Parmenides: A Suggested Rearrangement of Fragments in the "Way of Truth"

Author(s): Rosamond Kent Sprague

Source: Classical Philology , Apr., 1955, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Apr., 1955), pp. 124-126
Published by: The University of Chicago Press

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

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 support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

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

This content downloaded from

152.92.1.3 on Wed, 15 Mar 2023 15:55:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 124 NOTES AND DIscussIoNs

". . . nec Marte furentes would normally be taken together: cf. 8.

ferre qui bus populis poteris nec stare Latinis
ante 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
364 munera pro populis, onerans altare,
Latinis, 8. 358f. Latinis ... populis, 8. 200
gauisae acies gentesque Latinae / signa
mouent (sim. 7. 504). quibus must go; per-
haps queas may replace it.
D. R. SHACKLETON BAILEY
GONVILLE AND CAIUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
ENGLAND

NOTES

1. Exegetisch-kritische Beitrige zu Corippus (Diss., Munich, 3. Berliner Studien, Vol. IV, Pt. 2.
1904). 4. Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auct. Ant., Vol. III.
2. De Claudiani et Corippi sermone epico (Diss., Breslau,
1908).

PARMENIDES: A SUGGESTED REARRANGEMENT OF FRAGMENTS IN THE

"WAY OF TRUTH"

The proposed alteration of Diels's order- Of the three conceivable paths men-
ing of the fragments of Parmenides will, I tioned in the Way of Truth as a whole, we
believe, eliminate from the poem two dif- know that only one, the Way of Being, is
ficulties in thought which result from the approved (Frag. 2. 3-4). Of the two re-
present sequence.' The fragments with maining paths, one, the Way of Not-Being,
which I am concerned are the following: is rejected as unspeakable and unknow-
able (Frag. 2. 7-8), while the other, the
XP, 'r
zpyn 0! ?"~L
eyetv06vov t'&6
re 0?V "`1,Lvc
T>?0 ?F?MLa y&p
o yp
Way of Seeming, is ruled out as composed
of the "opinions of mortals," tocq oQuX 9vL
[LYiv 8' OUX `atLV' Ta" Z'&y) cypOC~aOCLt O`C()yOC.
7rt5at5 &? jO' (Frag. 1. 30).
tp T-% yocp a' aY' 60o5 TaU<s &t45Og <4y(Y)>,
In Fragment 6, the mention of the fpo-
Oau'rap ? TCLT" a 7o Tn5, "'V 8' POTO' C'8 0-Mg OUkV
,rot dt6-Tg OU&v in line 4, together with
70ATTOVTOCL, 8LxpavoL a,unavt yap ?v OCUGv
the description of these mortals which fol-
'TYOeOLV W "VCL 7r?,OCXv voov o' 8?& (opoi6voTCL
lows, make it clear that the second prohib-
XGY9Ot 6ti5 TUypXcA TC, TCO-7tT, aXpLTC Yu?OC,
ited way (oc'U*p `7revL aTo t7 ) is here
01l ro 7?6 V TC Zt O UoX TVOCL T-UTOcV 'V?V6jLaTocL
the Way of Seeming. The question then
Xo uTaUTO V, 7rVV 8? rC.V C'M05aTrL Xe,UOOg
arises of identifying the first rejected path
[6. 1-9].
to which the goddess refers in 6. 3. The
oC yap TlOT? T0o70 80Cct CIvat &6v'
word rou&Tj leads us to expect that a de-
a a u t7)ta8' &ac` ok ou 08 J5 tog elpy? voQfU
scription of this way has just been given.
0V8&a' 00g 7OM)67LpOV 686V Xa'c TV& rLota O,
However, on returning to the first two
vC4L av OTaXOTrOV o xoc aX?acv aXouV&O v
lines of Fragment 6, we do not find, as we
xcL yXCOaav, XpLVOL 8? ,O6yCO 7O?U8-pV ?"?yXOV
should expect, a description of one of the
[7. 1-5].
forbidden ways (presumably the Way of
kZ &j46Oev pi0Okvtrx. FOVog 8'1-t L500o 6080o0
Not-Being since a description of the Way
EL7?7tCL 6)4 E"arLV. . x.tk. [8. 1-2].
of Seeming follows in 11. 4-9), but a clear
The structure of Fragment 6 is implied reference to the Way of Being: "It is nec-
in lines 3 and 4: "I debar you from this essary both to say and to think that being
first way of inquiry and also from this is, for it is possible to be, but nothing is not
. . . " The fragment therefore appears to be possible."
one in which two ways of inquiry are for- It would certainly be strange if Parmen-
bidden. ides were now to be forbidden the one

