FOOTNOTES

Chrysippus inclines to the Academy.

108.It is an interesting question, which perhaps needs further investigation, to what extent this approximation between the doctrines of the Academy and the Porch can be traced in the writings of Chrysippus. On the one hand we must remember that Chrysippus was a man of distinctly orthodox temperament; he firmly opposed the Cynizing heresies of Aristo, and strongly defended the Stoic theory of knowledge against the Academy. But our knowledge of the teaching of Chrysippus, abundant in volume, is lacking in precision. Our authorities, as we have seen, very imperfectlydistinguish, and very inadequately record, the teaching of the two earlier masters; and the doctrines which are regarded as common to all Stoics must be assumed to be generally stated in the language of Chrysippus, whose works remained for centuries the recognised standard of orthodoxy. Even so there are few distinctive doctrines of Chrysippus which do not seem to be foreshadowed in expressions attributed to some earlier teacher. Yet we may fairly assume that in his ethical teaching there was a substantial sacrifice of the forcefulness of the Socratic character, and a corresponding approach to Academic views. This appears when he defines the supreme good as ‘a life according to nature, that is, both general nature and our individual human nature[106],’ and adds, ‘for our individual natures are parts of the nature of the all[107].’ This approaches the doctrine of ‘virtue appropriate to the individual’ (οἰκεία ἀρετή), as taught by the Academics[108]. A still more striking concession is his permission to men engaged in practical life to describe advantages as ‘good things,’ provided they are carefully distinguished from the supreme good[109].

Successors of Chrysippus.

109.The weakening hold of the Stoics upon the principles of their founder first becomes evident in the department of physics. Thus it is an essential part of the theory which the Stoics borrowed from Heraclitus, that as the whole universe has proceeded from the all-creative fire, so it must in due course be re-absorbed in it, this periodical re-absorption being technically known as the ‘conflagration’ (ἐκπύρωσις). On the other hand the followers of Aristotle, following dualistic principles, placed God and the universe in eternal contrast, and held both to be immortal. Ingenious controversialists now pressed the Stoics to explain how their deity exercised his providence during the periodic intervals in which the universe had no separate existence. This and like arguments had an immediate effect.Boëthusof Sidon, a contemporary of Chrysippus, abandoned altogether the Stoic theory on thissubject[110];Zenoof Tarsus, who had been with his fatherDioscoridesa pupil of Chrysippus, and who succeeded him as head of the school, discreetly ‘suspended his judgment’ upon the point[111]. But whatever its theoretical embarrassments, the Stoic school continued to prosper. Zeno of Tarsus wrote but few books, but had more disciples than any other[112]; he was succeeded bySeleucusof the Tigris[113], and he in turn by Diogenes[114], Antipater, and Panaetius. The last of these maintained Zeno’s ‘suspense of judgment[115]’ on the question of the conflagration; but after his death the Stoics quietly returned to the older opinion.

Diogenes and Antipater.

110.Diogenesof Seleucia (circ. 238-150B.C.; often called ‘of Babylon,’ or simplyDiogenes Stoicus), andAntipaterof Tarsus (circ. 200-129B.C.), were both men of eminence in the history of Stoicism[116], but they were unequally matched against Carneades (218-128B.C.), who was head of the Academic school about the same time, and who proclaimed the doctrine of a universal suspension of judgment. The many volumes of Chrysippus gave Carneades ample opportunities for the exercise of his critical powers; and Antipater, unable or unwilling to meet him in open argument, fell himself into the evil habit of book-writing[117]. Both these teachers specially interested themselves in questions of casuistry. Diogenes, who defined the good as ‘reasonableness in the choice of natural ends[118],’ adopted practically that interpretation of ‘reasonableness’ in which divine reason has the least part, and human plausibility the freest play[119]. Thus he discusses the problems whether the seller of a house ought to inform thepurchaser of its defects, and whether a man upon whom false coins have been passed may transfer them to his neighbour[120]. Exactly as Carneades[121], he finds ‘reasonable excuse’ for the less scrupulous course. Antipater on the other hand holds that a man’s duty to his neighbour requires perfect frankness[122]; yet he is said to have abandoned the Socratic doctrine of the self-sufficiency of virtue, and to have held that external goods are a part (though only a small part) of the supreme good[123].

Lesser Stoics.

111.We may now shortly mention some less important Stoic teachers, chiefly of the early part of the second centuryB.C., since their number alone is an indication of the wide influence of the sect.Aristocreon, said to have been the nephew of Chrysippus, set up a statue in his honour, as the man who could cut his way through the knots tied by the Academics[124].Zenodotuswas a pupil of Diogenes, and wrote an epigram on Zeno: he at least defended the ‘manly doctrine’ of the founder, and recalled the principle of the sufficiency of virtue[125].Apollodorusof Seleucia on the Tigris[126](sometimes called Ephillus[127]), another pupil of Diogenes, leant towards Cynic views; for he declared that ‘the wise man will be a Cynic, for this is a short cut to virtue[128]’; an opinion afterwards adopted by the Stoics generally[129]. He also wrote on physics. A third pupil of Diogenes wasApollodorusof Athens[130]. Closely associated with Antipater isArchedemusof Tarsus; like his fellow-townsman, he was greatly devoted to dialectics[131]; in ethics he appears to have inclined strongly to Academic views, holding that the end of life was the regularperformance of daily duties[132]. Just about the time we have now reached (the middle of the second centuryB.C.) Eumenes II founded the great library at Pergamus, intended to rival that of Alexandria. As librarian he installed a Stoic philosopher,Cratesof Mallos, who devoted much of his time to grammatical inquiries, and endeavoured to bring Homer into accord with the Stoic views on geography[133]; he is the first Stoic of whom we hear at Rome, which he visited about 159B.C.Being detained there by an accident, he employed his time in giving lectures on literature[134]; and his pupil Panaetius was destined to introduce Stoicism to Roman society. Lastly we may mentionHeraclidesof Tarsus, a pupil of Antipater, said to have broken away from the teaching of the school by denying that all sins are equal[135]. Athenodorus of Tarsus, who held the same view, belongs to a later generation[136]. Of uncertain date areBasilides, who pushed his monism so far as to declare that all things, even statements, are bodies[137];Eudromus, who wrote on the elements of ethics[138]; andCrinis, who interested himself in logic[139].

