The fragments of Zeno and Cleanthes; with introd. and explanatory notes

OLNOHOL 30 ALISHSAIN|

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2006 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation

https://archive.org/details/thefragmentsofze00zenouoft

THE FRAGMENTS

OF

ZENO AND CLEANTHES.

Hondon: C. J. CLAY AND SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.

Cambridge: DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO.
Leipsig: F. A. BROCKHAUS.
Pew Work: MACMILLAN AND CO.

THE FRAGMENTS

OF

ZENO AND CLEANTHES

WITH INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATORY
NOTES.

AN ESSAY WHICH OBTAINED THE HARE PRIZE

IN THE YEAR 1889,

BY:

A. C. PEARSON, M.A.

LATE SCHOLAR OF CHRIST’S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

LONDON:
C. J. CLAY AND SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE.
1891

[All Rights reserved. ]

Cambridge:
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

PREFACE.

ὁ γυμνὰ dissertation is published in accordance with the
conditions attached to the Hare Prize, and appears
nearly in its original form. For many reasons, however,
I should have desired to subject the work to a more
searching revision than has been practicable under the
circumstances. Indeed, error is especially difficult to
avoid in dealing with a large body of scattered authorities,
the majority of which can only be consulted in a public
library.

The obligations, which require to be acknowledged for
the present collection of the fragments of Zeno and
Cleanthes, are both special and general. The former are
soon disposed of. In the Neue Jahrbiicher fiir Phalo-
logie for 1873, p. 435 foll., Wellmann published an
article on Zeno of Citium, which was the first serious
attempt to discriminate the teaching of Zeno from that
of the Stoa in general. The omissions of Wellmann were
supplied and the first complete collection of the fragments
of Cleanthes was made by Wachsmuth in two Gottingen
programs published in 1874—1875 (Commentationes vg

et II de Zenone Citiensi et Cleanthe Α 8810). Mullach’s

coliection of the fragments of Cleanthes in vol. I of the
Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecorum is so inadequate
as hardly to deserve meution.

vi PREFACE.

Among the general aids the first place is claimed by
Zeller’s Philosophie der Griechen, which has been con-
stantly consulted. The edition referred to is the Second
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
also 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-
tempt to trace the development of the Stoa in the hands
of its successive leaders, and this deficiency is to some
extent supplied by the ingenious work of Hirzel, die
Entwicklung der Stoischen Philosophie, forming the second
volume of his Untersuchungen zu Cicero’s Philosophischen
Schriften. To Hirzel belongs the credit of having vin-
dicated the originality of Cleanthes against ancient and
modern detractors, although in working out his views he
often argues on somewhat shadowy foundations, and has
unduly depreciated the importance of the contributions
made by Zeno. Lastly, Stein’s two books die Psychologie ὦ
der Stoa (1886), and die Erkenntnistheorie der Stoa (1888),
have -been of great service, and his views, where he
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
Diels’ Dowographi Graect, deserve special mention. ΑἹ-
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 (elogae), and Cicero have been throughout
treated as the primary source of information. The refer-
ences to Stobaeus are accommodated to Wachsmuth’s —
edition (Berlin, 1884). Susemihl’s article on the birth-—

PREFACE. Vil

year of Zeno in the Neue Jahrbiicher fiir Philologie 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
this is practicable in some cases, in others it is mere
guess-work, and a uniform system has therefore been
adopted. For similar reasons the fragments have been
arranged as far as possible in natural sequence, without
regard to the comparatively few cases in which we know
the names of the books from which they were derived.
However, the arrangement has been a matter of much
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 collection was made and
put together practically in its present form before an
opportunity offered of consulting Wachsmuth’s pamphlets,
and it was satisfactory to find that only a few of his
passages had been missed. On the other hand, the ad-
ditional matter which will be found here for the first time
is not large. It may, therefore, be reasonably concluded
that we now possess the greater portion of the material,
which is available for reconstructing the history of the
earlier Stoa. For the sake of completeness I have included
even those notices, whose authenticity is open to suspicion,
as well as a collection of the so-called Apophthegmata,
though it is often impossible to draw a strict line between
written and oral tradition.

I desire to thank Mr R. D. Hicks, Fellow of Trinity
College, for many valuable suggestions and criticisms.

CORRIGENDA.

p. 37, 1. 18, for ‘*he was only able’’ read ‘‘he alone was able”.
p. 58, 1, 23, add ‘‘ see however on Cleanth. frag. 114.”

INTRODUCTION.

81. Life of Zeno.

THE 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 Hercu-
laneum, which contains a history of the Stoic philosophers and
was first edited by Comparetti in 1875°. From this we learn
that Cleanthes was born in 331 B.c., and, as we know from
other sources*® that he lived to the age of 99, he must have
died in B.c. 232 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. 264, thus confirming the
authority of Jerome, who says under the year Ol. 129, 1=B.c.
264, 3° “Zeno Stoicus moritur post quem Cleanthes philosophus
agnoscitur.” Now, in Diog. Laert. vir. 28 we have two distinct

1 See Rohde in Rhein. Mus. 33, p. 622. Gomperz ib. 34, p. 154.
Susemihl’s article in Fleckeisen’s Jahrb. for 1882, vol. 125, pp. 737—746,
does not add anything to our knowledge of the chronology of Zeno’s life.

2 Col. 28, 29. Comparetti believes this book to be the work of
Philodemus.

3 Lucian Macrob. 19. Val. Max. vir. 7, Ext. 11.

4 So too the papyrus col. 28 (ἀγπηλλάγ(η ἐπ᾽ ἄρχοντος ᾿Ι)άσονος.

5 Such at least is the restoration of Gomperz: Comparetti reads
τριάκοντα καὶ ὀκτώ, but admits that δύο is possible. The word after καὶ
is illegible.

6 So Rohde states, but in Migne’s ed. of Eusebius 1. p. 498 the state-
ment appears to belong to Ol. 128.

H. P. 1

2 INTRODUCTION.

accounts of his age at the time of his death, the one, that of
Persaeus, in his 7@:xai cyoAai, 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
higher, and reckoning backwards we are thus enabled to place
the birth of Zeno in the year 336 B.c.* Rohde suggests that
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
extracted from Apollonius’ book on Zeno*. In this Zeno is
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’s death (B.c. 264), he would
have been 98 years of age in the latter year*.

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®. Whether he was of
pure Greek blood or not we cannot tell’, but we can readily
believe that his birthplace, while it in no degree influenced his
philosophical genius, which was truly Hellenic, yet gave an

1 A Stoic philosopher (floruit in the earlier half of the 150 century
ong Ned his work on Zeno’s life see Diog. L. vir. 1. 2, 24. 28. Strabo
xvi. 2. 24,

2 Gomperz 1. 6. undertook to prove that Zeno died in the month Sciro-
phorion (Ol. 128, 4)=June 264 B.c., offering to produce the proofs in a
later article, but this promise does not seem to have been fulfilled.

3 Diog. L. vu. 7. 8.

4 The weakness of this hypothesis lies in the fact that Antigonus
Gonatas did not become King of Macedon until 278—277 Β.0., 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 Rohde
l. 6. p. 624 n. 1.

5 Diog. L. vm. 1 mentions Demeas as another name given to his
father but elsewhere he is always Ζήνων Mvacéov.

6 Cimon died while besieging this place (Thue. 1. 112).

7 Stein, Psychologie der Stoa ἢ. 8 sums up, without deciding, in
favour of a Phoenician origin. So also Ogereau p. 4 whereas Hoa
I ἣν me points the other way (Bursian’s Jahresbericht -
vo Ρ

INTRODUCTION. 3

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’, is
in any case not altogether unwarranted.

Again following the authority of Persaeus (Diog. L. l.c.)’,
we may conclude that he arrived at Athens at the age of 22,
but as to the cause which brought him thither we are dif-
ferently informed, and it is uncertain whether he came for the
express purpose of studying philosophy®, or in furtherance of
some mercantile enterprise’, There is however a consensus of
testimony to the effect that he suffered shipwreck on his
voyage to Athens, a misfortune which he afterwards learnt to
bless as it had driven him to philosophy’. The story of his
first meeting with Crates is characteristic’: Zeno, who had
recently arrived at Athens, one day sat down by a bookseller’s
stall and became engrossed in listening to the perusal of the
second book of Xenophon’s Memorabilia. Suddenly he en-
quired of the bookseller where such men as Socrates were to
be found. At that moment Crates happened to pass down
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,
for fifty-eight years’. This last is the statement of Apollonius,

1 So φοινικίδιον Crates ap. Diog. L. v1. 3. Cf. Cic. de Fin. rv. 56 et saep.

2 Another account gives his age as thirty (Diog. L. vi. 2).

3 Diog. L. vit. 32.

4 Diog. L. vit. 3.

5 See Zeno apoph. 3, and the notes.

6 Diog. L. vu. 3.

7 Diog. L. vir. 2. 4. 28. The other tradition is traced by Rohde to
Apollodorus known as ὁ τοὺς χρόνους avaypayas. Evidence of his having
dealt with Zeno’s chronology will be found in Philod. περὶ φιλοσόφων

1—2

4 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
thirty, and allowed ten years for the period of tuition. He
must have assigned B.c, 322 as the date of the foundation of
the Stoa, which is obviously far too early. According to the
chronology adopted above, Zeno came to Athens about B.c. 314,
and, if so, he cannot have been a pupil of Xenocrates, who
died in that year. All that can be said with any approach to
certainty is that after a somewhat extended period of study
under Crates, Stilpo, and Polemo, Zeno at length, probably
soon after 300 B.c.’, began to take pupils on his own account,
without attaching himself to any of the then existing philo-
sophical schools. These pupils were at first called Zenonians,
but when their master held his lectures in the Stoa Poikile,
they adopted the name of Stoics which they afterwards
retained’.

Though not yet rivalling the Peripatetic school in respect
of the number of its followers*, the Stoic philosophy steadily
won its way into general esteem no less by the personal influ-
ence of its founder than through the fervour of its adherents.
So great, indeed, was the respect which the character of Zeno
inspired at Athens, that shortly before his death‘ a decree

col, x1. (Here. vol. coll. prior vol..v1i1.) For Zeno’s teachers ef. Nume-
nius ap. Euseb. P. ΕἸ. xtv. 5, p. 729 Πολέμωνος δὲ ἐγένοντο γνώριμοι
᾿Αρκεσίλαος καὶ Zjvwv...Zqvwva μὲν οὖν μέμνημαι εἰπὼν Ξενοκράτει εἶτα δὲ
Πολέμωνι φοιτῆσαι, αὖθις δὲ παρὰ Κράτητι κυνίσαι. νυνὶ δὲ αὐτῷ λελογίσθω,
ὅτι καὶ Στίλπωνός τε μετέσχε, καὶ τῶν λόγων τῶν ᾿Ηρακλειτείων. ἐπεὶ γὰρ
συμφοιτῶντες παρὰ Πολέμωνι ἐφιλοτιμήθησαν ἀλλήλοις συμπαρέλαβον εἰς τὴν
πρὸς ἀλλήλους μάχην, ὁ μὲν Ἡράκλειτον καὶ Στίλπωνα ἅμα καὶ Κράτητα, ὧν
ὑπὸ μὲν Στίλπωνος ἐγένετο μαχητής, ὑπὸ δὲ ἩΗρακλείτου αὐστηρός, κυνικὸς δὲ
ὑπὸ Κράτητος.

i According to Sext. Emp. adv. Math. vii. 321, Zeno was a πρεσβύτης
when he προσεμαρτύρησεν ἑαυτῷ τὴν εὕρεσιν τῆς ἀληθείας. This refers to
the publication of his writings, but this must have shortly followed the
opening of the school. Jerome on Euseb, Chron. (1. Ρ. 498 Migne) says
opposite Ol. 126 “ anon Stoicus philosophus agnoscitur.”

2 Diog. L. vir.
® Zeno apoph. 6
4 The decree was carried in the archonship of Arrhenides, i.e. Nov.
265 3.c., if Arrhenides was archon 265—264 as seems to be Gomperz’s
opinion, "vid. supr. p. 2, n. 2.

INTRODUCTION, 9
was passed by the assembly awarding him a golden crown
and entitling him to a public funeral in the Ceramicus on
his decease. The grounds mentioned in the body of the
decree, which is preserved by Diog. L. vu. 10, for conferring
this special honour on Zeno were the high moral tone of his
teaching and the example which he set to his pupils in the
blamelessness of his private life. Greatly however as he was
honoured by the Athenians, he steadily refused the offer of
their citizenship’, and on one occasion, when holding an
official position, insisted on being described as a citizen of
Citium?. This devotion to his native town, whether a genuine
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
by the elder Pliny*.

In the later years of his life, Zeno’s fame extended beyond
the limits of Athenian territory; there is ample record of his
intimacy with Antigonus Gonatas’, the son of Demetrius
Poliorcetes and king of Macedon, and from one anecdote we
learn that he had attracted the attention of Ptolemy Phila-
delphus®, Now that Athens had completely lost her freedom,.
she became a hotbed of political intrigue in the interests of
the various successive pretenders to the Macedonian throne;
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
municipal interest, the greatest services to which Demochares,
the nephew of Demosthenes, could lay claim as meriting the
gratitude of the Athenians were the substantial money presents

1 Plut. Sto. Rep. 4, 1.

2 Diog. L. vir. 12.

3 Diog. L. vit. 6.

4 "HON: xxxiv. 19. 32.

5 See Zeno apoph. 25 and 26.

8 See note on apoph. 25.

7 So Demetrius Poliorcetes: Grote vol. x11. p. 196.

6 INTRODUCTION.

which he had obtained for the treasury from Lysimachus,
Ptolemy, and Antipater’. We cannot be surprised that, in
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, Zeno
avoided politics altogether’; and, although it may be doubtful
whether his friendship for Antigonus may not have induced
Zeno to espouse his political cause, we can at least be sure that
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
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 he is said
to have been a lover of Chremonides’,

In voluntarily hastening his own end, Zeno only illustrated
the teaching of his school. One day, on leaving the Stoa, he
stumbled and fell, breaking one of his fingers in his fall.
Regarding this as a warning of Providence, which it was
folly to neglect, and convinced that the right course for a
wise man is willingly to assist in carrying out the decrees of
destiny, he returned home and at once committed suicide*.

His personal Bppearance was evidently not attractive.
Timotheus’, in his work περὶ βίων, described him as wrynecked,
while Apollonius called him lean, rather tall, and of a dark
complexion®, with thick calves, flabby flesh, and a weak

1 See Grote vol. x11. p. 214.

2 Cf. Seneca de Tranq. An. 1. 7 Zenonem Cleanthem Chrysippum,
quorum nemo ad rempublicam accessit.

3 Zeno apoph. 44.

4 Zeno apoph. 56.

5 Nothing seems to be known of the date of this writer: see Dict.
Biog. These authorities are quoted by Diog. L. vu. 1.

6 An uncomplimentary epithet, cf. Theocr. x. 26 Βομβύκα χαρίεσσα
Σύραν καλέοντί τυ πάντες, ἰσχνὰν ἁλιόκαυστον, ἔγὼ δὲ μόνος μελίχλωρον. id.
iii. 35 ἁ μελανόχρως.

INTRODUCTION. 7

digestion. The last-named defect is said to have been the
cause of his frugal diet*, but this was no doubt also recom-
mended to him by his philosophical views. In spite of his
habitual abstinence, he enjoyed the company of his friends at
a convivial banquet, where his severity relaxed with the wine
he drank, just as (to use his own comparison) beans are im-
proved by soaking®. For the rest, he seems to have been a
man of few words, but quick at repartee, disliking all dis-
play and effeminacy, and generally of a somewhat stern and
reserved cast of mind, though not without consideration for
the wants of others.

§ 2. Stoicism as established by Zeno.

It will be convenient at this point to summarise those
leading doctrines which the evidence here collected establishes
as having been introduced by Zeno into the Stoic school, with-
out paying regard to isolated expressions or to views of minor

philosophical importance.
Zeno divided philosophy into three parts, logic, physics
and ethics, and we may take them in the order named, as
being that which he recommended.

To the formal side of logic Zeno paid but little attention,
regarding it as useful only for the detection of error, rather
than as a means towards the establishment of truth. The
doctrine of the four categories, and the elaborate treatment of
ἀξιώματα and syllogisms, belong almost entirely to Chrysippus,
and, when we remember that out of 750 books which he is
said to have written no fewer than 311 were devoted to
logical studies, it is not improbable that he owed much of his
reputation to his performances in this branch. In Zeno’s
eyes the most important division of logic was the question of
the standard of knowledge, although strictly speaking this
should rather be considered as belonging to psychology. He

1 εἷς ἄρτος, ὄψον ἰσχάς, ἐπιπιεῖν ὕδωρ. Philemon ap. Diog. L. vm. 27.
2 See Zeno apoph. 27.

8 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 sense-organ. If satisfied
in this way that the impression is such that it must proceed
from a real object, the mind in the exercise of its ever present
activity grasps the impression, and assents to it. This is the
meaning which Zeno expressed by saying that φαντασία κατα-
ληπτικὴ is the criterion of truth’, Diogenes Laertius, however,
mentions. certain ἀρχαιότεροι τῶν Στωικὼν as teaching that
ὀρθὸς λόγος 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 φαντασία καταληπτική. The only
other evidence, by which he connects Zeno with ὀρθὸς λόγος,
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. περὶ εὐσεβ. col. 8 (frag. 117).
It is submitted, however, that these passages by no means
prove the point in question, as against the positive testimony
which attributes to Zeno the φαντασία καταληπτική. In Philo
there is no question of a logical criterion at all, but Zeno is

1 As the matter is one of considerable importance, in order to relieve
the notes, it is desirable to quote Stein’s remarks (Erkenntnistheorie,
Ρ. 174):—Mit Zeller muss man annehmen, dass das καταληπτικὸν
urspriinglich einen aktiven Sinn halte, da der Tonus desselben Zweifels-
ohne auf die διάνοια einwirkt. Andererseits muss man Hirzel wieder
darin Recht geben, dass die διάνοια sich unmiéglich rein leidend verhalten
kann, dass vielmehr das καταληπτικὸν auch einen passiven Beigeschmack
hat. Und doch lassen sich beide, sich scheinbar ausschliessende Stand-

vereinigen, wenn man in das καταληπτικὸν den von uns vermu-
teten Doppelsinn hineinlegt, den Zeno wohl absichtlich andeuten wollte,
Danach wiiren die φαντασία und διάνοια bei der κατάληψις gleicherweise
teils aktiv, teils passiv, woraus sich die schwankende Anwendung dieses
Ausdrucks sehr wohl erklirt.” For the connection of révos with κατά-
ληψις, which is not however proved to be Zenonian, οἵ. Sext. Emp. adv.
Math. vir. 408 ἀλλὰ γὰρ αὕτη μὲν ἡ ἀπαραλλαξία τῶν τε καταληπτικῶν καὶ
τῶν ἀκαταλήπτων φαντασιῶν κατὰ τὸ ἐναργὲς καὶ ἔντονον ἰδίωμα παρίσταται.

INTRODUCTION. 9

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 all his impulses and passions. This is still more plain
in the extract from Philodemus, where ὀρθοὺς λόγους are coupled
with, σπουδαίας διαθέσεις. The weight of evidence the other
way must remain to be stated hereafter, but it may be re-
marked that, even if Cicero’s testimony is discredited, the fact
of the controversy between Zeno and Arcesilas is not thereby
disproved’?, Again, if Zeno defined φαντασία as a τύπωσις, and
discriminated between the truth of various φαντασίαι, he must
‘have pursued the subject still farther ; and, if art and memory
are defined with reference to κατάληψις and opinion is: dis-
tinguished therefrom, it follows of necessity that he must have
defined κατάληψις itself. Still, even admitting to the full the
ethical significance of ὀρθὸς λόγος", the passage in Diogenes is
not thereby disposed of, for if Zeno and Cleanthes are not
indicated by the words of ἀρχαιότεροι τῶν Στωικῶν to whom
does this expression refer? Must we, then, suppose that Zeno
put forward two criteria of knowledge, rational thought (ὀρθὸς
λόγος) as well as the experience of sense (κατάληψις) 1 Such ἃ
conclusion would be inconsistent with the clearness and direct-
ness of Zeno’s teaching. The only way out of the difficulty *
is to adopt the theory of Stein, who regards the doctrine of
ὀρθὸς λόγος as a concession to rationalism. ὀρθὸς λόγος be-
comes, in this view, a subsidiary and secondary criterion®, so
that the results of thought must be confirmed by experience.
In other words, the potential notions inspired in us by the
divine Adyos require to be completed and corrected on the side

1 For Epict. 1. 6. see note on Zeno frag. 4.

2 It is satisfactory to find that Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 341, claims
for Zeno the φαντασία καταληπτικὴ on precisely similar grounds to those
stated in the notes to frag. 11.

3 For this see Stein, Erkenntnistheorie pp. 259—264.

4 It should be mentioned that Corssen de Posidonio Rhodio (1878)
pp. 17—19 proposed to eliminate Στωικῶν as a blunder of Diogenes or
his authority, assuming that Posidonius was speaking of Empedocles,
the Pythagoreans, and Plato,

5 The meaning of the word ἀπολείπουσιν should in this case be pressed.
Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 259.

10 INTRODUCTION.

of sensible experience before they can attain to objective
actuality’.

From this point of view, then, it is not unreasonable to
credit Zeno with the substance of the teaching recorded in
Cic. Acad. 1. 41, 42. If so much be admitted, it is most un-
likely that he should have refrained from enquiring into the
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 évvow and not at
all that of προλήψ εις".

The remainder of the logical fragments are not of much
importance as regards the positive teaching of the school.
They include a nominalistic criticism of the Platonic theory of
ideas, a curious 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
σόλοικος, 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
development of this branch is largely due to Cleanthes, still a
fair estimate of the fragments here collected will lead us to
the conclusion that the essential groundwork of the Stoic
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 thus either active or passive —
and the material world is itself the result produced from the

1 Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 314, 315.

3 Stein holds that πρόληψις was substituted by gi adh for Zeno’s
ὀρθὸς λόγος, in so far as the latter is concerned with epistemology
(Erkenntnistheorie p. 269, 270).

8 See Stein, Psychologie p. ὅθ and 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
ethical fragments. It will be seen from the er collection that the
numbers are very nearly equal.

INTRODUCTION. 11

operation of these two principles. The active principle is God,
and the passive is matter. God is more closely defined as the
fiery aether', which permeates the whole of the universe, even
as honey passes through the honeycomb. He is at once the
embodiment of reason and of law, and the power which binds
_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
creates it in entire harmony with the law of fate. Matter, on
the other hand, is formless and indeterminate, though limited
in extent, and can exist only in conjunction with some active
quality ; although it is itself eternal, its parts are subject
to change. The creation of the world is brought about by the
action of God upon matter, whereby the creative fire through
an intermediate watery stage passes into the four elements -
fire, air, water and earth out of which everything else is formed.
To explain the production of the individual thing by the in-
termingling of its elements, Zeno broached the celebrated
theory of κρᾶσις δι᾿ ὅλου, which is in effect a denial of the axiom
that two bodies cannot occupy the same space.
_ The world, however, will not last for ever, nor are we left
- without indications of its destructibility. In the inequality of
the earth’s surface, in the retrocession of the sea, in the mor-
tality of every substance with which we are acquainted, and
lastly in the fact that the human race and all living creatures
can be shown to have had a beginning in time Zeno saw clear
proofs that the universe itself is destined to pass away. There
will comea time when by the unceasing law of fate the world
and all that it contains will again be merged in the primeval fire,
only to be created anew, as the embryo is formed from the
seed. For the process is unvarying no less than never-ending ;
a new Heracles will free a young world from its plagues, and
a new Socrates will plead his cause against the same accusers.

1 Stein, Psychologie p. 58, remarks that there is no evidence of Zeno
having used the term πνεῦμα in this connection.

12 INTRODUCTION.

The individual and the cosmos are thus partakers in the
same decree of fate, but their likeness does not stop here. Not
only is the world a unity, but also a living unity; it is more-
over sentient, rational, intelligent, and wise.

Two characteristics are especially prominent in Zeno’s
system, first, his 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
material on which it works. But Zeno did not observe that —
the combination is in reality self-destructive, and that with a
materialistic system metaphysics are superseded, It remained
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 deserip- ©
tion of the different 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 ©
beings formed of creative fire. No void exists within the
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 proceed to his anthropology, in which the account of
the soul is most important. Although he apparently omitte T
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. 13

elements. Moreover, it is corporeal and grows up with the
body, gradually expanding under the influence of external im-
pressions, so that the perfect power of reason is only developed
at the age of puberty. Though it is a simple essence, its
faculties are diverse, and being extended from the ἡγεμονικὸν
which {s situated in the heart to the various organs of sense,
it is said to have eight parts, namely, the ἡγεμονικὸν itself, the
five senses, and the capacities of speech and generation. The
soul entirely permeates the body, and at its departure the
composite structure of soul and body is destroyed. The soul
itself endures for a time after its separation from the body
but is not immortal, and its condition after death is deter-
mined by the grade of purity to which it has attained. Such,
at least, seems to be a fair inference from a passage of
‘Lactantius in which Zeno speaks of the separation of the
unholy from the holy and contrasts the misery of the former
with the blessedness of the latter. On his discussion of the
voice, sleep, vision, and the seed we need not dwell.

It remains to consider Zeno’s attitude towards the popular
religion. Although, in the strict sense, he teaches that there
is but one God, yet he admits that there is a certain amount
-of truth in polytheism, as implying a recognition of the
ubiquity of the divine presence. The manifestation of God
in the powers of nature is symbolised by Zeus, Here and
Poseidon, who represent the aether, the air, and the water
‘respectively. In his interpretation of Hesiod’s Theogony he
gives the reins to his etymological fancy, so as to bring the
‘cosmogony of the poet into accordance with Stoic views.
Lastly the existence of divination is inferred from the fore-
thought, which characterises the divine government.

Ethics, which are the crowning point of the Stoic system,
come next in order. The aim and object of life is to live in
agreement with nature, which is, in other words, to live
aceording to virtue: for this is the goal to which nature
conducts us. It would seem that Zeno did not accurately
explain what he meant by nature, since Chrysippus and

14 INTRODUCTION.

Cleanthes took divergent views of its character, but, recog-
nising the manner in which the different branches of the
Stoic system are interlaced with one another’, we may reason-
ably conclude that by the prominence given to nature Zeno
desired to connect his moral teaching with the divine creative
aether, which permeates the universe*. Our first impulses,
however, tend not to virtue but to self-preservation, and virtue
is impossible in the child or the brute, since neither of them
possesses the informing power of reason. These natural im-
pulses require the guidance of reason, and in their proper
subordination to it is to be found the condition of happiness,
which may be described as the unruffled flow of life. For
happiness nothing is required but virtue, and no external
circumstances, nothing but what is morally evil, can diminish
the satisfaction belonging to the virtuous. In this way we
are led to discriminate between ἀγαθὰ and κακά: only virtue
and vice or their accessories can be classed as good and evil;
everything else, even life and death, is morally indifferent.
But this classification does not exhaust the capacities of τὰ
κατὰ φύσιν. The value of virtue is absolute and for all time:
but, just as the supremacy of the monarch does not imply the
absolute equality of his subjects, so the ἀδιάφορα are ranged
between virtue and vice in a graduated scale of negative and
positive value (ἀπαξία and ἀξία), the middle place being oc-
cupied by τὰ καθάπαξ ἀδιάφορα, i.e. such matters as haying an
even or odd number of hairs in one’s head. Everythin,
possessing ἀξία is κατὰ φύσιν, and everything possessing ἀπαξί
is παρὰ φύσιν. At the same time ἀξία is not a permanen
attribute of any ἀδιάφορον, for that which is at one time car

1 Of. Stein, Psychologie p. 13.

2 Hirzel, Untersuchungen τι. p. 108, thinks otherwise and the point i
certainly a doubtful one. If Zeno spoke only of human nature, Cleatth
may have here, as elsewhere, shown the connection of ethical wi
physical doctrine by explaining φύσις as κοινὴ φύσις. Then Chrysipp
would have united both views. lf this was the real development,
would be some pretext for Stobaeus’ assertion that Cleanthes added
φύσει to the definition, while the authority of Diogenes Laertius wo
remain unimpaired. See however Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 260.

INTRODUCTION. 15

φύσιν might, under certain circumstances, become παρὰ φύσιν.
Herein lies the vita] distinction between ἀδιάφορα and ἀγαθά,
for the latter are unaffected by any possible change of circum-
stances: a virtuous action can never be contrary to nature.
Still, 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 (-- κατὰ προηγούμενον
λόγον Or ἄνευ περιστάσεως) We shall always choose in preference
to their contraries. These then are the προηγμένα. Cor-
responding with this classification of objects, we have a scale
of actions ranging from κατόρθωμα (virtuous action) to ἁμάρ-
τημα (sinful action), wherein καθῆκον answers to the class of
ἀδιάφορα. Every καθῆκον is thus directed to the choice of τὰ
κατὰ φύσιν and the avoidance of τὰ παρὰ φύσιν. The doctrines
of καθῆκον and προηγμένον are not to be regarded as an
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
application of these doctrines sometimes produces e.g. in the
remarks on marriage, often disappears when we remember that

‘the πολιτεία proposed to establish a socialistic constitution

under which the importance of ἀδιάφορα would be reduced to
a minimum.

Zeno held further that virtue is one and_ indivisible,
springing from the ἡγεμονικόν, of which it is a fixed and
permanent condition. Consistently with this, he maintains
that all 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:

virtue itself is identical with wisdom (φρόνησις), and justice, |
courage, and temperance are the particular applications of ©

wisdom in diverse spheres. Whether Zeno also distinguished
between two different kinds of φρόνησις, one as the ground-
work, and the other as a particular species of virtue, must

16 INTRODUCTION.

remain doubtful. Hirzel (lc. 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 {
Zeno without direct evidence. No doubt the Stoic school
generally put forward four cardinal virtues φρόνησις, δικαιοσύνη,
ἀνδρεία and σωφροσύνη, but inasmuch as Zeno’s position was ;
admittedly modified by his successors we are left to judge of
his views entirely from the two passages in Plutarch, in which
he is mentioned by name.

The theory of the emotions, which was introduced by Zeno, j
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
sinful, as being due to an irrational and unnatural movement —
in the soul, or an excess of impulse. The four chief emotions
are pleasure, grief, fear and desire, and Zeno in describing their ~
nature dwelt, if we may trust Galen’s statements, rather on Π
the psychological effects of the irrational impulse upon the ~
soul than on the mental conditions which produce them. The —
special difficulties surrounding this subject will be discussed in
the notes to the fragments themselves,

The whole of mankind was divided by Zeno into two ~
classes, entirely distinct from one another, that of the wise
and that of the foolish; Every action of the wise man is
prompted by virtue and every action of the fool by vice.
Hence it is generally true that the wise man performs every |
action well, and the fool fails in everything. Friendship, ||
freedom, piety, riches, beauty, the arts of kingship and general- —
ship, even success in culinary operations belong to the wise ©
man alone: he is never mistaken, never regrets what he has ©
done, feels no compassion, and is absolutely free from every ©
form of emotion. At the same time, it is clear that Zeno |
contemplates a progress from the state of folly to that of |
wisdom as practicable; this advance is characterised by the ©
purgation of the soul from emotional and delusive affections
under the influence of reason. Even though he ultimately

INTRODUCTION. re ay,

| emerges from the conflict with success, the wise man still feels
the scars from the wounds he has received during its course,
and is often reminded of his former evil impulses after he has
completely suppressed them. Finally, since death belongs to
the class ἀδιάφορα, suicide is justifiable in the wise man, if
circumstances prescribe such a course.

It 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
the guardians and the rest of the citizens. For this reason
Eros, the god of friendship and concord, is taken as the
presiding deity of Zeno’s ideal state, a state which in no way
corresponds to the Greek πόλις, but comprises the whole of
mankind living together like a herd of cattle’. In this state
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
καθήκοντα, do not require to be summarised here.

§ 3. Zeno’s relation to previous philosophers.

The opponents of the Stoic school were fond of accusing
its members of plagiarism and want of originality. Zeno is
the keen Phoenician trader, pilfering other men’s wares, and
passing them off as his own?: if all that belongs to others were
withdrawn from the voluminous writings of Chrysippus, we
should have a blank page*. Antiochus, in Cicero*, represents

1 Cf. Newman, Politics of Aristotle, vol. 1. p. 88.

2 Cf. Diog. L. vir. 25.

3 Diog. L. vir. 181.

4 Acad. 1.43. The same argument is put forward by Cicero himself
against Cato in the 4th book of the de Finibus.

Η. P. 2

a INTRODUCTION.

the views of Zeno as merely immaterial changes in minor
points of the genuine Academic doctrine, while Juvenal
only repeats current opinion in speaking of the Stoic dogmas
as “a Cynicis tunica distantia”’. Even a slight acquaintance
with the Stoic system is sufficient to refute these gross
charges: indeed, its originality is abundantly vindicated when
we point to the influence it exercised for several centuries on
the intellectual life of Greece and Rome*. At the same time
it must be admitted that Zeno was largely indebted to his
predecessors—especially to Antisthenes and Heraclitus—for
the bricks and mortar with which he constructed so splendid an
edifice. Οἱ Cynicism in particular he appropriated the kernel,
while discarding the husk. It is, however, when we look at

Stoicism as a whole that we are able to appreciate the skill ~

with which its incongruous elements were fused, and the
unity of thought which pervades a variety of detail. The Stoic
wise man is as far removed from Diogenes in his tub, as is the
all permeating aether from the fiery element of Heraclitus.
We proceed to discuss in detail the various points in which
Zeno’s obligation to previous thinkers is most strongly marked.

A. To Antisthenes and the Cynics.

The resemblances between Zeno and the Cynics are natu-
rally to be found chiefly in their ethical doctrines. Physics
were almost entirely neglected by the Cynics, and their nomina- —
listic logic was not of great importance for Stoicism, although |
we may observe in passing that both schools maintained in |
similar terms® that Plato’s ideas were a mere fiction of the
brain and had no objective existence. The Stoic doctrine of
life in accordance with nature finds its historical origin in the

1 xn, 121.

2 “Die Stoa war vielmehr die weitaus selbstindigste Schule der
nacharistotelischen Philosophie,” Stein, Psychologie p, 10.

3. Antisthenes ap. Simpl. in Cat. p. 54b ὦ Πλάτων, ἵππον μὲν ὁρῶ
ἱππότητα δὲ οὐχ ὁρῶ. Cf. Zeno frag. 23,

INTRODUCTION. 19

teaching as well as in the life of Diogenes’, Like Zeno,
Antisthenes teaches that virtue is in itself sufficient to secure
happiness’, that nothing is a Good but virtue, nothing an Evil
but vice, and that everything else is indifferent®. Accordingly
Diogenes held that death, since it involves no disgrace, cannot
be an Evil*, Hence it is not surprising to learn that many of
the Cynics put an end to their lives by suicide, though we
have sayings both of Antisthenes and Diogenes on record
denying the legitimacy of such a course’. Virtue itself is
described, after Socrates, as consisting in wisdom and pru-
dence: “prudence,” says Antisthenes, “is the safest wall; it
cannot be undermined or betrayed”®. At the saine time the
futility of the ordinary course of Greek education is strongly
insisted on’. The distinction between virtue and vice draws
with it that between the wise and the foolish; the philoso-
pher’s wallet preserves a chosen few from a condition border-
ing on madness’*.

We 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 only partially agree with it. It is certain, however, that
his life was one of abstinence and simplicity’, and for this
reason he became the butt of the comic poets, who thus un-
consciously testified to his merit. Apollodorus Ephillus, a
later Stoic writer, declared that the wise man would cynicise,
and that Cynicism was a short cut to virtue’. It should,
however, always be borne in mind that the Stoic ideal was

1 Diog. L. νι. 71 δέον οὖν ἀντὶ τῶν ἀχρήστων πόνων τοὺς κατὰ φύσιν
ἑλομένους ζῆν εὐδαιμόνως. Zeno frag. 120,

2 Diog. L. v1.11. Zeno frag. 125.

3 Diog. L. v1. 105. Zeno frag. 128.
Arr, Epict. Diss. i. 24. 6. Zeno frag. 129.
Zeller Socrates, etc. Eng. Tr. p. 319, n. 5. Cf. Zeno frag. 161.
Diog. L. νι. 18. Zeno frag. 134.
Diog. L. νι. 103. Zeno frag. 167.
Diog. L. vr. 33, 35. Zeno frag. 148.
Diog. L. vr. 104.
10 Diog. L. vir. 26, 27.
1 Diog. vi. 104. vir. 121.

ΓΝ

conan

20 INTRODUCTION,

humanised and elevated to an extent entirely incompatible
with Cynicism, mainly owing to the attention which was
bestowed on mental culture’.

Turning to the views of the two schools in applied moral
science, we find a curious agreement as to the relations of the
sexes: Zeno and Diogenes both held that, in the ideal state,
there should be a community of wives, and neither saw any-
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
institution®. Both teachers allow to the wise man the passion
of love, as he alone will be able to select a suitable object*:
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
one time κατὰ δόξαν and at another κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν. The al-
legorising method of interpretation is common to both, and
was afterwards developed to an excessive degree by Cleanthes
and Chrysippus’.

Though we have thus seen that Zeno’s ethical teaching is
largely founded on Cynicism, we must not forget the many
points of divergence. Thus, for example, we find the Cynics
treating honour and wealth as absolute evils®; these things,

1 The difference of spirit in the two schools is well put by Sir A.
Grant (Ar. Eth. vol. 1. p. 317 ed. 3).

3 Diog. L. v1. 72. Dio. Chrys, x. 29. Cf. Zeno frags. 176 and 179.
These passages are from the πολιτεία 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. v1.11. Zeno frag. 171.

4 Diog. L. v1.11. Zeno frag. 172.

5 Diog. L. v1. 12. Zeno frag. 149.

6 Dio. Chrys. 53, 4. Zeno frag. 195.

7 See Cic. N. Ὁ. 11. 63 foll.

8 See the passages collected by Zeller Socrates, etc. Εἰ. T. p, 804,

INTRODUCTION. 91

according to Zeno, belonged to the class οὗ zponypéva. Again,
to take their attitude towards the popular religion, we know
that Zeno expressly countenanced divination, while the ex-
istence of prophets made Diogenes think man the most foolish
of animals’.

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.
There is, however, a difficulty in comparing the doctrines of
the two schools minutely, owing to the obscurity in which our
knowledge of the Heraclitean theories is involved, and which
is 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
authorities. For instance, it was at one time stoutly main-
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 now to prevail®. Again, it is not
entirely clear whether we are to class Heraclitus, as Aristotle
does*, with the early Ionian physicists, starting from his
dogma that all things are fire, or whether we are to regard
this principle as a metaphysical abstraction, metaphorically
shadowing forth the eternal flux of all things, a view which is
more in accordance with Plato’s criticism in the Theaetetus’.
However this may be, Heraclitus is essentially a hylozoist,
who, following Anaximenes, chooses fire as being the rarest
element, and insists on the continuity of change in order to
escape from the mechanical theories of Anaxagoras and Em-

1 Diog. νι. 24 and contrast Zeno frag. 118.

2 See the elaborate discussion in Zeller, Pre-Socr. Phil. Eng. Tr. 1.
pp. 62—77. See however Bywater, Journ. Phil. 1. 42.

3 Met.1.3.8. This is the view of Ueberweg p. 40 and is also held by
Dr Jackson.

4 Zeller’s position (p. 20 foll.) combines the two views.

22 INTRODUCTION.

pedocles on the one hand, and the Parmenidean immobility on
the other. The λόγος ξυνὸς is with him the expression of the
truth that nothing can be known but the law of mutability,
the harmony in difference, which he likens to the stretching of
a bowstring'. This law he calls γνώμη, δίκη, εἱμαρμένη, τὸ
περιέχον ἡμᾶς λογικόν τε ὃν καὶ φρενῆρες, and ὁ Ζεύς", but these

terms are mere metaphors and we should be wrong in straining ~

their philosophic import: they represent, in fact, the law of
change and nothing more. Still, there can be no doubt that ἢ
the use which Heraclitus made of his formtla λόγος was one
of the chief points in his system which attracted the attention
of Zeno. As a disciple of Cynicism he was familiar with
λόγος as a dialectical and an ethical principle: neither of these
aspects of λόγος was discarded by him in broaching. his own
system. Yet, through the help of the Heraclitean λόγος, he
was enabled to take one step further. Just as Plato gave to
the Socratic ὑπόθεσις or general conception a metaphysical
existence in the form of the idea, so did Zeno elevate the λόγος
of Antisthenes from its position as a criterion for thought and
duty to that of the physical cause of being and movement’.
The Stoic deity is, like the Heraclitean Adyos, provided with
many names, such as God, Mind, the all pervading Aether,
Fate, Forethought, and Zeus, but on the other hand it belongs
to an essentially later period of thought. We have here set
forth the teleological view of Nature, which is regarded as
creating all things out of itself for a good purpose*. The
Stoics, at least after Cleanthes, are also pantheists in so far as
they acknowledge that God and the world are identical. Even
where Zeno followed Heraclitus most closely there are essential
differences in treatment. The fire of Heraclitus becomes —

1 Heraclitus frag. 56 ed. Bywater. Hirzel finds here the origin of the
Stoic τόνος, but this is very questionable.

2 For a detailed statement see Krische, Forschungen p. 368 foll.

% The comparison is suggested by Hirzel τι. p. 42. But Hirzel very
much underestimates the influence of Heraclitus on Zeno, as Heinze has
pointed out. It is quite contrary to the evidence to attribute the Hera-
clitean tendencies of the Stoa solely, or even mainly, to Cleanthes.

4 Cie. Ν, Ὁ. τι. 58.

INTRODUCTION.

aether or πῦρ texvixov—for this distinction is unknown to the
Ephesian—and is thereby spiritualised and rarefied. Instead
of three elements the Stoics have four, according to the universal
practice of post-Aristotelian writers. Cleanthes, at least, re-
garded these four elements merely as graduations of rovos, a
notion entirely alien to Heraclitus. The doctrine of πάντα
ῥεῖ is replaced by that of μεταβολή, and ἀλλοίωσις gives way
to the characteristic theory of the mixture of substances,
known as κρᾶσις δι ὅλων. In stating the differences between
the two schools we have indicated how the Stoic physics were
built upon Heraclitus. The remaining resemblances are com-
paratively unimportant. It was a natural corollary to both
systems to maintain the unity of the cosmos’. Zeno seems to
have adopted Heraclitus’ definition of the soul as an ava-
θυμίασος, but, instead of regarding this exhalation as imbibed
from the outer air (τὸ περιέχον), he taught that the soul was
fed by emanation from the warm blood. Where Heraclitus
regarded dryness as an essential characteristic of the wise
soul’, the Stoics rather looked for warmth or evxpacia. Lastly,
we may observe that Heraclitus attributed immortality to
the soul, and that in Ethics he counselled submission to the
common law and the regulation of speech and thought in ac-
cordance with the demands of nature’.

C. To Plato and Aristotle.

It has often been observed as a remarkable fact that the
influence exercised both by Plato 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-
raclitus and Democritus. Indeed, the Peripatetic school itself
showed no great vitality after Theophrastus, the new Academy

1 Stob. Ecl. 1. 22. 3 b p. 199, 10.
2 Heracl. frag. 74, Bywater.
3 Stob. Floril. m1. 84.

24 INTRODUCTION.

of Arcesilas 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 an end in itself, and a
general agreement in confining the area of speculation to the
two questions 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 have come down to us, was not considered
to have paid great attention to this branch of philosophy.
The principal contribution made by Zeno to the theory of
knowledge is the establishment of the φαντασία καταληπτικὴ
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 φαντασία, in which it appears as
‘decaying sense,”* and is more accurately defined as “the
movement resulting from the actual operation of the sense
faculty”*. Again, in the Zenonian definitions of memory
and art there will be found a familiarity with the progres-
sive stages in the growth of knowledge, as enunciated by

' This question is discussed in Benn’s Greek Philosophers (Preface).
2 Rhet. 1. 11. 1370 a 28. ᾿
8. de An, m1. 8. 429 41.

INTRODUCTION. 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 ἀρχαί 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 of matter as
that which is entirely formless and contingent*®. The aether,
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.

Cicero puts into the mouth of professed Antiocheans, and,
when speaking 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
they have a certain positive value. There is considerable force
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 grossly unfair. In fact, as has been remarked, Antiochus,
who himself stole the clothes of Zeno, was always anxious to
prove that they never belonged to Zeno at all. As we know,
however, that Zeno was a pupil of Polemo, it is not unnatural
to tind that he was to some extent influenced by his teaching.
Thus, life according to nature was one of Polemo’s leading
tenets, and Clement of Alexandria has preserved the title of
one of his books which deals with this subject*. Zeller well

1 Met. 1.1. Anal. Post. 11. 19.

2 Zeno frag. 24.

3 Metaph. vi. 3. 1029 a 20 λέγω δ᾽ ὕλην ἢ Kad’ αὑτὴν μήτε τι μήτε
ποσὸν μήτε ἄλλο μηδὲν λέγεται ols ὥρισται τὸ ὄν.

4 Cie. Fin. 1v, 6. 14. Clem. Alex, Strom. vir. p. 304 Sylb. Polemo
himself is represented as saying to Zeno:—ov λανθάνεις, ὦ Ζήνων, ταῖς
κηπαίαις παρεισρέων θύραις, καὶ τὰ δόγματα κλέπτων φοινικικῶς μεταμφιεννύς
(Diog. L. vir. 25). One of the doctrines, which were in this way appro-

26 INTRODUCTION.

sums up the extent of Academic influence when he says’ that
‘such 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 according to nature, the doctrine of the self-sufficiency of
virtue and the growing tendency to confine philosophy to prac-
tical issues—all these were questions for a Stoic full of in-
terest.” Amongst the particular points, in which Zeno seems
to have felt the influence of Plato, may be mentioned the
doctrines of the cardinal virtues (frag. 134) and the πάθη
(frag. 142) and the explanation of the world as ζῷον ἔμψυχον
(frag. 62).

We have endeavoured briefly to indicate certain leading
points of doctrine in which Zeno was influenced by his pre-
decessors, leaving minor resemblances to be pointed out in
the notes,

§ 4. The writings of Zeno.

A list of the titles of Zeno’s works is preserved in Diog. L.
vil. 4, but is admittedly incomplete, as the same writer himself
makes additions to it in his exposition of the philosophical
views of the Stoic school. This list was probably derived by
Diogenes from two distinct sources, as it is divisible into two-
separate portions. The first or main division gives the names
of 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 whom the main division is due’,

priated by the Stoa, appears to be the third definition of ἔρως preserved
by Andronicus περὶ παθῶν c. 4 as ὑπηρεσία θεῶν els νέων κατακόσμησιν καὶ
καλῶν : οἵ, Plut. ad prin. iner. 780» Πολέμων ἔλεγε τὸν ἔρωτα εἶναι θεῶν
ὑπηρεσίαν εἰς νέων ἐπιμέλειαν (Kreuttner, Andronicus p. 49).

1 Stoics ete. p. 399.

2 See Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Antigonos p. 107: Zeller and Wachs-
muth adopt Nietzsche’s hypothesis (Rhein. Mus. xxiv. ΒΝ that all the
lists in Diog. are, with certain exceptions, derived from etrius 0

l

INTRODUCTION. 27

for not only does Diogenes in several places cite him by
name (e.g. ὃ 2) but also Strabo (xvi. 2. 24, p. 757) expressly
mentions a work of his with the title πίναξ τῶν ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος
φιλοσόφων καὶ τῶν βιβλίων ; who supplied Diogenes with the
appendix has not been determined.

The works, of which any record has survived to us, may
be divided into four classes :—

I. Logical.

(1) περὶ λόγου. From this work, not mentioned in the
general catalogue, Diog. L. (vi. 39. 40) cites the triple division
of philosophy and the order of arrangement for its study, which
Zeno recommended. According to Susemihl, this book con-
tained Zeno’s epistemology, but, being superseded by the
writings of Chrysippus, lost its place in the canon.

(2) καθολικά. Nothing is known of this work but the
title (Diog. 4)': Wachsmuth thinks that καθολικὰ περὶ λέξεων
is the title of a single work.

(3) περὶ λέξεων (Diog. 4). In Stoic terminology λέξις is
detined as φωνὴ éyypappatos as opposed to λόγος which is φωνὴ
σημαντικὴ ἀπὸ διανοίας ἐκπεμπομένη (Diog. vir. 56). It is pro-
bable, therefore, that this work dealt specially with the defini-
tion of terms, and to it may perhaps belong the fragments in
which Zeno explains the proper meaning of σολοικίζειν (frags.
30 and 31), Wellmann (Neue Jahrb. fiir Philol. 107, p. 478)
suggests that this treatise gave rise to the oft-repeated ac-
cusation made by Cicero that Zeno’s innovations in philosophy
were solely of a verbal character, and that Chrysippus had
defended his master from a similar charge in the work περὶ
τοῦ κυρίως κεχρῆσθαι Ζήνωνα τοῖς ὀνόμασιν.

(4) τέχνη (Diog. 4). This is identified by Zeller and

Magnesia, who is specified by name with reference to Xenophon’s works
(Diog. L. 1. 57). Susemih] (Jahrbiicher fiir Philol. 125, p. 741) thinks
that the Diogenes catalogue comprises only those writings of Zeno which
were included in the Stoic canon, and that the πολιτεία, the τέχνη ἐρωτική,
and the διατριβαὶ were treated as apocryphal while their genuineness was
admitted.

1 See however on frag. 23.

28 INTRODUCTION,

Wellmann with the ἐρωτικὴ τέχνη of § 34, while Wachsmuth ©
writes τέχνη καὶ λύσεις καὶ ἔλεγχοι β΄ as one title. The third
course, which at first sight seems the most natural inasmuch —
as τέχνη bears this special meaning from Corax and Tisias |
downwards, is to regard it as an art of rhetoric. The οὔ-
jection to this view is that it is 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
of Chrysippus. On the other hand, there is a fair amount of
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 dupynows and παράδειγμα may belong to
some other Zeno, this does not apply to the passages in Sextus
and Quintilian,

(5) λύσεις καὶ ἔλεγχοι β΄ (Diog. 4). Possibly owing to
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’: see frag. 6.

II. Physical.

(6) περὶ τοῦ ὅλου (Diog. 4) seems to have been the most
important of Zeno’s physical writings. Diogenes refers to it as
containing Zeno’s views about the elements (vi1. 136) and the
creation and destruction of the world (ib. 142), and quotes
from it the statement that there is only one world (ib. 143).
It also contained an account of the eclipses of the sun and
moon (ib. 145), and explanations of the phenomena of thunder |
and lightning (ib. 153). |

(7) περὶ φύσεως cited by Stobaeus Eel. τ. 5. 15. p. 78, 18.
for Zeno’s views on the subject of εἱμαρμένη : Krische (p. 367)
would identify it with the last named treatise.

1 This is the only work which deals with the formal side of logic, so
that Stein’s argument in Erkenntnistheorie ἢ, 689 might have been put
more strongly. He follows the old reading and speaks of two treatises,
τεχνικαὶ λύσεις and ἔλεγχοι β΄.

INTRODUCTION. 29

(8) περὶ οὐσίας unnecessarily identified by Wellmann (l.c.
p. 442) and Susemihl with περὶ ὅλου and περὶ φύσεως is quoted
by Diog. (134) for Zeno’s definition of the two tirst principles,
God and Matter.

(9) περὶ σημείων : a treatise on divination (Diog. 4).
Thus μαντικὴ is defined in Stob. Ecl. 1. 122, 238 as ἐπιστήμη
θεωρητικὴ σημείων τῶν ἀπὸ θεῶν ἢ δαιμόνων πρὸς ἀνθρώπινον βίον
συντεινόντων. This is no doubt the work referred to by Cic. de
Div. 1. 3, 6 sed cum Stoici omnia fere illa diffunderent quod
et Zeno in suis commentariis quasi semina quaedam sparsisset.
Its position in the catalogue makes against Prantl’s hypo-
thesis', who classes it as a logical work.

(10) περὶ ὄψεως only known by its title (Diog. 4) is re-
garded as logical by Stein.

(11) Πυθαγορικά (Diog. 4) classed by Wachsmuth as a
physical book owing to its position in the catalogue, but nothing
else is known concerning it.

III. Ethical.

(12) περὶ τοῦ καθήκοντος (Diog. 4). Here must belong
Zeno’s definition of duty (frag. 145), from the terms of which
Wellmann conjectures without much probability that we should
identify this treatise with the following.

(13) περὶ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν βίου (Diog. 4).

(14) περὶ ὁρμῆς ἢ περὶ ἀνθρώπου φύσεως (Diog. 4).
Diogenes quotes the Zenonian definition of the summum
bonum from this book (vu. 87); Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. m1. 580)
proposed to separate this title reading η΄ =octo, and Weygoldt
adopting this further identified περὶ ἀνθρώπου φύσεως with περὶ
φύσεως, but the latter is not an anthropological work.

(15) περὶ παθῶν (Diog. 4) containing the general defini-
tion of emotion and the discussion of its several subdivisions,
pain, fear, desire and pleasure (ib. 110).

(16) πολιτεία. This seems to have been the most
generally known, as it is certainly the most often quoted, of
Zeno’s writings; it was also one of the earliest in point of

2 τ. p. 458. So also Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 689.

80" INTRODUCTION. .
time, having been written while its author was still under the
influence of Cynicism (Diog. 4). Plutarch informs us that it
was written as a controversial answer to Plato’s Republic.
The allusions to it are too numerous to be specified here in
detail’.

(17) περὶ νόμου (Diog. 4). From its position in the
catalogue this work must have belonged 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.
xxi. p. 287 4 speaks of the νόμοι of Zeno but appears to be
referring generally to his philosophical precepts.

(18) περὶ τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς παιδείας (Diog. 4): cf. frag. 167,
which however is stated to belong to the πολιτεία. |

(19) ἐρωτικὴ τέχνη (Diog. 34). To this book pro-
bably belongs the interesting fragment (174) preserved by
Clem. Alex. relating to the behaviour suitable to young
men. |
(20) διατριβαί (Diog. 34): a similar work, as we are
told by Diog. whose statement is confirmed by the passages
(frags. 179, 180) quoted from it by Sextus. As we are told
by Plutarch that something of the same kind was contained in
the πολιτεία, 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. From the general meanin,
of “lectures, discussions” (for which cf. Plat. Apol. 37 ν τὰ
ἐμὰς διατριβὰς καὶ τοὺς λόγους) διατριβη seems to have assum
the special sense of a short ethical treatise, if we may trust
the definition of Hermogenes (Rhett. Gr. ed. Waltz, t. m1. p.
406) διατριβή ἐστι βραχέος διανοήματος ἠθικοῦ ἔκτασις. Zeller’
identification with the χρεῖαι is improbable, and Susemihl

2 A summary will be found in Wellmann 1. ὁ. p. 437 foll. As reg
its Cynic tendencies Susemihl observes :—Wer den Witz machte, er
bei ihrer Abfassung wohl schon iiber den Hund gekommen, aber ἢ
nicht iiber den Schwanz, schrieb eben damit dies Werk einer et
spiitern Zeit, zu friihesten etwa als er von Krates zu Stilpon iiber

gangen war.

INTRODUCTION. at

believes that the διατριβαὶ was excluded from the πίναξ as
being an earlier Cynic work.

(21) ἡἠθικά (Diog. +). The title is somewhat doubtful,
as Wachsmuth reads ἀπομνημονεύματα Κράτητος ἠθικά as a
single title, and Wellmann would emend 7 χρεῖαι for ἠθικά:
- more probably however it was a collection of short ethical

προβλήματα.
[ IV. Miscellaneous.

(22) προβλημάτων Ὁμηρικῶν ε΄ (Diog. 4): we learn from
Dio. Chrys. 53, 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 instances to be interpreted allegorically. That he
in some cases proposed emendations may be seen from
Strabo vir. 3. 6, cf. ib. 1. p. 41, xvi. p. 1131. Krische p. 392
shows that there is no foundation for the suggestion that
Zeno attributed the Iliad and the Odyssey to different
authors.

(23) περὶ ποιητικῆς ἀκροάσεως (Diog. 4). Stein, Er-
kenntnistheorie n. 689, speaks of this work, the προβλ. “Opnp.
and the περὶ Ἕλλην. wad. as an educational series, and regards —
them as an appendix to the πολιτεία.

(24) ἀπομνημονεύματα Κράτητος (Diog. +) also mentioned
by Athen. iv. 162 B as Ζήνωνος ἀπομνημονεύματα, from which
Persaeus is said to have made extracts. There seems little
doubt that this was identical with the χρεῖαι mentioned in Diog.
vi. 91 in connection with Crates, or that Wachsmuth is right
in referring to this book the story of Crates and the cobbler
(frag. 199). Aphthonius’ definition of χρεῖαι runs thus :—azo-
μνημόνευμα σύντομον εὐστόχως ἐπί TL πρόσωπον ἀναφερόμενον.

(25) ἐπιστολαί (Maxim. Floril, ed. Mai, ὁ. 6). This
reference was first pointed out by Wachsmuth, see frag. 190.

The passage in Οἷς. N. D. 1. 36 (cum vero Hesiodi Theo-
goniam interpretatur) led Fabricius to insert among his list of
Zeno’s writings (111. p. 580) ὑπομνημόνευμα εἰς τὴν Ἡσιόδου

ΘΟ INTRODUCTION,

θεογονίαν', and there can be no doubt from the statements in
Proclus and the other Scholiasts* that Zeno’s labours extended —
to Hesiod as well as to Homer. It is, however, impossible to
say in what work these fragments appeared, and we do ποῦ
feel much inclined to accept Krische’s view (p. 367) that the
allegorical explanations of Hesiod were worked into the περὶ
ὅλου. May they not belong to the περὶ ποιητικῆς ἀκροάσεως
It remains to call attention to Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 9, ὅδ.
Ρ. 245, 8. p. 681, P. ἀλλὰ καὶ of Στωικοὶ λέγουσι Ζήνωνι τῷ πρώτῳ
γεγράφθαι τινα ἃ μὴ ῥᾳδίως ἐπιτρέπουσι τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἀναγι-
γνώσκειν μὴ οὐχὶ πεῖραν δεδωκόσι πρότερος εἰ γνησίως φιλοσοφοῖεν,
but similar suggestions οὗ esotericism are made against all
the post-Aristotelian schools, and especially against the New
Academy. (Mayor on Cic. N. D.1. 11.)

§5. Zeno’s style.

The fragments which survive of Zeno’s writings are not
sufficient to enable us to form any satisfactory opinion of his
style, and it would be unsafe to generalise from such scanty
data. We shall therefore only attempt to point out those
characteristics about which there can be no doubt.

The later Greek philosophers troubled themselves but little
with the graces of literary ornament. Philosophy had now
become scientific in its treatment and ceased to be artistic in
form. Zeno was no exception to this rule, and was satisfied if
he presented his arguments to his readers with directness and
perspicacity. In this respect, he has been successful in avoid-
ing obscurity*, though he lays himself open to the charge of

: < See Flach, Glossen und Scholien zur Hesiodischen Theogonie, p. 29
Ὁ

3 Cf. also Diog. L. vir. 48, Minue. Felix Octav. xrx. 10 Chrysippus
Zenonem interpretatione physiologiae in Hesiodi Homeri Orpheique
carminibus imitatur.

8. Zeller who formerly supported this view (Stoics p. 40) now thinks
otherwise (Ph. ἃ. Gr. ται. 1. 32).

4 Fronto ad Verum Imperat. 1. p. 114 ad docendum planissimus
Zenon. Cf. Diog. L. vit. 38 ἔστι μὲν οὖν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ προσγεγραμμένα βιβλία

ποῦν:

INTRODUCTION. 33

abruptness and want of finish. To this tendency was due his
custom of couching his arguments in syllogistic formulae,
which often served to cloak a somewhat obvious fallacy’.
This formally logical style subsequently grew so habitual with
the Stoics that they earned for themselves the title of διαλεκ-
τικοί, Cicero (N. Τὸ. mi. 22) especially observes on Zeno’s
fondness for certain “breues et acutulas conclusiones,” and
several examples of these are to be found in his remaining
fragments. ‘That which is reasonable is better than that
which is unreasonable: but nothing is better than the world:
therefore the world is reasonable.” ‘That 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 is corporeal.” “That is altogether
destructible all whose parts are destructible: but all the parts
of the world are destructible; therefore the world is itself
destructible,” cf. also frags. 59, 60, 61, 129, 130.

Passing to quite a different characteristic, we remark in
Zeno’s style a certain picturesqueness and love of simile, which
perhaps may be regarded as traceable to the Oriental influence
of his birth-place*. Particularly striking is his observation
that those who are in a state of προκοπὴ may from their
dreams discover whether they are making progress, if then
the imaginative and emotional part of the soul is clearly
seen dispersed and ordered by the power of reason, as in the
transparent depth of a waveless calm (frag. 160). Zeno,
says Cicero (N. D. τι. 22), “similitudine, ut saepe solet,
rationem concludit hoe modo.” “If tuneful flutes were pro-
duced from an olive should not we regard some knowledge of

πολλά, ἐν ols ἐλάλησεν ὡς οὐδεὶς τῶν Στωικῶν in which passage Stein,
Psychologie n, 2, finds evidence of ‘die Klarheit und Gediegenheit der
Schriften Zenos,”

1 In Cie. N. D. τι. 20 the Stoic claims that such arguments “apertiora
sunt ad reprehendendum.” Elsewhere Cicero calls them “ contortulis
quibusdam et minutis conclusiunculis nec ad sensum permanentibus.”
Tuse. 11. 42.

3 Cf. Wellmann 1. ὁ. p. 445.

H. P. 3

34 INTRODUCTION.

flute-playing as inherent in the olive?” (frag. 63). In like
manner he uses the simile of the minister in a royal court to
explain his doctrine of the προηγμένον (frag. 131), and likens
his ideal commonwealth to a herd grazing on a common —
pasture (frag. 162).

Not only in elaborate comparisons but also in single ex-
pressions may the same picturesque touch be seen. Thus
character is said to be the fountain of life (frag. 146), emotion —
a fluttering of the soul (frag. 137), and happiness the unruffled 7
flow of life (frag. 124).

ΤῸ will be remembered that Cicero, or his authority, con-
stantly taunts Zeno with being the inventor of new words,
and new words only’. When scrutinised, this appears to mean
not so much that he was a coiner of new expressions, as that
for the purposes of his system he appropriated words already
in existence as part of his special terminology. Putting aside
προηγμένον and ἀποπροηγμένον, which stand on rather a
different footing, we may instance προκοπή, ἐνάργεια, συγκατά-
Gears, κατόρθωμα, κατάληψις, καθῆκον, ἔννοια(!), and τύπωσις : ”
πρόληψις is certainly not due to Zeno. Yet, although none
- of these words are new coinages, κατάληψις and καθῆκον are
instances specially selected by Cicero in support of his statement.

Diog. Laert. x. 27 speaking of Chrysippus observes:—xat
τὰ μαρτύρια τοσαῦτα ἐστίν, ὡς ἐκείνων μόνων γέμειν τὰ βιβλία,
καθάπερ καὶ παρὰ Ζήνωνί ἐστιν εὑρεῖν καὶ παρὰ ᾿Αριστοτέλει.
The existing fragments however do not justify this assertion.

Finally, although doubtless the circumstances under which
the fragments have been preserved render this tendency more
noticeable than it otherwise would be, we shall not be wrong
in attributing to Zeno a love of precise definition. The school
afterwards became famous for their definitions (cf. Sext.
Pyrrh. 11. 205—212), and it is not unreasonable to suppose
that the habit originated with the founder. Instances of this

1 Cic. Fin. mt. 5. 15. Tuse. v. 32. 34. Legg. 1. 38, ete. Cf. Gal
de diff. puls. viz. 642 ed Κύμη Ζήνων δὲ ὁ Κιτιεὺς ἔτι πρότερον ἐτόλμησ'
καινοτομεῖν τε καὶ ὑπερβαίνειν τὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἔθος ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασιν.

INTRODUCTION. 30

will occur passim. In fact, his writings in their ene
character were dogmatic and terse rather than discursive and
polemical. The longest extract in the following pages is of
dubious authenticity, and therefore for a specimen of the style
of our author we would refer to the description of youthful

modesty in frag. 174.

§ 6. Cleanthes.

In discussing the dates of Zeno’s life we have seen that
there is good reason to believe that Cleanthes was born in the
year B.c. 331, and if so he was only five years younger than
Zeno. We also saw that he lived to the age of 99 and
presided over the Stoa for 32 years from B.c, 264 till his death
in B.c. 232. Against this computation there is to be taken
into account the fact that Diogenes (vi. 176) states that he
lived to the age of 80 and was a pupil of Zeno for nineteen
years. Unless we are prepared to reject the authority of the
papyrus altogether, we have in Diogenes’ account either a
different tradition or a stupid blunder’. In any case,
Cleanthes was well advanced in life when he became head
of the Stoic School.

He was born at Assos, a town in the Troad, but at what
age he came to Athens or under what circumstances he be-
came a pupil of Zeno we have no information. His circum-
stances were those of extreme poverty : he is said to have been
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 study*. Hence the nickname
of Φρεάντλης was given to him by his opponents, while his
friends in admiration of his laborious activity called him a
“second Heracles.” The man’s mind is shadowed forth in
these anecdotes : the same earnestness and thoroughness which

1 Rohde 1. 6. p. 622 n, 1 suggests that Diogenes subtracted the 19
years passed under Zeno’s tuitién from the years of his life, but this is
hardly credible.

2 Diog. L. viz. 168. ;
3—2

36 INTRODUCTION.

characterised his life 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
to regard the theological side of philosophy as of the highest
importance, and, feeling that the praise of the divine majesty
should be set forth in something higher than sober prose, his
genius expressed itself in poetical compositions of the greatest
merit. It is easy to believe that a man of this character may
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, vit. 182 οὗτος (Chrysippus)
ὀνειδισθεὶς ὑπό τινος ὅτι οὐχὶ παρὰ ᾿Αρίστωνι μετὰ πολλῶν σχολάζοι,
εἰ τοῖς πολλοῖς, εἶπε, προσεῖχον, οὐκ ἂν ἐφιλοσόφησα. His ap-
parent want of success possibly stimulated the unfavourable |
estimate with which his written works were received by
antiquity’. The Stoa was now fiercely assailed by various
opponents—its ethics by the Epicureans, and its logical
theories by Arcesilas. Skill in controversy was more than
ever needed, if the position won by Zeno’s efforts was to be
maintained. Herein lay the specia] strength of Chrysippus,
who was very probably employed in defending Stoicism during
his predecessor’s life’, and who surpassed Cleanthes in fine-
ness and subtlety, even if he was inferior to him in depth*.
Most suggestive, in this view, becomes the passage in Diog.
L. vit. 179 διηνέχθη (Chrysippus)...7pds Κλεάνθην ᾧ καὶ πολ-
λάκις ἔλεγε μόνης τῆς τῶν δογμάτων διδασκαλίας χρήζειν, τὰς

1 There is no direct evidence for this, but the whole of Diogenes’
account implies it.

2 Of. Diog. L. vit. 182 πρὸς δὲ τὸν κατεξανιστάμενον Κλεάνθους διαλεκτι-
κόν, Kal mporelvovra αὐτῷ σοφίσματα, πέπαυσο, εἶπε, παρέλκων τὸν πρεσβύ-
τερον ἀπὸ τῶν πραγματικωτέρων, ἡμῖν δὲ τοῖς νέοις ταῦτα προτίθει.

3 So Hirzel τι. p. 180 “‘Kleanthes war keine die Begriffe zerglie-
dernde, sondern eine anschauende Natur, er war wohl minder riihrig aber
vielleicht tiefer angelegt als sein Schiiler,” and Stein, Psychologie p. 171
‘“‘Kleanthes erscheint als der rauhschaalige, miihsam stammelnde, aber
tiefe Denker, Chrysipp dagegen als der feinere, leichtbewegliche, elegant
vermittelnde Schénredner.”

INTRODUCTION. \ 97

δὲ ἀποδείξεις αὐτὸν εὑρήσει. The anecdote leads us to infer
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 has 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-
velopment of the system. This opinion is not without justi-
fication in the ancient authorities. Diogenes Laertius ex-
pressly asserts that Cleanthes adhered to the same tenets as
his predecessor (vir. 168), and that h he did not object to be
called an ass, declaring that héywas only able to bear Zeno’s
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
418). Now however a reaction in his favour has set in, and
from a closer scrutiny of the notices concerning him the
opinion has been formed that “his contributions were more
distinctive and original than those of any other Stoic”
(Encycl. Brit. Art. Stoics)’, In a question of such im-
portance it is singularly unfortunate that the hand of time
has dealt so hardly with him, not only in the actual amount
of the fragments which have been preserved to us, but also
in their relative 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,

1 Hirzel has carried this view to an extreme, which the facts do not
warrant. At um. p. 137 he curiously says :—‘‘ Da wir aber nichts unver-
sucht lassen diirfen, um eine eigentiimliche Lehre des Kleanthes heraus-

_ zabringen.”’ On the other hand, Windelband, writing as late as 1888,
_ says of Cleanthes :-—“als Philosoph ist er unbedeutend gewesen ” (Miiller’s
Handbuch, v. 292).

38 INTRODUCTION.

of so extravagant a character that it is hard to credit their
seriousness. The happy chance that has preserved to us the
Hymn to Zeus is counterbalanced by the consideration that —
we only know of his theory of tension through two or three

passages.

Cleanthes divides philosophy into six branches, but in —
reality this is only the triple division of Zeno, logic being —
subdivided into dialectic and rhetoric, physics into physics
and theology, and ethics into ethics and polities.

In his estimate of logic he resembles Zeno: at least it
seems to have played only a subsidiary part in his system,
judging both from the number of his recorded works on this
subject (about 10 out of a total of 56) and from the in-
significance of the fragments which remain. Four only are
of any importance, and one of these, his criticism of the
Platonic idea, is involved in such obscurity that it will be
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 φαντασία further than by describing it
as an impression on the soul. Cleanthes explained this as an
actual material concavity impressed by the object, an ex-
planation which found no favour with Chrysippus. There is
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 int
duction of this extreme result of sensualistic views so properly
belongs. Since Chrysippus, in express opposition to Cleanthes,
defined φαντασία as ἑτεροίωσις ἡγεμονικοῦ, it is less likely th
he should have propounded a theory which in its very terms
carries out the more materialistic doctrine of his opponen

—= “διιδόννυ

INTRODUCTION. 39

We 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’. 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-
- duct of this potentiality when actualised by experience. In
an ingenious and closely-reasoned argument, whose force it
is difficult to reproduce within short limits, Stein contends
that this position was thrown over by Cleanthes. According
to the latter, the capacity given us by nature is solely that
for moral and not for intellectual activity’, The belief in
God himself does not, as with Zeno, arise from a ‘‘certa
animi ratio” but rather from induction founded on empirical
observation®. The conclusion is that Cleanthes is a thorough-
going advocate of empiricism. But a divergence from the
rest of the school in a matter of such importance ought not
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
it, as being in entire consonance with his general bent of
mind. What then is the evidence which Stein produces apart
from the passage of Cicero just referred to, which is by no
means conclusive? In the first place he appeals to two
passages which prove that moral impulses are transmitted to
us from our parents and implanted in us by nature’, and
lays stress on the fact that intellectual powers are not in-
cluded. This, however, is only negative evidence, and for
positive proof we are referred to frags. 106 and 100; in the
first of these we read that the uneducated differ from the
brutes only in shape, and in the second that the undiscerning
opinion of the many should be totally discarded. Surely
these grounds are insufficient to support the conclusion:

1 Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 322—328.
2 Cleanth. frags, 82 and 36.
3 Cleanth. frag. 52. (Cic. N. Ὁ. τι. 13.)

#

40 INTRODUCTION.

Plato himself might have greeted these sentiments with ap-
probation. But a more serious stumbling-block remains in
the oft quoted passage from Diog. L. vu. 54. If, as Stein
himself admits, Chrysippus substituted πρόληψις for the —
Zenonian ὀρθὸς λόγος, Cleanthes must of necessity be included —
in the term ἀρχαιότεροι τῶν Στωικῶν, for there-is no one else
to whom the words could apply’. Were further positive
evidence of Cleanthes’ “concession to rationalism ” required,
it would surely be as reasonable to supply it froin frag. 21
ψυχήν... ἧς μέρος μετέχοντας ἡμᾶς ἐμψυχοῦσθαι as to deduce the
contrary from frags. 100 and 1006, For these reasons we feel
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 6 κυριεύων and first propounded by the
Megarian Diodorus. This sophism was concerned with the
nature of the possible ; and Cleanthes tries to escape from the
dilemma 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, it is possible for the past to have been otherwise,
in the same way that it is possible for a future event to occur
even though that event will never take place. Besides this
we learn that he introduced the term λεκτὸν in the sense of
xaTnyopypa.*, 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 us
here, containing, as they do, with one exception, merely a
restatement of positions already taken up by Zeno. The
exception referred to is the introduction of πνεῦμα as the

1 Stein himself supplies the materials for his own refutation. At
p. 267 in dealing with a similar question he says :— Ohne Not sollte
Niemand unter ἀρχαιότεροι andere Stoiker als Zeno Kleanthes und —
Chrysipp verstehen.” Chrysippus is here excluded by the nature of the —
case: the inference need not be stated. 3
* See Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 327.

INTRODUCTION. 41

truest description of the divine permeating essence, which
Zeno had characterised as aether. With frag. 17 however we
are on a different footing. Cleanthes teaches, according to
Cicero’s account, that the world is God, and it is significant
that, although the same doctrine is attributed by him to
Chrysippus (N. D. 1. 39), no such statement is found with
regard to Zeno (ib. 36). Zeno had indeed declared that God
permeates every part of the universe: would he have gone so
far as to identify the universe with God? It is true that we
find among his fragments (frag. 66) οὐσίαν δὲ θεοῦ τὸν ὅλον
κόσμον Kai Tov οὐρανόν, but this is not conclusive. Not only
the general cast of the expression, but also the addition of the
᾿ words καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν, make us hesitate to ascribe to these
words their full pantheistic sense. However, even if Cleanthes
was not following in his master’s footsteps, he was only carry-
ing Zeno’s teaching to its logical conclusion. The dualism
of God and Matter was inconsistent in a materialistic system.
But Cleanthes went further. Teaching that God creates the
world through the medium of the four elements 1 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-
vidual things. 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 soul, however, is material and is
braced up by that tension which is elsewhere described as “a
stroke of fire.” This tension is ever varying and is the cause
of movement in the human frame. Now, since the individual
is a pattern of the universe’, the cause of movement in the
cosmos must be the tension which permeates all its parts.

1 Not three in spite of Hirzel’s Excursus 1. 737—755. See Stein,
Psychologie n. 113.

? This is probably the meaning of 1. 4 in the Hymn to Zeus, where
see note. For the doctrine of the macrocosm and the microcosm in
general see Stein’s Appendix to Psych. pp. 205—214.

---

42 INTRODUCTION.

Thus the phenomenal world is created and again destroyed b
the successive phases in the ever varying tension of the fiery
breath, which is at once identified with God and with the
universe’.

As the ἡγεμονικὸν of the human soul is placed in the
breast, so did Cleanthes teach that the ruling part of the
world is in the sun, to which is due day and night and the
seasons of the year. He was led to this opinion by his inves-
tigations in natural science. Observing that nothing can
exist without warmth, he inferred that warmth constitutes
the essence of things. Since however warmth is given to the
whole world and to each individual thing from the sun, the
‘sun must be the ἡγεμονικὸν of the world. In the sun is the
fiery breath found in its purest form, and at the conflagration,
when the world is destroyed, the sun will assimilate to itself
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
hearth of the world. The sun is fed by exhalations from th
sea, and moves in an oblique course through the zodiac. The
stars are formed of the same fiery substance as the sun, and,
as the sun is the cause of life to everything, its essence must
be akin not to the earthly fire, which is destructive, but to
the creative. As the sun strikes the world with his rays,
he is called a plectrum. Sun, moon, and stare are alike
conical in shape.

Cleanthes proved that the soul is material by two syll
gistic arguments, founded on the mental resemblance betw
parents and children and the sympathy of the soul with th
body. So far indeed did his materialism extend that he ev
maintained that the act of walking was the extension of πνεῦ

m the ἡγεμονικὸν to the feet. In other respects he seems
have concurred in Zeno’s psychology, teaching that th

A For the tension-theory in general see Stein, Psychologie, pp. 73 an
74, nn. 109 and 110. The notion of τόνος is not entirely unknown
° Zeno : ef. Zeno frags, 56, 67, 103.

INTRODUCTION. 43

reasoning powers are developed by external impressions, and
that all souls exist after death till the time of the general con-
flagration. 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.

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 Stoic
system they necessarily overlap. It is hardly necessary to
analyse the Hymn to Zeus, but it 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-
tinct reasons 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
this cannot be man with all his imperfections and frailties,
(2) the foreknowledge of coming events, (3) the fruitfulness of
the earth and other natural blessings, (4) the occurrence of
portents outside the ordinary course of nature, and (5) the
regular movements of the heavenly bodies. Zeus ie. πῦρ
ἀειζῷον is the only eternal god; the rest are perishable and
_ will be destroyed at the ἐκπύρωσις. The popular religion is a
representation of truth, but requires interpretation if we
_ 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. It is difficult now-a-days to enter into the spirit with
which the Stoic school pursued these etymological fancies.
_ At times it is hard not to acquiesce in Plutarch’s opinion (see

ΣΙ ΟἿο, ON. Dy 1. 68. ταῖν 88.

44 INTRODUCTION,

frag. 55), who attributes them to παιδιὰ and εἰρωνεία. But, if
this is so, it is impossible to account for the 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
questionable validity. For example, Cleanthes may not have
been satisfied with the derivation of Dionysus from διανύσαι,
but his explanation could not be disproved, and he was bound —
to explain the name somehow, since, so long as it remained
unexplained, it was a standing objection to his method’.

The number of ethical works attributed to Cleanthes, 32
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
theoretical side of morals. This agrees with what we are
told as to the titles of his books (see infra, p. 52). Defining
the aim of life and happiness in the same manner as Zeno,
Cleanthes laid special stress on the agreement with the
general law of nature, while Chrysippus is said to have
emphasised the necessity for agreement with human nature no
less than with nature in general. This view is thoroughly in
consonance with the general bias of Cleanthes’ teaching. One
of the most striking and important of his doctrines is the
parallelism between the macrocosm of the world and the
microcosm of the individual. The more, therefore, that man
brings himself into harmony with the spirit which breathes
throughout the universe, the more does he fulfil the réle to
which he is destined. The same spirit may be traced in the

1 The etymologies of Plato inthe Cratylus are quite as bad as any of
these, but they are wer: in pert at least playful. The most recent
po γττα of this dialogue is by Heath in Ἢ Journal of Philology
xvi. 192.

INTRODUCTION. 45
<a ας
lines in which the subordination of the individual to the
decrees of 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 σκοπός, and the attainment of happiness as τέλος".
The doctrine of τόνος 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 φρόνησις, but Cleanthes, while retaining
the intellectual basis which Zeno made the groundwork of
virtue, sought to explain its character more precisely.
Again he had recourse to his physical theories, Every body
contains within it a material air-current with ever-varying
tension. When this tension is strong enough to perform its
fitting duties it is regarded as strength and power, and this
strength and power as applied to different spheres of activity
gives rise to the four virtues ἐγκράτεια, ἀνδρεία, δικαιοσύνη, and
σωφροσύνη. It will be observed that ἐγκράτεια here occupies
the position which by Chrysippus and his followers is assigned
to φρόνησις. Thus Cleanthes fortifies his main position, that
strength of tension is the necessary starting-point of virtue,
by a tacit appeal to the authority of Socrates, who had pointed
‘to ἐγκράτεια as κρηπὶς ἀρετῆς. A recurrence to the same
teacher may also be recognised in the approbation with which
his identification of τὸ συμφέρον with τὸ δίκαιον is cited. To
return to τόνος; when the tension is relaxed, a weakness of
soul follows, and in this weakness is to be found the explana-
tion of the πάθη. Thus the essence of virtue and emotion,
which Zeno had left 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.
The application of τόνος to the πάθη 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 11. p. 557.

40 INTRODUCTION.

bearing on our general view of their ethical doctrines. What
position do the πάθη occupy in the classification of goods?
Zeno classified ἡδονὴ and therefore presumably the other πάθη
among the ἀδιάφορα, and the reason is not far to seek. He
regarded πάθη as distinct from vice, because they have nothing
to do with ignorance (Plut. Virt. Mor. 10 τὰς ἐπιτάσεις τῶν
παθῶν καὶ τὰς σφοδρότητας οὔ φασι γίγνεσθαι κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν ἐν
ἣ τὸ ἁμαρτητικόν). Only κακία or τὸ μέτεχον κακίας is κακόν,
according to Zeno, and πάθος is neither, but rather an ἐπεγέν-
νημα. (CE. τὰ ἐπιγιγνόμενα κρίσεσιν Zeno frag. 139 and for the ©
distinction between ἐπιγεννήματα and μετέχοντα cf. Diog. L. vu.
95.) That this applies to all the πάθη and not merely to—
ἡδονὴ is made clear by the following considerations. In frag. ;
169 Zeno recommends the rational use of wealth ὅπως ἀδεῆ
καὶ ἀθαύμαστον πρὸς τἄλλα τὴν διάθεσιν τῆς ψυχῆς ἔχοντες ὅσα
μήτε καλά ἐστι μήτε αἰσχρὰ τοῖς μὲν κατὰ φύσιν ὡς ἐπὶ πολὺ
χρῶνται τῶν δ᾽ ἐναντίων μηδὲν δεδοικότες λόγῳ καὶ μη φόβῳ τούτων
ἀπέχωνται. This shows that the ἀδιάφορα are the field of
φόβος, and for λύπη we may refer to Cie. Tuse. 11. 77 nihil
enim esse malum quod turpe non sit si dugenti persuaseris...et
tamen non satis mihi videtur vidisse hoc Cleanthes, suscipi
aliquando aegritudinem posse ex eo ipso, quod esse summum
malum Cleanthes ipse fateatur. It is noteworthy, moreover,
that Cleanthes, who is allowed to have been the severest
opponent of pleasure’, declares ἡδονὴν μήτε κατὰ φύσιν εἶ
μήτε ἀξίαν ἔχειν ἐν τῷ βίῳ (frag. 88) but does not venture to
class it as κακόν. The result of this discussion is that Zen
and Cleanthes did not class λύπη and φόβος with κακά, and
therefore Wachsmuth cannot be right in attributing to Zen
a passage in Stobaeus’ where this classification is implied

1 Zeller, Stoics p. 237. The remarks in the text are intended
obviate the difficulty as to the classification of ἡδονὴ suggested by Heinz
de Stoicorum affectibus p, 37.

2 See Wachsmuth’s Stobaeus vol. τι. p. 58. That this question
much debated appears from Cic. Tusc. 1v. 29. Some appear to have
that πάθος was κακὸν but not κακία (Stob. 1. 6.}, because πάθος is κίνησι
but κακία is διάθεσις (Cie. 1. 6. 30).

POS Pa ee

INTRODUCTION. 47

That this view did not continue to be the orthodox view of the
school after their time is possible, but to pursue the subject
further would be foreign to our purpose.

The uncorrupted impulses given by nature tend towards
virtue, and, when they are suitably developed, wisdom founded
on firm apprehension, so that it can never be lost, follows in
due course. Secure in the possession of virtue, the wise man
partakes of the same excellence as God.

In the treatise περὶ ἡδονῆς Cleanthes seems to have en-
gaged in a spirited controversy with the Epicureans, and to
have attacked their moral teaching, just as he perhaps assailed
their physics in the work περὶ ἀτόμων. Pleasure is a mere
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 παραινετικὸς or ὑποθετικὸς τόπος (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,
according to the motive which prompts its performance. To
many of the subjects which fall under this branch separate
treatises were devoted, among which are the books περὶ εὐ-
βουλίας, περὶ χάριτος, περὶ POovepias, περὶ τιμῆς, περὶ δόξης,
περὶ φιλίας, περὶ συμποσίου x.t.A. Τὸ the book περὶ χάριτος we
may assign three of the extant fragments (frags. 97, 98, 99)
all of which are preserved by Seneca in the de Beneficiis,
The theory of consolation (frags. 93 and 94) may belong either

to the περὶ ἀρωγῆς or the περὶ φιλίάς. Frags. 100—103 all in

48 INTRODUCTION.

verse and one in hexameter metre ought to be referred to the
περὶ δόξης.

One solitary fragment attests the political studies of Cle-
anthes, to which at least four of the works in: the catalogue
must be referred.

The result of our investigation has been to show con-
clusively that all those doctrines which are most character-
istic of the true essence of Stoicism were contributed by Zeno
and Cleanthes. To Zeno belong the establishment of the
logical criterion, the adaptation of Heraclitean physics, and
the introduction of all the leading ethical tenets. Cleanthes
revolutionised the study of physics by the theory of tension,
and the development of pantheism, and by applying his
materialistic views to logic and ethics brought into strong
light the mutual interdependence of the three branches. The
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
ambitious réle requires 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 εἰ μὴ yap ἦν Χρύσιππος
οὐκ ἂν ἦν Στοά (Diog. L. vit. 183). The reason of this has
been already indicated. The extraordinary fertility of the
writer commanded admiration even where it failed to win
assent, nor was his dialectical skill (Diog. L. vir. 180)
matter of small moment. Though logic was only the p
paedeutic of philosophy, it was the battleground of the
fiercest controversy. Vitally opposed in other respects,
Epicureans and Stoics here at least were allied in maintaini
the possibility of knowledge against the universal scepticism
the New Academy. It is not surprising, therefore, that th
foremost champion of dogmatism should have taken the nin
place in the Stoic triad.

INTRODUCTION. 49

§ 7. The writings of Cleanthes.

The relation of the poetical to the prose writings of
Cleanthes has not been accurately determined, and the evi-
dence does not enable us to decide whether the former were
published separately from, or in conjunction with the latter.

- The only indication we possess is in frag. 49, in which Cleanthes

describes poetry as being peculiarly adapted to theological
subjects. Yet the only book in the catalogue with a dis-
tinctively theological title is the work περὶ θεῶν, and there is
direct evidence that this contained etymological explanations
of the names of the gods, and that part of it, at any rate, was
written in prose. Krische p. 422 supposes that the Hymn
to Zeus was a poetical supplement incorporated with this
treatise, but such treatment would surely have produced
highly incongruous results. It is possible that we ought to
separate Cleanthes the philosopher from Cleanthes the poet,
and to infer that works published by him in the latter capacity
were not included in the list of his philosophical treatises.
At the same time we should remember that Chrysippus (Galen.
plac. Hipp. et Plat. p. 315) and Posidonius (ib. p. 399 ῥήσεις
τε ποιητικὰς παρατίθεται καὶ ἱστορίας παλαιῶν πράξεων pap-
τυρούσας οἷς λέγει) were accustomed to freely interpolate
poetical quotations in their prose writings, and Cleanthes
may have composed his ‘own florilegia, just as Cicero trans-
lated from the Greek where the Latin poets failed him
(Tusce. D. 11. 26). A catalogue of the titles known to us is
subjoined; where not otherwise indicated, the source of
reference is Diog. L. vir. 174, 175.

I. Logical.

(1) περὶ ἰδίων. For ἴδια cf. Ar. Top. i. 5, p. 102 ἃ 17: the
essential attributes of a thing are its ἴδια : thus γραμματικῆς
δεκτικὸς is an ἴδιον of man.

(2) περὶ τῶν ἀπόρων.

(9) περὶ διαλεκτικῆς.

H. P. 4

50 _ INTRODUCTION.

(4) περὶ τρόπων. Probably this is logical rather than
rhetorical.

(5) περὶ κατηγορημάτων. To this book may be referred
frag. 7.

(6) περὶ μεταλήψεως (Athen. x1. 467 ἃ, 471 b).

(7) περὶ τοῦ κυριεύοντος (Arr. Epict. πι. 19. 9). Krische
p. 427 n. gives to this work the title περὶ δυνατῶν, but Epict. —
distinctly contrasts Chrysippus’ work bearing the general title
with a treatise by Cleanthes on the particular fallacy (Κλεάνθης
δ᾽ ἰδίᾳ γέγραφε περὶ τούτου), Wachsmuth, Comm. 1. p. 18.

(8) περὶ τέχνης may be the same work as the ars rhetorica
mentioned in Cic. Fin. iv. 3, but if so it is out of its place in
the catalogue, where it appears between nos. 4 and 5 of the
physical books.

(9) περὶ rod λόγου γ. This and the following book ap-
. pear in the catalogue among the ethical works.

(10) περὶ ἐπιστήμης.

Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 722, counts among the logical —
works the books περὶ χρόνου περὶ αἰσθήσεως and περὶ ddgys,-but
omits, probably by an oversight, the book περὶ τρόπων. He 4
also observes that from the number of books treating of the

theory of knowledge Cleanthes must have displayed more —

activity in treating of the subject than the remaining frag- —
ments would lead us to suppose.

II. Physical.

(1) περὶ xpdvov.

(2) περὶ τῆς Ζήνωνος φυσιολογίας β΄.

(3) τῶν Ἡρακλείτου ἐξηγήσεων δ. Cf. Diog. L. 1x. 1
πλεῖστοί τε εἰσὶν ὅσοι ἐξήγηνται αὐτοῦ τὸ σύγγραμμα. καὶ γὰρ
᾿Αντισθένης καὶ Ἡρακλείδης ὁ ἸΤοντικὸς Κλεάνθης τε καὶ Σφαῖρος
6 Στωικός. The influence of Heraclitus on Cleanthes has been |
variously estimated. Hirzel is the chief advocate in favour of
it, holding e.g. that Cleanthes agreed with him in his hypo-

INTRODUCTION. 51

thesis of three elements, and that τόνος is traceable to παλίν-
tovos (or παλίντροπος) ἁρμονίἤ. Stein’s more moderate estimate
appears to us truer.

(4) περὶ αἰσθήσεως.

(5) πρὸς Δημόκριτον, perhaps the same as περὶ τῶν ἀτόμων
(Diog. L. vir. 134) so Krische p. 430.

(6) πρὸς ᾿Αρίσταρχον, see on frag. 27. 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 xx. 631. ;

(7) ὑπομνήματα φυσικά (Plut. Sto. Rep. c. 8).

The books next in order treat of θεολογικόν.

(8) ἀρχαιολογία has been identified with μυθικά (Athen.
x1. 572 6, Porphyr. vit. Pyth. c. 1), but the genuineness of the
latter work is seriously questioned. Miiller frag. hist. Gr. 11.
Ρ. 5. 9. 11 thinks that the τὰ κατὰ πόλιν μυθικὰ of Neanthes of
Cyzicus (cf. Plut. quaest. syrup. 1. 10) is referred to in both
passages and Zeller Pre-Socr. 1. p. 308 says:—The Cleanthes
of Porphyry is certainly not the Stoic but most likely a mis-
spelling for Neanthes of Cyzicus.

(9) περὶ θεῶν, cf. Plut. de vit. aer. alien. c. 7. To this
work Wachsmuth refers frags. 47. 54. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61.
62. 63. Krische (p. 418, 422) also the statements in Cic.
N. D. 1. 37 (frags. 14—17) and the hymn to Zeus (frag. 48).
See also Osann Praef. Cornut. p. ix.

(10) περὶ γιγάντων.

(11) περὶ Ὑμεναίου. This is a curious title. Perhaps it
should rather be classed as ethical. Cf. Persaeus’ book zepi
γάμου (Diog. L. vr. 36).

(12) περὶ rod ποιητοῦ. This book treated of the interpre-
tation of Homer, and Wachsmuth accordingly refers to it
frags. 55. 65. 66. 67. To these should be added frag. 63 and
perhaps frag. 54.

(13) θεομαχία (ps.-Plut. de Fluv. v. 3. 4) was identified
by Krische with the book περὶ γιγάντων supra (p. 434) but this

4—2

52 INTRODUCTION.

and the next book are rightly described by Wachsmuth as
“ficta ab papel ps.-Plutarcho,” see note on frag. 69.

(14) περὶ ὁρῶν, ib. v. 17. 4.

Fabricius Bibl. Gr. m1. p. 552 ‘infers from Simplic. in
Epict. Man. ο. 78 that one of Cleanthes’ works bore the title
Ἰαμβεῖα, but the words simply mean “‘in his well known Iambie
lines.”

11. Ethical.

(1) πρὸς Ἥριλλον. For Herillus see Zeller p. 42.

(2) περὶ ὁρμῆς β΄.

(3) περὶ τοῦ καθήκοντος γ΄.

(4) περὶ εὐβουλίας.

(5) περὶ χάριτος.

(6) προτρεπτικός. Cf. Diog. L. vir. 91.

(7) περὶ ἀρετῶν.

(8) περὶ εὐφυΐας.

(9) περὶ Τοργίππου “num πρὸς Tépyurrov qui idem fuerit —
atque Τοργιππίδης ad quem complura scripta Chrysippus misit?””
Wachsm. Mohnike p. 100 wishes to read Τοργιππίδου.

(10) περὶ φθονερίας.

(11) περὶ ἔρωτος. Here belongs perhaps frag. 108.

(12) περὶ ἐλευθερίας.

(13) ἐρωτικὴ τέχνη.

(14) περὶ τιμῆς.

(16) περὶ δόξης.

(16) πολιτικός. Here belongs frag. 104, cf. Plut. Sto.
Rep. c. 2. ,

(17) περὶ βουλῆς.

(18) περὶ νόμων.

(19) περὶ τοῦ δικάζειν.

(20) περὶ ἀρωγῆς.

(21) περὶ τέλους.

(22) περὶ καλῶν.

(23) περὶ πράξεων.

(24) περὶ βασιλείας.

Ve ae

=
ad
ΩΣ

; ie glk os Ὁ 5

Ὡ-:- 8 ϑὀ

INTRODUCTION. 53

(25) περὶ φιλώας.

(26) περὶ συμποσίου. Persaeus wrote συμποτικὰ ὑπομνή-
ματα or διάλογοι (Athen. Iv. 162 b, χιπι. 607 a).

(27) περὶ τοῦ ὅτι ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ ἀνδρὸς Kat γυναικός. So
Antisthenes also taught (Diog. L. v1. 12) and cf. Socrates in
Xen. Symp. 1. 9. Otherwise Aristotle, Pol. 1. 13. 1260 a 21.
Eth. vin. 14. 1162 a 26.

(28) περὶ rod τὸν σοφὸν σοφιστεύειν.

(29) περὶ χρειῶν.

(30) διατριβών β΄.

(31) περὶ ἡδονῆς. For this book see Krische p. 430 foll.

(32) περὶ χαλκοῦ (Diog. L. vir. 14). The title of this book
has been much discussed. It was altered to περὶ χάριτος by
Casaubon, to περὶ χρόνου by Menagius, Fabricius and Mohnike,
and to περὶ χρειῶν by Wachsmuth. It is possible that χαλκοῦ
is due to the scribe’s eye catching the word χαλκὸν which
closely precedes in the citation, and, if so, we have no clue to
the true title.

(33) περὶ στοᾶς. This book is supposed to have existed
from a mutilated passage of Philodemus περὶ φιλοσόφων in vol.
Here. vit. col. 13 v. 18 ὡς αἵ τ᾽ ἀναγραφαὶ τῶν π(ι)νάκων (al)re
βιβλιοθῆκαι σημαίνουσιν, (παρὰ KA)eavOy ἐν τῷ περὶ στ(οᾶς ἐ)σίτιν)
Διογένους αὕτη ἡ μνήμη. See howevey gu Clean δ.

tvue. ὅν

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

1. Diog. L. vit. 39, τριμερῆῇ φασὶν εἶναι τὸν κατὰ
φιλοσοφίαν Χόγον. εἶναι γὰρ αὐτοῦ τὸ μέν τι φυσικόν" τὸ
δὲ ἠθικόν: τὸ δὲ λογικόν. οὕτω δὲ πρῶτος διεῖλε Ζήνων ὁ
Κιτιεὺς ἐν τῷ περὶ λόγου.

The triple division of philosophy was first brought into
prominence by Zeno and the Stoics, though it seems to
have been adopted before them by Xenocrates and the
Peripatetics, cf. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. vit. 16 ἐντελέστερον
δὲ.. οἱ εἰπόντες τῆς φιλοσοφίας TO μέν τι εἶναι φυσικὸν TO
δὲ ἠθικὸν τὸ δὲ λογικόν: ὧν δυνάμει μὲν Πλάτων ἐστὶν
ἀρχηγός, περὶ πολλῶν μὲν φυσικῶν πολλῶν δὲ ἠθικῶν οὐκ
ὀλίγων δὲ λογικῶν διαλεχθείς" ῥητότατα δὲ οἱ περὶ τὸν
ἘΞενοκράτην καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ περιπάτου ἔτι δὲ οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς
. στοᾶς ἔχονται τῆσδε τῆς διαιρέσεως. Ar. Top. 1. p. 105 Ὁ 19
ἔστι δ᾽ ὡς τύπῳ περιλαβεῖν τῶν προτάσεων καὶ τῶν προ-
βλημάτων μέρη τρία" αἱ μὲν γὰρ ἠθικαὶ προτάσεις εἰσίν, αἱ
δὲ φυσικαί, αἱ δὲ λογικαὶ must not be taken as indicating
that Aristotle had in view the triple division (see Waitz in
loc.). Cicero speaking of Speusippus, Aristotle, Xenocrates,
Polemo, and Theophrastus says (de Fin. Iv. 4) :—totam
philosophiam tres in partes diviserunt, quam partitionem
a Zenone esse retentam videmus. In Acad. 1. 19 he wrongly
attributes the division to Plato (fuit ergo jam accepta a
Platone philosophandi ratio triplex): Diog. L. m1. 56 only
says that Plato introduced the διαλεκτικὸς τόπος, not that

56 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

he recognised the triple division. With the Stoics it
became so fundamental that they did not hesitate to refer
to it the three heads of Cerberus and Athene’s name Tpzto-
γένεια (Zeller, pp. 363, 364). Hirzel (de logica Stoicorum
in Sauppe’s Satura Philologa, p. 71) thinks that Zeno was ~
the inventor of the term λογικὴ in place of Xenocrates’
διαλεκτική.

2. Diog. L. vir. 40, ἄλλοι δὲ πρῶτον μὲν τὸ λογικὸν
τάττουσι᾽ δεύτερον δὲ τὸ φυσικόν" καὶ τρίτον τὸ ἠθικόν.
ὧν ἐστι Ζήνων ἐν τῷ περὶ λόγου.

As logic is obviously the least important to the Stoics
of the three divisions, Zeno regarded Ethics, not Physics,
as the kernel of his system. The authorities are however
very confusing on this point, for of Chrysippus, who is
coupled with Zeno in Diog., Plut. Sto. Rep. 9, 1 says :—
τούτων (μερῶν) δεῖν τάττεσθαι πρῶτον μὲν τὰ λογικά,
δεύτερα δὲ τὰ ἠθικά, τρίτα δὲ τὰ Hvowa—and yet in the
same passage we find attributed to Chrysippus the state-
ment οὐδ᾽ ἄλλου τινὸς ἕνεκεν τῆς φυσικῆς θεωρίας παρα-
ληπτῆς οὔσης ἢ πρὸς τὴν περὶ ἀγαθῶν ἢ κακῶν διάστασιν,
which shows that he must have regarded ethics as con-
taining the consummation of philosophy. Again, the
Stoics compared the three parts of philosophy to a fruit
garden surrounded by a wall and also to an egg, but
whereas according to Diog. (v11. 40) physics are likened to
the fruit of the garden and the yolk of the egg, in Sextus
(adv. Math. vit. 17—19) they are compared to the trees in
the garden and the white of the egg, having changed
places with ethics. But both alike in recording the
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 Wellmann and Stein
(Erkenntnistheorie, p. 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
there is no evidence to decide. The confusion about the
whole matter seems to have arisen from the distinction:
made by the Stoics between the order of relative im-
portance and the order of teaching (cf. Sext. 1. ο. 22, 23).
At any rate, as regards Zeno, it is most natural to suppose
that the pupil of Crates and the admirer of Socrates
placed ethics in the forefront of his system. [Ritter and
Preller, § 390 n. and Ueberweg, p. 192 apparently regard as
the earlier view that which gave physics the most im-
portant position, but see Stein, Psychologie n. 7.]

LOGICA.

3. Arr. Epict. diss. τν. 8, 12, θεωρήματα τοῦ φιλοσό-
ov... Ζήνων λέγει γνῶναι τὰ τοῦ λόγου στοιχεῖα, ποῖόν
τι ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἐστι καὶ πῶς ἁρμόττεται πρὸς ἄλληλα
καὶ ὅσα τούτοις ἀκόλουθά ἐστι.

It is difficult, in the absence of Zeno’s context, to
decide the exact meaning of τὰ τοῦ λόγου στοιχεῖα.
There is no doubt that the Stoics used this phrase in the
sense of “parts of speech” (Diog. VIL. 58 ῥῆμα δέ ἐστι...
στοιχεῖον λόγου ἄπτωτον), but this meaning is not general
enough and is certainly excluded by the words im-
mediately preceding in Epictetus τί τέλος ; μή τι φορεῖν
τρίβωνα; ov, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὀρθὸν ἔχειν τὸν λόγον. It is sug-
gested, therefore, that Zeno is here expressing, possibly in
an earlier work, the nominalism of Antisthenes and that
λόγου στοιχεῖα = the (indefinable) elements of definition.
It is now generally admitted (see 6.5. Dr Jackson in
Journ. Phil. xu. 262) that the opinion stated at some
length by Socrates in Theaet. p. 201 E—202 Ο is that of
Antisthenes, and the words στοιχεῖον and λόγος in this
sense must have belonged to his terminology (see the

58 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

whole passage and especially τὰ μὲν πρῶτα οἱονπερεὶ
στοιχεῖα... λόγον οὐκ ἔχει 201 E, οὕτω δὴ τὰ μὲν στοιχεῖα
ἄλογα καὶ ἄγνωτα εἶναι, αἰσθητὰ δέ, cf. 206 Ε τὸ ἐρωτη-
θέντα τί ἕκαστον δυνατὸν εἶναι τὴν ἀπόκρισιν διὰ τῶν
στοιχείων ἀποδοῦναι τῷ ἐρομένῳ): with this should be
compared the passages in Ar. Metaph. vim. 3. 1048 b 23,
XIV. 3.1091 a7 ὥστ᾽ οὐσίας ἔστι μὲν ἧς ἐνδέχεται εἶναι
ὅρον καὶ λόγον οἷον τῆς συνθέτου ἐάν τε αἰσθητὴ ἐάν τε
νοητὴ 4° ἐξ ὧν δ᾽ αὕτη πρώτων οὐκ ἔστιν. It is nota
necessary inference from this passage that Zeno treated —
ὀρθὸς λόγος as κριτήριον ἀληθείας, or that he and
Cleanthes are the ἄλλοι τινες τῶν ἀρχαιοτέρων Στωικῶν
whom Diogenes (VII. 54) mentions as holding this opinion,
although Hirzel thinks this established, comparing frag. ~
157 (Untersuchungen, u. pp. 14 f. 23). Indeed it is
difficult to understand how, except on the hypothesis of
a change of opinion, this is reconcilable with the fact that
Zeno introduced the φαντασία καταληπτική, as will
appear hereafter. Hirzel further remarks :—“Unter den
τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς τινες des Alexand. Aphrod. zur Topik
(schol. Arist. p. 256 Ὁ 14) welche den λόγος durch τί ἦν
definirten kénnte 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
writer (Erkenntnistheorie, p. 90, 91) explains γνῶναι τὰ
τοῦ λόγου στοιχεῖα as “die Erkenntnis der Elemente des
Denkens ἃ. ἢ. wie das Denken beschaffen sei und worin —
die gegenseitige Verbindung der Gedanken bestehe und
welche Konsequenzen sich aus dieser Gedankenverbind-
ung ergeben.”

4. Arr. Epict. diss. 1. 17. 10, 11, καὶ τὰ λογικὰ
ἄκαρπά ἐστι...καὶ περὶ τούτου μὲν ὀψόμεθα, εἰ δ᾽ οὖν Kai
τοῦτο δοίη τις, ἐκεῖνα ἀπαρκεῖ, ὅτε τῶν ἄλλων ἐστι

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 59

διακριτικὰ καὶ ἐπισκεπτικὰ Kal ὡς ἄν τις εἴποι μετρη-
τικὰ καὶ στατικά" τίς λέγει ταῦτα ; μόνος Χρύσιππος
καὶ Ζήνων καὶ KreavOns ;

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 o1i account of the
value of the results obtained, as because they enable us tw
test the theories and expose the fallacies of others and to
clear the ground for further enquiries, cf. Ar. Top. 1. 104
Ὁ 1 τοῦτο δ᾽ ἴδιον ἢ μάλιστα οἰκεῖον τῆς διαλεκτικῆς
ἐστιν" ἐξεταστικὴ γὰρ οὖσα πρὸς τὰς ἁπασῶν τῶν μεθόδων
ἀρχὰς ὁδὸν ἔχει, cf. also the title ὄργανον given to
Aristotle’s logical treatises (Waitz 11 294) and the name
xavovixn adopted by the Epicureans. For the distinction
between the Peripatetic and Stoic views of logic see
Stein, Erkenntnistheorie ἢ. 207. Hirzel’s remarks about
Zeno (de log. Stoic. p. 72) do not take into account this
evidence.

