1. See his The Presocratic Philosophers, 2 vols. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979), passim.
2. In the original edition of The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), G. S. Kirk and J. E. Raven wrote: "Both Empedocles and Anaxagoras repeatedly and clearly reveal, not only by their thought but also by the language in which it is expressed, an almost servile observance of the Parmenidean demands" (p. 319). The corresponding paragraph in the new edition omits this statement and adds several qualifying remarks. But it does make the same an - nouncement made in the original edition, of an exegetic program of "showing, where possible in the philosophers' own words, how these post-Parmenidean systems are deliberately designed to take account of the findings of the Truth [Parmenides' poem]": G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven and M. Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 351. The new edition adheres to that original program with only minor changes. 3. It would seem that the path was opened as early as 1916, with the appearance of one of our century's great works in the field, Karl Reinhardt's Parmenides und die Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie, a work which -- in spite of some extremes of revisionism, such as placing Heraclitus and Xenophanes after Parmenides -- has inspired hundreds of classicists and philosophers in several national schools and traditions.
4 Michael C. Stokes speaks of "the complete logical failure of these systems [those of the Noo-lonians] to tackle the fundamental problem of Eleaticism": One and Many in Presocratic Philosophy (Cambridge, Massacusetts: Harvard University Press, 1971), p. 35. Barnes correspondingly uses the term "flop": Presocratic II, p. 140; cf. pp. 11- 15, 125-145, and Presocratic I, p. 216. 5 For some of these modern readers, that sophisticated analysis is found in the later Plato, for others in Aristotle, and for still others it is not forthcoming before Frege or Wittgenstein or Heidegger.
6 In references to the pre-Socratics, numbers preceded by the letter A refer to testimonia, numbers preceded by the letter B, to fragments, as in Hermann Diels, Die Fragment der Vorsokratiker, 6th ed., revised by W. Kranz, 3 vols. (Berlin: Weidmann, 1952). I henceforth refer to this edition by the initial DK.
7 Kai K' 066�V EK bEVOs y6VOLTO: Alcaeus 76 (Bergk) = 23 (Diehl) = 320 (Lobel and Page). One of the manuscripts reads OÙðEVÓÇ, which is unmetrical. See Edgar Lobel and Denys Page, Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1955), p. 263. The phrase EK bEVOs may mean (a) "from something" or (b) "from nothing" or (c) "from any old thing." Possibility (a) yields for the whole fragment the patently false and pointless sense, "And nothing could come to be from something." Possibility (b) yields the ex nihilo nihil. Possibility (c) yields the stronger proposition, "And nothing could come to be from any old thing." if the latter was what Alcaeus had expressed, then it stands to reason that he would have considered the ex nihilo nihil no less obvious. 8 See my essay, "Pre-Socratic Origins of the Principle That There Are No Origins from Nothing," The Journal of Philosophy, 78 (1981), 649- 665.
9 See Gregory Vlastos, Plato's Universe (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1975), ch. 1 "The Greeks Discover the Cosmos." The phrase "universe governed by law" I borrow from ch. 3 of Charles H. Kahn's Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960; repr. Philadelphia: Centrum, 1982), on which I also draw for the observations made above. 10 See David J. Furley, Two Studies in the Greek Atomists (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1967), ch. 6; repr. in A. P. D. Mourelatos, The Pre-Socratics: A Collection of Critical Essays (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1974), pp. 504-526.
11 Cf. Friedrich Solmsen, "The Tradition about Zeno of Elea Re- Examined," Phronesis, 16 (1971), 116-41; repr. in Mourelatos, The Pre- Socratics, pp. 368-393.
12 For a helpful general account of the concept of emergence, see two articles by Thomas A. Goudge: "Emergent Evolutionism," in Paul Edwards, ed., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 8 vols. (New York: Macmillan & Free Press, 1967), vol. 2, pp. 474-477; and "Evolutionism," in Philip P. Wiener, ed., Dictionary of the History of Ideas, 4 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973), vol. 2, esp. pp. 183-184.
