The Parmenides of Plato

215 15 13MB

English Pages 326 Year 1894

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

The Parmenides of Plato

Citation preview

HAATHNOS nAPMENIAHE

THE PARMENIDES OF PLATO AFTER THE PAGING OF THE CLARKE MANUSCRIPT

WITH

INTRODUCTIONS, FACSIMILES, AND NOTES

WILLIAM WARDLAW WADDELL M. A.,

GLASGOW AND OXFORD

GLASGOW

JAMES MACLEHOSE AND SONS ^ttbliBhita to the aniietaitg

1894

PA

I

in t

PREFACE. The

author

exercise

studied

first

metaphysics

in

when he took up

Parmenides

the

college days

in

occupations

had

the practical duties of his calling.

As

;

but

all

such

ever, the speculative interest revived, the subject

long ago,

an

as

be renounced

to

time passed, how-

was resumed, and he found

himself most unexpectedly committed to publication before he had realized

what such a step involved.

become

In the meantime he had

satisfied that

the highest manuscript authority for the text was accessible at Oxford, and

moments had now

his leisure

to

With the

be given to palaeography.

zeal

of a beginner he decided to reproduce the form of the manuscript, a resolution

rendered feasible by the condition of the of his page

;

appearance.

and that

Metaphysics,

downward course

So

taking.

and by

in turn

far

defect,

it

:

as

This fixed for him the

text.

suggested facsimiles and a regard to outward

palaeography,

aesthetics

—such

contents are concerned the

work

misdirected,

be abandoned,

And

in

and the

lost

literature

their

of

the

both by excess

was compiled

in

he may so speak,

in

its

progress effort was

significance,

first

writer's

justify the under-

It

if

the

standpoints

his

little

upon philosophy save ra

contributions

to

palaeography

SeStj^evfi'eva

have

still

had

proved unmanageable.

subject

the end, with no mere affectation of humility, the writer feels

he presents while

notes

During

was

errs

and that largely through circumstances.

bondage under the elements of the world.

to

may

remains to hope that the result

spare hours, at long intervals, while the writer was,

occasionally

size

irepi

to

be

ro

ev

koI

tested

that

voXXd,

by

the

PARMENIDES.

G

At most he can but rank with the untrained boxers of

experts.

who

Tre picpepofxevoi

A detect

/caXas

tv-tttouo-i

aW

ovk

a-rro

eTria-nj/J-ri'S.

commentator on Plato must beware of two dangers. author the

his

in

If

may be

he

metaphysics

of

he does not

he does he may be taxed with a want of the

if

;

The dilemma

historic sense.'

developments

latest

adjudged ignorant of these '

TrXtjydi,

Aristotle,

The

not an agreeable one.

is

writer

is

perhaps

imperfectly informed upon recent metaphysical theories, but his ignorance

by a

proved

not

parallel

that

failure

to

he might know

case,

Hegel

all

little

of renaissance architecture in Italy, but

into

inability

to

On

the Acropolis for half the public buildings of Vicenza. if

comments of is

being

himself escapes

Plato

a

read

be properly inferred from his

could not

Parmenides.

the

is

Hegelian,

a

his Neoplatonic followers

it

find

In

a place on

the other hand,

must be granted

that

the

have a strangely modern character.

It

part of the wonderful suggestiveness of Plato's contributions to philosophy

that

they act contagiously upon the imagination of readers

Parmenides, perhaps the most

'

Toward previous workers scholars of the highest

sawdustish

in

rank,

But

ledgment,

Among which

he

his

his

sincerely

brightest

work

led

if

field,

is

many

is

and even the

no exception.

of them

critics

and

not consciously chargeable with

any expression should be thought

any view appear to be appropriated without acknow-

respect, or

in

same

the writer

discourtesy or disingenuousness.

wanting

the

among them,

'

;

desires

memories

him

to

to

recall

will

pass,

the

one and give up the

other.

be the days of lovely autumn weather

from time to time, among the quiet and

impressive surroundings of great libraries.

It

is

no

less

a pleasure than a

duty to acknowledge here the very great consideration and kindness shown

him by the

authorities of

all

these noble institutions.

In particular, he will

always remember with gratitude that at Tubingen the time of the

was drawn upon and the

rules of the library

officials

were relaxed to oblige him, and

that from Venice, through the personal kindness of

Count Soranzo, a photo-

graphic negative was received within a fortnight of the date on which the

PREFACE, request for

was posted

it

7

His thanks are

in Scotland.

due

also

for obliging

communications from Mr. Warner of the British Museum, and from Professor Mahaffy.

Wliile the character of the letterpress

attentive it

impossible

The

protracted and

the

revision,

ask

to

assistance

printed authorities

course

of

work,

the

in connection

from

consulted

but

fitful

are

Professor

The

with the manuscripts.

looking over the proofs.

in

named from time

Schanz

made

progress of the volume

friends all

such as to demand most

is

calls

writings

to

time

special

for

the

in

recognition

some commentators

of

could not be had separately, and are quoted from the variorum edition of

Valpy.

Others, cited in turn by these, could not be procured at

are the disadvantages of living in a provincial town.

of the dialogue the only one used

The

a century ago. edition

;

is

pitfalls

that the

work

deserving of respect

which learning

many

He

a copy since.

Now

of information. at

remembers

Of English

editions

that of

Thomson, published more than

seeing,

when a

student, a small

modern

but he did not note the author's or publisher's name, and has tried

in vain to obtain

aimed

writer

is

Such

all.

in

all

lying

;

is

ended, he

but

is

when he

to

all

these

satisfied that the

thinks

of

the

sources

standard

extent

to

branches has latterly become specialized, and of the

in

the

path of imprudent amateurs,

tempered with anxiety, and he

is

12,

1894.

his

satisfaction

almost ready to say with Thomson,

laudem quaero, sed pro laude veniam.' STIRLING, October

owes very much

'

is

nee

CONTENTS, introiiitction—

PART FIRST— I.

II.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK,

SEQUENCE OF THE WORK,

III.

ITS

.

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS,

PART SECOND— I.

II.

SOURCES OF THE TEXT,

Ixxiii

.

THE CHIEF MANUSCRIPTS,

%txi,

#otcs— I.

II.

TEXTUAL,

41

EXPLANATORY,

75

.

177

itticx,

I.

II.

IIL

LAST PAGE AND SUBSCRIPTIO OF CLARKE

SPECIMEN OF VENICE

PAGE

154

OF CLARKE

t

MS.,

MS.,

...

MS.,

facing p. cxvi

,,

p. cxxii

„ /. cxxviii

INTRODUCTION



INTRODUCTION. I.

In writing an introduction to the Parmenides of Plato it is unfortunately necessary, Authorship of THE Work. in view of modern controversies, to begin by discussing the authenticity of the work. So far as Antiquity is concerned, no doubt upon the subject would appear to have arisen. The best manuscripts give the dialogue without hinting a suspicion and these can be traced back, with reasonable certainty, to a common fountain dating from the first thirty-six years of our era. Within that period one Thrasylus or Thrasyllus drew up an arrangement of all those Platonic writings held by him to be genuine, which seems to be the source of most or all of our existing texts. According to Diogenes m s6-6i ;

Laertius this arrangement took the form of tetralogies, and was as follows I.

II.

III.

Euthyphro.

Apologia.

Crito.

Cratylus.

Theaetetus.

Parmenides.

Philebus.

IV. Alcibiades

I.

V. Theages. VI. Euthydemus. VII. Hippias major. VIII. Clitopho.

IX. Minos.

Alcibiades

II.

Charmides. Protagoras.

Hippias minor. Respublica.

:

— :

THE PARMENIDES.

ii

among the scholars who we have Thrasylus km Tives, next

writings would seem to have been almost an industry in itself flourished after the founding of the great libraries. evioi

and Aristophanes; while immediately

apxovrai Se Tov

iy

oi fxev, ot S'

fjLsl^ovoi'

KXeiro^wvTOS'

avo GeayoW

rives TifjiaioV

His

T^y apxriv TTOiovvrai. Se

17

the

airo Tijs IIoXtTe/ay' ot

S'

cltt'

is r/

(some read aK€os),

rj

'^paaricrrpaTOi,

AXkvoov,

'A£loxos, ^cdaKes, Atj/aoSokos, XeXt^wi/,

KuOd (pwi ia^wplvos ev rw Thus we have got before us a complete deliverance by TrefiTrrw rwv aTro/uLVfj/novev/xaTuiv. Diogenes Laertius upon the canon of Plato's works. Now in the course of this connected

'Yi^SopLi], 56-6=.

ol

{i.e.

Twv StaXoycov oixoXoyov/xevw; MiSoov

'AKe'^aXoj

iii.

ir poeipriTai

First

'Ex£/x.ef/(?);y"

&p

'AXkvcov Aeovros

fj

and detailed statement he arranged by Thrasylus

he says,

'

which as (4) gives

the rest will

the

'

:

(i) gives

tlvos elvai SoKei,

a long

of dialogues held to be genuine and

list

(2) a shorter list of those

were placed one by one

(3)

:

arranged by Aristophanes, after which'

enumerates other arrangements

be observed, begin from dialogues named

names of those

dialogues,

;

some of

(i) although not named in

in

(2)

'the' dialogues, which were 'declared to be

by common consent (the translation is Grote's) and lastly (S) indicates the great importance which was attached to the ordering of these works by the scholars of antiquity. In a word he has the subject fully present to his mind in all its bearings. And comes to be if Aristophanes had omitted from his list the Parmenides, or question the any dialogue included in the list of Thrasylus, would Diogenes under these circumstances have failed to say so ? That does not seem probable, more particularly since he treats the work as genuine in his Lives of Parmenides and Zeno and we may thus infer that the spurious

'

:



IX. 23, =5.

;

Parmenides existed among 'the ii.

64

rest' of



Aristophanes at

let

—210

author

who

lived

half a

B.C.

We

by Diogenes

to an

us say

have, moreover, the following very comprehensive decision ascribed

century or so later than Aristophanes, Trdvrwv

'EooKpaTiKwv SiaXoycav THavaiTioi aXrjOecs eivai SoKei roi/s UXoltuivos, etc.

ixivroi

twv

This verdict

may

not include the voOevo/nevoi, but cannot well exclude any others. It

may

perhaps be asked at this stage

—those copies of Plato's works which formed

the text for all this deliberation and arrangement, where were they to be seen did they belong

.'

Although the conclusion

is

?

not based upon positive testimony,

to

whom

it is

very

generally assumed that the copies were those contained in the Alexandrian, and perhaps

the Pergamene, library. The year 283 B.C. marks the point at which the throne of Egypt passed from the First Ptolemy to the Second and it appears to be accepted that by this date the library at Alexandria had taken definite form. While owing its origin to in

;

the tastes and munificence of the Ptolemies, that great collection seems to have been

indebted for

its

actual character

and contents

to

Demetrius of Phalerum.

much Of this man

born in Attica shortly after Plato's death, for years conspicuous and popular at Athens, an orator, a voluminous author, a student of philosophy, and finally a protector of Plato's successor Xenocrates

— we

do not indeed know, but may with every

right assume, that he

;

AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK. was

familiar with Plato's

when

head

339-314), and that he had the ear and support of Ptolemy Soter he would be at pains to Alexandria the best copy which care, skill, and money could command of all its

(B.C.

in later life

secure for

the Platonic writings. above, was from,

Academy when Xenocrates was

Ill

we

fiftli

Exclusive of Demetrius, Aristophanes the grammarian, mentioned

curator of the Alexandrian collection

—that

shall suppose, his fiftieth year

is,

;

and

his period of office

from about 210

might date

B.C.

We

have just seen what an object of study the Platonic writings were to scholars of this age, and we are at the same time entitled to hold that a copy of them, and that a careful one, existed

the year 347

in

Although

interval.'

at

Alexandria as early at

least as

How

or about a hundred years before.

B.C.,

passages are quoted to prove that

250

B.C.

Plato died

do we bridge over the

Plato

despised

written,

as

compared with oral, instruction in philosophy, he was certainly a voluminous author and both from the style of his works and from familiar anecdotes recorded about him,^

we

are justified in saying that he was a most careful

middle

life

common

founded an

and

critical

one.

He

points

Here he lectured to numerous and enthusiastic students doubt would be collected, as they were written, the series of his published works. This would seem to give a greater initial probability careful transmission of than could be affirmed in the case, for example, of Herodotus But further on its founder's death the institute passed under the or Thucydides. charge of a nephew, Speusippus, and thereafter, as we have seen, of a disciple, Xeno-

in

Dionys. Haii

also in p^verboruT,'

Academy which would have many

at the

institution

'

with a University.

=.

Schaefer,

^^"''^

^iso comp.

;

and here beyond

all

rational

Q"'"'-

:

crates;

the consecutive presidency of

the career of the

Academy seem

On what engrossed may be

the time of Sulla. plete were

that full

it

list

carried

whom

to have

Nor does

brings us to the year 314 B.C.

been broken or

its

precise material the works at the

abode disturbed

until

Academy when com-

uncertain, but there can be no extravagance in assuming

was capable of lasting for a century; and if, as seems highly probable, the was made up under Speusippus by the year 340 B.C., we would thus have it safely

down

scribed for Ptolemy.

within the period during which

Few who

by the Clarke MS. would

Demetrius could have

it

tran-

have read the vicissitudes which have been survived

find

any

difficulty

in

accepting

the

assumption,

that

at

least two well authenticated copies of all Plato's works existed at the year 200 B.C., Nay to judge from the remark of Diogenes one at Athens and one at Alexandria. in his Life of Democritus, that Plato was persuaded not to burn the works of Demothe number was probably much greater. critus, because 'many had copies'





With such an argument

He

as this

—indeed

it

is

substantially his

— Grote

is

perfectly

any authors of the Greek classic age have the satisfied. authenticity of their writings placed upon so substantial a foundation and unhesitatingly adopts the entire Thrasylean series, rejecting only the works which in Alexandrian considers that few

if

;

times were 'declared is

weighty.

the facts of

to

be spurious by

common

consent.'

And

surely his verdict

Few have had better means of knowing the amount of evidence on which Greek history depend. It is worth adding that the Scholiast on Aristotle's

ij=-



"» *

«4-

THE PARMENIDES.

iv

Mctaphysics

Aristotle,

iv^/se

a.

top™

'n.apfjLevlStiv

—though,

of course, he

comparatively late

is

This topic of the spurious dialogues, however,

how

guarantees for authenticity, Plato himself

And

HXaTwrns SiaXoyov.

iSewv rov

Trepl

rj

of tov e-iriypa^ofievov

some investigation. With such Unless come to exist at all? he had published all he wrote, or at

calls for

did spurious works

authoritative testimony that

left

—speaks

other passages might be cited.

had destroyed anything which he did not wish published, it might well enough be affirmed after his death, if any one had an interest in advancing such an assertion, A student in the Academy that some hitherto unpublished work had been discovered. or a contemporary of Plato might do so, if either desired to attack some statement by least

Speusippus about his uncle's views. Galen on Hip-

hom.

i.

92

:

and

Bentiey, Phaiar.

j^g passage "/o^P

'''P'''

usually cited

ovSeTTW

(jjiXoTifiijOivTas

this

e-mypoKpovTes

:

/cat

ILepydfiw

eTTeyeypaTTTO

yp-evSu)^

avTois

KOfii^ovTuiv

T6JV

in

Tovs ev 'AXe^avSpeia re

But even more unworthy reasons were not wanting. connection since Bentley's time is from Galen Xap-^aveiv

]V voveiav voveiiovTai yap Ta pipAia

authority from this passage, confirm Arist. Berlin,

Ed., vol.

Seeais

iv.

28a.

notes of

upon the 3

^"^

^ *"^

subjcct. f

c,

Ammoniusand TTevTaxH'S' Smphc.us at the

'It

libraries.

had

libraries it

been

is

set

on

It will

f

^

'

,

^

f

be observed that Galen dates forgeries

become recognized channels of royal ground that Grote would hold the rejected

already

this

aside simply because of

their

late

admission into the

the transmission, the externally attested authenticity, of these works

is

we doubt'

t

\

to specify these.

Perhaps

dialogues to have

\

f

when

time

expenditure.

that

\

and procceds

the

£-j.Qj^

\

Kui

£r]T>iTeov

—so

he seems to make the librarians

speak

—'and

our doubts are based on the fact that our catalogues were completed before they appeared. With their internal character the presence or absence in them of a " Platonisches Gefiihl"

—we



take no concern.'

And

this

may

possibly be

so.

Nay, the date at which compass by the

these dialogues appeared might perhaps be brought within narrower reference of

Diogenes quoted above to the judgment of Panaetius.

from the words of Panaetius, either did

of

i.fo,6i,64.

them

who

died

before iii

B.C.,

inference

would seem to be that he

not concur in the rejection of the spurious dialogues, or else

—that

The

knew nothing

they had appeared after his death.

In this way Aristophanes also would know nothing of them, nor does Diogenes say anything to contradict this. But on the other hand what is to be said of the following? Aie/3d\\eTo S' 6 Aierxim (pupil of Socrates) oi/ra? o-v

-Kepi

to be the dialogue

koi ^a^wpivos iv airop.vtinovevfj.acri.

(2) that

:

may add

irptOTela SiKaims av cccnrep

these

born

which we

tov '^XeaTtjv'

Apia-rnnros

Havalrios aXtjOeis

Phaedo, instead of the dialogues written by the person of that name) TOVS

'

crva-Tijvat].

(paui crKwyp-ai eiTrovra, " nroQev

(Ueberweg makes the strange mistake of supposing

tJi'

'AKKt^idSriv kcu

Tovtou tow? SiaXoyovs koi

Tovs HXdruivoi, Sevo^oovTOSt 'AvncrOevovs, Aiaxlvov'

SoKei

els

(rvcrTaOijvai

twv ^WKpaTiKwv SiaXoywv

f/iivTOt

koJ

KaXX/a?, 'A^oxoi, 'Acnraala,

airoplav ekQelv

Si

^

inrb

ttcoj

Meyapots avayiyvwa-KOvros avrov

yof/v

rov eXdcraw Koi

'Hpa/cAea

twv SiaXoywv Swpa Xa^eiv...

Tivas

inrwTTTevev.

^aepoiTO

by name

^epoiro

t]

tj

in

this

aXKoiolro

^TOi ev Tip avTio av

ev,

p.eT(xk\aTTOi xcapav erepav e^ eTepas.... 'AXXa Sr/ X'^P"-" o.fieil3ov aXXoT aX\o9i yiyveTat Koi. ovtw KiveiTai;.,. Kara Traaav apa Kivrjcnv to ev aKivijTOv. Undoubtedly the sense of the two passages is the same, but there is no verbal identity, while on the other hand there is another similar passage in the Theaetetus

CD.

dpa

KiveiaQai

oTav ti

/caXeis,

Tovto

Eytoye.

rj

toivvv

p.ev

ev

X'^po-"

earoo

^k

x'^P"? fieTU^aXXn

oTav Se y

elSoi.

ko.)

rj

iv

fiev

iv

tw avTw

tw avTM,

unterauch. 150,

fxev is

;

ytjpaaiqj 5e...?

dpa om a^iov sTepov etSos ^dvai Kiv^aews "Ejtiotye SoKel. Xeyw tovtoo e'tSr] Kivricrem, aXXoiooartv, Ttjv Se irepi^opdv. not sure that any more is meant than a reference to some statement

TLva aXXriv aWoiwaiv aWoiiJoTai,

AvayKahv Ucberwcg

oTpe^ijToi

Svo

ovv.

;

Sri

''*

made

piaton. Parmen-

to the

'stliibrttmi.^ip^-

^^^'"sd introduction to the dialogue, cites various passages from Aristotle, which clearly

siae, 1848, pp.

seem

339-40.

170

Parmcnldes

is

2o. ,

'

if

a work

is

alluded

etwas weniger ungenau.'

to treat of questions within Aristotle's

which are discussed

Sophist. Eiench. .0, a.

Academy; but

orally at the

to,

he thinks that a reference in his copious and

Again, Stallbaum,

knowledge, very closely resembling those

we may quote two. Controverting the distinction between Xo'yoi Trpoj Towofxa and irpo? t^v Siavoiav, Aristotle says, El S^ ^^y TrXeio) (TijfiaivovTOi

OLOv ev

((70)?

TO 6v

oiofxevo? etvai

ij

TO

in

this

tov ev

^pdrrriae,

dialogue.

Of

these

6v6/jLaTOs o'Ioito ev a-rjfialveiv, Kal 6 ipayrwv koi

TToXXa

OTj/xalvei,

aXXa

Kal ea-Tiv 6 Xo'yoy otj ev irdvTa



oiJtoj



6 epwTw/uievos

Kal 6 aTroKpivo/mevog Kal 6

epwrwv

Z^voov

irpo? Tovvofia earai

tj

AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK. irpo? rijv Sidvoiav tow

ipwrwuevov

And

Siei\eyfievoi.

vii

again, near the end of the

same

33. 4. 182 b, 35

work, he says, To??

fiev yap Soxei ravrbv oTj/nalveiv to 6v koI to ep' ol Se rov Zi'/voovoi Xoyov KM TLapfieviSov Xvovcri Sia to 7roX\ax«y ^dvai to ev XiyearOat Ka) to ov. Undoubtedly there is a strong resemblance here to the course of our dialogue pp. 127-9:

but unfortunately neither the dialogue nor

its

author

is

named, and the reference

not so close as to satisfy us without that additional security. is

to point out, as Zeller

in force

careful to do, that allusions in themselves uncertain gain

is

from the circumstance that

'

This circumstance makes

refers.

probable that Aristotle really intends to ascribe

form (here however the quotation Admitting, however, the

what

is

absence of

p'"'°.