FOOTNOTES[1]See below, §95.[2]μάλιστα μὲν οὖν τῶν μαθητῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ Ζήνωνος ἠγαπᾶτο ὁ Περσαῖος Ind. Sto. Herc. col. xii 3 (Arnim i 437).[3]‘Zenonis Stoici servus, qui Persaeus vocatus est’ A. GelliusN. A.ii 18, 8. ἦν γὰρ ὄντως οἰκέτης γεγονὼς τοῦ Ζήνωνος, ὡς Νικίας ὁ Νικαεὺς ἱστορεῖ ἐν τῇ περὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων ἱστορίᾳ καὶ Σωτίων ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς ἐν ταῖς Διαδοχαῖς Athen. iv 54 (Arnim i 452). On the other hand ‘nullum [servum fuisse] Zenoni ... satis constat’ Sen.Dial.xii 12, 4.[4]Arnim i 439, 440.[5]ib.449.[6]Athen. iv 54 (Arnim i 452).[7]Diog. L. vii 162.[8]Athen. as above.[9]Paus. ii 8, 4; vii 8, 3 (Arnim i 442).[10]Plut.Arat.23, 3. According to Plutarch he afterwards admitted that he had been wrongly taught as to the ‘good general.’[11]‘Persaeus eos dicit esse habitos deos, a quibus magna utilitas ad vitae cultum esset inventa, ipsasque res utiles et salutares deorum esse vocabulis nuncupatas’ Cic.N. D.i 15, 38. Persaeus derived the theory from Prodicus; Philod.de piet.9 (Arnim i 448), and above, §42.[12]Diog. L. vii 9.[13]ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα, τὸν οὐδέποτ’ ἄνδρες ἐῶμεν | ἄῤῥητον· μεσταὶ δὲ Διὸς πᾶσαι μὲν ἀγυιαί, | πᾶσαι δ’ ἀνθρώπων ἀγοραί, μεστὴ δὲ θάλασσα | καὶ λιμένες· πάντῃ δὲ Διὸς κεχρήμεθα πάντες. | τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν· ὁ δ’ ἤπιος ἀνθρώποισιν | δεξιὰ σημαίνει, λαοὺς δ’ ἐπὶ ἔργον ἐγείρει | μιμνῄσκων βιότοιο: Aratus,Phaen.Pref.[14]Plut.Cleo.11, 2.[15]Mahaffy,Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 222.[16]ib.p. 245.[17]Zeller,Stoicsetc., p. 44.[18]‘Sphaeri, hominis in primis bene definientis, ut putant Stoici’ Cic.Tusc. disp.iv 24, 53.[19]See below, §332.[20]‘fortitudo est ... conservatio stabilis iudici in iis rebus, quae formidolosae videntur ... [haec definitio erat] Sphaeri’ Cic. as above. The principle was accepted by all Stoics, see below, §323.[21]‘omitto ... Erillum, qui in cognitione et scientia summum bonum ponit; qui cum Zenonis auditor esset, vides quantum ab eo dissenserit, et quam non multum a Platone’ Cic.Ac.ii 42, 129. See alsoFin.iv 14, 36.[22]‘sin ea [quae virtus leget quaeque reiciet] non neglegemus neque tamen ad finem summi boni referemus, non multum ab Erilli levitate aberrabimus; facit enim ille duo seiuncta ultima bonorum’Fin.iv 15, 40.[23]ζῆν ἀεὶ πάντα ἀναφέροντα πρὸς τὸ μετ’ ἐπιστήμης ζῆν Diog. L. vii 165.[24]ὑποτελὶς δ’ ἐστὶ τὸ πρῶτον οἰκεῖον τοῦ ζῴου πάθος, ἀφ’ οὗ κατήρξατο συναισθάνεσθαι τὸ ζῷον τῆς συστασέως αὑτοῦ, οὔπω λογικὸν [ὂν] ἀλλ’ ἄλογον Stob. ii 7, 3 c.[25]διαφέρειν δὲ τέλος καὶ ὑποτελίδα· τῆς μὲν γὰρ καὶ τοὺς μὴ σοφοὺς στοχάζεσθαι, τοῦ δὲ μόνον τὸν σοφόν Diog. L. vii 165.[26]The best discussion is by Hirzel,Untersuchungen, ii 46 sqq. He considers the teaching of Herillus to have inclined to Cynism rather than to Platonism, and to have been substantially identical with that of Aristo.[27]λάλον ἐπέκαλει Diog. L. vii 18.[28]Athen. vi 58 (Arnim i 342).[29]ib.vii 14 (Arnim i 341).[30]See above, §89.[31]Diog. L. vii 163.[32]ib.vii 161.[33]‘nihil istorum [physicorum] sciri putat posse’ Cic.Ac.ii 39, 123.[34]‘qui neque formam dei intellegi posse censeat, neque in dis sensum esse dicat; dubitetque omnino deus animans necne sit’ Cic.N. D.i 14, 37.[35]‘Aristo moralem quoque ... quam solam reliquerat, circumcidit’ Sen.Ep.89, 13. ‘hanc partem [quae dat propria cuique personae praecepta] levem existimat, et quae non descendat in pectus usque’ib.94, 2: in this letter the whole subject is very fully discussed.[36]ἴσον γάρ ἐστι τὸ προηγμένον αὐτὴν λέγειν ἀδιάφορον τῷ ἀγαθὸν ἀξιοῦν, καὶ σχεδὸν ὀνόματι μόνον διαφέρον Sext.math.xi 64 (Arnim i 361).[37]‘Aristonis ... sententia, non esse res ullas praeter virtutes et vitia, inter quas quicquam omnino interesset’ Cic.Fin.iv 17, 47.[38]‘huic [sc. Aristoni] summum bonum est, in his rebus neutram in partem moveri, quae ἀδιαφορία ab ipso dicitur’ Cic.Ac.ii 42, 130.[39]Galen,Hipp. et Plat.vii 2 (Arnim i 374). Chrysippus is said to have complained that he made the various virtues σχέσεις or variations of a single virtue (Plut.Sto. rep.vii 3); nevertheless the same doctrine frequently reappears in Stoic writers.[40]‘vives, inquit Aristo, magnifice atque praeclare, quod erit cunque visum, ages: nunquam angere, nunquam cupies, nunquam timebis’ Cic.Fin.iv 25, 69.