Zenon

(Ζήνων), historical.

1. An officer in the service of Antiochus the Great, who left him in charge of the city of Sardis, when he himself went to Apamea (Liv. 37.44).

2. An officer in the service of king Philippus. He was one of the governors of Athamania, being stationed at Theium. When Athamania revolted, he held out against the insurgents for a few days, but was eventually compelled to retire. When Philippus invaded Athamania, Zenon was sent to take possession of Ethopia. He found it necessary, however, to retire to a stronger position when attacked by the Athamanians. The greater part of his forces were killed; he himself with a few others escaped to the king. (Liv. 38.1, &c.)

3. Son of Polemon, king of Pontus, was crowned king of Armenia by Germanicus at Artaxata, A. D. 18. From the name of the city where he was crowned, the name Artaxias was bestowed upon him. (Tac. Annal. 2.56.)

4. Surnamed Cotylas, tyrant of Philadelphia, mentioned by Josephus. (Ant. Jud. 13.8.1, Bell. Jud. 1.2.4.) [C.P.M]

(Ζήνων), philosophers.

1. Of Citium, a city in the island of Cyprus, founded by Phoenician settlers. He was the son of Mnaseas. Some authorities assign other names to his father, but with less probability (D. L. 7.1, ib. Menag.). He is said to have been early won over to the pursuit of philosophy through books of the Socratics, which his father was accustomed to bring back from Athens when he went thither on trading voyages; and to have devoted himself to it entirely when (through the direction of an oracle, as is said) at the age of 22, or, according to others, 30 years, having been shipwrecked in the neighbourhood of Peiraeeus, he was led to settle in Athens (ibid. 2, 4, 5, 28). Whether he lost all his property in the shipwreck (Seneca, de Tranqu. Animi, 100.14; Plut. de cap. ex host. Utilitate, p. 87a), or, what is considerably less likely, remained in possession of a fabulous fortune of 1000 talents (D. L. 7.13, comp.15, 22, 5), his moderation and contentment had become proverbial (Ζήνωνος ἐγκρατέστερος, D. L. 27, &c., comp. 26, 13, 16; Suid. s. v.), and an admiring recognition of his virtues shines through even the ridicule of the comic poets (Philemon, Posidippus, &c.; D. L. 7.27, &c.; Clem. Al. Strom. ii. p. 413). Though weakness of body is said to have first determined him to live rigorously and simply (D. L. 7.1; Antig. Caryst. apud Athen. 12.2), and harden himself (D. L. 26, &c.), yet an inclination for being independent of want seems already at an early period to have come in as an additional motive, and to have led him to the cynic Crates, to whom, however, he could only attach himself with a twofold reservation; for he could not adopt either the contempt for established usages which characterised their mode of life, nor their scorn of free and comprehensive knowledge (Ibid. 3, 17, 22). Yet he seems to have been still entirely under their influence when he wrote his Πολιτεία (Ibid. 4 ; comp. Plut. de Alex. fortit. 1.6). When it was that, against the dissuasion of Crates, he betook himself to the Megaric Stilpo (D. L. 7.24. 2), we do not learn; and equally scanty are the accounts which we have respecting his intercourse with the two other contemporary Megarics, Diodorus Cronus and Philon (ibid. 16, 25, 15, 16) on the one hand, and with the Academics, Xenocrates and Polemon (ibid. 2, 35, comp. Solid. s. v.) on the other. Only from the logic of the Stoics we see that in this branch of science they approached considerably nearer to the Megarics than to the Academics. The period which Zenon thus devoted to study is extended by one unauthenticated statement to twenty years. (D. L. 7.4, comp. 2.) At its close, and after he had developed his peculiar philosophical system, to which he must already have gained over some disciples, he opened his school in the porch adorned with the paintings of Polygnotus (Stoa Poicile), which, at an earlier time, had been a place in which poets met (Eratosthenes in D. L. 7.5). From it his disciples were called Stoics, a name which had before been applied to the above-mentioned poets, and by which also the grammarians who assembled there probably at a later time were known. Previously his disciples were called Zenonians. Among the warm admirers of Zenon was king Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia : for although the correspondence between the two, professing to have reference to an invitation of the king, which Zenon declined (D. L. 7.7, &c.), is unmistakeably the invention of a later rhetorician (see Aldobrandinus on the above passage), it is well established that a close intimacy subsisted between them, kept up through Persaeus and Philonides, disciples of the philosopher, and companions of the king (Ibid. 9. 6, 13-15, 36 ; Arrian, Epict. 3.13 ; Simplic. in Epiclet. Enchir. 100.51; Aelian, Ael. VH 9.26). Zenon is also said to have attracted the attention of the Egyptian Ptolemaeus (D. L. 7.24; in Stobaeus, Serm. xxxi. however, with reference to the same story, ambassadors of Antigonus are spoken of). Much more honourable, however, is the confidence and esteem which the Athenians showed towards him, stranger as he was; for although the well-known story that they deposited the keys of the fortress with him, as the most trustworthy man (D. L. 6), may be a later invention, there seems no reason for doubting the authenticity of the decree of the people by which a golden crown and a public burial in the Cerameicus were awarded to him, because, during his long residence in Athens, by his doctrines and his life spent in accordance with them, he had conducted the young men who attached themselves to him along the path of virtue and discretion (D. L. 10, &c., 6, 15). The Athenian citizenship, however, he is said to have declined, that he might not become unfaithful to his native land (Plut. de Stoicor. repugn. p. 1034a; comp. D. L. 12), where in return he was highly esteemed (Ibid. 6). For the rest, we have preserved some not very characteristic traits from his life, in part from the works of the elder Stoics, as Persaeus, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus (Ibid. 1, 15). From them we see that he was of an earnest, if not gloomy disposition (Ibid. 16, comp. 26; Sidon. Apollinaris, Epist. 9.9); that he loved to withdraw himself from the great crowd, and to walk about with only two or three (D. L. 14) ; that he was fond of burying himself in investigations (ibid. 15), had a dislike to prolix and elaborate speeches (ibid. 18, 22 ; Stob. Serm. xxxiv.), and was clever and ready at short telling answers. (D. L. 19, &c., 23, &c. ibid. Menag.)

