If we use the word ‘Being’ to translate Parmenides’ tò έόν as that English word was used at the time when while an undergraduate at Oxford Hopkins wrote his piece on that thinker's poem, we should heed John Burnet's observation that ‘Parmenides does not say a word about “Being” anywhere … We must not render τò έόν by “Being”, das Sein or l’être. It is “What is”, das Seiende, ce qui est. As (τò) εîναi it does not occur, and hardly could occur at this date.’ We have seen that in that article on Parmenides Hopkins speaks both of instress or stress and of inscape. Facing his readers with the task of refining their conception of the relation of inscape to instress – but also now with the further task of deciphering two other unplain new words – he writes of Parmenides: ‘His feeling for instress, for the flush and foredrawn and for inscape is most striking …’ Bearing on the question of the relation to each other of ‘instress’ and ‘inscape’ unravelled in our second chapter, and keeping in mind what was said in the first about the two-facedness of ‘unravelling’, it should be noted that the second ‘and’ in the sentence just cited and the fact that the sentence does not have ‘or’ could be held to imply that ‘instress’ and ‘inscape’ are not to be taken as synonyms. Yet, depending on whether the force of ‘or’ is exclusive (Latin vel) or non-exclusive (Latin aut), synonymity of the words ‘instress’ and ‘inscape’ is not necessarily implied either by the ‘or’ in Hopkins’ statement a few lines later that: ‘I have often felt … and felt the depth of an instress or how fast the inscape holds a thing that nothing is so pregnant and straightforward to the truth as simple yes and is.’ This ‘yes’ and this ‘is’ refer back to ‘things are’ (or ‘there are’) and ‘there is truth’, phrases he has just offered along with ‘it is’ and ‘there are’ as transliterations of Parmendes’ έsτiν and τò έόν.