13 Cf. Barnes, Presocratic I, pp. 258-260.
14 Translations of these two lines in standard works on the pre- Socratics or on Empedocles generally overlook this clausula function ofocaTTETa nrtyilv. They construe rrrlyiw as subject of Eiva� -- taking TTTlY TÍ with &��T(2)� in a hyperbaton that breaks up the natural four-cola articulation of the hexameter line. This construction leads them to give aanETa the rather colorless rendering ^countless." Thus M. R. Wright, in Empedocles: The Extant Fragments (New Haven: Yale University Press,1981 ), p. 15 " ... that there is any other source for the countless perishables that are seen." This pattern of con - struction appears to have been established by DK; cf. Jean Bollack, Empédocle,II Les Origines (Paris: Les editions de minuit, 1969), pp. 36- 37 ; W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, 11: The Presocratic Tradition from Parmenides to Democritus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), p. 148; Barnes, Presocrafic II, p. 8; Kirk- Raven-Schofield, p. 294.
15 I cannot agree with Wright that "the mixing of colors of which Empedocles is speaking in the simile is almost certainly not a blending to produce further shades but the setting of paints of one color side by side with those of another in an arrangement to give the effect of a familiar object" (p. 38, cf. p. 180). This interpretation commits her to assuming that "the �D6(pp(XKa are the appropriate colors ready before the painters start on their picture" (p. 180). But this gives a poor sense to appoviq ijel^ocvte and to the adjective TToN�)ypo(x. It also goes against the rather emphatic staging of the painter's acts conveyed by the verb forms: (1) ETTEL .. f.A«p�lL7Ql, (2) �E L�avTE. (3) TTOPCYI�VOIJCTL. Vincent J. Bruno, who is one of the authorities she cites in support of the assumption that paint mixing (as distinct from the superposition of color washes) was rare before the Hellenistic period, actually contradicts her in his own discussion of Empodocles B23: see his Form and Color in Greek Painting (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1977), pp. 56-58; see also Eva C. Keuls, Plato and Greek Painting, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, 5 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978), pp. 66-70. I shall myself, in Sections IX-X, defend Wright's view that Empedocles cannot countenance in his system any case of real blending or fusion. But we must distinguish between Empedocles' simple statement of ordinary perceptions concerning painters' practice from his theoretical explanation of the phenomenon of intermediate shades obtained by mixing.
16 See Keuls, Plato, p. 68. 17 There is an intriguing parallel from Indian philosophy. The school of the Carvaka, the homonymous founder of which is supposed to have been a contemporary of Empedocles, offered the production of a particular shade of red color "from the combination [by chewing] of betel, areca nut, and lime" as a simile of the emergence of consciousness or intelligence from material elements. See Dale Riepe, The Naturalistic Tradition in Indian Thought (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1961), p. 68. I am indebted for this reference to Ali Hossaini.
18 It is not crucial for my purposes to resolve the vexed issue whether Anaxagoras influenced Empedocles or vice versa. The definitive study is D. O'Brien's, "The Relation of Anaxagoras and Empedocles," The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 88 (1968), 93-113, which closes with the statement, "I conclude that Empedocles wrote later than Anaxagoras, and was influenced by him." Cf. Kahn, pp. 163-164; Malcolm Schofield, An Essay on Anaxagoras (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), pp. 33-35; David Sider, The Fragments of Anaxagoras, Beitrage zur klassischen Philologie, 118 (Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain, 1981), pp. 1-11. These authors favor the translation "inferior" for the notoriously ambiguous Cicy-rEpog in Aristotle's remark (Metaph. A.3.984a11), 'Ava�ay6pa(; bE 6 K�ai;oIJEVLOs Tfj \sev ii)\LKIQC iTp6TEPOg wv TovTOV (scil., of Empedocles) Tois b' epyoig OaTepog. But Jaap Mansfeld, at the end of an exhaustive analysis of the sources for Anaxagoras' life, defends the "naturat" translation: "Anaxagoras, though earlier in age than [Empedocles], was later in his works": "The Chronology of Anaxagoras' Athenian Period and the Date of His Trial," part I , Mnemosyne, 32 (1979), 39-69, part II, Mnemosyne 33 (1980), 17-95, esp. part II, pp. 90-91. Anaxagoras' philosophical activity is also placed after Empedocles' in Sven-Tage Teodorsson, Anaxagoras' Theory of Matter, Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 43 (G6teborg: Acta Universitatis, 1982), pp. 70-71.
19. Cf. David J. Furley, "Anaxagoras in Response to Parmenides," in Roger A. Shiner and John King-Farlow, edd., New Essays on Plato and the Pre-Socratics, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, suppl. vol. 2 (1976), 61-85.
