6 8 (Pl.) rpooeOnxev ‘ ot8’ porvyiav dyev’—Soxel yap
érrdvar pav al rd év GAAG ispupevov, nrvxlav Sé dye
dpporepa b& arépyce
Although Pl. has treated of motion with
sufficient care for his purpose, and sees clearly its
two great divisions ; it seems very unlikely that he
would have made no allus, to the more elaborate
classification which Arist. gives—e.g. Phys. 11.—
had that been known to him. In this the Parm.
agrees with the Theaet.
mj 84; Sot; M has réve 64 which in uncials, if
written closely, is very like 77. Introd. Ixxxi.
érepov ... vas Erepov etc. The concep. of the év is
here much more abstract than it was above. Refs.
to physical conditions, such as size and position,
are now pointless: the ‘one’ has been driven from
the physical sphere and is now a pure logical entity.
The args. used will apply if we regard their terms
as terms merely, or the one as a thing having no
positive content. ‘This part of the argument is the
extreme of dialectic subtlety’ saysGrote. Of the four
parts of the argument Proc.,v1. 172, points out that he


be e wn F ¥
7d ev éauT@ pévery Suvdpevov.
Tov €vos.
115


begins dard rOv rporépwv [read ropwréppwv] tod Evds
kat Quiv ebdAnrrotéepwv—kal yap dre ratrdv Tols
dAAors (PI. says érépp) ov« eos, SjAov Kal Ste Erepov
éavrov ovx éot.—the latter of the two, being clear-
est of all, comes first: kal ydp éorw ... 7d Tadrov
eyyurépw Tod évds, ro Se Erepov woppdtepov' 7d Se
eyybtepov yaderwtepov ddatpeiv.
