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. Apart from any value which may attach to such elucidations, it may be conceded that they are at once most fascinating in themselves and most plausible in their veri- similitude and adaptation to the outlines of the various stories. But they have the liv THE PARMENIDES. serious drawback of seeming to support us in making anything out of anything. In like manner, if we are free to regard Plato's discussion as allegorical, sober criticism must quit the field. If such a conception as the One is spoken of 'in a mystery,' it will be found equal to any demand that is made upon it. Last century, no further gone, Thomson in his edition of the dialogue— while duly setting aside Neoplatonic extravagances — feels entitled to regard the One as synonymous with the Deity; and assigns his reasons. The One, he says, is here represented as universitatis unica causa sine figura simplex ac perfectum immobile sine principio et fine aeternum non genetabile nee corruptibile. And is not the Deity all these.? We 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 exacted of us that we shall show between the two portions of the disputation a con- nection 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.? There is nothing in the sequence of parts in the Parmenides which need cause more embarrass- ment than any of these problems. Certainly the second part is an exercise in dialectical inquiry, and as such its point seems to be twofold : (i) to show that the very simplest of all conceptions has many aspects from which it may be viewed ; (2) to embody a type of inquiry 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 his master stood in the midst of nebulous surroundings. He had tried to render everything clear by the expedient of ideas 'set up in nature ' : but his first efforts in that direction would not bear criticism. Could any regulative or unifying principal be found which might bind all firmly and harmoniously together, and remove complications .? 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 tu? apa vovs €<7Tiv 6 6iaK0(T/xu)v TC Kai iravTWv a'lTioi : the latter declares twvtov S' ea-ri voeiv re Koi ovvEKev ea-Ti votijxa, and ou ttot' 'irjv ovS' earai, eTrel vvv etmv ofiov -ttolv ep fwexe?- Neither is consistent ; neither can elaborate in detail his own convictions : but each gives 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 ITS CHARACTER AND CONTENTS. Iv the whole problem of Being to Unity? This seems an obvious reason for discussing the nature of the One. Again, however, one of the foremost desires expressed by Socrates at the beginning of the dialogue is to see Zeno's dialectic turned upon the intelligible sphere. And here it is so turned: turned upon Parmenides' own intelligible sphere, which if not ideal in the Platonic sense is at least widely severed from the sphere of opinion, and may be said to be on the way towards idealism. Moreover Socrates was anxious to see the a-Kopia which Zeno had revealed as existing in the sensible sphere running riot kv wToh roh e'lSea-t: and here something of the kind actually is exhibited. The One may not be a Platonic idea, but it is at least a very abstract conception, and under treatment it presents airoplai in abundance. Any reader of what remains of the work must feel the full significance of iravToSairS>i TrXeKOfxivriv, while the result upon the One and the Many is such as can be described only in the complicated sentence with which the dialogue closes. This seems not an unreasonable account of the connection between the two parts. He who demands a 'truer inwardness" in the matter, and seeks for it, may possibly find it; but, if so, will he not find more than Plato is elsewhere in the habit of providing? If indeed we feel compelled to continue the search we might make the connection complete by assuming that the remainder of the work is a practical exemplification of the method according to which the ideal is to be brought into connection with the sensible sphere. The want of such connection has been strongly emphasized, and Parmenides has declared that to supply it is all but impossible. If we are to assume that in the sequel this difficulty is supposed to be surmounted, we must hold that the connection implied between the spheres — which is the question involved in the doctrine of fieOe^is or ■Kapovaia — is one of dialectical necessity, resulting inevitably from the 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 degree satisfactory 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 questionable theory. In the first place it supplies, as substitute for Platonic fx.e6e^i?, a conception which is so modern as to be suspicious upon that ground alone. Even Aristotle's doctrine of Svva/j.is and ivepyeta must be regarded as a falling away from such a standpoint as that Assuredly it leaves far behind anything else in Plato. In the second place it at once renders nugatory all the intellectual distres.s which has been lavished upon the difficulty which meOeiis was found to involve ; while at the same time not a hint is given at the close 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 and sense it seems likely that he would have announced it more explicitly. Finally Ivi THE PARMENIDES. Is the One an jt rcoders inevitable a conclusion which finds favour with some, that the One repre- "^^''' sents an idea while the many are the sensible world. Is it the case that the One of this dialogue is to be regarded as an idea? The point is not absolutely clear, but on the whole the answer must be No. Various reasons make for that conclusion. First : the discussion upon the One is undertaken, as we see, just after the decision has been reached that the sphere of the ideas has no connection with ours, and that the science found with us is of a much less exact type than the other. To begin immediately after such a pronouncement a discussion which sets it at naught seems a questionable step. Again : the One is expressly said to be the hypothesis of Par- menides, and although he placed Being much nearer to the ideal region than any of his predecessors had placed their principles, and separated it from the sphere of opinion in a way which must have proved very suggestive for Plato; yet the actual distinction which Plato drew has never been ascribed to him. Moreover we find in Plato's discussion of the One bonds which connect it with space and time, a fact which at once parts it off from the sphere of ideas. Nor do we hear of an airo %v, o ea-Tiv ev at this point, where, if the intention was to fulfil the expectation expressed Farm. 129 D-E. above by Socrates, some reference to such terms seems almost essential. As little do we hear of the difficulties of knowing the One, or of the 'idea of science.' On the contrary we are told that One partakes of various ideas — e(' apa ev rw evi cr/uLiKpoT^s iyylyverai — like other ovcriai, in which respect it occupies a position identical with TO. aXXa. The passage where this statement is made seems to leave no ambiguity, although others are less specific. Finally it is expressly said that both One and Others 'grow older and younger,' 'become and perish' and exhibit other characteristics of sensible existence. From all this the natural conclusion appears to be that the One, Many and Others are notions corresponding to physical originals, and that Plato is dealing with them Xoyicrfiw and Siavola but only up to the limits of ' our science.' What he seems to be aiming at is to turn the Parmenidean principle on all sides with the view of ascertaining whether he can incorporate it into his ideal system with advantage. The odd feature of the business upon the other hand is 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 of its efficacy. But we must remember that Plato's theory of ideas is so exacting in its nature and conditions that to maintain a consistent attitude towards it is quite beyond his power. The exigencies of such a position compel him to fall away from his 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 upon what moderns would call the Uncon- ditioned. In surveying the second and most important division of the work it will not be possible to enter into every detail. Certain general lines of remark alone can be pursued, lesser issues being dealt with in the notes. ITS CHARACTER AND CONTENTS. Ivii 1. As we have already noticed, the first step of Parmenides, on the threshold The scheme of of the subject, is to insist that any topic chosen for debate must be discussed in afj^^'edTn definite methodical manner. This he never did as a matter of historic fact; nor treating of the is there evidence that Zeno elaborated any such scheme of inquiry. We must suppose °"''' that Plato has himself methodized the investigation while appropriating from Zeno its keen dialectical character. His scheme at its fullest may be formulated thus — 1. If A is what follows in regard (a) to it, and (|8) to not-A > 2. If A is not „ „ (a) to it, and (/3) to not-A > 3. If not-A is „ „ (a) to it, and O) to A ? 4. If not-A is not „ „ (a) to it, and {^) to A ? A moment's reflection will show us that this, while doubtless a symmetrical, is really a redundant form of discussion. Its results may be fully attained without our carrying it further than the first two stages. Nor does Plato, in point of fact, carry it further here. It is true he maps out an elaborate table of eight heads or, as Grote calls them. Demonstrations, which might be supposed to correspond to (i, 2, 3, 4)0 and (i, 2, 3, 4)^8; with an odd one thrown in after the first two. These have been arranged in our marginal summary in two groups which may be called A and B, having under A Demonstrations I. II. IV. v., and under B, I. II. III. IV. ; while the odd one appears as Demonstration A III. But, as will be seen. Demonstrations A I. and II., iv. and v., B I. and II., ill. and IV. really exhibit respectively contradictory discussions upon a changed hypothesis. Thus — setting on one side A iii. — we have the argument reduced in reality to la followed by i/3, and 2a followed by 2^. Even in this reduced shape its closing divisions are hurried through in a rather perfunctory manner with the remark Kcti Travra vov ra TOiavra a SieXOeiv evTrerh ^Sr/ ^fitv, or again ovSe rt; d. aWa oaa iv roii irpoadev SijjXdofiev. The discussion is indeed protracted beyond these 166 b. limits ; not however from the necessity of the case, but because Plato enters upon what, while nominally a revised statement of each argument, is really a reversal of it arising from a modification in the sense of its terms. Demonstration A ll., while professedly a restatement of A I., is in fact a transformation of it covertly brought about ; and the same is true of A v., B II. and B IV. when compared respectively with A rv., B i. and B ill. 2. The course of the discussion, when these points are cleared up, comes to pre- The inquiry and sent on the one hand a deductive, negative, destructive,— on the other an inductive, ^'^^jf^^p^^j^" positive, constructive aspect. Thus positive. a. A I., 'if the One is,' ends by annihilating the One: A v., ' if the One is,' ends by cancelling the Others : B II., ' if the One is not,' likewise destroys the One : while B IV., ' if the One is not,' again does away with the Others. On reference to the marginal summaries it will be seen that these results are reached in the two former cases through a resolute keeping of the One to its oneness, and in the two latter by an equally tenacious holding of Non-existence to its nothingness. X y V, Iviii TBE PARMENIDES. So rigidly is the One to remain one that it is not allowable to call it even ' the same ' as itself; while 'the One is not' is defined to mean utter absence of being in the thing spoken of. And practically the reason assigned for this stern repression of all expansiveness in sense is that, unless we guard ourselves with ceaseless care, the One will reveal such diverse characteristics as to become Many while we are occupied in examining it. Put in terms of Logic, the conclusion thus reached may 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 assertion of an identity — 'the One is one.' But we must be careful not to make this denial unconditional. Plato makes no declara- tion against the possibility of predication per se: he merely says that, if we are to be jealous in guarding the absolute unity and simplicity of our conception, the result will be that we can say nothing whatever about it. It is natural that on its way toward this consummation the One should become uTreipov, or should gradually lose all definite characterization. In terms of Metaphysic, again, our conclusion may be stated thus — that with bare uncompromising oneness Being or positive existence is unthinkable and incompatible. Existence waxes and wanes pari passu with com- plexity : do away with complexity, relationship, multiplicity, and Being is no more. The point thus reached would, were Plato in reality confining himself to the position of the historic Parmenides, form the conclusion of the work. It shows what comes of rigid adherence to a hastily assumed simplicity and unity. As Dr. Jackson says, 'when the Eleatic principle is strictly interpreted it is as complete a denial of philosophy as No 23 p. 311. Heracliteanism or Cynicism.' /3. In Ail, 'if the One is,' the result proves that the One 'is and is not' in an indefinite number of ways : In A IV. a similar result arises in the case of the Others : In B I., ' if the One is not,' the same conclusion still holds of the One : while In B III., it arises from this latter hypothesis that the Others ' seem ' many con- tradictory things. This is the positive or constructive limb of the argument. In it the One forms a centre for multiplex and even conflicting existence. And the principle which under- lies the process is the counterpart of that which has led to the negative conclusions. We have simply to concede to the One so much of positive characterization as will save it from extinction, and to the Not-being such a sense as will allow us to speak about it. This slight concession proves to be the letting in of water. Make over but so much to the One as will let you discuss it, and this apparently rudimentary con- ception will develop a complexity which confounds you, and carries with it attributes as contradictory as Yes and No. For even its Not-being, if a not-being with which you can deal, proves a source of fresh predications — omnis negatio est determinatio. Thus, Logically, we reach the conclusion that where predication is possible it is not a mere statement of identity; and. Metaphysically, we perceive that the simplest of entities can have being only as part of a complex whole. Journ. Philol. xi. ITS CHARACTER AND CONTENTS. lix Let us dwell for a moment longer upon this double result : its importance in Recapitulation. Plato's reasoning cannot well be exaggerated. In the former portion of the argument (o) we have an attempt (A I.) to think back, under Parmenidean conditions, to a One which shall prove a ' minimum cogitabile,' or an existence in a state as simple as we can conceive. While this One is assumed to 'be,' its being is suffered to retire into the background, as Plato busies himself in reducing its character to the most naked simplicity with which being may be found compatible. When he has reached this stage, however, he comes to find that being no longer is compatible with it. This minimum cogitabile has become a minimum mcogitabile, and by the same gate whereby it passes out of thought, it vanishes from existence. When and where qualities cease then and there being leaves us. This result is attained by consistently rejecting from the conception of the One every means by which it might break away from the most rigidly unmodified oneness. He withholds it from any share in parts, whole, inner, outer, change, on the ground that it must be truly one : he will not suffer it to be denoted by the most harmless looking synonym — to call it 'same' involves a ' different.' The One must be, in Bacon's language, strictly a vestal virgin : let it but ■ change its name,' so to say, and at once pulcra faciet te prole parentem ; or, to vary the figure, it may say 'I secretly laugh at my own cenotaph. ... I arise and unbuild it again.' Preserve it, on the other hand, immaculate in its vestal condition, and you speedily find that it cannot be, cannot be one, cannot be named, cannot be known. It is gone : and with its own has dragged all other existence (A V.). If this be so when the One 'is,' shall we fare better when it 'is not'? This case is put in B II. : the reasoning is short and has the same result. As he has shut out existence by pressing home the absence of qualities, he now excludes qualities by emphasizing non-existence. If the One is not, nothing is: existence is impossible for anything apart from association with unity. The converse view of the problem is brought out in the latter half of the argument (/3), by simply urging that the One must not be pressed out of existence, since in terms of our hypothesis it 'is.' The element of existence being transferred to the foreground a revolution follows (A ii.). The One is now no longer the minimum incogitabile but the minimum cogitabile — and as a consequence it has parts, is a whole, exists in time, and in a word, goes off at once conquering and to conquer in the absorption of characteristics, until we discover that it is the Many or the Others, Would all this be upset, now, should we say again 'if the One is not'.' By no means necessarily. Grant but a meaning to that assump- tion (B I.) and all follows. Give to the non-existent One but definiteness sufficient to admit of discussion and it will give itself variety: let it but have individuality and it will not long want for multiplicity. The whole tendency of the reasoning is very prettily summarized by Plato himself in the Sophistes, km yap, & 'yaOe, to ye 5, e Tav a-TTO vavTOS iirixeipelv axoxw/o/^'" a^Awy re ovk e^/xeXey Ka\ Si, Kat TravTaTraatv iifioiaov Tivos Kol ai\oa6avi(ri9 to SiaXveiv eKaarov a-KO irdvrooV Sia yap Tr,v aXXr/Xcov twv elSS>v o^. Nay, the language of Aristotle in regard Mtt. IT. J9. to him almost suggests that he may be referred to in our own dialogue, Sio ' KyrurOevrii (peTO evijOdog fitjOev a^iwv \eyea-6ai nrXtjv tw oiKeiw Xoyw kv etft evoi' e^ wv (rvve^atve fxri elvai amXiyeiv, (rxeSov Se fA^Se rfreuSecrOai. Certainly the phrase ev i](rts and e-jruTT^fM}]. In the former he is at what miners call the ' working face,' and is quarrying out new knowledge from the ungauged sum which lies before him. In the latter he is dealing with the 'bing' of coal already raised to the pit-head, which he weighs and measures as a definite quantum by definite tests and standards. It is patent at a glance that the result in the latter case might from its greater definiteness be called knowledge or science, while that in the former, from its constant incomplete- ness and confusion, might seem to a methodical mind unsatisfactory in comparison. As time goes on the working face advances, while for each generation the bing repre- sents a different total. The point, for us, is that when knowledge is in process of becoming, its condition at any moment is sufficiently uncertain to render a strict application of the laws of deductive logic uncertain and unfair: and that it is not necessarily to the prejudice of a line of argument, in such circumstances, that it seems technically a little at fault In arguing thus, however, we are not to be held as admitting that each seeming violation by Plato of the law of contradiction is in reality such. Another glance may be taken at the subject from a somewhat different standpoint. While the laws of formal logic are invaluable as tests of an intellectual conclusion, they may yet be far from conveying a just picture of the activity which leads the mind to the acceptance of that conclusion. 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. And if an attempt be made to exhibit that process in operation, the attempt does not at once stand condemned by reason of imperfect conformity to them. That it may be inherently defective as a repre- Ixii THE PARMENIDES. The significance of argument A in. upon * process.' Parm. 127 D. sentation is possible enough, but not because it happens to jar with deductive formulae. 3. Grote, we have said, regards the argument A III. as an attempt on Plato's part to explain apparent violations of logical law. That is not an unfair account to give of its rather unexpected occurrence in this place; yet it is 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 some degree out of place. What he wants us to understand is that he has been dealing with the One as in 'process,' a condition in which contra- dictory or seemingly contradictory affirmations about it are inevitable. And he is less concerned — though no doubt sincerely concerned — to prove himself a fair reasoner, than he is to account for this phenomenon of process or becoming with which he has to do. It is another manifestation of the influence of Zeno's dialectic upon him. 'The first hypothesis of Zeno's first argument' had been directed against multiplicity. Plato, however, has accepted multiplicity; and what he sees is that his acceptance carries with it the necessity for some theory of change in all its various manifestations. This brings him face to face with another group of Zeno's arguments, that denying the possibility of motion. Zeno 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 time, having unlimited space to cover, you can evade the difficulty by dividing the limited time as you do the limited space, and so showing that he has unlimited time in which to do it. As Being and One are equally divided — ofTe yap to ov tov evoy axoXetTrerai ovte to ev tov ovtos aAX' e^icrovaOov Svo ovTe am irapa Trdvra — so space and time may be equally divided, the one becoming infinite if the other is. But this is not Plato's difficulty. He accepts here the doctrine that p. xxxviu. time is made up e'/c toov vvv, and has to ask himself how the gaps between these xivi., xiix., lii. isolated moments are to be bridged. Thus we again see the consequence of beginning 130 B. by making divisions — koI fj.01 el-wi, uvto? av ovtco Siiiprjcrai ;?, a something that is not divided nor even divisible. This is but an awkward way of recalling for us the other aspect — the continuous side — of time. We are made to figure time as divided and continuous not simultaneously but alternately. We think of it as discrete — continuous — discrete — continuous, and so ad infinitum ; only that he gives to the second limb of the antithesis the name of a timeless ' instantaneous.' 4. It was said above that the divergence in the results between the positive and Ambiguous use negative limbs of the argument was due largely to ambiguity in the terms. Foremost ^'"on^ among these ambiguous terms is the One itself. Its different meanings in this dialogue p. Mi., i. h. are chiefly two. It is used in a more or less logical sense as a unit of measurement, or terminus a quo in speculation : and it is used in a metaphysical sense as an entity whose existence and composition are to be comprehended gradually by research, or as a terminus ad quem. In the former of these senses it is of course quite immaterial to consider the positive character of the One : it may be concrete, it may be abstract in itself. For us it is used abstractly when used as a unit of measurement. It is more important to observe that while such is its function you cannot do with it what, as is to be feared, Plato sometimes assumes the right to do. You cannot divide it and then treat its 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. It is when viewed as a unit that the One seems to be most simple and elementary in constitution — most really one, with but the single characteristic of unity. If it be used merely as a counter we feel almost entitled to consider that we have reached a One which no argument can prove to be many. It certainly should not be many, but it cannot avoid implying or presupposing many. We must remember that even as so conceived it cannot be spoken of save as in relation to other similar ones in endless succession. It forms one of a multitude like itself, and it may be any one of that multitude. Plato may be right or wrong in his method of reaching number by 'two twice and three thrice' and 'every combination Parm. 1,3 e1 of even and odd ' ; but it is true that One carries number with it. To say ' one ' involves the mental act of numeration; and numeration is the act of reckoning plurality. In this sense one and many, one and 'limitless multitude' are but the two factors of a single mental process. Each involves the other, and the question Whether One does not come first, is inept. When thought has reached the stage of reckoning Ixiv THE PARMENIDES. its impressions, its consciousness that they are many and that each is one constitutes a single simultaneous decision. When it goes on to deal with any given set of impressions and seeks to find how many they are, one, in that sense, or i, comes before two. But number and the unit of number take form together. Thus we are far removed from perfect simplicity in dealing even with the one of number. Plato admits this in practice, as well as maintains it in theory, by assuming that there are Many or 136 A. Others standing over against the One from the very threshold of the inquiry. Nor do we mend matters on passing to the metaphysical One, the one of ex- istence, or what we hope may prove the simplest form of Being, In that case we have still to reckon with the problem of numeration, just discussed; and we have added to it the problem of existence, which was there in abeyance. What is Being ? At least it is not identical with unity: unity does not carry objective being with it. Plato is quite right in saying that the statement 'the One is' already involves Phys. 1. 6. something more than One. As Aristotle points out — whether with this dialogue in his mind or iiot, readers must decide — even when in search of an apy}\ or first principle we cannot accept a single one : the case requires several. To judge by 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 it as a homogeneous extended thing. But in that case the circumstance that it is viewed as one is not essential ; it is accidental. We are in search of the smallest unit of being and have happened to stop at this point. Unlike the unit used as measure this One may be broken up, and each portion may be called One. And such divisibility is co-extensive with thinkability. You may go on dividing so long as 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. But further, it is certain (unless it be pure space) to have as a physical existence various characteristics in addition to mere extension : and these characteristics will abide with it, like those of water, in the smallest part you reach. Thus in itself, and apart from its further divisibility, this smallest part is not One in the sense of having but a solitary quality or feature. Simplify as we may we cannot arrive at what we seek : Activ., sc. i. 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 con- ception of it as will admit of discussion. Strive to reduce it step by step to absolutely featureless Being and it vanishes at the back door of thought as Nothing, as the unthinkable. Plato is right as regards the scope of his argument, although he may take doubtful steps from time to time. The Many. . The Many also is a term which is not very consistently used. Frequently it 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 ITS CHARACTER AND CONTENTS. Jxy you acquire greater freedom in developing from it fresh characteristics. The One as opposed to the Many is not identical with the One as opposed to the Others. Plato himself rightly says that only the other can be other than the others: that is, in being opposed to the Others the One sinks its oneness in order to become other than they. But there is a further confusion of thought in this connection. We have noted how Plato accepts almost unconsciously at starting the view that over against the One a body of Many or Others takes its place. The whole mapping out P^rm. ,35 ^.37. of that model scheme of argument, which ought to form the discipline of the philosopher, is based on the assumption that the One is not all, but has Others with which it is to be contrasted. Now we have also seen that the One itself under treatment develops .43 into Many. What difference is there between the Many into which the One thus changes and the Many originally existing in contradistinction to it.' That is not a thing easy to decide. We have a many of ones, any one of which may be fixed upon as the One; this again when we examine it separates into a new Many in our hands. Have we not here, after all, the same Many or Others viewed at two separate logical moments of their existence .' The development of these from a careful consideration of all that is involved in the conception of the One gives us what Kant would call the 'deduction' of the Many or Others. The contention that no argument about the One will be complete which fails to ask 'what follows to the Others,' simply exhibits us as assuming without deduction a fact which we are able if necessary to deduce. Yet Plato seems to speak as if thjs identity between the two sets of Many were not present to his mind. If that is really his mental position perhaps the inconsistency may be due to a cause which produces difficulty in most abstract thinking. One would suppose that discussions about abstractions would be in a sense easy, from the fact that we ourselves choose the qualities which our abstractions shall comprise, and dispense with whatever might prove superfluous. The difficulty is 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. This back- ground of superfluous qualities 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 con- sciousness of evil deeds, and force themselves surreptitiously into trains of reasoning which purport to disregard them. We cannot keep our thinking consistently at the level of our abstractions. Could we do so we might find arguing about them to be tolerably simple and satisfactory. This line of reflection may partly explain the introduction by Plato of the conception of Others or Many even at the moment when his hypothesis seems to be that the One exists alone, the sophism being partly veiled under the plea that every side of a question must be considered. Yet another ambiguous term is Not-being. It need not detain us. Sometimes Not-bemg. it is used comprehensively as an absolute denial of existence to the subject under review, at other times it is used in a restricted sense as meaning a something which Ixvi THE PARMENIDES. is not the same with that subject. In the former case it closes the discussion, in the latter it forms in itself a fruitful theme of discussion. On this topic Plato's views are much more clearly elaborated in the Sophistes. One's first impulse undoubtedly is to think that while Being may be exhibited in many shapes and degrees, Not-being is unvarying, is always ralirov eavrSi and has but one signification. 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 all in one, that have as many differences as we,' says Tennyson's prince. And so with each tint of Being a separate shade of Not-being will be found to correspond. In the Sophistes we learn that Soph. J56. while each order of Being necessarily yuerexet rov ovto^ yet ^ Oarepov ^va-n is ever standing by which erepov cnrepya^ofievti rov ovroi eKaarov ovk ov irotei. Nay, while vep) eKaarrov apa twv etSwv -iroXv ftev ecrri to of, it is not otherwise on the negative side — aireipov Si irXijOei to nh ov. For we have on the one hand to ov, but on the other rd aWa, and the number of the latter whatever it be represents the exact number of times that to ov ovk eam. Opposed to to 01^ in its most abstract form stands to h>] ov in an equally absolute form, and the latter is the negation of existence. But for modified or definite Being you have similar Not-being. The Oarepov ^va-ti, he says, ^alverai KaraKeKepfiarla-Oai Kaddirep eiritrrrifiri — for every 'named variety' of science a suitable variety of negation is told off as partner. What is the One 5. What, wc may ask, are the characteristics which as the work progresses come An^wmT ^ *° attach themselves to the conception of the One 1 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 text. First it has existence, parts, whole, beginning (in space), middle, end, and shape. Then it has various qualities which Aristotle would describe as irpoi ri : thus it is same — different, like — unlike, greater — equal — less, fewer — as many — more, older — same age — younger. Again it has position relative to itself and others ; thus it touches and does not touch, is still and in motion, in space (x^P") j while it has also all the affections incident to existence in time. It would appear then that it is one — and any one — of a multitude of extremely elementary homogeneous extended things existing and moving in space and time. While such a One is in certain ways much more than the One of Parmenides, we cannot but feel that in a vital respect it is much less. It has altogether ceased to symbolize the Universe. No one on the other hand can fail to see the strong general resemblance between such a picture as this and the doctrine of the Atomists. True, Plato does not specifically say that space is empty, but his discussions of touch and motion tend in that direction ; 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 ITS CHARACTER AND CONTENTS. Ixvii the views of his contemporary Democritus— though, as we have seen, he never names p- vui. him— and one is almost tempted to suppose that it was at least one among the objects of this dialogue to show how Zeno's dialectic if perfected and applied to the One would from the Eleatic doctrine develop the Atomistic. An analogy from modem speculation might be found in an attempt to affiliate the Monads of Leibnitz to the Substance of Spinoza. But if the One is thus reduced in many respects very much to an atom, what, we may still ask, is to Plato the most fundamental requisite of existence for it, or for anything; and how to him does existence develop itself.? We cannot single out any one characteristic from which all others are to be traced, but the vital features appear to reduce themselves to three at most : (a) it is in time, (fi) it is in space, (y) it has individuality. From these characteristics the others are variously deduced. Its individuality, however, is very elementary, and is more logical than physical: the One is 'different from the others' and 'one with itself In the course of his argument Plato adopts either of those three characteristics which suits him as the fundamental one, and from that establishes the existence or non-existence of others. From his reasoning it would appear to result that the beginning of existence to our minds for anything whatever is the acquisition by it of distinctness in some form or other. And our knowledge of it, or its existence for us, grows with the increasing number of relations in which this distinctness can be affirmed. Of the three characteristics given above we are in the habit of thinking that the order of natural priority is that in which they are named — that quantity has a more elementary character than quality. Plato does not appear to share that preconception. He would seem to imagine that a distinctness of quality or individuality 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 and time. This is not laid down as a principle by Plato, but the course of his argument rests upon a tacit recognition of it. 6. The point at which Plato looks most as if he were going to abolish his units by the process of endless division is in what we call argument B III., which deals with the condition of the Others on the assumption that the One does not exist. On that assumption this argument represents the more favourable possibility for the Others, and it reduces them to an unmanageable phantasmal chaos bordering upon annihilation. In the less favourable possibility which follows in B IV. they are actually done away with, the conclusion being that 'if the One is not nothing is.' This, however, seems rather to be a negative argument in favour of the Democritean contention that division 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, clearness; of TO ixerpov, TO irepaf, thought and existence vanish. At best there can remain that Ixviii THE PARMENIDES. Summary of results. chaotic multiplicity which carries with it the possibility of existence, and which, if we please, we may call 'sense,' or in Platonic terms that 'which seems to be One, but is not; to have beginning, middle and end, but has not.' It may be said, then, in general terms, that the work is 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 startling indeed, yet not unperceived by Plato. This dialectic, when turned upon its own dogma, demonstrates that while unity is beyond doubt a principle essential to the very possibility of thought and being, it is at the same time parent to a complexity of which its sponsors did not dream : the problem of philosophy, even when we seek to solve it with the weapon of unity, unfolds as we deal with it deeps within deeps of unexpected multiplicity and complication. To adapt a familiar and weighty judg- ment el (MV TO tv TO ev No: yet what we see does exist. SoCRATES : Can even an ideal Many be postulated without leading to difficulties equally insurmountable.' No : yet there it is. Parmenides : Setting aside Manies of both kinds, can so simple a hypothesis as the existence of One be maintained without bringing in its train every complication of which its presence is expected to relieve us ? No : yet without the One nothing is. It has been said above that no attempt is here made to reproduce in orderly sequence the views and reasoning of previous commentators. One or two points of divergence Dr. Jackson, ^'^^^ them, howcvcr, may perhaps be referred to. A reader of Dr. Jackson's remark- joum. Phiioi., ably acute analysis and criticism of this dialogue will have his attention arrested bv vol. XI., No. 22. ., /- 11 • < -J>.-Vi IJJ, the followmg among other conclusions. The One is regarded as an idea, or as representing the ideal sphere, and there is assumed a graded progress— 2y, TroWd, aTreipa—from it through 'kinds' or 'classes' to the 'limitless multitude' of sensible existence. This theory is undoubtedly attractive, especially when read in connection with the statement in the Philebus that we must not proceed at once from Tripas to cnreipla, from ev to to. uireipa, but must interpose certain definite xocra as connecting links. But reflection tends rather to discourage belief in this hypothesis. We have already given reasons for questioning the view that the One is an idea: certain of its characteristics seem to preclude that supposition. Again, Zeno at the beginning of the work places tv and iroXKa in such contrast as to leave no doubt that in his mind Divergences from other commentators. Phileb. 16. p. Ivi. ITS CHARACTER AND CONTENTS. IxJx they comprise jointly all existence. At the close of the first part, Parmenides speaks of ei^ and ra aXXa in a similar sense; while throughout the dialogue ra aX\a and TO. iroXKa are used as convertible terms. Whatever may be symbolized by these expressions, it would be difficult to draw a distinction between either of them and the phrase awetpa r^ -irXy'iOei which occurs at intervals; nor does Dr. Jackson appear to cite any evidence that TroAXa and airetpa differ generically in their use. In other respects also Dr. Jackson is inclined to discover finer and more detailed distinctions throughout the work than in these pages it has been found possible to recognize. This may be natural, even perhaps imperative, from his point of view, according to which the dialogue is a late work; on the opposite supposition, such distinctions are not essential. Throughout this introduction, the doctrine that the ideas are absolutely severed zeiier. from the sensible sphere has been emphasized, but not more so than the language ofpiato,e the text would seem to require. Speaking of Plato's works at large, Zeller does nof-^'*" regard such a doctrine with favour. He admits, indeed, that many expressions and arguments occur which point towards such a doctrine; but adds, 'We must nevertheless question its correctness.' He goes on to explain his contention by showing that the supposed sensible world is in reality Not-being, and that all Being centres in the ideal sphere. To elucidate his position would lead us far: but when all has been urged in its favour, it still lies open to the objection of not explaining the difficulty so much as explaining it away. Zeller is himself constrained to say ' whether the above-mentioned p- s'S. difficulties as to the theory of Ideas do not, after all, reappear in an altered form, is another question.' From what does the necessity for philosophic inquiry, idealistic or other, arise but from a sense of difficulty ? When Plato feels that difficulty, he begins like other thinkers by an attempt to solve it. But he is soon led to shake its dust from his feet and flee towards ' a city which hath foundations whose builder and maker is God,' and of which the characteristic is that it shuts the original and now somewhat despised difficulty outside its everlasting doors. Zeller urges that 'these objections p-3>7- [in the Parmenides and elsewhere] to the doctrine of ideas would not have been suggested by Plato, had he not been convinced that his theory was unaffected by them,' a view with which Dr. Jackson sympathizes. But is it the case that every thinker, even every great thinker, is fully provided with a reply to all objectors.? He is not driven from his position by objections : he feels, it may be, a conviction which objections fail to shake. But he may be sensible that he has not met the objections, nevertheless. Galileo was a very great m'an, yet when he was questioned about the fact that water would not rise in a pump beyond thirty feet, and reference was made to the doctrine that 'nature abhors a vacuum,' he could but say, half in jest, that nature seemed to abhor only a thirty foot vacuum. It was left for Torricelli to throw light upon the mystery. We must not, then, attempt to explain away what Plato actually says on the ground that it involves difficulties for which we think we have a solution after the lapse of two millenniums. Ixx THE PARMENIDES. ' The difficulties reappear in an altered form.' What difficulties ? Those which to the metaphysician spring eternal: those which centre in the relation 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 takcs refuge with laughter in Carlyle's sarcasms about " sum-m-mjects and v.....'Coieridge ■ 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 its antagonistic externality, to include it in a revised sphere of consistent idealism. But granted that we are right in taking this course, admitting that thought is the parent of all things, even of its own object ; still ' the difficulties reappear in an altered form.' Why this persistent pro- nounced unmanageable sense of objectivity and separateness .' We demonstrate that sense is swallowed up in thought, and yet suspect that we have achieved but a Pyrrhic victory. What is sense.' That is the mystery of mysteries. We may eat away all its substance with our 'forms of sensible perception,' and our 'categories,' but we cannot lay the spectre — 'expellas furca tamen usque recurrit' We have been saying p. xiviii. and have seen Plato admitting that the world as we know it cannot be a world of sense. Is it meant then to affirm that sense has no existence .' Or are we not rather Parm. 134 e. bouud to cxclaim 'AXXa fiij \lav Oav/uLaaTOi 6 Xoyoy y, e'l tis tov avOpooirov airocTTeprja-eie Tov amdavea-dai .' It is, of course, granted that ' beauty, goodness, slavery, bigness,' and even that 'man, fire, water, hair, mud, filth,' in their collective sense, are not perceived by the senses. Sense lies 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 we add qualities, and recede from it as we remove them ? Not properly. ' Beauty ' and ' man ' are simply figments of the mind and have no connection with sense other than this, that they were deduced from the observation of individual ' sensible objects.' ' You ' also can become a figment of the mind when one thinks of, and does not see, you. But it is true that sense attaches only to individual things, to things with a maximum of qualities in their several kinds, in short to existing — as opposed to conceived or imagined — things. Are such things then sensible objects ? If not, no other such exist. 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 — simply the perception of 'black marks upon white paper.' In reality this is much too liberal an allowance. Not by sense but by judgment do we recognize the substance to be paper and the marks to be black upon white. And our judgment would not cease to operate, however visionary the distinction might become, until all distinction had vanished ; that is, until sense ceased from exercise for want of any object. The ITS CHARACTER AND CONTENTS. Ixxi very recognition that this state had supervened would itself be a judgment, though it might be delivered with hesitation. In a word so long as consciousness lasts, thought is at work, and the more alive consciousness with a view to detect and expose pure sense may become, the more completely does it fail of its purpose. As we might say, 'had ye but seen, then had ye been without thought; but now ye say " We see" therefore your thought remaineth.' All that we can declare about sense is, that it is the vanishing point of knowledge— ' who steals my sense steals trash, 'tis something, nothing:' while yet we feel that from that very vanishing point, the guarantee of all knowledge is given— 'or hear'st thou rather pure etherial stream whose fountain who shall tell.'' Thus we may say that the world of experience, which Plato has been seeking to dominate by his ideas, is all intellectual; if by this we mean that the sensible element in it is reduced to a minimum incogitabile at the start: or alterna- tively that it is all sensible if by this we mean that it never becomes transcendental. Either view is an advance upon the dualistic hypothesis of a composite world, half ' mind,' half ' matter.' Yet neither solves the problem of Whence all comes, and why this absolute freedom of sense from the control of the will.' The sense function is within us like a well of water springing up unto everlasting life. So we must confess : nor is it part of our duty to pursue the inquiry further. Of the Parmenides it may be said among other things that it forms as it were Conclusion. 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 two great co-ordinate wings, or whether it consists of an inner court approached through an outer. Certainly there are those who have sought a home in each mansion, and the thoughts called forth by the image of either are such as may separately dominate the mind. Few can form, fewer still can convey to others, an adequate conception of the sphere of Being. It is so completely withdrawn from experience. At best we must shadow it forth to ourselves as some Hall of the Chosen, some consistory, so to speak, of Egyptian Deities who have not stirred since time began. In such a picture an ' idea of motion ' is a fatal flaw : the stillness there is absolute, and may not be disturbed. But has it not the atmosphere of a museum .' In the midst of Being we are in death. It is said that certain subtle poisons kill by preserving the tissues, by stopping the action of growth and also of decay. Are we thereby the gainers .' Our gain is loss : our being not- being. Can anyone have in truth seen this hall of Being; or do those who depict it dream that they were there .' Not even Parmenides can vivify the description. The other to us seems less remote. It is as though the well of sense bubbled upward through a chink in the floor, bursting into the air and rippling over the pavement 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 Ixxii THE PARMENIDES. du hin ? And Heraclitus our interpreter cannot tell. What is this Becoming ? Is it after all Being, but KaTaKeKepfianafiivov'i Are we to solve the enigma of Being- Becoming on the analogy of the 'continuous-discrete' in space and time? Or is the antithesis Being and Not-being, with Becoming as bridge ? Is to i^alipvrjs, ' that odd thing the instantaneous,' another name for Becoming? Or are both awkward adum- brations of the Ego — that one among many, that whole among parts, that Tropos amid Trevla ? 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 ava/nvtja-is 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 source to the great fountainhead of all metaphysics. THE TEXT. I. In an edition, even of a single dialogue, which bears a relation so unusually close histokica, to a special manuscript, some introductory remarks upon the manuscripts of Plato in *'"' C"'"^'"'- general, with details in regard to certain of them in particular, are not only natural but will almost be expected. It is hoped that what follows may be of service to beginners in palaeography and in textual criticism. At the same time it is the work not of an expert in these branches of study but of a tolerably instructed layman. The writer knows only six Platonic manuscripts at first hand, and these he has studied under all the difficulties and disadvantages which attend a comparative beginner, and with but a limited time at his disposal. I. The earliest edition of Plato's works appears to be that of Aldus Manutius, Editions. published at Venice in 1513 — the year of Flodden — a work which must have cost infinite labour, and in regard to which its editor says that he would wish its errors removed, even at the price of a gold piece each. Perhaps this edition was published too soon : at all events the one which caught the attention of the world of letters was not it but that edited by Serranus and Henricus Stephanus, and published at Paris in 1578, in three volumes folio, with a dedication to Queen Elizabeth. This has ranked 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 a-v^vylai, of which the fifth 'ad quam contulimus Physica et Theologica,' includes the Timaeus, Timaeus Locrus, Critias, Parmenides, 'Evfjurocriov, Phaedrus, and Hippias Minor. The Greek has a Latin version running in parallel columns with it, and the lines of the page are subdivided into successive groups by the letters A, B, C, D, E placed in the margin. It would seem to be the intention that these letters should be placed at intervals of ten lines ; but they often stand opposite the space between two lines, and the contents of division E vary considerably, as the Latin and Greek, according as each happens to be the less compact, expand in turn to the whole breadth of the page at the foot. In our text A is omitted, and the other letters are placed opposite those lines which include what seems to be the commencement of each division, so far as that can be determined, in the original. Ste. III. 126 means Stephanus, vol. iii., page 126. These great editions of Aldus and Stephanus— or of Bauldie and Steenie as, with fond familiarity, we may say— are not 'critical editions' in the modern sense of that term. They appear each to be based largely upon one Ms., selected partly / Ixxiii Ixxiv THE PARMENIDES. on grounds of convenience — Schneider considers that in the Laws at least the original of 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 the press. This somewhat easy-going and self-reliant method of constructing a text appears to have continued till the close of last century, the edition of Heindorf being, according to modern German authorities, a brilliant example of it. 2. Immanuel Bekker represented, if he did not inaugurate, a new era in this respect, alike for Plato and for Greek texts in general. He subordinated conjectural emendation to a thorough- going comparison of manuscript data. Personally he collated with more or less completeness some "jy Mss., and classified their readings in the apparatus criticus of his edition, which was published early in the present 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 some sense that of a dispassionate eclectic. He inserts in his text the reading which he considers the best, wherever he may find it, and classifies the others at the foot of the page. No manuscript which he has collated is ignored on the ground that its readings are for any reason valueless. At the same time he clearly indicates that his study of the various codices had led him to place two or three of them on a much higher level than the remainder. 3. Editors since Bekker have largely acted upon the result of the comparison of manuscripts at which he had arrived. They select what they regard as a pre-eminent Ms., constitute their text mainly from it, and use the remainder only in extremity or for purposes of subsidiary illustration. Hermann, for example, selects without hesita- tion the Clarke Ms. as his authority for all those works which it contains. While Aldus and Stephanus appear to have been guided less by critical principle than by some form of convenience in selecting one codex as their basis, editors like Hermann have reversed the process, and decide entirely upon the apparent strength of the evidence in favour of the manuscript which they elect to follow. 4. Lachmann, who comes rather earlier than Hermann, is referred to by German scholars as the forerunner of yet another method in textual criticism. Good examples 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 the various codices, and affiliating them one to another. On this principle a derived manuscript is at once set aside in favour of its original. Such genealogical groupings of manuscripts may be made with some approach to certainty, and inferences even are possible from existing ones backward to their lost archetypes. According to Schanz and Jordan the critic who first adopted this method in dealing with the text of Plato scripts. Martin WoJi isen JahrbiJch. I Band i p. 20. Wurzl SOURCES OF THE TEXT. Ixxv was E. Peipers in his Quaestiones criticae de Platonis Legibus. Since that work Getting. la scientific simphfication of our authorities has been the prevailing tendency in constitut- ing the text of Plato's works. What, then, are the materials at our disposal ? On the mere announcement that ■">= "anu the known Mss. of Plato number at least 147, one would be disposed to infer that if a sound text cannot be extracted from such a collection individual conjecture will do '" F'«*e Httle for us. But in reality the number mentioned gives a false view of the position. p,°^^''j For no portion of Plato's writings are there nearly 147 independent authorities. Many '887. of these codices consist of mere isolated and constantly varying fragments, bound up in miscellaneous collections. Others again are of very late date, and the probability that such are derived from early originals now lost is extremely remote. Even the seventy-seven collated by Bekker, supposing them to be all independent, do not all cover the same ground. The codices which contain a half or more of Plato's writings number about a score, while those which can be drawn upon to illustrate any given dialogue form an uncertain and shifting quantity. The text of the Parmenides, as given by Bekker, is based upon the evidence of seventeen Mss. The number noted Martin schar by Schanz as available amounts to thirty-two. The number employed or discussed bv !'"'^'r '"' scholars since Bekker varies between these two totals. From the entire number of 147 Piaton. Text. three have been pitched upon by the unanimous verdict of scholars as occupying a ^' ^°' position of clear pre-eminence. These three, like almost all the large Mss., follow the 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 (Bekker), or 1807. Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. VIII., IX. 21 „ or Clarke 39. Bodleian Library, Oxford. I.-VI. t „ or Append., Class IV., i. Biblioteca Marciana, Venice. I.-VIII. (as far as Rep. iii. : the rest of the works by other hands). It will be seen that 2t and A contain in the aggregate, with the exception of tetralogy T VL, the whole of Plato's works, to which A adds the Definitions and seven Spurious "^ Dialogues, while t gives nearly all, but partly by later hands. The grounds upon which scholars select these three from the mass are several : — (a) Their age : the two first are clearly the oldest in existence, while the third, if younger than these, seems older than almost any other. The transmission of written works, however careful, tends at each fresh step to introduce fresh departures from the original ; and the earliest copies reduce that danger to a minimum. (/3) The care with which they have been written, taken in conjunction with their age (for texts admittedly late may also be careful) : this is a feature which impresses the most casual observer, and tends to inspire great confidence, (y) The evidence adduced by modern scholars with a view to show that many, if not all, of the remaining Mss. can be traced back to these. The Ixxvi THE PARMENIDES. relative sizes of these very famous codices may be pretty accurately estimated from the following diagram, which represents them at \ of their actual measurements : — t Further back in the history of Plato's text we cannot go directly ; but ingenious attempts are made to do so constructively. As A and 21 are among the earliest extant examples of minuscule Mss. it seems not improbable that any Ms. from which they may have been copied would be written in majuscules or capitals. This would tend to increase its bulk, and as each of them is a large volume, it seems very likely that t f. .97 verso, their archetype or archetypes would be in two volumes. Now in t we have at the col. z, line 4. /•ii»/r ..11 from foot. c'°se of the Menexenus, m the origmal hand, the words rk\o^ tov a ^ipXlov. Stud. p. =4, and yet this Ms. is in one volume. Schanz cites the same phrase at the same place Hermes X, ,876. from Ms. Angelicus c I 4, which also consists of but one volume; from Laurent. 59. I.; and finally from the Vatican A-G, Nos. 225 and 226, where, although the Ms. consists of two volumes, the words reXo? t^ irpS ^i/SXiov occur on folio ig6T. of the second. The inference drawn by Schanz is that we have here an old tradition that the works of Plato had been at some time in two volumes, the first of which contained Tetralogies L-VII., 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., which closes with the Menexenus, had dropped away. Various scholars attempt to fix the probable length of the lines in the early copy or copies now lost, on the basis of what is called stichometry. Mss. were measured by the unit or line in which the earliest copies were written, that is by arlxoi, corresponding to the average length of a hexa- wachsmuth in meter, and Galen is quoted as giving the length of some medical definitions in this way. Rhein. Mus. tt 1 r 1 • .xA«iv, p. 38, 481, He says that two, one of thirty-nme, and another of eighty-four syllables, are ov vXeloveg 1879. Galen de ^-^y ^^.^ e^a/xerpwv. This gives sixteen or seventeen syllables to the line, which is placit. Hippocr. -iiii,,,*, et Plat, vii!, ,. considerably less than the length of Ime used m the Clarke Ms., but exactly cor- 160 D. 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 SOURCES OF THE TEXT. Ixxvii following manner. From the uniformity of existing Mss. in certain passages he naturally concludes that they faithfully represent in these the reading of the original. But he finds the passages in question quoted by writers like Eusebius and Theodoretus with words omitted. Accordingly he considers that the archetype cannot have been so old as to have formed the text from which these men drew their quotations, and, therefore, it is more recent than 400 A.D. That may be correct, but it postulates two things, neither of which is quite certain — that there was but one text prior to our existing Mss., and that those Christian writers quoted it with verbal precision. The first of these assumptions is altogether disputed by A. Jordan on the understanding Fieck.j.ahrb. that the second is correct ; but both may be erroneous. One scholar alleges that he ^"'"''- ^''- '■ 1873-5. can detect two features of the archetype of 21— that it did not belong to the most j. s. Kroschei correct class, and that it was not easily legible. '" ^''=''''- "3. Another statement is made by Galen which is very interesting. He refers in his fragment upon the medical passages in the Timaeus to tSsv'' LttikSiv avriyparpwv eKSocn? and says that in the Timaeus this edition reads Sia to t^? v^' eavrov jftw/o-ewj where 77 b. other authorities give e^ for v'. Upon this has been reared a structure of very tempting hypothesis which may be thus summarized. Our Mss. all read v<^' and thus show their connection with the edition of which Galen speaks. Scholars, including Cobet, are strongly of opinion that 'AttikQv is short for 'ArTiKiavwy, Draskeon and Harpocration refers to readings of Demosthenes found ev to« 'ArTiKiavots, while Dobree ^''"''pp- "• remarks on the resemblance between 21 and codex 2 of Demosthenes, and holds that they are ^ ^ ' both from 'AmKiava. Now we find in Lucian Ilpos tov aTraiSevrov two references to a very- celebrated Pt./3Xi,6ypa([>oi called Atticus, whom some hold to be the person here spoken of. Others, among whom are Birt and apparently Cobet, think that T. Pomponius Atticus is meant, Birt, Amike and regard the editions here referred to in the light of publications carefully effected by his Buchwesen, orders, not copies written by his hand : to which opinion Birt elsewhere adds, that these Attic editions were noted as written in the o-Tt'xot to which reference has just been made, and of which traces are pointed out in the Clarke Ms. The same view has been recently maintained by H. Usener, who constructs in this connection a theory about the transmission of our Platonic Nachrichten v. texts which is eminently fascinating, but dependent a good deal upon assumptions in excess ofderKsnig. his data. It may be well to give on the one hand what seem to be the data, and to add on ^^^"^^^^'*" the other the assumptions. catting. No. 6, Data. Assumptions. ^''°' 1. Apellicon's private library, which comprised those of This library included care- strabo xUi, p. Aristotle and Theophrastus, was taken to Rome by Sulla, ful if not original copies oi^oB- and submitted to the editorial scrutiny of the celebrated Plato's works, scholar Tyrannion of Amisus. 2. Diogenes Laertius does not really affirm that Thra- Varro knew the arrange- sylus invented the arrangement of Plato's works in tetra- ment of dialogues by tetra- logies, but only that he adopts it : in any case Diogenes logics, and his learned friend adds words (/cai tiv«) which show that others had a part Tyrannion was its originator. ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ in it, of whom Albinus names Dercyllides. Again, Varro, (We may add that Cobet holds varro, L.L.vii, when referring to the Phaedo, says, ' Plato in quarto . . . Thrasylus to be quite distinct 37. Ixxviii THE PARMENIDES. appellat': and the Phaedo is the fourth in the Thrasylean arrangement. Finally, speaking of the possible origin of this grouping by fours, Usener says (referring to his Philologie und Geschichtswissenschaft, p. 22), 'nun kennen wir einen bedeutenden griechischen Grammatiker, der sein noch in vielen versprengten Resten erkennbares System der Philo- logie mit durchgefiihrter Viertheilung aufgebaut hat. Das war Tyrannion von Amisos.' 