No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The text of Parmenides 8. 4 is unusually corrupt. Most recent critics, however, agree that Plutarch's 
printed in the later editions of DielsKranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, should be excluded in favour of 
As G. E. L. Owen remarks (‘Eleatic Questions’, CQ [1960], 102), ‘[Plutarch's] 
is inappropriate since 
is to be proved from 
and not vice versa’.
page 32 note 1 Owen, loc. cit., sees the need for some such emendation. Covotti's solution is defended by Leonardo Tarán in his commentary ad loc. (Partnenides, a text with translation, commentary and critical essays, Princeton, 1965).Google Scholar Simplicius reads 
in line 4 only when he quotes the line in isolation. In context it is altogether ruled out by the 
of the previous line.
page 33 note 1 See Chantraine, Pierre, La Formation des noms en Grec ancien (Paris, 1933), 424.Google Scholar
page 33 note 2 But cf. the meanings ‘inborn’ for 
and ‘unborn’ for 
which shows that even in these words the sense ‘begotten’ is operative in the suffix. To this isolated trio of 
= ‘kin’ words, Plato adds 
and the pair 
while Aristotle contributes 
page 34 note 1 Littre introduces it by emendation at Hippocr, . Anat. 8. 540 L.Google Scholar
page 34 note 2 Cf. Meister, Karl, Die homerische Kunstsprache (Leipzig, 1921; repr. Darmstadt, 1966), 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar