Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
THE FRAGMENTS
OF
ftonton: C.
J.
ambriDse:
ltip>ifl:
CO.
#tto Hork:
MACMILLAX AND
CO.
THE FRAGMENTS
OF
THE YEAR
1889.
BY
A.
C.
PEARSON,
S
M.A.
COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
LONDON:
SONS, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE.
C.
J.
CLAY AND
1891
Cambridge
PBIXTKIi BY
C. J.
SONS,
PREFACE.
S
dissertation
is
Hare
Prize,
and appears
For many reasons, however, nearly in its original form. to desired have I should subject the work to a more
under the searching revision than has been practicable difficult circumstances. Indeed, error is especially
avoid in dealing with a large body of scattered authorities, the majority of which can only be consulted in a publiclibrary.
t<>
The
the
to be acknowledged for obligations, which require the of collection fragments of Zeno and present
The former are Cleanthes, are both special and general. Jahrbticher Neue In the soon disposed of. fur Philolofjie
for
1878,
p.
435
foil.,
Wellmann published an
first
article
serious
of Zeno from that attempt to discriminate the teaching The omissions of Wellmann were of the Stoa in general.
first
was made by Wachsmuth in two Gottingen I programs published in 187-i LS75 (Commentationes s Mullach Cleaitt/ie et et II de Zenone Citiensi Assio).
collection of the fragments of Cleanthes in vol. I of the Gnieconnn is so inadequate
Fragmenta Philusoplioriun
VI
PREFACE.
Among the general aids the first place is claimed by Zeller s Philosophic der Griecheit, which has been con The edition referred to is the Second stantly consulted.
edition of the English Translation of the part dealing with
the Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, which appeared in 1880. In a few cases the fourth German edition has
been quoted. Reference is also made to the English Translations of the other parts of Zeller s book, wherever available. Except incidentally, Zeller gives up the at
also
development of the Stoa in the hands and this deficiency is to some extent supplied by the ingenious work of Hirzel, die
tempt
to trace the
Entivicklung der Stoischen Philosophic, forming the second volume of his Untersuchunyen zu Cicero s Philosophischen To Hirzel belongs the credit of having vin Schriften. dicated the originality of Cleanthes against ancient and modern detractors, although in working out his views he
foundations, and has unduly depreciated the importance of the contributions made by Zeno. Lastly, Stein s two books die Psijchologie der Stoa (1880), and die Erkenntnistheorie der Stoa (1888), have been of great service, and his views, where he
often argues on
somewhat shadowy
disagrees with Hirzel, have been generally adopted. Many other books have of course been consulted and will be
found cited from time to time, among which Krische s die theologischen Lehren der Griechischen Denker, and
Doxograpld Graeci, deserve special mention. Al though the results arrived at have been checked by the aid of modern writers, the ancient authorities and es
pecially Diogenes Laertius, Plutarch, Sextus Empiricus, Stobaeus (Eclogae), and Cicero have been throughout treated as the primary source of information. The refer ences to Stobaeus are accommodated to Wachsmuth s
Diels
Susemihl
article
on the birth-
PREFACE.
year of Zeno in the
vii
Nem
for
1889 appeared too late to be utilised for the introduction. A word must be said with reference to the plan of
the present collection. No attempt has been made to disentangle in every case the words of the writer from the body of the citation in which they appear. Although
some cases, in others it is mere and a uniform system has therefore been guess-work, For similar reasons the fragments have been adopted.
this is practicable in
arranged as far as possible in natural sequence, without regard to the comparatively few cases in which \ve know
the
of the books from which they were derived. However, the arrangement has been a matter of much
names
perplexity, especially in those cases where the authorities overlap each other, and several modifications in the order
would have been introduced as the result of a larger experience, were it not that each alteration throws all the
references into confusion.
The
in its
collection
Wachsmuth
pamphlets,
and
was satisfactory to find that only a few of his On the other hand, the ad passages had been missed. ditional matter Avhich will be found here for the first time
it
is
not large.
It
which
possess the greater portion of the material, available for reconstructing the history of the For the sake of completeness I have included earlier Stoa.
that
we now
is
is
open to suspicion,
though
it is
often impossible to
thank
College, for
many
COmtlGENDA.
p. 37, p. 53,
1.
13, for
"he
was only
able"
read
"he
1.
23,
add
"see
however on Cleanth.
frag.
INTRODUCTION.
1.
Life of Zeno.
TIIK chronology of Zeno s life formerly a subject of much dispute, has been almost entirely cleared up by an important passage discovered in one of the papyrus rolls found at Hercu1
laneum, which contains a history of the Stoic philosophers and 2 From this we learn was tirst edited by Comparetti in 1875
.
B.C.,
and, as
we know from
that he lived to the age of 99, he must have 4 -32 in the archonship of Jason But, according
.
to the papyrus (col. 29), at the time of his death he had pre sided over the School for 32 years", which fixes the death of
Zeno
as having taken place in B.C. 2G4, thus confirming the authority of Jerome, who says under the year Ol. 129, 1 --B.C.
264, 3
"Zeno
agnoscitur."
Stoicus moritur post quern Cleanthes philosophus Now, in Diog. Laert. vn. 28 we have two distirct
See Bohde in Bhcin. Mus. 33, p. 622. Goinperz ib. 34, p. 154. Susemihl s article iu Fleckeisen s Jahrb. for 1882, vol. 125, pp. 737 746, does not add anything to our knowledge of the chronology of Zeuo s life. Col. 28, 29. Comparetti believes this book to be the work of Philodemus. 3 Lucian Macrob. 11). Val. Max. vin. 7, Ext. 11. 4 So too the papyrus col. 28 (d)ir-r]\\dy(Tj sir apxovTos 5 Such at least is the restoration of Gouiperz Comparetti reads The word after /cat rpiaKovTo. Kal OKTU, but admits that dvo is possible.
1
l)dffoi>os.
is illegible.
6
So Bolide
ment appears
H.
P.
ed. of
Eusebius
i.
p.
INTRODUCTION.
accounts of his age at the time of his death, the one, that of Persaeus, in his TJOtKal o-^o\ai, who makes him 72, and the
other apparently derived from Apollonius Tyrius declaring that he lived to be 98 years old. Apart from internal con siderations, the authority of Persaeus is unquestionably the
1
higher, and reckoning backwards we are thus enabled to place Rohde suggests that the birth of Zeno in the year 336 B.C.* the other computation may have been deduced by Apollonius
Tyrius from the letter to Antigonus, now on other grounds shown to be spurious, but which Diogenes unquestionably 3 In this Zeno is extracted from Apollonius book on Zeno
.
represented as speaking of himself as an octogenarian, so that on the assumption that the letter was written in B.C. 282, shortly after Antigonus first became king of Macedonia, and, calcu
lating to the true date of
Zeno
death
(B.C.
.
264), he
would
have been 98 years of age in the latter year 4 5 Zeno, the son of Mnaseas was born at Citium, a Greek city in the south-east of Cyprus, whose population had been
,
was truly
Stoic philosopher (floruit in the earlier half of the 1st century his work on Zeno s life see Diog. L. vn. 1. 2. 24. 28. Strabo
I.e.
Gomperz
Diog. L.
undertook to prove that Zeno died in the month Sciro= June 264 B.C., offering to produce the proofs in a promise does not seem to have been fulfilled.
vii. 7. 8.
of this hypothesis lies in the fact that Antigonus Gonatas did not become King of Macedon until 278 277 B.C., although no doubt he was struggling for the crown from the time of the death of his father Demetrius in B.C. 283. This is met to some extent by Kohde
1.
The weakness
c. p.
5
624 n.
1.
Diog. L. vii. 1 mentions Demeas as another name given to his father but elsewhere he is always ZTJVUC )lva<rtov. 8 Cimon died while besieging this place (Thuc. i. 112). 7 Stein, Psychologic der Stoa n. 3 sums up, without deciding, in favour of a Phoenician origin. So also Ogereau p. 4 whereas Heinze thinks that everything points the other way (Bursian s Jahresbericht
vol. 50, p. 53).
INTRODUCTION.
Oriental complexion to his tone of mind, and affected the character of his literary style, so that the epithet "Phoenician,"
afterwards scornfully cast in his teeth by his opponents in any case not altogether unwarranted.
1
,
is
of Persaeus (Diog. L.
I.e.)
arrived at Athens at the age of 2 2, but as to the cause which brought him thither we are dif
it is
uncertain whether
,
lie
came
for the
his testimony to the effect that he suffered shipwreck on learnt to voyage to Athens, a misfortune which he afterwards
bless as it
first
The story of his had driven him to philosophy 5 H Zeno, who had meeting with Crates is characteristic
. :
sat down by a bookseller s recently arrived at Athens, one clay in stall and became engrossed listening to the perusal of the
At that moment Crates happened to pass down be found. the street, and Zeno, acting on a hint from the bookseller, from that time attached himself to the Cynic teacher.
It
is
we have
taken as correct, with the remaining indications of time, which are scattered through the pages of Diogenes. Thus we are told that Zeno was a pupil of Stilpo and Xenocrates for
ten years, that the whole time spent under the tuition of
Crates, Stilpo, Xenocrates
years,
and
that Zeno presided over the School, which he himself founded, 7 This last is the statement of Apollonius, for fifty-eight years
. 1
So (powiKlSiov Crates ap. Diog. L. vn. 3. Cf. Cic. de Fin. iv. 56 Another account gives his age as thirty (Diog. L. vn. 2).
Diog. L. vn. 32. Diog. L. vn. 3. See Zeno apoph. 3, and the notes. Diog. L. vn. 3. Diog. L. vii. 2. 4. 28. The other tradition
et saep.
4 5
6
7 is traced by Eohde to of his having Apollodonis known as 6 rovs \povov^ dvaypa-^as. Evidence dealt with Zeno s chronology will be found in Philod. -rrfpi
12
INTRODUCTION.
and must be taken in connection with his opinion that Zeno lived till he was 98 years of age. Probably, Apollonius adopted the tradition that Zeno came to Athens at the age of
He thirty, and allowed ten years for the period of tuition. must have assigned B.C. 322 as the date of the foundation of the Stoa, which is obviously far too early. According to the Zeno to Athens about B.C. 314, came chronology adopted above,
and, if so, he cannot have been a pupil of Xenocrates, who All that can be said with any approach to died in that year. is that after a somewhat extended period of study certainty
and Polemo, Zeno at length, probably began to take pupils on his own account, without attaching himself to any of the then existing philo These pupils were at first called Zenonians, sophical schools.
under Crates,
Stilpo,
B.C.
,
Stoa Poikile,
name
of
Stoics
which
they afterwards
of
Though not yet rivalling the Peripatetic school in respect 3 the number of its followers the Stoic philosophy steadily
,
won
into general esteem no less by the personal influ ence of its founder than through the fervour of its adherents.
its
way
So great, indeed, was the respect which the character of Zeno 4 a decree inspired at Athens, that shortly before his death
col. xi. (Here. vol. coll. prior vol. vm.) For Zeno s teachers cf. Nuuienius ap. Euseb. P. E. xiv. 5, p. 729 HoXfuuvos 8t eytvovro yvupi.fj.oL
ovv fj.(/j.vr]fj.a.t eiiruv Sepo/cparei elra 8t ai flis 6e irapa K/MTT/TI ni vurai. vvvi 8t aiTtf \f\oyifft)w, firti yap /ecu r(tiv \6yui> ruv l{paK\fiTeiuv. on Kai 2,Ti\ird)v6s fj.frf<f)(f, IloXe/xuw f^tXort/XTjtfrjtraf dXXTyXois <rufj.irape\al3oi> et y rr]v ffVfj.(poiT<j)i>T(s irapa irpo? dXX^Xoiis iMxyv, o M^ Hp4itX*lTW Kai UTiXiruva apa /cat Kpar^ra, iLv
ApKecriXaos *ai
7^vti)v...7iijv<jjva
fj.(i>
llo\4fj.wi>i
<oiT?7<rcu,
1*
8(
KpanjTos.
According to Sext.
Emp.
Zeno was a
irptcr/Si/r^s
when he
irpo<rt/j.aprvpri(rtv
a.\r)0fias.
This refers to
the publication of his writings, but this must have shortly followed the opening of the school. Jerome on Euseb. Chron. (i. p. 498 Migne) says Zeno Stoicus philosophus agnoscitur." opposite 01. 126 2 Diog. L. vn. 5.
"
Zeno apoph. 6. decree was carried in the archonship of Arrhenides, i.e. Nov. 265 B.C., if Arrhenides was archon 265 204 as seems to be Gomperz s
4
The
2, n. 2.
INTRODUCTION.
was passed by the assembly awarding him a golden crown and entitling him to a public funeral in the Ceramicus on The grounds mentioned in the body of the his decease. is which decree, preserved by Diog. L. vil. 10, for conferring this special honour on Zeno were the high moral tone of his
in the teaching and the example which he set to his pupils was as he however blamelessness of his private life. Greatly honoured by the Athenians, he steadily refused the offer of
their
official
and on one occasion, when holding an on being described as a citizen of position, This devotion to his native town, whether a genuine Citium-.
1
citizenship
insisted
sentiment of the heart or assumed in order to avow his con viction of the worthlessness of all civic distinctions, seems to
have been appreciated by his countrymen, who erected his statue in their market-place, where it was afterwards seen
::
Tn the later years of his life, Zeno s fame extended beyond the limits of Athenian territory; there is ample record of his 5 the son of Demetrius intimacy with Antigonus Gonatas Poliorcetes and king of Macedon, and from one anecdote we
,
Now that Athens had completely lost her freedom, delphus she became a hotbed of political intrigue in the interests of the various successive pretenders to the Macedonian throne:
1
some beguiled her with the promise of liberty but by far the most potent instrument to gain her favour was gold. Thus, while the internal politics of Athens had become of purely to which Demochares, municipal interest, the greatest services
,
the nephew of Demosthenes, could lay claim as meriting the the substantial money presents gratitude of the Athenians were
:!
4 5
Pint. Sto. Rep. 4, 1. Diog. L. vn. 12. Diog. L. vir. 6. H. N. xxxiv. 19. 32.
6
7
See Zeno apoph. 25 and 26. See note on apoph. 25. So Demetrius Poliorcttes Grote
:
vol.
xn. p. 190.
INTRODUCTION.
which he had obtained for the treasury from Lysimachus, \Ve cannot be surprised that, in Ptolemy, and Antipater
1
such a period as this, Ptolemy and Antigonus, hoping to gain him over by personal condescension and munificent liberality,
should have eagerly courted the adherence of one, whose influ ence like that of Zeno extended over a wide circle among the
youth of Athens.
It seems clear
;
however
that, in general,
it
Zeno
and, although
may
be doubtful
whether
Zeno to espouse his political the presents of the king were not accepted as bribes by the Stoic philosopher. If Zeno died in B.C. 264, he cannot have lived to
Antigonus may not have induced cause, we can at least be sure that
see the conclusion of the so-called Chremonidean war, when Athens was besieged by Antigonus and defended by the joint efforts of Ptolemy and the Spartans, and it is impossible to say on which side his sympathies were enlisted, although lie is said 3 to have been a lover of Chremonides In voluntarily hastening his own end, Zeno only illustrated One day, on leaving the Stoa, lie the teaching of his school. stumbled and fell, breaking one of his fingers in his fall.
.
Regarding
wise
this as a
folly to neglect,
warning of Providence, which it was and convinced that the right course for a
.
man
is
4 destiny, he returned home and at once committed suicide His personal appearance was evidently not attractive.
Timotheus 5 in
,
his
work
Trepl
/8iW, described
while Apollonius called him lean, rather 6 with thick calves, flabby complexion
,
tall,
flesh,
See Grote vol. xn. p. 214. Cf. Seneca de Tranq. An. i. 7 Zenonem Cleanthem Chrysippunij quorum nemo ad renipublicam accessit. 3 Zeno apoph. 44. 4 Zeno apoph. 56. 5 Nothing seems to be known of the date of this writer: see Diet. These authorities are quoted by Diog. L. vn. 1. Biog. 6 An uncomplimentary epithet, cf. Theocr. x. 26 EO/J-^ KCL x a-P^ fffffa Zupav KaXtovrl TV Traces, ia\va.v dXii^ai trrof, fyw 5^ /^6fos fj.(.\l\\upov. id. iii. 35 a p.e\a.v6xpw2
INTRODUCTION.
digestion.
Tlie last-named
1 ,
<
defect
is
but this was HO doubt also recom mended to him by his philosophical views. In spite of his of his friends at habitual abstinence, he enjoyed the company with the wine relaxed a convivial banquet, where his severity beans are im he drank, just as (to use his own comparison) have been a to seems he For the rest, proved by soaking-. all dis at repartee, disliking man of few words, but quick of a somewhat stern and and
genet-silly play and etieminacy, consideration for reserved cast of mind, though not without
-2.
It will be convenient
summarise those
which the evidence here collected establishes leading doctrines with introduced been by Zeno into the Stoic school, as having or to views of minor isolated to expressions out paying regard
philosophical importance. Zeno divided philosophy into three parts, logic, physics take them in the order named, as and we
and
ethics,
may
To the formal
side of logic
little
attention,
useful only for the detection of error, rather regarding it as The of truth. than as a means towards the establishment of treatment elaborate the and doctrine of the four categories, to almost Chrysippus, entirely uaco /xara and syllogisms, belong r books which he is out of 7and, when we remember that were devoted to 311 than fewer no written said to have that he owed much of his it is not
>0
logical studies,
improbable
In Zeuo s in this branch. reputation to his performances division of logic was the question of eyes the most important this the standard of knowledge, although strictly speaking
to psychology. should rather be considered as belonging
iir^ielv Mup. apros, ofo, tV X See Zeno apoph. 27.
<,
He
els
Philemon
INTRODUCTION.
held that, though the senses themselves are unerring, the im pressions they convey are often erroneous, and that only such impressions are to be trusted as are in themselves perspicuous. The ultimate test of truth resides in the strength of tension in the impression, as it strikes the If satisfied sense-organ.
that the impressioii is such that it must proceed mind in the exercise of its ever present activity grasps the impression, and assents to it. This is the
in this
way
from a
K ara-
only other evidence, by which he connects Zeno with opOos Ao yos, is Philo quis virtuti studet p. 880 appearing in our collection as frag. 157. To this might have been added Arr. Epict. diss. iv. 8. 12 (frag. 4) and Philodem. col. 8
irtpl
mentions certain ap^aic repot TWV SrwiKeoV as teaching that opOos Adyos is the standard of truth. This passage has been treated by Hirzel (in whose judgment other authorities have concurred) as proving that Zeno and Cleanthes were the philo sophers indicated, and that Chrysippus was the first to in troduce the definition of the The ^avravia Kara^rjirTiKij.
euVe/2.
(frag. 117).
submitted, however, that these passages by no means prove the point in question, as against the positive testimony which attributes to Zeno the In Philo KaraA.^?*?/. there is no question of a logical criterion at all, but Zeno is
<j>avra<Tia
It
is
Xiji/ is,
TUV aKaTa\7jirruv
Ausdrucks sehr wohl erklart." For the connection of ro^oj with KO.TO.which is not however proved to be Zenonian, cf. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. vn. 408 dXXo yap avrrj ^v ij dirapa\\aia. run rt K al
<f>avTa.<nwv
teten Doppelsmn hineinlegt, den Zeno wohl absichtlich andeuteu wollte. Danach waren die Qavraola und Sidvoia bei der /cardX^s gleicherweise teils aktiv, teils passiv, woraus sich die schwankende Anwendung dieses
1 As the matter is one of considerable importance, in order to relieve the notes, it is desirable to quote Stein s remarks (Erkenntnistheorie Mit Zeller muss man annehmen, dass das p. 174): KaraXrjvriKol ursprunglich emen aktiven Sinn halte, da der Tonns desselben Zweifelsohne auf die didvoia eimvirkt. Andererseits muss man Hirzel wieder darm Becht geben, dass die 5u/oia sich unmoglich rein leidend verhalttm dass vielmehr das kann, auch einen passiven Beigeschmack hat. Und doch lassen sich beide, sich scheinbar ausschliessende Standpunkte vereimgen, wenn man in das Kara^Trr^bv den von uns vermu-
KaraX^^
/coraX^^
iSiu/^a vapicrrarai.
INTRODUCTION.
speaking of the state of mind of the wise man. whose soul is in perfect conformity with the law of reason, and who has
mastered
in
This is still more plain all his impulses and passions. the extract from Philodemus, where op8ov<; Adyous are coupled
1
.
with^o-TrouSat us Siatfecreis
The weight
s
may
be
re
discredited, the fact testimony of the controversy between Zeno and Arcesilas is not thereby 2 disproved Again, if Zeno defined (pavraaia as a riVwcrts, and
Cicero
is
<ai
Taertai,
he must
have pursued the subject still farther and, if art and memory are defined with reference to Kara A^i/a? an(l opinion is dis tinguished therefrom, it follows of necessity that he must have
defined Kara/X^is
itself.
Still,
full
the
the passage in Diogenes is ethical significance of opOos Adyos not thereby disposed of, for if Zeno and Cleanthes are not
.
01
1
apxaio repoi TWF STGHKCOV to whom Must we, then, suppose that Zeno
put forward two criteria of knowledge, rational thought (opOos Such a Ao yos) as well as the experience of sense (/caTa A^i/as) 1 direct and with the clearness inconsistent be would conclusion
The only way out of the difficulty teaching. is to adopt the theory of Stein, who regards the doctrine of o p$os Adyos be opOos Adyos as a concession to rationalism. criterion \ so and a in this secondary view, comes, subsidiary
ness of
Zeno
that the results of thought must be confirmed by experience. In other words, the potential notions inspired in us by the divine Ao yos require to be completed and corrected on the side
1
For Epict. 1. c. see note on Zeno frag. 4. It is satisfactory to find that Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 341,
claims
for
stated in the notes to frag. 11. 3 .l 204. For this see Stein, Erkenntnistheorie pp. 4 It should he mentioned that Corssen de Posidonio Ehodio (1878) or proposed to eliminate ZTUIMV as a blunder of Diogenes pp. 17 his authority, assuming that Posidonius was speaking of Empedocles, the Pythagoreans, and Plato. 5 the meaning of the word avo\fiirovffiv should in this case be pressed. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 25!.
1<)
10
of
INTRODUCTION.
sensible
1 .
experience
before
actuality
From
credit
Cic.
If so much be admitted, it is most un i. 41, 42. that he should have refrained from enquiring into the likely
Acad.
nature of knowledge and ignorance, which carry with them the doctrine of assent. On the other hand, it is most probable that he only touched lightly the doctrine of tvvoiai and not at
all
that of
Trpo\T]i{/fi<;-.
of the logical fragments are not of much importance as regards the positive teaching of the school.
The remainder
They include
ideas, a curious
a nominalistic criticism of the Platonic theory of statement of the nature of causation, a few
scraps dealing with various rhetorical terms, a definition of geometry, some discussion as to the meaning of the word
O-O AOIKOS, and a symbolical explanation, recorded by Cicero, of the different degrees of knowledge. Zeno s contributions to Physics have been unduly de
it
is
development
of this branch
is
fragments here collected will lead us to the conclusion that the essential groundwork of the Stoic
fair estimate of the
physical teaching was laid by the founder of the school Zeno started from the proposition that nothing exists but the material, inasmuch as body alone is capable of acting and
.
All body
is
is itself
Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 314, Stein holds that irp&\rj\f/is was substituted by Chrysippus for Zeno s 6p86s \6yos, in so far as the latter is concerned with epistemology (Erkenntnistheorie p. 269, 270). 3 See Stein, Psychologic p. 56 ami n. 77, whose reference to the number of fragments in Wachsmuth s collection is however misleading. As regards Zeno, Wachsmuth s fragments are only intended to be supple mentary to Wellmann s article in Fleckeisen s Jahrb. for 1873, so that no inference can be drawn from the fact that there are more physical than It will be seen from the present collection that the ethical fragments. numbers are very nearly equal.
INTRODUCTION.
operation of these two principles. and the passive is matter, (rod
liery aether
1
11
is
which permeates the whole of the universe, even honey passes through the honeycomb. He is at once the embodiment of reason and of law, and the power which binds
,
as
in one the various portions of the universe, who, though his essence is constant, appears in different forms in everything
that exists. Nature, forethought and fate are thus only different names for the same being as nature he creates the world, and
;
of fate. Matter, on formless and indeterminate, though limited in extent, and can exist only in conjunction with some active although it is itself eternal, its parts are subject quality The creation of the world is brought about by the to change. action of God upon matter, whereby the creative fire through
creates
it
in entire
is
an intermediate watery stage passes into the four elements which everything else is formed. tire, air,, water and earth out of
by the
in-
the celebrated terminflin"o of its elements, Zeno broached O a of the axiom in effect denial is which theory of (cpucrts oV oXou, same the that two bodies cannot occupy space. The world, however, will not last for ever, nor are we left
without indications of
the earth
s
In the inequality of its destructibility. the of the retrocession in sea, in the mor surface, with which we are acquainted, and
proofs
will
human race and all living creatures lastly in the fact that the can l)e shown to have had a beginning in time Zeno saw clear that the universe itself is destined to pass away. There
all
come a time when by the unceasing law of fate the world that it contains will again be merged in the primeval lire, to be created anew, as the embryo is formed from the only
and
seed.
is
unvarying no
less
than never-ending
new Heracles will free a young world from its plagues, and a new Socrates will plead his cause against the same accusers.
a
remarks that there Stein, Psychologie p. having used the term TrceD/m in this connection.
1
-">8,
is
no evidence
of
Zeno
12
INTRODUCTION.
in the
The individual and the cosmos are thus partakers same decree of fate, but their likeness does not stop here.
only over sentient, rational, intelligent, and wise.
is
Not
more
it is
Two
system,
his
He
seems to have
been animated by a desire to combine the results of later thought with the simplicity and directness of the early Ionian
physicists.
All
is
but
fire is
clothed
with divine attributes, and sharply contrasted with the passive But Zeno did not observe that material on which it works.
the combination
is
in reality self-destructive,
It remained materialistic system metaphysics are superseded. for his successors to eradicate the dualism which is here in
volved, and, while thrusting into the background the points borrowed from Aristotle, to take their stand upon pantheism pure and simple. Passing from the account of the cosmogony to the descrip
component parts of the universe, we find that the circumference of the sphere is occupied by a revolving belt of aether, in which are the sun, moon and stars, divine
tion of the different
No void exists within the beings formed of creative fire. world, but outside it there is unlimited void; at the same
time the world
is
into space by the attraction of its parts to the centre, in which the earth is placed. Zeno also explains certain natural phenomena such as eclipses, lightning, thunderbolts and
We
the soul
proceed to his anthropology, in which the account of is most important. Although he apparently omitted
to describe God,
who
is
yet the soul, which is the moving principle of the body, is defined as a warm breath, or (after Heraclitus) as a sentient exhalation. For the soul is fed by exhalation from the blood,
just as the heavenly bodies are by particles from the lower
INTRODUCTION.
elements.
13
it is corporeal and grows up with the under the influence of external im expanding body, gradually reason is only developed pressions, so that the perfect power of
Moreover,
at the age of puberty. Though it is a simple essence, its faculties are diverse, and being extended from the ^ ye/xoviKov which is situated in the heart to the various organs of sense,
it is
five senses,
said to have eight parts, namely, the T/ye/xovtKoi/ itself, the and the capacities of speech and generation. The
and
is
at
its
departure the
destroyed.
The
is
soul
its
but
at
is
least, seems Lactantius in which Zeno speaks of the separation of the of the former unholy from the holy and contrasts the misery On his discussion of the with the blessedness of the latter.
It remains to
religion. O
is
and the seed we need not dwell. consider Zeno s attitude towards the popular
in the strict sense, he teaches that there ~ Although, but one God, yet he admits that there is a certain amount
a recognition of the polytheism, as implying of God manifestation The divine the presence. ubiquity of and Here is nature Zeus, of the in symbolised by powers the water and the the who air, aether, Poseidon, represent In his interpretation of Hesiod s Theogony he respectively. so as to bring the gives the reins to his etymological fancy, with Stoic views. accordance into the of poet cosmogony is inferred from the fore of divination the existence Lastly divine government. thought, which characterises the the Stoic system, Ethics, which are the crowning point of
of
truth
in
come next
in order.
the goal to which nature Zeno did not accurately that It would seem
is
since
Chrysippus and
14
INTRODUCTION.
Cleanthes took divergent views of its character, but, recog which the different branches of the nising the manner in with one another we may reason interlaced Stoic system are the that prominence given to nature Zeno by ably conclude moral his to connect desired teaching with the divine creative
1
aether,
Our first impulses, which permeates the universe to self-preservation, and virtue but virtue to not tend however,
.
is
the brute, since neither of them impossible in the child or These natural im of reason. the power informing possesses
of reason, and in their proper pulses require the guidance subordination to it is to be found the condition of happiness, be described as the unruffled flow of life. For which
may
but virtue, and no external happiness nothing is required diminish circumstances, nothing but what is morally evil, can this In the satisfaction belonging to the virtuous. way we
are led to discriminate between dyaOd and KO.KO.: only virtue and vice or their accessories can be classed as good and evil;
everything
and death, is morally indifferent. not exhaust the capacities of rd does But this classification is absolute and for all time virtue of value The Kara the monarch does not imply the of the as supremacy but, just absolute equality of his subjects, so the a8ta<opa are ranged between virtue and vice in a graduated scale of negative and and aia), the middle place being oc value
else,
even
life
<f>vai.v.
positive
(dira^a.
cupied by
TO,
Ka6dira
a8td<opa,
i.e.
such matters as
havpg an
Everything even or odd number of hairs in one s head. and everything possessing diraia4 ciia is Kara
possessing
is
<j>v(riv,
vapd
At
<j>v<nv.
aia
is
is
Untersuchungen n. p. 108, thinks otherwise and the point is Zeno spoke only of human nature, Clearlthes certainly a doubtful one. If
2
Cf. Stein,
Psychologic
p. 13.
Hirzel,
connection of ethical with here, as elsewhere, shown the Then Chrysippus as KOIVTI physical doctrine by explaining would have united both views. If this was the real development, there would be some pretext for Stobaeus assertion that Cleanthes added ry while the authority of Diogenes Laertius would jvffei to the definition, See however Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 260. remain
may have
0i><m
<f>v<ru.
unimpaired.
INTRODUCTION.
4>vcriv
15
(frvmv.
Herein
might, under certain circumstances, become Trapd lies the vital distinction between u Sta^opa and
ayaOd,
for the latter are unaffected by any possible change of circum stances: a virtuous action can never be contrary to nature.
although there is not an absolute, there is yet a practical permanence in the value of certain things, which in the absence of some paramount objection (= Kara Trporjyov^vov
Still,
Aoyov or uvev
to
TreptoTao-fcos)
their
contraries.
we shall always choose in preference These then are the Trpo^y/xeVa. Cor
of actions
rrjfjLO.
responding with this classification of objects, we have a scale ranging from KaropOM/ma (virtuous action) to a/*ap(sinful action),
wherein
K.a6-f]Kov
d8id(f>opa.
Every KaOrjKov is thus directed to the choice of rd KUTO. and the avoidance of rd Trapd The doctrines of KaOrJKov and Tpor/y/xeVov are not to be regarded as an
<f>v(TLV
<v<ru
excrescence foisted on to the Stoic system in consequence of the pressure of the arguments of opponents, but are an
integral and necessary portion of the original structure as established by Zeno. The apparent inconsistency, which the of these doctrines sometimes produces e.g. in the application
socialistic
constitution
d8id<f>opa
would be reduced to
a minimum.
is
one
it
and
is
indivisible,
of
which
a taxed
and
permanent condition.
that
all
Consistently with this, he maintains sinful actions are equally wrong, since all alike imply
an aberration from a standard, which excludes increase or diminution. None the less, however, can we distinguish between different manifestations of virtue or separate virtues:
is identical with wisdom (^poV^o-is), and justice, and are the courage, temperance particular applications of wisdom in diverse spheres. Whether Zeno also distinguished between two different kinds of ^poV^rts, one as the ground work, and the other as a particular species of virtue, must
virtue itself
16
INTRODUCTION.
remain doubtful. Hirzel (I.e. p. 99) infers that he did, but Plutarch s words do not necessarily lead to such a conclusion, and we ought to hesitate to attribute such an inconsistency to
O
No
cardinal virtues <^povr?o-i?, SiKaioa-vvrj, generally put forward four inasmuch as Zeno s position was but and croj^poo-vvT?, dvSptio.
his views entirely
we are left to judge of admittedly modified by his successors from the two passages in Plutarch, in which
he
is
mentioned by name.
of the emotions,
The theory
constitutes one of the most distinctive features of Stoic ethics. Whereas Plato and Aristotle agreed in admitting the legiti
macy
of
certain
emotions,
Zeno declared
all
alike
to
be
and unnatural movement sinful, as being due to an irrational The four chief emotions of an excess in the soul, or impulse. and Zeno in describing their and fear desire, are pleasure, grief, s Galen trust we statements, rather on if nature dwelt, may
the psychological effects of the irrational impulse upon the The soul than on the mental conditions which produce them. difficulties surrounding this subject will be discussed in
special
the notes to the fragments themselves. The whole of mankind was divided
classes, entirely distinct
and that
of the foolish.
man
by
is
vice.
wise man performs every generally true that the Friendship, action well, and the fool fails in everything. and general freedom, piety, riches, beauty, the arts of kingship in culinary operations belong to the wise ship, even success man alone: he is never mistaken, never regrets what lie has
Hence
it is
free from every done, feels no compassion, and is absolutely that Zeno clear is it same the At emotion. time, form of state of folly to that of the from a progress contemplates wisdom as practicable; this advance is characterised by the of the soul from emotional and delusive affections
INTRODUCTION.
17
emerges from the conflict with success, the wise man still feels the scars from the wounds he has received during its course,
often reminded of his former evil impulses after he lias Finally, since death belongs to completely suppressed them.
and
is
is
man,
if
circumstances prescribe such a course. Jt is obvious that a teacher, whose ethical views were of
the nature, which we have just indicated, could not rest satisfied with the existing constitution of civic life in Greece.
Equally unsatisfactory to him was the aristocratical com munity of Plato, with the sharply drawn dividing line between
For this reason the guardians and the rest of the citizens. and of is the taken as the concord, Eros, god friendship Zeno s ideal a of state which in no way state, presiding deity
corresponds to the Greek
TTO AI?,
mankind
like a herd of cattle In this state living O together Q there will be no temples, law-courts, or gymnasia; no work of
human craftsmen is worthy of divine acceptance; the state must be adorned not with costly offerings, but by the virtues of its inhabitants. Zeno likewise advocates an abolition of coinage, a community of wives, and a thorough revolution of
the current system of education.
The remaining fragments, dealing mainly with particular do not require to be summarised here.
,
3.
Zeno
s relation to 2
evioufi
philosophers.
accusing-
its
The opponents of the Stoic school were fond of members of plagiarism and want of originality.
:
Zeno
is
the keen Phoenician trader, pilfering other men s wares, and 2 if all that belongs to others were passing them off as his own
withdrawn from the voluminous writings of Chrysippus, we 4 should have a blank page 3 Antiochus, in Cicero represents
.
Cf.
Newman,
i.
p. 88.
Diog. L. vn. 181. Acad. i. 43. The same argument is put forward by Cicero himself against Cato in the 4th book of the de Finibus.
4
H. P.
18
the views of
INTRODUCTION.
Zeno as merely immaterial changes in minor the genuine Academic doctrine, while Juvenal
1
points of of the Stoic dogmas only repeats current opinion in speaking a Even distantia" as slight acquaintance Cynicis tunica with the Stoic system- is sufficient to refute these gross
"a
.
is abundantly vindicated when charges: indeed, its originality for several centuries 011 it exercised influence the we point to
the intellectual
it
At the same time life of Greece and Rome*. must be admitted that Zeno was largely indebted to his and Heraclitus for especially to Antisthenes predecessors the bricks and mortar with which he constructed so splendid an
edifice.
the kernel, _Of Cynicism in particular he appropriated It is, however, when we look at while discarding the husk. Stoicism as a whole that we are able to appreciate the skill with which its incongruous elements were fused, and the of detail. The Stoic a unity of thought which pervades variety wise man is as far removed from Diogenes in his tub, as is the aether from the fiery element of Heraclitus. all
permeating
various points in which proceed to discuss in detail the most strongly marked. is Zeno s obligation to previous thinkers
We
A.
To Antisthenes and
the Cynics.
similar terms
that Plato
ideas were a
nacharistotolisrhen
3
Stoa war vielmehr die veitaus selbstaiKlitfste Hcbule der 10. Philosophic," Htein, Psychologic p. Antisthenes ap. Sinipl. in Cat. p. 54 b u II\CLTUV, iirirov ^(v bpd
"Die
iinroTTjTa. dt oi
opCi.
Cf.
Zeno
frag. 23.
INTRODUCTION.
.
19
Like Zeno, teaching as well as in the life of Diogenes Aiitistlienes teaches that virtue is in itself sufficient to secure that nothing is a Good but virtue, nothing an Evil
happiness-,
vice,
but
else is
indifferent".
Accordingly
involves no disgrace, cannot Diogenes held that death, since it Hence it is not surprising to learn, that many of be an Evil 4
the Cynics put an end to their lives by suicide, though we have sayings both of Aiitistlienes and Diogenes on record
5 denying the legitimacy of such a course
.
Virtue
itself
is
as consisting in
"is
dence:
"prudence,"
says Aiitistlienes,
betrayed"".
cannot be undermined or
futility of the
At
strongly
insisted on 7
The
with
s
it
that between the wise and the foolish; the philoso wallet preserves a chosen few from a condition border
.
are told, on the authority of Diogenes Laertius", that Zeno adopted the Cynic form of life. This is probably to be taken with some limitation, as the incidents recorded of his
life
We
It is certain, however, that only partially agree with it. and for this his life was one of abstinence and simplicity who thus un comic the reason he became the butt of poets,
1
",
Apollodorus Ephillus, a consciously testified to his merit. man would cynicise, wise the that later Stoic writer, declared
and that Cynicism was a short cut to virtue". Stoic however, always be borne in mind that the
]
It
should,
ideal
was
Diog. L.
rjt>
VI.
71
btov
o\ v
avrl
rC:v
axM"
ru
"
^ovui>
Tors Kara.
0;W
eXoue^ors
-
4 5
6
7 *
11
Zeno trag. 120. Zeno frag. Diog. L. vi. 11. Zeno frag. 12*. Diog. L. vi. 10.1. Zeno frag, 129. AIT. Epict. Diss. i. 24. Zeller Socrates, etc. Eng. Tr. p. 319, n. Zeno frag. 134. Diog. L. vi. 13. Zeno frag. 1C.7. Diog. L. vi. 103. Zeno frag. 148. Diog. L. vi. 33, 35.
ei! 5cu,u6i/u>s.
12-").
C>. r>.
Cf.
Zeno
frag.
H>1.
10
11
Diog. L. vi. 104. Diog. L. vn. 2d, 27. Diog. vi. 104. vn. 121.
20
INTRODUCTION.
humanised and elevated to an extent entirely incompatible with Cynicism, mainly owing to the attention which was bestowed on mental culture
1 .
Turning
science,
we
sexes
Zeno and
schools in applied moral as to the relations of the agreement held in the ideal state, both that, Diogenes
two
there should be a
community
of wives,
thing revolting in marriage between the nearest relations At the same time marriage and the begetting of children are
recommended for the wise man both by Zeno and Antisthenes, and apparently we must regard this as intended to apply to the existing condition of life, in which marriage was a civil 3 Both teachers allow to the wise man the passion institution
.
4
:
Lastly, Zeno copied Antisthenes in his treatment of the Homeric poems, and particularly in explaining certain ap
parent contradictions as due to the fact that the poet speaks at The al one time Kara. &6av and at another aXrfOftav".
KO.T"
legorising
method
of interpretation
is
common
to both,
and
to
Though we have thus seen that Zeno s ethical teaching is largely founded on Cynicism, we must not forget the many Thus, for example, we find the Cynics points of divergence. 8 these things, treating honour and wealth as absolute evils
;
difference of spirit in the two schools is well put by Sir A. (Ar. Eth. vol. i. p. 317 ed. 3). * Diog. L. vi. 72. Dio. Chrys. x. 29. Cf. Zeno frags. 170 and 179. These passages are from the iroXirei a of Zeno, which is supposed to have been written while he was still an exponent of orthodox Cynicism. Chry sippus, however, is reported to have also held this repulsive doctrine. 3 Diog. L. vi. 11. Zeno frag. 171.
1
The
Grant
4
8
6
~ 8
Diog. L. vi. 11. Zeno frag. 172. Diog. L. vi. 12. Zeno frag. 149. Dio. Chrys. 53, 4. Zeno frag. 195. See Cic. N. D. n. 63 foil. See the passages collected by Zeller Socrates,
etc.
E. T. p. 304.
INTRODUCTION.
21
Again, according to Zeno, belonged to the class of 7rpo>;y/Aei a. to take their attitude towards the popular religion, we know that Zeno expressly countenanced divination, while the ex
istence of prophets
of animals
1
B.
To Heraclitus.
There can be no doubt that Zeno borrowed some important principles in his physical teaching from the writings of He
raclitus,
his
a difficulty in comparing the doctrines of is, however, the two schools minutely, owing to the obscurity in which our
There
knowledge
is
and which
often increased by the doubt as to whether some particular doctrine belonged equally to the Stoics and the philosopher of Ephesus, or whether some later development, introduced by
the former, has not been wrongly ascribed to the latter by our For instance, it was at one time stoutly main authorities.
tained that the conflagration of the world was not taught by Heraclitus but that it was first propounded by Zeno, although
now
to
prevail".
Again,
it is
not
whether we are to
the early
does
:i
with
that
dogma
all
whether we
are to regard
this principle
shadowing
as a metaphysical abstraction, metaphorically forth the eternal flux of all things, a view which is
4
.
more in accordance with Plato s criticism in the Theaetetus However this may 1)6, Heraclitus is essentially a hylozoist,
following Anaximenes, chooses fire as being the rarest element, and insists on the continuity of change in order to
\vlio,
Em-
Diog. vi. 24 and contrast Zeno frag. 118. See the elaborate discussion in Zeller, Pre-Socr. Phil. Eng. Tr. n. See however Bysvater, Jonrn. Phil. i. 42. 77. pp. fi 2 Met. i. 3. 8. This is the view of Ueberweg p. 40 and is also held by Dr Jackson. 4 Zellers position (p. 20 foil.) combines the two views.
-
22
INTRODUCTION.
and the Parmenidean immobility on pedocles on the one hand, The Xo yo? vvos is with him the expression of the the other. truth that nothing can be known but the law of mutability, in difference, which he likens to the stretching of the
harmony
a bowstring
This law he
Xoyixdv T
ov KOI
calls
yvco/zij,
81/07,
cipoppcn?, TO
ZeiV, but these be wrong in straining terms are mere metaphors and we should in fact, the law of their philosophic import they represent, no doubt that be can there change and nothing more. Still, Xo formula his of yos was one the use which Heraclitus made
and
<j>ptVT)pc<>,
of the chief points in his system which attracted the attention As a disciple of Cynicism he was familiar with of Zeno.
Xo yos as a dialectical and an ethical principle neither of these him in broaching, his own aspects of Xoyos was discarded by the Heraclitean Xo yo?, he of the help Yet, through system. Just as Plato gave to further. one take to was enabled step
:
V7ro 0co-is or general conception a metaphysical existence in the form of the idea, so did Zeno elevate the Xo yo? of Antisthenes from its position as a criterion for thought and
the Socratic
and movement duty to that of the physical cause of being like the Heraclitean Xo yos, provided with The Stoic
deity
is,
:i
such as God, Mind, the all pervading Aether, and Zeus, but on the other hand it belong* \Ve have here set to an essentially later period of thought. is regarded us which forth the teleological view of Nature, 4 The a for good purpose creating all things out of itself as so far in also pantheists Stoics, at least after Cleanthes, are Even identical. are world the and they acknowledge that God
many names,
Fate, Forethought,
treatment.
The
tire
of
Heraclitus becomes
1 Heraclitus frag. 50 ed. Bywater. Hiiv.el finds here the origin of the Stoic roVos, but this is very questionable. For a detailed statement see Krische, FonohllllgttO p. 368 foil. 3 The comparison is suggested by Hirzel n. p. 42. But Hirzel very much underestimates the influence of Heraclitus on Zeuo, as Heinze has attribute the Hera pointed out. It is quite contrary to the evidence to clitean tendencies of the Stoa solely, or even mainly, to Cleanthes. 4 Cic. N. D. n. 58.
INTRODUCTION.
aether or
-n-vp
T^VLKOV
is
is
unknown
to the
Instead thereby spiritualised and rarefied. Ephesian the universal to of three elements the Stoics have four, according
and
writers. Cleanthes, at least, re practice of post-Aristotelian as graduations of TWOS, a garded these four elements merely
The doctrine of irdrra notion entirely alien to Heraclitus. and uAAoiWis gives way of that is replaced by /jLTa(3o\i], ftel
to the
characteristic
as Kpouris
Si
known
built
oAojr.
we have
how
The remaining resemblances are com upon It was a natural corollary to both paratively unimportant, Zeno seems to to maintain the unity of the cosmos
Heraclitus.
1
of
instead of regarding this exhalation as imbibed he taught that the soul was air -rreptexov},
(TO
Where Heraclitus by emanation from the warm blood. of the wise characteristic regarded dryness as an essential
,
soul
warmth
or evKpcuria.
Lastly,
we may
the soul,
observe that Heraclitus attributed immortality to and that in Ethics he counselled submission to the
the regulation of speech and thought in ac
5 .
To Plato and
Aristotle.
mediate successors was comparatively small. Zeno and Epi curus sought the groundwork of their ethics in the systems of
Antisthenes and Aristippus, and followed in their physics, with surprising closeness, the pre-Socratic philosophers He
itself
new Academy
Stob. Eel. i. 22. 3 b p. 11)9, Heracl. frag. 74, By water. Stob. Floril. in. 8-1.
24
of Arcesilas
INTRODUCTION.
and Carneades bore no resemblance to that founded by Plato, and Antiochus owed more to the Stoa than to the old Academy which he professed to resuscitate. In the post-
Aristotelian philosophy, taken as a whole, we find a universal tendency to materialistic views, a striking decline of interest in purely intellectual research, as sin end in itself, and a
two questions
general agreement in confining the area of speculation to the of the standard of ethics and the logical criterion.
However we are to explain this phenomenon, and even if we consider inadequate the explanation of Zeller, who attributes this result to the loss of political freedom and the consequent
concentration of thought on the needs of the individual, we are more concerned with the fact itself than with its possible causes It is enough to say that the system founded by Zeno
.
was
in
although in many points it presupposes their existence. In the case of Chrysippus we may go further, for there is no doubt that his logic was largely a development, and that not a very happy one, of the Aristotelian doctrine of the
syllogism.
titles of
several of
was not considered great attention to this branch of philosophy. The principal contribution made by Zeno to the theory of
us,
knowledge
is
<aj/rao-t
u KaTaXrjirTiKrj
as the criterion
vincing power of the impression is made the test of its reality, is due entirely to Zeno, but he was obviously influenced by the Aristotelian treatment of ^ai/racri a, in which it appears as
"decaying
movement
1
faculty"
and is more accurately defined as "the resulting from the actual operation of the sense Again, in the Zenonian definitions of memory
sense,"
will
stages
in the
This question is discussed in Rhet. i. 11. 1370 a 28. de An. in. 3. 42!) a 1.
Benn
INTRODUCTION.
1
25
Aristotle and his terminology, at any rate, is recognisable in a logical fragment preserved by Stobaeus". Diogenes Laertius introduces his discussion of the Stoic
,
two u px at/ posited by the school were God and Indeterminate Matter here we have not only
:
and the material cause, but also his description 3 that which is entirely formless and contingent
.
of
matter as
aether,
The
the so called quinta essentia of Aristotle, of which the heavenly bodies were composed, has its representative under the system
of Zeno,
who
when speaking
Cicero puts into the mouth of professed Antiocheans, and, in the character of Antiochus, himself makes
the charge that Zeno s Ethics are identical with those of the Academy, and that the only change is one of terminology. This is developed at length in the fourth book of the de Finibus,
where Cicero points out the inconsistency of denying that external goods contribute to happiness, while admitting that There is considerable force they have a certain positive value.
in the objection in so far as it lays bare a weak point in the Stoic stronghold, but, if it is meant for a charge of plagiarism,
it is
In fact, as has been remarked, Antiochus, himself stole the clothes of Zeno, was always anxious to As we know, prove that they never belonged to Zeno at all.
grossly unfair.
who
to find that he
however, that Zeno was a pupil of Polemo, it is not unnatural was to some extent influenced by his teaching. Thus, life according to nature was one of Polemo s leading
tenets,
one of
1
and Clement of Alexandria has preserved the title of 4 his books which deals with this subject Zeller well
.
Met.
i.
1.
:i
Zeno
/J-r/Tf
frag. 24.
3.
1029 a 20 \(yu 6 f\^ 77 KaO avrriv ur/re TL ^re Xe -yercu oh wpiffrai TO ov. Cic. Fin. iv. Clem. Alex. Strom, vin. p. H04 Sylb. Polemo 14. himself is represented as saying to Zeno ov \av6dixis, c3 Tir/vuv, TCUS
Metaph.
Troabv
4
aXXo
/ot^Sec
(>.
KTJTTCUCUS
TO.
doyfj.ara KX^TTTUV
<poLi>iKiKi2
fj.tra^<pifvi>i
One
of the doctrines,
which were
in this
way appro-
26
sums up the extent
"such
INTRODUCTION.
of
points in
on knowledge, the comparative depreciation of external goods, the retreat from sensuality, the elevation and the purity of
moral idealism, and, in the older Academy, the demand for
life
virtue
according to nature, the doctrine of the self-sufficiency of and the growing tendency to confine philosophy to prac
all
tical issues
terest."
Amongst the
felt
to
have
particular points, in which Zeno seems the influence of Plato, may be mentioned the
(frag.
of the world us
(frag. 62).
We
have endeavoured
which Zeno was influenced by his pre decessors, leaving minor resemblances to be pointed out in
points of doctrine in
the notes.
4.
A
vii. 4,
list
but
makes
is preserved in Diog. L. as the same writer himself admittedly incomplete, additions to it in his exposition of the philosophical is
of the titles of
This
The first separate portions. 13 (or 14) works, of which 6 deal with ethical, 4 with physical, and 3 (or 4) with logical and miscellaneous subjects ;
then follows a kind of appendix giving 4 (or 3) additional titles. Apollonius Tyrius has been with much probability
suggested as the authority to
was probably derived by it is divisible into two or main division gives the names
list
whom
is
due*,
priated by the Stoa, appears to be the third definition of fyws preserved by Andronicus irepi Tratiuv c. 4 as vTrypeaia. tit&v eh vtuv KaTaKocr/j.r)ffiv nal
KCL\UI>
:
cf.
m vtuv
Plut. ad priu. iner. 780 D llo\(^uv t\eye rbv tpura dvai. OeCiv
fjrifj.f\fiav
(Kreuttner, Andronicus p.
:
41)).
muth adopt
lists
See Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Anti^ onos p. 107 Zeller and WachsNietzsche s hypothesis (Kheiu. Mus. xxiv. 185) that all the in Diog. are, with certain exceptions, derived from Demetrius of
INTRODUCTION.
for
27
cite
name
not only does Diogenes in several places 2. 24, p. 2) but also Strabo (xvi. (e.g. mentions a work of his with the title -KLVO.^ rwv
^lAoo-o^coi/ KCU
him by
expressly
7-~>7)
drro
Z^ rwo?
supplied Diogenes with the /3t/3/\tW not been determined. has appendix The works, of which any record lias survived to us, may
TWV
who
Logical.
(1)
Trepi
Xoyov.
From
mentioned
in
the
the triple division general catalogue, Diog. L. (vn. 39. 40) cites its study, which for of the order and of arrangement
philosophy
Zeno recommended. According to Susemihl, this book con tained Zeno s epistemology, but, being superseded by the
writings of Chrysippus, lost
(2)
title
is
its
is
KaOo\LKd.
:
Nothing
known
of this
Wachsmuth
Aeewv (Diog.
8tavotas
e
4).
is
defined as
0-ri^avTiK-rj
is e/x^?/
UTTO
bable, therefore, that this work tion of terms, and to it may perhaps belong the fragments in the proper meaning of o-oAotKi^etv (frags. which Zeno
explains
30 and
31).
p.
478)
to the oft-repeated ac suggests that this treatise gave rise cusation made by Cicero that Zeno s innovations in philosophy
and that Chrysippus had solely of a verbal character, defended his master from a similar charge in the work TTC/K
were
TOV Kiyuws Kfxprj&Oai Zijvwva rots oVo /xacru This is identified 4).
.
(4)
Tcxvr)
(I->iog.
by Zeller and
works Magnesia, who is specified by name with reference to Xenophoirs Susemihl (Jahrbiicher fiir Philol. 12,5, p. 741) thinks (DioR. L. ii. 57). that che Diogenes catalogue comprises only those writings of Zeno which were included in the Stoic canon, and that the TroXtret a, therex"^ e/w??, and the Siarpi^al were treated as apocryphal while their genuineness was
admitted. 1 See however on frag. 23.
28
INTRODUCTION.
the
ipoynicij
Wellmann with
r^\vrj of $ 34,
while
Wachsmuth
writes TC^VT; KOL Xvo-fis KCU tXcy^ot ft as one title. The third course, which at first sight seems the most natural inasmuch as Tf\vr) bears this special meaning from Corax and Tisias
downwards,
is
to regard
is
it
as an art of rhetoric.
it is
The ob
that
iv. 7 that no work of Zeno bearing this title was known to Cicero or his authority, but too much reliance need not be placed on this, as it is clear that Zeno s logical treatises had
On the other hand, there is a fair amount of of Chrysippus. evidence to show that Zeno did to some extent busy himself
with rhetoric (frags. 25, 26, 27, 32), and though Zeller suggests
that the definitions of
SiT/yrjo-is
Possibly owing to (5) XvVtis xal eXcyxot ft (Diog. 4). the influence of Stilpo the Megarian, Zeno may have devoted some attention to this branch of logic, which in general he
see frag.
6.
Physical. (6) TTtpl TOV oXou (Diog. 4) seems to have been the most important of Zeno s physical writings. Diogenes refers to it as
containing Zeno
142),
and quotes
(ib.
from
it
is
143).
It also contained
an account of the
sun and
of the
phenomena
of
thunder
for
cited by Stobaeus Eel. i. 5. 15. p. 78, IS. (7) TTcpt Zeno s views on the subject of cI/^ap/Acvr; Krische (p. 367) would identify it with the last named treatise.
:
the only work which deals with the formal side of logic, so might have been put argument in Erkenntuistheorie n. more strongly. He follows the old reading and speaks of two treatises, TexviKai Xi crtis and HXeyxoi. /3
1
This
is
that Stein
<>8!
INTRODUCTION.
29
(8) 7Tpt ovcri as unnecessarily identified by "VVellmann (I.e. and Susemihl with irepl oXov and Trepl (jbvcreco? is quoted 442) p. by Diog. (134) for Zeno s definition of the two first principles,
a treatise on divination
(Diog.
4).
Thus
0f(j>p
pavTiKr) is
i]Ti.K-t)
arjfjifiMV
TWV
is
O.TTO
&ewv
r/
Sat/xovwv
TT/JOS
avupwTTLVov ftiov
Cic.
Tuv.
This
de
Div.
et
i.
3, 6 sed
cum
omnia
quod
Zeno
1
quaedam
sparsisset.
Its
thesis
position in the catalogue makes against PrantTs hypo who classes it as a logical work.
,
known by
its title
(Diog. 4)
is
re
(11) HvOayopLKa. (Diog. 4) classed by \Vachsmuth as a physical book owing to its position in the catalogue, but nothing
else is
known concerning
Ethical.
it.
III.
Zeno
Here must belong (12) Trepl TOV KaOiJKovTos (Diog. 4). definition of duty (frag. 14-")), from the terms of which
conjectures without much probability that identify this treatise with the following. TTtpl TOV Kara (frvaw (3iov (Diog. 4). (13)
Wellmann
we
should
(14)
irepl
6p/j.rj<;
rj
Trepl
dvOpwirov
e^t crew?
the
Zenonian definition
of
(Bibl. Gr.
580)
- octo, proposed to separate this title reading r) identified further this vrept dvOpwirov adopting
v,
and Weygoldt
with
Trept
<^>i;o-eo)s
is
Trepl TT0.0WV (15) tion of emotion and the discussion of its several subdivisions,
and pleasure
it is
(ib.
(16)
7roXtTta.
the
most
generally known, as
Zeno
writings;
1
it
was
i.
p. 458.
30
INTRODUCTION.
time, having been written while its author was still under the Plutarch informs us that it influence of Cynicism (Diog. 4).
was written as a controversial answer to Plato s Republic. The allusions to it are too numerous to be specified here in
detail
1
.
(17)
Trcpt
VO/AOU
(Diog.
4).
From
its
position in the
to the political side of ethics, and Krische s supposition (p. 368) that it treated of the divine law of nature is therefore rebutted. Themist. Or.
catalogue this
xxin.
p.
l>e
frag. 167,
which however
(19)
pro bably belongs the interesting fragment (174) preserved by Clem. Alex, relating to the behaviour suitable to young
cpumK?/
TC
X^
(Diog.
34).
To
this
book
men.
(
20)
Siarpi/Jai (Diog.
34):
a similar work, as
we
are
told by Diog. whose statement is continued by the passages from it by Sextus. As we are told (frags. 179, 180) quoted Plutarch that something of the same kind was contained in by the TToXireia, we may believe that this and the last three works
were written in close connection with it, as shorter appendages dealing with special topics, and before Zeno had worked out
the distinctive features of Stoicism.
of
"lectures,
From
cf.
discussions"
(for
which
8iTpt/3as /cat TOUS Aoyovs) 8tuTpi/3r/ seems to have assumed the special sense of a short ethical treatise, if we may trust the definition of Hermogenes (Rhett. Or. ed. Waltz, t. in. p.
//.<is
406)
&La.T/>iftri
e o-rt
rflucoiv OCTUO-IS.
Zeller s
identification
with the
aL
improbable, and
Susemihl
A summary will be found in Wellmaun 1. c. p. 437 foil. As regards Cynic tendencies Susemihl observes: Wer den Witz machte, er sei bei ihrer Abfassung wohl schon iiber den Hund gekommen, aber noch nicht iiber den Schwanz, schrieb eben damit dies Werk einer etwas spiitern Zeit, zu friihesten etwa als er von Krates zu Htilpon iiberge1
its
gangen war.
INTRODUCTION.
believes that the Biarpi/Bal was excluded being an earlier Cynic work. (21)
as
7J0LKO.
31
from the
Wachsmuth
is
somewhat doubtful,
yOiKa.
KpaT^ros
as
single title, and Wellmann would emend r) xP f ^ai f r ^ixa: more probably however it was a collection of short ethical
TV.
Dio.
Miscellaneous.
Trpo/^A^/xuTwv Qfj.r)piKwv
r
-
(22)
Chrys.
):5,
e (Diog. 4): we learn from 4 that Zeno wrote on the Iliad, Odyssey
his object was to show the general consistency of Homer by explaining that a literal meaning was not to be applied throughout the poems, which ought
in
many
in
Strabo vn.
p. 41, xvr. p.
1131.
Krische
p.
392
Zeno
attributed
the
and
the
Odyssey to different
4).
authors.
(23)
TTept
7ro<.t]TLK
fj<;
uV/)oacrcos
(Diog.
Stein,
Er-
kcnntnistheorie n. GS9, speaks of this work, the 7rpo/3A. Qp.r)p. and the Trept EAA^i TruiS. as an educational series, and regards
.
them
by Athen. iv. 102 B as Z?;Vtovos tt7ro/u.vr/^/.oi eu/Aara, from which There seems little Persaeus is said to liave made extracts. doubt that this was identical with the xpeicu mentioned in Diog. vi. 91 in connection with Crates, or that Wachsmuth is right
in referring to this
(frag. 199).
/jir rjfjio\
i
Aphthonius definition
oa i TO/Aoi tvcrro^ws
tTTco-ToXat
first
/j,a
TI TrpocraiTroi/ ui a^epo/xerov.
(2- ))
(Maxim.
Floril.
ed.
3Iai,
c.
G).
This
pointed out by Wachsmuth, see frag. 190. The passage in Cic. N. D. i. 36 (cum vero Hesiodi Theogoniam interpretatur) led Fabricius to insert among his list of
reference was
Zeno
writings
(ill.
p.
oSO)
{ Tro/xi
Ty/xoVerpa
tis
Tr/v
HcnoSoi;
32
1
INTRODUCTION.
,
Oeoyoi iav
in
It is, however, impossible to to Hesiod as well as to Homer. say in what work these fragments appeared, and we do not feel much inclined to accept Krische s view (p. 367) that the
allegorical explanations of
:i
irtpi
oA.ov
May they not belong to the Trtpi TTOIIJTIKT/S uKpouo-ea>s? It remains to call attention to Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 9. 58
.
p.
ul
TOJ
irptanp
yeypu.<f>6an
paSiws
itrirpiirovai
ftaOr)Tal<;
dvayi-
yVU>CTKf.LV
p.7/
yVljaiCJS
(f)tXo<TO<f)OLfV,
but similar suggestions of esotericism are made against all the post- Aristotelian schools, and especially against the New
Academy.
(Mayor on
Cic.
N. D.
I.
11.)
5.
Zeno s
style.
The fragments which survive of Zeno s writings are not enable us to form any satisfactory opinion of his and it would be unsafe to generalise from such scanty style,
sufficient to
data.
We
shall
characteristics about
therefore only attempt to point out those which there can be no doubt.
little
The
later
with the graces of literary ornament. Philosophy had now become scientific in its treatment and ceased to be artistic in
Zeno was no exception to this rule, and was satisfied if he presented his arguments to his readers with directness and In this respect, he has been successful in avoid perspicacity.
form.
4
ing obscurity
1
foil.
-
interpretatione physiologiae in Hesiodi Homeri Orpheique carminibus imitatur. a Zeller who formerly supported this view (Stoics p. 40) now thinks otherwise (Ph. d. Gr. in. 4 1. 32).
4 Fronto ad Verum Imperat. i. p. 114 ad docendum planissimus Zenon. Cf. Diog. L. vn. 38?<m fdv otv avrov KOI ra irpoffyfypa/j./j.^va
Zenonem
INTRODUCTION.
abruptness and want of
33
To this tendency was clue his finish. custom of couching his arguments in syllogistic formulae, which often served to cloak a somewhat obvious
1
fallacy
This formally logical style subsequently grew so habitual with the Stoics that they earned for themselves the title of StaXeKriKoL
Cicero (N. D. in. 22) especially observes on Zeno s fondness for certain "breues et acutulas and
conclusiones,"
several examples of these are to be found in his remaining "That which is reasonable is better than that fragments.
which
is
is
thing at whose departure the living organism dies is corporeal but the living organism dies when the breath that has been united with it departs therefore this breath is corporeal but this breath is
:
:
is
corporeal."
"That
:
is
but
all
itself
Zeno
Passing to quite a different characteristic, we remark in s style a certain which picturesqueness and love of
simile,
perhaps
may be
who
of his birth-place 2
that those
dreams discover whether they are making progress, if then imaginative and emotional part of the soul is clearly seen dispersed and ordered by the power of reason, as in the
the
transparent depth of a waveless calm (frag. 160). Zeno, says Cicero (N. D. n. 22), "similitudine, ut saepe solet, rationem concludit hoc modo." tuneful flutes were pro duced from an olive should not we regard some knowledge of
"If
oh e\a.\r)crei> us ovdeis TUV "ZTUIKUV in which passage Stein, die Klarheit und Gediegenheit der Psychologie n. 2, finds evidence of iSchrit ten Zenos. 1 In Cic. N. D. n. 20 the Stoic claims that such arguments "apertiora sunt ad reprehendeudum." Elsewhere Cicero calls them contortulis quibusdam et minutis conclusiunculis nee ad sensum pennanentibus." Tusc. ii. 42.
TroXXd, ev
"
"
"
Cf.
Wellmann
P.
1.
c. p.
445.
H.
34
INTRODUCTION.
I"
explain
In like the olive (frag. 63). flute-playing as inherent in manner he uses the simile of the minister in a royal court to his doctrine of the Trpor/y/xeW (frag. 131), and likens
his ideal
commonwealth
to
herd grazing on
common
Not only in elaborate comparisons but also touch be pressions may the same picturesque
character
is
life (frag.
146), emotion
be remembered that Cicero, or his authority, con Zeno with being the inventor of new words, taunts stantly When scrutinised, this appears to mean words new and only not so much that he was a coiner of new expressions, as that
It will
1
for the purposes of his system he appropriated in existence as part of his special terminology.
TrpoT/y/AeVov
words already
Putting aside on rather a
and
diroTrpo-rjyiJ.fvov,
which
stand
different footing,
<9eo-is,
we may
KaTo p0w/xu,
is
KarttA.T/i//is,
Wota(?),
and
rvTroxris
Yet, although none certainly not due to Zeno. TrpoAt/i/as of these words are new coinages, KaToA^i/as and KO.BTJKOV are instances specially selected by Cicero in support of his statement. observes: KOI Diog. Laert. x. 27 speaking of Chrysippus
rd fjiaprvpia roaavra eoriV, ok
KO.6a.TTtp
KOI
Trapd
ZTJVWVI
eoriv
evpflv
Kal irapd
ApioToreAei.
The existing fragments however do not justify this assertion. under whicli although doubtless the circumstances
Finally,
the fragments have been preserved render this tendency more noticeable than it otherwise would l)e, we shall not be wrong
Zeno a love of precise definition. The school famous for their definitions (cf. Sext. became afterwards unreasonable to suppose 205 II. 212), and it is not Pyrrh.
in attributing to
Instances of this
38, etc.
Cf.
Tusc.
ri>
v. 32. 34.
ZTJXWI-
Legg.
i.
Galen
de
puls. KaivoTOUf iv re
diff.
8t 6
TUV E\\rivuv
Kmei j
INTRODUCTION.
35
f their general
Tn fact, his writings in will occur passim. character were dogmatic and terse rather than discursive and The longest extract in the following pages is of polemical.
of our author
dubious authenticity, and therefore for a specimen of the style we would refer to the description of youthful
modesty in
frag.
74.
| G.
Cleanthes.
s
life
we have
seen that
<rood
year E.G. 331, and if so he was only live years younger than We also saw that he lived to the age of 99 and Zeno.
presided over the Stoa for 32 years from
B.C.
2G4
till
Ids death
in B.C. 232. Against this computation there is to be taken into account the fact that Diogenes (vn. 176) states that lie
Unless we
tradition
papyrus altogether,
different
and was a pupil of Zeno for nineteen are prepared to reject the authority of the we have in Diogenes account either a
or
stupid
blunder
life
1 .
In
any
case,
was born at Assos, a town in the Troad, but at what he came to Athens or under what circumstances he be age came a pupil of Zeno we have no information. His circum stances were those of extreme poverty he is said to have been
:
He
a boxer before he embraced philosophy, and the story is well known how he earned his living by drawing water at night, in
order to devote his daytime to
of
<t>pttvT/\T7s
study".
was given
to
him by
his
friends in admiration of his laborious activity called him a second Heracles." The man s mind is shadowed forth in
"
these anecdotes
1
Ilohde
1.
c.
p.
tuition
suggests that Diogenes subtracted the 111 from the years of bis life, but this is
32
36
characterised his
life
INTRODUCTION.
are no less apparent in his teaching.
Whatever he did was marked by energy and completeness and was grounded on deeply-rooted conviction. Philosophy with him was not merely an intellectual exercise, but far more a religious enthusiasm. This religious fervour led him
importance, should be set forth in something higher than sober prose, his of the greatest genius expressed itself in poetical compositions character may a this man of that believe It is easy to merit.
to regard the theological side of philosophy as of the highest and, feeling that the praise of the divine majesty
have proved an unsuccessful teacher, and there is some evi dence that under his presidency the Stoic school was in danger of losing ground, cf. Diog. L. vn. 182 OUTOS (Chrysippus)
ovi8icr0eis VTTO TIVOS ort ov)(l TTOpd Apiorcjvi
t
fitTo.
iroXXwv (T^oXa^oi,
TOIS TToXXoiS,
?7T, TTpO(TCi\O\
OVK
OLV
(f)L\O<TO(^rj(Ta.
HlS ap
parent want
estimate
1
of success possibly stimulated the unfavourable with which his written works were received by
.
antiquity
by various and its logical opponents Skill in controversy was more than theories by Arcesilas. ever needed, if the position won by Zeno s efforts was to be
fiercely assailed
its
by the
Epicureans,
maintained.
who was very probably employed 2 and who his predecessor s life
,
surpassed 3 he was inferior to him in depth Most suggestive, in this view, becomes the passage in Diog. *cai TroXL. VII. 179 SiT/ve x$77 (Chrysippus)... Trpos K\edv6r)v
if
a>
Xa*as eXcye
/xoV^s
rfjs
TWV Soy/u.arwv
SiSacrKaXias
XP!?
ll/
>
T s
"
1 There is no direct evidence for this, but the whole of Diogenes account implies it. 2 5 rbv Ko.rf^aviffTa.fj.fvov K\edi/0oi s SiaXtKnCf. Diog. L. vii. 182
TT/X>S
rbv Trpftrjivirporeivovra. aiV<p cro</>icr/u.aTa, ir^Tra.vffo, elire, Trapt\KUV TO S fO S ravra irporlOti. Tfpov airb rCiv irpa.yfjLa.TiKbjTipwi 7?M I/
Kbv,
/cat
,
&
Kleanthes war keine die Begriffe zergliedernde, sondern eine anschauende Natur, er war wohl minder riihrig aber vielleicht tiefer angelegt als sein Schiller," and Stein, Psychologic p. 171 Kleanthes erscheiut als der rauhschaalige, miihsam stammelnde, aber
3
So Hirzel n.
p.
180
"
"
tiefe
vermittelnde
INTRODUCTION.
37
The anecdote leads us to infer 8e a7ro8ei eis avrov eup^ cmv. that Chrysippus was conscious of a want of originality in himself, and a want of combative force in his master.
The position of Cleanthes among the early leaders of the Stoic school lias quite recently been subject to a considerable modification in current opinion. He has been generally re
garded as merely the exponent of his master s teaching, and as having contributed no new views of his own to the de-
This opinion
is
the ancient
authorities.
Diogenes Laertius ex
same tenets as and that he did not predecessor (vn. 1G8), object to be called an ass, declaring that able to bear Zeno s heysvas oJy burden (ib. 170). This estimate of his powers was for some time acquiesced in by modern investigators, so that even Zeller says of him (p. 41) Cleanthes was in every way adapted to uphold his master s teaching, and to recommend it by the moral weight of his own character, but he was in capable of expanding it more completely, or of establishing it on a wider basis" (see also Krische, Forschungen, pp. 417 and Xow however a reaction in his favour has set in, and 418). from a closer scrutiny of the notices concerning him the his contributions were more opinion has been formed that distinctive and original than those of any other Stoic
pressly asserts that Cleanthes adhered to the
his
"
"
"
(Encycl.
Brit.
portance it is has dealt so hardly with him, not only in the actual amount of the fragments which have been preserved to us, but also
importance for his philosophic system. For one fragment of supreme value such as frag. 24 we have six or seven trifling etymologies of the names of the gods,
in their relative
1 Hirzel has carried this view to an extreme, which the facts do not warrant. At n. p. 187 he curiously says Da wir aber uichts unversucht lassen diirfen, um eine eigentiimliche Lehre des Kleanthes herausOn the other zubringen." hand, Windelband, writing as late as 1888, als Philosoph ist er unbedeutend gewesen says of Cleanthes (Miiller s
"
"
"
Handbuch,
v. 292).
38
INTRODUCTION.
it is
Hymn
to Zeus
we only know
passages.
counterbalanced by the consideration that of his theory of tension through two or three
Cleanthes divides philosophy into six branches, but in the triple division of Zeno, logic being reality this is only
subdivided into dialectic and rhetoric, physics into physics
ethics
and
politics.
:
In his estimate of logic he resembles Zeno at least it seems to have played only a subsidiary part in his system, number of his recorded works on this judging both from the of a total of 56) and from the in out 10
subject (about
Four only are of the fragments which remain. significance of the his criticism of and one these, of any importance, will be it that in such involved is Platonic obscurity
idea,
convenient to defer
its
As
it is
clear throughout all his teaching that Cleanthes was the most advanced materialist in the Stoic school, so we find that
his epistemology rests on a still stronger empirical basis than that of his predecessor Zeno or his successor Chrysippus. Zeno had not defined <avTcuria further than by describing it
actual
Cleanthes explained this as an soul. concavity impressed by the object, an ex no favour with Chrysippus. There is planation which found also high probability in the view which ascribes to Cleanthes the authorship of the "tabula rasa" theory, a theory made celebrated in modern philosophy owing to its adoption by Locke, namely, that when a man is born his mind is like a blank sheet of parchment ready to receive a copy. At least we know of no other Stoic philosopher to whom the intro
as
an impression on the
material
he should have propounded a theory which in its very terms more materialistic doctrine of his opponent.
INTRODUCTION.
39
have therefore, in accordance with Stein s view, included the passage of Plutarch, which attributes the doctrine to the Stoics in general, among the fragments of Cleanthes. Stein,
however, goes further
1
We
this
much
to
rationalism, that we derive directly from God the capacity for abstract thought, and that certain notions are the pro In duct of this potentiality when actualised by experience.
it
reproduce within short limits, Stein contends that this position was thrown over by Cleanthes. According
difficult to
by nature is solely that 2 The belief in moral and not for intellectual activity certa God himself does not, as with Zeno, arise from a but rather from induction founded on empirical animi ratio
.
"
"
The conclusion is that Cleanthes is a thorough But a divergence from the going advocate of empiricism. rest of the school in a matter of such importance ought not
observation
.
to be
ments, although were this doctrine explicitly ascribed to Cle anthes in a single passage we should not hesitate to accept
consonance with his general bent of the evidence which Stein produces apart from the passage of Cicero just referred to, which is by no In the first place he appeals to two means conclusive ?
it,
as being in entire
mind.
What
then
is
passages which prove that moral impulses are transmitted to iis from our parents and implanted in us by nature", and not in lays stress on the fact that intellectual powers are
cluded.
This, however,
positive proof
first
of
these
we we
is only negative evidence, and for are referred to frags. 106 and 100 in the
;
brutes only in shape, and in the second that the undiscerning Surely opinion of the many should be totally discarded.
these
the
conclusion
Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 322 32H. Cleanth. frags. 82 and 36. Cleanth. frag. 52. (Cic. N. D. n.
13.)
40
INTRODUCTION.
Plato himself might have greeted these sentiments with ap But a more serious stumbling-block remains in probation. the oft quoted passage from Diog. L. vn. 54. If, as Stein himself admits, for the Chrysippus substituted
TrpoAr^i?
Cleanthes must of necessity be included in the term apxaio repoi riav STUHKWI/, for there is no one else to whom the words could Were further apply
optfos \oyos,
1 .
Zenonian
positive
evidence of Cleanthes
it
"
concession to rationalism
it
"
required,
frag. 21
from
faxy*
Me pos pfTcxovras
T/
/ias
>^v^ouo-^at
as to deduce the
For these reasons we feel contrary from frags. 100 and 106. bound to withhold assent to Stein s hypothesis, until some
weightier proof is put forward to support it. Cleanthes was also involved in a controversy with reference to the sophism known as o and first propounded KvptcvW by the This sophism was concerned with the Megarian Diodorus.
dilemma
nature of the possible and Cleanthes tries to escape from the in which Diodorus would have involved him
;
by deny
ing that every past truth is necessary, or, in other words, by asserting that since that which is possible can never become
impossible,
in the
it is
possible for the past to have been otherwise, it is possible for a future event to occur
even though that event will never take Besides this place. we learn that he introduced the term XCKTOV in the sense of KarrfYoprjp.a \ that he left definitions of art and rhetoric, and that he explained the names given to a certain kind of
slippers
and a drinking-cup. The first five of the physical fragments need not detain ua here, containing, as they do, with one exception, merely a restatement of positions already taken up by Zeno. The
exception referred to
1
is
the introduction of
Trvev/xa
as the
Stein himself supplies the materials for his own refutation. At 267 in dealing with a similar question he says Ohne Not sollte Niemand unter dpxaiorfpoi andere Stoiker als Zeno Kleanthes und ChryKipp verstehen." Chrysippus is here excluded by the nature of the case the inference need not lie stated. See Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 827.
p.
"
INTRODUCTION.
truest description of
41
are on a different Cleanthes teaches, according to footing. Cicero s account, that the world is God, and it is
significant
that,
although
the
same doctrine
i.
is
attributed
is
Chrysippus (N. D.
regard to Zeno
39),
no such statement
Zeno had indeed declared that God permeates every part of the universe would he have gone so far as to It is true that we identify the universe with God?
(ib. 36).
:
his fragments o\ov (frag. 66) ova-Lav Se Oeav roV oi-pavov, but this is not conclusive. Not only the general cast of the expression, but also the addition of the words /cat rov ovparov, make us hesitate to ascribe to these
find
among
/ecu
rm>
KOO-/J.OV
words their full pantheistic sense. was not following in his master s
ing Zeno
of
s
footsteps, he
teaching to
its
logical
The dualism
Teaching that God creates the world through the medium of the four elements and teaching that these elements themselves do not remain stable but are in a restless and continual mutation, he was led to search for the cause of this ceaseless movement. The question may be put in another form, why did God create the world? The answer was found in a comparison of the structure of indi
1
,
in a materialistic system.
and is however, braced up by that tension which is elsewhere described as stroke of tire." This tension is ever varying and is the cause of movement in the human frame. Now, since the individual 2 is a pattern of the universe the cause of movement in the cosmos must be the tension which permeates all its parts.
"a
vidual tilings. Every creature is produced at the proper time by means of certain proportions of the soul s parts, which are found in the seed. The is material soul,
Not three in spite of Hirzel s Excursus n. 787755. See Stein, Psychologic n. 118. 2 This is probably the meaning of 1. 4 in the to Zeus where Hymn note. For the doctrine of the macrocosm and the microcosm in general see Stein s Appendix to Psych, 205214.
1
3
pp.
42
INTRODUCTION.
is
the successive phases in the ever varying tension of the fiery and with the breath, which is at once identified with God
universe
.
the T/ye/^oviKov of the human soul is placed in the so did Cleanthes teach that the ruling part of the breast, world is in the sun, to which is due day and night and the He was led to this opinion by his inves seasons of the
As
year.
science. Observing that nothing can warmth, he inferred that warmth constitutes Since however warmth is given to the the essence of things. whole world and to each individual thing from the sun, the sun must be the -r}yep.oviKov of the world. In the sun is the
tigations
in
natural
exist without
fiery
breath found in
its
when the world is destroyed, the sun moon and stars and all the heavenly
bodies.
If Aristarchus
therefore taught that the earth revolves round the sun, he was guilty of impiety for displacing the earth, which is the The sun is fed by exhalations from the hearth of the world. The an in oblique course through the zodiac. sea, and moves
stars are
fiery
as the sun
the cause of
life
must
be akin not to the earthly tire, which is destructive, but to As the sun strikes the world with his rays, the creative.
he
is
called
a plectrum.
conical in shape.
Cleanthes proved that the soul is material by two syllo founded on the mental resemblance between gistic arguments,
of the soul with the parents and children and the sympathy extend that he even materialism his indeed did far So body.
from the
maintained that the act of walking was the extension of Trvetyj-a In other respects he seems to to the feet. TJycfioviKov
have concurred
1
in
Zeno
psychology,
teaching
that
the
For the tension-theory in general and 110. The notion of Zeno cf. Zeno frags. 56, C7, 103.
INTRODUCTION.
43
reasoning powers are developed by external impressions, and that all souls exist after death till the time of the general con
His views on zoology comprise a statement that the pig was provided with a soul to keep him fresh for sacrifice and a curious anecdote proving the intelligence of ants.
flagration.
To the theological branch of physics Cleanthes devoted considerable attention but in practice no sharp dividing line can be drawn between physics and religion, since in the Stoic1 ,
It is hardly necessary to system they necessarily overlap. the to but it Zeus, Hymn analyse may be observed that Cleanthes refuses to admit that evil is due to the divine
agency, a remark which must be taken in connection with the statement of Chalcidius that, while Chrysippus identified fate with forethought, Cleanthes distinguished them. Five dis
are given for the existence of God: (1) the ascending series of organisms from plants to man, which shows that there must be some being who is best of all, and
tinct reasons
cannot be man with all his imperfections and frailties, the foreknowledge of coming events, (3) the fruitfulness of the earth and other natural blessings, (4) the occurrence of
this
(2)
portents outside the ordinary course of nature, and (5) the Zeus i.e. -rrvp regular movements of the heavenly bodies.
aeiwov
will
is the only eternal god; the rest are perishable and be destroyed at the eKTrvpwcrts. The popular religion is a representation of truth, but requires interpretation if \ve
would understand its real significance. Thus, the Eleusinian mysteries are an allegory; Homer, if properly understood, is a
witness to truth; the very names given to Zeus, Persephone, Dionysus, Apollo, and Aphrodite are indications of the hidden
meaning which is veiled but not perverted by the current belief, and the same is true of the myths of Heracles and
Atlas.
Tt is difficult now-a-days to enter into the spirit with
fancies.
At times
it is
opinion (see
Cic.
N.
1).
n. 03, in.
(>.
44
frag. 55),
INTRODUCTION.
who
attributes
them
to TreuSia
and
cipujvcux.
But,
if
extreme diligence, which was expended upon them. Rather, having once taken up the position that the popular belief can only be explained by Stoic methods, they were often driven to defend it by argu ments which they must themselves have perceived to be of
this is so, it is impossible to account for the
For example, Cleanthes may not have questionable validity. been satisfied with the derivation of Dionysus from Stavvcrut, but his explanation could not be disproved, and he was bound
to explain the
name somehow,
since, so
long as
it
remained
1
.
unexplained,
was a standing objection to his method The number of ethical works attributed to Cleanthes, 32
it
out of a total of 56, shows that he paid considerable attention to this branch of philosophy. Yet, in the main, he seems to have accepted the principles laid down by Zeno, except in
those
cases where his physical innovations demanded a separate treatment, and many of the fragments which have come down to us deal rather with the practical than with the
side
theoretical
of
morals.
we
are
told as to the titles of his books (see infra, p. 52). Denning the aim of life and happiness in the same manner as Zeno,
Cleanthes
laid
special
stress
while Chrysippus is said to have the for emphasised necessity agreement with human nature no less than with nature in general. This view is thoroughly in
consonance with the general bias of Cleanthes teaching. One of the most striking and important of his doctrines is the parallelism between the macrocosm of the world and the
The more, therefore, that man brings himself into harmony with the spirit which breathes throughout the universe, the more does he fulfil the role to
microcosm of the individual.
which he
is
destined.
The same
spirit
may be
traced in the
1 The etymologies of Plato in the Cratylus are quite as bad as any of The most recent these, but they are professedly in part at least playful. exposition of this dialogue is. by Mr Heath in the Journal of Philology
xvn.
iy*2.
INTRODUCTION.
lines
45
which the subordination of the individual to the Zeus and of destiny is so forcibly advocated. Cleanthes is perhaps the author of a distinction which subse quently became of some importance whereby happiness is de scribed as CTKOTTO?, and the attainment of happiness as reXos
in
decrees
of
The doctrine
of roVos
portant results, to two branches of his master s ethical system, namely, the, nature of virtue and the emotions. Zeno had
identified virtue with ^/aoV^crt?,
sought
within
to
Zeno made the groundwork of explain its character more precisely. Every body
ever-varying
When
fitting duties
it is
strength and power as applied to different spheres of activity gives rise to the four virtues tyKpareia, dvSpeta, SiKatocrwr/, and
It will be observed that eyKpuVeia here occupies the position which by Chrysippus and his followers is assigned to <poV?7o-ts. Thus Cleanthes fortities his main position, that
cr<D<t>po(Ti!vr].
strength of tension
is
by a
to
ey/cpuTera
as
Kp^Tris
aper^s.
recurrence
the
same
teacher
also be recognised in the approbation with which his identification of TO oay^epov with TO Succuoi is cited. To
may
return to TWOS
soul follows,
when
in this
the tension
is
relaxed, a weakness of
and
weakness
is
to be
and emotion, unexplained on the physical side, is traced to a single source, and this source is the same power which is the origin of all movement and life.
TrdOrj.
tion of the
of virtue
left
The application of TO VOS to the -n-dO-r] leads us to the con sideration of another question, not indeed directly raised by
the fragments of Zeno and Cleanthes, but having an important
1
p. 557.
40
INTRODUCTION.
What bearing on our general view of their ethical doctrines. of in the classification do the goods? irdOrj occupy position Zeno classified rjSovrj and therefore presumably the other irdBr)
among
the
aSta<opo,
is
He
regarded
irdOr)
to do with ignorance (Plut. Virt. Mor. 10 ras tViTtto-eis rwv Kara rrjr KpLiriv iv iraOwv Kdl Tas (r^oSporrjTa? ou yiyvea-Bai or TO KaKta? is KOLK.OV, KaKia. TO {JLCT^OV Only 77 dfiaprqTLKOv).
<ao-i
rather an eViye vaccording to Zeno, and irdOtx: is neither, but 139 and for the Zeno Ta frag. *cptcr(rtv vrjfj.a. (Cf. eVtytyvo/zeva and /zcTe xovru cf Diog. L. vn. distinction between
95.)
That
ijSovT] is
by the following considerations. In frag. 169 Zeno recommends the rational use of wealth OTTO? a8tfj Kal dOavpaoTov Trpos TaXXa Ttjv 8id6eo-LV TT}? VX ? 5 X OVTS ocra
made
clear
i/
aXd
CO-TI
p-TJTf
ai(r^pa
/itT/Sev
TOIS fA.v
Kara
<f>v<riv
w5 tVi TroAu
TOVTWJ/
<f>o(3w
TWV 8 fvavTLiav
88oiKOTs Xo ycu
/cai p.rj
dSta<opa
are
the
field
of
and
for
Xwnj we
<juod
may
turpe non sit si htf/enti persuaseris...et tainen non satis mihi videtur vidisse hoc .Cleanthes, suscipi esse summum aliquando ae(/ritiulinem posse ex eo ipso, quod malum Cleanthes ipse fateatur. It is noteworthy, moreover, that Cleanthes, who is allowed to have been the severest
enim
esse
malum
opponent of pleasure
d^tav t^eiv class it as Kaxov.
p.ijre
ctvai
<j>v<rtv
T<3
to ^iw (frag. 88) but does not venture The result of this discussion is that Zeno
<o
therefore
and and Cleanthes did not class Xvn-q and /8os with Ka*ca, Wachsmuth cannot be right in attributing to Zeno 2 a passage in Stobaeus where this classification is implied.
1 The remarks in Zeller, Stoics p. 2H7. obviate the difficulty as to the classification of dc Stoicorum affectibus p. 37.
ijdovr]
See Wtichsmuth
irciflos
was
KCLKOV
Stobaeus vol. 11. p. 58. That this question was Some appear to have held Cic. Tusc. iv. 29. but not ncudo. (Stob. 1. C.), because Trdfloj is Kiv^ffit
s
1.
but KaKia
is
5iA6Tis (Cic.
C. 30).
INTRODUCTION.
That
this
47
view did not continue to be the orthodox view of the is possible, but to pursue the subject
virtue, and,
071
The uncorrupted impulses given by nature tend towards when they are suitably developed, wisdom founded
due course.
firm apprehension, so that it can never be lost, follows in Secure in the possession of virtue, the wise man
partakes of the same excellence as God. In the treatise Ttfpl -ij^ovfj^ Cleanthes seems to have en gaged in a spirited controversy with the Epicureans, and to
have attacked their moral teaching, just as lie perhaps assailed their physics in the work TTC/CU Pleasure is a mere aro/xwv. useless ornament it possesses no value whatever, nay, it is
:
absolutely contrary to nature. If, as we are told, pleasure is the ultimate goal of life, it was an evil spirit which gave to
of
wisdom.
He
opponents position to an imaginary picture in which Pleasure, seated on a throne in gaudy apparel, is ministered to by the virtues, who form her willing slaves, declaring that this service
is
Passing to those fragments, which seem more strictly to belong to the TrapaivfTixos or uVo#ertKos TOTTOS (i.e. the region of applied morals), we notice that Cleanthes frequently refers his precepts to the general principle, which is a leading character
istic of
Stoic morals, namely, that virtuous conduct depends not on the nature of the deed but on the disposition of the
agent.
which prompts its performance. To of the which fall under this branch many subjects separate treatises were devoted, among which are the books Trepi ev/3ouA.l aS,
KCpl
XP tTO
?>
Tfpt
</>00V/t>l
aS,
TTtpi
TifJi-fjS,
TTfpl
So^TJS,
TTfpL
<tAias,
Trepi
(rv/u.7ro<riou
K.r.X.
To the book
Trepi.
^apcros
we
assign three of the extant fragments (frags. 97, 98, 99) all of which are preserved by Seneca in the de Beneh ciis. The theory of consolation (frags. 93 and 94) may belong either to the Trepi apwyr/<; or the Trepi 103 all in a?. Frags. 100
may
<tAi
48
INTRODUCTION.
ouht
to be referred to the
One
must be The
solitary
result of
all
our investigation has been to show con those doctrines which are most character
and Cleanthes.
the
logical criterion, the adaptation of Heraclitean physics, and Cleanthes the introduction of all the leading ethical tenets.
and by applying his and ethics brought into strong of the three branches. The light the mutual interdependence task of Chrysippus was to preserve rather than to originate, to reconcile inconsistencies, to remove superfluous outgrowths, and to maintain an unbroken line of defence against his adversaries. Although it might seem to many that this less
of
pantheism,
less brilliant capacities in its per former, yet Chrysippus was commonly regarded as the second founder of the Stoa, and the general opinion of his contem poraries is aptly summed up in the line ei p.rj yap rjr Xpvcwnros
The reason of this has 183). The extraordinary fertility of the writer commanded admiration even where it failed to win a assent, nor was his dialectical skill (Diog. L. vii. 180) was the matter of small moment. pro only Though logic was the battleground of the paedeutic of philosophy, it
OVK av
?iv
fiercest
Vitally opposed in other respects, controversy. at least were allied in maintaining Stoics here and Epicureans
the possibility of knowledge against the universal scepticism of It is not surprising, therefore, that the the New Academy. foremost champion of dogmatism should have taken the highest
place in the Stoic triad.
INTRODUCTION*.
40
7.
Tlie writings
of Cleanthes.
The relation of the poetical to the prose writings of Cleanthes has not been accurately determined, and the evi dence does not enable us to decide whether the former were
published separately from, or in conjunction with the latter. possess is in frag. 49, in which Cleanthes
peculiarly adapted to
in
theological
tinctively theological title is direct evidence that this contained etymological explanations of the names of the gods, and that part of it, at any rate, was
the catalogue with a dis the work 7re.pl Otuv, and there is
written in prose, Krische p. 422 supposes that the Hymn to Zeus was a poetical supplement incorporated with this
but such treatment would surely have produced It is possible that we ought to highly incongruous results. separate Cleanthes the philosopher from Cleanthes the poet, and to infer that works published by him in the latter capaeitv
treatise,
At
T
list of his philosophical treatises. the same time we should remember that Chrysippus (Galen.
plac.
Hipp, et Plat.
of.?
p.
(ib. p.
399
pr/cra?
/j.ap-
Tror^riKas
Trapa.ri9f.Tai
urTOptas
rraXaiwv
7rpaeu>i
rupoucras
/Wya)
were accustomed to
freely
interpolate
their prose writings, and Cleanthes have own norilegia, just as Cicero trans his may composed lated from the Greek where the Latin poets failed him
poetical quotations in
(Tusc. D. n. 2G).
known
the
to us is
subjoined reference
source
of
is
Logical.
(1)
Trepi
tStW.
For
iSta cf.
Ar. Top.
i.
5, p.
:
102 a 17
the
1810.
thus
TUJV uTropoii
Trepi 8iaA.eKTf.K77S.
H. P.
50
(4)
Trepi
INTRODUCTION.
TpoVajv.
Probably this
is
logical
rather than
rhetorical.
(5)
Trepi Kanjyopij/LtaTajv..
To
this
frag. 7.
/xeToXi^ews (Athen. xi. 467 d, 471 b). II. 19. 9). Krische (7) Trepi rov xupieiWros (Arr. Epict. but Epict. title the this work to Trepi Swarwv, p. 427 n. gives the work contrasts general title bearing Chrysippus distinctly
(6)
Trepi
with a treatise by Cleanthes on the particular fallacy (KXeuY^T/s & iSia yeypa<e Trepi TOVTOV), Wachsmuth, Comni. I. p. 18.
(8)
Trepi
mentioned in
but
appears between
and 5
of the
Xo you y
among the
among
and
Trepi
\povov
Trepi 80^775,
He omits, probably by an oversight, the book Trepi TPOTTWV. of the books number of from the also observes that treating more theory of knowledge Cleanthes must have displayed
activity in treating of the subject than the remaining frag ments would lead us to suppose.
II.
Physical.
(1)
Trepi
xpoVov.
Z^i/wvos
<t
(2)
(3)
Trepi rtys
<jioAoytas
/?
S*.
TOW
HpaxXeirou
e?7y7;crewi
Cf.
Diog.
L.
IX.
15
<rt;yypa/x/u.a.
KOI
yap
o STWIKOS.
The
HpaKXet ^s o HOVTIKO? KXea r^? re *cai influence of Heraclitus on Cleanthes has been
2</>cupos
Hirzel is the chief advocate in favour of variously estimated. that Cleanthes it, holding e.g. agreed with him in his hypo-
INTRODUCTION.
thesis of three elements,
51
TOVOS (or
TraXivTpo7ro<;)
appears to us truer.
(4)
Trepi
at<r$?7crea>s.
(5)
Trpos Ar;p,o/cptTov,
Trepi
rwv
drofjuav
Some have
erro
neously supposed that the Aristarchus here referred to was the Homeric critic, whose date is a century later than Cleanthes; cf. Krische p. 394 and Wilamowitz-Moellendorf in
Hermes
(7)
xx. 631.
(Plut. Sto. Rep. C. 8). in order treat of $coAoyiKov. apxaioXoyta has been identified witli /xi>$i/ca (Athen.
VTTOfjLvtj/uiaTa
<v<rtKa
xin. 572
latter
e,
Porphyr.
is
vit.
Pyth.
c.
1),
work
p. 5. 9.
Miiller frag. hist. Gr. n. seriously questioned. 11 thinks that the TO. Kara TTO\IV p.v6iKo. of Neanthes of
(cf.
Cyzicus
I.
10)
is
referred to in both
passages and Zeller Pre-Socr. I. p. 308 says: The Cleanthes of Porphyry is certainly not the Stoic but most likely a mis spelling for Neanthes of Cyzicus.
(9)
Trept flewv,
cf.
c.
7.
To
this
work Wachsmuth
62.
63.
I.
refers frags. 47. 54. 5G. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61.
(p.
Krische
418,
17)
N. D.
37 (frags. 14
to
Zeus
(frag. 48).
yiyufTwj
(11)
Y/zevcuou.
This
is
a curious
Cf.
title.
Persaeus
tation of
frags. 55.
This book treated of the interpre and Wachsmuth Homer, accordingly refers to it 65. 66. 67. To these should be added frag. 63 and
de Fluv.
v.
3.
4)
was
identified
Trepi
but this
42
52
INTRODUCTION.
and the next book are rightly described by Wachsmuth as "ficta ab impostore ps.-Plutarcho," see note on frag. 69.
(14)
Fabricius
Epict.
Gr.
ill.
p.
in
Man.
title
lap.(3fia,
lines."
known Iambic
III.
(1) (2)
Trpos
"HpiAAov.
.
Ethical.
p. 42.
Trepi dp/ui/s /?
(3)
(4) (5) (6)
(7)
Trepi
Trepi
TOV KaOijKOVTOS y.
fvj3ov\La<i.
Trepi ^aptros.
TrporpeTTTiKo?.
Trepi Trepi Trepi
dperwv.
v<^vtas.
(8)
(9)
TopyLinrov
"num
Trpos FopytTTTrov
atque FopyiTrTrtS^s ad quem complura scripta Chrysippus misit? Waclism. Mohnike p. 100 wishes to read FopytTrTriSov.
(10)
(11) (12)
Trept
<f>6ov(pia<;.
Trepi IpwTos.
frag. 108.
Trepi
(13)
(14)
(15) (16)
Trepi
TL/j.rj<;.
Trepi 80^7;?.
TroXiTiKo?.
2.
Here belongs
frag.
104,
cf.
Plut.
Sto,
Rep.
c.
(17)
Trepi
Trepi
(18)
(19)
Trepi Trepi
Trepi
TOU
(20)
(21)
Trepi
Trepi
7rpdf(i>v.
Trepi /3acriXeias.
INTRODUCTION.
(25)
TTfpl
<lAtas.
53
Persaeus wrote CTU/XTTOTIKU V7ro/j.vr](26) Trept frv/J.TTOo LOv. uara or StaXoyot (Athen. iv. 162 b, xiu. 607 a). So (27) Trept TOV on 77 avrr/ dperrj oVSpos *ai ywatKOS.
Antisthenes also taught (Diog. L. vi. 12) and Xen. Symp. n. 9. Otherwise Aristotle, Pol. i.
Eth. vin. 14. 1162 a 26.
(28) (29) (30) (31)
Trept
cf.
Socrates in
13.
1260 a
21.
TOV TOV
o~o(f)ov croc/HcrTeuetv.
Trept XptLwv.
SiaTpt/3wv
p. For
this
Trept yoovrjs.
p.
430
foil.
vii. 14). The title of this book Trept XO.XKOV (Diog. L. (32) It was altered to Trept ^aptros by has been much discussed.
Casaubon, to
Trept
and to is due
Trept
xpo vou by Menagius, Fabricius and Mohnike, Wachsmuth. It is possible that ^aA/coi)
s
^a^Kov which
clue to
we have no
the true
(33)
title.
This book is supposed to have existed Trept o-Toa?. in vol. from a mutilated passage of Philodemus Trept
<>i\o<ro(j>wv
Here.
VIII. col.
13
v.
18 ok
at T
aVaypa<at
ran
Tr(t)i/aKwv (at)re
)
7Kat
<T7]fJiaivovo-LV,
(Trapa K.X)edvOf] eV
TW
vTij
TJ
P.VTJM.
^^
>,
Diog. L.
VII.
39, rpi/jLepr)
(fracrlv
elvai
TOV Kara
ecvat yip avTOv TO /Jiev \6yov. OVTCO Se rrpcoTO^ SteZXe oe i]6iKov TO oe \oyi/c6v.
TA
philosophy was first brought into the Stoics, though it seems to and Zeno prominence by have been adopted before them by Xenocrates and the Peripatetics, cf. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. vn. 1G eWeXe crrepoz
triple division of
8e...oi elrrovTes r?}? c/uXocro^/a? TO ^ikv TI eivai (^VCTLKOV TO
The
8e 1J0IKOV TO $e
o?, rrepi e
Xoyi/cov
wv
1
>vuap,ei
/jiev
TL\aTO)v eVrn
TTO\\WV
/j,ev (frvcrtfcwv
\OJIKWV SiaXe^^et?
teal ol
Ar. Top.
I.
p.
105 b 19
(3\rj/jtdTa>i>
T(t)V
<yap
TTpOTCKTewV
Kttl
TWV
TTpO-
Se (J3V(7iKai, al 8e Xoyt/cal must not be taken as indicating that Aristotle had in view the triple division (see Waitz in Cicero speaking of Speusippus, Aristotle, Xenocrates, foe.).
IV.
4)
totam
quam
I.
In Acad.
partitionem 19 he wrongly
jam accepta a Platone philosophandi ratio triplex) Diog. L. III. 56 only says that Plato introduced the SiaXert/co? TOTTO?, not that
attribvites the division to Plato (fuit ergo
:
56
became
he recognised the triple division. With the Stoics it so fundamental that they did not hesitate to refer
s name TptroHirzel (de logica Stoicorum in Sauppe s Satura Philologa, p. 71) thinks that Zeno was the inventor of the term \oyuc>} in place of Xenocrates
to it the three
Sia\KTitcrj.
2.
Diog. L.
VII. 40,
rarrovai
wi>
Seirepov 8e TO
T&>
rpirov TO
rjOitcov.
e(TTi Zr)va)v ev
Trepl \ojov.
As logic is obviously the least important to the Stoics of the three divisions, Zeno regarded Ethics, not Physics, The authorities are however as the kernel of his system.
very confusing on this point, for of Chrysippus,
who
is
coupled with Zeno in Diog., Plut. Sto. Rep. 9, 1 says: TOVTWV (pepdiiv) 8eiv TaTTeadai irpwTOv pev TU \oyticd,
8evTepa &e
TO. tjQitcd,
TpiTa 8e TO, fyvcnicd and yet in the find attributed to Chrysippus the state
TIVOS eve/cev T7/9
TJ;I>
<f)V(TiK7J<;
ovcrr]?
fj
TT/DO?
irepl
dyaOwv
rj
which shows that he must have regarded ethics as con Again, the taining the consummation of philosophy.
compared the three parts of philosophy to a fruit garden surrounded by a wall and also to an egg, but whereas according to Diog. (vil. 40) physics are likened to the fruit of the garden and the yolk of the egg, in Sextus
Stoics
(adv. Math. vn. 17
19) they are compared to the trees in the garden and the white of the egg, having changed But both alike in recording the places with ethics.
comparison, which Posidonius thought more apt, yield the place of honour to ethics, which are compared to the soul
of man.
It is not improbable, as
p.
Wellmann and
Stein
(Erkenntnistheorie,
57
these similes may be due to Zeno, on whose fondness for such similes we have remarked in the Introd. p. 33, but The confusion about the there is no evidence to decide.
made by the
At any
Stoics
relative
1.
im
pupil forefront of his system. [Bitter and placed ethics in the 192 and n. 390 apparently regard as Preller, Ueberweg, p. which that view the earlier gave physics the most im
sec Stein, Psychologic portant position, but
n. 7.]
of teaching (cf. Sext. 22, 23). portance and the order rate, as regards Zeno, it is most natural to suppose of Crates and the admirer of Socrates that the
c.
LOGICA.
3.
8,
$iKo<ro-
(bov...d Zijvwv
TL,
crrot^eta, rrotov
TTCO? ap^orrerac, rrpos d\\r)\a eari. (\Ko\ov9d Kal ocra rovrots It is difficult, in the absence of Zeno s context, to
decide
the
is
There
exact meaning of rd rov \6yov aroi-^eia. no doubt that the Stoics used this phrase in the
"parts
sense of
of
speech"
(Diog. VII.
5<S
pfj^a Be
ecrri...
enough
but this meaning is not general aroL^elov \6yov drrrcorov), and is certainly excluded by the words im
gested,
TI reXo? ; ^] fyopelv mediately preceding in Epictetus It is sug rov ro d\\d \6yov. ov, opOov e^et^ rpiftwva in therefore, that Zeno is here expressing, possibly
;
an
\6yov
= the o-rot^la
It is now generally Journ. Phil. xni. 2G2) that the opinion stated at some 201 E 202 C is that of length by Socrates in Theaet. p.
nominalism of Antisthenes and that of definition. (indefinable) elements Jackson in Dr admitted (see e.g.
sense
in this Antisthenes, and the words crrot^etot and ^670? to his terminology (see the must have
belonged
58
whole passage and especially rd pev rrpwra oiovrrepei crrot %eia...\6 yov OVK e^et 201 E, ovrto STJ rd [lev
0X070.
teal
ayvwra
20G E TO
devra rl e/cacrrov
Svvarov elvai
ra>
rrjv
:
aroi-^eiwv aTroSovvai
epo/jievw)
compared the passages in AT. Metaph. vni. 3. 1043 b 23, XIV. 3. 1091 a 7 war ova las eart p,ev )? evBe-^erai elvai
opov Kal \6yov olov T^? crvvderov eav re
rj-
alcrdijTrj
edv re
It is not a vorjTrj avrrj Trputrwv OVK ecrriv. e^ from inference this Zeno treated that necessary passage
(Sv
opQos
~\.6yo<>
as
tcpiTTjpiov
dXrjdeia^,
TO>V
or
that
he and
whom
although Hirzel thinks this established, comparing 157 (Untersuchungen, II. pp. 14 f. 23). Indeed
difficult to
understand how, except on the hypothesis of a change of opinion, this is reconcilable with the fact that Zeno introduced the KaraX^TrriKij, as will
<f>avTa<rla
appear hereafter.
(iTTo rfjs
"Unter
den
TWV Sroa? rtfe? des Alexand. Aphrod. zur Topik (schol. Arist. p. 256 b 14) welche den AXX/D? durch rl ffv
Zenon gemeint sein." The latter part of this note requires some modification if Stein s view referred to in the Introd. p. 9 be accepted. The same
definirten konnte
writer (Erkenntnistheorie,
rd p. 90, 91) explains yvwvai TOV \6yov aroi-^ela as "die Erkenntnis der Elemente des Denkens d. h. wie das Denken beschaffen sei und worin
die gegenseitige
ung
ergeben."
4.
Arr.
Epict.
diss.
I.
17.
10,
11,
Kal
rd \oyiKn
e crTt.../cat
Trepl
rovrov
fiev 0-^ro^.eBa, el
&
ovv xai
Tt9,
CKelva
aTrapKel,
on rwv
d\\a>v
eTTlO-KeTTTlKci
rt<?
KOL
lTTOt
\eyei
;
ravra
nov
Kal
This and the two following fragments show us the view which Zeno took of the value of logical studies,
ground
8
cf.
Ar. Top.
I.
104
TOVTO
oSov
iBiov
ol/ceLov
rijs
e<7Tiv
%Ta<rTlKr)
yap
cf.
ap%a<?
e^et,
the
title
II.
opyavov
294-)
given to
For the distinction KdvoviKrj adopted by the Epicureans. between the Peripatetic and Stoic views of logic see Hirzel s remarks about Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 207.
Zeno (de
evidence.
log. Stoic, p.
The word
is
cf.
Xwpi^r)
Kal
fji.erp
rjTtKrjV
Kal
arariKr/v,
cJ>>
e?ro?
Charmid. 166
B.
5.
Stob. Eel.
ii.
2.
12
p. 22,
12 Wachsm. [vulgo
Floril.
LXXXII. 5], Zrjvcav ra9 rwv Sia\KTiK(i)v re^va^ e^Ka^e TOi? xerpot? ou irvpov ou8 a XXo rt TOJV <T7rovoai(av
KOTrpia.
tradictory,
and the next fragm. appear con but probably this is directed against some
sight this
The Megarians, the Eristics of this particular opponents. that are most likely to be meant, and we know period,
they were often called SiaXeKriKoi, as the Stoics them selves are by Sextus (Zeller, Socrates etc. p. 250 n. 3).
60
(Diog.
II.
8e p,d\ia-ra
777109
Sextus
world
tells
how he
is
controverted Zeno
is
be
to
p.
(Erkenntnistheorie,
frag.
303), but
frag.
same
The
the
explanation
difference
id.
however
re xvas
perfectly
to
between
treatises.
SIKCUOIS
Fin.
of statement
40.
Acad.
i.
so
AM
and S
elxaiois
adopted by Mein. from MS B (late and untrustworthy) is virtually a conjecture. Wachsm. suggests xv&alois but, on
the interpretation given above, St/eatW is more forcible the methods are good enough (cf. ^rpijTitcd frag. 4) but they are put to base uses, i.e. to mere quibbling. After
:
/LteV/3Oi9
fragment be interpreted quite generally as a depreciation of logical studies, we have here an approxi mation to the position of Aristo (Stob. Eel. II. 2. 14, 18,
If the
22
7, 11, 18) in one of the points on which he severed himself from the Stoic school.
= Floril.
LXXXII.
6.
2,
e Xve Se (sell.
Zeno) aofaa-8vvafJ,evr)v
fjiara
Kai
rr/v
8ta\eKTCKrjv
<W9
TOVTO
Troieiv
K.e\eve
7rapa\a/j./3dveiv
/jLadrjrds.
d/j.fyorepo yXuHTcros
ov%
OTL 8ia-
related by Diog. vn. 25. showed Zeno seven Sia\KTiKai ISeat in the Reaper fallacy, and received 200 drachmas, although his fee was only half that amount, ib. vn. 47 OVK dvev 8e
<ro4>o-(i.aTa,
the anecdote
logician
Gl
i
crcxfrov
ITTTWTOV evecrdat
u<yw...ro
TT\V
8ia\KTiKTjv.
is
a wider
\oyiKoi>
term than
fjtepos
SmXe/cTi/c?;,
evioi
et?
Diog.
VII.
41
TO Se
(fracrlv
Svo
Siaipeto-dai
pijTOpticrjv /cat
a?
7.
(fravracrLa
vii. 228,
eVrl
TUTraxrt?
eV
tyv^f).
Sext.
Einp.
Math.
Zeno.
tyvXli)
230 distinctly attributes this definition to VII. 45 n]v Se ^avracriav elvat rvTruxrcv Diog.
ot o/uaro?
di>
r v
oliceiw^
fjieTevrfve^fJievov
djro
rtav
TVTTWV ev
rov SaKrvXiov
yi yvojjievwv, ib.
:
50
gloss
aXkoiwaLs
cf.
Pint.
Conini.
For the use of TUTTWO-IS see Introd. p. 34. That Zeno did not define his meaning further than by the bare statement is evident from the controversy which after wards arose between Cleanthes and Chrysippus as to the exact meaning of TVTTWO-LS for which see on Cleanth. 3. would It seem however from the expressions frag. "effictum" and in Zeno s definition of av"impressum"
:
racria KaraX^TrriKr] (frag. 11) that Cleanthes is a truer exponent of his master s teaching in this matter than
Chrysippus. Zeno must have been influenced by Aristotle s treatment of (fravTacrta (de An. in. 3): see Introd. p. 24.
p.
157.
ra?
fj,ev
aco-dr/creis d\i]6els
rwv
is
Se
d\r)0els
ra<?
8e ^euSet?.
This
attributed to the
Stoics generally
9,
by Stob. Eel. I. 50. 21, Plut. plac. iv. 8. but must belong to Zeno having regard to Sext. Emp.
Math.
VIII.
adv.
355,
vTrap^iv
KeKivrjKev,
A^/xo/c^iro? ETrtVoupo? 8e
//,e^
Trdv
eA.ee
Cic.
62
N. D.
I.
70 urgebat Arcesilas Zenonem, cum ipse falsa quae sensibus viderentur; Zeno autem nonnulla visa esse falsa, non omnia Cic. Acad. I. 41 visis non omnibus adjungebat fidem. Zeno is not entirely a sensualist Stein, ErkenntnisFor the general doctrine see ib. p. 142 theorie, p. 307. 151. Zeno is here again following the lead of Aristotle, cf. de An. III. 3. 7 elra al fj,ev (scil. aiadrjcreis) dXrjdelf
omnia
diceret
On the del, al 8e (fravracrLai ytvovrat al TrXetou? \lreuSets. other hand Epicurus held Trao-a? TO? fyavraaias aXyOels
elvai (Sext.
9.
adjungebat fidem... iis (visis) solum, quae propriam quamdam haberent declarationem earum rerum, quae viderentur.
41, (Zeno)
Cic.
Cicero is here speaking of the Greek evdpyeta, for which he elsewhere suggests as translations perspicuitas or evidentia (ib. II. 17). Every sense impression is evapyes according to the Epicureans (Zeller, p. 428), but with Zeno evdpyeia is simply introduced as an attribute
of KaTa\7)TTTiKrj fyavTacria:
cf.
of the
K.
<f>.
avTT)
yap
evapyrjs
ovaa
icai
7r\r)KTtKi} fiovov
^/u,a? et? criry-
ov%l KardOeaiv
ru>v
a\\ov
et9
/Aij&evos
&0/j,evr)
ei9
TO
roiavrrj
VTTO-
TO
TTJV TTpo?
Ta?
XXa?
Sia<j)opdv
Hirzel (Untersuchungen, n. pp. 3, 6) attributes to the Cynics but his authorities merely show
that Diogenes proved the possibility of motion by walking about (Diog. vi. 39), which Sextus (Math. x. 68) calls a
proof 5t avrfjs
10.
TJ}? e
aXXa yap
227
ol
pev dp%aiodXrj
repoi
T&JI>
^TOJIKWV Kpirtipcov
fyavracrlav.
(fracriv
Kara\ri7rTiKrjv
TTJV
ib.
fcaraXrjTTTiKjjv
fyavraalav.
This
is
to
be at-
63
Zeno partly
as
np-^aioTepot,, partly as a necessary corollary from the next fragment, and partly in accordance with the testimony of
42 sed inter scientiam et inscientiam comprehensionem illam (KardXrj-^iv) quam dixi collocabat eamque neque in rectis neqne in pravis numerabat sed soli credendum esse dicebat. Diog. L. vn. 46 refers the citation to the school generally and in 54 quotes it from
Cic.
Acad.
I.
Chrysippus ev rfj SvutbeKa-ny rdov fyvattcwv. For the doctrine of the KaraX^TrrLKy} fyavraa-ia see 89. Zeller, pp. 87 Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 167 foil. Four different explanations of the meaning of the term
have been given (1) tcaraX.
passive
(3)
:
active.
The
irresistible
cha
(2)
KardX.
grasped by the mind, Hirzel. and not the perception is grasped by the mind, Ueberweg, p. 192 (now given up by Hoinze). (4) KaraX. both active and passive, Stein, thus reconciling the apparent contra
is
the perception
The
I. 41, and Sext, Math. vil. 257. For the exact meaning of Kara\rl ^^)(Ka-TaXr mLKrj racrla cf. Sext. Emp. Math. XI. 182 KaTaX-rj^i^ ecrn icaral
<pav-
XrjTrTiKrjs
$>avTaaias
due
to Zeno,
also Stein,
\Tj7TTiKr},
which tends
etc. were new terminology invented by Zeno, according to Cic. Acad. I. 41 comprehensionem appellabat similem iis rebus, quae manu prehenderentur: ex etiam nomen hoc dixerat cum eo verbo antea nemo quo tali in re usus est, ib. II. 145, but the verb KaraXa/^rfdveiv had been used by Plato in the sense grasp with the mind," Phaedr. 250 -rrepl 8e >cd\\ovs, da-rep per etceivwv re eXa^Trev ov, Sevpo re eXdovre? avro Sid rrjs evapyea-rdrris ala-dr) crews
"to
r>
TU>V
64
ijnerepa)i>
Zeno, therefore, only evapyecrrara. see Introd. p. 34 of the the word, meaning specialised
p. 9.
Sext.
77
Math.
VII.
24<S,
eariv
evaTrope/jLay/jLevr)
II. 4. Diogenes v-rrdpxovTos, ib. 426, Pyrrh. same words in the in definition the substantially gives 50 adding however Kal evaTrorervfrw^evr] after evairo-
VOITO
d-rro pr)
fMefjLay^evrj
in
46 he omits oirola
rrjv
/LIT)
v7rdp%ovTo$ but
r/
adds
dKardX^Trrov Se
fj.v, fir)
a-Tro
vTrdp^ovro^,
rrjv
fit)
afro
rpavi)
which very possibly belongs also to Zeno. The evidence attaching the definition to Zeno is as fol lows Cic. Acad. II. 18 si illud esset, sicut Zeno definiret, tale visum impressum effictumque ex eo unde esset quale ease non posset ex eo unde non esset, id nos a Zenone definitumrectissimedicimus; ib. 113, ib. I. 41 id autem visum
e/crvTrov,
:
cum ipsum
ib.
II.
77.
per se cerneretur comprehendibile (of Zeno) Speaking of the controversy between Arcesilas
and Zeno, Cic. states that the last words of the definition were added by Zeno because of the pressure put upon
him by
p.
Arcesilas.
Numenius
ap.
Euseb. P. E. xiv.
(scil.
6,
Z^i/tuj/o?)
Trpwrov
ev rah evpopevov tcavro TO ovo/J,a ft\eTrwv V^OKLJJLOVV KaraX^TTTiKriv ^avraaiav irdar) ^rj-^avf} TI}V avrrjv (of Arcesilas). August, c. Acad. III. 9,
ait
Zeno.
Tale
scilicet
cum
falso
Arcesilas and
Zeno
a his
about which there can be no doubt, and, apart direct from evidence, the chronology proves that our defi-
65
hardly be due to Chrysippus, who only suc ceeded to the headship of the Stoa eight years after the death of Arcesilas (cf. Pint. Coin. Not. c. This ques 1).
was the chief battle-ground of the in later times Carneades maintained d/card^-vTa -rrdvra elvai ov -jrdvra 8e (iSi]\a In the second book of Cicero s Academica (Zeller, p. 555).
Stoics
and the
the question
is
discussed at length.
252 shows
member of the definition: the impression must be from the object to exclude the visions of madmen, and with reference to the object to exclude a case like that of
his sister for a Fury. It must be imprinted and stamped on the mind to ensure that the percipient shall have noticed all the characteristics of the
object.
firj
Orestes,
who mistook
ovtc
dv yevoiTO
d-rro
VTrdpxovTo? was inserted to meet the Academic ob jection that two impressions, one true and the other false, might be so entirely alike (d7rapd\\aKrov} as to be in capable of distinction, which of course the Stoics did not admit. For eVaTro/ze/zc^eV?; cf. Ar. Ran. 1040 oOev
<f>prjv
12. ap.
p.
Neue
Olympiodorus in Plat, Gorg. pp. 53, 54 (ed. Jahn Jahrb. f tir Philol. supplement bd. xiv. 1848
(f>r](nv
on
etc
ei>-
o-vyyeyv/jiva(r/j,evov
/3la>.
Cf.
c.
4 re^vr) eariv,
CTVO-TIJ/JUI
&5?
e/c
70;
/3/ft>.
Kar crvyyeyv/jivaa-/u,evo)i> Trpos ri reXo? ev^priarov rwv ev Schol. ad. Ar. Nub. 317 OVTO) ydp 6pi6fj,e0a
rivo?
dtcov<ra<i,
TTJV
re-^vrjv
real
olov ava-rr^iMa
-rd
efagfc.
e/c
H. P.
06
KOI
/3i&) \a/jL^av6vTO}v rrjv dvadefinition partially in id. Pyrrh. in. (ftopdv. vn. Wachsm. I. Math. 109, 373, 182. 75, 188, 241, 251, Schol. Thrac. I. also quotes (Comm. Dionys. p. 649, p. 12),
CTTI
reXo? evxprja-TOV
The same
oi;Ta><>
opi^ovrai rrfv
17, 41
yevopevov
II.
eyyeyv/jLvaa-fjievwv K.T.\.
sive,
Nam
ut Cleanthes voluit, ars est potestas via, id est, ordine cfficiens: esse certe viam atque ordinem in benedicendo
sive ille ab omnibus fere probatus dubitaverit observatur artem constare ex praeceptionibus conCic. sentientibus et coexercitatis ad finem vitae utilem.
;
nemo
finis
Putsch ars est perceptionum exercitarum constructio ad unum exitum utilem vitae Cic. Acad. II. 22 ars vero quae potest esse pertinentium.
frag. ap.
Diomed 414
ed.
nisi
tutum
N. D.
II.
148 ex quibus (perceptis) collatis inter se et comparatis artes quoque efficimus partim ad usum vitae... necessarias. It is worth while to compare with Zeno s definition of art those to be found in Aristotle: both philosophers
alike recognise its practical
character
(cf.
Eth.
vi.
4.
7; p*v ovv T%VIJ eft? Tt? fj,erd \6<yov aXrjdovs 7rotr)TiKij and that it proceeds by means of regulated prin rav * K TroXXwi/ ciples (cf. Met. I. 1. 5 yiverat Se T^X 1
<TTIV)
"*)
fiia
KaOoXov yevrjrai
Trepl
TU>V
(Anal. Post. II. 19. 4) is of course foreign to Zeno s system. Zeller s note on p. 266, 2 (Eng. Tr.) is inaccurate but
German
ed.
(ill. 1.
247).
67
Bokk.
Schol.
p.
Anecd.
663, 16,
The authenticity
(1)
of this fragment
rendered doubtful
by the fact that Zeno had defined re^vi) differently, as we have seen, (2) because Cleanthes defined as
-rk-^vn
avvovaa (frag. 5). It is of course possible that Zeno left two alternative definitions as in the case of 7r0o9 (frags. 136 and 137), and that Cleanthes adopted one of these with verbal alterations, but it seems most probable that the Schol. has made a mistake, and certainly
e6<?
6$a>
-rravra
has a suspicious look. Stein however, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 312, accepts the definition.
oSoTTotrjTi/cv
14.
words are shown to belong to Zeno by the Sext. Emp. Math. vn. 372 foil. following considerations. is describing the controversy between Cleanthes and Chrysippus as to the meaning of Zeno s rv-rrwa^ and introduces one of el Chrysippus
These
arguments
yap K^pov
rpoTrov TVTTOvrai
fclvr)/j,a
r/
-^vxf)
$>avTa<TTiKMs
Tr/ia^ovcra del TO
^avraaia, wcnrep
TVTTOS
eaeitrnito^ ean
ovcra
$avra(Tiu>v,
yap r/v teal (Wpoia^a Kara\^ewv K.T.\. Xow one might suspect from internal evidence done that Chrysippus is appealing to the school definitions of Memory and Art as established by Zeno in support of his argument against Zeno s pupil, but the inference becomes irresistible when we find that the definition of Art is certainly Zeno s, as has Cf. Cic. Acad. n. 22 already been shown. quid quisquam meminit quod non animo comprehendit et tenet ib. 106 memoria perceptarum comprehensarumque
>.
52
68
rerum
2.
relation
between
and fyavracria
II.
the tract de
p^vr}^
s Aristotle, pp.
475, 476).
=
AM>J/T)
An. Post.
19.
99 b 36.
15.
da-devrj
Sext.
Emp.
Kal
I.
-^rev^r]
adv. Math. VII. 151, Bo^av elvai rrjv avyrcardOeo-iv attributed to Zeno by
Cic.
Acad.
cum falso incognitoque communis, Tusc. iv. 15 opinationem autem...volunt esse imStobaeus speaks of two Stoic defi becillam assensionem.
quae
cf.
esset imbecilla et
ib.
II.
7.
ll m
p.
jap
8
elvai
86a<?
rrjv /Mev
cf.
aKaraXijTrrw crisyKarddecriv,
ib. II.
7.
v7r6\r)TJriv daOevij,
10.
p.
rr)<t
89,
l[=n. 169]
VTTO-
7rapa~\.a/ji/3di>e(r@ai
rrjv
&6av
dvrl
da-0evovs
X^ewf.
frag, that
It is possible
B6i;a
Zeno s word was olrjai.^. Thus, as with Plato, and dyvoia are ultimately identical. See further
Diog. L.
VII.
23,
e\ey6 8e
is
(ATj&ev elvat
T^?
0177-
TWV
in the
^-iria-TT](iuiv.
The
plural
used because
is
Stoics also defined eVio-T?;^?; a single Kard\T)^lri<f. 1 Eel. II. 7. 5 as a ffva-r^a (cf. Stob. p. 73, 21 =11. 129)
The
At the same time we must be of such perceptions. ware of supposing that eTTia-r^r) is according to Zeno
identical
with
Kard\r}\lri^.
eVicrr^/iT/
is
the
conscious
knowledge
of the wise
possessed by the
<aOXo9.
The
latter
may
occasionally
and accidentally assent to the KaraXijTm/c?} fyavracria, but the former s assent is regular and unerring. Cf. Sext. Math. VII. 152 toi/ rf/v p,kv eTria-T^rjv ev /idvot? vfy io-raadai
\ejova~t rot?
cro<^>ot<,
rrjv Be
B6av
ev
/j.6voi<;
rot?
<f>av\ois
69
Kard\r]^nv
tcoivtjv
d^orepuv
eivai.
We
between Soga
in another form.
17.
Cic.
Acad.
I.
41,
.si
ita
erat
comprehension ut
convelli ratione
non posset
for
this
will
be found in Stob.
/,
p. 73, 19
= 11.
129 eivai
d^eraTTTwrov
p.
Ill,
-0=11. 231,
deaiv KOI
rrj^riv eivai
eivai
VII.
a-vy/card-
151, eVtcr-
n]v
311 and
n.
711,
who
these
re.
definitions
TI]V
are
Zeiionian.
?}
Diog.
47, avrr]V
f)
eTrta-rr/^v (fraalv
Trpoa-Segei,
Trt<mj/j,r]
KardXri^Lv
49
(tacfraXfj,
e^tv
ev
(fravracridov
d/jLerdTrrwrov
/c.rA.
is
VTTO \6yov.
The
definition of
as
due to Herillus, cf. ib. vn. 105, but I why on that ground Zeller, p. 82, n.
am
1,
unable to see
and Wellmann,
p, 480, should also infer that it was introduced by Zeno. It is far more natural to suppose that the simplest form
was first put forward by the founder of the school, and that it was subsequently modified by his successors in accordance with their different positions:
of the definition
but
is
ethical re Xo?.
18.
Cic.
Acad.
I.
comprehensionem collocabat, eamque neque in rectis neque in pravis numerabat. Cf. Sext. Math. VII. 151, eTrtcrT?;//?;^ teal 86av /cal rrjv
ev
70
ib.
153, 6
ical
A.pK<ri\ao<;...o eiKvv<;
on
7riaTii/j,r)<>
S6j~r)<s
Kpirrjpiov
r\
Kcnd-
inscientia Sextus mentions Soga, but, as has been shown, they are practically identical.) Wellmann, p. 484, thinks
is
some mistake
in
Cicero has misunderstood his authorities, but the passage in Sextus I.e. 151 153 makes the meaning perfectly
clear:
see
s
Cicero
note on frag. 16. The latter part of statement may be either an inference by his
the
authority ex silentio, or a record of an express statement by Zeno. In any case, it derives its force here simply
thus the
vices
(evils) as
as eVto-r^/iai
II.
and
5b,
7.
559,
II.
9294.
41,
19.
Cic. Acad.
I.
visa sunt et
:
quasi accepta sensibus assensionem adiungit animorum quam esse vult in nobis positam et voluntariam.
In this case
it
is
tell
Zeno
especially
crwyKaTdOecris
tfris
OLTT\OVV
eoitcev
elvai
Trpay/jia KOL
full list
1.
of authorities
free
given by
The
power of
assent
which
It
is
doctrine of
see
Wellmann,
c.
man who
can distinguish
accurately the relative strength of divers impressions, and he alone will consistently refuse assent to mere
71
Acad.
I.
41,
Quod autem
Stoic
Diog. L. VII. 52 at cr^crt? Se \eyerai /card 7rl rav roi)? ^.TWIKOVS TO T6 rfye/j,oviKOV Trvev^a KOL
</>
rj
&L
avTwv Kard\r)-^^,
ijv
/cal
-q
Trepl
:
rives trr/pol
<yivovTai
is thus attributed by Cicero however possible that sensum is past part. pass, of sentio and is a translation of alo-dyrov or aiadrjTiKov rather than of aL<r6r)ais, in which case cf.
So Dr Reid
it is
Diog. L.
L<TLV
VII.
avrovs ai ^ev
BL
ai(r@r)TiKal at
rj
alcrOriTiKal
^ev al
ai<r0r)T
T)pi(av
\a^^avojjLevai
K.r,\.
21.
Cic.
Acad.
I.
42,
Zeno
f
sensibus
etiam
et
fidein
illi
acta sensibus
vera
in re
eam
posset
normam
scientiae et prin-
in animis cipiuin sui dedisset, unde postea notiones rerum latiores solum sed non e principia quibus imprimerentur,
viae reperiuntur.
p. 80, n. 1.
Dr Reid
i]fM,v
jJLrf\.ov
cites
Sext.
Pyrrh.
I.
02
rwv fyaivofMevwv
TO
al(r9r)rwv
TrouciXov
<y\vKv
VTTO-
\eiov eucoSe?
yu,oz/a?
avd6v.
Ta>?
raura?
ecrTL
6Vr&>9
e^et
TrotCT^ra?
77
KaTao~Kvr]V
juev
\/
TU>V
/jLovoTTOtov fiev
Trapd
tt
8e
TTJV
8ui(f)opoi
rj
f
aiadrjTripiuiv
t
8id<f)opov
(fraLveTai
/cat
TWV
(paivo[j,eva)v
e%et
Trotor^ra?,
rj/j,tv
% oc
*
These passages Tivcs ctvT&v, ib. 97. are used in but to Stoic refer do not however teaching furtherance of the Sceptical argument.
vTroTTLTTTovcTL
72
It seems certain that and evvoiai (for which trpo\rj\lrei<; see R. and P. 393 and note c. and Stein, Erkermtnistheorie, p. 237) is not at least in terms Zenonian, though he may have spoken of tcotval ewoiai. Reid (on Acad. II. 30) suggests that the word -rrpoXirfyts was introduced by Zeno, but cf. Cic. N. D. I. 44 ut Epicurus ipse Tr/jdX^t?
appellavit,
it is
it from the but see Stein, 1. c. p. 248 250. evvoia, on the other hand, used by Plato (Phaed. 73 c) in quite a
rival school
/jLO<f
general sense, and defined by the Peripatetics as 6 dBpoiaTWV TOV vov (^avrao-pLaTtav Kal r/ rcav
crwyK6<$>a\ai(i)<Tis
7rl
/Ltepou?
must
TO Ka06\ov (Sext. Emp. Math. vn. 224) have received its special Stoic sense from Zeno.
et<?
principia : it is difficult to determine whether this a translation of a Stoic technical term, cf. Acad. II. 21.
22.
Cic.
is
Acad.
et
I.
42,
Errorem autem
et
et temeritatem
et
ignorantiam
opinationem
suspicionem et uno
et constantis
adsensionis a virtute sapientiaque removebat. With this may be compared the Stoic definitions of
and dpaTaioTrjs dveiKaiorr]?, (iTrpoTTTwa-ia, di>\ey!;ia, quoted by Diog. L. vn. 46, 47. Terneritas is probably a translation of TrpojreTeia, a favourite word with Sextus
when speaking
also used
of the dogmatists (e.g. Pyrrh. I. 20) but the Stoics (Diog. vn. 48). Reid also quotes by
(on Ac.
II.
G6) Epict.
d.
III.
22.
104
TrpoTrerrjs
23.
our
Stob. Eel.
.
I.
Zj/Wo?
<
K al
avrov>
rd evvorj^ara
/AJre
rtrd elvai
TTOKI, axravei Be
nva
73
ravra
rwv
t
Se a?,
olov
fracav
dvdpwTrwv, ITTTTWV, KOivoTepov eiTrelv irdvTwv TWV Kal T(av d\\o)v owoawv \eyovcnv iBeas etvai. [raura?
~S,Ta>LKol
fyacnv dvuTrdpKTovs elvai Kal rwv fjmv evvorifjidrwv fjiere^eiv ?;/u,a?, TWV Be Trruxrewv, a? BTJ
Be 01
<tXocro(oi
r//jierepa
01 d-no
Plut. Plac.
10,
4,
ol
OTTO
T?
IBeas efyacrav.
Wellmami,
p.
484,
(followed
by
Stein, Erkenntnis-
theorie, n. 689) suggests that this may have come from the book entitled Ka9o\iKa. Possibly this criticism of
the ideas formed part of the attack upon Plato mentioned by Numenius, ap. Euseb. P. E. xiv. 6, p. 733, 6 8
at
oe
TOV
ovTa Tl\drwva
ajj,af~r)s
OVT
dv
TOV
Yl\drci)vo<;
virepBiKetv
re
avrov
d\\a>
Ap/cecrtXa&), au ro? 76 /cepBaveiv wero aTrorpe-v^a^eyo? eavrov TOV \\picecri\aov. TOVTO Be yBrj Kal \\.yaOoK\ea TOV ^.vpatcoaiov Troi^cravra TO o-6<f}ia-/jt.a eVi At any rate, both Kap-^r)8ovlov<f.
ovBevi /LteXof
fj,e\rjcreiev
a<
TOI)<?
the circumstances and the chronology indicate that the reference is not to the EtoXtTeta (Introd. p. 29).
eworfiara.
<TTi
cf.
Plut.
Plac.
IV.
11
Be
vorffjia (fravTacrfia
Btavoias XoycKov
%u>ov,
i.e.,
as
he
goes on to explain,
ewor^d
:
by
all
other animals
alone.
^ig-
VI I. 61,
evvor//j.a Be
eaTt
74)
TTTTOV teal
nva. .iroid, i.e. they have no existence or definiteness. For the Stoic conception of n and TTOLOV, see Zeller, pp. 98 f. and 102 f. It has been inferred from this passage
.
to
Chrysippus
(Petersen,
18).
lS6xs.
The meaning
is
identical with
as they possess no but are mere existence, objective figments of the mind. Plato himself deals with this very point, Parm. 132 B
ra>v
eWo^ara, inasmuch
d\\d...fj,t]
avru>
el8u>v
etcaaTOV
f)
rovrwv
vorj^a, Kal
ovSapov
Antis77 ev TrpoariKT) fyw^als. thenes had already criticised the theory of ideas from this point of view: see Introd. p. 18.
vjroiriirrovTttv
eyyiyvecrQat a\\o6i
of external Sext.
the regular word for the presentation impressions to the organs of sense (e.g.
:
Pyrrh.
I.
40
ov% ai
far
ailral. ..vTroTriTTTova-i
<f>av-
raa-iai).
6ir6crwv,
K.T.X.
So
as
s
fyvcrei
only (Metaph. A.
1070 a 18):
attri
Dr Jackson
ravras
rvYxavtiv.
:
buted to Zeno
TWV
Si
hence Diels followed by Wachsm. adds to the lemma Ziijvwvos the words Kal rwv a?r avrov.
TTTWO-CWV,
K.T.\.
This passage
is
extremely
4
diffi
cult
Zeller,
ra<?
ill
2.
79
8e
or if TTTaxrewv
is
corrupt for ^
cf.
the former
75
seicn in mis, die Bezeichnimgen gehen auf die Dinge). The text, as it stands, has been interpreted in three ways
(I) notitiae
rerum
rationi
nostrae
insitae sunt,
nomina
singulae
(2) Trrwcreis
)(
= omnes
i.e.
cuiuscumque qnalitatis
:
yevi/cd TTOUI,
ISeai.
These
impress themselves on the mind of man (Tvy%dveiv), Petersen, 1. c. p. 82, foil. but this interpretation of TTTUKT^
is
unwarranted and
founded on a misconception of s interpretation (l. p. 421, Prantl (3) a combination of these two views. That the
is
main
is,
I think,
proved by Simplic.
Cat. p. 54 (quoted by Petersen) 01 &e d-rro rrjs etcd\ovv rd f^ede/crd airo rov jJuere^eaOai KOI
rev/eras
a.7ro
T<?
VIII. 9.
"
26
after saying that the 7TT&5crt9 for the Karijy6pr)fj,a rep."TO vavv verai" is "TO re^vecrBai" and for vavs jiyverai
"
<yiv(T0ai,
TTTOOCTI^
Se
aaw/jLaro^ eivai
Sia rov crTOyu,aTO?, oTTep d\ri6e$, oltciav 8e oiKia dpa Sid rov aro/j.aro^ aov ^tiep-^erai GTrep
<rov
So?
\eyofj,ei>
crw^ta ovcrav,
d\\d
oiKia Tvy%dvei. A consideration of the latter passage, which it is surprising that no one has cited, warrants the suggestion that rd
TTTUXTIV daw/jLarov
ovcrav, 7)9
or
All
fallen
:
out after
TTTWCTI^
= name
as
)(eWo r)
= thought. p,a
was
also)
(KaT7jyoprifj,a
to verb (Plut. qu. Plat. X. 1, 2). For the present use of TTTftJo-69, cf. also Sext. Math. XI. 29, vi. 42, for TTTWCTI^ in
noun
I.
"
p.
(Diog, 14) tending in practice to become identical with TTTwcrt?, though theoretically narrower.
Pyrrh.
III.
man
irpua-ij"
"
76
24.
13,
p.
13S, 14
elvai Si
(Ar. Did.
o
Diels), aiTiov
crv[j,j3ej3r)K6s
&
6 Zijvaiv
<f>i}crlv
457, ov Se airiov
dSvvarov 8
/AT}
a lTlOV
Si
TO
i^rjv
(f>poveiv
Kal Sid
TTJV ^rv^rjv
yiveTai
aaxppoavvijv yiveTat, TO
aw<$>pocrvvr)s
<ra><f)poviv.
dSvvaTov
crtixfrpovelv
elvai
Trepi
Tiva
/AT}
ova^s
/J,T}
T/
^u^?;?
pr/ fyjv
rj
(frpovTjaea)?
fypovelv.
It
n. 2,
is difficult
to understand
why
regards the main point of this fragment as a gram matical distinction between noun and verb it appears rather that Zeno is discussing the nature of aiTiov from a
:
logical standpoint,
and that KaTTjyop rjfia is introduced to and not vice versa. The fragments of Chrysippus and Posidonius which follow our passage in Stobaeus should be compared with it. Zeno did not
explain
aiTiov
istic
the only
true cause.
o-vfiffepTjKos
"
"
result
init.
Stob. Eel.
Si
I.
13 ad
or
"
o crv/jiftaivei TI.
This meaning of
also to
be found in Aristotle, who uses the word in two distinct senses: see an elaborate note of Trendelenburg on de An. i.
402 a 8 who quotes amongst other passages Metaph. 30 1025 a 30 \eyeTai Se Kal aAAw? o~v(j,(3e/3r)Ko<; olov ucra vTrdp^ei KaaTu> /ca$ avTO fj,rj ev TTJ ovaia ovTa olov
1
p.
That Tpiywvw TO Svo ex flv be used in this sense here and not in
TO)
6p8d<;
-
crv/j,^^TjKo<f
its
Aristotelian sense of
"
accident
"
we read
accompanied by the ov
77
well
is
known
to
what lengths
Stoics pp.
notes.
KaTTjYop^jia
:
was pushed
with
may
127132,
the ov
the
al riov
Probably this inference did not present mind, as the question of the V7rap%is of \eKTo, only arose later see further on Cleanth. frag. 7.
itself to
Zeno
is
<$
illustrated
do-a)/j,aTov
by Sext. Pyrrh.
avrovs
6
?}
HI.
14
01
ovv
&
o-a)/j,a,
ol
SiaTre^wvijKacriv, ol /j,ev TrpocnjyopLwv aiTiov elvai TO al-nov fydaKovTes, olov TTJS ^uo-eeo?, ol 8e KaTrjyoprjpdTwv, olov TOV ib. Math.
av aiTtov dvai Kotvorepov /car evepyovv yiveTai, TO aTroTeXecr^a, olov &k TOV rj\wv OepfAOTTis TOV yelaQai TOV tcrjpbv TOV Kijpov. Kal yap ev TOVTW
cogai
&
?;
o
r]
?;A,i09
TT}<;
^ucrew?
-^laQai.
IX.
211
^TWiKol pev
oe
s,
Tcdv
a iTiov vwyia
$acn
aapKi, daw^drov 8e TOV TepvecrOai Kal 7rd\tv aw/^a /lev TO Trvp, vwpaTi oe TOv 8e TOV /caiecrOai KaT^yopr/fAaTOS.
K.T.X.
TU
(frpovipiv
Stob. Eel.
II.
e%iv Kal
aa)())povetv,
TTJV
ov
fjid
A/a
TO
fypovelv
Kal
daoo/jiaTa
p.
Erkenntnistheorie
ovTa
Kal
according to Zeno, not a single moment in life passes without thought, but that the jyeuoviKov always thinks.
25.
Anonymi
Te^vrj ap.
Zrjvwv Be OVTW
(ferjcriet<?
TrpayuaTwv
peovcra.
e/c^eui?
78
re^vr)
of Zeno:
Zeller is inclined to doubt whether see Introd. p. 27. the words do not belong to some other Zeno, but inas much as this anonymous writer also quotes Chrysippus
(p.
454, 4), the presumption is that he refers to Zeno of Citiuin, and there is no a priori reason to discredit his
authorship.
the narrative portion of a speech contain Sirens of facts, cf. Diog. L. vn. 43 rov Be the statement ing
:
prjropiKov \oyov ei9 re TO rrpooLp,Lov Kal els rrjv Sirjyija-iv Dion. Kal rd 77/369 TOI)? dvTL<covs Kal rov erri\o yov. Hal. Ant. Rhet. X. 12 ecrrt Be rd T?}? vTrodea-ews crroL-^ela
r
Lysias recraapa, rrpooi^iov, Birjyija-is, Tricrret?, eViXoyoi. especially excelled in his treatment of this branch of his Dion. H. Lys. c. 18 ev Be art. Biyyetadat rd rrpd yp.ara,
ra&gt;
&lt;j)V\aKr}S,
r^ovfj-aL
icpdrtarov
avrov
elvai
rrdvrwv
prjropwv K.r.\.
vnro06rti
:
cf.
VTr60e&lt;Ti&lt;;
7rpo&lt;r-
^ijrrjcn&lt;f.
TO
K.T.X.
"adapted
on
behalf of the
TO Be
speaker."
technical
)( 7rpuy/j.a.
rov Trpooiftiov Boa rcpocrwrrwv re Kal Trpajfjidrwv Dion. H. Ant. Rhet, X. 13, cf. the Latin
tce&lt;f)d\aiov
persona.
bono
Cassianum cui 78 huius Staleni persona ab nulla turpi suspicione abhorrebat. For peovcra cf. Plat. Rep. 485 D ye et? ev rt al emBv^ iat, rd fiaOrjfAara Kal jrdv ro peovcriv...(L Brj Trpos
Cic. pro Mil.
32 itaque
illud
OT&&gt;
&lt;r&lt;f)6Bpa
roiovrov eppwjKaaiv.
26.
co9
Anonymi
Zirjvtov
re%vrj ap.
I.
447, 11
Be
TrapaBeiypd
et? ofMoiwcnv
jevofxevov
Trpdyparos
rov vvv
r)rov/j,evov.
Maxi-
79
mus Planudes
v. 39G ap. 7rapd8eiy/*a Be eariv, &;? Zrjvwv fyycriv, yevo/^evov Trpdy^arot aTro/jLvrj-
Walz. Rhet, Gr
TOV VVV
fyfTOV/J-eVOV.
This
frag,
:
must stand
a n-apdSfrypa Aristotle regards the example of the orator as an imperfect repre sentation of the Induction of the philosopher: cf. Anal. Post. I. 1, 71 a 9 to? ai;rcy? Kal ol prjTopiKol av^Treir *1 7"P ^* TrapaBeiy/jLarcov, o eartv &S
eTraywyij,
ij
oTrep eari
Or. iv. 2. 117 hie Quintil. expressa (verba) ut vult Zeno sensu tincta esse debebunt. It has been supposed by some that these words are a
27.
Inst.
r eference to apoph. 13, but inasmuch as sensu is a very inappropriate translation of et? vovv, and Quintilian is speaking of the narrative portion of a speech, the meaning is rather coloured by the actual impressions of sense
"
"
i.e.
facts.
28.
Anonymi
p. 27-5,
variae
collections
mathematicae
in
YloXirelav Tl\cnwvos ev
TI}V
yea)peTpLav...
Apio-TOT6X&lt;t]s
8\..Zijva)v
VTTO \6yov.
Se
egiv
ev
TrpocrBe^et
(^avracnwv
frag,
is
(l/JieT(nrru&gt;rov
This
due
to
Wachsmuth (Comm.
meaningless egiv
I.
p.
12)
who emends
TT/JO? Seii-iv
(fravTaaiwv dfj,eTcnrTa)T(a&lt;? vTrobiKov, coll. Diog. L. VU. 45. It is barely credible that Zeno can have defined geometry in the same words which Herillus and he
by
certainly
himself possibly defined knowledge. There is doubtless some mistake in the tradition: possibly p.aOrj^.arLKwv has
80
dropped
out.
29.
irplv
(qu.
add av}
dvTe\eyev o Zrjvwv, roiovro) nvl \6yw ^pw^evo^- err aKovcneov rov Sevrepov aTreSeigev 6 irpoTepos elirwv OVK
\eyovros
o/jLotov
Trepas
009
err
OVK aTre&ei^ev
77
yap
f^rjBe
VTrr/fcovae
fj
K\ri6el&lt;;
inraicovffas
erepeTKrev
aKov&lt;rTeov
rjroi
(nr&ei^ev
OVK
aTreSei^ev
OVK
is
apa
rov
Bevrepov
\eyovros.
The same
preserved by
variations.
PjS*
K.T.X.
referred to Phocylides Lucian. I.e. but called by Cicero ^fevBrjcrioBeiov (Att. VII. Poet. Lyr. Gk. p. 464- cf. Ar. Vesp. 725 ^ see
18),
Bergk
TTOV
&lt;ro&lt;/&gt;09
rjv
oo-Tt?
e^acKev, Trplv av
a^olv pvOov
yvolrj
\6yov
Trplv
av
The argument is couched in the syllogistic form which Zeno especially affected: see Introd. p. 33. Whether the first speaker proves his case or not, the
X6-yu&gt;.
but he argument of the second speaker is immaterial must have either proved his case or failed to do so:
;
therefore the second speaker should not be heard. in court when the case was called VITTIKOVO-C: appeared
on
cf.
Dem.
F. L. p.
423
"
257
peared as his
of plaintiff
accuser."
and defendant,
434
290
ovb* vTraKovcrai
81
Meid.
p.
...Sid
ravr ovx
VTrijKovcre.
Audoc. Myst.
112 /cad
Kal
iKerijpiav
Isae.
p.
49,
25
= 84
Karadeirj,
ovSels
et&lt;?
aTroypafais
rr/v
ftov\Y)v aev.
VTTIJKOV-
KXT]0is
cither
p.
(1)
cf.
Dem. Olymp.
1174
e/azXet
et?
TO
VO/J.QV.
Ka\p,or (2)
by the
officer of
We know that this procedure (tcXr/Teva-is} was adopted in the case of a defaulting witness, and it may also have been applied if one of the parties failed to put in an
ap
pearance.
30.
\6yov&lt;?
him by name.
Diog. L. VII. 18, evacuee 8e p,ev rdov daoXoiKcov Kal dTnjpTia-fAevowi o/zotou? elvai TW dpyvpiw rca
TOI)&lt;?
KaOd Kal TO
oe
v6fj,ia-fxa,
TOI)?
rovvavriov
dcfxo/jioiov
Arrt/cot?
cf.
Hor.
A. P. 59 licuit semperque licebit signatum praesente nota nomen. Juv. vn. 54 producere qui communi feriat carmen
Moneta and Prof. Mayor s note. Possibly this and the following frag, came from the work Trepl \e^ewi&gt;. in this phrase which recurs at vin. 85 AXtjjavSpei ip
triviale
:
have followed Kohler (Rhein. Mus. xxxix. 297) in It appears that reading AXe^az Speiw for AXegavSpLvw. Alexandria had struck no coinage in the reign of the Ptolemies (Head, Historia Nimiorum p. 718); on the
I
82
current coinage all over Greece (ib. p. 198 foil, and see Hultsch, Gr. and Rom. Metrologie pp. 243 245).
KiKopji^vovs.
.
.o-oXoiKus.
MSS.
KKOfjL^,voi&lt;f.
Bywater
&lt;TO\OIKOVS
(Journ. Phil.
restore the
meaning of
Ka0e\K(i&gt;
is
omitted by L.
and
\
S.
s.
is
v.
bracketed
rightly retained
31.
Kohler
is
Zonarae Lex.
(ro\oiKietv
col.
1G(&gt;2,
ov
fj,6i
oXXa
drdi
a/cocr/ico?
i.
TrepnraTjj w?
(firjcn
V^vwv.
Wachsmuth,
Comm.
ap.
Cramer
tirexvats SiaXeyerai
teal
(f)a&gt;vrjv
anec. Paris IV. p. 190 V. &lt;roXoticr/Lt6&lt;j ore ri? cro\otKieiv ov povov TO fcaT(i \ej;iv
loia)Ti&gt;iv,
i]
oTav rt?
ft]?
evoeBvTai
ara/cTw?
r//cocr/Lia)9
Zeno
is
cf.
this
extended sense,
iit\
5e Tf?
f)V (70\OiKOTpO&lt;t
4v8\)fidTwv.
&lt;iv6pU&gt;TTOS
ance to
Koap-ioTT]^
dress
as
in
other
matters
of
The cloak \vas required to be of personal behaviour. a certain length, cf. Theophr. Char. 24 (Jebb) of the TWV ^rjpwv 7(1 eXrirro) Penurious Man (fropovvTas
:
and
to
wear
it
sobriety.
Cf. Ar.
;
Av. 15G7
eV
dpLaTep
,
ovTa)&lt;;
d/j,7re^ei
ov /LieTa/3a\ei9
wB eVt Be^idv
^o-Oi^.
How
carefully children
were trained
83
in this respect may be seen from three passages of Plutarch cited by Becker, Charicles, E. T. Of. de pp. 230, 237.
e.g.
Educ. Puer. 7
rf}
^v
T?
8exe&lt;T0ai
rpo&lt;j)d&lt;},
K(iv Trporelveie
aKoo-fxcos
irepnraT^.
severely
criticised
r^v dpiarepdv, e-rriTifjudv. Fast walking in the streets was so that it was a circumstance Avhich
before a jury
8
,
might be used
to
p.
damage an opponent
981 52
cf.
Dem. Pantaen.
(f)opel
N^/iWo?
eVfyftwk Lri,
68, 77. Steph. I. Lysias protests against such matters being considered of any law court, Or. xvi. importance 19 7ro\\oi yap in^a
id.
KO.KWV aiTioi yeyovaaiv, erepot Se rwv TOIOVTWV vroXXa Kuyadd VfJba? eiaiv
elp
32.
Sc\t.
Emp. Math.
II.
7,
evdev yovv K al
"
7^
"
OTM Siafapei 8ta\KTiKi} priropLK^ TVV o-uo-r/^e^a? X elpa Kal Trd\Lv e ^aTrXwa-a? fyrj TOVTM Kara ^v T^V avcrTpo^v TO arpoyyvXov Kal /3pa X v T^V
Ktriei)? epwrriOels
r;/ 9
^a-rrXwae^ Ka l
ruv SaKTV\a)v TO
vo?.
Svvdpew
17 Zenonis
ut
est
loquendi, jam ante Aristoteles, in duas tributam esse rhetoricae partes, palinam, dialecticam pugni similem esse dicebat, latins
rhetores,
dialectici
ille,
Stoici
omnem vim
in.juam hoc
loquerentur
32,
Orat,
113
Zeno quidem
cum
a quo disciplina Stoicorum est, maim demonstrare solebat quid inter has artes interesset, nam
compresserat digitos
dialecticam
et
manum
similem eloquentiam esse dicebat. Quint. List. Or. n. 20 Itaque cum duo sint genera orationis, altera perpetua, quae rhetorice dicitur, altera
palmae
illius
84
concisa,
conquas quidem Zeno adeo quae dialectice illam iunxit ut hanc compressae in pugiium manus,
similem. explicitae, diceret extract this Although
better to insert
to
i.
to
be
them
used
of a
terse
:
and
compact
:
as
florid and elaborate style in contrasting the styles of Lysias and Isocrates says ev o-varpetyeiv rd vor/fj.ara KOL crTpoyyvXa)?
opposed to a
ra&gt;
eK&lt;f&gt;epeiv
7rmj8eiov \wriav d-jre^e^o^v 7T/30? d\7)0ivov&lt;; dywvas "well rounded" while seeming translation The (Isocr. 11).
w&lt;?
to preserve the
33.
metaphor conveys a
II.
false impression.
Cic. Acad.
145,
At
scire negatis
quemquam
rem ullam nisi sapientem. Et hoc quidem Zeno gestu Nam, cum extensis digitis adversam inanum conficiebat.
ostenderat,
"visum"
inquiebat
"huiusmodi
est."
Deinde,
"adsensus
huiusmodi."
fecerat,
com-
illam esse dicebat: -qua ex prehensionem nomen ei rei quod antea non fuerat Kard\ri^nv imposuit. Cum autem laevam manum adverterat et ilium pugnum arte vehementerque compresserat scientiam talem esse esse neminem. dicebat, cuius compotem nisi sapientem
similitudine
finds in this p. 181, 313, tension the of theory, but surely passage an indication
Stein,
Erkenntnistheorie
this is
somewhat
it
is
no doubt
made to true that the Stoic theory of knowledge of rovo* the introduction depend on TOJ/O?, yet probably He suggests with more reason p. 126 is later than Zeno.
often
that
in
the process of
85
reasoning may be inferred from this, i.e. the r/y/j,oviKov is not merely receptive (Kara Treiatv] but also productive
(/COT
evepyeiav).
:
eVtcrr^/i?; is peculiar while is also shared by the to the wise man, /caraX^-^t? see note on frag. 16. Sextus speaking of the
:
scire
&lt;/&gt;au\o?
inconsistency of the
Stoics,
who would
even Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus had attained to perfect wisdom, cites as a Stoic dogma travra dyvoei o
&lt;f&gt;av\o&lt;;
(Math.
fj,ev
VII.
434).
II.
83
oioTrep TTJV
d\r)0iav
ev
(fracrlv elvat,
TO
6e (ikijOes Kal
eiirelv.
(pav\w
7.
d\r)0es TL
visum
frag. 19.
(fiavracria
frag.
adsensus
crvyKara6e(Ti,^
= coiuprehensionem
PHYSICA.
34.
Cic.
Acad.
I.
39, (Zeno)
nullo
modo
arbitrabatur
quicquam posse ab ea (scil. natura) quae expers esset nee vero aut quod efficeret aliquid aut quod corporis efficeretur posse esse non corpus.
effici
Zeno adopted the Platonic dogma that everything which exists is capable either of acting or being acted
upon,
fjievov
ct.
Bt]
TO Kal oiroiavovv
ovvafAiv, err
(V
et?
et? TO Troielv
TOVTO OVTWS
elvai,
he differed,
however, widely from Plato in limiting these things to material objects. For Stoic materialism cf. Pint. plac. iv.
"20
Zeller, Stoics
Kal TTOLOVV 17 (quoted by and further references ap. Stein, p. 126) For the application of this doctrine Psychologic n. 21.
Bpca/J.evov
au&gt;^a
TTUV
yap TO
86
Dr Reid s
note.
35.
TWV
&
avTols
ap^a?
TO
fJ,fV
elvac
7rdo"%OV.
OVV
Trdayov elvai TIJV CITTOIOV ovcriav Trjv v\rjv TOV ev avTrj \6yov TOV Oeov. TOVTOV yap ovTa
Trduri^
TO oe Tcoiovr
difttov
8i&lt;t
v\rjs
BtjfMLOvpjelv
etfacrra.
TO&gt;
ri6r](Ti
8e
TO
ooy/J.a
TTjV
Plut. plftc. TOVTO Zirjvwv 6 Ktrtei)? ev Trepl overtax. Oebv /cat TOV W^acreou Ktrtei)? I. 3. 39 Ziijvwv dp%ds p.ev TT TOV & TTOltV TOV 6 l] V\TJV, fieV
U&gt;V
&lt;TTt
atTtO&lt;?
Stob. Eel. I. 10. 14 f. 120, 17 crrot^eta 8e rerrapa. Mvacreov KtTiei)? p%a? TOV Beov Kal TTJV vXrjv crToi-^eia Achill. the following passages: rerrapa. Diels,p. 289, adds T( I; o\a)v ^ vat 9 o KiTievs 124 E ^*7** Tat.
p.
Lr]vwv
"
"PX"
TO Trotovpevov,
a&lt;$&gt;
wv TO. Tea(rapa crToi^ela yeyovevai. Philo, de Provid. I. 22 Zeno Mnaseae films aerein deum materiam et elementa quatuor [aerem is a blunder arising from apX"? (Diels), which seems better than Stein s suggestion (Psych, n. 31) to sub
stitute aethera].
aff. iv.
12 Z-tjvwv Be 6
Z KpaTT/ro? crl Kal 9 TOV deov f(f l Trjv v\r)v PX" ajpeo-eo)? Cf. Sext. Math. ix. 11: further authorities for the
^otTT/r?}? 6 T//9
&gt;1
by
Zeller, p. 141.
In distinguishing between God as the active efficient cause of the universe and formless indeterminate matter as its underlying substratum Zeno is following on the lines laid down by Plato in the Timaeus and by Aristotle, of Plato) 8vo Tat cf. Theophr. frag. 48 Wimmer (speaking TO TTOtdv vTroKeipevov o5? v\r)V, o fj-ev a /SouXerai 8 &5? ahiov Kal KIVOVV, o Travoex^f, TO
pva&lt;?
Trpoo-ayopevei
TreptaTrret
TTJ
TOV
Oeov
Introd. p. 25.
When
Kal
TTJ
87
and
rarest
of
is
all
merely a temporal manifestation of the primary fire, it becomes apparent that the Stoic dualism is ultimately reducible to a monism and that the system is essentially
hylozoistic, like those of the early lonians (Zeller, Stoics,
p.
155,
(5.
Stein, Psychologic n. 25, collects the passages How far this was worked out by Zeno
:
indued there
is
no evidence to show
that he ever passed beyond the stage of regarding the dual origin of the world as fundamental, and the opinion
is
now prevalent that Cleanthes by his principle of rovos was the first to consciously teach the pantheistic doctrines, which subsequently became characteristic of Stoicism.
ST]|Aiovp-yiv
:
and
crroi-^ela
cf.
Diog. L.
p,ev
VII. 13-i
Sia&lt;j&gt;epeiv
Se
Kai crTOi^etcr
TCI Se
r9
yap
crror^eta /card
r&gt;}v
eKTrvpaxTiv
36.
Hippolyt.
/cat,
Philosoph.
21,
1.
p.
Ztrjvwv o t vTredevro
0-w/j.a
Oeov
Birjrcet,v
rrjv
ovra TO KaOaptOTaTov Bid jrdvTwv Be -npovoiav avTov. Galen. Hist, Philos. 16. p. 241.
/J.GV
Diels
p.
608 HXarcof
Trepi
TT;? overtax
TOV Oeov 8te\T]\v66Te^ ov-% o/ioi &j? Trepi raur?;? XX 6 fj,ev Yl\aTO)v 0eov daw [JLCLTOV
,
7^r]vwi&lt;
dpy/coTes [if rely on Diels text here, some modification will be required in Stein, Psychologic n. 88, where Kiihn s reading ov
fj,rj8ev
Trepi
r//9
popfyr^
we may
Koa-fMOV
Cf.
is
25
of the Stoics) awfjud rt? elvai \eyei deov, 8e d August, adv. Acad. in. 17. 38 (quoted below).
SS
T&
God is spoken of as being Fire, Aether, Air, most commonly as being Trvevfia or Atmo spheric Current, pervading everything without excep
KaOopiiraTov.
tion,
what
is
is
most
beautiful,"
Stoics
p.
148,
who
is
authorities
in
the
notes,
tcadapwrarov
(
vil. 375 special reference to Sttjiceiv, cf. Sext. Emp. eTTir 7r TOVTO 3 iv l TO TrveVfia fyvo [ri/TTtwo-ti/] / X
ra rotavra TWV
Ttav vTrdpxov. Ar. Metaph. I. 8. 3, 4 (speaking of those of his predecessors who had explained generation by a-vyicpicris
and
Stdtcpifris) rfj
fj,ev
yap dv S6ete
&lt;noi^iw^e(na-rov
av
irj
rwv
&lt;ra)fia-
SiOTrep
offot
TTvp
dp%r)V
yovfj.va)s
p.
dv
ra&gt;
\6yw TOVTW
\eyoiev.
382.
wpovoiav like
frag,
minence the spiritual side of the Stoic conception of God, which is everywhere strangely blended with the material.
Cic. N. D. I. 36, rationem quandam per omnem 37. rerum naturam pertinentem vi divina esse affectam putat. Cf. Epiphan. adv. Haeres. in. 2. 9 (in. 36) Diels. p. 592
p. 22.
Tertullian,
ad Nat. n.
4,
ecce
materiam mundialem a deo separat et eum per illam tamquam mel per favos transisse dicit. Cf. id. adv. Hermog. 44 Stoici enim volunt deum sic per materiam decucurrisse quomodo mel per favos (quoted by Stein,
Psychologie,
p. 35, n. 43).
favos:
KTjpia.
Zeno
has been
89
Introd. p. 33.
219 sqq. His quidam signis atque known, Georg. haec exempla secuti Esse apibus partem divinae mentis et
haustus Aetherios dixere
;
deum namque
ire
per omnes
Terrasque tractusque maris caelumque profundum. It is curious that bees should have suggested themselves to
both writers, though in a different way, in connection with the same thought, cf. Cic. Acad. n. 120 cuius
ulivinae sollertiae) vos majestatem
deducitis
usque ad
fabricator
separat:
if this
is
pressed,
we must conclude
:
that
Zeno never
39.
identified
36, Zeno naturalem legem divinam vim obtinere recta imperantem proeamque contraria. Lactant. Inst. I. 5 Item Zeno hibentemque (deum nuncupat) .divinam naturalemque legem. Mimic. Felic. Octav. 19. 10 Zeno naturalem legem atque divinam...
Cic.
N. D.
I.
osse censet
omnium
Cf.
djrayopeveiv eia&gt;@ev 6 vofAos o KOIVOS oTrep ecrrlv 6 opOos \oyos bid TTCIVTWV ep^o^evos o avros (t)V TGO Ati KaOrjye/Jioi i TOVTW r?;? rwv OVTWV Stoitcija&gt;&lt;?
&lt;re&)?
OVTC.
Schol. on
Lucan
II.
9 hoc
secundum Stoicos
regarded in
46,
its
dicit,
qui adfirmant
mundum
ipsumque deum
Law
is
TI.
defined in similar
= Floril.
12 rov
\oyov opdov
4.
6i&gt;ra
TdKTlKOV
rjreov
&V
TTOLlJTeOV,
II.
(ITrayOpeVTlKOV 8e
p.
U)V
Trpoa0V TTOi-
repeated at
7.
II
1 ,
102,
"
quae
II.
Cic.
N.D.
78.
90
Law
the
human
counterpart of the
"ratio
summa
insita in
The origin of law is natura" id. Leg. I. 18. simultaneous with that of the divine mind: quamobrem
jubendum
II.
summi
10.
cf.
0e&lt;ri,
Krische
p.
371.
Stein, Erkenntnistheorie
40.
n. 708.
c.
Philodemus
o-vva&lt;TT&gt;ri/ci
Trepl evo-e/3.
)v
oi/ce&lt;t&gt;&&gt;&lt;&gt;
8, Bet TTJV
&lt;S&gt;vva/j,iv
ovcrav
TWV
pepa&gt;&lt;v&gt;
7rpo&lt;&lt;&gt;
(i&gt;\\ij\a
fcai
77
K...u&gt;v
TI]V
ava&lt;TO\i}&gt;v
rj&lt;\i&gt;ov
/cat
Ki&gt;&lt;K\rjatv&gt;
TreploBov.
position of these words with reference to their context corresponding to Cic. N.D. I. 36 points to Zeno s
The
frustula
dubitanter
ad Zenonem
God
This is evidently a Stoic description of Svvajnv. as the power which binds the parts of the world together and keeps them in union.
n}v
We should expect a-we/cri/c^v, which is o-wa-rrriKTiv. the more natural word in this connection. Sext. Math.
IX.
84
avdyicr)
dpa
VTTO rfjs
apiarrj&lt;f
On the other hand and the like are technically applied to the structure of manufactured articles, which are said be CK crvvaTrTOfjLevwv) (^i]vwp,iva ib. 78 etc (rvvaTTTO^ikvutv
8e Tvy%(ivovcra 6eos ecrriv.
avva&lt;f)}]
:
t&lt;&gt;
tce&lt;f)(i\aiov
vevov-
w? aXutret?
i.
/cat
TrvpyicrKoi
/cat vijes.
41.
Cic.
N.D.
36, aethera
I.
deum
dicit (Zeno).
Ter-
tullian adv.
Marcion
aerem et aetherem.
omnium
esse principium.
126 Zenoni et
[if fere
summus deua
91
pressed here,
it
15].
probably a blunder, unless with Stein, Psych, The aether here in 80, ant should be read for et.
it is
question
i.e.
an equivalent of Trvev/Jia or of Trvp re^vi/cov, merely one of the labels convenient to express
is
aldrjp
is
a complete description. For the distinction between the Stoic al6r]p and the Heraclitean
regarded in
itself as
The Stoic Trvp see Stein, Psychologic p. 20 and n. 31. is at once far it may and rational: but how deity corporeal
be said to have been personified cannot be determined: in fact, as has been remarked, the ancients seem to have grasped the notion of personification with much less
distinctness than
modern
I.
thinkers.
42.
Stob. Eel.
1.
29
p. 85, 9, Zrjvtav o
Sr&n/co? vovv
Koapov TTVpivov (scil. 6eov (iTrefrjvaTo). August, adv. Acad. ill. 17. 38 nam et deum ipsurn ignem putavit (Zeno).
Cf. Stob. Eel.
I.
1.
29
p. 38,
For the Stoic conception of the World-Soul see Stein, Psychologic p. 41, who distinguishes the world soul from the Aether God, the former being an offshoot from the latter. "Die Weltseele ist nur ein Absenker jenes Urpneumarestes der als Gott Aether miser Weltganzes
nmspannt
lerische gottliche
(cTTrep/xari/coi)?
Feuer
\6yovs) der Weltbildung im allgemeinen und der Einzelbildungen insbesondere in sich enthalt." In regarding i/oO? as an indwelling material essence Zeno
revived the position formerly taken up by Diogenes of
92
Apollonia in opposition to Anaxagoras see the fragment quoted by Zeller, Pre-Socraties, E. T. i. p. 287 n. 7. The MSS Koa-fjMv was corrected to Ko&lt;rfiov by Krische
p.
378,
who
to
is
Hirzel
II.
p.
220, 2
prefers
TTI/PIVOV
put a
comma
after
KO&lt;T(J,OV:
otherwise
KOI
necessary.
[ed.
43.
Themist. de An. 72 b
Be
Speng. n.
rj
p.
64, 25]
Kol TOI?
aVo
e
Z^IXMI/O?
avp&lt;f&gt;a)vos
Sofa Bid
teal
i&gt;ot&lt;?
TTOV
"^rv^rjv
TTOV Be
(frvcriv
TTOV Be efty.
This same
called
(/&gt;i)eri&lt;?
eft&lt;?
^rv^} in the case of animals, and vovs as belonging to rational beings. Diog. L. vn. 139 Bi eft? Ke^u&gt;prjKev w? Bid TGOV oarwv teal fMev ydp
in the case of plants,
u&gt;v
w&lt;?
T&lt;av
w? Bid TOV Tjye/AoviKov, cf. vevpwv Some Stoics seem however to have Cleanth. Frag. 51. denied this distinction between ^w^r/ and vovs. Nemes.
8t
(av
Be
&lt;o?
vovs
Be
(quoted by Stein, Psych, pp. 92, 3) rti/e? OTTO T^? ^^X }? TOV vovv d\\d rfjs Stein ovcrias avrrjs yyeftovitcov elvai TO voepov i/yovvrai. in however is not justified holding that the living principle
c.
Nat. Horn.
ov
BiecrreiXav
of animals occupies a position midway between as will be shown on Cleanth. frag. 44. tyv)(ri,
passage
eft?,
is
&lt;j&gt;v&lt;ri&lt;;
and That the good evidence that the distinction between and ^rv^ is Zenonian may be inferred from
&lt;f&gt;v&lt;ri&lt;;
the words
44.
&lt;rt^4&lt;cuz/o9
1}
Sofa.
c.
9,
dispositorem atque artificem universitatis \6yov praedicat quern et fatum et necessitatem rerum et deum et animum
Apud vestros quoque sermonem atque rationem constat sapientes \6yov artificem videri universitatis. Hunc enim Zeno dcterminat
lovis nuncupat.
id est
Tertull. Apol. 21
93
factitatorem qui cuncta in dispositione formaverit eundeni et fatuin vocari et deum et animura lovis et necessitatem
omnium
Zeno.
renim.
deum
vocat
Lact. Inst. IV. 9 siquidem Zeno rerum naturae dispositorem atque opificem universitatis \6yov praedicat
quern et fatuin et necessitatem rerum et deum et animum lovis nuncupat: ea scilicet consuetudine qua solent lovem pro deo accipere.
45.
Stob. Eel.
I.
5.
15. p. 78,
ev
TM
1^X779
Kara
ravrd
(frvcriv
/cat
(ocravro)?
IJVTIVO,
/j,rj
8ia(f)epeii&gt;
TTpovoiav Kol
VI.
rrjv
Ka\iv.
14.
p.
87, 26
Zi]va)v
Ktrei)? Svvafiiv
v\r}&lt;?
KeK\rj/ce
/cat
elfJLap^evr]v
KivriTiKrjv
TT)I/
8e
avrtjv
irpovoiav KOL fyvcriv wvofACKrev. God receives different names, while his 8ia(j&gt;piv. (ii^ essence is constant, owing to the various phases of his
(ra&lt;?
Trpocrrjjopia^ fj,era\afji/3aveiv Si
?)?
Ke-^wpij/ce
I.
29 b
Wachsmuth
mistake
for $ia
is
ra? T^?
V\TJ&lt;?
Thus he
Fate as acting in accordance with a constant law, Forethought as working to an end, and Nature as
creator of the word.
oi
Cf.
Athenag. Supplic.
^9
c.
6.
p. 7
if
&e
(iTTo
r?/9
T&gt;79
error??
1^X779,
K(iv Tat9 St
Trpoo-rjyoplais
Kara ra9
7rapa\\aei&lt;&gt;
&lt;f)a(ri
6eov,
7r\rjOvva&gt;o-L
TO
Qtlov Tolf
et
ovofAacri,
&lt;yovv
yap
TOU9 cnrepiJLaTiKovs o yovs Ka 019 e/cacrTa /ca yiveTcti, TO oe Trvev/^a avTov $ir;Ki St o\ov TOV 6 6eo$ et9 /car CIVTOVS fj,ev KCLTO, TO %eov 7779
i
eifj,apfj,ei&gt;r]i&gt;
Zev&lt;;
r/
H/3a oe
/cat
rd \onrd
94
7)9
K-^wpr}Kev
Ka\ov^vo&lt;^.
