,1(70

THE FRAGMENTS
OF

ZENO AND CLEANTHES.

ftonton: C.

J.

CLAY AND SONS,

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, AVE MARIA LANE.

ambriDse:

ltip>ifl:

DEIGHTON, BELL, AND F. A. BROCKHAUS.

CO.

#tto Hork:

MACMILLAX AND

CO.

THE FRAGMENTS
OF

ZENO AND CLEANTHES

WITH INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATORY
NOTES.

AX ESSAY WHICH OBTAINED THE HARE PRIZE

IX

THE YEAR

1889.

BY
A.
C.

PEARSON,
S

M.A.

LATE SCHOLAR OF CHRIST

COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

LONDON:
SONS, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE.
C.
J.

CLAY AND
1891

[All Rights reserved.]

Cambridge
PBIXTKIi BY
C. J.

CLAY, M.A. AND

SONS,

AT THK UNIVERSITY PRKSS.

PREFACE.
S
dissertation
is

published in accordance with thr

conditions attached to the

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

on Zeno of Citium, which was the

serious

of Zeno from that attempt to discriminate the teaching The omissions of Wellmann were of the Stoa in general.

supplied and the

of Cleanthes

first

complete collection of the fragments

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

as hardly to deserve mention.

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

of its successive leaders,

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

edition (Berlin, 1884).

Susemihl

article

on the birth-

PREFACE.
year of Zeno in the

vii

Nem

Jahrb ticker fur Pldloloyie

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

was made and

s

put together practically

present form before an

opportunity offered of consulting

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

may, therefore, be reasonably concluded

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

even those notices, whose authenticity

as well as a collection

is

open to suspicion,

though

it is

often impossible to

of the so-called Apophthefjmata, draw a strict line between

written and oral tradition.

I desire to

thank

College, for

many

Mr R. 1). Hicks, Fellow of Trinity valuable suggestions and criticisms.

COmtlGENDA.
p. 37, p. 53,
1.

13, for

"he

was only

able"

read

"he

alone was able

114."

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
.

that Cleanthes was born in 331

other sources
died in B.C.
3

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.

states, but iu Migne to belong to 01. 128.

ed. of

Eusebius

i.

p.

498 the state

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
,

increased by Phoenician immigrants 6 7 pure Greek blood or not we cannot tell

.

Whether he was of but we can readily

believe that his birthplace, while it in no degree influenced his

philosophical genius, which

was truly

Hellenic, yet gave an

For B.C.). xvi. 2. 24. 3

phorion
3
4

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.

(01. 128, 4) later article, but this

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

Again following the authority

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

we may conclude that he

ferently informed, and

it is

uncertain whether
,

lie

came

for the

express purpose of studying

4 some mercantile enterprise
.

philosophy or in furtherance of There is however a consensus of

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

second book of Xenophon

quired of the bookseller

s Memorabilia. Suddenly he en where such men as Socrates were to

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

impossible to reconcile the dates, which

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

and Polemo was twenty

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

soon after 300

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.
,

but when their master held

they adopted the
retained *.

his lectures in the

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*

virb fj.v iirtXTrwi os tyevero p.a\r)Tris, virb 5e

inri)
1

HpCUrXcffW avffrypds, Kvmcot

8(

KpanjTos.

According to Sext.

Emp.

adv. Math. vn. 321,

Zeno was a

irptcr/Si/r^s

when he

irpo<rt/j.aprvpri(rtv

favri^i rr)v eiipecrtv T-^S

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

opinion, vid. supr. p.

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
::

4 by the elder Pliny

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
,

learn that he had attracted the attention of Ptolemy Phila-

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

avoided politics altogether 2

and, although

may

be doubtful

whether

his friendship for

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

willingly to assist in carrying out the decrees of

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,

him as wry necked, and of a dark and a weak

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

said to have been the

cause of his frugal diet

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

the wants of others.

Stoicisni as established by Zeno.
at this point to

-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

being that which he recommended.

To the formal

side of logic

Zeno paid but

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

ap. Diog. L. vn. 27.

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

real object, the

meaning which Zeno expressed by saying that favraala

XrfTTTiKTj is

K ara-

the criterion of truth

Diogenes Laertius, however,

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^^

Kara TO fvapyts Kal (vrovov

/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

of evidence the other

it

way must marked that, even

.

remain to be stated hereafter, but

if

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

discriminated between the truth of various

:

<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,

even admitting to the

:i

full

the

the passage in Diogenes is ethical significance of opOos Adyos not thereby disposed of, for if Zeno and Cleanthes are not
.

indicated by the words

01
1

does this expression refer

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

Zeno the Qavraaia Kara^irriKT] on

precisely similar grounds to those

2r>

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

they can attain to objective

actuality

From
credit
Cic.

Zeno with the substance

this point of view, then, it is not unreasonable to of the teaching recorded in

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

preciated by some authorities but, while

it

is

true that the

still

development

of this branch

is

largely due to Cleanthes,

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
.

being acted upon.

All body

is

and the material world

1 -

is itself

thus either active or passive the result produced from the

31;">.

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

The active principle is God, more closely denned as the

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

harmony with the law

the other hand,

an intermediate watery stage passes into the four elements which everything else is formed. tire, air,, water and earth out of

To explain the production

of the individual thing

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

tality of every substance

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.

For the process

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

the world a unity, but also a living unity

characteristics
first,

it is

Two
system,

his

are especially prominent in Zeno s metaphysical contrast between God and

matter, and, secondly, his materialism.

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

to be evolved out of fire

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,

and that with a

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

kept together and preserved from dissolution

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

comets, and defines time and colour.

We
the soul

proceed to his anthropology, in which the account of is most important. Although he apparently omitted

to describe God,

who

is

the soul of the universe, as fiery breath,

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

entirely permeates the body, composite structure of soul and body

soul
itself

and
is

at

its

departure the

destroyed.

The
is

soul

endures for a time after

not immortal, and
its

its

separation from the body

deter

but
at

is

condition after death

mined by the grade

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.

of purity to which it has attained. Such, to be a fair inference from a passage of

voice, sleep, vision,

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 aim and

is,

agreement with nature, which

according to conducts us.
explain
virtue:
for
this

object of life is to live in in other words, to live

the goal to which nature Zeno did not accurately that It would seem
is

what he meant by nature,

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.

the same time

aia

is

attribute of any aSta ^opov, for that which

1

is

not a permanent, at one time Kara

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

answers to the class of

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

remarks on marriage, often disappears when we remember that

the
7roA.iTta proposed to establish a under which the importance of

socialistic

constitution

d8id<f>opa

would be reduced to

a minimum.

Zeno held further that virtue

springing from the
-qyefjLoviKov,

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

Zeno without direct evidence.

No

doubt the Stoic school

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

which was introduced by Zeno,

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

by Zeno into two from one another, that of the wise

Every action
of the wise of the
fool

and that

of the foolish.

man
by

is

action prompted by virtue and every

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

purgation under the influence of reason.

Even though he ultimately

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

the class aSta c^opa, suicide

is

justifiable in the wise

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?,

but comprises the whole of

1 .

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,

Politics of Aristotle, vol.

i.

p. 88.

Cf. Diog. L. vn. 25.

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.

The resemblances between Zeno and the Cynics are natu

be found chiefly in their ethical doctrines. Physics were almost entirely neglected by the Cynics, and their nominarally to
listic logic

was not of great importance we may observe in passing that both

3

for Stoicism, although schools maintained in

similar terms

that Plato

ideas were a

brain and had no objective existence.

life

mere fiction of the The Stoic doctrine of

in accordance with nature finds its historical origin in the

xin. 121.

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

and that everything

.

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

described, after Socrates,

as consisting in
"is

wisdom and pru

the safest wall; it the same time the
is

dence:

"prudence,"

says Aiitistlienes,
betrayed"".

cannot be undermined or
futility of the

At

ordinary course of Greek education

strongly

insisted on 7

The

distinction between virtue

and vice draws

with
s

it

pher 8 ing on madness

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,

to the views of the

find a curious

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,

and neither saw any

2
.

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
.

of love, as he alone will be able to select a suitable object

5

4
:

both maintain that the virtuous alone are capable of genuine

friendship
.

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

was afterwards developed and Chrysippus 7

.

to

an excessive degree by Cleanthes

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

made Diogenes think man

the most foolish

B.

To Heraclitus.

There can be no doubt that Zeno borrowed some important principles in his physical teaching from the writings of He
raclitus,

and particularly from

his

account of the cosmogony.

a difficulty in comparing the doctrines of is, however, the two schools minutely, owing to the obscurity in which our

There

knowledge
is

of the Heraclitean theories is involved,

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

the contrary opinion seems

entirely clear

now

to

prevail".

Again,

it is

not

whether we are to
the early

class Heraclitus, as Aristotle

hi.s

does

:i

with
that

Ionian physicists, starting from

dogma

all

tilings are tire, or

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,

escape from the mechanical theories of Anaxagoras and

1

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

Trepie xov r//A(2s

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,

where Zeno followed Heraclitus most

differences
in

closely there are essential

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

for this distinction

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.

theory of the mixture of substances, In stating the differences between

indicated

the two schools

we have

how

the Stoic physics were

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

systems have adopted Heraclitus definition

fo /u ao-os, but,

of

the soul as an dva-

from the outer

fed

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

the Stoics rather looked for

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 .

common law and

cordance with the demands of nature

C.
It has often

To Plato and

Aristotle.

influence exercised both by Plato

been observed as a remarkable fact that the and Aristotle on their im

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

and Democritus. showed no great vitality

raclitus
1

Indeed, the Peripatetic school

after Tlieophrastus, the

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

no sense the offspring of those of Plato and Aristotle,

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.

Zeno, however, although the

titles of

several of

his logical treatises to have paid

was not considered great attention to this branch of philosophy. The principal contribution made by Zeno to the theory of
us,

have come down to

knowledge

is

the establishment of the

:

<aj/rao-t

u KaTaXrjirTiKrj

as the criterion

in this, the essential point,

whereby the con

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,"

and art there

sive

will

stages

in the

be found a familiarity with the progres growth of knowledge, as enunciated by

This question is discussed in Rhet. i. 11. 1370 a 28. de An. in. 3. 42!) a 1.

Benn

Greek Philosophers (Preface).

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
,

physics by stating that the

two u px at/ posited by the school were God and Indeterminate Matter here we have not only
:

the well-known Aristotelian distinction between the formal

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

held that the circumference of the world was

surrounded by a moving belt of aether.

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.

Anal. Post. n. HI.

vi.

: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

trapfiffpiwv Ovpais, nai

TO.

doyfj.ara KX^TTTUV

<poLi>iKiKi2

fj.tra^<pifvi>i

(Diog. L. vii. 25).

One

of the doctrines,

which were

in this

way appro-

26
sums up the extent
"such

INTRODUCTION.
of

Academic influence when he says that

points in

Platonism as the Socratic building of virtue

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."

these were questions for a Stoic full of in

Amongst the
felt

to

have

particular points, in which Zeno seems the influence of Plato, may be mentioned the
(frag.

doctrines of the cardinal virtues

(frag.

142) and the explanation

of the world us

134) and the irdOi) wov l/xi/a^ov

(frag. 62).

We

have endeavoured

briefly to indicate certain leading

which Zeno was influenced by his pre decessors, leaving minor resemblances to be pointed out in
points of doctrine in

the notes.
4.

The writings of Zeno.

Zeno s works

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

views of the Stoic school.

This

Diogenes from two distinct sources, as

of

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

the main division

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.

in) peer Lav

1

m vtuv

Plut. ad priu. iner. 780 D llo\(^uv t\eye rbv tpura dvai. OeCiv
fjrifj.f\fiav

(Kreuttner, Andronicus p.
:

41)).

Stoics etc. p. 3SW.

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

be divided into four classes

T.

Logical.
(1)
Trepi

Xoyov.

From

this work, not

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

place in the canon.

KaOo\LKd.
:

Nothing

known

of this

work but the

irepl /Xe teoiv

(Diog. 4) the title of a single work.

(3)
vrept
<$>wr]

Wachsmuth

thinks that xaOoXiKa.

Aeewv (Diog.
8tavotas
e

4).

In Stoic terminology Ae ^ts

is

defined as
0-ri^avTiK-rj

as opposed to Aoyos which dyy^u/u./xuTos

/<7rep.7ro/AeV?7
:>G).

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

It is pro (Diog. VI r. defini with the dealt specially

explains

30 and

31).

Wellmann (Xeue Jahrb.

fur Philol. 107,

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

jection to this view

that

inferred from Cicero de Fin.

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

been cast into the shade by the more elaborate performances

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

some other Zeno, and Quintilian.

this does not

and Trapa Sciy/m may belong to apply to the passages in Sextus

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

regards as of less importance

II.

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

views about the elements (vn. 13G) and the

(ib.

creation and destruction of the world

142),

and quotes
(ib.

from

it

the statement that there

is

only one world

eclipses of the

143).

It also contained

an account of the

sun and

moon (ib. 145), and explanations and lightning (ib. 153).

<ucrcws

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,

God and Matter.

(9)
Trepl
a-rj/jLCMv
:

a treatise on divination

(Diog.

4).

Thus
0f(j>p

pavTiKr) is

defined in Stob. Eel. n. 122, 238 as eVio-Tr/^

i]Ti.K-t)

arjfjifiMV

TWV
is

O.TTO

&ewv

r/

Sat/xovwv

TT/JOS

avupwTTLVov ftiov
Cic.

Tuv.

This

no doubt the work referred to by

Stoici

de

Div.
et

i.

3, 6 sed

cum

omnia

fere ilia diflunderent

quod

Zeno
1

in suis commentariis quasi semina

quaedam

sparsisset.

Its

thesis

position in the catalogue makes against PrantTs hypo who classes it as a logical work.
,

(10) -n-epl oi//ews only garded as logical by Stein.

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?

Diogenes quotes bonum from this book (vn. 87); Fabricius

the

Zenonian definition

of

(Diog. 4). the summum

in.

(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

but the latter

is

Trepl TT0.0WV (15) tion of emotion and the discussion of its several subdivisions,

not an anthropological work. (Diog. 4) containing the general defini

110).

pain, fear, desire

and pleasure
it is

(ib.

(16)

7roXtTta.

This seems to have been

the

most

generally known, as

certainly the most often quoted, of

also one of the earliest in point of
n. 689.

Zeno

writings;
1

it

was

i.

p. 458.

So also Stein, Erkenntnistheorie

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

work must have belonged

xxin.

p.

287 A speaks of the vopoi of Zeno but appears to

TrcuSetas (Diog. 4): E\Xr)v(.Krj<; stated to belong to the TroXtrct o.
cf.

l>e

referring generally to Ids philosophical precepts.

(18)
Trtpl rfjs
is

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.

the general meaning

Plat. Apol. 37 D TUS

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

/Spa^co? Siu! or//zaro5

xP"

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

The title (Diog. 4). reads aTroyLU r^oFei ^uaTa

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

and Margites, and that

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

some cases proposed

3. 6, cf.

instances to be interpreted allegorically. That lie emendations may be seen from

ib.
is
i.

Strabo vn.

p. 41, xvr. p.

1131.

Krische

p.

392

shows that there

no foundation for the suggestion that

Tliad

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

as an appendix to the TroXireta.

(24)
uTTo/Ai Ty/Aoveu/xttTu

KpuTvyros (Diog. 4) also mentioned

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

book the story of Crates and the cobbler

of ^petat runs thus:
tt?roITTL

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

and there can be no doubt from the statements

in

2 Proclus and the other Scholiasts that Zeno s labours extended

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

Hesiod were worked into the

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.

245, S. p. 681, P. uAAa KCU

rifa a
fJiij

ul

STOHKOI Xcyowrt ZTJVWVL

TOIS
1

TOJ

irptanp

yeypu.<f>6an

paSiws

itrirpiirovai

ftaOr)Tal<;

dvayi-

yVU>CTKf.LV

p.7/

OV^l TTflpaV 8c8a)KO(7l TTpOTCpOS

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

Greek philosophers troubled themselves but

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

though he lays himself open to the charge of

See Flach, Glosseu und Scholien zur Hesiodischen Theogonie, p. 29

Cf. also Diog. L. vni. 48,

foil.
-

Minuc. Felix Octav. xix. 10 Chrysippus

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

unreasonable: but nothing

is
reasonable."

is

better than the world:

"That

therefore the world

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
:
:

the soul; therefore the soul

destructible
all

is

corporeal."

"That
:

is

whose parts are destructible

but

all

altogether the parts

is

of the world are destructible;

destructible," cf.

therefore the world

itself

also frags. 59, 60, 61, 129, 130.

Zeno

Passing to quite a different characteristic, we remark in s style a certain which picturesqueness and love of
simile,

perhaps

may be
who

regarded as traceable to the Oriental influence

Particularly striking is his observation are in a state of -n-poKoirrj may from their
.

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

pasture (frag. 162).

Not only in elaborate comparisons but also touch be pressions may the same picturesque
character
is

in single ex Thus seen.

said to be the fountain of

life (frag.

146), emotion

a fluttering of the soul (frag. 137),

flow of
life (frag. 124).

and happiness the unruffled

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

instance irpoKOTn;, evapycia, (rvyKaruKu.6fjKov,

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

CKCI VWV /xovtov yffieLV TO. /3i/?Ata,

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

that the habit originated with the founder.

1

Instances of this
38, etc.
Cf.

Cic. Fin. in. 5. 15.

/ecu

Tusc.
ri>

v. 32. 34.
ZTJXWI-

Legg.

i.

Galen

de

puls. KaivoTOUf iv re

diff.

vm. 642 ed Kiihn

uirfpfiaiKiv

8t 6

TUV E\\rivuv

tri irpbrtpov ( tffos iv TO?S 6vt>fw.ffi.v.

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

In discussing O the dates of Zeno

there
is

life

we have

seen that

<rood

reason to believe that Cleanthes was born in the

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

lived to the age of 80

years.

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,

Cleanthes was well advanced in

of the Stoic School.

when he became head

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".

Hence the nickname

opponents, while his

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

the same earnestness and thoroughness which

G2 2 n.
s

Ilohde

1.

c.

p.

years passed under Zeno hardly credible. Dio.?. L. vn. 108.

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

The Stoa was now

ethics

by the

Epicureans,

maintained.

Herein lay the

special strength of Chrysippus,

in defending Stoicism during Cleanthes in fine
.

who was very probably employed 2 and who his predecessor s life
,

ness and subtlety, even

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

Denker, Chrysipp dagegen

Scbonredner."

als der feinere, leichtbewegliche, elegant

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-

velppment of the system.

fication in

This opinion

is

not without justi

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

In a question of such im Stoics) unfortunate that the hand of time singularly

Art.
.

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

of so extravagant a character that

seriousness.

hard to credit their

to us
tli.e

The happy chance that has preserved

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

and theology, and ethics into

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

consideration for the notes.

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

duction of this extreme result of sensualistic views so properly

Since Chrysippus, in express opposition to Cleanthes, belongs. defined ^arrcurux as erepoiWis rfyc/^oviKov, it is less likely that
carries out the

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

Zeno had conceded

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.

an ingenious and closely-reasoned argument, whose force

is

it

reproduce within short limits, Stein contends that this position was thrown over by Cleanthes. According
difficult to

to the latter, the capacity given us

for

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

assumed on mere inference resting on ambiguous state

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
;

read that the uneducated differ from the

brutes only in shape, and in the second that the undiscerning Surely opinion of the many should be totally discarded.
these

grounds are insufficient to support

1

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

would surely be as reasonable to supply

-fc

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

same way that

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

Zeno had characterised

the divine permeating essence, which as aether. With frag. 17 however we

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

by him to found with

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

However, even if Cleanthes was only carry

conclusion.

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
,

God and Matter was inconsistent But Cleanthes went further.

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

Thus the phenomenal world

created and again destroyed by

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

purest form, and at the conflagration,

will assimilate to itself

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

formed of the same

is

fiery

substance as the sun, and,

as the sun

the cause of

life

to everything, its essence

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.

Sun, moon, and stars are alike

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

74, nn. 109

:

For the tension-theory in general and 110. The notion of Zeno cf. Zeno frags. 56, C7, 103.

see Stein, Psychologic, pp. 73 and TO^OI is not entirely unknown to

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.

which the Stoic school pursued these etymological

At times

it is

hard not to acquiesce in Plutarch

1

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.

This agrees with what

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

on the agreement with the

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

general law of nature,

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

was applied by Cleanthes, with im

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?,

but Cleanthes, while retaining

the intellectual basis which

virtue,

sought
within

to

Zeno made the groundwork of explain its character more precisely. Every body
ever-varying

Again he had recourse

contains
tension.
it

to his physical theories. a material air-current with

When

this tension is strong

fitting duties

it is

enough to perform its regarded as strength and power, and this

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

the necessary starting-point of virtue,

by a
to

tacit appeal to the authority of Socrates,

ey/cpuTera

as

Kp^Tris

aper^s.

who had pointed

to

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

found the explana

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

Thus the essence

of virtue

which Zeno had

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

See however Hirzel n.

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,

and the reason

is

not far to seek.

He

regarded

irdOr)

as distinct from vice, because they have nothing

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

cViyevi/^/AUTa this applies to all the irdOrj

and not merely to

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

This shows that the

?,

dSta<opa

are

the

field

of

and

for

Xwnj we
<juod

may

refer to Cic. Tusc. in. 77 nihil

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

declares y8ovr)v /A^TC KUTU

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]

the text are intended to 8iiested by Heinxe,

See Wtichsmuth
irciflos

much debated appears from

that

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

school after their time

view did not continue to be the orthodox view of the is possible, but to pursue the subject

further would be foreign to our purpose.

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

mankind the faculty

of

wisdom.

He

sarcastically likened his

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

the sole reason of their existence.

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.

The same action may be

either vicious or virtuous,

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,

according to the motive

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.

verse and one in hexameter metre

TTf.p

ouht

to be referred to the

One
must be The

solitary

fragment attests the

political studies of Cle-

anthes, to which at least four of the works in the catalogue

referred.

result of
all

clusively that istic of the true essence of Stoicism

our investigation has been to show con those doctrines which are most character

were contributed by Zeno

of

and Cleanthes.

To Zeno belong the establishment

the

logical criterion, the adaptation of Heraclitean physics, and Cleanthes the introduction of all the leading ethical tenets.

revolutionised the study of physics by the theory of tension,

and the development

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,

materialistic views to logic

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

ambitious role requires

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

STOCI (Diog. L. vii.

been already indicated.

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

The only indication we

subjects.

published separately from, or in conjunction with the latter. possess is in frag. 49, in which Cleanthes
peculiarly adapted to
in

describes poetry as being

theological

Yet the only book

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,

were not included in the

At
T

list of his philosophical treatises. the same time we should remember that Chrysippus (Galen.

plac.

Hipp, et Plat.
of.?

p.

315) and Posidonius

Kal

(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).

catalogue of the titles

indicated,

known
the

to us is

subjoined reference

where not otherwise

Diog. L. vn. 174, 175.
I.

source

of

is

Logical.

(1)

Trepi

tStW.

For

iSta cf.

Ar. Top.

i.

5, p.
:

102 a 17

the

essential attributes of a thing are its 8e/m/<os is an i8tov of man.

(2)
(3)
TTf.pl

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

book may be referred

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

Texvrjs ni^y be the

Cic. Fin. iv. 3,
it

same work as the ars rhetorica

if

mentioned in

but

so it is out of its place in

nos. 4

the catalogue, where physical books.

(9)
Trepi TOT)

appears between

and 5

of the

Xo you y

pear in the catalogue

among the

This and the following book ap ethical works.

the logical
-but

Trepi TricrT7;/x7/s. (10) Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 722, counts

among
and

works the books

Trepi

\povov

Trepi aio^Ty trews

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

re eicriv oeroi l^rjyrjvrai avruv TO

KO.I

<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<;)

and that roVos is traceable to iraXivStein s more moderate estimate dp/jLovi-rj.

appears to us truer.
(4)
Trepi
at<r$?7crea>s.

(5)

Trpos Ar;p,o/cptTov,

perhaps the same as

27.

Trepi

rwv

drofjuav

(Diog. L. vii. 134) so Krische p. 430.

(6)
Trpos

Apto-rapxof, see 011 frag.

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

The books next

(8)

xin. 572
latter

e,

Porphyr.
is

vit.

Pyth.

c.

1),

but the genuineness of the

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

Plut. quaest. syrup.

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.

Plut. de vit. aer. alien,

c.

7.

To

this

work Wachsmuth
62.
63.
I.

refers frags. 47. 54. 5G. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61.
(p.

Krische

418,
17)

422) also the statements in Cic.

N. D.

37 (frags. 14

and the hymn

p. ix.

to

Zeus

(frag. 48).

See also Osann Praef. Cornut.

(10)
Trepi Trepi

yiyufTwj

(11)

Y/zevcuou.

This

is

a curious
Cf.

title.

should rather be classed as ethical.

ydfj.ov

Persaeus

Perhaps it book Trepi

(Diog. L. vii. 36). Trtpi TOV TroirjTov. (12)

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

perhaps frag. 54.

(13)
OcopaxLo. (ps.-Plut.

de Fluv.

v.

3.

4)

was

identified

by Krische with the book

Trepi

ytyavrcov supra (p. 434)

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)

iTpl opaJv, ib. \. 17. 4.

Bibl.
c.

Fabricius
Epict.

Gr.

ill.

p.

552 infers from Simplic.

"in

in

Man.

78 that one of Cleanthes works bore the

his well

title

lap.(3fia,
lines."

but the words simply mean

known Iambic

III.
(1) (2)
Trpos
"HpiAAov.
.

Ethical.
p. 42.

For Herillus see Zeller

Trepi dp/ui/s /?

(3)
(4) (5) (6)
(7)

Trepi
Trepi

TOV KaOijKOVTOS y.
fvj3ov\La<i.

Trepi ^aptros.

TrporpeTTTiKo?.
Trepi Trepi Trepi

Cf. Diog. L. VII. 91.

dperwv.
v<^vtas.

(8)
(9)

TopyLinrov

"num

Trpos FopytTTTrov

qui idem fuerit

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.

Here belongs perhaps

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)

(22) (23) (24)

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.

book see Krische

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

xpetwv by to the scribe

xpo vou by Menagius, Fabricius and Mohnike, Wachsmuth. It is possible that ^aA/coi)
s

eye catching the word

if so,

^a^Kov which
clue to

closely precedes in the citation, and,

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

Trept o-r(ods e)cr(Tti

vTij

TJ

P.VTJM.

^^

>,

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

1.

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

KtrtetN ev TOO rrepl \6yov.

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

TroXXcoy Se i}6iKwv OVK

\OJIKWV SiaXe^^et?
teal ol

prjTOTCtTa Se ol Trepl TOT drro TOV TcepiTraTov GTL 8e ol aTTo r^?

(7Toa? e^ovTai, Trja8e r^? Sfatpecreco?.

CTTl S
CO?

Ar. Top.

I.

p.

105 b 19

(3\rj/jtdTa>i>

TVTTW TTepL\a^LV al /j,ev /Jt,eprj Tpia

T(t)V
<yap

TTpOTCKTewV

Kttl

TWV

TTpO-

rjOucal TrpoTaaeif elcriv, at

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.).

Polemo, and Theophrastus says (de Fin.

philosophiam a Zenone esse retentam videmus.
tres in partes diviserunt,

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

became

he recognised the triple division. With the Stoics it so fundamental that they did not hesitate to refer

yeveia (Zeller, pp. 363, 3G4).

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

heads of Cerberus and Athene

Sia\KTitcrj.

2.

Diog. L.

VII. 40,

d\\oi 8e irpwTov pcv TO Xoyi/cov

(frva-itcoV
KCL\

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,

same passage we ment 01)8 a\\ov

\tj7TTrj<;

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

Oewpias TrapaKCLKWV ^idaracnv,

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,

302) think, that the two former of

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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.

whole matter seems to have arisen from the distinction

made by the
At any

Stoics

between the order of

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.

Arr. Epict. diss. IV.

\e<yei,

8,

12, 6ewp^fJLara rov

$iKo<ro-

(bov...d Zijvwv
TL,

^vwvai rd rov \oyov

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

eKaaroi avrmv ecru KOI

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

earlier work, the

\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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

whole passage and especially rd pev rrpwra oiovrrepei crrot %eia...\6 yov OVK e^et 201 E, ovrto STJ rd [lev
0X070.
teal

ayvwra

elvai, alcrdrird 8e, cf.

20G E TO

devra rl e/cacrrov

Svvarov elvai
ra>

rrjv
:

diroKpiviv Bid rwv

aroi-^eiwv aTroSovvai

epo/jievw)

with this should be

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

Cleanthes are the a\\oi rives

whom

dp^aiorepwv ^.TWLKWV Diogenes (vn. 54) mentions as holding this opinion,

frag.
it is

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

Hirzel further remarks:

"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

Verbindung der Gedanken bestehe und

welche Konsequerizen sich aus dieser Gedankenverbind-

ung

ergeben."

4.

Arr.

Epict.

diss.

I.

17.

10,

11,

Kal

rd \oyiKn

aKaprrd rovro 80177

e crTt.../cat

Trepl

rovrov

fiev 0-^ro^.eBa, el

&

ovv xai

Tt9,

CKelva

aTrapKel,

on rwv

d\\a>v

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

SlCtKplTlKa
KCtl

eTTlO-KeTTTlKci
rt<?

KOL

to? (IV T49

;

lTTOt

rifcd /cal crrantcd

\eyei
;

ravra

nov

Kal

Ziijvoiv tcai K. X.eavOrj^

This and the two following fragments show us the view which Zeno took of the value of logical studies,

which were recommended not so much on account of the

value of the results obtained, as because they enable us tu test the theories and expose the fallacies of others and to
clear the

ground
8

for further enquiries,

77
(j,d\i<TTa

cf.

Ar. Top.

I.

104

TOVTO
oSov

iBiov

ol/ceLov

rijs

e<7Tiv

%Ta<rTlKr)

yap
cf.

ovara Trpos ra9 dirao wv

also

ap%a<?

e^et,

the

title
II.

opyavov
294-)

given to

Aristotle s logical treatises (Waitz

and the name

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.

72) do not take into account this

used by Plato, Phileb. 55 E olov Tracrwv TTOU re^vwv dv rt?

o-TdTiKa,
"weighing."

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

aXX d^ypa Kal

At
first

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).

Moreover Alexinus was a determined opponent of Zeno

60
(Diog.
II.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

109
us
8ie<f>epeTO

8e p,d\ia-ra

777109

Sextus
world

tells

how he
is

controverted Zeno

Zrjvwva) and proof that the

is

Xoyi*o9 (Math. ix. 107).

to

Stein thinks that the

inconsistency attributed by Zeno

be
to
p.

explained by the importance the question of the criterion

in

(Erkenntnistheorie,
frag.

303), but
frag.

same

and SiaXercTiKrjv branch of logic.

valid
Cic.

surely StaXetcrifcwv in 6 must refer to the

is

The
the

explanation
difference
id.

however
re xvas

perfectly

to

between
treatises.
SIKCUOIS

Fin.

explain iv. 9 and

of statement
40.

Acad.

i.

so

the three best MSS

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

Gaisf. add. ol?.

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.

Plut. Sto. Rep. VIII.

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

ud Arist. 22 b 29 ed. says that he was called

cf.

Hence Schol. Brandis speaking of Zeno of Elea

TOI)<?

/jLadrjrds.

d/j.fyorepo yXuHTcros

ov%

OTL 8ia-

\eKTitcos rjv tw? 6 Ktrtei/9.

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

rfjs

Gl
i

&La\KTiKrjs Oecopias rov

re
fA

crcxfrov

ITTTWTOV evecrdat

u<yw...ro

TT\V

8ia\KTiKTjv.

Strictly speaking, \ojiKj}

cf.

is

a wider
\oyiKoi>

term than
fjtepos

SmXe/cTi/c?;,
evioi
et?

Diog.

VII.

41

TO Se

(fracrlv

Svo

Siaipeto-dai

pijTOpticrjv /cat

a?

^taX.eKTiKtjv, Sen. Ep. 89, 10.

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

TOJ Krjpo) VTTO

rov SaKrvXiov

yi yvojjievwv, ib.
:

50

quoting Chrysippus Not. 47.

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.

See further Stein, Erkenntnistheorie,

8.
fjiev

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^

iracrav aio 0r)Tijv

ala~Bijr6v
;

Trdv

eA.ee
Cic.

/3e(3aiov elvai 6 Se ST&HACO? ^rjvwv Siaipeaei e^prjro

62
N. D.
I.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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.

Math. vn. 204).

Acad.
I.

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.

Sext. Math. VII. 257 speaking

of the

K.
<f>.

avTT)

yap

evapyrjs

ovaa

icai

7r\r)KTtKi} fiovov
^/u,a? et? criry-

ov%l KardOeaiv
ru>v

rp^dov Xa/i/Sa^erat tcaTaaTrwcra

real
fj

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

Sext. Math. VII. 253,

aXXa yap
227

ol

pev dp%aiodXrj

repoi

T&JI>

^TOJIKWV Kpirtipcov
fyavracrlav.

(fracriv

elvai rfjf d\r)0eias

tcpiTijpiov

Kara\ri7rTiKrjv
TTJV

ib.

fcaraXrjTTTiKjjv

fyavraalav.

This

is

to

be at-

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

tributcd to

63

Zeno partly

as

an inference from the word

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

racter of the impression compels assent, Zeller.

(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

object of representation (TO inrdp-^ov}

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

diction between Cic. Acad.

<pav-

XrjTrTiKrjs

$>avTaaias

due

to Zeno,

also Stein,
\Tj7TTiKr},

a distinction, possibly to disappear in See practice. Erkenntnistheorie, p. 182. Ka-raX^^ KaracrvyKaraOecr^

:

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>

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

<ni\$ov

Zeno, therefore, only evapyecrrara. see Introd. p. 34 of the the word, meaning specialised

and generally Introd.

11.

p. 9.

Sext.
77

Math.

VII.

24<S,

eariv

OTTO rov vTrdp^ovros KOI KOLT

^avraa-ia KaTa\r)7rriKij avro TO vtrap^ov

evaTrope/jLay/jLevr)

Kal evaTrecrfypayiaiLevri cnroia OVK av ye-

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

Kar avro 8e TO inrdp-^ov

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,

733 TO Be Soypa TOVTO avrov

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,

18 sed videamus quid

signa communia.

ait

Zeno.

Tale

scilicet

prehendi et percipi posse, quale

cum

falso

visum comnon haberet

is

The controversy between

torical fact

Arcesilas and

Zeno

a his

about which there can be no doubt, and, apart direct from evidence, the chronology proves that our defi-

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

nition can

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

tion of the criterion

and the

New Academy, and

the question

is

discussed at length.

Sext. Math. VIL 248

252 shows

in detail the reason for the insertion of each

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

Lastly, the addition o-rroia

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

airo^a^a^vri TroXXa? dperds

12. ap.
p.

Neue

Olympiodorus in Plat, Gorg. pp. 53, 54 (ed. Jahn Jahrb. f tir Philol. supplement bd. xiv. 1848
(f>r](nv

239, 240) Zrjvwv 8e

ea)i>

on

re^vi] earl cfvar^^a

(? -wv] rrpos ri re Xo?

etc
ei>-

o-vyyeyv/jiva(r/j,evov
/3la>.

Cf.

rwv ev TO) Lucian Paras,

cro<f>ov

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.

KardX^-^eajv eyyeyvfAvao-pevGov Sext. Emp. Math. n. 10 Trdcra roivvv

e/c

H. P.

06

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

e /t
Kara\r]^reu>v
TU>

reyvrj crvarrjfjid ecrrtv

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

31, ib. p. 721, 25 oi STOH/COI

re-^vrj
e<nt

oi;Ta><>

opi^ovrai rrfv
17, 41

ffvff rrjp.a Trepl "^v^v

yevopevov
II.

eyyeyv/jLvaa-fjievwv K.T.\.
sive,

Cf. also Quiutil.

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

quae non ex una aut duabus sed ex multis animi

Fin. III. 18 artes...constent ex perceptionibus constat. et contineat quiddam in se ratione consticognitionibus

tutum

et via (illustrating also the next frag.).

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)
"*)

T^? enTreipias evvorjfiaTwv

ofioiwv
t 7ro\?7
vja<?).

fiia

KaOoXov yevrjrai

Trepl

TU>V

concerned with yevea-ts while

Aristotle s distinction that re-^vrj is eTria-rtj^ij deals with bv

(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

appears correctly in the 4th

German

ed.

(ill. 1.

247).

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

13.

67
Bokk.

Schol.
p.

ad Dionys. Thracis Gramm. ap.

o5? Br)\ol teal 6
Si"

Anecd.

663, 16,

%iS 6SoTTOir}TLK1J, TOVT(7Tl,

Zijvwv \eywv reyvrj earlv 6SoV KOI fJL06SoV TTOlOVad Tl.

is

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

eVtcr/cor^crei rfj Trporepa

^avraaia, wcnrep

Kai j r^ SevTepa? ffpar/l rov -rrporepov. el

d\~>C

TVTTOS

eaeitrnito^ ean

ovcra

$avra(Tiu>v,

TOVTO, dvaipeirai p.ev fwjpri, 6i]dvaipeirai &e -rraaa rexi

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

est.

rerum

Plut. plac. iv. 11.

/Mwijfjir)

2.

Aristotle discusses the

in

relation

between

and fyavracria
II.

the tract de
p^vr}^

Memoria (see Grote

rov
ai<r0ri/j,aros,

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.

41 ex qua (inscientia) exsisteret etiam opinio,

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.

nitions of Sofa Eel.

II.

7.

ll m

p.

112, 2 [=11. 231]

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

from a consideration of the next

B6i;a

Zeno s word was olrjai.^. Thus, as with Plato, and dyvoia are ultimately identical. See further

Stein, Erkenntnistheorie pp. 204, 205.

16.

Diog. L.

VII.

23,

e\ey6 8e
is

(ATj&ev elvat

T^?

0177-

TWV
in the

^-iria-TT](iuiv.

The

plural

used because
is

narrower sense in which Zeno used the word

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

man, whereas Kard\T]-^n^ may be

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

rrjv 8e

69

Kard\r]^nv

tcoivtjv

d^orepuv

eivai.

We

in fact, the Platonic distinction

between Soga

have here, d\TjOr)s and

in another form.

17.

Cic.

Acad.

I.

41,

.si

ita

erat

comprehension ut

convelli ratione

non posset

scion tiam sin aliter inscientiam

uominabat (Zeno). The Greek sources

bcl.
II.

for

this

will

be found in Stob.

/,

p. 73, 19

= 11.

129 eivai

rr/v eTncrr^ fjiijv tcard"

\r)tyiv acr(f)a\rj /cal

d^eraTTTwrov

VTTO \6yov, ib. 11

p.

Ill,

-0=11. 231,
deaiv KOI
rrj^riv eivai

dyvoiav ^erairrwriKriv dcrOevrj, cf. Sext. Emp. Math.

ri]v

eivai
VII.

a-vy/card-

151, eVtcr-

n]v

dcr^)a\rj teal /3e{3a[av real dfjuerdderov VTTO

p.

\6yov KardXrj-^Lv, see also Stein,

concludes that
L.
VII.

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

thus Herillus definition

but

is

is undoubtedly modelled on Zeno s, adapted to his conception of eVia-r^/u,?; as the

ethical re Xo?.

18.

Cic.

Acad.

I.

42, inter scientiam et inscientiam

comprehensionem collocabat, eamque neque in rectis neque in pravis numerabat. Cf. Sext. Math. VII. 151, eTrtcrT?;//?;^ teal 86av /cal rrjv
ev

70

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

ragv TOVTWV
:

ib.

153, 6
ical

A.pK<ri\ao<;...o eiKvv<;

on

Sev ecTTi fj,erav

(It will

7riaTii/j,r)<>

S6j~r)<s

Kpirrjpiov

r\

Kcnd-

be observed that where Cicero speaks of

inscientia Sextus mentions Soga, but, as has been shown, they are practically identical.) Wellmann, p. 484, thinks

that either there

is

some mistake

in

the text or that

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

from the antithesis to scientia and inscientia

Stoics classed certain virtues
certain
p. 58,

thus the

vices

(evils) as

(goods) dyvoiai, cf. Stob. Eel.

as eVto-r^/iai
II.

and
5b,

7.

559,

II.

9294.
41,

19.

Cic. Acad.

I.

Zeno ad haec quae

visa sunt et
:

quasi accepta sensibus assensionem adiungit animorum quam esse vult in nobis positam et voluntariam.

In this case

it

is

words, nor can we

tell

impossible to recover Zeno s actual how much of the Stoic doctrine

to

handed down by Sext. Math. vin. 397, belonged

cf.

Zeno

especially

crwyKaTdOecris

tfris

OLTT\OVV

eoitcev

elvai

Trpay/jia KOL

TO p.v TI e^eiv (IKOIXTIOV TO Be eKouaiov KOI

Kelpevov.

eTrl Tfj rj/j.Tepa /cpicrei

is

full list
1.

of authorities
free

given by

Zeller, Stoics, p. 88, n.

The

power of

assent

must be understood only

free will is possible in
ei/j,apfjiev7)
:

in the limited sense in

which
It
is

consequence of the Stoic

1.

doctrine of

see

Wellmann,

c.

pp. 482, 483.

moreover only the wise

man who

can distinguish

accurately the relative strength of divers impressions, and he alone will consistently refuse assent to mere

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

20.
Cic.

71

Acad.

I.

41,

Quod autem

erat sensu comprein the

hensum, id ipsum sensum appellabat. For the different meanings of aio-Oya-is

school, see

Stoic

Diog. L. VII. 52 at cr^crt? Se \eyerai /card 7rl rav roi)? ^.TWIKOVS TO T6 rfye/j,oviKOV Trvev^a KOL
</>

alaOijcreis SLTJKOV, Kal

TO.

rj

&L

avTwv Kard\r)-^^,
ijv

/cal

-q

Trepl
:

alcrdi/Tiipia /caracr/cem/, fcaO

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.

the second of these definitions

to Zeno.

So Dr Reid

it is

Diog. L.
L<TLV

VII.

51 rwv 8e (^avraaiuiv KCLT

8
ov.

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

tribuebat (|uod comprehensio

et fidelis videbatur,
11011

acta sensibus

vera

quod omnia quae essent

in re

conrprehenderet sed quia nihil quod cadere in

relinqueret quodque natura quasi

eam

posset

normam

scientiae et prin-

in animis cipiuin sui dedisset, unde postea notiones rerum latiores solum sed non e principia quibus imprimerentur,

quaedam ad rationem inveniendam

For the general sense see Zeller,
non quod omnia
Kaa"Tov
:

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-

TriTTTeiv SoKel olov

\eiov eucoSe?
yu,oz/a?

avd6v.
Ta>?

(iBrj\ov ovv TTOTepov Trore

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

notiones: a translation of evvoiat.

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?

the distinction between

appellavit,
it is

quam antea nemo

;

eo verbo nominarat, so that

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

more probable that Chrysippus borrowed

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

nomine omnia quae essent aliena firmae

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.

12. 3, p. 13G, 21,

<f>a<ri

Zj/Wo?

<

K al

avrov>

rd evvorj^ara

/AJre

rtrd elvai

TTOKI, axravei Be

nva

Kal tiWaj/ei Troid (^avrdcr/jiaTa

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Be vrro TWV dp%aia>v IBeas TrpocrayopevecrOat,. rd evvo^ara VTroTTiTTTovTwv elvai T? Kara yap

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

TrpocrrjyopLas Ka\ovcn, Tvyydveiv\.

Cf.
/Ltara

r//jierepa

Euseb. P. E. XV. 45, ra? t Sea?.

01 d-no

Zrjvwvos Sr&)iot evvor)I.

Plut. Plac.

10,

4,

ol

OTTO

Tirjvwvos ^rcoiKol evvorip^ara jjjAerepa

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

Ap/tecriXaov fjiev a^aero, vroXXa dv ov K ?]9e\e, Td^a Be /j,a\\ov aXX&)?, vrpo?

ev
^(ticriv

oe

TOV

ovTa Tl\drwva

ecrKia/jbd^ei, real rrjv aTro

<w?

ajj,af~r)s

Trofjureiav nrncrciv KctTeOopv/Bet, \eyo)v

d/jLvvo/jLevov,
el re

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

For the definition

cf.

Plut.

Plac.

IV.

11

Be

vorffjia (fravTacrfia

Btavoias XoycKov

%u>ov,

i.e.,

as

he

goes on to explain,

ewor^d
:

stands to ^dv-raa^a in the

relation of etSo? to yevos

by

all

other animals

(^avTacr/^ara are shared with us whereas evvoij/jiaTa belong to the

gods and mankind

(f>(ivTaa-fj,a

alone.

^ig-

VI I. 61,

evvor//j.a Be

eaTt

Biavoias, ovTe TL ov ovre TTOIOV, wcravel Be TI

74)

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

I

ov Kal axravel TTOIOV, olov yiverai dvarvTrtapia

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
.

that the doctrine of the four categories does not belong

entirely
p.

to

Chrysippus

(Petersen,

Chrys. phil. fundam.

18).
lS6xs.

The meaning

is

that the Platonic ideas are

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

agreement with Aristotle

nised ideas of oiroa-a
see

it goes this passage is in statement that Plato recog 3.

fyvcrei

only (Metaph. A.

1070 a 18):
attri

Dr Jackson
ravras

in Journ. Phil. x. 255, etc.

rvYxavtiv.
:

These words are not expressly

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

and is supposed to be corrupt by and Wachsmuth. The latter suggests

TTG)vvfjii(uv, K.T.\.
"

Zeller,
ra<?

ill

2.

79

8e

or if TTTaxrewv

is

corrupt for ^
cf.

in fine talia fere interciderint ra? Koivds TroioTijras,

vil.
58,"

(coll. Diog. read TO Tvy-^dvovra in place of rvy-^aveiv (die Gedanken

the former

Sext. Math. vn. 11) would

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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

fortuito obveniunt, Diels.

res

(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

Diog. L. vn. 58.

n.

63) is text is sound in the

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<?

rov rvyxdvecrdai, and Clem. Alex.

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,

and explaining that Aristotle called the TTTWCT^

he proceeds
rj

TTTOOCTI^

Se

aaw/jLaro^ eivai

810 KOL TO croffricr/Aa e/ceivo \verat, o Xeyet?

Sia rov crTOyu,aTO?, oTTep d\ri6e$, oltciav 8e oiKia dpa Sid rov aro/j.aro^ aov ^tiep-^erai GTrep
<rov

So?

ovSe yap rrjv oiKiav

\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

some such words have would then be plain

TTTUXTK

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

Aristotle see Waitz, Organon, vol. yopia is a common noun, such as

Vir. 5S, Sext.

I.
"

p.

(Diog, 14) tending in practice to become identical with TTTwcrt?, though theoretically narrower.
Pyrrh.
III.

man

328, 329. horse

"

irpua-ij"

"

76
24.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Stob.
Eel.
I.

13,

p.

13S, 14
elvai Si

(Ar. Did.
o

Diels), aiTiov
crv[j,j3ej3r)K6s

&

6 Zijvaiv

<f>i}crlv

457, ov Se airiov

yoprj^a ecrTiv aiTiov

SvvafJ.IV
(frpovrjcriv

dSvvarov 8
/AT}

KCU TO p,ev aiTiov crtw/za, ov Be aiTiov Kari)elvai TO fjiev aiTiov jrapeivai ov Se

vTrdp^eiv.
eCTTl

a lTlOV

Si

TO Se \ey6fjievov Toiavrrjv ex i JiJVeTaL Tl, olov Sid TTJV

TO

i^rjv

jLveTai TO Kal Sid TTJV

<ydp

(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

Zeller, Stoics, p. 95,

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

axlopt the four Aristotelian causes because his material

views led him to regard the efficient as

the only

true cause.
o-vfiffepTjKos

"
"

result
init.

Stob. Eel.
Si

I.

13 ad

inseparable consequence," cf. aiTiov e crrt Si o TO aTroreXecr/za fj

cru/i/3e/377/co? is

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

must more common

Aristotelian sense of

"

accident

"

seems indubitable, when

we read

infra that the aiTiov can never be present unless

aiTiov.

accompanied by the ov

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

o-u^a
:

77
well

the materialism of the Stoics

it

is

known

to

what lengths
Stoics pp.
notes.
KaTTjYop^jia
:

was pushed
with

may

127132,
the ov

the

be seen from Zeller, examples given in 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

corporeal, and Chrys. as non-existent.

was therefore something in and Posid. accordingly speak of it

Zeno

The present passage

[Mtv

is
<$

illustrated
do-a)/j,aTov

by Sext. Pyrrh.
avrovs
6
?}

HI.

14

01

ovv
&

o-a)/j,a,

ol

TO aiTiov elval fyacnv.

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

Ttvos aiTiov yeveaOai, olov a^fia p,ev TO

TTJ

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.

parallel to this will be found at 7 ll f p. 98, 3 rr\v yap <f)p6vt]o-iv alpov/J.e6a

a-w^poa-vvrjv,

e%iv Kal
aa)())povetv,

TTJV

ov

fjid

A/a

TO

fypovelv

Kal

daoo/jiaTa
p.

Erkenntnistheorie

KaTyyopr/uaTa. Stein, 307, infers from this passage that,

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<?

Spengel Rhet. Gr. I. 434, 23, Suiyria-Ls eaTt TWV ev Ty VTrodeaei

TO vjrep TOV \eyovTos 7rp6o-(07rov

TrpayuaTwv
peovcra.

e/c^eui?

78

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

Perhaps this
frag,

comes from the

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&ltcovs 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>

OTrep, ol/Jiai, /Ltepos rrXeicrrris Beirai (fipovriBos Kal

dva/ji(f)tl3o\(i)<i

<j)V\aKr}S,

r^ovfj-aL

icpdrtarov

avrov

elvai

rrdvrwv

prjropwv K.r.\.
vnro06rti
:

cf.

ayopeverai ev pijr optic fj

ls

Sext. Enip. Math. III. 4 rwv eVl /Aepoi"? i]

VTr60e<Ti<;

7rpo<r-

^ijrrjcn<f.

TO

K.T.X.

"adapted

to the character maintained

rrpocrwrrov
is

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<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

fuerit in his personis valeat, pro Cluent.

OT&>

<r<f)6Bpa

roiovrov eppwjKaaiv.
26.
co9

Anonymi
Zirjvtov

re%vrj ap.

Spengel Rhet. Gr.

ecrrt

I.

