a returning Turkish embassy under Maniach (Menander Prot., fr.19, FHG 4.227). A fully
detailed report on the journey, lasting two to three years, is preserved in Menander Prot.
fr. 20 – 22, FHG 4.227–230. Ze ̄markhos had to accompany the Turks on a military campaign
against Persia. His return journey to Constantinople was long and dangerous; on this
occasion he also spent some time with the Alans.
R. Hennig, “Die Einführung der Seidenraupenzucht ins Byzantinerreich,” ByzZ 33 (1933) 302–305;
RE 9A.2 (1967) 2500 (#4), A. Lippold; KP 5 (1975) 1490, Idem; PLRE 3 (1992) 1416–1417; NP 12/2
(2003) 728–729, K.-P. Johne.
Andreas Kuelzer
Ze ̄nario ̄n (50 – 120 CE or 910 – 980 CE)
Cast a horoscope whose date computes either to December 22 of 57 CE, or else to December
3rd–16th of 911 CE. With the Sun in Sagittarius, Mercury’s given position in Aquarius
is impossible, but the actual position is closer to Aquarius in 911 (Capricorn) than in
57 (Sagittarius). The name, though typically Byzantine, is attested in the feminine (-ion) from
1st c. BCE to 1st c. CE (LGPN 3A.187: Lilybaeum).
CCAG 1 (1898) 128–129.
PTK
Z ⇒ Z
Ze ̄no ̄ of Elea (ca 470? – 430? BCE)
Perhaps born ca 490, Ze ̄no ̄ (Ze ̄no ̄n) was a younger companion and follower of P,
and constructed arguments exploiting conflicts between sensory evidence and
claims supported by reason, with particular emphasis on problems of plurality, space, and
time. He argued against plurality, and that all things are one, despite sensory evidence that
things are many. Various arguments against plurality (mentioned in P’s Parmenides
127d6–128e4) all show that assuming either a plurality of entities or a plurality of predi-
cates within a single entity entails logical contradiction. Similarly, Ze ̄no ̄ argued against
the possibility of motion. There are no surviving texts of the arguments, but four are
reconstructed from A’s discussions in the Physics and further discussions in the
ancient Aristotelian commentators. Despite our belief (based on sensory experience) that
things move, Ze ̄no ̄ argues that this is impossible: motions cannot be begun (the Achilles
argument), or, if begun, cannot be completed (the Stadium, also called the Dichotomy).
Further, according to “the Moving Blocks,” relative motion entails contradictions, and “the
Arrow” shows that any motion is indistinguishable from rest. Two other arguments, “the
Paradox of Place” and “the Millet Seed,” explore common-sense notions of the place
wherein a thing rests, and the idea that things are composed of parts. Some ancient
thinkers tended to treat Ze ̄no ̄ as a master of eristic rather than a philosopher raising serious
problems about the natures of space, time, and the infinite; Aristotle, who called Ze ̄no ̄ “the
Father of Dialectic” (and devoted part of the Physics to a study of Ze ̄no ̄), was among those
recognizing his importance. Twentieth-century mathematicians, physicists, and philos-
ophers of science have found the study of Ze ̄no ̄’s arguments fruitful for analyses of space,
time, and the infinite.
Ed.: DK 29, H.P.D. Lee, Zeno of Elea (1967).
ZE ̄NARIO ̄N