PERSONSOFTHEDIALOGUE:CEPHALUS;ADEIMANTUS;GLAUCON;ANTIPHON;
PYTHODORUS;SOCRATES;ZENO;PARMENIDES;ARISTOTELES。CephalusrehearsesadialoguewhichissupposedtohavebeennarratedinhispresencebyAntiphon,thehalf—brotherofAdeimantusandGlaucon,tocertainClazomenians。
WehadcomefromourhomeatClazomenaetoAthens,andmetAdeimantusandGlauconintheAgora。Welcome,Cephalus,saidAdeimantus,takingmebythehand;isthereanythingwhichwecandoforyouinAthens?
Yes;thatiswhyIamhere;Iwishtoaskafavourofyou。
Whatmaythatbe?hesaid。
Iwantyoutotellmethenameofyourhalfbrother,whichIhaveforgotten;hewasamerechildwhenIlastcamehitherfromClazomenae,butthatwasalongtimeago;hisfather'sname,ifI
rememberrightly,wasPyrilampes?
Yes,hesaid,andthenameofourbrother,Antiphon;butwhydoyouask?
Letmeintroducesomecountrymenofmine,Isaid;theyareloversofphilosophy,andhaveheardthatAntiphonwasintimatewithacertainPythodorus,afriendofZeno,andremembersaconversationwhichtookplacebetweenSocrates,Zeno,andParmenidesmanyyearsago,Pythodorushavingoftenrecitedittohim。
Quitetrue。
Andcouldwehearit?Iasked。
Nothingeasier,hereplied;whenhewasayouthhemadeacarefulstudyofthepiece;atpresenthisthoughtsruninanotherdirection;likehisgrandfatherAntiphonheisdevotedtohorses。But,ifthatiswhatyouwant,letusgoandlookforhim;hedwellsatMelita,whichisquitenear,andhehasonlyjustleftustogohome。
Accordinglywewenttolookforhim;hewasathome,andintheactofgivingabridletoasmithtobefitted。Whenhehaddonewiththesmith,hisbrotherstoldhimthepurposeofourvisit;andhesalutedmeasanacquaintancewhomherememberedfrommyformervisit,andweaskedhimtorepeatthedialogue。Atfirsthewasnotverywilling,andcomplainedofthetrouble,butatlengthheconsented。HetoldusthatPythodorushaddescribedtohimtheappearanceofParmenidesandZeno;theycametoAthens,ashesaid,atthegreatPanathenaea;theformerwas,atthetimeofhisvisit,about65
yearsold,verywhitewithage,butwellfavoured。Zenowasnearly40yearsofage,tallandfairtolookupon;inthedaysofhisyouthhewasreportedtohavebeenbelovedbyParmenides。HesaidthattheylodgedwithPythodorusintheCeramicus,outsidethewall,whitherSocrates,thenaveryyoungman,cametoseethem,andmanyotherswithhim;theywantedtohearthewritingsofZeno,whichhadbeenbroughttoAthensforthefirsttimeontheoccasionoftheirvisit。TheseZenohimselfreadtothemintheabsenceofParmenides,andhadverynearlyfinishedwhenPythodorusentered,andwithhimParmenidesandAristoteleswhowasafterwardsoneoftheThirty,andheardthelittlethatremainedofthedialogue。PythodorushadheardZenorepeatthembefore。
Whentherecitationwascompleted,Socratesrequestedthatthefirstthesisofthefirstargumentmightbereadoveragain,andthishavingbeendone,hesaid:Whatisyourmeaning,Zeno?Doyoumaintainthatifbeingismany,itmustbebothlikeandunlike,andthatthisisimpossible,forneithercanthelikebeunlike,northeunlikelike—isthatyourposition?
Justso,saidZeno。
Andiftheunlikecannotbelike,orthelikeunlike,thenaccordingtoyou,beingcouldnotbemany;forthiswouldinvolveanimpossibility。Inallthatyousayhaveyouanyotherpurposeexcepttodisprovethebeingofthemany?andisnoteachdivisionofyourtreatiseintendedtofurnishaseparateproofofthis,therebeinginallasmanyproofsofthenot—beingofthemanyasyouhavecomposedarguments?Isthatyourmeaning,orhaveImisunderstoodyou?