3. Atticus was a great scholarly publisher like Aldus, and had in his service a large staff of trained copyists and assistants, either paid or bought. from the contemporary and friend of Tiberius ; so that in the case that he really invented the arrangement, it might still be as old as Varro.) The d,VTlypaa 'ATTiKiava. are his editions : Tyrannion was his editor. Our Mss. of Plato descend through this channel from the library of Aristotle. How much 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 a single v^' for ef. To resume : the following are the characteristic titles and endings of the works in the three chief manuscripts. A ^21 ^t TIXaToovoi [UXaTOJi'oy] [nXdxwj'O?] THoXiTeiai tj irepi SiKaiou Hap/xeviSrjs ^ Trepl iSewv. XoyiKOi ILapfievlS}]? r/ irepi iSecov A' IIoXiTe/ay tj ■wep\ Sikulou A'. ILap/xevlStji t] Trep) iSeiJov. TLapfaepiStji ij ire pi tSeS)v. In 21 t IlXoLToovoi occurs in the case of the first dialogue and is then dropped : but in t it reappears at the Republic as in A, and while the first and third books of that work read voXirelw, the second gives TroXireiai. We may thus infer (i) that in the original the word HXaTwvog appeared at the beginning, and at the Republic and Laws which have more than one book : (2) that the adjectives in -KOi, which occur in 31 unsymmetrically, are not original, but may trace their origin to such a phrase as occurs in t after the title of the Euthyphro, 6 Xo'yo? epia-riKOi. The kernel of the title lies in the form TLapfxevlSri^ n Trepl iSecov both at the beginning and at the end of each work ; and this exactly corresponds with the description given by Diogenes of the titles employed by Thrasylus. He says, SnrXais Se xpnT^i rals e-jnypatpais eKacrrov tuiv jSi/SXlwv' Trji p.ev airo tou ovofiaroi, Trjf Se utto tov irpayixaTOi. TavTtji Se t5? rerpaXoyias, rJTK ean irpooTt], ^yeiTai ^vOvrppoov t] Trepl oalov' 6 SiaKoyoi S ea~ri TreipacTTiKOi' Sevrepoi 'ATToXoy/a HwKpaTov^, ^diKos- and so on. Here it is quite clear that 'Ev6v(j>p(iDv f] Trepl ocriov is the title from 'name' and 'subject' given by Thrasylus, while the words 6 StaXoyoi S' earl Treipaa-TiKos are explanatory words added by Diogenes in giving his account, which dwindle to ijOiKOi, XoyiKOi, etc., as the description proceeds. We thus see that the phrase 6 Xo'yos epia-rtKoi at the beginning of t, and the adjectives in -Koi throughout 21, have been added to the original titles of Thrasylus by some SOURCES OF THE TEXT. Ixxix one who had probably read Diogenes. This circumstance strengthens the conviction that all existing texts may be traced back to the Thrasylean recension, but it does not decide the question as to whether there was numerically but one archetype. When one gets so far backwards to an original source, the chances of appreciable divergences between separate copies of it become very small, so that our existing Mss. might be due to different originals of the same edition so to speak, without our being able to detect it from their text. Nay, the evidence rather, if anything, leans that way, since A is written in pages of two narrow columns, and t in larger pages of two broader columns, while 31 is written in smaller pages without columnar divisions. What now are the materials available for the construction of our text.'' The Mss. used by Bekker in editing the Parmenides are the following, which received their designations from him. at, Oxford : rBCDEFHIQR, Paris : A, Rome : ASHEY, Venice. To these must be added t, Venice, which Bekker does not collate for this dialogue; and others which he did not know, as those collated by Stallbaum g, a, b, c, i, Florence, Zittav., a, with Tub., Tubingen, and Ces., Cesena, which have come into notice more recently. Here then, without reckoning one or two others, we have a list of twenty-seven, and the question to be determined is the relation in which they stand to each other. As it happens only the first is dated, and while the subscriptio containing the date tells us as usual something about the writer, his employer, and his pay, it tells us, also as usual, nothing about the place of writing, and nothing of the Ms. copied, two points which for textual criticism would be more important. We are thus left to deal with circum- stantial evidence, which, besides its somewhat inconclusive character, has all its value dependent upon the assumption, natural enough no doubt, but not inevitable, that, 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 in Bekker's edition without being struck by the remarkable recurrence of the group SIAIIDR in support of the same readings. Not only do they occur together 85 times alone, but they appear in many other cases along with varying groups of other authorities. It is evident that they are a closely related family. But in that family there appears to be an inner circle. This will be clearer from a glance at the following figures :— SlAIIDR+various others occur together many times. aiAHDR ,, >. 85 2lAnD >, .. 37 giAH " " 36 Manifestly the connection between the first three of these is 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 Ixxx THE PARMENIDES. a gap of considerable extent, from 208 D ttciw fxkv oSv to 209 A tov a-ov \6yov, or nearly half a page of Stephanus. All the rest which contain the Theaetetus, however they may otherwise differ, would appear to agree in not having this gap, and accord- studien, 46 ff. ingly Schanz here finds proof of the existence of two families tracing their origin to different sources : a. that of which 31 is the chief member and which has the gap ; /8. „ t „ „ not the gap. Tub. does not give the Theaetetus ; but Schanz refers it to family a on other grounds. And he says in general, that while family a agree closely, family /3 differ widely. In this edition it has not been possible to deal comprehensively with all the existing Mss. The writer's personal study has been confined to SlAIITub.t. Upon family /3 he takes the testimony of Schanz, which is that all other members can be traced back to t as original. Evidence of a very convincing character is given in support of this conclusion, and whether it is actually established or not, there can be no doubt at all that t is 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 investigation 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 2L Let us take them in the order AIITub.DRQg. It will be sufficient to give selected specimens of his evidence. A. (Our dialogue occurs in vol. A of the Mss. A-9.) This codex, which he places in the 12th century, is, except in tetralogy i. and the Gorgias, a transcript — though not necessarily direct — from 21. (i) In the Philebus it has a series of short gaps, filled in by a younger hand, which correspond to similar gaps existing in 31 and caused by injuries to the lines at the outer edge of the leaf. The writer of A, or of its original, would seem to have found those injuries and to have left spaces which he thought sufficient for them, and these a later reader of A has filled up from another source. 21 itself has been similarly but very coarsely completed since the date of A or of its original. (2) In the Phaedrus two similar blanks occur which have never been filled up. They represent an injury in 21 caused by the dropping of some dark acid upon the text. The condi- tion of A shows that at the time the injury had affected only the back of the one leaf and the front of the other, since A gives the words which were on the other sides of these respectively. In our time the acid has eaten its way through both leaves. (3) A also omits from time to time words which form complete lines of 2L Examples of this are the following — though the first seems a very long line : 404 B Cratylus, AijiJ,rjTpdv re Kal "Hpav koi 'AiroXXw kol 'AOr/vav koI "Hi^atcrTov kcu 'Apr). 123 c Theages, -vOa, ov yxevrot to ye ovofw., fj Kal to ovo/^a j Kal to ovopa eyutye. 198 D Laches, ytyovtv, aWrj Sk irtpX yiyvojiiviDV, ott-q yiyverai, aAAi; Se All these statements it was intended to verify in A, but through unavoidable circumstances the Phiioiogus task was omitted. Schanz concludes by giving reasons for holding that the derivation of A-& XXXV, 1876. fjQjjj gj jg mediate rather than immediate. Schanz on the Manuscripts. A 360 verso 361 rect. and vers. JC 184 r. and v. Steph. 34 E, 361 A 433 "■ 434 r- ■ ^ 236. ^37- 253 E, 254 E. SOURCES OF THE TEXT. Ixxxi n.TuB. Schanz held at one time that these Mss., while closely related to St, were not directly transcripts from it, but connected with it in some other manner. According to Wohlrab, however, Schanz has changed his opinion and finally holds that both could be directly traced back to 91, but without stating his reasons. DR. These Schanz holds. to be closely connected with H. D in particular agrees in many ways with 11, and where it differs, the difference betrays the connection. A test case occurs in the Parmenides, ovkovv kirdvip aWa. rov Ivds kmiv, ouT£ TO iv la-ri raWa' ov yap Slv aX\a 157 b. Tov ei'ds [io-Tiv oi!t£ to eV eo-Tiv. aWa tov tvos] ^v. The words in brackets are a repetition of part of what precedes. The writer's eye, after he wrote the second «vds, seems, on looking up, to have caught the first, and so he repeated the words io-Tiv. ovre to ev ia-nv : then glancing up again he seems to have caught aAAo in place of ToXAa, and so he wrote aAAa tov ivoi : finally he seems to have caught the second evds, and so he went on 7jv. This mistake reappears in D, and it seems to originate with 11 rather than to come from some common source, for 11 is largely characterized by such blunders which are sometimes corrected and sometimes not. If n be indeed the source, then the younger D by reproducing so peculiar an error reveals its own origin. Now R does not extend beyond the Parmenides, and Schanz gives from this dialogue several cases in which IIDR combine to present readings peculiar to themselves, and again other cases in which the two last agree in differing from 11. His inference is that D coming from n develops new features of its own, and that R being drawn from D exhibits some of the latter's peculiarities. Q is a Ms. cited by Bekker in the Parmenides as far as to 129 a: of it Schanz merely remarks in a note, Q. .gehort zur Sippe D. g is a Florentine Ms. collated by Stallbaum, which Schanz places in the same group with piatocodex, p. those of which we have been speaking ; but as it contains only a fragment of the Parmenides, 54- and is not intrinsically very important, no more need be said of it. Such then is an enumeration of those codices, which, according to the greatest recent authority upon the question, 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 the division into classes, we may take the following evidence :— Fresh compari- son. a. rpia Sis «vai koi rpta St's ," SO all SlAIITub.DR. i^3 e. |8. ,, J, ,j „ Sts Tpla ; so t and all its followers. This case is important, because the Mss. appear all to be wrong, the true reading rpla 815 dvai koi &vo rpis; being preserved or suggested very faintly in the margin of 21, where it has been either overlooked or inserted late. Again we have a. rivi ^■, /3. '^y hy, and a. o^vvovn, /3. 6^v i/oovvTt— which are also >39 b, 165 c. noteworthy. Let us now take the members of the a family in order. A. Vat. No. 225. In regard to this codex, various facts are to be noted. 1. For the word Ilo/jyueviS)?? 2lA, and they alone, read throughout IlapptvelSrii. 2. In 3t the phrases ti Se; tc S^; tC 8at'; 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 doubtful exception, a substitute upon an erasure for one of the other phrases. In everything but the erasure A faithfully reproduces this peculiarity of 21. 3. The word dd occurs forty-three times. In the first twenty of these it is written ata. In the rest, beginning 147 d, the first i is erased and the a joined to c by a longer line than m Ixxxii THE PARMENIDES. usual, save in the solitary case 147 E where det looks original. Apart from signs of erasure, 158 c. this striking difference of usage is exactly copied in A, only that in one place the word has dropped out. 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 -trias A S'efs p. 21 [lopim A flOpttiiV, .. 17 ^voiv „ Svo ^ >. 25 /^«- „ patched, irep av (1. 2) „ jrep „ 28 TTOV „ TOV. On each of these pages there is, as on many others, a stain at the corner of the Ms. which precisely covers the letters misread. 5. The readings of SlA may 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 for convenience the readings of 11 and Tub. are added. Text. ^ A n Tub. 127 c a.va.yiyv(otrKOiJ.kvb>v -Kojxkviav -■yivojo-KO/iei'tuv yiy vuxTKopivtav -ytv- 128 A TTtp (TV, ov Trep (TV, »j J) j) Iv 0^S ev €(j>r]7]i 129 D J/DCt -pelrai m V3 epy [77 for et frequent], in all. hiaiprjTai -ptiTai 5) -prJTai. 1 30 B avTq bpoiOTq'S V avTT] op.. avTT] Tj op. avT^ o/i. avTrj rj op. TOV — irapp.. TOV re irapp. j> (t£ erased) TOV T£ wapp. C ail Twv TySe &v avTwv. •^ (Sv )j (^ erased) avTuv. y S)v D ravry uttC), TaVTYj OTTW „ ("patched) T. KTTO) (a e on t). E avTW arbpaxrei^ ts3 avTov a. avTov a. avTwv d. ((0 patched) -TOV d. changed -tojv 131 B olov dr] rjpipa t) oiovei fipepa iirj \ fotbv TJ j;. £177 ■^ p. K. av.- as 31 save of- pia C 1/ OVV idiX. i'l 6. i. SO all 1 [(17 on eras.) 132 A av TTOV p.. avTOv p. JJ au [eras. = 2 letters with (3 on it] p. as2(. B TTpoa-qKy -Kii )) )) J5 C iirbv voei UTTOV voiiv )) )j }} 133 A (Ketvo TO) -via TO {(0 on eras .) -V(D ?j J> D TrappevaSrjv -vetSrj JJ I* -vi'Sr; -V tS»; patched, e erased. E SovXov ecTTi SovXov icTTi S. eCTTt adds later S. eo-Tt (0 later). 135 D oStos, €tTr(v, OiStWS £?- J) )> )j 136 B Kal avOis av K. avTOi's av „ (contracted) ' ,, a gap here. C vireTidecro lav re -decrde' avre ,, (no •) )? )3 SioipetrOai, -(T0e >» „ (ai altered) at -cr^e (at later). virodipevos Tt iva -OS' Tiva -OS TLVa -OS Tiva (later rtva) -OS. Ttva SOURCES OF THE TEXT. Ixxx 111 Text. SI A D Seu/jieOa Stofieda 91 137 A Biavevcrai -vva-ai B irpayfxaTnoS'rj » JJ E djTixv ; &v ixa (orig.) ai/ex'? eiriTrpoa-dev y ; -a-div (.17) ] )} 138 B cauTo e'lj -T([) ttrf -TW et'-jy Ti etvai, fji,fi Ti drj fjiri )) D o/iet/3ov dfiei/Buiv J) E eyyiyvo/ievov . . . evy- ... tu y- 1) n „ (a patched) Tub. -TUioSr] „ (i? patched) „ „ («"i? changed (ij changed to v, ai to ihai) above later). VETttl 139 B TT^ S^ ; E OVT£ avT(j) 140 B TOTavTovireTrovOos T. rauro tt, E Kai avtcroTTjTOS k. t(roT- 141 B &ia(j)€pov ...-6pov „ C dvdyKT] yap ovv d. yap av 143 B avy ; (fiavdrj ; ov yap av av omitted D [ ] words dotted 143 C Ttve 5>... alitor iput: rtvet^ ... -repa tCvi Si] : J J oiiTai' avTw (or av.)ovT' dv avri^ T. -To\ (ends line)5r. „ (ri'li/t divided). as2t undotted Tiveco . . , -T€pa : words omitted D a-vvSvo OVV Svo 147 B fwpiiav' ... 148 A T(fi dvo/xoiii 149 E Tt [aAAo] fiopia' ) -lov . . . -IOV to" op.. TI aAAo 150 D ev ex^Tov €V excTb) 152 D TO) vvv TO, VVV ovirep 154 C ViioTepov S' ov irepi V. 5' ov : » (") o5;r£px( X erasures) 0^ tte/ji yap avTOtv ets „ -eX^rai Try „ avTo.ev (^' erased) „ yap omitted as 21, but in U words omitted. TLvm- (" added later) -repa 7) „ (ovre twice,avra). as A. 155 A yap avTU €ts 157 C /ierexet av tttj : 158 A avTo^ev 160 D ovSev yap ^ttov.. elvai 161 E p^eTeiTj /*^"S )i 162 A TyTovtTvai dvTJcr€i so: corr. inmarg. no corr. C p.iOla'Tano p,rj6uxTairo „ {'"'''') 163 C dpa itvai SvvaiTO etvai omitted „ D ovt' dv Xap.pdvoi ovt avaA- „ 164 E So^et, EMrep So^etev, «. „ 165 B rovrov fiitra crju. to. tov -(tov and „ Se Sta 8e omitted :S^ ov TTCpi et Trepiey-. „ (ylyverai „ {yiyvirai in above, later) marg., later). )> )) » .. ('T^)- avTO ev asH. all omitted asH. »(no')^ as a orig. =Toi5x^ «. a. as3f. (xcras) p^dicrrai, to (epatched) p-rfOlcTTairo. itvai in marg. as 31. ovre ovaA- as 31. Ixxxiv THE PARMENIDES. Text. 9t A n Tub. C d^u yvovri o^vvovTi o^vvovti. as A as A. Set (paivicrdai Srj . „ Sei . as »l. Adding this to the evidence which Schanz has produced, readers will be disposed to admit that his case is established — that A is derived from 2L At the same time facts exist which slightly weaken the first vivid sense of conclusiveness. Take the following : — 1. The scribe in A in very many cases, though not in all, omits the v at the end of such forms chiefly as ia-riv, loiKtv when the succeeding word begins with a consonant ; although the practice in 21 is different. 2. A few cases occur in which the verbal endings a and ot and similar ones are transposed in the two Mss. 3. A few such divergences as wapiyiis for Trapex^i (middle), t6s for rt. 4. Also mere blunders such as xpovov for )(p6vov, la-Orj for io-^t, ijSea for ISea, trioKpdTrjv for -Tj;, Tat for re; and varieties of spelling such as, occasionally, jivuktk- for yiyvuxTK-. 5. The following small words are left out : — 136 B f) [ei] pirj. Tt ovv aA,Ao [ttci^os] ttoxt- 145 C Trepiexoiro [to] ev. \ovTos. D 'ASvvarov [ya/a] : ends a line. E lyo) pkv [ovv] & Happi. 148 B Se [ye] irdOo's. Si ye on a cleaned space n. 137 c TO [ev] €K pepZv. 149 e ia-rov [tc] rive. So IT. D ovt' [dv] dp)(r]V. So II. 152 E Icrrt yap del [vvv] OTav irep ■^ (a vvv immed- 138 E TO [Si] efft) part of a phrase written on an lately above). erasure. 158 c oa-ov dv avr^s [del] 6piap,cv. 142 C dWo [fj] oTi. 164 E eiTTt/o €V [/iijj eWat. 6. Two larger gaps occur : — 150 D After writing the first viripix^w [koI vwepexecrOaL ... the writer goes on at the second ... inrepex^tv] /xijte vTVipixeo-dai : thus omitting nearly four lines. 158 B OTE pxTaXapjidvu [avTOV piTaXapfidvii]. 7. Two transpositions occur : — No. 4, p. wxxn. 142 E TO ov tdvai), while a later hand corrects it. This accentuation is in 11 so uniform that after a certain point it ceased to be noted in collation. Much the same holds with la-ov for ttrov. 6. A glance at the comparison of readings given above will show that in the great majority of cases II agrees with 21A ; and more might be given. 7. Cases occur in which 11 differs from A but agrees with 21 : 138 D ev rivL avTu auTo with erasure after n 2t. avroi U. 139 B ov6' ea-TTjKev oiV 21II. 143 D crv{vyia. (tv fvyi a 2111, erasures at the gaps and after a. 152 B vn-epH-qcreTai virep/3 ^o-erat 2t eras. 11 virep/So^- a line through from /3 to -q. 15s E Trepl TO. dkka irepi ra, dXXa on erasure 21. weptTTa d. 11. 165 B ev aCv€(r6ai : ep,<^oj.ve(T6aL 2111. 21 patched. Here again we have very considerable support for the view that II descends from 21. It is, however, not quite so strong as in the case of A, and the counter evidence is stronger. 1. In every case ti Sai is wanting, being replaced by tI 5e. 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, (/?) a good many variations in Ixxxvi THE PARMENIDES. the use of final v (not always ephelkystikon), (7) some transpositions, (S) several variations in terminations as tvOkm for -cos, (e) some patchings, (f) some omissions of single words, {y\) a number of obvious blunders, {B) 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 a few are not easily explicable, nor can it always be determined whether they are due to the original writer or another. At the same time few can be called suggestive or symptomatic. Here is one, however, r37 B KOA, oLfjia efiol Kal avia e/iot, changed in different ink to koI dXXws e. 11. A palaeographer will at once see that the meaningless avw could much more readily be derived from d/xa (carelessly written or read) in old minuscules than in majuscules, nay, that in minuscules the two words are remarkably similar dfiai, apw. This makes it at least probable that the original of 11 was in minuscules, and thus at least improbable that it was older than 31. 3. A disproportionately large number of important omissions occur, which will be discussed immediately. If any of these were in the original of 11, it could not have been 21 ; and must at least have been a somewhat careless copy of 21, if not from a distinct source. 4. The word Kar^x^^t 148 e, and the phrase ovSiv ^ttov yivdxTKerai ri to Afyo/ievov fj.rj uvai, 160 D, which appear in the margin of 21 are entirely wanting in 11, a circumstance which could hardly be accidental. Of these arguments against deriving 11 from 21, the first and fourth do not count. The word Sal is always on an erasure in 21, and the words just quoted are in the margin in an old, but not the original, hand. We have only to suppose that II or its original was copied before these changes were made in 21. Arguments (2), (3) are more serious; but they may be greatly weakened by the allegation of downright carelessness in 11. Its writing is of very unequal size, and to one who has seen really fine caligraphy, repulsively ill formed. Apart from that, marks of inattention are frequent. 129 D The words dficfyorepa idv ... Tavrd aTTo^aiVetv are written twice, and the two editions differ. The first has Kal before iroAAa and -vei, altered -vrj, for the infinitive : the second omits koI and reads iv ravra and -veiv. The second is coarsely scored out. This oscillation between -vei and -viiv helps to explain several cases where 2)( has the infinitive and 11 the other termination — as in Tt xpv o-viJi.(3aivti. Perhaps the writer intended to insert his v by the familiar above, and forgot. 130 D ei's Tiv' d/Svdov — is in 11 €?s nva djxvdov. But the [i is carelessly written, and may quite possibly be intended for the old minuscule form of fi which resembles our u. 135 A jidXia-Ta eirj, iroXXrj appears as /liaAXiuTa tiij, ttoXtj. 144 E StavevejuT/yitevov has one of the syllables ve omitted. 147 D The words Trpoa-ayopev^is ... ovk iKiivo which form a line in 11 are written twice, and then, together with half the following line to iroXAa/cis, are coarsely ruled out. This blunder rather makes for a derivation in some form from 21. It will be seen from our text that after writing ovk e/ceivo the scribe's eye might very readily be caught by the eKetvo above it, which would lead to the repetition. 149 E The following form lines in 11 : — TO. dWa. Tov ei/os \_ovTe ri /icifio oiItc ti ctAAo IXdrTiav r) avrd aAAa TOV evos] /x£i^a) rj IXaTTOi, dpa ovk dv Tij) fxev €v eivai, to £V Kal TaAAa aAAa toij Ii'os ovTi Ti /lel^to ovTe ti aAAo iXaTTw dv SOURCES OF THE TEXT. Ixxxvii Here the words in [ ] have obviously been inserted out of place, and the mistake was discovered. They are obliterated by a coarse line and dots. This is another case which rather supports a direct derivation from 31. Let the reader look at our text. After writing to evos the scribe glanced up and p. =3. his eye caught toC kvh^ in the following line. He then wrote on in that line till he reached lAaTTw when, looking up, his eye caught IAcittov two lines above. He then altered tAarrw to IXarTov— writing V through the u— and went on with the words ij a^rix aXXa. rov Ivos, where he completed the circle and found out his mistake. It is the double parallel of position in our text «vos e'AaTTOV Tov kvo% (\a.TT(a which speaks for 31 as the original. 152 c Xr](f>0ar] in 11 is near an injury in the parchment and is written Xri£tri. 152 E n has owe ve(iyrep6v icniv ov yap : to ev apa rov Tcrov XP^vov avro laurcj) Kal yi.yv6jxe.vov koI ov ovr€ vedjrepov ovre TrpvTJivTipov This is repeated with to mt-ov, and the repetition is coarsely cancelled. Here again our text shows p. 26. how the mistake may have arisen — after writing the second oiire Trpea-^vrepov the scribe may have reverted to the first, which is directly above in 3t. 157 B Here comes the case cited by Schanz in which D agrees. p. ixx^ti. 164 B For aA.A.ov divided between two lines 11 gives a-\ov. 165 A For ^avTaa-fia 11 reads ojcrfi.a which suggests mere inattention. 165 B For irav to ov II gives irav irai/ to ov. Before dealing with the cases of omission it will be convenient to speak of the next Ms. on our list. Tub. — This codex, which is also called Crusianus from having been got by Martin Crusius, a professor at Tiibingen, in 1560, contains what it calls to. Ittto. tox! UAaTwi/os, viz., the Euthyphro, Crito, Phaedo, Parmenides, Alcibiades i. and 11., and the Timaeus. The writing which is very neat and carefully formed is regarded by Schanz and Fischer as belonging to the ii-i2th centuries, which would make it older than II. 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 very closely related to 2111. It is to be added that the name UapfxevlSqi is always written with an erasure before the i, so that the text had originally given the diphthong, which shows a clear connection with 31. But, on the other hand, evidence may be adduced which tends to show that the connection with II is still more intimate. Thus we have the following :^- n ... V60VT0S ... -vei. changed to -vyj. . . . -Trjv with V cancelled. t'o-TCD (above is eyu rjKtal). as Tub. (but jB may be /*). as Tub. letters 7rX>/« where ^^l gives i\iek -7r/7rX>?a-(. On this and other grounds it is maintained by some that while most Mss. of the /3 family are inferior to those of the other, this does not at all hold in regard to t the best Ms. of that family, and still less does it hold when the respective sources of the two families are considered. Indeed Jordan Hemes, .in. quite turns the tables in the following manner. He takes up the text of the Republic ''''■ for which we possess as authorities both A and t : and after a comparison of these two he comes to the conclusion that t is actually a copy of A. He contends that both in text and scholia the two agree as completely as is humanly possible, while little mistakes occur which tend to show that the writer of t had A before him, but mis- read it. He goes on to infer that in tetralogies I.-VII. t is a copy of the lost first volume of A, from which it seems to follow that even for these works it is on the whole to be preferred to 21, if Cobet's verdict upon the authority of A is accepted. Jordan does not seem quite to accept it, but is content to place At in the same class as contradistinguished from 31. There is, of course, no proof that A had a first volume. The latest episode, and one of the most interesting and unexpected, in the his- Eariy papyri. tory of the Platonic text is that arising from the discovery in Egypt of the Flinders Petrie papyri, which seem to date from the third century before the Christian era. These papyri contain among other things fragments of the Phaedo in a very dilapidated condition, extending over pp. 67D-69A, 80D-84A of Stephanus. A glance at these documents at once reveals that they differ from the text of our best Mss. both by transpositions, by omissions, and by various readings, while the gaps which occur compel us to infer that the contents destroyed must have been of different extent from the corresponding passages in 31. Nor are these divergences superficial ; they are numerous and striking. Such a discovery tends to make students of Plato most uneasy. Is our text, preserved in three of the most valuable Greek Mss. in exist- ence, so little entitled after all to our confidence and support? One ray of comfort appears in the fact that the differences though numerous do not affect the argument ; the substance of Plato's reasoning remains as we have been accustomed to understand it A further study of the papyrus tends rather to re-assure us. Although in some respects the sense seems slightly to gain by little omissions, the general character of the text is not such as we should be disposed to take in exchange for our own. One is tempted to consider that although an early it is yet a careless transcript, and one feels entitled to wait for much more extensive materials before deciding against the testimony of our highest authorities. Where the value of the latest discovery seems ^^^^^^f^&- unquestionable is in matters of spelling and pronunciation. Thus we have aiS^ ""^e? GattTi,g.''Nach. for aeiS^ -Sei, ovOev fitidev and their cases. For indications of sound again we find e/x No'^s'.'r.'e.isga. ^i\oa-o-40. includes J flourish. + IIAaTioi'05 + noAiTetut 1^ wipl SiKaiov scr. |-3 r., 1. A A IIoAiTa'as 1} irepl SiKaCov A)- 14 r., i. 44 as above exactly, including scratch "1 14 r., ii. AA AB no scratch "125 r., i. AT AA y "1 37 v., iii. hangs (from 3 red lines )48 v., li. /2 red lines as above exactly B"l 24 v., ii. 12. j> ij r|37 v., i. 17. '1 }y A|48 v., i. 24, E"j6i v., i. 17, / THE CHIEF MANUSCRIPTS. xcv Heading, as above exactly, no scratch ^ 6i v., ii. AE I 2 red lines as above Ending, as above exactly SI 7 2 v., ii. 39. H »» AS »} AZ t^ AH f» I) AG 73r.,i. hangs from 3 red lines )j )) Z|83 v., i. 22. 83 v., ii. red under first and through last J' )» HI 94 r., i. 37. \ 94 r., ii. hangs /from 3 red lines „ a scratch 6"! 102 v.,ii. 15. ■|io3r., i. J as in last I\ii4 r., i. 9. Tt/iatos KptTlOS Mtvots Nd/ux A + nAoT&)vos+ 1 ii4r.,ii.aredline Tl/iaios 17 jrept <^vcr£(Ds"| i44v.,ii. 44. rj trtpl (fiva-iuis Vabove and below is darker than others V M J secondlineof title j as above 'i 145 r., 1. ,4^ ■^ dxAavTiKos J-as above MA j title not repeated 1 5 1 r. , ii. 3 1 . The margin of 1 5 1 is cut off close to the text, which is slightly inj ured on both pages. as above "j 151 v., i. i) irtpl i/djuov j-as above MB J Mivtos 57 Trepl vd[i,ov' somewhat dark 1 iS4v.,ii. 3°- as above "k 155 r., i. r] vofjioOea-Ui. j-hangs from 3 Mr J pale red lines Nd/t(uv rj vofiodfcria's A"J 165 r., i. 40. as above J- E as above MA ME as above MS '» J) MZ \ 165 r., ii. j as above but darker "1 174 r., i. as above B"! 173 v.,ii. 42 }, as above lines darker MH ■j 184 v., n j 2 red lint |i93r.,ii Jas above 1202 r., ii dark r"! 184 v., i. 14. A) 193 r., i. II. B"! 202 r., i. 20 i S"j 216 r., I. 22 XCVl THE PARMENIDES. Heading. as above, darker Me I216 r., ii. J as above H lA IB ,, 1 N ( NA 19 NB Nr „ last word dark "l 232 r., i. k j" „ dark ^ 241 v., ii. J ti 1256 r., i. J » „ dark ") 267 r., i. Ending, as above Z|23iv.,ii. 24. J) H|24i v.,i.44. }i e\2S5 v., ii. 8. 1 279 «■-. >• „ dark II 267 r., i. 43. lA) 278 v., ii. 7. „ IB|29i r.,L 24. hangs from a red line: no flourish/ + nAaTft)vos+ ■) 291 r., ii. 'E7rivo/i*9 ^ ^lAoo-oc^os ?• ,, 'E7rivo/*i9 ^ c^iA,d(7o<^osl 299 v., i. 18. NE as above 'Ejrio-ToXot IB NS A nXoTwv Aiovwrt'coi £u iTpi.Truv B 11 » r „ x^V""' A „ At'oii/i crvpaKowT O"to)i eri jrpaTTeti'" E „ Ile/ciSiKKai eu irpdrTtX' S „ 'Ep/j,€iai Kj 'Epa a-T(ot K; KopUTKUit ei irpdniX Z ,, TOIS AtlUl/OS OtKEt 299 v., u. 299 V. . ii . I ends line 25- 300 r., 28 II IS- 302 r., , 1. 18 11 12. 304 r., 14 II 19. SOSr-i ois re Kj eTaip(n/)aK0W7-(rwv, ev irpaTreiV [©] [I] [lA] [IB] 3i7r. ii. 10 ends 319V. i. 13. Hermann gives five additional }hang from red lines, letters which are not found in 319V. i. 16 ends 319V. ii. 13. this manuscript. .32. \319v.ii. 16 „ 3i9V.ii. |3i9v.ii. 35 „ 32or.ii. 9. |32or. ii. 12 „ 32or. ii. 35 1320^ ii. 38. n\aTtovos iTTUTToXai "J32 2 r. i, 14. flourish. I + "0/Dot + \322 r. ii. upper marg. *"Opoi. * NZ. J flourish. Each definition ends with : followed by a slight blank. "I 324 V. ii. 20. + nA.oTti>vos voOevo/xevoL' + ir€pl A1K010V + NH Above the usual position of the title as if added later by the scribe. "1^325 r. i. upper marg. wepl SiKaiov 1326^11.40. + irepl 'Apirrj'S + N0 j hangs from a red line. "1 326 V. i. as above. flourish. ; + Aij/idSo/cos rj irepl r8 crv/x^iSXeveo-d^- ) 328 r. ii. as S /above. + 2ia-u<^09 rj TT^pl TiS fSovXevto-daf 1 33 1 r. ii. from SA. \ 2 red lines. rj Trejoi ixiTafji,op(fxr€toi' I323 r. ii. as SB fabove. TT. 'A, A. rj V •. T . (T. 2. rj jr. T. A 'A.^ TT. /^- +'Ef)v^ios rj nepl ttXovtov "j 334 v. i. as ST /above. ■J 328 r. i. 32. \33i r.i. 23. \333 r. i. 4a. \ 334 r. ii. be- 1 low line 44- E. rj TT. jr. (ij ipaa-i^CTTpaTOS 1 341 r. ii. 27. in outer margin). In the middle space opposite the title are to which the words in the margin at the end correspond. {ev aXk ij epaxri^i (TTpaT. + 'A^t'oxos 'A. ^ TT. e. l344V.i. 27. T} irepl Oavdrov "1 341 v. i. as SA /above. So ends the Ms. on line 27 of the first column on the back of folio 344. There is no trace of a name or a date of any kind ; but in the outer margin opposite there is a statement by a later hand in smaller style and yellow-brown ink as follows : — topOdOri rj l3i/3Xs avTTj' tiTTO Kj firjTpOTT UpaTT T i wvrjtraiuvlf. = KtovirravTivov [iirjTporroXiTov Upa((r)iroX(b>i = TOV Ktti jjcviir THE PARMENIDES. Authorities differ as to whether the name of the city is one word or tv/o, Cobet being of the former opinion. 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 Montf. Ap- as in office there. But we find mention made of Constantinus sacerdos and calligraphist, in pendix, cf. 1 125 A.D., and of another, a presbyter and calligraphist, in 1326 a.d. The text is followed by Gardth. p. 318. j.j^j.gg ^jg^j^ sheets of vellum, which, like those at the beginning, have probably been inserted when it was last bound. Style and details. The codex is in fine preservation; indeed, Cobet says, 'non memini me videre integriorem librum neque 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 x 24*8 x 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, is 8-1 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, under 57. All these figures, especially the last group, are slightly variable. The vellum is made up in quaternions, that is, sets of four pieces laid together, then folded across and 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 fol. 177 r. where K — the following F 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 ; and in the third hundred the hundreds figure is often corrected. Each piece of 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. 8 double perpendicular lines to mark off the sides of the four cols. 2. Single perpendicular lines near the outer edge of the two outer margins, 3-8 removed from the outer boundary of the cols. 3. A horizontal line about rg above the writing. 4. Double horizontal lines of which the lower is 2'6 below the writing. All these are carried from edge to edge of the vellum. 5. 44 lines for writing, which begin at the left side of the first col. and go right across the four cols., ending somewhat unevenly at the outer edge of the fourth. E.M.Thompson, In laying the ruled pieces together for stitching, indented side touched indented, and projecting ri??,?^''^' touched projecting, or, as Mr. Thompson puts it, hair side touched hair side and flesh side flesh side. The writing hangs from the lines, save that the upper parts of the letters S e ij 6 i k project above them. The text is written in dark brown ink ; the titles and some of the notes are reddish. One commentator writes in dark green. The text is written throughout by the same scribe, who seems to have added the titles after the body of the work was finished. Sometimes his ink seems to have failed, and he has retouched p. 63, etc. THE CHIEF MANUSCRIPTS. xcix letters, as on 184 r., 189 v., 190 r., after refilling his pen. After learning more of 21, Bekker changed his view that this Ms. was written in the tenth century, saying 'patet Parisiensem primum (A), indexCodic™. qui omnes habet altioris vetustatis notas, perperam in catalogo Paris, ad decimum seculum referri. Conf. Bast ad Corinth., p. 81.' Bast here speaks of ' praestantissimus Codex 1807 (secuH noni).' Gregor. corimh. After looking over the plates of the Palaeographical Society and comparing all three Mss. concerned, ">• ^'='"'=''"' we have come to the conclusion that the writing which most resembles that of this codex is that of '^''"'"' '^"' the Clarke Ms. and of the Oxford Euclid, whose dates are fixed at 895 and 888 a.d. respectively. But the Paris one seems to be older than either of these. So far as the capital letters are concerned, a judgment is difficult to form. They are small, erect, and rather stiff, but present no special feature save that A, A and A do not terminate in a point at the top, but in a short horizontal stroke. In the body of the text, which is in minuscules in all three Mss., we have a better means of reaching a conclusion. At a general glance the first observation that occurs is that in whatever order A and 31 may stand, the Euclid comes between them : this amounts to the verdict that A comes first. The Euclid and 2t differ from A in having their letters of a uniform thickness : A, while using apparently a broader pen, aims at varying his strokes to some slight extent. In all three the writing is most carefully formed and erect, but % inclines more than either of the others to round off the angles of letters, while A makes them as abrupt as a continuous stroke will permit. In all, the lines of the letters generally finish in a dot or 'blob,' but in 91 this seems to be often managed by carrying the pen a little back upon its stroke, while in A the scribe ends his lines with a distinctly formed dot A and Euc agree in writing tr, ^, as cy i3i ; 21 gives or &. In A e is written ^, in 21 it is S. The initial letters in A 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 is an even more noticeable formality in the breathings and accentuation. While 91 and Euc. give these with some variety and inattention as seen in the facsimiles, A emphasizes its care by the forms *—-•,«'' ^~, '■^; and Schanz says that while 2lt often omit accents on prepositions before nouns, A never does. Ligature of letters is employed freely: here, for example, is the opening of the Republic, the ligatures being indicated by a closer position of the letters so treated. KaTi/3rjV xdes « (nrei p ai u, [icra yXav Kv pr]9evTiov otra pAV kpprj6-q fiirpiiMT ainTrjpLav rj plv avTuv avT(0V SiSovai' ira pci, p,€\o(T Sk eiTi TTcpl avrmv aKOVTea emopev SiKr]V ttjv irpeTTOvtrav eiriTidivai' Siki] Se opdrj Toi" TrXrjp/xeXovvTa (p.pe\rj TTOiiiv iv' ovv to Xoittov Tovcr iripl 6eo)V yevfcrcoxr op 6u>s Xeyi»p,ev Xoyovs, (f>dp jxaKOV y)pxv avrov TeXedrarov Kal dpKTTOv app,dK(av, iTria-rij jxrpi ev\6pi6ci. SiSdvai" Trpocriv ^dp^voi 8e, irapaBcSopev Kara Tacr o/xoAoyia(r Kpmai — TOV ejijo- Aoyov : aAA w Tipau Si)(op,ai p,iv' &i Sc KaX crv Ka t" dp^ao" ky^prjiTU), o'vyyvtoptjv alTovpcvo(T 0)0" irepl peydXmv piXXdiv XeytLv, TavTov kol vvv iyti) TOVTO irapairovpav pu^o vocr Se avTov Tv\eiv ert uSiXXov d^tw, Trepl TWf peXXovTwv pq 6rjpTtpa ovTa, TOVTO TTtipareov jttJi SiSa^af Trepi Oiv av ov Ttarr i^oxriv, TToXX-qv emopiav Trape)(ea'6ov Twt ptXXovri Xk yuv Tt Trepl avrmv Trtpl Se Srj Oeijiv, icrixev tocr 'e\opev' Z va Se (Taea'Tepov o Xeyco Sij Aiucro), TrjtSe poi a-vve7r!(T7re(T0e' plprjiTLv pev yap Stj /cat airei Kaaiav to. Trapa, TracTwv ijpwv prjOevTa, xp^<^v TTOv yeveadai' TTjv Se TiSv ypaK/oaTovs, Siv rj dpx'}' ^vdvpti)V, rj irepl 6(riov. Hi vewrepov, & 2(u- (cpares" aXP' tov Mevojv, ^ ircpl dpiTrj'} e'x*'* p^oi d-Treiv (sic). There can be no possible doubt about the identity of the work, and we thus learn that the manuscript was in the library of the Monastery of St. John at Patmos in the middle of the fourteenth century, being then more than four hundred years old. In this library, sad to say, it would probably have been left to rot, had it not, like the Elgin marbles, been carried off by a countryman of our own. At the opening of the present century Dr. Edward Daniel Clarke, in Travels, etc. the course of his long visit to the countries lying round the Levant, met with the following incident ^" °' *^'^'''"' .° . ■' ° ' " LL.D., Fourth m the island of Cos: — 'A poor little shopkeeper in Cos had been mentioned, by the -French ^i^yai.m.ch. Consul, as possessor of several curious old books. We therefore went to visit him, and were vii-, p- 263 it., surprised to find him in the midst of his wares, with a red nightcap on his head, reading the f^eiy condensed. Odyssey of Homer in manuscript. This was fairly written upon paper, with interlineary criticisms, and a commentary in the margin. He had other manuscript volumes, containing works upon rhetoric, poetry, history, and theology. Nothing could induce him to part with any of these books. The account he gave was that some of them were copies of origi'nals in the library at Patmos, and that his father had brought them to Cos. They were intended, he said, for his son, who was to be educated in the Patmos monastery.' The travellers went on their way to Egypt and the Holy Land; but they did not forget the Patmos library, and in 1801 they were again in Cos and making arrangements to visit it. ' On Tuesday, October the sixth, as we were sitting with the Governor, a Greek officer of Discovery of the the name of Hiley arrived. He conversed with great fluency in the Turkish language. Hearing yoT vri'^'pat- that we intended to visit 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 Casos. The vessel was old, and the large triangular sails were tattered and rotten. It was, in fact, nothing 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 of a passage in Longus, who, in the very seas we were now traversing, describes a similar Lib. iii. /'««., custom : ' while they rowed, one of the crew sang to them : — ot Se XoiTToi, Kaedirep xo/0"S, op.o^<^vm 1 It may have „ , , I r. >n, , been so called Kara Kaipov rrfi tKavov cjxjjvtjs e/iouv. j_.^^ ^^^ ^^^^ The next morning, October the ninth, Samos appeared most beautifully in view, covered by a ^^^-en, to the silvery mist, softening every object, but concealing none. At eleven o'clock a.m. we entered the Monastery, port of La Scalai in Patmos. In order to prevent our caique from being fired at, as a pirate "J",!,';^^'^^"^;;^^ ^,jy THE PARMENIDES. vessel (which she probably had been), we had hoisted an English flag [thus drawing upon them- selves the taunts of Frenchmen on their way home from the campaign in Egypt, " Pavilion Anglais ! Tremblez, Messieurs ! "]. The monastery of the Apocalyfse is situate two miles and a half from the quay, upon the top of a mountain in the highest part of all the island, close to the town of Patmos. We set off, without further delay, for the Convent. The ascent is steep and rugged, but practicable for asses and mules. When we arrived at the monastery, we were quite struck by its size and substantial appearance.' It may be explained that Patmos has a 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 two, like an ill-shaped sand glass. The very innermost recess of this bay is the harbour of La Scala, from which the town and monastery lie due south. Whilst the travellers are enjoying 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. — 'It is a very powerful fortress, built upon a steep rock, with several towers and lofty thick walls ; and if duly mounted with guns, might be made impregnable. According to Tournefort, it is said to have been founded by Alexius Comnenus, in consequence of the persuasion of St. Christodulus ; but Dapper relates, that the saint himself founded the monastery, towards the end of the tenth century, when he retired to Patmos, to avoid the persecution of the Turks. Nothing can be more remarkable than the situation of the town, built upon the edge of a vast crater, sloping off, on either side like the roof of a tiled house. Perry has compared it to "an asses back": upon the highest ridge of which stands the monastery. The inhabitants have no space for exercise, they can only descend and ascend to the harbour. On one of the towers of the monastery, a look-out is regularly kept for pirates. We returned to enjoy the prospect from this place. The sight was extremely magnificent. 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 from the great monastery of St. John, we turned off, upon our right, to visit a smaller edifice 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 the purpose fully as well: it is not spacious enough to have afforded a habitation even for a hermit. There seemed to be something like a school held in the building erected about this cave; but the only monk who showed the place to us, and who appeared to superintend the seminary, was not much better informed than his godly brethren in the parent monastery. The women of the island, here collected as it were upon a single point, are so generally handsome, that it is an uncommon sight to meet with any who are otherwise. There are several bells at the monastery, which the monks are frequently ringing. The enjoyment of the noise is considered a great indulgence ; bells being prohibited by the Turks. Perhaps there is not a spot in the Archipelago with more of the semblance of a volcanic origin than Patmos, the ports of the island have the appearance of craters. In the evening we amused ourselves in fishing. The harbour appeared as literally 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 were seen distinctly whenever they took the snare. We were much struck by the extraordinary intensity of the deep blue colour of the sea, which is as much a distinguishing characteristic of the Archipelago as the brightness of its sky.' Within. — 'We were received by the Superior and by the Bursar of the monastery in the refectory. We asked permission to see the Library, which was readily granted. We entered a small oblong; chamber, having a vaulted stone roof; and found it to be nearly filled with THE CHIEF MANUSCRIPTS. ^v books, of all sizes, in a most neglected state ; some lying upon the floor, a prey to the damp and to worms ; others standing upon shelves, but without any kind of order. The books upon the shelves were all printed volumes j for these being more modern, were regarded as the more valuable, and had a better station assigned them than the rest, many of which were considered only as so much rubbish. Some of the printed books were tolerably well bound, and in good condition. The Superior said, these were his favourites; but when we took down one or two of them to examine their contents, we discovered that neither the Superior nor his colleague were able to read. They had a confused traditionary recollection of the names of some of them, but knew no more of their contents than the Grand Signior. At the extremity ^of this chamber, which is opposite to the window, a considerable number of old volumes of parchment, some with covers and some without, were heaped upon the floor, in the utmost disorder; and there were evident proofs that these had been cast aside, and condemned to answer any purpose for which the parchment might be required. When we asked the Superior what they were? he replied, turning up his nose with an expression of indifference and contempt, Xtipoypa^a ! It was, indeed, a moment in which a literary traveller might be supposed to doubt the evidence of his senses ; for the whole of this contemned heap consisted entirely of Greek manuscripts, and some of them were of the highest antiquity. What was to be done? We referred the matter to Mr. Riley, as to a person habituated in dealing with knavish Greeks; and presently such a jabbering took place, accompanied with so many significant shrugs, winks, nods, and grimaces, that it was plain something like a negociation was going on. The author, meanwhile, continued to inspect the heap; and had soon selected the fairest specimen of Grecian caligraphy which has descended to modern times. It was a copy of the twenty-four first Dialogues of Plato, written throughout upon vellum, in the same exquisite character; concluding with a date, and the name of the caligraphist. It was a single volume in folio, bound in wood. The cover was full of worms and falling to pieces : a paper label appeared on the back, inscribed, in a modern hand, AtaAo-yot StoKparovs : but see ciii. the letters of Platds name, separated by stars, appeared very distinctly as a head-piece to the first page of the manuscript. After removing these volumes all further enquiry was stopped by Mr. Riley. He 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 to accompany us. The Superior took occasion to assure us, that both he and the Bursar were willing enough to part with the x^''P°yP"-4'°' i '^ut that if it were known to have brought them any gain, the people of Patmos, acting as spies for the Capudan Pasha, would make it the cause of a very heavy imposition upon the monastery. This day we dined with the monks.' The scene now changes to the deck of the caique. The Capudan Pasha referred to, is, no doubt, identical with the Capitan Pasha often mentioned in Finlay's History. He seems to have been a sort of high admiral with charge of the islands and coasts of the Aegean. 'The Capudan Pasha's letter enabled us to order bread from the island for our voyage; and this the monks promised to see provided. . . . The whole of Sunday, October the eleventh, was passed in great anxiety, being the day on which the Superior had engaged to send the remaining manuscripts. Mr. Riley had left and we began to fear, as evening approached, that his absence might become the pretext for a breach of contract. Towards sunset, being upon the deck of our caique and looking towards the mountain, we discerned a person coming down the steep descent from the monastery towards the port: presently, as he drew near, we perceived that he had a large basket upon his head, and that / CVl THE PARMENIDES. CoDtents. he was coming towards the quay, opposite to the spot where our vessel was at anchor. Upon his arrival, we saw him making signs for a boat; and we sent to him the little skiff belonging to our caique. As he came alongside, he said, aloud, that he had brought the bread ordered 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 the basket 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 we instantly concealed beneath a mattress in 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 desiring he would inform the Superior, with our most grateful acknowledgments, that '■all was perfectly right' Having set him again on shore, we gave orders to our captain to have every- thing ready for sailing the next morning, and to stand out of the port as soon after sunrise as possible; intending to leave Patmos. In this design we were, however, disappointed.' When a few days later they insisted on putting to sea, they found, as their captain had predicted, that a furious storm was raging outside. ' We [ch. ii.] passed like lightning within a cable's length of 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 white sand. Like true shipwrecked mariners, wet to the skin, and without a dry thread on board, we opened all our stores '■. upon the rocks to expose our clothes to the beams of the sun. Every article of our linen was completely soaked ; but, to our great joy, the Fatmos Manuscripts had escaped, and were safe. We had put them into a small but stout wooden box in the stern of the vessel; and had covered this with every article of canvas, etc., that could be collected.' In a note, Dr. Clarke adds, ' This manuscript [the Plato] after the author's return to England, remained in the hands of his friend the late Professor Forson until his death.' In 1809 it was bought by the Curators of the Bodleian Library. The following is Gaisford's entry in the Catalogue of the Library : — rj p. Codex membranaceus ff. 418, anno 896 exaratus p(jjv 1) 5r'0o-t^ 'AjroAoyta Su/cparovs IT UpaKTOV TjdlKOS IJ TTtpl TlpaKTOV jT ''¥v)(rjs rjdlKOS B 57 TT 'OvOflATOiV OpdoTrjTO koyiKOS KparuX -q ir 'Ovo;ua op IT 'Ejrio-DjfiijS QeodrrjTos 17 irepl 'En-io-r^/xiys Tetral. I. The title is very much faded, the first word having lost all its ink. The central A marks the tetralogy, the marginal A of the dialogue is gone. Below the flourish after the conclusion stands in the middle of the page a very finely formed A, with leaf ornament. B faint, ij^ikos reddish. Here also follows a beautiful A; for orna- ment see text, p. 29, top. The outer margin of 20 is gone ; but there is room for K/oitwv in the title, of which, however, there seems no trace, either directly or by marks of damp ink (as there is e of rjdiKos and tt) on next page. A follows again. ■qOiKoi is clearly later, and seems to have been touched before it was dry, A again. II. Contractions for want of room. Con- clusion on a scrapeinlowermargin: below the usual ornament, whose left side is very elaborate, there is another long scrape. The title on a scrape in upper margin has lines ruled for it. A patch at the outer part of the vellum hides any adjective in -kos. CVlll THE PARMENIDES. ii3r.2i Soc^itTT^s Z 136 V. I36V.3O IIoAlTlKOS H e JT TOTj "OvTos AoytK^ The adjective is clearly redder than the rest. TT Boo-iAtias AoytK^ Second half of title is dark ; the adjective is as in the last case. YLoXvTiK 17 T BacrtAeias e See the text and facsimile. III. The adjective as above. 1 73 r. 13 aX'TjPoi I 198 v. Tr'HSovrji -qOiK^ Adjective clearly different ink. #tA.i7;8os V "■ 'HSov^s 1 98 V. 30 2v/Jt7rdcrioi' lA 223V.34 224 r. ^dlSpos top IB 248r.34 e s TT 'EjOOJTOS ^viJ,ir6po(rvvr]i naievriK^ 282 r. 2 7 Xop/uS)js ij ff '2(apo(Tvv irtipaa-rtK IH Xap/uSrji ■^ T ^po(rvvrji . * ij n- 'AvSptas /xaiivriK Aa^i/S ij ir£/)i 'AvSpias TT $tAtas pMLCVriK^ e Awrts ^ IT #iAtas S d ^ 'EpurTiKos dvarpeTTTiK^ EvOvSrjixoi 17 ipurriKos 3361.7 IIpojTayd/oas KB 368 V. lipurayop y So^ioroi In the margin is ai/Te/jaorTj, which with •^^iKos differs in character from the rest. The conclusion is dark. In the margin is (^iAoo-o<^t, which with the adjective is redder than the rest. The conclusion is darker. The adjective differs, and is redder. The conclusion is darker. Title in upper margin with a red line : above it KA slightly dim, by a later hand. The adjective is faint red. The adjective differs and is redder, the conclusion comes below the flourish, but is in the same ink as the text. VI. Title in upper margin : S of tetralogy in red. This letter, EvdvSrjpoi, K and initial T, all leave a clear impression on the next page. The name, whose ink is gone, is care- lessly rewritten later in brown. dvarp. resembles the title. The conclusion is below the flourish. The adjective differs. ex THE PARMENIDES. e 368V. 1 1 Topytas ij TT T)jTo/)tKi5s o.va.ipi-KThK^ The adjective differs, and is redder, jjp To get the conclusion into the e line the usual preceding ■.■~-^ has 405 r. VopyioM ■>] X 'FrjTopiKrj^ ^^^^ erased. e 405 r. II Mevmv ^' Tr'ApeTJjs Tupa. X V double alS^s. TToi^ra- ei:,r<. 0 dark red brown. 22 r. 24 dXXa Tcts S' ov ; '• Tt (/));s' Ta? fiev '■ oi35^ irdvTOiv. aWi, Tuv fikv Tuv 8' off ; 24 V. 14 Seems to be the same hand as No. i. (?) OTTOi av f^ovXrjTai '• vjiQiv ■I- Caused by double koX oJSeis rjii&v, tuh vb Povkrjra.1. Opposite nuv inTToSihv icTTl''. oi55' d- 11. 16-18 : small, and irayopeiet, iiv re tIs jSou like Nos. I, 4. Xijrai This hand appears twice on 32 r. ; on 33 v. it gives a various reading ; on 46 v. three short additions ; on 48 r. a correction, and appears repeatedly in this dialogue — the Phaedo. 6. Phaedo. 51 r. and v. (34-1) This hand is very small and neat ; it makes many small changes from page to page. 7. Cratylus. 58 r. 21 8. ,, 61 r. 14 cotr^ireJ, ovk ipQ Htl S h> v6- o Se 6/toAoy«i [gap of 6 letters] airQ ye Toirtf 6vofta efyj • tI Sal Same as No. 6 yitot' Set^ctos e^ai(j>vr]S TreKrdrjvai, d'xXa SokQ ftoi Zde civ juaXXo^ Treiaeiaeaeal ae et. Between the ' ' is the note. Dots show scrapes. Seems the same hand, as 6, 7. 9. Theaetet. gj j-, i5 fj OV, »j yiyvojuvov, ovW airQ \eKTiav, oCt' &\\ov \iyov Same, but less careful. On 105 v. — 106 r. this hand gives three various readings of considerable length, prefacing one by what seems to be ev aXXots koX Ta^Jra, and another by ev oAAo) ourtos. For this one see our text page 33. It stands below line 26 and on line 27 with a dumb line between on which its first portion rests. It closely resembles No. 3. II. Philebus. ImKKov S' el ^oiXei.' rptxS '• ta^o" ^pd- 61X2? SiaXd/Saixev Stto. 178 V. 16 Caused by Xa.j3o)ixev. This is the hand of 6-9, but some- what rough. On 188 r. the same hand gives a various reading with yp. At 229 r. there is a long V. r. preceded by ev aA.A.a) : a very fine pen has been used, the writing being smaller and neater than the one on 105-6. THE CHIEF MANUSCRIPTS. cxv 256 r. 24 ^ ^ oiK tV/^ev )plu /3ouXeuT<£s" An addition ; it is certainly early. 14. Gorgias. /ie0a. iTTia-TaneOa, '/• rrjv oIko 15- vojxiKrjv 2. Another form of correction is erasure. We have seen that this occurs in the titles or endings of several dialogues. It also appears in the body of the text, nor is the alteration that frequently occurs upon it always the work of the first hand. Thus in the Parmenides and also elsewhere, besides repeated changes of Tt 5e into Tt 8al, avai is very frequently altered to ^avai. Of the K in ovk we have already spoken. , 3. Sometimes gaps occur without erasure : thus Schanz says ' in Protagora licet videre lacunas complures manu recentissima suppletas : concludere igitur debes codicem e quo Clarkianus derivatus est hie non potuisse legi. Suppleta autem sunt p. 329 c haec : iv t[i? i^vxiy]; [yap 6n °] J T£/i[\i'ete] J KoX \a.v\ — post ZiKa.iQ(Tv\rqv spatium vacuum ; p. 329 d [cVepa twv] ; [aXAiJAojv /cat Tojj]; //€[y£^et].' In the same dialogue we have 341 r., 6 ovrwcro [space of 3 letters] ■fjyovji.ai,. 4. A fruitful source of difficulty is, as under the circumstances was natural, external injury. The codex has received at some time a severe squeeze which has left a bend or 'crumple' in the parchment up the middle of the pages. The outer angles also have both suffered from a 'dog-ear' fold which almost always reaches and has injured the first or last letters in the first and last two lines of the page, which letters accordingly are often patched in a recent hand either brown or black. The injury just noted, especially at the upper corners, is considerably increased by the action of damp, which is traceable all through the Ms., and has often destroyed matter written in the upper margin. From the beginning to fol. 44, and from fol. 413 to the end in particular the leaves are so injured by damp and friction — probably the boards had been lost — that a great deal of recent restoration has been necessary, as may be seen from facsimile i. of p. 418 V. All the ink is gone from the initial word IIAATflNOS and only the shapes of the letters remain. The parchment at its thinnest parts has holes which seem original, and which accordingly cause no injury to the text : but a good deal of damage to the thinner sheets has since been done, often accompanied by slight loss to the text. Thus near the foot of fol. 2 there is a hole with this result — 2 r. 32 Euthyphr. 5 b iKuvmi 2 v. Euthyphr. 6 a tji-ga-n. 33 TTpicrfivTepova- 6 B cueiSoTt 34 8tSao-/coi/Ta gvyxiopeiv XXX. cxvi THE PARMENIDES. The gaps (underlined) in 1. 33 are supplied in the outer margins, those in 34 below, by the ugly brown hand. Again, we have the part destroyed by a dark acid, which has been referred to in connection with Vat. A : this affects both sides of two leaves. 236 r. 9 Phaedr. 252 e Totovrocr 236 v. Phaedr. 253 e neroK^vrpoiv 10 TOTelTTt epcaTiKovojjjM yapyaXia-fwvTe 237 V. ,, 255 E Tra.paTrX.rj(TLui(T -KeicrdaiKal II 254 E ixerepxavrai 237 !•• 9 yvdOovcj- 10 epeicraa II oTTOvrjpoa- iTxtyKoip/qau Of these the second and third passages together with discoloured words in lines 8 and 12 are supplied by a later hand in the outer margin: the first and last are not supplied, which seems to show that the acid had not at the time eaten through the two leaves. Sometimes the injury is made good by adding new parchment and writing upon that. This is so in the outer margin of fol. 20, but the injury is confined to the beginnings of lines 1-17 on the back, and is greatest towards the' top. Again, f. 21 (Crito 45 b etc.) is so patched, the injury being at the beginnings of lines 1-6, 8, 9 on the back: f. 35 (Phaedo 73 E etc.) on the front has lost letters at the ends of 11. i. 3-24, and on the back letters at the beginnings of x-ii : 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 literas extremas versuum septem ita tamen ut folio contra lucem verso possint legi,' (Schanz) : fol. 189 r. (Phileb. 45 e) a patch at the outer side conceals four letters in lines i, 2, two letters in lines 3, 4, 6, one letter in lines 5, 7, 8, 9. There are also places where the margin is cut or worn away without being replaced: ff. 157, 159 are cut away in the Parmenides but no Uxx. injury has ensued. The chief scene of such accidents is the Philebus ; in f. 184 the text on both sides is injured for 13 lines: in f. 185 for two, 186 for one, 187 for three, 188 for two. Part of a scholium is lost by a cutting of the margin of f. 224 at the beginning of the Phaedrus. A good many yellow spots of wax, cedar oil or some such substance are scattered over the pages of the Ms. Subscriptio, with We now come to the Subscriptio. The writing is small majuscules, which are clearer in notes, chiefly on tjjg original than in the facsimile. The words are as follows, and to these notes are added: — Arethas, owner 21. iypdifiri xeipl lO) Ka\\LypdoV The letters ar] ;^a ov evTV)((ikr dpeOai StaKovwi ira tto. TjOEi* vop,icrp.dT(iiv /iv^avTi VTt o>v SiKa Kj TpiZv' /ivyi/i voep, oeu 25. ppiWl IvSlKTltaV 1.8. £T£t KOtTOp, ^SvS fSaa-iXuaa AeovTOcr tov l R X.OXV vlov PacriXdov rod dap-v^uTTov : — Xo are retouched : and ^V cK^Tj X") vT, o«, P are impressed on the «So fly-leaf, reversed. Tre 00 ;,: 7] 30. ^vypauv, " ^*' ob scribendi elegantiam : ut habet Theophylactus Simocatta, qui sub Mauricio et sequentibus Impera^toribus florebat, lib. 8. c. 13 ubi de nece Mauricii verba facit : eScTjo-e y«-P dvSpa a. «. 58^-602. Tiva. TUJv €is KaAAos ypa6vT p»" '• of which was dedicated to St. Basilius- Magnus. St. Andrew havina; visibly interposed '^' ^" "^°' - . ..... 0/1 Qraec. vol. .., dunng the siege m 807 it pleased the Emperor Nicephorus — and we must remember p ^,j j^o ,..3 that Constantinople was the 0p6voi ... tov TrponoKX-i'^Tov tZv 'ATroo-ToAajv 'AvSpcow — to cede Codinus,P!irisii.<, his own share of the spoils to the see, and to make various bishops suffragans of ^^f' ^' 3^4- 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 — Xfi' ova-a els 1232-1328 a.d. A.^' vire/3LJ3cia-6i] — on the other hand its archbishop is now one of the exarchs under the patriarch of Constantinople. In this list he is classed as kO'. 6 iraXaioiv (there was also a New Patras) Uarpiov, ?racnjs 'Axatas, and is one of the vTrkpTip,oi. Here Arethas was deacon. 'The church of die Nicene age was vexed with the peculiar presumption st.tni«y, K.ist. of the order of Deacons.' What their relations to the bishops often were we gather from ct>- 'ss. Montfaucon ' In Actis vero Concilii Nicaeni secundi, quidam diaconus dicitur 'SoTapio's Pai. Graec. 35. TOV tvayoijs liaTpiapx^Kov o-eKpkrov.' Later in life, as we shall see, Arethas had himself a deacon who copied Mss. for him; and from what we know of his own tastes he probably acted in this among other capacities when at Patras. In regard to Arethas personally, we know something of his rank, his library, and his literary work. In the Bodleian Euclid we find in small majuscules lypa^ij x^'P' 'S^ricj>dvov kXtjpikov foI. 387 v. top. ^. Q-iiTTenlBploi iv. C iru k, I ^rqC ►— This means, as we shall see, that it was written in CXVIU THE PARMENIDES. Melanges Graux, 745-56. Fol. 401 V. Oxford, p. vi. Codinus, 406. P- 35- Gloss. Grace. 888 A.D. E. Maass, who writes with the authority of an expert, but at the same time rather too 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, 00 on line 5 of the same page, eKXijo-a/iTyv 'kpida's Trarpevs Tqv Trapova-av fiijBXov vv A. If not a native of Patras, 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 so. As our subscriptio tells us, he had the Clarke Plato written for him in 895 A.d. : and now he is a deacon. When next we hear of him he has made a vast stride. The fine Ms. of Clement of Alexandria at Paris, commonly called Paris T 451, bears in beautiful small majuscules the following note eypd4>-q x"P' Badvovs vo- I X """ J ^ 'ApWa apiiruTKj Kawrapei | Kamra^oKC Iru Koa-fiS \ ^sv/c/S. The contracted words Stand for vorapiov dpy^Ltiria-Koirov Kaio-apeias KaTrrraSo Kias. Dindorf in his edition of Clement sa)s ' 'Ape6<} apxiiTria-KOTri^ sic codex,' but he is wrong. Our note of the words was copied in facsimile from the Ms. Maass also has the genitive. Here we have, in 913-14 A.D., the fact that Arethas had a notary who copied Clement's works for him when he was archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. He now occupied one of the most exalted positions in the whole Eastern hierarchy. Unless he had been made one of the four Patriarchs or 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 metro- politans under the patriach of Constantinople, he has 41 bishops under him, and is styled vwkpTip.o'; Ttov vTreprifiav, /cat e^apxos irda-rji dvaToX.rjs. With regard to notaries Montfaucon says 'Aliud scribarum genus erat tZv vorapLtav koI Taxvypd;s p.r]vi, \ dTrptXiiM a-vp,TrXr]p(iy | devro's tov Tiv\\ovs. This is our last certain date in the life of Arethas, a.d. 932. He has now a deacon as calligraphus and his library seems to be taking a clerical turn. Perhaps we may quote, on the chance of its being to the point, the following passage from the subscriptio to Paris 78 r, a Ms. of John Chrysostom, lypdcfirj x^'P' (TTv\v (I,tvXmvov ?) tov TaAo" | £i5/e/3po}VLav ixovaxrjv. The other two are epitaphs upon the author's sister Anna who is referred to as a widow of a pure character, and as dying Tpe.h Trpus hUoa-' cTroixo/J.evfji' iviavrovi. There is a family burying-place, and Xopos evy€vewv "Avvtjs (No. 32). Besides having anacreontic verses ascribed to him referring to the Emperor Leo among others, Arethas wrote or helped to write, when archbishop, at least one treatise. It is on the Apocalypse. In this treatise, cramer, Caien. of which a small Ms. exists at Oxford, when commenting on the words Kal dkrjifiei' o Grace. Patr. in "AyyeXos tov Xi/Savoyrov the author observes toi'tw top€t.af Aaxioi', eKacrTOV f^, lepapxTjV irapeiKoi^ei. Arethas is known to have written marginal notes on the volumes in his possession. In the Ms. of Clement, Paris 451, three such notes have the word 'ApWa prefixed to them. ' The name of Arethas, however, is prefixed .... also to several in the Vatican Dind. ciem. codices of Aristides, according to A. Mains . . . .' Accordingly, Maass regards — not p- ='^- indeed these Vatican Mss., which are ascribed to the nth and 12th centuries, but — the Laurentian 60, 3 of the loth century (which contains the same note as appears in Vat. 1298) as having belonged to Arethas. Pursuing this line of investigation Maass identifies the writing of an undated Ms. of Lucian in the British Museum with that of Harieian, 5694. Baanes in Paris 451, and concludes that it also was written for Arethas. He then compares the Mss. either known or supposed to have belonged to him, and finds that while they differ in themselves, as the works of different scribes, they all contain examples of one particular hand which makes notes in their margins ; this hand is very old and writes in small majuscules. Maass holds that it is the hand of the owner — Arethas. In this way he opens up quite a mine of Arethean scholia and says among other things Melanges Gmux, ' Morem sequebatur Arethas cum auctoribus suis colloquendi,' e.g. ' Ad Apologiam 27 d ns-g- Clarkiano adscripsit Arethas : ; Geov). As this is a coin of Leo VI., it is probable that it was the money actually used in paying for our Manuscript. /xTjvt voejifip. IvSlkt. l.S. erei Kou-fj,. jivS. ' In the month of November of the 14th indic- tion, in the year of the world 6404.' By Byzantine writers the year of the world when rcece 7- THE CHIEF MANUSCRIPTS. cxxi given was given according to Byzantine reckoning, which assumed the creation to date from September i, b.c. 5509. Now 6404, less 5509, gives as date for our Ms. the year 89s A.D. The word indictio is commonly held to mean the ' announcement ' of taxa- tion, but also means the year or cycle of fifteen years over which that taxation lasted. In the history of indictional dating, we may begin with the admitted fixed point 312 a.d. 