Introduction. Platonic Idea versus Plato s Eidos

Transcription

1 Introution Platoni Ia vrsus Plato s Eios Th Parmnis ialogu is aout i (εἴδη, th plural form of th Grk wor εἶδος, ios). It is th founation on whih Plato uils vrything ls that h says aout i in ight othr ruial ialogus (Phao, Thattus, Sophist, Statsman, Hippias Major, Philus, Timaus an Rpuli). But what i Plato, who oin th trm, man y ios? On th answr to this qustion hings our appriation of what happn in th history of Wstrn thought sin Plato s ath. Th ialogu has n transmitt own to our ay from antiquity with th mislaing titl Parmnis, or aout ias (Παρμενίδης ἢ περὶ ἰδεῶν). But this is not th titl givn y Plato. It was assign to th txt som 350 yars aftr Plato s ath y Thrasyllus, th anint itor of Plato s ialogus an a Stoi onfiant of Empror Tirius. Th itorial ision to nam th ialogu aout ias ontrait th fat that th ialogu is not aout ias ut aout i an th unity of i, an also ontrait th larly stat onlusion 1 that i annot possily ias or, in, any kin of mntal ntitis. Following Thrasyllus 250 yars latr (an 600 yars aftr Plato s ath), Diogns Lartius assrts that Plato alls th ia also ios 2. Thus, th onfusion of th two trms was nvr a mattr of prolmati translations from th Grk original to othr languags. Th onfusion originat among th original Grk spaking rars of Plato an only intnsifi whn translations of th ialogu into othr languags wr attmpt. M. Tullius Ciro, who is rsponsil for translating Grk philosophial trms into Latin an thus insrting thm into wstrn languags, slightly for Thrasyllus translat εἶδος into th Latiniz Grk gnus, an ἰδέα into th Latin forma an also spis. Marsilio Fiino in his omprhnsiv lat 15 th ntury translation of all of Plato s works (th first vr in th non-grk Wst) translat εἶδος into th Latin spis an ἰδέα into th Latiniz Grk ia. Th ritial arly 16 th ntury Stphanus ition of Plato s ialogus translat εἶδος into th Latin spis an ἰδέα into th Latiniz Grk ia, to whih it attah th parnthti larifiation (i st forma). Morn translations hav gratr varity. Chrniss (1939) uss ia for oth εἶδος an ἰδέα, a prati that was start y Jowtt in 1892; A.E. Taylor (1934) uss form for oth εἶδος an ἰδέα; Cornfor (1939) uss form for εἶδος an haratr for ἰδέα. R.E. Alln (1997) uss haratr for εἶδος an haratristi for ἰδέα. Lss stalish translations us onpt, onption, kin, shap, figur, look, t., variously for ithr εἶδος or ἰδέα or oth. 1 Plato, Parmnis 132a Diogns Lartius, Livs an Opinions of Eminnt Philosophrs III.64

2 If on as to this sanalous situation th fat that ah of ths trms ia, form, haratr, onpt, kin, t. is loa with many an iffrnt layrs of maning that hav n pil up on top of ah othr ovr 24 nturis, on an safly onlu that, with all its aumulat ruition of ovr two millnnia, th soi isant philosophial ommunity has no lu (ttr yt, no ia) of what Plato is talking aout in th Parmnis. Th polit trminus thnius to not this lulssnss is Plato s most nigmati ialogu. This stat of affairs is root in th original failur of th Grk spaking sussors of Plato to unrstan why h not only gos to lngths to istinguish twn εἶδος an ἰδέα ut that Plato s ntir thought hings on that istintion. That original failur of Plato s Grk spaking sussors is what aus th sanalous situation of translations from th tim of Ciro to at. History woul hav n iffrnt if Plato s wor, εἶδος, ha n simply translitrat into Latin as ios, ntr wstrn languags in that form, an n allow to aquir its maning from ontxt an usag, as ha happn with so many othr Grk trms ithr through irt translitration ( thory, mtho, hypothsis, ia, mathmatis, t.) or through th oining of Latin nologisms, as Ciro i, to rnr vital philosophial trms initiat y Plato or Aristotl. Som ky Grk philosophial trms naturaliz to wstrn languags y Ciro in this way ar: ἄτομον = iniviuum = iniviual; ποιότης = qualitas = quality; ποσότης = quantitas = quantity; οὐσία = ssntia = ssn; ἐπ-αγωγή = in-utio = inution; ἀπ-αγωγή = -utio = ution. Th translation that follows os somthing similar. Insta of attmpting to fin a morn English quivalnt to rnr εἶδος, a wor that Plato ha nlist to srv a spifi philosophial uty, I simply translitrat it as ios (plural i) an lt it invst with th maning that th ialogu intns. Aoringly, Thrasyllus s titl aout ias (περὶ ἰδεῶν) shoul hang to aout i (περὶ εἰδῶν). Th ialtial prour for shing light on ios In this ialogu, th wor ios appars 56 tims an th wor ia only svn tims six of thm in passags intn to raw a sharp istintion twn ios an ia 3. Clarly, as far as th Parmnis ialogu is onrn, Plato s ios an ia ar two iffrnt things. But th traition has han own th lgns of platoni ias an platoni thory of forms as on th prsistnt onfusion of ios an ia. Eios in this ialogu is portray as an xtra-mntal ojt of knowlg, whil ia is th mntal prption that orrspons to that xtra-mntal ojt of knowlg. In aition, ios is not matrial aus th flting haratr of mattr prlus knowlg 4, whras ios is assrt to itslf an ojt of knowlg 5. How an a ral ntity oth 3 Plato, Parmnis 132a-, 132-, 133-, 134a9-2, an Th riving imptus of all Grk philosophy from th outst was th puzzl of xtrating stal ojts of knowlg from an vr hanging matrial worl. 5 Op. it

3 xtra-mntal an immatrial? Also, how an it that ios is not sparat from th matrial worl, though itslf immatrial 6? Th first part of th ialogu ( ) is th initial prsntation y a young an inxprin Sorats of a naïv an unworkal thory of i, follow y th thory s mrilss rfutation y th lrly an xprin Parmnis. This first part ns with th gift youngstr an th wis ol man onluing in agrmnt that th ios is a ral, xtramntal, immatrial ntity, alit not apart from th matrial worl without whih thinking annot our. How is suh a smingly paraoxial thing possil an how is our min to grasp it? On may mouth th wors ios is an ojt of knowlg whih is ral, xtra-mntal, not matrial ut also not sparat from mattr, ut for th min to grasp this paraoxial ios in a singl at of unrstaning if vn possil will th work of prolong an laorious ialtial prour. Suh a ialtial prour is arri out in th son part of th ialogu from 1358 to th vry n at What transpirs in this lngthy, nsly pak an vry hallnging son part is st unrstoo with th hlp of a sription of th ialtial prour as sri y Sorats in a lngthy isussion in Rpuli a1. Th ky passag that shs light on what is going on in th Parmnis is: th ialtial mtho alon pros in this way, nullifying th hypothss up to th founing prinipl itslf, whr it will sur (ἡ διαλεκτικὴ μέθοδος μόνη ταύτῃ πορεύεται, τὰς ὑποθέσεις ἀναιροῦσα, ἐπ αὐτὴν τὴν ἀρχὴν ἵνα βεβαιώσηται») 7. Prhaps nullifying is not an aquat translation of ἀναιροῦσα an othr translations hav n suggst, suh as onfuting, oing away, anling out, t. Th intn maning is not to pro as if th hypothss nvr xist ut rathr to tak th hypothss into aount an to sujt thm to a pross that suprss thm, that givs ris to somthing, to a slf-vint rtainty that was not ontain in th hypothss. Th mthoial nullifiation of a omprhnsiv st of hypothss inus th mrgn into viw of th founing prinipl, th ἀρχή. It is a mov to inution. It is prisly this mtho of nullifiation of hypothss sri in th Rpuli that th lrly Parmnis proposs in our ialogu in 136a4-5 an susquntly arris it out y invstigating th impliations of ah of a omprhnsiv st of ight hypothss rgaring th onnss of ios. Th summary rsult of ths ight invstigations is th onluing sntn of th ialogu: Lt us thrfor say this in aition: that, as it sms, whthr th on is or is not, oth it an th othrs, oth in rlation to thmslvs an ah othr, all in vry way oth ar an ar not an appar an o not appar. A mor omprhnsiv nullifiation of th ight pring hypothss is iffiult to imagin. Th nullifiation ing now omplt, what rmains is to mak th inutiv lap to th un- 6 Ii a3. 7 Plato, Rpuli