='].

manner which

the

in

to.

which we

relations

find

of irav

in

to

The same seems

the Physics.

o\ov

good

to hold

m

regard to

when compared with the treatment of them

in

the

146 C-

Metaphysics.

Nor could

anyone who was But

the argument eTepwOt Sv ergo erepov have been employed

by

familiar with the Sophistici Elenchi, particularly chapter V.

specific evidence is

produced, chiefly by Ueberweg, which tends to show that

statements in the Metaphysics are irreconcilable with the Platonic authorship of this dialogue.

''* Met.

Thus

I.

unteisuchungen

Uebcrweg

quotes

speaking of the manner i.

6,

987 b

9.

Kara

fueOe^iv

fiovov

nXaTftJi/

rwv

(5e

eiSwv,

clause.

yap

fierelSaXev'

elvai

ol

fxeOe^et,

/xev

in

the

following

tu TroXXa

twi"

avvcavvfiuiv

yap TLvQayopeioi

Touvofxa fxeTa^aXwv.

cKpecaav ev koivu)

^ijTeiv.

The

fAi/x^a-ei

Tr/v /xevroi

made

by

Aristotle

when

tois

ye

T^i/ Se fieOe^iv Touvofia

eiSeaiv.

tu ovra

^acrlv

fieOe^iv

tj

Ttjv

etvat

tHov

fil/ULijcriv,

apiOp-wv,

tJTts

av

eii;

objection here hinges on the sense of the last

Ueberweg gives no verbal translation them the rendering would need

a case from

remark

which, according to Plato, things participate in the ideas

of the words

:

but in order to

to be that Plato

make

out

and the Pythagoreans

«

AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK. •were

one

at

omitting

"

xi

investigate' the nature of ^kQe^n and ////x^/o-ty. The opening part of the Parmenides being in express terms a discussion of fxkQe^i^, the objection comes to a bearing instantly. Now in making this statement mere in

to

inadvertent error on Aristotle's part

is

A

perfectly possible.

man busy

own

with his

great and somewhat hostile speculations does not always keep in mind

that an

all

opponent has said and done. Any modern philosophic controversy in a magazine might illustrate this. Again such an argument might seem effective if it stood alone, yet be perceptibly weakened by repetition. We would not willingly surrender three

on such a ground;

dialogues

and as a

Ueberweg has

fact

that

difficulty to

face.

Aristotle explicitly states that Plato never investigated the genesis of concrete things, De like flesh or bones,



but confined himself to that of uroix^ia

Timaeus 73 a work which Ueberweg places first on the by Aristotle, because of the number of his allusions to it.

which

;

list

contradicted by

is

of those authenticated

Here Ueberweg

extricates

cener.

'^°"-

'•

=

3"5

gee also Tim. ss-s-

Piwedo

himself thus: 'theils betrifft dies eine Frage von geringerer Bedeutung, so dass ein

Uebersehen in

leichter erklarlich ware, (surely to Plato

it

would be a question of

/xiOe^it

both places) theils bestimmt Aristoteles im Folgenden seine Meinung naher dahin, mit

dass

Ausnahme

Demokrit

des

keiner

Bedeutsames dariiber gesagt habe.' Philebus,

'

worin,'

however,

Probably he

mochte.'

may be

pleads

Vorganger

seiner

Again, the nature of

Ueberweg,

'

another

The words

the

Pythagoreans and

preferable.

is

noch

Aristoteles

ai,

"^Ajo'

2. Oi)

St}

TroXXa

evavTiwv ovtwv

paSiov

ovv Xeyeis, OTav

UpwTapxov, eva yeyovoTa

ehat avTO kuO' ovto elSos

evavTiov, o ecTTiv avop-oiov'

elvai Kal

km

vo/j.i^eis

tl o/aoioTriTOS, Koi tu> toiovtoi au

TreipVKOTa

ttw?

ev TToXXa Oav/naa-TOV XexOev, II.

tov vvv

129.

'icni

uvtu

^varei,

d

tw

afj.(t>0Tepu)v

... el

8e

t'l

ti

TrdvTa

fxeTaXafx^avei, koi

fxeTexeiv d/iv Trepi

peptj SieXwv tSs

TO

evavTLOVS

OTUV T19 eKacrTOV ra

. . .

TTOia

^e

km

e/j.e

arfxiKpov TiOejuLsvos

/cat

fivpia

SeS>]iJ.evfjLeva

Kai -TToXka

tov?

ttoKii'

eivat

aWriXois, /xiyav

TO.

.

re

/cat

might

this

perhaps be added Sophist. 251.

What Plat. Trans. p.

notes,

70 an 129 B

.

.

130 E

14 C-15 B.

designed.

does the reader think here?

have already supported

'I

^j^^^

^j^g

^^^^

and

this

reason

^^

p^j.^.

I

direction'

—to

think

still

277) also agrees with

Parmcnides

^j^^

me

;

od/jLoXoyeiTO

quite valid.

is

^tfji./ui.iav

Se

Tft) ^ifjLfiLa.

Trfra;

...

inrepexeiv

by the argument

makes use of

this supposition in a different

Sw/c/aaTOU?

eXaTTio,

yap

tmv

eKuaTOV

fxeTaXafi/SdvovTa

^^9

fxei^w

Xeyety tot'

-ttov

tovtw tw

TreipvKsvai

lii/x/xiav elvai,

/xeyeOei o Tvyxavei ex

Ao/cet crot, to? ^^j, elvai

e'lSi]

Ta aXXa fieTaXajm^avovTa avTwv

'icrxeiv,

E.

aTTa &v TaSe

to?

eTroowfiia^

oiov OfioioTtp-os fiev fieraXa-

/ueyoAo

l36vTa

0/J.oia,

aOai.

See also the previous quotation.

fjLeyiOovs Se

...

y'lyve-



:

AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK.

xix

Under Plato's somewhat affected literary assumption, that the Philebus, the Phaedo, and the Parmenides are all independent colloquies between different groups of persons, could references from one to the other be more direct than these are; does not the

wording seem to indicate that the reference quotations of this nature that need detain us

Theaetetus 2. JlapfievlSri^

Si fioi

Parmenides, 127

183 E.

to tov

(paiverai,

Ofiripov, aiSoiOi

re

fxoi a/j.a Seti/os re.

Trpoaefii^a

yap

Si]

rSi avSpl

Trpecrpv-q},

km

fioi

wdvv

^dOoi

eavti

There are but two more

designed?

is :

Tov fxh ovv

avfi-

^vrw

i/e'oy

vdvv

rr/v

ti

exeiv

ra'

HapixevlSriv ev fJiaXa

etvat crcpoSpa ttoXjoV,

o^iv, irepl ...

b.

e^KOv-

err/ fxaXia-ra Trevre koi

ehai Tore a^oSpa

J^ooKpari] Se

Trpea--

Stj

koXov Se KayaOov

veov.

TravTonraari yevvaiov.

^37-

SOPHISTES, 217



HoTepov eiwOas Xoyai

(xaicpw

evSei^aa-Qai

i'lSiov

Sie^ievai

tw

c.

TT

auToy

^ovXijOrj^,

r/

Si

luv,

Xoyovs -TrayKoXovi eKEivov fiaXa

St]

Trpecr/3vrov

Tt?

...

ovv,

vecoTaroi

Sie^iou-

;

etirecv,

rJKiara

fiol

yap

ttX^Soj Xoyaiv'

aTrOKpiveirat

av

;

avdiravK' av

e/jLo}

;

elr]

rj

rj

6

irdKvirpayfj.ovol,

Kal a o'lerat /xaXicrr av cnroKplvoiro' Kal

Trapeyevo/xtjv eyco veo?

Tore ovtos

'\

'

-^

toiovtov re koi roaovrov

epwTr'icrewv, "^"^

s

'

^o^elaQai, Trwy xph TrjXiKovSe ovra Siavevaai

cravrov

\eywv tovto, o av

oTov TTore kui TLapfievlSu XP^f^^^V Ti

eiri

TT'

dfjLa

eKeivov diroKpicri^.

also 237 A.

The

parallel could hardly be

On 1.

more complete.

the question of authenticity, then, our argument

There

is

good ground

as genuine, in the arrangement of Plato's works

Nor does any 2.

While

cannot

be proved

at least very probable that the

and

they

appear

to

bear

be

summed up

that

of Byzantium.

it.

names the Parmenides,

Aristotle

thus

and was accepted

made by Aristophanes

scholar in antiquity raise an objection to it

may

for believing that this dialogue existed,

it

seems

arguments of the dialogue are controverted by him

internal

evidence

of

priority

when compared with

;

his

works. 3.

There

is

no reason to doubt the Platonic character of the views and language

which the work exhibits, and there

is

strong reason to believe that Plato alludes to

this dialogue in other portions of his writings

which are admitted to be genuine.

II.

When

we

pass from the sufficiently complex problem of authenticity to consider the

position which the is

work

is

to hold in the series of Plato's writings, the

to conquer a feeling akin to despair.

has not been already said

.?

Are we

of ordering Plato's collective works

?

What

can we say upon

to be launched

upon that

first difficulty

this question

.?

What

iroXv ireXayos the task

Ilwy xph Siavevcrai toiovtov re Kal toctovtov ttX^Oo?

sequence of '^'"^

^°'"'-

THE PARMENIDES.

XX \6yi3iv

;

At

defined. 127 D-

the outset

we

are troubled

has been gravely questioned

ticity

is

by the consciousness

not likely to have

its

that a

work whose authen-

date or sequence very clearly

We

know, indeed, that it was written after 403 B.C., since the narrator describes one of the interlocutors, as tov twv TpiaKovra yevo/xevov. And as Cephalus

Aristoteles,

does not mention any attempt to get from Socrates personally a verification of details

—a circumstance left to infer

be contrasted

—we

are

was dead. This, however, does not carry us far. Every one assume that the work was of later date than 399 B.C. The field

would be prepared to

being thus unrestricted,

for speculation

To

enumeration would fatigue. Philosopher

dialogue which

'

we have such

effort

late,

embodying

as

Schleiermacher regards the

:

of Plato's youth

Zeller holds

;

it

to be the

promised as a sequel to the Sophist and Statesman

is

while, in a series of articles already referred to, Dr.

placed extremely

a crop of theories that even their

take representative cases

Parmenides as a rude, unfinished '

may

with which the opening of the Theaetetus

that Socrates

its

Jackson contends that

it

;

must be

author's final views on the ideal theory.

Each

of these scholars has his following, while other writers adduce reasons for choosing

The

intermediate dates. it,

'

you

each has a story

The

will.'

foundations

disturbing feature in the case

is

that, as

Henry Esmond

puts

a dispute, and a true one, too, and both are right or wrong as

in

various conclusions rest mainly on one or other of three argumentative

—that

of the style and language of the dialogue, that of what

may

be

and that of its philosophic contents. I. It is pointcd out that the form of the dialogue is artificial that of a conversation reported at fourth hand and the inference drawn is that it is later than those which are more direct and natural indeed one of the latest of all, inasmuch as there called its scenery or setting,

Arguments from ^'^'^



;

;

whose form deviates more from that of simple dramatic treatment. Well, the fourth hand may by possibility indicate that Plato does not wish to be committed to the historic accuracy of the details, or seeks to give the work the air of an echo are none

'

'

from the

past, but

gives

it

little

clue to the date.

Republic at second, and the Timaeus at

first

hand

:

The Symposium is at third, the we need say no more. Nay, one

might rather ask, would an old man endure the constraint involved in writing large work in complicated oratio obliqua ? Again, regard may be directed to style

part of a

It is maintained that as a youthful style is revealed by immaturity by crude exuberance of language, and by the placing of pictorial and dramatic vividness in the foreground, the Parmenides could not be a youthful work, in

a stricter sense.

and

stifi'ness,

or

but might rather, from difference

to

pictorial

its

command

display,

over language, coupled with its comparative inbe ranked among the later writings an elderly man



ceasing to think of style and attending

made

that Plato

is

Up

is

dealing.

But answer is plausibly of Zeno and the Megarians,

to substance.

here adopting for the time the style

with whose views he

tender handling.

more

Independently of

to at least middle life a man's

that,

mode

arguments from style need

of writing may vary pretty widely through mere temporary causes, or in conformity with varying subject matter, without any inference about age being worth serious consideration. Even the discovery



ITS

SEQUENCE AMONG PLATO'S WRTTINGS.

that greater conformity to scientific method

freedom of conversational discourse,

mood

of the author's mind,

if

is

be found, as compared with the

to

is

xxi

no necessary proof of age.

to anything, or

may

to the

It testifies

even be explained by the greater

work with Plato's professorial instruction at the Academy. further step is taken when vocabulary and turns of expression are put to the Professor Campbell has gone with some minuteness into the question of vocabu-

or less connection of a given

A proof.

He

lary in Plato's writings. ^

and

tests

treats the

Timaeus, '

'

As

the other works by comparison with these.

'approximately the numerical

common and peculiar

ratios

...

and Laws

Critias,

according

late, '

Sopinstes and ^°'''''"';

^T

ral Introd. §§ 6-7.

a result he gives for each

number of words

the

to

as admittedly ^

once

at

each with' the works just named. In this list the dialogue which stands nearest to the three is the Politicus, with a ratio of i,^. The Parmenides, with

to

ranks very low, having, besides others, the Cratylus, Protagoras, Theaetetus,

\,

Symposium, Phaedo, Republic, Sophistes, Phaedrus, and order above it. But when we perceive that the only works which Philebus,

associated than our

own with

the three latest are the Charmides, Alcibiades

Meno, while the Laches and Lysis are about one-half conclude that the difficult

list

maximum

little

Phaedrus,

minimum

with a

admits that partly

is

circumstances

'

nearer,

we

Are we

for

by exceptional

Indeed,

us.

it

is

assume that Plato

to

to be considered.

the position of the Parmenides in this

accounted

and the

I.,

and gradually advanced to a

of unusual terms fall

that

in

are constrained to

which can be of service to

Clearly the subject matter would

">.

bell himself

Professor

list,

Camp-

like that of the

circumstances.'

But by what

W. Dittenberger

of Halle, who,

}

Another attempt after a

contributes

even to weigh the significance of the evidence.

began authorship

Politicus,

are apparently less

in the

same

direction

is

that of

few separate objections to the authenticity of our dialogue on

which are referred to

in the notes,

seems inclined to regard

parison of the use of a series of characteristic phrases

koI

it

fxriv,

linguistic grounds,

as doubtful

aXKd

ixqv,

upon a com-

rl

/miv

;

ye

Hermes,

xvi.,

fx.riv,



and others in the various works of Plato. The result of his investigation is to throw the works into two great groups an earlier, with few signs of these expressions and a later in two divisions, with many. (It ought to be said that, besides rejecting ten dialogues in addition to the spurious seven, he excludes from comparison such as contain small proportions of conversation.) The Parmenides stands in the later division of the second group along with the Philebus, Sophistes, Politicus, and Laws, and is



very heavily weighted for

much

its size.

ingenuity and learning.

One

;

He

follows the inquiry up in other directions with

result

which arrests the attention of a reader

that the Phaedo stands in the earliest group, while the Lysis forms, with the posium, Phaedrus, Republic, and Theaetetus, the first division of the later.

is

SymThe

argument has been criticised by A. Frederking, who shows that by dealing with the in more minute detail, while employing the same materials, individual books subiect ^" J of the Republic and Laws may be made to stand in different groups. Further, by taking account of the isolated use of the particle re



in

such phrases as

a-ov

rwvSe re

Fieckeisen, J^'i-'Mcher,

No.

125, p. 534, 1882.

THE PARMENIDES.

xxii

'ipyov

—he

succeeds in placing the Parmenides, which has but few cases, in a very early

tinction of Frederking's

so

conflicting

to

between

elirov

and

e(priv

is

discussed in the notes.

With

dis-

results

must appear to most readers that the treatment other fields, requires extreme caution, and has not thus

deal with,

language, as in

statistics in

A

he makes the Phaedrus almost take rank with the Timaeus.

position, while

it

much assistance towards the solution of the question under discussion. Of the argumcnt from scenery or setting one branch is that which deals

of far

afforded Arguments from

2.

dramatic Setting,

^j^^

assigncd

position

Socrates

to

Socrates has a more prominent rdle

which he less

pla3's

memory

ment.

It

is

;

with

contended

that

works

in the earlier works, or rather that those

such a part are earlier

important as Plato's

dialogues.

several

the

in

in

while his presence tends to become less and

of him

is

by time and by original developharmony with what

effaced

Undoubtedly this seems a reasonable contention, and one in

would independently appear to be the proper order of many dialogues. But here In any likewise the question of subject matter might well influence Plato's action. peculiar. Socrates case the position of the Parmenides in regard to the argument is does not, indeed, occupy the foremost place throughout, but he does hold that position during the very important introductory part, while he

is

thinker whose period had gone by, but rather as one for

referred to

whom

by no means

as a

great things were

still

in store.

An

which deals with the Parmenides alone,

interesting train of inference,

is

based

upon consideration of the time which may be assumed to have passed between the various stages suggested to us in the construction of the dialogue between the original conversation, that is, and the narrative of this by Cephalus, which constitutes the



dialogue as

from the

we have

final point

back into other years

it.

This estimate of time

may

'

;

or,

feel

'"'"^'

quiry.

Ueberwcg reasons

with Steinhardt,

make

As

us

'

look far

Plato might at any period in his

the boyhood of Socrates to be remote from himself,

only the latter form of the inference has untersuchungen,

either,

with Ueberweg, from the starting point forward, as involving

a late date for the composition of the work. literary hfe

be viewed

backward, as suggesting that Plato seeks to

The

thus.

point

much

practical bearing

of departure

is

it

is

clear that

on our present

in-

the original conversation,

which, on the assumption that Socrates was twenty-five at the time, must have occurred in 446-5 B.C.

45

1

B.C.

versation

This point we shall hereafter see reason for placing as early, at

least, as

Then comes the period which comprised the repeated rehearsals of the conby Pythodorus to Antipho, until the latter had committed it to memory.

Conjecture alone can determine the length of this interval, and Ueberweg makes no estimate of it beyond suggesting that it must be considerable. It seems unlikely that it

could exceed half a century

;

for

Pythodorus had been the host of Parmenides, so

that he might have been thirty or so at the time, and fifty years

more would make him an old man. This, then, may bring us to 400 B.C. Next comes the narrative by Antipho to Cephalus and his Clazomenian friends, which, as we have seen, Ueberweg places later than 399 B.C. from the circumstance that Cephalus does not think of going

'

AMONG

ITS SEQUENCE

PLATO'S WRITINGS.

xxiii

Once more we have the interval which extends between that and of the narrative by Cephalus himself; and finally, says Ueberweg, the

direct to Socrates.

the repetition

space

elapsing

between

makes no attempt

this

last

and the composition

of

the

by saying

that they

cannot be very short, since to make them consist of one, or of a very few years eine

zu

auffallende

Ungleichmassigkeit

He

work.

written

to fix the duration of either period, further than

'

when compared with the preceding

'

ware half-



Accordingly he concludes for a 'very late date' always assuming, which however he does not believe, that the work is genuine. This reasoning might convince, if the whole lapse of time involved were optional. But it is not. The period between century.

the original conversation

To

to Plato's control.



if it

ever occurred

— and

the death of Socrates

say, therefore, that the remaining intervals

upon a corresponding

scale

tantamount to

is

mastering necessity forbidden to

make

saying

allusion in the

an (assumed) historic event until time has passed interval

proportioned to the

artistically

narrative

by Cephalus same the



to be the

is

Cephalus

simple.

is

free

to

allude

Cephalus after 399

quent occasion repeats, and total of our information

when and how he

B.C.

postulates that the

is

thinks

But they purport

The

truth

that the

is

a historical one, and one to

The

fit.

facts before us are

hears from Antipho a narrative which he on a subse-

That

this repetition constitutes our dialogue.

and despite Ueberweg's ideas of proportion,

;

over-

form a second or third

Ueberweg

the dialogue.

is

by some

is

one thing and the written dialogue another.

narrative of

not subject

framework of a dialogue to such

Further,

first.

Plato

sufficient to

period between the youth and the death of Socrates

which Plato

that

is

must be conceived

'

is

the

sum

nur eine oder

Once again, therefore, v/e are ganz wenige Jahre' are sufficient to include it all. of which we are in search. determining the date any authoritative basis for deprived of 3. We have only the philosophic contents of the work to fall back upon, then, as a guide in our inquiry

;

and, alas,

it

precisely

is

from these contents that inferences

Arguinen(s from '^°"'*'"'-

so widely divergent as those of Schleiermacher, Zeller, and Jackson have been drawn.

Of

the

first

of these, the author of which seems to have been governed by pro-

crustian theories

Stallbaum— dialogue)

a

(though this

paene rudi

'

about the order of Plato's works,

enim

neque

et

Platone paullo ante

a mere beginner; and the probability

The

will

it

licet

be enough to say with

acquiescere,

qui

eum

(the

non ita multo post a question of degree) scriptum esse statuit, adeoque habuit pro opere tantummodo inchoato.' The Parmenides certainly is not written by

juvene is

Schleiermacheri

iudicio

authority of

Zeller

on

is

Platonic

obitum

Socratis

that

it

is

questions

later is

by

such

vel

several years than 399 B.C.

greater weight

that

may

perhaps be attached to his view, in the case before us, than intrinsically belongs to One may go a long way with him in associating the Parmenides with the it. subject matter of the Sophistes and Politicus

;

but to say that

it

is

the

'

Philosopher

dialogue promised in p. 217 of the former, and at the beginning of the latter, is a These two works are direct and avowed attempts to discover startling pronouncement. and define the Sophist and the Statesman respectively, and each receives its title

Parmen. imrod. °^''



THE PARMENIDES.

