A HISTORY OF

GREEK PHILOSOPHY

BY

W.K.C.GUTHRIE F.B.A.

Master of Downing College and Laurence Professor of Ancient Philosophy in (he

University of Cambridge

VOLUME JI

THE PRESOCRATlC TRADITION FROM

PARMENIDES TO DEMOCRITUS

CAMBRIDGE

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

[969

PUBLISHED BY

THE SYNDICS OF THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Bentley House. 200 Euston Road, Landon, N.W. t American Brnoch: 31 East 57th Street, New York, N.Y. r0022

West African Qffice: P.O. Box J3, Ibadan, Nigeria

© CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS '96,

Standard Book Numher: 521 05,60 6 Lihrary ofCongress Catalogue Card Numher: 62-52735

Fil'st puhlished 1965 Reprinted 1969

First prinud in Gnar B,irr:1in at rhe' Uniyc.rsity Printing Reuse, Camhridge R~printed in Creat Britain hy Alden & Mowhray LuJ.

at the Alden Press l Oxford

CONTENTS

Pr<face page xiii

Note on the Sources xvii

List of Abbreviations xix

1 THE ELEATICS

A. Parmenides (1) Date and \ife (2) Writings 3 (3) A central problem 4 (4) The prologue 6 (j) Two ways of inquiry: one true,

the other impossible '3 (6) The true way and the false 20

(7) The only true way: the marks of 'what is' 26 (a) It is eternal, neither coming into being nor

perishing 26 (b) It is continuous and indivisible 3' (e) It is motionless, and líes complete within

peirata 34 (d) Recapitulation: coming-into-being, 10co­

motion and alteration are names without content 39

(e) It is '\ike a round ball' 43 (8) The false way of what seems to mortals jO

(9) Cosmogony and cosmology j7 (10) Theory of knowledge: the soul 67 (Il) Being and seeming 71

Appendix: the opposites in Parmenides 77

B. Zeno (1) Date and \ife (2) Writings and method

VlI

80 80 SI

Contents

(3) History of interpretation Bibliogra¡>hical note

(4) General purpose (5) Plurality (6) Motion: the paradoxes (7) Place (8) Sensation: the millet seed (9) Zeno and Parmenides

(10) Conclusion

NOle on certain Chinese parad6xes

page 83 85 87 88

91

96

97 97

100

100

c. Melissus 101

(1) Introduclory 101

(2) The natute of realiiy 102 Ca) Reality has the characteristics stated

by Parmenides and others consistent with them 103

(b) Reality is infinite 106

(e) ReaHty has no body 11 o (d) Reality feels no pain 1I3

(3) Relation te olher philosophers 115

11 IONIANS AND ELEATICS: TRE RISE AND FALL

oFMoNISM

III EMPEDOCLES

A. lntroduction

B. Date and lífe

C. Personality: healer and wonder-worker

D. Writings

E. Escape from Parmenides: the four roots Additional notes: ([) the divine names of the elements, (2) the immurahle elements and fr. 26.2

F. Structure of m.lter: the theory of mixture and its re1ation to atomísm

viíi

122

128

[32

134

138

Contents

G. Love and Strife

H. Causation in Empedocles: chance, necessity and nature

l. The cosmic cyc1e First stage: the Sphere of Love Second stage: the advance of Strife Third stage: Strife triumphant Fourth stage: the advance of Love Conclusion

Additional note: the ínterpretation of fr. 3í

J. Cosmogony and cosmoIogy (1) Cosmogony (2) Shape of the cosmos (3) The sun and the two hemispheres (4) The moon (í) The earth (6) The sea

page lj2

'í9 167 ,68 171

'74 '78 180

183 ,8í 18í 190

19' '97 198

199

K. The formalion of living creatures 200

L. The structure of animate nature: physioIogy 21'

(,) The ratio of the mixture 21I

(2) Medicine and physiology: reproduction 216 (3) Respiration 21.0

(4) SIeep and death 226 (j) Madness 227

M. Cognition, thought, sensation 228

(1) All eognition is of like by like 218 (2) Pores and emuenees (including exeursus on

magnetism) 23 ' (3) Vision 234 (4) Hearing 238 (í) Smell 240 (6) Taste and toueh 241