4 hypothsiz founing prinipl, th ἀρχή, namly to stat that whih th ialogu sks, to answr th qustion of what is th ios. That is nvr spll out y Plato. What th ios is not was alray spll out in th first part of th ialogu: it is not a mntal ntity, it is not matrial an it is not sparat from mattr. But what it is must not spll out y Plato ut must insta inu y his rar as a rsult of xprining this proural nullifiation of hypothss. Th rar/stunt will ithr gt it or will not gt it. Plato s splling it out woul not gnrat th rquisit insight in th min of that rar/stunt who os not alray possss th apaity to grasp what ios is. Thos who possss this apaity to s th ialtial prour to its inutiv onlusion o not n Plato to spll it out. Thos who o not possss that apaity will not hlp y Plato s splling it out an thy might harm: having fail to gt it aftr this aruous journy of hypothsis nullifiation, thy ar likly to apply any numr of aritrary intrprtations on whatvr Plato might spll out as an affirmativ answr to th qustion of what is ios. Plato s mthoial rfusal to provi an affirmativ answr aftr h has provi a omprhnsiv pathway to th answr is his way of safguaring truths that an only possss as a rsult of all-onsuming, aruous ffort. Thr is a iffrn twn parroting th wors of a right answr y rot an grasping its ssn with th min. Plato s spoon-fing th right answr woul only provi oasion to avoi th aruous ffort an nourag th parroting. Plato s rfusal to spoon-f lnt som rn to Aristotl s unfoun laim that Plato ha an unwrittn otrin istint from what is foun in his ialogus. In susqunt nturis, this unfortunat mistak of Aristotl was siz y mystial spulators of all typs as an opportunity to laim lgitimay for thir mystial viws y posing as intrprtrs of Plato s unwrittn otrin. This long lin of mystial No-Platoni spulators strths from Plotinus an Prolus to Hgl an th Tuingn Shool an, for th most part, is as on imaginativ raings of th Parmnis. But imagination (εἰκασία), th favor tool of th No-Platonists, is rank y Plato as th lowst of our faultis, nath th faulty of rasoning an nath vn mr opinion 8, whras in th Parmnis h rquirs th appliation of th highst faulty, th pur intllt, νοῦς. Th No-Platoni intrprtations of th Parmnis ar prisly th ararous sspool 9 against whih Plato insists on ploying th maning rigor of his ialtial mtho. Som faturs of ios glan from th nullifi hypothss Th ight hypothss aout th on, whthr it an its many ountrparts xist or o not xist ar aout ios an th many partiipants. Th quivaln twn th on an ios is larly stalish in passag 1327: ios this vry ojt that is thought to on. Aftr that point in th txt, vrything that is sai aout th on an its many, th othrs, applis for ios an its othrs, its partiipants. 8 Aoring to th ranking of faultis in th Rpuli a5. 9 Rpuli 5331: «ἐν βορβόρῳ βαρβαρικῷ».

5 Th first hypothsis xamins th impliations of th on viw simply as pur onnss an onlus that a pur an simpl on annot xist, annot vn thought, lt alon spokn. To on it has to som singl thing. It has to somthing. It has to hav ing. If it is asolutly an simply on without ing a rtain on thing, a somthing, it is apart from xisting things, it laks ing. Th son hypothsis xamins th impliations of th on that is now with ing, a on that atually xists, an onlus that th on os not hav mrly ing in th astrat. It has ousia, sustan, a partiular kin of ing. Bing in th astrat is a onptual invntion that oms aftr Plato s tim. Th Grk wor to on (τὸ ὂν) whih is usually an wrongly translat as Bing with a apital B, atually mans that whih is, not Bing in th astrat ut this onrt ing. For somthing to an on (ὂν), a onrt ing, it must hav a partiular kin of sustan, an ousia (οὐσία) a sustan in th sns mant whn w say hmial sustan. As a rsult of this, th onlusion follows that this sustantial on, this ios, is no longr a simpl on ut has at last two parts, its onnss an its sustan, an that ah of ths two parts also onsists of onnss an sustan a infinitum. But it is also whol. Th slf-multipliativ haratr of th ios givs ris to isrt multitu, an infinit omain of finit numrs. Its haratr of whol givs ris to ontinuous quantity. Th ios is oth on an infinit many, oth th founing prinipl, th ἀρχή of th multitu an th whol of th multitu oth isrt an ontinuous. Oviously, th ios is sn as on in thr iffrnt snss of th on: (1) th on as founing prinipl of th st, (2) th on in th sns of th st as a whol an (3) th on as a singl mmr of th st. Also, th fat that th ios is whol givs ris to ounaris that oth ontain this whol an maintain ontat what whatvr is outsi this whol. This ios, th on that has sustan, τὸ ὂν, gnrats th nst manifol of spa. Th ios givs ris to spa an spa is rlativ to it; it is not rlativ to spa. Finally, aus of its unfoling into multitu, its oming a whol an a ontinuous quantity, th ios givs ris to tim an tim is rlativ to it; it is not rlativ to tim. What is this onrt thing that has sustan, this ntity, this on (ὂν), whih in orr to must oth on an many an a whol, an in th pross of so ing gnrat isrt numr, ontinuous quantity, spa an tim? In this haunting qustion th son hypothsis onlus. Th thir hypothsis xamins th impliations for th many, th things that ar th othrs of th on, whn w assum that th on has sustan. It ns y onluing that th othrs xist in a mannr onsistnt with th finings of th son hypothsis.

6 Th fourth hypothsis mirrors th first: what happns to thos things that ar th othrs of th on if th on, as pr th first hypothsis, has no ing? Hypothsizing a pur on that os not shar in ing maks whatvr things ar th othrs of this pur-an-simpl on lak any haratristi an in this way mirror that non-xistnt on. Both it an thy togthr ar all that thr is whih mans that oth togthr ar nothing a prim xampl of hypothsis nullifiation. Ths thn ar th four hypothss that assum th on (ithr as ios or as pur an simpl onnss voi of ing) an th impliations of this assumption oth for th on itslf an for th othrs. Th rmaining four hypothss xamin th impliations for th on an th othrs if w assum that th on is not ithr asolutly or rlativly. If (sixth hypothsis) th on is not, in th asolut sns that it os not xist at all, it is impossil for it vn to appar to xist an this in turn (ighth hypothsis) maks it impossil vn to oniv what th othrs that woul orrspon to it might ; nithr th on nor th othrs xist or vn appar to xist. Furthr, if (fifth hypothsis) th on is not, in th rlativ sns that it is not somthing in partiular ut othrwis it xists, thn th onsqun for th on is that it shars in oth ing an not-ing, an thus is sujt to altration twn ing an not-ing an whn altr it is sujt to oming an prishing an whn not altr it is not sujt to oming an prishing. Finally, if (svnth hypothsis) th on is not in this rlativ sns ut insta it is in som vagu an unfin sns, th onsqun for th othrs is that thy ar othrs to somthing unfin an vagu, thrfor ar thmslvs unfin an vagu. Unal to ithr on or many an laking a propr othr thy sm to ah othr s othr, ut laking a on annot propr multitus ut sm to unlimit ulks whos sming fragmnts that appar smallst on momnt sunly sm olossal th nxt a ramlik stat of sming. To summariz: hypothss on, four, six, svn an ight ar nullifi y rsulting in asuritis. Th rmaining thr hypothss unrgo nullifiation only if w hang on to our natural, naïv onptions of on, is, part, whol, tim an spa. Th son hypothsis prous a paraoxial rsult that sris th on/ios as th onstitutiv ntity of a puliar ontologial orr: a thing that is, an on (ὂν) that is a singular founing prinipl whih, qua a whol ontains all its foun parts, qua th sum of its parts is ontain y th whol an qua founing prinipl stans aov oth th whol an th sum of th parts; morovr, th founing ation of this ios givs ris to isrt numr, ontinuous quantity, spa an tim.

7 Th thir hypothsis las to th onlusion that th things whih ar th othr of th on/ios hav th sam i.., orrsponing paraoxial haratristis that th on/ios was foun to hav in th son hypothsis. Th fifth hypothsis, at last, givs som first iniations in what partiular ways non-ing is an how th ialti of ing an non-ing rivs th pross of oming to an prishing an may provi th founation for an unrstaning how xatly partiipation of th many in th on is possil. (This is a thm that Plato famously luiats furthr in th Sophist). Th onlusions of ths thr last hypothss ar not prsnt as nullifiations y asurity ut rathr as nullifiations y paraox. For th Sorati ialtial prour to tak off from th nullifiation of hypothss an pro to an inutiv grasp of th un-hypothsiz founing prinipl, th ἀρχή, it must isar th asur onlusions of th arlir hypothss an onntrat on th impliations of th paraoxial onlusions of th son, thir an fifth hypothss. Ths paraoxs will not rsolv unlss our notions of on, ing, not-ing, part, whol, spa, an tim ar moifi in ways that liminat ths apparnt paraoxs. From this ialtial inution th maning of Plato s ios will mrg. Som historial rama hin th ialogu Plato wrot this ialogu to sri a lgnary vnt that ha takn pla narly a ntury prior to th tim of his writing an in for h was orn. It is proaly Plato s only ialogu othr than th Protagoras that sris a onvrsation that ourr for his liftim. Th tim of Plato s writing was a tim of uttr isintgration of th lassial Grk worl. That ntir worl was ontinuing to torn apart y an nlss string of fratriial wars twn an within ity-stats that ha gun in 431 B.C. with th Ploponnsian War an nvr n until th yar 146 B.C., whn Roman lgions raz to th groun Corinth (inintally th vry ity-stat that ha n th instigator of th Ploponnsian War), an thus omplt Rom s onqust of th Grk worl an staunh its ling. Whn Plato wrot th ialogu, Athns ha long ago suffr its humiliating fat in th Ploponnsian War, ha sn its ovrsas mpir stroy, its population imat, an its politial lass huml into parohial irrlvany an slf-lusion. Th grat rival of Athns, th on prou Sparta that ha fat Athns in th Ploponnsian War, was now also impotnt an humiliat y fat at th hans of th asnant Ths. Prsia-finan Ths, th prnnial Prsia-ollaorators of th Grk worl, ha om th tmporary aritr of Grk affairs. Virtually vry politial fation in vry signifiant Grk ity-stat was ithr pnnt on ris from th Prsian Court or was aspiring to so pnnt. Th ag of th from of Grk ity-stats was ovr whn Plato wrot this ialogu an it was not to rturn vr again.

8 For rason, Plato sts th ramati at of th ialogu in th summr of th yar 450 B.C. If a tim may pik to mark th highst point of lassial Grk ivilization, th most solmn momnt of its trajtory, it woul th yar 450 an, mor spifially, th summr of that yar whn a triumphant Athns was lrating its quarnnial Grat Panathnaa fstival. This was th wk of July 28-August 3 of 450 B.C. or, aoring to th Atti alnar, of Hatomaion in th 3 r yar of th 82 n Olympia. That was th momnt of th lgnary mting twn th grat Parmnis, th unisput towring intllt of his tim, an th rstlss gnius of th aolsnt Sorats. That nountr prou an intlltual ahivmnt that has yt to run its ours in th history of man. In that histori summr of 450 B.C., a rilliant allian twn Athns an Sparta, th two laing Grk ity-stats, ha unifi an was jointly laing th ntir Grk univrs all 2,000-plus ity-stats spra from th Crima in th Blak Sa to th wstrn Mitrranan oasts of Gaul an Iria. This allian ha for th ntir Prsian Empir into stratgi rtrat whil alli Grk armis an navis prss forwar all aross th orrlans of Wstrn Asia an North Afria. In Athns itslf, a rar, short-liv momnt of ivi onor prvail twn th aristorati an morati partis that ha struk a powr-sharing al whry th aristorat lar Cimon shar powr with th morat lar Prils, th first in harg of forign an military poliy th son in harg of omsti an onomi affairs. On that summr of 450 B.C. almost all th grat prsonalitis that ma up th flting miral of lassial Grk ivilization wr aliv: Hrootus, Thuyis, Sophols, Euripis, Sorats, Prils, Cimon, Parmnis, Zno, Anaxagoras, Dmoritus, Luippus, Empols, Protagoras, Gorgias, Pinar, Hipporats, Zuxis, Phiias, Itinus, Callirats, l at. Ths prsons provi th living ontxt for th nountr of Parmnis an Sorats that prou th astonishing thoughts ror in th Parmnis ialogu. In writing this ialogu, Plato situats th tim, pla an prsonalitis assoiat with this ntral ahivmnt of lassial Grk ivilization that h, Plato, tris to prsrv for postrity. That ahivmnt is th unrstaning of ios as it mrgs in th Parmnis ialogu. Th ialogu marks th launhing of Sorats s philosophial arr. Th vry sam thms of this ialogu ar prsnt again for furthr laoration in a numr of isussions that Sorats an othrs hl at th n of Sorats s lif a fw ays for his ath. Ths isussions ar ror in th Thattus, Sophist, Statsman, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito an Phao. Thy must ra as irt ontinuation an laoration of th argumnt launh in th Parmnis or thir point will miss. Thr is an important iffrn twn th Parmnis an ths svn othr ialogus sriing th last ays of Sorats. In ths lattr ialogus w an rasonaly rtain that Plato s rports of what th various intrloutors say in th ialogus orrspon roughly with what thos intrloutors atually sai. All ths lattr ialogus supply thir own vin of th vraity of what Plato attriuts to th various spakrs. Th Thattus, Sophist an Statsman ar as on writtn nots that Sorats himslf proofra whil in prison, as w ar tol y Eulis of Mgara, th ialogus narrator an a prsonal frin of Sorats an Plato. If

9 Plato s rport ha not onform with th writtn nots lar y Sorats, Eulis woul hav ojt in ways that oul not miss y postrity. Th txt of th Apology is unontstaly what Sorats sai at his trial as all Athnians of th tim woul hav known an as Xnophon, a frin of Sorats an voal riti of Plato, also onurs; th highly ramati Phao not only rports what oth Sorats an all thos prsnt at his ath sai ut also rors th atual nams of all thos prsnt, all of whom wr living whn th ialogu was pulish. Givn that most of thm wr notal prsonalitis in thir own right, ha thy thought Plato s ror of th vnt inaurat w woul hav har from thm. Th sam is tru of th Euthyphro an th Crito ialogus thy ha living y-an ar-witnsss at th tim of puliation. Not so with th Parmnis. Plato hr rports th proings at fourth han: Cphalus, an othrwis unintifi visitor from Clazomna, rports what h har som tim arlir from Antiphon, Plato s half-rothr, who in turn har from his olr frin Pythoorus an aount of what ha transpir twn th young Sorats an th lr Parmnis. Th story of th nountr mrgs from th mist of lgn: th grat vnt took pla a long tim ago in a goln ag of vitorious an fr itis, national unity, ivi onor, grat mn an grat ahivmnts, an now rahs own to us in fat, moraliz Athns as a mmory to look up to, a lsson to larn, a lgay to prsrv for all mankin as a possssion for all tim as Thuyis woul hav sai. A poignant tail: th ntirty of th laorat, ns an intlltually xhausting argumnts of that onvrsation of 450 B.C. is rpat wor for wor from mmory y Plato s half-rothr Antiphon who har thm an mmoriz thm as a young oy many yars for. H must hav n quit a iat an gift lovr of wisom ak thn to ngag is suh a narly impossil fat of mmorization. But now h is a mil ag man whos philosophial flam has gon out long ago an is now only intrst in horsmanship an th ring of horss th traitional proupation of a rtiring ountry gntlman of his tim. Whn ask to rtll th ol story h ojts at first to th prospt of rvisiting ol lovs ut, aftr som ajoling y th ol aquaintan from Clazomna an his two rothrs, Antiphon s ol spark flikrs for a rif momnt an h agrs to roam again, for on last tim, in that philosophial vast sa of wors as th grat Parmnis ha on all it. Antiphon rahs p own in his mmory an rtlls th lgnary nountr without a flaw an without a halt prhaps th only Platoni ialogu of suh intnsity without th ustomary igrssion. Antiphon finishs his livry an isappars from th stag of history nvr to har of again. Plato tips his hat to his half-rothr, th fat, rtiring Athnian ountry gntlman who was on a lovr of wisom an now is a lovr of horss an th kpr of prilss mmoris. Criton M. Zoakos 1/18/2019 Copyright 2019

10 2019 Translation y Criton M. Zoakos Plato s Parmnis Enountr in th marktpla ΚΕΦΑΛΟΣ Ἐπειδὴ Ἀθήναζε οἴκοθεν ἐκ Κλαζομενῶν ἀφικόμεθα, κατ ἀγορὰν ἐνετύχομεν Ἀδειμάντῳ τε καὶ Γλαύκωνι καί μου λαβόμενος τῆς χειρὸς ὁ Ἀδείμαντος, Χαῖρ, ἔφη, ὦ Κέφαλε, καὶ εἴ του δέῃ τῶν τῇδε ὧν ἡμεῖς δυνατοί, φράζε. Ἀλλὰ μὲν δή, εἶπον ἐγώ, πάρειμί γε ἐπ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, δεησόμενος ὑμῶν. Λέγοις ἄν, ἔφη, τὴν δέησιν. Καὶ ἐγὼ εἶπον Τῷ ἀδελφῷ ὑμῶν τῷ ὁμομητρίῳ τί ἦν ὄνομα; οὐ γὰρ μέμνημαι. παῖς δέ που ἦν, ὅτε τὸ πρότερον ἐπεδήμησα δεῦρο ἐκ Κλαζομενῶν πολὺς δὲ ἤδη χρόνος ἐξ ἐκείνου. τῷ μὲν γὰρ πατρί, δοκῶ, Πυριλάμπης ὄνομα. Πάνυ γε, ἔφη. Αὐτῷ δέ γε; Ἀντιφῶν. ἀλλὰ τί μάλιστα πυνθάνῃ; Οἵδε, εἶπον ἐγώ, πολῖταί τ ἐμοί εἰσι, μάλα φιλόσοφοι, ἀκηκόασί τε ὅτι οὗτος ὁ Ἀντιφῶν Πυθοδώρῳ τινὶ Ζήνωνος ἑταίρῳ πολλὰ ἐντετύχηκε, καὶ τοὺς λόγους, οὕς ποτε Σωκράτης καὶ Ζήνων καὶ Παρμενίδης διελέχθησαν, πολλάκις ἀκούσας τοῦ Πυθοδώρου ἀπομνημονεύει. Ἀληθῆ, ἔφη, λέγεις. Τούτων τοίνυν, εἶπον, δεόμεθα διακοῦσαι. Ἀλλ οὐ χαλεπόν, ἔφη μειράκιον γὰρ ὢν αὐτοὺς εὖ μάλα διεμελέτησεν, ἐπεὶ νῦν γε κατὰ τὸν πάππον τε καὶ ὁμώνυμον πρὸς ἱππικῇ τὰ πολλὰ διατρίβει. ἀλλ εἰ δεῖ, ἴωμεν παρ αὐτόν ἄρτι γὰρ ἐνθένδε οἴκαδε οἴχεται, οἰκεῖ δὲ ἐγγὺς ἐν Μελίτῃ. Ταῦτα εἰπόντες ἐβαδίζομεν, καὶ κατελάβομεν τὸν Ἀντιφῶντα οἴκοι, χαλινόν τινα χαλκεῖ ἐκδιδόντα σκευάσαι ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐκείνου ἀπηλλάγη οἵ τε ἀδελφοὶ ἔλεγον αὐτῷ ὧν ἕνεκα παρεῖμεν, ἀνεγνώρισέν τέ με ἐκ τῆς προτέρας ἐπιδημίας καί με ἠσπάζετο, καὶ δεομένων ἡμῶν διελθεῖν τοὺς λόγους, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ὤκνει πολὺ γὰρ ἔφη ἔργον εἶναι ἔπειτα μέντοι διηγεῖτο. ἔφη δὲ δὴ ὁ Ἀντιφῶν λέγειν τὸν Πυθόδωρον ὅτι ἀφίκοιντό ποτε εἰς Παναθήναια τὰ μεγάλα Ζήνων τε καὶ Παρμενίδης. τὸν μὲν οὖν Παρμενίδην εὖ μάλα ἤδη πρεσβύτην εἶναι, σφόδρα πολιόν, καλὸν δὲ κἀγαθὸν τὴν ὄψιν, περὶ ἔτη μάλιστα πέντε καὶ ἑξήκοντα Ζήνωνα δὲ ἐγγὺς τῶν τετταράκοντα τότε εἶναι, εὐμήκη δὲ καὶ χαρίεντα ἰδεῖν, καὶ λέγεσθαι αὐτὸν παιδικὰ τοῦ Παρμενίδου γεγονέναι. καταλύειν δὲ αὐτοὺς ἔφη παρὰ τῷ Πυθοδώρῳ ἐκτὸς τείχους ἐν Κεραμεικῷ οἷ δὴ καὶ ἀφικέσθαι τόν τε Σωκράτη καὶ ἄλλους τινὰς μετ CEPHALUS: Aftr w arriv in Athns from Clazomna, our hom, w mt with Aimantus an Glauon in th marktpla; an Aimantus took m y th han an sai: Grtings, Cphalus, an if you n anything that w an o for you, say so. But rally, I sai, that is xatly why I am hr, to ask you a favor. Spak thn, h sai, what favor? An I sai: What was th nam of your matrnal half-rothr? I on t rmmr. H was just a hil whn I was last hr from Clazomna an a long tim has pass sin thn. His fathr s nam was Pyrilamps, I liv. In, h sai. An his own nam? Antiphon. But why o you ask? Ths hr, I sai, ar fllow itizns of min, vry philosophial, an thy hav har that this Antiphon ha many nountrs with a rtain Pythoorus, a ompanion of Zno, an rmmrs th isussions that Sorats, Zno an Parmnis on ha, having har thm many tims from Pythoorus. What you say is tru, h sai. Thn it is ths argumnts that w n to har, I sai. But that s not iffiult, h sai, givn that h stui thm thoroughly as a youngstr, although now h spns most of his tim with horss lik his granfathr an namsak. But lt us go to him if you want; h just wnt hom from hr an livs nary in Mlit. Having sai this w walk an aught up with Antiphon at hom haning a ril to a opprsmith to fitt. Aftr h ismiss th man, an his rothrs xplain to him why w wr thr, h rogniz m from my arlir visit an mra m; an whn w ask him to rount th argumnts h was rlutant at first aus, h sai, it was a lot of work ut thn h gan to talk. Antiphon sri how Pythoorus rount that Zno an Parmnis ha on arriv for th Grat Panathnaa, Parmnis ing wll avan in yars, whit hair, of hansom an goo apparan, aout sixty-fiv yars of ag; an Zno narly forty yars ol thn, tall an graful looking an it was rumor that h ha n Parmnis s

11 αὐτοῦ πολλούς, ἐπιθυμοῦντας ἀκοῦσαι τῶν τοῦ Ζήνωνος γραμμάτων τότε γὰρ αὐτὰ πρῶτον ὑπ ἐκείνων κομισθῆναι Σωκράτη δὲ εἶναι τότε σφόδρα νέον. ἀναγιγνώσκειν οὖν αὐτοῖς τὸν Ζήνωνα αὐτόν, τὸν δὲ Παρμενίδην τυχεῖν ἔξω ὄντα καὶ εἶναι πάνυ βραχὺ ἔτι λοιπὸν τῶν λόγων ἀναγιγνωσκομένων, ἡνίκα αὐτός τε ἐπεισελθεῖν ἔφη ὁ Πυθόδωρος ἔξωθεν καὶ τὸν Παρμενίδην μετ αὐτοῦ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλη τὸν τῶν τριάκοντα γενόμενον, καὶ σμίκρ ἄττα ἔτι ἐπακοῦσαι τῶν γραμμάτων οὐ μὴν αὐτός γε, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρότερον ἀκηκοέναι τοῦ Ζήνωνος. lovr. An h sai that thy took up rsin with Pythoorus outsi th wall in th Cramius, an that oth Sorats an rtain numrous othrs ha arriv thr who sir to har from th writings of Zno sin this was th first tim thy ha rought thm an that Sorats was vry young at that tim. Zno himslf ra to thm whil Parmnis happn to out of th hous; an Pythoorus sai that it was vry shortly for th rst of th argumnts ha n ra that h am in from outsi with Parmnis an Aristotls (th on who latr am on of th Thirty Tyrants), an that thy har only th littl that rmain of th writing; ut h himslf ha har Zno s raing prviously. Young Sorats proposs sparat i in answr to Zno s onunrum 128 Τὸν οὖν Σωκράτη ἀκούσαντα πάλιν τε κελεῦσαι τὴν πρώτην ὑπόθεσιν τοῦ πρώτου λόγου ἀναγνῶναι, καὶ ἀναγνωσθείσης, Πῶς, φάναι, ὦ Ζήνων, τοῦτο λέγεις; εἰ πολλά ἐστι τὰ ὄντα, ὡς ἄρα δεῖ αὐτὰ ὅμοιά τε εἶναι καὶ ἀνόμοια, τοῦτο δὲ δὴ ἀδύνατον οὔτε γὰρ τὰ ἀνόμοια ὅμοια οὔτε τὰ ὅμοια ἀνόμοια οἷόν τε εἶναι; οὐχ οὕτω λέγεις; Οὕτω, φάναι τὸν Ζήνωνα. Οὐκοῦν εἰ ἀδύνατον τά τε ἀνόμοια ὅμοια εἶναι καὶ τὰ ὅμοια ἀνόμοια, ἀδύνατον δὴ καὶ πολλὰ εἶναι; εἰ γὰρ πολλὰ εἴη, πάσχοι ἂν τὰ ἀδύνατα. ἆρα τοῦτό ἐστιν ὃ βούλονταί σου οἱ λόγοι, οὐκ ἄλλο τι ἢ διαμάχεσθαι παρὰ πάντα τὰ λεγόμενα ὡς οὐ πολλά ἐστι; καὶ τούτου αὐτοῦ οἴει σοι τεκμήριον εἶναι ἕκαστον τῶν λόγων, ὥστε καὶ ἡγῇ τοσαῦτα τεκμήρια παρέχεσθαι, ὅσουσπερ λόγους γέγραφας, ὡς οὐκ ἔστι πολλά; οὕτω λέγεις, ἢ ἐγὼ οὐκ ὀρθῶς καταμανθάνω; Οὔκ, ἀλλά, φάναι τὸν Ζήνωνα, καλῶς συνῆκας ὅλον τὸ γράμμα ὃ βούλεται. Μανθάνω, εἰπεῖν τὸν Σωκράτη, ὦ Παρμενίδη, ὅτι Ζήνων ὅδε οὐ μόνον τῇ ἄλλῃ σου φιλίᾳ βούλεται ᾠκειῶσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ συγγράμματι. ταὐτὸν γὰρ γέγραφε τρόπον τινὰ ὅπερ σύ, μεταβάλλων δὲ ἡμᾶς πειρᾶται ἐξαπατᾶν ὡς ἕτερόν τι λέγων. σὺ μὲν γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ποιήμασιν ἓν φῂς εἶναι τὸ πᾶν, καὶ τούτων τεκμήρια παρέχῃ καλῶς τε καὶ εὖ ὅδε δὲ αὖ οὐ πολλά φησιν εἶναι, τεκμήρια δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς πάμπολλα καὶ παμμεγέθη παρέχεται. τὸ οὖν τὸν μὲν ἓν φάναι, τὸν δὲ μὴ πολλά, καὶ οὕτως ἑκάτερον λέγειν ὥστε μηδὲν τῶν αὐτῶν εἰρηκέναι δοκεῖν σχεδόν τι λέγοντας ταὐτά, ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἄλλους φαίνεται ὑμῖν τὰ εἰρημένα εἰρῆσθαι. Ναί, φάναι τὸν Ζήνωνα, ὦ Σώκρατες. σὺ δ οὖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ γράμματος οὐ πανταχοῦ ᾔσθησαι. καίτοι ὥσπερ γε αἱ Λάκαιναι σκύλακες εὖ μεταθεῖς τε καὶ ἰχνεύεις τὰ λεχθέντα ἀλλὰ πρῶτον μέν σε τοῦτο λανθάνει, ὅτι οὐ παντάπασιν οὕτω σεμνύνεται τὸ γράμμα, ὥστε ἅπερ σὺ λέγεις διανοηθὲν γραφῆναι, Whn Sorats finish listning, h ask that th first hypothsis of th first argumnt ra again an whn it was ra h sai: How o you argu this, Zno? That if th things that ar ar many, ah ought to oth lik an unlik, whih is impossil aus nithr an th unlik lik nor th lik unlik? Isn t this how you argu? That is how, sai Zno. If thn it is impossil for th unlik to lik an th lik unlik, it is also impossil for thm to many, for if thy wr thy woul suffr th impossil. Is this th aim of your argumnts, to maintain spit vrything that is sai that thr ar not many? An o you think that ah argumnt is proof of this vry thing so that you liv you hav suppli as many proofs that thr ar not many as you hav writtn argumnts? Is this how you argu or am I mistakn? No, sai Zno, you unrstoo wll th aim of th whol writing. I noti, Parmnis, sai Sorats, that Zno hr wants to lav to you not only y mans of your othr lov ut also y his ook. H has writtn th sam thing as you, ut y twisting it somhow h tris to fool us that h says somthing iffrnt. For you in your poms say that all rality is on, an you supply fin an goo proofs; an this on again says that it is not many, an h supplis vry many an vry larg proofs. So you say on an h says not many an ah of you says it in suh a way as to sm that you ar not saying th sam thing at all. To th rst of us it sms that you say things ovr our has. Ys, Sorats, sai Zno. But you hav not sns ompltly th truth of my ook vn though you trak own an hunt th argumnts lik a Spartan ith. But in th first pla th point that you ar missing is this: th ook is not quit as oastful as

12 129 τοὺς ἀνθρώπους δὲ ἐπικρυπτόμενον ὥς τι μέγα διαπραττόμενον ἀλλὰ σὺ μὲν εἶπες τῶν συμβεβηκότων τι, ἔστι δὲ τό γε ἀληθὲς βοήθειά τις ταῦτα [τὰ γράμματα] τῷ Παρμενίδου λόγῳ πρὸς τοὺς ἐπιχειροῦντας αὐτὸν κωμῳδεῖν ὡς εἰ ἕν ἐστι, πολλὰ καὶ γελοῖα συμβαίνει πάσχειν τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἐναντία αὑτῷ. ἀντιλέγει δὴ οὖν τοῦτο τὸ γράμμα πρὸς τοὺς τὰ πολλὰ λέγοντας, καὶ ἀνταποδίδωσι ταὐτὰ καὶ πλείω, τοῦτο βουλόμενον δηλοῦν, ὡς ἔτι γελοιότερα πάσχοι ἂν αὐτῶν ἡ ὑπόθεσις, εἰ πολλά ἐστιν, ἢ ἡ τοῦ ἓν εἶναι, εἴ τις ἱκανῶς ἐπεξίοι. διὰ τοιαύτην δὴ φιλονικίαν ὑπὸ νέου ὄντος ἐμοῦ ἐγράφη, καί τις αὐτὸ ἔκλεψε γραφέν, ὥστε οὐδὲ βουλεύσασθαι ἐξεγένετο εἴτ ἐξοιστέον αὐτὸ εἰς τὸ φῶς εἴτε μή. ταύτῃ οὖν σε λανθάνει, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὅτι οὐχ ὑπὸ νέου φιλονικίας οἴει αὐτὸ γεγράφθαι, ἀλλ ὑπὸ πρεσβυτέρου φιλοτιμίας: ἐπεί, ὅπερ γ εἶπον, οὐ κακῶς ἀπῄκασας. Ἀλλ ἀποδέχομαι, φάναι τὸν Σωκράτη, καὶ ἡγοῦμαι ὡς λέγεις ἔχειν. τόδε δέ μοι εἰπέ οὐ νομίζεις εἶναι αὐτὸ καθ αὑτὸ εἶδός τι ὁμοιότητος, καὶ τῷ τοιούτῳ αὖ ἄλλο τι ἐναντίον, ὃ ἔστιν ἀνόμοιον τούτοιν δὲ δυοῖν ὄντοιν καὶ ἐμὲ καὶ σὲ καὶ τἆλλα ἃ δὴ πολλὰ καλοῦμεν μεταλαμβάνειν; καὶ τὰ μὲν τῆς ὁμοιότητος μεταλαμβάνοντα ὅμοια γίγνεσθαι ταύτῃ τε καὶ κατὰ τοσοῦτον ὅσον ἂν μεταλαμβάνῃ, τὰ δὲ τῆς ἀνομοιότητος ἀνόμοια, τὰ δὲ ἀμφοτέρων ἀμφότερα; εἰ δὲ καὶ πάντα ἐναντίων ὄντων ἀμφοτέρων μεταλαμβάνει, καὶ ἔστι τῷ μετέχειν ἀμφοῖν ὅμοιά τε καὶ ἀνόμοια αὐτὰ αὑτοῖς, τί θαυμαστόν; εἰ μὲν γὰρ αὐτὰ τὰ ὅμοιά τις ἀπέφαινεν ἀνόμοια γιγνόμενα ἢ τὰ ἀνόμοια ὅμοια, τέρας ἂν οἶμαι ἦν εἰ δὲ τὰ τούτων μετέχοντα ἀμφοτέρων ἀμφότερα ἀποφαίνει πεπονθότα, οὐδὲν ἔμοιγε, ὦ Ζήνων, ἄτοπον δοκεῖ, οὐδέ γε εἰ ἓν ἅπαντα ἀποφαίνει τις τῷ μετέχειν τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ ταὐτὰ ταῦτα πολλὰ τῷ πλήθους αὖ μετέχειν. ἀλλ εἰ ὃ ἔστιν ἕν, αὐτὸ τοῦτο πολλὰ ἀποδείξει καὶ αὖ τὰ πολλὰ δὴ ἕν, τοῦτο ἤδη θαυμάσομαι. καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ὡσαύτως εἰ μὲν αὐτὰ τὰ γένη τε καὶ εἴδη ἐν αὑτοῖς ἀποφαίνοι τἀναντία ταῦτα πάθη πάσχοντα, ἄξιον θαυμάζειν εἰ δ ἐμὲ ἕν τις ἀποδείξει ὄντα καὶ πολλά, τί θαυμαστόν, λέγων, ὅταν μὲν βούληται πολλὰ ἀποφῆναι, ὡς ἕτερα μὲν τὰ ἐπὶ δεξιά μού ἐστιν, ἕτερα δὲ τὰ ἐπ ἀριστερά, καὶ ἕτερα μὲν τὰ πρόσθεν, ἕτερα δὲ τὰ ὄπισθεν, καὶ you say my intntion was in writing it, prtning to th puli that it is som grat ahivmnt. In fat, you rais somthing inintal, whras th atual truth is that ths writings ar a sort of hlp to Parmnis s argumnt against thos who attmpt to riiul it y saying that, if th on is, th argumnt will suffr many riiulous an slf-ontraitory onsquns. This ook spaks against thos who argu in favor of th many an rpays thm with intrst, intning to show that thir hypothsis of many ings, if pursu far nough, is opn to gratr riiul than th hypothsis of th on ing. It was in suh a spirit of ontntion that I wrot it as a youth ut, whn I i, somon stol it, so I oul not i whthr or not it shoul om to light. Your mistak, Sorats, is that you imagin it was not writtn y a youth for th sak of ontntion ut y an olr prson for th lov of honor. Othrwis, as I sai, you in t surmis wrongly. But I agr, sai Sorats, an I liv it is as you say. But tll m this: on t you think that thr xists y itslf a rtain ios 10 (εἶδος) of liknss pr s, an again anothr on opposit to it, whih is th unlik, an that you an I, an th othrs 11 (τὰ ἄλλα) that w all many, partak of ths two ings? Thos that partak of liknss om lik in th mannr an to th gr in whih thy partak, thos that partak of unliknss om unlik, an thos that partak of oth, oth? An if all things partak of oth of ths opposit ings, an y thir sharing in oth thy ar lik an unlik thmslvs, what is thr to marvl at? But if on sai that liknss itslf am unlik or unliknss lik, that, I think, woul rmarkal; ut if on says that th things that shar in oth unrgo oth, that osn t sm out of pla to m, Zno, nor if somoy says that all things ar on y sharing in th on an also ar many y sharing in multitu. But it woul amaz m if h shows that th on itslf is many an th many on. An likwis with rspt to all th othrs. If somon woul show that th gnra an i in thmslvs unrgo thir opposit ffts, it woul a marvl. But whr is th marvl if a man wr to show that I am oth on an many, an whn 10 Plato s εἶδος (plural εἴδη), has no agr morn quivalnt. Morn languags rnr it as ia, form, spis, haratr, haratristi, kin, shap, figur, look, Bgriff, Gstalt, I, Gattungsform, ié, aratèr, t. In this translation th trm is lft untranslat an is translitrat in ol italis as ios (plural i) an is not to onfus with ia (ἰδέα= ia, onpt, s footnot #4 low). Aout th maning of ios, s Introution. 11 Th ajtiv othrs togthr with th finit artil th is us as a sustantiv noun maning th many that partak in th on ios ( th othrs that w all many in th txt). Th ol italiiz, th othrs, in this translation nots this maning rathr that th orinary ajtival maning of othr.

13 130 ἄνω καὶ κάτω ὡσαύτως πλήθους γὰρ οἶμαι μετέχω ὅταν δὲ ἕν, ἐρεῖ ὡς ἑπτὰ ἡμῶν ὄντων εἷς ἐγώ εἰμι ἄνθρωπος μετέχων καὶ τοῦ ἑνός ὥστε ἀληθῆ ἀποφαίνει ἀμφότερα. ἐὰν οὖν τις τοιαῦτα ἐπιχειρῇ πολλὰ καὶ ἓν ταὐτὸν ἀποφαίνειν, λίθους καὶ ξύλα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα, τὶ φήσομεν αὐτὸν πολλὰ καὶ ἓν ἀποδεικνύναι, οὐ τὸ ἓν πολλὰ οὐδὲ τὰ πολλὰ ἕν, οὐδέ τι θαυμαστὸν λέγειν, ἀλλ ἅπερ ἂν πάντες ὁμολογοῖμεν ἐὰν δέ τις ὧν νυνδὴ ἐγὼ ἔλεγον πρῶτον μὲν διαιρῆται χωρὶς αὐτὰ καθ αὑτὰ τὰ εἴδη, οἷον ὁμοιότητά τε καὶ ἀνομοιότητα καὶ πλῆθος καὶ τὸ ἓν καὶ στάσιν καὶ κίνησιν καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα, εἶτα ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ταῦτα δυνάμενα συγκεράννυσθαι καὶ διακρίνεσθαι ἀποφαίνῃ, ἀγαίμην ἂν ἔγωγ, ἔφη, θαυμαστῶς, ὦ Ζήνων. ταῦτα δὲ ἀνδρείως μὲν πάνυ ἡγοῦμαι πεπραγματεῦσθα πολὺ μεντἂν ὧδε μᾶλλον, ὡς λέγω, ἀγασθείην εἴ τις ἔχοι τὴν αὐτὴν ταύτην ἀπορίαν ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς εἴδεσι παντοδαπῶς πλεκομένην, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς ὁρωμένοις διήλθετε, οὕτως καὶ ἐν τοῖς λογισμῷ λαμβανομένοις ἐπιδεῖξαι. h wants to show that I am many h says that my right si is on thing, my lft anothr, my front anothr, my rar anothr an so ar my top an ottom so I am thought to shar in many. An to show that I am on h says that of th svn of us I am ut on man, sharing in th on; thus h shows oth. If thn somon woul try to show that suh things ar oth on an many I man stons an stiks an suhlik w shall say that h provs that thy ar many an on, not that th on itslf is many or th many on, nor that h says somthing marvlous, ut rathr what w all woul amit. But if somon wr first to st apart 12 thos vry i y thmslvs that I was just mntioning i.., liknss an unliknss, multitu an on, rst an motion an all suh an aftrwar show that ths ar apal of lning an sparating thmslvs, I woul aw with amazmnt, Zno. I think you hav alt with ths mattrs with grat ourag; ut, as I say, I woul far mor aw if somon oul show that this vry sam impass is in vry way knitt into th i thmslvs, an show it in things grasp y rason in th sam way as h shows it in things that ar visil. Parmnis qustions young Sorats Λέγοντος δή, ἔφη ὁ Πυθόδωρος, τοῦ Σωκράτους ταῦτα αὐτὸς μὲν <ἂν> οἴεσθαι ἐφ ἑκάστου ἄχθεσθαι τόν τε Παρμενίδην καὶ τὸν Ζήνωνα, τοὺς δὲ πάνυ τε αὐτῷ προσέχειν τὸν νοῦν καὶ θαμὰ εἰς ἀλλήλους βλέποντας μειδιᾶν ὡς ἀγαμένους τὸν Σωκράτη. ὅπερ οὖν καὶ παυσαμένου αὐτοῦ εἰπεῖν τὸν Παρμενίδην ὦ Σώκρατες, φάναι, ὡς ἄξιος εἶ ἄγασθαι τῆς ὁρμῆς τῆς ἐπὶ τοὺς λόγους. καί μοι εἰπέ, αὐτὸς σὺ οὕτω διῄρησαι ὡς λέγεις, χωρὶς μὲν εἴδη αὐτὰ ἄττα, χωρὶς δὲ τὰ τούτων αὖ μετέχοντα; καί τί σοι δοκεῖ εἶναι αὐτὴ ὁμοιότης χωρὶς ἧς ἡμεῖς ὁμοιότητος ἔχομεν, καὶ ἓν δὴ καὶ πολλὰ καὶ πάντα ὅσα νυνδὴ Ζήνωνος ἤκουες; Ἔμοιγε, φάναι τὸν Σωκράτη. Ἦ καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα, εἰπεῖν τὸν Παρμενίδην, οἷον δικαίου τι εἶδος αὐτὸ καθ αὑτὸ καὶ καλοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ πάντων αὖ τῶν τοιούτων; Ναί, φάναι. Τί δ, ἀνθρώπου εἶδος χωρὶς ἡμῶν καὶ τῶν οἷοι ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν πάντων, αὐτό τι εἶδος ἀνθρώπου ἢ πυρὸς As Sorats was arguing ths points, Pythoorus sai h far that Parmnis an Zno woul vx y thm, ut insta thy wr paying vry los attntion to him an oftn look at ah othr smiling as if in aw of Sorats. In fat, whn Sorats stopp, Parmnis spok up. Sorats, h sai, your passion for argumnt is amiral. But tll m, i you yourslf ivi thm in th mannr you sri, namly th i thmslvs apart an th othrs that shar in thm also apart? An o you think thr is liknss in itslf apart from th liknss that w hav, an also on an many an all that you har from Zno just now? I most rtainly i, sai Sorats. Suh things also, sai Parmnis, lik an ios of th just as suh in itslf, an of th autiful an th goo an gnrally of all suh things? Ys, h sai. An an ios of man apart from us an from all who ar lik us, an ios of man in itslf, or of fir or 12 Χωρίς (apart) is a strong trm us to mphasiz th ontologial status of i as sparat from th things that partiipat in thm. Th young Sorats for th first tim hr assrts unr qustioning that th i xist apart (χωρίς) from th multitu of partiipants. Th rst of th ialogu will first hallng an thn rfut this. S Introution.

