Journal of the History of Philosophy

462 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY what the ancients tell us about Thales has the coloring of legend. But the thinking of Heraclitus and Parmenides presupposes a vigorous debate on questions of ~6r real or ultimate constitution. It is incredible that Anaximenes should have been the only man before Heraclitus to raise this question. (The ontology of Anaximander stays close to the naive or naive realist--conception of contrary quality-things; it does not require the concept of ~6~tg.)It is more credible that the man whose name was later associated with the doctrine that all things are water should have played a role in that debate. I have noticed the following infelicities of translation that have actual or potential bearing on interpretation. The phrase xa't~ "tb 7,~e(ov in Anaximander B1 should not be translated "as it must be" but "as is right" or "in accordance with right necessity" (italics here and below are mine). The same holds for Heraclitus BS0, and generally for words of the -/.[~-family throughout this period. (The concept is not one of compulsion but of necessity in the sense of norm, fitness, or propriety.) In translating Parmenides BI.32 Robinson misses the past tense of 7.p~v(either historical past or past of unreality) and translates "seeing that appearances have to be acceptable." Quite apart from this, I do not see how he gets the sense of "seeing that appearances" from tb~ x~t ~o• At B6.9 Robinson's rendering, "and that the road of all things is a backward-turning one," would be fight if the text were ~wtov ~ 7r~tX~vxpo~ovs~v,~t x~),eu{}o.ovv(the text reads .... ~d~ [~'rt x~),sv{}oQ.At B8.43 and 8.49 he translates u:t"~ as "on every side" (instead of "from every side"), and in the second half of 8.49 he changes the text from ~[xt~, "equally," to 5lxto~, "nevertheless," and adopts Kranz's tortuous translation "it meets with its limits." For Melissus B7(7) Robinson translates "For there to be any emptiness, what is would have to retire into the void," whereas the sense is "If there were void, then it might [or 'could'] retreat into the void" [ have spotted only two misprints that are worth mentioning. On p. 176, in the text from Lucretius and in the section title, the term homoiomeria (better homoeomeria, as in the Latin source) is spelled homoiomerai. (Or is there some of the old confusion , ? behind this slip, between -~t 6Fto~%tep~ and ~ b~o~optepet~. On p. 314 (2.18) Diels's proposed reading 7updv is printed ~'up6v. For a paperback of this size, the price of $4.25 seems unreasonably inflated--all the more so in view of the possibilities of extensive adoption as a college textbook. ALEXAr,IDERP. D. MOURELATOS The University of Texas at Austin ,4ristoteles: Darstellung und Interpretation seines Denkens. By Ingemar Dtiring. (Heidelberg: Carl Winter-Universit~tsverlag, 1966. Pp. xv+670. DM 68) In his A ristoteles Dtiring undertakes to review and present in detail reasons on which he bases his assertion that the Eudemus contains no Platonic (or Platonlzing) doctrines concerning the nature of the soul, its destiny, and the theory of Ideas-doctrines which would be incompatible with corresponding doctrines in Aristotle's 'esoteric' (acroamatic) writings as they are known to us. As far as I can see, Dtiring presents only three such reasons, z He originally presented them in his paper "Aristoteles och id616ran," Eranos, XXXV (1938), 120-145, esp. 133-135; "Aristotle and Plato in the Mid-fourth Century," Eranos, LIV (1956), 109-120, esp. 115. BOOK REVIEWS 463 (1) The Eudemus was a dialogue. But an Aristotelian dialogue is no longer as it used to be a vehicle to convey opinions of its author in a reasoned form; it is rather a presentation of several points of view on a given problem. The implication not quite clearly stated by Dtiring seems to be: Even if in the Eudemus any of the characters presented any of the 'Platonizing' doctrines mentioned above, it does not follow that this character expressed Aristotle's own opinions. I say "not quite clearly stated...