στατικά, “weighing.” The word is used by Plato, cf.
Phileb. 55 Ε οἷον πασῶν που τεχνῶν ἄν Tis ἀριθμητικὴν
χωρίζῃ καὶ μετρητικὴν καὶ στατικήν, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν.

Charmid. 166 8.

5. Stob. Ecl. 1. 2. 12 p. 22, 12 Wachsm. [vulgo Floril.
LXXXIL. 5], Ζήνων τὰς τῶν διαλεκτικῶν τέχνας εἴκαζε τοῖς
δικαίοις μέτροις οὐ πυρὸν οὐδ᾽ ἄλλο TL τῶν σπουδαίων
μετροῦσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἄχυρα καὶ κόπρια.

At first sight this and the next fragm. appear con-
tradictory, but probably this is directed against some
particular opponents. The Megarians, the Eristics of this
period, are most likely to be meant, and we know that
they were often called διαλεκτικοί, as the Stoics them-
selves are by Sextus (Zeller, Socrates etc. p. 250 n. 3).
Moreover Alexinus was a determined opponent of Zeno

60 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO,

(Diog. 11. 109 διεφέρετο δὲ μάλιστα πρὸς Ζήνωνα) and
Sextus tells us how he controverted Zeno’s proof that the
world is λογικός (Math. rx. 107). Stein thinks that the
inconsistency is to be explained by the importance
attributed by Zeno to the question of the criterion
(Erkenntnistheorie, p. 303), but surely διαλεκτικῶν in
frag. 5 and διαλεκτικὴν in frag. 6 must refer to the
same branch of logic. The explanation is however
perfectly valid to explain the difference of statement
between Cic. Fin. Iv. 9 and id. Acad. 1. 40. τέχνας =
treatises. |

δικαίοις: so the three best MSs AM and S: εἰκαίοις
adopted by Mein. from Ms B (late and untrustworthy) is
virtually a conjecture. Wachsm. suggests χυδαίοις but, on
the interpretation given above, δικαίοις is more forcible:
the methods are good enough (cf. μετρητικά frag. 4) but
they are put to base uses, 1.6, to mere quibbling. After
μέτροις Gaisf. add. οἷς.

If the fragment be interpreted quite generally as a
depreciation of logical studies, we have here an approxi-
mation to the position of Aristo (Stob. Ἐπ]. 1. 2. 14, 18,
22=Floril. LxxxiL 7, 11, 18) in one of the points on
which he severed himself from the Stoic scheol.

6. Plut. Sto. Rep. v1 2, ἔλυε δὲ (scil. Zeno) σοφίσ-
pata καὶ τὴν διαλεκτικὴν ὡς τοῦτο ποιεῖν δυναμένην
ἐκέλευε παραλαμβάνειν τοὺς μαθητάς. Hence Schol.
ad Arist. 22 b 29 ed. Brandis speaking of Zeno of Elea
says that he was called ἀμφοτερόγλωσσος οὐχ ὅτι dia-
λεκτικὸς ἦν ὡς ὁ Κιτιεύς.

σοφίσματα, cf. the anecdote related by Diog. vil. 25.
A logician showed Zeno seven διαλεκτικαὶ ἰδέαι in the
Reaper fallacy, and received 200 drachmas, although his
fee was only half that amount, ib. VIL 47 οὐκ ἄνευ δὲ

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 61

τῆς διαλεκτικῆς θεωρίας τὸν σοφὸν ἄπτωτον ἔνεσθαι ἐν
λόγῳ...τό τε ἀμφιβόλως λεγόμενον διευκρινεῖσθαι.

τὴν διαλεκτικήν. Strictly speaking, λογικὴ is a wider
term than διαλεκτική, cf. Diog. vit. 41 τὸ δὲ λογικὸν
μέρος φασὶν ἔνιοι εἰς δύο διαιρεῖσθαι ἐπιστήμας, εἰς
ῥητορικὴν καὶ εἰς διαλεκτικήν, Sen. Ep. 89, 16.

7. φαντασία ἐστὶ τύπωσις ἐν ψυχῇ. Sext. Emp.
Math. vil. 228, 236 distinctly attributes this definition to
Zeno. Diog. vil. 45 τὴν δὲ φαντασίαν εἶναι τύπωσιν ἐν
ψυχῆ, τοῦ ὀνόματος οἰκείως μετενηνεγμένου ἀπὸ τῶν
τύπων ἐν τῷ κηρῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ δακτυλίου γυγνομένων, ib. 50
quoting Chrysippus’ gloss ἀλλοίωσις : cf. Plut. Comm.
Not. 47.

For the use of τύπωσις see Introd. p. 84. 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 τύπωσις: for which see on Cleanth.
frag. 38. It would seem however from the expressions
“effictum” and “impressum” in Zeno’s definition of dav-
τασία καταληπτικὴ (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 φαντασία (de An. Ur. 3): see Introd. p. 24.
See further Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 157.

8. τὰς μὲν αἰσθήσεις ἀληθεῖς τῶν δὲ φαντασιῶν Tas
μὲν ἀληθεῖς τὰς δὲ ψευδεῖς. This is attributed to the
Stoics generally by Stob. Ecl. 1. 50. 21, Plut. plac. tv. 8.
9, but must belong to Zeno having regard to Sext. Emp.
adv. Math. vill. 355, Δημόκριτος μὲν πᾶσαν αἰσθητὴν
ὕπαρξιν κεκίνηκεν, ᾿Επίκουρος δὲ πᾶν αἰσθητὸν ἔλεξε
βέβαιον εἶναι ὁ δὲ Στωικὸς Ζήνων διαιρέσει ἐχρῆτο; Cic.

62 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

N. Ὁ. τ᾿. 70 urgebat Arcesilas Zenonem, cum ipse falsa
omnia diceret quae sensibus viderentur; Zeno autem
nonnulla visa esse falsa, non omnia; Cic. Acad. 1. 41 yisis
non omnibus adjungebat fidem.

Zeno is not entirely a sensualist: Stein, Erkenntnis-
theorie, p. 307. For the general doctrine see ib. p. 142—_
151. Zeno is here again following the lead of Aristotle,
ef. de An. UL 3. 7 εἶτα ai μὲν (scil. αἰσθήσεις) ἀληθεῖς
ἀεί, ai δὲ φαντασίαι γίνονται ai πλείους ψευδεῖς. On the
other hand Epicurus held πάσας τὰς φαντασίας ἀληθεῖς
εἶναι (Sext. Math, vir. 204).

9. Cic. Acad. 1 41, (Zeno) adjungebat fidem...iis
(visis) solum, quae propriam quamdam haberent decla-
rationem earum rerum, quae viderentur.

Cicero is here speaking of the Greek évapyeva, for
which he elsewhere suggests as translations perspicuitas
or evidentia (ib. Π. 17). Every sense impression is
ἐναργὲς according to the Epicureans (Zeller, p. 428), but
with Zeno ἐνάργεια is simply introduced as an attribute
of καταληπτικὴ φαντασία: cf. Sext. Math. vil. 257 speaking
of the x. φ. αὕτη γὰρ ἐναργὴς οὖσα καὶ πληκτικὴ μόνον
οὐχὶ τῶν τριχῶν λαμβάνεται κατασπῶσα ἡμᾶς εἰς συγ-
κατάθεσιν καὶ ἄλλου μηδενὸς δεομένη εἰς τὸ τοιαύτη
προσπίπτειν ἢ εἰς τὸ τὴν πρὸς τὰς ἄλλας διαφορὰν ὑπο-
βάλλειν. Hirzel (Untersuchungen, 1. pp. 8, 6) attributes
ἐνάργεια to the Cynics but his authorities merely show
that Diogenes proved the possibility of motion by walking
about (Diog. V1. 39), which Sextus (Math. x. 68) calls a
proof δι’ αὐτῆς τῆς ἐναργείας.

10. Sext. Math. vil. 253, ἀλλὰ γὰρ οἱ μὲν ἀρχαιό-
τεροι τῶν Στωικῶν κριτήριόν φασιν εἶναι τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν
καταληπτικὴν φαντασίαν. ib. 227 κριτήριον ἀληθείας
εἶναι τὴν καταληπτικὴν φαντασίαν. This is to be at-

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO, 63

tributed to Zeno partly as an inference from the word
ἀρχαιότεροι, partly as a necessary corollary from the next
fragment, and partly in accordance with the testimony of
Cic. Acad. 1. 42 sed inter scientiam et inscientiam com-
prehensionem illam (κατάληψιν) quam dixi collocabat
eamque neque in rectis neque in pravis numerabat sed
soli credendum esse dicebat. Diog. L. vir. 46 refers the
citation to the school generally and in 54 quotes it from
Chrysippus ἐν τῇ δυωδεκάτῃ τῶν φυσικῶν.

For the doctrine of the καταληπτικὴ φαντασία see
Zeller, pp. 87—89. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 167 foll.
Four different explanations of the meaning of the term
have been given (1) καταλ. active. The irresistible cha-
racter of the impression compels assent, Zeller. (2) καταλ.
passive: the perception is grasped by the mind, Hirzel.
(3) The object of representation (τὸ ὑπάρχον) and not
the perception is grasped by the mind, Ueberweg, p. 192
(now given up by Heinze). (4) καταλ. both active and
passive, Stein, thus reconciling the apparent contra-
diction between Cic. Acad. I. 41, and Sext. Math. vit. 257.
For the exact meaning of κατάληψις)(καταληπτικὴ φαν-
τασία cf. Sext. Emp. Math. x1. 182 κατάληψίς ἐστι κατα-
ληπτικῆς φαντασίας συγκατάθεσις : a distinction, possibly
due to Zeno, which tends to disappear in practice. See
also Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 182. κατάληψις κατα-
ληπτικὴ, etc. were new terminology invented by Zeno,
according to Cic. Acad. 1. 41 comprehensionem appel-
labat similem iis rebus, quae manu prehenderentur: ex
quo etiam nomen hoe dixerat cum eo verbo antea nemo
tali in re usus est, ib. 11 145, but the verb καταλαμ-
βάνειν had been used by Plato in the sense “to grasp
with the mind,” Phaedr. 250 D περὶ δὲ κάλλους, ὥσπερ
εἴπομεν, μετ᾽ ἐκείνων τε ἔλαμπεν ὄν, δεῦρό τε ἐλθόντες
κατειλήφαμεν αὐτὸ διὰ τῆς ἐναργεστάτης αἰσθήσεως τῶν

64 ' ‘THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

ἡμετέρων στίλβον ἐναργέστατα. Zeno, therefore, only
specialised the meaning of the word, see Introd. p. 84.
and generally Introd. p. 9.

11. Sext. Math. vi. 248, φαντασία καταληπτική
ἐστιν ἡ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑπάρχοντος Kal κατ᾽ αὐτὸ TO ὑπάρχον
ἐναπομεμαγμένη καὶ ἐναπεσφραγισμένη ὁποία οὐκ ἂν γέ-
νοιτο ἀπὸ μὴ ὑπάρχοντος, ib. 426, Pyrrh. τι. 4. Diogenes
gives the definition in substantially the same words in
§ 50 adding however καὶ ἐναποτετυπωμένη after ἐναπο-
μεμαγμένη: in ὃ 46 he omits ὁποία---ὑπάρχοντος but
adds :---ἀκατάληπτον δὲ τὴν μὴ ἀπὸ ὑπάρχοντος, ἢ ἀπὸ
ὑπάρχοντος μέν, μὴ κατ᾽ αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ ὑπάρχον τὴν μὴ τρανῆ
μηδὲ ἔκτυπον, which very possibly belongs also to Zeno.
The evidence attaching the definition to Zeno is as fol-
lows :—Cic, Acad. τι. 18 si illud esset, sicut Zeno definiret,
tale visum impressum effictumque ex eo unde esset quale
esse non posset ex eo unde non esset, id nos a Zenone defi-
nitum rectissime dicimus; ib. 113, ib. 1. 41 id autem visum
cum ipsum per se cerneretur comprehendibile (of Zeno)
ib. π. 77. 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 Arcesilas. Numenius ap. Euseb. P. E. xiv. 6,
p. 733 τὸ δὲ δόγμα τοῦτο αὐτοῦ (scil. Ζήνωνος) πρώτου
εὑρομένου καὐτὸ τὸ ὄνομα βλέπων εὐδοκιμοῦν. ἐν ταῖς
᾿Αθήναις τὴν καταληπτικὴν φαντασίαν πάσῃ μηχανῇ
ἐχρῆτο ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν (of Arcesilas). August. c. Acad. 11. 9,
18 sed videamus quid ait Zeno. Tale scilicet visum com-
prehendi et percipi posse, quale cum falso non haberet
signa communia.

The controversy between Arcesilas and Zeno is a his-
torical fact about which there can be no doubt, and, apart
from direct evidence, the chronology proves that our defi-

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 65

- nition can hardly be due to Chrysippus, who only sue-
ceeded to the headship of the Stoa eight years after the
death of Arcesilas (cf. Plut. Com. Not. ec. 1). This ques-
tion of the criterion was the chief battle-ground of the
Stoi¢s and the New Academy, and in later times Carneades
maintained ἀκατάληπτα πάντα εἶναι ov πάντα δὲ ἄδηλα
(Zeller, ρ. δδδ). In the second book of Cicero’s Academica
the question is discussed at length. Sext. Math. vir. 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
Orestes, who mistook his sister for a F ury. It must be
imprinted and stamped on the mind to ensure that the
percipient shall have noticed all the characteristics of the
object. Lastly, the addition ὁποία οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο ἀπὸ
μὴ ὑπάρχοντος was inserted to meet the Academic ob-
jection that two impressions, one true and the other false,
might be so entirely alike (ἀπαράλλακτον) as to be in-
capable of distinction, which of course the Stoics did not
admit. For ἐναπομεμαγμένη cf. Ar. Ran. 1040 ὅθεν ἡμὴ
φρὴν ἀπομαξαμένη πολλὰς ἀρετὰς ἐποίησεν.

12. Olympiodorus in Plat. Gorg. pp. ὅ8, 54 (ed. Jahn
ap. Neue Jahrb. fiir Philol. supplement bd. xtv. 1848
p. 239, 240) Ζήνων δέ φησιν ὅτι τέχνη ἐστὶ σύστημα ἐκ
καταλήψεων συγγεγυμνασμένον (3 -ων) πρός τι τέλος εὔ-
χρηστον τῶν ἐν τῷ βίῳ.

Cf. Lucian Paras. c. 4 τέχνη ἐστίν, ὡς ἐγὼ διαμνη-
μονεύω σοφοῦ τινος ἀκούσας, σύστημα ἐκ καταλήψεων
συγγεγυμνασμένων πρός τι τέλος εὔχρηστον τῶν ἐν τῷ
βίῳ. Schol. ad. Ar. Nub. 317 οὕτω yap ὁριζόμεθα τὴν
τέχνην οἷον σύστημα ἐκ καταλήψεων ἐγγεγυμνασμένων
καὶ τὰ ἐφεξῆς. Sext. Emp. Math. π. 10 πᾶσα τοίνυν

HP. 5

66 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

τέχνη σύστημά ἐστιν ἐκ καταλήψεων συγγεγυμνασμένων
καὶ ἐπὶ τέλος εὔχρηστον τῷ βίῳ λαμβανόντων τὴν ἀνα-
φοράν. The same definition partially in id. Pyrrh. m1.
188, 241, 251, Math. 1. 75, vit. 109, 373, 182, Wachsm.
also quotes (Comm. I. p. 12), Schol. Dionys. Thrac. p. 649,
31, ib. p. 721, 25 of Στωικοὶ οὕτως ὁρίζονται τὴν τέχνην᾽
τέχνη ἐστι σύστημα περὶ ψυχὴν γενόμενον ἐγκαταλήψεων
ἐγγεγυμνασμένων κιτιλ. Cf. also Quintil. 1. 17, 41 Nam
sive, ut Cleanthes voluit, ars est potestas via, id est, ordine
efficiens: esse certe viam atque ordinem in benedicendo
nemo dubitaverit; sive ille ab omnibus fere probatus
finis observatur artem constare ex praeceptionibus con-
sentientibus et coexercitatis ad finem vitae utilem. Cic.
frag. ap. Diomed 414 ed. Putsch ars est perceptionum
exercitarum constructio ad unum exitum utilem vitae
pertinentium. Cic. Acad. 11. 22 ars vero quae potest esse

nisi quae non ex una aut duabus sed ex multis animi —

perceptionibus constat. Fin. m1. 18 artes...constent ex
cognitionibus et contineat quiddam in se ratione consti-
tutum et via (illustrating also the next frag.). N.D. 1.
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 6
ἡ μὲν οὖν τέχνη ἕξις τις μετὰ λόγου ἀληθοῦς ποιητική
ἐστιν) and that it proceeds by means of regulated prin-
ciples (cf. Met. I. 1. 5 γίνεται δὲ τέχνη ὅταν ἐκ πολλῶν
τῆς ἐμπειρίας ἐννοημάτων μία καθόλου γένηται περὶ τῶν
ὁμοίων ὑπόληψις). Aristotle’s distinction that τέχνη is
concerned with γένεσις while ἐπιστήμη deals with ὃν
(Anal. Post. τι. 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. (111. 1. 247),

.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 67

13. Schol. ad Dionys. Thracis Gramm. ap. Bekk.
Anecd. p. 663, 16, ὡς δηλοῖ καὶ ὁ Ζήνων λέγων τέχνη ἐστὶν
ἕξις ὁδοποιητική, τουτέστι, δι’ ὁδοῦ καὶ μεθόδου ποιοῦσά τι.

The authenticity of this fragment is rendered doubtful
(1) by the fact that Zeno had defined τέχνη differently,
as we have seen, (2) because Cleanthes defined τέχνη as
ἕξις ὁδῷ πάντα ἀνύουσα (frag. 5). It is of course possible
that Zeno left two alternative definitions as in the case
of πάθος (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
ὁδοποιητικὴ has a suspicious look. Stein however, Er-
kenntnistheorie, p. 312, accepts the definition,

14. μνήμη θησαυρισμός ἐστι φαντασιῶν.

These words are shown to belong to Zeno by the
following considerations. Sext. Emp. Math. vu. 372 foll.
is describing the controversy between Cleanthes and
Chrysippus as to the meaning of Zeno’s τύπωσις and
introduces one of Chrysippus’ arguments εἰ yap κηροῦ
τρόπον τυποῦται ἡ ψυχὴ φανταστικῶς πάσχουσα ἀεὶ τὸ
ἔσχατον κίνημα ἐπισκοτήσει τῇ προτέρᾳ φαντασίᾳ, ὥσπερ
καὶ ἡ τῆς δευτέρας σφραγῖδος τύπος ἐξαλειπτικός ἐστι
τοῦ προτέρου. ἀλλ᾽ εἰ τοῦτο, ἀναιρεῖται μὲν μνήμη, θη-
σαυρισμὸς οὖσα φαντασιῶν, ἀναιρεῖται δὲ πᾶσα τέχνη:
σύστημα γὰρ ἦν καὶ ἄθροισμα καταλήψεων «tr. Now
one might suspect from internal evidence alone 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 already been shown. Cf. Οἷς, Acad. 1 22 quid
quisquam meminit quod non animo comprehendit et
tenet ? ib. 106 memoria perceptarum comprehensarumque

5—2

68 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

;
rerum est. Plut. plac. Iv. 11. 2. Aristotle discusses the —

relation between μνήμη and φαντασία in the tract de —
Memoria (see Grote’s Aristotle, pp. 475,476). μνήμη = μονὴ
τοῦ αἰσθήματος, An. Post. τι. 19. 99 Ὁ 36.

15. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. vit. 151, δόξαν εἶναι τὴν ὁ
ἀσθενῆ καὶ ψευδῆ συγκατάθεσιν attributed to Zeno by ~
Cic. Acad. I. 41 ex qua (inscientia) exsisteret etiam opinio,
quae esset imbecilla et cum falso incognitoque communis,
ef. ib. Tusc. Iv. 15 opinationem autem...volunt esse im-
becillam assensionem. Stobaeus speaks of two Stoic defi-
nitions of δόξα Ecl. 11. 7. 11", p. 112, 2[=u. 231] διττὰς
γὰρ εἶναι δόξας THY μὲν ἀκαταλήπτῳ συγκατάθεσιν, τὴν
δ᾽ ὑπόληψιν ἀσθενῆ, cf. ib. τι. 7. 10. p. 89, [=u 169]
παραλαμβάνεσθαι τὴν δόξαν ἀντὶ τῆς ἀσθενοῦς ὑπο-
λήψεως. It is possible from a consideration of the next
frag. that Zeno’s word was οἴησις. Thus, as with Plato,
δόξα and ἄγνοια are ultimately identical. See further
Stein, Erkenntnistheorie pp. 204, 205.

ee

16. Diog. L. vit 23, ἔλεγε δὲ μηδὲν εἶναι τῆς oin-
σεως ἀλλοτριώτερον πρὸς κατάληψιν τῶν ἐπιστημῶν.

τῶν ἐπιστημῶ. The plural is used because ἐπιστήμη
in the narrower sense in which Zeno used the word is |
a single κατάληψις. The Stoics also defined ἐπιστήμη
as a σύστημα (cf. Stob. Ecl. τι. 7. δ᾽ p. 73, 21 =11. 129)
of such perceptions. At the same time we must be-
ware of supposing that ἐπιστήμη is according to Zeno
identical with κατάληψις. ἐπιστήμη is the conscious
knowledge of the wise man, whereas κατάληψις may be
possessed by the φαῦλος. The latter may occasionally
and accidentally assent to the καταληπτικὴ φαντασία,
but the former’s assent is regular and unerring. Cf. Sext.
Math. vil. 152 ὧν τὴν μὲν ἐπιστήμην ἐν μόνοις ὑφίστασθαι
λέγουσι τοῖς σοφοῖς, τὴν δὲ δόξαν ἐν μόνοις τοῖς φαύλοις

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 69

τὴν δὲ κατάληψιν κοινὴν ἀμφοτέρων εἶναι. We have here,
in fact, the Platonic distinction between δόξα ἀληθὴς and
ἐπιστήμη in another form.

17. Cic. Acad. 1. 41, si ita erat comprehensum ut
convelli ratione non posset scientiam sin aliter inscientiam
nominabat (Zeno).

The Greek sources for this will be found in Stob.
Ecl. π΄ 7, δ᾽ p. 73, 19 τε τ. 129 εἶναι τὴν ἐπιστήμην κατά-
Anu ἀσφαλῆ καὶ ἀμετάπτωτον ὑπὸ λόγου, ib. 11™ p. 111,
30 =11. 231, τὴν ἄγνοιαν μεταπτωτικὴν εἶναι συγκατά-
θεσιν καὶ ἀσθενῆ, cf. Sext. Emp. Math. vit. 151, ἐπισ-
τήμην εἶναι τὴν ἀσφαλῆ Kai βεβαίαν καὶ ἀμετάθετον ὑπὸ
λόγου κατάληψιν, see also Stein, p. 311 and n. 711, who
concludes that these definitions are Zenonian. Diog.
L. vit. 47, αὐτήν τε τὴν ἐπιστήμην φασὶν ἢ κατάληψιν
ἀσφαλῆ, ἢ ἕξιν ἐν φαντασιῶν προσδέξει, ἀμετάπτωτον
ὑπὸ λόγου. The definition of ἐπιστήμη as ἕξις κιτιλ. is
due to Herillus, cf. ib. vu. 165, but I am unable to see
why on that ground Zeller, Ῥ. 82, ἢ. 1, and Wellmann,
p. 480, should also infer that it was introduced by Zeno.
It is far more natural to suppose that the simplest form
of the definition 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:
thus Herillus’ definition is undoubtedly modelled on Zeno’s,
but is adapted to his conception of ἐπιστήμη as the
ethical τέλος.

18. Cic. Acad. 1. 42, inter scientiam et inscientiam
comprehensionem collocabat, eamque neque in rectis
neque in pravis numerabat.

Cf. Sext. Math. vit. 151, ἐπιστήμην καὶ δόξαν καὶ τὴν
ἐν μεθορίᾳ τούτων τεταγμένην κατάληψιν... κατάληψιν δὲ

70 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

τὴν μεταξὺ τούτων: ib. 153, ὁ ᾿Αρκεσίλαος...δεικνὺς ὅτι
οὐδέν ἐστι μεταξὺ ἐπιστήμης καὶ δόξης κριτήριον ἡ κατά-
Anus. (It will be observed that where Cicero speaks of
inscientia Sextus mentions δόξα, 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 Le. 151—153 makes the meaning perfectly
clear: see the note on frag. 16. The latter part of
Cicero’s statement may be either an inference by his
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: thus the
Stoics classed certain virtues (goods) as ἐπιστῆμαι and
certain vices (evils) as ἄγνοιαι, cf. Stob..Ecl. τι. 7. 5°,
Ρ. 58, 5—59, 3= 11. 92—94.

19. Cic. Acad. 1. 41, 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 impossible to recover Zeno’s actual
words, nor can we tell how much of the Stoic doctrine
handed down by Sext. Math. vr. 397, belonged to Zeno;
ef. especially συγκατάθεσις ἥτις διπλοῦν ἔοικεν εἶναι
πρᾶγμα καὶ τὸ μέν τι ἔχειν ἀκούσιον τὸ δὲ ἑκούσιον καὶ
ἐπὶ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ κρίσει κείμενον. <A full list of authorities
is given by Zeller, Stoics, p, 88, π. 1. The free power of
assent must be understood only in the limited sense in
which free will is possible in consequence of the Stoic
doctrine of εἱμαρμένη : see Wellmann, 1. ὁ. pp. 482, 483.
It is moreover only the wise man who can distinguish
accurately the relative strength of divers impressions,
and he alone will consistently refuse assent to mere
φαντάσματα.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 71

20. Cic. Acad. 1. 41, Quod autem erat sensu compre-
hensum, id ipsum sensum appellabat.

For the different meanings of αἴσθησις in the Stoic
school, see Diog. L. vil. 52 αἴσθησις δὲ λέγεται κατὰ
τοὺς Στωικοὺς TO Te ἀφ᾽ ἡγεμονικοῦ πνεῦμα Kal ἐπὶ τὰς

> / a \ ¢ 2 ᾽ a / ᾿ e x
αἰσθήσεις διῆκον, καὶ ἡ δι’ αὐτῶν κατάληψις, Kal ἡ περὶ
τὰ αἰσθητήρια κατασκευή, καθ᾽ ἥν τινες πηροὶ γίνονται:
the second of these definitions is thus attributed by Cicero
to Zeno. So Dr Reid: it is however possible that sensum
is past part. pass. of sentio and is a translation of αἰσθητὸν
or αἰσθητικὸν rather than of αἴσθησις, in which case cf.
Diog. L. vil. 51 τῶν δὲ φαντασιῶν κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς αἱ μέν

᾿ bf 4 € ? ” 3 Ni \ © 7 >
εἰσιν αἰσθητικαὶ ai δ᾽ ov. αἰσθητικαὶ μὲν ai δι’ αἰσθη-
τήριου 7 αἰσθητηρίων λαμβανόμεναι K.T.d.

21. Cic. Acad. 1. 42, Zeno sensibus etiam fidem
tribuebat quod comprehensio facta sensibus et vera ill
et fidelis videbatur, non quod omnia quae essent in re
comprehenderet sed quia nihil quod cadere in eam posset
relinqueret quodque natura quasi normam scientiae et prin-
cipium sui dedisset, unde postea notiones rerum in animis
imprimerentur, e quibus non principia solum sed latiores
quaedam ad rationem inveniendam viae reperiuntur.

For the general sense see Zeller, p. 80, n. 1.

non quod omnia: Dr Reid cites Sext. Pyrrh. 1. 92
ἕκαστον τῶν φαινομένων ἡμῖν αἰσθητῶν ποικίλον ὑπο-
πίπτειν δοκεῖ οἷον τὸ μῆλον λεῖον εὐῶδες γλυκὺ ξανθόν.
ἄδηλον οὖν πότερόν ποτε ταύτας μόνας ὄντως ἔχει τὰς
ποιότητας ἢ μονοποιὸν μέν ἐστι παρὰ δὲ τὴν διάφορον
κατασκευὴν τῶν αἰσθητηρίων διάφορον φαίνεται ἢ καὶ
πλείονας μὲν τῶν φαινομένων ἔχει ποιότητας, ἡμῖν δὲ
οὐχ ὑποπίπτουσί τινες αὐτῶν, ib. 97. These passages
however do not refer to Stoic teaching but are used in
furtherance of the Sceptical argument.

72 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO,

notiones: a translation of ἔννοιαι. It seems certain that
the distinction between προλήψεις and ἔννοιαι (for which
see R. and P. § 393 and note c. and Stein, Erkenntnis-
theorie, p. 237) is not at least in terms Zenonian, though
he may have spoken of κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι. Reid (on Acad. I.
30) suggests that the word πρόληψιες was introduced by
Zeno, but ef. Cic. N. D. τ. 44 ut Epicurus ipse πρόληψις
appellavit, quam antea nemo eo verbo nominarat, so that
it is more probable that Chrysippus borrowed it from the
rival school ; but see Stein, l. c. p. 248—250. ἔννοια, on
the other hand, used by Plato (Phaed. 73 c) in quite a
general sense, and defined by the Peripatetics as ὁ ἀθροισ-
μὸς τῶν TOD νοῦ φαντασμάτων Kal ἡ συγκεφαλαίωσις τῶν
ἐπὶ μέρους εἰς τὸ καθόλου (Sext. Emp. Math. vit. 224)
must have received its special Stoic sense from Zeno.

principia : it is difficult to determine whether this is
a translation of a Stoic technical term, cf. Acad. τι. 21.

22. Cic. Acad. 1. 42, Errorem autem et temeritatem
et ignorantiam et opinationem et suspicionem et uno
nomine omnia quae essent aliena firmae et constantis
adsensionis a virtute sapientiaque removebat.

With this may be compared the Stoic definitions of
ἀπροπτωσία, ἀνεικαιότης, ἀνελεγξία, and ἀματαιότης
quoted by Diog. L. vu. 46, 47. Temeritas is probably
a translation of προπέτεια, a favourite word with Sextus
when speaking of the dogmatists (e.g. Pyrrh. 1 20) but
also used by the Stoics (Diog. vil. 48). Reid also quotes
(on Ac, I. 66) Epict. d. m1. 22. 104 προπετὴς συγκατά-
θεσις.

23. Stob. Ἐπ]. 1,12. 3, p. 136, 21, Ζήνωνος «καὶ τῶν
ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ». τὰ ἐννοήματά φασι μήτε τινὰ εἶναι μήτε
ποιά, ὡσανεὶ δέ τινα καὶ ὡσανεὶ ποιὰ φαντάσματα Ψυχῆς"

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 19

A N Ae ᾿ a 9 , 5 7 , lal
ταῦτα δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἰδέας προσαγορεύεσθαι. τῶν
γὰρ κατὰ τὰ ἐννοήματα ὑποπιπτόντων εἶναι τὰς ἰδέας,
οἷον ἀνθρώπων, ἵππων, κοινότερον εἰπεῖν πάντων τῶν

, \ A vw. Ε / , > / 3 /
ζῴων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁπόσων λέγουσιν ἰδέας εἶναι. [ταύτας
δὲ of Στωικοὶ φιλόσοφοί φασιν ἀνυπάρκτους εἶναι καὶ τῶν
μὲν ἐννοημάτων μετέχειν ἡμᾶς, τῶν δὲ πτώσεων, ἃς On
προσηγορίας καλοῦσι, τυγχάνειν].

Cf. Euseb. P. E. xv. 4, of ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος Στωικοὶ ἐννοή-
ματα ἡμέτερα τὰς ἰδέας. Plut. Plac. 1. 10, 4, of ἀπὸ
Ζήνωνος Στωικοὶ ἐννοήματα ἡμέτερα τὰς ἰδέας ἔφασαν.

Wellmann, p. 484, (followed by Stein, Erkenntnis-
theorie, n. 689) suggests that this may have come from
the book entitled καθολικά. Possibly this criticism of
the ideas formed part of the attack upon Plato mentioned
by Numenius, ap. Euseb. P. E. xiv. 6, p. 733, ὁ δ᾽ (Ζήνων)
ἐν τῷ ἀσθενεστέρῳ ὧν ἡσυχίαν ἄγων ov δυνάμενος ἀδι-

nr > U N % / \ nx > “Ὁ »
κεῖσθαι ᾿Αρκεσιλάου μὲν ἀφίετο, πολλὰ ἂν εἰπεῖν ἔχων,
ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἤθελε, τάχα δὲ μᾶλλον ἄλλως, πρὸς δὲ τὸν

Ε] , > lal ” , 3 , x \ ’ \
οὐκέτι ἐν ζῶσιν ὄντα datwva ἐσκιαμάγει, καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ
ἁμάξης πομπείαν πᾶσαν κατεθορύβει, λέγων ὡς οὔτ᾽ ἂν
τοῦ [[λάτωνος ἀμυνομένου, ὑπερδικεῖν τε αὐτοῦ ἄλλῳ

γὼ 7 ᾿ " , > , ee
οὐδένι μέλον᾽ εἴτε μελήσειεν Αρκεσιλάῳ, αὐτὸς γε κερ-
δανεῖν @eTo ἀποτρεψάμενος ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν ᾿Αρκεσίλαον.

ἴων \ Ὑ ΔΨ 2 AY , “
τοῦτο δὲ ἤδη καὶ ᾿Αγαθοκλέα τὸν Συρακόσιον ποιήσαντα
τὸ σόφισμα ἐπὶ τοὺς Καρχηδονίους. At any rate, both
the circumstances and the chronology indicate that the
reference is not to the Πολιτεία (Introd. p. 29).

éworpara. For the definition cf. Plut. Plac. Iv. 11
” Ν / ih / lel , i
ἔστι δὲ νόημα φάντασμα διανοίας λογικοῦ ζῴου, i.e., as he
goes on to explain, ἐννόημω stands to φάντασμα in the
relation of εἶδος to γένος : φαντάσματα are shared with us
by all other animals whereas ἐννοήματα belong to the
gods and mankind alone. Diog. vil. 61, ἐννόημα δέ ἐστι
φάντασμα διανοίας, οὔτε τι ὃν οὔτε ποιόν, ὡσανεὶ δέ τι

74 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

ὃν καὶ ὡσανεὶ ποιόν, οἷον γίνεται ἀνατύπωμα ἵππου καὶ
μὴ παρόντος.

twa...moud, Le, they have no existence or definiteness.
For the Stoic conception of τὸ and ποιόν, see Zeller,
pp. 98f. and 102 ἢ It has been inferred from this passage
that the doctrine of the four categories does not belong
entirely to Chrysippus (Petersen, Chrys. phil. fundam.
p. 18).

ἰδέας. The meaning is that the Platonic ideas are
identical with ἐννοήματα, inasmuch as they possess no
objective existence, but are mere figments of the mind. —
Plato himself deals with this very point, Parm. 132 B
ἀλλὰ... μὴ TOV εἰδῶν ἕκαστον ἣ τούτων νόημα, Kal οὐδαμοῦ

αὐτῷ προσήκῃ ἐγγίγνεσθαι ἄλλοθι ἢ ἐν ψυχαῖς. Antis-

_ thenes had already criticised the theory of ideas from this —
point of view: see Introd. p. 18.

ὑποπιπτόντων : the regular word for the presentation
of external impressions to the organs of sense (e.g.
Sext. Pyrrh. 1. 40 οὐχ ai αὐταί.. ὑποπίπτουσι φαν-
Taciat).

ὁπόσων, «tA. So far as it goes this passage is in
agreement with Aristotle’s statement that Plato recog-
nised ideas of ὁπόσα φύσει only (Metaph. A. 3. 1070 a 18):
see Dr Jackson in Journ. Phil. x. 255, ete.

ravras—rvyxdvev. These words are not expressly attri-
buted to Zeno: hence Diels followed by Wachsm. adds
to the lemma Ζήνωνος the words καὶ τῶν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ.

τῶν δὲ πτώσεων, «tA. This passage is extremely diffi-
cult and is supposed to be corrupt by Zeller, m1‘. 2. 79
and Wachsmuth. The latter suggests τὰς δὲ ποιότητας
ἐπωνυμιῶν, K.7.r. or if πτώσεων is corrupt for ἐπωνυμιῶν
“jin fine talia fere interciderint τὰς κοινὰς ποιότητας, ef.
᾿ς Diog. vit. 58,” the former (coll. Sext. Math. vir. 11) would
read ta τυγχάνοντα in place of τυγχάνειν (die Gedanken

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 75

selen in uns, die Bezeichnungen gehen auf die Dinge).
The text, as it stands, has been interpreted in three ways:
(1) notitiae rerum rationi nostrae insitae sunt, nomina
fortuito obveniunt, Diels. (2) πτώσεις = omnes singulae
res cuiuscumque qualitatis )( yevexa ποιά, 1.6. ἰδέαι. These
impress themselves on the mind of man (τυγχάνειν),
Petersen, l.c. p. 82, foll.: but this interpretation of πτῶσις
is unwarranted and is founded on a misconception of
Diog. L. vu. 58. (3) Prantl’s interpretation (1. p. 421,
n. 63) is a combination of these two views. That the
text is sound in the main is, I think, proved by Simplic.
Cat. p. 54 (quoted by Petersen) of δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ακαδημίας
ἐκάλουν τὰ μεθεκτὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ μετέχεσθαι Kal Tas πτώσεις
τευκτὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ τυγχάνεσθαι, and Clem. Alex. VIII. 9. 26:
after saying that the πτῶσις for the κατηγόρημα “τέμ-
νεται 15 “ τὸ τέμνεσθαι," and for ναῦς γίγνεται “ τὸ ναῦν
γίνεσθαι" and explaining that Aristotle called the πτῶσις
προσηγορία he proceeds ἡ πτῶσις δὲ ἀσώματος εἶναι
ὁμολογεῖται" διὸ καὶ τὸ σόφισμα ἐκεῖνο λύεται, ὃ λέγεις
διέρχεται σοῦ διὰ τοῦ στόματος, ὅπερ ἀληθές, οἰκίαν δὲ
λέγεις, οἰκία ἄρα διὰ τοῦ στόματος σοῦ διέρχεται ὅπερ
ψεῦδος" οὐδὲ γὰρ τὴν οἰκίαν λέγομεν σῶμα οὖσαν, ἀλλὰ
τὴν πτῶσιν ἀσώματον οὖσαν, ἧς οἰκία τυγχάνει. A
consideration of the latter passage, which it is surprising
that no one has cited, warrants the suggestion that τὰ
ὑπάρχοντα or some such words have fallen out after
τυγχάνειν. All would then be plain: πτῶσις = name
\(évvonua=thought. πτῶσις was also) (κατηγόρημα as
noun to verb (Plut. qu. Plat. x. 1, 2). For the present use
of πτώσις, cf. also Sext. Math. x1. 29, vi. 42, for πτῶσις in
Aristotle see Waitz, Organon, vol. 1. p. 328, 329. προση-
yopia is a common noun, such as “man” “horse” (Diog.
vil. 58, Sext. Pyrrh. 1. 14) tending in practice to become
identical with πτῶσις, though theoretically narrower.

76 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

24. Stob. ἘΠ]. 1. 13, 1°, p. 188, 14 (Ar. Did. 457,
Diels), αἴτιον δ᾽ ὁ Ζήνων φησὶν εἶναι Sv 8° οὗ δὲ αἴτιον
συμβεβηκός" καὶ τὸ μὲν αἴτιον σῶμα, οὗ δὲ αἴτιον κατη-
γόρημα" ἀδύνατον δ᾽ εἶναι τὸ μὲν αἴτιον παρεῖναι οὗ δέ
ἐστιν αἴτιον μὴ ὑπάρχειν. τὸ δὲ λεγόμενον τοιαύτην ἔχει
δύναμιν. αἴτιόν ἐστι δ ὃ γίγνεταί τι, οἷον διὰ τὴν
φρόνησιν γίνεται τὸ φρονεῖν καὶ διὰ τὴν ψυχὴν γίνεται
τὸ ζῆν καὶ διὰ τὴν σωφροσύνην γίνεται τὸ σωφρονεῖν.
ἀδύνατον γὰρ εἶναι σωφροσύνης περί τινα οὔσης μὴ
σωφρονεῖν ἢ ψυχῆς μὴ ζῆν ἢ φρονήσεως μὴ φρονεῖν.

It is difficult to understand why Zeller, Stoics, p. 95,
ἢ, 2, 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 αἴτεον from a
logical standpoint, and that κατηγόρημα is introduced to —
explain αἴτιον and not vice versa. The fragments of
Chrysippus and Posidonius which follow our passage in
Stobaeus should be compared with it. Zeno did not
adopt the four Aristotelian causes because his material-
istic views led him to regard the efficient as the only
true cause.

συμβεβηκός = “result” or “inseparable consequence,” cf.
Stob. ἘΠ]. 1. 13 ad init. αἴτιόν ἐστι δι’ ὃ τὸ ἀποτέλεσμα ἣ
δι᾿ ὃ συμβαίνει τι. This meaning οἵ συμβεβηκὸς is also to
be found in Aristotle, who uses the word in two distinct
senses: see an elaborate note of Trendelenburg on de An. 1.
1 p. 402 a 8 who quotes amongst other passages Metaph.
A 30 1025 a 30 λέγεται δὲ Kai ἄλλως συμβεβηκὸς οἷον
ὅσα ὑπάρχει ἑκάστῳ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ μὴ ἐν τῇ οὐσίᾳ ὄντα οἷον
τῷ τρυγώνῳ τὸ δύο ὀρθὰς ἔχειν. That συμβεβηκὸς must
be used in this sense here and not in its more common
Aristotelian sense of “accident” seems indubitable, when
we read infra that the αἴτιον can never be present unless
accompanied by the οὗ αἴτιον.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. ‘ee

copa: the materialism of the Stoics is well known: to
what lengths it was pushed may be seen from Zeller,
Stoics pp. 127—132, with the examples given in the
notes.

κατηγόρημα : the οὗ αἴτιον was therefore something in-
corporeal, and Chrys. and Posid. accordingly speak of it
as non-existent. Probably this inference did not present
itself to Zeno’s mind, as the question of the ὕπαρξις of
AexTa Only arose later: see further on Cleanth. rag
The present passage is illustrated by Sext. Pyrrh. 11. 14
οἱ μὲν οὖν σῶμα, οἱ δ᾽ ἀσώματον τὸ αἴτιον εἶναί φασιν.
δόξαι δ᾽ ἂν αἴτιον εἶναι κοινότερον κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς & ὃ
ἐνεργοῦν γίνεται τὸ ἀποτέλεσμα, οἷον ὡς ὁ ἥλιος ἢ ἡ
τοῦ ἡλίου θερμότης τοῦ χεῖσθαι τὸν κηρὸν ἢ τῆς χύσεως
τοῦ κηροῦ. καὶ γὰρ ἐν τούτῳ διαπεφωνήκασιν, οἱ μὲν
προσηγοριῶν αἴτιον εἶναι τὸ αἴτιον φάσκοντες, οἷον τῆς
χύσεως, οἱ δὲ κατηγορημάτων, οἷον τοῦ χεῖσθαι. ib. Math.
IX. 211 Στωικοὶ μὲν πᾶν αἴτιον σῶμά φασι σώματι
ἀσωμάτου τινὸς αἴτιον γενέσθαι, οἷον σώμα μὲν τὸ σμιλίον,
σώματι δὲ τῇ σαρκί, ἀσωμάτου δὲ τοῦ τέμνεσθαι κατη-
γορήματος, καὶ πάλιν σῶμα μὲν τὸ πῦρ, σώματι δὲ τῷ
ξύλῳ, ἀσωμάτου δὲ τοῦ καίεσθαι κατηγορήματος.

φρόνησιν κιτιλ. A parallel to this will be found at
Stob. Ecl. π. 7 11f p. 98, 3 τὴν γὰρ φρόνησιν αἱρούμεθα
ἔχειν καὶ τὴν σωφροσύνην, οὐ μὰ Ala τὸ φρονεῖν καὶ
σωφρονεῖν, ἀσώματα ὄντα καὶ κατηγορήματα. Stein,
Erkenntnistheorie p. 307, infers from this passage that,
according to Zeno, not a single moment in life passes
without thought, but that the ἡγεμονικὸν always thinks.

25. Anonymi τέχνη ap. Spengel Rhet. Gr. 1. 434, 23,
Ζήνων δὲ οὕτω φησί: διήγησίς ἐστι τῶν ἐν τῇ ὑποθέσει
πραγμάτων ἔκθεσις εἰς τὸ ὑπὲρ τοῦ λέγοντος πρόσωπον
ῥέουσα.

78 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Perhaps this frag. comes from the τέχνη of Zeno:
see Introd. p. 27. Zeller is inclined to doubt whether
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
Citium, and there is no a priori reason to discredit his
authorship.

διήγησις : the narrative portion of a speech contain-
ing the statement of facts, cf. Ding. L. vit. 48 τὸν δὲ,
ῥητορικὸν λόγον εἴς τε τὸ προοίμιον καὶ εἰς τὴν διήγησιν
καὶ τὰ πρὸς τοὺς ἀντιδίκους καὶ τὸν ἐπίλογον. Dion.
Hal. Ant. Rhet. x. 12 ἔστι δὲ τὰ τῆς ὑποθέσεως στοιχεῖα
τέσσαρα, προοίμιον, διήγησις, πίστεις, ἐπίλογοι. Lysias
especially excelled in his treatment of this branch of his
art. Dion. H. Lys. c. 18 ἐν δὲ τῷ διηγεῖσθαι τὰ πράγματα,
ὅπερ, οἶμαι, μέρος πλείστης δεῖται φροντίδος καὶ φυλακῆς,
ἀναμφιβόλως ἡγοῦμαι κράτιστον αὐτὸν εἶναι πάντων
ῥητόρων κ.τ.λ.

ὑποθέσει: cf. Sext. Emp. Math. UL 4 ὑπόθεσις προσ-
αγορεύεται ἐν ῥητορικῇ ἡ τῶν ἐπὶ μέρους ζήτησις.

ds τὸ κιτλ. “adapted to the character maintained on
behalf of the speaker.” πρόσωπον is technical )( πρᾶγμα.
τὸ δὲ κεφάλαιον τοῦ προοιμίου δόξα προσώπων τε καὶ
πραγμάτων Dion. H. Ant. Rhet. x. 13, cf. the Latin
persona, Cic. pro Mil. § 32 itaque illud Cassianum cui
bono fuerit in his personis valeat, pro Cluent. § 78 huius
Staleni persona ab nulla turpi suspicione abhorrebat. For
ῥέουσα cf. Plat. Rep. 485 D ὅτῳ γε eis ἕν τι ai ἐπιθυμίαι
σφόδρα péovow...d δὴ πρὸς τὰ μαθήματα καὶ πᾶν τὸ
τοιοῦτον ἐρρυήκασιν.

26. Anonymi τέχνη ap. Spengel Rhet. Gr. 1. 447, 11
ὡς δὲ Ζήνων᾽ παράδειγμά ἐστι γενομένου πράγματος
ἀπομνημόνευσις εἰς ὁμοίωσιν τοῦ νῦν ζητουμένουι Maxi-

Sete

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 79

mus Planudes ap. Walz. Rhet. Gr. v. 396 παράδειγμα
δέ ἐστιν, ὡς Ζήνων φησίν, γενομένου πράγματος ἀπομνη-
μόνευσις εἰς ὁμοίωσιν τοῦ νῦν ζητουμένου.

This frag. must stand or fall with frag. 25.

παράδειγμα: a technical term in rhetoric. Aristotle
regards the example of the orator as an imperfect repre-
sentation of the Induction of the philosopher: cf. Anal.
Post. 1.1, 71 ἃ 9 ὡς δ᾽ αὕτως καὶ of ῥητορικοὶ συμπεί-
᾿θουσιν᾽ ἢ γὰρ διὰ παραδειγμάτων, ὅ ἐστιν ἐπαγωγή, ἢ Ov
ἐνθυμημάτων, ὅπερ ἐστι συλλογισμός.

27. Quintil. Inst. Or. Iv. 2. 117 hic expressa (verba)
et ut vult Zeno sensu tincta esse debebunt.

It has been supposed by some that these words are a
reference to apoph. 13, but inasmuch as sensu is a very
.mappropriate translation of εἰς νοῦν, and Quintilian 15
speaking of the narrative portion of a speech, the meaning
is rather “coloured by the actual impressions of sense”
1.6, giving a vivid and clear representation of the actual
facts.

28. Anonymi variae collectiones mathematicae in
Hultschiana Heronis geometricorum et stereometricorum
editione p. 275, Ταύρου Σιδονίου ἔστιν ὑπόμνημα eis
Hodutetav Ἰ]λάτωνος ἐν ᾧ ἐστι ταῦτα: ὡρίσατο ὁ Πλάτων
τὴν γεωμετρίαν... Ἀριστοτέλης δ᾽...Ζήνων δὲ ἕξιν ἐν
προσδέξει φαντασιῶν ἀμετάπτωτον ὑπὸ λόγου.

This frag. is due to Wachsmuth (Comm. 1. p. 12)
who emends as above for the meaningless ἕξιν πρὸς δεῖξιν
φαντασιῶν ἀμεταπτώτως ὑποδίκου, coll. Diog. L. vu. 45.
It is barely credible that Zeno can have defined geometry
in the same words by which Herillus certainly and he
himself possibly defined knowledge. There is doubtless
some mistake in the tradition: possibly μαθηματικῶν has

80 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

dropped out. I cannot find any evidence to illustrate
Stoic views on mathematics. |

29. Plut. Sto. Rep. 8, 1, πρὸς τὸν εἰπόντα
μηδὲ δίκην δικάσῃς πρὶν (qu. add dv) ἀμφοῖν μῦθον
ἀκούσῃς
ἀντέλεγεν ὁ Ζήνων, τοιούτῳ τινὶ λόγῳ χρώμενος" εἴτ᾽
ἀπέδειξεν ὁ πρότερος εἰπὼν οὐκ ἀκουστέον τοῦ δευτέρου
λέγοντος" πέρας γὰρ ἔχει τὸ ζητούμενον᾽ εἴτ᾽ οὐκ ἀπέδειξεν'
ὅμοιον γὰρ ὡς εἰ μηδὲ ὑπήκουσε κληθεὶς ἢ ὑπακούσας
érepéricev’ ἤτοι δ᾽ ἀπέδειξεν ἢ οὐκ ἀπέδειξεν. οὐκ
ἀκουστέον ἄρα τοῦ δευτέρου λέγοντος. The same is —
preserved by Schol. ad Lucian. Cal. 8 with unimportant β
variations.
μηδὲ κτλ. A verse of uncertain authorship commonly
referred to Phocylides on the authority of the Schol. ad
Lucian. Le. but called by Cicero Ψευδησιόδειον (Att. VIL. —
18), see Bergk Poet. Lyr. Gk. p. 464: cf. Ar. Vesp. 725 7
που σοφὸς ἦν ὅστις ἔφασκεν, πρὶν ἂν ἀμφοῖν μῦθον
ἀκούσῃς οὐκ ἂν δικάσαις. Eur. Heracl. 179 τίς ἂν δίκην
κρίνειεν ἢ γνοίη λόγον πρὶν ἂν παρ᾽ ἀμφοῖν μῦθον ἐκμάθῃ
σαφῶς; a
λόγῳ. 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
argument of the second speaker is immaterial; but he
must have either proved his case or failed to do so:
therefore the second speaker should not be heard.
ὑπήκουσε: appeared in court when the case was called
on—answered to his name: cf. Dem. F. L. p. 423 § 257
ἠτίμωσεν ὑπακούσαντά τιν᾽ αὑτοῦ κατήγορον “procured
the disfranchisement of a man who had actually ap-
ἃ as his accuser.’ The word was used indifferently
of plaintiff and defendant, ib. p. 434 § 290 οὐδ᾽ ὑπακοῦσαι

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 81

καλούμενος ἤθελεν. Meid. p. 580, 581 καλούμενος ὀνομαστί
...0ua ταῦτ᾽ οὐχ ὑπήκουσε. Andoc. Myst. ὃ 112 καθ᾽ 6
κῆρυξ ἐκήρυττε τίς τὴν ἱκετηρίαν καταθείη, καὶ οὐδεὶς
ὑπήκουσεν. Isae. p. 49, 25=84 R. ἀπογραφεὶς εἰς τὴν
βουλὴν κακουργῶν ὑποχωρῶν ὥχετο καὶ οὐχ ὑπήκου-
σεν.

κληθείς : either (1) by the presiding magistrate, cf.
Dem. Olymp. p. 1174 ἐπειδὴ δ᾽ ἐκάλει ὁ ἄρχων εἰς τὸ
δικαστήριον ἅπαντας τοὺς ἀμφισβητοῦντας κατὰ τὸν νόμον.
Ar. Vesp. 1441 ὕβριζ᾽ ἕως ἂν τὴν δίκην ἅρχων καλῇ, or (2)
by the officer of the court solemnly calling him by name.
We know that this procedure (κλήτευσις) 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. Diog. L. vii. 18, ἔφασκε δὲ τοὺς μὲν τῶν ἀσολοίκων
λόγους καὶ ἀπηρτισμένους ὁμοίους εἶναι τῷ ἀργυρίῳ τῷ
᾿Αλεξανδρείῳ: εὐοφθάλμους μὲν καὶ περιγεγραμμένους,
καθὰ καὶ τὸ νόμισμα, οὐδὲν δὲ διὰ ταῦτα βελτίονας. τοὺς
δὲ τοὐναντίον ἀφωμοίου τοῖς ᾿Αττικοῖς τετραδράχμοις
εἰκῆ μὲν κεκομμένους καὶ σολοίκως, καθέλκειν μέντοι
πολλάκις τὰς κεκαλλιγραφημένας λέξεις.

λόγους. For the comparison of words to coins ef. Hor.
A. P. 59 licuit semperque licebit signatum praesente nota
producere nomen. Juv. vil. 54 qui communi feriat carmen
triviale Moneta and Prof. Mayor’s note. Possibly this and
the following frag. came from the work περὶ λέξεων.

᾿Αλεξανδρείῳ : in this phrase which recurs at VIII. 85
I have followed Kohler (Rhein. Mus. xxx1x. 297) in
reading ᾿Αλεξανδρείῳ for ᾿Αλεξανδρίνῳ. It appears that
Alexandria had struck no coinage in the reign of the
Ptolemies (Head, Historia Numorum p. 718); on the
other hand the tetradrachm of Alexander was part of the

H. P. 6

82 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

current coinage all over Greece (ib. p. 198 foll. and see —

Hultsch, Gr. and Rom. Metrologie pp. 243-—245),

kexoppévors...codoixws, MSS. κεκομμένοι. Bywater —
(Journ. Phil. xvut. 76) reads κεκομμένους καὶ σολοίκους

and the former certainly seems necessary to restore the
balance of the sentence.

καθέλκειν : this meaning of καθέλκω is omitted by L.
and S. s. v.

λέξεις bracketed by v. Wilamowitz and Kdéhler is
rightly retained by Bywater.

31. Zonarae Lex. s.v. σολοικίζειν col. 1662, σολοικίζειν

οὐ μόνον τὸ κατὰ φωνὴν Kai λόγον χωρικεύεσθαι ἀλλὰ Kal —
ἐπὶ ἐνδυμάτων ὅταν τις χωρικῶς ἐνδιδίσκηται ἢ ἀτάκτως
ἐσθίῃ ἢ ἀκόσμως περιπατῇ ὥς φησι Ζήνων. Wachsmuth, ©

Comm. I. p. 12, cites Cyrilli, Lex. cod. Bodl. ant. T. τι. 11.
ap. Cramer anec. Paris Iv. p. 190 V. σολοικισμός" ὅτε τις
ἀτέχνως διαλέγεται" σολοικίζειν ov μόνον τὸ κατὰ λέξιν
καὶ φωνὴν ἰδιωτεύειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ φορημάτων, ὅταν τις
χωρικῶς ἐνδέδυται ἣ ἀτάκτως ἐσθίει ἡ ἀκόσμως περιπατεῖ
ὥς φησι Ζήνων ὁ Κιτιεύς.

σολοικίζειν. Zeno is not alone in using the word in
this extended sense, cf. Xen. Cyr. vil. 3. 21 Aaidépyns
δέ τις ἦν σολοικότερος ἄνθρωπος τῷ τρόπῳ.

ἐπὶ ἐνδυμάτων. The Athenians attached great import-
ance to κοσμιότης in dress as in other matters of
personal behaviour. The cloak was required to be of
a certain length, cf. Theopbr. Char. 24 (Jebb) of the
Penurious Man:—dopodvtas ἐλάττω τῶν μηρῶν τὰ
ἱμάτια; and to wear it in the fashionable style (ἐπὶ δεξιὰ
ἀναβάλλεσθαι) was a mark of sobriety. Cf. Ar. Av. 1567
οὗτος τί Spas; ἐπ᾽ ἀριστέρ᾽ οὕτως auméyer; οὐ μεταβαλεῖς
θοἰμάτιον ὧδ᾽ ἐπὶ δεξιάν;

ἀτάκτως ty, How carefully children were trained

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 83

in this respect may be seen from three passages of Plutarch
cited by Becker, Charicles, E. T. pp. 236, 237. Of. e. g.de
Edue. Puer. 7 τῇ μὲν δεξιᾷ συνεθίζειν τὰ παιδία δέχεσθαι
τὰς τροφάς, κἂν προτείνειε τὴν ἀριστεράν, ἐπιτιμᾶν.

ἀκόσμως περιπατῇ. Fast walking in the streets was so
severely criticised that it was a circumstance which
might be used to damage an opponent before a jury ; ef.
Dem. Pantaen. p. 981 ὃ 52 Νικόβουλος δ᾽ ἐπίφθονός ἐστι,
καὶ ταχέως βαδίζει καὶ μέγα φθέγγεται, καὶ βακτηρίαν
φορεῖ and see Sandys on id. Steph. 1. §§ 68, 77. Luysias
protests against such matters being considered of any
importance in a law court, Or. Xvi δ 19 πολλοὶ μὲν γὰρ
μικρὸν διαλεγόμενοι καὶ κοσμίως ἀμπεχόμενοι μεγάλων
κακῶν αἴτιοι γεγόνασιν, ἕτεροι δὲ τῶν τοιούτων ἀμελοῦντες
πολλὰ κἀγαθὰ ὑμᾶς εἰσιν εἰργασμένοι.

32. Sext. Emp. Math. τι. 7, ἔνθεν γοῦν καὶ Ζήνων
ὁ Κιτιεὺς ἐρωτηθεὶς ὅτῳ διαφέρει διαλεκτικὴ ῥητορικῆς
συστρέψας τὴν χεῖρα καὶ πάλιν ἐξαπλώσας ἔφη “ τούτῳ
κατὰ μὲν τὴν συστροφὴν τὸ στρογγύλον καὶ βραχὺ τῆς
διαλεκτικῆς τάττων ἰδίωμα διὰ δὲ τῆς ἐξαπλώσεως καὶ
ἐκτάσεως τῶν δακτύλων τὸ πλατὺ τῆς ῥητορικῆς δυνάμεως
αἰνιττόμενος. Οἷς, Fin. τι, 17 Zenonis est inquam hoc
Stoici omnem vim loquendi, ut jam ante Aristoteles,
in duas tributam esse partes, rhetoricae palmam, dialecti-.
cam pugni similem esse dicebat, quod latius loquerentur
rhetores, dialectici autem compressius. Orat. 32, 113
Zeno quidem ille, a quo disciplina Stoicorum est, manu
demonstrare solebat quid inter has artes interesset, nam
cum compresserat digitos pugnumque fecerat, dialecticain
aiebat eiusmodi esse; cum autem diduxerat et manum
dilataverat, palmae illius similem eloquentiam esse dicebat.
Quint. Inst. Or. τι. 20 Ttaque cum duo sint genera
orationis, altera perpetua, quae rhetorice dicitur, altera

6—2

84 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

concisa, quae dialectice; quas quidem Zeno adeo con-
iunxit ut hanc compressae in pugnum manus, illam
explicitae, diceret similem.

Although this extract and the next purport to be
merely spoken remarks of Zeno, it has been thought
better to insert them at this place, as distinctly belonging
to λογική. Very probably in their original form they
came from some written work.

τὸ στρογγύλον is used of a terse and compact as
opposed to a florid and elaborate style: thus Dion. Halic.
in contrasting the styles of Lysias and Isocrates says :—
ἐν τῷ συστρέφειν τὰ νοήματα Kai στρογγύλως ἐκφέρειν

ὡς πρὸς ἀληθινοὺς ἀγῶνας ἐπιτήδειον Λυσίαν aredeyounv

(Isocr.11). The translation “well rounded” while seeming
to preserve the metaphor conveys a false impression.

33. Cic. Acad. τι. 145, At scire negatis quemquam —
rem ullam nisi sapientem. Et hoc quidem Zeno gestu
conficiebat. Nam, cum extensis digitis adversam manum ~

ostenderat, “visum” inquiebat “huiusmodi est.” Deinde,
cum paullum digitos contraxerat, “adsensus huiusmodi.”
Tum cum plane compresserat pugnumque fecerat, com-

prehensionem illam esse dicebat: «qua ex similitudine

nomen ei rei quod antea non fuerat κατάληψεν imposuit-
Cum autem laevam manum adverterat et illum pugnum
arte vehementerque compresserat scientiam talem esse
dicebat, cuius compotem nisi sapientem esse neminem.
Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 181, 313, finds in this
passage an indication of the tension theory, but surely
this is somewhat far-fetched, for although it is no doubt
true that the Stoic theory of knowledge is often made to
depend on τόνος, yet probably the introduction of TOVOS
is later than Zeno. He suggests with more reason p. 126
that the activity of the ἡγεμονικὸν in the process of

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. ᾿ 85

reasoning may be inferred from this, i.e. the ἡγεμονικὸν is
not merely receptive (κατὰ πεῖσιν) but also productive
(κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν).

scire: we have already seen that ἐπιστήμη is peculiar
to the wise man, while κατάληψις is also shared by the
φαῦλος : see note on frag. 16. Sextus speaking of the
inconsistency of the Stoics, who would not admit that
even Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus had attained to
perfect wisdom, cites as a Stoic dogma πάντα ἀγνοεῖ ὁ
φαῦλος (Math. vit. 434). Reid quotes Sext. Pyrrh. 11. 83
διόπερ THY μὲν ἀλήθειαν ἐν μόνῳ σπουδαίῳ φασὶν εἶναι,
τὸ δὲ ἀληθὲς καὶ ἐν φαύλῳ: ἐνδέχεται γὰρ τὸν φαῦλον
ἀληθές τι εἰπεῖν.

visum = φαντασία frag. 7. adsensus = συγκατάθεσις
frag. 19. comprehensionem = κατάληψιν, see on frag. 10.
scientiam, frag. 17.

PHYSICA.

34. Cic. Acad. 1. 39, (Zeno) nullo modo arbitrabatur
quicquam effici posse ab ea (scil. natura) quae expers esset
corporis nec vero aut quod efficeret aliquid aut’ quod
efficeretur posse esse non corpus.

Zeno adopted the Platonic dogma that everything
which exists is capable either of acting or being acted
upon, cf. Soph. 247 D λέγω δὴ τὸ Kal ὁποιανοῦν κεκτη-
μένον δύναμιν, εἴτ᾽ εἰς TO ποιεῖν ἕτερον ὁτιοῦν πεφυκός,
εἴτ᾽ εἰς τὸ παθεῖν καὶ σμικρότατον ὑπὸ τοῦ φαυλοτάτου,
κἂν εἰ μόνον εἰσάπαξ, πᾶν τοῦτο ὄντως εἶναι: he differed,
however, widely from Plato in limiting these things to
material objects. For Stoic materialism cf. Plut. plac. Iv.
20 πᾶν yap τὸ δρώμενον ἢ καὶ ποιοῦν σῶμα (quoted by
Zeller, Stoics p. 126) and further references ap. Stein,
Psychologie n. 21. For the application of this doctrine.

86 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

to theories of sensation and thought see the authorities
collected in Dr Reid’s note.

35. Diog. L. vit. 184, δοκεῖ δ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἀρχὰς εἶναι
τῶν ὅλων δύο τὸ ποιοῦν καὶ τὸ πάσχον. τὸ μὲν οὖν
πάσχον εἶναι τὴν ἄποιον οὐσίαν τὴν ὕλην" τὸ δὲ ποιοῦν
τὸν ἐν αὐτῇ λόγον τὸν θεόν. τοῦτον γὰρ ὄντα ἀΐδιον διὰ
πάσης ὕλης δημιουργεῖν ἕκαστα. τίθησι δὲ τὸ δόγμα
τοῦτο Ζήνων ὁ Κιτιεὺς ἐν τῷ περὶ οὐσίας. Plut. plac.
1. 3.39 Ζήνων Μνασέου Κιτιεὺς ἀρχὰς μὲν τὸν θεὸν καὶ
τὴν ὕλην, ὧν ὁ μέν ἐστι τοῦ ποιεῖν αἴτιος ἡ δὲ τοῦ πάσχειν,
στοιχεῖα δὲ τέτταρα. Stob. Ἐπ]. τ. 10. 14 f. 126, 17 Ζήνων
Μνασέου Κιτιεὺς ἀρχὰς τὸν θεὸν καὶ τὴν ὕλην στοιχεῖα δὲ
τέτταρα. Diels,p. 289, adds the following passages:—Achill.
Tat. p. 124 Ζήνων ὁ Κιτιεὺς ἀρχὰς εἶναι λέγει τῶν ὅλων
θεὸν καὶ ὕλην, θεὸν μὲν τὸ ποιοῦν, ὕλην δὲ τὸ ποιούμενον, ἀφ᾽
ὧν τὰ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα γεγονέναι. Philo, de Provid. 1. 22
Zeno Mnaseae filius aerem deum materiam et elementa qua-

-tuor [aerem is a blunder arising from ἀρχάς (Diels), which

seems better than Stein’s suggestion (Psych. n. 31) to sub-

stitute aethera]. Theodoret, Gr. cur. aff. rv. 12 Ζήνων δὲ ὁ
Κιτιεύς, ὁ Μνασέου, ὁ Κράτητος φοιτητὴς ὁ τῆς Στωικῆς
ἄρξας αἱρέσεως τὸν θεὸν καὶ τὴν ὕλην ἀρχὰς ἔφησεν εἶναι.

Cf Sext. Math. rx..11: further authorities for the-

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,
cf. Theophr. frag. 48 Wimmer (speaking of Plato) δύο τὰς
ἀρχὰς βούλεται ποιεῖν τὸ μὲν ὑποκείμενον ὡς ὕλην, ὃ
προσαγορεύει πανδεχές, τὸ δ᾽ ὡς αἴτιον καὶ κινοῦν, ὃ
περιάπτει τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τῇ τἀγαθοῦ δυνάμει: see

Introd. p. 25. When we remember that God is by the

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 87

Stoics identified with fiery breath, the purest and rarest
of all substances, while on the other hand the world itself
is 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 Ionians (Zeller, Stoics,
p. 155, 6. Stein, Psychologie n. 25, collects the passages
which prove this). How far this was worked out by Zeno
may be doubted: indeed 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 τόνος
was the first to consciously teach the pantheistic doctrines,
which subsequently became characteristic of Stoicism.

δημιουργεῖν : a favourite Platonic word, recalling the dne-
ουργὸς of the Timaeus. For the distinction between ἀρχαὶ
and στοιχεῖα cf. Diog. L. vu. 134 διαφέρειν δὲ eae apyas
Kal στοιχεῖα" τὰς pet van εἶναι ἀγεννήτους καὶ ἀφθάρτους"
τὰ δὲ στοιχεῖα κατὰ τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν φθείρεσθαι.

86. Hippolyt. Philosoph. 21, 1. p. 571 Diels Χρύ-
outros καὶ Ζήνων οἱ ὑπέθεντο καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀρχὴν μὲν θεὸν
τῶν πάντων σώμα ὄντα τὸ καθαρώτατον διὰ πάντων δὲ
. διήκειν τὴν πρόνοιαν αὐτοῦ. Galen. Hist. Philos. 16. p. 241.
Diels Ῥ. 008 Πλάτων μὲν οὖν καὶ Ζήνων ὁ Στωικὸς περὶ
τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ θεοῦ διεληλυθότες οὐχ ὁμοίως περὶ ταύτης
διενοήθησαν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν Πλάτων θεὸν ἀσώματον, Ζήνων
δὲ σῶμα περὶ τῆς μορφῆς μηδὲν εἰρηκότες [if we may
rely on Diels’ text here, some modification will be required
in Stein, Psychologie n. 88, where Kiihn’s reading ov
κόσμον ἀλλὰ παρὰ TadTa...TL ἄλλο is adopted].

Cf. generally Tatian ad Graee. c. 25 ᾿ 162 c (speaking
of the Stoics) σῶμά τις εἶναι λέγει θεόν, ἐγὼ δὲ ἀσώματον.

August. adv. Acad. m1. 17. 38 (quoted below).

88 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

τὸ καθαρώτατο. “God is spoken of as being Fire,
Aether, Air, most commonly as being πνεῦμα or Atmo-
spheric Current, pervading everything without excep-
tion, what is most base and ugly as well as what is
most beautiful,” Zeller, Stoics p. 148, who gives the
authorities in the notes. καθαρώτατον is used with
special reference to διήκειν, cf. Sext. Emp. vil. 375 οὐδὲ
τὸ πνεῦμα φύσιν ἔχει πρὸς τοῦτο [τὐπωσιν] ἐπιτήδειον,
λεπτομερέστατον καὶ εὔρουν παρὰ τὰ τοιαῦτα τῶν σωμά-
των ὑπάρχον. Ar. Metaph.1. 8. 3, 4 (speaking of those of
his predecessors who had explained generation by σύγκρι-
σις and διάκρισις) τῇ μὲν yap ἂν δόξειε στοιχειωδέστατον
εἶναι πάντων ἐξ οὗ γίγνονται συγκρίσει πρώτου, τοιοῦτον
δὲ τὸ μικρομερέστατον καὶ λεπτότατον ἂν εἴη τῶν σωμά-
των. διόπερ ὅσοι πῦρ ἀρχὴν τιθέασι μάλιστα ὁμολο-
᾿γουμένως ἂν τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ λέγοιεν. Krische, Forschungen
p. 382. |

πρόνοιαν 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.

37. Οἷς. N. D. τ. 36, rationem quandam per omnem
rerum naturam pertinentem vi divina esse affectam putat.
Cf. Epiphan. adv. Haeres. m1. 2. 9 (111 36) Diels. p. 592
ἔλεγε δὲ πάντα διήκειν τὸ θεῖον.

rationem: the Heraclitean λόγος, Introd. p. 22.

38. Tertullian, ad Nat. 1. 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: κηρία. Zeno’s fondness for simile has been

—

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 89

observed upon in the Introd. p. 33. Virgil’s lines are
well known, Georg. Iv. 219 sqq. His quidam signis atque
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. 1. 120 cuius
(divinae sollertiae) vos majestatem deducitis usque ad
apium formicarumque perfectionem ut etiam inter deos
Myrmecides aliquis minutorum opusculorum fabricator
fuisse videatur.

separat: if this is pressed, we must conclude that
Zeno never identified God with matter: see n. on frag. 35.

39. Cic. N. 1). 1. 36, Zeno naturalem legem divinam
esse censet eamque vim obtinere recta imperantem pro-
hibentemque contraria. Lactant. Inst. 1. 5 Item Zeno
{deum nuncupat) divinam naturalemque legem. Minuce.
Felic. Octav. 19. 10 Zeno naturalem legem atque divinam...
omnium esse principium.

Cf. Diog. L. vil. 88, ὡς ἀπαγορεύειν εἴωθεν 6 νόμος 6
κοινὸς ὅπερ ἐστὶν ὁ ὀρθὸς λόγος διὰ πάντων ἐρχόμενος ὁ
αὐτὸς ὧν τῷ Διὶ καθηγεμόνι τούτῳ τῆς τῶν ὄντων διοική-
σεως ὄντι. Schol. on Lucan 11. 9 hoe secundum Stoicos
dicit, qui adfirmant mundum prudentia ac lege firmatum,
ipsumque deum esse sibi legem. Law regarded in its
moral rather than its physical aspect is defined in similar
terms in Stob. ἘΠ]. τι. 7. 11° p. 96, 10 = Floril. 46, 12 τόν
τε νόμον σπουδαῖον εἶναί φασι λόγον ὀρθὸν ὄντα προσ-
τακτικὸν μὲν ὧν ποιητέον, ἀπαγορευτικὸν δὲ ὧν οὐ ποι-
ητέον repeated at τι. 7. 11], p. 102, 4.

Gods and men are influenced by the same law “ quae
est recti praeceptio pravique depulsio” Cic. N.D. τι. 78.

90 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. —

Law is the human counterpart of the “ratio summa
insita in natura” id. Leg. 1. 18. The origin of law is
simultaneous with that of the divine mind: quamobrem
lex vera atque princeps apta ad jubendum et ad vetandum
ratio est recta summi Iovis, id. ib. 0. 10. For Zeno Right
exists φύσει and not merely θέσει, cf. Krische p. 371.
Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 708.

40. Philodemus περὶ εὐσεβ. c. 8, δεῖ τὴν <d>vvapw
οὖσαν cuva<T>TiKny oike<i>ws τῶν μερῶςν» Tpd<s
ἄξιλληλα καὶ éx...wv τὴν δ᾽ ava<tor)>v h<di>ov καὶ
κύκκλησιν; ἢ περίοδον.

The position of these words with reference to their
context corresponding to Cic. N.D. 1. 36 points to Zeno’s
authorship. “Stoica frustula dubitanter ad Zenonem
refero” Diels p, 542.

τὴν δύναμι. This is evidently a Stoic description of
God as the power which binds the parts of the world
together and keeps them in union.

συναπτικήν. We should expect συνεκτικήν, which is
the more natural word in this connection. Sext. Math.
1X. 84 ἀνάγκη dpa ὑπὸ τῆς ἀρίστης αὐτὸν (τὸν κόσμον)
φύσεως συνέχεσθαι ἐπεὶ καὶ περιέχει τὰς πάντων φύσεις
«τοιαύτη δὲ τυγχάνουσα θεός ἐστιν. On the other hand
συνάπτω συναφή and the like are technically applied to
the structure of manufactured articles, which are said to
be ἐκ συναπτομένων) (ἡνωμένα : ib. 78 ἐκ συναπτομένων
δὲ τὰ ἔκ τε παρακειμένων καὶ πρὸς ἕν τε κεφάλαιον νευόν-
των συνεστῶτα ὡς ἁλύσεις καὶ πυργίσκοι καὶ νῆες.

41. Cic. N.D. 1. 36, aethera deum dicit (Zeno). Ter-
tullian adv. Marcion I. 13 deos pronuntiaverunt...ut Zeno
aerem et aetherem. Minuc. Fel. 19. 10 aethera interdiu
omnium esse principium. Cic. Acad. 1. 126 Zenoni et
reliquis fere Stoicis aether videtur summus deus [if fere

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 91

is pressed here, it points to the exception of Cleanthes,
but see on Cleanth. fr. 15].

aethera not to be confounded ἜΤ ἀὴρ, which is one
of the four elements and subject to destruction ; aerem in
Tertull. is probably a blunder, unless with Stein, Psych.
n. 80, aut should be read for et. The aether here in
question is an equivalent of πνεῦμα or of πῦρ τεχνικόν,
ie. it is merely one of the labels convenient to express
the material essence of God. Neither πῦρ nor αἰθὴρ is
regarded in itself as a complete description. For the
distinction between the Stoic αἰθὴρ and the Heraclitean
πῦρ see Stein, Psychologie p. 26 and n. 31. The Stoic
deity is at once corporeal and rational: but how far it may
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 thinkers.

42. Stob. Ecl. 1.1. 29” p. 35, 9, Ζήνων ὁ Στωικὸς νοῦν
κόσμου πύρινον (scil. θεὸν ἀπεφήνατο). August. adv, Acad.
I. 17. 38 nam et deum ipsum ignem putavit (Zeno).

Cf. Stob. Ἐπ]. 1. 1. 29° p. 38, 2 ἀνωτάτω πάντων νοῦν
ἐναιθέριον εἶναι θεόν.

For the Stoic conception of the World-Soul see Stein,
Psychologie 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 Ur-
pneumarestes der als Gott Aether unser Weltganzes
umspannt ; sie ist als Ausfluss der Gottheit jenes kiinst-
lerische gottliche Feuer (πῦρ τεχνικὸν) das die Keimkriifte
(σπερματικοὺς λόγους) der Weltbildung im allgemeinen
und der Einzelbildungen insbesondere in sich enthilt.”
In regarding νοῦς 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. Τὶ 1. p. 287 n. 7.

The MSS κόσμον was corrected to κόσμου by Krische
p. 378, who supplies θεὸν ἀπεφήνατο. Hirzel τι. p. 220, 2
prefers to put a comma after κόσμου: otherwise καὶ

πύρινον is necessary.
43. Themist. de An. 72b [ed. Speng. 1. p. 64, 25]

τάχα δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος σύμφωνος ἡ δόξα διὰ
πάσης οὐσίας πεφοιτηκέναι τὸν θεὸν τιθεμένοις καὶ ποῦ
μὲν εἶναι νοῦν ποῦ δὲ ψυχὴν ποῦ δὲ φύσιν ποῦ δὲ ἕξιν.
This same force, appearing in different substances, is
called ἕξις as the bond of union for inorganic matter,
_ φύσις in the case of. plants, ψυχη in the case of animals,
and voids as belonging to rational beings. Diog. L. vu.139 80’
ὧν μὲν yap ὡς ἕξις κεχώρηκεν ὡς διὰ τῶν ὀστῶν Kal τῶν
νευρῶν δι’ ὧν δὲ ὡς νοῦς ὡς διὰ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ, cf.
Cleanth. Frag. 51. Some Stoics seem however to have
denied this distinction between ψυχὴ and νοῦς. Nemes.
Nat. Hom. c. 1 (quoted by Stein, Psych. pp. 92, 3) τινὲς
δὲ οὐ διέστειλαν ἀπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς τὸν νοῦν: ἀλλὰ τῆς
οὐσίας αὐτῆς ἡγεμονικὸν εἶναι τὸ νοερὸν ἡγοῦνται. Stein
however is not justified in holding that the living principle
of animals occupies a position midway between φύσις and
ψυχή, as will be shown on Cleanth. frag. 44. That the
passage is good evidence that the distinction between
ἕξις, φύσις and ψυχὴ is Zenonian may be inferred from
the words σύμφωνος ἡ δόξα.

44. Lactant. de Vera Sap. c. 9, Zeno rerum naturae
dispositorem atque artificem universitatis λόγον praedicat
quem et fatum et necessitatem rerum et deum et animum
Iovis nuncupat. Tertull. Apol. 21 Apud vestros quoque
sapientes λόγον id est sermonem atque rationem constat
artificem videri universitatis. Hune enim Zeno determinat

™~

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 99

factitatorem qui cuncta in dispositione formaverit eundem
et fatum vocari et deum et animum Iovis et necessitatem
omnium rerum. Mainuce. Fel. 19. 10 rationem deum vocat
Zeno. Lact. Inst. Iv. 9 siquidem Zeno rerum naturae dis-
positorem atque opificem universitatis λόγον praedicat
quem et fatum et necessitatem rerum et deum et animum
Jovis nuncupat: ea scilicet consuetudine qua solent Iovem
pro deo accipere.

45. Stob. Ecl. 1. 5. 15. p. 78, 18, Ζήνων 6 Στωικὸς
ἐν TO περὶ φύσεως (THY εἱμαρμένην) δύναμιν κινητικὴν τῆς
ὕλης κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως ἥντινα μὴ διαφέρειν
πρόνοιαν καὶ φύσιν καλεῖν. Theodoret, Graec. Aff. Cur.
vi. 14. p. 87, 26 Ζήνων δὲ ὁ Κιτεὺς δύναμιν κέκληκε
τὴν εἱμαρμένην κινητικὴν τῆς ὕλης τὴν δὲ αὐτὴν καὶ
πρόνοιαν καὶ φύσιν ὠνόμασεν.

μὴ διαφέρειν. God receives different names, while his
essence is constant, owing to the various phases of his
union with matter (τὰς προσηγορίας μεταλαμβάνειν Sv
ὅλης τῆς ὕλης δι’ ἧς κεχώρηκε παράλλαξαν Stob. Ecl. 1.
1. 29b p. 37, 23, according to Diels and Wachsmuth ἃ
mistake for διὰ tas τῆς ὕλης Ov ἧς κεχώρηκε παραλλάξεις).
Thus he is Fate as acting in accordance with a constant
law, Forethought as working to an end, and Nature as
creator of the word. Cf. Athenag. Supplic. ο. 6. p. 7B
οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς Kav ταῖς προσηγορίαις κατὰ τὰς

, a a Bee \ fe) a lal
παραλλάξεις τῆς VANS, δι’ ἧς φασι τὸ πνεῦμα χωρεῖν τοῦ
θεοῦ, πληθύνωσι τὸ θεῖον τοῖς ὀνόμασι, τῷ γοῦν ἔργῳ
ἕνα νομίζουσι τὸν θεόν" εἰ yap ὁ μὲν θεὸς πῦρ τεχνικὸν
can , 5. \ , , > ΝΥ
ὁδῷ βαάδιζον ἐπὶ γενέσεις κόσμου ἐμπεριειληφὸς ἅπαντας
τοὺς σπερματικοὺς λόγους καθ᾽ ods ἕκαστα καθ᾽ εἱμαρμένην
γίνεται, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ διήκει δι’ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου,
ς \ e > ’ \ \ \ Ν \ / a “,

ὁ θεὸς εἷς κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς Ζεὺς μὲν κατὰ τὸ ζέον τῆς ὕλης
> , “ \ κ᾿ \ 7 \ \ \ ᾽
ὀνομαζόμενος Ἥρα δὲ κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ καθ

94 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

ἕκαστον τῆς ὕλης μέρος δι’ ἧς κεχώρηκεν καλούμενος. In
this connection it may be observed that Gercke(Chrysippea,
p- 697) is mistaken in speaking of a fragment of Zeno
as préserved by Aristocles ap. Euseb. P. E. xv. 14. The
reference there is to the Stoics generally and not to Zeno
in particular.

45a. Diog. L. vit. 149, καθ᾽ εἱμαρμένην δέ φασι τὰ
πάντα γίγνεσθαι Χρύσιππος...καὶ ἸΠοσειδώνιος... καὶ
Ζήνων Βοηθὸς δέ.

Since εἱμαρμένη is identical with πρόνοια, it follows
that everything is produced κατὰ πρόνοιαν. Cleanthes,
however, demurred to this (frag. 18).

46. Cic. N.D. π΄ 57, Zeno igitur ita naturam definit
ut eam dicat ignem esse artificiosum ad gignendum pro-
gredientem via. Censet enim artis maxime proprium
esse creare et gignere, quodque in operibus nostrarum
artium manus efficiat, id multo artificiosius naturam
efficere, id est, ut dixi, ignem artificiosum magistrum ar-
tium reliquarum. Cic. Acad. 1. 39 Zeno statuebat ignem
esse ipsam naturam. N.D. ul. 27 naturae artificiose
ambulantis, ut ait Zeno. Wachsmuth (Comm. 1. p. 9) adds
Tertull. ad. Nat. 11. 2 cuius (ignis) instar vult esse naturam
Zeno.

The Greek of the definition is ἡ φύσις ἐστι πῦρ τεχνι-
κὸν ὁδῷ βάδιζον eis γένεσιν, Diog. L. vit. 156. Clem.
Alex. Strom. v. p. 597. φύσις is only another name for
God viewed in his creative capacity. Hence Stob. Ἐπὶ. 1.
1, 29” p. 37, 20 of Στωικοὶ νοερὸν θεὸν ἀποφαίνονται πῦρ
τεχνικὸν ὁδῷ βάδιζον ἐπὶ γενέσει κόσμου, ἐμπεριειληφὸς.
πάντας τοὺς σπερματικοὺς λόγους καθ᾽ ods ἅπαντα καθ᾽
εἱμαρμένην γίνεται : Athenag. 1. 6. Wellmann, p. 472 and
Weygoldt p. 35 think that λόγος σπερματικὸς is a Zenonian
expression, So Stein, Psych. p. 49 and n. 87.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 95

47. ‘Tatian ad Graec. c. 3, p. 143.0, καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἀπο-
δειχθήσεται κακῶν κατ᾽ αὐτὸν (scil. Ζήνωνα) ποιητής, ἐν
ἀμάραις τε καὶ σκώληξι καὶ ἀρρητουργοῖς καταγινόμενος.

Cf. Clem. Alex. Protrept. ὅ § 66 οὐδὲ μὴν τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς
Στοᾶς παρελεύσομαι διὰ πάσης ὕλης καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀτιμο-
τάτης τὸ θεῖον διήκειν λέγοντας" οἱ καταισχύνουσιν ἀτεχ-
vos τὴν φιλοσοφίαν: Sext. Pyrrh. mt. 218 Στωικοὶ δὲ
πνεῦμα διῆκον καὶ διὰ τῶν εἰδεχθῶν : Cic. Acad. τι. 120 cur
deus omnia nostra causa cum faceret—sic enim voltis—
tantam vim natricum viperarumque fecerit? cur mortifera
tam multa et perniciosa terra marique disperserit? We
have no information as to what answer Zeno made to this
objection, but the later Stoics said that physical evils
ultimately served a good purpose: so Chrysippus ap. Plut.
Sto. Rep. 21, 4 quoted by Zeller, p. 189. As to the
existence of moral evil see on Cleanth. fr. 48, 1.17 and
Wellmann’s discussion at p. 472.

48. Cic. N. D. τι. 58, Ipsius vero mundi qui omnia
complexu suo coercet et continet natura non artificiosa
solum sed plane artifex ab eodem Zenone dicitur consultrix
et provida utilitatum opportunitatumque omnium.

An ingenious explanation of this difficult passage is
given by Stein, Psychologie, pp. 42, 43 in accordance
with his view of the distinction between World-Soul and
Aether-God. “Die natura artificiosa ist unseres Erach-
tens die Weltseele, wihrend die natura plane artifex
sich auf den Gott Aether oder das ἡγεμονικὸν der Welt
bezieht.” The πνεῦμα which permeates the universe is
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 (σῶμα
τὸ καθαρώτατον), whereas the world-soul is less καθαρὸν
from its combination with matter.

96 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

artifex: probably a translation of τεχνίτης Diog. L.
vu. 86, but Hirzel 11. p. 220 represents it by reap
in which case ef. Diog. L. vil. 137.

49. Chalcid. in Tim. c. 290, Plerique tamen silvam
separant ab essentia, ut Zeno et Chrysippus. Silvam
quippe dicunt esse id quod subest his omnibus quae
habent qualitates, essentiam vero primam rerum omnium
silvam vel antiquissimum fundamentum earum, suapte
natura sine vultu et informe: ut puta aes, aurum, ferrum,
et caetera huius modi silva est eorum, quae ex iisdem
fabrefiunt, non tamen essentia. At vero quod tam his
quam ceteris ut sint causa est, ipsum esse substantiam.

This passage shows that Zeno distinguished between
οὐσία and vAn—the former the indeterminate and formless
matter underlying the universe, and the latter the stuff
out of which a particular thing is made. ὕλη is thus
from one point of view the more general term, since οὐσία
Ξ- πρώτη ὕλη (frag. 51). Cf. Dexipp. ad Cat. Schol. Arist.
Brandis 45 a 21 ἐστὶ τὸ ὑποκειμένον διττὸν καὶ κατὰ τοὺς
ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς καὶ κατὰ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους ἕν μὲν τὸ λεγό-
μενον πρῶτον ὑποκείμενον ὡς ἡ ἄποιος ὕλη ἣν δυνάμει σῶμα
ὁ ᾿Αριστοτέλης φησὶν δεύτερον δὲ ὑποκείμενον τὸ ποιὸν
ὃ κοινῶς ἢ ἰδίως ὑφίστατο κιτίλ. Similarly Arist. Metaph.
vu. 4. 1044 a 15 distinguishes πρώτη and οἰκεία ὕλη and
ib. Iv. 24. 1023 a 27 says that material origin may be
specified in two ways ἢ κατὰ τὸ πρῶτον γένος ἢ κατὰ
τὸ ὕστατον εἶδος οἷον ἔστι μὲν ὡς ἅπαντα τὰ τηκτὰ ἐξ
ὕδατος (i.e. brass as being fusible comes from water) ἔστι
δ᾽ ὡς ἐκ χαλκοῦ ὁ ἀνδριάς. The point of view of Posi-
donius is different: he holds διαφέρειν τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς
ὕλης τὴν «αὐτὴν; οὖσαν κατὰ τὴν ὑπόστασιν, ἐπινοίᾳ
μόνον. Stob. Ecl. 1. 11. 5°, p. 133, 22. Wellmann (Neue
Jahrb. vol. 115, p. 808) denies that it is a necessary inference

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO, 97

from this passage that Zeno taught the doctrine of the
four Stoic categories. Stein, Psych. n. 73, explaining the
passage generally as above, apparently identifies οὐσία
with κοινῶς ποιόν, and ὕλη with ἰδίως ποιόν, but this
distinction is a subordinate one, for οὐσία is entirely
distinct from ποιόν, whether κοινῶς or ἰδίως, as Dexipp.
lic. shows.

50. Chalcid. in Tim. ο. 292. Deinde Zeno hanc ipsam
essentiam finitam esse dicit unamque eam communem
omnium quae sunt esse substantiam, dividuam quoque
et 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 nec
ullam omnino qualitatem propriam fore censet funda-
menti rerum omnium silvae, coniunctam tamen esse
semper et inseparabiliter cohaerere alicui qualitati. Cum-
que tam 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 eam rationabiliter totam interdum, nonnumquam
pro portione, quae causa sit tam crebrae tamque vehe-
mentis universae rei conversionis ; spiritum porro motivum
illum fore non naturam, sed animam et quidem rationabi-
lem, quae vivificans sensilem mundum exornaverit eum
ad hanc, qua nunc inlustratur, venustatem. Quem qui-
dem beatum animal et deum adpellant.

fintam. This is in strong contrast with Epicurean
teaching: it follows from the Stoic doctrine of the unity
of the world, and is connected with that of the infinity
of space, cf. Chrysippus ap. Stob. Ecl. 1. 18. 44 p. 161, 19
tov δὲ τόπον (1.6. full space) πεπερασμένον διὰ τὸ μηδὲν
σῶμα ἄπειρον εἶναι. καθάπερ δὲ τὸ σωματικὸν πεπε-

UP, 7

98 ΝΑ, THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

ρασμένον εἶναι οὕτως τὸ ἀσώματον ἄπειρον, Diog. VIL. 150
σῶμα δέ ἐστι κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἡ οὐσία καὶ πεπερασμένη. The
Stoic view is refuted by Lucr. 1. 1008—1051, who con-
cludes thus:— infinita opus est vis undique materiai.
Similarly Diog. L. x. 41 εἴτε yap ἦν τὸ κενὸν ἄπειρον
τὰ δὲ σώματα ὡρισμένα, οὐδαμοῦ ἂν ἔμενε τὰ σώματα, ἀλλ᾽
ἐφέρετο κατὰ τὸ ἄπειρον κενὸν διεσπαρμένα, οὐκ ἔχοντα
τὰ ὑπερείδοντα καὶ στέλλοντα κατὰ τὰς ἀντικοπάς.

unamque eam ete. See on frag. 51.

cerearum : wax is chosen as being one of the most
pliable substances. Cf. Sext. Math. vil. 375 ὁ μαλακώ-
τατος κηρός...τυποῦται μὲν ὑπό τινος ἅμα νοήματι διὰ τὴν
ὑγρότητα οὐ συνέχει δὲ τὸν τύπον. A very close parallel}
will be found in Ov. Met. xv. 169: (of Pythagoras)

utque novis facilis signatur cera figuris,
nec manet ut fuerat, nec formas servat easdem,
sed tamen ipsa eadem est; animam sic semper
eandem

esse, sed in varias doceo migrare figuras.

neque formam ete. Cf. Posid. ap. Stob. Ecl. 1. 11. 5°
p. 133, 18 τὴν τῶν ὅλων οὐσίαν καὶ ὕλην ἄποιον καὶ
ἄμορφον εἶναι καθ᾽ ὅσον οὐδὲν ἀποτεταγμένον ἴδιον ἔχει
σχῆμα οὐδὲ ποιότητα καθ᾽ αὑτὴν ἀεὶ δ᾽ ἔν τινε σχήματι
καὶ ποιότητι εἶναι. In this respect the Stoics simply
adopted Aristotle’s conception of ὕλη, ef. Metaph. Z. 3.
1029 a 20 λέγω δ᾽ ὕλην ἣ καθ᾽ αὑτὴν μήτε τι μήτε ποσὸν
μήτε ἄλλο μηδὲν λέγεται οἷς ὥρισται τὸ ὄν. Arist. ap.
Stob. Ecl. 1. 11. 4, p. 132 foll. concluding thus :---δεῖν γὰρ
ἀμφοῖν (1.6. ὕλης καὶ εἴδους) τῆς συνόδου πρὸς τὴν τοῦ
σώματος ὑπόστασιν. The distinction between the two
schools is that, whereas the Stoics defined ὕλη as σῶμα
(Stob. Ecl. 1. 11. δὴ p. 133, 16), Aristotle declared it to be
σωματικὴ merely, but this distinction is more apparent
than real.

C

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 99

sine ortu: ἀΐδιος, σύγχρονος τῷ θεῷ, infra frag. 51.

neque de non eaistente: the denial of ἁπλῶς γένεσις
ἐκ μὴ ὄντος is common to all ancient philosophy. See
Tyndall, fragments of Science p. 91 (quoted by Munro on
Luer. 1. 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 power.” Cf. Posidonius ap. Stob. Ecl. 1. 20. 7,
Ῥ. 178, 2, τὴν μὲν yap ἐκ τῶν οὐκ ὄντων Kal τὴν εἰς οὐκ
ὄντα (φθορὰν καὶ γένεσιν)... ἀπέγνωσαν ἀνύπαρκτον οὖσαν.
M. Aurel. Iv. 4.

moveat, κινητικὴν τῆς ὕλης, frag. 45.

non naturam: in apparent contradiction to frag. 46,
but we shall probably explain: the πνεῦμα is not merely
φύσις, it is also ψυχή, nay more it is ψυχὴ λόγον ἔχουσα,
Le. νοῦς.

animal, frag. 62. dewm: observe that this is attributed
to the school in general and not to Zeno in particular,
cf. frag. 66.

51. Stob. ἘΠ]. 1. 11. 5°, p. 132, 26. Ζήνωνος" οὐσίαν
δὲ εἶναι THY τῶν ὄντων πάντων πρώτην ὕλην, ταύτην δὲ
πᾶσαν ἀΐδιον καὶ οὔτε πλείω γιγνομένην οὔτε ἐλάττω"

\ \ ,ὔ if. ᾽ + ieee ’ Ἂς ,ὔ > δ ὃ
τὰ δὲ μέρη ταύτης οὐκ ἀεὶ ταὐτὰ διαμένειν ἀλλὰ διαι-
ρεῖσθαι καὶ συγχεῖσθαι. διὰ ταύτης δὲ διαθεῖν τὸν τοῦ

Ν a a
παντὸς λόγον, ὃν ἔνιοι εἱμαρμένην καλοῦσιν, οἱόνπερ ἐν TH
γονῇ τὸ σπέρμα. Ἐρίρῃδη. Haeres. 1. 5, Diels, p. 558,

, ? \ ᾽ν , \ “ , a
paces οὖν καὶ οὗτος (Ζήνων) τὴν ὕλην σύγχρονον καλῶν
τῷ θεῷ ἴσα ταῖς ἄλλαις αἱρέσεσιν, εἱμαρμένην τε εἶναι
καὶ γένεσιν ἐξ ἧς τὰ πάντα διοικεῖται καὶ πάσχει. Diog.
L. vil. 150, οὐσίαν δέ φασι τῶν ὄντων ἁπάντων τὴν

, 7

2. “ As , a Ἂ al ᾽ 4 \

πρωτην ὕλην ὡς... Ζήνων... καλεῖται δὲ διχῶς οὐσία τε Kal

7—2

100 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

ὕλη ἥ τε τῶν πάντων Kal ἡ τῶν ἐπὶ μέρους. ἡ μὲν οὖν
τῶν ὕλων οὔτε πλείων οὔτε ἐλάττων γίνεται ἡ δὲ τῶν
ἐπὶ μέρους καὶ πλείων καὶ ἐλάττων. Tertull. de Praes.
Cup. c. 7, et ubi materia cum deo exaequatur Zenonis
disciplina est.

Cf Chalcid. in Tim. ο. 294, Stoici deum scilicet hoc
esse quod silva sit vel etiam qualitatem inseparabilem
deum silvae, eundemque per silvam meare, velut semen
per membra genitalia.

οὔτε πλέω The ἄποιος ὕλη is, as we have seen,
ὡρισμένη and πεπερασμένη: being also ἀΐδιος it is in-
capable of increase or diminution. Its parts however (i.e.
matter as seen in the ἰδίως ποιὸν or individually deter-
mined thing) are subject to destruction and change. See
the further authorities cited by Zeller, Stoics, p. 101, n. 2:

διαιρεῖσθαι καὶ συγχεῖσθαι. Strictly speaking both these
terms are to be distinguished from the theory of inter-
mingling which was characteristic of Stoicism (κρᾶσις
8’ ὅλων, and see infra). Thus διαίρεσις is the sepa-
ration of substances which have been combined by
παράθεσις, e.g. a heap of barley, wheat or beans, while
σύγχυσις is the chemical fusion of two distinct substances
which lose their essential properties in consequence of the
process (Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Ecl. 1. 17. 4, p. 154, 10—155,
14). The Stoic κρᾶσις or μῖξις is distinguished from the
former by its implication of entire permeation, and from
the latter owing to the retention of their properties by
the ingredients.

52. Stob. Ecl. τ. 17. 3, p. 152, 19. Ζήνωνα δὲ οὕτως
ἀποφαίνεσθαι διαῤῥήδην" τοιαύτην δὲ δεήσει εἶναι ἐν
περιόδῳ τὴν τοῦ ὅλου διακόσμησιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας, ὅταν ἐκ
πυρὸς τροπὴ εἰς ὕδωρ δι᾿’ ἀέρος γένηται, τὸ μέν τι ὑφίσ-
τασθαι καὶ γῆν συνίστασθαι [καὶ] ἐκ τοῦ λουποῦ δὲ τὸ

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 101

\ ’ A > \ lal > , ΝᾺ /
μὲν διαμένειν ὕδωρ, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ἀτμιξομένου ἀέρα γίνεσθαι
λεπτυνομένου δὲ τοῦ ἀέρος πῦρ ἐξάπτεσθαι, τὴν δὲ μῖξιν
«καὶ» κρᾶσιν γίνεσθαι τῇ εἰς ἄλληλα τῶν στοιχείων

a , vA 3° 6 7 δυο ,

μεταβολῇ σώματος ὅλου δι᾽ ὅλου τινὸς ἑτέρου διερχομένου.
Diog. L. vil. 135, 136, ἕν τε εἶναι θεὸν καὶ νοῦν καὶ
εἱμαρμένην καὶ Δία πολλαῖς τε ἑτέραις ὀνομασίαις προσ-
ονομάξεσθαι. κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς μὲν οὖν καθ᾽ αὑτὸν ὄντα τρέπειν
τὴν πᾶσαν οὐσίαν δι’ ἀέρος εἰς ὕδωρ' καὶ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ
γονῇ τὸ σπέρμα περιέχεται οὕτω καὶ τοῦτον σπερματικὸν
λόγον ὄντα τοῦ κόσμου, τοιόνδε ὑπολείπεσθαι ἐν τῷ ὑγρῷ
εὐεργὸν αὑτῷ ποιοῦντα τὴν ὕλην πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἑξῆς
γένεσιν" εἶτα ἀπογεννᾶν πρῶτον τὰ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα

fal [72 δι, lol / \ \ > a , 3: A
πῦρ, ὕδωρ, ἀέρα, γῆν. λέγει δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν Ζήνων ἐν τῷ
περὶ τοῦ ὅχου. Diog. 1. vil. 142, γίνεσθαι δὲ τὸν κόσμον
ὅταν ἐκ πυρὸς ἡ οὐσία τραπῇ δι’ ἀέρος εἰς ὑγρότητα, εἶτα
τὸ παχυμερὲς αὐτοῦ συστὰν ἀποτελεσθῇ γῆ τὸ δὲ λεπτο-

\ > a iN pant eet omeh § , \ a ᾽

μερὲς ἐξαερωθῇ, καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπὶ πλέον λεπτυνθὲν πῦρ ἀπο-
γεννήσῃ" εἶτα κατὰ μῖξιν ἐκ τούτων φυτά τε καὶ ζῷα καὶ

\ Μ- ,ὔ \ \ > lal , \ a “Ὁ
τὰ ἄλλα γένη. περὶ δὴ οὖν τῆς γενέσεως καὶ τῆς φθορᾶς

“- , ,Ἶ ᾿ \ >’ a \ “
τοῦ κόσμου φησὶ Ζήνων μὲν ἐν τῷ περὶ ὅλου, κ.τ.λ.
Probus ad Verg. p. 10, 33 K. ex his (quatuor elementis)
omnia esse postea effigiata Stoici tradunt Zenon Citieus
et Chrysippus Solaeus et Cleanthes Assius.

ἐν περιόδῳ: these words seem to refer to the periodic

renewal of the world after each ἐκπύρωσις and to a
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. Mare. Aurel. X. 7, ὥστε καὶ ταῦτα ἀναληφθῆναι εἰς τὸν

ae , » \ / > / »
τοῦ ὅλου λόγον, εἴτε κατὰ περίοδον ἐκπυρουμένου εἴτε K.T.DV.
Numenius ap. Euseb. P. E. xv. 18,1, ἀρέσκει δὲ τοῖς
πρεσβυτάτοις τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως ταύτης ἐξυγροῦσθαι
πάντα κατὰ περιόδους τινὰς τὰς μεγίστας εἰς πῦρ αἰθε-
ρῶδες ἀναλυομένων πάντων.

102 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. |

ὅταν ἐκ πυρὸς τροπὴ κτλ. The evolution of ὕδωρ
from the πῦρ τεχνικὸν is first described and then the
subsequent generation of the four elements from τὸ
ὑγρόν. This appears more clearly in the first extract
from Diogenes than in the actual words of Zeno as
reported by Stobaeus. Zeno is here following very closely
in the footsteps of Heraclitus (πυρὸς τροπαὶ πρῶτον
O@dracca’ θαλάσσης δὲ τὸ μὲν ἥμισυ γῇ τὸ δὲ ἥμισυ
πρηστήρ, R. and P. ὃ 30) but differs from him in adopting
the theory of the four elements, and to this fact is due
the introduction of the words δ ἀέρος. Cf. also the
account of Anaximenes, ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 6 a, ’Avafi-
μένης ἀραιούμενον μὲν τὸν ἀέρα πῦρ γίγνεσθαί φησι,
πυκνούμενον δὲ ἄνεμον, εἶτα νέφος, εἶτα ἔτι μᾶλλον ὕδωρ,
εἶτα γῆν, εἶτα λίθους τὰ δὲ ἄλλα ἐκ τούτων. The ἄνω
κάτω ὁδὸς appears clearly in the passage in Stobaeus, cf.
Cleanth. frag. 21. There are certain difficulties in this
account of the διακόσμησις, which, although not discussed
in the authorities, it is right to state even if no satis-
factory solution of them can be given. (1) Is the ἐξύ-
γρωσις entirely distinct from and anterior to the formation
of the four elements? 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 κάτω ὁδός. That an entire resolution of the πῦρ
τεχνικὸν into ὑγρόν (except as regards τὸ ἔσχατον τοῦ
πυρός) was taught by the Stoa is also clear from Cornut.
c. 17, p. 85, Osann. ἔστι δὲ Χάος μὲν τὸ πρὸ τῆς διακοσ-
μήσεως γενόμενον ὑγρόν, ἀπὸ τῆς χύσεως οὕτως ὦνο-
μασμένον, ἢ τὸ πῦρ, ὅ ἐστιν οἱονεὶ κάος...ἦν δέ ποτε, ὦ
παῖ, πῦρ τὸ πᾶν καὶ γενήσεται πάλιν ἐν περιόδῳ"
σβεσθέντος δ᾽ εἰς ἀέρα αὐτοῦ μεταβολὴ ἀθρόα γίνεται
εἰς ὕδωρ" ὃ δὴ λαμβάνει τοῦ μὲν ὑφισταμένου μέρους τῆς
οὐσίας κατὰ πύκνωσιν τοῦ δὲ λεπτυνομένου κατὰ ἀραίωσιν.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 103

(2) Is the éEvypwous merely a step in the creative process
or is it to be regarded, as it apparently was by Cleanthes,
as the antithesis of the ἐκπύρωσις ἡ Perhaps it is safest
to regard Zeno as an exponent of the simple ὁδὸς ἄνω
κάτω and to treat the complications in connection with
the τόνος theory of Cleanthes (frag. 24).

τροπῆ, codd. corr. Heeren. τραπῇ, Mein. (del. γένηται)
coll. D. L. vir. 142.