20. 'The Physical Theory of Anaxagoras," Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie, 45 (1963), 101-118; repr. in R. E. Allen and David J. Furley, Studies in Presocratic Philosophy, 2 vols. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970 and 1975), vol. 2, The Eleatics and Pluralists, pp. 361-380. Schofield, correspondingly, distinguishes between "substance stuff and ingredient stuff" (p. 112, cf. pp. 108-109). That ingredients could not exist in the form of elementary particles follows from an additional Anaxagorean principle of infinite divisibility. Strang's distinction (and its equivalent in other authors) applies to portions that recede to infinity in smallness (B6, cf. Strang, p. 366, Schofield, p. 109).
21. The alternative interpretation goes back to Paul Tannery and John Burnet and has been defended, among others by Gregory Vlastos. For references, see Schofield or Sider or Teodorsson, the last of whom gives an extended account of the different interpretations of the scope of "everything" that have been proposed (pp. 25-64). 22. Schofield, p. 116. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid.
25. It would seem that Schofield overlooks this difficulty. For he speaks of Anaxagorean manifest objects interchangably as "epi - phenomena" and "logical constructions out of opposites" (p. 116 and passim). 26. Schofield is inclined to doubt that B10 is a fragment (see pp. 133- 144) ; Sider concludes that "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it deserves to keep its place as an Anaxagorean fragment" (p. 90).
27. See, s. w., Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott , A Greek- English Lexicon, 9th ed., rev. Henry Stuart Jones, with Roderick McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940); henceforth referred to as LSJ. Cf. Bruno, Form and Color, pp. 84-85 and 91-93.
28. See my "Aristotle's Rationalist Account of Qualitative Interaction," Phronesis 29 (1984), 1-16, esp. pp. 8-14.
29. See Wilhelm Schwabe, :Mischung' und Element' im Griechischen bis Platon, Archiv fur Begriffsgeschichte, suppl. vol. 3 (Bonn: Bouvier Verlag, 1980), pp. 15-39. 30. Anaxagoras uses words of the mig- root (�LYVV�L. ijlctycj, p i f; � S ), which, in general usage, differ from words of the kera- root, roughly, as "scramble" and "mingle" differ from "blend" and "fuse," as conturbatio differs from temperatio. See Schwabe, pp. 24-25, 31-33. This pattern of usages does not, of course, amount to evidence that Anaxagoras has a particulate theory of matter; it merely serves to emphasize that the ingredients preserve their identity unaltered in the mixture.
31. Schofield does acknowledge this addition: "to the ... view that the external world presents itself directly and fundamentally only in the form of sensible qualities ... [Anaxagoras] adds the idea that sensible qualities always fall within quality ranges which are specified in terms of opposites" (p. 116). 32. Presocratic II, p. 16.
33. Pages 12-22.
34. " ... die Vernunft nur das einsieht, was sie selbst nach ihrem Entwurfe hervorbringt" (BXIII).
35. For review of the literature, see Teodorsson, pp. 45-64. 36. "Anaxagoras and Parmenides," p. 72.
37. Page 124. 38. Page 82. 39. Page 85. 40. See Goudge, "Evolutionism," p. 178.
41. Teodorsson fails, curiously, to exploit this obvious advantage of his own view. He supposes that, prior to the initiation of TT E P LXWP11 CJ L ç, "voGS had disposed of the coming development ... had programmed the emergence of every individual thing" (p. 85). He bases this on the assumption that the aorists EYVW and bLEKÓCJ¡.Jl1CJE must refer to activities that precede the initiation of motion. But clearly these two aorists are parts of a series of aorists that articulates the entire second half of B12 (È:KpáTl1CJEV ... fip�a-TO ... Eyvca ... �)LEKÓCJ¡.Jl1CJE ... È:TTOll1CJEV), and in the absence in our text of any lexical, grammatical, or syntactical devices of phasing, all these aorists must be taken as coincident (in the grammatical sense). If, in the midst of this series of aorists, Anaxagoras had meant to convey that the knowing and the disposing had preceded the rotation, the appropriate tense would have been the perfect or the pluperfect (cf. pluperfects in Teodorsson's own statement).