XXIV

To

there

analogous

nothing

Parmenides.

the

from

that

That

Plato entertains a deep veneration for Parmenides as a philosopher

true;

and that Parmenides

all

circumstance.

philosophic progress,

is

this

so.

mentally from that of the others, nor

which each of them directly

why

Philosopher

If

leads.

he not

should

in

is

quite

the discipline necessary to

introduced discoursing of

equally

is

is

But the method of the work differs fundaany conclusion arrived at such as that to Plato meant this dialogue to be the promised is

have said

and coupled

so,

with the Sophistes

clearly with

as

it

the

In regard to subject matter one

he does might almost as well pitch upon the Timaeus as the missing work. It is possible that our dialogue represents all that Plato ever wrote as a substitute for the the latter

Politicus as

Philosopher;

but,

With regard

plan has been altogether changed.

his

so,

if

.?

to

the

very suggestive argument of Dr. Jackson, in which he views the Parmenides as an exposition of Plato's final and much modified views, it seems to rest in large measure Farm. 130

c-D.

upon a misunderstanding. were ideas for 'man,

It

assumes that Socrates had held at one time that there

water,'

fire,

and even

mud,

for 'hair,

just as there were

filth,'

but that he had now renounced this hypothesis, and even good The Republic and Phaedo are taken as examples fled from it as from destruction. of the views renounced, and the conclusion is drawn that the Parmenides must be

ideas for

'

one, like,

'

Surely this perverts the sense of the passage appealed to

a late work. in

;

Socrates

.''

answer to Parmenides describes, not a past and discarded hypothesis, but a present

Parmenides

belief

tells

less sensitive to criticism,

him

even the most undignified objects

And

of

state

this

by and

that

by,

when he grows

older

and becomes

he will not be afraid to entertain the thought of ideas

—that he

mind, predicted

Republic and Phaedo exemplify

;

as

will learn to call

in

store

for

nothing

Socrates,

so that these works

is

common

for

or unclean.

the one which the

are later,

not

if

necessarily

than the dialogue as a whole, at least than the state of mind depicted in the passage

upon which

Dr. Jackson

relies.

He

pushes

his

contention even

further,

however,

maintaining that while the Phaedo reveals no sense of a difficulty about the nature of

or the

fjLeOeits,

method according

Parmenides which forcibly presses that Phaedo,

loo.

Is this really a possible contention in

to

which objects participate

difficulty

in

the ideas,

must on that ground be a

view of that remarkable passage in the Phaedo,

already quoted above, which contains one of the most candid avowals in writings, to the effect that, despite the

the doctrine of

/xeOe^is,

the

later work.

all

Plato's

almost overwhelming difficulty which surrounds

he nevertheless despairingly clings to

it

aTrXto? koi.

arexvm

Koi

icro)? ew?0ft)? ?

Arguments of Teichmiiller.

LiterarischeFel:

den im vierten jahrhundertvor Chr.

Gustav

Teichmuiier, Breslau,

i

No observations upon Platonic chronology would be complete which failed to reckon with the arguments of Teichmiiller in his 'Literary Feuds.' They are of a nature so striking, and are advanced with such confidence and ability, as to claim special

and counected

.... divisions

as

1



t

1

notice, in place of •

being distributed piecemeal under the various

1

which havc just been engagmg our attention.

Dealing with Plato's writings

a whole, Teichmiiller contends that they are for the most part directly contro-

AMONG

ITS SEQUENCE

PLATO'S WRITINGS.

XXV

and are to be dated chiefly from a consideration of the writings of men like Xenophon, Isocrates, and Lysias to which they refer, or which in turn refer to them.

versial,

And

such cross references he detects

great interest

advanced which

in

On

abundance.

point

this

much

that

is

of

would be impossible justly to controvert, or even to appraise, without a minute and extensive knowledge of the entire literature and literary history of the Platonic era. Such a knowledge we do not possess, and is

accordingly can only say that suggestive and captivating

it

we

till

could doubtless collect such.

or seeming allusions, of this nature are

allusions,

all

make

see those that

which Teichmuller has dealt with by

An

against the theory.

Fortunately the Parmenides

expert

not one of the works

is

Another point on which, the work before us, not practically he lays much stress, as an internal evidence of date, is the progress which may be detected in Plato's views upon the question of lu-ide^is or vapovala. Undoubtedly this is a weighty subtheoretically

— though,

at the

ject;



same time our

author's conclusions in

somewhat sanguine character. He seems and satisfying elaboration of the doctrine language

the

just

argument.

this line of

in

quoted

from the

to

find

regard to

in

it

appear to be of a

works a very complete

Plato's

harmony with accord with his own

a result not altogether in

;

Phaedo, but certainly

in



upon the philosophic position of Aristotle to wit, that Aristotle derived most of his conceptions complete from Plato and other predecessors, and deserves credit chiefly for his power of methodizing what these thinkers had supplied. A cardinal feature in Teichmiiller's argument is the use which he makes of the statement at finding

the opening of the Theaetetus with regard to the composition of that work. The professed author of it, Euclid of Megara, says that he has purposely left out such phrases as Kayo) e.

The

?

that he puts

does — upon

disposed to '• =4-5

in

allusions

we have seen also

above

I.

by Teichmiiller

equally specific, contained

this

pricking

is

method by

master's

his

instead

elirev,

involuntarily dropped,

is

and ovrw,

Kpecr^vTriv eivai

Srj

we have

breaks down, and

fairly

we must assume

him, and

— and,

Nay, such and so embarrassing

Z}]vcova. it

fiev

mood

ovv TLap/meviSiiv ev /xaXa

^KXW

;

B.C.

fron^

Aristotle.

the reading of which

By common

consent,

and

by Plato in

all

are

said

accordance with the

to

have withdrawn except

title,

that

work

is

assumed

AMONG

ITS SEQUENCE

PLATO'S WRITINGS.

xxvii

to have been the Phaedo, a

work which TeichmuUer places relatively early in Plato's Again, as Plato was born about 427 B.C. his age at 366 B.C. would not be very advanced at all events his activity in authorship lasted considerably longer on

life.



;

Teichmiiller's

own showing, he had

and Laws, or about a fourth of

write

to

still

at

Parmenides

young

Aristoteles

is

open to great doubt.

surely

is

declared to have been one of the thirty tyrants, and

Politicus

short of that assigned

far

fall

But the assumption that Aristotle

the dialogue.

in

the person of the

Sophistes,

must be admitted, however,

It

as a noticeable circumstance, that his age would not to

the

least

his collective works.

we know

glanced at

in

Aristoteles

is

that Plato introduces



more than one public character of that type into his writings Critias, for example, and Alcibiades. If, then, it had not happened that Plato's greatest scholar proved to be

Had

in this circumstance.'

much

case have lived

moot points fling away ambition if Plato meant to

cussing

the dialogue

:

Shakespeare

sui-vived

longer than Plato

!

had a very

'

Socrates, although

but Aristoteles

is

man whom he viewed

is

'

Cromwell,

in that in

dis-

charge thee,

I

Again,

.?

He

figure.

nothing, he main-

elicits

but merely, by interjecting formal verbal replies,

How

an essay.

how he

not

he would not

he has not assigned him a very

as giving promise of ability,

and Charmides; and that

attention

very young,' plays a part of great importance

'

a mere lay ;

from becoming

prevents the dialogue

attract

from the ostensible one

different reference

tains nothing, he controverts nothing

—and

to

would not have njaintained,

to the philosopher here,

refer

1645

till

— who

the famous words

in his works, that

appropriate position. in

we have found anything

likewise called Aristotfe, should

Plato could

we know from Nay,

treats Aristoteles.

treat

young

a

the Theaetetus

would be a

it

fair

contention to affirm that he would not so have represented anyone called Aristoteles

had he known the

historic Aristotle at the time.

Another argument advanced by Teichmiiller noch, dass der Timaios

.

.

.

the following,

is

Ich erwahne hier

'

" 360.

bei der Erorterung des Begriffs der Zeit eine spatere

Untersuchung verspricht, die wir im Parmenides (151 E bis 157 B) vorfinden. Es folgt daraus von selbst die Prioritat des Timaios.'' The Timaeus gives a promise which the Parmenides conclusion

is

fulfils,

therefore the latter

incontestable.

is

But we are

If the premises hold the

the later work.

entitled

to

expect that the promise given

The passage

should be definite and the fulfilment reasonably to the point. to in the

Timaeus

as piece justificative

various relations, the remark eV

because

time

fulfilment, this

seems

is

discussed

in

made

made

And

appearances

politics,

and not a

of little

and from

all;

is

in

the words

rax

this

^'^

has

weak

""^"^

as his last utterance on the former,

it

seems

:

x^o.i-po'S

in

TrpeTrwi/

a

is

fulfilment,

the

Surely a conclusion like it

written

some weight. upon physics and metaphysics Plato

^'"?

follows of itself that

'it

just given.

inherently

while

referred

Time

after a reference to

in which,

Parmenides that discussion

the

predetermined.

one

xepJ lAv ovv tovtwv

This

of the 'promise'

flicting

Laws

is

vupovTi SiaKpi^oXoye'iadai.

TftJ

is

has

much

and

if

to

overbear

upon

we

are

ethics

con-

and

to take the

at least as clear that the

Timaeus

38

>•



THE PARMENIDES.

xxviii

gives the furthest development of his views on

almost desperate attempt to elaborate

and

which

at(T6r]Ta

in

He

sanguine inference. the

One

Parmenides.

Nor

yawning.

left

is

It

latter.

we have

places the Phaedo, as

earnest,

chasm between

i'l^t)

this Teichmiiller's only

is

seen, considerably earlier than

arguments we have already giyen

of his

one long,

is

to bridge over the

jue'Se^t?,

the Parmenides

the

here

:

another.

is

Finding reason for considering the Symposium a comparatively early work he lays it down that the Phaedo follows closely upon it. Everyone will recall the inimitable

humour with which the

Socrates

table,'

Aristophanes that ii.

307-9-

comedy

:

Symposium

the

of

the function

is

it

demonstrating

left

is

the

almost

the

to

same poet

would supplement

it

that

as

which accordingly we ought to place and

write both tragedy and

to

and drop asleep. he had written a comedy in the Symposium he by a tragedy; that tragedy is none other than the Phaedo,

part

Plato's

Agatho and

insensible

Teichmiiller regards this as a

they cannot follow him

promise on

promises

All the other banqueters being 'under

closes.

following

the

in

statements into scraps of

specific

artistic

While thus reading by-play, he seems to treat year.

The only

very distinct declarations with but slight regard.

specific indications

which

Plato personally supplies in reference to the sequence of his writings are those which

mark

the intimate connection between the Theaetetus, Sophistes, and Politicus on the

These indications one hand, and the Republic, Timaeus, and Critias on the other. Teichmiiller would appear to set almost entirely aside. No one who studies his arguments can

many

not unlock as

be impressed by their brilliancy and power, but his key

to

fail

things as he thinks

Must our conclusion

be,

then,

it

'will

will.'

that

no

satisfactory

data

from which a

exist

may be formed of the position which the Parmenides should Some attempt must certainly be made to reach at occupy among Plato's writings reasonable

estimate

.-'

least in

an approximate solution of the question

anything but a dogmatic

but the undertaking

:

and with a

spirit,

full

is

entered upon

consciousness of the conditions

praebemus crura sagittis. To enter at this stage upon a detailed analysis of the dialogue would be to anticipate the natural order of inquiry. Some reference, however, to the contents of the work is indispensable to our present caedimus

inque vicem

object.

The

Reasons which should weigh

dialoguc opcus with a statement upon the ideal theory which

subjected to scrutiny.

with us.

to

overlook

In connection with this opening statement

.... intimation

emphatic

the

jjjc.

accompanied.

He

128 K.

promising lad

who

is

described as at present

is

it

is

afterwards

seems impossible

....

by which 'extremely young,' and Parmenides treats him of

deterred,

the

youth

of

Socrates

it

is

as a

through boyish fear of established views,

from accepting conclusions to which his reason seems to point, and who has, with 135 c-D.

youthful impetuosity, plunged

such

a

course

of

training

as

into

metaphysical speculation

alone would

fit

him

for

the

before

passing through

undertaking.

It

may,

no doubt, be said that Socrates must be represented as young if any regard is to be paid to the assumed date of the meeting between him and Parmenides. But Plato

ITS was not

down

tied

Parmenides

SEQUENCE AMONG PLATO'S WRITINGS.

to such a

method of dealing with the personality and

the method was of his

:

the views here ascribed to him,

the

youthful

intentional

and

Plato,

we

regard

to

own

metaphysical questions.

It

is

choosing.

doctrines of

Further, as Socrates never held

are entitled in the youthful Socrates to perceive

opening statement of the dialogue as an

the

by Plato of the

notification

xxix

own

character of his

consistent with

this

upon

early theorizing

assumption that the only method

urged here as a means of arriving at the conviction that ideas exist is the Socratic one, of generalization from the world of experience. That was the path which had led Plato onward, and hence the present allusion to it. Again, while the ideas are treated as realities of to

define

aWoOi come from

ovSanov just

which they are called

in

vomara whose abode is one to pursue who had

X32

b,

Is not this a natural course for

could such definitions be but

eTruKTiKovs \6yovs

when the

affecting our sensible sphere, the first attempt clearly

the school of 'general definitions' which Aristotle directly ascribes to

—what

T

that

is

ev ^Jrvxaif.

rj

Socrates Tovi

some kind

nature

their

T32 a.

writer, driven

/cat

from

to

We

voi^/jLara?

goes on to exclaim that

this,

have before

us,

in

now he

fact,

And

KadoXov as Aristotle describes them.

opi^ecrdai

thinks he has the

Arist.

Met. xu

t-

—that

the ideas are patterns set up in nature; we seem to find the decisive step which Aristotle proceeds to ascribe to 'those who first pronounced for the

clue,

taken

existence opuTfiovi'

to this

of 01

first

S

aXX'

ideas,'

ex(iopiarav,

6

Kai

fiev

to TOtavTu twv ovtwv

sketch of the ideal sphere

ideas for physical

we

The speaker cannot

imperfectly defined.

objects,

ra KadoXov

XwKpdrtif

find

ov

iirolei,

x'^P'^'^'^^

scope to be at once restricted and

bring himself to recognize the existence of

but only for abstract mental and moral conceptions

even these exist confusedly, without being dominated by any regulative the

new

doctrine stands forth just such as

moral speculations of the reached in the dialogue, deal

;

may

and

is

historic

roi/y

Looking next

ISeag 'Trpocniyopevcrav.

its

ovSe

it

Socrates.

principle.

;

and Here

might have sprung from the unsystematic This then, while not the point

finally

the condition of things with which the dialogue goes on to

be described as a somewhat hasty and crude

reached in the Socratic speculation.

It

is

the treatment which

of the results

x^'pttr/xo?

this

opening statement

we must look for assistance in determining the problem before us. Thus far all that we have gathered is that Plato's early views were of a certain character, while we may infer from what follows that they had been exposed to some public criticism. I. The first comment which Parmenides, or Plato in his person, makes upon the theory put before him, and he makes it indirectly in passing, is that it is incomplete. to

receives,

He

which,

implies that

objects,

as well

if

it

as

to

anything,

might have been expected to include and account moral or intellectual conceptions;

that

it

will

for physical

not be complete

and that he does include such objects, even the most insignificant of them looks forward to a time when Socrates will so far gain the victory over his boyish

until

it

;

aversion as to tation

to

make

put upon

that important stride in speculation.

the

language of the text

it

If this

is

a just interpre-

would seem to follow that the

isoae.

THE PARMENIDES.

XXX

dialogue can at least be no later than any of those in which ideas for physical objects

by

are accepted

Were we

Socrates.

even infer that the Parmenides

cratyiu5,3S7etc. ^*"''"'^'

Rep.

prior to

all

utmost we might

its

such dialogues, inasmuch as

human maker fashions Trpoj to elSos ^XeTroov. In G occur among others the well known cases of the k\iv>] and rpa-n-e^a Phaedo repeated reference is made to ideas for various physical objects. '

the Republic

'

/

n,

74-78.100.106.

looks

it

forward to a consummation which they embody; and it is obvious that if it be later than none of them it must of necessity be prior to the majority of them. Now all students of Plato's works are aware that those ideas are accepted without hesitation In the Cratylus we have as the Cratylus, Republic and Phaedo. in such works art and manufacture e'cTTtv oi/o/xa, Kspm, TpiiTTavov, v(f>aa-fj.a, so that even objects of 'i are included, which the

X. 5q6.

Phaedo, 63

is

to push the argument to

Nothing could

2.

more abrupt than

be

Socrates agree to recognize between the ideas and

and

m •

1

the

Parmenides

which

severance

the

1

;

the world of sense.

and

You may

be

by generalization to approach gradually towards the conception of the idea but when you find it you also find that between you and it there is a great gulf fixed. Nor is there so much as a hint of difference in this particular between one idea and another. Here is the sensible sphere, yonder is the ideal even God cannot bridge the chasm that yawns between them. All the satisfaction vouchsafed to us in these circumled

;

;

Farm. 133-135

c.

stanccs that

the admission

IS

need extreme

will

it

that such a conclusion does appear to be skill

to deal with that

and

paradoxical, and

similar difficulties.

It

does not

seem an unfair inference to assume that on this point Plato was a definite theory, and that any dialogue in which a positive attempt is made to deal This would include all dialogues .with the problem is later than the Parmenides. still

which discuss or accept the doctrine of

Phaedo, 7276. phaedrus, 249

c.

and Mcuo

I

Symposium.

ava/j.vj^ai';

possibly also those that speak of It

'

—for

unprovided with

example the Phaedo, Phaedrus,

divine madness,' as the Phaedrus and

would include the simile of the cave

in

the

Republic, and

all

those

attempts to construct a sort of Jacob's ladder, or graded means of descent from the higher sphere to the lower.

Such attempts are

Republic, the construction of

inroOecrii

in

the Philebus that

above

we must not proceed

to be found in the divided line of the

inrodecri^ in

the Phaedo, and the declaration

at once from the

one to the unlimited

av Ti? Tov aptO/iiov avTov Travra KarlSr] tov ixera^v tov cnrelpov re this description may be held to mean. 3.

there

km

tov evog

Neither in the opening sketch nor in the criticism brought to bear upon

any

serious attempt to introduce gradation or

nearest approach to that

throws the ideas

in

is

into the ideal sphere.

it

is

The

to be found in the various groups into which Parmenides

questioning Socrates

accepts the rationale of the distinction

seem a

method

-Trplv

—whatever

is

;

and between the two groups which the

latter

Once more, then, it would up of one or more dominant or the theory. Now, even granting,

not very obvious.

argument to maintain that the setting master ideas must indicate a speculative advance in which is doubtful, that the 'one' of this dialogue is designed as such a master idea, it would still seem that the ayadw of the Republic and the small group of dominant fair



ITS

SEQUENCE AMONG PLATO'S WRITINGS.

—dwelt

ideas

oi', crracrt?, Kivricn's, ravrov, Odrepov cases of an attempt in that direction.

upon

XXXI

much

in the Sophistes, are

clearer

Near the beginning of the Parmenides we have an earnest wish expressed by

4.

Socrates to see the process 'mingle, mingle, mingle,' which prevails in the sensible made applicable to the ideal. Yet in throwing out such a suggestion there is not even a whisper of the restriction 'ye that mingle may' the expression rather is

sphere,



niv avrriv

roh

airop'iav ev avToii

e'lSecri

Nor

-n-avToSa-wwi TrXeKOfiivtiv.

any such

is

restric-

tion enforced in the later progress of the argument.

It does not appear unnatural to contend that works in which a discrimination on this point is revealed, in which distinctions are drawn between ideas that admit communion and those that reject it, indicate a later stage in the evolution of Plato's views. Here again the Phaedo and

Sophistes are at once recalled to mind. 5.

what

The type

of argument which

we have just been using may be developed somehave above seen some reason to assume that the difference between

We

further.

any given conception question

of

greater

in

Aristotle

clearness,

and the corresponding one

definiteness,

in

The view

precision.

Plato

of

is

Aristotle

what the view of Plato represents in 'solution.' It would naturally that if in different works Plato's views in regard to any conception seem to variance, the view which is the more clear and definite is the later. Now, Parmenides we have a somewhat vague and confusing use of the correlative whole and part' It is not clear whether the two represent merely a greater

'precipitate'

'

'

'

lesser

portion

of extended

which as something

We

distinct

In the Theaetetus

from such a sum

have seen above, and

from time to time

is

relation

logical

drawn between that which as a mere sum of

tinction

6.

more

matter, or bear a

genus to species or body to member.

we

is

is

in

be at in

the

terms

and a

such as that of

called

called o\ov.

have occasion to see again, that faults appear These faults resolve themselves largely into neglect

shall

in the reasoning.

of the

a statement of

as

is

of the

We have in the Parmenides an law of contradiction, but by no means so clear

contained in the

Sophistes

einSeiKvvovcriv

avrai

(ras So^as)

insists

division

is

not consciously and persistently employed as

it

is

in

the

But on the question of reasoning a more important point a turning point, in consequence of a remark in

That argument the Parmenides. But there

tion adopted.

to

will so apply.

action

135

soph. 230

1-.

b.