[41]‘Aristonis ... iampridem explosa sententia est’Off.i 2, 6; cf.Fin.iv 17, 47.[42]N. Saal, p. 37 sqq. For fuller discussions of Aristo see Hirzel,Untersuchungen, ii p. 44, and Dyroff,Ethik, pp. 43 sqq., 356 sqq.[43]Gomperz,Greek Thinkers, ii p. 161.[44]Mahaffy,Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 207.[45]Athen. vii 14 (Arnim i 408).[46]‘nobis Heracleotes ille Dionysius flagitiose descivisse videtur a Stoicis propter oculorum dolorem; quasi vero hoc didicisset a Zenone, non dolere, cum doleret! illud audierat nec tamen didicerat, malum illud non esse, quia turpe non esset’ Cic.Fin.v 31, 94; τέλος εἶπε τὴν ἡδονὴν διὰ περίστασιν ὀφθαλμίας Diog. L. vii 166.[47]‘[quaerebat Antiochus], Dionysius ille Heracleotes utrum comprehendisset, ... honestum quod esset, id solum bonum esse, an ... honesti inane nomen esse, voluptatem esse summum bonum’ Cic.Ac.ii 22, 71.[48]Diog. L. vii 167; Athen. x 50 (Arnim i 428).[49]Diog. L. vii 167.[50]Diog. L. vii 38.[51]He drew water by night that he might study philosophy by day, according to Diog. L. vii 168. ‘Cleanthes aquam traxit et rigando horto locavit manus’ Sen.Ep.44, 3.[52]Diog. L. vii 37.[53]‘Zenonem Cleanthes non expressisset, si tantummodo audisset: vitae enim eius interfuit, secreta perspexit, observavit illum, an ex formula sua viveret’ Sen.Ep.6, 6.[54]‘sensus nostros clariores carminis arta necessitas efficit’ Sen.Ep.108, 10.[55]ἐπὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἔμεινε δογμάτων Diog. L. vii 168.[56]Stob. i 1, 12 (Arnim i 537).[57]See above, §90.[58]I follow the reading γενόμεσθα, θεοῦ. The words γένος ἐσμέν in the text are surely a reminiscence of Aratus,Phaen.5 (so Pearson, p. 276), and θεοῦ μίμημα is confirmed by Musonius ap. Stob.Flor.117, 8 (see below, §419). Mr Pearson now suggests to me that the MS reading ἤχου may represent the correction of a pious scribe,Ι̅Ϲ̅ Χ̅Υ̅, i.e. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ for θεοῦ. See below, §244.[59]The translation follows Pearson’s ἐρρίγασιν. Arnim reads ἔργα τελεῖται. Even the meaning is quite uncertain here.[60]μεγάλῳ μικροῖς τε (Diels) seems the nearest reading to theMS, so that the word ‘great’ above refers to the sun only.[61]ἄγου δέ μ’, ὦ Ζεῦ, καὶ σύ γ’ πεπρωμένη, | ὅποι ποθ’ ὑμῖν εἰμὶ διατεταγμένος. | ὡς ἕψομαι γ’ ἄοκνος· ἢν δέ γε μὴ θέλω | κακὸς γενόμενος, οὐδὲν ἧττον ἕψομαι Epict.Manual53; ‘duc, o parens celsique dominator poli, | quocunque placuit; nulla parendi mora est. | adsum impiger. fac nolle, comitabor gemens, | malusque patiar, quod pati licuit bono. | ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt’ Sen.Ep.107, 11. The translation given above is by G. H. Rendall (M. Aurel.Introd. p. lxvii).[62]Clem.Strom.v 3, 17 (Arnim i 559).[63]Clem.Protrept.vi 72 (Arnim i 557).[64]Stob. iii 6, 3 (Arnim i 573).[65]See below, §317.[66]As, for instance, Zeller does when he writes ‘Cleanthes was adapted to uphold his master’s teaching, but he was incapable of expanding it more completely, or of establishing it on a wider basis’Stoics, p. 41.[67]Hirzel,Untersuchungen, ii pp. 134 sqq.; Stein,Psychologie der Stoa, i 65-72, 162-171, ii 316-332.[68]Sen.Ep.113, 23.[69]Diog. L. vii 174.[70]ib.134.[71]‘Cleanthes ipsum mundum ... deum dicit esse’ Cic.N. D.i 14, 37.[72]Arnim i 497, 511.[73]‘ultimum et altissimum et omnia complexum ardorem, qui aether nominetur’ Cic. as in note 71.[74]Cic.N. D.ii 15, 41.[75]‘sic res se habet, ut omnia, quae alantur et quae crescant, contineant in se vim caloris, sine qua neque ali possent neque crescere’ib.9, 23.[76]‘haec (quae Zeno dixit λόγον esse) Cleanthes in spiritum congerit quem permeatorem universitatis affirmat’ Tert.Apol.21 (Arnim i 533).[77]The substance of this doctrine is attributed to Zeno also: Ζήνων ... πνεῦμα ἔνθερμον εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν Diog. L. vii 157.[78]See below, §277.[79]Pearson,Introd.p. 45; below, §362.[80]Arnim i 143.[81]There is a slight inconvenience, but also a real advantage, in using this term both in its philosophic sense for the governing part of the soul, and historically for the system of government founded by Augustus. There is a genuine analogy between the two, though it is not developed by the Latin writers. Seneca usesprincipaleonly.[82]ἡγεμονικὸν δὲ τοῦ κόσμου Κλεάνθει μὲν ἤρεσε τὸν ἥλιον εἶναι Euseb.pr. ev.xv 15, 7 (Arnim i 499); and see below, §201.