λεπτυνομένου, «.t.A. 15 the corr. of Wachsm. for the MSs. ἔκ
τινος δὲ τοῦ ἀέρος, coll. Chrysipp. ap. Plut. Sto. Rep. 41, 3.

μῖξιν. The mixture of dry substances )( κρᾶσιν the
fusion of moist. For a full discussion of the peculiar
Stoic doctrine, see Zeller, Stoics, p. 136 foll. It carries
with it practically a negation of the physical truth that
two bodies cannot occupy the same space. Chrysippus,
who devoted much attention both to the positive expo-
sition and controversial defence of this doctrine, illustrated
it by several practical examples, one of which, from its
obscurity, deserves consideration: καὶ γὰρ εἰς πέλαγος
ὀλίγος οἶνος βληθεὶς ἐπὶ πόσον ἀντιπαρεκταθήσεται συμ-
φθαρήσεται (Diog. L. vit. 151), i.e. the disappearance of the
wine particles can only be explained on the hypothesis of
their equable distribution. Stein observes (Psych. nn. 29,35)
that the Ionian ἀλλοίωσις is not found in the Stoa before
Marcus Aurelius, but this is inaccurate. Thus Posidonius,
ap. Stob. Eel. 1. 25, p. 178, 7, after explaining that there
are four kinds of μεταβολή, (1) κατὰ διαίρεσιν, (2) κατ᾽
ἀλλοίωσιν, (3) κατὰ σύγχυσιν, (4) ἐξ ὅλων or κατ᾽
ἀνάλυσιν, proceeds :---τούτων δὲ τὴν κατ᾽ ἀλλοίωσιν περὶ
τὴν οὐσίαν γίνεσθαι τὰς δ᾽ ἄλλας τρεῖς περὶ τοὺς ποιοὺς
λεγομένους τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆς οὐσίας γινομένους.

53. Galen, εἰς τὸ ‘Itrroxpatou ὑπόμνημα περὶ χυμῶν
I, (XVI. 32 K.) Ζήνων τε ὁ Κιτιεὸς [ὃς] τὰς ποιότητας οὕτω

104 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

καὶ τὰς οὐσίας δι’ ὅλου κεράννυσθαι ἐνόμιξεν, id. de nat.
facult. 1. 2, εἰ δ᾽ ὥσπερ τὰς ποιότητας καὶ τὰς οὐσίας δι᾿
ὅλων κεράννυσθαι χρὴ νομίζειν, ὡς ὕστερον ἀπεφήνατο
Ζήνων ὁ Κιτιεός. (Galen says that this theory was ulti-
mately due to Hippocrates, from whom Aristotle took it.)

The best commentary on this frag. is to be found in
Sext. Pyrrh. 111. 57—62, which contains a statement and
refutation of the doctrine here referred to. The following
short summary will make the meaning clear :—Things
which are subject to the influence of κρᾶσις are them-
selves a combination of οὐσία and ποιότητες: when
mixture takes place, we must either say that the οὐσίαι
are mixed or that the ποιότητες are mixed, or that both
or neither are mixed. The last alternative is obviously
absurd, and the same may be shown to be the case with
either of the two first, λείπεται λέγειν ὅτι Kal ai ποιότητες
τῶν κιρναμένων καὶ ai οὐσίαι χωροῦσι δι’ ἀλλήλων Kal
μιγνύμεναι τὴν κρᾶσιν ἀποτελοῦσιν (§ 59). But this is
still more absurd. Mix one spoonful of hemlock juice
with ten of water: if both entirely permeate each other,
they must occupy the same space and be equal to each
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 ποιότης was material no less than οὐσία. “ Aris-
totle’s εἶδος becomes a current of air or gas (πνεῦμα), 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. Stob. Ecl. 1. 20. 1°, p.171, 2. Ζήνωνι καὶ Κλεάνθει
καὶ Χρυσίππῳ ἀρέσκει τὴν οὐσίαν μεταβάλλειν οἷον eis
σπέρμα τὸ πῦρ, καὶ πάλιν ἐκ τούτου τοιαύτην ἀποτε-

»-ῶνς

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 105

λεῖσθαι τὴν διακόσμησιν οἵα πρότερον ἦν. Euseb. P. E.
XV. 18. 3, ἀρέσκει γὰρ τοῖς Στωικοῖς φιλοσόφοις τὴν ὅχην
οὐσίαν μεταβάλλειν εἰς πῦρ οἷον εἰς σπέρμα καὶ πάλιν ἐκ
τούτου αὐτὴν ἀποτελεῖσθαι τὴν διακόσμησιν οἵα τὸ πρό-
τερον ἦν καὶ τοῦτο τὸ δόγμα τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως οἱ
πρῶτοι καὶ πρεσβύτατοι προσήκαντο Ζήνων τε καὶ
Κλεάνθης καὶ Χρύσιππος. Arnob. ad Nat. τι. 9, qui ignem
minatur mundo et venerit cum tempus arsurum, non
Panaetio, Chrysippo, Zenoni (credit) ?

The Stoic authorities for the doctrine of ἐκπύρωσις
will be found collected in Zeller, p. 164 n.2. On this
point they were opposed to the Peripatetics who held the
ἀφθαρσία of the κόσμος, and even some of the later Stoics,
notably Panaetius and Boethus, diverged from the teaching
of their predecessors. It is doubtful whether Zeno derived
the ἐκπύρωσις from Heraclitus (see Introd. p. 21): it may
however be observed that it was far more in accordance
with his historical position to maintain the destructibility
of the world, at any rate, so long as we concede any
materiality to his primal fire; if fire is a mere metaphor
to express πάντα ῥεῖ, the case is of course very different.
Cf. Mare. Aurel. m1. 3. The Christian writers often
allude to the ἐκπύρωσις, which serves at once as a
parallel and a contrast to their own doctrine, e.g. Tatian,
adv. Graec. c. 25, p. 162 ©, ἐκπύρωσιν (λέγει τις) ἀπο-
βαίνειν κατὰ χρόνους ἐγὼ δὲ εἰσάπαξ. Justin Martyr,
Apol. I. 20. 20, p. 66 D.

τὸ wip, add. εἰς Heeren whom Heinze, Logos, p. 111,
follows, but the alteration is needless, For σπέρμα cf. M.
Aurel. Iv. 36.

55. Tatian, adv. Graec. c. 5, τὸν Ζήνωνα διὰ τῆς ἐκπυ-
ρώσεως ἀποφαινόμενον ἀνίστασθαι πάλιν τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ
τοῖς αὐτοῖς, λέγω δὲ Ἄνυτον καὶ Μέλητον ἐπὶ τῷ κατη-

106 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

yopeiv Βούσιριν δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ ξενοκτονεῖν καὶ “Hpaxdéa πάλιν
ἐπὶ τῷ ἀθλεῖν παραιτητέον.

Cf. Nemes. Nat. Hom. c. 38, ἔσεσθαι γὰρ πάλιν
Σωκράτη καὶ Πλάτωνα καὶ ἕκαστον τῶν ἀνθρώπων σὺν
τοῖς αὐτοῖς καὶ φίλοις καὶ πολίταις καὶ τὰ αὐτὰ πείσεσθαι
καὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς συντεύξεσθαι καὶ τὰ αὐτὰ μεταχειριεῖσθαι
καὶ πᾶσαν πόλιν καὶ κώμην καὶ ἀγρὸν ὁμοίως ἀποκαθίσ-
τασθαι. The exact repetition in some future cycle of the
world’s course of the events that have already happened
was maintained also by the Pythagoreans, cf. Simpl. Phys.
173 a, εἰ δέ τις πιστεύσειε τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις, ὡς πάλιν
τὰ αὐτὰ ἀριθμῷ, κἀγὼ μυθολογεύσω τὸ ῥαβδίον ἔχων
ὑμῖν καθημένοις οὕτω, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ὁμοίως ἕξει
καὶ τὸν χρόνον εὔχογόν ἐστι τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι (quoted by
Zeller, Pre-Socratics I. p. 474, n. 2). The Stoies were the
more inclined to adopt such a view in consequence of
their belief in the unswerving operation of the decrees of
destiny. Somewhat analogous are the consequences which
flowed from the Epicurean theory of an infinite number
of worlds: ef. Cic. Acad. π΄ 125, et ut nos nunc simus ad
Baulos Puteolosque videamus, sic innumerabilis paribus
in locis isdem esse nominibus, honoribus, rebus gestis,
ingeniis, formis, aetatibus isdem de rebus disputantis?
The subject is well treated by Ogereau, Essai, p. 70.

maparnréov: Tatian’s objection to the Stoic theory is
based on the ground that there is no progress towards
perfection, the bad will be again more numerous than
the just: Socrates and Heracles belong to a very small
minority.

56. [Philo.] περὶ ἀφθαρσίας κόσμου, cc. 23, 24, p. 510,
11, foll. Mang. p. 264, 3 Bern. p. 486, Diels. Θεόφραστος
μέντοι φησὶ τοὺς γένεσιν καὶ φθορὰν τοῦ κόσμου κατη-
γοροῦντας ὑπὸ τεττάρων ἀπατηθῆναι τῶν μεγίστων, Yn

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 107

’ , , BU , ς , a ne
ἀνωμαλίας, θαλάττης ἀναχωρήσεως, ἑκάστου TOV τοῦ ὅλου
μερῶν διαλύσεως, χερσαίων φθορᾶς κατὰ γένη ζῴων. κατα-
σκευάζειν δὲ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον οὕτως" “εἰ μὴ γενέσεως ἀρχὴν
Ν. €. A , e \ 9 \ x »Μ ᾽ a e A
ἔλαβεν ἡ γῆ, μέρος ὑπανεστὸς οὐδὲν ἂν ἔτι αὐτῆς ἑωρᾶτο,
\ > wv \ ow , > ΣΙ , \ e ,
χθαμαλὰ δ᾽ ἤδη τὰ ὄρη πάντ᾽ ἐγεγένητο, καὶ οἱ γεώλοφοι
πάντες ἰσόπεδοι τῇ πεδιάδι" τοσούτων γὰρ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον
> \ wv ’ Ἰιδί / > ᾿ ba A ὃ ,
ἐνιαυτὸν ὄμβρων ἐξ ἀϊδίου φερομένων εἰκὸς ἦν τῶν διηρμένων
πρὸς ὕψος τὰ μὲν χειμάρροις ἀπερρῆχθαι, τὰ δ᾽ ὑπονοστή-
, U \ \ ͵ ΕΣ iA ἃ
σαντα κεχαλάσθαι, πάντα δὲ διὰ πάντων ἤδη λελειάνθαι
\ \ lel > / \ 4 3 fal e \
νυνὶ δὲ συνεχῶς ἀνωμαλίαι Kal παμπόλλων ὀρῶν αἱ πρὸς
> / id, «ς A ie ’ > A lal \ a x
αἰθέριον ὕψος ὑπερβολαὶ μηνύματ᾽ ἐστὶ τοῦ THY γῆν μὴ
> hi 4 Ἔ 4 , ¢€ » Ψ 9 / LA tal
ἀΐδιον εἶναι πάλαι yap, ws ἔφην, ἐν ἀπείρῳ χρόνῳ ταῖς
ἐπομβρίαις ἀπὸ περάτων ἐπὶ πέρατα πᾶσ᾽ ἂν λεωφόρος
> 4 / οἷ εν ts \ U > Ψ
ἐγεγένητο. πέφυκε γὰρ ἡ ὕδατος φύσις καὶ μάλιστα ἀφ
ὑψηλοτάτων καταράττουσα τὼ μὲν ἔξωθεν τῇ βίᾳ, τὰ δὲ
ἢ ρ μὲν ἔξωθεν τῇ βίᾳ, τὰ δὲ
a a a / /
τῷ συνεχεῖ τῶν ψεκάδων κολάπτουσα κοιλαίνειν ὑπερ-
/ , \ la \ 2 DS is
γάζεσθαί τε THY σκληρογέων Kal λιθωδεστάτην ὀρυκτήρων
> » ’ ἢ \ \ “ , ? ΄, εν
οὐκ ἔλαττον. καὶ μὴν ἥ γε θάλασσα, φασίν, “ ἤδη
,
μεμείωται" μάρτυρες δ᾽ αἱ νήσων εὐδοκιμώταται “Ῥόδος
\ a ᾿ e \ \ \ \ 2 ,
τε καὶ Δῆλος" αὗται γὰρ τὸ μὲν παλαιὸν ἠφανισμέναι
\ a / » > , / >
κατὰ τῆς θαλάττης ἐδεδύκεσαν ἐπικλυζόμεναι, χρόνῳ ὃ
ὕστερον ἐλαττουμένης ἠρέμα κατ᾽ ὀλίγον ἀνίσχουσαι, ὡς
αἱ περὶ αὐτῶν ἀνωαγραφεῖσαι μηνύουσιν ἱστορίαι" [τὴν δὲ
Δῆλον καὶ ᾿Αναφὴν ὠνόμασαν δι’ ἀμφοτέρων ὀνομάτων
! x / > \ Ay / ’ a
πιστούμενοι TO λεγόμενον, ἐπειδὴ yap δήλη ἀναφανεῖσα
> , τὰ 7 x 2 x. Ss \ , Ν x
ἐγένετο ἀδηλουμένη καὶ ἀφανὴς οὖσα τὸ πάλαι] πρὸς δὲ
, a / / \ a
τούτοις μεγάλων πελαγῶν μεγάλους κόλπους καὶ βαθεῖς
> ν᾽ a a a
ἀναξηρανθέντας ἠἡπειρῶσθαι καὶ γεγενῆσθαι THs παρακει-
/ a
μένης χώρας μοῖραν οὐ λυπρὰν σπειρομένους Kal φυτευο-
, ~ Μ a a 2 a
μένους, ols σημεῖ ἄττα τῆς παλαιᾶς ἐναπολελεῖφθαι
θαλαττώσεως ψηφῖδάς τε καὶ κόγχας καὶ ὅσα ὁμοιότροπα
πρὸς αἰγιαλοὺς εἴωθεν ἀποβράττεσθαι. [διὸ καὶ Πίνδαρος
ἐπὶ τῆς Δήλου φησί"
Xaip’, ὦ θεοδμάτα, λιπαροπλοκάμου

~

2

10

20

25

30

35

108 _ THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO,

παίδεσσι Λατοῦς ἱμεροέστατον ἔρνος
Πόντου θύγατερ, χθονὸς εὐρείας ἀκίνητον τέρας" av
τε βροτοὶ
40 Δᾶλον κικλήσκουσιν, μάκαρες δ᾽ ἐν Ὀλύμπῳ τηλέ-
φαντον κυανέας χθονὸς ἄστρον.

θυγατέρα γὰρ Πόντου τὴν Δῆλον εἴρηκε τὸ λεχθὲν αἰνιτ-
τόμενος]. εἰ δὴ μειοῦται ἡ θάλαττα, μειωθήσεται μὲν ἡ
γῆ, μακραῖς δ᾽ ἐνιαυτῶν περιόδοις καὶ εἰς ἅπαν ἑκάτερον
- στοιχεῖον ἀναλωθήσεται, δαπανωθήσεται <dé> καὶ 6
45 σύμπας ἀὴρ ἐκ τοῦ κατ᾽ ὀλίγον ἐλαττούμενος, ἀποκρι-

θήσεται δὲ πάντ᾽ εἰς μίαν οὐσίαν τὴν πυρός.
᾿ πρὸς δὲ τὴν τοῦ τρίτου κεφαλαίου κατασκευὴν χρῶνται
λόγῳ τοιῷδε" ‘ φθείρεται πάντως ἐκεῖνο, οὗ πάντα τὰ μέρη
φθαρτά ἐστι, τοῦ δὲ κόσμου πάντα τὰ μέρη φθαρτά ἐστι,
50 φθαρτὸς ἄρα ὁ κόσμος ἐστίν. ὃ δ᾽ ὑπερεθέμεθα νῦν ἐπι-
σκεπτέον. ποῖον μέρος τῆς γῆς, ἵν᾽ ἀπὸ ταύτης ἀρξώμεθα,
μεῖζον ἢ ἔλαττον, οὐ χρόνῳ διαλυθήσεται; λίθων οὗ
κραταιότατοι ap οὐ μυδῶσι καὶ σήπονται κατὰ τὴν ἕξεως
ἀσθένειαν---. ἡ δ᾽ ἔστι πνευματικὸς τόνος, δεσμὸς οὐκ
55 ἄρρηκτος, ἀλλὰ μόνον δυσδιάλυτος]---θρυπτόμενοι καὶ
ῥέοντες εἰς λεπτὴν τὸ πρῶτον ἀναλύονται κόνιν ; [εἶθ᾽
ὕστερον δαπανηθέντες ἐξαναλύονται) τί δέ; εἰ μὴ πρὸς
ἀνέμων ῥιπίζοιτο τὸ ὕδωρ, ἀκίνητον ἐαθὲν οὐχ ὑφ᾽ ἡσυχίας
νεκροῦται ; μεταβάλλει γοῦν καὶ δυσωδέστατον γίγνεταε
60 οἷα ψυχὴν ἀφῃρημένον ζῷον. αἵ γε μὴν ἀέρος φθοραὶ
παντί τῳ δῆλαι" νοσεῖν γὰρ καὶ φθίνειν καὶ τρόπον τιν᾽
ἀποθνήσκειν πέφυκεν. ἐπεὶ τί ἄν τις, μὴ στοχαζόμενος
ὀνομάτων εὐπρεπείας ἀλλὰ τἀληθοῦς, εἴποι λοιμὸν εἶναι
πλὴν ἀέρος θάνατον τὸ οἰκεῖον πάθος ἀναχέοντος ἐπὶ
65 φθορᾷ πάντων ὅσα ψυχῆς μεμοίραται ; τί χρὴ μακρη-
γορεῖν περὶ πυρός ; ἀτροφῆσαν γὰρ αὐτίκα σβέννυται
χωλόν, ἣ φασιν οἱ ποιηταί, γεγονὸς ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ. διὸ σκηριπ-
τόμενον ὀρθοῦται κατὰ τὴν τῆς ἀναφθείσης ὕλης νομήν,
ἐξαναλωθείσης δ᾽ ἀφανίζεται. [τὸ παραπλήσιον μέντοι

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 109

\
καὶ τοὺς κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ινδικὴν δράκοντάς φασι πάσχειν. 70
\ a ,
ἀνέρποντας yap ἐπὶ Ta μέγιστα τῶν ζῴων ἐλέφαντας
A 4 - A F
περὶ νῶτα Kal νηδὺν ἅπασαν εἱλεῖσθαι, φλέβα δ᾽ ἣν ἂν
τύχῃ διελόντας ἐμπίνειν τοῦ αἵματος, ἀπλήστως ἐπι-
΄ ,
σπωμένους βιαίῳ πνεύματι καὶ συντόνῳ ῥοίζῳ. μέχρι μὲν
οὖν τινος ἐξαναλουμένους ἐκείνους ἀντέχειν ὑπ᾽ ἀμηχανίας 75
A a ny
ἀνασκιρτῶντας καὶ TH προνομαίᾳ τὴν πλευρὰν τύπτοντας
ὡς καθιξομένους τῶν δρακόντων, εἶτ᾽ ἀεὶ κενουμένου τοῦ
fal - ,
ζωτικοῦ πηδᾶν μὲν μηκέτι δύνασθαι, κραδαινομένους δ᾽
΄ ef lal a Y
ἑστάναι, μικρὸν δ᾽ ὕστερον Kal τῶν σκελῶν ἐξασθενησάν-
/ ¢€ ἈΝ 4 J , Η ,
των κατασεισθέντας ὑπὸ λιφαιμίας ἀποψύχειν" πεσόντας 80
΄ rn , lel
δὲ τοὺς αἰτίους Tod θανάτου συναπολλύναι τρόπῳ τοιῷδε"
\ e , a
μηκέτ᾽ ἔχοντες τροφὴν οἱ δράκοντες, Ov περιέθεσαν δεσμὸν
ΕῚ “ τ Ἅ > \ wv rn e \ \
ἐπιχειροῦσιν ἐκλύειν ἀπαλλαγὴν ἤδη ποθοῦντες, ὑπὸ δὲ
nr lal rg / a
tov βάρους τῶν ἐλεφάντων θλιβόμενοι πιεζοῦνται Kal
aA ΙΑ / x a ~
πολὺ μᾶλλον ἐπειδὰν τύχῃ στέριφον «ὃν; καὶ λιθῶδες 85
τὸ ἔδαφος" ἰλυσπώμενοι γὰρ καὶ πάντα ποιοῦντες εἰς
διάλυσιν ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ πιέσαντος βίας πεδηθέντες ἑαυτοὺς
πολυτρόπως ἐν ἀμηχάνοις καὶ ἀπόροις γυμνάσαντες
a / nx
ἐξασθενοῦσι «καὶ; καθάπερ οἱ καταλευσθέντες ἢ τείχους
΄ +. 7
αἰφνίδιον ἐπενεχθέντες προκαταληφθέντες, οὐδ᾽ ὅσον ava- 90
fal a a \ a an
κῦψαι δυνάμενοι πνιγῇ τελευτῶσιν. εἰ δὴ τῶν μερῶν
σ aA 4 \ . ee id \ .¢ >:
ἕκαστον Tov κόσμου φθορὰν ὑπομένει, δηλονότι καὶ ὁ ἐξ
αὐτῶν παγεὶς κόσμος ἄφθαρτος οὐκ ἔσται. τὸν δὲ τέταρτον
καὶ λοιπὸν λόγον ἀκριβωτέον ὧδέ φασιν. “εἰ δ᾽ ὁ κόσμος
ἀΐδιος ἦν, ἦν av καὶ τὰ ζῷα ἀΐδια καὶ πολύ γε μᾶλλον τὸ 9ὅ
- > , [7 \ lod Μ Vv ’ Ν
τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος ὅσῳ καὶ TOV ἄλλων ἄμεινον. ἀλλὰ
> ae , lal a , > Aa Ν ,
καὶ ὀψίγονον φανῆναι τοῖς βουλομένοις ἐρευνᾶν Ta φύσεως.
a ᾿] a
εἰκὸς yap μᾶλλον δ᾽ ἀναγκαῖον ἀνθρώποις συνυπάρξαι
" aA as
Tas τέχνας ws av ἰσηλίκας οὐ μόνον OTL λογικῇ TO ἐμμέ-
a iQ lal »
θοδον οἰκεῖον ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅτι ζῆν ἄνευ τούτων οὐκ ἔστιν" 100
ἴδωμεν τοὺς ἑκάστων χρόνους ἀλογήσαντες τῶν ἐπιτραγω-
, a ͵ > \ > 4! Μ #99
δουμένων θεοῖς μύθων y y % εἰ μὴ ἀΐδιος ἄνθρωπος, οὐδ
ἄλλο ζῷον, ὥστ᾽ οὐδ᾽ αἱ δεδεγμέ ῦ ὥραι γῆ
; τι ζῷον, ὥστ᾽ οὐδ᾽ αἱ δεδεγμέναι ταῦτα χῶραι γῆ

110 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO

καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ἀήρ. ἐξ dv τὸ φθαρτὸν εἶναι τὸν κόσμον
δῆλόν ἐστιν.

It will be seen that the writer attributes to Theo-
phrastus the statement and criticism of certain views as
to the creation and destruction of the world, which were
opposed to the Peripatetic doctrine of its eternity. After
the above extract this hostile view is refuted by arguments
obviously derived, in part at least, from Peripatetic
sources’, although the name of Theophrastus is not again
introduced. The question arises, assuming the good faith
of the extract, to whom do these criticised views belong ?
This point was first raised by Zeller in Hermes ΧΙ. 422—
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
world is mortal is supported, belong to the Stoic school.
They cannot belong to a pre-Aristotelian philosopher, for
the doctrine of the eternity of the world and of mankind,
against which they are directed, had not been broached
before Aristotle (see de Caelo 1. 10. 279°12); of the post-
Aristotelians they obviously alone suit the Stoics, who
were alone in holding the periodical destruction of the
world. The second argument, built on the retrocession of
the sea, finds a parallel in the views of a world-flood
attributed to the Stoa by Alexander Aphrod. Meteor.
90* m.; and the dialectical form in which the third and
fourth arguments are couched suggests the same origin.
Again, the authority of Diog. L. vil. 141 is conclusive as to
the third argument, and the terminology of ἕξις, τόνος,
πνεῦμα, and πνευματικὴ δύναμις, to which may be added
οὐσία, ἀναφθείσης ὕλης, and φύσει οἰκεῖον, is undoubtedly
Stoic. Next, it being proved that these arguments belong
to the Stoic school, Zeno is the only Stoic whom Theo-

1 This point is proved in detail by Zeller, 1. 6. p. 424, 5.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 111

phrastus could have criticised, for the latter died in
Ol. 123, that is between 288 and 284 B.c., at a time when
Zeno’s 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
Xenocrates and Speusippus without referring to them by
name. As an additional circumstance pointing to Zeno’s
authorship, we may refer to the form in which the
syllogism introducing the third argument is cast. This is
undoubtedly one of those breves et acutulae conclusiones, so
often mentioned by Cicero as characteristic of the style
of the founder of Stoicism and of which examples (in
addition to those in Cicero) have been preserved by
Sextus Empiricus and Seneca: see the collection in
Introd. p. 38. This is perhaps the right place to observe
that a supposed frag. of Zeno, extracted by Wachsmuth
(Comm. I. p. 8) from Philo de Provid. 1. 12, and to the
same effect as the third argument here, can no longer be
regarded as belonging to Zeno on the authority of that
passage after the explanation of Diels, Doxogr. Gr. proleg.
p. 3.

These views of Zeller have however been vigorously
criticised by Diels (Doxogr. Gr. pp. 106—108). His main
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
“nebulo” had ever read Theophrastus, and suggests that,
finding the 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

112 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

attacks what is undoubtedly Stoic doctrine. The result
is that Diels, though he prints cc. 23—27 in the body of
his work, does not believe that they contain (even after
allowing for later accretions) a genuine excerpt from the
φυσικαὶ δόξαι of the Eresian philosopher. Now it is
obvious that we are only concerned with the question of
the fontes of the Philonian treatise and its general credi- —
bility, in so far as its solution enables us to authenticate
these fragments as belonging to Zeno. Thus, altogether
apart from its appearance in this passage, the Zenonian
authorship of the syllogism in 1]. 48—50 is extremely
probable not only from internal indications, but also
because of the evidence of Diogenes Laertius vil. 141, 142
(observe especially the words περὶ δὴ οὖν τῆς γενέσεως
καὶ τῆς φθορᾶς τοῦ κόσμου φησὶ Ζήνων ἐν τῷ περὶ
ὅλου). But, as to the general body of the fragment, the
case is different: if we cannot trust the good faith of the
writer, as giving us a genuine statement of the refutation
by Theophrastus of his opponents’ doctrine, it may well
be that the two earlier arguments represent early Ionian,
possibly Heraclitean, views (with Stoic additions), and
that in the later portions we have the work of one of
Zeno’s successors as set out by a later Peripatetic. On
the other hand, if Theophrastus is responsible for the
exposition of all four arguments, they certainly belong to
a single teacher or a single school, and that teacher, as
has been shown above, must be Zeno. It is therefore
necessary for us to consider the tenor of Zeller’s rejoinder
in Hermes xv. 137—146, which, briefly stated, resolves
itself into a theory as to the origin of the pseudo-Philonian
treatise. He fully admits the many absurdities with
which the text is 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 ZENO. 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 original writer to
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 would be out of place here. But we can gauge the
character of the proposed explanation by the three passages
which Zeller expels from our extract, and which may be
fairly said to be typical of the accretions in the general
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 serpents and the Indian elephants prevents the con-
clusion founded on the destructibility of the several
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

ἢ question is to be found in von Arnim’s Quellen Studien

zu Philo von Alexandria (Berlin 1888) Ρ. 41 [0]. He
believes that the compilator of the treatise only had later

} Peripatetic writings—especially those of Critolaus—before

H. Ρ, 8

114 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

him, and that the main portion of our passage was derived
from one of them. ΑἹ] that belongs really to Theophrastus
is the statement of the headings of the four arguments
(il. 1—5) and these headings, if taken alone, might refer
to pre-Aristotelians. Yet, holding in agreement with
Zeller and against Diels that the arguments by which
the headings are supported are undeniably Stoic, he
concludes that a younger Peripatetic adopted the Theo-
phrastean scheme, originally a doxographical statement
of pre-Aristotelian doctrines, as a groundwork for his
polemic against the Stoics, who on their side had a-
dopted these four arguments, perhaps from Heraclitus
and Empedocles. Finally he suggests, on very inadequate
grounds (p. 47), that Antipater of Tarsus was the particular
Stoic whose views are summarised. If this theory is
correct, it is certainly an extraordinary coincidence that
Theophrastus should have selected from the older philo-
sophy four particular statements, which go to prove the
destructibility of the world, and that the Stoics should
have unconsciously taken up identically the same ground
in support of their own theory. Zeller’s opinion still
appears to me more reasonable: see also Stein, Psych. n. 86,
who has anticipated the argument used above from the
syllogism in 1]. 38—35.

8, τὰ ὄρη cf. Cornut. c. 17. p, 85 Osann, τὰ δ᾽ ὄρη
(γέγονε) κατὰ ἐξοστρακισμὸν τῆς γῆς. Schol. Hes. Theog.
p. 238, τὰ ὄρη περὶ τὸ ἀνώμαλον τῆς συνιζήσεως ἔλαβε
τὰς ἐξοχὰς καὶ κατὰ ἐξοστρακισμὸν αὐτῆς.

ἐγεγένητογζἐγένετο indicates that the process would
have been already complete at the time specified i.e. long
ago. In the case of verbs denoting an action the dis-
tinction between plup. and aor. with ἂν is less apparent,
though always present: cf. e.g. Dem. Timocr. p. 746 § 146,
if imprisonment were contrary to the Ath. constitution

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 115

οὔθ᾽ ὅσων ἔνδειξίς ἐστιν ἢ ἀπαγωγή, προσεγέγραπτο ἂν
ἐν τοῖς νόμοις κιτιλ. “There would not have been Sound
a clause enacted in the laws” ete.

10. ἀπὸ περάτων κιτλ. “The whole earth would have
become a highway from end to end.” πᾶσ᾽ ἄν: so Bi-
cheler and Diels for πᾶσα.

19. τῇ συνεχεῖ, MS. Med. whence Biicheler reads τῇ
συνεχείᾳ, recalling the line κοιλαίνει πέτρην pavis ὕδατος
ἐνδελεχείᾳ.

20. τήν---πάλαι expelled by Zeller, Herm. xv. p. 140.

28. γάρ: the sentence would run more smoothly if
this word were omitted,

33. οἷς σημεῖ᾽ ἄττα «rd. The observation of similar
facts induced in Xenophanes the belief that the earth
was originally in a fluid state: ef. Hippolyt. 1. 14 (quoted
by Zeller, pre-Socrat. 1. p. 570), 6 δὲ Ξενοφάνης μῖξιν τῆς
γῆς πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν γενέσθαι δοκεῖ καὶ τῷ χρόνῳ ἀπὸ
τοῦ ὑγροῦ λύεσθαι φάσκων τοιαύτας ἔχειν ἀποδείξεις,
ὅτι ἐν μέσῃ γῇ καὶ ὄρεσιν εὑρίσκοντο κόγχαι καὶ ἐν
Συρακούσαις δὲ ἐν ταῖς λατομίαις λέγει εὑρῆσθαι τύπον
ἐχθύος καὶ φωκῶν, ἐν δὲ Ilapw τύπον ἀφύης ἐν τῷ
βαθεῖ τοῦ λίθου, ἐν δὲ Μελίτῃ πλάκας συμπάντων θαλασ-
σίων.

35. διὸ----αἰνιττόμενος expelled by Zeller I. c. and also
by Biicheler.

37. Pindar, frag. 64[87] Bergk.

43. περιόδοις : See on frag. 52.

45. ἀποκριθήσεται “will be merged,” θ Thue). i 3,
“EXAnvas...eis év ὄνομα ἀποκεκρίσθαι, Diog. L. vir. 148,
φύσις... τοιαῦτα δρῶσα ἀφ᾽ οἵων ἀπεκρίθη.

48—50. Cf. Diog. L. vir 141. Philo, de provid. 1. 12.

53. ἕξεως : lit. hold, an undoubtedly Stoic term. The
ἕξις of inorganic matter answers to the φύσις of plants,
and the ψυχὴ of animals: supra frag. 48. Cf. Sext. Math.

8—2

116 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

IX, 81, τῶν ἡνωμένων σωμάτων τὰ μὲν ὑπὸ ψιλῆς ἕξεως
συνέχεται...καὶ ἕξεως μέν, ὡς λίθοι καὶ ξύλα (Zeller, p-
208).

54. πνευματικὸς τόνος : the favourite doctrine of Clean-
thes: if this passage belongs to Zeno, we have an indica-
tion here that the master prepared the way for the pupil,
ef, Cleanth. frag. 24. The words however may in any case
be a later addition, and under the circumstances they have
been bracketed.

56. ῥέοντες “ passing away” in the Heraclitean sense ;
yet even Plato has εἰ γὰρ ῥέοι τὸ o@pa...(Phaed. 87 Ὁ).
λεπτὴν κόνιν, Cf, Soph. Ant. 256.

εἶθ᾽---ἐξαναλ. Om. Med. MS. cf. Biicheler Rhein. Mus.
32, 442. :

58, ἀνέμων : the illustration is suggestive in connection
with the doctrine of πνεῦμα. For pumiforro cf. frag. 106
κινούμενον καὶ ἀναριπιζόμενον ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου.

60. ψυχὴν appears to be attributed to animals im
general and not exclusively to man, see on frag. 43. |

63. εὐπρεπείας. Cf. Plat. Euthyd. 3058, καὶ yap ἔχει
ὄντως ὦ Κρίτων εὐπρέπειαν μᾶλλον ἢ ἀλήθειαν. It is
possible that there is a reference to some contemporary
school here, which had explained λοιμὸς after the manner
of Prodicus. For the definition cf. M. Aurel. rx. 2.

69—91 ejected by Zeller, 1. ὁ.

85. ὄν add. Diels. 89. καὶ add. Bernays.

99, ὡς ἂν not merely equivalent to ὥσπερ but ellip-
tical. The full phrase would be ὡς εἰκὸς ἦν ἂν εἰ ἰσή-
λικες ἦσαν... Xen. Mem. τι. 6. 38, ἢ εἴ σοι πείσαιμι κοινῇ
τὴν πόλιν ψευδόμενος ὡς ἂν στρατηγικῷ καὶ πολιτικῷ
ἑαυτὴν ἐπιτρέψαι, where see Kiihner. In this way is to
be explained Thue. 1. 33. 1.

~ 102. “Deesse quibus εὑρημάτων tempora expli
verant vidit Mangey,” Usener. .

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 17

57. Philargyrius ad Verg. Georg. 11. 336, Zenon ex
hoe mundo quamvis aliqua intereant tamen ipsum perpetuo
manere quia inhaereant ei elementa e quibus generantur
materiae: ut dixit crescere quidem, sed ad interitum
non pervenire manentibus elementis a quibus revalescat.

If taken literally, the doctrine here referred to would
be inconsistent with the destructibility of the κόσμος,
which, as we have seen, was held by Zeno: again, ele-
menta can hardly be a translation of στοιχεῖα, which
undoubtedly perished. We must suppose therefore that
Zeno is speaking not of the visible world, but of the
universe, and that elementa Ξε ἀρχαί. According to Diog.
L. vit. 137 κόσμος is used by the Stoics in three senses:
the first of these is αὐτὸν τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἐκ τῆς ἁπάσης
οὐσίας ἰδίως ποιὸν ὃς δὴ ἀφθαρτός ἐστι καὶ ἀγέννητος, and
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 have withheld assent to the doctrine of the ἐκπύρωσις,
Zeller, p. 168n. 1. Stein, Psych. p. 64 and n. 92, thinks
that Zeno held that at the ἐκπύρωσις the various mani-
festations of God—world-soul, λόγος σπερματικὸς οἴο.---
lose themselves in the divine unity, but that the inde-
terminate matter (ἄποιος ὕλη) remains, cf. ib. p. 34, n. 42.

58. Diog. Laert. vil. 143, ὅτι τε εἷς ἐστιν (ὁ κόσμος)
Ζήνων φησὶν ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ ὅλου. Stob. Ecl. τ. 22. 3” p.
199, 10, Ζήνων ἕνα εἶναι τὸν κόσμον.

This was one of the points which distinguished the
Stoics from the Epicureans, who held that there are an
infinite number of worlds. See further Zeller, p. 183 and
the notes: the characteristic and important view of
συμπάθεια μερῶν or συντονία is one of the developments
introduced by Cleanthes.

118 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

59. Sext. Math. rx. 101, Ζήνων δὲ ὁ Κιτιεύς, ἀπὸ
Ξενοφῶντος τὴν ἀφορμὴν λαβών, οὑτωσὶ συνερωτᾷ" τὸ
προϊέμενον σπέρμα λογικοῦ καὶ αὐτὸ λογικόν ἐστιν" ὁ
δὲ κόσμος προΐεται σπέρμα λογικοῦ" λογικὸν ἄρ᾽ ἐστὶν
ὁ κόσμος. ᾧ συνεισάγεται καὶ ἡ τούτου ὕπαρξις. Cic.
N. D. m. 22, nihil quod animi quodque rationis est
expers, id generare ex se potest animantem compotem-
que rationis. Mundus autem generat animantes compo-
tesque rationis. Animans est igitur mundus composque
rationis.

We need not infer from this passage that Zeno ex-
pressed himself to be adopting Socrates’ argument, for
in the preceding paragraphs in Sext.1. ο. 92 f. the passage
referred to (Xen. Mem. 1. 4 §§ 2—5. 8) is set out and
discussed. The parallel passage is ὃ 8 καὶ ταῦτα εἰδὼς ὅτι
γῆς Te μικρὸν μέρος ἐν τῷ σώματι πολλῆς οὔσης ἔχεις K.T.A-
...voov δὲ μόνον ἄρα οὐδαμοῦ ὄντα σε εὐτυχῶς πως δοκεῖς
συναρπάσαι, καὶ τάδε τὰ ὑπερμεγέθη καὶ πλῆθος ἄπειρα
δ ἀφροσύνην τινά, ὡς οἴει, εὐτάκτως ἔχειν ; cf. Sext.
Math. x. 77, Μ. Aurel. rv. 4 and see Stein, Psych. n. 53.

τούτου. Bekker with some plausibility suggests τοῦ
θεοῦ. The Stoics argued from the existence of God that
the world must be reasonable and vice versa, For the
relation of God to the world see infra, frag. 66.

60. Cic. N. Ὁ. 1. 22, Idemque (Zeno) hoc modo:
“Nullius sensu carentis pars aliqua potest esse sentiens.
Mundi autem partes sentientes sunt: non igitur caret
sensu mundus.” ;

Cf. Sext. Math. 1x. 85, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ τὰς λογικὰς περιέ-
χουδα φύσεις πάντως ἐστὶ λογική: οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε τὸ ὅλον
τοῦ μέρους χεῖρον εἶναι" ἀλλ᾽ εἰ ἀρίστη ἐστὶ φύσις ἡ τὸν
κόσμον διοικοῦσα νοερά τε ἔσται καὶ σπουδαία καὶ
ἀθάνατος.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 119

61. Sext. Math. rx. 104, καὶ πάλιν ὁ Ζήνων φησὶν
“Ted] τὸ λογικὸν τοῦ μὴ λογικοῦ κρεῖττόν ἐστιν' οὐδὲν δέ
γε κόσμου κρεῖττόν ἐστιν; λογικὸν ἄρα ὁ κόσμος. καὶ
ὡσαύτως ἐπὶ τοῦ νοεροῦ καὶ ἐμψυχίας μετέχοντος. τὸ γὰρ
νοερὸν τοῦ μὴ νοεροῦ καὶ τὸ ἔμψυχον τοῦ μὴ ἐμψύχου
κρεῖττόν ἐστιν᾽ οὐδὲν δέ γε κόσμου κρεῖττον' νοερὸς ἄρα
καὶ ἔμψυχός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος. Cic. N. D. um. 21, quod
ratione utitur id melius est quam id quod ratione non
utitur. Nihil autem mundo melius: ratione igitur mun-
dus utitur. Cf ib. 111. 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
abstract τὸ ποιητικὸν is better than τὸ μὴ ποιητικὸν or TO
γραμματικὸν than τὸ μὴ γραμματικόν : otherwise Archi-
lochus would be better than Socrates, Aristarchus than
Plato (Sext. 1. ο. 108—110). For the fact cf. Diog. vu.
139, οὕτω δὴ καὶ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον ζῷον ὄντα Kai ἔμψυχον
καὶ λογικὸν κιτλ. Stein adds Philo, de incorr. m. p. 506
M, ὁ κόσμος καὶ φύσις λογική, οὐ μόνον ἔμψυχος ὦν, ἀλλὰ
καὶ νοερὸς πρὸς δὲ καὶ φρόνιμος. Siebeck refers to
Arist. de Gen. An, IL. 1. 731" 25, τὸ ἔμψυχον τοῦ ἀψύχου
βέλτιον.

62. Sext. Math. 1x. 107, δυνάμει δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν τῷ
Ζήνωνι λόγον ἐξέθετο (scil. Plato) καὶ γὰρ οὗτος τὸ πᾶν
κάλλιστον εἶναί φησιν κατὰ φύσιν ἀπειργασμένον ἔργον
καὶ κατὰ τὸν εἰκότα λόγον, ζῷον ἔμψυχον νοερόν τε καὶ
λογικόν.

Hirzel’s theory, u. p. 217, 218, that Zeno called the
world ἔμψυχον and λογικὸν only but not ζῴον is con-
troverted by Stein, Psych. n. 82 from this passage. The
passage in Plato, part of which is quoted by Sextus, is

120 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO, ᾿

Timaeus, p. 29 foll.; and see esp. 30 A, B which illustrates
this and the last frag., cf. M. Aurel. Iv. 40.

63. Cic. N. Ὁ. π. 22, Idemque similitudine, ut saepe
solet, rationem conclusit hoc modo: ‘si ex oliva modulate
canentes tibiae nascerentur, num dubitares quin inesset
in oliva tibicinii quaedam scientia? quid? si platani
fidiculas ferrent numerose sonantes, idem scilicet censeres
in platanis inesse musicam. Cur igitur mundus non
animans sapiensque judicetur, quum ex se_procreet
animantes atque sapientes ?’

This recalls the anecdote about Amoebeus: apoph. 19.

64. Stob. ΕΠ]. τ. 23. 1, p. 200, 21, Ζήνων πύρινον
εἶναι τὸν οὐρανόν. .

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

65. Achill. Tat., Isag. in Arat. 5. p. 129 e, Ζήνων ὁ
Κιτιεὺς οὕτως αὐτὸν ὡρίσατο' “οὐρανός ἐστιν αἰθέρος τὸ
ἔσχατον" ἐξ οὗ καὶ ἐν ᾧ ἐστι πάντα ἐμφανῶς" περιέχει
γὰρ πάντα πλὴν ἁυτοῦ" οὐδὲν γὰρ ἑαυτὸ περιέχει" ἀλλ᾽
ἑτέρου ἐστὶ περιεκτικόν.

αἰθέρος τὸ ἔσχατον: cf. Diog. L. vit. 188 quoted below.
The genitive is partitive: “the extreme part of the
aether.” This becomes clear when we remember that
Zeno is closely following Aristotle here, cf. Phys. Iv. 5 καὶ
διὰ τοῦτο ἡ μὲν γῆ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι, τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐν τῷ ἀέρι, οὗτος
δ᾽ ἐν τῷ αἰθέρι, ὁ δ᾽ αἰθὴρ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ δ᾽ οὐρανὸς
οὐκέτι ἐν ἄλλῳ. Just before he had said: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ
πάντα᾽ ὁ γὰρ οὐρανὸς τὸ πᾶν ἴσως.

περιέχει. A 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 οὐρανὸς is spoken of as τὸ περιέχον

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 191

πάντα ὁπόσα νοητὰ Spa: cf. also the περιέχον φρενῆρες of
Heraclitus (Sext. Math. vir. 127 foll.). M. Aurel. vin. 54,

66. Diog. L. vir. 148, οὐσίαν δὲ θεοῦ Ζήνων φησὶ
τὸν ὅλον κόσμον Kal τὸν οὐρανόν.

Cf. Stob. Ecl. 1. 1. 29, p.38,1. The Stoics held θεοὺς...
τὸν κόσμον Kal τοὺς ἀστέρας καὶ τὴν γῆν. In so far as
God is manifested in the world, the world is God. Many
more references are given in Zeller, p. 157. The words
καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν are added because in it the material
essence of divinity exists in its purest form. Diog. L.
Vil. 138, οὐρανὸς δέ ἐστιν ἡ ἐσχάτη περιφέρεια, ἐν ἣ πᾶν
ἵδρυται τὸ θεῖον. Hence Chrysippus and Posidonius spoke
of the οὐρανὸς as τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου (ib. 139).
Certainly, if these words are pressed, pantheism, involving
the identification of God and matter, is distinctly at-
tributed to Zeno. Wellmann, p. 469, suggests that Zeno
may really only have said that the world is formed out of
the divine essence (ὁ κόσμος οὐσία θεοῦ) and that Diog.
through a confusion of subject and predicate interpreted
this as a definition of the essence of God. Another
possibility is that κόσμος is used in the same sense as in
frag. 71. See also Stein, Psychologie n. 88.

67. Stob. Ecl. 1.19. 4, p. 166, 4, Ζήνωνος. τῶν δ᾽ ἐν
τῷ κόσμῳ πάντων τῶν κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ἕξιν συνεστώτων τὰ
/ ‘ \ BA > \ aed , ¢ / N \
μέρη τὴν φορὰν ἔχειν εἰς TO τοῦ ὅλου μέσον, ὁμοίως δὲ Kal
’ al fa) a
αὐτοῦ τοῦ κόσμου" διόπερ ὀρθῶς λέγεσθαι πάντα τὰ μέρη.
τοῦ κόσμου ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον τοῦ κόσμου τὴν φορὰν ἔχειν, ὅ
/ \ \ / »Μ ,’ \ ᾽ Μ Φ Ν
μάλιστα δὲ τὰ βάρος ἔχοντα. ταὐτὸν δ᾽ αἴτιον εἶναι καὶ
τῆς τοῦ κόσμου μονῆς ἐν ἀπείρῳ κενῷ, καὶ τῆς γῆς παρα-
πλησίως ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ περὶ τὸ τούτου κέντρον καθιδρυ-
᾽ a > / § a U Μ » ’
μένης ἰσοκρατῶς. οὐ πάντως δὲ σῶμα βάρος ἔχειν, ἀλλ,
2 a . » \ le , \ \ a f,
ἀβαρὴ εἶναι ἀέρα καὶ trip’ τείνεσθαι δὲ καὶ ταῦτά πως 10

122 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

ἐπὶ τὸ τῆς ὅλης σφαίρας τοῦ κόσμου μέσον, τὴν δὲ
σύστασιν πρὸς τὴν περιφέρειαν αὐτοῦ ποιεῖσθαι" φύσει
γὰρ ἀνώφοιτα ταῦτ᾽ εἶναι διὰ τὸ μηδενὸς μετέχειν βάρους.
παραπλησίως δὲ τούτοις οὐδ᾽ αὐτόν φασι τὸν κόσμον
1ὅ βάρος ἔχειν διὰ τὸ τὴν ὅλην αὐτοῦ σύστασιν ἔκ τε τῶν
βάρος ἐχόντων στοιχείων εἶναι καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀβαρῶν. τὴν
δ᾽ ὅλην γῆν καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν μὲν ἔχειν ἀρέσκει βάρος παρὰ δὲ
τὴν θέσιν διὰ τὸ τὴν μέσην ἔχειν χώραν (πρὸς δὲ τὸ μέσον
εἶναι τὴν φορὰν τοῖς τοιούτοις σώμασιν) ἐπὶ τοῦ τόπου
20 τούτου μένειν.

2. συνεστώτων. This is the most general term, else-
where opposed to συνάπτεσθαι, συνέχεσθαι etc.

4. πάντα τὰ μέρη xd. This centralising tendency is
called by Diogenes (vil. 140) τὴν τῶν οὐρανίων πρὸς τὰ
ἐπίγεια σύμπνοιαν καὶ συντονίαν. In the Stoic doctrine
of the microcosm and the macrocosm there is one dis-
crepancy, in that while the ἡγεμονικὸν of the world is at
its extreme periphery the ἡγεμονικὸν of man is in the
breast. Stein, Psych. p. 211, finds in this passage an
attempt to remove this inconsistency by making the earth
the central point from which all motion originates and to
which it returns.

9. od πάντως δὲ κτλ. Cf Stob. Ecl. t 14. 1 f. p. 142, 9,
οἱ Στωικοὶ δύο μὲν ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων κοῦφα
πῦρ καὶ ἀέρα" δύο δὲ βαρέα ὕδωρ καὶ γῆν. κοῦφον γὰρ
ὑπάρχει φύσει, ὃ νεύει ἀπὸ τοῦ ἰδίου μέσου, βαρὺ δὲ τὸ εἰς
μέσον, i.e. light is opposed to heavy not relatively, as in
our use of the words, but absolutely, implying motion in an
outward or upward direction. Cic. Tuse. 1. 40, persuadent
mathematici...eam naturam esse quattuor omnia gignen-
tium corporum, ut, quasi partita habeant inter se ac
divisa momenta, terrena et umida suopte nutu et suo
pondere ad paris angulos in terram et in mare ferantur,
reliquae duae partes, una ignea, una animalis,...rectis

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 123.

lineis in caelestem locum subvolent, sive ipsa natura
superiora adpetente, sive quod a gravioribus leviora natura
repellantur. N. D. 1. 116,117. The Stoics were following
Aristotle (ap. Stob. Ecl. 1. 19. 1, p. 163, 9, τῆς δὲ κατὰ
τόπον κινήσεως τὴν μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ μέσου γίνεσθαι, τὴν δὲ
ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον, τὴν δὲ περὶ τὸ μέσον: πυρὸς μὲν οὖν καὶ
ἀέρος ἀπὸ τοῦ μέσου, γῆς καὶ ὕδατος ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον, τοῦ
πέμπτου περὶ τὸ μέσον...

10. τείνεσθαι δέ: So Diels for MSS. γίνεσθαι, a correc-
tion more probable for palaeographical reasons and in itself
more attractive than Meineke’s κινεῖσθαι. Cf. Nemes. 2.
p. 29, τονικὴν εἶναι κίνησιν περὶ τὰ σώματα εἰς τὸ ἔσω
ἅμα καὶ τὸ ἔξω κινουμένην. Chrysipp. ap. Plut. Sto. Rep.
44, Τ. 1054 Ε, οὕτω δὲ τοῦ ὅλου τεινομένου εἰς ταὐτὸ καὶ
κινουμένου «.7.r. The explanation is as follows:—the
natural motion of the elements is restrained and modified
‘ by the continual process of change (μεταβολή) by whose
action the world is formed and exists. Fire and Air are
perpetually being transformed into Water and Earth and
thus, before their upward tendency has time to assert
itself, they themselves becoming possessed of βάρος start
again in the opposite direction. Thus each of the four
elements is apparently stationary and remains constant :
in reality its component parts are in continual motion.
Cf. Chrysippus ap. Plut. Sto. Rep. 44. 6, a passage too
long to quote. This explanation is supported by the
statement which is attributed to the Stoics by Stobzeus,
that at the ἐκπτύρωσις the world is resolved into the void
(Ecl. τ. 18. 4 Ὁ. p. 160, 11 and Euseb. P. E. xv. 40): eft ib.
1. 21. 3 b, μήτε αὔξεσθαι δὲ μήτε μειοῦσθαι τὸν κόσμον
τοῖς δὲ μέρεσιν ὁτὲ μὲν παρεκτείνεσθαι πρὸς πλείονα τόπον
ὁτὲ δὲ συστέλλεσθαι. This is not necessarily inconsistent
with Prof. Mayor’s explanation (on N. D. τι. 116) that
“the all-pervading aether, while it has a naturally ex-

124 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

pansive and interpenetrative force, has also a strong
cohesive force and thus holds all things together round
the centre.” See also M. Aurel. x1. 20.

11. σφαίρας: for the Stoic doctrine of the rotundity of
the world, cf. Stob. Ἐπὶ. τ. 15. 6° of Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ τὸν
κόσμον ἀπεφήναντο, Diog. vil. 140, Cic. N. D. τ. 24, hence
ἀντίποδες Cic, Acad. I. 123.

17. παρὰ δὲ τὴν θέσιν: in itself earth βάρος ἔχει and —
so tends to move πρὸς τὸ μέσον, but owing to the accident
of its position in the centre of the κόσμος its natural
motion has no opportunity of becoming apparent.

18. μέσην. For the position of the earth cf. Diog. L.
vil. 137, 155, Cic. N. Ὁ. 1. 103.

68. Stob. Ecl. τ. 15. 6* p. 146, 21, Ζήνων ἔφασκε τὸ
πῦρ κατ᾽ εὐθεῖαν κινεῖσθαι. |

Cf. Stob. Ἐπ]. τ. 14. 1. f p. 142, 12, τὸ μὲν περίγειον
φῶς κατ᾽ εὐθεῖαν...κινεῖται. This is only true of πῦρ
ἄτεχνον, for the aether or πῦρ τεχνικὸν has a circular
motion in the same manner as the πέμπτον σῶμα of
Aristotle. So Ar. de Caelo, 1. 2.9, τό τε yap πῦρ ἐπ᾽
εὐθείας ἄνω φέρεται. ,

69. Stob. Ecl. 1. 18. 1° p. 156, 27, Ζήνων καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽
αὐτοῦ ἐντὸς μὲν τοῦ κόσμου μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν, ἔξω δ᾽ αὐτοῦ
ἄπειρον. διαφέρειν δὲ κενόν, τόπον, χώραν καὶ τὸ μὲν
κενὸν εἶναι ἐρημίαν σώματος, τὸν δὲ τόπον τὸ ἐπεχόμενον
ὑπὸ σώματος, τὴν δὲ χώραν τὸ ἐκ μέρους ἐπεχόμενον.

Cf. Diog. vit. 140, ἔξωθεν δὲ αὐτοῦ περικεχυμένον
εἶναι τὸ κενὸν ἄπειρον ὅπερ ἀσώματον εἶναι ἀσώματον
δὲ τὸ οἷόν τε κατέχεσθαι ὑπὸ σωμάτων οὐ κατεχόμενον" ἐν
δὲ τῷ κόσμῳ μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν. Plut. plac. 1. 18, of Στωικοὺ
ἐντὸς μὲν τοῦ κόσμου οὐδὲν εἶναι κενόν, ἔξωθεν δ᾽ avr

ἄπειρον. Μ. Aurel. Χ. 1. Diels adds Theodoret tv. 14, ἐντ'

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 125

μὲν τοῦ παντὸς μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν, ἐκτὸς δὲ αὐτοῦ πάμπολύ
τε καὶ ἄπειρον. The Epicureans held that without the
existence of void within the world motion was impossible
(Lucr. 1. 329 foll., Reid on Acad. 1. 27, 11.125). The Stoics
were unaffected by this argument in consequence of their
doctrine of κρᾶσις δι’ ὅλων, see further on frag. 50, supra.
Aristotle denied the existence of void altogether either
within or without the universe.

κενόν, τόπον, χώραν. The Stoics and the Epicureans
were in virtual agreement in their definitions of these
terms: see Sext. Emp. adv. Math. x. 2,3. For a fuller
exposition ef. Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Ἐπ]. 1. 18. 4° p. 161, 8,
who compares κενὸν to an empty, τόπος to a full, and χώρα
to a partially filled vessel, cf. the similar views of Aristotle
quoted by R. and P. § 327.

70. Themist. Phys. 40° Speng. 11. 284, 10, (τὸ κενόν)
κεχωρισμένον καὶ ἀθρόον εἶναι καθ᾽ αὑτὸ περιέχον τὸν
οὐρανόν, ὡς πρότερον μὲν ῴοντο τῶν ἀρχαίων τινές, μετὰ
δὲ ταῦτα οἱ περὶ Ζήνωνα τὸν Κιτιέα. Philopon. on Ar.
Phys. tv. 6. p. 318 ἃ 81, φασὶ δὲ καὶ τοὺς περὶ Ζήνωνα τὸν
Κιτιέα οὕτω (scil. ἔξω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἶναι κενόν τι Kal?
αὑτὸ) δοξάζειν.

τῶν ἀρχαίων τινὲς are probably the Pythagoreans who
believed in an ἄπειρον πνεῦμα outside the universe,
called κενὸν by some of the authorities (Zeller, pre-So-
cratics I. pp. 467, 8).

nd ~ i
71. Stob. Ἐπ]. τ. 25. 5, p. 218, 15, Ζήνων τὸν ἥλιόν
\ \ rd \ a ” ” “
φησι καὶ τὴν σελήνην καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἄστρῶὼν ἐκᾶστον
fal ,
εἶναι νοερὸν καὶ φρόνιμον πύρινον πυρὸς τεχνικοῦ. δύο
ς \
yap γένη πυρός, TO μὲν ἄτεχνον καὶ μετάβαλλον εἰς ἑαυτὸ
iA
τὴν τροφήν, τὸ δὲ τεχνικόν, αὐξητικόν τε Kal THPNTLKOY,
b] a a ” \ , “Δ \ Ui » ‘
οἷον ἐν τοῖς φυτοῖς ἔστι καὶ ζῴοις, ὃ δὴ φύσις ἔστι Ka

126 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Ψυχή" τοιούτου δὴ πυρὸς εἶναι τὴν τῶν ἄστρων οὐσίαν"
τὸν δ᾽ ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην δυὸ φορὰς φέρεσθαι, τὴν μὲν
ὑπὸ τοῦ κόσμου ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῆς εἰς ἀνατολήν, τὴν δ᾽ ἐναντίαν
τῷ κόσμῳ ἕῴδιον ἐκ ἕῳδίου μεταβαίνοντας. τὰς δ᾽ ἐκ-
λείψεις τούτων γίγνεσθαι διαφόρως, ἡλίου μὲν περὶ τὰς
συνόδους, σελήνης δὲ περὶ τὰς πανσελήνους" γίγνεσθαι δ᾽
ἐπ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων τὰς ἐκλείψεις καὶ μείζους καὶ ἐλάττους.
Stob. Ἐπ]. τ. 26. 1, p. 219, 12, Ζήνων τὴν σελήνην ἔφησεν
ἄστρον νοερὸν καὶ φρόνιμον πύρινον δὲ πυρὸς τεχνικοῦ.

πύρινον: they are situated in the external periphery
of aether, and are themselves composed of the same sub-
stance. The later Stoics, at any rate, held that the
heavenly bodies are fed by exhalations of grosser matter,
and hence their differentiation from their environment.
Cf. Cleanth. frags. 29 and 30.

δύο γένη : cf. Cleanth. frag. 30.

φύσις refers to φυτοῖς and ψυχὴ to ζῴοις : cf. frag.
43.

φοράς. The first movement is the diurnal revolution
from east to west (from one rising to another): the second
is the orbit described κατὰ τὸν ζῳδιακὸν κύκλον, occupying
either a year or a month, as the case may be. For the
Zodiac ef. Diog. L. vi. 155, 156.

ὑπὸ τοῦ κόσμου, Le. they move with the aether which
revolves round the three lower strata of the world. These
latter are themselves stationary, so that κόσμου is used as
in Cleanth. frag. 48, 1. 7, where see note. The whole
structure of the cosmos is very clearly expounded by
Chrysippus ap. Stob. Ecl. 1. 21. ἢ p. 184, 185; and ef
especially τοῦ... κόσμου τὸ μὲν εἶναι περιφερόμενον περὶ τὸ
᾿ μέσον τὸ δ᾽ ὑπόμενον᾽ περιφερόμενον μὲν τὸν αἰθέρα ὑπό-
μενον δὲ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς ὑγρὰ καὶ τόν ἀέρα...τὸ
δὲ περιφερόμενον αὐτῷ ἐγκυκλίως αἰθέρα εἶναι, ἐν ᾧ τὰ
ἄστρα καθίδρυται τά τ᾽ ἀπλανῆ καὶ τὰ πλανώμενα, θεῖα

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 127

τὴν φύσιν ὄντα καὶ ἔμψυχα καὶ διοικούμενα κατὰ τὴν
πρόνοιαν.

ζῴδιον: according to Diels, the acc. is “insolenter
dictum” and requires the addition of εἰς, but it has been
pointed out to me that the true explanation of the acc.
is to be found in the fact that ζώδιον is a measure of
space = 30 μοῖραι, Hippol. Haer. v. 13: we should not
therefore compare μεταβὰς βίοτον Eur. Hipp. 1292, which
is in any case different. For the fact cf. Diog. vil. 144.

τὰς δ᾽ ἐκλείψεις : see infra frag. 73.

μείζους καὶ ἐλάττους : “entire and partial.”

72. Οἷο. N. Ὁ. 1. 36, idem (Zeno) astris hoc idem
(1.6. vim divinam) tribuit tum annis, mensibus, annorum-
que mutationibus.

astris. On the other hand the Epicureans taught
that the stars could not possess happiness or move in
consequence of design. Diog. L. x. 77, μήτε αὖ πυρώδη
τινὰ συνεστραμμένα τὴν μακαριότητα κεκτημένα κατὰ
βούλησιν τὰς κινήσεις ταύτας λαμβάνειν.

annis: probably Zeno did not stop to enquire whether
the seasons etc. were corporeal or not: he regarded them
as divine “als regelmassig erfolgende Umlaufe der Sonne
und des Mondes” (Krische, p. 389). Chrysippus must have
been hard pressed when he delivered the extraordinary
opinion quoted by Plut. Comm. Not. 45, 5 (see Zeller,
Stoics p. 131). Krische appositely quotes Plat. Leg. x. p.
899 B, ἄστρων δὲ δὴ περὶ πάντων Kal σελήνης ἐνιαυτῶν
τε καὶ μηνῶν καὶ πασῶν ὡρών πέρι, τίνα ἄλλον λόγον
ἐροῦμεν ἢ τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον, ὡς ἐπειδὴ ψυχὴ μὲν ἢ ψυχαὶ
πάντων τούτων αἴτιαι ἐφάνησαν, ἀγαθαὶ δὲ πᾶσαν ἀρετήν,
θεοὺς αὐτὰς εἶναι φήσομεν, εἴτε ἐν σώμασιν ἐνοῦσαι, ζῷα
ὄντα, κοσμοῦσι πάντα οὐρανόν, εἴτε ὅπη τε καὶ ὅπως:
In Sext. Math. rx. 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:—ovv τῷ ἄτοπον εἶναι τὴν μὲν ἡμέραν θεὸν εἶναι
λέγειν, τὴν δὲ ἕω καὶ τὴν μεσημβρίαν καὶ τὴν δείλην
μηκέτι.

13. Diog. L. vit. 145, 6, ἐκλείπειν δὲ τὸν μὲν ἥλιον
ἐπιπροσθούσης αὐτῷ σελήνης κατὰ τὸ πρὸς ἡμᾶς μέρος,
ὡς Ζήνων ἀναγράφει ἐν τῷ περὶ ὅλου. φαίνεται γὰρ
ὑπερχομένη ταῖς συνόδοις καὶ ἀποκρύπτουσα αὐτὸν καὶ
πάλιν παραλλάττουσα. γνωρίζεται δὲ τοῦτο διὰ λεκάνης
ὕδωρ ἐχούσης. τὴν δὲ σελήνην ἐμπίπτουσαν εἰς τὸ τῆς
γῆς σκίασμα. ὅθεν καὶ ταῖς πανσελήνοις ἐκλείπειν
μόναις, καίπερ κατὰ διάμετρον ἱσταμένην κατὰ μῆνα τῷ
ἡλίῳ: ὅτι κατὰ λοξοῦ ὡς πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον κινουμένη παραλ-
λάττει τῷ πλάτει ἢ βορειοτέρα 7 νοτιωτέρα γινομένη.
ὅταν μέντοι τὸ πλάτος αὐτῆς κατὰ τὸν ἡλιακὸν καὶ τὸν
διὰ μέσων γένηται εἶτα διαμετρήσῃ τὸν ἥλιον τότε
ἐκλείπει.

ἐκλείπειν. The eclipse of the sun owing to the interposi-
tion of the moon between it and the earth is a doctrine
attributed by Stobaeus to Thales, the Pythagoreans, and
Empedocles (Ecl. 1. 25. 1' 3° 3°): the same explanation was
also given by Anaxagoras (Zeller, pre-Socratics 1. p. 361).
The same account is given by the Stoic in Cic. N. Ὁ. τι.
103, luna...subiecta atque opposita soli radios eius et
lumen obscurat, tum ipsa incidens in umbram terrae,
cum est e regione solis, interpositu interiectuque terrae
repente deficit.

ταῖς συνόδοις “at the period of conjunction.” Cf. Cic.
Rep. 1. 25, Pericles...docuisse 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, 129

cum tota se luna sub orbem solis subiecisset: itaque, etsi
non omni intermenstruo, tamen id fieri non posse nisi
certo intermenstruo tempore. Thue. I. 28.

σελήνην, Cf. Stob. Ecl. τ. 26. 3, p. 221, 23, Χρύσιππος
ἐκλείπειν τὴν σελήνην τῆς γῆς αὐτῇ ἐπιπροσθούσης Kal
εἰς σκιὰν ἀυτῆς ἐμπίπτουσαν.

πανσελήνοις : the fact was a matter of common observa-
tion: cf. Thue. vit. 50, ἡ μήνη ἐκλείπει; ἐτύγχανε yap
πανσέληνος οὖσα.

κατὰ λοξοῦ: hence ἑλικοειδῆ in Diog. L. vit. 144, see
Krische p. 389.

διὰ μέσων 501]. ζῳδίων. There is nothing distinctively
Stoic in these explanations. Zeno was simply repeating
the ordinary scientific theories of his age. Epicurus gave
alternative explanations, of which this is one (Diog. L. x. 96).

44. Diog. Ly -Vit.158, 154, ἀστραπὴν δὲ ἔξαψιν
νεφῶν παρατριβομένων ἢ ῥηγνυμένων ὑπὸ πνεύματος, ὡς
Ζήνων ἐν τῷ περὶ ὅλου βροντὴν δὲ τὸν τούτων ψόφον ἐκ
παρατρίψεως ἢ ῥήξεως" κεραυνὸν δὲ ἔξαψιν σφοδρὰν μετὰ
πολλῆς βίας πίπτουσαν ἐπὶ γῆς νεφῶν παρατριβομένων
ἢ ῥηγνυμένων.

Cf. Chrysippus ap. Stob. Ecl. τ. 29. 1, p. 233, 9, ἀστρα-
πὴν ἔξαψιν νεφῶν ἐκτριβομένων ἢ ῥηγνυμένων ὑπὸ πνεύ-
ματος, βροντὴν δ᾽ εἶναι τὸν τούτων ψόφον.. ὅταν δὲ ἡ τοῦ
πνεύματος φορὰ σφοδροτέρα γένηται καὶ πυρώδης, κεραυ-
νὸν ἀποτελεῖσθαι. ib. p. 234, 1 where the same views are
attributed to of Στωικοί. Here again there is nothing
specially characteristic of the Stoa: Epicurus, as was his
wont, gave a number of possible explanations and amongst
them these: see Diog. L. x. 100—103, cf. Lucr. νι. 96 ἢ
(thunder), 162 f. (lightning), 246 f. (thunderbolts). Lucan 1.
151, qualiter expressum ventis per nubila fulmen aetheris
impulsi sonitu ete. Aristoph. Nub. 404 foll.

Η. P. 9

130 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

75. Senec. Nat. Quaest. vi. 19. 1, Zenon noster in
illa sententia est: congruere iudicat stellas, et radios inter
se committere: hac societate luminis existere imaginem
stellae longioris.

On this point the majority of the Stoic school seem to
have deviated from the teaching of Zeno, considering his
view unsatisfactory: thus Diog. vil. 152, κομήτας δὲ καὶ
πωγωνίας Kal λαμπαδίας πυρὰ εἶναι ὑφεστῶτα, πάχους
ἀέρος εἰς τὸν αἰθερώδη τόπον ἀνενεχθέντος, cf. Stob. Ecl. 1.
28. 1* p. 228, 6, Βοηθὸς ἀέρος ἀνημμένου φαντασίαν. Sen.
N. Q. vil. 21, placet ergo nostris cometas...denso aere
creari.

76. Stob. Ecl. 1. 8. 40° p. 104, 7, Ζήνων ἔφησε
χρόνον εἶναι κινήσεως διάστημα, τοῦτο δὲ καὶ μέτρον καὶ
κριτήριον τάχους τε καὶ βραδύτητος ὅπως ἔχει «ἕκαστα».
κατὰ τοῦτον δὲ γίγνεσθαι τὰ γινόμενα καὶ τὰ περαινόμενα
ἅπαντα καὶ τὰ ὄντα εἶναι. Simplic. ad Cat. 80 a 4,
τῶν δὲ Στωικῶν Ζήνων μὲν πάσης ἁπλῶς κινήσεως
διάστημα τὸν χρόνον εἶναι, who goes on to say that
Chrysippus limited the definition by adding the words
τοῦ κόσμου. Cf. Diog. vu. 141, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὸν χρόνον
ἀσώματον, διάστημα ὄντα τῆς τοῦ κόσμου κινήσεως.
Varro L. L. vi. 3 (quoted by Prof. Mayor on Cic. N. D. 1.
_ 21.), tempus esse dicunt intervallum mundi motus. See
also Zeller p. 198 and add Plotin. Ennead. 111. 7. 6, Sext.
Pyrrh. 11. 136 ἡ Math. x. 170 f. Zeno held as against
Chrysippus that time existed from eternity, and that it is
not merely coeval with the phenomenal world Stein,
Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 228—225.

ἕκαστα is added by Wachsm. and some word is clearly
wanted: Posidonius however in reproducing the clause —
has ὅπως ἔχει τὸ ἐπινοούμενον (Stob. Ecl. τ. 8. 42, p. 105,
21). It seems better to remove the comma usually placed

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 131

after βραδύτητος, as the genitives depend at least as
much on ὕπως ἔχει as on μέτρον καὶ κριτήριον, cf. e.g.
Thue. 11. 90. 4, ὡς εἶχε τάχους ἕκαστος.

ἅπαντα must be corrupt, as some verb is required to
balance γίνεσθαι and εἶναι. Usener suggests ἀπαρτίζεσθαι,
which gives the required sense, cf. ἀπαρτισμόν. Chrysipp.
ap. Stob. Ecl. 1. 8. 42, p. 106, 17. Diels’ correction ἀἅπαν-
Tay 15 less satisfactory in meaning.

77. Censorinus de die Nat. XVII. 2, quare qui annos
triginta saeculum putarunt multum videntur errasse. hoe
enim tempus genean vocari Heraclitus auctor est, quia
orbis aetatis in eo sit spatio. orbem autem vocat aetatis
dum natura ab sementi humana ad sementim revertitur.
hoc quidem geneas tempus alii aliter definierunt. Hero-
dicus annos quinque et viginti scribit, Zenon triginta.

genean: this substantially accords with the popular
reckoning as recorded by Herod. 11. 142, γενεαὶ γὰρ
τρεῖς ἀνδρῶν ἑκατὸν ἔτεά ἐστι.

Heraclitus: for the other authorities which attribute
this statement to Heraclitus see Zeller pre-Socratics Il. p.
87, n. 4 and frags. 87 and 88 ed. Bywater.

sementi: saeculum is properly used with the meaning
“generation” and this supports the derivation from sero,
satus (Curtius G. Εἰ. 1. p. 474 Eng. Tr.). For examples see
the Lexx.

Herodicus: either (1) the Alexandrian grammarian, or
(2) the physician of Selymbria: see D. Biog.

Zenon: according to Wachsmuth Jahn proposes to
substitute Xenon, but the agreement with Heraclitus
rather points to the founder of the Stoa.

78. τοῦ. Ecl. 1. 16. 1, p. 149, 8, Ζήνων ὁ Στωικὸς τὰ
χρώματα πρώτους εἶναι σχηματισμοὺς τῆς ὕλης. The
9—2

132 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

same words occur also in Plut. plac. 1. 15. 5 and in Galen
Hist. Phil. c. 10. χιχ. 258 Kiihn.

The above extracts appear to represent all that is
known of the Stoic theories about colour: for the Epi-
curean view ef. Lucr. τι. 795 foll. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie
Ρ. 310, rightly observes that the definition, implying that
colour is an actual attribute of matter, indicates Zeno’s
reliance on sense-impressions.

79. Epiphan. adv. Haeres. m1. 2. 9 (11. 36), Diels p.
592, τὰς δε αἰτίας τῶν πραγμάτων πὴ μὲν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν πὴ δὲ
οὐκ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν, τουτέστι, τὰ μὲν τῶν πραγμάτων ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν
τὰ δὲ οὐκ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν.

We have already seen that Zeno held καθ᾽ εἱμαρμένην
τὰ πάντα γίγνεσθαι, frag. 45. How then are we to
reconcile with this doctrine of necessity the fact that free
will is here allowed to mankind even in a limited degree ?
The Stoic answer is most clearly given by the simile with
which they supported their position, cf. Hippolyt. adv.
Haeres. 1. 18, καὶ αὐτοὶ δὲ τὸ καθ᾽ εἱμαρμένην εἶναι πάντη
διεβεβαιώσαντο παραδείγματι χρησάμενοι τοιούτῳ OTE
ὥσπερ ὀχήματος ἐὰν ἢ ἐξηρτημένος κύων, ἐὰν μὲν βούληται
ἕπεσθαι καὶ ἕλκεται καὶ ἕπεται ἑκών, ποιῶν καὶ τὸ αὐτεξού-
σιον μετὰ τῆς ἀνάγκης οἷον τῆς εἱμαρμένης" ἐὰν δὲ μὴ
βούληται ἕπεσθαι πάντως ἀναγκασθήσεται" τὸ αὐτὸ δή που
καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων" καὶ μὴ βουλόμενοι γὰρ ἀκολουθεῖν
ἀναγκασθήσονται πάντως εἰς τὸ πεπρωμένον εἰσελθεῖν.
The simile itself very possibly belongs to Cleanthes as it
accords exactly with his lines in frag. 91. Chrysippus
struggled vigorously with the difficulties in which he was
involved in maintaining this theory: see the authorities
collected by Zeller p. 177 foll. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie
pp. 828—332, who ascribes to Cleanthes the introduction
of the Stoic answer to the dilemma, has omitted to notice

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 Citieus,
Stoicae sectae conditor, principium humano generi ex novo
mundo constitutum putavit, primosque homines ex solo
adminiculo divini ignis, id est dei providentia, genitos.

This doctrine is connected with that of the destructi-
bility of the world: cf. frag. 56, where however there
is unfortunately a lacuna at the point where the origin of
man is being discussed. owéyovoy 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
opposed to a theory of progression; mankind was produced
in the first stance, 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 Next. Math. 1x. 28 where the
arguments given by various schools for the existence
of gods are being recited, τῶν δὲ νεωτέρων στωικῶν φασί
τινες τοὺς πρώτους καὶ γηγενεῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων κατὰ πολὺ
τῶν νῦν συνέσει διαφέροντας γεγονέναι, ὡς πάρεστι μαθεῖν
ἐκ τῆς ἡμῶν πρὸς τοὺς ἀρχαιοτέρους καὶ ἥρωας ἐκείνους,
ὥσπερ τι περιττὸν αἰσθητήριον σχόντας τὴν ὀξύτητα
τῆς διανοίας ἐπιβεβληκέναι τῇ θείᾳ φύσει καὶ νοῆσαί
τινας δυνάμεις θεῶν. Cf. Cic. Leg. 1. 24. Tuse. I. 2,
nunc parvulos nobis dedit (natura) igniculos quos celeriter

134 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

malis moribus opinionibusque depravati sic restinguimus,
ut nusquam naturae lumen appareat. For the anthropo-
logical aspect of this passage see Stein, Psych. p. 115.

81. Varro de Re Rust. 1. 1, 3, sive enim aliquod fuit
principium generandi animalium, ut putavit Thales Milesius
et Zeno Citieus, sive contra principium horum exstitit
nullum, ut credidit Pythagoras Samius et Aristoteles
Stagirites.

It is obvious that only on the hypothesis of the world
in its present form being without beginning is the doctrine
of the eternity of the human race or of animals possible.
Aristotle, however, expressly says (de Caelo L 10 279 Ὁ 12)
that none of his predecessors had held the world to
be without beginning in this sense. Unless therefore
Aristotle is mistaken, the reference to Pythagoras in the
present passage must be erroneous: see the discussion
in Zeller pre-Socratics 1. pp. 439—442 and especially
p. 439 n. 2 and for the similar case of Xenophanes ib.
p. 570: see also Newman on Ar. Pol. 1. 8 1269 a 5. At
any rate Zeno is in agreement with the great majority of
those who went before him: the early philosophers held for
the most part that animal life was produced by the action
of the sun’s rays on the primitive slime, as Anaximander,
Xenophanes, Parmenides, and Archelaus (Zeller 1. ο. 1. pp.
255, 577, 601, 1. p. 392), or on the earth, as Diogenes
of Apollonia (ib. 1. p. 296). Somewhat similar were the
views of Empedocles and Anaxagoras (ib. I. pp. 160, 365).

82. Schol. ad Plat. Alcib. 1. p, 121 Ε dis ἑπτὰ ἐτῶν]
τότε yap ὁ τέλειος ἐν ἡμῖν ἀποφαίνεται λόγος, ὡς ᾿Αριστο-
τέλης καὶ Ζήνων καὶ ᾿Αλκμαίων ὁ Πυθαγόρειός φασιν.

Cf. Stob. Ecl. τ. 48, 8, p. 317, 21, πάλιν τοίνυν περὶ τοῦ
vod καὶ πασῶν τῶν κρειττόνων δυνάμεων τῆς ψυχῆς

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 135

of μὲν Στωικοὶ λέγουσι μὴ εὐθὺς ἐμφύεσθαι τὸν λόγον,
ὕστερον δὲ συναθροίζεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθήσεων καὶ φαντα-
σιῶν περὶ δεκατέσσαρα ἔτη. Plut. plac. Iv. 11, ὁ δὲ λόγος
καθ᾽ ὃν προσαγορευόμεθα λογικοὶ ἐκ τῶν προλήψεων
συμπληροῦσθαι λέγεται κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἑβδομάδα.
(This points to some slight divergence in the school itself
as to the exact period of life at which ὁ λόγος τελειοῦται:
secus Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 116, but how can συμ-
wrnpotabar=“begin”?) Diog. vi. 55, φωνή.. ἀπὸ διανοίας
ἐκπεμπομένη, ὡς ὁ Διογένης φησίν" ἥτις ἀπὸ δεκατεσσάρων
ἐτῶν τελειοῦται. The mind at birth is a tabula rasa:
reason lies in the application of προλήψεις and ἔννοιαι,
which are themselves ultimately founded on external
impressions, cf. Cleanth. fr. 37 θύραθεν εἰσκρίνεσθαι τὸν
νοῦν. The present fragment has been generally overlooked.

᾿Αλκμαίων: this statement is not referred to in Zeller’s
account of Alemaeon (pre-Socr. I. pp. 521—526). For
Aristotle cf. Pol. 1. 13 1260 a 14.

83. Euseb. P. E. xv. 20, 2. Ar. Did. fr. phys. 39,
Diels p. 470, περὶ δὲ ψυχῆς Κλεάνθης μὲν ta Ζήνωνος
\
δόγματα παρατιθέμενος πρὸς σύγκρισιν τὴν πρὸς τοὺς
ἄλλους φυσικούίς φησιν, ὅτι Ζήνων τὴν ψυχὴν λέγει
ἀισθητικὴν ἀναθυμίασιν, καθάπερ Ἡράκλειτος. βουλόμενος
γὰρ ἐμφανίσαι ὅτι αἱ ψυχαὶ ἀναθυμιώμεναι νοεραὶ ἀεὶ
γίνονται εἴκασεν αὐτὰς τοῖς ποταμοῖς λέγων οὕτως “ποτα-
μοῖσι τοῖσιν αὐτοῖσιν ἐμβαίνουσιν ἕτερα καὶ ἕτερα ὕδατα
ἐπιρρεῖ᾿ καὶ ψυχαὶ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ὑγρῶν ἀναθυμιώνται"
2 , Ν᾽ ς κα ¢ A AE , x \
ἀναθυμίασιν μὲν οὖν ὁμοίως τῷ Ἡρακλείτῳ τὴν ψυχὴν
3 / / > \ \ ’ Ν ἫΝ \ A
ἀποφαίνει Ζήνων, ἀισθητικὴν δὲ αὐτὴν εἶναι διὰ τοῦτο
Υ͂ “ lal , , \ ,ὔ \ / \
λέγει, ὅτι τυποῦσθαί Te δύναται [TO μέγεθος] TO μέρος TO
- A \ f
ἡγούμενον αὐτῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ὄντων Kal ὑπαρχόντων διὰ τῶν
αἰσθητηρίων καὶ παραδέχεσθαι τὰς τυπώσεις" ταῦτα γὰρ
ἴδια ψυχῆς ἐστιν. ,

136 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO,

αἰσθητικήν : the MSS. have αἴσθησιν ἢ but the correction
(made by Wellmann p. 475 and Zeller p. 212) is rendered
certain by the parallel passage in ps-Plut. vit. hom. c. 127,
τὴν ψυχὴν of Στωικοὶ ὁρίζονται πνεῦμα συμφυὲς καὶ
ἀναθυμίασιν αἰσθητικὴν ἀναπτομένην ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν σώματι
ὑγρῶν.

ἀναθυμίασιν: cf. Ar. de Anim. 1. 2. 16. 405 a 25, καὶ
Ἡράκλειτος δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναί φησι ψυχήν, εἴπερ τὴν
ἀναθυμίασιν, ἐξ ἧς τάλλα συνίστησιν, i.e. Aristotle identi-
fies the ἀναθυμίασις (“fiery process” Wallace) with πῦρ.
Zeno adopts the word as an apt description of the warm
breath of which the soul is composed.

voepat. ‘The soul’s rational power is constantly renewed
by the fiery process, because it is fed by the emanations
from the περιέχον 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 αὔη
ψυχὴ σοφωτάτη (frag. 74 ed. Bywater), while the Stoics
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 is no
necessity to read ἕτεραι ἀεί.

εἴκασεν αὐτάς: the principle of πάντα pei applies
no less, to the soul than to the world in general:
thus Arist. Le. continues καὶ ἀσωματώτατόν τε καὶ ῥέον
ἀεί" τὸ δὲ κινούμενον κινουμένῳ γυγνώσκεσθαι" ἐν κινήσει
δ᾽ εἶναι τὰ ὄντα κἀκεῖνος ᾧετο καὶ οἱ πολλοί. The soul is
νοερὰ because it is in flux. For ποταμοῖσι cf. Plat. Crat.
402 A, Ἡράκλειτος...ποταμοῦ pop ἀπεικάζων ta ὄντα
λέγει ὡς δὶς ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ av éuBains. R and
Ρ 8 26.

καί... «ἀναθυμιῶνται. Bywater Heracl. fr. 42 ascribes these
words to Zeno and not to Heraclitus: the importance of

this will appear presently.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 137

ὁμοίως : 1.6. in the same sense as Heraclitus: the latter
however would not have called the soul αἰσθητική, dis-
tinguishing as he did between sensation and knowledge :
κακοὶ μάρτυρες ἀνθρώπων ὀφθαλμοὶ καὶ ὦτα βαρβάρους
ψυχὰς ἐχόντων frag. 11 Sch. and Stein, Erkenntnistheorie,
p. 12: hence Sextus infers that Heraclitus held τὴν αἴσθησιν
ἄπιστον εἶναι (Math. vil. 126).

τυποῦσθαι: cf. frag. 7, and for ἀπὸ τῶν ὄντων x.7.X. frag.

Ti.
84. Rufus Ephes. de part. hom. p. 44 ed. Clinch,

θερμασίαν δὲ καὶ πνεῦμα Ζήνων τὸ αὐτὸ εἶναί φησιν.
This passage has been discovered by Stein, Psych. n.
81 to whose remarks the reader is referred.

85. Diog. L. vir. 157, Ζήνων δὲ ὁ Κιτιεύς.. .-πνεῦμα
ἔνθερμον εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν. τούτῳ γὰρ ἡμᾶς εἶναι ἐμπνό-
ous, καὶ ὑπὸ τούτου κινεῖσθαι.

Cf. Alex. Aphr. de an. p. 26, 16 ed. Bruns, οἱ ἀπὸ
τῆς Στοᾶς πνεῦμα αὐτὴν λέγοντες εἶναι συγκείμενόν πως
ἔκ τε πυρὸς καὶ ἀέρος. Sext. Pyrrh. τι. 70, ἐπεὶ οὖν ἡ ψυχὴ
πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ἢ λεπτομερέστερόν τι πνεύματος
κατὰ. If any of the authorities seem to assert that
Heraclitus defined the soul as πνεῦμα, this is doubtless
either due to Stoic influence or is a mere gloss on ava-
θυμίασις : see the reff. in Zeller pre-Socratics 11 p. 80
where however the reference to Sext. Math. 1x. 363 (leg.
361) is a mistake, as the passage is dealing with ta τῶν
ὄντων στοιχεῖα. Not dissimilar is the Epicurean defini-
tion of the soul: Diog. L. x. 63, ἡ ψυχὴ σῶμα ἐστι λεπτο-
μερὲς παρ᾽ ὅλον τὸ ἄθροισμα παρεσπαρμένον᾽ προσεμ-
φερέστατον δὲ πνεύματι θερμοῦ τινα κρᾶσιν ἔχοντι. Sext.
Emp. Math. 1x. 71, λεπτομερεῖς γὰρ οὖσαι (αἱ ψυχαὶ) καὶ
οὐχ ἧττον πυρώδεις ἢ πνευματώδεις εἰς τοὺς ἄνω μᾶλλον
τόπους κουφοφοροῦσιν.

138 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.
ὑπὸ τούτου κινεῖσθαι : frag. 91.

86. Cic. Acad. 1. 39, (Zeno) statuebat ignem esse
ipsam naturam quae quidque gigneret et mentem atque
sensus, Fin. Iv. 12, cum autem quaereretur res admodum
difficilis, num quinta quaedam natura videretur esse ex
qua ratio et intellegentia oriretur, in quo etiam de animis
cuius geveris essent quaereretur, Zeno id dixit esse ignem.
Tusce. I. 19, Zenoni Stoico animus ignis videtur.

See also Stein, Psychologie p. 101.

87. Galen plac. Hippocr. et Plat. τι. 8 (v. 283 Kiihn),
εἰ δέ ye ἕποιτο (Διογένης ὁ Βαβυλώνιος) Κλεάνθει καὶ
Χρυσίππῳ καὶ Ζήνωνι τρέφεσθαι μὲν ἐξ αἵματος φήσασι
τὴν ψυχὴν οὐσίαν δ᾽ αὐτῆς ὑπάρχειν τὸ πνεῦμα.

It is doubtful whether the doctrine of the nourishment
of the soul 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. Hom. c. 2 p. 28 (quoted by Zeller, pre-
Socratics 11. p. 80) Ἡράκλειτος δὲ τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ψυχὴν
ἀναθυμίασιν ἐκ τῶν ὑγρῶν, who however goes on expressly
to distinguish the individual soul from the world-soul and
states that the former is composed ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκτὸς (avabv-
puacews). 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 :
thus man is in himself 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 τ. 2.
With regard to this passage, Wachsmuth (Comm. 1. p. 10)
suggests that there is here a confusion between Zeno of
Citium and Zeno of Tarsus, but there is no necessity

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 139

to adopt this supposition: that Zeno held the soul to
be 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.

88. Longinus ap. Euseb. P. E. xv. 21, Ζήνωνι μὲν
yap καὶ Κλεάνθει νεμεσήσειέ τις ἂν δικαίως οὕτω σφόδρα
ὑβριστικῶς περὶ αὐτῆς (scil. ψυχῆς) διαλεχθεῖσι καὶ
ταυτὸν ἄμφω τοῦ στερεοῦ αἵματος εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν
ἀναθυμίασιν φήσασι. Theodoret, gr. aff. cur. p. 934 Migne,
ἄμφω yap (Ζήνων καὶ Κλεάνθης) τοῦ στερεοῦ αἵματος
εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν ἀναθυμίασιν.

In both cases the MSS. have σώματος for αἵματος, but
the words are often confused and σώματος yields no
satisfactory sense. The emendation is made by Stein,
Psychol. p. 107, and is confirmed by the passages which he
cites from Marcus Aurelius (Vv. 33, νι. 1ὅ). στερεοῦ αἵματος
is rather an odd expression, but was probably introduced
by way of contrast to ψυχὴ as λεπτομερέστατον πνεῦμα.
For ἄμφω Viger suggested ἀμφοῖν, but the word is some-
times indeclinable.

89. Tertullian de Anima, c. 5, denique Zeno con-
situm spiritum definiens animam hoc modo instruit, “quo”
inquit “digresso animal emoritur, corpus est: consito
autem spiritu digresso animal emoritur: ergo consitus
spiritus corpus est: consitus autem spiritus anima est:
ergo corpus est anima.” Macrob. Somn. Sc. 1. 14. 19,
Zenon (dixit animam) concretum corpori spiritum.

Cf. Chrysipp. ap. Nem. Nat. Hom. c. 2, p. 33, ὁ
θάνατός ἐστι χωρισμὸς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ σώματος οὐδὲν δὲ
ἀσώματον ἀπὸ σώματος χωρίζεται" οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐφάπτεται
σώματος ἀσώματον" ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ καὶ ἐφάπτεται καὶ χωρί-
ζεται τοῦ σώματος. σῶμα ἄρα ἡ ψυχή. See Zeller, Stoics

140 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

p. 211, where further illustrations to this and the following
frag. will be found in the notes. concretum or consitum
corpori spiritum = Chrys. ap. Galen. Hipp. et Plat. m1. 1
(v. 287 Kiihn), ἡ ψυχὴ πνεῦμά ἐστι σύμφυτον ἡμῖν
συνεχὲς παντὶ τῷ σώματι διῆκον (quoted by Zeller). For
quo digresso etc. cf. Cic. Tuse. I. 18, sunt qui discessum
animi a corpore putent esse mortem. Plat. Phaed. 64 ¢,
dpa μὴ ἄλλο τι (ἡγούμεθα τὸν θάνατον εἶναι) ἢ τὴν τῆς
ψυχῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος ἀπαλλαγήν ;

90. Chalcid. in Tim. c. 220, Spiritum quippe animam
esse Zenon quaerit hactenus: quo recedente a corpore
moritur animal, hoc certe anima est. naturali porro |
spiritu recedente moritur animal : naturalis igitur spiritus
anima est.

It is possible that this passage and the extract from
Tertullian (fr. 89) are derived from a common original,
but, as in their present form the syllogisms are directed
to distinct points, it has been thought better to keep
them separate.

91. Galen, Hist. Phil. 24, Diels, p. 613, τὴν δὲ
οὐσίαν αὐτῆς (ψυχῆς) of μὲν ἀσώματον ἔφασαν ὡς Πλάτων,
οἱ δὲ σώματα κινεῖν ὡς Ζήνων καὶ οἱ ἐξ αὐτοῦ. πνεῦμα
γὰρ εἶναι ταύτην ὑπενόησαν καὶ οὗτοι.

σώματα κινεῖν. So MS. A, but B has σώματα συγκινοῦν
and the Latin version of Nicolaus has “corpus simul
secum movens.” Wachsm. conj. σῶμα σώματα ἅμα κινοῦν.
Usener: σῶμα τὰ σώματα κινοῦν. Diels: σῶμα αὑτὸ
κινοῦν sive ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ κινούμενον. Coll. Gal. def. Med. 30
κατὰ δὲ τοὺς Στωικοὺς σῶμα λεπτομερὲς ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ κιν-
ovpevov. Whatever may be the right reading, σώμα
certainly seems wanted as well as σώματα to point the
contrast with Plato. For the doctrine of the soul re-

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.
1. 2. § 2—6, 403 b 27—404 b 7. That the soul was self-
moving as being the principle of motion, was a dis-
tinctively Platonic dogma. Phaedr. 245 ©, μὴ ἄλλο τι
εἶναι TO αὐτὸ ἑαυτὸ κινοῦν ἢ ψυχήν. Legg. 895 A, ψυχήν
οὐὐτὴν δυναμένην αὑτὴν κινεῖν κίνησιν, Where the argument
is made use of to prove the immortality of the soul.

For the Stoics cf. Sext. Math. 1x. 102, πάσης yap
φύσεως Kal ψυχῆς ἡ καταρχὴ τῆς κινήσεως γίνεσθαι δοκεῖ
ἀπὸ ἡγεμονικοῦ, and the references collected by Stein,
Psych. nn. 217 and 221 to which add M. Aurel. v. 19.
The theory of τόνος throws an entirely new light on this,
as on many other Stoic doctrines, which were originally
adopted on independent grounds.

92. Stob. Ecl. 1. 49. 33, p. 867, 18, ἀλλὰ μὲν of γε
ἀπὸ Χρυσίππου καὶ Ζήνωνος φιλόσοφοι καὶ πάντες ὅσοι
σῶμα τὴν ψυχὴν νοοῦσι Tas μὲν δυνάμεις ὡς ἐν τῷ
ὑποκειμένῳ ποιότητας συμβιβάζουσι, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν ὡς
οὐσίαν προὐποκειμένην ταῖς δυνάμεσι τιθέασιν, ἐκ δ᾽ ἀμφο-
τέρων τούτων σύνθετον φύσιν ἐξ ἀνομοίων συνάγουσιν.

ποιότητας... «οὐσίαν. This distinction we have already
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,
pp. 105, 127, Reid on Cic. Ac. 1. 24 [0]. The different
activities of the soul bear the same relation to the soul
as a whole, as the qualities of any particular object bear
to its substance: hence Sext. Emp. Math. vi. 234, φασὶ
yap ψυχὴν λέγεσθαι διχῶς τό τε συνέχον τὴν ὅλην σύγ-
κρίσιν καὶ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν τὸ ἡγεμονικόν.

προὐποκειμένην : for the significance of this expression,
see Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 310.

142 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

93. Nemes. de Nat. Hom. p. 96, Ζήνων δὲ ὁ Στωικὸς
ὀκταμερῆ φησιν εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν, διαιρῶν αὐτὴν εἴς τε τὸ
ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ εἰς τὰς πέντε αἰσθήσεις καὶ εἰς τὸ φωνη-
τικὸν καὶ τὸ σπερματικόν. Stob. Ecl. τ. 49. 34, p. 369, 6,
οἱ ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος ὀκταμερὴ τὴν ψυχὴν διαδοξάζουσι περὶ
«ἣν; τὰς δυνάμεις εἶναι πλείονας, ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ
ἐνυπαρχουσῶν φαντασίας, συγκαταθέσεως, ὁρμῆς, λόγου.

We must distinguish the μέρη ψυχῆς from the δυ-
νάμεις, for they are not identical, as the passage in
Stobeeus shows. Sext. Emp. Math. vil. 237, καὶ γὰρ ἡ
ὁρμὴ Kal ἡ συγκατάθεσις καὶ ἡ κατάληψις ἑτεροιώσεις
εἰσὶ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ. In spite of this eightfold division
of local extension (see Zeller, p. 214 ἢ. 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 soul”.

τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. We have clear evidence here that the
term ἡγεμονικὸν is Zenonian. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie
nn. 219 and 693, is inconsistent on this point, in the
former passage attributing its introduction to Cleanthes
and in the latter to Zeno. It is very possible that
Cleanthes first spoke of τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου, 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 in tres a Zenone.

This passage is at variance with the account given by
Nemesius. Wellmann, 1. c. p. 476, prefers the authority
of Tertullian, thinking that the three divisions in question
are the ἡγεμονικόν, the φωνητικόν, and the σπερματικόν,
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 ZENO. 143

in the ἡγεμονικόν. On the other hand Weygoldt, 1. ο.
p. 36, and Heinze in Bursian’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) τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, (2) the five senses, and
(3) the voice and the reproductive organism, and that, if
we were in possession of the full text of Zeno, the dis-
crepancy would explain itself. If all that we knew of
Plato’s psychological divisions had been contained in this
passage and a statement that he divided the soul into λόγον
ἔχον, θυμοειδές, and ἐπιθυμητικόν, we should have had
some difficulty in reconciling the two. Hirzel, 11. 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. je ee
Vien a

95. Epiphan. adv. Haeres. 111. 2. 9 (111. 36), Ζήνων ὁ
Κιτιεὺς ὁ Στωικὸς ἔφη... δεῖν... ἔχειν TO θεῖον ἐν μόνῳ τῷ
νῷ μᾶλλον δὲ θεὸν ἡγεῖσθαι τὸν νοῦν. ἔστι γὰρ ἀθάνα-
OS ssi ἔλεγε δὲ Kal μετὰ χωρισμὸν τοῦ σώματος * * *
καὶ ἐκάλει τὴν ψυχὴν πολυχρόνιον πνεῦμα, οὐ μὴν δὲ
ἄφθαρτον δι’ trov ἔλεγεν αὐτὴν εἶναι. ἐκδαπανᾶται yap
ὑπὸ τοῦ πολλοῦ χρόνου εἰς τὸ ἀφανές, ὥς φησι. Cf.
August. contra Acad. 111. 17, 38, quamobrem cum Zeno
sua quadam de mundo et maxime de anima, propter
quam vera philosophia vigilat, sententia delectaretur,
dicens eam esse mortalem, nec quidquam esse _praeter
hunc sensibilem mundum, nihilque in eo agi nisi corpore ;
nam et deum ipsum ignem putabat.

τὸ θεῖον : cf. Cleanth. frag. 21, Stein, Psychol. p. 97.

πολυχρόνιον: the language of this extract recalls the
objection of Cebes in the Phaedo to Socrates’ proof of

144 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

the immortality of the soul p. 87 A—88 B, recapitulated —
by Socrates p. 95 B—E, cf. especially τὸ δὲ ἀποφαίνειν ὅτι
ἰσχυρόν τί ἐστιν ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ θεοειδὲς καὶ ἦν ἔτι πρότερον
πρὶν ἡμᾶς ἀνθρώπους γενέσθαι οὐδὲν κωλύειν φὴς πάντα
ταῦτα μηνύειν ἀθανασίαν μὲν μή, ὅτι δὲ πολυχρόνιόν τέ
ἐστιν ψυχή, καὶ ἦν που πρότερον ἀμήχανον ὅσον χρόνον
καὶ ἤδει τε καὶ ἔπραττεν πολλὰ ἄττα κιτιχλ. For the
limited future existence which the Stoics allowed to the
soul see Zeller, p. 218 foll. and add Schol. ad Lucan. rx. 1,
alii (animas) solidas quidem, postquam exierint de corpore,
permanere, sed deinde tractu temporis dissipari: haec
opinio Stoicorum. There was considerable variation in
points of detail among the various members of the soul:
see on Cleanth. frag. 41.

τοῦ σώματος : some such words as χρόνον τινὰ διαμένειν
have fallen out here.

οὐ.. ἀφθαρτον : this is not inconsistent with ἀθάνατος
above. The soul never perishes entirely, although event-
ually it passes into a higher power, Diog. vil. 156.
ψυχὴν μετὰ θάνατον ἐπιμένειν, φθαρτὴν δὲ εἶναι. Stein
Psychol. p. 145.

96. Themist. de An. 68 a Speng. UL. p. 30, 24, ἀλλ᾽
ὅμως Ζήνωνι μὲν ὑπολείπεταί τις ἀπολογία κεκρᾶσθαι
ὅλην δι’ ὅλου τοῦ σώματος φάσκοντι τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ τὴν
ἔξοδον αὐτῆς ἄνευ φθορᾶς τοῦ συγκρίματος μὴ ποιοῦντι.

The passage of Aristotle is de An. τ. 8 § 6, p. 400 ἃ
30—65, where he says that one of the objections to
the view that the soul κινεῖ τὸ σῶμα is that in that case
the soul’s movements will correspond to those of the
body, so that if the body moves locally, the soul may do
the same and change its position with regard to the body
by leaving it. εἰ δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἐνδέχεται, ἕποιτ᾽ av τὸ ἀνίσ-
τασθαι τὰ τεθνεῶτα τῶν ζῴων. We might therefore

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 1.0

infer from this passage that Zeno taught that the soul
moved the body (frag. 91).

Themistius says that Zeno is rescued from this dilemma
by the doctrine of κρᾶσις δι’ ὅλων, for which see on frag.
52. He 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. Iambl. ap.
Stob. Ecl. 1. 49. 33, p. 368, 6, καθ᾽ ots δὲ μία ζωὴ τῆς
ψυχῆς ἐστιν ἡ τοῦ συνθέτου, συγκεκραμένης τῆς ψυχῆς
τῷ σώματι. Sext. Math. 1x. 72, οὐδὲ γὰρ πρότερον τὸ
σῶμα διακρατητικὸν ἦν αὐτῶν (τῶν ψυχῶν) ἀλλ᾽ αὐταὶ
τῷ σώματι συμμονῆς ἦσαν αἴτιαι x.7.A. The best illus-
tration however is Sext. Math. vil. 234, φασὶ γὰρ ψυχὴν
λέγεσθαι διχῶς, TO τε συνέχον THY ὅλην σύγκρισιν Kal
κατ᾽ ἰδίαν τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. ὅταν γὰρ εἴπωμεν συνεστάναι
τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, ἢ τὸν θάνατον εἶναι
χωρισμὸν ψυχῆς ἀπὸ σώματος, ἰδίως καλοῦμεν τὸ ἡγε-
μονικόν, the meaning of which passage seems to be that
only the ἡγεμονικὸν and not the whole soul is said to
depart, inasmuch as the corpse must possess συνεκτικὴ
δύναμις in the form of ἕξις, for otherwise it will be
altogether non-existent. (See Stein, Erkenntnistheorie,
p. 105 foll.) But there is no inconsistency with the
present passage, since the change of τὸ συνέχον from
ψυχὴ to ἕξις is φθορὰ τοῦ συγκρίματος (for φθορά
γθάνατος see on frag. 95).

97. Lactant. Inst. vil. 7. 20, Esse inferos Zenon
Stoicus docuit et sedes piorum ab impiis esse discretas:
et illos quidem quietas et delectabiles incolere regiones,
hos vero luere poenas in tenebrosis locis atque in caeni
voraginibus horrendis.

Cf. Tertull. de anima ὁ. 54, quos quidem miror quod
imprudentes animas circa terram prosternant cum illas

H. P. 10

146 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

a sapientibus multo superioribus erudiri adfirment. ubi
erit scholae regio in tanta distantia diversoriorum? qua
ratione discipulae ad magistros conventabunt, tanto dis-
crimine invicem absentes? quid autem illis postremae
eruditionis usus ac fructus iam iam conflagratione peri-
. turis? reliquas animas ad inferos deiciunt. Hirzel thinks
that Virgil’s description of the souls of the lost in Aen.
vi. is derived from Stoic sources, and therefore ultimately
from Zeno, and refers to Ecl. vi. 31, Georg. Iv. 220, Aen.
vi. 724, for the influence of Stoicism on Virgil. The same
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,
called by Grote “fanciful illustrations invented to expand
and enliven general views,” and suggests that it may
have occurred in the πολιτεία, which Zeno, as we are told
by Plutarch, directed against the Platonic school (see
Hirzel, Untersuchungen 11. pp. 25—31). It is certainly
hardly credible that Zeno can have attached any philo-
sophical importance to a theory stated in these terms,
and it is better to regard it as a concession to popular
belief in a matter which could not be formulated with
scientific precision. See also Stein, Psych. p. 149 and
162, who infers that Zeno agreed with Chrysippus rather
than with Cleanthes in the controversy appearing in
Cleanth. 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. rx. 73, 74, Cic. Tuse. 1. 42, 43.

98. Plut. plac. Iv. 21. 4, τὸ δὲ φωνᾶεν ὑπὸ τοῦ Ζήνωνος

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 147

᾽ , a \ x le 4 a a
εἰρημένον, ὃ καὶ φωνὴν καλοῦσιν, ἔστι πνεῦμα διατεῖνον

an a , , a
ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι φάρυγγος καὶ γλώττης καὶ TOV
οἰκείων ὀργάνων.

Cf. on Cleanth. frag. 49.
99. Eustath. in 1]. = 506, p. 1158, 37, ἠεροφώνους

κήρυκας “Ὅμηρος κἀνταῦθα εἰπὼν τὸν κατὰ Ζήνωνα τῆς
φωνῆς ὅρον προὐὔπέβαλεν εἰπόντα᾽ “ φωνή ἐστιν ἀὴρ πε-
πληγμένος.᾽

Cf. Diog. L. vir. 55, ἔστε δὲ φωνὴ ἀὴρ πεπληγμένος.
This frag. is taken from Wachsmuth, Comm. 1. p. 12.
Sound is produced by the breath coming in contact with
the external air; in the case of an animal the air is said
to be struck ὑπὸ ὁρμῆς, while the voice of man is ἔναρθρος
καὶ ἀπὸ διανοίας ἐκπεμπομένη, Diog. 1. 6. See also the
passages quoted by Stein, Psychol. n. 248.