We are not able to ascertain with certainty either the year of Zenon's birth, or that of his death, and cannot regard as accurate the statements that he came to Athens at the age of 22 or even 30 years, that he pursued his philosophical studies for 20 years, and presided over his school for 58 years (D. L. 28), even though we should prefer the statement that he reached the age of 98 (ibid.), to that of his disciple Persaeus, according to which he was only 72 years old when he died. He is said to have been still alive in the 130th Olympiad (ibid. 6), and this is certainly in accordance with the statements which make him a disciple of Polemon, who became president of the Academic school in Ol. 116. 2, and also with what we are told about his intercourse with Antigonus Gonatas, who came to the throne in Ol. 124, and with Arcesilas (Cic. Ac. 1.9, 13, 2.24). Works Works mentioned by Diogenes Laertius

Of his writings for the most part only the titles are quoted (D. L. 4). The enumeration that we possess can hardly be complete, yet it shows us to some extent to what objects his investigations were chiefly directed. We have mention of works: upon the ethic of Crates (Κράτητος ἠθικά), on the lifer spent according to nature (περὶ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν βίου); on impulse, on the nature of man (περὶ ὁρμῆς ἢ περὶ ἀνθρώπου φύσεως, comp. 87 ) on the affections (περὶ παθῶν, comp. 110); on the fitting (περὶ τοῦ καθήκοντος) on law (περὶ νόμου), besides the Politeia mentioned above on Grecian education (περὶ Ἑλληνικῆς παιδείας) ; the art of love (ἐρωτικὴ τέχνη).

Of writings relating to physics we find mentioned: one on the universe (περὶ τοῦ ὅλου, comp. 142, 43, 45) on essence (περὶ οὐσίας, 134) on signs (περὶ σημείων) on the sight (περὶ ὄψεως).

The contents of the following seem to have been of a logical kind : on the idea (περὶ τοῦ λόγου, 39, 40) treatises (διατριβαί, 134) on verbal expression (περὶ λεξεως) Solutions (λύσεις) Refutations (ἔλεγχοι)

Besides these there are attributed to him works: on Poetry (περὶ ποιητικῆς ἀκροάσεως) Homeric Problems (προβλημάτων Ὁμηρικῶν πέντε, comp. D. L. 8.48) a work entitled καθολικά Commentaries (Ἀπομνημονεύματα) on the Pythagorean doctrines (Πυθαγορικά) Philosophical Thought

The writings of Chrysippus and later Stoics seem to have obscured those of Zenon, and even the warm adherents of the school seem seldom to have gone back to the books of the latter, still less the authorities yet remaining to us. They give, and often confusedly enough, sketches of the Stoic system, but it is only as special occasions present themselves that they notice what belongs to the several framers of the system, and in what they differed from each other, and from the later Stoics. Consequently we can only determine in the general, and often merely by conjecture, how far Zenon himself had conducted the doctrine, and still less how he gradually arrived at the outlines of it. At first he appears to have attached himself to the Cynics. This is confirmed not only by the above-mentioned authorities, but by the little that has been preserved out of or respecting his Politeia (D. L. 7.32, 121, 129; Theodoret. Gr. Aff. cur. iii. p. 780; Plutarch in the above-quoted passages); and it is not unlikely that it was there that he gave occasion to the assertion of the later Stoa, that Cynism was the near way to virtue (ἐ͂ναι τὸν Κυνισμὸν σύντομον ἐπ̓ ἀρετὴν ὁδόν. D. L. 121, ibid. Menag.). In his treatises (διατριβαὶ) also there must still have been a good deal of Cynism. (Sext. Emp. ad v. Math. 11.191 ; Hypot. 3.245, comp. 205.)

The need of a foundation and completion of ethic by means of logic and physic, led Zenon to approximate to the Academics, and in some degree also to Aristotle. The threefold division of philosophy he had explained in his treatise on the Idea, and had anticipated the succession which was adopted also by Chrysippus and others,-- Logic, Physic, Ethic (D. L. 39, &c.). But he is certainly not the originator of the comprehensive schematism in which we find the logic and physic of the Stoics treated (Ibid. 84). In his treatment of logic, he was even behind his predecessors (Cic. de Fin. 4.4). His short and narrow conclusions needed a more explicit foundation to be able to withstand the objections of the Academics in particular (Id. de Nat. Deor. 2.7). To show the necessity of a scientific treatment of logic, he urged that the wise man must know how to avoid deception (Id. Acad. 2.20). Without doubt he referred our cognitions to impressions, and these to affections of the soul (ἑτεροιώσεις τῆς ψυχῆς, Sext. Emp. ad v. Math. 7.228, 230, 236), more exact definitions of which were attempted by Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and others, who deviated the one from the other, showing clearly that none such had been established by Zenon. In like manner the division of conceptions, or representations (φαντασίαι) into such as were credible (πιθαναί), incredible (ἀπίθανοι), at once credible and not credible, and such as were neither credible nor incredible; and further into true and false, &c., may very likely have been made by Zenon (Ibid. 242, &c.). It lay at the basis of the subdivision of true conceptions into comprehensible (καταληπτυξαί), i. e. demonstrable, and incomprehensible, which is referred to Zenon. (Cic. Ac. 2.6, 24.) But here also the more exact definitions are to be ascribed to the later Stoa (Sex. Emp. ad v. Math. 7.253). On the other hand Zenon had reserved for the free-will the power of assent (συγκατάθεσις) in distinguishing between the impressions communicated to the senses (Cic. Ac. 1.11), and distinguished the following stages : representation, cognition, assent, knowledge, exhibiting their relation to each other by the well-known illustration of the flat-extended hand, and the gradual clenching of the fist (Cic. Ac. 2.4, 1.11). As the ultimate criterion of truth Zenon assumed right reason (D. L. 7.54, ibid. Interp.), which Chrysippus and others, in turn, endeavoured to separate into its constituent parts.

Zenon seems to have had no share, or but very little, in the developement of the Stoic doctrine respecting the categories, conclusions, the parts of speech and rhetoric. The last could have been regarded by him only as an amplification of dialectic, according to the comparison referred to by Cicero (Orator. 32), and could hardly have appeared to him to need a separate scientific treatment. (Cic. de Fin. 4.3.)