[83]Κλεάνθης [τὸν θεὸν] τὴν τοῦ κόσμου ψυχήν Aët. i 7, 17 (Arnim i 532); ‘totius naturae menti atque animo tribuit hoc nomen [dei]’ Cic.N. D.i 14, 37.[84]‘Cleanthes ipsum mundum deum dicit esse’ib.[85]Cic.N. D.ii 5, 13-15; and see below, ch. x.[86]See below, §195.[87]εἰ τοῖς πολλοῖς, εἶπε, προσεῖχον, οὐκ ἂν ἐφιλοσόφησα Diog. L. vii 182.[88]ἐγὼ δὲ τἄλλα μακάριος πέφυκ’ ἀνὴρ | πλὴν εἰς Κλεάνθην· τοῦτο δ’ οὐκ εὐδαιμονῶ Diog. L. vii 179.[89]ib.182.[90]ib.179.[91]‘num contentus est [Chrysippus] docere, rem ostendere, definire, explorare? non est contentus: verum auget in quantum potest, exaggerat, praemunit, iterat, differt, recurrit, interrogat, describit, dividit, personas fingit, orationem suam alii accommodat’ Fronto,ep. ad Ant.p. 146 (Arnim ii 27).[92]ὅθεν φασὶν ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ λεχθῆναι, εἰ μὴ γὰρ ἦν Χρύσιππος, οὐκ ἂν ἦν στοά Diog. L. vii 183.[93]Diog. L. vii 180.[94]‘de quo queri solent Stoici, dum studiose omnia conquisierit contra sensus et perspicuitatem ... ipsum sibi respondentem inferiorem fuisse; itaque ab eo armatum esse Carneaden’ Cic.Ac.ii 27, 87; cf. Plut.Sto. rep.x 3 and 4.[95]‘ab Chrysippo nihil magnum nec magnificum desideravi, qui suo quodam more loquitur, ut omnia verborum momentis, non rerum ponderibus examinet’ Cic.Rep.iii 8, 12; ‘ad Chrysippi laqueos revertamur’de Fato4, 7; ‘Chrysippus, penes quem subtile illud acumen est et in imam penetrans veritatem, qui rei agendae causa loquitur et verbis non ultra quam ad intellectum satis est utitur, totum librum his ineptiis replet’ Sen.Ben.i 3, 8; ‘magnum mehercule virum, sed tamen Graecum, cuius acumen nimis tenue retunditur et in se saepe replicatur’ib.4, 1.[96]‘quod est bonum, omne laudabile est; quod autem laudabile est, omne est honestum; bonum igitur quod est, honestum est’ Cic.Fin.iii 8, 27.[97]See below, §§162,163.[98]‘Arcesilas primum ... ex variis Platonis libris sermonibusque Socraticis hoc maxime arripuit, nihil esse certi quod aut sensibus aut animo percipi possit’ Cic.de Orat.iii 18, 67. See above, §71.[99]ὁ προσέχων τῷ εὐλόγῳ κατορθώσει καὶ εὐδαιμονήσει Sext.math.vii 158.[100]‘cum Chrysippus, Academicos refellens, permulto clariora et certiora esse dicat, quae vigilantibus videantur, quam quae somniantibus’ Cic.Div.ii 61, 126; see further, §147.[101]See below, §346.[102]See Pearson,Cle.fr. 42.[103]According to Stob. ii 7, 6 e this term was used by all the Stoic teachers.[104]Used by Chrysippus, see Arnim iii 473.[105]Diog. L. vii 88.[106]φύσιν δὲ Χρύσιππος μὲν ἐξακούει, ᾗ ἀκολούθως δεῖ ζῆν, τήν τε κοινὴν καὶ ἰδίως τὴν ἀνθρωπίνηνib.vii 89.[107]μέρη γάρ εἰσιν αἱ ἡμέτεραι φύσεις τῆς τοῦ ὅλουib.87.[108]See above, §71.[109]δίδωσι τοῖς βουλομένοις τὰ προηγμένα καλεῖν ἀγαθά Plut.Sto. rep.30, 4.[110]Philo,inc. mund.15, p. 248 (Arnim iii Boëth. 7).[111]τὸν μὲν γὰρ τούτου [sc. Chrysippi] μαθητὴν καὶ διάδοχον τῆς σχολῆς Ζήνωνά φασιν ἐπισχεῖν περὶ τῆς ἐκπυρώσεως τῶν ὅλων Ar. Did. fr. 36 Diels (Arnim iii Z. T. 5).[112]Diog. L. vii 35.[113]Ind. Sto. Herc. col. 48 (Arnim iii Z. T. 2).[114]See Zeller,Stoicsetc., p. 50.[115]See below, §115.[116]‘aliud Diogeni Babylonio videri solet, magno et gravi Stoico, aliud Antipatro, discipulo eius, homini acutissimo’ Cic.Off.iii 12, 51; ‘Antipater inter magnos [Stoicae] sectae auctores’ Sen.Ep.92, 5.[117]Plut.de garr.23.[118]τὸ εὐλογιστεῖν ἐν τῇ τῶν κατὰ φύσιν ἐκλογῇ Diog. L. vii 88; for the Academic view see §71above.[119]See below, §§159,332.[120]Cic.Off.iii 13, 54; 23, 91.[121]Rep.iii 20, 30.[122]‘tu cum hominibus consulere debeas, ... celabis homines’Off.iii 13, 52.[123]‘Antipater ... aliquid se tribuere dicit externis, sed exiguum admodum’ Sen.Ep.92, 5.[124]Plut.Sto. rep.2, 5.[125]Diog. L. vii 30.[126]Arnim iii p. 259; see also Pauly-Wissowasub voce.[127]So Diog. L. vii 39, where however others read Ἀπολλόδωρος καὶ Σύλλος.[128]Diog. L. vii 121.[129]ib.vi 104.[130]Ind. Stoic. Herc. col. 53: also a pupil of Antipater; to be distinguished from an Apollodorus of Athens who was an Epicurean; Diog. L. vii 181.[131]‘duo vel principes dialecticorum, Antipater et Archedemus, opiniosissimi homines’ Cic.Ac.ii 47, 143.[132]πάντα τὰ καθήκοντα ἐπιτελοῦντα ζῆν Diog. L. vii 88.[133]Sandys,Classical Scholarship, i pp. 155, 156.[134]ib.p. 157.[135]Diog. L. vii 121.[136]See below, §§122,123.[137]Arnim iii p. 268.[138]Diog. L. vii 39.[139]ib.76.

