[858]. Plato, Parm. 128 d 6 (R. P. 130 d).
[859]. Berl. Sitzb., 1884, p. 359.
[860]. See above, p. 321, [n. 740]. It hardly seems likely that a later writer would make Zeno argue πρὸς τοὺς φιλοσόφους, and the title given to the book at Alexandria must be based on something contained in it.
[861]. Arist. Phys. Η, 5. 250 a 20 (R. P. 131 a).
[862]. Simpl. Phys. p. 1108, 18 (R. P. 131). If this is what Aristotle refers to, it is hardly safe to attribute the κεγχρίτης λόγος to Zeno himself. It is worth noting that the existence of this dialogue is another indication of Zeno’s visit to Athens at an age when he could converse with Protagoras, which agrees very well with Plato’s representation of the matter.
[863]. Arist. Soph. El. 170 b 22 (R. P. 130 b).
[864]. Chap. V. p. 231, [n. 512].
[865]. Diog. iii. 48. It is certain that the authority whom Diogenes follows here took the statement of Aristotle to mean that Alexamenos was the first writer of prose dialogues.
[866]. Plato, Parm. 127 d. Plato speaks of the first ὑπόθεσις of the first λόγος, which shows that the book was really divided into separate sections. Proclus (in loc.) says there were forty of these λόγοι altogether.
[867]. Simplicius expressly says in one place (p. 140, 30; R. P. 133) that he is quoting κατὰ λέξιν. I now see no reason to doubt this, as the Academy would certainly have a copy of the work. If so, the fact that the fragments are not written in Ionic is another confirmation of Zeno’s residence at Athens.