'The period is calculated from ist September, 312.' If now we count by periods ofFinUy.Gi 15 from this date, we find that an indictional cycle — the thirty-ninth— closes on August ""''"''*°'""':' 31st, 897 A.D. (39x15 = 585; 585+312 = 897). Tlie '14th indiction' of this period_ will extend from ist September, 895, to 31st August, 896, which is exactly what we require. It is obvious, however, that when dealing with Byzantine datings the month is of importance. For any date from ist September to 31st December we subtract 5509 Gardth. 387 from the given year of the world; for any between ist January and 31st August we subtract 5508. Failing to note the importance of \i.t\v\ voc/iySpitoi, some scholars date our Ms. A.D. 896. As the indictional cycle here under discussion has some palaeo- graphic interest it is given entire : — From Sept. to Aug. ivStKT. a'. = 882-3 A.D. \Ms. No. 8, Chalke, llwaycoy^ K-avovcuv written 'a. 883.' Gardth. ^'. = 883-4 / p. 344. 7'. =884-5 S'. = 885-6 Leo VI. succeeds Basil i., March i, -86. V Laurent. 28, 26 Theon,' £'. = 886-7 J written ' a. 886.' Gardth. s'. = 887-8 f. = 888-9 Bodleian Euclid written September, 888. V- = 889-90 Ms. Paris 1470 (and 1476?) written April, 890. &. = 890-91 i'. = 891-2 la'. = 892-3 ./?'.= 893-4 ly'. = 894-S 18'. = 895-6 Clarke Plato written November, 895. li. = 896-7 From what has been said it will appear that the dating of the Ms. written for Arethas by Baanes is not explicit to us : eVet Koa-jj-ov ^svk/B might mean either 913 or 914 a.d. 26-7. jSao-tAei'as . . . deifivi]icrTov : — 'of the reign of the most Christian Leo, son of Basil of happy memory.' This is rather a modern rendering, but it pretty fairly gives the sense. For the persons named see IvSikt. S', above and the description of Leo's byzant. On the coin the words iv XP^'^''''i' correspond to ^lAox" ((juXoxpto'Tov) here : both being analogous to ' most Christian king,' ' defender of the faith.' In the National Library at Paris there is a gorgeous Ms. 'omnium quotquot in Bibliotheca regia Graeci servantur omatissimus ' of Gregorius Theologus, with comments by Gregorius Nyssenus, ParisDX(=sio). which seems to have belonged to Basil i. Facing a full page painting of Christ, it has three full page figures on gold ground, representing EvSoKia Avyova-ra with Aewv Aecr;ror>js and 'AXe^avSpos Aicnrorrjs 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 scriptura esse ante annum Christ! 886 quo anno obiit Basilius Imperator cognomento Macedo, maritus Eudociae, Pater Leonis (toov et Alexandri.' r THE PARMENIDES. cxxu 29-30. With line 27 the subscriptio was probably intended to close. A flourish extends along line 28, and goes down through lines 29-30. But something had been omitted— the price. What follows we had thought, until we saw Maass' essay, to be a discovery of ours. Maass properly rejects the reading acce_pted from Gaisford by Schanz, which makes the words = eSd0r; iiroypa^rj's vofila-fiara ly. a/i^v. both as not being clear and because he saw that more letters were there. If the page, which has long been sub- jected 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 ' H revera scriptum fuisse postea cum impetrassem, ut tinctura chemica huic codicis loco_ admoveretur, meis oculis vidi,' and renders the whole ' eSodrj inrep ypa4>rjs vofita-fiaTa ly, VTrep TrepyafirjvSv vop.ifr- ^ara— 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 intercedunt discrimina. Sic igitur habeto,' he adds scornfully, 'scriba postea quam eadem scribendi supellectile uno tenore totum exaravit codicem, bis eam mutavit ut scilicet parvulas istas notulas adjungeret.' This is strong language. The page has been much rubbed and the letters patched ; under the circumstances Gaisford's remark, ' ab eadem manu sed paullo negligentius et dierum aliquot intervallo scripta,' may cover the second subscriptio in relation at least to the first. We must note, however, that the form of subscriptio — eypd<(>rj xeipl "Zrecjxivov, 'loxivvov, Badvovs — is common to three Mss. which belonged to the same individual, a fact which may incline us to hold that he was the writer in eacli case. If Arethas wrote the subscriptio, it would almost seem to follow that he likewise lettered the quaternions of the Ms. We might add some facts about this literary archbishop's book account, as well as about other interesting matters, but space imperatively forbids. III. Codex Codex t Venetus. It remains to deal with the third of the great Platonic Mss., and venetus. after the details given in connection with the two older ones the description may be comparatively brief. It is described in the Catalogue as append, class. 4. cod. i. membr. in fol. It is bound in wood covered with dark brown stamped leather which is a good deal injured on the back and at the corners. The contents fall into four portions — 1. The first which Schanz calls t^ consists of four leaves on which are written the Timaeus Locrus I r.-3 v. : UXovrdpy^ov hriToprj rov Trepl tiJs ^v tZ Ti/iaico \}ni)(oyovla 3 v. — 4 r. : an index of the dialogues in the Thrasylean order, followed by the epistles and definitions, to which succeed No^evojuevof oSrot jravTes, consisting of inpl ctKatou, inpl d.psTTj'S, AjjyaoSo/cos, Sicrv^os, 'AkKvmv, 'Epv^ias, 'Af lo^os, and twenty more, extending from ME to SA and concluding 'oMOr SA : 2. The second and chief part, called by Schanz ti of which the contents are these, written, as will be seen from the specimen, in two columns. The titles are in red, the first one being double, and are repeated in black at the ends. After the first the author's name does not, with 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. ^^S^*!?^*^^^'''*'*^ .y W s'ti'^mfr'H*^''rt^^^ 'inntiB .1*' iSkL-jr- v^i'i , t^*-tj iLatum »»*U i "rt A'***" ; T* ur T- iiSrr:* ■«•' ^ '^vi<*i'< »l^^-«r» iW/y; ^U« ffytf • w// •••»? "Ic^ "^P^P^Iili )dC m^^ f^ ..(j«v . f'^^ff^ ■^Hocwf ,^|»P^« w^iWv :v:'^W^ ■ .' s- -■:»;• cxxu 29-30. W line price ours, makt beca jecte awaj can whic posti vidi,' writt sunt inter cade scilicj mud eade seco form whic the ' folio abou but III. Codex CODEX 1 Venetus. after the deta brief. It is bound in woe back and at tl 1. The f Locrus I r.-3 of the dialogL No^evoyufvof 2. The s as will be SC' double, and £ one exceptior from the title are lettered i the pages. .' pL otriov • . •> — r//£ CHIEF MANUSCRIPTS. cxxiii Begins Ends 1 5 r. i. (no nAoTuvos) — 8 r. ii. upper margin. ■ red IIAaTajvos ^vdvp(ov, fj tt otriov. o A,, kpurriK : black- B StoK/aaTovs 'AjToAoyta 8 r. ii. i6 14 r. i. r KpiriDv ■>) TTipl irpaKTov 14 r. ii. up. marg. — 16 v. ii. in the margin by another hand is rj mpl So^rjs d'Xijdovi Kal SiKaiov : A ^aiSmv rj wepl v^vx^js : 17 r. i. — 31 V. ii. E KparvXoi, etc. 31 V. ii. 34 — 42 v. ii. S GeatTjjTos, etc 42 V. i. 23 — 56 v. ii. 1^ The ending is IIAaTuv Qealrrjr i] w iTntrrq : So^to-TJjs, etc. 56 V. ii. 23 — 67 r. ii. The ending is simply a-oum^s H IIoAiTiKos, etc. 67 r. ii. 25 — 78 V. ii. 6 See facsimile 78 V. ii. 40 — 87 V. ii. I 4'iA7jy8os, etc. 87 r. i. 27 — 97 V. ii. AI ^vfiTToo-iov, etc. [numerals so] 97 V. ii. 33 — 108 V. i. BI ^atSpo^, etc. 108 V. i. 36 — 119 r. i. n 'AA/ctyStaSiys a ■^ ir, (j), dvov 119 r. i. 33 —125 r. i. AI )) H » » 125 r. i. 50 — 127 V. i. EI "iTTTrapxoS, etc. 127 V. ii. up. marg. — 129 r. i. SI 'Epoo-Tai, etc. 129 r. i. 17 —130 r. ii. ZI Geayi;s y irepl (roffitas : 130 r. ii. 40 —132 r. ii. HI XttjO/iiSiys, etc. 132 r. ii. 41 —137 r. i. le Aax^ys rj TTipl dvSptias' (ot -Spias) 137 r. i. 26 — 141 V. i. K Avo-is, etc. 141 V. i. 20 —145 V. i. KA EvdvSrjfios, etc. 145 V. i. 10 — 152 V. i. KB UpoiTayopas, etc 152 V. ii. up. marg. —163 V. i. Kr Topyias, etc. 163 r. i. 43 — 178 V. ii. [KA] Mevwv, etc. [numeral faded] 178 V. ii. 22 — 184 V. i. KE 'iTTTTtas /xeL^wv rj jrepl tov kuXov 184 V. i. 25 — 189 V. i. KS „ iXixTTOiv „ „ : 189 V. i. 25 — 192 r. i. KZ "luv rj TTcpl 'lAtaSos 192 r. ii. up. marg. —194 V. i. KH Meve^evoi ^ 'firiraKpios 194 V. i. 29 —197 V. ii. 44 The last four represent Tetralogy vii. which is not found in 31. The Menexenus ends on line 44, then a line is missed, and on line 46 comes, in the same hand as that which gives the ending of the dialogue, re Aos TOV a Pi^kiov : KG K\eiToSv, etc. 198 r. i. up. marg. — 198 V. ii. A It IIAaTuvos IIoAiTetas. ^ jrcpi SiKat A 199 r. i. ]> — 205 V. ii. e nAaTOJi/ HoXiTiiat ^ jr SiKoiov B IIAaTUVOS IIoAiTttos. ^ wcpi 205 V. ii. 24 — 212 r. i. 212 r. i, 45 — 212 V. ii. r SiKoiov. The closing words of this part of the Ms. are a-to^potrvvq^ apa oi 8e^o-ei Steph. 389 d. The endings of the two first books are IIoAtTei'os v "■«/>' Sikmov A and B. cxxiv THE PARMENIDES. The next portion (tj) includes the rest of the Republic, 213 r. — 255 v. ; and the last (tg) gives the Timaeus, 256 r. — 265 v. : so that the Ms. does not contain all that is specified in the Ttiva.^. These two portions are clearly distinguishable from the oldest by the character both of the parchment and of the writing: Schanz refers them to the 15th — i6th century. It is with the oldest portion alone that we have to do. The vellum is firm, well preserved, and of the same yellowish tint as that of the other two codices. The dimensions tested by fol. 67 are in centimetres 37'i x 28'S : the length of the writing space in the columns is 2$'\, while the breadth of the two columns is 9*3, 9-4 : the space between the columns is 2'5. The margins as usual come in the order inner, upper, outer, lower; and the breadth of the two last is considerable, more than 4, but it varies with the cutting and binding in each leaf. The ruling is done much after the fashion described in A, only that the writing lines number 50. All the perpendicular lines, which include one near the outer edge of each outer margin, and the 1st and soth 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 and a six. These divisions are— except where injured — lettered in the original 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 to indented in pairs, and two pairs are stitched as a quaternion. The lines, as will be seen from the facsimile, almost cut the writing in the middle. While the headings and numerals are, as we have seen, in red, the colour of the initial letters varies between very dark brown, as in the Parmenides, and red as in the Philebus ; and the body of the work is in dark brown. Paragraphs are not marked by projecting letters. In point of ornaments and initial letters the Ms. takes a middle place between A and %. The character of the writing will be seen from the facsimile. Rhein. Mus. Schanz after a careful study of all three codices is not satisfied with the date assigned in the -rxii,!. ,678. catalogue, 12th century, and says ' wir haben ein holieres Alter anzunehmen.' The text as 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 % and t, and one may note that in both there are the same double forms for the letters ix, y, «, A, v. At the same time the letters in t are much less neatly finished; while not only have we the modern printed form for vr, the c form for cr, and the capitals B, A, H, N at intervals in the text, but in addition to the ordinary abbreviation for /cat, which is constant, many contractions are employed which never appear in 21 at all. Thus the facsimile alone gives examples of the following terminations : and of some of the following words : — -f (OS = C'XA , A avS/DCs =av Se = dvOpWTTOv = dvov elvai = apa, apa = Q^ ^ (^ i /N'JUiU'^^tvm-'^tn , k. .^ w-'tTt^JUUfNtlAHt *. H « TTlAsiw Jivj" Kflfil^ l?ti*^"-', 154 >i< ;'N. HAPMENEIAHS H il ^AEiiN >■< AOTlKf Tj^'jrej^i; a6ijva^e oiKoOev ck KXa^ofxevwv av tjfiets Swaxoi, (ftpa^e: oKKa fiev Sij, eiirov eyta, irapeifu ye eir avro tovto, Se- ria-o/xevos v/jloiv : \iyoK av, er], Ttjv Setia-iv : Kol eyw etirov, tco aSe\- w vfxwv Tip ofjLOjULrjTpio) Tt ^v ovofia ; oi yap fi.efjt,vrjf/.aL' Traiy Se TTOv ^v OTe TO irpoTepov iireSiifiricra Sevpo e/c KXa^o/mevcov, TroXi/y Se fjSij xpo'vos e^ eKelvov tw /mev yap •iraTpl, Sokoo, TrvptXafiTnji ovofxa: vdwye: avT(p Si ye] avTi<}>wv' aXKa t'l fioKuxTa irvvQavei] O'lSe, eTirov eyii, iroXiTal fA.oi elai, [xaka (ptXocro^oi' OKtjKoaai re on ovTOS 6 avTKpwv 'TrvOoSwpb) Tivi, ^ijvctivoi eTaipw, TroXXa evTe- TvxVKe' Kal Tovs Xoyovs ovs iroTe awKpaTtis Kat ^rjvwv Kai irap- fxevelSr]!} SieXex6w»v, "TToXXcxKii aKOvcrai tov TrudoSwpov, u-tto- fivrifjiovevei : , aXtjd)}, e(f>r], Xiyeis : tovtmv to'ivvv, eiTrov, SeofieOa SiaKova-ai : aXX' ou xaXeTroV, e^rf fteipaKiov yap Stv avTOVi eO fiaXa SieixeXerria-eV eirel vvv ye, kuto, tov ircnrirov re Koi o/xcavvfiov, vpoi iTTinxy TO. TToXXa Siarplfiei. aXX', ei Set, I'wfjiev Trap avTOV apTi yap t jBbs Cephalus, I asked Adi- mantus, on meet- ing him and Glauco at Athens, if I and some philosophic townsmen from Clazomenae could hope to hear his half- brother Antipho repeat a discus- sion which once occurred between Socrates, Zeno, and Parmenides and which he had committed to memory from the dictation of one Pythodorus, an associate of Zeno's. Yielding to per- suasion Antipho spoke as follows. Zeno and Par- menides came once to the great Panathenaea, Parmenides be- ing about sixty- iive and Zeno near forty, 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. 3'. Do I rightly take you, Zeno, to say that unless existing things are at once like and unlike — ■ which is im- possible—they cannot be ' many ' ; that it is your aim to show thus that they are not many ; and that each of your arguments is so much proof to this effect? ivOevSe o'tKaSe o'lxeTai' oiKei Se eyyvs ev jueKiTU. ravra enrovTe^ e- ^aSl^ofxev' /cat KareXd^ofxev rov avTKpusvra o'tKOi xaXtwi' rtva xaX/cet eKSiSovra cncevaam. eTreiSrj Se CKeli/ov airriKKayt] o'l re aSeXv eveKa irapeifxev, aveyvcopiarev re /xe e/c tijs Trpore- pas eTnSTjfxlaf Kal p-e rjcnra^eTO. Kol Seop-evuiv rifjLuiv SteXOetv Tovg Xoyovi TO pev irpwTOv coKvei, iroXv yap e(pr} epyov elvaf eirevra pev- TOi SitjyecTO : e] nvapa too indoSwpui, eKTO? Tei)(ovi ev KepapeiKM' oi S>j km acptKeaOai tov Te (T0OKpaT>] Kai aXXouy Tcvas peT avTOv TToXXov?, eiviQvpovvTa's aKovcrai tcov tov ^tjvwvo's ypap- paTOOv' TOTe yap avTa irpcoTOV vir eKeivcav KoiuicrOtjvai. craiKpaTij Se elvai TOTe cr^oSpa veov. avayiyvia-Keiv ovv avToh tov ^/jvco- va avTov, tov Se irappeveiSijv Tvxeiv e^w ovTa' kui elvai wdvv ^pa- XV eTi Xoiirov twv Xoywv avayiyvaxTKopevwv ^viKa aiiTOf ts e- ireiireXdeiv ev TpiaKovTa yevopevov, Ka\ a-p'iKp aTTa bti e-jraKovcrai twv ypappuTOiV ov pr/v avTOi ye, dXXa Kal irpoTepov oKtjKoevai TOV ^ijvwvo?. tov ovv awKpaTt] aKoucravTa -rrdXiv Te fCeXevcrai t>]v TrpooTtiv VTroOetrtv tov irpwTOv Xoyov dvayvSsvai, Kai avayvwa-dela-iji, ■ttco?, avai, & ^ijvcov, tovto Xeyeis ; ei voXXa ecTTi TU ovTa, toy apa Sei avTo. opoid Te elvai Kal avopoi- a- TOVTO Se St] dSvvaTov, ouTe yap to. dvopoia opoia ovTe to. bpoia avopoia o'lov Te eivaC ovx ovtoo Xeyei^] ovtw, (pdvai tov ^tjvwva : ovK ovv el aSvvuTOv to Te dvopoia opoia ' ehai Kal Ta opoia avopoia dSvvaTOv St; Kal iroXXa eivai, el yap iroXXd el}] irdcTXOi av to. dSuvaTa; apa tovto ecxTiv o jiovXovTai crov ol Xoyoi, OVK aXXo ti t] SiapdxecrQai irapa irdvTa to. Xeyopeva m? ov TToXXa ecTTi ; Kal tovtov avTov o'lei a-oi TeKpripiov elvai eKaa-Tov TU)v Xoywv, wa-Te Kal tjyei ToaavTa TeKp)]pia Trapexea-Oai oo'oi/f 165 irep Xoyov? yiypaa9, w? ovk ea-ri TroWd ; oiirco Xeyez?, rj iyw ov- K op65>9 KaTa^av6du(x)\ ovk, dXXdj (fidvai rov ^}]V(jova, KaXw^ av- vi}Kaf}(nv ehai, tck- fXTipia Se avro9 TrafnroXXa Ka). irafXfxeyiOri Trapix^Tau to ovv top fxev €V ^apai TOP Se jmrj TroXXa, Kai ovTCog eKaTepov Xeyeiv cocrre fxrjSev tcop av- T(Jov eiptjKipac Sokcipj ax^Sop ri XeyoPTag Tavrd, virep ^/xay tovs aX- Xovg (paiperat v[xlp ra eiprjjixepa eip^crOai : pal, ^dvat top f)/j/o)j/a, cS cco- /CpaTeg' crv S ovp Trjp aXriQeiap tov ypdfXfxaTog ov Trapraxov ^(tOj]- crai' KaiToif warirep ye at XaKaivai"^ CTKvXaKegt ev /meTadetg re koc ixi^efey Ta XexOePTa- aXXa irpwTOP fxep ce tovto XavOdpet, oti ov TrapTdiracrip ovTCo crefxyvperat. to ypdfxfxa cocTTe airep crv Xeyeig SiavorjOep ypa^rj- pat, Tovg dpOpdyrovg Se eiriKpvirTOixevop wp tl fxeya SiairpaTTOfxepop. aXXa (TV fxep etireg tcop a-vfx^eprjKorwp ti' ecTTi Se, to ye aXriQeg, PoriQeid Tig TavTa ra ypdfXfMaTa tw irapfxeveiSov Xoycp Trpog Toi/g einx^i- pouvTag avTOP KO)/jL(pSeiPy wg, ei ev ecTTi, TroXXa Kat yeXoia avjUL/Salvei iraa-x^t-v tm Xoy(p Kat epavTia avT(t\ apTiXeyei Srj oSp tovto to ypdp.- fxa irpog Tovg Ta TroXXa XeyoPTag* Kat dpTairoSiSwcn Tavra Kat irXel- 0), TOVTO ^ovXojUL€vov SrjXovp, wg €Tt yeXoiOTcpa Trao'xoi ap avTcop jJ v7ro6e€P, axTTe ovSe ^ovXevcraa-Qai e^eyepero eW e^oiaTeop av~ TO eig TO (pm e'cTC fXYj. TavTU y ovp ce XavQdpei, & o-wKpaTeg^ on ovx ^- TTo P€ov (piXopetKiag oiei avTO yeypd^Oat, aXX' vtto 'jrpea-pvrepov ^i- XoTifilag' eirel, oirep y etirop, ov KaKcog aireiKacrag : aXX airoSexo- f4aif (pdpat top a-WKpuTrjy Ka\ ^yovjixat wg Xeyeig ex^iP^ ToSe Se julol eiire' ov POfJLi^eig eivai avTo KaO' avTO etSog ti 6jULOtoTi]Tog, Kai Tip toiovtoj av aXXo Tl evavTiop o ecTiv dpo/notop ; tovtoip Se Svotp optoip Kat ewe Kat (re Kai TaXXa, a Sij TroXXa KaXovfj.ep, /neTaXajuL^dpeip ; Kai rd fiep Trjg o- /jLoiorrjTog fxeTaXafx^d^poPTa ofioia yiyveaOai, ravrf] re Koi Kara to- Beia. \aKta VLK tp ' y Z, You have well caught my pur- pose. S. I see, Parmenldes, that while Zeno has in a sense written the same thing as you, he tries by a change to make us think it different. You say 'the whole is one ' ; he says ' the whole is not many '. I'he distinction, if there be one, seems too high for such as we. Z. The ambi- guity is acciden- tal. My argu- ments had the humble aim of supporting Par- menides against the scoffs of opponents, who urge that many absurdities arise if it be ' one '. I say — were their hypothesis of 'many* assumed, the re- sults if followed out must be still more laughable. But the work was written in a fit of zeal when I was young, and some one pub- lished it without my sanction. S. I understand. But do not you accept the exist- ence of some absolute elSos of likeness, and again of unlike- ness ; and the fact that we— the many — partaking of these, are like or unlike in proportion ? 79 b I Nor would there be any wonder did we partake of both ; and so with all etSrj. The strangeness would arise were the pure 'like 'or absolute 'one* shown to be its opposite ; but not so in the case of mere participants. Of me, for example, it were easy to prove that having left-right, front- back, top-foot I am 'many'; and again that as distinguished from the others present I am ' one.' Such a proof will hold for all natural objects : it proves that ' many * and ' one * exist. But were one first to part off the etdTj which are apprehended mentally, and next to prove that these are equally subject among them- selves to union and severance — then, Zeno, with- out depreciating your valuable work, I should indeed be filled with admiration. After listening carefully, with what seemed a mixture of annoyance and pleasure, Par- menides said (TOVTOv oa-ov av fxeroKa^^avn, ra Se rrjg avofioiorrjrog avofxoia, to. 8\ afxaivu, CtyaL/uLfjv av eywy\ €(pr}f Oav/JLacrrcog, (h ^y}vwv. ravra Se avSpeicog fxev Travv ^yov/mai ireTrpayfiareva'Qai' iroXv fievr av wSe /aaXXov, cog Xeyw, ayaa-QeiYiv, e\ rig exoi rtjv avrrjv airopiav ev avroig rolg e\SecTi TravroSaTTCog TrXeKO/mevfjv, cocnrep ev roig opcofxevoig St- rfXOerey ovroog Kat ev roig Xoyiafxw Xa/m^avo/iievoLg eiriSel^ai : Xeyovrog Srit e eKacrrov axOeaOat rov re Trap/nevelSrjv /caJ rov ^rjvcova, rovg Se iravv re avrw Trpoaexeiv rov vovv Ka\ da/ma etg aXXijXovg ^Xeirovrag fxeiSiav oag ayafxevovg rov orcoKparr}, oirep ovv Kai 166 Trava-afievov avToS eiTrecv toc wapfieveiSriv' & o-coKpare?, ipdvat, w? aiiOi e? ayacrOai ri/? opfirj^ rijs eTr) touj Xoyouf /ca/ fioi eiire, av- TOi (TV ovTW SiyptjO-ai m Xiyen, Xfop'f /J-ev eU>] avrd arra x»'- ph Se TO. TOVTOiv aS fxerixovTa; km tI croi ' SoKet elvai avri] ofioio- Trjs X'^P'^ ^? ^f^eti ofiotOTtjTOS exofiev, koI ev Si] Koi iroXXa Kai -jravTa ocra vvv Stj fjji/wi/oy ^/couey- efxoi ye, (pavai rov awKpa- Tt] : § KOI Ta TOtavra, eliretv top -TrapneveiSrjv, otov Sckuiov ti elSos avTO KaO avTO, km koKov /cot ayaOov koi iravTwv av t5>v toiovtoov] vol, (f>avai : ti S', avQpiinrov etSo^ X'*'P'? ^f^atv Koi twv oioi ^yueis icrfiev iravTcov, avTo ti elSoi avQpwirov tj Trvpoi >j kui vSaTog : ev airopia, (pavai, xoXXaACj? &J, cb Trap/xeveiSt], irepi avTwv yeyova, TTOTepa XPI 4'^vai Sxrirep irepi sKeivoov rj aXXtof : ^ Kat irepi TwvSe, CO (TWKpaTe?, a koi yeKoIa So^etev av elvai, olov 6p)^ /cat x^jXo? koi pviros tj aWo o ti aTt/JLOTUTOv re koi ipavXoTaTov, onropeis the XPI ipavai Koi tovtoov eKacTTOv elSoi etvai X'^P^^t ^i/ aXXo av twv TpSe^ wv ri- fieis fieTaxeipi^ofieOa, etre koi yur/j ovSafiwi, ^avai top t7WKpa- Trj, aWa TavTa /iev ye, airep opHfiev, TavTa Kal elvaf elSoi Se ti avTWv olrfirivai elvai fii] Xiav y utottov. ijStj fxevTol TroTe fie ku] eOpa^e firi Ti irepi nravTWv tuvtoV eireiTa ot av TavTU 'icrTW, ^evywv o'lxo- fiai Seiaras fiij ttots e'ls tip a^vQov iii, elvai e'lSrj uttu wv TaSe Ta aXXa lieTaXafJL^avovTa Tas eircovvfjitas avTwv 'icrxeiv, olov ofioiOTijTO? fiev fxeTaXa^ovTa ofJLOia, p-eyeOovi Se fxeyaXa, koXXovs re Kal SiKai- oa-vvris S'lKaia re Kal KoXa ylyveaOai] Travv ye, (pdvai tov awKpaTn- OvK ovv r/TOi oXov tov e'lSovs 17 /JLepovs eKacrTOV to fieTaXa/x.^avov fieTaXafi^dvei, 5j aXXr] tis uv /xerdX)?!/"? X'"/''? tovtmv yevoiTO ■ Kai TTwg av ; elirev : voTepov ovv SoKei aoi oXov to elSo? ev cKaaTcp ei- vai TWV TToXXwv ev ov, rj ttws : ti yap KwXvei, ^dvai tov a-wKpaTrj, w ■n-apfieviSri, ev etvai : ev apa bv Koi TavTOV ev voXXok X^P'? '"^<^"' 79 b 3 els dv}xhv iKLvijae rds (fypevas 5te- T Do you then hold thai 'one,' 'many,' ' likeness,' and so on exist as elOTj apart from their equivalents among us ? *$". I do. P. And 'justice/ 'beauty,' 'worth'? ^. Yes. P, And likewise such as 'man,' 'fire,' ' water ' ? S. Th ere Ihave often felt a difficulty. P. And even in the apparently absurd cases of hair or mud ? S. Those visible objects I accept as existing, but it seems monstrous that they should have €t8r]. Indeed I have sometimes feared it might be so with all. The other classes form my present study. P. Years will strengthen in you the philosophic mind. You hold, then, that there are €i5t}, and that things around us derive their names from participaiion in these— big things, for example, from 'bigness'? ^. By all means. P. That which par- takes must do so in either whole or part of the eldos. Which do you choose? S. Why not the whole V P. Then while itself one and the same the cl5o$ is wholly in many separate things, and so becomes separate from itself. S. How so ? Day is everywhere, yet not thus divided. P, What ! You cover men with a sail — does the whole or a portion rest on each? S. A portion. P. The etdyji then, are divided ; and thus things are big or equal when possessing a mere fraction of ' big- ness' or 'equality' which cannot be equal to the whole : and when anything has a fragment of ' smallness,' ' smallness' must be larger than this part, while that to which the part accrues is thereby smaller than before I S. This cannot be. P. But again : do you reach your several etdr} by comparison — 'bigness,' for example, being the appearance common to many big things? If so, talcing the bigness thus reached you will always get an- other by a new comparison ; so that your €l5t) in each case will prove innumer- able. S. What if each e^oos be a conception existing only in minds ? 80 a ] u oXov dfjLa ev eaTat, Koi ovTOof avro avTOv x^ph dV ew?: ovk av, el ye, dvai, olov e'lrj rjfxepa, i] fxla koi rj avrrj ovaa iroKXaxov cifia eari Kai ovSev ri fxaWov avrrj avrtj? X'*'P'-^ iariv, e! oi/'tw km e/cao-roi/ twv eiSoov ev iracriv dju-a ravrov e'ltj '. ^Sews ye, ^avai, S> arwKpaTe?, ev tuvtov a/J.a voWa- \ov iroieh, otov el la-Tia) Kara'TreTacras iroXXovs uvdpwTTOvg ^airjs ev eirl -TroWotg elvai oXov. rj ou to toiovtov rjyei Xeyeiv] icrwy, ecrToi • aSwuTOv : aXXa tov crfiiKpou ftepos Tl? ^liiwv e^er tovtov Se avTOv to afxiKpov fxei^ov ecrTai dVe fie- pov? eavTOv bvTOs- Kai ovtco Syj avTO to ap-iKpov fiei^ov ecrTar atpe6ev, tovto afUKpoTepov eiXTai dXX' ov p-ei^ov r/ irpiv : OVK dv yevoiTO, ; koi ovk av en Traavai' eveKacTTOv eaTiT^vvorifxaroyVy Vorifxa Se ovSevo^] aW aSwuTOv, eiireiv : aWa rtvo^] vac: opTog rj OVK ovTog] oirro?: ovx €P09 rivog, o eiri iracnv cKeivo to voi-j/ma e_- TTOV voet^, /Jiiav Ttva ovcrav XSeav] vai : elra ovk elSos ea-Tdt tovto to voovfxevov ev eivai, atei bv to avTO eiri Traa-iv] avayKt) av aiv€Tai : TL Sat Si] ; etTTGtv tov Trap/JLeveLSrjVj ovk avayKH rj TuXXa (p^£ twv el- Sijov /j.€T€X'^tv rj SoK€i cTOt €K vorj/jLaToov cKaa-Tov elvai Kol iravTa voelvj r]vo'i}/J.aTaovTaavof]Ta€TvaL) aXX ovSe tovto, (pavai^ex^iXoyov. aXX',c5 TTapfxeveiSfj, fxaXia-Ta e/mot ye KaTa^atveTat (hSe ex^iv Ta fxev elSrj TUVTa SxTirep irapaSeiyfxaTa ecxTavat ev r^ (pvcret, to, Se aXXa tovtoi? eoiKevai Kai elvai o/JiOLO)jiiaTa' Kat ^ fxeOe^ig avTt] to?^ aXXoi9 yi- yvecrOai tS>v eiSwv ovk oXXtj t'i9 rj etKacrOrjvai avTOi^ : ec ovv ti, e- ^Tj, eoiKev Tw elSei, olov^ re eKeivo to elSo^ jurj ofxoiov eTvai tw etKaa-QevTi, kqO ocrov avTW aavaty S (ru>KpaTeg, ocrfj ^ aTTOplaj eav T19 elStj ovTa avTa Ka6^ avTa Stopi^fjTat; Koi fxaXa: ev toIvvv TarOty opi^6fxevog O^crei?: irm <5';; elireiv. iroXXa fxev Kat aXXa, avai Tov crcoKpuTfj : orif w o-wKpareg, otfiai &v koL al kol aXKoVy ocrri^ ai)T>/v Tii^a Ka& avrh^ eKacTTOV ova-lap rlOerat elvai, o/noXoyrja-ai dp irptoTOp fj.lv /ixrjSe jmlap ovtcop etvai ep r}fxtv : ttw? yap ap avrr} Ka- 6' avTrjv en eii] ; (pdvat tov crcoKpaTf] : /caXoSy Xeya?, eiTreiP. ovk ovv Koi. ocrai rcjov I'Secov irpog aW^Xag ela-iv at eiaip, avrat Trpo^ avrag Tfjv ova-lav exova-iPj aAX' ov ivpog ra irap ^/lAtP eire ofioicojUiaTa ei- T€ oTTij St] Ttg ahra TlOerai, Sp rifxetg fMerexovreg ehat e/catrra eTrovofxa^ofxeOa' ra 8e irap ^juliv Tavra, ojtxcovv/ma ovra GKeivoig, avra av irpog avrd earip aXX ov irpog Ta eiSt]' Kai eavrcov aXX ovk e- Kclvcov oa-a aS ovo/na^eTai ovtw^\ ttw? Xeyeig ; p eiScov ovSeVj eireiSt] avT>jg eTriaTijjUfjg ov fxeTexofJ-^p : ov- K eoiKev: ayvwcrTov apa rj/uiiv Kai avTO to KaXov o ea-Ti, Ka] to dyaQov fCai TraPTa a Sfj cog I'Seag avTag ovaag viroXaix^avofxep : kivSv- vevei : opa Srj en tovtov SeiPOTepov ToSe : to ttoiov : ^attjg av ^ ovf etirep earip avro ti yevog e'TTiaTr^/jitjgj ttoXv avTo aKpi^earepov ei- vat rj Tt]P 'Trap t]/j.ip e'iria-Ti]/jirjv ; kui KoXXog Kai rdXXa TravTU ovro); 158 vai : ovK oSi/, etirep ri aWo avr^i ein]v aKpi^ecTTOTtiv eirurniiJ.riv : avayKti : ap oSv ojos Te av ecrrai o 0eoj to. irap fifuv yiyvuxTKeiv avrriv eTnarTr'nxriv ex<«)f| Tl yap ov : on, e^fcij o xap/xevetcSijj, MfioXoytirai ^fxiv, to a-wKparef, nrj- re eKetva to eiSij irpoi Ta irap' fifxiv rhv Siivap.iv exeiv rjv e'xei, /J.>]Te TO. Trap' iifuv Trpoi sKeiva- aXX' avra irpbs avra e/carepa : w/j.d\6yt]- rat yap- ovk oSv, el vapa tw 6ew avrr] itrTiv ij aKpi^ecrTaTt] Sea-TroTtla Kot avTi] ^ CLKpi^eiTTaTri eiriaTriiM], ovt av ri Sea-iroTela i] eKelvwv ^yucoi' TTOTe av Seariroa-eiev, ovt av t] evLcrTrifxri fip.ai yvoirj ovSi Ti aX\o ruiv Trap tjfuv. aXX ofioicos ijjULeis re eKetvwv ovk apxop.£v ry vap ^puv ap- XJiJ ovSe yiyvuKTKOfiev tov Beiov ovSev t^ tjixeripa eTncrrrip-if e- Keivol re av Kara tov avTOv \6yov oure SeanroTai fnxwv eicrlv outs yi- yvwoTKOvcri to. avOpmreta irpayfiaTa Qeol ovres : aWa p.^ Xlav, e^t], OavpaoTOi o Xoyoy ei Tt? tov deov air ocrrepriaeie tov eiSevat : Tavra pevTOi, & orwKpaTes, e(pt] 6 •jrappevelStji, Koi eTi aXKa irpoi tov- TOii Trdw TToXXa avayKatov ex^iv Ta eiSt], ei elaiv avTai ai I'Seai tHov ovtoov Ka\ opteiTat Tti avTO ti eKa] Kad avT^v, ert ^6 OavpacTTOTepov tov evpjjcrovTOi Ka\ aXXov Svvtjcropevov SiSa- ^ai TavTU "jravTa iKavHos SievKpivriarapevov : ervyxi^pti croi, etjiri, Ul TrappevelSt], 6 o-WKpaTijs- Trdvv yap pot Kara vovv Xeyetv : aXXa pivTOi, elnrev 6 TrappevelSt]?, et ye Tig Sri, Si (TWKpaTeg, ad pt] ea(rei_ e'lSri Tcov ovTWv etvai, eis TravTa to. vvv St] Kat aXXa roiavTa airo- pXhJrag, prjSi Ti opieiTai eiSos evos eKacrTOV, ovSe ottoi rphlrei Ttiv Sidvotav e^ei pi] eS>v i'Seav Twv ovtcov eKacrTOV tyiv avTrjv aiei elvat, koi ovt(»s t^v tov StaXiyea-Oac Svvapiv ■xavTaTracri Sia- (jtOepel. TOV TOiovTOv pev ovv pot SoKeis Kat paXXov na-QrjaQai : aXtjOrj Xeyeti, ^dvai : ti ovv iron]v elSa^v evevoYjo-a yap Kat Trpwrjt/ crov aKOVCov SiaXey ofievov ev- OdSe aptcrroriXec rcpSe. KoXij (xev ovv Ka\ Oelay eu i'a-9i, r) opfxij fjv 6p- jULag eTTi tol*? Xoyovg' eXKvarop Se aavrov Kai yvfxvaa-ai fxaXXov Sia T^9 SoKOva-rjg axpyi<^TOV elvai Kat KaXovfj.evrii]' xpt] Se Kat roSe eVt 7r/)o? TOVT(p iroielv, /mrj fj.6- vov el ecTiv eKacTTOv viroriQefxevov (TKOTreiv ra crvfx^aLvovTa e/c t?? V7ro6ea-e(jogy dXXa Kai el /mj ecrri to avro touto vTrorldecrOai, el ^ovXet fxaXXov yvfxvao-QyjvaL : ttw? Xeye/y ; (pavat : olov, efpr}, el ^ovXei irepl TavTfj's Trj<5 viroQeaew^ rjv ^tjvwv vireOeTO, el TroXXa ecTTi, tl xph oi/jm- ^aiveiv Koi airol^ toI^ ttoXXoi^ irpo^ avTa kui Trpo? to ev, Kai T(j> e- vl TTpos re avTO Kat Trpos Ta TroXXd' Kai av, el jurj eaTi iroXXd, irdXiv (tko- Treiv TL avfx^YicreTaL Kat tw ev\ kcu to2<5 ttoXXoi^ koi tt/so? avTu, Kat TTpos aXXiiXa. Kai avOig aS euv viroQn el ea-Tiv ojULOioTrj^ rj el jultj ecrTiv, Tl e(j) eKaT€pa<^ TtJ9 VTroOecrew^ cru/ui/3r](TeTat Kai avTOi^ TOig viro- Tedeia-iv Kai T019 aXXois Kai tt/jo? avTO. Kai irpo^ aXXrjXa. Kai irepl avofiOLOV 6 aJroff Xoyor koc irepl Km^a-ewg Kai irepl crTacreoy^t Kai irepi yevea-ew^ Kai (pOopag, koi irepl avTOV tou eivai Kai tou p.fj el- par Kai, eve Xoyw, irepl otov dv alel vTroOrj 0)9 ovto^ Kat wp ov- K ovTOS KOI o TL ovv oXXo TTOiOos TrdcTXOVTO^, Sei o-KOireiv Ta a-vfjL- /SaivovTa Trpog avTO Kai 7rpo9 ev cKacTTOV twv aXXm, o ti dv irpoeXn, Kai Trpo^ TrXeid) Kai Trpop ^vjtXTravTa wcravTcog- koi ToXXa av tt/jo? avTo. Te Kai Trpos aXXo o tl av irpoaipri alel, edv re o)? ov uTroOfj o VireTidecro edv Te w? p.}] ov, el pieXXetg TeXecog yvfj.vao-dp.evos Kvplw<5 SLo-yp-ecrOat^ to dXrjOes : dfj.r}xavov, e^rj, Xeyeis, & Trapjue- VeiStjy irpayfxaTiav, Kai ov jXiko)S€ : (iWa o-J, eiVe^i/ rov crcoKpdrrji ^^I'wvj Ti ov SirjXOe^ Y)fi.lv : /ca! toj/ ^i)vwva e^i] yeXdaavTa avaij dvTOv, (b (TcoKpaTeg, Sewjiieda irapfxevelSov fir) yap ov av\ov ^ o Xiyei. tj ovx opS? oa-ov epyov nr poaraTTei], croyKparet cvvSiofxat, i- va Kai avTO? StaKovr} 6 avTiwv (j>avai tov TrvOoSwpov, avTOv re Seio-Qai tov 'Trap/me- vetSov Kui TOV apKTTOTeXri Kai tov^ aXXov^ ivScl^acrOat o Xeyoi, Kai juLtj aXXto^ iroielv: tov ovv irapfxeveiSriVy dvdyKt}, (pdvaij 'KeiQecrQai. kuItoi SoKto fxoL TO TOV \'/3vKeL0V tTTTrov ireiTOvQevaiy w cKeivo^j a6X>]Tij ovTi Ka\ '7rpea-/3vT€p(p, vi'fe(70ai, eireiSr} Kai, o ^rjvwv Xeyez, avTOi ecrjuev. nroQev ovv Srj dp^w/neOa, /caJ TL irpwTOv vTroOrja-dfxeOa ; t] ^ovXecrOej eireiSriirep SoKet irpayfxa- TiwSrj iraiStav irai^eiv^ air efxavTov ap^wjuLai koi t^? i/uavTov v- 7ro0eVeft>9, Trepi tov evo9 avTOv viroOejUievo^j ec t€ ev ecTTiv et re /Jif] €Vj TiXph o-vixpaiveiv : iravv fxev ovv tpdvat tov ^yjvwva : rtV ovvj BiTreiVy fxoi airoKpiveiTai ; t] 6 vewTaTog ; rJKicrTa yap av TroXvirpay/mo- vol, Kai a oieTai judXicrTa av aTTOKpivoiTO' koi d/ma i/JLo\ dvaTravXa av etrj r} eKeivov airoK pterin : eTOijUiOS croi, w TrapjixeveiSfjy oip toIp €(tx<^toip eTriTrpoirOep fj] ovtco^ : ovk ovp ixepri dv exoi to ep Kac TroXXa ap eirjj eiTe evQio^ (TX^l/J'CiTog eWe Trept^epovg fxeTexoi i irapv fxep ovp : ovTe apa evOv outc Tfepi^epe^ earTiPy eTreiTrep ovSe fiepf] ex^t. : 6p9(i^ : Kai jmtjp toi- ovTOv ye OP ovSa/mov ap eiij' ovTe yap ep aXXw ovt€ ep eavTcp eitj : TTft)? S}]\ ev aXX(p fxep op kvkXw ttov dp irepiexoiTO vir ckclpov ep (h dp ep e\r}y Kai iroXXaxou dp avTOv dirToiTO iroXXol^' tov Se epo9 T€ Ka). afxepov^ Kai kvkXou jjoj /j.€T€Xopto9 aSvpaTOp 'jroXXaxu kvkXcp diTTecrOai : dSvvaTOP : dXKa fxr)p avTO ye ep eavTid op kuv eavTo elf] irepiexop ovk aXXo ^ avTO, e'nrep Kai ev eavTO) eitj' ep TO) yap TL elpat (xyj irepiexovTi dSvvaTOP : aSvpaTOv yap : ovk ojjp tTepop fjiev ap tl e\r} avTo to Treptexop, eTepop Se to irepiexop-epop' oh yap oXop ye d/JL^GO TavTOP dfxa ireta-eTai Kai Troi^aei' Kai ovtco to ep OVK ap eit} eTC ep aWa ovo : ov yap ovv : ovk apa ccttip ttov to ePj juaj- re ev avTw fXTi)Te ep aAAM ep ov : ovk ecTTiP : opa of] ovTOt)^ exov et olov Te ecTTavai rj KiPeicrOai : tl Srj yap ov ; OTi klpov/jlcpop ye ri (pe- poiTO ^ dXXoLOLTO dp' avTai yap fiopai Kipria-ei^ : pai : aXXoiovfxe- vop Se TO ep eavTOv dSvpaTOV 'ttov ev eTi elvai : aSvpaTov : ovk a- pa KaT aXXoiwo'lv ye KipeiTai : ov tpalveTac : aXX dpa T(p (pepeo-Qai ■ iVco? : Koi /mr^Py el (j>epoiTO to ePy ? toi ep T(p avT(p dv TrepKpepoiTo kvkXm r} fxeTaXXaTTOi x^P^^ eTepap e^ CTepag : apayKtj : ovk ovp /CvkXo) /x€P 7repi(pep6fJL€POP eTri. fxecrov ^e^tjKepat apayKtjy koi Ta irepl TO fxecrop (pepofiepa aXXa /xeprj ex^^v eavTOV' w Se fxriTe fiecrov p.f]Te /xepwp TrpoarrjKeij tU p-^X^^^ tovto kvkXw ttot eiri tov fxe- dpfj] vai : dp' ovp yiypecrdai cTt aSvpa- 138 160 Twrepov] ovK evvow ottd : gI h tco t/ ylyveraiy ovk amyicrj /xjjre ttw €v €K€LP(p eh'at €Tt h/yiyvofxevov, ' firir en e^w e/cetVou Travrd'jraa'iv, et irep Si] iyylyperat ] avayKti : el apa rt aWo ireta-erai rovro, eKeivo ctv fiovov 'Traaxot o5 inept] e'lt}' to fxlv yap av rt avrov t}Sr} ev cKelvca to Se e^w eifj a/xa* to Se fxtj exov fxipri ovx olov re irov ea-Tat Tpo'Trcp ovSevi oXov dfjLa fxriTe €vto avTw TrepKpepo/JLGVOVy out€ aWoiovfievov : ovk eoiKe : Kara iracrav apa Kivfja-iv TO ev OKtvyjTOV : oxlvriTOv : aXXa p.7}v kcu ehai ye (pa/xev ev tlvl avTo aSvvaTOv] (pajnev yap : ovS' apa iroTe ev rw avTta ecTiv : tI Syj : OTi ^Si] av ev eKeipcp eirj ev (p T(p avT(p eo'Tiv : ttolvv fxev ovv : aXS! ovtc ev avT(p ovTe ev aXKw olov T€ ^v ai/rw evelvai : ov yap ovv : ovSeiro- Te apa ecTi to ev ev tw afTW : ovk eoiKev : aXXa pitjv to ye fxriSeiroTe ev T(p avTip ouT€ riav)(iav ayei ov9* e(TTrjKev : ov yap olov Te : to ev a- pa, (0? eoiKeVj ov6 ea-T^jKev ovTe KiveiTut : ovkovv Srj ^aiveTai ye : ov- Se jULrjv TavTov ye ouTe eTep(p ovt€ eavTW eaTat, ovS* av CTepov ovtb avTov ovTe eTepov av enj : tt^ S}]\ erepov jmev irov eavTOu ov evo$ 6Tepov av e\rjy Kai ovk av eirj ev: aXi^Oi}: Kai jULf]V TavTOv ye eTepo) ov cKeivo av eirjt avTO o ovk av eiij' waTe ovo av ovTCog eirj oirep earTiv, eVj aXX' eTepov evo Tij iv yiyveTai : aXXa t/ /jlw: Toh -jroXXok toutov yevop-evov UoXXa avayKT) ylyvea-Oai, aXX' ovx ''^^ • ^^V^^ • <^^^* ^^ '^^ ^^^ ^^^ '^^ '^^^' Tov iinSap-ii Scaipepeif owoTe ti toutov eyiyveTo ale\ av Iv eytyve- TO- KOL OTTOTeev, TOVTOV I TTCiw ye : el apa to ev eavTW TavTOV ecTTaiy ovx ^^ eavTw earar koI ovtw ev ov ovx ^^ '^o-Tat : aXXa p-hv tovto ye a- Bi b ] only that which has parts can come to be in a thing into which it has not yet quite got, and wholly outside of which it is no longer. Thus it has no type of motion. But we showed that it was not in any- thing, therefore it is never in the same thing. Consequently it cannot be still. A. So at least it would seem. P. viii. Nor will it be * different from itself — else were it not one : or ' the same as the different' — else were it that different thing: or ' different from the different ' — since thedifferent alone can have difference : or ' the same as itself '^for if same were iden- tical with one, what of things that are same with the many? 14 So the one is neither 'different' from, nor ' the same,' as, either itself or the dif- ferent. A. No indeed. P. ix. Nor will it be 'like' either to itself or the dif- ferent. For that is like which has been aiTected bj' the same, and as the same is distinct from the one, if the one were like it were more than one. Again, since that is unlike which has been affected by the different, the one — being in nowaysoaffected — is in no respect ' unlike' either itself or the dif- ferent. A. So it appears. P. jt. Now : — if equal to anything it will be of the same measures with that thing, but it has no part in 'the same': and if greater or less, then, however measured, it will have as many parts as measures, and so -will not be one : while if it has but one measure it will — which is impos- sible — be equal to that. Being such as it is, then, it is neither ' equal' nor 'un- equal' whether to itself or an- other. A. Clear- ly so. P. xi. Recalling now 8i ba SvuaTOv : aSwarov apa Kat T(p evt rj eTGpov eTepov elvat rj eavTcp tuv- Tov : aSvvaTOv : ovtoo S>] exepov ye 3; tuvtov to eu out at/ avT(f out dV 6T€pcp eif} : ov yap ovv : ovSe ixrjv bfxoiov tlvi ecxTai ouS^ avofxoiov, ovTe aVT(f 0VT€ €T€p(p '. TL Slj '. OTL TO TOUTOV TTOU TTeTTOuOo? 0/J.OtOV I Pul I TOV Se ye evog x^P'? €(pavr} Trjv vcriv to tuvtov : €(j>avr} yap : aXXa firfV ei Ti TreTTOpOe x^p!? tov €P eTvai to %v^ TrXelo) av eivai ireirovOoL 3/ eV* TOVTO Se aSvvaTOv: vat: ^ ovSajucog ea-Tiv apa toutov ire'wovQo'S eluai to €1/ ovTc aX\(p ouT€ cavTW : oi/ v juev dfxtKpoTepoov Tcov Se /uLei^ovcov p-eTpoov ecTat : irwv- Ttvwv ovv Twv avTcov] aSvvaTOv: I'crov fxev apa out av eavTcp ovt€ aXXo) eirj, fxr) twv avTWv /jLeTp(t}v ov : ovkovv (jyatveTai ye : aXAa jxriv irXet- ovwv ye /uieTpcov ov rj eXaTTOVoov, oawvirep fxeTpwv too-ovtoov Kat fxe- pwv av e\tj' Kot ovto) av ovk cti ev ej -wpecr^vrepov 17 vewrcpov elvai, !; rhv avr^v >/- XiKiav exeiv rw, rotovrov ov: ovSafxw^: oCic apa av e'lij vediirepov ovSe irpea-^vrepov oii8e rijv avrijv tiXtKiav e'xou ro ev oure avru) ou- re aXXo) : ou (paiverai : up' ovv ovSe ev XP^^f "^^ -Trapdirav Suvatro iiv eivat ro ev, ei roiourov e'lrj ; »; ovk avdyKrj, edv ri fi ev xpovtfi ai'el avro avrov irpecr^urepov ylyvea-Qai • dvdyict} : ovk ovv ro ye -wpea-^u- Tepov aie\ vecorepov -wpea-^urepov] ri fxifv : ro Trperr^vrepov apa e- avrov yiyvofievov Ka\ vedrepov eavrou afia ylyverai, e'lirep /ui.eX- Xei exeiv orou Trpea-^urepov ylyverai : ttw? Xe'yei?: SSe. Sia(pepoi' erepov ' erepov ovSev Set ylyveirdai f/Sij ovro^ Sia6pov aXXa. rod /xev f/Stj ovros i/St] eivai, rov Se yeyovoros yeyovevat, rod <5e p-eXXovroi fxeXXeiv rov Se yiyvop.evov ovre yeyovevat oure fieX- Xeiv oure eivai irw Sta^opov, aXXa yiyveaOai kou aXXwj ovk elvai : avayKTj yap ovv : aXXa p.>]v ro ye irpecr^vrepov Siaop6rr]<; veoire- pov ecTTLV, Kai ovSevos aXXov. earn yap : ro apa Trpea^vrepov eavrov yiyvofievov avayKrj kui vewrepov afia eavrov yiyvecrdai : e- oiKev : aXXa yuiji* kui fiijre TrXeiu) eavrov yiyvecrdai xpovov pJire eXarrw aXXa rov Xcrov xpovov Kai yiyvecrOai eavrcp Kal eivai Kai yeyovevat Kat /neXXeiv eaeaQat : avayKtj yap ovv Kat ravra : avdy- ICri apa ecrrlv, toy eoiKev, ocra ye ev xpovtp ecrriv Kai fierexet rod rotov- rov, eKacrrov avruiv rrjv avrrjv re avro aiirw t'lXiKiav exeiv, Kat irpe- crl3vTep6v re avrov ap-a Kai vewrepov yiyveardai : KivSvvevet : aX- Xa prjv ru> ye evt rwv rotovroov waOij/j-arcov ovSev p.er>jv : ov yap fierrjv : ovSe apa xpovov avrw p.erearriv, ouS ecrnv ev rivi xpovui '■ ouKOvv StjjWi ye 6 Xoyo? atpel: r'l ovv; ro rjv Kat ro yeyove Kai ro Gy'iyvero, ov xpovov p.ede^tv SoKei crruxaivetv rod irore yeyovo- Toy- Koi fidXa: ri Sal; ro earrat Kai ro yevricrerat Kai ro yevrjOijcre- rat, ov rod eireira, rod fiiXXovro^] vat : ro Se Sri etrrt Kat ro yiyve- rat, ov rod vdv Trapovros • yrdvv fjtev ovv : ei apa ro ev ptiSafig p.t]- Sevoi juLerexei xP^^ov, ovre wore yeyovev our eyiyvero ovr t]v TTOre, ovre vdv yeyovev oure ytyverat ovre ecrnv, our eireira ye- vri fir} ovtl etri av ti avT(p f] avTOV; Kai 7r£?; ovS apa bvojma €afxev ra arvfx^aivovTa irepi avTovt iroia tto- re Tvyx^veL ovTa, Sio/jLoXoytjTea Tai/ra* oi^x ovtco] vaci opa Srj e^ apxi]9- €v el ecTTiVj apa oTov re avTO elvat fxev ova'iag Se fj-rj fxeTe- Xeiv\ ovx olov re: ovk ovv Kai ij ovcria tov evog e'lf] avj ov toutov ovca Tft) evL ; ov yap av eKeivrj ^v eKetvov ovcria J ovo av eKeivo to ev €K€tvt]g fxeTeT^ev* aXXa o/j.otov av ^v Xeyeiv ev re elvai Kai ev tv. wv oe ovx (^^'^^ ecTTiv ij VTrouecrig, ei ev ev Ti XP^ (TVfxpatveiv, a\\ ei ev ecTTCv ovx ovTO)'; Tvavv fxev ovv : ' ovk ovv wg aXXo ti a-rffxa'tvov to euTi TOV ev] avayKt} : dpa ovv otXXo 5; oTi ovalag {xeTex^f- to ev, tout av elrj To Xeyofxevov, eireiS^ av T19 J9 ova-las ctc- pov ovT€ Tcp ova-ia elvai fj ova-ia tov evog aWo, aWa tw erepia T€ Kai aXXft) erepa aXXiyAwj/: iravv fiev ovv: &o-t€ ov TavTov io'Tiv ovtc tw evl ovTe Tfi ova-ia to cTcpov : ttw? yap : tI ovv } eav irpoeXdtfieOa avrHv €iT€ ^ovXei Ttjv ovo'lav Kai to eTCpov, etrc t^v ovmav Kai to ev, crre to ev Kai TO erepov, apa ovk ev eKaa-rn r^ irpoaipia-ei irpoaipovfieQa ri- ve & opOcos €X€t Kokeia-Qai afxtporepw: Trwff- SSe, eariv ova-lav eiiretv • eariv : Kai av6is eiireiv ev \ Kcti rovro : ap ovv ovx eKarepov avroiv eipfirai = vali ti S' ; or av elirw ova-la re Kai ev,dpa ovk afi S av afi^ia op- 05? 'TTpoa-ayopevrja-Qov, apa diov re afi fiev avria elvai Svo Se M \ ovx ^^ov re: &_S av Svo ^rov, ea-ri ri9 fitiX^vh fitj ovx eKarepov av- roiv ev elvai • ovSe fila : tovtcov apa, eirei nrep avvSvo eKaa-ra a-vfi- I3alv€i etvat, koi iv av e^tj eKacrrov : ' ipalverai : ei Se ev cKaarov avrZv earrl, (rvvreOevros evos ottoIov ovv ^ivi ovv a-v^vyia ov rpia yi- yverai ra nrdvra \ vcu: rpla Se ov irepirra, koi Svo apria \ ttS? S cv : Tl Sail Svoiv ovrow ovk avdyKt] etvai Kai SU, Kai rpmv ovrwv rph, elirep virdpxei rw re Svo to Sh ev Kai tw rpla to rph ev] avdyKrj : Svoiv Se ovroiv koi Sis ovk avdyKt] Svo Sh eivai ; Kai rpilov koi rph ovk avdyKTi av rpla rph eivai\ ttw? S ov: rl Sal', rpiwv ovrm Kai Sh ovrcov, Kai Svotv ovroiv Kai rph ovroiv, ovk avdyKn re rpla Sh 7 Babj After whatever subdivisions the two still keep fast hold of each other. Now th&t which always becomes two must be — not one, but — a ' limitless num- ber.' A. So it seems. P* Hi. Think now of the one apart from being — it and its being are then di&e- rent. They differ, however, not as being and one, but as differ- rent. If so, the different has in turn a distinct existence other than both. Take any pair of these, being-different, being-one, one Mlifierent ; — they must be spoken of as both, or two. But of two each is ne- cessarily one. Now if to any of these pairs some one be added the result is three : and three are odd, while two are even : and two give twice, and three thrice ; so there will be two twice and three thrice, and three twice and two thrice. 18 dvo rpa Having, there- fore, by the existence of one every combina- tion of even and odd, we have number ; and so limitless muhi- tude, whose every portion par- takes of exis- tence, which is thus endlessly subdivided into parts. A, That is so. P. iv. But of neces- sity each of these parts is one. Thus the one clings to every single portion of being, and has as many parts as there are divi- sion : — is, in short.not a whole but a limitless multitude. Accordingly we show not merely the one-existent, but the one itself through the action of exis- tence, to be 'many.' A. En- tirely so. P, V. But parts arc parts of a whole, which circum- scribes tliem : Ssba ehai Koi rpta Slg] ttoXX^ ye: aprid re apa aprtaKLg av eitj koc ire- pirra TrepiTraKis, koi apria irepirraKi^ koi Treptrra apriaKi^'; ECTTLv ovTOo : €1 ovv TavTU ovTW? GX«, otet Tiva apiQfxov vTroXeiTrea-Qai ov ovK avayKti etvai \ ovSa/ixwg ye: el apa eanv eu, avayKti kui apiQfxov el- Vat : avayicri ; aXXa fihv apidjULOu ye oj/to? ttoXXu av e'lfj koi irXijOos a- ireipov tS>v ovraiv^ % om cnreipog apiOpiog irXriQet Kai jjl€T€X<*>v ov- alag ylyverat; Kal Travv ye: ovk ovv el ttS? apidfxo^ ovaia^ fxerex^h KCii TO fxopiov %Ka, Kat opS) oTt aSvvaTOV : fxep.€pta-fxevov apa, etirep fx>] oXov* aXXw? yap irwg ovSafxwg d/xa diraa-t Tolg Trjg ovalag fxepeatv irapea-Tat rj /j.e/j.epto-fxevov : vat : Ka) fxijv to ye fxepta-TOv TroXXij avayKt} eivat ToaavTa oaairep fiepn : avayKri : ovk dpa dXtjOfj dpTt tXeyofxeVy XeyovTeg cog irXetaTa fxeptj rj ovala vevefxrifxevri etrj' ovSe yap TrXetu) tov evog vevefAtjTai, aXX' t'a-a, wg eoiKe, tS> evt' ovTe yap to ov TOV evog aTroXeiTrcTat ovTe to ev tov ovTog^ aXX' e^taovaQov Svo ovTe aiet irapa Travra : TravTairaa-tv ovtio alveTat: ov fiovov apa to ov ev TroXXa ea-Tiv^ dXXa Ka\ avTO TO ev viro tov bvTog Stavevefxtjfxevov 'TroXXa dvdyK>] etvat : irav- Tairaat p.ev ovv : Ka\ fihv OTt ye oXov to. ixopia fioptay ireirepaafxe- vov ' av etij Acotra to oXov tocv' rj ov Trepiexerat v'rro tov oXov to. fxopt- a \ dvayKtj ; aXXa /j.r,v ro ye ireptexov irepag dv eiri : irwg S ov : to 163 €V apa ov €V re €Jcret en oXov elvai; ovk iOeX^a-ci : koi Cipyjiv Syi, m €OiK€Vy Kac TeXevrrjy koi fxio-ov exot av to ev- exoi : aXXa fxrjp TO ye ixecrov Ycrov tcou ecrxctTwv airex^f ov yap av aXXw? fxicov elfj : ov yap : Kai v anrav- Twv eoTTi, TO Se oXov ev tovtm fxr} eviy Trm eri ev ye Toh 'Tracriv ev ecTTai: ovSa/xS>s: ovSe fJLtjv ev tktl twv fxepwv el yap ev Tiai to oXov eirj To TrXeov av ev T(p eXciTTOvi eit], o ccttiv aSvvaTov : aSvvaTOv yap : pi} ov S ev TrXeocriv fifjSe ev evi /JLfjSe ev dwaai ToFy fiepecn to oXov, OVK avdyKrj ev eTepip tiv\ ehai, tj fXfjSa/uov eTi eXvai'- avayKtj'. ovk ovv /jLrjSa/JLOV fxev ov ovSev dv eifj' oXov Se ov, cTreiSij ovk ev avT^ e avTw alel ov ecTToy S)] TTOv dvdyKti alel elvai- irdw ye : t/ Sal ; to ev eTepw aiei ov ov, TO evavTtov, dvdyKt} puiSeTroT ev toutw etvai ; fXfjSeiroTe Se ov and what circum- scribes is a limit. One, then, is (one-many, whole-parts, limitless and) 'limited.' A. It seems so. P. vi. Thus it must have extremities, and, as a whole, possess * begin- ning ' ' middle * • end.* A. It must. P. vii. And so wU! have a ' shape ' — straight, spherical or mixed. ^. It will. P- viii. Thus r), a.s all the parts com- pose the whole and are contained in it, the one which is both whole and parts, is *in itself * 2) as the whole is not in the parts — whether all or some or one — if it is to be anywhere ic must (viewed as a whole) be in the different, or * in another.' A. Inevitably. P, ix. But 1) if always in itself it is always in the same, or ' is still' : while z) if always in the different it is never in the same, 20 83 a 1 and so is 'in motion.' A So. F. A. Everything is to everything either the same or different, or is part or whole to that which is so: now z) as the one is not part of itself, nor a whole to itself as part, nor different from the one, it is the same as itself: — but 2) the one was both in and not in itself, so it differs from itself:~but 3) that which differs differs from the different ; the one, then, differs not from itself but from the others : — 4) the different, again, cannot be in either the not- ones or the one, else it were the same with them : will not these, then, escape alto- gether from differing? Nay thenot-ones.tobe truly such, must be without all share in the one — they cannot even be number for that reason — nor can they be parts of the one, or the whole of it, nor the con- verse. eV Tft> avTM firjSe ca-ramty fxh ea-ro^ Se KiveccrOai • ovrtag : avdyKrj apa to ev, avro re ip eavrw alei ov Koi h erepw, am Kiveia-Qal re kou ea-ravai : v fit] evl ''£0? o ou : erepov apa av eitj ro ev rcov aAAwi/ ; erepov : opa oyi' avro re rav- rov Kai ro erepov apa ovk evavria ceXXj/Xoi? • ttw? S ou: ^ odv eOeXt]' aei ravrov ev rw erepip fj ro erepov ev r(p avrco irore elvai] ovk edekri- aei : el apa ro erepov ev ravrcp fxriSeirore eo'rai, ovSev ecrri rwv ovrcov ev th ea-riv ro erepov X/^ovov ovSeva' ei yap ovriv ovv e'lrj ev r(p, eKetvov dv rov Xpovov ev ravro) eiri ro erepov ovx oiircos; ovrco^i eTreiSrj (S' ovSeiro- Te ev r(p avrw ecrriv, ovSeirore ev rivi rwv bvrccv av eif] ro erepov: a\i]6^: ovr apa ev roi9 fJ-t] ev ovre ev rw evi eveiri av ro erepov : ov yap ovv ; ov- K apa Tw erepip y av enf\ ro ev rSiv firj ev, ovSe rd fxri ev rod evo^t erepa: ov yap : ovSe fxrjv eavroig ye erep av eiT] aWyXijov, fxt} fxerexovra rov ere- pov : TTwg yap : e! Se jua^re avroig erepd ecrri fxrire Tip ereptp, ov Trdvru i;o»; av eKafi€v ra /z^/re fxopia fxnre oXa /xrjre erepa aXXriXm ravTo. ca-ea-Qat aXXyjXoi^ : e^a^ej/ yap : ^w/^ei/ apa Ka\ ro 'iu nrpo^ TO. fxii h ovrw^ g^ov to avro ehai avroi^] aurj, koi raXXd irov erepa dv €K€lpov ei^] rl {x^v : ovk ovv ov- CO? €T€pOV TWV oXXtiiVy WCTTTep KOI ToXXa €K€LV0V, Ka\ OUT€ jULoXXoP OVTC ^TTOV'-Tiyapav: elapa fxijre fiaXXou firjTe^Trop.o/uLoiwg] val: ovk o5u fj erepov eivai ireTrovQev twv aXXwv koc raXXa cKeivov waavrcog, ravTH TavTOP ap ireiropOoTa elep to re ep to?? aXXoi^ koi raXXa rip epi\ TTtS? Xeyez?: w^e. eKa(Trop rwv opofidrcop ovk eirl ripi KaXeig- eyco- ye: rl ovp ) ro avro opofxa CLiroig ay ^rXeopctKig tj dVa^/ eywye: TTorepop ovPy cap p.ep aira^ «V?/?, CKelpo Trpoa-ayopevei^ ovirip ecrri rovpojuia, cap Se ttoXXolkiSj ovk CKelpo ; ?, idp re aira^ edp re 'ttoX- Xa/cf? ravro opofxa apr} co? apa ro ep rolapT} OP'. 6p0S>s : ovk ovp Kai ep Toh aXXoig to epi pai: Ij /JL€P apa ep T019 aXXoig, twp aXXwi/ utttoito ai'* fj Se avTO ep eavTO), Twp p.ep aXXcop aireipyoLTO airTccrOait avTO Se avTOv aifTOiTO av ep eai/rw op: tpatpeTai: ovTta fxep Srj oltttoito apTO ep avTovTe KaiTWPaXXiap: airTLi' TO : TL Sai TijSe ; dp* ov Trap to jmeXXop a'^ecrOal tipo^ cK^e^tjg Set Kel- crOai eKCtPO) oS /jLeXXei aTTTccrOat, TauTrjp Trjp eSpap rj dp /jlct eKeiprjp ^ eSpa,ij UP Ket]Tai a7rTeTai\ apayKfj: koi to €P apa, el /neXXei avTO avTOV ayp-eaQatf e^e^tjg Sei evOvg (xeTa eavTO KCiaOaij TtjP exofJ-ep^p X'^P^^ KaTexop €KeiP)]g ^ avTO ecTTtp: Set yap : ovk ovp, Svo fxep op to ep Trot?;- a-eiep ap TavTa, Kai ep Svoip x^P^'-^ «M« yepoiTO' ewy afA€Pf TO fieXXop ayfrecrOai x^P'? op e^e^^? Set eKeip(p eipai ov fieXXei ayj/^eaQai, TpiTOP Se avTwp ep fxetxip fxr^Sep eXpai : aXri- 6fj : Svo apa Sei to oXiyoaTOP elpat, el fxeXXei ayjng ehai : Sei : eai/ Se TOtp Svoip opoip TpiTOP irpoo-yepfjTai e^^y, avTa fxep Tpta ecTai at Se a^eig Svo\ pai : Kai ovto) Srj ael ei/o? irpoa-yiypofxepov fxla kcu ayf/^ig TrpocrylypeTai Kai arv^/3alpei tu? ayfreig Tov irXiiOovg tS>p apiO/jiiop fiia eXaTTOvg eipai. w yap to, irpHoTa Svo ewXeoveKT^a-ep tcop aX~ X(t)p ety TO TrXeio) eipat top apidfxop rj ray a^p-eig, rw iVw TOVT(p Kai o eireiTa apidfxog Tray iraaSyp Tcoi/ ayp-ewp TrXeopeKTcr fjSrj yap TO XoiTTOP afxa ep re Tip apiO^xw irpoa-ylypeTai Ka\ /mia a-^ty ra^y a\fre(rip : opOm '• Ofra apa ea-TiP ra ovTa top apiOfiop, aei /xia at 165 a'^ei? eXaTTOV^ eta-iu avTWP : aX»yO^ : e! 64 ye ei' /liopop earTiVy Sva^ Sk fxi] €G-TiVf a^i? ovK av e?i; : Trto? yap : ovk ovVf afxivj to. aX\a tov euo^ ovT€ €V ecTTiv ovT€ ^cTex^' avTOv, ciTrep aXAa ecTTiu : ov yap : ovk apa ev- €(rTiv apiO/xo^ €V roi? aWoig, evo^ /nij ej/oWo? ev avT0i9' ttw? yap : our apaev ecTi ra aAAa, oure duo, ovre aWov apLU/nov e^ovra o- vofia ovSev : ou: to ev apa fxovov ecTTiv ev, Kai Svas ovk av elri : ov ^ai- verai : d'l/^f? apa ovk €/Xoiv e^TTjv Koi ev toi^ ovcriv eyyiyvoicrdtjv : ttco? y«p ct^'* f* "p« ev T(p ev] ar/JLiKpoTt]^ eyylyveTat ? TOt ev oXip dv rj ev [xepei avTOV evei^: avay Kfi : ti o ei ev oAo) eyyiyuoiTO ; ovx^ ^ f? la-ov av to) evi oi o- Xov avTOv TeTafxevY} elt} ti irepiexpvfra avTo\ StjXov S^'. dp ovv ov- K €^ iaiV€Tai : ovk ovv tcai, -Trpo? raXXa wcravro)^ e^ei to ev. on fxev fiei- ^ov avTwv ^aiverai, avayicrj TrXiov etvai Kai rov apidjaov avrStv on Se (TfiiKpoTCpov, eXaTTOv on Se '{(Tov fxeyeQei, 'icrov koi to irXriOo^ eXvai TO?? oKKoL^i amy/ci;: ovrw^ Sij ad, io^ eoiKe, to ev koi idelij vtto rov vvv, ro yap irpoiov ovrco^ ex« «? afx- (fforepdov etfxxTrrecrOaif rov re vvv Kai rov eireira' rov fxev vvv aa to h ire^iVKG yiyve- v(tiv ylyveaOai, ajiia re- XevT^ av yeyoro? vcrrarov &p twv oKKwv Tre^v/co? elri ytyvea-dai : tpatverat: vewrepov Spa twv oXXwp to ev ecrri, ra S aXka rod evo^ Trpe- (T^vTcpa : ovrm aS p,oi if>alveTat : r/ Sai Sri ; apxhv n aXXo fuepog O Ti odv Tov €V09 fj aXXov otov oSj/, edv irep jmepo^ ^ oXXa juiij fieprj, ovK GLvayKoxov ev ehaij niipog ye ov; avayKr} : ovk odv ro ev ajma re rip irpwrw yiyvofxivoi ylyvotr av Ka\ afxa rip Sevrepw, koi ov- Sevo^ aTToXenrerat rwv aXXwv yiyvofxivwv, o ti irep av Trpoa-yl- yvfjrai ortp oSvy ew? av irpos ro eo^arov SieXOov oXov ev yivrj- rat, ovre p.ev aXXcov, Koi TuXXa TOV evog' Kot fi^re vecorepov p.r\re Trpeo'^vrepov yiyve- (xQai ; apa wfrirep irepi rov eivai ovrco Kai Trepi rov yiyvetrdai ex«» % erepw^ : ovk exw Xeyeiv : aXX' eyw roa^ovSe ye, el koi ea-riv On Trpetr/Svrepov erepov erepov, ylyvecrQat ye avro irpecr^vrepov 'in rj 0)9 ro TTpSfrov evdv^ yevofxevov SiTjveyKe r^ ^Xiklol ovk dv en SvvairOy ovS av ro vewrepov ov en vewrepov ylyveaOai. avl- (Tois yap icra irpocrnQeixeva, XP^^^ '^^ "^^^ aXXw orw ovv, I'a-w TTOiei Sia^ipetv aei odvYi irpea^vrepov Kai rdX- Xa rov €v6^ : n oSv : or dv ro ev rwv aXXwv irpea-^vrepov ^ irXeiw and only when the end has come has the one come; consequently the one is younger than the others, and they are older than it. But the begin- ning, being one part, is one— thus the one becomes with the first, and with each succes- sive part ; and so maintains the same age with all the others. It must, then, 5e and ^v£ become of the same age with them and different, and the converse — but does it become so ? If it was older — or younger— at first it cannot become more so ; for if equals be put to unequals these always differ by as much as at first : and equal times are added here. But when the one is older 28 than the others it has existed longer than they, and if to these unequals we add equal times the wholes will differ by a less part than at first. The one, then, would always become less and less older than the others ; that is, would become younger in respect to them, while they grew older rela- tively to it. But though always having this tendency they never are so, since they con- tinue to differ by the original interval, albeit that interval forms an ever- lessening part of their respective ages. Thus the one ' is ' and ' is not,' ' becomes' and ' does not become,' * equal in age ' and ' older ' and * younger ' in regard to the others — and they to it. A. Perfectly so. P. xvi. As partaking of time ■Kox) xpovov yeyovev "h ra aX\a : val : iroKiv Srj w/foVej- eav TrXeovi koi eXcLTTOvi XP^VM TrpoarriOoofJLev tov ictov xP°^ov, apa tw icr

epov riXiKia irpos Ti n vpOTepov vewTepov y'lyvoiTO &v J ri ev Tcp irpoa-Bev -Trpoi keiva, TTyooy a ^v irpecr^vTepov vpoTepoV. veuiTepoV. el S' helvo vewrepov, ovk eKeiva av to. aXXa vpoi to ev irpea-^iiTepa ri TrpoTepov] Trdvv ye: to jnev vewrepov apa yeyovoi TTpea^vTepov ylyveTui irpos to irporepov yeyovdy tc Kai irpear^vTepov ov ecTTi Se ovSeiroTe Trpea-^vTepov, aXXd ylyveTai del eKelvov Trpea-^VTe- pov eKeivo fJiev yap eirl to vewTepov e-TriSlSwatv, to S' ewe to "jrpecrpvTe- pov. TO S' av Trpecr^vTepov tov veooTepov vewTepov yiyveTai uxravTMi. lovTe yap avrw ety to ivavnov dXXijXoiv, ylyvea-Oov to p.ev veurrepov irpe(T^vTepov tov irpea^vTepov to Se irpetr^vTcpov vewrepov tov ve- (jorepov. yeveaOai Se ovk av o'la> Te e'lTijv ei yap yevoivTO ovk av eri yi- yvoivTO, dXX' elev av. vvv Se ylyvovTat fiev irpecr^vTepa aXX^Xwy Kai ve- WTepa- TO fiev ev tmv dXXoov vewTepov ylyveTai OTi irpeo'^VTepov e^a- V)] ov KOI irpoTepov yeyovor tu S' aXXa tov evos ■7rpea-/3vTepa on vcTTepa yeyove. kotu Se tov avTov Xoyov Kai TaXXa ovtid irpoi to ev i- eireiSi} irep avTOv Trpear/SvTepa e^uvtj Kai irpoTepa yeyovoTU '■ alveTai yap ovv ovtw : ovk ovv y p.ev ovSev eTepov eTepov irpearj^vTe- pov yiyveTai ovSe veiorepov, KaTa to icru) apiOfiw aXXjjXwi/ aei Sia- epeiv, ovre to ev tHov dXXuciv irpea-jSuTepov ylyvoiT dv ovSe vewTe- pov, ovre TdXXa tov evog- {} Se aXXqa aei fioplip Sia(pepeiv dvdyKt] tu irporepa tu>v vcTTepwv yevo/Jieva Kai Ta vo'Tepa twv irpoTepiav, Tav- Ty Srj avayKtj irpea-^vTepa Te Kai vewTepa aXX^JXwv ylyveadai, Ta Te aXXa TOV evos Kai to ev twv dXXwv : nraw fiev oSv : KaTa Si] Trdvra TavTa TO ev auTO Te avTOv Kai tSiv aXXwi/ irpetr^vTepov Kai vewTepov ecTTi Te Kai yiyveTai, Kai ouTe irpecr^vTepov ovTe vewrepov ovt eariv ovTe yiyveTai ovTe avrov oi/Ve twv dXXwv : TravTeXwi p-ev ovv : eiretSi] Se Xpovov fieTexei to ev Kai tov irpecr^vTepdv Te Kai vewTepov ylyve- aOai, dp' ovk dvdyKt] Kai tov ttotc fxerexeiv kui tov eveiTa Koi tov 168 vdv, eiTrep xpovov /xerexei ■ amyKfj : S'jv apa to tV Kai eo-rtv Kai ecrrat, xai eylyvero Koi ylyverai kol yevwerai : tI mv : koli gU av ri eKctptp Koi €K€ivov, KOI ?ip KOI GCTTiv KOi €6lvetv Kai T- aovcrQai \ ovTCog: ot av Se Kivovfxe/Jiov Te i'a-TtjTai koi ot av ecTog eirt To KiveiarOai juLeTa^dXXij Set Si] irov avTO ye fxtjS ev evt XP^^^ ^'■^^^ '» "TTwg Stj : eo'Tog tc irpoTepov vcTTepov KiveiarQai Kai irpoTepov kivov- fxevov vcTepov ea-Tdvai, avev fxev tov fxeTa^aXXeiv ovx olov tc ecrrai tqv- Ta iracrx^iv : irwg ydp : xpd^^^ ^^ Y^ ovSeig eo'Tiv ev w ti oiov tc dfxa p-rp-e Kiveiv(tk otottoV Tt? eyKaQryrai fieTa^v Tijs Kimjae- (ii T€ Kai (TTaaeoos ev XP^"*? <"^^' ^*'' ovcra, Kai eig TauTtjv Srj kol e/c TavTris TO Te Kivovfievov p.eTaj3a.XXei eiri to ecTTavai Kai to IffToy e'jrj TO KiveterOai : KivSweuei: Ka) to ev Sij, elirep ecrTijKe Te Ka). KiveiTai, lleTa^dXXoi av e

vcru as opp. to ry v(rei we have early testimony in favour of tlie Mss., as is noted by Fischer : the passage dXX' & Uapp. ... ciKacrdTJvai being quoted by Stobaeus, Eclogg. Phys. p. 31, who is put roughly at the beginning of the 6th century A.D. On ea-Tavai Proc. Says, v. 161, el ovv to. eiSr] Kai, 6 2. ecrrdvai Xeyet, to, 6€ etrTcoTa (as he mentions above) Kara TavTo. Kal ap,ev eivai ecrri kXivt), dXXd KXivqv rivd, which being SO OVK av to ov TToioi dXXd ri roiovrov oiov to ov, or Se ov. Against this hypothesis Arist. urges Met. i. 9, 991 a 20 (Introd. xlvi.), rl ydp ka-ri ro kpya^o- pevov TTpos rd? iSea? dirojBXe-irov ; kvSey^erai re Kal eivai Kai yiyvetrQai opoiov oriovv Kal p,fj e'lKa^opevov Trpbs Ikcivo, wctte koi ovtos 2. Kal prj ovTOS yevoir' dv otoo-irep 2. That is, apparently, A. admits that sensible objects— /cAii/at Tires— might be modelled after eo-Ti kXivti, but sees nothing to necessitate this as the only expl. But does A. make as much as he assumes by his 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 Srjpitovpyhs moulded consciously upon a divine pattern known to him. Alexand., in com- menting on A. (574-5, Berlin), admits the connection which exists in nature — Sid rovro ydp dvdpiDTroi dvOpWTTOV yevvq., — -but says to deduce TrapaSeiypara therefrom to iiev dXrjdei exei rh Se \j/evSes ri. yiyverai pev ydp Trdvra rd vcrei Kard ra^iv rivd Kal dpidpovs rivas itpurpevovs Kal ovre otto TV)(rjis ovre avropdrov, ov p,rjv Sid rovro Kal Tr/a&s TrapaSeiypa. ov ydp kvvoovo-a [so far as we know] rj ^lirts Troiel d iroiei (aAoyos yap avrrj Svvapis ccttiv), dXX' kcrrlv air'ia tov eivai kv reraypevrj Kivfjcrti . . . eo)s dv eirl to reXo|ioi.vcru. The /ic^e^ts cannot be physical else the ideas get broken up ; nor can it be by resemblance else we have a progressus in infinitum — a.vdpioTTO's + etSos dvOpdnrov yielding a Kaivov dSos or Tpiros avOpbtTTos and so on indefinitely. Introd. xii. 6p$s oSv, etc. It is not clear whether ovra avra Kaff avTo. form an attribute to elSrj or, with ws understood, a part of the predicate with ^Lopi^-qrai. Engelm. ' wenn Jemand die Begriffe als an und fiir sich seiend gesondert hinstellt.' t reads kdv ns m dS-q and so most texts ; but it does not seem a gain, and may have arisen from a confusion of the eye with (is eVos below. B oitiira ttirrti etc. Of course the verb is 2nd sing. mid. Stallb. says 'h.e. avrrj's rrj^ aTropi'as, oa-rj idriv' while Heind. quotes as analogous Apol. 20 E, t^s yap €/*^s, TEi E-fj Ti's ccTTt croia Koi oi'a, p,apTvpa vp.lv irapk^opai tuv dei'iv. Cp. as odd Crat. 413 c, ivravda Sr] eydi ... ttoXv ev TrXaovi aTTopiijt, et/xi ij Trplv kiTL^et- prja-aL...,a.lld At. Met. VI. 14, 1039 b, eirl TUV ala-drjTwv ravTa re crvfi/Salvei kuI Tovrmv droTrwrepa. y is given from a strong desire to follow 21 wherever it yields a meaning. But the constr. is unusual, and t reads ei h which also corresponds with kdv rts above. iv ttSos ^KooTov ... 6^kpeiv, jrplv av Tts TOV dpidpov avTov TrdvTa KaTiSy tov ptira^v toiJ dTrapov t€ Kal tov evos' totc S' rjSr] to kv ckchttov Twv TrdvToiv eis to aTreipov peOkvTa ^aipeiv e^ii/. As to language, tZv ovtwv seems to mean the ideal not the sensible sphere, while d(f>opi(6pevos would be simpler if changed to dfj^mpurpevov. jroAAa etc. is as if he had said oo-a kaTl to. d-n-opa or dTroprjpaTa. tl Tis a£i] ... elvai : The persons here are not easily kept distinct. It is clear that tis <^air), t^ TavTa XkyovTi, tf'evSeTat, and 6 dvayKa^av are the same ; and equally so that ex°' ^'s kvSd^. is another. Which is ipTTupos S>v ... pfj a^vjjs ? Heind. says 'is qui contendit ne cognosci quidem haec posse' : Stallb. says ' potius is qui istius rei sententiam in dubiuni vocat et impugnat.' So again on kvSeiKw- pkvov Heind. says ' SC. oti ^evScTai 6 TavTa kkyiav, manifesto enim hoc kvSeiKwpkvov spectat ad prae- cedens kvBd^aa-daL ' : while Stallb. contends ' toij kvSiLK. quod prave Heind. refert ad adversarium, intelligendum est de illo ipso qui cognitionem ea ratione sublatam esse contendere fingitur.' Stallb. sees the necessity for acuteness on the part of him chiefly who undertakes to prove the error of saying that the t^-q cannot be known, and neglects in urging this necessity the clear connection of ev6«K- vvp.ivov with kvtd^aa-Oai, which Heind. points out. NOTES. 101 There can be little doubt that Heind. is right. Both men require to be acute, and if the man who denies the possibility of knowing the «i8ij is to be con- vinced of his error it will only be by arguments which come TtoppoiOev and which it will tax his intellect to follow. Arist. himself could not see the force of the argument in favour of knowing etS?; which were x^P'oto : and PI. clearly points out, 135 A-B, that the cleverness of tou Svi/tjo-o/terov fxadtlv on this point is second only to that of toO aWov Swipo/teVov SiSd^ai. The parallelism of the pas- sages is complete d/iipur/BriTeiv — o d/t^icr/3ryT(oi', tv(f>vovs — firj ai^injs, ivSuKWHivov — ^vvr)) ovaia ^s Ao-yoc SiSopiiv tou eivai, and 92 D, oxrirep ourijs (t^s i'^XV^) ^o'Ttv 17 ovcria e)(ov(Ta tijv e7r(DVVfiiav Tqv tou o eo-Ttv. TtBeroi is habitually used in this sense, as some English writers use ' posit ' ; but ttvai, rarely appears with it The phrase is not similar to e.g. Phaedo 93 C, tZv oZv 6efiev(ov ^v\y)V dpp,ov[av tlvai, where the last three words are the judgment ij V'"X^ '°"^"' dpjjLovla put as object of Oip-kviav : nor to Crat. 385 a, o av By Kakilv tis lKas aXX'^Xas etc. Introd. xlvi. and on 1 30 b above, at is fern, in both Mss., where we would rather expect a or o eo-Ttv : but the sense is clear, as in Phaedr. 243 E, iimnrep av ^s os «'. Stallb. seems to think that the alternative to ai.' must be not a or but ofai, and that clearly this would be wrong. The full phrase would be da-lv ai ISeai tlo-iV, as in Rep. v. 533 Dj XP'^H'^^1 "'S SirjXdofiev Texvais, and 130 B, ^s ij/iEtS o/iotoTijTos e'xo/ifl'. avTal ' scripserim a^rai pro airal ' Heind. There is no need ; still there is a scratch over ai in 31. TT/Dos avTai combines the sense of Kad' avrds and Trpoi dkXr'jXa's. We may cp. Dam. § 93, p. 231, dpa oSv, ejreiSij to, p,iv irapaSityfiaTd eo"Tt, toL Si eiKoves, Kal TavTa eiSjj cctti Kal eKaTepwOi i(TTi; jrtos Se ovk dv tit), iLirep 1} EiKoiv op-oiwiid otti, to 81 op,. dTroTeXt(rpa opoioTTiTos' op,oiovrai Se Kal eKct erepov erepij), Kal iVTavda Se dio-auTws' jr. ydp Kal 6 2. t^s oiKeia's ttx. Td Trap' TJniv ... ^KaoTa ' Quorum dum nos partem u habemus, singulis appellamurnominibus — v.c.magni parvi similes etc. Trahendum hoc etvai ad tTrovo- pa^opida ' Heind. ' Sive simulacra sive quo quis alio modo ea statuat quorum dum participes sumus, singulis appellamur nominibus ' Stallb. Our idiom would omit the first eiVe. See for the idea and lang. Phaedo 100 c-d, more than once referred to : Stallb. also cites Crito 50 a, tt fteAAouo-iv -qpiv ivdevSe etVe d7ro8tSpdo-K£tv, et^' oVws Set ovopda-ai TouTo, and others. One would suppose that the opoLiLpara were the individual things of sense which, as we have learnt to think, partake of and are called after £1817. But they are opoidpaTa &v rjpels ju,£Texo>"''£S, which throws us back on the explana- tions of Proc. already quoted, 131 e etc., to the effect that there are grades of abstractness in the etSj;, some ftSjj being (fiva-iKa or a'urdtjTa, which must be understood here. Plato must be held as saying — all our discussions on £iSrj thus far turn out 102 PARMENIDES. to be discussions upon spurious semi-sensuous models ; for the more clearly we grasp the separate- ness which we ascribe to the eiSij, the more clearly we see that they have nothing to do with our world. iKeCvois, ' Ceterum tKciVots dixit quia jam to effiij in mente habebat ' Stallb. These are the real eiSi/. irpbs ofrra include the sense irpos clAAijAa, for we are dealing with o/^oiw/xara which Trpos aXhi]\o. 1(TTIV a €(7TIV. lo-nv 'Temere aliquis inserendum conjectabat a ecTTiv (after Icttiv), quum icrnv hoc loco idem sit quod TrjV oviTiav 'i)(ei ' Heind. Kol lauTuy ... o«TiLV ... oTov to wrepuv eav aTroSodf) OpVldoS, OVK dvTl(TTpi(flU OpVli TTTepOV OV JCLp OlKCtWS TO TrpeuTOi/ d^oSeSoTat vrepov opviOoi : ... but edv aTToSod)] OlK6t(US, KOL dvTUTTpe(jm, otoV TO TTTepuV impayrov Trrtp'bv koX rh impioThv iTTepm Tmptiyrov. We even coin to get the antith. : if we say to TrijSd- Xlov tov TrAotou ... ovk oiKeia rj aTroSoa-LS : but with TO irrjSaAtov totj TTJjSaAiWTOu we are right rh yap vrrj- SaAicoTov TrrjSaXiti) TnjSaAnuTov. We must be careful then not to make the djroSoa-is vpSi n rtav o-n/ijSt/Ji;- k6t(ov as SovAos — dvdpwTTov. See on 130 b. oirov Sta-iriTov ... 8 Him We may note here these k usages of avTos and os. The originals we find in 134 B, a^To tS KaAov o ecrTt [koAov], where concord is accurately observed, and we have throughout concords of awos and os taken separately. The rel. seems to have been fixed in the neuter first, for PI. often uses 5 ((m absolutely, e.g. Phaedo 75 D, Trepl aTrdvTiov oh kiruT<^payi^6ixeda tovto t(TTi ; and we have here o «o-Tt 5ea-?rdTi;s — fioCAos. This phrase must be distinguished, as Stallb. says, from e.g. jT/oos dAA^Aas t'urlv dt iicnv above and avTij St Seo-TTOTeta aiV^s SovActas idriv o ctrri below, which mean ' are what they are,' ' is what it is.' Again we have had, 130 b etc., such expressions as SiKatov n. EtSos aiJTo Ka(f avTo and airo Tt erSos dvOpunrov which, with the constant neuter forms such as ai^To TO KaXbv and TO ev, serve as bridges to phrases like Prot. 360 E, o-Kitf/axrOaL PovX6p.evoi ... ti ttot i] is used probably because tov «i5ovs has preceded — the power of knowing being for the moment an «j'Sos the objects of knowledge are for the time yivrj. In a sentence we return to tQv (i8iav ovScV : and after passing t^eas aiirds come to auro ti ycvos Iitictt. S yt etc. Grote cites here Arist. Met. viii. 8, p. 1050 b 34, £' apa Tivcs ettrt (jivcrei.'S roiavTai, rj ovcriai otas Xlyov(Ti,v ol tv tois Aoyois rds ISias, woXv paWov kiruTTrjpov av ti etij f) avTO kirUTTqprj, /cai Kivovp^vov rf Ktvrjcris' Taura yap ivepytiai p,a\X.ov, tKelvat Sk SwdfitK Tovrojv. oTi p,ev o5v vporcpov rj kvkpyua koX SvvdpeoK Kal Traerij? dpx^i piTa^XrfriKrjs, avep6v. C 4 8^ ... iiroXa|ip. Heind. says ' i.e. a 8rj ois ovra tBeas avTa's vttoX.' perhaps rightly : but perhaps we should take ISeai-avras-ovo-as closely ' abstract existent tSeas.' There may be point in im-oXap^. after the argument that the eiSij cannot be known. We only assume their existence after all. SdvoTcpov — TO Seivorepov ovx ws luxvporepov airopov, MS iluiOaxj-i Suvovs Xeyuv tous KparovvTa'S ttj Svvapet, tQv A.oywi', d.XX' (OS p,iL^ovos Sup.aTos Kal euAa/Jetas Tois vovv €xor'(riv a^iov. Schol. Rh. from Proc. v. 220, who adds ttjv yap evtocnv tSiv ovtwv Sia(r7rq. kul SioiKi^u )(bipl's diro Tov Kotrpov to 6elov etc. TO TToiov : The punctuation is left as in 21. This is clearly a question ; and so in other cases. oKpip^oTtpov as we talk of 'the exact sciences.' The sense is very clear in Phileb. 23 a, ovk dpeivov avTTjV \rjSovrjv^ eq.v '^St) Kal p.-q Trjv aKpi^ea-TaTJjV avTrj irpo(TipovTa fiaa-avov Kal i^eXeyxovTa Aujreiv ; So Nubes 130, Tr(3s odv ... Xoyiov aKpifi&v arKivBa- Xdpovs paOr)p£Vb)v. Ar. Mct. XII. 3, 1078 a, ocr(j) 8^ av rrtpl irporipaiv tQ X6y