No,saidZeno;youhavecorrectlyunderstoodmygeneralpurpose。
Isee,Parmenides,saidSocrates,thatZenowouldliketobenotonlyonewithyouinfriendshipbutyoursecondselfinhiswritingstoo;heputswhatyousayinanotherway,andwouldfainmakebelievethatheistellingussomethingwhichisnew。Foryou,inyourpoems,sayTheAllisone,andofthisyouadduceexcellentproofs;
andheontheotherhandsaysThereisnomany;andonbehalfofthisheoffersoverwhelmingevidence。Youaffirmunity,hedeniesplurality。Andsoyoudeceivetheworldintobelievingthatyouaresayingdifferentthingswhenreallyyouaresayingmuchthesame。Thisisastrainofartbeyondthereachofmostofus。
Yes,Socrates,saidZeno。ButalthoughyouareaskeenasaSpartanhoundinpursuingthetrack,youdonotfullyapprehendthetruemotiveofthecomposition,whichisnotreallysuchanartificialworkasyouimagine;forwhatyouspeakofwasanaccident;therewasnopretenceofagreatpurpose;noranyseriousintentionofdeceivingtheworld。Thetruthis,thatthesewritingsofmineweremeanttoprotecttheargumentsofParmenidesagainstthosewhomakefunofhimandseektoshowthemanyridiculousandcontradictoryresultswhichtheysupposetofollowfromtheaffirmationoftheone。Myanswerisaddressedtothepartisansofthemany,whoseattackIreturnwithinterestbyretortinguponthemthattheirhypothesisofthebeingofmany,ifcarriedout,appearstobestillmoreridiculousthanthehypothesisofthebeingofone。Zealformymasterledmetowritethebookinthedaysofmyyouth,butsomeonestolethecopy;andthereforeIhadnochoicewhetheritshouldbepublishedornot;themotive,however,ofwriting,wasnottheambitionofanelderman,butthepugnacityofayoungone。Thisyoudonotseemtosee,Socrates;thoughinotherrespects,asIwassaying,yournotionisaveryjustone。
Iunderstand,saidSocrates,andquiteacceptyouraccount。Buttellme,Zeno,doyounotfurtherthinkthatthereisanideaoflikenessinitself,andanotherideaofunlikeness,whichistheoppositeoflikeness,andthatinthesetwo,youandIandallotherthingstowhichweapplythetermmany,participate—thingswhichparticipateinlikenessbecomeinthatdegreeandmannerlike;andsofarastheyparticipateinunlikenessbecomeinthatdegreeunlike,orbothlikeandunlikeinthedegreeinwhichtheyparticipateinboth?Andmaynotallthingspartakeofbothopposites,andbebothlikeandunlike,byreasonofthisparticipation?—Whereisthewonder?Nowifapersoncouldprovetheabsoluteliketobecomeunlike,ortheabsoluteunliketobecomelike,that,inmyopinion,wouldindeedbeawonder;butthereisnothingextraordinary,Zeno,inshowingthatthethingswhichonlypartakeoflikenessandunlikenessexperienceboth。Nor,again,ifapersonweretoshowthatallisonebypartakingofone,andatthesametimemanybypartakingofmany,wouldthatbeveryastonishing。Butifheweretoshowmethattheabsoluteonewasmany,ortheabsolutemanyone,Ishouldbetrulyamazed。Andsoofalltherest:Ishouldbesurprisedtohearthatthenaturesorideasthemselveshadtheseoppositequalities;butnotifapersonwantedtoproveofmethatIwasmanyandalsoone。WhenhewantedtoshowthatIwasmanyhewouldsaythatIhavearightandaleftside,andafrontandaback,andanupperandalowerhalf,forIcannotdenythatIpartakeofmultitude;when,ontheotherhand,hewantstoprovethatIamone,hewillsay,thatwewhoarehereassembledareseven,andthatIamoneandpartakeoftheone。Inbothinstancesheproveshiscase。Soagain,ifapersonshowsthatsuchthingsaswood,stones,andthelike,beingmanyarealsoone,weadmitthatheshowsthecoexistencetheoneandmany,buthedoesnotshowthatthemanyareoneortheonemany;heisutteringnotaparadoxbutatruism。Ifhowever,asIjustnowsuggested,someoneweretoabstractsimplenotionsoflike,unlike,one,many,rest,motion,andsimilarideas,andthentoshowthattheseadmitofadmixtureandseparationinthemselves,Ishouldbeverymuchastonished。Thispartoftheargumentappearstobetreatedbyyou,Zeno,inaveryspiritedmanner;but,asIwassaying,Ishouldbefarmoreamazedifanyonefoundintheideasthemselveswhichareapprehendedbyreason,thesamepuzzleandentanglementwhichyouhaveshowntoexistinvisibleobjects。