(7) pIeasure and pain 242

(8) Conclusion 242

ix

N. The Purifications (1) Introduction

Contents

(2) The opening of the poem (3) The Golden Age of Love (4) The sin of bloodshed: reincarnation (5) The fallen spirils (6) The way lo salvation (7) The gods (8) The nature and destiny of the 'soul'

page 244

244 246 248

249 2)1

~56

257 263

IV ANAXAGORAS 266 (1) Dale and life 266 (2) Wrilings 269 (3) The problem of becoming ~7I

(4) Mind 272

(5) Theory of matter 279 (6) The initial state: cosmogony ~94

(7) Cosmology and astronomy 304 (8) Earth and sea 310 (9) Meteorology 3Il

(10) One world or more? 313 (11) Origin and nature of living things 315 (12) Sensation 318 (13) Theory ofknowledge 319 (14) Condusion 320

Additional notes: (1) chronology of Anaxagoras's Jife, (2) Euripides and Anaxagoras, (3) me words óI10\O~p1'¡s, O¡J.OtO¡..1ÉPEICX 322

Appendix: Selected passages on Anaxagoras's theory of matter 327

V ARCHELAUS 339

VI PHILOSOPHY IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE

FIFTH CENTURY 345 Appendix: Some minor figures of the period (Hippon,

Cratylus, Clidemus, Idaeus, Oenopides) 354

x

Contents

VII DIO GENES OF ApOLLONIA

(1) Life and writings (2) The fundamental thesis: air as arché (3) Air is intelligent and divine (4) Physical theories: cosmogony and cosmology,

meteorology, magnetism (5) Life, thought, sensatian (6) Physiology (7) Conclusion

VIII THE ATOMISTS OF TJ!E FIFTH CENTURY

page 362

362

364 368

370

373 378

379

A. Leucippus 383

B. Demoeritus 386

C. The atomie theory 389 (1) Fundamentals 389 (2) General nature of atoms 392 (3) Motíon and its cause 396 (4) Nature of the original motion: the question

of weight 400 (,) Innumerable worlds: eosmogony 404 (6) The four elements 4'3 (7) Causality in atomism: necessity and chance 414 (8) The heavenly bodies; the eartb; other

natural phenomena 419 (9) Time 42 7

(lO) Soul, Jife and death 430 AdditionaJ note: Democritus • On the Next World' 436

(II) Sensation 438 Additional note: the number of the senseS in Democrirus

(12) Thought (13) Theory ofknowJedge (14) Biology, physiology, medicine (15) Man and the cosmos: the origin oflife

xi

449 4jI

454 46, 471

Contems

(16) Culture, language and the arts (17) Religion and superstition (18) Logic and mathematics (19) Ethical and politícal thought (20) Conclusion

Appendíx: Indivisibility and the atoms

page 473

478 483 489 497 )03

Bibliography 508

Indexes

1 Index of passages quoted or referred to

II Generallndex

III Index of Greek words

The device on th.e coyer is from a coin of C1Cl{omenae, the hirthplace of Anaxagoras, of Roman Imperial date. It shows ,he philosopher holding a globe, recalling p,r"ap. the saying attrihuted to him that lhe sludy ofthe keavem and the whole universe is what makes life worrlz while (see p. 26.9 n. 2).