In
this connection it
p.
097)
is
as preserved by Aristocles ap. Euseb. P. E. xv. 14. reference there is to the Stoics generally and not to
in particular.
45
A.
Diog. L.
i
VII.
&lt;f&gt;acn
ra
\pvai7nros...
is
Tiocrei?&gt;a)i&gt;io$...Kai
Be.
Since
that
ei/j.ap/jLevrj
it
follows
Cleanthes,
N.D.
via.
II.
57,
Zeno
igitur ita
naturam
definit
gredientem
artium
Censet enim
manus
efficiat,
efficere, id est,
ignem artificiosum magistrum ar tium reliquarum. Cic. Acad. I. 39 Zeno statuebat ignem esse ipsam naturam. N.D. in. 27 naturae artificiose
ut dixi,
Wachsmuth (Comm.
I.
p. 9)
adds
Zeno.
The Greek
of the definition
rj
&lt;f&gt;va-i&lt;;
KOV 6Sc5 /3dSi%ov et? yeveaiv, Diog. L. VII. 156. Clem. Alex. Strom, v. p. 597. ^^0-49 is only another name for God viewed in his creative capacity. Hence Stob. Eel. I.
1.
29
p. 37,
20
6Bu)
Sr&H/fol voepov 6eov aTro^aivovrai irvp (3dSiov eVt yeveaei rcotrfAov, e/j,7repiei\r](f)6&lt;;
ot
cr7rp/j,a.TiKoi&gt;s
\oyovs Kad
01)9
airavra Ka0*
yiverai
Weygoldt
p.
expression.
Athenag. 1. c. Wellmann, p. 472 and 35 think that \0709 cnrep^anKo^ is a Zenonian So Stein, Psych, p. 49 and n. 87.
:
95
u
Tatian ad Graec.
KdK(ai&gt;
c.
3, p.
143c, Kal
Zijvwva)
Qeos
d-rro-
/car
avrov
Kal
(scil.
Troirjnjs, ev
re Kal
Cf.
(TKu&gt;\ri%i
dppr)Tovp&lt;yoi&lt;;
KaTa&lt;yLvop,evos.
60
ov&gt;e
TO Oeiov SujKeiv \eyovTas- ot Karaia-^vvovcnv rrjv (f)i\oo-o(f)iav: Scxt, Pyrrh. III. 218 ^TCOCKO!
&if}Koi&gt;
Se
Kal Sid
TU&gt;V
elSe^Owv. Cic.
Acad.
II.
120 cur
cum faceret sic enim voltis tantam vim natiicum viperarumquc fccerit? cur mortifera tain multa ot porniciosa terra We maricjue dispersorit? have no information as to what answer Zeno made to this
the later Stoics said that physical evils served a good purpose: so ultimately Chrysippus ap. Pint. Sto. Rep. 21, 4 quoted by Zeller, p. 189. As to the
existence of moral evil see on Cleanth.
fr.
objection, but
48,
1.
17 and
Wellmann s
48.
Cic.
discussion at
p.
472.
N. D. II. 58, Ipsius vero mundi qui omnia suo coercet et continet natura non complexu artificiosa s(jlum sod plane artifex ab eodem Zcuonc dicitur consultrix
et provida utilitatum
opportunitatumque omnium.
ingenious explanation of this difficult passage is given by Stein, Psychologic, pp. 42, 43 in accordance with his view of the distinction between World-Soul and
An
Aether-God.
tens die
"
Die natura
Erach-
wahrend die natura plane artifex sich auf den Gott Aether oder das -I^/JLOVLKOV dor Welt bezieht." The irvev^a which permeates the universe is
Weltseele,
ignis artificiosus and only secondarily represents God, since it is an efflux from him. It cannot be described
as plane artifex, a term which is applied to God (awp.a TO Ka6apu&gt;Ta.Toi&gt;), whereas the world-soul is less
icadapbv
from
its
96
artifex
:
probably a translation of Texvirr)? Diog. L. VII. 86, but Hirzel II. p. 220 represents it by fypiovpyos. in which case cf. Diog. L. vn. 137.
49.
Chalcid. in Tim.
c.
290, Plerique
tamen silvam
Silvam separant ab essentia, ut Zeno et Chrysippus. omnibus his subest id esse dicunt quae quod quippe habent qualitates, essentiam vero primam rerum omnium
antiquissimum fundamentum earum, suapte natura sine vultu et informe ut puta aes, aurum, ferrum, et caetera huius modi silva est eorum, quae ex iisdem
silvam vel
:
fabrefiunt,
non tamen
essentia.
At vero quod
tarn his
quam
ipsum
esse substantiam.
This passage shows that Zeno distinguished between ovaia and v\rj the former the indeterminate and formless matter underlying the universe, and the latter the stuff
out of which a particular thing is made. V\T) is thus from one point of view the more general term, since ovaia
Brandis 45 a 21 eVri TO
&lt;TToa&lt;?
Kal Kara
ev pev TO \eyo-
pwTov
6
v7roKelfj,6vov
&lt;f)rj&lt;rlv
oj&lt;?
rj
Swa^ei
crdo^a
Sevrepov 8e VTTOKei^evov TO iroiov A/3i&lt;TTOTeXr;9 t Si o KOIVWS r) co? v^icrraro K.T.\. Similarly Arist. Metaph.
1044 a 15 distinguishes irpwrr] and oiKeia v\rj and ib. iv. 24. 1023 a 27 says that material origin may be TO TrpwTov yevos 1} /COT specified in two ways r) Kara (ITTai Ta Til TT)KTCl TO VGTaTOV 6i8o9 olov CTTl flV % uSaTo? (i.e. brass as being fusible comes from water) COTL The point of view of PosieK ^a\Kov o dvopids. 8
VII. 4.
&lt;W?
eo&lt;?
donius
is
different
&lt;avTTjv&gt;
he holds
&ia&lt;f&gt;epeiv
TI}V
ovaiav
T?;?
TTJV
7rivoia
Stob. Eel.
Wellmann (Neue
Jahrb.
vol.
115,
p.
it is
a necessary inference
97
with
Kotvctif TTOLOV,
is
and
V\TJ
with
/Siax?
TTOLOV,
is
but this
distinction
whether KOIVWS or
ISlax;,
entirely as Dexipp.
shows.
50. Chalcid. in Tim. c. 292. Deinde Zeno hanc ipsam essentiam finitam esse dicit unamque earn communem
substantiam, dividuam quoque usque quaque mutabilem partes quippe eius verti, sed non interire, ita ut de existentibus consumantur in nihilum. Sed ut innumerabilium diversarum, etiam cerearum figurarum, sic neque formam neque figuram nee ullam omnino qualitatem fore censet fundapropriam menti rerurn omnium silvae, coniunctam tamen esse
esse
et
:
semper et inseparabiliter cohaerere alicui qualitati. Cumque tarn sine ortu sit quam sine interitu, quia neque de non existente subsistit neque consumetur in nihilum, non deesse ei spiritum ac vigorem ex aeternitate,
qui
moveat earn
nonnumquam
pro portione, quae causa sit tarn crebrae tamque vehementis universae rei conversionis spiritum porro motivum ilium fore non naturam, sed animam et quidem rationabi;
lem, quae vivificans sensilem mundum exornaverit eum ad hanc, qua nunc inlustratur, venustatem. Quern qui dem beatum animal et deum adpellant.
finitam.
:
This
is
Epicurean
follows from the Stoic doctrine of the teaching unity of the world, and is connected with that of the infinity of space, cf. Chrysippus ap. Stob. Eel. I. 18. 4 p. 161, 19
it
(1
TOV Se TOTTOV
(i.e.
full
aTTetpov
H. P.
elvat,.
98
paapevov
crft)/za
ovaia
I.
fcal TreTrepaa-^evrj.
The
con
Stoic view
refuted by Lucr.
infinita
10081051, who
cludes
material. opus est vis undique KWOV TO 41 are ydp fy a-rretpov Similarly Diog. L. X. ra trw^ara, d\\ TO. oe aw^a-ra eapiapeva, ovoa.fj.ov av epeve Kevov oieaTrappeva, OVK eypvra Kara TO
thus
tyepero
TO,
d-jreipov
dvTiKOTrds. KCLTCL VTrepeioovTa teal aTe\\ovTa 51. on See etc. frag. unamque earn cerearum : wax is chosen as being one of the
ra&lt;?
most
N %
pliable substances.
Cf.
Sext. Math.
\ r
i
VII.
i
375
paXaKwX
da raro? Kr)pos...TV7rovTai pen VTTO TWOS apa vorjfiaTi close A very Se TOV TVTTOV. parallel vypoTrjTa ov avvk^i will be found in Ov. Met. xv. 169: (of Pythagoras)
figuris, utque novis facilis signatur servat easdem, formas nee ut manet fuerat, nee
cera
sed
est;
animam
sic
semper
esse,
p.
neque formam 5^ a-rroiov KOI teal 133, 18 TTfV TWV o\a)v ova- lav IOLOV ex i v elvai icaff ovov ovoev d-rroTeTay^ov
i&gt;\tjv
sed in varias doceo migrare figuras. Cf. Posid. ap. Stob. Eel. etc.
I.
11.
ovoe TroioTijTa
fcaff
avTrjv del 8
ev TIVI (T^H.O.TI
KOI TrotoTT?
elvai.
s
B"
f}
icaff
avTrjv
fj.r)T
a\\o
Arist. ap.
concluding thus: Selv ydp^ Stob. Eel. I. 11. 4, p. Kai etSou?) T^? avvooov 717309 TTJV TOV dfi^oiv (i.e. v\i)s between the two ffwuaTos v-TTOffTaa-iv. The distinction denned v\rj as o-w/xa schools is that, whereas the Stoics b it to be declared Eel. I. 11. 5 133, 16), Aristotle
132
foil,
(Stob.
p.
trtw/iaTt/c?)
is
more apparent
than
real.
99
avyxpovos rw
Oeu&gt;,
neque de nan existente : the denial of avrXco? yeveais K fir/ OVTOS is common to all ancient See philosophy. Tyndall, fragments of Science p. 91 (quoted by Munro on
Lucr.
"
I.
150),
all
these statements, there is one taproot from which they all spring this is the ancient notion that out of nothing
:
nothing comes, that neither in the organic world, nor in the inorganic, is power produced without the expenditure
of other
p.
power."
Cf.
&gt;ydp
178,
2,
TJ}V p,ev
Posidonius ap. Stob. Eel. I. 20. 7, e/c OVK ovrutv Kal rrjv et? OVK
TO&gt;V
ovra
moveat,
-non
KivrjTt/ctjv rrjs
:
naturani
the Trvevpa
it is
^f%&gt;;
is
not merely
it is
also i}rv%ij,
nay more
\6yov e^ovaa,
i.e. i/oi)?.
51.
Stob. Eel.
TU&gt;V
Be elvat rrjv
Tracrav
11. 5
dtSiov
/J&gt;epr)
Kal
ovre
ra Se
Tavrir}^
Bid
Tavrr)&lt;;
iravTos \oyov, bv evioi el^ap^evriv tcaXovcriv, olovTrep ev ry yovy TO aireppa. Epiphan. Haeres. I. 5, Diels, p. 558, ovv Kal ovros (Ttrjvwv) TTJV v\rjv (rvyxpovov Ka\wv (fracrKet
TO)
dew
VII.
tcra
Kal yeveaiv e^
L.
150,
v\r)v
over lav
(a^...ZTji&gt;a)v...Ka\eirai
72
100
v\rj
77
rj
fiev
ovv
TWV
Cup.
Be
&gt;]
r&v
Tertull. de
Praes.
7,
et ubi materia
cum
est.
c.
294, Stoici
deum
scilicet
hoc
quod
The
aTroto?
v\r)
is,
as
we have
it
seen,
is
wpia-fjievij
and
rcerrepaa-^evrj:
in
Its parts however (i.e. capable of increase or diminution. matter as seen in the lotus TTOLOV or individually deter mined thing) are subject to destruction and change. See
p.
101, n.
2.
both these Strictly speaking o-vYX^* Sicuptwrflcu the from theory of inter terms are to be distinguished of Stoicism (/epa&lt;rt? mingling which was characteristic Thus Siaipea-is is the sepa and see infra). fit
o\a)v,
ration
which have been combined by a heap of barley, wheat or beans, while Trapd6e&lt;m, e.g. fusion of two distinct substances avyxvo-is is the chemical
of
substances
which
the lose their essential properties in consequence of Eel. I. 17. 4s p. 154, Stob. process (Chrysipp. ap.
10155,
distinguished from the entire of former by its implication permeation, and from of their properties by retention the latter owing to the
14).
The
Stoic /cpao-t? or
^ui&lt;?
is
the ingredients.
52.
Stob. Eel.
I.
Zr,vwva 8e
Secret
oimw&lt;?
diro&lt;t&gt;aive&lt;r6ai
o&a) TTJV
T/JOTTT)
8e
elvat
ev
etc
rfjf
ouaia?, orav
xal
yfJ
vSup BC
101
Siapeveiv vSwp, ex 8e rov drpi^ofievov depa ylvetrdai, \eTrrvvofievov oe rov depos rrvp e^aTrreaOat, rrjv 8e fjLi^iv Kal Kpdaiv yiveadai rrj et? a\\rj\a rduv
&lt; &gt;
/j,erafto\f] crw/uLaros
o\ov
136,
8t
o\ov
re
TII^O?
elvcti
Diog. L. VII.
135,
ev
vovv
/cat
i/jLapfj,evr]v Kal Ata TroXXat? re erepat? Qvopaaiais TrpoaovofAa^ecrdai,. KCLT ap^ri? ftev ovv Kaff avrov ovra rpeweiv
depo? et? vSwp Kal uxnrep ev rfj ovrw Kal TOVTOV aTrepnaTiicov
ev rca
vypu&gt;
Troiovvra
rr]v
v\rji&gt;
TTOO?
rrjv
rwv
e^-r;?
tkcraapa 8e irepl avrwv Zr^vwv ev vSwp, depa, \e&lt;yi Trepl rov o\ov. Diog. L. VII. 142, jivecrOai Se rov Koa/j,ov
&lt;yrjv.
etra
diroyevvdv irputrov rd
crroiyela
ra&gt;
brav K Trvpos
rj ovcria rpaTrfj 8t aepo? et? vyporr/ra, elra TO Tra^f/iepe? avrov avcrrdv d-n-ore\ecr6f) yrj TO 8e XCTTTOTTOepa)0rj, Kal rovr errl 7r\eov ~\.7rrvv0ev
-rrvp
elra
(f&gt;vrd
re Kal
%u&gt;a
Kal
rd d\\a
yev-rj.
&lt;f&gt;6opds
rov Koapov
fyyo-l
ev
ra&gt;
Trepl
o\ov,
K.T.\.
33 K. ex his (quatuor elementis) p. omnia esse postea effigiata Stoici tradunt Zenon Citieus et Chrysippus Solaeus et Cleanthes Assius.
v -n-tpioSu) these words seem to refer to the periodic renewal of the world after each eWt/ptwcri? and to a
:
Probus ad Verg.
constantly recurring cycle in the course of the universe, rather than to the mutual interchange of the four elements which goes on during the actual existence of the world, cf. Marc. Aurel. X. 7, ware Kal ravra et ? dva\ri&lt;J&gt;0rivat
TO&gt;
TOL&gt;
o\ov \oyov,
Xumenius
TreploSov eKTrvpovf^evov eire K.r.\. Euseb. P. E. xv. 18. 1, dpecrKet 8e rots ap.
e ire
Kara
Trpeaftvrarots rwv d-Tro rf)$ aipea-eays ravrris e^vypovcrdai, Trdvra Kara Trepi68ov$ rtvd? rds fieylara^ et? Trvp aWeptooe? dva\vop,evwv Trdvrwv,
102
oTav
K
rpoir^
K.r.X.
The evolution
of
VOO)p
from the
-rrvp
re^viKov
is
first
TO subsequent generation of the four elements from This appears more clearly in the first extract vypov. from Diogenes than in the actual words of Zeno as
Zeno is here following very closely reported by Stobaeus. in the footsteps of Heraclitus (71-17309 rpoTral irpwTov ddXacraa 0d\.do-&lt;rrjs 8e TO fiev rjfiKrv yfj TO 8e fypurv
30) but differs from him in adopting the theory of the four elements, and to this fact is due Cf. also the the introduction of the words oY ae po?. account of Anaximenes, ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 6 a, Ai&gt;atTrprjo-Trjp,
R. and P.
jj,evrj&lt;t
dpaiovp,evov
(prjat,
eiTa
etc
en
fjid\\ov vowp,
d\\a
TOVTWV.
The dvw
fcdm
68o&lt;?
Cleanth. frag. account of the SiaKoa-prja-is, which, although not discussed in the authorities, it is right to state even if no satis solution of them can be given. (1) Is the egvfactory
7ptuo-i9 entirely distinct
appears clearly in the passage in Stobaeus, cf. There are certain difficulties in this 21.
Zeno, this question must be answered in the affirmative, but in Stobaeus it appears rather as an ordinary stage in
the Kara
6809.
That an
as regards TO ecr-^arov TOV TtyyiKov into vypov (except was taught by the Stoa is also clear from Cornut.
Trvpos)
c.
17, p. 85,
Osann.
eo-Tt 8e
Xao&lt;?
pev TO irpo
rrj&lt;;
rf)&lt;;
Sta/coo--
^4T/o-eo)9
pao-fjievov,
Tral,
a-n-o
^uo-eo&gt;9
&lt;TTIV
olovel
Kao&lt;j.,.^v
7rvp
Trdv
ei&lt;t
Kal
&lt;yevij(TfTai
ird\LV
ev
TrepioSy
rrjt
o-(3ecrdevTO&lt;;
619
vBtop"
o Sri Xa/x/Saj^et
v^Kna^vov
pepovs
ov&lt;ria&lt;;
8e \e7TTvvofjLevov
Kara dpaiwo-iv.
103
(2) Is the egvypwo-is merely a step in the creative process or is it to be regarded, as it apparently was by Clean thes,
as the antithesis of the eKTrupwacs ? Perhaps it is safest to regard Zeno as an exponent of the simple 6809 avw
Kara) and to treat the complications in connection with the ToVo9 theory of Cleanthes (frag. 24).
Tpoirrj,
rpaTrrj,
Mem.
(del. yevrjrai)
coll.
D. L.
\irrvvo^vov,
the corr. of
Wachsm.
for
the MSS. ex
coll.
The mixture
Chrysipp. ap. Plut. Sto. Rep. 41, 3. of dry substances )( icpaa-tv the
For a full discussion of the peculiar It carries Stoic doctrine, see Zeller, Stoics, p. 136 foil. with it practically a negation of the physical truth that two bodies cannot occupy the same space. Chrysippus,
fusion
of moist.
by several practical examples, one of which, from its teal yap et? obscurity, deserves consideration
:
7re\a&lt;yo&lt;&gt;
eVt TTOCTOV avTiTrapeKTaOrjaerai L. VII. 151), i.e. the disappearance of the &lt;^6apr)a-Tai (Diog. wine particles can only be explained on the hypothesis of
0X1709 00*09
/3X,?7$et9
&lt;rv^-
their equable distribution. Stein observes (Psych, nn. 29,35) that the Ionian aXXoicoo-t9 is not found in the Stoa before
this is inaccurate. Thus Posidonius, Stob. Eel. I. 25, ap. p. 178, 7, after explaining that there are four kinds of fiera/BoXr), (1) Kara Siaipecnv, (2) /car ar or o\u&gt;v d\\oiu&gt;criv, (8) Kara crvy^vaiv, (4) e
dvciXvariv,
proceeds
rovrwv 8e
rd&lt;;
rt)v /car
d\\oia)&lt;riv
Tr
ri
XXav
rou9 eVt
rfjs ova-las
53.
I.
Galen,
et9
TO
OVT&lt;O
104
id.
de nat.
St
facult.
I.
2, 6i
&
ra&lt;?
ovaias
o\wv
ixrrepov (iTrefajvaro KepdvvvcrOai, ^pi} this that o Ktrteo?. Zr/vu)v theory was ulti (Galen says took it.) Aristotle whom from due to Hippocrates, mately
The
best
commentary on
this frag, is to
be found in
Sext. Pyrrh. in. 57 62, which contains a statement and here referred to. The following doctrine refutation of the short summary will make the meaning clear Things
:
selves
Kpd&lt;ns
are
:
Troiorrjre^
them when
mixture takes place, we must either say that the oixriat mixed or that the -rroi6rijT&lt;; are mixed, or that both The last alternative is obviously or neither are mixed. same the and absurd, may be shown to be the case with
are
either of the two
first,
XetTrerat \eyeiv
on
teal
at Troiorrjre^
/cat
rwv Kipvapevwv
still
teal
at ovcriat, ^wpovcri
ot
a\\rj\(0v
more absurd.
:
if
The result of the mixture ought therefore to give us either 20 spoonfuls or 2. The whole discussion is one which strikes a modern reader as particularly barren and pedantic, but it should never be forgotten that to the
Stoics
totle s
7rot6rr)&lt;j
4809
Aris was material no less than ovo-ta. becomes a current of air or gas (Tri/eu/xa), the
"
essential reason of the thing is itself material, standing to it in the relation of a gaseous to a solid body." (Encycl.
Brit. Art. Stoics.)
54.
teal
Stob. Eel.
I.
20.
1%
p. 171, 2.
Z^wi/t
/cat
K\edv0ei
ovcriav ftera/SaXXety olov elf XpucriTTTTft) dpefftcei rrjv eV rovrov roiavrrfv traXiv teal 07rep/j.a TO Trvp,
105
Euseb.
P. E.
TJV.
(f)i\.ocr6(f)otf rr/v oXrjv ovcriav p.eraj3a\\eiv elf trvp olov elf crTrepfia teal ird\iv e /c
TOVTOV avrrjv avroreXetcr&u TI}V BtaKoa-^crtv o la TO irpoTepov ifv teal TOVTO TO S6y/j,a rcav CITTO TIJS alpeaewf ol r Kal TrpecrfivTaTot TrpocnJKavTO Lr]vwv re KOI TrpuiToi Amob. ad Nat. II. 9, qui ignem K\dv0i)&lt;i Kal Xpuo-iTrTro?.
minatur mundo et venerit cum tempus arsurum, non Pauaetio, Chrysippo, Zenoni (credit) 1
Stoic authorities for the doctrine of eKirvpwaif be found collected in Zeller, p. 164 n. 2. On this were to the who held the point they opposed Peripatetics
will
The
and even some of the later Stoics, Panaetius and Boethus, diverged from the teaching notably of their predecessors. It is doubtful whether Zeno derived
dffrdapvia of the Koafiof,
p.
21)
it
may
it
was
far
more
in accordance
with his historical position to maintain the destructibility world, at an}- rate, so long as we concede any
fire
;
if fire is
is
a mere metaphor
Marc. Aurel.
to
in.
3.
The
allude
parallel
the
etcTrvpwa-is,
which
once
as
and a contrast
c.
to their
own
adv. Graec.
ftaiveiv
TTO-
Kara ^povovs
20. 20, p. 66 D.
Justin Martyr,
Apol.
I.
follows,
Aurel. iv.
55.
c. 5,
Trjt eK7rv-
pwcrewf a7ro(f)atv6^evov dvicrTaadai, 7rd\tv TOI)? avTovf eVt rot? avTOtf, \eyca 8e "AvvTov Kal MeX^Toy eVt TOJ KUTTJ-
106
yap irdXiv rwv dvdpwTrwv rot? auTOi? teal (/u Xot? Kal TroXiVat? Kal rd avrd 7reicre&lt;r6ai Kal avrols crvvrev^ecrdai Kal rd avrd fiera-^eipieicrdat
Cf.
38,
evecrOcu
^wfcpdrr) Kal
e/caa-rov
&lt;rvv
Tot&lt;?
diroKaOicrKal Trdcrav TTO\LV Kal Kwprjv Kal dypov future in some The exact rao-Oai. cycle of the repetition have events that world s course of the already happened
O/AOICO&lt;
was maintained also by the Pythagoreans, cf. Simpl. Phys. TTiffreixreie rot? llvOayopelow, cw? Trd\w 178 a, el Be wv rd avrd dpiOfJUp, fivdo\oyevcr(i) TO paftSiov ex eei d\\a Trdvra rd Kal o/iotcy? ovra), Vfuv Kadrjfievois
n&lt;f
Ka&lt;y(a
Kal rov ypovov ev\oyov ecrrt, rov avrov elvai (quoted by The Stoics were the Zeller, Pre-Socratics I. p. 474, n. 2). in consequence of a view such to inclined more
adopt
their belief in the unswerving operation of the decrees of the consequences which destiny. Somewhat analogous are
flowed from the Epicurean theory of an infinite number of worlds: cf. Cic. Acad. II. 125, et ut nos nunc simus ad
Baulos Puteolosque videamus, sic innumerabilis paribus in locis isdem esse nominibus, honoribus, rebus gestis, isdem de rebus disputantis ? ingeniis, formis, aetatibus
The
subject
is
:
well treated
by Ogereau,
Essai, p. 70.
irapai-rrr&v
Tatian
based on the ground that there is no progress towards will be again more numerous than perfection, the bad Socrates and Heracles belong to a very small the just
:
minority.
56.
cc. 23, 24, p. 510, [Philo.] trepl d^Qapcrias KM/MOV, Beo^pao-ro? 264, 3 Bern. p. 486, Diels.
11,
foil.
Mang.
(foal
p.
/tei/roi
&lt;f)0opdv
yopovvras
VTTO
rerrdpav
dTrartjOtjvai,
peyia-rtov, 77/5
107
jjiepwv 8ia\vcre(i)S,
&lt;TKevd^eiv
Kara-
Be TO
717,
/jLev
rrpwrov
OVT&lt;O&lt;J
el
//.?}
yevecrews
dp-^v
e\a/3ev
T)
dv en avrr/s ewpdro,
rd
rf)
e
oprj Trdvr
TreStaSt
ydp
fcaO
efcacrrov
eviavrov
7T/309
o^pwv
vtyos rd
/j,ev
&lt;ravra
K^a\(tcrOat,
\e\eidv6ai
vvvl Be
;
aldepiov vtyos V7rep/3o\al fjirivv^ar eVrt TOV TTJV d lBiov elvat irdXai yap, co? efajv, ev djreipw ^povw rat? 15
Treparwv
e$&gt;vice
ejrl
Trepara iraff
fyvcns
dv
yap
rj
v8aro&lt;;
icai /j,d
rfj /3ia,
Karapdrrov(ra rd
I
fiev
e^wdev
rd Se
TO)
KoC\.a[veiv vrrep-
|
;
yd^eaOai re rrjv &lt;7K\T]poyea)v KOI ^dfo^ecrrdTrjv opvKTrjpwv 20 CVK e\a,TTOv. KOI fjirjv ij ye OdXaacra, tjBrj
(j&gt;acriv,
Kara
TJ;?
da\drrr]&lt;s
eBeBv/cea-av
erriK\v^6fMevai,
^povw
S
&5?
6\iyov di la-^ovaai,
25
I
I
ai Trepl avrwv dvaypafalcrai, /j,r/vvovcrt,v icrToplai [rrjv 8e Kai A?}Xoi&gt; wvofiacrav 81 d/j,&lt;f)OTepa)v ovofJLarwv
A.va&lt;f&gt;r)V
maTovfjbevoi
TO \ey6fj,evov,
teal
erreiBrf
ydp
Brj\rj
dvafyavelaa
eyeveTO d8r)\ovfj,evr)
d(j)avr/s
rreXayiav ^eyd\ov^ K.6\rrov&lt;s Kai /3a$et&lt;? 30 rjTreipwcrdat Kai yeyev?)&lt;70ai r?}? irapaxeiA
fjLevrjs
^u&gt;pa^
/Aoipav ou \vrrpdu
crrifj,eT
crrretpo/j,ei&gt;ov&lt;;
Kai
(frvTevo-
/LteVou?,
ol?
drTa
r^?
TraXaia?
Koy^a&lt;^
va7ro\e\ei&lt;j)8ai,
6a\arr(t)(T(i)s
-^rrj(f)l8d&lt;j
re Kai
aiyia\ovs elwdev
arro{3pdTre&lt;T0ai.
Xat p
to
OeoB/J,aTa, \i7rapo7r\OKd(j,ov
108
7rai8e&lt;T&lt;ri
eupeia? aKivrjrov
8
ev
repaf av
rrj\e-
40
AaXof
Kt,K\ij&lt;TKOva iv,
/ta/cape&lt;?
O\vfj,7T(0
(fravrov
Kvaveas
rrjv
-^6ovo&lt;f
darpov.
alvir/J,ev
rj
el
87}
/ia/c/3at? 8
peioidijcrerat,
crroi^elov
ava\u&gt;6r)crerai,,
SaTravwOjjcrerai
KOL
45
cTL /iTra?
dr;p
eic
rov icar
els
Orjcrerai 8e rcavr
7T/30&lt;?
(iTrotcpi-
Xoyw
roi(u8e
ecrrt,
/J.epij
&lt;f)0aprd
rov Be
KOCT/JLOV
eari,
50 (f)6aprof dpa
cnceirreov.
6 ACOCT/ZO? ecrrlv.
/u.epo&lt;?
o 8 inrepeOe^eBa vvv
em01
rrolov
rfjs 7?;?,
[j,etov
rj
eXarrov,
8
Kparaioraroi dp ov
ov
eea&gt;9
dadeveiav
55 dpprjicros,
peovres
el$
[77
eo-rt
rrvev^ariKo^
&vcrSid\vros]
TO/ O?,
Secr/io?
OVK
Kal
[ei@
d\\d
p,6vov
dpvrrrop,evoi,
;
\eTrrrjv
ro
ei
[*rj
Trpo?
dvk^JMV pnri^oiro rb vBiap, aKiwrjrov eadev ov^ ^(ru^t a? Kal Svcray&ea-rarov ; yiyverat fj,eraf3d\\ei yovv veKpovrat
v&lt;$&gt;
GO ola
f r v %rjv
ra&gt;
d(pr)prj/j,evov
^u&gt;ov.
a i ye
^,rjv
rravri
8f)\ai
vocreiv
ydp Kal
e-rrel
&lt;f)6ii&gt;iv
drroOvrjaKeiv
rrefyvKev.
ri dv rt?, pr)
ovofidrwv evrrperreias
7r\r)v
d\\d
G5
&lt;f&gt;0opa
ri ^prj
fj,aKprj-
yopelv
6v,
-rrvpos
fyacriv 01
opBovrat Kara
8"
rrjv rfjs
dva&lt;f&gt;6eicrrj&lt;;
vXrjs vofir)v,
d&lt;f&gt;avierai.
[ro
109
(fracri
7rda"%eiv.
TOU9
Kara
yap
rr/v
CTTI
*Iv8iK)}v
BpaKOVrds
70
avepTTOVTas
Trepl
vu&gt;Ta
ra
fieyL(TTa
TWV ^(awv
rv%r)
oieXovTas
TOV ai uaTos,
avvrovw p
ovv
Tii/o?
e%ava\ou[jievovs e/celvovs
teal
rfj
dvTe%tv
rrjv
VTT
afirj-^avLa^
75
dvaaKipriavTas
&gt;9
Trpovo^aia
Ka6iofj,evov&lt;&gt;
TWV
fMv
Bpatcovrcov, etr
fjL,rjtc6Ti
^WTLKOV
TrrjBdv
.ecrrai/at, piKpov 8
ixrrepov
teal
80
Spa /coi/re?,
oi/
irepiedecrav
&ecr/j,oi&gt;
K\veiv
a7ra\\ayt}v
rjSr)
Tro^oufre?, UTTO Se
6\LJB6fjievoi
(7Tepi(f)ov
&lt;ov&gt;
iKvcrTrw^evoi
vTTo r?;?
eV
&lt;Kal&gt;
Tefyovs
ai(f&gt;vi8iov
eTrevexOevTes
90
Bvvd^evoc rrviyfj TeXevTwa-iv.] el 8rj TWV jiepuiv e/cacrroi/ roO Kocrfjiov $&gt;6opdv VTTOfAevet, 8rj\ovoTt Kal 6 % JIVTWV 770,7619 OVK e&Tai. TOV 8e TerapTov d&lt;f)dapTos
o&lt;r/i09
Kal \OLTTOV \6yov aKpifiwTeov ei S 6 /cocr^o? d lSia Kal rro\v ye /JbaXXov TO 95 r/v, r/v av Kal TO.
a&gt;Se
(f&gt;a(Tiv.
&&gt;a
d\\wv dfieivov. dv6pw7ra)v yevos ocrw Kal Kal o^riyovov (fravfjvat, rot9 /3ov\ofievois epevvdv Ta
TU&gt;V
d\\d
et/co9 yap fj,d\\ov 8 dvayKalov dvdpwTrois ra9 Te^fa9 &)9 dv t,crr)\i,Ka&lt;? ov fj,ovov brt \oyiKy TO e/ 6ooov OLKelov a\\d Kal OTL fyjv dvev TOVTWV OVK eaTLV 100
roi)9 eKacTTtov
6eol&lt;i
xpovovs
^.
a\oyr)aavTe&lt;i
TWV
fjivdwv
.d\\o TI
%(*)ov,
WCTT
110
teal
eg
wv TO ^tdaprov
flvat,
rov
8r/\6v ecTTiv
be seen that the writer attributes to Theoviews as phrastus the statement and criticism of certain which were to the creation and destruction of the world, After opposed to the Peripatetic doctrine of its eternity. the above extract this hostile view is refuted by arguments obviously derived, in part at least, from Peripatetic
It will
sources
1
,
although the
introduced.
name of Theophrastus is not again The question arises, assuming the good faith
of the extract, to
whom
do these
criticised
views belong
by 429 and by an ingenious process of reasoning he concluded that Zeno is the philosopher who is here attacked. First, the four arguments, by which the proposition that the
is mortal is supported, belong to the Stoic school. for cannot belong to a pre- Aristotelian philosopher, They the doctrine of the eternity of the world and of mankind, been broached against which they are directed, had not
first
raised
Zeller in
Hermes XL 422
world
b before Aristotle (see de Caelo I. 10. 279 12) of the postAristotelians they obviously alone suit the Stoics, who
;
were alone in holding the periodical destruction of the The second argument, built on the retrocession of world.
the sea, finds a parallel in the views of a world-flood
attributed to the Stoa by Alexander Aphrod. Meteor. 90 a m.; and the dialectical form in which the third and
fourth arguments are couched suggests the same origin. as to Again, the authority of Diog. L. VII. 141 is conclusive
the third argument, and the terminology of TOI/O?, added TTvevpa, and irvev^ariK^ 8uz/a/Lu&lt;?, to which may be
et&lt;?,
Stoic.
undoubtedly being proved that these arguments belong to the Stoic school, Zeno is the only Stoic whom Theoovtria,
ai&gt;a&lt;/&gt;#etcr77&lt;?
v\r)&lt;;,
and
&lt;J&gt;v&lt;rei
oiiceiov, is
Next,
it
This point
is
1.
c. p.
424, 5.
Ill
phrastus could have criticised, for the latter died in 01. 128, that is between 288 and 284 B.C., at a time when
Zeno
For
the avoidance of a direct mention of Zeno, if such was really the case in the Theophrastean original, Zeller quotes the parallel cases in which Aristotle combats the views of
name.
Xenocrates and Speusippus without referring to them by As an additional circumstance pointing to Zeno s
authorship,
we may
refer
to
the
form in which
the
This is syllogism introducing the third argument is cast. one of those breves et acutulae undoubtedly conclusiones, so often mentioned by Cicero as characteristic of the style of the founder of Stoicism and of which
addition to those
in
Cicero)
Empiricus and This is perhaps the right place to observe that a supposed frag, of Zeno, extracted by Wachsmuth (Cornm. I. p. 8) from Philo de Provid. I. 12, and to the
Iritrod. p. 33.
Sextus
argument here, can no longer be as to Zeno on the authority of that regarded belonging after the passage explanation of Diels, Doxogr. Gr. proleg
p.
same
These views of Zeller have however been vigorously criticised by Diels (Doxogr. Gr. His main pp. 100108).
contention
is that the authority of the compiler of the pseudo-Philonian treatise is too weak to support so im portant a discovery as the alleged controversy between Theophrastus and Zeno, of which no trace has come down to us from other sources. He does not believe that this
had ever read Theophrastus, and suggests that, name of Theophrastus attached to the first two arguments in some work of Critolaus, he left his readers to assume that the elder Peripatetic was really responsible for those passages in which Critolaus himself
"
nebulo
"
finding the
112
attacks what
is is
The
result
27 in the body of that Diels, though he prints cc. 23 his work, does not believe that they contain (even after from the allowing for later accretions) a genuine excerpt it is Now Eresian of the philosopher. Bo^ai
(frvcriKal
obvious that
are only concerned with the question of the fontes of the Philonian treatise and its general credi in so far as its solution enables us to authenticate
we
bility,
Thus, altogether its appearance in this passage, the Zenonian from apart is extremely authorship of the syllogism in 11. but also internal from not indications, only probable VII. Laertius of 141, 142 the evidence of because Diogenes
4850
ovv yevea-etos (observe especially the words Trepl Brj TOV Trepl teal TJ;? tcovpov facrl Zijvow tv But, as to the general body of the fragment, the o\ov). case is different if we cannot trust the good faith of the
rrj&lt;j
T&&gt;
&lt;f&gt;0opa&lt;;
of the refutation writer, as giving us a genuine statement it may well Theophrastus of his opponents doctrine,
by be that the two earlier arguments represent early Ionian, views (with Stoic additions), and possibly Heraclitean, that in the later portions we have the work of one of
Zeno s successors
the other hand,
as set out
if
by a
Theophrastus
is
to exposition of all four arguments, they certainly belong as that and teacher, a single teacher or a single school, has been shown above, must be Zeno. It is therefore
of Zeller s rejoinder necessary for us to consider the tenor in Hermes xv. 137 146, which, briefly stated, resolves itself into a theory as to the origin of the pseudo-Philonian
treatise.
He
fully
is
admits the
many
absurdities
with
which the text strewn, but argues that they can all be eliminated without interfering with the nexus of the
arguments
113
not of great value, was at least a clear and trustworthy exposition of the views of the Peripatetic school, to which the writer belonged, but that the sequence of its thought has been distorted and its whole character changed by the blundering additions of a later hand. We are able to
recognise in this treatise the work of two distinct authors, the first probably an Alexandrian philosopher of the latter half of the first century before Christ, and a contemporary of Arius Didymus and Boethus, and the second an Alexandrian Jew of the first or second century of the Christian era. The references of the writer to
original
Greek philosophy are found to be correct in all cases where his statements can be scrutinised by the light of
other evidence
:
of Theophrastus
To
test
this
require a thorough examination of the treatise in question with reference to the suggested additions, an examination
which Zeller expels from our extract, and which may be fairly said to be typical of the accretions in the
general
would be out of place here. But we can gauge the character of the proposed explanation by the three passages
which
body of the work. All three are certainly futile and purposeless, but that which is especially remarkable is the manner in which the course of the argument is improved by their removal. In particular, the long digression about the and the Indian elephants prevents the con ^serpents clusion founded on the of the several
destructibility
elements from following in natural sequence the last of the arguments by which this destructibility is proved of each element in detail. The latest treatment of this question is to be found in von Arnim s Quellen Studien zu Philo von Alexandria Hi(Berlin 1888) p. 41 foil. believes that the compilator of the treatise only had later
^
Peripatetic writings
H. p.
before.
the Stoics, who on their side had apolemic against from Heraclitus dopted these four arguments, perhaps on very inadequate and Empedocles. Finally he suggests, of Tarsus was the particular that Antipater grounds (p. 47), If this theory is Stoic whose views are summarised.
correct, it is certainly
pre-Aristotelian
an extraordinary coincidence that have selected from the older philo Theophrastus should which go to prove the sophy four particular statements, that the Stoics should and the of world,
destructibility
support of their
appears to
me more
11.
Zeller s opinion still theory. also Stein, Psych, n. 86, reasonable: see
own
who has
8.
syllogism in
rd
33
cf.
35.
SRTI
Cornut.
c.
17.
p.
85 Osann, ra 8
opr)
(yeryove)
p.
Kara
e%o&lt;rrpaKivnov
rfc 7^9.
238, ra opt]
/cat
eo%a&lt;?
ras
*yryfrr|To)(e76i;eTo
indicates
that
the
process
would
ago. tinction
i.e. long have been already complete at the time specified the dis action In the case of verbs denoting an
aor.
with uv
is less
apparent,
Dem. Timocr.
p.
746
146,
H,5
81,
VTTO
tyi\f)&lt;&gt;
ee&&gt;&lt;?
208). 54.
imvjiaTiKis r6vos
if this
thes
to Zeno, we have an indica passage belongs for the pupil, tion here that the master prepared the way The words however may in any case cf. Cleanth. frag. 24.
:
passing away has el yap peoc TO Plato even yet Ant. 256. \irr^v KOVIV, cf. Soph.
56.
peovrts
87
D).
W
32. 442.
58.
avo\.
cf.
dW|u*v
the illustration
is
suggestive in connection
cf.
For pnrL^otro
vir
eiceivov.
frag.
106
dvapiTri&nevov
60.
iHt^v
appears
Cf.
to
c*rptas.
&5
Plat.
Euthyd. 305 E,
ical
ydp X ei
OVTOK:
Kpirwv
evTrpe-rretav
is
there
had explained
definition
Zeller,
1.
manner
of Prodicus.
For the
ejected
dv not
full
cf.
c.
M. Aurel.
Kal add.
IX. 2.
6991
85.
99.
tical.
*is
by
5v add. Diels.
89.
Bernays.
The
r,&lt;rav.
equivalent to wo-Trep
&5?
ei
but
iiv el
ellip
*6?
&lt;roi
rjv
tV?-
\iKS
eavrriv eTrirptyai,
ireCaaipt KOIV$ Xen. Mem. H. 6. 38, 7} av a-rpaTrjyLKw Kal 7ro\iTtK$ where see Kuhner. In this way is to
I.
be explained Thuc.
102.
"Deesse
33.
1.
explica-
117
hoc
manerc quia inhaereant ei elementa e quibus generantur ut dixit cresccrc quidem, sed ad interitura materiae
non pervenire manentibus elementis a quibus revalescat. If taken literally, the doctrine here referred to would
be inconsistent with the destructibility of the #007x09, which, as we have seen, was held by Zeno again, ele
:
undoubtedly perished. We must suppose therefore that Zeno is speaking not of the visible world, but of the
universe,
L. vil.
137
the
first
of these
is
= PX" According to Diog. used by the Stoics in three senses: avrov rov deov rov etc r^? drraari^
-
ova-ias
t8w9
TTOLOV 09
S?}
dyevvr]TO&lt;&gt;,a,i\d
here.
If this
explanation be thought impossible, we can only suppose that there is a confusion with Zeno of Tarsus who is said
to
Zeller, p.
have withheld assent to the doctrine of the etcTrvpaxTis, 168 n. 1. Stein, Psych, p. G4 and n. 92, thinks
that Zeno held that at the eKrrvpwcn^ the various mani festations of God world-soul, ^0709 o-rrep pan/cos etc.
lose
34, n. 42.
Diog. Laert.
(fir/a-lv
Vil.
143,
on
re et9
e&lt;rriv
(6
I.
ZTJVWV
Stob. Eel.
22. o b p.
199, 10, 7ii]vwv eva elvai rov KOO-^OV. This was one of the points which distinguished the Stoics from the Epicureans, who held that there are an
infinite
number
:
of worlds.
the
notes
the
characteristic
crvp,Tra6eia fJi&pwv or
Zeller, p. 183 and and important view of avvrovia is one of the developments
See further
introduced by Cleanthes.
118
59.
Y^vwv
Be
KtTiey?, airo
TIV
Trpoiepevov afrepp-a \oyitcov Kal avro \OJIKOV ecrriv o Se /cocr/no? rrpoterai cnrepp,a \OJLKOV- \oyiKov dp ecrnv Cic. 6 /edoyu&gt;9. crvveiadyerai Kal 77 rovrov
a&gt;
V7rapf;i&lt;&gt;.
quodque rationis est animantem se ex id compotempotest expers, generare que rationis. Mundus autem generat animantes compoN. D.
II.
22,
nihil
quod animi
tesque rationis.
rationis.
Animans
est igitur
mundus composque
need not infer from this passage that Zeno ex for pressed himself to be adopting Socrates argument, in the preceding paragraphs in Sext. 1. c. 92 f. the passage 2 5. 8) is set out and referred to (Xen. Mem. I. 4
8 Kal ravra ei Stw? on parallel passage is T&J cnw/^art 7roXX^9 OU CTT/? e^et9 K.T.\. 7779 re p,iKpov /j,epos eV
discussed.
We
The
evTv^aJs TTW? oofceis (rvvapTrdaai, KOL rd8e rd vTrepfAeyedr] Kal 7T\7;0o? aTreipa cf. Sext, Bi d(f)poa-vvr)v rivd, a5? oiei, evrdicTW e^eiv
ere
,
Math.
6eov.
ix. 77,
M. Aurel.
iv.
n. 53.
TOVTOV.
The
the world
relation of
plausibility suggests rov Stoics argued from the existence of God that must be reasonable and vice versa. For the
God
60.
"
Cic.
Mundi autem
sensu
Cf. Sext.
Nullius sensu carentis pars aliqua potest esse sentiens. non igitur caret partes sentierites sunt
mundus."
Math.
IX. 85,
a\\a Kal
\oyiKi?"
77
ra?
\oyiKa&lt;;
oloi&gt;
irepie-
^ovaa
KotTfJiov
(f)v&lt;reis
irdvrws eVrl
ov ydp
Kal
re TO o\ov
rj
el
down]
ecrrt (frvcris
TOV
Kat
voepd
re
ecrrai
cnrovoaia
dOdvaros.
119
t ei ]
T ^ ^-oyt-Kov TOV
Kai ye Koa/Jiov /cpetrrov ecrTtV \oyiKov dpa o Kocrfjios. TO Kal eVt TOV voepov (acravTfas yap e^-^rv-^ia^ yLtere^ot TO?.
voepov TOV
fir]
KpeiTTov
teal
e&lt;TTiv
eyu-T/ru^o?
voepov Kal TO efAifrvjfpv TOV /U,T) e^^v^ov ovSev oe ye KOCT/J,OV KpeiTTOv voepos apa Cic. N. D. II. 21, quod ea-Tiv o Arocr/io?."
quam
id
Nihil autem
mundo
dus utitur.
Alexinus the Megarian attacked Zeno s position with the remark that in the same way the world might be
The
it is
abstract TO
TTOLTITLKOV is
better than TO
TTOI^TLKOV or TO
ypan/jLaTiKov than TO /u,r) ypa/j,/j,aTi/c6v otherwise Archilochus would be better than Socrates, Aristarchus than
For the feet cf. Diog. vn. 1. c. 108110). Kal TOV o\ov KOCT^OV orj yov ovTa Kal e /u/^ru^oz/ Stein adds Philo, de incorr. m. p. 50G Kal \oytKov K.T.\.
Plato (Sext,
139, ovTW
M,
Kal
o KOCTfjiOf
Kal
7T/30?
aX\,d
voepos
8e
Kal
1.
&lt;f)povin,o&lt;s.
Siebeck refers to
Arist. de Gen.
An. n.
731 b 25, TO
epvv
TOV
62.
7ji]vwvi
TOV
avTov
TU&gt;
\oyov e^eOeTO
(frrjcriv
(scil.
TTOLV
Ka\\i(TTOv eivai
Kal
KaTa
aireipyaafjievov epyov
KaTa TOV
s
\oyiKov. Hirzel
theory,
II.
p. 217, 218,
world ep.^rv^ov and \oyiKov only but not ^wov is con The troverted by Stein, Psych, n. 82 from this passage.
passage in Plato, part of which
is
quoted by Sextus,
is
120
Timaeus,
this
p.
and the
Cic.
A,
B which illustrates
iv. 40.
63.
solet,
N. D.
II.
Idemque
:
num
? quaedam quid ? si platani ndiculas ferrent nuraerose sonantes, idem scilicet censeres
oliva
tibicinii
scientia
in platanis inesse musicam. Cur igitur mundus non animans sapiensque judicetur, quum ex se procreet animantes atque sapientes ?
apoph. 19.
Trvpivov
Stob.
Eel.
i.
23.
1,
p.
200, 21,
Z^vwv
and
Stobaeus couples Zeno with Parmenides, Heraclitus Strato. For the Stoic authorities see Zeller, p. 201.
65.
129
e,
Ktrtei)? ouro)?
O"^arov
avrov wpicraro
teal
TO
ov
TT\TJV
ev
o&gt;
ecrrt
Trepie^ei
yap Trdvra
repov
e&lt;rri
avrov
aXX,
TrepieicriKov.
cf.
aiet pos
TO ?arxaTov:
is
The
Zeno
genitive
aether."
This
the extreme part of the partitive becomes clear when we remember that
:
closely following Aristotle here, cf. Phys. iv. 5 KCU Sid rovro T; fj,ev yrj ev rw vSari, rovro & ev rut depi, ouro?
is
ev TO) alBept, 6 8
ovtceri ev d\\(f).
8*
ra&gt;
ovpavos
ovpavw
jrdvra
I&lt;TU&gt;S.
wcpUxtu
may
be found in the
teaching of the Pythagoreans (Zeller, pre-Socratics, I. p. 465), but there is possibly also a reminiscence of Plato, Timaeus 31 A, where ovpavos is spoken of as TO
121
cf.
M. Aurcl. vin.
deov
54.
TOV o\ov
8e
Zijvcov
(770- 1
1.
29, p. 38,
1.
The
Stoics held
6&gt;eot)?. .
TOV
Kocr/jiov
is
God
Kal Tr)v yrjv. In so far as daTepa&lt;? manifested in the world, the world is God. Many
p.
Kal TGI)?
more references are given in Zeller, Kal TOV ovpavov are added because
157.
it
The words
the material
in
essence of divinity exists in its purest form. Diog. L. VII. 138, ovpavbs 8e e&Tiv 1} e cr^ar?; Trepufiepeia, ev rj rrav SpvTai TO delov. Hence Chrysippus and Posidonius
I
spoke
139). Certainly, if these words are pressed, pantheism, involving the identification of God and matter, is distinctly at tributed to Zeno. that Zeno Wellmann, p. 469,
(ib.
of the ovpavov
as TO
suggests
is
may
really only
formed out of
through a confusion of subject and predicate interpreted this as a definition of the essence of God. Another
possibility is that Kooyio? is used in the same sense as in See also Stein, Psychologic n. 88. frag. 71. 67.
Stob. Eel.
i.
TWV 8
ev
Kocr/Aw
Ttjv
TrdvTcov
KCLT
ISiav
e^tv
crvve&lt;TTU)Ta&gt;v
ra
tj&gt;opdv
%eiv
avTov TOV
TOV
Koa-fjiov
TO TOV o\ov pecrov, 0^0/61)9 8e Kal Siojrep opdws \eyecr0ai, jrdvTa TO, f^eptj
els
KOCTfJiOV
%eiV, 5
TavTcv
CLITIOV elvat,
Kal
dTreipw Kevw, Kal T?;? yrjs jrapaev TW KOCT^W Trepl TO TOVTOV KevTpov Ka9i8pvov Trayrty? 8e aw^a ftdpos iVo/cparftj?. e-^eiv, dX\" elvat, depa Kal irvp Telveadai 8e Kal raura TTW? 10
[Aovrjs ev
122
eVt TO
TJ/&lt;?
(Tvcrrao iv TT/DO?
rrjv
Be
&lt;f)v&lt;rei
fiijBevos
Be
TOUTOt&lt;?
o08
avrov
15
/3apo&lt;?
eyeiv Sid TO
TT)I&gt;
T6
rrjv aftapaiv. /9apo? eyovrwv &lt;Troi%i(i)v 8 oX?;!/ 7771^ /ta^ eatT^i/ pev fyeiv dpeo-xet, /3apo? ?rapa Be decnv 8td TO rr]V /jLea-rjv ^atpav (Trpo? Be TO pevov
r&lt;ov
elvai teal
etc
rrjv
%ei,v
elvai rrjv
&lt;f&gt;opdv
20 rovrov
2.
neveiv.
trvvfo-Tomov.
This
is
where opposed
4.
to
&lt;rvvd7rre&lt;r0ai,
iravra rd
(x^pri
K.T.\.
called
by Diogenes
(vil.
140)
rwv ovpaviwv
is
?rpo?
rd
eTriyeia o-vfnrvotav
teal (rvvroviav.
of the microcosm
one dis
of the world is at crepancy, in that while the r/yefjiovitcov the its extreme periphery the ^ye^ovitcov of man is in
breast.
an Stein, Psych, p. 211, finds in this passage earth the this inconsistency by making attempt to remove the central point from which all motion originates and to
which
9. 01
it
returns.
oi
ivTs
Si
K.T.X.
i.
14. 1
f.
p.
142, 9,
STOU/COI Bvo pev K rwv recradpwv (rroi-%eiwv Kovfya Be fiapea vBwp ical yrjv. ycip Trvp teal depa Bvo Be TO iBiov rov o dirb vevet /u-ecrou, irrrdpxei fyvcrei,,
KOV&lt;J&gt;OV
ei&lt;?
/3a/&gt;i)
light peaov, our use of the words, but absolutely, implying motion in an outward or upward direction. Cic. Tusc. I. 40, persuadent
i.e.
is
opposed to
mathematici...eam naturam esse quattuor omnia gignentium corporum, ut, quasi partita habeant inter se ac divisa momenta, terrena et umida suopte nutu et suo
et in mare ferantur, pondere ad paris angulos in terram una una animalis,...rectis duae ignea, partes, reliquae
123
ipsa natura superiora adpetente, sive quod a gravioribus leviora natura repellantur. N. D. n. 116, 117. The Stoics were following
caelestem
locum
subvolent,
sive
I.
19. 1, p. 163,
9,
rrjs
8e
Kara
CLTTO
TOV
/jiecrov
^ivecrdai, rrjv Se
e-Trl
TO
/jieaov, TJJV
CLTTO
depo&lt;?
TOV
Se Trepl TO /jiecrov Trupo? fj,ev ovv KOI /jiecrov, 7779 Kal uSaro? eVl TO pecrov, TOV
TrefjiTTTOv Trepl
10.
Ttivfa-Qou.
MSS.
ylveo-0ai, a correc
tion
more probable
for
more
p.
attractive than
Meineke
Ktvelcrdac.
apa
Kal TO
e%u&gt;
tcivovpevriv.
44. 7.
1054
K,
the The explanation is as follows KivovfMevov K.T.\. natural motion of the elements is restrained and modified
by the continual process of change (yiieTa/SoX??) by whose Fire and Air are is formed and exists. into Water and Earth and transformed perpetually being
action the world
their upward tendency has time to assert themselves itself, they becoming possessed of /3apo? start Thus each of the four direction. again in the opposite elements is apparently stationary and remains constant thus, before
:
in reality its
Cf.
in continual motion.
6, a passage too is supported by the This explanation quote. long statement which is attributed to the Stoics by Stobasus,
Chrysippus
to
that at the
(Eel.
I.
I.
e /cTrupcocrt?
the world
is
18.
b. p.
21. 3 b,
/j,iJTe
cTe Be o-vo-Te\\ea-dai.
s explanation (on N. D. II. 116) that all-pervading aether, while it has a naturally ex-
124
has also a strong pansive and interpenetrative force, cohesive force and thus holds all things together round See also M. Aurel. XL 20. the centre."
11.
&lt;rtaCpas
:
the world,
cf.
Stob. Eel.
15. 6
vii.
ot STGH/COI a-(f)aipoei8rj
TOV
140, Cic.
N. D.
I.
24, hence
TTIV
et o-iv:
and
TO pecrov, but owing to the accident so tends to move of its position in the centre of the /cdoyio? its natural motion has no opportunity of becoming apparent.
TT/JO&lt;?
18.
vii.
(w o^v.
cf.
Diog. L.
68.
Stob. Eel.
I.
p.
146, 21, T^rjvwv efyavice TO 142, 12, TO pev Treptyeiov is only true of Trvp
Trvp
Kar evBetav
Cf. Stob. Eel.
tciveicrdat.
I.
14.
1.
f.
p.
Kar
,
ev6elav...KiveiTai.
for
This
motion
evOeias
in the
Aristotle.
the aether or Trvp re-^viKov has a circular same manner as the TrefiTrrov awfia of So Ar. de Caelo, I. 2. 9, TO re jap Trvp eV
avw
Stob. Eel.
fiev
I.
69.
18. l
p.
teal ot
air
avrov 6^-09
(iTreipov.
TOV
e!~(i)
icai Siatyepeiv Be icevov, TOTTOV, ^wpav xevov elvai eprjplav (TW/JMTOS, TOV Se TOTTOV TO
TO
-%&lt;apav
TO
etc
Cf. Diog.
VII.
140,
e j;&lt;i)dev
&e
pepovs e avTov
ev
OTrep
acrw^iaTov elvat
&e TO olbv T
KaTe%e&lt;jdai
Se T(O Koa-fAw fjujBev elvai KCVOV. Pint. plac. I. 18, ot STOU/OH fires fiev TOV Koa^ov ovSev elvai icevov, e%u&gt;6ev 8 avTov
aireipov.
M. Aurel.
X. 1.
IV. 14, e
125 avrov
existence of void within the world motion was impossible (Lucr. i. 329 foil., Reid on Acad. I. 27, n. 125). The Stoics
were unaffected by this argument in consequence of their doctrine of Kpaais Si o\wv, see further on frag. 50, supra.
Aristotle denied the existence of void altogether either
\upoiv.
The
Stoics
were
terms
in virtual
:
agreement
see
Sext.
cf.
Emp.
adv. Math. x.
For a
1
fuller
exposition
18. 4
p.
161, 8,
Kevov to an empty, TOTTO&lt;? to a full, and x (*) P a to a partially filled vessel, cf. the similar views of Aristotle quoted by R. and P. 327.
who compares
70.
Themist. Phys. 40
Speng.
II.
Ka& avro
TU&gt;V
TOV
ap^aiwv rives, per a ovpavov, &k Trporepov fiev a/ovro r be ravra oi rrepl /ir)vwva rov Kirtea. Philopon. on Ar.
Phys.
IV. 6. p.
Ktrtea ovroo
TWV
KaO
avro) So^d^eiv.
dpxai&lt;ov
believed in
called Kevov
cratics
I.
an aireipov
71.
&lt;/&gt;77crt
Stob. Eel.
I.
25. 5, p. 213,
/cat
r&lt;av
eivai
voepov Kal
(frpovi/Jiov
15, Zijvwv rov rj\iov d\\(DV aarpwv eKaarov ovo Trvpivov rrvpos re^vLKov.
et9
yap
eavro
rrjv rpo^rjv,
TO Be re^viKov, av^r/riKov re Kal rrjprjriKov, olov ev Tot9 0fTOi9 eaTt Kal coot9, o Si] (pvcris ecrrt Kai
126
evdl
TTJV
rWV
(UTTpfOV
rrjv fj.ev
rrjv
d.Tr
&lt;f&gt;epecr6ai,
dvaro\i)v,
rrjv 8
evavriav
e/c-
etc
%o)Biov
fiTd/3aivovTd&lt;t.
rd^ 8
Trepl
Tovrciiv ^i^veadai,
&lt;rvv6Sov&lt;;,
8ta&lt;/&gt;op&lt;u?,
tfXiov
pkv
/cat
ra?
8
0-6X77^779 Be trepl
ra?
Travcre\rivov&lt;;
yi&lt;yvea-6ai
^V
dp&lt;j&gt;oTep(i)v
ra?
p.
e/cXei ^et?
/cai
/u,ei
bi/&lt;?
eXarroi;?.
e&lt;f&gt;ria-ev
&gt;Stob.
Eel.
I.
2(5. 1,
219, 12,
Zqvw
Trvpivov Se Trvpbs re^viKOV. dcnpov voepov in the external periphery are situated mjpivov: they
tcai fypovijjiov
of aether, and are themselves composed of the same sub The later Stoics, at any rate, held that the stance.
heavenly bodies are fed by exhalations of grosser matter, and hence their differentiation from their environment.
Cf. Cleanth. frags.
8vo ^VTI
&lt;j&gt;v&lt;ris
20 and 30.
cf.
refers to
&lt;f&gt;vrois
and
^u%7
is
to
%a&gt;ois
cf.
fr;ig.
43.
The
&lt;j&gt;op&lt;is.
first
movement
from east to west (from one rising to another) the second is the orbit described Kara rov &lt;pBuucbv KVK\OV, occupying For the either a year or a month, as the case may be.
Zodiac
vir6
cf.
TO!
These
used as
is
7,
is
where see
note.
The whole
Eel.
I.
especially rov...KO(Tp,ov ro fjiev elvai Trepifyepofievov Trepl TO TO 8 VTTOfjievov 7Tpi&lt;f)ep6/j,evov iikv rov aldepa VTTOfjL&lt;rov
fjLevov
ra
eV
avrijs
vypd
rd
tcai
rov aepa...ro
&&gt;
8e
7repi&lt;j&gt;ep6fj,evov
avTaj
eyKVK\io)&lt;f
aWepa
elvat, ev
ra
darpa
KadiBpvrat, rd T dir\avrj
fcal
7r\ava&gt;/jLeva,
Oeia
127
ovra KOL
e/jb^rv^a
real
Sioitcovfjieva
Kara
TTJV
Trpovoiav.
u8iov:
dictum"
according
to
Diels,
the
ace.
et?,
is
"insolenter
but
it
has been
pointed out to me that the true explanation of the ace. is a measure of is to be found in the fact that
&lt;aSt,ov
space
Hippol. Haer. v. 13: we should not therefore compare (jLeraftds ftiorov Eur. Hipp. 1292, which is in any case different. For the fact cf. Diog. vii. 144.
30
p,o2pat,
TCIS 8
KXft\J/is
(it^ovs Kal
Narrows
entire
and
partial."
72.
(i.e.
&lt;[iie
Cic.
N. D.
I.
36,
idem (Zeno)
astris
hoc idem
vim divinam)
mutationibus.
astris.
annorumtaught
On
the Epicureans
move
in
consequence of design.
rivd avvecnpan-p.eva
rrjv
KKTr)/j.eva
Kara
the seasons
as divine
annis: probably Zeno did not stop to enquire whether etc. were corporeal or not: he regarded them
"als
und des
(Krische, p. 389). Chrysippus must have been hard pressed when he delivered the extraordinary opinion quoted by Plut. Comm. Not. 45, 5 (see Zeller,
Mondes"
Stoics p. 131).
899
B,
dcTTpwv 8e
fMijvutv
17
Krische appositely quotes Plat. Leg. x. p. Brj Trepl Trdvrwv KOU creX^yr/? eviavrwv
re Kal
teal
iraawv
a&gt;pwv
Trepi,
epov/^ev
7rdvTO)i&gt;
Tovrcav
ainai
efyavrjcrav,
dyaOal
&lt;f)r/&lt;TO[j,ev,
elre ev
awpao iv
OTTTJ
evovacu,
^wa
:
re Kal OTTOK
In Sext. Math.
is
128
quoted of the Sorites type, disproving the existence of God. If the sun is a god, so are days, months and years. This the Stoics might have admitted, but he concludes
thus:
\eyeiv,
a~vv
rr/v
TO&gt;
Be
eo&gt;
droTTov elvai rrjv ^ev rj^epav 6eov elvat Kal rrjv fiea-rj^^piav Kal rrjv
73.
Diog. L.
VII.
145,
6,
e/cXetVetj/ Be
rov
/j,ev
tf
7ri7rpoadova-rj&lt;?
avrw
ffe\^vr)&lt;;
Kara TO
Trepl
7rpo&lt;?
T^a
yap
eo?
Tii^vwv
dvaypd^ei ev
rat?
&lt;rvv68ois
TO&gt;
o\ov.
(^aiverai
7rapa\\drrovcra.
e ^oua?;?.
rrjv Be creXr/vrjv
TO
TT;?
66ev
Kal
Tat?
trava e\T/voi&lt;;
eK\etTTlv
fjLrjva
Kaijrep
TCO
r)\i(p
on Kara \oov
ru&gt;
7rapa\-
\drret
"ir\drei
6rav
Bid
/LtefTOt
iieawv
ftopeiorepa rj voriwrepa yivofAevTj. TO TrXaTO? avrijs Kara rov r)\iaKov Kal rov elra 8ia/j,erpjjcrr] rov ij\tov rore yevijrai
tion of the
The eclipse of the sun owing to the interposi moon between it and the earth is a doctrine
by Stobaeus to Thales, the Pythagoreans, and b C Empedocles (Eel. I. 25. 1 3 3 ): the same explanation was also given by Anaxagoras (Zeller, pre-Socratics II. p. 361). The same account is given by the Stoic in Cic. N. D. II.
attributed
103, luna...subiecta atque opposita soli
radios
eitis
et
terrae,
cum
repente
rais
&lt;rvv68ois
Rep.
I.
25,
Pericles... docuisse
quod ipse ab Anaxagora, cuius auditor fuerat, exceperat, certo illud (eclipse of sun) tempore fieri et necessario,
12.9
cum tota sc luna sub orbein solis subiecisset: itaque, non omni intermenstruo, tamen id fieri non posse
certo intermenstruo Thuc. n. 28. tempore. 2(5. 3, v, cf. Stob. Eel. i. p. 221, 23,
T&gt;]v
etsi
nisi
Xpvannro&lt;;
ae\r)VrjV
T&gt;/9
7*7? aVTr)
common
observa
tion:
cf.
Thuc.
50,
77
/jLr/vrj
K\L7rei
eTvj^ave yap
vii.
7rai&gt;(7e\rjvo&lt;;
ovaa.
Kara.
Xooi):
p.
144, see
Krische
Sid
889.
scil.
(Ato-wv nothing distinctively Stoic in these explanations. Zeno was simply repeating the ordinary scientific theories of his age. Epicurus
There
is
gave
is
one (Diog. L.
8e
x. 96).
Diog.
L.
vii.
153,
rj
154,
da-Tpa-n-^v
e^a^ru&gt;
TrapaTpifiopevcov
V TO) TTCpl
s
rj
0\OV
w?
K
pqgew
pent
Cf.
I.
TTTJV ega-friv
r}
/uaTo?, /3povrr/v 8
TOVTWV ^ro^)ov...orav 8e
TOV
TTvevpaTOs (popd &lt;T(j)o8pOTepa yevrjTai teal 7rvpw8ij&lt;f, Kepav vov aTTOTeXdadai. ib. p. 234, 1 where the same views are attributed to ol STOM/COI. Here again there is nothing specially characteristic of the Stoa: Epicurus, as was his wont, gave a
them
number of possible explanations and amongst these: see Diog. L. x. 100103, cf. Lucr. vi. 90 f.
1
(lightning), 246 f. (thunderbolts). Lucan r. 151, qualiter expressum veutis per nubila fulmen aetheris impulsi sonitu etc. Aristoph. Nub. 404 foil.
(thunder),
02
f.
H.
P.
130
75.
Senec. Nat. Quaest. vil. 10. 1, Zenon noster in sententia est: congruere iudicat stellas, et radios inter se committere: hac societate In minis existere imaginem
ilia
stellae longioris.
On
seem
to
Trvyttivias
have deviated from the teaching of Zeno, considering his view unsatisfactory: thus Diog. VII. 152, jco/uqra? Be Kal Kal Xa/r7raS/a* Trvpd elvai vfavrwra, Tra^ou*
rov alOep^Btj rorrov dveve^Oevrot, cf. Stob. Eel. I. 28. 1* p. 228, 6, BoTjtfof depot avrjupevov fyavraaiav. Sen. N. Q. vil. 21, placet ergo nostris cometas. .denso aere
depot
ei?
.
creari.
76.
Stob.
Eel.
I.
8.
40 e
p.
104,
7,
Zryi/aw
aTtavra
rdov
Kal rd
ovra
elvai.
}iev
&gt;
Simplic.
rrdaTjs
ad Cat. 80 a
7rX&5?
4,
Be
^.rwiKwv Zt jvatv
rov
Ktvr
)(T(i&gt;&lt;;
Biuarrjaa
vai wno g oes on to ^J XP VOV the definition by adding the words limited Chrysippus rov Koa-fjLOV. Cf. Diog. vil. 141, en Be Kal rov xpovov
d&lt;T(afj.arov,
^^
idarrip.a
ovra
rijs
rov
KOO-/J.OV
KIVJJ crews.
Varro L. L. VI. 3 (quoted by Mayor on Cic. N. D. I. See dicunt intervallum mundi motus. 21.), tempus esse Sext. also Zeller p. 198 and add Plotin. Ennead. in. 7. 6,
Prof.
Math. x. 170 f. Zeno held as against Pyrrh. in. 136 f. existed from eternity, and that it is that time Chrysippus
not merely coeval with the phenomenal world. Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 223225.
^Kewrra is
Stein,
wanted:
has
21).
added by Wachsm. and some word is clearly Posidonius however in reproducing the clause
TO
OTTO)? e-%ei
It
emvoov pevov (Stob. Eel. I. H. 42, p. 105, seems better to remove the comma usually placed
131
much on
Thuc.
II.
the genitives depend at least as OTTW? ^X ei as on /^erpov Kal Kpirtjpiov, cf. e.g.
*x
T(
00. 4, &5?
ot
"&gt;
e/cacTTo?.
is
must be corrupt, as some verb balance ylveo-dai and elvai. Usener suggests
airavra
required to
diraprL^ecrOat,,
cf.
(iTraprLa-fjiov.
Chrysipp.
77.
2,
triginta saeculum
multum videntur
enim tempus genean vocari Heraclitus auctor est, orbis aetatis in eo sit spatio. orbem autem vocat aetatis dum natura ab sementi humana ad sementim revertitur. hoc quidem geneas tempus alii aliter deh nierunt. Herodicus annos quinque et viginti scribit, Zenon triginta.
yenean
reckoning
r/oet?
:
as
recorded
by Herod.
ICTTL.
II.
yeveai
yap
&lt;iv8p(av
eKaTov ered
Heroclitus
this
S7,
: for the other authorities which attribute statement to Heraclitus see Zeller pre-Socratics n. ]. n. 4 and frags. 87 and 88 ed. By water.
sementi: saeculum
"
"
is
this supports the derivation from sero, satus (Curtius G. E. I. p. 474 Eng. Tr.). For examples see
generation
and
the Lexx.
Selymbria see ]). Biog. Zenon: according to Wachsmuth Jahn proposes to substitute Xenon, but the agreement with Heraclitus rather points to the founder of the Stoa.
:
78.
Stob. Eel.
1.
10. 1, p. 149, 8,
V^vwv
6 ^.TWIKOS
v\r)s.
rd
Trpwrovs
elvai
a-^Tj^aria/jLov^
T//9
The
132
15. 5
and in Galen
10. XIX.
258 Kuhn.
extracts appear to represent all that is Stoic theories about colour: for the Epi
Lucr.
II.
795
foil.
Stein, Erkeuntnistheorie
that 310, rightly observes that the definition, implying s Zeno indicates colour is an actual attribute of matter,
reliance on sense-impressions.
79.
ill.
2.
(ill.
36), Diels p.
TT&gt;)
592,
ra&lt;?
OIK
e&lt;f&gt;
Be
pei&gt;
e&lt;/&gt;
ijpiv
T(t Be
OVK
r^ilv.
have already seen that Zeno held *a0 elfiapfjievrjv TU -rrdvra ^veadai, frag. 45. How then are we to free reconcile with this doctrine of necessity the fact that limited a in even degree ? will is here allowed to mankind with simile The Stoic answer is most clearly given by the
We
position,
cf.
Hippolyt.
adv.
xad eipapplvijv
elvai Travrtj
TOIOVTW oTt BiefteftaioHravTO TrapaBeiy/J-ari ^p^ffd^evoi, edv @ov\r)Tai KVWV, pev edv $ e^pTrj^evos uxnrep oxwaTOS avTJ~ovreal TO -rroiatv e-rre-rai Kal kictav, eTreo-Oat icai e\KeTai
aiov fieTa
@ov\r)Tai
Kal
e-rri
r^&lt;?
dvd^Kt]S olov
T?;?
el^apfj,evT)^
edv Be pi]
orj
7rea-6ai
Trdinw
-jrdvTWS
dvayKaa6&gt;]creTaf
TO av-ro
TTOV
TWI&gt;
dvdpwTrwV Kal
M
els
The
dvayKao-6ij(rovTat simile itself very possibly belongs to Cleanthes as it Chrysippus accords exactly with his lines in frag. 91.
with the difficulties in which he was struggled vigorously involved in maintaining this theory: see the authorities Stein, Erkenntnistheorie collected by Zeller p. 177 foil. the introduction to Cleanthes who ascribes
pp. 328332, to notice of the Stoic answer to the dilemma, has omitted
133
the present frag, and does an injustice to Zeno in asserting that the conflict between free will and necessity never presented itself to his mind.
80.
iv.
10,
Zenon
Citicus,
Stoicae sectae conditor, principium huinano generi ex novo inundo constitutum putavit, primosque homines ex solo
adminiculo divini
This doctrine
cf.
frag.
5G,
man
is being discussed, otyfyovov in that passage must not be supposed to be at variance with this the argu ment there is simply to show that the world cannot be
:
without beginning, because facts show that mankind has not existed from eternity. Zeno is, therefore, distinctly
in
opposed to a theory of progression; mankind was produced the first instance, when the primary fire was in full
;
sway, and was entirely formed out of the divine essence the inference must be that men have degenerated through
the assimilation of coarser substances, and in this con nection we may perhaps point to Posidonius belief in the
popular view of a golden age, when there was a complete supremacy of wise men. Senec. Ep. 90, 5. There is a
parallel to this passage in Sext. Math. IX. 28 where the arguments given by various schools for the existence of gods are being recited, T&V 8e vewrepwv crrwuewv Tives TOI)? TTpwrovs KOI yr/yeveis rwv dvOpunrwv Kara TTO\V TWV vvv crvvecrei Siafapovras yeyovevai, w? Trdpeari
/jia0elt&gt;
$&gt;aai
T&gt;/9
i]fjLwv
7rpo&lt;?
TGI)?
dp^aiorepov^
teal ?;p&)a?
Klvov&lt;t,
wajrep
T?;?
TreptrTov aladrfT^piov o"%6vras rr/v o^vrijTa Biavoias 7Ti(3e/3\rjKevat. rfj 6eia (f)vcrt, /cal vorja-ai
6eu&gt;v.
rt
riva? Sut-c/^ei?
Cf.
Cic.
Leg.
I.
24.
Tusc. in.
2,
celeriter
134
malis nioribus opinionibusque depravati sic restiuguimus, ut nusquam naturae lumen appareat. For the anthropo
this passage see Stein, Psych, p. 115. logical aspect of
81.
Varro de Re Rust.
II.
1, 3,
sive
enim aliquod
fuit
ThalesMilesius principium generandi animalium.ut putavit exstitit horum et Zeno Citieus, sive contra principium
nullurn,
ut credidit
Pythagoras Samius
et
Aristoteles
Stagirites.
It is obvious that only in its
on the hypothesis of the world without beginning is the doctrine present form being
human
10 279 b 12)
to
that
none
of his
Unless therefore be without beginning to reference Aristotle is mistaken, the Pythagoras in the
sense.
p.
and especially pre-Socratics I. pp. 439442 439 11. 2 and for the similar case of Xenophanes ib. At 570: see also Newman on Ar. Pol. II. 8 1269 a 5.
Zeller
with the great majority of any rate Zeno is in agreement for the him: before went who those early philosophers held action the was life animal that the most part produced by of the sun s rays on the primitive slime, as Anaximander, Archelaus (Zeller 1. c. I. pp. Xenophaues, Parmenides, and
255, 577, 001,
II.
p.
Diogenes
Somewhat similar were the of Apollonia (ib. I. p. 296). views of Empedocles and Anaxagoras (ib. II. pp. 160, 365).
82.
I.
p.
121 E Si?
e-rrra
&lt;9
Tore yap 6 reXeto? eV rnjiiv (i7ro&lt;f&gt;aiverai \6yos, ApiffroKal 7jr]vwv Kal AXjc/MU&P 6 Ylvdayopeios fyaaiv. Cf. Stob. Eel. I. 48. 8, p. 317, 21, TrdXiv roivvv irepl TOV
vov
Kal
7racr(Jui&gt;
135
TOI&gt;
\eyov(TL
/AI)
evdvs
TTO
efA&lt;f)V&0ai
\oyov,
varepov Se o-vvaOpoi^ecrdat,
CTLWV Trepl
tcaO
TWV
SeKareaaapa
errj.
uv
rwv
Trpcorrj
(This points to some slight divergence in the school itself as to the exact period of life at which 6 ^0709 reXetourat secus Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 116, but how can
:
7r\r]povadai
=
"begin"?)
fywvr]. ..CLTTO
r/ris (ITTO
is
reXeiovrai.
The mind
at birth
a tabula rasa
lies in the application of 77^0X^6^9 and which are themselves ultimately founded on external impressions, cf. Cleanth. fr. 37 dvpaOev elaicpivecrdaL rov ovv. The present fragment has been generally overlooked.
reason
ei&gt;voiai,
is
pp. 521
526).
For
83.
P.
E.
xv. 20,
^rv^rj&lt;^
2.
Ar. Did.
p,ev
fr.
phys. 39,
Tirjixovos
Diels
470, Trepl Be
K^eavdrj^
ra
7rpo9
(TvyKpicnv
rijv irpo^
rou9
on
yap
e^fyavicrai,
on
yivovrai etKacrev
Kal
OVTCOS
TTOTCI-
voara
cnv
i
[j,ev
^rv^al ovv
vypwv
a
rrjv
o/ioi&)9
TCO
Hpa/cXetVw
Zrjvcov,
(iLcrdrjTifCTJv
8e
\eyei,
on
rwv ovrwv Kal vTrap^ovrutv Ota rwv TrapaBe^eaOai r9 TVirwcreis ravra yap
136
:
the MSS. have aia-drja-tv 77 but the correction iiv (made by Wellmann p. 475 and Zeller p. 212) is rendered certain by the parallel passage in ps-Plut. vit. horn. c. 127,
rrjv
^fv^rjv
01
^.rcaiKol
opl^ovrat
Trvevpa
(ITTO
Kal
&lt;ru/i&lt;/&gt;ue&lt;&gt;
rwv
ev trw/nart
vypwv.
avaev|ia&lt;riv
:
cf.
Ar. de
Anim.
elvai
I.
2.
16.
405 a 25,
eiTrep
ical
H/3aXetro&lt;?
Be TTJV
r*&lt;?
dpyyv
("
&lt;f)r)(ri
"^rv^v,
TTJV
dvaOvfjLLacnv, e
fies
raXXa
avviaTrjaiv,
"
i.e.
Aristotle identi
Wallace) with TrOp. Zeno adopts the word as an apt description of the warm breath of which the soul is composed.
dva0v/j,ia(ri&lt;;
the
fiery process
The soul s rational power is constantly renewed vopa. the fiery process, because it is fed by the emanations by from the Trepte-^ov according to Heraclitus or from the
moist parts of the body, i.e. the blood, according to Zeno. In this way Heraclitus explained his famous saying avrj while the Stoics ty v X r 0"0(o&gt;TaT77 (frag. 74 ed. Bywater),
l
from their point of view regarded the excellence of the soul as consisting in a suitable admixture of heat. Stein,
Psych,
p.
105.
is
no
avrds:
principle
of
fravra
no
less
to
the
than to
/cat
the
world
thus Arist. l.c. continues dtrui^arutrarov re Kal peov dei TO Be Kcvov^evov Kivovpevw ycyvoocrKea-Oai ev Ktvr)&lt;ret
B* elvai
rd ovra xaKeivos
it is
The
soul
is
voepd because
in flux.
For
402
A,
eo&lt;?
HpaXe6T09...7roTa/zoi)
819 e? rov
\eyet
P26.
Ko...dvaevpnivrai.
words
to
fr.
:
42 ascribes these
the importance of
this will
appear presently.
137
:
i.e.
in the
same sense
as Heraclitus
the latter
however would not have called the soul ala-Byrucy, dis tinguishing as he did between sensation and knowledge wra fiap/3&lt;ipovs (iv6p(aTcwv o(f)0a\/j,ol Kal
:
frag.
p.
1
cf.
frag. 7,
and
for airo
TWV OVTWV
K.T.\. frag.
11.
84.
Rufus Ephes. de
(f)r)criv. Oep^aaiav This passage has been discovered by Stein, Psych, 81 to whose remarks the reader is referred.
ed. Clinch,
n.
85.
Diog. L.
riijv
VII.
7ri&gt;eviJ.a
evdepfjiov elvai
"^rv^v.
yap
eivac
r//ji(i&lt;;
/J,TTVO-
rovrov Kivel&Oai.
Cf. Alex.
TIJS
IK.
STO&lt;&gt;
7TJ&gt;evfjia
ed.
Bruns,
01
a-jrb
eli&gt;ai
av^K.eip.e
re TTu/30? Kal depos. Sext. Pyrrh. II. 70, eVtt ovv TI Trvev/uia Kal TO ^yefAoviKov i] \.7rTOfj,pea-Tep6i&gt;
K.T.\.
If
Heraclitus denned the soul as Trvevpa, this is doubtless either due to Stoic influence or is a mere gloss on ava-
Qv^lacns
see the
reff.
in Zeller pre-Socratics
ix.
II.
p.
SO
363 (leg. with rd TWV is as the a mistake, dealing passage 361) is is the dissimilar Not OVTWV (TToi^ela. Epicurean defini
Diog. L. X. 63, 77 ^^^77 a-w^d eVrt XCTTTOTrpocrefM^tepe? Trap o\ov TO adpoicr/jia TrapecrTrapfMevov 0tpe cTTaToz/ 8e TrvevfiaTL depp-ov Tiva Kpdcriv e-^ovTL. Sext.
tion of the soul
:
Emp. Math.
yap ovaai
dvw
/j,d\\ov
138
viro
il
^-
91
Cic. Acad. I. .89, (Zeno) statuebat igncm esse naturam ipsam quae quidque gigneret et mentem atque sensus. Fin. IV. 12, cum autem quaereretur res admodum
86.
difticilis,
quinta quaedam natura videretur csse ex qua ratio et intellegentia oriretur, in quo ctiam de animis cuius generis essent quaereretur, Zeno id dixit esse ignem.
Tusc.
I. 19, Zenoni Stoico animus ignis videtur. See also Stein, Psychologic p. 101.
num
87.
el Be
Galen
plac.
Hippocr. et Plat.
(v.
fiev e
at/zaro?
0?;cra&lt;Ti
It is
ovatav 5
avT^
by the blood was held by Heraclitus and from him derived by Zeno. The only authority, besides the doubtful passage of Arius Didymus (frag. 83), from which it can be argued that such a view belonged to him is Nemes. Nat. Horn. c. 2 p. 28 (quoted by Zeller, preof the soul
Socratics
II.
p.
etc
80) Hpa/cXetro? Se
rrjv
rov Travros
"^v^r/it
dvaQv/j,iaaii&gt;
to distinguish the individual soul from the world-soul and states that the former is composed Vo rr;9 e /cro? (dvaOvfjudaew^}.
It is best therefore to
:
innovation
the moist particles rising from the watery zone which they enclose, so is the fiery soul fed by the moist blood
an organic whole, and the microcosm of the individual is an exact parallel to the macrocosm of the universe. Further references ap. Zeller p. 212 n. 2.
thus
in himself to this passage, Wachsmuth (Comm. I. p. 10) that there is here a confusion between Zeno of suggests Citium and Zeno of Tarsus, but there is no necessity
man is
With regard
130
adopt this supposition: that Zcno held the soul to br fed from the internal moisture of the body, which must be the blood, is clear from frag. 83 even if we leave out of
account the
frag,
next following.
ap. Euseb. P. E.
vefMear/creie
88.
fj,ev
crtfroSpa
/cal
avri^
(scil.
^L% /?)
8ia\e%6ela-L
rrjv
ravTov
d/jL(pw
rov
crrepeov
a/ /xaro?
eivat,
"^v%rjv
(prjaacri.
&lt;ydp
Theodoret,
934 Migne,
(JArivwv
eivac rrjv
but
crw/LtaTo?
is
yields
no
made by
Stein,
and is confirmed by the passages which he cites from Marcus Aurelius (v. 33, vi. 15). arepeov at/iaro? is rather an odd expression, but was probably introduced
107,
as \7nofjiepecrTarov 7rvevfj,a. by way of contrast to For d /jL(j)fi} Viger suggested d^olv, but the word is some
"^fv-^rj
times indeclinable.
Tertullian do
89.
sit
Anima,
c.
5,
um
modo
instruit,
:
"quo"
consito inquit "digresso animal ernoritur, corpus est emoritur: consitus animal autem spiritu digresso ergo
sjiiritus
corpus est:
consitus
autem
ergo
coi
pus
est
anima."
Macrob.
Zenon
Cf.
(dixit
33,
^typicryu-o?
&lt;To
^rv xfis
aTto crwfAaTOS
ov8tv Se
&gt;/iaro9
^wpl^erai
ov&e yap
rov trw/aaro?.
ado/aa
dpa
Y)
~^~v^.