-rrepi

same dialogue. arises.

We

is

The

p-

"•"

not unimportant, although

is

a means

it

cannot be applied safely

of inference of an analogous character which

great objection which Parmenides urges against Socrates and his Paim

anything

like

^bovc.

affecting the style of composi-

is

the inconsiderate haste with which he

theory, without

it

soph. 226etc.

have

already had under review an argument by Teichmiiller in which the Theaetetus was

made

Pa™.

twv avTwv •jrpo? tu avTo. koto. Tavra evavria?. And while Parmenides strongly on the necessity of method in reasoning, the method of logical

avrais dfia

7.

it

nature

Theaet. 204.

wav and that

of the law of contradiction and of logical division. indication

..2 above,

follow

find a very definite dis-

parts

p.

largely a

—that

is,

Plato

—had

constructed his

the argumentative training which such an attempt re-

135 c-13

THE PARMENIDES.

xxxii

Plato had, however, from

quired.

Yet

elenchus.'

was not

this

before he ventures upon

sufficient

and

that of reporting discussions at

new

;

he must consent to

The

metaphysics.

constructive

attention in the utmost detail,

intimation of a

youth enjoyed the discipline of the

his

or second hand.

first

Here,

And

departure on Plato's part.

if

greater weight than

anywhere, we have the

comes

it

pressed upon our

is

much

Socratic

of Zeno

at the feet

sit

point

obviously a question of

is

'

in

connection with a

would appear that while the methods of argument practised are sufficient to meet the wants of unsystematic ethical inquiries, they must be supplemented or elaborated if ethics and politics are to be built up firmly upon a basis of reason. And the inference would seem to be that

metaphysical problem.

by

the historic

It

Socrates

such dialogues as deal firmly with these abstract questions without*" making reference

to

the necessity for preliminary training are

described in the passage under discussion

he here points

out.



after Plato

written

had

after

special

the experience

realized the necessity which

This would give a fresh reason for placing the Parmenides prior

to the Timaeus, Politicus, Sophistes, Theaetetus,

The

portions of the Republic.

feeling

and Philebus, and

which Plato here indicates

to the metaphysical is

harmony with

in

the statement of Aristotle about the methods and arguments of Socrates, where he says Arist.

Metaph.

SioXeKTiK}] Kcu

yap

(Vxy?

Twv evavTLwv

el

ouTTOt)

TOT

avTrj

rj

^v wcTTe SuvaaOuL Kui X*"/"? Tov Ti ecTTi TavuvTia e-KLaKOirelv,

We

eTnaT^/j-tj.

always just and faultless in his arguments fail

reason badly at times

to

methodical.

We

—but

do not contend that Plato henceforth was even of the most expert dialecticians

—few

simply that hereafter he was more searching and

could imagine the Republic, for example, begun upon Socratic prin-

and carried on so far as the point where advantage is taken of the argument from the analogy of a State, but thereafter becoming gradually modified and interciples

penetrated with

metaphysical matter

fresh

which carried

the speculation

past

the

Socratic standpoint into regions of pure thought.

While Plato

8.

his

readers

are

this dialogue

in

more or

less

matters of public notoriety. Farm. 13a

B.

hearing

the

Sir'tprja-ai

opening

statement

w? Xeyeis, x^pi?

fiev

criticises

own

his

early views, and assumes that

acquainted with them, he does not refer to them as On the contrary the phrase used by Parmenides after

e'lSt]

of avTo.

Socrates

uttu

is

x^^P'?

interrogative— /ca/ ]fj.tv

1

j_

1



Syn.

Encomium ^wKpari]^

avui., C.17.

nXaToii/

.

.

.

4iri

,

^^ OVK ecTTai o crvWoyKr/uLOi. t

,t

'



l^t.



11

..

at once recalls

,

,

-i

,



,

two striking passages of the Parmcnidcs. At the same time these arguments of Plato, when viewed in detail, are not quite similar to those of Zeno while we have also to remember that they are boldly attributed to Parmenides himself, and that they are applied to the One as straightforward

y^P

'''ovTov

1 his

;

reasoning, not to the

Theaet. .80 '^^

'

E,

Many

as paradoxical confutation.

makes no allusion elsewhere, and in such a way Plato

Meiissus.

his view that this dialogue

to Melissus in the as to indicate a

motion was impossible

Parmenides but he twice refers to him knowledge of his writings in particular of ;



empty space. Much of the argument in has quite as close a likeness to the tenets of Melissus as to those of Zeno. for lack of

ITS

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS.

Thus the reasoning of Melissus

that

what

cannot

x.w'ix

become,' and therefore has no cannot perish/ and therefore has no end and as having neither beginning nor end cannot be limited, therefore the One is 'limitless' recalls at once what we find at the

beginning

'

is

'

'

'

;

Muiuch,

m.ii...

^'"^'°- '

^

;

;

opening of the First Demonstration while the fallacy of arguing thus from time to space Pa™. 137 d. is analogous to the ambiguous use of ravrov for the same thing and the same place in the Second. Again, the contention against motion in any form, whether as destruction, or Parm. 746 a. :

growth, or claange, or suffering, on the ground that whatever is so affected cannot be One, finds a parallel in both the First Demonstration and the Third. There is even an echo of the language, although with a difference; for example el yap Tovrcav -rracrxoi, ovk ac

n

€C

eiri'

TO yap

rjvrivaovv

Kivrjiriv

Kiveofxevov sk rtvos

Yet we

may

e?

erepou ri /xera^aXXet

:

and

el

yap

to eov fj.^ 6/j.oiov ehai, aTroWvcrOat to -wpoaQev eov, to Se ovk iov be compared with the phrases used throughout the Third Demonstration.

feel that in

138, 156.

Muiiach, ^

s 4

Parm. 156

b-c.

the case of Melissus, as in the cases already touched upon, the diver-

And

gences are quite as noteworthy as the coincidences. evidence must be that

— so

far as

our general conclusion upon the

can be ascertained from the fragments preserved

— Plato

works of the three Eleatic philosophers rather as suggestive texts and points of departure, than as systems accepted in their entireness and containing a satisfactory answer to the questions of metaphysics. The Parmenides is after all a Platonic speculation, although resting upon an Eleatic basis. In Plato's view the One 'is and is not all that treats the

'

the Eleatics ascribed to

Of

it

and

to the

Many

conjointly.

the two great exponents of Platonism for the English-speaking world of our

The

generation the one, while striving to maintain a historic attitude, subjects Plato's works to

''"'^

a scrutiny having for basis a sensational conception of knowledge, and for weapons the laws of formal logic as anything

;

the other does not shrink from hinting his distrust of metaphysics

more than a mental gymnastic, and regards Plato by

untrammelled poet or maker of '

ideas.'

The two

preference as the

are agreed, however, in putting aside

any suggestion of system in Plato's mind, so far as that is unfolded in his writings and in regarding each of his works as an independent inquiry undertaken to meet an independent, perhaps even a transitory difficulty. This view, while countenanced, as we have seen, by ;

the peculiar form of authorship which Plato has thought perfect

harmony with the two important

facts,

fit

to adopt, hardly

seems

in

that he both strove to get his views

and devoted his best energies to professorial instruction embodied It is doubtless true that he is not systematic after the conscious and prein philosophy. determined fashion of Kant or Spenser; yet he is manifestly anxious to consider all aspects of the philosophic problem, as these are successively brought under his notice. in practical legislation,

He

earnestly seeks to attain philosophic certainty on

all points,

and

if

he

fails, it is

from a want of systematic grasp of the subject, than because, with the means at disposal,

he

finds

success beyond

his reach.

He

is

less

his

a consciously unsuccessful seeker after

be permissible to say 'mere'— metaphysical Ariel singing Where the bee sucks there suck I.' The Parmenides alone is sufficient to show that he sought to rectify his own mistakes and make definite progress towards truth. In it we reasoned truth, not a '

and

"'

aW

eTepoiovrai, avdyKt] ylvecrOai

/cat

Parm.

mere—if

it

contents ^

rigidly scientific, without

he seeks to enthrone

it

one

matter

part of his

of ideas as

taint of sense to sully or confuse

as the dominating influence in speculation

—has

he not

been unconsciously enriching the world of sense to an alarming degree with qualities they seem to which it can lay no claim, and which are assigned to it solely because to

him unworthy of the other

already collected above.

What

sphere.?

The

contents of the ideal world

are those of the phenomenal world

.'

They

we have consist of

you and me, and the

rest of

;

;

'

;

mud,

filth,'

it

is

certain that they, as

we accept

their

pam,.

1=9.

wood and

what we call the many,' stones and add by inference—since there are ideas corresponding to such things.' To these we them—' likeness, one, many justice, beauty, goodness master, mastery, slave, slavery hair, fire, water Finally, whether or no there may be ideas for man, science, truth.' '

pieces of

'

meaning, belong to the sensible

130.

133 D-134

1

;

THE PARMENIDES.

xlvlii

sphere, for Socrates says of

the world of

'

what we

or whatever you call

And

fiiv ye, d-rrep opw/utev,

the many,' the world which

of the

it,

know by

world we

this

call

them Tmra

is

which 'we handle'

ideas,'

the senses

:

'

of some parts of

Tavra

with

us,'

which

*.

'

is

partakes,

and

(fieTaxeipi^ofAeOa)

'see.'

this is expressly affirmed

it

while for others there are ideas corresponding, whose distinctive feature parm. .30

Such

koI eiuai.

it

that they

is

Such a conception of a world of sense is manifestly are known Xoyia-fiw and Siavoia. untenable and indeed it speedily breaks down. For when Plato goes on to insist, ;

by the mouth of Parmenides, upon the absolute separateness of the ideal sphere he announces that the latter is known by the idea of science,' while the ordinary world '

134 E.

is

known

by

(not

by 'our

sense, but)

in his Tim.

52 B.

poem, or to translate

phrase from the Timaeus ideas.

The fundamental

;

is

mere

eTrimnfJ^y

fifxerepa

rij

t^ ^fieripa

science,'

hardly avail to urge that this latter science

And

eTri(TTi]fit].

it

Parmenides

'opinion,' as

would calls

it

into Xoyicrfilp rivi voOcp, to quote a

means that we have discovered the lies in the relation, or rather want of relation, which Although Plato would between the two spheres.

because

difficulty

it

by

is

its

is originally assumed as existing deny that ideas exist corresponding to individual sensible objects, such ideas after He has ideas for the qualities all are the goal to which things seem to be tending. and if he goes on, as Parmenides urges, of objects, and ideas for motion and rest to admit ideas for man, hair, mud, why should he not translate elSos evoi eKaarTov in its most literal sense and acknowledge the existence of ideas for 'you, and me, and the rest of those present'? An etSos ^wKparov? would at least not be anixoTaTov re Koi fpavXoraTov and when we have got that length we should have in the ideal world, ;

;

what we can hardly help

feeling as

if

we were intended

to have, a detailed duplicate

And do we not seem consummation in the latter part of the Phaedo There he launches upon the rhapsody future dwelling-place soul, which is made to appear into a of the as an idealized sensible sphere, where our world is repeated in detail with transcendental of the sensible world complete to the minutest ramification.

Phaedo

109 sq.

to attain to this

.'

or heavenly counterpart, as

and behold the sensible One, which Qeujv

If so, then each blade of grass has an elSos

the toVo? votjtos^

Is this

attractions.

sun, for

in

Those there have

the land of Beulah.

moon and

stars

On

ola Tvyxdvec ovra.

this

argument's sake might be supposed to contain but a single

quality, could be represented by

and Socrates with

q,

his indefinite qualities

while over against this would stand the idea of each, represented by q and so our worlds would run side by side

q

q'^

q If

we

q^

—then

no

q^

q*

qs

It

in is

in

q"-^

q'^--'

^«-i





qn-3

qn-2

qn-i

qn

it

.>

not simple as opposed

is

by

q"

;

And

the model or pattern

but this seems to be possible.

What

advan-

over that in roman type that such pains should

italics

the elaboration of

q".

q^

fitting conclusion

now, has the world

be taken

qV

q3

q*

are to have two worlds with the theory that the one

of the other tage,

q^

tu>v

aia-Oija-en

assumption our

'

What's q to

to

q,

or

q

to

q,

the other's complexity,

that it

is

q should weep

for

not pure as con-

ITS CHARACTER trasted with the other's unworthiness,

mutability—there

it

is

The world

distinction.^

is

it

xlix

not stable as distinguished from the other's

What then is it? Shall we say it Kivhatm. contradistinguished from the other's dependence on sense ? Well, after is not that either. No: between the two there is indeed a vital

is intellectual as

consideration,

actually an

AND CONTENTS.

This

in

e?(5o9

italics

is

The-idea-of-scientifical'

'

the other

:

'The-our-

is

what comes of having 'made that distinction— on the one side, ideas; on the other, things partaking of these': and here for the present we

scientifical."

certain

is

Pam.. 130

must leave the question.

The

ideas as patterns are said Icnavai ev

What does this mean.? rxt (pvaei. One would at first be disposed to fancy that 'nature' could be nothing but the world as we see it: but obviously that sense cannot be the right one. As little can nature mean the human mind; for although it is by the exercise of the intellect that we 3.

reach a conception of the ideas, they are in themselves quite separated from us. He speaks repeatedly in the Republic and elsewhere of a i/o^yro? to'tto? as contrasted with the opaTOs. Should we identify that with the mind of the Creator.? Even this is not without its difficulties; for the ideas are patterns irpo? & pkeirwv the Creator

a description which gives them a certain externality and independence even where he is concerned. The vorfrw roiros, again, and the mind of the Creator are subjects which carry a certain suggestiveness in connection with the question which creates,

Plato raises as to whether the ideas are if

not voijfiara?

What

vor^fiaTa.

should occupy a

Granting, too, that vovjuara must have objects,

vorirbs roiro^

we ask

still

—may

not such objects, and in the given circumstances must they not, be themselves vorinara or votjTd? Nay, even the aicrOrp-a seem not to be perfectly excluded from this intel-

Granting that we perceive them by sense

lectual influence.

to

likewise form

Plato,

And

abstract

conceptions

of thinking.?

Further, of the ideas

man

theory be abandoned

it

is

ovSh

rphlrei

oiroi

mere notions

position that the ideas are not

We may in

grant him that;

nature.'

be either

'

to

Still

mental

'

mental, he grants one.

even according

discovering

the

ideas.?

affirmed that they are Xoyia-fiu) Xaix^avofieva

discussion will be absolutely destroyed.

up

not,

are they not the objects of our thought at that time, and so in his view capable

and the mode of reaching them is t^ '^v)& also an eTnai^/jLtj whereby God knows them. of

do we

;

when

of them,

or

'

we may even

admit

physical

'

of ;

and

is

all

if

opwueva)

in the

are told that

if

is

the ideal

and so the possibility of course, committed to the

is,

human mind,

no

difficulty

at

but objective

they must

all

The

subject

along struggling to say what

is

we

entities.

about their being "set

physical they are perceived

thinking.

There

ISeiv.

Sidvoiap e^e](rts what miners call the working face,' and is quarrying out new knowledge from the ungauged sum which lies before him. In the latter he is dealing with the 'bing' of coal already raised to the pit-head, which he It is weighs and measures as a definite quantum by definite tests and standards. patent at a glance that the result in the latter case might from its greater definiteness

and

e-jruTT^fM}].

reconciliation of the conflict

In the former he

is

at

'

be called knowledge or science, while that in the former, from its constant incompleteness and confusion, might seem to a methodical mind unsatisfactory in comparison.

As

time goes on the working face advances, while for each generation the bing repre-

sents a different total.

becoming,

its

The

point, for us,

any moment

condition at

is

is

that

when knowledge

sufficiently

uncertain

to

is

in

process of

render a

strict

application of the laws of deductive logic uncertain and unfair: and that it is not necessarily to the prejudice of a line of argument, in such circumstances, that it seems

we are not to be held as admitting contradiction is in reality such. of law the Plato of by that somewhat different standpoint. a Another glance may be taken at the subject from While the laws of formal logic are invaluable as tests of an intellectual conclusion, technically a

little

at fault

In arguing thus, however,

each seeming violation

yet be far from conveying a just picture of the activity which leads the They represent the dissecting implemind to the acceptance of that conclusion. ments of the anatomist, or the solvent appliances of the chemist, much more than they exemplify the natural process by which is produced the complex organism

they

may

with which anatomist or chemist has to deal. And if an attempt be made to exhibit that process in operation, the attempt does not at once stand condemned by reason of imperfect conformity to them.

That

it

may

be inherently defective as a repre-





THE PARMENIDES.

Ixii

sentation

enough,

we have

said, regards the

but

because

it

argument

A

not

possible

is

happens

to

with

jar

deductive

formulae. The

significance

of argument

A *

in.

Grote,

3.

its

as an attempt

on

Plato's part

That

is

not an unfair account to give of

rather unexpected occurrence in this place; yet

it

is

to explain apparent violations of logical law.

upon

process.'

III.

one that

may be

overpressed.

Plato no doubt feels that his previous arguments seem contradictory, and seeks to

But the course he takes partly tends to show that the charge of inconsistency would be in some degree out of place. What he wants us to understand is that he has been dealing with the One as in 'process,' a condition in which contrathem.

elucidate

dictory is

less

seemingly

or

concerned

— though

he

reasoner, than

contradictory

which he has to do. Parm. 127

'The

upon him.

D.

no doubt sincerely concerned

It is

hypothesis of Zeno's

first

acceptance carries with

are

— to

And

inevitable.

prove himself a

he fair

another manifestation of the influence of Zeno's dialectic

Plato, however, has accepted

multiplicity.

it

account for this phenomenon of process or becoming with

to

is

about

affirmations

first

the necessity for

it

argument' had been directed against

multiplicity;

some

and what he sees

theory of change in

all

is

its

that his various

This brings him face to face with another group of Zeno's arguments,

manifestations.

Zeno endeavours to show that because of the infinite divisibility of space you cannot admit that in any given time a swift runner can overtake a slow runner, as the apparently small space which divides them can itself be so divided as to become infinite. And from this he deduces the impossibility of motion. It may be urged in an ex parte manner that if Achilles cannot overtake the tortoise in a limited time, having unlimited space to cover, you can evade the difficulty by dividing the limited time as you do the limited space, and so showing that he has unlimited time in which to do it. As Being and One are equally divided ofTe yap to ov tov evoy axoXetTrerai ovte to ev tov ovtos aAX' e^icrovaOov Svo ovTe am irapa Trdvra so space and time may be equally divided, the one becoming infinite

that denying the possibility of motion.

144 E.



if p. xxxviu. xivi., xiix.,

130

B.

lii.

the other

time

is

isolated

But

is.

made up moments are e'/c

He

this is not Plato's difficulty. toov

vvv,

accepts here the doctrine that

and has to ask himself how the gaps between these

to be bridged.

Thus we again

see the consequence of beginning



by making divisions koI fj.01 el-wi, uvto? av ovtco Siiiprjcrai ;?, a something that but an awkward way of recalling for us the

—the continuous side—of time.

was

practically

much

connectedness, so

;

it,

see that the two philosophers

us think of time as divided merely, while

are

;

made

We

continuous not simultaneously but alternately.

4. It

dress

Plato in speaking of time accepts Zeno's view of

not divided nor even

the antithesis the

its

of hand, would

we may

reflect a little

but he says the separation of moments other aspect

by

character

its

Aristotle's reply to

dividedness of time against

to change

however instantaneous he might make

Yet when we

of time.

are substantially at one.

is

moment

were, behind the scenes for a

it

better

Ixiii

to figure time as divided and

think of

it

as discrete

—continuous

only that he gives to the second limb of

instantaneous.'

said above that the divergence in the results between the positive and

negative limbs of the argument was due largely to ambiguity in the terms.

among

these ambiguous terms

are chiefly two.

It is

quo

or terminus a

in

the

is

One

more or speculation and it used

in a

:

itself.

Its different

meanings

less logical sense as is

in

itself.

For us

it

is

used abstractly

it

is

and then treat

h.

by

research, or

:

is its

you cannot do with

function

— as

parts as on an equal footing with itself

its

i.

of course quite immaterial

to be feared, Plato sometimes assumes the right to do.

is

Mi.,

One it may be concrete, it may be abstract when used as a unit of measurement. It is

more important to observe that while such as

p.

used in a metaphysical sense as an entity

In the former of these senses

to consider the positive character of the

in this dialogue

a unit of measurement,

whose existence and composition are to be comprehended gradually as a terminus ad quem.

Ambiguous use

Foremost ^'"on^

You cannot new Ones.

it

what,

divide

The

it

parts

of a unit are fractions, and are not to be treated as new units on a level with the whole from which they are taken. It is when viewed as a unit that the One seems to be most simple and elementary in constitution most really one, with but the single



characteristic of unity.

consider that It certainly

We

If

it

be used merely as a counter we feel almost entitled to a One which no argument can prove to be many.

we have reached

should not be many, but

it

cannot avoid implying or presupposing many.

must remember that even as so conceived

it

relation to other similar ones in endless succession.

cannot be spoken of save as It

in

forms one of a multitude like

be any one of that multitude. Plato may be right or wrong in his method of reaching number by 'two twice and three thrice' and 'every combination To say one but it is true that One carries number with it. of even and odd of reckoning the act is numeration and involves the mental act of numeration; In this sense one and many, one and 'limitless multitude' are but the two plurality. itself,

and

it

may

'

'

factors of a single

One does

not

;

mental process.

come

first,

is

inept.

