PARMENIDES A Text with Translation Commentary, and Critical E By Leonardo Taran PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS 1965FOREWORD >aaatextpns! doctrine repri = a turning-point in Gree philosophy, one that can truly be said to determine the course Greek thought until the time of Aristotle. Not only mpedocles, Anaxag’ nd the Atomists but alsd_Plato nd Aristotle tried to answer the dilemma put forward by Parmenides, namely, tha ny éifference from Being is absolute non-Being, and as such unthinkable, no account of ¢ world of difference and change can be valid. [But th doctrine not only invalidates any explanation of the sensible ld, it asserts that this world inso as it is different from nvexistent, Because it seems of fundamental nportance for the nding cf Greek philo: jetermine what Parmenides thought, I decided to ophy to study all available evidence about his work. My decision was mt pased on the conviction that only suck a study can be lay, for Parmenides’ philosophy is ane in which al ind any interpretation of part of it risks, hy not takin consideration other aspects of his thought, being c ults of another partial stucy T have devoted the first part of th: book to a line by line yy on the fragments, I hav: edited facilitate reference and to complete in part the eritical appa- text only 0 ratus given by Diels-Kranz, I have m the be able editions of the ancient authors who quote Parmeni des’ text. A fresh study of the manuscripts of Simplicius’ commentaries to Aristotle's Phiysies and De Caelo may still 1 to our knowledge, but I am convinced that even such a sudy would not drastically change the stat Parmenides. The variant readings ratus and sometimes in the commentary are selective and are especially meant to illustrate the p riant 1 ing may be of importance for the interpretation of the text in in the critical apFOI ORD The transla been added as a complement to the commentary, to reduce bas no pretension to literary value and has mentary, but in a few places discussion of the text is post id part of the be chap poned till the se to preserve the tnity of the first d ers. These chi fers deal with more general aspects of Parmenides’ tho ight: his notion of Bein the relation of Aletheia to Dox the content of the second part of the poem. The fc th chapter attempts to kk Parmenides’ philosophy to ve this testimony has for the historical recon- struction of Parmenides’ thos determine what the ancien be and. wha Since such a study as the present is by its very nature largely polemical, T wish to emphasize here my i to the scholars who have devoted themselv Parmenicdes id not least to those with whose interpretations I happen to disagree. In particular I would like to mention the pioneering work of H. Diels, E, Zeller, W. A. Heidel, and H, Frinkel, The book, with content, is a doctoral dis. tation submitted to the Faculty of Princeton University in September 1962, But I have taken into consideration studies on Parmenides that reached me up to December 1963, I wish to express my thanks to Professor W. J. Oates both for undertaking to direct the dissertation and for a number of given to Professor G. Viastos for discussing with me problems of interpretation of Parmenides and ancient phil general during and after my s at Princeton, to Professor cript and givin it with me, to Pro enero of his time to diseuss different B.D. Meritt for checking LG. Il 4548, and to Mr, M. C the manuscript. Iam also grateful F me the photograph of for reading part of R. Miriam Brokaw FOREWORD xd Mrs, Polly Hanford of the Princeton University Press, ind to Mrs, ita MeChang for helping 9 prepare the Wat above all I am indebted to Professors Harold I \dolfo for their teaching and their fo Me study Leowanpo Tani Januar