HEIDEL. — ON FRAGMENTS OF THE PRE-SOCRATICS. 723 



the ilepcndence of a substantive clause on a verbal substantive, 

 Stahl, Krit.-hi.'ffor. Si/iitax dcs gr. ]'irhu>ns drr kla.ss. Zcif, p. 54(5, § 2, 

 gives abundant examples, to which a careful reader will be able to 

 add largely in a week. The parallelism of infinitive and substantive 

 is no closer than Mimnermus, 2, 10, 



avTLKa reduafxtvai ^kXriov t) (iioTOs. 



If the inverted order of words should cause any one to hesitate, let 

 him recall Xenophanes, fr. 34, 2, 



Kal iiaaa Xeyoj irepl iravroiv, 



and Sophocl. O. R. 500 sq., quoted above, p. 718, on fr. 1, 28 sq. 

 I regard this construction as of especial importance, because the 

 frank equivalence of the infinitive with the substantive would seem 

 to render for all time impossible the strange acrobatic feats performed 

 by Burnet in his endeavor to eliminate the substantival infinitive, 

 with or without the article, from the text of Parmenides. 



c. 19. Zeno. 



V'^ 133, 8. Fr. 1, Kal wepl rod ivpovxoPTOs 6 avros \6yos. Kal yap 

 eKetvo e^et fxtyedos Kal Trpoe^et avrov tl. o/jlolou 6?) tovto a-rra^ re 

 elirelv Kal ael XeyeLV. ov8ev yap avrov tolovtou ecrxo-TOV eorat ovre 

 erepov irpos trtpov ovk earaL. ourcos et ttoXXo, ecxTLV, avayKt) avra 

 fXLKpa re elvai Kal iJ.eya\a • fxiKpa fxev coore /jlt} ex^i-v /xeyedos, fxeyaXa 

 8( (bare airtipa eiuaL. 



The question discussed in the portion of the fragment here repro- 

 duced concerns the second alternative, fxeyaXa 8e cocrTC aitHpa dvat.. 

 There is some difterence of opinion among scholars regarding the 

 precise conception of to irpovxov. For some years I have been accus- 

 tomed to think of the irpovxov lax^Tov of Zeno as the extremum quodque 

 cacumen of Lucretius 1, 599; or, more exactly, I have held and still 

 hold that the Epicurean doctrine of the partes minimae, of which the 

 definition of the cvircmum cacumen is a part, owed its origin in part 

 to this argument of Zeno's. The discussion of the paries minimae by 

 Giussani had never satisfied me; the view of Pascal, Studii Critici 

 sul Poema di Lucrezio (1903), p. 49 sq., seemed to me essentially 

 sound (see Amer. Journ. of Philol., 24, p. 332). He drew attention 

 to Aristotle's arguments (De Anim. 409" 13 sq., De Gen. et Coit. 

 326^ 1 sq., Phys. 240^ 8 sq.) to prove that the ot/uepes cannot ha\e 