atr]v av : etirtp Ti S.Wo . . . eiTLa-Ti^pijv ; Sense as clear and p- 9- constr. as faulty as Milton's 'loveliest pair That ever since in love's embraces met, Adam the good- liest man of men since born His sons, the fairest of her daughters Eve' (P. L. iv. 321). PI. seems to mean ' If any other thing [than science ?] possesses science, you would say that no one was more en- titled to possess it than God ' : what he does mean would be clearer thus — ovkovv 6e6v, eiirep ye ti, <^ai>;s ai' t'xeii' t»ji/ dKpifita-To.Triv ejrtcrTTj/iijv ; The very tenses are jumbled. wopa Ttp 6e^ In the vorjThs toVos as contrasted d with the opaTus or opwpevos totto^, Rep. vi.-vii. 499- 532 etc., Introd. xlix. Whatever maybe meant by this, it is clear that God is closely associated with it. Thus Rep. X. 597 B, ovkovv TpiTTul Ttl'CS KXlVai a^Tat ■yiyroi'Tai' juta piv rj fv ry cjuva-n o^cra ^v (jiaiptv dv, (is eyifpai, 6eov (pyda-ao'dai. Proc. V. 238, 6 piv oAos o'vXXoyLirpu^ toio{!t()s (O'ti twv irpoKH- pivtaV 01 6iol Tr/v avTOimo'Ti'ip'qv Kal Trjv avTo^&nro- Tuav e)(ov(ri' Ta ttjv avTOiir. Kal Trjv avToS. e^ovTa ov TTpui rjpds AeycTat ti)v cina-TTjprjv e'x^tv Kai t^v SeoTTOTCtaV ot dpa 6fol ov rrpos rjpM^ e)(0va-L rrjv nriaT. Kal T>)v StcnroT., ov yiyvwrKovcriv ij/uas ovSe Seairo- ^ovcriv ripuiv. (ot, or ovk dpa y.?) This holds only if we transl. the major (here second) premiss • what- 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 the real One : T()y£ jrpo tov rjViDpevov ev 6Tt pfi^ovb)^ ayvwcTTov. It comes before vovi. oiiT' dv ... av BecnrodfLev out' av The hypothetic form even redundant, and that after el... ea-Ttv. The cond. is assumed as true — God has perfect know- ledge : the consequence is felt to be question- able — he surely cannot be ignorant of our world. While Plato raises the question apropos of know- ledge he soon makes it co-extensive with the whole scope of the two worlds. Indeed his lan- guage is elastic throughout — even ^eos becoming 6eoL dXX' 6|iotos ^|i«is re etc. Observe the precision of e the inference. If the one assumption holds the other holds. Is that a fact ? ' Our science ' may be powerless to know the divine, though in conjuring up and discussing all this it seems to do pretty well; but does it follow that the perfect divine science 104 PARMENIDES. must fail in knowing us ? The greater includes the less, though not the less the greater. eeol SvTcs : Might be either because, or although, they are gods : we may say ' gods though they be.' IX£' Sf Koi rb '^£01 ovTcs' irpocrTfdev ttoXXijv Tiva. rrjv evSu^iv TJjs uTTopia's' irS;/ yap to 6etov dyaOuv Kal fiovXerai iravra irX-qpovv Twv dyadav . . . eTrrjveyKe fiera TroXXrj^^apv-n]TOi'6eol6vT€S.' Proc.V. 237-9. diroo-T. Tou eiSsvai : not ' to say that God is without know- ledge ' but ' to rob God of some knowledge — make his knowledge less than universal — minish aught of it.' Ka'noi (Proc. v. 240) TrptoTov jxev ovk eSei crre- prjiriv eiireiv dXX' vTrepo)(r]v yvuKrews' elp'rjTai yap r/ yviJxns iKtivrj ttoXv twv aXAui' aKpi/Setrrfpa Trao-tuV In-etTO £1 Kal cnkp-qcriv 'iSit Xeyfti', T^s Ttav rjpeTepmv irpay/iaT£j'as (-t£1(3v?) yvoxreia's ISet ndttrdai ttjv (TTepTjiTiv dXX' ov^ ajrAojs yviiatwi' ovSi yap tovto (Tvvriyayev o Xoyos. This recalls the Phileb. as to the relative dignity of voCs and rjSovj. Here the knowledge of al ■r)iJ.erkpai Trpa.yiw.rdai is put in the position of rfiovrj, 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 us " En 1269 ... Quod Deus non cognoscit singularia" etc. (Ren. Averr. p. 213). The acuteness with which these objections are enforced is remarkable. I know nothing superior to it in all the Platonic writings.' Grote PI. II. 275. Of course y must be supplied mentally with p-r^ Xlav davp.acrTo'i. Heind. wishes to write it, and well cites 132 b and 136 d with others. 135 el £lo-lv...Twv 8vTiia-/3rjTy (Ls ovk dXr]6^ Afyo/xfi/, and VI. 502 A-B, ov T£...£t T£ the copulative force is shown here by separating t£ ' both that they do not exist and if they did exist ever so much.' Cp. L. and S. ovre 4. Stallb. raises difficulties, and proposes el Si. ' Sub- jungere in altero orationis membro volebat haec ovre Ty av^/oowrtVj; t^vcrti yvtoo-rd. Sed mutata ver- borum structura ' etc. \iyovra SoKttv « Several cases here of re-Kal run together. Stallb. rightly says we are not to expect rov Xiyovra because we have tov aKovovra above. Tov dKovovra is the subject of both diro/afiv and SoKCiv, while ravra XeyovTa = oTav ravra Xeyy. Kol dvSpbs etc. ' Ficinus : et viri admodum in- geniosi esse, percipere posse etc. Bene si legeremus Kal dvSp. irdvv ... eivai to 8vvaa-6ai. Nunc nihil adest unde genitivi hi pendeant, neque structurae ratio constat, nisi post ev(f>vovs excidisse putemus Sdv. ut Charm. 169 a' Heind. A better case is Stallb's., Menex. 235 d, aya^oi! civ pr/Topos Seoi rov TTiiaovTO's Kal evSoKLfiycrovro^. The Setv may have been left out by his change of struct. He meant to put £ii'ai TO SvvacrOat after €v^vovs, but having got so far wrote toi! Swrjo-. after passing the proper point for SeTv. in eavfioo-T. Another irreg. He mentally re- b calls Bavpacrriai ws Sva: when the constr. is no longer parallel. He should have said £ti Se tvvctr- repov. ivpyaovTOi, Proc. V. 240, says on ■ydvi/tos Kal ivpiriKO^ kcrri Trepl rrjv SiSacrKaXiav: we must add some such phrase as ttjv Trpoa-qKova-av SiSaa-Ka^av. So Sophist. 253 C, 5r(us yap ovk iTrurTq/irjS Sei, Kal (7\eS6v ye ktods rrjs p.eyiarrrj's ; SiEVKpivtjo-. The Mss. agree : yet one would ex- pect the genitive, t shows traces of having at first reversed this and written Swrja-S/xevov, which is obviously wrong. As it stands, this part, must agree with oiAAov whilst one would expect it to agree with Tou €iipr;o-ovTos. It gives, however, a good sense : the hearer (aXXov) has so profited and has so clear a conception of the case that he believes, after ' having sufficiently analysed or investigated.' (i^ edo-a ei!8i] ... elvai, Notes I. 3lt agree in read- ing ecio-t;, which is due probably to dictation and is impossible, as el precedes and o/aisiTai follows. The phrase is counterp. of ayvioarra dvayK. ... elvai 133 C. diropx^i|>as, Looking away from favourable points and confining his view to objections ; cp. 130 e. firjSe TL cp. the repeated use of ti in auro ti 'eKaXvapia — el dXrjOrjs 17 dXyj^ Qua Hpiarayopov. Ar. Met. X. 6, 1063 b 10, /xT/^ei/ yap TtficvTES a;'atpouo-i to StaAeyeo-^ai koI oX(o KaQapZs rt /cat StKatois iXo- o-opuTii.ivavcnKov etSos, whilst a more ade- quate one is the vorj/^a or \J/v\ikov e'Sos. 6. But in the end we are baffled :— for {a) the process runs on ad infinitum — and naturally so, the et'S?; being given as x^/^'s : {l>) the eiSi; if reached would thereupon cease to be what they are — xutpia-rd, which it is their duty to remain, and would become tainted with a sensible flavour. However far we prosecute our ' victorious analysis,' or rather synthesis, the result when attained will remain at best an object of ' our science.' The world of etSij is the uncon- ditioned, to know it would be to condition it. 7. This xiapia-fw^ follows its own course of victorious analysis — will not ' bum so high and no higher.' After separating the ctS?; from our sphere it enters the vojjTos TojTos itself and runs riot there, parting the ideal sphere into as many isolated units as will 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 o, of which we know 106 PARMENIDES. little, we call up world /3, of which we cannot know anything, and are left plantes 1^. While if we refuse to call up the latter, rational reflection is denied us. We may note several facts in passing :— i. Al- though we have spoken of two worlds here, Plato does not so speak : he says merely -ra. TroXXd, rd dSji. We must go to the Timaeus for the two worlds — for the Koo-/ios or fwov oparov whose model is a fwov vorjTov (30-31 etc.). This may be an advance. At least it organizes the two spheres. Is Plato leading to this theory by his present diropiai ? 2. We have not a whisper of avajuvTjo-ts as a bridge between the spheres. For that and the immortality of the soul we must go to the Phaedo and PJiilebus. Is not it an advance also? 3. There is no suggestion that the world of sense has any worth — philosophic worth, at least — in itself. Yet it is a vast series of individual objects with an eVto-r^/xTj of its own ! When contrasting vovs and ■^Sovrj in the Philebus he presses the point that all trace of the former which may lurk in the latter must be eliminated, and has no difficulty then in degrading the latter completely. But here we have the world of sense consisting of such objects as «/i« Kal o-e koI rdXXa as these are understood by us, 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 due to that other world, whether we can explain it or no? 4. Science or knowledge can have only to ovtws ov for its object, and has no proper sphere in a world such as ours — rd Trap' rjpXv : not only must it have something unchange- able for its object, but it is something essentially aKpifih or exact in itself. Does not this look too exclusively at science as a result, forgetting science as a process ? Knowledge starts from ignorance and does not reach perfection per saltum. How- ever immutably existent its object may be, how does that object look in the process of becoming known ? It can appear only as a yiyvoinvov — that is, under the character assigned to an object of sense in a sensible world. Then how can we be sure that it is not such ? Alternatively, if science is always a fact or result 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. irpwl It is not always clear in the Mss. whether an I is subscript or not — all being postscript. Here it is clearly a separate syllable : while in irpifriv immediately below it must be meant as subscript for the accent is upon the w. This in each case accords with Curtius, s.v. But what of ^SoAttrxias, D, where the t is inserted on a scratch ? See L and S. On irpuil Heind. says vox haec rariore significatu h. 1. sonat ' nimis mature,' and aptly quotes Sophocl. Trach. 631, SeSoiKa ya/o | /t^ Trpy Aeyois civ tuv ttoOov tuv i^ ifiov, Trplv elSivai TaKeWev d TTodovfxjida, which also supports his preference for 7r/)(j). KttAdv re Tt SO from the Mss. reading KaXo'i" rk Tt with most editors. But cp. Heind. 'Vulgo KoAo'v T« Ti KoX. Sed KaXov Ti h. 1. est L q. eJSos seu yevos Ti rov KaXov. De pulchri justique et boni definitione in his non est sermo.' That is, although opi^ea-dai is the verb used, PI. does not here speak of defining ti to KaXov; the phrase corresponds to opulrai tis avro ri iKaa-Tov eiSos in 135 A. And yet there is room for doubt, as Parm. refers to what Soc. had been attempting in another discussion and the attempt to define is the great characteristic of the historic Soc. Proc. too assumes a ref. to defi- nition, V. 261, Kol 7r(i)s, (j>airi dv Tts, oXias SvvaTuy opi^icrdai to. ciStj ; Ta ydp aTrXd Kai ajxipuna ttoi- KiXiav Aoyoji' ovK eiriSe^cTaL Kal crvvOecnv etc. SeXkuo-ov Sk etc. SoKei Si fioi KaX t^s Ae^eus to p-iv D p. 10. ' tv t(rdi ' TrpocrKelp,tvov /3ij3aLovv awi^ tov f-iraivov, ov €Tryve(re, To Se ' tXKVcrov ' Sel^iv ^X"" ''"^^ (Tvpm-adeiai avTov Kal ttJs irTOias t^s irepl to oV lis ydp errl Tivav Sva^awoa^■7^da•T(l>v Kal SvcrniTadiroiV, ovtws cure to ' eX- Kvo'ov,' e'A^tv TrpodCLTToiv Tijv ... Trepi Ta SiaXcKTiKa Oeutp'qp.aTa [liXiTT/jv Kal eiri TavTa ixiTaxnacriv oko t)]s Tuiv ovTws ovTwv 6to>pias. Proc. V. 267. But does the word mean ' to drag himself away from his present studies to preliminary exercises'? It means rather, as we say in Scotch, 'rax yourself ' pull yourself about ' as a gymnast in training must do. K. J. Liebhold (Fleckeisen's Jahrb. 123, 1881, p. 561) objects to 'iXKva-ov as always involving re- sistance, which no doubt it does to some extent; and proposes IkAuo-ov, citing Lach. 194 c, ij/ias tc rijs aTTopLas tKXva-ai etc., and Tim. 22 d, (k toutijs TTjs diroptas a-ta^ii Xvofiivos. This is ingenious, but it disturbs the metaphor. rfis SoKoiffTis axp^oT. etc. We can hardly suppose NOTES. 107 that dSoXeopxtas is the subst. meant here, as that would not seem, but actually be, useless ; probably SOtne such word as /leXerT/s, wpay/iareios, yv/jivao-tas was designed. ^SoAto-x'as, ' useless prosing,' Grote. oStos, so t, no doubt rightly ; 91 gives oiirus. irX^v Towrrf 74 etc ' You have been injudicious «ave in this one point with which I was struck ' : as if rovTo fifVTot ye. For the sentiment see Phaedo 89 a, dA\' lywye [/.liXia-Ta e6avfi,(wa otStou iTjOtoTOi' fikv TOVTO, and above 129 K koI Trph^ tovtov, * and that in regard to Z. himself, of whom I am speaking.' K -rtiv irXdvuv iirio-K. ' dass man . . . dem Irrthum nachspure ' (Miiller), • den Irrthum 7.\i erforschen ' (Engelra.), and Stallb. says Trkdv-q, i. q. aTropla Iv TovTots iravToSojTws TrXtKOftivrj. This makes the words run ovk «as (ij/xas) iTrwKOTnlv Tijv 5rAdv>jl' kv Tois o. Proc. again, v. 274, says Set toiwv t^s irXmnfi tQ>v StaAcKTtKwv irpus Trjv TOirroji' 0((i)piav rmv el&lov ... T^v oAjjv rr]V SiaXtKTiKiqv, ■^i' OpiyKov kv IIoAiTei^i Ttov pLaOrjixaTuyv e/cdAeo-fi', Iv Aoyixais ij/xas dveXi^tfri Kot Sie^dSots yvptva^ovcrav ... ttAcii'tj yctjO to fij) [lovov rdXrjdr] (TKOireiv, oVcos diroSeKTCov, dAAa Koi •fa ^f/evSrj Sia. tmv avTbiv jJiedoSiav kKirfpiTp€)(eiv kXey- \0VTa ... Kol locKcv ij jrXdvr] rerrapa SrjXovv ■^ ... ■^ ... ■^ irXrjOos diro twv di/TiKSt/xe^'WV £is Tct dvTiKfip^va •jfapovv, 15... TovrcDi' Se rcTTaprnv oi^ui' i^ SiaAeuTt/c^ Aiyerai yvfi,va(ria irAdvTj /cara to rpiTov, oSevova-a Sta Twv di^iK£t/*«v(i»v vjro^etrettfv. So in 136 E we have dvev TavTtjS rrj^ Sia irdvruiv Sie^oSov Te xai TrXavrji, ' libera disputatio ' Ast calls it, while kina-KOTreiv has the same sense as in 159 b. The words would thus run oti ouk uas tijv irXdvrjv ktria-Kcnreiv kv Tots opbifievois ovSe Trepl ravra. ' You would not suffer the argument to investigate merely in the ' etc. i.In a ... Aoyijj ... fiSrj ... eivai : Heind. says that Ady^ = XoyuTp.36 must be mentally supplied. The following may represent fairly Plato's thought — orov, ecjitj, el /iovXei irepi Tavrtji t^s VTrodetreias rjv fjjvwi' vweOero [/xaAAov yvp,vaxr6fjvat (unless el fiovXei be taken parenthetic- ally), )(frj o-KOTTctj' vtroTideiievov^ el jroAAci etc. The inf. has been held over to irdAiy a-Koiretv. The antitheses seem almost needlessly elaborate ; ri a-vfi,j3-q(TeTai Kot rots ttoAAois koi tQ evl tt/oos avrd, KOI ToJrotv dix(ji0iv xpos aAAijAa would suffice. oMis etc. See Notes i. vwoOy, 2nd sing, of b vTro6Zp.aL, cp. PovXei. above and p,kXXei^ below c. On Ti J' CKao-TOX) Ta ^vfiPalvovra k(rKt\p6Spa fxavO. ' I do not completely understand.' So Phaedr. 263 d, elire koI toSc ... tl ipia-dfirjv epiora dpxo/i€vos rov Koyov. N-^ At" o.fx.y)ya.v(i>i ye w? crs t/iot a-Kexf/iv (tti- TttTTEtS. 234 E, <0S yOVV i/xol TTjXlKt^Se OVTC Kpivai — spoken by Theaet. a youth. Polit. 263 a, ov cjiavXov TrpofrTo.TTU's, 2(iKpaT€s. Of the demonsts. TrjKiKSSe — TrjXiKovTCj) (below), it often happens that the former stands like oSe for the ist pers., the latter like oStos for the 2nd — 'a man of my, of your, years.' Yet see Apol. 25 d, lY S^ra, & UeX-qTe; Toa-ovTOv 0-v tixov crocfxirepoi et TtjXiKovTov oVtos ttiXl- Koo-Se &v, SsaTi etc. 8t<6|Mea So t, clearly better than 21. Notes i. H^ 7ttp o« (j)avXov ti We have a double parallel, Rep. II. 368 B-c, 8k8oiKa yap, [irj ov&' ocriov ■§ Trapaye- vofievov SiKaiocrvvrj KaK-rjyopovfievy aTrayopeveiv etc., where we have the rationale of )u.^ ij : and tSrov ovv ... OTt TO ^riTr]iJ,a <^ iTn\iipovix,e.v ov i^auAov, dXX' o^v /iXeirovTos. Stallb. gives others, e.g. 374 e, ovk apa . Trpay/xa ypafitOa' Cp. Polit. 263 A above. cl ... irXelovs ^(lev ovk dv V A model condit. sent where the conclus. is dXX' ov itAeiovs £cr/tev. It seems to clash with 127 c, if we are to press that as alluding to the auditors of this discussion and not the visitors of Parmen. aTrpeirrj ... rotavra ... Xeyeiv, ' such things are unbecoming to utter.' dirptTrh would have been simpler. evTvxpiarTov vov fxiTovaiav. ... jiovr] Se fj KaTO. vovv f(07j to dirXavh e'x". The last words however, with koi 66pv/3ov avry (sc. Ty ^vxs) ■Kapkx^iv kv rats ^T^DjcrEcrt point to the reasonable- ness of taking vovv «xtii' as ' to keep one's head ' on discovering the truth, as opposed to iXiyyiav. Thus Phaedo 79 c, the soul when contaminated by aurOrjCTLS etc., avTrj TrXavaTai Kot TapaTTCTai Kal IXiyyi^ tlicnrip fxedvovcra, all which is altered oVav ... avrrj KaO' avTrjv o-kottiH ; so Prot. 339 E, Kal lyu TO fiev TTpuiTov, (io-jrepEi VTTo dyadov ttvktov irXrjyeis, ia'KOT(idrjv te Kal IXiyyla^ra iiizovTOi ainov Tavra — he needed 17 Sia iravTotv &e^oSos. This view is at least worth considering. On this passage Proc, V. 311, says, beyond PI., ov yap Io-tiv aAAus ij/wts ttTTo Tui' iO-\dTwv dvaSpafxeiv £irt toi TrpuTa nfj 8ta twv /AEO"(JV TTOpivOivTa'S 68wv TTji {6ovi^(rijs Kal FAavKO^'a TovSe 8i8d^ai Kal tovs aAAovs : and so elsewhere. Why is the first inf. aorist and the second present ? TO TOV '1/3. TTEn-ov^Evai. Thc pcrf. inf. slightly differs 137 NOTES 109 from jrdio-x«ii', ' to have met with an experience Uke that of.' TO Tou /iteXoirotoC 'I^vkov ptyrov : ' 'Epojs aCre /le Kvavioia-iv viro p\£dpoi'S TOKt/jot. o/i'/itao-i SepKO/xcvos K)jA.>})tiacri iravroSarrol^, eh 3.Trtipa^SiKT\ia KvirpiSos ISakka' ^ p,a.v T/)o/i6(o iv' [vivj tTrfp)(6pxvov ' ip€^xjyo% Mnros 6.edkoi ye Tois Trpoeiptjpevois a-vpjxavios aTToSovvai to. TrpoKeipeva, T(3 pev ' TToOev ap^opat ' to ' dw' ep/xvTov,' T^ Se Kal ' Tt irpm-ov VTro6r)v Oduiv d(f> iavTov apx^Tai Ivepyetv. Farm, imitating the divine says this /cai ov rovTO jxovov dXA.a KOiKetvo, to trpay. rraiS. ■Jrai^., Oetov yap Si) ovv Kal rovTo, rots 6/x^acr£ts KOt ttoXv- fiipi€(TTrjK£' jraiSia fiiv 6ia ravra Tras o^vi Adyos Trpos Tiji' ■^pe/iov avTOV Kal ijvwjutvijv tod ovtos vorjcriv etc. There may be in fact a playful allusion to Homer's 'ATpetSr] ... a-eo S' ap^ojiai, II. IX. 97, and Pindar's viivrjorav Aios dp-xpnevat, Nem. v. 45. The constr. jiovXicrdi ... ap^wfiai has ample parallels, e.g. 142 B ; also Phaedr. 228 E, aXXa irov S'^ jSovXei. Ka6i,^6p,€voi dvayvu>ii.iv ; repeated 263 E ; and others, irtpl ToO ... i,Xocro(j>wTepos Kal (TroTTTiKUTepo^ ij Ka6' avTov dpw/ici'os. PI. sees that to ev etreKava Kal ovto^ koI ova-la's ircunjs icTTt etc. Stallb., again, says that while Parm. does not seem to have called his ov tv — tamen quoniam to ov volebat omnera omnino complecti oia-iav, praeter quam nihil esset, a Platone narraturdocuisse omnia unum essejand cites Theaet. 180 E d'o-a MeXuraoi re Kal UapfxeviSai ivavTiovixevoi. wSfTi rovToii Sucrxvpi^oVTai d>s ev re irdvTa eo-rl Kal €0-Tr]Ktv avTo cv aiiTw, ovk e^ov \wpav ev y Kivctrai, and Sophist. 242 D, t6 Sk Trap' rnJuv'EXfaTiKov iOvos, aTTO Sivoifidvovs Ti Kal £Tt Trp6o-6ev dp^d/ievov, ev^eTai ij dXTjdeia. rjo vewTaros; ... aTroKpuns':-^ see Sophist. 217 c-e, the passage which alludes to the meeting that is assumed in our dialogue, Introd. xix. 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 of dialogue must be presumed, both from these passages and from such phrases as JpuTwi/ koI diro- Kpiv6fji£voi : yet the value of it could hardly be put lower than here ; and Aristoteles certainly acts up to the description. Hitherto we have had dialogue : henceforward we have the TJKia-Ta iroXvirpayfwveiv and the dvdTravXa. And if dialogue is important, why should it be laboriously told at fourth hand? 2toi|io« ... (|>dvai, toBto etc. The text, including c stops, is that of Herm. : and but for the stops (t has none, 31 none but toCto,) it is that of the Mss. with perfect clearness. As it stands it seems to mean CTot/tds a-oi elfit — TovTO, dvai tov 'A. ' I am at your service in that capacity ' ; or tToi/ids dvai tovtw (sc. tw Happ,.), not a good solution. Another possible change would be ?Toi/idv o-ot ... TouTo, and the change would be easy enough if the v were the small one like u, and were coupled to o- in o-oi — vo- might then be mis- taken for o-cr. Here ends the bridge between part i. of the dialogue and part 11. {135C-137C). For the nature of the relation between these parts see NOTES. Ill Introd. xxxi.-ii., Hi.- v. Does Plato now go on to talk metaphysics in a mystery, does he refute Par- raenides' doctrine out of its author's own mouth, or does he merely give a lesson in dialectic ? Such are some of the suggestions. Except that the second might better run, does he develop what is latent in the doctrine of Parmenides ? — .there is no inconsistency in supposing that he does all these at once, and advances his own conception of the ideal problem at the same time. Among the thoughts which succeed each other in his mind as he writes, one is that there is complexity within the ideal world analogous to that in our sensible one : a second is that the ideas having so far been held to be isolated, as a sina qua non of their purity, hopeless contradictions thus arise which cut at the very roots of philosophy : a third is that some such trenchant dialectic as that exemplified by Zeno's writings is essential if these difficulties are to be overcome ; and that a laborious discipline in it is the sole training adequate for him who would deal with the ideal theory, or (which to Plato is the same thing) with metaphysical problems at all. It is clear from the detail given that Plato has this last subject deeply at heart. As upshot, Parra. is, as it were, put to revise his own doctrine in the light of more recent developments. And the result seems to be that even the simple idea of ' one ' has indefinite possibilities latent in it, and that, so far from its being possible to regard any idea as isolated, an almost Heraclitean complexity in the ideal sphere arising through dialectical neces- sities is now the real problem to be faced. Dialectic, says Aristotle (Met. i. 6 ; xii. 4), did not exist before this ; and the more Plato looks into it as a factor in speculation the more impressed he is with its transforming powers — in physical matters it has infinitely divided the space between Achilles and the tortoise, so that we can hardly think of the one overtaking the other : in the intellectual sphere it converts even the simple unity of being as put forth by Parmenides into endless multiplicity. It is curious to observe, however, that the 'idea of science ' quietly drops out of sight. Nothing has expelled it, /or the separateness between the ideas and our world continues, though that between idea and idea does not ; but somehow it has served its turn, and we get on with our human science not so badly. It is said by some that what follows of the work is an imitation of Zeno's dialogue as well as of his dialectic. This may be so, thougli it would not be easy to prove it ; but if so it is no isolated case of such imitation in Plato. The greater part of the Republic, for instance, is analogous. cl iv lo-Tiv The first step is to make us realize that one is one, by freeing it as far as may be from everything extraneous. That is what this division of the argument does — it asks ri xp^l trvfi/Saiveiv tm svl TTjoos avTo ; Grote says of Unum and Ens ' both words are essentially indeterminate ... are declared by Aristotle to be not univocal or generic words ' ; and of the same words and Idem Diversum Contra- rium etc. (his equivalents for PL's terms) ' Plato neither notices nor discriminates their multifarious and fluctuating significations ..., the purpose of the Platonic Parmenides is to propound difficulties ; while that of Aristotle is, not merely to propound, but also to assist in clearing them up.' (PI. Parm.) Of Gr.'s many references to Arist. and his Schol., it may be enough to cite Met. iv. 6 sqq., 1015 b 16, ev XeycTai to [J-ev Kara o-v^u^EjStjkos to 8t KaO' awd, in the former case Coriscus, musician. Cor. the musician. Cor. the just rnusician, etc. are all ' one ' — as it happens. True, these words are indeter- minate, but only in the sense in which all words are so, unless we define them and stick to that. In speaking of Cor. many might refer only to his appearance ; many (never having seen him) only to his fame ; others, who knew him, to both etc. That PI. does not notice or discriminate the senses of 'one' etc. is true only in a sense. He is not explicit, as we have learned to count explicitness ; but he sees, and means us to see, much both of the different senses of the words and of the results of the inquiry. His intention clearly is to treat of one Kad' aiiTo and as an ova-la, but he tries (Introd. IviL-lxiv.) to simplify it so much that he overpasses the possibilites of the case— consciously. As Dam., § 48, 98, says Kara, ryv wpdiTijV vttoO. to. iravra air' avTOV dviXw, Kal to fivai B-/3os aTracnv, avTo i/,6vov dfbina-L to ei' yiyv/J.Vij'lJ.evov diro twv cIAAidv airdvTi^v. It is a dTrXws iv, and (§ 108, 280) Set Sk irph T^9 Tivis flvai rT)V ajrAws tvdSa- del yap dirXm djjAOeKTOv Io-tl, TO S« fjieOeKTuV ovSeTTOTi dirXias. § 1 17, 304, eVrw 112 PARMENWES. y^p TO oLirXZi iv TU ovrt to dvapiOnoi', Kal el XP^ dvai. v(rioX6yu>v OVK oXlyovs, ■^p.apTTjKOTas diroSeiKvvvai ySoi'AeTat, quae confirmat Eusebius Praeparat. Evangel 1. xiv. c. 4.' K oihe ya^ ... \i,eri\oi.: Herm. adds av — 'vel contra Oxon. cum VS retineri structurae concinnitas jube- bat, eidemque mox, 138 a, debebatur evetrj ... cir- curascripto av, cujus ut omnino vel optimi codices leges ignorarunt, ita nunc ne conjunctis quidem editorum omnium auctoritatibus concedi poterat.' av is a delicate subject. If it be imperative here, we might urge that it may be understood from ovt av dpxrjv above ; or alternatively that fierexoi might be /iET£X" like exei above. It is sometimes hard to decide when a statement is meant to have a, con- ditional element ; while again as Av is often redun- dantly repeated it may sometimes be repressed. a-TpoyyvXov etc. : it can have no boundaries whether curved or straight: here the curved boundary is circular or spherical, TrepKJiepes. Cic, N. D. 11. 18, eulogizing these as more perfect than all other forms, says his duabus formis contingit solis, ut omnes earura partes sint inter se simillimae. £u9v 7« ... li ; i.e. if 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.' Euclid says ypafift,ri% he Trepara, a-i]p,eia. evOeia ypafifXTj ia-riv, ^tis e^ urov Tots f<^' tauT'^s (rrjfjieiois Ketrai. In 21 eiTj stands for the p oft; wrongly: perhaps from confusion with the e'r] below. oiSJ |i4pT| 'i\ei : The Se has a force of its own here, 13B not easy to render: it might be put eTreiirep koX pip-q OVK exei: ' It must be without both straight and round, since it is also without parts,' would be our way of putting it. He dwells on the convertibility of these qualities. For the language cp. Arist. Phys. III. ii. 201 b 26, oviTe yap roSe ovre towvSi ovSep.ta aOTcUv [twv djO^wv] ecrriv, on ovSe rZv dXXtav KaTrjyopiiov. iv ^ B.V tv (Xr\, etc. So 21 without doubt : and it is perfectly admiss. We oftener find a subjunct. when av goes with the relat. : Heind. would prefer that, or to drop dv. But Jelf cites Thucyd. in. 59, ^ Ttvi ttot' dv Kal dva^iif ^vpwefToi. and Xen. Mem. II. i. 22, IcrOrjTa Se i^ ^s dv fidXicTTa &pa SiaXdpiroi.. and others. He does indeed lay down that in such cases the av goes in sense with the vb. not with the rel. : but it is difficult to draw such a line precisely. See also Riddell, Digest of Idioms, § 68. t reads ev ^ dv eir} : possibly dv may have arisen from ev. ev eirj is quite clear, and is one among many cases in which it is open to doubt whether ev or (as Heind. and Herm.) ev- should be used. Each case has been viewed apart and ev kept wherever it gives sense : cp. on 131 a, b. PI. when discussing ev mightsometimesstrainhis language toemphasize the word. avTov duToiTo woXXots' ... a^TTea-^^at. Tcpie- XoiTo has TO ev for subj. : has aTToiro the same subj. — a^Toi! being = exetvou — or does the subj. here change to eKetvo — avrov being = Toi) evoi? The former is the more grammatical ; but, as Heind. notes, aTTTea-dai has the surrounding Ikcivo as subj. and TOV evui as quasi-obj. Either way there is a hitch, although the sense is clear. It is hard to see NOTES. 113 a distinc. between n-oXAaxou and -xj?. n-oAAois = multis partibus, multifariam. Heind. As to the argument he seeks to move step by step, deducing each conclusion from the one preceding ; otherwise he might have proved that the one cannot 'be anywhere ' from the original assumption that it is not many, or from the second that it has no parts — he shows that these are in his mind by repeating (voi T£, and dfiepovs. Jv iavr^ 8v K&v iaxnh etc. Kov Iodt^ 2[, and it admits of transl. as the instr. : koI d-q av irepiexov eavT^ ovK akko rj avro, the last words being obj. of wtpitxov. But t gives the text, and it is on the whole better, eavro being nom. ; unless we exactly reverse and read koI av ovk aAAo ^ awo etrj wepiixov iavTo. Some — e.g. Stallb. and Bekk. — seem to take (avTo so, and read ■/repiexov, ov ovk aXXo, with- out apparent Ms. auth. for ov. The redundant looking enrep ...eir) are after all significant. The words ovTo ye Iv e. ov merely put the altern. sug- gested above, while the repet. brings out its inherent impossibility in view of what is seen to flow from it. ' Put the case that it is within itself : then it itself will be in the position of surrounding what — if it really is within itself — can be nothing but itself after all.' So D, ei Iv t<^ n yiyveTai ... iiirep 6^ iy- yiyverai. etVai firi mpiixov'i' is t and seems correct. ' I say surrounding itself — for it is impossible that anything can be within a thing which does not surround it' The eir) of 21 may be due to a confus. with the same word above and below. This is the B more likely as a confus. has arisen about wepiexovri, written irepiexov ri, cp. lines above and below. avT^ Tb inpUx.ov etc So 2lt. Heind. thinks avro tautological : yet that which surrounds needs a little emphasis, for it is impalpable. It is the mere rim of what is surrounded — not even so much, it is an imaginary line, the whole ev (whatever it may be) being that which is surrounded. Heind. leans to Schleiermacher's avrov 'that of the one (avrov) which surrounds is one thing, that which is sur- rounded is another' ; which, if a change be needed, is a good one. Stallb. retains avro, making it the obj. of TO TTcpicxov, ' that which surrounds it is one thing ' — a very good idea, but involving, he thinks, the mental add. erepov Se to (m' avrov) irepiexofievov ; while at the same time the colloc. avro t6 -irepiexov, p if that is its meaning, tends to mislead. But he gives instances. For the arg. cp. Arist. Phys. iv. U. 209 b 32, SoKei Se del to ov ttov awd re eival ti Kai erepov Tt £kto9 avrov. o4 -ydp 8X0V Ye ft|i«i etc. Ficinus says ' nunquam enim idem ipsum totum utraque haec simul pate- retur et ageret.' This Heind., rightly, approves ; but adds that it seems to assume as text a.p.ia towu rauTOf (toijtcu sc. to irepiexew et to irepiexea-Oai) ; and Stallb. agrees. Is that necessary ? It seems merely a hyperb. of a/*^&)- — ov yap oXov ye ravTov irncrcTat ap.a Kal iroiijo-ei afiffxa. Stallb. would take oAov afj.ia ravTov as 'the single identical whole consisting of these two aspects,' and leave the verbs with no obj. One feels throughout the diff. of keeping the language faultless' when describing what is so very liable to confusion. Cp. Arist. Phys. III. i. 201 a 20, eirel 8' evia ravTO, Kal Swd/iei Kal lvreXexei(} ia-riv, ovx a/ta Se ... 7ro\Xa rjS?/ 7rot^o-ct Kai ireurerai vrr akXTJXiav dirav yap ecrrai dp,a trovq- TiKhv Kal vaOrjTiKov. larrlv TTou irov here is strictly local, referring to ovSanov A above ; not as below dSvvaTov vrov. Spa ... ^Xov •■■ o^""'''' ^ ^ ■*• otovre must be per- sonal to give a subj. to the verbs ; opa 8rj ei (rh ev) ovTois exov oTov T£ lo-TtV, ' has it in its power to ' etc., see 141 A. TiSrjyapov: 'sic et infra (140 e) ; nam alias fere in hac formula omittitur illud Brj.' Heind. Kivovfievov ye from 2lt it would seem that their orig. had re. Fischer says of ye ' posterior emendatio baud dubie vera est. At etiam in Stobaei Eclogis Physicis, p. 30, ubi verba on k. ... vol laudantur, legitur re.' Heind. would reject re. alrai 7ap |i<5vai KivVjo-cis. See Introd, vi. Thorns, c says that Galen calls these kinds of motion rqv roTTiKrjv Kivrjo-iv and rrjv vcriKSi'i Kivr/rov' irav yap To roiovrov Kivel Kivovinvov Kal avro. — t^u yap ij k. vrrdpxei, rovrta rj dKivTjo-ia yipefxia' — n k. evreXexeia tou Kivqrov, y Kivqrov. —ovS f) TTOLrjiTLS ry iraOijcrei rh avro Kvpiwi, dXX' ^ VTrapxet, ravra, t) K. Dam. § loi, 262, says to avroKivrjrov ap^ei p.era^oXrj's rrj'i re eavrov Kal rrjs rov erepoKivq- rov. dvdyKT] dpa Trpb rov er. rh avr. VTrondevOaf Kal fiyjv rh kivovv, y Kivet, Trdvrus ok.* et yap Kal 114 PARMENIDES. Tovro KtvotTo, en-' hrupov ■^^o/iev—yet here too arise difficulties. dXXoiov|ievov 8i ... lovroO ... ttvoi means, as Heind. and Stallb. suggest, aWo s. dWoiov tavrov, aXkolov {] avTo €0-Tiv, yiyvoixivov. This constr. recurs 162 D, 163 c, where also he urges the unity of dX- XoLwris and Ki'vT/o-ts. 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 or the same in appearance. S. called himself ' one as distin- guished from those present ' ; he does not cease to be so by growing older or stouter or balder. He remains one numerically, but to the extent to which the change goes he ceases to be the same S. We can assent to Plato's concl. rather than to his argu- ment, and our assent is based on the understanding, obviously ruling his mind at this moment, that the one is to be one not in number alone. hipav eg eripas : This illustrates, and may have helped to suggest, the argument 139 c, that only the different can differ from the different. He could say [leTaWdrreiv xiStpav ck x^pa^, but if he uses one iripa. he needs two. Phileb. 13 c, aov kiyoVTO'i Tots fi\v flvai Tivas dyaOai rjSovds, Tos Se Ttvas — irepa's airZv — /caicas ; is not an exception. Tois ju£v Tivas balances rots Se Ttvas, while tTtpas avTMv comes in parenthetically — ' some good, some (distinct from them) bad.' See oA.Aot' aAAo^i below. In Latin too we have alia-alia : but in English we can say 'change to one place from another,' and the German is ' einen Ort mit einem anderen ver- tauschen.' eirl \Upav OyVXciTTCl. Y^ ^>.ev Ficinus transl. ' asseveravimus ' whence Heind. thinks he read 7' i^afuv, the ref. being to 1 38 B, OVK apa kfrriv irov Tb kv etc. But this would need i(f>aiMv yap below ; both Mss. = ye <^piv. NOTES. 115 iv f T$ o4t

(TOxCav Proc. elaborates the arg. here in syllogs. VI. 163, rit ?v OVK iarnv iv Tivf rh firj ov ev Ttw ovSiTTore ev t^ avrQ Icrri (he has said above Ttav yap OTTUs Ik tivi amo'S' rh piv yap ftortKais ottws ev iaxrrifi ea-ri, rh 8e o-w/iariKws ev aA.A(})) — these are the premisses to PL's concl. ouScVore apa ea-rl rh ev ev T^ avrw. Proc. goes on eTreira SevTepos A.oyos ToiovTos" rh ev ovSeirore ev rQ avr^ ecrri,' rh fXTjSe- irore ev t$ avrif ov ovy^ ecrrrjKe' rh apa ev ov)( ea-rrjKev. o 8e (PI.) wpoaedrjKev ' ovS' rforvyiav ayei.'' — SoKei yap eardvai pev Kai to ev dXXQ ISpvpiVov, ijo-vx'av Sc ayet rh ev eavrt^ peveiv Svvdpevov. dp6repa Se aTrerja-e rov evos. Although PI. has treated of motion with suiRcient care for his purpose, and sees clearly its two great divisions ; it seems very unlikely that he would have made no alius, to the more elaborate classification which Arist. gives — e.g. Phys. iii. — had that been known to him. In this the Parm. agrees with the Theaet. ir^ 8^: So t; 31 has rivt &j which in uncials, if written closely, is very like iry, Introd. Ixxxi. Irepov ... Ivos irepov etc. The concep. of the ev is here much more abstract than it was above. Refs. to physical conditions, such as size and position, are now pointless : the ' one ' has been driven from the physical sphere and is now a pure logical entity. The args. used will apply if we regard their terms as terms merely, or the one as a thing having no positive content, 'This part of the argument is the extreme of dialectic subtlety' saysGrote. Of the four parts of the argument Proc.,vi. 172, points out that he begins dirh rZv irporepinv [read Tro/jMTe/opcov] roi5 evbs Kai "qpiv evkrjirrorepuv — Kal yap oti to^t&v tois akkoii (PI. says erep(p) ovk earn, S^Aov Kai oti erepov eavTov OVK ea-ri — the latter of the two, being clear- est of all, comes first: Kal ydp ea-nv ...rh ravrov eyyvrepta rov evos, to Se erepov Troppdrepov rh Se eyyvrepov xaA,en-(i>Tepov daipeiv. rairiv yf...iK(lvo &v cti], Sound, as words are generally used : but we shall soon see it contra- dicted ; and shall then learn why in elucidating his present position his args. do not run in the order given above (Proc). The reasoning holds, more- over, only from the standpoint of the 'one'; chang- ing that standpoint we can see that eKetvo would in c turn cease to be itself and would be ev. Cp. Dam. § 42, 85, ovre rjviarai avri^' e'rj yap ov CKelvo ijvw- pevov. 6XK' irepov iv6f. This too is right in ordinary usage : but the words have scarcely been uttered when he shows that he should not have used them — ov yap evl irpoarfKei cTepo) tivos e?vai. Oappel S ovv Kal rovro, says Proc. 174-176, Ty p-qSev eurSexec^at rh ev aTrh rdv aXXiav ... o^Se rh ev drrh rrj^ rmv ovtwv iSioTJjTos dvaTTipTrXda-at Svvarov ... 17V yap av ti npu rov evos' ij yap avoSos exi to ev, aXA. ovk eirt to irX'^^os... TO Se TrptuTus ev /cat to e(j>eTuv iracrt tois oSoriv dpeOeKrov TrpovTrdp-)(ei r(av okuv, iva pevQ ev dirXriOvvrov ... OWTW 8' av airoSei^etas Kal T^v Tawo- r-qra avrrjv ea-nv ott-q ravrorrjra prj o^a-av, eiirep e'nj TTWS Tji ereporrjn TaijTov ij aAA yap krkpta ttvai irpocr^Ku T(jj erepov erkpia, which phrase may perhaps support ertpov. Dam., § 72, 159, says rb SLaKCKpip.kvov SiaKiKpipAvov SbaKeKpnai, d Kal aAAos eKarkpov 6 t^s SiaKpta-eias Tpo-iros. Kal yap to KaXciv tov SiKaiov enpov, krkpov Kal TOVTOV OVTOS- dkX' rj erepoTTjs ovx rj avTrj nXrjV tw ykva TTJi ISioTYjTO's. We may cp. Theaet. 158 e, dSvm-rov Toivvv ravTov ti 'ix'^iv rj kv Swd/xei rj kv dXXw oT(fovv, orav y Ko/itSij irepov. With such cases of Trpo's Ti we must guard, as Arist. says, Categ. 7, 6b 35 etc., against giving to dvTia-Tpk(l>ov otherwise than oLKelois. mpov erkpov is given oikeiws, but not (Polit. 283 d) SoKfL (rot TO fiei^ov firfSevos eTepov Seiv fiei^ov Xkyav i] tov JAarroi'os; PI. has to put to fikTpiov between, and even that hardly meets the case. He is right if he means that the sole antith. to /icifov Tii'bs is not eXaTTov tivos, but wrong if he thinks that anything can be inserted between the terms when saying rb /xei^ov jxu^ov 1paxrTov vwepkvoicnv. o4x ■'i'''«p ... toBt<5 Yt d8«vaTov. Proc, VI. 182-186, says that here (i) the one is proved not to be ' the same ': — to be ' one ' and to be ' same ' would need to be rigidly convertible, but that which becomes the same as the many becomes so by becoming many, not by becoming one ; so that ' same ' and ' one ' are not rigidly convertible : (2) Toirry Se Setx- ^evTt (TVV^^pe (PI.) Kal on o^X' Taurbv ovTO) to ev, ws TauTOTijTOs fieTaXafihv ... aAAjjs oiio-)js, ... ecTTai yap T^ fieTaXa/ietv TavroTijros ev re Kal aAAo Ti o p/q eo"Tt, Kal ovKkTi epei Tt laiirjj iravTWi o fifj ^v irpo avT^s. And SO we are to think of the following hierarchy of existences, each step down- wards (or, if we treat the first as lowest, upwards) bringing in its own special characteristic o /ui) ^v wpo avT^s : t6 If — ^« airX4T>;Ta Kpelrrova TaW-njTos t6 Sk — ?xet TTji' ToiiTOTijra xal erepirriTa fjv o^k elx^ Ti Iv yoBs — ,, roS voO Spe^iv „ ,, Sv I /ierajSon/cjji' vbi)(nv ,, b voSs KiS/cXy dvriaiv rrju tottlktjv , , ri ^vx^l T) fivens — ,, (caT* ouffiaK /iera/SoXV » boipavbi. In this difficult section PI. does convince us that same and one are not rigidly convertible, that ovk eirtiSav ravTov yevrj-ai T(§ Tt ev ytyvtrai. We may by popular usage say ' what becomes the same as anything becomes one wt'ik ti' but not 'becomes one'; and that being realized, when we say one is the same as itself, we add a fresh quality to one. So of £t apa TO ev kavr^) ravTov etTTai ov\ ev eavrip tarraf popular language says that a thing is the same as itself But Proc. truly holds that ' same ' is a s-pos Tt, and that our duty here is to think of ' one ' as Kaff avTo if we can, as an entity rigidly unmodified by extraneous comparisons. If we do, then when we call it to^tov Uvt<} — innocent as the act may seem — we have caused it to be no longer 2v lai;T^ —Kal ovT(a iv ov ovx «>' lo-rai. Proc. accounted for the order of the args. by their relative difficulty, the hardest coming last. But there seems to be another reason at work. The second contention, above b. is 'Ta^Toi' y€ ItIp^ oi' cKflvo S,v (irj. This we now see is a popular use of language, which dialectic rejects ; otherwise ravrov ye canT^ ov tKcivo av ttrj would hold, and the one, when the same with itself, would be itself, and so necessarily one with itself. He could not, then, have put his second arg. after his fourth, which cuts away its basis. On the other hand if we accept the latter we may be supposed not to need the former. As to language Heind. justly says on yei/ijTai 'Rectius fuerit yiyvrjrai, ac deinde yiyvo/ievov pro yevo/ievov ' : unless we are to fall back upon the distinc. between mere narrative or argumentative forms (aorist) and pictorial forms (present), ' when it passes into sameness with any- thing, it is in that very process becoming one before our eyes.* Heind. adds that 8tc<^ep£ would be pre- ferable to Sia(pei, while a Siaepei oZv would be an improvement before irdvv ye. Proc, vi. 185, asks, why say Tots ttoWois Tavrov instead of tVoi', and answers by saying that we don't here deal with a Tt ■/roa-bv existing ev Tots evvkois TTpdyfuwiv, but with an ovo-ttuSes itX.7)6os or jroo-di', and that ij KOTa t'^v ouo-tav Kotvtoi'ta TauTOTTjs kcrrlv, ij 8e Kara Tt iroo-ov la-oTrjs. He probably gets this partly from the language in 140 b. olfru S^...lTcp(f etr) : ' Malim 0VT(a Srj ^ eVepdi'' K p. m. Heind. A smaller change would do, outu S' t/. From the dats. govd. by TauTov we supply gens, for fTtpov. The statement is a condensation of the one with which the arg. began 139 b. oiire ... kTiptg are an enlargement of ni/t above. We might have had eiVe etTe, and also ovSevl for Ttvt. 8ti tJi Toiriv wov etc. ' Because to be affected anyhow in the same way is resemblance,' ' because what is similarly affected in any way is like ' ; or as Jowett translates ' Because likeness is sameness of affections.' Plato exposes his arg. to needless dan- ger by resting its further progress upon this asser- tion. The reasoning used about ' same and differ- ent ' 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 Hkeness this def. will do very well. Arist., Met. iv. g, 1018 a 15-19, says 6'/tota AeyeTut Ta T£ jrai/Tg TaiiTO irewov- Oora, Kal ra TrAeioj Ta^TO 7mrov66ra rj eVepa, Kat &v ij irotoTTjs p.ca- (cat KaO" Sera dkXotova-0ai «v5exeTtti Twv tvavTiv(Tiv )((opls {ov) tov evos.' Stallb., who cites for abs. of ov 165 d, ovku^v ... \(i>pl's kavTmv, and 166 ovSl aTTTOfieva ouSe ^wpii. i-tci c( Ti ir6irov9t etc. = et to tv TrkirovOk Tt xiapls tou tv tlvai, ^eirovdoi av eTvat irXeiui rj ev. The Strict balance of moods is broken. TrAeto) rj ev ' This is the main point of Demons, i. and is stated pp. 139 D, 140 A compared with 137 c' Grote. ovSajius ?imv etc. = ovSapws Si/vaToi' iiTTtv apa. to ev eivai TfivTov-iTeirov6oaiveTai is a little ambiguous: 'non videtur' Ast, 'clearly not ' Jowett. owSe /f^v if not Tavrov ' still less ' erepov. One is tempted to relapse and hold that the one must be either TauTov tt. or erepov it. and that It cannot be at once ovSapwi ravTov it. and ovSa/iGs erepov jr. But the objection lies in the irtjrov^os : to be one, as we are striving to regard that, it must be ovSev 0i5Sa/i5s TreirovOos, X'^P'S Tou ev eTvai : if indeed to ev eTvai is ri ireirovdevai, and not avrb Ka6' avTO elvai. ti oiht 4po...av tti) rb iv'. The dats. are luckily suited to both adjs. this time; not as 139 e. 21 reads lavToj here. We are not far past the argt. aAXct p,6v(i) erepo) aXXo) Se ovSevL, 139 c, and already we lapse and mingle aAAos with erepo's, and even speak of erepov TreirovGbs ... aWov. T«v oirw (Urpuw With likeness and unlikeness physical features recur; and with equality and inequality they come to the front. We may recall what Proc. said (above) about n iroa-ov, and Arist.'s defin. (also above) tVa Se &v rb iroa-ov ev. He says Categ. 6, 6 a 26, iSwv Se fjuiXia-Ta rov ttoo-ov rb ca-ov Te Koi dvurov Xeyea-Oai: when not Used strictly so it IS still used Kar dvakoytav of to ttoo-ov. PI. regards all jToo-a as estimated by units, and does not here ask whether the measure is of length, capacity, or weight, oh ... (rvfifi,erpov, those with which it is c commensurable, or has a common unit. Cp. Arist. Met. I. 2, 983 a 15, we begin, he says, by wonder- ing e.g. irepl ... rfiv rrjs Siafierpov dxrvn/ierpiav Oav- fiacrTov yap eivai SoKei vacriv ei ti t^ eXa)(i(rTia art fierpeiTai, and end by reversing our wonder. T»v |iJv o-fUKpoT^puv r&v Si etc. In the previous sentence the twv ptev, tZv Se belonged to the foil, adj. : here they are separate, referring to the things (ofs) with which the one is incommens., while the adjs. qualify /xerptav. It might have read a-piKpoTe- piav jxev Kal fxei^ovtav pLerpiov e fi/, ws «v Soc^icrrj SeSei^e, 7roAAavtpov (N.B. ) us ODK f(TTi TO ovTO €V Ttov £i8(Si/ Ti Iv irav yap eiSos /ICpOS ECTTl TOU VOJJTOU TTttlTOS, dA.A.' e^ljprjTai Koi TOV okov vor)TOV KOI Twv Iv avT^i £iSo)V fxepaiv ovtojv. ... /cai TTUS yap ov eiTj pirpov, kirkKuva iravTos irspaTos ov koi opoxi Kat evonjTos; vav 8e p,4rpov irkpas eerri tou jue- rpovfiivov KoX opos. l6(ri ; to yap koto XpOVOV OVMTOV KOI UTOV OV TrdcTrj'S flCTiCrX^ ■'^S TOV dvifTOV Ti Kal UTOV Svvdjocws. 4p' oJrv ei&i ... rfi] ; ovSc might be dropped. v£4pov 31 clear and admissible, although t has Sidopov as below. ovSev Su ylyvio-dai 'premit notionem tov yiyvea-Oai,.' Stallb. And so we see immediately. If ovSci' is nom. trepov is tautol. Perhaps it is = kot' ovSev, ovSajtiws. oXXa ... ffij] ttvai, short for e. g. dAXa Se6 p,kv avrh ij8jj etvat Stoc^opov tov ■^Brj ovtos Sia(f>opov : and so below, pUkkeiv needing also the word eVeo-^ai as in c. After pointing out (vi. 235) that PI. lays down here Kotvov Tivo Kovova TTipl T(3v dvTiKup.ivti>v aira^ airdv- Tftjv, Proc. urges that this affects TrapaSuypaTa, which must ' become' as their image becomes etc. If this is so, and if trapaS. are not to be affected by to yiyvea-dai, then ovk dTToSe^ofieOa tovs irpayp.aTwv kiri- K-npiov (mortal) TrapaSuypaTa ttoiovvtos' ItrTai yap to irapdS. Tr]s eiKovoi ovk ova-tjs, — unless the latter does not itself partake of becoming, but is of the same nature as its model. oSv : so t, 21 has ov : the two words, however written, c might easily be interchanged. Sia<^opdTijs vEWTepov — on Sia4>. Fischer and Heind. cite Moeris Atticista UkaToiv Iv GfioiTjjTy irap' dkktf ovx evpov. Fischer adds 'scilicet apud nullum veterem scriptorem Atti- cum Platonique aequalem. Phileb. 3 et 4 est 8ia6pa. Would any Aristotelian, familiar with the latter word, go back, even when writing in imitation of Plato, to this rare word, when Sia6pa is likewise habitually used by Plato ? If not, then the Parm. is not likely to have been written by a later imitator, vtiirepov fi|ia The adv. is important. He has 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 — a-vyxeirai yap tj 6ipia lyyv's Tov dvaicrO^rov )(povov yivopevr). Has PL m mind the reasoning of Zeno upon space? Proc. says, VI. 231, 8o^£i£ 8' av drropdyraTOi ttvai Kai, iv eiiria, tro^io-TiKos irtoi oCtos 6 Adyos. He points out (233) that there are two views of particip- ation in time, to ptv oiov tvdeiav oStvov koI dp\6- jievov Ti diro two's koI tli aXXo KaTaXrjyov (in which case the object sharing in time would not become both older and younger) — to Se Kara kvkXov irepi- Tropev(ip,cvoi> Kot otto tov avTov Trpos to avTo ttjv KivyjiTiv exov, o koI dpy^-q koX Trepas cctti tovtov koi, ■q KivrjcTis dKaTaXrjKTO'S, CKao'TOV Tiav cv avTg Kal dpxrji Kal TrepaTos ovTos, Kal ovSlv ^ttov dpy^rji Kal [rj ?] TrepaTO's. to Srj kvkXikZs tvepyovv /i6T£;(«t tov Xpovov irepioSiKoi^, Kal (IttuStj to avro Kal irepas Trji Kii'^(re(DS ecTTt Kal dp^rj,') KaOoo'ov /nev dicTTaTai r^s dpxr,i Trptcr/ivTepov ylyverai., KaOoaov 8e eirt to iripas (which is the dpx'q) dijuKveiTai vewTcpov ylyvtTaf yiyvopxvov yap eyyiov tov irepaTos kyyvrtpov yiyviTai TTj's oUeias dpxrji. This is ingenious : but had PI. meant it he surely would have been more explicit. Besides, when life is advancing, xepi- ■irXopiviav eviavToiv, do we grow younger as the end of the year brings round our birthday ? Does the explanation explain? Proc. goes on to urge that whatever becomes ten years old becomes older than itself — as nine-years-old; iv i} S« yiyviTai rovTo, vi(oT€pov iavTov yiyverai. to Ivvaerls — by instantaneous transition to ten years, which makes its still-at-that-instant-subsisting-age-of-nine younger than its at-that-instant-emerging-age-of-ten. This is just what has been urged above ; but it has no necessary connection with circular motion. Avo-yKi) ... raOra: For this abbreviated express. Heind. quotes parallels, Gorg. 475 B, ov Kal tovto dvdyK-q ; and Rep. vii. 519 b, Laws x. 899 A. Iv XP°>"? ••• ■'■'''' Toioirov, What does toiovtov refer d to ? ' Quae in tempore sunt atque hoc tali partici- pant,' Ficinus: 'quaecunque in tempore sint hujus- que partem habeant,' Ast : ' Was in der Zeit besteht und deren theilhaftig ist,' Miiller: 'things which are in time and partake of time,' Jowett. These agree more or less in referring toiowot; to XP°^V directly. 'Was in der Zeit ist und an so etwas Theil hat,' Engelm. : this is less definite and may refer the word to the process of becoming older and younger just described. We might then supply mentally ■sraOrjp.aTOi, which occurs in the plural just below. But perhaps the former view ' and partakes of such a thing as we have shown time to be' is the more correct, considering what follows. ovZ\ &pa ... xp<5v0- vou tpvx'QV dSvvaTOV eivar iraxra yap /lETCxe' Xpovov, Kal XP'^Tai irepLoSoLi viro Xpovov p.erpovjxkvais. ...tovto 6jj TO SoKouv diTLCrTOV itvai iroXXoi'i Kal p,aXicrTa Tois irpo avTov (j>viTwX6yois, o? TrdvTa TrepieX'^crdai, (fOVTO VTTO TOV xpovov, Kal e? ti dtBiov k(TTi tov dveipov tivai xpovov, ixr]Sev Se dKaTap,eTprjTOV wro tov xpovov Tv ndvTbiv eivai. Kal yap Sxrirep ev TOTTtf irdvTa i^ovro ilvai, a-v, ojs SeSuKTai Trpo t!ov ovtojs oiTwv KoX aiTiov TrdvTwv. But we must not forget that this severance from time speedily costs the one its existence. He further points out that a thing may, so to speak, be ' in time yet not of it,' may exist contemporaneously with time yet not be tem- poral (241) : TO ermt ev XP°^V is not the same as to (tvai TOTE oT« xpovos e'cTTi'v, any more than to tri'06 €1' roir TOvrf(TTi to «ii'«i ot« tottos otti'v, rj outws traiv TO dxriafiaroi' ey tojtw ^^o'o/xci' eivai, SioTi tottov ovtos ktnlv. Nay to ' OTe \ii)pav hn tovtov [tou si'os] TravreXws ovk t^ii irpo aiuivos v)Te €V alitivi p-TJre tv xpovitt ot'TOS, dvaivop-fvov Se ■njv JT/oos afiijxa Koivutviav; cits yap ovk iv )(fi6v(^ to ?i', OTt fiij ev Kitrqirei, outws ovS' (v alwvi, on jiti) tv OTOtra' fievei yap 6 ai(av, ais o Tt/iaios tfirjo'iv. Any further discussion of these problems maybe deferred. Us ... aipei : So 2It, and there are several instances of the phrase. Crit. 48 c, orei&j 6 Xoyos outojs atptt. Phileb. 35 D, 8i\j/^v apa f)p,C>v To o'w/ta ... ov- Safiy 6 Aoyos a'.pti. Rep. X. 604 C, ojrg o Aoyos alpei PeXTUTT av ^X*"' • ^^^ ^'^O ^°7 ^ ^'C. This need be said only because tpet was an early reading, and seems to be transl. by Ficinus ' non sane, ut ratio dictat.' Cp. Phaedr. 274 a, ws o Aoyos rj(Tiv. It will be seen that a reader of 31, ( Arethas ?) struck with the text, makes a note of it in the marg. KoV TO ylyovt etc. Cp. Rep. VI. 499 CD, el roivvy aKpoiith ^lAoo'o^'ai' ffoAews Tis dvayKyj e7rip.e\ir}6r}vai, ■^ yiyovev iv t^ dirupif t^ jrap£A77A,i)^ori XP^^V V '""' wv e(TTiv ... ri Kal iireira yevytrtrai, irepl tovtov e'roi- fwi Tri(Ti, Kal TtjV fiev ^Seiv to. iraptXOovTa, t7)V 81 Tol sropdvTa, rrjv Se ra pAXXovTo. : and says Trpoeia-i TrpZ- Tov pev TpiaSiKois ils to Trapbv Kal wapeXOuv Kal peX- Xov, fTTiiTa ivvtax^i iKOXTTOv rmv rpiiov T0VT(av ih rpia irdXiv iiroSiaipiiv. But in the case of TO Trapov Pl, has only two subdivisions idn and yiyvtTai,. He rectifies thin by including in his summary vvv yiyove: but he thus repeats ytyove twice and has to add iPOT€ to the first one. Proc. classifies thus : — t6 Trape\9bii = &Kpoy, fjv jiiaov, yeyovioai re\evTaiov, iylyvtro Tliirap6ii=Kvpiil)TaT0V, (ffTi ,, Y^yoxe ,, ylyrfrai Ti fJii\\ov=u'pi}\6TaTOV,((rTai ,, yev^/icreTai ,, y(rqBi)ir€TM but (243) has doubts as to the main divisions, /*e'xP' Tii'os yajo ijv to Trapov rj ro irapeXOov, Kal T;6div dp^t- Tai Aoijroi' TO peXXov ; dXX' lo-ws dptiyov X^yeiv oTt TToa-ai pev kuto, jravra tov xpofov Ivepyovaiv, ctAA' «X<"'Tos Tou oAoD xpovov TpnrXS,^ Iv avry Svydpci's — Tijy pxy TiXiiTiovpyov Trdo'ij^ Kivi^arttas, frjy Si o^vveK- TLKtjV Tdiy vtt' avTiHy (iatTiXivopiviay Kal ^povprjTiKTjv, TTjv Se iKa\'TopiKyjV Ttov Oiiiov. Proc. speaks throughout as of o xpovos tZv xpvx&v, not of oCtos if).j)ayri's xp°vo^, though this is constituted on the same analogy, or rather KaTo. t^v Trph's rov aiwi/a opoioTrjTa which comes between. This is probably suggested by Tim. 37 D, cIku) S' eTriyoel KLvrjToy Tiva aitovos Troirja~ai, Kal Sia/coo"/ia)v dpa ovpayuv ttouI pevovTO'S aiwi'os fv evl kot' dpiOpuv lovcrav aliiyiov t'lKOya, TOVTOV oy Srj xpovov iLvopdKaptv — and SO on ; but TTipl piy TOVTcov Tax' ai' ovk tirj /catpos Trpeiru>v iy T$ TrapovTi SiaKpijSoXoyeLo-Oai. One would like an excuse for changing to yeyove into t6 eytydvet and 7roT£ yiyovev into stot' tyeyoVei. This would furnish TO Trope A^ov with past tenses and remove the double use of yiyove. But the text is certain, and Proc. goes on to comment upon it: — tj);/ Se Trpt!>Ti]v rpidSa Ttta's eiruTKeTTTioy. avTrj Srjirov Koivbv cx«' iraa-a to TTOTe . . . T(j>v Tpidy tovtu>v to pev (njpaivei ttjv aKpoTrjra Trj's TptdSos — TO ^y — KaT avTr]v Tfjv virap^iv dopi^ov' TO Se T^v dOpoav TfXemcriv — to yeyoye' to Se t>]v ev T$ TeXetovcrdat TrapaTaa-iv — to eytyi'eTO' pLp-f)paTa TavTa tZv yorjTZv — to pey r^y tov ovtos, to Se yeyove TOV aHayoi, to Se eytyreTO tov Trpwrios altuvLOV. to ph- yap elvai ttSxtiv ck roujrpwTov, to Se opov ttSv Kal oAo]- ttTTO TOV pitTov, TO Se nXr^Bveirdai Kal ^KTeivea-Oai ottiu- irovy eK tov Tplrov. tovtoi^ Se tois Tpto-t Kai to. e^rjs e Our idiom is the indef. art. in '*' such cases J and so 'wenn man einem solchen Schlusse vertrauen darf,' Engelm. It would agree with our ideas to explain the usage thus, tt Stl ffttTTevetv T^ X6y(j) TotwSe ovTt. The demonstr. is probably used 6«ktikws, the A,oyos being personified as one of the company : otherwise rotoCros would be more in place. 8 hi...i\ oiroo; literally = but what does, not exist — could there be to this non-existent thing NOTES. 123 anything either 'for it' or 'of it'? We might simplify thus — yxf oktos 8t rtvos, t'l; ai' n f) aiV^ ^ avTov ; e.g. oi^ apa ovofid ea-riv ovT^ ovSe Adyos [avTov]. So Alcib. I. 128 A-B, SaKTuXtoi' tcrriv orov av 3.X.X.0V Twv Tov dvOpunrov <^atijs rj 8aKrvX.ov : What has no owria can have no jtoiottjs or jrpds ti. ov8^ n • neque ab aliquo ex iis quae sunt senti- tur,' Fie, who must take the words thus, ovSi n rtav ovTUJ' (subject of sent.) ala-ddvfrai awou : and similarly Jowett, ' nor does anything that is perceive one ' : and Miiller and Ast. But Engelm. ' noch (wird) etwas von dem Seienden an ihm wahrgenom- men ' clearly assumes ot(r6'ai'£Tai to be passive ; and very naturally in view of the connection. Stallb. without remark renders 'nee quidquam eorum, quae revera sunt, in eo percipitur et animadvertitur.' PL's point seems to be that nothing which is can perceive what is not. Jj Swarbv ... SoKct: Here we have a conclusion; and it is unsatisfactory. Proc. (vi. 241) thus traces back the argt, aTre<{>rfada-t(av dizoyvfivtav yjimZv tKei'vrjV Ti]V (l>vcriv ^v TeAevTwv ovSe tlvai rja-iv, dXXd p,6vov ev TOV e'coi d/xeTOXov oTr' avT^s ydp t6 eivai. § 27,48, ei TO ei' eKeivo Trdvra e(7Ti koi irav ... to Se ' Trdvra eivai ' OVK OTTi ' ToSe tc eu'at,' to Se ' yvwcrToi' e^fai ' ' ToSe tL ea-Tiv eivai ' — SrjXov to (rvfijiaivov OTi to TrdvTa ov ovk e'o-Tt yvfoo-Toi'. § 29, 55, ois yruo-Tcp TToppwdev evTvyxdvo/itev Kal . . . virep/idvTe's ij/xwv t5 yviDiTTiKov TOU evds ets to ev eiVat irepiKXTapeda, Tovreo-Tiv cts rh dyvuuTTOv eivai dvTl yvoxTTiKov. He like Proc. treats the one here as transcendental. PovXci oSv ...4>avTi; So t, which seems essential: b 21 (jiaveirj. Cp. Phaedr. 263 E, jSovXei wdXiv dva- yrco/tei' T^v dpx'Ji' avTov ; Tim. 17 B, e^ dpxq'i Sia. Ppaxemv irdXiv eirdveXdt avTO. iva Pefiaiiiidy fiaXXov Trap' riiJ.iv. Arist. Met. I. end, eVaveA^w/tev TrdAtv Toxo ydp dv eta We must suppose something like tvtt Kot etSft>/i«v edv etc. (Riddell's Digest, § 64, y) : 124 PARMENIDES. ' Considerantes si quid forte redeuntibus (Stallb. ' a principio repetentibus ') nobis aliter se habere videatur.' Fie. t marks this by •:• opp. oZv. o4kovv...tovto- I. 'Nonne, si ipsum ununi est, confessi sumus, quae circa illud eveniunt, cujusmodi esse oporteat?' Fie, which Heind. says would imply £^a/x£v with a ref. to 137 v, fj fiovXea-Oe etc., but that a similar case recurs 163 c. We need not press Fie. too closely, who almost omits Sio/ioA. ravra. 2. Muller, ' Behaupten wir nicht (ovkovv (fia/ikv) es liege uns ob voUstandig dariiber uns zu verstandigen (Sto/xoXoy. ravra) was etwa (irota woTt) wenn das Eine ist ((v tl to-nv), in Bezug auf Dasselbe daraus folgt (rvyxdvn- ovra ra a-vixISaivovra. irepl avToxi;)?' This is very literal, and gives the same interpretation as (3) Jowett, who is very brief, ' We say that we have to work out all the conse- quences that follow, if one exists.' 4. Engelm., 'Also "Eins, wenn es ist" sagen wir, und raiisscn das was dasselbe trifft, von welcher Art es auch inimer sein mag, bestimmen.' This makes ev el eoriv the object of <^a/iankv^ Sio/JioXoyrjTiov, Trold ttotc Tvy)(^a.vei QVTa TO. a~vix(3aivovTa Trepl avTo; Etenim ravra ... ex abundanti adjectum est. Ex his vero intelH- gitur etiara alteram Heindorfii conjecturam, qua oTToia pro TTota legendum statuit, minime neces- sarium esse. Ceterum cp. Rep. vii. 527 b, ovkovv TOVTO €Ti 8iayxoXo-yijT6ov ; ro ttoIov ; ais etc' There is room for still another rendering, which would be brought out by arranging the words thus, ovkovv (fia/xev ev d eWtv Sio/ioAoyijrea ra crv/iySan'ovra vepl avTov ravra [cti/oi] — Trold rrore rvyxdvd ovra ; and by the following paraphrase — 'let us review our 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 are those which we have just stated, whether we like their character or not ? ' The weak point here lies in irota irore rvy. oVra for Kalirep ovra roiavra : it would be met if we read for wcpl avrov Trold—TTfpl avTO, ojroia. tv ct ia-nv ... ovo-Cos Si etc, ' In primo supposito unum supra ens efferebat et a rerum universitate eximebat Farm. ; in hoc secundo vero unum vult cum essentia conjungi.' Thoms. He professes to have just discovered a grave blunder, and to be astonished at the consequences which flow from it. He said the one existed ; and this time he won't forget it. Introd. Iviii. ow TouT^v oio-o T (V sc. eti/ai, quod etsi statim infertur post ilia ovT€ Tt§ owrla, tamen illud et hie accurata sermonis ratio requirebat. Commodius certe post ova-la quam h. 1. abesset.' Heind. For the pro- miscuous use of 'irepov and dXXo Stallb. cites ample auth., e.g. II. IX. 472, ovrt ttot' ea-prj Trvp, erepov pkv ... akXo 8' ivl irpoSo/iif, and Soph. 245 e, o-vvaTTTCTai, yap erepov k^ aXXov. Phileb. 57^1 "P" 60-Ti Tis eripai aXXiq KaOapiaripa eTricrnj/iijs iiria-Tripr]. In the argt. PI. reverts to the Une taken in Dem. i. and introduces plurality into the one more legiti- mately than in 142 e. Stallb. speaks of the ' notio differentiae, quae tamen neque in uno neque in essentiae natura continetur, sed accedit extrinsecus. Est enim quasi negans quaedam utriusque illius copula :' cp. Soph. 257 B-C, oiroTai/ t& pr] ov Xeywptv, ws toiKev, ovK tvavrlov Ti Xiyopiv tov 6vT0i,dXX erepov uovov ... namely oti TtHv aXX(av ti p-qvvu t5 p-q Kai TO ov ... Tiav irpaypaTmv inpl citt' ov Ki-qTai to. «Vt<^^ey- ■youeva va-Ttpov rijs airo(/><«r£iD pkv Xkyoptv Koi tovs Svo a«<^oTe/3ovs, Travra? 8' ov Xkyop,ev, dA.A.a Kara ruiv rpiinv ravTqv rrjv TTpoorrjyopiav ap.€v TrpZrov — he has said above, quoting the Pythagoreans, that to ttSv koX to iravra TOts rpurlv lopicTTai. ecTTiv ov(Tiav iiinlv ; cp. nom. below OT av eiVd) ovo-i'a re Kal ev, and agam : the constr. seems free and capricious, e.g. Theaet. 147 a, oTuv (iTTwpev TTTjXds, Prot. 317 c etc. ovK oJv Kal... Kal the second koI ('Hkewise') resumes the first. Stallb. quotes De Corona p. 317, &aTe Kal &v avros (is dTV\r]pAT(i>v Ipipvqro, Kai Tavr' epov KaTrjyopet, et sic centenis locis. i4>' D eKocTTov eK. est 'quodcunque simul commemoratur,' ut non opus sit numero duali (Koa-roiv queni desiderabat Heind. De formula Itti tivos Xeyeiv v. ad Remp. v. 475 a, d jiovXu ... ct' fpov Xeyav irepl T(j>v kpinTiKutv. Stallb. <» seems necess. ; 21 va-ii (fiaivirai KaraKeKcp/jtaTia-dat KaOdvep tjrto-TJjp; — /xia p.(v ecrrt ttov Kal eKctvrj, to 8' eirt toj yfyvo/itvov ras dpte., number as a whole, last of all. He now p.^po^ avr^s ?/vvp.