With this
chronology
we can easily re- the poems of Empedocles (ξήγησις των του Εμ.
William Smith - 1844 - Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities - c
38 ; Plut.
de Virt.
mor.
p.
393).
sistency of soul, out of which morally good volitions Zenon, therefore, had already especially concerned
and actions spring, is virtue (Stob. 2. c. p. 104 ; himself with the more exact definition of the affec-
Cic. Tusc. iv. 15), true good can only consist in tions, and had composed a separate treatise on
virtue (Stob. p. 90 ; Diog. Laërt. vii. 102, 127), them, as bas been above remarked. To him belongs
and this being self-sufficient, can need no external the fourfold division of them. He referred them to
good circumstances (Diog. Laërt. vii. 104 ; Cic. de present (apóo Patov), and therefore operative errors
Fin. iii. 10 ; Sen. Epist. 9; Plut. I. c. ). That, to (false assumptions) respecting the good and the
the accomplishment or attainment of which virtue bad (Cic. Tusc. iii. 3 ; Stob. p. 170). They must
is directed, has no value in itself, but on the con- be rooted out, and not merely set aside (Cic. Tusc.
trary derives value only from its being willed and iv. 18, &c. ), and their place must be occupied by
accomplished morally (Stob. l. c. p. 94). And it corresponding movements of the reason. As he
was just at this point that Zenon felt himself con- was the originator of the fourfold division of the
strained to deviate from the Cynics. He could not affections (desire and fear, pleasure and pain: étte
adınit that things indifferent in themselves are Quuia, pókos, ģdovt, aúnn; Cic. Tusc. iv. 6 ; Stob.
without any value for us. On the contrary, he p. 166, &c. ; Diog. Laërt. vii. 110), so in all pro-
endeavoured to point out differences which fixed bability he also distinguished the three emotions
the measure of their relative value. They have which are according to reason (Botanou, xápa,
this, according to him, in proportion as they cùnabela,) and assumed that pain, because it is
correspond to the original natural instinct of self- merely passive, cannot be transformed into a cor-
preservation (Diog. Laërt. vii. 85; Cic. de Fin. iii. responding rational emotion. In like manner to
5, 15, iv. 10, v. 9, Acad. i. 16). What corresponds him probably, in what is essential, belong the
to that is justly preferred (is a sponyuévov), has a definitions of the four virtues, as well as the
certain worth (ášía, Stob. l. c. p. 144, &c. 156 ; assertions, subsequently repeated to satiety, re-
comp. Diog. Laërt. vii. 105), and admits of being specting the perfections of the wise man. How far
shown to be such, that is, of having a foundation he carried these out, and whether, or how far he
for it established (Cic. Acad. i. 10, &c. ; Stob. l. c. conducted the further sub-division of the four
p. 158 ; Diog. Laërt. vii. 108). But because virtues, we are not able to determine.
every thing which conduces to self-preservation, Polemon is said already to have given utterance
like self-preservation itself, has only a conditional to the suspicion that Zenon intended to purloin
(relative value, it cannot be a constituent element other people's doctrines in order to appropriate
of happiness; the latter depends merely upon moral them to himself in a new dress (Diog. Laërt. vii.
volition and action (Cic. de Fin. iii. 13). That 25). At a later time he was frequently charged
which is to be preferred is an appropriate thing with having been the inventor not so much of new
(kaoñkov), a designation which Zenon first intro- things, as of new words (Cic. de Fin. jj. 2, iv, 2,
duced (Diog. Laërt. 1. c. ), and shows itself to be &c. , Tusc. v. 12), and already Chrysippus had
such by its rational foundation (ettoyov, Diog. endeavoured to defend him against such charges
Laërt. and Stob. l. cc. ). The appropriate, however, (Diog. Laërt. vii. 122). But though those charges
and its foundation, are perfect only when the latter may in part have been unjust, yet even the acute-
is unconditional, that is, corresponds to unconditional ness of Chrysippus and others was not able to
requirements (a karópowua, Stob. p. 158 ; Cic. de develop out of the doctrines of Zenon an organi-
Fin. iii. 7, 9, 14, 17, de Off. i. 3). So long as an cally constructed system, growing out of one
action can merely be justified as fit, it is a middling fundamental idea, such as we find in Plato and
(uéoor) action, and has no real moral value, even Aristotle. Logic and physic always continued
though it should perfectly coincide with a truly mere supplements of ethic, connected with it rather
moral action in reference to its object or purport. I externally than internally; and the system of the
those w
spiritua
was in
lence
said ic
sipDUS
(Strate
of sbo
every
Sirao
show
life i
tyra
ix.
he
the
ris
is
ATT.
