Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 1998. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 422-444). Available also in a digital version from Dissertation Abstracts.

In the fragments of Melissus we find the earliest metaphysical treatment of pain in the Western philosophical tradition. Famous for his one-entity ontology, Melissus argues that “what is” does not suffer pain or grief (B7.4–6). The scholarly literature on this passage has focused on two questions: (1) What is the argumentative structure of the passage? (2) Who, if anyone, might Melissus be responding to? I will focus on question (1). First, I will provide an account of the argumentative strategy of the passage by viewing it in the wider context of B7 as a whole. I will then note how this strategy, as well as certain features of Melissus’ diction, suggest an initial account of the structure of the passage, according to which it contains three independent arguments. This structure will be confirmed as we delve into the details of the arguments themselves. One of these arguments will prove the most difficult to interpret, and I will suggest two plausible interpretations of this argument, as well as two possible roles for the puzzling claim in 7.4 which invokes the notion of an “equal power” (isēn dunamin). Finally, we will see that one of the two readings of this claim has the accidental virtue of suggesting a response to question (2) above. / text

Notre thèse consiste en une édition et traduction des témoignages sur le philosophe présocratique Mélissos de Samos dans l’Antiquité, et un commentaire qui se concentre sur l’histoire de l’interprétation de ce penseur. Notre objectif est de montrer comment Mélissos a été compris par les auteurs anciens en fonction de leur perspective et des connaissances dont ils disposaient, et de présenter les grandes orientations de cette lecture à travers l’Antiquité. Une telle étude est particulièrement intéressante pour Mélissos étant donné qu’il est l’objet d’une doxographie certes riche mais qui peut être analysée dans son intégralité. De plus, elle nous offre un éclairage sur la place de l’éléatisme dans l’histoire de la pensée. Nous avons proposé pour chaque témoin une analyse de leur interprétation de Mélissos, mais nous sommes concentréssur trois grandes lectures : celle d’Aristote, de Pseudo-Aristote dans le MXG et la réinterprétation néoplatonicienne par Philopon et Simplicius. Notre édition présente la quasi-intégralité des textes anciens qui mentionnent Mélissos, et est accompagnée d’un apparat critique sélectif composé à partir des éditions déjà existantes, mais modifié en fonction de nos propres choix éditoriaux. Elle est accompagnée d’une traduction annotée en français. / My dissertation contains an edition and translation of the testimonies on the Presocratic philosopher Melissus of Samos in Antiquity, and a commentary focusing on the history of the way in which he has been interpreted. My aim is to show how he has been understood by ancient writers according to their own agenda and to the knowledge available to them, and to present the main lines of the reception of Melissus throughout Antiquity. A study of this kind is of particular interest in the case of Melissus since he offers a rich material that can be nonetheless analysed in its entirety. Moreover, it provides us with some insights on the place occupied by Eleatism in the intellectual history. For each witness I gave an analysis of theirinterpretation of Melissus, but I concentrated on four main authors: Aristotle, the MXG’s Pseudo-Aristotle and the Neoplatonists Philoponus and Simplicius. My edition includes almost every ancient text that mentions Melissus with a selective critical apparatus, based on the already existing editions, but modified in accordance with my own editorial choices. The edition is accompanied by a French translation with notes.