722 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



Diels renders varepov tj irpbadev with "friiher oder spjiter"; Burnet, 

 correctly I believe, with "later rather than sooner"; for I regard the 

 phrase as a sort of compa ratio compendiaria. The question was 

 repeated and amplified by later philosophers; cp. Lucret. 5, 165-180; 

 Cic. N. D. 1. 9. 21; V2 305, 16 sq.; Diels, Box. Gr., p. 301, 2, Kal ome 

 /card TO Trpwrov /xaK-dptos eariv 6 debs, to yap eXKelTov eis evdaL/xovlav ov 

 jjiaKapiov, ovTe KaTO. to devrepov fjLr]8ev yap eXKelToov Kevals efxeWep 

 eiTLX^Lpelv TTpa^eaLP. In the last passage I think we should clearly 

 read Katva^s for Kevats; cp. Lucret. 5, 168 sq., 



Quidve novi potuit tanto post ante quietos 

 inlicere ut cuperent vitam mutare priorem? 

 nam gaudere novis rebus debere videtur 

 cui veteres obsunt; sed cui nil accidit aegri 

 tempore in anteacto, cum pulchre degeret aevum, 

 quid potuit no^•itatis amorem accendere tali? 



I may add that Parmenides, fr. 8, 7, irfj ivbQtv ah^ridkv, and 8, 32 sq., 



ovveKev ovk aTeXevTrjTOV to kbv dkfJLLs dvai ' 

 tan yap ovk eindeves, ebv 8' av iravTOs eSetTo, 



is expanded by Plato, Tim. 32 C-34 A, with an obvious addition 33 A, 

 which is apparently drawn from the Atomists. Cp. V' 343, 4 sq., and 

 my Antecedents of Greek Corpuscidar Theories, Harvard Studies in 

 Class. Philol., 22 (1910), p. 139. See also the discussion above 

 (p. 693 sq.) of V2 34, 18. 



V^ 120, 13. Fr. 8, 34, tuvtop 8' tOTl voelv re Kal ovvtKtv kuTi vby)p.a. 



So far as I am aware, all interpreters of Parmenides have taken 

 ovveKep in the sense of "that for the sake of which." This is, of 

 course, quite possible; but we thus obtain no satisfactory sense unless 

 we are to adopt the Neo-Platonic conceptions which obviously sug- 

 gested the accepted rendering. Probably no student of ancient 

 philosophy who has learned the rudiments of historical interpretation 

 would go so far afield. Only the natural obsession that we must take 

 our cue from the ancients, whose incapacity in this regard should no 

 longer be a secret, can account for the failure of some one to make the 

 obvious suggestion that we take ovp^Kep as oti, and read ean; for it 

 seems clear that Parmenides meant, " Thinking and the thought that 

 the object of thought exists, are one and the same." Kiihnei--Gerth, II. 

 p. 356, and the lexicons give the examples for this use of ovptKa; for 