447, 11

Be

TrapaBeiypd
et? ofMoiwcnv

jevofxevov

Trpdyparos

rov vvv

r)rov/j,evov.

Maxi-

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

79

mus Planudes

v. 39G ap. 7rapd8eiy/*a Be eariv, &;? Zrjvwv fyycriv, yevo/^evov Trpdy^arot aTro/jLvrj-

Walz. Rhet, Gr
TOV VVV

fjLOVV(Tl$ 6t? OjJLOiW(TiV

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

or fall with frag. 25. technical term in rhetoric.

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.

giving a vivid and clear representation of the actual

facts.

28.

Anonymi
p. 27-5,

variae

collections

mathematicae

in

Hultschiana Heronis geometricorum et stereometricorum

editione

YloXirelav Tl\cnwvos ev
TI}V

Tavpov 2i8(Wou ea-riv v7r6fj,vr)[Aa et? dan ravra oopiaaTo 6 TlXdrcov

<j>

yea)peTpLav...

Apio-TOT6X<t]s

8\..Zijva)v
VTTO \6yov.

Se

egiv

ev

TrpocrBe^et

(^avracnwv
frag,
is

(l/JieT(nrru>rov

This

due

to

Wachsmuth (Comm.
meaningless egiv

I.

p.

12)

who emends

as above for the

TT/JO? Seii-iv

(fravTaaiwv dfj,eTcnrTa)T(a<? 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.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEND.

I

cannot find any evidence to illustrate

Stoic views on mathematics.

Plut. Sto. Rep. 8, 1, TT/JO? rbv eiirovra
&i/cr)V
Sircd<rr)<;

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

yap e^ei TO fyrovpevov

el

err

OVK aTre&ei^ev
77

yap

f^rjBe

VTrr/fcovae
fj

K\ri6el<;

inraicovffas

erepeTKrev
aKov<rTeov

rjroi

(nr&ei^ev

OVK

aTreSei^ev

OVK
is

apa

rov

Bevrepov

\eyovros.

The same

preserved by
variations.
PjS*
K.T.X.

Schol. ad Lucian. Cal. 8 with unimportant

referred to Phocylides Lucian. I.e. but called by Cicero ^fevBrjcrioBeiov (Att. VII. Poet. Lyr. Gk. p. 464- cf. Ar. Vesp. 725 ^ see
18),

verse of uncertain authorship commonly on the authority of the Schol. ad

Bergk

TTOV
<ro</>09

rjv

oo-Tt?

e^acKev, Trplv av

a^olv pvOov

aKovo-ys OVK av SiKaaais.

Kpiveiev
fj

Eur. Heracl. 179 Ti? av SIKTJV

yvolrj

\6yov

Trplv

av

Trap* dpfyolv fJ.vBov

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>.

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

answered to his name

cf.

Dem.

F. L. p.

423
"

257

^rifioxrev vTraKovo-avrd riv the disfranchisement of a

avrov Kanjyopov procured man who had actually ap

indifferently

peared as his
of plaintiff

accuser."

The word was used

ib. p.

and defendant,

434

290

ovb* vTraKovcrai

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

-ij6e\ev.

81

Meid.

p.

580, 581 Ka\ov/j,evos ovo^aarL

...Sid

ravr ovx

VTrijKovcre.

Audoc. Myst.

112 /cad
Kal

Krjpvg etcr/pvTre rt ? rrjv

vTrr/Kovcrev.

iKerijpiav

Isae.

p.

49,

25

= 84

Karadeirj,

ovSels
et<?

aTroypafais

rr/v

ftov\Y)v aev.

KaKovpywv viroywptov torero Kal ov^

:

VTTIJKOV-

KXT]0is

cither
p.

(1)

by the presiding magistrate,

eVetS?}

cf.

Dem. Olymp.

1174

BiKaartjpiov aTravras TOI)? Ar. Vesp. 1441 vj3pi eto?

dp-^wv a/^iovS^rotWa? Kara rov dv n]v Si/c^v ap-ywv

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<?

the court solemnly calling

him by name.

Diog. L. VII. 18, evacuee 8e p,ev rdov daoXoiKcov Kal dTnjpTia-fAevowi o/zotou? elvai TW dpyvpiw rca
TOI)<?

KaOd Kal TO
oe

v6fj,ia-fxa,

ovoev Se Sid ravra /SeXr/oj/a?.

TOi?

TOI)?

rovvavriov

dcfxo/jioiov

Arrt/cot?

For the comparison of words to coins

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>. 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

other hand the tetradrachm of Alexander was part of the

H. p.

82

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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<f.

Bywater
<TO\OIKOVS

(Journ. Phil.

xvil. 70) reads /ce^o/i/ieVou? /ecu

and the former certainly seems necessary to

balance of the sentence.
Ka6&iiv:
this

restore the

meaning of

Ka0e\K(i>

is

omitted by L.

and
\

S.

s.
is

v.

bracketed

rightly retained
31.

by v. Wilamowitz and by Bywater.

s.v.

Kohler

is

Zonarae Lex.

(ro\oiKietv

col.

1G(>2,

ov

fj,6i

ov TO Kara fywvrjv Kal \6yov ^(opiKeveadai

rj

oXXa
drdi

eVi evBvjMaTwv orav TIS ^wpiKw^ evBiBicrKr/Tai

ecrdir)
f)

a/cocr/ico?
i.

TrepnraTjj w?

(firjcn

V^vwv.

Wachsmuth,

Comm.
ap.

p. 12, cites Cyrilli,

Lex. cod. Bodl. ant, T. n. 11.

Cramer

tirexvats SiaXeyerai
teal
(f)a>vrjv

anec. Paris IV. p. 190 V. <roXoticr/Lt6<j ore ri? cro\otKieiv ov povov TO fcaT(i \ej;iv

loia)Ti>iv,
i]

d\\d Kal eVt ^op^fiaTwi

ecrdiei
//

oTav rt?

ft]?

evoeBvTai

ara/cTw?

r//cocr/Lia)9

Zeno

is
cf.

this

extended sense,
iit\

not alone in using the word in Xen. Cyr. vm. 3. 21 Aai^epvi)?

TCW TpOTTW.

5e Tf?

f)V (70\OiKOTpO<t
4v8\)fidTwv.

<iv6pU>TTOS

The Athenians attached great import

in

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

in the fashionable style (eVi oegul

d\\afrai) was a mark of

TI
8pd<;
;

sobriety.

Cf. Ar.
;

Av. 15G7

eV

dpLaTep
,

ovTa)<;

d/j,7re^ei

ov /LieTa/3a\ei9

wB eVt Be^idv
^o-Oi^.

How

carefully children

were trained

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

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

Segia a-vveO^eiv rd -rraiSta

T?

8exe<T0ai

rpo<j)d<},

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

and see Sandys on

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

rdrrcov IStwfia Sid 8e

Cic. Fin. n.

r;/ 9

^a-rrXwae^ Ka l

ruv SaKTV\a)v TO
vo?.

vrXari) rfc pijropiKj^

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

quod autem compressius.

loquerentur
32,

Orat,

113

Zeno quidem

cum

a quo disciplina Stoicorum est, maim demonstrare solebat quid inter has artes interesset, nam

compresserat digitos

aiebat eiusmodi esse;

dilataverat,

pugnumque fecerat, cum autem diduxerat

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,

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

;

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.

and the next purport

it

to

be

of Zeno, merely spoken remarks

has been thought

them

\oyiKt Very came from some written work.

TO (rrpoyyvXov
is

at this place, as distinctly belonging form they probably in their original

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

thus Dion. Halic.

ra>

eK<f>epeiv

7rmj8eiov \wriav d-jre^e^o^v 7T/30? d\7)0ivov<; dywvas "well rounded" while seeming translation The (Isocr. 11).
w<?

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,

cum paullum digitos contraxerat, Turn cum plane compresserat pugnumque

"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

far-fetched, for although

is

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

the activity of the i^p.oviKov

in

the process of

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

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

we have already seen that

</>au\o?

inconsistency of the

Stoics,

who would

not admit that

even Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus had attained to perfect wisdom, cites as a Stoic dogma travra dyvoei o
<f>av\o<;

(Math.
fj,ev

VII.

434).

Reid quotes Sext. Pyrrh.

ev JJLOVW crTrovSaLW

II.

83

oioTrep TTJV

d\r)0iav
ev

(fracrlv elvat,

TO

6e (ikijOes Kal
eiirelv.

(pav\w
7.

evSe^erai yap rov (bav\ov

d\r)0es TL

visum
frag. 19.

(fiavracria

frag.

adsensus

crvyKara6e(Ti,^

= coiuprehensionem

Kara\rj \lrtv, see on frag. 10.

scientiam, frag. 17.

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.

Soph. 247 D \eyco

Bt]

TO Kal oiroiavovv

ovvafAiv, err

(V

et?

erepov OTLOVV TT TO 7ra6eiv Kal o~/j,iKp6TaTOV VTTO TOV (f)av\OT(iTov,

et? TO Troielv

K(iv el fjiovov elaaTca^, TCU.V

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>^a

TTUV

yap TO

86

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

and thought see the authoriti

to theories of sensation collected in

Dr Reid s

note.

35.

TWV

Diog. L. VII. 134, oWet 0\0)V BvO TO 7TOIOVV Kal TO

&

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<t

v\rjs

BtjfMLOvpjelv

etfacrra.
TO>

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>V

<TTt

atTtO<?

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"

deov KOI vXrjv,

6wv pw TO TTOIOVV, vXrjv 8e

TO Trotovpevov,

a<$>

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].

Theodoret, Gr. cur.

aff. iv.

12 Z-tjvwv Be 6

KiTtei/?, 6 Mi/ao-e ou, 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
>1

Stoic school in general are given

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<?

Trpoo-ayopevei
TreptaTrret

TTJ

TOV

Oeov

Introd. p. 25.

When

see TayaOov Svvdpei the is we remember that God by

Kal

TTJ

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Stoics identified with fiery breath, the purest

87

and

rarest

of
is

all

substances, while on the other hand the world itself

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.

which prove this). may be doubted

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
:

ovpyo? of the Timaeus.

a favourite Platonic word, recalling the For the distinction between d

and

crroi-^ela

cf.

Diog. L.
p,ev

VII. 13-i
Sia<j>epeiv

Se

Kai crTOi^etcr
TCI Se

r9

yap

elvai dyevvtjTovs Kal d

crror^eta /card

r>}v

eKTrvpaxTiv

36.

Hippolyt.
/cat,

Philosoph.

21,

1.

p.

571 Diels Xpvfiev

Ztrjvwv o t vTredevro
0-w/j.a

Kal avrol dp-^rjv

Oeov

Birjrcet,v

rrjv

ovra TO KaOaptOTaTov Bid jrdvTwv Be -npovoiav avTov. Galen. Hist, Philos. 16. p. 241.
/J.GV

Diels

p.

608 HXarcof

ovv KOL Zir/vwv 6 Sr&u/co?

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<

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.

d\\d Trapd TavTa...Ti d\\o

generally Tatian ad Graec.
c.

is

25

adopted]. p. 162 c (speaking

eya>

of the Stoics) awfjud rt? elvai \eyei deov, 8e d August, adv. Acad. in. 17. 38 (quoted below).

SS
T&

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

"

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

most base and ugly as well as what

Zeller,

is

most

beautiful,"

Stoics

p.

148,

who
is

authorities

in

the

notes,

tcadapwrarov
(

gives the used with

ot Se

vil. 375 special reference to Sttjiceiv, cf. Sext. Emp. eTTir 7r TOVTO 3 iv l TO TrveVfia fyvo [ri/TTtwo-ti/] / X

XeTTTO/Ltepeo-Taror teal evpovv Trapd

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

<noi^iw^e(na-rov

eivai irdvTwv e% ov yiyvovrai o-wytcpicrei irpwrov, roiovrov

&6 TO fiiKpo^epea Tarov Kal \e7TTOTarov

TO3V.

av

irj

rwv

<ra)fia-

SiOTrep

offot

TTvp

dp%r)V

Ti@acri yLtaXtTTa 0/10X0Krische, Forschungen

yovfj.va)s
p.

dv

ra>

\6yw TOVTW

\eyoiev.

382.
wpovoiav like

rationem in the next

frag,

brings into pro

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

\eye 8e Trdvra ^trjKeiv TO Oelov. rationem : the Heraclitean \6yos, Introd.

38.

p. 22.

Tertullian,

ad Nat. n.

4,

ecce

enim Zeno quoque

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

fondness for simile

has been

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

observed upon in the
well
IV.

89

Introd. p. 33.

Virgil s lines are

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

apium formicarumque Myrmecides aliquis minutorum opusculorum

fuisse videatur.

perfectionem ut etiam inter deos

separat:

if this

is

pressed,

we must conclude
:

that

Zeno never
39.

identified

God with matter

see n. on frag. 35.

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>@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><?

esse principiura. Diog. L. VII. 88,

<re&)?

OVTC.

Schol. on

Lucan

II.

9 hoc

secundum Stoicos
regarded in
46,
its

dicit,

qui adfirmant

mundum

prudentia ac lege firmatum,

ipsumque deum

esse sibi legem.

its
1

Law
is

moral rather than

terms in Stob. Eel.

re
vofJiov

TI.

physical aspect 7. II p. 96, 10

defined in similar

= Floril.

12 rov

crTrovSaiov elvai, fyacri

/JiV

\oyov opdov
4.

6i>ra

TdKTlKOV
rjreov

&V

TTOLlJTeOV,
II.

(ITrayOpeVTlKOV 8e
p.

U)V

Trpoa0V TTOi-

repeated at

7.

II

1 ,

102,

Gods and men are influenced by the same law

est recti praeceptio pravique
depulsio"

"

quae
II.

Cic.

N.D.

78.

90

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

is

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

lex vera atque princeps apta ad

ratio est recta
exists
<f>v<rei

jubendum
II.

summi

lovis, id. ib.

10.
cf.

et ad vetandum For Zeno Right

and not merely

0e<ri,

Krische

p.

371.

Stein, Erkenntnistheorie
40.

n. 708.
c.

Philodemus
o-vva<TT>ri/ci

Trepl evo-e/3.
)v
oi/ce<t>&><>

8, Bet TTJV

<S>vva/j,iv

ovcrav

TWV

pepa><v>

7rpo<<>

(i>\\ij\a

fcai
77

K...u>v

TI]V

ava<TO\i}>v

rj<\i>ov

/cat

Ki><K\rjatv>

TreploBov.

position of these words with reference to their context corresponding to Cic. N.D. I. 36 points to Zeno s

The

Stoica authorship. refero Diels p. 542.

"
"

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<f

avrov (rov ras Trdvrwv

aL eVel teal Trepie^ei

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<f)}]
:

t<>

Be TO, eK re TrapaiceL^vfov KO,\ Trpos ev

TOJV crvvecTTWTa

tce<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.

13 deos pronuntiaverunt...ut Zeno Minuc. Fel. 19. 10 aethera interdiu

Cic. Acad.
II.

omnium

esse principium.

126 Zenoni et
[if fere

reliquis fere Stoicis aether videtur

summus deua

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

is

91

pressed here,

it

points to the exception of Cleanthes,

fr.

but see on Cleanth.

of the four elements
Tertull.
n.
is

15].

aethera not to be confounded with

dr]p, which is one and subject to destruction aerem in

;

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

the material essence of God.

Neither Trvp nor

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,

avwrdrw irdvrwv vovv

evaidepiov elvai 6e6v.

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

sie ist als

lerische gottliche
(cTTrep/xari/coi)?

Feuer

Ausfluss der Gottheit jenes kimst(Trvp re^vi/cov) das die Keimkriifte

\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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

:

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<rfiov by Krische
p.

378,

who
to
is

supplies deov dire^r/varo.

Hirzel

II.

p.

220, 2

prefers
TTI/PIVOV

put a

comma

after

KO<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<f>a)vos

Sofa Bid
teal

overlap Tre^oirr/Kevai rov 6eov Tt$6/Lte

/j,ev

i>ot<?

TTOV

elvai vovv Trot)

"^rv^rjv

TTOV Be

(frvcriv

TTOV Be efty.

This same
called
(/>i)eri<?

eft<?

appearing in different substances, is as the bond of union for inorganic matter,

force,

^rv^} in the case of animals, and vovs as belonging to rational beings. Diog. L. vn. 139 Bi eft? Ke^u>prjKev w? Bid TGOV oarwv teal fMev ydp
in the case of plants,
u>v
w<?

T<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

<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

<j>v<ri<;

and That the good evidence that the distinction between and ^rv^ is Zenonian may be inferred from
<f>v<ri<;

the words
44.

<rt^4<cuz/o9

1}

Sofa.
c.

Lactant. de Vera Sap.

9,

Zeno rerum naturae

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

93

factitatorem qui cuncta in dispositione formaverit eundeni et fatuin vocari et deum et animura lovis et necessitatem

omnium
Zeno.

renim.

Mimic. Fel. 19. 10 rationem

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,

18, Zr/vcov 6 STOH/COS-

ev

TM

Trepl (ucre&)9 (TTJV el/j,ap/J,evr]v) Svvafiiv KivrjTifcrjv TT/S

1^X779

Kara

ravrd
(frvcriv

/cat

(ocravro)?

IJVTIVO,

/j,rj

8ia(f)epeii>

TTpovoiav Kol
VI.
rrjv

Ka\iv.

Theodoret, Graec. Aff. Cur.

Be 6
rfjs

14.

p.

87, 26

Zi]va)v

Ktrei)? Svvafiiv
v\r}<?

KeK\rj/ce
/cat

elfJLap^evr]v

KivriTiKrjv

TT)I/

8e

avrtjv

irpovoiav KOL fyvcriv wvofACKrev. God receives different names, while his 8ia(j>piv. (ii^ essence is constant, owing to the various phases of his

union with matter

0X779 T^? v\r)s 8t
1.

(ra<?

Trpocrrjjopia^ fj,era\afji/3aveiv Si

?)?

Ke-^wpij/ce

Trap(iX\a%av Stob. Eel.

Diels and

I.

29 b

p. 37, 23, according to

Wachsmuth

mistake

for $ia
is

ra? T^?

V\TJ<?

St r;? Ke^copTjKe TTapa\\a%eis}.

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>79

error??
1^X779,

K(iv Tat9 St

Trpoo-rjyoplais

Kara ra9

7rapa\\aei<>

<f)a(ri

TO Trvevp.a ^wpelv TOV

TU>

6eov,

7r\rjOvva>o-L

TO

Qtlov Tolf
et

ovofAacri,

<yovv

eva vofAi^ovcri TOV BeoV

yap

^ev Oeos Trvp

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>r]i>

Zev<;

r/

H/3a oe

KaTa TOV depa

/cat

rd \onrd

94

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

4

7)9

K-^wpr}Kev

Ka\ov^vo<^.

In

this connection it
p.

097)

is

may be observed thatGercke(Chrysippea, mistaken in speaking of a fragment of Zeno

The
Zeno

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.

140, xaff eipap^evrjv 8e

real

<f>acn

ra

\pvai7nros...
is

Tiocrei?>a)i>io$...Kai

Be.

Since
that

ei/j.ap/jLevrj

identical with Trpovoia,

it

follows

everything is produced Kara irpovoiav. however, demurred to this (frag. 18).

46.
Cic.

Cleanthes,

N.D.
via.

II.

57,

Zeno

igitur ita

naturam

definit

ut earn dicat ignem esse artificiosum ad gignendum pro-

gredientem
artium

Censet enim

esse creare et gignere,

manus

efficiat,

artis maxime proprium quodque in operibus nostrarum id multo artificiosius naturam

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,

ambulantifi, ut ait Zeno.

Tertull. ad. Nat.
II.

Wachsmuth (Comm.

I.

p. 9)

adds

2 cuius (ignis) instar vult esse naturam

is

Zeno.

The Greek

of the definition

rj

<f>va-i<;

eVrt irvp re^vt-

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<;
ot

cr7rp/j,a.TiKoi>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.
:

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

47.

95
u

Tatian ad Graec.
KdK(ai>

c.

3, p.

143c, Kal
Zijvwva)

Qeos

d-rro-

/car

avrov
Kal

(scil.

Troirjnjs, ev

re Kal
Cf.

(TKu>\ri%i

dppr)Tovp<yoi<;

KaTa<yLvop,evos.

Clem. Alex. Protrept. 5

60

ov>e

prjv rot)? avro T?;?

T?;

TrapeXevcrofAac 8id 7racr7/9 V\TJS Kal Bid

TO Oeiov SujKeiv \eyovTas- ot Karaia-^vvovcnv rrjv (f)i\oo-o(f)iav: Scxt, Pyrrh. III. 218 ^TCOCKO!
&if}Koi>

Se

Kal Sid

TU>V

elSe^Owv. Cic.

Acad.

II.

120 cur

deus omnia nostra causa

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

artificiosa ist unseres

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>Ta.Toi>), whereas the world-soul is less

icadapbv

from

its

combination with matter.

96
artifex
:

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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

ceteris ut sint causa est,

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

TrpvTr) v\ri (frag. 51). Cf.

Brandis 45 a 21 eVri TO
<TToa<?

inroictificvov St,TTov Kal

TOI)<?

Dexipp. ad Cat. Schol. Arist. Kara TOI)?

Trpe<r/3vTepov<;

Kal Kara

ev pev TO \eyo-

pwTov
6

v7roKelfj,6vov
<f)rj<rlv

oj<?

rj

avroto? v\rj i]v

Swa^ei

crdo^a

Sevrepov 8e VTTOKei^evov TO iroiov A/3i<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.
<W?
eo<?

donius

is

different
<avTTjv>

he holds

&ia<f>epeiv

TI}V

ovaiav

T?;?

TTJV

ovcrav KdTii Tr)V v-noaTacriv,

I.

7rivoia

Stob. Eel.

C 11. 5 , p. 133, 22.

Wellmann (Neue

Jahrb.

vol.

115,

p.

808) denies that

it is

a necessary inference

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

97

from this passage that Zeno taught the doctrine of the

four Stoic Stein, Psych, n. 73, explaining the categories. passage generally as above, apparently identifies ova-La

with

Kotvctif TTOLOV,
is

and

V\TJ

with

/Siax?

TTOLOV,
is

but this

distinction

a subordinate one, for ovaia

distinct from TTOIOV,

I.e.

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
:

omnium quae sunt

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

rationabiliter totam interdum,

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

in strong contrast with

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,.

space) TreTrepacr/jievov Sid TO (JL^GV KadaTrep Be TO (rw/jiaTiKov Tre-rre7

98
paapevov
crft)/za

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

elvat
OUTO>?

TO acrw^arov aTretpov, Diog. VII. 150

r/

oe ea-Tt tear aiiTOix;

is
:

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<?

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

tamen ipsa eadem eandem

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>\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"

adopted Aristotle 1029 a 20

Xey&>

In this respect the Stoics simply Z. 3. conception of v\r), cf. Metaph.

v\r)i>

f}

icaff

avTrjv

TTOO-OI/ /nrjre TI fir)Te

fj.r)T

a\\o

TO ov. prj&ev \eyeTai, ol? wpHTTai,

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?)

distinction merely, but this

is

more apparent

than

real.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

sine ortu: diStos,

99

avyxpovos rw

Oeu>,

infra frag. 51.

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),

One fundamental thought pervades

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.
>ydp

178,

2,

TJ}V p,ev

Posidonius ap. Stob. Eel. I. 20. 7, e/c OVK ovrutv Kal rrjv et? OVK
TO>V

ovra

((frOopdv Kal yevecri,v)...d7re yv(i)o-av dvinraptcTOV ovcrav. M. Aurel. iv. 4.

moveat,
-non

KivrjTt/ctjv rrjs
:

vXys, frag. 45.

naturani

in apparent contradiction to frag. 46,

:

but we shall probably explain

(/wo-<,

the Trvevpa
it is
^f%>;

is

not merely

it is

also i}rv%ij,

nay more

\6yov e^ovaa,

i.e. i/oi)?.

animal, frag. 62.

to the school in general cf. frag. 66.

deum: observe that this is attributed and not to Zeno in particular,

51.

Stob. Eel.
TU>V

Be elvat rrjv
Tracrav

Zijvavor ova-lav p. 132, 26. OVTWV Trdvrwv Trpwrrjv v\^v, ravrrfv 8e

i.
,

11. 5

dtSiov
/J>epr)

Kal

ovre

ra Se

Tavrir}^

^^vo^kvr]v ovre eXarro) OVK del ravra Sia/j,eveiv d\\d Bcai7rXe/<u

peladai Kal crvy^elcrdai.

Bid

Tavrr)<;

Be BiaOetv rov rov

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

rals a XXat? aipecrecnv, elp,apfLevriv re elvai

?;?

Kal yeveaiv e^
L.

150,
v\r)v

over lav

ra iravra BioiKetrai Kal Travel. Diog. Be TUIV OVTCOV curdvTwv TT)J/

<f>aai

(a^...ZTji>a)v...Ka\eirai

Be St^aJ? ovcria re Kal

72

100
v\rj
77

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

re ratv TrdvTwv KOL
77

rwv eVt pepovs.

e\drro)v.

rj

fiev

ovv

TWV
Cup.

o\o)v ovre TrXeiwv ovre e\drr(av yiverai

teal

Be
>]

r&v

eVi fjLepovs Kal rrXeivv

c.

Tertull. de

Praes.

7,

et ubi materia

cum

deo exaequatur Zenonis

disciplina Cf. Chalcid. in Tim.

esse

est.

c.

294, Stoici

deum

scilicet

hoc

quod

silva sit vel

deum silvae, per membra genitalia.

OVTC
irXcCw.

etiam qualitatem inseparabilem eundemque per silvam meare, velut semen

The

aTroto?

v\r)

is,

as

we have
it

seen,
is

wpia-fjievij

and

rcerrepaa-^evrj:

being also dtBios

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

the further authorities cited by Zeller, Stoics,

Kal
1-

p.

101, n.

2.

both these Strictly speaking o-vYX^* Sicuptwrflcu the from theory of inter terms are to be distinguished of Stoicism (/epa<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<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<?

is

the ingredients.
52.

Stob. Eel.

I.

17. 3, p. 152, 19.

Zr,vwva 8e
Secret

oimw<?

diro<t>aive<r6ai

o&a) TTJV
T/JOTTT)

SiapprjSyV roiavrrjv rov 6\ov SiaKovfiTjanv e /t

8e

elvat

ev
etc

rfjf

ouaia?, orav

xal

yfJ

TO pkv ri et? ae/JO? yevrjTat, v^iaTOV XotTroO Se TO e/c o-vvia-raffOai v [ical]

vSup BC

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

fj,ev

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
< >

/j,erafto\f] crw/uLaros

o\ov
136,

8t

o\ov
re

TII^O?
elvcti

Diog. L. VII.

135,

ev

erepov deov teal

vovv

/cat

i/jLapfj,evr]v Kal Ata TroXXat? re erepat? Qvopaaiais TrpoaovofAa^ecrdai,. KCLT ap^ri? ftev ovv Kaff avrov ovra rpeweiv

rrjv Trcicrav ovcriav Si

yovfj TO cr7rep/j,a Trepte-^erai

depo? et? vSwp Kal uxnrep ev rfj ovrw Kal TOVTOV aTrepnaTiicov
ev rca
vypu>

\6yov ovra rov Koap,ov, roiovSe v7ro\L7r(rOai

evepyov
yevecriv
TTvp,
avru>

Troiovvra

rr]v

v\rji>

TTOO?

rrjv

rwv

e^-r;?

tkcraapa 8e irepl avrwv Zr^vwv ev vSwp, depa, \e<yi Trepl rov o\ov. Diog. L. VII. 142, jivecrOai Se rov Koa/j,ov
<yrjv.

etra

diroyevvdv irputrov rd

crroiyela
ra>

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

Kara IU%LV GK rovrwv

TATJVWV
10,
/lev

(f>vrd

re Kal

%u>a

Kal

rd d\\a

yev-rj.

Trepl Srj ovv T?;? yeveaettx; Kal rrjs

<f>6opds

rov Koapov

fyyo-l

ev

ra>

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<J>0rivat
TO>
TOL>

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

irvpos

rpoir^

K.r.X.

The evolution

of

VOO)p

from the

-rrvp

re^viKov

is

first

described and then the

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-<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>atTrprjo-Trjp,

R. and P.

jj,evrj<t

dpaiovp,evov

pev TOV depa Trvp yiyvecrdai

vecfros,

(prjat,

TTV/cvovfMevov 8e dvfjiov, elra elra yrjv, elra \i6ovs rd Be

eiTa
etc

en

fjid\\ov vowp,

d\\a

TOVTWV.

The dvw

fcdm

68o<?

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.

of the four elements

from and anterior to the formation If Diog. s account is based upon

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

entire resolution of the irvp

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<?

pev TO irpo
rrj<;

rf)<;

Sta/coo--

^4T/o-eo)9

pao-fjievov,
Tral,

yevopevov vypov, TO irvp, o f)

TO
8"

a-n-o

^uo-eo>9

OVTWS wvoBe TTOTC,

to

<TTIV

olovel

Kao<j.,.^v

7rvp

Trdv
ei<t

Kal

<yevij(TfTai

ird\LV

ev

TrepioSy
rrjt

o-(3ecrdevTO<;

depa avrov pera/SoXr) ddpoa yiverai

Toy
[lev

619

vBtop"

o Sri Xa/x/Saj^et

v^Kna^vov

pepovs

ov<ria<;

Kara TTVKVWO-IV TOV

8e \e7TTvvofjLevov

Kara dpaiwo-iv.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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,

codd. corr. Heeren.

viz. 142.
K.T.\. is

rpaTrrj,

Mem.

(del. yevrjrai)

coll.

D. L.

\irrvvo^vov,

the corr. of

Wachsm.

for

the MSS. ex

rivos 8e rov depot,

[iiiv.

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.

who devoted much

sition
it

attention both to the positive expo

this doctrine, illustrated

and controversial defence of

by several practical examples, one of which, from its teal yap et? obscurity, deserves consideration
:
7re\a<yo<>

eVt TTOCTOV avTiTrapeKTaOrjaerai L. VII. 151), i.e. the disappearance of the <^6apr)a-Tai (Diog. wine particles can only be explained on the hypothesis of

0X1709 00*09

/3X,?7$et9

<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>v d\\oiu>criv, (8) Kara crvy^vaiv, (4) e

Marcus Aurelius, but

dvciXvariv,

proceeds

rovrwv 8e
rd<;

rt)v /car

d\\oia)<riv

Tr

TTJV ovcrlav yivea dai

\eyo/Mevov<;

ri

XXav

rpetf Trepl roi/9

rou9 eVt

rfjs ova-las

53.
I.

Galen,

et9

TO

(XVI. 32 K.) Znffvwv re o

iTnroKpdrov vTTo^vrip,a Trepl KiTteo<? [09] Ta9 TroiorTjTaf

OVT<O

104

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

o\ov tcepdvvwrdai evofii^ev, uxnrep rds Troior^ra? KOI
vofii^eiv,
<w?

teal rcif overlap Si

id.

de nat.
St

facult.

I.

2, 6i

&

ra<?

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

which are subject to the influence of a combination of ova-la and

Kpd<ns

are
:

Troiorrjre^

them when

mixture takes place, we must either say that the oixriat mixed or that the -rroi6rijT<; 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

fAtyvvfAevat rrjv icpdaiv

more absurd.
:

But this is diroTe\.ov<riv ( 59). Mix one spoonful of hemlock juice

both entirely permeate each other, to each

with ten of water

if

they must occupy the same space and be equal

other.

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)<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,

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

\eia-0ai TTJV SiaKoa-^rja-tv o la Trporepov XV. 18. o, apecrKei yap ST&H/COI?
TCH<?

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)<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,

the eKTrvpaxris from Heraclitus (see Introd.

p.

21)

it

may

however be observed that

of the

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
;

materiality to his primal

Cf.

if fire is
is

a mere metaphor

to express irav-ra pet, the case

Marc. Aurel.
to

in.

3.

The

of course very different. Christian writers often serves

at

allude
parallel

the

etcTrvpwa-is,

which

once

as

and a contrast
c.

to their

own

doctrine, e.g. Tatian,

ri<?)

adv. Graec.
ftaiveiv

25, p. lu 2 C, eKirvpcoaiv (\eyet

eya) Se
ela-dira%.

TTO-

Kara ^povovs
20. 20, p. 66 D.

Justin Martyr,

Apol.

I.

TO irvp, add. elf

follows,

but the alteration

.36.

Heeren whom Heinze, Logos, p. Ill, is needless. For cnrepfj.a cf. M.

Aurel. iv.

55.

Tatian, adv. Graec.

c. 5,

TOV Z-tjvwva Sid

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

r<o

yopelv Rovaipiv Be eVl

firl TO)

^evoKrovelv Kal Hpa/cXea Tra\iv

c.

yap irdXiv rwv dvdpwTrwv rot? auTOi? teal (/u Xot? Kal TroXiVat? Kal rd avrd 7reicre<r6ai Kal avrols crvvrev^ecrdai Kal rd avrd fiera-^eipieicrdat
Cf.

d6\elv Trapairrjreov. Nemes. Nat. Horn.

\\\dra}va
/cal

38,

evecrOcu

^wfcpdrr) Kal

e/caa-rov

<rvv

Tot<?

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<

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<f

Ka<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

is objection to the Stoic theory

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

rovt yevea-iv Kal

<f)0opdv

rov Kocrpov Karrjra>v

yopovvras

VTTO

rerrdpav

dTrartjOtjvai,

peyia-rtov, 77/5

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

<iva>/jta\ia<t,

107

Oakdrrr)^ dva^wp^creuis, eKficrrov TWV TOV o\ov

\epcraiwv (frOopas Kara yevrj
a>a>v.

jjiepwv 8ia\vcre(i)S,
<TKevd^eiv

Kara-

Be TO
717,

/jLev

rrpwrov

OVT<O<J

el

//.?}

yevecrews

dp-^v

e\a/3ev

T)

ftepo? inravecrTOS ouBev

dv en avrr/s ewpdro,

%8a/jLa\d S ?;Sr/ Trdvres IcroTre&ot

rd
rf)
e

oprj Trdvr

eyeyevrjro, KOI ol yetoXocfroi

TO<TOVTWV

TreStaSt

ydp

fcaO

efcacrrov

eviavrov
7T/309

o^pwv

dlBlov (frepo/jLevwv etVo?

^et/Ltappoi?

vtyos rd

/j,ev

TJV rwv 8irjp/jLevu>v 10 aTrepp^^Bai, rd S VTrovocnr]rj8rj

<ravra

K^a\(tcrOat,

Trdvra Se Sid travroiv

\e\eidv6ai

vvvl Be
;

avve^w^ dvw^a\.iai KCU Tro/iTroXXwf opwv at

aldepiov vtyos V7rep/3o\al fjirivv^ar eVrt TOV TTJV d lBiov elvat irdXai yap, co? efajv, ev djreipw ^povw rat? 15

Treparwv
e$>vice

ejrl

Trepara iraff
fyvcns

dv

yap

rj

v8aro<;

icai /j,d
rfj /3ia,

Karapdrrov(ra rd
I

fiev

e^wdev

rd Se

TO)

avve^el TWV ^rend^wv Ko\drrTov(ra

KoC\.a[veiv vrrep-

|
;

yd^eaOai re rrjv <7K\T]poyea)v KOI ^dfo^ecrrdTrjv opvKTrjpwv 20 CVK e\a,TTOv. KOI fjirjv ij ye OdXaacra, tjBrj
(j>acriv,

^dpTvpes S at vr)crwv euBoKif^oorarai, Te Kai A 17X0? avrat ydp TO fiev rrdXaiov r

/jLepeiwTai

Kara

TJ;?

da\drrr]<s

eBeBv/cea-av

erriK\v^6fMevai,

^povw

S
&5?

vcTTepov e\a,TTOvfAevrjs rjpefia /car

6\iyov di la-^ovaai,

25

I
I

ai Trepl avrwv dvaypafalcrai, /j,r/vvovcrt,v icrToplai [rrjv 8e Kai A?}Xoi> wvofiacrav 81 d/j,<f)OTepa)v ovofJLarwv
A.va<f>r)V

maTovfjbevoi

TO \ey6fj,evov,
teal

erreiBrf

ydp

Brj\rj

dvafyavelaa

eyeveTO d8r)\ovfj,evr)

d(j)avr/s

ovcra TO rrd\ai\ rrpbs Be

rreXayiav ^eyd\ov^ K.6\rrov<s Kai /3a$et<? 30 rjTreipwcrdat Kai yeyev?)<70ai r?}? irapaxeiA

fjLevrjs

^u>pa^

/Aoipav ou \vrrpdu
crrifj,eT

crrretpo/j,ei>ov<;

Kai

(frvTevo-

/LteVou?,

ol?

drTa

r^?

TraXaia?
Koy^a<^

va7ro\e\ei<j)8ai,

6a\arr(t)(T(i)s

-^rrj(f)l8d<j

re Kai

aiyia\ovs elwdev

arro{3pdTre<T0ai.

Kai ocra o/jLOiorpowa [Bio Kai HivSapos 35

Xat p

to

OeoB/J,aTa, \i7rapo7r\OKd(j,ov

108
7rai8e<T<ri

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

\arovs Hovrov Ovyarep,
re ftporol
t/j-epoecrrarov Zpvos
%0ovo<;

eupeia? aKivrjrov
8
ev

repaf av
rrj\e-

40

AaXof

Kt,K\ij<TKOva iv,

/ta/cape<?

O\vfj,7T(0

(fravrov

Kvaveas
rrjv

-^6ovo<f

darpov.
alvir/J,ev
rj

Ovyarepa ydp Hovrov

rouevos].
<yf),

A^Xoy eip^Ke ro \e%6ev

6n\arra,
teal

el

87}

/ia/c/3at? 8

peiovrai rj eviavrwv TreptoSot?

peioidijcrerat,

et? arrav eicdrepov

<8e>

crroi^elov

ava\u>6r)crerai,,

SaTravwOjjcrerai

KOL

45

cTL /iTra?

dr;p

eic

rov icar
els

Orjcrerai 8e rcavr
7T/30<?

6\iyov e\arrov^.evo<^, ^iav ovcriav rr/v

(iTrotcpi-

Se rrjv rov rpirov Ke(pa\aiov

(frdeiperai

Xoyw

roi(u8e
ecrrt,

rrdvrws eKelvo, ov rcdvra ra

rcdvra rd pepr)
<f)6aprd

/J.epij

<f)0aprd

rov Be

KOCT/JLOV

eari,

50 (f)6aprof dpa
cnceirreov.

6 ACOCT/ZO? ecrrlv.
/u.epo<?

o 8 inrepeOe^eBa vvv

em01

rrolov

rfjs 7?;?,

JV drro ravrrj^ dp^w^ieda,

\ida)i>

[j,etov

rj

eXarrov,
8

Kparaioraroi dp ov

ia\v6r)crerai ; ^pova) Kal ar/rrovrcu Kara rrjv /LtuScScri

ov

eea>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

rrpwrov dva\vovrat KOVIV

;

vcrrepov 8a7ravr)0evres e%avd\vovrai\ ri 8e

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<$>

GO ola

f r v %rjv
ra>

d(pr)prj/j,evov

^u>ov.

a i ye

^,rjv

rravri

8f)\ai

vocreiv

ydp Kal
e-rrel

<f)6ii>iv

depos (frdopal Kal rporrov rtv

a-ro^a^6fj.evo<;

drroOvrjaKeiv

rrefyvKev.

ri dv rt?, pr)

ovofidrwv evrrperreias
7r\r)v

d\\d

G5

<f>0opa

depos ddvarov ro Trdvrwv ocra ^v)^^ pepoiparai

Trepl
ff

rd\r)dovs, CITTOI Xoipov eivat oiicelov rrddos dva%eovro$ eVt

;

ri ^prj

fj,aKprj-

yopelv
6v,

-rrvpos

fyacriv 01

drpo^r/crav ydp avriKa crftevvvrat eavrov. Sib a-Krjpnrrroirfrai, yeyovos e

;

opBovrat Kara
8"

rrjv rfjs

dva<f>6eicrrj<;

vXrjs vofir)v,

d<f>avierai.

[ro

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

teal

109
(fracri
7rda"%eiv.

TOU9

Kara
yap

rr/v
CTTI

*Iv8iK)}v

BpaKOVrds

70

avepTTOVTas
Trepl
vu>Ta

eXecfravras Kal vrjBuv aTracrav eiXelcrdai, <f)\e/3a 8 fjv av

(J,7TtVtv

ra

fieyL(TTa

TWV ^(awv

rv%r)

oieXovTas

TOV ai uaTos,

cr7ra)/j,evovs /3tai&) Trvevfiarc teal

avvrovw p

ovv

Tii/o?

e%ava\ou[jievovs e/celvovs
teal
rfj

dvTe%tv
rrjv

VTT

afirj-^avLa^

75

dvaaKipriavTas
>9

Trpovo^aia

Ka6iofj,evov<>

TWV
fMv

Bpatcovrcov, etr
fjL,rjtc6Ti

TT\evpav rvTrrovras del Kevov^evov TOV

^WTLKOV

TrrjBdv

.ecrrai/at, piKpov 8

ixrrepov

teal

^vvaaOai, KpaSaivofievovs S rwv crKeXwv egacrOevrjcrdvTrecroi/ra?

To)v KaraaetcrOevTas VTTO Xi0at/z,/a? dTro^ru^eLV

80

Se roi)? atri ou? TOV davcnov a-vvaTT6\\vvai rpoTrw rotwSe

Tpcxprjv oi

Spa /coi/re?,

oi/

irepiedecrav

&ecr/j,oi>

K\veiv

a7ra\\ayt}v

rjSr)

Tro^oufre?, UTTO Se

TOV /3apou? Tcof e\e$dvTwv 7Tiodv TV^r] TroXi) /j,d\\ov

TO
eSa<^o?

6\LJB6fjievoi
(7Tepi(f)ov

<ov>

Tne^ovvTaL teal Kal \iOdo8es 85

et?

iKvcrTrw^evoi

yap Kal TrdvTa vrotouvre?

vTTo r?;?

eV

TOU TrtecravTos ySia? TreS^^eyre? eauroi)? a^nj^avo^ Kal aTropot? yv/jtvdo~ai>Tes

KaOd-rrep oi KaTa\evcr6evTes
7rpoKaTa\r]<p0evTe<;,
rj

<Kal>

Tefyovs

ai(f>vi8iov

eTrevexOevTes

ovo^ ocrov dva-

90

Bvvd^evoc rrviyfj TeXevTwa-iv.] el 8rj TWV jiepuiv e/cacrroi/ roO Kocrfjiov $>6opdv VTTOfAevet, 8rj\ovoTt Kal 6 % JIVTWV 770,7619 OVK e&Tai. TOV 8e TerapTov d<f)dapTos
o<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>Se

(f>a(Tiv.

&>a

d\\wv dfieivov. dv6pw7ra)v yevos ocrw Kal Kal o^riyovov (fravfjvat, rot9 /3ov\ofievois epevvdv Ta
TU>V

d\\d

et/co9 yap fj,d\\ov 8 dvayKalov dvdpwTrois ra9 Te^fa9 &)9 dv t,crr)\i,Ka<? ov fj,ovov brt \oyiKy TO e/ 6ooov OLKelov a\\d Kal OTL fyjv dvev TOVTWV OVK eaTLV 100

roi)9 eKacTTtov
6eol<i

xpovovs
^.

a\oyr)aavTe<i

TWV

fjivdwv

.d\\o TI

%(*)ov,

WCTT

^ ^ el p,r] diotos dvOpwTros, ovo* ai SeSeypevai TavTa

110
teal

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO

vBcop Kal drjp.

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

This point was

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<?, to which may be
et<?,

Stoic.

undoubtedly being proved that these arguments belong to the Stoic school, Zeno is the only Stoic whom Theoovtria,
ai>a</>#etcr77<?

v\r)<;,

and

<J>v<rei

oiiceiov, is

Next,

it

This point

is

proved in detail by Zeller,

1.

c. p.

424, 5.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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

school had been founded for about 15 years.

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

examples (in have been preserved by Seneca: see the collection in

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

effect as the third

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 FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

undoubtedly Stoic doctrine.

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,

these fragments as belonging to Zeno.

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<j
T&>

<f>0opa<;

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

On later Peripatetic. the for responsible

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

nay more, that the original writing, though

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

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
:

why then should we

?

mistrust his citation

of Theophrastus

To

test

this

theory in detail would

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.

especially those of Critolaus

before.

THE FRAGMENTS OF XENO.

of our passage was derived him, and that the main portion that belongs really to Theophrastus from one of them. All of the four arguments is the statement of the headings taken alone, might refer and these headings, if (11. i_5) in agreement with Yet, holding to pre-Aristotelians. which Zeller and against Diels that the arguments by Stoic, he the headings are supported are undeniably Theothe concludes that a younger Peripatetic adopted a doxographical statement phrastean scheme, originally as a groundwork for his doctrines, of

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

have unconsciously taken up identically the same ground

in

support of their

appears to

me more
11.

Zeller s opinion still theory. also Stein, Psych, n. 86, reasonable: see

own

who has
8.

used above from the anticipated the argument

syllogism in
rd

33
cf.

35.

SRTI

Cornut.

c.

17.

p.

85 Osann, ra 8

opr)

(yeryove)
p.

Kara

e%o<rrpaKivnov

rfc 7^9.

Schol. Hes. Theog.

238, ra opt]
/cat
eo%a<?

ras

ro avwp,a\ov rijs avvi&<T<as e\a/3e a tear e^oarpaKia-^ov avrfjs-rrepl

*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

between plup. and

cf.

aor.

with uv

is less

apparent,

e.g. though always present: if imprisonment were contrary

Dem. Timocr.

p.

746

146,

to the Ath. constitution

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

H,5

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

IX.

81,

rwv i]vw^vwv aw^drwv rd pev

VTTO
tyi\f)<>

ee&><?

208). 54.

imvjiaTiKis r6vos
if this

the favourite doctrine of Clean-

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.
:

have be a later addition, and under the circumstances they

been bracketed.
"
"

passing away has el yap peoc TO Plato even yet Ant. 256. \irr^v KOVIV, cf. Soph.
56.
peovrts

in the Heraclitean sense

<rw/wi...(Phaed.

87

D).

W
32. 442.
58.

avo\.

Om. Med. MS.

:

cf.

Biicheler Rhein. Mus.

dW|u*v

the illustration

is

suggestive in connection
cf.

with the doctrine of Trvevpa.

KivovfJ-evov KOI

For pnrL^otro
vir
eiceivov.

frag.

106

dvapiTri&nevov

60.

iHt^v

appears
Cf.

to

not exclusively general and

63.

be attributed to animals in to man, see on frag. 43.

c*rptas.
&5

Plat.

Euthyd. 305 E,

ical

ydp X ei

OVTOK:

Kpirwv

evTrpe-rretav
is

possible that school here, which

there

It ispa\\ov % d\r)0eiav. a reference to some contemporary

had explained
definition
Zeller,
1.

Xoi/xo? after the

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,<rav.

merely be phrase would

equivalent to wo-Trep
&5?
ei

but
iiv el

ellip

*6?
<roi

rjv

tV?-

\iKS

eo? rrjv TTO\IV -^evBofievo^

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.

quibus evpypdruv tempora verant vidit Mangey," Usener.

explica-

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

57.

117

Philargyrius ad Verg. Gcorg. n. 336, Zenon ex

hoc

mundo quamvis aliqua intereant tamen ipsum perpetuo

:

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
:

menta can hardly be a

translation of crroi^ela, which

undoubtedly perished. We must suppose therefore that Zeno is speaking not of the visible world, but of the
universe,
L. vil.

and that elementa

tfooy/,09
is

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?}

dtfrOapros ecrri teal

dyevvr]TO<>,a,i\d

this is the sense

which mundus must bear

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

themselves in the divine unity, but that the inde

cf. ib. p.

terminate matter (a7roto9 v\r)} remains,

58.

34, n. 42.

Diog. Laert.
(fir/a-lv

Vil.

143,

on

re et9

e<rriv

(6
I.

ZTJVWV

ev rco Trepl TOV o\ov.

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.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Sext. Math. IX. 101,

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>9. crvveiadyerai Kal 77 rovrov
a>

V7rapf;i<>.

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
,

...vovv Be /j,6vov (ipa ov8afiov ovra

Math.
6eov.

ix. 77,

M. Aurel.

iv.

4 and see Stein, Psych,

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

Bekker with some

God

to the world see infra, frag. 66.

60.
"

Cic.

N. D. n. 22, Idemque (Zeno) hoc modo:

:

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<;
oloi>

irepie-

^ovaa
KotTfJiov

(f)v<reis

irdvrws eVrl

ov ydp
Kal

re TO o\ov
rj

TOV uepovs yelpov elvaf d\\

BioiKovo-a

el

down]

ecrrt (frvcris

TOV
Kat

voepd

re

ecrrai

cnrovoaia

dOdvaros.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

61.
"

119

Sext. Math. IX. 104,

/jbrj

t ei ]

T ^ ^-oyt-Kov TOV

Kal irdXiv o Zrjvcav \oyiKov /cpelrrov e<TTW ovoev oe

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<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?."

ratione utitur id inelius est

utitvir.

quam

id

quod ratione non

Nihil autem

mundo

melius: ratione igitur niun-

dus utitur.

Cf. ib. in. 22, 23.

Alexinus the Megarian attacked Zeno s position with the remark that in the same way the world might be

proved to be poetical and possessed of grammatical know

ledge.

The

Stoics retorted that

it is

not true that in the

yu.?}
:

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?

(^ucri? \oytKTJ, ov JJLOVOV efju^vy^os (av,

aX\,d

voepos

8e

Kal
1.

<f)povin,o<s.

Siebeck refers to

Arist. de Gen.

An. n.

731 b 25, TO

epvv

TOV

62.
7ji]vwvi

Sext. Math. IX. 107, 8vvd/j,et 8e

TOV

avTov

TU>

\oyov e^eOeTO
(frrjcriv

(scil.

Plato) Kal yap OUTO? TO

(frvaiv

TTOLV

Ka\\i(TTOv eivai
Kal

KaTa

aireipyaafjievov epyov

KaTa TOV
s

ei/coVa \6yov, ^utov efji-^rv^ov voepov Te Kal

\oyiKov. Hirzel

theory,

II.

p. 217, 218,

that Zcno called the

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.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

29
foil.;

and the
Cic.

last frag., cf.

and see esp. 30 M. Aurel.

22,

A,

B which illustrates

iv. 40.