## p. 1317 (#1333) ##########################################
ZENON.
1317
ZENON
It is not without
cisteron bir
traced in this sterk
€270000= Heses
200) sossa
in: an af teasen, so
: rezaciat. sa af te
è virtee is ab. Ezt
on — opposed to a
10, de Fie in. Ol
Til 127; 86 14
cannot fubeasi nde i
abiect, cu ades
is de FA. I. 14,
na be Dere ritares 12
4; Sert Essar. Va
wever are to be recized
I good or bad, aber esan
i upon iree consecte
iv. m, Acad i idi. ad
le cordifoss er Estas
un from the domand
g. Laert vil liv;
s. 14), nas, sore, they a
actions (sebb a 110, £;
Put de l'int. sr. il
already especiais escerad
erat defnition of the es
posed a separate trees
ive remarked. Tot
of them. He referred Lens
, and there are operate a
respecting the rood exa
3; Sick p 170). The 18
not Derely set aside Cic in
heir place must be accupied by
rements of the reason. As die
of the fourfo. d dirsson
and lear, pleasure and und
the auta; Cie Tasc. it. 6; sk.
& Laëre vii. 110), so in al my
distinguished tbe taire enco
ding to reason (BOLÀFOR
assumed that pain bease
cannot be transtored in
onal emotion. In ike mund
in what is essential, berny *
the four ritges, as well as
osequently repeated to BET, :
erfections of the wise til. ETE
Stoa, though for centuries it banded together around termine. Simplicius like Plato characterises the
it the noblest spirits, to struggle against the moral treatise to which he referred as composed in prose,
corruption of the age, had not proceeded from a full as a our pappa, though still the dialogical form
and unrestricted love of wisdom, but from the indicated by Plato, and the division of the treatise
impulse after a completely satisfactory mode of life. into different argumentations (adrovs), each of
It no longer formed a member of the ever rising which carried out different assumptions (Urodéseis;
series of development of the philosophising spirit comp. Plat. Parm. p. 127; Arist. Elench. Soph. c. 10;
of the Greeks, but rather already belonged to the Diog. Laërt. iii. 47), does not manifest itself ; a
descending series.
mode of dealing with the subject which seems to
2. Of Elea (Velia), son of Teleutagoras, and have been the immedinte occasion which led Aris-
favourite disciple of Parmenides. He was with totle to regard Zenon as the originator of dialectic.
the latter in Athens about the 80th Olympiad, (Diog. Laërt. ix. 25 ; comp. viii. 57; Sext. Emp.
when Socrates was still very young. At this time adv. Math. vii. 6). Of other treatises of Zenon
he was 40 years old, and consequently was born we only learn the titles : Discussions (Epides),
about the 70th Olympiad (Diog. Laërt. ix. 28 ; Against the Natural Philosophers (rpos Tous quoi.
Plut Sopk. p. 217, Parin. p. 127; comp. Theuet. Kous), On Nature (Tepl quoews), Explanation of
p. 183).
With this chronology we can easily re- the poems of Empedocles (ξήγησις των του Εμ.
concile the statements which assign, as the period TEDUKAfous, Suid. s. v. ), and must leave it unde-
when he flourished, the 78th Olympiad (Suid. s. v. ), cided whether it was one of these, and if so, which
the 79th (Diog. Laërt. ix. 29), or the 80ch (Euseb. of them is the treatise referred to by Plato in the
Chron. ). The statements that he unfolded his Parmenides. In another passage (Phaedr. p. 26 ;
doctrines to men like Pericles and Callias for the comp. Parin. p. 129) Plato manifestly speaks of
price of 100 minae (Plat. Alcib. i. p. 119 ; Olym- him, not of the rhetorician Alcidamas, as Quintilian
piod. in Alcib. p. 140, Kreuzer; Plut. Vil. Pericl. (Inst. iii. 1) assumes, as the Eleatic Palamedes,
c. 4) indicate a rather long residence in Athens. whose art causes one and the same thing to appear
Of a well-grown and graceful person (etuhans kal both like and unlike, one and many, at rest and in
xaplels ideiv), Zenon was the favourite (Talõikà) motion.