This content downloaded from

152.92.1.3 on Wed, 15 Mar 2023 15:55:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 NOTES AND DiscussiONS 125

way which the goddess has just defined as In quoting the two lines in isolation, the
following truth 'AX?iOe'L yap 47r-8e (2. 4). word 7rp6-l would cease to be meaningful
It therefore seems to me reasonable since only the Way of Not-Being is in
either to postulate some passage about question, and there is no contrast here be-
not-being to precede 6. 3, or to transfer tween a first way and a second. Under such
such a passage here from elsewhere in the circumstances it seems conceivable that
poem. Fortunately, just such a passage is Trp(l) yap &camy060D u 8L4(LO > <rtpyu>
available in 7. 1-2: "That the things-that- might have become c?-? ra8` &c`68oi3
are-not are can never be proved; keep your &67aO46 tpye v6ofia.3 (3) I should therefore
thought from this way of inquiry." Not drop 7. 2 in favor of 6. 3.4
only do these lines fit the requirements of As already suggested above, the pres-
Fragment 6, but there seems to me to be ence of 7. 1-2 at the beginning of that
evidence to show that this may have been fragment raises difficulties comparable to
their original position. Furthermore, their those caused by the absence of some similar
removal from Fragment 7 solves a similar passage at the beginning of Fragment 6.
problem, as we shall see. Parmenides is counseled by the goddess
My rearrangement of the fragments not to follow the Way of Not-Being, but
would be as follows: (1) I should detach he is counseled not to let the "habit of long
the first two lines of Fragment 6, thus experience" force him to do so ( a8 a'Ooq
leaving a gap between lines 2 and 3 in the 70,o?7rZLpOv 486v xwxr& r rv83 LcaOco). Now
present sequence. (2) I should then place the only one of the two forbidden ways
7. 1-2 in the gap created between 6. 2 and which the "habit of long experience" could
6. 3. The new passage now reads: possibly compel us to follow is the Way of
Seeming. The blind eye and the echoing
xp TO y' V T voz?LV T:r &V NLrvaL t 5T
earyocp
and the tongue (7. 4-5) have no im-
elvat,
aginable connection with the Way of Not-
[-a'zv 8`'OUX 'aTv- L 'rao a ?yG ypaocroaOL Being.
&VcyaC.Therefore, by the removal of 7. 1-2
GU) ya'p 11 70T T05O 0I&elVTO AL 11va' 60na.to the beginning of Fragment 6, we not
a,?)& cav Ta, a<C'p GU6 8cLtog epye v6oja
only supply a reference to the Way of Not-
7rp6,-7r,q ya-p o9'M'yoi5 TCUT &8'LoG <KdpyO>
Being at the precise point where it is
Mu'rop VzCLT" a-so' Tq, ...XTX.
needed in that context, but we also rid
ourselves of its unwelcome presence in the
It will be noticed at once that there is a
context of Fragment 7. In addition, it now
striking resemblance between lines 4 and 5
becomes possible to close up the gap be-
of the resulting passage, a resemblance
tween the two passages about the Way of
which leads me to believe that this might
Seeming: that is, we can proceed directly
well have been the original sequence. I
from 7ravTv 8 7roOavTpc7r6q &art x),VOoq (6.
would, however, be the first to admit that
9) to ,u-8 a'Oo0 7O,67LPOV 686v Xcx a T-& A
there is little possibility of demonstrating
3La%aOca (7. 3). This seems to me to make ad-
anything conclusive in such matters, and
mirable sense.
I present the evidence as merely sug-
The entire rearrangement may be sum-
gestive.
marized as follows: (1) 7. 1 follows 6. 2;
The only sources for the conjunction of
(2) 7. 2 is dropped on the assumption that
7. 1-2 are Plato's Sophist 237A and 258D,
it is really another version of 6. 3; (3) 6. 3-9
where the lines are cited as of particular
are as before, but, with the removal of
pertinence to the discussion of not-being.2
7. 1-2, 7. 3 follows 6. 9. The rest of the
Suppose that Plato, in selecting a passage
ordering remains the same.
from Parmenides to accompany this dis-
The sequence of thought has now been
cussion, had come upon the lines:
considerably smoothed out. Fragment 6
GU yap [7rorZ 8iJcto &IOLO Kd'p y6>ra opens with a concise recommendation of
the Way of Being: ra `'y' cppaCaOoct
pr,,ya'p as'Map'0'8G5 'rCU"r-rq &tC,toq <e'LpyO>.

