Scanned text contains errors.
Athenian Hipparchus. (Pint, de vilioso pudore, p. 530.) On the other hand, his expression re-bpecting Simonides (Schol. in Aristoph. Pac. 696; comp. S. Karsten, p. 81) is very doubtful. In a fragment of his elegies mention is made of the Median invasion as an event that took place in his time, by which we should probably understand the expedition of Harpagus against the Greek cities in Asia (01. 59), not the Persian invasion of Greece (01. 72 or 75 ; comp. Tkeol. Arithm. p. 40, and Cousin, Nouveauoc Fragmens philosophiques, p. 12, &c.). Yet the widely different significations of these lines may have given rise to the chronological statements of Apollodorus and Timaeus, the former of whom placed his birth (undoubtedly too early), in the 40th Olympiad, and made him live to the times of Dareius and Cyrus, while the latter made him a contemporary of Hiero (01. 75. 3) and Epi> charmus (Clem. Alex. Strain. \. p. 361; Sext. Emp. adv. Math. i. 257). Other statements are still more,uncertain (Diog. Lae'rt. ix. 18, viii. 56, 20; Euseb. Chron. 01. 60. 2. and 56. 4) ; but the first mentioned references are sufficient to fix the period when he flourished to between the 60th and 70th Olympiads. According to the fragments of one of his elegies (Diog. Lae'rt. ix. 19), he had left his native land at the age of 25, and had already lived 67 years in Hellas, when, at the age of 92, he composed that elegy. Pie left his native land as a fugitive or exile (e;c7r<r<rc6z/), and betook himself to the Ionian colonies in Sicily, Zancle and Catana (Diog. Lae'rt. ix. 18). There can be no doubt that he, the founder of the Eleatic school (Plat. Soph. p. 224, d.), lived at least for some time in Elea (Velia, founded by the Phocaeans in 01. 61), the foundation of which he had sung (comp. Arist. Rliet. ii. 23 ; Diog. Lae'rt. ix. 10). Besides this poem, one on the building of Colophon is mentioned (ibid.), and a didactic poem, in like manner composed in the epic metre, which, as usual, was probably provided by later writers with the title " On Nature " (Stob. Ed. Phy*. i. 294 ; Pollux, vi. 46), and was imitated by Empedocles (Diog. Lae'rt. viii. 56 ; comp. Plut. de Pyth. Orac. p. 402, e). Of the two historical poems only the titles have been preserved ; of the didactic poem some not inconsiderable fragments (in S. Karsten, i.—xvi.), but unfortunate^ not such as to display the compass and foundation of the doctrines peculiar to him. He stands more clearly before us as an elegiac poet, and we can have no hesitation in placing him side by side with Mimnermus and other distinguished cultivators of this species of poetry. In his elegies also we see exhibited the direction of his mind towards investigation, and his earnest view of life. He derides in them the Pythagorean doctrine of the migration of souls (fr. xviii.) ; makes good the claims of wisdom in opposition to the excessive admiration of the bodily strength and activity by which the victory was gained in athletic games (fr. xix.) ; lashes the effeminate luxury of the lonians, which they had imitated from the Lydians (fr. xx.) ; recommends that at cheerful banquets, moderation and noble deeds and the praise of virtue should be sung, not the contests of Titans, giants, and other worthless stories (fr. xxi.). Iambics and Silli are also attributed to Xenophanes (Diog. Lae'rt. I.e.; Strabo, xiv. p. 643; Schol. in Aristoph. Equit. 406) ; the latter probably because Timon had introduced him as a speaker in his Silli, induced probably in the first
instance by the ridicule with which the Colophonian had expressed himself respecting the doctrines of his predecessors. As little can we regard Xenophanes as the author of parodies, which, according to the testimony of Aristotle (Poet. 2, ib. Interp.) were first composed by Hegemon, a contemporary of Epicharmus. Besides, the hexameters which profess to be taken from the parodies of Xenophanes (Athen. ii. p. 54, e. fr. xvii.) do not at all bear the character of this species of poetry. Lastly, when he is called a tragic^ poet (rpaycpdoiroios in Euseb. Cliron. I. c., unless we are to read e\ey€ioTroi6s with J. Scaliger, or irapyfioiroLos with Rossi) it can only be in the sense in which elegiac poetry generally was included under that name. We do not even feel inclined to refer the word, as S. Karsten does (p. 22, &c.), to chorus-songs, the beginnings of tragedy. How much Xenophanes lived in the midst of poetry, we see from the statement that he recited his poems in the manner of rhapsodies. (Diog. Lae'rt. ix. 18.)
Xenophanes was universally regarded by antiquity as the originator of the Eleatic doctrine of the oneness of the universe. (Plat. Soph. p. 242 ; Arist. Met. ii. 5.) At the same time, however, it is mentioned, in some cases with the quotation of verses of the Colophonian bearing upon the point, that he maintained, in the first instance, the unity of the Deity (Arist. Met. A, 5, p. 986, b, 24 ; Timon. ap. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp. i. 224, &c.), and denied that the Deity was originated or perished (Arist. Rhet. ii. 23, p. 1399, b, 5. 1400, b, 5, de Xenoph. G. et M. c. 3 ; Stob. Eel Phys. p. 416 ; Plut. Plac- ii. 4, &c.); that he strenuously denounced the transference to the deity of the human form, and human sins and weaknesses (fr. i.vi.), and inveighed against Homer and Hesiod as the originators of godless myths (fr. vii.) ; and that he attributed to the Deity undivided activity (fr. ii.), and taught regarding it that without weariness it overcomes every thing by mind (^peW, fr. iii.), free from motion in space (fr. iv.). That the Deity was in his view the animating power of the universe, is expressed by Aristotle (I. c.; comp. Timon. ap. Sext. Emp. I. c.) in the words, that, directing his glance on the whole universe, he said, *4 God is the One." The outlines of the demonstration of Xenophanes are to be found in the little book which has come down to us, in a corrupted form, among the writings of Aristotle, De Xeno-phane, Goryia et Melisso, c. 3, &c.; for we are justified in attributing it to the Colophonian, not to Zeno, who is named in the heading of the section treating of it, or to some other philosopher unknown to us, by the testimony of Simplicius, who (in Arist. Phys* f. 6) without any important variation, refers it to him, and speaks of it as taken from Theophrastus, whether, as is likely, he had the little treatise before him, and regarded it as the work of Theophrastus, or as derived from a work of Theophrastus which has not come down to us. According to this demonstration, the Existent, which Xenophanes sets down as the same with the Deity, cannot have originated either out of like or out of unlike, whether the latter be regarded as stronger or weaker. Further, the Deity, inasmuch as his essence consists in ruling, must be one only, and neither finite nor ii? finite, neither moved nor unmoved. We are not induced to deny these conclusions to be those of Xenophanes, as does E. Zeller, who in part follows