xii

jIl

)23

537

554

PREFACE

The phrase 'Presocratic tradition' is chosen for the titIe of this volume, rather than 'Presoeratic philosophers', in acknowledgment of the faet lhat not all those inc\uded are Presocratic in the literal sense. (The main purpose of chapter VI is 10 hring home this point.) Weshall continue to follow a line or family of philosophers who were interested in the same things and could meet on common ground to fight their intellectual hattles, each trying to correct or refine on the views of the others on the same subjeet. Many of them were known in antiquiry as the physical or natural philosophers, and 1 considered using this description in the titIe; but narural philosophy can hardly be stretched to cover the True Way of Parmenides or the paradoxes of Zeno, and their eommon interest can best be described as an investigation into the nature of realiry and its relation to sensible phenomena. Man was not excluded from their surveys, but in both his individual and bis social aspeets was treated rather as an appendage lo evolutionary thearies of eosmogony. So far as modern terms are applieable, they deah in physical and social anthropology rather than in ethies or polities. Olhers meanwhile were ma\cing man the centre of their study, and with his cosmie setting as background only, were laying the foundations of European moral and political theory. Sinee the two types of thinker were contemporaneous, and acquainted with each olhers' work, there eould be no impenetrable barriers belween them, and so we find Democritus, a physikos if ever lhere was one, also writing on ethical and political matters, though his expounders (perhaps wisely) concentrated on the atomic theory of the real world as his main achieve­mento Conversely the humanists made full use of current scientific !hearies as a hasis for theír teaching on !he nature and hehaviour of mano Yet on the whole they pursued fundamentally different aims, lhe 'Presocratics' seeking the advancement of knowledge for íts own sake, and the Sophists and Socrales trying in different ways to discover and pursue the bes! Me. ¡talían philosophers like lhe Pylhagoreans .nd Empedodes also, it is tme, preaehed a way of Jife, but it was one which

xiii

Prefoce

could only be atrained through an understanding of the cosmos, and its essentially religious character had no!hing in common with the sceptical outlook of the Sophists. The fac! that Empedocles was one of !he leading politicians of his city linds litrle reflexion in his poems. Tbe humanism which was developing side by side with tbe eontinuanee of metapbysical and early scientilic theory in the fifth eentllry is here put aside, to be taken up in the next volume.

1 am grateful 10 the reviewers of volume 1 both for the generous welcome whieh they gave it, and also for sorne highly pertinent eriticisms. One of these touches on a point whíeh has ~¡xercísed me considerably, namely the order of exposition. 1 have kept o a chrono­logícal arder of philosophers, dealing with eaeh as a complet individual before passing to the next. There is much 10 be soid for the method whieh my critie (and doubtless otbers) would prefer, of dividíng hy topies, following eaeh separate problem or group of problems-the physis of tbings, the souree of motíon, cosmogony, the origins of )jfe -as it was developed hy successive thinkers throughout the periodo The diffieulty about this method is that none of the problems are in faet separa te. The condusions of these men about !he ultimate eon­stitution of things, the cause of motion or the nature of!he soul were intimately eonnected and affeeted their pronouneements on every other topie as well. Eaeh presents us with a system marvellously coherent down to its smallest details. It is índeed easy to see how a man's ideas on the 'first principIes' of matter can affect what he has to say about cosmogony, cosmology .nd astronomy;' hU! sorne may think that at least minor topics like magnetism or the sterility of mules (which seems to have exercised a disproportionate fascination over our philo­sophers or those who reported them) eould have beeo separated from the large metaphysical Or cosmio speculabons, a procedure which would have uodouhted advantages for those who wish to refer quickly or convenient1y to a compendium of andent views on this or that aspect of natural science. Yet even that is not so.

This has not been my sale motive. In hooesty 1 must confess that

l The crin¡;: 'WhD has provolo:ed these remarh, Stephen Toulrrtin, hao!'> noted ín his Archi­teceure oi Mau'l:r (p . .zg<i) haw this is happening flOW, 110 les5 Ihan ir did <It me very beginning of science.

xiv

Preface

1 am mOre intere>ted in peaple than in ¡hearies, in philosophers than in philosophy. This, 1 hope, does not mean paying le53 attenrion 10 the development of ideas, but it does mean a preference for preseming the bearers of these ideas as individual characters, which, 1 should claim, even the unsatisfactory nature of our information permits us to see that they were. Their philosophies are the outcome of contrasting tempera­menls (as, perhaps, are aH philosophies), and it is this human interest which 1 have tried ahove aH things lO bring out. In no one is it more vividly displayed than in Empedocles, and far that reason 1 have said a litde more an this tapie in introducing him (pp. l22f.). As a second hest for those readers whose interest líes primarily in the other direcrion, 1 have provided a fairly extensive table of contents, and also tried to make the index a means of finding out, as quickly as possihle, the kind af information an the develapment of separate topics which would have been mOre easily available had the baok been written the ather way round. For this reason 1 have chosen to draw it up myself, and must bear the responsibility for any shortcomings in it.

