Type of Media 1
Author 1
Date 7
Author
Parmenides, Fragment 10, 1968
By: Bicknell, Peter J.
Title Parmenides, Fragment 10
Type Article
Language English
Date 1968
Journal Hermes
Volume 96
Issue 4
Pages 629-631
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bicknell, Peter J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This text is a critical analysis of the location of two fragments of the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides. The author of the text suggests that the two fragments, VS 28 B 10 (Clement, Strom. 5, I38) and VS 28 B 11 (Simplicius, de Caelo 559, 20), are incorrectly placed together in Parmenides' Way of Seeming. The author argues that there is no evidence to suggest that the two fragments were meant to be together, and that they do not fit into the context of Parmenides' work. The author also suggests that VS 28 B 10 may not be Parmenidean at all, and discusses its possible attribution to Empedocles. The text concludes by considering the language and style of the two fragments, and their relationship to Parmenides' other works. [summary of the whole text]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1124","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1124,"authors_free":[{"id":1700,"entry_id":1124,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":399,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","free_first_name":"Peter J.","free_last_name":"Bicknell","norm_person":{"id":399,"first_name":"Peter J.","last_name":"Bicknell","full_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1162157143","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides, Fragment 10","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides, Fragment 10"},"abstract":"This text is a critical analysis of the location of two fragments of the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides. The author of the text suggests that the two fragments, VS 28 B 10 (Clement, Strom. 5, I38) and VS 28 B 11 (Simplicius, de Caelo 559, 20), are incorrectly placed together in Parmenides' Way of Seeming. The author argues that there is no evidence to suggest that the two fragments were meant to be together, and that they do not fit into the context of Parmenides' work. The author also suggests that VS 28 B 10 may not be Parmenidean at all, and discusses its possible attribution to Empedocles. The text concludes by considering the language and style of the two fragments, and their relationship to Parmenides' other works. [summary of the whole text]","btype":3,"date":"1968","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2uPg3j4nE0Tu1v1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":399,"full_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1124,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"96","issue":"4","pages":"629-631"}},"sort":[1968]}

Parmenides' Refutation of Motion and an Implication, 1967
By: Bicknell, Peter J.
Title Parmenides' Refutation of Motion and an Implication
Type Article
Language English
Date 1967
Journal Phronesis
Volume 12
Issue 1
Pages 1-5
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bicknell, Peter J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
It is commonly maintained that Melissus was the major forerunner of atomism. This has been argued on a number of grounds, one of these being that Leucippus reacted to a Melissean rather than a Parmenidean refutation of locomotion. In the following short paper I shall challenge this view and point out that not only is one other argument for Melissus' influence on atomism insecure, but that Theo- phrastus, our most important witness, unequivocally states that Leucippus opposed a pre-Melissean eleaticism. [p. 1]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"772","_score":null,"_source":{"id":772,"authors_free":[{"id":1136,"entry_id":772,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":399,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","free_first_name":"Peter J.","free_last_name":"Bicknell","norm_person":{"id":399,"first_name":"Peter J.","last_name":"Bicknell","full_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1162157143","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides' Refutation of Motion and an Implication","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides' Refutation of Motion and an Implication"},"abstract":"It is commonly maintained that Melissus was the major forerunner \r\nof atomism. This has been argued on a number of grounds, one of \r\nthese being that Leucippus reacted to a Melissean rather than a \r\nParmenidean refutation of locomotion. In the following short paper I \r\nshall challenge this view and point out that not only is one other \r\nargument for Melissus' influence on atomism insecure, but that Theo- \r\nphrastus, our most important witness, unequivocally states that \r\nLeucippus opposed a pre-Melissean eleaticism. [p. 1]","btype":3,"date":"1967","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HVrwO25mQS4JsxM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":399,"full_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":772,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"12","issue":"1","pages":"1-5"}},"sort":[1967]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1
Parmenides' Refutation of Motion and an Implication, 1967
By: Bicknell, Peter J.