[av Jb-xa tlv^l argues (v has 5v, therefore ttSs dpiep-hs has it, there- iavrrj^ ISUv Sih TroAAai rexvat t' (utI Xcydjuevai k.lI fore TO /lopiov Ikoottov (2, 3, 4, 9, 6 etc. etc.) has it. This assumes that Fie. is right ; and Jowett agrees with him. But if Tras = every, then in t^ p.6piov (k. we must deal with fractions; a view which finds some support in a-p-iKpOTarov, fieyia-rov. M. iravra ... fx«' oiSra. ' Exscripsit haec ... (whole of 144 b) Stobaeus in Eclogg. Phys. p. 30.' Stallb. ' Sed legitur ibi ova-ia twv ovtwv rov dTroa-rtxroir) — KOTa KeKtpfidTKrTa- — Kai fxipuna. ttcivtidv, /xaXiora S' in — Ix" ovTws. Et dTTocrraToirj quidem placet : caetera sunt manifesta librariorum vitia.' Fischer. B diro(7Ta.Toi. Notes I. The optat. is necess. ; but clearly a very old error has to be dealt with. If in some very early copy oTrooTaToi stood as closely under dTroa-raTei, two lines above, as in 21, the mis- take might be due to misreading. It might also have come through diet. — 'a fiir ot kommt auch im Jungattischen sporadisch vor : oiKti = o'kol bei Menandros, Sveiv haufig, tois Aotjrets auf einer Inschrift des Jahres 100 v. Chr.' Blass, p. 56-7. For the sense Thoms. says ' Dionysius, vulgo Areopagita dietus, de Div. Nom. c. 5, Tc» eivai ovStwore diroXeiirerai twv ovtwv, ot£ yap aTroAet^ei to ttvai ovk icTTi rh ov.' KaraKe. apa cus oiov re VfiiKp., in full = K. apa rj oviTi'a eh fiopia los oiovt€ criuKp. etc. Stallb. cites Rep. iii. 395 b, Kal eVi ye ToiJTcuv, 3 'AS., va-is. ' Accusativi autem pendent a verbo KaraKe. quae constans prope structurae est ratio in verbis divisionem signifieanti- bus : velut [d] AeyovTes is irXtla-ra fieprj ij ovcria vevefi. ilrj.' Heind. See Jelf § 583, 48 on Sa'uo. L. and S.. cite Symp. igi d, eKaa-ros oSv ij/twv eo-Ttv avdpdnrov ^vfi,j3oX.ov, are rerjj.-qfi.evos uxnrep at tj/rjrral ff tvos Svo. Travraxws ' quomodocunque ' Fie, re)(yai r euri Aeyofievai eiria-rrjpMi. etc. p,evroi : ... fxevroi ' plurimae cerfe ... C non fanien pars etc.' Fie. Tot toCto ' jtojs av roiovro dedi pro irws dv roi. rovro, quia Toi in interrog. ferri non poterat ; quanquam fateor etiam rh roiovro vel Trio's Tt dv rovro rescribi licuisse.' Herm. He surely means n-ws av n ? p.ir]Sev Se, dSvvarov : = dSvvaTov Si avrh eivai /tijSlv. irpis fiirovTi &pa ixAimf etc. So 2lt : but ajr. ck. is a strange phrase ; though it may be compd. with such early expressions as everilk or everich, and even everiehone, as in Kings Quair, stanza 64, And efter this, the birdis everiehone. Heind. says ' Fie. : non solum ergo universae essentiae, sed illius etiam singulis partibus unum adest. Quasi legerit irpls TO) Travrt apa (i.e. W/oos ry ovcria aTrao"?/) Kal eKd Tapiv. Phileb. 25 B, tvxpv B^ koL (TKoirti. tTKOTrdi- /cat /tot SoKfi etc. Rep. VII. 523 A, SetKVV, fr]. StiKvvpi Srj, eh-ov and many others. &|ia &iram ' Malim dpa iraxn. Certe alias vix usquam reperias apa diravTu.' Heind. oa-aTrep p-eprj : one would expect Sa-airep TO. pepr] [ccrrt']. Xeyovres €ptiv irdv re Kal oAov : and after asking ■^ Kal to oAov £k twv lupmv Atyeis yeyovos Iv ti etSos eTtpov tQv ttcivtcow jxepuiv ; (which would correspond to irotet Siaopdv} he con- cludes for o5 av fiepT] y, TO oAov T€ Kal TrSiv to Travra niprj loTot. No doubt he deals with numbers to some extent, but he also discusses the o-Totx«ta of the crvAAa^ij ; and one finds no distinc. between wav and oAoi', and this largely because he never raises A.'s point of divers kinds of p^cpv- p- 19- 145 T^ Ev fipa 8v ... dirapov irX^eaiprjs IvaAiyxtov oyKtf ' putra-oOiv lo-ojraAcs iravry etc. Parm. however, here speaks of to ov, while in the dialogue he strives as far as may be to speak of to Iv, ignoring to ov. Without discussing the question raised by Arist. whether orov re eTvai dirupov ivreXt- X"'{t a-ufw, a'urdriTov, we may note that PI. holds the one here as dirupov ry Siaipia-u, to quote A.'s lang. — cp. De Coelo ad init. o-dve^ss /i£v oSv Io-ti TO Siaiperhv ek du SiaLperd. — i.e. as admitting of indefinite sub-div. And if it is drreipov in this sense it cannot, says Arist., be a mere numerical unit. On the other hand Arist. points out that the latter unit is, like a moment of time, direipov Kara irpoa-Oio-iv — you can add on successive units ad infinitum — while this cannot be said of an ala-OT]Tuv orio/xa. It is to be noted in conclusion that we have here a single antithesis under three forms — Iv v. TToAAd, oAov V. pjopia, imrf.paxTfi.ivov v. avtipov irXrj- 6u. For the rest we have no duty laid on us to 132 PARMENIDES. discuss PL's doctrine on the development of number — whether it grows by ' two twice etc. and every combination of even and odd,' or, as in what Arist. (Met. xii. 6, 1080 a 30) calls mathem. number, by units, 6 fikv fi.aQ-r)\i.o.TiKu'i apid^urai. ficTo. To ev 8vo, W/30S TepeLa, -ireptexov, TTtpas or aTToa-T. Still we have concords neglected above — e.g. 143 b, t^ ev, and e, t$ t€ Svo ... Kal Tw Tpia — and the Mss. reading as turned by Fie. is quite good, being = Kal edv otwvv avrluv diro- (TTaTrj TOV ev. For edeX-qa-ei tVt Bek. represents 21 and other Mss. as reading WeXria-ne n. But 2(1 both give eOeX^^a-ei. eTi, which may justify either reading. Heind. cps. 149 begin. For e^oi dv ...exoi: he B also cps. 148 E, diTToiTo dv TO ev ... dwToiTo : Stallb. adds, 147 A, dv fj&rj ei«^evyoL ... eKevyoi. and fj Kav ovro) iJ.eTei\e ... fxeTeixev : But where more than the verb is repeated we have the dv given, e.g. below, jxeTexoi dv to ev ... p.eTexo'- y"-P dv. rj rot evdeo'S, ...rj Tivos etc. Toi with the first rj emphasizes the fact that it must have some shape, the special one being indiff. Had Tot gone with either of the other cases of rj the emph. would have fallen on that particular shape : cp. 131 a. For evOeos see 137 e. ev dXX(f, Stallb. notes the want of the art. here and 145 e, and, contrasting this with tois aAXots etc., 146 b and D, says the art. is omitted ' quia non significatur id, quod omnino ac simpliciter ab ipso uno discrepat, while TO, dXXa significant ea quae formis unitatis intelligibilis, h.e. ideis, plane opposita sunt.' That is, he takes ev to represent the unity or unifying principle involved in the ideas, and to. dXXa as the many of sense, and declares that dXXo in this pas- sage means something different from the many of sense. It may be so : the variation as to the art. is a fact, and occurs often — e.g. 138, 140, 141 — NOTES. 133 but it is doubtful if such a distinc. is meant by it. Cp. with this variation that between aXko and mpoi/— e.g. 140 B— and again that between ra akka itself as used largely through the work, and Toi iroA,Aa SO distinctly specified in 136 a, which distincs. convey no change of meaning. It is just possible that iv oA.A, here may = ei' aAAy totti^o. But what does Stallb. gain by his view ? No doubt TO iroXXa and Ta akXa are terms often used of the multiplicity of sense — e.g. in, the opening of the dial. — but Soc. there wishes to see that distinc. shown to exist within the ideal world, and we were told that the ideal world could not be known by our faculties, so that in any case our course has not been rigidly consistent. Nor is anything said throughout which should distinguish to. a. from to tv as sense is divided from the ideas. We are simply bringing our mental faculties to bear upon the relations of ' one ' with ' many ' or ' others,' — these ' one,' ' many,' and ' others ' being all such as are Aoyto-juu XafiPavo/ieva, and being understood to exhaust existence between them in the same way in which A and not-A do so. I{ iv a. refers to some- thing different from ra 3.. it must refer to another eiSos such as Stallb. holds rh iv to be ; but in that case there should be a great gulf fixed between its character and theirs. Where is that gulf? The only difference is the omiss. of the art. It would seem that PI. having started with the antithesis ev — TO aA.A.a (to 7roA.A.a), does not always thrust that distinc. forward in his argt., but occasionally forgets the art. without giving up any feature of the anti- thesis in doing so. Arist. Phys. iv. 3, init. reckons the various ways in which one thing may be in another — to nipos iv t^ '6\<^ — to oAoi' iv tois fiepiuiv — ttSos iv yivsL — yevos ev etBei — ftiSos iv vXrj — ev T(f TrpUTO) KlVTJTlKt^ iv T^ TiXfl iv TOTTO). PL haS nothing so clear as this, c T»v (icpuv ...ircpiixcrai; We have Seen that the tv as 0X01/ was aireipov in the sense of being endlessly divisible. The fact that all its parts are rigidly circumscribed by its n-e/oas as a whole precludes the idea of its being airnpov in the sense of being of unlimited extent : ov yap 06 fitjSiv e^w, dXX' ov dd Ti e^(o ia-Ti, TOVTO airetpov icrTiv. Arist. PhyS. III. 6. Kat |i^v...t6 Iv toTiv ; The art. here with both subj. and pred. indicates (Clyde Greek Synt., Art. § 9) ' the convertibility of the terms of the proposition'— Ta jravTtt p.epr) icrrl to Iv = to ev tWi Ta Trai'Ta fupr). So just below ta-Ti 8e to te jroi'Ta to eV Kal avrh T^ oAoi'. In both cases it is doubtful if to tv is subj. or pred. Whichever it be it is not to be coupled with avTo to 6A01' in the last case, owe ti ttXiov «l ovrerb, t ovTeTi. The text as printed seems necess. The frequent use of the art. hereabouts may have misled 31 or his orig. ^v 8\ Why no art. ? One could better under- stand his beginning with ' a whole ' and afterwards speaking of ' the whole' — he has already spoken so, 14s A — but here he has used the art. four times in the same connec. before thus omitting it. airb 4v Ja\iTiy (ir\ : Not within itself as the centre is within the circle, but only as 'the rectangles contained by the whole and each of the parts are together tuMin the square on the whole line.' The argt. would be more just thus ap' oZv (see b above) ouTus ex°^ °'"'< *^''o " iv aXXif iarrai kol ovk iv aXXif • OVK iv rots n^p. ...tv yt &irao-iv etvov PI. has jUSt urged that TravTa Ta [iipr^ = to oXov = to ev, and has thence inferred that travTa to, jxiprj are iv 0X1^. He now denies the converse. This would be correct were the whole something other than the sum of the parts. But that distinc, as we have seen on 144 e, PI. does not recognise, and here it is expressly ex- cluded. KaiTot -ye — Proc.-Dam. VI. 264, — eupi^Tai Kai O TOIOVTOS TpOTTOS TOV ' €V TlVl,' OTl TTCpUKTlKOV €0"Tt To 6A0V Ttiiv fxepwv TO, Se fiipr] Tov oXov ov. The text of this comment in Stallb. seems unsound and the argt. is obscure ; but we get a sugg. from it. We must remember that to oAov = to ev, and that each part is also ev : and D. says to yovv iv evl /t») Trjpij- 6ev ev xcSs ev Tots TToo-tv ev rijprjOrjcreTai, ■ Can he mean ' as a whole which is " one " is not found in one part, how can you expect to find it, being "one," in a number of parts (which are not one) ? ' That is, after first viewing the several parts of one as 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 "v o-uve^es, now each is dpiOp.!^ ev. This, while sophistical, would be intelligible. And two lines of argt. do seem to be used. A word 134 PARMENIDES. on the text. If there were any authority in 2tt for doing so, one could almost read with Schleierm. ovTi kv TUTi- PI. would thus state a general concl. that 'the whole is not in the parts either in all or in some' and then proceed to prove the first half of his concl. in ei yap kv iraviv ... ovSafioii : and the second in oiSl /irjv ... dBivarov yap: But besides the want of authority, the succeeding words, after yap, make for the text, kv irkkoa-iv ...kv evl...kv awaa-i. As to the whole not being in all the parts, he proves this by saying — ' if it were in all it must needs be in one,' and leaves us to add the other limb of the argt., 'but it is not in one therefore it is not in all.' One can understand how it is not in one, as he next declares that it is not in some, be- cause the greater would thus be in the less. But if the only reason for its not being in one or in some of the parts be that it is bigger, then, as it is ex- pressly said not to be bigger than all the parts, why may it not be in them ? Because, according to PL, if in all it must also be in each. But if that is so the character of the ' whole ' is quite altered. After treating it like the day and the sail — 131 b — part of which rested on each portion of space covered by them, and the whole upon all the portions col- lectively, he now implies that it is not extensive but intensive, that the whole has an essence which is imparted perfectly to each of its portions. t» «lSiTovTo...ovSa|jws: This he regards as clear proof of his contention. ' Si autem haec una pars aliqua est de his omnibus ' Refertur hoc tovto to iv ad praecedens illud tv nvi kvi, ad aTravrtov autem sup- plendum est n, more pervulgato. Heind. 'Vulga- tum tv lo-ra: jam Thorns, vidit in kvicrra-i mutari oportere. Pro iv\ autem Heind. restituit fvi,' Stallb. 3tt both read tv ta-rai, while 21 gives evl and t tvl. The change to kvt is a great improvement. With regard to ^v larat see on 131 a etc. Here it is poss. that €v may have been confused with the tv above ; but it is also poss. that this very juxtaposition and the fact that kv and iv recur, may have put the scribe (either John or a predecessor) on his guard. And one may even sugg. that the constr. is tois Trouriv ev 'the entire number of ones,' as ry tv 143 b. He could hardly say tois ttoo-iv ka-iv : and in 146 E etc. he speaks of ra p,r] iv. Arist. again has got the length of Ta eva — Phys. III. 7, 207 b 7, o S' dpiOfios kirriv iva jrActoj Kal woo' orra. Met. XII. 8, 1083 a 25, aTOTTOv yap rb iv jxiv (Tvai rt irpZrov tZv kvHv Sxnrtp iKttvoi tjioari, ... . Such a remark gives a force to rZv airavTiav, and marks his line of argt. : — If this one is but a sample of the entire number, and the whole is not in it, how after that will it be in all the ones together? He seems to be back for the moment at the old argt on the particip. of dSrj. Has he made out his contention? It would have been more to the point to have urged that a whole when reached is a new creature, and that to speak of it as in all its parts is to disintegrate and destroy it. dopa tZv (rvyyiyvo[ievvrd Tt Ktiraf ' ovTioi i/JortSov aZdi /xevef Kpartpij yap avdyKt] ' n-eiparos (v 8£crjuo«rii' ()(ci re (cat «/i<^ts eipyti. Parm. does not prove this dialectically : he lays it down as his view. PL seeks to prove that the iv 6v is bereft of motion, and he has not done it The neuter eo-rbs for «ot&>s seems, from Veitch, to be confined to PL It occurs in this dial., in Theaet. 183 E, o? iv la-rhi kiyova-i, to t5.v, said of the Eleatics, and Sophist 249 d, where Herm. reads rh Trai* eWijKos. Note further tlvai eo-ros in the sense Icrravai first above j its sense is dKiyqrov dvai, p. 30. rh iv cTcpcji ... co-rbs Sk Kivcio-9ai ; Another sophism. If the one is iv ry ere/ay it cannot indeed be «v t$ avT<^ ev laifT^ ; but it can be ev T^ avT$ sTlpy, and if it is ' always there ' it is as much motionless as it would be if 'always in itself.' B Tots &XX01S ... tlvai, The dat. need not be under the govt, of ravTov, for then t<3v d\X.v must be underst after trepov, but is rather a dat. of gen. ref. 'and as regards the others.' Stallb. says of rots aAXocs here * non esse ideas ab aliis ideis diversas aut iis contrarias, sed potius res sub sensus subjectas.' Yet if the argt. hitherto in regard to hepov and dkko does not refer to sens, objects but to the ideal world, how do we get from it any infer, as to same- ness or difference of the one in regard to the sensible world? The whole argt. moves on just as it did previously — the only change being the art. Proc- Dam. VI. 266 says, jrouirat ^e rrjv ktrixf^lprp-iv ck Tiav TTjOos Tf oret to Tavrhv koX to enpov t(ov Trpos Ti ea-Tiv TavTov ydp Tivi (ravTif?) TavTov, Kal iTCpov tTtpoV iTipOV. irov irou irpos ... fl Zrcpov Thoms. well cps. Arist. Met. IX. 3, 1054 b 15, Kol rb /tev aAXo dvTiKiip.kvai [AeytTat] naX to touto, Sto vav tt/jus ottoi' fj tovto ^ akXo and below irdv yap ^ tTcpov rj TavTO o Tt ai' ^ ov, f{ ra,os, having the marks of not-A will be fTcpov to A ; and that it is only where there would be TttvToTijs but for difference of size that the question of oA,ov and /ikpos enters at all. This ap- pears from the following words. But how again does this square with his argt. 145 d, ei* Ttvi yap ivi fir/ ov ovK dv «Tt irov Sui/aiTO ev yt airaxnv tlvai ? If a ' whole,' regarded even in its extended sense merely, must be in each of its parts under penalty of not being in all of them taken together, much more must this hold true if the 'whole' be regarded as the 'same' intensively, i.e. in character, as its part irrespective of area. In that view of it size has nothing to do with the question. Arist Met ix. 3, 1054 b 15 (see above) continues as follows: rb p.\v oZv eTepov rj TavTo 5ia tovto ■jtS.v irphs irav kkytTai, Sera kkyerai iv Kal ov. ... Siacf>opd St Kal eTcpoTTji akko. TO /xev ydp «t. Kal o5 er. ovk dvdyKTi uvai Tivi fT., TT-dv ydp rj tr. i) TavTO o Ti av ^ oV to Se Bidtjiopov Tivos Tivl Sta., mtt' dvdyKr/ ravTo Tt e'rai 1^ Siatjiipovo-tv. As regards text 21 reads ovtws €X" s irpos pipo's av-6. But this is unlikely, both because aino would have been the better reading, and because the avro avTov of the prev. sent, makes for the parallel use of avTo avTov in this one. PI., as we say, might have stopped here ; but, wishing to be very em- phatic, and to bring more clearly forward the con- trad, involved in the case, he adds Trpos eavro pkpoi ov. The constr. here might be = ovtojs ov pepoi wpbs iavTo, or as Heind. puts it redundantly, oiirw yap &v irpos iavTo pepos av ei-q, ' since it would thus be a part towards itself— which we have just declared in the previous sentence that it could not be.' It might also be taken in close epexegetic connec. with the prev. ws irpoi pepos thus — avrov oXov (is Trpb's pkpo'i, paXXov 8e jrpos iavro-pipo^-ov. ' It COuld not be whole of itself as towards a part, rather to- wards itself turned for the moment into a part.' So Stallb. following Schmidt, in which view pipo^ ov is in the ace. agreeing with lavro. Either way there is some awkwardness. o»tJ> lauToB ... ovTos IttDTu, ovTos agrees with lavrov, not with avTo, which is really redundant, and is present only in obedience to the Greek idiom. The sense is ' If a thing be elsewhere than itself when that self is in the same place with itself, is not that thing of necessity other than itself? ' oIItu |i.^v ... rb ?v = edvr] prjv to ev ovtojs fX""' "^'''''^ refers both back and forward, what follows being but a restatement of what has just been said. He points back to 145 E, ^ piv apa to ev oAov, ev aXX(a e(rtiv. Here pr/v = attamen : Ast. gives several cases, e.g. Soph. 217 d, a-vpfiovXw prjv Ipol xpuipevos Toiv veo)!' Ttvtt alpr/a-ei, with which cp. 2l6 B, Kai poi SoK€i dibi piV dvrjp ovSapQs etvai, daoi f'V^- In all the sense would be brought out by using Se pr)v. Srtpov &pa ...Ta«T|i dv 'Non sine caussa Tavry dicit. Significat enim huius tantum rei habita ratione unum a semet ipso diversum esse.' Stallb. We may cite Arist. Soph. Elench. 5, 167 a 11, oTov ei, Xa/Jitv tov AWioira ftvai piXava, rovi oSovras tpon' et XevKOi- el oiv ravrr) XevKoi, oti peXa'; Kai ov /ieAas, ototTO SietXex^"' (ryXXoyia-TiKm reXeiiia-as rtjv epiyrtja-iv. Proc.-Dam. vi. 267 puts the present argt. thus, oiJTO ev lavTw dTre(f>dv0r], ro avro (avrov, Kai iv tw avT(^ ov, ereptoOi ycyovos 'irtpov ea-rai kavrov- kripuiBi yap yiyovcv tavrov rod kv Toi avT^ ovtos — outui yap diredv9r]- trepov apa eavrov. But he prefixes this tiTTi 8e i- a-Tal KopLo-Kos fTepoi iavTov' 6 yap vvv piv ev 'Ako- Srjpiif, vvv Sk (V 2to^, erepoi' S Srj Kai e^eXiyxet 'Apio-T. Arist. Soph. Elench. 5, 166 b 28, gives among the Trapa rh a-vpfJe^rjKb^ TrapaXoyitrpol — olov fl 6 Kopto-Kos iTepov dv 6 p (!>ir ov avrbs avrov trepos' €poXo- yrjKevat Slot to a'vpfiejSrjKh'ai, o5 €(f>rjcrev erepov eTvai, rovrov €?vai dvOpiDirov. How to meet these he shows chap. 24. Proc.-Dam. means that PI. here proves a thing to be different from itself irapa to a-vp/3e/irjKbi — by a mere difference of place — while according to Arist. this is no ground of difference. "Erepa 6e Xiyerai Sv rj TCi eiSrj ;rAetii), rj ij ^Xt], r^ 6 Aoyos rjjs ova-la's' KOI oAoJS dvTLKeipevia^ T^ Tawy Xeytrai To cre/)oc. Met. IV. 9, 1018 a 10. eitouti 2lt et tovti. 8 ^^^ '^ from being taller he becomes less, it arises from o-/xtKpo'T7js expelling fieyedoi — ov&e akXo ovSev twi/ evavTiiov ctl ov oirep'Jjv [t'^tAet] a/ia rovvavriov ylyvidBai t£ koi iivai, dA.A' rjToi anrep)(^eTai rj aTToXX-vrai tv rovT(j> Ty Tra.d'qix,a,ri. Applying this here we may say, if the one is different from the not-one it is so, not qua one but toJ «Tep^ rvyxavei exov and SO on. The same percep. of possible and impossible combinations with a like crudeness of lang. appears in the Soph. 252 c-260. (I yap 8vTiv' [xpovov] etc. Proc.-Dam. vi. 268 e says ouSeiroTe «v ravTiff XP°'''"' Ttva. PI. mixes up pres. and abs. in space and time with logical agree- ment and difference. We have here an accurate condit. sent, el yap ttr) ... iKelvov av ... iirj to irtpov. A less accurate one precedes d apa ... ea-rai, ov8(v ta-Ti, and a still less careful one follows (TreiSfj 5' ovSfTTOTt ... ktrriv, ovheiroT€ ... av t'tj. Throughout there are several only the apod, of which appears. oi8e>roT« kv rivi etc. He quibbles again. The dif- ferent is not in the ' same ' so it can be in nothing; for if it were in anything for so much as an instant it would thus be in the same. ' The same ' at first is a thing so called ; it changes to avTos tottos or TO avTO ■irpayp.a. PrOC.-Dam. explains— JravTa yap TO. ovTa CKaa-Tov kfTTiv iv TavTM, d)S Ktti avTO to tTepov tv lavTW Ka\ ovK kv Tivt. T<5 Hpu ... eawrois ' by reason of the different ... of themselves.' We must, as Heind. says, suppose eTepov after to iv from rd prj ev ... hepa. ov iravTTi dv lK<|>tv7oi to |i^ A question to which 147 the answer is— Yes iKfjxiyoi [av]. ' Recte, quan- quam parum Latine, Cornarius : " penitusne jam effugerint, ut ne inter se alia sint." Frequens hie usus est voculae jm^ post verba fugiendi abstimndi et similia illatae. Soph. 235 b, isxTTi ovk^t cK^ev^tTai 138 PARMENIDES. ToSe yt ... TO /i^ ov ... tTvai etc' Heiiid. He adds examples, and Stallb. cites Crito 43 c, oAA.' oiSiv auToiJS iTTtXviTat rj rjXiKia to ^7) ovx} dyavaKTelv. A better case is Phaedo 117 c, 01 ttoXXoI ... oToi rt ^(Tav KOTf^^etv TO jir) SaKpvuv. Proc-Dam. VI. 268 says KavrtvOtv iKcjievyoi, av ravra, to re iv SrjXoi/oTi, KOI ra jxr) €v, to jxr] tlvai tTipa' — SrjXovoTi ' to tivai CTCpa' ' TXfovd^ti yap aTTt/cws to ' p.rj' €is ' to /*jj etvai £T(pa.' dWa (I'fiv ... &pie|i,(Sv ye ?x<>vTa : Again we have variety in the condit seats. By strict rule we should have ov8( to{) €v6s yt /jLCTf^ei, to. /irj ev — (et yap /JLCTttxev) OVK av jj,rj ev Tjv ciXXa ... : d,Xrj0rj : ovS' a.pidp.os iCTTai apa TO. [rq iv — ovSk yap av ovTta fi-q iv 7)V iravTaTrojcrw V, apiOp-ov ye t'X"'- The first sent, is the basis of his premiss That the not-ones have no connection with the one, and the result is naturally a foregone conclusion {av Tjv). Having fortified his premiss he draws as inference That the not-ones will not be number ; but puts that in a politely problematic form (0116' av ... itri). But he at once clinches it by a reason which he holds as unanswerable (ow8e yap av ... fjv). The ovTO) refers back to the ov yap av just above. They can no more be not-one if they possess number than they can if they share in one. We may put his syllog. in Aristotelian form, toC evos ye ov p,eTi\u TO. jxt) ev aXX' 6 apiOp.o's /xeTf^ei Tov li'os' 0118 dpi6iJ,6^ ap' av e'r] to. p-rj tv. to, firj ev not Toi ov;^ 6 v is the form throughout : he speaks hypothetically. ti kSlv oCtw n6T6txe = Tj Kal OVTO) ( = et popia t^v to, prj fv TOV ivo's) piTilx^v av. The answering p^Tti^iv like the lKevyoi omits av. Above on 145 e. p. 21. B |iopC(i>v ... |ii5pia' 21 pMpiov ... popiov, t jxopiov ... popia. The text seems clearly needed. Whether in majusc. or in early minusc. popiov and p-opia have a strong likeness. It is less easy to explain the corrup. of poplwv. Perhaps an early scribe had omitted the w, and after writing MOPIN had placed a diminutive ' (jiipet rovvo/xa tovt(ov. irXeov. ff fiiraj ; Fic. ' vel saepius vel semel,' and so Thoms., Ast, Engelm., and Jowett. But would not this need rj TrXeovaKis rj drra^ ; ? As it Stands the choice seems «a;clusive, in which case cytuye has no meaning, and the answer would be rrXiovaKii. MuUer gives ' mehr als einmal' = ' oftener than once,' with which cp. Rep. iii. 409 d, TrAeovaKts fie TTOvrjpoiS rj xprjO-ToU tvrvyxavtav (o StKacrT^s) a-o6eyyrj below. So in Proc.-Dam. 's notes, vi. 270. The common distinc. between aor. and pres. is that the former makes a passing alius, in narrat., the latter rather a pictorial alius, in descrip. If there be any distinc. here it may be shown by the 140 PARMENIDES. conjuncs. — ihi 'should you utter,' orav "whenso- ever, as often as, you are uttering.' KoX rb trtpov = KoX ' to ertpdv ' iiTTiv ovofia. Proc- Dam., iarrtv o^v imto. twv aXAiuv (ovo/*aTa)i') /cat to Irtpov ovofia iiri rivi 6(yyfa-6ai both apply here to physical utterance. ■§ etc. Here and in 148 a, b 31 wavers, reading rj here and rj in the three following cases, the first of them having an eras, above, and the second one after, t reads ^ here and ^ in the others, y seems necess. Fie. and editions before Steph. seem to have had tl, between which and rj, •^, ■§, confus. is easy. In g apa 'ferepov ... to cf tois aXAois 21 reads ij apa (Ttpov Toiv aXXwv Tc> €V, Kal raXka tov kvus, KaTaravTo eTepovTreTTovdivai, ovKakXo dkka to avro avirtTTovdus £«j rh Iv tois aXAots' which needs alter- ation : t reads ■^ apa ircpov Ttov aXAiov to ?v Kal rakka tov ti'os. KaTurauTo erepov Treirovdivai [in the margin a later and fainter hand writes carelessly TreTTOvdev etvaij, ovk akXo. dXXa to auTo av rmrovdos eiri TO (V Tois aXXois' Except as regards ■^ for rj and the marginal read., the two agree. The words as printed show less change from Mss. than is usual. Their construe, is y apa CTepov twv aXkoiv to ev, KOL TaXXa ToC (vos [eVepa]' icaTa t av to (Ttpov rmrov- divai OVK aXXo dXAci to avTo av irarovdo'i €uj to ev TOIS aXXois ' in the same way therefore in which the one is different from the others they likewise are different from the one; while again to the extent of this experience of difference the one would have, not another but, the same experience with the others.' This gives the proper course to the argt. and that with virtually no change — for the iota subscr. (§) is often omitted, while accents (y, av) and word division are matters in which scribes vary. The editors and Dam. regard y ... ToC cfos as a single supposition from which some other conclus. follows, not as containing both sup- pos. and conclus. They have thus to alter from 148 KOTot onward. Tlioms. says ' Melius legeretur kot' ainh to iTfpov rreirovOivai.. Nec dubitandum veram hanc esse lectionem, maxime cum Dam. (in Ms. at Oxford) earn suo comprobet suffragio ': Bek., follow- ing Heind. and followed by Ast, reads Kara rb ravTov tTipov rreirovdivai 'to the extent of ex- periencing the same difference ' : Stallb. Kara tootoi' TO trtpov iren-ovOivai ' secundum id ipsum quod videlicet to 'irtpov habet etc' After all, accepting their view of what goes before, the Ms. reading Kara Tavro eTepov Tmrovdivat in the sense icaTO to aUTO ' '(ETepov-ireTTOvOevai ' might almost do as it is. t4 Sf irov ... )i|j,otov' may mean either to 8< ttov ' Tavrov-^errovOui ' o/ioiov fcrn, or 8* jrou ravTov rrirrovdcv op,oi.6v Iittiv. fl 8*1 ... irtfiv brnv : Everything is like everything because everything is different from everything. Any two things mutually differ ; and this sameness of difference makes them pro tanto like each other. This may be so, but it is not the conclus. proposed 147 c, MvTif Te Kal TOIS ciAAois. That implied that there were but two sides to the antith., «V v, ra aXXa as a group. If we are to speak of airav airacrcv we must apply the same reasoning to one in its relations to each part of the others and to each of these in relation to every other. His one becomes a selected atom, and his others are the remaining infinity of atoms, which may each in turn be chosen as the one. At this point he does look as if he would carry out in detail the original scheme of 136 c. T(p dvofioifo so t; % = 6p.oi(f, and in the paradoxical state of the argt. there is some excuse for it. Tw avTQ ; (sc. ivavTiov) so 3lt, but the latter has in the marg., by a similar if not the same hand, T^ TavT<}. This would suit the repeated use of TavTov above; but toj avTt^ may mean that. Cp. Arist. Met. iv. 9, 1018 a 11, dvTiKtipivws t$ Tavrw AeyCTttt TO iTipOV, TovvavrCov ... t<3 ^rcpov etc. = to S« tr^ai TavTov Tots B dAAots Tovi'avTiov yc rrddos otti t^ tivai CTepov twv aAAtov. avopoiua-ci This word, 'praeter analogiae leges et propter oppositionis rationem formato ' (Stallb.), seems peculiar to PI. Rep. viii. 546 B, o//.oiovvtuik NOTES. 141 rt Kai avofiKnowTUiv is the only other case of the act. in Ast.; but there are several cases of the pass. Stallb. however refers to Lobeck Phrynich. 563. By praeter analogiae leges does he mean that you don't have privative verbs formed from affirmative ones? If so, it may be that dvo/xoidoi is not from o/iotoo) but from aKo/xoios as the other is from o/xoios. TUVTov, ff ovK ivavriov ((rrai (sc. tovto to ravTov) T(J) iripifi — t has TO ravTov, as above r^ raw^, in marg. p. 22.C l!x«' 7«^P ••■ ^oYov: From the rovSe it seems that TOJovTov Adyoi' form one express, and that toiovtov is not a neut. nom. descriptive of the argt just closed. But the expression is odd. 'Talem ut videtur rationem habet ' Fie, whom Thoms, copies ; and this is the best rendering. The force of the particles might be brought out thus : ' I agree ; for, strange as it may seem, it is true that the statement has some such reason in its favour.' Instinct bids one expect ruv or riva with towvtov. In this pas- sage, lx"...«i'd/«)ioi' eu'ai, Proc-Dam. seems, vi. 271, inclined to take «x"...lx*' ^^ spoken by Parm., leaving only riva; to Aristoteles; and if we may judge by his words he seems to have read Ix" f^v ovv 81J here. ovk ivijxuvf. rrjv (rvyKaTdOta-iv tov TTpocrSiaXeyonevov, aAA.' avTos kiriKpivu kcu to Tiav Aeyct, ais Oappiav Kal akX.io's aTroSei^ai. 5} to ' tx*' /"^'' ovv 6)j ' (MToAoyta ecrTi Kal Kardvevcris Tov ir/ootrStaAe- yojifvov Kai ck Tore eiritpepei, aTroSi^d/xivos olov rijv airoKpuTiv ' Kai yap Kal rovSe «X" ' ' *'''"* °^'' owTtos £4T€ (Kiivtoi, r) ivvoia oriu^eTai. The «'x*' '^^^ ^^ very definite subj. here or above. VVe may supply ' your contention.' Then we must add some words, e.g. Tivaj TO «v, y TaVTov irkirovOe, /xjj dWoiovTveivov- Bivai, p,r] dX.\oiov Se imrovOui jxrj dv6p,owv tlvai, ju.)) avofwwu S' ov 0/j.oiov tivaf y S' aAAo TreTrovOev dAAoioi', oAAoiov Se ov dvo/xoiov ttvai : ravrov Te dpa ov ... Kal oTt irepov ivri, the particip. constr. is exactly parallel to on or linl as below, with the indie, giving a reason. Kara tKarepov so both Mss. as /liTo. lauTo E. The editors give Ka6'. Note this insistence on the clear recognition of each method and both, repeated also below. ' Secundum ambo haec et secundum horum utrumque' Fie. Kal (Karepov so 21 ; t repeats the Kara, probably rightly. 147C-148D. Here we have a demonstr. that the one is like and unlike itself and the others. How does he reason? i. He takes pains to establish that the one is like the others (147 c-148 a). The argt. ends by proving that everything is like every- thing ; and that because all things differ by differ- ence — that is, by the same thing. Were he speaking as in the first part of the dial, and in the Phaedo he would say they differed by having the stSoi of difference, which of course is always the same thing. But one is tempted to think that PL wants us to confound this with the idea of differing to an equal extent. One, two, and three are alike in differing each from the other, but one and two are not alike in the extent of their difference from three. Arist. as usual does a service when he notes that in prac- tice the word ' different ' has several senses. Now, while PL proves likeness througli sameness of differ- ence, and recalls his own remark that to ravrov imrovOui ojj,oi.ov, save for his wish to make each new quality of the one spring from its predecessor, is there any need for the argt. ? One would say that sameness includes likeness, and, as he proved sameness, he might infer likeness. We may also ask, supposing one and not-ones (or others) are like, /low like are they ? PI. would lead us to fancy that they were so like as to exclude divergence — although, of course, unlikeness is proved very soon. And there is something to justify such a view in this case, for, when speaking of mere existent one- ness and comparing it with mere existent other-ness, and proving these like or unlike, we feel that the latter qualities may rank on the same level with the former, and that we say as much about a monad when we call it 'like' as we do when we call it ' one.' On the other hand he has been speaking about one and not-ones now for some time, and we have had a sense of growing complexity in these as the argt. has advanced. One has become One- being-whole-parts-different-same-in-itself-possessing- shape etc., and if to all these qualities we add but one more — likeness— we add little, something that might be called a mere separable accident, not an essential feature. Of course if likeness were the outcome of all combined — if one were like not-ones wapa. travra ra Xiy6p,eva, then likeness would be a very important feature in its character. 2. He next proves unlikeness between one and others very briefly — it was in virtue of difference that they appeared to be like, that being so they must in 142 PARMENWES. virtue of sameness be unlike (148 a-b). This would be unanswerable if we were sure of our terms. PI. has said that all words retain the same sense through all uses. Now when we speak of two things as different we think of the characteristics in which they don't agree — one is square-white-flat, the other round-black-solid, and that is the sense in which PI. 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 extent the two things resemble — by the /^j^tc fiaWov fi-QTe ^Tov of their difference. It was in this latter sense that PI. used the word when he proved by it that one and others were like. In other words he proved them like by difference not qua difference but qua the sameness which it suggests. If then they were like in virtue of the sameness of their difference they need not necessarily be unlike through sameness, i -J- 2. Having now sought to show that one and others are both like and unlike, he shows his doubt as to the result by re-proving it on the converse ground (148 c). The two are 'like' y ravTuv ireKovdi (leaving the hepov out of sight), and ' unlike ' y aXXo Trkirovde. (leaving ravrov out of sight) : a proof which is assented to with much greater readiness than the previous one — dXrjOrj Xeytii. — ISov Kol ovToii diroSeiKVX'Tai tov evos Trpus kavTo TO 0JJ.010V Kal dvofioLov. Proc.-Dam. VI. 272. But he won't give up the former proof: on the con- trary he maintains (ravrov rt apa ... dvofioiov Tots aXkoi's) that the case is made out by the two methods jointly (kut' dficjiOTepa) and severally (Kara iKarepov). s + 4- I" proving that one is both like and unlike itself he says merely — See previous argts. jointly and severally (148 d). One is like itself both by equality of difference from itself — which must be held as proved 146 c — and by Ttt^Tov TreTTovOevai eavrla ; and unlike itself by same- ness with itself (146 b-c), and by aXXo :rc7rov6evai. Proc.-Dam. VI. 272 says Kara (Karepov — Kara re to TavTov, (US ivTavOa, Kal Kara to ercpov, us ItI tjJs -porepa'S a?ro8et^e(us. But when he adds Kal Kar d/ie^rj'S Se eKeivQ. The second introduces rpirov as a new subj. To be regular we should have either rpirov he Set etc. or else TO peXXov S.^eo'dai efjie^rji pev Set eivai, rpirov Se ev pea-(p pySev exei-v. iXiyorrov So 21, Notes i. Bek. after Gais. wrongly puts the accent on i. roiv Svotv opoiv ... e^rjs, 21 oddly writes i^ ijs ; but both Mss. give b Toiv Svolv opoiv, of which Heind. says 'Istud opoiv quis ferre potest, quum de rebus ipsis non de earum terminis hie agi appareat?' After the 2nd Bale ed. he omits roiv and reads eav Se Svolv ovroiv, while Bek. and Stallb. bracket opoiv. Herm. says ■ opoiv librorum consensu traditum nee cum Tur. in 144 PARMENIDES. oiMpoiv mutare nee cum Stallb. cancellis notare libuit; opoi nunc opponuntur d\pedev, koi rare Svo duel's i'url rpiCiv opiav ovrtav [he uses it as = terms ?], koI ati outws irapa plav ai axjjwi JTjOos Tojis opovs, Kadi>i 'Apia-r. e'Atyc irepi re rCiv opiDv KOI rZv rrpordcreiov ra yap Svo Trpuha ru ev [sense = ra yap Svo irpaira irapd ro «i'] Trpos rrj v piav dxjjiv eirX.eoveKr7](Te Kal c^c^tJs ovto) yiyverai. After quoting this Stallb. adds ' ex his verbis origo glosse- raatis explicari poterit,' i.e. opoiv crept into the text from this passage ? In that case Dam. must have written prior to the date of the archetype of both our Mss. Do we know that? And if he is to account for glosses can we cite him as corroborat- ing the text ? Tas av(ris' owv fiovq^ jx\v iv ItTorriri^ Kij^o-cus 8e cv avurorriTi, €jriSe;^eTai yap to Vj p.aW.ov Kal TO rj(r(TOV. To iv 7j rakXa rj cAottov, it is odd to find 7} raWa thus followed by rj eXarrov, espec. when the genit. of comp. occurs immediately, rtiu Ifos. 17 a? Toi aXAo, Notes i. &pa ovK ... rats ovo-Cats ovk here goes with what follows and is strengthened by ovre ovre : apa begins to tell at et p-ey, and the whole might stand apa (ovk Av ... ouo-tats' dXX') el p,ev x/oos ... eXarrov ; apa in- dicates interrogation; but, to make the interrog. form expecting an affirm, answer correct, we must understand ovk twice — apa ovk (ovk av ... dXX') et /xtv etc. Both Mss. read apa, which would be better but for its position. Considering the repetition of avand the awkward turn of the sentence, the reading OVK apa T^i p^ev would be welcome if there were any authority for it. And all objecs. would vanish if we simply omitted dpa here as an early confus. with ap' ovv above ; or alternatively read el dpa p,tc^ov £11; ... OVK dv .... As Stallb. says, Kal r&XXa dXXa rov evos = Kal r

[ := dX\A tQ ^x^ ***» or Ttfi I I ei Si [ = Ti^ di ^etp] [^] TO, liiv — TO Bi I ^ Kal fiiycdoi fiiy — aiitKpoTrjTa 5i I OTTOTipsf nh ... t Kal (kdrrovL ot irept 'E/ijreS. *;ai Uapfi,. Kal a-xt&ov o( vrKcl^Toi T(uv JreiXai (ov, df/4Voi r^/v /iOFfxS^Kjjv i^v(Tiv eo-Tias T/ooTTDw (like the hearth) fv ii(vX.da-crti.v TrjV avTrjV Bpav. Tij) fiSti so both Mss. and the word is quoted by Proc-Dam., owortpiff p.tv eiSri (-« ?) (K TovTwv, ij tQ fvl r) Tots aAAots jjxyidos Trpovdij (vi. 276). Yet we have the word in the next line. There it is used in its well-known ideal sense of avrh to piy^do^ and avT^ ij (T/iiKpdnjs : here it is used of to tv and toL oAXa in which these ideas are to be found. Thus (i) if the sense is the same in both cases then we have quite unexpectedly and in isolation a practical -the principals in the discussion- leaving them- unmentioned. o4x'' , by a'5,, such as S. spoke of the whole or part of itself. Contrad. arises under at the beginning, which disposes at once of the view both views. which pervades Stallb.'s commentary that to iv is an stSos but ra. aXXa not : these are on the same footing in that respect — both or neither : (2) if we have not this /te^e^is then r^ tiSei must be used in a different sense from dSrj, and as a fact Ast classes the expression with such as iv TcJiSe ri^ dvdpavk(av. So Bek. reads ; while Heind. says ' Malim ov toi ■ye = neque tamen.' Herm. says ' ovSe ye Herm. ex Oxon. vestigiis ubi est oiiTe ye : editi ovri ye, quod foret cerU twn ut Phaed. c. 3c [the passage quoted above]; cf. nos ad Lucian. Hist Conscr. p. 183.' If he means that 21 shows signs of patching he seems wrong. Perhaps ovre may stand, as showing the orig. design of the sent., which was found to need aAA' ... p.epei as it went on. L. and S. cite a case of ovre alone, Arist. Phys. III. 8, I, oviTC yap Iva rj yevea-is p.r) iwikelirri dvayKatov evepyeiq. direipov etvai, trZixa ala-Orjrov. With aAA', eiirep Stallb. cps. 138 D, emep ye 8>J : and Heind. quotes many cases of ellipse with eijrep ; we may add Arist. Met. vi. i, 3. (t 8i |ialpa and x''^'<°i^s kvkXov(ret, Kal rh 6X0V, Kal rh Had' eKoo-TOV, Kal to KadoXov. Kal etvai irov ... iv t(j 6v We have more than one condit. of exist, laid down in the dial, for tc* ev. Here we have apparently the condit. of space (we have t^v ixopkv-qv xuipav 148 e), and although he speaks metaphor, of a vor;T&s tojtos he can hardly be held as speaking so here. If he speaks literally then rh ev cannot be an e'Sos. But Stallb. interprets Kal tivai TTov as ' aliquam habere cum alio necessi- tudinem et conjunctionem,' which is a logical ' being in somewhere,' not a spacial one. {irci8'f| 8i ovSSv etc The one has been proved somehow or other to be in another, or in the different. This is the first case in which it is proved — per imposs. — to be ev rots oAAots. The argt is— all that exists must be somewhere: the one and the others are all that exists : therefore the NOTES. 149 one and the others are in each other. Here too Stallb. holds his ground : ' Meminerimus enim necesse est haec omnia ita disputari ut rerum sub sensus cadentium rationes ad ipsas ideas transfe- rantur.' Thorns, argues, 'Unum quidem est in aliis sed omnia implet et nusquam est. Plotin. Ennead. 3, Lib. 9, cap. 3, irios oCr i^ ei/os irXrjdo'i; on jravraxou" ov yap i(TTLV ottovovv. Traira ovv Trkrjpol. xoXXa. ovv, ftaXXov Se jravra tiSjj" oi5to fiev yap il [lovov iravTax^ov, avTO av jjr to. irdvTa- itrel Si koi ouSa/iov ■yii'erai, to iravra St' avTo, on iravTa\ov (Kuvo. Conf. Procl. in Theol. Plat. Lib. i, cap. 2. Patebit ex his quomodo respondendum fuisset ad propositam quaestionem anne aequale sibi sit unum et aliis et inaequale, quae his praemissis nititur, quod unum in se sit et in aliis, quod majus sit et minus se ipso et aliis.' 149 E-xsi B. The stages of the argt. upon equality and inequality are as follows : — a. (i) The one and the others, if equal or unequal between themselves, are so only through having in them the ideas equality, bigness, or small ness — for there are such ideas in existence. (2) But the existence of these ideas in the one and the others leads to a series of contrads., and the conclus. is that (149 E-150 d. 3) the one and the others cannot be equal or unequal one towards the other, because they have not equality, bigness, or smallness in them, and because those ideas have their respect, relats. only towards each other. Here we have an almost startling return to the argt. of the first sect, of the dial. In Dem. i. the present con'clus. was reached without this machinery. There (140 b-d) the argt. which im- mediately succeeds this did effective duty — equality meant the same number of measures, and so of parts, and the one had no parts. Here that argt. will not apply, because the one as existent has already been proved to have parts. Now it may be granted — although this is not how PI. uses the argt — that the conceps. of one and others in them- selves do not involve ref. to size ; and that if size is to enter it does so Kara a-vjxjitPrjKo^. To PL, for the present, it seems that the only means by which size can come in is by the entrance of three ideas ; and as these cannot enter, size remains out. But note that he does not argue out the case as regards io-dnjs — perhaps for the reason that there is no absurdity in fancying equality as occupying the whole of the one, and so being equal to it. The absurdity here would arise only if /teye^os also occupied the same ground and became equal to equality. If we read the whole argt. fairly over from el iXil(ov 149 E to (fialvtrai ye 150 D, we can hardly help feeling, notwithst. the express. orroTe/jc.) ixev T^ tiSei (149 e), that io-otjjs fieytOoi a-fiiKpor^p as eiSrj stand in one class, and that rh ev and ra aAAo are grouped together as co-ord. members of a totally diff. class (if Stallb. is right in thinking to iv an eiSos, then again ra aAA.a must go with it, for they are treated alike); and for the second time it is proved that «iSjj have no useful function in metaphys. In arguing that the one and the others are not equal or unequal because they don't possess the ideas of equality etc., PI. seems to make two mistakes. He fails to see that he should have a single idea of inequality, though this is a small matter : and he fails to ask — how then are the one and the others ' one ' and • others ' without the interpos. of suitable eiHi]? He speaks of their bemg such t^ ev eTvai and rip aXXa tov evh^ elvai — is this then what Arist. would call their vXrj, the vtto- Ketiievov which is postulated as a substance whereof size in its various forms is to be predicated by the aid of ciStj ? airoprfa-eie 8' av Tts, as he would say. 6. (i) The one and the others, not having in them bigness and smallness, cannot exceed or be exceeded. (2) Two things which mutually neither exceed nor are exceeded must be equal : so (150 d-e. 3) the one and the others are equal. Here we have the argt. by exclus., as we have had on several occasions: but it will scarcely serve in its present position. Why does he not say — Things which, viewed in regard to size, possess neither ' bigness ' nor ' small- ness' must possess 'equality'? And if they are equal merely by not possessing bigness or smallness, are they not equal t^! ev eivai and t^ aXXa tov evos elvat, which was impossible? It is true that the one and 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. But PI. is speaking of equality not logically but spacially. e. (i) The one, being in itself, is also around itself: so (150 e. 2) the one is bigger and smaller than itself. Here we get clear away from the 160 PARMENIDES. ilSrj again. The process began with the absence of exceeding and being exceeded as steps to prove equality, and now it is complete. We may talk of the one and the others as being equal and unequal without reference to fiSrj at all. But his conclus. is 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. (d), that if one thing be in another, or in itself viewed as another, bigger and smaller are the only terms which can be used in describing the situation. Now he has just con- tended (150 a) that 'smallness' might, if in the one, ' play the part of equality,' because of being £^ urov t4> ffi St' 0A.0V avTov TCTanevt). If then smallness might thus be equal to the one, it seems still more natural that the one might in the same way be equal to itself, and not bigger or smaller. (/. (i) The one and the others represent all that exists. (2) Whatever exists must be somewhere : so (151 A-B. 3) the one and the others must be in each other, and thus (4) must be greater and smaller than each other. This cancels the idea of Xtopa, which was assumed in the argt. on touch (148 e), where the one and the others lay outside of each other and the latter occupied ttjv ixoniv-qv X fv Yj aTrXus ^ jj ?>' : it is your terminus a quo. But if you are searching for that which you may call one because it does not admit of being made smaller — for one as your terminus ad quem, as an atom — you will fail to find it; <^a,vcpov Sc ««» prt Tov (Tvvcxts Biaiperov tis del Sionperd ( Phys. VI. I etc.). Now this has a bearing on PL's idea of (rfUKporrj^. That is an idealized minimum of extens. At 132 the process by which dSr] are reached is said to be comparison — smallness then should be gradually attained by compar. of smaller and smaller things. He admitted there that this was an endless process. Since then he has (144) exhibited the one as aveipn TO TrXijOos. And smallness is by the nature of it to be smaller than the smallest part of one — how is it then to be got at ? Again when got at it is not to be smaller than anything save bigness, which in turn is bigger (?) than the biggest of sensible objects. Kttl dpi9|i.^ Heind. would change this to dpiOpxiv, c to accord with to TrXrj$o;Aa Aeyo/«va, Tou Iroa-ov iraOt) Kaff auTa. When PI. extends his inference about measures and numbers etc. to the others, he of course turns his back upon the contention in 149 b-c that the latter had no one and no number. E Aval |ji«v irov The rrou here has not the local sense which it had a, Kal uvai irov Set. It means ' I pre- sume,' as in ov yap TTOV 152 B below, to Sk eivai ... T<> ^v ... T& eoTot. Analog, would require infins. throughout. There is of course no infin. for ■qv -. but he comes nearer to uniformity in 141 c, Koi (Tvai Koi yeyovivai, kol fiekXeif ecrecrOai. 152 KoivuvCa : The Mss. on which Aldus, Stephanus etc relied have Koivwvtas : but Steph. said ' substi- tuendus nomin.,' and so 2lt f^Te\ei /ikv apa xpovov, t and others read fieTcxeiv, which apparently has led to a reading /tcrexeif /*ev 3.pa eo-rt )(p6vov. Heind. does not doubt 'quin post S.pa textu exciderit avdyKij quod expressit in vers. Fie. : " ergo si ipso esse participat, necesse est temporis quoque esse parti- ceps." Nisi quis scribere maluerit : fierexov /uv apa hrrV A good case of conjecture going wrong. iropcvo|i. ToB xp<5vov ; Thoms. ' Strato tempus com- positum esse dicebat «« fiepiov /lij fitvovrwv apud Dam. fol. 280.' /ie/tvij/»£^a refers to 141 a-b. B avrrov oCrtt ; Had the pron. been ill-formed in the archet. ? 21 av rov, and t avrov *. tern Si...rh vw : The eo-ri Se Trp£(r/3. gains force from preceding apa. Ast cps. 147 a above, ra fiev ev Tov Ivos apa jiopid (o-Tiv ; and cites other cases of the usage, y yiyvofievou, the part, is predicative = ev r. rire etc. ' Hoc significat Parm., praesentis c temporis articulum a futuro esse sejunctuni ac sepa- ratum, ita ut rh ev, dum in eo versetur, nondum temporis particeps sit futuri.' Stallb. The present moment is a punctum saliens : we must think of it in both its capacities. Unless we can seize it as a separate entity, being in the sensible world does not exist : ovk av irore \ii}6a-q. That is the aspect of the question on which Heraclitus and his followers dwelt, in so much that Cratylus rh reXtvralov ovOlv ifiTO Setv kiytiv dWa tov iaKTvXov iKivei p,6vov, Kal HpaKkeiT({i IweTip-a e'lTrovTi on Sis tcJ avT$ irorap.!^ OVK ea-Tiv efip^vaf avrhs yap (p«T0 oi'S' aTTO^. Arist. Met. III. 5, loio a 12. Of course as a fact the present is a good deal more than to vvv. our memory unconsciously extends it. Proc.-Dam. vi. 282 says p.eTaifxpei Se AeAij^oTftis to ylyverai els rh Icniv, o eo-Ti /Jtera^v tou rjv Kal ecnai' rh yap yLyv6p,tvov Kara tvv vvv \p6vov 'eo-Tt' AeyeTat ... et yap Trpoeiari, Kara to yiyvea-dai xavTus ov KpaT-qdd-q vrro rov vvv. It does not occur to PL, either here or above 141, to discuss what time is : he merely treats of one as influenced 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 a present moment of brief duration called now. The one, again, while passing through time, becomes ; but when at now, is. We shall hear of this later, 156. The passage seems to have struck some reader — perhaps Arethas — as 'seasonable 'and suggestive, for he has marked it with the usual contr. for upalov. irpoVbv ... Xil+flrfiJ (== KparrjOeiYj in Dam.) i.e. et yap vpoioi OVK av etc. : he does not use the indicative, though he must assume the condit. as denied. TOV tJi 7i'yvd|i. may be either in the ace. as subj. to ■n-apeXdtlv while understood in the nom. as subj. to eVto-x«i and y, or the exact converse. In favour of the former view is the point that i^apiXdelv would have to wait for its subj. and be left unprovided : in favour of the latter it may be urged that in its present position, following dvdjyKrj and/iij, the phrase should rather have been /*7j5ev rZv yiyvo/ievaiv. The grammar would have been safer had he written tto.v 152 PARMENIDES. h\ Tu yiyvd/itti'ov tt yt dvdyKri etc. Our pointing makes the phrase norm, to cjrtVx". p. 16. D ivnixa T^ vvv, etc. So t, and it is clearly necess. : 5!l TO, vvv. If the passage were dictated t^ might be confused with to, and vvv taken momentarily as going with iirea-x^v. This last is a sudden appear- ance of the aorist, and may be used both in its momentary and in its iterative capacity. It is an odd instance of the difficulty we have in expressing TO X.ri6^vai vvb tov vvv : the present tense is too continuous, and whilst we are using the instantane- ous aorist the present has become the past. The present moment is a present moment ; but if we are to realize it and think of it as such, we do that in the nexf moment, and retain this one in the memory to be dwelt on as an atom of the past, ovkovv ovircp iyiyviTo SO t, and it can hardly but be right : Notes i. TO ye /iijv vvi' del etc. Thoms. 'Hinc illud Platonicum "aeternitas manet in uno." Quod enim nee future nee praeterito tempori est obnoxium, sed semper in praesenti est, id demum est aeternum. Plotin. Ennead. 3, Lib. 7, cap. 2, ovv fi-qre r;v /aijt£ eoTat, dkX.' eVti fiovov, rovro kuriiis 'X"" '''" *'^i'<*', t 8i ... 1^ TOV t^0os 8e ov. Note the change of form in the cond. sents. trepov ptv yap ov [ = «t [liv yap frepov rjv ra aXXa^ iv av rqv and irepa Se ovra [ = ei eVc/Dtt ecTTi] irXiidi evos ecrTi, Kal [ei irXuia evos eo^Tt] irX^^os dv e'xoi. In (i) the suppos. is held as denied and the concl. as one to be rejected : in (2) the suppos. is held as true and a very obvious concl. is directly drawn : in (3) from that concl. as a suppos. a new concl., to which exception has formerly been taken, is drawn but not dogmatically. This last again is followed by another in the same form. NOTES. 153 irXtjeos 8^ ... ToB IviJs : This one is not, of course, the one of the dial, but the one of number. Yet he might equally have said ff to li/, where the one of the dial, would have been meant. Proc-Dam. case of all things first ' ? Probably the latter. So Proc-Dam. — he also has ij — ovkovv tvl TrdvTwv xai Tov evos refers back to n-pcuTov ye'-yoi/e as if nothing had intervened to interrupt, ra S' voTepov so 31 with IIA, but t (whence the other Mss.) has vcTTepa which also occurs in Proc-Dam. with Tou TTpOTepov yeyovoTOi. TO tvirttpd. <|)v(ri.v Proc-Dam. VI. 285 says of this proof TrpocrxpS-Tai Sk t^ Xrjp,fiaTL T^Se oti irapa, ^vctlv TO tv ov yiyovev, dAAa Kara t^xxriv, iva. et's olKiiov TiXoi KaTavTrjirri to ev ... Sia tooto /cat t«Aos oiKetov Xapfidvei TO -Kvp a.p.a Kivovjxevov t^v avTov (?) Kara <^wrtv KivTjmV elSoTroir]d(v yap juaAAov la-TaTai Kal KiviiTai irpos TO. aval, Kadtiis 'Apia-TOTeX-rjs <^i\oya-op^i' TavTa irdvTa TaAAa eTvai p,6pid ye tov ... Ivos. He repeats the T^AAa TrdvTa of the previous sent. = these aforesaid, 'all the rest' Stallb. seems almost an- noyed at the presence of TaAAa — ' quid enim ? estne ipsum quoque initium pars tou Iv&s atque totius? Cur igitur Parm. de iis solis loquitur quae principium excipiunt?' He is right about the dpxy. The lang. is a little careless. But is not Stallb. thinking that he would rather not see ' importunum istud TaAAa' standing for anything but sensible objects? ouTb TO Iv Heind. would make t& ev a gloss p wrongly included. It is the only use thus far of avTo t6 ev, and its natural sense is not to a-uTo-ev but 'the one itself as distinct from the parts whose genesis he describes, a/jia TeXevry av...dv prob- ably the repeated av is to enforce the nat. order of growth for the one — it follows the two important words. His argt. has been — Every whole must come into being in its natural order; i.e. cannot have come till all of it has come ; i.e. must come last in order. He applies this in condensed form aa-Te . . . yiyvecrOai : 'Thus, assuming that the one itself (the whole one) must come into being in its natural order alone {ehrep ... yiyvea-dat), [it would arrive simultaneously with the end, and] if it has come into being simultaneously with the end, it would be its nature to come into being last of all.' The Greek would be eiTvep avdyKy avTh TO ev pi] Trapa, (f)va'LV yiyveaOai, dpa TeAevT^ av yeyovos eiiq, UKTTe, ehrep dvdyKrj avTo a/xa TeXevy yeyovevai, jrei^ii/cos av e«j ytyvecrdai vtrTaTov tu>v dXXtav. This should be vcnepov Ttav dXXinv or i'o"TaTov irdvTinv : but PI. wishes ucTTaTov to make sure of its being /as/, and he wishes twv aAAwv to say vetoTepov dpa tuv aAAuv. veiar. ... irpea-pirepa: Proc.-Dam. VI. 285-6 says eTrel 6e eTedtj oti ov irapa (pTCKTiv [e'i'at], aAA' dpa ttj TeXevTy (epeiv why not SieveyKeiv, viilh SirjVeyKe SieveyKig? ovk apa... TOV evbs ... veuiTepov, edd. after Schleierm. reject evhs here : but the Mss. are clear. On the other hand the preceding ov is upon a scratch in 21, and suggests an orig. ev. The sense is ovk dpa to ye ov Trpe p,ev before irpea-fi., as is not rarely done. This is quite satisf., and is very likely the true reading. The text is an attempt to adjust 21 so as to yield a satisf. meaning. After pointing out the scope of the argt., Proc.- Dam. VI. 287-8 says ea-Ti Se rj t<^o8os ^Se — rh fiev yap -irpetT^VTepov ToSe TovSe ov, Kal en irpecr^vTepov yiyvecrOai (Traph (Ls irpoTepov ■ytyoi'C Trpeo'^vrepov) xJ>pav exei [it is possible for what is older to be- come relatively older still !], koI yiyverai en vper- fivTepov Kal 7rpecrj3vTepoV rh Se vedrepov ov X'^P^^ *•"' en veiirepov yiyveirOai, dcrre rh eivai pev Kal yeyovevai n veuiTepov aAAov tivos ean Xiyei [Atyeii'?], avrh Si rh ov veiorepov vedrepov yiyvecrOai rj eavrov rj aAAou [ov] x<"P'' [yet this is but the correlative of the pre- vious statement !]. This can hardly mean that he had the reading of 21 in 1 54 c, veiorepov S' ov ; for he soon adds eTvai pev Kal yeyovevai rrpea-^vrepov t] veiarepov Soteoi' icrtos Kara Ti]v rrporepav Siatjiopdv Kad ^v ev6\)'i Si-qveyKe, yiyverai S' ov [the reading of t] — NOTES. 155 OUT* veiuTspov (ov yap 6mfpov iavTOV Kara rijv irporipav irpoo-dari.v vpfcrlivTtpov ov yev^o-tToi Kal Iti). The text of D., as given in Stallb., is not always quite clear, ov ... ovtuv here as above we must understand xb «v oi' irpeo-ySurepov ij vsiLrepov T(av aA.Au>v ovriov vtO)T€piov rj •^piO'fivTkputv. Spa 84 ... 'yt'yveTai : After the long proof upon one side, we might expect opa S^ with the opening of the opposite argt. Heind. wishes the adjs. in the sing., but Stallb. seems right in assuming that the suppressed subj. is aura, i.e. rh tv koI xaAXa. p. tS; D irX&vi ... T^ to-u ftopCif The TrAeon refers to the elder, the kXar. to the younger ; and we add equal times. He now asks if they differ by the same portion as before : and here we see that his use of the word iJAtxia, above b, was a little unhappy. If he wished to prove that the diff. between an older and a younger never changed, he should have said St'^wyKt Tif xpovff, «ro) Siacj)(p€i oet rhv ^(povov : and no doubt that is what he meant. Here it is at once conceded that the two do not continue to differ t^! uTtpov ijX.iKi(f Trpoi ra.X\.a rh vptarov, ovk apa tovto eo-rai 8i,aepov Kal «is rh t-ireiTa. o ti irep and tovto might be replaced by ocrov Trep and toctovtov. t6 y« iXaTTOv Siatjitpov = o ye ia-Tlv ikaTTov 8iaepei. irpoi ri becomes at once, m applic. to the case, Trpos txtivo, jrpos d. In rb pev vidynpov ... bxravrtoi all the change of age is, of course, relative; and irphi aAAijAoi must be under' stood although not used thus far. iss i(petv, TTpeirPvTepa Tt ... ytyverat Ta re oAAa tov evh^ Kal to iv Toiy dXXv. KaTo. Th ur(a etc., i.e. the numerical diff. between them is constant ; but it is an ever lessen- ing frac. of the ages under discussion. Proc.-Dam. is surely wrong (ut sup. 290) Kadh piv ydp t^ijo-. 156 PARMENWES. Kara to ktu) dpLdfuQ dX.XTJX.mv Si,aepeiv t6 ev Kai ra a.XXa, Stallb. Cps. 138 A, kv eavry ov ... (Xirep Kal ev eauToJ elrj. p. 29. Kol tit] Hv ...rh iv 'i efvat — he seems to be speaking of both as a logician and Kara a-vp.- jSt/JijKos, not as a tnetaphys. and Ka6' avrd. Now of PL's argt. It was said in the Introd. that Dem. II. V. Dem. i. = synthet. -construct, v. analyt.- destruct. This is true ; and PI., either consciously or half so, shows it by his efforts to make each step lean on the previous one. But the great con- structive step is the first, that of adding ov to ev. All else might almost be called an analysis of what that synthesis implies. And while much is extracted from it, the ev-ov even at the close remains a very abstract concep., in no way more advanced than atoms and the void. When Dam. talks (§ 88-89, 214-17) — not as a commentator — of a o-etpo. through iroXXd, crToi\aa, p.ipr), eiSr) towards a-uparoeiSh ajrav he is far beyond this dial. As PI. goes step by step, and secures progress by Siaipea-is, it may be assumed that his first distinc. is as primary as he can make it. We shall not seek to determine what is the most elementary difference from one — not- one, many, others, or what not. Dam. (§ 104, 270) speaks in this connec. of rh ?v p,6vov dvTi8ir]pr]p.ivov srpbs t6 ov, Kara ttjv Trpiarqv krepoTryra ^avetcrav. lotKE yap rj erepoTrj^ avTT], ybipla-atra to ev dirb rrjs owtas, 6(jiii'X.av TO ev a.TrXui'S 7r/jOTa^ui an-avTuv — eira Ttts n-oAAas dp-iOeKrovi IvaSas, p-^d' as e^e^ijs Tcis fUTi^op.kva'S VTTO ovcrimv, Kal ^<^(ov, Kai etc. aAA' o IIA. pera rh dSicLKpLTOV «v ov Toi)s 8vo (Xtixovs dvn- 6r]Kev T(3v peOiKTwv evaScov Kal tcov ptOcKTiKoiv oucrtojv etc. at greater length than we can quote. This is an early form of Grote's objec. to PL's course at 143 A, and seems to mean that if PI. took that course he should have gone from ev (without ov) to jToAAat dpkOiKTOL evciSes then to al pfT€Xop.evai, in place of running Svo o-Tt'xoi downwards tls dmipov. PL's course indeed seems almost to refute the im- portance of the addition of ov, and to make us ask, Does he really add a vital new predicate to ev which advances it to greater concreteness, or does he merely mean in a loose way that he will not push the one so hard as in Dem. i.? Dam. can justly say (§ 91, 226) t5 ev TOUTO oVejO Ka\ovpe.v ciTrAws ev e^et irAiJ^os ev eauTtp, 0^ ydp av dir avTov to. ttoAAu irpoT^Xde — elsewhere he gives (§ 33, 63) the dialecti- cal reason, which PI. does not, us ; Kiveirai Sia rh Trav iv \povw KiveXuOai,. iv 8i Kal ... irawye: Just above Iv is the subj. of both yiyvtra.i and dir6X.X.vrai : here it is the subj. of 7171'., but is it of an-oAA.? Fie, ' desinit esse multa' and 'desinit esse unum,' which might seem to favour the view that it is the subj. What then V. are we to make of the rh iroXka eiVat of 2lt? Fie, one would think, must have read rd, the constr. being aTro'A.X. cTvai ra iroXXd, if even that be a pos- sible one. But on the suppos. that iv is the subj. we would need to treat rb iroXXa. tiyai as a phrase in the accus. of descrip., ' dies so far as being many is concerned.' The altem. is to make that subj. to an-oAA, — as Jowett and Miiller do — the only objec to which is the sudden change in that respect. Stallb. seems to take this view, ' posteaquam Unum ipsum et oriri et interire docuit, etiam singula ejus attributa eandem subire vicissitudinem ostendere instituit' Sv 81 ... l6iveiv Kal urov(r6ai. He Urges two points here: (i) that PI. gets in all his predications in the wake of to ylyvio-dai, (2) that these are here used abstractly — the one becomes like, equal etc., but not to anything. St" dv 8i Kivo^ii. ... ctvoi; etc. As Proc-Dam. has c said, and says in his next note, PI. has carefully developed everything thus far through ylyvia-Otu- he adds Kal Tavra irdvra Sta Tou yiyvecr6ai, Iv XP°^V — ^note the last words. PI. now assumes motion abruptly, without reference to becoming, or to any other source. It is not even certain at the moment what sort of motion he means. The lang. suggests (fiepeadai (138 b), but the associations would favour dAAotWts. Not till we reach e is the ref to motion in space established. /«j8' ev evl xpovcf is very em- phatic. The expression rh vvv, used in 152, is not adequate, and must be replaced by a better, reus 5^ : does not seem to mean 'how should it?' implymg acquiescence — as jrws ydp : seems to do — but rather 'how can that be?' implying doubt, which the foil, sent, clears up. In Iotos rt ... tuvto Trda-xuv. the NOTES. 159 last two words are (Stallb.) superfl. The constr. is, as it were, broken at to-rdvot, which might be followed by a dash. Stallb. seems right in objecting to Heind,'s sugg. ovev /x>jv, and in saying that the (lIv is taken up by xpovoi 8« which follows. Proc- Dam. 295 says ovS* kv ivl xpovif toTif, tVti to-ruij mmrat koX Kivovfuvov urraTat. koX ouSen-OTe /itccci, and again oret ovS tv nvi xpovif ovn kv Ty eoTOfai ttrriv fmn kv njl Ktv«ivrji of the present, while the former is a vvv not necessarily contemporaneous with our sensa- tions. Yet a distinc. is necessary, both because rh «f. is assumed not to be in time, and because you construct time out of successive to vvv, which you cannot do if these have individually no time. 'Differt hoc k^a{^vi]s kv aKapei, and rh kv dve- iraurd^to) xp6v