We cannot remind ourselves too often of the difrerence between phi}osophy as ir was understood in the periad here treatcd, and as it is most often understood today, at least in our own country. This we may briefiy do with the aid of two definirions, a modern and an ancient. The n.rst was uttered in 1960: 'There is now a fair measure of agreement among philosophers that theirs is what is lechnically called a second-order subject. They do not set out to describe, or even to explain, the world, still less to change it. Their concern is anly with the way in wlúch we speak about !he world. Philosaphy, it has been said, is talk ahout talk: Set beside this a pronouncement of the first century B.C.: 'Philosophy, to interpret the word, is nothing e1se but the pursuit of wisdom; and wisdom, as the old philosophers defined it, consists in a knowledge of things divine and human, and of the causes by which these things are maintained."

Books have usuaHy been referred to in the notes by short rides, and anieles by periodical, date and page only. Full particulars of books,

I A. J. Ayer, PAiltJsopÁy an¿ Language (inaugural lecture 1960, reprinted in ClDriry ir noe EnougA, ed. H. D. Lewis, 196J, p. 40J)¡ and Ckero, De officiis, 2 . .2. f.

xv

Preface

and litles of artieles, will be found in the bibliography. The standard collection of Greek texts relating to Presocratic philosophy is that of Diels, re-edited by Kranz (abbreviated DK; see bibliography, p. j08), lo which reference is constantly made in the following pages. Under eaeh philosopher the texts are divided into two sections. The /irst CA) contains testimonia, mat i5, accounts in later Greek p.uthorities of the philosopher's Jife _nd doctrines, or paraphrases of his writings; in the seeond (B) are eollected what in the opinion of the editors are genuine quotations from the philosopher himself. In this book the nutnber of a 'B' passage is normally preceded ~y 'fr: Cfragment), while for the others the lerter ' A' is retained. \

The present volume owes many improvements to\Sir Desmond Lee, Mr F. H. Sandbach, Dr G. S. Kirk and Dr G. E. R. Lloyd, who between them have read the whole in typeseript. I have not, however, in every case adopted their suggestions, and the responsibilityfor any misjudg­ments is wholly mine. The index of passages has been compiled by Mr John Bowman. It is inevitable that mention of other seholars should most frequently oecur in cases of disagreement, and I am aeutely aware of how often 1 have mentioned the names of wrÍlers to whose works 1 am deeply indebted, only to express a criticism or ditrerence of opinian. 1 hope they will accept this acknowledgment that these brief references by nO means represent my appreciation of all that 1 have learoed [rom them. I also ooticed 00 reading the proofs that 1 have been quite inconsistent in referring to living authors by their titles or by plain sumame, and 1 trust that these purelyaccidental variations will cause no otrence.

DOWNING COLLEGE

CAMBRIDGE

W. K. C. G.

NOTE ON THE SOURCES

The meagreness of our inheritance of original works of the Greek philosophers is commented on in Volume 1 (24 f.). For the Pre­socracics in particular we depend on excerpts, summaries and cornments made by later writers. The prohlems to which this gives rise have always heen reeognized, and adequate aecounts of the nature of the sources are available in severa! works, of which the hest and most aecessihle is that of G. S. Kirk in KR, '-7. (Others will be found in Ueberweg-Praechter, 10-26, Zeller, Outlines, 4-8, Bumet, EGP, 31-8.) In view oE this 1 am maJdng no attempt at a genera! appraisal at the beginning, hut shall rather deal with particular souree-prohlems as Ihey arise over individual thinkers. (For the aU-important Aristode see especially Volume 1, pp. 41-3.) But a certain amount muS! he briefly repeated here in order to make intelligible sueh referenees as will be necessary to' Aet.', 'the Placita', 'pIut. Strom.' or 'Stob. Be!.'