of Parmenides, says Plato (Parm. p. 127 ; comp. The way in which Zenon undertook to show
Diog. Laërt. ix. 25), where he doubtless intends the merely relative validity of our assertions with
the word to be taken in the honourable sense regard to the phenomenal world, is shown partly
(comp. Schol. in Plat. l. c. ), not, as his traducers by his expressions which Simplicius has preserved,
thought (Athen. xi. p. 505), in a signification which according to which the multiplicity of phenomena
must have redounded to his disgrace in the eyes of must be set down as finite, because actual, and
those whom he held in such high esteem. The noblest consequently determinate ; and as infinite, because
spiritual love of Zenon for his teacher is shown in the not made up of ultimate parts; and for that very
way'in which he devoted his whole energy to the de- reason as at the same time small and great ; as, on
fence of the doctrines of Parmenides. He is also the one hand, in being divided ad infinitum, it
said to have taken part in the law-making (Speu loses all magnitude, and on the other hand regains
Bippus in Diog. Laërt
. ix. 23) or law-mending it through the infinitude of the number of the
(Strabo vi. 1) of Parmenides, to the maintenance parts (the argument of the dichotomia, to which
of which the citizens of Elea had pledged themselves Aristotle refers, Phys. Ausc. i. 3. p. 187. I, and
every year by an oath (Plut. adv. Col. p. 1126; which Porphyrius had improperly referred to Par-
Strabo, l. c. ), and his love of legitimate freedom is menides ; see Simplicius, l. c. ); partly by the
shown by the courage with which he exposed his question which he is said to have put to Protagoras,
life in order to deliver his native country from a whether a measure of corn, falling down, makes a
tyrant (Plut. adv. Col. p. 1126, de Stoic. Repugn. noise (yopel) in its fall, while a thousandth part
p. 105, de Garrulit. p. 505 ; comp. Diog. Laert. of the measure, or a single grain, does not (Arist.
ix. 26, &c. ; Diodor. Exc. p. 557, Wessel. ) Whether Phys. A usc. vii. 5. p. 250. 9; Simpl. f. 255 ; Schol.
he perished in the attempt, or survived the fall of in Arist. p. 423, b. 40). On the infinite divisibility
the tyrant, is a point on which the authorities of space and time also was founded Zenon's argu-
vary. They also state the name of the tyrant ments to disprove the reality of motion (Arist.
differently.
Phys. Ausc. vi. 9; comp. c. 1, 2 ; Simpl. f. 236, b;
Unfortunately also the writings of Zenon pe Themist. f. 55, b. &c. ; Schol. in Arist. p. 413;
rished earlier than those of Parmenides and Melissus. comp. Diog. Laërt. ix. 29). He endeavoured to
Even the indefatigable Simplicius had not succeeded show, 1. that on account of the infinite divisibility
in possessing himself of more than one of the trea- of the space to be passed through the motion cannot
tises of the Eleatic philosopher, and even this he begin at all ; 2. that for that some reason the
probably had before him only in extracts (Simpl. in creature which moves most slowly (the tortoise)
Arist. Phys. f. 30, a b. ). In explaining the difficult could not be overtaken by the swiftest (Achilles) ;
passage of Aristotle respecting the mode in which 3. that the moving body must at the same time be
Zenon demonstrated the inconceivableness of motion, in motion, and also, inasmuch as it occupies space,
he manifestly had not Zenon's own words before at rest ; 4. that one and the same space of time
him. Alexander and Porphyrius in all probability might, in different relations, be both long and short
were not even acquainted with what Simplicius (comp. Bayle, Dict. Crit. s. v. ). Consequently, Ze-
quotes from the treatise of Zenon. (Simpl. l. c. ) non manifestly concluded, we nowhere find in the
But whether this was the youthful essay charac- phenomenal world a really existing thing, remaining
terised in the Parmenides of Plato, in which, in like itself ; and consequently we nowhere find an
order to defend his master's doctrine of the oneness actual thing; it distributes itself into a multiformity
of the existent, he had developed the contradictions which has neither subsistence nor unity ; for that
involved in the presupposition of a multiplicity of which neither increases when added, nor diminishes
the existent (Plat Purm. p. 128), we cannot de- ! when taken away, - that is, the true, indivisible
4 p 3
se out and whether, er hov tzv
le further sub-division of the
re not able to determine
is said aiready to have giren bites
:cion that Zenon intended to rea
e's doctrines in order to pro
nself in a new dress Dixe. Leveres
a later time be was frecueris cares
been the intentor not so much z
of new words (Cic. de Fiesz
6 v. 1? ), and aiready Carreaus bad
red to defend him aa'ost sech deras
aërt. vii, 1:22). But though those coopy
part bare been unjust, sei eren ke
Chrysippus and others was not abes
out of the doctrines of Zepuz szelepon
constructed system, growing out of
Dental idez, such as we find in Piss sale
de Logic and phrsie a/cars caseira
supplements of ethic, consected rain
thly than internally; and the system d *
## p. 1318 (#1334) ##########################################
1318
ZENON.