Each

When

involves the other, and the question

Whether

thought has reached the stage of reckoning

Parm. 1,3 e1

:

.

THE PARMENIDES.

Ixiv its

a

impressions,

its

simultaneous

single

many and

consciousness that they are

When

decision.

impressions and seeks to find

it

that each

is

one constitutes

goes on to deal with any given set of

comes before Thus we are far removed

how many they

are, one, in that sense, or

i,

But number and the unit of number take form together. Plato admits this from perfect simplicity in dealing even with the one of number. are Many or there in practice, as well as maintains it in theory, by assuming that

two.

136 A.

Others standing over against the

One from

Nor do we mend matters on passing istence, or what we hope may prove the have

1.

the problem of existence, which was there in abeyance.

least

it

is

Plato

is

mind or

iiot,

One

quite right in saying that the statement 'the

As

readers must decide

cannot accept a single one

:

Aristotle points out

—even

we

and we have

What

is

Being

?

unity does not carry objective being with

not identical with unity:

something more than One.

6.

In that case

simplest form of Being,

reckon with the problem of numeration, just discussed;

it

it.

Phys.

the metaphysical One, the one of ex-

to

to

added

At

to

still

the very threshold of the inquiry.

when

is'

—whether with

this dialogue in his

search of an apy}\ or

in

To

the case requires several.

already involves

principle

first

we

judge by Plato's language, the



One to him in this aspect consists of a mental picture of a physically existing One of a One in space and in time. Now the very simplest conception, which can be formed of such an entity must treat

the circumstance that

is

it

it

as a

homogeneous extended

viewed as one

is

not essential

thing.

in

that case

We

accidental.

it is

;

But

search of the smallest unit of being and have happened to stop at this point. the unit used as measure this

And

One.

so long as

such

One may be broken

divisibility is co-extensive

up,

are in

Unlike

and each portion may be called You may go on dividing

with thinkability.

what you divide can form an object of thought

;

while again

it

is

only as

an object of thought that you can deal with the matter at all. Thus multiplicity dogs this One out of the confines of existence we cannot reach it, do what we may. ;

But

further,

it

is

certain

(unless

it

be pure space) to have as a physical existence

various characteristics in addition to mere extension

Activ., sc.

i.

with

it,

from

its

like those of water, in the smallest part

:

and these

you

reach.

characteristics will abide

Thus

in itself,

and apart

One in the sense of having but a solitary quality or feature. Simplify as we may we cannot arrive at what we seek to adapt the language of Edgar in King Lear, 'the One is not, so long as we can say This is the One.' Strip it of quality after quality, as we have already stripped it of part after part still it remains a complex so long as we can form such a confurther divisibility, this smallest part

is

not



:

ception of featureless

it

as will admit of discussion.

Being and

unthinkable.

Plato

is

it

Strive to reduce

it

step

by

step to absolutely

vanishes at the back door of thought as Nothing, as the

right as regards the scope of his

argument, although he

may

take doubtful steps from time to time. The Many.

The Many

also is a term which is not very consistently used. Frequently it is transformed to the Others, a step which, in a work dealing with the most elementary distinctions of thought,

it

is

not permissible to take.

By

so treating this

conception

ITS CHARACTER you acquire greater freedom as opposed

to the

Many

is

Plato himself rightly says

in

AND CONTENTS.

developing from

it

not identical with the

fresh

One

Jxy

The One

characteristics.

as opposed

to the

Others.

only the other can be other than the others: that is, in being opposed to the Others the One sinks its oneness in order to become other than they. But there is a further confusion of thought in this connection. We that

have noted how Plato accepts almost unconsciously at starting the view that over One a body of Many or Others takes its place. The whole mapping out of that model scheme of argument, which ought to form the discipline of the philosopher,

against the

is

based on the assumption that the

Now we

to be contrasted.

One

is

not

all,

but has Others with which

have also seen that the One

itself

it

P^rm. ,35 ^.37.

is

under treatment develops

.43

Many. What difference is there between the Many into which the One thus changes and the Many originally existing in contradistinction to it.' That is not a thing easy to decide. We have a many of ones, any one of which may be fixed upon as the One; this again when we examine it separates into a new Many in our hands. Have we not here, after all, the same Many or Others viewed at two separate logical moments of their existence The development of these from a into

.'

careful consideration of all that

is

involved in the conception of the

One

gives us

what Kant would call the 'deduction' of the Many or Others. The contention that no argument about the One will be complete which fails to ask 'what follows to the Others,' simply exhibits us as assuming without if

necessary to deduce.

sets of

Many were

Yet Plato seems

not present to his mind.

perhaps the inconsistency abstract thinking. in

a

sense

easy,

may

deduction a fact which

to speak as

if thjs

If that

is

really his mental

be due to a cause which produces

One would suppose

we

are

identity between the

two

position

difficulty in

most

that discussions about abstractions would be

from the fact that we ourselves choose the

qualities

which

abstractions shall comprise, and dispense with whatever might prove superfluous. difficulty is that, abstract as

able

we may, we never can

our

The

get the existence of these surplus

and of a whole surplus world, swept clean out of our thoughts. This backqualities and existences colours our abstraction in spite of our will. The analogies and materials of our ordinary experience, which our abstraction is supposed for the time being to have flung aside, dog our argument like the conqualities,

ground of superfluous

sciousness of evil deeds, and force themselves surreptitiously into trains of reasoning which purport to disregard them. We cannot keep our thinking consistently at the level of our abstractions. Could we do so we might find arguing about them to be tolerably

simple

introduction

by

and

satisfactory.

This

line

of reflection

Plato of the conception of Others or

Many

may

partly explain the

even at the

moment when

seems to be that the One exists alone, the sophism being partly veiled under the plea that every side of a question must be considered. Yet another ambiguous term is Not-being. It need not detain us. Sometimes it is used comprehensively as an absolute denial of existence to the subject under his hypothesis

review, at other times

it is

used in a restricted sense as meaning a something which

Not-bemg.



;

THE PARMENIDES.

Ixvi

is

In the former case

not the same with that subject.

the latter

forms in

it

much more

a

itself

may

is

learn that in

committed.

theme of

On

discussion.

be exhibited

in

many

this topic Plato's

views are

impulse undoubtedly

is

shapes and degrees, Not-being

is

One's

Sophistes.

the

elaborated in

clearly

to think that while Being

unvarying,

fruitful

the discussion, in

closes

it

first

But we come to always ralirov eavrSi and has but one signification. error may be great sexes this as in the popular contrasts between the It is fallacious in discussing the characteristics of humanity to devote

a chapter a piece to the soldier, the explorer, the lawyer, the statesman, the trader, the man of letters, the poet, the man of science, and then to round off the work with

'You

a supplementary chapter on woman.

differences as we,' says Tennyson's prince.

them

clash

And

we

learn

while each order of Being necessarily yuerexet rov ovto^ yet ^ Oarepov ^va-n

Soph. J56.

by which

standing

many

one, that have as

In the Sophistes

correspond.

shade of Not-being will be found to

all in

so with each tint of Being a separate

erepov cnrepya^ofievti rov ovroi eKaarov ovk ov

is

that

ever

Nay, while

irotei.

ecrri to of, it is not otherwise on the negative For we have on the one hand to ov, but on the aireipov Si irXijOei to nh ov. other rd aWa, and the number of the latter whatever it be represents the exact Opposed to to 01^ in its most abstract form number of times that to ov ovk eam.

vep) eKaarrov apa twv etSwv

-iroXv

ftev

side

stands to

But

ov in an equally absolute form,

h>]

and the

science a suitable variety of negation is

the

An^wmT

One ^

What, wc may

5.

it

we have

as

beyond

this are

text.

First

Then

it

ask, are the characteristics

an extended

said,

—for

every 'named

^va-ti,

variety' of

which as the work progresses come

One 1 When viewed metaphysically The characteristics which distinguish it appear from the marginal summary of the

of the

unit.

few and simple, as will

has existence, parts, whole, beginning (in space), middle, end, and shape.

has various qualities which Aristotle would describe as irpoi ri

— —younger.

same age

it

eiritrrrifiri

told off as partner.

is

*° attach themselves to the conception is,

The Oarepov

modified or definite Being you have similar Not-being.

for

he says, ^alverai KaraKeKepfiarla-Oai Kaddirep What

latter is the negation of existence.

different, like

—unlike,

Again

it

greater

—equal—

fewer

less,

has position relative to

and

— as

itself

—more,

many

and others

:

older

thus

;

thus

it

it

is

—same

touches

motion, in space (x^P") j while it has also all the and affections incident to existence in time. It would appear then that it is one

and does not touch,

is still

in



any one

—of

a

multitude

of extremely

homogeneous extended things While such a One is in certain ways much elementary

moving in space and time. more than the One of Parmenides, we cannot but existing and

much

It

less.

other hand can as

this

fail

to see

is

that in a vital respect

up the One or the Many.

divisibility,

it

is

one on the

such a picture

True, Plato does not specifically say

empty, but his discussions of touch and motion tend

nor does he set a limit to

No

the strong general resemblance between

and the doctrine of the Atomists.

that space

feel

has altogether ceased to symbolize the Universe.

in that direction

yet neither does he allow division to swallow

It is impossible to

imagine that Plato was ignorant of

AND CONTENTS.

ITS CHARACTER the views of his contemporary

him—and

one

is

Democritus— though,

almost tempted to suppose that

it

as

Ixvii

we have

was at

seen,

he never names

one among the objects perfected and applied to the One least

of this dialogue to show how Zeno's dialectic if would from the Eleatic doctrine develop the Atomistic. An analogy from modem speculation might be found in an attempt to affiliate the Monads of Leibnitz to the

Substance of Spinoza.

But

we may

the

if still

One

ask,

is

is

many

thus reduced in

to Plato the

much

respects very

most fundamental

to an atom, what,

requisite of existence for

it,

or for

anything; and how to him does existence develop itself.? We cannot single out any one characteristic from which all others are to be traced, but the vital features appear to reduce themselves to three at most (a) it is in time, it is in space, it has :

individuality.

From

these

individuality, however,

is

(y)

(fi)

characteristics

the

very elementary, and

others

is

more

are

variously

deduced.

logical than physical:

the

Its

One

'different from the others' and 'one with itself In the course of his argument Plato adopts either of those three characteristics which suits him as the fundamental one, and from that establishes the existence or non-existence of others. From his reasoning it would appear to result that the beginning of existence to our minds is

anything whatever

for

And

our knowledge of

is it,

the acquisition by or

its

it

of distinctness in

some form or other. number of

existence for us, grows with the increasing

relations in which this distinctness can be affirmed. Of the three characteristics given above we are in the habit of thinking that the order of natural priority is that in which they are named that quantity has a more elementary character than quality. Plato does not appear to share that preconception. He would seem to imagine that a



distinctness of quality or individuality

might be to us the primary ground for assigning From having a sensation of such and such such and such a quantity or succession in space

to a sensation a distinctness of quantity.

a quality

we

are led to ascribe to

it

and time. This is not laid down as a argument rests upon a tacit recognition of

The

6.

units

principle

point at which Plato looks most as

by the process of endless

division

is

by

Plato, but

in

he were going to abolish his what we call argument B III., which deals if

with the condition of the Others on the assumption that the that assumption this argument represents the

and

it

the course of his

it.

more favourable

One does

not exist.

On

possibility for the Others,

reduces them to an unmanageable phantasmal chaos bordering upon annihilation.

In the less favourable possibility which follows in with, the conclusion being that 'if the

One

is

B

IV.

they are actually done away

not nothing

is.'

This, however, seems

a negative argument in favour of the Democritean contention that must stop somewhere. Nor is the conclusion unsound, although both Plato and Democritus support it in a somewhat mechanical and materialistic fashion. Stated in terms of modern Metaphysics it would stand pretty much as we have put it already rather to be division

—that TO

simultaneously

ixerpov,

TO

irepaf,

removal of definiteness, numerability, clearness; of At best there can remain that thought and existence vanish. with

the

p- vui.

THE PARMENIDES.

Ixviii

chaotic multiplicity which carries with

we may

please,

call

it

the possibility of existence, and which,

'sense,' or in Platonic

terms that 'which seems to be One, but

not; to have beginning, middle and end, but has Summary

of

may be

It

said, then, in

we

if

is

not.'

general terms, that the work

is

undertaken

in

the interests

results.

of the ideal theory and consists in an attempt to appropriate to the uses of that theory the doctrine and dialectic of the Eleatic school, as a unifying, regulating, harmonizing

and sustaining

But the process of appropriation brings into

influence.

by

startling indeed, yet not unperceived

own dogma, demonstrates

This

Plato.

dialectic,

it

the problem of philosophy, even

it

sponsors did not dream

:

ment

el

we

with the weapon of unity, unfolds as

of unexpected multiplicity and complication. (MV TO tv TO ev

we cannot

its

is beyond doubt a principle essential to the is at the same time parent to a complexity

of which to solve

a fact

that while unity

very possibility of thought and being, its

relief

when turned upon

:

be postulated without leading to

difficulties

equally insurmountable.'

yet there it is. Parmenides Setting aside Manies of both kinds, can so simple a hypothesis as the existence of One be maintained without bringing in its train every complication of which its presence is expected to relieve us ? No yet without the One nothing is. :

:

:

Divergences

It

has been said above that no attempt

from other

is

here

made to reproduce in orderly sequence One or two points of divergence

commentators.

the views and reasoning of previous commentators.

Dr. Jackson,

^'^^^ them, howcvcr,

joum.

Phiioi.,

vol. XI.,

No.

22.

/-



aTreipa—from existence. Phileb. 16.

it

through 'kinds' or 'classes' to the 'limitless multitude' of sensible is undoubtedly attractive, especially when read in connection

This theory

with the statement in the Philebus that cnreipla,

from

ev to

to.

uireipa,

we must not proceed at once from Tripas to but must interpose certain definite xocra as connecting

But reflection tends rather to discourage belief in this hypothesis. have already given reasons for questioning the view that the One is an idea: certain of its characteristics seem to preclude that supposition. Again, Zeno at the beginning of the work places tv and iroXKa in such contrast as to leave no doubt that in his mind links.

p. Ivi.

A

may perhaps be referred to. reader of Dr. Jackson's remarkably acute analysis and criticism of this dialogue will have his attention arrested -J>.-Vi bv IJJ, ., 11 < the followmg among other conclusions. The One is regarded as an idea, or as representing the ideal sphere, and there is assumed a graded progress— 2y, TroWd,

We

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS.

ITS they comprise jointly

IxJx

At the close of the first part, Parmenides speaks a similar sense; while throughout the dialogue ra aX\a and TO. iroXKa are used as convertible terms. Whatever may be symbolized by these expressions, it would be difficult to draw a distinction between either of them and of

ei^

and ra aXXa

existence.

all

in

the phrase awetpa r^ to cite

-irXy'iOei which occurs at any evidence that TroAXa and airetpa

respects also

Dr. Jackson

nor does Dr. Jackson appear

intervals;

generically in their use.

differ

and more detailed

inclined to discover finer

is

In other

distinctions

throughout the work than

in these pages it has been found possible to recognize. This be natural, even perhaps imperative, from his point of view, according to which the dialogue is a late work; on the opposite supposition, such distinctions are not

may

essential.

Throughout

introduction, the doctrine that the

this

ideas are absolutely severed

zeiier.

from the sensible sphere has been emphasized, but not more so than the language ofpiato,e the text would seem to require. Speaking of Plato's works at large, Zeller does nof-^'*" regard such a doctrine with favour. He admits, indeed, that many expressions and

arguments occur which point towards such a doctrine; but adds, question

supposed sensible world sphere.

To

favour,

its

still

it

lies

away.

it

reality Not-being,

Zeller

from his feet and

Being centres

when

all

towards

the Parmenides and

its

in

much

difficulty so

all,

reappear in an altered form,

does the necessity for philosophic inquiry, difficulty

'

When

?

to solve

idealistic or

Plato feels that difficulty, he begins

But he

it.

is

that

it

everlasting doors.

is

soon led to shake

shuts the original and

its

dust

now somewhat

Zeller urges that 'these objections

elsewhere] to the doctrine of ideas would

not

have been

suggested by Plato, had he not been convinced that his theory was unaffected by them,'

a view with which Dr. Jackson sympathizes.

even every great thinker,

is

But

is

it

the case that every thinker,

fully provided with a reply to

all

objectors.?

He

is

not

by objections he feels, it may be, a conviction which objections But he may be sensible that he has not met the objections, nevertheless. Galileo was a very great m'an, yet when he was questioned about the fact that water would not rise in a pump beyond thirty feet, and reference was made to the doctrine that 'nature abhors a vacuum,' he could but say, half in jest, that nature seemed to driven from his position

fail

:

to shake.

abhor only a thirty foot vacuum. mystery.

We

must

the ground that

it

not, then,

It

was

left

for Torricelli to

throw light upon the

attempt to explain away what Plato actually says on we think we have a solution after

involves difficulties for which

the lapse of two millenniums.

p- s'S.

is

a city which hath foundations whose builder and maker

God,' and of which the characteristic

despised difficulty outside

in the ideal

has been urged

'

by an attempt

flee

nevertheless

himself constrained to say whether the above-mentioned

is

From what

like other thinkers

all

open to the objection of not explaining the

from a sense of

other, arise but

[in

and that

lead us far: but

as to the theory of Ideas do not, after

another question.'

is

is in

'We must

goes on to explain his contention by showing that the

elucidate his position would

as explaining difficulties

He

correctness.'

its

p-3>7-



'

THE PARMENIDES.

Ixx

The

'

reappear in an altered form.'

difficulties

What

difficulties

metaphysician spring eternal: those which centre in the relation

Life of Sterling, v.....'Coieridge

Those which to the of subject and object, ?

which are so protean, and of which the solution looks so like juggler's work, that one almost takcs refuge with laughter in Carlyle's sarcasms about " sum-m-mjects and

om-m-mjects" 'uncertain whether oracles or

Perhaps the sharpest form of

jargon.'

this

contrast with which philosophy is acquainted is that between Plato's ideas and the many of sense. less pronounced type of the difficulty is that which arises between the cognitive faculties of more modern speculation what Plato would call our science

A

'



'

—and

an 'external world.'

'

stages of metaphysical evolution, the great

In the latest

problem has been to reclaim the external world from include in

taking this course, admitting that thought

own

object

'

still

;

is

antagonistic externality, to

its

But granted that we are

a revised sphere of consistent idealism.

in

it

the parent of

all

Why

the difficulties reappear in an altered form.'

right

things, even of

its

this persistent pro-

We demonstrate that nounced unmanageable sense of objectivity and separateness sense is swallowed up in thought, and yet suspect that we have achieved but a Pyrrhic .'

What

victory. its

We may

the mystery of mysteries.

is

substance with our 'forms of sensible

—'expellas

perception,'

and

eat

away

all

our 'categories,' but we

We have been saying furca tamen usque recurrit' and have seen Plato admitting that the world as we know it cannot be a world of Or are we not rather sense. Is it meant then to affirm that sense has no existence bouud to cxclaim 'AXXa fiij \lav Oav/uLaaTOi 6 Xoyoy y, tis tov avOpooirov airocTTeprja-eie It is, of course, granted that beauty, goodness, slavery, bigness,' and Tov amdavea-dai cannot lay the spectre

p. xiviii.

That

sense.'

is

.'

Parm. 134

e.

e'l

'

.'

even that 'man,

fire,

by the

Sense

Now •

you

senses.

while '

still

'

Beauty

'

we add

and

sense other '

filth,'

in their collective sense, are

the sphere of 'you and

in

lies

may

'

mud,

many

comprise

qualities,

'

me,

man

'

bits of

'

man

than

sensible objects.'

and does not

see,

things with a

qualities, '

that

this, '

and recede from

it

are simply figments of the

You

'

maximum

it

is

wood and

stone.'

many more and Do we then approach ;

we remove them ? Not properly. mind and have no connection with

as

deduced from the

observation of

individual

become a figment of the mind when one thinks

also can

But

you.

they were

not perceived

comprises

more, more indeed than anything except another you.

to sense as '

beauty

water, hair,

of,

true that sense attaches only to individual things, to

of qualities in their several kinds, in short to existing

—as

—things.

Are such things then sensible objects ? If not, no other such exist. Let us take a simple case as put by a thinker of anything but transcendental tendencies. According to Dugald Stewart, when you read a letter opposed to conceived or imagined

that which can be referred to sense

is

—not

the comprehension of the contents, but

simply the perception of 'black marks upon white paper.' liberal

In reality this

is

much

too

Not by sense but by judgment do we recognize the substance and the marks to be black upon white. And our judgment would not

an allowance.

to be paper

cease to operate, however visionary the distinction might become, until all distinction

had vanished

;

that

is,

until

sense ceased from exercise for want of

any

object.

The

'

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS.

ITS

Ixxi

very recognition that this state had supervened would itself be a judgment, though it might be delivered with hesitation. In a word so long as consciousness lasts, thought is at work, and the more alive consciousness with a view to detect and expose pure sense

may

become, the more completely does it fail of its purpose. As we might ye but seen, then had ye been without thought; but now ye say " We see" therefore your thought remaineth.' All that we can declare about sense is, that it is

say, 'had

the vanishing point of

knowledge— who steals my sense steals trash, 'tis something, we feel that from that very vanishing point, the guarantee of all knowledge is given—'or hear'st thou rather pure etherial stream whose fountain who shall tell.'' Thus we may say that the world of experience, which Plato has been seeking to dominate by his ideas, is all intellectual; if by this we mean that the sensible element in it is reduced to a minimum incogitabile at the start: or alternatively that it is all sensible if by this we mean that it never becomes transcendental. '

nothing:' while yet

Either view

an advance upon the dualistic hypothesis of a composite world, half mind,' half matter.' Yet neither solves the problem of Whence all comes, and why this absolute freedom of sense from the control of the will.' The sense function is

'

is

'

within us like a well of water springing up unto everlasting

nor

is it

So we must

life.

confess

:

part of our duty to pursue the inquiry further.