Theophrastus the pupil of Aristotle wrote a general history of earJier philosophy and special works on sorne individual Presocraries. Only extraets survive, though they inelude the greater part of the book On Sensation. These works of Theophrastus {ormed the main foundation for what is known as the doxographical tradiríon, whieh rook different forms: 'opinions' arranged according to subjects, biographies, or somewhat artificial 'suecessions' (olaooxcd) of philosophers regarded as master and pupilo

The e1assifieation oE the doxographical material was undertaken in the monumental work oE Hermann Diels, Doxographi Graeei (Berlin, 1879), to which all subsequent researchers ¡nto Presoeratie philosophy owe an incalculable debt. The eollections of the works of the early thinkers were known as Só~al (' opinions', hence 'doxography') or Ta apÉ01<OVTCX (Latinized as Plaeita). There are two such colleetions or summaries exrant, the Epitome false/y elaimed as Plutarch's, and the Physieal Extraets (cpvcrlKai Moyacl) appearing in the Anthology or Florilegium of' Srobaeus' (J ohn of Stobi, probably fifth century A.D.). From a reEerenee in the Christian bishop Theodoret (first half of fifth

xvii

Note on the Sources

eentury) it is known that both of Ihese go baek to a certain Aetius, and the two are printed by Diels in parallel eolumns as the Placita of Aetius. Aetius himself, who is otherwise unknown, was probahly of Ihe seeond eentury A.D.

Between TheophIastus and Aetius was a Sto;e summaIY, of the lirst century B.e. at the latest, which can he deteeted behind doxograp,hical ac­counts in Varro and Cicero, and was named by Diels Ihe Vetusta Placita.

The doxographies in Hippolytus's Refotation of al! Heresíes, and me pseudo-Plutarchean Stromateis ('Miscellanies') preserved i1 Eusebius, appear to be independent of Aetius.

The Lives of the Philosophers hy Diogenes Laer!ius Vprobahly Ihird century A.D.) exists entire, and contains m.tter froJ; various Hellenistie sourees of uneven value.

To sum up, our informatíon about the Presocratic philosophers depends first of all On extraelS or quolations from Iheir works which range from one brief sentence in Ihe case of Anaximander (and of Anaximenes perhaps not even lhat) to practically lhe whole of me True Way of Parmenides. Seeondly we have oeeasional mention and diseussion of Presoeratic thought in Plato, and • more systematic exposition and eriticism in Aristode. Finally there is the post­AristoteHan information whieh (wim a few exeeptions which will be mentioned in diseussing lhe sourees for particular philosophers) depends on brief, and sometimes garbled, epitomes of Ihe work of Theophrastus, the distortions frequendy taking the form of adaptation to Stoie thought. To see through this veil to the mind of arehaie Greeee is Ihe primary task of Presocradc seholarship. Whether it is worth while nO one had a better right to say Ihan Hermann Diels, who at the end of his life declared, in a posthumously published ¡eeture: 'I eount rnyself fortunate in that it has been vouchsafed to me to

dedicate the best part of my powers to the Presocraties." For further details readers are referred to Ihe aceount of Kirk

mentioned abo ve. In addition, an appraisal of me historieal work of Theophrastus, which does him more justice th.n earHer aeeounts, is tO be found in C. H. Kahn, Anaximander, 17-'4.

I '!eh schatze mich glücklich, dass es mir verg6not war, den besten T<eil meiner Kraft den Vorsokracikem widmen zu konnen' (N4u.e Jah.rbb. f. d. Idas.!. Altertum, 19"3, 75).

xviii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

In general, the titles of works cited in the text have not been so abbte­viated as to be difficult of elucidation. Sorne periodicals, however, and a few books citecl repeateclly, ate referrecl lo as follows:

AJA

AJP

CP

CQ CR

HSCP

jHS

PQ REG

TAPA

ACP

CAH

DK EGP

HCF

KR LSJ OCD

RE

TEGP

ZN

PER10DICALS

American Journal of Arcltaeology.

American Journa! of Phi!%gy.

Classual Philology.

Classical0farterly .

Classical Review.

Harvard Studies in Classical Philology.

Journa/ of Hel/enie Studies. Philosophical0farterly.

Rcvue ¿es Études Grec9ues.

Transactlons af the American Philological AssociatÍon.

OTHER WORKS

H. Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy.

Cambridge Andent History.

Diels-Kranz1 Fragmente der Vorsox.ratiker.

