Haut de page
Brisson, L., Congourdeau, M.-H. and Solère, J.-L. eds. (2008), L’embryon : formation et animation. Antiquité grecque et latine, tradition hébraïque, chrétienne et islamique, Paris
Congourdeau, M.H. (2007), L’embryon et son âme dans les sources grecques (VIe siècle av. J.-C.–Ve siècle apr. J.-C.), Paris
Coxon, A. H. ed. (22009), The Fragments of Parmenides. A Critical Text with Introduction and Translation, the Ancient Testimonia and a Commentary, rev. and expanded ed. w. new translations by McKirahan, R. and new pref. by Schofield, M., Las Vegas (1st ed. Assen 1986)
Diels, H. (1879), Doxographi Graeci, Berlin (abbreviated DG)
Diels, H. (1897), Parmenides Lehrgedicht, Griechisch und Deutsch. Mit einem Anhang über griechische Thüren und Schlösser, Berlin (2nd ed. Sankt Augustin 2003)
Diels, H. and Kranz, W. eds. (1934-1937), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Berlin (repr. 1951 and later)
Ebner, P. (1962), ‘Anche a Velia una scuola di medicina’, Rass.Stor.Sal. 23, 3–44
Finkelberg, M. (1998), The Birth of Literary Fiction in Ancient Greece, Oxford
Flashar, H., Bremer, D. and Rechenauer, G. eds. (2013), Ueberweg : Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike Bd. 1 (2 vols.), Frühgriechische Philosophie, Basel
Gambetti, F. (2008), ‘Il Parmenide medico negli studi del Novecento’, in : Rossetti, L. and Marcacci, F. eds., Parmenide scienziato ?, Sankt Augustin, 91–102
Geurts, P. M. M. (1941), De erfelijkheid in de oudere Grieksche wetenschap, Nijmegen
Hense, O. ed. (1909), Stobaeus Anthologium 4.1, Berlin (repr. Zürich 1974)
Journée, G. (2012), ‘Lumière et nuit, feminin et masculin chez Parménide d’Élée : quelques remarques’, Phronesis 57, 289–318
Kember, O. (1971), ‘Right and left in the sexual theories of Parmenides’, JHS 91, 70–79
Kraus, M. (2013), ‘§12 : Parmenides’, in : Flashar & alii, 2.441–530
Lesky, E. (1948), ‘Die Samentheorien in der hippokratischen Schriftensammlung’, FS Neuburger, Vienna, 302–307
Lesky, E. (1950), Die Zeugungs- und Vererbungslehren der Antike und ihre Nachwirkung, Abh.Ak.Mainz 1950 Nr. 19, Wiesbaden
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1962), ‘Right and left in Greek philosophy’, JHS 82, 56–66
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1966), Polarity and Analogy. Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought, Cambridge
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1972), ‘Parmenides’ sexual theories. A reply to Mr Kember’, JHS 92, 178–179
Mansfeld, J. (1995), ‘Insight by hindsight. Intentional unclarity in Presocratic proems’, BICS London 40, 225-232
Mansfeld, J. (1999), ‘Parménide et Héraclite avaient-ils une théorie de la perception ?’, Phronesis 44, 326-346
Mansfeld, J. and Runia, D. T. (2009), Aëtiana : The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer, II : The Compendium, Part I, Macrostructure and Microcontext ; Part II, Aëtius Book 2 : Specimen reconstructionis, Leiden
Mansfeld, J. and Runia, D. T. (forthc.), Aëtiana IV : An Edition of the Restored Text of the Placita, With a Commentary and a Selection of Parallel Passages, Leiden
Marcinkowska-Rosol, M. (2007), ‘Zur Syntax von Parmenides Fr. 1.31–32’, Hermes 135, 134–148
Mau, J. ed. (1971), Ps.Plutarchus, Placita physica, Leipzig
Raeder, J. ed. (1904), Theodoretus Graecorum affectionum curatio, Leipzig
Sallman, N. ed. (1983), Censorini De die natali liber, Leipzig
Samama, E. ed. (2003), Les médecins dans le monde grec. Sources épigraphiques sur la naissance d’un corps medical, Genève
Schirren, Th. and Rechenauer, G. (2013), ‘§6.2 : Zum Leben einzelner Philosophen — 6. Parmenides’, in : Flashar & alii, 1.192–194
Von Wilamowitz–Moellendorff, U. (1975), Analecta Euripidea, Berlin (repr. Hildesheim 1963)
Wachsmuth, C. ed. (1884), Stobaeus Eclogae physicae = Anthologium 1, Berlin (repr. Zürich 1974)
