The Parmenides was the frequent subject of commentaries by Neoplatonists . Important examples include those of Proclus and of Damascius , and an anonymous 3rd or 4th commentary possibly due to Porphyry . The 13th century translation of Proclus' commentary by Dominican friar William of Moerbeke stirred subsequent medieval interest (Klibansky, 1941). In the 15th century, Proclus' commentary influenced the philosophy of Nicolas of Cusa , and Neoplatonists Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and Marsilio Ficino penned major commentaries. According to Ficino:
It is with respect to this religious/mystical context that recent generations of scholars such as Alexander P. Mourelatos, Charles H. Kahn, and the controversial Peter Kingsley have begun to call parts of the traditional, rational logical/philosophical interpretation of Parmenides into question (Kingsley in particular stating that Parmenides practiced iatromancy ). It has been claimed that previous scholars placed too little emphasis on the apocalyptic context in which Parmenides frames his revelation. As a result, traditional interpretations have put Parmenidean philosophy into a more modern, metaphysical context to which it is not necessarily well suited, which has led to misunderstanding of the true meaning and intention of Parmenides' message. The obscurity and fragmentary state of the text, however, renders almost every claim that can be made about Parmenides extremely contentious, and the traditional interpretation has by no means been abandoned.
Nevertheless, there is some controversy regarding the proper ending of the Proem . While Lines -30 are reported by several additional sources (Diogenes Laertius, Plutarch, Clement, and Proclus), Simplicius alone quotes lines -32. In contrast, Sextus continued his block quotation of the Proem after line with the lines currently assigned to C/DK -7, as if these immediately followed. Diels-Kranz separated Sextus’ quotation into distinct fragments (1 and 7) and added Simplicius’ lines to the end of C/DK 1. The vast majority of interpreters have followed both these moves. However, there may be good reasons to challenge this reconstruction (compare Bicknell 1968; Kurfess 2012, 2014).