J. Bumet, Early Greek Philosophy.

G. S. Kirk, Herac!itus: the Cosmic Fragments.

G. S. Kirk and J. E. Raven, The Presocratic Phi/osophers.

Liddell-Scott-Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed.

Oxford Classical Dictionary.

Realencyclopadie des klassischen Altertums, ed. Wissowa, KroH et al.

W. Jaeger, Thealogy of rhe Early Greele PhilosopAers.

E. ZeHer, Die PhilosopAie der Griechen, ed. W. Nestle.

xix

1

THE ELEATICS

A. PARMENIDES

(1) Date and lije

Presocratic philosophy is divided into twO halves by the name of Parmenides. His exceptional powers of reasoning brought speculation about me origin and constitution of me universe to a halt, and caused it to make a fresh start on different lines. Consequently his chrono­logioal position relative to omer early philosophers is comparatively easy to determine. Whemer or not he directly attacked Heraclitus,' had Heraclitus known of Parmenides it is ineredible mat he would not have denounced him along wim Xenophanes and olhers. Even if ignorance of an Elean on Ihe part of an Ephesian is no sure evidence of date, philosophically Heraclitus must he regarded as pre-Parmenidean, whereas Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Leucippus and Democtitus are equally certainly post-Parmenidean.

His approximate date is given by Plato in his dialogue Parmenides, when he describes a meeting between Parmenides and Socrates (12p-C):

Zeno and Parmenides once Carne to Athens fol:' the Great Panathenaea . .-: 'pannenides was well advanced in years, about sixty-five, quite grey-haired, ~d of distinguished appearance, and Zeno was nearJy forty .... Socrates at

. 'the time was very young.

It would seem from this mat Parmenides was forry or more years ()Ider man Socrates, who could hardly be described as 'very young'

'unless he was under twenry-five. Sinee Socrates was born in 470/69, this puts me birm of Parmenides at approximately 5'5-'0.

It is true Ihat Diogenes Laertius (9.23) gives hisfloruit as ,he 691h Olympiad (504-1), whieh is in conflict wim this. Burnet however justly draws attention in this connexion to Ihe mechanic.1 memods of

1 See voL 17 408 o. 2. and pp. 23 ff., J2 below.

1 GHP 11

The Eleatics

Apollodorus on whom Diogenes relied. lt is likely that, as with Xenophanes, his point of reference was the foundation of Elea, the supposedfloruit of Xenophanes being assumed as the birth-year of bis 'pupil '. Bírm andfloruit are calculared at forty-year intervals. Similarly Parrhenides's own pupil Zeno is said to have 'flourished' ten Olym­piads la,er. As Burne! says, one can auaeh Jiule importance to such combinations. Plato on the other hand, whether or not the meeting hetween Socrates and Parmenides is historkal, had no re~on to give sueh exaet informatíon about their ages unless he knew it t be correet.'

It is impossible to say at what age Parmenides wrote his p ·Iosophical poem. In fr. 1.24 he makes lhe goddess address him as KO 1" (literally 'youth' or 'young man'). This however indieates no more than his relationship 10 her as disciple or recipient of her oraele. In the Birds of Aristophanes Peisthetairus, who is eertainly not a young rnan, is addressed by the teller of oraeles in the same way.'

Bya lradition going baek 10 Plato's nephew Speusippus, Parmenides ..-as said 10 have been a legislatar to whom Elea owed sorne at least of its laws.3 Theophrastus, and after hím later writers, make him a pupil of Xenophanes, though Aristode did not eornmit himself, but reported only that this was 'said to be' the case (Metaph. 986 b 22). lt is quite possibly true. Parmenides was mueh younger, but would have been about forry when the long-Iived Xenophanes died. Both lived in Magna Graecía, and the influenee ofXenophanes's eoneeption of unity on Parmenídes 1s cIear, whether it carne from bis writings or from personal contact.4

The only other reponed faet ahout his !ife is thal he was al sorne

I Burnet, EGP, lG9('; KR, 2l'íJ f. See also Tlu;aM. taje, Soplt . . %17C' Djfferent views have heen taken; set') e.g., ZN, 681-3 (note); Ueberweg-Praechter, 81 f.; Mansfeld, Ojfen¡'4fung, 'J.07.