Of the Parmenides it may be said among other things that it forms as it were a vestibule to those vast and mystic halls which are trodden by the metaphysician. And already while passing through it we see the corridors appear which lead respectBeing and Becoming. So impressive and intricate are the surwe pause for breath, uncertain whether the building has two great

ively to the courts of

roundings that

co-ordinate wings, or whether

Certainly there are those called forth

Few can of Being.

by the image of

form, fewer It is so

is

who have

a fatal flaw

:

still

consists of an inner court approached through an outer.

either are

home in each mansion, and the thoughts such as may separately dominate the mind. a

can convey to others, an adequate conception of the sphere

At

completely withdrawn from experience.

forth to ourselves as

Deities

it

who have sought

some Hall of the Chosen, some

the stillness there

museum

that certain subtle poisons

growth and also of decay.

.'

kill

we must shadow

it

consistory, so to speak, of Egyptian

In such a picture an

idea of motion and may not be disturbed. But has it not It is said In the midst of Being we are in death. by preserving the tissues, by stopping the action of

not stirred since time began.

the atmosphere of a

best

is

'

absolute,

Are we thereby

the gainers

Our gain

.'

is

loss

:

our being not-

Can anyone have in truth seen this hall of Being; or do those who depict Not even Parmenides can vivify the description. The dream that they were there other to us seems less remote. It is as though the well of sense bubbled upward through a chink in the floor, bursting into the air and rippling over the pavement being. it

.'

with multiplex undulation and ceaseless sound, reflected and reechoed from the roof

and

walls.

imperfectly.

To

that

we have

seen something analogous

But always the question returns upon us

;

we

—Wo

sympathy with it, if kommst du her wo gehst are in

.'

Conclusion.

THE PARMENIDES.

Ixxii

du hin it

And

?

after all

Heraclitus our interpreter cannot

Being, but KaTaKeKepfianafiivov'i

tell.

Are we

What to solve

is

this

Becoming

?

Is

the enigma of Being-

Becoming on the analogy of the 'continuous-discrete' in space and time? Or is the Is to i^alipvrjs, ' that odd and Not-being, with Becoming as bridge ? thing the instantaneous,' another name for Becoming? Or are both awkward adumbrations of the Ego that one among many, that whole among parts, that Tropos amid Trevla ? Or does reasoning perhaps end here, and do we in the language of divine madness rave about things unutterable ? Finally, does speech fail, and must we wander backward in the expressive silence of ava/nvtja-is to God who is our home? Such are among the thoughts which suggest themselves to those who have come antithesis Being



'

'

under the influence of Platonic speculation thoughts tinged indeed by modern currents, and pressing forward through modern channels, but not the less truly tracing their :

source to the great fountainhead of

all

metaphysics.

THE TEXT. I.

In an

even of a single dialogue, which bears a relation so unusually close

edition,

some introductory remarks upon the manuscripts of Plato in general, with details in regard to certain of them in particular, are not only natural but will almost be expected. It is hoped that what follows may be of service to beginners in palaeography and in textual criticism. At the same time it is the work not of an expert in these branches of study but of a tolerably instructed layman. The writer knows only six Platonic manuscripts at first hand, and these he has studied under all the difficulties and disadvantages which attend a comparative beginner, and to a special manuscript,

histokica, *'"' C"'"^'"'-

with but a limited time at his disposal.

Aldus Manutius, Editions. work which must have cost infinite labour, and in regard to which its editor says that he would wish its errors Perhaps this edition was published removed, even at the price of a gold piece each. attention of the world of letters was which caught the one too soon at all events the not it but that edited by Serranus and Henricus Stephanus, and published at Paris in I.

The

earliest

edition of Plato's works appears to be that of

1513 —the

published at Venice in

year of Flodden

—a

:

1578, in three

volumes

folio,

with a dedication to Queen Elizabeth.

This has ranked

and constitutes the standard of reference for all ever since as the editio succeeding scholars. The dialogues are arranged in what the editor calls a-v^vylai, of princeps,

contulimus Physica et Theologica,' includes the Timaeus, The Timaeus Locrus, Critias, Parmenides, 'Evfjurocriov, Phaedrus, and Hippias Minor. lines of the the and Greek has a Latin version running in parallel columns with it,

which the

fifth

quam

'ad

page are subdivided into successive groups by the letters margin. It would seem to be the intention that these

A, B, C, D, letters

E placed

in the

should be placed at

but they often stand opposite the space between two lines, and as each the contents of division E vary considerably, as the Latin and Greek, according the page of breadth whole the to turn in happens to be the less compact, expand intervals of ten lines

;

omitted, and the other letters are placed opposite those each division, so far as lines which include what seems to be the commencement of Stephanus, vol. iii., means 126 III. Ste. that can be determined, in the original. and Steenie Bauldie of page 126. These great editions of Aldus and Stephanus— or at the foot.

as,

In our text

with fond familiarity,

of that term.

A

is

we may say—are

They appear each

not

to be based /

the modern sense upon one Ms., selected partly

'critical editions' in

largely

Ixxiii

THE PARMENIDES.

Ixxiv

on grounds of convenience

— Schneider

Laws

considers that in the

at least the original

of Aldus was the Venetian Ms. called by Bekker S, No. 184, which has no special authority— and where a difficulty arose any other accessible Ms. was consulted, or resort was had to conjecture, no great care being taken in giving references. Stephanus says that he puts in the margin conjectures that occurred as the

book was passing through

This somewhat easy-going and self-reliant method of constructing a text till the close of last century, the edition of Heindorf being,

the press.

appears to have continued

German authorities, a brilliant example of it. Immanuel Bekker represented, if he did not inaugurate, a new

according to modern 2.

respect, alike for Plato

emendation collated in

and

He

era

subordinated

in

this

conjectural

Greek Personally he comparison of manuscript data. completeness some "jy Mss., and classified their readings

for

in

general.

thorough- going

a

to

texts

with more or

less

the apparatus criticus of his edition, which was

published early in

the

present

century. Of all the important Mss. the only one apparently which Bekker never saw was the Clarke manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. It had been brought to England a few years before, and Bekker used the collation of it published by Gaisford, saying nolui actum agere.' His method seems to be in some sense that of a dispassionate eclectic. He inserts in his text the reading which he considers the '

best,

wherever he

may

find

it,

and

manuscript which he has collated

any reason

At

valueless.

various codices had led

classifies is

the others at the foot of the

ignored on the ground that

its

No

page.

readings are

for

the same time he clearly indicates that his study of the

him to place two

them on a much higher

of

or three

level

than the remainder. Editors since Bekker have largely acted upon the result of the comparison of

3.

They

manuscripts at which he had arrived. Ms., constitute their text for

mainly from

purposes of subsidiary

tion the Clarke

Hermann,

illustration.

Ms. as his authority for

Aldus and Stephanus appear

some form of convenience have reversed

select what they regard as a pre-eminent and use the remainder only in extremity or

it,

the

process,

to

for

those works

all

have been guided

in selecting

example, selects without hesita-

less

which

by

one codex as their

it

contains.

While

principle

than by

basis, editors like

Hermann

critical

and decide entirely upon the apparent strength of the

evidence in favour of the manuscript which they elect to follow. 4.

Lachmann, who comes rather

earlier

scholars as the forerunner of yet another

of

how he

of Lucretius.

is

of manuscripts possible

method

referred to

is

in textual criticism.

by German

Good examples

deals with Ms. data are to be found in his editions of the Testament and

There he endeavours to simplify the materials available by

the various codices, and affiliating

manuscript

than Hermann,

them one

to another.

On

this

classifying

principle a derived

Such genealogical groupings certainty, and inferences even are archetypes. According to Schanz

at once set aside in favour of its original.

may

be made with some approach to

from existing ones backward to their

and Jordan the

critic

who

first

adopted

this

lost

method

in dealing

with the text of Plato



SOURCES OF THE TEXT. was E.

Peipers

in

his

scientific simphfication of

Ixxv

Quaestiones criticae de Platonis Legibus. Since that work our authorities has been the prevailing tendency in constitut-

Getting. la

ing the text of Plato's works.

the

What, then, are the materials of Plato number

known Mss.

at our disposal

On

?

at least 147, one

the mere announcement that ">= "anu

would be disposed to

scripts.

infer that if Martin

a sound text cannot be extracted from such a collection individual conjecture will do Httle for us. But in reality the number mentioned gives a false view of the position.

For no portion of

Plato's writings are there nearly 147 independent authorities. Many of these codices consist of mere isolated and constantly varying fragments, bound up

'"

WoJi

F'«*e isen

JahrbiJch.

I

p,°^^''j

Band

i

'887.

in miscellaneous collections.

Others again are of very late date, and the probability early originals now lost is extremely remote. Even the seventy-seven collated by Bekker, supposing them to be all independent, do not all that such are derived from

cover the same ground.

number about a dialogue form

The

codices which contain a half or

more of Plato's writings which can be drawn upon to illustrate any given

score, while those

an uncertain and shifting quantity. The text of the Parmenides, as is based upon the evidence of seventeen Mss. The number noted

given by Bekker,

by Schanz

The number employed or discussed bv two totals. From the entire number of 147

amounts to

as available

thirty-two.

Bekker varies between these pitched upon by the unanimous verdict of scholars as occupying a position of clear pre-eminence. These three, like almost all the large Mss., follow the scholars since

three have been

order of the dialogues given at the beginning of this work as that of Thrasylus, and

may be

briefly described as follows

:

Designation.

A (Bekker), or

Abode.

Contents in Tetralogies.

Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris.

1807.

21



or Clarke 39.

t



or Append., Class IV.,

i.

VIII., IX.

Bodleian Library, Oxford.

I.-VI.

Biblioteca Marciana, Venice.

I.-VIII. (as far as Rep. iii.

:

the rest of the

works by other hands). It will

T "^

be seen that

2t

A

and

contain in the aggregate, with the exception of tetralogy

VL, the whole of Plato's works, to which

Dialogues, while

gives nearly

t

all,

A

adds the Definitions and seven Spurious

but partly by later hands.

which scholars select these three from the mass are several first

are clearly the oldest in existence, while the third,

any

older than almost

other.

The

if

:



(a)

The grounds upon Their age

younger than

:

the two

these,

seems

transmission of written works, however careful, tends

and the earliest each fresh step to introduce fresh departures from the original copies reduce that danger to a minimum. (/3) The care with which they have been at

;

taken in conjunction with their age

written, careful)

:

this

inspire great

to

is

a

feature

confidence,

show that many,

if

not

which

(for

texts

impresses the most

admittedly late

may

also

by modern

(y)

The

all,

of the remaining Mss. can be traced back to these.

evidence adduced

be

casual observer, and tends to scholars with a view

The

Martin schar '"'

!'"'^'r Piaton. Text. 20. p. ^°' ^'

Wurzl



THE PARMENIDES.

Ixxvi relative

sizes of these

very famous codices

the following diagram, which represents

may

them

be pretty accurately estimated from \ of their actual measurements

at

:

t

Further back in the history of Plato's text attempts are

made

to

do so

constructively.

we cannot go directly but ingenious and 21 are among the earliest extant ;

A

As

examples of minuscule Mss. it seems not improbable that any Ms. from which they may have been copied would be written in majuscules or capitals. This would tend to increase its bulk, and as each of them is a large volume, it seems very likely that t

f.

4.

.97 verso,

col. z, line

from

c'°se

foot.

Stud. p. =4, and

Hermes

their archetype

X, ,876.

or archetypes

/•ii»/r of the Menexenus,

m

would be the

in

Now in t we have at the words rk\o^ tov a ^ipXlov.

two volumes.

..11hand,

origmal

the

yet this Ms.

is in one volume. Schanz cites the same phrase at the same place from Ms. Angelicus c I 4, which also consists of but one volume; from Laurent. 59. I.; and finally from the Vatican A-G, Nos. 225 and 226, where, although the Ms.

two volumes, the words reXo? t^ irpS ^i/SXiov occur on folio ig6T. of The inference drawn by Schanz is that we have here an old tradition that the works of Plato had been at some time in two volumes, the first of which consists of

the second.

contained Tetralogies Paris

A

L-VII.,

and the second the remainder. To such a second volume the Clarke Ms. represents the first, save that it

actually corresponds, while

would appear to have been taken from a copy from which the short Tetralogy vii., which closes with the Menexenus, had dropped away. Various scholars attempt to fix the probable length of the lines in the early copy or copies now lost, on the basis of what is called stichometry. Mss. were measured by the unit or line in which the earliest copies were written, that is by arlxoi, corresponding to the average length of a hexawachsmuth

in

Rhein. Mus.

1879.

Galen de Hippocr.

et Plat, vii!,

160 D.

,.

and Galen

is quoted as giving the length of some medical definitions in this way. 1 r 1 says that two, one of thirty-nme, and another of eighty-four syllables, are ov vXeloveg ^-^y ^^.^ e^a/xerpwv. This gives sixteen or seventeen syllables to the line, which is

tt

.xA«iv, p. 38, 481,

placit.

meter,

He



-iiii,,,*,

considerably less than the length of Ime used

m

the Clarke Ms., but exactly responds to that of the passage omitted by this Ms. on page 33 of this edition. the subject is not without difficulties, and controversy upon it is keenly kept Schanz thinks he can form an estimate of the probable date of the archetype in

cor-

But up.

the

'

SOURCES OF THE TEXT. From

following manner.

the uniformity of existing Mss. in certain passages he naturally

concludes that they faithfully represent finds the passages

words omitted. as

have

to

therefore,

it

these the reading of the original.

But he and Theodoretus with

writers like Eusebius

Accordingly he considers that the archetype cannot have been so old the text from which these men drew their quotations, and,

formed

more recent than 400

is

of which

things, neither

of these assumptions

that the second

is

but both

;

—that

it with verbal precision. The by A. Jordan on the understanding

writers quoted

altogether disputed

is

correct

That may be correct, but it postulates two there was but one text prior to our

A.D.

quite certain

is

and that those Christian

existing Mss., first

in

by

question quoted

in

Ixxvii

may

be erroneous.

One

scholar alleges that he

Fieck.j.ahrb. ^"'"''- ^''-

'

1873-5.

can detect two features of the archetype of 21— that

and that

it

did not belong to the most

was not easily legible. Another statement is made by Galen which is very interesting. He refers in his fragment upon the medical passages in the Timaeus to tSsv'' LttikSiv avriyparpwv eKSocn? and says that in the Timaeus this edition reads Sia to t^? v^' eavrov jftw/o-ewj where correct

class,

it

other authorities give e^ for

tempting hypothesis which Our Mss. speaks.

all

read

voi

77

"3.

connection with the edition of which Galen

readings of Demosthenes found ev to« 'ArTiKiavots, while

remarks on the resemblance between

^''=''''-

thus summarized.

and thus show

to

Kroschei

'"

been reared a structure of very

has

Scholars, including Cobet, are strongly of opinion that 'AttikQv

and Harpocration

Others,

Upon

j. s.

Birt,

Amike

and regard the editions here referred to in the light of publications carefully effected by his Buchwesen, to which opinion Birt elsewhere adds, that these orders, not copies written by his hand Attic editions were noted as written in the o-Tt'xot to which reference has just been made, and The same view has been recently maintained by of which traces are pointed out in the Clarke Ms. H. Usener, who constructs in this connection a theory about the transmission of our Platonic Nachrichten v. texts which is eminently fascinating, but dependent a good deal upon assumptions in excess ofderKsnig. his data. It may be well to give on the one hand what seem to be the data, and to add on ^^^"^^^^'*" :

the other the assumptions.

catting. No.

Assumptions.

Data. 1.

Rome by

Aristotle and Theophrastus, was taken to and submitted to the editorial scrutiny of the celebrated scholar Tyrannion of Amisus. 2.

Sulla,

Diogenes Laertius does not really affirm that Thrathe arrangement of Plato's works in tetrain any case Diogenes but only that he adopts it

sylus invented logies,

:

show that others had a part Again, Varro, of whom Albinus names Dercyllides.

adds words in

it,

when

This library included care-

Apellicon's private library, which comprised those of

(/cai

tiv«) which

referring to the

Phaedo,

says,

'

Plato in

quarto

.

.

.

ful

if

not

original

6,

^''°'

strabo xUi,

p.

copies oi^oB-

Plato's works,

Varro knew the arrangement of dialogues by tetralogics, and his learned friend Tyrannion was its originator. (We may add that Cobet holds Thrasylus to be quite distinct

^^^^

^^^^^^^

varro, L.L.vii, 37.

:

THE PARMENIDES.

Ixxviii

and the Phaedo

appellat':

arrangement.

grouping by fours, Usener says (referring to his

und Geschichtswissenschaft, bedeutenden logie

griechischen

Viertheilung aufgebaut

mit durchgefiihrter

war Tyrannion von Amisos.' 3. Atticus was a great scholarly publisher

and had

;

so that in

the arrangement,

it

might

still

be as old as Varro.)

Das

hat.

The

d,VTlypaa 'ATTiKiava.

are

his

editions

was

his editor.

Aldus,

like

copyists

staff of trained

a large

in his service

and

paid or bought.

assistants, either

and

contemporary

the case that he really invented

Philologie

'nun kennen wir einen Grammatiker, der sein noch in 22),

p.

the

friend of Tiberius

Resten erkennbares System der Philo-

versprengten

vielen

from

the fourth in the Thrasylean

is

Finally, speaking of the possible origin of this

Tyrannion

Our Mss. of

descend

Plato

:

channel from

through the

this

library

of

Aristotle.

How much

one desires to accept

assumption of an 'Attic' origin for a single v^' for

To resume

this as historical fact

all

Yet even the

!

initial

our Mss. rests on no broader foundation than

all

ef.

the following are the characteristic

:

titles

and endings of the works

in the three chief manuscripts.

A THoXiTeiai

[nXdxwj'O?]

Hap/xeviSrjs ^ Trepl iSewv. XoyiKOi

irepi SiKaiou

tj

^t

^21 [UXaTOJi'oy]

TIXaToovoi

ILapfievlS}]?

r/

irepi iSecov

ij

ire pi tSeS)v.

A' IIoXiTe/ay

In

wep\ Sikulou A'.

tj

21

IlXoLToovoi

t

ILap/xevlStji

t]

Trep)

TLapfaepiStji

iSeiJov.

occurs in the case of the

dialogue and

first

is

then dropped

and

third books of work read voXirelw, the second gives TroXireiai. We may thus infer (i) that in the original the word HXaTwvog appeared at the beginning, and at the Republic and Laws which have more than one book (2) that the adjectives in -KOi, which occur in

but in

t

reappears at the Republic as in A, and while the

it

first

that

:

31

unsymmetrically, are not original, but

occurs in title

lies

t

after

in the

of each work of

the

eKacrrov

titles

tuiv

;

the

form

title

trace

their

Euthyphro, 6 Xo'yo?

of the

TLapfxevlSri^

may

n

Trepl

iSecov

origin

to such

epia-riKOi.

The

a phrase as

kernel of the

both at the beginning and at the end

and this exactly corresponds with the description given by Diogenes employed by Thrasylus. He says, SnrXais Se xpnT^i rals e-jnypatpais

jSi/SXlwv'

Trji

Se t5? rerpaXoyias, rJTK

p.ev

ean

airo

irpooTt],

tou

ovofiaroi,

Se

Trjf

^yeiTai ^vOvrppoov

t]

utto

tov irpayixaTOi. TavTtji 6 SiaKoyoi

Trepl oalov'

S

ea~ri

and so on. Here it is quite clear that 'Ev6v(j>p(iDv Trepl ocriov is the title from 'name' and 'subject' given by Thrasylus, while the words 6 StaXoyoi S' earl Treipaa-TiKos are explanatory words added by Diogenes in giving his account, which dwindle to ijOiKOi, XoyiKOi, etc., as the description proceeds. TreipacTTiKOi'

Sevrepoi 'ATToXoy/a HwKpaTov^, ^diKosf]

We

thus see that the phrase 6 Xo'yos epia-rtKoi at the beginning of

in -Koi

throughout

21,

have been added to the original

titles

and the

adjectives

of Thrasylus

by some

t,

SOURCES OF THE TEXT. one who had probably read Diogenes. that

existing texts

all

may be

Ixxix

This circumstance strengthens the conviction

traced back to the Thrasylean recension, but

does not

it

When

decide the question as to whether there was numerically but one archetype.

one gets so

backwards to an original source, the chances of appreciable divergences

far

between

separate copies of it become very small, so that our existing Mss. might be due to different originals of the same edition so to speak, without our being able to detect it from their text. Nay, the evidence rather, if anything, leans that way, since

A

is

written

in

broader columns, while

What now

their designations at,

Oxford t,

in

editing

text.''