63.
solet,

N. D.

II.

Idemque
:

rationem conclusit hoc modo

similitudine, ut saepe si ex oliva modulate

canentes tibiae nascerentur,

in

num

dubitares qtiin inesset

? 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 ?

This recalls the anecdote about Amoebeus

64.

apoph. 19.
Trvpivov

Stob.

Eel.

i.

23.

1,

p.

200, 21,

Z^vwv

flvat rov ovpavov.

and

Stobaeus couples Zeno with Parmenides, Heraclitus Strato. For the Stoic authorities see Zeller, p. 201.
65.

Achill. Tat., Isag. in Arat. 5. p.

129

e,

Ktrtei)? ouro)?
O"^arov

avrov wpicraro
teal

ovpavos eanv aidepos

Trdvra
e/t</>aixw?

TO

ov
TT\TJV

ev

o>

ecrrt

Trepie^ei

yap Trdvra
repov
e<rri

avrov

ovSev yap eavro Trepie^et

aXX,

TrepieicriKov.
cf.

aiet pos

TO ?arxaTov:
is

Diog. L. vii. 138 quoted below.

"

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).

ovpavw, 6 aldrjp ev Just before he had said ev

rct>

8*
ra>

ovpavos

ovpavw

jrdvra

yap ovpavos TO rrdv

I<TU>S.

wcpUxtu

direct parallel to this

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

oTToaa vor^rd %wa
:

121

cf.

also the Trepie^ov typevfjpes of

foil.).

Heraclitus (Scxt. Math. vn. 127

66.

M. Aurcl. vin.
deov

54.

TOV o\ov

Diog. L. VII. 148, ovaiav KOO~/J,OV Kal rov ovpavov.

i.

8e

Zijvcov

(770- 1

Cf. Stob. Eel.

1.

29, p. 38,

1.

The

Stoics held

6>eot)?. .

TOV

Kocr/jiov
is

God

Kal Tr)v yrjv. In so far as daTepa<? 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

yye^oviKov TOV KOO^OD

suggests
is

may

really only

have said that the world

(6 KOCT/JLOS

formed out of

the divine essence

ovaia 6eov) and that Diog.

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.

19. 4, p. 166, 4, Z^coz/o?.

TU>V

TWV 8

ev

Kocr/Aw
Ttjv

TrdvTcov

KCLT

ISiav

e^tv

crvve<TTU)Ta>v

ra

tj>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

eVt TO ^JukdOV TOV KOCT/AOV TT)V (f)0pdv

%eiV, 5

fj.aXi(TTa 8e TCI (Bdpos e%ovTa.

TavTcv

CLITIOV elvat,

Kal

r^9 TOV KoafAOV

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/<?

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

0X7/9

(Tvcrrao iv TT/DO?

a^aipas rov Koafiov fj,ecrov, avrov TroietcrBai rrjv

7repi<f>epeiav

rrjv

Be

<f)v<rei

TO yap dvaxfroira ravr elvai Bid

7rapa7r\r)o-ia)<i

fiijBevos

Be

TOUTOt<?

o08

avrov

^ere^eiv rov $a<n

etc

15

/3apo<?

eyeiv Sid TO

TT)I>

oXr/v airrou ava-racriv

T6

rrjv aftapaiv. /9apo? eyovrwv <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<ov

elvai teal

etc

rrjv

%ei,v

elvai rrjv

<f>opdv

Tot? TotoiJTOt? cf(t)^acnv] eVt TOU rorrov

20 rovrov
2.

neveiv.
trvvfo-Tomov.

This

is

the most general term, else

a-vve^ea-Bai etc.
is

where opposed
4.

to

<rvvd7rre<r0ai,

iravra rd

(x^pri

K.T.\.

This centralising tendency

rr/v

called

by Diogenes

(vil.

140)

rwv ovpaviwv
is

?rpo?

rd

eTriyeia o-vfnrvotav

teal (rvvroviav.

In the Stoic doctrine

of the microcosm

and the macrocosm there

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.

Cf. Stob. Eel.

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<J>OV
ei<?

/3a/>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

heavy not relatively, as in

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

lineis in

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

Aristotle (ap. Stob. Eel. TOTTOV Kivrjo-ea) ? rrjv /J-ev

1

I.

19. 1, p. 163,

9,

rrjs

8e

Kara

CLTTO

TOV

/jiecrov

^ivecrdai, rrjv Se

e-Trl

TO

/jieaov, TJJV
CLTTO

depo<?

TOV

Se Trepl TO /jiecrov Trupo? fj,ev ovv KOI /jiecrov, 7779 Kal uSaro? eVl TO pecrov, TOV

TrefjiTTTOv Trepl

10.

Ttivfa-Qou.

TO f^eaov.). So Diels for 8^

:

MSS.

ylveo-0ai, a correc

tion

more probable

for

palaeographical reasons and in itself

more
p.

attractive than

Meineke

Ktvelcrdac.

29, TOVLKTJV elvai Klvrjcriv Trepl TO,

Nemes. 2. aw^iaTa et? TO eVw

Cf.

apa

Kal TO

e%u>

tcivovpevriv.

44. 7.

1054

K,

OVTW 8e TOV o\ov

Chrysipp. ap. Plut. Sto. Rep. Teivofj,evov et? TOWTO Kal

:

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.

component parts are

ap.

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

Plut. Sto. Rep. 44.

that at the
(Eel.
I.
I.

e /cTrupcocrt?

the world

is

resolved into the void

cf. ib.

18.

b. p.

160, 11 and Euseb. P. E. xv. 40):

21. 3 b,

/j,iJTe

av^ecrdaL 8e piJTe fieiovo-dai TOV Kocrpov

/j,ev

Tot? Se pepecnv oVe

cTe Be o-vo-Te\\ea-dai.

TrapeKTeLvecrdai Trpo? Tr\eiova TOTTOV This is not necessarily inconsistent

with Prof. Mayor

"the

s explanation (on N. D. II. 116) that all-pervading aether, while it has a naturally ex-

124

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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.
<rtaCpas
:

for the Stoic doctrine of the rotundity of

1.

the world,

cf.

Stob. Eel.

15. 6
vii.

ot STGH/COI a-(f)aipoei8rj

TOV

Koa-pov d-ire^vavTo, Diog. rtimVoSe? Cic. Acad. II. 123.

17.
iropd
Si

140, Cic.

N. D.

I.

24, hence

TTIV

et o-iv:

in itself earth /3apo? e^et

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<?

18.
vii.

(w o^v.

137, 155, Cic.

For the position of the earth N. D. I. 103.

15. 6
a

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.

156, 27, Ziivnv

teal ot

air

avrov 6^-09
(iTreipov.

TOV

tcacr/iov fjitj^ev elvai KCVOV,

e!~(i)

icai Siatyepeiv Be icevov, TOTTOV, ^wpav xevov elvai eprjplav (TW/JMTOS, TOV Se TOTTOV TO

TO

VTTO crw/AaTos, TTJV Be

-%<apav

TO

etc

Cf. Diog.

VII.

140,

e j;<i)dev

&e

pepovs e avTov
ev

elvai TO icevov aTreipov

OTrep

acrw^iaTov elvat

&e TO olbv T

KaTe%e<jdai

VTTO a-wfuiTcov ov KaTe%6/j,evov

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>6ev 8 avTov
aireipov.

M. Aurel.

X. 1.

Diels adds Theodoret

IV. 14, e

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

rov Travros
re teal (tTreipov.
fj,T)Sev

125 avrov

eivai Kevov, e/cro? oe

The Epicureans held that without the

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

within or without the universe.

Kevov,
TOTTOV,

\upoiv.

The

Stoics

and the Epicureans

2, 3.
I.

were
terms

in virtual
:

agreement

in their definitions of these

see

Sext.
cf.

Emp.

adv. Math. x.

For a
1

fuller

exposition

Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Eel.

18. 4

p.

161, 8,

Kevov to an empty, TOTTO<? 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.

284, 10, (TO

Trepie^ov

eivai Ke-^wpia-f^evov Kal dOpoov

Ka& avro
TU>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.

213 a 31, fyaal

(scil.
e^u>

Se xai 701)9 rrepl Tiijvwva rov

Ktrtea ovroo
TWV

rov ovpavov eivai Kevov

KaO

avro) So^d^eiv.
dpxai<ov

nvis are probably

jrvev/jLa

believed in
called Kevov
cratics
I.

an aireipov

the Pythagoreans who outside the universe,

(Zeller, pre-So-

by some of the authorities

pp. 467, 8).

71.
</>77crt

Stob. Eel.

I.

25. 5, p. 213,
/cat
r<av

Kal r?]v aeXr/vrjv

eivai

voepov Kal

(frpovi/Jiov

15, Zijvwv rov rj\iov d\\(DV aarpwv eKaarov ovo Trvpivov rrvpos re^vLKov.
et9

yap

yevrj 771*009, TO p,ev

are^vov Kal uerd{3a\\ov

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

f
7TVpO<?

evdl

TTJV

rWV

(UTTpfOV
rrjv fj.ev

rov 8 rj\iov icai V7TO rov Kocr/j,ov

rrjv
d.Tr

a~e\^vrjv Bvo (fropds

dvaro\rj<;
et<>

<f>epecr6ai,

dvaro\i)v,

rrjv 8

evavriav
e/c-

etc

%o)Biov

fiTd/3aivovTd<t.

rd^ 8
Trepl

Tovrciiv ^i^veadai,
<rvv6Sov<;,

8ta</>op<u?,

tfXiov

pkv
/cat

ra?
8

0-6X77^779 Be trepl

ra?

Travcre\rivov<;

yi<yvea-6ai

^V

dp<j>oTep(i)v

ra?
p.

e/cXei ^et?

/cai

/u,ei

bi/<?

eXarroi;?.
e<f>ria-ev

>Stob.

Eel.

I.

2(5. 1,

219, 12,

Zqvw

TI]V cre\rjv t]v

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
<j>v<ris

20 and 30.

cf.

Cleanth. frag. 30.

refers to
<f>vrois

and

^u%7
is

to

%a>ois

cf.

fr;ig.

43.

The
<j>op<is.

first

movement

the diurnal revolution

:

from east to west (from one rising to another) the second is the orbit described Kara rov <pBuucbv KVK\OV, occupying For the either a year or a month, as the case may be.
Zodiac
vir6
cf.

Diog. L. vn. 155, 150.

Koo-fxov,
i.e.

TO!

they move with the aether which

revolves round the three lower strata of the world.

latter are

These
used as

themselves stationary, so that /eooyiou

1.

is

in Cleanth. frag. 48,

7,
is

where see

note.

The whole

structure of the cosmos

Chrysippus ap. Stob.

Eel.

I.

very clearly expounded by 21. f. p. 184, 185; and cf.

especially rov...KO(Tp,ov ro fjiev elvai Trepifyepofievov Trepl TO TO 8 VTTOfjievov 7Tpi<f)ep6/j,evov iikv rov aldepa VTTOfjL<rov
fjLevov

Be rr)V yrjv KOI

ra

eV

avrijs

vypd
rd

tcai

rov aepa...ro
&>

8e

7repi<j>ep6fj,evov

avTaj

eyKVK\io)<f

aWepa

elvat, ev

ra

darpa

KadiBpvrat, rd T dir\avrj

fcal

7r\ava>/jLeva,

Oeia

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

fyvcriv

127

ovra KOL

e/jb^rv^a

real

Sioitcovfjieva

Kara

TTJV

Trpovoiav.
u8iov:
dictum"

according

to

Diels,

the

ace.
et?,

is

"insolenter

and requires the addition of

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
<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

see infra frag. 73.

"

(it^ovs Kal

Narrows

entire

and

partial."

72.
(i.e.
<[iie

Cic.

N. D.

I.

36,

idem (Zeno)

astris

hoc idem

vim divinam)
mutationibus.
astris.

tribuit turn annis, mensibus,

annorumtaught

On

the other hand

the Epicureans

that the stars

could not possess happiness or

move

in

consequence of design.
rivd avvecnpan-p.eva
rrjv

Diog. L. X. 77, /^re av TrvpwSr)

fjuaKapiorr/Ta

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

regelmassig erfolgende Umlaufe der Sonne

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>pwv

Trepi,

riva d\\ov \6yov

"^v-^rj

epov/^ev
7rdvTO)i>

rov avrov rovrov, w? eVetS?}

Tovrcav

ainai

efyavrjcrav,

dyaOal

/xev r/ -^rw%al Se Trdcrav dperrjv,

deovs aura? elvai

ovra,
Kocr/jiovcri

<f)r/<TO[j,ev,

elre ev

awpao iv
OTTTJ

evovacu,

^wa
:

Trdvra ovpavov, eire

IX.

re Kal OTTOK

In Sext. Math.

184 an argument of Carneades

is

128

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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>

Be

eo>

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<?

avrw

ffe\^vr)<;

Kara TO
Trepl

7rpo<?

T^a
yap

eo?

Tii^vwv

dvaypd^ei ev
rat?
<rvv68ois

TO>

o\ov.

(^aiverai

7rapa\\drrovcra.

Kal aTroKpvTTTOvcra avrov /cat yvcopL^erai Be rovro Bid Xe/caj/7;?

/j,7ri7TTOvcrav 6t?

vBwp 7^9 aiciacrfjLa.

jjiovais,

e ^oua?;?.

rrjv Be creXr/vrjv

TO

TT;?

66ev

Kal

Tat?

trava e\T/voi<;

eK\etTTlv
fjLrjva

Kaijrep

Kara Bidp-erpov lara^vrfv Kara

co?
17

TCO

r)\i(p

on Kara \oov
ru>

TT^O? TOJ^ ij\iov Kivovftevr)

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

lumen obscurat, turn ipsa incidens in umbram

terrae,

cum

est e regione solis, interpositu interiectuque terrae

deficit.
"

repente
rais

<rvv68ois

Rep.

I.

25,

Pericles... docuisse

at the period of conjunction." Cf. Cic. cives suos dicitur, id

quod ipse ab Anaxagora, cuius auditor fuerat, exceperat, certo illud (eclipse of sun) tempore fieri et necessario,

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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>]v

etsi
nisi

Xpvannro<;

ae\r)VrjV

T>/9

7*7? aVTr)

7Tl7rpO(T00V(T r)S Kdi

et9 (Ttciav dvTrjs efMTrlTTTOvaav.

Travo-tXTJvois
:

the fact was a matter of

vii.

common

observa

tion:

cf.

Thuc.

50,

77

/jLr/vrj

K\L7rei

eTvj^ave yap
vii.

7rai>(7e\rjvo<;

ovaa.

Kara.

Xooi):
p.

hence e\iKOi8r) in Diog. L.

o>8tW.

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

alternative explanations, of which this

74.
ve<f>c5v

is

one (Diog. L.
8e

x. 96).

Diog.

L.

vii.

153,
rj

154,

da-Tpa-n-^v

e^a^ru>

TrapaTpifiopevcov
V TO) TTCpl
s
rj

0\OV

pyyvvfjievcov VTTO Trvev^aro^, 8e TOV TOVTWV /3pOVTl]l>

l}f6(f)Ol>
<r<f>o8pciv

w?
K

Kepavvov St egatyiv TTLTTTova-av eVt 7^9 v(pcov

pqgew

pent

Cf.

Chrysippus ap. Stob. Eel.

ve(j)v eKTpifio^evwv
elvai TOV

I.

29. 1, p. 233, 9, da-rpapijyvvfjievwv VTTO irvevrj

TTTJV ega-friv

r}

/uaTo?, /3povrr/v 8

TOVTWV ^ro^)ov...orav 8e

TOV

TTvevpaTOs (popd <T(j)o8pOTepa yevrjTai teal 7rvpw8ij<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.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

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

this point the majority of the Stoic school

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

rovro Be Kal perpov ypovov elvai Kivijaewt Btdcrrrj/j.a,

Kal /3pa8i/T/?TO9 O7ra)9 e^e xpinipiov ra^ou? re Kara TOVTOV Be yiyvea-Bai rd ^ivo^eva Kal rd

aTtavra
rdov

Kal rd

ovra

elvai.
}iev
>

Simplic.
rrdaTjs

ad Cat. 80 a
7rX&5?

4,

Be

^.rwiKwv Zt jvatv
rov

Ktvr

)(T(i><;

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<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

THE FRAGMENTS OF XEXO.

after
/BpaBvrrjro^,
as

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

">

e/cacTTo?.
is

must be corrupt, as some verb balance ylveo-dai and elvai. Usener suggests
airavra

required to

diraprL^ecrOat,,

which gives the required sense,

ap. Stob. Eel.
I.

cf.

(iTraprLa-fjiov.

Chrysipp.

Diels correction airav42, p. 106, 17. -rav is less satisfactory in meaning.

8.

77.

Censorinus de die Nat. xvn.

]>utarunt

2,

triginta saeculum

multum videntur

quare qui annos errasse. hoc

<|uia

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?
:

this substantially accords

with the popular

142,

as

recorded

by Herod.
ICTTL.

II.

yeveai

yap

<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

properly used with the meaning

this supports the derivation from sero, satus (Curtius G. E. I. p. 474 Eng. Tr.). For examples see

generation

and

the Lexx.

Herudicus: either (1) the Alexandrian grammarian, or

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.
:

(2) the physician of

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

also in Pint. plac.
I.

same words occur

Hist. Phil.
c.

15. 5

and in Galen

10. XIX.

258 Kuhn.

The above known of the

curean view
p.
cf.

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.

Epiphan. adv. Haeres.

Be air las
riplv,
e<$>

ill.

2.

(ill.

36), Diels p.
TT>)

592,

ra<?

OIK
e<f>

TWV -rrpay^cnwv TTTJ pkv rjniv TWV Trpaj^iTwv rovrea-Ti, rd

e<j>

Be

pei>

e</>

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

which they supported their

Haeres.
I.

position,

cf.

Hippolyt.

adv.

18, teal avTol Be TO

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^<?

dvd^Kt]S olov

T?;?

el^apfj,evT)^

edv Be pi]
orj

7rea-6ai

Trdinw
-jrdvTWS

dvayKaa6>]creTaf

TO av-ro

TTOV

TWI>

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.

povXopevoi yap aKO\ovdelv TO ire-rrpw^evov ei<re\0eiv.

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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.

Censorinus de die Nat.

iv.

10,

Zenon

Citicus,

Stoicae sectae conditor, principium huinano generi ex novo inundo constitutum putavit, primosque homines ex solo

adminiculo divini
This doctrine

ignis, id est dei providentia, genitos.

is

connected with that of the destructi:

bility of the world

is

cf.

frag.

5G,

where however there

unfortunately a lacuna at the point where the origin of

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>

$>aai

T>/9

i]fjLwv

7rpo<?

TGI)?

dp^aiorepov^

teal ?;p&)a?

Klvov<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>v.

rt

riva? Sut-c/^ei?

Cf.

Cic.

Leg.

I.

24.

Tusc. in.

2,

nunc parvulos mjbis dedit (natura) igniculos quos

celeriter

134

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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

of the eternity of the

human

race or of animals possible.

1.

Aristotle, however, expressly says (de Caelo

10 279 b 12)
to

that

none

of his

the world predecessors had held

in
this

Unless therefore be without beginning to reference Aristotle is mistaken, the Pythagoras in the
sense.

must be erroneous: see the discussion present passage

in
p.

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.

392), or on the earth, as

Diogenes

Somewhat similar were the of Apollonia (ib. I. p. 296). views of Empedocles and Anaxagoras (ib. II. pp. 160, 365).
82.

Schol. ad Plat. Alcib.

I.

p.

121 E Si?

e-rrra
<9

Tore yap 6 reXeto? eV rnjiiv (i7ro<f>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>

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

01
IJLCV
"^.rwiKol

135
TOI>

\eyov(TL

/AI)

evdvs
TTO

efA<f)V&0ai

\oyov,

varepov Se o-vvaOpoi^ecrdat,
CTLWV Trepl
tcaO

TWV

ala-6r]creu>v /cal (fravra-

SeKareaaapa

errj.

Plut. plac. IV. 11, o Se ^0709

etc

7rpocrayopev6fj,0a \oyiKol avfj,7r\rjpova 0aL \eyerai Kara rrjv

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"?)

Diog. VII. 55,

fywvr]. ..CLTTO

eKTre/jiTTO/jievr), o$9 o Aioyevr/s (frrjaiv

era>v

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>voiai,

A\K(iawv: this statement

is

not referred to in Zeller

I.

account of Alcmaeori (pre-Socr. Aristotle cf. Pol. I. 13 1260 a 14.

Euseb.
p.

pp. 521

526).

For

83.

P.

E.

xv. 20,
^rv^rj<^

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

al ^rw^ai dva0vfAi,a)fj,evai voepai ael

\eyu>v

yivovrai etKacrev
Kal

avras rot9 7TOTa/aoi9

8e
(ITTO
TU>V

OVTCOS

TTOTCI-

rolati avrolcrtv e/n/Batvovcriv erepa Kal erepa

voara

cnv
i

[j,ev

^rv^al ovv

vypwv

a
rrjv

o/ioi&)9

TCO

Hpa/cXetVw

Zrjvcov,

(iLcrdrjTifCTJv

8e

avrrjv elvai Bid TOVTO

\eyei,

on

rvTrovaOai re Bvvarai, [TO neyedos~\ TO /iepo9 TO

Kal
<7Ttv.

i]yov/jLevov avrrjs (ITTO

rwv ovrwv Kal vTrap^ovrutv Ota rwv TrapaBe^eaOai r9 TVirwcreis ravra yap

136
:

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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
<ru/i</>ue<>

dvaBvjUturiV al&QrjriKrjv dva7rrop,evrjv

rwv

ev trw/nart

vypwv.
avaev|ia<riv
:

cf.

Ar. de

Anim.
elvai

I.

2.

16.

405 a 25,
eiTrep

ical

H/3aXetro<?

Be TTJV
r*<?

dpyyv
("

<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<;

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>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.

Hence, as Diels observes, there

the
soul

is

no

necessity to read erepat del.

ffKao-cv

avrds:

principle

of

fravra

no

less

to

the

than to
/cat

the

world

pel applies in general

:

thus Arist. l.c. continues dtrui^arutrarov re Kal peov dei TO Be Kcvov^evov Kivovpevw ycyvoocrKea-Oai ev Ktvr)<ret
B* elvai

rd ovra xaKeivos
it is

cuero Kal oi TroXXot.

The

soul

is

voepd because

in flux.

For

Trora/ioicrt cf. Plat. Crat.

402

A,
eo<?

HpaXe6T09...7roTa/zoi)
819 e? rov

\eyet

por) djreiKa^wv rd ovra ainov Trora^ov OVK av e^^alrj^. R and

P26.
Ko...dvaevpnivrai.

words

to

Bywater Heracl. Zeno and not to Heraclitus

fr.
:

42 ascribes these

the importance of

this will

appear presently.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

ofiouos
:

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<ipovs (iv6p(aTcwv o(f)0a\/j,ol Kal
:

frag.
p.
1

11 Sch. and Stein, Erkenntnistheorie,

rrjv aia-ffycriv

hence Sextus infers that Heraclitus held

elvai (Math. VII. 126).
o-eai
:

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.

44 part, horn. p. 8e teal irvev/jia Yirjvwv TO avro eivai

ed. Clinch,

n.

85.

Diog. L.
riijv

VII.

157, Ztjvwv Se 6 KiTievs...

rovrto

7ri>eviJ.a

evdepfjiov elvai

"^rv^v.

yap

eivac
r//ji(i<;

/J,TTVO-

ou9, Kal VTTO

rovrov Kivel&Oai.

Cf. Alex.
TIJS
IK.
STO<>

7TJ>evfjia

Aphr. de an. p. 26, 16 avrtjv Xeyovres

ed.

Bruns,

01

a-jrb

eli>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>
K.T.\.

If

any of the authorities seem to assert that

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

where however the reference to Sext. Math.

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.

IX. 71, XCTTTO /^e pei?

r;

yap ovaai

(al -^rv^al) Kal

ovy TITTOV 7rvp(a?)ei<; TOTTOU? Kov

TrvevfAaTwSeis et? roi)?

dvw

/j,d\\ov

138
viro

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

TOVTOV Kivicr0ai
:

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.

ye eTroiro (Aioyevr)? 6 Kal Tirjvwvi, rpe^ecrOai

283 Kiihn), Ba/3tAamo9) K\edv8ei teal

II.

(v.

fiev e

at/zaro?

0?;cra<Ti

It is

V7rdp%eiv TO Trvevfia. doubtful whether the doctrine of the nourishment

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>

rwv vypwv, who however goes on expressly

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
:

regard this as a Stoic

innovation

just as the stars in the fiery aether are fed by

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF XENO.

to

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.

Longinus Kal K\edv0ei

Trepl

XV. 21, Zrjvcovt

fj,ev

rt? av SIAOU CO? ovrw

crtfroSpa
/cal

avri^

(scil.

^L% /?)

8ia\e%6ela-L
rrjv

ravTov

d/jL(pw

rov

crrepeov

a/ /xaro?

eivat,

"^v%rjv

(prjaacri.
<ydp

Theodoret,

gr. aff. cur. p.

934 Migne,

(JArivwv

KOI K\edv0rjs) rov crrepeov at/zoro?

crcw/noro? for al/iaro?,

eivac rrjv

tyv^v dvadv^lauiv. In both cases the MSS. have

but

words are often confused and The emendation satisfactory sense.

the
Psychol.
p.

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,

denique Zeno con-

um

spiritum definiens anirnam hoc

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.

spiritus anima est: Somn. Sc. I. 14. 19,

Zenon
Cf.

(dixit

animam) concretum corpori spiritum. Chrysipp. ap. Nem. Nat. Horn. c. 2, p.

crn
d,7ro

33,

^typicryu-o?
<To

^rv xfis

aTto crwfAaTOS

ov8tv Se

>/iaro9

^wpl^erai

ov&e yap

rov trw/aaro?.

ado/aa

dpa

Y)

~^~v^.

See

Zeller, Stoics

140
p.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

and the following
III.

211, where further illustrations to this

frag, will

be found in the notes,

concretum or consitum
Hipp, et Plat.
eart,
crv/j.<f)VTOV

corpori spirituni
(V.

= Chrys.
rj

ap. Galen.
Trvevfid

287

Kiihn),
T&>

^v^t]

r^lv

cTwe^es Travrl
cjuo digresso

crca^arc StrJKov (quoted

by

Zeller).

For

etc. cf. Cic.

animi a corpore putent

a pa
/LIT)

18, sunt qui discessum esse mortem. Plat. Phaed. 64 c,

Tusc.

I.

a\\o

TI (r/yovfj,e6a

rov ddvarov elvai)

f/

rrjv

rtj<f

90.

Chalcid. in Tim.

c.

220, Spiritum quippe

:

animam

esse

Zenon quaerit hactenus

animal, hoc recedente moritur animal spiritu

moritur

quo recedente a corpore certe anima est. natural! porro

:

naturalis igitur spirit us

anima

est.

It is possible that this passage

and the extract from

Tertullian

(fr. 89) are derived from a common original, as in their but, present form the syllogisms are directed

to distinct

points,

it

has been thought better to keep

them

separate.
Be

91. Galen, Hist. Phil. 24, Diels, ovaiav avrijs (tyv%fjs) oi (icrwp.aTOv
/Ltei>

p.

613,

TJV

e<j>acrav

w?

01

Be crdojjLara Kivtiv to? /jrjvwv real ol

avrov.

yap elvai Tavrrjv inrevorjcrav KOI OVTOI.

KIVCIV. So MS. A, but B has creo/tara crir/Kivovv and the Latin version of Nicolaus has "corpus simul secum movens." Wachsm. conj. crwp-ara a^a KLVOVV. rd Usener Diels avro crw/j-a crca^ara KLVOVV.
<rw|iaTa
<r&)fta
:
:

au>^a

KIVOVV sive e^ eavrov Kivov^ievov.

Coll. Gal. def.

Mod. 30

Kara 8e
ovpevov.

rov<t

STOH/COI)<?

croiifia

XeTrro/iepe? e^ eavrov KIV-

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.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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

...rrjv ^vvafjievriv avrrjv Kivelv Kivricnv,

is

where the argument

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.
<ucrew?

The theory
as on

of rovos throws an entirely new light on this, many other Stoic doctrines, which were originally

adopted on independent grounds.

92.
(ITTO

Stob. Eel.

I.

49. 33, p. 367, IS,

(f)i\6cro(f)0i
f^-ev

d\\d ^ev

ol

ye
TO)

\pvcri7nrov Kal Yjrjvwvos

Tt}v

Kal Trdvres oaoi

a-wfJia

^rv^v

voovcri,

rs"

BwdfAeis
Ttjv

w? ev

V7TOKeifJ,va>

TTOtor^Ta?

ovcriav

Trpov7roKei{A}>rjv

^rv^rjv w? rat? Svva/Aecrt TiOeacriv, GK &

o-u/j,/3i/3d^oucTi,

St

dfj,<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

has also a quasi-physical application

see Zeller, Stoics,

different

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

any particular object bear Emp. Math. vu. 234, (paa-l

yap

^rv^rjv \eyea~6ai

Kal Kar
VT]v

ISi av
:

TO re crvve^ov rrjv 6\rfv crvy8f^<w? TO rjye^iovLKOv. for the significance of this expression,

see Stein, Erkenntriistheorie, p. 310.

142
93.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

N ernes.
f>r]criv

de Nat. Horn. TTVT

p. 96, Zijvcov

8e 6
is

elvai Ti]v ^rv^rjv, Siaipwv avTrjv

ra<?

rjyffjLoviKov

Kal

etV

cuV6tycret<

Kal ei? TO
I.

TIKOV KOI TO (TTreppaTiKov.

Stub. Eel.
TI]V
^fv-^t}^

49. 34, p. 369, 6,

ol

GLTTO

/iijvwvos OKTapepr)
8vvdfj,ei<f

Biaoo^d^ovcrt

<rjv>

ra?

elvai TrXeioya?, tocnrep ev

TW
\6yov.

evvrrap-^ovaMV fyavraaias, criry/caTa^ecrea)?, We must distinguish tho pepr) ^v^f)*;

vdpets,
for

opjj.ij<;,

from the Su-

they are not identical, as the passage in Stoba-us shows. Sext. Emp. Math. vn. 237, Kal yap
>

opurj
elcrl

Kal

r]

crv<yKaT(i6cri<i

Kal

77

/caraX^^tv erepotwcret?

TOV rjyepovtKov.

In spite of this eightfold division

:

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<J

soul".

^Y*H

LOVIK<

>

"We

have clear evidence here that the

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 <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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

in the

143
1.

c. On the other hand Weygoklt, r/<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

text of Zeno, the dis

crepancy would explain

If all that

we knew

of

psychological divisions

had been contained

in this

passage and a statement that he divided the soul into \6yov evpv, dvfAoet&es, and eTriOvftrjTiKov, we should have had

some

the two. difficulty in reconciling

Hirzel,

II.

p.

154,

155 appears to be unaware of the passage in Nemesius: he accepts the evidence of Tertullian, but explains it as

an ethical rather than a physical distinction.

95.

Ktrtei)? 6
voj

Epiphan. adv. Haeres. in. 2. 9 (in. 36), Zrjvcav v ..Seiv. ..e^eiv TO Oelov ev fjiovw rw STOHKO?
e(f>i.

fid\\ov Be Oeov TOS eXeye Se KCU

KCti

rjyeia Oai.
fjierd

rov vovv.

eari,

yap dOdvaBe

ercaXei rrjv

fyv"%i]V

^wpiap-ov rov aui^aro^ Tro\v%poviov TrvevfJia, ov

/JDJV

eKBcnravdrai yap a(f)6aprov 8S cA,ou e\eyev avr^v elvai. (Jf. VTTO rov TTO\\OV ^povov et? TO d<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.

dicens earn esse

praeter
;

nisi corpore

TO 0iov:

cf.
:

n-oXvxpoviov

Cleanth. frag. 21, Stein, Psychol. p. 97. the language of this extract recalls the

objection of Cebes in the

Phaedo

to Socrates

proof of

144

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

the immortality of the soul p. 87 A 88 B, recapitulated ro Be a7ro<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>

irdvra ovBev Kd)\veiv dv6p(i)Trovs yevecrdai ori Be dQavacriav fiev /JLTJ, TroKv^povLov re
(f>r)<;

*a *
tcai

tf

Kal

ySei

re

Tporepov d^-^avov oaov xpovov For the zrrparrev TTO\\CL drra K.r.X.
v 7rov

limited future existence which the Stoics allowed to the

soul see Zeller, p. 218 foil, and add Schol. ad Lucaa ix. 1, alii (animas) solidas quidem, postquam exierint de corpore,

haec permanere, sed deinde tractu temporis dissipari in variation considerable was There opinio Stoicorum. soul of the members various of detail among the
:

points see on Cleanth. frag. 41.

TOV
o-oi|iaTos:

some such words

this is

as -^povov

nvd

Siapevetv

have

fallen out here.

ov...a4>6apTov:

not inconsistent with dOdvaros

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;

Themist. dc An. G8 a Speng.

2,rivo)vi

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"

<}>dopds

30
the

65,

where he says that one of the objections to

is

the view that the soul Ktvei ro o-wfia

soul s

that in that case

movements
its

will

body, so that if the same and change

the body moves

correspond to those of the do locally, the soul may

dvi<r-

by leaving
raffBai

it.

el

the body position with regard to ro dv Be TOUT fVSe ^erat, ihroir

roov

rd reBvewra

tywv.

We

might

therefore

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

infer

14o

from this passage that Zeno taught that the soul

is

moved

the body (frag. 91). Themistius says that Zeuo

/cpacrt? 01

rescued from this dilemma

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.

49. 33, p. 3G8, 6, read

oi)?

8e pia

TO) crwfJiaTi.
<7u>^a

TU>

yap Trporepov TO avrdov (TOOV -fyvxwv) aXX, avral StaKpaTriTiKov i]v The best illus <T(t)/j,aTi (rvp-^ovf)^ r/crav aiTLai K.T.\.
Sext. Math. IX. 72, ouoe

tration

however

is

Sext. Math. vn.

23-i,

<$>a<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

^rv^rjf Kal crftj/zaro?,

O.TCO

rj

TOV OavaTov etvai

lyye-

"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<?,

altogether
p.

non-existent.

105

foil.)

But

(See Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, there is no inconsistency with the

present passage, since the change of TO avve%ov from t is TOV o-vy/cpl/uiaTos (for <f)6opd ~^ V <j)0opd
< >

")C1

}(6dvaTos see on frag. 95).

97.

Lactant.

Inst.

vu.

7.

20,

Esse

inferos

Zenon
:

Stoicus docuit et sedes piorum ab impiis esse discretas

et illos (juidem quietas et delectabiles incolere regiones, hos vero luere poenas in tenebrosis locis atque in caeni

voraginibus horrendis. Cf. Tertull. de anima

c.

54, quos

quidem miror quod

imprudentes animas circa terrain prosternant

H.
P.

cum
10

illas

14G

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

ubi

a sapientibus multo superioribus erudiri adfirment. erit scholae regio in tanta distantia diversoriorum ?

qua

ratione discipulae ad magistros conventabunt, tanto dis-

crimine invicem absentes

eruditionis usus ac fructus

turis
?

quid autem illis postremae iam iam conflagratione peri-

Hirzel thinks reliquas animas ad inferos deiciunt. of the souls of the lost in Aen. that Virgil s description
vi. is

derived from Stoic sources, and therefore ultimately

Eel. vi. 31, Georg. IV. 220, Aen. the influence of Stoicism on Virgil. The same

from Zeno, and refers to

vi. 724, for

writer correctly points out the distinction between the

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

importance to a theory stated in these terms, better to regard it as a concession to popular

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.

Pint. plac. IV. 21. 4, TO Be (fxavdzv VTTO rou

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

elpr]/j,evov,

147

KOI

(f)a)vrjv

Ka\ovcnv,

ecrri rrvevp,a
/

drro rov rfyefioviKov f^e^pt (fxipvyyo^ Kal

oltcelcov

y\a>rr r]s

KOI

rwv

opydvwv. Cf. on Cleanth. fra. 43.

506, p. 1158, 37, elrcwv rov Kara T^r/vwva Trjs opov 7rpov7re/3a\ev elrrovra (pa)V7) eariv drjp rreII.
"Q/jir/pos

99.

Eustath.

in

Kavravda

"

Cf. Diog. L. VII. 55, ecrrt 8e

(frcovr)

drjp

This

frag,
is

Sound

taken from Wachsmuth, Comm. I. p. 12. produced by the breath coming in contact with
is
;

the external air

in the case of

an animal the

air is said
is

to be struck vrrb op^rj^, while the voice of

man

KOI

CLTTO

Biavolas eKTre^Tro^evrj, Diog.

1.

c.

evapOpos See also the

passages quoted by Stein, Psychol. n. 248. Cf. Plato s definition, Tim. p. 67 B.,
<f>a>vr/v

oX&>?

ph
re
is

ovv
Kal

ddofiev rr/v 81

wrwv
dico^,

VTT

depo<?

ey/ce<f)a\ov

al fj,aros fJ-^pt, ^v-^fj^

II.

7r\r)>yr)v

SiaStSo/j,evr)v.
fywvrj.
firj

Ar. de An.

8 discusses -v^o^o?,
V7rofjiVT)

and

Sound
(

formed

orav

TrXT/Yei? 6 drip Kal

is

8ia%vdfj

3, p.

419

b 21):
(

voice

then defined as A^O^O? ris

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<; 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>o>vrj

<f>dpvyyos

oOev

8e

\6yo<f,

Kal

(frwvr)

eKeWev ^wpel.
eyKe<$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)

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

(TTj^aivovcra evapdpos (pwvrj efceWev

TOVTO oe
/cat
rj

KOI Xoyos

trceWev
<ipa

eKTre /iTrerat

Wev

Galen
also

comment

is

that Zeno has omitted some of the

necessary

d^iu>ij.ara,

points out the

He while Diogenes has too many. fallacy underlying the preposition

;

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>

Bei KOI

yiyveo~6ai, TOVTCCTTIV, ev eKtlvw

elvai i/reOSo?, ov
K7TfJ.7reTai
rt

fiopiw.

TOV oia\oyio-/j,ov TOVTO O (prjcrofiev

K
TTJV

yap

ei

Tt /cara irpoaipecriv

KaT

eicelvo

TO

poptov

Sei/cvvTai

ovBe TO ip^eiv, Kaddjrep

s

ovpov ovSe TO TTTV\OV

ov&e

rj

Kopv^a ovSe
is

TO diroTraTrip,a.

Wachsmuth quotes
in

further passages from Galen

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

was the seat of reason

p.

(Zeller,

See generally Stein, Psychol.

Galen,

137.

101.

Hipp, et Plat. plac.

n.

5,

v.

p.

247,
iip,a

Kiihn, KOI TOVTO f3ov\Tai ye

7^vwv
TW

Kal

Xpi;crt7r7ro<?

TW

(T&eTepa) yopta TCO.VT\

oiaoi8o<rdai

TTJV

etc

TOV

Trpoa"-

Trecro/

TO? e^wdev eyyei opevrjv

iv

fiopica

Kivr)<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
<f>d)vr)

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

the seat of feeling
Opif. p.
is

149
Philo de mund.
frag.
3).

in the

i}<yepovucov.

114

Pfeiff.

(quoted on Cleanthes,

See

also Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 306.

102.

Galen,
Zrjvu>v

Hipp,

et

Plat.

plac.

nr.

5,

v.

p.

322,

Ku hn,

o re

vrpo? TOI)?

eTri\a/A/3avo/Aevov<>,
"

on

Trdvra

rd fyrovpeva
tcaraTriverai
?;?
",

ei<?

TO arofjua (pepei, efpr/crev dX)C ov rravra ovre T??? Karcnrocrews d\\u>s civ olfceiorepov

rov

TV? KarajBdaews Owpaica TO I jyefAoviKov

I.

ovre

rwv
rjpJlv

prjOevrcov,
riv,

el

/u,/}

et?

ravra

irdvra

(frepeTai.

<|>pi,

so

Miiller for

MSS.
as

(frepeiv.

was formerly punctuated

from
is

though Zeno

This obscure passage s words extended

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

fjioviK.ov in the breast

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>

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

Wachsmuth, who has the

Trdvra rd fyrov/jieva as
"

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

<f>epei

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
<e

Epicureans,

who denied

the existence of any intermediate

o-rjfiaivov
cf.

vrtpaivoptvov (\fKTov) between fvyxfivov (TO eVro? viroKei^evov},

foil,

(rfxovri)

and
11

Sext. Math.

vm.

and

ire pi rov esp. 13, ol Se

<f>a)i>f)

Trepl rfj

X. 33, TTO.V

TO dXr/des tcai vJreOSo? ouv Trpayfjict OVOfJMTi TCO

Earueovpov...^talvovrak... aaro\tiirei>v. Diog. L.

-rrpcardx; eTTLTerayfj-eva)

evapyes eVrt.

But

this

nominalism went hand in hand

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
<f>a)vij.

<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><?

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

putat atque concidere et ipsum esse

dormire.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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

Plut. plac. V. 23. 4,

avecret,

H\drwv

ol ^rwi/col rov

vrrvov yivecrdai

rov alcrOr^rtKov rrvevp^aros, ou

<w?

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

Stob. Flor. Monac. 198, 6 avros

(Zijvcov)
<pu>s,

tyy
8e

opaatv drro rov depos \ap*ftdvei,v ro

r>]v

^ITV^JV arro

rwv

/j,a0r)[jt,dr(i)v.

For the Stoic theory of vision see

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>v.
Aristotle will be found concisely stated in Grote s Plato, III. 265 n., and for Aristotle see Grote s Aristotle, p. 465.

animalium sernen ignis

in

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
<f)vcri<;

is

warmer than ^v^n, which seems question

Ar. Did.

able.

106.

Euseb. P. E. xv. 20.

1,

fr.

phys. 39,

152
Diels
p.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

470, TO
8e
(nrepfjta

6
<f>r)a-lv

Ttr/vwv

elvat

/j.e6trjcrtv

TOV<?

vypov, pepos Kal rov crTrep/iaro? rov rwv rrpoyovwv Kepacrjia Kal fjLtyjjta rwv rfc tyv^s pepwv <rvve\r)\vdo<; e%ov yap 0X0) TOI)? avrovs rovro, orav et? rr/v \6yovs
av6p(07ros Trvevfia p,e9
^~v^rj<;

(ZTrocnracriAa Kal

ru>

a<f)0fj

r*

a\\ov TrvevpaTos,

/u,e/3o<?

"^fX^?

rov

0yj\o<i

v VTT

re (f)Vi Kivovpcvov Kal dvappnrieKeivov 7rpo(r\d[j,/3avov del [ft?] TO vypov Kal

Kpv(f>dei>

eg avrov.
aff.

Theodoret freely copies Euseb.

K.tnev<f

gr.

cur. V. 25, Tt-qvwv 8e o

TJj<rSe

TTJS aipecreo)^

roidSe irepl ^f^ ;? &odeii> TOI)? ot/ceiou? rov yap roi ilvdpwTTLVov dopov vypov

rveuuaros T^?
re Ka

^v^f)<f

e<j)r)(rev

elvat

aTrocnracr^a Kal rov riav Trpoyovcov crvrep/iaTO? re Kal airdvrwv rutv T^ ^fv-^rj<t ftopfcv p.lyp,a e Kfpacrfj,a Plut. de cohib. Ira, 15, Kalroi (Kaddrrep 6 <rvva6poicr6ev.

e\eye TO
ib.

cnrep/j-a a-v^^ty/j,a

Kal Kepacrfia

r<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

in Galen, hist. phil. 31. XIX.

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>v

dvdpcaTrov Be cnrepfia, o ^le^tijcrtv 6 livdpwrros,

/J>e0

vypov

(TvyKipvaa-dat

(\eyova-tv)

rots

T^<?

^f^;^9 pepevt

Kara

fAiypov rov rwv rrpoyovutv \oyov.

Stein, Psych, n. 252, Zeller, p. 212, 213. various points of resemblance between the Stoics and the Hippocratean school of medicine.

See also
the

collects

o-uXX^Wv
:
<j>vi

conceptum,

cf.

Sext. Math. v. 55

foil.

is

well
fj.ev

known
<pvei

productive (not intrans.). line: Horn. II. VI. 149,

d7ro\riyei.

So perhaps
<y<?

in the
1}

dvSpaJv yever),
is

t]

Otherwise, as re

not required

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

by the
<f>verai,

153

sense,
cf.

we might suggest
L.
VII.

that re^uet arose from

Diog.

159,

rwv

et<?

rrjv

yrjv

icaracj>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>vTai

a iraXaLwOevra OVK

en

ds after del

is

perhaps due to dittography.

V.
5.

107.

Pint.

plac.

2,

Zrjvcov

(T?

#7/A,fca<?)

V\T)V

ev vypav TTpoieaOai, oiovel diro rijs (rvyyvjJ,va<rLa<i iBpwras, ov fjujv (T7rep/jiaTi,K6i>. 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.

arovov re yap eivai

oXiyov

feed

vSaratSes, o5? o Sc^atpo? ^TJCTIV.

Diels, p.

418 reads (nreppa

8e

108.

Sext.

TOI)?

8e

/J,r)

r/pwra ovras

Emp. adv. Math. IX. 133, Zijvav deovs evXoyws dv Ti? XoyoV
rov<;

OVK.

av Tt?

evX6ya>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.

gr. p. 126, 16)

of the gives proofs of the existence

:

gods, among which

is

e?}<

Se ori /cat rot? cro^ot? So/cet,

Yirjvwvt,.

olov YlXdrcovi, Apto-roreXet,

109.

Lactant. de ira Dei

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>a

6eov Xeyov-

154

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO. At

first

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

those objects by means of which the divine power

manifested."

is

especially
goes,
it

In testing how far this admission

should be observed that the Stoic in Cic. N. D. n.

Philod. Trepl

45 distinctly denies that the derivative gods are human

in shape,
cf.

eva-e/3.

p.

85

G., dvdpwiroei&el*;
tcai

yap
Trap

etcetvoi

ov

vofiiov<riv

aXXa
cf.
ru>

aepa<?

Trvevfiara /cat

aWepas.

For Antisthenes

Philod.

-rrepl ei)o-e/3. p.

73

G.,

\vTLcr6evei 8

ev fikv

(^VCTLKU) Xeyerai TO Kara

elvai TroXXoi)? Oeovs,

Kara

8e

<f)vaiv

eva.

110.

Cic.

N. D.
tollit

I.

36,

Cum

vero Hesiodi Oeoyovtav

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
;

significationem haec docet tributa nomina.

Hesiodi

0<ryov(av

Introd. p. 31.
frag.

lovem:

see

on

Ill and

cf.

Flach, Glossen

u.

Scholien zur Hesiodischen Theogonie,

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

the letters has been reversed,
\eyoii TO
-7-179 "Hpa?

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> 8rj rd eve efcaaTov
This
6eu>v
<av>
<o>

7&>7r;?,

<TOV

<rr/pia>...

<OVK

d>v

a-vvaKo<\ov8ei

el

fjir/

rt>

rwv

ai(av<u>v>

KCU
It

a<%t,>

ovrai

^>ia<(^>9i,a-d^e<vo^>

co?

fMe<rd

ra>?

Beds.

will

be seen that so

little

of the papyrus is legible here

it is

that the sense for which

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,"

should have seriously quoted

I.

it

see also

Wachsm. Comm.

If we are p. 9 n. of this editor Naples

conjectures of the work of Philodemus, there are at

to

follow the

least three other

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

originated with Zeno.

c. iv. col.
I.

They

will

be found at Tab.

IV. 7.

c.

xi.

and

col. II. c. xii.

111.

Minucius
esse

Felix

Octav.

19.

10,

Idem

(Zeno)

interpretando lurionem aera lovem caelum

Neptunum

mare ignem

Vulcanum

et ceteros similiter vulgi deos

elementa esse monstrando publicum arguit graviter et

revincit errorem.

lovem

it

is

clear that

Zeus was identified with the

150

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

aether or pure fiery essence, of which caelum is here an equivalent, as in Pacuvius ap. Cic. N. D. II. 91, hoc quod

memoro nostri caelum Grai perhibent aethera.

Cf. Chrysipp.

ap. Philod. Trepl eva-e/3. p. 79 Gomp.,"H<atcrToi/ Be Trvp elvai...&ia Be rov aWepa. Diog. L. VII. 147 God is the

creator of the universe, and, as

it

were, the father of

all

his various manifestations are described

by
/}i

different names.
trap"

Ata
O<TOV

/lev

yap

<f>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.

whole of Diogenes The same ultimately derived from Zeno.

N. D.

II.

63, 64) belongs to Zeno.

ignem. Diogenes rrvp re-^viKov is, according to Krische, a blunder: Hephaestus is elsewhere identified with earthly
fire
(r>}v
<f>\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

vBwp TIoo eiBwva

ro Be

7rvp"Y[<f)aio-rov

Kal

ijBrj

ra>v

ev-^prfcrrovvrutv exacrrov.

112.

Valer. Probus in Virg. Eel. VI. 31,

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<?

yever

avrdp

eTreira.

Nam

Zenon Citieus

interpretatur

aquam ^009

ap-

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

pellatum UTTO rov -^eeaBai,

157

quamquam eandem opinionem

ait

ab Homero possumus intellegere quod

6ewv yevecriv
est
KOA,

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.

and by Ar. Met.

4.

as

an indication that Hesiod

recognised both the

in.
1.

efficient

and the

final cause.

Aris

totle also refers to the passage in Phys. IV. 1

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<?

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

Schol. on Apoll. Rhod. HcrtoSft) vSwp elvai

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<?

HcrtoSo^, iva TO Trvp TrapacrTijcrr)

"Epw?.

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.

112 and add Cornut.

/*ev TO Trpo r?;?
^u<jeo>9

c.

17, p.

85
76-

Osann, eaTL 8e

%o?

Sio./coo-yu,?;cre&>9

our&)9 (javo^aa^kvov. vopevov vypov, OTTO r^9 similar views with regard to the formation of the IXvv
:

158

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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>

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>86rrtpov

(Zeller, pre-Socratics

and to Anaxagoras Hence Zeno himself

Medea
felix

ev
<f>pa<ri

tcatofj-evav.

Dido.

Georg.

in. 244,

Virg. Aen. iv. G8, uritur inin furias ignemque ruunt

:

amor omnibus idem.

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<>.

Hesiod
Cornut.

Eros

(1) with a reference to Xo^yo? o-7repfj,aTtKos.