~ eto-nlE KOOp~, Av. 977. See W. J. Verdenius, Mnemos. 1947, 285 (anticipated by Nestle, ZN,728).

3 D.L. 9.23, quoting $peusippus 'in the ficst boak 011 Philosophers'. Plutarch (Adll. Col. 1126a) adds mat me cirizens were made to swear annualiy to abide by the laws oE P-clrmenides. A vaguerreferenceisinStrabo6. J,p. 1)1. (DK, A 1 and 11.) There is no good reaSan to douhtthis politicalactivityon the part ofPannenides as of other Presocratic philosophers, but the cautionary remarks of Jaeger (Aristotle, Eng. tr. app. 2, 4~4, n. 1) should be noted. E. L. Minar (AJP, 1949, 41-5S) suspects a conn¿xion between Parmenides's political yiews and social positian and his philosophical cónceptions of heing a!'ld seeming.

4- Tbar Aristotle's own Slatement should have arisen solely [rom the casual rernark of Plato at Soph. 242.d, which makes no mentian of the relationship between the tWQ men, seems tO me highly unlikely, though orhers have thought differently. (See KR 2.65')

Life cmd Writings of Parmenides time a Pythagorean. This is related circumstantially by Diogenes (1.21):

Though he was a pupil of Xenophanes he did not follow rum. He also associated with Ameinias son of Diochaites, the Pythagorean, a poor roan but of fine character, and it was rather Ameinias whose disciple he became. When he died~ Pannenides built a shrine for him, being himself a man of noble birth and wealth, and it was Ameinias, no! Xenophanes, who converted him 'o the quie' Iife.

The otherwise unknown Ameinias is not likely to have been an inven­tion, and ,he shrine (f¡péilov) with itsinscription would be a monument of some permanenee arid doubtless itself the authority for the faet. Proclus (in Parm. 1, p. 619.4, DK, A4) says simply that Parmenides and bis pupH Zeno Were 'both nOl only Eleans but also members of the Pythagorean school, as Nicomachus has recorded'. That Parmenides was at one time an adherent of Pythagoreanism finds some confirmation in his own work, hut he certainly hroke away from it, as from al1 other previous pbilosophica1 systems.

(2) Writing.

He wrote in the hexameter metre of Homer and Hesiod, and the poem was preserved until a late date. It was avaHable in its entirety to Simplicius, who quates it at length for reasons wbich he srates (Phys. 144. 26):

The lines of Parmenides on the One Being are no, mauy, and 1 should like to append them to this commentaty both as confirmation of what 1 say and because of the rarity of the book.'

There fallows a quotation of fifty-three lines, after wbich he adds: 'These then are the lines of Parmenides about the One Being.' One may assume that on this supremely important topie he has given the relevant passage complete. Altogether we now possess 154 lines, un­evenly distributed. After a prologue of thirty-two lines, me poem ¡s in two parts, dealing respectively with truth and seeming. Diels

1 Die/s (LehrgedicM, %6) remarks waC Simplicius's copy was excellent, and was probably in the library of the Acaderny, though Proclus used <1 differ'ent MS. He adds, without quoting evidente, that Aristode's copy was not so good as Theophrasrus's. Fr. 16 may be an example of what he had in mind, but dle explanation is probably that Theophrastus was the mOre careful and tess impromptu excerptor.

3

The Eleatics

estimated that about nine-Ienths of the lirsl parl has survived, whereas of lhe second there are only smaH scraps amounting 10 perhaps one­tenth. Forrunately che firse part is by tar the most important, and Simplicius showed his good sense in ensuring thar it at least should go down to posrerity in Parmenides's own words.