[1]See below, §95.

[2]μάλιστα μὲν οὖν τῶν μαθητῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ Ζήνωνος ἠγαπᾶτο ὁ Περσαῖος Ind. Sto. Herc. col. xii 3 (Arnim i 437).

[3]‘Zenonis Stoici servus, qui Persaeus vocatus est’ A. GelliusN. A.ii 18, 8. ἦν γὰρ ὄντως οἰκέτης γεγονὼς τοῦ Ζήνωνος, ὡς Νικίας ὁ Νικαεὺς ἱστορεῖ ἐν τῇ περὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων ἱστορίᾳ καὶ Σωτίων ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς ἐν ταῖς Διαδοχαῖς Athen. iv 54 (Arnim i 452). On the other hand ‘nullum [servum fuisse] Zenoni ... satis constat’ Sen.Dial.xii 12, 4.

[4]Arnim i 439, 440.

[5]ib.449.

[6]Athen. iv 54 (Arnim i 452).

[7]Diog. L. vii 162.

[8]Athen. as above.

[9]Paus. ii 8, 4; vii 8, 3 (Arnim i 442).

[10]Plut.Arat.23, 3. According to Plutarch he afterwards admitted that he had been wrongly taught as to the ‘good general.’

[11]‘Persaeus eos dicit esse habitos deos, a quibus magna utilitas ad vitae cultum esset inventa, ipsasque res utiles et salutares deorum esse vocabulis nuncupatas’ Cic.N. D.i 15, 38. Persaeus derived the theory from Prodicus; Philod.de piet.9 (Arnim i 448), and above, §42.

[12]Diog. L. vii 9.

[13]ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα, τὸν οὐδέποτ’ ἄνδρες ἐῶμεν | ἄῤῥητον· μεσταὶ δὲ Διὸς πᾶσαι μὲν ἀγυιαί, | πᾶσαι δ’ ἀνθρώπων ἀγοραί, μεστὴ δὲ θάλασσα | καὶ λιμένες· πάντῃ δὲ Διὸς κεχρήμεθα πάντες. | τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν· ὁ δ’ ἤπιος ἀνθρώποισιν | δεξιὰ σημαίνει, λαοὺς δ’ ἐπὶ ἔργον ἐγείρει | μιμνῄσκων βιότοιο: Aratus,Phaen.Pref.

[14]Plut.Cleo.11, 2.

[15]Mahaffy,Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 222.

[16]ib.p. 245.

[17]Zeller,Stoicsetc., p. 44.