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

<f>r)<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
<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,

but those of his inferences which are

not supported by
here.

direct evidence cannot be dealt with

114.
etc

Schol. on Hes. Theog. 117, Zr/vwv Be 6

ST&KACO<?

TOV

vypov
Be

Trjv

VTroo~Tddp,riv yrjv yeyevvfja-Qai

(f)t](riv,

"Eporra

yeyoi evat,

Wev

o eVcryo/ueix)?

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

crrtvo?.
Cf.

159
8e

Diog. L.

VII.

137, vTToo rdBf^rjv

rcdvrwv

rrjv yijv, fJ.ecnjv

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

Kotoy yap \eyei

TT

rrjv Troior rjra

Kara
drru
/3<ipr]

AioXiKrjv rov

Trpos ro K,

Kpelov Se ro
(ivu>

j3aai\LKov

r/yefAovi/cov, "TTrepiova

Se rr/v

KLvrjaiv

rov

vrrepavw (friHTiv e%et rcdvra rd ro Triirreiv dvwOev roiovrov \drcerov d(f)ie/j,ei>a

levai.

eVet 8e

eZSos"

iroiOTTjTa,

mig. 53.

iravTO. TO. pap^.

frag. 6/.

pdpt]

avwOcv

I8os:

so Flacb, p.

223 after Schoemann.

17, p. 91

The

old reading
iTrreiv

was

Kovcf)a...ava).../jL6pos.

Osann suggested

for

TriTrreiv.
rra\aiu>v

Cf.

Cornut.

c.

Osann, ovrws VTTO raiv

Idfaros rt9

Ia7rero9 p.ev wvofj^dcrOrf 6 \6yos /ca6 ov (pcowrjriKd

6 1^0^)0? drrere\ecr6ri,

rd ^wa eyevero Kal 0X09

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>

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.

Kal rov ev rot?

116.
II.

484.

KzJ/cX&)7ra?.

Schol. on Hes. Theog. 139, Gaisf. Gr. Poet. Min. Zrjvcov Se jrd\iv (f)vo~iKwrepws
r

rd<?

eyKVK\iovs
rovrcov

(popds

elprjcrdai

Sto
(f>r)o-i

Kal

rd ovb^ara
"Apyrjv
>e

fyacn

e^eOero I^povrrjv re Kal "SrepoTrriv rov dpyrjra Kepavvov TratSa?

erreiS)}

8e

(pTjatv

rov Ovpavov

ndvra ravra rd

rcddr)

rrepl

UK)

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

^"

TOV ovpavov ett...e XP V(P P TlVi IK rov TOV depos]. Trvpos 7repi(}>opai Flach s arrangement of the text is quite different
inserts the words ev XP
VV
<=

he

P O(?

after

tipq<r0eU

faia-iv,

altering
p. 50.

$op<?

into

Trepifopds.

See his interpretation,

tyKVK\ovs

The band
4>op<is.

of aether which formed the

external stratum of the world revolved in a circle round f TrepiStob. Eel. I. 14. l p. 142, 13, TO aWepiov it.
,
(</>^)

In the matter of the revolving aether Zeno followed Aristotle, whose quinta essentia is described
teivetTai.
<f>epa)<>

by Sextus
del Oetv

(Pyrrh. II. 31). KVKXofoprjriKov from derivation Platonic of the Aristotle himself approves

as TO

<ra)/j,a

and censures Anaxagoras

I.

for referring it to aiOco

(de Caelo

2)

see also Krische, p.

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>6>

Kcd Zrtpoinv. Bpovr^v T real arepoTrrjv," re /Bpovrrjv

Wachsmuth

says:

"immo

TratStft) ede/jirjv
Iv

TO ovopa TO

Kii>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.
<\6y>ov<>

Philod.

Trepi

euo-e/3.

col.

8,

T<OL>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<?

belong to
puts a
6 P 9ovs

Zeno: see on

frag. 40.

Gomperz however
8,

p.

74

full

stop after Sm^e o-et?. Xofovs: see Introd. p.

of the

and

for

the

ethical

importance p. 259 foil.

expression

Stein, Erkenntnistheorie,

Cic. Tusc. iv. 34, ipsa virtus brevissime recta

ratio dici potest.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

s

161

arc

admitting O neither of increase

p.

forms opposed to efei? as "permanent nor diminution," Zeller,

intellectual

103.

Thus

virtues

8ta#ecret?, (2) a-TrovSaias

e7raiVT(i<;

goods are divided into (1) such as pavnicr),

eei<?

and

evepyetas such as $povi[jLevp,a, Stob. Eel.

(3)
cf.

ovre
II.

efei<?

ovre

8ta#e<rei<?,

7. 5, e

and

f,

Diog.

vir.

98, Cleanth. frag. 51,

Sext. Pyrrh. in. 243, avrr) yap

Kal avroOev

(fraivofAevrj

/i^re

e/c

yap between eft? and SiddevLS An. n. 5. 417 b. 15.

T<av

ecrn ravra Kal

ISiwrcov.

rwv epywv avrfjs rcoiva For the distinction

Wallace on de

in Aristotle see

Aioo-Kovpovs

clouds
1"

made
IX. 37.

as explained physically by Xenophanes 24. Eel. I. to shine by their movement (Stob.

:

p. 204, 18).

Math.

86

See also the explanations cited by Sext, the latter passage appears to be Stoic,
:

as recognising the belief in demons.

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<ret9, w? ^trfcn Zrjvwv.
118.
fjiavriKii.

^v

The
5b

Stoic definition was as follows:

Stob.
<j>aa-iv

Eel.

II.

7.

12, p. G7, 16, eivai Se rrjv /AavTiKJjv TWV airo dewv 17 ^aifiovwv OewpijTiKrjv arj/Aeiwv

same
el

Se dvOpw-TTLvov ftlov a-vvreivovrwv. in Sext. Math. IX. 132.

KCU.

Substantially the
in

Others read

77

/cat,

reversing the argument

fact, the Stoics

]

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.

They prove that

cf.

it is

an art by the truth of

I.

certain results,

Cic.

de Divin.

23,

Quid?

quaeris,
?

Carneades, cur haec ita fiant aut qua arte perspici possint 11 H. P.

1C2
Nescire

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

me
the
ii.

fateor, evenire

autem

te

ipsum dico
an art
(ib.

videre.

That
cf.

its professors

are sometimes deceived does not in

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<Sv dyaffwv teal Trepl Trepl aperfjs fcal Trepl re\ov<t irepi re rrjs Trpwrtjs rigta? Kal rwv
(ro<t>ia<;

119.

<f>i\o-

6p/j,ij<;

Trpdgewv Kal Trepl riav

KadrjKovrwv rrporpo-jrutv re Kal

01

(nrorpoirwv Kal ovrw S VTroSiatpovaiv Kal Ap^eSij/jLov Kal Zijvtova rov

rrepl

~S.pv<rnnrov

Tap<rea

K.r.X.

6 fiev

yap

Kmei)?

Zitjvwv Kal 6 KXedvOifi ax;

dv dp^aiorepoi

<ieXe<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.

87, BiOTrep Trpduros 6 Zrjvcav ev

re\o<?

r<a

Trepl dvffpunrov
(frvcrei
tjv,

<f>v<rea)<s

elire

TO o/jLoXoyovpevax; ry
ayei yap Trpos
III.

otrep
?;

earl
<f>vcri<;.

Kar*

dperijv ffv
Inst.

ravrtjv

77/u.a?

(summum bonum) cum

in. 8,

7, Zenonis natura congruenter vivere. id.

Lactant.

audiamus tutem somniat.

o

igitur

Zenonem

Summum,
ovra)<f

inquit,

nam is interdum virest bonum cum natura

7.
a
(J
,

consentanee vivere.
re\o<f

Stob. Eel. u.

p.

7.5,

11, TO Be

/j,ev

Ziijvcov

dTreBayxe

TO 0/0,0X070 y/ieyw?
^r/v,

%ijv

rovro B ecrn Ka0* eva \6yov Kal avp^xavov

/Lta^o/LteVco?
1,

&5v

rwv

^wvrwv KaKo&aLpovovvrwv.
Kal
Zijvwv

Plut.

Comm.

Xot. 23,

ov-)(l

rovrovs

(scil.

Peripatetics)

r}Ko\oi/0ij(Tv VTTonOenevois aroi-^ela rrjs evBaifj,ovias rrjv

(f>v(Tiv

Kal TO Kara ^vaiv.

(Cf. Cic. Fin. IV. 72,

videsne

igitur

Zenonem tuum cum Aristone

verbis consistere,

THE FRAGMENTS OF XENO.

re dissidere
;

163

cum
ib.

Aristotele et
SS.)

illis

re consentire, verbis
II.

discrepare?

v.

Clem. Alex. Strom.

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,

convenienter naturae vivere (where see Madv.):

cjuod

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<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.

See also Introd.

p. 14.

121.

Pint, fragm. de an. ed.

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

attribute to Zeno a statement, which to belong to 01 (ITTO Tirjvwvos, yet there

only expressed no reason why

is

he should not have taught

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,

a\X OVT alad rjai^ eariv

ot<>

/i^Sei

aladijTov,

112

164

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

S)

ovr otVeiWt? olf fjujBev oixeiov" rov oitceiov tcai dvri\,ipw

122.

yap oi/eeiWi?

cii<rdi)<Ti?

elvai.

Porphyr. de Abstin. nr. 19, TI)I/ Be TiQtvrai BiKaiocrvvT)^ 01 (ITTO Zr/vwvos.

is
is

8iK<u<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
<f>va-iv

<j>va-iv.

Trainee Be Xeyovtriv Trpwrov oltcelov elvai TO

%a>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
<f>aatv

<rv<7rao-iv

patetics).

Exc.
ut,

iv.

For ra rrputra Kara and especially p. 818 3

<f>v(riv,

see Madv. de Fiiu

"

quae postea demum,

Stoici...ita disputabant, orto subito rationis lumine, quod

,

in infante

stantia

nondum esset accensum, et animadversa conconvenientiaque naturae, nasceretur voluntas cum

esset,

natura consentiendi, in qua et virtus et perfectio rationis earn omnino a prima conciliation dirimerent,
constituerent,

bonumque

quod expeteretur, a primis, quae

nppeterentur, genere
Epict. diss. yovpevos \6yos rtav
0e\ei<;

seiunctum."

123.

I.

20. 14, Kairot ai/rd?

<f>i\o(r6<jx0v

fuv 6 irpo^\iav ecnlv 0X4709. et

Kal o-^ref ri yvtovai, dvayvudt, Zijva)vo<;, yap fjiaKpov eiTrelv on, reXo? eo-n TO Z-rreaQai 0eois, ovvia B dyadov xpfjvis oia Bel fyavracnwv

rd

e%t

THE FRAGMENTS OF XENO.

"leading

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
<pva-t.

o f the

view taken in the Introd.

s
(frvcris.

p.

4 as to the character
Socratic doctrine

of

Zeno

4>avrao-iwv.

Zeno went back

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

directed towards the performance of some moral

cf. action gives rise to corresponding op/Mai in the soul, ovSev Se KIVOVV njv oppfjv 17, TO Stob. Eel. II. 7. 9, p.
<SG.

erepov elvat

fyavraa-iav opprjrtKrjv consists in the proper direction Virtue avrodev. KaO^Kovro^ of op6b<s of these opfial in accordance with the dictates L. VII. 86 says of reason Te^m?? hence
\e<yovaiv
77
:

XX

rov

cf. Cleanth. frag. emylyverat r^ opufa of the assent supra, freedom the on The doctiine depends
:

\6yos: yap OUTO?

19,

Diog.

66.

frag.

cf.

Stob.

Eel.

II.

7.

h
,

p.

<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.

166, 167, points is very often

unknown
dtcoa^iav TO?

Diog.

VII. 48,

ware

et?

KOI eUaioTTjra

Tpe-rreadai TOI)? dyvfivtiffTOV^t e^ovra^;

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<rav,

evpaa

&iov.

Cf. Cleanth. frag. 74,

Diog.

VII. M.S.

ICG
M. Aurel.
re Xo?,
II. 5,

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

v. 9, x. 6.

cvSeupovia

is

not identical with

rrjt

which rather consists in TO Tvydv

Diog.
VII.

125.

127,

avrdp/cT}

elvat

dpertjv

7rpo s

ev8atfj.oviav,

tcadd
<f>r)<ri

Ztjixav.

in. 7. 1G,

clamat Zenon et tota

riihil

ilia

August, contra Acad. portions tumultuatur

hominem natum ad

esse aliud

quam honestatem

ipsani suo splendore in se animos ducere, nullo prorsns oommodo extrinsecus posito et quasi lenocinante mercede ;

voluptatemque illam Epicuri

solis inter se

pecoribus esse
et sapi5.

communem
enteni
diximtis
ibi

in

quorum societatem

et

hominem
trin.

tendere nefas esse.

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.

This position was borrowed

from the Cynics, Introd.

126.

p. 19.

Cic. Fin. iv. 47, errare

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,

Zenonem, qui nulla in re aut vitio propensionem ne minimi quidem

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

ment against the

<f>v(riv

Stoic priina constitutio, which excludes virtue, with that

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

of Antiochus which includes
it,

167

(2)

Fourth Book he
doctrine
of

attributes far

more importance

that throughout the to the

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.

rrdvra iroieiv eveica Plut. Sto. Rep. 76. 13 7. p.

6",

rov rv^iv^v avrwv (Stob.

c.

Ecl.
22).

26

Cic. Fin.

IT.

On the subject in general see Zeller, p. 278 foil. cf. Stob. Ecl. nature of the -rrpwra Kara
<j>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.

maluin, 29, Nihil est, inquit (Zeno),

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

Stoicus Zeno diceret

duceret.
Cf. ib.

quod turpe
II.

esset, nihil

malum
14,

15.

In Stob. Ecl.

7.

5",

p. 58,

we read

dvd\oyoi>

6e

T v KUKWV rd pev elvai icaicias, rd 8 ov, class are \v-rrri and given of the latter

and the examples

This occurs

(/>o/3o<>.

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

agrees that dolor is an drcorrpo-n^^evov.

Cic.

So dolor

is

classed in
in

Fin.

III.

51,

where Zeno

name appears

the

168

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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.
<ov

Stob. Eel.

ii.

7.

5 a p. 57, 18,
,

oa-a ovo-ias ^ere^ei,

8e

tcatcd,

rd 8e
d8id<f>opa.

ravr elvai ovrwv rd pkv dyaOd. ra dyaBd nev rd roiavra

rwv

<j>pov7)<riv,

^X pT*is d^poa-vi tjv, \avtav, dbiKiav, 8ei\iav, Kal rrdv o eari reatcia rj

a-wQpoa-vv-nv, 8iKaioa-vvr}v, dv8peiav ical rrdv o 7 OV a Kaicd 8e rd roiavra V

evnv

dpert)
dtco-

KCIKW

^re^ov
86^ai>

d8id<f>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

are referred to as authorities.

Chrysippus

TV

ovrwv

K.T.X.

This classification
to the

is

Sext. Math.

XL

attributed by
Peripatetics,

3, 4,

Old Academy, the

and the Stoics

rrdv TO ov
rj

in

common: he quotes from Xenocrates,

ea-riv.

dya6ov eo-nv

eariv ovre Kaicov

that the
all

name

d&id<f>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

the other hand, there

is

not

much

likelihood in Hirzel s
first to in-

opinion (n.

p.

45

n.)

that Aristotle was the

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

troduce

169

the

of term dSidfopov, and that Zeno spoke

frag. 134.
cf.

K.T.X. cf.
<j>p6vT]criv

v 8

Sext, Math.
elvai

XL

77, fi\\ov pev

ib.

Zqwuv,

rfp<TTi

Si
/cat

ov

TT)I/

dpeT^jv

dyaOov

8eS6aez/.

184, /ea0o
dperrj
r\

e opi&fievoi rives

avroov

<j>a<rtv

dya06v

e<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.

Aul. Gell. ix.

esse indifferens, id est

Zeno ccnsuit voluptatem 5, 5. neutrum neque bonum neque malum,

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<^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

>;Soi/J7,

Diog. that Hecaton

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},

the -rrpo^^vov, and 77801") the is contrasted with 7761/09 77801/1)

rather than with

because the latter certainly belonged

170

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

For
TTOI/O? cf.

to the class of dTTOTrpoTjy/jLeva (frag. 127). Diog. L. VII. 172, Adfccovos TO/O? eiirovros

on

TTOI/O?

dyaOov,

Siaxv8ei<;

fycriv

(K\edv8r}<i)

at /iaro? el? dyaffoio

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)

Kal ov 7rpor l j/j.voi>.

Wachsinuth would continue

ing this in Stobaeus
is

Cleanth. frag. 88. to Zeno the passage follow

down

to p. 59. 3, but the evidence

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.

Senec. Epist. 82,

"

tione

utitur

7, Zenon noster hac Nullum malum gloriosum esse

;

collec;

mors

autem

gloriosa est

mors ergo non

est

malum."

In the subdivision of the

dSid<f>opa

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

non curare idque contemnere.

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

the same direction.

At the same time there

testimony pointing is no

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEN O.

reason a priori
aB<.d<t>opa

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.
<pv<riv,

why Zcno should

dBid<f>opa

not

have
^sub-divided

<j>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>.

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 <ov>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<riv,

irporjy^evov^

n}v Bevrepav

u>pav

rwv dya0wv
elvat

<f>v<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

rovrwv rjv eK\oy^v iroieladai

-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

neither an dyaBov nor an dBidStob. Eel.

II.

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.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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),

Cic. Fin. in. 51.

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>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>ov:

he

is

followed

by Wachsmuth.
v
>

Hirzel n.

p.

823
15.
1C.

prefei s
rivd
TC:
T<i

TrpoyyovfAevwv. so MSS. rti/t Davies.

Mein.

<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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

is

173
not to
p.

at

the

same time impossible

cf.

ceteris paribus
11.

to sickness, prefer health

Stob. Eel.

7.

7,

79,

1217.
132.

Diow. L.

VII. 120, dpea-Kei re

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>

as TO -rrapd rov

opOov

\6yov

-rrparro/jievov,

Stob. Eel. KaOiJKOv VTTO \OJIKOV fyov, See further Zeller, p. 2H7.
133.
Cic.

II.

7rapa\e\enrrai ri 7. IP, p. 93, lb

.

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

of a slave involves a single dfj-dpri^fia, are committed in the act of parricide.

many

d/j,aprr/para

134.

Plut. Sto. Rep. VII. 1,

2,

djrodperds o ZTJVWV

174

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

TrXe/oi/a?

Kara Siafapds,
a-axf>poa-vvr)

&<nr

p 6 llXarwr/, olov
<u

v dv&pctav

V Bixaioa-vi^v,

dX

<pi<TTovs

ovo-as, erepa? Be Kal

Bta<f>epov(ra<t

a XX^ Xwi/.

TraXti/ Be
<f>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
<T

Bucaioo-vvrjv

fpovrjviv

eV

at<T

eW

^
Be

vTro<t>ep6<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

VTTo^ereo^ dvSpeiav d-rroXoyovfie^ T^I/ brurrjftiji, foovrjw iVo roO

Diog. L.
a>?

d&ovaiv

eV

Zi/i/wi/o? eJi/o-

VII.

101, dpcrd? re ouVc TroXX^? e *V^i;

Cic.

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<?

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

<Wr^,

insight is to be distinguished research (cf. Ar. Eth. vi. There 13).

and thus indicated that from intellectual

is

probability in Zeller

suggestion

had already denned

(p. 9

258
as

n.)

therefore high that "perhaps

<fr><^<

THE FRAGMENTS OF /ENO.

K al
tcaKwv."

175
in

At the same time he must have been

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

o^ei\.6p,eva o-eneral in meaning

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<?

aipe<rei<;

is

ro^vTois...V6 P ^T6ois. a lacuna in Pint. Sto. Rep.

xll

Hirzel
I.e.

suggests that there and that we ought

<inrO(J,VTOl,<S
r>)v

to

read

there

elvai
<$>povr]a-iv

ev

8e

a-a)(f>poo-vv7)v

cf)povrio-ivev>alpTeots

(in place of evepyijTeois).

6

For

vjrofji.

cf.

Ar. Eth.

ill.

0,
i

G,

dvBpelos...ov$els

yap
cf.

v7ro^ev6TLKu>Tepo^

TWV 8uvMV

for the general

sense

Thuc.
01

II.

40. 3,

ra Te Seiva Kai
pi]
o-o-i.

Kpanarot & av rrjv ^rv)(i}v St/catw? ?/8ea aa^earara yiyvwaKovTes

etc

Kpideiev teal SKI

ravra
o-

d-TroTpeiro^voi

TOJV

Ktv8vva>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<?

other (Stob. Eel.

are Sia#eo-ei?, for

II. 7.

k
,

p. 73,

1 ).

The

virtues themselves

which see on
c.

frag. 117.

135.
(scil.

Plut. Virt. Mor.

3,

KOLVW? Se a-rravi^ ouroi,

-rrjv

Menedemus,
T/;?

Aristo, Zeno, Chrysippus)

SuiQecriv

dperrjv rov

^y^^?

nva

Kal bvvapiv

17G
fjievr/v

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

VTTO \6yov,
/iaA,\oi>

Se

\6yov

ov<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
<f>vcri

rivi Kal

^rv^Tjf rov \oyiKov

/?

&iaKercpifj,VOi>,

d\\d

TO

avTo
Kal

Trjs

^f^

H^pos
e%iv

(o Srj

Ka\ovai Sidvoiav Kal

ijyefjbovi-

KOV), SioXov Tpeirop.evov Kal /xer/3aXXoi/ If re rot? Trddecri

Tat<;

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>,

TU>

piaeax;
}v

<T<f}o8p6TT]Ta

Kal ptoprjv 7rpoa\a/36vTa.

II.

dpcT^v

K.T.X. cf.

Stob. Eel.

7.

5b
",

p. 64, 18,

7T\eiov<;

(pacrl

Kal a^typ/tTTOu? a?r

TJ-;? "^^179

apera? 8 d\\r)\a)v Kal Tas

aura?

TU>

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

see on frag. 93.

"

I.

38.
Sidvoiav

Kal

<

ti

yHlovlK

the

distinction
p.

between
132, 306.

these two terms see Stein, Erkenntnistheorie,

^iv
rj

8id0c<riv:

see on frag. 117.

The

TrdOtj are dis-

THE FRAGMEXTS OF ZEXO.

tinguished, being Cic. Tusc. IV. 30.
TU>

177

neither

eet<?

nor SiaOeveis but

will

-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)

110, ecrri 8e avro TO

(j)V(riv

7r$o? Kara
rj

/,rjvo)va

d\oyos Kal irapd

^v^rj^

Kivrjcrts,

op^i}

7r\eovd^ova-a.

Cic. Tusc. IV. 11, est igitur

Zenonis haec

definitio ut perturbatio

recta ratione, contra

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

ita enini definit ut perturbatio sit aversa a ratione

contra naturam animi commotio, vel brevius ut pertur batio sit appetitus vehementior.
Cf.

Cic.

Off.

I.

animi nimios rationi non obtemperantes.

2, p.

136, perturbationes, id est, motus Stob. Eel. II. 7.

44, 4, Trdv TrdOos

op/j,r]

ir\eovd^ovaa.

ib. 7. 10, p.

88, 8,

Trddos 8

elvai
\6<y(0

<pacnv

vpprjv ir\^ovd^ovaav Kal

<d\o
"^v^TJ<f
/

aTretd!) raj
(pvcriv.

aipovvTL

rj

Kivrjcnv

yov>

Trapd
in

Plut. in fragm. utr. anim.

an corp.
I.

libid. et aegrit. c. VII.

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>

is

the doctrine of the given, namely, the desire to enforce

H. P.

12

178

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

In maintaining that every
<j>v<riv,

unity of the soul (frag. 135).

7ra#o?
far
is

essentially

a\oyov and Trapd

beyond Plato and

B,

Aristotle, although

Zeno goes he has much in

common with
Phaedo 83

the Platonic point of view. we read 1} rod eo? d\ijOw

re Kal

Thus

in the

<f>i\oa6(j)ov

Oirrox? d-rrexerai rcav rjbovtav

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<;

eo-rlv

0/3/1?) Tr\eovd%ov<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<{

-rrroia

^vx^f,

wpiaaro 8e /caVetW? rwv imjvwv fopds TO

VKIVT)TOV rov TradrjTiKov TTapeiKaaa^.

Cf. ib.
II.

7.

10,

]).

88, 11, Bio Kal Trda-av Trrolav Trddos

<-jrdv>

elvat

<Kal>

TrdXiv

-jrddos

-moiav.

Wachsmuth
plac. iv. 5,

refers to Chrysipp. ap. Galen,

p.

de Hipp, et Plat.

364, 23, Miill. otVeitu?

77

8e

TW rwv

ira6u>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

morbis voluit carere sapientem...nam et

voluntarias

perturbationes

iudicio suscipi et omnium matrem esse immoderatam

putabat opinionisque perturbationum arbitrabatur

quandam intemperantiam.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

144. quasi morbis: see on frag. 117. vn. Diog.

179

drradrj elvat, rov aofyov,

of what follows this is opinionisque indicia: in view s the expression aptly illustrates Galen important, and

statement that Zeno regarded the

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-

rantia sedat appetitiones et

nt eae rectae ration!

:

indicia mentis sic huic pareant, conservatque considerata inimica intemperantia omnem animi statum inflammat

oonturbat incitat

aegritudines et metus et ex ea. reliquae perturbationes omnes gignuntur

:

itaque

et

139.

Galen. Hippocr. et Plat, plac. v.

Arp/crei?

1, v.

429 K.,

7^vwv ov ra?
Ti7?
7

auras

d\\a
Trddrj,

T?
IV.
o,

avrais crucrroXa? Kal Xutrei? eVapcrei? re Kal [ra?]

"^^X

??

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

eivai tVapcrei? re Kal Sta^ucrei? v7ro\afA/3( ivova~iv

ra

rr/s

^rvxfl^
V. p.

-rrdOij.

Wachsmuth, Comm.

I.

p. 7,

adds

ibid. IV. 2,
(i.e.

367 K., roiavrrjv

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

THK FRAGMENTS OF ZFXO.

which Galen himself concurs. He was of the same opinion (but see
;

Posidonius, and in

infers that Cleanthes

on Cleanth. L. vn. 111.

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).

identifying irddr) with

o-iry/carafleo-et?
<rwrroXas.
:

tcpta-eis

and connecting them with

Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 198, 199. This refers to \inrrj, which is defined as

cf.

crva-ro\r)

0X0709 (Diog. L.

VII.
II.

Ill,
7.

cf.
,

M. Aurel.
p. 90, 14)
:

II.

10)

or

d7Ti0)}<;

Xoyy

(Stob. Eel.

70 h

in the

same way
1.

eirapa-is refers to r/Sovij (Diog. L. VII. 114, Stob.

c,

1.

16).

Xwrcis.

For this word

is

but this
ex

Mliller substitutes Btaxvcreis, perhaps] questionable, cf. Cic. Tusc. ill. 61,
XVTTTJV Chrysippus [quasi hominis appellatam putat.

quo ipsam aegritudinem

TS, delet Miiller.
Kal
is

\vffiv id est] sulutionem totius

this

corr.
cf.

expunged by Zeller, p. 246, and Miiller, but is see on frag. 143, by no means certain
:

and
3et

Heinze, Stoicorum de Affectibus doctrina,

Zeller s
correction,

p.

37.
for

8^ts.
ei<>,

accepted

by

Miiller,

made almost certian by Cic. aegritudo quasi morsum aliquem doloris

is
ill.

Tusc. iv. 15, ut efficiat, cf. Tusc.

83, cited
Si<xxvo-is.

on

frag. 158.
|as

In Diog. L. vn. 114 this word appears

77801/7)

subdivision of

and

is

defined as

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

In
Suidas,
col.
v<Tis,

818, however
cf.

fiov>]

itself

is

defined

as

Xo 7 o9 Sid X

worthy of observation

deliquescat that all

in Cic. Tusc. iv. 37.

It is

these

words (excepting

refer to \vrrrj and rjSovj, and that perhaps ra-n-eivaxrei^ For rarreiare not so prominent. Tri0vfiia and <6/3o? humili atque fracta connected cf. exanimatione

vaxreK,

with metus in Cic. Tusc.

(of aegritudo)
ib.

IV. 13,

and

for Trrwo-ew

demitti

14, 37.

already cited, Wellmann, p. to Xuo-et? and rrrwaeis to be equivalent

In the face of the evidence in 454, seems to be wrong

fyei<?

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

Kal \6yov TOV \oyov Siaarpofrls elvai TiQt^voi

.

In the

face

of Galen s
so far as

of no importance

Zeno

testimony this statement is concerned and may be

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>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<rra(T0ai). off a rotavra iraOr] Kara rr,v KapSiav Comm. I. p. 7. is taken from Wachsmuth,
</>6^ou?

/cat

142.

Diog.

VII.

140, TWV
rrepl

7ra6v rd dvwrdrw
elvai
761/17

(ica0a

\VTrriv,

>/3ov,
<j>r

e,
ev

TW

rra6<2v}

rerrapa,
rro yevei

Stob. Eel.

II.

7.

10, p. 88, 14,

rrpwra 8 elvai

182

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

<j>6/3ov,

ravra rd reavapa, eTri0vpiav,

Cic. Off.
ilh
i.

\virrjv, i}8ovjv, cf.

69, Tusc. in. 24, iv. 11,

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,

From rd dvwrarw... yevrj

certain

frag.

136.

it

is

obvious that Zeno classed

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.

Cic. Tusc. in. 74, 75, Satis

\V7ri}<;,

rv

)va)i>o<>

avrov.
7rp6o-<f>arov

ai>

ydp
<f>a<ri)

rov KO.KOV

avru>

-rrapelvai

\iiri)v.

ev

fan

(?

teal

o-vvropwrepov eviore Xe^oi/Te?

e<rrl

tuSe

7rpoa<f>epovraf

o-m?.

\v-mj XUTTT;? is the

I.

S6t;a Trpovfyaros

KUKOV Trapov-

Bake and
to

Miiller for the

currency, which

Kuhn

much

necessary correction of Cornarius, MSS. ar^. The unfortunate s da-rj^ has obtained, has given rise

perplexity.

These passages, and especially that of Cicero, have been

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

the authorities. difficulty arises strangely neglected by 139 that because it is generally inferred from frag.
here,

was the treatment of the Trafy by Zeno and Chrysippus

radically different,

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>6>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^.}

For, in that case,

how could Galen

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

the evidence of Galen establishes almost beyond

a doubt that the definitions of XUTTT? as

^0709
it

cruo-roX?)

Xo70? 7780^7) were propounded by Zeno.

as

L. VII. e-rrapar^ (Diog.

Ill, 114)

From

this

would seem to

defined eVt0v/ua follow as a natural corollary that he also as aXo 7 o ? and VII. <o/3o? 113), as aXo 7 o? opefa (Diog. b KK direi0fi II. 7. 10 p. 90, 11, KK\t<TK (Stob. Eel.
,

\i<nv^

X6 7 6D), cf. Andron. aXo 7 09 o-uo-ToXi

0X070?
p. 31.
6>ef

-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<s,
</>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 <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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

decide whether the definitions of which o6a KaKov is a were introduced type
7rapov<Tta<;
..

^r

_
if

Chrysippus.

The
p.

latter

by Zeno or alternative would be the most

is

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<roo

Xpva-iTnrov, Galen, p. 390).

It

ca,

being thus differentiated from the other

this definition is

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

nature of the contribution two answers seem possible.

made by Chrysippus
If

Only

Zeno

in his oral lectures

(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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

of

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?

(Heinze, Stoicorum do Affectibus

doctrina, p. 10,

and

see also pp. 23, 24, 30, 37).

in.

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

of the Trddrj in general

and that Chrysippus is responsible for the as the between distinction vocrrj^ara and appwarrj^a-ra,
terms as
voo-ot

Tusc. passage in Cic.

iv.

23 suggests.
2b 7.

Cf. Zeller, p. 251,

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.
,

At the same time inorbus

145.

Diog.

VII. 107, 10cS,

en

Be KaOijicov

dvai
<$)a<riv

o TTpa xdev ev\oyov TLV ur^ei aTroXoyia-fioV \ov6ov ev rfj fafj, oirep Kal eVt ra <j)vrd Ka\

olov TO d/co<wa

Biareivei.

opdvdai yap Knirl rovrwv KaOrjKOVTa.

VTTO

TtpWTOV

TiTIVWVOS

TO

KCtdrfKOV UTTO
el\r}npevr)<i.

KarwvopdarOai Se TOV KCITO, Ttl/tt?

(j>acrl

iJKeiv rr;? Trpoo-coi/o/zacria,?

Cf. ib. 25,

Be

Kal -rrpwTov tcadrjKov

TreTToiijKevai

a>vo/j,aK.evai,

Kal

\6yov
rrepl

Trepl

avTov

(referring

to

the

treatise

TOV Ka6r)-

KOVTOS, Introd. p. 29).

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<; Trj KtiKelva TL Tri d\oja TWV %wwv, evepyel yap
Stob. Eel.
II.

7.

8, p.

85, 13,

ev far), o

eVt

<Be>

TWV

\oyiK<*)i>

tywv

OUTCO? d-rro-

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZKNo.

StSorai"

TO dtcoXovffov ev

autem

officiuni

quod

ita

Cic. de Fin. III. 58, est fiiw. factum est ut eius facti probabili*

ratio reddi possit

(where see Madv.).

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

That Zeno must have treated of

is

a supposition which
case,

by the circumstances of the connect him with it is wanting.

is

rendered necessary but the evidence to

doctrine of Ka0j K ov

The

closely connected with that of Trporjy^evov (d K o\ov6o<;

ecrn
rq>

Trepi
1.

rwv

Trporjy^evwv 6 Trepi rov KaQtitcovros

To-TTOf,

Stob.

c.)

inasmuch as in the ordinary course of

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>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<f)ep6/j,evov

yeyove ri Kara
;

ere

fotr/j.io><i

^
dv

/ieraXa^e -rrapep-^erat eVt /SaXXe -rroppay rr)v

aXXa 7TpLfj.V,
reicva,

6pe%iv
7rpo<f

yevTjTcn,

Kara

ere.

ovrw

ovrta

TT/JO?

yvvaiKa, ovrw Trpos

6ea>v

/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
<rv/j,7r6rr)<;.

rather icadrjicovra

clusive, so that the distinctions

and OVK

del

and KaropOwpara are mutually ex between del KaB^Kovra tcadiJKovra, and pecra Ka0r]icovra and reXeta

tcafytcovra

belong to later Stoics:

suchungen, n. pp.

403410.

see Hirzel, UnterevXoyov does not imply

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

action
Zeller
in

187
i.e.

accordance with

right
for

reason,

virtue, as

and Ueberweg suppose,

reason in this sense

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

justified viz. 76.

by

Hirzel, n. 341,

I,

from a comparison of Diog.

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
<ro<f>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>

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

rov ErwiKov rporriKUx;

17^09 eVrt 7^77^} @iov,

d$

779

al

Kara

/xepo? Trpd^eis peovcn.

Stoics regarded not so character of the agent (cf.

7777777 cf.

The

much

the act itself as the

&L(ideais).

arrovt>aia

For
e

Plat. Leg.
(f>poveiv

808

c,

who

says that a young boy

rrrjyrjv

rov

188
147.
ivai TO

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Diog. L.
VII.

173,

Kara Zijvwva KaraXrjTrrov

Cf. Stob. Eel.

I.

50. 34, ol ~ra)iKol rov

<ro(j>ov

KaraXtjTrrov
regrets that

UTTO
it

rov

eioovs

reKfj,-r]pio)ou><;.

Euripides

is

impossible to distinguish
520,
or)

men

in this

manner.

Med. 516
<w

Zev, ri

^pvo-ov pev 09 Ki/3Sr)\os p

crafyr/,

reKfjirjpC

dvdpw7roio-iv WTrao-a?
xpi)

dvSpwv 8 orw
ovSeis
cf.

rov KCIKOV SietSevai,

x a P aKT1!P
foil.

fairtyvice (rca/ian;

Hippol. 924

Cic. Lael. 62.

s

So Shaksp. Macb.

i.

4.

11,

There
148.

no art to find the mind

II.

construction in the face.

Stob. Eel.
real

7. 11*-

p. 99, 3, dpeo-Kei

7 p

rcS re

Zrjvwvt
ru>v

rot? air avrov Sr&H/cot?

elvai,
fiev

<<A.oo-o<of?

dvOpwTrwv
KOI ro

TO

/j.ev

rwv

<T7rovoal(av,

8vo yevij ro Se rajv

Sid Travrot rov fiiov 5 xprjo-dai ralf (iperals, ro Se rwv xateiaif $>av\wv rat? b6ev ro fjifv del Karop6ovv ev arcaaiv ol? Trpoo-riderai,, ro
<j>av\wv
ra>v

<r7rovSato)v

ce dp,aprdviv.
f47reipiai<;

KCU rov yikv (nrovSaiov rals Trepl rov ftiov ev rols -^pu>p.evov Trparroftevois VTT avrov

Trdvr

ev

Troieiv,
d\\a<;

xaOaTrep

<t>povl/j.w$

teal

crto^pd/ O)?

Kal

10 Kara ra9
/ra/c&><?.

dperdf rov
p.ev

Be
<f>av\ov

Kara rovvavriov

(nrovSaiov peyav Kal dSpov Kal peyav [lev un Svvarat ra)v Kara n poaipe&tv ovrwv avrw Kal TrpoKetp.evu>v dopov
v*jrij\6v Kal la-^vpov.
e<piKvel<T0ai

Kal

rov

Be,

ort,

earlv rjvgrjfAevo? iravroOev

e7rt/3d\\ovro<;

v-^nj\ov B\

on

pereia-o$u>.

15

X7<e

rov

vtyovs dvSpi yevvaiw Kal

tVt/SrzXXofcra/
io-%vv

Kal

la-^vpov

B\

ori

rrjv

Trepnre-

Troitjrai,

drfrrrjros

u>v

Kal

ovre

avayKd^erai

VTTO

o Kal aKaraycavia-rof. Trap" Ttro9 ovre dvajKa^ei riva, ovre

KtoXverai, ovre K0)\vei, ovre ftidgerai VTTO

nvof ovr

avro<t

20

ovre Secnro^eraL, oure KaKOTroiei riva ovr ai ro9 KaKOTroieirai, ovre /ca/cot9 TrenriTrrei <ovr
8e<r7roei

/5tafet riva, ovre

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

a\\ov
ovre egaTrararai ovre ovre dyvoel ovre \avCarrara d\\ov, ovre OLa^ev&erai 6dvei eavrov, ovre Ka0o\ov "^eOSo? v-7ro\afj,@dvei evoaifiwv 6 X^to? /cat 25 /cai, evrv^^ Kal /-ta/capto? /cat 8e eo-nv
rroiel KCIICOK
rrepnriTrreiv>,

/zaXto-Ta

eua-e/Srjs /cat

/cai
0eo(f>i\ri<?

a^t&)/xaTt/c6<?,

/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

<f>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

the doctrine of the wise

foil., *5

man

in general see

Cic. Fin. in. 75, 76.

cf.

irouiv:

infra frag. 156.

cites

Abraham

n. 7.

328, 37,

Gen.

xill.

Ambrosius, de 14 and 15 and

continues, hinc

tamquam

a fonte hauserunt Stoici philo:

omnia sapientis esse... sui sententiain sophi dogmatis eius qui fidelis sit ait: unde et Salomon in Proverbiis
totus

Quanto prior Salomon quam Zenon Stoicorum magister atquc auctor

mundus divitiarum

(Prov. XVII. 6).

sectae ipsius.
12.
p.

v av

of the wise man, even

can only be predicated l^hysical excellence if in the popular sense of the term
it,

he docs not possess

attributed to the
is

for

no kind of excellence can be

Further, inasmuch as the only

<aOXo<?.

good

(mly 17
is

TO fjiere^ov dperfjs, physical advantages dperrj or found in conjunction with virtue. when have value
ctiJTTTyros.

Cf. frag. 157,

Zeno
2. 1.

perhaps a circumstance s authorship here.

19.

of

some weight

the parallelism of which in favour of

puberal:

for

this

verb, see Shilleto on Thuc.

I.

20.

Setnrotci:

cf.

Diog. L. vii. 122,

77

(8ov\eia)

dvn-

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

rj

&<T7roreia
<f>ai>\7)

ovcra

KCL\

avrrj.

Stob. Eel.

H.

7.

IP,

p.

104,

5.
:

23.
in

8ia\j/v8rcu

because falsehood consists not merely

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
,
<f>av\o<:

26. Similar assertions in an iwrtp^ K al amplified form occur in Diog. L. vn. 119.
0o<}>.

d|iwnaTiKc$s

this appears to
D,

mean

"high
dia>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<rtXeta?
as
0&T779
o-o</>oi)9

dpxfc
o-Tair),

dvV7TV0VVOV, TTtpi pWOV? K a6d ^ai Xpvo-nrTros ev rw

T)Tl<t

(IV

T0l)9

Trepi

rov
I.

tevpiax; tcexp?]a-0ai
3.

Zijvwva rot?
ir.

ovo^a<jiv.

Cf/Hor. Sat.

125, Stob. Eel.

27.
rT P
<xTT,

7.

II"

p.

108, 26.

Y iK6s.

Pint., vit, Arat. 23, 3,

quotes

elvai rov

ao^ov as a Soypa

Zrjvo)vo<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
<j>i\ovs

149.

p.

P,

Se drro

253^3,

Zijvtov re 6 Srwt/co? rrapd

rfjf

TlXdrwvos
rot)?

\a/3a>v,

ftapfidpov
<f>i\ov<t

<j>i\oo-o<t>ui<;,

dya0ov<;

d\\rj\(l)v elvai
xiii. 13, p.

\eyei.

The same

rrdvra? in Euseb. P. E.

671.
Introd.
p. 29.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

iroXiras
:

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<;

not a community

KOL TroXtVa?)? Zeno s of the wise alone, but of

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

<ro</>oi

<f)av\ot.

4><\ov

cf.

Diog. L.

vii.
is

124, Stob. Eel. n.

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

the Cynics, by Socrates

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

no doubt Clement is that Plato Symposium: he adds his usual comment

are borrowed from the Jews.
ftcvttpovs.

by Plato in the Lysis (p. 214), but thinking rather of the Phaedrus and
s

views

Stob. Eel.
v.

ii.

7.

II

1
,

p.

101, 18, Diog. L. vn.

is

121,

Cic.
:

Parad.

This again

derived

from the

Cynics

see Zeller, Socrates, p. 322.

150.

Cic.

Mur.

tortissimi, formosos.

sapientes esse, si disThis occurs among the "Sententiae

61,

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

beautiful and attractive references add Cic. Fin.

Zeller,
in. 75,

270 and n. 4, to whose p. recte etiam pulcher ap-

192
pellabitur:
corporis.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

animi enim lineamenta sunt pulcriora quam

151.

Cic.

Fin. v. 84,

Zeno sapientem non beatum

est.

modo sed etiam divitem

dicere ausus

Cic.

Mur.

61,

solos sapientes esse, si mendicissimi, divites.

For the sense cf. Cic. Paradox, further references ]). 101, 18, and and 6.
152.
Cic.

vi.,

Stob. Eel.

II.

7.

II

1
,

ap. Zeller p. 270, nn. 5

non esse exorari neque neque placari. The reasons for this opinion are given by Diog. vn. 123, e\erjfj,ovd<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<;

gratia delicto ignoscere; misericordem esse nisi stultum et levem viri

Mur.

61,

sapientiam

moveri,

numquam cuiusquam

nunquam neminem

Ko\d<rei<f

/eoXacret? 7rpocr7roiovfMevr}<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?
<rn

tyvxfjs

777)09

xPW

prjSe

oieaOai

is

a subdivision of

\VTTIJ (eVi reo

7.

BOKOVVTI

dvafyw

KCIKO-

7ra0eiv Stob. Eel.

II.

10

p. 92, 12)
all

the

-rrddr)

possibly this
(frag. 144).

is

and therefore one of that is meant by Lactant.

Inst. in.

23

153.

Cic.

Mur.

61,

rei poenitere, nulla in re falli,

sapientem nihil opinari, nullius sententiam mutare num

ergo
si

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.

August, contra Acad. n. 11,

magno cum

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

ab eodem Zcnone accepissent nihil csse turpius
opinari.

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<?

da-devw d\\d paXkov acr^aXco?

cogd^eiv
tear

/cat

@e(3aia>s

Bio /cat f^rjoe

VTTO-

rov

crotyov...

p.

113,

5,

ovSe peravoelv 8

\an,fBdvovGi

rov

vovv

ovoeva rporrov

oe e%ovra. ..ov&e fjiera/3d\\eaOaL ovoe fjierariOecrOai ovoe a(f)dX\ecrOai.

Diof.

VII. 121, eri re pr}

So^daeiv rov

For Zeno
<ro<j>ov.

definition of co%a see on frag. 15.

154.
/cal

Diog.

VII. 32,

e%dpov<;

KOI rro\e^Lov^ KOL

Sov\ov<$

eivai aXXorpt ou? \eyeiv avrov (Zr/vwva) d\\ij\(ov

TOI)? prj
<nrov&a,Lov<s

rrdvras

KOL yovels re/cvwv

of frag.

teal

dBe\-

oiiceuov. ^01)9 d&eXty&v, oliceiovs

This

is

the

natural

antithesis

149.

Even
because

to their children, if parents are enemies natural relationship and parental love as

(f>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

autem, qui sapientes

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

rrdvra \eyovo-L &e ical (frwydoa Kara VOJMOV /cal vroXireta?

<$>av\ov

156.
H. P.

Athen.

IV.

158

B,

^rwi/cov oe Soypa eo-riV

ori

13

19-*

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

ev jrouja-ei 6 ero^o? ical

Sio teal
l

rejrdvra

^UK^V
tyciv

<f>poviftax;

dprv<ref

[Zrjvwveiov]

ye

<a/o>

09

c9 OVK

a\X9

8vva/j,evr)<;

Kara
(J>TJ

rr)V Zrjvcoveiov

v<f>r/<yr)(Tiv

09

et? Be fyaKrjv e/i/3a\Xe

on
virtue

TC

KT.X.

SvaSeKarov Kopidvvov. This follows from the doctrine that

:

all

is

wisdom
(<j>p6vr)(rvi)
(f>a

since
<j>p6vr)o-is

is

in the preparation of a

K rJ, the wise

man

required can alone

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<j>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:

sapiens crepidas sibi

numquam
1

nee

soleas fecit, sutor tamen est sapiens. tacet Hermogenes, cantor tamen
lator etc.

qui

ut quamvis

Cf. also Stob. Eel. n. 7. 5 bl

atque optimus est modu p. 66, 14 foil.

,

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
}}

^aTrrio-a^ (nrovSalov ovnvovv

dvevSoro? yap
teal e-

r&v d/3ov\i]ra)V
v
op0o<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(<rais
. . .

piao-aio.

So

smuth,

for

the

MSS.

less probable.
PICXO-CUO
:

for the

freedom of the wise

appetitionem

man s

will

cf.

Cic.

Tusc.

iv.

12,

eiusmodi

Stoici

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

appellant, nos appellamus solo essc sapiente quam sic definiunt
;

195
illi

voluntatem.

Earn
:

putant
est,

in

quid

cum

rationc desiderat,

quae and sec Stein, Erkeuntnis-

voluntas

theorie, p. 196.
dv v8oTos
rt}v
:

cf.

supra

S (rov frag. 14-8, l(r%vpov

on
<ro<f>6v)

e7ri/3fi\\ou(Tav

lo")(yv

TreptTreTroiijTai d^rrrjrof
fin.
9.

tav real

M. Aurel. I. 10 d/caraywvia-ros. see Introd. pp. 8,

:

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>$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

See further on Cleanth.

frag. 94.

132

196
159.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Seneca, Epist. 83.
:

8,

Ebrio secretum sermonem

:

nemo committit

viro

autem bono committit

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>s \6yov aTropprjrov TrapaKard6oi.ro Be crotyto rrapaKararidevrai> OVK dpa
<rw

T&>

daretos.

ebrius non erit:

fiev (rov
<ro<f>6v),

cf. Diog. L. YII. 118, Kal ol ov ^QvaQr^ecrQai Be. Stob. Eel.

II.

ll m
rtjv

7,

p.

109,

5,

ov% olov Be

fjieOvaBtja-eadai rov vovv e-yovra

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.
<>yap>

yap

The

Peripatetics held, on the contrary, according to Stobaeus, that the wise man fiedva-Otjaea-dat Kara o-v/j,7repi<f>opds,

tcdv el

fj,rj

7rporjyovfj.eva)<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
<J>avraariKov

Kal

TradrjrtKOv

vrro

rov

\6yov

BiaKe%v-

etiri

TWV

dvcpa>v

it

was a popular Greek notion that the

eye
is

vision of the

mind
:

clearer in sleep.

Aesch.

Eum.

104.

Pind. frag. 108 [96], Fennell.

Wellmanii

p.

462 argues that Zeno, while

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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,

words aicrxpv Sewoi;

of

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

has no objective reality but

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,

ovBevo, fyavraaObserve that it is

p.

156, n.

309.

161.

Seneca, Epist.

104,.

21,

quod

si

convivere etiam
versare
:

Graecis juvat [cum Socrate, erit te docebit mori, si necesse

erit.
erit.

cum Zenone
:

alter

alter, antequam necesse

.

(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

see on frag. 145).

point

emphasised by Zeller

p. 338.

198
162.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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<f>dXaiov tva pr)

Kara
efc

Sr/povs oixunev,

iSiot<:

dXXd irdvra* dvOptoirow

Be /3/0?
77

eKaa-roi Buopitrpevot Biicaiois,

Tyir<a<rditevo?

KOIVW ovrrpefofibiji. rovro Zjvwv fuv eypa^ev &<nrep ovap f, etBtoXov evvom a? Kal -rroXireia* avaid. de Sto. Rep. n. 1, eVet rotvvv 7ro\\d
<^tXo<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>r)v

7ro\ireiav
77

Kai Zijvav Kal

crvvedrjicev.

ei

rt<?

ere/Do? -rroXireiav eypa^rev

Trdvras dv9pa5-rrovs

see on frag. 149.

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}

have written the woXtreia when he was

of the

influence

<j>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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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<; real xeipovs TTOLUV SfioXoyoir)

T*

8e

6avna<TTOTepov

ei

K.T.X.,

with which

cf.