Zeller, E, Mondolfo. R., and Reale, G. (2011), Gli Eleati, da La Filosofia dei Greci nel suo sviluppo storico (with bibliogr. add. by Girgenti, G.), Milan (repr. from La Filosofia dei Greci nel suo sviluppo storico vol. 3, Florence 1965)
Zeller, E. (51892), Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Bd. 1, Allgemeine Einleitung. Vorsokratische Philosophie, 1. Hälfte, Leipzig (rev. ed. by Lortzing, F. and Nestle, W. 61919, repr. Hildesheim 1963, Darmstadt 2005)
Haut de page
Appendix : The Aëtian lemmata with name-label Parmenides45
⁋ The following 4 lemmata are found in the final Book of the Placita :
5.30.4 (28A46a), ‘Parmenides : (says that) old age occurs from the deficiency of heat’ ;
5.11.2 (28A54), ‘Parmenides (says that), whenever the seed is separated out from the right part of the womb [ ?],46 (resemblances) to the male ancestors (occur), but whenever this happens from the left side, (resemblances) to the female ancestors (occur)’ ;
5.7.1 (31A81), Empedocles (says that) males and females are born through heat and cold. Hence it is recounted that the first males were born from the earth more in the east and the south, whereas the first females were born in the north’, + 5.7.2 (28A53), ‘Parmenides the other way around : that the males grew in the north, for they share more in the dense element, the females in the south on account of their lack of density’ ;
5.7.4 (59A111 + 28A53), Anaxagoras Parmenides (say that males are born) when the seed from the right parts (sc. of the body of the male parent) is deposited on the right side of the womb and the seed from the left parts (sc. of the body of the male parent) is deposited on the left side ; but if the deposition is reversed, (then) females occur’.
⁋ There are 7 lemmata in Book 4 :
4.9.14 (28A50 + 31A95),47 ‘Parmenides Empedocles (say) that desire (arises) from a deficiency of food’ ;
4.13.10 (28A48),‘Some inscribe Pythagoras to this doxa (sc. Hipparchus’ doctrine, cited 4.13.9, of visual rays issuing from the eyes) as well, since he is an authority for mathematics, and in addition to him Parmenides, who shows this through his Poem’ ;48
4.9.1 (Pyth. — + Emp. — + 21A49 + 28A49 + 29A23 + 30A14 + 59A96 + fr. 54 Luria + 70A22 + Protag. — + Plato —), ‘Pythagoras Empedocles Xenophanes Parmenides Zeno Melissus Anaxagoras Democritus Metrodorus Protagoras Plato (say that) the sensations are false’ ;
4.9.6 (28A45 + 31A90 + Anaxag. — + fr. 437 Luria + Epic. — + Heraclides fr. 122a–b Wehrli, 63A–B Schütrumpf), ‘Parmenides Empedocles Anaxagoras Democritus Epicurus Heraclides (say) that the particular sensations of their particular object occur in accordance with the matching-sizes of the pores, each of the sense objects corresponding to each sense’ ;
4.5.12 (28A45 + 31A96 + Democr. —), ‘Parmenides and Empedocles and Democritus (say that) intellect and soul are the same thing. According to them no living being could be without reason in the true sense of the word’.
4.5.5 (28A45 + 312 Us.), ‘Parmenides (says that the regent part is) in the whole chest ; as also does Epicurus’ ;
4.3.4 (28A45 + 18.9 + T 460 Mouraviev), Parmenides and Hippasus and Heraclitus (say) that (the soul) is fire-like’.
⁋ There are only 3 lemmata in Book 3 :
3.15.7 (28A44 + cf. 68A98, frs. 4, 379, 403 Luria), ‘Parmenides Democritus (say that the earth) remains in equilibrium because it is equidistant at all sides [sc. from the surrounding heavens] ; it has no ground for moving this way rather than that ; because of this it is merely shaken, but it does not move’ ;
3.11.4 (28A44a), ‘Parmenides was the first to define the inhabited zones of the earth under the two tropic zones’ ;49
3.1.4 (28A43a), ‘Parmenides (says that) the whitish colour (of the Milky Way) is the result of the mixture of the dense and the rare (elements)’.