ZENON.
the third ar
Es as he
piricus (AF
carried on a
certain mar!
end of some
the Epidem
618) H
medica (ce
perhaps the
quoted by
Pp. 163, 17
a native of
other passa
.
(Glass. Hip
also by Plus
(De Morl.
disiensis (
Rufus Eplie
36. p. 44. ).
Deurres
Gesch. der
2. A nati
Christ, the
(Eunap. VI
profession
by the Bis.
p. 218), w
orthodox C
was hovere
command o
unity,-cannot become a phenomenon (Arist. Alel. philosophers or the orators. He is said to have
B. 4. p. 2001, b. 7. ib. Alex. ; comp. Simpl. in Phys. written the following works :- flepl ordoews.
f. 21). Hence he asserted that he would explain | Περί σχημάτων. Υπόμνημα εις Ξενοφώντα, εις
what things are, if he had unity given to him. | Λυσίαν, εις Δημοσθένην. Περί επιχειρημάτων.
(Eudem. in Simpl. f. 21. 6. ) Whether, and in This Zenon is by some (Harles, in Fab. vol. iii.
what way, he nevertheless admitted the theory of p. 581) identified with the Zenon spoken of in no
Empedocles as a hypothetical explanation of phe very flattering terms by Ulpianus (in Dem. Proleg.
sistency of soul, out of which morally good volitions Zenon, therefore, had already especially concerned
and actions spring, is virtue (Stob. 2. c. p. 104 ; himself with the more exact definition of the affec-
Cic. Tusc. iv. 15), true good can only consist in tions, and had composed a separate treatise on
virtue (Stob. p. 90 ; Diog. Laërt. vii. 102, 127), them, as bas been above remarked. To him belongs
and this being self-sufficient, can need no external the fourfold division of them. He referred them to
good circumstances (Diog. Laërt. vii. 104 ; Cic. de present (apóo Patov), and therefore operative errors
Fin. iii. 10 ; Sen. Epist. 9; Plut. I. c. ). That, to (false assumptions) respecting the good and the
the accomplishment or attainment of which virtue bad (Cic. Tusc. iii. 3 ; Stob. p. 170). They must
is directed, has no value in itself, but on the con- be rooted out, and not merely set aside (Cic. Tusc.
trary derives value only from its being willed and iv. 18, &c. ), and their place must be occupied by
accomplished morally (Stob. l. c. p. 94). And it corresponding movements of the reason. As he
was just at this point that Zenon felt himself con- was the originator of the fourfold division of the
strained to deviate from the Cynics. He could not affections (desire and fear, pleasure and pain: étte
adınit that things indifferent in themselves are Quuia, pókos, ģdovt, aúnn; Cic. Tusc. iv. 6 ; Stob.
without any value for us. On the contrary, he p. 166, &c. ; Diog. Laërt. vii. 110), so in all pro-
endeavoured to point out differences which fixed bability he also distinguished the three emotions
the measure of their relative value. They have which are according to reason (Botanou, xápa,
this, according to him, in proportion as they cùnabela,) and assumed that pain, because it is
correspond to the original natural instinct of self- merely passive, cannot be transformed into a cor-
preservation (Diog. Laërt. vii. 85; Cic. de Fin. iii. responding rational emotion. In like manner to
5, 15, iv. 10, v. 9, Acad. i. 16). What corresponds him probably, in what is essential, belong the
to that is justly preferred (is a sponyuévov), has a definitions of the four virtues, as well as the
certain worth (ášía, Stob. l. c. p. 144, &c. 156 ; assertions, subsequently repeated to satiety, re-
comp. Diog. Laërt. vii. 105), and admits of being specting the perfections of the wise man. How far
shown to be such, that is, of having a foundation he carried these out, and whether, or how far he
for it established (Cic. Acad. i. 10, &c. ; Stob. l. c. conducted the further sub-division of the four
p. 158 ; Diog. Laërt. vii. 108). But because virtues, we are not able to determine.