The

Paris

:

Rome

A,

ASHEY,

:

To

Venice.

these must

Venice, which Bekker does not collate for this dialogue; and others which

Tubingen, and

Ces.,

Cesena, which have

without reckoning one or two others, to be determined first

something

our

from him.

rBCDEFHIQR,

:

of two

larger pages

Parmenides are the following, which received

the

he did not know, as those collated by Stallbaum

only the

in

t

written in smaller pages without columnar divisions.

are the materials available for the construction of

by Bekker

Mss. used

be added

pages of two narrow columns, and 31 is

is

g, a, b, c,

come

we have

i,

Florence, Zittav.,

into notice

a

more

recently.

nothing about the place of writing, and

Here then,

As

the relation in which they stand to each other.

the writer, his employer, and

with Tub.,

of twenty-seven, and the question

list

dated, and while the subscriptio containing the date

is

about

a,

pay,

his

tells

us,

tells

it

nothing of the Ms. copied,

it

happens

us as usual

also

as usual,

two points which

would be more important. We are thus left to deal with circumits somewhat inconclusive character, has all its value dependent upon the assumption, natural enough no doubt, but not inevitable, that, for textual criticism

stantial evidence, which, besides

in

the absence of evidence to the contrary, a Ms.

whole to a single source,

and that thus proofs

is

likely to trace

for parts hold

good

its

origin as a

for the whole.

No

one can give even a glance at the collation printed in Bekker's edition without being struck by the remarkable recurrence of the group SIAIIDR in support of the same 85 times alone, but they appear in many other cases along with varying groups of other authorities. It is evident that they But in that family there appears to be an inner circle. are a closely related family. at the following figures :— glance This will be clearer from a readings.

Not only do they occur together

SlAIIDR+various others occur together many

Manifestly

the

aiAHDR

,,

>.

2lAnD

>,

..

giAH

"

"

connection

between the

first

three

times.

85

37 36 of these

is

extremely intimate.

coincidences testify strongly Not only the number but likewise the character of their the same time quite a different on the point Now, as is noted by Schanz, there is at three give the Theaetetus with and equally strong bond of union between them. All

:

THE PARMENIDES.

Ixxx

D

a gap of considerable extent, from 208

may

they ff.

otherwise

ttciw

would appear to agree

differ,

A tov

oSv to 209

fxkv

a-ov

\6yov, or

All the rest which contain the Theaetetus, however

nearly half a page of Stephanus.

studien, 46

;

:

in not

having

this gap,

and accord-

ingly Schanz here finds proof of the existence of two families tracing their origin to different sources

that of which

a.



/8.

Tub. does

not

And

grounds. widely.

the chief

31 is

give

member and which has



t

Theaetetus

the

;

Schanz

but

the gap

not the gap.



refers

it

to

family a on

other

he says in general, that while family a agree closely, family /3 differ it has not been possible to deal comprehensively with all the

In this edition

The

existing Mss.

writer's

personal study has been

he takes the testimony of Schanz, which

family

/3

traced

back to

as

t

original.

at all that

t

is

that all other

is

Evidence of a very convincing character

support of this conclusion, and whether

no doubt

Upon members can be

confined to SlAIITub.t.

it

is

is

given

in

actually established or not, there can be

by many degrees the most important member of the group.

In the case of a dialogue which has a text so

little

injured as that of the Parmenides

need go no further. We pass then to the consideration of family a. Here also subject to the exclusion of certain dialogues in certain Mss. the decision of Schanz is similar. All can be traced back in the last resort to 2L Let us take them in the order AIITub.DRQg. It will be sufficient to give selected specimens investigation





of his evidence. A. (Our dialogue occurs in vol.

Schanz on the Manuscripts.

12th century, direct

A

361 rect.

and

vers.

JC 184

r.

and

—from

to

left

433

434

253

E,

254 E.

it

has a series of

This codex, which he places transcript

—though

writer of A, or of

r-

31 its

short gaps,

and caused by original,

filled

in

by a younger hand, which

injuries to the lines at the outer edge

would seem to have found those

injuries

A

or of

21

itself

has

its original.

In the Phaedrus two similar blanks occur which

have never been

A

also omits from time to

—though

the

some dark

acid

time words which form complete lines of 2L seems a very long line

Examples of

first

404 B Cratylus, AijiJ,rjTpdv re Kal "Hpav koi 'AiroXXw kol 'AOr/vav koI "Hi^atcrTov kcu 123 c Theages, -vOa, ov yxevrot to ye ovofw., fj Kal to ovo/^a j Kal to ovopa eyutye. 198 D Laches, ytyovtv, aWrj Sk irtpX yiyvojiiviDV, ott-q yiyverai, aAAi; Se All these statements 1876.

and

has been similarly but very coarsely completed since

represent an injury in 21 caused by the dropping of

(3)

XXXV,

A

filled up. They upon the text. The condition of A shows that at the time the injury had affected only the back of the one leaf and the front of the other, since A gives the words which were on the other sides of these respectively. In our time the acid has eaten its way through both leaves.

(2)

this are the following

Phiioiogus

in the

not necessarily

spaces which he thought sufficient for them, and these a later reader of

up from another source.

the date of

A

The

leaf.

have

filled

^ 236. ^37-

Mss. A-9.)

and the Gorgias, a

21.

correspond to similar gaps existing in of the

of the

i.

v.

Steph. 34 E, 361

"

A

except in tetralogy

In the Philebus

(i)

360 verso

is,

task was omitted. fjQjjj

gj jg

'Apr).

it was intended to verify in A, but through unavoidable circumstances the Schanz concludes by giving reasons for holding that the derivation of A-&

mediate rather than immediate.

SOURCES OF THE TEXT. n.TuB.

Schanz held from

directly transcripts

it,

at

one time that these Mss., while closely related

but connected with

however, Schanz has changed his opinion and

back to

Ixxxi

in

it

St,

were not

finally

According to Wohlrab, holds that both could be directly traced

but without stating his reasons.

91,

DR. These Schanz ways with

holds. to be closely connected with H.

and where

11,

it

differs,

D

ovkovv kirdvip aWa. rov Ivds kmiv, ouT£ TO iv

Tov

to eV

[io-Tiv

oi!t£

aWa

eo-Tiv.

in particular agrees in

the difference betrays the connection.

in the Parmenides, ei'ds

to

some other manner.

tov tvos] ^v.

The words

in

la-ri

A

test

raWa'

yap

ov

many

case occurs Slv

aX\a

157 b.

brackets are a repetition of

The

part of what precedes.

writer's eye, after he wrote the second «vds, seems, on looking up, and so he repeated the words io-Tiv. ovre to ev ia-nv then glancing up again he seems to have caught aAAo in place of ToXAa, and so he wrote aAAa tov ivoi finally he seems to have caught the second evds, and so he went on 7jv. This mistake reappears in D, and it seems to originate with 11 rather than to come from some common source, for 11 is largely characterized by such blunders which are sometimes corrected and sometimes not. If n be indeed the source, then the younger D by reproducing so peculiar an error reveals its Now R does not extend beyond the Parmenides, and Schanz gives from this own origin. dialogue several cases in which IIDR combine to present readings peculiar to themselves, and His inference is that D again other cases in which the two last agree in differing from 11. coming from n develops new features of its own, and that R being drawn from D exhibits

to have caught the

first,

:

:

some of the

Q

latter's peculiarities.

a Ms. cited by Bekker in the Parmenides as

is

Q.

remarks in a note,

g

is

far

as to

129 a: of

it

Schanz merely

.gehort zur Sippe D.

a Florentine Ms. collated by Stallbaum, which Schanz places in the same group with we have been speaking ; but as it contains only a fragment of the Parmenides,

those of which

and

is

not intrinsically very important, no more need be said of

piatocodex,

p.

54-

it.

an enumeration of those codices, which, according to the greatest recent authority upon the question, rank apart as the most reliable guides for the formation of our text. Does a minute study of them in so far as the Parmenides is

Such then

is

concerned yield any further evidence tending to support, or alternatively to weaken the verdict given by Schanz.? They may be dealt with in the same order.

As confirming the

division into classes,

we may

take the following evidence

:—

Fresh comparison.

a. |8.

St's

,"

SO

Sts Tpla

;

so

rpia Sis «vai koi rpta ,,



,j

J,

all t

SlAIITub.DR.

and

all

its

followers.

i^3 e.

This case

is

important, because the

be wrong, the true reading rpla 815 dvai koi &vo rpis; being preserved overlooked or inserted or suggested very faintly in the margin of 21, where it has been either i/oovvTt— which are also 6^v o^vvovn, a. /3. '^y hy, and rivi /3. a. ^, Again we have late. Mss. appear

noteworthy.

all

to

Let us now take the members of the a family

in order.

A. Vat. No. 225. In regard to this codex, various facts are to be noted. read throughout IlapptvelSrii. 1. For the word Ilo/jyueviS)?? 2lA, and they alone, The questions or as parts of questions. 2. In 3t the phrases ti Se; tc S^; tC 8at'; all occur as single case, with a each in being and last is much the most frequent, occurring twenty times, In everything other phrases. doubtful exception, a substitute upon an erasure for one of the

reproduces this peculiarity of 21. is written ata. word dd occurs forty-three times. In the first twenty of these it c by a longer line than to a joined the and i erased is beginning 147 d, the first

but the erasure 3.

In the

The rest,

A

faithfully

m

>39 b, 165

c.

THE PARMENIDES.

Ixxxii usual, 158 c.

this

save in the solitary case 147 E where det looks original.

striking

dropped 4.

difference of usage

is

exactly copied in A, only

Apart from signs of erasure,

that in

one place the word has

out.

We

find

a

series of patches or mistakes occurring in

lines in the following

p.

16

pages of

this edition.

words

at the outer ends of the

first

SOURCES OF THE TEXT. Text.

Ixxx 111



——



THE PARMENIDES.

Ixxxiv Text.

o^vvovTi

Set (paivicrdai

Adding

Srj

A

scribe in

practice in 21

different.

established

is

—that first

is

loiKtv

A

and

The f)

varieties of spelling

following small words are

[ei]

such

left

)(p6vov,

out

lyo)

145 C

TO [ev] €K pepZv.

So

ovt' [dv] dp)(r]V.

TO

142 C

dWo

[Si]

efft)

II.

part of a phrase written

larger gaps occur

150 D After writing the

7. 4, p.

wxxn.

first

t6s for rt. ijSea for

io-^t,

ISea,

trioKpdTrjv for

jivuktk- for yiyvuxTK-.

148 B

Se [ye] irdOo's.

149 e 152 E

ia-rov [tc] rive.

yap

Icrrt

ev.

[ya/a]

ends a

:

Si ye

So

del [vvv]

line.

on a cleaned space n.

IT.

OTav

irep

^

(a vvv

immed-

158 c

oa-ov

164 E

eiTTt/o

dv avr^s €V

[/iijj

[del] 6piap,cv.

eWat.

viripix^w [koI :

vwepexecrOaL

the writer goes on at the second

...

...

thus omitting nearly four lines.

OTE pxTaXapjidvu [avTOV piTaXapfidvii].

Two

142 E TO ov

transpositions occur tvos voOevo/xevoL' + ir€pl A1K010V +

rj

*"Opoi. *

J

Each

+ Aij/idSo/cos

n\aTtovos iTTUTToXai flourish.

NZ.

+ irepl

ii.

irpaTreiV

cri>/)aK0W7-(rwv, ev

1 \

33 1 r. ii. from 2 red lines.

I323

r.

fabove.

ii.

as

title

as

if added later

wepl SiKaiov flourish.

TT.

by the

scribe.

1326^11.40. ;



;

THE PARMENIDES.

jjcviir

name of the city is one word or tv/o, Cobet being of the must be the Hierapolis near Laodicea which, according to Le Quien,

Authorities differ as to whether the

If he is right No Constantine, however, is named was erected into a metropolitan see in the 5th century. sacerdos and calligraphist, in of Constantinus made mention find we as in office there. But The text is followed by 1 125 A.D., and of another, a presbyter and calligraphist, in 1326 a.d. j.j^j.gg ^jg^j^ sheets of vellum, which, like those at the beginning, have probably been inserted

former opinion.

Montf. Appendix,

cf.

Gardth. p. 318.

Style and details.

it

when it was last bound. The codex is in fine

memini me videre integriorem by damp creeping in from behind; it has lost the margin of fol. 151, which has slightly injured the end of the Critias and the beginning of the Minos, and in various places small holes have been drilled in the sheets by insects but for all practical purposes it is as perfect and legible as when it was written, now more than a thousand years ago. The size of the volume exclusive of the binding is 35*5 x 24*8 x 8-8 centimetres. The material is firm yellowish vellum. The page consists of two columns, each containing 44 written lines, which are bounded perpendicularly by double lines at each side; the length of each col. is 26-5 and its breadth according as both perpendicular lines at each side, or only the inner ones are included, preservation; indeed, Cobet says, 'non

librum neque emendatiorem.'

has suffered a

It

little

at the beginning



is

8-1

or 6-8, while the free space between the cols, from outer to outer perpendicular line

centimetres.

The

breadths of the free margins are

—inner

these figures, especially the last group, are slightly variable. that

is,

sets of four

is

2-3

upper 3-5, outer 4-8, under 57. All The vellum is made up in quaternions,

i-6,

and

pieces laid together, then folded across

stitched, so as to give 8 leaves

and 16 pages there are 43 quaternions, but the 43rd wants the 8th leaf. Originally each quaternion would be lettered, but the only trace of this which seems to remain is at the outer upper corner of fol. 177 r. where K the following F having been cut off in binding represents the 23rd; more recently they have been numbered by small figures 2, 3, 4, placed at the inner upper corner. A late reader has carelessly numbered the front side of the leaves: after 243 he puts 245, but there is no gap and in the third hundred the hundreds figure is often corrected. Each piece of parchment before being folded as part of its quaternion has received a complete set of rulings which are colourless, being, as usual, indented on one side by some blunt pointed instrument so ;





;

firmly as to project

side of the vellum.

on the

other.

The bounding

This ruling seems to have been done on the outer or hair

lines are the following,

on each unfolded piece

:

1.

8 double perpendicular lines to mark off the sides of the four

2.

Single perpendicular lines near the outer edge of the two outer margins, 3-8 removed from

3.

A

4.

Double horizontal

cols.

the outer boundary of the cols. horizontal line about

rg above

lines of

the writing.

which the lower

is

2'6

below the

writing.

All these are carried from edge to edge of the vellum. 5.

44

lines for writing,

cols.,

E.M.Thompson,

ri??,?^''^' p. 63, etc.

which begin at the

left

side of the

first col.

and go

right across the four

ending somewhat unevenly at the outer edge of the fourth.

In laying the ruled pieces together for stitching, indented side touched indented, and projecting or, as Mr. Thompson puts it, hair side touched hair side and flesh side

touched projecting, flesh side.

The

writing hangs from the lines, save that the upper parts of the letters S

above them.

The

text

is

written in dark

brown ink ; the

One commentator writes in dark green. The text is written throughout by the same body of the work was

finished.

Sometimes

scribe,

his ink

titles

who seems

seems

to

e

ij

6

i

k

and some of the notes are to

have

have added the failed,

project

reddish.

titles after

the

and he has retouched

THE CHIEF MANUSCRIPTS. on 184

letters, as

xcix

189 v., 190 r., after refilling his pen. After learning more of 21, Bekker changed Ms. was written in the tenth century, saying 'patet Parisiensem primum (A), indexCodic™. qui omnes habet altioris vetustatis notas, perperam in catalogo Paris, ad decimum seculum referri. Conf. Bast ad Corinth., p. 81.' Bast here speaks of praestantissimus Codex (secuH noni).' Gregor. corimh.

his

view that

r.,

this

'

1807 After looking over the plates of the Palaeographical Society and comparing all three Mss. concerned, we have come to the conclusion that the writing which most resembles that of this codex is that of the Clarke Ms.

and of the Oxford Euclid, whose dates are fixed at 895 and 888 a.d. respectively. But the Paris one seems to be older than either of these. So far as the capital letters are concerned, a judgment is difficult to form. They are small, erect, and rather stiff, but present no special

A and A do

feature save that A,

In the body of the

text,

which

not terminate in

a point

in

minuscules in

at the top,

but in a short horizontal stroke.

we have

a better means of reaching At a general glance the first observation that occurs is that in whatever order A and 31 may stand, the Euclid comes between them this amounts to the verdict that A comes first. The Euclid and 2t differ from A in having their letters of a uniform thickness A, while using is

three Mss.,

all

a conclusion.

:

:

apparently a broader pen, aims at varying his strokes to some slight extent.

most of

carefully

letters,

formed and

erect, but

A makes them

while

a dot or

the pen a

its

little

back upon

and Euc agree

The

in writing

initial letters in

like those of the

There

A

more than

inclines

all

either of the others to

three the writing

round

is

off the angles

as abrupt as a continuous stroke will permit.

letters generally finish in

A

%

In

stroke, while in tr,

In all, the lines of the seems to be often managed by carrying

'blob,' but in 91 this

^, as

cy

A

i3i

;

the scribe ends his lines with a distinctly formed dot

&.

or

21 gives

In

A

e is

written

^,

in 21

it is

S.

stand in the space between the perpendicular lines which bound the columns

Euc. they are quite plain, and

differ

from the text only by being considerably

:

larger.

an even more noticeable formality

in the breathings and accentuation. While 91 and Euc. some variety and inattention as seen in the facsimiles, A emphasizes its care by the forms *—-•,«'' ^~, '^; and Schanz says that while 2lt often omit accents on prepositions before is

give these with

nouns,

A

never does.

Ligature of letters

is

employed

freely:

here, for example,

of the Republic, the ligatures being indicated by a closer position of the KaTi/3rjV xdes

yXav

)

in the

TTipl

8

irpaKTov

margin by another hand

14 is

rj

r.

i6

ii.

up. marg.

r. ii.

mpl

^aiSmv

17

r. i.

E S

KparvXoi,

etc.

31

V.

ii.

GeatTjjTos,

etc

42

V.

i.

wepl v^vx^js

r.

i.

v.

ii.

V.

ii.

So^rjs d'Xijdovi Kal SiKaiov

A

rj

14

— 16 — 31 — 42 — 56

34 23

v.

ii.

v.

ii.

1^

The ending

is

IIAaTuv Qealrrjr

So^to-TJjs, etc.

The ending

H

i]

w

iTntrrq

56 is

simply a-oum^s

V.

:

ii.

23



67

r. ii.



THE PARMENIDES.

cxxiv

The next

portion

gives the Timaeus, 256

— 265

r.

v.

Republic, 213

the rest of the

includes

(tj)

r.

— 255

v.

:

and the

;

so that the Ms. does not contain all that

last (tg)

specified in the

is

These two portions are clearly distinguishable from the oldest by the character both of parchment and of the writing: Schanz refers them to the 15th i6th century. the The vellum is firm, well preserved, It is with the oldest portion alone that we have to do. and of the same yellowish tint as that of the other two codices. The dimensions tested by the length of the writing space in the columns is 2$'\, fol. 67 are in centimetres 37'i x 28'S the space between the columns is 2'5. The while the breadth of the two columns is 9*3, 9-4 margins as usual come in the order inner, upper, outer, lower; and the breadth of the two last Ttiva.^.



:

:

is

considerable,

is

done much

more than

4,

but

and binding

varies with the cutting

it

in

each

leaf.

The

described in A, only that the writing lines number 50.

after the fashion

ruling

All the

lines, which include one near the outer edge of each outer margin, and the 1st and soth writing lines, together with two more in the upper and one in the lower margin, are drawn from edge to edge of the vellum ; the other writing lines as in A. The leaves have been numbered by a late hand in the outer upper corner after the parts were bound in their present

perpendicular

Our portion extends over 5-212

order.

exactly;

but that

not quite

is

been quinions but have each quaternion has

its

two

208 leaves.

inclusive, or

how

they have been arranged.

lost

a leaf

first

cut away.

The 208

last leaves

— the

This would give 26 quaternions Originally the 1st

and second respectively;

and 24th had

while the

26th

leaves thus consist of 2 nines, 23 eights



are— except where injured lettered in the original hand both on and the back of the last in the inner lower corner, and have a small cross in the upper margin. As in the Clarke Ms. the pieces of parchment are laid indented side to indented in pairs, and two pairs are stitched as a quaternion. The lines, as will be seen from and a

These

six.

the face of the

divisions leaf

first

the facsimile, almost cut the writing in the middle.

While the headings and numerals

have seen, in

varies

red,

the colour of the

initial

Parmenides, and red as in the Philebus

letters

we

are, as

between very dark brown, as

in

the

and the body of the work is in dark brown. Paragraphs marked by projecting letters. In point of ornaments and initial letters the Ms. takes a middle place between A and %. The character of the writing will be seen from the facsimile. ;

are not

Rhein. Mus.

