Upload
lactacidemia
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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 2/4
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
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:57:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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 3/4
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
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:57:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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 4/4
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
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:57:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions