HKIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 721 



note on Alciuan, fr. XII. For the articular infinitive in general, 

 consult the articles of Professor GiUlersleeve in Anier. Journ. of 

 Philol. 



V^ 117, 14. Fr. 6, 1, 



XPi) TO XkytLV T€ voeXv r' kbv eufxevai • ecrrt yap HPai, 

 fjLr]5ev 8' OVK iaTLV. 



The view of Diels and Burnet, Avhich takes eort and €(tti.v as 

 equi\\'ilent to e^eart, appears to me to be unsatisfactory; for the 

 sentence thus becomes weak and out of character. Parmenides says: 

 '^ For existence exists, and nought is not.'' The absence of the article 

 with dvai and n-qbkv makes no difference. In regard to the first sen- 

 tence, we must, perhaps, acquiesce in the view of Diels, who regards 

 TO as the epic pronoun, and renders: "Dies ist nbtig zu sacjen und 

 zii denhen, das nur das Seiende existiert"; but this use of to would be 

 unique in Parmenides, in whom we expect the articular infinitive. 

 It is possible that he meant "Speech and thought must be real"; for, 

 though we do not otherwise find the recognition of the corporeal 

 existence of thought and speech clearly expressed before the Stoics 

 and Fpicin-eans, it is by no means certain that Parmenides would not 

 be called upon to defend his 'materialistic' doctrines by asserting the 

 corporeality of thought and speech, since he expressly concerned 

 himself with predication, fr. 8, 35 sq. 



V2 117, 21. Fr. G, 8, 



OLs TO irkXetv re Kal ovk elvaL ravrov vepofxtaraL 



KOV TaVTOV. 



Burnet, Early Greek PhiJosophy-, p. 198, n. 3, tortures this passage 

 in order to eliminate the articular infinitives and the solecism to . . . 

 OVK elvai; but his interpretation is impossible, and, as we have seen, 

 his reluctance to admit the articular infinitive is indefensible. As 

 to TO .. . OVK dvai, others before him have found in it a rock of offence; 

 but the responsibility rests with Parmenides. If he could say, oOrcos 

 fi ira/j.wav TreXet-ai, XP^^^ '^^t'- V ovx't- (fr- 8, 11) alongside 17 8' cos ovk 

 'icFTLv re Kal ws xp^<j^v koTi nij elvai (fr. 4, 5) it is difficult to see why 

 he should not have said to ovk dvai instead of to jirj elvai. 



V2 119, 6, Fr. 8, 9, 



tL 8' iiv fxiv Kal xP^os ojpffev 

 voTtpov ri irpbadtv, tov fj.r]8evds ap^ap.evov, (t)vv. 



