Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 24.djvu/828

Rh 778 Z E N Z E N 1258. Xext come the four MSS. of the Herbad Mihirapan Kai Khusro at Cainbay (1323 and 1324), two Vendidads with Pahlavi in London and Copenhagen, and two Yasnas with Pahlavi in Copenhagen and Bombay, in the possession of Dastur Jamaspji Minocheherji, who of all the Parsees is richest in old and good MSS. Generally speaking, the MSS. fall off in quality and carefulness in proportion to their lateness ; an honourable exception must be made in favour of those proceeding from Kirman and Yazd in Persia, mostly dating from the 17th and 18th centuries. The first European scholar to direct attention to the Avesta was Hyde of Oxford, in his Historia Eeligionis Veterum Pcrsarum coninique Magonim (1700), which, however, failed to awaken any lasting interest in the sacred writings of the Parsees. The merit of achieving this belongs to the enthusiastic Orientalist Anquetil Duperron, the fruit of whose prolonged stay in India (from 1754 to 1761) and his acquaintance with the Parsee priests was a translation (certainly very defective) of the Zend-Avesta. The foundation of a scientific exegesis was laid by Burnouf. The interpretation of the Avesta is one of the most difficult problems of Oriental philology. To this very day no kind of agreement has been reached by conflicting schools even upon some of the most important points. The most salient contributions are those of Westergaard, Spiegel, Darmesteter, Roth, and Bartholomae. Opi nion is divided also as to the significance of the Avesta in the liter ature of the world. The exaggerated enthusiasm of Anquetil Du perron has been followed, especially since Spiegel s translation, by an excessive reaction. The future will doubtless be more just with regard to the importance of the book for the history of religion in general and even of Christianity. Editions. The first complete editions were that by Westergaard (Copenhagen, 1852-54) and that of the Avesta in the stricter sense, along with the Pahlavi translation, by Spiegel (Vienna, 1853-58). A new and complete edition by Gelduer has been in course of publication since 1885. The best translation is that by Darmesteter and Mills in Sacred Books of the East (3 vols., Oxford, 1SSO sy., with an excellent introduction by the first-named). Literature. See Anquetil Duperron, Zend-Avesta, Ouvrage de Zoroastre, &c., (Paris, 1771); Hang, Kssays on the Sacred Language, &c., of the Parsis, especially in the new edition by E. W. West (London, 1878) ; De Harlez, Introduction a I Etude de V A vesta (Paris, 1881); Max Duncker, Geschichte des Alterthums, vol. iv.; and Eduard Meyer, Geschichte des Alttrthunis (Stuttgart, 1884). (K. G.) ZENO, emperor of the East from 474 to 491, was an Isaurian of noble birth, and originally bore the name of Trascalissoeus, which he exchanged for that of Zeno on his marriage with Ariadne, daughter of Leo I., in 468. Of his early life nothing is known ; after his marriage (which was designed by Leo to secure the Isaurian support against his ambitious minister Aspar) he became patrician and com mander of the imperial guard and of the armies in the East. While on a campaign in Thrace he narrowly escaped assassination ; and on his return to the capital he avenged himself by compassing the murder of Aspar, who had instigated the attempt. In 474 Leo I. died after appointing as his successor Leo the son of Zeno and Ariadne ; Zeno, however, with the help of his mother-in-law Verina, succeeded in getting himself crowned also, and on the death of his son before the end of the year became sole emperor. In the following year, in consequence of a revolt fomented by Verina in favour of her brother Basiliscus, he was compelled to take refuge in Isauria, whither he was pursued by Illus and Trocundus, two of the usurper s generals, and where, after sustaining a defeat, he was compelled to shut himself up in a strong castle. Basiliscus, however, soon outstripped Zeno in avarice, cruelty, and self-indulgence, and the vicissitudes of war and intrigue ultimately enabled the latter to re-enter Constantinople unopposed (July 477), while his rival was banished to Phrygia, where he soon afterwards died. The remainder of Zeno s reign was disturbed by numerous other less formid able revolts, and it was to relieve himself of the pressure of one of these that in 487 he gave THEODOEIC (q.v.) permission to invade Italy and dethrone Odoacer, which led to the establishment of the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy. At an earlier period of his reign (476) Zeno had received the deputation from the Roman senate which announced the deposition of Romulus Augustulus. In ecclesiastical history the name of Zeno is associated with the Henoticon or instrument of union, promulgated