14 ἢ καὶ ὕδατος; Ἐν ἀπορίᾳ, φάναι, πολλάκις δή, ὦ Παρμενίδη, περὶ αὐτῶν γέγονα, πότερα χρὴ φάναι ὥσπερ περὶ ἐκείνων ἢ ἄλλως. Ἦ καὶ περὶ τῶνδε, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἃ καὶ γελοῖα δόξειεν ἂν εἶναι, οἷον θρὶξ καὶ πηλὸς καὶ ῥύπος ἢ ἄλλο τι ἀτιμότατόν τε καὶ φαυλότατον, ἀπορεῖς εἴτε χρὴ φάναι καὶ τούτων ἑκάστου εἶδος εἶναι χωρίς, ὂν ἄλλο αὖ ἢ ὧν <τι> ἡμεῖς μεταχειριζόμεθα, εἴτε καὶ μή; Οὐδαμῶς, φάναι τὸν Σωκράτη, ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μέν γε ἅπερ ὁρῶμεν, ταῦτα καὶ εἶναι εἶδος δέ τι αὐτῶν οἰηθῆναι εἶναι μὴ λίαν ᾖ ἄτοπον. ἤδη μέντοι ποτέ με καὶ ἔθραξε μή τι ᾖ περὶ πάντων ταὐτόν ἔπειτα ὅταν ταύτῃ στῶ, φεύγων οἴχομαι, δείσας μή ποτε εἴς τινα βυθὸν φλυαρίας ἐμπεσὼν διαφθαρῶ ἐκεῖσε δ οὖν ἀφικόμενος, εἰς ἃ νυνδὴ ἐλέγομεν εἴδη ἔχειν, περὶ ἐκεῖνα πραγματευόμενος διατρίβω. vn of watr? Quit oftn, Parmnis, I hav n prplx, h sai, ovr whthr on must spak aout ths as on os aout th othrs or iffrntly. An of ths things, Sorats, that ar thought silly, suh as hair, lay an irt or som othr quit worthlss an foul thing ar you prplx as to whthr or not on must say that for ah of ths thr is a sparat ios that is othr than th things that w al with? Asolutly not, sai Sorats, on th ontrary, ths things that w s ar th vry sam things that ar; an to imagin an ios of thm woul uttrly asur. But thn it vxs m lst th sam thing apply to all. Whn I gt to this point I run away in far that I may fall in an ayss of al an prish; ut whn I arriv at th things that w wr just now saying hav i, thr I spn my tim laoring. 1 Is partaking of young Sorats s i possil? 131 Νέος γὰρ εἶ ἔτι, φάναι τὸν Παρμενίδην, ὦ Σώκρατες, καὶ οὔπω σου ἀντείληπται φιλοσοφία ὡς ἔτι ἀντιλήψεται κατ ἐμὴν δόξαν, ὅτε οὐδὲν αὐτῶν ἀτιμάσεις νῦν δὲ ἔτι πρὸς ἀνθρώπων ἀποβλέπεις δόξας διὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν. τόδε δ οὖν μοι εἰπέ. δοκεῖ σοι, ὡς φῄς, εἶναι εἴδη ἄττα, ὧν τάδε τὰ ἄλλα μεταλαμβάνοντα τὰς ἐπωνυμίας αὐτῶν ἴσχειν, οἷον ὁμοιότητος μὲν μεταλαβόντα ὅμοια, μεγέθους δὲ μεγάλα, κάλλους δὲ καὶ δικαιοσύνης δίκαιά τε καὶ καλὰ γίγνεσθαι; Πάνυ γε, φάναι τὸν Σωκράτη. Οὐκοῦν ἤτοι ὅλου τοῦ εἴδους ἢ μέρους ἕκαστον τὸ μεταλαμβάνον μεταλαμβάνει; ἢ ἄλλη τις ἂν μετάληψις χωρὶς τούτων γένοιτο; Καὶ πῶς ἄν; εἶπεν. Πότερον οὖν δοκεῖ σοι ὅλον τὸ εἶδος ἐν ἑκάστῳ εἶναι τῶν πολλῶν ἓν ὄν, ἢ πῶς; Τί γὰρ κωλύει, φάναι τὸν Σωκράτη, ὦ Παρμενίδη, [ἓν εἶναι]; Ἕν ἄρα ὂν καὶ ταὐτὸν ἐν πολλοῖς καὶ χωρὶς οὖσιν ὅλον ἅμα ἐνέσται, καὶ οὕτως αὐτὸ αὑτοῦ χωρὶς ἂν εἴη. Οὐκ ἄν, εἴ γε, φάναι, οἷον [εἰ] ἡμέρα [εἴη] μία καὶ ἡ αὐτὴ οὖσα πολλαχοῦ ἅμα ἐστὶ καὶ οὐδέν τι μᾶλλον αὐτὴ αὑτῆς χωρίς ἐστιν, εἰ οὕτω καὶ ἕκαστον τῶν εἰδῶν ἓν ἐν πᾶσιν ἅμα ταὐτὸν εἴη. Ἡδέως γε, φάναι, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἓν ταὐτὸν ἅμα πολλαχοῦ ποιεῖς, οἷον εἰ ἱστίῳ καταπετάσας πολλοὺς ἀνθρώπους φαίης ἓν ἐπὶ πολλοῖς εἶναι ὅλον ἢ οὐ τὸ τοιοῦτον ἡγῇ λέγειν; Ἴσως, φάναι. You ar still young, Sorats, Parmnis sai, an philosophy has not yt siz you as on ay it will, in my viw, an thn you will littl non of thm; ut now you still hav rgar for popl s opinions aus of your youth. But tll m this: o you think, as you say, that thr ar i from whih th othrs tak thir nam y partaking of thm, suh as th lik things partaking of liknss, th larg partaking of largnss, an thos partaking of auty an justi om to just an autiful? In I o, sai Sorats. Dos ah of th partaking things thn partak of th whol ios or of a part? Or is thr som othr kin of partaking asi from ths? How oul thr? h sai. What thn, o you xpt is th as: that th whol ios, ing on, is in ah of th many, or what? What woul prvnt it, Parmnis, (from ing on)? sai Sorats. So thn, ing on an th sam in things that ar many an apart, it woul also whol in ah on of thm an in this way it woul apart from itslf. Not so, h sai, if it is lik th ay whih is on an th sam an in many plas at on an yt not apart from itslf; ah ios in th sam way woul on an th sam in all at on. Vry ni, Sorats, how you mak on an th sam to in many plas at on as if you thrw on sail ovr many popl an thn laim that on whol is ovr many; or is this not what you man to say? May, h sai.