every thing which conduces to self-preservation, Polemon is said already to have given utterance
like self-preservation itself, has only a conditional to the suspicion that Zenon intended to purloin
(relative value, it cannot be a constituent element other people's doctrines in order to appropriate
of happiness; the latter depends merely upon moral them to himself in a new dress (Diog. Laërt. vii.
volition and action (Cic. de Fin. iii. 13). That 25). At a later time he was frequently charged
which is to be preferred is an appropriate thing with having been the inventor not so much of new
(kaoñkov), a designation which Zenon first intro- things, as of new words (Cic. de Fin. jj. 2, iv, 2,
duced (Diog. Laërt. 1. c. ), and shows itself to be &c. , Tusc. v. 12), and already Chrysippus had
such by its rational foundation (ettoyov, Diog. endeavoured to defend him against such charges
Laërt. and Stob. l. cc. ). The appropriate, however, (Diog. Laërt. vii. 122). But though those charges
and its foundation, are perfect only when the latter may in part have been unjust, yet even the acute-
is unconditional, that is, corresponds to unconditional ness of Chrysippus and others was not able to
requirements (a karópowua, Stob. p. 158 ; Cic. de develop out of the doctrines of Zenon an organi-
Fin. iii. 7, 9, 14, 17, de Off. i. 3). So long as an cally constructed system, growing out of one
action can merely be justified as fit, it is a middling fundamental idea, such as we find in Plato and
(uéoor) action, and has no real moral value, even Aristotle. Logic and physic always continued
though it should perfectly coincide with a truly mere supplements of ethic, connected with it rather
moral action in reference to its object or purport. I externally than internally; and the system of the
those w
spiritua
was in
lence
said ic
sipDUS
(Strate
of sbo
every
Sirao
show
life i
tyra
ix.
he
the
ris
is
ATT.
## p. 1317 (#1333) ##########################################
ZENON.
1317
ZENON
It is not without
cisteron bir
traced in this sterk
€270000= Heses
200) sossa
in: an af teasen, so
: rezaciat. sa af te
è virtee is ab. Ezt
on — opposed to a
10, de Fie in. Ol
Til 127; 86 14
cannot fubeasi nde i
abiect, cu ades
is de FA. I. 14,
na be Dere ritares 12
4; Sert Essar. Va
wever are to be recized
I good or bad, aber esan
i upon iree consecte
iv. m, Acad i idi. ad
le cordifoss er Estas
un from the domand
g. Laert vil liv;
s. 14), nas, sore, they a
actions (sebb a 110, £;
Put de l'int. sr. il
already especiais escerad
erat defnition of the es
posed a separate trees
ive remarked. Tot
of them. He referred Lens
, and there are operate a
respecting the rood exa
3; Sick p 170). The 18
not Derely set aside Cic in
heir place must be accupied by
rements of the reason. As die
of the fourfo. d dirsson
and lear, pleasure and und
the auta; Cie Tasc. it. 6; sk.
& Laëre vii. 110), so in al my
distinguished tbe taire enco
ding to reason (BOLÀFOR
assumed that pain bease
cannot be transtored in
onal emotion. In ike mund
in what is essential, berny *
the four ritges, as well as
osequently repeated to BET, :
erfections of the wise til. ETE
Stoa, though for centuries it banded together around termine. Simplicius like Plato characterises the
it the noblest spirits, to struggle against the moral treatise to which he referred as composed in prose,
corruption of the age, had not proceeded from a full as a our pappa, though still the dialogical form
and unrestricted love of wisdom, but from the indicated by Plato, and the division of the treatise
impulse after a completely satisfactory mode of life. into different argumentations (adrovs), each of
It no longer formed a member of the ever rising which carried out different assumptions (Urodéseis;
series of development of the philosophising spirit comp. Plat. Parm. p. 127; Arist. Elench. Soph. c. 10;
of the Greeks, but rather already belonged to the Diog. Laërt. iii. 47), does not manifest itself ; a
descending series.