It seems that at the lead of his Physic stood the proposition that every thing which operates, as well as every thing operated upon, is corporeal, and consequently that the actual is limited to that (Cic. Ac. 1.11). He called the substance, that is to say the basis of every thing existent, that primary matter which neither increases nor diminishes itself (Stob. Ed. Eth. p. 90; D. L. 7.150). This was in his view the intercommingling of matter, in itself passive and void of quality (ἄποιος ὕλη), and of operative power, that is of the deity (D. L. 7.134; Cic. l.c. ; Senec. Epist. 65). He saw this operative power in fire (Cic. Ac. 1.11), or aether (ibid. 2.41), as the basis of all vital activity (Cic. de Nat. Deor. 2.9, 3.14), and in this way was led to go back to the doctrine of Heracleitus. Attaching his views to that doctrine, lie taught that the universe comes into being when from fire, or through it, the primary substance passing through the intermediate stage of air, becomes liquefied, and then the thick portion becomes earth, the rarer portion air, and lastly again becomes rarified into fire (D. L. 7.142, comp. 136; Stob. Ecl. Phys. p. 320). Zenon also appropriated to himself the Heracleitean doctrine of the periodic alternation of the formation and annihilation of the universe (Stob. Ecl. Phys. i. p. 414). The more exact definition of the doctrine in this instance also belongs to his successors, as Chrysippus, Poseidonius, &c. The active or artizan-fire (τεχνικὸν πῦρ, Cic. de Nat. Deor. 2.22, comp. D. L. 7.156) must in his view have been identical with the deity ; but what Heracleitus tacitly pre-supposed, that it partakes of the world-consciousness, Zenon endeavoured to define more exactly, and to prove, substituting for the universe-ensouling power the universe itself, that is, the substance of it, or the deity, and attributing reason to it, inasmuch as on the one hand the rational (λογικόν) is better than the irrational, and on the other, that which is found in the parts must belong to the whole (Sext. Emp. ad v. Math. 9.104, 101; Cic. de Nat. Deor. 2.8). In this universe-fashioning fire there must dwell not merely a concomitant consciousness, but a foreseeing one (Cic. de Nat. Deor. 2.22), that is, the eternal deity extended throughout the whole universe, must produce (δημιουργεῖν, D. L. 7.134, 136) every thing. The doubt of Ariston, whether God could be a being possessed of life (Cic. de Nat. Deor. 1.14) seems to have been directed against Zenon's further definitions, which have not come down to us. Again, Zenon defined the deity as that law of nature which ever accomplishes what is right, and prevents the opposite (Cic. l.c.), as the energy which moves itself and operates according to the laws of impregnation (λόγοι σπερματικοί, D. L. 7.148; Cic. de Nat. Deor. 2.39), and identified it, or Zeus, with spirit and predestination, or unconditioned necessity (Stob. Ecl. Phys. 1.178; D. L. 7.88, 148, &c., 156), without detriment to the foresight and free self-determination attributed to it (Cic. de Nat. Deor. 2.22). He seems to have endeavoured to refer the different chief deities of the Greek mythology to the different fundamental modes of manifestation of the single divine primary power (Ibid. 1.14, comp. D. L. 7.147, 149). He must have regarded individual souls as being what the world-soul was; as of the nature of fire, or as warm breath (πνεῦμα ἔνθερμον, Cic. Tusc. 1.9, de Nat. Deor. 3.14, comp. Plut. de ph. pl. Decret. 4.3; D. L. 7.156), and therefore as perishable (Diog. Laert. l.c.). The threefold division of the soul attributed to him (Tertullian. de Anima, 100.14) is obscure, if not dubious. But however he may have divided it, he must have referred its different activities to one and the same fundamental power (ἡγημονικόν, Sext. Emp. ad v. Math. 9.102; comp. Euseb. Praep. Ev. 15.20).

Zenon, coinciding with the Cynics, and with equal stringency, recognised in the most decided manner the unconditional nature of moral obligations, and that only that which answers to them is valuable in itself; but departed from them partly in the deduction and definition of them, partly and chiefly in this, that by paving the way for the separation of the form and the purport or objects of our actions, he undertook, with reference to the domain of the (so-called) indifferent, to demonstrate a relative value in that which accords with natural impulses, and so to oppose the harsh contempt of the Cynics for custom, without however allowing that the gratification of mere natural wants, and the external good things which serve that end, have any value in themselves. In order to bring forward prominently the unconditional value of the moral (Stob. Ecl. Eth. p. 154) he termed it, following the example of the Eretrio-Megaric school, the single, sole and simple good (Cic. Ac. 1.16. 2) which, for that very reason, is that which alone should be striven after and praised for itself (Cic. de Fin. 3.6. 8; comp. D. L. 7.100, &c.), with the attainment of which, consequently, happiness must be coincident (Stob. l.c. p. 138). This he described as perfect unanimity of life (ὁμολοθουμένως ζῆν, Stob. l.c. p. 132, 134; Cic. de Fin. l.c.), which in its turn should manifest itself as the unhindered flow of life (εὔροια τοῦ βίου, Stob. l.c. p. 138; D. L. 7.88; Sext. Emp. Hypot. 3.172). Unanimity of life however can only be attained (so Zenon already appears to have added in discussing the point, see D. L. 7.87, &c.), in proportion as it in its turn is in complete harmony with the rest of nature. The further development and more exact definition of this subject however belongs to Cleanthes,Chrysippus, and other successors of Zenon (D. L. 7.89, &c.). Perfect unanimity of life however can only be achieved through the unrestricted dominion of right reason, that is, by our reason not only ruling unconditionally over our other energies and circumstances, but also coinciding with the universal reason--the reason which governs nature. This last is, in other words, the source of moral law, of that which forbids as well as that which commands (Stob. l.c. p. 104; comp. Plut. Stoic. Rep. p. 1037).