⁋ There are no less than 13 lemmata in Book 2 :50
2.30.5* (28B28), ‘Parmenides (says that the earthy appearance of the moon occurs) on account of the dark (component) having been mixed in with the fire-like (component) in it ; for this reason the heavenly body is called ‘falsely appearing’ ;
2.28.6* (— + 28A42 + 31A60 + 59A77 + 70A12 DK cf. B14), ‘Pythagoras Parmenides Empedocles Anaxagoras Metrodorus (say) likewise’ [sc. that (the moon) is illuminated by the sun, just as Thales] ;
2.26.2* (28A42), ‘Parmenides (says that the moon is) equal to the sun (in size), and that it is illuminated by it’ ;
2.25.2* (13A16 + 28A42 + T446 Mouraviev), ‘Anaximenes Parmenides Heraclitus (say that the moon is) fiery’ ;
2.20.3* (13A15 + 28A41), ‘Anaximenes Parmenides (say that the substance of the sun is) fiery’ ;
2.20.15* (28A41), ‘Parmenides (says that) the sun and the moon have been separated off from the Milky Way, the former from the more rarefied mixture which is hot, the latter from the denser (mixture) which is cold’ ;
2.15.7* (28A40a), ‘Parmenides orders the Morning Star, which is considered by him to be identical with the Evening Star, as first in the ether ; after it the sun, beneath which he places the heavenly bodies (i.e. stars) in the fiery region, which he calls ‘heaven’’ ;
2.13.8* (28A39 + 22A11), ‘Parmenides Heraclitus (say that the heavenly bodies are) condensations of fire’ ;
2.11.4* (28A38 + 22A10 + fr. 84 Wehrli, 42 Sharples + SVF 1.116), ‘Parmenides Heraclitus Strato Zeno (say that the heaven is) fiery’ ;
2.7.1* (28A37), ‘Parmenides says there are bands wound around each other, the one made up of the rare, the other of the dense, while others between these are mixed from light and darkness. And that which surrounds them all is solid like a wall. || Below it is a fiery band. And the most central (part) is also (solid), around which there is again a fiery band. Of the mixed bands the most central is both the <origin> and the <cause> of all motion and coming into being for all the others. He also calls it directive Daimôn, Holder of the Keys, Justice and Necessity. And the air is what is separated from the earth, vaporized through the earth’s stronger condensation, while the sun and the Milky Way are the exhalation of fire. The moon is a mixture of both, of air and fire. The ether encircles above everything else, and below it the fiery (part) is disposed which we call heaven, below which the earthly regions have their place’ ;
2.4.5* (21A37 + 28A36 + 30A9), ‘Xenophanes and Parmenides and Melissus (say that) the cosmos is ungenerated and everlasting and indestructible’ ;
2.1.2* (11A13b + 51.3 + Emped. — + Ecph. — + 28A36 + 30A9 + 22A10 + 59A63 + Plato — + Arist. — + SVF 1.97), ‘Thales Pythagoras Empedocles Ecphantus Parmenides Melissus Heraclitus Anaxagoras Plato Aristotle Zeno (say that) the cosmos is unique’.
⁋ There are, finally, only 3 lemmata again in Book 1 :51
1.25.3 (28A26 + frr. 23, 589 Luria), ‘Parmenides and Democritus (say) everything (happens) according to Necessity ; (and that) Fate and Justice and Providence and world-creating are identical’ ;
1.24.1 (28A29 + 30A12 + Zeno –), ‘Parmenides Melissus Zeno abolished coming to be and passing away because they were convinced that the All is immobile’ ;
1.7.27 (28A31), ‘Parmenides says (that the god) is the immobile and limited spherical’.
‘Nota praefabor’, to quote Von Wilamowitz–Moellendorff (1975) 131.
Overviews at Zeller–Mondolfo–Reale (1965 = 2011) 292–391, Kraus (2013) 481–486. See also Finkelberg (1998) 158–160, 168–169, on ‘lies resembling truth’ and a ‘plausible account’ accompanying a ‘truthful’ one.
Mansfeld (1995) 230–232. Another interpretation of B1.31–32 is proposed by e.g. Marcinkowska-Rosól (2007), who takes χρῆν as infinitive and translates ‘aber trotzdem wirst du auch diese kennen lernen, als diejenigen, die scheinen, wirklich sein zu müssen, alles beständig (bzw. ganz und gar) durchdringend’. But also this interpretation is based on an evaluation of the status of the second part of the Poem, and read without such backshadowing and foreshadowing the lines with χρῆν as infinitive are still enigmatic.