mode of dealing with the subject which seems to
2. Of Elea (Velia), son of Teleutagoras, and have been the immedinte occasion which led Aris-
favourite disciple of Parmenides. He was with totle to regard Zenon as the originator of dialectic.
the latter in Athens about the 80th Olympiad, (Diog. Laërt. ix. 25 ; comp. viii. 57; Sext. Emp.
when Socrates was still very young. At this time adv. Math. vii. 6). Of other treatises of Zenon
he was 40 years old, and consequently was born we only learn the titles : Discussions (Epides),
about the 70th Olympiad (Diog. Laërt. ix. 28 ; Against the Natural Philosophers (rpos Tous quoi.
Plut Sopk. p. 217, Parin. p. 127; comp. Theuet. Kous), On Nature (Tepl quoews), Explanation of
p. 183).
With this chronology we can easily re- the poems of Empedocles (ξήγησις των του Εμ.
concile the statements which assign, as the period TEDUKAfous, Suid. s. v. ), and must leave it unde-
when he flourished, the 78th Olympiad (Suid. s. v. ), cided whether it was one of these, and if so, which
the 79th (Diog. Laërt. ix. 29), or the 80ch (Euseb. of them is the treatise referred to by Plato in the
Chron. ). The statements that he unfolded his Parmenides. In another passage (Phaedr. p. 26 ;
doctrines to men like Pericles and Callias for the comp. Parin. p. 129) Plato manifestly speaks of
price of 100 minae (Plat. Alcib. i. p. 119 ; Olym- him, not of the rhetorician Alcidamas, as Quintilian
piod. in Alcib. p. 140, Kreuzer; Plut. Vil. Pericl. (Inst. iii. 1) assumes, as the Eleatic Palamedes,
c. 4) indicate a rather long residence in Athens. whose art causes one and the same thing to appear
Of a well-grown and graceful person (etuhans kal both like and unlike, one and many, at rest and in
xaplels ideiv), Zenon was the favourite (Talõikà) motion.
of Parmenides, says Plato (Parm. p. 127 ; comp. The way in which Zenon undertook to show
Diog. Laërt. ix. 25), where he doubtless intends the merely relative validity of our assertions with
the word to be taken in the honourable sense regard to the phenomenal world, is shown partly
(comp. Schol. in Plat. l. c. ), not, as his traducers by his expressions which Simplicius has preserved,
thought (Athen. xi. p. 505), in a signification which according to which the multiplicity of phenomena
must have redounded to his disgrace in the eyes of must be set down as finite, because actual, and
those whom he held in such high esteem. The noblest consequently determinate ; and as infinite, because
spiritual love of Zenon for his teacher is shown in the not made up of ultimate parts; and for that very
way'in which he devoted his whole energy to the de- reason as at the same time small and great ; as, on
fence of the doctrines of Parmenides. He is also the one hand, in being divided ad infinitum, it
said to have taken part in the law-making (Speu loses all magnitude, and on the other hand regains
Bippus in Diog. Laërt
. ix. 23) or law-mending it through the infinitude of the number of the
(Strabo vi. 1) of Parmenides, to the maintenance parts (the argument of the dichotomia, to which
of which the citizens of Elea had pledged themselves Aristotle refers, Phys. Ausc. i. 3. p. 187. I, and
every year by an oath (Plut. adv. Col. p. 1126; which Porphyrius had improperly referred to Par-
Strabo, l. c. ), and his love of legitimate freedom is menides ; see Simplicius, l. c. ); partly by the
shown by the courage with which he exposed his question which he is said to have put to Protagoras,
life in order to deliver his native country from a whether a measure of corn, falling down, makes a
tyrant (Plut. adv. Col. p. 1126, de Stoic. Repugn. noise (yopel) in its fall, while a thousandth part
p. 105, de Garrulit. p. 505 ; comp. Diog. Laert. of the measure, or a single grain, does not (Arist.
ix. 26, &c. ; Diodor. Exc. p. 557, Wessel. ) Whether Phys. A usc. vii. 5. p. 250. 9; Simpl. f. 255 ; Schol.
he perished in the attempt, or survived the fall of in Arist. p. 423, b. 40). On the infinite divisibility
the tyrant, is a point on which the authorities of space and time also was founded Zenon's argu-
vary. They also state the name of the tyrant ments to disprove the reality of motion (Arist.
differently.