Since then that unvarying unanimity or consistency of soul, out of which morally good volitions and actions spring, is virtue (Stob. l.c. p. 104 Cic. Tusc. 4.15), true good can only consist in virtue (Stob. p. 90; D. L. 7.102, 127), and this being self-sufficient, can need no external good circumstances (D. L. 7.104; Cic. de Fin. 3.10; Sen. Epist. 9 ; Plut. l.c.). That, to the accomplishment or attainment of which virtue is directed, has no value in itself, but on the contrary derives value only from its being willed and accomplished morally (Stob. l.c. p. 94). And it was just at this point that Zenon felt himself constrained to deviate from the Cynics. He could not admit that things indifferent in themselves are without any value for us. On the contrary, he endeavored to point out differences which fixed the measure of their relative value. They have this, according to him, in proportion as they correspond to the original natural instinct of self-preservation (D. L. 7.85; Cic. de Fin. 3.5, 15, 4.10, 5.9, Acad. 1.16). What corresponds to that is justly preferred (is a προηγμένον), has a certain worth (ὰξία, Stob. l.c. p. 144. &100.156 ; comp. D. L. 7.105), and admits of being shown to be such, that is, of having a foundation for it established (Cic. Ac. 1.10, &c.; Stob. l.c. p. 158; D. L. 7.108). But because every thing which conduces to self preservation, like self-preservation itself, has only a conditional (relative) value, it cannot be a constituent element of happiness; the latter depends merely upon moral volition and action (Cic. de Fin. 3.13). That which is to be preferred is an appropriate thing (καθῆκον), a designation which Zenon first introduced (Diog. Laert. l.c.), and shows itself to be such by its rational foundation (εὔλογον, Diog. Laert. and Stob. ll. cc.). The appropriate, however, and its foundation, are perfect only when the latter is unconditional, that is,corresponds to unconditional requirements (a κατόρθωμα, Stob. p. 158; Cic. de Fin. 3.7, 9, 14, 17, de Off. 1.3). So long as an action can merely be justified as fit, it is a middling (μέσον) action, and has no real moral value, even though it should perfectly coincide with a truly moral action in reference to its object or purport. (Stob. p. 158; Cic. de Fin. l.c.) It is not without reason that the germ of the distinction between legality and morality has been traced in this Stoic separation of the καθῆκον and κατόρθωμα. Hence, just as morality, or virtue, can only subsist in conjunction with the perfect dominion of reason, so vice can consist only in the renunciation of the authority of right reason, and virtue is absolutely -- without any accommodation -- opposed to vice (Cic. Tusc. 4.13, Acad. 1.10, de Fin. 3.21. 4.9, Parad. 3.1; D. L. 7.127; Stob. p. 104, 116); nay, virtue and vice cannot subsist side by side in one and the same subject, can admit of no increase and decrease (Cic. de Fin. 3.14, &c.), and no one moral action can be more virtuous than another (Cic. de Fin. 3.14; Sext. Emp. ad v. Math. 7.422). All actions however are to be reckoned in, that is, all are either good or bad, since even impulses and desires rest upon free consent (Stob. p. 162, 164; Cic. Tusc. 4.9, Acad. 1.10), and consequently even passive conditions or affections, which, because withdrawn from the dominion of reason, are immoral (D. L. 7.110; Stob. p. 166; Cic. Tusc. 4.6. 14), nay, more, they are the source of immoral actions (Stob. p. 170, &c. ; Cic. de Fin. 4.38; Plut. de Virt. mor. p. 393). Zenon, therefore, had already especially concerned himself with the more exact definition of the affections, and had composed a separate treatise on them, as has been above remarked. To him belongs the fourfold division of them. He referred them to present (πρόσφατον), and therefore operative errors (false assumptions) respecting the good and the bad (Cic. Tusc. 3.3; Stob. p. 170). They must be rooted out, and not merely set aside (Cic. Tusc. 4.18, &c.), and their place must be occupied by corresponding movements of the reason. As he was the originator of the fourfold division of the affections (desire and fear, pleasure and pain : ἐπιθυμία, φόβος, ἡδονὴ, λύπη; Cic. Tusc. 4.6; Stob. p. 166, &c.; D. L. 7.110), so in all probability he also distinguished the three emotions which are according to reason (βούλησις, χάρα, εὐλαβεία,) and assumed that pain, because it is merely passive, cannot be transformed into a corresponding rational emotion. In like manner to him probably, in what is essential, belong the definitions of the four virtues, as well as the assertions, subsequently repeated to satiety, respecting the perfections of the wise man. How far he carried these out, and whether, or how far he conducted the further sub-division of the four virtues, we are not able to determine.

Polemon is said already to have given utterance to the suspicion that Zenon intended to purloin other people's doctrines in order to appropriate them to himself in a new dress (D. L. 7.25). At a later time he was frequently charged with having been the inventor not so much of new things, as of new words (Cic. de Fin. 3.2, 4.2, &c., Tusc. 5.12), and already Chrysippus had endeavoured to defend him against such charges (D. L. 7.122). But though those charges may in part have been unjust, yet even the acuteness of Chrysippus and others was not able to develop out of the doctrines of Zenon an organically constructed system, growing out of one fundamental idea, such as we find in Plato and Aristotle. Logic and physic always continued mere supplements of ethic, connected with it rather externally than internally; and the system of the Stoa, though for centuries it banded together around it the noblest spirits, to struggle against the moral corruption of the age, had not proceeded from a full and unrestricted love of wisdom, but from the impulse after a completely satisfactory mode of life. It no longer formed a member of the ever rising series of development of the philosophising spirit of the Greeks, but rather already belonged to the descending series.

2. Of Elea (Velia), son of Teleutagoras, and favourite disciple of Parmenides. He was with the latter in Athens about the 80th Olympiad, when Socrates was still very young. At this time he was 40 years old, and consequently was born about the 70th Olympiad (D. L. 9.28 ; Plut. Soph. p. 217, Parm. p. 127; comp. Theaet. p. 183). With this chronology we can easily reconcile the statements which assign, as the period when he flourished, the 78th Olympiad (Suid. s. v.), the 79th (D. L. 9.29), or the 80th (Euseb. Chron.). The statements that he unfolded his doctrines to men like Pericles and Callias for the price of 100 minae (Plat. Alcib. i. p. 119; Olympiod. in Alcib. p. 140, Kreuzer; Plut. Vit. Pericl. 100.4) indicate a rather long residence in Athens. Of a well-grown and graceful person (εὐμήκης καὶ χαριεὶς ἰδεῖν), Zenon was the favourite (παιδικὰ) of Parmenides, says Plato (Parm. p. 127; comp. D. L. 9.25), where he doubtless intends the word to be taken in the honourable sense (comp. Schol. in Plat. l.c.), not, as his traducers thought (Athen. 11.505), in a signification which must have redounded to his disgrace in the eyes of those whom he held in such high esteem. The noblest spiritual love of Zenon for his teacher is shown in the way in which he devoted his whole energy to the defence of the doctrines of Parmenides. He is also said to have taken part in the law-making (Speusippus in D. L. 9.23) or law-mending (Strabo 6.1) of Parmenides, to the maintenance of which the citizens of Elea had pledged themselves every year by an oath (Plut. ad v. Col. p. 1126 ; Strabo, l.c.), and his love of legitimate freedom is shown by the courage with which he exposed his life in order to deliver his native country from a tyrant. (Plut. ad v. Col. p. 1126, de Stoic. Repugn. p. 105, de Garrulit. p. 505; comp. D. L. 9.26, &c.; Diodor. Exc. p. 557, Wessel.) Whether he perished in the attempt, or survived the fall of the tyrant, is a point on which the authorities vary. They also state the name of the tyrant differently. Works

