724 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



motion, or at most can have motion Kara avix^e^-qKos only, which 

 would be fatal to the older Atomism. Pascal himself did not see that 

 Aristotle (and MXG. 977^ 11 sq.) derived his arguments from Plato, 

 Parm. 138 BC. With these we must clearly associate the questions 

 touching the rotation of a circle or a sphere, Arist. Phys. 240* 29 sq., 

 265^ 7; Simpl. Phys. 1022; [Arist.] Qu. Mech. c. 1; Plotin. Ennead. 

 2. 2. 1 . But Plato clearly had in mind positions taken b}^ the younger 

 Eleatics, which he was developing. What these were in detail I am 

 unable to say; but the argument of Zeno which we are considering 

 seems to me to present the same problem from another angle; if the 

 criticisms of Plato and Aristotle, applied to the atom, as an d/xepes, 

 rendered motion, which the x-Vtomists regarded as inherent in it, 

 apparently impossible, the criticism of Zeno made it necessary that 

 there should be a limit to the number and the divisibility of the parts 

 of which a revised atomism might concede that it was composed. 

 In fr. ], therefore, I regard ocvtov in Trpoe^et avrov tl as a partitive 

 genitive, and accept the emendation of Gomperz, chare erepov irpb erepov 

 for ovre erepov xpos erepov. As I conceive the matter, Zeno does not 

 think of a cacumev as being added; but, since every extended part is 

 susceptible of division, that which we regard as the rrpovxov must 

 always have an outer and an inner half, and so by the division ad 

 infinitum of the rrpovxov itself there is crowded between it and the 

 next inward 'unit' an infinitude of parts which, from Zeno's point of 

 "view, must in effect advance t\\e' rrpovxov or cacumen outward ad 

 infinitum. Consequently things become fxeyaXa cocrre aireLpa elvau. 



c. 20. Melissus. 



V^ 145, 10. Fr. 7. 3, dXX' ov8e fJLeraKoafjirjdrjvaL avvarbv 6 7dp ko- 

 ffjjLOs 6 irpoadev e<hv ovk airoWvTaL ovre 6 prj ecbv yiveraL. ore Oe p.r]re 

 irpoajiveraL [xrjdev fj.r]re aToWvraL jirjre erepoLovrai, ttws av jxera- 

 Koafj.ridev rdv eovrwv e'ir] ; el jutev yap ri eyivero erepolov, ^8r] av 

 Kal iieraTKoa/jLVideirj. 



A careful reading of this passage will convince any scholar that there 

 is something wrong with it. The difficulty, however, lies entirely in 

 the clause ttojs . . . ei-q, where the MSS. read /jLeraKoafirjOepro^v eovroov 

 Tl rf. Mullach and Ritter-Preller present the same text as Diels, 

 except that they read n eir]. Diels renders the clause thus: "wie 

 sollte es nach der Umgestaltung noch zu dem Seienden ziihlen?" 

 Burnet, apparently accepting the text of Mullach and Ritter-Preller, 