Cf. Plato’s definition, Tim. p. 67 Β., ὅλως μὲν οὖν
φωνὴν θῶμεν τὴν δι’ ὦτων ὑπ᾽ ἀέρος ἐγκεφάλου τε καὶ
αἵματος μέχρι ψυχῆς πληγὴν διαδιδομένην. Ar. de An.
II. 8 discusses ψόφος, ἀκοή, and φωνή. Sound is formed
ὅταν ὑπομένῃ πληγεὶς ὁ ἀὴρ Kal μὴ διαχυθῇ (ὃ 3, p. 419
b 21): voice is then defined as ψόφος tis ἐμψύχου
(δ 9, p. 420 b. 5) and is minutely described.

100. Galen, Hipp. et Plat. plac. um. 5, v. p. 241, K,
ὁ θαυμαζόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν στωικῶν λόγος ὁ Ζήνωνος...
ἔχει γὰρ ὧδε. “ φωνὴ διὰ φάρυγγος χωρεῖ. εἰ δὲ ἦν ἀπὸ
τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου χωροῦσα, οὐκ ἂν διὰ φάρυγγος ἐχώρει.
ὅθεν δὲ λόγος, καὶ φωνὴ ἐκεῖθεν χωρεῖ. λόγος δὲ ἀπὸ
διανοίας χωρεῖ, ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἐν τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ ἐστὶν ἡ διάνοια."

It is tempting to suggest that λόγος and φωνὴ have
changed places: the argument would certainly be more
transparent if the transposition were made: cf. the
following passage in Galen, speaking of Diogenes Baby-
lonius: ὅθεν ἐκπέμπεται ἡ φωνή, καὶ ἡ ἔναρθρος" οὐκοῦν

10—2

148 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

καὶ ἡ σημαίνουσα ἔναρθρος φωνὴ ἐκεῖθεν" τοῦτο δὲ λόγος.
καὶ λόγος ἄρα ἐκεῖθεν ἐκπέμπεται ὅθεν καὶ ἡ φωνή.
Galen’s comment is that Zeno has omitted some of the
necessary ἀξιώματα, while Diogenes has too many. He
also points out the fallacy underlying the preposition
ἀπό, which is ambiguous; either ἐξ or ὑπὸ ought to have
been used, in which case the argument could never have
stood the test of daylight. The gist however of his
argument against Zeno, which is given at some length,
is that Zeno has been deceived by the following fallacy:
ὅθεν ὁ λόγος ἐκπέμπεται, ἐκεῖ δεῖ καὶ τὸν διαλογισμὸν
γίγνεσθαι, τουτέστιν, ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ μορίῳ. τοῦτο δὲ φήσομεν
ἄντικρυς εἶναι ψεῦδος, οὐ γὰρ εἴ τι κατὰ προαίρεσιν ἔκ
τινος ἐκπέμπεται Kat ἐκεῖνο τὸ μόριον δείκνυται τὴν
διάνοιαν ὑπάρχειν, καθάπερ οὐδὲ τὸ οὖρον οὐδε τὸ πτύελον
οὐδὲ ἡ κόρυζα οὐδὲ τὸ ἀποπάτημα. Wachsmuth quotes
further passages from Galen’s argument in which Zeno’s
name is mentioned, but they add nothing to the words
cited above. Chrysippus, and after him Diogenes of Babylon
(Οἷς. N. D. 1. 41), laboured to prove that the birth of
Athene from the head of Zeus in no way conflicted with
their view that the breast was the seat of reason (Zeller,
p. 364). See generally Stein, Psychol. p. 137.

101. Galen, Hipp. et Plat. plac. π. 5, v. p. 247,
Kiihn, καὶ τοῦτο βούλεταί ye Ζήνων καὶ Χρύσιππος ἅμα
τῷ σφετέρῳ χορῷ παντὶ διαδίδοσθαι τὴν ἐκ τοῦ προσ-
πεσόντος ἔξωθεν ἐγγενομένην τῷ μορίῳ κίνησιν εἰς τὴν
ἀρχὴν τῆς ψυχῆς, ἵν᾿ αἴσθηται τὸ ζῷον.

This passage occurs in the course of the discussion
as to φωνὴ and διάνοια as a parenthetical argument, and
Galen objects that there is no perceptible interval of time
between the impression and the sensation. Cf. Plut. plac.
Iv. 23, 1, impressions are made on the organ of sense but

ee

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 149

the seat of feeling is in the ἡγεμονικόν. Philo de mund.
Opif. p. 114 Pfeiff. (quoted on Cleanthes, frag. 3). See
also Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 306.

102. Galen, Hipp. et Plat. plac. m1. 5, v. p. 322,
Kiihn, 6 τε Ζήνων πρὸς τοὺς ἐπιλαμβανομένους, ὅτι πάντα
τὰ ζητούμενα εἰς τὸ στόμα φέρει, ἔφησεν “ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντα
καταπίνεται᾽᾽, οὔτε τῆς καταπόσεως ἄλλως ἂν οἰκειότερον
λεγομένης οὔτε τῆς καταβάσεως τῶν ῥηθέντων, εἰ μὴ
περὶ τὸν θώρακα τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ἡμῖν ἦν, εἰς ὃ ταῦτα
πάντα φέρεται.

φέρει, SO I. Miiller for MSS. φέρειν. This obscure passage
was formerly punctuated as though Zeno’s words extended
from add’ ov πάντα to φέρεται, but, if the context is read,
it is at once plain that I. Miiller is right in putting the
inverted commas after καταπίνεται. Chrysippus, who is
being quoted, is aiming to prove the location of the ἡγε-
μονικὸν in the breast by the usage of ordinary speech:
eg. ἀναβαίνειν τὸν θυμόν---καταπίνειν τὴν χολήν---σπα-
ράγματα καταπίνεσθαι---καταπιὼν τὸ ῥηθὲν ἀπῆλθεν:
then comes this reference to Zeno, and the conclusion
οὔτε---φέρεται is the inference drawn by Chrysippus from
the facts stated. Still, it is by no means clear what was
the force of the objection made to Zeno or of his rejoinder.
Miller translates:—Et Zeno reprehendentibus, quod
omnia, quae in quaestionem vocarentur, in ore gestaret,
‘at, inquit, ‘non omnia a me devorantur, apparently
making Zeno the subject of φέρει, but the Latin is in
other respects hardly less obscure than the Greek.
Wachsmuth, who has the old punctuation, interprets
πάντα τὰ ξητούμενα as “affectus” and suggests φέρεται
for φέρειν, but what meaning he deduces from the passage
I do not understand. In this perplexity, the following
-explanation is suggested. πάντα ta ζητούμενα is the

150 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

subject of φέρει and the objectors say:—all objects of
investigation are ultimately concerned with the mouth.
For φέρει see L. and S. of ἐπιλαμβανόμενοι are the
Epicureans, who denied the existence of any intermediate
σημαινόμενον (λεκτόν) between σημαῖνον (φωνή) and
τυγχάνον (τὸ ἐκτὸς ὑποκείμενον), cf. Sext. Math. vim. 11
foll. and esp. 13, of δὲ περὶ τὸν ᾿Επίκουρον.. φαίνονται...
περὶ τῇ φωνῇ τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ ψεῦδος ἀπολείπειν. Diog. L.
χ. 33, πᾶν οὖν πρᾶγμα ὀνόματι τῷ πρώτως ἐπιτεταγμένῳ
ἐναργές ἐστι. But this nominalism went hand in hand
with the most absolute credence in every sense-perception.
To the Stoic, however, not every φαντασία is ἐναργής, but
only that which is καταληπτική. Hence Zeno’s reply :—
however this may be, we can’t swallow everything. κατα-
πίνεται is substituted for καταλαμβάνεται, just as στόμα
takes the place of φωνή. Some confirmation of this guess
“may be found in the recurrence of τὸ ἕητούμενον, ξητεῖν,
etc. in Epicurean texts (Diog. x. 33, 37, 38, Sext. Math.
x1. 21). If Miiller’s punctuation is adopted, this fragment
ought rather to be numbered with the ἀποφθέγματα, 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 Wachsmuth.

οὔτε x.7.d. It would not be correct to speak of “swallow-
ing” or “imbibing” another's words, in any other case
unless (ἄλλως εἰ μή) the dominant part of the soul were
in the breast. For καταπόσεως cf. Ar. Ach, 484 (of
Dicaearchus encouraging his θυμὸς to persevere in taking
the part of the Lacedaemonians) ἕστηκας ; οὐκ εἶ κατα-
πιὼν Εὐριπίδην;

103. Cic. de Divin. um. 119, contrahi autem animum
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 πνεῦμα. Diog. L. Vit. 158, τὸν δὲ
ὕπνον γίνεσθαι ἐκχυομένου Tod αἰσθητικοῦ τόνου περὶ TO
ἡγεμονικόν. Plut. plac. v. 23. 4, Πλάτων οἱ Στωικοὶ τὸν
μὲν ὕπνον γίνεσθαι ἀνέσει τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ πνεύματος, οὐ
κατ᾽ ἀναχαλασμόν, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, φερομένου δὲ ὡς
ἐπὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν μεσόφρυον. For Plato’s theory of sleep
ef. Tim. p. 45 D, E, and for the Stoics, Stein, Psychol.
p. 141.

104. Stob. Flor. Monac. 198, ὁ αὐτὸς (Ζήνων) ἔφη
τὴν μὲν ὅρασιν ἀπὸ Tod ἀέρος λαμβάνειν τὸ φῶς, τὴν δὲ
ψυχὴν ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων.

For the Stoic theory of vision see Zeller, p. 221, n. 4.
Stein, Psych. n. 241. In Plut. plac. Iv. 21, ὅρασις is
defined as πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρις
ὀφθαλμῶν. The views of the ancient philosophers before
Aristotle will be found concisely stated in Grote’s Plato,
Il. 265 n., and for Aristotle see Grote’s Aristotle, p. 465.

105. Varro de 1, L. v. 59, sive, ut Zenon Citieus,
animalium semen ignis is, qui anima ac mens.

Mueller’s punctuation of the passage has been followed:
in Spengel’s edition, Zeno’s statement is made to extend
farther. ignis = πνεῦμα in the next fragment. Zeller
remarks: “ Plutarch (Plac. v. 16, 2. 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,”
p. 213, n.1. Stein’s explanation of this paradox (Psych.
p- 115—117) is ingenious, but he is driven to assume

that φύσις is warmer than ψυχή, which seems question-
able.

106. Euseb. P. E. xv. 20. 1, Ar. Did. fr. phys. 39,

152 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. .

Diels p. 470, τὸ δὲ σπέρμα φησὶν ὁ Ζήνων εἶναι ὃ
μεθίησιν ἄνθρωπος πνεῦμα μεθ᾽ ὑγροῦ, ψυχῆς μέρος καὶ
ἀπόσπασμα καὶ τοῦ σπέρματος τοῦ τῶν προγόνων κέρασμα
καὶ μῦγμα τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς μερῶν συνεληλυθός" ἔχον γὰρ
τοὺς λόγους τῷ ὅλῳ τοὺς αὐτοὺς τοῦτο, ὅταν ἀφεθῇ εἰς τὴν
μήτραν συλληφθὲν ὑπ᾽ ἄλλου πνεύματος, μέρος ψυχῆς
τῆς τοῦ θήλεος κρυφθέν τε φύει κινούμενον καὶ ἀναρριπι-
ζόμενον ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου προσλάμβανον ἀεὶ [εἰς] τὸ ὑγρὸν καὶ
αὐξόμενον ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Theodoret freely copies Euseb. gr.
aff. cur. V. 25, Ζήνων δὲ ὁ Κιτιεὺς ὁ τῆσδε τῆς αἱρέσεως
ἡγησάμενος τοιάδε περὶ ψυχῆς δοξάξειν τοὺς οἰκείους
ἐδίδαξε φοιτητάς" τὸν yap τοι ἀνθρώπινον θορὸν ὑγρὸν
ὄντα καὶ μετέχοντα πνεύματος τῆς ψυχῆς ἔφησεν εἶναι
μέρος τε καὶ ἀπόσπασμα καὶ τοῦ τῶν προγόνων σπέρματος
κέρασμα τε καὶ μῖγμα ἐξ ἁπάντων τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς μορίων
συναθροισθέν. Plut. de cohib. Ira, 15, καίτοι (καθάπερ 6
Ζήνων ἔλεγε τὸ σπέρμα σύμμιγμα Kal κέρασμα τῶν τῆς
ψυχῆς δυναμέων ὑπάρχειν ἀπεσπασμένον) οὕτω «.T.d.
ib. plac. v. 4. 1, Ζήνων (τὸ σπέρμα) σῶμα" ψυχῆς yap
εἶναι ἀπόσπασμα. Same in Galen, hist. phil. 31. ΧΙΧ.
322 K., cf. Galen, ὅροι ἰατρ. 94 (XIX. 370 K.), σπέρμα ἐστὶν
ἀνθρώπου 0, μεθίησιν ἄνθρωπος μεθ᾽ ὑγροῦ ψυχῆς μέρους
ἅρπαγμα καὶ σύμμιγμα τοῦ τῶν προγόνων γένους, οἷόν
τε αὐτὸ ἦν καὶ αὐτὸ συμμιχθὲν ἀπεκρίθη. Diog. vil. 158,
. ἀνθρώπου δὲ σπέρμα, ὃ μεθίησιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, μεθ᾽ ὑγροῦ
συγκίρνασθαι (λέγουσιν) τοῖς τῆς ψυχῆς μέρεσι κατὰ
μιγμὸν τοῦ τῶν προγόνων λόγου.

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

συλληφθέν : conceptum, cf. Sext. Math. v. 55 foll.

φύει : is productive (not intrans.). So perhaps in the
well known line: Hom. 1]. vi. 149, ὡς ἀνδρῶν yeven, ἡ
μὲν φύει ἡ δ᾽ ἀπολήγει. Otherwise, as re is not required

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 153

by the sense, we might suggest that reves arose from
φυεται, cf. Diog. L. vit. 159, τῶν εἰς τὴν γῆν KaTa-
βαλλομένων σπερμάτων ἃ παλαιωθέντα οὐκ ἔτι φύεται.
Cleanth. fr. 24, ὥσπερ γὰρ ἑνός τινος τὰ μέρη πάντα
φύεται κιτιλ. Diels suggests κερασθέν τε φύει and Usener
κρύφα ἐπισχύει.

εἰς after ἀεὶ is perhaps due to dittography.

107. Plut. plac. v. 5. 2, Ζήνων (τὰς θηλείας) ὕλην
μὲν ὑγρὰν προΐεσθαι, οἱονεὶ ἀπὸ τῆς συγγυμνασίας ἱδρῶτας,
οὐ μὴν σπερματικόν. The same in Galen, hist. phil. c. 31,
mix. 322 K., cf Diog: Li. vit) 159, ro: Se τῆς θηλείας
(σπέρμα) ἄγονον ἀποφαίνονται ἄτονόν τε γὰρ εἶναι καὶ
ὀλίγον καὶ ὑδατῶδες, ὡς ὁ Σφαῖρος φησίν.

σπερματικόν. Diels, p. 418 reads σπέρμα πεπτικόν.

108. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 1x. 138, Ζήνων δὲ καὶ
τοιοῦτον ἠρώτα λόγον᾽ τοὺς θεοὺς εὐλόγως ἂν τις τιμῳη.
τοὺς δὲ μὴ ὄντας οὐκ ἄν τις εὐλόγως τιμῴη᾽ εἰσὶν ἄρα
θεοί.

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
(ib. 133—136). Theon, Progymn. 12, p. 251 (Spengel,
Rhet. gr. p. 126, 16) gives proofs of the existence of the
gods, among which is: ἑξῆς δὲ ὅτι Kal τοῖς σοφοῖς δοκεῖ,
οἷον Πλάτωνι, ᾿Αριστοτέλει, Ζήνωνι.

109. Lactant. de ira Dei c. 11, Antisthenes...unum
esse naturalem Deum dixit, quamvis gentes et urbes suos
habeant populares. Eadem fere Zeno cum suis Stoicis.
Cf. Philod. περὶ εὐσεβ. p. 84 Gomp., πάντες οὖν οἱ ἀπὸ
Ζήνωνος, εἰ καὶ ἀπέλειπον τὸ δαιμόνιον...ἕνα θεὸν λέγου-
σιν εἶναι.

154 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

At first sight these passages are inconsistent with frag.
108, but in reality there is no such difficulty: cf. Athenag.
Suppl. c. 6, p. 73, quoted supra on frag. 45. The Stoics
strongly opposed the follies of the popular belief, while at
the same time they called attention to the germ of truth
which it contained, being no doubt anxious to preserve it
as a basis for morality. Zeller well observes, p. 347,
“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 is
especially manifested.” In testing how far this admission
goes, it should be observed that the Stoic in Cic. N. D. πὶ.
45 distinctly denies that the derivative gods are human
in shape, cf. Philod. περὶ εὐσεβ. p. 85 G., ἀνθρωποειδεῖς
yap ἐκεῖνοι οὐ νομίζουσιν ἀλλὰ ἀέρας καὶ πνεύματα Kal
αἰθέρας. For Antisthenes cf. Philod. περὶ εὐσεβ. p. 78 G.,
map ᾿Αντισθένει δ᾽ ἐν μὲν TO φυσικῷ λέγεται TO κατὰ
νόμον εἷναι πολλοὺς θεούς, κατὰ δὲ φύσιν ἕνα.

110. Cic. N. Ὁ. 1. 36, Cum vero Hesiodi θεογονίαν
interpretatur, tollit omnino usitatas perceptasque cogniti-
ones deorum; neque enim Jovem neque Iunonem neque
Vestam neque quemquam qui ita appelletur in deorum ~
habet numero sed rebus inanimis atque mutis per quandam
significationem haec docet tributa nomina.

Hesiodi θεογονίαν : Introd. p. 31.

Iovem: see on frag. 111 and cf. Flach, Glossen u.
Scholien zur Hesiodischen Theogonie, p. 66.

Iunonem = air : see infra and ef. Cic. N. 1). 11. 66; she is
identified with air as being the wife of luppiter (= aether),
and air is regarded as feminine, quod nihil est eo mollius.
Similarly” Hpy =air in Empedocles (R. and P.§ 131). ἀὴρ
is also one of Plato’s derivations, who says the order of

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 155

the letters has been reversed, γνοίης δ᾽ ἂν εἰ πολλάκις
λέγοις TO τῆς Ἥρας ὄνομα, Crat. p. 404 C.

Vestam: ct. N. Ὁ. π. 67. “Wahrscheinlich leitete
Zenon ihren Namen von ἑστάναι ab und brachte hiermit,
anspielend auf den Altar der Hestia im Prytaneum, den
Stillstand der Erde im Mittelpunkt der Welt in Verbind-
ung.” Krische, p. 401.

This is perhaps the best place to refer to a supposed
fragment of Zeno contained in Philodem. περὶ θεῶν δια-
γωγῆς, Hercul. vol. vi. Tab. 1. 1, «αὐ; 84 «ὁ» Ζήνων
ἕκαστον «τὸν θεὸν ἄπειρα κατέχειν; δὴ τὰ Eve <TNPLA>...
«οὐκ a>v συνακοςλούθει εἰ μή τι; τῶν αἰώνων; καὶ
ἀςξι; οὔται Sia<p>Oicape<vos> ὡς we<taTta>s θεάς. It
will be seen that so little of the papyrus is legible here
that the sense for which it is quoted by Zeller, p. 165
n. 5, is entirely due to the imagination of the Naples
editor. Prof. Scott (Fragm. Hercul. p. 181) rightly
characterises this as “gibberish,” and wonders that Zeller
should have seriously quoted it: see also Wachsm. Comm.
IL p.9n. If we are to follow the conjectures of the
Naples editor of this work of Philodemus, there are at
least three other fragments of Zeno preserved in it. In
no place but 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. They will be found at Tab. Iv. 7.

Ὁ, iv. col. τ ὃ. xi. and col. Il. Ὁ: xii.

111. Minucius Felix Octav. 19. 10, Idem (Zeno)
interpretando Iunonem aera Jovem caelum Neptunum
mare ignem esse Vulcanum et ceteros similiter vulgi deos
elementa esse monstrando publicum arguit graviter et
revincit errorem.

Iovem: it is clear that Zeus was identified with the

156 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

aether or pure fiery essence, of which caelum is here an
equivalent, as in Pacuvius ap. Cic. N. Ὁ. 11. 91, hoe quod
memoro nostri caelum Grai perhibent aethera. Cf. Chrysipp.
ap. Philod. περὶ εὐσεβ. p. 79 Gomp.,”Hgaiorov δὲ πῦρ
elvat...Aia δὲ τὸν αἰθέρα. Diog. L. vit. 147 God is the
creator of the universe, and, as it were, the father of all;
his various manifestations are described by different names.
Ala μὲν yap φασι δι᾽ ὃν τὰ πάντα" Ζῆνα δὲ καλοῦσι παρ᾽
ὅσον τοῦ ζῆν αἴτιός ἐστιν, ἢ διὰ τοῦ ζῆν κεχώρηκεν......
Ἥραν δὲ κατὰ τὴν εἰς ἀέρα: καὶ “Ἥ φαιστον κατὰ τὴν εἰς
τὸ τεχνικὸν Tip’ καὶ Ποσειδῶνα κατὰ τὴν εἰς τὸ ὑγρόν.
The extract from Minue. Felix lends some slight weight
to Krische’s theory (p. 398) that the whole of Diogenes’
description is ultimately derived from Zeno. The same
writer thinks that the explanation of the myths of the
mutilation of Uranus and the binding of Cronos (Cic.
N. Ὁ. 11. 63, 64) belongs to Zeno.

ignem. Diogenes’ πῦρ τεχνικὸν is, according to Krische,
a blunder: Hephaestus is elsewhere identified with earthly
fire (τὴν φλόγα in Plut. de Iside c. 66, for which however
see on Cleanth. frag. 23). But see Zeller, p. 359, 1.
These explanations were not novelties introduced by the
Stoa, except in so far as they were specially adapted to Stoic
_ dogmas. Cf. Sext. Math. 1x. 18 (after citing Euhemerus
and Prodicus), καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὸν μὲν ἄρτον Δημήτραν
νομισθῆναι τὸν δὲ οἶνον Διόνυσον τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ Ποσειδῶνα
τὸ δὲ πῦρ φαιστον καὶ ἤδη τῶν εὐχρηστούντων ἕκαστον.

112. Valer. Probus in Virg. Ecl. vi. 31, p. 21, 14 Keil:
sunt qui singulis elementis principia adsignaverunt...
Thales Milesius magister eius (Anaximenis) aquam. Hane
quidem Thaletis opinionem ab Hesiodo putant manare
qui dixerit: ἤτοι μὲν πρώτιστα χάος γένετ᾽, αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα.
Nam Zenon Citieus sic interpretatur aquam χάος ap-

—

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 157

pellatum ἀπὸ τοῦ χέεσθαι, quamquam eandem opinionem
ab Homero possumus intellegere quod ait ‘OQxeavov τε
θεῶν γένεσιν καὶ μητέρα Τηθύν. This frag. is cited by
Wachsmuth Comm. 1. p. 11, who adds “eadem originatio
est apud Achill. Tat., Isag. in Arat. phaen. 3. 125 6. Petav.”

The lines of Hesiod, Theog. 116 foll. are often quoted,
e.g. by Plato, Symp. 178 B, to prove the antiquity of love,
and by Ar. Met. 1 4. 1 as an indication that Hesiod
recognised both the efficient and the final cause. Aris-
totle also refers to the passage in Phys. Iv. 1 and de Caelo
ut. 1. 298 Ὁ. 25, and Krische suggests (p. 395) that the
application which is put upon it by him in the latter
place prevented Zeno from identifying yaos with his own
πρώτη ὕλη as might have been expected. Cf. also the
anecdote related of Epicurus in Sext. Math. x. 18, 19.

ἀπὸ τοῦ xéo0a. Krische |. c. remarks that this deri-
vation is probably referred to in Plat. Cratyl. 402 B
where Socrates, after saying that Heraclitus likened all
things to a flowing river, and that Homer’s line showed
that he was of the same opinion, proceeds: οἶμαι δὲ καὶ
Ἡσίοδος.

118. Schol. on Apoll. Rhod. 1. 498, καὶ Ζήνων δὲ τὸ
tap Ἡσιόδῳ χάος ὕδωρ εἶναί φησιν, οὗ συνιζάνοντος
ἰλὺν γίνεσθαι, ἧς πηγνυμένης ἡ γῆ στερεμνιοῦται. τρίτον
δὲ "Ἔρωτα γεγονέναι καθ᾽ Η σίοδον, ἵνα τὸ πῦρ παραστήσῃ"
πυρωδέστερον γὰρ πάθος "Ἰὰρως.

This passage shows clearly that Zeno must have re-
jected or been ignorant of ll. 118 and 119 of the Theog.
see Krische, p. 396.

χάος. See on frag. 112 and add Cornut. c. 17, p. 85
Osann, ἔστε δὲ χάος μὲν τὸ πρὸ τῆς διακοσμήσεως γε-
νόμενον ὑγρόν, ἀπὸ τῆς χύσεως οὕτως ὠνομασμένον.

itv: similar views with regard to the formation of the

158 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

earth are attributed to Xenophanes. Hippolyt. 1. 14, ταῦτα
δέ φησι γενέσθαι ὅτε πάντα ἐπηλώθησαν πάλαι τὸν δὲ
τόπον ἐν τῷ πηλῷ ξηρανθῆναι x.7.r., and to Anaxagoras
(Zeller, pre-Socratics 11. p. 356). Hence Zeno himself
spoke of earth as ὑποστάθμη πάντων, frag. 114.

πυρωδέστερον : a familiar comparison. Pind. P. Iv. 219
Medea ἐν φρασὶ καιομέναν. Virg. Aen. Iv. 68, uritur in-
felix Dido. Georg. 111. 244, in furias ignemque ruunt:
amor omnibus idem. Cf. Schol. ad Hes. Theog. 120, ἠδ᾽
Epos...évior δὲ πῦρ' τὸ πυρῶδες yap THs ἐπιθυμίας.

The authorities give two further Stoic explanations of
Hesiod’s Eros; (1) with a reference to λόγος σπερματικός.
Cornut. c. 17, p. 86 Osann, ὁ δὲ [Ἔρως σὺν αὐτοῖς γεγονέναι
ἐρρήθη, ἡ ὁρμὴ ἐπὶ τὸ γεννᾶν. (2) Fire regarded as
σννεκτικὴ δύναμις : Schol. ad Hes. Theog. 120, τὰ τρία
στοιχεῖα εἰπὼν τὸ ὃ λέγει τὸ πῦρ ὅπερ δαιμονίως ἔρωτά
φησι, συναρμόζειν γὰρ καὶ συνάγειν καὶ ἑνοῦν πέφυκεν.
On the passage generally cf. Flach, Glossen u. Scholien,
p. 37, who attributes to Zeno the words in the Schol. on
1. 115, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ὕδατος ἐγένοντο τὰ στοιχεῖα, γῆ κατὰ
συνίζησιν, ἀὴρ κατὰ avadoow* τὸ δὲ λεπτομερὲς τοῦ
ἀέρος γέγονε πῦρ, τὰ δὲ ὄρη κατὰ ἐξοστρακισμὸν τῆς γῆς,
which appear also in Cornut. ο. 17, p. 84 Osann. This is
likely enough, but there is no direct evidence. The same
remark applies to the derivation of Κρόνος from χρόνος
id. p. 44 (cf. Cic. N. D. 11. 64). Flach refers many other
definitions to Zeno: a list of some of them will be found
at p. 48 of his work, but those of his inferences which are
not supported by direct evidence cannot be dealt with
here.

114. Schol. on Hes. Theog. 117, Ζήνων δὲ ὁ Στωικὸς
ἐκ τοῦ ὑγροῦ τὴν ὑποστάθμην γῆν γεγεννῆσθαί φησιν,
τρίτον δὲ "Epwra γεγονέναι, ὅθεν ὁ ἐπαγόμενος ἀθετεῖται

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 159

στίχος. Cf. Diog.. L. vit. 137, ὑποστάθμην δὲ πάντων
τὴν γῆν, μέσην ἁπάντων οὖσαν.

Wachsmuth connects this with frag. 113. For the
general sense cf. frag. 52. The word ὑποστάθμη is Platonic

(Phaed. 109 c).

115. Schol. on Hes. Theog. 134 Gaisf. Gr. Poet. Min.
1. 482, ὁ Ζήνων φησὶ τοὺς Τιτᾶνας διὰ παντὸς εἰρῆσθαι
τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου. Kotov γὰρ λέγει τὴν ποιότητα
\ \ > \ a \ \ lal \ \
κατὰ τροπὴν ᾿Αιολικὴν τοῦ π πρὸς TO K, Κρεῖον δὲ τὸ
βασιλικὸν καὶ ἡγεμονικόν, Ὑπερίονα δὲ τὴν ἄνω κίνησιν
ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑπεράνω ἰέναι. ἐπεὶ δὲ φύσιν ἔχει πάντα τὰ
βάρη ἀφιέμενα πίπτειν ἄνωθεν τὸ τοιοῦτον εἶδος ᾿Ιάπετον
ἐκάλεσε.
ποιότητα, frag. 53. πάντα τὰ βάρη, frag. 67. βάρη... ἄνωθεν...
εἶδος : SO Flach, p. 223 after Schoemann. The old reading
was κοῦφα... ἄνω...μέρος. Osann suggested imrew for
ε a
πίπτειν. Cf. Cornut. c. 17, p. 91 Osann, οὕτως ὑπὸ τῶν
lal + U \ ’ / ς / + a \
παλαιῶν Ἰάπετος μὲν ὠνομάσθη ὁ λόγος Kal’ ὃν φωνητικὰ
Xs lal / PR A ¢ ᾿ > og te A ie
τὰ ζῷα ἐγένετο Kal ὅλος ὁ ψόφος ἀπετελέσθη, ἰάφετός τις
v aN \ ec , ° \ > ἃ al Nise.
ὧν" iad yap ἡ φωνή. Koios δὲ καθ᾽ ὃν ποῖά τινα τὰ ὄντα
ἐστί τῷ γὰρ κ πολλαχοῦ οἱ Ἴωνες ἀντὶ τοῦ T χρῶνται...
Κρῖος δὲ καθ᾽ ὃν τὰ μὲν ἄρχει καὶ δυναστεύει τῶν πραγ-
μάτων τὰ δ᾽ ὑποτέτακται καὶ δυναστεύεται᾽ ἐντεῦθεν τάχα
καὶ τοῦ ἐν τοῖς ποιμνίοις κριοῦ προσαγορευομένου. Ὕπερ-
ίων δὲ καθ᾽ ὃν ὑπεράνω τινα ἑτέρων περιπορεύεται. See

Flach, Glossen u. Scholien zur Hes. Th. p. 42 foll.

116. Schol. on Hes. Theog. 139, Gaisf. Gr. Poet. Min.
1. 484. Κύκλωπας. Ζήνων δὲ πάλιν φυσικωτέρως τὰς
ἐγκυκλίους φορὰς εἰρῆσθαί φησι: διὸ καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα
τούτων ἐξέθετο Βρόντην τε καὶ Στερόπην᾽ “Apynv δὲ
ἐπειδή φασι τὸν ἀργῆτα Kepavvov’ παῖδας δέ φησιν
αὐτοὺς τοῦ Οὐρανοῦ ἐπειδὴ πάντα ταῦτα τὰ πάθη περὶ

160 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

τὸν οὐρανόν εἰσι...[ἐν χρόνῳ yap τινι ἐγένοντο ἔγκυκλοι
περιφοραὶ τοῦ πυρὸς ἐκ τοῦ ἀέρος.

Flach’s arrangement of the text is quite different: he
inserts the words ἐν ypovw—dépos after εἰρῆσθαί φησιν,
altering φορὰς into περιφοράς. See his interpretation,
p. 50. .

ἐγκυκλίους φοράς. The band of aether which formed the
external stratum of the world revolved in a circle round
it. Stob. Ecl. τ. 14 1‘ p. 142, 13, τὸ αἰθέριον (φῶς) περι-
φερῶς κινεῖται. In the matter of the revolving aether
Zeno followed Aristotle, whose quinta essentia is described
by Sextus as τὸ κυκλοφορητικὸν σῶμα (Pyrrh. πὶ. 31).
Aristotle himself approves of the Platonic derivation from
ἀεὶ θεῖν and censures Anaxagoras for referring it to ai@w
(de Caelo 1. 2); see also Krische, p. 306 foll.
ο΄ Βρόντην τε καὶ Στερόπην. Wachsmuth says :—* immo
βρόντην τε καὶ στερόπην, but surely Hesiod is the
subject to ἐξέθετο as to φησι below. τίθεσθαι ὄνομα is
used regularly of the father: eg. 1586. τι. ὃ 36, τῷ ἐμῷ
παιδίῳ ἐθέμην τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ἐκείνου.

ἐν χρόνῳ κτλ. These words cannot belong to Zeno,
unless Flach’s view of the passage is adopted, as they
are inconsistent with the rest of the explanation.

117. Philod. περὶ εὐσεβ. col. 8, r<od>s δὲ ὀρθοὺς
«λόγ;ους καὶ σπουδαίας διαθέσεις Διοσκούρους.

From the position of these words in the fragments of
Philodemus περὶ εὐσεβείας it appears probable that they
belong to Zeno: see on frag. 40. Gomperz however p. 74
puts a full stop after διαθέσεις.

ὀρθοὺς λόγους: see Introd. p, 8, and for the ethical
importance of the expression Stein, Erkenntnistheorie,
p. 259 foll. Cic. Tuse. Iv. 34, ipsa virtus brevissime recta
ratio dici potest.

se νυλβὌνροο

— a νων

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 161

διαθέσεις are opposed to ἕξεις as “permanent forms
admitting neither of increase nor diminution,” Zeller,
p. 103. Thus intellectual goods are divided into (1)
virtues = διαθέσεις, (2) σπουδαίας ἕξεις such as μαντική,
and (3) ἐπαινετὰς ἐνεργείας = οὔτε ἕξεις οὔτε διαθέσεις,
such as φρονίμευμα, Stob. ἘΠ]. 11. 7. 5, e and f, Diog. VIL.
98, Cleanth. frag. 51, cf. Sext. Pyrrh. τη. 243, αὐτὴ yap ἡ
φρονίμη διάθεσις ἀκατάληπτός ἐστι μήτε ἐξ αὐτῆς ἁπλῶς
καὶ αὐτόθεν φαινομένη μήτε ἐκ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῆς" κοινὰ
yap ἐστι ταῦτα καὶ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν. For the distinction
between ἕξις and διάθεσις in Aristotle see Wallace on de
An Te δὲ 410 bi 15.

Διοσκούρους: explained physically by Xenophanes as
clouds made to shine by their movement (Stob. Ecl. 1. 24.
1" p. 204, 18). See also the explanations cited by Sext.
Math. rx. 37. 86: the latter passage appears to be Stoic,
as recognising the belief in demons.

118. Diog. L. vir. 149, καὶ μὴν καὶ μαντικὴν vpeo-
τάναι πᾶσάν φασιν, εἰ Kal πρόνοιαν εἶναι" Kal αὐτὴν καὶ
τέχνην ἀποφαίνουσι διά τινας ἐκβάσεις, ὥς φησι Ζήνων.

μαντική. The Stoic definition was as follows: Stob.
Ἐπ]. τι. 7. 5b 12, p. 67, 16, εἶναι δὲ τὴν μαντικήν φασιν
ἐπιστήμην θεωρητικὴν σημείων τῶν ἀπὸ θεῶν ἢ δαιμόνων
πρὸς δὲ ἀνθρώπινον βίον συντεινόντων. Substantially the
same in Sext. Math. rx. 132.

εἰ καί. Others read ἡ καί, reversing the argument: in
fact, the Stoics seem to have appealed to the truth of
μαντική as a proof of the existence of God, no less than
vice versa. See the references in Zeller, pp. 175, 3;
372, 2 and 3.

τέχνη. They prove that it is an art by the truth of
certain results, cf. Cic. de Divin. 1. 23, Quid? quaeris,
Carneades, cur haec ita fiant aut qua arte perspici possint ?

H. P. 11

162 | THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Nescire me fateor, evenire autem te ipsum dico videre.
That its professors are sometimes deceived does not in-
validate the title of divination as an art (ib. § 24),
ef, N. D. mu. 12.

ETHICA.

119. Diog. L. vir. 84, τὸ δὲ ἠθικὸν μέρος τῆς φιλο-
σοφίας διαιροῦσιν εἴς τε τὸν περὶ ὁρμῆς καὶ εἰς τὸν περὶ
ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν τόπον καὶ εἰς τὸν περὶ παθῶν καὶ περὶ
ἀρετῆς καὶ περὶ τέλους περί τε τῆς πρώτης ἀξίας καὶ τῶν
πράξεων καὶ περὶ τῶν καθηκόντων προτροπῶν τε καὶ
ἀποτροπῶν᾽ καὶ οὕτω δ᾽ ὑποδιαιροῦσιν οἱ περὶ Χρύσιππον
καὶ ᾿Αρχέδημον καὶ Ζήνωνα τὸν Ταρσέα κιτιλ. ὁ μὲν γὰρ
Κιτιεὺς Ζήνων καὶ ὁ Κλεάνθης ὡς ἂν ἀρχαιότεροι ἀφελέσ-
τερον περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων διέλαβον.

There is a full discussion of this passage in Zeller,
p. 223, 1: its difficulties, however, do not affect Zeno or
Cleanthes.

120. Diog. L. vu. 87, διόπερ πρῶτος ὁ Ζήνων ἐν τῷ
περὶ ἀνθρώπου φύσεως τέλος εἶπε τὸ ὁμολογουμένως τῇ
φύσει ζῆν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ κατ᾽ ἀρετὴν ζῆν" ἄγει γὰρ πρὸς
ταύτην ἡμᾶς ἡ φύσις. Lactant. Inst. ut 7, Zenonis
(summum bonum) cum natura congruenter vivere. id.
ΠῚ. 8, audiamus igitur Zenonem; nam is interdum vir-
tutem somniat. Summum, inquit, est bonum cum natura
consentanee vivere. Stob. Ecl. πι. 7. 6", p. 75, 11, τὸ δὲ
τέλος ὁ μὲν Ζήνων οὕτως ἀπέδωκε ‘7d ὁμολογουμένως
ζῆν" τοῦτο δ᾽ ἔστι καθ᾽ ἕνα λόγον καὶ σύμφωνον ζῆν, ὡς
τῶν μαχομένως ξώντων κακοδαιμονόυντων. Plut. Comm.
Not. 23, 1, οὐχὶ καὶ Ζήνων τούτους (scil. Peripatetics)
ἠκολούθησεν ὑποτιθεμένοις στοιχεῖα τῆς εὐδαιμονίας τὴν
φύσιν καὶ τὸ κατὰ φύσιν. (Cf. Οἷο. Fin. rv. 72, videsne
igitur Zenonem tuum cum Aristone verbis consistere,

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 163

re dissidere; cum Aristotele et illis re consentire, verbis
discrepare? ib. v. 88.) Clem. Alex. Strom. In 21. 129,
p. 496 P., 179 S., πάλιν δ᾽ αὖ Ζήνων μὲν 6 Στωικὸς τέλος
ἡγεῖται τὸ κατ᾽ ἀρετὴν ζῆν, cf. Cic. Fin. Iv. 14, hune ipsum
Zenonis aiunt esse finem, declarantem illud, quod a te
dictum est, convenienter naturae vivere (where see Madv.):
ib. 1. 21, summum...bonum, quod cum positum sit in eo,
quod ὁμολογίαν Stoici, nos appellemus convenientiam, etc.

There is a conflict of testimony here between Diog.
and Stob. as to whether Cleanthes added the words τῇ
φύσει to Zeno’s definition or found them there already.
On the whole the fact that Diogenes quotes from a
named book of Zeno’s makes his authority the more trust-
worthy. So Wellmann, |. c. pp. 446—448, cf. Krische,
p. 372, 3. Ueberweg, p. 199, adds that Diog.’s state-
ment is all the more credible, because Speusippus,
Polemo, and Heraclitus had enounced similar principles.
Zeller, p. 228, 2, does not decide the point. Hirzel, 1.
p. 105—112, argues the question at some length and
decides in favour of Stobaeus, but his arguments are
always biassed by the desire to vindicate the originality
of Cleanthes. See also Introd. p. 14.

121. Plut. fragm. de an. ed. Wyttenb. ν΄. p. 899, καὶ
οἰκειώσεως πάσης καὶ ἀλλοτριώσεως ἀρχὴ τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι
εὐνοἱ ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος.

This frag. has been taken from Stein, Erkenntnis-
theorie, p. 271. Although we cannot with certainty
attribute to Zeno a statement, which is only expressed
to belong to of ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος, yet there is no reason why
he should not have taught this. The soul at birth is only
open to the impressions of sensation, and its first impulse
is towards self-preservation. Cf. Plut. Sto. Rep. 12, 5,
p. 1038 c, ἀλλ᾽ οὔτ᾽ αἴσθησίς ἐστιν οἷς μηδὲν αἰσθητόν,

11—2

164 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

vi? > lf > a «ε » ν
οὔτ᾽ οἰκείωσις οἷς μηδὲν οἰκεῖον" ἡ γὰρ οἰκείωσις αἴσθησις
ἔοικε τοῦ οἰκείου καὶ ἀντίληψις εἶναι.

122. Porphyr. de Abstin. πι. 19, τὴν δὲ οἰκείωσιν
ἀρχὴν τίθενται δικαιοσύνης οἱ ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος.

δικαιοσύνη is one of the four cardinal virtues (see infra.
frag. 134) and is founded on οἰκείωσις in the same sense
as ἀρετὴ generally, The natural impulse of every animal
is towards self-preservation, so that it seeks after those
things which are κατὰ φύσιν and shuns those which are
παρὰ φύσιν. Diog. L. vu. 85; Cic. Fin. τπ. 16; Alex.
Aphr. de an. p. 150, 28 ed. Bruns. of μὲν οὖν Στωικοὶ οὐ
πάντες δὲ λέγουσιν πρῶτον οἰκεῖον εἶναι τὸ EGov αὑτῷ"
ἕκαστον γὰρ ἕῷον εὐθὺς γενόμενον πρός τε αὑτὸ οἰκει-
οὔσθαι, καὶ δὴ καὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον" οἱ δὲ χαριέστερον
δοκοῦντες λέγειν αὐτῶν καὶ μᾶλλον διαρθροῦν περὶ τοῦδέ
φασιν πρὸς τὴν σύστασιν καὶ τήρησιν φκειῶσθαι εὐθὺς
γενομένους ἡμᾶς τὴν ἡμῶν αὐτῶν. Stob. Ecl. πι. 7. 13,
p- 118, 11 (where the doctrine is attributed to the Peri-
patetics). For τὰ πρῶτα κατὰ φύσιν, see Madv. de Fin.
Exe. Iv, and especially p. 818", “ Stoici...ita disputabant,
ut, quae postea demum, orto subito rationis lumine, quod
in infante nondum esset accensum, et animadversa con-
stantia convenientiaque naturae, nasceretur voluntas cum
natura consentiendi, in qua et virtus et perfectio rationis
esset, eam omnino a prima conciliatione dirimerent,
bonumque constituerent, quod expeteretur, a primis, quae
appeterentur, genere seiunctum,”

123. Epict. diss. 1. 20. 14, καίτοι αὐτὸς μὲν ὁ προη-
youpevos λόγος τῶν φιλοσόφων λίαν ἐστὶν ὀλέγος. εἰ
θέλεις γνῶναι, ἀναγνῶθι τὰ Ζήνωνος, καὶ ὄψει" τί γὰρ
ἔχει μακρὸν εἰπεῖν ὅτι τέλος ἐστι τὸ ἕπεσθαι θεοῖς, οὐσία

δ᾽ ἀγαθοῦ χρῆσις οἵα δεῖ φαντασιῶν ;

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 165

προηγούμενος λόγος, “leading doctrine”: not in the
technical sense to be noticed on frag. 169.

ἕπεσθαι θεοῖς is only another way of expressing ὁμολογία
τῇ φύσει. This passage furnishes an argument in support
of the view taken in the Introd. p. 14 as to the character
of Zeno’s φύσις.

φαντασιῶν. Zeno went back to the Socratic doctrine
that virtue is knowledge, so that it is not surprising to
find that his epistemology is brought into connection with
practical morality. That particular class of impressions
which is directed towards the performance of some moral
action gives rise to corresponding ὁρμαὶ in the soul, cf.
Stob. Ecl. 11. 7. 9, p. 86. 17, τὸ δὲ κινοῦν τὴν ὁρμὴν οὐδὲν
ἕτερον εἶναι λέγουσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ φαντασίαν ὁρμητικὴν τοῦ
καθήκοντος αὐτόθεν. Virtue consists in the proper direction
of these ὁρμαὶ in accordance with the dictates of ὀρθὸς
λόγος: hence Diog. L. vil. 86 says of reason :—TEXVITNS
yap οὗτος ἐπιγίγνεται τῆς ὁρμῆς, cf. Cleanth. frag. 66.
The doctrine depends on the freedom of the assent: supra,
frag. 19, cf. Stob. Ecl. 1. 7. 9°, p. 88, 1, πάσας δὲ τὰς
ὁρμὰς συγκαταθέσεις εἶναι, τὰς δὲ πρακτικὰς καὶ τὸ κινητι-
κὸν περιέχειν, and see Windelband in Miiller’s Handbuch,
ν. 295. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 166, 167, points
out that the ethical application of φαντασίαι is very often
mentioned by the younger Stoics, although not unknown
in the earlier period, cf. Diog. vil. 48, ὥστε εἰς ἀκοσμίαν
καὶ εἰκαιότητα τρέπεσθαι τοὺς ἀγυμνάστους ἔχοντας τὰς
φαντασίας.

1924. Stob. Ἐπὶ. π.. 7. 6°, p. 77, 20, τὴν δὲ εὐδαιμονίαν
ὁ Ζήνων ὡρίσατο τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον" εὐδαιμονία δ᾽ ἐστὶν
εὔροια βίου. Sext. Math. x1. 30, εὐδαιμονία δέ ἐστιν, ὡς
οἵ τε περὶ τὸν Ζήνωνα καὶ Κλεάνθην καὶ Χρύσιππον ἀπέ-
δοσαν, εὔροια βίου. Cf. Cleanth. frag. 74, Diog. VII. 88.

166 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

M. Aurel. τι. 5, Vv. 9, X. 6. εὐδαιμονία is not identical with
τέλος, which rather consists in τὸ τυχεῖν τῆς εὐδαιμονίας.

125. Diog. vil. 127, αὐτάρκη εἶναι ἀρετὴν πρὸς
εὐδαιμονίαν, καθά φησι Ζήνων. August. contra Acad.
i. 7. 16, clamat Zenon et tota illa porticus tumultuatur
hominem natum ad nihil esse aliud quam honestatem ;
ipsam suo splendore in se animos ducere, nullo prorsus
commodo extrinsecus posito et quasi lenocinante mercede -
voluptatemque illam Epicuri solis inter se pecoribus esse
communem ; in quorum societatem et hominem et sapi-
entem tendere nefas esse. August. de trin. xu. 5. 8,
diximus ibi quosque posuisse beatam vitam quod eos
maxime delectavit...ut virtus Zenonem. Cic. Fin. v. 79, a
Zenone hoc magnifice tamquam ex oraculo editur : “ virtus
ad bene vivendum seipsa contenta est.” Cf. Acad. 1. 7, 35;
* IL 134, 135; Paradox. 1m. This position was borrowed
from the ‘Cynics, Introd. p- 19.

126. Cic. Fin. rv. 47, errare Zenonem, qui nulla in re
nisi in virtute aut vitio propensionem ne minimi quidem
momenti ad summum bonum adipiscendum esse diceret,
et, cum ad beatam vitam nullum momentum cetera habe-
rent, ad appetitionem tamen rerum esse in iis momenta
diceret. ib. Iv. 60, Zeno autem quod suam quod propriam
speciem habeat cum appetendum sit, id solum bonum
appellat, beatam autem vitam eam solam, quae cum
virtute degatur.

This point constitutes the main gist of Cicero’s argu-
ment against the Stoic virtue in de Fin. Iv., viz. that
while the πρῶτα κατὰ φύσιν 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
Stoic prima constitutio, which excludes virtue, with that

ie a

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 167

of Antiochus which includes it, (2) that throughout the
Fourth Book he attributes far more importance to the
doctrine of οἰκείωσις than the Stoics themselves did
(pp. 820, 821), and (3) that he fails to notice the Stoic
distinction between τὸ τυγχάνειν τῶν κατὰ φύσιν and
τὸ πάντα ποιεῖν ἕνεκα τοῦ τυγχάνειν αὐτῶν (Stob. Ecl.
π. 7. 6°, p. 76. 13; Plut. Sto. Rep. c. 26; Cic. Fin. τι. 22).
On the subject in general see Zeller, p. 278 foll. For the
nature of the πρῶτα κατὰ φύσιν cf. Stob. Bel 16-7: 3%
p. 47. 12 f.; ib. 7%, p. 80. 9; 74, Ὁ. 82. 12. The position of
Zeno will have to be considered with reference to the
προηγμένα, Where the same inconsistency appears.

aut vitio: these words were bracketed by some of the
edd. and are, of course, logically indefensible, but see
Madv.

127. Cic. Tuse. τι. 29, Nihil est, inquit (Zeno), malum,
nisi quod turpe atque vitiosum est... Numquam quidquam,
inquit (scil. doleas necne interest), ad beate quidem vi-
vendum, quod est in una virtute positum, sed est tamen
reiciendum. Cur? Asperum est, contra naturam, ditticile
perpessu, triste, durum. ib. V. 27, si Stoicus Zeno diceret
qui, nisi quod turpe esset, nihil malum duceret. Cf. ib.
i. 15.

In Stob. Ecl. τι. 7. ὅν, p. 58, 14, we read ἀνάλογον δὲ
τῶν κακῶν τὰ μὲν εἶναι κακίας, τὰ δ᾽ οὔ, and the examples
given of the latter class are λύπη and φόβος. This occurs
in the course of a passage which Wachsmuth attributes
to Zeno, but see on frag. 128. Just before this, in what is
clearly Zeno’s classification of ἀγαθὰ and κακά, we find
ἡδονὴ classed among the ἀδιάφορα, ef. Diog. L. vir. 103,
and this agrees with the statement in the present passage
that dolor is an ἀποπροηγμένον. So dolor is classed in
Cie. Fin. 1. 51, where Zeno’s name appears in the

168 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

immediate context, and it is to be observed that the
corresponding προηγμένον in that passage is not ἡδονὴ
but “doloris vacuitas.” The entire subject of the relation
which the emotions bear to the classification of ἀγαθὰ
and κακὰ is 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 κακά.

128. Stob. Ἐπὶ]. 11. 7. 5%, p. 57, 18, ταῦτ᾽ εἶναί φησιν ὁ
Ζήνων ὅσα οὐσίας μετέχει, τῶν δ᾽ ὄντων τὰ μὲν ἀγαθά, τὰ
δὲ κακά, τὰ δὲ ἀδιάφορα. ἀγαθὰ μὲν τὰ τοιαῦτα" φρόνησιν,
σωφροσύνην, δικαιοσύνην, ἀνδρείαν καὶ πᾶν ὅ ἐστιν ἀρετὴ
ἢ μετέχον ἀρετῆς" κακὰ δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα" ἀφροσύνην, ἀκο-
λασίαν, ἀδικίαν, δειλίαν, καὶ πᾶν ὅ ἐστι κακία ἢ μετέχον
κακίας" ἀδιάφορα δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα" ζωὴν θάνατον, δόξαν
ἀδοξίαν, πόνον ἡδονήν, πλοῦτον πενίαν, νόσον ὑγίειαν, καὶ
τὰ τούτοις ὅμοια.

Substantially the same account appears in Diog. Τὰ
vil. 101, 102, where Hecaton, Apollodorus, and Chrysippus
are referred to as authorities,

τῶν δ᾽ ὄντων κτλ. This classification is attributed by
Sext. Math. x1. 3, 4, to the Old Academy, the Peripatetics,
and the Stoics in common: he quotes from Xenocrates,
πᾶν τὸ ὃν ἢ ἀγαθόν ἐστιν ἢ κακόν ἐστιν ἣ οὔτε ἀγαθόν
ἐστιν οὔτε κακόν ἐστιν. In the same passage he states
that the name ἀδιάφορον was applied to the third class
by all three schools, but probably this is a mistake, as all
the other evidence points to Zeno as having been the
first to use the word in this special ethical sense. On
the other hand, there is not much likelihood in Hirzel’s
opinion (II. p. 45 n.) that Aristotle was the first to in-

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 169

troduce the term ἀδιάφορον, and that Zeno spoke of
μέσα.

φρόνησιν k.T.A. ef. frag. 134.

πᾶν ὅ ἐστιν ἀρετή : cf. Sext. Math. ΧΙ. 77, ἄλλον μὲν Ζήνων,
δ οὗ τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀγαθὸν "εἶναι δεδόξακεν. 10. 184, καθὸ
καὶ ὁριζόμενοί τινες ἐξ αὐτῶν φασιν ἀγαθόν ἐστιν ἀρετὴ ἢ
τὸ μετέχον ἀρετῆς. The meaning of μετέχον ἀρετῆς 18
made clear by Diog. L. vit. 94, 95, where it is explained
as including actions in accordance with virtue, and good
men: the converse is true of μετέχον κακίας.

ἡδονήν : cf. Aul. Gell. 1x. 5,5. Zeno censuit voluptatem
esse indifferens, id est neutrum neque bonum neque malum,
quod ipse Graeco vocabulo ἀδιάφορον appellavit. For the
attitude of the Stoics towards the Epicurean summum
bonum see Wellmann lc. pp. 449, 450. Heinze, de
Stoicorum affectibus p. 37, doubts, without sufficient
ground, whether Gellius’ statement is accurate, thinking
that Zeno would rather have classed ἡδονὴ among the
κακά. It will be observed that, omitting πόνον ἡδονήν,
every pair of ἀδιάφορα here mentioned contains a 7pony-
μένον and an ἀποπροηγμένον, and that, except in the case of
νόσον ὑγίειαν (which Wachsm. transposes), the προηγμένον
is mentioned first. We should naturally suppose the
same to be the case with ἡδονὴ and πόνος, but which
then is the mponyuévov? Wachsmuth evidently thinks
ἡδονή, since he transposes the words, and at first sight
Diog. L. vit. 102 is conclusive. But it should be observed
that Hecaton is the main authority there cited, and there
is reason to believe that this was one of the points on
which the view of the School altered as time went on.
With Zeno and Cleanthes, at least, it seems better to
suppose that πόνος is the προηγμένον, and ἡδονὴ the
ἀποπροηγμένον, and that ἡδονὴ is contrasted with πόνος
rather than with λύπη, because the latter certainly belonged

170 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

to the class of ἀποπροηγμένα (frag. 127). For πόνος οἵ.
Diog. L. vit. 172, Λάκωνός τινος εἰπόντος ὅτι δ' πόνος
ἀγαθόν, διαχυθείς φησιν (Κλεάνθης) αἵματος εἷς ἀγαθοῖο
φίλον τέκος, Zeno, frag. 187, and for ἡδονή cf. Sext. Math.

XI. 73, of δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἀδιάφορον (5611. ἡδονὴν εἶναί —

φασιν) καὶ ov προηγμένον. Cleanth. frag. 88.
Wachsmuth would continue to Zeno the passage follow-
ing this in Stobaeus down to p. 59. 3, but the evidence
is against this. The prominence given to ἰσχὺς ψυχῆς
rather points to an origin subsequent in date to Cleanthes,
and λύπη and φόβος are here classed as κακά, which is
inconsistent with frag. 127, not to speak of ἡδονὴ in the
present fragment. :

129. Senec. Epist. 82, 7, Zenon noster hac collec-
tione utitur: “Nullum malum gloriosum esse; mors
autem gloriosa est; mors ergo non est malum.”

In the subdivision of the ἀδιάφορα death belongs
to the ἀποπροηγμένα Diog. L. vit. 106; cf. Cic, Fin. ΠΙ.
29, ut enim, qui mortem in malis ponit, non potest eam
non timere, sic nemo ulla in re potest id, quod malum esse
decreverit, non curare idque contemnere.

130. Cic. Acad. τ. 36, Cetera autem, etsi nec bona
- nec mala essent, tamen alia secundum naturam dicebat
(Zeno), alia naturae esse contraria, His ipsis alia inter-
iecta et media numerabat. Quae autem secundum natu-
ram essent, ea sumenda et quadam aestimatione dignanda
dicebat, contraque contraria; neutra autem in mediis
relinquebat, in quibus ponebat nihil omnino esse momenti.

In this and the following §§ of Cicero it is unsafe to
attribute entirely to Zeno the summary of Stoic doctrines
there set forth, in the absence of other testimony pointing
in the same direction. At the same time there is no

—

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 171

reason a priori why Zeno should not have sub-divided
ἀδιάφορα into (1) τὰ κατὰ φύσιν, (2) τὰ παρὰ φύσιν, and
(3) τὰ καθάπαξ ἀδιάφορα -- ηθᾶϊα, or have identified τὰ
κατὰ φύσιν with ληπτὰ or τὰ ἀξίαν ἔχοντα, and τὰ παρὰ
φύσιν with ἄληπτα or τὰ ἀπαξίαν ἔχοντα. Cf. Stob. Ecl.
Tt. 14, ps 82105 7 pe 84, 3.

131. Stob. Ecl. τι. 7. 7%, p. 84, 21, τών δ᾽ ἀξίαν ἐχόντων
τὰ μὲν ἔχειν πολλὴν ἀξίαν τὰ δὲ βραχεῖαν. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ
τῶν ἀπαξίαν ἐχόντων ἃ μὲν ἔχειν πολλὴν ἀπαξίαν, ἃ δὲ
βραχεῖαν. τὰ μὲν οὖν πολλὴν ἔχοντα ἀξίαν προηγμένα
λέγεσθαι, τὰ δὲ πολλὴν ἀπαξίαν ἀποπροηγμένα, Ζήνωνος 5
ταύτας τὰς ὀνομασίας θεμένου πρώτου τοῖς πράγμασι.
προηγμένον δ᾽ εἶναι λέγουσιν, ὃ ἀδιάφορον «ὃν; ἐκλεγόμεθα
κατὰ προηγούμενον λόγον. τὸν δὲ ὅμοιον λόγον ἐπὶ τῷ
ἀποπροηγμένῳ εἶναι καὶ τὰ παραδείγματα κατὰ τὴν
ἀναλογίαν ταὐτά. οὐδὲν δὲ τῶν ἀγαθῶν εἶναι πρροηγμένον 10
διὰ τὸ τὴν μεγίστην ἀξίαν αὐτὰ ἔχειν. τὸ δὲ προηγμένον,
τὴν δευτέραν χώραν καὶ ἀξίαν ἔχον, συνεγγίζειν πως τῇ
τῶν ἀγαθῶν φύσει: οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐν αὐλῇ τῶν προηγμένων
εἶναι τὸν βασιλέα ἀλλὰ τοὺς μετ᾽ αὐτὸν τεταγμένους.
προηγμένα δὲ λέγεσθαι οὐ τῷ πρὸς ἐυδαιμονίαν τινὰ συμ- 15
βάλλεσθαι συνεργεῖν τε πρὸς αὐτήν, ἀλλὰ τῷ ἀναγκαῖον
εἶναι τούτων τὴν ἐκλογὴν ποιεῖσθαι παρὰ τὰ ἀποπροηγμένα.
Plut. Sto. Rep. 30, 1. Some of the πρεσβύτεροι said that
Zeno’s προηγμένον was in as bad a way as the sour wine,
which its owner could not dispose of as wine or vinegar :
so the προηγμένον is neither an ἀγαθὸν nor an ἀδιά-
φορον.

4, πολλὴν ἔχοντα ἀξίαν. In Stob. Eel. τὰς 7. 7', p. 83, 10
every thing which is in accordance with nature is said
ἀξίαν ἔχειν. Diog. L. vil. 105 identifies προηγμένα with
τα ἔχοντα ἀξίαν, Sext. Emp. Math. ΧΙ. 62 with τὰ ἱκανὴν
ἀξίαν ἔχοντα, cf. Stob. Ecl. 1. 7. 7, p. 80, 17. Cicero's

172 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO,

phrase, Acad. 1, 37 (sed quae essent sumenda ex iis alia
pluris esse aestimanda, alia minoris), is of doubtful import :
see Reid in loc. In Fin. ΠΙ. 51 we have :—quae autem
aestimanda essent, eorum in aliis satis esse causae, quamob-
rem quibusdam anteponerentur, where Madvig remarks
that none of the authorities give examples of those things
which are ληπτὰ without being προηγμένα.

5. Ζήνωνος: apart from the evidence of Stob. and
Plut. it is clear that the προηγμένα must have formed
part of Zeno’s system from the fact that Aristo expressly
dissented from him on this point (Οἷς. Acad. τι. 130), ef.
Οἷς. Fin. 1m. 51. According to Hirzel p. 418 the word was
discarded by the later Stoies, and εὔχρηστα substituted
by Posidonius.

8, προηγούμενον λόγον : 566 on frag. 169.

τῷ ἀποπροηγμένῳ: SO Wachsmuth for τὸ ἀποπροηγμένον
MSS. Heeren reads τῶν---ων.

13. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐν atdq: cf. Cic. Fin. m1, 52, ut enim, inquit
(Zeno), nemo dicit in regia regem ipsum quasi productum
esse ad dignitatem—id est enim προηγμένον---564 eos qui
in aliquo honore sunt, quorum ordo proxime accedit, ut
secundus sit, ad regium principatum, sic in vita non ea,
quae primario loco sunt, sed ea, quae secundum locum
obtinent, προηγμένα, id est, producta nominentur.

τῶν mponypévov: SO Madv. ad de Fin. Le. for MSS. τὸν
προαγόμενον : he is followed by Wachsmuth. Hirzel u.
p. 823 prefers προηγουμένων.

15. τινά : soMSS. τινὶ Davies. «μοῖράν; twa Hense.

16. τε: Mein. τε MSS.

ἀλλὰ τῷ «7d. On the subject of the προηγμένα in
general consult Zeller, pp. 278—287. This sentence con-
tains the gist of the Stoic position in the matter. Al-
though sickness e.g. does not impede the happiness of the
wise man, since he is secure in the possession of virtue, it

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 119

ἴα at the same time impossible ceteris paribus not to
prefer health to sickness, cf. Stob. Ecl. πι. 7. 7, p. 79,
12—17.

132. Diog. L. vil. 120, ἀρέσκει τε αὐτοῖς ἴσα ἡγεῖσθαι
τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, καθά φησι...Ζήνων. Sext. Math, vu.
422, κἀντεῦθεν ὁρμώμενοι οἱ περὶ τὸν Ζήνωνα ἐδίδασκον
ὅτι ἴσα ἐστὶ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα. Cic. Mur. § 61, omnia
peceata esse paria (among the sententiae et praecepta
Zenonis). Lactant. Inst. ππ. 23, Zenonis paria peccata
quis probat ?

Cf. Οἷς, Paradox. mt. Hor. Sat. τ. 3. 120 foll. Both
Sextus and Diog. give as the ground for this doctrine an
argument from the relation of truth to falsehood. As one
true thing cannot be more true or one false thing more
false than another in respect of its truth or falsity, so one
sin cannot be more sinful than another. ἁμάρτημα is the
correlative of κατόρθωμα and is defined as τὸ παρὰ τὸν
ὀρθὸν λόγον πραττόμενον, ἢ ἐν ᾧ παραλέλειπταί τι
καθῆκον ὑπὸ λογικοῦ ζῴου, Stob. ἘΠῚ: τὸ 1. 115. τε 99; 16.
See further Zeller, p. 267.

133. Cic. Mur. § 61, omne delictum scelus esse
nefarium, nec minus delinquere eum, qui gallum_ galli-
naceum, cum opus non fuerit, quam eum, qui patrem
suffocaverit.

This is quoted among the sententiae et praecepta
Zenonis, but it is extremely unlikely that the illustration
used is that of Zeno. Cicero attempts (Paradox. 11. 25)
to answer this objection by the remark, doubtless borrowed
from some Stoic source, that whereas the wrongful killing
of a slave involves a single ἁμάρτημα, many ἁμαρτήματα
are committed in the act of parricide.

134. Plut. Sto. Rep. vi. 1, 2, ἀρετὰς ὁ Ζήνων ἀπο-

174 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO,

λείπει πλείονας κατὰ διαφοράς, ὥσπερ ὁ Πλάτων, οἷον.
φρόνησιν ἀνδρείαν σωφροσύνην δικαιοσύνην, ὡς ἀχωρίστους
μὲν οὔσας, ἑτέρας δὲ καὶ διαφερούσας ἀλλήλων. πάλιν δὲ |
ὁριζόμενος αὐτῶν ἑκάστην, τὴν μὲν ἀνδρείαν φησὶ φρόνησιν
εἶναι ἐν ἐνεργητέοις" τὴν δὲ δικαιοσύνην φρόνησιν ἐν
ἀπονεμητέοις" ὡς μίαν οὖσαν ἀρετὴν ταῖς δὲ πρὸς τὰ
πράγματα σχέσεσι κατὰ τὰς ἐνεργείας διαφέρειν δοκοῦσαν.
Plut. de Virt. Mor. 2, ἔοικε δὲ καὶ Ζήνων eis τοῦτό πως
ὑποφέρεσθαι ὁ Κιτιεύς, ὁριζόμενος τὴν φρόνησιν ἐν μὲν
ἀπονεμητέοις δικαιοσύνην" ἐν δὲ διαιρετέοις σωφροσύνην"
ἐν δὲ ὑπομενετέοις ἀνδρείαν" ἀπολογούμενοι δὲ ἀξιοῦσιν ἐν
τούτοις τὴν ἐπιστήμην φρόνησιν ὑπὸ τοῦ Ζήνωνος ὠνο-
μάσθαι. Diog. L. vir. 161, ἀρετάς τε οὔτε πολλὰς εἰσῆγεν
(scil. Aristo) ὡς ὁ Ζήνων. Οἷα. Acad. 1. 38, hic (Zeno)
omnis (virtutes) in ratione ponebat...nec ullo modo...
(seiungi) posse disserebat, nec virtutis usum modo...sed
ipsum habitum per se esse praeclarum, nec tamen virtutem
cuiquam adesse quin ea semper uteretur. Of ib. τι. 31,
Fin. Iv. 54,

Cf. Stob. Ecl. π΄ 7. 5%, p. 60, 12, καὶ τὴν μὲν φρόνησιν
περὶ τὰ καθήκοντα γίνεσθαι" τὴν δὲ σωφροσύνην περὶ τὰς
ὁρμὰς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου" τὴν δὲ ἀνδρείαν περὶ τὰς ὑπομονάς"
τὴν δὲ δικαιοσύνην περὶ τὰς ἀπονεμήσεις. Diog. vir. 126.
Zeno taught that virtue is one and indivisible, but that in
different spheres it is manifested in different forms. He
resumed the Socratic position (for which see Zeller,
Socrates E. T. p. 140 foll., and especially Xen. Mem. m1. 9,
Plat. Men. 88 0), that virtue is knowledge, but adopted
the terminology of Aristotle by making use of the word
φρόνησις instead of ἐπιστήμη, and thus indicated that
moral insight is to be distinguished from intellectual
research (cf. Ar, Eth. γι. 13), There is therefore high
probability in Zeller’s suggestion (p. 258 n.) that “perhaps
Zeno had already defined φρόνησις as ἐπιστήμη ἀγαθῶν

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 175

nai κακῶν." At the same time he must have been in-
fluenced by the Platonic doctrine of the four cardinal
virtues (Rep. p. 441 foll.), but he traced the differences in
virtue to the diversity of the objects with which it is
concerned, while Plato treated them as arising from the
distinct parts of the soul, which produce different mental
states.

ἀπονεμητέοις = the rendering every man his due (amrove-
μητικὴ τῆς ἀξίας ἑκάστῳ Stob. Le.), cf. the definition
attributed to Simonides in Plat. Rep. i. p. 331 E, ὅτι τὸ τὰ
ὀφειλόμενα ἑκάστῳ ἀποδιδόναι δίκαιόν ἐστι. It is more
general in meaning than Aristotle’s τὸ ἐν ταῖς διανομαῖς
δίκαιον (Eth. N. v. 2. 12).

διαιρετέοις : distinguishing between things with a view
to choice: it deals with τὰς αἱρέσεις καὶ ἐκκλίσεις (Cleanth.
frag. 76).

ὑπομενετέοις... «ἐνεργητέοις. Hirzel suggests that there
is a lacuna in Plut. Sto. Rep. lc. and that we ought
to read there φρόνησιν εἶναι ἐν «ὑπομενετέοις τὴν δὲ
σωφροσύνην φρόνησιν ἐνὶ αἱρετέοις (in place of ἐνεργητέοις).
For vou. cf. Ar. Eth. π|. 6, 6, ὁ ἀνδρεῖος... οὐδεὶς γὰρ
ὑπομενετικώτερος τῶν δεινῶν: for the general sense cf.
Thue. τι. 40. 3, κράτιστοι δ᾽ ἂν τὴν ψυχὴν δικαίως κριθεῖεν
οἱ τά τε δεινὰ καὶ ἡδέα σαφέστατα γιγνώσκοντες καὶ διὰ
ταῦτα μὴ ἀποτρεπόμενοι ἐκ τῶν κινδύνων.

σχέσεσι. This word has a technical meaning with the
Stoics, being opposed to κίνησις on the one hand (cf. Cic.
Tuse. 1v. 30), and to ἕξις (non-essential)(essential) on the
other (Stob. Ecl. 11. 7. ὅς, p. 73, 1). The virtues themselves
are διαθέσεις, for which see on frag. 117.

135. Plut. Virt. Mor. c. 3, κοινῶς δὲ ἅπαντες οὗτοι
(scil. Menedemus, Aristo, Zeno, Chrysippus) τὴν ἀρετὴν τοῦ
ἡγεμονικοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς διάθεσίν τινα καὶ δύναμιν γεγενη-

176 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

μένην ὑπὸ λόγου, μᾶλλον δὲ λόγον οὖσαν αὐτὴν ὁμολογού-
μενον καὶ βέβαιον καὶ ἀμετάπτωτον ὑποτίθενται" καὶ
νομίζουσιν οὐκ εἶναι τὸ παθητικὸν καὶ ἄλογον διαφορᾷ
τινι καὶ φύσει ψυχῆς τοῦ λογικοῦ διακεκριμένον, ἀλλὰ τὸ
αὐτὸ τῆς ψυχῆς μέρος (ὃ δὴ καλοῦσι διάνοιαν καὶ ἡγεμονι-
, / / ‘ , ” a /
xov), διόλου τρεπόμενον καὶ μετάβαλλον ἔν te τοῖς πάθεσι

καὶ ταῖς κατὰ ἕξιν ἢ διάθεσιν μεταβολαῖς, κακίαν τε

γίνεσθαι καὶ ἀρετήν, καὶ μηδὲν ἔχειν ἄλογον ἐν ἑαυτῷ"
λέγεσθαι δὲ ἄλογον, ὅταν τῷ πλεονάξοντι τῆς ὁρμῆς
ἰσχυρῷ γενομένῳ καὶ κρατήσαντε πρός τι τῶν ἀτόπων
παρὰ τὸν αἱροῦντα λόγον ἐκφέρηται᾽ καὶ γὰρ τὸ πάθος
εἶναι λόγον πονηρὸν καὶ ἀκόλαστον, ἐκ φαύλης καὶ διημαρ-
τημένης κρίσεως σφοδρότητα καὶ ῥώμην προσλαβθόντα.
τὴν ἀρετὴν κιτιλ. Cf. Stob, Ecl. τι. 7. 5", p. 64, 18, ἀρετάς δ᾽

εἶναι πλείους φασὶ καὶ ἀχωρίστους ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλων καὶ τὰς
αὐτὰς τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ μέρει τῆς ψυχῆς καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν.

ὁμολογούμενον : frag. 120.

ἀμετάπτωτον : cf. the definition of knowledge in frag. 17.
Virtue is knowledge as applied to conduct.

καὶ νομίζουσι «7.4. This is principally aimed at Plato
(see e.g. Rep. 436 A), but partly also at Aristotle, although
the latter denies that the soul is μεριστὴ in the Platonic
sense (de An. 1. 5, 24, but ef. Eth. i. 13,10). With Zeno
the local extension of the soul as a πνεῦμα throughout the
body does not detract from its unity either on the physical
or the moral side: πάθος and ἀρετὴ are alike affections of
the ἡγεμονικόν : see on frag. 93. “The battle between
virtue and vice did not resemble a war between two
separate powers, as in Plato and Aristotle, but a civil war
carried on in one and the same country.” Reid on Acad.
I, 38.

διάνοιαν καὶ ἡγεμονικόν. For the distinction between
these two terms see Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 132, 306.

ἕξιν ἢ διάθεσιν: see on frag. 117. The πάθη are dis-

.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 177

tinguished, being neither ἕξεις nor διαθέσεις but κινήσεις,
Cic. Tuse. Iv. 30.

τῷ πλεονάζοντι. Zeno’s view of the πάθη will be con-
sidered in the next following fragments. Cf. Stob. Kcl.
τι. 7. 10, p. 88, 10, εἶναι δὲ πάθη πάντα τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ τῆς
ψυχῆς.

186. Diog. L. vit. 110, ἔστε δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ πάθος κατὰ
Ζήνωνα ἡ ἄλογος καὶ παρὰ φύσιν ψυχῆς κίνησις, ἢ ὁρμὴ
πλεονάζουσα. Cic. Tusc. Iv. 11, est igitur Zenonis haec
definitio ut perturbatio sit, quod πάθος ille dicit, aversa a
recta ratione, contra naturam animi commotio. Quidam
brevius, perturbationem esse appetitum vehementiorem.
ib. 47, definitio perturbationis, qua recte Zenonem usum
puto; ita enim definit ut perturbatio sit aversa a ratione
contra naturam animi commotio, vel brevius ut pertur-
batio sit appetitus vehementior.

Cf. Cic. Off. τ § 136, perturbationes, id est, motus
animi nimios rationi non obtemperantes. Stob. Ecl. 11. 7:
2, p. 44, 4, πᾶν πάθος ὁρμὴ πλεονάζουσα. ib. 7. 10, p. 88,8,
πάθος δ᾽ εἶναί φασιν ὁρμὴν πλεονάζουσαν καὶ ἀπειθῆ τῷ
αἱροῦντι λόγῳ ἢ κίνησιν ψυχῆς «ἄλογον» παρὰ φύσιν.
Plut. in fragm. utr. anim. an corp. libid. et aegrit. c. VIL.
Andron. περὶ παθῶν ec. 1. The comments in Stob. Le.
10", p. 89, 3—90, 5, are important. They appear to belong
to Chrysippus and show that, while defining the πάθη as
κρίσεις, he did not give to that word the restricted inter-
pretation which Galen (see infra, frag. 139) places upon it,
and that he recognised the influence of the will in deter-
mining the nature of emotion. We may also infer that
the words ἀπειθὴς τῷ αἱροῦντι λόγῳ are a gloss of
Chrysippus upon Zeno’s term ἄλογος. This is also clear
from Galen, Hipp. et Plat. p. 368 K, 338 M, where the reason
is given, namely, the desire to enforce the doctrine of the

Η. Ρ. 12

178 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

unity of the soul (frag. 135). In maintaining that every
πάθος is essentially ἄλογον and παρὰ φύσιν, Zeno goes
far beyond Plato and Aristotle, although he has much in
common with the Platonic point of view. Thus in the
Phaedo 83 B, we read ἡ τοῦ ὡς ἀληθῶς φιλοσόφου ψυχὴ
οὕτως ἀπέχεται τῶν ἡδονῶν τε καὶ ἐπιθυμιῶν καὶ λυπῶν
καὶ φόβων καθ᾽ ὅσον δύναται, although elsewhere Plato
admits that certain pleasures and pains are allowable (see
Zeller’s Plato, p. 444). Similarly Aristotle, while classing
certain πάθη as ἄλογα, declares that under certain circum-
stances wrath and desire are legitimate (Eth. N. um. 1.
24- 26).

137. Stob. Ecl. π|. 7. 1, p. 39, 5, ὡς δ᾽ ὁ Στωικὸς
ὡρίσατο Ζήνων" πάθος ἐστὶν ὁρμὴ πλεονάξουσα. οὐ λέγει
“πεφυκυῖα πλεονάζειν᾽, ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη ἐν πλεονασμῷ οὖσα" οὐ
γὰρ δυνάμει, μᾶλλον δ᾽ ἐνεργείᾳ. ὡρίσατο δὲ κἀκείνως"
πάθος ἐστὶ πτοία ψυχῆς, ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν πτηνῶν φορᾶς τὸ
εὐκίνητον τοῦ παθητικοῦ παρεικάσας.

Cf. ib. 11. 7. 10, p. 88, 11, διὸ καὶ πᾶσαν πτοίαν πάθος
εἶναι «καὶ; πάλιν «πᾶν» πάθος πτοίαν. Wachsmuth
refers to Chrysipp. ap. Galen. de Hipp. et Plat. plac. tv. 5,
p. 364, 23, Miill. οἰκείως δὲ τῷ τῶν παθῶν γένει ἀπο-
δίδοται καὶ ἡ πτοία κατὰ τὸ ἐνσεσοβημένον τοῦτο καὶ
φερόμενον εἰκῆ, where the use of the word ὠποδίδοται
points to Zeno’s authorship. ἀπὸ τῆς--παρεικάσας seems
to be merely the comment of Didymus, although it is
possible that Zeno derived πτοία from πέτεσθαι, as
Wachsmuth thinks.

138. Cic. Acad. 1. 38, Zeno omnibus his (perturbati-
onibus) quasi morbis voluit carere sapientem...nam et
perturbationes voluntarias esse putabat opinionisque
iudicio suscipi et omnium perturbationum arbitrabatur
matrem esse immoderatam quandam intemperantiam.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO, 179

quasi morbis: see on frag. 144. ἀπαθῆ εἶναι τὸν σοφόν,
Diog. vil. 117.

opinionisque iudicio: in view of what follows this is
important, and the expression aptly illustrates Galen’s
statement that Zeno regarded the πάθη as τὰ ἐπιγιγ-
νόμενα κρίσεσιν.

intemperantiam. The particular virtue which is con-
cerned with regulating the ὁρμαὶ is σωφροσύνη : see on
Cleanth. frag. 76, so that excess of impulse or πάθος is
said to be produced by its opposite, ἀκολασία (ἄγνοια
αἱρετῶν καὶ φευκτῶν καὶ οὐδετέρων, Stob. Kel. π. 7. 5”,
wm G0, Ὁ). cf. 1 80: IV. 22; Quemadmodum igitur νὴ βό:
rantia sedat appetitiones et efficit, ut eae rectae rationi
pareant, conservatque considerata iudicia mentis: sic huic
inimica intemperantia omnem animi statum inflammat
conturbat incitat; itaque et aegritudines et metus et
reliquae perturbationes omnes gignuntur ex ea.

139. Galen. Hippocr. et Plat. plac. v. 1, v. 429 K.,
Ζήνων ov τὰς κρίσεις αὐτὰς ἀλλὰ Tas ἐπυγυγνομένας
αὐταῖς συστολὰς καὶ λύσεις ἐπάρσεις τε καὶ [τὰς] πτώσεις
τῆς ψυχῆς ἐνόμιζεν εἶναι τὰ πάθη, ib. τν. 3, V. 377 K.
Chrysippus contradicts himself, Zeno, and other Stoics as
to this of οὐ τὰς κρίσεις αὐτὰς τῆς ψυχῆς ἀλλὰ [Kai] τὰς
ἐπὶ ταύταις ἀλόγους συστὸολὰς καὶ ταπεινώσεις καὶ δήξεις
ἐπάρσεις τε καὶ διαχύσεις ὑπολαμβάνουσιν εἶναι τὰ τῆς
ψυχῆς πάθη. Wachsmuth, Comm. 1. p. 7, adds ibid. Iv. 2,
Vv. p. 367 K., τοιαύτην τινὰ τὴν οὐσίαν τῶν παθῶν (i.e. ὅτι
αἱ μειώσεις καὶ αἱ ἐπάρσεις καὶ αἱ συστολαὶ καὶ αἱ δια-
χύσεις...τῆς ἀλόγου δυνάμεώς ἐστι παθήματα ταῖς δόξαις
ἐπιγυγνόμενα) Erixoupos...cat Ζήνων ὑπολαμβάνει. Galen
distinguishes between three different views of the nature
of πάθη, (1) that they have no connection at all with
λογισμὸς or κρίσις, which is the view of Plato and

12—2

180 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Posidonius, and in which Galen himself concurs. He
infers that Cleanthes was of the same opinion (but see
on Cleanth. frag. 84) ; (2) that they are κρίσεις, ef. Diog.
L, vu. 111. This is the view of Chrysippus and is in
Galen’s opinion the worst of the three ; (3) between these
two extreme views that of Zeno in identifying them with
ἐπιγιγνόμενα κρίσεσιν occupies a middle position. It
would seem however that in this respect Galen has done
Chrysippus an injustice: for it is clear from other evidence
(see eg. on frag. 136) that Chrysippus did not confine
himself to the view that πάθη are solely an intellectual
affection (Zeller, p. 245, 246). At the same it is probably
true that he made a distinct advance upon Zeno by
identifying πάθη with κρίσεις and connecting them with
συγκαταθέσεις : cf. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 198, 199.

overohds. This refers to λύπη, which is defined as
συστολὴ ἄλογος (Diog. L. vir. 111, cf. M. Aurel. π΄ 10)
or ἀπειθὴς λόγῳ (Stob. Ecl. u. 7. 70°, p. 90, 14): in the
same way ἔπαρσις refers to ἡδονή (Diog. L. vir. 114, Stob.
l.c., 1. 16).

λύσεις. For this word Miiller substitutes διαχύσεις,
but this is perhaps’ questionable, cf. Cic. Tusc. m1. 61,
ex quo ipsam aegritudinem λύπην Chrysippus [quasi
λύσιν id est] solutionem totius hominis appellatam putat.

rds, delet Miiller.

καὶ is expunged by Zeller, p. 246, and Miiller, but
this corr. is by no means certain: see on frag. 143,
and cf. Heinze, Stoicorum de Affectibus doctrina, p. 37.

δήξεις. Zeller’s correction, accepted by Miiller, for
δείξεις, is made almost certian by Cic. Tusc. Iv. 15, ut
aegritudo quasi morsum aliquem doloris efficiat, cf. Το.
111. 83, cited on frag. 158.

διαχύσεις. In Diog. L. vit. 114 this word appears ‘as a
subdivision of ἡδονὴ and is defined as ἀνάλυσις ἀρετῆς.

.

-4

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 181

In Suidas, col. 818, however ἡδονὴ itself is defined as
ἄλογος διάχυσις, cf. deliquescat in Cic. Tuse. IV. 37. It is
worthy of observation that all these words (excepting
perhaps ταπεινώσεις) refer to λύπη and ἡδονή, and that
ἐπιθυμία and φόβος are not so prominent. For ταπει-
νώσεις, cf. exanimatione humili atque fracta connected
with metus in Cic. Tuse. Iv. 13, and for πτώσεις demitti
(of aegritudo) ib. 14, 37. In the face of the evidence
already cited, Wellmann, p. 454,.seems to be wrong in
supposing λύσεις and πτώσεις to be equivalent to ὄρεξις
and ἔκκλισις in Diog. and Stob. ll. ce.

μείωσις refers to λύπη, Chrysipp. ap. Galen, Iv. 2,
p. 367.

140. Themist. de An. 90 Ὁ, Spengel, 11. 197, 24, καὶ ov
κακῶς οἱ ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος τὰ πάθη τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ψυχῆς
τοῦ λόγου διαστροφὰς εἶναι τιθέμενοι καὶ λόγου κρίσεις
ἡμαρτημένας.

In the face of Galen’s testimony this statement 15
of no importance so far as Zeno is concerned and may be
discarded.

141. Galen, Hipp. et Plat. plac. m1. ο. 5, v. p. 322 Ka
ov μόνον Χρύσιππος ἀλλὰ καὶ Κλεάνθης καὶ Ζήνων
ἑτοίμως αὐτὰ τιθέασιν (τοὺς φόβους καὶ τὰς λύπας καὶ
πάνθ᾽ ὅσα τοιαῦτα πάθη κατὰ τὴν καρδίαν συνίστασθαι).
This passage is taken from Wachsmuth, Comm. I. p. 7.
The emotions are placed in the heart because it is the
seat of the ἡγεμονικὸν (frag. 100), of which the πάθη are
affections (frag. 135), Zeller, p. 213, Stein, Psych. n. 258.

142. Diog. vil. 140, τῶν παθῶν τὰ ἀνωτάτω (καθά
φησιν...«Ζήνων ἐν τῷ περὶ παθών) εἶναι γένη τέτταρα,
λύπην, φόβον, ἐπιθυμίαν, ἡδονήν.

Stob. Ecl. 11. 7. 10, p. 88, 14, πρῶτα δ᾽ εἶναι τῷ γένει

182 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

ταῦτα τὰ τέσσαρα, ἐπιθυμίαν, φόβον, λύπην, ἡδονήν, cf.
Cic. Off. 1. 69, Tuse. m1 24, IV. 11, Jerome Epist. exxxiii.
illi enim quae Graeci appellant πτάθη 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
already recognised λύπη, φόβος, ἐπιθυμία and ἡδονὴ as
the four chief πάθη, cf. Phaed. 83 B, cited on frag. 136.
From τὰ ἀνωτάτω...γένη it is obvious that Zeno classed
certain εἴδη under each of the principal πάθη, but how
much of the exposition in Diog. L. vu. 111—116, Stob,
Ecl. 11. 7, 10°“¢ is derived from him the evidence does not
enable us to determine, nor can we tell whether the
doctrine of the εὐπάθειαι belongs to him.

143. Cic. Tusc. 11. 74, 75, Satis dictum esse arbitror
aegritudinem esse opinionem mali praesentis, in qua opini-
one illud insit, ut aegritudinem suscipere oporteat. Ad-
ditur ad hance definitionem a Zenone recte ut illa opinio
praesentis mali sit recens. Galen de Hipp. et Plat. plac.
IV. 7, p. 416, “ὁ γοῦν ὅρος οὗτος᾽, φησίν [Posidonius], ‘6 τῆς
λύπης, ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ τῶν παθῶν ὑπό τε
Ζήνωνος εἰρημένοι καὶ πρὸς τοῦ Χρυσίππου γεγραμμένοι
σαφῶς ἐξελέγχουσι τὴν γνώμην αὐτοῦ. δόξαν γὰρ εἶναι
πρόσφατον τοῦ κακὸν αὐτῷ παρεῖναί φησι (1 φασι) τὴν
λύπην. ἐν ᾧ καὶ συντομώτερον ἐνίοτε λέγοντες ὧδέ πως
προσφέρονται" λύπη ἐστὶ δόξα πρόσφατος κακοῦ παρου-
σίας. λύπης is the necessary correction of Cornarius,
Bake and I. Miiller for the MSS. ἄτης. The unfortunate
currency, which Kiihn’s dons has obtained, has given rise
to much perplexity.

These passages, and especially that of Cicero, have been

a

hia

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 183

strangely neglected by the authorities. A difficulty arises
here, because it is generally inferred from frag. 139 that
the treatment of the πάθη by Zeno and Chrysippus was
radically different, and it is strange that, if Zeno defined
λύπη, for example, as ἄλογος συστολή, he should also
have defined it as δόξα πρόσφατος κακοῦ παρουσίας.
(For the connection of Chrysippus with the latter defini-
tion cf. Galen, op. cit. Iv. p. 336 K., 336, 9 ML, ἐν τοῖς
ὁρισμοῖς τῶν γενικῶν παθῶν τελέως ἀποχωρεῖ τῆς γνώμης
αὐτῶν [561]. his own writings] τὴν λύπην ὁριζόμενος δόξαν
πρόσφατον κακοῦ παρουσίας τὸν δὲ φόβον προσδοκίαν
κακοῦ τὴν δὲ ἡδονὴν δόξαν πρόσφατον ἀγαθοῦ παρουσίας,
but at the same time defines ἐπιθυμία as ἄλογος ὄρεξις.)
For, in that case, how could Galen or Posidonius have
treated Chrysippus as diverging from Zeno by explaining
the πάθη as κρίσεις, especially as Posidonius is the
ultimate authority on whom the attribution of the δόξα
definition to Zeno rests ?

Now the evidence of Galen establishes almost beyond
a doubt that the definitions of λύπη as ἄλογος συστολὴ
and of ἡδονὴ as ἄλογος ἔπαρσις (Diog. L, vit. 111, 114)
were propounded by Zeno. From this it would seem to
follow as a natural corollary that he also defined ἐπιθυμία
as ἄλογος ὄρεξις (Diog. VIL. 113), and φόβος as ἄλογος
ἔκκλισις (Stob. Ecl. 1. 7. 10°, p. 90, 11, ἔκκλισιν ἀπειθῆ
λόγῳ), οἵ. Andron. περὶ παθῶν, «. 1., λύπη μὲν οὖν ἔστιν
ἄλογος συστολή, φόβος δὲ ἄλογος ἔκκλισις, ἐπιθυμία δὲ
ἄλογος ὄρεξις, ἡδονὴ δὲ ἄλογος ἔπαρσις ; and see Kreuttner,
p. 31. On other grounds it seems probable (see on frag.
136) that Chrysippus is responsible for the substitution of
ἀπειθὴς λόγῳ for ἄλογος in Stob. |. c., but we cannot tell
who added the words ἐπὶ φευκτῷ δοκοῦντι and ἐφ᾽ αἱρετῷ
δοκοῦντι ὑπάρχειν (Galen, Hipp. et Plat. Iv. 2, p. 367),
which appear also in Diog. 114. It remains therefore to

184 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

decide whether the definitions of which δόξα πρόσφατος
κακοῦ παρουσίας is a type were introduced by Zeno or
Chrysippus, The latter alternative would be the most -
satisfactory solution and is generally adopted (eg. by
Wellmann, p. 454, 455, Zeller, pp. 249, 250, Siebeck,
Geschichte der Psychologie, II. 232, 233 and 504), but if
Posidonius’ evidence is to be accepted in the one case,
why is it to be discarded in the other, especially where it
tells most strongly against himself? ef Galen, p. 390 K.,,
(Ποσειδώνιος) πειρᾶται μὴ μόνον ἑαυτὸν τοῖς Πλατωνικοῖς
ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν Κιτιέα Ζήνωνα προσάγειν. We must re-
member that Posidonius was anxious to pick holes in
Chrysippus, in order to excuse his own heresy. Hence
he charges Chrysippus not merely with divergence from
his predecessors but with inconsistency (τὴν αὐτοῦ πρὸς
αὑτὸν ἐναντιολογίαν τοῦ Χρυσίππου, Galen, p. 390). It
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
in Diog. L. vir. 112 φόβος is defined as κακοῦ προσδοκία,
being thus differentiated from the other πάθη, and that
this definition is ultimately traceable to Plato (Protag.
358 D, Lach. 1988). If however we suppose that Zeno
made use of a double set of definitions, what was the
nature of the contribution made by Chrysippus? Only
two answers seem possible. If Zeno in his oral lectures
(εἰρημένοι), and subsequently to the publication of the
work περὶ παθῶν, put forward the δόξα definitions, it.
would devolve on Chrysippus to reconcile as against
opponents the written and the oral tradition of the
school. Or again it is quite conceivable that Posidonius
may have been misled by the desire of Chrysippus to
represent his own developments as the natural out-growth

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 185

of Zeno’s system. In any case the difference was com-
paratively unimportant: ‘hanc differentiam levissimam
esse quis est quin videat, cum uterque id semper docuerit,
πάθη esse voluntaria ?’ (Heinze, Stoicorum de Affectibus
doctrina, p. 10, and see also pp. 23, 24, 36, 37).

144. Lactant. Inst. ui. 23, inter vitia et morbos
misericordiam ponit (Zeno). id. Epist. ad Pentad. 38,
Zeno Stoicorum magister, qui virtutem laudat, miseri-
cordiam...tamquam morbum animi diiudicavit.

It is probable that Zeno spoke of the πάθη in general
terms as νόσοι and that Chrysippus is responsible for the
distinction between νοσήματα and ἀῤῥωστήματα, as the
passage in Cic. Tuse. Iv. 23 suggests. Cf. Zeller, p. 251,
252, and Stein, Psych. n. 267. At the same time morbus
may here be simply the translation of πάθος, which Cicero
rejected (Tuse. 11. 7, Iv. 10). For ἔλεος, a subdivision of
λύπη, cf. Diog. vit. 111, Stob. Ecl. m. 7. 10°, p. 92, 12,
Cic. Tusce. Iv. 18.

145. Diog. vit. 107, 108, ἔτι δὲ καθῆκόν φασιν εἶναι
A \ wv: , >» ᾽ Rake oe ery:
ὃ πραχθὲν εὔχλογόν τιν᾽ ἴσχει ἀπολογισμον᾽ οἷον TO aKo-
χουθον ἐν τῇ ζωῇ, ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ φυτὰ καὶ ζῷα διατείνει.
ὁρᾶσθαι γὰρ κἀπὶ τούτων καθήκοντα. κατωνομάσθαι δὲ
ὑπὸ πρώτου Ζήνωνος τὸ καθῆκον ἀπὸ τοῦ κατά τινας
ἥκειν τῆς προσωνομασίας εἰλημμένης. Cf. ib. 25, φασὶ δὲ
καὶ πρῶτον καθῆκον ὠνομακέναι καὶ λόγον περὶ αὐτοῦ
πεποιηκέναι (referring to the treatise περὶ τοῦ καθή-
κοντος, Introd. p. 29).
Stob. Ecl. 11. 7. 8, p. 85, 13, ὁρίζεται δὲ τὸ καθῆκον"
Aare eee > ae ON \ ” > , Μ é
τὸ ἀκόλουθον ἐν ζωῇ, ὃ πραχθὲν εὔλογον ἀπολογίαν ἔχει
παρὰ τὸ καθῆκον δὲ τὸ ἐναντίως. τοῦτο διατείνει καὶ εἰς
τὰ ἄλογα τῶν ζῴων, ἐνεργεῖ γάρ τι κἀκεῖνα ἀκολούθως τῇ
ἐξ a , Ἂν ’ \ \ a a / [ 5
ἑαυτῶν φύσει" ἐπὶ «δὲ; τῶν λογικῶν ζῴων οὕτως aTrO-

186 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

δίδοται" τὸ ἀκόλουθον ἐν βίῳ. Οἷς. de Fin. τπ|| 58, est
autem officium quod ita factum est ut eius facti probabilis
ratio reddi possit (where see Madv.).

καθῆκον is, 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

described as κατόρθωμα. That Zeno must have treated of -

κατόρθωμα is a supposition which is rendered necessary

by the circumstances of the case, but the evidence to |

connect him with it is wanting. The doctrine of καθῆκον
is closely connected with that of προηγμένον (ἀκόλουθος
δ᾽ ἔστι τῷ περὶ τῶν προηγμένων ὁ περὶ τοῦ καθήκοντος

τόπος, Stob. |. 6.) inasmuch as in the ordinary course of
life we are forced to regulate our conduct with regard to —
external circumstances, which are strictly speaking ἀδια- —

dopa. Hence we must explain κατά τινας where κατὰ
means “over against ” (die jenige Pflicht, die von aussen
an uns herantritt, von der unterschieden werden soll,
die in unserem eigensten Wesen, in der Vernunft selber
ihren Ursprung hat), as Hirzel has shown by a com-
parison of Epict. Enchir. 15, μέμνησο ὅτι ὡς ἐν συμποσίῳ
δεῖ σε ἀναστρέφεσθαι. περιφερόμενον γέγονέ τι κατά σε;
ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα κοσμίως μετάλαβε: παρέρχεται; μὴ
κάτεχε. οὔπω ἥκει; μὴ ἐπίβαλλε πόῤῥω τὴν ὄρεξιν"
ἀλλὰ περίμενε, μέχρις ἂν γένηται κατά σε. οὕτω πρὸς
τέκνα, οὕτω πρὸς γυναῖκα, οὕτω πρὸς ἀρχάς, οὕτω πρὸς
πλοῦτον, καὶ ἔσῃ ποτὲ ἄξιος τῶν θεῶν συμπότης. καθῆκον,
therefore, in Zeno’s system is not a general term of which
κατορθώματα and μέσα καθήκοντα are subdivisions, but
rather καθήκοντα and κατορθώματα are mutually ex-
clusive, so that the distinctions between ἀεὶ καθήκοντα
and οὐκ ἀεὶ καθήκοντα, and μέσα καθήκοντα and τέλεια
καθήκοντα belong to later Stoics: see Hirzel, Unter-
suchungen, IL pp. 403—410. εὔλογον does not imply

ω

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 187

action in accordance with right reason, ie. virtue, as
Zeller and Ueberweg suppose, for reason in this sense
cannot be attributed to φυτὰ and ἄλογα ζῷα, which are
nevertheless capable of καθήκοντα according to the
authorities. (The use of εὔλογος in this narrower sense is
justified by Hirzel, τι. 341, 1, from a comparison of Diog.
vit. 76. Seneca, de Benef. Iv. 33, sequimur qua ratio non
qua virtus trahit; Diog. vil. 130, εὐλόγως ἐξάξειν ἑαυτὸν
τοῦ βίου τὸν σοφόν.) If Hirzel’s explanation is correct,
it follows that in Sext. Math. vi. 158, where κατόρθωμα
is defined as ὅπερ πραχθὲν εὔλογον ἔχει τὴν ἀπολογίαν,
Arcesilas adopts the Stoic definition of καθῆκον as the
true basis of κατόρθωμα. Wellmann, p. 461, believes that
κατόρθωμα belongs solely to the later Stoics, but surely
Zeno must have given some name to virtuous action, and
it is most reasonable to assume that this was κατόρθωμα.
It is unnecessary to observe that Zeno was not the first
to use καθῆκον in the sense of “duty”: all that is meant
is that he gave the word its special technical sense, ef.
κατάληψις. As to the divergence of Stobaeus from
Diogenes we should note (1) that τὸ ἀκόλουθον ἐν ζωῇ 15
made the main point in the definition, which is probably
a mistake, cf. Cic., (2) the distinction between βίος and
ζωή, for which cf. Arist. ap Ammon. in Steph. Thes. Bios
ἐστὶ λογικὴ ζωή (quoted by Hirzel).

146. Stob. Ecl. 1. 7. 1, p. 38, 15, of δὲ κατὰ Δήνωνα
τὸν Στωικὸν τροπικῶς" ἦθός ἐστι πηγὴ βίου, ἀφ᾽ ἧς αἱ
κατὰ μέρος πράξεις ῥέουσι.

The Stoics regarded not so much the act itself as the
character of the agent (cf. σπουδαία διάθεσις). For
πηγὴ cf. Plat. Leg. 808 c, who says that a young boy ἔχει
πηγὴν τοῦ φρονεῖν μήπω κατηρτυμένην.

10

15

20

188 | THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

147. Diog. L. vu. 173, κατὰ Ζήνωνα καταληπτὸν
εἶναι τὸ ἦθος ἐξ εἴδους.

Cf. Stob. Ecl. τ. δ0. 34, οἱ Στωικοὶ τὸν σοφὸν αἰσθήσει
καταληπτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ εἴδους τεκμηριωδῶς. Euripides
regrets that it is impossible to distinguish men in this
manner. Med. 516—520,

ὦ Zed, τί δὴ χρυσοῦ μὲν ὃς κίβδηλος ἡ
Texunpe ἀνθρώποισιν ὥπασας σαφῆ,
ἀνδρῶν δ᾽ ὅτῳ χρὴ τὸν κακὸν διειδέναι,
οὐδεὶς χαρακτὴρ ἐμπέφυκε σώματι;
ef. Hippol. 924 foll. Οἷο. Lael. 62. So Shaksp. Mach. 1. 4.
11, There’s no art to find the mind’s construction in the face.

148. Stob. Ecl. 1. 7. 11%, p. 99, 3, ἀρέσκει yap τῷ τε
Ζήνωνι καὶ τοῖς ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ Στωικοῖς φιλοσόφοις δύο γένη
τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἶναι, τὸ μὲν τῶν σπουδαίων, τὸ δὲ τῶν
φαύλων" καὶ τὸ μὲν τῶν σπουδαίων διὰ παντὸς τοῦ βίου
χρῆσθαι ταῖς ἀρεταῖς, τὸ δὲ τῶν φαύλων ταῖς κακίαις"
ὅθεν τὸ μὲν ἀεὶ κατορθοῦν ἐν ἅπασιν οἷς προστίθεται, τὸ
δὲ ἁμαρτάνειν. καὶ τὸν μὲν σπουδαῖον ταῖς περὶ τὸν βίον
ἐμπειρίαις χρώμενον ἐν τοῖς πραττομένοις ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ
πάντ᾽ εὖ ποιεῖν, καθάπερ φρονίμως καὶ σωφρόνως καὶ
κατὰ τὰς ἄλλας ἀρετάς" τὸν δὲ φαῦλον κατὰ τοὐναντίον
κακῶς. καὶ τὸν μὲν σπουδαῖον μέγαν καὶ ἁδρὸν καὶ
ὑψηλὸν καὶ ἰσχυρόν. μέγαν μὲν ὅτι δύναται ἐφικνεῖσθαι
τῶν κατὰ προαίρεσιν ὄντων αὐτῷ καὶ προκειμένων" ἁδρὸν
δέ, ὅτι ἐστὶν ηὐξημένος πάντοθεν: ὑψηλὸν δ᾽, ὅτι μετεί-
ληφε τοῦ ἐπιβάλλοντος ὕψους ἀνδρὶ γενναίῳ καὶ σοφῷ.
καὶ ἰσχυρὸν δ᾽, ὅτι τὴν ἐπιβάλλουσαν ἰσχὺν περιπε-
ποίηται, ἀήττητος ὧν καὶ ἀκαταγώνιστος. παρ᾽ ὃ καὶ

wv ν᾽ , ε΄ , wv > Ul wv
ovte ἀναγκάζεται ὑπό τινος οὔτε ἀναγκάζει τινα, οὔτε

κωλύεται οὔτε κωλύει, οὔτε βιάζεται ὑπό τινος οὔτ᾽ αὐτὸς
βιάζει τινα, οὔτε δεσπόζει οὔτε δεσπόζεται, οὔτε κακοποιεῖ
τινα οὔτ᾽ αὐτὸς κακοποιεῖται, οὔτε κακοῖς περιπίπτει «οὔτ᾽

»Ἣ"

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 189

ἄλλον ποιεῖ κακοῖς περιπίπτειν», οὔτε ἐξαπατᾶται οὔτε
ἐξαπατᾷ ἄλλον, οὔτε διαψεύδεται οὔτε ἀγνοεῖ οὔτε λαν-
θάνει ἑαυτόν, οὔτε καθόλου ψεῦδος ὑπολαμβάνει" εὐδαίμων
δέ ἐστιν μάλιστα καὶ εὐτυχὴς καὶ μακάριος καὶ ὄλβιος καὶ
εὐσεβὴς καὶ θεοφιλὴς καὶ ἀξιωματικός, βασιλικός τε καὶ
στρατηγικὸς καὶ πολιτικὸς καὶ οἰκονομικὸς καὶ χρηματισ-
τικός. τοὺς δὲ φαύλους ἅπαντα τούτοις ἐναντία ἔχειν.

It is a matter of doubt how much of this extract can
be reasonably regarded as derived from Zeno, but if the
whole of it is to be traced to a single source, that source
may be Zeno, as there is some evidence for connecting
him with the statements appearing at the end of the
passage. On the doctrine of the wise man in general see
Zeller, p. 268 foll., Cie. Fin. m1. 75, 76.

9. πάντ᾽ εὖ ποιάν: cf infra frag. 156. Ambrosius, de
Abraham IL. 7. 328, 37, cites Gen. x1I. 14 and 15 and
continues, hine tamquam a fonte hauserunt Stoici philo-
sophi dogmatis sui sententiam : omnia sapientis esse...
unde et Salomon in Proverbiis ait: eius qui fidelis sit
totus mundus divitiarum (Prov. XVI. 6). Quanto prior
Salomon quam Zenon Stoicorum magister atque auctor
sectae ipsius.

12. μέγαν. Physical excellence can only be predicated
of the wise man, even if in the popular sense of the term
he does not possess it, for no kind of excellence can be
attributed to the φαῦλος. Further, inasmuch as the only
good is ἀρετὴ or τὸ μετέχον ἀρετῆς, physical advantages
only have value when found in conjunction with virtue.

17. ἀήττητοςς Cf. frag. 157, the parallelism of which
is perhaps a circumstance of some weight in favour of
Zeno’s authorship here.

19. βιάζεται: for this verb, see Shilleto on Thue. 1.
Ὁ}:

20. δεσπόζει: cf. Diog. L. vir. 122, ἡ (δουλείᾳ) ἀντι-

190 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO,

τίθεται ἡ δεσποτεία φαύλη οὖσα καὶ αὕτη. Stob. Ἐπὶ.
1. 7. 11*, p. 104, 5.

23. διαψεύδεται : because falsehood consists not merely
in stating something contrary to fact but in doing so
advisedly in order to deceive others (Stob. Ecl. τι. 7. 11%
p. 111, 10; Sext. Math. vi. 44, 45). So, on the other
hand the φαῦλος may speak ἀληθές τι but is devoid οὔ
ἀλήθεια.