Unfortunately also the writings of Zenon perished earlier than those of Parmenides and Melissus. Even the indefatigable Simplicius had not succeeded in possessing himself of more than one of the treatises of the Eleatic philosopher, and even this he probably had before him only in extracts (Simpl. in Arist. Phys. f. 30, a. b.). In explaining the difficult passage of Aristotle respecting the mode in which Zenon demonstrated the inconceivableness of motion, he manifestly had not Zenon's own words before him. Alexander and Porphyrius in all probability were not even acquainted with what Simplicius quotes from the treatise of Zenon. (Simpl. l.c.) But whether this was the youthful essay characterised in the Parmenides of Plato, in which, in order to defend his master's doctrine of the oneness of the existent, he had developed the contradictions involved in the presupposition of a multiplicity of the existent (Plat. Parm. p. 128), we cannot determine. Simplicius like Plato characterises the treatise to which he referred as composed in prose, as a σύγγραμμα, though still the dialogical form indicated by Plato, and the division of the treatise into different argumentations (λόγους), each of which carried out different assumptions (ὑποθέσεις ; comp. Plat. Parm. p. 127; Arist. Elench. Soph. 100.10 ; D. L. 3.47), does not manifest itself; a mode of dealing with the subject which seems to have been the immediate occasion which led Aristotle to regard Zenon as the originator of dialectic. (D. L. 9.25; comp. 8.57; Sext. Emp. ad v. Math. 7.6). Of other treatises of Zenon we only learn the titles : -- Discussions (ἔριδες), Against the Natural Philosophers (πρὸς τοὺς φυσικούς), On Nature (περὶ φύσεως), Explanation of the poems of Empedocles (ἐξήγησις τῶν τοῦ Ἐμπεδοκλέους, Suid. s. v.), and must leave it undecided whether it was one of these, and if so, which of them is the treatise referred to by Plato in the Parmenides. In another passage (Phaedr. p. 26 ; comp. Parm. p. 129) Plato manifestly speaks of him, not of the rhetorician Alcidamas, as Quintilian (Inst. 3.1) assumes, as the Eleatic Palamedes, whose art causes one and the same thing to appear both like and unlike, one and many, at rest and in motion. Assessment

The way in which Zenon undertook to show the merely relative validity of our assertions with regard to the phenomenal world, is shown partly by his expressions which Simplicius has preserved, according to which the multiplicity of phenomena must be set down as finite, because actual, and consequently determinate; and as infinite, because not made up of ultimate parts; and for that very reason as at the same time small and great; as, on the one hand, in being divided ad infinitum, it loses all magnitude, and on the other hand regains it through the infinitude of the number of the parts (the argument of the dichotomia, to which Aristotle refers, Phys. Ausc. 1.3. p. 187. 1, and which Porphyrius had improperly referred to Parmenides ; see Simplicius, l.c.); partly by the question which he is said to have put to Protagoras, whether a measure of corn, falling down, makes a noise (ψοφεῖ) in its fall, while a thousandth part of the measure, or a single grain, does not (Arist. Phys. Ausc. 7.5. p. 250. 9; Simpl. f. 255; Schol. in Arist. p. 423b. 40). On the infinite divisibility of space and time also was founded Zenon's arguments to disprove the reality of motion (Arist. Phys. Ausc. 6.9; comp. 100.1, 2; Simpl. f. 236, b ; Themist. f. 55, b. &c.; Schol. in Arist. p. 413 ; comp. D. L. 9.29). He endeavoured to show, 1. that on account of the infinite divisibility of the space to be passed through the motion cannot begin at all; 2. that for that same reason the creature which moves most slowly (the tortoise) could not be overtaken by the swiftest (Achilles) ; 3. that the moving body must at the same time be in motion, and also, inasmuch as it occupies space, at rest; 4. that one and the same space of time might, in different relations, be both long and short (comp. Bayle, Dict. Crit. s. v.). Consequently, Zenon manifestly concluded, we nowhere find in the phenomenal world a really existing thing, remaining like itself; and consequently we nowhere find an actual thing; it distributes itself into a multiformity which has neither subsistence nor unity; for that which neither increases when added, nor diminishes when taken away, -- that is, the true, indivisible unity,__cannot become a phenomenon (Arist. Met. B. 4. p. 1001b. 7. ib. Alex.; comp. Simpl. in Phys. f. 21). Hence he asserted that he would explain what things are, if he had unity given to him. (Eudem. in Simpl. f. 21. 6.) Whether, and in what way, he nevertheless admitted the theory of Empedocles as a hypothetical explanation of phenomena, cannot be ascertained with certainty from the scanty statements of Stobaeus (Ecl. Phys. p. 60) and Diogenes Laertius (9.29). The centre of gravity of his philosophy lies in the acuteness with which he unfolded the contradictions which are against the conceivableness of the fundamental ideas of experience, in so far as the world of experience is conceived as existent, i. e. as actually real; and consequently laid down for all subsequent meta-physic the problems of which it has still to seek the solution. It is easily comprehensible therefore that the sceptic Timon (D. L. 9.25) regarded him with special preference. Editions

Comp. Zénon d'Elée in Nouveaux Fragments philosophiques, by V. Cousin. Paris, 1828, p. 96-150). [Ch. A. B.]

(Ζήνων), literary.

1. An historical writer, mentioned by Diogenes Laertius (7.35) as the author of a narrative of the expedition of Pyrrhus into Italy, and a brief history of the (first) Punic war (Ἡ Πύρρου στρατεία εἰς Ἰταλίαν καὶ Σικελίαν.--Ἐπιτομὴ τῶν πεπραγμένων Ῥωμαίοις τε καὶ Καρχηδονίοις). Zenon probably lived shortly after the first Punic war. (Voss. de Hist. Gr. p. 141.)

2. An historical writer, a contemporary of Polybius, a native of Rhodes. Works A Work on Rhodian History (τὴν ἐντόπιον ἱστορίαν ἑνιαίαν

He wrote a work on Rhodian history (τὴν ἐντόπιον ἱστορίαν ἑνιαίαν, D. L. 7.35). He is quoted by Diodorus Siculus (5.56), Cephalion (ap. Euseb. in Chron.), and in particular by Polybius, who contests the accuracy of several of his statements, and finds great fault with him, remarking that he had bestowed far more care upon the style of his work than upon the investigation of the facts which he records (16.14, &c.). Polybius wrote to him, correcting some of his mistakes with respect to the geography of Laconia. The letter was courteously received, though it was too late to correct the errors, on account of the copies of the work having been already published (16.20).

3. A native of Sidon, the son of Musaeus, whom Suidas mentions, and states to have been a disciple of Diodorus Cronus. and an instructor of Zenon of Citium. There must be some mistake, however, in calling him a Stoic philosopher, if that were the case. Suidas states that he wrote a defence of Socrates, and a work entitled Σιδωνιακά.