[18]‘Sphaeri, hominis in primis bene definientis, ut putant Stoici’ Cic.Tusc. disp.iv 24, 53.

[19]See below, §332.

[20]‘fortitudo est ... conservatio stabilis iudici in iis rebus, quae formidolosae videntur ... [haec definitio erat] Sphaeri’ Cic. as above. The principle was accepted by all Stoics, see below, §323.

[21]‘omitto ... Erillum, qui in cognitione et scientia summum bonum ponit; qui cum Zenonis auditor esset, vides quantum ab eo dissenserit, et quam non multum a Platone’ Cic.Ac.ii 42, 129. See alsoFin.iv 14, 36.

[22]‘sin ea [quae virtus leget quaeque reiciet] non neglegemus neque tamen ad finem summi boni referemus, non multum ab Erilli levitate aberrabimus; facit enim ille duo seiuncta ultima bonorum’Fin.iv 15, 40.

[23]ζῆν ἀεὶ πάντα ἀναφέροντα πρὸς τὸ μετ’ ἐπιστήμης ζῆν Diog. L. vii 165.

[24]ὑποτελὶς δ’ ἐστὶ τὸ πρῶτον οἰκεῖον τοῦ ζῴου πάθος, ἀφ’ οὗ κατήρξατο συναισθάνεσθαι τὸ ζῷον τῆς συστασέως αὑτοῦ, οὔπω λογικὸν [ὂν] ἀλλ’ ἄλογον Stob. ii 7, 3 c.

[25]διαφέρειν δὲ τέλος καὶ ὑποτελίδα· τῆς μὲν γὰρ καὶ τοὺς μὴ σοφοὺς στοχάζεσθαι, τοῦ δὲ μόνον τὸν σοφόν Diog. L. vii 165.

[26]The best discussion is by Hirzel,Untersuchungen, ii 46 sqq. He considers the teaching of Herillus to have inclined to Cynism rather than to Platonism, and to have been substantially identical with that of Aristo.

[27]λάλον ἐπέκαλει Diog. L. vii 18.

[28]Athen. vi 58 (Arnim i 342).

[29]ib.vii 14 (Arnim i 341).

[30]See above, §89.

[31]Diog. L. vii 163.

[32]ib.vii 161.

[33]‘nihil istorum [physicorum] sciri putat posse’ Cic.Ac.ii 39, 123.

[34]‘qui neque formam dei intellegi posse censeat, neque in dis sensum esse dicat; dubitetque omnino deus animans necne sit’ Cic.N. D.i 14, 37.

[35]‘Aristo moralem quoque ... quam solam reliquerat, circumcidit’ Sen.Ep.89, 13. ‘hanc partem [quae dat propria cuique personae praecepta] levem existimat, et quae non descendat in pectus usque’ib.94, 2: in this letter the whole subject is very fully discussed.

[36]ἴσον γάρ ἐστι τὸ προηγμένον αὐτὴν λέγειν ἀδιάφορον τῷ ἀγαθὸν ἀξιοῦν, καὶ σχεδὸν ὀνόματι μόνον διαφέρον Sext.math.xi 64 (Arnim i 361).

[37]‘Aristonis ... sententia, non esse res ullas praeter virtutes et vitia, inter quas quicquam omnino interesset’ Cic.Fin.iv 17, 47.

[38]‘huic [sc. Aristoni] summum bonum est, in his rebus neutram in partem moveri, quae ἀδιαφορία ab ipso dicitur’ Cic.Ac.ii 42, 130.

[39]Galen,Hipp. et Plat.vii 2 (Arnim i 374). Chrysippus is said to have complained that he made the various virtues σχέσεις or variations of a single virtue (Plut.Sto. rep.vii 3); nevertheless the same doctrine frequently reappears in Stoic writers.

[40]‘vives, inquit Aristo, magnifice atque praeclare, quod erit cunque visum, ages: nunquam angere, nunquam cupies, nunquam timebis’ Cic.Fin.iv 25, 69.

[41]‘Aristonis ... iampridem explosa sententia est’Off.i 2, 6; cf.Fin.iv 17, 47.

[42]N. Saal, p. 37 sqq. For fuller discussions of Aristo see Hirzel,Untersuchungen, ii p. 44, and Dyroff,Ethik, pp. 43 sqq., 356 sqq.

[43]Gomperz,Greek Thinkers, ii p. 161.

[44]Mahaffy,Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 207.

[45]Athen. vii 14 (Arnim i 408).

[46]‘nobis Heracleotes ille Dionysius flagitiose descivisse videtur a Stoicis propter oculorum dolorem; quasi vero hoc didicisset a Zenone, non dolere, cum doleret! illud audierat nec tamen didicerat, malum illud non esse, quia turpe non esset’ Cic.Fin.v 31, 94; τέλος εἶπε τὴν ἡδονὴν διὰ περίστασιν ὀφθαλμίας Diog. L. vii 166.

[47]‘[quaerebat Antiochus], Dionysius ille Heracleotes utrum comprehendisset, ... honestum quod esset, id solum bonum esse, an ... honesti inane nomen esse, voluptatem esse summum bonum’ Cic.Ac.ii 22, 71.

[48]Diog. L. vii 167; Athen. x 50 (Arnim i 428).

[49]Diog. L. vii 167.

[50]Diog. L. vii 38.

[51]He drew water by night that he might study philosophy by day, according to Diog. L. vii 168. ‘Cleanthes aquam traxit et rigando horto locavit manus’ Sen.Ep.44, 3.