26. ἐυσεβὴς καὶ θεοφ. Similar assertions in an amplified
form occur in Diog. L. vir. 119.

ἀξιωματικός : this appears to mean “high in rank,” see
Plut. Mor. 617 D, and ef. the use of ἀξίωμα in Thue. as
applied to Pericles. It can hardly mean “ speaking axioms”
as when used of Arcesilas in Diog. rv. 31. |

βασιλικός. 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 by Zeno from Diog. L. vir. 122,
ἀλλὰ καὶ βασιλέας (εἶναι τοὺς σοφούς) τῆς βασιλείας
οὔσης ἀρχῆς ἀνυπευθύνου, ἥτις περὶ μόνους ἂν τοὺς
σοφοὺς σταίη, καθά φησι Χρύσιππος ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ
κυρίως κεχρῆσθαι Ζήνωνα τοῖς ὀνόμασιν. ΟἹ Hor. Sat. 1.
3. 125, Stob. Eel. 11. 7. 11", p. 108, 26.

27. στρατηγικός. Plut., vit. Arat, 23, 3, quotes μόνον
στρατηγὸν εἶναι τὸν σοφόν as a δόγμα Ζήνωνος.

149. Diog. vil. 33, πάλιν ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ παρίσταντα
(Ζήνωνα) πολίτας καὶ φίλους καὶ οἰκείους καὶ ἐλευθέρους
τοὺς σπουδαίους μόνον. Clem. Alex. Strom. vy. 14. 95, p. 703
P, 253 8, Ζήνων τε ὁ Στωικὸς παρὰ Πλάτωνος λαβών, ὁ
δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς βαρβάρου φιλοσοφίας, τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς πάντας
ἀλλήλων εἶναι φίλους λέγει. The same in Euseb. P. E.
ΧΠΙ. 13, p. 671.

πολιτείᾳ. Introd. p. 29,

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 191

πολίτας: the question naturally arises, how is this
statement to be connected with the cosmopolitanism which
Zeno in the same treatise advocated (see frag. 162, iva...
πέντας ἀνθρώπους ἡγώμεθα δημότας Kat πολίτας): Zeno’s
ideal state is not a community of the wise alone, but of
all mankind. He seems to be arguing here against the
ordinary civic distinctions, which are utterly valueless as
compared with the broad line drawn between σοφοὶ and
φαῦλοι. Presumably in the ideal state everyone would
be so trained in Stoic precepts as to become thereby
σπουδαῖος.

irous: cf. Diog. L. vil. 124, Stob. Ecl. 1. 7. 11”, p.
138, 15, where friendship is based upon ὁμόνοια which can
only be found among the wise. Cic. Off. 1. 56, N. D. 1. 121.
A full discussion of the subject is given by Zeller, p. 317
foll. This is one of the doctrines borrowed by Zeno from
the Cynics, see Introd. p. 19; it had already been taught
by Socrates (Xen. Mem. τι. 6. 14 foll.). The view is
rejected as inadequate by Plato in the Lysis (p. 214), but
no doubt Clement is thinking rather of the Phaedrus and
Symposium: he adds his usual comment that Plato’s views
are borrowed from the Jews.

ἐλευθέρους. Stob: ΘΙ ἢ pc DOL, 13; Diog. ΤΠ:
191, Cic. Parad. v. This again is derived from the
Cynics: see Zeller, Socrates, p. 322.

150. Cic. Mur. § 61, solos sapientes esse, si dis-
tortissimi, formosos. This occurs among the “Sententiae
et praecepta Zenonis” cited by Cicero in his banter
against Cato, so that the evidence is not very trustworthy,
a remark which also applies to frags. 152, 153 and 155.
The wise man is beautiful because virtue alone is
beautiful and attractive: Zeller, p. 270 and n. 4, to whose
references add Cic. Fin. 11. 75, recte etiam pulcher ap-

192 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO,

pellabitur: animi enim lineamenta sunt pulcriora quam
corporis.

151. Cic. Fin. v. 84, Zeno sapientem non beatum
modo sed etiam divitem dicere ausus est. Cic. Mur. § 61,
solos sapientes esse, si mendicissimi, divites.

For the sense ef. Cic. Paradox. vi., Stob. Ecl. τι. 7. 11"
Ρ. 101, 18, and further references ap. Zeller p. 270, nn. 5
and 6.

152. Cic. Mur. § 61, sapientiam gratia nunquam
moveri, numquam cuiusquam delicto ignoscere; neminem
misericordem esse nisi stultum et levem; viri non esse
neque exorari neque placari.

The reasons for this opinion are given by Diog. vu.
123, ἐλεήμονάς τε μὴ εἶναι, συγγνώμην τε ἔχειν μηδενί"
μὴ γὰρ παριέναι τὰς ἐκ τοῦ νόμου ἐπιβαλλούσας κολάσεις:
ἐπεὶ τό γε εἴκειν καὶ ὁ ἔλεος αὐτή τε ἡ ἐπιείκεια οὐδένειά
ἐστι ψυχῆς πρὸς κολάσεις προσποιουμένης χρηστότητα
μηδὲ οἴεσθαι σκληροτέρας αὐτὰς εἶναι. The same at
greater length in Stob. Ecl. 1.7. 114, p. 95, 25—96, 9; see
also Zeller, p. 254. It should be remembered that ἔλεος
is a subdivision of λύπη (ἐπὶ τῷ δοκοῦντι ἀναξίως κακο-
παθεῖν Stob. Ecl. 11. 7. 10°, p. 92, 12) and therefore one of
the πάθη : possibly this is all that is meant by Lactant.
Inst. U1. 23 (frag. 144).

153. Cic. Mur. ὃ 61, sapientem nihil opinari, nullius
rei poenitere, nulla in re falli, sententiam mutare num-
quam. Lact. Inst. m1. 4, ergo si neque sciri quidquam
potest, ut Socrates docuit, nec opinari oportet, ut Zeno,
tota philosophia sublata est. Cic. Acad. τι 113, sapientem

nihil opinari...horum neutrum ante Zenonem magno |

opere defensum est. August. contra Acad. m1. 11, cum

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 193

ab eodem Zenone accepissent nihil esse turpius quam
opinari.

The Greek authorities for this fall partly under frag.
148, 1. 22, οὔτε ἐξαπατᾶται οὔτε ἐξαπατᾷ ἄλλον, οὔτε
διαψεύδεται οὔτε ἀγνοεῖ οὔτε λανθάνει ἑαυτὸν οὔτε καθ-
όλου ψεῦδος ὑπολαμβάνει, and the rest may be supplied
from Stob. Ecl. 1.7. 11", p. 112, 1, μηδὲν δ᾽ ὑπολαμβάνειν
ἀσθενῶς ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀσφαλῶς Kai βεβαίως διὸ Kai μηδὲ
δοξάζειν τὸν σοφόν... p. 113, 5, οὐδὲ μετανοεῖν δ᾽ ὑπο-
λαμβάνουσι τὸν νοῦν ἔχοντα... οὐδὲ μεταβάλλεσθαι δὲ
κατ᾽ οὐδένα τρόπον οὐδὲ μετατίθεσθαι οὐδὲ σφάλλεσθαι.
Diog. vit. 121, ἔτι τε μὴ δοξάσειν τὸν σοφόν. For Zeno's
definition of δόξα see on frag. 15.

154. Diog. vir. 32, ἐχθροὺς καὶ πολεμίους καὶ δούλους
καὶ ἀλλοτρίους λέγειν αὐτὸν (Ζήνωνα) ἀλλήλων εἶναι
πάντας τοὺς μὴ σπουδαίους καὶ γονεῖς τέκνων καὶ ἀδελ-
φοὺς ἀδελφῶν, οἰκείους οἰκείων.

This is the natural antithesis of frag. 149. Even
parents are enemies to their children, if φαῦλοι, because
natural relationship and parental love are absolutely
ἀδιάφορα as compared with ἀρετή. On the subject of
these paradoxes in general consult Ritter and Preller
§ 420 with the notes.

155. Cic. Mur. ὃ 61, nos autem, qui sapientes non
sumus, fugitivos, exules, hostes, insanos. denique esse.

But for the sake of uniformity this might have been
omitted, as we can feel very little confidence that we have
here the actual words of Zeno. For exules cf. Stob. Ecl.
π. 7. 11, p. 103, 9, λέγουσι δὲ καὶ φυγάδα πάντα φαῦλον
εἶναι, καθ᾽ ὅσον στέρεται νόμου καὶ πολιτείας κατὰ φύσιν
ἐπιβαλλούσης.

156. Athen. 1v. 158 Β, Στωικὸν δὲ δόγμα ἐστίν" ὅτι
Hz P; 13

194 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Te πάντα εὖ ποιήσει ὁ σοφὸς καὶ φακὴν φρονίμως ἀρτύσει'
διὸ καὶ Τίμων ὁ Φλιάσιος ἔφη

καὶ [Ζηνώνειόν] ye φακῆν ἑψεῖν ὃς μὴ φρονίμως
μεμάθηκεν

ὡς οὐκ ἄλλως δυναμένης ἑψηθῆναι φακῆς εἰ μὴ κατὰ
τὴν Ζηνώνειον ὑφήγησιν ὃς ἔφη

εἰς δὲ φακῆν ἔμβαλλε δυωδέκατον κοριάννου.

ὅτι τε κτλ. This follows from the doctrine that all
virtue is wisdom (φρόνησις): since φρόνησις is required
in the preparation of a φακῆ, the wise man can alone
prepare it properly. This applies even if the wise man
has no experience in the particular practical task under
consideration, because he alone possesses the necessary
capacity, cf. frag. 148, 1.9. Diog. L. vi. 125, πάντα τε
εὖ ποιεῖν τὸν σοφόν, ὡς καὶ πάντα φαμὲν τὰ αὐλήματα εὖ
αὐλεῖν τὸν ᾿Ισμηνίαν, which furnishes a close parallel to
Hor. Sat. 1. 3. 126 foll., ‘non nosti quid pater, inquit,
‘Chrysippus dicat:’ ‘sapiens crepidas sibi numquam nec
soleas fecit, sutor tamen est sapiens.’ qui? ‘ut quamvis
tacet Hermogenes, cantor tamen atque optimus est modu-
lator ete.’ Cf. also Stob. Ecl. 11. 7. 5°™, p- 66, 14 foll.

157. Philo, liber quis virtuti studet, p. 880, ἄξιον τὸ
Ζηνώνειον ἐπιφωνῆσαι ὅτι θᾶττον ἂν ἀσκὸν βαπτίσαις
πλήρη πνεύματος ἢ βιάσαιο τὸν σπουδαῖον ὁντινοῦν
ἄκοντα δρᾶσαί τι τῶν ἀβουλήτων" ἀνένδοτος γὰρ καὶ
ἀήσσητος ψυχὴ ἣν ὀρθὸς λόγος δόγμασι παγίοις ἐ-
νεύρωσε.

βαπτίσαις... βιάσαι. So Mangey, followed by Wach-
smuth, for the MSS. βαπτίσαι... βιάσαιτος The same
editor suggests the alternative of inserting τίς, which is
less probable.

βιάσαιο : for the freedom of the wise man’s will ef. Cic.
Tuse. Iv. 12, eiusmodi appetitionem Stoici βούλησιν

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 195

appellant, nos appellamus voluntatem. Eam illi putant in
solo esse sapiente ; quam sic definiunt: voluntas est, quae
quid cum ratione desiderat, and see Stein, Erkenntnis-
theorie, p. 196.

ἀνένδοτος : cf. supra frag. 148, ἐσχυρὸν δ᾽ (τὸν σοφόν) ὅτι
τὴν ἐπιβάλλουσαν ἰσχὺν περιπεποίηται ἀήττητος ὧν καὶ
ἀκαταγώνιστος. Μ. Aurel. 1. 16 fin.

ὀρθὸς λόγος : see Introd. pp. 8, 9.

158. Seneca, de Ira, 1. 16, 7, Nam, ut dixit Zeno, in
sapientis quoque animo etiam quum vulnus sanatum sit
cicatrix manet. Sentiet itaque suspiciones quasdam et
umbras affectuum, ipsis quidem carebit.

This is a concession to popular feeling, although at
the same time the absolute ἀπάθεια (Diog. L. vu. 117,
Cic. Acad. 1. 38) of the wise man is maintained. It would
be a mistake to infer from this passage that Zeno is
responsible for the doctrine of εὐπάθειαι. Further re-
ferences are given by Zeller, p. 291. Cf. Diog. vi. 118,
προσπεσεῖσθαι μέντοι ποτὲ αὐτῷ φαντασίας ἀλλοκότους,
διὰ μελαγχολίαν ἢ λήρησιν «x.T.r., Where however the
point is rather different. Remembering that Zeno de-
scribed the effect of grief as δήξεις, we may compare
Socrates’ description of the result of violent love in Xen.
Symp. Iv. 28, ὥσπερ ὑπὸ θηρίου τινὸς δεδηγμένος τόν
τε ὦμον πλεῖον ἢ πέντε ἡμέρας ὦδαξον καὶ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ
ὥσπερ κνῆσμά τι ἐδόκουν ἔχειν. Cic. Tusc. I. 83, hoe
detracto, quod totum est voluntarium, aegritudo erit
sublata illa maerens, morsus tamen et contractiuncula
quaedam animi relinquetur. The best account of the
sensibility of the wise man to pain is given by Heinze,
Stoicorum de aff. doctr. pp. 14, 15. The wise man can-
not resist the impact of the φαντασία, but will refuse
συγκατάθεσις. See further on Cleanth. frag. 94.

13—2

196 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

159. 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.
Ρ. 33. Von Arnim, Quellen Studien p. 104, has pointed
out the original in Philo de Plantatione Noé p. 350, εἰ τῷ
μεθύοντι οὐκ ἄν τις εὐλόγως λόγον ἀπόῤῥητον παρακατά-
θοιτο «τῷ δὲ σοφῷ παρακατατίθενται;» οὐκ ἄρα μεθύει ὁ
ἀστεῖος.

ebrius non erit: cf. Diog. L. vi. 118, καὶ οἰνρωθήσεσθαι
μέν (τὸν σοφόν), ov μεθυσθήσεσθαι δέ. Stob. Ecl. π΄. 7,
11™, p. 109, 5, οὐχ οἷον δὲ μεθυσθήσεσθαι τὸν νοῦν ἔχοντα"
τὴν γὰρ μέθην ἁμαρτητικὸν περιέχειν, λήρησιν εἶναι
«γὰρ; παρὰ τὸν οἶνον, ἐν μηδενὶ δὲ τὸν σπουδαῖον ἁμαρ-
τάνειν κιτιλ. Similarly Socrates in Xen. Symp. τι. 96.
The Peripatetics held, on the contrary, according to
Stobaeus, that the wise man μεθυσθήσεσθαι κατὰ συμ-
περιφοράς, κἂν εἰ μὴ προηγουμένως (Ecl. τι. 7. 24, p. 144,
10).

160. Plut. de prof. in virt. 12, ὅρα δὴ καὶ τὸ τοῦ
Ζήνωνος ὁποῖόν ἐστιν" ἠξίου yap ἀπὸ τῶν ὀνείρων ἕκαστον
ἑαυτοῦ συναισθάνεσθαι προκόπτοντος, εἰ μήτε ἡδόμενον
αἰσχρῷ τινι ἑαυτὸν μήτε τι προσιέμενον ἢ πράττοντα τῶν
δεινῶν καὶ ἀδίκων ὁρᾷ κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους ἀλλ᾽ οἷον ἐν βυθῷ
γαλήνης ἀκλύστῳ καταφανεῖ διαλάμπει τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ
φανταστικὸν καὶ παθητικὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου διακεχυ-
μένον.

ἀπὸ τῶν ὀνείρων : it was a popular Greek notion that the
vision of the mind’s eye is clearer in sleep. Aesch. Eum.
104. Pind. frag. 108 [96], Fennell.

προκόπτοντος : Wellmann p. 462 argues that Zeno, while

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 197

maintaining to the full the possibility of acquiring virtue,
did not admit the practical non-existence of wise men or
the consequent distinction between of προκόπτοντες and of
σπουδαῖοι: these latter views, he thinks, may have
originated with Chrysippus. On προκοπὴ in general see
Zeller, p. 293 foll.

προσιέμενον, “approving” (cf. Dem. Timocr. ὃ 156). The
words αἰσχρῷ δεινῶν ἀδίκων point to the acquisition
of the three leading virtues σωφροσύνη ἀνδρεία and
δικαιοσύνη.

aX οἷον κτλ. The emotions are dispersed by reason
in the mind of the προκόπτων, which remains clear and
unsullied, like the transparent ocean on a calm day when
shingle and sand settle down to the bottom: cf. Cleanth.
frag. 66.

φανταστικόν, has no objective reality but is merely
διάκενος ἑλκυσμός, πάθος ἐν TH ψυχῇ ἀπ᾽ οὐδενὸς φαντασ-
τοῦ γινόμενον (Plut. plac. IV. 12). Observe that it is
described as a πάθος. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 156, n.
309.

161. Seneca, Epist. 104. 21, quod si convivere etiam
Graecis juvat {cum Socrate, cum Zenone versare: alter
te docebit mori, si necesse erit: alter, antequam necesse
erit. .

antequam necesse 6777. Suicide (é£aywy7) is justifiable
under certain circumstances. It is important to re-
member that life and death belong to the class of the
ἀδιάφορα, and suicide therefore has no connection with
ἀρετή, but is merely to be regarded as a matter of
καθῆκον (τοῖς δὲ καθήκουσι καὶ τοῖς παρὰ τὸ καθῆκον
«παραξ μετρεῖσθαι τήν τε ζωὴν καὶ τὸν θάνατον Stob.
Ecl. u. 7. 11™ p. 110, 18 and see on frag. 145). This
point is emphasised by Zeller p. 338.

198 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO,

162. Plut. Alex. virt. 6, καὶ μὴν ἡ πολὺ θαυμαξζξομένη
πολιτεία τοῦ τὴν Στωικῶν αἵρεσιν καταβαλομένου Ζήνωνος
εἰς ἕν τοῦτο συντείνει κεφάλαιον ἵνα μὴ κατὰ πόλεις μηδὲ
κατὰ δήμους οἰκῶμεν, ἰδίοις ἕκαστοι διωρισμένοι δικαίοις,
ἀλλὰ πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἡγώμεθα δημότας καὶ πολίτας,
εἷς δὲ βίος ἦ καὶ κόσμος, ὥσπερ ἀγέλης συννόμου νομῷ
κοινῷ συντρεφομένης. τοῦτο Ζήνων μὲν ἔγραψεν ὥσπερ
ὄναρ ἢ εἴδωλον εὐνομίας φιλοσόφου καὶ πολιτείας ἀνα-
τυπωσάμενος : id. de Sto. Rep. 11. 1, ἐπεὶ τοίνυν πολλὰ μέν,
ὡς ἐν λόγοις αὐτῷ Ζήνωνι...γεγραμμένα τυγχάνει περὶ
πολιτείας καὶ τοῦ ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν καὶ δικάξειν καὶ
ῥητορεύειν. Chrysost. Hom. 1. in Matth. 4, οὐ yap καθάπερ
Πλάτων ὁ τὴν καταγέλαστον ἐκείνην πολιτείαν συνθεὶς
καὶ Ζήνων καὶ εἴ τις ἕτερος πολιτείαν ἔγραψεν ἢ νόμους
συνέθηκεν.

πάντας ἀνθρώπους: see on frag. 149. The idea of cos-
mopolitanism was largely developed by the later Stoics,
especially Seneca and Marcus Aurelius. Zeno’s 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. γι. 72, μόνην τε
ὀρθὴν πολιτείαν εἶναι τὴν ἐν κόσμῳ). As to Socrates, see
Zeller’s Socrates p. 167 n. 8, R. and P. § 219°

ὥσπερ ἀγέλης συννόμουν. As Zeno is generally admitted to
have written the πολιτεία when he was still under the
Influence of the Cynie school, Zeller (Socrates p. 325)
treats this passage as being typical of Cynicism, and
suggests that Plato, in the Politicus (267 D, οὐκοῦν τῶν
νομευτικῶν ἡμῖν πολλῶν φανεισῶν ἄρτι τεχνῶν μία τις ἦν ἡ
πολιτικὴ καὶ μιᾶς τινὸς ἀγέλης ἐπιμέλεια; «.T.X.) and in his
description of the ὑῶν πόλιες in Rep. $72 A. foll. is referring
to Antisthenes. The reference is however extremely
doubtful (see Ueberweg p. 93), and it is worth noticing

4

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 199

that the comparison of the ruler of a state to a herdsman
was a favourite one with Socrates. Xen. Mem. 1. 2,32, εἶπέ
που ὁ Σωκράτης ὅτι θαυμαστόν οἱ δοκοίη εἶναι, εἴτις
γενόμενος βοῶν ἀγέλης νομεὺς καὶ τὰς βοῦς ἐλάττους τε
καὶ χείρους ποιῶν μὴ ὁμολογοίη κακὸς βουκόλος εἷναι" ἔτι
δὲ θαυμαστότερον εἴ τις προστάτης γενόμενος πόλεως
«.7.d., with which ef. Plat. Gorg. 516 a. See also Newman,
Politics of Aristotle, vol. 1. p. 30.

163. Athen. xt. 561 ©, Ποντιανὸς δὲ Ζήνωνα ἔφη
τὸν Κιτιέα ὑπολαμβάνειν τὸν "ἔρωτα θεὸν εἶναι φιλίας
καὶ ἐλευθερίας ἔτι δὲ καὶ ὁμονοίας παρασκευαστικόν,
ἄλλου δ᾽ οὐδενός. διὸ καὶ ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ ἔφη “ τὸν Ἔρωτα
θεὸν εἶναι, συνεργὸν ὑπάρχοντα πρὸς τὴν τῆς πόλεως
σωτηρίαν. Plut. vit. Lycurg. 31. Lycurgus’ object was
not to leave Sparta with a large empire, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἑνὸς
ἀνδρὸς βίῳ καὶ πόλεως ὅλης νομίζων εὐδαιμονίαν ἀπ᾽
ἀρετῆς ἐγγίνεσθαι καὶ ὁμονοίας τῆς πρὸς αὑτήν, πρὸς
τοῦτο συνέταξε καὶ συνήρμοσεν, ὅπως ἐλευθέριοι καὶ
αὐτάρκεις γενόμενοι καὶ σωφρονοῦντες ἐπὶ πλεῖστον χρόνον
διατεχῶσι. ταύτην καὶ Πλάτων ἔλαβε τῆς Πολιτείας ὑπό-
θεσιν καὶ Διογένης καὶ Ζήνων κ.τ.λ.

τὸν Ἔρωτα. [ΟΥ̓́Θ is in Hesiod to be regarded as an
allegorical presentment of fire, frag. 113. In the ideal
state Love is taken as a presiding deity, because all
discord and party strife are to be banished from it, and the
wise men, who are its citizens, are to be united by friend-
ship and eencord. Ce Stob: Hel. 11. 7.. 11", p. 108; 15, ἐν
μόνοις τε τοῖς σοφοῖς ἀπολείπουσι φιλίαν, ἐπεὶ ἐν μόνοις
τούτοις ὁμόνοια γίνεται περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸν βίον, τὴν δ᾽
ὁμόνοιαν εἶναι κοινῶν ἀγαθῶν ἐπιστήμην. Chrysipp. ap.
Philod. περὶ εὐσεβ. col. 12, p. 79, Gomp., καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι
καὶ Εὐνομίαν καὶ Δίκην καὶ ᾿Ὁμόνοιαν καὶ Εἰρήνην καὶ
᾿Αφροδίτην καὶ τὸ παραπλήσιον πᾶν. It is probabie that

200 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Zeno took the same objection, that of want of unity, to
Plato’s Republic as is taken by Aristotle Pol. m. 5, p.
1264 a 24, ἐν μιᾷ yap πόλει δύο πόλεις ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι,
καὶ ταύτας ὑπεναντίας ἀλλήλαις. Of. also ib. 1. 4 1262
Ὁ 7, Xen. Mem. trv. 4. 16, and contrast Ar. Pol, m. 2.
1261610. Hirzel, πὶ. p. 36, finds here a divergence from
Antisthenes, comparing Clem. Alex. Strom. m1. 485 P., but
he apparently forgets Diog. L. vi. 12, which shows that the
inconsistency, if it exists, is with Antisthenes himself.

164. Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 12, 76, p. 691 P. 249 S.,
λέγει δὲ καὶ Ζήνων, ὁ τῆς Στωικῆς κτίστης αἱρέσεως, ἐν
τῷ τῆς πολιτείας βιβλίῳ μήτε ναοὺς δεῖν ποιεῖν μῆτε
ἀγάλματα: μηδὲν γὰρ εἶναι τῶν θεῶν ἄξιον κατασκεύασμα,
καὶ γράφειν οὐ δέδιεν αὐταῖς λέξεσι τάδε" ἱερά τε οἰκοδο-
μεῖν οὐδὲν δεήσει" ἱερὸν γὰρ μὴ πολλοῦ ἄξιον, καὶ ἅγιον
οὐδὲν χρὴ νομίξειν, οὐδὲν δὲ πολλοῦ ἄξιον καὶ ἅγιον
οἰκοδόμων ἔργον καὶ βαναύσων. The same in Orig. c.
Cels. 1. 5, p. 324. Plut. Sto. Rep. vi. 1, ἔτι δόγμα Ζήνωνος
ἔστιν ἱερὰ θεῶν μὴ οἰκοδομεῖν" ἱερὸν γὰρ μὴ πολλοῦ
ἄξιον καὶ ἅγιον οὐκ ἔστιν: οἰκοδόμων δ᾽ ἔργον καὶ βαναύ-
σων οὐδέν ἐστι πολλοῦ ἄξιον. Theodoret, Gr. Aff. Cur.
ΠῚ. p. 780=p. 49, 45, ταῦτα συνορῶν καὶ Ζήνων ὁ
Κιτιεὺς ἐν τῷ τῆς Πολιτείας ἀπαγορεύει βιβλίῳ καὶ ναοὺς
οἰκοδομεῖν καὶ ἀγάλματα τεκταίνειν' οὐδὲν γὰρ εἶναι
τούτων φησὶν θεῶν ἄξιον κατασκεύασμα. Epiphan.
Haeres. 111. 36, Ζήνων ὁ Κιτιεὺς ὁ Στωικὸς ἔφη μὴ δεῖν
θεοῖς οἰκοδομεῖν ἱερά.

The Cynics also deny the sanctity of temples: Diog.
L. VL 73, μηδέν τε ἄτοπον εἶναι ἐξ ἱεροῦ τι λαβεῖν.
Zeno’s language in some particulars recalls St Paul's
address to the Athenians, Acts xv. 24, ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας
τὸν κόσμον καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ, οὗτος οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς
Κύριος ὑπάρχων οὐκ ἐν χειροποιήτοις ναοῖς κατοικεῖ.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 201

165. Stob. Floril. 43, 88, Ζήνων ἔφη δεῖν τὰς πόλεις
κοσμεῖν οὐκ ἀναθήμασιν ἀλλὰ ταῖς τῶν οἰκούντων ἀρεταῖς.
In a similar spirit Crates promised to honour Hermes
and the Muses οὐ δαπάναις τρυφεραῖς ἀλλ᾽ ἀρεταῖς ὁσίαις
(Julian Or. vi. 200 A, quoted by Zeller, Socrates p. 329 n. 1).

166. Diog. L. vu. 33, καὶ κατὰ τοὺς διακοσίους
στίχους μήθ᾽ ἱερὰ μήτε δικαστήρια μήτε γυμνάσια ἐν ταῖς
πόλεσιν οἰκοδομεῖσθαι.

κατὰ.. «στίχους. Prose writings were cited according to
the number of lines, ef. Diog. L. vit. 187, (Chrysippus) ἐν
τῷ περὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων φυσιολόγων συγγράμματι λέγων
κατὰ τοὺς ἑξακοσίους στίχους. Dion. Hal. de Thue. hist.
jud. c. 19, προοίμιον τῆς ἱστορίας μέχρι πεντακοσίων
ἐκμηκύνει στίχων.

δικαστήρια: “wozu Gerichtshéfe, wo tiberall Gerechtigkeit
waltet? wozu Gymnasien, wenn Korperkraft und Gewandt-
heit ohne Wert sind?” Wellmann p. 438. The reference
to γυμνάσια confirms the statement of Plutarch (Sto.
Rep. 8, 2) that Zeno wrote against Plato’s Republic: with
Plato γυμναστική forms an important element in the
training of the φύλακες (Rep. ul. p. 410—411).

167. Diog. vil. 32, ἔνιοι μέντοι...ἐν πολλοῖς κατη-
γοροῦντες τοῦ Ζήνωνος τὴν ἐγκύκλιον παιδείαν ἄχρηστον
ἀποφαίνειν λέγουσιν ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς πολιτείας.

ἐγκύκλιος παιδέα. The ordinary course of Greek educa-
tion comprised the three branches of γράμματα, μουσική,
and γυμναστική (Becker's Charicles E. T. p. 231 foll.).
Zeno intended to imply, probably again in opposition
to Plato, that, as compared with the acquisition of virtue
or true wisdom, the wisdom which education proposes
to supply is worthless (cf. Wellmann p. 437, 8). Such at
least seems to be the ground on which the Cynics put
forward a similar opinion, Diog. L. vi. 11, τήν τε ἀρετὴν

202 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

τῶν ἔργων εἶναι, μήτε λόγων πλειόνων δεομένην, μήτε
μαθημάτων. 73, μουσικῆς τε καὶ γεωμετρικῆς καὶ ἀστρο-
λογίας καὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἀμελεῖν ὡς ἀχρήστων καὶ οὐκ
ἀναγκαίων. 103, παραιτοῦνται δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐγκύκλια μαθή-
ματα. γράμματα γοῦν μὴ μανθάνειν ἔφασκεν 6 ᾽Αντισ-
θένης τοὺς σώφρονας γενομένους, ἵνα μὴ διαστρέφοιντο
τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις. Epicurus agreed with Zeno on this
point (see Prof. Mayor on Cie. N. D. 1. 72), while Aristotle
considered that τὰ ἐγκύκλια μαθήματα are useful for the
acquisition of virtue (Diog. L. v. 31). It is important to
observe that Chrysippus held εὐχρηστεῖν τὰ ἐγκύκλια
μαθήματα (Diog. L. vit. 129, cf. Stob. Ecl. τι. 7, 5°, 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 recommending Dialectic and
Physics as well as Ethics, Zeller p. 68, 3, Hirzel π΄. p. 528,
4, cf. Cleanth frag. 106.

168. Diog. vit. 33, περί τε νομίσματος οὕτως γράφειν
(Ζήνωνα), νόμισμα δ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἀλλαγῆς ἕνεκεν οἴεσθαι δεῖν
κατασκευάζειν οὔτ᾽ ἀποδημίας ἕνεκεν.

νόμισμα. “Diogenes in the πολιτεία proposed a coinage
of bones or stones (ἀστράγαλοι) instead of gold and silver,
Athen. Iv. 159 £.” Zeller, Socrates, p- 325 n.

ἀλλαγῆς ἕνεκεν. This again is pointed at Plato Rep. 11.
371 B, ἀγορὰ δὴ ἡμῖν καὶ νόμισμα ξύμβολον τῆς ἀλλαγῆς
ἕνεκα γενήσεται ἐκ τούτου. Aristotle’s statement is more
exact, explaining that money is a security with a view to
future exchange: ὑπὲρ τῆς μελλούσης ἀλλαγῆς, εἰ νῦν
μηδὲν δεῖται, ὅτε ἔσται ἐὰν δεηθῇ, τὸ νόμισμα οἷον ἐγ-
γυητής ἐσθ᾽ ἡμῖν. Eth. v. ὅ. 14. Cf. especially Ar. Pol. 1.
9. 1257 a 32 foll. and Newman on ib. 1257 Ὁ 11.

169. Athen. vi. 233 B, ο, Ζήνων δὲ ὁ ἀπὸ τῆς

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 203

Srods πάντα τἄλλα πλὴν TOD νομίμως αὐτοῖς (1.6. gold
and silver) καὶ καλῶς χρῆσθαι νομίσας ἀδιάφορα, τὴν μὲν
αἵρεσιν αὐτῶν καὶ φυγὴν ἀπειπών, τὴν χρῆσιν δὲ τῶν λιτῶν
καὶ ἀπερίττων προηγουμένως ποιεῖσθαι προστάσσων"
ὅπως aden καὶ ἀθαύμαστον πρὸς τἄλλα τὴν διάθεσιν τῆς
ψυχῆς ἔχοντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ὅσα μήτε καλά ἐστι μήτε
αἰσχρά, τοῖς μὲν κατὰ φύσιν ὡς ἐπὶ πολὺ χρῶνται, τῶν δ᾽
ἐναντίων μηδὲν ὅλως δεδοικότες λόγῳ καὶ μὴ φόβῳ τούτων
ἀπέχωνται.

The opinions professed with regard to money bear
the same relation to the last frag. as frag. 171 bears to
frag. 176. This passage affords another good illustration
of the doctrine of the καθήκοντα as applied to those
things which are morally indifferent. The σπουδαῖος,
who is unaffected either by fear or desire (ἀπαθής), and
whose ὁρμαὶ are properly directed by right reason, will
know how to discriminate between ta κατὰ φύσιν and τὰ
παρὰ φύσιν, so as to cling to the former and avoid the
latter. Thus πλοῦτος is a προηγμένον (Diog. L. vir. 106),
and possesses value as being of advantage for life in
accordance with nature (ib. 105), while ἡ ὀρθὴ χρῆσις
πλούτου which is characteristic of the σπουδαῖος is sharply
distinguished from the φιλοπλουτία (Stob. Rol 10);
Ῥ. 91; 18) of the φαῦλος.

αἵρεσιν: suggested by Schweighiiuser and adopted by
Kaibel for the MSS. ἀρχήν. After τὴν χρῆσιν dé Schweig.
thought some words had fallen out such as τὴν μὲν
ὀρθὴν εἴα.

χιτῶν. Cf Μ. Aurel. τ. 8, τὸ λιτὸν κατὰ τὴν δίαιταν.

ἀπερίττω. So Casaubon in place of MSS περιττῶν.
Contrast M. Aurel. v. 5 with id. Ix. 32.

προηγουμένως. This word is difficult. In Sext. Emp., with
whom it occurs at least eight times, it always means
“principally” or “in the first place,” being often opposed

204 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO,

to ἀκολούθως. cf. προηγούμενος λόγος frag. 123 = leading
doctrine. Here however it seems to have the special
Stoic sense=in the absence of overriding circumstances
Χκατὰ περίστασιν, cf. Epict. diss. m1. 14, 7, Stob. Ecl. 1. 7.
24. p. 144, 19, frag. 131. In this connection we may
compare Diog.’s division of καθήκοντα into τὰ ἄνευ περι-
στάσεως, such as ὑγιείας ἐπιμελεῖσθαί (or καλῶς χρῆσθαι
πλούτῳ as here), and τὰ κατὰ περίστασιν, such as τὴν
κτῆσιν διαρρίπτειν (VII. 109). Hirzel, p. 825, denies that
προηγουμένως belongs to the elder Stoics, thinking that
it was taken over subsequently from the Academics and
Peripatetics. He would substitute here ὡς προηγμένων.
ἀδεῆ points to the purging of the soul from the in-
fluence of the πάθη: δέος is a subdivision of φόβος not
very explicitly defined ap. Stob. Ecl. 11. 7. 10° p. 92, 5.
ἀθαύμαστον. Cf. Hor. Epist. 1. 6. 1, 2, nil admirari prope
res est una Numici solaque quae possit facere et servare
beatum ; where see Orelli, who properly observes that τὸ
θαυμάζειν, which Plato and Aristotle speak of as the
starting point of philosophy, is something quite different.
Cf. Mare. Aurel. 1.15, Cic. Tuse. m1. 30. Hence Arr. Epict. —
Diss. 1. 18, 11, μὴ Oavpate τὸ κάλλος τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ τῷ
μοιχῷ οὐ χαλεπανεῖς. For διάθεσιν see on frag. 117.

170. Seneca de Otio 80, 2, Zenon ait: accedet ad
rempublicam (sapiens), nisi si quid impedierit. id. Tranq.
An. I. 7, Promptus compositusque sequor Zenonem, Clean-
them, Chrysippum ; quorum tamen nemo ad rempublicam
accessit, nemo non misit.

The same doctrine is attributed to Chrysippus in
Diog. L. vil. 121, πολιτεύεσθαι φασὶ τὸν σοφόν, ἂν μή τι
κωλύῃ, ὥς φησι Χρύσιππος ἐν πρώτῳ περὶ βίων: cf. Cic.
Fin. m1. 68, Schol. on Lucan τι. 380, Stoicorum sapiens
erit civilis, hoc est, in administratione rei publicae.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 205

τὸ πολιτεύεσθαι is another instance of καθῆκον which
is to be undertaken κατὰ τὸν προηγούμενον λόγον (Stob.
Ecl. τι. 7. 11", p. 111, 5) = προηγουμένως (see on last frag.).
We may say then that, while τὸ πολιτεύεσθαι 15 καθῆκον
προηγουμένως Or ἄνευ περιστάσεως, τὸ μὴ πολιτεύεσθαι 15
καθῆκον κατὰ περίστασιν, just as a careful use of wealth
is contrasted with the condition of the spendthrift.

171. Diog. vil. 121, καὶ γαμήσειν, ws ὁ Ζήνων φησὶν
ἐν πολιτείᾳ, (τὸν σοφόν) καὶ παιδοποιήσεσθαι.

Cf Stob. Ecl. τι. 7. 11", p. 109, 16, Cic. Fin. 111.68. The
statement refers to the duty of a wise man under existing
circumstances, and while living in an ordinary civil com-
munity. It has no reference to the ideal state in which
wives are to be held in common (frag. 176): γάμος clearly
belongs to the ἀδιάφορα and γαμεῖν is a κωθῆκον. This
seems better that Wellmann’s view p. 439, who strains
the meaning of γάμος to bring this passage into con-
formity with frag. 176, and is strongly supported by the
analogous case of the duty of the wise man to enter public
life. The latter clearly refers to existing political in-
stitutions, cf. Stob. Ecl. 1. 7. 11°, p. 94, 9, πολιτεύεσθαι
τὸν σοφὸν καὶ μάλιστα ἐν ταῖς τοιαύταις πολιτείαις ταῖς
ἐμφαινούσαις τινὰ προκοπὴν πρὸς τὰς τελείας πολιτείας.
The same explanation will account for the two passages
in Diog. vi. 11 and 72, where similar views are attributed
to the Cynics, without supposing (with Zeller, Socrates
p. 320) a divergence of opinion between Antisthenes and
Diogenes.

172. Diog. L. vit. 129, καὶ ἐρασθήσεσθαι δὲ τὸν
σοφὸν τῶν νέων τῶν ἐμφαινόντων διὰ τοῦ εἴδους τὴν πρὸς
᾽ Ν ᾽ ἊΝ ¢, 7, / ’ an ,
ἀρετὴν εὐφυΐαν, ὥς φησι Anveov ev τῇ πολιτείᾳ.

For 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 ἔρως of Socrates Dr
Thompson remarks (Phaedrus App. 1. p. 152):—“It was
not the beauty of Alcibiades, but his splendid mental
endowments, his great capacity for good or for evil, which
excited the admiration and the solicitude of Socrates,”
Cf. Symp. 208 B foll. and for εὐφυΐαν ib. 209 8, ψυχῇ
καλῇ καὶ γενναίᾳ καὶ εὐφυεῖ, cf. frag. 147, καταληπτὸν
εἶναι τὸ ἦθος ἐξ εἴδους. We must distinguish between
the ἔρως of the σπουδαῖος and the φαῦλος. τὸ ἐρᾶν
itself belongs to the class of ἀδιάφορα, and implies,
therefore, a corresponding καθῆκον, the duty, that is,
τοῦ καλῶς ἐρᾶν, Stob. Ecl. 11. 7. 5°°, p. 66,3—10. If then
the objection is raised that the σπουδαῖος should avoid
ἔρως, if he is to retain his ἀπάθεια, since ἔρως is a sub-
division of ἐπιθυμία and a πάθος, the answer is that this
is untrue of that particular form of ἔρως which is defined
as ἐπιβολὴ φιλοποιΐας διὰ κάλλος ἐμφαινόμενον (Stob. 1. ο.
L 12, ib. 10° p. 91, 15, 11" p. 115, 1, Diog. L. viz. 113, 120,
Sext. Emp. Math. vit. 239), and which is not an ἐπιθυμία.
Under ἐπιθυμία are to be classed ἔρωτες σφοδροὶ only,
and in Diog. vil. 113 the distinction between the two
classes of ἔρως is clearly indicated. Cic., Fin. 111. 68, speaks
of amores sanctos.

173. Athen. x1. 563 E, καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ἐξηλωκότες
τὸν ἀρχηγὸν ὑμῶν τῆς σοφίας Ζήνωνα τὸν Φοίνικα, ὃς
οὐδεπώποτε γυναικὶ ἐχρήσατο παιδικοῖς δ᾽ ἀεί" ὡς ᾿Αντί-
yovos ὁ Καρύστιος ἱστορεῖ ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ βίου αὐτοῦ"
θρυλλεῖτε γὰρ ὅτι “ δεῖ μὴ τῶν σωμάτων ἀλλὰ τῆς ψυχῆς
ἐρᾶν."

δεῖ μὴ «rd. It is most natural to suppose that these
are Zeno’s words from the position of his name in the
context. For the sense see on frag. 172.

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 207

174. Clem. Alex. Paedag. 111. 11. 74, p. 296 P. 109 S.,
ὑπογράφειν ὁ Κιτιεὺς ἔοικε Ζήνων εἰκόνα νεανίου καὶ
οὕτως αὐτὸν ἀνδριαντουργεῖ᾽ ἔστω, φησί, καθαρὸν τὸ
πρόσωπον, ὀφρὺς μὴ καθειμένη, μηδ᾽ ὄμμα ἀναπεπταμένον,
μηδὲ διακεκλασμένον, μὴ ὕπτιος ὁ τράχηλος, μηδ᾽ ἀνιέ-
μενα τὰ τοῦ σώματος μέλη, ἀλλὰ [τὰ] μετέωρα ἐντόνοις
ὅμοια" ὀρθὸς νοῦς πρὸς τὸν λόγον, ὀξύτης καὶ κατοκωχὴ
τῶν ὀρθῶς εἰρημένων, καὶ σχηματισμοὶ καὶ κινήσεις μηδὲν
ἐνδιδοῦσαι τοῖς ἀκολάστοις ἐλπίδος. αἰδὼς μὲν ἐπανθείτω
καὶ ἀρρενωπία: ἀπέστω δὲ καὶ 6 ἀπὸ τῶν μυροπωλίων
καὶ χρυσοχοείων καὶ ἐριοπωλίων ἄλυς καὶ ὁ ἀπὸ τῶν
ἄλλων ἐργαστηρίων, ἔνθα καὶ ἑταιρικῶς κεκοσμημένοι,
ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τέγους καθεζόμενοι, διημερεύουσιν.

This remarkable fragment was first restored by Cobet
in Mnemos. Ο. 8S. vi. p. 339, who saw that the writer was
necessarily speaking of young men and not of young
women, as the word ἀρρενωπία of itself shows. It seems
probable, as Wachsmuth suggests, that this frag. comes
from the ἐρωτικὴ τέχνη (Introd. p. 30).

νεανίου. So Cobet Le. for veavida. Dind. with two MSS.
reads veavia.

καθαρόν. Cf. Plut. de Audiendo 13, p. 45 σ, προσώπῳ
κατάστασις καθαρὰ καὶ ἀνέμφατος.

ἀναπεπταμένον : barefaced, impudent, cf. Xen. Mem. I. 1.
22, τὰ δὲ ὄμματα ἔχειν ἀναπεπταμένα, of the woman
representing Vice in Prodicus’ fable. See Aesch. Suppl.
198, 9 and the comm. μηδὲ διακεκλασμένον is an emen-
dation of Cobet’s (Mnemos. x1. 387) for the MSS. μηδ᾽
ἀνακεκλασμένον, the meaning of which is not clear.
With the alteration avaz. est hominis protervi et petu-
lantis, dvax. mollis et impudici.

τά is rejected by Wachsm. with great improvement to
the sense.

ὀρθὸς νοῦς, so Wachsm. for vulg. ὀρθόνου" πρὸς K.T.2.

208 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Perhaps it would be better to place a comma after νοῦς,
and connect πρὸς τὸν λόγον with ὀξύτης. Dind. brackets
ὀξύτης."

κίνησις.. «ἐνδιδοῦσα Dind. with some MSS.

μυροπωλίων : these shops are mentioned as the lounges
frequented by young men. Ar, Eq. 1375, τὰ μειράκια
ταυτὶ λέγω, τάν τῷ μύρῳ. Τ,γ8. Or. 234 ὃ 20, ἕκαστος γὰρ
ὑμῶν εἴθισται προσφοιτᾶν ὁ μὲν πρὸς μυροπωλεῖον, ὁ δὲ
πρὸς κουρεῖον, ὁ δὲ πρὸς σκυτοτομεῖον, ὁ δ᾽ ὅποι ἂν τύχῃ:
id. Or. 23. § 3, Isoc. Or. 7. § 48, οὐκ ἐν τοῖς σκιραφείοις οἱ
νεώτεροι διέτριβον οὐδ᾽ ἐν ταῖς αὐλητρίσιν οὐδ᾽ ἐν τοῖς
τοιούτοις συλλόγοις ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασιν ἔμενον ἐν
οἷς ἐτάχθησαν. In Homer's time the smith’s shop was
used for this purpose: Od. xvii. 38, Hes. Op. 491: later
the barber’s shop is most frequently mentioned: see
the comm. on Hor. Sat. 1. 7. 3. Other authorities are
collected by Becker, Charicles E. T. p. 272.

κεκοσμημένοι... .καθεζόμενο. So Cobet for κεκοσμημέναι...
καθεζόμεναι. For the former word cf. Xen. Mem. ut 11.
4 where Theodota is spoken of as πολυτελῶς κεκοσμη-
μένην, and Lucian, Ver. Hist. π᾿. 46, γυναῖκας πάνυ ἕται-
ρικῶς κεκοσμημέναι (quoted by Becker, Charicles E. T.
Ῥ. 249); and for the latter Aeschin. Timarch. § 74 τοὺς ἐπὶ
τῶν οἰκημάτων καθεζομένους (referred to by Wachsm.), and
Catull. xxxvir. 8, 14.

175. Diog. L. vil. 22, δεῖν τε ἔλεγε τοὺς νέους πάσῃ
κοσμιότητι χρῆσθαι καὶ πορείᾳ καὶ σχήματι καὶ περι-
βολῇ.

Possibly this is only a reference to the preceding
frag. For πορείᾳ see on frag. 31. περιβολῇ = clothing.

176. Diog. L. vit. 131, ἀρέσκει δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ κοινὰς
εἶναι τὰς γυναῖκας δεῖν παρὰ τοῖς σοφοῖς ὥστε τὸν ἐν-
τυχόντα τῇ ἐντυχούσῃ χρῆσθαι, καθά φησι Ζήνων ἐν τῇ

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 209

πολιτείᾳ. ib. 88, owas τε τὰς γυναῖκας δογματίζξειν
ὁμοίως Πλάτωνι ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ.

For the Cynics see Introd. p. 20. Observe, however,
_that Chrysippus concurred in this opinion, which must
not therefore be treated as merely Cynical.

171. Diog. L. vit. 33, καὶ ἐσθῆτι δὲ τῇ αὐτῇ κελεύει
(Ζήνων) χρῆσθαι ἄνδρας καὶ γυναῖκας καὶ μηδὲν μόριον
ἀποκεκρύφθαι.

The same view seems to have been advocated by the
Cynics. Hence the point of Menander’s lines quoted by
Diog. L. vi. 93, συμπεριπατήσεις yap τρίβων᾽ ἔχουσ᾽ ἐμοί,
ὥσπερ Κράτητι τῷ Κυνικῷ ποθ᾽ ἡ γυνή. Socrates in
Xen. Symp. IL. 3 5808 :--ἐσθὴς ἄλλη μὲν γυναικὶ ἄλλη δὲ
ἀνδρὶ καλή. With regard to the words μηδὲν μόριον
ἀποκ. Zeller, p. 808 ἢ. 2, remarks :—“The latter act 15
only conditional and allowed in certain cases, such as for
purposes of gymnastics.” But the limitation is Plato’s
(Rep. v. 452 a, 457 A) and we have already seen that
Zeno proposed to abolish γυμνάσια: it may well be that
Zeno, like the Cynics, disclaimed the theoretical propriety
of the ordinary rules of modesty in dress. There is no
question here of the καθήκοντα of ordinary life, and
Zeno’s departure from the Cynical point of view is largely
to be found in this direction.

178. Origen c. Celsum, Vu. 63, p. 739, ἐκκλίνουσι
\ , e Ν la) / / a

TO μοιχεύειν οἱ Ta TOD Κιτιέως Zynvovos φιλοσοφοῦντες...
διὰ τὸ κοινωνικὸν καὶ παρὰ φύσιν εἶναι TO λογικῷ Sow
νοθεύειν τὴν ὑπὸ τῶν νόμων ἑτέρῳ προκαταληφθεῖσαν

lal ¥ / \ Μ ’ Ld Φ
γυναῖκα καὶ φθείρειν τὸν ἄλλου ἀνθρώπου οἶκον.

Since strictly speaking marriage is an ἀδιάφορον, τὸ
μοιχεύειν cannot be contrary to virtue, and such an
offence would be impossible in the ideal state. Still, with

H. P. 14

210 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

society constituted as it is, μὴ μοιχεύειν is καθῆκον ἄνευ
περιστάσεως and therefore κατὰ φύσιν. The wise man
will recognise the laws of the state in which he lives in
the same spirit in which he takes part in its public affairs .
(Stob. Ecl. 11. 7. 11° 94, 8 foll.). In Sext. Pyrrh. m1. 209
we find τούς ye μὴν μοιχοὺς κολάζει παρ᾽ ἡμῖν νόμος,
παρὰ δέ τισιν ἀδιάφορόν ἐστι ταῖς τῶν ἑτέρων γυναιξὶ
μίγνυσθαι: καὶ φιλοσόφων δέ τινές φασιν ἀδιάφορον εἶναι
τὸ ἀλλοτρίᾳ γυναικὶ μίγνυσθαι. The Stoics are probably
indicated, and the passage is in no way inconsistent with
the present, cf. Theoph. ad Autol. m1. 3 p. 118 p, οὐχὶ
καὶ περὶ σεμνότητος πειρώμενοι γράφειν ἀσελγείας καὶ
πορνείας καὶ μοιχείας ἐδίδαξαν ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, ἔτι μὴν καὶ
τὰς στυγητὰς ἀῤῥητοποιΐας εἰσηγήσαντο ;

119. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. 111, 245, οἷον γοῦν ὁ α͵ρεσι-
άρχης αὐτῶν Ζήνων ἐν ταῖς διατριβαῖς φησι περὶ παίδων
ἀγωγῆς ἄλλα τε ὅμοια καὶ τάδε" “ διαμηρίξειν μηδὲν μᾶλλον
μηδὲ ἧσσον παιδικὰ ἢ μὴ παιδικὰ μηδὲ θηλέα ἢ ἄρρενα"
οὐ γάρ [ἐστι] παιδικοῖς ἄλλα ἢ μὴ παιδικοῖς οὐδὲ θηλείαις
ἢ ἄρρεσιν, ἀλλὰ ταὐτὰ πρέπει τε καὶ πρέποντα ἐστίν."
The same fragment is preserved by Sext. Emp. adv.
Math, x1. 190, introduced by the words καὶ μὴν περὶ μὲν
παίδων ἀγωγῆς ἐν ταῖς διατριβαῖς ὁ αἱρεσιάρχης Ζήνων
τοιαῦτά τινα διέξεισιν, and with the variant ἄλλα παι-
δικοῖς for ἐστὶ παιδικοῖς ἄλλα.

ἐν ταῖς διατριβαῖς. For this book see Introd. Ρ. 30.
The true aspect from which to regard this and the
four next following fragments is very clearly set forth
in a passage of Origen, c. Cels. Iv. 45 (quoted by Zeller,
p. 310, π. 1). “The Stoics made good and evil depend
alone on the intention, and declared external actions,
independent of intentions, to be indifferent: εἶπον οὖν ἐν
τῷ περὶ ἀδιαφόρων τόπῳ ὅτι τῷ ἰδίῳ λόγῳ (the action

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 911

taken by itself) θυγατράσι μίγνυσθαι ἀδιάφορον ἐστίν,
εἰ καὶ μὴ χρὴ ἐν ταῖς καθεστώσαις πολιτείαις τὸ τοιοῦτον ποιεῖν,
καὶ ὑποθέσεως χάριν... παρειλήφασι τὸν σοφὸν μετὰ
τῆς θυγατρὸς μόνης καταλελειμμένον παντὸς τοῦ τῶν
ἀνθρώπων γένους διεφθαρμένου, καὶ ζητοῦσιν εἰ καθη-
κόντως ὁ πατὴρ συνελεύσεται τῇ θυγατρὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ
ἀπολέσθαι...τὸ πᾶν τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος." This also illus-
trates frag. 178.

180. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. 11. 246, περὶ δὲ τῆς εἰς τοὺς
γονεῖς ὁσιότητος ὁ αὐτὸς ἀνήρ (Ζήνων) φησιν εἰς τὰ περὶ
» ες / \ Ἂν 2 if (v4 b Φ ον if
τὴν ᾿Ιοκάστην καὶ τὸν Οἰδίποδα ὅτι οὐκ ἦν δεινὸν τρίβειν
τὴν μητέρα καὶ εἰ μὲν ἀσθενοῦσαν ἕτερόν τι μέρος τοῦ
, , a N ΠΝ OV > Date >
σώματος τρίψας ταῖς χερσὶν ὠφέλει οὐδὲν αἰσχρόν" εἰ
δὲ ἕτερα μέρη τρίψας εὔφραινεν, ὀδυνωμένην παύσας, καὶ
παῖδας ἐκ τῆς μητρὸς γενναίους ἐποίησεν, αἰσχρόν. Sext.
Emp. Math. x1. 191, καί γε ὁ μὲν Ζήνων τὰ περὶ τῆς
7 , X; IG. © , tf cs ’ *
Ἰοκάστης καὶ Οἰδίποδος ἱστορούμενά φησιν oT’ οὐκ HV
δεινὸν τρῖψαι τὴν μητέρα. καὶ εἰ μὲν ἀσθενοῦσαν τὸ
an r a / ἊΨ / a] X. > U4 - 7 \
σῶμα ταῖς χερσὶ τρίψας ὠφέλει, οὐδὲν αἰσχρόν" εἰ δὲ
ἑτέρῳ μέρει τρίψας ἐφ᾽ ᾧ εὗρεν ὀδυνωμένην παύσας καὶ
παῖδας ἐκ τῆς μητρὸς γενναίους ποιήσας τί ἦν αἰσχρόν;
ib. Pyrrh. m1. 205, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ Κιτιεὺς Ζήνων φησὶ μὴ
ἄτοπον εἶναι τὸ μόριον τῆς μητρὸς τῷ ἑαυτοῦ μορίῳ τρῖψαι
καθάπερ οὐδὲ ἄλλο τι μέρος τοῦ σώματος αὐτῆς τῇ χειρὶ
τρῖψαι φαῦλον ἂν εἴποι τις εἶναι. Plut. Quaest. Conv. II.
6. 1, § 6, ὡς ἔγωγε νὴ τὸν κύνα καὶ τοῦ Ζήνωνος ἂν
3 f » x 3 / \ \ a
ἐβουλόμην ἔφη διαμηρισμοὺς ἐν συμποσίῳ τινὶ καὶ παιδιᾷ
an lal if a
μᾶλλον ἢ σπουδῆς τοσαύτης ἐχομένῳ συγγράμματι TH
πολιτείᾳ κατατετάχθαι.

It should be observed that Sextus does not state that
this extract as well as the last comes from the διατριβαί,
so that we may perhaps refer Plutarch’s words to this
passage: Wellmann however, p. 440, thinks that both the

14—2

212 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO,

Sextus passages come from the διατριβαί, in which case
Plutarch’s statement should form a separate fragment.
Cf. Chrysipp. ap. Sext. Pyrrh, 11, 246, id. ap. Epiphanius
adv, Haeres, 111. 2. 9 (III. 39), Diels, p. 598, ἔλεγε yap δεῖν
μίγνυσθαι ταῖς μητράσι τοὺς παῖδας τοῖς δὲ πατράσι τὰς
θυγατέρας. Diog. L. vit. 188, Theoph. ad Autol. m1, 6,
120 D.

181. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. x1. 190, καὶ πάλιν (ὁ
Ζήνων) " * διαμεμήρικας τὸν ἐρώμενον ; οὐκ ἔγωγε. πότερον
οὐκ ἐπεθύμησας αὐτὸν διαμηρίσαι; καὶ μάλα. ἀλλ᾽ ἐπε-
θύμησας παρασχεῖν σοι αὐτὸν ἢ ἐφοβήθης κελεῦσαι; μὰ
Δί, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκέλευσας; καὶ μάλα. εἶτ᾽ οὐκ ὑπηρέτησέ σοι;
οὐ γάρ."

The line taken here is that the intention is all impor-
tant, and not the act in itself: hence virtue belongs only
to σπουδαία διάθεσις, cf. Cleanth. frag. 95,

ὅστις ἐπιθυμῶν ἀνέχετ᾽ αἰσχροῦ πράγματος
Φ , a 9% ᾽ν" \ /
οὗτος ποιήσει TOUT ἐὰν καιρὸν λάβῃ.

Bekker suggests ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιθυμήσας... εἶτ᾽ ἐφοβήθης.

182. Sext, Emp. Pyrrh. mt, 200, καὶ τί θαυμαστόν,
ὅπου γε καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς κυνικῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ οἱ περὶ
τὸν Κιτιέα Ζήνωνα καὶ Κλεάνθην καὶ Χρύσιππον ἀδιά-
φορον τοῦτο (i.e, ἀρρενομιξίαν) εἶναί φασιν ;

188. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh, IIL, 206, τό τε αἰσχρουργεῖν

ἐπάρατον ὃν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ὁ Ζήνων οὐκ ἀποδοκιμάζει.

184. Theoph, ad Autol, m1 5, p. 119 ©, τί σοι ἔδοξε
τὰ Ζήνωνος ἢ τὰ Διογένους καὶ Κλεάνθους, ὁπόσα περι-
éxovow ai βίβλοι αὐτῶν διδάσκουσαι ἀνθρωποβορίας,
πατέρας μὲν ὑπὸ ἰδίων τέκνων ἕψεσθαι καὶ βιβρώσκεσθαι

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 213

καί, εἴ τις οὐ βούλοιτο ἢ μέρος τι τῆς μυσερᾶς τροφῆς
ἀπορρίψειεν, αὐτὸν κατεσθίεσθαι τὸν μὴ φαγόντα;

Cf. Diog. L. vil. 121, γεύσεσθαί τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων
σαρκῶν κατὰ περίστασιν, ib. 188 (Chrysippus) ἐν δὲ τῷ γ΄
περὶ δικαίου κατὰ τοὺς χιλίους στίχους, καὶ τοὺς ἀπο-
θανόντας κατεσθίειν κελεύων. Sext. Pyrrh. 111. 207, 24
foll., Math. χι. 192—194, Mayor on Juv. XV. 107. Canni-
balism was also recommended by the Cynics, Diog. VI. 73,
μηδ᾽ ἀνόσιον εἶναι TO καὶ ἀνθρωπείων κρεῶν ἅψασθαι, ὡς
δῆλον ἐκ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ἐθῶν, with which ef. an amusing
summary of the various modes of disposing of the dead
prevalent in different countries, ap. Sext. Pyrrh. UL
996. 299, It should be observed however that the Stoics
only enjoined this practice κατὰ περίστασιν.

185. Epiphan. Haeres. ul. 36, τοὺς δὲ τελευτῶντας
ζῴοις παραβάλλειν χρῆναι ἢ πυρί. καὶ τοῖς παιδικοῖς
χρῆσθαι ἀκωλύτως.

Chrysippus, ap. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. 111. 248, Math. ΧΙ.
194, recommends that the flesh of deceased relations
should be eaten if suitable for food, but, if useless for that
purpose, ἢ κατορύξαντες τὸ μνῆμα ἐποίσουσιν ἢ κατα-
καύσαντες τὴν τέφραν ἀφήσουσιν. The meaning of these
obscure words of Epiphanius appears to be similar, and
παραβάλλειν is certainly commonly used in this sense
(see 1. and S.). Others however have explained the
words very differently. Thus Stein, Psychol. p. 161, n. 314,
finds some allusion in them to the doctrine of metem-
psychosis. In the same spirit Diogenes ordered his body
to be cast forth unburied (Diog. L. vi. 79, Cic. Tusc.
τ. 104). Chrysippus proved the absolute unimportance of
any particular form of burial from a comparison of the
varying practice of different nations (Cic. Tuse. 1. 108,
Sext. Pyrrh. 111. 226—9).

214 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

186. Cic. Ep. Fam. 1x. 22. 1, Atqui hoe (libertas
loquendi) Zenoni placuit...sed ut dico placet Stoicis suo
quamque rem nomine appellare.

Cf. Cic. Off. 1. 128, nec vero audiendi sunt Cynici, aut
ei qui fuerunt Stoici poene Cynici, qui reprehendunt et
invident, quod ea quae re turpia non sunt nominibus
ac verbis flagitiosa ducamus: and see Zeller, Socrates,
p. 326.

187. Clem. Alex. Strom. τι. 20. 125 P. p. 494, 5. p-
178, καλῶς ὁ Ζήνων ἐπὶ τῶν ᾿Ινδῶν ἔλεγεν ἕνα ᾿Ινδὸν
παροπτώμενον ἐθέλειν «ἂν; ἰδεῖν ἢ πάσας τὰς περὶ πόνου
ἀποδείξεις μαθεῖν.

The allusion to the Indians is explained by the words
the Indian philosophers are said to have used to Alexander:
σώματα μὲν μετάξεις ἐκ τόπου εἰς τόπον, ψυχὰς δ᾽ ἡμετέρας
οὐκ ἀναγκάσεις ποιεῖν ἃ μὴ βουλόμεθα. πῦρ ἀνθρώποις
μέγιστον κολαστήριον, τούτου ἡμεῖς καταφρονοῦμεν. Clem.
Alex. Strom. Iv. 7. ὅθ. Similarly Philo, in telling the
same story: quod omnis probus sit liber, p. 879, πῦρ
μεγίστους τοῖς ζῶσι σώμασι πόνους καὶ φθορὰν ἐργάξεται,
τούτου ὑπεράνω ἡμεῖς γινόμεθα, ζῶντες καιόμεθα. The
historians attest the custom of burning themselves alive
said to have been practised by the Brahmans. Strabo,
XV. 1. 65, αἴσχιστον δ᾽ αὐτοῖς νομίζεσθαι νόσον σωμα-
τικήν' τὸν δ᾽ ὑπονοήσαντα καθ᾽ αὑτοῦ τοῦτο ἐξάγειν
ἑαυτὸν διὰ πυρὸς νήσαντα πυράν, ὑπαλειψάμενον δὲ καὶ
καθίσαντα ἐπὶ τὴν πυρὰν ὑφάψαι κελεύειν, ἀκίνητον δὲ
καίεσθαι. Curt. vil. 9. 32, apud hos occupare fati diem
pulcrum, et vivos se cremari iubent, quibus aut segnis
aetas aut incommoda valitudo est:...inquinari putant
ignem nisi qui spirantes recipit. Cic. Tuse. um. 40,
(Mueller) uri se patiuntur Indi. The case of Calanus is
particularly recorded, Cic. Tuse. 11. 52 ete, .

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 215

ἂν, added by Cobet, Ἕρμῆς λόγιος, 1. p. 487.

rds...dmobdfes. There is no doubt some particular
reference in this, the point of which it is difficult now to
ascertain. May it refer to Antisthenes ? In Diog. L. vi. 2,
we read of him: ὅτι ὁ πόνος ἀγαθὸν συνέστησε διὰ τοῦ
μεγάλου Ἣρακλέους καὶ τοῦ Κύρου, and in the list of his
works preserved by the same writer (vi. 15—18) we find
three with the title Ἡρακλῆς, two of which bear the
alternative title ἢ περὶ ἰσχύος.

188. Galen de cogn. animi morbis, v. 13, οὕτω γοῦν

ΑΖ ἢ 9 ͵ / , i an > a €: >
καὶ Ζήνων ἠξίου πάντα πράττειν ἡμᾶς ἀσφαλῶς, ὡς ἀπο-
χογησομένους ὀλίγον ὕστερον παιδαγωγοῖς" ὠνόμαζε γὰρ
οὕτως ἐκεῖνος ὁ ἀνὴρ τοὺς πολλοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἑτοίμους
ὄντας τοῖς πέλας ἐπιτιμᾶν κἂν μηδεὶς αὐτοὺς παρακαλῇ.

παιδαγωγοῖς : for their duties see Becker, Charicles, E. T.
p. 226.

189. Stob. Flor. 14, 4= Anton. Meliss. 1. 52,

» 4 3 x \ ti
ἔλεγχε σαυτόν, ὅστις εἰ, μὴ πρὸς χάριν
BA > ’ n Ν᾿ / /
ἄκου᾽, αφαιροῦ δὲ κολάκων παρρησίαν.

ἔλεγχε σαυτόν recalls γνῶθι σεαυτόν, for which see the
authorities ap. Mayor on Juv. XI. 27.

πρὸς χάριν ἄκον᾽ = do not listen to flatterers, is the
passive form of πρὸς ἡδονήν τι λέγειν (Thue. τι. 65), πρὸς
ἡδονὴν δημηγορεῖν (Dem. Phil. 1. ὃ 38), πρὸς χάριν ἐρεῖς
(Soph. O. T. 1152). The best illustration however is
Stob. Ἐπὶ. τι. 7. 11%, p. 114, 28, the wise man οὔτε προσ-
φέρει τινὶ οὔτε προσίεται τὸν πρὸς χάριν λόγον, Diog. L.
ὙΠ 117:

Meineke would also ascribe to Zeno the couplet
quoted by Stob. Flor. 1. 12, where the lemma in the MSS.
is Ζηνοδότου.

216 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

190. Maxim. Floril. c. 6, ed. Mai, ὁ μὲν γεωργὸς ἀφ᾽
ὧν av πολὺν καὶ καλὸν θέλοι καρπὸν λαβεῖν ὠφέλιμον
ἑαυτὸν ἐκείνοις παρέχεται καὶ πάντα τρόπον ἐπιμελεῖται
καὶ θεραπεύει" πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον ἄνθρωποι τοῖς ὠφελίμοις
πεφύκασι χαρίζεσθαι καὶ περὶ τοὺς τοιούτους μάλιστα
σπουδάζειν" καὶ θαυμαστὸν οὐδέν. καὶ γὰρ καὶ τῶν μερῶν
τοῦ σώματος ἐκείνων ἐπιμελούμεθα μᾶλλον ἅπερ ὠφελι-
μώτερα ἑαυτοῖς πρὸς τὴν ὑπηρεσίαν νομίζομεν εἶναι, ὅθεν
ὁμοίως ὑφ᾽ ὧν εὖ πάσχειν ἀξιοῦμεν, ὠφελίμους αὐτοῖς
ἔργοις, ἀλλὰ μὴ τοῖς λόγοις εἶναι δεῖ. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡ ἐλαία
τῷ θεραπεύοντι αὐτὴν ἐπαγάλλεται, ἀλλ᾽’ ἐκφέρουσα
πολλούς τε καὶ καλοὺς καρποὺς ἔπεισεν ἑαυτῆς ἐπι-
μελεῖσθαι μᾶλλον.

This fragment is taken from Wachsmuth (Comm. I.
p. 6): see Introd. p. 31.

θέλοι: unless θέλῃ be read, av belongs to the verb.
Cf. Dem. de Cor. ὃ 246, ἀλλὰ μὴν ὧν γ᾽ ἂν ὃ ῥήτωρ
ὑπεύθυνος εἴη, πᾶσαν ἐξέτασιν λάμβανε. But it is often
difficult to determine whether the optative is really
potential. See Fennell on Pind. Nem. Iv. 8, Goodwin
§ 557, Madvig § 137.

ὠφέλιμον, cf. Cleanth. frags. 75 and 77.

ἄνθρωποι, “ οἱ addendum ?” Wachsm.

ἑαντοῖς: Jelf § 654 b.

191. Athen. xi. 565 D, ὁ δὲ σοφὸς ἐκεῖνος Ζήνων, ὥς
φησιν ᾿Αντίγονος ὁ Καρύστιος, προμαντευόμενος ὑμῶν ὡς
τὸ εἰκὸς περὶ τοῦ βίου καὶ τῆς προσποιήτου ἐπιτηδεύσεως,
ἔφη ὡς οἱ παρακούσαντες αὐτοῦ τῶν λόγων καὶ μὴ συνέντες
ἔσονται ῥυπαροὶ καὶ ἀνελεύθεροι᾽ καθάπερ οἱ τῆς ᾿Αρισ-
τίππου παρενεχθέντες αἱρέσεως ἄσωτοι καὶ θρασεῖς.

Cic., N. D. 1. 77, attributes this remark to Aristo:
si verum est quod Aristo Chius dicere solebat, nocere
audientibus philosophos iis, qui bene dicta male interpre-

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 917

tarentur: posse enim asotos ex Aristippi, acerbos e Zenonis
schola exire. It should be observed, however, that Athe-
naeus specifies Antigonus of Carystus as the source of his
information, so that he is at least as much entitled to
credit as Cicero.

192. Stob. Floril. 6. 62, εὖ γὰρ εἴρηται, ἔφη, τὸ τοῦ
Ζήνωνος ὅτι τούτου ἕνεκα καρτέον οὗ καὶ κομητέον, τοῦ
κατὰ φύσιν, ἵνα μὴ βαρούμενός τις ὑπὸ τῆς κόμης μηδ᾽
ἐνοχλούμενος ἢ πρὸς μηδεμίαν ἐνέργειαν.

τοῦ κατὰ φύσι. Conformity to nature, ie. external
environment, is taken as the basis of all those actions,
which, although unconnected with virtue, yet constitute
the objects of καθήκοντα, Diog. L. VII. 108, ἐνέργημα δὲ
αὐτὸ (καθῆκον) εἶναι, ταῖς κατὰ φύσιν κατασκευαῖς οἰκεῖον,

Stob. ἘΠῚ. 11. 7. 85, p. 86, 13; Diog. L. vit. 105.

193. Diog. L. vu. 48, ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν
πρῶτον (1.6. Pythagoras) ὀνομάσαι κόσμον καὶ τὴν γῆν
στρογγύλην ὡς δὲ Θεόφραστος Παρμενίδην" ὡς δὲ Ζήνων
Ἡσίοδον.

The lines of Hesiod supposed to be referred to are
Theog. 126—128, Tata δέ τοι πρῶτον μὲν ἐγείνατο ἶσον
ἑαυτῇ οὐρανὸν ἀστερόενθ᾽ ἵνα μιν περὶ πάντα καλύπτοι
ὄφρ᾽ εἴη μακάρεσσι θεοῖς ἕδος ἀσφαλὲς αἰεί, which are
a very poor basis for the two assertions. For the limited
sense in which κόσμος is used, cf. Diog. VII. 138, καὶ
αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν διακόσμησιν τῶν ἀστέρων κόσμον εἶναι

λέγουσιν, Krische, p. 396, 397.

194. Diog. L. v1. 91, Ζήνων δ᾽ αὐθ᾽ ὁ Κιτιεὺς ἐν ταῖς
χρείαις καὶ κώδιον αὐτὸν (Crates) φησί ποτε προσράψαι
τῷ τρίβωνι ἀνεπιτρεπτοῦντα.

ἐν ταῖς χρείαις. Introd. p. 31.

218 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

τῷ τρίβωνι. The Cynics adopted this as their charac-
teristic dress, following Socrates (Zeller, Socrates p. 316.
Becker, Charicles, E. T. p. 419). Zeno himself wore the
τρίβων (cf. apoph. 8).

ἀνεπιτρεπτοῦντα 1.6, “nec curavisse deformitatem.” The
word is omitted in L. and S. and also in Steph. Th.

195. Dio. Chrysost. Lim. 4, γέγραφε δὲ καὶ Ζήνων ὁ
φιλόσοφος εἴς τε τὴν ᾿Ιλιάδα καὶ τὴν ᾿Οδυσσείαν καὶ περὶ
᾿ τοῦ Μαργίτου δέ δοκεῖ γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ποίημα ὑπὸ
Ὁμήρου γεγονέναι νεωτέρου καὶ ἀποπειρωμένου τῆς αὑτοῦ
φυσέως πρὸς ποίησιν. ὁ δὲ Ζήνων οὐδὲν τῶν τοῦ Ὁμήρου
ψέγει ἅμα διηγούμενος καὶ διδάσκων ὅτι τὰ μὲν κατὰ
δόξαν τὰ δὲ κατὰ ἀλήθειαν γέγραφεν, ὅπως μὴ φαίνηται
αὐτὸς αὑτῷ μαχόμενος ἔν τισι δοκοῦσιν ἐναντίως εἰρῆσθαι.
ὁ δὲ λόγος οὗτος ᾿Αντισθένους ἐστὶ πρότερον ὅτι τὰ μὲν
δόξῃ τὰ δὲ ἀληθείᾳ εἴρηται τῷ ποιητῇ" ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν οὐκ
ἐξειργάσατο αὐτόν, ὁ δὲ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον τῶν ἐπὶ μέρους.
ἐδήλωσεν.

For the object of Zeno’s Homeric studies cf. Krische |
p. 393, 394, who points out that, although Zeno may have ©
incidentally controverted some of the Chorizontes of his _
time, yet his main object was to fortify Stoic precepts by
appealing to Homer's authority. For Antisthenes see
Zeller, Socrates p. 330.

Mapyirov. 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.

196. Plut. comm. Hesiod. 1x., Ζήνων ὁ Στωικὸς
ἐνήλλαττε τοὺς στίχους λέγων

κεῖνος μὲν πανάριστος ὃς εὖ εἰπόντι πίθηται'
> Ὶ :] ..2 > a Δ | Ul /
ἐσθλὸς δ᾽ αὖ κἀκεῖνος ὃς αὐτὸς πάντα νοήσῃ,

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 219

τῇ εὐπειθείᾳ τὰ πρωτεῖα διδούς, τῇ φρονήσει δὲ τὰ
δευτερεῖα. The same in Proclus on Hesiod, Op. 291,
Gaisf. Poet. Gr. Min. π. p. 200, ef. Diog. L. vit. 25, 26,
whose comment on the change of place in the lines is
as follows:—xpeittova yap εἶναν τὸν ἀκοῦσαι καλῶς
δυνάμενον τὸ λεγόμενον καὶ χρῆσθαι αὐτῷ, τοῦ δι’ αὑτοῦ
τὸ πᾶν συννοήσαντος. τῷ μὲν γὰρ εἶναι μόνον τὸ συνεῖναι.
τῷ δ᾽ εὖ πεισθέντι προσεῖναι καὶ τὴν πρᾶξιν. Themist.
Or. VIII. 108 ο, ἐμοὶ δὲ καὶ Ζήνων ὁ Κιτιεὺς λίαν ἀρεστὸς
τὴν εὐπείθειαν ἀποφηνάμενος τῆς ἀγχινοίας ἀρετὴν εἶναι
βασιλικωτέραν καὶ τὴν τάξιν τὴν “Hovodov μεταθεὶς κ.τ.λ.
id. Or. XII. 171 D, ὀρθῶς γὰρ ὑπελάμβανε Ζήνων ὁ Κιτιεὺς
βασιλικωτέραν εἶναι τῆς ἀγχινοίας τὴν εὐπείθειαν.

The lines of Hesiod (Op. 291) are often quoted or
imitated: cf. Ar. Eth. 1. 4, 7, Liv. xxu. 29, 8, Soph. Ant.
720 φήμ᾽ ἔγωγε πρεσβεύειν Tord φῦναι Tov ἄνδρα πάντ᾽
ἐπιστήμης πλέων᾽ εἰ δ᾽ οὖν... καὶ τῶν λεγόντων εὖ καλὸν
τὸ μανθάνειν.

197. Plut. de aud. poet. p. 33 Ε, καὶ ὁ Ζήνων ἐπανορ-
θούμενος τὸ τοῦ Σοφοκλέους,
ὅστις δὲ πρὸς τύραννον ἐμπορεύεται
κείνου ᾽στι δοῦλος κἂν ἐλεύθερος μόλῃ,
μετέγραφεν
οὐκ ἔστι δοῦλος ἂν (1 ἢν) ἐλεύθερος μόλῃ,
τῷ ἐλευθέρῳ νῦν συνεκφαίνων τὸν ἀδεῆ καὶ μεγαλόφρονα
καὶ ἀταπείνωτον.
The fragm. is no. 711 (Dind.). This was also given to
Aristippus or Plato by other authorities: see Diog. | ry
82. For ἐλεύθερος cf. frag. 149.

198. Strabo vu. 3. 6, Homer never mentions Arabia
εἰ μὴ Ζήνωνι τῷ φιλοσόφῳ προσεκτέον ypadovte’

Αἰθίοπας δ᾽ ἱκόμην καὶ Σιδονίους "Αραβάς τε.
μη ρ

220 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO.

Hom. Od. tv. 83 where the edd. now adopt καὶ Ἔρεμ- β
βοὺς the reading of Posidonius: Crates of Mallus pre-
ferred ’Epeuvovs (Krische p. 398).

199. Stob. Floril. 95. 21, Ζήνων ἔφη Κράτητα
ἀναγιγνώσκειν ἐν σκυτείῳ καθήμενον τὸν ᾿Αριστοτέλους
προτρεπτικὸν ὃν ἔγραψε πρὸς Θεμίσωνα τῶν Κυπρίων
βασιλέα λέγων ὅτι οὐδενὶ πλείω ἀγαθὰ ὑπάρχει πρὸς τὸ
φιλοσοφῆσαι, πλοῦτόν τε γὰρ πλεῖστον αὐτὸν ἔχειν ὥστε
δαπανᾶν εἰς ταῦτα ἔτι δὲ δόξαν ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ. ἀναγυγνώ-
σκοντος δὲ αὐτοῦ τὸν σκυτέα ἔφη προσέχειν ἅμα ῥάπτοντα,
καὶ τὸν Kparnra εἰπεῖν ἐγώ μοι δοκῶ, ὦ Φιλίσκε, γράψειν
πρὸς σὲ προτρεπτικόν' πλείω γὰρ ὁρῶ σοι ὑπάρχοντα
πρὸς τὸ φιλοσοφῆσαι ὧν ἔγραψεν ᾿Αριστοτέλης.

This passage belongs to the work entitled Κράτητος
ἀπομνημονεύματα : Introd. p. 31.

200. Stob. Floril. 36. 26, Ζήνων τῶν μαθητῶν ἔφασκε
τοὺς μὲν φιλολόγους εἶναι τοὺς δὲ λογοφίλους.

The meaning is made clear by Stob. Ecl. πι. 7. 115 Ρ.
105, 4, where it is said of the φαῦλος :---μηδὲ εἶναι φιλό-
Aoyov, λογόφιλον δὲ μᾶλλον, μέχρι λαλιᾶς ἐπιπολαίου
προβαίνοντα, μηκέτι δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις ἐκβεβαιούμενον
τὸν τῆς ἀρετῆς λόγον.

201. Stob. Floril. 6. 84, ὁ Ζήνων ἠτιᾶτο τοὺς πλείσ-
τοὺς λέγων, ἐξὸν ἀπὸ τῶν πόνων τὰς ἡδονὰς φέρειν, ἀπὸ
τῶν μαγειρείων λαμβάνοντας.

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

202. Stob. Floril. 4. 107, Ζήνων δὲ ἔφη γελοῖον
ἑκάστους μὲν τοῖς πράγμασιν ὡς δεῖ ζῆν μὴ προσέχειν ὡς
οὐκ εἰδότων, τὸν δὲ παρὰ πάντων ἔπαινον θαυμάζειν ὡς

THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 591

ἐχόμενον κρίσεως. πράγμασιν is clearly corrupt and
Wachsmuth reads παραγγείλασιν, but Mr R. D. Hicks
suggests τοῖς παρὰ τῶν σοφῶν παραγγέλμασιν which
restores the balance of the sentence.

For the sense οἵ, Cleanth. frag. 100.

APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.

1. Diog. L. vil. 2, χρηστηριαζομένου αὐτοῦ (Ζήνωνος)
τί πράττων ἄριστα βιώσεται, ἀποκρίνασθαι τὸν θεὸν εἰ
συγχρωτίζοιτο τοῖς νεκροῖς. ὅθεν ξυνέντα, τὰ τῶν ἀρχαίων
ἀναγιγνώσκειν. The same in Suid. 5. v. συγχρωτίζεσθαι
col. 938.

2. Diog. L. vil. 3, πορφύραν ἐμπεπορευμένος ἀπὸ
τῆς Φοινίκης πρὸς τῷ Πειραιεῖ ἐναυάγησεν. ἀνελθὼν δὲ
εἰς τὰς ᾿Αθήνας ἤδη τριακοντούτης, ἐκάθισε παρά τινα
βιβλιοπώλην, ἀναγιγνώσκοντος δὲ ἐκείνου τὸ δεύτερον τῶν
Ξενοφῶντος ἀπομνημονευμάτων ἡσθεὶς ἐπύθετο ποῦ δια-
τρίβοιεν οἱ τοιοῦτοι ἄνδρες. εὐκαίρως δὲ παριόντος
Κράτητος, ὁ βιβλιοπώλης δείξας αὐτόν φησι, τούτῳ παρα-
κολούθησον. Cf. Themist. Or. xxl. 295 D, τὰ δὲ ἀμφὶ
Ζήνωνος ἀρίδηλά τε ἐστι καὶ ἀδόμενα ὑπὸ πολλῶν ὅτι
αὐτὸν ἡ Σωκράτους ἀπολογία ἐκ Φοινίκης εἰς τὴν Ποικιλὴν.
ἤγαγεν.

8. Plut. de Inimic. Util. 2, Ζήνων δέ, τῆς ναυκληρίας
αὐτῷ συντριβείσης, πυθόμενος εἶπεν, εὖ γε, ὦ τύχη, ποιεῖς
εἰς τὸν τρίβωνα συνελαύνουσα ἡμᾶς. Plut. de Trang. An.
6, Ζήνωνι τῷ Κιτιεῖ μέα ναῦς περιῆν φορτηγός" πυθόμενος
δὲ ταύτην αὐτόφορτον ἀπολωλέναι συγκλυσθεῖσαν, εὖ γε,
εἶπεν κιτιλ. With καὶ τὴν στοὰν added after τρίβωνα.
Substantially the same account in Plut. de Exilio 11, with

APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 223

καὶ βίον φιλόσοφον in place of καὶ τὴν στοάν. Suidas
col. 1023 5. v. νῦν εὐπλόηκα ὅτε νεναυάγηκα. ἐπὶ τῶν
παρ᾽ ἐλπίδα εὐτυχησάντων. Ζήνων γὰρ ὁ Κιτιεὺς καταλιυ-
πὼν τοὺς πρὶν διδασκάλους καὶ Κράτητος τοῦ φιλοσόφου
φοιτητὴς γενόμενος τοῦτο εἴρηκε, ναυαγίῳ περιπεσὼν καὶ
εἰπών, εὖ γε ποεῖ ἡ τύχη προσελαύνουσα ἡμᾶς φιλοσοφίᾳ
* * * ρὕτω τραπῆναι πρὸς φιλοσοφίαν. That the story
was given in various forms appears from the account
in Diog. L. vir. 4,5. Senec. de Trang. An. 14, 2, Nun-
tiato naufragio Zeno noster, quum omnia sua audiret

submersa, “ Iubet” inquit “me fortuna expeditius philoso-
phari.”

\
4 Diog. L. vil. 19, πρὸς δὲ τὸν φάσκοντα ὡς τὰ
\ ’ a
πολλὰ αὐτῷ ᾿Αντισθένης οὐκ ἀρέσκει, χρείαν Σοφοκλέους
, a
προενεγκάμενος, ἠρώτησεν εἴ τινα Kal Kaha ἔχειν αὐτῷ
δοκεῖ. τοῦ δ᾽ οὐκ εἰδέναι φήσαντος, εἶτ᾽ οὐκ αἰσχύνῃ,
Μ > , Ν > > / ¢ >? 3 ΤΑ
ἔφη, εἰ μέν τι κακὸν ἦν εἰρημένον ὑπ᾽ ᾿Αντισθένους
ον ἦν 3 , Ἂν, , ed [4 / 999
τοῦτ᾽ ἐκλεγόμενος Kal μνημονεύων, εἰ δέ TL καλόν, οὐδ
ἐπιβαλλόμενος κατέχειν;

δ. Diog. L. vit. 20, λέγοντος δέ τινος αὐτῷ περὶ
Πολέμωνος, ὡς ἄλλα προθέμενος ἄλλα λέγειν σκυθρωπάσας,
ἔφη, πόσου γὰρ ἠγάπας τὰ διδόμενα;

The explanation is thus given by Aldobrand: videbatur
ergo cupiditatis Polemonem accusare, ac si illa ita docere
consuevisset, quomodo a discipulis tractaretur.

6. Plut. de prof. in virt. c. 6, ὁ δὲ Ζήνων ὁρῶν τὸν
Θεόφραστον ἐπὶ τῷ πολλοὺς ἔχειν μαθητὰς θαυμαζόμενον,
ὁ ἐκείνου μὲν χορός, ἔφη, μείζων, οὑμὸς δὲ συμφωνότερος.
Plut. de seips. citra inv. laud. ο. 17, οὕτω γὰρ ὁ Ζήνων
πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος τῶν Θεοφράστου μαθητῶν, ὁ ἐκείνου χορός,
ἔφη, μείζων, ὁ ἐμὸς δὲ συμφωνότερος.

224 APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.

7. Diog. L. vit. 24, φησὶ δ᾽ ᾿Απολλώνιος ὁ Τύριος
ἕλκοντος αὐτὸν Κράτητος τοῦ ἱματίου ἀπὸ Στίλπωνος
εἰπεῖν, ὦ Κράτης, λαβὴ φιλοσόφων ἐστὶν ἐπιδέξιος ἡ διὰ
τῶν ὥτων' πείσας οὖν ἕλκε τοῦτον. εἰ δέ με βιάζῃ, τὸ
μὲν σῶμα παρά σοι ἔσται, ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ παρὰ Στίλπωνι.

Cf. Cleanth., frag. 108, and for the concluding words
of the anecdote Arist. Ach. 398, 6 νοῦς μὲν ἔξω ξυλλέγων
ἐπύλλια οὐκ ἔνδον αὐτὸς δ᾽ ἔνδον «.7.r. Plaut. Aulul,
179, nunc domum properare propero: nam egomet sum
hic, animus domist. Pseudol. 32, nam istic meus animus
nunc est non in pectore, and Lorenz ad loc.

8. Diog. L. vit 21, ἔλεγε δὲ καὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων τοὺς
πλείστους, τὰ μὲν πολλὰ ἀσόφους εἶναι, τὰ δὲ μικρὰ καὶ
τυχηρὰ ἀμαθεῖς.

Wilamowitz(Antigonos p. 117) says:—“ die Philosophen
sind in den meisten Dingen ungeschickt, von den gewohn-
lichen begreifen sie nichts: sie wissen nur das eine was
Not tut,” but probably we should read εὐμαθεῖς, with —
Meric Casaubon.

9. Diog. L. vit. 20, εἰπόντος δέ τινος ὅτι μικρὰ αὐτῷ
δοκεῖ τὰ λογάρια τῶν φιλοσόφων, λέγεις, εἶπε, τἀληθῆ.
δεῖ μέντοι καὶ τὰς συλλαβὰς αὐτῶν βραχείας εἶναι, εἰ
δυνατόν.

10. Diog. L. vir. 25, καὶ πρὸς τὸν δείξαντα δὲ αὐτῷ
διαλεκτικὸν ἐν τῷ θερίζοντι λόγῳ ἑπτὰ διαλεκτικὰς ἰδέας
πυθέσθαι πόσας εἰσπράττεται μισθοῦ: ἀκούσαντα δὲ
ἑκατὸν διακοσίας αὐτῷ δοῦναι.

The fallacy known as θερίζων 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 θερίζων
was as follows:—Either you will reap or you will not reap:

APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.

it is therefore incorrect to say, perhaps you will reap.”
Zeller, p. 182.

11. Suidas col. 1202 s.v. δέλτος = Diog. L. vil. 37,
Κλεάνθης, dv καὶ ἀφωμοίου τοῖς σκληροκήροις δέλτοις, αἱ
μόλις μὲν γράφονται, διατηροῦσι δὲ τὰ γραφέντα. Cf. Plut.
de Audiendo c. 18, ὥσπερ ὁ Κλεάνθης καὶ Ἐξνοκράτης,
βραδύτεροι δοκοῦντες εἶναι τῶν συσχολαστών, οὐκ ἀπεδί-
δρασκον ἐκ τοῦ μανθάνειν οὐδὲ ἀπέκαμνον, adda φθάνοντες
εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἔπαιζον, ἀγγείοις τε βραχυστόμοις καὶ πινακίσι
χαλκαῖς ἀπεικάζοντες, ὡς μόλις μὲν παραδεχόμενοι τοὺς
λόγους ἀσφαλῶς δὲ καὶ βεβαίως τηροῦντες. For πίνακες

see Becker, Charicles, Eng. Tr. p. 162.

12. Diog. L. vit. 18, ᾿Αρίστωνος δὲ τοῦ μαθητοῦ
πολλὰ διαλεγομένου οὐκ εὐφυῶς, ἔνια δὲ καὶ προπετώς
καὶ θρασέως, ἀδύνατον, εἶπεν, εἰ μή σε ὁ πατὴρ μεθύων
2 / e 3 \ A / 2 / tA
ἐγέννησεν. ὅθεν αὐτὸν καὶ λάλον ἀπεκάλει, βραχυλόγος

ὦν. Attributed to Diogenes by Plut. de Educ. Puer. 3.
13. Stob. Floril. 36, 23, τῶν tus ἐν ᾿Ακαδημείᾳ

νεανίσκων περὶ ἐπιτηδευμάτων διελέγετο ἀφρόνως" ὁ δὲ
Ζήνων ἐὰν μὴ τὴν γλῶτταν, ἔφη, εἰς νοῦν ἀποβρέξας
διαλέγῃ, πολὺ πλείω ἔτι καὶ ἐν τοῖς λόγοις πλημμελήσεις.
Plut. Phoc. v. 2, Ζήνων ἔλεγεν ὅτι δεῖ τὸν φιλόσοφον εἰς
νοῦν ἀποβάπτοντα προφέρεσθαι τὴν λέξιν. Cf. Suidas I. p.
328 (of Aristotle), τῆς φύσεως γραμματεὺς ἦν τὸν κάλαμον
ἀποβρέχων εἰς νοῦν. Some have regarded these words as
the original of Quintilian’s sensu tincta (frag. 27, where
see note). Cf. M. Aurel. v. 16.

14. Diog. L. vit. 20, δεῖν δὲ ἔφη τὸν διαλεγόμενον,
ὥσπερ τοὺς ὑποκριτάς, THY μὲν φωνὴν Kal τὴν δύναμιν
μεγάλην ἔχειν᾽ τὸ μέντοι στόμα μὴ διέλκειν᾽ ὃ ποιεῖν
τοὺς πολλὰ μὲν λαλοῦντας, ἀδύνατα δέ.

HP) 15

226 APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.

15. Diog. L. vit. 20, τοῖς εὖ λεγομένοις οὐκ ἔφη δεῖν
καταλείπεσθαι τόπον, ὥσπερ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς τεχνίταις εἰς
τὸ θεάσασθαι" τοὐναντίον δὲ τὸν ἀκούοντα οὕτω πρὸς
τοῖς λεγομένοις γίνεσθαι, ὥστε μὴ λαμβάνειν χρόνον εἰς
τὴν ἐπισημείωσιν.

τόπον : perhaps we should read χρόνον, ὥσπερ τόπον.

10. Diog. L. vit. 22, μὴ τὰς φωνὰς καὶ τὰς λέξεις
δεῖν ἀπομνημονεύειν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τὴν διάθεσιν τῆς χρείας
τὸν νοῦν ἀσχολεῖσθαι μὴ ὥσπερ ἕψησίν τινα ἢ σκευασίαν
αναλαμβάνοντας.

For the distinction between φωνὴ and λέξις cf. Diog.
L. vit. 56, λέξις δ᾽ ἔστε φωνὴ ἐγγράμματος. The meaning
is:—we ought not to commit to memory the words and
expressions of a maxim (χρείας as in apoph. 4), but to
exercise our mind as to its arrangement, without learning
it by heart like a cookery recipe. For ἀναλαμβάνειν cf.
Plut. Agesil. 20, 3. Cobet, however, translates otherwise.

17. Diog. L. VIL. 23, τὸ κάλλος εἶπε τῆς σωφροσύνης
ἄνθος εἶναι.

So Cobet, followed by Wilamowitz, for MSS. φωνῆς...
φωνήν, cf. Diog. L. vit. 180, dpa ἄνθος ἀρετῆς. Zeno,
frag. 147, καταληπτὸν εἶναι τὸ ἦθος ἐξ εἴδους.

18. Stob. Floril. Monac. 196, Ζήνων ὁ φιλόσοφος,
λεγόντων τινῶν ὅτι παράδοξα λέγει, εἶπεν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ παρά-
νομα. Cf. Cleanth. frag. 107.

19. Plut. de Virt. Mor. 4, καίτοι καὶ Ζήνωνά φασιν
eis θέατρον ἀνιόντα κιθαρῳδοῦντος ᾿Αμοιβέως πρὸς τοὺς
μαθητάς, ἴωμεν, εἰπεῖν, ὅπως καταμάθωμεν οἵαν ἔντερα
καὶ νεῦρα καὶ ξύλα καὶ ὀστᾶ λόγου καὶ ἀριθμοῦ μετασ-
χόντα καὶ ταξέως ἐμμέλειαν καὶ φωνὴν ἀφίησιν.

Cf. Plut. Arat. ο. 17, 2, ἄδοντος ᾿Αμοιβέως ἐν τῷ
θεάτρῳ, a passage which also fixes Amoebeus as a con-
temporary of Antigonus.

APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 220

20. Stob. Floril. 36,19, Ζήνων πρὸς τὸν πλείω λαλεῖν
θέλοντα ἢ ἀκούειν “νεανίσκε, εἶπεν, “ἡ φύσις ἡμῖν
fal Ν , if \ 3 VA “ /
γλῶτταν μὲν μίαν δύο δὲ ὦτα παρέσχεν, iva διπλασίονα
ὧν λέγομεν ἀκούωμεν. Diog. L, VIL. 23, πρὸς τὸ φλυαροῦν
μειράκιον, διὰ τοῦτο, εἶπε, δύο ὦτα ἔχομεν, στόμα δὲ ἕν,
ἵνα πλείονα μὲν ἀκούωμεν, ἥττονα δὲ λέγωμεν, cf. Plut. de

Φ'

Garrul. 1, κωφότης γὰρ αὐθαίρετός ἐστιν (scil. ἡ ἀσυγησία)
ἀνθρώπων, οἶμαι, μεμφομένων ὅτι μίαν μὲν γλῶτταν δύο
δ᾽ ὦτα ἔχουσιν, id. de audiendo, 3, καὶ yap τὸν “Emapu-

, i? f > “Ὁ Μ Ἄ / 2
νώνδαν ὁ Σπίνθαρος ἐπαινῶν ἔφη μήτε πλείονα YLYWOKOVTL
μήτε ἐλάττονα φθεγγομένῳ ῥᾳδίως ἐντυχεῖν ἑτέρῳ. καὶ
τὴν φύσιν ἡμῶν ἑκάστῳ λέγουσι δύο μὲν ὦτα δοῦναι

/ ‘ a ¢ > , / x 3 , 3 /
μίαν δὲ γλῶτταν ὡς ἐλάττονα λέγειν ἢ ἀκούειν ὀφειί-
λοντι.

21. Diog. L. vit. 21, νεανίσκου πολλὰ λαλοῦντος,
ἔφη, τὰ ὦτά σου εἰς τὴν γλῶτταν συνεῤῥύηκεν.

22. Diog. L. vil. 26, ἔλεγέ τε κρεῖττον εἶναι τοῖς
ποσὶν ὀλισθεῖν ἢ τῇ γλώττῃ.

This is found several times in the collections οἵ γνῶμαι,
and is sometimes attributed to Socrates (cf. Stein, Psych.
p. 7, n. 5): the references are given by Wachsmuth in
Sauppe’s Satura Philologa, p. 29.

23. Diog. L. vit. 14, πλειόνων τε περιστάντων αὐτὸν
δείξας ἐν τῇ στοᾷ κατ᾽ ἄκρου τὸ ξύλινον περιφερὲς τοῦ
βωμοῦ ἔφη, τοῦτό ποτε ἐν μέσῳ ἔκειτο᾽ διὰ δὲ τὸ ἐμπο-
δίξειν ἰδίᾳ ἐτέθη. καὶ ὑμεῖς μὲν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου βαστάσαντες
αὑτοὺς ἧττον ἡμῖν ἐνοχλήσετε.

Kohler in Rhein. Mus. xxx1x. 297 proposes βἀθρδὺ
for βωμοῦ.

24. Diog. L. vil. 24, ἐρωτηθεὶς πῶς ἔχει πρὸς λοι-
δορίαν, καθάπερ, εἶπεν, εἰ πρεσβευτὴς ἀναπόκριτος ἀπο-
στέλλοιτο.

15—2

228 APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.

The point of this bon mot appears to have been lost
in the tradition: it must originally have stood :—*The
man who abuses me I send away like an ambassador
without an answer (καθάπερ ef πρεσβευτὴν ἀναπόκριτον
ἀποστέλλοιμι)": so Wilamowitz.

25. Diog. L. vil. 24, ἐν συμποσίῳ κατακείμενος σιγῇ,
τὴν αἰτίαν ἠρωτήθη. ἔφη οὖν τῷ ἐγκαλέσαντι ἀπαγγεῖλαι
πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα, ὅτι παρῆν τις σιωπᾶν ἐπιστάμενος.
ἦσαν δὲ οἱ ἐρωτήσαντες παρὰ Πτολεμαίου πρέσβεις ἀφι-
κόμενοι, καὶ βουλόμενοι μαθεῖν τί εἴποιεν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ
πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα. Stob. Floril. 33, 10, Ζήνων, ᾿Αντιγόνου
πρέσβεις ᾿Αθήναζε πέμψαντος, κληθεὶς ὑπ’ αὐτῶν σὺν
ἄλλοις φιλοσόφοις ἐπὶ δεῖπνον, κἀκείνων παρὰ πότον
σπευδόντων ἐπιδείκνυσθαι τὴν αὑτῶν ἕξιν, αὐτὸς ἐσίγα.
τῶν δὲ πρεσβέων ζητούντων τί ἀπαγγείλωσι περὶ αὐτοῦ
πρὸς ᾿Αντίγονον, “ τοῦτ᾽ αὐτό," ἔφη, “ὃ βλέπετε." δυσ-
κρατέστατον γὰρ πάντων ὁ λόγος. Plut. de Garrul. rv.
᾿Αθήνῃσι δέ τις ἑστιῶν πρέσβεις βασιλικούς, ἐφιλοτιμήθη
σπουδάζουσιν αὐτοῖς συναγαγεῖν εἰς ταὐτὸ τοὺς φιλο-
σόφους, χρωμένων δὲ τῶν ἄλλων κοινολογίᾳ καὶ τὰς
συμβολὰς ἀποδιδόντων τοῦ δὲ Ζήνωνος ἡσυχίαν ἄγοντος,
φιλοφρονησάμενοι καὶ προπιόντες οἱ ξένοι, περὶ σοῦ δὲ
τί χρὴ λέγειν, ἔφασαν, ὦ Ζήνων, τῷ βασιλεῖ; κἀκεῖνος,
ἄλλο μηδέν, εἶπεν, ἢ ὅτι πρεσβύτης ἐστὶν ἐν ᾿Αθήναις
παρὰ πότον σιωπᾶν δυνάμενος. Also in an expanded
form ap. Theodor. Metoch. p, 334, Kiessling.

The anecdote in the form related in Diog. Laert. rests
on the authority of Antigonus of Carystus, and hence
Wilamowitz (Antig. p. 114) concludes that the king who
sent the embassy was Ptolemaeus and not Antigonus
Gonatas, It was natural that in later times, when the
friendly relations subsisting between Antigonus and Zeno
were remembered, the country of the ambassadors should

APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 229

have been transferred from Egypt to Macedonia. Diogenes,
however, has misconceived the object of the embassy,
which appears in a less corrupted form in Plutarch. The
ambassadors were sent to Athens, not to Zeno, and the
assembly was not one of philosophers but of Macedonian
partisans. These the ambassadors were instructed to sound,
but they seem to have missed the mark in Zeno’s case.

96. Aelian, Var. H. 1x. 26, Ζήνωνα τὸν Κιτιέα δι᾿

’ “ Μ \ a 5 >? , ε , ͵
αἰδοῦς ἄγαν καὶ σπουδῆς ἦγεν ᾿Αντίγονος ὁ βασιλεὺς. Kat
ποτε οὖν ὑπερπλησθεὶς οἴνου ἐπεκώμασε τῷ Ζήνωνι, καὶ
φιλῶν αὐτὸν καὶ περιβάλλων ἅτε ἔξοινος ὦν, ἠξίου τί

Ψ ,
αὐτὸν προστάξαι, ὀμνὺς καὶ νεανιευόμενος σὺν ὅρκῳ μὴ

a if lal \

ἀτυχήσειν τῆς αἰτήσεως. ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐτῷ, πορευθεὶς
" Ε a 4 \ ! \ , τ τ,
ἔμεσον᾽ TEMVOS ἄμα KAL μεγαλοφρόνως τὴν μέθην ἐλέγξας
καὶ φεισάμενος αὐτοῦ μή ποτε διαῤῥαγῇ ὑπὸ πλησμονῆς.

27. Athen. π|. 55 F, διὸ καὶ Ζήνων ὁ Κιτιεύς, σκληρὸς
Ov καὶ πάνυ θυμικὸς πρὸς τοὺς γνωρίμους, ἐπὶ πλεῖον
τοῦ οἴνου σπάσας ἡδὺς ἐγίνετο καὶ μείλιχος᾽ πρὸς τοὺς
πυνθανομένους οὖν τοῦ τρόπου τὴν διαφορὰν ἔλεγε τὸ
αὐτὸ τοῖς θέρμοις πάσχειν, καὶ γὰρ ἐκείνους πρὶν δια-
βραχῆναι πικροτάτους εἶναι, ποτισθέντας δὲ γλυκεῖς καὶ
προσηνεστάτους. Galen, de Anim. Mor. 3. Iv. 777 K., καὶ
Ζήνων, ὥς φασιν, ἔλεγεν ὅτι, καθάπερ οἱ πικροὶ θέρμοι
βρεχόμενοι τῷ ὕδατι γλυκεῖς γίνονται, οὕτω καὶ αὑτὸν ὑπ᾽
οἴνου διατίθεσθαι. Eustath. on Hom. Od. ¢, 293, p. 1910,
42, Ζήνων οὖν, φασίν, ὁ Κιτιεὺς σκληρὸς ἄλλως ὧν πρὸς
τοὺς συνήθεις, ὅμως εἰ πλεῖον οἴνου πάσειε (leg. σπάσειε)
ἡδὺς ἐγίνετο καὶ μείλιχος, λέγων ταὐτόν τι τοῖς θέρμοις
πάσχειν, οἱ πικρότεροι ὄντες πρὶν διαβραχῆναι ποτισθέντες
γλυκεῖς γίνονται καὶ προσηνέστεροι. Similarly Diog. L.
VII. 26.

98. Athen. vil. 3450, Ζήνων δ᾽ ὁ Κιτιεὺς ὁ τῆς
Στοᾶς κτίστης, πρὸς τὸν ὀψοφάγον ᾧ συνέζη ἐπὶ πλείονα

230 APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.

χρόνον, καθά φησιν ’Avriyovos ὁ Καρύστιος ἐν τῷ Ζήνωνος
βίῳ (p. 119 Wil), μεγάλου τινὸς κατὰ τύχην ἰχθύος
παρατεθέντος, ἄλλου δ᾽ οὐδενὸς παρεσκευασμένου, λαβὼν
ὁ Ζήνων ἀπὸ τοῦ πίνακος οἷος ἦν κατεσθίειν. τοῦ δ᾽
ἐμβλέψαντος αὐτῷ" τί οὖν, ἔφη, τοὺς συξῶντάς σοι οἴει
πάσχειν, εἰ σὺ μίαν ἡμέραν μὴ δεδύνησαι ἐνεγκεῖν ὀψο-
φαγίαν ; The same in Diog. L. vu. 19.