This content downloaded from

152.92.1.3 on Wed, 15 Mar 2023 15:55:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 126 NOTES AND DIscuSSIONS

&v&yoc. The two remaining ways are then
forbidden, the Way of Not-Being briefly
and dogmatically, the Way of Seeming at
more length. The prohibition in 7. 3 is now
directed toward the Way of Seeming,
which is further described in 7. 4-5. The
suggested rearrangement also makes easy
and natural the transition to ,i6voq 8'9rt
,UV6o4 0'aoZo )n7t?etoC 40 gatLv at the be-
ginning of Fragment 8. Once the Ways of
Not-Being and Seeming have been dis-
posed of, only the Way of Being remains;
Fragment 8 goes on to discuss this way in
detail.5 ROSAMOND KENT SPRAGUE
BRYN MAWR, PENNSYLVANIA

NOTES

1. All textual references are to Diels-Kranz, Die Fragmente
der Vorsokratiker' (Berlin, 1951), Vol. I.
2. 7. 1 occurs as an isolated line in Arist. Metaph. 1089 a 2,
and 7. 2 occurs between 1. 30 and 7. 3-7 in Sext. Emp. Adv.
Log. ? 111.
3. Professor R. Lattimore suggests to me the simpler
explanation that both lines occurred in the original sequence.
Parmenides is a repetitive writer, and might perhaps have
said "Keep your thought from this way of inquiry; I debar
you from this first way of inquiry and also from this. . . " Both
his explanation and mine have the disadvantage of making it
necessary to suppose that Simplicius made a mistake in his
quotation of Frag. 6. in Phys. 117.
4. If it seems undesirable to drop 7. 2 from the poem
altogether, I should be willing to consider returning this line
and the five lines following to the end of Frag. 1, either as in
Sextus (see n. 2), or as in Diels (eds. 1-4), where they appear
as 1. 33-38. In general my purpose is not so much to insist that
my own arrangement is the right one as to point out that the
present 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 the
Ph.D.

IOTA AFTER UPSILON

It is well known that intervocalic iota exceptional development in the case of

(yod) is in general lost in Greek. In Buck's this single vowel, as well as a special glide
Comparative Grammar (? 179. 1)', however, sound, may be dispensed with. Since the
we read: "In Greek an exception is that sequence in question was originally *uXi V
the y united with a preceding u to form (where V stands for any vowel), yod was
a diphthong ut, as in Lesb. ypu&o, Att. A6s in this position not intervocalic, but was
and iuAi." It is noteworthy that cognates protected by a nonsyllabic just as in the
of the words in question show a long iu in case of * Vsi V, etc. Thus we may say with-
other IE languages. On this basis, Lejeune out exception that intervocalic yod was lost
remarks (Traitg de phon4tique grecque, in Greek. To follow up the latter part of
? 154): "Il est probable qu'un if ancien se Lejeune's statement, though it is possible
dedoublait en uw devant yod comme il that intervocalic laryngeals were lost in
fait devant voyelle." some circumstances, there is also evidence
Since, in light of recent theory, a long u elsewhere in IE for the development of
is to be stated as a sequence *uX (where X glide semivowels in such positions.
stands for any laryngeal) in IE, a simpler ERIC P. HAMP
explanation is now possible, whereby an UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

CORRECTION

Owing to the kindness of a communi- the splendid improvement that Jackson

cation from Paul Maas an error in my introduced at Tro. 1206 has been incor-
review of Gregoire's Helen (CP, XLVIII porated by the Belgian editor (p. 80)
[1953],131)mayberemoved. Jackson'scon- without benefit of source.
jecture at Helen 1074 (CQ, XXXV [1941],
186) was indicated to Gregoire in the con- W. C. HELMBOLD
versation mentioned in his edition on
page 46, note 2. Maas also points out that UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

This content downloaded from

152.92.1.3 on Wed, 15 Mar 2023 15:55:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms