sprague, rosamond kent_parmenides. a suggested rearrangement of fragments in the way of...

7/29/2019 Sprague, Rosamond Kent_Parmenides. a Suggested Rearrangement of Fragments in the Way of Truth_1955_CPh, …

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sprague-rosamond-kentparmenides-a-suggested-rearrangement-of-fragments-in 1/4

Parmenides: A Suggested Rearrangement of Fragments in the "Way of Truth"Author(s): Rosamond Kent SpragueSource: Classical Philology, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Apr., 1955), pp. 124-126Published by: The University of Chicago Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/265913 .

Accessed: 17/09/2013 14:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

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

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:57:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/265913?origin=JSTOR-pdf






http://www.jstor.org/stable/265913?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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



124 NOTES AND DIscussIoNs

". . . nec Marte furentesferre qui bus populis poteris nec stare Latinisante famem. . .

[7. 302-4].

Petschenig explains quibus as quibus-

cumque. But even if this be linguistically

possible, "you will not be able to withstand

them with any nations" is a strange way

of saying "your forces cannot stand

against them." Besides populis ... Latinis

would normally be taken together: cf. 8.364 munera pro populis, onerans altare,Latinis, 8. 358f. Latinis ... populis, 8. 200

gauisae acies gentesque Latinae / signamouent (sim. 7. 504). quibus must go; per-

haps queas may replace it.

D. R. SHACKLETONBAILEY

GONVILLEAND CAIUS COLLEGE,CAMBRIDGE,

ENGLAND

NOTES

1. Exegetisch-kritische eitrige zu Corippus(Diss., Munich,1904).

2. De Claudiani et Corippi sermoneepico (Diss., Breslau,1908).

3. Berliner Studien, Vol. IV, Pt. 2.4. Monumenta GermaniaeHistorica, Auct. Ant., Vol. III.

PARMENIDES: A SUGGESTED REARRANGEMENT OF FRAGMENTS IN THE"WAY OF TRUTH"

The proposed alteration of Diels's order-

ing of the fragments of Parmenides will, I

believe, eliminate from the poem two dif-

ficulties in thought which result from the

present sequence.' The fragments with

which I am concerned are the following:

XP, r ?"~L 06vov t'&6̀ 1,Lvca

y&pzpyn0!

eyetv re 0?V T>?0 ?F?MLo

p

[LYiv 8' OUX`atLV' Ta"Z'&y)cypOC~aOCLt`C()yOC.

tp T-% yocp a' aY' 60o5 TaU<s &t45Og <4y(Y)>,

Oau'rap TCLT"a7o Tn5, "'V 8' POTO' C'80-Mg OUkV

70ATTOVTOCL, 8LxpavoL a,unavt yap ?v OCUGv

'TYOeOLV W "VCL 7r?,OCXv voov o' 8?&(opoi6voTCL

XGY9Ot ti5 TUypXcA TC, TCO-7tT, aXpLTC Yu?OC,

01l ro?6 V TC Zt O oX TVOCL-UTOcV 'V?V6jLaTocL

XouTaUTOV, 7rVV 8? rC.V C'M05aTrLe,UOOg

[6. 1-9].

oCyap TlOT? T0o70 80Cct CIvat &6v'

a a u7)ta8' &ac` k ou8 J5tog elpy? voQfU

0V8&a' 00g 7OM)67LpOV 686V Xa'c TV& rLota O,

vC4L av OTaXOTrOV o xocX?acv aXouV&O v

xcL yXCOaav, XpLVOL 8? ,O6yCO 7O?U8-pV ?"?yXOV

[7. 1-5].

kZ &j46Oev pi0Okvtrx. FOVog 8'1-t L500o 6080o0

EL7?7tCL 6)4 E"arLV. x.tk. [8. 1-2].

The structure of Fragment 6 is implied

in lines 3 and 4: "I debar you from this

first way of inquiry and also from this. . . " The fragment therefore appears to be

one in which two ways of inquiry are for-

bidden.

Of the three conceivable paths men-

tioned in the Way of Truth as a whole, we

know that only one, the Way of Being, is

approved (Frag. 2. 3-4). Of the two re-

maining paths, one, the Way of Not-Being,

is rejected as unspeakable and unknow-

able (Frag. 2. 7-8), while the other, the

Way of Seeming, is ruled out as composedof the "opinions of mortals," tocq oQuX 9vL

7rt5at5 &? jO' (Frag. 1. 30).

In Fragment 6, the mention of the fpo-

,rot dt6-Tg OU&v in line 4, together with

the description of these mortals which fol-

lows, make it clear that the second prohib-

ited way (oc'U*p `7revL aTo7 ) is here

the Way of Seeming. The question then

arises of identifying the first rejected path

towhich the goddess refers in 6. 3. The

word rou&Tj leads us to expect that a de-

scription of this way has just been given.

However, on returning to the first two

lines of Fragment 6, we do not find, as we

should expect, a description of one of the

forbidden ways (presumably the Way of

Not-Being since a description of the Way

of Seeming follows in 11.4-9), but a clear

reference to the Way of Being: "It is nec-

essary both to say and to think that being

is, for it is possible to be, but nothing is notpossible."

It would certainly be strange if Parmen-

ides were now to be forbidden the one







NOTES AND DiscussiONS 125

way which the goddess has just defined as

following truth 'AX?iOe'L yap 47r-8e (2. 4).

It therefore seems to me reasonable

either to postulate some passage about

not-being to precede 6. 3, or to transfer

such a passage here from elsewhere in the

poem. Fortunately, just such a passage is

available in 7. 1-2: "That the things-that-

are-not are can never be proved; keep your

thought from this way of inquiry." Not

only do these lines fit the requirements of

Fragment 6, but there seems to me to be

evidence to show that this may have been

their original position. Furthermore, their

removal from Fragment 7 solves a similar

problem, as we shall see.My rearrangement of the fragments

would be as follows: (1) I should detach

the first two lines of Fragment 6, thus

leaving a gap between lines 2 and 3 in the

present sequence. (2) I should then place

7. 1-2 in the gap created between 6. 2 and

6. 3. The new passage now reads:

xp TOy'

V Tvoz?LV :r&V NLrvaL

tT yocp

elvat,

[-a'zv8`'OUX 'aTv- 'raoa

?yG ypaocroaOL&VcyaC.

GU)ya'p 11 70T T05O 0I&elVTO AL11va'0na.

a,?)& cav Ta, a<C'p GU6 cLtog epye v6oja

7rp6,-7r,q ya-p o9'M'yoi5 TCUT &8'LoG <KdpyO>

Mu'rop VzCLT"a-so' Tq, ...XTX.

It will be noticed at once that there is a

striking resemblance between lines 4 and 5of the resulting passage, a resemblancewhich leads me to believe that this might

well have been the original sequence. I

would, however, be the first to admit thatthere is little possibility of demonstrating

anything conclusive in such matters, and

I present the evidence as merely sug-

gestive.

The only sources for the conjunction of7. 1-2 are Plato's Sophist 237A and 258D,

where the lines are cited as of particularpertinence to the discussion of not-being.2

Suppose that Plato, in selecting a passagefrom Parmenides to accompany this dis-

cussion, had come upon the lines:

GU yap 7rorZ 8iJcto &IOLO Kd'p6>ra

pr,,ya'p as'Map'0'8G5rCU"r-rq&tC,toq <e'LpyO>.

In quoting the two lines in isolation, the

word 7rp6-l would cease to be meaningfulsince only the Way of Not-Being is in

question, and there is no contrast here be-

tween a first way and a second. Under such

circumstances it seems conceivable thatTrp(l) yap &camy060D u 8L4(LO >rtpyu>

might have become c?-? ra8` &c`68oi3

&67aO46 tpye v6ofia.3 (3) I should therefore

drop 7. 2 in favor of 6. 3.4

As already suggested above, the pres-

ence of 7. 1-2 at the beginning of that

fragment raises difficulties comparable to

those caused by the absence of some similar

passage at the beginning of Fragment 6.

Parmenides is counseled by the goddessnot to follow the Way of Not-Being, but

he is counseled not to let the "habit of long

experience" force him to do so ( a8a'Ooq

70,o?7rZLpOv 486v xwxr& r rv83 LcaOco). Now

the only one of the two forbidden ways

which the "habit of long experience" could

possibly compel us to follow is the Way of

Seeming. The blind eye and the echoing

ear and the tongue (7. 4-5) have no im-

aginable connection with the Way of Not-

Being. Therefore, by the removal of 7. 1-2to the beginning of Fragment 6, we not

only supply a reference to the Way of Not-

Being at the precise point where it is

needed in that context, but we also rid

ourselves of its unwelcome presence in thecontext of Fragment 7. In addition, it now

becomes possible to close up the gap be-

tween the two passages about the Way of

Seeming: that is, we can proceed directlyfrom 7ravTv 8 7roOavTpc7r6qart x),VOoq (6.

