<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:M.melissus_1</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:M.melissus_1</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:base="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><body xml:lang="eng" n="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><div type="textpart" subtype="alphabetic_letter" n="M"><div type="textpart" subtype="entry" xml:id="melissus-bio-1" n="melissus_1"><head><persName xml:lang="la" xml:id="tlg-1494"><surname full="yes">Melissus</surname></persName></head><p>(<persName xml:lang="grc"><surname full="yes">Μέλισσος</surname></persName>), of Samos, a Greek
      philosopher, the son of Ithagenes, is said to have been likewise distinguished as a statesman,
      and to have commanded the fleet which first conquered a part of the Athenian armament which
      blockaded the island under the command of Pericles; but it is stated afterwards that he was
      conquered by Pericles, in Ol. 85. Thucydides does not mention Melissus. (<bibl n="Plut. Per. 26">Plut. Per. 26</bibl>, <bibl n="Plut. Per. 27">27</bibl>; comp. <hi rend="ital">Themist.</hi> 2, <hi rend="ital">ad v. Colot.</hi> 32.) This account is supported
      by the statement of Apollodorus, that Melissus flourished in Ol. 84; but it is irreconcilable
      with the account which represents him as personally connected with Heracleitus, who lived at a
      much earlier period. (<bibl n="D. L. 9.24">D. L. 9.24</bibl>.)</p><div><head>Works</head><p>There seems to be less reason for doubting that he was a disciple of Parmenides, and it is
       quite certain that he was acquainted with the doctrines of the Eleatics, which in fact he
       completely adopted, though he took up the letter rather than the spirit of their system, as
       is proved by the fragments of his work, which was written in prose, and in the Ionic dialect.
       They have been preserved by Simplicius, and their genuineness is attested by the work of
       Aristotle or Theophrastus.</p><p>He proves that the coming into existence and the annihilation of any thing that exists are
       both inconceivable, whether it be supposed that it arises from a non-existence or from some
       existence. But even here Melissus is unable to maintain the pure idea of existence, which we
       find in Parmenides, for he denies that existence, and still more absolute existence (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τὸ ἁπλῶς ἐόν</foreign>) can arise from non-existence. Parmenides could
       not have admitted the difference of degrees of existence, which is here assumed, any more
       than the parts of existence which Melissus assumes as possible, or at least as not absolutely
       opposed to the idea, since he thinks it necessary to prove that no part of existence could
       have come into existence any more than existence itself. (Simplic. <hi rend="ital">in
        Aristot. Phys.</hi>f. 22, b; Aristot. <hi rend="ital">De Xenoph. Gorg. et Meliss.</hi> 1.)
       The inference of Melissus which now follows, that things which have neither beginning nor end
       must be infinite and unlimited in magnitude, and accordingly <hi rend="ital">one</hi> (ibid.
       and Simplic. f. 23, b. <hi rend="ital">fragm.</hi> 2 and 7-10; in Brandis, <hi rend="ital">Commentat. Eleatic.),</hi> is manifestly erroneous, since, without even attempting a
       mediation, he assumes infinitude of space in things which have no beginning or end in time.
       The simplicity of existence he infers from its unity, and he appears to have endeavoured very
       minutely to show that no change could take place either in quantity or quality, and neither
       internal nor external motion. (Fr. 4. 11, &amp;c.; Aristot. l.c.) From this he then argued
       backwards, and assumed the impossibility of finding existence in the actual world. (Simplic.
        <hi rend="ital">De Coelo,</hi>f. 138, and the corrected text of the <hi rend="ital">Schol.
        in Aristot.</hi> ed. Brands, p. 509b.) He thus <pb n="1023"/> made the first, though weak
       attempt, which was afterwards carried out by Zeno with far more acuteness and sagacity, to
       prove that the foundations of all knowledge derived from experience are in themselves
       contradictory, and that the reality of the actual world is inconceivable.</p></div><div><head>Edition</head><p><bibl>The fragments of Melissus are collected by Ch. A. Brandis, <hi rend="ital">Cmmentationum Eleaticarum,</hi> pars prima, p. 185, &amp;c.</bibl>, and <bibl>by Mullach,
         <hi rend="ital">Aristotelis de Melisso, Xenophane, et Georgia Disputationes, cum
         Eleaticorum philosoplorum fragmentis, &amp;c.,</hi> Berol. 1846.</bibl></p></div><byline>[<ref target="author.L.S">L.S</ref>]</byline></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>