vrji into the corre- sponding counter-state — 'No pause thedireextremes between. He made me blest — and broke my heart,' o4 y&f ... Kwhiveua : This brings out the full agony of the crisis. The one is stock-still until instan- taneously motion is in full swing. Proc-Dam, points the paradox by showing that, in order to effect this sudden transfer., motion and rest must themselves not be in time (295), kv ixtjSevl ydp xp°vv co-Tiv iv TVT]'s Kal Tov- TOJi' yi.yvofikvv ovre i(TTiv oiiTt ovk loTt to kv ovti yiyvirat ovre diroXXvTai. PI. begins by assuming that Tb yiyviadai in all its forms is in time ; he is now eager to effect the change from motion to rest with absolutely perfect abruptness, and says that the point at which the one is in neither state cannot be in time. Thus rest endures in full force until the one is already in the instantaneous, while motion has acquired perfect action before it comes out : in other words, motion and rest, which we might infer were in time, are now shown to be in the instan- taneous and therefore out of time, Le. non-existent. And with the disappearance of time disappear all the characteristics just assigned to the one Sid tov yiyv&rOai kv xpovo), o4S'... oiS\ ... oiS' The sense of dvte ... ovre is not e quite given here in the last two cases ; the first of course coalesces with kvL. The sense of the whole would, if accurately stated, stand thus : et Se /icto- ySaAAet k^aij oiSe kivoit' av TOTf. ovS' S.V uTairj, ' and if it were in no portion of time, neither would it move then, nor yet stand.' We have learned, 152.4, that a thing /teT«x" /i«v Xpovov f'irep Kai tov elvai.. irpos Tas aXXos (i. i\'i<; He introduced motion and rest abruptly without any statement that they re- sembled the characteristics already assigned to the 160 PARMENIDES. one ; here he assumes that they do, and are but one type of /ifTa^SoX^. He seems to think that he can reach rh i^ai4>vrjs more readily through them. ^7 oih-e lia-Ti, ... aire, ottrt ... olhe etc. These seem to constitute two pairs, and may without violence be rendered strictly j 'and neither is then nor is not, neither becomes nor perishes.' The same arrang. is continued. Contrast £<^' ev with lirl dvofi,., cttI ofj,., H OTt icrov, and the repeated cases of oiJre unelided. eis TO. ivavTio. He does not say bn, to., the phrase being used apparently much like rovvavriov, ' to- wards big and towards equal, and the converse — and vice versa.' ovk eot/ce. Steph. reads eoiKe say- ing 'alia est lectio ovk eocKe- quam et Fie. agnoscit'; and Bek. says ' ovk om. AEF.' Does this give us the Ms. authority on which Steph.'s edition rests ? 155E-157B. We have seen Dem. 11. conflicting with I., and within itself containing contradictory proofs that the one 'both is and is not' something or other. PI. in Dem. iii., while not giving up any previous conclus., calls in a reconciling element. If the one ' is ' it ' partakes of time and iropivoixivov Tov xpovov (152 a),' and we have only to understand that ' is and is not ' apply to different portions of time in order to comply with the law of contrad. and to save every characteristic of the one. But PI. seems to be possessed by the concep. of ' is and is not,' and he has already dealt with that very small portion of time called t6 vvv. Apparently under these two influences he proceeds to prove even here that the one 'both is and is not,' the medium of proof being a refinement upon rh vvv. The more one thinks of rh vvv the less one is able to distinguish it from t& c^a[(pvT]s. PI. describes to vvv as the point at which the one ov ylyverai dXA' io-Ti — which seems clearly to assume that at to vvv we have a [jt-tra/ioXi^ : and t5 k^al<^vyis Kivqcredi's Kara to irpor. Ka\ v(tt. (iv. ii). 2. Over against this both elsewhere speak of aiwv, our eternity. A. draws a fine distinc. in this connec. — OVK itTTL to kv-xpovif-ilvai TO ea'ai-oT£-o-)(.-eo-Ti'v ... diiTTi (jjavephv oTt ra del ovra, y del ovra, ovk evcni aTowos Tts ev XP°^V °^'^' '•'' o^f"' A. uses the term, but in the other sense, Th 8' JvorES. IGl i^aiff). ih Iv d.vai(r0,'}T(f XPo'^V S'« {iiKporrjTa sKa-rdv (IV. 13)- Change, again, is the insoluble crax, the vital question in the philosopher's brief. ' If, indeed, you are able to instruct tAaf point, Mr. Fairbrother ' ' If I am indeed able to instruct that point, my Lord, I trust not only to serve my client, but ... ,' We cannot instruct that point. PI. does not even treat it in a strictly raetaphys. manner. Metaphys. ex- planations do not so much explain it as explain it away. PI. is directed by Zeno towards physical becoming or change, whether in the form of Kara rmov Ktvr/o-is or of dkXoitaarir he does not admit Z.'s reduction of it to impossibility : he seeks to construct a physical theory which will explain the physical facts. He said (1523 etc.) that in past time the one has been becoming older and younger than itself, but that when it reaches ' now ' it ' ceases to become and is ' older and younger — for if it went on becoming it 'would not be caught by now.' And this now holds on to it as long as it ' is,' which seems to mean that to us at each successive now the one ' is,' while when we look back, from each to all that have passed, it seems to have been 'becoming' all the while. There is the crux : it is conceded that change is gradual and takes time (e.g. 138 c, and A. Phys. IV. passim), but when you put that time under the microscope you find that at each instant the chang- ing thing ' ceases to become and is.' To put it in terms of A.'s dictum (i. above), if 'now' as a ' measure of change ' reveals change going forward, it eo ipso breaks up into as many nows as the stages of change which it reveals, and at each of these the thing 'ceases to become and is.' From one 'now ' to the next we find, it may be, different being; but being, not becoming, is what we find : we can not catch change in the fact. PI. then in despair says Change is ^jc/z-fl-temporal : time advances thus — vvv, e^ai., vvv, e^ai. els a-rreipov : at each vvv the changing thing ' is ' in some phase (not the same phase, yet not more than one phase), and at each f^ai. the change from phase to phase (or from place to place) is effected. It would need a minute knowledge of A.'s works to ascertain clearly his final view on change, but he seems to be driven to the same conclus. as PI, He says /^cTa^oA^ 8e ;racra (j>vcru kKCTTariKov (iv. 13), and again kv w St TrpwTf^ X (hunting change into a corner) ixtTa/3ej3X.rjKe to /ji^ra- ^t^/VjjKos, avdyKr] dTO/xov ttvai (§VI. 5). Here aro/tov conveys the same idea as PL's iv ovS' evl xpo^Vt and might even prompt a wrong-headed critic to read (fivcris aTo/*os Tts for dmroi at 156 D. To PI. then change is resolved into the series 'is, is-not, is, is-not ... ,' and perhaps one influence that leads him to such a concep. may be that while Heraclitus (Introd. p. 1.) had taught him that 'becoming' is not a subject of science, ' is and is-not ' may be subjects of science. Another influ. is of course to hand in the fact that, when PI. lands the changing thing in that which is not time, he may — having made time a condition of being — declare that it ' is not ' in an absolute sense. He is thus able to say in Dem. in. as in 11. that each attribute of the one both is and is not. t£ Sal ... o-Kemr^ov; For Tt Sat see pp. Ixxxi., xci. But this case is peculiar. Elsewhere the ti Sat either stands alone, or is coupled with S-q, or again with TySe or ToSe, to form a brief prelim, question introducing a longer one which is complete in itself The only apparent excep. seems to be ti Sat, tZv aAAwv; (153 a). This however does not mean ' but what of the others ? ' riov aAAwv is govd. by TTptirfivTtpov in the line above and corresponds with kavTov. In the present case ri is an integral part of the main quest., in close connec. with Trpoa-qKoi. av Tracrxtiv. Had it been like the others the lang. might have been rt Sat : ap' ov a-Keirreov n rots aAAots TrpocrrjKOi av vcwxeiv, ev el ecTTiv; This case seems to show that Sk was the orig. word rather than S'q, and so t o«T£ So 3lt ; but nothing responds ; whence Buttm. (Heind. agreeing) reads [ovre rakka ka-rl ro ev] ovre to ev ea-Ti TaAAa, which may perhaps have been in PL's mind, but is surely redundant. Stallb. reads ovSk. May not the following ovSe meet all requirements — the intervening opdm: being a mere di/ctTravAa to Parm., and no interrup. ? Engelm. suggests ovTi referring back to 150 b. The note of Proc-Dam. 297 — which as usual reflects the text while commenting upon it, contains ovre . . . ovTe : but the lang. seems to need correc., which takes from its value as evid. For the sense Thoms. cites Plotin. Ennead. 5, lib. iii. cap. 15, EipT/Tat [lev odv oTi et Tt £K Tov Ivos, aAAo Sr] irap avro' akko Se ov, 162 PARMENIDES. ov^ ev — Tovro yap ■^v cKeivo. With ov yap av ... ■^v suppl. ToiWa, et ec ijv. C o4S{ (i<|v...irn 8V): Notes I. t gives p.iTiX'^i Try. The text is as near 31 as possible : it assumes that a3 — not unsuitable to the context — had been in the orig., that it had been overlooked and inserted in the marg. or above, and that the writer, influenced by CTTt/jETai, had supposed the intention to be that fiiTk)(e.Tai (av = ai) should be the reading. To5 Ivos seems to go closely with ret aA,Aa, and yet it may be a case of hyperbaton : the sense in any case would be given thus : on wov to. aXXa tou ei'bs fjLovas fcis p,6pia e)(0VTa aXXa rov Jj/bs eit]. 8 av gXov 5 ; So t ; and the sense needs it. iX\a piTiv etc. This intricate argt. is meant to show that o\ov-p.6pia are strictly correl. He seemed to find no diffic. before (145 a), and his argt. now is not easily followed. If a part is not part of a ' whole ' (t^s kavrov oXotijtos, Proc.-Dam. 297), it must be part of a ' many ' or ' all ' : that is, if it is not part of a many in their collective sense it must be so in their distributive and individual Sense — must be part of each, including itself. For if so much as one be excluded then it cannot be part of ' all,' and by hypothesis it is not part of the 'whole.' If the argt. is sophistical (Stallb.) it is so mainly because it undertakes to prove that which hardly admits of proof, or needs it. The sophistry arises in the statement that ' if it is not part of each it will not be of any.' Proc.-Dam. takes (298) a different view. He says th6 parts must be part of some ' one ' thing — Tti/&s /xopiov av iHrj ov S-q TroXXiav, TO. yap 7roA.A.a BiaKiKpijxkva kcniv—ii therefore it is to be part of ' all ' which are not a ' whole,' it must be so by being part of each ' one ' of the all. This it cannot be — oti, (f>rjcriv, ... Itrrat pApiov kavrov [rb] p,6piov, o dSvvaTov. It thus is not part of each one, «ir£i Si TrdvTwv twv ttoXAwv ovk €y)^iopu p,6piov iivai D Tfe iv €Ke1vo 0^8' ivhs tKacrrov (ecrrai) riav dWiav and so can be part only of the whole-less many en masse — irAijv yap tvbs airov Kal p,6vov tuiv dWutv iinai tijia, Kal oiirios dvaipiiTai, rb iKOXTTOV eivai /xo- piov, /J.^ ov Se Ikocttov fiopiov ovSevbs tZv tto/VAcov p. 3T. lo-Tai. In the closing sent. p,r)Sivos Si etc. &v (t) seems essential. Heind. and Stallb. object to that after dSvvaTov as useless, and as probably due to the previous ervat. It would be easy, with a slightly different length of lines to imagine the second nearly below the first, and so to account for the presence of the latter ; but the Mss. agree, and (as Stallb. adds) Proc-Dam. agrees with them. The sent, may be rendered ' and to be something of all those things, of none of which it is anything — whether that something be a part or what else you please — is a thing which cannot happen.' ((jyqa-lv) ort dSv- varov (Tvai. Proc.-Dam. IS&s This does not seem to be used technically, e Thorns, quotes here his Dam., ' ecrrt fj.iv yap rb okov fv ev rg yevitrei [lepicrTov, Kal to €V TreirXr)6va-pevov, aAA Oytiws 1) ev Kat jj oAov, to p-epy\ Kai Ta TroAAa ■KfpLiiX-qi^iv. Inde Pythagoraeis Monas dicebatur dppivoOiqXv test. Macrob. ... Totam rem vero aperit Plut. in Quaest. Platon. ov yap jroui, inquit, Movas dpidixov, av p.rj T^s djreipov SuaSos a\py)Tai' iroiijcracra Siri ouTCDS dpidfiov, ei's o'Tiyp.ds, eiTa ypdp.p/i's, ck Sf TOVTiav els iiri(f>aveia's Kal f3d$T} Kai criifiara trpoeuri, Kal (TtajxaTtav iroioTijTas ev Trddem yiyvo/xevoiv.' iv Upa So t, and rightly. On fiopia exov Proc.- Dam. 298 says Kal avveypaif/e ravra els rh e^eiv fiopia tva jx-q, ev ovra, ovk y [Ms. yv^ dXXa tod evos. Kal evrevdev eSeiKWev to, fiopia oXov Kai TeXeiov jxopia. — Kal ovre eKacrrov Ttuv p,opi(av ovre Ttav ttoXXuiv ovTe TUIV irdvTiov TO. o/ioia jrotet, i.e. he calls none of these others TcAfioj/? avroiv, i.e. riov /jiopitav. to ye So rss t : 21 TO Te, less good. T y easily confused, p. cxi. ov 7ap ... out!) iv = el yap p-rj dXXa tov evhs f/v ovk av peTeixev etc. The _ suggests that some writer or read,er thought the form auToev — like avTocKoio-Toi' in Arist. — the proper one. Notes i. The word, however, would convey the idea of an eiSos toC Ivos, which is not meant here, but rather that the others ' in place of being partakers of the one would be the one itself Proc.-Dam. 299 says Th fieTe^ov tov jxeTexopAvov aXXo ti Sokcl eTvai ... p-erexei yovv exa- aTov Twv p,opLitiv TOV evhs Kadh ev p.6piov, Kal dXXo ti ov fieTexei tov Ivos. In vCv Se evl...Trov the first evl is a notable case of attrac. We expect ev with eTvai; yet the dative is used through the action upon the writer's thought of the succeeding constr. aSiJvaTov p-ev ttod iravTi, irXr^v ain^ Tcp evi, evl elvai. The Se of vvv Se answers to a suppressed pev in ov ydp, while the evl pev is answered by peTexeiv Se. t!) (iiv 7ap hf ... |jL S' oS as corresponding — only it seems better to couple Ikoxttov with the latter. The sense will thus be 'for the former (the whole) will be one whole of which the parts are parts, while again each of the latter, i.e. whatever is part of a whole (o av y liopiov oXotj) will be one part of the whole.' This is quite intellig. ; but excep. is taken to the clause in brackets, although 3It agree. As it stands, Heind. renders it ' quaecunque tandem est pars ilia totius sive magna sive parva — sive ei commensurabile est TO oXov, sive non commensurabile,' and this gives excellent sense, although no ref to size has been made hitherto. Bek. again, following ®2Y and followed by Ast and Herm., reads o5 av ■§ fiopwv oAov ' will be one part of the whole— of that whole of which it is a part,' but there is no such gain as to justify the change. And so of the suggest, of Schleierm., o av ^ fiopiov SXov (altered to [loplwv and called egregia by Stallb.), ' one part of the whole, of that one which happens to be whole of the part (or parts).' The clause, like some we have met, is redund., but neither of these changes helps much. B oJK ow ... auTofi : Steph. (leaning, as Fischer says, on Fie.) wishes evos twice, the former being govd. by erepa, the latter by [udk^a, but (Heind.) the art. also must in that case be repeated, while there is no diffic. in treating avrov as govd. by both part, and verb. oira ■Y«...ToB €vtXtiv Ty 8iavoi^ (fiopiov) Tvrf's. Kul TO 8X0V etc. This is the oAov TeAetov popia d txov of 157 E : and of course it does not, anymore than the popia, exist until the latter are thought of as popia. In the phrase to aAAa tov ivh^ the tv is of course the tv of the dial. Does «'k fj,tv rov ivhs refer to that also? Perhaps so, in view of the prev. express, and also of the e^ tavrSv Koiviavrj- crdvTuiv which could cover his recent argt : yet it really is diffic. to say. He has not been speaking of TO ev for some time, and the tv oXov TtXtiov, or even the ev eVao-Tov fiopiov of which he has been speaking — any ev, in fact — would do. We must remember too, though he chooses to forget, that even Tb ev only gets its jrc/ias when thought of in connec. with rd aAAa, and that the nature of either, if we strive to think of it out of such connec, is 164 PARMENIDES. aTreipia — so much SO that the very names he gives would not be permissible. Kotvcui'ijo-avTwv is seldom used in this absolute manner to mean ' in uno com- municantibus ' (Fia). Proc.-Dam. puts ■rov. evbs under the govt, of koivuiv. (301) : — rots aAApis yovv Tov tubs crv/jL/Saivd ii< /xev T^s KOiviovlas Tov ei/bs avriov, koI i^ avTov tov evbs oSttcjO eKotvwvria-av, yCyvecrdal ri ertpov, oirep avTocs irepa'; 7rap€ ... avo)i.oiiSTaTa : i.e. SO long as we consider them all either as direipa or as TTeTrepa.a-p.eva in both cases they are like ; but when we regard them all in both lights at once — both Kara t^v Javrcov i^vo-lv and as tov evo9 perexovra — then they are as unlike as possible. Here (Heind.) dp,<^orepu)i = avTd re avTots Koi aA.AijA.ots. Stallb. is brief, ' Itaque ex quaque ratione similia erunt sibi ipsis et inter se, ex utraque autem utrinque maxime contraria et dis- similia.' Kttl Taird 8^ etc. Up to hrTtaTa this preserves the connec. with the dv etrj above, and ka-rwra should have had a colon. 157 B-159 A. In pursuance of the dictum 136 a-c, Parm. has now entered upon his consideration of TaAAa aS ttjoos avri -re koi Trpo$ ciAAo o Tt ovv (i.e. Trpos TO ev). But we find that the discuss, becomes more and more a recapit. of argts. dealt with at length in Dems. I., 11. — ovk en xaXeirois eiprjo-opev is its key note, and inevitably. He cannot define his aAAtt save in relation to to ev, but he has already set forth the nature of to ev by continuous ref. to TO. aAAa : a complete discuss, of the one, however it may be formally isolated, involves so much ref. to others and many as to make a separate treatment of these perfunctory. His difficulties here, as formerly, are that he must make ordinary, lang. express abstruse ideas,. and that he must treat as successive, thoughts that are correlative and simul- taneous. We see still more clearly now that ' the one ' is but a counterpart of each of ' the others ' or ' the many.' . Stallb. persists in regarding the latter as the sensible world and the former as the ideal ; there is no distinc. in the treatnient of them to justify this. A ... eiri,i. Proc.-Dam. (303) says esrt- 0"K07ret S' aSSis Trepi tovtihv avTiov — rov re Kiveurdai Koi etrrdvai,, rov aTreipov Kat TreTrepaa-pevov ... /cat rtuv aAAuv evavriwv TraOwv — emep oiiroj yiiovoi' e^^et TaijTa (is ] ov Kai erepov ti tc> VTroKeifievov. OTav oCv fiwrj ev el /t») eepei to Ikclvov tt/jos TO tovtou ; rj to p,ev CKeivov dvaopiKov ecTTi, to Se TOVTOv SeiKTiKov ; ov8' av Ti eXeyeTO etc. = nor p. a- would it be called or spoken of as ' something ' if it had no share in ' something.' tlvai (jiiv Sf| ... |if| Mmv. Stallb. says ' quum formula £1 p,rj ea-Tt significet negativa habere praedicata, non est difficile ad intelligendum, elvai nunc esse aientibus gaudere attributis. Itaque sententia ver- borum haec est: ubi to ev sumserimus non nisi negantibus notis esse determinatum, aientibus s. positivis utique carere. Quod autem addit Parm. — p.eTexeiv Se ttoWZv . . . dvdyKi] — his verbis significat 161 ideam negando finitam cum ideis aientibus eatenus habere coramunionem 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 the qualities ascribed to the existent one. Does he then mean that when he says ' the one is,' a definite thing with the characteristics claimed for it exists ev Trj va-ei, ; while when he says 'the one is not' (in his present acceptation of the term) he means that this same thing has no exist, in nature and exists only as a subject of our thought? I assume, he says, on the one hand a definite set of qualities which I call ' one ' to enter into the sum of things as pictured 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 ? el (UvToi ... ovSiv. After insisting that ' that one,' 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), ei yap eKetvo TO ev OVK eiTTi Xeyofiev, eKelvo Aeyo/iei' Kal ovk aAAo" eireiSi^, el p-fjTe to ev eXeyopev p-'^Te eKeivo piq elvai, dXXa irepi T4V0S dXXov 6 Adyos r^v oTt eAeyo/tev to ev pi) elvai — ovSe (f)deyye(T0ai eSei ... Kal evhi pev — ToC elvai — ov peOe^ei, jroAAwv Se pede^ei Kal tovto, KifX tov eKelvov Kal Tov TOVTOV Kal Tov toi!t(J) Kal TUi' XoiTTbiv. Stallb. finds a diffic. here, and says that what we require from the passage is this, 'Si vero praeter unum NOTES. 167 etiam riWa. negando determinarentur facile apparet (sublatis affirmantibus notis omnibus) futurum esse ut ne verbum quidem crepari oporteret?' Un- doubtedly if both one and others were negatived there would be little to speak about, but this seems hardly what the passage requires, to. yap aA.A.a ... ikkota ; It seems odd that erepa and mpoia should have to be called in before we can admit that aXka are dXkoia. He makes a much bolder step im- mediately. If (eiVfp T(j! evl etc.) he can infer that TO ev is ilv6[wiov because to aA,Aa are dvd/tota ry «n, why not infer at once that it is aA.Ao tZv aXAtuc because rd aAAa are dXka toS ecos? This comes directly under 146 d that the different differs only from the different, and so below c to. Se avia-a etc. B lawTov inoioTTira Cp. 147-8 on this argt. The words below, ovk dv ... roij Ivds, admit of two senses differing slightly— (i) about such a thing the argt. could not be conducted as if it were the one { = &nrep « ^v to li/). This Seems to be Miiller's view, ' so konnte wohl nicht von so etwas die Rede sein, wie von dem Einen': (2) the argt. could no longer be held as dealing with such a thing as the one. The latter suits oiov totj kvos better. Both Mss. and edd. seem agreed that in tuv towvtov we have the art : yet it might be rov. Does not this argt cancel the preceding one? If the one must be like itself, it must equally be unlike the others, and so dXX.a Inpa. krepota dXXoia. are unnecessary. C With 5et dpa . . . eavr^ cp. apa ovk . . . avri^ tlvai ; above. In the former the dat. law^ is wanting, in the latter the etvai — the full constr. being fief dpa [apa OVK dvdyKTiJ eTvai t$ tvl [auTu!] ofwioTijTa avTOV A 7dp cti) ...aSvvara: The odd part of this argt. lies in the i'l] re dv rjSrj — if the one were equal it would already have acquired being, which it has not. Stallb. points to this as coinciding with his view that the non-existent one has only neg. qualities — equality being positive. But surely like- ness to itself is a positive quality, to say nothing of the others referred to 160 e. Besides PI. has not yet decided whether the others exist or not, and yet has brought them into compar. with the non-existent one, a course which ought to involve diffics. Again he infers immediately that if one and others are not equal they must be unequal; but that altern. holds only if they exist ; at least if they exist to an equal extent, are on the same terms as to existence. And if they are equally related to existence are they not equal and like to that extent ? The ei'jj re dv i^8»; seems one of those captious freaks of sophistry exemplified already in 155 d, dinp Kal vvv rjfius -rrepl avTOv jrai/ra TavTa Trpdrrofiev. oXXd (i^vToi ... (r|»Kp nection with inequality that we have bigness and smallness.' ' Jam vero ad inaequalitatem referuntur magnitude et parvitas ' Ast. «a(ris reOy {oir'ep kuTiv, ovk- €0Ti-yx^-6V) Kal oxSto) tov Trg etvai dvrjcret Trpoi To firj ttvai, [xaXkov (vOvs ecrTai ov. m dv d ekeyev oTt OTav Xkyuifiiv t& €V ovk ov, Xkyofitv to ev [Ms. ov] OVK ov kcTTi, Kal Ik tovtov to itq tivai tovt(j) Trape\o- fiiv. d yap fifj TOVTO, dAA.' ij aTTO^ao-ts Tedeitf (to ovK-i(TTip.i)-ov), Kal diroXvii tovto tS tt-q nvai, TTpos t& fj,rj tTvai eis SrjXwcTLV TOi! p,rj eivat, ficiXXov evdvi to'Tai ov. orav yap tis Xkyy t& tv ovK-evTi- p^rj-ov, d7roaiveTai [ = dTr6r]o-i here ?] tS fj-r) ov eKiivov, Kal yiyverai, itTTiv-ov. This means that PI. gets round to the doctrine that ' the non-existent one exists in a sense' by two paths, (i) If we speak truth then the non-existent one is non-existent, and so we show that it ova-ias lUTexu Try. (2) If we reaffirm the more strongly that ' the non-existent one does not exist,' we by our double neg. let exist- ence at the one again. Set 4po ... (1^1 SoToi : The first statement is this Sel dpa avrb [i.e. to cr] «X*"' '''^ eivai-zi^-ov ((is) Seerjubv ToiJ iifj-eTvai : and the second Sxrirep t& ov Set txfiv TO /XYj-iivai-prj-ov (ois Secrphv) iva TeXeias a? eivai y. In the third ovtws refers to these two assumed necessities, and is explained by the following fisTk- XovTa which (Heind.) would be clearer as el [UTexei. For the modern reader (whatever might be the case for the ancient one) this cornplicated statement is rendered still more trying by the introd. of Chiasm — Tb p.\v ov ... TfXkta^ eivai referring to the second statement, to Sc /ii) ov ... TtAlws p.rj iinai to the first : and additionally so by the closing redundan- cies «t jxkXXii TcAeius iivai and £t Kal... p,rj ea-Tai. We feel also the want of abstract terms, which leads to the use of parts, and infins. in a confusing man- ner. As regards grammar iva TeAews oS eTvai y would be clearer were etvai omitted, or if it had t& before it. The whole means much the same as iva av l^y aiTcJ TtAsjos dvai. Again the phrase ovcrias TOV dvai ov etc. = ' of the actuality of being existent, and of the non-actiiality of being non- existent.' The whole might run thus — « apa to /iij- ov-ev p,kXXei jxy iivai. Set «X^"' '''" wai-fiy-ov (is Setr/ibv tov iJ.-q ilvai, o/ioi(i)S Sxnrep to ov S« e'x'"' '''^ p-y-ttvai- p/q-ov iva TiXkin's y. to tc yap ov e'rj dv Kal t& /ii) oi' NOTES. 169 OVK av A] ovTws ixdXio-Ta, d /ieTe'xoi to fikw or oi'o-tas /zei' Tou eu'tti-or /xfj-ovo-ia-s Se rov fiy-ilvaL-fi^-ov, to 6e B /i»j-or /j.rj-ova-ia'S fiev Tov ixfj-ttvai-fiy-ov ova-la's 8e roi! e?vai-p')-oi'. 'Accordingly if it is to prove non- existent it must have the being-non-existent as a bond of its non-existence, just as the existent must, in order to perfect its existence, have as bond the non-existence of not-being; for in this way best would both the existent be, and the non-existent not be, namely, where being shares the actuality of existence and the non-actuality of non-existence, if it is to prove truly existent, and where not-being shares the non-actuality of the absence of non- existence and the actuality of non-existence, if not- being also in turn is to be completely such.' After paraphrasing, Proc.-Dara. (310, 311) says to yap eivai ovo-ioi tovto to Xiyo/jievov /xr) 6v, el Kal to [xr/ ov efifftaa-iv 1^" Toii /jltj eivai. rerrapa yap riva Aa/i/3ai/£i &v TrXfov ov\ evpTjTai — oi' io-TLv, ov ovk ccttlv, Kal TraXiv fir) ov ea-Ti, /xr) ov ovk i(m ... et Kal rh fj,ri ov avTo Kaff avTo teAcujs ovk €aiveTai Tw evl el pr] eatv(a in PL, while 7reavTai, and other parts of the tense occur repeatedly. No doubt that very rarity might suggest a change here. Again we might expect to find to OVK ov ev here, as it is the subj. of discuss, and occurs just above. Yet the very expect, of it might cause the scribe in t to write it wrongly (i.e. he ex- pected the form and put it, but afterwards corrected himself) ; while on the other hand we find rh ov and to pr] ov without ev, and following to ev ovk ov in 162 A above, ep and ev differ much less in Ms. than in print. "Exov corresponds with Kivovp,, and yet one almost looks for e'x«' after iirecTrep. In dAAa pr]v ...ttol: both Mss. read Te for ye, and 21 has blundered in pr]6ia-TaiTo. The clause ei-n-ep pq ecrriv stands as it were in brackets. oiSi (I'fiv ... aSvvoTov elvoi : If all three forms for d 'the same' here were in the same case they would read TavTov to avTov T& TavTov. Perhaps the last may mean 'the same of which we are speaking.' Both Mss. read ev tiJ). What is the marginal mark like a small 5 here? pr) ov ... pr] ea-riv : the former neg. keeps 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. TO ye |ji^v ... eo-rdvai : If the reason for absence of e motion be non-existence that reason will equally exclude the idea of rest. PI. draws no distinction of a def. kind between ijo-vxaft'v and eo-Tavai, but 170 PARMENIDES. his terms Kivtta-Oai, €dloprjTov ipei eV Tois dt&'ots, is guarded by the closing words. Grote says ' The meaning of the predicate is alto- gether effaced (as it had been before in Number r): we cannot tell what it is which is really denied about Unum ... the proposition [/nttm non est is so construed as to deny nothing except Unum ?ion est Unum, yet conveying along with such denial a farther affirmation — Unum non est Unum, sed tanieit est aliquid scihile, differens ab aliis (i6o c). Here this aliquid scibik is assumed as a substra- tum underlying Unum, and remaining even when Unum is taken away : contrary to the opinion — that Unum was a separate nature and the funda- mental Subject of all — which Arist. announces as having been held by PL (Met. b, iooi a 6-20). There must be always some meaning (the Platonic Parm. argues) attached to the word Unum, even when you talk of Unum non Ens : and that meaning is equiv- alent to Aliquid scibile, differens ab aliis. From this he proceeds to evolve, step by step, though often in a manner obscure and inconclusive, his series of contradictory affirmations respecting Unum.' As regards terminol. the close association between the ideas Kivrjo-ts dAAotawrts and yeveo-is is derived from the old physical philosophers. ndiTa pd etc. sug- gest the first, while Arist. Phys. I. 4, 187 a 29, ouTCi) "Kkyova-iv, ^v o/xov to. iravra, kol to yiv&rdai ToidvSe KaderTtjKfv aXkoiovcrdai, couples the Others, cl Tadra So both Mss. Edd. may be right in reading Tavrd : but there is nothing to call for the change. For dA.A.a. xPV '■ °^^ would expect some such echo of the previous statement as iioixtv 6^. C £pa f.i\ etc. The query = ap' ov roSe a-qfi. woTtpov . . . T(5 yi |i^| 6v; /uij irm Xeyo/xevov corresp. so far to [irj ea-Tiv orav Xeybifiev above, and phps. it is used for mere variety after the repeated (ap.ev firj etvai: fifj ea-Ti is in inverted commas. As to the sense ; we are, it may be hoped, speaking as truth- fully here as at 161 E, yet we can banish the one from existence with some success. The elvai below is found in t, and seems necessary. D |i^ Ti aXXo 5 fl etc. So both Mss. ; yet Heind. can justify ^v, ' Ita correxi vulgatum y, quoniam /*^ h.l. interrogandi vim habet non dubitandi.' The ^v would (Stallb.) refer to 156 a. Certainly m inter- rogans in Ast goes always with the indie. As for the colloc. of sounds cp. Phaed. 69 A, fxr) yap ovx awjj y ■fj opdfj akXay-q. The close of the sent, might equally have run rh fi.lv ovcrias p.iTa.\r)\pi^ to S' d;roAv(rw ovcrias. [iTlSiv To*roii The fem. might be looked for, and Heind. would read p.i}Sev rov ; but avrb confirms the neuter. Cp. 157 d, /iij8«v6s Sk ov etc. o«t' av XanPdvoi So t : 31 out' dvaXap.^. There is something to be said for the compound verb, but av can hardly be spared. Proc.-Dam. (315), how- ever, in paraphrasing gives ovt€ yovv dvaXafi^dvti, ovTe diroXXvei. Was his text that of the ?l family? If he is on the right track we would have an un- Attic form in aTroXXvei. Notes i. Tcp €vl ... tlKos : It is hard to bring out the distinc. between ovSafi-g and ovSa/ttUs as used throughout this passage. 'Auf keine Art und Weise' Stallb. above : ' dass das Nichtseiende keineswegs irgend- warts ist und nirgendwie an dem Sein Theil hat' Mailer : ' nullo prorsus modo usquam est ' Fie. : ' in no sort or way or kind ' Jowett, including ttjj. Is ovSa/xtis = nohow, and ovSa/iy = nowise ? As to the argt., Proc.-Dam. (314), after saying that the previous Dem. discusses rlva lirirai Ty iv\ [irj oVti, goes on Ik tovtov 8c ajroSeiKWo-t ra fifj Irro/xiva (an odd but intelligible phrase) ... to yap p,fi ecm, r)crl, TOTe Xeyofxev orav ouo-ias dwovafuv avTu iria's, jrws 6' etvat, 7) ajrAws p-'') eivat ... • (cat ajro- Xoyctrai 6 TrpocrSiaXeyopevo^ ov p,6vov ciTrAws, dAAd aTrXova-Tara. etc. Thorns, quotes his Dam., Ms. fol. 8, TO prjSaprj prjSapSii ov diroirTOxrii Icrri Trjs ovo-t'as. In ovre dpa . . . Trdcrxov he carries out his remarks in b. iv T(p a4Tu...irws 7ap oS: The assigning of the k second t$ avr^ to the reply is t, not 91, and it seems essential, while Stallb. gives ample authority for the omission of the prep. — e.g. Crat. 408 d, djraAAaydi- uev CK Twv 6iwv. Twi/ ye Toiovrav, & 2., el /iovXii. MijTE , . . prjre ... prj yap ovv, a neat illustr. of the compound character of p-qn as = ' both not, and not ' rather than ' neither, nor.' The pr) in the ans. takes up the double prj of the statement, and leaves the t€ ... Te as mere copulatives. ■ijSii -yap 4v ... Svtos So 21, and it seems quite satisf. It is as if he said ovtos yap av ro-irov perixov, the oVtos being predicative. toCto t can hardly be right. 172 PARMENIDES. Bek. adopts av rov from 're. 2 ' ; while Stallb. in- serts ToC before oVtos, which seems to take from the significance of the passage. 164 o*r6 &pa...&v oiTu: In the first sent, the triple oi)T£ is reg. : in the second there would be two cases of a double ov!t«, but in the former of them the first oure becomes o^6c so that the 8c may couple the second sent to the first, t balances this ovSe by a second before enpoi. : and gives tc for yt and raXka. for aXXa.. T&XXa... ctvai; 'Is it possible that there should be a ToXka. for it at all, if it be necessary that there should be nothing for it ? ' 'is there any respect in which it can have raXKa. if it behoove to have nothing ? ' p. 37. B irepl tJ> (i^ 8v A variety from tu! /i^ oVrt. So 155 E and often. Thoms. cps. Soph. 238 c for a series of negations, o-vwoets ovv ws oiItc 6iy^aordai SvvaThv opSws ovt' tiTreiV ovre SLavorjOrjvai to yu.^ ov aVTo Ka6' avTo, dW iiTTiv dSiavorjToy re /cat apprjTOV KOL dif>0iyKTOV /cai aAoyov ; 163 B-164 B. These two Dems., marked b i. and II., under the hypoth. of ev el fx-q ea-n correspond to Dems. A I. and 11., under the hypoth. ev tl eo-n, but in a reversed order. The present 11. corresponds to the former i. Both are analytic or destructive, and attain their object, the present one by pressing the firj, the former by pressing the tV. And the result is much more easily and satisfactorily got at than in the corresponding synthetic or constructive cases. Indeed the course of reasoning merely tends to give clearness to the conception with which we begin. In this case p-rj eTvai = ouo-ias uTrouo-ia ; and there is an end. Grote says 'These two last counter-demonstrations (6-7), forming the third An- tinomy deserve attention in this respect — That the seventh [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- knowable, unperceivable, unnameable : while the sixth is founded upon a different apprehension of Non-Ens, which is explained and defended by PI. in the Sophistes (pp. 258-9) as a substitute for, and refutation of, the Eleatic doctrine .... The negative results of the 7th follow properly enough from the assumed premisses : but the affirmative results of the 6th are not obtained without very unwarrantable jumps in the reasoning, besides its extreme subtlety.' It was said, Introd. Ixvi., that not-being is as diverse as being ; and that PI. assumes this in part here, and more clearly in the Soph. Arist. as usual has the advant. in scient. clearness when he says that not-being to-a^ws rats Karr]yopt.aiv...6pOus: Proc.-Dam. (316) to 'drepov Se TT/DOS Tl kcnlv ... ea-Tiv ovv koI tois aXXoii ti (el peXXoi [sic] aXAa eiVai) ov dXXa ecTTai ... eirel vvv to ev <^al- veraL aXXo irapa Tct aA.Aa, avrb Se ovk ecrriv, dXXrjXiav dpa eo-Ti. It seems to be idiomatic to use the pres. XeiTrcTai in this sense of Aoittov, cp. Ast. So to ato^opeva for the literary remains of an author : cp. Arist. Phys. in. 6, XeiTrerai ovv Svvdpei etvai to direipov. Kara ev ... dXX' eKacrros give a sharp contrast of hiatus and elision. 6 67KOS . . . «! outov : Sd^oVTOs elvai is One of Pl.'s D redundancies for emph. ; while Kal dvrl o-piKpor. ■wappey. is surely a confus. of ideas. It grows NOTES. 17:> numerous, and exhibits a case of what Arist. calls awtipov KOToi Sialpea-Lv, but surely it does not in- crease in bulk. No doubt Arist. says, Phys. in. 6, 206 b 27, IIA_ ... Svo Ta aireipa CTroujo-ei/, on Kal hrl Tijv av^-qv SoKet virepfiaXXetv Kal ets ciTrcijOoi' levai, Koi tVi tt)i/ KaOaCpio-Lv' and very likely he may regard to, aA.A.a collectively as en-t rr/v av^Tjv -inrep- pdXkovra, but he can hardly mean that to cr/xcKpoT., because it is divisible indefinitely, becomes inde- finitely large. His words are probably to be qualified by irpus ra k. e^ avrov — it becomes in- finitely big by comparison. On the other hand we have the extraord. paradox, as Arist. Phys. in. 6, 206 b 5, points out, of a limited bulk divisible in- finitely, and then (as regarded from the divided state backwards) augmentable infinitely — ■§ yap Siaipovp.svov o/3aTai tis asretpov, Tavrrj TrpotrriBifx.ivov [avTeo~rpo/tjLievo)s' he says above] (ftavetraL jrp&s to iipuTiJ.ivov. Thoms. quotes ' Procl. Inst. Theol. cap. I, Ilai' jrArJflos p£T€\ei irrj tov evo^' el yap firjSapy lj.eTi)(Oi OVTE TO oAoi' iv ecTTat, oi'O' tKaiTTOV rZv TToX- Aui/ e^ Stv t5 irA.^9os, dXA' eo-Tat Kai tl Ik TOVTiav TrXrjOo's Kal tovto ci's anreipov Kal TtHv d?r€t/>(ov Tovrmv iKaiTTOV t's. The argt. shuts out his use of iroAAo, above. aCvcTai., From 'would' (ct'ij dv) through 'will' (6d^£t) we reach 'does.' 'Mallem tfiavtlrai,' Thoms. KoV p.'^v ... ctvai. 3lt 80'^etcv aiJTots, while t reads efi-ai for iv eivai. The edd. prefer So^u iv avToti ivelvai, which may possibly be best, but cvetrat and ev dvai are debatable throughout the dial. Proc- Dam. in his note follows 2t, S6^(L€v ...tv eivai. Kal to-os ... Io-<5tt)tos : Without knowing that t has 165 (TfUKpols here Schleierm. (whom edd. follow) sug- gested that for a-p,iKp6s, and it is very taking. But we must note that if we have not this direct state- ment that the oyKos from having been big becomes small, after passing through equality, we can only infer that it does from the following words which assume it. Proc.-Dam. (317) says Kal eKaa-ro's oyKos 8o^ao"5'(ja"€Tai Kai, iVos rois TroAAots Kal (riJ,iKp6i. The form So^aa-O/jo-iTai occurs Theaet. 209 c, 6eaiT»jTos 61/ (ix,ol 8o^aa-9riaLv6/Mvo^ are meant for eV tov p^l^ov ik rh eXarrov (fiaivta-dai. Edd. do not comment upon Trplv So^eiv eXOelv, yet the express, is peculiar. How many cases are there of wplv with the fut. infin.; and why the fut? If again we take -n-plv iXdelv, still how deal with Sd^etv? t gives So^eiev, which would do very well but that one would then expect /iCTa/Jai- voL, the whole sent, being = ou yap dv utrajiaLvoi, ... el p) TipoTepov ... So^eiev kXdelv. It is worth asking whether the orig. may not have been Sd^av, the part, balancing 4>ai.v6ixevos so far, but agreeing with TO p.eTa£y = -rrplv eXBelv et's to pcra^v Sd^av. 174 PARMENIDES. o4koSv ... |i< while Stallb. assumes it with the latter only. Heind. seems right ; yet it is hard to make any distinc. where all is seeming. But if, with Stallb., we assume that each oyKos has a limit towards every other, a consider- able step has been taken towards making each 'one.' Yet Proc.-Dam. (318) takes this view, (vrevdev SiiKWcriv OTi cKacTTOs oyK'os TT/oos aWov Trepan ()((dv (eis yap iKacTTOS wepiopi^iTai wpos Tov erepov) avrh'S Trpos avTuv ov\ e'^ct rav-a. If we take this view we must remove the comma from avrbv and place it before irepa^ exiuv and also perhaps with Herm. put ye for re against both Mss. 8ri acl...Tov cfos: What is avTWv ? It might, SO far as form goes, like the following tovtwv refer to dpxijv jrepas fiitrov preceding, but it is better to refer it to oyKijiv = ' as often as one takes hold mentally of any part of them (the groups), as being one of these parts (i.e. as being beginning, middle, or end), so often does another beginning appear before the beginning [if it is as a beginning that we have p. 38. B viewed our part] etc' The reading of 21 is aXXa jita-aiTepa ra rov fiecrov from which edd. omit the unintelligible to leaving what is the reading of t. The text gives a reading which, with a very slight change indeed, both accounts for the ra and yields a much better parallel to the two previous expres- sions. For the lang. cp. Arist. Met. ix. 4, 1055 a 20, OVTe yap Tov tcr^droiJ ( Tpa)(ei, In Se kv TOts roiour^t prip.a(Tiv olov Kpovdv, dpavtiv, kpeiKCiV, dpvTrreiv, Kfppari^eiv, pvp/3eiV TrdvTa raura to TToXv aTreiKa^eL Sia. tov pio' edpa yap, oIp,ai, ri^v yXioT- rav fv TovTav fjvai. For the lang. cp. Rep. X. 596 a, kira, TroXXd roi o^vTepov fiXeirofTwv dp.fiXvTepov opwvTes vpoTtpoi tlSov, and Theaet. 165 D, to-tos Se y', S> Bavjxdcrie, TrActw av roiavr' (Trader, it tis fe irpotnjpioTa « kTr'urraa-Oai ea-ri p€v o^v, ea-Ti Se dufSXv, Kal kyyvdev /xkv kma-Taa-Oai TToppuidev Se ixrj. Set <|>aCvc(reai So t. 2t has S^ : wrongly — explained by 8^ above, or by dictation. otov ... oXXtjXois : The irdvra {to. aXXa) are identi- cal with Tovs oyKovs or izav Tb ov. The sense is that 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 j but that when one goes up to them they split into differentiated multitudes, and by an appearance of difference be- come imlike. Iv irdvra aivi- D crOai and Tavr&i' Trt-irovOkvai is pred.; Kal op.oia ttvai is the conclus. drawn in conformity with 139 E. We must assume So^tt from above to gov. the infins., which changes as we go on to dvdyKri a[ve(rdai. Heind. cps. Theaet. 208 e, Arist. Rhet. m. 12, to show that a-KLaypa(j>ripaTa were meant to be seen at a distance. In ovk o^v ... iroXXa ca-nv the parts, and adjs. seem throughout to be govd. by di'ayicr; opd, uXXot(uo"is, while irdvTQ (t 7ra»'Ta;;^>J) = 7rcwra5 NOTES. 175 E orao-Eis to correspond. "HSv = by this time, after the practice we have had. 164 B.16S D. The result of this argt. is that in the absence of ' one ' we may affirm or deny any- thing about the others with equal truth. But in his anxiety to make sure that the latter cannot be one he permits himself to speak as if they were many, which he has no right to do. They are simply undefinable as lacking rh fitTpov. But he saves himself from self-contrad. by urging that all this is only apparent, and does not stand investigation. If you are to have others without one the result is a wild phantasmagoria or chaos. 'This Dem. 8 with its strange and subtle chain of inferences, pur- porting to rest upon the admission of Caetera with- out Unum, brings out the antithesis of the Apparent and the Real, which had not been noticed in the preceding Dems. Dem. 8 is in its character Zeno- nian. It probably coincides with the proof which Zeno is reported ... to have given (p. 127 e, cp. 165 e) against the'existence of any real Multa Zeno probably showed ... that Multa under this supposition are nothing real, but an assemblage of indefinite, ever-variable, contradictory appearances : an 'ATreipoy ... ; relative and variable according to the point of view of the subject.' Grote. tv tl |ji^...Kal tv. The opening means tl iv /j.^} loTi TaXXa Sk Tov fvbs «oTt. The TroXXoh o\i(riv is an echo of ea-Tot raWa and iroXXa ea-Tiv, we might view it as equivalent either to Iv yap avroh woXXoU o5(riv or iv yap iroXXoii el ttniv. Proc.-Dam. (320) says of this Dem. tliriov rolvw (in the last) rlva to. fTTopjiva, Tidrjcri Kal riva ra fj.rj tTrofieva, and One sees what he means, though as above his lang. is odd. 166 8ti TiXXa...pif| olcriv: The order here is on TaXXa ovS' evl Twv /ii) ovTiav etc. and Trapa Ty Tcoi' aA.Au)!'. The argt rebuts the assump. both by whole and part; the dXXa have 'nothing whatever' to do with what is non-existent, nor has any part of either any connection with any part of the other. Stallb. would read ovSe yap for ovSev, but the Mss. agree. Heind. in order to justify pepos, which he thinks superfluous, suggests that S6^a etc. which follow may be regarded as peprj. And so Proc- Dam. (321) £1 youv rt tov prj oVtos rots aA.A.ois OVK etTTiv, oiSf So^a tov pr/ ovroi izapa ToU aAA.ots OTTiV etc. ov8' Apa ... 4irJ> t«1v &\Xuv : As Proc.-Dam. says, vvv TauTO. 8)j, airtp tc^atVovTO ilvai (in Dem. B III.) OUTE i'uAv ovTi atvoVTai. Cp. Rep. V. 478 B, ap' ovv TO prj 01' So^d^ei ; ^ dSvyarov Ka\ So^dcrai to prj ov I etc. From 155 d we may infer that (jidvTaa-pa is a result of aiardrjo-is. It is a startling thing to be told that the So^d^tiv is supposed, if it exists, to be carried on virh tw aXXiav : no such sugg. has hitherto been made. On the contrary we have been permitted to assume that ij/utis ... ;ravTa TauTa TrpaTToptv, and edd. follow Schleierm. in reading arl against the Mss. Yet it is not more startling than that vo-qpaTa should have voi^o-is, in 132 c ; and if we change viro we cannot stop there, the same sense being contained in So^a irapa. Toh aXAots tO-TlI'. oiS' Apa Note the series of similar negs. meaning b 'no, nor,' 'nor yet' etc. Iv tois irpoo-dev, i.e. 165 d. p. 35. The sent. = oo-a tv t. ir. iiiropev auTci aivi(T6ai. t gives TaAAa, and it seems better, ei* «? re ta-Tiv etc. This summarises the dial.: Proc.-Dam. (321) says Kai d iv e ov avTov avTTjv alviTTOvrai ^aXetv^ .... This is an enigma propounded for youthful auditors to guess : stimulating their curiosity and tasking their intelli- gence to find out. As far as I can see, the puzzling antinomies in the Parmenides have no other pur- pose .... There is however this difference ... The 176 PARMENIDES. constructor of the enigma had certainly a precon- ceived solution to which he adapted the conditions of his problem : whereas we have no sufficient ground for asserting that the author of the anti- nomies had any such solution present or operative in his mind. How much of truth Plato may him- self have recognised, or may have wished others to recognise in them, we have no means of determin- ing. We find in them many equivocal propositions and unwarranted inferences — much blending of truth with error, intentionally or unintentionally. The veteran Parmenides imposes the severance of the two as a lesson upon his youthful hearers.' Surely this is too pessimistic. Errata. — The following errors have been observed : no doubt there are others, although much care has been taken. It should be noted that, in giving the punctuation in Notes I., no attempt has been made to give the 'middle stop' where it seemed to occur. This is due partly to doubts as to the facts, partly to the trouble which would have been caused in printing. The upper or lower stop has been used according as the position in the Mss. seemed to incline. xxvii.. line 30, for premises read -isses liv.. 31. ,, principal -pie Ixxv., 30, „ VI. VII. ci., 38, ,, reproductions -tion I6, 22, ,, Tii crvW-^^STji' TiS -Sriv 32. I4> ,, eiTTUJra, -Ta' "5. I, ,, TTOpUTippUV TToppwripiiiv 139. 29. ,, than from 8. — The Sob 1 and ' belong to 5 ' "Kiya in line 17. INDEX OF SUBJECTS. The references in the index of subjects are to the pages of the Introduction and the Notes • the references m that of Greek words are to the pages of Stephanas which include Text and Notes. Help may also be got from the marginal notes and summaries. Absolute, The, xlv., xlvi.-l., loo, 103, 106. Abstract science, xiii. ; thinking, Ixv. Dialec., Science. Abstraction and generaliz., xxix., xliv., xlvii. Comp., Generaliz. Academy, The, iii. PI., Text. Accident, 84, 136, 138, 141. Achilles paradox, Ixii., 135. Motion, Zeno. Adimantus, xvii., 76. Aeschines, philos., iv. Dialogues, Panaetius. Age, Ixvi., 119, 154-5. Time, Younger. Aldus Manutius, Ixxiii., Ixxiv., cxiii. Edits. Alexandria, ii. Libraries, Thrasylus. All, 97, 150, 162. Whole. Ambiguities, Ixiii. etc., 138. One, Not-being etc Analysis-synth., Ivii., 96, 99, 157, 170. Construe, Parra., the. ivApjiTjaLi, XXX., 95, 106. Anaxagoras, liv. Antipho, xxii., 76, Antisthenes, v., Ix. Predic. Antithesis, xxxvi., 131, 138, 148. Aoristv. pres., imperf.,80,92, 117, 139. Apellicon, Ixxvii. Attic, Text, Usener. Aposiopesis, 109. Sentences. Appearance (seeming), Ixviii., 1 73-4. Being, Cratyl. Arethas, cxvii. etc. Mss., Patras. Aristophanes , of Byzant., i. etc. Li- braries. Aristoteles, xvii., xx., xxxv., Iii. ; =Ar- istotle ? xxvi., xxvii. 177 Aristotle, on Antisth., Ix. ; on begin., Ixiv. ; on change, Ixii., 160; on divisib., 173; on dogs, 84; on ideas, x.-xi., xxix., xxxiii., xliv., xlvL, 88, 89, 96, 98; on likeness, 117; on motion, vi., X., 113, 170; on One, in, 148, 157 ; on PI. and his works, vi., a., xi., 1. ; on rela- tion, 102, 116; on Socr., xxix., xxxii., xliii., 1., Hi. ; on time, 160 ; on whole etc., x. ; Metaph., viii.-x.; refers to the Parm. ? v., vi., viii., xliii. ; terminol. later than PL's, a., xxxi., Ixii., 86, 120, 134, 141, 160; text dub., iv., vi,, vii. ; rplr. &v dpuir, in, xii. Arrow parad., xxxviii. Motion, Zeno. Article, 81, 109, 132-3, 135, 139, 158. Athenaeus, xxxiv., xxxv.-vi. Parm. Atoms, Ixvi., Ixviii., 140, 161. Democ, One. Atticus, -ciana, Ixxvii. Apellic, Text, Usener. Attraction, syntact., 162. Sentences. Authenticity of Parm., i.-xix., xxi. Aristoph., Galen, Grote, Thrasy- lus, Ueberweg. Author's attitude, xxviii., xl., Ixxiii., Ixxx. Pref. Bast, F., xcix. Mss. Becoming, Ixii., Ixxi., 105-6, 151, 153 etc., 161 ; and perishing, xxxix., Ix., 158, 159, 171. Change, Mo- tion, Process, Time. Beginning, xxxix., lix., Ixiv., Ixvii., 75, 153, 156; in space, Ixvi., 132. z Being, Ixiv., Ixvii., 117, 128; confined to space (q. v.), 150; to time {q. v.), 122 ; chains of (q. v.), 117 ; object- ive, 167, 170; of One{q.v.), Iviii., Ixvii., Ixxi., 106, 127, 131, 156 etc., 161 ; of Parm., xxxvii. Bekker, I., Ixxiv., Ixxv. Bigness, xlii., xHii., 1., 92, 14S, 149. Ideas, Smallness. Blass, F., xciii., 129. Body, xliii., 76, 96, 131-2. Sense etc. Bond, 168. Being. Boundary, 132, 133. Limit etc. Byzants., cxx, Subscrip. Byzantine reckoning, cxxi. Indie. Caesarea, cxviii.-xix. Arethas. Caligraphists, -phy, cxvii. Campbell, Prof., xxi. Categories, Ixx., 172. Cause, Ixiv. Cephalus, xxii., xxxiv., 76. Chains of being etc., 75, go, 95, 100, 117, 157 ; of ideas, xxx., 95, 101, 105. Change, 159, i6i, 170, 171. Becom- ing, Process etc. Chiasm, 156, 158. Chronology, Platonic, xxiv. Sequence, Parm., the ; Teichmuller. Circle, 112, 133. Clarke, Dr., ciii. ,, Ms., XXXV., Ixxiii. -vi., ciii. etc. Clazomenae, 76. Clinton, xxxiv. Cobet, C. G., Ixxvii., xci., xcviii. 178 PARMENWES. Comparison and generaliz. (q.v.),xxix., Il6; not same as ours, xliv. , 95, 99. Abstrac. Constructive argt., Ivii., Iviii., 157. Analys. Continuity, -uous, Ixiii. Time. Contradiction, Law of, etc., xxxi., Ix., 156, 157. Copies of patterns, li., 99, lOI. Cratylus, 1. Arist., PI. Damascius, 75; Dam. (Ms.), 140. Pro- clus. Day, 93, 134. Ideas, fiiOe^n. Decay, viii. Change, Motion. Deductive argt., Ivii., Ixv. Analys. Construe. Definition, xxix., xliii., 1., lii. Demetrius of Phalerum, ii., iii. Au- tlient., Libr., Text. Democritus, iii., viii., xxxv., Ixvi.-vii. Atoms. Demonstration, 87 ; -tions. Parm. , The. Description of Mss., xciv.-cxxv. Mss. Dialectic, xxxii., xlvii., Iii., liv., Ixviii., 78, 81, 105, III, 117; its object, xli., xlvii., Iv. Dialogue in PI. (q. v.), xv., xvii., xx., no; system in, xvi. Dialogues, i. ; sequence of, ii. ; spurious, ii., iv.-v. Farm., The ; PI. Dictation in Mss. , 76, 96 etc. Different, The, 115, 116, 119, 127, 135, 137-139, 140, 167. Diogenes Laert., i.-iv., viii., xxxiv.-v., Ixxvii. Discipline of philosopher, xxxii., Hi., liii., Ixv., 106, 107. Dittenberger, W., xxi. Language. Divisibility, Ixiv., Ixvi.-vii., 126, 130, 133- Dogs, 84. Editions of PI., Ixxiii. Aldus, Bekker, Heind., Steph. Eleatics, xli., Iviii., Ixvii., Ixviii. Me- lissus, Parm., Zeno. Elements, x., 76. Enclitics, 78. End, xxxix., Ixvi., 132. Equal-unequal, -lity, xlii., xliii., 92, Ii8, 141, 149, 151. Euclides, xxv., 79. Even-odd, 128. Number. Extremities, 132. Limit etc. Finite-infinite, Ixii. Divisib. Finlay's Hist., civ., cxvii., cxviii.,cxx., cxxi. Areth., Mss., Patias. Flinders Petrie papyri, xciii. Mss., Text, Usener. Forgery, Literary, iv. Antisth., Galen. Fractions, Ixiii., 131. Divisib., Minim. Frederking, A., xxi., 77, 78, 88. Lang. Gaisford, T., Ixxiv., cvi., cxxii. Qarke. Galen, iv., Ixxvi.-vii. Gardthausen, cxix. Palaeography. Generalization, xxix., xxx., xliv., 95, 96, 99. Abstrac, Compar. Genus, 86, 103. Idea. Glauco, xvii., 76. God, xlv., 103, 104. Idea, Science. Graux, C, ci. Melanges. Green, T. H., xiv. Grote, G., 82, 96; on the Demonstra- tions, Ivii., Ix., Ixii., 123, 126, 156, 171, 172, 17s ; on the Parm., ix., liii., 175; on PL's methods, xiv., xxxix., Ix., 104 ; on PL's text, ii.-iv. PL, Farm. Hegel, 156. Being. Heindorf, Ixxiv. Edits. Heraclitus, I., Ixxii., 161. Becom. Hermann, Ixxiv. Edits. Ibycus, 109. Ideas and ideal virorld, xli. -xliv., xlviii., 94, 97, loS, 147, 149; Arist. 's(q.v.) objecs., xlvi., 88; extended? 92, 94, 96; growth of, xlii., L, 89, 90; how reached, xxix. ; incomplete and in- consist., xxix.-xxx., xli., Iii., 149, 150; intermingling, xxxi., 1. ; n{- SfJis(q.v.)of, xliiL ; name, 97, 103, 105; necessary for philos. , xlix. ; voTifiaTa? xxix., xxxvii., xliii. -iv., xlix., 96, 105; patterns set up in nature? xxix., xxxii., xlv., xlix., Ii-, 93, 97; X'^/""''''^ ? xxix.-xxx., xliii.-vL, liu, Ixix., 87, loo, 105. One, Parm., PL, Sense, Sensible Objects. Imperfect, 80. Aorist. Indiction, cxxL Subset. Inequality, 118. Equal. Infinite. Finite. Instantaneous, The, IxiL, Ixxii., 159, 160. Now, Time. JacksoHj Dr., xi., xx., xxiii., xxxiii., Iviii., Ixviii. Joannes, cxvii., cxxii. Caligr., Subscr. Jordan, A., Ixxiv., Ixxvii., xcii. Schanz etc. Jowett, B., xviL, xxxix. Kant, li., Iv., Ixv., 96, 160. Knowledge, Ix., 106. Lachmann, Ixxiv. Edits. Language as test of date, xxi. Campb. Leo VI., cxx., cxxi. Stylianus. Libraries, ii., iii., iv. ; at Patmos, civ. Alexand., Apell. Like-unlike, -ness, xli., 85, 117, 118, 140, 141. Same, Different. Limit, -less, xxxviii., Ixii., Ixiii., Ixvii., 126,^30-1, 157, 163, 164, 173, 174. Lines of Mss. (q. v. ), Ixxvi,, ci. Graux, Schanz. Little, 118, 173. Small, Big, Minimum. Logic, -cal, xxxi., Iviii., lx.-lxi., IxiiL, Ixv., Ixvii. Analys., Contrad., Metaph. Maass, E., cxviiL,cxix.,cxxiL Arethas, Melanges, Palaeogr., Subscrip. Mai, Card., ciii. , cxix. Arethas, Vatican. Majuscules, Ixxvi., xcix., cxvii., 138. Mss., Minusc., Palaeogr., Writing. Manuscripts, archetypes, Ixxvi., 126, 144; comparison of,lxxxii.,lxxxvii.; descrip. of Paris A, xciv.-cir. ; of Clarke, ciii. -cxxii. ; of Venet. t, cxxii. -v.; families of, Ixxx. etc.; form of, xcviii., ex., cxxiv. ; gaps in, Ixxx. , Ixxxviii. etc. ; great, Ixxv. , Ixxviii., cxvii. -xxii. ; measurement of, Ixxvi., xcviiL, ex., cxiii., cxxiv.- v. ; treatment of, Ixxiv., Ixxix., Ixxxiv.-vi., xci. Many and One (q.v.), xL, Ixiv.-v., 86, 107, 130-1,136,162; of sense (q.v.), xxxviii., 106, 133. Multit., One, Others, Stallb. Matter, xliv., xlvii. Sense etc. Measure, 118, 150, 175. Idea, Limit, Little, Small etc. Megarians, xx., xxv., xxxiii. Meisterhans, K., xciii., 76. Blass, Pro- nun., Flinders Petrie. M61anges-Graux (q.v.), ci.jCxviiL, cxix. Maass, Subscrip. Melissus, xxxviii. Eleatics. Metaphor, xlvi., li. Arist., Ideas. Metaphysics, xxxii., xxxix., lii., Iviii., Ixiii.-iv,, Ixvii., Ixx., 105; begin with PI. (q.v.), viii. Metaphysics of Aiist. (q.v. ), refer to the Parm. ? viii.-ix. niOe^ii, X., xxiv., xxv., xxviii., xlj., xliv., Iv., 85, 94, 100, 147. Ideas, PI. Middle, Ixvi., 132. Begin., End. Minimum of being (q.v.), Ixiv., 131 ; of thought, lix. Small. Minuscules, Ixxvi., xcix. Mss., Palaeo- gr., Writing. Montfaucon, cxvii. Palaeogr. etc. Motion, xxxix., xlviii., 99, 113, 158, 'S9i 170. 171. I74. Becoming, Process, Rest. Mullach, xxxiv., xxxvi. Parm., Zeno. Multitude, Ixiii., 126, 128, 130-1, 132, 157. Many, Number. Names, naming, 139-40, 142. Nature, xlix., 97. Ideas, Patterns. Natural order, 153. Becoming, Begin- ning. N^ation, -ive, xl., xlvi., Ix., Ixvi., Ixvii. Being, Not-being. voijtAs T6iros, xlix., 105, 150. Ideas, Nature. Not-being, xl., Iviii., Ixiv., Ixix., 166; ambig. (q.v.), Ixv., 172; of Parm., xxxvii. Being, Neg., One. Not-one, 138. Many, Others. Now, xxxviii., bdi., 151 etc., 158, 160. Instant, Time. Number, xxxiii., Ixiii., 128 etc., 132, 145. Many, Two. Older. Becom., Time, Younger. One, abstract, Iv., Iviii., lix., Ixiii., iii, IIS, »20, 156; all (q.v.), ijo; ambiguous (q.v.), Ixiii., Ill, 114, 116; antitheses to, Ixv., Ixviii., 138, 148; atom (q.v.)? Ixvi.-vii., 140 ; -(-being, Iviii., Ixiv., Ixvi., 124, 126, 127, 130, 131, 141, 156, IS7, 167; cancelled, Ixvii., 122-3; exists, non- existent, Iviii., 168, 170; idea? Ivi., Ixiv., 147, 149, 156 ; in others etc., 148, 149, 150, 164; like-un- like, 141; of it, for it etc., 156; symbolical ? liv. ; whole of parts, 133. Being, Idea, Many, Others, Parm. Opinion, xxxvi., xxxvii., xli., xlviii., 175. .Science. INDEX OF SUBJECTS. Opposite, 8S, 137, 155. Contrad., Different. Other. Different. Others, xxxvii., Ixvii., 138, 145, 149, 164, 165, 167 ; =many? Ixv., Ixix. ; and One, Ixvii., 132; opinion in, 17s ; TdSe Tck dWa, xliii. Many, One, Not-one, Stallb. Palaeography, cxvii. Mss., Subscrip., Text, Writing. Panaetius, ii., iv. Authent., Dials. Panathenaea, 80. Parm., Zeno. Parmenides, viii.; age of, xxxv.-vi., 8l ; views of, xxxvi. etc., xl., liii.-vi., 80,110. Mullach, Zeno. Parmenides, The, analysis of, xl. etc.; conceps. less developed than Arist., X., 115; contents of, xxix., xxxiv. - Ixxii. ; the Demonstrations, Ivii., 123, 156, 160, 164, 170, 172, 17s; growth of ideal theory (q.v. ), xliii. , Iii. ; historical ? xxxiv. etc. ; lan- guage of, xxi.; /u^Sefis (q.v.) in, xi. ; need of discipline, lii. ; noticed by Arist.? vi.-ix., xiii. ; by PL? xvii.; Part II., liii. etc., 109, III ; relation to Parm., xxxvi. etc., liii.- iv. ; results of argt. , Ixviii. : scenery of, xxii. ; sequence of, xix. -xxxiv., li., 86, 87, 95 ; speakers, 86, 108 ; spurious? xiii., 119; TplTos&i>dpunr., xiii., xliv. Arist., Being, Dialect., Ideas, One, Plato etc. Part, xliii., Ixiii., 94, 114, 125, 129, 130. 13.3. 13s. 138, 153. ISS. 162. Many, Others, Whole etc, Patmos, ciii. Clarke, Mss. etc. Patras, cxvii. , cxix. Arethas, Subscrip. Pattern-world, li. Ideas, Parm., the. Perceive, -ception, xlvii. Sense etc. Perfect whole (q.v.), 163. Philosopher, -phy, xv., xl., xlvi., 105; ' Philosopher,' the, xxiii. etc. Dialec, Discipl., Ideas, Zeller. Physical ideas (q.v.), 91, loi ; objects, xxix. -XXX. Chains, Sense. Place, xlix., 103, 114. Motion, yoijris T^TTos, Rest. Plato, iii. ; bent of, xvi. ; cause of idetil theory, Ixix., 105 ; dialogue in, xv., xvii., XX., xxii., liii., 85, 1 10; differences from Arist., xxxi., Ixii., 130 ; dualistic inconsistencies, xiv. , xl., Iii., Ivi. ; early views, xxix., xli., 1., 87; family, 76; knows 179 views of Parm., xx.xvi., no; modes of arguing, xxxi., Ivii., l.w., 113, 115, 158 ; refs. to own works, xv., xviii., xxviii., xxxii.-iii. ; to own views, xiv., xxxix., xhii., Ixix. ; to Zeno, 85 ; second etc. hand nar- rative, XV., xxv.-vi., 80 ; sentiment in, xxiv., xli., 89, 91 ; sequence of works, XX. etc., xxviii. ; system in, xvi., xxxix., hi. ; writings, contro- versial? xxiv. Platonists, liii. Damasc, Procl. Porson, R., cvi., ex., cxiii. Clarke. Position, 143. Predicate, -cation, Iviii. Antisth. Process, Ixii., 75, 114, 124, 156, 161. Becom., Motion. Proclus, 75, 105 ; Proc-Dam., contin. of Proc, 127-8; Proc. Ms., 136. Damasc. Pronunciation of Gk., 76, 129. Blass, Meisterh. Pythagoreans, xi. ;u^ffefis, Number. Pythodorus, xxii. , 76. Parm. , The ; Ueberweg. Qu.ility, xlviii., Ixiv., Ixv., Ixvi.-vii., 88, 89. Quantity, Ixvii. Quaternions, xcviii. , ex. , cxxiv. , 20. Ms.«. Readings, 41-74, 83, 86, 89, 90, 93, 97, 125, 129, 138, 140, 144, 153, 154, 162, 164, 166, 168, 174. Editions, Mss., Text. Reason. Science, Thought. Relation, xlviii., Ixiii., Ixvi.-vii., 102; ideas of, a., xlvi., 88. Relative terms, 102, 116, 117. .^ris■., Ideas. Resemblance, IJ7. Like. Rest, 134, 159, 169. Arist., Becom., Motion. Ruelle, C. E., 75. Same, 116-17, 134, 140; ambig., xxxix., 137. Differ, Like, One. Schanz, M.,lxxv. etc., Ixxx., cxiii., cxv., 56. Clarke, Mss. Schleiermacher, v., xx., xxiii., xxv. Scholia, cxii., cxix., cxxii. , cxxiv.; series of, 3, 5, 15, 71, 76, 79, So, Si (two), 88, 90, 93, 109 (two). Science, Idea of, xiii., xlviii., xlix., Ivi., in; our, xlvii. -viii., Ivi., 105; process v. result, Iv., 106. iJialec. , God, Ideas, Sense. 180 PARMENIDES. See, xl., xlviii., xli>c., Ixviii., 89, 96, 106. Ideas, Know)., Science, Sense. Sense, xlvii.-viii., Ixviii., Ixx., 106, 175; transcendental, xlviii. Sensible objects, xl., xliii.-iv., 1., 131 ; exist., xl., xlvii., 106 ; sphere, XXX., xli., xliii., xlvi.-ix., 1., li., Iv., 106. Ideas, Many, One, Science. Sentences, forms of, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85. S6, 93, 95, 98, 103, 107, 109, no, 112, 118, 124, 136, 138, 143, 146, 148, 152, 155, 160, 161, 165, 169. Sequence of dialogues (q.v.), ii., xix.- xxxiv. .Setting of dialogues (q.v.), xxii. Shape, Ixvi., 112, 132. Simplicius, viii., xxxviii. Size, xlii., 92. Bigness, Sraallness. Small, -ness, xlii., xliv., 1., li., 92, 94, 118, 149, 150. Socrates, met Parmen. ? xxxiv. etc. ; views of, xxix. , xxxii. , xliii. , lii. ; views as PI., xxix., xxxvi., xl. etc., xlix., Iv., 87, 91, lOO; youth of, in the Parm., xxvii. -viii. Arist., Ideas, PI. Soul, xxix., xlix., 96, 117. Space, xxxviii., Ivi., Ixii., Ixvi.-vii., 99. Becoming, Motion, Time, Touch. Speusippus, iii. Acad. .Stallbaum, vi., xiv., xxxiv., 75; places One and Many (q. v. ) in diff. spheres, 132-3. 135. '47, 149. 152. Stephanus, Ixxiii. , Ixxiv. Stichometry, Ixxvi., cxiii., cxxv. Mss. Stops, ci., cxxviii. Mss., Writing. Style for date, xx-., xxv. Dial. Stylianus, cxviii. Arethas, Leo. Subscriptio, Ixxix. , cxvi. , cxviii. Areth. , Clarke, Maass, Mss. Syllogism, xxxviii., 138. Synesius, xxxiv., 91. Synthesis, Ix. Anal. rdJe ri 6XKa, xliii. Others, Sense, Stallb. Teichmiiller, xxiv.-xxviii. Dial., Se- quence. Tetralogies, trilogies, i., Ixxv, etc., cxxiii. Text of PI., iii., Ixxiii. •xciii.,lxxvii., 98; chief sources, Ixxviii. etc. ; com- pleteness of, v.-vi. Atticus, Edi- tions, Flinders Petrie, Grote, Mss. Thompson, E. M., xcviii. Thomson, liv. Dam. (Ms.), Proc. (Ms.). Thought, apprehends ideas, xliii. , xlix. ; and sensible objects? xlvii., Ivi., Ixx.-i. ; position of thought (koCs) in being, liv., 75, 117, 156; thoughts thinking, xlv. Dialec, Ideas, Science. Thrasylus, i., Ixxv., Ixxvii.-ix. Alex- and., Atticus, Authent., Cobet, Mss., Ueberw. Time, xxvii., Ivi. , Ixii., Ixvi.-vii., 119, IS'> 153, 158, 160; divisions of, 121 ; kinds of, 120; non-temporal things, 121. Arist., Becom., Change, Instant., Motion, Now, PI., Process, Space. Touch, Ixvi., 112, 142-46. Space. TpiTos &j'6puT., viii., xii.-xiii., xliv. Arist., Dials., Ideas. Tubingen Ms., Ixxix., Ixxx., Ixxxi., Ixxxvii. JIss. Tyrannion, Ixxvii. Apellic, Atticus. Two, 128, 144, 145, 165. Number. Ueberweg, v., a., xi., xxii.; xxvi., xxxiv. Authent., Parm., the. Unit, One as, Ixiii. -iv. Unity, Ixviii. Universe a creature, xlv. Ideas. Usener, H., Ixxvii. Attic, Flinders Petrie. Varro, Ixxvii. Vatican Mss. etc., Ixxvi., Ixxx. etc., cxiv. Venice Mss. (q.v.) etc., Ixxiii. -vi. etc., Ixxxv. etc., ci. Schanz. Void, xxxviii., Ixvi. Atoms, Democr. Whole, xxxi., xliii., 94, 125, 129-135, 162; in the parts (q.v.)? 133-4, 147. One. Wohlrab, M., Ixxv., Ixxxi., xcii. Jor- dan, Mss., Schanz etc. Worlds, 106. Writing of Clarke Ms., ex., 128; of Paris A, xcviii. ; of Ven. t, cxxiv. Caligr., Joannes, Palaeogr. Xenocrates, iii. Academy. Younger, 119, 120, 153 etc. Becom., Change, Time. Zeller, vii., xviii., xx., xxiii., Ixix. Philosopher. Zeno, v., xxxiii. ; age of, xxxv. ; views of, xxxviii., xl., liii., Iv., Ixii., 80, 82, 85, 88, 93, 99, HI. Achilles, Arrow, Dialec, Many, Motion, Parm., Time. INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. 'A/3i/Soi' ai, 132 D. 4XXo Ti oi'k, 137 C. aii^p-^Hv, 6 (cp. I3S), 133 B, di'dYKj) 5, 132 C. dydTauXa, 137 B. dva^irqiTETat, 132 A, E, di^irei, 162, dvSpis ... SwijaoiUvav, 135. Sv Xa/ipdroi, 163 D. dfo/xoif^a, 148 B. dxacTi exdarv, 144 C. dTret'pYOtro, 148 E, airiOavos, 133 B. Sirreffffot, ct^effflot, I48 E etc. &TTa, 130 B. oB jrou, 132. o5 TiiK TjJe <5y, 1 30 C. avTT] oiioidrt)!, 130 B. aiir^s So-t; ... 3, 133 B. airo (v, 1 58. airrov SeairtiToxi ... S fort, 1 33 E, Viyove, t6, ... ytvriS'^o-eTai., 14I D-E. 7^j'j; re xal clSri, 129 C, 1 34. ypilifi-a, 128. Afi ipo ... /iT) la-TM, 162. Sia xpivoWj 136 E. SLai>€v elvcu, 131 A-B. Iv iriffiavTai., 1 62 C. ivSeiKi'VijUvov, 133 B. evl /*^y eli'tti, 158. e^alipvij!, 156 D. lireirxey, 152 D. eiri TtKt KoXeis ; 147 u. iirkeoviKTrjaev, 149 B. ^ir6i' poci, 132 C. iiruvvidai tiTX^iv, 13 1. ^p«, 129 D. ((rris, 146. ejTTos oS;', 1 56 D. ^Wpav i^ eripas, 138 C. ?rt iyyiyvbixevov, 138 D. Iroi/ios ... TOVTO, 137 C. ei5 jiidXo Sij, 127 B. ?X" ws ^X«i 163. IX^'^ov, 150 D. ^X<« ai'...?x<»: '45 B. *Ht hv KirjTai, 148 E. 5 dpa ... ToC fKif 147 E. ^Jeois, 131 B. r)avxlav iyciv, 139 B, 162 E. 181 ISia, 132 A, C. iwffiKB, 126 C. t(rov n(povs, 131 D. iiTTtip KaTarcT., 131 B. laTw, 130 D. Kai li&Wop, 135 c. Ka\6v re t<, 135 c, Kara0afKErat (cp. 128), 132 D, Karixof, -X^t", 148 E. KoiviiiV)], with Xiyo;', 128 D. Xiyctv tiftti, 127 A. XeiTrerot, 164 C. MdXiffTa, 127 B. jueaolTepa toiJtou /x^ira, 165 B. Her^H o5, 1 57 C. H^rixov'a, 129 B. Ii7jdei>is ... dSi/yarov eli'st, 157 D. iKov \ap6fixvo! TTJs X"P^') 126. NouK ^eiv, 136 E. "0 liTTlV tv, 129 B. 3 , . . /Uijpioi' ilXou : 158. of... -irflot, 127 C. ofow ef?; etc., 131 B. 6Xi70(rT6;' (cp. 153), 149. Slim Si ... i(Tiikv, 137. i^i yvivTi, 165 C. '6-irep, 128. opoti', 149 B. oiwep, 152 D. ouirfa, -OK etc., 143 B-c. otfre ... oid^ (cp. 150 B), 157 R. o5ros XP^fos, 156. 18-2 PARMENIDES. Haiiiieyie-i), 128 B. vav ... &Trav, I46 B. irav ... iTi'; 156 c. vov, 126 B. trpayfiuTlaVf 136 C. Tpirreai rd /xcyiOoin, 1 50. TTfiu!, 135 c. S/uKpbs, 165. Te, 126 B. T^ To5 elj'at, 162. tI Sal TOis (itXXots, 1 57 B- tJ 5of, Tui" flXXw;", 153. rt Tjv fico/io; 126 B. tI tva, 136 D. Tivd.s ... TToXXoiJjj 127 C, H od Si.ij\8es ; 136 D. riSe, veJirepov S' ad : 1 54 C. ToiovTOv XiyoK : 148 C. Tots TTcUriy ly, 145 D. Tou S^t; rwi' rySe, 126, ToC eli'ai ixupiov, 142 E. ToSfo/Mi, ... &vop.a, 147 D. Tp(o 5fs ; 143 E. T^) Te 5i)o ... T^ Tpia, 143 E. Tuv SXKw, 149 B. 'TTTcp/STJireTOi, 152 B. ixeHdeao, 136 C. iird Tu;' fiXXwy, 1 66. iaivSnevos, 165. (pa/iiv ... ravra, 142 B, p&i€, 126. *fit5e, 129 E. ifKeiucrBai etc., 128. iSy, 129 D. lis ofoir' ^i7;u^i' ... dXiTKTTOi', 158 C. us vpis fi^pos, 146 B. GLASGOW : PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS BY ROBKRT MACLEHOSK.