9) to ,u-8 a'Oo0 7O,67LPOV 686v XcxT-& A3La%aOca7. 3). This seems to me to make ad-

mirable sense.

The entire rearrangement may be sum-

marized as follows: (1) 7. 1 follows 6. 2;

(2) 7. 2 is dropped on the assumption that

it is really another version of 6. 3; (3) 6. 3-9are as before, but, with the removal of

7. 1-2, 7. 3 follows 6. 9. The rest of the

ordering remains the same.

The sequence of thought has now been

considerably smoothed out. Fragment 6

opens with a concise recommendation of

the Way of Being: ra `'y' cppaCaOoct







126 NOTES AND DIscuSSIONS

&v&yoc. he two remaining ways are thenforbidden, the Way of Not-Being brieflyand dogmatically, the Way of Seeming atmore length. The prohibitionin 7. 3 is nowdirected toward the Way of Seeming,which is further described in 7. 4-5. Thesuggested rearrangementalso makes easyand natural the transition to ,i6voq8'9rt

,UV6o4 0'aoZo )n7t?etoC 40 gatLv at the be-ginning of Fragment 8. Once the Ways ofNot-Being and Seeming have been dis-posed of, only the Way of Being remains;Fragment 8 goes on to discuss this way indetail.5 ROSAMOND KENT SPRAGUE

BRYN MAWR, PENNSYLVANIA

NOTES

1. All textual referencesare to Diels-Kranz, Die Fragmenteder Vorsokratiker'Berlin, 1951), Vol. I.

2. 7. 1 occurs as an isolated line in Arist. Metaph. 1089a 2,and 7. 2 occursbetween 1. 30 and 7. 3-7 in Sext. Emp. Adv.Log. ? 111.

3. Professor R. Lattimore suggests to me the simplerexplanation that both lines occurred n the original sequence.Parmenides is a repetitive writer, and might perhaps have

said "Keep your thought from this way of inquiry; I debaryou from this first way of inquiry and also from this. . ." Bothhis explanation and mine have the disadvantage of making itnecessary to suppose that Simplicius made a mistake in hisquotation of Frag. 6. in Phys. 117.

4. If it seems undesirable to drop 7. 2 from the poemaltogether, I should be willing to consider returning this lineand the five lines following to the end of Frag. 1, either as inSextus (see n. 2), or as in Diels (eds. 1-4), where they appearas 1. 33-38. In general my purpose s not so much to insist thatmy own arrangement s the right one as to point out that thepresent sequence in Diels needs reconsideration.

5. Part of a dissertation submitted to the faculty of Bryn

Mawr College in partial fulfllment of the requirements for thePh.D.

IOTA AFTER UPSILON

It is well known that intervocalic iota(yod) is in general lost in Greek.In Buck'sComparativeGrammar ? 179. 1)',however,we read: "In Greek an exception is thatthe y united with a preceding u to forma diphthong ut, as in Lesb. ypu&o, tt. A6s

and iuAi." It is noteworthy that cognatesof the words in question show a long iu inother IE languages. On this basis, Lejeuneremarks (Traitg de phon4tique grecque,? 154): "Il est probable qu'un if ancien se

dedoublait en uw devant yod comme ilfait devant voyelle."

Since, in light of recent theory, a long u

is to be stated as a sequence *uX (whereXstands for any laryngeal) in IE, a simplerexplanation is now possible, whereby an

exceptional development in the case ofthis single vowel, as well as a special glidesound, may be dispensed with. Since thesequence in question was originally *uXi V(where V stands for any vowel), yod wasin this position not intervocalic, but wasprotected by a nonsyllabic just as in thecase of *VsiV, etc. Thus we may say with-outexceptionthat intervocalic yod was lostin Greek. To follow up the latter part ofLejeune's statement, though it is possiblethat intervocalic laryngeals were lost insome circumstances, there is also evidenceelsewhere in IE for the development of

glide semivowels in such positions.ERICP. HAMPUNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

CORRECTION

Owing to the kindness of a communi-cation from Paul Maas an error in myreview of Gregoire'sHelen (CP, XLVIII

[1953],131)mayberemoved. Jackson'scon-jecture at Helen 1074 (CQ,XXXV [1941],186) was indicated to Gregoirein the con-

versation mentioned in his edition onpage 46, note 2. Maas also points out that

the splendid improvement that Jacksonintroduced at Tro. 1206 has been incor-porated by the Belgian editor (p. 80)

without benefit of source.

W. C. HELMBOLD

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA





sprague, rosamond kent_parmenides. a suggested rearrangement of fragments in the way of...

Documents