  While the later tradition unreliably ascribes other works to Zeno,  there is some interesting evidence in the commentary on the  Parmenides by the Athenian Neoplatonist Proclus (5th c.  C.E.) that he was familiar with a work transmitted under Zeno’s name  containing forty arguments or logoi (Procl. in Prm. 694, 17–18 Steel). Much of what Proclus says about Zeno in his  commentary simply recasts what is already present in the above  exchange, but this comment that this work of Zeno’s contained forty  arguments, taken with certain other things he says, suggests that  Proclus had access to a work with some sort of Zenonian pedigree, a  work known to earlier commentators as well (as evidenced by Procl.  in Prm. 630.26ff., especially 631.25–632.3). If there was a  work available in later antiquity entitled The Forty Arguments of Zeno, it is however unlikely to have been a fair replica of any  original treatise of Zeno’s. In the first place, some of Proclus’  apparent references to this work suggest that it fathered upon Zeno  arguments akin to some of those in Parmenides’ own elaborate  dialectical exercise later in the Parmenides. Furthermore,  Aristotle implies that people were reworking Zeno’s arguments soon  after they were first propounded. In Physics 8.8, after  giving a basic reconstruction of the so-called Stadium paradox (see  below, sect. 2.2.1) recalling its presentation in Physics  6.9, Aristotle then notes that some propound the same argument in a  different way; the alternative reconstruction he then describes  (Arist. Ph. 8.8, 263a7–11) is in effect a new  version of the original argument.