4. A native of Tarsus, the son of Dioscorides, a disciple of Chrysippus, and his successor in the Stoa. (Suid. s.v. D. L. 7.35, comp. 41.) He introduced an important variation into the Stoic system, for he denied the doctrine of the conflagration of the universe, as it is termed (though that is but an inadequate account of the doctrine; comp. Zenon of Ccitium). This must have involved a considerable modification of the whole physical theory of the Stoics. (Euseb. Praep. Evang. 15.13, 18; Menag. ad Diog. Laert. 7.35.) Fabricius and others improperly distinguish Zenon of Tarsus from Zenon the successor of Chrysippus. Zenon of Tarsus left but few writings. (Diog. Laert. l.c.)

5. A native of Citium. respecting whom Suidas is in doubt whether he should be classed with the philosophers or the orators. He is said to have written the following works :-- Περὶ στάσεως. Περὶ σχημάτων. Ὑπόμνημα εἰς Ξενοφῶντα, εἰς Λυσίαν, εἰς Δημοσθένην. Περὶ ἐπιχειρημάτων. This Zenon is by some (Harles, in Fab. vol. iii. p. 581) identified with the Zenon spoken of in no very flattering terms by Ulpianus (in Dem. Proleg.), and with the physician of the same name who lived in the time of Julianus.

6. A grammarian mentioned by Diogenes Laertius (7.35), as the author of some epigrams, as well as other compositions. Casaubon and others have identified this Zenon with Zenon of Myndus, who is mentioned by Eusebius (Praep. Evang. 2.6), Theodoretus (Serm. VIII. ad Graecos), Stephanus (s. v. Μύνδος) and others (Menag. ad Diog. Laert. 7.35).

7. An Epicurean philosopher, a native of Sidon. He was a contemporary of Cicero, who heard him when at Athens. He was sometimes termed Coryphaeus Epicureorum (Cic. de Nat. Deor. 1.21, 33, 34). He seems to have been noted for the disrespectful terms in which he spoke of other philosophers. For instance, he called Socrates the Attic buffoon. (Cic. de Nat. D. 1.34.) He was a disciple of Apollodorus (D. L. 10.25), and is described by Diogenes Laertius as a clear-headed thinker and perspicuous expounder of his views. Cicero bestows upon him similar commendation (distincte, graviter, ornate disputabat, de Nat. Deor. 1.21). Zenon held that happiness consisted in the enjoyment of present pleasures, accompanied by a confident expectation of enjoying them throughout the whole or the greater part of life. (Tusc. 3.17.) Poseidonius wrote a separate treatise in confutation of his views. (Proclus ad I. Euclid. iii.)

8. Diogenes Laertius (7.16) speaks of Zenon the younger. Whom he means by that name is not quite clear. Some identify him with the son of Musaeus. But it seems difficult to account for the distinctive title given to him, if that were the case.

9. An orator, a native of Laodiceia. He conferred many benefits upon his native town. Like Hybreas, lie roused the Laodiceans to resist Labienus, when the latter, with Pacorus, invaded Syria and Asia Minor. (Strab. vii. p.578, xiv. p. 660.)

10. A native of Alexandria, of Jewish extraction, mentioned by Suidas. He renounced his connection with the Jews. He is described as a worthy man in point of character, but as remarkably forgetful of what lie attempted to learn, though he exhibited a perpetual anxiety to make himself acquainted with that of which he was ignorant.

11. A native of Pergamus, a contemporary of Proclus, who, like the preceding, was a somewhat slow learner. (Suid. s. v.) [C.P.M]

(Ζήνων), the name of several physicians, whom it is perhaps hardly possible to distinguish with certainty, as Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. vol. xiii. p. 454) enumerates six, while Kühn reduces them to three. (A. Cornelii Celsi Editio nova exoptatur Cont. ii. p. 5, &c.)

1. One of the most eminent of the followers of Herophilus (Galen, De Differ. Puls. 4.8, vol. viii. p. 736), whom Galen calls " no ordinary man " ( Comment. in Hippocr. " Epid. III." 2.4, vol. xvii. pt. i. p. 600), and who is said by Diogenes Laertius (7.1.35) to have been better able to think than to write. He lived probably at the end of the third and beginning of the second centuries B. C., as he was a contemporary of Apollonius Empiricus [Apollonius, p. 245], with whom he carried on a controversy respecting the meaning of certain marks (χαρακτῆρες) that are found at the end of some of the chapters of the third book of the Epidemics of Hippocrates. (Galen, ibid. 2.5. p. 618.) He gave particular attention to materia medica (Cels. De Medic. v. praef. p. 81.), and is perhaps the physician whose medical formulae are quoted by Galen (De Antid. 2.10, 11, vol. xiv. pp. 163, 171), in which case he must have been a native of Laodiceia. He is mentioned in several other passages by Galen, and also by Erotianus (Gloss. Hippocr. pp. 86, 216, ed. Franz.); perhaps also by Pliny (Plin. Nat. 22.44), Caelius Aurelianus (De Morb. Chron. 4.7. p. 530), Alexander Aphrodisiensis (De Febr. 100.2. p. 82, ed. Ideler), and Rufus Ephesius (De Appell. Part. Corp. Hum. 1.36. p. 44.), but this is uncertain. (See Littré's Oeuvres d'Hippocr. vol. i. p. 91, and Sprengel's Gesch. der Arzneikunde, vol. i. ed. 1846.)

2. A native of Cyprus in the fourth century after Christ, the tutor of Ionicus, Magnus, and Oribasius. (Eunap. Vit. Philos.) He taught and practised his profession at Alexandria, whence he was expelled by the Bishop George of Cappadocia [Georgius, p. 248], who persecuted both the heathen and the orthodox Christians with equal bitterness. He was however restored to his country and office by command of the emperor Julian, probably A. D. 361 or 362; and a letter front the emperor to Zenon is still extant, in which he speaks very highly not only of his medical skill but also of his general character. (Jul. Epist.)

3. A native of Athens, mentioned in the spurious work De Medicinis Expertis, ascribed to Galen ; whose exact date is unknown, but who may have lived in the fourth or fifth century after Christ. [W.A.G]

(Ζήνων), artists.

1. Of Soli, statuary. [Sosipater.]

2. The son of Attis, or Attines, was a native of Aphrodisias in Caria, and a sculptor evidently of considerable eminence in the period of the Roman empire. He is thought to have lived about the time of Trajan. Three works are still extant inscribed with his name. One is a sitting statue, apparently of a senator, in the Villa Ludovisi, bearing the following inscription on the margin of the robe :-- ΖΗΝΩΝ ΑΤΤΙΝ ΑΦΡΟΔΙ ΣΙΕΥΣ ΕΠΟΙΕΙ.

