[868]. Arist. Phys. Ζ, 9. 239 b 9 sqq.
[869]. Cf. Diog. ix. 25 (R. P. 130).
[870]. Plato, Parm. 128 c (R. P. 130 d).
[871]. The technical terms used in Plato’s Parmenides seem to be as old as Zeno himself. The ὑπόθεσις is the provisional assumption of the truth of a certain statement, and takes the form εἰ πολλά ἐστι or the like. The word does not mean the assumption of something as a foundation, but the setting before one’s self of a statement as a problem to be solved (Ionic ὑποθέσθαι, Attic προθέσθαι). If the conclusions which necessarily follow from the ὑπόθεσις (τὰ συμβαίνοντα) are impossible, the ὑπόθεσις is “destroyed” (cf. Plato, Rep. 533 c 8, τὰς ὑποθέσεις ἀναιροῦσα). The author of the Περὶ ἀρχαίης ἰατρικῆς (c 1) knows the word ὑπόθεσις in a similar sense.
[872]. The view that Zeno’s arguments were directed against Pythagoreanism has been maintained in recent times by Tannery (Science hellène, pp. 249 sqq.), and Bäumker (Das Problem der Materie, pp. 60 sqq.).
[873]. Zeller, p. 589 (Eng. trans. p. 612).
[874]. This is the view of Stallbaum in his edition of the Parmenides (pp. 25 sqq.).
[875]. Parm., loc. cit.
[877]. Cf. for instance Anaxagoras, fr. [3], with Zeno, fr. [2]; and Anaxagoras, fr. [5], with Zeno, fr. [3].