Journal of the History of Philosophy

462 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF enILOSOPHY 27:3 JULY 198 9 many more than two hodoienvisaged in the poem as a whole (36ff.), such as the journey from Darkness to Light undertaken by the Youth himself, and the wanderings of the akritaphyla in Fr. 6. Indeed, Jean Fr~re is already on record as distinguishing four. But C. himself goes rather overboard on this, ultimately distinguishing no less than ten, and rejoicing in this as a good Pythagorean number. On the other hand, his analysis of the meaning of myth in a Parmenidean context, drawing on the insights of such thinkers as Vernant and D~tienne, is most useful. All too often no clear distinction is made between mythical and allegorical discourse, and which of these Parmenides is employing . In fact, though his connections with epic, and with Hesiod in particular, are universally recognized (being explored very fully by Mourelatos, for one), the way in which Parmenides transposes the genealogictradition of the epic into his myth as of the "way" has not been investigated, I think, with such acuteness as C. employs here. The body of the book is a detailed, more or less line-by-line exegesis of the surviving fragments, from which much may be learned, if only by forcing one to challenge one's assumptions, without necessarily changing them. C. himself sees his distinctive contribution to the understanding of the poem as moving the center of attention from Being to the concept of the "multiple paths" by which knowledge is conducted to its goal. Even the way of seeming is thus designed to bring us, by means of a properly structured cosmogony, to a knowledge of "the Same," or the oneness of Being. His argument certainly serves to make plausible sense of the second half of the poem and to refine our view of Parmenides' relation to genealogical myth, and as such it is worthy of consideration by all students of Parmenides. Particular topics on which he seems to me to be right or useful are: the analysis of the meaning and subject of esti in Fr. ~ (175ff.); the nature of the eonta of Fr. 7, a (2ooff.); on Parmenides not having a true concept of eternity (226ff.); "the Same" as the subject of Fr. 3 and 8, 34 (~38 ft.); the discussion of metaphor, myth, and allegory at 252ff. (also well discussed before him by Mourelatos, however, in chap. x of The Way ofParmenides);the analysis of dokeinand cognates (252ff.); the rendering ofgnOmas at 8, 53 as "signifying marks" (i.e., "they proposed two forms for naming significant marks"); and the decision to move Fr. 4 to the second half of the poem, between Fr. 8 and t 9 (334ff.). No contribution to Parmenidean studies these days can, I suppose, hope to constitute the last word, or even to command very wide assent, but C.'s work deserves welcome, I think, for its many stimulating insights and suggestions. JOHN DILLON Trinity College,Dublin V. Tejera. Plato's DialoguesOne by One. A Structural Interpretation. New York: Irvington Publishers, 1984. Pp. x + 424 . $47.5o. The study and interpretation of Plato, an enterprise which has been going on at least since the generation of Speusippus, makes three characteristic and related mistakes. First, its overall aim has been to discover, whether for veneration or for refutation, BOOK REVIEWS 463 what Plato's doctrines are, and thus what his philosophy is; for it has been assumed that his philosophy can only be the doctrines he maintained. Second, in order to accomplish this primary task, the interpretive tradition has had to ignore what it otherwise recognizes , that Plato's writings are dialogues, dramatic writings of consummate artistry, not the merely formal philosophic dialogues of an Augustine or Berkeley. Third, it has ignored the historical context in which these philosophic dramas were produced. There have been exceptions, of course, such as Brumbaugh, Friedlaender, Klein, Randall, Rosen, Shorey, and Woodbridge, who have taken drama seriously. Even of these, some have used dramatic analysis as a way of getting at Plato's doctrines and most have failed to set the dialogues in their political and intellectual contexts. But no one, to my knowledge...