29. Athen. v. 186 D, ὁ δὲ Ζήνων, ἐπεί τις τῶν
παρόντων ὀψοφάγων ἀπέσυρεν ἅμα τῷ παρατεθῆναι τὸ
ἐπάνω τοῦ ἰχθύος, στρέψας καὶ αὐτὸς τὸν ἰχθὺν ἀπέσυρεν
ἐπιλέγων" (Eur. Bacch. 1129)

Ἰνὼ δὲ τἀπὶ θάτερ᾽ ἐξειργάξετο.

The same story is told of Bion Borysthenites, id. vim.
344 4. Schweighiuser (Ind.) thinks it is rightly attri-
buted to Zeno.

80. Diog. L. vir. 17, δυοῖν δ᾽ ὑπανακειμένοιν ἐν πότῳ,
\ me 4 O29 > \ € 23° © \ a ,
καὶ τοῦ UT αὐτὸν τὸν ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν σκιμαλίξοντος τῷ ποδί
αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνον τῷ γόνατι. ἐπιστραφέντος δέ, τί οὖν οἴει
τὸν ὑποκάτω σου πάσχειν ὑπὸ σοῦ ; see also Suidas, col.
792, 5. v. σκιμαλίσω. Vulgo ὑπερανακ. and ὑπὲρ αὑτόν:

corrected by Menage,
31. Stob. Floril. 57, 12, Ζήνων ὁ Στωικὸς φιλόσοφος

ὁρῶν τινα τῶν γνωρίμων ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγροῦ περισπώμενον
εἶπεν" ἐὰν μὴ σὺ τοῦτον ἀπολέσῃς, οὗτος σὲ ἀπολέσει.

32. Boissonade, Anecd. Gr. vol. 1. p. 450, Ζῆθι, ὦ
ἄνθρωπε, μὴ μόνον ἵνα φώγῃς καὶ πίῃς ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα τὸ Shp
πρὸς τὸ εὖ ζῆν καταχρήσῃ, 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, ζῶμεν
οὐκ ἵνα ἐσθίωμεν ἀλλ᾽ ἐσθίωμεν ἵνα ζῶμεν. This forms
frag. eth. 10 in Wachsmuth’s collection (Comm. 1. Ρ. 8),
who refers to other passages giving the saying to Zeno.

APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO, pasa

33. Diog. L. vil. 21, καὶ προεφέρετο τὰ τοῦ Καφησίου".
ὡς, ἐπιβαλομένου Ttivds τῶν μαθητῶν μεγάλα φυσᾶν,
πατάξας εἶπεν, ὡς οὐκ ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ τὸ εὖ κείμενον εἴη,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ εὖ τὸ μέγα.

The saying of Caphesias is recorded also by Athen.
XIV. 629, A.

34. Diog. L. vil. 26, τὸ εὖ γίνεσθαι παρὰ μικρόν, ov
μὴν μικρὸν εἶναι.

35. Plut. de vit. pud. 13, τὸ τοῦ Ζήνωνος, ὡς ἀπαν-
/ 4 , a “Ὁ \ ᾿ -“ 6 A
τήσας τινὶ νεανίσκῳ τῶν συνηθῶν Tapa TO τεῖχος ἡσυχῆ
βαδίζοντι, καὶ πυθόμενος, ὅτι φεύγει φίλον ἀξιοῦντα μαρ-
τυρεῖν αὐτῷ τὰ ψευδῆ: τί λέγεις, φησίν, ἀβέχλτερε; σὲ
μὲν ἐκεῖνος ἀγνωμονῶν καὶ ἀδικῶν οὐ δέδιεν οὐδ᾽ aic-
χύνεται" σὺ δ᾽ ἐκεῖνον ὑπὲρ τῶν δικαίων οὐ θαῤῥεῖς ὑὕπο-
στῆναι;

86. Diog. L. vit. 16, 17, οἷον ἐπὶ τοῦ καλλωπιζομένου
ποτὲ ἔφη. ὀχέτιον γάρ τι ὀκνηρῶς αὐτοῦ ὑπερβαίνοντος,
δικαίως, εἶπεν, ὑφορᾷ τὸν πηλόν' οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ
κατοπτρίσασθαι.

37. Diog. L. vil. 19, μειρακίου δὲ περιεργότερον παρὰ

τὴν ἡλικίαν ἐρωτῶντος ζήτημά τι, προσήγαγε πρὸς κάτοπ-

Ν 2 / 3 fa » 2 3 / 3 rf

Tpov, Kal ἐκέλευσεν ἐμβλέψαι. ἔπειτ᾽ ἠρώτησεν εἰ δοκεῖ
αὐτῷ ἁρμόττοντα εἶναι ὄψει τὰ τοιαῦτα ζητήματα.

38. Diog. L. vit. 21, νεανίσκου δέ τινος θρασύτερον
διαλεγομένου, οὐκ ἂν εἴποιμι, ἔφη, μειράκιον, ἃ ἐπέρχεταί
μοι.

39. Diog. L. vil. 21, πρὸς τὸν καλὸν εἰπόντα ὅτι οὐ
δοκεῖ αὐτῷ ἐρασθήσεσθαι ὁ σοφός, οὐδέν, ἔφη, ὑμῶν
ἀθλιώτερον ἔσεσθαι τῶν καλῶν (εἰ μὴ ἡμεῖς ἐρασθησό-
μεθα, added by Menage from Hesych. Mil.). Cf. frag. 172.
Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Floril. 63. 21.

232 APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.

40. Diog. L. vit. 22, πάντων ἔλεγεν ἀπρεπέστερον
εἶναι τὸν τῦφον, καὶ μάλιστα ἐπὶ τῶν νέων.

41. Ῥίορ. L. viz. 23, πρὸς τὸν κεχρισμένον τῷ μύρῳ,
τίς ἐστιν, ἔφη, ὁ γυναικὸς ὄξων ; cf. Xen. Symp. 11. 3.

42. Stob. Ecl. π. 31, 81, p. 215, 13 = Exe. e MS. Flor.
Ton Damase. p. I. ¢. 13, 81, Ζήνων ἐρωτηθεὶς πῶς ἄν τις
νέος ἐλάχιστα ἁμαρτάνοι, εἰ πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἔχει, ἔφη, ods
μάλιστα τιμᾷ καὶ αἰσχύνεται.

48. Stob. Floril. 15, 12, Ζήνων πρὸς τοὺς ἀπολογου-
μένους ὑπὲρ τῆς αὑτῶν ἀσωτίας καὶ λέγοντας ἐκ πολλοῦ
τοῦ περιόντος ἀναλίσκειν ἔλεγεν, ἦ που καὶ τοῖς μαγείροις
συγγνώσεσθε, ἐὰν ἁλμυρὰ λέγωσι πεποιηκέναι τὰ ὄψα,
ὅτι πλῆθος ἁλῶν αὐτοῖς ὑπῆρχεν;

44. Diog. L. vit. 17, ἐρωτικῶς δὲ διακείμενος Χρε-
μωνίδου, παρακαθιζόντων αὐτοῦ τε καὶ Κλεάνθους, ἀνέστη.
θαυμάξοντος δὲ τοῦ Κλεάνθους, ἔφη, καὶ τῶν ἰατρῶν ἀκούω
τῶν ἀγαθῶν κράτιστον εἶναι φάρμακον πρὸς τὰ φλεγμαί-
νοντα ἡσυχίαν.

For Chremonides οἵ Introd. p. 6.

45. Diog. L. vit. 18, πρὸς δὲ τὸν φιλόπαιδα, οὔτε τοὺς
διδασκάλους ἔφη φρένας ἔχειν, ἀεὶ διατρίβοντας ἐν παι-
δαρίοις, οὔτε ἐκείνους.

46. Stob. Floril. 17, 43, Ζήνων δὲ 6 Κιτιεὺς οὐδὲ
νοσῶν wero δεῖν τροφὴν προσφέρεσθαι τρυφερωτέραν, ἀλλ᾽
ἐπεὶ ὁ θεραπεύων ἰατρὸς ἐκέλευεν αὐτὸν φαγεῖν νεοττὸν
περιστερᾶς, οὐκ ἀνασχόμενος, “as Μανὴν;" ἔφη, “ μὲ
θεράπευε."

Manes was a common slave’s name, οὗ, Ar. Ay. 522,

APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 233,

οὕτως ὑμᾶς πάντες πρότερον μεγάλους ἁγίους τ᾽ ἐνόμιζον,
νῦν δ᾽ ἀνδράποδ᾽, ἠλιθίους, Μανᾶς. See also Sandys on
Dem. Or. 45 § 86, Or. 53 § 20. There is a reference here
to the Stoic cosmopolitanism (frag. 162): for their views
of slavery see Zeller p. 329.

47. Diog. L. VIL. 17, ὡς δὲ Kuvixos τις οὐ φήσας ἔλαιον
» + n ΙΑ ν \ ’ » fd
ἔχειν ἐν TH ληκύθῳ προσήτησεν αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔφη δώσειν.
| / ͵7ὔ 5 ΄ / δ / vv >
ἀπελθόντα μέντοι ἐκέλευε σκέψασθαι ὁπότερος εἴη avat-

δέστερος.

48. Athen. Ix. 370 ©, καὶ οὐ παράδοξον εἰ κατὰ τῆς
κράμβης τινὲς ὦμνυον, ὁπότε καὶ Ζήνων ὁ Κιτιεὺς ὁ τῆς
Στοᾶς κτίστωρ μιμούμενος τὸν κατὰ τῆς κυνὸς ὅρκον
Σωκράτους καὶ αὐτὸς ὦμνυε τὴν κάππαριν, ὡς "Εμποδός

> > , μ᾿
φησιν ἐν ᾿Απομνημονεύμασιν, ct. Diog. L. vil. 32.

ἜΜμποδος : on this very doubtful name see Miiller, Frag.

Hist. Gr. 1v. 403, after whom Kaibel reads "Epredos.

49. Stob. Floril. 98, 68, Ζήνων ἔλεγεν οὐδενὸς ἡμᾶς
οὕτω πένεσθαι: ὡς χρόνου. βραχὺς γὰρ ὄντως ὁ Bios, ἡ
δὲ τέχνη μακρή, καὶ μᾶλλον ἡ τὰς τῆς ψυχῆς νόσους
ἰάσασθαι δυναμένη, cf. Diog. L. vil. 28, μηδενός τε ἡμᾶς
οὕτως εἶναι ἐνδεεῖς ὡς χρόνου.

So Theophrastus ap. Cic. Tusc. 11. 69.

50. Stob. Floril. Monac. 197, ὁ αὐτὸς (Ζήνων) ἐρωτη-
θεὶς τί ἔστι φίλος, ἄλλος οἷος ἐγώ. Diog. L. VII. 23,
ἐρωτηθεὶς τίς ἔστι φίλος ; ἄλλος, ἔφη, ἐγώ.

So Arist. Eth. N. ix. 4, 5, ἔστι γὰρ ὁ φίλος adXos
αὐτός, cf. Cic. Lael. § 80 verus amicus...est tamquam
alter idem, ib. § 23 and Reid’s note.

51. Origen adv. Cels. vill. 35, p. 768, Ζήνων δὲ πρὸς
τὸν εἰπόντα, ἀπολοίμην ἐὰν μή σε τιμωρήσωμαι, ἐγὼ δέ,
εἶπεν, ἐὰν μή σε φίλον κτήσωμαι.

234 APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO.

52. Diog. L. vir. 23, Διονυσίου δὲ τοῦ Μεταθεμένου
εἰπόντος αὐτῷ διὰ τί αὐτὸν μόνον οὐ διορθοῖ ; ἔφη, οὐ γάρ
σοι πιστεύω.

For Dionysius cf. Diog. L. vi. 37, 166, 167. Οἷο. Fin.
v. 94. Athen. vil 281 Ὁ.

53. Seneca de Benef. Iv. 39. 1, Quare ergo, inquit,
Zeno vester, quum quingentos denarios cuidam promisisset
et illum parum idoneum comperisset, amicis suadentibus
ne crederet, perseveravit credere quia promiserat? Perhaps
the same circumstance is alluded to in Themist. Or. XX.
252 B, πότε ἀφῆκας τῷ δεδανεισμένῳ, καθάπερ Ζήνων 6
Κιτιεύς.

δ4. Diog. L. VIL. 23, δοῦλον ἐπὶ κλοπῇ, φασίν, ἐμαστί-
γου" τοῦ δ᾽ εἰπόντος, εἵμαρτό μοι κλέψαι" καὶ δαρῆναι,
ἔφη.

Seneca however says:—nullum servum fuisse Zenoni
satis constat (Cons. Helv. 12. 3). To have no slave was a
sign of abject poverty: see the comm. on Catull. xx. 1.

55. Diog. L. vil. 23, τῶν γνωρίμων τινὸς παιδάριον
μεμωλωπισμένον θεασάμενος, πρὸς αὐτόν, ὁρῶ cov, ἔφη,
τοῦ θυμοῦ τὰ ἴχνη.

56. Diog. L. vil. 28, 29, ἐτελεύτα δὴ οὕτως. ἐκ τῆς
σχολῆς ἀπιὼν προσέπταισε καὶ τὸν δάκτυλον περιέρρηξε.
παίσας δὲ τὴν γῆν τῇ χειρί, φησὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς Νιόβης,

ἔρχομαι, τί μ᾽ avers ;
καὶ παραχρῆμα ἐτελεύτησεν, ἀποπνίξας ἑαυτόν. Stob.
Floril. vu. 45, Ζήνων, ὡς ἤδη γέρων ὧν πταίσας κατέπεσεν,
“ ἔρχομαι, εἶπε, “τί με αὔεις ;" καὶ εἰσελθὼν ἑαυτὸν
ἐξήγωγεν. Lucian Macrob. (1,Χ11.) 19, Ζήνων δέ.. ὅν φασιν
εἰσερχόμενον εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ προσπταίσαντα ἀνα-

APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 235

φθέγξασθαι, τί με Bods; καὶ ὑποστρέψαντα οἴκαδε καὶ
ἀποσχόμενον τροφῆς τελευτῆσαι τὸν βίον.

Νιόβης: the author of the play is uncertain. Both
Aeschylus and Sophocles wrote plays with this title, but
Nauck thinks the words belong to the Niobe of Timo-
theus: cf. Soph. frag. 395 (Dind.). The situation must
have been similar to the concluding scene of the Oedipus
Coloneus, where Oedipus is summoned by a mysterious
voice: O. C. 1626 ἢ

57. Theodor. Metoch. p. 812, Kiessling, καὶ ὁ μὲν
Ζήνων ἔλεγεν, ἦλθε, παρῆλθεν, οὐδὲν πρὸς ἐμὲ καθόλου,
περὶ τῶν ἐνταῦθα πραγμάτων καὶ τοῦ βίου φιλοσοφῶν.

This recalls Marcus Aurelius, e.g. VI. 15.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

1. Diog. L. vit. 41, ὁ δὲ Κλεάνθης ἕξ μέρη φησί
διαλεκτικόν, ῥητορικόν, ἠθικόν, πολιτικόν, φυσικόν, θεο-
λογικόν.

ἕξ μέρ. These are only subdivisions of the triple
Zenonian division: thus διαλεκτικὸν and ῥητορικὸν to-—
gether occupy the same ground as λογικόν (Diog. L. vir. 41
cited in Zeno frag. 6, where Cleanthes is probably meant).
For his rhetorical writings see Introd. p. 50. Hirzel ΤΙ.
p. 170—178 tries to establish two points in connection
with this statement, (1) that Cleanthes, unlike the other
Stoics, believed in the unity and indivisibility of philosophy
itself, but adopted six divisions for the purpose of exposi-
tion merely, and, (2) that the sixfold division is taken
from Heraclitus, cf. Diog. L. 1x. 5, εἰς τρεῖς λόγους εἴς τε
τὸν περὶ τοῦ παντὸς Kal τὸν πολιτικὸν Kal τὸν θεολογικόν.
But see Stein, Psych. n. 95, Erkenntnistheorie n. 306.

πολιτικόν. Similar is Aristotle’s distinction between
φρόνησις (practical thought) and πολιτική (Eth. vi. 8), in
which chapter φρόνησις appears both as the general term
and as a special subdivision dealing with the individual.
The same may be said of ἠθικόν here.

θεολογικόν. Aristotle divides Speculative (θεωρητική)
Philosophy into φυσική, μαθηματική, θεολογική (Metaph.
v. 1,10). The last-named branch is identical with πρώτη
φιλοσοφία and is the best of the three, because its subject-

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 237

matter is the most honourable (id. x. 7. 9). In the Stoic

system it would have been impossible to follow out this
distinction in practice, since their materialism was de-
structive of metaphysic, and it may be doubted whether
θεολογικὸν does not simply refer to the treatment of
popular religion appearing in the book περὶ θεῶν. The
hymn to Zeus belongs to θεολογικόν rather than to

φυσικόν.

LOGICA.

2. Epict. Diss. 1. 17. 11, τὰ λογικὰ ἄλλων ἐστὶ δια-
κριτικὰ καὶ ἐπισκεπτικὰ καί, ὡς ἄν τις εἴποι, μετρητικὰ
καὶ στατικά. τίς λέγει ταῦτα ; μόνος Χρύσιππος καὶ
Ζήνων καὶ Κλεάνθης ; See Zeno frag. 4.

8. Sext. Emp. Math. vit. 228, (τύπωσις) περὶ ἧς εὐθὺς
καὶ διέστησαν: Κλεάνθης μὲν yap τὴν τύπωσιν κατὰ
εἰσοχήν τε καὶ ἐξοχήν, ὥσπερ καὶ διὰ τῶν δακτυλίων γιυ-
γνομένην τοῦ κηροῦ τύπωσιν. ib. 572, εἰ γὰρ τὐπωσίς ἐστιν
ἐν ψυχῇ ἡ φαντασία, ἤτοι κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν καὶ εἰσοχὴν τύπωσίς

ς ς
ἐστιν, ὡς οἱ περὶ τὸν Κλεάνθην νομίζουσιν, ἢ κατὰ ψιλὴν

ἑτεροίωσιν γίνεται «.7.r. ib. VIL 400, Κλεώνθους μὲν
κυρίως ἀκούοντος τὴν μετὰ εἰσοχῆς καὶ ἐξοχῆς νοουμένην
(τύπωσιν). id. Pyrrh. τι. 70, ἐπεὶ οὖν ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τὸ
ἡγεμονικὸν πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἢ λεπτομερέστερόν τι πνεύματος,
ὥς φασιν, οὐ δυνήσεταί τις τύπωσιν ἐπινοεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ οὔτε
κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν καὶ εἰσοχήν, ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν σφραγίδων ὁρῶμεν,
οὔτε κατὰ τὴν τερατολογουμένην ἑτεροιωτικήν.

Zeno’s definition of φαντασία (frag. 7) became a battle
ground for his successors: Cleanthes explained τύπωσις
as referring to a material impression like that made upon
wax by a seal, cf. Philo de mund. opif. p. 114, Pfeiff, ᾧ

εν a \ 2 \ Yj ,
(scil. νῷ) τὰ φανέντα ἐκτὸς εἴσω κομίζουσαι, διωγγέλλουσι

238 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES,

καὶ ἐπιδείκνυνται τοὺς τύπους ἑκάστων, ἐνσφραγιζόμεναι τὸ
ὅμοιον πάθος. κηρῷ γὰρ ἐοικώς, δέχεται τὰς διὰ τῶν
αἰσθήσεων φαντασίας, αἷς τὰ σώματα καταλαμβάνει.
Chrysippus however objected that, on this view, if the soul
received at the same time the impression of a triangle and
a square, the same body would at the same time have
different shapes attached to it, and would become at the
same time square and triangular (Sext. Le., Diog. L. vi.
45—50); and he accordingly interpreted τύπωσις by
ἑτεροίωσις and ἀλλοίωσις, cf. Cic. Tuse. 1. 61 an imprimi,
quasi ceram, animum putamus, et esse memoriam sig-
natarum rerum in mente vestigia? Hirzel 11. pp. 160—168
finds here also the influence of Heraclitus, who, he believes,
is pointed at in Plat. Theaet. p. 191 foll., θὲς δή μοι λόγου
ἕνεκα ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἡμῶν ἐνὸν κήρινον ἐκμαγεῖον K.T.r.
He relies however entirely on the disputed frag. κακοὶ
μάρτυρες ἀνθρώποις ὀφθαλμοὶ καὶ ὦτα βαρβαροὺς ψυχὰς
ἐχόντων, which Zeller interprets in exactly the opposite
sense to that of Schuster and Hirzel. The point cannot
therefore be regarded as established : see Stein, Erkenntnis-
theorie ἢ. 734,

εἰσοχὴν. . «ἐξοχήν = concavity...convexity. Cf. Sext. Pyrrh.
1, 92, ai γοῦν γραφαὶ τῇ μὲν ὄψει δοκοῦσιν εἰσοχὰς καὶ
ἐξοχὰς ἔχειν, οὐ μὴν καὶ τῇ ἁφῇ, ib. τ. 120. Plat, Rep.
602 D, καὶ ταῦτα καμπύλα τε καὶ εὐθέα ἐν ὕδασί τε
θεωμένοις καὶ ἔξω, καὶ κοῖλά τε δὴ καὶ ἐξέχοντα διὰ τὴν
περὶ τὰ χρώματα αὖ πλάνην τῆς ὄψεως. .

δακτυλίων. For ancient Greek rings see Guhl and
Koner, E. T. p. 182, with the illustrations, and for κηροῦ
see on Zeno frag. 50. Hirzel lc. shows that the metaphor
was common, even apart from philosophic teaching: ef.
Aesch. P. V. 789, δέλτοι φρενῶν, ete.

4. Plut. Plac. tv. 11, of Στωικοί φασιν" ὅταν γεννηθῇ

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 239

ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν μέρος τῆς ψυχῆς ὥσπερ
χάρτην εὔεργον (or ἐνεργόν) εἰς ἀπογραφήν᾽ εἰς τοῦτο μίαν
ἑκάστην τῶν ἐννοιῶν ἐναπογράφεται.

The grounds upon which this is referred to Cleanthes
have been stated in the Introduction, p. 38, 39. For
the further illustration and exposition of the passage the
reader is referred to the exhaustive and interesting note
of Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 112, π. 230; but it may be
as well here to set out two quotations from Philo, which
make strongly in favour of the hypothesis that Cleanthes
was the originator of the “ tabula rasa” theory: cf. Philo,
quod Deus sit immut.,1. 9, p. 279 Mang., φαντασία δ᾽ ἔστι
τύπωσις ἐν ψυχῇ, ἃ γὰρ εἰσήγαγεν ἑκάστη τῶν αἰσθήσεων,
ὥσπερ δακτύλιός τις ἢ σφραγίς, ἐναπεμάξατο τὸν οἰκεῖον
χαρακτῆρα" κηρῷ δὲ ἐοικὼς ὁ νοῦς. quis rer. div. haer. 6.
37, p. 498 Mang., ἡ γὰρ ψυχὴ τὸ κήρινον, ὡς εἶπέ τις TOV
ἀρχαίων.

δ. Olympiodorus lc. on Zeno frag. 12, Κλεάνθης
τοίνυν λέγει ὅτι τέχνη ἐστὶν ἕξις ὁδῷ πάντα ἀνύουσα.
Quintil. Inst. Or. 11. 17. 41, nam sive, ut Cleanthes voluit,
ars est potestas, via, id est, ordine efficiens.

Cf. also Cic. Fin. mr. 18, quoted on Zeno frag. 12.
Olympiodorus objects that the definition is too wide, and
that it would include φύσις which is not a τέχνη (cf Cie.
N.D. τι. 81), but Cleanthes might have replied that neither
is φύσις an ἕξις. For ἕξις cf. on διάθεσις Zeno frag. 717:
and Stob. Ecl. τι. 7, ὅξ p. 73, 7, ἐν ἕξει δὲ οὐ μόνας εἶναι
τὰς ἀρετάς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς τέχνας Tas ἐν τῷ σπουδαίῳ
ἀνδρὶ ἀλλοιωθείσας ὑπὸ τῆς ἀρετῆς καὶ γενομένας ὠμετα-
πτώτους, οἱονεὶ γὰρ ἀρετὰς γίνεσθαι.

6. Syrian. ad Ar. Metaph. 892 b 14—23, ὡς ἄρα τὰ
εἴδη παρὰ τοῖς θείοις τούτοις ἀνδράσιν (i.e. Socrates Plato

240 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES,

Parmenides and the Pythagoreans) οὔτε πρὸς τὴν ῥῆσιν
τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων συνηθείας παρήγετο, ὡς Χρύσιππος καὶ
᾿Αρχέδημος καὶ οἱ πλείους τῶν Στωικῶν ὕστερον φήθησαν...
οὐ μὴν οὐδ᾽ ἐννοήματά εἰσι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς αἱ ἰδέαι, ὡς
Κλεάνθης ὕστερον εἴρηκεν.

This difficult fragment has been variously interpreted.
Wellmann, p. 480, and Krische, p. 421, think that Cleanthes
described the ideas as “subjective Gedanken,” in which
case the fragment is a restatement of Zeno’s view: cf.
Zeno frag. 23. Stein discusses the passage at length
(Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 293—295): reading νοήματα, he
supposes that Cleanthes’ words were οὔκ εἰσιν ai ἰδέαι
νοήματα. Zeller also p. 85 has vonyara. However
ἐννοήματα appears in the Berlin Aristotle edited by
Usener, and so Wachsmuth (Comm. 11. p. 8) reads. Stein
explains as follows:—vonuyata represent abstract ra-
tionalised knowledge resulting from our experience by
the agency of ὀρθὸς λόγος. By such νοήματα are we
made aware of the existence of the gods (frag. 52), and
from these we must distinguish the class conceptions
(Gattungsbegriffe) which have no scientific value. Class
conceptions (ἐννοήματα) can never be the criterion of
knowledge, since they have no real existence. Cf. Simpl.
in Cat. f. 26 C: οὔτινα τὰ κοινὰ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς λέγεται.
But, even assuming that the distinction between νόημα
and ἐννόημα is well founded, which is by no means clear,
and that νοήματα is to be read here, the context in
Syrian is conclusive against Stein. The meaning simply
is, “nor again are the ideas in Plato etc. to be treated as
évvojpata”: in other words, the negative οὐδὲ is no part
of Cleanthes’ statement, but belongs to the commentator.
This is abundantly clear from the following words :—ov&
ὡς ᾿Αντωνῖνος, μιγνὺς τὴν Λογγίνου καὶ Κλεάνθους δόξαν,
τῷ νῷ παρυφίσταντο κατὰ τὰς ἐννοητικὰς ἰδέας.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 241

7. Clem. Alex. Strom. vu 9. 26, 980 P, 332 5, λεκτὰ
yap Ta κατηγορήματα καλοῦσι Κλεάνθης καὶ ᾿Αρχέδημος.

λεκτά: the abstractions contained in thoughts as ex-
pressed in speech, as opposed to thoughts on the one hand
and the things thought of on the other (μέσον τοῦ τε
νοήματος Kal τοῦ πράγματος). Neither again are they
identical with the spoken words, which are corporeal (Sext.
Math. vu. 75). Being incorporeal they can have no real
existence, and yet the Stoics seem to have hesitated to
deny their existence altogether. In the ordinary termino-
logy of the school κατηγόρημα is a subdivision of λεκτὸν,
and is described as λεκτὸν ἐλλυπές (Diog. vu. 64). From
this passage, then, we must infer that Cleanthes was the
first to restrict κατηγόρημα to its narrower sense by the
introduction of the new term λεκτόν. An example of
κατηγόρημα given by Sextus is ἀψίένθιον πιεῖν (Pyrrh. I.
230), but a new term was required to denote the abstrac-
tion of a complete assertion (e.g. Cato ambulat), for which
κατηγόρημα was obviously insufficient. For λεκτὸν gene-
rally see Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 219—222.

᾿Αρχέδημος : Zeller p. 50. The most important fact
recorded about him is that he placed the ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ
κόσμου in the centre of the earth (Zeller p. 147).

. . Ἂ /
8. Epict. Diss. τι. 19. 1—4, ὁ κυριεύων λόγος ἀπὸ
τοιούτων τινῶν ἀφορμῶν ἠρωτῆσθαι φαίνεται" κοινῆς yap
" , al , X / Ὁ r
οὔσης μάχης τοῖς τρισὶ τούτοις πρὸς ἄλληλα, τῷ πᾶν
% % \ ’ an a \ na col
παρεληλυθὸς ἀληθὲς ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι, καὶ τῷ δυνατῷ
3 , % ’ ἴω \ lel \ 3 «Δ see
ἀδύνατον μὴ ἀκολουθεῖν, καὶ τῷ δυνατὸν εἶναι ὃ OVT ἔστιν
᾽ \ vo» 7 \ \ , ͵ « ,
ἀληθὲς οὔτ᾽ ἔσται' συνιδὼν THY μάχην ταύτην ὁ Διόδωρος
lal a , lal , /
τῇ τῶν πρώτων δυοῖν πιθανότητι συνεχρήσατο πρὸς
td a \ 7 Ν “δ 5 eee Smee A 2 \
παράστασιν τοῦ μηδὲν εἶναι δυνατὸν ὃ οὔτ᾽ ἔστιν ἀληθὲς
y a n / a fal
οὔτ᾽ ἔσται. λοιπὸν 6 μέν τις ταῦτα τηρήσει τῶν δυοῖν,
Ὁ“ ” / / A 95 » 3 \ αν; ΝΜ ΓΞ
ὅτι ἔστι τέ τι δυνατόν, ὃ οὔτ᾽ ἔστιν ἀληθὲς οὔτ᾽ ἔσται

Η. Ρ. 16

242 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

καὶ δυνατῷ ἀδύνατον οὐκ ἀκολουθεῖ" οὐ πᾶν δὲ παρελη-
λυθὸς ἀληθὲς ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι" καθάπερ οἱ περὶ Κλεάνθην
φέρεσθαι δοκοῦσιν, οἷς ἐπὶ πολὺ συνηγόρησεν ᾿Αντίπατρος.
οἱ δὲ τἄλλα δύο, ὅτι δυνατόν 7 ἐστὶν ὃ οὔτ᾽ ἔστιν ἀληθὲς
οὔτ᾽ ἔσται" καὶ πᾶν παρεληλυθὸς ἀληθὲς ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν"
δυνατῷ δ᾽ ἀδύνατον ἀκολουθεῖ. τὰ τρία δ᾽ ἐκεῖνα τηρῆσαι
ἀμήχανον, διὰ τὸ κοινὴν εἶναι αὐτῶν μάχην. Cic. de Fato
7. 14, omnia enim vera in praeteritis necessaria sunt, ut
Chrysippo placet, dissentienti a magistro Cleanthe, quia
sunt immutabilia nec in falsum e vero praeterita possunt
convertere.

Three propositions are here mentioned, which are
inconsistent with each other in such a way that the
acceptance of any two involves the rejection of the third:—
(1) Every past truth is necessary. (2) That which is
possible can never become 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. 6—8 describes his followers
as αὐτῇ τῇ ἐκβάσει κρίνοντες τὸ δυνατόν. Cic. Fam, ΙΧ.
4 (writing to Varro) περὶ δυνατῶν me scito κατὰ Διόδωρον
κρίνειν. Quapropter, si venturus es, scito necesse esse te
venire: sin autem non es, τῶν ἀδυνάτων est te venire.
Cleanthes asserted the truth of (2) and (3) and denied (1).
Chrysippus asserted the truth of (1) and (3) and denied
(2), ef. Alexander ad An. Pr. 1. 15 p. 84 a 10 Χρύσιππος δὲ
λέγων μηδὲν κωλύειν καὶ δυνατῷ ἀδύνατον ἕπεσθαι κιτιλ.
Cleanthes maintained therefore that it is and was possible
for past events to have happened differently. See further
on this controversy Grote’s Plato vol. 11. p. 495 foll. On
p. 499 Hobbes is quoted, who is in agreement with
Diodorus. The dilemma itself was originally propounded
by Diodorus the Megarian, on whom see Zeller Socratics
p. 252. It went by the name of ὁ κυριεύων λόγος =

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 243

argument getting the better of others: cf. Themist. Or. 11.
30 Ὁ who mentions it together with ὁ κερατίνης as the
discovery of Philo or Diodorus. In Lucian Vit. Auct.
c, 22 Chrysippus professes his ability to teach it as well
as the θερίζων ᾿Ηλέκτρα and ἐγκεκαλυμμένος. Aul. Gell.
1. 2. 4, κυριεύοντας ἡσυχάζοντας καὶ σωρείτας. Cleanthes
wrote a special treatise on the subject (Introd. p. 50).

9. Quintil. Inst. Or. τι. 15, 33—35. huic eius sub-
stantiae maxime conveniet finitio, rhetoricen esse bene
dicendi scientiam. nam et orationis omnes virtutes
semel complectitur, et protinus etiam mores oratoris, cum
bene dicere non possit nisi bonus. idem valet Chrysippi
finis ille ductus a Cleanthe, scientia recte dicendi (scil.
rhetorice).

Kiderlin (Jahrb. f. Class. Phil. 131, p. 123) conjectures
that the word Cleanthis has fallen out after substantiae,
so that, while Cleanthes defined rhetoric as ἐπιστήμη
τοῦ εὖ λέγειν, the words Tod ὀρθῶς λέγειν would be an
alteration of Chrysippus. See however Striller Rhet.
Sto. pp. 7, 8. For the usual Stoic definition cf Diog.
L. vil. 42, τήν τε ῥητορικήν, ἐπιστήμην οὖσαν Tod εὖ
λέγειν περὶ τῶν ἐν διεξόδῳ λόγων where rhetoric is
contrasted with dialectic, since dialectic was also defined
as ἐπιστήμη τοῦ εὖ λέγειν by the Stoics (Alex. Aphr. Top.
3. 6, quoted by Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 210). Sext.
Emp. Math. I. 6.

10. Varro de L. L. v. 9, quod si summum gradum non
attigero, tamen secundum praeteribo, quod non solum ad
Aristophanis sed etiam ad Cleanthis lucubravi [secundum
explained in § 7 quo grammatica escendit antiqua, quae
ostendit quemadmodum quodque poeta finxerit verbum
confinxerit declinarit].

16—2

244 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. |
11. Athen. x1. 467 d, Κλεάνθης δὲ ὁ φιλόσοφος ἐν τῷ

περὶ μεταλήψεως ἀπὸ τῶν κατασκευασάντων φησὶν ὀνο-
μασθῆναι τήν τε θηρίκλειον κύλικα καὶ τὴν δεινιάδα. ib.
471 b, Κλεάνθης δ᾽ ἐν τῷ περὶ μεταλήψεως συγγράμματί
φησι, τὰ τοίνυν εὑρήματα, καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα ἔτι καὶ τὰ
λοιπά ἐστι, οἷον θηρίκλειος, δεινιάς, Ἰφικρατίς, ταῦτα
[γὰρ] πρότερον συνιστόρει τοὺς εὑρόντας, φαίνεται δ᾽
ἔτι καὶ νῦν" εἰ δὲ μὴ ποιεῖ τοῦτο, μεταβεβληκὸς ἂν εἴη
μικρὸν τοὔνομα. ἀλλά, καθάπερ εἴρηται, οὐκ ἔστι πιστεῦ-
σαι τῷ τυχόντι.
μεταλήψεως : the meaning of this word seems to be that
explained by Quintil. vii. 6. 37, superest ex his, quae
aliter significent, μετάληψις, id est, transumtio, quae
ex alio in aliud velut viam praestat: tropus et varissimus
et maxime improprius, Graecis tamen frequentior, qui
Centaurum Chirona, et νήσους (? ναῦς) θοὰς ὀξείας dicunt.
Nos quis ferat, si Verrem suem aut Laelium doctum
nominemus? cf. Arist. Top. vi. 11, p. 149 a 6.

θηρίκλειον: a kind of drinking cup, said to be named
after Thericles, a Corinthian potter of some celebrity, and,
according to Bentley on Phalaris § 8, a contemporary
of Aristophanes. Welcker, however (Rhein. Mus. VI.
404 foll.), maintains that these cups were so called because
they were decorated with the figures of animals.

Sands and Ἰφικρατὶς are the names given to particular
kinds of slippers, the latter of which was so called after
the celebrated Athenian general. Cf. Poll. vit. 89, ἀπὸ δὲ
τῶν χρησαμένων ᾿Ιφικρατίδες, Δεινιάδες, ᾿Αλκιβιάδια,
Σμινδυρίδια, Μυνάκια ἀπὸ Μυνάκου. Diod. Sic. xv. 44,
τάς τε ὑποδέσεις τοῖς στρατιώταις εὐλύτους Kal κούφας
ἐποίησε, τὰς μέχρι τοῦ νῦν ἰφικρατίδας ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου καλου-
μένας. Alciphr. Ep. πι. 57, ἔναγχος Κρονίων ἐνστάντων
Ἰφικρατίδας μοι νεουργεῖς ἔπεμψε. Becker's Charicles
E. T. p. 450, Miiller Handbuch tv. 428.

alias

ete

we

-"

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 245

γὰρ is expunged by Meineke, whom Wachsm. follows.

συνιστόρει is read by Casaubon for συνιστορεῖν. It seems
to mean “connoted.”

εἰ δὲ μή tr. “if it does not do this, the word must have
changed somewhat.” For the tense cf. Dem, xxx. 10.
Timocrates and Onetor were both men of substance ὥστ᾽
οὐκ ἂν διὰ τοῦτο γ᾽ εἶεν οὐκ εὐθὺς δεδωκότες.

PHYSICA.

12. Diog. L. vit. 134, δοκεῖ δ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἀρχὰς εἶναι τῶν
ὅλων δύο, τὸ ποιοῦν καὶ τὸ πάσχον. τὸ μὲν οὖν πάσχον
εἶναι τὴν ἄποιον οὐσίαν τὴν ὕλην, τὸ δὲ ποιοῦν τὸν ἐν

2 Ἢ, , \ , a \ yh ” \ UY
αὐτῇ λόγον τὸν θεόν. τοῦτον γὰρ ἀΐδιον ὄντα διὰ πάσης

a
αὐτῆς δημιουργεῖν ἕκαστα. τίθησι δὲ TO δόγμα τοῦτο...
Κλεάνθης ἐν τῷ περὶ ἀτόμων. See Zeno frag. 35.

13. Tertull. Apol. 21, haec (quae Zeno dixit λόγον
esse cf. Zeno frag. 44) Cleanthes in spiritum congerit
quem permeatorem universitatis affirmat.

spiritum = πνεῦμα. So far as the evidence serves,
Cleanthes was the first to explam the Heraclitean πῦρ as
πνεῦμα. While not refusing to admit that Zeno’s aether
is an emanation from the Godhead (see on frag. 15),
he differs from Zeno in identifying God with the sun, as
the ruling part of the universe, and the ultimate source of
the “Urpneuma.” Stein Psych. p. 68. Hirzel’s account
is inconsistent: at p. 211 he attributes πνεῦμα to Chry-
sippus and restricts Cleanthes to πῦρ, while at p. 216 he
allows that Cleanthes introduced the conception of
πνεῦμα.

permeatorem. Gk. διήκειν Zeno frag. 37, probably
indicates that Cl. accepted κρᾶσις δ ὅλων, cf. Alex.
Aphrod. de Mixt. 142 a, ἡνῶσθαι τὴν σύμπασαν οὐσίαν,

246 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

πνεύματός Twos διὰ πάσης αὐτῆς διήκοντος, ὑφ᾽ οὗ
συνάγεται καὶ συμμένει.

14, Stob. Ecl. 1. 1. 29° p. 34, 20, Διογένης καὶ Κλεάν-
θης καὶ Οἰνοπίδης (τὸν θεὸν) τὴν τοῦ κόσμου ψυχήν.
Οἷς, N. D. 1. 37, tum totius naturae menti atque animo
tribuit hoc nomen. Minue. Octav. xrx. 10, Theophrastus
et Zeno et Chrysippus et Cleanthes sunt et ipsi multi-
formes, sed ad unitatem providentiae omnes revolvuntur.
Cleanthes enim mentem modo animum modo aethera
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 a ruling
principle analogous to the soul of man. Sext. Math.
IX. 120, ὥστε ἐπεὶ καὶ ὁ κόσμος ὑπὸ φύσεως διοικεῖται
πολυμερὴς καθεστώς, εἴη ἄν τι ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ κυριεῦον καὶ τὸ
προκαταρχόμενον τῶν κινήσεων. οὐδὲν δὲ δυνατὸν εἶναι
τοιοῦτον ἢ τὴν τῶν ὄντων φύσιν, ἥτις θεός ἐστιν. ἔστιν
ἄρα θεός.

15. Cic. N. Ὁ. τ 37, tum ultimum et altissimum
atque undique circumfusum et extremum omnia cin-
gentem atque complexum ardorem, qui aether nominetur,
certissimum deum judicat. Lactant. Inst. 1. 5, Cleanthes
et Anaximenes aethera dicunt esse summum Deum
(quoting in support Verg. Georg. 11. 325).

According to Krische, p. 428—430, Cicero has here
made a blunder by importing an explanation of his own
into the Greek original θεὸν εἶναι τὸν αἰθέρα, and by a
confusion of the two senses in which ap is used in the
Stoie School (1) -- πῦρ τεχνικόν, (2)=the fiery zone

surrounding the world. Cleanthes, as will be presently —

seen, disagreeing with the rest of the school, regarded the

a

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 247

sun and not the belt of aether as the ἡγεμονικόν, or, in
popular language, as the abode of God (Cic. Acad. π. 126).
Cleanthes therefore only meant to affirm the identity
of θεὸς and the πῦρ τεχνικόν. This may be true, but the
reasoning is not conclusive. Apart from the word
certissimum, which is not important, there is no reason
why Cleanthes should not have attributed divinity to the
ultimus omnia cingens aether, just in the same manner as
he does to the stars, where Krische feels no difficulty.
Similarly Stein, Psychol. n. 99: the aether emanates from
the “Urpneuma” and is a divine power, but not God
himself.

ultimum i.e. farthest removed from the earth which is
in the centre of the universe. Zeno, frag. 67. Cie ND
41.117. Diog. vil. 37.

16. Philod. περὶ εὐσεβ. c. 9, λόγον ἡγούμενον τῶν ἐν
᾿ τῷ κόσμῳ. Cic. N. D.1. 37, tum nihil ratione censet esse
divinius.

This, it should be remembered, is in direct opposition
to the teaching of Epicurus, who speaks of the world
as φύσει ἀλόγῳ ἐκ τῶν ἀτόμων συνεστῶτα (Stob. Ἐπ].

τ. 91. 3° p. 183, 10).

17. Οἷς, N. Ὁ. τ. 37, Cleanthes...tum ipsum mundum
deum dicit esse. Cf. N. D. 11. 34. 45.

See Krische p. 424—426, according to whom we are to
interpret mundum here in the first of the three senses
specified by Diog. L. vi. 137, 138, ἔστι κόσμος ὁ ἰδίως
ποιὸς τῆς τῶν ὅλων οὐσίας. Cf. Chrysippus ap. Stob. Ecl.
21d: ge 184, 11, λέγεται δ᾽ ἑτέρως κόσμος ὁ θεός, καθ᾽
ὃν ἡ διακόσμησις γίνεται καὶ τελειοῦται. In any case, we
have here a distinct statement that Cleanthes was a
pantheist, and identified God with matter. The different
meanings given to κόσμος in effect amount to this that it

248 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 11. p. 206. Stein, Psychol. p. 67
and ἢ. 98.

18. Chalcid. in Tim. ο. 144, ex quo fieri ut quae
secundum fatum sunt etiam ex providentia sint. eodem-
que modo quae secundum providentiam ex fato, ut Chry-
sippus putat. alii vero quae quidem ex providentiae
auctoritate, fataliter quoque provenire, nec tamen quae
fataliter ex providentia, ut Cleanthes.

Zeno had affirmed the identity of εἱμαρμένη and
πρόνοια (frag. 45), but omitted to discuss the difficulties
involved in so broad an explanation of fatalistic doctrine.
Cleanthes felt the difficulty that κακὸν could not be said
to exist κατὰ πρόνοιαν, even if it existed καθ᾽ εἱμαρμένην.
This point will recur in the Hymn to Zeus frag. 46, 1]. 17,
οὐδέ τι γίνεται ἔργον ἐπὶ χθονὶ σοῦ δίχα δαῖμον.. πλὴν
ὁπόσα ῥέξουσι κακοὶ σφετέρῃσιν ἀνοίαις, where we shall
have to discuss the nature of the solution which he
offered. In support of the position here taken up by
Chrysippus cf. id. ap. Plut. Sto. Rep. 34,3, κατὰ τοῦτον
δὲ τὸν λόγον τὰ παραπλήσια ἐροῦμεν Kal περὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς
ἡμῶν καὶ περὶ τῆς κακίας καὶ τὸ ὅλον τῶν τεχνῶν καὶ τῶν
ἀτέχνων. ..οὐθὲν γὰρ ἔστιν ἄλλως τῶν κατὰ μέρος γίγνεσθαι
οὐδὲ τοὐλάχιστον ἀλλ᾽ ἡ κατὰ τὴν κοινὴν φύσιν καὶ τὸν
ἐκείνης λόγον. id. Comm. Not. 84, 5, εἰ δὲ οὐδὲ τοὐλάχιστον
ἔστι τῶν μερῶν ἔχειν ἄλλως ἀλλ᾽ ἣ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Διὸς
βούλησιν. Chrysippus also defined εἱμαρμένη as λόγος
τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ προνοίᾳ διοικουμένων. The Sceptic
objections on this head are put very clearly in Sext. Pyrrh.
ΠΙ. 9---12,

— ποι

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 249

19. Philo de provid. τι. 74 p. 94 Aucher: (astra erratica)
nota sunt non solum ratione verum etiam sensu ita movente
providentia, quae, ut dicit Chrysippus et Cleanthes, nihil
praetermisit pertinentium ad certiorem utilioremque dis-
pensationem, quod si aliter melius esset dispensari res
mundi, eo modo sumpsisset compositionem, qua tenus
nihil occurreret ad impediendum deum.

I have taken this fragment from Gercke (Chrysippea
p. 708).

quae nihil praetermisit...Much of the Stoic exposition
in the 2nd book of Cicero’s de Natura Deorum is a
commentary on this. Thus for astra erratica cf. § 108
foll. and esp. ὃ 104, ergo, ut oculis adsidue videmus, sine
ulla mutatione et varietate cetera labuntur...caelestia...
quorum contemplatione nullius expleri potest animus
naturae constantiam videre cupientis. Generally cf. M.
Anton. IL. 3, τὰ THs τύχης οὐκ ἄνευ φύσεως ἢ συγκλώσεως
καὶ ἐπιπλοκῆς τῶν προνοίᾳ διοικουμένων" πάντα ἐκεῖθεν
ῥεῖ: πρόσεστι δὲ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον, καὶ τὸ τῷ ὅλῳ κόσμῳ
συμφέρον, οὗ μέρος él.

qua tenus...At the same time we find elsewhere a
chain argument of Chrysippus in Alex. de fato c. 37 p.
118 οὐ πάντα μὲν ἔστι καθ᾽ εἱμαρμένην, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ
ἀκώλυτος καὶ ἀπαρεμπόδιστος ἡ τοῦ κόσμου διοίκησις
κατὰ. But inconsistency was inevitable in this matter,
when Chrysippus could account for the existence of evil
by saying (Plut. Sto. Rep. 36. 1) κακίαν δὲ καθόλου ἄραι
οὔτε δυνατόν ἐστιν οὔτ᾽ ἔχει καλῶς ἀρθῆναι. See Zeller’s

lucid exposition pp. 176—193.

20. Probus ad Verg. Ecl. 6. 31, p. 10, 33, Omnem
igitur hanc rerum naturae formam tenui primum et
inani mole dispersam refert in quattuor elementa con-
cretam et ex his omnia esse postea effigiata Stoici tradunt

250 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Zenon Citiaeus et Speusippus (leg. Chrysippus) Soleus
et Cleanthes Thasius (leg. Assius). See on Zeno frag. 52.

21. Hermiae Irris. Gent. Phil. 14, Diels p. 654, ἀλλ᾽
ὁ Κλεάνθης ἀπὸ τοῦ φρέατος ἐπάρας τὴν κεφαλὴν καταγελᾷ
σοῦ τοῦ δόγματος καὶ αὐτὸς ἀνιμᾷ τὰς ἀληθεῖς ἀρχὰς θεὸν
καὶ ὕλην. καὶ τὴν μὲν γῆν μεταβάλλειν εἰς ὕδωρ, τὸ δὲ
ὕδωρ εἰς ἀέρα τὸν δὲ ἀέρα «εἰς πῦρ; φέρεσθαι, τὸ δὲ πῦρ
εἰς τὰ περίγεια χωρεῖν, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν δι᾿ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου
διήκειν, ἧς μέρος μετέχοντας ἡμᾶς ἐμψυχοῦσθαι. ,

φρέατος. ‘This is explained by the anecdote related by
Diog. VIL. 168, διεβοήθη δὲ ἐπὶ φιλοπονίᾳ, ὅς γε πένης ὧν
ἄγαν ὥρμησε μισθοφορεῖν" καὶ νύκτωρ μὲν ἐν τοῖς κήποις
ἤντλει, μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ἐγυμνάξετο᾽ ὅθεν καὶ
Φρεάντλης ἐκλήθη. The same idea is kept up by ἀνιμᾷ
Le. “hauls up.”

καὶ τὴν μὲν γῆν κτλ. This constant interchange of the
various elements is not so strongly brought out in the
Stoic system as it was by Heraclitus with his formula
πάντα pei. Cf. Krische p. 387. It is however always
implied, cf. Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Ecl. 1. 10. 16° p. 129, 18,
πρώτης μὲν γιγνομένης τῆς ἐκ πυρὸς κατὰ σύστασιν εἰς
ἀέρα μεταβολῆς, δευτέρας δ᾽ ἀπὸ τούτου εἰς ὕδωρ, τρίτης
δὲ ἔτε μᾶλλον κατὰ τὸ ἀνάλογον συνισταμένου τοῦ ὕδατος
εἰς γῆν. πάλιν δ᾽ ἀπὸ ταύτης διαλυομένης καὶ διαχεομένης
πρώτη μὲν γίγνεται χύσις εἰς ὕδωρ, δευτέρα δ᾽ ἐξ ὕδατος
εἰς ἀέρα, τρίτη δὲ καὶ ἐσχάτη εἰς πῦρ. Cic. N. Ὁ. π΄. 84, et
cum quattuor genera sint corporum, vicissitudine eorum
mundi continuata natura est. Nam ex terra aqua, ex
aqua oritur aér, ex aére aether, deinde retrorsum vicissim
ex aethere aér, inde aqua, ex aqua terra infima. Sic
naturis his, ex quibus omnia constant, sursus deorsus,
ultro citro commeantibus mundi partium coniunctio conti-
netur. For Heraclitus see R. and P. § 29.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 951

εἰς πῦρ. Some words must be supplied here: Diels
inserts ἄνω.

τὸ δὲ πῦρ : the reverse process is concisely stated.

ἧς μέρος μετέχοντας : for the divine origin of the human
soul see Stein Psych. p. 96, n. 169.

29. Stob. Ecl. τ. 20, 1° p. 171, 2, Ζήνωνι καὶ Κλεάνθει

Ny / 2 / x ’ / ld Φ ἣν

καὶ Χρυσίππῳ ἀρέσκει τὴν οὐσιᾶν μεταβάλλειν οἷον εἰς

σπέρμα τὸ πῦρ, καὶ πάλιν ἐκ τούτου τοιαύτην ἀποτελεῖσθαι
τὴν διακόσμησιν, οἵα πρότερον ἦν. See Zeno frag. 54.

23. Philo, Incorr. Mundi p. 954, μεταβάλλειν yap ἢ
εἰς φλόγα ἢ εἰς αὐγὴν ἀναγκαῖον" εἰς μὲν φλόγα, ὡς ῴετο
Κλεάνθης, εἰς δ᾽ αὐγήν, ὡς ὁ Χρύσιππος.

Philo is arguing that when everything becomes fire, it
must burn itself out and cannot be created anew, but
there is no importance in his objection, as he is confounding
the πῦρ τεχνικὸν with πῦρ ἄτεχνον. φλὸξ and αὐγὴ
therefore alike express what Numenius, speaking of the
school in general, calls πῦρ αἰθερῶδες Le. πῦρ TEXVLKOV
(Euseb. P. E. xv. 18. 1). What then is the meaning of the
divergence? Stein believes that we have here a piece of
evidence showing a substantial disagreement in the views
taken by Cleanthes and Chrysippus of the ἐκπύρωσις and
that φλὸξ is used with reference to the Sun (see on frag.
24), and αὐγὴ as a representation of the finest aether.
For the connection of φλὸξ with ἥλιος he quotes Diog. L.
vit. 27, Aesch. Pers. 497, Soph. Trach. 693, O. T. 1425
(Stein, Psychologie pp. 70, 71 and the notes). Hirzel’s
explanation is similar (II. p. 211), except that he does not
see any reference to the sun: according to him, Cleanthes
spoke of a permeating πῦρ for which πνεῦμα was substi-
tuted by Chrysippus: but see on frag. 19. For φλόγα cf.
ἐκφλογισθέντος in frag. 24.

252 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES,
24. Stob. Ecl. 1. 17. 3, p. 153, 7, Κλεάνθης δὲ οὕτω

πώς φησιν" ἐκφλογισθέντος τοῦ παντὸς συνίξειν τὸ μέσον
αὐτοῦ πρῶτον, εἶτα τὰ ἐχόμενα ἀποσβέννυσθαι Sv ὅλου.
τοῦ δὲ παντὸς ἐξυγρανθέντος τὸ ἔσχατον τοῦ πυρός, ἀντι-
τυπήσαντος αὐτῷ τοῦ μέσου, τρέπεσθαι πάλιν εἰς τοὐναν-
τίον, εἶθ᾽ οὕτω τρεπόμενον ἄνω φησὶν αὔξεσθαι καὶ ἄρχεσ-
θαι διακοσμεῖν τὸ ὅλον" καὶ τοιαύτην περίοδον αἰεὶ καὶ
διακόσμησιν ποιουμένου τὸν ἐν τῇ τῶν ὅλων οὐσίᾳ τόνον
μὴ παύεσθαι. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἑνός τινος τὰ μέρη πάντα φύεται
ἐκ σπερμάτων ἐν τοῖς καθήκουσι χρόνοις, οὕτω καὶ τοῦ
ὅλου τὰ μέρη, ὧν καὶ τὰ ζῷα καὶ τὰ φυτὰ ὄντα τυγχάνει,
ἐν τοῖς καθήκουσι χρόνοις φύεται. καὶ ὥσπερ τινὲς λόγοι
τῶν μερῶν εἰς σπέρμα συνιόντες μίγνυνται καὶ αὖθις
διακρίνονται γινομένων τῶν μερῶν, οὕτως ἐξ ἑνός τε πάντα
γίνεσθαι καὶ ἐκ πάντων εἰς ὃν συγκρίνεσθαι, ὁδῷ καὶ
συμφώνως διεξιούσης τῆς περιόδου.

The explanation of the first part of this difficult frag-
ment appears to be as follows :—When everything has been
set on fire and the tendency of all things to become
absorbed in the πῦρ ἀειξῷον has been satisfied, the reaction
commences in the centre, and spreads towards the ex-
tremities until everything except the outer rim is in a
watery mass. Seneca, N. Q. m1. 13. 1, nihil relinqui...
aliud, igne restincto, quam humorem. In hoe futuri
mundi spem latere. Then the remaining portions 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
existence, then, is 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 σφαῖρος is always readier
to admit the loosening of tension, while the bracing in-

a συν
a

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 255

vigorating vivifying power, which knits together the frame
of the universe as of the individual, is in fullest sway in
the parts at the circumference (hence ἄνω αὔξεσθαι).
This is the theory of tension as applied to the διακόσ-
μησις, and its statement constitutes the most important
contribution made by Cleanthes to Stoicism. A difficulty
in the above exposition remains to be stated:—Why is
there no created world in the period between ἐκπύρωσις
and ἐξύγρωσις, as there must then be a time when the
two influences are of equal strength? The answer, perhaps,
is that during the whole of this period there is an ever-
increasing slackening of tension, as the fire of the ἐκπύ-
pwors is gradually extinguished, and slackening of tension
produces not life but death (Plut. plac. v. 24 etce.); the
creation of the world only starts when τὸ ἔσχατον τοῦ
πυρὸς τρέπεται εἰς τοὐναντίον. There is also a divergent
view, namely, that the destruction of the world may be
compassed by κατακλυσμὸς as well as by ἐκπύρωσις.
This implies that our world can exist during the tran-
sition towards ἐξύγρωσις. Cf. Sen. N. Q. πι. 29. 1 and
Heraclit. Alleg. Hom. ο. 25, p. 53, quoted by Zeller p. 169,
1. Schol. on Lucan vu. 813 ἐκπύρωσις, quam secuturam
κατακλυσμοὺς adserunt Stoici, seems to have been over-
looked, but is of doubtful import. Stein’s account of the
διακόσμησις (Psych. p. 32 foll.) is radically different, but I
do not see how it can be reconciled with this passage :
(1). the creation of the world is due to a slackening of
tension in the original fiery substance, and (2) τὸ ἔσχατον
τοῦ πυρὸς 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 this remnant of fire begins to exert its influence.
Hirzel discusses the present passage at some length
(Untersuchungen 11 p. 124—134). He strongly insists

254 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

that τὸ ἔσχατον meansextremum (das Feuer des Umkreises)
and not reliquum, and that Philo περὶ ἀφθ. κόσμου 18,
(μετὰ τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν ἐπειδὰν ὁ νέος κόσμος μέλλῃ δη-
μιουργεῖσθαι σύμπαν μὲν τὸ πῦρ οὐ σβέννυται ποσὴ δέ τις
αὐτοῦ μοῖρα ὑπολείπεται) follows Chrysippus and not
Cleanthes. It would seem, however, that the distinction
is not important, as ἔσχατον must in this case be both

extremum and reliquum. Further on he suggests that —

Cleanthes did not maintain the doctrine of the four
elements, but cf. 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 τείνεσθαι is sound, Zeno is confessedly
dealing with another point, viz. the explanation of how
the separate parts of the κόσμος are kept in one solid mass
and why they are not scattered into the void. Ogereau p.
10 attributes the introduction of roves to Zeno, and
depreciates the performances of Cleanthes (p. 19); but he
insists throughout too strongly on the unity of the school,
without considering its historical development.

τὸ μέσον, cf. Stob. ἘΠ]. 1. 21, 3° p. 183, 3, ἀπὸ γῆς δὲ
ἄρξασθαι τὴν γένεσιν τοῦ κόσμου, καθάπερ ἀπὸ κέντρου,
ἀρχὴ δὲ σφαίρας τὸ κέντρον.

ἐξυγρανθέντος, cf. Diog. L. vit. 135, 136 quoted on Zeno
frag. 52.

τρεπομένου. MSS. corr. Canter.

τὸν... «τόνον. The MSS. have rod...révov. The reading
in the text is due to Mein., whom Wachsm. now follows,
although he formerly (Comm. 1, p. 11) kept the MSS.
reading, removing. the colon after ὅλον and inserting
commas after καὶ and τόνου There is some mistake
in Stein’s note on this point, Psychol. π, 41.

ἐκ σπερμάτων. Of. Zeno frag. 54 = Cleanth, frag. 22, and
see Ritter and Preller § 402.

ee

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 255

λόγοι Was unnecessarily suspected by the older edd. of
Stobaeus. The conj. τόνου is tempting, but Wachsm.
quotes Mare. Aurel. 1x. 1, ὥρμησεν (ἡ φύσις) ἐπὶ τήνδε THY
διακόσμησιν συλλαβοῦσά τινας λόγους τῶν ἐσομένων
«.7.. The best parallel is Zeno frag. 106, which puts
the text beyond dispute. τινὲς λόγοι τῶν μερών =
certain proportions of the constituent parts of the soul.

γινομένων P. γεινομένων F, whence γενομένων Mein.
Wachsm. Diels: but the present, accepted by Hirzel 1.
p. 126, seems preferable.

εἰς is bracketed by Diels and Wachsm.

25. Plut. Comm. Not. 31, 10, ἔτει τοίνυν ἐπαγωνιζόμενος
ὁ Κλεάνθης τῇ ἐκπυρώσει λέγει τὴν σελήνην Kal τὰ λοιπὰ
ἄστρα τὸν ἥλιον ἐξομοιώσειν πάντα ἑαυτῷ, καὶ μεταβαλεῖν
εἰς ἑαυτόν.

As the sun is, according to Cleanthes, the ἡγεμονικὸν
τοῦ κόσμου, the πῦρ ἀειζῷον may be supposed to exist
there in its purest form (cf. the authorities cited by
Zeller, Stoics p. 204, 3, Krische p. 386), and to this the
moon and the other stars will be assimilated at the
ἐκπύρωσις.

ἐξομοιώσειν. MSS. have ἐξομοιῶσαι corr. Zeller, p. 165,
n. 4.

26. Stob. Ecl. τ. 15, 6* p. 146, 19, Κλεάνθης μόνος
τῶν Στωικῶν τὸ πῦρ ἀπεφήνατο κωνοειδές.

Presumably this refers to the fire of the revolving
aether, for the doctrine appears to be borrowed from the
Pythagoreans cf. Stob. Ecl. 1. 15, 6" p. 146, 14, οἱ ἀπὸ
Πυθαγόρου...μόνον τὸ ἀνώτατον πῦρ Kwvoedés. This is
supposed to refer to the Milky Way (Zeller, pre-Socratics,
I. p. 466 n. 2), cf. infra frags. 32, 33.

27. Plut, de facie in orbe lunae c. 6, 3, ὥσπερ

256 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

᾿Αρίσταρχον mero δεῖν Κλεάνθης τὸν Σάμιον ἀσεβείας
προσκαλεῖσθαι τοὺς “Ελληνας, ὡς κινοῦντα τοῦ κόσμου τὴν
ἑστίαν, ὅτε <td> φαινόμενα σώζειν ἁνὴρ ἐπειρᾶτο, μένειν
τὸν οὐρανὸν ὑποτιθέμενος, ἐξελίττεσθαι δὲ κατὰ λοξοῦ
κύκλου τὴν γῆν, ἅμα καὶ περὶ τὸν αὑτῆς ἄξονα δινουμένην.

This comes from the treatise πρὸς ᾿Αρίσταρχον:
Introd. p. 51.

᾿Αρίσταρχον: the celebrated mathematician. For the
theory here attacked cf. Sext. Math. x. 174, of ye μὴν τὴν
- τοῦ κόσμου κίνησιν ἀνελόντες τὴν δὲ γῆν κινεῖσθαι δοξά-
σαντες, ὡς οἱ περὶ ᾿Αρίσταρχον τὸν μαθηματικόν KT.
Stob. Ecl. τ. 25, 3* p. 212, 2, ᾿Αρίσταρχος τὸν ἥλιον ἵστησι
μετὰ τῶν ἀπλανῶν τὴν δὲ γῆν κινεῖσθαι περὶ τὸν ἡλιακὸν
κύκλον. (This also illustrates κατὰ λοξοῦ κύκλου.) It
appears however to be doubtful whether Aristarchus
propounded this view otherwise than hypothetically: ef.
Plut. quaest. Plat. vir. 1, 2, 3. |

ἀσεβείας προσκαλεῖσθαι. For the γραφὴ ἀσεβείας see
Attischer Process ed. Lipsius, pp. 366—375, and οὗ the
case of Anaxagoras (ib. p. 370). Every γραφή, as well as
an ordinary civil action, commenced with the πρόσκλησις
or writ of summons (ib. p. 770 f.).

ἑστίαν : alluding to the central position of the earth.
Aesch. Ag. 1056 ἑστίας μεσομφάλου, Virg. Aen. I. 512
aedibus in mediis nudoque sub aetheris axe ingens ara
fuit. It is possible that Cleanthes had in his mind the
Pythagorean description of the central fire as ἑστία τοῦ
παντός: see Dr Thompson on Phaedr. 247 a, μένει yap
“Ἑστία ἐν θεῶν οἴκῳ μόνη.

τὰ φαινόμενα σώζειν : “to save appearances:” for which
phrase see Prof. Mayor in Journ. Phil. vi. 171.

28. Euseb. P. E. xv. 15. 7, Ar. Did. fr. 29 ap. Diels,
p- 465, ἡγεμονικὸν δὲ τοῦ κόσμου Κλεάνθει μὲν ἤρεσε τὸν

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 257

ἥλιον εἶναι διὰ TO μέγιστον τῶν ἄστρων ὑπάρχειν Kal
πλεῖστα συμβάλλεσθαι πρὸς τὴν τῶν wv διοίκησιν,
ἡμέραν καὶ ἐνιαυτὸν ποιοῦντα καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ὥρας.
Censorin. frag. 1, 4, et constat quidem quattuor elementis
terra aqua igne aere. cuius principalem solem quidam
putant, ut Cleanthes. Diog. vil. 139. Stob. Ecl. τ. 21. 6°
p. 187, 4, Κλεάνθης ὁ Στωικὸς ἐν ἡλίῳ ἔφησεν εἶναι τὸ
ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου. Οἷο. Acad. I. 126, Cleanthes,
qui quasi majorum est gentium Stoicus, Zenonis auditor,
solem dominari et rerum potiri putat.

There is no warrant whatever for Krische’s suggestion
(p. 435), that Cleanthes probably (“wahrscheinlich ἢ)
adopted the Heraclitean theory of the daily renewal of
the sun: everything points the other way. At the same
time, the important position assigned to the sun was
probably due to his Heraclitean studies (see Introd.
p. 50), for, though Heraclitus himself did not maintain
this doctrine, we read of the Heraclitean school in Plat.
Cratyl. 418 B, τὸν ἥλιον. ..διαΐοντα καὶ κάοντα ἐπιτροπεύειν

τὰ ὄντα. Cf. Pliny, N. H. 11 12 (cited by Hirzel, Π. p. 138).

29. Stob. Ecl. τ. 25. 81 p. 211, 18, Κλεάνθης avappa
νοερὸν τὸ ἐκ θαλάττης τὸν ἥλιον. περὶ δὲ τῶν τροπῶν
φασι κατὰ τὸ διάστημα τῆς ὑποκειμένης τροφῆς" ὠκεανὸς
δ᾽ ἐστὶ * * * hs τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἐπινέμεται. συγκαταφέρεσ-
θαι δὲ τὸν ἥλιον κινούμενον ἕλικα ἐν τῇ σφαίρᾳ, ἀπὸ τοῦ
ἰσημερινοῦ ἐπί τε ἄρκτου καὶ νότου, ἅπερ ἐστὶ πέρατα
τῆς ἕλικος. Cic. N. D. π|. 37, Quid enim? non eisdem
vobis placet omnem ignem pastus indigere nec permanere
ullo modo posse, nisi alitur: ali autem solem, lunam,
reliqua astra aquis, alia dulcibus, alia marinis? eamque
causam Cleanthes adfert cur se sol referat nec longius
progrediatur solstitiali orbi itemque brumali, ne longius
discedat a cibo. Macrob. Sat. 1. 23, 2, ideo enim sicut et

H. P. 17

258 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.

Wachsmuth regards Cic. and Stob. 1]. cc. as containing
two distinct fragments (Comm. 1. fr. phys. 7 and 8), but
the passage in Cic. is only a verbal expansion of περὶ
τροπῶν..-.τροφῆς. Wachsm. does not cite Macrob. 1]. «.
This is one of the points which attest Cleanthes’ study of
Heraclitus, cf. Stob. Ecl. 1, 25. 1% p. 239, 5. Hirzel con-
cludes (11. p. 122) from the evidence, that Cleanthes, like
Heraclitus, spoke only of the feeding of the sun by
exhalations, and not also of that of the moon and stars.

dvappa «rd. cf. Plut. plac. 1. 20. 3, περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου,
of Στωικοὶ ἄναμμα νοερὸν ἐκ θαλάττης. Diog. vil. 145,
τρέφεσθαι δὲ τὰ ἔμπυρα ταῦτα (1.6. the sun and moon)
καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἄστρα" τὸν μὲν ἥλιον ἐκ τῆς μεγάλης θαλάτ-
της νοερὸν ὄντα ἄναμμα, whereas the moon is fed with
fresh water, and is mixed with air. Chrysippus ap. Stob.
Ecl. τ. 25. 5, τὸν ἥλιον εἶναι τὸ ἀθροισθὲν ἔξαμμα νοερὸν ἐκ
τοῦ τῆς θαλάττης ἀναθυμιάματος. Wachsmuth adds Galen,
hist. phil. c, Lv. p. 277 K., ὠκεανὸν δὲ καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν
παρέχειν τῷ ἡλίῳ τροφὴν τὴν αὑτοῦ ὑγρότητα ἔχουσαν ἐν
αὑτῷ καὶ τὴν γεώδη ἀναθυμίασιν.

τροπῶν: a necessary correction by Bake for the Mss.
τροφῶν.

φασι MSS. Wachsm. suggests φησι.

ἐστί: there is a lacuna after this word. Wachsmuth
formerly (Comm. I. p. 10) supplied καὶ γῇ coll. Plut. plac.
π. 23, 3, but he now writes: “lacuna fuit in Aetii exemplo, —
quod cum Ps. Plutarcho legit Stobaeus; Plut. ἢ yj add.;
Aetius καὶ ἡ μεγάλη θάλασσα vel simile scripsit,” quoting
the passages cited above.

συγκαταφέρεσθαι 1.6. with the aether, which is itself in
motion.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 259

ἕλικα, cf. Diog. L. vu. 144, τὸν δὲ ἥλιον λοξὴν τὴν
πορείαν ποιεῖσθαι διὰ τοῦ ζωδιακοῦ κύκλου, ὁμοίως καὶ
τὴν σελήνην ἑλικοειδῆ. The discovery of the inclination
of the earth’s orbit to that of the sun is attributed by
some to Anaximander, and by others to Pythagoras (Zeller,
pre-Socratics 1. p. 455, 2).

30. Cic. N. D. 11 40, atque ea (sidera) quidem tota
esse ignea duorum sensuum testimonio confirmari Cleanthes
putat, tactus et oculorum. nam solis et candor illustrior
est quam ullius ignis, quippe qui immenso mundo tam
longe lateque colluceat, et is eius tactus est, non ut
tepefaciat solum, sed etiam saepe comburat. quorum
neutrum faceret, nisi esset igneus. “ergo,” inquit, “cum
sol igneus sit Oceanique alatur humoribus, quia nullus
ignis sine pastu aliquo possit permanere, necesse est aut
ei similis sit igni quem adhibemus ad usum atque ad
victum, aut ei, qui corporibus animantium continetur.
atqui hic noster ignis, quem usus vitae requirit, confector
est et consumptor omnium idemque, quocumque invasit,
cuncta disturbat ac dissipat. contra ille corporeus vitalis
et salutaris omnia conservat, alit, auget, sustinet sensu-
que adficit.” negat ergo esse dubium horum ignium sol
utri similis sit, cum is quoque efficiat ut omnia floreant
et Im suo quaeque genere pubescant. quare cum solis
ignis similis 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.

testumonio: this passage illustrates two characteristics,
which are specially prominent in Cleanthes: (1) his
activity in the investigation of the problems of natural
science, and (2) his confidence in the results of sense obser-
vation. Stein, Psychol. p. 69, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 319.

17—2

260 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Oceani: ef. frag. 29.

et...igni: for the two kinds of fire cf. Zeno frag. 71.

corporeus: see on frag. 42.

aether vel caelwm: hence in Zeno frag. 111 Zeus is
identified with caelwm in place of the usual gloss aether.

31. Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 8. 48. 674 P. 243 S., οὐκ
ἀνέγνωσαν δ᾽ οὗτοι Κλεάνθην τὸν φιλόσοφον, ὃς ἄντικρυς
πλῆκτρον τὸν ἥλιον καλεῖ" ἐν γὰρ ταῖς ἀνατολαῖς ἐρείδων

τὰς αὐγὰς οἷον πλήσσων τὸν κόσμον, εἰς τὴν ἐναρμόνιον —

/ A “Ὁ » > \ “ ¢ / / \ Ν
πορείαν τὸ φῶς ἄγει, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου σημαίνει καὶ τὰ
λοιπὰ ἄστρα.

πλῆκτρον: Krische p. 400 connects this with the Stoic —

identification of Heracles with the sun. Thus Heracles is

τὸ πληκτικὸν Kal διαιρετικόν (Plut. de Iside c. 40), and —

his name is derived from ἀὴρ and κλάσις by Porphyrius
ap. Euseb. P. E. 1m. p. 112 ©, and Nicomachus ap. Laur.
Lyd. de Mens. Iv. 46. πλῆκτρον is properly “any striking
instrument”: hence lightning is described as πλῆκτρον
διόβολον πυρὸς κεραυνόν (Eur. Alc. 128): ef. especially
Plut. de Pyth. orac. c. 16 ad fin. ὕστερον μέντοι πλῆκτρον
ἀνέθηκαν τῷ θεῷ χρυσοῦν ἐπιστήσαντες, ὡς ἔοικε, Σκυθίνῳ
λέγοντι περὶ τῆς λύρας, ἣν ἁρμόζεται Ζηνὸς εὐειδὴς ᾿Απόλ-
λων, πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος συλλαβών" ἔχει δὲ λαμπρὸν
πλῆκτρον ἡλίου φάος (quoted by Hirzel, p. 181). Eur.
Suppl. 650, λαμπρὰ μὲν ἀκτίς, ἡλίου κανὼν σαφής.
Sandys on Bacch. 308, and Milton’s “ With touch ethereal
of Heaven’s fiery rod.”

32. Stob. Ecl. τ. 26. 1' p. 219, 14, Κλεάνθης πυροειδῆ
τὴν σελήνην, πιλοειδῆ δὲ τῷ σχήματι.

πυροειδῆ: but the fire of the moon is not so pure as that
of the sun, being fed with grosser matter. Cf. Diog. L. vi.
144, εἶναι δὲ τὸν μὲν ἥλιον εἰλικρινὲς πῦρ...14ὅ, yewdeo-
τέραν δὲ τὴν σελήνην.

a

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 261

πιλοειδῆ: the MSS. have πηλοειδῆ corrected by Lipsius
(Phys. Stoic π΄ 13), who also suggests πολυειδῆ, to πὸ-
χοειδῆ, in which correction he is followed by the editors
of Stobaeus. But what is the meaning of this word as
applied to shape? In this connection “like felt” (L. and
S.) is nonsense. Zeller translates “ ball-shaped,” which
is improbable because, apart from other considerations, it
is almost certain that Cleanthes did not regard the moon as
spherical. There remains Hirzel’s suggested rendering :—
“shaped like a skull-cap.” The only justification for such
an absurdity is to be found in the Heraclitean σκαφοειδής
(Stob. Ecl. 1. 26. 1° p. 218, 8), for no support can be derived
from πιλήματα ἀέρος (Anaximander) or νέφος πεπιλημένον
(Xenophanes), which simply refer to densely packed clouds.
Krische, p. 435, boldly reads κωνοειδῆ which gives the
required sense, but is not close enough to the MSS. It is
suggested therefore that the true reading is ἡλιοειδῆ, the
II being due to dittography of the following H. There
would be no obscurity in this, assuming Cleanthes or his
epitomiser to have previously described the sun as κωνοειδής
(cf. frag. 83). The other Stoics consistently describe the
moon as σφαιροειδής (Stob. Hcl. 1. 26. 1* 1} p; 219; 20; 26):

33. Stob. Ἐπ]. τ. 24 2% p. 205, 25, of μὲν ἄλλου
«Στωικοὶ; σφαιρικοὺς αὐτούς, Κλεάνθης δὲ κωνοειδεῖς
(8611. the stars). Plut. plac. m 14. 2. Galen, hist. phil.
c. 13 (XIX. 271 K.), Κλεάνθης κωνοειδεῖς τοὺς ἀστέρας.
Achill. Tat. p. 133° Κλεάνθης αὐτοὺς (sc. τοὺς ἀστέρας)
κωνοειδὲς ἔχειν σχῆμά φησι. Theodoret, Gr. Cur. aff. Iv.
20, p. 59. 16, κωνοειδεῖς δὲ Κλεάνθης 6 Στωικός.

Cleanthes attributed a conical shape to fire, sun, moon,
and stars. There is no direct evidence as to the sun and
moon, but it is a fair inference from the authorities that
they also were conical. It is probable, moreover, that

262 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Cleanthes was moved by the consideration that Heraclitus
described sun, moon and stars as boat-shaped (σκαφοειδῆ),
ef. Stob. Ecl. 1. 25. 16 26. 1°, Diog. L. 1x. 9. Krische is
apparently right in inferring that the same is true of the
world, cf. Plut. plac. 11. 2. 1, of μὲν Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ
τὸν κόσμον, ἄλλοι δὲ κωνοειδῆ, οἱ δὲ φοειδῆ.

84. Plut. plac. π. 16. 1, ᾿Αναξαγόρας καὶ Δημόκριτος
καὶ Κλεάνθης ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν ἐπὶ δυσμὰς φέρεσθαι πάντας
τοὺς ἀστέρας. Galen, hist. phil. ο. 18, xrx. 972 K.’A.
καὶ A. καὶ Κλ. ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν eis δυσμὰς φέρεσθαι τοὺς
ἀστέρας νομίζουσιν.

πάντας in Plut. apparently includes ἀπλανῆ ἄστρα as
well as the πλανώμενα: the former are said συμπερι-
φέρεσθαι τῷ ὅλῳ οὐρανῷ, τὰ δὲ πλανώμενα κατ᾽ ἰδίας
κινεῖσθαι κινήσεις (Diog. vit. 144). Full information
on the ancient theories as to the rising and setting of
the stars will be found in Achill. Tat. Isag. cc. 37, 38.

35. Gemin. elem. astrom. p.53 (in Petau’s Uranologia),
ὑπὸ τὴν διακεκαυμένην ἕώνην τινὲς τῶν ἀρχαίων ἀπεφή-
ναντο, ὧν ἐστι καὶ Κλεάνθης ὁ Στωικὸς φιλόσοφος, ὑπο-
κεχύσθαι μεταξὺ τῶν τροπικῶν τὸν ὠκεανόν.

This fragment is taken from Wachsmuth’s collection
(fr. phys. 27, Comm. τι. p. 14): ef. frag. 29 and Macrob. 1.
23, 2 there cited. Krische, p. 393, refers this to the in-
fluence of Zeno’s studies on Homer. “Hiernach michte
ich glauben, dass Zenon dort auch den Homerischen Ocean
aufgesucht und dadurch den Kleanthes und Krates auf-
gefordert habe, dieselbe Betrachtung zu erneuern.” Cf.
Achill. Tat. Isag. c. 29, p. 89:—There are five zones: Arctic,
Antarctic, two temperate (εὔκρατοι), μία δὲ διακεκαυμένη.
ἡ δὲ τούτων μέση πασῶν ἔστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ θερινοῦ τροπικοῦ
μέχρι τοῦ χειμερινοῦ τροπικοῦ" τοσοῦτον γὰρ πλάτος ἔχει,

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 263

ς

ὅσον καὶ ὁ ἥλιος περιέρχεται. καλεῖται δὲ διακεκαυμένη
διὰ τὸ πυρώδης εἶναι, τοῦ ἡλίου δι’ αὐτῆς τὴν πορείαν ἀεὶ
ποιουμένου. Posidonius, as we learn from ib. 31, p. 90,
made six zones, dividing the torrid zone into two.

36. Tertullian de An. c. 5, vult et Cleanthes non
solum corporis lineamentis, sed et animae notis simili-
tudinem parentibus in filios respondere, de speculo scilicet
morum et ingeniorum et adfectuum: corporis autem simi-
litudinem et dissimilitudinem capere: et animam itaque
corpus similitudini vel dissimilitudini obnoxiam. item
corporalium et incorporalium passiones inter se non com-
municare. porro et animam compati corpori, cui laeso
ictibus, vulneribus, ulceribus condolescit, et corpus animae,
cui adflictae cura, angore, amore, coaegrescit, per detri-
mentum scilicet vigoris, culus pudorem, et pavorem rubore
atque pallore testetur. igitur anima corpus ex corporalium
passionum commutatione. Nemesius, Nat. Hom. p. 32,
ὁ Κλεάνθης τοιόνδε πλέκει συλλογισμόν. οὐ μόνον
φησὶν ὅμοιοι τοῖς γονεῦσι γινόμεθα κατὰ τὸ σῶμα ἀλλὰ
καὶ κατὰ τὴν Ψυχὴν τοῖς πάθεσι, τοῖς ἤθεσι, ταῖς διαθέσεσι.
σώματος δὲ τὸ ὅμοιον καὶ τὸ ἀνόμοιον, οὐχὶ δὲ ἀσωμάτου,
σῶμα ἄρα ἡ ψυχή. ..ἔτι δὲ ὁ Κλεάνθης φησίν οὐδὲν ἀσώ-
μάτον συμπάσχει σώματι, οὐδὲ ἀσωμάτῳ σῶμα, ἀλλὰ
σῶμα σώματι" συμπάσχει δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ τῷ σώματι νοσοῦντι
καὶ τεμνομένῳ καὶ τὸ σῶμα τῇ ψυχῆ; αἰσχυνομένης γοῦν
ἐρυθρὸν γίνεται καὶ φοβουμένης ὠχρόν: σῶμα apa 7
ψυχή. Tertullian de An. c. 25, unde oro te similitudine
animae quoque parentibus de ingeniis respondemus secun-
dum Cleanthis testimonium, si non ex animae semine
educimur?

The Nemesius passage is regarded as a distinct frag-
ment from the two places in Tertullian by Wachsmuth
(Comm. It. fr. phys. 20, 21), but, as Hirzel has observed, they

Or

20

25

264 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES,

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 knowledge. But through the
seed a capacity for knowledge, and ethical tendencies in
particular, are transplanted from father to son: see also
Introd. p. 38 f.

5. The ordinary punctuation of this passage puts a
full stop at animam, with no stop after capere, but this
gives no satisfactory sense. Mr Hicks would strike out
the words capere et, remove the stop after animam, and
alter obnoxium to obnoxiam. The latter change, which is
a decided improvement, I have adopted, and, by putting
the stop after capere, the required sense is obtained with-
out further alteration.

15. γονεῦσι: cf. Cic. Tuse. 1. 79, vult enim (Panaetius)...
nasci animos, quod declaret eorum similitudo, qui pro-
creentur, quae etiam in ingeniis, non solum in corporibus
appareat. The child receives through the seed the
same grade of tension in the soul as his father, and, as
the activity of the soul depends on its inherent tension,
the mental resemblance between children and parents
is explained. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 130, 131.

16. ἤθεσι: Wachsmuth reads ἔθεσι from the Oxf. ed. of
1671, but cf. Zeno, frag. 147, καταληπτὸν εἶναι τὸ ἦθος ἐξ
εἴδους.

διαθέσεσι: cf. on Zeno, frag. 117.

17. σώματος: agreeably to Stoic tenets, for likeness
and unlikeness cannot be predicated of the non-existent,
_ ef. Zeno, frags. 34 and 91.

19. συμπάσχει: the συμπάθεια μερῶν is an indication to
the Stoic of the ἕνωσις of a body: this is true of the cosmos
no less than of the individual. Sext. Math. rx. 79, who
continues (80), ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἡνωμένων συμπάθειά τις ἔστιν,

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 265

el ye δακτύλου τεμνομένου TO ὅλον συνδιατίθεται σῶμα.
ἡνωμένον τοίνυν ἐστὶ σῶμα καὶ ὁ κόσμος. id. V. 44, οὐδὲ
γὰρ οὕτως ἥνωται τὸ περιέχον ὡς τὸ ἀνθρώπινον σῶμα,
ἵνα, ὃν τρόπον τῇ κεφαλῇ τὰ ὑποκειμένα μέρη συμπάσχει
καὶ τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις ἡ κεφαλή, οὕτω καὶ τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις
τὰ ἐπίγεια. Cic. N.D. 11. 28. The question as between
body and soul is discussed in the pseudo-Aristotelian
φυσιογνωμικά. Cf. Plat. Phaed. 83D. M. Aurel. rx. 9.

37. Stob. Ecl. 1 48. 7, p. 317, 15, Πυθαγόρας, ’Avak-
ayopas, Πλάτων, Ξενοκράτης, Κλεάνθης θύραθεν εἰσκρί-
νεσθαι τὸν νοῦν.

This is an obscure statement which cannot be under-
stood in the same manner of the various philosophers
mentioned. Thus, as regards Pythagoras, it is simply a
deduction from the theory of metempsychosis (Zeller, pre-
Socratics I. p. 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,
p. 596). The terminology however is Aristotle’s (de
Generat. An. IL. 8, p. 736 Ὁ 27, λείπεται δὲ τὸν νοῦν μόνον
θύραθεν ἐπεισιέναι καὶ θεῖον εἶναι μόνον" οὐθὲν γὰρ αὐτοῦ
τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ κοινωνεῖ σωματικὴ ἐνέργεια), Whose doctrine is
widely different from Plato’s. As regards Cleanthes, the
Stoics in general do not distinguish between νοῦς and
ψυχή (see on Zeno, frag. 43): the latter is transmitted in the
seed, developed in the womb, and brought to maturity by
the action of the outer air, so that it is hard to see in
what sense ψυχὴ θύραθεν eicxpiverar. Perhaps the
meaning is that the reasoning powers (νοῦς) are founded
on external impressions, from which Knowledge is derived:
ef. Zeno, frag. 82. Stein, however (Psychol. p. 168 foll.),
believes that by θύραθεν is indicated the action of the
outer air on the embryo at birth, whereby the ψυχὴ is

266. THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES,

developed out of a mere φύσις. In this case Cleanthes
anticipated the Chrysippean doctrine of περίψυξις. Hirzel —
(11. p. 156 foll.) uses this passage in support of his im-
probable view that Cleanthes maintained ἃ tripartite
division of the soul: he sees here also the influence of
Heraclitus. Cic. N.D. 1m 18 might suggest a more
general view, that the point referred to is the material
nature of the soul as πνεῦμα, but the context in Stobaeus
is against this.

38. = Zeno, frag. 83.

There is a curious contradiction in Stein’s Psychologie
on this point. At p. 107 and p. 155 he cites and upholds
the evidence which distinctly attributes to Zeno the
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. =Zeno, frag. 87.
40. = Zeno, frag. 88.

41. Diog. L. vit. 157, Κλεάνθης μὲν οὖν πάσας
ἐπιδιαμένειν (τὰς ψυχὰς) μέχρι τῆς ἐκπυρώσεως, Xpv-
σίππος δὲ τὰς τῶν σοφῶν μόνον.

Cf. R. and P. ὃ 409. Cic. Τυβο. 1. 77, Stoici diu
mansuros aiunt animos, semper negant, cf. Zeno frag. 95.
The teaching of Cleanthes is everywhere more materialistic _
than that of Chrysippus, who was no doubt anxious to
vindicate the purity of the soul essence: see Stein Psychol.
n. 279 and pp. 145—147, who compares their divergence
as to the nature of τύπωσις and the “Urpneuma” (φλὸξ
and αὐγή). Ar. Did. ap. Euseb. P. E. xv. 20. 3 follows
the account of Chrysippus, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν γεννητήν τε καὶ
φθαρτὴν λέγουσιν" οὐκ εὐθὺς δὲ τοῦ σώματος ἀπαλλα-
γεῖσαν φθείρεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιμένειν τινὰς χρόνους καθ᾽
ἑαυτήν" τὴν μὲν τῶν σπουδαίων μέχρι τῆς εἰς πῦρ ἀναλύ-

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 267

a a τ
σεως τῶν πάντων, τὴν δὲ τῶν ἀφρόνων πρὸς ποσούς τινας
if Ἂς \ A τὰ , \ 5 Ψ / \
xpovous...ras δὲ τῶν ἀφρόνων καὶ ἀλόγων ζῴων ψυχὰς
συναπόλλυσθαι τοῖς σώμασιν.

42. Cic. Ν. D. 11. 24, quod quidem Cleanthes his etiam
argumentis docet, quanta vis insit caloris in omni corpore:
negat enim ullum esse cibum tam gravem, quin is die et
nocte concoquatur, cuius etiam in reliquiis inest calor lis,
quas natura respuerit.

This must be regarded as an argument in favour of the
warmth of the vital principle: hence Zeno called the soul
πνεῦμα ἔνθερμον (frag. 85). The excellence of the human
soul consists peculiarly in a suitable mixture (evxpacia) of
warmth and cold. Cf. Galen quod animi mores ete. Iv. 783
K. (quoted at length by Stein, Psychol. p.105). Cleanthes
no doubt was influenced by Heraclitus: cf. frag. 54, Byw.
αὐγὴ ξηρὴ ψυχὴ σοφωτάτη, but substituted warmth for
dryness. It is highly probable that the words immediately
preceding this extract, which are of great importance for
the τόνος 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
qua neque ali possent neque crescere. Nam omne, quod
est calidum et igneum, cietur et agitur motu suo, quod
autem alitur et crescit, motu quodam utitur certo et
aequabili, qui quamdiu remanet in nobis, tam diu sensus et
vita remanet, refrigerato autem et extincto calore occidimus
ipsi et exstinguimur. Compare with this the remarks of
Stein Psychol. p. 32, and Philo de incorr. mundi, p. 507,
Mang. ἅπαν σῶμα ἀναλυόμενον εἰς πῦρ διαλύεταί τε Kai
χεῖται, σβεννυμένης δὲ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ φλογὸς στέλλεται καὶ
συνάγεται. This is one of the many points of contact ,
between the Stoics and the medical school of Hippocrates.
We are reminded of the τόνος of Cleanthes when we read

268 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

that Aristoxenus, the Peripatetic and musician, described
the soul as ipsius corporis intentionem quandam (Cie. Tuse.
I. 20), but the doctrines were totally dissimilar: see Munro
on Lucr, 11. 100.

43. Seneca, Epist. 113, 18, inter Cleanthem et dis-
cipulum eius Chrysippum non convenit quid sit ambulatio:
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, 2, ἀλλὰ
πρὸς τούτοις καὶ τὰς ἐνεργείας σώματα καὶ ζῷα ποιοῦσι,
τὸν περίπατον ζῷον, τὴν ὄρχησιν, τὴν ὑπόθεσιν, τὴν προσ-
αγόρευσιν, τὴν λοιδορίαν.

spiritum: the Greek original of this would be πνεῦμα
διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι ποδῶν (cf. Plut. plac.
Iv. 21). The deviation of Chrysippus from the teaching
of his predecessor was probably caused by a desire to
insist more strongly on the essential unity of the soul. Cf.
Iambl. ap. Stob. Ἐπ]. 1. 49. 33, p. 368, 12, πῶς οὖν δια-
κρίνονται ; κατὰ μὲν τοὺς Στωικοὺς ἔνιαι μὲν διαφορότητι
«τῶν» ὑποκειμένων σωμάτων" πνεύματα γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ
ἡγεμονικοῦ φασιν οὗτοι διατείνειν ἄλλα κατ᾽ ἄλλα, τὰ
μὲν εἰς ὀφθαλμούς, τὰ δὲ εἰς ὦτα, τὰ δὲ εἰς ἄλλα αἰσθη-
τήρια᾽ ἔνιαι δὲ ἰδιότητι ποιότητος περὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὑποκει-
μένον' ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ μῆλον ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ σώματι τὴν
γλυκύτητα ἔχει καὶ τὴν εὐωδίαν, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν
ἐν ταὐτῷ φαντασίαν, συγκατάθεσιν, ὁρμήν, λόγον συν-
εἴληφε. Sext. Math. 1x. 102, πᾶσαι αἱ ἐπὶ τὰ μέρη τοῦ
ὅλου ἐξαποστελλόμεναι δυνάμεις ὡς ἀπό τινος πηγῆς τοῦ
ἡγεμονικοῦ ἐξαποστέλλονται, ὥστε πᾶσαν δύναμιν τὴν
περὶ τὸ μέρος οὖσαν καὶ περὶ τὸ ὅλον εἶναι διὰ τὸ ἀπὸ
τοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἡγεμονικοῦ διαδίδοσθαι. The former passage

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 269

is, I find, also cited by Stein for the same purpose (Psychol.
p. 168). He points out that Cleanthes explained the
different soul functions by means of a πνεῦμα διατεῖνον,
and Chrysippus by ἃ πνεῦμά πως ἔχον. The former
regarded only the grade, while the latter also distinguished
the kind of tension. It is possible that this passage also
points to the different treatment of φαντασία by Cleanthes
and Chrysippus (cf. frag. 3), Cleanthes insisting more
strongly on the immediate contact of the psychical air-
current with the sense organ (Stein, Erkenntnistheorie,
n. 728). Hirzel’s explanation (1. p. 201) is vitiated by his
fundamental error as to Cleanthes’ view of the ἡγεμονικόν.
See also on Zeno frag. 93. There is a certain affinity
between the doctrine here mentioned and that attributed
to Strato of Lampsacus by Sext. Emp. Math. vit. 350, οἱ
δὲ αὐτὴν (scil. τὴν διάνοιαν) εἶναι τὰς αἰσθήσεις, καθάπερ
διά τινων ὀπῶν τῶν αἰσθητηρίων προκύπτουσαν, ἧς
στάσεως ἦρξε Στράτων ὁ φυσικός. Cf. Οἷς: Tuse. 1. 40,
viae quasi quaedam sunt ad oculos, ad aures, ad nares, a
sede animi perforatae.

44. Clem. Alex. Strom. vir. 6. 33. 849 P.304S., ὅθεν
καὶ 6 Αἴσωπος οὐ κακῶς ἔφη τοὺς ὗς κεκραγέναι μέγιστον
ὅταν ἕλκωνται. συνειδέναι γὰρ αὑτοῖς εἰς οὐδὲν ἄλλο
χρησίμοις ἢ πλὴν εἰς τὴν θυσίαν" διὸ καὶ Κλεάνθης φησὶν
ἀνθ᾽ ἁλῶν αὐτοὺς ἔχειν τὴν ψυχήν, ἵνα μὴ σαπῇ τὰ κρέα.
The same saying is attributed to Chrysippus by Cic. N.D.
π. 160, sus vero quid habet praeter escam? cui quidem
ne putesceret animam ipsam pro sale datam dicit esse
Chrysippus: to which add Porphyry de Abstin. 111. 20, ἡ δὲ
ὗς, ἐνταῦθα γάρ ἐστι τῶν χαρίτων τὸ ἥδιστον (8611. τοῦ
Χρυσίππου), οὐ δι’ ἄλλο τι πλὴν θύεσθαι ἐγεγόνει, καὶ τῇ
σαρκὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ὁ θεὸς οἷον ἅλας ἐνέμιξεν. Elsewhere
the statement is ascribed to no definite author. Cic. Fin.

270 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES,

V. 38, ut non inscite illud dictum videatur in sue, animum

_ illi pecudi datum pro sale, ne putisceret. Varro de R. R.
IL 4, 10, suillum pecus donatum ab natura dicunt ad epu-
landum. itaque iis animam datam esse proinde ac salem
quae servaret carnem. Plut. Quaest. Conv. v. 10, 3, διὸ καὶ
τῶν Στωικῶν ἔνιοι τὴν ὑϊνὴν σάρκα κρέα γεγονέναι λέγουσι,
τῆς ψυχῆς ὥσπερ ἁλῶν παρεσπαρμένης ὑπὲρ τοῦ δια-
μένειν. Lastly, we have two passages of similar import
in which a suggested derivation of ds from θύειν is referred
to: Clem. Alex. 1. 20. 105, p. 174 S. p. 484 P., λέγεται
γοῦν τινα τῶν φιλοσοφούντων ἐτυμολογοῦντα τὴν ὗν θῦν
εἶναι φἄναι, ὡς εἰς θύσιν καὶ σφαγὴν μόνον ἐτιτήδειον᾽ δε-
δόσθαι γὰρ τῷδε τῷ Law ψυχὴν πρὸς οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ ἕνεκα
τοῦ τὰς σάρκας σφριγᾶν. Varro R. R. τι. 4, 9, sus Graece
dicitur ὗς, olim θῦς dictus ab illo verbo, quod dicunt θύειν,
quod est inmolare. ab suillo enim [genere] pecore inmo-
landi initium primum sumptum videtur; cuius vestigia
quod initiis Cereris porci inmolantur.

Everything in the world is created for and adapted to
a special end ; the existence of various animals is used as
an argument to prove the government of the world by
πρόνοια (cf. the context in Cic. N.D, 1. 6). In a similar
spirit Epict. Diss. 1. 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 80.

The passages here collected, as well as Zeno frag. 43,
shew conclusively that Stein’s theory (Psych. p. 92 f.) that
the vital principle of animals is not ψυχή, but something
midway between φύσις and ψυχή, ought not to be accepted.
He contends that Marcus Aurelius is the first Stoic who
expressly gives Ψυχὴ to animals, but cf. Zeno frag. 50,
spiritum...fore non naturam, sed animam et quidem
rationabilem, which clearly points to the ἄλογος ψυχὴ of

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES., 271

animals )( Ψυχὴ λόγον ἔχουσα of men. Zeno frag. 56,
1. 41, ψυχὴν ἀφῃρημένον ζῷον, Ar. Did. ap. Euseb. P.E. Xv.
20. 3, τὰς δὲ τῶν ἀφρόνων Kal ἀλόγων ζῴων ψυχάς. To
the passages cited by Stein from Marcus Aurelius add
v. 16, vi. 14.

45. Plut. de sollertia animalium ΧΙ. 2, 3, ὁ μὲν οὖν
Κλεάνθης ἔλεγε, καίπερ οὐ φάσκων μετέχειν λόγου τὰ ζῷα,

, / i ΎΣ Uy lal aE
τοιαύτῃ θεωρίᾳ παρατυχεῖν" μύρμηκας ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ μυρμη-

« , A / ’ , 5 > A

κιὰν ἑτέραν μύρμηκα νεκρὸν φέροντας" ἀνιόντας οὖν ἐκ τῆς
μυρμηκιᾶς ἑτέρους οἷον ἐντυγχάνειν αὐτοῖς καὶ πάλιν

L ᾿ \ n ar \ C ὌΝ , \
κατέρχεσθαι: Kal τοῦτο δὶς ἢ τρὶς γενέσθαι" τέλος δέ, τοὺς.
μὲν κάτωθεν ἀνενεγκεῖν ὥσπερ λύτρα τοῦ νεκροῦ σκώληκα,
τοὺς δ᾽ ἐκεῖνον ἀραμένους, ἀποδόντας δὲ τὸν νεκρὸν οἴχεσ-
θαι. Aelian Nat. An. vi. 50, Κλεάνθην τὸν "Accor κατη-
νάγκασε καὶ ἄκοντα εἶξαι καὶ ἀποστῆναι τοῖς ζῴοις τοῦ
καὶ ἐκεῖνα λογισμοῦ μὴ διαμαρτάνειν, ἀντιλέγοντα ἰσχυρῶς
καὶ κατὰ κράτος, ἱστορία τοιαύτη, φασίν. ἔτυχεν ὁ Kre-
ἄάνθης καθήμενος καὶ μέντοι καὶ σχολὴν ἄγων μακροτέραν
ἄλλως: οὐκοῦν μύρμηκες παρὰ τοῖς ποσὶν ἦσαν αὐτῷ

To pee ION: ἐν Ca ἘΣ > a ces \

πολλοί ὁ δὲ ἄρα ὁρᾷ ἐξ ἀτραποῦ τινος ἑτέρας νεκρὸν
μύρμηκα μύρμηκας ἄλλους κομίζοντας εἰς οἶκον ἑτέρων,
καὶ ἑαυτοῖς οὐ συντρόφων καὶ ἐπί γε τῷ χείλει τῆς μυρ-
μηκιᾶς ἑστῶτας αὐτῷ νεκρῷ, καὶ ἀνιόντας κάτωθεν ἑτέρους
καὶ συνόντας τοῖς ξένοις ὡς ἐπί τινι, εἶτα κατιόντας τοὺς
αὐτούς, καὶ πλεονάκις τοῦτο καὶ τελευτῶντας σκώληκα,
[2 \ , / Fs ~ Ἂς 9 Lal \ lal /
οἱονεὶ λύτρα, κομίσαι" τοὺς δὲ ἐκεῖνον μὲν λαβεῖν, προέσθαι
δὲ ὅνπερ οὖν ἐπήγοντο νεκρόν καὶ ἐκείνους ὑποδέξασθαι
’ tf e ey , Δ 9. ᾿
ἀσμένως, ὡς υἱὸν κομιζομένους ἢ ἀδελφόν.

μετέχειν λόγου τὰ ζῷα: for animals possess indeed ψυχήν,
but ποὺ ψυχὴν λόγον ἔχουσαν καὶ διάνοιαν: hence the

ω Ὗ

term ἄλογα Soa: cf. Sext. Math. x1. 99 foll:—the Stoics
say that the courage of certain of the nobler (γενναῖα)
animals proves that τὸ καλὸν is φύσει αἱρετόν, but only

272 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

ἡ φρονίμη διάθεσις can discern τὸ καλόν: hence 6 adex-
τρύων καὶ 6 ταῦρος μὴ μετέχοντα τῆς φρονίμης διαθέσεως
οὐκ ἂν βλέποι τὸ καλόν τε καὶ ἀγαθόν. Hermes ap. Stob.
Ecl. 1. 41. 6, p. 284, 12, πῶς οὖν ὁρῶμέν τινα τῶν ἀλόγων
ἐπιστήμῃ Kal τέχνῃ χρώμενα, οἷον τοὺς μύρμηκας Tas
τροφὰς ἀποθησαυριζομένους τοῦ χειμῶνος. It was easier,
however, for the Stoics than for those who separate the
soul of man from that of animals by a sharp dividing line,
to make the admission which circumstances forced upon
Cleanthes. 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 ἕξις, plants as φύσις, and
men and animals as yuy7 (Diog. L. vir. 139). Chrysippus
believed that dogs possessed the power of inference (Sext.
Pyrrh. 1. 69). Stein, Psychol. n. 165, is mistaken in quoting
Ael. ΝΑ. Iv. 45 as an authority bearing on this subject. -
The passage, when cited in full, is seen to have an entirely
different application: Ὅμηρος μὲν οὖν φησὶν “ὡς ἀγαθὸν
καὶ παῖδα καταφθιμένοιο λυπέσθαι,᾽ ἔοικε δὲ ἡ φύσις
δεικνύναι, ὅτε καὶ φίλον ἑαυτῷ τιμωρὸν καταλιπεῖν, ὦ
φίλε ὍὍμηρε, κέρδος ἐστίν, οἷόν τι καὶ περὶ Ζήνωνος καὶ
Κλεάνθους νοοῦμεν εἴ τι (or εἴτε) ἀκούομεν, i.e. it was an
advantage to Zeno to leave his friend Cleanthes behind
him to uphold his doctrines.

μύρμηκας: cf. Cic. N.D. 11. 21, num existimas formicam
anteponendam esse huic pulcherrimae urbi, quod in urbe
sensus sit nullus, in formica non modo sensus sed etiam
mens ratio memoria? Aristotle allowed that some animals,
and especially bees, possessed νοῦς (cf. Grote’s Aristotle,
p. 483).

ἄλλως: “aimlessly”: so Eur. Hipp. 375, ἤδη ποτ᾽ ἄλλως
νυκτὸς ἐν μακρῷ χρόνῳ θνητῶν ἐφρόντισ᾽ 4h διέφθαρται
βίος.

po --- τὰν

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 978

ἐξ ἀτραποῦ τινος ἑτέρας: alluding to the practice of ants to
use one narrow path in passing backwards and forwards
between their hole and any other place. Cf. Verg. Aen.
Iv. 404, praedamque per herbas convectant calle angusto.
Georg. 1.379, angustum formica terens iter, where Forbiger
refers to Arist. Hist. An. 1x. 88, del μίαν ἀτραπὸν πάντες

βαδίζουσιν.

46. Cic. Ν' ἢ. τ 37, idemque (Cleanthes) quasi
delirans in iis libris, quos scripsit contra voluptatem, tum
fingit formam quandam et speciem deorum, tum divini-
tatem omnem tribuit astris, tum nihil ratione censet esse
divinius.

quasi delirans: for the treatise περὶ ἡδονῆς see Introd.
p. 53.

formam quandam: either (1) an allusion to the alle-
gorical explanations of the popular deities, whereby they
are identified with the powers of nature, or (2) referring
to ἀνικήτοις ἐν χερσίν in the hymn to Zeus, as Prof. Mayor
suggests.

astris: this position is proved at length in N. 1). 1.
40—44, cf. Chrysippus ap. Stob. Ecl. 1. 21. 5. p. 185, 5,
ἐν ᾧ (αἰθέρι) τὰ ἄστρα καθίδρυται...θεῖα τὴν φύσιν ὄντα
καὶ ἔμψυχα καὶ διοικούμενα κατὰ τὴν πρόνοιαν.

47. Plut. Comm. Not. 31, 5, ἀλλὰ Χρύσιππος καὶ
Κλεάνθης ἐμπεπληκότες, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, τῷ λόγῳ θεών
τὸν οὐρανὸν τὴν γῆν τὸν ἀέρα τὴν θάλατταν οὐδένα τῶν
τοσούτων ἄφθαρτον οὐδ᾽ ἀΐδιον ἀπολελοίπασι, πλὴν μόνου
τοῦ Διός, εἰς ὃν πάντας καταναλίσκουσι τοὺς ἄλλους...
ταῦτα δὲ οὐ...τοῖς δόγμασιν ἕπεται, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ ie
βοῶντες ἐν τοῖς περὶ θεῶν καὶ προνοίας εἱμαρμένης τε καὶ
Φυσέως γράμμασι διαῤῥήδην. λέγουσι τοὺς ἄλλους θεοὺς
ἅπαντας εἶναι yea Kal phapnrOHevas ὑπὸ πυρός,
τηκτοὺς κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ὥσπερ κηρίνους ἢ καττιτερίνους ὄντας.

