I propose that a quotation appearing in Proclus' commentary on Plato's Timaeus, and attributed by... more I propose that a quotation appearing in Proclus' commentary on Plato's Timaeus, and attributed by Proclus to Parmenides, preserves an independent fragment of Parmenides' poem. Because the verses quoted share language familiar from other Parmenidean and Empedoclean lines, scholars have regarded Proclus' quotation as a conflation of lines by Parmenides and Empedocles, but when due allowance is made for the repetitiousness of Parmenides' poetry and for Empedocles' borrowings from Parmenides, there is no reason to assume any confusion on Proclus' part. In the third book of his commentary on Plato's Timaeus, in the course of explicating the Demiurge's bestowing a spherical shape upon his creation (Tim. 33b1-8), Proclus has occasion to quote from Parmenides' poem. He quotes something close to two hexameters which he attributes to Parmenides,and goes on to remark that Empedocles also said the same things. Proclus' quotation has received little attention in the scholarship on Parmenides, for a variety of reasons. The most important, perhaps, is that Proclus' passage is not listed among the sources for Parmenides' poem in Diels-Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (= "DK"), so it is rarely read at all. 1 Even scholars aware of the existence of the passage have tended to pay it little attention, since the first verse and a half are familiar from other sources, while the remainder appears to confusedly substitute material from Empedocles. 2 I suggest in what follows that Proclus may not have been as confused as it has appeared and that the lines quoted may indeed be an independent fragment of Parmenides' poem.
This paper argues that the widespread impression of Parmenides as a poor poet has led to conseque... more This paper argues that the widespread impression of Parmenides as a poor poet has led to consequential errors in the reconstruction of his poem. A reconsideration of the sources behind two of the more disputed lines in the standard arrangement of the fragments leads to the suggestion that modern editors have mistakenly treated what were similar but separate lines in the original poem as variants of a single verse. Seeing through that confusion allows us to see Parmenides in a better poetic light, and gives potential insight into how his manner of exposition relates to his philosophic message.
I propose that a quotation appearing in Proclus' commentary on Plato's Timaeus, and attributed by... more I propose that a quotation appearing in Proclus' commentary on Plato's Timaeus, and attributed by Proclus to Parmenides, preserves an independent fragment of Parmenides' poem. Because the verses quoted share language familiar from other Parmenidean and Empedoclean lines, scholars have regarded Proclus' quotation as a conflation of lines by Parmenides and Empedocles, but when due allowance is made for the repetitiousness of Parmenides' poetry and for Empedocles' borrowings from Parmenides, there is no reason to assume any confusion on Proclus' part. In the third book of his commentary on Plato's Timaeus, in the course of explicating the Demiurge's bestowing a spherical shape upon his creation (Tim. 33b1-8), Proclus has occasion to quote from Parmenides' poem. He quotes something close to two hexameters which he attributes to Parmenides,and goes on to remark that Empedocles also said the same things. Proclus' quotation has received little attention in the scholarship on Parmenides, for a variety of reasons. The most important, perhaps, is that Proclus' passage is not listed among the sources for Parmenides' poem in Diels-Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (= "DK"), so it is rarely read at all. 1 Even scholars aware of the existence of the passage have tended to pay it little attention, since the first verse and a half are familiar from other sources, while the remainder appears to confusedly substitute material from Empedocles. 2 I suggest in what follows that Proclus may not have been as confused as it has appeared and that the lines quoted may indeed be an independent fragment of Parmenides' poem.
This paper argues that the widespread impression of Parmenides as a poor poet has led to conseque... more This paper argues that the widespread impression of Parmenides as a poor poet has led to consequential errors in the reconstruction of his poem. A reconsideration of the sources behind two of the more disputed lines in the standard arrangement of the fragments leads to the suggestion that modern editors have mistakenly treated what were similar but separate lines in the original poem as variants of a single verse. Seeing through that confusion allows us to see Parmenides in a better poetic light, and gives potential insight into how his manner of exposition relates to his philosophic message.
Uploads
Papers by Christopher Kurfess