See
Zeller, Stoics
140
p.
frag, will
concretum or consitum
Hipp, et Plat.
eart,
crv/j.&lt;f)VTOV
corpori spirituni
(V.
= Chrys.
rj
ap. Galen.
Trvevfid
287
Kiihn),
T&&gt;
^v^t]
r^lv
cTwe^es Travrl
cjuo digresso
by
Zeller).
For
Tusc.
I.
a\\o
TI (r/yovfj,e6a
f/
rrjv
rtj&lt;f
90.
Chalcid. in Tim.
c.
animam
esse
moritur
anima
est.
Tertullian
(fr. 89) are derived from a common original, as in their but, present form the syllogisms are directed
to distinct
points,
it
them
separate.
Be
91. Galen, Hist. Phil. 24, Diels, ovaiav avrijs (tyv%fjs) oi (icrwp.aTOv
/Ltei&gt;
p.
613,
TJV
e&lt;j&gt;acrav
w?
01
avrov.
au&gt;^a
Mod. 30
Kara 8e
ovpevov.
rov&lt;t
STOH/COI)&lt;?
croiifia
Whatever may be the right reading, crwpa wanted as well as eroj/iara to point the seems certainly For the doctrine of the soul recontrast with Plato.
141
garded as the principle of movement, see the summary of the views of previous philosophers given by Arist. de An. I. 2. 26, 403 b 27404 b 7. That the soul was selfbeing the principle of motion, was a dis Platonic dogma, Phaedr. 245 C, prj d\\o n tinctively elvai TO avro eavro KLVOVV r) ^rv^t iv. Legg. 895 A, -^rv^v
moving
as
made use
For
Kal
of to prove the immortality of the soul. the Stoics cf. Sext. Math. ix. 102, TTCKJ^
"fyvxrjs
)}
yap
Karap-^i] rrjs Kivrjcrea)^ yiveaOai So/eel afro rjye/jLoviKov, and the references collected by Stein, Psych, nn. 217 and 221 to which add M. Aurel. v. 19.
&lt;ucrew?
The theory
as on
of rovos throws an entirely new light on this, many other Stoic doctrines, which were originally
Stob. Eel.
I.
d\\d ^ev
ol
ye
TO)
a-wfJia
^rv^v
voovcri,
rs"
BwdfAeis
Ttjv
w? ev
V7TOKeifJ,va&gt;
TTOtor^Ta?
ovcriav
Trpov7roKei{A}&gt;rjv
St
dfj,&lt;f)o-
repcov
TOVTWV avvderov (frvcriv e dvo^oiwv avvdyovcnv. This distinction we have already TroioT^Tas...ovo-iav.
met with in frag. 53. It properly belongs to the depart ment of logic but, in consequence of the Stoic materialism,
it
The pp. 105, 127, Reid on Cic. Ac. I. 24 foil. activities of the soul bear the same relation to
as a whole, as the qualities of to its substance hence Sext.
:
the soul
yap
^rv^rjv \eyea~6ai
Kal Kar
VT]v
ISi av
:
TO re crvve^ov rrjv 6\rfv crvy8f^&lt;w? TO rjye^iovLKOv. for the significance of this expression,
142
93.
N ernes.
f&gt;r]criv
p. 96, Zijvcov
8e 6
is
rjyffjLoviKov
Kal
etV
cuV6tycret&lt;
Kal ei? TO
I.
Stub. Eel.
TI]V
^fv-^t}^
ol
GLTTO
/iijvwvos OKTapepr)
8vvdfj,ei&lt;f
Biaoo^d^ovcrt
&lt;rjv&gt;
ra?
TW
\6yov.
opjj.ij&lt;;,
they are not identical, as the passage in Stoba-us shows. Sext. Emp. Math. vn. 237, Kal yap
&gt;
opurj
elcrl
Kal
r]
crv&lt;yKaT(i6cri&lt;i
Kal
77
/caraX^^tv erepotwcret?
TOV rjyepovtKov.
of local extension (see Zeller, p. 214 n. 2) the Stoics held the unity of the soul as an essence see especially
Stein, Psych, pp. 119, 122, who suggests "soul-functions" as a more suitable expression for the Stoics than parts
"
of the
T&lt;J
soul".
^Y*H
LOVIK&lt;
&gt;
"We
term r/yepoviKov is Zenonian. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie nn. 219 and G93, is inconsistent on this point, in the
and
former passage attributing its introduction to Cleanthes in the latter to Zeno. It is very possible that Cleanthes first spoke of TO rjyep.oviKov TOV KOCT^OV, which with him was the sun, in furtherance of his view of
man
as a microcosm.
94.
Tertullian de
Anima,
c.
14, dividitur
autem
in
partes nunc in duas a Platone, nunc This passage is at variance with the account given by Nemesius. Wellmann, 1. c. p. 476, prefers the authority
in tres
a Zenone.
of Tertullian, thinking that the three divisions in question are the ifyepoviKov, the &lt;P(I)VIJTIKOV, and the (nreppaTiKov,
and that the five organs of sense were regarded by Zeno as parts of the body, though the centre of sense resides
143
1.
c. On the other hand Weygoklt, r/&lt;ye/j,ovitc6v. and Heinze in Bnrsian s Jahresb. I. p. 191, think Nemesius more trustworthy than Tertullian, and certainly the better opinion is that Zeno taught the eightfold division (see Stein s full discussion, Psych, pp. 158 160). It is just possible that the triple division mentioned by Tertullian is (1) TO ijyepoviKov, (2) the five senses, and (3) the voice and the reproductive organism, and that, if
p. 30,
we were
Plato
s
in possession of the
itself.
full
If all that
we knew
of
psychological divisions
in this
passage and a statement that he divided the soul into \6yov evpv, dvfAoet&es, and eTriOvftrjTiKov, we should have had
some
Hirzel,
II.
p.
154,
155 appears to be unaware of the passage in Nemesius: he accepts the evidence of Tertullian, but explains it as
Ktrtei)? 6
voj
Epiphan. adv. Haeres. in. 2. 9 (in. 36), Zrjvcav v ..Seiv. ..e^eiv TO Oelov ev fjiovw rw STOHKO?
e(f&gt;i.
rjyeia Oai.
fjierd
rov vovv.
eari,
yap dOdvaBe
ercaXei rrjv
fyv"%i]V
/JDJV
eKBcnravdrai yap a(f)6aprov 8S cA,ou e\eyev avr^v elvai. (Jf. VTTO rov TTO\\OV ^povov et? TO d&lt;paves, w? tprjcri. in. cum contra Acad. Zeno 17, 3S, quamobrem August,
sua
([iiadain
de
mundo
et
maxime de anima,
sententia
esse
propter
quam
vera
philosophia
vigilat,
delectaretur,
rnortalem, nee quidquam hunc sensibilem mundum, nihilque in eo agi nam et deum ipsum ignem putabat.
praeter
;
nisi corpore
TO 0iov:
cf.
:
n-oXvxpoviov
Cleanth. frag. 21, Stein, Psychol. p. 97. the language of this extract recalls the
Phaedo
to Socrates
proof of
144
the immortality of the soul p. 87 A 88 B, recapitulated ro Be a7ro&lt;paivetv on by Socrates p. 95 B E, cf. especially Kal r)v en trporepov KOL OeoeiBes evriv ri rj tyv xf)
io-yvpbv
TTOIV
7;/itt9
ravra
eo-nv
firjvveiv
^rvxn&gt;
irdvra ovBev Kd)\veiv dv6p(i)Trovs yevecrdai ori Be dQavacriav fiev /JLTJ, TroKv^povLov re
(f&gt;r)&lt;;
*a *
tcai
tf
Kal
ySei
re
Tporepov d^-^avov oaov xpovov For the zrrparrev TTO\\CL drra K.r.X.
v 7rov
haec permanere, sed deinde tractu temporis dissipari in variation considerable was There opinio Stoicorum. soul of the members various of detail among the
:
as -^povov
nvd
Siapevetv
have
ov...a4&gt;6apTov:
above.
ually
it
The
^rvyr}v fjierd
soul never perishes entirely, although event vir. 156. passes into a higher power, Diog. Odvarov eTTipevetv, (frOaprrjv Be elvai. Stein
Psychol. p. 145.
96.
ofttB?
0X771;
II.
p. 30, 24,
a\V
ftev i/TTO\i7reraL Tt? ajroXoyia KKpdcr0ai 8\ov rov o-w/iaro? faiatcovn r-qv -tywxfiv Kal rrjv rov o~wyKpip,aros prj -rroiovvri. e^oBov avrijs dvev The passage of Aristotle is de An. I. 3 6, p. 406 a
Si"
&lt;}&gt;dopds
30
the
65,
movements
its
will
by leaving
raffBai
it.
el
rd reBvewra
tywv.
We
might
therefore
14o
moved
by the doctrine of
52.
He
u\wv, for which see on frag. seems to refer to the Stoic view of the soul as
the bond of union for the body, so that body cannot exist qua body without the presence of soul, cf. Iambi, ap.
Stob. Eel.
I.
oi)?
8e pia
TO) crwfJiaTi.
&lt;7u&gt;^a
TU&gt;
yap Trporepov TO avrdov (TOOV -fyvxwv) aXX, avral StaKpaTriTiKov i]v The best illus &lt;T(t)/j,aTi (rvp-^ovf)^ r/crav aiTLai K.T.\.
Sext. Math. IX. 72, ouoe
tration
however
is
23-i,
&lt;$&gt;a&lt;rl
yap
^v^v
\eyea~0ai Si^oj?, TO re crvve^ov TI]V o\r)v avytcpicriv /tal Kar ISlav TO rjyefjbovtKov. oTav yap eirrwfjLev crvvecrTavai,
TOV av6pw7Tov
yjapicr^ov
etc
rj
"fyvvfis
crco/Ltaro?,
Stw? Ka\ovfjiev TO
JJLOVIKOV, the meaning of which passage seems to be that only the r^ye^oviKov and not the whole soul is said to
depart, inasmuch as the corpse must possess avveKTiKr/ for otherwise it will be ovva/jw; in the form of
eft&lt;?,
altogether
p.
non-existent.
105
foil.)
But
present passage, since the change of TO avve%ov from t is TOV o-vy/cpl/uiaTos (for &lt;f)6opd ~^ V &lt;j)0opd
&lt; &gt;
")C1
Lactant.
Inst.
vu.
7.
20,
Esse
inferos
Zenon
:
et illos (juidem quietas et delectabiles incolere regiones, hos vero luere poenas in tenebrosis locis atque in caeni
c.
54, quos
cum
10
illas
14G
a sapientibus multo superioribus erudiri adfirment. erit scholae regio in tanta distantia diversoriorum ?
qua
Hirzel thinks reliquas animas ad inferos deiciunt. of the souls of the lost in Aen. that Virgil s description
vi. is
treatment of popular religion in this doctrine of Zeno and that which appears in those passages (to be presently
considered) where the attributes of the popular deities are explained away by rationalistic allegory. He compares the spirit of the present passage with the Platonic myths,
by Grote "fanciful illustrations invented to expand and enliven general views," and suggests that it may have occurred in the TroXtreia, which Zeno, as we are told
called
by Plutarch, directed against the Platonic school (see It is certainly Hirzel, Untersuchungen n. pp. 25 31). that have attached credible Zeno can any philo hardly
sophical
and
it
is
belief in a
scientific
matter which could not be formulated with See also Stein, Psych, p. 149 and precision.
162, who infers that Zeno agreed with Chrysippus rather than with Cleanthes in the controversy appearing in Clean th. frag. 41. The general view of the school was
that the soul after death ascends to the upper aether and is preserved there among the stars to which it is akin
Sext. Math. ix. 73, 74, Cic. Tusc.
I.
42, 43.
98.
147
KOI
(f)a)vrjv
Ka\ovcnv,
ecrri rrvevp,a
/
y\a&gt;rr r]s
KOI
rwv
99.
Eustath.
in
Kavravda
"
(frcovr)
drjp
This
frag,
is
Sound
taken from Wachsmuth, Comm. I. p. 12. produced by the breath coming in contact with
is
;
in the case of
an animal the
air is said
is
man
KOI
CLTTO
1.
c.
passages quoted by Stein, Psychol. n. 248. Cf. Plato s definition, Tim. p. 67 B.,
&lt;f&gt;a&gt;vr/v
oX&&gt;?
ph
re
is
ovv
Kal
ddofiev rr/v 81
wrwv
dico^,
VTT
depo&lt;?
ey/ce&lt;f)a\ov
7r\r)&gt;yr)v
SiaStSo/j,evr)v.
fywvrj.
firj
Ar. de An.
8 discusses -v^o^o?,
V7rofjiVT)
and
Sound
(
formed
orav
8ia%vdfj
3, p.
419
b 21):
(
voice
e/^-^rv-^ov
9, p.
420
b. 5)
and
is
minutely described.
Galen, Hipp, et Plat. plac. n. 5, v. p. 241, K, vrro rwv arwiKutv \6yo&lt;; 6 Z^fty^o?... a l &$ Sid y X P %wpei. el 8e r/v TTO roO ejKecf)d\ov xwpovaa, OVK dv Bid (pdpvyyos eywpei.
100.
o
6avp,a^o[Jievos
"
4&gt;o&gt;vrj
&lt;f&gt;dpvyyos
oOev
8e
\6yo&lt;f,
Kal
(frwvr)
eKeWev ^wpel.
eyKe&lt;$d\w
\6yos 8e
earlv
r)
d-rro
diavoias
It is
*%o)pel, COCTT
OVK ev rw
Suivoia."
tempting to suggest that ^0709 and fyiavr) have changed places: the argument would certainly be more cf. the transparent if the transposition were made
:
following passage in Galen, speaking of Diogenes Babylonius odev e /c7re/u,7reTat rj (^wvrj, Kal 77 evapOpos OVKOVV
:
102
148
Kdi
r)
TOVTO oe
/cat
rj
KOI Xoyos
trceWev
&lt;ipa
eKTre /iTrerat
Wev
Galen
also
comment
is
necessary
d^iu&gt;ij.ara,
either e or VTTO ought to have UTTO, which is ambiguous been used, in which case the argument could never have The gist however of his stood the test of daylight.
argument against Zeno, which is given at some length, is that Zeno has been deceived by the following fallacy
:
66ev
\6yos
tKTrefjiTreTai,
e /cet
TU&gt;
Bei KOI
fiopiw.
yap
ei
Tt /cara irpoaipecriv
KaT
eicelvo
TO
poptov
Sei/cvvTai
ov&e
rj
Kopv^a ovSe
is
TO diroTraTrip,a.
Wachsmuth quotes
in
argument
which Zeno s
mentioned, but they add nothing to the words cited above. Chrysippus, and after him Diogenes of Babylon (Cic. N. D. I. 41), laboured to prove that the birth of Athene from the head of Zeus in no way conflicted with
their view that the breast
p. 364).
name
(Zeller,
137.
101.
n.
5,
v.
p.
247,
iip,a
7^vwv
TW
Kal
Xpi;crt7r7ro&lt;?
TW
oiaoi8o&lt;rdai
TTJV
etc
TOV
Trpoa"-
Trecro/
fiopica
Kivr)&lt;ri,v
et?
TT/V
atcrdrjTai TO fyjjov. {ip-yr}if T^? "^f~v)(T]^, occurs in the course of the discussion This passage
as to
and buivoia as a parenthetical argument, and Galen objects that there is no perceptible interval of time between the impression and the sensation. Cf. Pint. plac. iv. 23. 1, impressions are made on the organ of sense but
&lt;f&gt;d)vr)
149
Philo de mund.
frag.
3).
in the
i}&lt;yepovucov.
114
Pfeiff.
(quoted on Cleanthes,
See
102.
Galen,
Zrjvu&gt;v
Hipp,
et
Plat.
plac.
nr.
5,
v.
p.
322,
Ku hn,
o re
vrpo? TOI)?
eTri\a/A/3avo/Aevov&lt;&gt;,
"
on
Trdvra
rd fyrovpeva
tcaraTriverai
?;?
",
ei&lt;?
TO arofjua (pepei, efpr/crev dX)C ov rravra ovre T??? Karcnrocrews d\\u&gt;s civ olfceiorepov
rov
ovre
rwv
rjpJlv
prjOevrcov,
riv,
el
/u,/}
et?
ravra
irdvra
(frepeTai.
&lt;|&gt;pi,
so
Miiller for
MSS.
as
(frepeiv.
though Zeno
dX\" ov Trdvra to (peperai, but, if the context is read, at once plain that I. Miiller is right in putting the inverted commas after KarairiveTai. Chrysippus, who is
it
being quoted,
is
aiming to prove the location of the 7776by the usage of ordinary speech
: r
Karcnrivei.v rr]v %o\r)v cnradvaftaiveLV rov dvfjiov KaraTTiwv ro pdy/^ara Kararriveo-6aL dTrr)\6ev:
e.g.
pr)0ei&gt;
then comes this reference to Zeno, and the conclusion ovre (freperai is the inference drawn by Chrysippus from the facts stated. Still, it is by no means clear what was
the force of the objection
Miiller
made
Zeno
to
Zeno
or of his rejoinder.
reprehendentibus, quod omnia, quae in quaestionem vocarentur, in ore gestaret, non ornnia a me devorantur, apparently at, inquit, Zeno the subject of (pepei, but the Latin is in making other respects hardly less obscure than the Greek.
:
translates
Et
old
punctuation,
"
interprets
and suggests (freperai for fyepeiv, but what he deduces from the passage meaning I do not understand. In this perplexity, the following
affectus
explanation
is
suggested.
Trdvra rd
^jrov^eva
is
the
150
subject of
and the objectors say: all objects of are ultimately concerned with the mouth. investigation L. and S. ol 7ri\afi^av6^evot are the see For pet
&lt;e
Epicureans,
who denied
(rfxovri)
and
11
Sext. Math.
vm.
and
Trepl rfj
X. 33, TTO.V
evapyes eVrt.
But
this
with the most absolute credence in every sense-perception. To the Stoic, however, not every fyavraaia is evapyrjs, but Hence Zeno s reply only that which is Kara\r)7TTiKrj. swallow we can t however this may be, everything, xara:
substituted for /cara\a/j.^dvTat, just as Some confirmation of this guess takes the place of of TO fyrovnevov, r)Tctv, in the recurrence found be may
TTiverat
is
&lt;f&gt;a)vij.
&lt;rr6fj.a
etc. in
XL
21).
Epicurean texts (Diog. x. 33, 37, 38, Sext. Math. If Muller s punctuation is adopted, this fragment
ought rather to be numbered with the diro^OeyfjiaTa, but, in a matter of so much uncertainty, I have not ventured to remove it from the physical fragments, among which it
is
placed by
ovrc
"
Wachsmuth.
"
would not be correct to speak of swallow or imbibing another s words, in any other case ing el p.ij) the dominant part of the soul were unless For Karajroa-ewi cf. Ar. Ach. 484 (of in the breast.
K.T.X..
"
It
"
(a\Xo&gt;&lt;?
Dicaearchus encouraging his #17x09 to persevere in taking OVK et Karathe part of the Lacedaemonians) eo-T^/ca?
;
103.
Cic.
de Divin.
II.
119, contrahi
autem animuin
Zeno
et quasi labi
dormire.
151
Elsewhere sleep is said to be caused by a slackening of the tension in the Trvevpa. Diog. L. VII. 158, rov 8e VTTVOV yiveadai K\vofiei OV rov ala diyri/cov rovov jrepl TO
r/yefMOviicov.
jj,ev
H\drwv
ol ^rwi/col rov
vrrvov yivecrdai
nva-^aXacrfjLOv, KaOdrcep errl rrjs 7?}?, fyepo^evov 8e For Plato s theory of sleep eVt TO r/yefMoviKov ^ecrofypvov. for the Stoics, Stein, Psychol. cf. Tim. p. 45 D, E, and
/car
p. 141.
104.
Trjv p-ev
(Zijvcov)
&lt;pu&gt;s,
tyy
8e
r&gt;]v
^ITV^JV arro
rwv
/j,a0r)[jt,dr(i)v.
Zeller, p. 221,
11.
4.
In Plut, plac. IV. 21, opacr^ is Stein, Psych, n. 241. defined as rrvevpa oiareivov diro r;y6[j,oviKov /te^pi? The views of the ancient philosophers before o^)9a\iJLu&gt;v.
Aristotle will be found concisely stated in Grote s Plato, III. 265 n., and for Aristotle see Grote s Aristotle, p. 465.
Zenon Citieus, mens. anima ac qui Mueller s punctuation of the passage has been followed: Spengel s edition, Zeno s statement is made to extend
105.
Varro de L. L.
v.
59, sive, ut
is,
farther,
ignis
Trvevfia
in
the
V.
next fragment.
2.
Zeller
remarks:
"Plutarch
(Plac.
16,
17,
1.
24, 1)
draws
attention to the inconsistency of saying that the animal soul, which is warmer and rarer than the vegetable soul,
has been developed thereout by cooling and condensation," Stein s explanation of this paradox (Psych, p. 213, n. 1. 117) is ingenious, but he is driven to assume p. 115
that
&lt;f)vcri&lt;;
is
able.
106.
1,
fr.
phys. 39,
152
Diels
p.
6
&lt;f&gt;r)a-lv
Ttr/vwv
elvat
/j.e6trjcrtv
TOV&lt;?
vypov, pepos Kal rov crTrep/iaro? rov rwv rrpoyovwv Kepacrjia Kal fjLtyjjta rwv rfc tyv^s pepwv &lt;rvve\r)\vdo&lt;; e%ov yap 0X0) TOI)? avrovs rovro, orav et? rr/v \6yovs
av6p(07ros Trvevfia p,e9
^~v^rj&lt;;
(ZTrocnracriAa Kal
ru&gt;
a&lt;f)0fj
r*
a\\ov TrvevpaTos,
/u,e/3o&lt;?
"^fX^?
rov
0yj\o&lt;i
v VTT
eg avrov.
aff.
gr.
TJj&lt;rSe
TTJS aipecreo)^
roidSe irepl ^f^ ;? &odeii&gt; TOI)? ot/ceiou? rov yap roi ilvdpwTTLVov dopov vypov
rveuuaros T^?
re Ka
^v^f)&lt;f
e&lt;j)r)(rev
elvat
aTrocnracr^a Kal rov riav Trpoyovcov crvrep/iaTO? re Kal airdvrwv rutv T^ ^fv-^rj&lt;t ftopfcv p.lyp,a e Kfpacrfj,a Plut. de cohib. Ira, 15, Kalroi (Kaddrrep 6 &lt;rvva6poicr6ev.
e\eye TO
ib.
cnrep/j-a a-v^^ty/j,a
Kal Kepacrfia
r&lt;av
rfjf
8vva/j,eo)v
V7rdp%eiv
drrecrrracrp,evov}
o-Trep/na)
ovra)
"fyvyj}
K.r.\.
*
plac.
V.
4.
1,
Z^ywi/ (TO
crwp-a
ya p
elvat
.
drrofTrraa-p.a.
Same
322 K.,cf. Galen, opot iarp. 94 (XIX. 370 K.), (nrepfia ea-rlv
dvdpdiirov o
fjuedtTjcriv uvOpwrros iieQ* vypov ifrv)(t]S p,epov^ Kal Trpoyovtav yevovs, olov dpTrayfjta crvp,p*typa rov re avro ijv Kal avro av^/jLi-^Bev dTreKptdi). Diog. VII. 158,
ru&gt;v
/J&gt;e0
vypov
(TvyKipvaa-dat
(\eyova-tv)
rots
T^&lt;?
^f^;^9 pepevt
Kara
See also
the
collects
o-uXX^Wv
:
&lt;j&gt;vi
conceptum,
cf.
Sext. Math. v. 55
foil.
is
well
fj.ev
known
&lt;pvei
So perhaps
&lt;y&lt;?
in the
1}
dvSpaJv yever),
is
t]
Otherwise, as re
not required
153
sense,
cf.
we might suggest
L.
VII.
Diog.
159,
rwv
et&lt;?
rrjv
yrjv
icaracj&gt;vTai.
ftaXXoaei tov cnrep/jidTwv Cleanth. fr. 24, axnrep yap evos TWOS rd peptj irdvra Dials suggests tcepaa-Oev re (frvei and Usener K.r.X.
4&gt;vTai
a iraXaLwOevra OVK
en
ds after del
is
107.
Pint.
plac.
2,
Zrjvcov
(T?
#7/A,fca&lt;?)
V\T)V
ev vypav TTpoieaOai, oiovel diro rijs (rvyyvjJ,va&lt;rLa&lt;i iBpwras, ov fjujv (T7rep/jiaTi,K6i&gt;. The same in Galen, hist. phil. c. -SI,
xix.
322
K.,
cf.
Diog.
L.
vn.
159, TO
Se
r/}?
^Xet a?
icai
(cT7re/3/u,a)
dyovov aTTO^aivovrai
v.
oXiyov
feed
108.
Sext.
TOI)?
8e
/J,r)
r/pwra ovras
Emp. adv. Math. IX. 133, Zijvav deovs evXoyws dv Ti? XoyoV
rov&lt;;
OVK.
av Tt?
evX6ya&gt;s
TifAwr)
ei(Ti,v
apa
deoi.
Sextus proceeds to describe the forced interpretation which Diogenes of Babylon and others put upon Zeno s words in order to get rid of the transparent sophistry 133136). Theon, Progymn. 12, p. 251 (Spengel,
(ib.
Rhet.
is
e?}&lt;
109.
c.
11,
Antisthenes...unum
esse naturalem
quamvis gentes et urbes suos habeant populares. Eadem fere Zeno cum suis Stoicis. Cf. Philod. Trepl eva-e/3. p. 84 Gomp., TraVre? ovv 01 d-rro
dixit,
Deum
ZTJVWVOS, cnv
eivai,.
ei
Kal ajreXeiTrov TO
8ai[i6viov...ei&gt;a
6eov Xeyov-
154
sight these passages are inconsistent with frag. 108, but in reality there is no such difficulty: cf. Athenag.
The Stoics Suppl. c. 6, p. 73, quoted supra on frag. 45. strongly opposed the follies of the popular belief, while at the same time they called attention to the germ of truth
which
as a
it
basis
contained, being no doubt anxious to preserve it Zeller well observes, p. 347, for morality.
"Holding
that the
name
of
God belongs
in its full
and
original sense only to the one primary being, they did not hesitate to apply it in a limited and derivative sense to
all
is
especially
goes,
it
eva-e/3.
p.
85
G., dvdpwiroei&el*;
tcai
yap
Trap
etcetvoi
ov
vofiiov&lt;riv
aXXa
cf.
ru&gt;
aepa&lt;?
Trvevfiara /cat
aWepas.
For Antisthenes
Philod.
-rrepl ei)o-e/3. p.
73
G.,
\vTLcr6evei 8
ev fikv
Kara
8e
&lt;f)vaiv
eva.
110.
Cic.
N. D.
tollit
I.
36,
Cum
omnino usitatas perceptasque cognitiinterpretatur, ones deorum neque enim lovem neque lunonem neque Vestam neque quemquam qui ita appelletur in deorum habet numero sed rebus inanimis atque mutis per quandam
;
Hesiodi
0&lt;ryov(av
Introd. p. 31.
frag.
lovem:
see
on
Ill and
cf.
Flach, Glossen
u.
p. 66.
lunonem = air
see infra
and
cf.
Cic.
N. D.
II.
66 she
;
is
identified with air as being the wife of luppiter (= aether), and air is regarded as feminine, quod nihil est eo mollius.
is
Similarly "Hprj =air in Empedocles (R. and P. 131). drjp also one of Plato s derivations, who says the order of
155
71/01?;?
8
C.
dv
el
ovopa, Crat. p.
"
404
Wahrscheinlich leitete X. D. II. 67. Zenon ihren Namen von eardvaL ab mid brachte hiermit, Hestia im Prytaneum, den anspielend auf den Altar der im der Erde Stillstand Mittelpunkt der Welt in Verbind-
Vestam:
cf.
ung."
Krische,
is
p.
401.
perhaps the best place to refer to a supposed 8iafragment of Zeno contained in Philodem. Trepl 8a Hercul. vol. VI. Tab. I. 1, Zrjvwv Oeov (iTTeipa KaTe%eiv&gt; 8rj rd eve efcaaTov
This
6eu&gt;v
&lt;av&gt;
&lt;o&gt;
7&&gt;7r;?,
&lt;TOV
&lt;rr/pia&gt;...
&lt;OVK
d&gt;v
a-vvaKo&lt;\ov8ei
el
fjir/
rt&gt;
rwv
ai(av&lt;u&gt;v&gt;
KCU
It
a&lt;%t,&gt;
ovrai
^&gt;ia&lt;(^&gt;9i,a-d^e&lt;vo^&gt;
co?
fMe&lt;rd
ra&gt;?
Beds.
will
be seen that so
little
quoted by
Zeller, p.
165
n. 5, is entirely due to the imagination of the Naples Prof. Scott (Fragm. Hercul. p. 181) editor. rightly and wonders that Zeller characterises this as
"gibberish,"
it
see also
Wachsm. Comm.
follow the
no place but
fragments of Zeno preserved in it. In this, however, does the name of Zeno occur,
and, though the doctrines appear to belong to some Stoic, there is no reason whatever for supposing that they
They
will
be found at Tab.
IV. 7.
c.
xi.
and
111.
Minucius
esse
Felix
Octav.
19.
10,
Idem
(Zeno)
Neptunum
mare ignem
Vulcanum
lovem
it
is
clear that
150
aether or pure fiery essence, of which caelum is here an equivalent, as in Pacuvius ap. Cic. N. D. II. 91, hoc quod
Cf. Chrysipp.
ap. Philod. Trepl eva-e/3. p. 79 Gomp.,"H&lt;atcrToi/ Be Trvp elvai...&ia Be rov aWepa. Diog. L. VII. 147 God is the
it
all
by
/}i
different names.
trap"
Ata
O&lt;TOV
/lev
yap
&lt;f&gt;acri
oY ov rd rrdvra
TJ
Zrjva Be Ka\ovai
Ke-^(aprjKev
rov
Be
fjv
arrto? ecrriv,
rrjv et?
Bid rov
"Hpav
Kara
depa
Kal
"Htfraiarov
Kara
rrjv et?
TO re^vLKov Trvp Kal YlocreiSdova Kara rrjv ei9 TO vypov. The extract from Minuc. Felix lends some slight weight
to Krische s theory (p. 398) that the
description is writer thinks that the explanation of the myths of the mutilation of Uranus and the binding of Cronos (Cic.
N. D.
II.
ignem. Diogenes rrvp re-^viKov is, according to Krische, a blunder: Hephaestus is elsewhere identified with earthly
fire
(r&gt;}v
&lt;f&gt;\6ya
in Pint,
frag.
de Iside
23).
c.
66, for
which however
359,
1.
see
on Cleanth.
But
see
Zeller, p.
These explanations were not novelties introduced by the Stoa, except in so far as they were specially adapted to Stoic dogmas. Cf. Sext. Math. ix. 18 (after citing Euhemerus and Prodicus), Kal Bid rovro rov fj.kv dprov ^.Tj^rpav
vopicrBijvai rov Be ulvov kiovvcrov ro Be
ro Be
7rvp"Y[&lt;f)aio-rov
Kal
ijBrj
ra&gt;v
ev-^prfcrrovvrutv exacrrov.
112.
p.
21,
14 Keil
sunt qui siugulis elementis principia adsignaverunt... Thales Milesius magister eius (Anaximenis) aquam. Hanc quidem Thaletis opinionem ab Hesiodo putant manare
qui dixerit
:
tfroi f*ev
Trpwn&ra
sic
%ao&lt;?
yever
avrdp
eTreira.
Nam
Zenon Citieus
interpretatur
aquam ^009
ap-
157
Q/ceavov
re
[AijTepa
I.
YrjOvv.
This
frag, is cited
by
Wachsmuth Comm.
p. 11,
who adds
"eadem
originatio
e.g.
apud Achill. Tat., Isag. in Arat. phaen. 8. 125 e. Petav." The lines of Hesiod, Theog. 116 foil, are often quoted, by Plato, Symp. 178 B, to prove the antiquity of love,
I.
4.
as
efficient
and the
final cause.
Aris
and de Caelo
and Krische suggests (p. 395) that the application which is put upon it by him in the latter with his o\vn place prevented Zeno from identifying Cf. also the Trpwrrj v\ij as might have been expected.
298
b.
25,
%ao&lt;?
anecdote related of Epicurus in Sext. Math. x. 18, 19. oiiro TOV \tta-6ai. Krische 1. c. remarks that this deri
vation
is
where Socrates,
probably referred to in Plat. Cratyl. 402 B after saying that Heraclitus likened all
s
:
things to a flowing river, and that Homer that he was of the same opinion, proceeds
line
ol/j,at
showed
8e KCU
113.
Trap
$6
I.
498,
teal Zijvcov Be
TO
%09
(frrjcriv,
ou
avvc^dvovTOS
rplrov
i\vv yiveaOai, ^9
"Epcora
TTiyyvvfMevrjc;
i]
yfj a-repe/jLViourat,.
yeyovevai tcaO
7raOo&lt;?
Trvpw&ecrTepov yap
This passage shows clearly that Zeno must have re jected or been ignorant of 11. 118 and 119 of the Theog.
see Krische, p. 390.
xaos.
See on
frag.
c.
17, p.
85
76-
Osann, eaTL 8e
%o?
Sio./coo-yu,?;cre&&gt;9
our&)9 (javo^aa^kvov. vopevov vypov, OTTO r^9 similar views with regard to the formation of the IXvv
:
158
earth are attributed to Xenophanes. Hippolyt. 1. 14, ravra Be fyr)ai yeveffBai ore Trdvra eTrr)\(t)drjo-av TrdXai TOV Be
TOTTOV ev
TO&gt;
7rr)\y ^rjpavdtjvat
/e.r.X.,
II. p. 356). as of earth TravTw, frag. 114. vTroardd/jLT} spoke Find. P. IV. 219 familiar a comparison. irvpa&gt;86rrtpov
(Zeller, pre-Socratics
Medea
felix
ev
&lt;f&gt;pa&lt;ri
tcatofj-evav.
Dido.
Georg.
in. 244,
ad Hes. Theog. 120, r?8 TO Be irvp TrvpwBes yap r^? epos...evioi The authorities give two further Stoic explanations of
Cf. Schol.
7ri0vpia&lt;&gt;.
Hesiod
Cornut.
Eros
6 Be "E/xo? o~vv avrols yeyovevai (2) Fire regarded as yevvav. opfj,r) rj &vvafjus: Schol. ad Hes. Theog. 120, ra rpla la eiTTcav TO 8 \eyei TO Trvp ojrep Sat/zoyw
c.
17, p.
86 Osann,
eTrl
77
TO
&lt;f&gt;r)&lt;ri,
On
p.
1.
Kal avvdyeiv Kal evovv avvapno^eiv the passage generally cf. Flach, Glossen u. Scholien, 37, who attributes to Zeno the words in the Schol. on
&lt;yup
115, ex Be TOV vBaTos eyei OVTO Ta o-TOi^eia, yij Acara TO Be XeTrro/iepe? TOV crvvifyffiv, dr/p KUTO, dvdBoaiv
aepo? yeyove Trvp, TO, Be oprj KaTa e!;oo~TpaKicrfiov T/?? 7?}?, which appear also in Cornut. c. 17, p. 84 Osann. This is The same likely enough, but there is no direct evidence. remark applies to the derivation of Kpovos from ^po^o?
id. p.
44
(cf.
Cic.
N. D.
:
II.
64).
Flach refers
many
other
definitions to
Zeno
list
of
some of them
will
be found
at
p.
48 of
his work,
not supported by
here.
114.
etc
ST&KACO&lt;?
TOV
vypov
Be
Trjv
(f)t](riv,
"Eporra
yeyoi evat,
Wev
o eVcryo/ueix)?
159
8e
Diog. L.
VII.
rcdvrwv
drrdvrwv ovcrav.
connects this with frag. 113.
frag. 52.
Wachsmuth
general sense
cf.
For the
is
The word
vrcoardB^ri
Platonic
(Phaed. 109
115.
c).
II.
Schol. on Hes. Theog. 134 Gaisf. Gr. Poet. Min. r 482, o /iii]vwv (frr/crl rot)? Tirdvas bid Travros elpfjcrBai
crrot^ela rov KOO-/AOV.
rpOTrr/v
teal
Kara
drru
/3&lt;ipr]
AioXiKrjv rov
Trpos ro K,
Kpelov Se ro
(ivu&gt;
j3aai\LKov
r/yefAovi/cov, "TTrepiova
Se rr/v
KLvrjaiv
rov
eVet 8e
eZSos"
iroiOTTjTa,
mig. 53.
frag. 6/.
pdpt]
avwOcv
I8os:
so Flacb, p.
The
old reading
iTrreiv
was
Kovcf)a...ava).../jL6pos.
Osann suggested
for
TriTrreiv.
rra\aiu&gt;v
Cf.
Cornut.
c.
Koto? 8e Ka9 ov jroid riva rd ovra yap fywvr]. K ecrrt ydp 7ro\\a%ov ol "Iw^e? dvrl rov TT ^pwvrat,... 8e leaf? ov rd fiev dpx ei Ka ^ Svvao-revei, rwv irpayKpto? rd 8 Kal Svvacrrevrai evrevdev rd^a vrcoreraicraL jjudrwv
id
rj
ra&gt;
wv
7roiyu,i/tot9 Kpiov TT poo~ay opevo^evov. "Trrepiwv Be Kaff ov virepdva) rLva erepwv TrepLTropeverat,. See Glossen u. Scholien zur Hes. Th. 42 foil. Flach, p.
116.
II.
484.
KzJ/cX&)7ra?.
Schol. on Hes. Theog. 139, Gaisf. Gr. Poet. Min. Zrjvcov Se jrd\iv (f)vo~iKwrepws
r
rd&lt;?
eyKVK\iovs
rovrcov
(popds
elprjcrdai
Sto
(f&gt;r)o-i
Kal
rd ovb^ara
"Apyrjv
&gt;e
fyacn
8e
(pTjatv
rov Ovpavov
ndvra ravra rd
rcddr)
rrepl
UK)
TOV ovpavov ett...e XP V(P P TlVi IK rov TOV depos]. Trvpos 7repi(}&gt;opai Flach s arrangement of the text is quite different
inserts the words ev XP
VV
&lt;=
he
P O(?
after
tipq&lt;r0eU
faia-iv,
altering
p. 50.
$op&lt;?
into
Trepifopds.
tyKVK\ovs
The band
4&gt;op&lt;is.
external stratum of the world revolved in a circle round f TrepiStob. Eel. I. 14. l p. 142, 13, TO aWepiov it.
,
(&lt;/&gt;^)
In the matter of the revolving aether Zeno followed Aristotle, whose quinta essentia is described
teivetTai.
&lt;f&gt;epa)&lt;&gt;
by Sextus
del Oetv
(Pyrrh. II. 31). KVKXofoprjriKov from derivation Platonic of the Aristotle himself approves
as TO
&lt;ra)/j,a
(de Caelo
2)
306
foil.
but surely Hesiod is the ridea-Qai ovo^a is as to facri below. subject to ee#eTo 36, rcS used regularly of the father: e.g. Isae. II.
e&gt;6&gt;
Wachsmuth
says:
"immo
TratStft) ede/jirjv
Iv
TO ovopa TO
Kii&gt;ov.
These words cannot belong to Zeno, of the passage is adopted, as they view unless Flach are inconsistent with the rest of the explanation.
\p6vu
K.T.X.
117.
&lt;\6y&gt;ov&lt;&gt;
Philod.
Trepi
euo-e/3.
col.
8,
T&lt;OL&gt;5
Se opdovs
KOI aTTOvSaias Siadeaets Atocr/coupou?. the position of these words in the fragments of it appears probable that they Philodemus -rrepl et)a-e$ei
From
a&lt;?
belong to
puts a
6 P 9ovs
Zeno: see on
frag. 40.
Gomperz however
8,
p.
74
full
and
for
the
ethical
expression
Stein, Erkenntnistheorie,
161
arc
103.
Thus
virtues
and
ovre
II.
efei&lt;?
ovre
8ta#e&lt;rei&lt;?,
7. 5, e
and
f,
Diog.
vir.
Kal avroOev
(fraivofAevrj
/i^re
e/c
ISiwrcov.
in Aristotle see
Aioo-Kovpovs
clouds
1"
made
IX. 37.
p. 204, 18).
Math.
86
See also the explanations cited by Sext, the latter passage appears to be Stoic,
:
Kal pavriKrjv v^eaDiog. L. VII. 149, Kal Kal rdvai TTuadv (fraa iv, el rrpovoiav eivai Kal avrrjv Kai reyvrji airo&aivovcn Sid rwas e/3a&lt;ret9, w? ^trfcn Zrjvwv.
118.
fjiavriKii.
^v
The
5b
Stob.
&lt;j&gt;aa-iv
Eel.
II.
7.
12, p. G7, 16, eivai Se rrjv /AavTiKJjv TWV airo dewv 17 ^aifiovwv OewpijTiKrjv arj/Aeiwv
same
el
Substantially the
in
Others read
77
/cat,
have appealed to the truth of existence of God, no less than of the ^av-riKi as a proof See the references in Zeller, pp. 175, 3 vice versa.
seem
to
372, 2 and
ri\vt\v.
3.
it is
certain results,
Cic.
de Divin.
23,
Quid?
quaeris,
?
Carneades, cur haec ita fiant aut qua arte perspici possint 11 H. P.
1C2
Nescire
me
the
ii.
fateor, evenire
autem
te
ipsum dico
an art
(ib.
videre.
That
cf.
its professors
validate
title
of divination
as
24),
X. D.
12.
ETHICA.
Diog. L. vii. 84, TO Be jdtKov fiepos rfc KOI ei? rov Trepl BiatpoiHTiv eis re rov Trepl Kal KCLKWV rorrov Kal rov ei? Tra0&lt;Sv dyaffwv teal Trepl Trepl aperfjs fcal Trepl re\ov&lt;t irepi re rrjs Trpwrtjs rigta? Kal rwv
(ro&lt;t&gt;ia&lt;;
119.
&lt;f&gt;i\o-
6p/j,ij&lt;;
rrepl
~S.pv&lt;rnnrov
Tap&lt;rea
K.r.X.
6 fiev
yap
Kmei)?
dv dp^aiorepoi
&lt;ieXe&lt;7-
repov Trepl rwv Trpay^drwv 8ie\a/3ov. There is a full discussion of this passage in Zeller, 1 its 223, do not affect Zeno or p. difficulties, however,
:
Cleanthes.
120.
Diog. L.
VII.
r&lt;a
Trepl dvffpunrov
(frvcrei
tjv,
&lt;f&gt;v&lt;rea)&lt;s
elire
TO o/jLoXoyovpevax; ry
ayei yap Trpos
III.
otrep
?;
earl
&lt;f&gt;vcri&lt;;.
Kar*
dperijv ffv
Inst.
ravrtjv
77/u.a?
Lactant.
igitur
Zenonem
Summum,
ovra)&lt;f
inquit,
consentanee vivere.
re\o&lt;f
Stob. Eel. u.
p.
7.5,
11, TO Be
/j,ev
Ziijvcov
dTreBayxe
TO 0/0,0X070 y/ieyw?
^r/v,
%ijv
&5v
rwv
^wvrwv KaKo&aLpovovvrwv.
Kal
Zijvwv
Plut.
Comm.
Xot. 23,
ov-)(l
rovrovs
(scil.
Peripatetics)
videsne
igitur
verbis consistere,
163
cum
ib.
Aristotele et
SS.)
illis
re consentire, verbis
II.
discrepare?
v.
21.
129,
S., 7rd\iv & av Zi^vcov fiev 6 ST&KKO? reXo? P., p. TO /car dperfjv tfv, cf. Cic. Fin. IV. 14, hunc ipsum r/yeirat aiunt esse finem, declarantem illud, quod a to Zenonis
496
179
dictum
ib. ill.
est,
21,
suminum...bonum,
cum positum
sit in
eo,
quod ofjio\o^iav Stoici, nos appellemus convenientiam, etc. There is a conflict of testimony here between Diog. and Stob. as to whether Cleanthes added the words rfj
(f)va-et
to
Zeno
definition or found
them there
already.
On
whole the fact that Diogenes quotes from a named book of Zeno s makes his authority the more trust c. So AVellmann, 44S, cf. Krische, pp. 446 worthy.
the
1.
p.
Ueberweg, p. 199, adds that Diog. s state ment is all the more credible, because Speusippus, Polemo, and Heraclitus had enounced similar principles.
372,
3.
22&lt;S,
does not decide the point. Hirzel, II. 112, argues the question at some length and p. 105 decides in favour of Stobaeus, but his arguments are the desire to vindicate the originality biassed
Zeller, p.
2,
always
by
of Cleanthes.
p. 14.
121.
Wyttenb. v
2
.
p.
899, xal
...01 (17TO
This
theorie,
frag,
p.
has been taken from Stein, Erkenntnis271. Although we cannot with certainty
is
is
this.
The
soul at birth
only
open to the impressions of sensation, and its first impulse Cf. Pint. Sto. Rep. 12, 5, is towards self-preservation.
p.
1038
C,
ot&lt;&gt;
/i^Sei
aladijTov,
112
164
yap oi/eeiWi?
cii&lt;rdi)&lt;Ti?
elvai.
8iK&lt;u&lt;xrvvT)
frag.
134) and
one of the four cardinal virtues (see infra. founded on oiWWts in the same sense
The natural impulse of every animal towards self-preservation, so that it seeks after those and shuns those which are things which are Kara L. vu. 85 Cic. Fin. HI. 16 Alex. Trapd Diog. do an. 28 ed. Bruns. ot pev ovv Srtut/cot ov Aphr. p. 150,
as dperr) generally.
is
&lt;f&gt;va-iv
&lt;j&gt;va-iv.
%a&gt;ov
avrda
GKacnov yap %wov evOvs yevopevov jrpof re avro oifceiova-0ai, Kal 8rj ical rov avdpwrrov oi 8e \apieGrepov Sorcovvres \eyeiv avrtav Kal fj,a\\ov SiapOpovv Trept rovSe
teal rr/prja-tv (a/ceiwcrdai evQvs Trpot rrjv yevopevow; 77^9 rrjv rjpwv avrwv. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 13, 11 the 1LS, doctrine is attributed p. to the Peri (where
&lt;f&gt;aatv
&lt;rv&lt;7rao-iv
patetics).
Exc.
ut,
iv.
&lt;f&gt;v(riv,
"
in infante
stantia
esset,
natura consentiendi, in qua et virtus et perfectio rationis earn omnino a prima conciliation dirimerent,
constituerent,
bonumque
nppeterentur, genere
Epict. diss. yovpevos \6yos rtav
0e\ei&lt;;
seiunctum."
123.
I.
&lt;f&gt;i\o(r6&lt;jx0v
Kal o-^ref ri yvtovai, dvayvudt, Zijva)vo&lt;;, yap fjiaKpov eiTrelv on, reXo? eo-n TO Z-rreaQai 0eois, ovvia B dyadov xpfjvis oia Bel fyavracnwv
rd
e%t
165
not
in
doctrine":
the
technical sense to be noticed on frag. 169. of expressing 6fio\oyia girctrftai. Ocois is only another way an This passage furnishes argument in support
-rfj
&lt;pva-t.
o f the
p.
4 as to the character
Socratic doctrine
of
Zeno
4&gt;avrao-iwv.
to the
not surprising to knowledge, so that it is with rind that his epistemology is brought into connection
that virtue
is
practical morality.
That particular
class of
impressions
which
is
cf. action gives rise to corresponding op/Mai in the soul, ovSev Se KIVOVV njv oppfjv 17, TO Stob. Eel. II. 7. 9, p.
&lt;SG.
erepov elvat
fyavraa-iav opprjrtKrjv consists in the proper direction Virtue avrodev. KaO^Kovro^ of op6b&lt;s of these opfial in accordance with the dictates L. VII. 86 says of reason Te^m?? hence
\e&lt;yovaiv
77
:
XX
rov
cf. Cleanth. frag. emylyverat r^ opufa of the assent supra, freedom the on The doctiine depends
:
Diog.
66.
frag.
cf.
Stob.
Eel.
II.
7.
h
,
p.
&lt;SS,
1,
vrao-a?
8e ra?
ra? Se Trpa/cri/ca? xal TO KtvrjTiop^ds (TVjKaradeae^ elvai, in Midler s Handbuch, KOV etv, and see Windelband
7repc6 X
v.
295.
Stein,
Erkenntnistheorie, pp.
out that the ethical application of fyavraaiai mentioned by the younger Stoics, although not
in the earlier period,
cf.
unknown
dtcoa^iav TO?
Diog.
VII. 48,
ware
et?
KOI eUaioTTjra
124.
r
Stob. Eel. n.
7.
e
(5
,
p. 77, 20,
r^v 8e
B e 6 /,r)vo)v wpivaro rov rporrov rovroV ev&aipovia cw? Se eo-Tti/, XI. Sext. Math. 30, evSaipovia evpoia /Siou. arreteal XpvaiTnrov 01 re rrepl rov Y^vwva Kal Kteavdyv
8o&lt;rav,
evpaa
&iov.
Diog.
VII. M.S.
ICG
M. Aurel.
re Xo?,
II. 5,
cvSeupovia
is
125.
127,
avrdp/cT}
elvat
dpertjv
7rpo s
ev8atfj.oviav,
tcadd
&lt;f&gt;r)&lt;ri
Ztjixav.
in. 7. 1G,
ilia
hominem natum ad
esse aliud
quam honestatem
ipsani suo splendore in se animos ducere, nullo prorsns oommodo extrinsecus posito et quasi lenocinante mercede ;
solis inter se
pecoribus esse
et sapi5.
communem
enteni
diximtis
ibi
in
quorum societatem
et
hominem
trin.
August, de
xin.
8.
quosque posuisse beatam vitam quod eos maxime delectavit...ut virtus Zenonem. Cic. Fin. v. 79, a Zenone hoc magnifies tamquam ex oraculo editur virtus ad bene vivendum seipsa contenta Cf. Acad. I. 7, 35
"
est."
II.
134, 135
Paradox,
n.
p. 19.
nisi in virtute
moment! ad summum bonum adipiscendum esse diceret, cum ad beatam vitam nullum momentum cetera haberent. ad appetitionem tamen rerum esse in iis momenta diceret. ib. iv. GO, Zeno autem quod suam quod propriam
et,
speciem habeat
appellat, virtute degatur.
cum appe tend urn sit, id soluni bonum beatam autem vitam earn solam, quae cum
This point constitutes the main gist of Cicero s argu Stoic virtue in de Fin. iv., viz. that while the irpwra Kara are an object of desire, they have no weight in the explanation of virtue itself. Madvig points out (1) that Cicero has throughout confused the
&lt;f&gt;v(riv
167
(2)
Fourth Book he
doctrine
of
attributes far
more importance
than the Stoics themselves did and (3) that he fails to notice the Stoic (pp. 820, 821), r(* v Kar $vaiv and distinction between TO rv^^ veiv
otWaxm
"-
TO
IT.
Ecl.
22).
26
Cic. Fin.
IT.
On the subject in general see Zeller, p. 278 foil. cf. Stob. Ecl. nature of the -rrpwra Kara
&lt;j&gt;ixriv
For the
II.
7.
of position 47. 12 f.; p. to the Zeno will have to be considered with reference
ib.
tt
80. 9 p.
82. 12. p.
The
7Tpor)yfj,eva,
edd.
where the same inconsistency appears. some of the ant vitio these words were bracketed by but see indefensible, of course, and
:
are,
logically
Madv.
127.
nisi
Cic. Tusc.
II.
quod turpe atque vitiosum est...Numquam qiudquam, necne interest), ad beate quidem viinquit (scil. doleas sed est tamen vendum, quod est in una virtute positum,
reiciendum.
Cur
Asperum
est,
contra naturam,
difficile
perpessu, triste,
qui, nisi
II.
durum,
ib. V. 27, si
quod turpe
II.
esset, nihil
malum
14,
15.
In Stob. Ecl.
7.
5",
p. 58,
we read
dvd\oyoi&gt;
6e
T v KUKWV rd pev elvai icaicias, rd 8 ov, class are \v-rrri and given of the latter
(/&gt;o/3o&lt;&gt;.
attributes in the course of a passage which Wachsmuth in what is to Zeno, but see on frag. 128. Just before this, of djadd and xaicd, we find clearly Zeno s classification L. VII. 103, the dStdtfropa, cf. Diog. 7/801/7) classed among in the statement the with present passage and this
So dolor
is
classed in
in
Fin.
III.
51,
where Zeno
name appears
the
168
immediate context, and it is to be observed that the corresponding Trporjypevov in that passage is not ^ovr, but doloris vactiitas." The entire subject of the relation which the emotions bear to the classification of
"
extremely obscure, and the ancient authorities are not only defective but, as we have seen, contradictory. See Introd. p. 46, where this passage should have been referred to. Zeller s account is not clear on this point at p. 253 he apparently asserts that the emotions are to be classed as Kaicd.
:
and
dyaBd
fcatcd is
128.
&lt;ov
Stob. Eel.
ii.
7.
5 a p. 57, 18,
,
8e
tcatcd,
rd 8e
d8id&lt;f&gt;opa.
rwv
&lt;j&gt;pov7)&lt;riv,
^X pT*is d^poa-vi tjv, \avtav, dbiKiav, 8ei\iav, Kal rrdv o eari reatcia rj
evnv
dpert)
dtco-
KCIKW
^re^ov
86^ai&gt;
d8id&lt;f&gt;opa
8e
rd roiavra
fa^v 6dvarov,
aSogiav, TTOVOV i?8ovrjv, rrkovrov rreviav, vovov vyieiav, Kal rd rovroif ofjMia.
vil.
Substantially the same account appears in Diog. L. 101, 102, where Hecaton, Apollodorus, and
Chrysippus
TV
ovrwv
K.T.X.
This classification
to the
is
Sext. Math.
XL
attributed by
Peripatetics,
3, 4,
in
dya6ov eo-nv
name
d&id&lt;f&gt;opov
/caicov eariv rj ovre 77 dyadov In the same passage he states was applied to the third class
three schools, but by probably this is a mistake, as all the other evidence points to Zeno as having been the first to use the word in this ethical sense.
special
On
is
not
much
likelihood in Hirzel s
first to in-
opinion (n.
p.
45
n.)
169
the
K.T.X. cf.
&lt;j&gt;p6vT]criv
v 8
Sext, Math.
elvai
XL
Zqwuv,
rfp&lt;TTi
Si
/cat
ov
TT)I/
dpeT^jv
dyaOov
8eS6aez/.
184, /ea0o
dperrj
r\
e opi&fievoi rives
avroov
&lt;j&gt;a&lt;rtv
dya06v
e&lt;mv
TO nerexov dperfc.
The meaning
L. vii. 94, 95,
of perex
P eT
1S
made
:
clear
by Diog.
where
it is
explained
as including actions in accordance with virtue, men the converse is true of /^re^ov KaKMfi.
^SOVTJV
:
and good
cf.
vocabulo d^Ki^opov appellavit. For the juod ipse Graeco summum attitude of the Stoics towards the Epicurean de 450. Heinze, bonum see Wellmann I.e. pp. 449,
sufficient Stoicorum affectibus p. 37, doubts, without is accurate, thinking Gellius statement ground, whether the that Zeno would rather have classed 7)801/7} among
Ka/cd.
overy pair of
be observed that, omitting irovov rjSovr/v, here mentioned contains a 717)0777aSia&lt;^opa in the case of uevov and an d-jroirpo-ny^evov, and that, except
It will
voffov vyieiav
the -rrpoijyfievov (which Wachsm. transposes), the We should first. naturally suppose is mentioned which but and 77-01/09, same to be the case with r)8ovrj
then
is
the -jrporjy^evovl
Wachsmuth
evidently thinks
&gt;;Soi/J7,
since he transposes the words, and at first sight But it should be observed L. vii. 102 is conclusive.
is
the main authority there cited, and there was one of the points on is reason to believe that this on. which the view of the School altered as time went to better seems it at least, and Cleanthes, Zeno
With
suppose that
7761/09
is
dTTO-n-poriyfievov,
and that
\inrr},
170
to the class of dTTOTrpoTjy/jLeva (frag. 127). Diog. L. VII. 172, Adfccovos TO/O? eiirovros
on
TTOI/O?
dyaOov,
Siaxv8ei&lt;;
fycriv
(K\edv8r}&lt;i)
0/Xoi/ Te /co?, Zeno, frag. 187, and for 77801/7; cf. Sext. Math. XI. 73, oi Be OTTO r^s o-Toa? dSuufropov (scil. rJSoi/^y eiiW
(fracriv)
down
The prominence given to tcr^t)? against this. fyv-vfis rather points to an origin subsequent in date to Clean thes, and \VTTT) and 0o /3o5 are here classed as /ca/ca, which is
inconsistent with frag. 127, not to speak of
ijSovr/ in
the
present fragment.
129.
tione
utitur
collec;
mors
autem
gloriosa est
est
malum."
death belongs
Diog. L. vn. 100; cf. Cic. Fin. III. 29, ut enim, qui mortem in inalis ponit, non potest earn non timere, sic nemo ulla in re potest id, quod malum esse
decreverit,
to the d rroTrporjyfj.eva
130. Cic. Acad. I. 36, Cetera autem, etsi nee bona nee mala essent, tarnen alia secundum naturam dicebat His (Zeno), alia naturae esse contraria. alia interipsis
Quae autem secundum natu ram essent, ea sumenda et quadam aestimatione dignanda dicebat, contraque contraria; neutra autem in mediis
reliiKjuebat,
-in quibus ponebat In this and the following
iecta et
media numerabat.
nihil
omnino
esse momenti.
it is
of Cicero
unsafe to
attribute entirely to Zeno the summary of Stoic doctrines there set forth, in the absence of other
in
testimony pointing is no
and into (1) rd Kara fyvviv, (2) rd rrapd rd identified have = or media, (3) rd KaOtiiraZ rd and e rrapd with \i)irrd or rd d&av X ovra, Kara Eel. with d\rjrrra or rd drra&av e x ovra. Cf. Stob.
&lt;pv&lt;riv,
not
have
^sub-divided
&lt;j&gt;v(riv
Qva-iv
n.
7.
a
,
p. 82,
11; 7
3. p. 84,
131.
Stob. Eel.
II. 7. 1*,
p. 84, 21,
rv 8
aiai/ exo
Be Kal af tW ra Se ^pa X eiav. opal a Be r&v dira^Lav e^ovrwv d /lev e X iv 7ro\\r,v drraiav, rd ^ev ovv rco\\i]v e X ovra dgiav -rrpoiiy^eva (3pa X
/lev t X 6ti/ 7ro\X)i/
elai&gt;.
5 \eyea6ai, rd Be 7ro\\r)v dira&av d-n-OTrpo^j^eva, Z^i/awo? rot? Trpdyfxaa-i. ra^ra? ra? ovofjiaaia^ depevov -rrpwrov
Trpo-mnevov 8
dBtdfapov &lt;ov&gt;K\ey6fJ,0a eTrl TW Kara -rrpo^ov^evov \6yov. rov Be op-oiov \6yov Kara rr,v dvai Kal rd TrapaSeiyuara dTTOirpornpevto Be rwv dya0v elvai irporjyfj.evov 10 ovBev ravrd. dva\oylav ro Be Bid TO n]v ^eyia-r^v d%iav avrd e X eiv.
elvai\eyov&lt;riv,
irporjy^evov^
n}v Bevrepav
u&gt;pav
rwv dya0wv
elvat
&lt;f&gt;v&lt;ret
Kal d^iav fyov, ffvveyyi^etv TTW? rf, ovBe yap ev av\fj rwv rrporjy^evwv
rov jBaaiXea
d\\d
TOI)?
per
avrov reraypevovs.
ov ra, Trpos evBaifioviav nvd crvp- 15 Trporjypeva Be \eyea-0ai d\\d rw avayxaiov avvepyelv re TT/JO? avrrjv,
(3d\\eaOai
elvai
-rrapd
rd
dTro-rrpoTjypeva.
Some of the -rrpecrfivrepoc said that Pint. Sto. Hop. 30, 1. Zeno s TrpoTjypevov was in as bad a way as the sour wine, which its owner could not dispose of as wine or vinegar
:
so
the
.
rrporiyp,evov
is
4.
\XV,v
^ovra d^av.
Ill
7. 7
p. 83,
10
said is in accordance with nature is every thing which with identifies 105 vil. L. irporiypeva d^ iav e X eiv. Diog. ra X ovra dt-iav, Sext. Emp. Math. XI. 62 with rd Uav^v
f.
d&av
fyovra,
cf.
Stob. Eel.
II.
7.
17. p. 80,
Cicero s
12
phrase, Acad.
i. 37 (sed quae essent sumenda ex iis alia esse pluris aestimanda, alia minoris), is of doubtful import see Reid in loc. In Fin. in. 51 we have:
:
quae autem aestimanda essent, eorum in aliis satis esse causae, quamobrem quibusdam anteponerentur, where Madvig remarks
that none of the authorities give examples of those things which are \rj7rra without
being
Trporjyf^eva.
apart from the evidence of Stob. and Plut. it is clear that the Trporjy^va must have formed part of Zeno s system from the fact that Aristo expressly dissented from him on this cf. point (Cic. Acad. n.
5.
Zijvwvos:
130),
According to Hirzel p. 418 the word was discarded by the later Stoics, and v Xprja-Ta substituted by Posidonius. 8. see on frag. 1 69. irporflovptvov Xd-yov
:
TS diroirpo^Y^vo)
so
Wachsmuth
roav
:
o&gt;v.
MSS.
13.
for TO (iTroTrporjy^evov
Heeren reads
cf. Cic. Fin. in. 52, ut enim, inquit dicit in regia (Zeno), regem ipsum quasi productum esse ad dignitatem id est enim Trporjyuevovsed eos qui
ovSi Y d P *v aiXjj
nemo
in
secundus
ahquo honore sunt, quorum ordo proxime accedit, ut sit, ad regium principatum, sic in vita non ea,
quae primario loco sunt, sed ea, quae secundum locum obtinent, Trporjyfjieva, id est, producta nominentur. TWV irpoT^vwv so Madv. ad de Fin. I.e. for MSS. rov
:
7rpoay6fj.i&gt;ov:
he
is
followed
by Wachsmuth.
v
&gt;
Hirzel n.
p.
823
15.
1C.
prefei s
rivd
TC:
T&lt;i
Mein.
&lt;polpd
nva Hense.
MSS.
dXXd K.T.X. On the subject of the irpo^^va in general consult Zeller, pp. 278287. This sentence con tains the gist of the Stoic in the matter. Al position sickness does not the though e.g. impede happiness of the wise man, since he is secure in the possession of virtue, it
173
not to
p.
at
the
ceteris paribus
11.
Stob. Eel.
7.
7,
79,
1217.
132.
Diow. L.
avrols icra
.
rd d^ap-ninara, tca0d
^o-fc...Zi)i/wi
Sext.
Math.
VII.
eMSafficov 422. KtlvrevBev oputapevoi 01 irepl rov Zjvava omnia Mur. 61, Cic. rd earl on dfiapr^ara. et sententiae the praecepta peceata esse paria (among Lactant. Inst. III. 23, Zenonis paria peceata Zenonis).
^a
quis probat
Cf. Cic.
Paradox, in.
Hor. Sat.
I.
3.
120
foil.
Both
an Sextus and Diog. give as the ground one As of truth to falsehood. argument from the relation more true thing cannot be more true or one false thing one so or falsity, false than another in respect of its truth dp.dpr^p.a is the sin cannot be more sinful than another,
for this doctrine
correlative of K ar6pdo)^a
and
77
is
denned
ev
u&gt;
as TO -rrapd rov
opOov
\6yov
-rrparro/jievov,
Stob. Eel. KaOiJKOv VTTO \OJIKOV fyov, See further Zeller, p. 2H7.
133.
Cic.
II.
Mur.
61,
oinne
delictum scelus
esse
nefarium, nee minus delincjuere eum, qui gallum galhnaceum, cum opus non fuerit, quam eum, qui patrem
suffocaverit.
et praecepta is quoted among the sententiae illustration the that is it but extremely unlikely Zenonis, Cicero Zeno. of used is that attempts (Paradox, in. 25) the remark, doubtless borrowed to answer this objection by the wrongful killing whereas that from some Stoic source,
This
many
d/j,aprr/para
134.
2,
djrodperds o ZTJVWV
174
Kara Siafapds,
a-axf&gt;poa-vvr)
&&lt;nr
p 6 llXarwr/, olov
&lt;u
v dv&pctav
V Bixaioa-vi^v,
dX
&lt;pi&lt;TTovs
Bta&lt;f&gt;epov(ra&lt;t
a XX^ Xwi/.
TraXti/ Be
&lt;f&gt;p6vrj(riv
peiKXt
OVTW
eKaar^v, r jv
rr,v
p.ev
dvBpeiav fari
ftvai
e i/
tvcpyrjrtoK;
Be
^ av olo-av dper^v ra?? Se 777)0? rd L Ka ra -rd? Trpuyftara X evepyela* Sia&peiv SoKovvav. Pint, de Virt. Mor. 2, Be K al 7^ vwv T0 T 6 TTW?
mrQVtmrioui
&lt;T
Bucaioo-vvrjv
fpovrjviv
eV
at&lt;T
eW
^
Be
vTro&lt;t&gt;ep6&lt;r0
ai o
Kme^, tpi&iwo*
rjv
^pw^v
aTro^reo^ cv Be
Tourot?
/^acr^at.
scil.
BucatwrvvfiV eV Se ^a^ereot?
M^ a^poavinjv
eV
d&ovaiv
eV
Zi/i/wi/o? eJi/o-
VII.
omnis
Acad. I. 38, hie (Zeno) ponebat...nec ullo modo... (seiungi) posse disserebat, nee virtutis usum modo...sed
(virtutes) in
Ansto)
7^vmv.
ratione
ipsum habitum per se esse praeclarum, nee tamen virtutem ciuquam adesse (juin ea semper uteretur. Of. ib n 31
Fin. iv. 54.
Cf. Stob. Eel. n. 7. 5*, p. 60, 12,
-rrepi
K al
ra Kad^ovra yiveatiaf rr, v Be v^poavv^v -jrepl rd OPtWrov avBp^TTov rtjv Be dvSpeiav Trepl ra 9 tiropovd* rrjv Be SiKaiocrvvrjv Trepl d-Trove^e^. Diog. VII. 126 Zeno taught that virtue is one and indivisible, but that in
T&lt;?
r,}v
tpovw
moral
rent spheres it is manifested in different forms He resumed the Socratic position (for which see Zeller s E. T. p. 140 foil., and 9 especially Xen. Mem. at. Men. 88 c), that virtue is knowledge, but adopted the terminology of Aristotle by making use of the word
instead of
&lt;Wr^,
probability in Zeller
suggestion
(p. 9
258
as
n.)
&lt;fr&gt;&lt;^&lt;
175
in
fluenced by
virtues (Rep. p. foil), which it is virtue to the diversity of the objects with as arising from the concerned, while Plato treated them different mental distinct parts of the soul, which produce
states.
the Platonic doctrine of the four cardinal but he traced the differences in 441
the rendering every man his due (dirovethe definition cf. MTin] rfc aia? 6/mo-Tw Stob. I.e.), 331 i. Plat, in E, on, TO ni p. Rep. attributed to Simonides It is more ecrn. Biicaiov e/cc/crTw aTroSiBovai
dirovipTjTfois
than Aristotle
TO eV Tat? Siavofj-als
BUaiov (Eth. N.
Bioiperfow:
v. 2. 12).
to choice
frag. 70).
it
with a view distinguishing between things KCLI e/c/cX/o-et? (Cleanth. deals with
T&lt;?
aipe&lt;rei&lt;;
is
Hirzel
I.e.
to
read
there
elvai
&lt;$&gt;povr]a-iv
ev
8e
a-a)(f&gt;poo-vv7)v
cf)povrio-ivev&gt;alpTeots
For
vjrofji.
cf.
Ar. Eth.
ill.
0,
i
G,
dvBpelos...ov$els
yap
cf.
v7ro^ev6TLKu&gt;Tepo^
TWV 8uvMV
sense
Thuc.
01
II.
40. 3,
ra Te Seiva Kai
pi]
o-o-i.
ravra
o-
d-TroTpeiro^voi
TOJV
Ktv8vva&gt;v.
This word has a technical meaning with the X on the one hand (cf. Cic. Stoics, being opposed to Kivrja-is on the to and iv. Tusc. (non-essential)(essential)
30),
et&lt;?
II. 7.
k
,
p. 73,
1 ).
The
virtues themselves
which see on
c.
frag. 117.
135.
(scil.
3,
Menedemus,
T/;?
dperrjv rov
^y^^?
nva
Kal bvvapiv
17G
fjievr/v
Se
\6yov
ov&lt;rav
avrrjv 6fJ.o\oyov-
fievov
Ka\ fteftaiov Kal dfie-rd n-rwTOV inroTtOevTai /cat vopi^ovcriv OVK eivat, TO TradrjTiKov KOI aXoyov 8ia(popa
&lt;f&gt;vcri
rivi Kal
&iaKercpifj,VOi&gt;,
d\\d
TO
avTo
Kal
Trjs
^f^
H^pos
e%iv
(o Srj
ijyefjbovi-
Kara
Kal
8e
rj
SidOea-iv
/iera/SoXai?,
Katciav
re
Kal pySev e^eiv aXoyov ev 7r\ovdovTi Tr/s d\oyov, OTav yevo/j-evw Kal KparjjaavTi TT/JO? TL TWV Kal yap TU trdQos Trapd TOP alpovvTa \6yov eKcfrepijTaL elvai \6yov irovrfpov Kal uKoXaaTov, CK (fravXijs Kal BirjfiapdpTr)i&gt;,
TU&gt;
piaeax;
}v
&lt;T&lt;f}o8p6TT]Ta
dpcT^v
K.T.X. cf.
Stob. Eel.
7.
5b
",
p. 64, 18,
7T\eiov&lt;;
(pacrl
aura?
TU&gt;
yyefj,oviKa) /j.epi
:
a^ vTrocrraa iv.
6p.oXo-yoTjp.tvov
ft*^- 120.
cf. the definition of knowledge in frag. 17. knowledge as applied to conduct. Kal vopiijovo-i K.T.X. This is principally aimed at Plato but 436 (see e.g. Rep. A), partly also at Aristotle, although
apcTa-n-TUTov
is
Virtue
the latter denies that the soul is pepta-T^ in the Platonic sense (de An. i. 5, 24, but cf. Eth. i. 13, 10). With Zeno the local extension of the soul as a Trvevpa throughout the body does not detract from its unity either on the physical
and apery are alike affections of The battle between virtue and vice did not resemble a war between two separate powers, as in Plato and Aristotle, but a civil war earned on in one and the same country." Reid on Acad.
or the moral side
:
jrdBof
the yye/j,oviKov
"
I.
38.
Sidvoiav
Kal
&lt;
ti
yHlovlK
the
distinction
p.
between
132, 306.
8id0c&lt;riv:
The
177
neither
eet&lt;?
-n-Xeovd^ovTi.
Zeno
view of the
trddij
be con
Cf. Stob. Eel. sidered in the next following fragments. rou Trdvra 8e elvai II. 7. 10, p. 88, 10, riyepoviKov rrjs irddr)
136.
r
VII. l^iog. L.
r)
7r$o? Kara
rj
/,rjvo)va
^v^rj^
Kivrjcrts,
op^i}
7r\eovd^ova-a.
Zenonis haec
definitio ut perturbatio
aversa a sit, quod TrdOos ille dicit, naturam anitni commotio. Quidani
brevius, perturbationem esse appetitum vehementiorem. ib. 47, definitio perturbationis, qua i-ecte Zenonem usuin
puto
contra naturam animi commotio, vel brevius ut pertur batio sit appetitus vehementior.
Cf.
Cic.
Off.
I.
op/j,r]
ir\eovd^ovaa.
ib. 7. 10, p.
88, 8,
Trddos 8
elvai
\6&lt;y(0
&lt;pacnv
aTretd!) raj
(pvcriv.
aipovvTL
rj
Kivrjcnv
yov&gt;
Trapd
in
an corp.
I.
Andron.
10
to
a
,
Trepl
iraQwv
c.
The comments
Stob.
I.e.
p. 89,
Chrysippus he did not give to that word the restricted inter /cpt cret?, pretation which Galen (see infra, frag. 139) places upon it,
90, o, are important. They appear to belongand show that, while defining the TrdOr] as
and that he recognised the influence of the will in deter that mining the nature of emotion. We may also infer are a gloss ot the words aTreiOrji TO) aipovvn This is also clear Chrysippus upon Zeno s term 61X0709. from Galen, Hipp, et Plat. p. 368 K, 338 M, where the reason
\crya&gt;
is
12
178
essentially
Aristotle, although
common with
Phaedo 83
Thus
in the
&lt;f&gt;i\oa6(j)ov
e-TriBvfjiiwv teal
^vx^j \wrrwv
Kal tfroficav Kaff ocrov Svvarai, although elsewhere Plato admits that certain pleasures and pains are allowable (see Zeller s Plato, p. 444). Similarly Aristotle, while classing
certain irad^ as a\oya, declares that under certain circum stances wrath and desire are legitimate (Eth. N. in. 1
2426).
137.
(apio-aTO
Stob. Eel.
II.
7.
1,
p.
39, 5,
$?
Zr/vW
7rd0o&lt;;
eo-rlv
0/3/1?) Tr\eovd%ov&lt;ra.
ov \e
ov
-rre^vKvla ir\eovd^Lv
a\\
77
eV TrXeoz/aoyiw oixra
yap
Svvdftei,
ea-rl
/iXXoi/ 8
evepyeia.
d-rro rfjf
7rddo&lt;{
-rrroia
^vx^f,
7.
10,
]).
elvat
&lt;Kal&gt;
TrdXiv
-jrddos
-moiav.
Wachsmuth
plac. iv. 5,
de Hipp, et Plat.
8e
TW rwv
ira6u&gt;v
yevfi
d-rro-
Sioorat Kal
jrroia
fapopevov
points to
to
LK^,
Kara TO vo-o~o/3r)fj,evov TOVTO Kal where the use of the word d-n-oSiSoTai
Vo rfc TrapeiKdaas seems be merely the comment of Didymus, although it is possible that Zeno derived Trrot a from Tre as
reo-fla*.
Zeno s authorship.
Wachsmuth
138.
thinks.
Cic.
Acad.
I.
38,
Zeno omnibus
esse
his (perturbati-
onibus)
quasi
perturbationes
quandam intemperantiam.
179
of what follows this is opinionisque indicia: in view s the expression aptly illustrates Galen important, and
rrdOrj as
rd
vpeva
The particular virtue which is con inteinpenoitiam. cerned with regulating the op^al is aw^poavvr] see on
:
said
alperwv
p. 60,
Cleanth. frag. 70, so that excess of impulse or rrdOos is to be produced by its opposite, aKokaaia (dyvoia bl teal favKrwv Kal ov&erepwv, Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5
2),
cf.
Tusc.
iv.
22,
Quemadmodum
efficit,
igitur
tempe-
indicia mentis sic huic pareant, conservatque considerata inimica intemperantia omnem animi statum inflammat
oonturbat incitat
itaque
et
139.
1, v.
429 K.,
7^vwv ov ra?
Ti7?
7
auras
d\\a
Trddrj,
T?
IV.
o,
??
evbfJii^ev
eivai
rd
ib.
V.
.^77
K.
as Chrysippus contradicts himself, Zeno, and other Stoics d\\d to this o i ov ra? /cp/cret? aura? [Kal] ^rv^s tVt rat Tat? rlXoyou? crL/crroXa? Kal TaTretfwcret? Kal S?;^et?
T?;S"
r9
ra
rr/s
^rvxfl^
V. p.
-rrdOij.
Wachsmuth, Comm.
I.
p. 7,
adds
ibid. IV. 2,
(i.e.
nvd
rrjv ovcriav
rwv rradwv
on
Sia-
al /ze/wcret? Kal ai errdpcreis Kal ai avcrro\al Kal at, ..T?/9 d\6yov Bvvd/Aews ecrrt, TraOijaara rais oo^at?
.
ETTi/coupo?. .Kal Y^vwv vrro\afij3dvei. Galen three different views of the nature between distinguishes of Trad?), (1) that they have no connection at all with or Kpiais, which is the view of Plato and
.
122
180
Posidonius, and in
frag.
84) (2) that they are Kpicre^, cf. Diog. This is the view of Chrysippus and is in
;
opinion the worst of the three (3) between these two extreme views that of Zeno in identifying them with It eTTiyiyvopeva Kpureffiv occupies a middle position.
s
Galen
would seem however that in this respect Galen has done Chrysippus an injustice for it is clear from other evidence (see e.g. on frag. 136) that Chrysippus did not confine
:
himself to the view that traBrj are solely an intellectual At the same it is probably true that he made a distinct advance upon Zeno by
affection (Zeller, p. 245, 246).
tcpta-eis
crva-ro\r)
0X0709 (Diog. L.
VII.
II.
Ill,
7.
cf.
,
M. Aurel.
p. 90, 14)
:
II.
10)
or
d7Ti0)}&lt;;
Xoyy
(Stob. Eel.
70 h
in the
same way
1.
c,
1.
16).
Xwrcis.
but this
ex
Mliller substitutes Btaxvcreis, perhaps] questionable, cf. Cic. Tusc. ill. 61,
XVTTTJV Chrysippus [quasi hominis appellatam putat.
this
corr.
cf.
expunged by Zeller, p. 246, and Miiller, but is see on frag. 143, by no means certain
:
and
3et
p.
37.
for
8^ts.
ei&lt;&gt;,
accepted
by
Miiller,
83, cited
Si&lt;xxvo-is.
on
frag. 158.
|as
subdivision of
and
is
defined as
818, however
cf.
fiov&gt;]
itself
is
defined
as
Xo 7 o9 Sid X
worthy of observation
It is
these
words (excepting
refer to \vrrrj and rjSovj, and that perhaps ra-n-eivaxrei^ For rarreiare not so prominent. Tri0vfiia and &lt;6/3o? humili atque fracta connected cf. exanimatione
vaxreK,
IV. 13,
and
for Trrwo-ew
demitti
14, 37.
supposing
and eWXto-t?
(ufao-is
in Diog.
and Stob.
\vrrrj,
11.
cc.
refers
to
Chrysipp.
ap.
Galen,
iv.
2,
p.
367.
140.
*o/5?
ol
K al ov Themist. de An. 90 b, Spengel, II. 197, 24, drro Ztvuvo? rd rru0r) rfc avBpunrivW
In the
face
of Galen s
so far as
of no importance
Zeno
discarded.
141.
OV
(AOVOV
in. c. 5, v. p. 322 K., Galen, Hipp, et Plat. plac. KOI \Xtt K\(iv0^ Kal Y^VWV
XpUO-lTTTTO?
TOI&gt;W?
-rravff
This passage because it is the Che emotions are placed in the heart of which the Trofy are seat of the fopoviiclv (frag. 100), n. 258. affections (frag. 135), Zeller, p. 213, Stein, Psych,
r
KCU ra? Xu-Tra? avrd rideacriv (rou? ffwi&lt;rra(T0ai). off a rotavra iraOr] Kara rr,v KapSiav Comm. I. p. 7. is taken from Wachsmuth,
&lt;/&gt;6^ou?
/cat
142.
Diog.
VII.
140, TWV
rrepl
7ra6v rd dvwrdrw
elvai
761/17
(ica0a
\VTrriv,
&gt;/3ov,
&lt;j&gt;r
e,
ev
TW
rra6&lt;2v}
rerrapa,
rro yevei
Stob. Eel.
II.
7.
rrpwra 8 elvai
182
Jerome
enim quae Graeci appellant -rrdOr] nos perturbationes possumus dicere, aegritudinem videlicet et gaudium, spem et metum, quorum duo praesentia, duo futura
sunt, asserunt extirpari posse de mentibus et nullam fibram radicemque vitiorum in homine omnino residere, meditatione et assidua exercitatione virtutum. Plato had
Epist. cxxxiii.
already recognised X^TTT;, faftos, fVttfv/u o and ^801^ as the four chief iraBy, cf. Phaed. 83 cited on
B,
frag.
136.
it
is
much
of the principal TraOij, but how elSrj of the exposition in 1 16, Stob. Diog. L. vn. Ill
under each
is derived from him the evidence does not enable us to determine, nor can we tell whether the doctrine of the evTrdBetai belongs to him.
Eel. n. 7,
10 b&c
dictum esse arbitror aegritudinem esse opinionem mali praesentis, in qua opinione illud insit, ut aegritudinem suscipere oporteat. Additur ad hanc definitionem a Zenone recte ut ilia opinio praesentis mali sit recens. Galen de Hipp, et Plat. plac. iv. 7, p. 416, 6 yovv 0/309 otJro? faalv [Posidonius], 6 TJJS wa-rrep ovv teal d\\oi 7ro\\ol -rraOwv VTTO re Zi eipqpeiHH fcal Trpos rov ^pval-mrov
,
143.
\V7ri}&lt;;,
rv
)va)i&gt;o&lt;&gt;
avrov.
7rp6o-&lt;f&gt;arov
ai&gt;
ydp
&lt;f&gt;a&lt;ri)
rov KO.KOV
avru&gt;
-rrapelvai
\iiri)v.
ev
fan
(?
teal
tuSe
7rpoa&lt;f&gt;epovraf
o-m?.
S6t;a Trpovfyaros
KUKOV Trapov-
Bake and
to
currency, which
Kuhn
much
necessary correction of Cornarius, MSS. ar^. The unfortunate s da-rj^ has obtained, has given rise
perplexity.
and
it is
strange that,
if
Zeno denned
as 0X070? a-wroXr/, he should also \VTT7j, for example, as have defined it Sofa Trpoa^aros Ka/cov Trapovcrias.
of Chrysippus with the latter defini (For the connection 9 M., ev TOI? tion cf. Galen, op. cit. IV. p. 336 K., 336, reXew? TraQwv d-Tro^pel rfjs yvmpw opurnols TWV yeviicwv his own writings] rjv \VTTIJV o&gt;6&gt;ei/o? B6%av avrwv
[scil.
-rrpoa^arov KCIKOV
-jrapovvias
rov
Be
(pofiov
irpwrSoiclav
KdKov
but
Trapovaias, TJ}V Be jSovrjv Bogav -rrpoa^arov dya0ov at the same time defines etriBvpia as ^1X0709 ope^.}
or Posidonius have
Zeno by explaining treated Chrysippus as diverging from Posidonius is the as the 7ra077 as /e/n o-ew, especially of the Sofa attribution the whom ultimate authority on
definition to
Zeno
rests
Now
and of
^0709
it
cruo-roX?)
as
Ill, 114)
From
this
would seem to
defined eVt0v/ua follow as a natural corollary that he also as aXo 7 o ? and VII. &lt;o/3o? 113), as aXo 7 o? opefa (Diog. b KK direi0fi II. 7. 10 p. 90, 11, KK\t&lt;TK (Stob. Eel.
,
\i&lt;nv^
-rrepl
-rraO^v,
c.
L, XI^TTT;
p.ev
ovv
eanv
On
iiriQv^a Be a\oyos see and Kreuttner, ; t?, 77801/17 Be 0X070? eirapw seems it other grounds probable (see on frag.
Be
KK\i(7i&lt;s,
&lt;/&gt;o/3o?
the substitution of responsible for we cannot toll but in Stob. 1. c., aTreitf*}? X6 7 ft) for 0X0709 who added the words eirl &lt;pevKTto BOKOVVTI and e0 at perm
136) that Chrysippus
is
IV. 2, p. 367), BoKovfrc vTrdpxtiv (Galen, Hipp, et Plat. It remains therefore to also in Diog. 114. which
appear
^r
_
if
Chrysippus.
The
p.
latter
satisfactory solution
Wellmann,
Posidonius
generally adopted (e.g. by 454, 455, Zeller, pp. 249, 250, Siebeck
and
Geschichte der
Psychologic, n. 232, 233 and 504), but evidence is to be accepted in the one
case,
why
tells
is it
be discarded in the other, especially where it most strongly against himself? cf. Galen, p. 390 K.,
to
(Uwre&ovUK) Treiparai fiovov eavrov rot? nXareopt/Kofc a\\d KOI TOV Kme a Zrjvwva We must re trpovdyeiv. member that Posidonius was anxious to holes in
pick
Chrysippus, in order to excuse his
own
he charges Chrysippus not merely with divergence from his predecessors but with inconsistency (rrjv avTov -rrpos avrov vavTio\ojiav TOV
heresy.
Hence
would seem therefore that he is less worthy of credence as a witness, when he affirms a discrepancy between Zeno and Chrysippus than when he testifies to the identity of their doctrine. Nor ought we to neglect the fact that m Diog. L. vii. 112 0d/3o9 is defined as KaK ov K
7rpo&lt;roo
It
ca,
irdOr,,
and that
358
D,
made
ultimately traceable to Plato (Protag. Lach. 198s). If however we suppose that Zeno use of a double set of definitions, what was the
made by Chrysippus
If
Only
Zeno
(cipw&oi), and subsequently to the publication of the work Trepl -rraO^v, put forward the S6a definitions, it would devolve on Chrysippus to reconcile as
opponents the written and the oral tradition of the school. Or again it is quite conceivable that Posidonius have been misled by the desire of may Chrysippus to represent his own developments as the natural out-growth
against
185
Zeno s system. In any case the difference was com hanc differentiam levissimam paratively unimportant cum uterque id semper docuerit, esse quis est quin videat,
:
Trddrj esse
voluntaria?
doctrina, p. 10,
and
144.