by him and signed by all the Eastern bishops, with the design of terminating the Monophysite controversy. The docu ment, which is given by Evagrius (H.E., iii. 14), re-affirms the doctrine of the Nicseno-Constantinopolitan creed, and renews the condemnation of Nestorius pronounced by the council of Ephesus, but adroitly avoids the crucial point as to the unity or duality of natures in the Incarnate Word, treating this as an open question. ZENO OF CITIUM. See STOICS. ZENO OF ELBA, son of Teleutagoras, is supposed to have been born towards the beginning of the 5th century B.C. The pupil and the friend of Parmenides, he sought to recommend his master s doctrine of the existence of the One by controverting the popular belief in the exist ence of the Many. In virtue of this method of indirect argumentation he is regarded as the inventor of &quot; dia lectic,&quot; that is to say, disputation having for its end not victory but the discovery or the transmission of truth. He is said to have been concerned in a plot against a tyrant, and on its detection to have borne with exemplary constancy the tortures to which he was subjected ; but authorities differ both as to the name and the residence of the tyrant and as to the circumstances and the issue of the enterprise. In Plato s Parmenides, Socrates, &quot; then very young, meets Parmenides, &quot;an old man some sixty-five years of age,&quot; and Zeno, &quot; a man of about forty, tall and person able,&quot; and engages them in philosophical discussion. But it may be doubted whether such a meeting was chrono logically possible. Plato s account of Zeno s teaching (Parmenides, 128 sq.) is, however, presumably as accurate as it is precise. In reply to those who thought that Parmenides s theory of the existence of the One involved inconsistencies and absurdities, Zeno tried to show that the assumption of the existence of the Many carried with it inconsistencies and absurdities grosser and more numerous. In early youth he collected his arguments in a book, which, according to Plato, was put into circulation without his knowledge. Of the paradoxes used by Zeno to discredit the belief in plurality and motion, eight survive in the writings of Aristotle and Simpli- cius. They are commonly stated as follows. 1 (1) If the Existent is Many, it must be at once infinitely small and infinitely great, infinitely small, because the parts of which it consists must be in divisible and therefore without magnitude ; infinitely great, be cause, that any part having magnitude may be separate from any other part, the intervention of a third part having magnitude is necessary, and that this third part may be separate from the other two the intervention of other parts having magnitude is necessary, and so on ad infinitum. (2) In like manner the Many must be numerically both finite and infinite, numerically finite, because there are as many things as there are, neither more nor less ; numerically infinite, because, that any two things may be separate, the intervention of a third thing is necessary, and so on ad infinitum. (3) If all that is is in space, space itself must be in space, and so on ad infinitum. (4) If a bushel of corn turned out upon the floor makes a noise, each grain and each part of each grain must make a noise likewise ; but, in fact, it is not so. (5) Before a body in motion can reach a given point, it must first traverse the half of the distance; before it can traverse the half of the distance, it must first traverse the quarter ; and so on ad infinitum. Hence, that a body may pass from one point to another, it must traverse an infinite number of divisions. But an infinite distance (which Zeno fails to distinguish from a finite distance infinitely divided) cannot be traversed in a finite time. Consequently, the goal can never be reached. (6) If the tortoise has the start of Achilles, Achilles can never come up with the tortoise ; for, while Achilles traverses the distance from his starting-point to the starting-point of the tortoise, the tortoise advances a certain distance, and while Achilles traverses this distance the tortoise makes a further advance, and so on ad infinitum. Consequently, Achilles may run ad infinitum without overtaking the tortoise. [This paradox is virtually identical with (5), the only difference being that, whereas in (5) there is one body, in (6) there are two bodies, moving towards a limit. The &quot;infinity&quot; of the premise is an infinity of subdivisions of a distance which is finite ; the &quot;infinity&quot; of the conclusion is an infinity of distance. Thus Zeno again confounds a finite distance infinitely divided with an infinite distance. If the tortoise has a start of 1000 feet, Achilles, See Zeller, l)ie 1 hilosopJiic d. G ricchen, I. 540 $q. ; Grundriss, 54.