Schanz

-rxii,!. ,678.

haben ein holieres Alter anzunehmen.' The text as incomplete has no date, so that this judgment must be based on the character of the writing. There is certainly a very considerable resemblance in general style between % and t, and one may note that in both there are the same double forms for the letters ix, y, «, A, v. At the same

after

a careful study of

12th century,

catalogue,

time the letters in t are

form for

much

the c form for

vr,

cr,

to the ordinary abbreviation

never appear in -f (OS

=

C'XA

,

21 at

all.

all

three codices

and says

'

is

less neatly finished;

and the

capitals B, A,

for

which

/cat,

Thus the

not satisfied with the date assigned in the

wir

is

while not only have

H,

N

constant,

we

the

modern

printed

at intervals in the text, but in addition

many

contractions are employed which

facsimile alone gives examples of the following terminations

:

and of some of the following words

:

THE CHIEF MANUSCRIPTS.

cxxv

convenience or to supply an omission a word or phrase is put below the lowest line of the e.g. 32 v. i., 112 v. ii., Signs of erasure and of supplements in the margin 113 r. ii. occur from time to time as in all Mss. The stops are such as in A and 31, and the breathings

for

column,

and accents which may be seen in the example resemble those of 21 much more than those of A, and are not put with absolute regularity. New speakers are marked by in the text and :



in

the

In the

first

margin, save

when a double change occurs

seven dialogues and the two

last

in

one



when named by

line

the interlocutors are

is

not repeated.

the scribe at the

beginning, either in the outer margin or in the middle space, and usually after the same system as that pursued in A, i.e. the words to, toiJ SiaXdyov irpicrwira contracted and in small uncials come in |

and below follow the names in succession. In the Symposium the names are entered opposite the place where each speech begins. Near the close of the Lesser Hippias, 191 v. i., abbreviated names come in succession down the outer margin. So also, as Schanz points out, contracted names appear from time to time throughout the Gorgias and Republic, while a younger hand puts them in the Sophist, 57 r. Finally, in the Menexenus, fol. 195 r. i, inner two

lines,

margin, stands 'EIIITAi*IOS- opposite the words 'Epywo fih yfiTv. Besides other marginal symbols we have the usual oTj/teiWai and otpalov in more than one early form, all more or less resembling a

The expression Ch II appears more than once, e.g. 7 r., 44 v. ii., 54 V. ii.: what it refers to we had not time to note, but it may be = cr»;|Uet(ocrat Trapoi/ua (?), to call attention to a proverb. Again, we have such expressions as Ch opos A^^ijs, noting a definition, 105 r. ii., and Ch rC Aeyei- 155 V. The &p. is usually neat and small, as 168 r. i., 204 r. The those in

21.

i.

i.

and other notes are many, and seem, as Schanz decides, to be in most cases original. Such are the examples in the facsimile. There are other hands, one a very small neat one and several much later, one which writes two or three notes in green. As in the Clarke Ms. some scholia

;

small diagrams occasionally illustrate the notes, in the margin, thus in the

A

e.g.

Phaedrus they run from

121

A

to

r.

ii.

Cases occur of numeral

on

113

r.

i.

letters

in the Gorgias, from

Whether they represent 166 V. i., and divisions of the argument or point towards stichometry we had it not in our power to decide, The scholia on the Parbut they seem too close together to warrant the latter supposition. menides will be referred to in the notes. to A,

in the

second book of the Republic, 210

r.

i.

cxu.

HAATHNOE nAPMEFIAHE

NOTE. The is,

text

is

The

printed line for line, as well as page for page, with the Manuscript.

where necessary, adapted to the orthodox standard, and the punctuation from that of the original

extent

:

but any divergence of reading which

accentuation

differs

involves

to

some

a change in

or words is underlined. It is to be noted that the marks the end of speeches, and same where there is a question. Sometimes the scribe's view on these matters has not been adhered to, and the stops have been changed accordingly. In clear or brief questions such as

letters

Trios

8^



:

:





it

has not been thought necessary to put

that capitals are not used for proper names.

:

if

:

stands in the original.

It will

be observed

,

v^

/N'JUiU'^^tvm-'^tn

•/

>

k. .^

l?ti*^"-',

w-'tTt^JUUfNtlAHt

*.

H

«

TTlAsiw

Jivj"

Kflfil^

154

;'N.

Tj^'jrej^i;

H

HAPMENEIAHS

>i
v

eTnSTjfxlaf

eTreiSrj

ravra enrovTe^

ev jueKiTU.

KareXd^ofxev rov avTKpusvra

/cat

Xeyop avTui

eyyvs

oiKei Se

ivOevSe o'tKaSe o'lxeTai'

o'l

re aSeXp eiScov ovSeVj eireiSt] avT>jg eTriaTijjUfjg ov fxeTexofJ-^p

K eoiKev: ayvwcrTov apa fCai

TraPTa

vevei

:

opa

ovf etirep

vat

rj

rj/uiiv

a

Sfj

Srj

en tovtov

cog

I'Seag

avTO to KaXov o

ea-Ti,

Ka]

to dyaQov

avTag ovaag viroXaix^avofxep

SeiPOTepov ToSe

earip avro ti yevog

Tt]P 'Trap

Kai

e'TTiaTr^/jitjgj

t]/j.ip e'iria-Ti]/jirjv

;

kui

:

to

ttoiov

:

ov-

:

:

^attjg

kivSv-

av ^

ttoXv avTo aKpi^earepov

ei-

KoXXog Kai rdXXa TravTU ovro);

!

158

vai jj

ovK

:

etirep ri

aWo avr^i einavai tov TrvOoSwpov, avTOv re Seio-Qai tov

€(f>r}

rw

fxev oiJv, to 7rap/uL€V€iS>], croyKparet cvvSiofxat,

It is

digious task, and

Parmenides consented.—P.

may

I

well recall

the saying of

koI avTog ov-

Ibycus when

tov eptaTa avayKa^ecrOai

7rp€(r/3vTr]9 cov elg

Tft)

Kayd fxoi Sokw

I'evar

venturing thus, at

my years, to swim

fxdXa 9, Trepi

tov

avTOv

evo9

viroOejUievo^j ec

t€ ev

ecTTiv

et

TiXph

o-vixpaiveiv

iravv fxev

:

ovv

tpdvat

tov ^yjvwva

:

what

:

must follow?

re

and €Vj

/Jif]

Aristoteles,

as the youngest,

rtV ovvj

shall reply

BiTreiVy fxoi

airoKpiveiTai

;

t]

6 vewTaTog

;

rJKicrTa

yap av

etrj

r}

eKeivov airoK pterin

apiCTOTeXr]'

e/ae

airoKpivovfxivov

:

eTOijUiOS croi,

:

yap

w TrapjixeveiSfjy

i/JLo\

dvaTravXa av

?Xoty re koi eavToisand produce

Kad' eavru onreipia]

v(ni

irk-

rt



fi.riv

like '

while, as being

Kara

apa eKdrepov to TrdOos

fieu

dv

o/jloi

avra re avroii koi

eiri

both at once,

they are like

'

*

^

Kara

oXXj/Xojy

un-

dfKpoTepa dfi^orepws evavrmraTa re Kai a-

—to themA.

other.

and

ence,

KivSwevei

ovtw

:

ra aXXa avra re avrois

Srj

we

so

T€ Ka\ dvofioi dv

elij

ovrio

:

km

:

kui aX-

ravTo. S^ koi erepa

eoTwra, koi vdvra ra evavria vadtj ovk

ft-XX^Xwi/, /cat Kivovf/Leva koi

e-

same-

shall find

ness

X»/Xojf ofioid

P.

And

:

I

fear so. vit.

vo/jLoioTara

and each

selves

Ti xaXe'TTwj evp^ofiev TeTrovOdra

differ-

and

ToXXa tov

evos, eirec irep Kai

all

Tavra

other contradic-

e(pdv>i ire-irovdoTa

opdws Xeyet?

:

ovk oiv,

:

TavTa

ei

fiev

tory qualities in

^Srj eSi/Ji,ev ais

A.

the others.

ipavepd eiriVKOTroiifiev Se iraXtv ev

Right.

ovx ovTWi i.

Xeyoofiev

The one and

the others are

aWa

exei to.

V. P. Yet again

e^ dpx^i) ev

Stj

yap

devai ] Xeyw/jLev

tov evos el earriv

rj

Ti

ovTCt ftdvov

XPI

''"o

dp' oSv ov xw/ot? p-ev

:

el ea-Tiv

Se raXXa row

is

evbi elvai

ti



^j;

vov ovk

oti

:

Kai

travv fiev oSv

:

aXXa tov

evoi ireirov-

twv

aXXtoi/ X'^ptJ

to

ev

quite separate,

as there

apa

eixTt

vapd TavTa

eTepov,

nothing to con-

li.

o

A.

tain both.

dXKo

The

true one

is it,

ev

as

whole, connected

with the others.

Hence the others have

'

no one

them A. No. In

Nor many

iii. '

'

at

TO re

pl&ll

has not parts nor

tov evos oXXo

fxev e(TTi

Se tcov dXXwv. irdvTa

yap elptp-ai ot dv

P.

Yes.

8s b

2

w

TO Te ev av

TavTw

ecTTiv

fiopia

ye

*

Xov

all.

eiri

rdXXa

ev koi

:

tw avTW

eoj

to

ev' Kai

exeiv

tjtafxev

ydp

irdvTa

Kai

ovk apa er ea-Tiv erepov tovtuv,

TaXXa

TaXXa: ovk to ws

:

ov

:

ydp

•jrwy

:

ydp

av to ev ev ToTi aXXon ovTe fiopia avTOv,

TU)V aXXtoi' Kai fxopta

fxri

exei

irws

'•

having no one,

dv ToKXa TOV

evoi, fiijTe /cara

yap

ovS' evi

:

Te

apa Tpoirw

pdpiov ti ovtov prrre KaTa oXov

ev

firiv

ovTe apa

:

el x^/)/?

P. are they

apa

eoiKe: x*^/"'? o/"*; val: ovSe

aXrjOooi ev

—for

ovSeiroT

:

o-

ecrTi

fierexoi fieTe-

neither have they

two,three

A

.

So.

XovTa

:

ev ovSev

a-Tov

ovK eoiKev :

ov

yap

ovSap-n

:

oSv

:

apa

fHI fieTexei

:

opOwi

el

fiopia ecTTi :

TaXXa

ovS Spa iroXXd

avTwv fibpiov tov qXov

Xa ovTe oXov ovTe

ev

ovS'

ia-Tiv, ovS' exei ev

ea-Ti

iroXXd ^v

rdXXa tov

raXXo.

ev

eavTOts

ydp dv ^v eKa-

vvv Se (Jure ev oirre ttoXevoi, eveiS^

apa Svo ovTe Tpia ovTe avTa

avTOv ovSaecTTi

rd aXXa,

'

ovT€ eveoTTiv ev atWok, eiirep tov

Spa

Se ofioia

ci/69

avrd

Koi avofiota oure

Travraxfi a-Teperai

rw

ecrri

€v avT0i9 o^oiOTfig koi avofioiort}^,

aXXa, ovre

ept to,

yap

el

ovrw

:

ov-

:

evea-riv

ofxoia Ka\ avo/mota au-

Nor are

iv.

ra

€?»;,

they

Mike or unlike

exoi €v eavTOt^ o/jLotortjra Ka\ avofxoiorrira, Svo ttov

tj

elto the one,

Srj

ra aXXa rou

evairria aXX>/Xo(? exot up iv eavroi^

evo?

ffialverai

:

or in themselves.

:

For had they 7/1'

ye aSvvarov Svotv tipoip /nerex^iv a

^e

€P09 fxerexoi;

fxtjS'

aSvpa^

and

likeness

unlikeness they

top: ovt apa ofxoia oure apofxoia ea-rip out afX^oTcpa raXXtt.

yap oPTa

would have

elSovg p.eTixoiy ajuLtpOTCpa

Sh

OPTa SvoiP TOtP ipaPTioiP* TavTa Se aSvpaTa

S*

apa

€p toiovtcov

Tu aWa^

TTOfxevei

ov fxeOe^eij

Tt tolovtop Treiropdepat v-

Kat ei/09 Kai Svotv kcu Tpiwv

avToh aSvpaTOv

Stv

yap

et

TraVrw? o'Tepo/jLePOis

€.

-6r)

-TO. '

Xoyovs'

£(^9j

two words

last

irapeifiiV

-filas.

av Ttj)

-Bavt)

patched

o'koi,.

da-af

'

yc airaUyt^

kXoJ-

^'^'? '^

eyot.

'

ia6

Aa^o/tefos

'

X^v' Srj

'

oKOwai

owovscv

-wfjiov.

'

-iitjo-o itc

irarplc.

i

Tco

Kal

[a little, darker.

civ.

'

f^vuV

-tapov.

-A,«rov'

-iriv.

'

subss.

TO irpir-

no

Iralpt^, '

1.

ace. patched.' tS'

-Odvei:

ye:'

oKe

["'''P'

Ktovwide,'

-Toi.

(lev

vf.av. c.

SoKU).

c. -Kb)Vi,

-/iavToy. •ti-

flTTOV

'

Kal

•TWTt

dark,

toCto.

'

Tt r]V ovojxa,

-Tpl(o.

SI

X'^V

i7]

-Tol.

St.

KaTayopav

-HiOa.

-KOfltOa'

'

wKV

-Swpov.

etvaf

ETT-

,

'

'

:

'

'

'

PARMENIDES.

42

Tub.

%.

t.

-KOVTO '

fitydXa.

-yaAa.

'

-w'Sijs"

'

-6i|V£a

-veiSrj's'

/KtAa

'

-L&riv.

^'Srj

ihai.

'

C.

-vi8tiv.

TToXwV

'«|r]K0VTO

oyiv.

'

roAiov. 8s.

KayaS"

'

ETWV

'

oY'V

'

TETT-

C.

CtVai.

'

C.

£(.vc

e.

ISetv

iSeiV

-v£8ov

'

-vaf

aiiTol'.

'

-S(opv,'

-(rdrjvai'

i)7rcA:e6'j'a)v

'

C.

Tore.

TO IS,

I

-Stjv,

'

D

.

-Kpa-Tj'

'

and and

fainter.

small,

c

o4tJ>v

avTov

v£8tiv

'

-Xu.

-yivus-koiiIvuv'

-vt'Sr;

'

£^(o ovra.

'

kolTTUV Tcov C.

'

-/tePtoV

'

-/v(i)va,3

cro)^'

lat-

^o-^ij- [terhalfoffirst" darker.

ye

'

rov

'

AaKes.

-Sdvci.

'

owov-

'

'

NOTES Tub.

SI.

vaf

-fievov.

'

has been a blot over word.

/lev.

-(MTa.

'

A.dy(j),

Km/K^Selv &S A.oy^, -/tot,

'

Tovro

-OecTK

/i^"

-6ai.

-Kpares.

'

faint.

.

small

avTo,

,



[faint '

-;

'

1^

,

9pt|

X'/^^

auToSv.

Srj

'

'

Xvap(av

goBv (in

5Tav Tavrt) jraVT(ov

-v*i8t]V

-tf>ia*-

'

No

-|«

^irtira,

(p. Ixxxvii)

il

-Tes"

'

'

usually patched, with Mark.

[^Gpa^e,

^1 rauTov I'oTti)

-/tevos

jievToi

"

^avat

(4) all c.

icrru.

-fiaf -o-as/

E

ji^:' dvai..

r. 6.

Same as 21 throughout, save

koX

[el

and

oiov

jua

el r]jji.epa etrj

oScra.

'

'

|iCa-

faint.

,

,

ur)(ei*.

C.

c.

Tau on

TttCra.

faint.

on

:

later.

Sfj

ravra-

'

Aeytts, (pdvai

'

©rov 7]

c.

[faint. -vetSrjs'

'

S»)

'

-T« av

(oa-r]

i

SucravaTTEto-Tov iux.de.iv.

•Tepov.

ends

line.

^vs

'

-(fivovv

'

'

cKacTT

'

/ieVTot

'

Ka^aiiT^V

-(Top-ivov

-^ai" TravTtt -V1S1J

^y^

-yo/xcv.

'

V

been added

TOTtpOV -$ai.

irj,Tr(p '

ov 7ap oiv

'

t

'

Tavrhv

aXXtf.

'

'

at the turn.

[ovSi and squeezed. D -Sapy I fainter and squeezed.' hepov. '

Koijinv

OVK&V £T£pa),

d,\X §£.

avToj.

'

of +

last part

8^

eTCpoV )j(hadbeen^)ota:

kfTTai

'

dWafji,rjv,

tC'vi

'

o^Ydp

[subs, fainter

dvai.

'

dark

erepny

'

'

'

:

subs, squeezed.

I

is

[ends =

ktrriv

'

r

avro)

ye. oi?T£

orig.

c.

[ovv

sol £V.

V

pale on -pa ws

=v.

ravTovye gap.

'

icnai.

'

:

trrfKU,

on ^

M

6'

later

i

>

>

?v'

aJTu

lines

otj/,

W6r-

'

oSv

'

c. -

eTvai

writing

partly cursive.

-ytuv.

'

'

tcrov.

-TTOV.

'

(ijTepov.

Tt

:

J

Sjj

f)

eavTt^ C.

'

-yo/xev.

t)

aAAij).

ixro-

-cAeyojitcv

t'croT-

i, 2, 3.

elvoi-87

avicroTJjTos c. last (=o4SJ)

on

».

gap oSv TiJ

faint. ouTij)

ta,vrj'

.''

r

faint.

A stain on

end of

-Tepov

Ti/v

,

i'cro

ecnai.

'

-Oe^er

fainter.

at

eX"-

faint.

eX««i', T(p

,

patched

faintish.



:

irws

,

XP°^°'"-

[faint.

-^«.

,

-Tepov,' -repov,

'

squeezed and pale

t

ttotJ

fainter,

'

'

-TOVa)V,

'

dSvvaT:

c.

:

-Toviov.

o4k€ti

'

traces of.

tJ)

'

a«T(S

To'iropdTrav

had been

_

orig. ?

'

'

begins a

n-jj:

to--

c.

ye ov.

avrw

eauT^

'

t(ov c.

'

under avTuv

TOCrOVTOV.

TO irapa- _ orig.

faint.

icrov.

-TOV

'

Sal: small £v,

-K«v

""o^e

'

-ex°^'

,

c.

T(3v C. Se

avTov.

to-ov

fainter, -ytov,

'

ctv()/iOiov

'

in margin,

Tcov C. ai5rci)v c. '

in pterpa Se.

o{!

ccrrar

irij:

'

— 'A^

-TE^COV.

[lower half of apa above. -Tovtuv

eariv.

'

'

i^ec' -p,eTpov. t(oi'C. juev

»v

covers

stain

c.

d'vicrov

'

aAAo)

ov.

fainter.

fainter.

,

:

eavrijJ

'

to--

'

ov.

icrov (' fainter) /x€ v. o/ia,' -TO).

'

\:^ \

tirov

fainter.

,

dvo.v

'

Scrrov,

'

-T/30V

'

:

-o5i'.

'

avrou,

iVrov

'

b

-dbs.

'

erept^

'

erepc^D c.

to-ov

tt^

'

fainter.

,

ye.

TavT&

C.

line

ov

'

aAAov.

'

'

(OS eoiKev.

avT(^

a leaf cut out, but no gap. ovrmv

c.

:

OVT(l)(i) c.

eu.

oie'

-Taf

ovk eoiKev

c.

:

twice.

-fjLoiov

'

:

gap.

ovyap

'

c.

eavT(^

'

yap- TO

[i'croi

ov,

dpa

aAAcp.

and pale

close

apa Tavrhv.

'

:

'

elvai.

eavTti)

'

-vara

-povyere

'

[ovv -Tfpix€v.

loTi faint.

eoTif

«irj

'

avToi.

-o-/,-6r«r

'

[on *

the tC;

stain.

fainter. '

i

broad Sai

t

faintish.

Subs. seems

i

tv la-nv

'

-.

-

apa

;

:

'' '

PARMENIDES.

56

Tub.

31.

ravTbv icniv avTWv,

o5v"

C

:

'

TO irepov I

,

i-efj)

,

-Te/5a

'

Eo-TiV

'

oDv,

oiovTe

fainter.

tJi

°

SoTiv

:

later. I

ordvT£,

'

8av

fainter,

€0-T6 Tis /*iJX'*'^>

odv Svo

TTfp

'

TaVTOV

'

er"

later)

(tO^

'

-Tcpo)

'

last

as'av

added, and so H'

'

ovx'Siov re

2nd

:

-(7t7o;'.

added?'

fiTj

'

:

S6e.

o.pa

CI/"

OUKOUV

'

«'««Trn,

unfinished conditional

sentences. Kal iya

2(u-

cp. Gorg. 447 B, 'E;r'

avrd yi rot tovto wapwixiv.

greater



cluded

gives

TO fiera tovto, where time enters

fi.01

may be used

(

8

arose for the usage.

we

clearly than here.

of fact

I



can hardly do so

are to see any special purpose

Xeye

dXXtt

,,

etVeiv

; and possibly a later work might have fewer instances simply because no need

:

more

2

general precepts,

must suppose that the explanation by Cephalus will be an act occupying some time cp. Theaet. c,



direiv

contrasted with the aorist

143

th-iv

have any

Seijo-oftti/os vfj.(uv

where the con-

c,

end o

mid. 4

exirov

are

and united as regards the text though 11 suggests TTov so that any change would be very rash. It may be just possible that rw rySi means objection

the Parmenides as far as 137 struction stops

appears that

it

clear

'

11

...

SiaKoOirai

Construc. easy and conversa-

:

tional: 7rahSiirov...avTto Seye- being a parenthesis

needed only from a picturesque point of view.

The

speaker, seeking to strengthen his claim to

broken up that becomes formally a mere

attention, lets the sentence get so

the important adjunct.

dKrjKoaxri,

Strictly

we should have

Kal iyi) eurov, oiSe

dKtjKoaxni' oVt 6 (iSeAs vp-Civ 'A.VTL(jiu>v tous Aoyons,

oDs

...

?>(,i\ey9qa-av, dTT0pvrj)i,6v£Vii.

SiaKova-ai.

Cp.Apol.21

A, where

tovtwv Si6p,e6a

the parts bracketed,

although conversationally very natural, really confuse the construction, Xaip€dXo)

have a change from

as Crito, Cratylus, Philebus,

Symposium

Ilv^dSwpos

d