[52]Diog. L. vii 37.

[53]‘Zenonem Cleanthes non expressisset, si tantummodo audisset: vitae enim eius interfuit, secreta perspexit, observavit illum, an ex formula sua viveret’ Sen.Ep.6, 6.

[54]‘sensus nostros clariores carminis arta necessitas efficit’ Sen.Ep.108, 10.

[55]ἐπὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἔμεινε δογμάτων Diog. L. vii 168.

[56]Stob. i 1, 12 (Arnim i 537).

[57]See above, §90.

[58]I follow the reading γενόμεσθα, θεοῦ. The words γένος ἐσμέν in the text are surely a reminiscence of Aratus,Phaen.5 (so Pearson, p. 276), and θεοῦ μίμημα is confirmed by Musonius ap. Stob.Flor.117, 8 (see below, §419). Mr Pearson now suggests to me that the MS reading ἤχου may represent the correction of a pious scribe,Ι̅Ϲ̅ Χ̅Υ̅, i.e. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ for θεοῦ. See below, §244.

[59]The translation follows Pearson’s ἐρρίγασιν. Arnim reads ἔργα τελεῖται. Even the meaning is quite uncertain here.

[60]μεγάλῳ μικροῖς τε (Diels) seems the nearest reading to theMS, so that the word ‘great’ above refers to the sun only.

[61]ἄγου δέ μ’, ὦ Ζεῦ, καὶ σύ γ’ πεπρωμένη, | ὅποι ποθ’ ὑμῖν εἰμὶ διατεταγμένος. | ὡς ἕψομαι γ’ ἄοκνος· ἢν δέ γε μὴ θέλω | κακὸς γενόμενος, οὐδὲν ἧττον ἕψομαι Epict.Manual53; ‘duc, o parens celsique dominator poli, | quocunque placuit; nulla parendi mora est. | adsum impiger. fac nolle, comitabor gemens, | malusque patiar, quod pati licuit bono. | ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt’ Sen.Ep.107, 11. The translation given above is by G. H. Rendall (M. Aurel.Introd. p. lxvii).

[62]Clem.Strom.v 3, 17 (Arnim i 559).

[63]Clem.Protrept.vi 72 (Arnim i 557).

[64]Stob. iii 6, 3 (Arnim i 573).

[65]See below, §317.

[66]As, for instance, Zeller does when he writes ‘Cleanthes was adapted to uphold his master’s teaching, but he was incapable of expanding it more completely, or of establishing it on a wider basis’Stoics, p. 41.

[67]Hirzel,Untersuchungen, ii pp. 134 sqq.; Stein,Psychologie der Stoa, i 65-72, 162-171, ii 316-332.

[68]Sen.Ep.113, 23.

[69]Diog. L. vii 174.

[70]ib.134.

[71]‘Cleanthes ipsum mundum ... deum dicit esse’ Cic.N. D.i 14, 37.

[72]Arnim i 497, 511.

[73]‘ultimum et altissimum et omnia complexum ardorem, qui aether nominetur’ Cic. as in note 71.

[74]Cic.N. D.ii 15, 41.

[75]‘sic res se habet, ut omnia, quae alantur et quae crescant, contineant in se vim caloris, sine qua neque ali possent neque crescere’ib.9, 23.

[76]‘haec (quae Zeno dixit λόγον esse) Cleanthes in spiritum congerit quem permeatorem universitatis affirmat’ Tert.Apol.21 (Arnim i 533).

[77]The substance of this doctrine is attributed to Zeno also: Ζήνων ... πνεῦμα ἔνθερμον εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν Diog. L. vii 157.

[78]See below, §277.

[79]Pearson,Introd.p. 45; below, §362.

[80]Arnim i 143.

[81]There is a slight inconvenience, but also a real advantage, in using this term both in its philosophic sense for the governing part of the soul, and historically for the system of government founded by Augustus. There is a genuine analogy between the two, though it is not developed by the Latin writers. Seneca usesprincipaleonly.

[82]ἡγεμονικὸν δὲ τοῦ κόσμου Κλεάνθει μὲν ἤρεσε τὸν ἥλιον εἶναι Euseb.pr. ev.xv 15, 7 (Arnim i 499); and see below, §201.

[83]Κλεάνθης [τὸν θεὸν] τὴν τοῦ κόσμου ψυχήν Aët. i 7, 17 (Arnim i 532); ‘totius naturae menti atque animo tribuit hoc nomen [dei]’ Cic.N. D.i 14, 37.

[84]‘Cleanthes ipsum mundum deum dicit esse’ib.

[85]Cic.N. D.ii 5, 13-15; and see below, ch. x.

[86]See below, §195.

[87]εἰ τοῖς πολλοῖς, εἶπε, προσεῖχον, οὐκ ἂν ἐφιλοσόφησα Diog. L. vii 182.

[88]ἐγὼ δὲ τἄλλα μακάριος πέφυκ’ ἀνὴρ | πλὴν εἰς Κλεάνθην· τοῦτο δ’ οὐκ εὐδαιμονῶ Diog. L. vii 179.

[89]ib.182.

[90]ib.179.

[91]‘num contentus est [Chrysippus] docere, rem ostendere, definire, explorare? non est contentus: verum auget in quantum potest, exaggerat, praemunit, iterat, differt, recurrit, interrogat, describit, dividit, personas fingit, orationem suam alii accommodat’ Fronto,ep. ad Ant.p. 146 (Arnim ii 27).