42. Cf. Furley, "Anaxagoras and Parmenides," p. 81.
43. I have presented such a fuller account of Philolaus and of the Abderites in my 1983 Julius R. Weinberg Lecture at The University of Wisconsin, Madison, "The Discovery of Form in Early Greek Philos - ophy." This lecture has also been read at the following venues: Boston University, The Institute of Classical Studies at the University of London, the universities of Bern, Zurich, Munich, Goettingen, Naples, Venice, Padua, Crete, and Athens, and the San Diego and Los Angeles campuses of the University of Cal'rfornia. A shorter published version has appeared in Modern Greek as ((A Tj p 6 K P L 7 0 (;: (p L X 6 CY 0 (p 0 (; Tfig ¡.J.opcpflç», in Proceeding of the 1st International Congress on Democritus, ed. Linos G. Benakis, 2 vols. (Xanthi: International Democritean Foundation, 1984), vol. 1, pp. 109-119.
44. For a clear statement of that position and of the philosophical issues that frame it, see Paul M. Churchland, Matter and Conscious - ness (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1984), pp. 43-49.
45. See the passages referred to in the relevant entry of Wright's Index Verborum. As Frierich Solmsen has shown, the Y L YVOV TCX of B17.11 has BvriTO was subject; and, though he resists the corresponding construction for B26.10, it seems to me that the analysis he offers of the context of B17.11 dictates that the subject in B26.10 is not the elements but the ö: v 8 P (J TI0 and 8 rj p E of B26.4: "Eternal and Temporary Beings in Empedocles' Physical Poem," Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie, 57 (1975), 123-145, esp. pp. 126 ft. and 131 ff. 46. Furley, "Anaxagoras in Response," pp. 62-64; Solmsen, "Eternal and Temporary," pp. 125 f.,132 f. 47. The attested readings arse 11 BEys Ka>`EOVm and dVCXLKaX60UCYL, both of which are unmetrical and hardly intelligible in context. The emendation that has been most widely adopted is rather tendentious; for it assimilates Empedocles' sentiment to that of Anaxagoras by inserting a negative particle: 13 8 E � � > KaX60U(JL.
48. Wright is being excessively cautious in placing ap' Il between daggers: see pp. 97-98 and 171-172. Though there may be some doubt about the relevant parallels, the metrical liberty at issue (elision of the iota, or synaloephe with the epsilon of eTriYiyvETaL) is mild, and transparent enough.
49. See John I. Beare, Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition from Alcmaeon to Aristotle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906), pp. 161--162. 50. For discussion of this fragment, see below p.191 and n. 82. Also relevant is B76.3, which speaks of the evidence of the earth component on the shells of turtles and mollusks.
51. For excellent comment on this fragment, see Friedrich Solmsen, "Tissues and the Soul," Philosophical Review, 59 (1950), 435-441 [. Kleine Schriften, 2 vols. (Hildesheim: Olms, 1968), vol. 1, pp. 502-508]. 52. It is also likely that the transmigrating 6a p co of Empedocles' mystical poem, "Purifications," is a superlatively stable compound of equal portions of the four elements, a surviving part of the Sphairos. See Wright, pp. 69-76. 53. See Wright, pp. 332 -333 (Index verborum, s. w. KEPaVV6VaL, K P a 9 L (;).
54. For these and other relevant testimonia, see DK A86-87, 89, 92. Cf. Bollack, Origines, pp. 136-157, 256-261; and corresponding commen - tary in Empédocle III, Les Origines: Commentaire, 2 vols. (Paris: Les editions de minuit, 1969), vol. 2, pp. 136-157 and 256-261. 55. Aristotle's De generatione et corruptione, Translated with Notes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), p. 125, ad 1.8.324b25.
56. See above, note 54. 57. See Philoponus excerpt in DK A87. Owen Goldin has pointed out to me that air, too, may have poroi: according to De gener. et corr. 1.8.324b2g-30 (DK A87), the transparency of air is explained by the alignment of its poroi. There is, in fact, no requirement that air should have no poroi; the poroi of air could, in turn, be filled by microscopically thin filaments of the other elements, in which case these other elements would be said to have much wider poroi. Aristotle's objection, that if all things had poroi then things would consist of nothing but gaps (325fa7), is captious.
58. In Democritus, too, and then in the Epicureans, we find the principle in both an ontological and an epistemological version: natural substances contain numerous minority components the properties of which are suppressed by those of majority components; from the infinity of emanations from atomic structures, our senses pick out only those sets of similar emanations that have an unusually high number of members. 59. Cf. Ta bE aXXa uypa Kai rrEpi 6CTWV KaTapL8¡J.ELTaL Tas ibias KP6(CTCL(;, Desensibus 12. 60. See Solmsen, "Tissues," p. 437 [ = p. 504]; cf. Wright, pp. 209-210. 61. For the text and translation of B83.4, see Wright, pp. 123 and 238.