Η. Ρ. 18

274 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. P

ἐμπεπληκότες: the Stoics would readily admit this: Cicero
makes his Stoic say:—quidquid enim magnam utilitatem
generi adferret humano, id non sine divina bonitate erga
homines fieri arbitrabantur (N.D. 1. 60).

Avs: Zeus is here identified, as often, with the supreme
Stoic God: see Zeller, p. 358.

ἐν τοῖς περὶ θεῶν «+A. Chrysippus wrote περὶ θεῶν
(Diog. vil. 148), περὶ προνοίας (ib. 139), περὶ εἱμαρμένης
(ib. 149), and φυσικά (ib. 39). For Cleanthes περὶ θεῶν
see Introd. p. 51.

φθαρησομένους: cf. Chrysipp. ap. Plut. Sto. Rep. 38, 5.
Plut. de def. Or. ο. 19, καίτοι τοὺς Στωικοὺς γινώσκομεν
ov μόνον κατὰ δαιμόνων ἣν λέγω δόξαν ἔχοντας, ἀλλὰ καὶ
θεῶν ὄντων τοσούτων τὸ πλῆθος ἑνὶ χρωμένους ἀϊδίῳ καὶ
ἀφθάρτῳ, τοὺς δ᾽ ἄλλους καὶ γεγονέναι καὶ φθαρήσεσθαι
νομίζοντας.

48. Stob. Ἐπ]. 1. 1. 12. p. 25,3. Κλεάνθους.

κύδιστ᾽ ἀθανάτων, πολυώνυμε, παγκρατὲς αἰεί,
Ζεῦ, φύσεως ἀρχηγέ, νόμου μέτα πάντα κυβερνῶν,
χαῖρε' σὲ γὰρ πάντεσσι θέμις θνητοῖσι προσαυδᾶν.
ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ γένος ἐσμέν, ᾿ ἤχου μίμημα λαχόντες
μοῦνοι, ὅσα Swe τε καὶ ἕρπει θνήτ᾽ ἐπὶ γαῖαν' 5
τῷ σε καθυμνήσω καὶ σὸν κράτος ἀιὲν ἀείσω.

\ \ a ¢ , ε ‘ \ a
σοὶ δὴ πᾶς ὅδε κόσμος, ἑλισσόμενος περὶ γαῖαν,
πείθεται, ἣ κεν ἄγῃς, καὶ ἑκὼν ὑπὸ σεῖο κρατεῖται"
τοῖον ἔχεις ὑποεργὸν ἀνικήτοις ἐνὶ χερσὶν
> , , i: t pe
ἀμφήκη, Tupoevt , ἀειζώοντα κεραυνόν 10
τοῦ γὰρ ὑπὸ πληγῇς φύσεως πάντ᾽ ἐρρίγα «σιν;"
ᾧ σὺ κατευθύνεις κοινὸν λόγον, ὃς διὰ πάντων
φοιτᾷ, μυγνύμενος μεγάλοις μικροῖς τε φάεσσι'
[ὡς τόσσος γεγαὼς ὕπατος βασιλεὺς διὰ παντός,

0 ’ > a ἃ -"
οὐδέ τι γίγνεται ἔργον ἐπὶ χθονὶ σοῦ δίχα, δαῖμον, 15
οὔτε κατ᾽ αἰθέριον θεῖον πόλον οὔτ᾽ ἐνὶ πόντῳ,

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 975

, ὝΕΣ 3
πλὴν ὁπόσα ῥέζουσι κακοὶ σφετέρῃσιν avoiats
’ , Lal
ἀλλὰ σὺ Kal τὰ περισσά-- τ᾽ »ἐπίστασαι ἄρτια θεῖναι,
\ a Μ \ χὰ / \ I 3 /
Kal κοσμεῖν τἄκοσμα Kal ov φίλα σοὶ φίλα ἐστίν,
ἃ ἣν a
ὧδε yap εἰς ἕν πάντα συνήρμοκας ἐσθλὰ κακοῖσιν, 20
WA > of , U , δ. ἦς ban 2
ὥσθ᾽ ἕνα γίγνεσθαι πιάντων λόγον αἰὲν ἐόντα,
ε ᾿ A Ὁ / ᾿
ὃν φεύγοντες ἐῶσιν ὅσοι θνητῶν κακοί εἰσι,
Ὁ A /
δύσμοροι, of T ἀγαθῶν μὲν ἀεὶ κτῆσιν ποθέοντες
᾿ lal a εἶ ,} Yi /
οὔτ᾽ ἐσορῶσι θεοῦ κοινὸν νόμον, οὔτε κλύουσιν,
A / \ , ἘΣ
ᾧ κεν πειθόμενοι σὺν νῷ βίον ἐσθλὸν ἔχοιεν. Za
a 2) I
αὐτοὶ δ᾽ αὖθ᾽ ὁρμῶσιν ἄνοι κακὸν ἄλλος ἐπ᾽ ἄλλο,
© x ic x , \ / ”
οἱ μὲν ὑπὲρ δόξης σπουδὴν δυσέριστον ἔχοντες,
᾽ \ /
οἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ κερδοσύνας τετραμμένοι οὐδενὶ κόσμῳ,
Μ > >’ ” \ / «ς 7 »Μ
ἄλλοι δ᾽ εἰς ἄνεσιν καὶ σώματος ἡδέα ἔργα
ii
ve Aer eon yr eee tp ἐπ᾽ ἄλλοτε δ᾽ ἄλλα φέροντες, 90
, ‘4 , > ie a /
σπεύδοντες μάλα πάμπαν ἐναντία τῶνδε γενέσθαι.
9 \ a , > ,
αλλὰ Zed πάνδωρε, κελαινεφές, ἀργικέραυνε,
ΕῚ 7 \ \ a
avOpatrous<pev>pvou ἀπειροσύνης ἀπὸ λυγρῆς,
“δ , / ‘4 a \ a
ἣν ov, πάτερ, σκέδασον ψυχῆς ἄπο, δὸς δὲ κυρῆσαι
id - / \ a ~
γνώμης, 7 πίσυνος σὺ δίκης μέτα πάντα κυβερνᾶς, 35
Μ » ΩΝ x > / / a
ὄφρ᾽ av τιμηθέντες ἀμειβώμεσθά oe τιμῇ,
€ na \ ”
ὑμνοῦντες τὰ σὰ ἔργα διηνεκές, ws ἐπέοικε
fal \ 9: ἢ e | > q Mv an / » Lal
νητὸν €ovT , ἐπεὶ οὔτε βροτοῖς γέρας ἄλλο τι μεῖζον,
Μ - Ν ᾽ ς an
οὔτε θεοῖς, ἢ κοινὸν ἀεὶ νόμον ἐν δίκῃ ὑμνεῖν.

1. πολυώνυμε: not merely in the popular religion, but
more particularly from the Stoic standpoint, cf. Diog. L.
Vil. 147 δημιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων, Kal ὥσπερ πατέρα πάν-
των κοινῶς τε, καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ τὸ διῆκον διὰ πάντων,
ὃ πολλαῖς προσηγορίαις προσονομάζεται κατὰ τὰς δυνά-
wets. See also Krische, p. 401; Stein, Psych. n. 74.

2. νόμου: cf. Zeno, frag. 39.

4. ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ γένος ἐσμέν. Cf. Act. Apost. XVII. 28,
where the words τοῦ yap καὶ γένος ἐσμὲν are quoted by
St Paul. The divergence in reading points to the fact

18—2

276 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES,

that these words were taken from the Phaenomena οὔ
Aratus, 1. 5, rather than from the present passage.

ἤχου: so MS. F, an unmetrical and senseless reading,
not yet satisfactorily corrected. The vulg. ijs is a con-
jecture of Brunck, and is destitute of authority. Meineke
read γενόμεσθα λόγου ; Wachsm. (Comm. I. p. 18) sug-
gested vod σοῦ (or ἃ δὴ cod) τμῆμα, and now proposes
τίμημα for μίμημα; Usener ‘cum appareat ἤχου ex glos-
semate natum esse’ vd75 (a word coined from ὑδεῖν).
None of these are convincing, and all are inferior to
Bergk’s ὅλου, which might have been adopted, had it
satisfactorily accounted for the MS. reading. Wachs-
muth indeed says that it introduces “sententiam a Stoicis
alienam,” 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
cosmos. It appears to me that an allusion to “speech”
is not here appropriate, in spite of Zeller (p. 215). Mein-
eke’s λόγου, if adopted, would mean “reason” (not
“speech ἢ), cf. Euseb. P. E. xv. 15, p. 817 ἃ (quoted by
Wachsm.) κοινωνίαν δ᾽ ὑπάρχειν πρὸς ἀλλήλους (scil.
θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων) διὰ τὸ λόγου μετέχειν. If γενόμεσθα
is accepted for γένος ἐσμέν, perhaps μόνου or ἐκ σοῦ.

5. ὅσα: for the omission of the antecedent cf. Soph.
Ai. 1050, Trach. 350, and for the sense Hom. Il. 17. 447,
Od. 18.131. Hirzel argues (11. 201—210), mainly relying
on this passage, that Cleanthes was not a pantheist in the
full sense of the term, and that he allowed only a limited
extension to the divine πνεῦμα: but see Introd. p. 41.

6. ἀείσω: ἀΐδω F, whence ἀείδω Wachsm.; but the
present is very awkward after καθυμνήσω, and it is by no
means clear that Cleanthes would have preferred ἀείσομαι

» (see the evidence collected by Veitch 5. v.).
7. "κόσμος is here used, as Krische, p. 425, has observed,

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 977

in the less extended sense mentioned in Diog. vil. 188,
καὶ ἀυτὴν δὲ τὴν διακόσμησιν τῶν ἀστέρων κόσμον εἶναι:
hence ἑλισσόμενος = κυκλοφορητικός.

9. at. So Brunck and Wachsm. ὑπό MS. F. μετά
Mein. For the sense cf. Soph. O. C. 1515.

10. ἀμφήκη: alluding to forked lightning, cf. Aesch.
P. V. 1040 πυρὸς ἀμφήκης βόστρυχος. Hesych. ἄμφηκες δὲ
ἐξ ἑκατέρου μέρους ἠκονημένον βέλος" ἢ κεραυνός, ἢ ξίφος.

κεραυνόν : for the physical explanation cf. Zeno frag.
74. But to Cleanthes κεραυνὸς is only another name for
πληγὴ πυρός, which he identifies with τόνος, cf. Heraclit.
frag. 28. Byw. τὰ δὲ πάντα οἰακίζει κεραυνός.

11. ἐῤῥίγασιν: so Ursinus and most edd. for ἔρηγα F
“in quo postea spatium 10 litt,” which might suggest
ἔργα «δαμάσθη! : but there are similar spaces after vv.
12 and 13, and the text at this point is generally sus-
picious. Wachsm. formerly marked a lacuna after this
line, but now agrees with Hirzel, 11. p. 118, n. 1, in referring
ᾧ in v. 12 to κεραυνόν.

13. μεγάλων μικροῖσι Ε΄, which Petersen tries to defend,
was corrected by Brunck. The reference is to the sun,
moon, and stars. For the general sense cf. Zeno frag. 45.
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
complete without it, (2) διὰ παντὸς is suspicious after διὰ
πάντων in v. 12, (3) it is difficult to imagine any context
which would prevent ὡς τόσσος γεγαὼς from being frigid,
if not obscure, (4) the excessive sigmatism is pointless.

17—20, πλὴν ὁπόσα κτλ. The explanations given by
the Stoics of this weak point in their system are hope-
lessly confused and contradictory, as may be seen from
an examination of the passages cited in the notes to
Zeller, p. 189—193. We have had occasion to refer to

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 is a
necessary accompaniment of the process, whereby he
created the world out of himself. At the same time, the
omnipotence of God is vindicated by the consideration that
evil is 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 (cf. Diog. L. vu. 180), but to
some extent, at least, he agreed with Cleanthes: ὡς τῶν
αἰσχρῶν τὸ θεῖον παραίτιον γίνεσθαι οὐκ εὔλογόν ἐστιν
(Plut. Sto. Rep. 33, 2). We may compare Plato’s words
Rep. π. 379 ©, οὐδ᾽ dpa ὁ θεός, ἐπειδὴ ἀγαθός, πάντων ἂν
εἴη αἴτιος, ὡς οἱ πολλοὶ λέγουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὀλίγων μὲν τοῖς
ἀνθρώποις αἴτιος, πολλῶν δὲ ἀναίτιος" πολὺ γὰρ ἐλάττω
τἀγαθὰ τῶν κακῶν ἡμῖν" καὶ τῶν μὲν ἀγαθῶν οὐδένα ἄλ-
λον αἰτιατέον, τῶν δὲ κακῶν ἄλλ᾽ ἄττα δεῖ ξητεῖν τὰ αἴτια,
ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τὸν θεόν. See further Gercke Chrysippea, p. 699.

24. κοινὸν νόμον. Of. infra frag. 73. No doubt Cle-
anthes remembered Heracl. frag. 91. Byw. ξυνόν ἐστι πᾶσι
τὸ φρονεῖν.

25. κεν belongs to the verb, Madv. § 137.

26. ἄνευ κακοῦ.. ἄλλα F, avo. Wachsm., caxdv...ddXo
Sauppe.

28, οὐδενὶ κόσμῳ: this phrase is used by Herod. and
Thuc. as an equivalent for ἀτάκτως. Here it means
“inordinately, recklessly.” Cleanthes was probably in-
fluenced by Homer's fondness for way ἀτὰρ οὐ κατὰ
κόσμον (Il. 2. 214 etc.) and the like. al. οὐδ᾽ ἐνὶ
κόσμῳ.

30, 31. ἄλλοτεν Usener, φέρονται Meineke, while in 31
Wachsm. suggests πένεσθαι for γενέσθαι. The sense is

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 279

unsatisfactory, but as the text is so mutilated conjecture
seems hazardous. Mohnike (pp. 34—44) has a long dis-
cussion on these lines, which he calls the hardest in
the Hymn. As the text stands, 1. 31 must mean that
the effect of the actions of the φαῦλοι is just the opposite
to that which they intend.

32. ἀργικέραυνε. Cf. Ζεὺς ἀργής, an expression used
by Empedocles to denote fire (R. and P. § 131), Zeno
frag. 116, "Apyny δὲ ἐπειδή φασι τὸν ἀργῆτα κεραυνόν.

33. μέν: add. Scaliger, but perhaps we should read ἐκ-
pvov. ἀπειροσύνης i.e. ἄγνοια, the condition of the φαῦλοι.

86. γνώμης ἢ πίσυνος «7d. Another reminiscence of
Heraclitus, frag. 19. Byw. ἕν τὸ σοφόν, ἐπίστασθαι
γνώμην, ἣ κυβερνᾶται πάντα διὰ πάντων.

49. Philodem. de Mus. col. 28, 1, εἰ μεκή γε πΡαρὰ
Κλεάν«θ»ει λέγειν «αὐτὰ; Oednoova<i>v, ὅς φησιν
’ / , *: \ Ν \ \
AMELVO<Va>YE εἰναι TA ποιητικὰ καὶ «μουσξικα Trapa-
δείκγμξΡατα, καὶ, τοῦ «λόγξ;ρου τοῦ τῆς φιλοσοφίας
ἱκανῶς«ς;» μὲν ἐξαγεγ;»έλλειτν δ»-υναμένου τὰ θεςῖξα καὶ
a<v>0<p>e<mTiva, μὴ ἔχονετρος δὲ ψιλοῦ τῶν θείων

a , 9 Ψ' \ / AN δ rd ν ἢ \
μεγεθῶν λέξεις οἰκείας, τὰ wéT<pa> Kal τὰ μέλη Kal τοὺς
€ \ ¢ U a \ Ἂν ᾽ ᾿
ῥυθμοὺς ὡς pad<i>aTa προσικνεῖσθαι πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν
τῆς τῶν θείων O<ew> pias.

For the general sense, cf. Plat. Rep. x. 607 A, εἰδέναι
ὅτι ὅσον μόνον ὕμνους θεοῖς Kal ἐγκώμια τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς
ποιήσεως παραδεκτέον εἰς πόλιν. The underlying thought
is that it is impossible to define the nature of God:
cf. Hermes, ap. Stob. Εἰ]. 1. 1. 26, θεὸν νοῆσαι μὲν
χαλεπόν, φράσαι δὲ ἀδύνατον. Plat. Tim. 280, 29 Ο, Ὁ.
The construction is not quite clear. Zeller, in citing
this passage (p. 342, 1), puts a full stop after οἰκείας, but
this makes τὰ μέτρα x.7.d. very abrupt, and it is better
to regard καὶ before tod λόγου as connecting εἶναι and

280 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES,

προσικνεῖσθαι, although this leaves ἀμείνονα without an
object.

ψιλοῦ: bare prose, 1.6, stripped’ of the advantages of
metre. The history of the word is well explained in
Jebb’s Appendix to Oed. Col. 866. Cf. Plat. Menex.
p. 239 B, C, ποιηταὶ...ἐν μουσικῇ ὑμνήσαντες. «ἐὰν οὖν
ἡμεῖς ἐπιχειρῶμεν τὰ αὐτὰ λόγῳ ψιλῷ κοσμεῖν. Ψιλὸς
λόγος also means “abstract reasoning ” (Dr Thompson on
Phaedr. 262 0), and a “bare statement ” unsupported by
evidence, Dem. Androt. § 22, Aphob. 1. ὃ 54.

τῶν... «οἰκείας, “ expressions suitable to the divine majesty.”

50. Senec. Epist. 108,10, Nam, ut dicebat Cleanthes,
quemadmodum spiritus noster clariorem sonum reddit,
quum illum tuba, per longi canalis angustias tractum,
potentiorem novissimo exitu effudit; sic sensus nostros
clariores carminis arta necessitas efficit,

tuba. Greek trumpets were long and straight, ending
in a bell-shaped aperture (κώδων), cf. Aesch. Eum. 567,
διάτορος Τυρσηνικὴ σάλπιγξ βροτείου πνεύματος πλη-
ρουμένη ὑπέρτονον γήρυμα φαινέτω, 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) γί multum summittere.

sensus: signification, meaning: as in Ov. Fast. v. 484,
hic sensus verbi, vis ea vocis erat. Of. Sen. Ep. 7 ad fin.
114, 1. Hence Quintilian frequently uses the word for a
‘sentence’ or ‘ period,’

arta necessitas: cf. Pind. N, Iv. 33, τὰ μακρὰ δ᾽ ἐξενέ-
πειν ἐρύκει με τεθμός.

51. Sext. Math, rx. 88, 6 δὲ Κλεάνθης οὕτως συνη-
ρώτα" εἰ φύσις φύσεώς ἐστι κρείττων, εἴη ἄν τις ἀρίστη

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 281

/ > \ a 2 , ν » +7
φύσις" εἰ ψυχὴ ψυχῆς ἐστι κρείττων, εἴη ἂν TLS ἀριστη
ψυχή" καὶ εἰ ζῷον τοίνυν κρεῖττόν ἐστι ξῴου, εἴη av τι
κράτιστον ζῷον. οὐ γὰρ εἰς ἄπειρον ἐκπίπτειν πέφυκε τὰ ὅ
τοιαῦτα, ὡσπεροῦν οὔτε ἡ φύσις ἐδύνατο ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον

” \ \ lad Μ ξ \ » Ν a
αὔξεσθαι κατὰ τὸ κρεῖττον οὔθ ἡ ψυχὴ οὔτε τὸ ζῷον.
(89) ἀλλὰ μὴν ζῷον ζῴου κρεῖττόν ἐστιν, ὡς ἵππος χελώνης,
εἰ τύχοι, καὶ ταῦρος ὄνου καὶ λέων ταύρου. πάντων δὲ

\ a 2 A , \ a ἊΝ ἫΝ 0
σχεδὸν τῶν ἐπιγείων ἕῴων καὶ σωματικῇ καὶ ψυχικῇ 1
διαθέσει προέχει τε καὶ κρατιστεύει ὁ ἄνθρωπος" τοίνυν
κράτιστον ἂν εἴη ζῷον καὶ ἄριστον. (90) καὶ οὐ πάνυ τι
ὁ ἄνθρωπος κράτιστον εἶναι δύναται ξῴον, οἷον εὐθέως
ὅτι διὰ κακίας πορεύεται τὸν πάντα χρόνον, εἰ δὲ μή γε,
τὸν πλεῖστον (καὶ γὰρ εἴ ποτε περιγένοιτο ἀρετῆς, ὀψὲ 1
καὶ πρὸς ταῖς τοῦ βίου δυσμαῖς περιγίγνεται), ἐπίκηρόν τ᾽
ἐστὶ καὶ ἀσθενὲς καὶ μυρίων δεόμενον βοηθημάτων,
καθάπερ τροφῆς καὶ σκεπασμάτων καὶ τῆς ἄλλης τοῦ
σώματος ἐπιμελείας, πικροῦ τινος τυράννου τρόπον ἐφεσ-
τῶτος ἡμῖν καὶ τὸν πρὸς ἡμέραν δασμὸν ἀπαιτοῦντος, καὶ 20

> x , ef , 4 Ἃ, ᾿ 3 A Ν
εἰ μὴ παρέχοιμεν ὥστε λούειν αὐτὸ Καὶ ἀλείφειν καὶ

/ \ 4 , \ / 2 a

περιβάλλειν καὶ τρέφειν, νόσους καὶ θάνατον ἀπειλοῦντος.

4 2 i ba ς ” > \ SA \ ‘;
ὥστε ov τέλειον ζῷον ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἀτελὲς δὲ καὶ πολὺ

Vd n / \ \ Xa

κεχωρισμένον τοῦ τελείου. (91) τὸ δὲ τέλειον καὶ ἄριστον
κρεῖττον μὲν ἂν ὑπάρχοι ἀνθρώπου καὶ πάσαις ταῖς 2ὅ
ἀρεταῖς συμπεπληρωμένον καὶ παντὸς κακοῦ ἀνεπίδεκτον,
τοῦτο δὲ οὐ διοίσει θεοῦ. ἔστιν ἀρα θεός.

This argument for the existence of God is stated in
different language and a somewhat amplified form by
Cic. N. 1). 11. 8383—36 : cf. especially ὃ 35.

2. iors: the vital principle of plants. Zeno frag. 43.

εἰ..«ἐστι..«η ἄν: in this form of the conditional
sentence the inference is stated less bluntly than if the
indicative were used: see Madv. ὃ 185 ΒΕ, la. This is
especially frequent with ἐθέλω or βούλομαι in the pro-
tasis: cf, Stallb. ad Plat. Symp. 208 c. Eur. Alc. 1079.

282 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

A close parallel to the use here is Dem, xxxvt. 44,

> \ a ᾽ -“ , > 4 tal ;
εἰ δὲ τοῦτο ἀγνοεῖς, ὅτι πίστις ἀφορμὴ πασῶν ἐστι

μεγίστη πρὸς χρηματισμόν, πᾶν ἂν ἀγνοήσειας.
11. διαθέσει : cf. Zeno frag. 117.

12. καί: Bekker proposed to read ἀλλὰ or καὶ μὴν,

but Wachsmuth’s καίτοι is preferable.

15. περιγένοιτο : for the optative in protasis, see Jebb —

on Soph. Ai. 521, Ant. 666.

16. δυσμαῖς: cf. Ar. Poet. ο. 21,§ 18,1457 b 22, ἢ ὃ γῆρας

\ ' δι 2 , Ee TEA: >: 2 ' \ ς ‘
πρὸς βίον καὶ ἑσπέρα πρὸς ἡμέραν" ἐρεῖ τοίνυν τὴν ἑσπέ-

ραν γῆρας ἡμέρας, καὶ τὸ γῆρας ἑσπέραν βίου ἢ, ὥσπερ |
Ἐμπεδοκλῆς, δυσμὰς Biov. Cf. Aesch. Ag. 1123, βίου

δύντος αὐγαῖς. The difficulty of attaining ἀρετή, in the
Stoic sense, is illustrated by the fact that even Socrates
and Antisthenes were only regarded as προκόπτοντες
(Diog. vil. 91); and Alexander says that they admit the
existence of a good man here and there, ὥσπερ τι παρά-
δοξον ζῷον καὶ παρὰ φύσιν, σπανιώτερον τοῦ Φοίνικος
(de Fato, c. 28). In Diog. 1. 6. the fact that φαῦλοι can
become ἀγαθοὶ is 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 by the earlier
Stoics (Zeno and his immediate pupils) the ideal was
regarded as attainable and as actually realised by them-
selves (pp. 274—277).

20. ἀπαιτοῦντος. The preposition conveys the idea of
demanding as of right: cf. ἀποδοῦναι as used in the
Halonnesus dispute (Aeschin. Ctes. § 83).

22. περιβάλλειν, “to clothe,” cf. Zeno, frag. 175.

52. Cic. N. D. 11. 13—15. Cleanthes quidem noster
quattuor de causis dixit in animis hominum informatas
deorum esse notiones. primam posuit eam, de qua modo
dixi, quae orta esset ex praésensione rerum futurarum:

i i li

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 283

alteram quam ceperimus ex magnitudine commodorum, 5
quae percipiuntur caeli temperatione, fecunditate terrarum,
aliarumque commoditatum complurium copia: tertiam
quae terreret animos fulminibus, tempestatibus, nimbis,
nivibus, grandinibus, vastitate, pestilentia, terrae motibus

et saepe fremitibus, lapideisque imbribus et guttis imbrium 10
quasi cruentis, tum labibus aut repentinis terrarum
hiatibus, tum praeter naturam hominum pecudumque
portentis, tum facibus visis caelestibus, tum stellis 118,
quae Graeci cometas nostri cincinnatas vocant...tum sole
geminato...quibus exterriti homines vim quandam esse 15
caelestem et divinam suspicati sunt. quartam caussam
esse eamque vel maximam aequabilitatem motus, con-
versionem caeli, solis, lunae, siderumque omnium dis-
tinctionem, varietatem, pulcritudinem, ordinem, quarum
rerum aspectus ipse satis indicaret non esse ea fortuita. 20
Cic. N. Ὁ. τι. 16, nam Cleanthes, ut dicebas, quattuor
modis formatas in animis hominum putat deorum esse
notiones. unus is modus est...qui est susceptus ex
praesensione rerum futurarum. alter ex perturbationibus
tempestatum et reliquis motibus. _ tertius ex commoditate 25:
rerum quas perspicimus et copia. quartus ex astrorum
ordine caelique constantia.

1. Cleanthes. Mr Bywater concludes (Journ. Phil.
vu. 75 foll.) that Cleanthes was largely indebted to
Aristotle’s dialogue wept φιλοσοφίας for his statement
of the four reasons given for the origin of a belief in gods,
and proves that the first and fourth in the series were
derived from that work.

2. informatas. It is to be observed that Cleanthes
regards the idea of God’s existence as derived entirely
from our experience of external objects, and not as an
innate conception. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, n. 737.

4. praesensione: this argument depends on the exis-

284 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

tence of μαντική, ἡ δι’ ὀνείρων πρόρρησις etc. (Sext.
Math. 1x. 132), which are described as πλῆθος πραγμάτων
πεπιστευμένων ἤδη παρὰ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις. Krische,
p. 419, attributes some further arguments to Cleanthes,
which the evidence does not warrant.

7. tertiam: there does not appear to be any extant
parallel to this in the 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 lustrationes, supplicationes, lectisternia ete. Lists of
prodigies illustrating those mentioned here by Cicero will
be found in Liv. xxi 62, xx. 1, XxIV. 44, ΧΧΥΙ. 23, ete.
Tac. H. 1. 86, Juv. xm. 65—70, and above all in the
exhaustive account of Lucan, 1. 525—583.

8. quae terreret: Prof. Mayor quotes Democritus, ap.
Sext. Emp. rx. 24.

14. cometas: for the physical explanation, ef. on Zeno,
frag. 75.

16. quartam: for a fuller statement of the fourth
argument, cf. Sext. Math. 1x. 111—118, ib. 1x. 26—27:
in the last passage it is simply introduced by the term
ἔνιοι, but from its position between an argument of
Epicurus and one belonging to some “younger Stoics,”
Mr Bywater (Journ. Phil. vir. 76) infers that its immediate
source was one of the earlier Stoics, possibly Cleanthes.

17. aequabilitatem. “Cicero is probably translating
some such phrase as ὁμαλότητα κινήσεως, φορὰν οὐρανοῦ,"
Prof. Mayor.

53. Epiphan. adv. Haeres m1. 2. 9 (111. 37), Κλεάνθης
τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ καλὸν λέγει εἶναι τὰς ἡδονάς, καὶ ἄνθρωπον

ΨΥ

“er

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 285

ἐκάλει μόνην τὴν ψυχήν, καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς μυστικὰ σχήματα
ἔλεγεν εἶναι καὶ κλήσεις ἱεράς, καὶ δᾳδοῦχον ἔφασκεν εἶναι
τὸν ἥλιον, καὶ τὸν κόσμον μύστας καὶ τοὺς κατόχους τῶν
θείων τελετὰς ἔλεγε.

τὸ ἀγαθόν.. «ἡδονάς. 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’
position with his own teaching.

ἄνθρωπον κιτιλ. Not much can be made of this mutilated
statement; possibly it points to the doctrine of the soul
regarded as the bond of union for the body. Stein, Psych.
Ῥ. 209, finds here a trace of the correspondence between
the macrocosm and the microcosm, and quotes frag. 106
τοὺς ἀπαιδεύτους μόνῃ TH μορφῇ τῶν θηρίων διαφέρειν.

τοὺς θεοὺς κτλ. These obscure words appear to repre-
sent an explanation of the Eleusinian mysteries from the
Stoic point of view, in which the sun as the ἡγεμονικὸν 15
symbolised by the torechbearer who marches at the head
of the procession of mystae, and (adopting Diels’ cor-
rections, v. infra) the world itself corresponds to the mys-
tery play, while those who are inspired with divine truth
are the priests. Cf. Porphyr. ap. Euseb. P. E. ΠΙ. 12.
p. 116, ἐν δὲ τοῖς κατ᾽ ᾿Ελευσῖνα μυστηρίοις ὁ μὲν ἱερο-
φάντης εἰς εἰκόνα τοῦ δημιουργοῦ ἐνσκευάξεται, δᾳδοῦχος
δὲ εἰς τὴν ἡλίου. For the subject in general see Prof.
Mayor on Οἷς. N. Ὁ. 1.119. Mr Bywater however (Journ.
Phil. vit. 78) believes that we have here a mutilated
argument, ultimately derived from Aristotle’s dialogue
περὶ φιλοσοφίας, and explaining the belief in the gods
as due to a feeling of awe and admiration consequent on
the contemplation of the heavenly bodies. The allusion
to the mysteries is brought in by way of comparison : “we
seem introduced into a temple like that at Eleusis, only
more august and solemn, because the figures [=the hea-

286 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

venly bodies] we see circling around us are not lifeless or
made with hands, and the celebrants are not men, but the

immortal gods.” This explanation is fortified by a τὸ -
ference to Dio. Chrys. x11. p. 387 B, Plut. de trang. 20, |
p. 477 ©, D (also quoted by Diels). For μυστικὰ σχή-
ματα see Lobeck Aglaoph. p. 180, and for κλήσεις iepas

ib. p. 62.

μύστας... «τελετάς. Diels, p. 592, who records other sug-
gestions, has μυστήριον... .τελεστάς. Perhaps, from a
comparison of Chrysipp. ap. Etym. M. 751, 16 id. Plut.
Sto. Rep. 9, we ought to restore τοὺς κατόχους τῶν θείων —

«λόγους; τελετάς.

54. Philodem. περὶ εὐσεβ. ἔν. 13. ἐν δὲ τῷ δευτέερῳ»
(8611. περὶ θεῶν Χρύσιππος) τά τ-«ε; εἰς Ὀρφέα «καὶ M>
ουσαῖον dvade<pou>e<v>a καὶ «τὰ παρ᾽ «Ὁ» μήρῳ καὶ
Ἡσιόδῳ» καὶ Εὐρις-π;ίδῃ κααὶ; ποιηταῖς ἄλλοις -«ὠὧν»ς
καςὶ» Κλεάνθης «πρειρᾶταςι συν;οικειοῦςν; ταῖς
δόξαις αὐτῶς«ν;.

Cicero’s paraphrase, which omits all mention of Cle-
anthes, is as follows (N. D. 1 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 ef. frag. 111. This passage is included
by Wachsmuth (Comm. 1. p. 16) under the fragments of
the book περὶ θεῶν.

55. Plut. de audiendis poetis ¢ 11, δεῖ δὲ μηδὲ τῶν
ὀνομάτων ἀμελῶς ἀκούειν, ἀλλὰ τὴν μὲν Κλεάνθους παι-
διὰν παραιτεῖσθαι: κατειρωνεύεται γὰρ ἔστιν ὅτε προσ-
ποιούμενος ἐξηγεῖσθαι τὸ

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES,. 287

Zed πάτερ ἤϊδηθεν μεδέων,
Kal TO

Zed ἄνα Δωδωναΐῖε,
κελεύων ἀναγιγνώσκειν ὑφ᾽ ἕν, ὡς τὸν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἀναθυμ-
ἰώμενον ἀέρα διὰ τὴν ἀνάδοσιν ᾿Αναδωδωναῖον ὄντα.
Wachsmuth cites Schol. BL Homer II 233 Zed ἄνα Δω-
δωναῖε] τινὲς δὲ ἀναδωδωναῖε ὑφ᾽ ἕν Tapa τὴν avadoow
τῶν ἀγαθών (3)

This comes from the book περὶ τοῦ ποιητοῦ according
to Krische, p. 433, and Wachsm., Comm. 1. p. 17. Zed
πάτερ Ἴδηθεν μεδέων, 1]. 111. 276, 320: Zed ἄνα Awdwvaie,
I]. XVI. 238.

παιδιάν. 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.
406 B, ἀλλ᾽ ἐστὶ γὰρ καὶ σπουδαίως εἰρημένος ὁ τρόπος
τῶν ὀνομάτων τούτοις τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ παιδικῶς.

ἀναθυμιώμενον : a reference to the feeding of the celestial
bodies by exhalations of coarser material, cf. frag. 29
ὠκεανὸς δ᾽ ἐστι.. ἧς THY ἀναθυμίασιν ἐπινέμεται. Cornut.
c. 17, p. 84 Osann. ἀὴρ κατὰ ἀνάδοσιν. It may be ob-
served that the attribution of this doctrine to Thales by
Stob. Ecl. 1. 10, 12, p. 122, 18 cannot be relied upon.

56. Plut. de Is. et Osir. 66, Φερσεφόνην δέ φησί που
Κλεάνθης τὸ διὰ τῶν καρπῶν φερόμενον καὶ φονευόμενον
πνεῦμα.

Diibner translates: spiritus qui per fruges dum fertur
interimitur. Probably this, as well as the seven following
fragments, comes from the treatise περὶ θεῶν (Wachsm.
Comm. 1. p. 15). Cf Plut. de Is. c. 40, where Demeter
and Persephone are explained as τὸ διὰ τῆς γῆς καὶ τῶν
καρπῶν διῆκον πνεῦμα. Chrysipp. ap. Philod. περὶ εὐσεβ.
col. 12, p. 79 Gomp. καὶ τὴν Δήμητρα γῆν ἢ τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ

288 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

πνεῦμα. Cic. N. Ὁ. 11. 66, ea (Proserpina) enim est qu
Φερσεφόνη Graece nominatur, quam frugum semen ess
volunt absconditamque quaeri a matre fingunt. Plato’
derivations of the name will be found at Cratyl. 4040, p.
For modern views see Jebb on Soph. Ant. 894.

57. Macrob. Sat. 1. 18, 14, unde Cleanthes ita cogno-
minatum scribit (Dionysum) ἀπὸ τοῦ διανύσαι, quia coti-
diano impetu ab oriente ad occasum diem noctemque
faciendo caeli conficit cursum.

In the Orphic hymn, quoted just before the present
passage, Dionysus is derived from δινεῖσθαι. He is else-
where explained by the Stoics (1) as wine, Cic. N. Ὁ. τι.
60, cf. Plato’s derivation from δίδωμι and οἶνος, the latter
being resolved into οἴεσθαι and νοῦς, (2) as τὸ γόνιμον.
πνεῦμα Kal τρόφιμον, Plut. de Is. c. 40. For the identifi-
cation of Dionysus with the sun see the commentators
on Verg. Georg. I. 5, vos, o clarissima mundi lumina, laben-
tem caelo quae ducitis annum, Liber et alma Ceres.

58. Macrob. Sat. 1. 17, 8, Cleanthes (Apollinem) ὡς
am’ ἄλλων καὶ ἄλλων τόπων τὰς ἀνατολὰς ποιούμενον,
quod ab aliis atque aliis locorum declinationibus faciat
ortus.

Chrysippus (Macrob. 1. c.) derived the word ᾿Απόλλων
from ὦ and πολύς, while Plato explains the various func-
tions of the God by different etymologies of his name
(Crat. p. 405A—k), so that he is at once ἀπλοῦ, ἀεὶ
βάλλοντος, ἀπολούοντος, and ὁμοπολοῦντος (ib. p. 406 A).

59. Macrob. Sat. τ. 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 dé
τοῦ λευκαίνεσθαι πάντα φωτίζοντος ἡλίου, a guess, which,

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 289

so far as the etymology of Λύκειος is concerned, has found
some favour in modern times (Miiller Dor. 11. 6 § 8). Pro-
bably Cleanthes did not recognise a distinction between
the two titles Λύκιος and Avxevos (Soph. El. 7), and the
best modern opinion seems to agree with him to this
extent: see Leaf on 1]. Iv. 101. ‘The connection of Apollo
with wolves is indicated by the legends in Pausan. 11. 9. 7,
u. 19.3. In Cornut. ο. 32 the name is explained in con-
nection with the pestilences brought by Apollo on flocks,
which were therefore entrusted to him as Apollo Lycius.
humorem eripit: cf. frags. 29 and 55.

60. Macrob. Sat. 1. 17. 31, Λοξίας cognominatur, ut
ait Oenopides, ὅτε ἐκπορεύεται τὸν λοξὸν κύκλον ἀπὸ
δυσμῶν ἐπ᾽ ἀνατολὰς κινούμενος, id est quod obliquum
circulum ab occasu ad orientem pergit: aut, ut Cleanthes
scribit, ἐπειδὴ καθ᾽ ἕλικας κινεῖται, NoEal yap εἰσι καὶ
αὗται, quod flectuosum iter pergit.

Cf. Achill. Tat. βαρ. 169 A, ὁ ζῳδιακὸς καὶ λοξίας
ὑπό τινων καλεῖται, ἐπειδὴ ἥλιος Tas ὁδοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ
πορεύεται λοξός. ἐν δὲ τῷ ἡλίῳ ὁ ᾿Απόλλων ὃς καλεῖται
Λοξίας ὑπὸ τῶν ποιητῶν εἶναι πιστεύεται. Cornut. ο. 32
gives two explanations: λοξῶν δὲ καὶ περισκελῶν ὄντων
τῶν χρησμῶν οὗς δίδωσι Λοξίας ὠνόμασται: ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς
λοξότητος τῆς πορείας ἣν ποιεῖται διὰ τοῦ ζωδιακοῦ κύκλου.
For modern derivations of the name Loxias see Jebb on
Soph. O.T. 854.

ἕλικας : for the obliquity of the sun’s course cf. frag. 29
and Diog. L. vit. 144 there quoted.

61. Photius s.v. λέσχαι, p. 158 ed. Herm., Κλεάνθης
δέ φησιν ἀπονενεμῆσθαι τῷ ᾿Απόλλωνι τὰς λέσχας, ἐξέ-
Spais δὲ ὁμοίας γίνεσθαι, καὶ αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν ᾿Απόλλω Tap’
ἐνίοις Λεσχηνόριον ἐπικαλεῖσθαι. So Suidas I. 541 s, v.

Ἧ Ὁ: 19

290 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

λέσχαι. In Harpocrat.s.v. we get the additional informa-
tion that these remarks were contained in the treatise
περὶ θεῶν.

Cf. Plut. de εἰ ap. Delphos ο. 2: Apollo is called Λεσ-
ynvopios, ὅταν ἐνεργῶσι καὶ ἀπολαύωσι χρώμενοι τῷ
διαλέγεσθαι καὶ φιλοσοφέϊν πρὸς ἀλλήλους. The inference
drawn by Wachsmuth seems correct, viz., that Cornutus
took from Cleanthes the words found in ο. 32, καὶ λεσχη-
νόριον δ᾽ αὐτὸν (Ἀπόλλωνα) προσηγόρευσαν διὰ τὸ τὰς
ἡμέρας ταῖς λέσχαις καὶ τῷ ὁμιλεῖν ἀλλήλοις συνέχεσθαι
τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, τὰς δὲ νύκτας καθ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς ἀναπαύεσθαι.
He remarks that Cornutus appears to have devoted much
attention to the study of Cleanthes. Cf. Pers. Sat. v. 63,
cultor enim iuvenum purgatas inseris aures fruge Cle- —
anthea,

ἐξέδραι. These were recesses or alcoves sometimes
branching out from an open air court, and fitted with
stone seats; they were especially adapted for the con-
versation of philosophers and rhetoricians. Cf. Cic. Fin.
v. 4, ego illa moveor exedra; modo enim fuit Carneadis;
quem videre videor (est enim nota imago), a sedeque ipsa,
tanta ingeni magnitudine orbata, desiderari illam vocem
puto. “Vitruvius in his description of the palaestra, or
gymnasium, such as were attached to Roman villas of the
higher class, recommends that in three of the cloisters
surrounding the court there should be exedrae spatiosae
in quibus philosophi, rhetores, reliquique qui studiis
delectantur sedentes disputare possint v. 11.” Prof. Mayor
on Cic. N.D. 1. 15. See also Becker, Charicles, p. 303.
Guhl and Koner, p. 403.

ὁμοίας: the distinction between λέσχαι and ἐξέδραι
seems to be that the former were separate buildings used
entirely as lounges, whereas the latter were attached
either to a private house or a public gymnasium.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 291

62. Cornut. c. 31 ad fin., τοὺς δὲ δώδεκα ἄθλους
ἐνδέχεται μὲν ἀναγαγεῖν οὐκ ἀλλοτρίως ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν, ὡς
καὶ Κλεάνθης ἐποίησεν" οὐ δεῖν δὲ δοκεῖ πανταχοῦ εὑρεσί-
λογον πρεσβεύειν.

It seems clear from the account οἵ 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. An illustra-
tion of this line of interpretation may be seen in the
explanation given by Cornutus of Heracles as an archer:
καὶ τοξότης δ᾽ ἂν ὁ θεὸς παρεισάγοιτο, κατά τε TO πανταχοῦ
διϊκνεῖσθαι κιτιλ. But in the account of the twelve labours
in Heraclitus, All. Hom. c. 33, Heracles is represented
simply as a wise man who brought to light the hidden
truths of philosophy: Ἡρακλέα δὲ νομιστέον οὐκ ἀπὸ
σωματικῆς δυνάμεως ἀναχθέντα τοσοῦτον ἰσχῦσαι τοῖς
τότε χρόνοις. ἀλλ᾽ ἀνὴρ ἔμφρων καὶ σοφίας οὐρανίου
μύστης γεγονώς, ὡσπερεὶ κατὰ βαθείας ἀχλύος ὑποδε-
δυκυῖαν ἐφώτισε τὴν φιλοσοφίαν, καθάπερ ὁμολογοῦσι καὶ
Στωικῶν οἱ δοκιμώτατοι. 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
hand says:—“irre ich nicht, so fiihrte Kleanthes, gleichwie
spater Porphyrius (bei Euseb. P.E. m1. 112 c), die zwolf Ar-
beiten des Herakles auf die Bahn der Sonne durch die συν]
Zeichen des Zodiakus zuriick (Cornut. de N. Ὁ. p. 91 αλ᾽

εὑρεσίλογον : “expectes tov,’ Lang. Osann interprets this
to 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

19—2

*

292 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Chrysippus is spoken of as εὑρεσιλογῶν ἀπιθάνως. But
it seems strange that Cornutus should have alluded to
Cleanthes in this manner. Why cannot the word be used
in a good sense as in Diog. L.1v. 37? Mr Hicks suggests

εὑρεσιλογίαν.

63. Schol. in Hom. Il. πι|. 64, ap. Bekker, p. 99
b. 23, Κλεάνθης δὲ ἐν Λέσβῳ οὕτω τιμᾶσθαι χρυσῆν
᾿Αφροδίτην.

Wachsmuth (Comm. 1. p. 15) classes this among the
fragments of the work περὶ θεῶν, but there is more likeli-
hood in Krische’s view (p. 433) that it belongs to the περὶ
τοῦ ποιητοῦ, for there is no reason to separate it from
frags. 55 and 65. Perhaps Cleanthes tried to explain the
currency of the epithet χρυσέη by the existence of a gilded
statue of Aphrodite at Lesbos. For the figurative mean-
ing of χρυσοῦς = precious, which is perhaps all that is
implied in the epithet, see Jebb on Soph. Ant. 699.

64. Athen. xu. 572f., πόρνης δὲ ᾿Αφροδίτης ἱερόν
ἐστι παρὰ ᾿Αβυδηνοῖς, ὥς φησι Πάμφιλος" κατεχομένης
γὰρ τῆς πόλεως δουλείᾳ τοὺς φρουροὺς τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ ποτε
θύσαντας, ὡς ἱστορεῖ Κλεάνθης ἐν τοῖς Μυθικοῖς, καὶ
μεθυσθέντας ἑταίρας πλείονας προσλαβεῖν" ὧν μίαν, κατα-
κοιμηθέντας αὐτοὺς ἰδοῦσαν, ἀνελομένην τὰς κλεῖς καὶ τὸ
τεῖχος ὑπερβᾶσαν, ἀπαγγεῖλαι τοῖς ᾿Αβυδηνοῖς. τοὺς δ᾽
αὐτίκα μεθ᾽ ὅπλων ἀφικομένους, ἀνελεῖν μὲν τοὺς φύλακας,
κρατήσαντας δὲ τῶν τειχών καὶ γενομένους ἐγκρατεῖς τῆς
ἐλευθερίας χαριστήρια τῇ πόρνῃ ἀποδίδοντας ᾿Αφροδίτης
Πόρνης ναὸν ἱδρύσασθαι.

Πόρνης: cf. Aphrodite Pandemos, and the worship of
Aphrodite Ourania at Corinth (Becker's Charicles, p. 246).
The object of Cleanthes was doubtless to explain away the
discreditable legends attaching themselves to the gods,
and thus in the present instance the debased worship at

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 293

Abydos is shown to be due to the accident of a historical
circumstance, and not to the essential characteristics of
the goddess. There is however considerable doubt as to
the genuineness of this fragment, see Introd. p. 51.

65. Schol. in Hom. Od. 1. 52, ap. Cramer, Anecd.
Oxon. π|. 416, ὀλοόφρονος] Κλεάνθης δασύνει" τοῦ περὶ
τῶν ὅχων φρονοῦντος.

Wachsmuth also quotes Eustath. in Hom. p. 1389, 55,
τὸν "Ἄτλαντα. ..οἱ μὲν ἀχλληγοροῦσιν εἰς THY ἀκάματον καὶ
ἀκοπίατον πρόνοιαν τὴν πάντων αἰτίαν καὶ ὀλοόφρονα τὸν
τοιοῦτον "Λτλαντα νοοῦσιν, ὡς τὸν ὑπὲρ ὅλων φρονοῦντα
ἤγουν τῶν ὅχων φροντιστικὸν. διὸ καὶ ὁ Κλεάνθης, ὥς φασιν,
ἐδάσυνε τὸ ὃ τῆς ἀρχούσης. Cf. Cornut. de nat. d. c. 26,
ὀλοόφρονα δ᾽ αὐτὸν ΟΛτλαντα) εἰρῆσθαι διὰ τὸ περὶ τῶν
ὅλων φροντίζειν καὶ προνοεῖσθαι τῆς πάντων αὐτοῦ τῶν
μερῶν σωτηρίας. See also Flach Glossen u. Scholien zur
Hes. Th. p. 76. Cleanthes identified Atlas with πρόνοια,
as holding together the framework of the world (cf. ἕξις).

66. Apollon. soph. lex. Homer, p. 114 ed. Bekk. v.
μῶλυ (x. 305), Κλεάνθης δὲ ὁ φιλόσοφος ἀλληγορικώς
φησι δηλοῦσθαι τὸν λόγον, δι’ οὗ μωλύνονται αἱ ὁρμαὶ καὶ
τὰ πάθη.

This frag. is taken from Wachsmuth (Comm. 1. p. 18):
ef, Zeno, frag. 160, διαλάμπει τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ φανταστικὸν
καὶ παθητικὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου διακεχυμένον. Stob. Ecl.
I. 7. 105 p. 89, 16, πάντες δ᾽ οἱ ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν ὄντες
ἀποστρέφονται τὸν λόγον. 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
Benef. 13. 3). This is the earliest known instance of the
word ἀλληγορία.

67. Certamen Homer. et Hesiod., p. 4, 18, ed. Nietzsch
(in act. societ. philol. Lips. tom. 1. fase. 1), “Ἑλλάνικος μὲν

294 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

yap καὶ Κλεάνθης Μαίονα (sic coni. Sturz, Hellanic. frg.
p- 171 et Welcker ep. cycl. p. 149 pro Blova) λέγουσι
(πατέρα Ὁμήρου).

This frag. is taken from Wachsm. Comm, 1. p. 17.
Cf. Procl. vit. Hom. ap. Gaisford Hephaestion, p. 516, oi
μὲν οὖν Σμυρναῖον αὐτὸν ἀποφαινόμενοι Maiovos μὲν
πατρὸς λέγουσιν εἶναι. ib. p. 517, Malova γάρ φασι (scil.
Ἑλλάνικος καὶ Δαμαστὴς καὶ Φερεκύδης) τὸν Ὁμήρου
πατέρα.

68. Porphyr. vit. Pythag. 1, 2, Κλεάνθης ἐν τῷ
πέμπτῳ τῶν μυθικῶν Σύρον, ἐκ Τύρου τῆς Συρίας (scil.
Mnesarchus, the father of Pythagoras). σιτοδείας δὲ κατα-
λαβούσης τοὺς Σαμίους προσπλεύσαντα τὸν Μνήσαρ-
χον κατ᾽ ἐμπορίαν μετὰ σίτου τῇ νήσῳ καὶ ἀποδόμενον

5 τιμηθῆναι πολιτείᾳ. Πυθαγόρου δ᾽ ἐκ παίδων εἰς πᾶσαν
μάθησιν ὄντος εὐφυοῦς, τὸν Μνήσαρχον ἀπαγαγεῖν αὐτὸν
εἰς Τύρον, ἐκεῖ δὲ τοῖς Χαλδαίοις συστάντα μετασχεῖν
τούτων ἐπὶ πλεῖον ποιῆσαι, ἐπανελθόντα δ᾽ εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιωνίαν
ἐντεῦθεν τὸν Πυθαγόραν πρῶτον μὲν Φερεκύδῃ τῷ Συρίῳ

10 ὁμιλῆσαι δεύτερον δ᾽ “Eppodayavts τῷ Κρεωφυλίῳ ἐν
Σάμῳ ἤδη γηράσκοντι. λέγει δ᾽ ὁ Κλεάνθης ἄλλους εἶναι
ot τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ Τυρηνὸν ἀποφαίνονται τῶν τὴν
Λῆμνον ἀποικησάντων ἐντεῦθεν δὲ κατὰ πρᾶξιν εἰς Σάμον
ἐλθόντα καταμεῖναι καὶ ἀστὸν γενέσθαι. πλέοντος δὲ τοῦ
15 Μνησάρχου εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν συμπλεύσαντα τὸν Πυθα-
γόραν νέον ὄντα κομιδῇ σφόδρα οὖσαν εὐδαίμονα καὶ τόθ᾽
ὕστερον εἰς αὐτὴν ἀποπλεῦσαι. καταλέγει δ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ
ἀδελφοὺς δύο Ἑὔνουστον καὶ Τυρρηνὸν πρεσβυτέρους.
Wachsmuth also quotes Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. p. 1298.
ὡς δὲ Κλεάνθης (MSS. Νεάνθης) Σύριος ἢ Τύριος (fuit
Pythagoras). Theodoret, Graec. aff. cur. p. 8, 43, ὁ δὲ
Κλεάνθης (MSS. Νεάνθης) Τύριον (Πυθαγόραν) ὀνομάζει.
This frag. must stand or fall with ἔταρ, θ4. The facts

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 295

in the life of Pythagoras with which these statements are
concerned will be found fully discussed by Zeller, pre-
Socratics, 1. p. 324 foll. After εὐδαίμονα in 1. 16 some
such word as αἰσθέσθαι seems wanted.

69. Pseudo-Plut. de Fluviorum nominibus, V. 3,
παράκειται δ᾽ [αὐτῷ] τὸ Καυκάσιον ὄρος" ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ
τὸ πρότερον Βορέου κοίτη δι’ αἰτίαν τοιαύτην. Βορέας
δι᾿ ἐρωτικὴν ἐπιθυμίαν Χιόνην ἁρπάσας, τὴν ᾿Αρκτούρου
θυγατέρα, κατήνεγκεν εἴς τινα λόφον Νιφάντην καλού-
μενον, καὶ ἐγέννησεν ἐκ τῆς προειρημένης υἱὸν Ὕρπακα, 5
τὸν διαδεξάμενον ἩἩνιόχου τὴν βασίλειαν. μετωνομάσθη
δὲ τὸ ὄρος κοίτη Βορέου. προσηγορεύθη δὲ Καύκασος διὰ
περίστασιν τοιαύτην. μετὰ τὴν γιγαντομαχίαν Κρόνος
ἐκκλίνων τὰς Διὸς ἀπειλάς, ἔφυγεν εἰς τὴν ἀκρώρειαν
Βορέου κοίτης, καὶ εἰς κροκόδειλον μεταμορφωθεὶς «ἔλαθεν" 10
6 δὲ Προμήθευς;» ἕνα τῶν ἐγχωρίων ποιμένα, Καύκασον,
ἀναταμών, καὶ κατανοήσας αὐτοῦ τὴν διάθεσιν τῶν
σπλάγχνων, εἶπεν οὐ μακρὰν εἶναι τοὺς πολεμίους. ὁ
δὲ Ζεὺς ἐπιφανεὶς τὸν μὲν πατέρα δήσας πλεκτῷ ἐρίῳ,
κατεταρτάρωσε᾽ τὸ δ᾽ ὄρος εἰς τιμὴν τοῦ ποιμένος Kav-15
κασον μετόνομάσας, προσέδησεν αὐτῷ τὸν Προμηθέα καὶ
ἠνάγκασεν αὐτὸν ὑπὸ σπλαγχνοφάγου ἀετοῦ βασανί-
ἕεσθαι, ὅτι παρηνόμησεν εἰς τὰ σπλάγχνα, ὡς ἱστορεῖ
Κλεάνθης ἐν γ΄ θεομαχίας. :

The treatise de Fluviis was composed perhaps in the
reign of Hadrian or Trajan, but all or nearly all the
authorities which the author cites are impudent fictions.
For further information see the Preface to Hercher’s
edition of the tract (Lips. 1851) and especially § 3.

2. Βορέου κοίτη: cf. Pind. Nem. 1. 3, "Optuyla δέμνιον
᾿Αρτεμίδος. Hom. 1]. XXIV. 615, ἐν Σιπύλῳ ὅθι φασὶ
θεάων ἔμμεναι εὐνὰς νυμφάων.

10. μεταμορφωθείς. Wyttenbach saw that some words

296 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

had fallen out here, since a reference to Prometheus is
required. He supplied therefore the words within brackets
and substituted ἀναταμὼν for ἀναπαύων. For ἀναπαύων
ἀναρπάξων (Reinesius) and ἀνασπῶν (Dodwell) have also
been suggested.

70. Pseudo-Plut. de Fluv. v. 4, γεννᾶται δ᾽ ἐν αὐτῷ
(Caucasus) βοτάνη Προμήθειος καλουμένη, ἣν Μήδεια
συλλέγουσα καὶ λειοτριβοῦσα, πρὸς ἀντιπαθείας τοῦ
πατρὸς ἐχρήσατο, καθὼς ἱστορεῖ ὁ αὐτός (scil. Cleanthes).

Προμήθειος, cf. Ap. Rhod. 111. 843,

ἡ δὲ τέως γλαφυρῆς ἐξείλετο φωριαμοῖο
φάρμακον, ὅ ρρά τε φασὶ ἸΤρομήθειον καλέεσθαι,
where a lengthy description of the plant and its virtues is

given. Prop. 1. 12. 9, num me deus obruit, an quae
lecta Prometheis dividit herba iugis.

71. Pseudo-Plut. de Fluv. xvi. 4, γεννᾶται δ᾽ ἐν
αὐτῷ (Taygetus) βοτάνη καλουμένη Χαρισία ἣν <ai>
γυναῖκες ἔαρος ἀρχομένου τοῖς τραχήλοις περιάπτουσι
καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν συμπαθέστερον ἀγαπῶνται" καθὼς.
ἱστορεῖ Ἰζλεάνθης ἐν a’ περὶ ὀρῶν.

Χαρισία: Hercher thinks this word is invented from
the name of a city in Arcadia.

ETHICA.

72. Stob. Ecl. τι. 7. 6%, p. 76, 3, Κλεάνθης... οὕτως
ἀπέδωκε" τέλος ἐστὶ τὸ ὁμολογουμένως TH φύσει ζῆν. Cf
Diog. L. vu. 87, Clem. Alex. Strom. 11 21. 129, p. 497 P.,
179 S., Κλεάνθης δὲ (scil. τέλος ἡγειται) τὸ ὁμολογου-
μένως τῇ φύσει ζῆν ἐν τῷ εὐλογιστεῖν, ὃ ἐν τῇ τῶν κατὰ
φύσιν ἐκλογῇ κεῖσθαι διελάμβανεν.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 297

In the extract from Clement, Krische, p. 423 n., pro-
poses to insert the words Διογένης δὲ between ζῆν and ἐν
τῷ εὐχογιστεῖν on the evidence afforded by Diog. L. vil.
88, Stob. Ecl. π. 7. 6%, p. 76, 9, who both expressly
attribute the definition εὐλογιστεῖν ἐν TH τῶν κατὰ
φύσιν ἐκλογῇ to Diogenes Babylonius. His suggestion
is approved by Wachsmuth (Comm. II. p. 4) and Heinze,
Stoic. Eth. p. 11 n. For the question as to whether
Cleanthes first introduced the words τῇ φύσει into the
definition, see on Zeno, frag. 120.

73. Diog. L. vil. 89, φύσιν δὲ Χρύσιππος μὲν ἐξακούει,
ἡ ἀκολούθως δεῖ ζῆν, τήν τε κοινὴν καὶ ἰδίως ἀνθρωπίνην"
ὁ δὲ Κλεάνθης τὴν κοινὴν μόνην ἐκδέχεται φύσιν, ἡ
ἀκολουθεῖν δεῖ, οὐκέτι δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ μέρους" τήν τε
ἀρετὴν διάθεσιν εἶναι ὁμολογουμένην καὶ αὐτὴν δι’ αὑτὴν
εἶναι αἱρετήν, οὐ διά τινα φόβον ἢ ἐλπίδα ἢ τι τῶν ἔξωθεν"
ἐν αὐτῇ τε εἶναι τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν, ἅτε οὔσῃ ψυχῇ πεποιη-
μένῃ πρὸς τὴν ὁμολογίαν παντὸς τοῦ βίου: διαστρέφεσθαι
δὲ τὸ λογικὸν ζῷον ποτὲ μὲν διὰ τὰς τῶν ἔξωθεν πραγ-
ματειῶν πιθανότητας, ποτὲ δὲ διὰ τὴν κατήχησιν τῶν
συνόντων, ἐπεὶ ἡ φύσις ἀφορμὰς δίδωσιν ἀδιαστρόφους.

Diogenes leads us to suppose that Cleanthes and
Chrysippus dissented as to the interpretation of φύσις,
and that Cleanthes refused to allow that human nature
is included. This however is scarcely credible (cf. the
next frag.), although it is quite possible that Cleanthes
laid special stress on κοινὴ φύσις and κοινὸς νόμος, Cf.
frag. 48, 1. 24, Cic. Fin. m1. 73, utrum conveniat necne
natura hominis cum universa. So Zeller, p. 229, who is
followed by Wellmann, p. 448. To attain this conformity
an acquaintance with physics is necessary (Cie, Lee
Chrysipp. ap. Plut. Sto. Rep. 9). Hirzel 11. pp. 112—118,
thinks that Diogenes’ account is substantially ght. He

298 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

regards Zeno as the upholder of Cynicism in preference
to which Cleanthes devoted himself to the study of
Heraclitus, cf. Heracl. fr. 7, Sch., διὸ δεῖ ἕπεσθαι τῷ
ξυνῷ, τοῦ λόγου δὲ ἐόντος ξυνοῦ ζώουσιν οἱ πολλοὶ ὡς
ἐδίαν ἔχοντες φρόνησιν. To the objection that Zeno had
already recognised the Heraclitean λόγος 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.

διάθεσιν ὁμολογουμένην : for διάθεσιν see on Zeno, frag.
117, and for the general sense cf. Chrysipp. ap. Stob.
Ecl. π. 7. 5", p. 60, 7, κοινότερον δὲ τὴν ἀρετὴν διάθεσιν
εἶναί φασι ψυχῆς σύμφωνον αὑτῇ περὶ ὅλον τὸν βίον.

ἅτ᾽ οὔσῃ: Zeller (p. 238, 3) corrects οὔσης ψυχῆς
πεποιημένης.

ἀφορμάς, cf. frag. 82.

74. Stob. Ecl. π. 7. 6°, p. 77, 21, εὐδαιμονία δ᾽ ἐστὶν
εὔροια βίου. κέχρηται δὲ καὶ Κλεάνθης τῷ ὅρῳ τούτῳ ἐν
τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ συγγράμμασι καὶ ὁ Χρύσιππος καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ
τούτων πάντες τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν εἶναι λέγοντες οὐχ ἑτέραν
τοῦ εὐδαίμονος βίου, καίτοι γε λέγοντες τὴν μὲν εὐδαι-
μονίαν σκοπὸν ἐκκεῖσθαι τέλος δ᾽ εἶναι τὸ τυχεῖν τῆς
εὐδαιμονίας, ὅπερ ταυτὸν εἶναι τῷ εὐδαιμονεῖν. Sext.
Emp. Math. xt. 80, εὐδαιμονία δέ ἐστιν, ὡς οἱ περὶ τὸν
Κλεάνθην, εὔροια βίου.

σκοπόν. For the distinction between σκοπὸς and τέλος,
ef. Stob. ἘΠ]. 11. 7. 3°, p. 47, 8, καὶ ἔστι σκοπὸς μὲν τὸ
προκείμενον εἰς τὸ τυχεῖν, οἷον ἀσπὶς τοξόταις" τέλος δ᾽ ἡ

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. Zoe

τοῦ προκειμένου τεῦξις. βούλονται yap ἐνέργημα ἡμέ-
τερον εἶναι πρὸς τὸ τέλος, ib. IL. 7. 6%, p. 77, 1—5.
Wachsmuth believes the distinction to be due to Chry-
sippus. The difficult passage in Cic. Fin. 11. 22 is not
really parallel to this: see Madv. in loc. On the whole
matter see Hirzel, p. 550 foll.: he argues that the dis-
tinction between σκοπὸς and τέλος was foreign to the
earlier Stoa, and was introduced by Panaetius.

75. Clem. Alex. Protrept. vi. 72, p. 91 61 P.,
Κλεάνθης δὲ ὁ ᾿Ασσεύς, ὁ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς φιλόσοφος ὃς
οὐ θεογονίαν ποιητικὴν θεολογίαν δὲ ἀληθινὴν ἐνδείκνυται.
οὐκ ἀπεκρύψατο τοῦ θεοῦ πέρι ὅτι περ εἶχεν φρονών"

τἀγαθὸν ἐρωτᾷς μ᾽ οἷον ἔστ᾽ ; ἄκουε δή"
τεταγμένον, δίκαιον, ὅσιον, εὐσεβές,

κρατοῦν ἑαυτοῦ, χρήσιμον, καλόν, δέον,
αὐστηρόν, αὐθέκαστον, αἰεὶ συμφέρον,

ἄφοβον, ἄλυπον, λυσιτελές, ἀνώδυνον, δ
ὠφέλιμον, εὐάρεστον, ἀσφαλές, φίλον,

ἔντιμον 5 * is ὁμολογούμενον,
εὐκλεές, ἄτυφον, ἐπιμελές, πρᾷον, σφοδρόν,
χρονιζόμενον, ἄμεμπτον, αἰεὶ διαμένον.

The same occurs in Strom. v. 14, 110, p. 715 P., 257 S.,
introduced by the words ἔν τινὶ ποιήματι περὶ τοῦ θεοῦ
and also in Euseb. P. E. x. 13, p. 679.

Clement’s mistake in referring these lines to Cleanthes’
conception of the deity, when they really refer to the
ethical summum bonum, is obvious, and has been pointed
out by Krische, p. 420 f. Krische thinks that they may
have formed a poetical appendix to the prose work, which
is either the περὶ τέλους or the περὶ καλῶν.

Seven of these epithets, viz. δίκαιον, χρήσιμον, καλόν,
δέον, συμφέρον, λυσιτελές, ὠφέλιμον are predicated of

300 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

ἀγαθὸν in Diog. L. vit. 98, 99, with the addition of
αἱρετὸν and εὔχρηστον: cf. Stob. Ecl. π΄ 7. 5%, p. 69, 11,
πάντα δὲ τἀγαθὰ ὠφέλιμα εἶναι καὶ εὔχρηστα καὶ συμ-
φέροντα καὶ λυσιτελῆ καὶ σπουδαῖα καὶ πρέποντα καὶ
καλὰ καὶ οἰκεῖα, ib. 5', p. 72, 19, ib. 11}, Ῥ. 100, 15 foll.
Chrysippus proved similar statements by his favourite
chain arguments, Plut. Sto. Rep. ο. 13, Cie. Fin. mt. 27,
Tuse. v. 4. |

3. κρατοῦν ἑαυτοῦ: pointing to the virtue ἐγκράτεια
(frag. 76): reliquum est, ut tute tibi imperes, Cic. Tuse.
I. 47.

4. αὐστηρόν: cf. Diog. L. vit. 117, καὶ αὐστηροὺς δέ
φασιν εἶναι πάντας τοὺς σπουδαίους, Stob. Ἐπ]. 1. 7. 115,
p. 114, 29.

αὐθέκαστον : in Ar. Eth. 1v. 7. 4 the αὐθέκαστος is the
mean between the ἀλαζὼν and the εἴρων, and is described
as ἀληθευτικὸς καὶ τῷ βίῳ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ. We may com-
pare then Stob. Ἐπ]. m. 7, 111, p. 108, 11, where the wise
man is said to be ἁπλοῦς καὶ ἄπλαστος while τὸ εἰρωνεύ-
εσθαι belongs alone to the φαῦλος, ib. p. 111, 11, ἐν πᾶσιν
ἀληθεύειν τὸν σοφόν. ἰ

5. ἄφοβον, ἄλυπον, ἀνώδυνον : because the wise man is
ἀπαθής.

7. Some word has dropped out here. In Clem. Alex.
Strom. v. 1. ο. the words ἀσφαλὲς φίλον ἔντιμον are
omitted and ὁμολογούμενον is placed at the end of 1. 6,
In Euseb. |. 6. we have two complete lines but εὐάρεστον
is repeated from 1. 6, thus:—évripov εὐάρεστον ὁμολο-
youpevov: this is perhaps the original reading, where
the error is due to εὐάρεστον having been copied from
the previous line in place of the genuine word. The
reading in book V. is due to the scribe’s eye wandering
from the first εὐάρεστον to the second. Mohnike however
thinks (p. 51) that Eusebius had the work of Clement

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 301

before him while writing, and that the second εὐάρεστον
is mere patchwork to mend the metre.

8. &rvov, cf. Diog. L. vir. 117, ἄτυφον τε εἶναι TOV
σοφόν.

πρᾷον, ef. Stob. Ecl. 1. 7. 118, p. 115, 10—12.

76. Plut. Sto. Rep. vit. 4, ὁ δὲ Κλεάνθης ἐν ὑπομνή-
μασι φυσικοῖς εἰπὼν ὅτι “ πληγὴ πυρὸς ὁ τόνος ἐστί,
κἂν ἱκανὸς ἐν τῇ ψυχῆ γένηται πρὸς τὸ ἐπιτελεῖν τὰ
ἐπιβάλλοντα ἰσχὺς καλεῖται καὶ κράτος, ἐπιφέρει κατὰ
λέξιν, “ ἡ δ᾽ ἰσχὺς αὕτη καὶ τὸ κράτος ὅταν μὲν ἐπὶ τοῖς
φανεῖσιν ἐμμενετέοις ἐγγένηται, ἐγκράτειά ἐστιν ὅταν δ᾽
ἐν τοῖς ὑπομενετέοις, ἀνδρεία" περὶ τὰς ἀξίας δὲ δικαιο-
σύνη᾽ περὶ τὰς αἱρέσεις καὶ ἐκκλίσεις σωφροσύνη."

Cf. Stob. Ecl. τι. 7. 5%, p. 62, 24, καὶ ὁμοίως ὥσπερ
ἰσχὺς τοῦ σώματος τόνος ἐστὶν ἱκανὸς ἐν νεύροις οὕτω
καὶ ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς ἰσχὺς τόνος ἐστὶν ἱκανὸς ἐν τῷ κρίνειν
καὶ πράττειν ἢ μή. See also Zeller, p. 128, 2, 256, 2.

πληγὴ πυρός. This is the material air-current which
forms the ἡγεμονικὸν of the individual, being an efflux
of the divine πνεῦμα. Cleanthes here brings his ethical
teaching into close dependence on his physical researches :
of the physical aspect of τόνος we have spoken at frag. 24,
Zeno’s φρόνησις is explained as ἑκανὸς τόνος ψυχῆς, Le. as
ἰσχὺς καὶ κράτος. Possibly Cleanthes was influenced by
the Cynic use of τόνος : see the passage quoted by Stein,
Psych. p. 30 n. 87. Not that Cleanthes intended to deny
the fundamental position of Zeno that virtue is wisdom,
for we shall find that he expressly declared it to be
teachable (frag. 79): and cf. frag. 89. Still, he expanded
and developed his master’s teaching in two ways, (1) by
showing that the doctrine of virtue rests on a psycho-
logical basis, and (2) by clearing up an ambiguity in
Zeno’s statement with regard to the four cardinal virtues.

302 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES,

Zeno held, or appeared to hold, that φρόνησις is found in
a double sense, (1) as the essential groundwork of all
virtue, and (2) as the first of its four main divisions. This
inconsistency is therefore removed by retaining φρόνησις
in the wider, but substituting ἐγκράτεια in the narrower
meaning: see Hirzel u. p. 97 foll. Chrysippus on the
other hand restored φρόνησις as the cardinal virtue, but
represented by ἐπιστήμη that notion of φρόνησις which
was common to Zeno and Cleanthes,

φανεῖσιν : 80 Hirzel, p. 97, 2, for ἐπιφάνεσιν, coll. Stob.
Eel. 11. 7. 5”, p. 61, 11, ἐγκράτειαν δὲ ἐπιστήμην ἀνυπέρ-
βατον τῶν κατὰ τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον φανέντων. We find
also definitions of ἐγκράτεια in Diog. L. vir. 93, Sext.
Math. rx. 153, which are substantially identical with that
cited from Stobaeus: in Stob. it appears as a subdivision
of σωφροσύνη, while both in Diog. and Stob. the word
ἐμμενετέον is found in connection with καρτερία, a sub-
division of ἀνδρεία. No doubt their account is derived
from Chrysippus: it is noteworthy, however, that ὀρθὸς
λόγος appears in these definitions: see Hirzel, 1. ο., Stein,
Erkenntnistheorie, p. 262. In giving this prominent
position to ἐγκράτεια Cleanthes was following in the
steps of Socrates (Xen. Mem. 1. 5. 4, dpa ye οὐ χρὴ πάντα
ἄνδρα ἡγησάμενον τὴν ἐγκράτειαν ἀρετῆς εἶναι κρηπῖδα),
and the Cynies (Diog. L. vi. 15),

ἀξίας : the full definition, probably that of Chrysippus,
appears in Stob. Ἐπ]. τι. 7. 5% Ῥ. 59, 11, δικαιοσύνην δὲ
ἐπιστήμην ἀπονεμητικὴν τῆς ἀξίας ἑκάστῳ, ib. Τ', p.
84, 15.

αἱρέσεις Kal ἐκκλίσεις: σωφροσύνη is concerned with the
regulation of the ὁρμαί (Stob. Ecl. m. 7. 5%, p. 60, 13,
ib. 5, p. 63, 16), and is therefore directed to the avoidance
of πάθη, among which φόβος is defined as ἔκκλισις
ἀπειθὴς λόγῳ (Stob. Ecl. π΄ 7. 10, Ρ. 90, 11).

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES, 303

77. Clem. Alex. Strom. τ. 22, 131, p. 499 P., 179 S.,
διὸ καὶ Κλεάνθης ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ περὶ ἡδονῆς τὸν Σω-
κράτην φησὶ παρ᾽ ἕκαστα διδάσκειν ὡς ὁ αὐτὸς δίκαιός
τε καὶ εὐδαίμων ἀνὴρ καὶ τῷ πρώτῳ διελόντι τὸ δίκαιον
ἀπὸ τοῦ συμφέροντος καταρᾶσθαι ὡς ἀσεβές τι πρᾶγμα
δεδρακότι᾽ ἀσεβεῖς γὰρ τῷ ὄντι οἱ τὸ συμφέρον ἀπὸ τοῦ
δικαίου τοῦ κατὰ νόμον χωρίζοντες.

Cf Cic. Off. τα 11, itaque accepimus Socratem ex-
secrari solitum eos qui primum haec natura cohaerentia
opinione distraxissent. cui quidem ita sunt Stoici assensi
ut et quidquid honestum esset id utile esse censerent
nee utile quicquam quod non honestum. id. Leg. 1. 33,
recte Socrates exsecrari eum solebat qui primus utili-
tatem a iure seiunxisset: id enim querebatur caput esse
exitiorum omnium.

For Socrates, who identified τὸ ὠφέλιμον with τὸ
ἀγαθόν, cf. Zeller, Socrates, p. 150 foll. Cleanthes, as we
have seen (frag. 75), asserted that the good was also
συμφέρον and ὠφέλιμον : for the school in general see
Zeller, Stoics, p. 229, 2.

78. Diog. L. vil. 92, πλείονας (εἶναι ἀρετὰς ἢ τέτταρας)
οἱ περὶ Κλεάνθην καὶ Χρύσιππον καὶ ᾿Αντίπατρον.

Zeller, p. 258, thinks that this simply means that
Cleanthes enumerated the various subdivisions of the
four cardinal virtues. Hirzel, p. 97, 2, prefers to suppose
that it is due to the mistake of placing φρόνησις, which
is the source of the several virtues, on the same level as
the four main divisions of virtue.

79. Diog. L. vit. 91, διδακτήν τε εἶναι αὐτὴν (λέγω
δὲ τὴν ἀρετὴν) καὶ Χρύσιππος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ τέλους
φησὶ καὶ Κλεάνθης.

This is, of course, ultimately traceable to Socrates, but

004 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES,

was also enforced by the Cynics: cf. Diog. vi. 10 (Antis-
thenes) διδακτὴν ἀπεδείκνυε τὴν ἀρετήν, ib. 105, ἀρέσκει δ᾽
αὐτοῖς καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν διδακτὴν εἶναι, καθά φησιν ᾽Αντι-
σθένης ἐν τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ.

80. Diog. L. vil. 127, καὶ μὴν τὴν ἀρετὴν Χρύσιππος
μὲν ἀποβλητήν, Κλεάνθης δὲ ἀναπόβλητον, ὁ μὲν ἀπο-
βλητὴν διὰ μέθην καὶ μελαγχολίαν, ὁ δὲ ἀναπόβλητον διὰ
βεβαίους καταλήψεις.

On this point Cleanthes is in agreement with the
Cynics (Diog. L. v1. 105), whence Wellmann, 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 Οἷς, Tuse.
II, 32, amitti non potest virtus.

μέθην: but Zeno held that the wise man οὐ μεθυσθή-
σεσθαι (frag. 159).

μελαγχολίαν : Cic. Tusc. U1. 11, quod (furor) cum maius
esse videatur quam insania, tamen eiusmodi est, ut furor
(μελαγχολία) in sapientem cadere possit, non possit
insania.

βεβαίους καταλήψεις : although xarddyyus is shared by
the wise man with the fool (see on Zeno, frag. 16), its
especial cultivation and possession belongs to the wise
man only: ef. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 184, 185. Cf.
also Sext. Math. τι. 6 (quoted on frag. 9). 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 καταλήψεις is so great, that
even melancholy and drunkenness fail to shake him. In
support of this he quotes Epict. diss. 1. 18, 21—23, ris
οὖν ὁ ἀήττητος ; ὃν οὐκ ἐξίστησιν οὐδὲν τῶν ἀποπροαι-
ρέτων. τί οὖν ἂν καῦμα ἢ τούτῳ ; τί ἂν οἰνώμενος ἦ ; τί
ἂν μελαγχολῶν; τί ἐν ὕπνοις; οὗτός μοι ἐστὶν ὁ ἀνίκητος

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 305

ἀθλητής. τι. 17. 33, ἤθελον δ᾽ ἀσφαλώς ἔχειν καὶ ἀσείστως,
καὶ οὐ μόνον ἐγρηγορὼς ἀλλὰ καὶ καθεύδων καὶ οἰνώμενος
καὶ ἐν μελαγχολίᾳ. He thinks that the later Stoics
invented the distinction between οἰνοῦσθαι and μεθύειν
to explain the divergence between Cleanthes and Chry-
sippus on so important a point as the loss of virtue.
So substantially Von Arnim, Quellen Studien zu Philo,
p. 106.

81. Diog. L. vit. 128, ἀρέσκει δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ διὰ

\ lal lal > lal e Φ \ , /

παντὸς χρῆσθαι TH ἀρετῇ, ὡς of περὶ Κλεάνθην φασίν.

ἀναπόβλητος γάρ ἐστι' καὶ πάντοτε τῇ ψυχῇ χρῆται
οὔσῃ τελείᾳ ὁ σπουδαῖος.

82. Stob. Kel. 11. 7. 5%, p. 65, 8, πάντας γὰρ ἀνθρώ-
πους ἀφορμὰς ἔχειν ἐκ φύσεως πρὸς ἀρετήν, Kal οἱονεὶ TOV
τῶν ἡμιαμβείων λόγον ἔχειν κατὰ Κλεάνθην" ὅθεν ἀτελεῖς
μὲν ὄντας εἶναι φαύλους τελειωθέντας δὲ σπουδαίους.

ἀφορμάς. For this sense of the word cf. frag. 73
ἀφορμὰς ἀδιαστρόφους “uncorrupted impulses.” Stob.
Eel. 11. 7. 5°, p. 62, 9 ἔχειν γὰρ (τὸν ἄνθρωπον) ἀφορμὰς
Tapa τῆς φύσεως Kai πρὸς THY τοῦ καθήκοντος εὕρεσιν
καὶ πρὸς τὴν τῶν ὁρμῶν εὐστάθειαν καὶ πρὸς τὰς ὑπο-
μονὰς καὶ πρὸς Tas ἀπονεμήσεις. ΑΒ ἃ general rule, how-
ever, it is contrasted with op as “aversion” )( “impulse
towards,” Stob. Ecl. 1, 7. 9, p. 87, 5, Sext. Pyrrh. 111. 273,
EYKPATELAV...€V ταῖς πρὸς TO καλὸν ὁρμαῖς Kal ἐν ταῖς ἀπὸ
τοῦ κακοῦ ἀφορμαῖς, ib. Math. χι. 210. Cleanthes re-
garded our capacity for virtue as innate, but whether at
the same time he denied an innate intellectual capacity is
open to question, cf. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, ἢ. 735.

Cf. M. Aurel. ix. 1, ἀφορμὰς yap προειλήφει παρὰ τῆς
φύσεως, ὧν ἀμελήσας οὐχ οἷός τέ ἐστι viv διακρίνειν τὰ
ψευδῆ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀληθῶν.

H, P. 20

306 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

τόν : so Zeller, (p. 243, 1), for τό.

ἡμιαμβείων : so Wachsm. for MSS. ἡμιαμβειαίων. Meineke
reads μιμιαμβείων. 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. Tuse. U1. 2, sunt enim ingeniis nostris semina
innata virtutum, quae si adolescere liceret, ipsa nos ad
beatam vitam natura perduceret.

83. Themist. Or. 11. 27 c, εἰ δὲ αὖ φήσειέ τις κολα-
κείαν εἶναι τῷ Πυθίῳ παραβάλλειν τὸν βασιλέα, Xpvour-
mos μὲν ὑμῖν καὶ Κλεάνθης οὐ συγχωρήσει καὶ ὅλον
ἔθνος φιλοσοφίας ἢ ὁ ἐκ τῆς ποικίλης χορὸς οἱ φάσκοντες
εἶναι τὴν αὐτὴν ἀρετὴν καὶ ἀλήθειαν ἀνδρὸς καὶ θεοῦ.

This 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. Cf. Procl. in Tim. Plat. 11. 106 f, οὗ δὲ ἀπὸ
τῆς Στοᾶς καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀρετὴν εἶναι θεῶν Kai ἀνθρώπων
εἰρήκασιν. Cic. Leg. I. 25, iam vero virtus eadem in
homine ac deo est neque alio ullo ingenio praeterea.

84. Galen. Hipp. et Plat. plac. v. 6, v. p. 476 K., τὴν
μὲν τοῦ Κλεάνθους γνώμην ὑπὲρ τοῦ παθητικοῦ τῆς
ψυχῆς ἐκ τῶνδε φαίνεσθαί φησι τῶν ἐπῶν.

Λογισμός. τί ποτ᾽ ἐσθ᾽ ὅτι βούλει, θυμέ; τοῦτό
μοι φράσον.
Θυμός. ἔχειν, λογισμέ, πᾶν ὃ βούλομαι ποιεῖν.
A. ναὶ βασιλικόν γε' πλὴν ὅμως εἰπὸν πάλιν.
Θ. ὧν ἂν ἐπιθυμῶ ταῦθ᾽ ὅπως γενήσεται.
ταυτὶ τὰ ἀμοιβᾶια Καεάνθους φησὶν εἶναι Ποσειδώνιος
ἐναργῶς ἐκδεικνύμενα τὴν περὶ τοῦ παθητικοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 307

γνώμην αὐτοῦ, el ye δὴ πεποίηκε τὸν Λογισμὸν τῷ Θυμῷ
διαλεγόμενον ὡς ἑταῖρον ἐταίρῳ.

2, 8. ἐγὼ λογισμόν... βασιλικόν γε MSS. ἔχειν, λογισμέ,
Wyttenbach βασιλικόν ἐστι Mullach, βασιλικόν" εὖ ye
Scaliger, vai β. y. Mein. Perhaps we should read ποιεῖν
λογισμόν... ἐγὼ βασιλικός. '

4. ὧν Meineke, Mullach, ὡς MSS., ὅσ᾽ Wyttenbach.

Mohnike, p. 52, thinks that this fragment comes either
from περὶ ὁρμῆς or περὶ λόγου.

Posidonius uses the verses to prove that Cleanthes
was in substantial agreement with himself in supposing
that the various functions of the ἡγεμονικὸν are radically
distinct. Zeller, p. 215, 8, says that this is to confound a
rhetorical flourish with a philosophical view, and it may
be added that Posidonius must have been hard pressed
for an argument to rely on this passage at all. Hirzel,
however, pp. 147—160, labours to prove that Posidonius
is right, but he mainly relies on frag. 37, θύραθεν eioxpt-
νεσθαι τὸν νοῦν, where see note, and is well refuted by

Stein, Psych. pp. 163—167.

85. Galen, Hipp. et Plat. rx. 1, v. p. 653 K., Ποσει-
δώνιος...δείκνυσιν ἐν TH περὶ παθῶν πραγματείᾳ διοικου-
μένους ἡμᾶς ὑπὸ τριῶν δυνάμεων, ἐπιθυμητικῆς τε καὶ
θυμοειδοῦς καὶ λογιστικῆς" τῆς δ᾽ αὐτῆς ὁ ἸΠοσειδώνιος
ἔλεξεν εἶναι καὶ τὸν Κλεάνθην.

Though there is no direct proof that Cleanthes adhered
to the eightfold division of the soul, yet everything points
‘that way, and Hirzel’s opinion (p. 188) that he only
recognised three divisions is unfounded: see on frag. 84.
The present passage of Galen ought perhaps rather to
be added 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-

20—2

308 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

tween λογισμὸς and θυμός. For δυνάμεις see Hirzel, 1.
p. 486, 1.

86. Stob. Floril. 108, 59, ὁ δὲ Κλεάνθης ἔλεγε τὴν
λύπην ψυχῆς παράλυσιν.

This appears to be the only remaining indication of
the position of Cleanthes as regards the definition of the
πάθη, but it is not without significance. Zeno had pro-
bably defined λύπη as ἄλογος συστολὴ ψυχῆς (see on
Zeno frag. 143), but Cleanthes saw his way to a better
explanation from the standpoint of τόνος: the soul
of the wise man, informed by right reason, is characterised
by ἰσχύς, ἱκανὸς τόνος, evtovia, but if the emotions over-
power the natural reason of a man, there supervenes a
resolution of tension, ἀτονία or ἀσθένεια. This view of
the emotions was adopted by Chrysippus, cf. Galen, Hipp.
et Plat. v. 387 K. ἡ ὀρθὴ κρίσις ἐξηγεῖται peta τῆς κατὰ
τὴν ψυχὴν εὐτονίας: see especially the long passage be-
ginning ib. p. 404 K. where the view of πάθος as drovia
or ἀσθένεια is explained at length by Chrysippus. With
regard to λύπη cf. Tusc. mI. 61, omnibus enim modis
fulciendi sunt, qui ruunt nec cohaerere possunt, propter
magnitudinem aegritudinis. Ex quo ipsam aegritudinem
λύπην Chrysippus quasi solutionem totius hominis appel-
latam putat. ib. I 54, animus intentione sua depellit
pressum omnem ponderum, remissione autem sic urgetur,
ut se nequeat extollere. No doubt Cleanthes, like Plato, —
derived λύπη from Avw: Plat. Crat. p. 419 c. See also
Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 130.

87. Galen, Hipp. et Plat. m1. 5, v. 332 K., οὐ μόνον
Χρύσιππος ἀλλὰ καὶ Κλεάνθης καὶ Ζήνων ἑτοίμως αὐτὰ
τιθέασιν (scil. τοὺς φόβους καὶ τὰς λύπας καὶ πάνθ᾽ ὅσα
τοιαῦτα πάθη κατὰ τὴν καρδίαν συνίστασθαι) = Zeno,

frag. 141.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 309

Hirzel’s contention (p. 152 f.) that Cleanthes placed
the ἡγεμονικὸν in the brain, and that hence we are to
explain Plut. plac. Iv. 21. 5, is controverted by Stein,
Psych. p. 170, from this passage, for we have seen that
the πάθη are affections of the ἡγεμονικόν. Hirzel replies
(p. 154) that ὁρμαὶ and πάθη, though dependent on the
ἡγεμονικόν, are yet distinct from it. The improbability
of Hirzel’s whole theory lies in the fact that, if it 1s cor-
rect, Cleanthes was in vital opposition to the whole Stoa
down to Posidonius on the most important doctrines of
psychology. Such an inference ought not to be accepted,
unless the evidence conclusively points to it, and no one
will affirm that such is the case here.

88. Sext. Emp. Math. x1. 74, add Κλεάνθης μὲν
μήτε κατὰ φύσιν αὐτὴν (ἡδονὴν) εἶναι μήτ᾽ ἀξίαν ἔχειν
[αὐτὴν] ἐν τῷ βίῳ, καθάπερ δὲ τὸ κάλλυντρον κατὰ φύσιν
μὴ εἶναι.

ἡδονὴ is, according to Cleanthes, not merely an ἀδιά-
φορον but also παρὰ φύσιν, being entirely devoid of ἀξία,
ef. Diog. L. vil. 105, and see on Zeno, frag. 192.

κάλλυντρον cannot here mean “a broom,” but must be
“an ornament”: see Suidas s.v. All kinds of personal
adornment appeared to the Stoics, as to the Cynics, to
be contrary to nature: Zeno wore the τρίβων (Diog.
L. vul. 26), recommended the same dress for males and
females (frag. 177), and forbade young men to be ἑται-
ρικῶς κεκοσμημένοι (frag. 174).

αὐτὴν is bracketed by Bekker. Hirzel discusses this
passage at length (pp. 89—96). He thinks that the first
part (μήτε... βίῳ) contains a climax: ἡδονὴ has no connec-
tion with virtue and therefore is not ἀγαθόν (κατὰ φύσιν);
further, it has no ἀξία and is not even προηγμένον. Hence
Zeno and Cleanthes did not identify τὰ κατὰ φύσιν with

310 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.,

προηγμένα : for in that case they could not have treated
προηγμένα as ἀδιάφορα. Zeller and Wellmann are, there-
fore, wrong in regarding Cleanthes’ attitude towards plea-
sure as cynical; rather, his position is that pleasure in
itself (for this is the force of the second αὐτὴν which
should be retained) is ἀδιάφορον in the narrower sense.
Cf. Stob. Ecl. 11. 7. 7°, p. 81, 14 οὔτε δὲ προηγμένα οὔτ᾽
ἀποπροηγμένα.. ἡδονὴν πᾶσαν καὶ πόνον καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο
τοιοῦτος. Next, κατὰ φύσιν μὴ εἶναι is ἃ gloss, and when —
this is struck out we should supply ἀξίαν ἔχειν with
καθάπερ δὲ κάλλυντρον. In short, Cleanthes treats plea-
sure as an ἐπιγέννημα (Diog. L. vit. 86): cf. Seneca Ep.
116, 3, voluptatem natura necessariis rebus admiscuit, non
ut illam peteremus, sed ut ea, sine quibus non possumus
vivere, gratiora nobis faceret illius accessio. But it does
not follow that, because virtue consists in τὸ ὁμολογου-.
μένως τῇ φύσει ζῆν, therefore everything, which is κατὰ
φύσιν, is ἀρετὴ or μετέχον ἀρετῆς. Cf. Stob. Ecl. 7. 75,
p. 80, 9 διότε κἄν, φασί, λέγωμεν ἀδιάφορα τὰ σωματικὰ
καὶ τὰ ἐκτός, πρὸς τὸ εὐσχημόνως ζῆν (ἐν ᾧπέρ ἐστι τὸ
εὐδαιμόνως) ἀδιάφορά φαμεν αὐτὰ εἶναι, οὐ μὰ Δία πρὸς
τὸ κατὰ φύσιν ἔχειν οὐδὲ πρὸς ὁρμὴν καὶ ἀφορμήν. Rather,
we have seen reason to hold that the class of τὰ κατὰ
φύσιν is wider, or, at any rate, certainly not narrower than
that of τὰ προηγμένα. Indeed, this is apparent from the
present passage :—o δὲ ᾿Αρχέδημος κατὰ φύσιν μὲν εἶναι
ὡς τὰς ἐν μασχάλῃ τρίχας, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ ἀξίαν ἔχειν, ie.
there are some things which may be κατὰ φύσιν and yet
devoid of ἀξία. Again, Sextus obviously treats Cleanthes
as more hostile to pleasure than Archedemus, but the view
which Hirzel would attribute to Cleanthes is scarcely to
be distinguished from that of Archedemus. Certainly, the
passage from Seneca ought not to be quoted as an illustra-
tion of Cleanthes’ meaning: contrast μήτε κατὰ φύσιν

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. SLi

εἶναι with natura—admiscuit. The inelegant repetition
of μή...εἶναι has an object, namely, to contrast τὸ καλ-
λυντρον With τὰς ἐν μασχάλῃ τρίχας, whereas, on the other
hand, if the second αὐτὴν is retained, it cannot be inter-
preted differently to the first αὐτὴν, and to press the latter
would make nonsense.

89. Stob. Floril. 6. 37, Κλεάνθης ἔλεγεν, εἰ τέλος
ἐστὶν ἡδονή, πρὸς κακοῦ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὴν φρόνησιν
δεδόσθαι.

This is no doubt directed against the Epicureans.
Diog. L. x. 128, τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀρχὴν Kat τέλος λέγομεν εἶναι
τοῦ μακαρίως ζῆν. Chrysippus also wrote a treatise
described as ἀπόδειξις πρὸς TO μὴ εἶναι τὴν ἡδονὴν τέλος
(Diog. L. vir. 202). τὴν φρόνησιν furnishes a proof that
Cleanthes upheld Zeno’s view of virtue as φρόνησις : see
on frag. 76.

δεδόσθαι: so Meineke for δίδοσθαι. Cf. Cic. de Senec.
§ 40, cumque homini sive natura sive quis deus nihil
mente praestabilius dedisset, huic divino muneri ac dono
nihil tam esse inimicum quam voluptatem.

90. Cic. Fin. τι. 69, pudebit te illius tabulae quam
Cleanthes sane commode verbis depingere solebat. iube-
bat eos qui audiebant secum ipsos cogitare pictam in
tabula Voluptatem, pulcherrimo vestitu et ornatu regali in
solio sedentem: praesto esse Virtutes ut ancillulas, quae
nihil aliud agerent, nullum suum officium ducerent, nist
ut Voluptati ministrarent et eam tantum ad aurem admo-
nerent, si modo id pictura intellegi posset, ut caveret ne
quid faceret imprudens quod offenderet animos hominum
aut quicquam e quo oriretur aliquis dolor. “nos quidem
Virtutes sic natae sumus, ut tibi serviremus ; alind negotil
nihil habemus.” Cf. Aug. de civit. dei v. 20, solent

312 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

philosophi, qui finem boni humani in ipsa virtute consti-
tuunt, ad ingerendum pudorem quibusdam_philosophis,
qui virtutes quidem probant, sed eas voluptatis corporalis
fine metiuntur et illam per se ipsam putant adpetendam,
istas propter ipsam, tabulam quandam verbis pingere, ubi
voluptas in sella regali quasi delicata quaedam regina
considat, eique virtutes famulae subiciantur, observantes
eius nutum ut faciant quod illa imperaverit, quae pruden-
tiae iubeat ut vigilanter inquirat quo modo voluptas
regnet et salva sit; iustitiae iubeat ut praestet beneficia
quae potest ad comparandas amicitias corporalibus com-
modis necessarias, nulli 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
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 valetu-
dinem turbet et voluptas, quam etiam in corporis sanitate
Epicurei maximam ponunt, graviter offendatur. ita vir-
tutes cum tota suae gloria dignitatis tanquam imperiosae
cuidam et inhonestae mulierculae servient voluptati;
nihil hac pictura dicunt esse ignominiosius et deformius
et quod minus ferre bonorum possit aspectus; et verum
dicunt.

Further references ap. Zeller, p. 235—239. Epiphan.
Heres. ΠΙ. 2. p. 1090 ο Κλεάνθης τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ καλὸν
λέγει εἶναι τὰς ἡδονὰς is a stupid blunder of the epitoma-
tor: cf. Krische, p. 431. Hirzel, p. 96, 1, holds that it is
merely an exaggeration of Cleanthes’ position: see on

frag. 88.
pulcherrimo vestitu: this illustrates κάλλυντρον in

frag. 88,

.

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 313

si modo...possent: Madvig points out that these words
belong to Cleanthes’ statement, and are not a part of
Cicero’s comment.

Virtutes ut ancillulas: on the controversial character
of the work περὶ ἡδονῆς see Krische, pp. 430—432. In
the Epicurean system virtue has only a conditional value, |
as furnishing a means to pleasure. Diog. L. x. 138 διὰ δὲ
τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ tas ἀρετὰς δεῖν αἱρεῖσθαι, οὐ δι’ αὑτάς"
ὥσπερ καὶ τὴν ἰατρικὴν διὰ τὴν ὑγίειαν, καθά φησι Διογένης.

91. Epict. Man. ο. 53.

ἄγου δέ μ᾽, ὦ Ζεῦ, καὶ σύγ᾽ ἡ πεπρωμένη,
ὅποι ποθ᾽ ὑμῖν εἰμὶ διατεταγμένος,

ὡς ἕψομαί γ᾽ ἄοκνος" ἢν δὲ μὴ θέλω
κακὸς γενόμενος, οὐδὲν ἧττον ἕψομαι.

The first line is quoted by Epict. diss. 11. 28, 42, and
two lines by id. ib. 11. 22. 95, Iv. 1. 131, and Iv. 4. 34.
Senec. Epist. 107, 10, et sic adloquamur Iovem cuius
gubernaculo moles ista dirigitur, quemadmodum Cleanthes
noster versibus disertissimis adloquitur; quos mihi in
nostrum sermonem mutare permittitur Ciceronis disertis-
simi viri exemplo. si placuerint boni consules; si dis-
plicuerint, scies me in hoe secutum Ciceronis exemplum.

duc, o parens celsique dominator poli,
quocumque placuit; nulla parendi mora est.
adsum impiger. fac nolle, comitabor gemens,
malusque patiar, quod pati licuit bono.
ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt.

See also the commentary of Simplicius on Epict. 1. c.
p. 329. These celebrated lines constitute the true
answer of the Stoa to the objection that the doctrine
of πρόνοια is incompatible with the assertion of free-

314 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

will. Zeller p. 182. The matter is put very plainly in
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
man not merely to submit to Necessity,—Necessity will
make him 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
pretension of scanning this great God’s world in his small
fraction of a brain; to know that it had 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
questioning it, obeying it as unquestionable.” (Carlyle,
Hero-Worship, chap. 1.) Marcus Aurelius often dwells on
the contrast between τὰ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν and τὰ οὐκ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν.
Cf. especially x. 28, καὶ ὅτι μόνῳ τῷ λογικῷ Edw δέδοται, τὸ
_ ἑκουσίως ἕπεσθαιτοῖς γινομένοις" τὸδὲ ἕπεσθαι ψιλόν, πᾶσιν
ἀναγκαῖον. So ib. vi. 41, 42; vir. ὅ4, 55; vi. 7; xu. 32.

92. Seneca Epist. 94, 4, Cleanthes utilem quidem
iudicat et hance partem (philosophiae quae dat cuique
personae praecepta, nec in universum componit hominem,
sed marito suadet quomodo se gerat adversus uxorem,
patri quomodo educat liberos, domino quomodo servos
regat), sed imbecillam nisi ab universo fluit, nisi decreta
ipsa philosophiae et capita cognovit.

The branch of philosophy here referred to is known as
the παραινετικὸς or ὑποθετικὸς τόπος. Aristo regarded it
as useless, and it is very possible that his “letters to
Cleanthes” (πρὸς Κλεάνθην ἐπιστολῶν δ΄ Diog. L. vu.
163) dealt with this controversy. Cf. Sext. Math. vi. 12,
καὶ ᾿Αρίστων ὁ Χῖος οὐ μόνον, ὡς φασί, παρῃτεῖτο τήν τε

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 315
φυσικὴν καὶ λογικὴν θεωρίαν διὰ τὸ ἀνωφελὲς καὶ πρὸς
κακοῦ τοῖς φιλοσοφοῦσιν ὑπάρχειν ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ ἠθικοῦ
τόπους τινὰς συμπεριέγραφεν, καθάπερ τόν τε παραινετικὸν
καὶ τὸν ὑποθετικὸν τόπον᾽ τούτους γὰρ εἰς τίτθας καὶ
παιδαγωγοὺς πίπτειν. The words in which Philo of
Larissa described the τόπος ὑποθετικὸς illustrate Seneca’s
statement: Stob. Ecl. τι. 7. 2, p. 42, 18, ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ τῶν μέσως
διακειμένων ἀνθρώπων πρόνοιαν ποιητέον, οὕστινας ἐκ τῶν
παραινετικῶν λόγων ὠφελεῖσθαι συμβαίνει, μὴ δυναμένους
προσευκαιρεῖν τοῖς διεξοδικοῖς πλάτεσιν ἢ διὰ χρόνου
σ εὐ χώριας ἢ διά τινας ἀναγκαίας ἀσχολίας, ἐπεισενεκτέον
τὸν ὑποθετικὸν λόγον, δι’ οὗ τὰς πρὸς τὴν ἀσφάχεαν καὶ
τὴν ὀρθότητα τὴς ἑκάστου χρήσεως ὑποθήκας ἐν ἐπιτομαῖς
ἕξουσιν. The importance attached by Cleanthes to παραυ-
νετικὴ illustrates the practical spirit of Stoicism: see also
Hirzel, 11. p. 104.

93. Cic. Tusc. mI. 76, sunt qui unum officium con-
solantis putent malum illud omnino non esse, ut Cleanthi
placet.

Consolatio (παραμυθητικὴλ) 1 is a branch οἵ παραινετικὴ
and is concerned with removing the πάθη, cf. Eudorus ap.
Stob. Ecl. τι. 7. 2. p. 44, 15 6 δὲ περὶ τῶν ἀποτρεπόντων
καλεῖται παραμυθητικός, ὃς καλούμενός ἐστι πρὸς ἐνίων
παθολογικόςς. Cf. Sen. Epist. 95, 65. As emotion is
founded on false opinion (see on Zeno, frag. 138), the duty
of him who offers consolation to another is to explain that
what appears to the other to be an evil is not really so.

malum illud: the context in Cicero shows that the
reference is particularly to death, for which cf. Zeno, frag.
129. The construction is not to be explained by an ellipse
of docere or the like, but rather esse is nominalised so that:
malum...esse = τὸ κακόν... εἶναι. This is common in Lucr.,
see Munro on 1. 331, 418 and cf. Verr. v. 170, quid dicam

316 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES,

in crucem tollere? Cicero even writes: inter optime valere
et gravissime aegrotare (Fin. 11. 43). Draeger, § 429.

94. Cic. Tusc. 11. 77, nam Cleanthes quidem sapi-
entem consolatur, qui consolatione non eget. nihil enim
esse malum, quod turpe non sit, si lugenti persuaseris, non
tu illi luctum, sed stultitiam detraxeris; alienum autem
tempus docendi. et tamen non satis mihi videtur vidisse
hoc Cleanthes, suscipi aliquando aegritudinem posse ex
eo ipso, quod esse summum malum Cleanthes mee
fateatur.

Cicero’s criticism ies is twofold: (1) that what is
called consolation is really only instruction, which is
ineffective to assuage grief, because’it is inopportune, and
as regards the wise man, who is ἀπαθής, is unnecessary ;
(2) that grief may be caused by baseness, which is an
evil. Cf. Tuse. 1. 30.

This cannot be treated as merely containing Cicero’s
comment on frag. 93, for we have the additional statement
saprentem consolatur, which is surely not an inference
from Cleanthes’ definition. The statement is strange and
perhaps not to be entirely explained in the 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 μελαγχολία or when
in severe pain, in spite of his βεβαίας καταλήψεις (see on
frag. 80 and cf. Stob. Floril. 7. 21 ἀλγεῖν μὲν τὸν σοφόν,
μὴ βασανίζεσθαι δέ. Cic. Fin. v. 94, quasi vero hoc
didicisset a Zenone, non dolere, quum doleret! Zeno,
frag. 158): cf. generally Sext. Math. x1. 130—140 and
esp. 139 εἰ δ᾽ ἁπλῶς διδάσκει ὅτι τουτὶ μὲν ὀλυγωφελές
ἐστι, πλείονας δ᾽ ἔχει τὰς ὀχλήσεις, σύγκρισιν ἔσται
ποιῶν αἱρέσεως καὶ φυγῆς πρὸς ἑτέραν αἵρεσιν καὶ φυγήν,
καὶ οὐκ ἀναίρεσιν τῆς ταραχῆς. ὅπερ ἄτοπον᾽ ὁ γὰρ

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 317

ὀχλούμενος οὐ βούλεται μαθεῖν τί μᾶλλον ὀχλεῖ καὶ τί
φΦ ’ ’ > a a > / /
ἧττον, GAN ἀπαλλαγῆναι τῆς ὀχλήσεως πεπόθηκεν.

95. Stob. Floril. 6. 19.
ὅστις ἐπιθυμῶν ἀνέχετ᾽ αἰσχροῦ πράγματος
οὗτος ποιήσει τοῦτ᾽ ἐὰν καιρὸν λάβῃ.

For the doctrine that virtuous action depends on the

intention and not on the deed itself, see Zeller, p. 264 and
ef. Zeno frags. 146 and 181.

96. Stob. Floril. 28, 14, Κλεάνθης ἔφη τὸν ὀμνύοντα
ἤτοι εὐορκεῖν ἢ ἐπιορκεῖν καθ᾽ ὃν ὄμνυσι χρόνον. ἐὰν.
μὲν γὰρ οὕτως ὀμνύῃ ὡς ἐπιτελέσων τὰ κατὰ τὸν ὅρκον
εὐορκεῖν, ἐὰν δὲ πρόθεσιν ἔχων μὴ ἐπιτελεῖν, ἐπιορκεῖν.