[92]ὅθεν φασὶν ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ λεχθῆναι, εἰ μὴ γὰρ ἦν Χρύσιππος, οὐκ ἂν ἦν στοά Diog. L. vii 183.

[93]Diog. L. vii 180.

[94]‘de quo queri solent Stoici, dum studiose omnia conquisierit contra sensus et perspicuitatem ... ipsum sibi respondentem inferiorem fuisse; itaque ab eo armatum esse Carneaden’ Cic.Ac.ii 27, 87; cf. Plut.Sto. rep.x 3 and 4.

[95]‘ab Chrysippo nihil magnum nec magnificum desideravi, qui suo quodam more loquitur, ut omnia verborum momentis, non rerum ponderibus examinet’ Cic.Rep.iii 8, 12; ‘ad Chrysippi laqueos revertamur’de Fato4, 7; ‘Chrysippus, penes quem subtile illud acumen est et in imam penetrans veritatem, qui rei agendae causa loquitur et verbis non ultra quam ad intellectum satis est utitur, totum librum his ineptiis replet’ Sen.Ben.i 3, 8; ‘magnum mehercule virum, sed tamen Graecum, cuius acumen nimis tenue retunditur et in se saepe replicatur’ib.4, 1.

[96]‘quod est bonum, omne laudabile est; quod autem laudabile est, omne est honestum; bonum igitur quod est, honestum est’ Cic.Fin.iii 8, 27.

[97]See below, §§162,163.

[98]‘Arcesilas primum ... ex variis Platonis libris sermonibusque Socraticis hoc maxime arripuit, nihil esse certi quod aut sensibus aut animo percipi possit’ Cic.de Orat.iii 18, 67. See above, §71.

[99]ὁ προσέχων τῷ εὐλόγῳ κατορθώσει καὶ εὐδαιμονήσει Sext.math.vii 158.

[100]‘cum Chrysippus, Academicos refellens, permulto clariora et certiora esse dicat, quae vigilantibus videantur, quam quae somniantibus’ Cic.Div.ii 61, 126; see further, §147.

[101]See below, §346.

[102]See Pearson,Cle.fr. 42.

[103]According to Stob. ii 7, 6 e this term was used by all the Stoic teachers.

[104]Used by Chrysippus, see Arnim iii 473.

[105]Diog. L. vii 88.

[106]φύσιν δὲ Χρύσιππος μὲν ἐξακούει, ᾗ ἀκολούθως δεῖ ζῆν, τήν τε κοινὴν καὶ ἰδίως τὴν ἀνθρωπίνηνib.vii 89.

[107]μέρη γάρ εἰσιν αἱ ἡμέτεραι φύσεις τῆς τοῦ ὅλουib.87.

[108]See above, §71.

[109]δίδωσι τοῖς βουλομένοις τὰ προηγμένα καλεῖν ἀγαθά Plut.Sto. rep.30, 4.

[110]Philo,inc. mund.15, p. 248 (Arnim iii Boëth. 7).

[111]τὸν μὲν γὰρ τούτου [sc. Chrysippi] μαθητὴν καὶ διάδοχον τῆς σχολῆς Ζήνωνά φασιν ἐπισχεῖν περὶ τῆς ἐκπυρώσεως τῶν ὅλων Ar. Did. fr. 36 Diels (Arnim iii Z. T. 5).

[112]Diog. L. vii 35.

[113]Ind. Sto. Herc. col. 48 (Arnim iii Z. T. 2).

[114]See Zeller,Stoicsetc., p. 50.

[115]See below, §115.

[116]‘aliud Diogeni Babylonio videri solet, magno et gravi Stoico, aliud Antipatro, discipulo eius, homini acutissimo’ Cic.Off.iii 12, 51; ‘Antipater inter magnos [Stoicae] sectae auctores’ Sen.Ep.92, 5.

[117]Plut.de garr.23.

[118]τὸ εὐλογιστεῖν ἐν τῇ τῶν κατὰ φύσιν ἐκλογῇ Diog. L. vii 88; for the Academic view see §71above.

[119]See below, §§159,332.

[120]Cic.Off.iii 13, 54; 23, 91.

[121]Rep.iii 20, 30.

[122]‘tu cum hominibus consulere debeas, ... celabis homines’Off.iii 13, 52.

[123]‘Antipater ... aliquid se tribuere dicit externis, sed exiguum admodum’ Sen.Ep.92, 5.

[124]Plut.Sto. rep.2, 5.

[125]Diog. L. vii 30.

[126]Arnim iii p. 259; see also Pauly-Wissowasub voce.

[127]So Diog. L. vii 39, where however others read Ἀπολλόδωρος καὶ Σύλλος.

[128]Diog. L. vii 121.

[129]ib.vi 104.

[130]Ind. Stoic. Herc. col. 53: also a pupil of Antipater; to be distinguished from an Apollodorus of Athens who was an Epicurean; Diog. L. vii 181.

[131]‘duo vel principes dialecticorum, Antipater et Archedemus, opiniosissimi homines’ Cic.Ac.ii 47, 143.

[132]πάντα τὰ καθήκοντα ἐπιτελοῦντα ζῆν Diog. L. vii 88.

[133]Sandys,Classical Scholarship, i pp. 155, 156.

[134]ib.p. 157.

[135]Diog. L. vii 121.

[136]See below, §§122,123.

[137]Arnim iii p. 268.

[138]Diog. L. vii 39.

[139]ib.76.

Back to Index Next