62. And that is why Aristotle, who does have the qualitative model, and unhistorically assumes that Empedocles had it too, objects that "it is altogether otiose (6 XcogTrepLEpyov) to postulate poroi" (326b21; cf. Williams' comment ad loc., p. 124).
63. Wright, pp. 34-40.
64. cog ó' 6T' 6r6(; -y6cXa Xeuxov �TTELy6pcvov ctuvettti^ev vypov Eov, p.a�a b' coxa TIEpLTpEfpETaL KVKOCJVTL, cog Spa KapTiaX�pc,)i; irjaaTO Coupon '�Apr�a. Iliad V.902-904) 65. Bollack is certainly right in his observation that the context of this fragment in Plutarch's De amicorum multitudine gives us no clue of the missing second limb of the simile: Origines, p. 133, and Origines- Commentaire II, pp. 310-312. 66. See LSJ s. w. The verb xoWdco does not occur in Homer.
67. See Jaap Mansfeld, "Ambiguity in Empedocles B17,3-5: A Suggestion," Phronesis, 17 (1972), 17-37, esp. 24-35. Cf. Wright, p. 188.
68. The rest of the second line is corrupt. Reference to another flavor (the salty?) is likely. See Bollack, Origines, pp. 198-201; Origines- Commentaire, pp. 462-464; cf. Introduction, pp. 246-249.
69. The simile almost certainly does not go back to Empedocles, who would have preferred one that conveys the idea of reciprocation in the grain of the components.
70. One might conceivably make a case for such an eliminativist reading of Empedocles by arguing that (p6CTLq at B8 should be given not the sense "coming-to-be" but the usual sense of "nature" or "essence." If Empedocles had said that compounds do not have a "nature" of their own, he would have said, in effect, that they are products of nomos. But the rhetoric of the fragment makes this interpretation quite unlikely: cpvms is paired with p ys, a pairing that corresponds to that of T C X EU T � with &L6:\\a�LC, (B8.1-3); a contrast of "nature" vs. "perishing" would be weak and not easily intelligible. Cf. Wright, p. 175. It is also worth noting that the pair of person'rfications tucru TE $8i^evr) TE at B123.1 probably refers to "Birth and Death" (so Wright, p. 281 f.); but even the translation "Growth and Decay" supports the dynamic sense of "growing into being" for cpvms in B8. 71. The rest of the line is, unfortunately corrupt. The two attested readings are Toyov 8l&kpictic; 6:)JELf3eL and TÓYOV v 6L&KpaCTLq ap.EiSE�. See Wright, p. 179. The most widely adopted emendation is by Diels: T6(TOV 6L& Kpflalç 6:)JLELpEL, "to that extent does mixing change (them)." But Diels' emendation has three unattractive features: asyndeton; no corresponding relative for T6aov; shaky syntax for 6LaPEIQEL. 72. For the construction, see above p. 140 and n. 14.
73. B 27 is a conflation of two fragments. Bollack and Wright have restored the distinction that is clearly supported in our sources. DK B27.1 and 27.3-4 - Bolladk fr. 92 Wright fr. 21 comes from Simplicius, refers to the Sphairos, and is the fragment I am quoting here. Bollack fr. 171 - Wright fr. 19 consists of a variant of DK B27.1, as its first line, and DK B27.2, as its second. This fragment comes from Plutarch. It is assigned by him not to the Sphairos but to a condition of precosmic chaos brought about by Strife. The Plutarch fragment speaks not of the "swift limbs" of the sun but of its "splendid form," the reference being quite obviously to the heavenly body. It is the Plutarch fragment that alludes to the non-evidence also of earth and sea, conceived here not as elements but as cosmic masses. See Bollack, Les Origines, pp. 41 and 71, and Les Origines-Commentaire, pp. 134-138 and 185-186; cf. Wright, pp.103-104 and 185-188.
74. It was only in the nineteenth century that it was realized that the laws of color mixing through optical fusion are not quite the same as those either of the direct mixing of paints or of mixing of translucent paints through superposition (as in glazing). Optical fusion conforms to the "additive" system, in which the primaries are green, red, and blue- violet ; the other two methods, to the "subtractive" scheme, in which the primaries are red, blue, and yellow. See Keuls, Plato, p. 67; cf.also her "Skiagraphia Once Again," American Journal of Archaeology, 79 (1975), pp. 3-4. 75. Keuls, Plato, p. 79; cf. pp. 59-87, or "Skiagraphia," pp. 5-16.