15 2 Young Sorats amits his i ar not ivisil Ἦ οὖν ὅλον ἐφ ἑκάστῳ τὸ ἱστίον εἴη ἄν, ἢ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἄλλο ἐπ ἄλλῳ; Μέρος. Μεριστὰ ἄρα, φάναι, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἔστιν αὐτὰ τὰ εἴδη, καὶ τὰ μετέχοντα αὐτῶν μέρους ἂν μετέχοι, καὶ οὐκέτι ἐν ἑκάστῳ ὅλον, ἀλλὰ μέρος ἑκάστου ἂν εἴη. Φαίνεται οὕτω γε. Ἦ οὖν ἐθελήσεις, ὦ Σώκρατες, φάναι τὸ ἓν εἶδος ἡμῖν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μερίζεσθαι, καὶ ἔτι ἓν ἔσται; Οὐδαμῶς, εἰπεῖν. Ὁρα γάρ, φάναι εἰ αὐτὸ τὸ μέγεθος μεριεῖς καὶ ἕκαστον τῶν πολλῶν μεγάλων μεγέθους μέρει σμικροτέρῳ αὐτοῦ τοῦ μεγέθους μέγα ἔσται, ἆρα οὐκ ἄλογον φανεῖται; Πάνυ γ, ἔφη. Τί δέ; τοῦ ἴσου μέρος ἕκαστον σμικρὸν ἀπολαβόν τι ἕξει ᾧ ἐλάττονι ὄντι αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἴσου τὸ ἔχον ἴσον τῳ ἔσται; Ἀδύνατον. Ἀλλὰ τοῦ σμικροῦ μέρος τις ἡμῶν ἕξει, τούτου δὲ αὐτοῦ τὸ σμικρὸν μεῖζον ἔσται ἅτε μέρους ἑαυτοῦ ὄντος, καὶ οὕτω δὴ αὐτὸ τὸ σμικρὸν μεῖζον ἔσται ᾧ δ ἂν προστεθῇ τὸ ἀφαιρεθέν, τοῦτο σμικρότερον ἔσται ἀλλ οὐ μεῖζον ἢ πρίν. Οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο, φάναι, τοῦτό γε. Τίνα οὖν τρόπον, εἰπεῖν, ὦ Σώκρατες, τῶν εἰδῶν σοι τὰ ἄλλα μεταλήψεται, μήτε κατὰ μέρη μήτε κατὰ ὅλα μεταλαμβάνειν δυνάμενα; Οὐ μὰ τὸν Δία, φάναι, οὔ μοι δοκεῖ εὔκολον εἶναι τὸ τοιοῦτον οὐδαμῶς διορίσασθαι. Τί δὲ δή; πρὸς τόδε πῶς ἔχεις; Τὸ ποῖον; Ar you thn saying that th whol sail is ovr ah man or a iffrnt part of it is ovr a iffrnt man? A iffrnt part. So Sorats, h sai, ths i ar ivisil an thos that shar in thm shar a part, an th whol is not in ah, ut only a part of ah ios. So it appars. Ar you thn, Sorats, willing to say to us in truth that th on ios is ivi an is still on? No way, h sai. Baus you s, h sai, if you ivi largnss itslf, an ah of th many larg things is larg y a smallr part of largnss itslf, wouln t this thrfor appar irrational? In, h sai. An whn ah thing rivs a small part of quality an is thrfor lss than quality itslf, oul it qual to anything? Impossil. An if on of us taks a part of smallnss, smallnss woul gratr than this part givn that it is part of itslf, an thus smallnss woul gratr; an that to whih th part of smallnss that w hav takn is a will om smallr an not gratr than for. This oul not happn, h rpli. In what way thn, Sorats, h sai, woul th othrs partak of your i, if thy annot partak ithr y parts or y whols? By Zus, h rpli, I on t think it is asy to trmin suh a thing in any way. What nxt, thn? What o you think of this? Of what? 3 Young Sorats amits i annot ias 132 Οἶμαί σε ἐκ τοῦ τοιοῦδε ἓν ἕκαστον εἶδος οἴεσθαι εἶναι ὅταν πόλλ ἄττα μεγάλα σοι δόξῃ εἶναι, μία τις ἴσως δοκεῖ ἰδέα ἡ αὐτὴ εἶναι ἐπὶ πάντα ἰδόντι, ὅθεν ἓν τὸ μέγα ἡγῇ εἶναι. Ἀληθῆ λέγεις, φάναι. Τί δ αὐτὸ τὸ μέγα καὶ τἆλλα τὰ μεγάλα, ἐὰν ὡσαύτως τῇ ψυχῇ ἐπὶ πάντα ἴδῃς, οὐχὶ ἕν τι αὖ μέγα φανεῖται, ᾧ ταῦτα πάντα μεγάλα φαίνεσθαι; Ἔοικεν. Ἄλλο ἄρα εἶδος μεγέθους ἀναφανήσεται, παρ αὐτό τε τὸ μέγεθος γεγονὸς καὶ τὰ μετέχοντα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις αὖ πᾶσιν ἕτερον, ᾧ ταῦτα πάντα I suspt you liv ah ios is on aus of somthing lik this: Whn many things sm larg to you, sing thm you may imagin as you look at thm that on an th sam ia 13 (ἰδέα) applis to all of thm, so you think th larg is on. What you say is tru, h sai. But thn, if likwis you s in your soul this on larg in itslf togthr with th othr larg things, woul not yt anothr larg on mrg y mans of whih all of ths will appar larg? It sms so. So anothr ios of largnss will mrg, in 13 Hr an in all th othr six passags of this ialogu whr th wor ours, ἰδέα (ia, onpt) is a hyri mntal/xtra-mntal ntity, in ontrast to ios, whih is th xtra-mntal ojt of that thought. Cf. Introution.

16 μεγάλα ἔσται καὶ οὐκέτι δὴ ἓν ἕκαστόν σοι τῶν εἰδῶν ἔσται, ἀλλὰ ἄπειρα τὸ πλῆθος. aition to th prvious largnss itslf an to thos that shar in it; an on top of all ths yt anothr y mans of whih all of ths ar larg; thus ah of your i will no longr on ut unlimit in multitu. 4 Young Sorats amits i annot thoughts 1327: ios this vry ojt that is thought to on Ἀλλά, φάναι, ὦ Παρμενίδη, τὸν Σωκράτη, μὴ τῶν εἰδῶν ἕκαστον ᾖ τούτων νόημα, καὶ οὐδαμοῦ αὐτῷ προσήκῃ ἐγγίγνεσθαι ἄλλοθι ἢ ἐν ψυχαῖς οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἕν γε ἕκαστον εἴη καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἔτι πάσχοι ἃ νυνδὴ ἐλέγετο. Τί οὖν; φάναι, ἓν ἕκαστόν ἐστι τῶν νοημάτων, νόημα δὲ οὐδενός; Ἀλλ ἀδύνατον, εἰπεῖν. Ἀλλὰ τινός; Ναί. Ὄντος ἢ οὐκ ὄντος; Ὄντος. Οὐχ ἑνός τινος, ὃ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἐκεῖνο τὸ νόημα ἐπὸν νοεῖ, μίαν τινὰ οὖσαν ἰδέαν; Ναί. Εἶτα οὐκ εἶδος ἔσται τοῦτο τὸ νοούμενον ἓν εἶναι, ἀεὶ ὂν τὸ αὐτὸ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν; Ἀνάγκη αὖ φαίνεται. Τί δὲ δή; εἰπεῖν τὸν Παρμενίδην, οὐκ ἀνάγκῃ ᾗ τἆλλα φῂς τῶν εἰδῶν μετέχειν ἢ δοκεῖ σοι ἐκ νοημάτων ἕκαστον εἶναι καὶ πάντα νοεῖν, ἢ νοήματα ὄντα ἀνόητα εἶναι; But, Parmnis, sai Sorats, ouln t ah of ths i a thought whih os not proprly om to xist anywhr ls xpt in souls? In this way ah woul on an woul not suffr th ffts that you just sri. What? Is ah of ths thoughts on, an a thought of not-vn-on (nothing) 14? But that s impossil, h sai. So it is a thought of somthing? Ys. Of somthing that is or of somthing that is not? Of somthing that is. Is it not of som on thing whih th thought (νόημα) thinks (νοεῖ) as ovrlai ovr all, as on singl ia? Ys. Thus, wouln t ios this vry ojt that is thought to on, always th sam ovr all? Again, it sms nssary. What aout this? sai Parmnis: Sin you say that th othrs shar in i, mustn t you liv ithr that ah of ths othrs oms from thoughts an thy all think, or that whil thy ar thoughts thmslvs thy ar not th ojts of thought? 5 Young Sorats amits i annot luprints Ἀλλ οὐδὲ τοῦτο, φάναι, ἔχει λόγον, ἀλλ, ὦ Παρμενίδη, μάλιστα ἔμοιγε καταφαίνεται ὧδε ἔχειν τὰ μὲν εἴδη ταῦτα ὥσπερ παραδείγματα ἑστάναι ἐν τῇ φύσει, τὰ δὲ ἄλλα τούτοις ἐοικέναι καὶ εἶναι ὁμοιώματα, καὶ ἡ μέθεξις αὕτη τοῖς ἄλλοις γίγνεσθαι τῶν εἰδῶν οὐκ ἄλλη τις ἢ εἰκασθῆναι αὐτοῖς. Εἰ οὖν τι, ἔφη, ἔοικεν τῷ εἴδει, οἷόν τε ἐκεῖνο τὸ εἶδος μὴ ὅμοιον εἶναι τῷ εἰκασθέντι, καθ ὅσον αὐτῷ ἀφωμοιώθη; ἢ ἔστι τις μηχανὴ τὸ ὅμοιον μὴ ὁμοίῳ ὅμοιον εἶναι; Οὐκ ἔστι. Τὸ δὲ ὅμοιον τῷ ὁμοίῳ ἆρ οὐ μεγάλη ἀνάγκη ἑνὸς τοῦ αὐτοῦ [εἴδους] μετέχειν; Ἀνάγκη. Οὗ δ ἂν τὰ ὅμοια μετέχοντα ὅμοια ᾖ, οὐκ ἐκεῖνο ἔσται αὐτὸ τὸ εἶδος; Παντάπασι μὲν οὖν. Thn this is not rasonal ithr, Sorats sai. But it is lar to m, Parmnis, that this is how th mattr stans: that ths i ar lik luprints in th natur of things an that th othrs rsml thm an ar thir liknsss an th sharing of th othrs in th i is nothing ls than th othrs rsmling th i. Thn if somthing rsmls th ios, is it possil for that ios not to lik that whih rsmls it insofar as that thing was ma to lik it? Or is thr a vi y whih th lik is not lik to its lik? Thr is not. Is it thn not vry nssary for th lik to shar in th sam ios as its lik? Nssary. An this thing y whos sharing th lik ar lik, 14 A pun: th Grk wor for nothing is μηδέν (μὴ δὲ ἕν) litrally not-vn-on.