fleet in 441/0 B.C.;[1] and it was no doubt for this reason that Apollodoros fixed his floruit in Ol. LXXXIV. (444-41 B.C.).[2] Beyond this, we really know nothing about his life. He is said to have been, like Zeno, a disciple of Parmenides;[3] but, as he was a Samian, it is possible that he was originally a member of the Ionic school, and we shall see that certain features of his doctrine tend to bear out this view. On the other hand, he was certainly convinced by the Eleatic dialectic, and renounced the Ionic doctrine in so far as it was inconsistent with that. We note here the effect of the increased facility of intercourse between East and West, which was secured by the supremacy of Athens.
165.The Fragments. The fragments which we have come from Simplicius, and are given, with the exception of the first, from the text of Diels.[4]
(1a) If nothing is, what can be said of it as of something real?[5]
(1) What was was ever, and ever shall be. For, if it had come into being, it needs must have been nothing before it came
- ↑ Plut. Per. 26 (R. P. 141 b), from Aristotle's Σαμίων πολιτεία.
- ↑ Diog. ix. 24 (R. P. 141). It is possible, of course, that Apollodoros meant the first and not the fourth year of the Olympiad. That is his usual era, the foundation of Thourioi. But, on the whole, it is more likely that he meant the fourth; for the date of the ναυαρχία would be given with precision. See Jacoby, p. 270.
- ↑ Diog. ix. 24 (R. P. 141).
- ↑ It is no longer necessary to discuss the passages which used to appear as frs. 1–5 of Melissos, as it has been proved by A. Pabst that they are merely a paraphrase of the genuine fragments (De Melissi Samii fragmentis, Bonn, 1889). Almost simultaneously I had independently come to the same conclusion (see the first edition, § 138). Zeller and Diels have both accepted Pabst's demonstration, and the supposed fragments have been relegated to the notes in the last edition of R. P. I still believe, however, that the fragment which I have numbered 1a is genuine. See next note.
- ↑ This fragment is from the beginning of the paraphrase which was so long mistaken for the words of Melissos (Simpl. Phys. p. 103, 18; R. P. 142 a), and Diels has removed it along with the rest. I believe it to be genuine because Simplicius, who had access to the original, introduces it by the words ἄρχεται τοῦ συγγράμματος οὕτως, and because it is thoroughly Eleatic in character. It is quite natural that the first words of the book should be prefixed to the paraphrase.