(ii)pi ov yap ap fxeTelxep aXX* ^p Sip avTO ep' vvp Se ept /nep etpai irXrip avTW tm ep\ aSvpaTOv ttov : aSvpaTOP : fieTex^iv Se tov epos a- payKf) Tw T€ oX(p Kai tw /JLOpKp. TO jULev yap ep oXop ea-Tai oxf fiopia Ta fJ-o- pia* TO S* av eKa^TOP ep fxopiop tov oXov o Slp ii fiopiop bXov : ovTCog : OVK oSj/ eTepa opTa tov epog fxede^ei ra p-eTexovra avTOv : 'irm S ov : TO. Se erepa tov ej/09 TroXXa irov ap elt]' ei yap /ul^tc ep ' /ijyre epos xXe/ft) eitj raXXa tov epos, ovSep ap eltj : ov yap o5p : e-Trei Se ye xXet- o) epos ecTTt TO. re tov epog fxoplov kcu Ta tov epos oXov fxeTexoPTa, OVK apdyKTj j^Srj irXriQet aireipa etpai avTa ye eKeha Ta /xeraXa/^/Sa- vovTa TOV ep6s\ tto)?; SiSe eiSeofiep. aXXo ti ovx cp oPTa, ovSe flCTexoPTa TOv epos, t6t€ OTe fxeTaXafx^avet avTov p,€TaXa^^dv€i ; Sri~ XaSri : ovk ovp TrXvidf} ovTa, ep oh to ep ovk cpi : TrXi^drj p-ePToi : ti o5pI el eQeXoifxep 7^ Siapoia tmp toiovtwp a^eXeiP ws oTot t e- a-fiev o Ti oXiyta-TOV, ovk avdyKfj Ka] to aaipe6ep cKeiPO, eiTrep TOV epos M f^€Texoi, 'ttX^Oos eTpai Ka\ ovx ^"5 o.^^'^yn''- ovk oSp, ovTCOS aei (tkottovpti aifT^v Ka& avTrjv Ttjp CTepap ipva-iv tov ei- Sovs, oa-op ap avT^s ael opw/xep aireipop ea-Tat TrXi^Oei: TraPTa- •7rao-£ Atei' oSp : /cal ^v eireiS' ap ye ep cKaaTOP fxopiop p.6pi0P ye- VfiTat, Trepas ^Srj ex^i -Trpos aXXijXa koi irpos to oXop, Ka\ to oXop irpos TCL fiopia : KOfiiS'^ [xep ovv : to7s aXXois Sh tov epos o-vp.- fialvei €K fxep tov epos Ka\ e^ eavTwv KOiPC0pr]a-dpT(»v, ws eoiKePy h-epop Ti yiyvea-Oai ep eavTOis, o Sij irepas Trapecrxe -rrpos aX- 85 b I Being parts of one whole, then, they are in fact a perfect whole made up of parts. A. Of necessity. P. iii. So of each part ; for 'each' implies oneness, and each is one separate part of the whole. Thus each part of the others partakes of the onCj while yet distinct from it. A. So. P. iv. But being more than the one, and distinct from it, they are * unlimited in number.' Since, if wecut oflfin our mind even the smallest portion of that which has no share in one, it will be a multi- tude. A. Quite so. P. V. Yet as all parts in turn become one they possess a limit towards each other and the whole, and conversely. So, as related to the one, the others become different in themselves 32 and produce a. ' limit ' even while their nature is ua- Umitedness. yt. Quite so. F. vi. Aod as being all limited and all unlimited they are ' like ' — while, as being both at once, they are * un- like ' — to them- selves and each other. A. I fear so. P. vit. And so we shall find same- ness and differ- ence, and all other contradic- tory qualities in the others. A. Right. V. P. Yet again : i. The one and the others are quite separate, as there is nothing to con- tain both. A. Yes. P. li. The true one has not parts ; nor is it, as whole, connected with the others. Hence the others have ' no one * In them at all. A. No. P. iii. Nor are they ' many ' — for having no one, neither have they two,three A . So. 8s b 2 XtjXa- ii 8e auTwv v(ni Kad' eavru onreipia] ^alverai : ovtw S>] ra aWa tov evoi Koi o\a Koi Kara /xopia aireipa re earn Koi ire- poTOi fierexei ■ irdvv ye : ovk odv Koi ofioid re Koi avofioia a\- A>?Xoty re koi eavTois- "Try Sri : el fiev irov aveipd ecm /caret rtjv eav- TftSi' (pva-iv, TTavra ravrov veirovdora av ettj tuvtu; "jrdvv ye : koi /lijv et ye diravra Treparos fjierexet, koi ravrn vdvr dv elti ratirov TreirovOoTa- ttws S' ou : ei Se ye ireTre paa-fxeva re elvai koi airei- pa viirovQev, evavrla irdQt] aXXjyXoj? ovTa ravra ra irdOi irk- TTOvdev : vai : ra S' evavrla ye ojy otov re dvofioioraTa • rt fi.riv : Kara fieu apa eKdrepov to TrdOos o/jloi dv eiri avra re avroii koi oXXj/Xojy Kara ^ dfKpoTepa dfi^orepws evavrmraTa re Kai a- vo/jLoioTara : KivSwevei : ovtw Srj ra aXXa avra re avrois kui aX- X»/Xojf ofioid T€ Ka\ dvofioi dv elij : ovrio : km ravTo. S^ koi erepa ft-XX^Xwi/, /cat Kivovf/Leva koi eoTwra, koi vdvra ra evavria vadtj ovk e- Ti xaXe'TTwj evp^ofiev TeTrovOdra ToXXa tov evos, eirec irep Kai Tavra e(pdv>i ire-irovdoTa : opdws Xeyet? : ovk oiv, ei TavTa fiev ^Srj eSi/Ji,ev ais ipavepd eiriVKOTroiifiev Se iraXtv ev el ea-Tiv apa Kai ovx ovTWi exei to. aWa tov evos rj ovTCt ftdvov : travv fiev oSv : Xeyoofiev Stj e^ dpx^i) ev el earriv Ti XPI ''"o aXXa tov evoi ireirov- devai ] Xeyw/jLev yap : dp' oSv ov xw/ot? p-ev to ev twv aXXtoi/ X'^ptJ Se raXXa row evbi elvai • ti ^j; : oti vov ovk eixTt vapd TavTa eTepov, o dXKo fxev e(TTi tov evos oXXo Se tcov dXXwv. irdvTa yap elptp-ai ot dv pl&ll TO re ev koi rdXXa : irdvTa ydp : ovk apa er ea-Tiv erepov tovtuv, ev w TO Te ev av eoj tw avTW Kai TaXXa : ov ydp : ovSeiroT apa ev TavTw ecTTiv to ev' Kai TaXXa: ovk eoiKe: x*^/"'? o/"*; val: ovSe firiv fiopia ye exeiv tjtafxev to ws aXrjOooi ev : •jrwy ydp : ovTe apa o- Xov eiri av to ev ev ToTi aXXon ovTe fiopia avTOv, el x^/)/? Te ecrTi TU)V aXXtoi' Kai fxopta fxri exei '• irws yap : ovS' evi apa Tpoirw fierexoi dv ToKXa TOV evoi, fiijTe /cara pdpiov ti ovtov prrre KaTa oXov fieTe- XovTa : ovK eoiKev : ovSap-n apa ev TaXXa ia-Tiv, ovS' exei ev eavTOts ev ovSev : ov yap oSv : ovS Spa iroXXd ea-Ti raXXo. ev ydp dv ^v eKa- a-Tov avTwv fibpiov tov qXov el iroXXd ^v vvv Se (Jure ev oirre ttoX- Xa ovTe oXov ovTe fiopia ecTTi rdXXa tov evoi, eveiS^ avTOv ovSa- fHI fieTexei : opOwi : ovS' apa Svo ovTe Tpia ovTe avTa ecTTi rd aXXa, ovT€ eveoTTiv ev atWok, eiirep tov ci/69 Travraxfi a-Teperai : ovrw : ov- Se ofioia Spa Koi avofiota oure avrd ecrri rw ept to, aXXa, ovre evea-riv €v avT0i9 o^oiOTfig koi avofioiort}^, el yap ofxoia Ka\ avo/mota au- ra €?»;, tj exoi €v eavTOt^ o/jLotortjra Ka\ avofxoiorrira, Svo ttov el- Srj evairria aXX>/Xo(? exot up iv eavroi^ ra aXXa rou evo? : ffialverai : 7/1' ^e ye aSvvarov Svotv tipoip /nerex^iv a fxtjS' €P09 fxerexoi; aSvpa^ top: ovt apa ofxoia oure apofxoia ea-rip out afX^oTcpa raXXtt. ojuLOia fxep yap oPTa *] apo/xoia evo? dp tou Wepov elSovg p.eTixoiy ajuLtpOTCpa Sh OPTa SvoiP TOtP ipaPTioiP* TavTa Se aSvpaTa €p toiovtcov et yap Tt tolovtop Treiropdepat v- TTOfxevei Tu aWa^ Kat ei/09 Kai Svotv kcu Tpiwv Koi. irepiTTOv kcu apTi- ov fxeOe^eij Stv avToh aSvpaTOv €epei fievTOi : Stap aXXwv, oT av cIttu ev, eWe to eivat avTco irpoaQets eWe to fxt} elvai, ovbkv -yip ^ttov ytvt!iv Xt- yii, aXXa tv(p eKeivov : aivtrai ; Ka\ m^ tov ye eKelvov xai roi iv. Nor are they Mike or unlike ' to the one, or in themselves. For had they likeness and unlikeness they would have in them two oppos- ing ctdr] ; now they have no two. A. True. P. V. Nor are they ' same or diffe- rent,' 'in motion or at rest,' * be- coming or perish- i"Si* 'greater less or equal ' or any such thing :— all these needing one, two, three, odd and even ; which the others have not. v4. Most true. P, vi. Thus the one is at once every- thing and nothing, to both itself and the others. A. En- tirely so. B. I. P. But now 'if the one iswtj/* what follows ? To begin with, the phrase must indicate some- thing separate and knowable. Hence i. there must he a * science of it.* A. True. P. ii. The others also must be (lifiTerent from it, else were it not different from them; so it has a * differentness * of its own. A, It seems so. 34 p. iii. It must like- wise paitake of ' that ' ' some ' ' for this,' and Ro on, if we may speak of it at all : iv. and so, while non-existent, it partakes of 'many.' A. Un- doubtedly. P. V. It must have * unlikeness ' toward the others— the different are unlike — : and, therefore, ' like- ness' to itself. ^. It must. P. vi. It is not equal to the others- else it would both exist and be (so far) like them — ; so partakes of ' inequality, towards them. A. It does. P vii. It, therefore, has 'bigness* and 'smallness': but, \-iii. having these, it must have 'equality,' which lies between them. A. It appears so. P. ix. Hence it must somehow partake (even) of ' being * : Tivo^ Kai TOVTOv Kai TOVTW Kai TOvToov, Kai iravrwv rcov toiovtwv, fxerex^i TO /Jit] OP €U* ov yap av to ev cAeyeTO ovo av tov evos eTepa, ovo ckcivw av Ti ^v ovS^ €KelvoVi ovS av tl eXeyero, ei fxriTG tov tivo^ avT(p fiCTtjv firf- T€ Twp aWcov TOVTcov I op6S)£ \ elvai fiev dfj T(p evL ovx oiov re, eiTrep ye fXT} ea-Tiv fX€T€XGiv Se ttoXXoop ovSep KwXveif aXka Ka\ avayKt}, eiTrep to ye iv €K€ivo Kai fxrj aWo /mrj €(TTtp. el jmevTOi fJ.y}T€ to ev firiTe CKeivo /mrj eaTai, aX- Xa Trep} aXXov tov 6 Xo'yoy, ovSe ^OeyyecrOai Set ovSev ec Se to ev eKet- vo Ka) fxi] aXXo virofceiTai jurj elvai, koi tov eKeivov Kai aXXwv ttoXXwi/ avdyKfj avT(p fxeTelvai : kcu iravv ye : Kai avofxoioTri^ apa ea-Tiv avTip TTpog TOL aXXa. TOL yap aXXaj tov evos eTepa ovTa, eTepoia Kai e'lrj av : vol : TO. S* eTspola ovK aXXoIal ttw? S^ ov : Ta S' aXXoia ovk avo/noia'; a- vofxoia fxev ovv : ovk oSvj e'nrep rw evi avofioia €]s rw roiovrm evl: KivSvvever. fiiyeOof piiv Koi a-fjiiKporiis aei a^eararov aWijXoiV. vavv ye : fj-era^u apa rt avrotv ael ecrriv. eariv : exeis oSv ri aX\o eiirelv fxera^v avrotv tj laortira] ovk- aWarovro: otm apa etrriv niyeOos Kai afiiKporrji, e(rriv Kai i'troriii avTw fiera^v rovroiv oScra : ^aive- rai : ru> Se 'ev\ /m>] ovri, m eoiKev, koi. iaornroi av fierelt] Kai fieye- oovi Kai (j-iHKpornroi: eoiKev. koi firjv Kai ovcriai ye Sei avro fie- rexeiv wti] irmi S)'/: exeiv avro Set ovrm Wi Xeyofjtev. ei yap fih i6i ouTWj ex« ovK &v aXi]d!j Xeyoifxev ^fxeti Xeyovrej to iv fxr/ e?- vac et Se aXtiO^, StjXov on ovra avra Xeyo/uec. 3; oi;x ovtw \ ov- tw /lev oSv : eVej^^ Se afi.ev aXr]dtj Xeyeiv avayKtj rifxtv (jxivai Kai ovra Xeyeiv : avdyKt) : ecrrtv apa, wj eotKC, to ev ovk ov. ei yap fit] ei S' ov : olov tc ovv to exov TTWy Ml exeiv ovTWi, fxri fieTaj3dXXov e/c TavTrji T>js e^etag- ovx oiov Te : irav apa to toiovtov pLeTa^oXtjv a-tj/xalvei, o av ovtw T€ KOI ft-ri ovTWi exjj '• ir3)i S ov : /jLeTa/3oX>j Se KlvrjaK, ^ t/ (pijao- fxev: Kivija-iil ovk ovv to ev ov Te Kai ovk ov ew/jiev pi] elval ti, xojy ovk eivai tjiapev avTO Treoy ^e elvai ; ?/ tovto to pi] ea-Tt Xeyopevov aTrXw? aiipalvet oti ovSapws ovoapy i'cTTiv, ovSe tt;; ^lerex^' overlap to ye pt] ov • uTrXovcTTaTa pev ovv: OvTe apa etvui SvvuiTO av to pt] ov ouTe aXXo)? ovSapw? ovcrias peTexeiv : ov yap : to Se yiyveardai Kut to aTroXXvcrOai pr] ti aXXo t] i] to pev overl- ap peTaXapj3aveiv to S' avoXXvvai ova-iav • ovSev aXXo : ai Si ye ptj- Sh' TOVTOv peTecTTiv ovT av_Xapl3dvoi ovt UTToXXvot avTO : "ttwj yap : Ti](ropev to ptjSapov ov to yap ecTTOi ev tw avTip Ttvt Set aei eivai : tw avTU)- ttwj yap ov : ov- TO) St] avTO pt] ov prjTe Trore etrraj'at priTe KivetcrOai Xeyoopev '. pi] yap ovv: aXXa ptjv ovS ecm ye avTw Tt Toiiv ovtwv i]Sr] yap dvTOVTOV pere- Xov ovTOi overtax peTexot : S^Xov : ovTe dpa peyeOo^ cure ; ev ovk ov ouk €^€1 ttoj? ovSa/ii^ : oi/zc oJc St] €0iK€P ye ovSafjLu ex^iv : eri Srj Xiyw/xeVi ev el fx^ ccttiv, ToXka tl xph TTeTrovOcvai : Xeyw/xei/ yap: aXXa fxi^v ttov Set avTa eTvat- ei yap /JLfjSe aXXa €a/ji€V to eTcpov etvai eTepov^ koi TO aXXo Srj aXXo elvai aXXov] vat : Kai TOig aXXoty apa, ei /neXXec uXXa eTvai, €/Xa)i/ av elt} ToKKa, el evo<5 fxi] ovTog aXXa eo'Tiv : ko- pLiSii jULev ovv : ovk ovv 'jroXXot oyKOt ecrovTaij eh cKacrTO^ atv6/Jie- vog wv Se ov, etirep ev fxri ecrTat. Kat aptOfiog Se elvai avTwu So^et , eiTrep Koi ev cKaa-TOV ttoXXcov ovtwv : iravv ye ; Ka\ to. /nev Srj apTia, Ta Se ireptTTCi, ev avroiatveTat Se tovto iroXXa Koi /xeyaXa 7r/)o? eKacTov twv 'TTOXXWV Wg (TjULUCpSiV OVTWV ; TTW? S' OV ', Kat tO-O^ fXtjV TOf? TToXXoh Ka\ G-fxucpog cKaa-Tog oy/co? So^aa-Orjo-eTat etvat^ ov yap dv ^eTe^at- vev €K fxei^ovog eig eXoTTOv ^atvofxevos 'irp\v eh to fxeTa^v So- ^etv eXOeiv tovto Se etr} Slv ^avTaarfxa lo-OTrjTog: e//co?: ovk ovv Ka\ irpog aXXov oyKov irepag ex<^v avToq Te Trpo? avTov, ovTe apxn^ ovTe irepag ovt€ fxecrov ex^v: tt^ S^ : OTt ael avTwv ot av Tig Tt Xa- Pu Til Stavota, wp oXXwp tw ep aXXwv €P ehat ovSe TroXXd- avev yap evog TroXXa So^dcrat aSvvarov: aSvpaTOP yap : ep apa el filj ecrtVyTaXXa ovTe eartv ovt€ So^d^erat ev ovSe TroXXa : ovk eoiKev : ovS' apa oficta ovSe avo- fj.oia : ov yap : ouSe fi^v ra aura ye ovS' erepa, ovS' aiTTO/xeva ovSe Xft)yo:y ovSe aX\a oaa ev TOis TrpoaOev SajkOofxev 0)j atvofie- va avTa, tovtcdv outsti eo'Tiv ovre tpaiverai TctXXa, ev e! firj eaTtv. aXrjOrj: Z OVK oSv Koi crvWi'ijUSriv ei etiroifiev, ev ei fjirj ecrrtv oiiSev ecmv, opOws dv eTTOifxev : vavTairacri fxev ovv : etpr'i-*-• r V, VI. ' same or different,' vii. ' touching or separate ' ; or anything else already men- tioned. viii. In a word, if the one is not, nothing is. A. Entirely so. P, Thus we may say that, whether the one is or is not, it itself and the others, alike toward them- selves and each other, all and in every way, Doth are and are not, and seem and do not seem. A . Most true. NOTES. I. TEXTUAL. The following is a detailed presentation of the readings in the Manuscripts 21 Tub. t, given line for line with the printed text. The readings of 3lt show the points, including punctuation and accentuation, in which these Mss. differ from the text. Those of Tub. give the particulars, not including punctuation but including every divergence of a letter, in which that Ms. is at variance with 21. The readings of Tub. are in different type from those of the other two. Erasures are shown by a *; while c. after a word means that it is contracted in the Ms. For the usual contractions see pp. cxi. cxxiv. above. Tub. -KO^CV, ' -KOfltOa' [small on * -/tovTos' X'^V ^4>^ '^ ' ''V^^i '^ dark, -Tol. ' ju£v 8^ etjrov iytb, ' toCto. dv i7] TTjV ' flTTOV -Tpl(o. Tt r]V ovojxa, •TWTt •ti- (lev ,;v vf.av. c. ' -iriv. ' Tco no 1. subss. -uevZv ["'''P' SoKU). TO irpir- ' -iitjo-o itc kXoJ- t/ceiVoi; Ktovwide,' rii) ace. patched.' tS' irarplc. ' -Xa[iirn SI ye:' -Odvei: [III.' re, yc airaUyt^ -Bavt) : oKe erTTOV €yw, TroXirai ttoA rough, PI. iroXCraC |J.oi tlo-V -^5v' TU'i, ' Iralpt^, no i subs, -yovs, ' -Kparq'S. ' f^vuV -tapov. [a little, darker. -6rj£<}>ri' ftTTOV. SeoiJr '^roi/.Se' patched -A,«rov' civ. owovscv last two words -wfjiov. [patched a little. j3if dXX'el Set., iw/iev last«curs.,see -vtSiis SwiXtx- last I added? -SevSe,' -yis.' -A-iT^- [PL o'koi,. ■da-af ' -Xdyrj. irapeifiiV -filas. ' -fsTO' Xoyovs' ' 'Vti. -Tot. ' -<;b5r, "tall and narrow. ' -Stupor HtXCTTTj- Tavr' -TO. otKOf -HiOa. KaTayopav Kal c. -Kb)Vi, ' Aa^o/tefos -/iavToy. X^v' ^'^'? '^ ' ^^*' ' '''B^^ '^'' -Toi. ' Srj ' eyot. ' touto Se- av £(^9j ' era-ov Ttj) C. 6jxoiJ,rjTpiii>. Ti rjv ovofJLa' i]V, ' -{levuiV ySr] \p6vos. ' irarpl SokS. [-^avei : Trai'u ye e<^');. avry Seye avricjxoV ' o'S' er?rov eyo) jroAtrat re /xot etcrt dvTiiijv. ' Ttvi ' eraipiff. Kal c. [out). , -vi'S7js-^?)(rav. ' -Smpov (vtSTjsthrougli- -6r) e(f>ij Aeyeis: Tovroiv C. rolvvv dirov. oKOwai : dAAov xaAerov I^tj" ' &v. ye Kara ' -vvjxov. •rpi/Sef dAA' el Set. itufiev Tap avTuV jueAtTJ; : ' -jrovTej. Se c. oiKOt. ' Ttva St. ia6 -Ad -tS ' iropijiitv ' 0-4 • SI eXfletv Si later. yiy. Trapur]p.iV ' -trev re pas. Kttt ijo-irdfcTO" Aoyovs. ' wKV e<^7j ' -Swpov. etvaf ETT- 41 42 fitydXa. ' TToXwV ' e. £(.vc PARMENIDES. %. -veiSrj's' oyiv. Tub. -Xous. -6i|V£a ' -vi8tiv. '«|r]K0VTO ISetv ' -v£8ov c .jxaKi^- ei had been t, paler, tall, nar- .|ieiKM- ■KicrOaf ' Kpar?;, .tos c. 1 Tore, I/£OV ' -Stjv, [row. Brjvac . I TO IS, -yivao-K- [neat, and fainter. o4tJ>v c ' v£8tiv \6y(i>v,' -KOfi^voiv first ' and small, -yivus-koiiIvuv' -fliVOV. -o-avTa, D -dtv. -Tov- ' -TcXq, ye- ^^I'COVOS' ' -6ei(Tr]s. TTols f lyvwi'' ovra' E 8^. aSuvaTOV ' o/xoia. a.v6[t,oia, ' Aeyets ; ouTtu <^. uvaf (XTOjuota. aSilvaTOf ' eivaf tirj. ' -vara* -XoTt. ' to-Tf Aoytov 128 iroAAa- ' -yets. '^ ' faint. -^oi'O) ; oiiK aXAa ' -V(ava. -/ia, -(7avavai S f^vo) toCto Aeyets. [ey very like et, so next case. . I riyel, ' oi/ra. -a. ' -varoV ' o/JLOia. ovTO) cjidvai TOV c. ~ fainter. ojxoia eCvai' o/tota dvo/ioia. ' eiVafC. 4pa £?■>;.' -vaTa'dpa' (rovo*t (rhasbeenr? irivTas Ttt Adyot. ovk aA Ad n' [ = Tovo ot ? airovoi'o-ci changed tO °e-i -vo : I i|>dvat changed to Ypanna [orig. on 7av(i) : OVK , I dAAix ' -Odv -vrjKas' ' -Oava [tov -v*t-8r] I no t subscripts.' <{>i\- -tij Z -vt'Siy ' oSe. [v [- wKeiZa-dai. miK patched, darker ' Tav- olKciwo-eai, later »• [later. i^KeiwcrOat. y had been oi ? ' Ty c. ' oVTrep cn5' ' Se. ' -tSv, , faint. Aeywi'* ' -jiacriv. ' £<^ijs ' jrav B a?# ' -Aa (fiTjcrlv ttvaf -roAAa, ' "XeTac <^dvat, -Act- Kttt aK close and • faint ' [Aeyetv, TttVTa. kovs, ' val (jiavai ' -V(uva S -fiaros. [faint, reddish, near edge <]cr9T](rai- o-aic. c fcWIpye ' -XaKcs- The marg. note is a- on * 1 o-Kii- ' -Otis tJ i Ix- -^«»'Ta"' -Odvei. no note in marg, 8v ' irep o-v" SO but altered tlvo,. o*Tr€p (TV' nera/iaXwv 8e. ' -TW. tv^c|)t)s so but altered later. Aeyojv ' -fiaa-iv. eV i^g s ' Tav aSe BM* = 2) a4*oB changed -exet. KoXZa-ye koX (.v- y£orT€?liker later to Se afi ou [on ♦. [former. ' av, ' dvav ■aavv iroXXcl. Kal ira|i|ic- Traixii Sc Kai c. awos. ' -x^''^"-''' ' A'^'' iivai changed " ' SS |i{j on ^dvaf ' iroAAd. ' tcov c. same * as above. -Ttts' TauTa o-uKpax' ends line. ypdfi/ia- ' -6iv, stops faint. 7pan- -Twv C. ooKEtV Taura. -Aoxjs.' vat S.vat rov f>/v(i)va,3 cro)^' lat- -/xaTos. ' ^o-^ij- [terhalfoffirst" darker. KaiTOi ' ye ' AaKes. •devTa- ' -Sdvci. ' owov- ypa/Ajita. SI. vaf ' -fievov. ' -To/i.evoi'' [-Oh. /lev. has been a blot over word. ' Se ' -(MTa. ' A.dy(j), , faint. Km/K^Selv &S fl Iv OTTl. A.oy^, , faint. ' avrt^- -/tot, , faint. ' -yovTos. ' Tawa, , faint. ■(a. Tovro . ' faint. ' Srjkovv -OecTK ' ia-Ttv. i; ' -Ktav, ' ve8 ovros H light and close on [*' -^Tj.' awojfhadbeen-Taor-Tov? -<}>ev. ' -ytvcro, , faint. Gi, ' /i^" ' -^avei ' -Kpares. -6ai. . faint. hrel oirep y' eTirov. . faint. [ciVe' -/Mtt /t small ' -Kparrj' • faint. ' e^*"''' avTo, , faint. ' -otijtos' ttS, aAAo ' -Tlov o coTiv (Ivo/iotov; „ [faint ' Se, ' f/t€. Km oiv, , , faint, avrots. -oTo;'' rts -fieva, , faint. ' ofioia. ' av oi/;iat -^oTa. last half of a on * efioiye ' f^vuv [t faint. Tts, , faint 'i Jvos' ' Taurd ' TroAXci. tw -X^ti'* ' o loTtv ev, ' -Sa^ei Kai aSra ev ' -/lai' [, " faintish •avTtiJS' ' aiVois ' Tav- -XOVTa. iroAAa. ' -OTOV Acyojv -(jioiveiv. ' /lou IcTTiv ' -rtpd- irpotrOiv. ' -la-Oev ' avo), , very faint. ot" av " faint. ' ev ipy. . faint. 6vT(i)v, , faint. ' -iros. ' Ivos' .re/ja" ' -x^tpy, [* ' ' and ^ on to, faint. TaCra-veii'' At^otJS' ' ^vXa' ' TaTotaCra. -vvvai. ' TO ' jroAAa' ' «v" Aeyetv , [, ' faint vvv ' eAeyov, ' -piirai. ' Ka^' avra etSij- ' -TijTa, KatTrA^^os. Stops faint. NOTES Tub. dvouor no I subs. ' -vfCSou gap- aurS' ' Ypd)!- -Suo-i' Kal ^XeC- 43 i\ ToO ^ later. 1 !k- lirb veuovTOS ' airb'i TavTT] 7o5v -kCos ot- orig. on • iwi- ' later. no t subs. ■|tOlOV' 1 fivTOlV > KaV T4XXa no i sub. -pdvT)- itrti, TW dirois, later. ' .axis t. -vaf ' -jxevov, ' -/tei/ov eh-es. ' 5e ' aAijd'cs. Aoy(j) c. -/t(o8£6V' (Jl(r£t €V eCTTt. T$ Aoyi^. both c. ' auro"- c. -yovras" ' -StSoicrtKai [erased.' aural c. -(0. Tovro*^oif--Aoi)V;8patched. qu.v -^ecrts. ' ecTTiv. ' ftvai, ' Ik- -A'of -Ktav. ' iypa.piv ypa(f>€V ' -veTo. ^(09. ' /ivj' ravTrj ovv ' -I -6ai. dAAujro esret ' cot-ov. ' dAAajro- -/iat ' -KptxTTj. ' £;(€ii/* yavei ^«ipi"l'»roXXd' .(!>a£vTiXC0oiis no Stops till -vvvai' -pvjTai' ' KaO'dvTu. KaSavTo ' -rrjTos' koI Ta) toioijto) both 129 (av om.) aAAd Tf ' dvofiotov ' ovToiv. ' [Aoi)/ie>'. -^dveiv TO a'AAa a* S^ (a widely spaced on*) ' -fidvovTa. ' -V€a-6ai. ' Kararo- -jidvy ' -TIJTOS. dvd/ioia' -rlptov. -Tepa.' 'Pdvu. ' etTTi ' djiifioLV. B auTots. ' -o-Tov ' Tis, direiPaivev -/xeva. ' o/iota. ' av oijuai 15 v -Tepojv ' -Oora. • faint, ye S fijvo) aroTTOV 5oKet" ovSiye Tii. ' evds' ' TroAAa. [aura -6;;(«v aAAet 0* eortv ev, -oetfet. koi £v.'-o"o/iaf ' Ttov aAAtov d;rdvT(ov. allc. -aVTWS' ' bStJ. £V O^TOiS -crXOVTa. ' Se /ie [crrdv Ae'ymv Kat c. iroAAd ovTo. ("' = transpose) ' -qiatveiv.' Se^ta/iOuecTTtv.' kir'dpixrTipd- Trpocrdev. ' -a^ev ' Kara), jtAj^^ovs C. yap otjuai /ieTe;(W ' ev. tpet ' n -TCDV C. ' avdpOiTTOS C. [iJ/tOJV C. -(fiaivoi -Tepa* ' -X^ipy. - v*i8iiv TovcrSJ, ' -TO) -KpdTTlV ' otv C a vTov. ' -eiS^jV ' -K/)aT£S' ^arof" dark. .v*£8riv ' cjidvoi. /lev t'ov (5Se /iaXXov Alyo) ' avTtjv ravTTjV .[t'evTjv. [later. -^X^ere. ovt(o ' firjBel^ai : J looks S^ ' -Biapos ' Tawa, tl^iKOXTTOV ' -VOJVa S? Travvye avT ~ (y€ or re ?) ' I'ov)'- B £tX£' arra. ' or ' doubtful : probably ' Si^prj- I subs. ? I drra [tiTiyipvra. ; , faint. ' naX n ' auTij ^ -xovra- ' ovttJ t| oji- [ofiotoTT]^ " ^ rather faint X0)pi9- ' •o/iev ' -Xa- second • faintish. avTOV. ' -viSrjV : Z (rtOK d,vai (Ls A' t ' '. oyovs. eiTTE" oiirtus ' Xeycts' ' aTTO" TOVTbiv C. ' "XOVTa, ' a^TO oyno lOTrjs C -0TIJT E)(o/iei'. ' ;roXXa. -ov€S ' ye (jidvai, [ti. i; last half of "darker' -ovTa' roi'Te' ij 1 -v*i:8i)v' ti KaOavrb-' -6ov,' av,' -rrnvj ,,, faint. Ka9'avT!>- ' orig.?' ovruv [majusc. [-vtSijv. ' C vat dvaL : rt S' tCS'ovov kfrpXv TravTuv avTo Ti ^ liSaros : -pl(j. ci- ' Srj ' -vetST}' ' -yoi'a' [fainter. airopCa ' •v*£Si] - v(DV. ^ aX Atos ; ^ ' TwvSe on both i; -vwv ^1 -K/aares'' e^vai; ' 6pi^' ' tttjXos" ttvoi:' 9pt| : efioiye d- , differs. [-vtdijv. ' ti -ttj : i) Kttl Tot TotaSe c. elirtlv rov c. Ka^avTO'' TTavTOJV av rtov roiovToiV- [all -avai ' Srj ' yeyova* [, differs. ; Sv avruv. ij 5v e D -^ojxeda, , very faint ' p; : ' ^av- -T'?-' ye' -/iev. TT^Xos. pVTTOS' r) aXXoTt ' -AoTOTOV. a,vai ' etSos. ' Xtopts ovaXXo ootojV C. [1^ (Dv •Jon end of line' ji^:' <{)dvai ^avat " usually patched, with Mark. s -T7J" ' TavTCL ye airep opdificv, ' auToIv c. £?vai. ' -TTOV ' p.kvrot ' -^e. Note near ^ ttTO- ' jievToi ' -|« No note, c'vai. ' aTOjroV ' /le'vTOi TTOTCfie Koi [marg. : -0 v, -as and -e (4) all c. [^Gpa^e, TaifToV ' icrru. ^1 rauTov ^irtira, 5Tav Tavrt) jraVT(ov C. ' TavTjy cttw i^evywv C. I'oTti) (p. Ixxxvii). [xoXXrjv in mid. marg. ? ' -t^dapii' -fiaf -o-as/ Tiva/3v6ov,' -pm' last, (p. Ixxxvii) (|>Xvap(av av c. -/taf ' et'sTtva a/3i5^ov "points to gloss -/tevos ' e'xeiv. [faint. goBv [ends line. -Ko/^evos. E dvai il (in el On *. trt <^avat -Stjv ' -Tes" ' -tf>ia*- -v*i8t]V -viSrjv S crajK. ' -a-o" -ISovra, ofMoia' ' S«, fieyd\a' , , faint. -vijs, ' ye ^civat commas very faint. -Sovs. ij fiepovi, ' -/3dvov. . * , faint -fidvii. ri ' Tt's ' -i/'ts, , faint ' -oito : av ' ovv, , very faint. [koL c. ei'oi'. ^7 '^^faintish. ' -Xveia- ' paxes' ev, ravrSi', [a/ta, , , , faint. TTOteis. otovei (as in 2) icrTUt) i subs. yellow, squeezed.' -eras*' -ttovs" oAoV rj ' -eiv : Srcus ^a- ^ av. ij aAAij) : apa ^a-' -pares eomv ' e'S?;' auTuv ' cTi ' faint. ' oAov. -TES" <^a-' eoTai; , faint. -/i(3s etn-eiv : ' yap <^a- ' -pieis' lower [point in : and last . faint. -X(ov, ' jiiepet, ' avToC , , " faint, lo-raf apa, latter half of " with , [faint ; ' jravv y' ' Sat. -(TTov, ' Tf l^et, (J) , , faint. ry, ecTTatj , , faint. Tts ' toiJtoi; 6e ' -Kpov, , faint ecrrat ; -9-!}, ' -^ev ' eorrai- , faint [faint. rplv' ' av -TO (/)avai ' -rov elirdv , -Tts- ' /^epT?- ^ ^^ -/i€va : oxi (' faint) ' Sla oLvai' • faint -ovTov, ' 8ai 8^, , , faintish. Tub. tlirJ-i iji^s '*-. I 4tto <|>avai oiKoOv ' {) |Upov5' ii I -TO : etire" ' -trrut -\(i)V {v&v ff irus : I i|>dvai -v*iiS^ Sv tlvai- 1 iroXX- ends [line. &|ia iorai' ' avToS ' cCi] : ' ijiavat Same as 21 throughout, save [el and |iCa- aiTfis ' later. TauT I tit) > ifi- <^d- otovel Io-tCu ' dvovs gap. -Tcii rb Icrrtov eli) &v ij ' -Xci) : -pos : ' 4>dvai' ■trro t. crot (OS <^)^s dSr] iXvai drra, avTuiv C. ' ur)(ei*. [fieydka' ' S« koi 131 -jSovra, o/jLoia.' jxeyeOovs 8e. -ocruvr/s. ' -vto-6'at:' yc t^avairbi'C.cro)- ovKovv * ijTOt [/cpar : -f3dv(i,' i] dkXi] ' TOIJTUV f. yti'OiTO : av tiirev : ' oXovro TO)i' c. TToAAwv c. ev ov. ' (TWKpaT •vi8r] ' Tawb Iv ffoAAois K0.1 c. X'"'P'^ '^ oSo-iv. [Had been evecr- and awTo? ev£(7Tai' ' aiiTov. ' ouxav elvai (f>dvai.. oiov el r]jji.epa etrj jua ' oScra. ' (f>dyai. I no I subs, •irciv. ' ifidvai, -ripa airoO [-(jnj : rC Si dpo " dark, patched ? ' toi ; tavat t5 ' -^icr6ai,' ' ecrrat : -SaftQi eiTretv: ' yap <^avaf ' -piets' -trrovrcUv c. [rt'Sal ' on aA inserted, d ioTTaf dpaovKaAoyovi^aveirai:' y'e<^j;: OS _ tcroD juepous e/cao-ro rt. ^ eA- ffainter. «70v. «rov ry pepos Tt's ' e^ef ' crptKpov. ' eo-raf ovros" ' (T/xtKpbv. -piOev TOVTO. ' -porep eo-rai. ' 1} on * e [and also put in marg. yei'oiro <^o.vai. ' rpoTrov eiTreiv 3 (toJk. ' raAAa -^eraf -/i€va : ' Sta dvaL. Ti Se S^ Trpbs r. 6. 46 21. To6e. ' -ovSe, , had been . '3" -vat, ' arra ' uvaf ' rts -°*'^' [, , " . faintish. -vai : ' -■yeis <^a- ' -ya, ' raAAa ' -yaAa* aAAo PARMENIDES. Tub. -X«S' Tb TTOiov : Srav iroXXi fi.TTa ' %ify\ ei to t), in orig. ? ' tis to-- 1 IS- 1 ISo'vTi. I TiYiJ ss -vai : \i-^ (ends line) a,vai ! ' oiri ' T&XXa no » subscripts. S> ' -ir8ai ; ^oikcv : dW' S dpa t. iivo,V ' arra fxeydXa So^y [•yaAa. Aeyeis cfiSivai, : ' awti rb ' raAAa ' juf- iia-avTois ' tSijs, ' au /*eyo vra avajK-q [Mcy- [dpa dvdyKT] SO our notes. -Vfirat. ' jravra dvdjK-q [Mcy- -VfcrOai B erepov. efTTCU. d AAa (fidvai ' -vuSt] ' - Kpari) " • faintish auTw" irpoa~qKU ' faintish. -Ao^f' eir]. ' ai/ert 'faintish. A Stain [on €Tt which is patched. "Xoi, , faintish ' oSi/^a-' -fidroiV voYj/ia ' -Tov etjrefv : dAAa rtvos : I'at : ovTos. ■ij " on ■>; has first half faint. C ovK oVtos : ' o ' enrov vociv, en-a' • seems crowded in. (TTL [dvdyKjy ' ^ijs Sal (rough, no patch ?) &) ' -Sijv ' rj ' trvat, , faint. ' I'oeiv OVKCTl ' -TOV o-oi -Bos' ' a.- ' -v*iSii ris ^ ' iivai : ' TovTO (jiavai ' Adyov dAA' al i^ i Aa- ' Xivov : d-Sj;'' -V£rat, , faint. ' ra ravra. ' i^virw ' aAAa, , faint. -Kevai. ' auT-);, . , faint eiSojv, ' Tt's. ' Tt €avaL <3 -viSrj ' -Kpdrrj' CKaa-Tov rovTwv c. y vorjjMi.. ' irpwrfjKti dXXoOi. ' eV T€ ejcao-Tov etj;. ' av lAeyero : ' ovv cftavai' ' rav C. -puiTiiiv -Sevos : ' -varov ' dAAa Ttvds : ' fj OVK OVTOS : ' Ttvos' ' e- (next line) irbv voetv This voeiv nearly above next, but error unlikely at a dis- tance of 6 lines. ' tSeav • €Lvai' dil ' ' Tracrtv : T6 Se S-^ ' -vt8»jV ' dvdyKTj y TaAAa rj% yw.£T6X'iv' -//.drtov C. ' avaf ' voctv ovTa. ' fTvai : dXXovSe tovto (j>a,vai ' [Adyov" dAA' u) -viByj. ' -cjiaivirai. 5Se t^^eiV TttijTa. ' v(TeL' ' dAAa. -/iara" etSui'. ouKaAA'); Tts. ' Tt €- ^•)j ' iiSu ' etSos. Kadocrov ' -uOr]' t) to-rtv Tts -X"'^- cfvat ofioiov : ' eWtv : ' ojxoito. dp' dvdyKr].' -Tex"v : ' av •accidental? "Xovra. Sjioia. y. ovkck- ' etSos : e?vai' jj.fj. ' etSos alel ' erSos' Kai dv ?i ' av. ' aici, -fjievov, ' Tip c. TaAAa NOTES. 47 21. -^avu ' ' -Tilvy , faint. ' ovv Tub. dXXcL T'i' ' -vti ; ' 6pa.s dvai ' -T€S" ' Ka^dura ' faint. Aa- ' Ka9' avri i(rda( (jiavaL- on ' etTrai'. , faint. -Tai : I -vvv 'itri'i ij)d- ovrijs, ' -/"'a' ■'5' oiTtov, ,", faint. &imi'1)tv 5^ c'tjr- ' a\X.a -p'CJ- c^dvai' ' S«. ToSe" ' fiij SI . '^ (t/) faint. ij)tt- -aSai ' -aura, oia <^a/xev ' etSi;* ' At- -yovti -^aa-dai, ' -Scrai' , faint. [yovrt. Sri" t. -(Sdvei.l I delicate' fijTeu'. ' €oik£k: [o/aas ovv (jiavai <5 (TiuK. ' diropia' ' tis (is etS?;' 'cr6i(l)dvaf oTt dis ' eiVetV CTopia* ct ev ' rwr c. oVTOiV. alii ri -(ojievos ' Sfj ' oiAAa. tjidvai. ' 8e. ToSf ' (/fjat?;. [XeyovTi.. -(rOai ' TatauTtt. ota a[iev ' ciSij* ' av 61(01 ' -ScTai" ' iroAXwi' fMV tv\oi -0io-/3ijTa- ' -TT)' ' ovv [KaC ' later. IS^wv " later, i avrai, ' later. irpbs airas c. 6iJ.oid*TttTa line ends at * TttCra. Tau on * * auTci iimv. ' eVSi] Kal tt patched <}>d- Will not note again. 8tj V later tod ckcCvov Seo-- dvTou first " added ; same next line. [paler. dvToB SovXov iirrt 8 added gap. o*T^ SI changed to [auT^i eo-Tiv8 avra ' loTi. ' Trpocravrd' tj &KK'6\iya " added. ' auTMv- avrd eK6ivoT£ ' irpos dvTii' tj Acyu: ' y £OT- ' -ciTjj ' ovv ' faint. -8dv ends line. ' -ya-: -fir] (fidvaf ' /i£V, o JoTi ' -jut;. ' o icTTiv &e;. ' -KpaT-q : on S> crw ' aAAo. Ka&aiirrjv avTod CK- ' £?vaf piv. prjSepiav ' Ka^ [ovKOUi' 6Tt eirj (j>dvai, ' -Kparrj : ' Acycts ttiretv Toji' c. iS- ' €io-tv. ai eiVtv ' aiJTas eXoiicrtv ' -fiara. D Sfj TlS ' rlOiTai' ' -\OVTK. ravra. ' eKcivovs. [ovk jrpbs aiJTa ' aAAoiJ ' eiSrj' ' eatrrdv. dAA -Keivtav. ' oiStcos : ' Aeyeis dvai -viS-qv c. d ' Tov ' SoCAos eo'Tti'. ' S-qTrov o, eoTt -ttottjs. E [line) eo-Tti'. ' SouAou o c(rT6 ' dAAav- (next -OS c. Stv. ' Tavrd eo'TiV avrrj ' -eta. j; looks like t, latter part very faint. eCTTlV ' -T(US. dAAo^ ' Tr/jba-CKetva -^tf ' ijjuSs' dAA cilAeyo)' ' avTviv. ( | shd. mark 8o b i, not as in text.) avra eKeivare idTi,' ' (Lo-aiVios ' kavrd' ^ 134 Aeyo) : y' etir- ' -Kpdrtj. ' oukovv c. -pr] (fidvat. ' o laTtv -p.rj- t^s o Jo-Ttv [-e^eia. -pr] : ' a'urcuv -pmv. y ecrrLv -T(av 6 lo-Ttv. ' -pi] r) ov : -anqpTj. ' £*ij" -o-rfjprj. ' -vol e?vot c. : H ci'Srj (is -yets' ' exopev riplv o'iovTai etvai : ov yap ovv C. : 48 PARMENIDES. 3(. Tub. -H£V : oi 7dp : ' 7iv<»- (ISuv -/i7;s. a tcTTtv o, -/xev: , , very faint. rifitv, ' €0"Tf , faint. C TTOLVTa. [■q faint. IS^as ' (tev, : -Tcpov. ' av. ^ ' and first half of " on f\ ov' i'lrep kuTLV avrh Tt ' . and of clir^p Ictti t£ Y'vos [''faint. ' -/xf/s" -vat, ' -ixrjva- ' -Aos" ' TaAAa TrdfTa ov- Tw ; first (,) faint : second = other hand and ink. p. 9. oweiVe/o' -ovatendamidbrownstains. oSv ap' ovv V stained [(,) original. D dtbi, ' -cTKiiv' ^x'^^l •' stained. The oTt ... to end : no stops. OUV eCTTLV ' -TtW -pj' OVT av ' -v(ov, , faint. E av -7] -vetSrjs' ' S») ' [faint. (OS -ireio-Tov patched from ir a-' irepf -}f'u, a TovTiovr ' -pav, , , faintish. ■yap iliTitv ' -vai ' -res' -\bv re Ti, ' -Kaiov, ' -^ov, , , , faint. -/oif stained. [outer comer. Twv T stained, stain creeps in from -OdSe, , faint. ' T^Se- ' fitv' Oda' -6t -yovs. ' (ravrhv, ' -Xov, , , faint. etvai, , faintish. dtS- t subs, dark ' firj. |»l) [even in vbs. or advbs.) irpMijv (no I. Cease to note efta " orig. ' to-- t. Twv c. oi'Tui' c. tivaf -/iX.eipar p.rj&' otl op- ' -a-Tuv. iitav Tiav c, ovtwi' c. -per ' BoKiW Aeyeis' Tt ' jrept. ToiiTwv : ' ye Ttii c. irapovTC irpdit yap ajretv ' -(r6'^i'a( (u crco. In in. marg. yp. Trptitij, sugg. by TrpoytTjv below ? -X«'jO£iS. KaXoi/TeTt ' -dov aSoX- (i held as subs.) ' a-i -crdrjv -Tos, ' iiaxTtv ' -vois, , , faintish. el'ao-t rots -TTtiv ' -va, ' -;8oi. , . faintish. /MOL ' y«. . faintish. [faint. var ' -/xoia, ' -/iota' ' , and ' on o5v 6ti oBv -rj Aeyets 5 vpos TOVTO ir- etecmv (iTJ JoTi awra" " patched ' tJ) avrb "added. liVjIoTiiroWa" airct ' patched. irpos dXXijXa gap gap [had been irpos gap ir^t TT patched, i on * ; ircp'i' twice ^(viVcus w rough del ' Kal o^K OTi oOv oirb. JvpiwavTa" -Tws Kai tSX- avrd ' oTi ovv ' ctUl SO. inroT£6«r6e. 8i<5i|/es ' ei Se c. p-rj, (T( TpOTTOS dvai S> -VlS>] -voivos" ' trpos ■crOijv. ' -p.evoi's. 10 -o"K07r6tv' ' Aa/3ot. et'S?; ' /ioi e^i; ravry ye. di/d/toia" y' l<^)j. ' Trotciv -jXCVOV. -^ecrews C. ' eo-Tti' ' -Ovrdai. 136 Aeyets (f)dvai : otov ei^JJ. -6eo-etus c. ' VTredcTO' el troWa er) Aeyeis w 50 PARMENIDES. -Tiav. I changed by first hand (?) to a -jiarAav [faint « ' fiLoi, , faint ' -^£S. D virodejxfvoi' riva ' -nd9- -i'£tSov ' kr). ' -Aoi/5, , faint. — jrot£U'' ' -Sr}v, -K-q (fidvai -crOai' , faint, iroietv : 137 /"", ' -6(var ■ faintish. ' -vos ip- tu- ovTL, ' -adai, -X.OV. , ? ' -fft)V. vpdp|MiTi * ■ added later ' -t'C -(lovTi, rh Uvai. -/i.£VOS' ' -crOai. ' ovTa, Siavva-o.i , faint. -yioV ' Se" B (cai o fiji'wi' A.£y£t avToi icrfJ-cv i\uoi Si Set Yap -cSai' Kal (IT- 6 1- X- avTol «r|tH''' dp|o- [&p|o- -o-oftiOa- ■^ -cr^£' " faint. ' ayyua on a irpUTOV -feiv. ' -yuai, , faintish. [roughish Stain. -tciw8t]| dir£|uiv- (''added) -a-eiar ' -fievos' ' ev ottii', , faintish. €VTi ' ovv (i- ' oSi/ -Treiv' -veiTai' ij ' -raTor * -vor ' -ETat 'J £m;. ' o-oi ' (j>dvai tovto, , faint. -y£«. ' -yiov ' -ra. [, faintish. Srj a7ri7, ' : ' aparo ev, commas faint, ftpo tJ. ck D £tj;" ' ov, ■i\ iK- 7] late on *. ' toBto ri -T(os, TO ' tir). ' y£, nrj TOAA.a. , , faint, ri (CTTW.. ev :' oSv ' exn [lipoi. ' -x^^v All the ' «v : I ovv ' Jx*' ' o<'t'&v and the i subs, in this line faintish. fV on stain rrjv T on a stain. y£, ' d.pxq. -Vl^Tj C. -T£tal'. Tf ' -fiddiii c. : tpyov (fidvat & iTO) -TTfts. ' crvi ' -Kpdri] ^■qvwv, ' -cravTO. (fiavai' avTov S> ari)^ Seiijxeda -viSov. ' Xeyef -Tdrreti] ' ovv c. ' ij/i£v. ovKav -(rdav ' -aCra. ' Alyftv. T£. ' -oovcri ' TToAAoi. ' ravTTjj jrAavjjS. aSui'aTOV c. dX.r)Oet. vovv crxeiv ' ovv S irap/ieviSi) [c. ' -Seofiai. i- aKovo"fc> -vos. ' -<)!)a)V. avai ' -Siopov. ' SEMr^at c. -viSov ' Tovs c. aAAovs. ' Aeyot -viSrjv, -yKTj (j)avai -crOai' IfivK- ITT- -devai'' -vos a^A- i/3vk- ... ...T-g ov- = a line with t- opposite. -Tep neat dark on •fJTOl dXXd ' a&Sc tivepyt BVj : on ». airu I 4 <{> O'Vi) : <(> neat dark 8ini : o on * ' |i.^T« eavTy C. ' dWtf evdv : ' exo . oioVTe i(rTiv ecrrttvat ' OTt c Ktvou/xe- -potro. ' aV ' ■jA ( = yap). [vdvTe c iavTov. c. ' eVt JTOu ei^vai : ' opa c. KaraXXoiUXTiv ' aXAapa to-(i)s : p^'jv ev. K1JkA.(}). ' OUKOVV c. -pevov. ' -Kivai c. dvdyKi]. -pevo. ' eavTou" d -crrjKW ' TTOTe e^rt -X^^vttt : ' dfjia/Sov. yiyveTat. ' ovkodv auT(j). C. ' e(f>dvr) : ' dp' ' -vecr^at. -TUTepov : ev T(iy tl yiyverai. ' pi)Sc7ra> Trao-xot, ' TO ' -V(p' to pApt], -val Ttvos eto-t, ' ov; ' -Tturepov, , , faint. avT rh ' oLvtV toO ifit\ ' ri cIt) ' irOTJ 4oTi Tp- ■\iva a large, « on *. tyyiyvopev pvjrtrt -Traxrw. Kip ijSrj eyyiyvtTat : ' Tt ' -trtTat. roirro e Trda-xo'.. ' £"?■ ' avToiJ' )j6j/ ' -vtif &£• e^Q)' pepi;. ' otovre' eo-Tuf apa. ' e^vat Ttvos PARMENIDES. St. ■Kov ' /^epV) ' ; ) > faint. 139 irot iov lov same hand, neat on * ' T(3 -ji-ivov, ' -TTei" ' Tw both I subs. added, yellow, squeezed. , , faint, -o'/ievov. TO ' aXXa ' y£(^a/iev : , faint ' €crTii' : iixj. ' e(TTiv : avTO). ' avT({) ev eii'at: t subs, inserted, B fj.r] SeTTore [pale and squeezed. ' oiJ avTw I subs, added. ' ayei. [in pale ink. ' ovk ovv -pa ' OVT ecTT-qKev. first T has on it SeiJ-rjvTavTOvye, , faint. ' eTCjOft). ' tavT^ [(i added ?) co-Tai* ' 'irepoV avTov. ' TtVi Syj : ' ii;'. £1?;. ' ovKav ' Ktt" ^ fainter. ' ravTovye Itcjom or. I subs, squeezed. C £";■ ' oliKav ' oTrep ktrriv £1/.' oiiycipovi': Tairrbv ' £T£pa), ij £T£- [poi'. ' on ^ is dark at the turn. ov yap : ' icnai. ■trrfKU, ' ilvai. ' erepny d,\X §£. last t [subs, fainter and squeezed. dvai. ' kfTTai eTCpoV ■)j(hadbeen^)ota: dWafji,rjv, ' oiJTW. ' avToj. ovSfdu , and last part of + faint, 1 subs, fainter and squeezed. [ovSi D -Sapy I fainter and squeezed.' hepov. ' Tavrhv ' ovx'>j,Tr(p , faint. ' V(TI?. TavTOVi ' ovKtiru Sav Tavrhv ytvqrai [, and last ' faint. Tij) ' aAAa ' TttDTOl' ■y£VO/X£I'OI'. (rdai ' Tau- -(f>epei' o7roT£Ti Tavrhv kyiyvero. a'la, [has been del, changed on a * E iv ravTov : ' TO ' TavT&v to-Tai. . faint. p. 14. kvl, , faint. ' etVai" ' ravTov : ravrhv ' ovTav avrif. last ' blurred. k(TTai' ' -fwiov oiirav anTw. ' TavToi' ' -6hs, ofioiov : latter [part of +and , , faint. 140 €i'?i9, ' '/)P0-n', ' roA'TnV -Xapyp', ,,,, [faint. Tub. TTOllkV AUd Tb» o4to» ^orTi : irdvw avTu I oirb* 8v tlvoi : 4o-Tti gap. -K£V' [first T. oi'T i. ' ovSc ' -povyere TO ev- ^ darker. ' ovrm, ' efvat. -66s, ^ , faint. ' -Aov. ' t'-q. -T > > [faint. ' roughish. -^«. ' hi- • faintish. oijv : ' firiv, , fainter. A stain on otj/, irws and -q at end of lines i, 2, 3. ib-OTTjTos' eX"- ' Z*^'' eo-Tat, , faint. ' eivai' eX««i', T(p ' -Tepov , • faint. •repov ' Ti/v ' TO ?v' ' ouTij) traces of. ap' TtvtDv ovv line orig. ? ' to-ov olJKoCv ' accident. ' under [the"' ye t. -TTovdf ' ev. ' 1) ev The last ev and its [stop resemble evi -vara : ' apa Tavrhv. ev. ' dpa c. elvai. ' eavT(^ : c. ovk eoiKev : c. ' ye. OVT(l)(i) c. yap- TO ' aAAov. b aAAcp. ' TavT& eu. (OS eoiKev. ' -dbs. ' eariv. avT(^ C. ' erept^ : c. ' o{! ' ctv()/iOiov erepc^D c. ' eavrijJ ov. ' to-- ' d'vicrov ccrrar ' eauT^ c. ' aAAo) : c. ' irij: to-- n-jj: begins a line — 'A^ in margin, ov. Tcov C. ai5rci)v c. ' i'cro -q : ov. ' ^. TWV c. ' -TOVa)V, c i^ec' -p,eTpov. t(oi'C. juev ein/^ei'curs. -TE^COV. T(3v C. Se ' OVKOVV avTov. ' t(ov c. avTiov : c. dSvvaT: i'cr- ' apa. avTuv c. ' OVKoCv to-ov avrw ' patched .'' TO irapa- _ orig. r ttotJ ' to-ov t£ 8i irp- ' Tf|V aJTu ' to-(5T- ov. ' -Toviov. ' perpiav. eUtj' ' ecnai. p.eTpa : ' eh), icr- ' t<^ c. /xeTpi^' writing in pterpa and p-eTp(^ partly cursive. eij>a,vrj' 'icrov Ty avro IJ,eTe\ov. ' -Awv. ' -ytuv. p.erexpv. ' irore dcr&tKev ' tcrov. aAA^* ov8e c. ' -TTOV. ouv. ' 6c ' - (ijTepov. J TW ' eTvai : Tt Sjj Ixov. f) eavTt^ C. t) aAAij). ixro- W6r- ' oSv : -Oe^er ' -yo/xev. t'croT- -cAeyojitcv do. avicroTJjTos c. ' -X". elvoi-87 last (=o4SJ) on ». gap oSv C. ' ea-rat tivos ' elvai. c. TiJ ' -Sap.Z'S : c. ' dp'av ' -repov ye tJ) ' a«T(S had been ' cv. ' aiiTcJS c. To'iropdTrav _ orig. ? aAAi^ ; C. ' dp ' SvValrav 54 PARMENIDES %\. Tub. p. \6. yoiv, , fai liter. ' ttij. -i} ' XP'^^"^' rb' 4^ -ixBai : ' olv, avTov ' orig. ? B -Tepof -/x€vov. ' -I'tTar [on*' wSe idarker. iX^tv, ' Hm Acyets : 11 same ink but irws \iya% : «8€ ' -pov, , fainter. ' -a-dai. ovTOi' ' ttvai,' ' -voTos. -vevaf erep ' -crPai -AovTos. ' -fj-evov, ' Actv ' -opov ' KT^at. C yoi/o ai* : ' -repov. ' vfoore ' faint. ((TtIv ■fiiiioV dvdyKi], dXka ' ^povov, urov 'fainter.' elvai' ■vivai gap [for sense ? resumes o<(t€(iA- altered o5t€, Xti, o<)t« on < is put a pale '/' brrX (i). -vci'at. D ea-Tiv (OS , fainter. Tov ' -Twv, , fainter. ' rjXiK- -x«'v a/ia, , fainter. ■Xapii^v, .ink?' £vt, ' -judrajv. ovSev -eo-Tiv • on a scr. [ijv, ' -yove, ouKOXii/ 6i}. oiiri irort ' o^Wjv irork ' oilr'JirtiTO t. iv. ' €ijj ; 17 , later. ' -kt]. ' XP°''V- OVKOIJI' -TE/30V. ' -repov : -jxtvov. ' -rep ' -verai. exeiv ' Trpea-fS- ' &Sf -cfiopov lower half 6ai- [of ;8 patched. voTos. -vevat' -A.oi'TOS. ' -ixevov. ' -vivai c. -Xeiv. ' TTcoTo Sidopov. ' -a.vuri : , and the other fainter. OVKOVV ' eo-Tiv. ovTa. ' : , very faint. <|SwaToo4v' ovKotv SO orig., [but altered. loTi I xota iro- r\ OV. ' dXXiiix€v. ' (jxxvy' OVKOVV ' ecTTiv. ' avTov. ovTa ' raiJTa. NOTES. /16V, oZv, , very faint. ' ivbs. ' av ' Taurbv €i'i ovyap eK€iv7; -tria ovoai' ' cv, , A,«y€iv eivai. Kai tvev [faint. 5e. ' -Seo-is €t ev eiTt ' -I'ttv ' tv toTiv aAAoTt ' eoTi apa o5v, aAAo. ' to tv, , , faintish. eireiSavTi crvA- ' eiTrg i Subs. seems squeezed in afterwards. ' tv la-nv -. -{l€V ' loTiv. ' -j, , faintish. ' okov ' ovrb- finpia, ' oSv, , , and the other faint. TOUTUJ'' ' -pov/xev' ■q ' oAov fiopiov, [seems a faint * at ' on oA,ov e'o-Ti ' ev + latter part fainter — hesita- [tion between text and ivy. o3v ' toi5t(ov, ov -ov : 1^ TO ' ovKav eirj TraAiv Tub. &pa oIovTC oi\'oUvT(: 2nd ' added.' oSv oiS'ttv 2nd ' added. KoXtv, tv ends page, v added later: orig. «"•? 4irTiv' cltvCvTi last' had been'? oiKoSv ' (o-Ti h> : dvd'YKTi : last : crowded i eiTTti'; apa ovKovv ' av. en ' av ijv. ' ova-La- ouSaf ' (V. "Xev aAA,o/i- ' -\iyeiv. ' eivaf Kal it C [?v X^YOjicv ' la-n- SiSt : A rh iim : later ? ' rh •6i(TlS (I fv Tl' -VilV. aXkii fv OTTiv ' p.iv ovv : both c. ' ovkovv dpa ' a.X.Xo. ' tv. -pwov. ' Tts ' ev k(TTiv : keytafiev ' eo-Tt. ' -crtTai; ' ovv ovk -dvTiv. ' -V€tV irGs: SSf ' otti. ' lv&s(ecurs.) '' -ytTar d [ ] contents omitted. no repetition here. T& dpa itvaij , added. fi ' -p'iov (2nd) irpospijT^ov : ' ItrrXv ' ivf\ altered [later " " . evhs' itTTl St TO eV' ' -VOV o5 -jxeOa tov ci'os oVtos. apa avTo p,6pia' TO, ' oiv. cKOLTepo twv c. TOVTWV C. ' -pOVjJLtV. ' pOpiOV apa c. eo-Tiv tav ti' g &pa T& ' OVK&V 01/, , fainter. The olv at end and the (irx- 1 t^ [of of next line on a stain. aiel oTi Trip [and on * -Toi* -T ovx'Siov re : 2nd [line 25. added?' -(7t7o;'. apa fiTj : commas — fainter, latter had been a period. -dp-ov , ' oVTa, ' -yitTjTaf commas fainter. oiSevos [mas famter. ovrap TTws ' & )M &ir- |ta wide -p«" [on a ♦ oWto-a " retouched. ofiT( TO (v erased) ' -uroCo-- irapjl -fitVOV. .1 oiv oTiye fiopia. irf- tv [faintish. — -a:' /ifiv,' -«x°»') ' «"/; commas — ov. ' icrri ttov koI {dots ink ?) TroXXd' ' tvTi{a-ri oAov. ' -pta' -pa at end, and a, 1. 2 on stain. -(s) : c. [' on last otti = ace? c ahv ' ta-TiVTi aUTWv c. o ecrTt ' oiVia?. -/oos : ' dWewtiTrfp ye otjuat aiti SxTiTtp ' ^. ' iiifSiv 5e. pxpu. TrpoarecTTi rh eV /xepovs. apa ' ov. ' OTTtv. r) oAActSpfc) Kat opw. ' apa oAoi'- ' TTOV (so my notes). jifpuTi irapia-Tai. c. ' -ottov. -j : ' -pov, , , fainter. -pOS» icTTlV ' ■KT], auTcu OVTOS. [fainter. TauTov , , ai- and if [on* -Aov, ' -f Sa[' ' -Tov' -T^* ' eli'ar £V, ev' apa. apa (is eoiKfv [e(mv ' -Tos, D GUI'- ei TOV tI ' and commas fainter. ' ia-Tiv ' evhs, ' to several aces, and breaths., as well as commas, fainter. Srj- ' fainter. ' tav- apa ravTuv ' TTore irorl TttDTiJ) ' -Taf ovSeveo-Tt F. eo-Ttv ' cir], ivT^ , fainter. TavriJ! ' -pov tariv. (V ' «v 417; ' ovyap -irovOc : ' &ir- £S( )t1^8'2T(pOV rb I avTou " patched ' cotCv : ovSSpa avTov " patched Apa avToC irpbs io.vT6 [cavroS ' fivTOS tC Sk I {T^pv7oi • -(j>£vY- ' dXXA erepia. r) eTcpov ev TaVT^J C. iroTe etvat: ravT^ C. prjSeiroT' eWat. ovSev eoTt ' -pov. ' etij. ev T$ [ovTtuv c. ' -TtpoV OVXOVTO) \ OVTO) : t5v c. Iv «It) ' ev. evt etTj ov [oi^oLp T^ c. kripvyoi ' etvai c. dAA'^Awv : eK<^ last Kpatched — had begun <^? NOTES. 59 ?iv dAXojrg * on ?v before ^v fainter fy gap. ov^v ' Ta/iJj ' ovSeyap ' ij V [twice, -iracriv ' ovyap ' Sai"(*) ' tvbj' apa «rnv. ^ Kav ' « v : [, , fainter. -Tjj, ' km ' ec ' firj- ev ' eii). ' oAoy, fiopiov twice. - and -o ending 11. I and 2 on a stain. -pia' ' oka' -X I _ , . i /, . I YjTTOV : Tt -yap '• —"" "" ""-"^ erepov ' t(ov c. TavTcJv ' -Atov. -Aois. TaAAo -vov ti ' -ToV 6fioCu)S : [o^K oBl' C. aio-dvT(i)S. ovi'' ' rj oTra^ : ovV ' eiirrj's. rovvofia- eav -Aaxts ' cKtivo' ^ ' avra^, TavTo ' -^y. ' crcTavTo ' a,et : : , differs. ' ot'ov -yjj- ' -ira^, ' -kis. ' -Aij), ' -AoTt tSA- * patched ' tvhs. ' to ' -Awi'- -t£S. ' -Aoj, ' -yo/iev Towoynaj ' ^ ' ev, , , differ. ToA-' Ivbs, fcaTciTavTO eTcpov -^£vai, [ovKaAAo. , , differ. Ttturbv -ov ovx' : ' 4 ' patched ? dAAa ' T^ 6pot(j) ' oSv ' dark. dAAapi)v, ' -d.vr)-' (v. oWcp ioTi Tivvo|ia- 2nd ' patched. ' ael : [«»» Tivf ' Srav 8Tav TitXXai tJ. I St. tireKtCvT] Tovvoiia : roXXa ' (in marg. later hand gives irfirovBw elvoi) &8€-' Tuv c. -jUaTcov c. ' KaAci?: -lyuye: y again, smaller. Marks the stop to which a — refers in marg. ? oSv ' -KIS. rj oLTra^ : oSv ' etVgs. -vo/ia' -Kis. ot5ic eKttvo" 17 oixl; Mater' t^&i^ airaVTWv. Tb er- dXXo (I ends line. ,. I TaiiTo V : row- rav- ttXXd' Tb €V tovt4v : ' Tovv- ' iirri o^Kouv ' irepov ' rtvt : -yif ' -Kts. ^ -feis, ^ K«tvo «Tepov' TaAAa' Ivbs" ' ToJv c.aAAtui'.c. -T£S. ' aAAj;. ' alel -fteV -vou,a : ' ■^ ' «T6pov Toiv c. aAAtu TaAAa ' £vbs. KaTttTaiTO krepov irt- '48 TTov^evat. aAAo. In outer marg. faint and careless n-tn-ov^ev «vai TavTciv -6'bs, -o. ovxt:' aAAttivC. ' ervai.C.KaTdwb yap. -TUV C. dAAijv' ofwio. tZv C. dvop.oiW C. -TlOV : (not TV -Ol'v) ' OVKOVV ' -pov. TV avlif : ' -V)J. ' TO Iv TOis. '-" Tai^r" [by same hand in margin, 60-Tiv. ' Tb av- ^ (10 PARMENIDES. ■T;* ' tTtpov j) aparavrhv. ' rovv- dvoiioloxT « aparavTov. C -Aots' »}»/xei'eT€/30V. opLowV rj»Se TavToi'. dv- at beginning on stain. Tiva : ^ ( " darker) ravrhv TTiiTovdi, ' Tub. irdvii'Y« : ^yi ~ dark. ^' ' added. ' tovv- ' added. -6*6$. ' -[JLOIOV /X'^ -^€1/. -Xofor' ' ov. 5e .ink?' ^. ["dark. Tat»TovT£. . ink ? avoiioiivTat ov later ' iifends [line. -K« ifiiXKo ' dark ' i ends line. ' xar'aii- and ' [added and so line 9. D Kai ' OVKOVV t. -Xois. ' erepd' ' Twv c. ' -repov. •avr) : ' ravrhv. ' evTai. T& TavTol', ' ry C. €Te/3<;J : C. -repov. ofwio' ' tovtov. 5^ i)v. -yoiro, -(T0ar ' av. TO ' avrovn ' or '? patched. ' aTrroi Sal(^t)rrjSe' ap' ' rivoi' -vifi, ' aTTTicrdai, fSpa 'ij ° " differ. ' to iv apa ■crdai. ' c\op.- -vqs. y I dark and crowded in : ' [yap " seems orig. 149 -(Til e V av ravra. ' <5av ' fV. ovyap ' (vl, ' thai. , . fine and dark. tC S) irapiv, ' a-Oar ' ov. tlvai, ' -dOac (Tvai. (ist) ' tav B Hipoiv, ' c^ i}* ' ^""'■ni' a»£i ' -p^vov ■vcrai' jua ' co-ai' ' Tap ' 6i;o, {) " later ? ' dv •?iM * later ? airov rb !v avToS t1 ' 4ir- r( S( TT|S<. ttpa ov a '/■ almost hid in in. marg., no note. -Spav* K&v |ter' {k<(vi)v i) ISpa, fj &v K<^Tai &irr Mark = a, or only a stop cancelled? /loioi' a\'^s : c. ovkouv ' iv : -A.ots. rmv c. ' iavrif' C. Twv C. ' -XbiV. ' -crdaf ' ar. ?v. ' Ttuv c. rySf dp' ' Ttvos, -vo>' ' fSpav Kar€)(ov eSpa. ' -Ttrat : ' apa Kfiadai -fiys ev jj' 5tt yap oCv : ovkouv ' tr. dAXovSe ' Twv c. dXA.- OTi apiv ' a^avBoA, ' ov. [civai : c. «rvaf ' oTTTfcrSaf' avTwv c. ' /i«o'<(», ' dA.t'yio-TOV «vat. ' t^vai ; c. opoiv. ' -I'jjTttf t^iji ' tcTTat. 8vo : alfi ' -pivov. -yvtrac ' t<3v c. dpiOpMV. c. e^vaf ' -rijo-t Twv o^^- -dubv, 21. NOTES. Tub. 61 t. t(ru I -OiJ-hv, d„el (oTui aid i; : ' ovKovv a/iei/ ' e^/fts. avToC. ' aAAa ecmi' : ' tv apa, (v I la-a ' -tfos, l; ? drrjv, oi'Ttye. eiT7]V. av. ' avTov iv iir) ; 84 JXoT- fine. dv, ' -ovoiv, , , fine. p. 25. -viDV, ' aiJTOv -A(tfV" ' iirov ' TavTa : n'ois : lo-Tt ' nov. ' -rpu)v. ' /ae on Stain. icTov. ' Tavra : io-ov. ' -Tpwv, , faint. D irAetdvwv, , faint. ' OVT^- ' -Tpiiiv. aury W7-0V ouTy Stn-Aeov ' 6e. ' avTov : eXdrra. 8oik« : rb ' Icr- aijToi had been ' Icrov. to-us &v avTu Soil : to-ov avTov had been ' Xxrovai- TTOV" t : eoiKev : C. ecTTiv ' Tu)v c. ciAAcov : c. KTOV. auT$ C. ' -Aois. ' -Tpiov. irm 8' has been r-oxro and '' put above [o, ends line. ' h-wv Upa euj. ' TQ)V c. dAAtoiv c. ' urov. ' !rd)S : ecTTtv. ' -rpiov Kal -TOV, mravTt)^ ' tcrov. ovKovv ' -f^ ' «rov A eAaTTOV avT(p" from aT tO av a ftait scraped, v very faint. ' -Tptov ' irmS (as above c). auTij). TTAqU auTiJJ £6)J Sc. TrAeov cAaTTOvtov C. 5e c ' atVc i . 3(. -TaXXa ' iv. -vcTai ■ •Tepov. -Tov ' wrov -dii, "** av (OS ioiKt TO ei'. ' itrof auTOU 5p' " dark, patched ? ' e v, ' Io-ti ' aAAcdv, {-yviTM, -Tepov twice. ' -TOV, ' -Ao)V, irais : ' li/ e Srj aC ixreoiKCV TO Iv. Kal icro n a#€i in the two : the , differs from -TOV. ovi', -pxda- afrri rX ' rflv fiXXuy t!ir- &p' ' loTiYc -p• OVTOU Kai rZv c. aAAoJV ; c. riav c. aAAui'. c. sra>s: ' -x«t. ' ei'tcTTt: ' patched. ' etVot. aAAd Ti icrrlv ' -tos. -VTOS ' neTe-)(€iv ' &p' ' vcatT^pov [Hghter. vvv ' -i'bv, ' ex^'- e.v. ' -fiivov, viyvotTo : ' meant ? -pOV av TOV, OVTtO; ' -Tipov, ap' , , eoTof [dark. ' ov ' «7r£iTo, vTrepl3t-rfl-cro.i junction at » af> o5v. OVKflTl(T\f.l -Tvxg* ' -yverai.. ' totijS); -Tepov ' ya/3. KOI^OTS ' ,■•' -vov ' -/xevov, -VOV ' -TO. TO, Wl-'' 2? "»«' -yv£(r^af ' tovto oti apa ' T&, vvv. •yvecrdar ' : ; finer. ' eoTtv ' avTov; , finer. • , finer. eoTi TtJ ev. vvv, d^eV -TOS. d»et twice ' eo-Ti I darker, -yvsTai, ' -TOV, eoTiv, ' -yveTai. ^ first half of added?' utov.tcv. Traces of on 40-01' tv/ice. urov xpovov, ' ov ToSeTT/v ' EX"*"- ' -Tepov -doTOS' ' -via: ' neTe)(eiv' -vov. etvai : c. ' ovkovv ' alel TrpoepxeTai dp' ' -p,e9a ' -ftevov. -pov'TTpetr^vTep ' ovkovv -T(p ' €1/. -TOV. a» TOV ' added. ' dp' o4x' Brov [last ' added. iirfppo^- 1 ov oCk 4ir- ' -Sfiv dXX' Ko-Tt) 7 on a stain. OVKOVV ovirepie- Tovrtir- -|ievov : gap. •verov Kal t6 * tv itpa" Srav ' to vvv ktrliepi- -Tepiit V. -vov. TOVTt 6e c. y« vvv -juev > I KaraTovTo jj. ' D p. 26. apa OTttV ' Tw vvv' £7r£o-X£v -Tepov : ' OVKOVV ovirep -Tepov. -Tepov. evKf ( large on * -Tip XiytiV ' ToAAa ' tvh^ ' iariv. aAAo. ' -pov^ Ivos"' av. ' iripa ovra, eriv c. dAA(DV c. -pevitiv. OTi ' ffposyt- oiji* -Xnov tiXov tv ' ■■"■"• «P' irOat. dp' ' eTTEtTa. VVV ' : , finer. ' Iv ' eo-tiv ' lo-rai. [xat KoX on brown blots. tm Kal to^rai' vuv. ' (iiv ova-iav. B -Act, ov ' -fiivov twice. ' dp' " thick, £v, ' -AwTof ' -Aa, [patched. Kot* TToAAci- dp' ^ of" darker. ' -K-q- /cat ji-iiv, av' -Tar' TE, ' : ,, fainter. dv p,€t(ov. ' -Tov ' uTov ' darker. ' C uTTrjrai- ' eo-t&s' [te, ' -vtiv, -Xrf ' jTou, ' : seems uniform. trpoTepov. ' -irdai' -/iEvoy. ' lo-Tavaf ' -Xuv. -SeIS EO-Tll', - Si &p' ' rb iv a^Uv dp' I Srav iv iroXXd clvai dir^Wirrai : gap Kal ' dp' TC . . . -o-9ai ; written twice, dotted, later' Ka<|ii)v 8Tav Ur- 1 to-- o&rus Srav (so twice)' to-raroi. |jiCTaPdXT|. ' p.i)8iv irrhi io^dvai ■ -VEiv. apdyt ov -crOai c. -Aeis : -6ivov [part of T small on * -fiara, , fainter. ' ev.' SaiTois at and -Aois, ' io-TLVtSp' ^ of* darker, corn- s''' ( dark on * liv. . altered to . ' av(S|i- 67 t. ap' oJv to-Tt TO aroro ' ttoio 5^ : -n/S' ' -i»j^s. roiovTOVTi. eotiKt -v«v. -Tepoi'" ' -£KTt ' -vat, -Aei. ' -eretus. ' -A«t. ' -fSaXXy has been -/Saii;, altered 157 [at once ? ' eTvat. ' -a-dai, -^v Ttvwi' -creav' Kal ' lo-Ttv totc. ' -rtv -AuTttt : ' Aoyov. ((piV oAAd" ldivov ovT€ ' -xev : -para, ' ?v. ' Tt 8i -X«v ' ((TTiV dpa c. ' -Ttov : -Ttov; 5»; ' -Ti. TaA- ' -6ivai '■ T&XXa' ' added. ' -x""' ''^ ■ .1 eo-Tt I -. ' -pUf ' ev. ' e oSv Tots [on * ( Tg is at foot, s inner, f. 177.) (v lav- SkavrCiv ipva-is, KaOtavra Aij at be- air- ' Ka8'eav- ginning and toI aAA of next line on stains. TOO evos. ■trov eirj aV (V. TaAAa ' Iv&s. ' ov yap icrriv. ' -piov, ' -ovra, -yKi) Sirj S.TreipaTrX.rj6ei «?vat. avrd evcis : irtos : (SSt etSwixiV aXXori ' ov- evhs. ' -fiavd. ' -/3dvei : [ra OVKOVV c. ' ovra ovv ' trQv c, roiovrtov c. -o-/t£v. oTi oAtyio-TOV. "Xoi. ' o^KOUi' [xa^avTijv atel o-KoxoCvT"!' * ' strong, diff. ink. ' -Sous. ' aiei -/lev. -o"Tov fiopiov ye •vrjrai, ' oAo ■ -fiaivti' ' -Tiov (LcreoiKev. ev avrots. avTUvc. ' Ka^lauTa.dn-etpiav: ' -race. ei/ds, ' oAa* ' -pta, airupari tcrrk. KOTcl acc. orig. ? ' irtp ends [line. = ir^pos ? K re, -[loia, eo-Ti, commas here fainter. ia &v ' avTTaTa ; ' avroit " very Av6|j.oio dv [dark. JoTMTa- "dark patched. T&XXa ' added. ' iv&r t. Spa oi\'b-iTm9 2nd ' added ' fl JOTl. ydp ; Sp' I ri ToXXa Srav rdXXa : ' 4ot\v ToXXa : oil ydp : £pa ; vaC : otrfUpa -\b>v.' exv: -tSA.- ' Ivos" TaXAa OTTtV TaAAa" -Aa" ' oAov ' TaA- ' Ivos. fivo" ' rpia' ' aura etrrt ra aAAa" Iv IcTTiv ' a^Tois. ' -T^XU ' squeezed. [Final ov on a stain. apa. ' -fioia' ' aAAa' -TTJS* Et eij;. ' -Ta" 8vo -Tois, , fine. Svoiv dots very fine. ' -x*'". ' M^' Ixii ' ovSevX Ta dXXa ToC Ms' ■Saix-q ' rdWa iarrXv oiSi [Ik- oSv' ovSttpa' rdXXa' {vYapfjv (no oTin. in marg.) {rrV T&XXa oiS'&pa 2nd ' ad. ' roXXa* tv iirnv •' •viloXTiSi) : oiS^Tcpa' tcra. [TptSv IMvji. ' Ivbs' " = ' cancelled eo-Tiv I re* ,•1 ev. ' e(TTi' ' TaAAa etev ' ev. ' ap' acc. patched ? ((TTl" {avTo« V erased.' rddWo otv cl S« (iV) co-Ti ' &p' -Tov, ' -X*"'. « /"jSerSs -xoi : ovt' avo/i- ' -T£pa, TaAAa' yap av ov- -p,oia. ev ' -xoi' -ra. ' -Tiotv. ' Sc. d^vvarov \-Ta- Sapa ' -Ta' ovSerepa' ' -p,€va' oi5Se c. ' ■jxeva' ' -[i,eva' 0V7 fiei^oi, ovSiXdrro), ' •6ev Twv C. ' ToioiJTcav C. ['era. -Aa. -^£1 ' p£T£X«V. eVtiv. ev. Kot ovSe ev ecrri. C. ' TaAAa /tev c. ovv : c. £t£v ev. ap 70 PARMENIDES. SI. Tub. TOUTO €<7Tiv apart fir) ev. opa irji kiyei ' ouKouv c. Aeyei twI' c. oA.A C. dp' rif c. ' f Zvat ; n-ws : t'lj. ' -vos" ovSav -/Ta : oiJ/c ' -flos. -T7JS toTiv ' oCcra : , small fine. ovTi. aweoiKtv ' P'trlrj, , small fine. try I ' Set, ovrus. ' -fi€V tx>j. ' -/ias, (T at end on a stain. -Ot}- ' -/i£V ij ' of " dark. ' -t T&XXa ' I- to-aoiKilvura ; ' S'&vura ' ir- ' -10-- [-KTO : -i; written [twice. •rii ToB no note m marg. olv Set [|i<| 6v Jx» H 'I*" -Ta. ' ttrTi(v) c. ev : ' to-oi/. a/oa ' rakk' [the , is later. icra. ' - ■ye eo-Tt. t • 'I ' eo-Tt -KpOT, J -Kpor aUl d., [ , differs. -d*|j.cvoi i(m (fiafiiv. St&v ' ilpa <\ £t&v ft ovZiitri ' oiiv : on fl. IJTb E ovSapy- two dots very fine. - tC Tlj) TU)V C. OVTWV C. -T £lVat : C. ov. ' oSv : c. -ToiJ. ' jxrj ov IvOS. ' -TOIJ" -Tai" -Tai" ' -vet. dp' ' -Tov. dyeiv ' -^ov. ' apa •K€v ' ea-TTj- ' -V£tTat : c. ' /i^v -Tat. ' auT^ c. ' -^27. -TO . tacrav- e)(ei, cus ei)(ev. oAA ovTu : £V. ' -pevov. ' av 2/ /i£v ' £V. -Tai j; -VElTai" c. ' ov. -ovTai : ' -vov, apa C. -pov. -crdai c. ' -£(D9. -vov ' -frdai. : c. ov, ' /i£V. ' -Taf Se, 0UT£ ' out' ' OVT(D C. O on * ' OV. -Taf ' out' d?roA.AvTa{ : c. ov yap : Liapev c. TTaXiv. -voi. vCv. ' £T£pa:' ovKOvv' ea-riv. aptv -pev dpa prj dXXo ti -V£t. TovTiji c. o av ' -vat : oSv ' Tl. JTois OVK ' aWO' JTUS -vac' d5rA,ws, -V£i" EtTTtV. I ov : (Tias -X£' : 2?- -V£tV -TIV. ovT dv Xap^ ovre dpa c. eTretSr] ' ea-Tiv. ' T£0V. ' T£OV apa £tvai ov -Tai' £V ' T I op -Taf -pev. -T^s, ' a^Tw c. ' at£i £?vat : C. ' auTW c. ov. ' 7roT£ -vat. eO-Tt ' TWV C. dXXuiV C. ^StJ ' TOVTO NOTES 73 -6or -Kpdnjs' ' ka[x.lv 8d^£t€v avTois iXiov, ' avTbi/, ' -X^*"- (no ev) ef^'af c. ' -rhv c. tSv c. Sfiv: -A(of C. •T$ tI ' ainov ' avTov. -pas, a,£i Aa -votjt OV a»£i X^. ' -iVTrjV. ' -£VT»7 -T£po TciTOV ftecrov (TjJ,iKp6T(pa, Siaro 5ij ot)xat ' -vov» avayxj/' iravTO dv. dcVso. ' BTdvrCsXa-lso. won* Xeiv TT) 8iavo(a ws tCJ alcl ivTC -pa StaT^ Ivos: -vov : dva^KT] : ' rh ■r'&v : one ' seems added. >65 OTt C. at£t -Twv c. ot'ovtis Aa- -vot^ ' -Tiov C. dv. ' -X^JS. oAAtj ai£i B 'XV' ' T))vC.T£A£VT^V. ' -TTj' ' T$ C.[ie(raC- •alve- (next line). -crdai, : dvdyKrj ; ' o^ii voorvrt. -vai. ' Iv [aretpa is loosely written oi -Ttt" ' -Aa* eKOXTTa : c. xa aA- first a of M -e< 'ai. ' iaC- ' ovv oirro- had been ' foTUT had been ' some stains on i88 scraped, [but text clear. IITJ loTl. T&X- oiKovv ' T&XXa : T(j>, eo-Ti eoTiV -crp-o,' ovyap ' opa et /j.'q ottiv B er^af ' tvos, jiT) iCTTtv. TaAAa o^TE (crrtv. Iv, ' ojMia' ye. ovSerepa' ' -jueva' -pis' ' -Aa. ' -fiev [ . ? ' aAAo, ' eo-Ttv: auTa TOVTOiv, ovrerC ottii' , had been C -juev £ curs. ' OTT6V, ovSev ia-Ttv. -iroi/ievj ' TOUjTOTE. ' OTl {koI c. £iT£ £o-Ttv, ' eo-Tiv' ' TaAAa, ' awa, o48'ov 2nd ' ad.? oik' ivtm T&XXa : T&XXa ovScvl ' oiS^Ti ovSi ydp avojxoLa. ' fivaL : /lev. ' -fieva, Stye. ' -pa' -//.aTi. ' eavTOis : O/lOt'oDS C. ' -KODS. ' iavTOis -XiaV c. ' -vovs' ' -TtuV C. -trets" ' -Tas iravra^y, -vovs' ' -fifvovi. c. ' jXTfjS'iTepa. -ra' ' -^etv, euttetIs ij/tiv ^5?;. ' -Ao -^dvTES ETTt Ti^v dpxTjv. [e(rTt(v) : c. -Tiv. aAAa ' cv. Eivai : c. ovKOvv ' lo-Ttti c. TaAAa : oS(rt. EMj ' ev ecTTtv ev. ' oijSav -Aois. ' TaAAa : -Aa : ' TaAAa -T(ov c. ovSevt. ' -/xws. ovSep.iav ' £X£'' TOJV C. ' OVTU)V C. ' TuJv C. ' -T(f -TIV ovydpoCv : tv dpa ' ccrri iroXXd: I St 4i Kinjcrews, and how are we to advance downwards from it to concrete things? What constitutes existence ; has it phases ; and are these represented by ujrap^ts, rrpooSos, eTruTTpo((>q ? Do we ever really attain to the aTropprfros dpxrj and drrXios tv, or do we stop short at a lower, more concrete, phase of each? How know to Trpo kavrov} At what point in development does vovs, and with it yvZa-L^ appear — 6V, fw^, vous? — or is yvoio-is even further removed from the ttjowttj dpx'^ ? Does knowledge not involve division, as opposed to simple oneness? What is [leOe^i^, and what is comprehended in to /xiktov? How things go in triads — eTvai, 0]v, yL-yvcoa-Keiv—fiovq, TrpooSos, iTrt(rTpoTq — aKtvijTov, avroKLvqrov, erepoKivrjTov — (rT0t)(iia, p.€pr], ttSr;? How the last triad stand related ? What is the relation of oXov-jxeprj, 'iv-iroWd, iroXXd-a-Toixeta and the like ? How the order of development is evds, ova-ta, fwjy, vous, ^vx^j, o-w/iaToetSes dirav, to which series, excluding the first, correspond to dSiaKpnov, SiaKpLv6fi.evov, BLaKiKpip.ivov, avroKivrjTov? Whether i^vxv is one, or as numerous as bodies? How «V produces not ev but 7roAA.a; and how there are both dp.WeKroi eraSes, and fvaSei which are {JLtTcxop-^vai by all the grades of existence just specified? How (apparently) a process ideal moves pari passu with a process phenomenal? How vov tSiov 17 eVto-Tpo^j; ? Whether the dpxrj must not be in fact complex if it causes the complex? What is the character of x/^o^os and duav (discrete v. continuous?), of to vvv and to dei, and how o Xpovos /te/jif" TV^ yevea-Lv? 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. The Title has been already discussed. The Trpayp-aTiuSri for the usual -TutiSr)-. and e.g. 8%st. j^e:, spelling iropntveCSris is used throughout the dialogue side by side with TrwOdvu on this page. Cp. Plato except in one case (131 b) where the i is on a himself, Crat. 418 b. The forms u <. trace their scratch. Cp. 127 c, /cepa/ictK^- where the «t is origin to different sources in different words, and patched, apparently by the first 'hand : also 137 b, may have been difi'erently treated by later writers 75 76 PARMENIDES. in consequence. But there is 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 Grie- chischen, 1888), p. 58, says: Diese Schreiber des 2 Jahrhunderts [b.c] wussten durchaus nicht mehr, wo sie t und wo sie ei setzen sollten, sondern schrieben, Ei/dis, T£t/xas [for ''I/ats, n/xas], und wie- derum'ira/3a/iivaT(i) und if/3ts, etc. Again, Meister- hans (Grammatik der Attischen Inschriften, 1888), p. 30, says : Dieses «i nimmt dann in der romi- schen Zeit, wie verschiedene Versehen in der Orthographie zeigen (Atyi's, 'Epex^'^j Oin's, x"^" AiSt^s, AtTovpyta), die Aussprache t an. Gleichwohl ist die gewonliche Schreibweise, wenigstens bei den Eigennamen auch in der Kaiserzeit, die mit £( (xoAXei'Srjs). 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, Kcos ju,€v /xoi Trarpis larriv, iyio 8' ovojia iJeiK0fji.ri8Tjs. For us the point of interest is — does this spelling indicate that at any stage of its transmission our Platonic text had been written to dictation ? ^K KXato(i€vwv. K\a^o'ixeval.' ttoXls 'I'tovias' says a Schol., t, and Rhunken's collec. Anaxagoras was born here. Stallbaum says fuerunt igitur hand dubie Anaxagorei, and seems to find in that a point specially appropriate. Possibly. Yet per- haps the town is mentioned merely to give an air of reality to the work. Cp. Ion 530 a, Tov "Iwvft \aipuv. TTodev TO. vvv riiuv iTTiSeSi]fj.i]Kas ; -q oiKoBev dSei.