Lactant.
Inst.
23,
inter
vitia
et
morbos
id. Epist. ad Pentad. 38, misericordiam pouit (Zeno). Zeuo Stoicorum magister, qui virtutem laudat, miseri
cordiam... tamquam
morbum animi
Zeno spoke
diiudicavit.
It is probable that
and that Chrysippus is responsible for the as the between distinction vocrrj^ara and appwarrj^a-ra,
terms as
voo-ot
iv.
23 suggests.
2b 7.
252, and Stein, Psych, n. of 7m#o?, which Cicero may here be simply the translation For e Xeo?, a subdivision of iv. 10). rejected (Tusc. HI. 7, K VII. Ill, Stob. Eel. II. 7. 10 p. 92, 12, \v-rrr), cf. Diog. Cic. Tusc. iv. 18.
,
145.
Diog.
en
Be KaOijicov
dvai
&lt;$)a&lt;riv
o TTpa xdev ev\oyov TLV ur^ei aTroXoyia-fioV \ov6ov ev rfj fafj, oirep Kal eVt ra &lt;j)vrd Ka\
olov TO d/co&lt;wa
Biareivei.
TtpWTOV
TiTIVWVOS
TO
KCtdrfKOV UTTO
el\r}npevr)&lt;i.
Be
a&gt;vo/j,aK.evai,
Kal
\6yov
rrepl
Trepl
avTov
(referring
to
the
treatise
TOV Ka6r)-
opi&rai Be TO KaOfjieoV lav e%ef TO aKo\ovdov TcpayQkv evXoyov d-rro X.o y Kal et? Biarelvei TOVTO TO evavriws. Trapd TO KadfJKOv Be aKo\ovdcD&lt;; Trj KtiKelva TL Tri d\oja TWV %wwv, evepyel yap
Stob. Eel.
II.
7.
8, p.
85, 13,
ev far), o
eVt
&lt;Be&gt;
TWV
\oyiK&lt;*)i&gt;
tywv
OUTCO? d-rro-
TO dtcoXovffov ev
autem
officiuni
quod
ita
Cic. de Fin. III. 58, est fiiw. factum est ut eius facti probabili*
according to Zeno, any action for the performance of which a sufficient reason can be given and it is entirely distinct from virtuous action, which is
is,
xaO^Kov
described as tcaropOwpa.
Karop0a)/j,a
is
a supposition which
case,
The
ecrn
rq&gt;
Trepi
1.
rwv
To-TTOf,
Stob.
c.)
life we are forced to regulate our conduct with regard to external circumstances, which are strictly speaking dStaHence we must explain Kara rivas where Kara means over against (die jenige Pflicht, die von aussen
4&gt;opa.
"
"
an uns herantritt, von der unterschieden werden soil, die in unserem eigensten Wesen, in der Vernunft selber
ihren Ursprung hat), as Hirzel has shown by a com parison of Epict. Enchir. 15, p,envr)ao on OK ev avfnroa-iw
Set ere dvacrrpefaatiai. CKrelvas T?}^ x ip a
tfdrexe.
OVTTO)
fjxet;
^ue ^/jis7T6pi&lt;f)ep6/j,evov
yeyove ri Kara
;
ere
fotr/j.io&gt;&lt;i
^
dv
aXXa 7TpLfj.V,
reicva,
6pe%iv
7rpo&lt;f
yevTjTcn,
Kara
ere.
ovrw
ovrta
TT/JO?
/3^a?,
ovrw 7rp6f
TrXovrov, Kal eo-y -jrork dgios rwv Kad^Kov, therefore, in Zeno s system is not a general term of which Karop0a)fj,ara and //.eVa KaO^xovra are subdivisions, but
&lt;rv/j,7r6rr)&lt;;.
rather icadrjicovra
and OVK
del
and KaropOwpara are mutually ex between del KaB^Kovra tcadiJKovra, and pecra Ka0r]icovra and reXeta
tcafytcovra
suchungen, n. pp.
403410.
187
i.e.
accordance with
right
for
reason,
virtue, as
cannot be attributed to $vra and aXoja tya, which are the nevertheless capable of KaO^Kovra according to is sense narrower this use of evXoyo? in authorities.
(The
by
Hirzel, n. 341,
I,
Seneca, de Benef.
;
IV. 33,
sequimur qua
ratio
non
qua
eavrov Diog. VII. 130, ev\6ya)s egagetv is correct, s Hirzel If rov rov fiiov explanation where Karop0(ofj,a it follows that in Sext, Math. vn. 158,
virtus trahit
&lt;ro&lt;f&gt;6v.)
is
drro\o^iav, defined as orrep rcpa^dev ev\oyov e^et of definition KaOfj/cov as the Arcesilas adopts the Stoic Wellmann, p. 4(51, believes that true basis of
rrji&gt;
KaropOw^a.
given
to the later Stoics, but surely KaropBtafjia belongs solely some name to virtuous action, and Zeno must have
it is
most reasonable
to
assume that
this
was KaropOwua.
was not the first unnecessary to observe that Zeno to use icadtJKov in the sense of "duty": all that is meant
It is
is
that he gave the word its special technical sense, cf. As to the divergence of Stobaeus from Kard\r)^is. that TO aKokovQov ev fay is Diogenes we should note (1)
made
the main point in the definition, which is probably a mistake, cf. Cic., (2) the distinction between /3io? and Ammoii. in Steph. Thes. 109 fai, for which cf. Arist. ap earl \oyucr) far; (([noted by Hirzel).
146.
Stob. Eel.
II.
7. 1, p.
3S, 15, oi 8e
Kara Zijvwva
d$
779
al
Kara
The
much
arrovt&gt;aia
For
e
Plat. Leg.
(f&gt;poveiv
808
c,
who
rrrjyrjv
rov
188
147.
ivai TO
173,
I.
&lt;ro(j&gt;ov
KaraXtjTrrov
regrets that
UTTO
it
rov
eioovs
reKfj,-r]pio)ou&gt;&lt;;.
Euripides
is
impossible to distinguish
520,
or)
men
in this
manner.
Med. 516
&lt;w
Zev, ri
reKfjirjpC
dvdpw7roio-iv WTrao-a?
xpi)
dvSpwv 8 orw
ovSeis
cf.
x a P aKT1!P
foil.
fairtyvice (rca/ian;
Hippol. 924
So Shaksp. Macb.
i.
4.
11,
There
148.
Stob. Eel.
real
7. 11*-
p. 99, 3, dpeo-Kei
7 p
rcS re
Zrjvwvt
ru&gt;v
&lt;&lt;A.oo-o&lt;of?
dvOpwTrwv
KOI ro
TO
/j.ev
rwv
&lt;T7rovoal(av,
Sid Travrot rov fiiov 5 xprjo-dai ralf (iperals, ro Se rwv xateiaif $&gt;av\wv rat? b6ev ro fjifv del Karop6ovv ev arcaaiv ol? Trpoo-riderai,, ro
&lt;j&gt;av\wv
ra&gt;v
&lt;r7rovSato)v
ce dp,aprdviv.
f47reipiai&lt;;
KCU rov yikv (nrovSaiov rals Trepl rov ftiov ev rols -^pu&gt;p.evov Trparroftevois VTT avrov
Trdvr
ev
Troieiv,
d\\a&lt;;
xaOaTrep
&lt;t&gt;povl/j.w$
teal
crto^pd/ O)?
Kal
10 Kara ra9
/ra/c&&gt;&lt;?.
dperdf rov
p.ev
Be
&lt;f&gt;av\ov
Kara rovvavriov
(nrovSaiov peyav Kal dSpov Kal peyav [lev un Svvarat ra)v Kara n poaipe&tv ovrwv avrw Kal TrpoKetp.evu&gt;v dopov
v*jrij\6v Kal la-^vpov.
e&lt;piKvel&lt;T0ai
Kal
rov
Be,
ort,
v-^nj\ov B\
on
pereia-o$u&gt;.
15
X7&lt;e
rov
Kal
la-^vpov
B\
ori
rrjv
Trepnre-
Troitjrai,
drfrrrjros
u&gt;v
Kal
ovre
avayKd^erai
VTTO
nvof ovr
avro&lt;t
20
ovre Secnro^eraL, oure KaKOTroiei riva ovr ai ro9 KaKOTroieirai, ovre /ca/cot9 TrenriTrrei &lt;ovr
8e&lt;r7roei
/zaXto-Ta
eua-e/Srjs /cat
/cai
0eo(f&gt;i\ri&lt;?
a^t&)/xaTt/c6&lt;?,
/3aeriXt/co? re /cat
rro\iriKos OIKOVO/JUKOS /cat ^p77/iarro-rparTjyiKos KOI rovroi? evavria e%etz/. drravra TOI)? Se Tt/cos of this extract can much how It is a matter of doubt
/cat
1
&lt;f&gt;av\ovs
be reasonably regarded as derived from Zeno, but if the whole of it is to be traced to a single source, that source evidence for connecting may be Zeno, as there is some him with the statements appearing at the end of the
passage.
Zeller, p.
9.
On
268
TTCVT
man
in general see
irouiv:
Abraham
n. 7.
328, 37,
Gen.
xill.
continues, hinc
tamquam
omnia sapientis esse... sui sententiain sophi dogmatis eius qui fidelis sit ait: unde et Salomon in Proverbiis
totus
mundus divitiarum
sectae ipsius.
12.
p.
v av
can only be predicated l^hysical excellence if in the popular sense of the term
it,
for
&lt;aOXo&lt;?.
good
(mly 17
is
TO fjiere^ov dperfjs, physical advantages dperrj or found in conjunction with virtue. when have value
ctiJTTTyros.
Zeno
2. 1.
of
some weight
puberal:
for
this
I.
20.
Setnrotci:
cf.
77
(8ov\eia)
dvn-
&&lt;T7roreia
&lt;f&gt;ai&gt;\7)
ovcra
KCL\
avrrj.
Stob. Eel.
H.
7.
IP,
p.
104,
5.
:
23.
in
8ia\j/v8rcu
stating something contrary to fact but in doing so advisedly in order to deceive others (Stob. Eel. n. 7. ll m p. Ill, 10; Sext. Math. vn. 44, 45). So, on the other hand the may speak duties TI but is devoid of
,
&lt;f&gt;av\o&lt;:
26. Similar assertions in an iwrtp^ K al amplified form occur in Diog. L. vn. 119.
0o&lt;}&gt;.
d|iwnaTiKc$s
this appears to
D,
mean
"high
dia&gt;pa
in
in
rank,"
see
Plut. Mor.
617
and
cf.
the use of
Thuc. as
applied to Pericles. It can hardly mean "speaking axioms" when used of Arcesilas in Diog. iv. 31. pao-iXiKos. Among the sententiae et praecepta Zenonis cited by Cic. Mur. 61 occurs solos sapientes esse si servitutem serviant reges. It is extremely probable that this paradox was asserted Zeno from Diog. L. vn. 122, by d\\a Kal /3aat\ea9 (elvat, rot)? tro^ou?) TJ?? a&lt;rtXeta?
as
0&T779
o-o&lt;/&gt;oi)9
dpxfc
o-Tair),
(IV
T0l)9
Trepi
rov
I.
tevpiax; tcexp?]a-0ai
3.
Zijvwva rot?
ir.
ovo^a&lt;jiv.
Cf/Hor. Sat.
7.
II"
p.
108, 26.
Y iK6s.
quotes
elvai rov
ao^ov as a Soypa
Zrjvo)vo&lt;f.
Diog. vil. 33, TrdXiv eV T^ -jro^ireia Trapivravra Kal oiKeiovs Kal jvfova) 7ro\tra9 Kal eXevOepov? TOI)? a-TTovSalovs /JLOVOV. Clem. Alex. Strom. V. 14. 95, 703
&lt;j&gt;i\ovs
149.
p.
P,
Se drro
253^3,
TlXdrwvos
rot)?
\a/3a&gt;v,
ftapfidpov
&lt;f&gt;i\ov&lt;t
&lt;j&gt;i\oo-o&lt;t&gt;ui&lt;;,
dya0ov&lt;;
d\\rj\(l)v elvai
xiii. 13, p.
\eyei.
The same
rrdvra? in Euseb. P. E.
671.
Introd.
p. 29.
191
the
question
naturally arises,
how
is
this
statement to
be connected with the cosmopolitanism which treatise advocated (sec frag. 162, iva... same Zeno in the
Trcvras (ivOpw-rrovs ijyw/jLe6a
ideal state
all
is
$r)/j,6ra&lt;;
not a community
seems to be arguing here against the which are utterly valueless as ordinary civic distinctions, and drawn between compared with the broad line would Presumably in the ideal state everyone be so trained in Stoic precepts as to become thereby
mankind.
He
&lt;ro&lt;/&gt;oi
&lt;f)av\ot.
4&gt;&lt;\ov
cf.
Diog. L.
vii.
is
7.
II
1
",
p.
based upon opovoia which can 138, 15, where friendship wise. Cic. Off. I. 56, N. D. I. 121. the only be found among A full discussion of the subject is given by Zeller, p. 317
foil.
This
is
one of the doctrines borrowed by Zeno from it had already been taught see Introd. p. 19
;
(Xen.
Mem.
n.
6.
14
foil.).
The view
is
rejected as inadequate
by Plato in the Lysis (p. 214), but thinking rather of the Phaedrus and
s
views
Stob. Eel.
v.
ii.
7.
II
1
,
p.
121,
Cic.
:
Parad.
This again
derived
from the
Cynics
150.
Cic.
Mur.
tortissimi, formosos.
solos
et
praecepta
Zenonis"
cited
by Cicero
in
his
banter
evidence is not very trustworthy, against Cato, so that the a remark which also applies to frags. 152, 153 and 155.
The wise
man
is
beautiful
:
because virtue
alone
is
Zeller,
in. 75,
192
pellabitur:
corporis.
151.
Cic.
Fin. v. 84,
dicere ausus
Cic.
Mur.
61,
For the sense cf. Cic. Paradox, further references ]). 101, 18, and and 6.
152.
Cic.
vi.,
Stob. Eel.
II.
7.
II
1
,
non esse exorari neque neque placari. The reasons for this opinion are given by Diog. vn. 123, e\erjfj,ovd&lt;t re prj elvai, (rvyyvrofjiijv re e-^eiv /jujSevi eic rov fir) yap irapitvai vopov eVt/SaXXoi/o-a? eVet TO 76 etxeiv teat 6 eXeo? avrrj re rj e-meiKeia ovSeveid
;
rd&lt;;
Mur.
61,
sapientiam
moveri,
numquam cuiusquam
nunquam neminem
Ko\d&lt;rei&lt;f
/eoXacret? 7rpocr7roiovfMevr}&lt;f orrjra The same at (TK\r)porepas avras elvai. greater length in Stob. Eel. n. 7. IT p. 95, 2596, 9 see also Zeller, p. 254. It should be remembered that eXeo?
&lt;rn
tyvxfjs
777)09
xPW
prjSe
oieaOai
is
a subdivision of
BOKOVVTI
dvafyw
KCIKO-
II.
10
p. 92, 12)
all
the
-rrddr)
possibly this
(frag. 144).
is
Inst. in.
23
153.
Cic.
Mur.
61,
quam.
Lact. Inst.
III.
4,
neque
sciri
quidquam
potest, ut Socrates docuit, nee opinari oportet, ut Zeuo, tota philosophia sublata est. Cic. Acad. n. 113, sapientem nihil opinari... horum neutrum ante Zenonem
opere defensum
est.
magno cum
193
quam
authorities for this fall partly under frag. ovre ovre 22, e^arrardrai ovre e^arrara a\\ov, 148, tcadovre eavrov \av6dvei ovre ovre djvoei oiatyevoerai
The Greek
1.
V7ro\anpdvei, and the rest may be supplied m 8 vrro~ka^ftdveiv from Stob. Eel. II. 7. ll p. 112, 1, /irjSev
6\ov
A/re08o&lt;?
/cat
@e(3aia&gt;s
rov
crotyov...
p.
113,
5,
ovSe peravoelv 8
\an,fBdvovGi
rov
vovv
ovoeva rporrov
Diof.
So^daeiv rov
For Zeno
&lt;ro&lt;j&gt;ov.
154.
/cal
Diog.
VII. 32,
e%dpov&lt;;
Sov\ov&lt;$
rrdvras
teal
dBe\-
This
is
the
natural
antithesis
149.
Even
because
to their children, if parents are enemies natural relationship and parental love as
(f&gt;av\oi,
absolutely the subject of dperr). dSidffropa Preller and Hitter consult in these paradoxes general notes. 420 with the
are
compared with
On
155.
Cic.
Mur.
61, nos
11011
esse. sumus, fugitives, cxules, hostes, insanos denique been have this of But for the sake might uniformity have we that confidence little omitted, as we can feel very Eel. Stob. cf. exules For here the actual words of Zeno.
II. 7.
II
1
,
p.
103,
9,
eivai, K,a&
oaov areperai
&lt;$&gt;av\ov
156.
H. P.
Athen.
IV.
158
B,
ori
13
19-*
Sio teal
l
rejrdvra
^UK^V
tyciv
&lt;f&gt;poviftax;
dprv&lt;ref
[Zrjvwveiov]
ye
&lt;a/o&gt;
09
c9 OVK
a\X9
8vva/j,evr)&lt;;
Kara
(J&gt;TJ
rr)V Zrjvcoveiov
v&lt;f&gt;r/&lt;yr)(Tiv
09
on
virtue
TC
KT.X.
all
is
wisdom
(&lt;j&gt;p6vr)(rvi)
(f&gt;a
since
&lt;j&gt;p6vr)o-is
is
in the preparation of a
man
This applies even if the wise man prepare it properly. has no experience in the particular practical task under consideration, because he alone possesses the necessary capacity, cf. frag. 148, 1. 9. Diog. L. vn. 125, -rrav-ra re ev Troidv rov 609 real -rrdvra TU
ao&lt;j&gt;6v,
(frapev
av\ijfj.ara ev
av\elv rov
1 07*77 Wai/,
Hor. Sat.
1.
3.
which furnishes a close parallel to 126 foil., non nosti quid pater/
inquit,
Chrysippus dicat:
numquam
1
nee
soleas fecit, sutor tamen est sapiens. tacet Hermogenes, cantor tamen
lator etc.
qui
ut quamvis
Philo, liber quis virtuti studet, p. 880, agiov TO Zyvwveiov e7ri(f)o)vrjo-ai OTI ddrrov av do-Kov
TrXypr)
Trvevfj-aTos
rj
157.
fiidvaio
rov
afcovra
Spdaai
i/ry^,}
n
}}
r&v d/3ov\i]ra)V
v
op0o&lt;t
drjvarjros
\6yos
007/400-4
-rrayio^
vevpwae.
Mangey, followed by WachThe same /3a7rrio-ai.../3id(7aiTo. editor suggests the alternative of inserting res, which is
pa-n-r(&lt;rais
. . .
piao-aio.
So
smuth,
for
the
MSS.
less probable.
PICXO-CUO
:
for the
man s
will
cf.
Cic.
Tusc.
iv.
12,
eiusmodi
Stoici
195
illi
voluntatem.
Earn
:
putant
est,
in
quid
cum
rationc desiderat,
voluntas
theorie, p. 196.
dv v8oTos
rt}v
:
cf.
supra
on
&lt;ro&lt;f&gt;6v)
e7ri/3fi\\ou(Tav
lo")(yv
TreptTreTroiijTai d^rrrjrof
fin.
9.
tav real
158.
Seneca, de Ira,
I.
16, 7,
Nam,
ut dixit Zeno, in
sit
vulnus sanatum sapientis quoque animo etiam qimm Sentiet itaque suspiciones quasdam cicatrix manet. umbras affectimm, ipsis quidem carebit. This
is
et
a concession to popular feeling, although at the same time the absolute djrdOeia (Diog. L. vii. 117, It would Cic. Acad. I. 38) of the wise man is maintained.
be a mistake to infer from this passage that Zeno is Further re of evirdOeiai. responsible for the doctrine
ferences are given
by
Zeller, p. 291.
Cf. Diog.
vn. 118,
avrm ^avraa-ia^ aXXo/corou?, Bid /j,e\ayxo\lav rj Xrjprjaiv K.T.\., where however the Remembering that Zeno de point is rather different, of scribed the effect grief as S^et?, we may compare
rrpoarreo-eicrdai fiivroi rrore
Socrates description of the result of violent love in Xen. Symp. IV. 28, wajrep VTTO Bijplou TWOS SeS^y^evo i rov
re u)p.ov rr\elov
rj
rrivre -qf^epa^
u&gt;$aov
real
ev
rfj
KapSia
Cic. Tusc. III. 83, hoc warrep Kvrjcr/j,d ri eSo/covv e^eiv. est totum voluntarium, detracto, qnod aegritudo erit
sublata
maerens, morsus tamen et contractiuncula The best account of the animi relinquetur. quaedam to pain is given by Heinze, man wise the of sensibility Stoicorum de aff. doctr. pp. 14, 15. The wise man can not resist the impact of the fyavracria, but will refuse
ilia
frag. 94.
132
196
159.
8,
nemo committit
viro
ergo vir
bonus ebrius non erit. Seneca finds no difficulty in refuting this fallacy, in spite of the defence which he quotes from Posidonius. For the syllogistic form of the argument see Introd.
Von Arnim, Quellen Studien p. 104, has pointed p. 33. out the original in Philo de Plantatione Noe p. 350, el ftedvovTl OVK dv rt? ev\6yu&gt;s \6yov aTropprjrov TrapaKard6oi.ro Be crotyto rrapaKararidevrai&gt; OVK dpa
&lt;rw
T&&gt;
daretos.
II.
ll m
rtjv
7,
p.
109,
5,
ov% olov Be
p,e6i]v n^apTrjTLKov 7repi%eiv, XrjpTja-tv etvai Trapd rov olvov, ev /j,r)Bevi Be rov airovBalov dpaprdveiv /c.r.\. Similarly Socrates in Xen. Symp. II. 26.
&lt;&gt;yap&gt;
yap
The
Peripatetics held, on the contrary, according to Stobaeus, that the wise man fiedva-Otjaea-dat Kara o-v/j,7repi&lt;f&gt;opds,
tcdv el
fj,rj
7rporjyovfj.eva)&lt;f
(Eel.
II.
7.
24, p. 144,
10).
160.
Plut. de prof,
OTTOIOV
in virt.
12,
a-Tro
opa
BJ]
KCU TO
rov
ear iv
rf^iov
yap
rcav oveiptav
exaarov
eavrov crvvaiaOdveadai, TrpoKOTrrovros, el pyre r/Bo^evov aiV^pcG nvi eavrov /Mijre rt Trpoa-te^evov rj Trpdrrovra rdov Beivwv Kal dBiKutv opa Kara TOI)? VTTVOVS aXX olov ev /3v0(a
TO
&lt;J&gt;avraariKov
Kal
TradrjrtKOv
vrro
rov
\6yov
BiaKe%v-
etiri
TWV
dvcpa&gt;v
it
vision of the
mind
:
clearer in sleep.
Aesch.
Eum.
104.
Wellmanii
p.
197
the possibility of acquiring virtue, maintaining to the full of wise men or did not admit the practical non-existence the consequent distinction between ol TrpoKo-rrrovT^ he thinks, may have aTTovSalot: these latter views, On -rrpoKOTrr} in general see originated with Chrysippus.
Zeller, p.
and
ol
293
foil.
"approving" (cf.
Dem. Timocr.
point
to
^
156).
orpoo-^uvov,
StW
the acquisiti.
dvBpeia and
^
the
three
.
leading
virtues
aw^poavvi]
are dispersed by reaso remains clear and which in the mind of the irpoKo-rrruv, a calm day when on ocean unsullied, like the transparent cf. Cleanth. bottom the and sand settle down to
d\X
otov K.T.X.
The emotions
shingle
frag. 66.
4,avTao-6v,
Sidtcevos
is
merely
auwr/409, 7r0o ?
rfj
^v X a*
fl
IV. 12). rov y tV 6fie VOV (Pint. plac. Erkenntiiistheorie, described as a 7r0o9. Stein,
156, n.
309.
161.
Seneca, Epist.
104,.
21,
quod
si
convivere etiam
versare
:
cum Zenone
:
alter
(e^yrj) antequam necesse It is important to re under certain circumstances. class of the member that life and death belong to the
ahdfopa,
has no connection with matter of but is merely to be regarded as a peT77, TO KaO^ov rok xal ovai K -rrapcl Be K a9rj K00VJKOV (roZ? 8tob
arid suicide therefore
Suicide
is
justinabl
Eel.
n.
is
7.
ll m
p.
HO, 13 and
point
emphasised by Zeller
p. 338.
198
162.
Plut. Alex. virt. 6, K al rfv 7} TroXireia rov rr)v ZraHKuv aipeaiv Karaj3aXo}j.evov Zij 9 ev rovro vvvreivti, Kara TroXeis Ke&lt;f&gt;dXaiov tva pr)
Kara
efc
Sr/povs oixunev,
iSiot&lt;:
Tyir&lt;a&lt;rditevo?
KOIVW ovrrpefofibiji. rovro Zjvwv fuv eypa^ev &&lt;nrep ovap f, etBtoXov evvom a? Kal -rroXireia* avaid. de Sto. Rep. n. 1, eVet rotvvv 7ro\\d
&lt;^tXo&lt;7o0ou
:
ijywfteOa Srjporas teal jroXlra?, Kal /coo-^09, wcnrep tiyekri? vvvvopov vopw
^ev,
w? ev \6yois aura Zrjwovi...yeypafAf^a rvyxdvet -rrepl TToXiTeuL? Kal rod apxe^ai Kal ap X eiv K al Bixd&iv Kal faropevetv. Chrysost. Horn. I. in Matth. 4, ov yap
nXdrtOif 6 rrjv Karaye\aa-rov
KLi&gt;r)v
7ro\ireiav
77
ei
rt&lt;?
Trdvras dv9pa5-rrovs
The
idea of cos
disregard of the fundamental distinction between Greeks and bar barians may partly be due to the influence of his birth place, as Zeller remarks, but at the same time he only carries out Cynic teaching (Diog. L. vi. 72, tfvrjv re opffjvvtfiuTclav elvai r^v ev xofffito). As to Socrates, see Zeller s Socrates 219. p. 167 n. 8, R. and P.
SxrTTtp
mopolitanism was largely developed by the later Stoics, especially Seneca and Marcus Aurelius. Zeno s
dY&Tjs rvw6p.ov.
As Zeno
is
generally admitted to
still under the Cynic school, Zeller (Socrates p. 325) treats this passage as being typical of Cynicism, and suggests that Plato, in the Politicus (267 D, OVKOVV rmv VO/UVTUC&V riii.lv iro\\v dpri re^vaJi/ /zt a rt? v}v 1}
influence
&lt;j&gt;aveia-(av
Kal //t29 rivos dyeXijs etripeXeia K.r.X.) and in his TroXt? in Rep. 372 A. foil, is description of the referring to Antisthenes. The reference is however extremely doubtful (see Ueberweg p. 93), and it is worth noticing
-rroXiriKT)
;
vv
199
a herdsman that the comparison of the ruler of a state to I. 2, 32, enre Mem. Xen. Socrates. with one favourite was a
TTOV
6
Sw/eprtTT/?
on
dav/^acrrov
ical
oi
BoKolf}
elvai,
em?
/Sot* eXdrrovs re ytvo^evos fiouv dye\^ volets elvai en /ca/co? @OVKO\O&lt;; real xeipovs TTOLUV SfioXoyoir)
T*
8e
6avna&lt;TTOTepov
ei
K.T.X.,
with which
cf.
p. 30.
163.
TGI&gt;
Athen.
XIII.
561
xal
C,
Hovrtavbs 8e Zrjvcova
"Epeora
fyr]
Kmea
8
viro\a^dveiv rov
debv elvai
&lt;j&gt;t\ia&lt;&gt;
teal
e\ev6epia&lt;;
en
Be
o^ovoia^
r&gt;
d\\ov
ovSevos.
Sto Ka\ ev
6ebv elvai,
wrnpiav."
&lt;rvvepy6v
^irap^ovra vrpo?
rr,v
r^
7roXea&gt;9
\V ucrjrep evfc not to leave Sparta with a large empire, TT euBatfMViav TToXeco? vo/xtfwy 0X7?^ dvSpos /3io) KOI Trpo? KCLL opovoias TJJ? Trpo? ayr^i/, aperr/9 eyyive&lt;r0ai
o-wera^e
/cat
vvviip^oaev,
yevo^evoi
t.
:
/cat
OTT&)?
rauTT,!; *al
/cat
HoXtre^o?
v-rr6-
ical
Hesiod to be regarded as an "Epc-ra. In the ideal of fire, frag. 113. allegorical presentment because all state Love is taken as a presiding deity, banished from it, and the discord and party strife are to be be united by friend wise men, who are its citizens, are to
TOV
Ai07e i^779
Love
is
ll^p.
108, 15, eV
eVel ev
povoi^ /card TOV rrjv 8 TOVTOLS opovoia yiverai -rrepl rwv fiiov^ o^ovoiav elvai KOIVWV dya9wv eVto-r^z/. Chrysipp.^ap. ical n]v avnjv elvat Philod. -rrepl etVe/3. col. 12, p. 79, Gomp.,
o-oc/&gt;(H9
&lt;j&gt;t\iav,
K al E^vvo^lav
teal
MK^V
/cat
Opovotav
/cat
/cat
/cat
TO 7rapa7r\i]aiov irav.
It is
probable that
Elpr/vyv
want of
unity, to
taken by Aristotle Pol. n. 5, p. t a 24, CV ^d yap -rr6\ei Svo 7roXe&lt;9 dvayxalov elvai .aiTavrav virevavrfa a\\^\ a ^. Cf. also ib. n. 4 1262 7, Xen. Mem. iv. 4. and
b
.10.
16, contrast Ar. Pol n 9 Hirzel, n. p. 36, finds here a divergence from
he
comparing Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 485 P but apparently forgets Diog. L. vi. 12, which shows that the onsistency, if it exists, is with Antistheues himself.
164.
ec
ithenes,
v.
Krlar^ atpeae iroXereiW frfftip wre vaoh Selv iroulv v yap elvcu TUV Oc&v ayaXf.ara,
8e K al
Zj vmv
r^
TV
T^
2*^
12, 76, p.
691
P 249 S
ev
-
,,
a&ov atrak \e^at rdSe iepd re oi ep b yap rf TroXXot ci&ov, Ka l ay lOV ovSw 8e TroXXov a&ov Ka l p ava t awv The same in
l
.
s. I.
5, p.
324.
1, e r,
eo-Tiv
S6ya Z
mv
45,
olxoSofielv
-
ieptv
6
oiicoMpuv
.
ou&v
III.
e o-ri
7ro\X
49,
p.
780
=
cS
rig lov
p.
ravra
r^ HoXcre^
d-rrayopevec
frfofo K al vaov,
K al dydXftara
Haeres.
racraiw
m.
36,
ov^ yap
elvac
Epiphan
The Cynics
l vai l po {) Tl Xafclv. language in some particulars recalls St Paul s to the Athenians, Acts xvn. 24, 6 0e3 ? 6 Tro^a, rov Koap.ov Ka -jrdvra rd ev aCry, 0^x09 ovpavov K al yfc K mrdpxuv OVK eV etoTrorot? vaol? vaol icaroiicel ic
VI.
73,
Mfa
l
re
lp&lt;09
201
Belv
Zqvwv
ra?
e&lt;f&gt;r)
rat? rwv OIKOVVTWV aperat?. OVK dvadyjfjiaa-iv In a similar spirit Crates promised to honour Hermes and the Muses ov SaTrdvais rpvfapals XV perat? oaiais Or. vi. 200 A, quoted by Zeller, Socrates p. 329 n. 1).
d\\d
(Julian
166.
Diog.
L.
VII.
33,
nal
Kara
TOI)&lt;?
tepd
/x?;re
Karci...crTixovs.
the
number
jrepl
of lines,
TW
jud.
TWV dp^aiwv
Trpooifiiov
avyypdf^^arL \eywv
hist.
o-Tt^ow?.
T//9
19,
to-Topias
wo uberall Gerechtigkeit waltet? wozu Gymnasien, wenn Korperkraft und GewandtWellmann p. 438. The reference heit ohne Wert sind ?
:
"wozu
Gerichtshofe,
"
to
of Plutarch yvpvda-La confirms the statement s Republic Plato wrote Zeno that against Rep. 8, 2)
(Sto.
:
with
the
Plato jvfjivaa-TLKrj forms an important element in ill. p. 410 411). training of the 0i Xa/ce9 (Rep.
167.
vroXXoi? Diog. VII. 32, evioi ^evroi...ev TUV Zijvwvos rijv eyKVK\iov iraiBeiav d-
a7ro&lt;palveiv
\eyovaLV ev dpXTI
r
T57 9
TroXtreiav.
^KVK\IOS imiStCa.
J"he
tion comprised the three branches of ypn/i/iara, ^ovaiio], and (Becker s Charicles E. T. p. 231 foil.).
yv/jivaa-TLKrj
Zeno intended
in opposition imply, probably again to Plato, that, as compared with the acquisition of virtue or true wisdom, the wisdom which education proposes to
to
supply
is
worthless
to
(cf.
Wellmann
p.
437,
8).
Such
at
least
seems
re dperrjv
202
ru&gt;v
pr/re
\6ywv rr\eiovwv
HaQripdrwv. 73, /iot/o-t/a;&lt;? re teal yewp,erpiK^ K al dvrpoXoyias Kal rwv roiovratv dpeXeiv &$v d-^prja-rwv Kal OVK
dvayxaitav.
p.ara.
tfeV?;?
ypdp,p.ara yovv
TOI)?
pavQaveiv efaaKev
iva
Ai^Tto--
adxppovas yevopevovs,
Siaa-rpe^oivro
31). important observe that Chrysippus held ev^p^a-rdv rd ey K vK\ia fiaO^ara (Diog. L. VII. 129, cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7, 5 bn p. 67, 5), and it is possible that Zeno may at a later period of his life have modified his conclusion on this point, just as he diverged from the Cynics in Dialectic and
,
Epicurus agreed with Zeno on this point (see Prof. Mayor on Cic. N. D. i. 72), while Aristotle considered that rd ey^/cXm ^aS^ara are useful for the acquisition of virtue (Diog. L. v. It is to
rot? d\\orp{oi?.
recommending
p. 63, 3,
Hirzel n.
p.
523,
Cleanth
frag. 106.
168.
Diog.
iv
ypdfaiv
o/uoyia 8
OUT
d\\ay^
ovr
drro&rjfMias eveicev.
"Diogenes in the 7ro\ireia proposed a coinage of bones or stones (darpdyaXoi) instead of gold and silver,
Athen.
iv.
159
E."
Zeller, Socrates, p.
325
n.
pointed at Plato Rep. II. 371 B, dyopd STJ rj^lv Kal vopiapa gvpfioXov r^? d\\aytjs yevrja-erai e /c rovrov. Aristotle s statement is more exact, explaining that money is a with a view to
is
i&gt;6Ka
dXXa-^s
KVCKCV.
This again
security
future exchange:
pijSev
Seirai,
vrrep
r/;&lt;?
fie\\ova^ dXXayrjs,
el
vvv
ore
carat edv
Eth. v.
5.
yvTirrjs e o-0
9.
ftp.lv.
1257 a 32
169.
foil,
and
vi.
Newman
233
B,
on
ib.
1257 b
8e
11.
Athen.
C,
Z^tyi/
drro
203
(i.e.
rd\\a
/cat
7T\&gt;}v
gold
and
silver) KOA,
dBidfopa,
rrjv
al pea-iv
/cat
avrvv
/cat,
d-jrenrcov, ri]v
rwv
aTrepiTTWV
TrpoT/yovpevw^
Troielo-dai
TrpoardcratoV
OTTO)? rtSef;
yfrvx^
e%ovre?
dOav^aa-Tov Trpos raXXa rr/v StdOeaiv rfjs ol avQpwiroi, ova /jujre Ka\d ecrrt ^re
alcrxpd, rot?
fJ-ev
eva.vri.wv prjSev
Kara ^iaiv w? eVi vroXi) xputvrai, rwv 8 TOVTWV o\w? SeSot/core? Xtxyw /cat ^?)
^&gt;6/3&)
money professed with regard to the last frag, as frag. 171 bears to
to
bear
176.
of the
thino-s
doctrine of the
which are morally indifferent. The aTrouSato?, who is unaffected either by fear or desire (d^aO^}, and whose appal are properly directed by right reason, will and ra know how to discriminate between rd tcard the avoid and former so as to cling to the
$&gt;vaiv
-napd
&lt;j&gt;vo-iv,
latter.
Thus TrXoOro?
is
-rrporjy/jievov
in
105), while
77
6p9^
xpv&lt;ri&lt;;
TT\OVTOV which is characteristic of the &lt;nrovSaio$ is sharply the (Stob. Eel. II. 7. 10 distinguished from
,
&lt;f&gt;i\OTr\ovTia
p. 91;
a\:
and adopted by suggested by Schweighauser After TJ]V w^viv 8e Schweig. Kaibcl for the MSS. dpx iv. had fallen out such as rrjv thought some words
P o-iv:
opBriv
et a.
XITV.
Cf.
direptTTwv.
Contrast M. Aurel. v. 5 with id. IX. 32. difficult. In Sext. Emp., with upo^ovH^s. This word is
whom
it
occurs
or
at
"in
least
eight times,
place,"
it
always means
the
first
"principally"
204
to drco\ov0a)s.
doctrine.
Here however
it
Stoic sense
)(/card
24. p.
the absence of overriding circumstances 7Tpi(TTa&lt;rtv, cf. Epict. diss. III. 14. 7, Stob. Eel. II. 7. In this connection we 144, 19, frag. 131.
= in
may
compare Diog.
,
division of KaOr^Kovra into rd avev irepisuch as Trt,^e\ela6ai (or /caX&J? xprja-Oai as here), and rd Kara irepitrraa-iv, such as T^V
s
vyiia&lt;&gt;
it
(vn. 109). Hirzel, p. 825, denies that belongs to the elder Stoics, thinking that was taken over subsequently from the Academics and
iappCirmv
Peripatetics.
dScVj
He would
:
substitute here
&lt;y?
irpo^^kvwv.
points to the
very explicitly defined ap. Stob. Eel. n. 7. 10 p. 92, 5. Cf. Hor. Epist. I. 6. 1, 2, nil admirari deav(iao-Tov. prope res est una Numici solaque quae possit facere et servare
beatum
6avfj,d%eiv,
where see Orelli, who properly observes that TO which Plato and Aristotle speak of as the
starting point of philosophy, is something quite different. Cf. Marc. Aurel. 1. 15, Cic. Tusc. in. 30. Hence AIT. Epict.
Diss.
I.
18, 11,
fj,TJ
&J
ov xa\7ravel$.
Bav^aQe TO Ka\\o&lt;; TJ}? yvvai/cos icai For 8id0e&lt;riv see on frag. 117.
2,
rq&gt;
170.
Zenon
ait:
accedet ad
rempublicarn quid impedierit. id. Tranq. An. I. 7, Promptus compositusque sequor Zenonem, Cleanthem, Chrysippum quorum tamen nemo ad rempublicam
;
accessit,
nemo non
misit.
is
attributed
(fracri
to
rov
\pit(TL7nro&lt;;
cf.
Cic.
Lucan
hoc
est, in
administratione
205
is
to
be undertaken
II. 7.
/card rov
5)
Eel.
II
1
",
p.
HI,
= rrporjjovpevo)^
We may
KaQijfcov
is
7rpOTjyov/J,evws
Kara
wealth
171.
Diog.
Kal
ja/j,rjo-etv,
w?
6 Ztjvcov
ev 7ro\iT6ia, (rov aofyov) Kal 7rai$o7rot,ij(Tecr0ai. Cic. Fin. in. 68. The Cf. Stob. Eel. ii. 7. p. 109, 16, man under existing wise a of the to refers statement duty
1
II"
com circumstances, and while living in an ordinary civil which in state ideal the to reference It has 110
munity. wives are to be held in belongs to the
176) 7^09 clearly This a rcaOrjtcov. and yafielv who strains seems better that Wellmann s view p. 439, the meaning of 7/*o9 to bring this passage into con and is strongly supported by the formity with frag. 170, of the duty of the wise man to enter public case analogous
(frag.
:
common
is
d&id&lt;j&gt;opa
life.
The
latter
7ro?UTeiWtfat p. 94, 9, stitutions, cf. vroXiTe/ai? TCU? TotauTCU? ev Tat? TOV a-o(j)ov Kal fjudXiara TroXtTet a?. TeXeta? e^aivova-a^ rivd TrpoKOTrr/v 77/309 two the for will account passages The same
,
T&lt;?
existing
political
in
explanation
in Diog. VI. 11
to
p.
and 72, where similar views are attributed the Cynics, without supposing (with Zeller, Socrates between Antisthenes and .320) a divergence of opinion
Diogenes.
172.
ao&lt;j)ov
Dioo-. L.
VII.
129,
Kal
epacrOria-ecrOai
Be
rov
rwv vewv ruv epfyaivovrwv Bid rov eiSovs * T rro\neia. av, w? 4 aL ^l vwv v dperrjv
t
&gt;7
rr}v Trpos
ev(f&gt;vt
!&gt;
F(jr
p. 20.
This passage
is
no
206
Symposium.
Speaking
of
the
eptu?
i.
of
Socrates
"It
Dr
was p. 152): not the beauty of Alcibiades, but his splendid mental endowments, his great capacity for good or for evil, which excited the admiration and the solicitude of Socrates."
Cf.
Symp. 208 B
foil,
and
for evfyvtav
cf.
frag.
We
epav belongs to the class of dSidfopa, and implies, therefore, a corresponding tcafffj/cov, the duty, that is, rov icakw epdv, Stob. Eel. II. 7. o b9 If then 66, 310.
&lt;f)av\o&lt;t.
the
e/3609
of the arrovSalos
itself
p.
the objection is raised that the o-jrovbalos should avoid if he is to retain his is a sub drrddeia, since division of eTTiOvfjiia and a rrd6o&lt;$, the answer is that this is untrue of that which is defined particular form of
ep&&gt;9,
epo&gt;9
ep&&gt;9
as
1.
7ri/3o\rj
(f)i\o7roiia&lt;j
Bid tcd\\os
e^aivo^evov (Stob.
1.
c.
12, ib.
10
p. 91, 15,
IP
p. 115,
1,
Sext. Emp. Math. vn. 239), and which is not an ewidvpia. Under briBv/ua are to be classed spares
afoSpoi only,
68, speaks
and
Diog. vn. 113 the distinction between the two classes of e/xu? is clearly indicated. Cic., Fin. III.
in
of amores sanctos.
173.
Athen.
XIII.
563
E,
Kal
TOVTO
^ie
rov dpxrjyov
vp&v
TT;?
oviKa, 09
ov&eTrwTrore yvvaiKt 0)9 Aj/rte^pijaaro 7rai8itcoc&lt;t B 701/09 6 Kapvo-riof icrropel ev rw rrepl rov (3iov avrov
0pv\\iT6 yap on
8i
\&gt;.-f[
"
Set
firj
are Zeno
context.
It is most natural to suppose that these words from the position of his name in the For the sense see on frag. 172.
K.T.X.
207
11. 74, p.
296
P. 101) S.,
/cat
Kmet?
/XT)
eot/ce
/ir)vu&gt;i&gt;
elfcova
0r/crt,
veaviov
avrov
,
dvSpiavroupyei
ecrra),
Kauapov TO
dvie-
ofypvs
rcaOei^evri, /u/^S
p,rj
o/x/u-a
dvajreTrra^evov,
~\.a&lt;7/j.evov,
VTTTLO^ o
rpa^T/Xo?, /x^S
/jLereatpa
/fat
Kivr)cri&lt;;
/j,eva
rd rov crwftaro?
/i^eXr;,
aXXa [T]
op6os vovs Trpo? rov \6yov, O^UTT;? ws eipr)/j,ev(i)i&gt;, teal cr^/xaricr/Ltol KOI
roi? a/coXacrrof? e XTTt So?.
aTrecrTCi) Se /cat o aTro Kdl dppevwjria Kal ypvaoyoeLwv teal epL07rw\iwv a\vs
ci\\(i&gt;v
/J,r)Sev
/cat
a?ro
epyaa-rrjpicav,
evOa
/cat
eratpt/cw?
first
restored
by Cobet
O. S. vi. p. 339, who saw that the writer was necessarily speaking of young men and not of young women, as the word dppevwTria of itself shows. It seems
Mnemos.
comes probable, as Wachsmuth suggests, that this frag, from the epwrLKi] re^vr) (Introd. p. 30). So Cobet I.e. for veaviba. Bind, with two MSS. veaviov.
reads veavia.
Ka6ap6v.
Cf.
Plut. de
Audiendo
13, p.
45
C,
7rpo&lt;T&)7rr.o
/caracTTacrt?
dvaTre-n-Ta|i
KaOapd
vov
:
Kal
dve/jicfoaTOS.
cf.
barefaced, impudent,
Xen. Mem.
II.
1.
22,
rci
Se
o/i/Ltara
ex eiv
dvaTreTrra^eva, of the
woman
See Aesch. Suppl. representing Vice in Prodicus fable. is an emen and comm. 9 the 198, /u,r;8e StaeXacr/xe^oz/ the MSS. /^S for xi. s dation of Cobct 387) (Mnemos.
dvaKeK\aa-/jbevov,
the
meaning
impudici.
With the
rd
is
so
Wachsm.
for vulg.
opQovov
irpos
/c.r.X.
208
Perhaps it would be better to place a comma after ,,, and connect rov \6yov with Bind, brackets
7rpo&lt;?
6^vrtj&lt;f.
KvT]o-is...v8i8ov(ra
(ivpoirwXCuv
:
MSS.
Lys. Or. 24 20, etcavros yap eidiarai 6 v^utv Trpoafoirdv fiev pvpoirwXelov, o 8e frpos Kovpelov, 6 Se 737509 crKvroro^dov, o 8 OTTOI dv rvyy id. Or. 23. 3, Isoc. Or. 7. 48, OVK ev rot? aKipafaiois oi veutrepot, Sierpifiov ov& ev rat9 av\r)Tpi&lt;rtv ovS ev rot?
7T/30&lt;?
these shops are mentioned as the lounges by young men. Ar. Eq. 1375, rd peipdtcia
TOioi/rot?
oi?
&lt;rv\\6yoi&lt;;
aXX
:
ti&gt;
epevov ev
T(ix&T](rav.
used
the
for this
Homer s time the smith s shop was purpose Od. xvm. 38, Hes. Op. 491 later
In
:
most frequently mentioned: see shop the comm. on Hor. Sat. I. 7. 3. Other authorities are
s
is
barber
by Becker, Charicles E. T. p. 272. So Cobet for Kefco&lt;r/j,r)/j.evai... (i^voi...Kae56p.voi. For the former word cf. Xen. Mem. in. 11. Ka0eofj,vai.
KKo&lt;rjxT1
collected
4 where Theodota
^kvr]v, arid
is
spoken of as TroXuTeXa?
II.
fcefcoa-fjn]-
pi/cus KKoa/j,r)/Mevai (quoted by Becker, Charicles E. T. and for the latter Aeschin. Timarch. 74 roi)? eVt p. 249)
;
TWV
olKt)fj,dra)v
Kae^ofjiivovs (referred to
8, 14.
by Wachsm.), and
Catull.
xxxvu.
175.
Diog. L.
xpi")a0at
eXeye roi)? vtov? Trdtrp Kal iropeiq Kal a-^fian /cat -rrepito the
Possibly
frag.
this
is
only a reference
For
7repL/3o\rj
= clothing.
preceding
176
elvai
Diog. L. VII. 131, dpeo-Kei 8e avrols K al tcoivds ra? yuvaltcas Seiv irapd rot? cro^ofr axrre rov eVrf]
evrvxovarj
^PW^ai, KaQu
(770-4
Zrjvwv ev
rf,
209
ib.
33,
icoivds
re
-m? yvvaiKas
p. 20.
n/Varom
ev TTJ vroXtreta.
Observe, however,
this opinion,
which must
Diog. L.
Ke\evei
The same view seems to have been advocated by the Hence the point of Menander s lines quoted by Cynics.
Diog. L. VI. 93,
&lt;TV/ji7repnraTr]aei&lt;;
yap
77
rpi/Bajv
&lt;yw&gt;i.
e ^oucr
e^oi,
Trod
aX\.rj
Socrates in
pev yvvaifcl a With regard to the words /jLr)8ev dvSpl Kakrj. The latter act is d-jroK. Zeller, p. 308 n. 2, remarks such as for only conditional and allowed in certain cases,
"
purposes of
v.
gymnastics."
But the
:
limitation
is
Plato
A, 457 A) and we have already seen that (Rep. Zeno proposed to abolish &lt;yvfj,vda-ia it may well be that
452
Zeno, like the Cynics, disclaimed the theoretical propriety There is no rules of modesty in dress. of the question
Zeno s
life,
and
is
largely
178.
Origen
c.
Celsum,
VII.
63, p.
739, e/CK\ivova-i
TO fioi^eveiv ol ra rov Kmeeo? Zr/vwvos &lt;tXocro&lt;/&gt;o{We9... Sid TO KOiVWVLKOV Kdl TTapd (J)VCTIV elvai TO) \OJLKW aj(i)
voBeveiv
rrjv
VTTO
yvvaiKa Since
/cal (bdetpetv
erepco
7rpoKaTa\ rj(f)del(rav
OCKOV.
is
dv0pa&gt;7rov
dSidtfiopov, TO speaking marriage such an and to be virtue, contrary /jLoixeveiv cannot in the ideal state. offence would be impossible Still, with
strictly
an
H. P.
14
210
society constituted as
Trepia-rda-eeof
fj^oi^eveiv is
fyva-iv.
Kadr) K ov avev
the same spirit in which he takes part in its public affairs b In Sext. Pyrrh. in. 209 (Stob. Eel. ii. 7. ll 94, 8 foil.). we find TGI; ? ye /JLTJV ^ot^oi)* Ko\det Trap rjfj.lv yo/zo?, e&rt rat? rwv erepwv Trapd Be ricriv yvvatgl fUr/mMrvav real $i\oa6$&gt;wv 8e rives (fracriv d8id&lt;popov eivat
dSid&lt;j&gt;opov
indicated,
ro dXXorpia yvvaiKi fiiywcrBai. The Stoics are probably and the passage is in no way inconsistent with
p.
the present, cf. Theoph. ad Autol. HI. 3 Kal Trepi crefivor^ro^ Treipwfjtevoi ra? o-rvyrjrds dpprjroTrouas
179.
118
D,
ypdfaiv
da-e\yeia&lt;f
ot^i KOI
/cat
en pyv
Sext.
Emp. Pyrrh.
dpxrj? avr&v
Trepi TraiScav
dywyrjs
ov yap
rj
d\\a
"
Sta/j.r)pieiv
/jLijSe
w&ev fj,d\\ov
rj dppeva ovSe OyXeiais
/zr)
TraiSixd
77
0r)\ea
[ecrrt] TraiSiKOis
d\\a
fxrj
Trai8itcoi&lt;?
dppea-iv, d\\d ravrd TrpeVet re Kal The same fragment is preserved by Math. XL 190, introduced by the words
Kal
^v
Trepi
^ev
Trat-
8iarpi/3at&lt;;
6
aipea-idp^r}&lt;;
Zrjvcav
roiavrd
nva
Bity-euror,
rats
Siarpipais.
The
four
true
aspect from
For this book see Introd. p. 30. which to regard this and the
next following fragments is very clearly set forth in a passage of Origen, c. Cels. iv. 45 (quoted by Zeller,
"The Stoics made p. 310, n. 1). good and evil depend alone on the intention, and declared external actions, independent of intentions, to be indifferent el-rrov ovv ev
:
rat Trepi
dSia&lt;f&gt;6p(i&gt;v
roTrp ori r
211
eariv,
Ouyarpdcn fiiyvva-dat
TCUS
d8id(f&gt;opov
Kal
|xi}
\pr\
Ka0crTwcrais
iroXireCais
TO
TOIOVTOV irouiv,
Kal
7-779
vTrodecretos
xdpiv...7rapei\r)(j&gt;aa-i
TOV
crofyov
p,erd
TU&gt;V
Ovyarpos
^6^779
KaTO\-e\eifJip,evov
TravTos
TOV
el KaOrfdvOpwTcwv yevovs Bie^Oappevov, Kal ^rjTovaiv KOVTWS 6 Trarrjp crvve\evaeraL rfj dvyarpl v-rrep TOV [J,r/
yevos."
This also
illus
Sext.
Emp. Pyrrh.
auro?
III.
yoveh
Trjv
ocTiOTT^ro? 6
nvrjp
et?
ra
vrept
loKaaTrjv Kal TOV OlSlTroSa OTL OVK r}V Seivov TpifleLV TL /aepo? TOV Tr)v /jurjTepa Kal el pev daOevoixrav erepov et crco/xaro? Tpl-fyas rat? ^epalv co ^eXet ovoev ala-^pov
Se eTepa
fteprj rpt-v^a?
TratSa? IK Trjs
/LtT/rpo?
yevvaiovs
o
eTroirja-ev, alcr-^pov.
Sext.
pev Zrjvwv
el
TO,
Trepl
T^?
r)v
Ot StVoSo?
TTJV
io-TOpov/jievd
(frrjcnv
OTL
OVK
Seivbv
crwfjLa
Tepu&gt;
rpl^rai
fujrepa.
Kal
pev daOevovcrav TO
el
rat?
P a^
Be
GO e evpev oBvvwfJiev^v Tcavcras Kai /juepei rptA/ra? TratSa? eK T^? ya^rpo? yevvaiovs Trot^cra? ri TJV ala-^pov ;
ib.
Pyrrh. III. 205, d\\d Kal 6 KtTievs Zrfvcov eavTOv popiw droTTov elvai TO popiov r^9 /^rpo?
TO&gt;
ovBe a XXo TI
(f)av\ov av
6.
/Ltepo?
TTJ
III.
eiirof,
vrj
TLS elvai.
1,
6,
o$&lt;?
eywye
TOV
e{3ov\6[JL r]v
f)
(j&gt;rj
StayLt^ptcr/cioz)?
o-TTovBfjs
rocrainri^
be observed that Sextus does not state that comes from the Siarpifiai, so that we may perhaps refer Plutarch s words to this the passage Wellmann however, p. 440, thinks that both
It should this extract as well as the last
:
142
212
Sextus passages come from the Starpifiat,, in which case Plutarch s statement should form a separate fragment.
Cf. Chrysipp. ap. Sext. Pyrrh. in. 246, id. ap.
Epiphanius
9 (in. 39), Diels, p. 593, eXeye yap Selv fiiyvvaOai rats fjL-rjrp fieri rot)? TratSas rot? 8e frarpda-i ra?
III. 2.
adv. Haeres.
dvyarepas.
Diog. L.
VII.
III.
G,
120
D.
181.
"
Sext.
Emp.
Kal
TT&lt;I\IV
(6
Zijvwv)
8iafj,efArjpiKa&lt;&gt;
rov
epa&gt;/j,evov ;
OVK eywye.
/LtaXa.
Trorepov
OVK
eVetfy/zT/cra?
dvpr)aa&lt;$
a\X
eVe;
e&lt;f&gt;o/3&gt; ]67)&lt;;
/ceXeOcrat
pd
;
At
*
aXX
Kal
yLtaXa.
etr
OVK
VTrr]peTr)cre
aoi
ov yap.
tant,
is
itself
to (nrovSaia
cf.
bo-u? eTTidv/MJov dve^er alcr^pov 7rpdy/j,aTo&lt;? OUTO? Troir/cret TOUT edv xaipov \d^rj.
7n6v/j,jj(ra&lt;;...eir
e&lt;
Sext.
OTTOV ye teal 01
200, K al TI
&lt;/)tXocro0/a9
Kal oi jrepl
rov
Kinea
TOVTO
&lt;f&gt;opov
dppevopigiav) elvai
183.
Sext.
Emp.
1
eiraparov ov Trap
184.
rn^lv
OVK
TO, Zrjvcovo?
TI trot eSoge
OTrdcra Trepi-
at
avrdov
SiSda-Kovaai
dvOpwrrofiopias,
/3i/3pcaaKea-0ai
fyeaOai Kal
ov /3ov\oiTo
Jj
fiepos
n
TOV
rf;9
fiver ep
;
avTOv d-rropptyeiev,
Of.
aTecr0iW0&lt;u
^ (payovra
re
ical ical
III.
trapic&v
Trepl
dvO
7
r&lt;j&gt;
X 4\iW arrows,
.
TOT)?
a-Tro-
Sext. Pyrrh.
207, 247
Math. XL
192194, Mayor
Canni
vi. 73, balism was also recommended by the Cynics, Diog. 5 dvoviov elvai TO ical dvO panreiw Kpeuv &^aff0at, cf. an amusing which with e0^, 3,7X01; eV ruv aMwrpiav dead various modes of disposing of the the of summary Sext. Pyrrh. III. in different countries, ap. prevalent the Stoics that however should be observed
^8
226229.
It
185.
Epiphan. Haeres.
III.
36, rou?
ical
oe
Trapapd\\eiv
ypiia-Oai a/c&)Xf TO)?.
^vai
v irvpi
rot?
Math. XL Sext. Emp. Pyn-h. m. 248 Chrysippus, ap. of deceased relations 194 recommends that the flesh if useless for that for but, food, should be eaten if suitable araeiroivovtriv fj TO pvfjpa purpose, r? KaTopv^avres these of The meaning Kataavre* T)V T^pav d^ovaiv. to be similar, and obscure words of Epiphanius appears used in this sense
;
Trapapd\\eiv
(see
is
certainly
commonly
L.
and
S.).
words very
Thus Stein, Psychol. p. 161, n. 314, to the doctrine of metem finds some allusion in them his body In the same spirit Diogenes ordered psychosis
differently.
to
I.
any
the absolute unimportance of Chrysippus proved the form of burial from a comparison of particular
I.
108,
2269).
214
186.
Cic.
Ep. Fam. ix. 22. 1, Atqui hoc (libertas loquendi) Zenoni placuit...sed ut dico placet Stoicis suo
appellare. 128, nee vero audiendi sunt Cynici, aut ei qui fuerunt Stoici poene Cynici, qui reprehendunt et invident, quod ea quae re turpia non sunt nominibus
Cf. Cic. Off.
i.
ducamus
and see
Zeller,
Socrates
p.
*a\&&gt;?
Zr)vwv e6e\etv
7rl
TOJV
iSeiv
494, S. p. IvSov
&lt;di&gt;&gt;
Trdaas
ra&lt;f
Trepl TTOVOV
The allusion to the Indians is explained by the words the Indian philosophers are said to have used to Alexander:
(Tw^ara pev /uera9 e/c TOTTOV et? TOTTOV, i/ru^a? S ^/ierepa? OVK dvayicdo-fis Troieiv a @ov\6/j,0a.
irvp avdpwTrois
telling the
&gt;J^et5
Kara^povovpev. Clem.
sit
7.
50.
Similarly Philo, in
879, Trvp /jLeyiarovs rot? fcScrt aw^acri TTOVOW; tcai fydopav epyd^erai,
liber, p.
same story:
TOVTOV VTrepdva) r^els yiv6/j,e6a, ^wi/re? The KaioptQa. historians attest the custom of themselves alive burning said to have been practised by the Brahmans. Strabo,
XV.
1.
TiKrjv
65, aia-^ia-Tov 8 avTois vofjui^eadai voaov TOV 8 VTrovorja-avTa Ka6 avTov TOVTO
TTU/OO?
cra)/j,a-
eavTov Bid
KaievQat.
KadicravTa eVt
occupare pulcrum, et vivos se cremari iubent, quibus aut segnis aetas aut incommoda valitudo est :...inquinari putant ignem nisi qui spirantes recipit. Cic. Tusc. II. 40,
(Mueller) uri se patiuntur Indi. particularly recorded, Cic. Tusc.
TTJV Trvpdv vfatyai tceXeveiv, d/civrjTov Be Curt. viii. 9. 32, apud hos fati diem
The
II.
case of Calanus
etc.
is
52
ascertain.
May
of
it
:
refer to Antisthenes
In Diog. L.
list
vi. 2,
we read
him
on
6 TTOI/O?
dyaOov vvvevr^e
Std rov
of his find
^d\ov ttpa^ovs
alternative title
ical
works preserved by the same writer (vi. 1518) of which bear the three with the title Hpa*\fo two
(
we
rj
ire pi
188.
V. 13,
ovrw
yovv
dff&lt;pa\w*,
-jratia^ols
eiceivos o
av^p
roi)?
vroXXou?
v avdpv-irvv e
-rrapa
aratSa^o^
p.
Becker, Charicles, E. T.
226.
189.
= Anton.
el,
fir)
Meliss.
Trpo?
I.
52,
e Xe7%e
aavrov,
ocrrt?
X aP LV
dtcov, dfycupov 8e
\CYX
KO\aKa&gt;v
Trapp^a-lav.
see the ^ avT6v recalls 7^w^t veavrov, for which 27. XL on Juv. authorities ap. Mayor = do not listen to flatterers, is the
,rp6 s
Xdpvv &KOV of 77730* ^ovr^v TI \eyeiv (Thuc. II. 65), TT/JO? form passive Phil. I. 38), Trpo? X ap/ epek ^801/1)1; Siimopelv (Dem. The best illustration however is O. T. 1152).
(Soph.
Stob. Eel.
(j&gt;epei
p.
H4,
man
vii. 117.
Meineke would
quoted by
is
also
ascribe
Zyvooorov.
21 6
190.
(av
Floril.
av TTO\VV
eavrov
"Trape^erai
e
eo&lt;
Kal Qepcnrevei
7re(f)VKacri
&lt;T7rovSdef.v
vroXt) Se
pd\\ov
Kal
avdpwjrot, rot?
-7-01)9
TOIOVTOVS
Kal
yap Kal
(
roav
(J
TOV (jco/iaro?
eVt/ieXoi;//,e#a fjbd\\ov
nrep
vofjbi^op,ev elvai, o
&)(/)eXt/i
&v
v&lt;f&gt;
ev
Trda-^etv
d^iovfjLev,
aXXa
/JLTJ
ovSe yap
77
e Xat a
depairevovTi re al
avrrjv
/eaXoi)&lt;?
7raydX\eTai,
KapTrovs
aXX
e(/&gt;epoucra
ejreicrev
eavrijs
eVt-
This fragment
is
I.
p. 6): see Introd. p. 31. 0\oi: unless ^eX?; be read, av belongs to the verb. Cf. Dem. de Cor. 246, aXXa fj,r/v y av o ptjrwp But it is often inrevOvvos eirj, iracrav e^eraaiv Xa/i/3a^e.
&lt;Lv
difficult
to
potential.
determine whether the optative is really See Fennell on Find. Nem. iv. 8, Goodwin
137.
cf.
"
557,
Madvig
ol
w4&gt;&i|xov,
Clean th.
frags.
"
75 and 77.
av8pwiroi,
addendum
654
b.
Wachsm.
Jelf
191.
(f&gt;rj(Tiv
D, 6 Se o-o^o? eVeti/o?
Zijva)v, w?
&lt;w?
TO
ei/co? Trepl
&lt;W9
Avriyovos 6 Kapvarios, TrpopavTevo/Aevos v/j,aiv TOV fiiov Kal r/79 Trpoa-Tronjrou TTiTrjSevcrea)S,
01
&lt;j)rj
TrapaKovcravres avrov
ru&gt;v
dv\evdepoi
KaBaTrep ol
Aptcr-
N. D.
est
III.
remark
to Aristo
quod Aristo Chius dicere solebat, nocere audientibus philosophos iis, qui bene dicta male interpre-
verum
217
ex Aristippi, acerbos e Zenonis posse enim asotos It should be observed, however, that Atheschola exire. of Carystus as the source of his naeus
specifies
Antigonus
information, so that he
credit as Cicero.
is
at least as
much
entitled to
192.
Stob. Floril.
6.
62, ev
yap
TO eipvjrai, efy,
teal
rov
Zt jvwvos
on
rovrov
r
eve/fa
Kapreov ov
KO^reov, rov
/CO/XT;?
Kara
(va
&lt;j&gt;vcriv,
fiapovpevos
ns
VTTO
TT?&lt;?
^8
evoxXovpevos
rod
rj
Kurd
4&gt;(iriv.
i.e.
external
environment,
is
constitute which, although unconnected with virtue, yet the objects of KaOrj/covra, Diog. L. VII. 108, evepyrj^a Se
avro (KaOfJKov)
Stob. Eel.
ii.
elvcu, rat?
Kara
;
(f&gt;vcnv
Karaa-Kevah
oliceiov,
7.
8a
13 p. 86,
VIII.
193.
Diog. L.
(i.e.
48,
d\\d
H,T)V
/cat
rov ovpavbv
rrjv
rrpwrov
yrjv
arpoyyv^V
The
Se TiapfJ^eviB rjV w?
lines of
Theog. 126
elr)
Hesiod supposed to be referred to are laov 128, Fata Se roi rrp&rov pev eyeivaro
darepoevO
^eot?
kavrfi ovpavov
o&lt;f)p
iva
/J.LV
rrepl
rrdvra Ka\vrrroi
aid,
fMCiKapea-o-i
eSo?
which are
cr(/&gt;aXe&lt;?
For the limited a very poor basis for the two assertions. sense in which /cocr/xo? is used, cf. Diog. VII. 138, Kal
avn]v
Se
\eyovaiv,
194.
darepcov
Koafiov
eivai
Diog. L. VI. 91, Zrfvmv 8 avrov (Crates) ^pet at? Kal icwSiov
ra&gt;
^al
irore
218
Becker, Charicles, E. T.
Tpi@(ov
(cf.
p.
419).
apoph.
3).
"
dvcmTpcirrovvTa
word
is
The
Steph.
195.
&lt;j&gt;i\6ao(f&gt;o&lt;;
rov Mapyirov Be
Dio. Chrysost. LIII. 4, yeypafa Be real ZTJVUV 6 6t5 re rr,v IXtdSa Kal rrjv OSvo-reiav Kal -rrepl
Bo/cel yap K al rovro TO Troirj^a vrro v yeyovevai vewrepov Kal aTroTreipwpevov rijs avrov 6 Be Z^vwv ovBev rcav rov 7rpo5 TTOirja-iv.
Opijpov
B6av
avrfa
&pa
jMjfOfUVO^ ev THTI BOKOVCTIV evavTifo? cipijtrOai. 6 Be \6yos ovrof Avrttrfftvow earl -rrporepov on ra
avTa&gt;
fj.ev
dX&gt;C
o
eirl
pei&gt;
OVK
pepovs
eBrjXaxrev.
For the object of Zeno s Homeric studies cf. Krische p. 393, 394, who points out that, Zeno although may have incidentally controverted some of the Chorizontes of his time, yet his main object was to fortify Stoic precepts by to Homer s For Antisthenes see appealing authority.
Zeller, Socrates p. 330.
This work seems to have resisted the dis integrating process, which from early times was applied to Homer s works, better than any other of the poems ascribed to him, except the Iliad and Odyssey. Aristotle (Poet. iv. 10) does not question Homer s authorship.
MopY&lt;j.
196.
Plut.
comm. Hesiod.
ix,
Zr,W
219
ei TreiOeia
ra
The same
whose comment on the change of place in the as follows Kpeirrova yap elvai TOV aicovaai
:
ai/T&lt;&gt;,
lines is
aX,o5?
8vvdfA6Vov TO \eyofjievov Kal xpf)cr0at TO Tcav crvvvoiicravTos. TW /j,ev yap elvai povov TO avveivai. Themist. v TreiaOevTi Trpoaeivai, Kal rrjv Trpafyv. rut 8
rov
01
avrov
C, e /iot 8e
XiW
dperrjv
apeaTO? ewat
id.
rrjv
6pO(a&lt;;
ay^Lvoia^ rrjv /3aa-i\iKO)Tpav elvai The lines of Hesiod (Op. 291) are often quoted or
rrj&lt;?
imitated
cf.
Ar. Eth.
I.
4, 7,
Liv.
xxn.
197.
TO TOV 2o^)oXeou9,
oo-Ti? Se Trpo?
tcelvov
crTt
IfMTropeveTai,
e\ev0epo&lt;&gt;
OVK
eo-Tt
SoOXo? av
(J.
rjv)
e\ev6epos
W
Ka
The fragm.
82.
is no.
711 (Bind.).
frag. 149.
3.
sec Diog. L. n.
For
198.
cf.
\i&gt;6epo&lt;;
Strabo vn.
6,
Homer
el
/JLTJ
Zr/vwvL
TW
8
&lt;/u\ocro&lt;/&gt;ft&gt;
Trpocre/tTeoi/
A.i6loira&lt;;
IKO^V
Kal StSoviou?
Te.
220
Horn. Od.
01)5
199.
Stob.
fyq
Kpdrrjra
\picrrore\ov&lt;j
rvv Kwrrpioav ovSevl rr\eiw dyaffd vrrdp^L 777)09 TO (f&gt;i\oo-o(f&gt;ija-ai, 7r\ovrov re yap TrXeio-rov avrov e%eiv axj-re Scnravav et? ravra en 8e Sogav vTrdp-^etv avrw. dvayiyvutO-/COI/TO? Se avrov rov cricvrea Trpoo-e^eiv pdjrrovra,
/3a&lt;ri\ea
\eycov
on
e&lt;j)r)
&lt;ifj,a
ical
rov Kpdrrjra
ere
ei-jrelv
eya
/j,oi
Sotcw,
co
&lt;J&gt;tXtV/ce,
ypdtyetv
o9
TrporpeTrri/fov
&lt;f)i\o&lt;ro&lt;f)f)(Tai
7r\ei(o
yap
6pd)
aoi
os TO
wv eypatyev Apia-roreXrjs. This passage belongs to the work entitled a: Introd. p. 31.
Stob. Floril. 36. 26, Zr/vcov
&lt;f)i\o\6yov&lt;f
r&lt;5v
200.
7-01)9
f^ev
elvat
7-01)9
Be
\oyo&lt;f&gt;i\ov&lt;;.
The meaning
105, 4, where
is
made
clear
by Stob.
:
Eel.
II. 7.
ll k
p.
it is
said of the
Be
(f&gt;av\os
prjBe elvai
(f&gt;i\6-
\oyov,
\oyo&lt;j)t,\ov
pdXXov,
Be
f^e^pt,
\aXtds eTrnroXalov
K{3e/3aiov/j,evov
Trpoftaivovra,
fj.y/ce ri
roi)9 \eyo)v,
egov aTro
rutv fiayeipeiwv
\ap/3dvovra&lt;;.
mJvwv. This passage should have been quoted in the note on frag. 128.
202.
e/cao"Toi/9
Stob.
fJ&gt;ev
Floril.
4.
107,
Zjvtov
Be
efa
yeXolov
roi&lt;?
221
clearly
reads 7rapayyel\aa-iv, but Mr which -rrapa TWV vofywv TrapayyeX^aa-iV suggests restores the balance of the sentence. For the sense cf. Cleanth. frag. 100.
Wachsmuth
corrupt
and
D. Hicks
rot?
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.
1.
Diog. L. VII.
2,
%pi&gt;j&lt;TTr)pia%ofjLevov
avrov
rl
wparrwv dpiara
(Sioocrerai,
rot? veicpols.
The same
col.
in Suid.
v.
938.
2.
7-179
Diog. L.
VII.
ru&gt;
3,
7rop&lt;f)vpav
e/ji7rTropevfj,evo&lt;;
djro
Qoivlicris
7rp6&lt;;
TLeipaiet evavdyrja-ev.
dve\0(av 8e
64?
ra?
A#?7z/a&lt;?
/,
d-TTOfivrj/jLovev/jidTtav rja-Oel^
rplfioiev
ol
TOIOVTOI
dvSpes.
VKaipa&gt;&lt;;
Trapiovros
avrov
&lt;f&gt;r]cri,
rovry trapaa/i&lt;/&gt;i
VTTO TroXXdSv
6ri
avrov
TI
2,a)tcpdrov&lt;&gt;
aTro\oyia
etc
&lt;froiviKrj&lt;t
3.
2,
Zyvfov
&e,
rfc
to
vavK\r]pla&lt;t
elirev, ev
j,
rv^rj, Trotet?
rov rpi/3o)va
Zrjvavt
Ta&gt;
&lt;Tvve\avvov(ra
^09.
Plut. de Tranq.
(f&gt;oprr)y6&lt;;
An.
Ktrtet pia vavs Treptrjv rrvdofievos Be ravrrjv avr6&lt;f&gt;oprov d7ro\co\evai crvyK\vcr6el(Tav, ev ye,
elirev
rrjv &lt;rrodv added after rpt/5va. account in Plut. de Exilio 11, with the same Substantially
*.T.\.
with xal
APOPHTHEGMATA OK ZENO.
Kal (Siov
col.
1
223
1023
Trap
TTCOV
Suidas in place of KCLI rrjv crrodv. eVt rwv vvv einrXorjKa ore vevavdyr/Ka. \7rloa evrv^rjo-avruiv. Zr^vwv yap 6 Kirteu 9 Kara\i~
fyi\6ao$&gt;ov
s.
v.
TOI)&lt;?
Trplv
oi8ao-Ka\ov&lt;;
(f)i\ocro(f)ov
/cat
(froirr/rrjs
yev6/j,evo&lt;;
rovro
elprjKe,
vavayiw
7repi7recro)i&gt;
eljrwv, ev
76 Troel r) rv^rj 7rpoae\avvov&lt;ra 7//Ltr7? fyiXoaofyia * * * OUTCD That the story TpaTTrjvai TT/DO? (f)i\ocro(f)Lav. was given in various forms appears from the account
in Diog. L. vn. tiato naufragio
"
4, 5.
2,
Xun-
Zeno
"
submersa,
phari."
lubet
iiiquit
me
4.
Diog. L.
VII.
19,
77^69
8e
TOV (frdcrKovra
Kal fca\d
elr
VTT
(w?
rd
nva
e^etv
avrw
rov
e
(&gt;rj,
OVK
elSevai,
TJV
ja-avros,
eprifjievov
,
OVK
p,ev
KCIKOV
TOUT
6K\j6fjLvo&lt;i
Kal ^vrjjjiovevwv
el
Se
KO\OV, ovo
5.
Diog. L.
?, a;?
VII.
20,
avrw
irepl
a\\a
Trpode/Aevos
d\\a
\eyei,
&lt;TKvdpa)7rdo-as,
TTUCTOV
e&lt;prj,
The
ergo cupiditatis
consuevisset,
rfyira^ r Aldobrand videbatur explanation is thus given by Polemonem accusare, ac si ilia ita docere
&lt;yp
:
quomodo a
discipulis tractaretur.
Plut. de prof, in virt. c. 6, o Se Zr/vwv e6(f)paa-TOV eVl T&5 TroXXoi)? e%eiv fj,a0ijrd^
6.
opwv rov
c.
17,
ovrw
6
&lt;ydp
TO 7r\f)6os rwv
,
(")eo(f)pdo-rov
/juadrjrwv, 6
6 e
xo&lt;?
oe
224
7.
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.
Diog. L.
VII.
24,
(prja-l
ATroXX&mo?
CITTO
eX/coi/TO?
eiTrelv,
Tft)i/
u&gt;
Sri
e&riv eVt8efo? 77 8t KpaTT??, Xa/3?; amai/ TreiVa? GUI/ eX/te rovrov. el Be pe /3taf/;, TO
/tier
a&lt;3fj,a
r/
and
evSov
/c.r.X.
:
Plant.
^v\\ey(ov Aulul.
nunc domum properare propero nam egomet sum Pseudol. 32, nam istic meus animus hie, animus domist. nunc est non in pectore, and Lorenz ad loc.
8.
Diog. L. VI L 21,
ra.
e Xe7e Be
xal
rwv
&lt;f&gt;i\oa6&lt;f&gt;a)v
rot)?
7r\ei&lt;TTov&lt;&gt;,
ra Be
"
/jurcpa /cat
die Philosophen Wilamowitz(Antigonos p. 117) says: sind in den meisten Dingen ungeschickt, von den gewohnlichen begreifen sie nichts: sie wissen nur das eine was Not but probably we should read evfia6el&lt;t, with
tut,"
Meric Casaubon.
9.
avrw
el
BOKCI
ra \oydpta
roov
(f&gt;t\oa-6(f)wv,
Bet fj-evroi
Bvvarov.
10.
Diog. L.
rq&gt;
VII. 25,
Kal
7rpo&lt;?
Bia\eKTifcov ev
Trvdecrdai
Trocra?
aKovcravra
Be
ercarov Biaicocrias
avru&gt;
Bovvai.
The fallacy known as Oeplfav was concerned with the nature of the possible. According to Ammon. de Inter. 106 a [ 3 p. 160 ed. Or.], Lucian, Vit. Auct. 22 the depi^wv was as follows Either you will reap or you will not reap
"
225
reap."
is
Zeller, p. 182.
11.
Suidas
col.
1202
s.v.
SeXro?
K~\.edvdr)s, ov Kal
rots"
d&lt;j&gt;a&gt;polov
&lt;JK\ripoK^pot^
oe rd ypa&lt;pevTa. fji,6\is fj,ev ypd(f)ovTat, 8iarrjpov(n 6 de Audierido c. 18, uxnrep KXedvOrjs Kal se
Sofcovvres elvai
TU&gt;V
crvcr^oXacrrwv, OVK
ci
et?
avTov&lt;;
d\\d
/cat
TrivaKicn
roi)? XaX/ca?? dTreiKdfrvres, ft5? /u,o \t9 p,ev TrapaSe^o/jievoi For Se Kal /3e/3ai Tijpovvres. Xoyou? see Becker, Charicles, Eng. Tr. p. 102.
&lt;w&lt;?
ao-&lt;/&gt;aX&)?
12.
Diog.
L.
VII.
18,
a
/cat
8ia~\.eyofj,evov
OVK
evcfrvuis,
ere
Trarrjp
^evvrjcrev.
&lt;av.
Stob.
Floril.
36,
23,
ra&gt;v
TI&lt;S
ev
A/caS^/Lteta
veavi&lt;TKU&gt;v
Trepl eTnniSev/jidrwv
pr}
Zrjvwv edv
TH]V
y\d&gt;rrav,
e&lt;f&gt;T],
SLaXeyr), TTO\V 7r\ei(o ert Kal ev rot? \6yois TrX^^eX^cret?. Plut. Phoc. v. 2, 7j,r)va)V e\e&lt;yev on Bel TOV (f)i\6(To(f)ov et
&lt;?
vovv dTroftaTTTOVTa
7Tpo&lt;pepecr0ai
rrjv \el~iv.
Cf.
Suidas
I.
p.
328
Ka\auov
Some have regarded these words as aVo/3pe^wi/ et? vovv. the original of Quintilian s sensu tincta (frag. 27, where Cf. M. Aurel. V. 16. see note).
14.
(ocnrep
Diog. L. VII. 20, oelv Se e$r] TOV 8t,a\ey6/^vov, rot;9 vTroKpiTas, TTJV [J,ev (f)(0vr)v Kal Trjv ovva^iv
eyeiv
/jiev
fj,eyd\T]v
TO
/jLevToi
crro^a
f^rj
oie\Keiv
o Troielv
roi)9
7ro\\d
H.
P.
\a\ovvTas, dovvaTa
oe.
15
226
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.
ovtc
15. Diog. L. VII. 20, rot? fv \eyof4evois KaraXeiTreadai TOTTOV, wcrTrep rots dyaOolf
e^y &eiv
TO dedGaaOai
rovvavriov Se rov
ware
fj,rj
\a/j,^dvetv
%povov
et?
TOITOV
TOTTOV.
16.
Diog. L.
22,
^,7)
ra?
teal
&lt;j&gt;a)vds
ra?
TTJS
TrofjLVTjfjioveveiv,
d\\d
fj,rj
Trepl
ryv
Std0e&lt;Ttv
axnrep
e-^rrjcriv
nva
rj
cf.
Diog.
S ecrrt ^xyy^ eyypdfj,fj,aros. The meaning is: we ought not to commit to memory the words and but to expressions of a maxim (xpei a? as in
Xei9
apoph.
4),
exercise our
it
mind
3.
by heart
17.
Diog. L.
VII. 23,
00-1^779
avdos
elvat,
.
.
(jxavr/v,
So Cobet, followed by Wilamowitz, for MSS. (fxavfjs cf. Diog. L. VII. 130, apa dvQos dperfc. Zeno,
.
TO 77^05 e^ eiSovs.
&lt;^&gt;t\6cro0o?,
18. Stob. Floril. Monac. 196, Zrjvwv 6 \ey6vra)v rivdav ort irapdSoga \eyei, 17TV, aXX ov irapdvopa. Cf. Cleanth. frag. 107.
19.
et?
Plut. de Virt.
Mor.
4, tcairoi teal
Zr/vwvd
&lt;j&gt;aa-tv
HaOrjrds, Iwpev,
rcai,
vevpa
Cf.
teat
v\a
Arat.
teal
evrepa
/j,era&lt;r-
e/i/ieXeiai/
c.
Kal
2,
(frwvrjv d^itjcriv.
17,
aSovros
A/Ltoty3e&)9
eV
TCO
Amoebeus
as a con
temporary of Antigonus.
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.
20.
227
Oe\ovra
d/coveiv
"
veavicrice"
elrcev,
"77
&lt;/w&lt;Tt?
rjp.lv
X.acriova Trapecr^ev, iva SiTr y\wrrav /Jiev TO VII. L. wv \eyo/j,ev dtcovwpev." Diog. 23, vrpo? &lt;f&gt;\vapovv aid rovro, eljre, 8vo wra aro^a Se ev,
fAiav Svo oe
wra
^eipdiciov,
e^OfMev,
Garrul.
1,
Plut. do
dv6pucnra)v,
on
piav
3,
fjbev
COTCL
a^ovo-iv,
6
id.
de audiendo,
vwv^av
/jurjre
^7TLvOapo&lt;f
e\drrova
(frvcrtv
(j)Oeyyof^ev(i)
paoiws evrv%eiv
Xeyov&i ovo
fj,ev
rj
erepa).
real
rr}v
jjulav
r]jJLU&gt;v
eicdaru)
a5?
wra oovvai
o&lt;j)Gi-
8e
yXwrrav
e\drrova \eyeiv
dfcoveiv
\ovri. 21.
t
^)?;,
King. L. VII.
u&gt;rd
21,
veaviaKov
rro\\d
\a\ovvros,
rci
aov
et? rrjv
&lt;y\wrrav
(rvveppvrjKev.
22.
Diog. L.
rj
VII.
rf]
26,
e Xe7e
re
Kpelrrov
elvai
roi9
Troalv o\Lcr6elv
&lt;y\wrrr}.
This
is
and
p.
is
7,
n.
Wachsmuth
Stein, Psych, in
Sauppe
23.
Satura Philologa,
oeii;as ev
/3a&gt;/jiov
6(^77,
re rrepiardvrtov avrov Diog. L. VII. 14, 7r\eiovwv TO nar aroa %v\ivov rrepifyepes rov aKpov rfj oca oe ro ef^rroe/ceiro TOUTO TTOTC fjuecrw
ei&gt;
rov
/j,ecrov
/Saarda-avres
avrovs rjrrov YJ^JUV evo-^Xrio-ere. Kohl or in Rhein. Mus. xxxix. 297 proposes fidOpov
for (3(i)fMov.
24.
Diog. L.
VII.
24, epwrydels
7r&5&lt;?
e^ei
vr/ao?
\oi-
el re pea /Sevres
dvarroicpiros drco-
are\\oiro.
152
228
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZEXO.
of this bon
it
The point
mot appears
to
have been
lost
in the tradition:
must
man who
abuses
me
Trpeo-ftevrrjv dvarroicpirov
Diog. L. VII. 24, ev o-vprrocriw tcara/ceipevos crtyfj, alriav ijpwnjdtj. ovv eytcaXeaavri aTrayyeiXai
ru&gt;
&lt;f&gt;r)
7T/3O9
rjo-av
rov /3ao-tXea, ort rraprjv Giwjrav eVto"rrt/u,ei&gt;o9. oe 01 epwrrjaavres rrapd UroXepaiov 7rpe
rt&lt;?
t7/3et&lt;?
1
d&lt;f&gt;i-
KOfievoi,
7T/90?
ical
/3ov\6fj,evoi
fj.aBelv
rt
eiTroiev
Zr/va)i&gt;,
Trap
avrov
rov /Sao-tXe a.
AvTtyovov
avrojv
cri/v
A.6rjvae
0tXo&lt;7o&lt;^)ot9
tc\r)0ei&lt;;
VTT
eVt
SeiTrvov,
Kaiccivwv
(!!~iv,
Trapd
irorov
eTriBei/cvvaOat rrjv
T(OV Se Trpeo-ftewv ^rjrovvrwv ri
"
avrwv
"
ai/ro? eaiya.