The second is a monument to the memory of his son, who is represented in the form of a half clad Hermes. The work bears a metrical inscription, in nineteen lines, to the following effect :-- " The country of me, Zeno, is the blessed Aphrodisias * Here is a decisive proof, in addition to others, that Winckelmann was wrong in interpreting the word Ἀφροδισιεύς in this and other inscriptions as of Aphrodisium in Cyprus. We shall have to add a remark presently on the inscriptions of Aphrodisias in Caria. ; but having travelled through many cities, confident in my artistic powers, and having made for my young son Zeno, who died before me, a tomb and a pillar, I myself also with my own hands sculptured likenesses, having wrought out by my art a famous work." We cannot answer for the perfect accurary of this translation. The original is so constructed that it is difficult to see the exact relation between the verbs, the participles, and the accusatives. This inscription seems to imply that the tomb was intended for the artist himself as well as for his son. The error of Winckelmann, in making out of it a second Zenon of an unknown city, Staphis, is corrected in Meyer's note. The Hermes, which was the chief part of this monument, was formerly preserved in the Villa Negroni, and passed into the possession of Mr. Jenkins with the rest of that collection. We have failed to discover its subsequent history.

The third extant work of Zenon is a female statue, clothed with a very thin stola, in marble, found at Syracuse, where it is still preserved. The base bears the inscription -- ΖΗΝΩΝ ΑΦΡΟΔΕΙΞΙ ΕΥΞ ΕΠΟΙΕΙ.

(Winckelmann, Gesch. d. Kunst, b. 11.3.26, and Vorläufige Abhandlungen, §§ 194, 195, with Meyer's notes; Visconti, Mus. Jenkins, cl. iv. No. 18, p. 36; R. Rochette, Lettre à M. Schorn, p. 429; Böckh, Corp. Inscr. vol. iii. Nos. 5374, 6151.)

In the inscriptions relating to this artist and to Aristeas and Papias (see Aristeas), we have evidence of the existence of a school of distinguished sculptors at Aphrodisias in the time of Trajan, the Antonines, and their successors ; to which also Zenas appears to have belonged. [Zenas.] The prevalence of all these names of persons at Aphrodisias is attested by other extant inscriptions. (See Böckh, Corp. Inscr., pt. xiii. sect. iv. vol. ii. Nos. 2768, 2775, 2781, 2787.) [P.S]

or Zeno, ecclesiastical. Works Sermones

In the year 1508 a volume was published (Venet. ap. Bened. Fontana) containing 105 sermons, divided into three books, ascribed to St. Zeno, bishop of Verona, from a MS. discovered during the fifteenth century by Guarini, in the episcopal library of that city. It was soon remarked that the Roman Martyrologies placed St. Zeno in the reign of Gallienus, while these discourses evidently belonged to a later epoch, and several pieces were detected in the series which were known to be the work of other hands. Hence Sixtus Senensis (Biblioth. Sanct. iv.) contended that the whole collection was to be regarded as a medley compiled from the writings of many different divines, and altogether excluded the name of Zeno from the catalogue of ecclesiastical authors. This hypothesis, although frequently controverted, was never confuted until the brothers Ballerini, presbyters of the Church in Verona, undertook to vindicate the memory of an ancient bishop of their diocese, and after a laborious investigation of original documents and a careful separation of all spurious and foreign matter proved incontestably that 93 Sermones, 16 of considerable length, the rest comparatively brief, on various subjects of faith, morals, and discipline, were the productions of Zeno, who was ordained bishop of Verona, not under Gallienus as had been supposed, but a century later, about A. D. 363, the year in which Julian perished. They likewise inferred from internal evidence, that he was of African extraction, and died in A. D. 380 or 381. Editions

It is unnecessary to enumerate the various editions which appeared in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, since they are either mere copies of the original impression of 1508, or inferior to it from being deformed by arbitrary changes and interpolations. The only text which can be used with advantage is that of the Ballerini (fol. Veron. 1739), which is accompanied by copious notes and dissertations, and has been adopted by Galland in his Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. v. (fol. Venet. 1769), p. 109. There is an Italian translation of St. Zeno by the Marquis Giovanni Jacopo Dionisi, canon of Verona (fol. Veron. 1784). Bibliography

Galland, Proleg. to vol. v. c. xii. ; Schoenemann, Bibliotheca Patrum Latinorum, vol. 1.12.) [W.R]

(Ζήνων), or Zeno, emperor of the East, A.D.474-491,was descended from a noble Isaurian family. His name was originally Trascalisseus, which he exchanged for that of Zeno when he married Ariadne, the daughter of the emperor Leo I. in 468. He probably assumed this name because another Isaurian of the name of Zeno had obtained distinction under Theodosius II., and been elevated to the consulship in 448. Of the early life of Zeno we have no particulars; but we are told that Leo gave him his daughter in marriage in order to secure the support of the Isaurians against his ambitious minister Aspar, from which we may conclude that Zeno had great influence among his countrymen. On his marriage with Ariadne, he was raised by the emperor to the rank of patrician, was appointed commander of the imperial guards and of the armies in the East, and was elevated to the consulship along with Marcianus in 469. The elevation of Zeno brought great trouble upon the church in consequence of his patronage of Peter, surnamed the Fuller, who had been expelled from the monastery of the Acoemetae both for immorality and heresy. Through the influence of Zeno Peter obtained possession of the patriarchate of Antioch in this year, but the means by which he gained his object, and his subsequent deposition by Leo are related elsewhere [Petrus]. Though Zeno was thus the means of giving some trouble to the emperor, he nevertheless was regarded by Leo as the main stay of his throne, and accordingly excited the jealousy of Aspar. While engaged in a campaign against the barbarians, who were ravaging Thrace, he narrowly escaped being assassinated by the friends of Aspar. On his return to court he persuaded Leo to get rid of his dangerous minister, and by his advice and contrivance Aspar was murdered in 471. Leo had no male children, and he wished to appoint his son-in-law his successor; but as soon as the emperor's intentions became known, there were great tumults at Constantinople, for the Greeks could not bear the idea of submitting to an Isaurian, and they hated Zeno personally both for the ugliness of his person and of his mind (Zonar. 14.2). Leo accordingly gave up his intention, and appointed as his successor his grandson Leo, the son of Zeno and Ariadne. This was in the year 473, and on the 3d of February in the following year (474) the emperor died, and was succeeded by his grandson. As the young emperor was only a child, the government devolved upon Zeno; and now that he had the real power, he soon acquired the title as well. Assisted by the dowager empress Verina, he was declared emperor with the approbation of the senate; and his own son put the crown upon his head. His son, however, had still the precedence, and in the laws promulgated in this year in the names of the two Augusti, the name of Leo always precedes that of Zeno. By the death of Leo, which occurred towards the end of the year (474), Zeno became sole emperor. Some writers accuse him of having made away with his son to secure the undivided sovereignty for himself; and they even allege that Ariadne was privy to the crime : but as the Greek historians, who never miss an opportunity of blackening the character of Zeno, do not say a word respecting the murder of his son, we may safely reject the tale as a calumny.