|idvTa> etc. The question of the identity of the interlocutors cannot be clearly deter- mined. Plato's brothers and the Cephalus of the Republic naturally suggest themselves; and perhaps we may claim it so far as an evidence of the authenticity of the work, that the difficulties connected with such an identification must have been present to a forger's mind and yet cause no concern. To go no further — the Cephalus of the Republic is described by Socrates as resident in Piraeus, as an intimate acquaintance of his, and as considerably his senior ; while our Cephalus is now on his second visit (to Trporepov) from Clazomenae, and his own language would convey the idea that he is younger than Socrates. It is objected, too, by Stallbaum, Hermann, and others that Antipho, Plato's youngest brother, could hardly be old enough to have learned the conversation from Pythodorus, a friend of Zeno ; and Hermann assumes a set of three brothers of Plato's mother, called by these names, as the true interlocutors both here and in the Republic. Antipho, the brother of Plato, could hardly have been bom much before 420 b.c, neither could he have learnt this dialogue much sooner than 404 B.C. : so that Pythodorus must have been an old man when the two met. On the other hand we cannot well place the arrival of Cephalus in Athens earlier than 399 b.c, since, had Socrates been alive, the inquiries might have been addressed to him, in which view an older Antipho seems to be rendered unlikely. See Zeller's Plato, and his references : also Stallbaum's Parmenides. For Pythodorus, Proclus iv. 13, refers to Alcib. i. 1 19 a, e'lTre octtis alrlav e\ei Sia ttjv IlepiKXeovs a-vvovcriav aocjiiLTtpos yiyovevaL, Sxrwep eyi) [2a)/cp.j ex"* o"ot £iV«v Sia Tijv ZtJvjoi'OS TIvd6Sii>pov TOV 'l(ro\6)(ov Kal KaAAiav TOV KaAAiaSov, &v CKaTcpos ZiQVbiVt, iKarov p-vas TtAeo-as crotfios re kol (\X6yipos yeyovcv. HOD Xapo|jiEvos T. X. Does.jitov depend upon the par- ticiple 'taking me by the hand,' or the noun 'taking my hand ' ? For the former we have Laws i. 637 c, Taxi" yap (TOV Xd^oiT av Tts Twv Trap' rj/jLtov d/xvro- /X6V0S, although the sense of the verb is different. Parallel passages are Charm. 153B, Xatpe!ov Se, . . . edei Trpos yn«, /cat p.ov Xa/Sopcvos Trjs xeipos, w Sco/cpaTts, 1} 8' os; Rep. I. 327 B, km pjov ottiitBiv Trals Xafiopevo'S tov IpaTiov, KeAeijei vpM'S, £<^)j, where oTricrOev seems to be the adverb, as dvadev in v. 449 B, Xafiopevoi Tou Ipa-TLOV dviadev avTOu, although here the pronoun depends upon the noun. But Cratyl. 429 E, gives o?ov tt tis aTravr^cros (Toi iirl ^ivia'i Xafiopevo's tjjs x^'P''? f'l'of which makes for the view that Aa^. t-^s x^'pos 's a phrase. We have no means of translating neatly the force of the aorist in these cases ; ' after taking ' ' having taken ' are too formal. We do not usually associate this form of greeting with Greek life ; da-ird^eo-dai, as in 127 A, is more common and more suggestive of southern feeling. ct TOV ... BvvotoC, It seems to be accepted that TOV and &v are neuter. Yet ti tuv TiSt is a peculiar NOTES. 11 expression, which Ast, Mtiller, and the Engelmann and Didot translators all give loosely, avoiding the plural in spite of nov and pd|e. The use of the present imperative as contrasted with the aorist is said to suggest 'the notion of permanence, as in general precepts, advice, rules, etc' (Jelf), but it can hardly do so here. If we are to see any special purpose we must suppose that the explanation by Cephalus will be an act occupying some time : cp. Theaet. 143 c, 'AXAa, Trai, Aa/Sc to j3i/3\iov Kol Xiyi, where Xeye may be taken as present; Phaed. 61 B, Taura ovi', & K., Euv;i'^ fjip^-C^- ^^^ Polit., 263 c, gives <^pa.(Tov B-q fi.01 TO fiera tovto, where time enters more clearly than here. dXXtt ... 4(i»v : We may render thus ' Why in point of fact I am /lere (ye) for this very purpose.' Tovto may be used liere, rather than rdSc, as referring backwards to tov Sey etc. no less than forwards to 8erjo-d/tev'0S ; Cp. apa tovto, 127 E. Stallb. cites Euthyd. 274 A, 'Ett' aurd ye tovto Trapta-fiev, S> 2(u- Kpa.Ti's, (US cTTiSei^ovTe ... , and cp. Gorg. 447 B, 'E;r' avrd yi rot tovto wapwixiv. turov kyia is inserted parenthetically as compared with kol eyw eTirov be- low, which forms an integral part of the narrative. This parenthetic use occurs again in b and c and in the form mep y' eiVov, 128 E. Arthur Frederking ( Jahrbiicher fiir Philologie — Fleckeisen, cxxv.,1882, p. 534 sqq.) treats of this use, whether in the mid. or at the end of a sent., as an evidence of date. While not over confident lie urges that this usage is unknown in Protag., Charm., Phaedo, and occurs only once each in Lysis and Euthydemus, while greater liberty is taken in other works such as Sympos. and Repub. In the Phaedo, he points out, the case is striking, as it is a narra- tive at second hand. Here are the statistics for the Parmenides as far as 137 c, where the con- struction stops : exirov mid. 4 end o th-iv „ 2 ,, I etVeiv „ 8 „ 4 o're/5 y' tlrrov is in- cluded ; (is OTos flirdv not. The number is con- siderable : yet we must weigh the exigencies of the narrative at fourth hand. Plato also requires in the same space a liberal parenthetic use of e<^ij and 4>avai. ecjjij mid. 16 end i Trn, Polit. 283 D. They seem unfinished conditional sentences. Kal iya ... SiaKoOirai : Construc. easy and conversa- tional: 7rahSiirov...avTto Seye- being a parenthesis needed only from a picturesque point of view. The speaker, seeking to strengthen his claim to attention, lets the sentence get so broken up that the important dKrjKoaxri, becomes formally a mere adjunct. Strictly we should have Kal iyi) eurov, oiSe dKtjKoaxni' oVt 6 (iSeA<^t>s vp-Civ 'A.VTL(jiu>v tous Aoyons, oDs ... ?>(,i\ey9qa-av, dTT0pvrj)i,6v£Vii. tovtwv Si6p,e6a SiaKova-ai. Cp.Apol.21 A, where the parts bracketed, although conversationally very natural, really confuse the construction, Xaip€vy€ Trjy y KaTTjXde. Kal icrT£ 8^] oios i^M [Xai/D£<^(uc,] iLs' a-(boSp(y<; £ v/xHiv ; Had Plato said rov d6eA(i)V dXXa So 21 : giving irdvv ye : to Adimantus ; a-uT^ Se ye, which we make interrogative, to Ceph.; and the rest to Adim. This gives excellent sense; but t disagrees, inserting (as the printed texts do) e<^jj after irdvv ye, and giving the whole to Adim. It may be said that the upper point of the second : in 2t is weaker than the lower, ye ... ye = ' ^ui'fe so,' ' And Ms ? ' OXU. The o placed in the margin indicates a new paragr., as S below marks one at toutwi'. iroXiTaC pLoi ... aKT|K(Sa(rC re. So 31 reads: t gives TToXiraL re /xoi, and this or re fiol, T'ep.o\ ( = mei) Tt /not (strangely) appears in most texts. It may be right, yet the t£ may have crept in to balance the following one. If the text is as here given the latter re is an illustration — the only other in Parm. occurring 131 A — of a use which Frederking (as p. 77) cites as a mark of lateness. He counts 200 cases of it in Timaeus — e.g. at the opening, 2J2. ovKovv (rbv TuvSe re epyov etc. — and argues, but with hesitation, that its rarity in Parm. suggests an early date for the work. Cp. on 127 a. iroXXa tvTCTixiK« ' has had many a meeting.' Ast c cites Phaedo 61 C, ttoXXo, yap -^Stj evTervxrjKa tw dvSpt, : and Crat. 396 d, ewOev yap iroXXa avrQ arvvijv Kal irapelxov ra wra. Naturally we find also jToAAaKts, e.g. Sophist. 251 c, and Menex. 249 d. SicXexBTjo-av, The tenses of this verb used by Plato in this sense seem to be StaAeyo/ioi, SiaXe^o- pai, SieXeyoprjv, SieXe)(^0 r/v, Stet Aeyyuat : the form SieXe^dpi]v never occurs. In Alcib. i. 129 c we have the definition tu Se SiaXeyea-Oai Kal rh Xoytj} Xprjo-dai, Tavruv irov icaAets : but this is modified in 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 C, ttjv tov StaXeyea-dai SvvafiLV, and in Theaet. 161 e, to 8e Si) ep6v re Kal ttJs ep.fj's TC)(V)js t^s paievTiKTJs criyw, oo-ov yeXiora 6(f)Xis S^ toi, rh Xeyofievov, to. iralSwv jiadrjuara 6avp.a(TThv e^*' Ti fivrj/x^lov ... Kal Tov Trpea-livTov TrpodvfjLW^ fie SiSda-Kovros, ot* ejwv iroA,A.OKis iTraveptariovTOS, &crT€ oTov eyKavfiara dvcK- ttXvtov ypai(f Siarpi/iovTas. A Set, Stallb. seems quite right in rejecting Heind.'s proposal to read ei Soku, both because this has no authority, and because Set is read by Procl. IV. 73 and 78, and finally because Set lanem quan- dam habet recusationis significationem, quandoqui- dem Adim. ad eum, qui omne tempus equitandi studio transigat, non statim vult una cum hospitibus accedere. iv9ivSi ... (leXCiT). Surely Plato's ear must have f been at fault in the collocation of the first four words. MeAtTT;' 8^/ios Ke'/cpoTriSo? says Schol. t given by Rhunken. Suidas s.v. quotes Harpocr. Sij^os icTTL rrj's KiKpoTTiSos. ovofxaarBels dirh MeAtT>/s' T^S Kara juev 'HcrioSov Ovyarphs M.vpfir]KOi, Kara 6e Movo-aiov Ai'ov Tou 'AttoAAwvos. It seems to have lain to the N. of the Areopagus, and to the E. of Ceramicus. From the Agora they would walk north, E. of Areopagus, W. of the Propylaea. ravra elir<5vTes «p. Proclus in his overstrained i manner says, iv. 78, rh a-vvrofiov rov Aoyoi; Kal O"a0es Kai Kadaphv e^ecTt Kal Sid rovrwv opdv ov yap eKaAAiuTTKre rhv Aoyov eiTTwv, ' Taiira ciirovTes Kai aKovfravres,' ws ei!ia6ev, -qSvvoiv rrjv yypa-ip>, i) Tt aAAo irpofT^eis, uAA' dp.i(ri»s ' ravra elirovres'' avrol ydp y SuXdw as subject. Stallb. notes the tenses from e/?aS. to Sirjy. The impfs. are descrip- tive, and suggest continuance, as of acts going on under the eye : the aorists merely record necessary facts without dwelling upon them as filling time : «K8tS. = 'in the act of...': dirrjXkdyr} for plupf. : we also say 'was done' as well as 'had done.' The language of this introduction may be compared with that of Protag. 310 E, 311 A, some of which has been already quoted. We may add dWa ri ov ISaSi^onev Trap avTov, iva evSov KaTaXd/ioifiiV ... dXX' t'(i)/iEv . . . KqTaXrjil/oiJieda avrhv . . . h'Sov. Cp. also Rep. I. 328 B, y/J-tv oSi' oiKaSe ei's Tov UoXeixdpxov, Kat Ava-iav re aurd^t KareXd^ofiev Kal Ev. ... evdvi oZv fie l&i)V 6 KeaXos rjonra^eTO re. r«j)ti 8i etc. From here to the beginning of Part II. 137 c, the construe, is involved, and not always consistent; the reason being, as Proclus says, IV. 13, that eamv avrrj SrjXaSrj rpiTrjS rijs (TVi/ouo-tas cK^eiris raiJTi; TOii'Vi' irapiov Tis Kec^aXos ... di^iyyij/xaTtKois Kal ovSe irphs (upLO'p.eva irpoa-io-ira XoLTTov Tous Xdyovs SiuTideis, Kard ye Tijv iKOetTiv TrapaSiSiiKTi rrjv dXo) Kai TOis CK K-Xa^o/xevSv, v>s eiprp-ai, <^tAoo"d(j()Ois' (4) TeTdprrj 8e rj Trapa tov KecfidXov T(i>v m' 'Avtk^wi'TOS avrm Xoyuiv TrapaSeSop-evuiv aejbijyrjcris, eis dopicnov TsAevT^crao-a dearpov. We have a change from ot6 dcjiiKoivTO to TOV p-ev oSv ... eTvai instead of Kal otl . . . eiT). Plato gives us dialogues at first hand, such as Crito, Cratylus, Philebus, Phaedrus ; at second, as Phaedo, Theaetetus, Republic ; at third, as Symposium ; and here at fourth hand. The reason seems rather literary than philosophical. Here the repeated transmissions suggest that remoteness which Plato desires to set up for the original con- versation. The Theaet., 143 c, alludes to the diffi- culty of sustaining a second-hand narrative — copied by Cicero— which seems to imply that Plato had already tried that method, although it may be simply another literary artifice to secure variety. Some light would be thrown on the matter, no doubt, if we possessed any of the dialogues com- posed by Plato's contemporaries. iravaSTJvaia. 'H tZv Ilavadrjvaiuiv eoprrj Kal 6 dytov ereOv uev Trpiiirov irrrh 'Epi^x6oviov tov 'H<^aio-Tou Kal rns 'AOr'ivr]?, WTepov Se vtto 6>;o-eo)S (rufayaydi'Tos TOV? Sr]!povs eh oxttv. dytTai Se d aycov Sia irevTi erStV Kal dyatvi^erai Trats "Icrdfiia ov'Trpea-^vrepps, Kal dyeveios [koi] dvrjp' tw Sc viKwvTt Si-SoacrLV ^Aatov £v' dp'i>opevavovcriv avThv eXaia TrXeKTy. Schol. t, with contracs., top, 79 a 2, and Rhunk. What connection has the last sentence ? SittoL wav. ■nyeTo 'AOrjvr](n, Toi p.ev Kad' eKauTov ti/iauTor, to St Sia irevTaeTTjplSos, a Kal [leydXa eKaXovv. fjyaye 8t Tnv eopTTjV TrpwTos 'Epi)^96vLos o H<^aie, Tlap- [leviSriv eiriypdypa's rj Trepl iSewv. r/Kfia^e Se koto Ttjv evdTijv Kal €^r;KO(rT>)v 'OAiyxirtaSa (B.C. 504-1). 25-29, Z^vwv 'EAfttTT/s. TOUTOV 'ATToXXoSwpos ^rjCTiv elva.1 iv X.poviKol's vo-ei, jxev TeXevrayopov, deaei Se IIop- peviSoV Trepl tovtov Kal MeAitrcrov Ti'/iwv ^ijcri TauTa' ' Ap^orepoyX(i)crr](ri, IIAdTwv ev Ttj) TlappeviSy, 6 S' aw&s ev T(o ^aiSpio Kal 'YiXeaTiKOV TLaXapiqSrjv avrhv KaXet. (261 D.) eiv ewnTTapevqv yfydirrffre paXXov TYj'i ' A6r]vaCwv peyaXav\las, ovk CTriSriprjaa? to irapa- irav (which need not be taken too literally) w/ads avTous dAA' avTO^t KaTa/Siovs. ... 'ijKpa^e S OUTOS Kara rrjV evdrijv Kal efSSopirjKocrTrjv 'OAv/iWriaSa (B.C. 464-1). «B |idXa Zi\ is not a usual combination. We find b ev fidXa frequently, both in regard to age (Euthyphro 4 A, with Trpe6Spa iroAtov, together with the phrases from Sophist, above and Theaet. 183 e, Trdw v£09 Ttdw wpio-^vrri, suggest an age decidedly beyond sixty-five. J^^Kovra may be a very early corruption of kvfVTjKovra. Or may it have crept in from some early reference to the (vdr-qv kol k^ijKoa-Trjv 'OXvp,- iridSa of Diog. Laert. ? airov ... YC-yovevai is subject tO Xiyio-dai. Kai Iwl OyjXciwv Kal iirl dppev(DV epoifieviov ry Ae^(5 evprjrat, Kara fieTa^opdv ' Se Tv/v aTro rovriav, KaX hrX Trdvriav rZv crB-ouSafojuevcov wdvv y Kal ev $at8p(f) Xeyeraf ' Icnrov- Sa/cas, & ^aiSpe, on crov rwv Trat^tKwv e-!re\afi6jj.T]V, epe(7)(rj\(i)v (re,' rj 6e Ae'^is ws tTi to ttoXv eiri rmv dcreX- ySs lpio[ikvu)v. Sch. t, with contrs. foot of 79 a, Rh. It is clear that Diog. Laert. took the statement hterally. So does Athenaeus, Deipn. xi. 505 end, TO Sf irdvTiov CT'^^erXiijiTepov, koX to ilirtZv, ovSijxia's KaT€ireiyoixr7/s xpetas, OTt TraiSiKo. yey 6 voi tov Uap- HenSov Zrjvojv o TroXiTrj'S avTov. KaroXiiEi; ... viov. ecjiV breaks the constr. Its next use in d, ^rj 6 Trvdo&iapoi is still more irregular, following Xeyeiv ruv ir. above. Note the absence of the article with the nouns Tei'xovs and Kcpa/xeiKQ contrasted with the use of it with the names of the various persons, iv K€pap,eiK(} corresponds with ev [leXtTrj above, and cktos TCi'xovs may be compared with our 'out of town,' 'out of doors.' We have L TOTTOS dd-^vrjoriv ev6a Kal 01 Trnpvoi TrpoeLcrT-qi<(o-av. ela-l Se Svo Kepa^fiiKoh 6 jxev e^o) Telxpvi, 6 Be evTos : Sch. t, foot of 79 a, Rh. The use of of with infin., like that of -qviKa below, is not unusual in orat. obi., cp. 130 A, and Timae. 21 E, 01 5rj SoAcov ecji-q iropev- dm artjioSpa re ytveadat Trap' avTols evrip.o's, Kal ... , and has parallels even in Latin. Thus Tac. Ann. VI. 2 has the relative ' sed quos omitti posse, quos deligi ? . . . quam deinde speciem fore ? ' dWovs Tivds |j.«t' avToO iroXXovs, Here rti'd's must be c taken closely with dXXovs, much like xaAtvov rwa, otherwise it seems to clash with ttoXXov^: we may render ' a number of less important persons.' Still the phrase is odd, and inconsist. with 136 D-r37 a which closes with lirciSij ... auTot ea-p-ev. One could fancy the text standing dXXov^ nvas p-er' aTjToi! and some early reader writing in the marg, ov iroXXov's with a ref. to the above passage, then o-i iroXXov's getting incorporated, and finally losing the ov after avTou. Socrates says, 129 d, that they were seven. rdre ydp Here we have the first introduction of SiaXeKTiKi] into Athens, about 450 b.c. according to Plato. For Socrates' age, see Introd. xxxiv. ava-yiy. ... tov J'fjv. T& ToC ^yviovo'S a eirL)(, ei. TToAAa' TO, oVTa, tS avrh o/;toiov Kal dvopoiov. dXXa p.rjv dSvvaTov rh avTO upoiov etvai,' Kal dvopoLOV ovk apa iroXXd Ta ovTa. Sell, t, with contractions, top, 79 a 2. avTo;', 'himself.' Is twv Xoywv practically the same as twv ypappdrtnv before and after it? The point would be clearer if the altern. reading in St -Kopevov (agreeing with /3paxv) were adopted (Stallb. translates 'sermonum, vel potius disputa- tionum quum recitarentur,' which itself is ambig.) ; but T-^v irpdTrjV hrodea-iv tov TrptuTov Xoyov dvayvQivai, in D seems to decide for the identity. Verti potest ' litterae,' says Ast, ' very little was still left of the arguments as they were being read.' TjvfKa ... ?(|)i] The constr. becomes irreg. again, shaking off the gov. of Xiyeiv, 127 a. It should have been fiviKa avTov tc ewei(TeX6elv TOV TTVooSuipov ...ov prjv avTov ye. As it stands it gives a good illustr. of the nom. before the infin., when the subject of the principal verb is referred to, in contrast with the accus. (t^v TrappeveCSrjv) of any other person, p^t' avTov throws Pythod. once more into the back- ground ; the e4>r] o TT. almost, as Heind. says, de- mands pe9' avTov. tIv yei/d/u. seems to be used as 82 PARMENIDES. a hist. ref. to something in the past, but has little weight in fixing the date, since (Introd. xx.) the dial, must be supposed to be written after the death of Soc. If special force lies in the prefix of tVa/cowai it may be contrasted with Sia/covo-ai, 126 C. ov p)v a^TOS ye (sc. oiStws t6 Trpwrov cVa- K-owat). The constr. of the thing heard with i-Kovuv varies throughout between ace. and gen. n Tov o?v o-ioK. ... 8 poiiX. It does not appear that any fragments of Zeno's writings are left. We know them only by reference and description, ancient historians and commentators giving in many cases descriptive summaries which may or may not include the actual expressions of their author. According to Grote (Plato, Farm.) Zeno is here confuting the assumption that ' the self existent and absolute ens is plural.' This seems a rather unfortunate account of the matter. Op- ponents of Parmenides did not, as a rule, set up a ' self existent and absolute ' plurality, but rather that every-day plurality of sense which his absolute unity of being was vainly put forward to account for: 129 A, KoX k\ik Kttt or€ koX raXAa a. 5rj iroXXa Ku.XoviJ,fv. In dealing with the question Zeno com- posed several \6yot, and each of these, it would seem, had more than one vTro'Seo-is. This may perhaps refer to such an argument as that in which he shows that the many must be both (i) infinitely small, and (2) infinitely great; where 'the first hypothesis' would be the working out of No. i. According to this view each Aoyos would be likely to have two iVo^eo-ets, each setting out one side of the contradiction. But in the case before us, o/ioid T£ (Ivai Kal avo/jLoia, not o/xoia eivai alone, seems to be the x-pojxi; vn-oOtcni,. This would necessitate a different view of A.070S, according to which the r/5toTos A070S would be perhaps the whole argument against multiplicity, of which the contention from likeness and unlikeness would form the first vtto- Oea-i's; while the next \6yos might be the whole argument against motion, of which the ' Achilles ' would rank as one virodecri.'S. dvayvuicrOiiaijs sc. ai'iTvJs. TTws TovTo Acytss J must be read along with ov^ oiJTOj A«y«is • ovria : below. It seems com- pounded from JTus Aeyeis ; — rj tovto ; and ttws TovTo Aeyeis ; — ■>") oiJtus ; or = ws rt Siavoovfj.evos rovTO Aeyets ; cl iroXXi to-Ti Toi B. Zeno assumes this as the e popular view (to. Aeyd/iera, e below) in opposition to the view of Parmenides (Introd. xxxvii.). Imme- diately below the construe, is ovre yap oTov-e (lo-n) TO, dv6/j,oia ofioia ... ttvai. ovKoSv is usually two words in 21 and most codices vetustissimi. With our punctuation the word may be made to explain its origin d o^v dSvvaTov ... ovk dSvvaTov Srj ... ; But we might also take ovkovv as the beginning of an inference resumed at dpa, the words £t dSvvaTov ...TO, dSvvara coming in as what is inferred, ovk o5v — el dSvvaTov . . . jrocrxoi av TO. dSvvara — apa tovto ... Aoyot; the purport of this inferential query being yet further explained by ovk oAAo ... to-Tt; In the sentence el yap ... eoj Trda-xoi dv, the condition is as clearly held to be denied as if the form had been tl ydp ... ^v eTraa-x^v dv. irapa ... X«7. The whole might be arranged thus ov pjovov TTj aWy <^tAt^ croi;, dAAoi Kai t^ (Tvyypa.fi- pa.Ti PovXerai <^K€iio(T6ai [troi]. Heind. would read crot for croi;: Stallb. rightly objects : 'non modo in universum amicitia erga te cupit se insinuare (better insinuasse, gratum tibi fecisse) ' is Ast's rendering : ' desires to have secured to him a place in your affection, not merely by his general friendship towards you.' In both 21 and t the first syllable of avX.ov ... aAA' ov lAeye (cat Upbirayopa's. rpoirov Se Tiva aAAo;- ('prjKe to. avTo, Tavra. neropdWuv 'Twisting it about under our very eyes ' so to speak : but t has /t£Ta/3aAuJv. We have a different constr. of this word, Phaedr. 241 a, p^ra/SaXiav aAAoi' apxovra iv avTu ... vow ... avr IpiiiTO's: cp. mutare sententiam with mutat quadrata rotundis. Jv «|>^s «/s Procl. and 21 ; was he or his orig. thinking of the poems as already finished, without noticing jropexet? t has ev ^^s. Ast prints iV Toirwv Germans translate ' dafiir ' : strictly it should be rovrov, ' of this assertion.' St ... Si 6e without p-iv is common enough ; but v. double 8« is unusual, ov ir. . tTvai, it would seem that the ov is to be tacked to jroAAa Uke the p.Ti which follows. TfK|i. Si avrbs t reads S« km, the nal being a contrac. whose form (Introd. cxi.) — if we suppose the archetype of 31 written in minuscule— would help to explain how 21 may have omitted Kai, i.e., by mistaking it for a superfluous 5' = TiKp.r)pia St S' avTos. The whole would be simplified could we read TeKpr/pia Ka.1 avTos ... Trape)(6pevoi. ira[i.|iEY^9T) — this form occurs once oftener, accord- ing to Ast, than the form Trap,pkyaa.vai understood, nor whether iKarepov is masc. and subject, or neut. and object to Atytiv. Again, while crx«SoV Tt may in a vague way qualify AeyovTas ravra it would be better if written AeyovTas (TXeSdv Tt TavTo. And while the whole down to Taura is begun as subject to c^atVcTat with perhaps an £ivat added, he suddenly introduces a sort of resume of the subject in the words vptv to. dpujpkva ( = TCI vjxiv eiprjpeva), which again prompts him to replace elvai by tlpTja-dai,. Stallb. compares Rep. i. 331 B and Theaet. 144 a, the latter being very good, TO yap evpad^ ovra, (os aAA(f) ^(^aXeirov, irp^ov a3 elvai Sbaip6vTius, Kai iirl TOUTOts dvSpetov Trap' ovTivovv, iyi) piv ovt' dv (octfiTjv yevea-dai ovre opiu yiyvop.ivovv, 0(T(f>pavriKa. The iTKvXa^ suits the age of Socrates. So Rep. 11. 375 A, Ota ovv Tt, 'qv S' Jyio, Stacjiipeiv va-i.v ytvvaiov fXKvXaKos ei's cj^vXaKriv veavifTKOv evyevovs ; where see the comp. in detail : and vii. 539 b, ot papaKurKoi, orav TO TTptaTov Xoytav yevtovTai, (is TraiSi^ aurois KaTa)(pSvTai, ... )^aipovr€s oxrirep (XKvXaKta roi eXKCtv -£ Kal cnrapaTreiv T^ Ady Toiis TrXfjcrLOV dil. For the action of the dogs, cp. Politic. 263 a, ravra Se flcravOii Kara, crx^^V^ Kaddirep l)(yi'6ovTes ptTipev. The actual words occur Xen. Cyneg. iv. 9, dy^iv 8e apAivov Tas Kwas eis to. oprj iroXXaKi^ ... ra pev yap oprrj oTov T€ €(TTi Kal l)(yeviiv Kal peraOitv KaOapias. In these the order of the two verbs is better than in Parmen. Stallb. quotes several examples in Plato of KajToi. followed by dAXa : Symp. 177 E, Euthy- 23hro 3 c, Phaed. 68 E, 69 A. Here, however, the KaiToi rather answers a-v 8' ovv etc., or comes in as a parenthesis, dXXa referring back independently. irpuTov \iiv has no second objection answering to it, and e seems to admit that it is the only one; but so one begins a defence, tovto, used like ToSe, of what follows. 8ti ... SittirpoTT. may be freely rendered ' that the writing takes no airs whatever to itself as though it were written with the aims which you mention in its head, while at the same time (cirt-) keeping people in the dark, as if that were some great achievement.' The context (a-B, ravrhv yap ... elp^crdai) suggests that (OS Tt p^ya S. mean chiefly, if not entirely, the success of the concealment ; and these words can hardly be the object of iiriKpvn-., the thing which is to be concealed, though some translators seem so to take them. Cp. Gorg. 511 c-d, rijv KvfSepvtjTiK'ji/ . . . avTTj ... ov crepvvvirai, iiTXqpaTio-pivq (Ls VTreprj- 8eIv, In Symp. 193 b the constr. is much as d here, where (is means 'to the effect that.' Ast would seem to supply AtyovTes (is ; but it is simplest to suppose oi5t(d KwptoSelv (is, as below toSto PovXo- pevov BrjXovv (is. •TToXXA Kal 7. Heind. says, ' i.e., ttoAAo yeAoia, ut semper fere Graeci dicunt jroAAa Kal dyaOa, tt. Kal TTOVTjpa, TT. Kal )(aXeTra, tt. Kal oAjSta.' Are x. Kal y. nom. to (rvp,l3aCvei as a personal verb, or ace; and, if the latter, how are they related to Trda-xeiv ? crvp^. seems to be so far imperson., and the constr. a-vp-fiaivei t^ Aoy^ Trd(T\eiv ttoAAci koi yfAoia Kal evavTia avTO), the arrangement being a Platonic hyperbaton. airra. So 2t and t: neither it nor aw$ seems satisfactory. We must read t$ evl into t(J> X6ym, and render ivavTia avT(f = evavTia Ty eavTov (jiwrei, antagonistic, as iroAAoi, to its inherent nature. ToBro Ti Ypd|x|i.a seems to be accepted as one phrase; yet to yp. might stand alone, and tovto might be object of (x^/TtAcyct, ' retorts this difficulty.' It would, however, strengthen the case of those critics who wish to read Tavrd, immediately follow- ing, against the Mss. Tois Ta iroWd. X^. 'the asserters of The Many.' Above, ev and TroAAa are predicates of Tb irav ; here the TToAAo. are used in substantive independence ; and perhaps the last el ev ea-Ti with the following ei n-oAAd ccTTtv, 57 tou iv eivai are to be regarded in the same light, t& -n-dv having dropped away. For the language, cp. Arist. Met. 1. 3. 984 b i, tcji' p.ev ovv ev (fiacTKovTwv eivai, to wav ... TOts Se Srj TrXeiw iroiovai. iir69t,a-vSe SeSim dv, Th Aeyo- pevov, T7JV eavTov orKidv /cat ttjv OTreipiav, e\6p£V0i eKeivov TOV aa-(j>aXovs Trjs vTro6ea-etos oiStojs ditoKpivaio NOTES. 85 av. ei Se Tis aur^s tiJs vijro^ecr«(os £;^otTo, \aipeiv l^rji S.V : and if asked for a reason ixravrias av StSoiTjs, aA.X»;v a5 inroOea-iv VTroOe/j.ivo'S 'flTts twi/ 3v(i)^£V ^(XTicrTrj tfiaivoiTO, etos tjrt Tt tKavbv eA^ois. One expects an obj. to tire^iai, as Rep. iv. 437 a, iracras Tois TOiavras dfj,ipayi^6jj.eda tovto o &tti Kai ev rais fp(anjiTe(nv epiOTiaVTC'S Kal ev rots dTroKpifrtiriv diroKpi- vojxivoi. — where he shows his whimsical insistence on the importance of question and answer. And throughout Socrates' speech, cp. Diog. Laert. Plato in. (9)-(i3) : also Phaedo 78 d, 92 d. iroXXi The world of sense with its multiplicity. TttuTti Tt Kal KaroL t. ' In the Way and to the degree in which.' tvavriav Note the change from hvolv. Svoiv brings p 4- out the idea that there are two opposites to partake of; now his mind dwells on them as opposites and more than one. Immediately d/i^oiv recalls tlie dual idea, which is again merged in the plural. oiroi airots, He does not, probably, mean that b any single object is like and unlike itself — though that might be taken as a sort of transcendental completion of the case — because the sharing in ' likeness ' makes it like another thing which also shares likeness ; and if that thing agrees with it further in sharing ' unlikeness,' the two will be at once like and unlike. If a^Tci avToU is to be pressed, then it would seem to mean ' among them- selves as a world of sensible objects ' as against avTO, TO. o/iota, etc. which follow. t£ eav|ioirT<5v ; Thus far he readily accepts a world of sense so sharing in etS?;. In avTo. to, o/Moia he is speaking of etS?; ; does he assume numerous etSrj of o^uoioTrjs? Probably not. But fieTciXriijns among the eiSr], which he would like to see thought out, must lead to complications. There will be as many ofioia among the eiStj as there are derived ofwta with us. And due to the same cause ? A ... dir£<{ioCv6To ... Tepas av ^v rejects the supposition as hopeless; « diroi^aiva ... ovhlv ... aTOTrov ^okiX tlvai, speaks as of a thing actually going on ; d diroM^a ... 6avp,dcrop.ai takes a hopeful view; el diror]a-Ofiev to. rpia Koi dtroXetcrOai irpoTepov Kol dXXo oTiovv inicricrOai, irpXv viroficivai en Tpia ovra apria ytvka-dai ; So too 103 A and Sophist. 253 B-254. 8 Jo-Tiv tv Note the emphasis in this and in rot ToXXa 81;. These latter are of course quite other in sense from a S^ ttoXXo. KaXovfiev above, which mean ' the many of sense,' whose real existence Zeno rejects. Socrates assumes that these draw with them as real counterpart an abstract ideal many which he here calls to. iroXXa 8j) and TrXrjOoi. c ffii\ eau|jida.vi](7a.v Trddoi Kal 01 TroiTjTal Treirovdore^ : and for Socrates' language about his own plurality, Phaedo 102 B; also Soph. 251 a, Aeyo/nev dvdpiairov S-)j ttou TToAA,' a.TTa iTTOfOfia^ovTes, rd re Xpo)p,aTa eirKJiipovTes avT^ Kai TO. o-xqp-ara. Kal jxeyidiq Kal KaKcas Kal aptra'S ... Kai rdXXa 8rj Kara rhv aVTuv Xoyov ovT(as h' (Kaa-Tov mroBepevoi TrdXiv avTO iroXXa. Kal TroXXol, lixTTt dXrjdrj dTro6Tcpa, eiTTtt We can name only five — Parmenides,Zeno, Pythodorus, Socrates, Aristoteles. eav oiv . . . airo4>aC. = edv ovv Tis eTri)(eipy] a;ro<^aivciv Tavrd ovTa Toiavra TroXXd Kai toiovtov iv, ' that many and one of this type, in this sense of the terms, are the same.' We have here another series of conditional sentences whose shades of thought the reader can work out. Of the form edv ... dtro- aivij dyaiprjv dv Jelf (854, 2b) gives a Case, Phaedo 93 B, a;' (eav) p,€v pdXXov appoaOrj Kal kwl irXeov, ... p.dXX6v Tt av dppovia eiy Kal irXeuoV u &' tjttov t« Kal iiT eXaTTOV, ^ttov re Kal iXdrToiv ; where note also the change to el. \i8oiis KaX Cp. Phaedo 74 A-B, (pap-iv TToi Ti etvtu iv^i y, which refers to 484 C-D, eav yap Kal Trai'U fv6Spa Tois Aoyots epTToSia, etc. (Introd. Ix.). And in all three the carrying of the matter into the world of ideas is treated very differently (Introd. xxxi., and on 129 b above). Thus Socrates old repudiates Socrates young. In Sophist, he makes distinctions, 251 d, 252-53 A — finding that to deny all forms of mingl- ing, and to affirm all, lead equally to absurdities, and that the true course is to admit certain combin- ations and to reject others. 88 PARMENIDES. I' kdoTov Cp. 1 60 c and Theaet. 204 c, ovk- oZv 6 Itti yv/xvais yvvai^i ... ovSev olSiV ...« (5 yeA^ ouS' o Tt irpaTTa. axOea-Oai, at the invasion of the sphere of the one by a crowd of eiSi;. Stallb. and Heind. would prefer the future, ' on the brink of being annoyed ' ; but is that better ? Tois S^ = ai'Toiis Se, a known usage : here ai'rbs precedes and ai'ry follows. How steadily Plato uses the article with the proper names. (uiStav etc. Cp. Phaedo 62 e, aKoiVas oSv o 2. rj(rdy}val re fioi eSo^e ry tov K.ejSrjTO'; irpay/xareK} Kal en-t/JAei/'as ei5 17/ias, aa rot, e<;f)7j, o K. Aoyovs Tivas ai/cpevi'gi. 86 D, StajSX.eypa'i ovv 6 2., uxrirep to, iroXXa eliiOei, Kal |Hei8iaoras. On a-ya/i€vous cp. Phaed. 88 E, iroAAaKi9 davpida-a? 'EoiKpdrrj ov irdTrore paWov ■qydirdrjv fj Tore wapaytvop^vo'S ... ws ijSews ... rbi/ Adyof aTreSe^aTO. 8ir€p oBv so. avrovi dyatrOai rbv 2. as Heind. points out, ' which in point of fact {ovv) Parm. declared they did.' Here again we have relat. with inf, 127 c. p. 5. tlireiv ij)dvai This Fredetking regards as the normal usage of these verbs in such cases ; diruv part of the narrative, <^avoi parenthetical. E agios iy'^""^'"' davpd^io-Oai c, Schol. t outer marg. 79 b I, and Rh. Yet the verb seems active ' worthy to wonder at'; cp. Lys. 207 a, ov to /caAos dvai povov d^ioi aKova-ai, etc. Donaldson in a like case cites Waverley, 'a Prince to live and die under.' Still we have Alcib. I. 105 B, oti a^tos et npaa-dai, etc. We may take the inf as in the gen., both from the ordinary govt, of a^tos, and from e.g. Phileb. 14 a, opa d^ioi dv urjv tou SiaXiyecrdai vvv; Ti]s opiifjs Ttjs kwi Toiis Aoyovs, cp. 135 D. Prob- ably ' your zeal for discussion ' {tovs Aoyovs = t5 SiaXeyeo-dai) : but it might also mean ' your eager attack upon Zeno's Adyoi.' ovTis vcnKa. \iopi^ov(riv, iJttov ovra )(uTpT^rr](Tii ytyve-ai. We have got ideas of physical qualities and of moral qualities ; we now take the important step of assuming ideas for .sensible things or complexes of qualities. Such Arist. calls (Met. 11. 2, 997 b 10) the same with the sensible objects but eternal. TrapairX-ja-wv jrotourres Tois $€ovi fiev etvat d(TKOV(riv, dvOpiDTroeiSets Se' ovtc yap tKeivoi ovdiv dXXo eiroiovv ») dvOpumovi atSioi'S, ovd' oSrot TO. tiSrj dAX' rj a'urdrfTu. dtSia. He adds (xi. 3, 1070 a 18) that such ideas according to Plato kvTiv OTToara (jivcrei, eiirtp (cttIv tiSr] ctAAa tovtuv, oiov irvp, crdp^, Ke(f>akr]. Cp. Damasc. § 1 02, p. 263, to. iroXAu ttSr] (f>aiv6/Ji.eva Totv rroXXioi' dXrjOivoiv ei&tov ia-ri TtK/x-jpia, etc. That ideas for ' things ' are an drop t) ; even so avriov is rather unsuitable. ' Sed a^Twi/ hoc vide an rectius mutetur in o5 Ttiv. Ut Theaet. 204 D, ravrov dpa «'v ye rots ocra t^ dpidpuov ea-Ti,' etc., Heind. But Stallb. defends avnov posi- tum pro TovTiov quanquam paullo alia vi et signifi- catione. We have had this above, and it occurs in E below. But this rather makes against a third case so near. Yet aS twv iSv seems harsh, and ^ is un- explained. Our TySe justifies both the ij and the av Toiv, and makes excellent sense; see Phaedr.249D, KcTTi 81) oliv Sevpo 6 Tras i'jKUiv Aoyos Jrept t^s TeTapTTj^; /xai'ias, rjv orav To TgSi tis opwv KaXXo? rov dXridovs dvapipvricrKop.evo';, irTtpwrai re. Kal etc. ; and 250 B, ovK evea-TL c^eyyos ovSev ev Tots TySe o/iotto/tatrtr. Proclus, too, repeatedly uses ra rySe as an expres- sion for Ttt opard, e.g. v. 5. on 130 B, Trws /x€T€x«Tui (to. eiSTj") vTTo Twv rySe, Kal tis Tpoiro's rys fieOe^eoys ; So, too, Damasc, § 91, p. 226, tiret ovSe o rySe avOpiitiros o a^Tos t^ eKel Kara to eiSos, and else- where. A palaeographer will know that a con- tracted rrjSe in majuscules might be very like H. The class of things here discussed is merely another type of aTrep opupev ; if an «tSos irvpu^ be granted so may an eiSos Trr/Aov. The only difference is the greater unworthiness (Introd. xli. ff.). ovSapius appears to deny the question ^ ... dtropeis; i> Tatira Kal elvai 'SC. oto/iat, rifj.i,' Heind. This of course occurs even to a Zeno ; indeed were it other- wise there would be no problem. olifefjvai cfvat Although a passive sense would be quite good, the active is meant. See Ast. advance upon ideas for single qualities is the view One might supply (dTropC)) p.-^ Atav, or SeSoiKa, implied in Arist. Phys. 11. 2, 193 b 36, ra yap which is to hand. Grote refers here to the note 90 PARMENIDES. of Alexander on Arist. Met. i. 991 a 23, Bekker iv. 575 ^ 3°i °-^^°- ''''' ^y'^'' Ttviov yei/ecrtts Terayjxevai jjAv, aA/V ov TT/oos iSeai', otoi.' o-Ka)A/;KCov e/x7rt6wv Tf/j?;- 8oVo)v. Proclus expands. on the question of what ideas are to be admitted ; but his views, incorpo- rating all that appears in Timaeus, and indeed in generations of commentary, are far in advance of Plato's present stage. He explains the hesitation of Socrates about an idea of man by urging that man as known to us is at the lower end of a series of which the idea is the upper (cp. on b), ov yap to TTpiiToiq /j.eraax^'V avOpdnrov opw/xei', aAAci To kiry^arias, and thus eikotcos Trap.iroWTjv Iv aijrois Trjv Scaif>op6- T-i]Ta Kadopafjiev (v. 41). Again he rejects hair as being a mere part of that which comes from a rational pattern ; and jtjjAos as a a-vpfii^i^ Svo crroi- \u(x)v do/Dtcrros, ov Kara Xoyov yevop-ivrj ■ and finally piJTros because all Kadapa-ts is removal of pviros, and while there is an idea of the former there is none of the latter as being a /caxio to be cleared away : of KaKtai there are no ideas (v. 61) he affirms. ffii\ |i€VToi ... idpa^e Heind. would read fiiv n, alter Phaedr. 242 C, ipe yap edpa^e pkv ti Kal irdAut keyovTa rhv Ao'yov. With which cp. Phaedo 86 E, Aeye, ti r)v to ere av dparrov, and 103C. But he has to admit that Theaet. 187 c differs, QpdrTti fie Trios vvv re Kai. ctAAoTC 8-/) TroAAciKts, &(tt' ev djropi'a TToAAg ... ysyovei/at, etc., where there is no specific nom. to the verb. Stallb. objects that the change does not improve the sense, and also that the subj. is contained in the words p-i'i ... ravTov, which on Heind. 's assumption would be in appos. with ti. In place of our Schol. t gives irdpa^ev, ' rjVuxXrja-iv, ' ivv^ev : so Rhunk. Suidas gives the same meanings, and adds Svo-uiTreia-dai Kal vopaor6ai. The glossary of Timaeus also gives Tapdrru kivc'l. |iXv. would arise from the sea of sensible perceptions unregulated by any idea. Cp. Timae. 51c, ap' 'ia-n ti Tvvp avrh i' iavrov Kal irdvTa, TTipl (liv dtt Aeyoyiiev ovTias, ...i] TauTa ajrep Kal pXiTTopev ocra Te aXXa 8ia tou crw/iaTos ala-davo- peOa pova laTi, ... aAAa Se ovk edTi ... dXXa paTrjv eKOXTTOTe elvai ti ap,tv tt'Sos kKaarTov vorjTov, to Sc ovSiv dp' "qv TrXrjv Aoyos ; The language seems a compromise between prj y tt. it. tootov and p-q ti -g TT. TT. TOIOVTOV. TavTji lOTw, The reading of 31 is as given with the aspirate and long initial t-, and (although t gives TavTy a-Tu) an effort should be made to maintain a form so clearly given. Proclus quotes t. eyw uttw. It may be noted that TavT-g is scarcely used = eVer or Tj/Se with a verb of rest like o-toj. Even in Philoct. 1331, ttDS av avTbi ijXws \ Tavry p^v aipy, TijSe 8' av Svvy TrdXiv the verb is one of motion ; and so generally when used of place it means 'in this direction,' ' by this road,' with a verb of motion. Could an object be understood with io-Tw, such as Ttt irpdypaTa, tuv Xoyov? The sense would be either ' when I place matters in this fashion ' or ' when I weigh the subject in this manner.' In Euthyphr. 7 c we come within sight of the latter use, Kai iir'i ye To ItTTdvai kXdovTi^, (os ly^pai, tripl Tov papvTepov T£ Kal KovcjiOT€pov SiaKptdelpiv av; and Prot. 356 B, dAA' wcnrep dyaOos ItTTavai dvdpo)- TTos where the context gives the meaning. For the former sense cp. Theaet. 171 d, ij Kal TavTy av p,aXuTTa uTTacrdai tov Adyov ... ; <|>Eii7i>)v oi;xo|j.at The participle with this verb is common, especially diriuiv and ep6pevos. For the sense see Phaedo 98 b, otto Si) 6avp,aa-TTJs iXmSoi, & €Ta7pe, liyopriv (^epoptvo's. Phileb. 13 D, Kal 6 Aoyos ■qp.lv eKTreaiiv ot^^iJtreTat. ti.pv6ov ^\v. There is no doubt of the reading (Notes I.), though a.p.v6ov is found, probably by confusion of the old minuscule u = /3 with a cursive p.. The sense is clear, although the adjective seems unique. ' Denique Synesius qui ad hunc locum NOTES. 91 respexit ... et Origenes ... legerunt ipsi quoque a^vOov non afivOov. Nam Celsus quidem dixit di TTiXayoi A.vaptas e/tjreo-wv sed verba Synesii haec sunt, KOI KivSvvo^ ets a/iiKTO-ov riva (f>Xvapia'S e'/ijre- iTuvras Siafjidaprjvaf o Kal SiokjOotijs e(t>o/3ij9rj iraOeiv, Koi TO Tcddos ovK drreKpvipaTo X.vapias. At neuter, neque Orig. neque Synes. retinuisse videtur ipsa verba Platonis, immo utrumque imitari tantum voluisse arbitror omnino formam loquendi, ita ut non dubitarint adjectivi loco substantiva ponere.' Fisch. L. and S. suggest that we should read c's Tiva ^vObv vcnv ... ifiol Se SoKCt /Mt] Trpos rovTo TmroLrjuOaL rrjv ettiVAij^iv, aXXa ... to dvatTLov ovSapiSs Trpoa-ikpLivoi (meaning all has a cause, but that cause is not necessarily an idea? Questionable.), trdv yap to yiy vofxevov vtt aiTlov TivoavXov, o /xr) ix€Te\ei Tov aya^oO KdKiWev e^fi rrjV yevecriv ... dXX' at fiiv Tb)V avdpv So^at Ta irpuKpa, Kal evTeXrj T)Js delas aiTtas e^aTTTEti' £^ato-;(vi'OVTat . . . ot Se oVtojs iX6- (TOi^ot iravTa oirairep (cttIv kv Ttp Koir/i([) Kal /.uydXa /cat (TfiLKpa Trpovotas e^dipavres oi'Sev aTijxov ovoi aTTopXtjTOV ev Tw otKOj Tou Atos opmriv ... OTt 8c 6 2. avaipiav aTTo toutojv tcui/ (TjxiKpuiv Kal evvXardroiV tijv dSijTiKYjv airiav dvypei koI Trdcrav alriav 'iXa/3ev 11. ... Tj 6pl^ p.rj £;^6TW p,iv irapaSuyfia voepov, i^kriii 8i (^v(TiKuv Aoyov atVtov. dp' ovv ovk dvdyK-q fxr) Tavrfjv iivai rp^X"- jJ'OVOV fjv opiafxcv, aA.Aa KaKeivrjv tyjv ev t tJ's TrdvTa tu. OVTO, TTpoeXqXvOe, Kal eKUvqv (j)d6i, Kal tovtolv dvaipovvTi Kal Trjv dXXrjv irda-av aiTLav, Siov ixrj KaT eTSos p-ev avrov voepov vjrori- detrOai Ti)v yevecriv, KaT aWlav Se trpecrfivTepav tZv ctSwv (better, not worse, than ideas?) IrEt Kal o-ar jj/iEiS TO, TexvriTd ttoiw/xei', TroiEt TauTa /cat 6 vovs .... avrwv See Notes i and above c. The observ- ation oiSSev d. aTi/xacrcis, etc., must be for the Platonic Socrates, not the Socrates of history, wlio had little regard for the conventional dignity of philosophy, and who did not touch these inquiries — ouSe yap TTcpt t^s twv iravTiov (^vo-eods, ^irep tmv aAAwv 01 TrAEttTTOt, SteAeyETO (TKOTrwv oirws 6 KaXov- uEvos VTro Ttjiv cro(jiLv(Tiv KaXov ... avTu Ka^' ovTo fJLid' avTOV /lovotiSes del ov, To. Se uAAa TTCii'Ta KoAa tKuvov ixerexovra. For the language see Soph. 257 C, 17 Sarepov fioi, (jixxri.'s (ftaivfTai Kara- KiKepp-aTLirdai Kadainp eiria-n'jjj.'i] . , . /ua p.kv Itrri ttov Koi (Keivr^, Tu 8' lirl to) ytyvo/xevov fiepoi avrrjs €Kacrrov a.pi(Tp,ov. In fact we are back at the negation of predication (Introd. Ix.), for, he says elsewhere, § 70, r52, to ^vu/ievov el yiyvuxTKOiTO, ovk £0"Tot ixovov rjviDixevov dAAo koi yvwrrov, — which makes it two at least. iroTcpov ... iv etvai : trorepov preceded by oAov iJ p.epovs and followed by 6Aov leads one to expect 1} /i€/3os avTov ; in place of rj irws ; But the context might suggest that iroVepoi' is superfluous ; and that he means to begin fioKet 06;' o-oi, and is for the present taking up only the former alternative of oAov, and dwelling not on that alternative but on the question of the idea remaining one in the pro- cess {ev oi' = ita ut unum sit. Heind.) This view is enforced by ev elvai, which, again, Schleiermachcr changes to evetvai against 2lt. Stallb. agrees ; Heind. dissents, giving as the meaning ri yap KiiiXvei oAov T& etSos ev eKaa-Tiii Ttav ttoAAwi' evhv ev elvai; of which Stallb. says (why?) contorta est Heindorfii interpretatio. ev iroXXois x- t has Kal c. before xiapU, which adds b force. iv ?o-roi So 2( ; t also, but on eras. "Evea-Tai might p- ' be better ; but Plato may be purposely harping on the ev elvai — if there is nothing to prevent it being one, at least it ' will be one ' in such a way as to be separate from itself. el -ye, avoi etc. As to the text, setting aside stops, 9lt agree on the following — ofoi' ei rj/xepa e'rj jxla Kal 1} avTTj oSo-a iroXXa)(pv dp.a ecrTi, while t begins with NOTES. 93 ovKOLV f.tva.1 dvai followed by a stop. Some change seems needed, and £? ye seems preferable to eTvai. The phrase ofoi' il lacks Platonic authority, and has been changed by some to otov rj. Again the dij following has been omitted so as to give oiov 7} ^fiepa, fiia Kal 1/ avT^ ov), and the collocation elrjfi. in quick succession. Any text involves a somewhat broken construction which is picked up at « ovrm. In Proclus' comments the phrase d ye oTov yfiepa en; without article occurs v. 12. The text given de- mands little change, and yields a satisfactory sense, the break in constr. being as follows — ouk av ei' ye, ffidvai, otor iu] ■fffi.ipa (j) fiCa Kal r) avrrj o5o-a TroXXa- \ov dfw, iUTi, KoX ov&iv Tt fiaXXov avT^ avTrji ;((opts eoTtv) — ei ouTui, ' not if it were some such thing as day, which, etc if in such a fashion as this, I say, each of the ideas preserved its identity in all things.' Procl. says St' VTrep^arov to oA.oi' irvvaTrTfov (fiqa-l yap 6 -, /ni) av iTV[ij3^ivai tovto 6v aroirov, o Kal (KacrTov twv ilSwv fv iraa-iv afia ravruv £17/ " (where the interpretation differs a little from ours). Stvrepov Se to " d ovTia " Sia. T^F iTravdXi^^iv olrjTeov e'xeti' to '• et touto " Trpo- fcetju.ei'or, ev ydp Tali Stoi TrXeiovos aTroSocrea-iv at €3rai'aA7}^£tS ;(/>7}o"t/iof rpirov Se to " jxia Kal tj airr] o5o-a ■!roXXa\ov dfXM. IcrTi" /xera^i; prjdev Kara djro- (TTacrtv aKovcTTeov. In illustrating he reminds us, though without referring to the Rep., of the analo- gies i^Atos — dyadov, <^(S? (-qfiipa) — Ta dSrj, (TKOTOS — vXt] (rdSe TO. aXXa). And he adds (v. 10 1) Kal OTi /Miv (K Tov Zrji'toi'os Aoyov to trapaSeiy/jLa tiXrjfjie, &TJXov (on what authority ?) e/cetvos yap 8i]Xoi6op^, d (cat TreTrepttO'/xevoi', uAA' act ye erepov Kal hepov. TJSius avTi Tou Kara, vcnv vvv. (nqftalvei Se ecrrov oTe (cat TO i\n]6tiii (cat to yeAotois. Schol. Rhunk. ' Male Schol. ... Ironice hie quoque adhibetur hoc verbum ' Heind. = lepide, ' that is a pleasant conceit of yours, to prove your case by, as it were, putting men under a sail and saying,' etc. oTov el etc. The oTov el here are separate, not as they would have been above oioi'et (or as Plato puts it, otovTrepet o-Tot^eta, Theaet. 201 e). The phrase tcrTt<{) (caTaireTdcrag ttoAAous dvdp. seems an odd reversal, and recalls aijTous v/Spei TrepiedrjKe, Diog. Laert. vi. 3 3, and still better Choeph. 576, veKphf d'qcrit) woSitiKei jreptySaAuti' xaA(cei;yitaTt. TO toioSt. One almost wishes n rot,, but cp. e. c Ti7eiX^7eiv as 1 27 E without the pron. as subj. to the inf. ; see Rep. i. 338 a, crti yap Stj <^gs etSe'mt /cat e;^eii' eiVetr, and a little lower ■fjyovp.evo's e^etv ajroKptcrti' 7ray(cctA?}v. Although Parmenides makes merry over such an idea, does not his own ev o-wexes bear some colourable resemblance to it ? t[ oiv ij h.l. idem est quod iroTepov. Heind.; but it means rather more, ' would the whole rea/fy be present then, or only a part?' Immediately below it recurs, but this time suggesting the improbability of the other alternative, ovk en So 91 for ovKert. h/ U&a-ria Note the change of reference in the next e/cdo-TOU — OVK eTt ev eKaa-Tio (twi/ TroAAoii') ciAof (Tt etSos eti;), dAAd fiepos e/cdo-Tov (tov eiSovs Iv e(cdo-T(i)) av eirj. ovToi ye ' according to i/iis reason- ing ?' f\ olv— 9f et ovv, t 7j ovi' : another error by diet. .'' dvai Is this word parenthetic? If so, one of two things follows; (i) either the phrase to ev ... jiepi^ea-dai as a whole is an object to e^eAijo-ets, while that verb generally governs, at least in Attic, a mere infinitive (edeXo) ireiOea-OaL, woielv, etc.) ; (2) or [xepl^ea-dai must be used in an active sense ; which is rare, although if taken with ij/xti/ it might yield a good sense — ' Do you wish then to be in very truth a party to our splitting up the one idea among us ? ' But we have parallels to the use of (f>dvat governing an inf and itself governed by a verb like eOeXeiv — Rep. vi. 510 a, 7] Kal e6eXoLdvai., ijv S' eyw, Siyp^a-dai dX-qdcm tc ko.I p.7j ; 94 PARMENIDES. Theaet 171 E, ^OeX^a-ai av >l>avai fifj Trav yvviaov... tKavliV dvai ISjj-dai avro. Polit. 276 B, eVi/xeXtia Se ... ovSefiia av Wi\-q(Teiev krepa /ioAAov ... (^arai koI KOTO irdvTdiv dvdpbyiTMV apx^S e^vat rex^V- 1^6 only objection to this construction is the other use of <^avai so repeatedly ; and there is a further argument in its favour that it gives a definite sense to rifj-iv (to divide among us all the one "80s dvOpunrov) which in the other case would seem a mere adjunct to to h eiSos='our one etSos.' Yet for such a use see E below, tZv eiSGv trot etc. KttV ... elireiv : We may make koI ... eo-rai ; a fresh interrog. sent. ; but it is as likely to be part of the previous one with the constr. varied — see Riddell's Platonic idioms, § 277 b (Apology, Clar. Press) — while ovSaum gives a denial to both (j^dvai etc. and ea-Tai. We bring out the force of yap thus — Kal KaAws yt, opa yap. D Kal iK. ...iirrai 'and each of the many objects which rank as "big" will be such in virtue of a portion of bigness which is smaller than " bigness " proper.' cjyatverat — t better, ^avdrai : but the point is small. 8ai; See Introd. Ixxxi. and Notes i. ToB (o-ou (u'povs etc. So 9tt, though t has os above -CDS. The reading is rather difficult, and it is just possible that an orig. os has been changed through the ambiguities arising from cKao-rov and cr/xi/cpdv. If retained the phrase must mean ' the " equal- " section of our ideal kingdom.' The order of words is e/aipe6iVT0S Ttvbs e'AaTTov avdyK-q yiveaSai, TJis Se crapKos &pi(TTai to ttgo-ov kol jxtykOu Kal /uk- poTTjTi, (fiavepuv &n eK t^s JAa^'o-TTys (rapKhs ovdlv eKKpiOrja-erai a-C)p.a- io-rai yap eXaTTOV Trjs (Xaxurrtjs. Proc. V. 115, aTOTTOV dpa Siaiperov ■^yturdai to (rpLiKpoV rh yap dv. TCvaoSv ... Stop. Proc. (116) dwells on the con- ditions of the problem here with great point, but without answering this question. dSiao-TaTo (without dimensions) dpa iravra ra. ecSr) ecni' Kara Se t^i- avrr/v alriav Kal rcncov iravrhs vinpiZpvTai' jracrt yap iravraxov Tots fJ.iTexovcriv aKwAuTMs irapio-ri. ra Se €V TOTTOj Kpg.Tovp.iva T»is dKwXx'nov tuuttjs Trapouo-tas dpoLpa ■7retpiTO} Tis rj Toi' XP^^°^ ^ ''^^ TOiriKrjV TTiplXrjxf/iv r] tov (TUipaTiKOV ptpicrpov, pr]&' oAos O'Vvd&Tii.'i ^ Siatpecrtis trtuyuaToetSeis €V e/ctivois cTTii'oetTti). iroppu) yap TavTa Siea-TrjKc twv slSwv ti)S aTrAoTi^TOS T^s dvXov, T^s KaOapoTrjTos ttjs (V ai.u)vt crwcxoyitei'ijs dpepovs v7roo-rci(rea)S. We have learnt above so far that the ideas are certain moulding formative entities existing apart, and grasped by reason. Their function is to introduce method, form, meaning into the many of sense (but how iroAAa without iv etc. ?), and we see that this is done by their entering into these, or giving the latter a share in them, and tliat either KaTo. oXov or KaTo. p.kpo's, if at all. The whole argument suggests physical conditions and analogies, none the less so because of the special ideas selected for treatment; and Proc. enters a caveat that such physical con- ditions as space, time, dimensions are out of place. He adds an elucidation of the difficulty, which amounts to this, that the many may be ranged in NOTES. 95 grades, the more exalted of whicli come close in character to the ideas, and may partake of them with practical completeness; the others tail oif towards matter, and partake of less and less, or of mere tiSuAa, of the ideas. Parmenides, he says, avaKiVii Thv 2. Ka6 ■jrpOKaXf.iTai rhv Iv avrcu vovv eis ■ri]v T^s KvpiiardTrjs fiide^tb)^ evpeiriv .... By those who understand the whole and part fj.rj o-tujuaTiKcos, dXXa 7rpo(T6p(o's rats aijAois kol vocpais ovcriai^, 6drjaeTai to. tij8« Kal oA.ui' fj.eTe)^ovTa twv dSoiv Kal fiepoiv ... Kai Ta [Mcv vypy^konpa. twv /ieTf^ovTO)!/ rr/Wovs va-o8£Xi^dvov. And so Dam. § 206 II. 89, rj aCvc(reai; He seems at first to have meant avro ... p.tydXa to be subj. to some such verb as vapi^u, to which eV n would be the obj. : as he wrote he made the latter the subj. and replaced vapk^u by (fiaveiTai as though he had begun Tt Se irepl avTov tov ... fxeydXiov. But again, aive(r6ai with its relative would more naturally be 0) ... tpairqa-erai or ij>aveiTai. Either there is sug- gested dependence on the sense of the clause cV ... avelTai precedes and dvacfiav/ja-eTai follows may help to explain the change. While we reason back to the ideas they, of course, prove to be the causes or rational elements of the things through which we reach them. In this case of p.eye9os the remark of Arist., Met. xi. id, 1075 b 29, applies — en ttws eo-Tai e^ dp.iyiBZv piiyidos Kal rj, twv lctwv, frepiov ovTotv Ikeivou TOV urov, o/ji(i)s avTov T)]V cTrto-nj/uiij)' evvevoT/zcas T€ Kal e!Xi!]a^ ; dXijOecrraTa, i'^t), Acyeis. Symp. 211 B, TOVTO yap S-^ ecTTL rh op^ws eirl to, eponiKo, livai ■^ iir' dXXov dyecrOai, dpx6p,evov dirh rui'Se tSv KaXlHv iKuvov ivtKa rov KaXov dn, eTravievai, Sxrirep kTravaj3ad pois xpiipevov, dirb evoi eTrl Svo Kal dirb 8viiv cirl irdvTa ra KaXd crw/iaTa, ;cai dirh Twr KaXdv a-ii}jj,dT(i>v iirl Toi KaXa eirLTrjSei'para, Kal dirh roiv KaXav eTTLTrjSivpdTiov kirl to, KaXd paO'r'jp.aTa, eia's djro Twi' padfjpaTdiv kir eKiivo Tu imdrjp,a reXevTrja-rj 6 icTTLV OVK dXXoV ij aVTOV €K€LV0V Tou KaXov p.d9T]jj,a, Kal yvZ avrh reXevToiv eo'Ti KaXov. Phaedr. 249 B, Set ydp dvOpioTTOv ^vvtevat Kar' crSos Xeyop^i^ov, ex TToAAuJv lov alfrd-qiTimv £« ev AoyKT/iW ^vvaipovpevov TOVTO Se ea-Ttv dvdpvrjai'S iKeivav, d ttot etSev rjpwv ij ^VYn (Tvp,Trop£vdeuTa de!^ Kal vwepiSovara d vvv dvai K^apev Kal dvaKvipaira ets to ov ovtms. In all these generalization is regarded as a certain and fruitful method, not a hopeless one : also the objection that we merely read into sensible objects what we wish to find there is parried in a fashion by the doctrine of dvdp,vr]v Xa^etv ras atVias 'drepa tovtols tcra Tov dpLOjxuv iKofLicrav, wa-irep £t tls dpiOprjcrai fiovKo- ji€vos eXaTT6vo>v jih' ovtiuv oi'oiTo fx-q Svvi'jcrea-daL, TrXiib) Se TTOLijiras dpiOpoiy. aXXd...|i^ 'What if.... Should we perhaps say ... ?' So in Dam. often ixqirore, as § 42, 84, priiroTi ovv da-rjjaXio-Tepov Xkyeiv ..."I!)i»fi.ev, adpei, or so is omitted. fj TovTwv ...irpocrtjKi] See Notes i. : the order of the text is the more euphonious, and, so to say, dis- tinguished. Is -Kti of both Mss. due to dictation ? tv ye t £1- T£. But Heind. says ' prius proposi- tionis membrum otSrco yap ... et"?; explicatur per posterius hoc Kal ovk ... eAcyero, sc. to airiipa tivai TO s-A^^os, ut parum hie apta videatur vocula n..' He adds (not knowing 2() scripserim h n ck. With regard to the whole passage — which has so struck some reader (Arethas ?) that he has marked it with a tnj/ia'wo-ai 'N.B.' — note that the process of reach- ing eiSrj by the method eirl iravra. ISovtl, and the treating of them as voijfxaTa is much in accord with the eTraKTiKol Xoyoi and the opl^eaOai KaOoXov, ascribed by Arist. to Socrates (Introd. xxix., xliii.). Plato does not accept the theory; but it is the first point at which the conception of an extended idea is definitely excluded. Grote refers to Simplicius on Arist. Categ. 8 b, 25, twv 8e iraXaiiov ol [uv dvypovv Tols TTOiorrjTa's TeAews, to iroioi' (Tvy\(}>povvTti(TrrjKOTa (Tiopard l(TTiv r) dxriLparaf Ktil TTorepov \ii>pia-Ta fj iv Tois alcrdi^Tols koi Trepl Tavra vcj)€s. Grote refers to Simpl. on Categ. 8, 8 b ot diro t^s 'Eperpias dvypovv Tos TToioTijTas cus ouSa/xu)s k^ova-a^ ti Kotvuv ovo-tmSts, ev Se TOLS KaO' eKacTTa Kal (rvvderois VTrapxovtrais, and after referring also to Dicaearchus and Theop. he adds ovre yap criapara ovre d(Tv eis eKeivas opoiias avarpe)^ovres, ov /tovov (OV eio-iv, aAAo. Kal &v ovk eurtv, olov rZv Trapa vcriv, -Zv irnpd rexvi)v, twv s-a|oa Aoyov, rQv dvovtrloiv, NOTES. 97 avTwv Twv avmro^rraTtav, Tpayi\diav Xkyat koX hnro- Ktvravpiav' elo-i yap /cat toi'tiuv koivott/tes" xai ovto) rmv ovK 6vrt^i Trap' aXX-qXa fdijKtV, Phaedo 76 E, ap' ovtw^ ex^'i xal lurj dvdyK-q N TavTct T€ ilvai Kai tos ■^p.iTepa'S \lw)(a,s Trplv /cot rjfias yeyovivai ; ...virepvioi ... SoKei /tot ij ai5rij avay/cry eifat. Ik vor\\i,6iTav ... etvai ; See Tim. 30 B, oi!t(i)s oSv Sfj Kara Adyoi' tov et/coTa Set Aeyetv, TovSe rbv /cdcr/tov fwov e[x\f^)(ov tvvovv te ... Sttt Trjv tov 6fov yevetrdai irpovoiav. Dam., § 26, 46, says of the one, en ei, OTt TravTa, Sta tovto yvtucTTdi', icTTai kol yvoxTTiKov /cat Touro ydp eV rw :ravTwv, and certainly if one is All it must 'know even as also it is known.' Our passage recalls the historic Parm. (Introd. xxxvi.) who holds that thought is identical with being, or certainly that being includes thought as part of itself. Of a much later date we have Plotin. Enn. V. 4, 2, voiis Srj /cat ov ravTov ov yap rZv irpayixdriiiv o vous Sxnrtp r) ai(76rj(TL'i Ttov aurOrirmv irpoovTiov, dXX' avrh's vovs to irpdyp.a.Ta etc. But in our passage Plato assumes that a thought has itself the power of thinking (Introd. xlv.). For the language cp. Tim. 30 B, Xoyicra/iEvos oSv (o Otai) evpio'Kev e/c t£v /caret (fivtriv oparZv ovdilv avdijTov tou vovv e'xovtos oXov oAov KaXXiov icrea-6al -iron 'ipyov, vovv 8 aS ^lapii V^X'?* dSdvaTov irapayevecrdai T(f : also in another connection, Arist. Phys. in. 3, 202 a 30, aa-r' 1) ttSi' TO Kivovv /civijcTETat, IJ ix°^ Kivrjo-iv ov /civ^o-€Tat. Karaifiatv. Cp. with note on Karafiavd. i28a;D and contr. with dva(j>dvri. 132 a and e. The ob- server detects as it were by looking from above, while the new object will emerge from below. See Phileb. 16 C, Oewv fiev eh dvOpmirovs Sdo-ts, tl's ye /carai^atVerat e/tot : and 16 D, irplv dv Tts tov dpidfibv avTov irdvra KariSig, and Crat. 401 B followed by 402 A. Proc, v. 160, notes the sudden boldness of See, Kai 8ta TOV KaTaaivevvarii here and our own. We would naturally think of physical patterns to be found in the sensible world, in spite of the warning of Proc, ei!o>6e yovv 6 nAdrtov Kal 98 PARMENIDES. kin TO. vorjTo. <\>(puv Tovro rh r^s va-{(j)S ovo/ia. Stallb. well cites Rep. x. 597 b, ovkovv rpiTrai rives KXivai avrai yiyvovTaC fxla fiev rj lu ry ike, kv t$ ovti €(rT(UTwv, Tov p.€V Oeiov tv8a,i.p.ove(TTdrov ToO Si dOkov (N.B.) dOXiMraTov. Suid. says of 7rapdSeiyij.a — iiKuiv, rj )(^apaKTrjp evvoiav 'e)((i)V alirOrjTov Trpdyixaros. ... irapdSeiyp.a p-fv yap ((ttiv OTav dvrnrapa6y tis opoLov opoiii), olov AoytK