Trepl
dTra&lt;yyei\w(n
avrov
Sv&lt;r-
7rpo&lt;f
Avriyovov,
Se
rovr
avro,"
e&lt;/&gt;?7,
/SXeVere."
o \6yos.
(nrovoaov&lt;Tiv
avrols
8e
crvvayayeiv
ei&lt;f
ravro
roi)?
/cat
d&gt;i\o-
cr600L9,
xpu&gt;n,evwv
ra?
ri
xP n Xeyeiv, tyao-av, Zrjvwv, rat y9ao-t\et ; d\\o f*r)8ev, drrev, rj ori rrpecr^vr^ ev
u&gt;
/crzVet^o?,
e&lt;rrlv
AOr/vats
rrapa rrorov aiwrrdv Svvdpevos. Also in an expanded form ap. Theodor. Metoch. p. 334, Kiessling. The anecdote in the form related in Diog. Laert. rests
on the authority of Antigonus of Carystus, and hence Wilamowitz (Antig. p. 114) concludes that the king who sent the embassy was Ptolemaeus and not Antigonus
Gonatas.
It
was natural that in later times, when the between Antigonus and Zeno
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.
229
have been transferred from Egypt to Macedonia, Diogenes, of the embassy, however, has misconceived the object which appears in a less corrupted form in Plutarch. The ambassadors were sent to Athens, not to Zeno, and the
but of Macedonian assembly was not one of philosophers instructed to sound, were ambassadors the These partisans. in Zeno s case. mark the missed but they seem to have
26.
rov Kircea
6
/3acrtXeu&lt;?.
01
/cat
aloovs ayav
r)1 ev
Air^yow
Kai Trore ovv inrepTrXya-dels oivov eTreKW fiacre rco Zrjvwvi,, rl are avrov Kal 7repij3d\\(av egoivo? wv, rjgiov
&lt;f&gt;i\wv
ical
drvxweiv rfc
&lt;re/Ai;t5?
aiVjJo-ew?.
ical
Se
\eyei
avry, iropevBel?
peyaXo^povw
rrjv
pedyv
e\e&lt;yj-a&lt;;
Athen.
II.
55
F, Sio /cat
Zyvcov o
Kmeik,
&lt;rK\rjpo&lt;;
wv Kal IT aw OvfjiiKos Trpo? rou? yvapluovs, rov oivov o-Trao-a? 7)81)9 eyivero Kal /ie/Xt^o?
TTvvdavouevovs
eirl
TrXelov
vrpo? TOI)?
auro rot?
Oepuois
^pa-^fjvai TTi/cpoTarou?
rrpoo-r)vea-rdrovs.
Zr;va)v,
a&gt;
TO Siatpopav e\eye SiaeVeiVou? rcplv -rrad^iv, ical yap Se y\VKeis Kai eli^at, rconaQtVTas
rr)v
3. IV.
777 K.,
/cat
ol -rriKpol Oepaoi 0ao-^, eXe^ei/ ort, Kadd-rrep vbari y\vKels yivovrat, ovro) Kal avrov vrc j^pe^o^evoi 293, p. 1910, oivov BiaTi0ecr0at. Eustath. on Horn. Od.
5
ru&gt;
&lt;/&gt;,
(fracriv,
o/Lttu?
o-vvrj0ei$,
et
^8i)f
Oeppow
TronaOevres
7T&lt;7cr%eti&gt;,
Similarly Diog. L.
28.
Athen. vin.
,
345
c,
Z^o^
KiT4ei)9
w avvefy
eVi
230
Xpovov, Ka6d
$l(f&gt;
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZEXO.
&lt;f)ija-iv
Avriyovot 6 Kapvo-rios ev
TO&gt;
(p.
119
ctTTo
Wil.),
TrapareQevros,
o
d\\ov S
rov
avra&gt;-
Zijvwv
efj.@\e\fravro&lt;;
ri ovv, e^r),
TOI)&lt;?
o-u^coi/ra?
aoi oiei
Trdo-xew, ei
(payiav
29.
&e8vvi)&lt;rai
evejfceiv di/ro-
VII. 19.
Athen.
186
D,
8e
Zijvatv,
eVet
rt?
raiv
Trapovrwv 6-^o(f)dya}v dfricrvpev afia rut TrapareOrjvai TO rov o-rpeS/ra? KCU auro? rov l^vv (iTrea-vpev e7ri\eya)V (Eur. Bacch. 1129)
e7T(iva&gt;
i-)(6vo&lt;;,
egeipyd^ero.
id.
The same
story
is
told of
Bion Borysthenites,
it
vm.
(Ind.) thinks
is
rightly attri
Diog. L. VII. 17, Svolv & V7ravaKei/j.evoiv ev TTOTCO, rov VTT avrov rov eavrov (TKifj,a\^ovro^ rw TroSt,
v&lt;f&gt;
emo-rpafyevros B, ri ovv
&lt;rov
ol et
Trao-^eti/ V-JTO
col.
:
v.
a-KipaXiao).
Vulgo
v-rrepavatc.
and
VTrep avrov
corrected
31.
by Menage.
TT
&lt;re
a
&lt;Z
Boissonade, Anecd. Gr. vol. i. p. 450, ZfjBi, dvdpwjre, ^77 povov tva ^^779 teal TT/J;? XX 7va T o tfv Trpcx; TO ev tfv tear axprj cry, attributed to Zeno in Cod. Reg. Paris, 1168, seems to be another form of the well-
known saying
OVK iva eadiwpev aXX eV^^ev tva &fj,ev. frag. eth. 10 in Wachsmuth s collection
This forms
I.
(Comm.
who
p. 8),
231
Diog. L.
vii. 21,
ra rov
J.a&lt;jyi)&lt;riov
e7ri/3a\o/jLi&gt;ov
&$&lt;?
TIVOS
fjLaOrjTwv
fjbeyd\a
(frvadv,
elr),
ieyd\a) TO ev Keipevov
The saying
xiv. 629, A.
34.
of Caphesias
is
Diog. L.
VII. 26,
TO ev yiveaOai, irapd
fjiitcpov,
ov
35.
Trjo~a&lt;;
TWV
Tvpelv
avTa&gt;
TO,
tyevSrj
TL Xe 7et?,
(frrjcriv,
dyvo)/j,ova)v
Kal
dSitcwv
ov 8e8iev
d/3e\Tepe ou8
ere
alcr-
av 8
eicelvov inrep
TWV
Sitcalfov ov
dappels VTTO-
36.
TOI)
o%eTioi&gt;
&lt;ydp
TL OKvrjp&s
avTov
elirev,
v(f)opa
37.
TTJV r/\LKLav
Trpoo
rj
efj,(3\e\lrai,.
eVeiT
7jpa!&gt;T
r]o-ev
el
avTM
dpfjLOTTOVTa eivai
en/ret TO,
TotavTa
Diog. L. vii. 21, veavitrxov Be TWOS OpaavTepov dv etTrot/xt, effrtj, iieipaKiov, a eVep^eTat 8ia\e&lt;yofAevov, OVK
38.
yitot.
39.
cro009,
(el
jjt,r)
ovbev,
rj/mels
ec^rj,
Vfjiu&gt;v
TWV
Ka\a&gt;v
epaa-Orjo-6-
fieda,
Mil.).
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.
40.
elvai rov
rv&lt;f&gt;ov,
Diog. L.
vii.
22,
teal
^akiara eVt
Diog. L.
rt? eo-riv,
etfyij,
rov icexpio-^evov
;
ra&gt;
pvpy,
yvvaitc6&lt;;
o&v
p.
cf.
Xen. Syrap.
II. 3.
42.
Ion Damasc.
215, 13
= Exc.
MS.
Flor.
9
Zjvuv
^r^el^
TTW?
&lt;iv
6(f&gt;8a\}4(Sv
e^et,
e^,
ou?
ovt
^Stob.
v-n-ep
Floril. 15, 12, Zijvwv 717)09 TOU? a7ro\o 7 ouT^? ayrwi/ ao-wrta? /fat Xeyovras ex TTO\\OV
dva\i&lt;TKeiv
rov TrepiovTOS
e\ejev,
r;
payei
a-vwvwcreade, edv
aXpvpd \eyaxri
i
rd
on
TrXfjOos
d\wv
avroi&lt;?
44.
Diog. L.
Se TOV
vii.
17,
epuriKw
rj,
Be oWe/^ei/o?
avrov re
/cat
XpeK\edv0ovs, dve
Trpo?
evov^
rtav
dyaduv
fcpdriarov elvai
&lt;^dp^aKov
ra
&lt;/&gt;Xe
7/tiat-
vovra rjavyiav.
For Chremonides
45.
cf.
Introd. p.
6.
Diog. L.
VII. 18,
&lt;f&gt;peva&lt;;
7T/&gt;09
Se rov
aet
^XoTratSa,
oi^re rot)?
^77
,
e^eti/,
oiarpifiovTas ev
ovre eVet
i/oi"?.
46.
Stob. Floril.
17,
43, Zijveov
Se
Ktrtei)?
ovSe
Trpoo-^epeadai Tpvfapcorepav, a\X -wv^ eVet o OepajreiKav iarpos eVeXeyei/ avrov (frayeiv veorrov
Trepio-repds,
Bepajreve."
yero Beiv
rpo^v
ovtc
" "
dvao-%6ij.evo&lt;t,
to&lt;?
Mavfjv,"
^77,
/ie
slave s
name,
cf.
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.
OUTO&gt;&lt;?
t /itt?
Trdvres frporepov
,
peyXovs
yiovs r
vvv
Dem.
ijXiOtovs, Mai/a?.
20.
views to the Stoic cosmopolitanism (frag. 162): for their of slavery see Zeller p. 329.
47.
ft&gt;9
Se KVVIKOS rt?
01)
$?/cra? e\aiov
ev ry XrjKvOw irpoayr^a-ev avrbv OVK -rre X-Oovra ^kv-roL eKe\eve crice^raa-Oai oTrorepo?
Saxrew.
elf}
&lt;fyrj
dvat-
48.
Kpdf*,(3r]&lt;;
Athen.
IX.
370
C,
real
ov Trapd&ogov
el
Kara
TT}?
2roa?
KTi&lt;TT(t&gt;p
fjufiovpevos
rbv
Kara
rrjs
KVVOS
ce5?
opicov
^(a/cpdrov^ KOI avrbs w^vve rrjv KaTnrapiv, ev A. jrofJLVijfjLovevfjLatnv, cf. Diog. L. vil. 32. (frrjortv on this very doubtful name see Miillcr, Frag. "Ep-TToSos
:
"E/z,7roSo9
Hist. Gr.
49.
IV.
403, after
whom
Kaibel reads
"E^vreSo?.
r/
OVTW TreveaOai
Se
y^povov.
/Spa^i)?
77
yap OVTWS
rr^
o ftios,
rj
Texvr)
fjiaKprj,
Kal fjidXXov
cf.
T?
VII.
^v^
voaovs
Ida-aa-Oai Svvapevrj,
Diog. L.
23, fj,r)8ev6s re
So Theophrastus
50.
rt
a\\o?
;
olo?
e 7&).
Diog.
67 w.
L.
VII.
23,
TI? ecrrt
^&gt;/Xo?
a\Xo?,
4,
5,
e 0?/,
So Arist. Eth. N.
aJro9,
cf.
ix.
eart
7p
&lt;&lt;fXo5
a XXo?
Cic.
Lael.
vm.
fir;
7rp&lt;k
rbv
el-jrovra,
,
d-rroKoi^v edv
ve r^wp^wfiat,, eyca
Se,
edv
/jur/
$i\ov
234
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.
52. Diog. L. VII. 23, &iovv&lt;riov 8e rov enrovToi avTw Bid rL avrov fjLovov ov Siopdoi
&lt;roi
e&lt;f&gt;r),
ov yap
Tricrreva).
v. 94.
L.
Cic. Fin.
53.
IV. 39.
1,
Quare
ergo, inquit,
Zeno
quingentos denarios cuidam promisisset et ilium parura idoneum comperisset, amicis suadentibus ne crederet, perseveravit credere quia promiserat? Perhaps
vester,
quum
is
252
B, Trore
dcfrrjicas rda
54.
yov
fyv).
Diog. L. VII. 23, SovXov eVt /cXoTr/y, TOV 8 etVdi TO?, ei/xapro fjLOL K\e^rai
&lt;/&gt;acriV,
e/
/cat
&apr/vai,
nullum servum fuisse Zenoni To have no slave was a the see comm. on Catull. XXIII. 1.
:
/j,efjL(0\a)7ri(TfAevov
rov OvfAov rd
56.
Diog. L.
ereXevra
8rj
ovrax;.
eV rfc
avei?
Kal
Trapa^prlfia
ere\evri)crev,
rjSr/
aTroTrvl^af
u&gt;v
"
eavrov.
Stob.
yepwv
;
Trrataa? Karejrecrev,
eieeXOcov
eiTre,
.
ri pe
aveis
teal
eavrov
(frao-iv
Lucian Macrob.
eio-ep%6[j,evov et?
Trpo&lt;nrralcravra
dva-
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.
L
235
pe
/3oa&lt;?
pocfrr/s
is
uncertain.
Both
wrote plays with this title, but Aeschylus and Sophocles Xauck thinks the words belong to the Xiobe of Tiinotheus: cf. Soph. frag. 395 (Bind.). The situation must
have been similar to the concluding scene of the Oedipus a mysterious Coloneus, where Oedipus is summoned by
voice: O. C. 1G2G
57.
f.
Trepl
812, Kiessling, KOL 6 f^ev ot&ev 7T/309 Ka6o\ov, fyvwv e\eyev, r/\0e, 7rapij\0v, Kal rov {Biov rwv evravOa
Thcodor. Metoch.
p.
e&gt;e
Trpajfjbarwv
e.g.
vi. 15.
Diog. L.
vil.
41, 6 Se
K\edv0r)&lt;;
fieprj
&lt;/&gt;r/&lt;ri
#60-
% (w pT]. These are only subdivisions of the triple Zenonian division thus Sia\eKTiicbv and pyropiKov to
:
gether occupy the same ground as \oyitcov (Diog. L. vn. 41 cited in Zeno frag. 6, where Cleanthes is probably meant).
For
p.
170
his rhetorical writings see Introd. Hirzel n. p. 50. 178 tries to establish two points in connection
but adopted
taken from Heraclitus, cf. Diog. L. IX. 5, ? \6yovs et? re TOV Trepi rov Trai/ro? fcai rov TToXirucov Kal rov 6eo\oyifc6v.
T/&gt;et&lt;?
But
iroXiriKov.
&lt;f&gt;p6vT)o-i&lt;;
Similar
is
Aristotle s
distinction
between
VI. 8), in
(practical thought)
&lt;f&gt;p6vrj(ri&lt;f
which chapter appears both as the general term and as a special subdivision dealing with the individual. The same may be said of r)6in.Qv here.
eo\o-yiKov.
Aristotle
divides
Speculative
is
(OewpTjTiicjj)
Philosophy into
v. 1, 10).
&lt;j&gt;i\ocro&lt;f&gt;la
(pva-ixtj, p-aOrj^ariKr),
0eo\oyiicij
(Metaph.
subject-
237
In the Stoic
7.
9).
system
metaphysic, not simply refer to the treatment of does 0eo\oytKov The in the book ire pi 0ewv. popular religion appearing to than rather to Zeus belongs to 0eo\oyiKov
would have been impossible to follow out this materialism was de distinction in practice, since their it and of may be doubted whether
structive
hymn
(j&gt;vcrt&gt;Kov.
LOGICA.
2.
Epict. Diss.
real
I.
17. 11,
rd \oyiKa
a&gt;&lt;?
a\\a&gt;v
eVrl Sta-
KpiTiKa
eTrunceirTiica real,
av Tt9
eirroi,
^erp^riKa
KCti
o-rariKa.
TI S
uovos Xpuo-tTTTTO?
frag. 4.
3.
/cal
Sext.
Emp. Math.
e
7
VII.
Stea-Trjo-aV
el(Toxn v Te Kal
yvo/j,evrjv
TVTTWVIV
Kara
7*eo-riv
$a&gt;ierv\la&gt;v
ib.
372,
el
yap TViracrk
Kara
ev -tyvxfl
"
^avraaia,
rjroi tear
e^o^v
VIII.
rov K\edv0rjv
K.T.\.
ib.
vop%ov&lt;rtv, rj
erepoiojo-tv
Kvpiw
(rv7ro)(nv).
Pyrrh. Trvevuaros, faeuoviKov Trvevad eanv ff \eirTouepecrrep6v avrai ovre ev etnvoelv rvrrwaiv ov Bwrjo-erai rt? w? rwv eVl a^payiSwv op&fiev, Kar e^ox^v Kal elcrox^v, (9
fj.ev yiverai dicovovTOS ryjv uerd ela-oxfc Kal egoxfc voovpevrjv II. id. 70, eirel ovv 77 ^vyr] Kal TO
400,
K\edv0ov&lt;s
&lt;]&gt;atriv,
ovre Kara
rrjv
reparoXoyovuevijv erepoiwriKriv.
Zeno
ground
became a
battle
Cleanthes explained
114,
TuV&xm
wax by a
(scil.
seal,
cf.
p.
vm) rd Qavevra
icopi&vo-ai, Biayye\\ov(n
238
teal
TO
opoiov 7rd0os.
al&lt;r6r)&lt;rewv
K i)pw yap
COIKOX;,
Se^era*
Sta
rwv
&lt;/&gt;az/racrtas%
als
ra
awfj,ara
Kara\afj,/3dvei.
however objected that, on this view, if the soul received at the same time the impression of a triangle and a square, the same would at the same time have body
Chrysippus
it, and would become at the same time square and triangular (Sext. I.e., Diog. L vn. 4550); and he accordingly interpreted Tvirtoo-i? by erepoiWt? and a\\otWt?, cf. Cic. Tusc. I. 61 an
imprimi,
sig-
quasi ceram,
animum putamus,
in
et esse
memoriam
pp.
160 168 finds here also the influence of Heraclitus, who, he believes, is pointed at in Plat. Theaet. p. 191 foil., 0e 9 877 ^ot \6yov
eve/ca ev
ral&lt;t
natarum rerum
He
relies
^v%als r/fjuav evov tcr/pivov e/cpayeiov however entirely on the disputed frag.
o&lt;j&gt;6a\nol
d&gt;ra
/c.r.X.
Katcol
teal ftdprvpes dvOpwTTOK; fiapfiapoix; ^rvx^ which Zeller exovTwv, interprets in exactly the opposite sense to that of Schuster and Hirzel. The point cannot therefore be regarded as established see Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 734.
:
cl&lt;ro
X iiv.
.^OXTJV
= concavity.
rf)
.convexity.
etVo^a? KOL ib. I. 120. efo^a? exeiv, ov prjv /cat rfj Plat. Rep. 602 D, KOI ravra Ka^-rrvXa re Kal evOea ev vSaai re #e&lt;w/iei/ot9 Kal ega, Kal Koi\d re &rj Kal e^e ^ot/ra Sid rrjv Trepi ra ^p&lt;w/iara av ir\dvfjv T?;? o
d&lt;f&gt;y,
I.
92, at yovv
ypafai
-^retu?.
For ancient Greek rings see Guhl and E. T. Koner, p. 182, with the illustrations, and for mjpov see on Zeno frag. 50. Hirzel I.e. shows that the metaphor was common, even apart from cf. philosophic
8aKTv\wv.
teaching:
etc.
STOHKO/ faaiv
orav
yevvr)6rj
aTroypafajv
els
TOVTO fiiav
have been stated in the Introduction, p. 38, 39. For the the further illustration and exposition of the passage note reader is referred to the exhaustive and interesting
of Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 112, n. 230
;
but
it
may be
which as well here to set out two quotations from Philo, make strongly in favour of the hypothesis that Cleanthes
"
was the originator of the tabula rasa theory cf. Philo, rrt 279 Mang., fyavravia 3 quod Deus sit immut..!. 9, p. rwv a yap el&lt;rrjyayev eKdcrrv) aia-drjcrewv, Tirn-eocm ev
"
tyvxfj,
i}
a-fypayis,
evaTTepdgaTO TOV
quis
Krjpivov, 009
el-rre
oliceiov
6 vovs.
rwv
5.
Olympiodorus
\eyei OTI
lust. Or.
II.
1.
c.
on Zeno
e^t?
frag.
o8u&gt;
12,
TOLVVV
Quint il.
Cf.
ea-rlv
Trdvra dvvovaa.
nam
18,
sive,
ut Cleanthes voluit,
12.
Fin.
ill.
quoted on Zeno
frag.
definition is too wide, and Olympiodorus objects that the that it would include (frvats which is not a re^vr] (cf. Cic. have replied that neither but Cleanthes N.D. ir.
81),
might
cf.
is
&lt;uo-i5
an
For ei?
e(?fc&lt;?.
on
8ta0e&lt;r
Zeno
Be ov
frag. 117,
and Stob.
Eel.
II.
7,
ev p. 73, 7,
et-ei
povas
elvai
ra? ripera?, dX\.d Kal ra? Te%i/a9 ra? ev rw cnrovai&lt;&gt; Kal yevopevas d/ieradv&pl d\\oia)0iO-a^ VTTO r?;? aperrj&lt;^
S,
olovel
6.
rj
892 b 1423, w9 dpa rd Syrian, ad Ar. Metaph. Socrates Plato Trapd rot? Belois rovrotf dvSpdatv (i.e.
240
rrjv
p
/cat
a&gt;9
Xpvannros
at
t
Ap%e8r)[j,o&lt;;
TrXelovs
firjv
ovS"
evvojj/j.aTd
Trap
avrols
Se at,
G&gt;9
K\edv0Tj&lt;;
vcrrepov
eipijicev.
fragment has been variously interpreted. 480, and Krische, p. 421, think that Cleanthes described the ideas as "subjective Gedanken," in which
difficult
p.
This
Wellmann,
case the fragment is a restatement of Zeno s view cf. 23. Stein discusses the at frag. passage length (Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 293 295): reading vorj^ara, he supposes that Cleanthes words weje OVK elcriv ai iSeac
:
Zeno
vor)p,ara.
evvorjfjLaTa
Zeller
also
p.
85
has
vor^ara.
Aristotle
II.
However
edited
appears
follows
in
the
Berlin
by
ra
Usener, and so
explains
tionalised
Wachsmuth (Comm.
:
p.
3) reads.
Stein
as
vorjuara
represent
abstract
knowledge resulting from our experience by the agency of \6yos. By such vor/fj,ara are we made aware of the existence of the gods (frag. 52), and
op06&lt;;
from these we must distinguish the class conceptions (Gattungsbegriffe) which have no scientific value. Class
conceptions (evvoijuara} can never be the
criterion
of
Cf. Simpl. knowledge, since they have no real existence. in Cat. f. 26 C ovriva rd xoivd Trap avrols \eyerai.
:
But, even assuming that the distinction between vo^pa and eworj/j-a is well founded, which is by no means clear, and that var/para is to be read here, the context in
Syrian is conclusive against Stein. The meaning simply nor again are the ideas in Plato etc. to be treated as is,
"
"
in other words, the evvoijpara negative oi)e is no part of Cleanthes statement, but belongs to the commentator.
:
This
&lt;W9
is
oi/S
ru&gt;
AyTGmi/09, piyvvs ryv Aoyyivov tcai K\fdv6o vw TrapvtfrtcrTavTO /card ra? evvoijTitcds i 8ea9.
241
Clem. Alex. Strom, vin. 9. 26, 930 P, 332 S, Xe/mi ical Ap^eS?;^o?. Karriyoprip,ara Ka\ovcn KXe&lt;w$7;9 yap the abstractions contained in thoughts as ex \6KTd
T(i
:
to thoughts on the one hand pressed in speech, as opposed on the other (f^eaov rov re of and the things thought
votj/jiaros
Neither again are they Kai rov rrpdy^aro^}. which are corporeal (Sext. identical with the spoken words, Math. viu. 75). Being incorporeal they can have no real
existence,
deny
and yet the Stoics seem to have hesitated to In the ordinary termino
Xe/croi/.
is a subdivision of logy of the school KarrjyoprjfjLa and is described as Xe/croi/ e AAtTre? (Diog. VII. 64).
From
was the
we must
introduction of the
new term
Kar^yoprj^a given by Sextus is 230), but a new term was required to denote the abstrac
tion of a complete assertion (e.g.
rj/j-a
An
Cato ambulat), for which For Xe/crov gene Karrjjop 222. 219 see Erkenntnistheorie, Stein, pp. rally fact The most 50. Zeller important p. Apxe Sr^os
was obviously
:
insufficient.
is
8.
Epict. Diss.
II.
19.
4,
i}pu&gt;rtjcr0ai
yap
rrdv
rpicrl rovroLS
777309
d\\r)\a, rw
ru&gt;
dovvarov
^
e
Swarm
ovr earcv
d\rjOe^ ovr
nj
rwv
crraf avvL^wv rrjv ^d^j]V ravrrfv o AioSco/90? avvexpi](Taro TT/JO? rrpttiTwv ovolv Trtdavorr/ri
Svvarov o OUT ecrriv d^Oes rrapdcrraa-iv rov p,r]Sev elvai our earaL. \OITTOV o p*ev rt9 ravra rTjp^cret rwv ovolv,
on ean
ii.
re
Ovvarov, o ovr
ecrriv d\rj0es
ovr
ecrraf
P.
16
242
Kal Bvvara) dBvvarov OVK uKo\ov6el- ov TTUV Be TrapeXrj\v0o&lt;f d\rjBe&lt;; dvaytcaiov eVrr KaOaTrep oi Trepl KXedvdrjv BOKOVO-IV, ol? eVi TTO\V &lt;rvvrjyopr)crev \VTLTT
&lt;t&gt;epeo-6ai
arpos.
oi be
roXXa
Bvo,
on Svvarcv
eVrti/ o
oiV
&lt;lo~Tiv
d\Tj6es
OVT ea-raf
/cat TTUV
Swarta S d&vvarov
rd rpta 8
eieeiva
Tr)pj&lt;rai
Cic. de Fato afujxavov, Bid TO Koivi]v elvai avrwv fj,d^-rjv. 7. 14, omnia enim vera in praeteritis necessaria sunt, ut Chrysippo placet, dissentient! a magistro Cleanthe,
convertere.
way that the acceptance of any two involves the rejection of the third: (1) Every past truth is necessary. (2) That which is
impossible. (3) A thing may be possible which does not exist and never will exist. Diodorus asserted the truth of (1) and (2) and denied (3) thus Simplicius ad Cat. 65. describes his followers
possible can never
Three propositions are here mentioned, inconsistent with each other in such a
which are
become
68
K/3do-i Kpivovres TO Bvvarov. rrj Cic. Fam. IX. 4 (writing to Varro) trepl Svvarwv me scito Kara kio^wpov fcpiveiv. Quapropter, si venturus es, scito necesse esse te venire: sin autem non es, rwv dBvvdrwv est te venire.
as avrfj
Cleanthes asserted the truth of (2) and (3) and denied (1). asserted the truth of and Chrysippus (1) (3) and denied (2), cf. Alexander ad An. Pr. I. 15 p. 34 a 10 Xpvo-iTnros Be
iMtjBev Kw\veiv Kal Bvvaro) dBvvarov fTreatfai K.T.\. Cleanthes maintained therefore that it is and was possible for past events to have See further happened
\eywv
differently.
vol.
is
on
p.
this controversy
Grote
Plato
in. p.
495
foil.
On
with
499 Hobbes
is
quoted,
who
Diodorus.
The dilemma
itself
in
p.
by Diodorus the Megarian, on whom see Zeller Socratics 252. It went by the name of o Kvpievwv \6yos =
243
II.
cf.
Themist. Or.
who mentions
it
together with
as well
ey/ce/caXu/A/xeVo?.
KCLI
Aul. Gell.
Cleanthes
p. 50).
9.
3335.
rhetoricen
bene
dicendi
scientiam.
nam
et
orationis
omnes
virtutes
semel complectitur, et protinus etiam mores oratoris, cum bene diccre 11011 possit nisi bonus, idem valet Chrysippi rinis ille ductus a Cleanthe, scientia recte dicendi (scil.
rhetorice).
f. Class. Phil. 131, p. 123) conjectures after out fallen has substantiae, word Cleanthis the that
Kiderliii (Jahrb.
so
that, while
eTnarrjfMrj
rov ev \eyeiv, the words rov opdux; \eyeiv would be an See however Striller Rhet. alteration of Chrysippus. For the usual Stoic definition cf. Diog. Sto. pp. 7, S. L. VII. 42, TI]V re p^ropiK^v, e7ricrrr)/j.r)v ovcrav rov ev
where rhetoric is \eyeiv Trepl rwv ev Siej;o8(0 \o^wv contrasted with dialectic, since dialectic was also defined as e-Trtcmj^r) rov ev ~\.eyeiv by the Stoics (Alex. Aphr. Top.
3.
n. 210).
Sext.
10.
Varro de
L. L. V. 9,
quod
si
summum gradum
11011
solum ad praeteribo, quod non attigero, lucubravi [secundum ad Cleanthis etiam sed Aristophanis 7 quo grammatica esceridit aiitiqua, quae explained in finxerit verbum ostendit (|uod(i[ue poeta
tamen secundum
quemadmodum
confinxerit declinarit].
102
24-4
Athen.
XI.
467
d,
K\edvOr)&lt;;
8e 6
&lt;/&gt;t\6cro&lt;o&lt;?
eV
rw
ib.
irepi
/ueraX?/\/re&&gt;&lt;?
ajro
TOW Ka-rao-Kevaadinwv
teal rrjv
(f&gt;r)(rlv
ovo-
fj,a&lt;T0ijvai
rr/v
re 6^piK\eiov KvXttca
SetvtdSa.
4)71
b,
KXei #7;9
rd
&lt;TTI,
(frtycrt,
eV raj Trepi /zeTaX?;^e&K crvyypd/j.fj,ari roLvvv evpijfAara, ical oaa -roiaina Ti KOI rd
\onrd
[yap]
olov
6r)piK\eio&lt;t,
Seivids,
I0t/cpaTt9,
ravra
3
ei
/;
Trporepov (TWLcrTopei TOI)? evpovras, t Tt real vvv el 8e /J.TJ TTOICI TOVTO, /J.era^e^XrjKO i
pitcpov rovvofj,a.
crat Tf3
&lt;f&gt;aiverai
d\\d, tcaOaTrep
TV^OVTI.
:
the meaning of this word seems to be that explained by Quintil. vin. 6. 37, superest ex his, quae
fWTa\Ti4/ws
id est, trausumtio, quae viam praestat tropus et varissimus et maxime improprius, Graecis tamen frequentior, qui Centaurum Chirona, et 1/770-01/9 (1 vavs) d^et a? dicunt. significent,
yLteraX^i/rt?,
aliter
ex
6o&lt;\s
Arist. Top. vi. 11, p. 149 a 0. a kind of drinking cup, said to be after Thericles, a Corinthian potter of some
6r]piK\iov:
si
named
celebrity, and,
according to Bentley on
of
3, a contemporary Welcker, however (Rhein. Mus. vi. 404 foil.), maintains that these cups were so called because they were decorated with the figures of animals.
Phalaris
Aristophanes.
Snvids and LjHKparls are the names given to particular kinds of slippers, the latter of which was so called after the celebrated Athenian general. Cf. Poll. vn. 89, d-jro 8e
TU&gt;V
xpija-apevcav
l&lt;f&gt;iKpari8e&lt;f,
AetvtdSes,
~fj,iv8vpi8ia,
MiW/aa
dtru Mvvdicov.
ra? re vTroSeaeis rot? cn-pa-u&jTCU? evXvrovs icai KOixfras eVo/T/cre, ra? ^XP 1 r v v ^ v tyucpaT&eK air* eVetVou icaXov/Ltei/a?.
Charicles
245
follows.
It
seems
to
mean
l
connoted."
"
this, the word must have tense cf. Dem. xxx. 10. the For changed Timocrates and Onetor were both men of substance war OVK dv Bid TOVTO 7 elev OVK evOvs
8
(iij
tr.
if it
docs not do
somewhat."
PHYSICA.
DlOg. L. VII. 134, &OKl 0\WV 8vO, TO TTOLOVV Kdi TO Trda^OV.
12.
TO flV OVV
TO Se TCOLOVV TOV ev
Tracrr;?
elvai
ai/Trj
Tr)i&gt;
a-TTOiov
ova-lav Trjv
v\rji&gt;,
TOVTOV
e/cacrra.
TidrjUL oe TO
86jfMa TOVTO...
frag. 35.
dr]s ev
TM
Trepl cvropwv.
See Zeno
13.
esse
cf.
Zeno
frag.
44)
permeatorem universitatis affirmat. = Trvev^a. So far as the evidence serves, spiritum Cleanthes was the first to explain the Heraclitean Trvp as While not refusing to admit that Zeno s aether rrvev^a. emanation from the Godhead (see on frag. 15), is an he differs from Zeno in identifying God with the sun, as the ruling part of the universe, and the ultimate source of
the
is
"
Urpneuma."
:
inconsistent
at
to Trvp, while at p. 210 he sippus and restricts Cleanthes the conception of introduced Cleanthes that allows
permeatorem.
indicates
Gk.
Sir/rceiv
Zeno
frag.
37,
probably
cf.
that
Cl.
accepted
a,
Kpdcris
SL
o\wv,
Alex.
246
-rrda^
avrtjf
SirjKOVTO*;,
ov
v&lt;j&gt;
(rvvdyerai Kal
14.
atque animo Minuc. Octav. xix. 10, Theophrastus et Zeno et Chrysippus ct Cleanthes sunt et ipsi multiformes, sed ad unitatem providentiae omnes revolvuntur. Cleanthes enim mentem modo animum modo aethera
tribuit hoc
p. 34, 20, Aioyevr)? K al Kal OivoTriSrjs (TOV 6eov] rrjv rov Koapov Cic. N. D. i. 37, turn totius naturae menti
i.
Stob. Eel.
1.
29 b
6r)&lt;;
nomen.
plerumque rationem
Deum
disseruit.
Cleanthes teaches the exact correspondence between the microcosm of the individual and the macrocosm of
the
world:
there
is
therefore
in
the world
ruling
principle
IX.
analogous
to
the soul
KOO-JJLO^
rt,
of man.
VTTO
Sext.
Math.
&lt;ucre&&gt;9
StotKeirai
TroXtyiep?}? KaOea-Tws,
dv
ev
avrw
1]ri^
&lt;f)V(J-lV,
(TTIV.
&lt;TTIV
15. Cic. X. D. I. 37, turn ultimum et altissimum atque undique circumfusum et extremum omnia cingentem atque complexum ardorem, qui aether nominetur, certissimum deum judicat. Lactant. Inst. I. 5, Cleanthes
et
Anaximenes
aethera
dicunt
esse
summum Deum
has here
of his
own
Greek original 6e6v elvai rov aidepa, and by a confusion of the two senses in which is used in the al6t]p
School (1)= TrOp surrounding the world.
Stoic
re xyLKov,
(2)= the
fiery
zone
Cleanthes, as will be presently seen, disagreeing with the rest of the school, regarded the
247
in sun and not the belt of aether as the foe^ovucov, or, n. Acad. God 126). as the abode of (Cic. popular language, affirm the identity Cleanthes therefore only meant to This may be true, but the of #eo9 and the -rrvp T^VLKOV. word conclusive. Apart from the reasoning is not reason there is no which is not
certissimum,
ultimus oinnia cingens no difficulty. he does to the stars, where Krische feels from emanates aether the n. 99: Similarly Stein, Psychol. God not but divine a power, the "Urpneuma" and is
himself.
important, not have attributed divinity to the as aether, just in the same manner
nltlinum
i.e.
farthest
is
II.
X. D.
Diog.
vii. 37.
ei&gt;
rwv Philod. Trepl eixre/3. c. 9, \6yov rj^ov^evov esse censet ratione uihil turn Cic. X. D. I. 37, rra Koa^w.
16.
divinius.
This,
to
it
should be remembered,
is
in direct opposition
who speaks
of the world
Eel.
as
I.
0X070) IK rwv
183, 10).
(ITO/JLWV
a-vvea-rwra (Stob.
21. 3
17.
p.
Cic.
X. D.
deum
dicit esse.
p.
ipsum
mundum
are to
^senses
6
t
See Krische
interpret
specified
770*69 7-^9
I
424426, according
here in the
first
to
whom we
mundum
by
of the three
fan Koa^os
o
/&lt;:6a&gt;io9
8wK
Ka0
TW
oiViW
oi
In any case, we ilverai KOI reXeiovTai. Cleanthes was a have here a distinct statement that and identified God with matter. The different pantheist, in effect amount to this that it to
V
8ta/c6&lt;r/tA770-i9
21
5, p.
meanings given
*6o&gt;io9
may be regarded either as the sum total of all existence, or as the transitory and derivative part of existence the distinction,- however, as Zeller observes, is only a relative one (see his remarks p. 159). For pantheism as advocated by Cleanthes see Hirzel n. p. 206. Stein, Psychol. p. 67
:
and
n. 98.
in Tim. c. 144, ex quo secundum fatum sunt etiam ex providentia que modo quae secundum providentiam ex
18.
Chalcid.
fieri
ut
sint.
quae eodem-
sippus
fataliter
putat.
alii
vero
auctoritate, fataliter
ex providentia, ut Cleauthes.
et/j-appevrj
and
Trpovota (frag. 45), but omitted to discuss the difficulties involved in so broad an explanation of fatalistic doctrine.
the difficulty that KCLKOV could not be said if it existed elp,ap^evrjv. This point will recur in the Hymn to Zeus frag. 46, 1. 17, ov$e TI yiverai, epyov eVt ^Oovl aov Bi X a Sal^ov .rr\^v oTroaa pefrvo-i /catcoi where we
felt
Cleanthes
to exist
icad"
which he offered. In support of the here taken position up by Chrysippus cf. id. ap. Plut. Sto. Rep. 34, 3, Kara rovrov Se rov \oyov rd rraparr\r)&lt;ria epovaev teal
rrepl rfjs aperf}^
fcai Trepl
i
.
ri}&lt;t
have to discuss
shall
Kaula^
teal
ro o\ov
ru&gt;v
re^vcoi Kal
/i&lt;f/!?&lt;K
rwv
yap eariv aXXta? rwv Kara K ara n]v KOLV^V vXdxivrov a\\
..oi&gt;Qev
,* t
yiyv&lt;r6at
&lt;f&gt;vo-iv
Kal rov
i&lt;rrov
\oyov.
&lt;rri
id.
Comm.
Not. 34,
\X&lt;u&lt;?
5, et
77
Be ov8f
rwv
ev
rov\dX
p,epu&gt;v
c^iv
XX
JovXijo-iv.
The Sceptic rrpovoia otoiKovuevuv. objections on this head are put very clearly in Sext. Pyrrh
in.
rwv
TW Koapw
Kara
912.
24!)
Philo do provid. II. 74 p. 94 Anchor (astra erratica) 19. nota sunt non solum rationc verum etiam sensu ita movonte nihil lit dicit Chrysippns et Cloanthes,
providontia, quae,
ad ccrtiorom utilioremque dispraetermisit pertinentiiim melius osset dispensari res pensationem. quod si aliter
tenus mundi, eo modo sumpsisset compositionem, qua deum. nihil occurroret ad impediondum I have taken this fragment from Gercke (Chrysippea
p.
708).
(juae nihil praetermisit..
Much
s
the
103
foil,
quorum conteinplatione
nullius expleri potest animus videre Generally cf. M. naturae constantiam cupientis. dvev OVK Anton. II. 3, rd TT}? T 1^779 (frvcrews 17 &lt;rv&lt;yK\aia-e(os
xal eVtTrXotf//? TWV Trpovoia oioiKOV/JievwV iravra e/ceWev Kal TO KOCT^U) pel Trpoaean Be TO dvajKalov,
ru&gt;
o\u&gt;
avfjLc^epov,
ov
//.e
po?
et.
qua
tenus...
we
find
elsewhere a
chain argument of Chrysippus in Alex, de fato c. 37 p. 8e 118 ov irdvra p-ev eari Ka6" ei^apfievrjv, OVK d/c(t)\VTOS Kal (iTrape/JLTrooio-TOS r) rov KOCT^OV Stoi/c^crt?
&lt;TTI
K.r.X.
this matter,
when Chrysippus could account for the existence of evil oe Ka96\ov apai by saying (Pint. Sto. Rep. 36. 1) KdKiav See Zeller s ovTe ovvarov eariv OVT e%et /caXctl? dpdrjvai.
lucid exposition pp. 176
20.
193.
Probus ad Verg. Eel. 6. 31, p. 10, 33, Omnem rerum naturae formam tenui primum et igitur hanc inani mole dispersam refert in quattuor elementa concretam et ex his omnia esse postea effigiata Stoici tradunt
250
Zenon Citiaeus
Speusippus
(leg.
Chrysippus) Soleus
frag. 52.
See on Zeno
Hermiae
d-rro
Irris.
p.
654, dX)C
6 K\edv0r)f
(7ov
TOV
&lt;/&gt;/3earo&lt;?
K(f&gt;a\r)v
Karaye\a
TOV SoypaTOf Kal avTof dvifjia Tdf a\T]6eif dp%df 6eov Kal vXrji Kal TTJV pev yfjv /J,eTafta\\eiv elf vowp, TO oe vSajp TO Se frvp depa TOV Se depa 7rvp&gt;
.
el&lt;f
&lt;elf
&lt;f&gt;epeo-0ai,
ei?
Ta Trepiyeia ^wpdv,
TJ&lt;J
TJJV 8e
^vx^jv
Sitjtceiv,
fjiepos
fj,Te^ovra&lt;f
^/Aa?
explained by the anecdote related by eVi 05 ye TTC I/T;? wv uyaif wpfATjae p,icrdo(f)opelv Kal VVK.TWQ p,ev ev rot? KTJTTOIS
&lt;j&gt;ptaTos.
This
is
Sie/3or/0T) 8e
&lt;f&gt;i\OTrovia,
tyirXet, p-eO
3&gt;pedvT\7)&lt;;
"
qpepav
etcXrjOij.
up."
&
ev
rot&lt;?
The same
i.e.
hauls
Kal -HIV
(iiv
yr\v
K.T.\.
various
Stoic
elements
is
it
system as
pet.
cf.
This constant interchange of the not so strongly brought out in the was by Heraclitus with his formula
p.
travra
implied,
7T&gt;ct)T77&lt;?
Cf.
Krische
387.
It is
I.
however always
16 C
p.
10.
129, 18,
KUTU avaTacriv et? 8 airo TOVTOV eis vBwp, TptV?/? depa /Liera/SoX?;?, SevTepas 8e ert /cara TO dva\oyov avviaTafjievov TOV i;8aro9
p.ev yiyvo/jLevrjs TTJS etc Trvpos
fjL(i\\oi&gt;
elf yrjv.
8ia^eo/j.evr}&lt;;
TrpaiTrj fiev
elf
yiyveTai %vori$ ei$ vScap, BevTepa 8 e voaTos depa, TpiTrj 8e Kal ea-^aTij elf Trvp. Cic. N. D. II. 84, et
cum
quattuor genera sint corporum, vicissitudine eorum est. Nam ex terra aqua, ex ex ae re aether, deiride retrorsum vicissim
aethere aer, inde aqua, ex aqua terra infirna. Sic naturis his, ex quibus omnia constant, sursus deorsus,
ultro citro
netur.
251
Diels
irvp.
supplied here:
inserts dvw.
T!&gt;
Se trip
the reverse process is concisely stated. for the divine origin of the
human
22.
Stob. Eel.
i.
20,
p.
171,
2,
Z^i/aw
al
K\edv0et
KOI
X/waiWw
TO
T
apeo-ei
al
,
T&gt;;I/
7r\tv
e/c
rtjv
oia -rrporepov
23.
Philo, Incorr.
rj
Mundi
p.
yap
ij
eh
$\6ya, w? oiero
fire, it
Philo
is
arguing that
itself
must burn
there
is
no importance in his objection, as he is confounding a X the Trvp re^yiKov with Trvp arex vov the of what Numenius, speaking therefore alike express
-
an&lt;1
&lt;/&gt;
school in general, calls Trvp aWepwSes i.e. -rrvp T^VIKOV 18. 1). What then is the meaning of the (Euseb. P. E. XV. Stein believes that we have here a piece of ?
divergence in the views evidence showing a substantial disagreement and Cleanthes and Chrysippus of the eWvpwo-i? taken
by
that
24),
&lt;\o
is
frag.
ij\ios
0. vii. 27, Aesch. Pers. 497, Soph. Trach. 693, T.^1425 Hirzel s the and 71 notes). (Stein, Psychologic pp. 70, not does he that explanation is similar (li. p. 211), except Cleanthes to him, see any reference to the sun according for which irvev^a was substi spoke of a permeating Trvp but see on frag. 13. For (j)\6ya cf. tuted
:
by Chrysippus
in fra. 24.
252
24.
17. 3, p.
1.53, 7,
KXea^?
Be
OVTW
Trey? (prjaiv
K&lt;t&gt;\oyio-0evTO&lt;;
avTov irp&Tov, elra rd e^o^eva aTrotrfievvvaQai 81 o\ov. rov 8e Travrcx; e%vypavdei&gt;Tos TO e&lt;T^aTov TOV Trvpos, O.VTLTVTrtiaavTos avTw TOV f^eaov, rpeVeo-^at 7rd\iv et? TovvavTiov,
eW
o vTto Tpe-iropevov
Bat
Suiicoo-fieiv
TO
dvw o\ov K al
$r)&lt;r\v
av^eaBai K al apx^o\u&gt;v
SiaKoo-prjo-iv
7rav6&lt;T0at.
TTOIOV^VOV TOV ev
wa-rrep
TWV
ova-la TOVOV
o\ov Ta
neprj,
yap evos TIVO? TO. pepr) irdvra jwereu ev xaiiKovvi xpovois, OVTW teal TOV wv Kal ra ^wa Kal TO. ovTa
To&lt;f
&lt;f&gt;VTa
KadtJKOva-i -^povo^ /cat rive* \6yoi oa&lt;rirep cvjoi? T(uv pepwv et? o-rrepua o-i/i/toi/re? piyvvvTat Kal avQis
&lt;f&gt;VTat.
Buuepivovreu yivopevwv TWV pepwv, oi/rw? e| e^6? re -rrdvra yiveadai Kal etc -rrdvTwv et? li/ K al &lt;rvyKplve&lt;r0ai,
6oa&gt;
everything has been and the tendency of all things to become absorbed in the irvp dei&ov has been satisfied, the reaction commences in the centre, and spreads towards the ex
:
av^cavws Bie^iovcrrjf TrepcoSov. The explanation of the first part of ment appears to be as follows When
Tr}&lt;;
set
on
fire
tremities until
watery mass.
aliud,
everything except the outer rim is in a Seneca, N. Q. m. 13. 1, nihil relinqui... In hoc quam humorem. Then the remaining portions
futuri
igne restincto,
latere.
mundi spem
of the
original fire, concentrated in the sun (Stein p. 71), in spite of resistance from the centre, begin to exert their creative influence, and by their ever-increasing activity, the elements and the world are formed. Phenomenal
possible only when the tightening and slackening influences are in equilibrium or nearly so the exclusive predominance of either destroys the balance of the universe. The centre of the o-^atpo? is always readier to admit the of tension, while the bracing inloosening
existence, then,
is
;
258
which knits together the frame vigorating vivifying power, the individual, is in fullest sway in of the universe as of
avca av^eaBai}. parts at the circumference (hence This is the theory of tension as applied to the ZiaKcaand its statement constitutes the most important [jirio-LS,
the
made by Cleanthes to Stoicism. A difficulty above exposition remains to be stated: Why is there no created world in the period between eWupcoo-^ and euypw&lt;m, as there must then be a time when the
contribution
in the
two influences are of equal strength ? The answer, perhaps, is that during the whole of this period there is an everas the increasing slackening of tension,
poxri?
is
fire
of the
eWu-
of tension gradually extinguished, and slackening the not life but death (Plut. plac. v. 24 etc.) produces creation of the world only starts when TO ea-^arov rov
;
There
is
also a divergent-
view, namely, that the destruction of the world may be compassed by /cara/cXuoyio? as well as by ercTrvpwcri.s. This implies that our world can exist during the tran
sition towards egvypwais.
813 eKTrvpcaais, quam secuturam over fccnaK\v(T^ovs adserunt Stoici, seems to have been Stem s account of the looked, but is of doubtful import. 8 ia K 6 a/j.rj a t? (Psych, p. 32 foil.) is radically different, but I
do not see how
it
to a slackening of (1) the creation of the world is due tension in the original fiery substance, and (2) TO ea^arov
TOV Trvpoi is what remains of the original Urpneuma after the four elements have been formed, whereas ac cording to Cleanthes the creation of the world only begins
"
"
when
Hirzel
this
remnant
discusses
of fire begins to exert its influence. the present passage at some length
p.
(Untersuchungen
II.
124134).
He
strongly insists
254
that TO eff^arov
KOO-^OV 18, Trepl eKTrvpwaiv eTreiSav 6 veos xooyio? fieXX-rj 8rjfj,iovpyelo 6ai crvftTrav pev TO irvp ov crftevvvrai, Trocrr) 8e Tt?
(fjiera
avTov poipa
Cleanthes.
follows Chrysippus and not would seem, however, that the distinction is not important, as ea-^arov must in this case be both extremum and reliquum. Further on he suggests that
VTroXei-rrerai)
It
the
four
frag. 21.
Two
possible anticipations of
the tension theory have been noticed in Zeno s fragments, but the passage in frag. 56 is probably spurious, while in
frag. 67,
even
if reivea-Qai
is
sound, Zeno
is
confessedly
dealing with another point, viz. the explanation of how the separate parts of the KOCT^O^ are kept in one solid mass
void.
Ogereau
p.
10 attributes the introduction of ToVo? to Zeno, and depreciates the performances of Cleanthes (p. 19) but he
;
throughout too strongly on the unity of the school, without considering its historical development.
insists
^&lt;rov,
cf.
Stob. Eel.
I.
y^
Se
KOCT/J-OV,
TO tcevrpov.
s,
cf.
frag. 52.
MSS. corr. Canter. The MSS. have TOV...TOVOV. The reading in the text is due to Mein., whom Wachsm. now follows, although he formerly (Comm. n. p. 11) kept the MSS.
Tpirojivov.
TOV...TOVOV.
removing the colon after o\ov and inserting /cat and rovov. There is some mistake in Stein s note on this point, Psychol. n. 41. = Cleanth. frag. 22, and Zeno Cf. o-irtpjiaTwv. frag. 54 see Hitter and Preller 402.
reading,
commas
&lt;K
after
255
was unnecessarily suspected by the older edd. of The conj. TOVOL is tempting, but Wachsm. Stobaeus.
quotes Marc. Aurel.
IX. 1,
wp^aev
(?)
c/wcrt?)
eVt r?;ySe
rrjv
rwv eao^evwv 8iaKoo-/jLri(Tiv av\\a/3ovad nvas Xo7ou? The best parallel is Zeno frag. 106, which puts K.T.\. rwv f^epwv the text beyond dispute. rti/e?
\6&lt;yoi
P.
:
Wachsm. Diels
p.
jLvof^evo)v F, whence ryevo/jievwv Mein. but the present, accepted by Hirzel II.
and Wachsm.
Pint.
$??&lt;?
Comm.
en
r&gt;]v
-roivvv
KXeaj
rfi
ercTrvpuxrei \eyei
cre\.i)vriv /cat
ra \oL7ra
ciarpa rov
i
j\ioi&gt;
/cat
p,era{3a\elv
As
rov
there
the sun
Koafjiov,
in
its
purest
other
form
moon and
the
stars
will
be assimilated at the
eo|j.ou6&lt;riv.
corr. Zeller, p.
16-5,
n.
26.
Stob. Eel.
I.
15,
6"
p.
146, 19,
TWV ^.TWLKWV TO
Presumably
revolving
aether, for the doctrine appears to be borrowed from the a Pythagoreans cf. Stob. Eel. I. 15, 6 p. 146, 14, 01 dirb
This is \\v6a^/opov...^ovov TO (ivwrarov Trvp tcwvoeiSes. to the to refer Milky Way (Zeller, pre-Socratics, supposed
I.
p.
466
27.
Pint,
de
facie
in
orbe
lunae
c.
6,
3,
wa-rrep
250
oelv
K\edvdr)&lt;;
cJ&lt;?
TOV ^.ap,Lov
aVe/3eia&lt;?
TrpocrtcaXeiadai
etrTiav, OTI
Tois"E,\\7)vas,
&lt;ra&gt;
TOV
ovpavov
V7roTi0efj,evo&lt;;,
KVK\OV
This
comes
from
the
the celebrated mathematician. For the f here attacked cf. Sext. Math. X. o i 174, theory ye p.i}v rrjv rov tc6(Tfj,ov Kivrjcriv ai/eXoi/re? TTJV oe yfjv Kivtcr6ai SodAp(o-rapxov
:
o-ai^Tf?,
a;?
I.
ol
Trepl
Apia-rap^ov TOV
/jLa6rjfj,aTLKOv
K.T.\.
p. 21^, 2, Apio-rap^o? TOV r)\iov icrTr)(ri TWV cnr\avwv fj,Ta Trjv Se yfjv Kivticrdai Trepl TOV i)\t,aicov KVK\OV. also illustrates Kara XofoO KVK\OV.) It (This
Stob. Eel.
k 25, 3
appears however to be doubtful whether Aristarchus propounded this view otherwise than hypothetically cf.
:
vm.
1, 2, 3.
n-poo-KaXtwrflai.
For the
ypa&lt;j)rj
acre/Set a?
cf.
see
375, and
ypa&lt;f&gt;rf,
the
case of Anaxagoras (ib. p. 370). as well as Every an ordinary civil action, commenced with the Trpoa/cX^cri? or writ of summons (ib. p. 770 f.).
alluding to the central position of the earth. Aesch. Ag. 1056 ecrrt a? Virg. Aen. II. 512 aedibus in mediis nudoque sub aetheris axe ingens ara
i&lt;rriav
:
/j,e&lt;roiJ,&lt;pdXov,
fuit.
It is possible that
Pythagorean description of the central fire as eo-rt a TOV iravTos: see Dr Thompson on Phaedr. 247 A, pevei yap KtTTta eV 6ewv OIKO) p-ovrf.
"
TO,
4&gt;atvofjiva
orwjtiv
to save appearances:"
for
which
Mayor
7,
Ar..Did.
fr.
29 ap. Diels,
tfpea-e
TOV
257
Kat
virap-^eLV
Kal
eviavTov
1, 4,
TTOIOVVTO,
aA,\a&lt;?
Censorin. frag.
terra
et constat
aqua igne
aere.
putant, ut Cleanthes.
Stub. Eel. I. 21. G Diog. vn. 139. elvai TO o 2r&)i:o9 ev 77X16) K\eai/$?79 187, 4, p. Cic. Acad. II. 120, Cleanthes, TOV Koa^ov. rj^e^oviKov
e&lt;fyri&lt;rv
qui quasi
majorum
est
gentium
solem domiuari et rerum potiri putat. There is no warrant whatever for Krische s suggestion wahrscheinlich 435), that Cleanthes probably
(p.
("
")
of adopted the Heraclitean theory of the daily renewal At the same other the sun everything points the way. time, the important position assigned to the sun was
:
Introcl. probably due to his Heraclitean studies (see maintain did not himself Heraclitus for, though p. 50),
this doctrine,
we read
Cratyl. 413
TO,
B,
ovra.
Cf. Pliny,
N. H. n. 12 (cited by Hirzel, n.
I.
p. 138).
29.
Stob. Eel.
25. 3
p.
Tcepl 8e TWV Tporrwv voepov TO eK OaXaTTijs TOV i]\iov. (pacrt Kara TO SidaTTjfJia Trjs viroKei^evr]^ * * * 8 eVrl r;? rrjv dvaOvpiaGiv e-mve^eTai.
Tpo(j&gt;&gt;]&lt;;
Oat $e TOV rj\iov KLvov^evov e\ifca ev TTJ afyaipq, diro TOV ecrri- Trepara latj/jiepLvov e-rri re dpKTOV Kal VOTOV, drrep
T7/9
e\iKos.
Cic.
N. D.
vobis placet
ullo
omnem ignem
nisi
inodo posse,
Quid enim? non eisdem pastus indigere nee permanere alitur: ali autem solem, lunam,
ill.
37,
alia marinis 1 eamque reliqua astra aquis, alia dulcibus, referat nee longius sol cur se adfert causam Cleanthes
no lougius progrediatur solstitiali orbi itemque brumali, sicut et enim ideo Macrob. Sat. I. 23, 2, discedat a cibo.
H. P.
17
Wachsmnth regards Cic. and Stob. 11. cc. as containing two distinct fragments (Comm. II. fr. phys. 7 and 8), but
the passage in Cic.
Tpo7rwv...Tpo(f)ij&lt;i.
is
one of the points which attest Cleanthes study of cf. Stob. Eel. I. 25. 1 K Hirzel con p. 239, 5. cludes (11. p. 122) from the evidence, that Cleanthes, like
is
This
Heraclitus,
Heraclitus,
moon and
stars.
K.T.\.
cf.
Plut. plac.
20. 3, 7T6/H
OtWa&lt;?
T^X/Of
voepov eV OaXd-rr^. Diog. VII. 145, Be rd e/ATrvpa ravra (i.e. the sun and moon)
avafjifia
Kal
r?7&lt;?
TO,
a\\a ucrrpa rov /j,ev i]\iov CK rrjs fj,eyd\tj&lt;; 6a\drvoepov ovra dvapfia, whereas the moon is fed with
and
is
fresh water,
Eel.
I.
mixed with
air.
rov
T^&lt;?
dva6v/j.idfj,aTos.
Wachsmuth adds
rj\iw
277 K., coKeavov Be Kal TTJV OdXaao-av rpo^jjv TTJV avrov vjporrjTa evovaav ev
by Bake
^70-4.
for
the MSS.
4&gt;a&lt;ri
MSS.
there
Wachsm. suggests
is
l&lt;rri:
formerly
II.
23. 3,
Wachsmuth (Comm. n. p. 10) supplied Kal 7^7 coll. Plut. plac. but he now writes lacuna fuit in Aetii exemplo,
"
quod cum
Aetius Kal
Stobaeus
vel simile
/j,ejd\rj
Qd\a&lt;rcra
quoting
itself in
p(rflai
i-
is
motion.
259
Diog. L.
VII.
144, rov
Be
J
)\ioi&gt;
\oi}v
o/iotw?
rrjv
teal
8m
rov
a)8iafcov KVK\OV,
The discovery
of the inclination
is
of the earth
sun
attributed by
some
to
Anaximander, and by
I.
pre-Socratics
30.
Cic.
p.
455,
2).
esse ignea
N. D. ii. 40, atque ea (sidera) quidem tota duorum sensuum testimonio confirmari Cleanthes
nam
et
is
solis et
candor
illustrior
quam
ullius ignis,
tain
longe
lateque
colluceat,
tactus
est,
non ut
tepefaciat solum,
sed
etiam
saepe comburat.
"
quorum
"
ueutrum
ergo,"
iiiquit,
cum
sol igneus sit Oceanique alatur humoribus, quia nullus ignis sine pastu aliquo possit permanere, necesse est aut
igni quern adhibemus ad usum atque ad victum, aut ei, qui corporibus animaritium continetur. atqui hie noster ignis, quern usus vitae requirit, confector est et consu raptor omnium idemque, quocumque invasit,
ei similis sit
contra
alit,
omnia conservat,
que
negat ergo esse dubium horum ignium sol utri similis sit. cum is quoque efficiat ut omnia floreant
adficit."
quaeque genere pubescant. quare cum solis eorum ignium sit, qui sunt in corporibus animantium, solem quoque animantem esse oportet, et quidem reliqua astra, quae oriantur in ardore caelesti, qui aether vel caelum nominatur. testimonio: this passage illustrates two characteristics, which are specially prominent in Cleanthes: (1) his
et in suo
ignis
similis
activity in the investigation of the problems of natural science, and (2) his confidence in the results of sense obser
vation.
172
2GO
Oceani:
frag. 29.
two kinds of
fire cf.
Zeno
frag. 71.
hence in Zeno
frag.
Ill Zeus
aether.
is
31.
674
P.
243
09
S.,
OVK
dveyvwaav
&lt;j)i\6(ro(j)ov,
rat? aVaroXat?
elf TTJV
teal
TO.
tcocrfjiov,
(iyei,
e /c
Krische
p.
400 connects
Thus Heracles
is
TO Tr\TjKTiKuv Kal SiaipeTiKov (Plut. de Iside c. 40), and his name is derived from dr/p and K\acrt&lt;? by Porphyrius ap. Euseb. P. E. III. p. 112 c, and Nicomachus ap. Laur.
Lyd. de Hens.
instrument":
IV. 46.
TrXrjtcTpov is properly
is
hence lightning
Si6{3o\ov TTupo? reepavvov (Eur. Ale. 128): cf. Plut. de Pyth. orac. c. 16 ad fin. vo-Tepov fjuev
especially
dvedrfKav
TU&gt;
dew ^pvcrovv
\eyovTi Trepl T^? \vpas, i}v dpfjbo^eTai, Zrjvos eveiSrjs \Q)V, Tcaa-av dp^r/v Kal reXo? &lt;Tv\\aftcav e^ei Be \ap-7rp6v
Tr\fjKTpov r)\iov
&lt;/&gt;ao9
(quoted by Hirzel,
fjuev
p.
181).
Eur.
cra&lt;prjf.
Suppl.
of
650,
\a/j,7rpd
dfCTis,
r/\iov
"
navwv
With touch
ethereal
Heaven
32.
s fiery
rod."
Stob. Eel.
I.
26.
p.
219, 14,
K\edv0r)&lt;;
TrvpoetSi)
TW
cr^fJiaTi.
but the
fire
of the
moon
is
of the sun, being fed with grosser matter. Cf. Diog. L. VII. 144, elvai Be TOV p.ev ijXiov elXifcpives 7TU/D...145, jewBecr-
Tepav Be
TTJV cr\yjvr}v.
261
the
II.
(Phys. Stoic
XoetS?;, in
MSS. have 7T7;Xo8; corrected by Lipsius to nn13), who also suggests TroXvei^,
which correction he is followed by the editors But what is the meaning of this word as of Stobaeus. In this connection like felt (L. and applied to shape Zeller translates "ball-shaped," which nonsense.
" "
S.)
is
is
from other considerations, it improbable because, apart did not regard the moon as is almost certain that Cleanthes There remains Hirzel s suggested rendering: spherical. The only justification for such shaped like a skull-cap." the Heraclitean a-KaQoet&fc in found be an absurdity is to c no support can be derived for 26. l p. 218, 8), (Stob. Eel. I.
"
from 7ri\^aTa depo? (Anaximaiider) or ve$os Treirikripevov refer to densely packed clouds. (Xenophanes), which simply reads Ktavoet&i] which gives the -435,
Krische,
boldly p. but is not close enough to the MSS. It is required sense, that the true reading is ^XioeiSrj, the suggested therefore H. There to dittography of the following being due
would be no obscurity in this, assuming Cleanthes or his described the sun as Ktovoei^ epitomiser to have previously
(cf. frag.
33).
The other
moon
as
a^cupoei^
Stob. Eel.
(Stob. Eel.
24.
26. l
p.
33.
I.
2a
p.
205, 25,
Oi
pev
aXXoi
&lt;$Tcoiicol&gt;
(scil.
c.
the
Se icwvoeiSels afyaipiicovs CLVTOVS, K\edv0r)s hist. phil. II. 14. 2. Galen, Pint. stars). plac.
rot)?
TO?)?
13 (XIX. 271 K.), KXeaz/flr/? KwvoeiSels Achill. Tat. p. 133 KXeaz/^? avrovs (sc.
KuvoeiBes
e X etv
aVrepa?.
acrrepa?)
aff. IV.
^%
&gt;
K\edv0rj&lt;i
6 Srtot/co?.
Cleanthes attributed a conical shape to fire, sun, moon, and stars. There is no direct evidence as to the sun and authorities that moon, but it is a fair inference from the
It is
262
Cleanthes was moved by the consideration that Heraclitus described sun, moon and stars as boat-shaped ((TfcafoeiStJ), cf. Stob. Eel. i. 25. 1- 26. l c Krische is Diog. L. ix. 9. apparently right in inferring that the same is true of the world, cf. Plut. plac. II. 2. 1, oi fiev ZraiKol
,
&lt;r&lt;j&gt;aipoeiS&gt;J
rov
Ko&lt;r/j,ov,
a\\oi oe
KatvoeiSij, oi Be
a&gt;oei8f).
34.
Plut. plac.
II.
16. 1,
Az/aayopa9 K al
Sv&lt;r/j,d&lt;;
do-repas.
Galen,
teat,
dvaro\&lt;av
iravras in
well as the
(frepecrdai,
tcivei&lt;r0ai
aarpa as
&lt;rv^7repi-
TW o\w
rd Se TrXavcafieva
tear
I8ia&lt;;
Full information (Diog. VII. 144). on the ancient theories as to the rising and setting of the stars will be found in Achill. Tat. Isag. cc. 37, 38.
Ki^ae^
astrom. p. 53 (in Petau s Uranologia) & f , vrro rrjv dtaKe/cav/juev^v ^ %abvr}v rives rwv ap-^aiwv aTre^\ \
,
35.
Gemin. elem.
vavro,
K\edv0r)&lt;;
r&lt;av
is
taken from
n.
p. 14):
cf.
Wachsmuth
frag.
s collection
i.
Comm.
s
29 and Macrob.
fluence of
Zeno
aufgesucht und dadurch den Kleanthes und Krates aufgefordert habe, dieselbe Betrachtung zu erneuern." Cf.
Achill. Tat. Isag.
c. 29, There are five zones: Arctic, p. 89: Antarctic, two temperate (evKparoi), pla Se BiaKKavfievr}. o rovrwv pecrr) 7rao-(3v cariv and rov Oepivou rpo-n-iKov
/
rov
xtipepii&gt;ov
rpoTTiKov
e%et,
263
Ka\elrai 8e
StafcefcavfAevi]
Sid TO Trvpwbris elvai, TOV i}\iov Si avTrjs TT/V rropeiav del Posidonius, as we learn from ib. 31, p. 90, Troiovfievov.
made
Tertullian do An. c. 5, vult et Cleanthes non 36. solum corporis lineamentis, sed et animae notis similitudinem parentibus in filios respondere, de speculo scilicet inorum et ingeniorum et adfectuura corporis autem simi:
et
animam
itaque
obnoxiam.
item
corporalium et incorporalium passiones inter se non cornmunicare. porro et animam compati corpori, cui laeso
ictibus, vulneribus, ulceribus condolescit, et corpus animae, cui adflictae cura, angore, amore, coaegrescit, per detri- 10 mentum scilicet vigoris, cuius pudorem, et pavorem rubore
igitur
passionum commutatione.
6
Nemesius, Nat.
&lt;TvX\.oyiafji6v
p.
32,
KXez $?;
Toiovde
TrXeKei
^ovov
a\X,d 15
&lt;&gt;ri&lt;j\v
o/AOiot rot?
&lt;yovevo~i
&lt;yivb[Jbe9a
Kara TO
Kal Kara
rals
dpa
i]
^Irv^. .ert Se 6 K\edv9r]s (f)ijo-iv ovoev dcrwrw/jiaTi, ovSe dcrw^ciTW crw/J,a, d\\d
.
o~v{i7rda-%ei Be
T]
"^^X )
T&&gt;
crcoyuart VOO~OVVTI
J ievrj&gt;f
20
epvOpov
fyvxfi.
Kal TO awp^a Tfj ~^v^j alo"^vvof yiveTai Kal (j)o/3ovfj,evr]&lt;? ca^pov croo^a
Tertullian de An.
c.
&lt;yovv
dpa
r]
25,
unde oro
te similitudine
animae quoque parentibus de ingeniis respondemus secundum Cleanthis testimonium, si non ex animae semine 25 educimur 1 The Nemesius passage is regarded as a distinct frag ment from the two places in Tertullian by Wachsmuth
(Comm.
II. fr.
264
knowledge. through seed a capacity for knowledge, and ethical tendencies in particular, are transplanted from father to son: see also
Introd. p. 38
5.
f.
obviously refer to the same original. Stein s observations on this passage should be consulted (Erkenntnistheorie, n. 736). The mind is a tabula rasa at birth, in the sense that it possesses no definite But the
full
The ordinary punctuation of this passage puts a stop at animam, with no stop after capere, but this
et,
Mr Hicks would strike out remove the stop after animam, and alter obnoxium to obnoxiam. The latter change, which is a decided improvement, I have adopted, and, by putting
gives no satisfactory sense.
is
obtained with
15.
cf.
Cic. Tusc.
nasci animos,
and,
the activity of the soul depends on its inherent tension, the mental resemblance between children and parents is Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 130, 131. explained. 16. ifOccn: Wachsmuth reads Ween from the Oxf. ed. of
1671, but
cf.
ef
on Zeno,
frag. 117.
17.
o-wjiaros:
and unlikeness cannot be predicated of the non-existent, cf. Zeno, frags. 34 and 91.
19.
(rvjiird&lt;rxi:
the o-vfiTrddeta
fjLepdov is
an indication to
the Stoic of the ZVOHTK; of a body: this is true of the cosmos no less than of the individual. Sext. Math. IX. 79, who continues (80), eVt Se rwv rjvw^evwv a-v^Tradeia
rt&lt;?
ecrriv,
265
ye 8atCTV\ov refjivop^evov TO 6\ov crvvSiarideTai, crw/^a. id. V. 44, ovoe KOI o /COCT/AO?. r)va)p. vov roLvvv eo~T\ arw^a
OVTO&gt;S
yap
LVCL,
rjvwrai TO Trepie^ov
TTJ
cJ?
TO dvOpwrnvov crw^a,
fJ&gt;epTj
ov TpoTTOv
KetydXf) T
i]
vTTOKeifieva
OVTO&gt;
crv/jL7rda"^ei
/ce^aX?;,
ill.
eTriyeia.
Cic. N. D.
28.
The question
between
the pseudo-Aristotelian body and soul is M. Aurel. IX. 9. Cf. Plat. Phaed. 83 D.
discussed
in
37.
Stob. Eel.
I.
UvOayopas,
Am-
This
is
stood in the
same manner
of the various
philosophers
Thus, as regards Pythagoras, it is simply a deduction from the theory of metempsychosis (Zeller, pre-
mentioned.
Socratics
479): while for Plato and Xenocrates we may understand a reference to the previous existence of the soul before its entrance into the body (Zeller, Plato,
I.
p.
p.
596).
is
Aristotle s
(de
Generat. An.
3, p.
JJLOVOV
BvpaOev
eTreLcrievai
whose doctrine is Tfj evepyeia Koivwvel a-w^aTUc-i} evepyeia), As from Plato s. different regards Cleanthes, the widely and do not in Stoics distinguish between vovs general
in the fyv% n (see on Zeno, frag. 43) the latter is transmitted to and maturity by seed, developed in the womb, brought
:
air,
so that
it
is
hard to see in
what
sense
is
"^v^tj
dvpaOev
elo-KpiveTai.
Perhaps
the
that the reasoning powers (vovs} are founded meaning on external impressions, from which Knowledge is derived:
cf.
Stein,
however (Psychol.
is
p.
163
foil.),
believes that
by Ovpadev embryo
at birth,
whereby the
-v^u%?)
is
26G
In this case Cleanthes developed out of a mere the doctrine of 7repn/rut&lt;r. Hirzel anticipated Chrysippean
156 foil.) uses this passage in support of his im probable view that Cleanthes maintained a tripartite division of the soul: he sees here also the influence of Heraclitus. Cic. N.D. n. 18 might suggest a more
(il.
p.
general view, that the point referred to is the material nature of the soul as Trvevpa, but the context in Stobaeus
is
against this.
38.
= Zeno,
is
frag. 83.
s
There
the
Psychologic
on this point.
At
p.
107 and
p.
155 he
evidence which
distinctly
doctrine of the soul being fed by exhalations from the blood. Yet at p. 165 he suggests that this innovation
40.
41.
= Zeno, = Zeno,
Diog.
e
frag. 87.
frag. 88.
VII.
L.
157,
K\edv6rj&lt;;
fiev
ovv
CrtTTTTO?
Ta?
TU&gt;V
Cf.
R. and P.
409.
Cic.
Tusc.
I.
77, Stoici
diu
Zeno frag. 95. The teaching of Cleanthes is everywhere more materialistic than that of Chrysippus, who was no doubt anxious to
cf.
279 and pp. 145 147, who compares their divergence as to the nature of rvTrwa-K; and the "Urpneuma" and avyrj). Ar. Did. ap. Euseb. P. E. xv. 20. 3 follows
the account of Chrysippus, TJJV 8e ^fv^tjv yevvrjTr/v re teal aTraAAa(frdaprrjv Xeyovcriv OVK evdus Be rov
cru&gt;/^aTO&lt;f
(&lt;f&gt;\o%
yeicrav
eavrijv
fydeipecrdai,
TYJV
aXX
eVi/tei
eti/
rtvdf
^povovs
K.a.6
267
irdvTwv, TTJV Se
rwv dfypovwv
Trpos TTOCTOU?
rot?
quod quidem Cleanthcs his etiam argumentis docet, quanta vis insit caloris in omni corpore: negat enini ullum csse cibum tarn gravem, quin is die et
42.
Cic.
X. D.
II.
24,
warmth
This must be regarded as an argument in favour of the of the vital principle: hence Zeno called the soul
The excellence of the human TTvev^a evOepfiov (frag. 85). soul consists peculiarly in a suitable mixture (evKpaala) of
warmth and
cold.
Cf.
etc. IV.
783
Cleanthes K. (quoted at length by Stein, Psychol. p. 105). no doubt was influenced by Heraclitus: cf. frag. Byw.
54&gt;,
avyrj ^rjpi} ^fv^r/ aocfxardrr], but substituted warmth for dryness. It is highly probable that the words immediately
preceding this extract, which are of great importance for the TO^O? theory, are ultimately derived from Cleanthes:
sic enim res se habet, ut omnia, quae alantur et quae crescant, contineant in se vim caloris, sine
ali
qua neque
est
Nam
omne, (mod
calidum
et
autem
alitur
igneum, cietur et agitur motu suo, quod et crescit, motu quodam utitur certo et
aequabili, qui quamdiu remanet in nobis, tarn diu sensus et vita remanet, refrigcrato autem et extincto calore occidimus et exstinguimur. Compare with this the remarks of
i]&gt;si
Stein Psychol.
p. 32,
and Philo de
&lt;?
incorr.
mimdi,
p.
507,
dva\vop,evov et Trvp SiaXverai re Ka\ 8e T/;? ev CLVTW (^Xo yo? (jreXXerai Kal a^evvv^evrj^ %elrai, This is one of the many points of contact avvdyerai.
Mang.
arirav
crcoyu-a
between the Stoics and the medical school of Hippocrates. \Ve are reminded of the rovos of Cleanthes when we read
Munro
Seneca, Epist. 113, 18, inter Cleanthem et discipulum eius Chrysippum non convenit quid sit ambulatio:
43.
Cleanthes ait, spiritum esse a principali usque in pedes permissum; Chrysippus ipsum principale. ambulatio : the Stoics were led to this extreme materialism by their insistence on the dogma that nothing
exists
Cf. Plut.
Comm.
Not. 45,
&&gt;a
2,
d\\d
TTOLOVCTL, Trpo? Tourot? teal TU? evepyeias oxw /xara /cat TOV Trep nraTov (j)ov, Trjv opxrjaiv, Trjv VTcoOecriv, Trjv Trpocr-
spiritum : the Greek original of this would be Ttvevpa BiaTelvov UTTO TOV r}yefj,oviKov 1 JT0 ^ ^ V (f- Plut. plac. IV. 21). The deviation of Chrysippus from the teaching
^XP
&gt;(
of his predecessor was probably caused by a desire to insist more strongly on the essential unity of the soul. Cf.
I.
KdTa
fj,ev
awfJidTwv Trvev^idTd yap OTTO TOV (fiaaiv ovTOi BidTeiveiv d\\d KdT d\\a, Ta et? 6&lt;f)dd\novs, Ta Be wra, ra 8e et? a XXa aladrjvTTO/ceifjievwv
et&lt;&gt;
dVTO VTTOKeicrtw/iart
di&gt;Tq&gt;
TTJV
X
tV
Ka ^
TdVTU)
(fiavTacriav,
(rvv-
ei\rj^)e.
TOV
o\ov ea7roo~Te\\6[ivai
ijyefAOviKov
Trepl
e ^aTrocrreA.A.oi
Tat,
cao~T
elvat,
Bid TO
aVo
TOU ev
-qye^oviKov SiaSiBocrdai.
269
for the same purpose (Psychol. Cleanthes explained the that out points p. 1G8). different soul functions by means of a -rrvev^a Btareivov, and Chrysippus by a Trvevpd TTCO? e^ov. The former while the latter also distinguished regarded only the grade, is possible that this passage also It tension. of kind the
I find, also cited
by Stein
He
by Cleanthes
and Chrysippus (cf. frag. 3), Cleanthes insisting more immediate contact of the psychical airstrongly on the
current with the sense organ (Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, Hirzel s explanation (II. p. 201) is vitiated by his n. 728). fundamental error as to Cleanthes view of the ^yepoviKov.
There is a certain affinity frag. 93. between the doctrine here mentioned and that attributed ol to Strato of Lampsacus by Sext. Emp. Math. VII. 350,
See also on Zeno
Be avTijv (scil rrjv Bidvoiav) elvai Btd TIVWV OTTWV TOOV alaOrjT rjpiwv
6
rd&lt;?
aiffQrja-ei?,
tcaOaTrep
ardaea)^ ?]p|e ^rpdrwv fyva-LKos. viae quasi quaedam sunt ad oculos, ad aures, ad nares, a sede animi perforatae.
Cf.
44.
6.
33.
849 P. 304
S.,
Wev
&lt;t~\Xo
orav
e\Kwvrai.
7;
7T\r}i&gt;
Xptja-i/JiOis
K\edv0
&lt;rairf)
r)&lt;;
(fyr}(rlv
rd Kpea. N.D. Cic. attributed to Chrysippus by cui escam? quidem 160, sus vero quid habet praeter
e%e&gt;
/i&gt;)
ne putesceret animam ipsam pro sale datam dicit esse de Abstin. ill. 20, rj Be Chrysippus: to which add Porphyry rov ecrrt evravOa vs, %apLTwv TO jj^Larov (scil. ycip ov Bi a XXo TI -rr\riv OveaOai ejeyovei, Kai rfj \pvo-i7T7rov), Elsewhere o 6eos olov d\as evepigev.
ra&gt;i&gt;
aapicl
TT)I&gt;
^rv-^rjv
is
the statement
Cic. Fin.
270
v. 38,
ut non inscite illud dictum videatur in sue, animum pecudi datum pro sale, ne putisceret. Varro de R. R. II. 4-, 10, suillum pecus donatum ab natura dicunt ad epulandum. itaque iis animam datam esse proinde ac salem
illi
yeyovevai
i"7rep
\eyov&lt;ri,
^f%?;9 do-Trep aXcav Trapea-rrap^ev^ rov Staneveiv. Lastly, we have two passages of similar import in which a suggested derivation of fa from 0vetv is referred
T?;?
to:
Clem. Alex. n.
20.
105, p. 174 S.
p.
484
P.,
rrjv
$L\o&lt;ro$ovvrwv
ervpoXoyovvra
X^yerat vv 6vv
(T&lt;payrjv
yap rwSe
rot
^ww ^rv^v
evefca
Varro R. R. n. 4, 9, sus Graece dicitur fa, olim 6 fa dictus ab illo verbo, quod dicunt Qveiv, quod est inmolare. ab suillo enim [geuere] pecore inmoo-a/a/ea? a-Qpiyiiv.
rov ra9
landi initium
quod
primum sumptum videtur; cuius vestigia Cereris porci inmolantur. Everything in the world is created for and to
initiis
adapted
the existence of various animals is used as an argument to prove the government of the world by Trpovoia (cf. the context in Cic. N.D. 1. c.). In a similar
;
a special end
were intended to bear burdens, and that, as for this purpose they must walk, imagination has been given them to enable them to
do
so.
The passages here collected, as well as Zeno frag. 43, shew conclusively that Stem s 92 that
the vital principle of animals
is
f.)
something
Stoic
frag.
midway between
&lt;t!o-t&lt;?
and
-^v^ri,
He
first
who
50,
expressly gives
spirjtum...fore
^xt
to animals, but
Zeno
non naturam, sed animam et quidem which rationabilem, of clearly points to the ^0709
&lt;fvxv
271
frag.
)(
^rvx^l ~^oyov
dcprjprj^evov
e%ou&lt;ra
of men.
Zeno
56,
41,
^rv-)(i}v
%u&gt;ov,
To TWV dfypovwv Kal d\oyu&gt;v -v^ir^a?. add Aurelius from Marcus Stein cited the passages by
20. 3, ra? oe
v.
45.
Plut. de sollertia
e\e&lt;ye,
animalium XL
2,
3,
pev ovv
toa,
\6yov rd
Oewpia Traparv^elv ^vp^rjKa^ e\0elv e-irl ^ivp^rjerepav fj,vp/j,r]fca ve/cpov (pepovras- dvtovras ovv etc rfjs
erepou?
i
/cal
olov evTvy^dveLV avrois real TOVTO Si? rj rpt? yevecrOat, re Xo? 8e,
roi)? S
tcdrwdev dvevey/celv wcnrep \vrpa TOV ve/cpov aK(t)\r}/ca, eKeivov dpa/juevovs, drro^ovra^ 8e rov vefcpov ofyea-
Qai.
VI. 50,
K.\edv0r]L&gt;
rov
"Acrcrtoy
Karrj-
vd^Kaae
teal
^wots"
TOV
eKeiva \ojiafj,ov
8iafj,apTaviv, avTihe
Kal Kara tcpaTOS, laropia roiavTrj, (paalv. TW%ev 6 dvOrjs /caOrj/jievos Kal (Aevroi Kal o-^o\rjv dyaiv
a XXa)?
7ro\\oi
OVKOVV
6 8e
fAvp/jLTjKes
e^
Trapd rot?
Troalv
ijcrav
avrco
erepa? veKpov drparrov dpa 6pa a olnov ereputv, et? XXof? KOfii^ovTas fMVp/jirjKa {ivpfJ,r]Kas Kal eawrot? ov avvrpofpoov Kal em 76 r&5 %ei\ei r?;? H*vpfj,7]Kid^
TIVOS
ecrrwra? avrw veKpp, Kal dviovras Karcodev erepovs Kal crvvovras rot? eVot9 w? eVt TLVI, elra /cario^ra? roi)?
avrovf, Kal TrXeovaKis TOVTO
olovel \vTpa, KOfMLaai
&e ovTrep ovv eTTijyovro veKpov Kal e/cetVou? V7ro8eacr0ai, j? viov Ko/jit^o/jievovs rj d8e\(pov.
\6yov rd
J!a:
but not
"^v^rjv
\6&lt;yov
term d^oya
wa:
cf.
Sext. Math.
XL 99
foil:
the Stoics
say that the courage of certain of the nobler (yevvala) animals proves that TO Ka\ov is (pvcret, alpeTov, but only
272
1}
(f&gt;povifj,ij
d\K-
rpva)v teal 6 ravpos ^rj fier^ovra rrjs OVK av /SXerroi TO tca\6v re teal dyadov.
Eel.
I.
1/4779
Sta$ecrea&gt;9
Hermes
ap. Stob.
eVio-T?;/i77
re^vy
ovv opw^kv nva rwv dXoywv ^pat fj,eva, olov rovs nvpp,r)Kas
7r&lt;w&lt;?
rd&lt;;
rov ^et/i&Jt o?. It was easier, T/3o&lt;a9 aTToOrja-avpi^o/Aevovs for the Stoics than for those who separate the however, soul of man from that of animals by a sharp dividing line,
to
make
Cleanthes.
the admission which circumstances forced upon For the soul of man differs from that of
;
animals in degree only and not in kind it is the same substance, though varying in its degrees of purity, which permeates inorganic matter as plants as &lt;ucrt9, and
et&lt;?,
men and
animals as ^rv^Tj (Diog. L. vn. 139). Chrysippus believed that dogs possessed the power of inference (Sext.
Pyrrh. I. 69). Stein, Psychol. n. 165, is mistaken in quoting Ael. N.A. IV. 45 as an authority bearing on this subject. The passage, when cited in full, is seen to have an entirely different application: "0/0.77/309 fiev ovv dyaObv
"&lt;U9
&lt;j&gt;r)o-lv
TraiBa Kara^OLp-evoio \i7reardai," eot/ce 8e r] eavra) rifiwpov Kara\nreiv, Seitcvvvai, oVt KOL
teal
&lt;J&gt;i\oi&gt;
&lt;f)vo-i&lt;;
oo
&lt;f)i\e
"O/j,7)pe,
tcepSos
e&lt;rriv,
K\edv6ov$
advantage
voovf^ev ei Tt (or etVe) dtcovofjuev, i.e. it was an to Zeno to leave his friend Cleanthes behind
him
num
existimas forrnicam
anteponendam
sensus
quod
in urbe
formica uon
modo
mens ratio memoria? Aristotle allowed that some animals, and especially bees, possessed vovt (cf. Grote s Aristotle,
p. 483).
oXXws:
"aimlessly":
7/877
fj
TTOT
a\\&)9
I/U/CT09 ev patcpw
xpovw dvrjTWv
etypovricr
273
arpairov
nvos
sTt pas:
use one narrow path between their hole and any other
iv.
place.
Cf.
Verg. Aen.
404,
i.
Georg.
praedamque per herbas convectant calle angusto. 379, angustum formica terens iter, where Forbiger
An.
IX. 38, del
^lav drparrov
46.
Cic.
N. D.
I.
37,
idemque
speciem
(Cleanthes)
quasi
delirans in
iis libris,
migit formam
divinius.
quandam
turn quos scripsit contra voluptatem, et deorum, turn diviniastris, turn nihil
formam quandam:
of the popular deities, whereby they gorical explanations are identified with the powers of nature, or (2) referring in the hymn to Zeus, as Prof. Mayor ev to
dviKr/rois
%epcrii&gt;
suggests.
astris: this position
is
proved at length in N. D. n.
4044,
ev
(j&gt;
Chrysippus ap. Stob. Eel. I. 21. 5. p. 185, 5, ovra (alOepi) rd acrrpa Ka0iSpvrat...0La rrjv (frvcriv
cf.
Kal
e/jLilrvva
rrjv Trpovoiav.
47.
Pint.
Comm.
Not. 31,
5,
aXXa Xpvcwnros
Kal
rov ovpavov rr]V yrjv rov depa rr^v dd\arrav ovSeva rwv dioiov a-TroXeXoiTracri, rr\r)V povov rocrovrwv citydaprov rov Ato?, et? of Trai/ra? KaravaXla-Kovo-i TOU? dXXovs...
ovS"
ravra
OL ...TO^9
oo r/Liao iv
t 7T6Tct^,
ttA/A-
avroi
fj/^ya
ftooovres ev
&lt;/)i;crea)?
rot?
rypa/z/uacrt
Kal Trpovoias ei^ap^evrj^ re /cat Trepl Oedv rovs aXXou? 6eovs 8iappr)8rjv \eyova-t,
Kal
&lt;p6apr)crofji,evov^
//
nravras elvai
VTTO
&lt;yeyovoras
rrvpos,
Kar
L
1&gt;.
Kamrepivovs
ovras.
18
274
&lt;
this: Cicero
utilitatem generi adferret humano, id non sine divina bonitate erga homines fieri arbitrabantur (N.D. II. CO). Ai6s: Zeus is here identified, as often, with the
makes
quidquid enim
magnam
supreme
6eu&gt;v
p.
358.
TOIS
irtpl
Ocwv
K.T.X.
Chrysippus wrote
Trepi
(Diog.
(ib.
elfiap^ev^
Trepi
149),
and Availed
p. 51.
:
(ib. 39).
For Cleanthes
6ewv
5.
see Introd.
&lt;J&gt;9ap7]o-ofivovs
cf.
c.
Plut.
de
def.
Or.
ST&H/COI)? yivtocrKopev
e^oi/ra?,
\eya)
B6av
evl
d\\d
teal
7r\rjdo&lt;;
aXXoy?
/cat
/cal
48.
Stob. Eel.
I.
1.
12. p. 25, 3.
Zev,
&lt;/&gt;y&lt;rea)9
X a ^P
etc
"
crov
oi,
dvrfTola-i
7rpo&lt;ravSdv.
t^ou
ep-rrei
fMOW
TO)
&lt;rol
re real
tcai
o-e
Ka0v[jLvi)(Ta)
Br) Tra? Kocrfju)&lt;f, eXicrcropevos Trepl yatav, Treiderai, y KZV ayrjs, ical etcwv VTTO creio Kpareirai-
oSe
&lt;o
7rvp6evr\ deityovra tcepavvov TOV yap VTTO cfrvcrews irdvr eppiya av fcarevOvveis KOIVOV \oyov, o? Sid Trdvraiv
7r\r)yf)&lt;t
10
&lt;criv&gt;
(froLTa,
[&lt;u?
fj,iyvv[Mvo&lt;;
/j,eyd\ot&lt;?
/zt/c/Jot?
re
/3a&lt;rt\v&lt;;
Bid
ovSe Ti ylyverai epyov eVt ^dovl crov Bi^a, Bai/iov, /car aiOepiov Oeiov TTO\OV OVT* evl TTOVTW,
275
afyerepycnv
d\\d av Kal rd
teal
rrpi(To~d&lt;T&gt;erri(Tra(Tai
dpria detvat, 20
aol eariv, KotTfieiv raKocr/jia Kal ov (f)L\a do8e yap et? ev rrdvra o~vvi]p^oKas eo~0\a Kaicolcriv,
&lt;f)i\a
cocr$
ov
(f&gt;ev
Bvafjiopot, 01
yovTes ewcriv oaot dvrjrwv KCLKOL eicri, r fJLev del KTIJCTIV TroOeovre?
d&lt;yada&gt;v
eaopwai Oeov KOLVOV VOJJLOV, ovre /cXvovatv, co Kev Treidofjbevoi crvv vw /3lov eo~6\ov e^oiev. avd op^wcnv dvoi KdKov a XXo? e?r d\\o, avrol
ovr
01
fjiev
25
vTrep
7rl
0^779
cr7rov8r)v
Bvaeptcrrov
e%oi&gt;Te&lt;t,
01
d\\oi S
........................
eV d\\ore
d\\a
&lt;y6veo~6ai.
aX\d Zey
(TV,
,
dvdpco7rovs&lt;fAev&gt;pvov
&gt;}v
Tri(Tvvos (TV
Si /c??? yttera
iravra Kvftepvds,
ripf),
35
dv
rd ad epya
OVT\ ejrel ovre /Sporots yepas d\\o TI [Aei^ov, ovre ^eot?. f) KOLVOV del VOJJLOV ev oi/cy vp,velv.
1. not merely in the popular religion, but 7roXviovu(i more particularly from the Stoic standpoint, cf. Diog. L. VII. 147 Kal &o~rrep rrarepa rrdvBrj/jiiovpyov rwv KOIVWS re, Kal TO /juepos avrov TO SifjKov Bid rrdvrwv, o TroAAou? SvvdTrpocnjyopLaiS rcpoo ovo^d^eraL Kara
:
o\a&gt;v,
ru&gt;v
T&lt;?
/Ltei?.
p.
n. 74.
2.
cf.
4.
o-ou
yap
where the words TOU ydp Kal ecr/j,ev are quoted by St Paul. The divergence in reading points to the fact
182
276
Aratus,
TJXOW:
1.
5,
so
MS.
F, an unmetrical
is
a con
Meineke
18) sug
Wachsm. (Comm.
crov)
TfjLrj/j,a,
p.
8rj
for fiifjLijpa
Usener
vSrjs
cum
appareat rfxpv ex
all
$ os
vBeiv).
None
of these
r
are
convincing, arid
are inferior to
Bergk s 6\ov, which might have been adopted, had it Wachssatisfactorily accounted for the MS. reading.
says that it introduces "sententiam a Stoicis but he must have failed to remember frag. 24, which shows that it is a favourite thought with Cleanthes to represent the individual as a counterpart of the divine
alienam,"
muth indeed
cosmos.
is
It appears to
me
that an allusion to
"
"
speech
(p. 215).
"reason"
Mein-
eke
"speech"),
adopted, (not Euseb. P. E. xv. 15, p. 817 d (quoted by Wachsm.) KOivwviav 8 inrap-^iv 777)09 d\\ij\ovs (scil. 0eou Kal dv6pwTTQ)v) 8id TO \6jov If &lt;yev6fj.ecr6a
cf.
\6yov,
if
would mean
/jiere^eiv.
is
accepted for yevos perhaps JJLOVOV or eic crou. 5. So-a: for the omission of the antecedent cf. Soph.
&lt;rp.ev,
and for the sense Horn. II. 17. 447, Hirzel argues (n. 201210), mainly relying on this passage, that Cleanthes was not a pantheist in the
Ai. 1050, Trach. 350,
full sense of the term, and that he allowed only a limited extension to the divine 7rvev/j,a but see Introd. p. 41.
:
whence deiBoj Wachsm. but the present is very awkward after KaBv/j-vija-a), and it is by no means clear that Cleanthes would have preferred deio-opai
6.
cxfCo-w
:
diSco F,
by Yeitch
s. v.).
p.
277
Kal dvrrjv Be
elvat
hence
9.
eXto-cro/Aei o?
= /cu/cXo^o/j^-uKo?.
fierd
Mein.
10.
P.
fc
M. So Brunck and Wachsm. VTTO MS. F. For the sense cf. Soph. 0. C. 1515.
a^TJKt!:
cf.
Aesch.
Be
V. 1040 Trvpbs
K P ow6v.
oo"r/3uxo9.
/3eXo&lt;?
Hesych. (ibices
r\
e/carepov fj,epovs
for
i}tcovr)fji,evov
fcepavvos,
i)
l&lt;&lt;&gt;9.
74.
the physical explanation cf. Zcno frag. But to Cleanthes icepavvbs is only another name for
Trupo?,
77X777?)
which he
identifies
with rovos,
cf.
Heraclit.
frag. 28.
Byw. rd
11.
8e Trdvra olaKi^ei icepavvbs. so Ursinus and most odd. for eprjya eppfyao-iv:
litt.,"
-in
which might suggest 10 postea spatium are similar spaces after vv. there but epya ^afj.daO^ sus 2 and 13, and the text at this point is generally this after lacuna a marked Wachsm. formerly
taio
:
picious.
line,
ro
II.
p.
118, n.
1,
in referring
in v. 12 to Kepavvbv.
13.
H-ixpouri
F,
which Peterson
tries to defend,
was corrected by Brunck. The reference is to the sun, cf. Zeno frag. 45. moon, and stars. For the general sense A lacuna was marked after this line by Mein., who is
followed by
Wachsm.
But
it is
v.
14 is a spurious or corrupt addition, for (1) the sense is Travrbs is suspicious after Bid complete without it, (2) Bid to imagine any context difficult is it jrdvrwv in v.
12, (3)
co?
roo-ao?
yeyau&gt;&lt;t
from being
frigid,
not obscure, (4) the excessive sigmatism is pointless. 1720. -irX^v 6) K.T.\. The explanations given by
are hope the Stoics of this Aveak point in their system from seen be confused and contradictory, as may
lessly
an examination of the passages cited in the notes to We have had occasion to refer to 193. Zeller, p. 189
278
passage and the present, we may perhaps suppose that Cleanthes accounted for the existence of moral evil some
what as
follows
evil is
is
omnipotence of God is vindicated by the consideration that ultimately swallowed up in good, and that the
apparent irregularity of nature is in reality only a phase in the working of a higher law. Chrysippus is incon sistent here, as elsewhere but to (cf. Diog. L. vii.
180),
he agreed with Cleanthes: to? rdov TO Oelov Trapalnov yivevOai ovtc aia-%pu&gt;v evXoyov ecrriv We may compare Plato s words (Pint. Sto. Rep. 33, 2). Rep. II. 379 C, ouT dpa 6 0eo9, eVetSi} -jrdvrwv av
least,
some extent, at
dyaOos,
TroXi)
eiij
airio?,
a&gt;9
01
o\iya&gt;v
/j,ei&gt;
rots
dvOpwroiS
aiTios,
TroXXwv 8e dvalrtof
yap eXdrra*
rd atria,
p.
rdyadd
rwv
fiev
\ov airiareov, TWV 8e Ka/cwv aX\ arra d\\" ov rov 6eov. See further Gercke
24.
Koiviv v6(iov.
Chrysippea,
699.
Cf.
No
doubt Cle
-jraai
25.
26.
KCV
avtu
Wachsm., KaKov..,d\\o
by Herod, and
Sauppe.
28.
ov8vl
KoVp.&gt;:
Thuc. as an
"inordinately,
equivalent
recklessly."
draKraxf.
Here
it
means
fluenced
(II.
and the
like.
al.
ovS
cvl
30, 31.
&XXorv Usener,
&lt;f&gt;epovrai
Meineke, while in 31
Wachsm. suggests
7reve&lt;r0ai
for yevea-ffai.
The sense
is
279
seems hazardous.
cussion
Mohnike
lines,
(pp.
34
on these
which he
1.
the hardest in
the
Hymn.
As the
text stands,
31 must
is
mean
that
&lt;j&gt;av\oL
dpyi
]&lt;;,
by Empedocles
frag. 116,
to
denote
fire
(R.
"Ap&lt;yr]i&gt;
33.
jxe
pvov.
3.6
.
a7reipocrvvr)s i.e.
~
add. Scaliger, but perhaps we should read e /cdyv oia, the condition of the $&gt;av\oi.
T]
-yvw|iT)s
mo-vvos
K.T.\.
Another reminiscence of
ev
Heraclitus,
,
frag.
19.
Byw.
TO
&lt;ro(f)6v,
77
49.
Philodem. de Mus.
\e&lt;yeiv
28, 1, el
/A&lt;I)
ye
o?
ir&gt;apd
K.\edv&lt;0&gt;6L
&lt;avrd&gt;
6e\^aova&lt;L&gt;v,
^a-tv
TrapaKai
elvai
,
rd
rov
TroirjTt/cd
&lt;\6j&gt;ov
KOL
&lt;p,ova&gt;iKd
/cat,
rov
Trjs
c^tXocro^t a?
6e&lt;l&gt;a
ay&lt;y&gt;e^.\ei&lt;i&gt;
8&gt;vva/j,evov
rd
d&lt;v&gt;0&lt;p&gt;a&gt;&lt;7riva,
/t&gt;?)
e^ov&lt;r&gt;o&lt;f
8e tyi\ov
/cat
ru&gt;v
Oeiwv
rd
fjuer&lt;pa&gt;
rd
w?
yLta/\,&lt;t&gt;crra
cf.
Plat.
Rep.
x.
607
A, el8evai
ort
oaov
that
fjiovov
VILVOVS
6eol&lt;f
7ronjo-eo)&lt;;
is
cf.
TrapaSe/creov et? TTO\LV. The underlying thought it is impossible to define the nature of God
ap.
Hermes,
Stob.
Eel.
II.
1.
26, deov
vorjaai
pev
Plat. Tim. 28 C, 29 C, D. %a\e7r6v, (frpdaai 8e dSvvarov. The construction is not quite clear. Zeller, in citing this passage (p. 342, 1), puts a full stop after otVcet a?, but
this
makes rd
p,erpa K.T.\. very abrupt, and it is better \6yov as connecting elvai and
280
rrpoa-iKveladai,
object.
&lt;|aAov:
metre.
Jebb s p. 239
&gt;?&gt;et?
i.e. stripped of the advantages of history of the word is well explained in Appendix to Oed. Col. 866. Cf. Plat. Menex.
bare prose,
The
B,
C,
7roir)Tal...ev
povo-iicf)
\6yo&gt;
v/j,vr/&lt;ravTe&lt;t...dv
ovv
7Tixipfj.V rd avrd
"
i/rt\c3
"
Koafielv.
&gt;/rt\o9
Xo7o? also means abstract reasoning (Dr Thompson on Phaedr. 262 c), and a bare statement unsupported by evidence, Dem. Androt. 54. 22, Aphob. I.
" "
TWV.
"
.olKtfos,
majesty."
50.
Senec. Epist. 108, 10, Nam, ut dicebat Cleanthes, noster clariorem sonum reddit
lougi canalis novissimo exitu effudit
angiistias
;
sic
efficit.
straight,
a bell-shaped aperture
ending
567,
7r\r)-
Aesch.
Eum.
-jrvevfjiaros
v-jreprovov yjjpvfia fyaiverw, and Soph. Ai. 17, where Odysseus compares the voice of Athene to the sound of a trumpet.
clariorem: more distinct, cf. Cic. Div. in Q. Caecil. 48, clarius dicere (of an actor) )( multum summittere.
sensus : signification, meaning as in Ov. Fast. V. 484, hie sensus verbi, vis ea vocis erat. Cf. Sen. Ep. 7 ad fin. Hence Quintilian 114, 1. uses the word for a
:
frequently
sentence
or
period.
:
arta necessitas
epvKft
51.
-
cf.
f*
aKpd
/u,e
Math.
^Sext.
el
&lt;f&gt;vo-i&lt;i
ix. 88, o Be
K\edv0^
eirj
otrax;
dv TI? dpi
281
el
fy-vxn
tyvx^
Tt Kpeirrwv,
el,
??
cv rt?
apary
Kpdriarov
roiavra,
fal el %wov roivvv Kpelrrov eari Zyov, eiij dv ri rd 5 ov yap ciireipov eWwrmi rrefyvKe fyoov.
ei&lt;?
warrepovv
(aov
ovre
rj
eBvvaro
&lt;f&gt;vais
eV
direipov
r)
^v^}
w?
ovre TO
Zyov.
%wov Kpelrrov firjv rrdvrwv oe ovov Kal \ewv ravpov. TV^OL, Ka\ Tavpos 10 Kal fcal e -v/ru^t/cJ} GW^ariKY) yeiwv %wa)V a-^e8ov roivvv 6 Kal Siadeaet. Trpoe^ei re avdpUTTO? KpancrTevei
r
ru&gt;v
d\\d
ecrriv,
ITTTTOS ^eXcof?;?,
Kpdrtarov
6
civ
eirf
on
elvai Svvarat, (ivOpwrros Kpdria-rov Bid KaKias rropeverai rov Trdvra %povov, el Be
ev0ea&gt;&lt;i
ye,
TOV TrXela-Tov (KOI yap ei rcore Trepiyevoiro apery?, o^re 15 Kal Trpo? rat? rov fiiov cW/nat? ireptyiyverat), eirlfcijpov r
earl
Kal
da-Oeves
Kal
/Avpiwv
8eo/j,evov
/3oijOr)^dra)v,
a\\i)&lt;i
KaOdrrep
&lt;TWfj,aTOS
Kal
Kal r^9
rov
etpecr-
rci)T09 r]H,lv
el
pr)
TTape^oi/jiev
ware
vocrovs Kal Odvarov diTei\ovvTOS. 7repi@d\\eiv Kal rpe^eiv, ware ov re\eiov ^wov o dvOpwrros, areXe? Be Kal TTO\V rov re\eiov. (91) TO Be re\eiov Kal apiarov
Ke-xwpiafievov
fiev
Kpelrrov
dv vrrdp-^oi dvOpwrrov
Kal
vracrat?
rat? 25
/ca/coO dve-rriBeKrov, dperat? av^rrerrKrjpw^evov Kal vravro? eariv dpa Oeos. rovro Be ov Bioiaei deov.
This argument for the existence of God is stated in different language and a somewhat amplified form by 35. cf. especially Cic. N. D. ii.
3336
av:
2.
4&gt;v&lt;ri.s:
Zeno
the
frag. 43.
l...rTi...i:T]
form
of
conditional
if
the
is
see
Madv.
135
R,
la.
This
with eOe\w or @ov\ofj,ai in the pro especially frequent Eur. Ale. 1079. cf. Stallb. ad Plat. Symp. 208 c. tasis
:
A
el
close
parallel
to
is
Dem. xxxvi.
-jraawv
44,
&lt;TTI
Se
TOVTO
7T/3o&lt;?
Voet9, on
xpr)[j,aTio-iJ,6v,
:
dfyop^
fiejia-nj
11.
irav av dyvorja-eias.
Siatto-ci
12.
Kof:
or Kal
(JLI}V,
but Wachsmuth
15.
s tcairot is preferable.
:
TrtpiYe voiTo
for
Svo-ptais:
cf.
Ar. Poet.
21,
13,
1457 b 22,
TO LVVV
77
7^9
rrjv ecnre-
pav yfjpa?
E^Tre&o/cX^?,
Kal TO y^pa^ ea-rrepav fiiov rj, axrTrep Cf. Aesch. ftiov. Sv&lt;r/j,ds Ag. 1123, /3tov
Svvros avyals. The difficulty of attaining apery, in the Stoic sense, is illustrated by the fact that even Socrates
and Antisthenes were only regarded as (Diog. vii. 91) and Alexander says that
;
TrpotcoTrTovres
existence of a good man here and there, Sogov %wov Kal Trapd fyvcriv,
&Wep
0i can given as a proof that virtue is teachable. Hirzel has traced the development of the doctrine of the wise man within the Stoa, and shews that the earlier
(de
c.
become dyaBol
Fato,^
28).
In Diog.
1.
(f&gt;av\
is
by
(Zeno and his immediate pupils) the ideal was regarded as attainable and as actually realised them
Stoics
by
selves (pp.
20.
274277).
The
as of right:
"
diraiTolvros.
demanding
22.
to
clothe,"
cf.
N. D. n. 1315. Cleanthes quidem noster de causis dixit in animis hominum informatas quattuor
52.
Cic.
deorum
dixi,
esse notiones. primam posuit earn, de qua modo quae orta esset ex praesensione rerum futurarum
:
283
ex magnitudine comrnodorum, 5 fccunditate terrarum, quae percipiuntur caeli temperatione, commoditatum complurium copia: tertiam aliarumque animos terreret fuhninibus, tempestatibus, nimbis, quae
quam ceperimus
terrae motibus nivibus, grandinibus, vastitate, pestilentia, et inibribus guttis imbrium 10 et saepe fremitibus, lapideisque aut labibus repentinis terrarum quasi cruentis, turn
praeter naturam hominum pecudumque facibus visis caelestibus, turn stellis iis, portentis, turn Graeci cometas nostri cincinnatas vocant...tum sole
hiatibus,
turn
quae
exterriti
eamque
vel
maximam
solis,
versionem
caeli,
lunae,
siderumque omnium
dis-
tinctionem, varietatem, pulcritudinem, ordinem, quarum rerum aspectus ipse satis indicaret non esse ea fortuita. 20 Cic. N. D. in. 1C, nam Cleanthes, ut dicebas, quattuor modis formatas in animis hominum putat deorum esse est susceptus ex unus is modus notiones.
est...qui
alter ex perturbationibus futurarum. praesensionc rerum tertius ex commoditate 25 et reliquis motibus. tempestatum et rerum quas perspicimus quartus ex astrorum copia.
orcline caelique constantia.
1.
Cleanthes.
Mr By water
vii.
75
foil.)
that
Aristotle s dialogue irepl in gods, of the four reasons given for the origin of a belief were series that the first and fourth in the and
his
statement
It is to be observed that Cleanthes informatas. of God s existence as derived entirely idea the regards from our experience of external objects, and not as an innate conception. Stein, Erkermtnistheorie, n. 737. on the exis4. praesensione : this argument depends
284
tence
81
ovelpwv
Trpopprja-is
etc.
(Sext.
Math.
trXfjdo^ Trpay^drajv
7re7ricrTevfj,ev&lt;i)v
Trapd Trdaiv
419, attributes
7.
tertiam:
there does not appear to be any extant Greek texts. Although there is no
reason to suppose that we have not here a reproduction of the general argument of Cleanthes, at the same time it is
probable that Cicero has enlarged the list of portents from Roman sources. The prodigies mentioned are those which constantly meet us in Livy, as requiring expiation
by
lustration**, supplicationes,
lectisternia
etc.
Lists of
prodigies illustrating those mentioned here by Cicero will be found in Liv. xxi. 62, xxn. 1, xxiv. 44, xxvi. 23, etc.
Tac. H.
i.
86, Juv.
all
in the
525
583.
ap.
quae terreret
Prof.
Sext,
Emp.
ix. 24.
14.
frag. 75.
on Zeno,
16.
quartern:
cf.
for
fuller
argument,
evtoi,
ix.
2627:
but from
its
Epicurus and one belonging to some "younger Stoics," Mr Bywater (Journ. Phil. VH. 76) infers that its immediate source was one of the earlier Stoics, possibly Cleanthes.
17.
ovpavov,"
Mayor.
53.
2.
TO
ayaBov
av6pa&gt;Trov
285
^f%*?V, KOI
TOI)&lt;?
#601)5
pvarriKa
eivai
e&lt;f&gt;acrKV
SaSoO%ov
/cat 7-01)5
KCLTOXOVS rwv
9eiwv reXera?
1-6
e\e&lt;ye.
dyie6v...Ti8ovas.
An
obvious blunder.
Krische,
p.
431 n. 1, suggests that the writer of the epitome has con founded the statement by Cleanthes of his opponents
his position with
^vepwTrov
K.T.X.
of this mutilated
statement
doctrine of the soul points to the of union for the body. Stein, Psych, regarded as the bond of the correspondence between trace a here finds 209,
;
possibly
p.
drraiSevTovs (Movy
sent an explanation is Stoic point of view, in which the sun as the ^epovitfov head the at the torchbearer who marches
rrj poptyf} TWV 0i)pi(ov Sca^epeiv. These obscure words appear to repre of the Eleusinian mysteries from the
symbolised by cor of the procession of mystae, and (adopting Diels the to mys rections, v. infra) the world itself corresponds while those who are inspired with divine truth
tery play, are the priests.
Cf.
Se TOi? p. 116, ev
Kar
EXevalva pvaTripiois
6 p,ev
lepo-
For the subject in general see Prof. Mr Bywater however (Journ. Mayor on Cic. N. D. I. 119. a mutilated Phil. VII. 78) believes that we have here derived from Aristotle s dialogue argument, ultimately and explaining the belief in the gods Trepi on as due to a feeling of awe and admiration consequent
Se
el?
rrjv falov.
&lt;j&gt;i\o&lt;ro&lt;j&gt;ia&lt;;,
the contemplation of the heavenly bodies. The allusion "we to the mysteries is brought in by way of comparison at that Eleusis, like a only into seem introduced temple and solemn, because the figures [= the heamore
:
august
- Sti
venly bodies]
we
made with
immortal
This explanation is fortified gods." by a re ference to Dio. Chrys. xn. p. 387 B, Plut. de tranq. 20,
p.
477
c,
(also
quoted by Diels). For ^variKa o-X ijp. 130, and for K\j&lt;ret? epa?
t
Diels, p. 592,
who
Perhaps, from a comparison of Chrysipp. ap. Etym. M. 751, 16 id. Plut. Sto. Rep. 9, we ought to restore rot)? Kar6 X r&v 8elwv
fivo-r^ptov...re\ea-Ta&lt;f.
ov&lt;;
gestions,
has
54.
(scil.
Philodem.
6eu&gt;v
Trepi evo-e/3.
fr.
13.
ev Se
et?
TW
Bevre&lt;py&gt;
&lt;Kal
Trepi
Xpvannros) rd
tcai
Evpi&lt;7r&gt;i8r]
r&lt;e&gt;
Op&lt;/&gt;ea
M&gt;
ova-aiov
dva^&lt;p6fj,&gt;e&lt;v&gt;a
&lt;r&gt;a
Trap
&lt;
Q&gt;^r,pw
Ka \
rat?
Ha-i6B&lt;a)&gt;
Kal
&lt;al&gt;
Tro^ra?? a XXoi?
&lt;rvv&gt;oiKeiov&lt;v&gt;
&lt;to&gt;9
Ka&lt;l&gt;
K\edv0r)&lt;;
avru&gt;&lt;v&gt;.
&lt;7r&gt;etpara&lt;t
So^ai?
Cicero
anthes,
is
all
mention of Cle-
as follows (N. D.
41)
in secundo
autem
vult
ad
ea,
libro
ut etiam veterrimi poetae, qui haec ne suspicati quidem sint, Stoici fuisse videantur. As far as Cleanthes is con cerned the direct evidence only applies to Homer: see
Introd. p. 51, but
cf.
frag. 111.
i.
by Wachsmuth (Comm.
the book Trepi
55.
This passage
is
included
p.
c.
)i/
11, Sec 8e
fiev KXedvtiovs -rraiTrapaiTia-0ar KaTeipwveverat yap ea-rtv ore -jrpoa Troiovp,evo&lt;i egiyyelo-ffat TO
ovofUiTtov
dicovciv,
d\\d T
Sidv
287
/zeSewi
Wachsmuth
cites Schol.
B L Homer
vfy"
IT
A&&gt;-
Swvaie] Tives Be
dvaoa&gt;Su&gt;vale
T&v dyadwv (?) This comes from the book irepl TOV TTOLT^TOV according to Krische, p. 433, and Wachsm., Comm. I. p. 17. Zev Trdrep "18r]6ev peSecov, II. III. 276, 320 Zev ava AwScovaie,
:
II.
xvi. 233.
ircuSiav.
It
is
dis
tinctly suggests that Cleanthes was not serious in his etymologies see Introd. p. 43, 44, and cf. Plat. Cratyl. 40G B, aXA/ earl yap teal (nrovBaiuis
:
a reference to the feeding of the celestial bodies by exhalations of coarser material, cf. frag. 29 Cornut. wiceavos 8 e rrjv avaQv^lacfiv eTTive/Aerai.
&lt;TTt...r)&lt;&gt;
c.
17, p.
84 Osann.
drjp
Kara dvabocnv.
It
may be ob
Plut. de
Is.
et Osir. 66,
&lt;$&gt;epae$&gt;bvriv
8e
(frrjo-i,
TTOV
TO Bed
rwv Kapirwv
(j&gt;epo/j,evov
Kal (povevofievov
Diibner translates: spiritus qui per fruges dum fertur interimitur. Probably this, as well as the seven following
fragments, comes from the treatise irepl Oe&v (Wachsm.
Comm. I. p. 15). Cf. Plut. de Is. c. 40, where Demeter and Persephone are explained as TO 8id r^9 7^9 /cat
KapTTaiv SirJKov TrvevfAa.
col.
TU&gt;V
12, p.
79 Gomp.
N. D.
II.
G6, ea (Proserpina)
enim
est
quae
esse
Graece nominatur,
volunt absconditamque quaeri a matre fingunt. Plato s derivations of the name will be found at Cratyl. 404 c, D. For modern views see Jebb on Soph. Ant. 894.
57.
Macrob. Sat.
scribit
i.
18, 14,
unde Cleanthes
ita
cogno-
(Dionysum) diano impetu ab oriente ad occasum diem noctemque faciendo caeli conficit cursum.
In the Orphic hymn, quoted just before the present He is else passage, Dionysus is derived from 8iveia-0ai.
minatum
N. D. n.
Plato
derivation from
and
oli/o?,
the latter
For the identifi cation of Dionysus with the sun see the commentators on Verg. Georg. I. 5, vos, o clarissima mundi lumina, labenc.
being resolved into oieadai and rfvevfia Kal rpo&lt;f)ifj,ov, Plut. de Is.
1/01)9,
(2) as TO yovipoi
40.
tem
annum, Liber
i.
et
alma
Ceres.
58.
air
Macrob. Sat.
/cat
17, 8,
Cleanthes (Apollinem)
&lt;y&lt;?
a\\(av
uXX.a)v
rorrwv
T?
dvaro\d&lt;;
7roiovfj,evov,
quod ab
ortus.
aliis
atque
aliis
Chrysippus (Macrob. 1. c.) derived the word ATTO\\WV from a and rro\v^, while Plato explains the various func
tions of the
(Crat. p.
God by
E),
405 A
so that
/3aA,XovT09, drroXovovros,
and
o/ioTroXoui/To? (ib. p.
406
A).
59. Macrob. Sat. i. 17. 36, Cleanthes Lycium Apol linem appellatum notat quod, veluti lupi pecora rapiunt,
ita ipse
quoque humorem eripit radiis. Antipater in the same passage derives the name ano
ij\iov,
a guess, which,
289
etymology of Au/ceto?
in
is
some favour
modern times
(Miiller Dor. n. 6
Pro
bably Cleanthes did not recognise a distinction between the two titles Au/ao9 and Av/ceto? (Soph. El. 7), and the best modern opinion seems to agree with him to this
extent: see Leaf on
II.
IV. 101.
The connection
of Apollo
with wolves
indicated by the legends in Pausaii. II. 9. 7, In Cornut. c. 32 the name is explained in con II. 19. 3. nection with the pestilences brought by Apollo on flocks,
is
which were therefore entrusted to him as Apollo Lycius. humorem eripit: cf. frags. 29 and 55.
60.
ait
Macrob. Sat.
1.
17. 31,
Ao^ a?
cognorniiiatur, ut
drro
Oenopides,
on
eKTropeverai rov
\o%ov KVK\OV
est
cva-/ji(i)v
eV
dvaro~\.ds Kivovuevos, id
quod obliquum
elcn
icaO
e/Vt/ca?
Kiveirai,
\oal yap
&)Sia/co9
Kal
Achill. Tat.
Isag.
109
A,
Kal
eV
VTTO
77X^09
ra9
0801)9
Ao^t o^ avrcZ
TropeveraL Xo^o9.
^X.t&) 6
ATroXXtov 09 /caXelrai
Ao^i a9 VTTO TWV TTOLi]Twv elvac TTicrreueTai. Cornut. c. 32 gives two explanations: Xo&3f 8e teal irepia-Ke\wv ovrwv
rdov ypr^o-^wv
:
01)9 SiBwcri,
Ao^i a9
ajfo/iacrrat
TJ
drro rrjs
For modern
Bid rov faSia/cov KVK\OV. derivations of the name Loxias see Jebb on
Soph. O.T. 854. for the obliquity of the sun SSXiKas and Diog. L. vn. 144 there quoted.
:
course
cf.
frag.
29
61.
oe
(frrjaiv
s. v. XeV^at, p. 158 ed. Herm., KXeai/^9 (iTrovev^^o Oai rw ATroXXcovt ra9 Xecr^a9, e^eoe Oyuotas" yiveaOat, Kal avrov Be rov ATroXXo) Trap
Photius
i\ea"%r)vopiov
eTriKa\eicrdai.
So Suidas
I.
541
19
s.
v.
H.
P.
200
In Harpocrat. s.v. we get the additional informa Xecr^at. tion that these remarks were contained in the treatise
Cf. Pint,
de
el ap.
Delphos
KOI
c.
Apollo
is
called
Ae&lt;r-
-^pw^evoL -TM evepfyaMTi vrjvopios, The inference teal aXX^Aou?. (friXoo-ofalv Trpo? 8id\eye&lt;T0ai, Wachsmuth seems correct, viz., that Cormitus drawn
orav
dtro\avoKTi
by
8
c.
32, KOI
Xeo-^ra&lt;?
avrbv (\\Tr6\\a)va) Trpoarjyopeva-av 8ia TO vbpiov rat? Xeo-^at? Kal rw 6/jnXelv aXX^Xot? a-vve^ea-Bai TOI)? dvdpwTTOvs, ra? 8e vv/cras icaO* eavrovs avcnravecrdai. He remarks that Cornutus appears to have devoted much
ij/j,epa&lt;;
attention to the study of Cleanthes. Cf. Pers. Sat. V. 63, cultor enim iuvenum purgatas inseris aures fruge Cle-
anthea.
{j
Spais.
These
were
recesses
or
alcoves
sometimes
and fitted with branching out from an open air court, stone seats; they were especially adapted for the con
versation of philosophers
v. 4,
and
rhetoricians.
ego
ilia
fuit Carneadis;
quern videre videor (est enim nota imago), a sedeque ipsa, tanta ingeni magnitudine orbata, desiderari illam vocem
Vitruvius in his description of the palaestra, or of the gymnasium, such as were attached to Roman villas
"
puto.
higher
class,
recommends that
surrounding the court there should be exedrae spatiosae in quibus philosophi, rhetores, reliquique qui studiis Prof. Mayor delectantur sedentes disputare possint v.
11."
on Cic. N.D.
I.
15.
p.
303.
p. 403.
and e^eBpat 6(ioas: the distinction between Xeo-^at seems to be that the former were separate buildings used
latter were attached entirely as lounges, whereas the either to a private house or a public gymnasium.
291
(W~\,ovs
co?
Cornut.
ev
c.
31
ad
fin.,
roik
oe
SwoeKa
dvayayelv
ovrc
d~\,~\.OTpia&gt;$
j^ eTron-jcrev
ov Setf Se
Sofcel
rcavrayov
evpecri-
\oyov
It
TtpecrfBeveiv.
were two current modes of allegorical interpretation of the myths which centre round Heracles. By one set of inter
preters Heracles was regarded as an ordinary mortal and by others as a god. Cleanthes apparently explained the
An
illustra
of interpretation may be seen in the explanation given by Cornutus of Heracles as an archer Kai TO^OT??? S av o Trapeia-dyoiTO, /card re TO Travra-^ov But in the account of the twelve labours $UKi&gt;ia-8ai K.T.\.
:
6eo&lt;;
in
c.
33, Heracles
is
represented
who brought
Hpa/cXeo.
8e
OVK
aw/AaTi/crjs
Suvd^ews dva^Oevra
TOCTOVTOV
la^vcraL
Tore xpovois.
/u-t
a\\
avi]p
kfAcfopwv
Kai
cro&lt;^)(,a?
ovpaviov
crrr;?
yeyovws,
oocnrepel
Kara
/BaOeias
^.TwiKwv 01 8oKi/ji(t)Taroi. Zeller, pp. 368, 369, relying on the concluding words of the passage cited, thinks that the account is derived from Cleanthes, but, if so, there is a
discrepancy with Cornutus.
Krische
(p.
ich nicht, so fiihrte Kleanthes, gleichwie says: spater Porphyrius (bei Euseb. P.E. III. 112 c), die zwolf Arbeiten des Herakles auf die Bahn der Sonne durch die zwolf
"irre
hand
p.
91
G)."
"expectes
rov,"
mean that Cornutus apologises for referring to the authority of Cleanthes by saying that such a trifler ought not to be respected in all cases. This derives a certain amount of support from Plutarch de aud. poet. p. 31 where
to
192
it
Schol.
in
Horn.
Se
eV
II.
in.
64, ap.
Bekker,
p.
99
23,
K^edvdrjs
Aeo-/3&lt;
ovro)
TipaaOat,
15) classes this among the but there is more likeli fragments of the work irepl Oewv, hood in Krische s view (p. 433) that it belongs to the irepl
Wachsmuth (Comm.
I.
p.
rov Tronjrov, for there is no reason to separate it from and 65. Perhaps Cleanthes tried to explain the frags. 55 the epithet ^pva^ by the existence of a gilded of currency For the figurative mean statue of Aphrodite at Lesbos.
= precious, which is perhaps all that ing of xpva-ovs on Soph. Ant. 699. implied in the epithet, see Jebb
64.
is
Athen.
Xill.
572
f.,
77-0/31/779
Se
A^poS/T??? iepov
/eare^o/iei/?;?
jrapa
A/3u8r;fOt9,
w? c^crt
TOI)&lt;?
HdfjL&lt;j&gt;i\o&lt;;-
yap
T?}&lt;?
TToXeo)? 8otXe/a
&5?
&lt;f&gt;povpov&lt;f
Qvaavras,
tcrropet
KXedvBrjt;
ei&gt;
Tr\eiovas TrpoaXa/Beiv wv piav, KCLTCLfj,edv&lt;T06VTa&lt;; eraipa? avrovs ISovo-av, dve\o/j.evr}V TO? /cXet? /cat TO KOifjiT]devTas
AfivSijvois.
/J,V TGI
rovs 8
dv\elv d(f)iKOfjLvov&lt;{,
js
vaov iSpvcracrdai.
:
Aphrodite Pandemos, and the worship of s Aphrodite Ourania at Corinth (Becker Charicles, p. 246). The object of Cleanthes was doubtless to explain away the
cf.
discreditable
and thus
293
shown to be due to the accident of a historical characteristics of circumstance, and not to the essential doubt as to considerable however is There the goddess.
the genuineness of this fragment, see Introd.
65.
p. 51.
Schol.
III.
in
Horn. Od.
I.
52,
ap.
Oxoii.
4-10,
6\o60poi&gt;o?]
K\edv0r]&lt;i
Sa&lt;rvvef
TWV o\WV
*
T^V dxiifiaTov Kal alriav Kal o\oo^)pova TOV aK07riaroi&gt; rrpovoiav T)]V TcdvTwv fypovovvra "ArXoi/ra vooveiv, w? rov inrtp
TOV \T\avra... oi
o\u&gt;v
wv fypovncniKov.
TO o
rr]^
&&lt;;
(j&gt;aa-u&gt;,
(ip^ova-ri^
Cornut. de nat.
8t
d. c.
20,
o\oo$pova
avrov ( \r\avra}
elptjffOat
TO Trepl TWV
o\wv
avrov rwv r?/9 irdvrwv zur u. Scholien Glossen Flach ^epuv o-twr/jpiW See also with Atlas -irpovoia, Hes. Th. p. 7G. Clcanthes identified as holding together the framework of the world (cf. ef is)&lt;j&gt;povT%iv
Kal Trpovoela-Oai,
66.
Apollon. soph.
(K.
lex.
Homer,
6
p.
114
ed.
Bekk.
v.
pw\v
&lt;f)r)o-t
305), KA,eai/07y? 8e
4&gt;i\6cro(f)o$
This
frag, is
taken from
Wachsmuth (Comm.
I.
p.
18):
TO favraffTucbv cf. Zcno, frag. 1GO, StaX/i7ret T^? TJrvxns Stob. Eel. TOV Kal TTaOrjTiKov VTTO \6yov ^aKe^y^vov. ovre-f rrdOecnv ev 01 8 rot? II. 7. 10 10, Trdvres
;l
p.
89,
d-n-oa-TptyovTai
TCV \6jov.
In this connection we
may
observe that Odysseus was taken by the Stoic school as one of the few typical wise men (Sen. de Const. 2. 1, de This is the earliest known instance of the Benef. 13.
3).
word d\\r]jopla.
67.
Certamen Homer,
fasc. 1),
E\\rwo&lt;?
pev
294
&lt;ydp
Mat oz/a
ep.
(sic coni.
p.
]).
171
et
Welcker
cycl.
149 pro
(jrarepa Ofjujpov).
This
Cf.
fjiev
frag, is
Comm.
I.
p.
17.
ovv
2/zfpfatOf
avrov
a7ro(f&gt;aiv6fjLevot,
MatWo?
&lt;ydp
p,ev
(scil.
Maiova
avi
Pythag. 1, 2, KXeai/^? eV ^uQiKwv ^vpov, K Tvpov r^9 Supta? (scil. the father of Pythagoras). o-troSeta? Be KaraMnesarchus, Xa^ofV?;? ^a/it ou? TrpoGTr\evaavra TOV ^
Porphyr.
Tcav
vit.
roi)&lt;&gt;
TU&gt;
%ov
tear
rfj
vrjcray
e/c
Kal
5 Tl/J,rjuf}Vtu 7ro\iTela.
fAfiarjaiv
Hvdayopov
rotv
OVTOS
ev(f&gt;vov^,r6i&gt;
ei?
Tvpov,
7ri
Ki
8e
TOVTWV
10
7T\eiov Troirjaai,
/j,ev
^epe/cvBrj
r&5
Bevrepov
Ep/AoSa/iafTt
\eyet 8
6
Kpe&&gt;0iAt
&&gt;
eV
t,
TOV Trarepa
TMV
evrevOev Be Kara Trpd^iv et f ^. e\06i&gt;Ta Kara/Jielvai Kal darov jeveaOat. TrXeoi/ro? Be rov 15 M^T/o-ap^ou et9 T^y IraXt ay (rvp,TT\evcravra TOV HvOaAf)/jivov dTroi/crja-dvToav
Kal TO&
Kara\eyei 8
Tvppijvov
avTov Kal
dBe\(j)ov&lt;f
8vo
ILiivovcTTOv
Kal
Trpea/Surepof?.
I.
Wachsmuth
&N Be
Pythagoras).
Strom.
77
p.
129S.
(fuit
K\edv6r)&lt;;
(MSS.
Neaz/^?;?)
2i)pto&lt;?
Tupto?
8, 43,
Theodoret, Graec.
aff.
cur.
p.
o Be
This
frag,
(MSS. Neai/#?79) Tvptov (llvdayopav) 6vo/j,dei. must stand or fall with frag. 64. The facts
295
discussed by Zcller, preconcerned will be found fully After foil. evZa^ova in 1. 16 some Socratics, I. p. 324 such word as al&lt;r0ea0ai seems wanted.
69.
Pseudo-Plut.
de
Fluviorum
nominibus,
? 6&gt;o
-
v.
3,
e/caXerro Se
Bopea?
eptanicriv
7n0v^av
etc
Xi6vr) V
eis
dp-ndaa^
\6&lt;$&gt;ov
0vyarepa, Ka-njveyKev
KOI
nva
eyewnrev
Koirr}
T^
Trpoeiprjuevn*
Se
viov
8e TO
o&gt;o?
Bopeov.
^poa^oevO
TJJV
KaJKOffO? Bia
roiavr^v.
p,erd
Bopeov KoiTW,
fcal et?
K po K 6Sei\oi&gt;
o Se Upo^0ev^&gt;
voi^va^
r
Kavtcaaov,
avara^v,
8e Zei)9
tcai
Karavoi^a^
avrov
elvaL
Sid6e(Tiv
eTTi(f&gt;avel^
vrXe/crw
cp,
Kav- 15
K areraprdpo)&lt;je-
TO 8
et?
n^v
rov
TTOL^VO^
^
peTovoada-as, Trpoa-eSrjaev
avry rov
f
on
^
ra
&lt;rn\d&lt;rxya,
a5?
wrropet
7
rfe
^/MWUS was composed perhaps in the the or Trajan, but all or nearly all reign of Hadrian fictions. are impudent authorities which the author cites Preface to Hercher s the see information For further and especially 3. edition of the tract (Lips. 1851)
The
treatise
2.
Bop^ov
KoCrr!
cf.
Find.
Nem.
I.
3,
Oprvyla Seuvtov
o0i
&lt;j&gt;a&lt;rl
\\preuiSos.
Horn.
II.
dedwv
10.
efji/jievai
evvds
vvu&lt;j&gt;dwv.
,Ta,&gt;p&lt;|&gt;eefc.
296
had
Prometheus
is
required.
He supplied
and substituted dvara/Awv for dvcnravcov. For dvcnravwv dvap-rrdfav (Reinesius) and dva&lt;nrwv (Dodwell) have also been suggested.
70.
Pseudo-Plut. de Fluv.
Kal
V. 4,
yevvarai
$*
ev
avrw
(Caucasus) fioravr)
(Tv\\eyov(Ta
Hpo[*.r&gt;0io&lt;?
Ka\ovfJ,evrj,
TT/JO?
\eiorpi/3ov(ra,
(scil.
Cleanthes).
8e re to?
y\a&lt;f&gt;vpf}&lt;;
(fxip^a/cov,
ppd
re
Upo/jLijdetov KaXeeaOai,
given.
where a lengthy description of the plant and its virtues is Prop. I. 12. 9, num me deus obruit, an quae lecta Prometheis dividit herba iugis.
71.
Pseudo-Plut.
de Fluv. xvil.
Ka\ov^evrj
rot?
4,
yevvdrai
r}v
lv
Xapuria
&lt;al&gt;
ev
Xapio-fo:
Hercher thinks
this
word
is
invented from
the
name
of a city in Arcadia.
ETHICA.
72.
7re8a&gt;e
Stob. Eel.
II.
7.
6a
p.
76, 3,
rrj
&lt;^vcrei
reXo? eVri TO
vii. 87,
6/j,o\oyov/jiva)&lt;;
fyjv.
Cf.
P.,
Diog. L.
p.
497
179
S.,
KXedvdijs Se
rfj
(f&gt;v&lt;rei
re\09 yyeiTai) TO
ev\oyL&lt;Trelv,
opoXoyov-
%r/v ev
r3
o ev rfj
TWV Kara
eK\oyfi Kectrdac
297
In the extract from Clement, Krische, p. 423 n., pro Se between tfv and ev the words 10761/775 poses to insert afforded on the evidence by Diog. L. vn.
rw
ev\oyi&lt;rTeiv
88,
Stob.
Eel.
IT.
7.
a
,
p.
76,
9,
who both
ev
rfj
expressly
attribute
4&gt;v(riv
the
definition
ev\oyio-reiv
rwv Kara
His suggestion n. p. 4) and Heinze, is approved by Wachsmuth (Comm. as to whether the For n. 11 Eth. question Stoic. p. into the Cleanthes first introduced the words rf, $vaet eK\oyy to Diogenes Babylonius.
definition, see
on Zeno,
frag.
120.
73.
77
Diog. L.
XpixmrTros
/J,ev e
rtKO\ov0(0&lt;;
Se
K\6rtV0775
Set,
KOivrjv
Se
fiovrjv
(frixriv,
p
re
uKO\ov6elv
otVert
/cal
rfjv
nepovs*
TTJV
Kal avrijv Si avrr^v aperijv &id0ea-iv elvat 6fjLO\oyovfievr)V ri rwv egwdev e\.TrtSa riva 17 Sid ov rj elvaL aipe-rrjv, fyofiov
ei&gt;
ov&lt;rp
^v^f]
rrerroiT]-
rravros rov @iov Siaarpe^ea-dai /j,evr] 7T/30? n]v 6fto\oyiav rwv egwOev rrpayTTore 8e TO \OJLKOV t,wov peis Sia ra?
fj.areiwv
Tri9avorrjra^,
rrore
Se
Sid
rr^v
KaTnxn
avvovrwv, errel i] (frvcns dfapfids SiSwcriv dSiaa-rpofovs. Diogenes leads us to suppose that Cleanthes and
(frvcris, interpretation Chrysippus dissented Cleanthes refused to allow that human nature and" that This however is scarcely credible (cf. the is included. next frao-.), although it is quite possible that Cleanthes cf. laid special stress on Koivrj cbvcns and KOLVOS vofios, necne conveniat utrum in. Fin. Cic. 73, 1. 24,
as to the
of
frag.
48,
natura hominis
cum
universa.
p.
So
Zeller, p. 229,
who
is
followed by Wellmann,
448.
To
is
an acquaintance with
Sto.
physics
Rep. 9). Chrysipp. ap. Pint. thinks that Diogenes account is substantially right.
He
298
to
regards Zeno as the upholder of Cynicism in preference which Cleanthes devoted himself to the study of
Heraclitus,
%vva&gt;,
cf.
Heracl.
fr.
7,
Sch.,
Bio
Bel
eTrea-Oai
ru&gt;
rov \6yov Be
%ovre&lt;;
COI/TO?
i&tav
&lt;f&gt;p6vrjaii&gt;.
To
eo&lt;?
already recognised the Heraclitean Atxyo? as a leading physical principle, Hirzel answers that it does not follow that he also transferred it to the region of ethics, and that Cleanthes must be credited with this innovation.
The latter part of the fragment has been included in deference to the judgment of Wachsmuth, but it appears extremely doubtful whether we are justified in tracing the epitomised views back to Cleanthes, because his name appears in the context.
8td0o-iv
6p.oXo-yoD[itviiv
:
for
117,
Eel.
and
II.
for
7.
5 bl
eival
&lt;f)aat
^v^ns av^wvov
Zeller
(p.
o\ov rov
/3iov.
ar
ov&lt;rn:
238,
3)
corrects
cx4&gt;op(ids,
cf.
frag. 82.
74.
Stob. Eel.
II.
7.
6C
evpoia /9/ou. Ke^pijTai Be KOI K.\eav0i)? ro5 opw TOVTW ev rot? eavrov crvyypdfi,/j,aai Kai 6 Xpi trtTTTro? teal ol aTro
/3iov,
Kairoi ye
\eyoi&gt;re&lt;;
evBai-
CKKelcrdaL
re\o?
elvai
elvai
evBaipovias,
OTrep
ravrov
rw
Emp. Math.
O-KOITOV.
cf.
ol
Trepl
rov
o-/co7ro&lt;?
and
reXo?,
Stob. Eel.
TrpoKCLfievov
et&lt;f
3C
p. 47, 8, teal
ean
atco-ros
(Bov\ovrai
ib.
II.
&lt;ydp
repov
) 0, p. 77, 1 Wachsmuth believes the distinction to be due to ChryThe difficult passage in Cic. Fin. in. 22 is not sippus. On the whole to this: see Madv. in loc.
TO
reXo?,
7.
really parallel
he argues that the dis matter see Hirzel, p. 550 foil. was foreign to the and reXo? between CTKOTTO^ tinction Panaetius. introduced earlier Stoa, and was by
:
75.
vi.
72,
p.
21
S.,
61
P.,
KXeavdrjs Se
ov Oeoyoviav
6 drro T?;?
Sroa?
0tXocro^&gt;o9
09
TroirjritcTjv deoXoyiav 8e d\7]6ivrjv OVK (iTrefcpv^raro rov Oeov rrepi on vrep el-^ev
epwra?
ov,
fji
oov
ecrr
a/cove
?;
Sifcaiov,
oo~toi&gt;,
eucre/Se?,
,
KpaTovv eavrov,
ov,
xpijcri.fAoi
KCL\OV.
8eov,
avOefcacrTOV, alel
a-v^epov,
dvw8vvov,
evdpecnov,
es,
cirvtyov,
alel Siapevov.
257 S., p. 715 P., 6eov rov rtvi ev words introduced by the Trotr/fiari Trepl 67 J. and also in Euseb. P. E. xin. 13, p. Clement s mistake in referring these lines to Cleanthes
The same
when they
sumnunn boninu, is obvious, and has been pointed Krische thinks that they may out by Krische, p. 420 f. have formed a poetical appendix to the prose work, which is either the Trepl reXou? or the Trepl Ka\wv.
Seven of these
Seov,
crvfA^epov,
300
dyaOov
aiperov and
Diog. L. vn. 98, 99, with the addition of d ev-^ptjcrTov: cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5 p. 69, 11,
,
Trdvra 8e rdyaBd
(fiepovra
teal
(a(f&gt;e\ifj,a
\vcriT\fj
5
1 ,
KOI cnrovSaia
p.
irpeTrovra
p.
teal
foil.
tca\d
teal
oiteela, ib.
IP,
100, 15
Chrysippus proved similar statements by his favourite chain arguments, Plut. Sto. Rep. c. 13, Cic. Fin. in. 27,
Tusc. V. 45.
3.
Kparovv
:
(frag. 76)
pointing to the virtue eytepdreia reliquum est, ut tute tibi imperes, Cic. Tusc.
tavrov
:
n. 47.
4.
&lt;f&gt;acriv
avcrr^pov:
elvat,
cf.
Diog. L.
TOI)&lt;?
Trdvras
p.
114, 22.
av0Ka&lt;rrov
:
mean between
the
d\a%a&gt;v
ro&gt;
teal TCO \6yw. We may com /3t m then Stob. Eel. n. ll pare 7, p. 108, 11, where the wise man is said to be a7rXo)&lt;? teal aTrXaa-ro? while TO elpwvevib. p. Ill, 11, eV Trdcrtv belongs alone to the
as aXydevriKos teal
&&gt;
&lt;/&gt;aOXo&lt;?,
veiv TOV
5.
&lt;ro(f)6v.
otyopov,
dXvn-ov,
cxvuSwov
man
is
7.
Some word
v.
1.
In Clem. Alex.
evrifiov
Strom,
c.
the words
&lt;f&gt;l\ov
are
1.
omitted and
In Euseb.
is
1.
6/jLo\oyov/jLevov
c.
is
placed at the
end of
6.
we have two complete lines but evdpe&rov from 6, thus repeated evnpov evdpearov 6/j,o\o1.
:
yov/j,evov:
this
is
the error
perhaps the original reading, where due to evdpea-rov having been copied from
is
the previous line in place of the genuine word. The reading in book V. is due to the scribe s eye wandering
from the
thinks
first
(p.
Mohnike however evdpeo-rov to the second. 51) that Eusebius had the work of Clement
301
him while writing, arid that the second evdpearov mere patchwork to mend the metre.
8.
&TWJ.OV, cf.
crocfoov.
v, cf.
Stob. Eel.
ii.
7.
11 s
p.
115,
1012.
ev
76.
QvviKoh
iKavbs
ev
K\edvO^
-rrupo?
TWO?
Kara aXXoz/Ta iV^ik Ka\elrat xal tcpaTO?," e-m^epet e?rl Tot? orav TO ? T 7 /iez^ 8 P ? 77
"
lo-^j)?
a^
Vt
&lt;f&gt;avel&lt;riv
e^evereo^
yyevi]rac, ey/cpdreid
eanV
orav
eV T0t9 vTrofievereois, uvBpela- -rrepl e/eXicrei9 aipeo-et? /cat Trepl bt /cat O/AOWU? wo-7rep Cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5 p. 62, 24,
T9
a|ta? Se BLKCUO-
T?
a-a&gt;&lt;j)po&lt;rvvi)."
TO{)
real
itai
rj
crftj/iaT09
TOt-09
e o-Ttv
i/caj/o?
eV vevpots
ovrw
T?;?
^^X^9
i}
tV%i;9
TWO?
eo-Ttt-
Trpdrreiv
irXri-rt
/M I.
See also
is
Trvp6s.
This
forms the foe/MOvi/cov of the individual, being an efflux Cleanthes hero brings his ethical of the divine irvev^a.
on his physical researches teaching into close dependence at frag. 24. of the physical aspect of TOI/OS we have spoken i.e. as is explained as tavo9 ro^o? Zeno s
:
0/361/770-19
t
influenced by Possibly Cleanthes was the see of use r6i/o9 by Stein, quoted passage the Cynic that Cleanthes intended to deny Not n. 37. 30 Psych, p. the fundamental position of Zeno that virtue is wisdom, it to be for we shall find that he expressly declared
tVxi)9
/c/aaT09.
:
-jrv^,
cf.
frag. 89.
Still,
he expanded
and
showing
logical
in two ways, (1) by developed his master s teaching that the doctrine of virtue rests on a psycho
basis,
and
(2)
in by clearing up an ambiguity
Zeno
is
found in
a double
virtue,
and
inconsistency
in the wider,
therefore
removed by retaining
but substituting eyicpdreia in the narrower meaning: see Hirzel u. p. 97 foil. Chrysippus on the other hand restored ^pov^a^ as the cardinal virtue, but represented by eirumjfiri that notion of ^povrjtr^ which was common to Zeno and Cleanthes.
&lt;f&gt;avto-iv
Eel.
II. 7.
so Hirzel, p. 97, 2, for cirifdvcnv, coll. Stob. o b2 p. 61, 11, eytcpdreiav Se 7ricrTr//j,r)v dvvTrep:
$a-Tov
also
T&lt;av
We
find
of ejKpdreta in Diog. L. vn. 93, Sext. Math. ix. 153, which are substantially identical with that cited from Stobaeus in Stob. it appears as a subdivision of while both in Diog. and Stob. the word efipevereov is found in connection with Kaprepia, a sub division of No doubt their account is derived dvSpeia.
definitions
:
&lt;j)po&lt;rvvT),
from Chrysippus it is noteworthy, however, that \0709 appears in these definitions see Hirzel, 1. c., Stein, In giving this Erkenntnistheorie, p. 262. prominent
:
:
op&lt;9o9
Mem.
the full definition, probably that of Chrysippus, in Stob. Eel. II. 7. o* 1 appears p. 59, 11, Sticaiotr^v Si
&&*s
:
,
brumjftrjv
tt/i
dfirovefjtrjriKriv
rfc
rifto?
eied&lt;rra&gt;,
ib.
7f
o4i,
1 o.
:
aipeVtis Kal tKK\(o-is the cra)(f)po&lt;Tvvri is concerned with regulation of the 6 P fjui (Stob. Eel. n. 7. 5 b2 p. 60, 13, M ib. 5 p. 63, 16), and is therefore directed to the avoidance of irdffij, is defined as amcjiig which
,
&lt;/&gt;dy9o5
\6ya&gt;
(Stob. Eel.
II.
7.
10 b
p.
90, 11).
303
P.,
p.
499
o
179
S.,
K\nv0r}s
&lt;j)&gt;](rl
ev
ru&gt;
Bevrepy
Trepl
jfiovfjs
rov
lo&gt;-
Kpdnjv
re Kai
Trap
eKacrra BiBdaiceiv
ru&gt;
avros BiKaios
ei Balfjicov
dvi]p Kai
TO irpmrto Sie\6vri
BUaiov
irpdy^a KarapdaOat cos ao-e/Se? ol TO av^epov drro rov ovri rw SeSpaKori- do-epels yap StKaiov rov Kara vopov ^wpL^ovre^. Socratem exCf. Cic. Off. ill. 11, itaque accepinms
secrari solitum cos qui
cohaerentia
cui quiclem ita sunt Stoici assensi opinione distraxissent. honestum esset id utile esse censerent ut et
id.
Leg.
I.
33,
cum
:
solebat
qui primus
utili-
co^eXt/iov
with
TO
Cleanthes, as
we
75), asserted
:
and riiftSupov
2.
for
78.
ol Trepl
Zeller,
a as ?} rerrapas) Diog. L. VII. 92, TrXetWa? (elvai per K\edv0r}V Kai \pva-i7nrov Kai Avriirarpov. thinks that this simply means that
p.
258,
Cleanthes
Hirzel, p. 97, 2, prefers to suppose of placing fypovntris, which mistake that it is due on the same level as several virtues, is the source of the
79.
Se
TI&gt;
This
is,
was
HpaxXei.
dperrjv
80.
fivjv
TI]I&gt;
\pvcmr7ro&lt;f
fi&V dTroftXrjTr/v,
i
Se
di&gt;a7r6/3\r)rov,
o fj,ev
a-Tro-
On
this
point
Cleanthes
Cic. Tusc.
ill.
esse videatur
quam
in
insania,
(/zeXa7^oX/a)
insania.
Pepcuovs
sapientem
:
cadere
possit,
non possit
shared by
KaToXij\|/is
the wise
man
cf.
is
frag.
especial cultivation
man
only:
also Sext.
According to Hirzel, p. 68, 3, the meaning is not that Cleanthes denied that the wise man would get drunk and so lose his virtue, but that the strength of his KaraXrtyeis is so that
great,
Math. n. 6 (quoted on
even melancholy and drunkenness fail to shake him. In support of this he quotes Epict. diss. I. 18. 21 23, rt?
OVV
a^TT7/TO9
TI
;
OV OVK
ij
^ ICTTTJ CT I V OvSeV
TCOI&gt;
OTTOTT poairj
perwv.
ovv av Kav^ia
rovrw
;
ri av otW/ze^o?
p,oi,
rl
av fjL\ay^o\oi)v ;
TI ev V7rvoi$
OVTOS
eVrti/ 6 dvi
305
17. 33,
7J
Kal ov
fjiovov
eyprjyopws
thinks that the later Stoics fj,\ay^o\ia. invented the distinction between oivovcrOat and fiedveiv to explain the divergence between Cleanthes and ChryKal
ev
He
on so important a point as the loss of virtue. So substantially Von Arnim, Quellen Studien zu Philo.
sippus
p.
106.
81.
Diog.
L.
VII.
128,
dpe&Ket
&lt;w?
8e
aurot?
Kal
Sid
dperfj,
e crrc
ol Trepl
KXedvdrji
rfj
yap
Kal
Trdvrore
ovar) -reXeta 6
82.
Stob. Eel.
(j)opfj,d&lt;f
^eti&gt;
II.
7.
1&gt;s
p. 65, 8,
7T/30?
K
&lt;f)i&gt;&lt;r&lt;j}&lt;?
ra&gt;i&lt;
r}fAiafj.fleia&gt;v
&lt;pav\ov&lt;;
For
this
sense
"
of
the
word
cf.
frag.
73
d(f)op/j.ds
Eel.
II.
Stob. imcorrupted impulses." d8iacrTp6(f)ovs b:i 7. 5 p. 62, 9 e^etv ydp (rov avQpwwov) d(f&gt;opfjids
,
&lt;f)vcre(i)&lt;t
rrjs
rrjv
T&V
Kal vrpo? rrjv rov KaOijKovros evpeaiv 6p/j,wv evcrrdOeiav Kal TT^O? rd? VTTOaTrove/jLija-eis.
^ovds Kal
ever,
it is
towards,"
7T/30?
r9
As a general
" "
rule,
"
how
aversion
)(
impulse
Math. XI. 210. Cleanthes re garded our capacity for virtue as innate, but whether at the same time he denied an innate intellectual capacity is
open
to question,
cf.
&lt;frv
M. Aurel. ix. 1, d^op^d^ ydp 7T/3oetX?/0et Trapd r?;? crews, wv a/u,eX?/cra9 ot)^ oto? re eari vvv SiaKpivetv rd
Cf.
H.
P.
20
306
so
Wachsm.
for
MSS.
?7/ua/z/3eiaiW.
Meineke
reads fu/ua/ii/3etW. The meaning is that men possess latent capacities which must be brought into play by their own exertions, if they would attain to perfection,
cf.
Cic.
Tusc.
III.
2,
Themist. Or.
II.
27
C, el 8e
av excrete
ri?
Ko\a-
Keiav elvai rut TlvOiw 7rapa/3d\\et,v TOV /3acri\ea, yLpvcmrTTO? /jiev v/4tv KOI K\edvdr)&lt;; ov (Tvy^caprjaec teal o\ov
&lt;f)i\ocro(j)la&lt;f
rj
e/c
rfjs 7roiKi\rjs
%opo?
ot
(f&gt;d&lt;rKOVT&lt;&gt;
This
KOI aXrjOeiav dvSpos KOI 6eov. doctrine depends on the divine origin of the
human
soul. Hence the Stoics could say that good men were friends of the gods, and Chrysippus declared that the happiness of the wise man was as great as that of Zeus, since they only differ in point of time, which is immaterial
for happiness.
rr/s
TO&lt;?
Cf. Procl. in
Tim.
Plat.
II.
106
f,
ol 8e diro
Kal Tr]v avrr/v dpeTijv elvai tcai dvOpwTrwv Cic. Leg. I. 25, iam vero virtus eadem in elpr/Kaatv. homine ac deo est neque alio ullo ingenio praeterea.
6eu&gt;v
84.
TOV
Galen. Hipp, et Plat. plac. v. 6, v. p. 476 K., KXedvOovs yvoofArjv inrep TOV TraBrjTiKov
T(iSvoe fyaivecrdai
4&gt;r)&lt;ri
rr,v
TTJS
TWV
eirwv.
TL
TTOT
eV^
OTI
/3ov\ei,
\oyi&lt;r/Ae,
A. 0.
val /3aai\iK6v ye
(av
eiTrov 7rd\iv.
dv
eTriOv/jid)
Tavff"
OTTWS yevrjcreTat.
(^rjcrlv
TavT\ Ta
dfjioiftdia
RXedvOovs
elvat
r/;?
TOV TradrjTiKov
307
ra&gt;
76
8?)
ireTToirjKe
rov Aoyio-jjiov
eralpov eraLpw.
MSS. e^ei v -y eVrt Mullach, fiaanXiKOV ev ye Wyttenbach /3a&lt;ri\i/c6v read rroidv should we z/ai, /3. 7. Mein. Perhaps Scaliger,
Xo-yio-jj.ov...pa&lt;ri\iKo
\ojLa-fj-6v.
4.
&lt;5v
..eyw fiacriKiKos.
&&gt;?
MSS., oo- Wyttenbach. Meineke, Mullach, this fragment comes either Mohuike, p. 52, thinks that from Trepl op^rfS or vrepl \ojov. Posidouius uses the verses to prove that Cleanthes
and it may hard been have must be added that Posidonius pressed
rhetorical flourish with a philosophical view,
an argument to rely on this passage 160, labours to prove however, pp. 147 is right, but he mainly relies on frag. 37, veaOac rov vovv, where see note, and is
for
at
all.
Hirzel,
that Posidonius
OvpaOev
ela-icpi-
well refuted
by
163167.
85.
Galen, Hipp, et Plat. ix. 1, v. p. 653 K, ev rfj Trepl 7ra6wv TT pay pare La BIOCKOVVTTO
s
rpiwv
8vvafj,erav,
r?/?
eVi^u^Tt/c^? re
avrfjs
6
/cat
Kal \oyi(TTiKr/s
TlocreiSwvios
e\eev
no direct proof that Cleanthes adhered to the eightfold division of the soul, yet everything points that way, and Hirzel s opinion (p. 138) that he only see on frag. 84. recognised three divisions is unfounded
Though
there
is
distinct fragment, since the whole argument of Posidonius, so far as we know, was founded on the dialogue be-
202
308
tween
p.
and
#17*09.
For
8vvdfj,i&lt;;
see Hirzel,
II.
486,
86.
1.
Stob.
Florii.
108, 59, o Be
K\edv0r)&lt;;
eXeye
rrjv
XVTTI)!
tyv^S
TTapd\V&lt;TlV.
This appears to be the only remaining indication of the position of Cleanthes as regards the definition of the Zeno had pro rrdOrj, but it is not without significance.
bably defined
\vrrr) as
\0709
crv&lt;noXr)
"tyv^s
(see
on
Zeno
saw
his
way
to
:
a better
the soul explanation from the standpoint of rovos of the wise man, informed by right reason, is characterised
by lirjfljs, itcavo? rovos, evrovla, but if the emotions over power the natural reason of a man, there supervenes a
resolution of tension, drovia or daQeveia.
This view of
cf.
Galen, Hipp.
387 K.
77
ginning or d&deveia
regard
to
ib. p.
is
see especially the long passage be 404 K. where the view of rrdOos as drovia
explained at length by Chrysippus. With \v7rrj cf. Tusc. in. 61, omnibus enim modis
magnitudinem
aegritudinis.
\v7rrjv Chrysippus quasi solutionem totius hominis appellatam putat. ib. II. 54, animus intentione sua depellit
pressum omnem ponderum, remissione autem sic urgetur, ut se nequeat extollere. No doubt Cleanthes, like Plato, derived Xv-rrrj from \vo): Plat. Crat. p. 419 C. See also
Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 130.
87.
\pvcwnros
riQkacriv
Galen, Hipp, et Plat. in. 5, v. 332 K., ov pwov r (i\\d teal real At]vu)V ero//i&)9 avrd
K.\edi&gt;dr)&lt;f
(scil. roi)9
^&gt;o/5ou9
Kal
rd&lt;;
7oiavra
frag. 141.
rrdQr)
/card
rrjv
Zeno,
309
contention
(p.
controverted
for
by Stein,
that
Psych, p. 170, from this passage, the irdQt] are affections of the rfyepovt/cov.
(p.
we have seen
-n-ddij,
though
The improbability distinct from it. jyefioviKov, are yet cor of Hirzel s whole theory lies in the fact that, if it is
rect,
Cleanthes was in vital opposition to the whole Stoa down to Posidonius on the most important doctrines of Such an inference ought not to be accepted, psychology. and no one evidence unless the conclusively points to it, here. case the is such will affirm that
88.
e
Sext.
Emp. Math.
avr^v
XI.
74,
d\\d KXeavdrp
d%iav
&lt;f&gt;v&lt;rtv
Kara
$v&lt;nv
ru&gt;
[avrrjv] ev
eivaL.
/3tw, KaQd-rrep Be
TO icd\\vvrpov /card
&lt;f&gt;opov
of.
not merely an dSidis, according to Cleanthes, but also -rrapd c/&gt;iW, being entirely devoid of dj-ia, and see on Zeno, frag. 192. Diog. L. vii. 105, cannot here mean a broom," but must be
ri
"
KdXXwrpov
"an
All kinds of personal the Stoics, as to the Cynics, to adornment appeared to be contrary to nature: Zeno wore the rpifiwv (Diog. and L. vii. 20), recommended the same dress for males
ornament":
females
(frag.
177),
to
be erat-
piKws
avTt]v is
bracketed by Bekker.
8996).
He
first
contains a climax:
has no connec
;
and therefore is not dyadov (Kara fyvaiv) Hence further, it has 110 d%la and is not even TrpoiryfMevov. with Kara rd Zeno and Cleanthes did not identify
&lt;j&gt;v&lt;riv
310
TTporjyaeva
:
pleasure the force of the second avrrjv which should be retained) is d8id&lt;popov in the narrower sense.
;
and Wellmann are, there in regarding Cleanthes attitude towards plea sure as cynical rather, his position is that in
irpoqyfUva as
fore,
Zeller
wrong
itself (for
this
is
ovre 8e Trporjyaeva ovr rrda-av KOI rrovov teal el rt a\\o d7TOTrporjypeva... q$ovT)v roiovro. Kara elvai is a Next, and when
II.
7.
p. 81,
14
&lt;f&gt;v&lt;riv
gloss,
e-^eiv with In short, Cleanthes treats plea cf. Seneca (Diog. L. vn. 86) Ep. 116, 3, voluptatem natura necessariis rebus admiscuit, non ut illam peteremus, sed ut ea, sine quibus non possumus
this
is
struck out
vivere, gratiora nobis faceret illius accessio. But it does not follow that, because virtue consists in TO 6ao\oyov/ie
i/&&gt;9
Ty
&lt;j&gt;va-i
rjv,
&lt;bvcriv,
is dperrj
or uere-^ov dperrj^.
(fraai, \eya)fj,ev
tcdv,
dStdtyopa rd
^ffv
aw^artKa
eari TO
7T/30?
TO ei/o-^/xoi/ta?
&lt;f)a/j,ev
(ev (airep
evSaifjLOvcas)
d&idfopd
avrd
elvai,
TO Kara
(f&gt;vaiv
(frvaiv is wider, or, at any rate, certainly not narrower than that of rd 7rpor}jfj,eva. from the Indeed, this is
apparent
&lt;}&gt;vcriv
6 Be present passage Apxeo^/no? Kara o;? Ta? eV uao"xdXy Tpi%as, oi)^l Se Kal d^iav there are some things which may be Kara
:
fiev elvai
%eiv, i.e.
&lt;j&gt;v&lt;riv
and yet
Again, Sextus obviously treats Cleanthes as more hostile to pleasure than Archedemus, but the view
devoid of d%ia.
which Hirzel would attribute to Cleanthes is scarcely to be distinguished from that of Archedemus. Certainly, the from Seneca not to be an illustra as passage ought quoted
tion of Cleanthes
311
admiscuit.
The inelegant
Xwrpov with
hand,
if
T? ev fia(rxa\p
rpix&lt;n,
preted
the second avrrjv is retained, it cannot be inter and to press the latter differently to the first
ai/n)i&gt;,
would make
89.
ea-riv
nonsense.
Stob.
r/Sovr/,
Floril.
TT/JO?
G.
37,
KXedvOys
e\eyei&gt;,
el
&lt;j&gt;povr)(Tii&gt;
KCIKOV rols
dvOpw-rro^
T)}V
SeSoadai.
This
is
no doubt directed against the Epicureans. eivai 128, TT)V rjSovrjV dpxn v KaL r e\os Xeyopev
tfv.
Chrysippus
/JLI]
also
wrote a treatise
Meineke for SiSoadai. Cf. Cic. de Senec. sive quis dens nihil 40, cumque homini sive natura muneri ac dono diviuo huic dedisset, mente
so
praestabilius
69, pudebit te illius tabulae Cleanthes sane commode verbis depingere solebat. 90.
Cic. Fin.
quam
iubein
bat
secum
ut Voluptati
nerent,
si
lit ancillulas, quae nullum suum ofticium ducerent, nisi ministrarent et earn tantum ad aurem admo-
modo
ne
quid faceret imprudens quod aut quicquam e quo oriretur aliquis dolor. Virtutes sic iiatae sumus, ut tibi serviremus
nihil
habemus."
offenderet animos
"
hominum
nos quidem
Cf.
Aug. de
civit.
312
humani in ipsa virtute constituunt, ad ingerendum pudorem quibusdam philosophis, qui virtutes quidem probant, sed eas voluptatis corporalis tine raetiuntur et illam per se ipsam putant adpetendam,
philosophi, qui finem boni
tabulam quandam verbis pingere, ubi in sella voluptas regali quasi delicata quaedam regina considat, eique virtutes famulae subiciantur, observantes
istas propter ipsam,
eius
tiae
nutum
ut faciant quod
vigilanter
;
ilia
inquirat quo rnodo voluptas et salva sit iustitiae iubeat ut praestet beneficia regnet quae potest ad comparandas amicitias corporalibus comnulli faciat iniuriam, ne offensis legibus voluptas vivere secura non possit fortitudini iubeat, ut si dolor corpori acciderit qui non compellat in mortem, teneat dominam suam, id est, voluptatem, fortiter in
;
iubeat ut
modis necessarias,
animi cogitatione ut per pristinarum deliciarum suarum recordationem mitiget praesentis doloris aculeos tem;
perantiae iubeat, ut tantum capiat alimentorum et si qua delectant ne per immoderationem noxium aliquid valetudinem turbet et voluptas, quam etiam in corporis sanitate
Epicurei
tutes
ita vir
tanquam imperiosae
servient
cuidam
nihil
inhonestae
mulierculae
voluptati
et
et
quod minus
bonorum
possit aspectus
verum
dicunt.
Further references ap. Zeller, p. 235 239. Epiphan. III. 2. p. 1090 C KXedvBrjf TO dyaOov icai ica\ov elvai ^Bovds is a stupid blunder of the epitoma\eyei
Haeres.
rd&lt;;
tor:
cf.
Krische,
p.
431.
Hirzel, p. 96,
1,
holds that
:
it is
position
see on
pulcherrimo
frag. 88.
vestitu:
this
illustrates
K(i\\vvrpov in
313
out that these words modo...possent: Madvig points and are not a part of belong to Cleanthes statement,
Cicero
s
comment.
Virtutes ut ancillidas: on the controversial character In 432. of the work ire pi r)Sovf)&lt;i see Krische, pp. 430 virtue has only a conditional value, the
Epicurean system
teal
as furnishing a
ri]v rjSovrjv
means
uxnrep
91.
real rrjv
Ka9d
Epict.
fiyov 8e
OTTOI
Man.
c.
53.
u&gt;
77
TTO& VJMV
8iaTTay/J,evos,
7
o? yevo/jievos, ov8ev rjrrov
The
two
first line is
quoted by Epict.
22. 05, iv.
lines
by
id.
ib. in.
Senec. Epist.
107, 10,
et
sic
131,
dirigitur,
quemadmodum
Cleanthes
disertissimis
adloquitur;
quos mihi in
disertis;
plicuerint,
est.
gemens,
mal usque patiar, quod pati licuit bono. ducnnt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt.
See also the commentary of Simplicius on Epict. 1. c. These celebrated lines constitute the true 329.
is
p.
jrpovoia
314
will.
matter is put very plainly in p. the passage of Hippolyt. Philosoph. 21, 2, Diels p. 571, quoted at length in the note on Zeno frag. 79. The spirit of Stoicism survives in the words of a modern writer "It has ever been held the highest wisdom for a
:
182.
The
man
make him
not merely to submit to Necessity, Necessity will submit, but to know and believe well that the
stern thing which Necessity had ordered was the wisest, the best, the thing wanted there. To cease his frantic
verily, though deep beyond his soundings, a just law, that the soul of it was Good that his part in it was to conform to the Law of the Whole, and in devout silence follow that not
; ;
;
pretension of scanning this great God s world in his small fraction of a brain to know that it had
questioning
it,
obeying
it
as unquestionable."
(Carlyle,
Hero- Worship, chap, n.) Marcus Aurelius often dwells on the contrast between rd e 7?/ui/ and rd ovtc
&lt;
e&lt;f&gt;
rjplv.
on povw
42
;
ru&gt;
XoyiKw
55
&)&&gt;
8e8orai, TO
r ira&lt;Tiv
etcova-Lax; eTrea-QairolsyivofAevois
rooe eireadaL
;
fy-i\6v,
;
dvaytcalov.
So
VII. 54,
Viii. 7
XII. 32.
Seneca Epist. 94, 4, Cleanthes utilem quidem hanc partem (philosophiae quae dat cuique personae praecepta, nee in universum componit hominem,
92.
iudicat
et
quomodo se gerat adversus uxorem, educat patri quomodo liberos, domino quomodo servos sed imbecillam nisi ab universe fluit, nisi decreta regat),
ipsa philosophiao et capita cognovit. The branch of philosophy here referred to
is known as the Trapaiveritcos or vTroQeriicos TOTTO?. Aristo regarded it as useless, and it is very that his "letters to possible
Cleanthes"
7riaro\(av 8 Diog. L. VII. (73-^69 KXcavffijv 163) dealt with this controversy. Cf. Sext. Math. vn. 12, Kat ApicrTa)v o ov /J,6vov, a;? TrapyreiTO rr/v re
Xio&lt;&gt;
&lt;j&gt;a&lt;rl,
315
/cat
oV&&gt;&lt;eA.e?
KCIKOV
rot*?
vrrdp^eiv aXXa
/cat
rov r)6iKov
roTTOf ? rivas crvfATrepieypafav, KaOdtrep rov re rrapaiverucov TOUTOU? yap et? rirdas /cat /cat rov vrroderiKov rorcov
The words in which Philo of rraioaywyovs rrirrreiv. Larissa described the TOTTO? v-rroderiKos illustrate Seneca s
statement: Stob. Eel.
8iaKi/jieva)v
II. 7.
2, p.
rwv
e/c
dvOpwTrwv
rot?
oid
Trpovoiav TrotTjreov,
ovarLva^
Sv
Sid
TrapaiveriKwv \6ywv
rrpoaevKcupelv
Tr\drecnv
r/
xpovov
nvas dvayfcaias acr^oXta?, crrevoxwpLas rj rov vTToOeriKov \6yov, St ot- ra? Trpo? T?)y dcr(pd\eiav /cat ev eVtro/iaf? ijTa T^9 eKacrrov ^p?;cre&)? vrro9r)Kas
ri
eVetcreye/CTeo^
Hirzel,
II.
93.
unum
officium con-
solantis puteiit
placet.
maluni
illud
omnino non
esse,
ut Cleanthi
Consolatio (Trapa/ivdtjriKr)) is a branch of TrapaiveriKr) and is concerned with removing the rrdOrj, cf. Eudorus ap.
Stob. Eel.
II.
7. 2. p.
44, 15 6 8e Trepl
rwv
d-jrorpeTrovrcav
TT/JO?
ecrrt
eviwv
is
As emotion
founded on
of
false
him who offers consolation to another is to explain that what appears to the other to be an evil is not really so.
malum
reference
129.
is
illud
The
particularly to death, for which cf. Zeno, frag. construction is not to be explained by an ellipse
is
nominalised so that
is
inalum.
..esse
= TO
I.
KCIKOV. .elvat.
.
This
common
in Lucr.,
see jVIunro on
331,
418 and
cf.
316
in criicem tollere
43).
Draeger,
429.
nam
entem
esse
non
eget.
nihil eniin
lugenti persuaseris, uon sed stultitiam detraxeris alienum auteni luctum, docendi. et tamen non satis mihi videtur vidisse tempus
tu
illi
;
eo
hoc Cleanthes, suscipi aliquando aegritudinem posse ex esse summum malum Cleanthes ipso, quod ipse
Cicero
s criticism
is
fateatur.
here
is
is is
called
consolation
which
and
;
as regards the wise man, who (2) that grief may be caused
evil.
is aTraOrjs, is
by baseness, which
unnecessary is an
Cf. Tusc.
II.
30.
This cannot be treated as merely containing Cicero s comment on frag. 93, for we have the additional statement
sapientem consolatur, which is surely not an inference from Cleanthes definition. The statement is strange and not to be in the perhaps entirely explained fragmentary state of our knowledge, but it is not inconceivable that Cleanthes held that the wise man ought to be reminded
of Stoic principles when attacked by ^e\a&lt;y^o\ia or when in severe pain, in e/3ai a9 /earaX?;-\/ret&lt;? (see on spite of his
80 and cf. Stob. Floril. 7. 21 0X76^ pev TOV &lt;ro$6v, Cic. Fin. V. 94, quasi vero hoc jBaa-avi&aBai 8e. didicisset a Zenone, non dolere, quum doleret Zeno,
frag.
/j,rj
!
frag.
158):
cf.
130
fikv
140 and
earai
&lt;J&gt;vyr/v,
esp.
ecrn,
139
el S
8ta&lt;7/cet
on
rovrl
6\iya)(f)e\e&lt;;
TrXeiWa?
8"
e^et
T&lt;
o^X?7&lt;m&lt;&gt;,
crvyKptaiv
teal
erepav a tpeaiv
oTrep
rr)&lt;?
Tapa^r)&lt;f.
UTOTTOV
yap
317
ri
95.
Stob. Floril.
oo-rt?
6. 19.
emdv^wv
troiricrei
avejfer
eai&gt;
ala-^pov
tccupov \dftr).
ouro?
TOUT
For the doctrine that virtuous action depends on the intention and not on the deed itself, see Zeller, p. 264 and cf. Zeno frags. 14G and 181.
96.
7/Vot
fjt,kv
evopicelv,
rov ofjbvvovra eav ov o/jbvvai ^povov. Kad" evopicelv ij eVtop/ceu rd Kara TOV opicov yap OVTWS o^vvrj co? eTrireX-eawv edv 8e irpdOecnv e x&)y /A?) eVtreXeiv, evriopKeiv.
Stob. Floril. 28, 14, KXeaytfr??
etprj
See on
15.
frag. 95,
and
cf.
97.
Seneca de Benef.
"
v. 14. 1,
Cleanthes vehementius
sit
agit:
ipse
si
"licet,"
tamen ingratus
sic
:
inquit, est
beneficium non
:
quod
accipit,
quia non
est,
accepisset.
latro
etiani
antequam manus
est, et
inquinet
habet
et
exercetur
non incipit. aperitur opere nequitia, beneficium non erat, sed vocabatur.
ipsum quod
sacrilegi
accepit,
dant poenas,
manus porrigat." quamvis nemo usque ad deos This arid the two next following fragments probably come from the book irepl %aptTo?. Introd. p. 52. Eudorus
the
Academic ap. Stob. Eel. n. 7. 2, p. 44, 20 speaks as in Stoic terminology of 6 Trepi TWV ^apLrtav TOTTO?
arising IK TOV
ri]v
TT/JO?
TOU?
TT\i]&lt;rov
because the question is concerning to an act of kindness to a bad man, on whom, according
benefiting non
318
Stoic
/jiiJTc
Comm.
Not. 21.
saciilegi:
Benef. vn.
facere
:
7. 3,
Senec. de
quia tanquam
Deo
De
Const. Sap.
98. Seneca de Benef. vi. 11. 1, beneficium voluntas nuda non efficit: sed quod beneficium non esset, si
optimae ac plenissimae voluntati fortuna deesset, id aeque beneficium non est, nisi fortunam voluntas antecessit non enim profuisse te mihi oportet, ut ob hoc tibi obliger,
;
quaerendum,"
Academia Platonem, duos pueros misi alter totum porticum perscrutatus est, alia quoque loca in quibus ilium inveniri posse sperabat, percucurrit, et domum non minus
;
lassus
quam
ludit,
irritus rediit:
alter
apud proximum
circul-
atorem
invenit.
resedit, et,
dum vagus
gatur et
transeuntem Platonem, quern non quaesierat, ilium, inquit, laudabimus puerum qui quantum
in se erat
quod iussus
est fecit:
hunc
feliciter
inertem
castigabimus."
Another illustration of the value of the virtuous in tention apart from the results attained by it, Cf. Cic. Parad. in. 20 nee enim rerum eventu, sed vitiis peccata
Academia: see the description of this place in Diog. there was doubtless a attached to it, whence
:
&lt;rroa
totum porticum infra. circulatorem a quack, mountebank: cf. Apul. Met. 1. c. 4, Athenis proximo ante Poecilen porticum circulatorem
:
319
mucrone infesto adspexi equestrem spatham praeacutam with of 6avfiaro7roi6&lt;; devorare. Probably a translation collected to these men see the passages by Becker,
:
respect
189,
Jebb
Theophrastus,
213,
p. 227,
and add Ar. Met, i. 2. 15, Isocr. Or. 15 lions and trained bears are spoken of.
99.
where tame
Seneca de Benef.
vi.
12.
2,
multum, ut
ait
Cleanthes, a beneficio distat negotiatio, cf. ib. n. 31. 12, a benefit expects no return non enim sibi aliquid reddi beneficium dat), aut non fuit beneficium sed voluit
:
(qui
negotiatio.
f r aTlcr lJ probably a translation of xPVP of man true the the Stoic wise man is described as only rov 8e business: Stob. Eel. II. 7. II p. 95, 21, povov
negotiatio
^&gt;
dv8pa ^pri^ariariKOV
Kal rrore Kal
TraJs
elvai,
yivcoaKovra
C
&lt;i)V
d&lt;p
Kal
^P
rror
100.
Kal
rj
Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 3. 17, p. 655 P. 237 S., K.\edv0ovs 8e rov Srcot/coO (f)i\ocr6(f)ov Troi^rt/c?)
wSe
TTCO?
rd opoia 7pa0et
&lt;ro&lt;o?
jjirj
al^ra jev(r6ai, Trpo? 86%av opa, eOeXwv dvaiBea Kal vroXXcoy 86%av aKpirov /jbrjBe (^)0/3oD
ov yap 7r\rj@os e ^et a-vveri]v Kpicnv ovre Sixalav ovre Ka\i]v, o\iyois 8e Trap di&gt;8pdo-i rovro KGV evpois.
to
the
Clement also quotes an anonymous comic fragment same effect: ala-^pov 8e Kpivew ra Ka\d raj
Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p.
vroXXft) ^o(f)a).
"hatte
326 says
auch er (Kleanthes) den sensus communis, die KOival evvoLai oder 7rpoX?/^et? gebilligt, wie konnte er
dann
so
Laienurteil
aburteilen
He
320
rationalism implied in the doctrine of \6yos and Of. generally Cic. -n-poX^e^, but see Introd. pp. 39, 40. Tusc. in. 3, 4.
86av
followed
this is
is
as
suggesting uXoyov for dfcpirov. The reason given for the change by Wachsmuth is that male conSogav iungitur cum aicpnov" presumably because Soga implies
undiscriminating opinion as explained by the next line. The text is con firmed by M. Aurel. IV. 3, TO evfierdftoXov KOL atcpirov rwv
"
rcpio-is,
may mean
"
ev&lt;pr]/j.tv
SOKOVVTCDV.
Cf. ib.
II.
17.
ov...ovT...ovT, is justified
ov
r
fiot,
by Homer, II. vi. 450, a\\ Tpwwv rocraov /zeXet d\yo$ o-niavw ovr avrfjs
ovre Hptdfj.oio aW/cro?, K.T.\.
Cf.
E/ca/9779
Soph. Ant
952.
101.
v. 14. 110, p.
715
P.
257
S.,
j/?
Kara TO
aicoTrwfjLevov
e
rrjv
r&lt;uv
Sia/3d\\a)v etSwXoXarpiav
Trap
etceiwr)*;
reu^oyae^o? rca\ov
two
In Clem. Alex. Protrept. vi. 72, p. 21 S. 61 P, the same lines are cited as the conclusion of frag. 75, but they
:
cf. Zeno, frag. 15. Cleanthes wrote a separate treatise -rrepi 0^77 ?, from which we may conjecture that the present and the preceding frag ments derived. Introd. p. 52. The Cynics described ^are re teal Sogas as vy irpoKoa-^nara (Diog. L.
veia&lt;;
Kaicia&lt;;
vi. 72).
The
Stoics regarded
them
as
-rrpo^^va (Dio?
L. vii. 106).
321
Gr. vol. n.
Mantiss.
I.
proverb,
(in
paroemiogr.
757) cent.
85.
dicoveiv Kpeicraov
\eyeLV
This
p.
is
is
taken from
as follows
:
Wachsmuth (Comm.
"
II.
8),
whose note
Inter ecclesiasticorum
scriptorum sententias hie trimeter laudatur ab Antonio Meliss. I. 53 et a Maximo 10, vicl. Gregor. Nazianz. carm. d p. 157
."
103.
2.
ecrrt
rrw
drcar^a-acra rov rrerceiO fJievov \d6pa dvarrX-drrei vrpo? rov ovSev ainov.
7.
11 s
p.
115, 21,
-v^euSet
$&gt;i\u&gt;v
and hence, reasoning on the basis that slander is with true friend only connected with apparent and not
wise ship, the Stoics declare that the
man
is
aSta/SoXo?
both in the active and the passive sense (i.e. /^re Sm/3d\\eiv ^rj-re Sia/3d\\ea-0ai), but their utterances are not consistent on this point see Zeller, p. 253 n. 6, who in
:
discrepancy.
104.
#?7?
?/po)T?7cre
Stob. Eel.
Trept
II.
7.
II
p.
ica
TO
aTTOV^alov
TroXi?
rrjv
TTO\LV
\oyov
roiovrov
pev
ecrriv
oiKrjrrjpiov
e crrt Si/c^v Sovvai KaraarKva(T/j,a, et? o KaTafavyovras fcal \a/3elv, OVK dcrrelov 8rj TroXt? eariv ; d\\a prjv TOLOV-
rov eariv
77
TroXt? this
Possibly
52.
Cleanthes
H.
P.
dcrrelov dp ecrriv r\ TroXt?. Introd. p. belongs to the 7roXtrto9 has here adopted the syllogistic form
oltcriTj iptov
:
21
3l 2
;
of argument, which occurs so frequently in Zeno s frag ments see Introd. p. 33. The Cynics line of argument
:
is
somewhat
TroXt?
6 vonos.
similar.
7roXe&lt;w&gt;?
Diog.
L.
vi.
72
ot;
jap,
(prja-iv
(Diogenes),
Be
?;
(ivev
o&lt;eXo9
TI elvai
dareiov
aa-rclov
dpa
Cicero
s definition is
as follows, Rep.
I.
39,
res.
ptiblica est res populi, populus autem...coetus multitudinis iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus.
Cf. Ar. Pol.
ci,
i.
2.
1253 a
37.
inserted by Heeren,
it
who
8rj
is
followed by
Wachsm.
77.
Meineke omits
105.
and changes
Seneca Tranq. An. I. 7, promptus compositusque sequor Zenonem, Cleanthem, Chrysippum quorum tamen nemo ad rem publicam accessit, nemo uon misit.
:
See on Zeno,
106.
frag. 170.
KXeai/^?
TO 1)5
e&lt;f&gt;rj
dirai-
The same occurs in Stob. Eel. II. 31. 64, p. 212, 22, where Wachsmuth cites other authorities. Stein, Erkennt326, quotes this frag, in support of his that Cleanthes refused to admit any inborn intel theory lectual capacity. Zeno declared vrjv eytcvrcXiov TraiSetav
nistheorie, p.
passage
is
and note), with which opinion this not necessarily inconsistent, though it probably
See also on
frag. 53.
to-eo?
1.
(f&gt;acriv
tcai
eXejev, ov
fjL-ijv
TrapdXoya.
the Stoics themselves accepted and defended Cic. Paradox. Prooem. 4 quia sunt admirabilia contraque opinionem omnium ab etiam Plut, Comm. Not. 3 ipsis Trapd&oga appcllantnr.
rrapd8o|a
:
323
avroi,
/u.er
Treptftor/ra,
t
r&gt;]v
8t}
rrapd&o^a
real
drorciav.
108.
fjuev
rov epcoftevov
8
eavrov
v&lt;ji
f^ev
etc
rwv
(ivrepacnals TroXXa? Xa/3a? 7rape%eiv ddifcrovy TTJV yacrrepa \eycov KOL ra aiSota Kal rov \aifj,6i&gt;.
This
may be
re^vr) or Trepl
epeoTo?, In trod.
p. 52.
See on Zeno,
frags.
and
Diog. L. vn. 24 (Zeno apoph. 7) \a/3rj ecrrlv evrtSe^io? 77 8id rcSv WTCOV.
cf.
109.
d8cd&lt;j)opov
Sext.
Emp.
Pyrrh.
rrjs
III.
rovro (TO
Zeno
frag. 182.
110.
Stob. Floril.
6,
20.
rcoOev rear
etc
apa ylverai
P.OIXWV:
frag. 178.
s.
Kpi9u3vTos
,
for this
word
cf.
Buttmann s
Lexilogus,
v.
E. T. p. 78.
111.
Pint,
de And. Poet,
&lt;j)av\w&lt;$
c.
12,
p.
33,
Wev
ovS
at
craro Kal
A.vna6evri^- o
K.r.\ ____ 6
8e
TOV 7r\ovrov,
(f)L\ois
re 8ovvai crwp,d r
et?
voaovs rreaov
acaaai,
Sovvai
et? vocrovs
rcecrov
The
from Eur.
El.
428,
9,
where
212
324
as
The ordinary view of the school regarded TrXouro? a TrpoijjfjLevov, and we have seen that Zeno concurred
It would be hazardous to infer from in this (frag. 128). evidence of this kind that Cleanthes dissented from his
master s opinion on this point a similar question arises with regard to Sofa (frag. 101), but that word is am
:
biguous.
112. Se Kal %a\fcbv elaeDiog. L. VII. 14, eVt Trparre TOVS Trepucna^evov^ (6 Ztjvwv) axrTe SeStora? TO
ou&lt;?
irj
evo-^Kelv,
KaQa
&lt;pr)cri
KXedvdij*;
ev rut
irepl
For the
above
is
title
s
of the
p.
53.
Cobet
text
omitting
SeStora?,
The Wachs-
muth
reads ^ak/cov for ^CL\KOV MSS., and also suggests evioTe for eviovs, but evlov? implies that the payment
was not always exacted, while the article shows that, when made, it was made by all. Similarly Soph. O. T. 107 TOI)? avroevras X 1 P^ Ttfttwpety riva? and Ar. Pac. 832.
113.
Philodem.
K&lt;al
irepl
&lt;/u\ocro(&&gt;y
K\&gt;dv6r)&lt;?
ev
&lt;rda&gt;i
Ato7eVou?
evLwv
avTr)&lt;&lt;;&gt;
/j,vr)&lt;/j,ovev&gt;ei
KOI
7raiv&lt;el&gt;
xal
&lt;fjiiicpov&gt; vcrre&lt;p&gt;ov
ev
avr&lt;u&gt;i
Tov&gt;r&lt;a)i
Ka0d&gt;7r&lt;ep
&lt;TTOI&gt;&lt;I-
T&gt;ep&lt;a)&gt;0
&lt;&gt;xdecri&lt;v&gt;
[1.
eicOecriv]
r&gt;ai.
the restoration of Gomperz in Zeitschrift filr Oymn. Jahrg. 29 (1878) p. 252 foil., who, in justification of this somewhat strange title, refers to a
is
Such
die Oesterr.
av-njs refers
325
es \eyovTai,
ixrrepov
dva@alvoVT&lt;;
o&oWes irapd TO
vewrepwv yap rjBij Kpaiveiv KOI diroirKtipovv rfv jXiiciav. K\dvOv]&lt;i Be ol oBovres OVTOL. rj/jiMV yevo/.iev(ov (pvovTai o&fora?. TOWS aTrXtS? vvv /eaXet. ffox^povLarfjpa^ avrov? KOI TO awVoi)? dvievat 8e Bid TO o/Lta ry
o-axfrpovio-rljpes
cr&fypov ToO you \a/jL(3dveiv T^/ia?. Be ol For Kpavrftpes cf. Arist. Hist, An. II. 4. fyvovrai reKevraloi Tot? dvOpunrois yopfaoi, ovs /caXoOcrt Kpavrrjpas, rd eiKoaiv cry real dvBpdcri KCU yvvcugi. It seems Trepl
to infer that fairly safe
Cleanthes the Stoic is meant, and is probably more correct than above the account given Kara r^v rov in that appearing Etym. M. p. 742, 35 Melet. and TO elxoffTov eVo?, ap. Cramer Qpovelv wpav -rrepl rti/e? oBovTwv TWV Be Anecd. Ox. III. 82, 26 TOU9 /^wXtra? TOV etcaXetrav Bid TO Trepl TI}V
a-axfrpovio-Trjpas
(frveaOai
apXea-0ai
&lt;j&gt;povelv
TOVS
TratSa?
&pav.
is growth of the reasoning powers of attainment the teenth 82), (Zeno, frag.
year
may
115.
= Zeno
frag. 184.
APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES.
1.
8e Kal Avrvyovov avrov Diog. L. VII. 169, ovra dicpoarnv, Sid TI dvT\el ; TOV 8 eltrelv,
&lt;a&lt;r!
TI S
oi^l (TKCLTCTW
eve/co,
;
TI S
ovtc
apSco,
&lt;^tXoo-o&lt;^/a?
Kal jap
6 Zrjvwv
&lt;f&gt;epeiv
avrov
o
o@o\6v
5,
dTrofopas.
/SacrtXei)?
KXedvdrj 8e
ev
Avrvyovos
aXet?
rjpta-ra
Sid xpovov
Se
6eaadfj.evo&lt;f
rai?
&lt;Tl\V,
Adr/vats,
O TTOtoS
eri,
/3a/jLT}8e
d7rO&lt;TTJ]Vai
&lt;j&gt;i\o&lt;ro&lt;f&gt;ia&lt;;.
XpvaiTnros
6 5lo\6)9
Trdvv
o\iya&gt;v,
K\edv0r)&lt;;
8e Kal ajro
&&lt;rev
\arr6va)v.
Epict.
KXedvOrj?
a/z,a a"xo\d%wv
aquam
2.
Kal dvr\wv.
Diog. L. VII. 170, KaL 7TOT6 d6poia-0ev TO Keppa eKopiaev els pecrov TWV yvwpipwv, Kai KXedvOrjs p*v /cat d\\ov K\edv6ijv SvvaiT* dv 01 Tpefyeiv, et @OV\OLTO. 8 e^oi/re? odev Tpa(fjcrovTat, Trap eTepwv eVt^Toucrt ra odev 8r/ Kal Kai-rrep
&lt;f&gt;i]o-i,
dvetfj,eva&gt;&lt;;
&lt;f)i\oo-o(f&gt;ovi&gt;Tes.
K\edv0r}&lt;{
e /caXetro.
3.
Diog. L.
VII.
TOV
T(av
7171;
7r\ov&lt;ric0v,
o-(f)aipl
ai^To?
APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES.
4.
327
rwv 170, Kal a-KWTTTo/jievos Be VTTO r)m %eTO, Kal oi/o? dxovtov irpotreBfyero&lt;rvnpa0viTwv TO ZT/VWI/O? Qopriov. \eywv ai)T09 ^di/o? BvvaaOaL fiaarci&iv
Diog. L.
VII.
5.
Diog. L.
VII.
171,
SetXo9,
Sta roOro,
6.
,
Diog. L.
ov
VII.
^ovKo^ai
Kal
orav Se iravraxoOev
Kal
ypd&lt;f&gt;ovra
vyiaivovra Trepivow
dvayi-
b\
7 eXao-a9,
Trpea-jSvTr},
&lt;f&gt;r)&lt;ri,
Se
8.
Diog. L.
7T/309
VII.
173,
2&lt;ucrt0eou
TOU
TTOL-rjrou ev
Qedrpa
avTov Trapovra,
?7
019
eVl
ravrov
ax^aro^.
w
e&lt;/&gt;
aya&lt;r0evTS
ol
e%e$a\ov. rov jj.ev Kp6rr)a-av, rov Se i, eirl Be avrov rf} \oiBopia TrpoaijKaro, ^Lovvaov Kal rov HpaicXea rov UTOTTOV
2a&gt;&lt;ri0eov
elvcu,
pei&gt;
$\vapovnevovs
eirl
VTTO
TWV TTO^TWV
eltrovros Be rivos \\.pKecri\aov Diog. L. VII. 171, el yap -^rer/e. rroielv ra Beovra, Travcrai, e^, KOI
avro ri0et Kal \o7ft) TO KadfJKov dvaipel, Tot9 yovv epyow o ou KoXaicevofiai, 7T/J09 bv Kal 6
A/3/cecrt\ao9,
&lt;j&gt;r)orL
a\\a
erepa
Be rroielv.
i*e
APOPHfHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES.
10. Diog. L. vil. 173, e\e7 e Be teal rot)? e* rov rreptTrdrov opoiov ri rcda^e^ rals \vpais at /caXw?
^
&lt;j&gt;deyt;d-
dedoctus
est.
nam cum
quern
ex renibus
ilia,
quae
sensisset.
quaenam
si,
ratio
cum eum de
Cleanthes
sententia
cum tantum
operae philo-
sophiae dedissem, dolorem tamen ferre non possem, satis esset argument! malum esse dolorem. plurimos autem
est igitur dolor,
cussisset,
annos in philosophia consumpsi nee ferre possum malum turn Cleanthem, cum pede terram per:
versum ex Epigonis ferunt dixisse Audisne haec, Amphiarae, sub terram abdite
:
Zenonem
significabat a
6
Dionysius
apoph. 52,
p.erade^evo^
note.
where see
Epigoni,cf. Soph. fr. 194, 195. (Dind.) 3. renibus: but according to Diog. L. vn. 37, 166 and Cic. Fin. v. 94 the disease was
7.
si:
inserted
94),
who
is
followed
by the
Stob.
later editors.
12.
Floril.
82,
Eel.
n.
2.
16,
6V&)&lt;?
Bid ri Trapd rot? ap^atot? ov 7ro\\(av (f&gt;i\ocroTrXfiovs SteXafjityav rj vvv, on, elire, rore
epyov
13.
tf&lt;TKiTO,
vvv Se
tTrv0eTO
,
Diog. L. VII. 172, ptipaKiw TTOTC et aia-ddveraf rov 8 eTrtveva-avTos, Sid ri ovv, eyw OVK aicr8dvo/j,ai OTI al
APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES.
14.
Sel
TO!
o?.
329
HXe/crpa9,
e&lt;/&gt;?7,
crlya
atya XCTTTOV
The quotation
15.
t7ret
i]Sv,
is
Stob.
&lt;)i],
Floril.
KXedvQovs,
rt9
e&lt;?7,
TL
crtyf
Ka
fjirv
aXX oawTrep
"jStov
rocrtoSe
Diog. L. VII. 174, 777369 Se TOV fiov^pr/ \a\ovvTa, ov fyavXw, 6(^77, avupwirw XaXet9.
16. 17.
/cat e
II.
c.
13.
125
Stob. Eel.
6
31.
125 Wachsm.,
77
AaKwv,
dyadov
o TTOVOS
KO\W&lt;&gt;
eaTLv
OVTO)
yap
e/ceii/09
fyaiverai
&lt;ucrei
Tre$VK(as
KOL
Tedpa/jifjievos ev 77/369
T779
TayaOov
TOV
T"fjs
TOV KaKOV
09 76
ei
&J9
o/jio~\.oyovfjLevov
/u.?}
dyadov Tvy^dvet
(av
eTrvvOdveTO.
Wev
Kal 6
KXeai^^
et9
dyacrOels TOV
7ra&lt;8o9
IV. 611). dyadolo, $l\ov re/co9, oT dyopeveis (Horn. Od. Aaajyo9 TIVOS eiVoWo9, OTL 6 TTOVOS Diog. L. VII. 172.
dyadov oia vvOeis (bfjo~i,v, otfyu.ciT09 6t9 ayavolo, (pL\ov TGKOS. a 7761/09 is an dSidffropov (Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5 p. 58, 3. from inferred be it but vii. L. may perhaps 102), Diog.
this passage that Cleanthes classed it among the jrpo^ySee on Zeno frag. 128. Antisthenes regarded it as
fjueva.
dyadov (Diog. L.
18.
vi. 2).
dv Tt9
19.
7rXoucuo9, etTref,
ei
TU&gt;V
eTTLdv/ALtov
II.
elrj Trevrjs.
Exc. e
31.
MS.
loan. Flor.
Damasc.
13.
63
Stob.
Eel.
II.
63
Wachsm., K\edv0r)s,
eTaipov
aTcikvai
330
APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES.
epwrwvros TT&J? av rjKtara d^aprdvoi, el-xev, CKacrra (av Trpdrreis 80*01779 e^e Cf. Trapelvai.
5.
/ieXXoi/TO? Kal
i
Trap
Diog. L.
VII.
173, \eyerat
Be,
&lt;j&gt;d&lt;rtcovTos
avrov
avrov
KivaiBov
rov tfOovsdvOpwirov,
6 K\edv6r)s,
dypw,
/cal
&5s
eTrrapev, e^w,
etTrei/,
ayroi
yu,aXa6?
ecrrti/.
Cf.
21.
^/petat?,
Diog. L.
VII.
172, fatrl 8e 6
et o
Eicdrwv ev raw
et? TT}V
TVTTTWV
a-v
(f&gt;i],
teal o elf
TOI)&lt;?
fj.tjpov&lt;j
p,ev
TOI)?
ava\oyoi
/tara.]
(fxovai
717707-
22.
8ia&gt;8r)(rev
ov\ov aTrayopevo-dvrwv
rpo^.
elrrovra
/caXw? wcrre
(rvy-^wpelv.
rov Be
avao-^eo-Oai
ra&lt;?
aXX
avrq&gt;
TrpocoBonropiJadai
XoiTra?
diro&lt;j^o^evov
Zr/va)vo&lt;t
r\vrijaai.
real
Lucian, Macrob.
19,
K\edv0r)&lt;j
Be 6
/j,adr)rr)&lt;;
evevtjfcovra oiJro?
Kat,
yeyovws
errj
&lt;f&gt;vfj,a
(nroKaprepwv
7r\06vra&gt;v
avrut
eraipwv rivwv
ypapfAarcov Trpoo-eveyKdpevos rpofyrjv Kal Trpd^as Trepl wv y]%iovv 01 d7roo-^6/j,evo&lt;; avQis egeXnre rov Stob. Floril. 7, 54, K\edv6^ VTTO y\wrrt]&lt;j eXou? ftiov.
(f&gt;i\oi,
rpo(f&gt;Tj&lt;;
avrw
yevofievov rrjv
t
rpo(f&gt;rjv
arpo?
TO
avra&gt;
Trpocrrjyayev,
&lt;ri)
Be
/3ov\ei
tfBr)
rr\eov
rtjs
6Bov
Karavv&avra
et;
VTrap^ij&lt;f
n]v avrtjv
INDICES.
[The references are
to the
numbers
where
p.
is
prefixed.]
I.
INDEX FOXTIUM.
Athenaeus xin. 563
e
Z Z C C
Z 173 Z 191
in. 7. in. 9.
(Jr.
i.
434. 23
Z 25
Z 26
Anon.
Gr.
Ti\vr) ap.
i.
Speugel Ehet.
m.l7.38...Z42,95 de Civ. Dei v. 20 ... C 90 deTrinit.xm.5.8...Z 125 Z 128 Aul. Gell. ix. 5. 5
Hulstchiana Heronis geom. Z 28 275 Z 189 Anton. Meliss. i. 52 Apollon. soph. lex. Horn. p. C 66 lUBekk Z 54 Arnob. ad Nat. n. 9
Arrian.Epict. 11
diss.
1.
frag.
i.
Z 80 Z 77 C 28
Certamen Horn,
ISNietzsch Chalcid. in Tim.
et
c.
Hes.
p. 4.
17. 10,
Z4,C2
i.
Arrian.Epict. diss.
_
C8
C 91 C 91
131 ... C91 173 ...C 107 C 91 iv. 4.34 Z3 iv. 8. 12 Z 156 Athenaeus iv. 158 b Z 169 vi. 233 b, c C 11 xi. 467 d C 11 xi. 471 b Z 163 xin. 561c
iv. 1.
C 67 C 18 144 Z 90 c. 220 Z 49 c. 290 Z 50 c. 292 Chrysost. Horn. i. in Matt. 4...Z 162 Z 130 Cicero Acad. i. 36 Z 134, 138 i.38 Z 34, 46, 86 i.39
1.41
i.
Z
Z
42...
22
n.18
n. 77
Z 11
Zll
Z 11, 153 Z41, C 28
n. 113
n. 126
332
Cicero Acad. n. 145 - de Div. ii. 119
INDEX FONTIUM.
Z 33 Z 103 Z 186 Z 32
Clem. Alex. Strom, vn.
6. 33. C 44 - vni. 9. 26... C 7 Cornut. de Nat. De. c. 31 C 62 Lex. Bodl. n. 11. ap. Cyrill. Cramer Anecd. Par. iv. 190. Z 31
.
- Fam.
ix. 22. 1
C90
Z 131 Z 86 Z 120 Z 126 Z 126 Z 120
47 60 iv. 72 -v. 38
iv.
iv.
C44
Z 125 Z 151 Z 120
v.
v.
v.
79 84 88
61... Z 132, 133, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155 Nat. De. i. 36 ...Z 37, 39, 41,
Muren.
72,
i.
110
37
i.
46
Cicero Nat. De.
-
70
n. n. 21
1315
...
Z 8 C 52 Z 61
H.40
-
n. 57 n. 58 n. 160 in. 16
in. 27 in. 37
C 30 Z 46
Z 48 C 44 C 52 Z 46 C 29 Z 32 Z 86 Z 127 Z 143 C 93
29
C94
136 136 127 174 vi. 72... C 75, 101 Protrept. Strom. n. 20. 105... C 44 - 11.20. 125... Z 187
H.21. 129.. .Z 120, C 72 n. 22.131.. C 77 v. 3. 17 ...C 100
v. 8.
48
...
C31
INDEX FONTIUM.
Galen, nat. f acult. i. 2 (11. 5 K. ) Gemin. Elem. Astron. p. 53 (in Petau s Uranol.)
333
Z
53
Epict.
Man. 53
i.
C 91
C 35
Epiphan. Haeres.
36)
Epiphan.
37)
H
Harpocration s.v. XeVxat
C53
C
149 75
61
Hermias
p.
Irris.
654Diels
p. 679...
15.7
18. 3 20. 1
20. 2...Z
C28
C 21 Z 36
45
Eustatb. in 37
II.
Z 54 Z 106 83, C 38 Z 23
2. 506, p. 1158.
Z39, C15
Z99
.
m.
4
7
Z 153
m. m. m.
iv.
8 23
9
Z120 Z120
Z
132, 144
G
Galen de cogn. anim. morb. Z 188 v. 13. Kiihn Galen in Hippocr. de humor.
i.
7 de Ira del 11
vii.
Z44 Z97
Z 109 Z 44
1 (xvi.
32 K.)
et Plat. plac. n.
Z53
Galen Hipp,
21.3
Z 88,040
Z100 5(v. 241 K.) Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. n. Z 101 5 (v. 247 K.)
Galen Hipp,
8
et Plat. plac. n.
M
Macrob. Sat.
Z87, C 39 (v. 283 K.) Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. in. Z102 5(v. 322 K.) Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. in. Z141, C 87 5(v. 332 K.) Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. iv. Z 139 2 (v. 367 K.) Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. iv. Z139 3(v. 377K.) Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. iv. Z 143 7 (v. 416 K.)
Galen Hipp, et Plat. l(v. 429 K.) Galen Hipp, et Plat.
plac. v. plac.
v.
17.
17.31 1.17.36
Mantiss. Proverb, (in paroem. Gr. ii. p. 757) cent. i. 85... C 102 Z 190 Maxim. Floril. c. 6 Minuc. Eel. Octav. xix. 10... Z 39, 41, 44, 111, C 14
N
Nemes. Nat. Horn.
32 96 Numenius ap. Euseb. P. E. xiv. 6. p. 733
p.
p.
Z139
C84
ix.
C 36 Z 93
653 K.)
C 85
13(xix.271K.)C33
13 (xix. 272 K.) 31 xix. 322 K.)
Olympiodorus in
p.
Plat. Gorg.
034
53
f
c.
Z12,
Gels.
i.
C5
164
...Z 106,
107
driven __L_
5. p.
324
...Z
vii. 63. p.
INDEX FOXTIUM.
Plutarch Sto. Rep.
Philargyriusad Verg.G. n.336. Z 57 Philo liber quis virt. stud, n 880 .............................. Z157 Philo mund. incorr. p. 505. 27. C 23
7. 1,
.Z 134
.
7.4 8.1
"
C 76 Z 29
Z6
80. l
Virt.
Mor. 2
p. 510. 11.
i.
Z 56
.Z 131 .Z 131
Thilo de Provid.
22 ii. 74
.........
.........
c.
c.
Z 35 C19
C
16
Philodemtu
wepl tvaffi.
8 9
40, 117
...
c. 13...
C 54 C 113
p.
7re/)i0(\ocr6&lt;^w
C.
13.
3 Z 135 Porphyr. de Abstin. in. 19 ...Z 122 m. 20 ... C 44 vit. Pythag. 1.2 C 68 Probus ad Virg. Ed. vi. 31. p. 10. 33 Keil Z 52, C 20 Probus ad Virg. Ed. vi. 31. p. 21. 14 Keil ...Z112 Proclus ad Hes. Op. 291 ......Z 196
iv. 6.
p. 213 a. 31 .................. Z70 Photius s. v. Xffo-xcu ............ C 61 Plutarch Ale. 6. 2 ............... C 108
Q
Quintil. Inst. Or. n. 15.
ii.
3335
..
Alex. virt. 6 ......... Z 1G2 Arat. 23. 3 ............ Z 148 Aud. Poet. 11 ......... C 55
17. 41...
C C
9
5
ii.
20. 7
iv. 2. 117...
Z 32 Z 27
Cobib.
Ir.
B
Rufus Ephes. de part. horn. P-44
S
Schol. ad Apoll. Rhod. I.498...Z 113 Arist. 22 b. 29 Brandis Z 6
Comm. Hesiod
Z84
C 25 C 27 C 69 C 70
C71
.
frag.
P. 899 Plutarch
dean. Wytt.V 2
66
Is. et Osir.
Lycurg. 31 plac. i. 3. 39
i.
10. 4
i.
15. 5
n. 14. 2. n. 16. 1
.
n.
iv.
iv.
Z 121 C 56 Z 163 Z 35 Z 23 Z 78 C 33 C 34 C 29
C4
Z 98
Z 106 Z 107
Dionys. Thrac. ap. Bekk. Anecd. p. 663. 16 ... Z 13 Schol. ad Hes. Theog. 117 ...Z 114 134 ...Z 115 139 ...Z 116 Horn. II. m. 64 ... C 63 xvi. 233... C 55 Horn. Od. i.52 (Cra mer A. O. m. 416) C 65 Schol. ad Lucian. Cal. 8 Z 29 Nic. Ther. 447 C 114 Plat. Ale. 1.121 E... Z 82 Seneca de Benef. n. 31. 12 ... C 99 v. 14.1 C 97
vi. 11. 1
vi. 12.
... ...
C98
C 99 Z 129 Z 159
v. 4. 1 v. 5.
2
1..
prof, in virt. 12
Z 160
Z180 10. 3 C 44 3 ... C 45 Z 162 Z 164
Epist. 82. 7
83. 8 94. 4
...
quaest.Conv.ni.6.
v.
C92
Z 161 C 91 C 50 C 43
Sto. Rep. 2. 1
6.
21 10
10 18
INDEX FOXTIUM.
Seneca de Ira
- Tranq.An.i.7...Z170,C105
Sext.
Stob. Eel.
.
i.
Emp.
p. 199. 10.
p.
200. 21. p. 205. 25. p. 211. 18. p. 213. 15. p. 219. 12. p. 219. 14. 48. 7. p. 317. 15. 49. 33. p. 367. 18. 49. 34. p. 369. 6.
1 .
1
n.
vn. 422 ...Z132 vn. 426 ... Z 11 Z 8 viii. 355... C 3 vni. 400... C 51 ix. 88 Z 59 ix. 101 ... ix. 104 .., Z61 ix. 107 ... Z 62 ix. 133 ...Z IDS xi. 30... Z 124, C 74 C 88 xi. 74 Z 128 xi. 77 xi. 190. ..Z 179,181 xi. 191 ...Z 180 Z 11 .11.4
_ 5. p 57. _ p
.
p. 39.
.
51*.
ft
.
6\
6
p. 75. 11...Z
p. 76. 3
p.
...
120
C 72
_6
7
e
.
77.20...Z 124
_6.
1
n.70
C3
Z 182
6.20 6.34
37 6.62 14. 4 28. 14 36. 26
6.
C110
Z 201 C 89 Z 192 Z 189 C 96 Z 200 C 103 Z 165 Z 199
m. 200
in. 205
in.
.Z 180 206 .Z 183 in. 245 .Z 179 Z 180 m. 246 Simplic. ad Cat. 80 a. 4 ......... Z 76 in Epict. Man. 53... C 91 Stob. Eel. i. 1. 12. p. 25. 3... C 48 b I. 29 .p.34.20... C 14 p. 35. 9... Z 42
42. 2
.
43.
88
95.21 108.59
vii. 3.
C86
Z45
Z Z Z Z Z C Z Z Z C Z Z
76 35 51
Strabo Suidas
p. 146. 21.
-.
p. 153.7...
1
,
18. I
p. 156. 27.
23 24 26 68 78 52 24 69 67
T
Tatian ad Graec.
c.
3
c. c. c.
Z Z
5 ..Z 89,
47 55
Tertullian de Anim.
-
14 25
Apol. 21
-
i. 13 Nat. n. 2
Marc.
C 22 C 28
4 Prats. Cup. 7
INDEX FONTIUM.
Themist. de An. 68 a 72 b 90 b Or. n. 27 c Or. vin. 108 c
Or.
Z 96
Z43
Z 140 C 83 Z 196 Z 196 Z 70
Theon progymn.
Theoph. ad
119 c
184,
C 115
xm. 17lD
Phys. 40 b Tbeodoret Gr. Cur. Aff. in. 780 Z 164 p. Theodoret Gr. Cur. Aff. iv. 12. Z 35 iv. 20. C 33
v. 25.
v. v.
9 59
..
CIO
Z 105 Z 81 .. C 44
4.
3 9
Z 106
Zonaras
s. v.
ffo\oiKlfru&gt;
Aff. v.
25
Z88, C40
31
II.
INDEX NOMINUM.
Cbrysippus, p.
7, 20, 27, 28, 34.30. 38, 40, 43, 45, 48, 49, 50, Z 2, 7. 11, 14, 21, 23, 24, 49, 52, 66, 72. 74, 76, 79, 100, 102, 130, 139, 143. 144, 100, 107, 185, C 3, 8, 9, 13.
Amoebeus,
p. 226.
Anaxagoras, Z 81, 113, C 27. Anaximander, Z si, C 29. Anaximenes, Z 52. Antigonus Carystius, p. 228. Gonatas, p. 2, 5, 6, 228. Antiochus, p. 17, 25, Z 126.
Antipater, p. 114, C 59. Autisthenes, p. 19, 20, 22, 53, Z 3, 23, 109, 162, 163, 171, 187, 195,
18, 19, 23, 24, 37, 41, 43, 44, 4s (17), 70. Cicero, p. 34, Z 120. Z3 1, 23, 35, Cleanthes,
p.
3053,
79, 93, 120, 128. Crates, p. 3, 31, Z 105. of Mallus, Z 198. Critolaus, p. 111.
Cynics, p.
79.
1821, 30, Z 9, 125, 149, 102, 104, 107, 171, 172, 170, 177. 184, 180, 194, C7G, 79, 80, 88. 101, 104.
D
Demetrius, p. 27. Diodorus, p. 40, C 8. Diogenes, p. 18, 19, 20, 21, Z
9.
11, 145.
7.
Archedemus, C
197.
Aristo, p. 36, Z 5, 131, 191, C 92. Aristotle, p. 24, 25, Z 12, 26, 35, 49, 50, 53, p. 110, Z65, 67, 68, 69, 81, 99, 104, 112, 116, 117, 128, 134, 135, 136, 163, 167, 168, 169, 195, C 1, 37, 52, 53.
108, 171, 185, p. 225, C 113. of Apollonia, Z 42, 81. of Babylon, Z 100, 108, C 72. Dionysius (o fj.era.6^fj.fvos), p. 234, 328.
E
Empedocles,
p. 114,
Aristoxenus, C 42.
Z73,
81, 110.
Empedus,
Epicurus
p. 230.
p.
233.
and Epicureans,
8,
69, 72, 73, 74, 85, 102, 112, 107, C 10, 89, 90.
H
Heraclitus, p. 2123, 50, Z 52, 54, p. 114, Z 04, 05, 77, 83, 85, 87,
C
Caphesias, p. 231. Carneades, Z 11.
1, 3,
48
(10, 24,
Cbremonides,
p. 6, 232.
30).
H.
P.
22
3.38
Herillus, p. 52, Z 17. Herpdicus, Z 77.
p.
IXDEX NOMINUM.
Polemo,
p. 3, 25.
31, 32, Z 29, (Tlieoy. 118, 119) Z 113, (J/ira.9. 126 128) Z 193, (Cty. 291), Z l96. Hippocrates, Z 106, C 42.
Posidonius, p. 49,
Hesiod,
Z 24, 49, 52, 66, 76, 80, 131, 143, 198, C 35, 84. C
Homer,
198.
174, 195,
S
I
Seneca,
162.
Indians,
187.
If
Socrates, p. 45, 53, Z 59, 123, 134, 158, 159, 162, 194, p. 227, 230,
Marcus Aurelius, Z
Megarians, Z
5.
52, 162,
44.
Sophocles
197.
N
Neanthes,
p. 51.
Thales,
73.
p.
Theophrastus,
Panaetius,
110
f.,
233.
54.
Virgil,
97.
Xenocrates, p.
3,
1,
128,
37.
Xenophanes,Z56
Zeno, p.
135,
of Tarsus,
III.
INDEX VERBORUM.
C
75.
a7ro/rpi/e&lt;70ai,
Z 56
58.
(45).
162.
ATroXXwj ,
dTrouivrjfj.ovev^.aTa
Kpar^ros,
p.
31,
199.
v. irpotjyfj.evoi
14, 15, 17, 46, Z 127, 128, 129, 145, 154, 161, 171, 172, 17*.
awove^T^ois, Z 134.
diroirpor]y/j.ei&gt;ov,
.
aTropuv
"Apa^es,
(Trept), p.
49.
a^r-Tjros,
Z. 198.
dddvaros
;itfcu
(cofs),
dpeTr,,
{&lt;j\a-
dpyixepavve, G 48 (32). Z 125, 128, 134, 135, 79, 80, 83. dperwi (irepi), p. 52.
XpiffTa.px.ov (Trpos), p. 51.
78,
(?repi), p.
aurfVis,
O.ITIOV,
Z Z
dppwor^/uaTa,
dpxcu,
144.
35.
24.
dpxa-LOTfpoi, p. 40,
10.
d/coXao-ia,
f
d XXajs,
aXcr/a
j
45.
47, 52. ciae/ietaj ypafir], C 27. r/ X\ -)/i aaoAocKOS, /; oU. dtrr^pes, C 33, 34.
cipa^s
(irepl), p.
aJa,
C
,
44, 45.
dffTpa.Trr),
74.
d/ij.dpTrjfj.a,
aro/xwc
(Trept), p.
47.
drpaTros,
C
23.
t
45.
dV,
ai-74
/
83,
55.
ai aXa.ujSdceti
dva/j.fj.a
p. 226.
63, 64.
C 29. dyaTrfTrTauei/oi/, Z 174. dvdpeia, Z 134, C 76. dveTrtTpeTTTe?^, Z 194. 115. avdpuTrofiopias, Z 184, C dVcj \-draj 6065, Z 52. d^ a, p. 14, Z 130, 131. a ^wMan/cos, Z 148 (16). dTrdOfia, Z 158. aTatoei Tous, C 106. aTra^a, p. 14, Z 130, 131. Z 169. aTrXws 7 ct(TiS Z 50.
voepbv,
dir&lt;!piTTo&lt;s,
/Sapor,
67.
(Trept), p.
/3a&lt;n\etas
a&lt;7tXt/c6s,
52.
/iidfeTai,
/3tos.
/aoi
145.
(Trepi),
X^s
ppovrrj,
yd/j.os,
74.
Z 171.
ed,
77.
7ew^erpta,
28.
340
yiydvruv
{I
INDEX VERBORUM.
(irtpi),
Yopyiirirov
(irtpi),
p. 51. p. 52.
iva.Trofj.f/JMy/j.tvos,
,
Uvdaia,
yvvaiKts,
Z 166. Z 176.
.dTuv,
p. 34, Z 9. Z 31.
v,
3.
^/u a ra )
ta, p.
aryT7,
,
Aewcis,
C
i,
11.
577,utoi&gt;p7&lt;5s,
6.
21.
61.
e is,
Z
7
43, p. 110,
Z 56
(53),
117,
134, 135,
5.
5%
S,
eWC
i
?.
3.
5iapo\j,
7pw(m, Z 52, C
SiaOtfffis,
Z 117, 135, C 36, s, Z 51. Z 134. Z 174. ^j OJ dia.K6ffnr)ffis, Z 52. 5taXe;c7), Z 6, 32, C 1.
,
^7rap&lt;ris,
fTTiyiyw^eva
eiriBvfjda,
Kplfffffiv,
138, 139.
172.
17, 18, 33, 134.
eiriffrrifj.-!)?
(vepl), p. 50.
eTrterroXai, p. 31.
fpws,
fpuriKT)
30,
52,
174,
108.
p. 52.
Siaxwreis,
Z
i,
139.
parroj (Trepi),
Z 148
(14).
eff^s,
Ecrria,
Z Z
177.
dLrjKflV,
25. 13.
fffdifiv dra/CTWS,
31.
SiKaiotrw
T;,
StxaffTrjpia,
Z Z
Atovi
cros,
57.
110, C 27. Za\aTov rov irvpbs, C 24. i /3oi-Xias (irepi), p. 47, 52. t 5at/aoj/t o, Z 124, C 74. evxpaffLa, p. 23, C 42. efXo70v, Z 145.
i
Aioffxoijpovs,
117.
fi &gt;7rp&lt;?7reia,
Z 56
56a, Z
101.
dvvdfj.fi*
di
tvpri\oyos,
(63). 62.
66*175 (irtpi),
100,
ei&gt;ia,
ei)0wo,
t/
i
Z 124, C Z 172. Z
79,
74.
X ^s, Z
8.
93,
85.
ei)&lt;i
varov,
i&lt;f&gt;
iifuv,
91.
5i i/aTwi
(jrepi))
ov,
P- 50. 51.
Zefc,
111.
(i"fpt
p. 45,
ZTJVOH OS p. 50.
Js
^&lt;/&gt;i
(TtoXo7iai
/3 ),
f^Stov,
71.
18.
fu&gt;i&gt;i)
dia.K(Kavfdvr),
(6
&gt;c6crp.os),
C
62.
35.
C
s,
3.
jyoi
Z 143, C 76. Z 71, 73. Z 52, 54, 55, C e At7r. ?\eyx ( ffo-vrov, Z 189. Aeoj, Z 144, 152.
(K\ttyeit,
-pw&lt;ris,
22, 24.
&lt;\^,
46, Z 127, 128, 139, 142, 88, 89, 90. rjSovrjt (irtpl), p. 47, 53. i70/ca, p. 31.
tfovr,, p.
143,
INDEX VERBORUM.
Z 2, 119. Z 146, 147, C 77X105, C 25, 28, 29,
rifaKOV,
770os,
o4l
Z Z
102.
KarairivfTai,
36.
Karriydpwa,
,
23, 24,
C
Z
7.
30, 31.
p. 50.
Kartjyopri/MTUv
/caro/30u&gt;^a,
(irepl), p.
50.
p. 15, 34,
145.
KfKOfffJ.-nfj.fvof,
174.
Kfw, Z
xtpavvos,
K-rjpia,
69, 70.
Z
38. 50.
74,
C 48
(10).
H0CUOTOS,
tfaVaros,
111.
Kripfa,
Z Z
Z
,
129.
/aV^cns,
tfai Aiai-oTTows,
C
1.
9H.
tfeoXo-yiKoi
tfeo/uax
rfeos,
11
P- 51.
C 48
47.
(17).
Z 91. K\ri6fis, Z 29. K\rjffeu iepai, C 53. KOii ws iroibv. Z 49. Kotos, Z 115. KOMTCU, Z 75. Z 57, 66, KOO-/UOS, C 17, 48 (7). KpavT-fjpes, C 114.
\-pa&lt;rts
71,
162,
193,
5t
39.
,
53, 96,
51, 52,
OrjptVXeioJ
C
37.
11.
Kpeios,
\-pio-eis,
HvpaSfv,
IdTrero?,
/Seat,
C
Z
115.
Kpo^os,
23, C 6. i 5ioj, p. 49. idiuv (irepi), p. 49. lOtOJS TTOtOV, Z 49.
Z Z Z
115.
x\&gt;pievui&gt;,
8.
/ii.
50.
Kuvofi.5r)s,
26, 33.
iepd,
tXi
I
j,
Z Z
v.
164. 113.
24,
C Z
7.
o-os,
d/uapr^a.
I0ucpcms,
/ca&lt;?a7raf
11.
d8id&lt;popa,
Z Z
130.
\effxvvopiov, C 61. Xe tewv (irtpt). p. 27, \%u, p. 27, 226. \rj7rrti, Z 130, 131.
Xiros,
30, 31.
Kcttfapos,
169.
4,
Xo7ia, Z
C
Z
p.
2.
145, 161, 169, 170, 171, 172, 177, 178, 192. Ka6-nKovTos (irepi), p. 29, 52. Ka0o\iKd, p. 27, Z 23. Ka.Kd, p. 14, Z 127, 128.
Ka.09,Kov, p. 15, 34,
Aca/cta,
XC^KT?, Z 1. \oyiKov, Z 2.
X^/os, p. 22,
-
3, 37, 44,
cr^p^cm/cos,
(-n-epi),
(""fpt
46,
C C
16.
24.
\6yov
-
27
p. 46.
KaXXwrpov, C 88.
KO.\UV (irfpi), p. 52. (fapSia, Z 141, C 87.
\-ard,
Xo70(/&gt;tXos,
200.
Aoias, C 60.
Xo^oi-,
145.
p. 14, 15,
(7Tcpc
73.
59.
Kara
&lt;/&gt;iW,
AvKfios,
\VTTTI, p.
88.
Awaos, C 59.
Siou), p.
roO
29.
KO.Ta\T]TrriKri, v. (pavraffla..
Ka.ra.\t)VT6v
147.
34,
46, Z 127, 128, 139, 142, 143, 144, C 86. Xucreis Kal tXeyxoi, P- 28. XiVis, Z 139.
Ka.Td\r,tts, p.
81).
Mai oca, C
67.
342
Moi^s, p. 232.
UOXTIKT?, p. 29,
INDEX VEBBORUM.
owi a,
118.
fj-fitixris,
Z Z
aB-n, p.
iratfiDj
45,
Z 135144,
Z Z
,
172,
086.
159. 139.
94.
ueXa&gt;xMa,
a&lt;?p77
7rai5a7W7oi,
7rat5e/a,
I
.
188.
73.
f^Aciy/cXios.
ira.v&lt;rt\r)i&gt;os,
Trapa/SdXXeti
irapa5fiy(j.a,
185.
ue cra,
ueradXXe&lt;T0cu,
153.
11.
irapaivfriicri, p. 47,
7rap&lt;iXo7a,
92.
153.
107.
fj-tr^xovra, p. 46,
128.
trapa/j.v6r]riKri,
Trapa
0i/(rtK,
,
Z
,
34, 35.
110.
^,
/u
#i*cd,
p. 51.
,U.Up/J.T!)KfS,
45.
uupojrwXia,
ii,
(43).
174.
-^fJMTa.,
31.
53.
C
Z
Z
laraffn, p. 15,
,
66.
TrtXoetS^s,
caot,
164.
voTjfiaTa,
v6fj.ifffj.a,
C Z
39.
w\Tjyr) TTi/pos,
ir\riKTpov,
C
31.
76.
6.
168.
30. p. 52. 144.
TrXoiVor,
TrceP/ua,
Z
p.
169,
111.
v6/uos,
v6fj.ov (irepi), p.
vonuv
vocroi,
i/oOs,
(iff pi),
poffij/xara,
Z Z 144. Z 43, C
41, 48, p.
irvfv/j.aTiKri
Suva/us, p. 110.
Z 56
(54).
37. Z 42.
13.
ri,
S,
Z
j,
15, 16.
o\o6&lt;f&gt;poi&gt;os,
oXou
(jre/){),
dKpodfftus (irtpi), p. 31. iroirjTov (irepi), p. 51. Trow, Z 23, 49. TTotdr?;?, Z 53, 92. TrotoOf, Z 34, 35. TroXts, C 104.
iroirjTtKTJs
TToXIrai,
149.
6/jLo\oyia (pvffet,
6/j.ovoia, Z 163. ovtlpijiv, Z 160. opaerts, Z 104. opeis, Z 143. opt), Z 56 (8).
120, 123,
72.
810,
9.
40,
3,
117,
TTWOS,
6p0ws \4yeiv,
OPMO/,
123, 138. 6p/x7)j (?repi), p. 29, 52. opuw (Trep/), p. 52. ovpavos, Z 66.
Trpd^euv
(irept),
p. 52.
irpofi\rifw.Tui&gt;
Ofj.T)piKuv, p. 31.
127, 128,
IXDEX VERBORUM.
irpor)yov[j.fi&gt;os,
1&lt;J9,
343
p.
15,
128,
131,
170.
34.
irpoKoirri, p.
TTpOKOTTTOVTeS,
irp6\T)\l/ts, p.
160.
21.
irpovoia,
a-poTTfTfia,
36, 45 A, Z 22.
Trpoo-Scm a,
143.
Z 23. irpoffieo-dat., Z 160. irpoa-Ka\ei&lt;T0at, C 27. Z 189. Trpos xap irpoffwrov, Z 25.
TTpoariyopia,
".
Z 73. Z 139, 143. Z 67. Z 153. Z 134. o-tD^a, Z 24, 34, 36, 91. ffwppoviffTrjpes, C 114. (rufipoavvr), Z 134, 138, C
avvoSos,
avffroXri,
&lt;r0cupa,
ff&lt;pd\\&lt;T6a.L,
&lt;TX&lt;?&lt;,
76.
TaTreti/axms,
reiveffdai,
139.
67.
TrporpfTTTLKos, p. 52.
TrpdJra
Kara
(puffiv,
122, 126.
Xiyyos, Z 82. reXerds, C 53. reXoj, p. 45, Z 120, 124, reXoi S (irfpi), p. 52.
reXaoj
74.
rex"?,
P- 27,
("^pO.
T^X^S
5.
rex"^?,
48.
23.
Tirai as,
25, 56 (56),
115.
21.
ro^os, p. 8, 22, 23, 42, 45, 51, Z 33, 35, p. 110, Z 91, 103, C 24, 42, 76. T07TOJ, Z 69.
fff\r,i&gt;T],
73,
32.
rpipwv,
194.
OOTTO S,
p. 45,
,
o-oXoua feij
ffrxpov
ao^uTjUara,
(jrept
Z Z 6.
74. 31.
rpiMfpi??,
1.
roG TOJ
etf),
ryTrwcrtj, p. 34,
7.
p. 53.
o-7Tf&gt;a,
Z
Z
o-Troi Scuoy,
I/XT;,
vp.eva.iov (irepi), p.
51
crrcm/cd,
ar^X7;y tm xoi, Z
(irfpi),
113.
53.
166.
o-rofi? (Trept), p.
oroixf
a,
uTrofleri/rds T67ros, p.
47,
92.
3, 35.
i-TrcvxepeT^oiJ,
vTroTriirTeiv,
L-Troo-rdtf/xij,
134.
Z 23. Z 114.
(TvyKa.Ta.ee vis,
p. 34,
15,
lit,
33,
iV C 44.
(paivofj.ei
&lt;,
51.
ffv\\r)&lt;j&gt;8eis,
avupfpyKos,
Z Z
a ffufrw,
156.
27.
106.
24.
^a/c^,
avp.ira.8eLa. p,epuv,
Z C
58. 77.
7, 8, 33,
123,
/caToX^TrriK??, p.
8,
9,
24,
p. 45,
10, 11.
&lt;pdi&gt;Ta.(r/j.a,
Z
,
23.
j/eKTiKTy,
(pavraffriKov
&lt;/&gt;auXos,
160.
0-iWx"&gt;
(irfpi), p.
47, 52.
{44
wi
i,
INDEX VKRHOKUM.
rou Koa/Aov, /. 103.
/x;, p.
50.
112.
&lt;*
(&lt;** )
P- 47, 52,
C 9799.
x fy/ri7
&lt;
"
X/*"&gt;
XP*"*"
i,
40,
x/"*/""
"^
("
c ;w
x/*&gt;""
P1 ). P- 5070.
X/"".
t,
134, 150.
/.
(,
155.
QvatKfo,
2.
i/Xi?,
C Z
8396, C
14, 21.
36-
^Jrn,
p.
14,
X
C
51, r.
45.
6fM\oyla and
(KOtPT^,
roC Kofffwv,
73.
0iW, X 106.
&lt;t,uvouv,
wjav, Z 56(99).
u)^Xi/)t,
98.
190,
75, 77.
77,
CAMBKIIMiK:
KINTKU UV
C. J.
January,
PUBLICATIONS OF
Cambria (je
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
The Cambridge Paragraph
&c.
Bible of the Authorized English Version, with the Text revised by a Collation of its F.arly and other Principal Editions, the Use of the Italic Type made uniform, the Mar ginal References remodelled, and a Critical Introduction, by .r. II. A. SCRIVENER, M.A., LL.D. Crown 4 ,., cloth gilt, 2;;.
.
of the above, on ,^W writing paper, with one column of print and wide margin to each page for MS. notes. Two Voli.
cloth, gilt, 3 IT.
W.
The Lectionary
divided into
Septuagir.it.
Cr. 8vo.
Sections y.
f&gt;d.
Jvdited
Vol. I. Genefcis IV Kin?-.. by the Rev. Professor H. Ii. SWKTE, Vol.11. I Chronicles Tobit. Cro-.vn 8vo. \_:, early ready. ;;. oV.
of
Psalms
in
Being
By
^.
the \ ery
J;/.ta
:
Kd!t;onern
J
-.
maximam
CLAVDIO CHEVA;.I.O.V e*. FiA. cr- .o P.KO. AV;/I A.JJ. MDXXXI. in Alma Pariiior-m Acs, ;err.:.a irr.p. tviarci ^./ : zr, t .tidio FKANCISCI PKOCTEK, A.M., et CHKISTOPHOKI V/ofciySv/oi-. /H, A.M.
pro
.
In c-o cor.tir.er.-.-r KA:.LNJ&gt;Air.:vif, FASCICVLVS sive Pho?Ki"M i/E TEMKJJ-.E TO7IVS A. -I, -;r.a
I.
.
e*.
Oi-:xj
or
TEK
&gt;.u
cum
;;r..&:;
usitato vocabulo
dicitur
PICA
i.
VE
D:i..c";oi.:vw
.SA^EJT. X/ ; VJ/.
8vo.
to:iii5
*.
FASCICULUS
In cao con:;E.irir PSALTEZJVM, cum orcJr_ar: o Off.cii II. hebcomada.e jua:a Hora.; Ca ^^i ^a.;, et p. OT-rio Cor/.j^.e .OT;. , LITAMA, COMMUNE SANCTORUM, Ot^iNAiivn MiSsAJE CUM CAJVOJVE ET xi:i Miss:;, ice. ccc. De=:v v.. 12.-.
III.
FASCICULUS
&gt;ar.:-.:re
In
:ir_2
quo
cu=:
cor.:_ evir
PiOJ-i-
UM
.SA-VC
OxUM quv:
e*.
cirinr.
II.
A^"t."V_ari ,.
I^e.v.v *vo.
i-.:.
FASCICCLI
I.
III.
complete /2.
::.
Breviarium
Romanum
V~IC&gt;;HAK
a F?.AN
Lz&gt; ;-.
,:-
,o CA?.L-:VAL:
-/-..
Qv/o:&gt;"&gt;.
io edffurn
Tor-iAN. -L
L&gt;fiLv
n.-.
B-&gt;jk
.i
of Cornruon Prayer
*_i.7 a^t
t.o
:&gt;t
-_Le
iz:
s.i:i
poiz.*,fcd
.r.^
&gt;r
The same in square 32i^o. clci, 6i. The Cambridge P=aiter. for the use of Choirs
ar.d Organists.
S;x;-
L:nd:n
Carr^r-^f
rf
ante-uze,
A .t
Jifarii La.ru
the Psalter, arranged for the use of Choirs by Right Rev. B. F. WESTCOTT, D.D., Lord Bp. of Durham. Fcp. 4to. 5*. The same in royal 32mo. Cloth, is. Leather, is. 6d.
The Paragraph
Psalms of the Pharisees, commonly known as the Psalms of Solomon, by H.E.RvLE, M.A. and M.R. JAMES, M.A. Demy 8vo. 15*. The Authorised Edition of the English Bible (1611), its Sub F. H. A. SCRIVENER, sequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. By M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. Crown 8vo. yj. 6d.
in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed in the Authorised Version, together with the Variations H. A. SCRIVENER, M.A., adopted in the Revised Version. Edited by F. D.C.L., LL.D. Small Crown 8vo. 6*.
The
Testament Greek and English. The New Parallel Testament, being the Authorised Version set forth in 1611 Arranged in Parallel Columns with the Revised Version of 1881, and with the original Greek, as edited by F. H. A. SCRIVENER, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. Crown 8vo. iis. 6d. ( The Revised Version is the joint Property oj the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford. )
New
in parallel columns on the same Edited by J. SCHOLEFIELD, M.A. New Edition, with the marginal DR SCRIVENER. 7.?. 6d. references as arranged and revised by
of the
35. 6d.
410.
The Four Gospels in Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions. By Rev. Prof. SKEA.T, Litt.D. One Volume. Demy Quarto. 30*.
Each Gospel
separately.
IO.T.
of Ezra, discovered and edited with Introduction, Notes, facsimile of the MS., by Prof. BENSLT, M.A. Demy 4(0. IO.T.
and
the Epistle
to
edited for the first time with Introduction this version of the Epistle. By ROBERT L. BENSLY.
Evangelia
SSS.
Matthaei,
Marci,
III. 9 complectens, circa septimum vel octavum saeculum codice verLichfieldiensi servatus. scriptvs, in Ecclesia Cathedrali sionis Vulgatae Amiatino contulit, prolegomena conscripsit, F. H. A.
Cum
Imp.
410.
i. is.
The
J.
Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament. R. HARRIS, M.A. With 3 plates. Demy 410. IDJ.
6&lt;/.
By
Notitia Codicis Quattuor Evangeliorum Graeci membranacei viris doctis hucusque incogniti quern in museo suo asservat Eduardus Reuss
Argentoratensis.
is.
London
THEOLOGY (ANCIENT).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
au1
-
Commentary on the Minor Epistles of e Latin Version with the Greek Fragments, edited from the ,T 5b. with Notes and an Introduction, by H. B. SWETE, D.D. Vol. I. the and the Commentary upon Galatians Coloscontaining Introduction, sians. Demy Octavo, its.
s
?;&lt;
Volume
Commentary on
12s.
Thessalonians
Philemon,
Translation of the
W. STRKANE, M.A.
Demy
Svo.
ios.
The Greek
Liturgies. Chiefly from original Authorities. By SWAINSON, D.D., late Master of Christ s College. Cr. 4 to. i 5 s.
A.
Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, comprising Pirqe Aboth and Pereq R. Meir in Hebrew and English, with Critical Notes. By C. TAYLOR, D.D., Master of St John s College, ios.
Sancti
Irenaei
Episcopi
Felicis the original MS. with an English Commentary, Analysis, Introduction, and Indices. Copious By H. A. HOLDEN, LL.D. Cr. Svo. fs. 6d.
BY W. H. LOWE, M.A. Royal Svo. The text newly revised from Octavius.
Edidit
GULIELMUS GILSON
Edited
Theophylacti in Evangelium
by
S.
Matthsei Commentarius,
HUMPHRY, B.D. Demy Octavo. 7*. 6d. Tertullianus de Corona Militis, de Spectaculis, de
with Analysis and English Notes, by G. CURREY, D.D. of Philo
W.
G.
Idololatria
Svo.
$s.
Crown
Newly edited by J. RENDEL HARRIS, M.A. With two Facsimiles. Demy 410. \-is.6d. The Teaching of the Apostles. Newly edited, with Facsimile Text and Commentary, by J. R. HARRIS, M.A. Demy 4 to. iis. The Rest of the Words of Baruch A Christian Apocalypse of the year 136 A.D. The Text revised with an Introduction by T. RENDEL
:
Fragments
and Josephus.
HARRIS, M.A.
Royal 8vo.
w.
The Acts
of the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas; the ori ginal Greek Text now first edited from a MS. in the Library of the Convent of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, by J. RENDEL HARRIS and SETH K. GIFFORD. Royal 8vo. $s.
Biblical
Sinai,
edited
HARRIS, M.A.
Demy
by
J.
RENDEL
Royal
410.
io.r.
6&lt;/.
The Diatessaron
8vo.
zs.
of Tatian.
By
J.
London:
Cambridge
Warehouse,
PUBLICATIONS OF
THEOLOGY
(ENGLISH).
the original MSS. Demy 8vo. ^3. 3*-
Works of Isaac Barrow, compared with new Edition, by A. NAPIER, M.A. 9 Vols.
Treatise of the Pope
s
Pearson
s Exposition of the Creed, edited by TEMPLE CHEVALD.D. Demy 8vo. m. LIER, B.D. 3rd Edition revised by R. SINKER,
An
written by the Right Analysis of the Exposition of the Creed, Compiled by \V. H. MILL, Rev. Father in God, JOHN PEARSON, D.D. D.D. Demy Octavo. 5.1. G. E. CORRIE, D.D. Wheatly on the Common Prayer, edited by
late
Demy
Octavo,
is.
6d.
The Homilies, with Various Readings, and the Quotations from Edited
the Fathers given
G. E. CORRIE, D.D.
late
by
jj.
6d.
Two Forms
Queen Elizabeth.
Now
First
Reprinted.
Demy
Octavo.
6d.
Select Discourses, by JOHN SMITH, late Fellow Edited by H. G. WILLIAMS, B.D. lege, Cambridge. Arabic. Royal Octavo. 7^. 6d.
of Queens,
Col
late Professor of
De Obligatione
tion,
Conscientiae Prselectiones
decem Oxonii
in
Schola
Theologica habitse a
Theologian ibidem With English Notes, including an abridged Transla Professore Regio. W. WHEWELL, D.D. Demy 8vo. 7*. 6d.
by
Csesar
Morgan s Investigation
s
Judseus.
of the Trinity of Plato, and of Philo and Ed., revised by H. A. HOLDEN, LL.D. Cr. 8vo. 4*.
Archbishop Usher
Popery.
to a Jesuit, with other Tracts on 6J. SCHOLEFIELD, M.A. Demy Svo. Test the New Wilson s Illustration of the Method of explaining Christ. ament, by the early opinions of Jews and Christians concerning Edited by T. TURTON, D.D. Demy Svo. 5*.
Answer
J.
Edited by
"js.
Lectures on Divinity delivered in the University of Cambridge. D.D. late Lord By JOHN HEY, D.D. Third Edition, by T. TURTON,
Bishop of Ely.
S.
2 vols.
Demy
\is. 6d.
Octavo.
15*.
Austin and his place in the History of Christian Thought. W. CUNNINGHAM, D.D. Being the Hulsean Lectures for 1885. By
Demy
Svo.
Buckram,
Men.
By Rev.
II.
M. STEPHENSON, M.A.
of our
for 1888.
in the
Language
of the Revised Version, arranged in a Connected Narrative, especially for the use of Teachers and Preachers. By Rev. C. C. JAMES, M.A. Crown Svo. y. 6d.
&c.
Sophocles
With Critical Notes, the Plays and Fragments. Litt. D., mentary, ami Translation in English Prose, by R. C. JEBB, LL.D., Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge. Parti. Oedipus Tyrannus. Demy Svo. Second Edit, iis.bd.
:
Com
Part II. Oedipus Coloneus. Demy Svo. Second Edit, \2s.6d. Part III. Antigone. Demy Svo. Second Edit, \is.6d. Part IV. Philoctetes. Demy Svo. 1 is. 6d. Select Private Orations of Demosthenes with Introductions and English Notes, by F. A. PALEY, M.A., & J. E. SANDYS, Litt.D. Part I. Contra Phormionem, Lacritum, Pantaenetum, Boeotum de No T mine, de Dote, Dionysodorum. Cr. Svo. A ew Edition. 6s. Part II. Pro Phormione, Contra Stephanum I. II.; Nicostratum, Conor nem, Calliclem. Crown Svo. A ew Edition, js. Gd.
Demosthenes, Speech
of,
Demosthenes against Androtion and against Timocrates, with Introductions and English Commentary by WILLIAM WAYTE, M.A.
Crown
Svo.
js.
6d.
Euripides. Bacchae, with Introduction, Critical Notes, and Archae New Edition, with ological Illustrations, by J. E. SANDYS, Litt.D.
additional Illustrations.
Crown
Svo.
iis. 6d.
Euripides.
js.
with a Translation into English Verse, Introduction and Notes by A. W. VERRALL, Litt.D. Demy Svo.
Ion.
6d.
An
Introduction to Greek Epigraphy. Part I. The Archaic In By E. S. ROBERTS, M.A., Fellow scriptions and the Greek Alphabet. and Tutor of Gonville and Caius College. Demy Svo. i8s.
Aeschyli Fabulae
IKETIAES XOH$OPOI in libro Mediceo mendose scriptae ex vv. dd. coniecturis emendatius editae cum Scholiis Graecis et brevi adnotatione critica, curante F. A. PALEY, M.A., LL.D. Demy
Svo.
-js.
6d.
The Agamemnon
The Thesetetus
same Editor.
P.
of Aeschylus. With a translation in English Rhythm, and Notes Critical and Explanatory. New Edition, Revised. By the late B. H. KENNEDY, D.D. Crown Svo. 6s. of Plato, with a Translation
and Notes by the Crown Svo. 7^. 6d. Vergili Maronis Opera, cum Prolegomenis et Commentario Critico pro Syndicis Preli Academici edidit BENJAMIN HALL KENNEDY,
S.T.P.
Extra
fcp. Svo.
35. 6d.
M.
Litt.D., Phil.D. Royal Svo. With Illustrations. Buckram, 30^. A Revised Text. Tulli Ciceronis ad M. Brutum Orator. Edited with Introductory Essays and Critical and Explanatory Notes, by J. E. SANDYS, Litt.D. Demy Svo. i6s.
London:
PUBLICATIONS OF
M.
Quirites.
Tulli Ciceronis pro C. Rabirio [Perduellionis With Notes, Introduction and Appendices.
6&lt;J.
"js.
LANU, M.A. Demy 8vo. M. T. Ciceronis de Natura Deorum Libri Tres, with Introduction and Commentary by B. MAYOR, M.A. Demy 8vo. Vol. I. los. dd.
&lt;SEPH
Vol. II.
J&lt;
s.
6d.
Vol. III.
Offlciis
los.
M. T. Ciceronis de
Libri Tres with Marginal Analysis, an English Commentary, and Indices. New Edition, revised, by H. A. HOLDEN, LL.D., Crown 8vo. QJ.
Analysis and
revised
M. T. Ciceronis de
Officiis Libri Tertius, with Introduction, Commentary by H. A. HOLDEN, LL.D. Cr. 8vo. is. M. T. Ciceronis de Finibus Bonorum libri Quinque. The Text
and explained by
J. S.
REID, Litt.D.
Demy 8vo. 8j. Plato s Phsedo, literally translated, by the late E. M. COPE, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Demy Octavo. The Rhetoric. With a Commentary by the late Aristotle.
t,s.
E. M. COPE, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, revised edited by J. E. SANDYS, Litt.D. 3 Vols. Demy 8vo. 21*.
and
Aristotle.
IIEPI
^YXH2.
Aristotle s Psychology, in
Greek and
i8j.
M.A. DemySvo.
IIEPI
AIKAIO2YNH2.
The
Fifth
Book of
the
Edited by H. JACKSON, Litt.D. Ethics of Aristotle. Pronunciation of Ancient Greek translated from the Third edition of Dr BLASS by W. J. PURTON, B.A. Demy 8vo. 6.r.
German
With Notes Explanatory Pindar. Olympian and Pythian Odes. and Critical, Introductions and Introductory Essays. Edited by C. A. M. FENNELL, Litt. D. Crown 8vo. 9*.
The Isthmian and Nemean Odes by the same Editor, gs. The Types of Greek Coins. By PERCY GARDNER, Litt.D., F.S.A.
With
back)
16 plates.
1. -2S.
Impl. 4to.
Roxburgh (Morocco
SANSKRIT, ARABIC
Lectures on the Comparative
from the Papers of the
late
AND
SYRIAC.
Grammar of the Semitic Languages WILLIAM WRIGHT, LL.D. DemySvo. 14*. The Divyavadana, a Collection of Early Buddhist Legends, now first edited from the Nepalese Sanskrit MSS. in Cambridge and Paris. By E. B. COWELL, M.A. and R. A. NEIL, M.A. Demy 8vo. i8j. Nalopakhyanam, or, The Tale of Nala; containing the Sanskrit Text in Roman Characters, with Vocabulary. By the late Rev. T. JARRETT, M.A. Demy 8vo. los. Notes on the Tale of Nala, for the use of Classical Students, by DemySvo. iis. J. PEILE, Litt.D., Master of Christ s College.
London:
Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.
Edited from Five Manuscripts, with an English the Pseudo-Callisthenes. Translation and Notes, by E. A. BUDGE, M.A. Demy 8vo. 25^.
The Poems
2 vols.
of
Beha ed dm Zoheir
of Egypt.
late
Translation, Notes
E.
Vol. I. Vol.11.
Crown Quarto. The ARABIC TEXT. Paper covers. los. ENGLISH TRANSLATION. Paper covers.
:os. 6rf.
The
Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite edited in English translation and notes, by W. WRIGHT, LL.D.
or,
Syriac, with
an
Demy 8vo.
los. 6d.
later
Traveller
sian text,
BROWNE,
Narrative written to illustrate the Episode of the Bab). Per edited, translated and annotated, in two volumes, by E. G. M.A., M.B. [Nearly ready.
&c.
Mathematical and Physical Papers. By Sir G. G. STOKES, Sc.D., LL.D. Reprinted from the Original Journals and Transactions, with additional Notes by the Author. Vol.1. DemySvo. 15^. Vol. II. 155.
[Vol. III.
In
the Press.
Sir W. THOMSON, LL.D., F.R.S. Collected from different Scientific Periodicals from May, 1841, to the present time. Vol.1. DemySvo. iSs. Vol.11. 15.?. Vol. III. i8.r.
By
The
Collected Mathematical Papers of 10 vols. F.R.S. Demy 410. 1 5 s. each. Vols. I., II. and III.
ARTHUR CAYLEY,
Sc.D.,
A
A
History of the Study of Mathematics at Cambridge. ROUSE BALL, M.A. Crown 8vo. 6s.
By W. W.
History of the Theory of Elasticity and of the Strength of Vol. I. GALILEI TO SAINTMaterials, from Galilei to the present time. VENANT, 1639-1850. By the late I. TODHUNTER, Sc.D., edited and completed by Prof. KARL PEARSON, M.A. Demy 8vo. 2^ j. Vol. II. By the same Editor. [In Ike Press. The Elastical Researches of Barre de Saint-Venant (extract from
Vol. II. of
Professor
TODHUNTER S History of the Theory of KARL PEARSON, M.A. Demy 8vo. 9.?.
Elasticity), edited
by
Theory
Pfaff
Exact Equations Part I. of Differential Equations. s Problem. By A. R. FORSYTII, Sc.D., F.R.S. Demy 8vo.
and
iis.
Treatise on the General Principles of Chemistry, by PATTISON MUIR, M.A. Second Edition. DemySvo. i$s.
M. M.
Elementary Chemistry. By M. M. PATTISON MUIR, M.A., and CHARLES SLATER, M.A., M.B. Crown 8vo. 4^. 6d. Practical Chemistry. A Course of Laboratory Work. By M. M.
PATTISON MUIR, M.A., and D.
J.
CARNEGIE, M.A.
Cr. 8vo.
3J-.
PUBLICATIONS OF
A
Treatise
on Geometrical Optics.
us.
6d.
By R.
S.
HEATH, M.A
S.
Demy
M.A.
8vo.
An Elementary
A A A
By R.
HEATH
"js.
By
S. L.
LONEY, M.A.
Cr. Svo.
6d
By
E.
J.
ROUTH,
E.
S.
Sc.D., F.R.S
[Nearly ready
By
W. HOBSON, M.A
[Nearly ready
Demy
Svo.
H. VINES, Sc.D. Professor of Botany in the University of Oxford. Demy Svo. iis. A Short History of Greek Mathematics. By J. Gow, Litt. D. Fellow of Trinity College. Demy Svo. ios.6d. Notes on Qualitative Analysis. Concise and B^ Explanatory. H. J. H. FENTON, M.A., F.C.S. New Edit. Crown 4 to. 6s.
Diophantos of Alexandria; a Study in the History of Greel Algebra. By T. L. HEATH, M.A. Demy Svo. ;j. A Catalogue of the Portsmouth Collection of Books and Paper: written by or belonging to SIR ISAAC NEWTON. Demy Svo. 55. A Treatise on Natural Philosophy. By Prof. Sir W. THOMSON LL.D., and P. G. TAIT, M.A. Part I. Demy Svo. i6s. Part II. iSj Elements of Natural Philosophy. By Professors Sir W. THOMSON
6&lt;/.
and P. G. TAIT.
Second Edition.
Second Edition.
An Elementary
Demy
Svo.
9.1.
Treatise on Quaternions.
Demy
By
P. G. TAIT,
M.A
Svo. 14 s.
Treatise on the Theory of Determinants and their Application: m Analysis and Geometry. By R. F. SCOTT, M.A. Demy iis. Svo. the Pro! late Counterpoint. practical course of study. By Sir G. A. MACFARREN, Mus. D. sth Edition, revised. Cr. 4 to. 7*.
6&lt;,
of Heat.
Translate!
Editec
The
Scientific
Clerk Maxwell.
3^. (net.)
by
W. D. NIVEN, M.A.
The
Electrical Researches of the Honourable Henry Cavendish F.R.S. Written between 1771 and 1781. Edited by J. CLERK MAX WELL, F.R.S. Demy Svo. i8s.
Heat.
Edited
fr
Hydrodynamics, a Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Fluk Motion, by HORACE LAMB, M.A. Demy Svo. iis. The Mathematical Works of Isaac Barrow, D.D. Edited b
W. WHEWELL, D.D.
Demy
Octavo.
71.
6d.
Illustrations of Comparative
brate.
Second Edition.
Demy 8vo. los. 6d. The Fossils and Palaeontplogical Affinities of the Neocomian Deposits
of
W. KEEPING, M.A.
The Bala Volcanic
Upware and
Brickhill, being the Seclgwick Prize Essay for 1879. Demy 8vo. los. 6d.
Series of Caernarvonshire and Associated Rocks. being the Sedgwick Prize Essay for 1888, by A. MARKER, M.A., F.R.S.
Demy
8vo.
s.
6d.
Catalogue of Books and Papers on Protozoa, Coelenterates. Worms, etc. published during the years 1861-1883, by D ARCY W. THOMPSON, M.A. Demy 8vo. us. 6d. Revised Account of the Experiments made with the Bashforth
Chronograph, to find the resistance of the
air to the
motion of
By FRANCIS BASHFORTH, B.D. Demy 8vo. 12.?. An attempt to test the Theories of Capillary Action, by F. i. is. BASHFORTH, B.D., and J. C. ADAMS, M.A. Demy 4 to. A Catalogue of the Collection of Cambrian and Silurian Fossils
contained in the Geological
projectiles.
Museum
by
J.
W. SALTER,
F.G.S.
Royal Quarto.
6d.
Museum
Demy
8vo.
2.r.
6d.
Astronomical Observations
from 1846
to 1860,
made
late
at the
J.
by the
Rev.
Astronomical Observations from 1861 to 1865. Vol. From 1866 to 1869. Vol. xxn. its. 4 to., J5-S-.
XXL
Royal
LAW.
Elements of the Law of Torts. A Text-book for Students. By MELVILLE M. BIGKLOW, Ph.D. Crown 8vo. ios. 6d. A Selection of Cases on the English Law of Contract. By GERARD BROWN FINCH, M.A. Royal 8vo. 28.?. Bracton s Note Book. A Collection of Cases decided in the King s
that time, seemingly Demy 8vo. 3 vols.
Courts during the Reign of Henry the Third, annotated by a Lawyer of by Henry of Bratton. Edited by F. W. MAITLAND.
$.
&.
(net.)
Tables shewing the Differences between English and Indian Law. By Sir ROLAND KNYVET WILSON, Bart., M.A., LL.M. Demy 410. is. The Influence of the Roman Law on the Law of England. Being the Yorke Prize Essay for the year 1884. By T. E. SCRUTTON, M.A. Demy 8vo. los. 6d.
Land
1885.
By
6d.
Commons and
Fields, or the History and Policy of the Enclosures in England. Being the Yorke Prize
for 1886.
History of the
Law
By T. E. SCRUTTON, M.A. Demy 8vo. IQJ. 6d. of Tithes in England. Being the Yorke Prize By W. EASTERBY, B.A., LL.B. Demy 8vo. 75. 6d.
London
PUBLICATIONS OF
Being the Yorke Prize Essay M.A., LL.M. Demy 8vo. IQJ. 6J History of Equity as administered in the Court of Chancery. Being the Yorke Prize Essay for 1880. By U. KENZIE K.ERLY, M.A., St John s
History of
for 1888.
College.
6a.
An
JOHN ROBY.
By HENR\
Demy
8vo.
()s.
Justinian s Digest. Lib. VII., Tit. I. De Usufructu, with a Legal and Philological Commentary by H. J. ROBY. Demy 8vo. gs. The Two Parts complete in One Volume. Demy 8vo. i8j. A Selection of the State Trials. By J. W. WILLIS-BUND, M.A., LL.B. Crown 8vo. Vols. I. and II. In 3 parts. 30s.
The
Institutes of Justinian, translated with Notes by J. T. ABDY, LL.D., and BRYAN WALKER, M.A., LL.D. Cr. 8vo. i6j.
Practical Jurisprudence. comment on AUSTIN. By E. C. CLARK, LL.D., Regius Professor of Civil Law. Crown 8vo. 9*. An Analysis of Criminal Liability. By the same. Cr. 8vo. 75. 6d.
The Fragments
Ar
BRYAN WALKER, LL.D. Cr. 8vo. 6s. The Commentaries of Gaius and Rules of Ulpian. Translated and Annotated, by J. T. ABDY, LL.D., and BRYAN WALKER, M.A., LL.D. New Edition by Bryan Walker. Crown 8vo. i6j. Grotius de Jure Belli et Pacis, with the Notes of Barbeyrac and others; an abridged Translation of the Text, by W. WHEWELL, D.D. Demy 8vo. 1 2 s. The translation separate, 6s. Selected Titles from the Digest, by BRYAN WALKER, M.A., LL.D.
ranged, and Annotated by the late
Parti.
Digest xvu.
I.
Cr. 8vo.
5^.
Part
dominio, and De Adquirenda vel amittenda Possessione, Digest XLI. i and i. Crown 8vo. 6s. Part III. De Condictionibus, Digest xn. i and 4 7 and Digest
II.
De Adquirendo rerum
Crown
8vo.
xni.
13.
6j.
HISTORICAL WORKS.
The
JOHN WILLIS CLARK, M.A.,
M.A.
i vols.
Life and Letters of the Reverend Adam Sedgwick, LL.D., F.R.S. (Dedicated, by special permission, to Her Majesty the Queen.)
F.S.A., and
THOMAS
KENNY HUGHES,
By
Demy
8vo.
36*.
The Growth
of English Industry and Commerce during the Early and Middle Ages. By W. CUNNINGHAM, D.D. Demy 8vo. i6s.
The
set.
PRESS.
The University
the First.
of Cambridge from the Earliest Times to the Royal Injunctions of 1535. by J. B. MULLINGER, M.A. Demy 8vo. us. Part II. From the Royal Injunctions of 1535 to the Accession of Charles
History of the College of St John the Evangelist, by THOMAS BAKER, B.D., Ejected Fellow. Edited by JOHN E. B. MAYOR, M.A., Fellow of St John s. Two Vols. Demy 8vo. i^s. Scholae Academicae some Account of the Studies at the English Universities in the Eighteenth Century. By CHRISTOPHER WORDS WORTH, M.A. Demy 8vo. IQs. Life and Times of Stein, or Germany and Prussia in the Napoleonic Age, by J. R. SEELKY, M. A. Portraits and Maps. 3 vols. Demy 8vo. 30^. The Constitution of Canada. By J. E. C. MUNRO, LL.M.
:
6&lt;A
Demy
8vo.
i8j.
Demy
8vo.
IDS.
Studies in the Literary Relations of England with Germany in the Sixteenth Century. By C. 11. HERFOKD, M.A. Crown 8vo. gs. By CARL PETER. Trans Chronological Tables of Greek History. lated from the German by G. CiiAWNER, M.A. Demy 410. IQS. Travels in Arabia Deserta in 1876 and 1877. By CHARLES M. DOUGHTY. With Illustrations. Demy 8vo. i vols. History of Nepal, edited with an introductory sketch of the Country and People by Dr D. WRIGHT. Super-royal Svo. 105. &d.
^"3.
3-5-.
Journey of Literary and Archaeological Research in Nepal and IQS. Northern India, 1884 5. By C. BENDALL, M.A. Demy 8vo.
Political
tion.
Parties
in
L. WIIIBLEY,
M.A.
Second Edi
Crown Svo. is. 6d. Pope Gregory the Great and his relations with Gaul, by F. W. KELLETT, M.A. (Prince Consort Dissertation, 1888.) Crown Svo. is.6d. The Constitutional Experiments of the Commonwealth, being the
Thirlwall Prize Essay for 1889, by E. JENKS, B.A., LL.B. Cr.
Svo.
is. 6d.
by J. W. HEADLAM, B.A. (Prince Consort Dissertation, 1890.) Crown 8vo. [In the J^ress. The Destruction of the Somerset Religious Houses and its Effects. By W. A. J. ARCHHOLD, B.A., LL.B. (Prince Consort Dissertation, Crown 8vo. [In the Press. 1890.)
On Election by Lot
at Athens,
MISCELLANEOUS.
The Engraved Gems
Gems
Erasmus.
us. 6d.
of Classical
in the Fit/.william
Times with a Catalogue of the Museum by J. II. MIDDLETON, M.A. Royal Svo.
The Rede
Lecture, delivered in the Senate-House, Cam by R. C. JEBB, Litt.D. Cloth, is. Paper Covers, is.
of
Albrecht Diirer, by
VV.
M. CONWAY. With
Museum
by LINA ECKENSTEIN. Royal Svo. 21*. Collected Papers of Henry Bradshaw, including his Memoranda and Communications read before the Cambridge Antiquarian Society. With 13 facsimiles. Edited by F.J.H.JENKINSON, M.A. Demy Svo. i6s.
;7.
JUN
4197s
PLEASE
DO NOT REMOVE
FROM
THIS
CARDS OR
SLIPS
UNIVERSITY
OF TORONTO
LIBRARY
B 626
Zeno, of Citium
Z21P4