Arist. Met. Α.5 986b14–987a2 (= 28A24, in part). Cf. Phys. 1.2 184b26–185a1, ‘to inquire whether Being is one and immobile is not to inquire about nature’ (τὸ μὲν οὖν εἰ ἓν καὶ ἀκίνητον τὸ ὂν σκοπεῖν οὐ περὶ φύσεώς ἐστι σκοπεῖν), and Gal. Elem. 1.448.8–14 K., who refers to and quotes from this chapter of Physics. Also GC 1.3 318b6–7, ‘Parmenides says Being and not-Being are fire and earth’. For this identification of fire and Being Aristotle, interpreting ὄν as a substantivized participle, may have been inspired by 28B8.55–56, πῦρ, / ἤπιον ὄν: ‘fire, a gentle Being’. In the lines that follow in B8 night is described as the contrary of fire.
Arist. Phys. 1.2 185a5–20, esp. 17–19, even Melissus and Parmenides ‘raise physical questions, though nature is not their subject’ (περὶ φύσεως μὲν οὔ, φυσικὰς δὲ ἀπορίας συμβαίνει λέγειν αὐτοῖς). Here Parmenides is still looked at through the eyes of Melissus. Alexander ap. Simp. in Phys. 71.3–4 explains that it is their ‘account of motion and the infinite and the void’, which raises these questions.
Arist. Met. Γ.5 1009b12–31, successively citing Emp. 31B106 and B108, Parm. 28B16, Anaxag. 56A28, and a parallel to Democr. 68A101 (ap. Arist. de An. 1 2.404a27–31) and 68A135 DK (ap. Theophr. Sens. 58). A faint echo of this passage is found at Plac. 4.5.12. For a parallel to this attitude see below, n. 27 and text thereto.
See, e.g., Plu. Adv.Col. 1114B-D (28A34, cf. B10), and Alexander ap. Simp. in Phys. 71.6–8, ‘Parmenides, when practicing physics (φυσιολογῶν) according to the views of the many and the phenomena, not saying that Being is one or ungenerated, posited fire and earth as principles of becoming’.
Numbers for comparable name-labels: Xenophanes 20, Zeno 3, Melissus 6; Thales 23 (often honoris causa), Anaximander 21, Anaximenes 20; (Neopythagorean) Pythagoras 36; Heraclitus 23.
We are handicapped here because for Book 5 Stobaeus is mostly lost. Even so, Parmenides’ 4 citations may be contrasted with 1 for Xenophanes, 1 for Thales, 5 for Pythagoras, 1 for Heraclitus, and none for the others listed in n. 8 above.
These texts are cited from back to front, i.e. from 5.30.4 to 1.7.27, in the Appendix at the end of the paper, in English translation. I shall not discuss all of them.
Mansfeld (1999). Note that Theophr. Sens. 1–3 (28A46) finds no evidence enabling him to attribute to Parmenides a theory of perception through the individual senses, and does not refer to B7.3–5. This shows that the attribution of the theory of Hipparchus to him at 4.13.10 is as mistaken as that to Pythagoras, the reference to the Poem notwithstanding.
Asterisks are added because the lemmata of Book 2 are numbered according to the reconstruction of the chapters in Mansfeld and Runia (2009), Part II — and not, like those of the other books, according to that of Diels in the DG.
Diels (1897) 104 believed that only Theophrastus could have composed a paraphrase of such excellence. A partly parallel excerpt is found at Cic. ND 1.28 (28A37).
As to this rejection the lemma echoes Arist. Cael. 3.1 298b14–17 (28A25) on Melissus and Parmenides, while τὸ πᾶν echoes Met. Α.5 986b17–19, οὗτοι δὲ ἀκίνητον εἶναί φασιν (sc. τὸ πᾶν) … Παρμενίδης (—) … Μέλισσος (—).
The word πᾶν is applied in the verbatim fragments to the Being of Parmenides (28B8.5, B8.22, B8.25, B8.48) and to that of Melissus (30B2, B7(1), B7(4)), but as a predicate.
See above, n. 4. For the elements cf. Arist. Phys. 1.5 188a19–21, GC 1.3 318b6–7, GC 2.3 330b13–15 (28Α35 DK), Theophr. Sens. 3 (28A46), the texts of Theophrastus, Hippolytus, Diogenes Laërtius, Theod. CAG 4.7 mentioned in the next n., Cic. Luc. 118, and above, n. 7 ad finem.