The reign of Zeno was marked by great disasters, by intestine commotions, and foreign wars. He is represented by the Greek historians as a voluptuary, a miser, and a tyrant. His contemptible character and his oppressive government occasioned frequent revolts among his subjects. The barbarians ravaged the fairest provinces of his empire; and the Goths, after encamping under the very walls of Constantinople, founded a new kingdom in Italy under the sway of Theodoric the Great. Zeno had not been many months upon the throne before he was driven out of Constantinople by a formidable rebellion excited by Verina and her brother Basiliscus, A. D. 475. Zeno took refuge in Isauria along with his wife Ariadne, and Basiliscus was proclaimed emperor. Basiliscus sent Illus and his brother Trocundus, who were also Isaurians, with a powerful army against the fugitive emperor, whom they defeated in July, A. D. 476. But Basiliscus was still more unpopular at Constantinople than Zeno. His adherents were discontented and divided; and Zeno accordingly found no difficulty in persuading Illus to desert his new master, and espouse his cause. Zeno and Illus now marched upon Constantinople, and they appear to have received support from Theodoric. who had succeeded his father Theodemir as king of the Ostrogoths. Near Nicaea they were met by the troops of Basiliscus under the command of his nephew Harmatius or Harmatus, but the latter was also gained over, and Zeno entered Constantinople without opposition in the month of July, A. D. 477, twenty months after his expulsion. Basiliscus was deposed and sent to Phrygia, where he perished in the winter of the same year [Basiliscus]. The treachery of Harmatius had been purchased by great promises, which Zeno was now obliged to fulfill. He was made commander-in-chief of the army, and his son was raised to the rank of Caesar ; but these high dignities only caused his ruin. Illus, who was jealous of any rival in power, easily persuaded the weak and timid emperor that Harmatius was aiming at the sovereignty, and accordingly before the end of the year Harmatius was murdered, and his son, the Caesar, was made reader in the church of Blachernae, in the neighbourhood of Constantinople.

Zeno now devolved the cares of government upon Illus, while he gave himself up to the enjoyment of his pleasures. In A. D. 478 Illus was sole consul. In this year Theodoric, son of Triarius, a Gothic chief, who had been one of the supporters of the emperor Basiliscus, and who had retired into Thrace upon the fall of the latter, appeared before Constantinople at the head of a formidable army, and pillaged the surrounding country. Zeno called to his aid Theodoric, the son of Theodemir, who proceeded against his namesake; but the treachery of the emperor, who neglected to supply him with the troops and provisions he had promised him, led the son of Theodemir to conclude a peace with the son of Triarius. Zeno, who now feared to have the whole force of the Gothic nation turned against him, hastened to make peace with the son of Triarius, which he was only able to obtain by the most humiliating concessions.

In the following year, 479, a new and dangerous revolt broke out. At the head of it was Marcian, the grandson of the emperor of that name, and the son of Anthemius, the emperor of the West [Marcianus; Anthemius]. Marcian had married Leontia, the daughter of the late emperor Leo, and the sister of Ariadne, the wife of Zeno. He raised the standard of revolt in Constantinople itself, was joined by a powerful party, and defeated the forces of Zeno, whom he besieged in his palace. In the course of the night, however, Illus found means to corrupt his troops, and Marcian was obliged to take refuge in a church. He was dragged out, ordained forthwith as a presbyter, and banished to a monastery in Cappadocia. As soon as Theodoric, the son of Triarius, heard of this revolt, he marched upon Constantinople under the pretext of coming to the assistance of his ally, but in reality in hopes of obtaining possession of the city without a struggle. He was, however, induced by large sums of money to retire. Meantime war had been continued against Theodoric, the son of Theodemir, who, enraged at the treachery of the emperor in the preceding year, had been turned from an ally into a foe. The war was ably conducted by Sabinianus, Zeno's general, who gained some advantages over Theodoric.

In A. D. 481, war broke out again with Theodoric, the son of Triarius. He marched against Constantinople at the head of a more formidable army than he had ever collected previously, but was accidentally killed by his own javelin, while riding one day upon a new horse. Unexpectedly delivered from this formidable enemy, Zeno purchased peace with the other Theodoric in 483, by conferring upon him the most extraordinary honours. [Vol. III. p. 1044a.] In the following year, 484, Theodoric was consul. This year was signalised by the commencement of a new rebellion, which lasted longer than any of the preceding ones, and brought Zeno to the brink of ruin. It was headed by Illus, the powerful minister of Zeno, who had now become an object of suspicion to his master, and of hatred both to Verina and Ariadne. The history of this rebellion is related at length elsewhere [Illus]. It was not finally suppressed till A. D. 488, when Illus and Leontius, whom the former had proclaimed emperor, were both taken prisoners and put to death. During the revolt of Illus, misunderstandings occurred between Theodoric and Zeno. In 487 the Gothic king again took up arms and threatened Constantinople. To save himself and his capital, Zeno gave Theodoric permission to invade Italy, and expel the usurper Odoacer from the country. The terms were gladly accepted by Theodoric, and Zeno lived to see she foundation of a powerful Gothic kingdom in Italy [Theodoricus the Great]. Zeno died in the month of April A. D. 491, after a reign of seventeen years. He left no children, and was succeeded by Anastasius, an officer of the imperial life-guard of the Silentiarii, who married Ariadne, the widow of Zeno. [Anastasius.] Works Henoticon (ἑνοτικόν)

In A. D. 482, Zeno published the famous Henoticon (ἑνοτικόν), which was signed by all the bishops of the East under his reign, and that of Anastasius. It is preserved by Evagrius (3.13). The various modern writers who comment upon it are given by Fabricius. Further Information

Bibl. Graec. vol. xi. p. 723; comp. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, c. xlvii., Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs, vol. vi., and Clinton, Fasti Romani, in which works all the authorities are collected.