The style ofthe poem is variable. Ofehe central'Way ofTruth', in which he tries lo el<pound the novel and paradoxical doctrine of the unity of Being and ils consequences, the remark of Proc/us lhat ir is 'more like prose rhan poetry' is if anything an understatefent. As he develops his strictly logical argument, Parmenides is hampered at every turn, and far more wan Lucretius, by the patrii .sermonis ekestas. One can fool the slruggle lo convey philosophical concepts fo; which the expression does no! yet exist, and some lines are scarcely amenable to translation at aH. The prologue on the ocher hand is fuH of mythical imagery, and steeped in a religious fervour which it would be unwise to ignore. The fragments of Ihe 'Way of Seeming' also show signs of a gift for poetic expression. '

CJ) A central pr"blem

The poem of Parmenides raises peculiar problems, and ít wiH be as weH to approach the lext with the chief of these already in mind. In the prologue he receives from a goddess the promise lhal she will reveal 10 him two sorlS of information: tirsl Ihe lruch about reality, then Ihe opinions Df mortals, which are unambiguously said 10 be falseo 'Neverlheless these too shah lhou 1eam' (fr. I. 31). In conformity wilh this, the lirs! pan of lhe poem deduces the narure of reality from premises asserted lo be wholly Irue, and leads among olher things to the condusion ths! the world as perceived by che senses is unreal. At tbis point (fr. 8.50) Ihe goddess solemnly declares that she ceases to speak the truth, and Ihe remainder of the instruelÍon will be 'deceitful'; yet she will impart it al1 'that no judgment of men may outstrip thee'. Then follows the second part of the poem consisting of a cosmology

1 To J. Beaufret, the line WXTlcpa~5 mpl yaiav 6AC:;¡lJ.EVOY éVJ..óTplO\l ,WS was 'Wl des plus beaux vers de la langue grecque' (Le Po~me JI. P., 8). It at least indicates, as Diels poimed out, that Parmenides had a sense ofhumour and was not aboye making a puno See p. G6 below. Advetse cnrici!>ffis of his style in antíquiry jire colIected by Die!s, Lth'gtdiclu, S fr.

4

A Central Problem in Parmenídes

on traditionallines. Slarting fromthe assumption of a pair of Opposiles, 'lire' and 'night' Or light and darkness, it proceeds as a narrative of an evolutionary process in time. The 'true way', on the other hand, had asserted that reality was, and must he, a unity in the strktest sense and that any change in it was impossible: there is no befo re or after, and the exposition unfolds as a timoless series of logical deductions.

Here is the crux. Why should Parmenides talce the trouhle 10 narrare a detailed cosmogony when he has already proved that opposites can­not exist and there can he no cosmogony because plurality and change are inadmissible conceptions? Has i! in his eyes no merit or validity whatsoever, so that his purpose in composing ir is only 10 show ir up, together with all such attemplS al cosmogony, for the hollow shams tha! they are? If so, the further queslion arises: what is it? Sorne have thought it 10 he based on a particular cosmic system oE which he dis­approved, for instance that of Heraclitus or the Pythagoreans.I Others have suggested, following up the goddess's own words about the , opinions oE mortals' in general, that ir is partly or wholIy intended as a synthesis of what the ordinary man helieved about the world; others again that ir is an original production, indeed the bes! that Parmenides could devise, hu! still intended 10 show that even the most plausible account oE the origin and nature oE the sensihle world is utterly false. These critics point to the motive expressed hy the goddess, 'that no judgment ofmorlals may outstrip (or get the he!ter oE) thee'.

An alternative is to suppose !hat Parmenides is doing his best for the sensible world, perhaps on practical grounds, by givmg as coheren! an account of it as he can, saying in elrcet: 1 have told you the truth, so that if 1 go on 10 speak about the world in whkh we apparently live you will know it is unreal and not he taken in. But afrer all, this is how it does appear to us; however misleading our senses may he, we must eat and drink and talk, avoid putting OUr hand in the lire or falling over a precipke, Iive in shon as if their inforroation were genuine. Being ourselves mortals we must come to terros with this

I Spedfic criticisms o{ earlier thinkers ,in P.a.rm~des, witb the possible e:xception of Hen­clitus,are not obvious. The etforts of K. Reich tO identify Anaxim;:¡nder's &-rrElpC\I with non-being, and to find a reference ro Pyrnagorean doctrines of rehirth in the naA\>npoTtO') Jc:~~ of fr. 1&'9, caMat be said to be successful. On the lauu see H. Schwabl, Anr.f. á. Altertumswi.!s 19r6. 146[, Sorne llave seen criticism oí Anaximenes in fr. 4, but er. p. 32. be1ow.

s