Theophr. Phys.Op. fr. 6 Diels = 227C FHS&G (28A7), Hipp. Ref. 1.11.1 (28A23), Diog. Laërt. 9.21–23 (28A1), [Plu.] Strom. 5 (28A22), and Theod. CAG 4.7 (Aët. 1.3.13 Diels), all speak in terms of ‘both x and y’. The only one to be charged with inconsistency is Xenophanes at Theod. CAG 4.5 (Aët. 1.3.12 Diels, 21A36), onto whom a Parmenidean distinction between two levels of reality has been projected backward: ‘forgetting about those (sc. the ontological) arguments (τῶνδε τῶν λόγων ἐπιλαθόμενος) he said that all things are generated from the earth’.
For the origin, nature, and works of the moon see the announcements at 28B10.1 + 4–5, B11.1.
For the Milky Way in a cosmogonical context see the announcement at 28B11.2.
For the origin, nature, and works of the sun see the announcements at 28B10.2–3 and B11.1.
Cf. 28B12, which however is about cosmogony.
Cf. Diog.Laërt. 9.23 (28A1).
For the origin and nature of the stars see the announcements at 28B10.1–2, B10.7, B11.3, for those of the heaven those at B10.5–7, B11.2.
5.19.4, ‘the first living beings were born in the moist substance and were covered with spiky bark. But (he says that) as they got older they moved away to the drier part and, when the bark had broken up, for a short time they changed their mode of life’. See the parallel texts collected at 12A30 plus [Plu.] Strom. 2 (12A10) and Hipp. Ref. 1.6.6 (12A11), which also speak of the origin of humanity.
Cens. 4.7–8 (28A51) mentions Empedocles’ theory of the origin from the earth of individual limbs and what followed, adding that Parmenides held virtually the same view.
Arist. PA 2.2 648a25–31 (28A52, not printed in the Empedocles chapter). Censorinus (above, n. 26) does not differentiate as to status or validity between a doctrine cited from Parmenides’ physics and one from Empedocles’ either.
The original account has been partly preserved in 28B17, ‘boys on the right sides and girls on the left sides’. A parallel echo is at Cens. 5.2 (28A53), cited below, n. 32. In general see further the various accounts of Geurts (1941) 30–35, Lesky (1948), Lesky (1950) 44–50, Lloyd (1962) 60, (1966) 17, 50 with n. 1, and (1972), Gambetti (2006) 98–99, Coxon (2009) 383–387, and Journée (2012) 11–16. Unfortunately no information that would be helpful in the present context is found in the otherwise useful books of Congourdeau (2007) and Brisson & alii (2008).
That the sex of the embryo depends on the side of the womb where it develops is a view that is found elsewhere (e.g. [Hipp.] Aph. 5.48, in a context dealing with the womb). But ps.Plutarch’s ἀποκριθῇ, or Censorinus’ exeat (cf. Kemble (1971) 70) do not mean ‘develops’.
The word does not occur elsewhere in ps.Plutarch, and, curiously enough, is not listed in the index of DG .
See, in general, Journée (2012).
Cens. 6.8 (28A54), cum dexterae partes semina dederint, tunc filios esse patri consimiles, cum laevae, tunc matri, and 5.2 (28A5) semen unde exeat inter sapientiae professores non constat. Parmenides enim tum ex dextris tum ex laevis partibus oriri putavit.
Thus disagreeing with Kember (1971) 71–72. [Gal.] PhH c. 115, DG p. 642.12–15, coalesced the two lemmata 5.11.1-2 (Empedocles — Parmenides) and omitted the name-label Parmenides. In this ‘Parmenides’ section he reads ἀπὸ τῶν δεξιῶν μερῶν τῆς μήτρας τὸ σπέρμα instead of ἀπὸ τοῦ δεξιοῦ μέρους τῆς μήτρας ὁ γόνος. Thus one branch of the tradition of ps.Plutarch preserved τῶν δεξιῶν and τὸ σπέρμα, another branch τοῦ δεξιοῦ and ὁ γόνος. In view of the parallel with 5.7.4, τὰ δέξια μέρη τῆς μήτρας and the plurals δεξιτεροῖσιν and λαιοῖσι in B17 and those in Censorinus (above, n. 32), ps.Galen’s formula δεξιῶν μερῶν is better than ps.Plutarch’s δεξιοῦ μέρους (the change from σπέρμα to γόνος in relation to the womb may have brought along that from plural μερῶν to singular μέρους). To restore the text of Aëtius one should replace γόνος with σπέρμα, and next add a reference to the right ‘parts’, which I shall not attempt here.