Phys. Ausc. vi. 9; comp. c. 1, 2 ; Simpl. f. 236, b;
Unfortunately also the writings of Zenon pe Themist. f. 55, b. &c. ; Schol. in Arist. p. 413;
rished earlier than those of Parmenides and Melissus. comp. Diog. Laërt. ix. 29). He endeavoured to
Even the indefatigable Simplicius had not succeeded show, 1. that on account of the infinite divisibility
in possessing himself of more than one of the trea- of the space to be passed through the motion cannot
tises of the Eleatic philosopher, and even this he begin at all ; 2. that for that some reason the
probably had before him only in extracts (Simpl. in creature which moves most slowly (the tortoise)
Arist. Phys. f. 30, a b. ). In explaining the difficult could not be overtaken by the swiftest (Achilles) ;
passage of Aristotle respecting the mode in which 3. that the moving body must at the same time be
Zenon demonstrated the inconceivableness of motion, in motion, and also, inasmuch as it occupies space,
he manifestly had not Zenon's own words before at rest ; 4. that one and the same space of time
him. Alexander and Porphyrius in all probability might, in different relations, be both long and short
were not even acquainted with what Simplicius (comp. Bayle, Dict. Crit. s. v. ). Consequently, Ze-
quotes from the treatise of Zenon. (Simpl. l. c. ) non manifestly concluded, we nowhere find in the
But whether this was the youthful essay charac- phenomenal world a really existing thing, remaining
terised in the Parmenides of Plato, in which, in like itself ; and consequently we nowhere find an
order to defend his master's doctrine of the oneness actual thing; it distributes itself into a multiformity
of the existent, he had developed the contradictions which has neither subsistence nor unity ; for that
involved in the presupposition of a multiplicity of which neither increases when added, nor diminishes
the existent (Plat Purm. p. 128), we cannot de- ! when taken away, - that is, the true, indivisible
4 p 3
se out and whether, er hov tzv
le further sub-division of the
re not able to determine
is said aiready to have giren bites
:cion that Zenon intended to rea
e's doctrines in order to pro
nself in a new dress Dixe. Leveres
a later time be was frecueris cares
been the intentor not so much z
of new words (Cic. de Fiesz
6 v. 1? ), and aiready Carreaus bad
red to defend him aa'ost sech deras
aërt. vii, 1:22). But though those coopy
part bare been unjust, sei eren ke
Chrysippus and others was not abes
out of the doctrines of Zepuz szelepon
constructed system, growing out of
Dental idez, such as we find in Piss sale
de Logic and phrsie a/cars caseira
supplements of ethic, consected rain
thly than internally; and the system d *
## p. 1318 (#1334) ##########################################
1318
ZENON.
ZENON.
the third ar
Es as he
piricus (AF
carried on a
certain mar!
end of some
the Epidem
618) H
medica (ce
perhaps the
quoted by
Pp. 163, 17
a native of
other passa
.
(Glass. Hip
also by Plus
(De Morl.
disiensis (
Rufus Eplie
36. p. 44. ).
Deurres
Gesch. der
2. A nati
Christ, the
(Eunap. VI
profession
by the Bis.
p. 218), w
orthodox C
was hovere
command o
unity,-cannot become a phenomenon (Arist. Alel. philosophers or the orators. He is said to have
B. 4. p. 2001, b. 7. ib. Alex. ; comp. Simpl. in Phys. written the following works :- flepl ordoews.
f. 21). Hence he asserted that he would explain | Περί σχημάτων. Υπόμνημα εις Ξενοφώντα, εις
what things are, if he had unity given to him. | Λυσίαν, εις Δημοσθένην. Περί επιχειρημάτων.
(Eudem. in Simpl. f. 21. 6. ) Whether, and in This Zenon is by some (Harles, in Fab. vol. iii.
what way, he nevertheless admitted the theory of p. 581) identified with the Zenon spoken of in no
Empedocles as a hypothetical explanation of phe very flattering terms by Ulpianus (in Dem. Proleg.