TroXew* Trpoa-rdr^ yevopevo*; also Newman, See A. 516 Plat. Gorg.

rt?
I.

Politics of Aristotle, vol.

p. 30.

163.
TGI>

Athen.

XIII.

561
xal

C,

Hovrtavbs 8e Zrjvcova
"Epeora

fyr]

Kmea
8

viro\a^dveiv rov

debv elvai

<j>t\ia<>

teal

e\ev6epia<;

en

Be

o^ovoia^
r>

d\\ov

ovSevos.

Sto Ka\ ev

TrapaffKevacrnKOV, rov "Epwra 7ro\irela tyr]

"

6ebv elvai,
wrnpiav."

<rvvepy6v

^irap^ovra vrpo?

rr,v

r^

7roXea>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<r0ai
o-wera^e
/cat

Plut. vit. Lycurg. 31.

Lycurgus object was

vvviip^oaev,

yevo^evoi
t.
:

/cat

teal e\ev6epioi 7rXet(7TO^ xpowv eVl (raxjipovovvTe?

OTT&)?

rauTT,!; *al
/cat

nXa ra)^ eXa^e r^

Zr/vwv
in
K.T.\.

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

ship and concord. fiovois re TO??

Cf. Stob. Eel. n. 7.

(uro\elirov<ri,

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/>(H9
<j>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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Zeno took the same
Republic as
objection, that of
is

want of

unity, to

taken by Aristotle Pol. n. 5, p. t a 24, CV ^d yap -rr6\ei Svo 7roXe<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,

Clem. Alex. Strom,

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.

Plut. Sto. Rep. vi.

1, e r,

tepa Oeuv rf Kal afiop ay lOV ov K $

eo-Tiv

S6ya Z

mv
45,

olxoSofielv
-

ieptv
6

oiicoMpuv
.

ou&v
III.

yap rf Tr epyov K al fravav-

e o-ri

7ro\X
49,

p.

780

=
cS

rig lov

p.

ravra

r^ HoXcre^

Theodoret, Gr. Aff. Cur. vvvopuv K al Zj vtov 6

d-rrayopevec

frfofo K al vaov,

K al dydXftara
Haeres.

racraiw

m.

36,

Oew fifa Kara^evaa^a. Z me 6

i pd. also

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

deny the sanctity of temples: Diog.

dro-rrov

lp<09

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

165.

201
Belv

Stob. Floril. 43, 88,

Zqvwv

ra?

e<f>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)<?

tepd

/x?;re

Karci...crTixovs.

Prose writings were cited according to

cf.

the

number
jrepl

of lines,

ev Diog. L. vn. 187, (Chrysippus)

(f)vcrio\6jcoi

TW
jud.

TWV dp^aiwv
Trpooifiiov

avyypdf^^arL \eywv
hist.

Kara rou? e^aKoatov^

c.

o-Tt^ow?.
T//9

Dion. Hal. de Thuc.

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<palveiv

\eyovaLV ev dpXTI
r

T57 9

TroXtreiav.

^KVK\IOS imiStCa.

J"he

ordinary course of Greek educa

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

be the ground on which the Cynics put

VI. 11, rriv

forward a similar opinion, Diog. L.

re dperrjv

202
ru>v

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

epywv
elvai,

pr/re

\6ywv rr\eiovwv

HaQripdrwv. 73, /iot/o-t/a;<? re teal yewp,erpiK^ K al dvrpoXoyias Kal rwv roiovratv dpeXeiv &$v d-^prja-rwv Kal OVK
dvayxaitav.
p.ara.
tfeV?;?

103, Trapatrovvrai Be Kal rd eyKVKXia p.a6r)fjn]

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,

Physics as well as Ethics, Zeller

4, cf.

Hirzel n.

p.

523,

Cleanth

frag. 106.

168.

Diog.
iv

VII. 33, rrepi re i/o/i/oytaro? ourco?

ypdfaiv

o/uoyia 8

OUT

d\\ay^

evexev oleaQai 8eiv

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>6Ka

dXXa-^s

KVCKCV.

This again

security

future exchange:
pijSev
Seirai,

vrrep

r/;<?

fie\\ova^ dXXayrjs,

el

vvv

ore

carat edv
Eth. v.
5.

yvTirrjs e o-0
9.

ftp.lv.

Ser)6f), TO vo/j,t(T^a olov ey14. Cf. especially Ar. Pol. I.

1257 a 32
169.

foil,

and
vi.

Newman
233
B,

on

ib.

1257 b
8e

11.

Athen.

C,

Z^tyi/

drro

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

irdvra

203
(i.e.

rd\\a
/cat

7T\>}v

rov vo^ i^w avrols

%p?)(nv Se

gold

and

silver) KOA,

/caA.w? xp)ja-0ai ^o/u cra?

^>vyriv

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 ^?)
^>6/3&)

The opinions the same relation

frao-.

money professed with regard to the last frag, as frag. 171 bears to

to

bear

176.

of the
thino-s

doctrine of the

This passage affords another good illustration Kad^Kovra as applied to those

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
$>vaiv

-napd

<j>vo-iv,

latter.

Thus TrXoOro?

is

-rrporjy/jievov

(Diog. L. VII. 106),

for
life

and possesses value as being of advantage

accordance with nature
(ib.

in

105), while

77

6p9^

xpv<ri<;

TT\OVTOV which is characteristic of the <nrovSaio$ is sharply the (Stob. Eel. II. 7. 10 distinguished from
,

<f>i\OTr\ovTia

p. 91;
a\:

18) of the (f)av\os.

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.

M. Aurel. I. 3, TO \LTOV Kara rr,v Stairav. So Casaubon in place of MSS -rrepiTrwv.

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"

being often opposed

204
to drco\ov0a)s.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

cf. 7rpor)yov/j,vo<?

doctrine.

Here however

it

Stoic sense
)(/card
24. p.

the absence of overriding circumstances 7Tpi(TTa<rtv, cf. Epict. diss. III. 14. 7, Stob. Eel. II. 7. In this connection we 144, 19, frag. 131.

= in

\6yos frag. 123 = leading seems to have the special

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<>

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

<y?

irpo^^kvwv.

points to the

fluence of the irdOr]

purging of the soul from the in Seo? is a subdivision of not

</>o/3o<?

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<; TJ}? yvvai/cos icai For 8id0e<riv see on frag. 117.
2,

rq>

170.

Seneca de Otio 30,

(sapiens), nisi si

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

The same doctrine

K(I)\VTJ, do?

attributed
(fracri

to

Diog. L. VII. 121, TroXirevecrOai

<f)rj<ri

rov

Chrysippus in croffrov, dv fitj TI

:

\pit(TL7nro<;

ev Trptarw Trepl ftlwv

II.

cf.

Cic.

Fin. in. 68, Schol. on

erit civilis,

Lucan

380, Stoicorum sapiens

rei publicae.

hoc

est, in

administratione

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

TO rro\ireveadai
is

205

is

another instance of KaOtj/cov which

to

be undertaken
II. 7.

/card rov
5)

Eel.

II

1
",

p.

HI,

= rrporjjovpevo)^

rrpo^ov^evov \6yov (Stob. (see on last frag.).

We may
KaQijfcov
is

7rpOTjyov/J,evws

while TO 7ro\irevea6ai is KadrjKOV say then that, is or Trepio-rdaews, TO //,?; rroXireveaOai

(ii>ev

Kara

as a careful use of rrepicrraaLV, just

wealth

contrasted with the condition of the spendthrift.

VII. 121,

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<j>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<?

clearly refers to b Stob. Eel. II. 7. ll

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<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
>7

rr}v Trpos

ev(f>vt

!>

F(jr

the Cynics see Introd.

p. 20.

This passage

is

no

206

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

doubt inspired by the influence of the Phaedrus and

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.

Thompson remarks (Phaedrus App.

Symp. 208 B

foil,

and

for evfyvtav
cf.

Kokf) Kal yevvaia real evfyvel, elvat, TO 77^09 e eiSovs.

frag.

209 B, ^rvxfl 147, /caraXrjTrrov

ib.

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.
<f)av\o<t.

the

e/3609

of the arrovSalos

must distinguish between and the TO

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<$, the answer is that this is untrue of that which is defined particular form of
ep&>9,
epo>9

ep&>9

as
1.

7ri/3o\rj

(f)i\o7roiia<j

Bid tcd\\os

e^aivo^evov (Stob.

1.

c.

12, ib.

10

p. 91, 15,

IP

p. 115,

1,

Diog. L. vn. 113, 120,

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;?

cro^t a? /jjjvwva rov

del"

oviKa, 09

ov&eTrwTrore yvvaiKt 0)9 Aj/rte^pijaaro 7rai8itcoc<t B 701/09 6 Kapvo-riof icrropel ev rw rrepl rov (3iov avrov

0pv\\iT6 yap on
8i
\>.-f[

"

Set

firj

rwv awpdrtov d\\d

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.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

174.

207

Clem. Alex. Paedag. in.

o

11. 74, p.

296

P. 101) S.,
/cat

Kmet?
/XT)

eot/ce

/ir)vu>i>

elfcova
0r/crt,

veaviov

avrov
,

dvSpiavroupyei

ecrra),

Kauapov TO
dvie-

ofypvs

rcaOei^evri, /u/^S
p,rj

o/x/u-a

dvajreTrra^evov,

~\.a<7/j.evov,

VTTTLO^ o

rpa^T/Xo?, /x^S
/jLereatpa
/fat
Kivr)cri<;

/j,eva

rd rov crwftaro?

/i^eXr;,

aXXa [T]

op6os vovs Trpo? rov \6yov, O^UTT;? ws eipr)/j,ev(i)i>, 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>v

/J,r)Sev

/cat

a?ro

epyaa-rrjpicav,

evOa

/cat

eratpt/cw?

wcrrrep eVt Te^ou? KaOe^o/Jievoi, Snj/jiepevovo iv.

This remarkable fragment was

in

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<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

alteration dvaTt. est

which is not clear. hominis protervi et petuof to

lantis, 8ta/c. mollis et

rejected the sense.

6p96s vovs,

by Wachsm. with great improvement

so

Wachsm.

for vulg.

opQovov

irpos

/c.r.X.

208

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Perhaps it would be better to place a comma after ,,, and connect rov \6yov with Bind, brackets
7rpo<?

6^vrtj<f.

KvT]o-is...v8i8ov(ra
(ivpoirwXCuv
:

Bind, with some

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<rtv ovS ev rot?
7T/30<?

frequented ravrl ~\.eya), rdv rw pvpw.

these shops are mentioned as the lounges by young men. Ar. Eq. 1375, rd peipdtcia

TOioi/rot?
oi?

<rv\\6yoi<;

aXX
:

eV rot? eTrirySev /JLCUT

ti>

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<r/j,r)/j.evai... (i^voi...Kae56p.voi. For the former word cf. Xen. Mem. in. 11. Ka0eofj,vai.
KKo<rjxT1

collected

4 where Theodota
^kvr]v, arid

is

spoken of as TroXuTeXa?
II.

fcefcoa-fjn]-

Lucian, Ver. Hist.

46, yvvalKa^ -rrdw erai-

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.

VII. 22, Setv re

xpi")a0at

eXeye roi)? vtov? Trdtrp Kal iropeiq Kal a-^fian /cat -rrepito the

Possibly
frag.

this

is

only a reference

For

jropeia see on frag. 31.

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,

THE FKAGMENTS OF ZEXO.

TToXtre/a.
oyu-oico?

209

ib.

33,

icoivds

re

-m? yvvaiKas
p. 20.

n/Varom

ev TTJ vroXtreta.

For the Cynics see Introd.

concurred in

Observe, however,

that Chrysippus not therefore be treated as merely Cynical.

177.
(Tir/vuiv)

this opinion,

which must

Diog. L.

VII. 33, /cat eaOfJTi, Se Trj avTrj

/cat

Ke\evei

%pfjcrdai dvSpas Kdl yvvaifcas

The same view seems to have been advocated by the Hence the point of Menander s lines quoted by Cynics.
Diog. L. VI. 93,
<TV/ji7repnraTr]aei<;

yap
77

rpi/Bajv
<yw>i.

e ^oucr

e^oi,

SaTrep KparijTi TW KVVIKW Xen. Symp. II. 3 says earO^

:

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 <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

KaOrjKovra of ordinary of view departure from the Cynical point

ordinary here of the

life,

and

is

largely

to be found in this direction.

178.

Origen

c.

Celsum,

VII.

63, p.

739, e/CK\ivova-i

TO fioi^eveiv ol ra rov Kmeeo? Zr/vwvos <tXocro</>o{We9... Sid TO KOiVWVLKOV Kdl TTapd (J)VCTIV elvai TO) \OJLKW aj(i)
voBeveiv
rrjv

VTTO

yvvaiKa Since

/cal (bdetpetv

rwv vo^wv TOV d\\ov

erepco

7rpoKaTa\ rj(f)del(rav
OCKOV.
is

dv0pa>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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

it is, firj

society constituted as
Trepia-rda-eeof

fj^oi^eveiv is
fyva-iv.

Kadr) K ov avev

and therefore Kara

The wise man

which he
lives in

will recognise the laws of the state in

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 $i\oa6$>wv 8e rives (fracriv d8id<popov eivat
dSid<j>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<f

ot^i KOI
/cat

jropvetas Kal poixcCas eSiSagav eTTireXetadai,

elcrrjyrjcravTo
;

en pyv

Sext.

Emp. Pyrrh.

in. 245, olov yovv 6 alpeo-i<fyr)<rt

dpxrj? avr&v

Zrfvcav ev rat? Siarpifiais

Trepi TraiScav

dywyrjs
ov yap
rj

d\\a

re opoia Kal rdSe

77

"

Sta/j.r)pieiv
/jLijSe

w&ev fj,d\\ov
rj dppeva ovSe OyXeiais

/A7?8e r/o-o-ov TraiSitcd

/zr)

TraiSixd
77

0r)\ea

[ecrrt] TraiSiKOis

d\\a

fxrj

Trai8itcoi<?

dppea-iv, d\\d ravrd TrpeVet re Kal The same fragment is preserved by Math. XL 190, introduced by the words

irpeTrovra ea-rtv." Sext. Emp. adv.

Kal

^v

Trepi

^ev
Trat-

iraiSwv dycoyrjf ev rat?

8iarpi/3at<;

6
aipea-idp^r}<;

Zrjvcav

roiavrd

nva

Bity-euror,

and with the variant d\\a

SiKol? for ecrrt TraiSiKois d\\a.

lv

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<f>6p(i>v

roTrp ori r

iSlw \6ytp (the action

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

taken by
itself)
V

211
eariv,

Ouyarpdcn fiiyvva-dat
TCUS

d8id(f>opov

Kal

|xi}

\pr\

Ka0crTwcrais

iroXireCais

TO

TOIOVTOV irouiv,

Kal
7-779

vTrodecretos

xdpiv...7rapei\r)(j>aa-i

TOV

crofyov

p,erd
TU>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/

d7ro\(rdat...To Tcdv TWV dvOpunrwv trates frag. 178.

180.

yevos."

This also

illus

Sext.

Emp. Pyrrh.
auro?

III.

246, Trepl Be T^? et? TOI)?

(Zijixov]
(f)Tjcriv

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?

Kal evtypaivev, oo vi>(j)p,evriv Travaa^,

TratSa? IK Trjs

/LtT/rpo?

yevvaiovs
o

eTroirja-ev, alcr-^pov.

Sext.

Erap. Math. XL 191, Kal ye

lo/cacTTT;? Kal

pev Zrjvwv
el

TO,

Trepl

T^?
r)v

Ot StVoSo?
TTJV

io-TOpov/jievd

(frrjcnv

OTL

OVK

Seivbv
crwfjLa
Tepu>

rpl^rai

fujrepa.

Kal

pev daOevovcrav TO
el

rat?

P a^

r pfy a s w^eXet, ov8ev ala^pov

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>

ovBe a XXo TI
(f)av\ov av
6.

/Ltepo?

TOV crcopaTO^ avTrjs

TTJ
III.

eiirof,
vrj

TLS elvai.

Plut. Quaest. Conv.

1,

6,

o$<?

eywye

TOV

Kvva Kal TOV Zrjvcovos av

ev crvfjiTrocriw TLVL Kai Traiota
e^ofjievw o-vyypa/jL/j,aTi
Tf)

e{3ov\6[JL r]v
f)

(j>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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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.

188, Theoph. ad Autol.

III.

G,

120

D.

181.
"

Sext.

Emp.

adv. Math. xi. 190,

Kal

TT<I\IV

(6

Zijvwv)

8iafj,efArjpiKa<>

rov

epa>/j,evov ;

OVK eywye.
/LtaXa.

Trorepov

OVK

eVetfy/zT/cra?

dvpr)aa<$

avrov Sia^plcrai ; KOI irapaa-^eiv aoi avrov rj

Ke\ev(ra$
;

a\X

eVe;

e<f>o/3> ]67)<;

/ceXeOcrat

pd
;

At
*

aXX

Kal

yLtaXa.

etr

OVK

VTrr]peTr)cre

aoi

ov yap.

tant,

The line taken here and not the act in

Sid06<rts,

is

that the intention

:

itself

is all impor hence virtue belongs only

to (nrovSaia

cf.

Cleanth. frag. 95,

bo-u? eTTidv/MJov dve^er alcr^pov 7rpdy/j,aTo<? OUTO? Troir/cret TOUT edv xaipov \d^rj.

Bekker suggests aXX

182.

7n6v/j,jj(ra<;...eir

e<

Sext.

OTTOV ye teal 01

Emp. Pyrrh. III. aVo rfjf Kvvucrjs

200, K al TI
</)tXocro0/a9

Kal oi jrepl

rov

Kinea
TOVTO

Zrjvtava Kal K\edv0r)v Kal XpvcriTnrov dSid(i.e.

<f>opov

dppevopigiav) elvai

183.

Sext.

Emp.
1

Pyrrh. in. 206, TO Te

6 Zrjvcav

eiraparov ov Trap
184.

rn^lv

OVK

TO, Zrjvcovo?

Theoph. ad Autol. in. 5, p. 119 C, 77 Ta Atoyevovi Kal K\edv6ovs,

/3i/3\oi

TI trot eSoge
OTrdcra Trepi-

at

avrdov

SiSda-Kovaai

dvOpwrrofiopias,
/3i/3pcaaKea-0ai

fiev VTTO ISiwv rercvwv

fyeaOai Kal

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

K ai,
el Tt?

ov /3ov\oiTo

Jj

fiepos

n
TOV

rf;9

fiver ep
;

avTOv d-rropptyeiev,
Of.

aTecr0iW0<u

^ (payovra
re
ical ical
III.

trapic&v
Trepl

Diog. L. VII. 121, yeucrecrOai eV te Kara -rrtpiara, ib. 188 (Chrysippus)

dvO

7
r<j>

Zucaiov Kara rot)?

X 4\iW arrows,
.

TOT)?

a-Tro-

eavoina* K are<r0{e L v Ke\ei V

foil,

Sext. Pyrrh.

207, 247

Math. XL

192194, Mayor

on Juv. xv. 107.

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

this practice Kara only enjoined

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.).

Others however have explained the

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.

be cast forth unburied (Diog.

104).

L. VI. 79, Cic. Tusc.

any

of different nations (Cic. Tusc. varying practice

the absolute unimportance of Chrysippus proved the form of burial from a comparison of particular
I.

108,

Sext. Pyrrh. in.

2269).

214
186.
Cic.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

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.

quamque rem nomine

ac verbis flagitiosa p. 326.

187. 178,

ducamus

and see

Zeller,

Socrates

Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 20. 125 P.

6

p.

*a\&>?

Zr)vwv e6e\etv

7rl

TOJV
iSeiv

IvSuv eXeyev eva

77

494, S. p. IvSov

<di>>

Trdaas

ra<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

peyio-TOv Kokaa-rripiov, TOVTOV

>J^et5

Kara^povovpev. Clem.
sit

Alex. Strom, iv.

7.

50.

Similarly Philo, in

879, Trvp /jLeyiarovs rot? fcScrt aw^acri TTOVOW; tcai fydopav epyd^erai,
liber, p.

same story:

quod omnis probus

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.

e^dyetv vqaavTa Trvpdv, V7ra\ei-frd/j,vov Be KCU

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

added by Cobet, Ep/^9 \oyios, I. p. 487. There is no doubt some particular rds .dTToSc^s. which it is difficult now to reference in this, the point of
civ,

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

rov Kvpov, and in the

works preserved by the same writer (vi. 1518) of which bear the three with the title Hpa*\fo two
(

we

rj

ire pi

188.

Galen de cogn. animi morbis,

r/^<;

V. 13,

ovrw

yovv

K al Zijvtov rj^iov irdvra -rrpdrreiv

-o/xei

dff<pa\w*,

ov9 0X1701; varepov

-jratia^ols

eiceivos o

av^p

roi)?

vroXXou?

v avdpv-irvv e
-rrapa

roZ? vreXa? eiriTipav

xav /^Sel? avrovs

aratSa^o^
p.

for their duties see

Becker, Charicles, E. T.

226.

189.

Stob. Flor. 14, 4

= Anton.
el,
fir)

Meliss.
Trpo?

I.

52,

e Xe7%e

aavrov,

ocrrt?

X aP LV

dtcov, dfycupov 8e
\CYX

KO\aKa>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>epei

ovre Trpoa(i iV ^oyov, Diog. L. rivl ovre irpovierai rov Trpo? X P

II. 7.
11",

p.

H4,

23, the wise

man

vii. 117.

Meineke would
quoted by
is

also

ascribe

Stob. Flor. n. 12,

to Zeno the couple where the lemma in the MSS.

Zyvooorov.

21 6
190.
(av

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Maxim.
teal
KLvot<;

Floril.

av TTO\VV

c. 6, ed. Mai, o fiev yevpyos KO\OV 6e\oi Kapjrov \a/3eiv uxf>\ifj,ov

a<

eavrov

"Trape^erai

Kal Travra rpOTrov

e
eo<

Kal Qepcnrevei
7re(f)VKacri
<T7rovSdef.v

vroXt) Se

pd\\ov
Kal

avdpwjrot, rot?
-7-01)9

Trepl ^apt^ea-dai Kal Oavfxacrrov ovBev.

bceivittV

TOIOVTOVS

Kal

yap Kal
(

roav
(J

TOV (jco/iaro?

eVt/ieXoi;//,e#a fjbd\\ov

nrep

eaurot? Trpos rrjv VTnjpea-iav

vofjbi^op,ev elvai, o
&)(/)eXt/i

&v
v<f>

ev

Trda-^etv

d^iovfjLev,

aXXa

/JLTJ

rot? ^670^9 elvai Sei.

ovSe yap

77

e Xat a

depairevovTi re al

avrrjv
/eaXoi)<?

7raydX\eTai,
KapTrovs

aXX

e(/>epoucra

ejreicrev

eavrijs

eVt-

This fragment

is

taken from Wachsmuth (Comm.

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.
<Lv

difficult

to

potential.

determine whether the optative is really See Fennell on Find. Nem. iv. 8, Goodwin
137.
cf.
"

557,

Madvig
ol

w4>&i|xov,

Clean th.

frags.
"

75 and 77.

av8pwiroi,

addendum
654
b.

Wachsm.

Jelf

191.
(f>rj(Tiv

Athen. XHI. 565

D, 6 Se o-o^o? eVeti/o?

Zijva)v, w?
<w?

TO

ei/co? Trepl
<W9

Avriyovos 6 Kapvarios, TrpopavTevo/Aevos v/j,aiv TOV fiiov Kal r/79 Trpoa-Tronjrou TTiTrjSevcrea)S,
01

<j)rj

TrapaKovcravres avrov

ru>v

\oya)v Kal pi] crvvevTes

TTJS

ecrovrai pvTrapol Kal

dv\evdepoi

KaBaTrep ol

Aptcr-

TITTTTOV Trapeve ^Oe.vre^ a/pecreco9 dffVTOl Kal dpacrels.

Cic.,
si

N. D.
est

III.

77, attributes this

remark

to Aristo

quod Aristo Chius dicere solebat, nocere audientibus philosophos iis, qui bene dicta male interpre-

verum

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

tarentur
:

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
<j>vcriv,

fiapovpevos

ns

VTTO

TT?<?

^8

evoxXovpevos
rod

rj

Kurd

4>(iriv.

vrpo? (j,r)Bjj,lav evepyetav. Conformity to nature,

i.e.

external

environment,

is

taken as the basis of all those actions,

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>vcnv

Karaa-Kevah

oliceiov,

7.

8a

13 p. 86,
VIII.

Diog. L. vn. 105.

193.

Diog. L.
(i.e.

48,

d\\d

H,T)V

/cat

rov ovpavbv
rrjv

rrpwrov

KCU Pythagoras) ovopdcraL KOO-^OV

co? Se
0eo</>/oacrro<?

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<f)p

iva

/J.LV

rrepl

rrdvra Ka\vrrroi
aid,

fMCiKapea-o-i

eSo?

which are

cr(/>aXe<?

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.

SiaKOcr^a-iv rwv Krische, p. 396, 397.

rrjv

darepcov

Koafiov

eivai

Diog. L. VI. 91, Zrfvmv 8 avrov (Crates) ^pet at? Kal icwSiov
ra>

avff 6 Ktrtei)? ev ral?

^al

irore

rpiftcavi dveTnrpeirrovvra. Introd. p. 31. kv rats xp" ai s.

218

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

The Cynics adopted
this as their charac

teristic dress, following Socrates (Zeller, Socrates p. 316.

Becker, Charicles, E. T.
Tpi@(ov
(cf.

p.

419).

Zeno himself wore the

apoph.

3).
"

dvcmTpcirrovvTa

word

is

nee curavisse deformitatem." omitted in L. and S. and also in Th.

i.e.

The

Steph.

195.

<j>i\6ao(f>o<;

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

BiBdo-Kvv ore ra pev K ara ra Be Kara d\ij0eiav yeypafev, OTTW? faivrjrcu

Birjyovpevos
/cal

&pa

jMjfOfUVO^ ev THTI BOKOVCTIV evavTifo? cipijtrOai. 6 Be \6yos ovrof Avrttrfftvow earl -rrporepov on ra
avTa>

Bofy ra Be d\i)0eia eiprjrai rro^rfjegeipydo-aro avrov, 6 Be naff eicaarov ruv

ru>

fj.ev

dX>C

o
eirl

pei>

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<j.

196.

Plut.

comm. Hesiod.

ix,

Zr,W

evt]\\arre TOI)? trri^ovf \eywv

pev Travdpurro? 05 ev eiirovri iriOrfrai B av Kaicelvos 05 auras Trdvra vorjcrrj,

1

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

rfj

219

ei TreiOeia

ra

oevTepela. Gaisf. Poet. Gr. Min. n. p.

The same

Trputrela cioovs, in Proclus

Se ra rp on Hesiod, Op. 291, 200, cf. Diog. L. vn. 25, 26,

<j)pov>j<r6i

whose comment on the change of place in the as follows Kpeirrova yap elvai TOV aicovaai
:
ai/T<>,

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

Or. VIII. 108

C, e /iot 8e

Kal ZTJVWV 6 KtTteu9

7%^ota<?

XiW

rr/v einreiOetav aTro^rjvdpevo^ rtf?

dperrjv

apeaTO? ewat

id.

&aai\iKWTepav /cat Or. XIII. 171 D,

rrjv

6pO(a<;

rd^iv ryv H&ioSov /AeraOels K.T.\. yap vire^d/ji^ave Zr/vwv 6 KtTtei)?

evirelOeiav.

ay^Lvoia^ rrjv /3aa-i\iKO)Tpav elvai The lines of Hesiod (Op. 291) are often quoted or
rrj<?

imitated

cf.

Ar. Eth.

I.

4, 7,

Liv.

xxn.

29, 8, Soph. Ant.

720 (f)r)^ eywye Trpeafteveiv vroXu 7rto-T7At77? 7r\ewV el 8 OVV...KCU

TO
/jL,av0dvei,v.

rov dvopa TrdvT (frvvai, rwv \eyovrwv ev Ka\ov

197.

Plut. de and. poet. p. 33 E, teal 6 Zrjvwv eiravop-

TO TOV 2o^)oXeou9,
oo-Ti? Se Trpo?

tcelvov

crTt

Tvpavvov SoOXo? Kav

IfMTropeveTai,
e\ev0epo<>

OVK

eo-Tt

SoOXo? av

(J.

rjv)

e\ev6epos

W
Ka

TOV dSerj Kal peya\6(f)pova e\vBep(t) vvv avveK^aivwv

The fragm.
82.

is no.

711 (Bind.).
frag. 149.
3.

This was also given to

:

authorities Aristippus or Plato by other

sec Diog. L. n.

For
198.

cf.
\i>6epo<;

Strabo vn.

6,

Homer

never mentions Arabia

ypdfyovTi
"Apa/3a5

el

/JLTJ

Zr/vwvL

TW
8

</u\ocro</>ft>

Trpocre/tTeoi/

A.i6loira<;

IKO^V

Kal StSoviou?

Te.

220
Horn. Od.
01)5

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

iv.

the reading of Posidonius:

83 where the edd. now adopt *at Crates of Mallus pre

ferred EpefjLvovs (Krische p. 393).

Floril. 95. 21, Zijvtov ev cr/cineta) avayiyvcao-fceiv KaOr/pevov rov TrporpeTrriKov ov eypa^e Trpd? Oe/uWi/a

199.

Stob.

fyq

Kpdrrjra

\picrrore\ov<j

rvv Kwrrpioav ovSevl rr\eiw dyaffd vrrdp^L 777)09 TO (f>i\oo-o(f>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<ri\ea

\eycov

on

e<j)r)

<ifj,a

ical

rov Kpdrrjra
ere

ei-jrelv

eya

/j,oi

Sotcw,

co

<J>tXtV/ce,

ypdtyetv

o9

TrporpeTrri/fov
<f)i\o<ro<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
<f)i\o\6yov<f
r<5v

200.
7-01)9

f^ev

elvat

7-01)9

Be
\oyo<f>i\ov<;.

The meaning
105, 4, where

is

made

clear

by Stob.
:

Eel.

II. 7.

ll k

p.

it is

said of the
Be

(f>av\os

prjBe elvai

(f>i\6-

\oyov,

\oyo<j)t,\ov

pdXXov,
Be

f^e^pt,

\aXtds eTrnroXalov
K{3e/3aiov/j,evov

Trpoftaivovra,

fj.y/ce ri

Kal rois epyois

rov r^9 dperijs \6yov.

201.
Stob. Floril.
6.

34, 6 Zjvtov rjria.ro rovs rr\eia-

roi)9 \eyo)v,

egov aTro

rwv rcovwv ra9

rjBovds fapeiv, drrb

rutv fiayeipeiwv

\ap/3dvovra<;.

mJvwv. This passage should have been quoted in the note on frag. 128.

202.
e/cao"Toi/9

Stob.
fJ>ev

Floril.

4.

107,

Zjvtov

Be

efa

yeXolov

roi<?

rrpayp.acriv cos Bel ^fjv urj rrpoo~eyiv 009

OVK elBorw, rbv Be Trapd irdvrwv eiraivov davfjid^eiv W9

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Trpdyfiacnv
is

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>j<TTr)pia%ofjLevov

avrov

rl

wparrwv dpiara

(Sioocrerai,

rot? veicpols.

aTrotcpivacrdai rov 6eov el odev gvvevra, ra TOJV d

s.

The same
col.

in Suid.

v.

938.

2.
7-179

Diog. L.

VII.
ru>

3,

7rop<f)vpav

e/ji7rTropevfj,evo<;

djro

Qoivlicris

7rp6<;

TLeipaiet evavdyrja-ev.

dve\0(av 8e

64?

ra?

A#?7z/a<?

/,

rpiaKovrovrr]^, etcdOtae Trapd TWO, dvayvyixacrKOVTos 8e etcetvov TO Sevrepov TWV

^187;

d-TTOfivrj/jLovev/jidTtav rja-Oel^

eTrvdero TTOV Sta8e

rplfioiev

ol

TOIOVTOI

dvSpes.

VKaipa><;

Trapiovros

KpaTijTOS, o /3t/3XiO7r&)X,7^9 Set ^a?

Ko\ov6i)crov.
Cf.

avrov
<f>r]cri,

rovry trapaa/i</>i

Themist. Or. XXIII. 295 D, ra 8e

et9 rrjv

Zrjvcavos dpi8r)\d re ecrrt /cat d86(J,eva

VTTO TroXXdSv

6ri

avrov

TI

2,a)tcpdrov<>

aTro\oyia

etc

<froiviKrj<t

3.

Plut. de Inimic. Util.

2,

Zyvfov

&e,

rfc
to

vavK\r]pla<t

avr(p crvvrpi/Belcr rjs, rrvdo/Jievo^

et?
6,

elirev, ev

j,

rv^rj, Trotet?

rov rpi/3o)va
Zrjvavt
Ta>

<Tvve\avvov(ra

^09.

Plut. de Tranq.
(f>oprr)y6<;

An.

Ktrtet pia vavs Treptrjv rrvdofievos Be ravrrjv avr6<f>oprov d7ro\co\evai crvyK\vcr6el(Tav, ev ye,
elirev
rrjv <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$>ov

s.

v.

TOI)<?

Trplv

oi8ao-Ka\ov<;

Kal Kpdrrjros rov

(f)i\ocro(f)ov
/cat

(froirr/rrjs

yev6/j,evo<;

rovro

elprjKe,

vavayiw

7repi7recro)i>

eljrwv, ev

76 Troel r) rv^rj 7rpoae\avvov<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.

Senec. de Tranq. An. 14,

noster,
"

2,

Xun-

Zeno
"

quum omnia sua audiret

fortuna expeditius philoso-

submersa,
phari."

lubet

iiiquit

me

4.

Diog. L.

VII.

19,

77^69

8e

TOV (frdcrKovra
Kal fca\d
elr
VTT

(w?

rd

7ro\\d avTw Avricrdevrjs OVK dpeaicei, xpelav So^o/cXeof?

ipwr^crev el

nva

e^etv

avrw

rov
e
(>rj,

OVK

elSevai,
TJV

ja-avros,
eprifjievov
,

OVK

p,ev

KCIKOV

TOUT

6K\j6fjLvo<i

Kal ^vrjjjiovevwv

el

Se

KO\OV, ovo

5.

Diog. L.
?, a;?

VII.

20,

Xe 70i/T09 &e TIVOS

avrw

irepl

a\\a

Trpode/Aevos

d\\a

\eyei,

<TKvdpa)7rdo-as,

TTUCTOV
e<prj,

The

ergo cupiditatis
consuevisset,

rfyira^ r Aldobrand videbatur explanation is thus given by Polemonem accusare, ac si ilia ita docere
<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

o efcelvov fiev %opo?, etyr], ^ei^ojv, ovfjLO? 8e

Plut. de seips. citra inv. laud.

c.

17,

ovrw

6
<ydp

TO 7r\f)6os rwv
,

(")eo(f)pdo-rov

/juadrjrwv, 6

6 e

xo<?

oe

224
7.

APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.
Diog. L.
VII.

24,

(prja-l

ATroXX&mo?
CITTO

eX/coi/TO?
eiTrelv,
Tft)i/
u>

avrov KparTjro? TOU tfiariov

<tXocrd</>&>i>

Sri

e&riv eVt8efo? 77 8t KpaTT??, Xa/3?; amai/ TreiVa? GUI/ eX/te rovrov. el Be pe /3taf/;, TO

/tier

a<3fj,a

irapd aoi ecrrai,

r/

Cf. Cleanth., frag. 108,

and

8e ^rv^rj Trap a Sr/XTrcim. for the concluding words

1/01)5 /*ei/
ef&>

of the anecdote Arist. Ach. 398, 6

7rv\\ia OVK ev&ov avTos 8

179,

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

<f>i\oa6<f>a)v

rot)?

7r\ei<TTov<>,

/AW TToXXrt atro^of? elvai,

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<t, with
tut,"

Meric Casaubon.
9.

Diog. L. VII. 20, etVoi/ro? Be TWOS on, pifcpu

avrw
el

BOKCI

ra \oydpta

roov

(f>t\oa-6(f)wv,

\eyeis, etTre, rd\T)6ij.

elvai,

Bet fj-evroi

Kal ra? cruXXaySa? avrwv /Spa^eta?

Bvvarov.

10.

Diog. L.
rq>

VII. 25,

Kal

7rpo<?

rov Beigavra Be avna

Bia\eKTifcov ev
Trvdecrdai
Trocra?

Oepi^ovn \6ya) eTrrd BtaXeKTifcds IBeas

elcrTrpdrrerat,
/jLiaOov

aKovcravra

Be

ercarov Biaicocrias

avru>

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
"

APOPHTHEGM ATA OF ZENO.

it

225
reap."

is

therefore incorrect to say, perhaps you will

Zeller, p. 182.
11.

Suidas

col.

1202

s.v.

SeXro?

Diog. L. vn. 37,

SeXroi?, at
Cf. Plut.

K~\.edvdr)s, ov Kal

rots"
d<j>a>polov

<JK\ripoK^pot^

oe rd ypa<pevTa. fji,6\is fj,ev ypd(f)ovTat, 8iarrjpov(n 6 de Audierido c. 18, uxnrep KXedvOrjs Kal se

Sofcovvres elvai

TU>V

crvcr^oXacrrwv, OVK

ci

et?

avTov<;

eK TOV /J,av0dveiv ovoe aTreKa/jivov, 7rai,ov, dyyelois re /3pa^ucrro/Ltot?

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.
<w<?

ao-</>aX&)?

12.

Diog.

L.

VII.

18,

a
/cat

8ia~\.eyofj,evov

OVK

evcfrvuis,

AptcrTtwt o? Se rou evia be Kal

fir/

el Opacrecos, dSvvarov, elrrev,

ere

Trarrjp

^evvrjcrev.
<av.

odev avrov Kal \d\ov aTre/caXet,

3.

Attributed to Diogenes by Plut. de Educ. Puer.

13.

Stob.

Floril.

36,

23,

ra>v

TI<S

ev

A/caS^/Lteta

veavi<TKU>v

Trepl eTnniSev/jidrwv
pr}

Zrjvwv edv

TH]V

y\d>rrav,

e<f>T],

Sie^eyero dfypovws o oe et? vovv dTro/Bpegas

SLaXeyr), TTO\V 7r\ei(o ert Kal ev rot? \6yois TrX^^eX^cret?. Plut. Phoc. v. 2, 7j,r)va)V e\e<yev on Bel TOV (f)i\6(To(f)ov et

<?

vovv dTroftaTTTOVTa

7Tpo<pepecr0ai

rrjv \el~iv.

Cf.

Suidas

I.

p.

328

TOV (of Aristotle), rrjs ^ucrew? ypafM/Jbarevs ffV

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

re^virat^i 619 aKovovra OVTO)

7rpo<?

rot? \eyofjievois ylveadai,

TT)V
7riar)/jLl(i)<TlV.

ware

fj,rj

\a/j,^dvetv

%povov

et?

TOITOV

perhaps we should read %povov, uxnrep

VII.

TOTTOV.

16.

Diog. L.

22,

^,7)

ra?

teal
<j>a)vds

ra?
TTJS

TrofjLVTjfjioveveiv,

d\\d
fj,rj

Trepl

ryv

Std0e<Ttv

rov vovv da-^o\icr6ai

axnrep

e-^rrjcriv

nva

rj

For the distinction between ^wvrf and Xe^t?

L. VII. 56,

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.

as to its arrangement, without learning

by heart
17.

like a cookery recipe.

Plut. Agesil. 20,

For avaXapfidveiv cf. Cobet, however, translates otherwise.

TO /caXXo? dire T^9
era)
</>p

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,
.

frag. 147, tcaTd\r)7TTov elvat,

TO 77^05 e^ eiSovs.
<^>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

<j>aa-tv

Oearpov dviovra KiOapySovvros

eiireiv,

A/^ot/Seo)? Trpo? TOI)?

HaOrjrds, Iwpev,
rcai,

vevpa
Cf.

teat

v\a
Arat.

teal

OTT&K tcaTa^ddca^ev otav oa-rd \6yov Kal dpid/j,ov

evrepa
/j,era<r-

%ovra Kal Tafeeo?

Plut.

e/i/ieXeiai/
c.

Kal
2,

(frwvrjv d^itjcriv.

17,

aSovros

A/Ltoty3e&)9

eV

TCO

Bedrpy, a passage which also fixes

Amoebeus

as a con

temporary of Antigonus.

APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.
20.

227

Stob. Floril. 36, 19, Zrjvwv Trpo? rov 7T\etw \a\elv

i]

Oe\ovra

d/coveiv

"

veavicrice"

elrcev,

"77

</w<Tt?

rjp.lv

X.acriova Trapecr^ev, iva SiTr y\wrrav /Jiev TO VII. L. wv \eyo/j,ev dtcovwpev." Diog. 23, vrpo? <f>\vapovv aid rovro, eljre, 8vo wra aro^a Se ev,
fAiav Svo oe

wra

^eipdiciov,

e^OfMev,

Iva 7r\eiova /lev

Garrul.

1,

UKOVW^V, 7jrrova 8e \6j(Of^ev, cf. earns (sell. 77 d /CCO^OTT;? yap avOaipercx;

oljjLai,
p.efji^>o^evwv

Plut. do

dv6pucnra)v,

on

piav
3,

fjbev

COTCL

a^ovo-iv,
6

id.

de audiendo,

vwv^av
/jurjre

^7TLvOapo<f

KOI ydp rov eTraivwv e^rj fjur^re rr Keiova

e\drrova
(frvcrtv

(j)Oeyyof^ev(i)

paoiws evrv%eiv
Xeyov&i ovo
fj,ev
rj

erepa).

real

rr}v
jjulav

r]jJLU>v

eicdaru)
a5?

wra oovvai
o<j)Gi-

8e

yXwrrav

e\drrova \eyeiv

dfcoveiv

\ovri. 21.
t
^)?;,

King. L. VII.
u>rd

21,

veaviaKov

rro\\d

\a\ovvros,

rci

aov

et? rrjv

<y\wrrav

(rvveppvrjKev.

22.

Diog. L.
rj

VII.
rf]

26,

e Xe7e

re

Kpelrrov

elvai

roi9

Troalv o\Lcr6elv

<y\wrrr}.

This

is

found several times in the collections of jvwfMai,

(cf.

and
p.

is

sometimes attributed to Socrates

5)
s
:

7,

n.

the references are given by

p. 29.

Wachsmuth

Stein, Psych, in

Sauppe
23.

Satura Philologa,

oeii;as ev
/3a>/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>

oi^eiv ioia ereOrf.

tcai Lyzet? fj,ev etc

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<?

e^ei

vr/ao?

\oi-

SopLdv, KaOdirep, elirev,

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

"The originally have stood: I send away like an ambassador

without an answer (tcaOaTrep el aTrocrreXXot/tu)": so Wilamowitz.

25.
TTJV

Trpeo-ftevrrjv dvarroicpirov

Diog. L. VII. 24, ev o-vprrocriw tcara/ceipevos crtyfj, alriav ijpwnjdtj. ovv eytcaXeaavri aTrayyeiXai
ru>
<f>r)

7T/3O9

rjo-av

rov /3ao-tXea, ort rraprjv Giwjrav eVto"rrt/u,ei>o9. oe 01 epwrrjaavres rrapd UroXepaiov 7rpe
rt<?

t7/3et<?
1

d<f>i-

KOfievoi,
7T/90?

ical

/3ov\6fj,evoi

fj.aBelv

rt

eiTroiev
Zr/va)i>,

Trap

avrov

rov /Sao-tXe a.

Stob. Floril. 33, 10,

7re/u,-/ravT09,

AvTtyovov
avrojv
cri/v

A.6rjvae
0tXo<7o<^)ot9

tc\r)0ei<;

VTT

eVt

SeiTrvov,

Kaiccivwv
(!!~iv,

Trapd

irorov

eTriBei/cvvaOat rrjv
T(OV Se Trpeo-ftewv ^rjrovvrwv ri
"

avrwv
"

ai/ro? eaiya.
Trepl

dTra<yyei\w(n

avrov
Sv<r-

7rpo<f

Avriyovov,
Se

rovr

avro,"

e</>?7,

/SXeVere."

Kparzcrrarov yap irdvrwv

A.0T)vr}<ri
rt<?

o \6yos.

Pint, de Garrul. IV.

e<f>i\orifj,rj0r)

ecrruwv Trpecr/Set? /SatrtXt/eoi/?,

(nrovoaov<Tiv

avrols
8e

crvvayayeiv

ei<f

ravro

roi)?
/cat

d>i\o-

cr600L9,

xpu>n,evwv

rwv aXkwv KoivoXoyia

ra?

aTroSiSovrojv rov oe Tirjvwvos r/av^iav ayovros. /cat oe TrpoTTtovres 01 %evot, Trepl

<rov

ri

xP n Xeyeiv, tyao-av, Zrjvwv, rat y9ao-t\et ; d\\o f*r)8ev, drrev, rj ori rrpecr^vr^ ev
u>

/crzVet^o?,

e<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

friendly relations subsisting

was natural that in later times, when the between Antigonus and Zeno

were remembered, the country of the ambassadors should

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.

Aelian, Yar. H. IX. 26, Zrjvava

ical
<nrovorj<;

rov Kircea
6
/3acrtXeu<?.

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
<f>i\wv

avrov Trpoa-ra^ai, ouvvs

ical

veavievouevos avv opKW ^}

6

drvxweiv rfc
<re/Ai;t5?

aiVjJo-ew?.
ical

Se

\eyei

avry, iropevBel?

a^a cpeo-ov Kal ^eto-ft^eyo? avrov

27.

peyaXo^povw

rrjv

pedyv

e\e<yj-a<;

vrore Biappayf) vrro 77X7707^179.

Athen.

II.

55

F, Sio /cat

Zyvcov o

Kmeik,

<rK\rjpo<;

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)?

ovv rov rporrov

auro rot?

Oepuois

^pa-^fjvai TTi/cpoTarou?
rrpoo-r)vea-rdrovs.
Zr;va)v,
a>

TO Siatpopav e\eye SiaeVeiVou? rcplv -rrad^iv, ical yap Se y\VKeis Kai eli^at, rconaQtVTas
rr)v
3. IV.

Galen, de Anim. Mor.

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>
</>,

42, ZTJVMV ovv,

roi
9

(fracriv,
o/Lttu?

Kirievs crA,7/po9 aXXto? o^ vrpo?

o-vvrj0ei$,

et

7T\eiov oivov Tracrete (leg. o-?rao-ete)

^8i)f

rauVoy rt rot? eyivero Kal ^et Xtxo?, Xe7&)^

o? TTiKporepoi oi/T69 Trply Stafipaxfjvai

Oeppow

TronaOevres

7T<7cr%eti>,

Kal Trpoa-rjvecrrepoi,. 7\u/cet9 ylvovrai

vil. 26.

Similarly Diog. L.

28.

Athen. vin.
,

345

c,

Z^o^

KiT4ei)9

7rpo9 roy otyocfrdyov

w avvefy

eVi

230
Xpovov, Ka6d
$l(f>

APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZEXO.
<f)ija-iv

Avriyovot 6 Kapvo-rios ev

TO>

(p.

119
ctTTo

Wil.),

peyaXov rivos Kara rv^nv

Trivatcos

TrapareQevros,
o

d\\ov S
rov
avra>-

Zijvwv

ovSevos 7rapea-Kevacr/j.evov, rov jjv Kareadieiv.

olo<f

efj.@\e\fravro<;

ri ovv, e^r),

TOI)<?

o-u^coi/ra?

aoi oiei

Trdo-xew, ei

(payiav
29.

av piav rj^pav pi] The same in Diog. L.

V.

&e8vvi)<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>
i-)(6vo<;,

Ivw 8e rdjrl Qdrzp

egeipyd^ero.
id.

The same

story

is

told of

Bion Borysthenites,
it

vm.

344 A. Schweighauser buted to Zeno.

30.
/cat

(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<f>

avros Kelvov rw yovari. rov vTTotcdrw aov

792,
s.

emo-rpafyevros B, ri ovv
<rov

ol et

Trao-^eti/ V-JTO

see also Suidas,

col.
:

v.

a-KipaXiao).

Vulgo

v-rrepavatc.

and

VTrep avrov

corrected
31.

by Menage.

Stob. Floril. 57, 12, Z^vtav 6 STOHKO?

yva)pifj.a)v
crv

opwv nva r&v

etirev edv
32.
fjurj

VTTO rov dypov rovrov aTroXeV?;?, O^TO?

TT

<re

a
<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

of Socrates, ap. Stob. Floril. 17, 22, {m/iev

OVK iva eadiwpev aXX eV^^ev tva &fj,ev. frag. eth. 10 in Wachsmuth s collection

This forms
I.

(Comm.

who

p. 8),

refers to other passages giving the saying to Zeno.

APOPHTHEGM ATA OF ZENO.

33.
ft)?.

231

Diog. L.

vii. 21,

KOI Trpoe^e pero

TUIV
f
J

ra rov

J.a<jyi)<riov

e7ri/3a\o/jLi>ov
&$<?

TIVOS

fjLaOrjTwv

fjbeyd\a

(frvadv,
elr),

OVK ev TM Trara^as enrev, a\\ ev ev TO fieya.

T<M

ieyd\a) TO ev Keipevov

The saying
xiv. 629, A.
34.

of Caphesias

is

recorded also by Athen.

Diog. L.

VII. 26,

TO ev yiveaOai, irapd

fjiitcpov,

ov

H*r)v fit/cpov elvai.

35.
Trjo~a<;

Plut. de vit. pud. 13, TO TOI) Zirjvwvos, w? cnravTivl veavicrKfa

(Jvvr]Qwv Trapa TO /3a8iovTi, Kal TrvdofAevos, OTI fyi\ov

(f>ev>yei

TWV

Tvpelv

avTa>

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.

Diog. L. VII. 16, 17, olov eVt

.

TOI)

o%eTioi>

<ydp

TL OKvrjp&s

avTov

elirev,

v(f)opa

TOV Trr/^ov ov yap eo-Tiv ev

37.

Diog. L. VII. 19, ^ipanlov 8e TrepiepyoTepov irapa

epfDTWVTOS
^r)TTjfj,d TI,

TTJV r/\LKLav

Trpoo

rj

yaje Trpo? KCLTQIT/

Tpov, Kal e/ceXeucrei

efj,(3\e\lrai,.

eVeiT

7jpa!>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<yofAevov, OVK
38.
yitot.

39.