Cens. 5.4, illud quoque ambiguam facit inter auctores opinionem, utrumne ex patris tantummodo semine partus nascatur, … an etiam ex matris, quod Anaxagorae et Alcmaeoni [cf. below, n. 36] necnon Parmenidi (28A54) Empedoclique et Epicuro visum est.
Tert. de An. 43 (28A46b) — printing error de An. 45 in DK: Empedocles et Parmenides refrigerationem. For Empedocles on sleep see 5.24.2 and 5.25.4; we may hypothesize that the Parmenides doxa preserved by Tertullian derives from a cousin writing of Aëtius with both these names in the relevant chapter(s).
Lesky (1950) 41 firmly believes in a Pythagorean precedent, but there is no evidence for Early Pythagorean views on sex differentiation and its causes. Alcmaeon’s view, according to which the predominance of the sperm of the male or female parent determines the sex of the child, is cited Cens. 6.4 (ex quo parente seminis amplius fuit, eius sexum repraesentari dixit Alcmaeon, 24A14). But he cannot count as a predecessor, for if, as is now quite generally assumed, the synchronism of Alcmaeon with Pythagoras at Met. A.5 986a29–31 is due to interpolation, there is no evidence for a floruit earlier than ca. 440 BCE, which makes him at least a generation later than Parmenides. He is a contemporary of the second group of Pythagoreans, discussed Met. Α.5 986a22–26. In their turn these are not later or earlier than the first group discussed in the same chapter of Met. Α, which includes Philolaus.
Discussed, but somewhat exaggerated, by Kember (1971); cf. above, n. 33 and text thereto.
Journée (2012) 290–296.
Eros borrowed from Hes. Theog. 116–122, as Aristotle, presumably using Hippias’ anthology, already noted (Met. Α.4 983b23–27, ad 28B13), but used in a different and novel sense. The function of this Eros reminds one of the Young Gods of Timaeus.
For the offerings of fictile wombs with pronounced right ovaries in the temple of Hera at Paestum see the paper of P. Ebner (not accessible to me) cited in Zeller – Mondolfo – Reale (2011) 278 n.: ‘si tratta di votivi offerti alla Dea per invocare il concepimento di un maschio’. For the association of left with female and right with male as very early Greek beliefs see Lloyd (1962).
This evaluation is the opposite of that of the great Eduard Zeller (1963) 719, ‘Was er über den Unterschied der Geschlechter und die Entstehung derselben bei der Zeugung sagte, ist unerheblich’. True enough, but Zeller was thinking of the actual content and failed to take the innovative aspect into account
Cf. much later a subdivision of Stoic physics, Diog. Laërt. 7.133: ‘in the first of its [sc. of etiology’s] investigations medical inquiries have a share, in so far as it involves the inquiry … into semen and things similar thereto’ (μιᾷ δ’ αὐτοῦ ἐπισκέψει ἐπικοινωνεῖν τὴν τῶν ἰατρῶν ζήτησιν, καθ’ ἣν ζητοῦσι … περὶ σπερμάτων καὶ τῶν τούτοις ὁμοίων).
Kraus (2013) 2.496 rightly concludes that, notwithstanding the fragmentary nature of the evidence, the second part of the Poem ‘zweifellos die avanciertesten naturwissenschaftlichen Theorien seiner Zeit in den verschiedensten Disziplinen bot’. But he fails to single out the physiology etc. qua entirely innovative contribution.
Inscription of the 1st cent. CE, first published Ebner (1962) 32 ff., with plate 6: Παρμεναίδης Πύρητος Οὐλιάδης φυσικός. Note φυσικός, not ἰατρός as in the other inscriptions of this group. See further Samama (2003) 544–545, Zeller – Mondolfo – Reale (2011) 278 n., Gambetti (2008), Schirren and Rechenauer (2013) 1.193, also for further references.
The Greek texts with facing English translation are printed from 1.3.13 to 5.30.4 at Coxon (2009) 146–155.
For problems connected with this phrase see above, nn.28–34, and text thereto.
In our forthcoming edition with commentary of the Placita (J. Mansfeld and D. T. Runia, Aëtiana IV) we argue that this lemma should be moved to 5.28.2. In the present context this is unimportant.
See above, n. 11.
As Diels DG 162 already saw, this lemma should be moved to 3.14.2.
For the asterisks see above, n. 12.
1.3.13, extant only at Theod. CAG 4.7, has been omitted because in our forthcoming edition (above, n. 47) we argue that CAG 4.7–12 have not been abstracted from Aëtius, but from one of the cousin writings, or from more than one.Haut de page