76. Form and Cobr, p. 28 and p. 28 f. 77. Vitruvius 7.praef.ll DK 59A39. 78. The metaphysical bearing of the pictorial technique of divisionism was noticed by Barnes in Presocratic, vol. 2, p. 24. But he did not go beyond drawing a simile: "Atomists are physical pointillistes: their world is made up of microscopical dots .... Anaxagoras was a painter of the traditional type: his world is made of stuffs mixed through and through ...." Wright, who denies (pp. 38-39 and 180) that Empedocles envisages direct mixing of paints in B23, does not consider the possibility of mixing through optical fusion.
79. ov QTams 06<86 TE> 6fipL(; EValQl�os Ev PEX6EaCfLV. Bollack's retention of the attested reading gvcuctlijoq, which he translates "de saison" (cf. Èv a'CITlJ) makes perfect sense: see Les Origines, pp. 44-45; Les Origines- Commentaire, pp. 143 f. With the exception of Wright (pp. 255 f.), interpreters of Empedocles have referred this fragment to the Sphairos. She gives it a context of moral edification, which is the train of thought of Plutarch when he quotes this one-line fragment. But it is more likely that Plutarch is borrowing only the rhetoric of Empedocles' saying. The statement is, of course, strictly false for any compound other than the Sphairos; and there is no reason to suppose that Empedocles would have used the metaphysically charged language of "the season of total concord" loosely or informally. Of course, even if the line Plutarch quotes did not refer to the Sphairos, the condition it describes fits the Sphairos better than it fits any other entity. The borrowing of the rhetoric would, in that event, be mine.
80. Cf. George Malcolm Stratton, Theophrastus and the Greek Physiological Psychology Before Aristotle (London: Geore Allen & Unwin, 1917; repr. Amsterdam: E. J. Bonset & P. Schippers N.V., 1964), p. 168 n. 42.
81. See my "Aristotle's Rationalist Account," pp. 1-3.
82. "[foundations] and "[rooted]" translate, respectively, the excellent emendations �1E"-u�vá and &cXEpv6c that have been proposed, in place of the obviously corrupt 3e\r)tj.�(x TE and 8eXri(jaTa of the manuscripts. 83. Wright, pp. 101 and 178, speculates that the TTpapÉ au a of line 6 is reason to suspect reference to water, perhaps as 86:\c«jcrc(, in the corrupt segment (see preceding note) that immediately follows in that line. pp. 101 and 178.
84. :E)(C�)6V bE Kai 'EpTTC60KXE-L avayKatov X�YCLV �3(]-TFEP kccl Aeukittttoq cpr¡aLV: Degener, et corr. 1.8.325b6, and cf. entire passage from 325b1 ff.
* This paper is the partial and ad interim outcome of research that was supported by study fellowships awarded by the National Endowment for the Humanities (for 1982-83), and by the University Research Institute of The University of Texas at Austin (for spring 1978 and spring 1983). I gratefully acknowledge the awards. Successive ancestral versions of Sections I-VI were nurtured with helpful and challenging comments offered by audiences at: Loyola University of Chicago; the University of Auckland; the Australian National University; the University of Melbourne; the University of Sydney; the University of Newcastle, New South Wales; the University of Western Australia; Princeton University; the University of Missouri, Columbia; the University of Oklahoma; the University of South Carolina; Syracuse University; Yale University; and the "Euthyphrones" group at my own university. A more recentdescendant of these Sections just barely survived the tough critique it was (deservingly) subjected to at the B Club of Cambridge University and at the University of Edinburgh. The present version of Sections I- VII was read, with some cuts, at Boston University, under auspices of BACAP, and at the University of California, San Diego. Sections VIII- XII were added for this volume; they had not been seen by Martha Nussbaum when she wrote her comment. My interlocutors at each of the many presentations listed above have my deep thanks. Special and long-standing debts for various forms of help and input are owed to: John Robertson, Jon Moline, Bernard Gendron, Gregory Vlastos, Dena Chasnoff Gustafsson, Jonathan Barnes, Charles Kahn, David Furley, David Blank, and Robert Wardy. My sincere thanks to them. I hope, but shall not presume, that the current version has met at least some of the criticisms expressed by those I have individually and those I have collectively acknowledged.