Diog. L. VII. 21, Trpo? TO^ Ka\6v elirovTa OTL ov

pao~dr]o~o~dat
ecrea dai 6

cro009,
(el
jjt,r)

ovbev,
rj/mels

ec^rj,

Vfjiu>v

TWV

Ka\a>v

epaa-Orjo-6-

fieda,

added by Menage from Hesych.

Mil.).

Cf. frag. 172.

Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Floril. 63. 21.

APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.
40.
elvai rov
rv<f>ov,

Diog. L.

vii.

22,

TTCLVTW IXe 7 ei/ d-rrpeirearepov

rtov vecav.

teal

^akiara eVt

Diog. L.
rt? eo-riv,
etfyij,

vii. 23, Trpo?

rov icexpio-^evov
;

ra>

pvpy,

yvvaitc6<;

o&v
p.

cf.

Xen. Syrap.

II. 3.

42.

Ion Damasc.

Stob. Eel. n. 31, 81, p. n. c. 13, 81,

215, 13

= Exc.

MS.

Flor.
9

Zjvuv

^r^el^

TTW?

<iv

veo? eXa^tcrra a^aprai/ot, et irpt fiaXiara ripa tcai al

43.

6(f>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<TKeiv

rov TrepiovTOS

e\ejev,

r;

Troy /cai rot?

TreTroirjtcevai,

payei

a-vwvwcreade, edv

aXpvpd \eyaxri
i

rd

on

TrXfjOos

d\wv

avroi<?

44.

Diog. L.
Se TOV

vii.

17,

epuriKw
rj,

Be oWe/^ei/o?

avrov re

/cat

XpeK\edv0ovs, dve
Trpo?

evov^

K a -rv arpwv dicovfo

rtav

dyaduv

fcpdriarov elvai

<^dp^aKov

ra
</>Xe

7/tiat-

vovra rjavyiav.

For Chremonides
45.

cf.

Introd. p.

6.

Diog. L.

VII. 18,
<f>peva<;

7T/>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<t,

to<?

Mavfjv,"

^77,

/ie

Manes was a common

slave s

name,

cf.

Ar. Av. 522,

APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.
OUTO><?

t /itt?

Trdvres frporepov
,

peyXovs

yiovs r

vvv

Dem.

az/fyaTroS Or. 45 86, Or. 53

ijXiOtovs, Mai/a?.

20.

Sec also Sandys on There is a reference here

views to the Stoic cosmopolitanism (frag. 162): for their of slavery see Zeller p. 329.
47.

Diog. L. VII. 17,

ft>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}

<fyrj

dvat-

48.
Kpdf*,(3r]<;

Athen.

IX.

370

C,

real

ov Trapd&ogov

el

Kara

TT}?

6 r^9 Ttves wfjivvov, OTrore KOI Zijvwv 6 Kirtei)?

2roa?

KTi<TT(t>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?.

Stob. Floril. 98, 68, Zrjvwv eXeyev ovSevos

co9

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

in. 69. ap. Cic. Tusc.

Stob. Floril. Monac. 197, 6 auro? (Zijvmv) epwrijea-n

(/u Xo?,

a\\o?
;

olo?

e 7&).

Diog.
67 w.

L.

VII.

23,

TI? ecrrt

^>/Xo?

a\Xo?,
4,
5,

e 0?/,

So Arist. Eth. N.
aJro9,
cf.

ix.

eart

7p

<<fXo5

a XXo?

Cic.

Lael.

alter idem, ib.

51.

80 verus amicus...est tamquam 23 and Reid s note.

Origen adv. Gels.

ere

vm.
fir;

35, p. 7 68, Zijvwv 8e

7rp<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<riov 8e rov enrovToi avTw Bid rL avrov fjLovov ov Siopdoi
<roi

e<f>r),

ov yap

Tricrreva).

v. 94.

For Dionysius cf. Diog. Athen. vn. 281 D.

Seneca de Benef.

L.

vn. 37, 166, 167.

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

the same circumstance

is

alluded to in Themist. Or. xxi.

SeSaveia/jieva), tcaddrrep Zirjvwv 6

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

</>acriV,

e/

/cat

&apr/vai,

Seneca however says

sign of abject poverty
55.
:

satis constat (Cons. Helv. 12. 3).

nullum servum fuisse Zenoni To have no slave was a the see comm. on Catull. XXIII. 1.
:

Diog. L. vn. 23, rutv yvwptfiwv rivos TraiS

6eaadp,evo^, 7rp6? avrov, opw
<rov,

/j,efjL(0\a)7ri(TfAevov

rov OvfAov rd
56.

Diog. L.

VII. 28, 29,

ereXevra

8rj

ovrax;.

eV rfc

aTTiwv TrpotreTTTatcre Kal rov Sd/crv\ov 7repie ppr?e.

8e rr/v yrjv rfj
i,

avei?

Kal

Trapa^prlfia

ere\evri)crev,
rjSr/

aTroTrvl^af
u>v
"

eavrov.

Stob.

Floril. VII. 45, Tt-qvwv, co?

"

yepwv
;

Trrataa? Karejrecrev,
eieeXOcov

eiTre,
.

ri pe

aveis

teal

eavrov
(frao-iv

Lucian Macrob.

(LXII.) 19, Zr/vwv Be...ov

eio-ep%6[j,evov et?

n}v eKKXrjaiav Kal

Trpo<nrralcravra

dva-

APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.
L

235

pe

/3oa<?

pocfrr/s

Kal viroffrpfyavra oiicaSe Kal T\evTTj(rai rov ftiov.

;

the author of the play

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>e

Trpajfjbarwv

This recalls Marcus Aurelius,

e.g.

vi. 15.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

1.

Diog. L.

vil.

41, 6 Se

K\edv0r)<;

fieprj

</>r/<ri

8ia\KTltc6v, prjTOplKOV, IjOlKOV, 7TO\ITIKOV, fywiKUV,

\OJIKOV.

#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

with this statement, (1) that Cleanthes, unlike the other

Stoics, believed in the unity
itself,

but adopted

and indivisibility of philosophy six divisions for the purpose of

exposi
is

taken from Heraclitus, cf. Diog. L. IX. 5, ? \6yovs et? re TOV Trepi rov Trai/ro? fcai rov TToXirucov Kal rov 6eo\oyifc6v.
T/>et<?

tion merely, and, (2) that the sixfold division

But

see Stein, Psych, n. 95, Erkenntnistheorie n. 206.

iroXiriKov.
<f>p6vT)o-i<;

Similar

is

Aristotle s

distinction

between
VI. 8), in

(practical thought)
<f>p6vrj(ri<f

and TroXm/o? (Eth.

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).
<j>i\ocro<f>la

(pva-ixtj, p-aOrj^ariKr),

0eo\oyiicij

(Metaph.
subject-

The last-named branch

and
is

identical with irpmrrj

its

the best of the three, because

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES.

matter
is it

237
In the Stoic

the most honourable, (id. x.

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>vcrt>Kov.

LOGICA.
2.

Epict. Diss.
real

I.

17. 11,

rd \oyiKa
a><?

a\\a>v

eVrl Sta-

KpiTiKa

eTrunceirTiica real,

av Tt9

eirroi,

^erp^riKa
KCti

/cal \eyei ravra not K\edv0r)s ; See Zeno Zr/vwv

o-rariKa.

TI S

uovos Xpuo-tTTTTO?

frag. 4.

3.
/cal

Sext.

Emp. Math.
e
7

VII.

228, (rvrrwais} trepl fa evOvs

Stea-Trjo-aV

el(Toxn v Te Kal
yvo/j,evrjv

K\edv0^ pev jdp rrjv Mwep Ka ^ & * r ^ v %

71
l<
>

TVTTWVIV

Kara
7*eo-riv

$a>ierv\la>v

rov Kripov TVTTOXTLV.

"n

ib.

372,

el

yap TViracrk
Kara

ev -tyvxfl
"

^avraaia,

rjroi tear

e^o^v
VIII.

Kal etcro^^ TVTTOXTW

-v/rtX^v

ea-riv, o5? 01 Trepl

rov K\edv0rjv
K.T.\.
ib.

vop%ov<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<s

<]>atriv,

ovre Kara

rrjv

reparoXoyovuevijv erepoiwriKriv.

Zeno
ground

definition of fyavraala (frag. 7)

became a

battle

for his successors:

Cleanthes explained
114,

TuV&xm

as referring to a material impression like that

wax by a
(scil.

seal,

cf.

Philo de mund. opif.

e /cro? el trw

p.

made upon Pfciff., &

vm) rd Qavevra

icopi&vo-ai, Biayye\\ov(n

238
teal

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

7riSeiKvvvTat rot)? TVTTOVS efcdcrrcav,
vo-<j>payi6fj.evcu

TO

opoiov 7rd0os.
al<r6r)<rewv

K i)pw yap

COIKOX;,

Se^era*

Sta

rwv

</>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

different shapes attached to

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<t

natarum rerum

mente vestigia? Hirzel n.

He

relies

^v%als r/fjuav evov tcr/pivov e/cpayeiov however entirely on the disputed frag.
o<j>6a\nol
d>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<ro

X iiv.

.^OXTJV

= concavity.
rf)

.convexity.

Cf. Sext. Pyrrh.

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<w/iei/ot9 Kal ega, Kal Koi\d re &rj Kal e^e ^ot/ra Sid rrjv Trepi ra ^p<w/iara av ir\dvfjv T?;? o
d<f>y,

I.

92, at yovv

ypafai

p,kv o-fyei Sotcova-iv

-^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:

Aesch. P. V. 789, 8e\roi Qpevwv,

4.

etc.

Plut. Plac. IV. 11, ol

STOHKO/ faaiv

orav

yevvr)6rj

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

6 (ivOpw-jros e x

TO jyepoviKov /Ltepo? T??? i/ru^s wa-rrep

et?

evepyov (or evepyov) eK(icrri]v rov evvoiwv

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
;

The grounds upon which

this is referred to Cleanthes

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<rrjyayev eKdcrrv) aia-drjcrewv, Tirn-eocm ev
"

tyvxfj,

rt? (aa-Trep Sa/cruXto?

&e

i}

a-fypayis,

evaTTepdgaTO TOV
quis
Krjpivov, 009
el-rre

oliceiov

eoiicws %apaKTrjpa Krjpw 37, p. 498 Mang., 77 yap ^HX?) TO

6 vovs.

rer. div. haer. c.

Ti<?

rwv

5.

Olympiodorus
\eyei OTI
lust. Or.
II.

1.

c.

on Zeno
e^t?

frag.
o8u>

12,

TOLVVV

Quint il.
Cf.

re^vr] 17. 41,

ea-rlv

Trdvra dvvovaa.

nam
18,

sive,

ut Cleanthes voluit,
12.

ars est potestas, via, id est, ordine efficiens.

also Cic.

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

<uo-i5

an

For ei?
e(?fc<?.

on

8ta0e<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<> Kal yevopevas d/ieradv&pl d\\oia)0iO-a^ VTTO r?;? aperrj<^
S,

olovel

yap dperds yiveaOai.

6.
rj

892 b 1423, w9 dpa rd Syrian, ad Ar. Metaph. Socrates Plato Trapd rot? Belois rovrotf dvSpdatv (i.e.

240

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

777309

Parmeuides and the Pythagoreans) ovre

T79
ov
TU>V

rrjv

p
/cat

ovofjidrwv a-vvrjdeias Traprpyero,

teal ot

a>9

Xpvannros
at
t

Ap%e8r)[j,o<;

TrXelovs

rwv ^TWIKWV vcrrepov a>r/0r)crav...

eicri

firjv

ovS"

evvojj/j.aTd

Trap

avrols

Se at,

G>9

K\edv0Tj<;

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<;

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
<W9

is

abundantly clear from the following words

oi/S

ru>

AyTGmi/09, piyvvs ryv Aoyyivov tcai K\fdv6o vw TrapvtfrtcrTavTO /card ra? evvoijTitcds i 8ea9.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

7.

241

Clem. Alex. Strom, vin. 9. 26, 930 P, 332 S, Xe/mi ical Ap^eS?;^o?. Karriyoprip,ara Ka\ovcn KXe<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

their existence altogether.

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

this passage, then,

we must

infer that Cleanthes

hrst to restrict rcarrjyoprjpa to its narrower sense

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

by the example of melv (Pyrrh. II. d^rivOiov

Xe/crov.

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.

recorded about him

is

that he placed the i]yefj,oviKov rov

in the centre of the earth (Zeller p. 147).

8.

Epict. Diss.

II.

19.

4,

Kvpievwv \6yos drro

(paiverai
KOLVIJS

roiovrwv rivwv dfyopiJLWv

roll

i}pu>rtjcr0ai

yap
rrdv

rpicrl rovroLS

777309

d\\r)\a, rw
ru>

dovvarov

^
e

dvayxdiov eivai, /cal dito\ov6elv, /cat T(3 ovvarov elvai

aX?/^e9

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Kal Bvvara) dBvvarov OVK uKo\ov6el- ov TTUV Be TrapeXrj\v0o<f d\rjBe<; dvaytcaiov eVrr KaOaTrep oi Trepl KXedvdrjv BOKOVO-IV, ol? eVi TTO\V <rvvrjyopr)crev \VTLTT
<t>epeo-6ai

arpos.

oi be

roXXa

Bvo,

on Svvarcv

eVrti/ o

oiV

<lo~Tiv

d\Tj6es

OVT ea-raf

/cat TTUV

TrapeXrjXvOos d\7)des dvayKcuov ecrriv

dicoXovdel.

Swarta S d&vvarov

rd rpta 8

eieeiva

Tr)pj<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,

quia sunt immutabilia nee in falsura e vero praeterita possurit

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

agreement was originally propounded

in

p.

by Diodorus the Megarian, on whom see Zeller Socratics 252. It went by the name of o Kvpievwv \6yos =

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

argument getting the better
30 b
of others
:

243
II.

cf.

Themist. Or.

who mentions

it

together with

In discovery of Philo or Diodorus. his ability to teach e. 22 professes

Keparlvr)? as the Luciau Vit. Auct.

it

Chrysippus as the depi^wv HXe/crpa and

I.

as well

ey/ce/caXu/A/xeVo?.
KCLI

Aul. Gell.

crwpeiras. Kvpievovras jjav^a^ovra^; wrote a special treatise on the subject (Introd.

2. 4,

Cleanthes
p. 50).

9.

Quiutil. lust. Or. u. 15.

3335.

huic eius subesse

stantiae maxiine conveniet finitio,

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

Cleanthes defined rhetoric as

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.

quoted by Stein, Erkenntnistheorie Emp. Math. n. G.

6,

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

11.

Athen.

XI.

467

d,

K\edvOr)<;

8e 6
</>t\6cro<o<?

eV

rw
ib.

irepi

/ueraX?/\/re&><?

ajro

TOW Ka-rao-Kevaadinwv
teal rrjv

(f>r)(rlv

ovo-

fj,a<T0ijvai

rr/v

re 6^piK\eiov KvXttca

SetvtdSa.

4)71

b,

KXei #7;9
rd
<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<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

<f>aiverai

d\\d, tcaOaTrep

eiprjTai, ovtc ecrTt Triarev-

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

alio in aliud velut

6o<\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:

Nos quis ferat, nomiuemus ? cf.

si

Verrem suem aut Laelium doctum

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>V

xpija-apevcav

l<f>iKpari8e<f,

AetvtdSes,

~fj,iv8vpi8ia,

MiW/aa

dtru Mvvdicov.

A\Ki/3idSia, Diod. Sic. XV. 44

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?.

Alciphr. Ep. in. 57, evayxos Kpovtwv fva-rdvrwv

Becker s poi veovpyels erre/ui/re. E. T. p. 450, Mliller Handbuch iv. 428.

]<f>itcpaTi8a<;

Charicles

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

is

245
follows.

expunged by Meineke, whom Wachsm. is read by Casaubou for avvicnopelv.

"

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>

a-TTOiov

ova-lav Trjv

v\rji>,

\6yov TOV deov.

Br)/jiiovp<yeiv

TOVTOV

dt oiov OVTO, old

<ydp

e/cacrra.

TidrjUL oe TO

86jfMa TOVTO...
frag. 35.

dr]s ev

TM

Trepl cvropwv.

See Zeno

13.

Tertull. Apol. 21, haec

esse

cf.

Zeno

frag.

44)

(quae Zeno dixit \6jov Cleanthes in spiritum congerit

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

Hirzel s account Stein Psych, p. 68. he attributes 211 Trvevfta to Chryp.

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.

Aphrod. de Mixt. 142

r/vwcrdai Tt]v crv/^Trao-av ovcriav,

246

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Sid

-rrda^

avrtjf

SirjKOVTO*;,

ov
v<j>

(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)<;

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.

120, ware eVet Kal 6

elr/

<ucre&>9

StotKeirai

TroXtyiep?}? KaOea-Tws,

dv

ev

avrw
1]ri^

TrpOKaTapxo/Aevov rwv Kcvrja-ewv. TOIOVTOV 1) TTfV TWV OVTWV

TO Kvpievov Kal TO ovSev 8e Svvarov eivai

00<f

<f)V(J-lV,

(TTIV.

<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

((quoting in support Verg. Georg. n. 325). According to Krische, p. 428430, Cicero

made a blunder by importing ah explanation

into the

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

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,

why Cleanthes should

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

removed from the earth which

Zeno, frag. 67.
Cic.

is
II.

in the centre of the universe.

41. 117.

X. D.

Diog.

vii. 37.
ei>

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

the teaching of Epicurus,

(bvcrei

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.

37, Cleanthes... turn Cf. X. D. II. 34. 45.

I.

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

Diog. L. vn. 137, 138,

o\tov

fan Koa^os
o
/<:6a>io9

8wK
Ka0

TW

oiViW

Cf. Chrysippus ap. Stob. Eel.

6X6/30)9
6>eo9,

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<r/tA770-i9

21

5, p.

184, 11, A-eyerat 8

meanings given

*6o>io9

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

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

fato, ut Chryquae quidem ex providentiae quoque provenire, nee tamen quae

ex providentia, ut Cleauthes.
et/j-appevrj

Zeno had affirmed the identity of

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

Kara rrpovoiav, even

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)<ria epovaev teal
rrepl rfjs aperf}^
fcai Trepl
i
.
ri}<t

have to discuss

o-farepya-iv dvoiais, the nature of the solution

shall

Kaula^

teal

ro o\ov

ru>v

re^vcoi Kal
/i<f/!?<K

rwv

yap eariv aXXta? rwv Kara K ara n]v KOLV^V vXdxivrov a\\
..oi>Qev
,* t

yiyv<r6at

<f>vo-iv

Kal rov
i<rrov

\oyov.
<rri

id.

Comm.

Not. 34,
\X<u<?

5, et
77

Be ov8f

rwv
ev

rov\dX

p,epu>v

c^iv

XX

JovXijo-iv.

Chrysippus also defined

The Sceptic rrpovoia otoiKovuevuv. objections on this head are put very clearly in Sext. Pyrrh
in.

rwv

TW Koapw

rov Ato? as Xo 7 o9 eipappcvri

r-qv

Kara

912.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

:

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

2nd book of Cicero commentary on this. Thus

in

the

of the Stoic exposition de Katura Deorum is a

cf.

for astra erratica

ocitlis

103

foil,

and esp. 104, ergo, ut ulla inutatione et varietate cetera labuntur...caelestia...

adsidue videmus, sine

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 <rv<yK\aia-e(os

xal eVtTrXotf//? TWV Trpovoia oioiKOV/JievwV iravra e/ceWev Kal TO KOCT^U) pel Trpoaean Be TO dvajKalov,
ru>

o\u>

avfjLc^epov,

ov

//.e

po?

et.

qua

tenus...

the same time

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?
<TTI

K.r.X.

But inconsistency was inevitable in

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

et

Zenon Citiaeus

Speusippus

(leg.

Chrysippus) Soleus
frag. 52.

et Cleanthes Thasius (leg. Assius).

21.

See on Zeno

Hermiae
d-rro

Irris.

Gent. Phil. 14, Diels

eTrdpaf TT}V

p.

654, dX)C

6 K\edv0r)f
(7ov

TOV
</>/3earo<?

K(f>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>
.
el<f

<elf

<f>epeo-0ai,

ei?

Ta Trepiyeia ^wpdv,
TJ<J

TJJV 8e

^vx^jv

Sitjtceiv,

fjiepos

fj,Te^ovra<f

^/Aa?

o\ov TOV Kocrpov e^v^ovaBai,.

St

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
<j>ptaTos.

This

is

Diog. VII. 168,

Sie/3or/0T) 8e

<f>i\OTrovia,

tyirXet, p-eO
3>pedvT\7)<;
"

qpepav
etcXrjOij.
up."

&

ev

rot<?

The same

\6yois eyvfiva^eTO odev KOI idea is kept up by dvifia

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>ct)T77<?

Cf.

Krische

387.

It is
I.

however always
16 C
p.

Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Eel.

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>

elf yrjv.

7rd\iv 8 airo TavTrjs oiaXvoftevi)? Kal

8ia^eo/j.evr}<;

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

mundi continuata natura

aqua oritur
ex
aer,

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.

commeantibus mundi partium coniunctio contiFor Heraclitus see R. and P. 29.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

els

251
Diels

irvp.

Some words must bo

:

supplied here:

inserts dvw.
T!>

Se trip

ne pos jure xovras:

the reverse process is concisely stated. for the divine origin of the

human

soul see Stein Psych, p. 96, n. 169.

22.

Stob. Eel.

i.

20,

p.

171,

2,

Z^i/aw

al

K\edv0et

KOI

X/waiWw
TO
T

apeo-ei
al
,

T>;I/

ovaiav peTa@d\\eiv olov eh

7r\tv

e/c

rtjv

oia -rrporepov

TOUTOU Toiavrrjv dTroTe\ela6at See Zeuo frag. o4. ffv.

954, perafiaXXav

23.

Philo, Incorr.
rj

Mundi

p.

yap

ij

eh

eh avyijv dvayicatoV eh ^v w? 6 XpucrtTrTro?. 8 aity^ eh K\edvOr)s,

4>\oja
z
,

$\6ya, w? oiero
fire, it

Philo

is

arguing that
itself

when everything becomes

must burn
there
is

out and cannot be created anew, but

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<1

</>

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),

<\o

is

used with reference to the Sun (see on

quotes

frag.

and avyr] For the connection

as a representation of the finest aether. he with of Diog. L.

<Xo

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.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Stob. Eel.
i.

17. 3, p.

1.53, 7,

KXea^?

Be

OVTW

Trey? (prjaiv

K<t>\oyio-0evTO<;

TOV TravTos vvvi&Lv TO ptaov

avTov irp&Tov, elra rd e^o^eva aTrotrfievvvaQai 81 o\ov. rov 8e Travrcx; e%vypavdei>Tos TO e<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)<r\v

av^eaBai K al apx^o\u>v

TOICIVTIJV TrepioSov alel real

TTJ

SiaKoo-prjo-iv
7rav6<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<f
<f>VTa

KadtJKOva-i -^povo^ /cat rive* \6yoi oa<rirep cvjoi? T(uv pepwv et? o-rrepua o-i/i/toi/re? piyvvvTat Kal avQis
<f>VTat.

Buuepivovreu yivopevwv TWV pepwv, oi/rw? e| e^6? re -rrdvra yiveadai Kal etc -rrdvTwv et? li/ K al <rvyKplve<r0ai,
6oa>

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}<;

this difficult frag

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
;

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

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<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
;

Trvpcs rpeTrerai etf rovvavriov.

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.

Heraclit. Alleg. Horn. c. Schol. on Lucan vn. 1.

Sen. X. Q. in. 29. 1 and 25, p. 53, quoted by Zeller p. 109,

Cf.

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

can be reconciled with this passage

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

that TO eff^arov

meansextremum (das Feuer des Umkreises)

<#.

KOO-^OV 18, Trepl eKTrvpwaiv eTreiSav 6 veos xooyio? fieXX-rj 8rjfj,iovpyelo 6ai crvftTrav pev TO irvp ov crftevvvrai, Trocrr) 8e Tt?
(fjiera

and not reliquum, and that Philo

rrjv

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

Cleanthes did not maintain the doctrine of

elements, but
cf.

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

and why they are not scattered into the

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
^<rov,

cf.

Stob. Eel.

I.

b 21, 3 p. 183, 3, a-rro

y^

Se

ttp^acrdai rijv yevtcriv rov

KOCT/J-OV,

Kadajrep airo rcevrpov,

TO tcevrpov.
s,

cf.

Diog. L. vii. 135, 136 quoted on Zeno

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
<K

after

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

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<yoi

certain proportions of the constituent parts of the soul.

yivo|ivo)v

P.
:

Wachsm. Diels
p.

jLvof^evo)v F, whence ryevo/jievwv Mein. but the present, accepted by Hirzel II.

126, seems preferable. Diels els is bracketed b

25.

and Wachsm.

Pint.
$??<?

Comm.

Not. 81, 10,

en
r>]v

-roivvv

KXeaj

rfi

ercTrvpuxrei \eyei

cre\.i)vriv /cat

ra \oL7ra

ciarpa rov

i
j\ioi>

e^o^oiatcreiv jravra eaurw,

/cat

p,era{3a\elv

As
rov
there

the sun

Koafjiov,

according to Cleanthes, the the Trvp deL^wov may be supposed to exist

is,

in

its

purest
other

form

Zoller, Stoics p. 204*, 3,

the authorities cited by Krische p. 386), and to this the

(cf.

moon and

the

stars

will

be assimilated at the

eo|j.ou6<riv.

MSS. have e^o^oiwaai

corr. Zeller, p.

16-5,

n.

26.

Stob. Eel.

I.

15,

6"

p.

146, 19,

TWV ^.TWLKWV TO
Presumably

iTvp (iTref^^varo /cco^oetSe ?. this refers to the fire of the

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.

n. 2), cf. infra frags. 32, 33.

Pint,

de

facie

in

orbe

lunae

c.

6,

3,

wa-rrep

250

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

(aero

oelv

K\edvdr)<;
cJ<?

TOV ^.ap,Lov

aVe/3eia<?

TrpocrtcaXeiadai
etrTiav, OTI

Tois"E,\\7)vas,

KIVOVVTO. TOV Kocrp,ov rrjv

<ra>

(f)aiv6^eva aoi^eiv dvrjp ejreipdTO, peveiv

TOV

ovpavov

V7roTi0efj,evo<;,

KVK\OV

TIJV yijv, a/xa teal Trepl

e%e\iTTea0ai be Kara \ogov TOV avrJ?9 d ^ova

treatise
Trpo?

This

comes

from

the

Int rod. p. 51.

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.
:

Plut. quaest. Plat.

ao-ef3ci as

vm.

1, 2, 3.

n-poo-KaXtwrflai.

For the

ypa<j)rj

acre/Set a?
cf.

see

Attischer Process ed. Lipsius, pp. 3G6

375, and
ypa<f>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<rriav
:

/j,e<roiJ,<pdXov,

fuit.

It is possible that

Cleanthes had in his mind the

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>atvofjiva

orwjtiv

to save appearances:"

for

which

phrase see Prof.

28.
p.

Mayor

in Journ. Phil. vi. 171.

Euscb. P. E. xv. 15.

7,

Ar..Did.

fr.

29 ap. Diels,
tfpea-e

465, rjyenoviKov oe TOV Koa-pov K\tdvBei fiev

TOV

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES.

7j\iov

257
Kat

elvat old TO /jLeyccrrov

TWV aarpwv TWV

real
ra<?

virap-^eLV

Kal

eviavTov
1, 4,

TTOIOVVTO,

aA,\a<?

Censorin. frag.
terra

et constat

aqua igne

aere.

quidem quattuor elementis cuius principalem solem quidam

e

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<fyri<rv

qui quasi

majorum

est

gentium

Stoicus, Zenonis auditor,

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

of the Heraclitean school in Plat.

Cratyl. 413
TO,

B,

rov rj\iov...oiai ovTa Kal /cdovra eirnpoTreveiv

ovra.

Cf. Pliny,

N. H. n. 12 (cited by Hirzel, n.
I.

p. 138).

29.

Stob. Eel.

25. 3

p.

211, 18, K\edv6r)^ a

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>>]<;

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Posidonius et Cleanthes affirmant, solis meatus a plaga, quae usta dicitur, non recedit, quia sub ipsa currit Oceanus, qui terram ambit et dividit.

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<i.

is

Wachsm. does not

only a verbal expansion of jrepl cite Macrob. 1. c.

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,

spoke only of the feeding of the sun by

also of that of the
II.

exhalations, and not

avajjijxa

moon and

stars.

K.T.\.

cf.

Plut. plac.

20. 3, 7T6/H

OtWa<?

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<?

TO,

a\\a ucrrpa rov /j,ev i]\iov CK rrjs fj,eyd\tj<; 6a\drvoepov ovra dvapfia, whereas the moon is fed with
and
is

fresh water,
Eel.
I.

mixed with

air.

Chrysippus ap. Stob.

25. 5, rov ij\tov elvat TO adpOLO-dev

6a\aTTii<;

e^a^a voepov eic

Galen,

rov

T^<?

dva6v/j.idfj,aTos.

Wachsmuth adds

hist. phil. c. LVIII. p.

T&>

rj\iw

277 K., coKeavov Be Kal TTJV OdXaao-av rpo^jjv TTJV avrov vjporrjTa evovaav ev

Kal TTJV 760)877 dvadv/j,ia(7iv. o-n-wv: a necessary correction

by Bake
^70-4.

for

the MSS.

4>a<ri

MSS.
there

Wachsm. suggests
is

l<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,
"

a lacuna after this word.

quod cum
Aetius Kal

Ps. Plutarcho legit

rj

Stobaeus
vel simile

Plut, ^ 777 add.;

scripsit,"

/j,ejd\rj

Qd\a<rcra

quoting
itself in

the passages cited above.

<rx>-yKaTa4>

p(rflai

i-

with the aether, which

is

motion.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

cf.

259

Diog. L.

VII.

144, rov

Be

J
)\ioi>

\oi}v
o/iotw?

rrjv
teal

Tropeiav Troiela Bai

8m

rov

a)8iafcov KVK\OV,

T)}V aeXtjvrjv e^iKoeiSr;.

The discovery

of the inclination
is

of the earth

orbit to that of the

sun

attributed by

some

to

Anaximander, and by
I.

others to Pythagoras (Zeller,

pre-Socratics
30.
Cic.

p.

455,

2).

esse ignea

N. D. ii. 40, atque ea (sidera) quidem tota duorum sensuum testimonio confirmari Cleanthes

putat, tactus et oculorum.

est

nam
et
is

solis et

candor

illustrior

quam

ullius ignis,

quippe qui immenso mundo

eins

tain

longe

lateque

colluceat,

tactus

est,

non ut

tepefaciat solum,

sed

etiam

saepe comburat.
"

quorum
"

ueutrum

faceret, nisi esset igneus.

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

cuncta disturbat ac dissipat.

et salutaris

contra
alit,

omnia conservat,

corporeus vitalis auget, sustinet sensuille

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.

Stein, Psychol. p. G9, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 319.

172

2GO
Oceani:

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES.

cf.

frag. 29.

ei...iyni: for the

two kinds of

fire cf.

Zeno

frag. 71.

corporeus aether vel caelum

identified with

see on frag. 42.

:

hence in Zeno

frag.

Ill Zeus
aether.

is

caelum in place of the usual gloss

v. 8. 48.

31.

Clem. Alex. Strom,

B

674

P.

243
09

S.,

OVK

dveyvwaav

ovroc KXedvBr/v TOV

<ydp

<j)i\6(ro(j)ov,

Tr\iJKTpov TOV Jj\iov /ca\i ev ra? at"ya? oiov TC\r}aGwv TOV

Tropeiav TO \oi7rd cicrTpa.
irXrjKTpov:
</>ft5<?

rat? aVaroXat?
elf TTJV
teal
TO.

tcocrfjiov,

(iyei,

e /c

Be TOV rjKiov cnjfjiaivei

Krische

p.

400 connects

this with the Stoic

identification of Heracles with the sun.

Thus Heracles

is

TO Tr\TjKTiKuv Kal SiaipeTiKov (Plut. de Iside c. 40), and his name is derived from dr/p and K\acrt<? 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

"any striking described as TrXrjtcTpov

Si6{3o\ov TTupo? reepavvov (Eur. Ale. 128): cf. Plut. de Pyth. orac. c. 16 ad fin. vo-Tepov fjuev

especially

dvedrfKav

TU>

dew ^pvcrovv

eTrio-TjjcravTes, to? eoi/ce, ^.

\eyovTi Trepl T^? \vpas, i}v dpfjbo^eTai, Zrjvos eveiSrjs \Q)V, Tcaa-av dp^r/v Kal reXo? <Tv\\aftcav e^ei Be \ap-7rp6v
Tr\fjKTpov r)\iov
</>ao9

(quoted by Hirzel,
fjuev

p.

181).

Eur.
cra<prjf.

Suppl.
of

650,

\a/j,7rpd

dfCTis,

r/\iov
"

navwv

Sandys on Bacch. 308, and Milton

With touch

ethereal

Heaven
32.

s fiery

rod."

Stob. Eel.

I.

26.

p.

219, 14,

K\edv0r)<;

TrvpoetSi)

TI}V creXrfvrjv, TTiXoetS?; 8e

irvpotiSii:

TW

cr^fJiaTi.

but the

fire

of the

moon

is

not so pure as that

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.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

^
:

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

Stoics consistently describe the

I.

moon

as

a^cupoei^
Stob. Eel.

(Stob. Eel.
24.

26. l

p.

219, 20, 26).

33.

I.

2a

p.

205, 25,

Oi

pev

aXXoi

<$Tcoiicol>

(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.

^%

>

Theodoret, Gr. Cur.

<t>W-

20, p. 59. 10, /cwz oeiSet? 8e

K\edv0rj<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

they also were conical.

It is

that probable, moreover,

262

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

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
,
<r<j>aipoeiS>J

rov

Ko<r/j,ov,

a\\oi oe

KatvoeiSij, oi Be

a>oei8f).

34.

Plut. plac.

II.

16. 1,

Az/aayopa9 K al
Sv<r/j,d<;

KOL KXedvdrjs djro dvaroXwv eVi

rov<f

do-repas.

Galen,

hist. phil. c. 13,

i?

fapecrdai irdvras XIX. 272 K. A.

teat,

A. Kal K\. drro

dvaro\<av

Sfoyia? ^epeaOai rot)?

iravras in

well as the
(frepecrdai,
tcivei<r0ai

Plut. apparently includes d-rrXavrj TrXavajpeva: the former are said

ovpavca,

aarpa as
<rv^7repi-

TW o\w

rd Se TrXavcafieva

tear

I8ia<;

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,

&v can Kal

K\edv0r)<;

6 Srtui/co? ^tXoo-o^o?, VTTO-

KexvaOai /Ltera^t) This fragment

phys. 27, 23, 2 there cited.
(fr.

r<av

rpoTriKwv rov wKeavov.

is

taken from
n.
p. 14):
cf.

Wachsmuth
frag.

s collection
i.

Comm.
s

29 and Macrob.

fluence of

Zeno

Krische, p. 393, refers this to the in studies on Homer. "Hiernach mochte

ich glauben, dass

Zenon dort auch den Homerischen Ocean

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>ov

rpoTTiKov

ro&ovrov yap TrXdros

e%et,

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

ocrov Kal 6 7/Xio? Trepiep^eTat,.

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

six zones, dividing

the torrid zone into two.

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:

litudinem et dissimilitudinem capere

et

animam

itaque

corpus similitudini vel clissimilitudini

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

at(]ue pallore testetur.

igitur

anima corpus ex corporalium

Horn.
ou
crdo/Jia

passionum commutatione.
6

Nemesius, Nat.
<TvX\.oyiafji6v

p.

32,

KXez $?;

Toiovde

TrXeKei

^ovov
a\X,d 15

<>ri<j\v

o/AOiot rot?

<yovevo~i

<yivb[Jbe9a

Kara TO

Kal Kara

tr]v -^v^rj^ rot? TrdOeai, rot? -ijdecn,

rals

&e TO o/jioiov Kal TO dvo^otov, ov^l Be

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&>

crcoyuart VOO~OVVTI
J ievrj>f

20

epvOpov
fyvxfi.

Kal TO awp^a Tfj ~^v^j alo"^vvof yiveTai Kal (j)o/3ovfj,evr]<? ca^pov croo^a
Tertullian de An.
c.

<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.

phyp. 20, 21), but, as Hirzel has observed, they

264

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

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.

the words capere

the stop after capere, the required sense

is

obtained with

out further alteration.

I. 79, vult enim (Panaetius). quod declaret eorum similitude, qui procreentur, quae etiam in ingeniis, non solum in corporibus The child receives through the seed the appareat. same grade of tension in the soul as his father, as
YV<VO-I:

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.

Zeno, frag. 147, KaraX^-rrrov dvai TO ^#09

ef

Sia0 o-on: cf.

on Zeno,

frag. 117.

17.

o-wjiaros:

agreeably to Stoic tenets, for likeness

and unlikeness cannot be predicated of the non-existent, cf. Zeno, frags. 34 and 91.
19.
(rvjiird<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<?

ecrriv,

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

el

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>S

yap
LVCL,

rjvwrai TO Trepie^ov
TTJ

cJ?

TO dvOpwrnvov crw^a,
fJ>epTj

ov TpoTTOv

KetydXf) T
i]

vTTOKeifieva
OVTO>

crv/jL7rda"^ei

teal rot? VTroKeip-evois

TO,

/ce^aX?;,
ill.

Kal rot? eTrovpaviOiS

as

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.

48. 7, p. 317, 15,

UvOayopas,

Am-

ayopas, TlXaToiv, ^.evo/cpaTTj^, KXedvdr}^ OvpaOev elcncpivecrOaL TOV vovv.

This

is

an obscure statement which cannot be under

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).

The terminology however

II.

is

Aristotle s

(de

Generat. An.

3, p.

736 b 27, XetVerat Se TOV vovv

fjiovov

JJLOVOV

BvpaOev

eTreLcrievai

Kal Oelov elvat

ovdev yap avTov

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
:

the action of the outer

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.

Zeno, frag. 82.

Stein,

however (Psychol.
is

p.

163

foil.),

believes that

outer air on the

by Ovpadev embryo

indicated the action of the

at birth,

whereby the

-v^u%?)

is

26G

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

<f>va-i<;.

In this case Cleanthes developed out of a mere the doctrine of 7repn/rut<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

a curious contradiction in Stein

Psychologic

on this point.

At

p.

107 and

p.

155 he

evidence which

distinctly

and upholds attributes to Zeno the

cites

doctrine of the soul being fed by exhalations from the blood. Yet at p. 165 he suggests that this innovation

was made by Cleanthes.

39.

40.
41.

= Zeno, = Zeno,
Diog.
e

frag. 87.
frag. 88.
VII.

L.

157,

K\edv6rj<;

fiev

ovv

CrtTTTTO?

Ta?

TU>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.

mansuros aiunt animos, semper negant,

vindicate the purity of the soul essence

n.

see Stein Psychol.

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>/^aTO<f

(<f>\o%

yeicrav
eavrijv

fydeipecrdai,
TYJV

aXX

eVi/tei

eti/

rtvdf

^povovs

K.a.6

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

crecos TGOV

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,

nocte concoquatur, cuius etiam in reliquiis quas natura respuerit.

iiiest calor iis.

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.

Galen quod animi mores

etc. IV.

783

Cleanthes K. (quoted at length by Stein, Psychol. p. 105). no doubt was influenced by Heraclitus: cf. frag. Byw.
54>,

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:

they are as follows:

sic enim res se habet, ut omnia, quae alantur et quae crescant, contineant in se vim caloris, sine
ali

qua neque
est

possent neque crescere.

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]>si

Stein Psychol.

p. 32,

and Philo de
<?

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

that Aristoxenus, the Peripatetic and musician, described the soul as ipsius corporis intentionem quandam (Cic. Tusc.
I. 20), but the doctrines were on Lucr. in. 100.

totally dissimilar: see

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

but the corporeal.

Cf. Plut.

Comm.

Not. 45,
&>a

2,

d\\d

TTOLOVCTL, Trpo? Tourot? teal TU? evepyeias oxw /xara /cat TOV Trep nraTov (j)ov, Trjv opxrjaiv, Trjv VTcoOecriv, Trjv Trpocr-

ayopevcriv, Tr)v \oi8opiav.

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

>(

of his predecessor was probably caused by a desire to insist more strongly on the essential unity of the soul. Cf.

Iambi, ap. Stob. Eel.

KpivovTcu
<TWV>

I.

49. 33, p. 368, 12, TTW? ovv Bia-

KdTa

fj,ev

TOI)? Srwt/coi)? eviat p,ev BidtyopoTrjTi

awfJidTwv Trvev^idTd yap OTTO TOV (fiaaiv ovTOi BidTeiveiv d\\d KdT d\\a, Ta et? 6<f)dd\novs, Ta Be wra, ra 8e et? a XXa aladrjvTTO/ceifjievwv
et<>

eVLdl Be IBlOTTJTL TTOtOTT^TO? TTept TO wcnrep yap TO jjt,ij\ov ev

TU>

dVTO VTTOKeicrtw/iart

di>Tq>

TTJV

X
tV

Ka ^

T7} v evtoBiav, OVTCO ical TO rjyep.ovLKOv

TdVTU)

(fiavTacriav,

avyKdTadeaiv, op^njv, \6yov

f^epr)

(rvv-

ei\rj^)e.

Sext. Math. IX. 102, Trdcrai at eVt ra

Sui/a/iet? co?

TOV

o\ov ea7roo~Te\\6[ivai
ijyefAOviKov
Trepl

JTTO TIVOS Trrjyi)^ TOV

Trdcrav
Bvva/jLiv
Trjv

e ^aTrocrreA.A.oi

Tat,

cao~T

TO ^tepo? ovo-av xal Trepl TO o\ov

avTu>

elvat,

Bid TO

aVo

TOU ev

-qye^oviKov SiaSiBocrdai.

The former passage

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

is,

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

treatment of fyavraaia points to the different

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<?

aiffQrja-ei?,

tcaOaTrep

ardaea)^ ?]p|e ^rpdrwv fyva-LKos. viae quasi quaedam sunt ad oculos, ad aures, ad nares, a sede animi perforatae.

Cf.

7rpoKV7rrov(Tav, 77? Cic. Tusc. I. 46,

44.

Clem. Alex. Strom, vn.

6.

33.

849 P. 304

S.,

Wev
<t~\Xo

KOI 6 AtO-COTTO? 0V KdKWS

orav

e\Kwvrai.
7;
7T\r}i>

&) TOV? VS KKpttJVai ^ICTTOV avvei^evai jap avrois et? ovSev

ei?

Xptja-i/JiOis

rrjv Ovaiav- Bio KOI rrjv -fyvyfiv, iva

K\edv0
<rairf)

r)<;

(fyr}(rlv

dv& d\wv aurou? The same saying is

II.

rd Kpea. N.D. Cic. attributed to Chrysippus by cui escam? quidem 160, sus vero quid habet praeter
e%e>
/i>)

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>i>

aapicl

TT)I>

^rv-^rjv
is

the statement

ascribed to no definite author.

Cic. Fin.

270
v. 38,

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

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

quae servaret carnem. TMV eviot rr)v

T(oiK<av

Pint. Quaest. Conv. v. 10, 3, Sio KOI

vivrjv a-aptca /cpea

yeyovevai
i"7rep

\eyov<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

yovv riva TWV

So<r6ai

$L\o<ro$ovvrwv

ervpoXoyovvra

X^yerat vv 6vv

elvac (fxivai, &5? et? Ovcriv Kal

(T<payrjv

povov enrrjSeioV Ber)

yap rwSe

rot

^ww ^rv^v

jrpos ovSev erepov

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

spirit Epict. Diss. n. 8. 7 says that asses

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

theory (Psych, p. not i/ri;;^, but

is

f.)

something
Stoic
frag.

midway between

<t!o-t<?

and

-^v^ri,

He

ought not to be accepted.

the
cf.

contends that Marcus Aurelius

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
<fvxv

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

animals
1.

271
frag.

)(

^rvx^l ~^oyov
dcprjprj^evov

e%ou<ra

of men.

Zeno

56,

41,

^rv-)(i}v

%u>ov,

Ar. Did. ap. Euseb. P.E. XV.

%u>a)v

To TWV dfypovwv Kal d\oyu>v -v^ir^a?. add Aurelius from Marcus Stein cited the passages by
20. 3, ra? oe
v.

16, vi. 14.

45.

Plut. de sollertia
e\e<ye,

animalium XL

2,

3,

pev ovv
toa,

Kaiirep ov fydcncwv /j-ere^eiv

\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.

Aelian Nat. An.

teal

VI. 50,

K.\edv0r]L>

rov

"Acrcrtoy

Karrj-

vd^Kaae
teal

aKovra el^ai Kal aTrocrr^at rot?

/AT>}

^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

Kal TeXeirraWa? aKwKriKa,

TrpoeaOai

roi)? oe eKelvov fj,ev \aftelv,

&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<yov

animals possess indeed -^rv^v, e^ovcrav Kal Sidvoiav: hence the

for

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>povifj,ij

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

SidOeats can discern TO tca\6v: hence 6
</>poi>

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>9

Hermes

ap. Stob.

41. 6, p. 284, 12,

/cat

eVio-T?;/i77

re^vy

ovv opw^kv nva rwv dXoywv ^pat fj,eva, olov rovs nvpp,r)Kas
7r<w<?

rd<;

rov ^et/i&Jt o?. It was easier, T/3o<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 <ucrt9, and
et<?,

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
"<U9

<j>r)o-lv

TraiBa Kara^OLp-evoio \i7reardai," eot/ce 8e r] eavra) rifiwpov Kara\nreiv, Seitcvvvai, oVt KOL
teal
<J>i\oi>

<f)vo-i<;

oo

<f)i\e

"O/j,7)pe,

tcepSos

e<rriv,

olov TI teal irepl Zijvwvos xa\

K\edv6ov$
advantage

voovf^ev ei Tt (or etVe) dtcovofjuev, i.e. it was an to Zeno to leave his friend Cleanthes behind

him

uphold his doctrines. N.D. III. 21, |jivip|iTiKas: cf. Cic.

to
sit nullus, in

num

existimas forrnicam

anteponendam
sensus

esse huic pulcherrimae urbi,

quod

in urbe

formica uon

modo

sensus sed etiam

mens ratio memoria? Aristotle allowed that some animals, and especially bees, possessed vovt (cf. Grote s Aristotle,
p. 483).

oXXws:

"aimlessly":

so Eur. Hipp. 375,

7/877
fj

TTOT

a\\&)9

I/U/CT09 ev patcpw

xpovw dvrjTWv

etypovricr

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES.

t

273

arpairov

nvos

sTt pas:

use one narrow path between their hole and any other
iv.

to alluding to the practice of ants forwards and in passing backwards

place.

Cf.

Verg. Aen.

404,
i.

Georg.

praedamque per herbas convectant calle angusto. 379, angustum formica terens iter, where Forbiger
An.
IX. 38, del

refers to Arist. Hist.

^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

tatem oinnem tribuit

ratione censet esse

see Introd. quasi delirans: for the treatise irepl ^80^77?

p. 53.

formam quandam:

either (1) an allusion to the alle

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>

suggests.
astris: this position
is

proved at length in N. D. n.

4044,
ev
(j>

Chrysippus ap. Stob. Eel. I. 21. 5. p. 185, 5, ovra (alOepi) rd acrrpa Ka0iSpvrat...0La rrjv (frvcriv
cf.

Kal

e/jLilrvva

Kal SioiKovfteva Kara

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
</)i;crea)?

rot?

rypa/z/uacrt

Kal Trpovoias ei^ap^evrj^ re /cat Trepl Oedv rovs aXXou? 6eovs 8iappr)8rjv \eyova-t,
Kal
<p6apr)crofji,evov^
//

nravras elvai

VTTO

<yeyovoras

rrvpos,

Kar
L
1>.

auroi)? wcnrep KTjpivovs

Kamrepivovs

ovras.

18

274
<

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

r ,,.,, n rw-,c$: the Stoics
,

would readily admit

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

his Stoic say:

quidquid enim

magnam

supreme
6eu>v

Stoic God: see Zeller,

cv

p.

358.

TOIS

irtpl

Ocwv

K.T.X.

Chrysippus wrote

Trepi

(Diog.
(ib.

vii. 148), Trepi -rrpovoias (ib. 139), Trepi

elfiap^ev^
Trepi

149),

and Availed
p. 51.
:

(ib. 39).

For Cleanthes

6ewv
5.

see Introd.

<J>9ap7]o-ofivovs

cf.
c.

Chrysipp. ap. Pint. Sto. Rep. 38,

19, /catrot
fjv
TOI)<?

Plut.

de

def.

Or.

ST&H/COI)? yivtocrKopev
e^oi/ra?,

ov povov Ka-ra Baifiovwv OVTWV TocrovTOiv TO

9apr(i), rot)?

\eya)

B6av
evl

d\\d

teal

7r\rjdo<;

aXXoy?

/cat

-^pw^evov^ diBiw yeyovevai KOI

/cal

48.

Stob. Eel.

I.

1.

12. p. 25, 3.

Zev,

</>y<rea)9

ddavdrwv, TroXvwvv^e, TrajKpare^ alei, dp%r)y, vopov fiera Trdvra icvftepvwv,

Oe/j-is

X a ^P
etc

"

crov
oi,

yap TrdvTea-cri yap 761/09 eo-pev,

6(ra
a>et

dvrfTola-i

7rpo<ravSdv.

t^ou
ep-rrei

fMOW
TO)
<rol

re real
tcai

fjiL^pu Xa^di/re? Qvrj r eVl yatav

o-e

Ka0v[jLvi)(Ta)

crov tcpdro? dtev deiao).

Br) Tra? Kocrfju)<f, eXicrcropevos Trepl yatav, Treiderai, y KZV ayrjs, ical etcwv VTTO creio Kpareirai-

oSe

TOIOV e^et? VTroepyov (iviKr/TOis eVt yepcriv

d/jL(f>tjKrj,

<o

7rvp6evr\ deityovra tcepavvov TOV yap VTTO cfrvcrews irdvr eppiya av fcarevOvveis KOIVOV \oyov, o? Sid Trdvraiv
7r\r)yf)<t

10

<criv>

(froLTa,
[<u?

fj,iyvv[Mvo<;

/j,eyd\ot<?