Title Parmenides' Refutation of Motion and an Implication
Type Article
Language English
Date 1967
Journal Phronesis
Volume 12
Issue 1
Pages 1-5
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bicknell, Peter J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s) 
It  is  commonly maintained that  Melissus was the  major forerunner 
of  atomism. This  has  been  argued  on  a  number  of  grounds,  one  of 
these  being  that Leucippus reacted to  a  Melissean  rather  than a 
Parmenidean refutation of  locomotion. In  the  following short  paper  I 
shall challenge this view and point out that not only is one other 
argument  for  Melissus'  influence  on  atomism  insecure,  but  that  Theo- 
phrastus, our most important witness, unequivocally states that 
Leucippus  opposed  a pre-Melissean  eleaticism. [p. 1]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"772","_score":null,"_source":{"id":772,"authors_free":[{"id":1136,"entry_id":772,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":399,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","free_first_name":"Peter J.","free_last_name":"Bicknell","norm_person":{"id":399,"first_name":"Peter J.","last_name":"Bicknell","full_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1162157143","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides' Refutation of Motion and an Implication","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides' Refutation of Motion and an Implication"},"abstract":"It is commonly maintained that Melissus was the major forerunner \r\nof atomism. This has been argued on a number of grounds, one of \r\nthese being that Leucippus reacted to a Melissean rather than a \r\nParmenidean refutation of locomotion. In the following short paper I \r\nshall challenge this view and point out that not only is one other \r\nargument for Melissus' influence on atomism insecure, but that Theo- \r\nphrastus, our most important witness, unequivocally states that \r\nLeucippus opposed a pre-Melissean eleaticism. [p. 1]","btype":3,"date":"1967","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HVrwO25mQS4JsxM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":399,"full_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":772,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"12","issue":"1","pages":"1-5"}},"sort":["Parmenides' Refutation of Motion and an Implication"]}

Parmenides, Fragment 10, 1968
By: Bicknell, Peter J.
Title Parmenides, Fragment 10
Type Article
Language English
Date 1968
Journal Hermes
Volume 96
Issue 4
Pages 629-631
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bicknell, Peter J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s) 
This text is a critical analysis of the location of two fragments of the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides. The author of the text suggests that the two fragments, VS 28 B 10 (Clement, Strom. 5, I38) and VS 28 B 11 (Simplicius, de Caelo 559, 20), are incorrectly placed together in Parmenides' Way of Seeming. The author argues that there is no evidence to suggest that the two fragments were meant to be together, and that they do not fit into the context of Parmenides' work. The author also suggests that VS 28 B 10 may not be Parmenidean at all, and discusses its possible attribution to Empedocles. The text concludes by considering the language and style of the two fragments, and their relationship to Parmenides' other works. [summary of the whole text]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1124","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1124,"authors_free":[{"id":1700,"entry_id":1124,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":399,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","free_first_name":"Peter J.","free_last_name":"Bicknell","norm_person":{"id":399,"first_name":"Peter J.","last_name":"Bicknell","full_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1162157143","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides, Fragment 10","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides, Fragment 10"},"abstract":"This text is a critical analysis of the location of two fragments of the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides. The author of the text suggests that the two fragments, VS 28 B 10 (Clement, Strom. 5, I38) and VS 28 B 11 (Simplicius, de Caelo 559, 20), are incorrectly placed together in Parmenides' Way of Seeming. The author argues that there is no evidence to suggest that the two fragments were meant to be together, and that they do not fit into the context of Parmenides' work. The author also suggests that VS 28 B 10 may not be Parmenidean at all, and discusses its possible attribution to Empedocles. The text concludes by considering the language and style of the two fragments, and their relationship to Parmenides' other works. [summary of the whole text]","btype":3,"date":"1968","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2uPg3j4nE0Tu1v1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":399,"full_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1124,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"96","issue":"4","pages":"629-631"}},"sort":["Parmenides, Fragment 10"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1