/zt/c/Jot?

re

Too-o-o? yeyaais inrarof

/3a<rt\v<;

Bid

ovSe Ti ylyverai epyov eVt ^dovl crov Bi^a, Bai/iov, /car aiOepiov Oeiov TTO\OV OVT* evl TTOVTW,

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

ir\r/v orrocra pe^ovat, Ka/col

275

afyerepycnv

d\\d av Kal rd
teal

rrpi(To~d<T>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,
<f)i\a

cocr$

eva yiyveadai rrdvruiv ~\oyov dtev eovra,

i

ov
(f>ev

Bvafjiopot, 01

yovTes ewcriv oaot dvrjrwv KCLKOL eicri, r fJLev del KTIJCTIV TroOeovre?
d<yada>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>Te<t,

01

KepSoavvas rerpa^evot. ovSevl

et?

d\\oi S

dvetnv KOI a-caparo^ r/Sea epya

........................

eV d\\ore

d\\a
<y6veo~6ai.

(nrevSovTes /iaXa. Trdfiirav evavria rwvSe

aX\d Zey
(TV,
,

TrdvSwpe, Ke\at,ve(f)e^, dpyi/cepavve,

dvdpco7rovs<fAev>pvov
>}v

dTreipoavvr]^ djro \vyprjs, o-Ke8ao~ov ciiro, So? 8e Kvpfjcrai Trdrep, ^rv^rj<f

-f]

Tri(Tvvos (TV

Si /c??? yttera

iravra Kvftepvds,
ripf),

35

dv

Tt-iArjOevres d/j,ei,/3obfj.eo~6d ere

rd ad epya

Snjve/ces, co? evreot/ce

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>v,

ru>v

T<?

/Ltei?.

See also Krische,

v6|iov
:

p.

401; Stein, Psych,

Cf. Act.
yevo<?

n. 74.

2.

cf.

Zeno, frag. 39.

Y^os
eo-^V.

4.

o-ou

yap

Apost. XVII. 28,

where the words TOU ydp Kal ecr/j,ev are quoted by St Paul. The divergence in reading points to the fact

182

276

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Phaenomena of

that these words were taken from the

Aratus,
TJXOW:

1.

5,

rather than from the present passage.

so

MS.

F, an unmetrical

and senseless reading,

lrj<f

not yet satisfactorily corrected.

jecture of Brunck, and read yev6fj,ecr0a \6yov
is
;

The vulg. destitute of authority.

II.

is

a con

Meineke
18) sug

Wachsm. (Comm.
crov)
TfjLrj/j,a,

p.

gested vov aov (or a

rtfirjfjia

8rj

and now proposes

for fiifjLijpa

Usener
vSrjs

cum

appareat rfxpv ex
all

$ os

semate natum esse

(a word coined from

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

not here appropriate, in spite of Zeller

s

(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 <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.
<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,

Od. 18. 131.

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,

(see the evidence collected

7.
Koo-jios is

by Yeitch

s. v.).

here used, as Krische,

p.

425, has observed,

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES.

in the less

277

extended sense mentioned in Diog. vn. 138,

TIJV BiaKoo-fjirjaiv

Kal dvrrjv Be

rwv darepwv KOO-^OV

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!:

alluding to forked lightning,

diij>r)KW

cf.

Aesch.
Be

V. 1040 Trvpbs
K P ow6v.

oo"r/3uxo9.
/3eXo<?

Hesych. (ibices
r\

e/carepov fj,epovs
for

i}tcovr)fji,evov

fcepavvos,

i)

l<<>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

but now agrees with Hirzel,

fj^a

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

equally possible that

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)

which would prevent

if

co?

roo-ao?

yeyau><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

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

this subject before (frag. 18), and, putting together that

passage and the present, we may perhaps suppose that Cleanthes accounted for the existence of moral evil some

what as

follows

evil is

not directly due to God, but

process,

is

necessary accompaniment of the created the world out of himself.

evil is

whereby he At the same time, the

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>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>9

01

7ro\\ol Xeyovviv, aXA,

o\iya>v

/j,ei>

rots

dvOpwroiS

aiTios,

TroXXwv 8e dvalrtof

yap eXdrra*
rd atria,
p.

rdyadd

-rwv rcatcajv r)p.lv Kal

rwv

fiev

dyadwv ovSeva d\Set frreiv

\ov airiareov, TWV 8e Ka/cwv aX\ arra d\\" ov rov 6eov. See further Gercke
24.
Koiviv v6(iov.

Chrysippea,

699.

Cf.

infra frag. 73.

frag. 91.

No

doubt Cle
-jraai

anthes remembered Heracl.

TO
<j>pOVlV.

Byw. %vvov evri

137.

25.
26.

KCV

belongs to the verb, Madv.

KaKo0...aXAa F, dvoi

avtu

Wachsm., KaKov..,d\\o
by Herod, and

Sauppe.
28.

ov8vl

KoVp.>:

this phrase is used

for

Thuc. as an
"inordinately,

equivalent
recklessly."

draKraxf.

Here

it

means

fluenced

(II.

by Homer s 2. 214 etc.)

Cleanthes was probably in fondness for fid^ drdp ov Kara

and the

like.

al.

ovS

cvl

30, 31.

&XXorv Usener,

<f>epovrai

Meineke, while in 31

Wachsm. suggests

7reve<r0ai

for yevea-ffai.

The sense

is

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

unsatisfactory, but as the text
is

279

seems hazardous.
cussion

Mohnike
lines,

(pp.

34

so mutilated conjecture 44) has a long dis

calls

on these

which he
1.

the hardest in

the

Hymn.

As the

text stands,

31 must
is

mean

that

the effect of the actions of the

to that
32.

<j>av\oL

just the opposite

which they intend.

dp-yiKpavv.
Cf.
Zet)?

dpyi

]<;,

by Empedocles
frag. 116,

to

denote

fire

(R.

an expression used and P. 131), Zeno

"Ap<yr]i>

8e eVetS?? (fracn rov dpyrjra Kepavvov.

33.

jxe

pvov.
3.6
.

a7reipocrvvr)s i.e.
~

add. Scaliger, but perhaps we should read e /cdyv oia, the condition of the $>av\oi.
T]

-yvw|iT)s

mo-vvos

K.T.\.

Another reminiscence of
ev

Heraclitus,
,

frag.

19.

Byw.

TO

<ro(f)6v,

77

Kvftepvdrai rcdvra Sid Trdvrwv.

col.

49.

Philodem. de Mus.
\e<yeiv

28, 1, el

/A<I)

ye
o?

ir>apd

K.\edv<0>6L

<avrd>

6e\^aova<L>v,

^a-tv
TrapaKai

elvai
,

rd
rov

TroirjTt/cd
<\6j>ov

KOL

<p,ova>iKd

/cat,

rov

Trjs

c^tXocro^t a?
6e<l>a

ay<y>e^.\ei<i>

8>vva/j,evov

rd

d<v>0<p>a><7riva,

/t>?)

e^ov<r>o<f

8e tyi\ov
/cat

ru>v

Oeiwv

fj,eye9ajv Xe^et? ot/eei a?,

pv6(jiov<;

rd

fjuer<pa>

rd

p,e\Tj /cat roi)?

w?

yLta/\,<t>crra

TrpocriKvetcrOai Trpos rrjv d\rj9eiav

Tt/9 TWV pta?. For the general sense,

6elu>v
0<ea>>

cf.

Plat.

Rep.

x.

607

A, el8evai

ort

oaov
that

fjiovov

VILVOVS

6eol<f

KOI eyfcoufAia rot? dyadols

7ronjo-eo)<;

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

to regard KOL before rov

p,erpa K.T.\. very abrupt, and it is better \6yov as connecting elvai and

280

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

although this leaves dpeivova without an

rrpoa-iKveladai,
object.
<|aAov:

metre.

Jebb s p. 239
>?>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>

v/j,vr/<ravTe<t...dv

ovv

7Tixipfj.V rd avrd
"

i/rt\c3
"

Koafielv.

>/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,

expressions suitable to the divine

majesty."

50.

quemadmodum spiritus quum ilium tuba, per

potentiorem
tuba.
in

Senec. Epist. 108, 10, Nam, ut dicebat Cleanthes, noster clariorem sonum reddit
lougi canalis novissimo exitu effudit
angiistias
;

sic

tractum, sensus nostros

clariores carminis arta necessitas

efficit.

Greek trumpets were long and

( K <oS<ov), cf.

straight,

a bell-shaped aperture

ending
567,
7r\r)-

Aesch.

Eum.

Stdropo? Tvpa-tjviKrj a-d\7rij^ fiporeiov

povvevT)

-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.

Find. N. IV. 33, rd

f*

aKpd

/u,e

Math.
^Sext.
el
<f>vo-i<i

ix. 88, o Be

K\edv0^
eirj

otrax;

(frvaew eVrt Kpeirrwv,

dv TI? dpi

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

"

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<?

warrepovv
(aov

ovre

rj

eBvvaro
<f>vais

eV

direipov

avgeaOai Kara TO Kpelrrov ovO

(89)
el

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>v

d\\d

ecrriv,

ITTTTOS ^eXcof?;?,

Kpdrtarov
6

civ

eirf

fyZov Kal apiarov.

(00) Kal ov rrdvv

wov, olov

on

elvai Svvarat, (ivOpwrros Kpdria-rov Bid KaKias rropeverai rov Trdvra %povov, el Be

ev0ea><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)<i

KaOdrrep
<TWfj,aTOS

aKtrcaapdrav eVi^eXaa?, rrtKpov TWOS rvpdvvov rporrov

rpo(p^
Kal TOV
vr/309 rjfxepav

Kal

Kal r^9

rov

etpecr-

rci)T09 r]H,lv
el

pr)

TTape^oi/jiev

ware

Baa/iov (iTraiTovvros, Kai 20 \ovetv avro KOI dXeifyew K-ai

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>v<ri.s:

the vital principle of plants.

in
this
is

Zeno
the

frag. 43.

l...rTi...i:T]

form

of

conditional
if

sentence the inference

indicative were used
:

stated less bluntly than

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
:

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

A
el

close

parallel

to

the use here

TTIO-TK;

is

Dem. xxxvi.
-jraawv

44,
<TTI

Se

TOVTO
7T/3o<?

Voet9, on
xpr)[j,aTio-iJ,6v,
:

dfyop^

fiejia-nj
11.

irav av dyvorja-eias.

Siatto-ci

12.

Kof:

Zeno frag. 117. Bekker proposed to read d\\d

cf.

or Kal

(JLI}V,

but Wachsmuth
15.

s tcairot is preferable.
:

TrtpiYe voiTo

for

the optative in protasis, see Jebb

c.

on Soph. Ai. 521, Ant. 666.

16.
7rpo<?

Svo-ptais:

cf.

Ar. Poet.

21,

13,

1457 b 22,
TO LVVV

77

7^9

fiiov Kal eaTrepa Trpos rj/j,epav epei

rj/Jtpaf,

rrjv ecnre-

pav yfjpa?

E^Tre&o/cX^?,

Kal TO y^pa^ ea-rrepav fiiov rj, axrTrep Cf. Aesch. ftiov. Sv<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

they admit the

rt irapd<&OIVIKO<;

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.

a-n-avicorepov rov c. the fact that

(f>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.

preposition conveys the idea of cf. d-rro^ovvai as used in the

83).

Halonnesus dispute (Aeschin. Ctes.

ircpipoXXciv,

to

clothe,"

cf.

Zeno, frag. 175.

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
:

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

alteram

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

geminate... quibus caelestem et divinam suspicati sunt.

esse

exterriti

homines vim quandam esse 15 quartani caussam

conaequabilitatem motus,

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

concludes (Journ. Phil,

to
for

vii.

75

foil.)

that

Cleanthes was largely indebted

<tXoo-o</a<?

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

proves derived from that work.

2.

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES.

of fiavnicrj,
IX. 132),
77

81

ovelpwv

Trpopprja-is

etc.

(Sext.

Math.

which are described as

ifirj

trXfjdo^ Trpay^drajv

7re7ricrTevfj,ev<i)v

Krische, dvOpunrois. to Cleanthes, which the evidence does not wan-ant.

p.

Trapd Trdaiv

419, attributes

some further arguments

7.

tertiam:

parallel to this in the

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.

xm. 6570, and above

I.

all

in the

exhaustive account of Lucan,

8.

525

583.
ap.

quae terreret

Prof.

Mayor quotes Democritus,

cf.

Sext,

Emp.

ix. 24.

14.
frag. 75.

cometas: for the physical explanation,

on Zeno,

16.

quartern:
cf.

for

fuller

statement of the fourth

118,
ib.

argument,
evtoi,

Sext. Math. ix. Ill

ix.

2627:

in the last passage it is

but from

its

simply introduced by the term position between an argument of

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.

some such phrase

Prof.

"Cicero is aequabilitatem. probably translating as ofiaXoTrjra Kivtj&ewt,

<f)opdv

ovpavov,"

Mayor.

53.

Epiphan. adv. Haeres in.

icat

2.

TO

ayaBov

icakov Xeyei elvcu ra?

9 (in. 37), 7jSovd<;, Kal

av6pa>Trov

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

etcdXei povrfv
-rrjv

285

^f%*?V, KOI

TOI)<?

#601)5

pvarriKa
eivai
e<f>acrKV

real e\eyev elvai /cal AcXr/cret? icpds,

SaSoO%ov
/cat 7-01)5

TOV r]\iov, Kal TOV KOO-^OV yLtucrra?

KCLTOXOVS rwv

9eiwv reXera?
1-6

e\e<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.

own teaching. Not much can be made

it

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.

100 the macrocosm and the microcosm, and quotes frag.

7-01)5

drraiSevTovs (Movy

TOVS 66ovs K.T.X.

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.

E. in. 12. Porphyr. ap. Euseb. P.

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.

<j>i\o<ro<j>ia<;,

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

see circling around us are not lifeless or hands, and the celebrants are not men, but the

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

fiara see Lobeck Aglaoph.

ib. p. 62.
ftv<rras...TXTa s.

quoted by Diels). For ^variKa o-X ijp. 130, and for K\j<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<f.
ov<;

gestions,

has

records other sug

54.
(scil.

Philodem.
6eu>v

Trepi evo-e/3.

fr.

13.

ev Se
et?

TW

Bevre<py>
<Kal

Trepi

Xpvannros) rd
tcai
Evpi<7r>i8r]

r<e>

Op</>ea

M>

ova-aiov
dva^<p6fj,>e<v>a

<r>a

Trap

<

Q>^r,pw

Ka \
rat?

Ha-i6B<a)>

Kal

<al>

Tro^ra?? a XXoi?
<rvv>oiKeiov<v>

<to>9

Ka<l>

K\edv0r)<;
avru><v>.

<7r>etpara<t

So^ai?

Cicero
anthes,
is

paraphrase, which omits

i.

all

mention of Cle-

as follows (N. D.

41)

in secundo

autem

vult

Orphei, Musaei, Hesiodi Homerique fabellas accomodare

ad

ea,

quae ipse primo

libro

de dis immortalibus dixerat,

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.

16) under the fragments of

Plut. de audiendis poetis

a>eXc9

c.
)i/

11, Sec 8e

fiev KXedvtiovs -rraiTrapaiTia-0ar KaTeipwveverat yap ea-rtv ore -jrpoa Troiovp,evo<i egiyyelo-ffat TO

ovofUiTtov

dicovciv,

d\\d T

Sidv

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Zev Trdrep
Kal TO
"iB^dev

287

/zeSewi

Zev ava Aa)8(0vaie,

Ke\evo)v dvayiyvuxTKeiv vfi ev, &5? TOV etc TTJS yfjs avauv/jiAvaSw&fovatov ovra. Lcouevov depa Sid TTJV di>aSocriv

Wachsmuth

cites Schol.

B L Homer
vfy"

IT

238 Zev ava

A&>-

Swvaie] Tives Be

dvaoa>Su>vale

ev irapd TTJV dvdSocriv

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

worthy of observation that Plut.

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
:

rwv ovopdrwv TOUTOI?

dva0u|j.no(j.6vov
:

roi? Oeols /cat

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.
<TTt...r)<>

c.

17, p.

84 Osann.

drjp

Kara dvabocnv.

It

may be ob

served that the attribution of this doctrine to Thales by

Stob. Eel. L 10, 12, p. 122, 18 cannot be relied upon.
56.

Plut. de

Is.

et Osir. 66,

<$>epae$>bvriv

8e

(frrjo-i,

TTOV

TO Bed

rwv Kapirwv

(j>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>V

12, p.

79 Gomp.

Chrysipp. ap. Philod. Trepl ei)cre/9. TO ev Kal TTJV ArifAyTpa rj

<yfjv

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Cic.
)

N. D.

II.

G6, ea (Proserpina)

enim

est

quae
esse

Graece nominatur,

quam frugum semen

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

OTTO rov Siavvcrai, quia coti-

where explained by the Stoics

60,
cf.

(1) as wine, Cic.

to>/u

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<f)ifj,ov, Plut. de Is.

1/01)9,

(2) as TO yovipoi

40.

tem

caelo quae ducitis

annum, Liber
i.

et

alma

Ceres.

58.
air

Macrob. Sat.
/cat

17, 8,

Cleanthes (Apollinem)

<y<?

a\\(av

uXX.a)v

rorrwv

T?

dvaro\d<;

7roiovfj,evov,

quod ab
ortus.

aliis

atque

aliis

locorum declinationibus faciat

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

different etymologies of his name he is at once drr\ov, del

/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,

rov \evKaivea0ai trdvra fywrifyvTos

a guess, which,

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

so far as the

289

etymology of Au/ceto?
in

is

concerned, has found

8).

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

circulum ab occasu ad orientem pergit: aut, ut Cleanthes

scribit, eVetS?)

icaO

e/Vt/ca?

Kiveirai,

\oal yap
&)Sia/co9

Kal

avrai, quod flectuosum iter pergit.

Cf.

Achill. Tat.

Isag.

109

A,

Kal
eV

VTTO

rtvwv Ka\eirai, eVetSr)

ev 8e
TU>

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

Xo| OT7;T09 r?;9 Tropeias i}v Troieirat,

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

THK FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

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<r-

-^pw^evoL -TM evepfyaMTi vrjvopios, The inference teal aXX^Aou?. (friXoo-ofalv Trpo? 8id\eye<T0ai, Wachsmuth seems correct, viz., that Cormitus drawn

orav

dtro\avoKTi

by
8

took from Cleanthes the words found in

c.

32, KOI

Xeo-^ra<?

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<;

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.

Cf. Cic. Fin.

ego

ilia

moveor exedra; modo enim

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

in three of the cloisters

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.

See also Becker, Charicles,

p.

303.

Guhl and Koner,

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.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHKS.

62.

291
(W~\,ovs
co?

Cornut.
ev

c.

31

ad

fin.,

roik

oe

SwoeKa

dvayayelv

ovrc

d~\,~\.OTpia>$

eVt rov 6e6v,

j^ eTron-jcrev

ov Setf Se

Sofcel

rcavrayov

evpecri-

\oyov
It

TtpecrfBeveiv.

seems clear from the account of Cornutus that there

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

twelve labours from the latter point of view.

tion of this line

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>ia-8ai K.T.\.
:

6eo<;

in

Heraclitus, All. Horn.

c.

33, Heracles

is

represented

simply as a wise man truths of philosophy

:

who brought
Hpa/cXeo.
8e

to light the hidden

vo/jLKrreov

OVK

aw/AaTi/crjs

Suvd^ews dva^Oevra

TOCTOVTOV

la^vcraL

Tore xpovois.
/u-t

a\\

avi]p

kfAcfopwv

Kai

cro<^)(,a?

ovpaviov

crrr;?

yeyovws,

oocnrepel

Kara

/BaOeias

Bvtcviav e 0(WTi(7e rr)v fyC^ocrofyiav, KadaTrep

^.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.

400) on the other

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

Zeichen des Zodiakus zuriick (Cornut. de X. D.

(vpia-i\oyov
:

p.

91

G)."

"expectes

rov,"

Lang. Osann interprets this

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES.

But as evpeatXoyouv aTriQavws. Chrysippus is spoken of seems strange that Cornutus should have alluded to Cleanthes in this manner. Why cannot the word be used Mr Hicks suggests in a good sense as in Diog. L. iv. 37 ?
fvpeat\oyiav.
63.
b.

it

Schol.

in

Horn.
Se
eV

II.

in.

64, ap.

Bekker,

p.

99

23,

K^edvdrjs

Aeo-/3<

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)<?

HdfjL<j>i\o<;-

yap

T?}<?

TToXeo)? 8otXe/a
&5?

<f>povpov<f

Qvaavras,

tcrropet

KXedvBrjt;

ei>

TOWS ev avrf) TTOTC roi? Mu^t/cotf, Kal

Tr\eiovas TrpoaXa/Beiv wv piav, KCLTCLfj,edv<T06VTa<; eraipa? avrovs ISovo-av, dve\o/j.evr}V TO? /cXet? /cat TO KOifjiT]devTas

T64YO? V7rep(3d(rav, aTTayyelXai Tot?

avTiica fji0 o7T\a)V
tcparrjo-avTas Se
\ev0epia<>

AfivSijvois.
/J,V TGI

rovs 8

dv\elv d(f)iKOfjLvov<{,

rei^cov KOL yevop,evovs eyKparetf xapiaTrjpia TTJ Tropvr) dfroSiSovras

ru>v

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

in the present instance the

to the gods, legends attaching themselves debased worship at

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Abydos
is

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>o?]

K\edv0r]<i

Sa<rvvef

Cramer, Anecd. TOV Trepl

TWV o\WV
*

(frpOVOVVTOS. Wachsmuth also quotes Eustath. in Horn. p. 1389, 55,

et? fiev d\\T)yopov<riv

T^V dxiifiaTov Kal alriav Kal o\oo^)pova TOV aK07riaroi> rrpovoiav T)]V TcdvTwv fypovovvra "ArXoi/ra vooveiv, w? rov inrtp

TOV \T\avra... oi

o\u>v

wv fypovncniKov.
TO o
rr]^

Sio Kal oK\edv9i]s,

Cf.

&<;

(j>aa-u>,

(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)<j>povT%iv

Kal Trpovoela-Oai,

66.

Apollon. soph.
(K.

lex.

Homer,
6

p.

114

ed.

Bekk.

v.

pw\v
<f)r)o-t

305), KA,eai/07y? 8e

4>i\6cro(f)o$

ai op/uai 8rj\ova-0at TOV \6yov, Si ov fjLW\vvovrai

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,

et Hesiod., p. 4, 18, ed. Nietzsch

I.

torn. (in act. societ. philol. Lips.

fasc. 1),

E\\rwo<?

pev

294
<ydp

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Kal
K\edi>07)<;

Mat oz/a
ep.

(sic coni.
p.

Sturz, Hellanic. frg.

fiiova) \eyovcrt

]).

171

et

Welcker

cycl.

149 pro

(jrarepa Ofjujpov).

This
Cf.
fjiev

frag, is

taken from Wachsm.

Comm.

I.

p.

17.

Procl. vit. Horn. ap. Gaisford Hephaestion, p. 5 1C, 01

ovv

2/zfpfatOf

avrov

a7ro(f>aiv6fjLevot,

MatWo?
<ydp

p,ev
(scil.

Trarpo? Xeyovcriv elvat. ib. p. 517, EXXai/t/eo? Kal Aa/iao-rr}? /cat

Trarepa.
68.

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)<>

TU>

%ov

tear

e^TTopiav fiera crlrov

rfj

vrjcray
e/c

Kal

5 Tl/J,rjuf}Vtu 7ro\iTela.
fAfiarjaiv

Hvdayopov
rotv

Trai&wv et? Traaav

OVTOS

ev(f>vov^,r6i>

^Ivrjaap^ov dTrayay^lv avrbv

7rave\d6i>Ta

ei?

Tvpov,
7ri

Ki

8e

XaXSai ot? Gvcnavra

8 et?
ra>

TOVTWV
10

7T\eiov Troirjaai,

evrevdev rov llvdayopav Trpwrov

o/xt\/;crat
i,a/i&)
7} 8?;

/j,ev

^epe/cvBrj
r&5

Bevrepov

Ep/AoSa/iafTt
\eyet 8
6

Kpe&>0iAt

&>

eV

t,

TOV Trarepa

wpdaKovTi. avroO ^vprj^ov

KXeaf^?/? aXXou? etvat

d-TTo^aivovrai.

TMV

evrevOev Be Kara Trpd^iv et f ^. e\06i>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

yopav veov ovra

v<TTpov

Ko/jaBfj crcfroBpa ovcrav evBai/j,ova

Kal TO&

e/? ai/Trjv aTroTrXeucrai.

Kara\eyei 8
Tvppijvov

avTov Kal

dBe\(j)ov<f

8vo

ILiivovcTTOv

Kal

Trpea/Surepof?.
I.

Wachsmuth
&N Be
Pythagoras).

also quotes Clem. Alex.

Strom.
77

p.

129S.
(fuit

K\edv6r)<;

(MSS.

Neaz/^?;?)

2i)pto<?

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES.

in the life of Pythagoras with

295

which those statements are

discussed by Zcller, preconcerned will be found fully After foil. evZa^ova in 1. 16 some Socratics, I. p. 324 such word as al<r0ea0ai seems wanted.

69.

Pseudo-Plut.

de

Fluviorum

nominibus,
? 6>o
-

v.

3,

8 [avry] TO KavK<i<riov TrapdKeirai Lav TO -rrporepov Kopeov Koirrj Si air roiavr^v.

Bt

e/caXerro Se

Bopea?

eptanicriv

7n0v^av
etc

Xi6vr) V
eis

dp-ndaa^
\6<$>ov

0vyarepa, Ka-njveyKev
KOI

nva

\\pxrovpou N^avrrjv K a\ovrrjv

eyewnrev
Koirr}

T^

Trpoeiprjuevn*
Se

viov

8e TO

o>o?

Bopeov.

^poa^oevO
TJJV

KaJKOffO? Bia

roiavr^v.

p,erd

Bopeov KoiTW,

fcal et?

K po K 6Sei\oi>

o Se Upo^0ev^>

eva rwv ejx w wv P^

voi^va^
r

Kavtcaaov,

avara^v,
8e Zei)9

tcai

Karavoi^a^

avrov
elvaL

Sid6e(Tiv

eTTi(f>avel^

rov aev irarepa ^cra?

o>o?

vrXe/crw

cp,
Kav- 15

K areraprdpo)<je-

TO 8

et?

n^v

rov

TTOL^VO^
^

peTovoada-as, Trpoa-eSrjaev

avry rov
f

on
^

ra

<rn\d<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
<j>a<rl

\\preuiSos.

Horn.

II.

XXIV. 615, eV StTruXw

dedwv
10.

efji/jievai

evvds

vvu<j>dwv.

,Ta,>p<|>eefc.

that some words ^ytteiibach saw

296

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

fallen out here, since a reference to

had

Prometheus

is

required.

He supplied

therefore the words within brackets

and substituted dvara/Awv for dvcnravcov. For dvcnravwv dvap-rrdfav (Reinesius) and dva<nrwv (Dodwell) have also been suggested.
70.

Pseudo-Plut. de Fluv.
Kal

V. 4,

yevvarai

$*

ev

avrw

(Caucasus) fioravr)
(Tv\\eyov(Ta

Hpo[*.r>0io<?

Ka\ovfJ,evrj,
TT/JO?

\eiorpi/3ov(ra,

MrjSeia dvTiiraQeias TOV

f}v

Trarpo? e^p^craro, tcaOu? IcrTopel 6 avros

Ilpopjecios, cf.
77

(scil.

Cleanthes).

Ap. Rhod. in. 843,

egeiXero ^wpia^olo
(fracrl

8e re to?
y\a<f>vpf}<;

(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

aura) (Taygetus) fiordvr]

Xapuria

<al>

yuvatKes eapo? dp^opevov Kai VTTO TWV dvBpav

icrTopet
K\env0r/<;

rpa^i i\oi^ TrepiaTrTovcri

Ka6<a<s

auf^Tradea-Tepov dyaTrdovraiTrepl opwv.

ev

Xapio-fo:

Hercher thinks

this

word

is

invented from

the

name

of a city in Arcadia.

ETHICA.
72.
7re8a>e

Stob. Eel.

II.

7.

6a

p.

76, 3,
rrj
<^vcrei

reXo? eVri TO
vii. 87,

6/j,o\oyov/jiva)<;

fyjv.

Cf.
P.,

Diog. L.

Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 21. 129,

(scil.

p.

497

179

S.,

KXedvdijs Se
rfj
(f>v<rei

re\09 yyeiTai) TO
ev\oyL<Trelv,

opoXoyov-

%r/v ev

r3

o ev rfj

TWV Kara

eK\oyfi Kectrdac

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES.

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<rTeiv

88,

Stob.

Eel.

IT.

7.

a
,

p.

76,

9,

who both
ev
rfj

expressly

attribute
4>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.

VII. 89, (frva-iv Se

XpixmrTros

/J,ev e

rtKO\ov0(0<;

Set %fjv, rrjv re /coivr/v

TJ}V

KOI ISitos avOpwrrivrjv

e /cSe^erai
e-rrl

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>

are avrfj re elvaL r^v eiBai/Jiovlav,

ov<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

attain this conformity

an acquaintance with
Sto.

physics

Rep. 9). Chrysipp. ap. Pint. thinks that Diogenes account is substantially right.

necessary (Cic. 1. c., Hirzel n. pp. 112118,

He

298

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

to

regards Zeno as the upholder of Cynicism in preference which Cleanthes devoted himself to the study of
Heraclitus,
%vva>,

cf.

Heracl.

fr.

7,

Sch.,

Bio

Bel

eTrea-Oai

ru>

rov \6yov Be
%ovre<;

COI/TO?

i&tav

<f>p6vrjaii>.

To

vvov ^wovo-iv ol TroXXoi, the objection that Zeno had

eo<?

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

the general sense

p.

BidOecnv see on Zeno, frag. cf. Chrysipp. ap. Stob.

8t,dde<riv

7.

5 bl

60, 7, Koivorepov Be rr/v dperrjv

avrf) jrepl

eival

<f)aat

^v^ns av^wvov
Zeller
(p.

o\ov rov

/3iov.

ar

ov<rn:

238,

3)

corrects

cx4>op(ids,

cf.

frag. 82.

74.

Stob. Eel.

II.

7.

6C

p. 77, 21, evBai/juovia 8* eVrrlr

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

TOVTWV irdvres rov evBaipovos

lioviav
(TKOTTOV

rr}v evBatfJtoviav elvai

\eyovres 011% erepav

rrjv
/j,ev

/3iov,

Kairoi ye

\eyoi>re<;

evBai-

CKKelcrdaL

re\o?
elvai

elvai

evBaipovias,

OTrep

ravrov

rw

TO rv^elv 7-779 Sext. evBaifMovelv.

co?

Emp. Math.
O-KOITOV.
cf.

XI. 30, ev8at/j,ovia Be eo-nv,

ol

Trepl

rov

\\\edvdi]v, evpoia ftiov.

For the distinction between

II.

o-/co7ro<?

and

reXo?,

Stob. Eel.

TrpoKCLfievov

et<f

pev TO ro rv%eiv, olov dcnrls rogoraif re\o9 8 rj

7.
,

3C

p. 47, 8, teal

ean

atco-ros

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

rov
Trpofcetpevov
elvai Trpo?
revgis.

(Bov\ovrai
ib.
II.

<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.

Clem. Alex. Protrept.

6
Ao-crei;?,

vi.

72,

p.

21

S.,

61

P.,

KXeavdrjs Se
ov Oeoyoviav

6 drro T?;?

Sroa?

0tXocro^>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>,

eucre/Se?,
,

KpaTovv eavrov,
ov,

xpijcri.fAoi

KCL\OV.

8eov,

avOefcacrTOV, alel

a-v^epov,
dvw8vvov,

evdpecnov,

es,

cirvtyov,

eV/^eXe?, Trpaov, cr(f)o8p6i

,

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

occurs in Strom, v. 14, 110,

(

conception of the deity,

ethical

when they

really refer to the

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,

Ka\ov, epithets, viz. SiKcuov, xprja-i/u-ov, are XuatTeXes", w$e\ip<ov predicated of

300

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

in

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>e\ifj,a

elvat teal ev^prjcrra real crvfiteal

\vcriT\fj
5
1 ,

KOI cnrovSaia
p.

irpeTrovra
p.

teal
foil.

tca\d

teal

oiteela, ib.

72, 19, 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.
<f>acriv

avcrr^pov:
elvat,

cf.

Diog. L.
TOI)<?

Trdvras

VII. 117, KOI avo-rrjpovs Se aTrouSalovs, Stob. Eel. II. 7. 11*,

p.

114, 22.
av0Ka<rrov
:

in Ar. Eth. IV.

mean between

the

d\a%a>v
ro>

7. 4 the at)0e acrTo? is the and the eipcov, and is described

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)<? teal aTrXaa-ro? while TO elpwvevib. p. Ill, 11, eV Trdcrtv belongs alone to the

as aXydevriKos teal

&>

</>aOXo<?,

veiv TOV
5.

<ro(f)6v.

otyopov,

dXvn-ov,

cxvuSwov

because the wise

man

is

7.

Some word
v.
1.

has dropped out here.

cr</>aXe?

In Clem. Alex.
evrifiov

Strom,

c.

the words

<f>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

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

before
is

301

him while writing, arid that the second evdpearov mere patchwork to mend the metre.
8.

&TWJ.OV, cf.

re elvai rov Diog. L. VII. 117, arvfov

crocfoov.
v, cf.

Stob. Eel.

ii.

7.

11 s

p.

115,

1012.
ev

76.

QvviKoh
iKavbs
ev

Plut. Sto. Rep. VII. 4, 6 Se eltrwv on, ir\r)yt}

"

K\edvO^
-rrupo?

TWO?

TO eVtTeXea/ Ta ry tyvxil yevrjrai Trpo?

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

<f>avel<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><j)po<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-

Ifcavbs ev roi fcpiveiv

Trpdrreiv
irXri-rt

/M I.

See also
is

Zeller, p. 128, 2, 256, 2.

Trvp6s.

This

the material air-current which

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^,

teachable (frag. 79): and

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

statement with regard to the four cardinal virtues.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Zeno
held, or

appeared to hold, that fyovrjw

is

found in

a double
virtue,

sense, (1) as the essential (2) as the first of its four

is

and

groundwork of all main divisions. This

<f>p6vr)o-is

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.
<f>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<av

Kara rov opdov \6yov fyavevrwv.

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
:

<j)po<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<9o9

position to ey/cpdreta steps of Socrates (Xen.

Mem.

Cleanthes was following in the I. 5. 4, Spd ye ov Xprj -rrdvra

elvai KprjTrtSa),
15).

dvSpa vrmvaitevov r^v eytcpdreiav dper^ and the Cynics L. vi.

(Diog.

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<rra>,

ib.

7f

o4i,

1 o.
:

aipeVtis Kal tKK\(o-is the cra)(f)po<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
,
</>dy9o5

\6ya>

(Stob. Eel.

II.

7.

10 b

p.

90, 11).

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

77. Bio Kai

303
P.,

Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 22, 131,

p.

499
o

179

S.,

K\nv0r}s
<j)>](rl

ev

ru>

Bevrepy

Trepl

jfiovfjs

rov

lo>-

Kpdnjv
re Kai

Trap

eKacrra BiBdaiceiv
ru>

avros BiKaios

ei Balfjicov

dvi]p Kai

TO irpmrto Sie\6vri

BUaiov

drro rov a-vpfapovTos

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

primum haec natura

cohaerentia

cui quiclem ita sunt Stoici assensi opinione distraxissent. honestum esset id utile esse censerent ut et

quidquid nee utile quicquam quod non honestum.

recte Socrates exsecrari

id.

Leg.

I.

33,

cum
:

solebat

qui primus

utili-

tatem a iure seiunxisset

exitiorum omnium.

id enini querebatur caput esse

dyaOov, have seen

<rvp<j>epov

For Socrates, who identified TO foil. cf. Zeller, Socrates, p. 150

(frag.

co^eXt/iov

with

TO

Cleanthes, as

we

75), asserted
:

and riiftSupov
2.

for

that the good was also the school in general see

Zeller, Stoics, p. 229,

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

enumerated the various subdivisions of the

to the

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

four cardinal virtues.

the four main divisions of virtue.

re elvai avrtjv Diog. L. VII. 91, SiSa/crriv rra ev rrpwrv Trepl re\ov? dpertjv) Kai XpvaLTnros

79.

Se

TI>

This

is,

but of course, ultimately traceable to Socrates,

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

by the Cynics: cf. Diog. VI. 10 (Antisthenes) Si&aKrrjv direSeiicvve TTJV dperrjv, ib. 105, ape ovcet 8 avrois Kal rr/v dpertjv SiSatcTrjv elvai, icadd
also enforced
ev TOO

was

HpaxXei.
dperrjv

80.

Diog. L. VII. 127, Kal

K\edv6r)<;

fivjv

TI]I>

\pvcmr7ro<f

fi&V dTroftXrjTr/v,
i

Se

di>a7r6/3\r)rov,

o fj,ev

a-Tro-

/3\ rjrr}v Bid fieOyv Kal fjieXay^oXlav, o 8e dva7r6/3\r/rov Sid

is in agreement with the whence Cynics Wellraann, p. 462, infers that Zeno s teaching must have been in agreement with Cleanthes rather than with Chrysippus. See also the authorities cited by Zeller, p. 295, 3, and add Cic. Tusc. II. 32, amitti non potest virtus. but Zeno held that the wise man ov fieOva-Ojj^0T]v

On

this

point

Cleanthes

(Diog. L. vi. 105),

creadat, (frag. 159).

(itXa-yxoXtav
:

Cic. Tusc.

ill.

esse videatur

quam
in

insania,

11, quod (furor) cum mains tamen eiusmodi est, ut furor

(/zeXa7^oX/a)
insania.
Pepcuovs

sapientem
:

cadere

possit,

non possit
shared by

KaToXij\|/is

the wise

man
cf.

although KaTa\r)-^ri<? with the fool (see on Zeno,

is

frag.

especial cultivation

and possession belongs

frag. 9).

16), its to the wise

Cf.

man

only:

Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 184, 185.

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>

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

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

II.

305

17. 33,

7J

Kal ov

fjiovov

eyprjyopws

d\\d Kal KaOevScov Kal

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
<w?

8e

aurot?

Kal

Sid

Trai TO? %pr/cr0at rfj

dva7ro(3\riTO<;

dperfj,
e crrc

ol Trepl

KXedvdrji
rfj

yap

Kal

Trdvrore

ovar) -reXeta 6

82.

Stob. Eel.
(j)opfj,d<f
^eti>

II.

7.

1>s

p. 65, 8,
7T/30?

K
<f)i><r<j}<?

irdvra^ yap d dpeT^v, Kal oiovel

8e cr7rov$aiovs.

ra>i<

r}fAiafj.fleia>v

\6yov e^ecv Kara K\edvdr/v o6ev

Te\eiu>devra$

pev ovras elvai

d<j)op[xds.

<pav\ov<;

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>opfjids
,
<f)vcre(i)<t

Trapd Kal Trpo?

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

contrasted with opprj as Stob. Eel. n, 7. 9, p. 87,

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

eyKpdreiav...v ratv TT/^O? rov KaKov d^opp^al^, ib.

Sext. Pyrrh. in. 273, TO Ka\ov opp,als Kal ev rat? a?ro

5,

open

to question,

cf.

Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, n. 735.

<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

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

TOV: so Zeller, (p. 243, 1), for TO.
Tljxiap-Pciwv
:

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,

innata virtutum, quae si adolescere beatam vitam natura perduceret.

83.

sunt enim ingeniis nostris semina liceret, ipsa nos ad

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)<; ov (Tvy^caprjaec teal o\ov
<f)i\ocro(j)la<f

rj

e/c

rfjs 7roiKi\rjs

%opo?

ot
(f>d<rKOVT<>

rr)v avrrjv aperffv

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<?

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>v

84.

TOV

Galen. Hipp, et Plat. plac. v. 6, v. p. 476 K., KXedvOovs yvoofArjv inrep TOV TraBrjTiKov
T(iSvoe fyaivecrdai
4>r)<ri

rr,v
TTJS

TWV

eirwv.

TL

TTOT

eV^

OTI

/3ov\ei,

\oyi<r/Ae,

Trav o /3ov\o/j,ai Troielv.

Tr\rjv
o/Lttu?

A. 0.

val /3aai\iK6v ye
(av

eiTrov 7rd\iv.

dv

eTriOv/jid)

Tavff"

OTTWS yevrjcreTat.
(^rjcrlv

TavT\ Ta

dfjioiftdia

RXedvOovs

elvat
r/;?

eicSeiicvvpeva Tt}v Trepl

TOV TradrjTiKov

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

avrov,
ov
2,
3.
Y"
ct>9

307
ra>

76

8?)

ireTToirjKe

rov Aoyio-jjiov

eralpov eraLpw.

MSS. e^ei v -y eVrt Mullach, fiaanXiKOV ev ye Wyttenbach /3a<ri\i/c6v read rroidv should we z/ai, /3. 7. Mein. Perhaps Scaliger,
Xo-yio-jj.ov...pa<ri\iKo

\ojLa-fj-6v.
4.
<5v

..eyw fiacriKiKos.
&>?

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

was in substantial agreement with himself in supposing

that the various functions of the qyepoviicov are radically distinct. Zcller, p. 215, 3, says that this is to confound a

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

Stein, Psych, pp.

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

elvac Kal rov K\edvdrjv.

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

The present passage

be added

of Galen ought perhaps rather to as a testimonium to frag. 84 than cited as a

distinct fragment, since the whole argument of Posidonius, so far as we know, was founded on the dialogue be-

202

308
tween
p.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES.

\oyi<rfj,os

and

#17*09.

For

8vvdfj,i<;

see Hirzel,

II.

486,
86.

1.

Stob.

Florii.

108, 59, o Be

K\edv0r)<;

eXeye

rrjv

XVTTI)!

tyv^S

TTapd\V<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<noXr)

"tyv^s

(see

on

Zeno

frag. 143), but Cleanthes

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.

the emotions was adopted by Chrysippus,

et Plat. V.

Galen, Hipp.

387 K.

77

6p6r) tcpia-is egijyeirai fj,erd r^9 Kara,

rrjv tyv)(r)v evrovias:

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

fulciendi sunt, qui ruunt nee cohaerere possunt, propter

magnitudinem

aegritudinis.

Ex quo ipsam aegritudinem

\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>dr)<f

(scil. roi)9

^>o/5ou9

Kal

rd<;

\vrras Kal rrdvff ocra

7oiavra
frag. 141.

rrdQr)

/card

rrjv

Kaptiav cruviaraa dat)

Zeno,

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Hirzel
s

309

contention

(p.

the r/yepoviKov in the brain, 21. 5, explain Pint. plac. IV.

152 f.) that Clcanthes placed and that hence we are to

is

controverted
for

by Stein,
that

Psych, p. 170, from this passage, the irdQt] are affections of the rfyepovt/cov.
(p.

we have seen

154) that appal and

-n-ddij,

though

Hirzel replies dependent on the

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
<f>v<rtv

Kara

$v<nv
ru>

(r/Sovrjv) elvai pijr

[avrrjv] ev
eivaL.

/3tw, KaQd-rrep Be

TO icd\\vvrpov /card

<f>opov

of.

not merely an dSidis, according to Cleanthes, but also -rrapd c/>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":

see Suidas s.v.

females

(frag.

177),

and forbade young men

to

be erat-

piKws

KeKoarfjbrjpevot (frag. 174).

avTt]v is

bracketed by Bekker.

Hirzel discusses this

passage at length (pp.

part
(pr)re...@i(i>)

8996).

He

thinks that the

r/Sovrj

first

contains a climax:

has no connec
;

tion with virtue

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
<j>v<riv

310
TTporjyaeva
:

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

for in that case
dSid<j>opa.

they could not have treated

pleasure the force of the second avrrjv which should be retained) is d8id<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.

Cf. Stob. Eel.

7.

p. 81,

14

<f>v<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

we should supply d%lav

:

KaOdrrep Be Ka\\vvrpov. sure as an eTriyevvrjua

vivere, gratiora nobis faceret illius accessio. But it does not follow that, because virtue consists in TO 6ao\oyov/ie
i/&>9

Ty

<j>va-i

rjv,

<bvcriv,

is dperrj

or uere-^ov dperrj^.
(fraai, \eya)fj,ev

therefore everything, which is Kara Cf. Stob. Eel. 7. 7

1

p. 80, 9 Start, Kal rd e /CTO?,

tcdv,

dStdtyopa rd
^ffv

aw^artKa
eari TO

7T/30?

TO ei/o-^/xoi/ta?
<f)a/j,ev

(ev (airep

evSaifjLOvcas)

d&idfopd

avrd

elvai,

TO Kara

(f>vaiv

we have seen reason

e^eus ov8e Trpbs 6pfj,i}v to hold that the class of rd Kara

ov fid At a Trpo? KOI d^op^riv. Rather,

(frvaiv is wider, or, at any rate, certainly not narrower than that of rd 7rpor}jfj,eva. from the Indeed, this is

apparent
<}>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.

<j>v<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

meaning: contrast n^re Kara

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

elvat with natura

311

repetition TO rcd\of ^...elvai has an object, namely, to contrast

admiscuit.

The inelegant

Xwrpov with
hand,
if

T? ev fia(rxa\p

rpix<n,

whereas, on the other

preted

the second avrrjv is retained, it cannot be inter and to press the latter differently to the first
ai/n)i>,

would make
89.
ea-riv

nonsense.

Stob.
r/Sovr/,

Floril.
TT/JO?

G.

37,

KXedvOys

e\eyei>,

el
<j>povr)(Tii>

KCIKOV rols

dvOpw-rro^

T)}V

SeSoadai.

This

is

Diog. L. X. rov fjiaxapiaxi

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

described as ciTroSet^i? Trpo? TO

(Diog. L. VII. 202).
rrjv
s

elvai rrjv ^Bovrjv TeXo?

Cleanthes upheld Zeno on frag. 76.

886o-6ai
:

furnishes a proof that view of virtue as QpovrjirK see

<j>povr)a-iv
:

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

nihil tarn esse

inimicum quam voluptatem.

II.

69, pudebit te illius tabulae Cleanthes sane commode verbis depingere solebat. 90.
Cic. Fin.

quam
iubein

bat

eos qui audiebant

secum

tabula Voluptatem, pulcherrimo Virtutes solio sedentem praesto esse

:

ipsos cogitare pictam vestitu et ornatu regali in

nihil aliud agerent,

ut Voluptati
nerent,
si

lit ancillulas, quae nullum suum ofticium ducerent, nisi ministrarent et earn tantum ad aurem admo-

modo

id pictura intellegi posset, ut caveret

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.

aliud negotii dei v. 20, solent

;

312

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES.

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

imperaverit, quae pruden-

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

maximam cum tota suae

et

ponunt, graviter offendatur.

gloria dignitatis

ita vir

tanquam imperiosae
servient

cuidam
nihil

inhonestae

mulierculae

voluptati
et

hac pictura dicunt esse ignominiosius et deformius

ferre

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<;

tor:

cf.

Krische,

p.

431.

Hirzel, p. 96,

1,

holds that
:

it is

merely an exaggeration of Clean thes

frag. 88.

position

see on

pulcherrimo
frag. 88.

vestitu:

this

illustrates

K(i\\vvrpov in

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES.

si

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)<i see Krische, pp. 430 virtue has only a conditional value, the

Epicurean system
teal

as furnishing a
ri]v rjSovrjv

means

to pleasure. Diog. L. X. 138 8 id Be rds dp eras 8elv aipetcrdat, ou 81

uxnrep
91.

real rrjv

larpiKr/v 8id rrjv vyieiav,

Ka9d

Epict.
fiyov 8e
OTTOI

Man.

c.

53.

u>

Zev, Kal crvy

eifil

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

23. 42, and and IV. 4. 34. adloquamur lovem cuius

diss. n.
1.

131,

gubernaculo moles ista

noster versibus

dirigitur,

quemadmodum

Cleanthes

disertissimis

adloquitur;

quos mihi in
disertis;

nostrum sermonem mutare permittitur Ciceronis

simi viri
si

plicuerint,

si displacuerint boni consules exemplo. Ciceronis scies me in hoc secutum exemplum.

due, o parens celsique dominator poli, nulla parendi mora placuit

quocumque adsum impiger.

est.

fac nolle, comitabor

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.

answer of the Stoa to the objection that the doctrine

of

jrpovoia

incompatible with the assertion of free-

314
will.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Zellcr

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
<

e<f>

rjplv.

Of. especially X. 28, KOI

on povw
42
;

ru>

XoyiKw
55

&)&>

8e8orai, TO
r ira<Tiv

etcova-Lax; eTrea-QairolsyivofAevois

rooe eireadaL
;

fy-i\6v,
;

dvaytcalov.

So

ib. VI. 41,

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

sed marito suadet

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<>
<j>a<rl,

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

rjv

315
/cat

Kal \oyiKrjv Oewpiav But TO

(f)i,\o(ro<j)ova-iv

oV&><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.

42, 18, eVet Se /cat

rwv
e/c

dvOpwTrwv
rot?
oid

Trpovoiav TrotTjreov,

ovarLva^
Sv
Sid

TrapaiveriKwv \6ywv
rrpoaevKcupelv

(a$e\el(r6ai a-v/jifiaivei, pr)

Ste^o8t/cot9

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^

to irapaisee also illustrates the practical spirit of Stoicism

.

The importance attached by Cleauthes

p. 10-i.

Hirzel,

II.

93.

Oic. Tusc. in. 76, sunt qui

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?

KoXelrai Trapa/iu^rt/co?, 09 Ka\oi>fAv6s Cf. Sen. Epist. 95, 65. 7ra0o\oyiKos.

ecrrt

eviwv
is

As emotion

founded on
of

false

the duty opinion (see on Zeno, frag. 138),

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 context in Cicero shows that the

The

particularly to death, for which cf. Zeno, frag. construction is not to be explained by an ellipse
is

of docere or the like, but rather esse

nominalised so that
is

inalum.

..esse

= TO
I.

KCIKOV. .elvat.
.

This

common

in Lucr.,

see jVIunro on

331,

418 and

cf.

Verr. v. 170, quid dicani

316

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

?

in criicem tollere

Cicero even writes

II.

inter optime valere

et gravissime aegrotare (Fin.

94.
Cic. Tusc.
in. 77,

43).

Draeger,

429.

nam

Cleanthes quidem sapi-

entem
esse

consolatur, qui consolatione

sit, si

non

eget.

nihil eniin

lugenti persuaseris, uon sed stultitiam detraxeris alienum auteni luctum, docendi. et tamen non satis mihi videtur vidisse tempus
tu
illi
;

malum, quod turpe non

eo

hoc Cleanthes, suscipi aliquando aegritudinem posse ex esse summum malum Cleanthes ipso, quod ipse
Cicero
s criticism
is

fateatur.

here

is

twofold: (1) that what

instruction,

is is

called

really only ineffective to assuage grief, because it is inopportune,

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<y^o\ia or when in severe pain, in e/3ai a9 /earaX?;-\/ret<? (see on spite of his

80 and cf. Stob. Floril. 7. 21 0X76^ pev TOV <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.

generally Sext. Math. XI.

a7rX&3<>

130
fikv

140 and
earai
<J>vyr/v,

esp.
ecrn,

139

el S

8ta<7/cet

on

rovrl

6\iya)(f)e\e<;

TrXeiWa?

8"

e^et

T<

o^X?7<m<>,

crvyKptaiv
teal

Troitov alpecrews /cat (frvyfjs TT/JO?

erepav a tpeaiv
oTrep

xal OVK dvaipecriv

rr)<?

Tapa^r)<f.

UTOTTOV

yap

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

ov /3ov\erai paQelv ri
/TTOV,

317
ri

^a\\ov o%Xet Kal

95.

Stob. Floril.
oo-rt?

6. 19.

emdv^wv
troiricrei

avejfer
eai>

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.

Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Floril. 28,

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,

fuit redditurus, etiani

accepisset.

latro

etiani

antequam manus
est, et

inquinet

iam annatus quia ad occidendum

habet
et

interficiendi voluntatem. spoliandi atque

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

\dyov rov Kara

sit:

ri]v

TT/JO?

TOU?

TT\i]<rov

because the question is concerning to an act of kindness to a bad man, on whom, according
benefiting non

318
Stoic

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

principles,
it

was impossible to confer a favour

3), cf.

(Senec. Benef. v. 12.

pijteva Se
(f>av\ov

/jiiJTc

ll d p. 95, 5, (afaXelcrQai p^re (afaXeiv, Plut.

Stob. Eel. n.
7.

Comm.

Not. 21.

saciilegi:

Benef. vn.
facere
:

7. 3,

the edd. quote Phsedr. iv. 11. iniuriam sacrilegus Deo

fecit.

Senec. de

quidem non potest

4, 2.

quern extra ictum sua divinitas posuit: sed punitur

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,
;

sed ex destinato profuisse.

utitur:
"ad

quaerendum,"

Cleanthes exemplo eiusmodi et arcessendum ex inquit,

"

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

atque erro vernaculis congre-

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

hominum metienda sunt.

L. in. 7

Academia: see the description of this place in Diog. there was doubtless a attached to it, whence
:

<rroa

totum porticum infra. circulatorem a quack, mountebank: cf. Apul. Met. 1. c. 4, Athenis proximo ante Poecilen porticum circulatorem
:

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

319

mucrone infesto adspexi equestrem spatham praeacutam with of 6avfiaro7roi6<; devorare. Probably a translation collected to these men see the passages by Becker,
:

respect

Charicles. E. T. pp. 185

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

^>

dv8pa ^pri^ariariKOV
Kal rrore Kal
TraJs

elvai,

yivcoaKovra
C

<i)V

d<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
<ro<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>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

wegwcrfend und verachtlich

"

Laienurteil

aburteilen

He

liber das allgemeine concludes therefore that

Cleanthes threw over altogether the Stoic concession to

320

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

op#o<?

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

changed to ftdgiv by Meineke, who by Wachsmuth, and Cludius is reported

"

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,

but surely the words

may mean

"

ev<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.

Clem. Alex. Strom,

v. 14. 110, p.

715

P.

257

S.,

j/?

Kara TO

aicoTrwfjLevov
e

rrjv

r<uv

Sia/3d\\a)v etSwXoXarpiav

dve\evOepos Tra? oo-rt? et? Sogav

to?
81}

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<;

are obviously distinct. 86av for Zeno s definition,

Kaicia<;

vi. 72).

The

Stoics regarded

them

as

-rrpo^^va (Dio?

L. vii. 106).

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEAXTHES.

102.
p.

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.

Stob. Floril. 42.

2.

KdKovpyorepov ov$ev om/SoX?}?

<ydp

ecrrt

rrw

drcar^a-acra rov rrerceiO fJievov \d6pa dvarrX-drrei vrpo? rov ovSev ainov.

denned, ap. Stob. Eel. n.

7.

11 s

p.

115, 21,
-v^euSet

rrjv 8ia/3oX?)f 8id(rTaart.v fyaivofjievwv

&),

$>i\u>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
:

effect fails to notice this citing passages to the contrary

discrepancy.
104.
#?7?
?/po)T?7cre

Stob. Eel.
Trept

II.

7.

II

p.

103, 12, iKavws Se

elvai
<el>

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
;

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

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<w>?

Diog.

L.

vi.

72

ot;

jap,

(prja-iv

(Diogenes),
Be
?;

(ivev

o<eXo9

TI elvai

dareiov

aa-rclov

vop.ov 8e avev, TrdXetw? ovSev 6 <eXof acrrelov

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

before TroXt? into 8

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.

Stob. Floril. 4, 90,

KXeai/^?

TO 1)5
e<f>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.

uXprja-Tov (frag. 167

passage

is

and note), with which opinion this not necessarily inconsistent, though it probably
See also on
frag. 53.
to-eo?

implies an advance in teaching.

107.
01
<f)i\6(TO(f>oi,

Epict. diss. IV.

tcaOaTrep

1.

173, TrapdSoga peit

6
K.\edv0r)<;

(f>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
:

this description of their doctrines.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

ra Kotvd
/cal

323
avroi,
/u.er

Treptftor/ra,
t
r>]v

8t}

rrapd&o^a

real

drorciav.

108.

Pint. vit. Ale. VI. 2, 6

fjuev

ovv K\edvOrj^ e\eye

rov epcoftevov
8

eavrov
v<ji

f^ev

etc

rwv

dorcov KparelcrOai, rols

eavTu>,

(ivrepacnals TroXXa? Xa/3a? 7rape%eiv ddifcrovy TTJV yacrrepa \eycov KOL ra aiSota Kal rov \aifj,6i>.

This

may be

referred to the epwriKr)

re^vr) or Trepl

epeoTo?, In trod.

p. 52.

See on Zeno,

frags.

172 and 173,

and

Diog. L. vn. 24 (Zeno apoph. 7) \a/3rj ecrrlv evrtSe^io? 77 8id rcSv WTCOV.
cf.

109.
d8cd<j)opov

Sext.

Emp.

Pyrrh.
rrjs

III.

200, ot rrepl rov

rovro (TO

dppevofAi^ias) elvai fyacriv

Zeno

frag. 182.

110.

Stob. Floril.

6,

20.

rcoOev rear
etc

fj,oi^wv 76^09 ev KpiQiwvros dv8pos d(f)po8icriois.

for Stoic
:

apa ylverai

P.OIXWV:

views on poi^eta, see Zeno,

frag. 178.
s.

Kpi9u3vTos
,

for this

word

cf.

Buttmann s

Lexilogus,

v.

E. T. p. 78.

111.

Pint,

de And. Poet,
<j)av\w<$

c.

12,

p.

33,

Wev

ovS

at

e^ovcriv, at? Kal

fjiev

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

lines in question are

from Eur.

El.

428,

9,

where

212

324

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

<>i\ot9.

gevois is read in place of the passage has $i

Xot<?.

Stob. Floril. 91, 6 quoting

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<?

irj

evo-^Kelv,

KaQa

<pr)cri

KXedvdij*;

ev rut

irepl

For the
above
is

title
s

of the

book see Introd.

oio-re

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<al

irepl

</u\ocro(&>y

ap. Vol. Hercul. vin.

Trepl
aT<i)\r)><t

col. 13, v. 18,

<T?;>?

K\>dv6r)<?

ev

<rda>i

Ato7eVou?
evLwv

avTr)<<;>

/j,vr)</j,ovev>ei

KOI

7raiv<el>

xal

<fjiiicpov> vcrre<p>ov

ev

avr<u>i

Tov>r<a)i

Ka0d>7r<ep
<TTOI><I-

T>ep<a)>0

<>xdecri<v>

[1.

eicOecriv]

r>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.

book by Aristocreon, the nephew of Chrysippus, entitled

at XpycrtTTTTou rac^at (Comparetti, Papiro Ercolanense col. For the circumstances of the burial of Diogenes cf. 46).

Diog. L. VI. 78.

av-njs refers

to the TroXtreta of Diogenes.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

114.

325

Schol. ad Nic. Ther. 447, p. 36, 12 Keil,

ol

es \eyovTai,

ixrrepov

dva@alvoVT<;

o&oWes irapd TO

vewrepwv yap rjBij Kpaiveiv KOI diroirKtipovv rfv jXiiciav. K\dvOv]<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

<j>povelv

TOVS

TratSa?

&pav.

is growth of the reasoning powers of attainment the teenth 82), (Zeno, frag.

Thus, while the complete in the four

<ro)<ppo<rvv>n

year

may

well have been assigned to the conclusion of the third

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,
<a<r!

dvT\(5 yap povov KOI Trdvra TTOIW

TI S

oi^l (TKCLTCTW
eve/co,
;

TI S

ovtc

apSco,

<^tXoo-o<^/a?

Kal jap

6 Zrjvwv
<f>epeiv

avrov
o

(Tvve^vfjiva^ev et? TOVTO, teal etceXevev

o@o\6v
5,

dTrofopas.
/SacrtXei)?

Pint, de vitand. aere alieno 7,

KXedvdrj 8e
ev

Avrvyovos
aXet?

rjpta-ra

Sid xpovov
Se

6eaadfj.evo<f

rai?
<Tl\V,

Adr/vats,
O TTOtoS

eri,

KXeai/^e?; aXto, faaiv,

fJLOVOS

/3a/jLT}8e

eV6Kd TOV %T)V

eic

d7rO<TTJ]Vai

<j>i\o<ro<f>ia<;.

Cf. Stob. Floril. 17, 28,

XpvaiTnros

6 5lo\6)9

eiroieiro TOV fiiov

Trdvv

o\iya>v,

K\edv0r)<;

8e Kal ajro
&<rev

\arr6va)v.

Epict.

diss. III. 26. 23, TrcS?

KXedvOrj?

a/z,a a"xo\d%wv

aquam
2.

Senec. Ep. 44, 2, Clcanthes traxit et rigando hortulo locavit mauus.

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
<f>i]o-i,

dvetfj,eva><;

<f)i\oo-o(f>ovi>Tes.

K\edv0r}<{

e /caXetro.

3.

Diog. L.

VII.

171, TrpoKplvatv 8e TOV eavTOV (3lov

e\eyev,
ev
u>

TOV

T(av
7171;

7r\ov<ric0v,

o-(f)aipl

ai^To?

aK\r)pdv Kal aKap-jrov epydfro-Qai,

APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES.
4.

327

rwv 170, Kal a-KWTTTo/jievos Be VTTO r)m %eTO, Kal oi/o? dxovtov irpotreBfyero<rvnpa0viTwv TO ZT/VWI/O? Qopriov. \eywv ai)T09 ^di/o? BvvaaOaL fiaarci&iv
Diog. L.
VII.
5.

Diog. L.

VII.

171,

/cat Trore 6vet,8i%6fievos

SetXo9,

Sta roOro,
6.
,

Diog. L.
ov

VII.

TO 174, ovet&icravTos avrcp rtz/o? et?

/cavw, Ufa, iiTrtevai

^ovKo^ai
Kal

orav Se iravraxoOev
Kal
ypd<f>ovra

vyiaivovra Trepivow

dvayi-

vwcrKovra, ira\iv f^evw.

3e Kal eavrto eVe7roXXa/a<? Diog. L. VII. 171, )TTev wv (\Kovaas Apio-rvv, TLVL, e^rj, eiruir\ffrrevii TroXta? ^ev e^oim, vovv
7.

b\

7 eXao-a9,

Trpea-jSvTr},

<f>r)<ri,

Se

8.

Diog. L.
7T/309

VII.

173,

2<ucrt0eou

TOU

TTOL-rjrou ev

Qedrpa

avTov Trapovra,
?7

019

eVl

ravrov

ax^aro^.

w
e</>

aya<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><ri0eov

elvcu,

pei>

$\vapovnevovs
eirl

VTTO

TWV TTO^TWV

r^ rvxova~r) /3\aa^/j,ia Bva-xepa^eiv. Adulat. 11.

9.

&e opy%e*0at, avrov Cf. Plut. do

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,
<j>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?
^
<j>deyt;d-

avrwv OVK aKovovai.

11. Cic. Tusc. ii. CO, e quibus (philosophis) homo sane levis Heracleotes Dionysius, cum a Zenone fortis esse
didicisset, a dolore

dedoctus

est.

nam cum
quern

ex renibus
ilia,

laboraret, ipso in eiulatu clamitabat falsa esse

antea de dolore ipse

condiscipulus rogaret

quae

sensisset.

quaenam
si,

ratio

cum eum de

Cleanthes
sententia

deduxisset, respondit: quia

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

quo ilium degenerare dolebat.

is mentioned also in Zeno For the quotation from the

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

ophthalmia by Madv. (on Fin. v.

94),

who

is

followed

by the
Stob.

later editors.

12.

Floril.

82,

Eel.

n.

2.

16,

6V&)<?

Bid ri Trapd rot? ap^atot? ov 7ro\\(av (f>i\ocroTrXfiovs SteXafjityav rj vvv, on, elire, rore

epyov
13.

tf<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

TL V Diog. L. VII. 172, epojievov TWOS vlw, TO

-7-179

HXe/crpa9,

e</>?7,

crlya

atya XCTTTOV

The quotation
15.
t7ret
i]Sv,

is

from Eurip. Orest. 140.

33, 8, a-LwrrwvTos TOV
;

Stob.
<)i],

Floril.

KXedvQovs,

rt9
e<?7,

TL

crtyf

Ka

fjirv

rjv roi? (1X049 o/jH\elv.

ftaXXov avTov
rot<?

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

Exc. e MS. loan. Flor. Damasc.

II.

II.

c.

13.

125

Stob. Eel.
6

31.

125 Wachsm.,

77

ov TOLOVTOS 7rat9 eKelvos

AaKwv,

09 KXeaz/07/v TOV (friXoo-otyov rfpa)Tr)o-6v el

;

dyadov

o TTOVOS
KO\W<>

eaTLv

OVTO)

yap

e/ceii/09

fyaiverai

<ucrei

Tre$VK(as

KOL

Tedpa/jifjievos ev 77/369
T779

dpeTrjv utcrTe eyyLov eivai

^>ucre&)9

vOfAlteiv TOV TTOVOV

TayaOov
TOV

T"fjs

TOV KaKOV

09 76
ei

&J9

o/jio~\.oyovfjLevov

/u.?}

KaKov vTrdp^eiv avTov

dyadov Tvy^dvet

(av

eTrvvOdveTO.

Wev

Kal 6

KXeai^^
et9

dyacrOels TOV

7ra<8o9

enrev dpa 7rpo9 avTov, a(/Ltaro9

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).

Stob. Floril. 95, 28, KXedvOrjs, epwT(ap,evos TTWS

etT;

dv Tt9
19.

7rXoucuo9, etTref,

ei

TU>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

Zeno, apoph. 42, and Maxim. Serm.

20.

Diog. L.

VII.

173, \eyerat

Be,

<j>d<rtcovTos

avrov

Kara Zrjvwva Kara\r)Trrov elvai TO Kovt TWOS evrpajreXovs dyayelv

ea-K\Tjpaya)yr)fj,evov eV

7)^09 e f et Sou?, veavlcrTT/JO?

avrov

KivaiBov

rov tfOovsdvOpwirov,
6 K\edv6r)s,

dgtovv aTrofyaiveadai Trepl TOV Se SiaTropovpevov veXeOcrat dirikvai rov

Se dfriutv
e/ce?i/09

dypw,

/cal

&5s

eTrrapev, e^w,

etTrei/,

ayroi

yu,aXa6?

ecrrti/.

Cf.

Zeno, frag. 147.

21.
^/petat?,

Diog. L.

VII.

172, fatrl 8e 6
et o

Eicdrwv ev raw
et? TT}V

evpopfov petparclov etVoi/ro?

ya<TTp{ei,

TVTTTWV
a-v
(f>i],

teal o elf

TOI)<?

fj.tjpov<j

yacrTepa TVTTTWV pypi^ei,

[at

p,ev

TOI)?

ava\oyoi
/tara.]

(fxovai

8ia/j,Tjpio-fjLovf e%, /J,ipd/ciov. rd dvdXoya ov Travras (rr}/j.aivovcri

717707-

Cobet brackets the concluding words.

Diog. L. avray TO
VII.

22.
8ia>8r)(rev

ov\ov aTrayopevo-dvrwv

176, KOI reXeura roj/Se rov rpoTrov Be rwv larptav

teal TTCO? eo-^e
a-vvrjdr}
r}8tj

Bvo -quepas d-rrea-^ero

rpo^.
elrrovra

/caXw? wcrre

rof? tarpoi/9 aOro) Trdvra rd

PTJ
tcai

(rvy-^wpelv.

rov Be

avao-^eo-Oai
ra<?

aXX

avrq>

TrpocoBonropiJadai

XoiTra?

diro<j^o^evov
Zr/va)vo<t

r\vrijaai.
real

Lucian, Macrob.

19,

K\edv0r)<j

Be 6

/j,adr)rr)<;

evevtjfcovra oiJro?
Kat,

yeyovws

errj

<f>vfj,a

BidBo^of evvea Kal ea-^ev eVt rov ^ct Xou?

Trap"

(nroKaprepwv

7r\06vra>v

avrut

eraipwv rivwv

ypapfAarcov Trpoo-eveyKdpevos rpofyrjv Kal Trpd^as Trepl wv y]%iovv 01 d7roo-^6/j,evo<; avQis egeXnre rov Stob. Floril. 7, 54, K\edv6^ VTTO y\wrrt]<j eXou? ftiov.
(f>i\oi,
rpo(f>Tj<;

avrw

yevofievov rrjv
t

rpo(f>rjv

OVK eBvvaro Traparrefnrew (9

rpo<f>r)v

Be paov ecr^e /cat o

fie,
e<f>rj,

arpo?
TO

avra>

Trpocrrjyayev,

<ri)

Be

/3ov\ei

tfBr)

rr\eov

rtjs

6Bov

Karavv&avra

dva&rpefaiv, elra Trd\iv Kal e^tj\Bev rov /Stou.

et;

VTrap^ij<f

n]v avrtjv

INDICES.
[The references are
to the

numbers

of the fragments, except

where

p.

is

prefixed.]

I.

INDEX FOXTIUM.
Athenaeus xin. 563
e

Achill. Tat. Isag. 124 E

1-29

35 65 33 133 c 45 Aelian. Nat. An. vi. 50 Ambros. de Abraham, n. 7...Z 148

E

Z Z C C

565 d xiii. 572 f Augustin. c. Acad. n. 11

xiii.

Z 173 Z 191

in. 7. in. 9.

C 64 Z 153 16... Z 125 18... Z 11

Anon. Tfx vr a P- Speugel Ithet.

l

(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

447. 11 Anon, variae coll. math, in

et stereom. edit. p.

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.

Censorin. de die nat. iv. 10... xvn. 2...

.

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.
_

20. 14 ...Z 123

4... n. 19.1 n. 23. 42 ... in. 22. 95 ...

iv. 1.

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

8,9, 11,15, 17, 19, 20

42...

10, 18, 21,

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

Fin. n. 17 n. 69 ni. 52 iv. 12 iv. 14

C90
Z 131 Z 86 Z 120 Z 126 Z 126 Z 120

47 60 iv. 72 -v. 38
iv.
iv.

Dio Chrysost. Diog. Laert. vi

VI

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.

...C 14, 15, 16, 17,

46
Cicero Nat. De.
-

70

n. n. 21

1315

...

Z 8 C 52 Z 61

n. 22... Z 59, 60, 63 n. 24 C42

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

Orat. 32. 113 Tusc. i. 19

ii.

29

in. 74. 75 in. 76 in. 77

iv.

C94

Z iv. 47 Z v. 27 Z Clem.Alex.Paedag.in.il. 74.. Z

11

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

v. 12. 76.. .Z v. 14. 110...

v. 14. 95. ..Z

164 149 75, 101

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)

Z 51 5 in. 2. 9 (in. Z 37, 79, 95,164,185 Haeres. in. 2. 9 (in.

p. 671. ..Z

H
Harpocration s.v. XeVxat

C53
C
149 75

61

Euseb. P. E. xni. 13,

xv.

Hermias
p.

Irris.

Gent. Phil. 14.

...

654Diels

p. 679...

15.7
18. 3 20. 1
20. 2...Z

C28

21. 1 Hippolyt. philosoph.

C 21 Z 36

45
Eustatb. in 37
II.

Z 54 Z 106 83, C 38 Z 23

144 Lactant.Epit. ad Pentad. 38... Z

Inst.
i.

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

de Ver. Sap. 9 LonL inus ap. Euseb. P. E. xv.

.

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.

C 58 C 60 C 59 C 57 i. 18. 14 C 29 1.23.2 Somn.Scip.i.14.19... Z 89

i.
i.

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

6(v. 476 K.) Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac.

1 (v.

C84
ix.

C 36 Z 93

653 K.)

C 85

Galen Hist. Phil. 5 (xix. 241 K.) Z 36 9(xix.254K.)Z 91 10(xix.258K.)Z78

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.

739. ..Z 178

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.

84G....Z 109 28. C 49

.

7re/)i0(\ocr6<^w

C.

13.

Philoponus on Ar. Phys.

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.

12 ......... Z 197 12 ......... C 111 15 ......... Z 106

9 ...Z 196

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

Not. 23. 1...Z 120 - 31.5... C47

31. 10.

Z84

C 25 C 27 C 69 C 70

de facie in orbe lunae

6. 3

Plutarch defluv. 5.3 5.4 - 17.4

-

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.

20.3 11.1 21.4

...

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

Soil. an. 11. 2,

Sto. Rep. 2. 1
6.

104. 107. 108. 113.

21 10

10 18

INDEX FOXTIUM.
Seneca de Ira

- Tranq.An.i.7...Z170,C105
Sext.

Z 158 i. 10. 7 Nat.Quaest.vii.19.1 .. Z 75 de Otio Sap. 30. 2 ...Z 170

Z 32 Math. n. 7 vii. 151 ... Z 15 vn. 2-27 ... Z 10 vn. 228... Z 7, C 3 Z 7 vn. -2.% ... vn. 2 IS ... Z 11 vii. 253 ... Z10
vii.

Stob. Eel.
.

i.

Emp.

22. 3 23. 1. 24. 2 25. 3 25. 5. 26. I

1

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.

372. ..Z 14,

2. 12. p. 22. 7. 1. p. 38.

Z 58 Z 64 C 33 C 29 Z 71 Z 71 C 32 C 37 Z 92 Z 93 Z 5 12... 15... Z 146

18... Z
.

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
.

5...Z 137 128 C 82 65. 8.

.

6\
6

p. 75. 11...Z
p. 76. 3
p.
...

120

C 72

_6
7

e
.

77.20...Z 124

_6.
1

p. 77. 21... C 74 131 p. 84. 21... Z

. i

Z 148 ll e 99. 3 ll .p.!03.12..C104

Stob. Floril.4. 90

31.64.p.212.22.C 106 C 106 Z202 4.107 C 95 6. 19

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

5. 15. p. 78. 18... 8. 40 e . p. 104. 7.

Z45
Z Z Z Z Z C Z Z Z C Z Z
76 35 51

Strabo Suidas

Z 198 C 61 s. v. Xetrxcu C 6 Syrian, ad Metaph. 892 b. 14 ...

6

10. 14. p. 126.17. II. 5\p. t32.26.

12. 3. p. 136. 21. 13. 1. p. 138.14. 15. 6-\ p. 146. 19.

p. 146. 21.

-.

16. 1. p. 149. 8... 17. 3. p. 152. 19.

-

p. 153.7...
1
,

18. I

p. 156. 27.

19.4. p. 166. 4... 20. l c p. 171. 2

.

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.

C36 Z94 C36 Z44, C13 Z41 Z46

Z 38 Z 51

...Z 54, 21. 6 C p. 187. 4...

.

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

Theodoret Gr. Cur.

Z43
Z 140 C 83 Z 196 Z 196 Z 70

Theon progymn.
Theoph. ad
119 c

Aff. vt. 14. Z 45 12. p. 251. ..Z 108 Autol. in. 5. p.

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.

Varro Ling. Lat.

R. B.
ii. 1.
ii.

v. v.

9 59
..

CIO
Z 105 Z 81 .. C 44

4.

3 9

Z 106
Zonaras
s. v.
ffo\oiKlfru>

Theodoret Gr. Cur. p. 934

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.

Academics, Z 109. Alcmaeon, Z 82. Alexander, Z 30.

Alexandria, Z 30. Alexinus, Z 5, 61.

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,

7, 13, 14, 35,

45 A, 52, 50 (54), 58,

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.

Apollodorus, p. 19. Apollonius, p. 2, 4, 20.

Arcesilas,

D
Demetrius, p. 27. Diodorus, p. 40, C 8. Diogenes, p. 18, 19, 20, 21, Z
9.

11, 145.
7.

Archedemus, C

Archelaus, Z 81. Aristarchus, p. 42, 51, C 27.

Aristippus,

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,

9, 21, 50, 55, 58,

Bion Borysthenes, Boetlms, Z 54.

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,

21, 28, 29, 33,

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

Ptolemy, Philadelphia, p. 5, 6, 228. Pythagoras and Pythagoreans, Z 50,

55, 65, 70, 73, 81, 37, 68. 26, 27, 29,

Homer,
198.

p. 31, 43, 51,

174, 195,

S
I

Seneca,

162.

Indians,

187.
If

Socrates, p. 45, 53, Z 59, 123, 134, 158, 159, 162, 194, p. 227, 230,

76, 77, 79.

Marcus Aurelius, Z
Megarians, Z
5.

52, 162,

44.

(frag. 711), Stilpo, p. 3, 28. Z Strato, 64, C 43.

Sophocles

197.

N
Neanthes,
p. 51.

Thales,

73.
p.

Theophrastus,
Panaetius,

110

f.,

233.

54.
Virgil,

Parmenides, Z 64, 81. Peripatetics, p. 110 f., Z 159, 169.

Persaeus, p. 31, 53. Phocylides, Z 29.
Plato, p. 25, 26, 30, Z 1, 16, 21, 23, 34, 35, 62, 65, 91, 99, 103, 110, 112, 134, 135, 136, 142, 149, 162, 163, 166, 167, 168, 169, 172, 177, 197, C 37, 57, 58. Cratylus, p. 44.

97.

Xenocrates, p.

3,

1,

128,

37.

Xenophanes,Z56

(33), 81, 113, 117.

Zeno, p.

135,

of Tarsus,

46, C 13, 18, 24, 76. Z 57, 87.

III.

INDEX VERBORUM.
C
75.
a7ro/rpi/e<70ai,

dyadd, p. 14, 15, Z 127, 128,

a7fX?7 ffiWo/ttoy, dyvoia, Z 18. d5e?s, Z 109.
doidcjiopa, p.

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>ov,
.

aTropuv
"Apa^es,

(Trept), p.

49.

a^r-Tjros,

148, 157_. Z 95. ,acn-os, Z 109. rov Z 65. aidepos TO

Z. 198.

dddvaros
;itfcu

(cofs),

dpeTr,,

{<j\a-

alBrip, Z 41, C 15. ai)ta, Z 87, 88.

cu<rtf?}<7ews

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

50, 51. 8. 20, 121.

dppwor^/uaTa,
dpxcu,

144.

35.

24.

dpxa-LOTfpoi, p. 40,

10.

d/coXao-ia,
f

138. ciXXa.777, Z 168. \\ ^7 aAXoiaxTts, Z oJ.

"O

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,

p. 15, Z 132, 133. d/xerdTTTwroi Z 135.

aro/xwc

(Trept), p.

47.

drpaTros,

C
23.
t

45.

dV,

d^Kr,*, C 48 (10). Z 190. s B ^/-^-CU ttO WOClJVCltf, U O. ^. d^af^iwao-is, p. 23, Z

,

ai-74
/

83,

55.

av0fKaffTos, C 75. \ /i -n Ctl AT), Zj lol. C 82. d<pop/jiaL,

A<ppo5iTrj,

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<!piTTo<s,

/Sapor,

67.
(Trept), p.

/3a<n\etas
a<7tXt/c6s,

52.

/iidfeTai,
/3tos.
/aoi

Z 148 (10). Z 148 (12).

p. 52.

145.
(Trepi),

X^s

ppovrrj,
yd/j.os,

74.

Z 171.

yd/j.ou (irepi), p. 51.

7<r;

ed,

77.

7ew^erpta,

28.

340
yiydvruv
{I

INDEX VERBORUM.
(irtpi),

Yopyiirirov

(irtpi),

p. 51. p. 52.

iva.Trofj.f/JMy/j.tvos,
,

n-aiSefaj (irep/), p. 30. Z 11.

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>p7<5s,

Z 148 (12). tlv, Z 35. Z 48.

139, 158. C 103.
51.

Z 134. Z 23, C 10, 34, Z Z 161.

s,

6.

21.

61.

e is,

Z
7

43, p. 110,

Z 56

(53),

117,

^TjubitpiTov (irp6s), p. 51.

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<ris,

24. 139, 143.

1*23. fir((T0ai 0eois, firiyfvvritJ.aTa, p. 46.

fTTiyiyw^eva
eiriBvfjda,

Kplfffffiv,

138, 139.

Z 142, eiriffTJM, Z 16, Z

172.
17, 18, 33, 134.

StaXfKTi/cTjs (irepi), P- 49. SiaXfKTtKoi, p. 33, Z 5.

eiriffrrifj.-!)?

(vepl), p. 50.

eTrterroXai, p. 31.

100, 135. 5tarpi/3ai, p. 30, Z 179. dLarpipuv j3 , p. 53.

StdKoia,

fpws,

113, 163, 172.

Tt\vT),
p.

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.

StKafetP (Trepi TOU), p. 52. diKaiov, C 77.

SiKaiotrw

T;,

StxaffTrjpia,

Z Z

122, 134. 166.

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 >7rp<?7reia,

Z 56

56a, Z
101.
dvvdfj.fi*
di

15, 143, 153.

p. 47, 48, 50, 52,

tvpri\oyos,

(63). 62.

66*175 (irtpi),

100,

ei>ia,

ei)0wo,
t/
i

Z 124, C Z 172. Z
79,

74.

X ^s, Z
8.

93,

85.

ei)<i

fas (irfp/), p. 52.

varov,

i<f>

iifuv,

91.

5i i/aTwi

(jrepi))

ov,

P- 50. 51.

Zefc,

111.
(i"fpt

76. s iratStla, Z 167. 45 A, j), Z 19, 45,

,

p. 45,

ZTJVOH OS p. 50.

Js

^</>i

(TtoXo7iai

/3 ),

f^Stov,

71.

18.

fu>i>i)

dia.K(Kavfdvr),
(6
>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<ris,

22, 24.

p. 13, 42, 93, 101, 135, 141, 84.

,

24, 33, 67, 15, 25, 28,

<\^,

e\tv6fplas (irtpi), p. 52. t\tv8tpovs, Z 149. C 29, 60.

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>^a,

(irepl), p.

50.

HpaK-XeiVou e^-tjyrjfffuv 5 HpaKXijj, C 62. HpTj, Z 110. Hpi\\ov (Trpds), p. 52.

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.

35, 108, 109. tfeos /caKuS? TTO^T^S, Z 47, C 47. t eos

<j>6apr}ff6/j.et>os,

C 48
47.

(17).

tfeuw (irepf), p. 49, 51,

depifav, p. 224. Hepu-affia, Z 84.

t*<r,

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<rts

71,

162,

193,

5t

39.
,

53, 96,

oXou, p. 11, 23, C 13.

51, 52,

OrjptVXeioJ

C
37.

11.

Kpeios,
\-pio-eis,

HvpaSfv,
IdTrero?,
/Seat,

C
Z

115.

136, 139, 143. 113. Ki/KXw7res, Z 116.

Kpo^os,
23, C 6. i 5ioj, p. 49. idiuv (irepi), p. 49. lOtOJS TTOtOV, Z 49.

Z Z Z

115.

x\>pievui>,

8.

/ii.

ptei oi ros (Kepi), p.

50.

Kuvofi.5r)s,

26, 33.

iepd,
tXi
I

j,

Z Z
v.

164. 113.

\eKT6v, p. 40, C 61. \e

<7xcu,

24,

C Z

7.

o-os,

d/uapr^a.

I0ucpcms,
/ca<?a7raf

11.

d8id<popa,

Z Z

130.

\effxvvopiov, C 61. Xe tewv (irtpt). p. 27, \%u, p. 27, 226. \rj7rrti, Z 130, 131.
Xiros,

30, 31.

Kcttfapos,

36, 174. Ka8e\Kfiv, Z 30.

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,

ToO), p. 50. 0-rotxf a, Z 3.

Xo70(/>tXos,

200.

Aoias, C 60.
Xo^oi-,

145.
p. 14, 15,
(7Tcpc

73.
59.

Kara

</>iW,

130, 169, 192,

f.
</..

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.

10, 16, 18, 33,

81).

Mai oca, C

67.

342
Moi^s, p. 232.
UOXTIKT?, p. 29,

INDEX VEBBORUM.
owi a,

118.

Mo/xy/njr, Z 195. w^yas, Z 148. ue 077, C 80.

fj.f6vai>,

49, 50, 51, 53, p. 110. 29. (irept), p. 29.

p. 41,
(irept), p.

fj-fitixris,

Z Z

aB-n, p.
iratfiDj

45,

Z 135144,
Z Z
,

172,

086.

159. 139.
94.

(irepO, p. 29, 184.

ueXa>xMa,
a<?p77

C 80 Z 93, (i/ i/x^j), 24. C u^oi/,

Z
145.

7rai5a7W7oi,
7rat5e/a,
I
.

188.
73.

f^Aciy/cXios.

ira.v<rt\r)i>os,

Trapa/SdXXeti
irapa5fiy(j.a,

185.

ue cra,

ueradXXe<T0cu,

153.

uerapoXJi, p. 23. UeTO\7)l/ WS (TTfpi), p. 50,

ufTaj/oeu
ur|u,
,

26. TrapdSo^a, C 107. irapd^fffis, Z 51.

11.

irapaivfriicri, p. 47,
7rap<iXo7a,

92.

153.

107.

fj-tr^xovra, p. 46,

128.

Z 51, 52. Z 14. .aoix^et", Z 178, C

fjutTlfjir),

trapa/j.v6r]riKri,

Trapa

0i/(rtK,
,

93, 94. p. 14, 15, Z 130, 169.

Z
,

34, 35.

110.

^,

/u

#i*cd,

p. 51.

,U.Up/J.T!)KfS,

45.

uupojrwXia,
ii,

Z 175. Z 65. Z 52, 56

146. C 32.

(43).

174.

-^fJMTa.,

PL-IT artlv dKWTM^s.

31.

53.

C
Z
Z

laraffn, p. 15,
,

169, 170, 184.

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

11, 40, 42, 110, Z 84, 85, C 13. SiarfTifOv, C 43.

41, 48, p.

irvfv/j.aTiKri

Suva/us, p. 110.

Trpft yuariKos TOVOS,

Z 56

(54).

37. Z 42.
13.

ri,

S,

Z
j,

15, 16.

o\o6<f>poi>os,

oXou

(jre/){),

121, 122, 126. 65. p. 28.

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.

HoXtreia, p. 20, 29, 162. Tro\iTfVfff6ai, Z 170.

1. TToXlTlKOV, TToXlTlKOS, p. 52. TroXi xpoftos, Z 95.

23, 97, 149,

op^oj Xo-yos, pp. 123, 157.

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.

C 48 (1). Z 128, 187, 201. iroptia, Z 175. HoffctSuv, Z 111.

TroXiiuJvi Mos,

Trpd^euv

(irept),

p. 52.

irpofi\rifw.Tui>

Ofj.T)piKuv, p. 31.

irporiyntvov, p. 15, 34,

127, 128,

131, 145, 169.

IXDEX VERBORUM.
irpor)yov[j.fi>os,
1<J9,

343

p.

15,

128,

131,

170.
34.

irpoKoirri, p.

TTpOKOTTTOVTeS,
irp6\T)\l/ts, p.

160.

10, 34, 40,

21.

irpovoia,

a-poTTfTfia,

36, 45 A, Z 22.

18, 19, 44.

Trpoo-Scm a,

143.

Z 23. irpoffieo-dat., Z 160. irpoa-Ka\ei<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,
<r0cupa,
ff<pd\\<T6a.L,
<TX<?<,

76.

TaTreti/axms,
reiveffdai,

139.

67.

TrporpfTTTLKos, p. 52.
TrpdJra

Kara

(puffiv,

122, 126.

TTToia, Z 137. TTTweris, Z 23,

Xiyyos, Z 82. reXerds, C 53. reXoj, p. 45, Z 120, 124, reXoi S (irfpi), p. 52.

reXaoj

74.

rex"?,

P- 27,
("^pO.

139. UvffayopiKd, p. 29. Tri p rexviKov, p. 23,

T^X^S

5, 12, 13, 118, P- 50.

5.

rex"^?,

48.

C 13, 15, rrpoeiS???, C 32.

68, 71,
Ijta,

41, 42, 46, 23, 26, 30.

r^eo-^at (6co,ua), Z 116. rt^s (Trept), P- 47, 52.

Ti^d,

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>T],

73,

32.

(n/Mfi wc (Trepi), p. 29.

rpipwv,

194.

OOTTO S,

p. 45,
,

o-oXoua feij
ffrxpov

ao^uTjUara,
(jrept

Z Z 6.

74. 31.

rpiMfpi??,

1.

Tpiroyevfia, Z 1. rpoTrwv (Trept), p. 50. riryxdj/oj/ra, Z 23.

cr.
<roipt(7Tei

roG TOJ

etf),

ryTrwcrtj, p. 34,

7.

p. 53.
o-7Tf>a,

Z
Z

o-Troi Scuoy,

106, 107, C 24. Z 148159.

4.

I/XT;,

35, 49, 50, 51.

vp.eva.iov (irepi), p.

51

crrcm/cd,

ar^X7;y tm xoi, Z

(irfpi),

113.
53.

166.

Z 29. Tweptwi Z 115. virWeffi s, Z 25.

i-Tra/coiW,
,

o-rofi? (Trept), p.

oroixf

a,

uTrofleri/rds T67ros, p.

47,

92.

3, 35.

i-TrcvxepeT^oiJ,
vTroTriirTeiv,
L-Troo-rdtf/xij,

134.

ffT-parT^ytKos, Z 148. ffrpoyyvXos, Z 32.

Z 23. Z 114.

(TvyKa.Ta.ee vis,

p. 34,

15,

lit,

33,

iV C 44.
(paivofj.ei

123, 139, 158.

<n-7x

<,

51.

ffv\\r)<j>8eis,

avupfpyKos,

Z Z

a ffufrw,
156.

27.

106.
24.

^a/c^,

avp.ira.8eLa. p,epuv,

Z C

58. 77.

(pavraaia, p. 24, 38, 158, C 3.

7, 8, 33,

123,

o-v^iroffiov (irepi), p. 47, 53.

avp.<ptpov,

/caToX^TrriK??, p.

8,

9,

24,

p. 45,

10, 11.
<pdi>Ta.(r/j.a,

Z 40. Z 40. ffvveffruTuv, Z 67. Z 96. ffWLVTOpelv, C 11.

ffwairTiKj,,
cri

Z
,

23.

j/eKTiKTy,

(pavraffriKov
</>auXos,

160.

0-iWx">

148, 154. ^epaetfiovn, C 56.

<t>6ovepias

(irfpi), p.

47, 52.

{44
wi
i,

INDEX VKRHOKUM.
rou Koa/Aov, /. 103.
/x;, p.

50.

%O.\KOV (ft pi), p. 53,

112.

X&n, Z 112, 113.

X<*/*

47, 53. 200. t/X 149. f, C 23.

t,

<*

(<** )

P- 47, 52,

C 9799.

x fy/ri7
<

"

X/*">

XP*"*"

tfap/or, C 4. P- 81, Z 194. 53. ^ )i ! /

ir<
>t

i,

128, 142, 143. (^v/c^Xtot), X 71, 110. t, p. 35, C 21.

|).

40,

x/"*/""

"^
("

c ;w

x/*>""

P1 ). P- 5070.

X/"".

t,

p. 15, 10, 45,

134, 150.

/.
(,

155.

x/ WMOTa, X 78. X^P*! Z 69.

^aXoi,
t/

39, p. 110. divatwi (irt.pl), p. 28.

QvatKfo,

2.

i/Xi?,

C Z

49. 43, 56(60),

8396, C
14, 21.

36-

^Jrn,

p.

14,

X
C

43, 45, 46,

/rard.

51, r.

45.

6fM\oyla and
(KOtPT^,

roC Kofffwv,

73.

0iW, X 106.
<t,uvouv,

wjav, Z 56(99).
u)^Xi/)t,

98.

190,

75, 77.

77,

99, 100, p. 220.

CAMBKIIMiK:

KINTKU UV

C. J.

CLAY. M.A. & SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

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;;.
.

THE STUDENT S EDITION

Crown
4*.o.,

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

Bible, with Apocrypha,

in

divided into
Septuagir.it.

adapted to the Calendar and Tab!es of I,essons of 1871.

Cr. 8vo.

Sections y.
f>d.

The Old Testament

Greek according to the

D.L>.

Jvdited

Vol. I. Genefcis IV Kin?-.. by the Rev. Professor H. Ii. SWKTE, Vol.11. I Chronicles Tobit. Cro-.vn 8vo. \_:, early ready. ;;. oV.

The Book The Book

of

Psalms

in

a por.ior. of Vol. II. of above.

Greek according to the Septuagint. Crown fcvo. 2:. CV.

Being

of Ecclesiastes. Large Pap-ir Edition. Rev. E. H. PLVMKrfcE, Dean of V. 7:. Derr.y

e".s.
>vo.

By
^.

the \ ery

Breviarium ad usuin insignis Ecclesiae Sarum.

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>Air.:vif, FASCICVLVS sive Pho?Ki"M i/E TEMKJJ-.E TO7IVS A. -I, -;r.a
I.
.

e*.

Oi-:xj
or

TEK
>.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
>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>;HAK

a F?.AN
Lz> ;-.

,:-

,o CA?.L-:VAL:
-/-..

Qv/o:>">.

io edffurn

Tor-iAN. -L

L>fiLv

n.-.
B->jk
.i

The Pointed Prayer Book, being the

vr;:;:

of Cornruon Prayer
*_i.7 a^t
t.o
:>t

-_Le
iz:

s.i:i

Psal:er or Ps.=lns of I/avii, Chu.ries. Roval 74Jto. :.

poiz.*,fcd

.r.^

>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.

The New Testament

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

Greek and English Testament,

page.

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

Greek and English Testament.

above on large -writing paper.

THE STUDENT S EDITION

us.
tertia,

of the
35. 6d.

410.

Greek Testament, ex editione Stephani

1550. Sm. 8vo.

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.

The Missing Fragment

Book

of the Latin Translation of the Fourth

of Ezra, discovered and edited with Introduction, Notes, facsimile of the MS., by Prof. BENSLT, M.A. Demy 4(0. IO.T.

and

The Harklean Version of XI. 28 XIII. 25. Now

and Notes on

the Epistle

to

the Hebrews, Chap.

edited for the first time with Introduction this version of the Epistle. By ROBERT L. BENSLY.

Demy 8vo. $s. Codex S. Ceaddae Latinus.

Lucae ad cap.

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

SCRIVENER, A.M., LL.D.

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</.

By

Notitia Codicis Quattuor Evangeliorum Graeci membranacei viris doctis hucusque incogniti quern in museo suo asservat Eduardus Reuss
Argentoratensis.
is.

London

Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

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
?;<

Volume

II., containing the

Appendices and Indices.

Commentary on
12s.

Thessalonians

Philemon,

Chagigah from the Babylonian Talmud.

Treatise with Notes, etc. by A.

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

Hsereses, edidit Socius. 2 Vols.

Lugdunensis W. WIGAN HARVEY, Demy Octavo. i8.r.

libros quinque adversus S.T.B. Collegii Regalis olim

215.

The Palestinian Mishna.

M. Minucii

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.

Theophili Episcopi Antiochensis Libri Tres ad Autolycum.

Prolegomenis Versione Notulis Indicibus instruxit HUMPHRY, S.T.B. Post Octavo. $s.

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

Fragments from Mount

Sinai,

edited

HARRIS, M.A.

Demy

by

J.

RENDEL
Royal

410.

io.r.

6</.

The Diatessaron
8vo.
zs.

of Tatian.

By

J.

RENDEL HARRIS, M.A.

Ave Maria Lane.

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

the Unity of the Church, by

Supremacy, and a Discourse concerning I. BARROW. Demy 8vo. 7*.

6</.

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

Master of Jesus College.

at

Demy

Octavo,

is.

6d.

The Homilies, with Various Readings, and the Quotations from Edited
the Fathers given

G. E. CORRIE, D.D.

late

length in the Original Languages. Master of Jesus College. Demy 8vo.

by

jj.

6d.

Two Forms

of Prayer of the time oi

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.

ROBERTO SANDERSON, SS.

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,

Christ the Life of

Men.

By Rev.

II.

M. STEPHENSON, M.A.
of our

Being the Hulsean Lectures Crown Svo. is. 6d.

for 1888.

The Gospel History

Lord Jesus Christ

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.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICS,
(See also pp. 16, 17.)

&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,

Introduction and Critical Litt.D. Demy Svo. ys.

With against the Law of Leptines. and Explanatory Notes, by J. E. SANDYS,

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.

The Greek Text

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.

Essays on the Art of Pheidias. By C. WALDSTEIN,

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:

Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

PUBLICATIONS OF
M.
Quirites.

Tulli Ciceronis pro C. Rabirio [Perduellionis With Notes, Introduction and Appendices.
6<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.
<SEPH

Reo] Oratio ad By W. E. HEIT-

Vol. II.

J<

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.

[In the Press.

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.

Vol. III., containing the Translation.

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.

English, with Introduction and Notes, by E.WALLACE,

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.

Nicomachean Demy 8vo. 6s.

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.

Cloth ji. us. 6d.

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.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

The History
of

Alexander the Great, being the Syriac version of

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

and Introduction, by the

E.

With a Metrical H. PALMER, M.A.

6</.

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.

Kalilah and Dimnah,

Translation
of
the

the Fables of Bidpai;

Syriac

later

I. G. N. KEITH-FALCONER, M.A. Makala-i-Shakhsi Sayyah ki dar Kaziyya-i-Bab Navishta-Ast

version, with Notes, Demy 8vo. 7^. 6d.

with an English by the late

(a

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.

MATHEMATICS, PHYSICAL SCIENCE,

&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.

Mathematical and Physical Papers.

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.,

[Vol. IV. In the Press.

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

Treatise on Geometrical Optics.

A A A

Crown 8vo. $s. Treatise on Dynamics.

By R.

HEATH
"js.

By

S. L.

LONEY, M.A.

Cr. Svo.

6d

Treatise on Analytical Statics.

By

E.

J.

ROUTH,
E.
S.

Sc.D., F.R.S
[Nearly ready

Treatise on Plane Trigonometry.

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</.

Lectures on the Physiology of Plants, by

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<,

The Analytical Theory

with Notes, by A.

By JOSEPH FOURIER. FREEMAN, M.A. Demy Svo. I2J.

J.
2

of Heat.

Translate!
Editec

The

Scientific

Papers of the late Prof.

vols.

Clerk Maxwell.
3^. (net.)

by

W. D. NIVEN, M.A.

Royal 4 to. ,3.

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.

Practical Work at the Cavendish Laboratory. W. N. SHAW, M.A. Demy Svo. y.

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.

Anatomy, Vertebrate and Inverte Demy Svo. is. 6d.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

A
Catalogue of Australian Fossils.

By R. ETHERIDGE, Jun., F.G.S.

By

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,

of the University of Cambridge,

7-r.

F.G.S.

Royal Quarto.

6d.

Catalogue of Osteological Specimens contained in the Anatomical

Museum

of the University of Cambridge.

Demy

8vo.

2.r.

6d.

Astronomical Observations
from 1846
to 1860,

made
late

at the
J.

by the

Rev.

Observatory of Cambridge CHALLIS, M.A.

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

in Fetters. Being the Yorke T. E. SCRUTTON, M.A. Demy 8vo.

Prize Essay for

7*.

1885.

By

6d.

Commons and Common

Laws
Essay
of

Commons and

Fields, or the History and Policy of the Enclosures in England. Being the Yorke Prize

for 1886.

History of the

Law

Essay for 1887.

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

Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

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.

Land Tenure in Ireland. By W. E. MONTGOMERY,

Demy
8vo.
2 s.

College.

6a.

An

Introduction to the Study of Justinian s Digest.

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

of the Perpetual Edict of Salvius Julianas,

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.

Mandati vel Contra.

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

Architectural History of the University of Cambridge and

of the Colleges of Cambridge and Eton, by the late Professor WILLIS, M.A., F.R.S. Edited with large Additions and a Continuation to the 6. 6s. present time by J. W.CLARK, M.A. 4 Vols. Super Royal 8vo. Also a limited Edition of the same, consisting of 1 20 numbered Copies only, large paper Quarto; the woodcuts and steel engravings mounted on India paper; of which 100 copies are now offered for sale, at Twentyfive

Guineas net each

set.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY

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<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

Athens during the Peloponnesian War, by

(Prince Consort Dissertation, 1888.)

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

bridge, June it, 1890,

Lecture, delivered in the Senate-House, Cam by R. C. JEBB, Litt.D. Cloth, is. Paper Covers, is.
of

The Literary remains The

Albrecht Diirer, by

VV.

M. CONWAY. With

Transcripts from the British

Museum

Manuscripts, and Notes upon them

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.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

;7.

JUN

4197s

PLEASE

DO NOT REMOVE
FROM
THIS

CARDS OR

SLIPS

POCKET

UNIVERSITY

OF TORONTO

LIBRARY

B 626

Zeno, of Citium

Z21P4

The fragments of Zeno and Cleanthes