See on frag. 95, and ef. Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Floril. 28,
15.

97. Seneca de Benef. v. 14. 1, Cleanthes vehementius
agit: “licet,” inquit, “beneficlum non sit quod accipit,
ipse tamen ingratus est: quia non fuit redditurus, etiam
si accepisset. sic latro est, etiam antequam manus
inquinet: quia ad occidendum iam armatus est, et habet
spoliandi atque interficiendi voluntatem. exercetur et
aperitur opere nequitia, non incipit. ipsum quod accepit,
beneficium non erat, sed vocabatur. sacrilegi dant poenas,
quamvis nemo usque ad deos manus porrigat.”

This and the two next following fragments probably
come from the book περὶ χάριτος. Introd. p. 52. Eudorus
the Academic ap. Stob. Ecl. πι. 7. 2, p. 44, 20 speaks
in Stoic terminology of 6 περὶ τῶν χαρίτων τόπος as
arising ἐκ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ κατὰ THY πρὸς τοὺς πλησίον
σχέσιν ὑπάρχειν.

beneficium non sit: because the question 15 concerning
an act of kindness to a bad man, on whom, according to

318 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

Stoic principles, it was impossible to confer a favour
(Senec. Benef. v. 12. 3), cf. Stob. Ecl. π΄ 7. 114 p. 95, 5,
μηδένα δὲ φαῦλον μήτε ὠφελεῖσθαι μήτε ὠφελεῖν, Plut.
Comm. Not. 21.

sacrilegi: the edd. quote Phedr. 1v. 11. Senee. de
Benef. vii. 7. 3, iniuriam sacrilegus Deo quidem non potest
facere: quem extra ictum sua divinitas posuit: sed punitur
quia tanquam Deo fecit. De Const. Sap. 4, 2.

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 hoe tibi obliger,
sed ex destinato profuisse. Cleanthes exemplo eiusmodi
utitur: “ad quaerendum,” inquit, “et arcessendum ex
Academia Platonem, duos pueros misi; alter totum porti-
cum perscrutatus est, alia quoque loca in quibus illum
inveniri posse sperabat, percucurrit, et domum non minus
lassus quam irritus rediit: alter apud proximum circul-
atorem resedit, et, dum vagus atque erro vernaculis congre-
gatur et ludit, transeuntem Platonem, quem non quaesierat,
invenit. illum, inquit, laudabimus puerum qui quantum
in se erat quod iussus est fecit: hune feliciter inertem
castigabimus.”

Another illustration of the value of the virtuous in-
tention apart from the results attained by it. Cf Cic.
Parad. 11 20 nec enim peccata rerum eventu, sed vitiis
hominum metienda sunt.

Academia: see the description of this place in Diog.
L. u1. 7: there was doubtless a στοὰ attached to it, whence
totum porticum infra.

circulatorem: a quack, mountebank: cf. Apul. Met. 1.
ο. 4, Athenis proximo ante Poecilen porticum circulatorem

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 319

adspexi equestrem spatham praeacutam mucrone infesto
devorare. Probably a translation of θαυματοποιός : with
respect to these men see the passages collected by Becker,
Charicles. E. T. pp. 185—189, Jebb’s Theophrastus, p. 227,
and add Ar. Met. i. 2. 15, Isocr. Or. 15 § 213, where tame
lions and trained bears are spoken of.

99. Seneca de Benef. vi. 12. 2, multum, ut ait
Cleanthes, a beneficio distat negotiatio, cf. ib. 1. ΠΣ
a benefit expects no return: non enim 5101 aliquid reddi
voluit (qui beneficium dat), aut non fuit beneficium sed
negotiatio.

negotiatio: probably a translation of χρηματισμός, for
the Stoic wise man is described as the only true man of
business: Stob. Ecl. πι. 7. 114, p. 95, 21, μόνον δὲ τὸν
σπουδαῖον ἄνδρα χρηματιστικὸν εἶναι, γινώσκοντα ἀφ᾽ ὧν
χρηματιστέον καὶ πότε καὶ πῶς καὶ μέχρι πότε.

100. Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 3. 17, p. 655 P. 2375S.,
καὶ ἡ KneavOous δὲ τοῦ Στωικοῦ φιλοσόφου ποιητικὴ
ὧδέ πως τὰ ὅμοια γράφει

μὴ πρὸς δόξαν ὅρα, ἐθέλων σοφὸς αἶψα γενέσθαι,
μηδὲ φοβοῦ πολλῶν ἄκριτον καὶ ἀναιδέα δόξαν'

οὐ γὰρ πλῆθος ἔχει συνετὴν κρίσιν οὔτε δικαίαν

wv re 2 , \ > 3 Υ rn , aA
οὔτε καλήν, ὀλίγοις δὲ παρ᾽ ἀνδράσι τοῦτό κεν εὕροις.

Clement also quotes an anonymous comic fragment
to the same effect:—alcypov δὲ κρίνειν τὰ καλὰ TO
πολλῷ ψόφῳ. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 326 says :—
“hatte auch er (Kleanthes) den sensus communis, die
κοιναὶ ἔννοιαν oder προλήψεις gebilligt, wie konnte er
dann so wegwerfend und verichtlich iiber das allgemeine
Laienurteil aburteilen?” He concludes therefore that
Cleanthes threw over altogether the Stoic concession to

320 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES.

rationalism implied in the doctrine of ὀρθὸς λόγος and
προλήψεις, but see Introd. pp. 39, 40. Cf. generally Cic.
Tuse. 11. 3, 4.

δόξαν : this is changed to βάξιν by Meineke, who is
followed by Wachsmuth, and Cludius is reported as
suggesting ἄλογον for ἄκριτον. The reason given for
the change by Wachsmuth is that δόξαν “male con-
iungitur cum ἄκριτον," presumably because δόξα implies
κρίσις, but surely the words may mean “ undiscriminating —
opinion ” as explained by the next line. The text is con-
firmed by M. Aurel. Iv. 3,76 εὐμετάβολον καὶ ἄκριτον τῶν
εὐφημεῖν δοκούντων. Cf. ib. π΄. 17.

οὐ.. «οὔτε.. «οὔτε, 18 justified by Homer, 1]. vi. 450, ἀλλ᾽
οὔ μοι Τρώων τόσσον μέλει adyos ὀπίσσω οὔτ᾽ αὐτῆς
Ἑκάβης οὔτε Πριάμοιο ἄνακτος, κιτιλ. Cf. Soph. Ant.
952.

101. Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 14 110, p. 715 P. ΒΥ ΚΒ.
ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς (Κλεάνθης) κατὰ τὸ σιωπώμενον τὴν τῶν
πολλῶν διαβάλλων εἰδωλολατρίαν ἐπιφέρει

ἀνελεύθερος πᾶς ὅστις εἰς δόξαν βλέπει
ὡς δὴ παρ᾽ ἐκείνης τευξόμενος καλοῦ τινος.

In Clem. Alex. Protrept. γι. 72, p. 21S. 61 P., the same
two lines are cited as the conclusion of frag. 75, but they
are obviously distinct.

δόξαν : for Zeno’s definition, ef. Zeno, frag. 15. Cleanthes
wrote a separate treatise περὶ δόξης, from which we
may conjecture that the present and the preceding frag-
ments are derived. Introd. p. 52. The Cynics described
εὐγενείας τε καὶ δόξας as προκοσμήματα κακίας (Diog. L.
VI. 72). The Stoics regarded them as προηγμένα (Diog.
L, vir. 106).

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 321

102. Mantiss. proverb. (in paroemiogr. Gr. vol. I.
p. 757) cent. 1. 85.

κακῶς ἀκούειν κρεῖσσον ἢ λέγειν κακῶς.

Κλεάνθους. This is taken from Wachsmuth (Comm. II.
p. 8), whose note is as follows :—“Inter ecclesiasticorum
scriptorum sententias hie trimeter laudatur ab Antonio
Meliss. 1. 53 et a Maximo 10, vid. Gregor. Nazianz. carm.
p. 1574”

103. Stob. Floril. 42. 2.

, OX A Μ
κακουργότερον οὐδὲν διαβολῆς ἔστι πω"
λάθρα γὰρ ἀπατήσασα τὸν πεπεισμένον

nw ᾽
μῖσος ἀναπλάττει πρὸς τὸν οὐδὲν αἴτιον.

διαβολῆς: defined, ap. Stob. Ecl. um. 7. 115, p. 115, 21,
εἶναι δὲ τὴν διαβολὴν διάστασιν φαινομένων φίλων ψευδεῖ
λόγῳ, and hence, reasoning on the basis that slander is
only connected with apparent and not with true friend-
ship, the Stoics declare that the wise man is ἀδιάβολος
both in the active and the passive sense (1.6. μήτε δια-
βάλλειν μήτε διαβάλλεσθαι), but their utterances are not
consistent on this point: see Zeller, p. 253 n. 6, who in
citing passages to the contrary effect fails to notice this
discrepancy.

104. Stob. Ecl. π. 7. 11), p. 103, 12, ἱκανῶς δὲ καὶ
Κλεάνθης περὶ τὸ σπουδαῖον εἶναι τὴν πόλιν λόγον
ἠρώτησε τοιοῦτον: πόλις μὲν «εἰ» ἔστιν οἰκητήριον
κατασκεύασμα, εἰς ὃ καταφεύγοντας ἔστι δίκην δοῦναι
καὶ λαβεῖν, οὐκ ἀστεῖον δὴ πόλις ἐστίν; ἀλλὰ μὴν τοιοῦ-
τόν ἐστιν ἡ πόλις οἰκητήριον" ἀστεῖον ἄρ᾽ ἔστιν ἡ πόλις.

Possibly this belongs to the πολιτικός : Introd. p.
52. Cleanthes has here adopted the syllogistic form

H. P. 21

322 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES,

of argument, which occurs so frequently in Zeno’s frag-
ments: see Introd. p. 38. The Cynics’ line of argument
is somewhat similar. Diog. L. vi. 72 ov yap, φησίν
(Diogenes), ἄνευ πόλεως ὄφελός τι εἶναι ἀστείου: ἀστεῖον
δὲ ἡ πόλις" νόμου δὲ ἄνευ, πόλεως οὐδὲν ὄφελος" ἀστεῖον
ἄρα ὁ νόμος. Cicero’s definition is as follows, Rep. 1. 39, res

publica est res populi, populus autem...coetus multitu-.

dinis iuris consensu, et utilitatis communione sociatus.
Cf. Ar. Pol. 1. 2. 1253 a 37.

εἰ, inserted by Heeren, who is followed by Wachsm.
Meineke omits it and changes δὴ before πόλιες into δ᾽ ἡ

105. Seneca Trang. An. L 7, promptus compositus-
que sequor Zenonem, Cleanthem, Chrysippum: quorum
‘tamen nemo ad rem publicam accessit, nemo non misit.

See on Zeno, frag. 170.

106. Stob. Floril. 4, 90, Κλεάνθης ἔφη τοὺς ἀπαι-
δεύτους μόνῃ TH μορφῇ τῶν θηρίων διαφέρειν.

The same occurs in Stob. Ecl. 1. 31. 64, p. 212, 22,
where Wachsmuth cites other authorities. Stein, Erkennt-
nistheorie, p. 326, quotes this frag. in support of his
theory that Cleanthes refused to admit any inborn intel-
lectual capacity. Zeno declared τὴν ἐγκύκλιον παιδείαν
ἄχρηστον (frag. 167 and note), with which opinion this
passage is not necessarily inconsistent, though it probably
implies an advance in teaching. See also on frag. 53.

107. Epict. diss. rv. 1. 173, παράδοξα μὲν ἴσως φασὶν
οἱ φιλόσοφοι, καθάπερ καὶ ὁ Κλεάνθης ἔλεγεν, οὐ μὴν
παράλογα.

παράδοξα : the Stoics themselves accepted and defended
this description of their doctrines. Cic. Paradox. Prooem.
4 quia sunt admirabilia contraque opinionem omnium ab
ipsis etiam παράδοξα appellantur. Plut. Comm. Not. 3

a

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. S20

\ \ \ , “Ὁ \ , \ > , ’
Ta κοινὰ καὶ περιβόητα, ἃ δὴ παράδοξα καὶ αὐτοί, μετ
Ψ 4
εὐκολίας δεχόμενοι τὴν ἀτοπίαν.

108. Plut. vit. Ale. νι. 2,6 μὲν οὖν Κλεάνθης ἔλεγε
τὸν ἐρώμενον Up ἑαυτοῦ μὲν ἐκ τῶν ὦτων κρατεῖσθαι, τοῖς
δ᾽ ἀντερασταῖς πολλὰς λαβὰς παρέχειν ἀθίκτους ἑαυτῷ,
“τὴν γαστέρα λέγων καὶ τὰ αἰδοῖα καὶ τὸν λαιμόν.

This may be referred to the ἐρωτικὴ τέχνη or περὶ
ἔρωτος, Introd. p. 52. See on Zeno, frags. 172 and 173,
and ef. Diog. L. vit. 24 (Zeno apoph. 7) λαβὴ φιλοσόφων

>’ \ > ΓΑ εξ \ a Vv
ἐστὶν ἐπιδέξιος ἡ διὰ τῶν ὠτων.

109. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. 111. 200, οἱ περὶ τὸν Κλεάνθην
ἀδιάφορον τοῦτο (τὸ τῆς ἀρρενομιξίας) εἶναί φασιν = Zeno
frag. 182.

110. Stob. Floril. 6, 20.

πόθεν ποτ᾽ dpa γίνεται μοιχῶν γένος ;
, A hd \ > > /
ἐκ κριθιῶντος ἀνδρὸς ἐν ἀφροδισίοις.

μοιχῶν : for Stoic views on μοιχεία, see Zeno, frag. 178.
κριθιῶντος : for this word cf. Buttmann’s Lexilogus, 5. v.
ἀκοστήσας, EK. T. p. 78.

111. Plut. de Aud. Poet. c. 12, p. 33, ὅθεν οὐδ᾽ ai
παραδιορθώσεις φαύλως ἔχουσιν, αἷς καὶ Κλεάνθης ἐχρή-
σατο καὶ ᾿Αντισθένης" ὁ μέν κιτ.λ....ὁ δὲ Κλεάνθης περὶ
τοῦ πλούτου,

φίλοις τε δοῦναι σῶμά T εἰς νόσους πεσὸν
δαπαναῖσι σῶσαι,

μεταγράφων οὕτω"
πόρναις τε δοῦναι σῶμά T εἰς νόσους πεσὸν
δαπαναῖς ἐπιτρίψαι.

The lines in question are from Eur. El. 428, 9, where
21—2

324 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES,

ξένοις is read in place of φίλοις. Stob. Floril. 91, 6 quoting
the passage has φίλοις.

The ordinary view of the school regarded πλοῦτος
as ἃ προηγμένον, and we have seen that Zeno concurred
in this (frag. 128). It would be hazardous to infer from
evidence of this kind that Cleanthes dissented from his
master’s opinion on this point: a similar question arises
with regard to δόξα (frag. 101), but that word is am-
biguous,

112. Diog. L. vi. 14, ἐνίους δὲ καὶ χαλκὸν εἰσέ-
πραττε τοὺς περιϊσταμένους (ὁ Ζήνων) ὥστε δεδιότας τὸ
διδόναι μὴ ἐνοχλεῖν, καθά φησι Κλεάνθης ἐν τῷ περὶ
χαλκοῦ.

For the title of the book see Introd. p. 53. The
above is Cobet’s text; omitting ὥστε δεδιότας, Wachs-
muth reads χαλκοῦ for χαλκὸν MSS., and also suggests
ἐνίοτε for ἐνίους, but ἐνίους 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 τοὺς αὐτοέντας χειρὶ τιμωρεῖν τινας and Ar. Pac. 832.

113. Philodem. περὶ φιλοσόφων ap. Vol. Hercul. vim.
col. 13, v. 18, κκαὶ KA>eavOns ἐν «τῶι περὶ στεήλη;»ς
<tn>s Διογένους αὐτῆς«ς;» μνης«μονεύξει καὶ ἐπαιν-«εῖ»
καὶ «μικρὸν; ὕστεςρ;»ον ἐν αὐτεῶι τούτωι Kaba>m<eEp
ἑτρέρςω;θ᾽ ἐνίων <é>xOeor<v> []. ἔκθεσιν] «ποι»εςῖ-
Toa.

Such is the restoration of Gomperz in Zeitschrift fiir
die Oesterr. Gymn. Jahrg. 29 (1878) p. 252 foll., who, in
justification of this somewhat strange title, refers to a
book by Aristocreon, the nephew of Chrysippus, entitled
ai Χρυσίππου ταφαί (Comparetti, Papiro Ercolanense col.

46). For the circumstances of the burial of Diogenes ef.

Diog. Τῷ νι. 78. αὐτῆς refers to the πολιτεία of Diogenes,

THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 325

114. Schol. ad Nic. Ther. 447, p. 36, 12 Keil, κραν-
τῆρες λέγονται οἱ ὕστερον ἀναβαίνοντες ὀδόντες παρὰ τὸ
κραίνειν καὶ ἀποπληροῦν τὴν ἡλικίαν. νεωτέρων γὰρ ἤδη
ἡμῶν γενομένων φύονται οἱ ὀδόντες οὗτοι. Κλεάνθης δὲ
σωφρονιστῆρας αὐτοὺς καλεῖ. νῦν ἁπλῶς τοὺς ὀδόντας.
σωφρονιστῆρες δὲ διὰ τὸ ἅμα τῷ ἀνιέναι αὐτοὺς καὶ τὸ
σῶφρον τοῦ νοῦ λαμβάνειν ἡμᾶς.

For κραντῆρες cf. Arist. Hist. An. IL. 4. φύονται δὲ οἱ
τελευταῖοι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις γόμφιοι, ods καλοῦσι κραντῆρας,
περὶ τὰ εἴκοσιν ἔτη καὶ ἀνδράσι καὶ γυναιξί. It seems
fairly safe to infer that Cleanthes the Stoic is meant, and
the account given above is probably more correct than
that appearing in Etym. M. p. 742, 35 κατὰ τὴν τοῦ
φρονεῖν ὥραν περὶ τὸ εἰκοστὸν ἔτος, and Melet. ap. Cramer
Anecd. Ox. Ul. 82, 26 τοὺς δὲ μυλίτας τῶν ὀδόντων τινὲς
σωφρονιστῆρας ἐκάλεσαν διὰ τὸ φύεσθαι περὶ τὴν τοῦ
ἄρχεσθαι φρονεῖν τοὺς παῖδας ὥραν. Thus, while the
growth of the reasoning powers is complete in the four-
teenth year (Zeno, frag. 82), the attainment of σωφροσύνη
may well have been assigned to the conclusion of the third
ἑβδομάς.

115. =Zeno frag. 184.

APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES.

1. Diog. L. vit. 169, φασὶ δὲ καὶ ᾿Αντίγονον αὐτοῦ
πυθέσθαι ὄντα ἀκροατήν, διὰ τί ἀντλεῖ; τὸν δ᾽ εἰπεῖν,
ἀντλῶ γὰρ μόνον ; τί δ᾽ οὐχὶ σκάπτω; τί δ᾽ οὐκ ἄρδω,
καὶ πάντα ποιῶ φιλοσοφίας ἕνεκα ; καὶ γὰρ 6 Ζήνων
αὐτὸν συνεγύμναζεν εἰς τοῦτο, καὶ ἐκέλευεν ὀβολὸν φέρειν
ἀποφορᾶς. Plut. de vitand. aere alieno 7, 5, Κλεάνθη δὲ
ὁ βασιλεὺς ᾿Αντίγονος ἠρώτα διὰ χρόνου θεασάμενος ἐν
ταῖς ᾿Αθήναις, ἀλεῖς ἐτι, Κλέανθες; ἀλῶ, φησίν, ὦ βα-
σιλεῦ, ὃ ποιῶ ἕνεκα τοῦ Env μόνος δὲ ἀποστῆναι μηδὲ
φιλοσοφίας. Cf. Stob. Floril. 17, 28, Χρύσιππος ὁ Σολεὺς
ἐποιεῖτο τὸν βίον ἐκ πάνυ ὀλίγων, Κλεάνθης δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ
ἐλαττόνων. Epict. diss, III. 26. 23, πῶς Κλεάνθης ἔξησεν

ἅμα σχολάζων καὶ ἀντλῶν. Senec. Ep. 44, 2, Cleanthes
aquam traxit et rigando hortulo locavit manus.

2. Diog. L. vil. 170, καί ποτε ἀθροισθὲν τὸ κέρμα
ἐκόμισεν εἰς μέσον τῶν γνωρίμων, καί φησι, Κλεάνθης μὲν
καὶ ἄλλον Κλεάνθην δύναιτ᾽ ἂν τρέφειν, εἰ βούλοιτο. οἱ
δ᾽ ἔχοντες ὅθεν τραφήσονται, παρ᾽ ἑτέρων ἐπιζητοῦσι τὰ
ἐπιτήδεια, καίπερ ἀνειμένως φιλοσοφοῦντες. ὅθεν δὴ καὶ
δεύτερος Ἡρακλῆς ὁ Κλεάνθης ἐκαλεῖτο.

8. Ῥίορ. L. vit. 171, προκρίνων δὲ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ βίον
τοῦ τῶν πλουσίων, ἔλεγεν, ἐν ᾧ σφαιρίξουσιν ἐκεῖνοι
αὐτὸς γῆν σκληρὰν καὶ ἄκαρπον ἐργάζεσθαι, σκάπτων.

APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES. 327

4. Diog. L. vu. 170, καὶ σκωπτόμενος δὲ ὑπὸ TOV
συμμαθητῶν ἠνείχετο, καὶ ὄνος ἀκούων προσεδέχετο"
͵ Ἂ \ , , / \ , if
λέγων αὐτὸς μόνος δύνασθαι βαστάζειν τὸ Ζήνωνος φορτίον.

δ. Diog. L. vit. 171, καί ποτε ὀνειδιζόμενος ὡς δειλός,
διὰ τοῦτο, εἶπεν, ὀλίγα ἁμαρτάνω.

6. Diog. L. vil. 174, ὀνειδίσαντος αὐτῷ τινος εἰς TO
a ? / ” > , μ 4 \ /
γῆρας, κἀγώ, ἔφη, ἀπιέναι βούλομαι: ὅταν δὲ πανταχόθεν
a /
ἐμαυτὸν ὑγιαίνοντα περινοῶ καὶ γράφοντα καὶ ἀναγι-
νώσκοντα, πάλιν μένω.

% Diog: L: ΎπΠᾶορ-17}. πολλάκις δὲ Kal ἑαυτῷ ἐπέ-
e ’ / 3 / ia ” 5 ,
TAHTTEV’ ὧν ακούσας Αρίστων, τίνι, ἔφη, ἐπιπλήττεις ;
Ν ἊΝ , , , \ Ν »” a
Kal ὃς γελάσας, πρεσβύτῃ, φησί, πολιὰς MEV ἔχοντι, νοὺυν
δὲ μή.

8. Diog. L. vi. 119, Σωσιθέου Tod ποιητοῦ ἐν θεάτρῳ
εἰπόντος πρὸς αὐτὸν παρόντα,

οὺς ἡ Κλεάνθους μωρία βοηλατεῖ,

v 3 Ἧ, ’ A / nb ed e ’ / «
ἔμεινεν ἐπὶ ταὐτοῦ σχήματος. eb ᾧ ἀγασθέντες οἱ
> “ Ν \ > , \ \ / εἰ a
ἀκροαταί, τὸν μὲν ἐκρότησαν, TOV δὲ Σωσίθεον ἐξέβαλον.
μεταγινώσκοντα δὲ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῇ λοιδορίᾳ προσήκατο,
>’ \ " ες \ \ U4 \ \ ¢ yA
εἰπὼν ἄτοπον εἶναι, τὸν μὲν Διόνυσον καὶ τὸν Hpaxrea
φλυαρουμένους ὑπὸ τῶν ποιητῶν μὴ ὀργίζεσθαι, αὐτὸν δὲ
ἐπὶ τῇ τυχούσῃ βλασφημίᾳ δυσχεραίνειν. Cf. Plut. de
Adulat. 11.

9, Diog. L. vit. 171, εὐπόντος δέ τινος ᾿Αρκεσίλαον
XN a ΑῚ I an ἐμῷ \ AY / > Ἂν
μὴ ποιεῖν τὰ δέοντα, παῦσαι, ἔφη, καὶ μὴ eye. εἰ γὰρ
lal ’ Lal aA an lal
καὶ λόγῳ τὸ καθῆκον ἀναιρεῖ, τοῖς γοῦν ἔργοις αὐτὸ τιθεῖ.
aay ae) , > , , \ A ¢
καὶ 6 ᾿Αρκεσίλαος, οὐ κολακεύομαι, φησι. πρὸς ὃν ὁ
Κλεάνθης, vat, ἔφη, σὲ κολακεύω, φάμενος ἄλλα μὲν λέγειν,
ἕτερα δὲ ποιεῖν.

328 APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES.

10. Diog. L. vit. 173, ἔλεγε δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τοῦ περι-
πάτου ὅμοιόν τι πάσχειν ταῖς λύραις al καλῶς φθεγξά-
μεναι αὑτῶν οὐκ ἀκούουσι.

11. Cic. Tuse. π. 60, e quibus (philosophis) homo
sane levis Heracleotes Dionysius, cum a Zenone fortis esse
didicisset, a dolore dedoctus est. nam cum ex renibus
laboraret, ipso in eiulatu clamitabat falsa esse illa, quae
antea de dolore ipse sensisset. quem cum Cleanthes
condiscipulus rogaret quaenam ratio eum de sententia
deduxisset, respondit: quia si, cum tantum operae philo-
sophiae dedissem, dolorem tamen ferre non possem, satis
esset argumenti malum esse dolorem. plurimos autem
annos in philosophia consumpsi nec ferre possum: malum
est igitur dolor. tum Cleanthem, cum pede terram per-
cussisset, versum ex Epigonis ferunt dixisse :

Audisne haec, Amphiarae, sub terram abdite ?
Zenonem significabat a quo illum degenerare dolebat.

Dionysius 6 μεταθέμενος is mentioned also in Zeno
apoph. 52, where see note. For the quotation from the
Epigoni, cf. Soph. fr. 194, 195. (Dind.)

8. renibus: but according to Diog. L. vit. 37,166 and
Cic. Fin. v. 94 the disease was ophthalmia.

7. si: inserted by Mady. (on Fin. v. 94), who is
followed by the later editors.

12. Stob. Floril. 82, 9=Ecl. τι. 2 16, Κλεάνθης
ἐρωτώμενος διὰ τί παρὰ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις οὐ πολλῶν φιλοσο-
φησάντων ὅμως πλείους διέλαμψαν ἡ νῦν, ὅτι, εἶπε, τότε
μὲν ἔργον ἠσκεῖτο, νῦν δὲ λόγος.

18. Ῥίορ. L. vit. 172, μειρακίῳ ποτὲ διαλεγόμενος
ἐπύθετο εἰ αἰσθάνεται; τοῦ δ᾽ ἐπινεύσαντος, διὰ τί οὖν,
εἶπεν, ἐγὼ οὐκ αἰσθάνομαι ὅτι αἰσθάνει ;

APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES. 329

14. Diog. L. vit. 172, ἐρομένου τινὸς τί ὑποτίθεσθαι
δεῖ τῷ vid, τὸ τῆς ᾿λέκτρας, ἔφη, σῖγα σῖγα λεπτὸν
ἴχνος.

The quotation is from Eurip. Orest. 140.

15. Stob. Floril. 33, 8, σιωπῶντος τοῦ Κλεάνθους,
> / μη Η aA Ἂ \ ἐῶ a , ς a
ἐπεί τις ἔφη, TL σιγᾷς; Kal μὴν ἡδὺ τοῖς φίλοις ὁμιλεῖν.
ἡδύ, ἔφη, GAN ὅσῳπερ ἥδιον τοσῷδε μᾶλλον αὐτοῦ τοῖς
φίλοις παραχωρητέον.

16. Diog. L. vit. 174, πρὸς δὲ τὸν μονήρη καὶ ἑαυτῷ
λαλοῦντα, οὐ φαύλῳ, ἔφη, ἀνθρώπῳ λαλεῖς.

17. Exc.e MS. Ioan. Flor. Damasce. 11. c. 18. 125 =
Stob. Ecl. τι. 31. 125 Wachsm., ἢ οὐ τοιοῦτος παῖς ἐκεῖνος
ὁ Λάκων, ὃς Κλεάνθην τὸν φιλόσοφον ἠρώτησεν εἰ ἀγαθὸν
ὁ πόνος ἐστίν ; οὕτω γὰρ ἐκεῖνος φαίνεται φύσει πεφυκὼς
καλῶς καὶ τεθραμμένος εὖ πρὸς ἀρετὴν ὥστε ἔγγιον εἶναι
νομίζειν τὸν πόνον τῆς τἀγαθοῦ φύσεως ἢ τῆς τοῦ κακοῦ"
ὅς γε ὡς ὁμολογουμένου τοῦ μὴ κακὸν ὑπάρχειν αὐτὸν
εἰ ἀγαθὸν τυγχάνει ὧν ἐπυνθάνετο. ὅθεν καὶ ὁ Κλεάνθης
ἀγασθεὶς τοῦ παιδὸς εἶπεν ἄρα πρὸς αὐτόν, αἵματος εἷς
ἀγαθοῖο, φίλον τέκος, of ἀγορεύεις (Hom. Od. Iv. 611).
Diog. L. vit. 172. Λάκωνός τινος εἰπόντος, ὅτι ὁ πόνος
ἀγαθόν, διαχυθείς φησιν, αἵματος εἷς ἀγαθοῖο, φίλον τέκος.

πόνος is an ἀδιάφορον (Stob. Ecl. τι. 7. δ᾽ p. 58, 3.
Diog. L. vir. 102), but it may perhaps be inferred from
this passage that Cleanthes classed it among the mpony-
μένα. See on Zeno frag. 128. Antisthenes regarded it as
ἀγαθόν (Diog. L. vi. 2).

18. Stob. Floril. 95, 28, Κλεάνθης, ἐρωτώμενος πῶς
ἄν τις εἴη πλούσιος, εἶπεν, εἰ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν εἴη πένης.

19. Exc.e MS. Ioan. Flor. Damasce. 11. 13. 63 = Stob.
ἘΠῚ. u. 31. 63 Wachsm., Κλεάνθης, ἑταίρου ἀπιέναι

330 APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES.

μέλλοντος Kal ἐρωτῶντος πῶς ἂν ἥκιστα ἁμαρτάνοι, εἶπεν,
εἰ παρ᾽ ἕκαστα ὧν πράττεις δοκοίης ἐμὲ παρεῖναι. Cf.

Zeno, apoph. 42, and Maxim. Serm. 5.

20. Diog. L. vit. 178, λέγεται δέ, φάσκοντος αὐτοῦ

\ ’ \ “. ΝΟ > yy /
κατὰ Ζήνωνα καταληπτὸν εἶναι τὸ ἦθος ἐξ εἴδους, veavic-
κοὺυς τινὰς εὐτραπέλους ἀγαγεῖν πρὸς αὐτὸν κίναιδον
ἐσκληραγωγημένον ἐν ἀγρῷ, καὶ ἀξιοῦν ἀποφαίνεσθαι περὶ
τοῦ ἤθους" τὸν δὲ διαπορούμενον κελεῦσαι ἀπιέναι τὸν
ἄνθρωπον, ὡς δὲ ἀπιὼν ἐκεῖνος ἔπταρεν, ἔχω, εἶπεν, αὐτόν,
ὁ Κλεάνθης, μαλακός ἐστιν. Cf. Zeno, frag. 147,

21. Diog. L. vi. 172, φησὶ δὲ ὁ ἝἙκάτων ἐν ταῖς
χρείαις, εὐμόρφου μειρακίου εἰπόντος εἰ ὁ εἰς τὴν γαστέρα
τύπτων γαστρίζει, καὶ ὁ εἰς τοὺς μηροὺς τύπτων μηρίζει,
ἔφη, σὺ μὲν τοὺς διαμηρισμοὺς ἔχε, μειράκιον. [αἱ δ᾽
ἀνάλογοι φωναὶ τὰ ἀνάλογα οὐ πάντως σημαίνουσι πράγ-
Hata.] Cobet brackets the concluding words.

22. Diog. L. vit. 176, καὶ τελευτᾷ τόνδε τὸν τρόπον"
διῴδησεν αὐτῷ τὸ οὖλον: ἀπαγορευσάντων δὲ τῶν ἰατρῶν
δύο ἡμέρας ἀπέσχετο τροφῆς. καί πως ἔσχε καλῶς ὥστε
τοὺς ἰατροὺς αὐτῷ πάντα τὰ συνήθη συγχωρεῖν. τὸν δὲ
μὴ ἀνασχέσθαι ἀλλ᾽ εἰπόντα ἤδη αὐτῷ προωδοιπορῆσθαι
καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς ἀποσχόμενον τελευτῆσαι. Lucian, Macrob.
19, Κλεάνθης δὲ ὁ Ζήνωνος μαθητὴς καὶ διάδοχος ἐννέα καὶ
ἐνενήκοντα οὗτος γεγονὼς ἔτη φῦμα ἔσχεν ἐπὶ τοῦ χείλους
καὶ ἀποκαρτερῶν ἐπελθόντων αὐτῷ παρ᾽ ἑταίρων τινῶν
γραμμάτων προσενεγκάμενος τροφὴν καὶ πράξας περὶ ὧν
ἠξίουν οἱ φίλοι, ἀποσχόμενος αὖθις τροφῆς ἐξέλιπε τὸν
βίον. Stob. Floril. 7, 54, Κλεάνθης ὑπὸ γλώττης ἕλκους
αὐτῷ γενομένου τὴν τροφὴν οὐκ ἐδύνατο παραπέμπειν" ὡς
δὲ ῥᾷον ἔσχε καὶ ὁ ἰατρὸς αὐτῷ τροφὴν προσήγαγεν, σὺ δέ
με, ἔφη, βούλει ἤδη τὸ πλέον τῆς ὁδοῦ κατανύσαντα
ἀναστρέφειν, εἶτα πάλιν ἐξ ὑπαρχῆς τὴν αὐτὴν ἔρχεσθαι;
καὶ ἐξῆλθεν τοῦ βίου.

INDICES.

{The references are to the numbers of the fragments, except where p. is

prefixed.]
I. INDEX FONTIUM.
A Athenaeus ΧΙ]. ὅ68 6 ......... 118
Achill. Tat. 1888; 194.τ......... Z 35 eee peas τον τον ΞΕ
ἘῸΝ eee ΟΝ Z, 65 ἈΠῚῚ ΟΥ̓ ZiT pasicaeen 6
ag re | eee Ο 33 Augustin. c. Acad. 1. 11...... Ὡ 153
Aelian. Nat. An. vi. 50......... C 45 —— τα. 7. 16...2 125

Ambros. de Abraham, 11. 7...Z 148
Anon. τέχνη ap. Spengel Rhet.

τ» το 494s 23 seas sonck ecb e sass Z 25
Anon. τέχνη ap. Spengel Rhet.

Gr. 1. 447. 1
Anon. variae coll. math. in

Hulstchiana Heronis geom.

et stereom. edit. p. 275......
Anton, Meliss. 1. δῷ... 005806 Z 189
Apollon. soph. lex. Hom. p.

eee eee eee vecccecee

MP ASBCKK, etscsaeecouci ee ceseenes C 66
‘Atnobs ad Nats IL Occ cievenctes Z 54
Arrian. Epict. diss. 1.17. 10,

1D eh Soe he Seo See ee 4,C2
Arrian. Epict. diss. 1. 20.14 ...2 123

ee 1 C8

es TIO Ae ΟΣ

ΞΕ ΞΘ. TIN 2 δ CON

SSS ay. ΠΡ οὐ

ee τ 1 178. CA0T

ἘΞ Ὸ-- - τ ie πο ἐς C91

Se an Pace Ya 28
Athenaeus Iv. 158 Ὁ ............ Z 156

ὙΠ 2959. θυ εν δεν Z 169
ἘΞ ΘΟ AGI ΤῊ Ἢ ΟἿΣ
ΞΘ SX τὰ ἢ Didovescescs ce ¢ 11
ee exit DOLG< ιν τον Z 163

= 9218: aa
111.17.38...242, 95
de Civ. Dei v. 20... C 90
de Trinit. x111.5.8...Z 125

ἍΜ. Gelly ἀπο δος ἐεϑγονς εξε εν 2128
[9]

Censorin. de die nat. 1v. 10... Z 80

RVI 2a. oe

frags Ti 4ς vow csecatas C 28

Certamen Hom. et Hes. p. 4.

MS ΙΖ ΒΟΥ os cs cr κε πε ϑον C 67
Chaleidsin Dim. ὃ. 144. {ως C18
C2220 aa Z 90

eh 8 a πὀιθοθυ τς Z 49
---- στ ΤΣ Z 50
Chrysost. Hom. 1.in Matt. 4...Z 162
Cicero Acad; ας 5.0: ον εν νος ἐν ἐν Z 130
nes b> eae Z 134, 138

1, 39......Z 34, 46, 86
5 48,9, 11,15,

17, 19, 20
1. 42...2 10, 18, 21, 22
Tiss Sonn eee Dek:
sO Cay i RPE enor Zi1l

ΕΝ:

332 INDEX FONTIUM.

Cicero Acad. 1, 145 ............ Ζ 88 Clem. Alex. Strom. vm. 6. 33... © 44
— de Div. 1m. 119 ......... Z 103 — vit. 9. 26... C7
—— Fam. rm. 22.1 ......... Z186 Cornut. de Nat. 1 Dee: OOS iis. C 62
—— Fin, m, 17 ............00 Ζ2 82 Oyrill. Lex. Bodl. m. 11, ap.

— — 1. 69 ............... C 90 Cramer Anecd. Par. rv. 190...Z 31
— — m7. 52............... Z131
— —iv.12............... Z 86 D
— —iv.l14............... Z 120
pred 3k | See ae Z126 Dio Chrysost, um. 4............ Z 195
τον OF MOD ΝΣ Z126 Diog. Laert. v1. 91............... Z 194
————--— —— WW, 72... ccc eeee Z 120 —. WIL ἐδ Saas C 112
———_— — V. 88 o.oo eee cco ece C 44 — 1B ΑΨ ΑΟΡΗΓΟΝΑ Z 30
———_— — W. 79 ono e ee cceeee Z 125 eee = py eee α, Z175
— — V. 84 oo... Z151 — peepee eee Z 16
— — Vv. 88 ..... 0.000... Z 120 —_— - Soret Z 145,196
—— Muren. 61...Z 132, 133, 148, — ORs 03 cn Z 154, 167
150, 151, 152, 153, 155 ---. Z 149, 166,
— Nat. De. 1. 86... Z 87, 39, 41, 168, 177
72, 110 —. eee Z
— — 1. 37 ...0 14, 15, 16, if; — Me ere Z2s
46 — | See: Cl
Cicero Nat. De. 1.70 ......... Z8 — ΒΕ τως Z 119
---- -——_ 1. 18—15 ... C 52 —. 87 Z 120, C 72
--- — —-§- —_ 21 ....:.... — 5. να B C73
--- egy "2.89, 60, 63 — WE, csuctenstane C79
— -- o 2.,........ C 42 — 5, C78
—- ὦ... πᾷ ; See C 80 — δ δον ον Z 145
--- ———-_ τ, 87........... 0 46 --Ο-͵ὠ. Be i seek Z 145
----ὀ — 1.58......... Z 48 es po | BP Saba Ses Z 136
---- — 1160 ...... C 44 — νἀ ρι τ, Z 132
---- — 11 1θ0......... C 52 — ESE eS te Z171
--- | - —__ m™. 27......... Z 46 —_— Ly petty dah 4 Z1
— -- m7. 87......... C 29 —. 127 ... Z 125, C 80
— Orat. 32.113 ......... Z 32 — be en Nghe rae C8
— Tuse.1.19............... Z 86 — eS peels: Poe iy by,
— — 7. 29 0, Z 127 — i st i Ἐὶ Z 176
— — m1, 74.75 ...... Z 143 — at. Z 35, C 12
—— — 11.76 ............ C 93 — ες ΤΡ oscee Z 52
— - 11. 77 ............ C 94 — 485 τον σον Z 52
— — 1.11 ............ Z 136 — 108 Soe C 28
--Ἕ —- 44 = Δ ΑΝ ives Z 136 ---- pt SEE Z 142
yescaeiidant Z 127 — 149 nin oe

Clem. ἃ Alex. F ilo 111.11,74..Z 174 — ον ρρρέπρ κε: Z 58

—— Protrept. νι. 72...0 75, 101 — 185 ον Z 73
— Strom.m.20.105... © 44 — ROG: oe Z 73
— —— 1.20.125...Z 187 — peter ace wtb. Z 66
--- .-- π||21.129. ζ 120, — 149 Z 45, 118

C 72 — Pee ose Z 51
---« — τι. 22.181.. C77 ---- beeen ie Z74
— — v.3.17 ...C 100 — δὲ eeeer Z74
— — v.8.48... 0831 — ROT cece Z 85, C 41
εἰ... — v.12. 76...Z 164 ----- pt Ni ΟΡ secede 184
—_—_ — v.14. 95...Z 149 — RTO", cocci Z147
— v. 14, 110...C 75,101 — vit. 48 ........:... Z 193

INDEX FONTIUM.

E

Epict. Man. 53 .........se00es00 C 91
Epiphan. Haeres. 1. 5 ......... Z 51

—S—s —_—swr7.. 2. 9 (10.
530). παρὰ Z 81, 79, 95, 164, 185

Epiphan. Haeres, 11. 2. 9 (III.
Bi\enae saceasecncaeseaesscs ates C 53
Euseb. P. Εἰ. xu. 13, p. 671...Z 149
— p. 679... Ο 75
—. RV evo d stan ete a C 28
— VB isd scone cure Z 54
— 90:1 τ τος Z 106
-—— 20, 2...Z 83, C 38

ΟΣ ἐπῶρσε Ζ 28
Eustath. in Il. Σ. 506, p. 1158.

Galen de cogn. anim. morb.

Velde (UNM ΡΥ oes
Galen in Hippocr. de humor.

δι (Ris SET) Εν Mees Z 53
Galen Hipp. et Plat. plac. 1.

5 (v. 241 K.) Z
Galen Hipp. et Plat. plac. 1.

δι (Ὁ. DAT Tee) senswspaesenssects Z 101
Galen Hipp. et Plat. plac. τι.

Bilye 208) Ks) νους η ones Z 87, C 39
Galen Hipp. et Plat. plac. m1.

(Ws BAB Ks) .ccsssccesscsesnes Z 102
Galen Hipp. et Plat. plac, m1.

5 (v. 382 K.)..........5. Z 141, C 87
Galen Hipp. et Plat. plac. tv.

ΜΉ τ ΚῸ
Galen Hipp. et Plat. plac. tv.

Z 188

B (¥. B77 Ka) cscscsccroesseeese 39
Galen.Hipp. et Plat. plac. rv.

NG ALG Ko) ssisccaessasescere 143
Galen Hipp. et Plat. plac. v.

DAR 1.29:.:}. scovsnensrversends 139
Galen Hipp. et Plat. plac. v.

Oi (ye AO: Ka) io seyisne reese neelsinsie 84

Galen Hipp. et Plat. plac. rx.

ὙΠ γ. G53 Ki): < cssavesseseane'sss C 85
Galen Hist. Phil. 5 (xrx. 241K.) Z 36
9 (xrx. 254K.) Z 91
—— 10(xrx. 258K.) Z 78
— 13 (x1x. 271K.) C 33

13 (x1x. 272K.) Ο 34
31 (xrx. 322K.)
...Z 106, 107

999

Galen. nat. facult.1. 2 (11.5 K.) Z 53
Gemin. Elem. Astron, p. 53
(in Petau’s Uranol.)......... © 35

H

Harpocration 8. v. Néoxau...... C 61
Hermias Irris. Gent. Phil. 14.

p. 654 Diels C
Hippolyt. philosoph. 21.1... Z 36

L
Lactant.Epit. ad Pentad.38...Z 144
- τ ΤΉ ΒΕ ὙΠ. cess: Z 39, C15
Se 0 Oe near Z 153
pee ὧ: Ξ τ τον sence Z 120
es «5.0. TNS νοι a aUntsie’ Z 120
SS I, 23:5. Z 132, 144
Ss Sv OF aoe ποῦν Z 44
a VEL, ise sce tenes GM
=e nde 861. 110 cx sasd: Z 109
a=, UG) Ver Dale oscscntsrs Z 44

Longinus ap. Euseb. P. E. xv.

OTe Bie το ccboo teense Z 88, C 40

M
Macrob. Sat. 1.17.8 ......... C 58
es ee 191 eae C 60
τι -- 9. ἘΠ Relea Ο 59
Ξξ τ Ξε ree! otal c Serre C 57
———S 1. 25:.2 ὡς hoax C 29

Somn. Scip. 1.14.19... Z 89
Mantiss. Proverb. (in paroem.

Gr. u. p. 757) cent. 1. 85...C 102
Maxim. ΒΊΟΥ δ: 6. τον πεν Z 190
Minue. Fel. Octav. x1x. 10... Z 39,
41, 44, 111, C 14

N
Nemes. Nat. Hom, p. 32...... C 36
“Ὁ —-__ p. 96...... Z 93
Numenius ap. Euseb. P. E
ΧΙΝ, Oi Ps (Odes sors seeacersinens “1
ο

Olympiodorus in Plat. Gorg.
cy eee 7 12,05
Origen ὁ. Cels. 1. 5. p. 324 ...Z 164
ἘΞ- eee WITS, Ps 100.. 08

994.

Ρ

Philargyriusad Verg.G. 11.336. Z 57

Philo liber quis virt. stud. p,
DOP i veneseues tick ἐεο νι με ον ταὶ Z 157
Philo mund. incorr, p. 505.27. C 23
— p. 510,11. 2 56

Philo de de Provid, 1. 22 ......... Z 35
hy. Sate C19

Philodemus περὶ εὐσεβ. 5.8 Z 40,117
a9. had 16

----- --- εν 18.. C 54
-- p. 84G....Z 109

— περὶ μουσικῆς 6. 28. C 49
—— περὶ φιλοσόφων 5.18, C113

Philoponus on Ar. Phys. rv. 6,

Πὰς ΕΣ Ws Ge ctichcdsccensiae Z 70
Photius 8. v. λέσχαι ..........Ψὄ.. C 61
Plutarch Alc. 6, 2............... C 108

Alex. virt. 6 ......... Z 162
Γι eee Z 148
Aud, Poet. 11......... C 55
—— 12.........2.197
— i12......... C1i1

Comm. Hesiod 9 ...Z 196
— Not, 23. 1...Z 120
— — 31.5... Ο 47
‘_—— —— $1, 10. C 25

eel {Π{Π{Π1]{Π11Ὲ

de facie in orbe lunae
BES epics ΨΩ C 27
Plutarch de fluv. 5. 3.. .. C69
---- --- ὅδ. bees C 70
---- —s-— — 17. 4... ss. C71

— frag. dean. Wytt. V?
Lb OR asenePeredckteeee chor Z 121
Plutarch Is. et Osir. 66 ...... C 56
— Lycurg. 31............ Z 163
— plac. 1. 3. 89 ......... Z 35
— —1r.10.4......... Z 23
---- — 1.15.5 ......... Z78
— — im. 14, 2......... C 33
— —u.16.1......... C 34
— — um, 20.3......... C 29
— ~——1v.11.1........: C4
— ~— vw. 21.4......... Z 98
— ~— v.41 ......... Z 106
— ——— v.5.2 2.0... Z 107
—— prof. in virt. 12...... Z 160
—— quaest.Conv.11.6.1.. Z180
— — v. 10,3 C 44
— Soll. an. 11. 2,3 C 45

INDEX FONTIUM.

Plutarch Sto. Rep. 7. ι 2 he 134
scams. Mees fo see C 76
--- seme 05 A ES. Z 29
—-— s ———_ .ΩΙ..5.: Z6
ae me BET Ἰδὲ Z 131
—— Virt. Mor. 2 ....:::.. Z 134
arent el ie ΝΣ

Porphyr. de Abstin. mr. 19 ...Z 122
—- — m1. 20 ... C 44
— vit. Be Bicsute C 68

Probus ad Virg. Ed. vr. 31. Ὁ.

0, 88 τ τ πιο ον Z 52, C 20°

Probus ad Virg. Ed. vr. 31. p.
ee ES BE νος προ μα Z112

Proclus ad Hes, Op. 291...... Z 196

Q

Quintil. Inst, Οὐ. τι, 15. 383—35 © 9
---- ———. 2 TY, 41.5 ΟἿ
—_— — u2.7.. 232
—, τ IV. 2.117,...2

R

Rufus Ephes. de part. hom.

ΠΑΡ δὴ, τ ἄττα, Αγ ἐπ ἃ Ζ 84
5

. ~.
Bekk. Anecd. p. 663, 16. . 218
Schol, ad Hes. Theog. 117... “2114
134 ...Z 115
139 ...Z 116
Hom. Il, m. 64 ... C 63
— xvi. 233. C 55

Hom. Od, 1.52 (Cra-
er A. 0. τι. a A tee C 65

Plat, Alc. 1.121 8...
Seneca de Benef, 1. 31, 12 ...

—. — v.14,1...... C97
— — v.11.1 ... C98
— — vw.12,2 ... C99
— Epist. 82, 7............ Z 129
— — 83.8 2.0000... Z 159
— -- 944. .... σ

— — 104, 21......... Z 161
— — 107.10......... Cc gl
— — 108.10......... C 50
— — 113.18......... C 43

Seneca de Irat. 16. 7

COA EEE Sn

Simplic. ad Cat.

κι

INDEX FONTIUM.

sicsiodeese Z 158
—— Nat.Quaest. vir.19.1.. Z 75
—— de Otio Sap. 30. 2 ...Z 170
Tranq. An.1.7...Z 170, C105
Sext. Emp. Math, 1. 7......... Z 32
=) ΟΠ LD
OY eee A
----- τι On Ζ7.0 9
ΞΘ Vib ρι πεν ect
-- | var, 248... Ζ11
Ὁ VOD Ζ 10
— vil. 872.. 214, C3
ΞΞΞξξ τυ τῆς 1 clos
ξξ τς τ 490... Ζ11
--ἑ ἧ νι. 355 Z8
--ὀ vi. 400 C3
— ix. 88...... C51
— 1x.101 Z 59
— 1x. 104 Z 61
a re 107.6: oe
----ὀ 1χ. 133 ‘Z 108
— x1. 30 Z, 124, C74
— ὄχι, 74...... C 88
--ὀ σχι. 77...... Z 128
— x1.190...2179,181
xr, 191, 2 160
Piyrrh, ΤΙ Δ eers. Zil
1 a! (| een 63
—— mm. 200 ....... Z 182
— 111. 205...... Z 180
— wi. 206...... Z 183
— im. 245...... Z 179
a πὰ ONG ess Z 180
80a; 4:0: Z 76
in Epict. Man. 53... C 91
Stob. Ecl, 1. 1. 12. p. 25. 3... C 48
1. 29>. p, 34.20... Ο 14
p. 35.9... Z 42
5.15. p.78. 18... Z 45
8. 40°. p. 104. 7. Z 76
10. 14. p. 126.17. Z 35
11. 5%. p. 182.26. Z 51
12. 3. p. 196. 21. Z 23
13. 1°. p. 138.14. Z 24
15. θᾶ, p. 146.19. C 26
Ῥ. 146. 21. Z 68
16. 1. p.149. 8... 18
17..3:-p. 152. 19. 7. 52
—— p.153.7... C 24
18, 14. p. 156.27. Z 69
19. 4, p. 166. 4... Z 67

0. 15. ». 171.
..Z 54, C 22
21. 69, p. 187.4... C 28

Stob. Eel. 1.

Lal
nl

io

. 2,12. p. 22. 12...

iw
ἴων
9

22. 3, p. 199. 10.
23. 1. p. 200, 21.
24,24, p. 205. 25.
25. 81. p. 211. 18.
25. 5. p. 218. 15.
26. 1i.
48. 7. Ὁ. 317. 15.
49. 33. p. 367. 18.
49. 34. p. 369. 6.

"9

τῷ

μ

ie)

μ᾿

πὰ
NNOONNOONN
WowwndM WOH
νι ὥϑ τ πιο μα OWE @D

N

Toke Pypoloccees
Do 39010053
— 5*, p. 57. 18...
— 58, p. 65. 8...

μ
Φ»-
σφ:

—11¢, 99.3......Z 148

—11i,p.103.12..C 104

31. 64. p. 212.22.C 106

Stob:. Ploril:4: 90! . eiccs wesscaes C 106

— 210 7 σε, ΣΝ cee Z 202

aa VIGO a ΤΕΥ ΨΤΕΟ C 95

---- BQO ial onascce C 110

===; Geese Z 201

- - 6.917. ὐπκεν εν νοις C 89

pa eee ρει rn eee! Z 192

5: 9 14. Ὧν τον τρτο ρον Ζ 189

----- τὶς 50. Ὁ Cee Rene ΤΡ C 96

--- BOMB. ose ἀν 38} Ζ 200

ΞΕ ΓΟ ΤΗΣ C 103

ΞΟ πὶ νσνσι Z 165

----- 5.91 ee acstes Z 199

- NOSBOD: sess Storer C 86

Strabo wast Gc ccti ον ρον ο Z 198

Puldas 8. Vs ANCONA - Ὁ. ses ἐὐνοὺν C 61

Syrian. ad Metaph. 892b,14... C6
7

Tatian ad Graec. 6.3. ἐἸ νερό Z 47

ce Ὧν eer Z 55

Hlortilian de Anim. 6. 5..Z.89, C 36

ΤΑΣ ΣΝ Ζ 94

=! 16) Doerr C 36

— Apol. 21......... Z 44, C13

—— Mare: 1.13) 26.4. Z 41

ΞΘ ΞΕ ἀν enon Z 46

— Bid Ps ol rece Z 38

—— Praes. Cup. 7 ...... Z 51

200 INDEX FONTIUM.

‘Themist. de An. 68 a ......... Z 96
--- — 72b ........ Z 43
--- — 900 ........ Z 140
— Or. m. 27¢............ C 83
— Or. vir.108c......... Z 196
— Or. xm1.171p ...... Z 196

i, oS ΕΝ ΘΝ Z70

Theodoret Gr. Cur, Aff. m1.
RTE ΡΟΣ oth deb ede oxo vavpis Z 164

Theodoret Gr. Cur. Aff. rv. 12. Z 35

— — tv. 20. C 33
v. 25. Z 106

Theodoret Gr. Cur Cur, Aff. v. 25

ἧς. Eee ee ΨΗΟΝΝ Z 88, C 40

Theodoret Gr, ΡΝ regs ἐχγι
ie p. eee
Thee of Ankle 8p

819 δ᾽ in iiccsnctetlival Z 184, Ο 115
Υ

Varro Ling. Lat. ν. 9 ......... C10

--- π---.--- VV. 9. Z 105

—R. RB. 1.1, 8 ............ Z 81

— — π΄ 4.9 .... C 44

ΤΙ.

Α

Academies, Z 109.

Alemaeon, Z 82.

Alexander, Z 30.

Alexandria, Z 30.

Alexinus, Z 5, 61.

Amoebeus, p. 226.

Anaxagoras, Z 81, 113, C 27.

Anaximander, Z 81, 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.

Antisthenes, p. 19, 20, 22, 53, Z 3,
23, 109, 162, 163, 171, 187, 195,
σ 79.

Apollodorus, p. 19.

Apollonius, p. 2, 4, 26.

Arcesilas, Z 11, 145.

Archedemus, C 7.

Archelaus, Z 81.

Aristarchus, p. 42, 51, C 27.

Aristippus, Z 197.

Aristo, p. 36, Z5, 131, 191, C 92.

Aristotle, p. 24, 25, Z 12, 26, 35,
49, 50, 53, p. 110, 265, 67, 68,
69, 81, 99, 104, 112, 116, 117,
128, 134, 135, 136, 163, 167, 168,
169, 195, C1, 37, 52, 53.

Aristoxenus, C 42.

B

Bion Borysthenes, p. 230.
Boethus, Z 54.

Cc

Caphesias, p. 231.
Carneades, Z 11.
Chremonides, p. 6, 232.

ἘΠῚ ΕΣ:

NOMINUM.

Chrysippus, p. 7, 20, 27, 28, 34, 36,
38, 40, 43, 45, 48, 49, 50, Z 2, 7,
11, 14, 21, 23, 24, 49, 52, 66, 72,
74, 76, 79, 100, 102, 136, 139, 143,
144, 160, 167, 185, C 3, 8, 9, 13,
18, 19,-28, 24,37, 41,43, 44, 46
(17), 76.

Cicero, p. 34, Z 126.

Cleanthes, p. 1, 23, 35, 36—53, 2 3,
7, 13, 14, 35, 45.4, 52, 56 (54), 58,
79, 93, 120, 128.

Crates, p. 3, 31, Z165.

of Mallus, Z 198.

Critolaus, p. 111.

Cynics, p. 18—21, 30, Z 9, 125, 149,
162, 164, 167, 171, 172, 176, 177,
184, 186, 194, C76, 79, 60, 88,
101, 104.

D

Demetrius, p. 27.

Diodorus, p. 40, C 8.

Diogenes, p. 18, 19, 20, 21, Z9,
168, 171, 185, p. 225, C 113.

—— of Apollonia, Z 42, 81.

— of Babylon, Z 100, 108, C72.

Dionysius (ὁ μεταθέμενος), p. 234,
328.

E

Empedocles, p. 114, Z73, 81, 110.

Empedus, p. 233.

Epicurus and Epicureans, Z 8,
9, 21, 50, 55, 58, 69, 72, 73, 74,
85, 102, 112, 167, C 16, 89, 90.

H

Heraclitus, p. 21—23, 50, Z 52, 54,
p. 114, Z 64, 65, 77, 83, 85, 87,
C 1, 3, 21, 28, 29, 33, 48 (10, 24,
36).

22

338

Herillus, p. 52, Z 17.

Herodicus, Z 77.

Hesiod, p. 31, 32, Z 29, (Theog.
118, 119) Z 113, (Theog. 126—
128) Z 193, (Op. 291), Z 196.

Hippocrates, Z 106, C 42.

Homer, p. 31, 48, 51, Z 174, 195,
198.

I
Indians, Z 187.

M

Marcus Aurelius, Z 52, 162, C 44.
Megarians, Z 5.

N
Neanthes, p. 51.

Ρ

Panaetius, Z 54.

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.

INDEX NOMINUM.

Polemo, p. 3, 25.

Posidonius, p. 49, Z 24, 49, 52, 66,
76, 80, 131, 143, 198, C 35, 84.
Ptolemy, Philadelphus, p. 5, 6, 228.
Pythagoras and Pythagoreans, Z 50,

- 65, 70, 73, 81, C 26, 27, 29,

5

Seneca, Z 162.
Socrates, p. 45, 53, Z 59, 123, 134,

158, 159, 162, 194, p. 227, 280,"

C 76, 77, 79.
Sophocles (frag. 711), Z 197.
Stilpo, p. 3, 28.
Strato, Z 64, C 43.

T

Thales, Z 73.

Theophrastus, p. 110 f., 233.
Vv

Virgil, Z 97.
xX

Xenocrates, p. 8, Z 1, 128, C 37.
Xenophanes, Z 56 (33), 81, 113, 117.

Z

Zeno, p. 1—365, 46, C 18, 18, 24, 76.
—— of Tarsus, Z 57, 87.

ati

II. INDEX VERBORUM.

ἀγαθά, p. 14, 15, Z 127, 128, C 75. ἀποκρίνεσθαι, Z 56 (45).

ἀγέλη σύννομος, Z 162. ᾿Απόλλων, C 58.
ἄγνοια, Z 18. ἀπομνημονεύματα Κράτητος, p. 31,
ἀδεής, Z 169. Z 199.

ἀδιάφορα, p. 14, 15, 17, 46, Z 127, ἀπονεμητέοις, Z 134.
128, 129, 145, 154, 161, 171, 172, ἀποπροηγμένον, Vv. προηγμένον.

178. ἀπόρων (περί), p. 49.
ἀήττητος, Z 148, 157. “ApaBes, Z. 198.
ἀθάνατος (νοῦς), Z 95. ἀργικέραυνε, Ο 48 (82).
ἀθαύμαστος, Z 169. ἀρετή, Z 125, 128, 134, 135, C 78,
αἰθέρος τὸ ἔσχατον, Z 6d. 19, 80, 88.
αἰθήρ, Z 41, Ο 15. ἀρετῶν (περί), p. 52.
αἷμα, Z 87, 88. ᾿Αρίσταρχον (πρός), p. 51,
αἰσθήσεως (περί), p. 50, 51. ἀῤῥωστήματα, Ζ 144,
αἴσθησις, Z 8, 20, 121. apxat, Z 35.
αἰσθητόν, Z 20. ἀρχαιολογία, p. δ].
αἴτιον, Z 24. ἀρχαιότεροι, p. 40, Z 10.
ἀκολασία, Z 138. ἀρωγῆς (περί), p. 47, 52.
ἀλλαγή, Z 168. ἀσεβείας γραφή, C 27.
ἀλλοίωσις, Z 52. ἀσόλοικος, Z 30.
ἄλλως, C 45. ἀστέρες, C 33, 84.
ἄλογα ζῴα, C 44, 45. ἀστραπή, Z 14.
ἁμάρτημα, p. 15, Z 132, 133. ἀτόμων (περί), p. 47.
ἀμετάπτωτον, 2.155. ἀτραπός, C 45.
ἀμφήκης, C 48 (10). αὐγή, C 23.
av, Z 190. αὐθέκαστος, C 75.
dvadwowyate, C dd. αὐλὴ, Z 131.
ἀναθυμίασις, p. 23, Z 83, C 55. ἀφορμαί, C 82.
ἀναλαμβάνειν, p. 226. ᾿Αφροδίτη, C 63, 64.
ἄναμμα νοερόν, C 29.
ἀναπεπταμένον, Z 174. βάρος, Z 67.
ἀνδρεία, Z 134, C 76. βασιλείας (περί), p. 52.
ἀνεπιτρεπτεῖν, Z 194. βασιλικός, Z 148 (16).
ἀνθρωποβορίας, Z 184, Ο 115. βιάζεται, Z 148 (12).
ἄνω κάτω ὁδός, Z 52. βίος. Z 145.
ἀξία, p. 14, Z 180, 131. βουλῆς (περί), p. 52.
ἀξιωματικός, Z 148 (16). βροντή, Z 14.
ἀπάθεια, Z 158. .
ἀπαιδεύτους, C 106. γάμος, Z171.
ἀπαξία, p. 14, Z 130, 131. γάμου (περί), p. 51.
ἀπέριττος, Z 169. γενεά, Z 77.

ἁπλώς γένεσις, Z 50. γεωμετρία, Z 28.

340

γιγάντων (περί), p. 51.
Γοργίππου (περί), p. 52,
γυμνάσια, Z 166,
γυναῖκες, Z 176.

δακτυλίων, C 8.

Δεινιάς, Ο 11.

δεσπόζει, Z 148 (12).
δημιουργεῖν, Z 88.
δημιουργός, Z 48,
Δημόκριτον (πρόξ), p. 51,
δῆξις, Z 139, 158.
διαβολή, C 103.
διαθέσεις, Z 117, 135, C 36, 51.
διαίρεσις, Z 51
διαιρετέοις, Z 134.
διακεκλασμένον, Z 174.
διακόσμησις, Z 52.
διαλεκτική, Z 6, 82, C 1.
διαλεκτικῆς (περί), p. 49.
διαλεκτικοί, p. 88, Z 5
διάνοια, Z 100, 135.
διατριβαί, Ῥ. 80, Z 179.
διατριβῶν β΄, p. 53.
διαχύσεις, Z ‘139.
διαψεύδεται, Z 148 (14).
διήγησις, Z 25.

διήκειν, C 18.

δικάζειν (περὶ τοῦ), p. 52.
δίκαιον, C 77.
δικαιοσύνη, Z 122, 134.
δικαστήρια, Z 166.
Διόνυσος, C 57.
Διοσκούρους, Z 117.

δόξα, Z 15, 143, 153.
9 ἐν p. 47, 48, 50, 52, C 100,
ἝΩ ψυχῆς, Z

98, Ο 8ὅ.
δυνατόν, Ο 8
δυνατών (περί), p. 50.
δυσμαὶ βίου, C 51.

ἐγκράτεια, p. 45, C 76.
ἐγκύκλιος ταιδεία, Z 167.
sees Z 19, 45, 45 A, C 18.
εἰσοχή, C
ἔκκλισις, A 143, C 76.
ἐκλείψεις, Z 71, 73.
ἐκπύρωσις, Z 52, 54, 55, C 22, 24,
ἔλεγχε σαυτόν, Ζ 189.

ἔλεος, Z 144, 152.
€XevBeplas (περί), p. 52.
ἐλευθέρους, Z 149,
ἕλιξ, C 29, 60.

INDEX VERBORUM.

Ἑλληνικῆς παιδείας (περί), p. 30.

ἐναπομεμαγμένος, Z 11,

ἐνάργεια, p. 84, 2 9.

ἐνδυμάτων, 81.

ἐνεργητέοις, Z 184.

ἐννοήματα, Z 23, C 6.

ἔννοια, p. 10, 34, Z 21.

ἐξαγωγή, Z 161.

ἐξέδραι, Ο 61.

ἕξις, oA Prd Ρ. 110, Z 56 (53), 117,
134, 135, C5.

ἐξοχή, C 3.

ἐξύγρωσις, Z 52, C 24,

ἔπαρσις, Z 139, 143.

ἕπεσθαι θεοῖς, Z 123.

ἐπιγεννήματα, p. 46.

ἐπιγιγνόμενα νον Z 138, 139.

ἐπιθυμία, Z 142, 1

ἐπιστήμη, Z 16, i, 18, 33, 184,

ἐπιστήμης (περί), p. 50.

ἐπιστολαί, p. 31.

ἔρως, Z 113, 163, 172.

ervey τέχνη, p. 30, 52, Z 174,
Cl

Epwros στὴ) p. 52.
ἐσθής, ὦ

ἐσθίειν resi Z 31.
‘Eoria, Z 110, C 27.
ἔσχατον τοῦ πυρός, C 24.
εὐβουλίας (περί), p. 47, δ2.
εὐδαιμονία, Z 124, C 74.
εὐκρασία, p. 23, C 42.
εὔλογον, Z 145.
εὐπρέπεια, Z 56 (63),
εὑρεσίλογος, Ο 62.

εὔροια, Z 124, Ο 74.
εὐφυΐα, Z 172.

εὐφυΐας (περί), Ῥ

ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν, Z 79, % aL

Ζεύς, Z 111.
—_ (περὶ τῆς Z. φυσιολογίας β΄),

εύδιον, Z 71.
ζώνη διακεκαυμένη, C 35,
ζῷον (ὁ κόσμος), Z 62.

ἡγεμονικόν, p. 18, 42, Z 24, 33, 67,
bo 101, 135, 141, Cc 15, 25, 28,

sek, p. 46, Z 127, 186, 189, 142,
148, Ο 88, 89, 90.

ἡδονῆς (περί), p. 47, ὅϑ.

ἠθικά, p. 81.

INDEX VERBORUM.

ἠθικόν, Z 2, 119.

ἦθος, Z 146, 147, C 36.

ἥλιος, Ὁ 25, 28, 29, 30, 31.
Ἡρακλείτου ἐξηγήσεων δ΄, p. 50.
Ἡρακλῆς, C 62.

Ἥρη, Z 110.

Ἥριλλον (pos), p. 52.
Ἥφαιστος, Z 111.

θάνατος, Z 129.
θαυματοποιός, C 98.
θεολογικόν, C 1.

θεομαχία, p. 51.

θεός, Z 35, 108, 109.

θεὸς κακῶν ποιητής, Z 47, C 48 (17).
θεὸς φθαρησόμενος, C 47.
θεῶν (περί), p. 49, 51, C 47.
θερίζων, p. 224.

θερμασία, Z 84.

θέσει, Z 89.

Θηρίκλειον, Ο 11,

θύραθεν, C 37.

Ἰάπετος, Z 115.
ἰδέαι, Z 23, C 6.
ἴδιον, p. 49.

ἰδίων (περί), p. 49.
ἰδίως ποιόν, Z
ἱερά, Z 164.

ἰλύς, Z 113.

ἴσος, V. ἁμάρτημα.
᾿Ιφικρατίς, C 11.

καθάπαξ ἀδιάφορα, Z 130.

καθαρός, Z 36, 174.

καθέλκειν, Z 80,

καθῆκον, p. 15, 84, Z 145, 161, 169,
170. 171. 1712 17%, 178; 192:

καθήκοντος (περί), Ῥ. 29, δ2.

καθολικά, p. 27, Z 28.

κακά, p. 14, Z 127, 128.

κακία, p. 46.

κάλλυντρον, C 88.

καλῶν (περί), p. 52.

καρδία, Z 141, C 87.

κατά, Z 145.

κατὰ φύσιν, p. 14, 15, Z 130,169, 192,
C 88.
29.

καταληπτική, V. φαντασία.

καταληπτόν, Z 147.

κατάληψις, p. 34, Z 10, 16, 18, 33,
C 80.

(περὶ τοῦ x. φ. βίου), p.

O41

καταπίνεται, Z 102.

κατηγόρημα, Z 23, 24, C 7.

κατηγορημάτων (περί), p. 50.

κατόρθωμα, p. 15, 34, Z 145.

κεκοσμημένος, Z 174.

κενόν, Z 69, 70.

κεραυνός, Z 74, Ο 48 (10).

κηρία, Z 38.

κηρός, Z 50.

κίνησις, Z 91.

κληθείς, Z 29.

κλήσεις ἱεραί, C 53.

κοινῶς ποιόν. Z 49.

Κοῖος, Z 115.

κομῆται, Z 75.

κόσμος, L 57, 66, 71, 162, 193,
C 17, 48 (7).

κραντῆρες, C 114.

κρᾶσις du’ ὅλου, p. 11, 23, Z 51, 52,
53, 96, C 13.

Kpetos, Z 115.

κρίσεις, Z 136, 139, 143.

Κρόνος, Z 118.

Κύκλωπες, Z 116.

κυριεύων, C 8.

κυριεύοντος (περί), p. 50.

κωνοειδής, Ο 26, 33.

λεκτόν, p. 40, Z 24, C 7.

λέσχαι, C 61.

Λεσχηνόριον, C 61.

λέξεων (περί), p. 27, Z 30, 31.

λέξις, p. 27, 226.

ληπτά, Z 130, 131.

λιτός, Z 169.

λογικά, Z 4, C 2.

λογική, Z 1.

λογικόν, Z 2.

λόγος, p. 22, Z 3, 37, 44, C 16.
— σπερματικός, Z 46, C 24.

λόγου (περί), p. 27
--- (περὶ τοῦ), p. 50.
— στοιχεῖα, Z 3.

λογόφιλος, Z 200.

Λοξίας, C 60.

Notes, Z 73.

ὐκειος, C 59.

Λύκιος, C 59.

λύπη, p. 46, Z 127, 128, 139, 142,
143, 144, C 86.

λύσεις Kal ἔλεγχοι, p. 28.

λύσις, Z 139.

Malova, C 67.

12 INDEX

μεθύειν, Z 159.

μείωσις, Z 139.
μελαγχολία, C 80

μέρη (ψυχῆ), Z 98, 94.
μέσον,

μέσα, Z 145.
μεταβάλλεσθαι, Z 153.
μεταλήψεως Ἱπερὶ), p. 50, C 11.
μετανοεῖν, Z 153.
μετέχοντα, p. 46, Z 128.
μῖξις, Z 51, δῶ.

μνήμη, Z 14.

μοιχεύειν, Z 178, C 110.
μυθικά, p. 51.

μύρμηκες, C 45.
μυροπώλια, Z 174.
μυστικὰ σχήματα, C 53.
μῶλυ, C

ναοί, Z 164,
νοήματα, C 6.
νόμισμα, Z 168.
νόμος, Z 39.

νόμου (περί), p. 80,
νόμων (περί ) Ps p. 52.
νοσήματα,

νόσοι, Z 144.

νοῦς, ὦ 48, C 37.
νοῦς (κόσμου), Z 42.

ὁδοποιητική, Z 18.

οἴησις, Z 15, 16.

οἰκείωσις, Z 121, 122, 126.

ὁλοόφρονος, Ο 65.

ὅλου (περί), p.

“ὁμολογία tg Ζ 120, 128, Ο 72.

ὁμόνοια, Z 108,

ὀνείρων, Z 160.

ὅρασις, Z 104.

ὄρεξις, Z 148.

ὄρη, Z 56 (8).

ὀρθὸς λόγος, pp. 8---10, 40, Z 8, 117,
128, 167.

ὀρθῶς λέγειν, C 9.

ὁρμαί, Z 128, 138.

ὁρμῆς (περί), p. 29, 52,

ὁρῶν (rept), p. 52.

οὐρανός, Z 66,

VERBORUM. |

οὐσία, p. 41, πω 50, 51, 53, p. 110.
οὐσίας (περί), Ρ. 29
ὄψεως (περί), p. 29.

πάθη, p. 45, Z 135—144, 172, 086.
παθῶν (περί), p. 29, 184.
παιδαγωγοί, Z 188,

παιδεία, υ. ἐγκύκλιος.
πανσέληνος, Z 73, |
παραβάλλειν, Z 185. |
παράδειγμα, Z 26,

παράδοξα, C 107.

παράθεσις, Z 51. |
παραινετική, Ὁ. 47, C 92, |
παράλογα, C 107.

παραμυθητική, C 93, 94.

παρὰ φύσιν, p. 14, 15, Z 130, 169.
πάσχον, Z 34, 35,

περίοδος, Ζ 52, 56 (43).

περιπατεῖν ἀξόνων: Z 31,

περίστασις, p. 15, Z 169, 170, 184.

πηγή, Z 146.

πιλοειδής, C 32.

πληγὴ πυρός, C 76.

πλῆκτρον, C 31.

πλοῦτος, ΖΦ 169, C 111.

πνεῦμα, p. 11, 40, 42, Z 41, 48, p.
110, Z 84, 85, C 13.

διατεῖνον, C 43.

πνευματικὴ δύναμις, p. 110.

πνευματικὸς τόνος, Z 56 (54).

ποιητικῆς areas: (περί), p. 31.

ποιητοῦ Sy See i

ποιά, Z

ποιότης, Z 53, 92.

ποιοῦν, Z 34, "85.

πόλις, C 104.

πολῖται, Z 149.

ϑονας p. 20, 29, Z 23, 97, 149,

: 2

πολιτεύεσθαι, Z 170,

πολιτικόν, C 1.

πολιτικός, p. 52.

πολυχρόνιος, Z 95.

πολυώνυμος, Ὁ 48 (1).

πόνος, Z 128, 187, 201.

πορεία, Z 175.

Ποσειδών, Z 111.

πράξεων (περῖ), p. 52.

προβλημάτων Ὁμηρικῶν, p. 81.

προηγμένον, Ὁ. 15, 84, Z 127, 128,
131, 145, 169.

INDEX VERBORUM.

προηγούμενος, p. 15, Z 123, 131,
169, 170.

προκοπή, p. 84.

προκόπτοντες, Z 160.

πρόληψις, p. 10, 34, 40, Z 21.

πρόνοια, Z 36, 45 a, C 18, 19, 44.

προπέτεια, Z 22.

προσδοκία, Z 143.

προσηγορία, Z 23.

προσίεσθαι, Z 160.

προσκαλεῖσθαι, C 27.

πρὸς χάριν, Z 189.

πρόσωπον, Z 25, ᾿

προτρεπτικύς, Ὁ. 52,

πρῶτα κατὰ φύσιν, Z 122, 126.

πτοία, Z 137.

πτῶσις, Z 23, 139.

Tlv@ayopixd, p. 29.

πῦρ τεχνικόν, Ὁ. 23, Z 41, 42, 46,
O35-91,,C:13;. 15,2326. 30;

πυροειδής, C 82.

ῥέω, Z 25, 56 (ὅθ), Ο 21.
ῥητορική, Z 32, C 9,

σελήνη, Z 73, C 32.
σημείων (περί), p. 29.
σκοπός, p. 45, C 74.
σολοικίζειν, Z 81.
σοφίσματα, Z 6.
σοφόν (περὶ τοῦ τὸν o. σοφιστεύειν),
p. 53.
σπέρμα, Z 106, 107, C 24.
σπουδαῖος, Z 148—159.
στατικά, Z 4.
στήλης (περί), C 113.
στίχοι, Z 166.
στοᾶς (περί), p. 53.
στοιχεῖα, Z 8, 35.
στρατηγικός, Z 148,
στρογγύλος, Z 82.
συγκατάθεσις, p. 84, Z 15, 19, 33,
123, 139, 158.
σύγχυσις, Z 51.
συλληφθείς, Z 106.
συμβεβηκός, Z 24.
συμπάθεια μερῶν, Z 58.
συμποσίου (περί), p. 47, 53.
συμφέρον, p. 45, C 77.
συναπτική, Z 40.
συνεκτική, Z 40.
συνεστώτων, Z 67.
συνέχον, Z 96.

συνιστορεῖν, C 11.

343,

σύνοδος, Z 73.

συστολή, Z 139, 143.

σφαῖρα, Z 67.

σφάλλεσθαι, Z 153,

σχέσις, Z 134.

σῶμα, Z 24, 34, 36, 91.
σωφρονιστῆρες, C 114.
σωφροσύνη, Ζ 184, 188, Ο 70.

ταπεινώσεις, Z 189.

τείνεσθαι, Z 67.

τέλειος λόγος, Z 82.

τελετάς, C 53.

τέλος, p. 45, Z 120, 124, C 74.

τέλους (περί), p. 52.

τέχνη; p. 27, Z 5, 12, 18, 118, C 5.

τέχνης (περί), p. 50.

τεχνίτης, Z 48

τίθεσθαι (ὄνομα), Z 116.

τιμῆς (περί), p. 47, 52.

τινά, Z 23.

Τιτᾶνας, Z 115.

tévos, p. 8, 22, 23, 42, 45, 51, Z 33,
35, p- 110, 2 91, 103, C 24, 42, 76.

Τόπος, Z 69.

τρίβων, Z 194,

τριμερής, Z 1.

Τριτογένεια, Z 1.

τρόπων (περί), p. 50.

τυγχάνοντα, Z 23.

τύπωσις, p. 34, Z 1.

ὕλη, Z 35, 49, 50, 51.
ὑμεναίου (περί), p. 51
ὑπακούειν, Z 29.

Ὑπερίων, Z 115.

ὑπόθεσις, Z 25.

ὑποθετικὸς τόπος, Ὁ. 47, C 92.
ὑπομενετέοις, Z 184.
ὑποπίπτειν, Z 28.

ὑποστάθμη, Z 114.

ὗς, C 44.

φαινόμενα σώζειν, Ο 27.

φακῆ, Z 156.

φαντασία, p. 24, 38, Z 7, 8, 33, 123,
158, C 3.

καταληπτική, p. 8, 9, 24, Z

11

φάντασμα, Z 28.
φανταστικόν, Z 160.
φαῦλος Z 148, 154.
Φερσεφόνη, C 56.
φθονερίας (περί), p. 47, 52.

344 INDEX VERBORUM.

φθορὰ τοῦ κόσμον, Z 56. αλκοῦ (περί), Ῥ. 58, Ο 112,
Z 103, Χά, Ζ 1 ( τ ils.
φιλίας (rept), gd 53, χάριτος (enh, Ρ. 47, 52, C 97—99.

horyos, , χάρτην C4,
sien 249 χρεῖαι, ie Z 194.
φλόξ, χρειῶν (περί), p. ὅ3.

, p. 46, Z 128, 142, 143, ματισμός, é 99

φορά (ἐγκύκλιον), Z 71, 116. ov (περί), p. 50.
Φρεάντλης, p. 85, C 21, χρόνος,
φρόνησις. seer 15, 16, 45, 2 184,156. χρώματα, Z 78
φυγάς, Z χώρα, Z 69

φύσει, Z 89, p. 110.

φύσεως (rep), p. 28. ψιλός, C 49.
φυσικόν, Z Why Z 43, 56(60), 83—96, C 36—
pint Are Z 48, 45, 46, C 51, v.
κατά, —— τοῦ κόσμου, C 14, 21.
— (κοινή), Ο 73.
φύω, Z cy ὡς av, Z 56(99).
φωνᾶεν, Z ὠφέλιμος, Z 190, C 75, 77.

φωνή, 499.1 100, p. 226.

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C, J. CLAY, M.A. ἃ SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

January, 1891.
PUBLICATIONS OF

Che Cambridge Anibersitp Press.

THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, ἄς.

The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English
Version, with the Text revised by a Collation of its Early and other
Principal Editions, the Use of the Italic Type made uniform, the Mar-
ginal References remodelled, and a Critical Introduction, by F. H. A.
ScrIVENER, M.A., LL.D. Crown 4to., cloth gilt, 215,

THE STUDENT'S Eprriom of the above, on good writing paper, with one
column of print and wide margin to each page for MS. notes, Two Vols.
Crown 4to., cloth, gilt, 315. 6d.

The Lectionary Bible, with Apocrypha, divided into Sections
adapted to the Calendar and Tables of Lessons of 1871. Cr. 8vo. 335. 6d.

The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint. Edited
by the Rev. Professor H. B. Swere, D.D. Vol. I. Genesis—IV Kings.
Crown 8vo. 75.6d. Vol. II. IC hronicles—Tobit. [Nearly ready.

The Book of Psalms in Greek according to the Septuagint. Being

a portion of Vol. II. of above. Crown 8vo. 25. 6d.

The Book of Ecclesiastes. Large Paper Edition. By the Very
Rev. E. H. PLumprTre, Dean of Wells. Demy 8vo. 72. 6d.

Breviarium ad usum insignis Ecclesiae Sarum. Juxta Editionem
maximam pro CLAUDIO CHEVALLON et FRANCISCO KEGNAUL1 AD.
MDXXXI. in Alma Parisiorum Academia impressam: labore ac studio
FRANCISCI PROCTER, A.M., et CHKISTOPHOKI WoxpswoxrtH, A.M.

Fascicutus I. In quo continentur KALENDAKIUM, et ΟΕ TEMPOKALIS
sive PROPRIUM DE TEMPORE TOTIUS ANNI, una cum ordinali suo quod
usitato vocabulo dicitur Pica sive Directoxivum Sacexkvotum. Demy
8vo. 185.

Fascicutus II. In quo continentur PSALTERIUM, cum ordinario Officii
totius hebdomadae juxta Horas Canonicas, et proprio Completorii,
LITANIA, COMMUNE SANCTORUM, ORDINARIUM MIssAz CUM CANONE
ET x11 Missis, ἄς. &c. Demy 8vo. 12:3.

Fascicutts III. In quo continetur ῬΚΟΡΕΙΌΜ Saxcroxum quod et
Sanctorale dicitur, una cum Accentuario. Demy 8vo. 1355.

Fascicvti 1. Π. IIL. complete £2. 25.

Breviarium Romanum a Francisco CagpinaLi Quicnonio editum
et recognitum iuxta editionem ψευετης AD- 1535 impressam curante
JOHANNE WickHam Lecc. Demy 8: 125.

The Pointed Prayer Book, being the Book of Common Prayer
with the Psalter or Psalms of David, ee αἷς to be sung ox
said in Churches. Royal 24mo, cloth, 1:

The same in square 32mo. cloth, 62.

The Cambridge Psalter, for the use of Choirs and Organists. Spe-
cially adapted for Congregations in which the “Cambridge Pointed Prayer
Book” is used. Demy 8vo. cloth, 3:.6¢. Cloth limp cat flush, 25.

London: Cambridge Warchouse, Ave Maria Lane.

T3500
@/1/5:

The Paragraph Psalter, arranged for the use of Choirs by the
Right Rev. Β. F. Westcott, D.D., Lord Bp. of Durham. Fep. 4to. 55.
The same in royal 32mo. Cloth, 1s. Leather, 1s. 6d.

: |
Psalms of the Pharisees, commonly known as the Psalms of |
Solomon, by H. E. RyLe, M.A. and M.R. James, M.A. Demy 8νο. 155.

The Authorised Edition of the English Bible (1611), its Sub-
sequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. By F, H. A. SCRIVENER, ©
M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. |

The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the
Text followed in the Authorised Version, together with the Variations
adopted in the Revised Version. Edited by F. H. A. ScRIVENER, M.A.,
D.C.L., LL.D. Small Crown 8vo. 6s.

The Parallel New Testament Greek and English. The New
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
Svo. 125. 6d. (Zhe Revised Version is the joint Property of the Universities
of Cambridge and Oxford.)

Greek and English Testament, in parallel columns on the same
page. Edited byJ. SCHOLEFIELD, M.A. New Edition, with the marginal
references as arranged and revised by DR SCRIVENER. 75. 6d.

Greek and English Testament. Tue SrupEent’s Epition of the
above on /arge writing paper. 4to. 125.

Greek Testament, ex editione Stephani tertia, 1550. Sm. 8vo. 35. 6d.

The Four Gospels in Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions.
By Rev. Prof. Skeat, Litt.D. One Volume. Demy Quarto. 305,
Each Gospel separately. 10s.

The Missing Fragment of the Latin Translation of the Fourth
Book of Ezra, discovered and edited with Introduction, Notes, and
facsimile of the MS., by Prof. BENsLy, M.A. Demy 4to. Ios. |

The Harklean Version of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chap.
XI. 28—XIII. 25. Now edited for the first time with Introduction
and Notes on this version of the Epistle. By Rosert L. BENSLY.
Demy 8vo. 59. |

:

Codex S. Ceaddae Latinus. LEvangelia SSS. Matthaei, Marci,
Lucae ad cap. III. 9 complectens, circa septimum vel octavum saeculum
scriptvs, in Ecclesia Cathedrali Lichfieldiensi servatus. Cum codice ver-
sionis Vulgatae Amiatino contulit, prolegomena conscripsit, F. H. A.
ScrIvENER, A.M., LL.D. Imp. 4to. 41. 15. |
The Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament. By
J. R. Harris, M.A. With 3 plates. Demy 4to. τος, 6d, |

Notitia Codicis Quattuor Evangeliorum Greci membranacei viri )

doctis hucusque incogniti quem in museo suo asservat Eduardus Reuss
Argentoratensis. 25. |
|

|

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

THEOLOGY—(ANCIENT).

Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Commentary on the Minor Epistles of
S. Paul. The Latin Version with the Greek Fragments, edited from the
MSS. with Notes and an Introduction, by H. B. SwetE, D.D. Vol. Τ᾿
containing the Introduction, and the Commentary upon Galatians—Colos-
sians. Demy Octavo. 12s.

Volume II., containing the Commentary on 1 Thessalonians— Philemon,
Appendices and Indices. 125.
Chagigah from the Babylonian Talmud. A Translation of the
Treatise with Notes, etc. by A. W. STREANE, M.A. Demy 8vo. tos.

The Greek Liturgies. Chiefly from original Authorities. By C. A.
SwaInson, D.D., late Master of Christ’s College. Cr. gto. 155,

Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, comprising Pirge Aboth and
Pereq R. Meir in Hebrew and English, with Critical Notes, By C.
TAYLOR, D.D., Master of St John’s College. ros.

Sancti Irenei Episcopi Lugdunensis libros quinque adversus
Hereses, edidit W. IGAN Harvey, S.T.B. Collegii Regalis olim
Socius. 2Vols. Demy Octavo. 18s.

The Palestinian Mishna. By W. H. Lowz, M.A. Royal 8vo. 215.

M. Minucii Felicis Octavius. The text newly revised from the
original MS. with an English Commentary, Analysis, Introduction, and
Copious Indices. By H. A. HOLDEN, LL.D. Cr. 8vo. 4s. 6d.

Theophili Episcopi Antiochensis Libri Tres ad Autolycum. Edidit
Prolegomenis Versione Notulis Indicibus instruxit GULIELMUS GILSON
Humpury, S.T.B. Post Octavo. 55.

Theophylacti in Evangelium S. Matthei Commentarius. Edited
by W. G. Humpury, B.D. Demy Octavo. 7s. 6d.

Tertullianus de Corona Militis, de Spectaculis, de Idololatria
with Analysis and English Notes, by G. CURREY, D.D. Crown 8vo. bse

Fragments of Philo and Josephus. Newly edited by J. RENDEL
Harris, M.A. With two Facsimiles. Demy gto. 125. δά.

The Teaching of the Apostles. Newly edited, with Facsimile Text
and Commentary, by J. R. Harris, M.A. Demy 4to. 215.

The Rest of the Words of Baruch: A Christian Apocalypse of
the year 136A.D. The Text revised with an Introduction by J. RENDEL
Harris, M.A. Royal 8vo. 5s,

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. ‘55.

Biblical Fragments from Mount Sinai, edited by J. RENDEL
Harris, M.A. Demy 4to. τος. 6d.

The Diatessaron of Tatian. By J. ΒΈΝΡΕΙ, Harris, M.A. Royal

8vo. 5s.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

4 PUBLICATIONS OF

THEOLOGY—(ENGLISBH).

Works of Isaac Barrow, compared with the original MSS. A
new Edition, by A. NAPIER, M.A. 9 Vols. Demy 8vo. 23: 35>

Treatise of the Pope’s Supremacy, and a Discourse concerning
the Unity of the Church, by I. Barrow. Demy 8vo. 75: 6d.

Pearson’s Exposition of the Creed, edited by ΤΈΜΡΙΕ CHEVAL-
LIER, B.D. 3rd Edition revised by R. Sinker, D.D. Demy 8vo, 125.

An Analysis of the Exposition of the Creed, written by the Right
Rev. Father in God, JoHN PEARSON, D.D. Compiled by W. H. Mii1,
D.D. Demy Octavo. 55.

Wheatly on the Common Prayer, edited by G. E. Corriz, D.D.
late Master of Jesus College. Demy Octavo. 75. 64.

The Homilies, with Various Readings, and the Quotations from
the Fathers given at length in the Original Languages. Edited by
G. E. Corrik, D.D. late Master of Jesus College. Demy 8vo. 75. 6d.

Two Forms of Prayer of the time of Queen Elizabetb. Now First
Reprinted. Demy Octavo.

Select Discourses, by JoHN Situ, late Fellow of Queens’ Col-
lege, Cambridge. Edited by H. G. WILLIAMS, B.D. late Professor of
Arabic. Royal Octavo. 75. 6d.

De Obligatione Conscientie Prelectiones decem Oxonii in Schola
Theologica habite a ROBERTO SANDERSON, SS. Theologiz ibidem
Professore Regio. With English Notes, including an abridged Transla-
tion, by W. WHEWELL, D.D. Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Caesar Morgan’s Investigation of the Trinity of Plato, and of Philo
Judeeus. 2nd Ed., revised by H. A. HoLpEN, LL.D. Cr. 8vo. 45.

Archbishop Usher’s Answer to a Jesuit, with other Tracts on
Popery. Edited by J. SCHOLEFIELD, M.A. Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Wilson’s Illustration of the Method of explaining the New Test-
ament, by the early opinions of Jews and Christians concerning Christ.
Edited by T. Turton, D.D. Demy 8vo. 55. |

Lectures on Divinity delivered in the University of Cambridge.
By Joun Hey, D.D. Third Edition, by Τὶ Turton, D.D, late Lord)
Bishop of Ely. 2 vols. Demy Octavo. 155. |

5, Austin and his place in the History of Christian Thought.
Being the Hulsean Lectures for 1885. By W. CUNNINGHAM, Ὁ.
Demy 8vo. Buckram, 12s. 6d. |

Christ the Life of Men. Being the Hulsean Lectures for 1888.
By Rev. H. M. STEPHENSON, M.A. Crown 8vo. 25. 6d.

The Gospel History of our 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 8vo. 35. 6d.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 5

GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICS, &c.
(See also pp. 16, 17.)

Sophocles: the Plays and Fragments. With Critical Notes, Com-
mentary, and Translation in English Prose, by R. C. Jess, Litt. D.,
LL.D., Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge.

Part I, Oedipus Tyrannus. Demy 8vo. Second Edit. 125. 6d.
Part II. Oedipus Coloneus. Demy 8vo. Second Edit. 125, 6d.
Part III, Antigone. Demy 8vo. Second Edit. 125. 6d.

Part IV. Philoctetes. Demy 8vo. 125. 6d.

Select Private Orations of Demosthenes with Introductions and
English Notes, by F. A. PALEY, M.A., ἃ J. E. SaNpys, Litt.D.

Part I. Contra Phormionem, Lacritum, Pantaenetum, Boeotum de No-
mine, de Dote, Dionysodorum. Cr. 8vo. Mew Edition. 6s.

Part II. Pro Phormione, Contra Stephanum I. II.; Nicostratum, Cono-
nem, Calliclem. Crown 8vo. Mew Edition. 7s. 6d.

Demosthenes, Speech of, against the Law of Leptines. With
Introduction and Critical and Explanatory Notes, by J. E. SANpDys,
Litt.D. Demy 8vo. gs.

Demosthenes against Androtion and against Timocrates, with
Introductions and English Commentary by WILLIAM WayTE, M.A.
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Euripides. Bacchae, with Introduction, Critical Notes, and Archz-
ological Illustrations, by J. E. SANpys, Litt.D. New Edition, with
additional Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 125. 6d.

Euripides. Ion. The Greek Text with a Translation into English
Verse, Introduction and Notes by A. W. VERRALL, Litt.D. Demy 8vo.
Bsn Sas

An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy. Part I. The Archaic In-
scriptions and the Greek Alphabet. By E. 5. RoBERTs, M.A., Fellow
and Tutor of Gonville and Caius College. Demy 8vo. 18s,

Aeschyli Fabulae._IKETIAES XOH@OPOI in libro Mediceo men-
dose scriptae ex vv. dd. coniecturis emendatius editae cum Scholiis Graecis
et brevi adnotatione critica, curante Ἐν A. PALEY, M.A., LL.D. Demy
8vo. 75. 6d.

The Agamemnon of Aeschylus. With a translation in English
Rhythm, and Notes Critical and Explanatory. New Edition, Re-
vised. By the late B. H. KENNEpy, D.D. Crown 8vo. 6s.

The Theetetus of Plato, with a Translation and Notes by the

same Editor. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

P. Vergili Maronis Opera, cum Prolegomenis et Commentario
Critico pro Syndicis Preli Academici edidit BENJAMIN HALL KENNEDY,
S.T.P. Extra fep. 8vo. 35. 6d.

Essays on the Art of Pheidias. By C. WaLpsTEINn, Litt.D., Phil.D.
Royal 8vo. With Illustrations. Buckram, 305.

M. Tulli Ciceronis ad M. Brutum Orator. A Revised Text.
Edited with Introductory Essays and Critical and Explanatory Notes,
by J. E. Sanpys, Litt.D. Demy 8vo. 16s.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

6 PUBLICATIONS OF

M. Tulli Ciceronis pro C. Rabirio [Perduellionis Reo] Oratio ad
Quirites. With Notes, Introduction and Appendices. By W. E. HeEr-
LAND, M.A. Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d.

M. T. Ciceronis de Natura Deorum Libri Tres, with Introduction
and Commentary by JosEpH B, Mayor, M.A. Demy 8vo. Vol. I. ros. 6d.
Vol. 11. 125. 6d. Vol. III. ros.

M. T. Ciceronis de Officiis Libri Tres with Marginal Analysis, an
English Comment and oa of New Edition, revised, by H. A.
ato: LL.D., ay 8vo.

M. T. Ciceronis de Officiis Libri Tertius, with Introduction,
Analysis and Commentary by H. A. HoLpEN, LL.D. Cr. 8vo. 25.
ΜΙ. T. Ciceronis de Finibus Bonorum libri Quinque. The Text
revised and explained by J. S. Rep, Litt.D. [Zn the Press.
Vol. III., containing the Translation. Demy 8vo, 8s.

Plato’s Phedo, literally translated, by the late E. M. Cops, Fellow —

of Trinity College, Cambridge.: Demy Octavo, 55.

Aristotle. The Rhetoric. With a Commentary by the late
E. M. Cops, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, revised and
edited by J. E. Sanpys, Litt.D. 3 Vols. Demy 8vo. 21s.

Aristotle.—ITEPI ΨΥΧΗ͂Σ. Aristotle’s Psychology, in Greek and
English, with Introduction and Notes, by E. WALLACE, M.A. Demy8vo. 18s.

ΠΕΡῚ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗΣ. The Fifth Book of the Nicomachean
Ethics of Aristotle. Edited by H. Jackson, Litt.D. Demy 8vo. 6s.

Pronunciation of Ancient Greek translated from the Third German

edition of Dr BLass by W. J. PurToN, B.A. Demy 8vo. 6s.

Pindar. Olympian and Pythian Odes. With Notes Explanatory
and Critical, Introductions and Introductory Essays. Edited by C. A. M.
FENNELL, Litt.D. Crown 8vo. gs.

— The Isthmian and Nemean Odes by the same Editor. 95.

The Types of Greek Coins. By Percy GARDNER, Litt.D., F.S.A.
With 16 plates. Impl. 4to. Cloth £1. 11s. 6d. Roxburgh (Morocco
back) £2. 25.

SANSKRIT, ARABIC AND SYRIAC.

Lectures on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages
from the Papers of the late WILLIAM WRIGHT, LL.D. Demy 8vo. 145.

The Divyfvadfna, a Collection of Early Buddhist Legends, now
first edited from the Nepalese Sanskrit MSS. in Cambridge and Paris.
By E. B. CowEt1, M.A. and R. A, NgEiL, M.A. Demy 8vo. 18s.

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. τος.

Notes on the Tale of Nala, for the use of Classical Students, by
J. ῬΕΙΚΕ, Litt.D., Master of Christ’s College. Demy 8vo. 125.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 7

The History of Alexander the Great, being the Syriac version of
the Pseudo-Callisthenes. Edited from Five Manuscripts, with an English
Translation and Notes, by E. A. BuDGE, M.A. Demy 8vo. 25s.

The Poems of Beha ed din Zoheir of Egypt. With a Metrical
Translation, Notes and Introduction, by the late E. H. PALMER, M.A.
2 vols. Crown Quarto.

Vol. I. The ARABIC TEXT. Paper covers. tos. 6d.
Vol. II. ENGLISH TRANSLATION. Paper covers. tos. 6d.

The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite edited in Syriac, with an
English translation and notes, by W. WRIGHT, LL.D. Demy 8vo. Ios. 6d.

Kalilah and Dimnah, or, the Fables of Bidpai; with an English
Translation of the later Syriac version, with Notes, by the late
I. G. N. KEITH-FALCONER, M.A. Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Mak4la-i-Shakhsi Sayyéh ki dar Kaziyya-i-Baéb Navishta-Ast (a
Traveller’s Narrative written to illustrate the Episode of the Bab). Per-

sian text, edited, translated and annotated, in two volumes, by E. G.
BROWNE, 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.I. Demy 8vo. 15s, Vol. II. 15s.

[Vol, IIL. J the Press.

Mathematical and Physical Papers. By Sir W. THomson, LL.D.,
F,R.S. Collected from different Scientific Periodicals from May, 1841,
to the present time. Vol. 1. Demy 8vo. 185. Vol. II. 15s. Vol. III. 18s.

The Collected Mathematical Papers of ARTHUR CAYLEY, Sc.D.,

F.R.S. Demy 4to. _ τὸ vols.
Vols..I., II. and IIL. 25s. each. [Vol. IV. Zz the Press.

A History of the Study of Mathematics at Cambridge. By W. W.
RousE BALL, M.A. Crown 8vo. 6s.

A History of the Theory of Elasticity and of the Strencth of
Materials, from Galilei to the present time. Vol. I. GALILEI TO SAINT-
VENANT, 1639-1850. By the late I. TODHUNTER, Sc.D., edited and
completed by Prof. KARL PEARSON, M.A. Demy 8vo. 255.

Vol. II. By the same Editor. [Zn the Press.

The Elastical Researches of Barre de Saint-Venant (extract from
Vol. 11. of ToDHUNTER’s History of the Theory of Elasticity), edited by
Professor KARL PEARSON, M.A. Demy 8vo. 95.

Theory of Differential Equations. Part 1. Exact Equations and
Pfaff’s Problem. By A. R. ForsyTH, Sc.D., F.R.S. Demy 8vo. 125.

A Treatise on the General Principles of Chemistry, by M. M.
PATTISON Muir, M.A. Second Edition. Demy 8vo. 1855.

Elementary Chemistry. By M. M. Pattison Muir, M.A., and
CHARLES SLATER, M.A., M.B. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d.

Practical Chemistry. A Course of Laboratory Work. By M. M.
PATTISON Murr, M.A., and Ὁ. J. CARNEGIE, M.A. Cr. 8vo. 35.

8 PUBLICATIONS OF

A Treatise on Geometrical Optics. By R. S. Hearn, M.A
Demy 8vo. 125. 6d.

An Elementary Treatise on Geometrical Optics. By R.S. Heatu
M.A. Crown 8vo. 55.

A Treatise on Dynamics. By S. L. Loney, M.A. Cr. 8vo. 7s. 64

A Treatise on Analytical Statics. By E. J. Rourn, Sc.D., F.R.S

[Nearly ready

A Treatise on Plane Trigonometry. By E. W. Horson, M.A
Demy 8vo. [Nearly ready

Lectures on the Physiology of Plants, by S. H. Vines, Sc.D.
Professor of Botany in the University of Oxford. Demy 8vo. 215.

A Short History of Greek Mathematics. By J. Gow, Litt. D.
Fellow of Trinity College. Demy 8vo. τος. 6d.

Notes on Qualitative Analysis. Concise and Explanatory. Bi
H. J. H. Fenton, M.A., F.C.S. New Edit. Crown 4to. 6s.

Diophantos of Alexandria; a Study in the History of Greel
Algebra, By T. L. Hearu, M.A. Demy 8yo. 7s. 6d.

A Catalogue of the Portsmouth Collection of Books and Paper:
written by or belonging to Sir Isaac NEWTON. Demy 8vo. 55.

A Treatise on Natural Philosophy. By Prof. Sir W. THomson
LL.D., and P. G. Tarr, M.A. Part I. Demy 8vo. 16s. Part II. 185

Elements of Natural Philosophy. By Professors Sir W. THomson
and P.G. Tait. Second Edition. Demy 8vo. 95.

An Elementary Treatise on Quaternions. By P. G. Tart, M.A
Second Edition. Demy 8vo. 145.

A Treatise on the Theory of Determinants and their Application
in Analysis and Geometry. By R. F. Scort, M.A. Demy 8vo. 125.

Counterpoint. A practical course of study. By the late Prof

' Sir G. A. MACFARREN, Mus. D. sth Edition, revised. Cr. 4to. 75. 64

The Analytical Theory of Heat. By JosepH Fourier. Translate
with Notes, by A. FREEMAN, M.A. Demy 8vo. 125.

The Scientific Papers of the late Prof. J. Clerk Maxwell. Edite
by W. D. NiIvEN, M.A. 2 vols. Royal 4to. £3. 35. (net.)

The Electrical Researches of the Honourable Henry Cavendish

Written between 1771 and 1781. Edited by J. CLERK Max
WELL, F.R.S. Demy 8vo. 18s.

Practical Work at the Cavendish Laboratory. Heat. Edited b
W.N. SHAw, M.A. Demy 8vo. 3s.

Hydrodynamics, a Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Fluic
Motion, by Horace Lams, M.A. Demy 8vo, 125.

The Mathematical Works of Isaac Barrow, D.D. Edited bi
W. WHEWELL, D.D. Demy Octavo. 7s. 6d.

Illustrations of Comparative Anatomy, Vertebrate and Inverte
brate. Second Edition. Demy 8vo. 25. 6d.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 9

A Catalogue of Australian Fossils. By R. ETHERIDGE, Jun., F.G.S.
Demy 8vo. tos. 64.

The Fossils and Paleontological Affinities of the Neocomian Deposits
of Upware and Brickhill, being the Sedgwick Prize Essay for 1879. By
W. KEEPING, M.A. Demy 8vo. τος. 6d.

The Bala Volcanic Series of Caernarvonshire and Associated Rocks
being the Sedgwick Prize Essay for 1888, by A. HARKER, M.A., F.R.S
Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d.

A Catalogue of Books and zap che on Protozoa, Coelenterates,
Worms, etc. published during the years 1861-1883, by D’Arcy W.
THOMPSON, M.A. Demy 8vo. 125. 6d.

A Revised Account of the Experiments made with the Bashforth
Chronograph, to find the resistance of the air to the motion of projectiles.
By FRANCIS BASHFORTH, B.D. Demy 8vo. 125.

An attempt to test the Theories of Capillary Action, by F.
BASHFORTH, B.D., and J. C. ADAMs, M.A. Demy gto. £1. 15,

A Catalogue of the Collection of Cambrian and Silurian Fossils
contained in the Geological Museum of the University of Cambridge,
by J. W. SALTER, F.G.S. Royal Quarto. 75. 6d,

Catalogue of Osteological Specimens contained in the Anatomical
Museum of the University of Cambridge. Demy 8vo. 25. δώ,

Astronomical Observations made at the Observatory of Cambridge
from 1846 to 1860, by the late Rev. J. CHALLIS, M.A.

Astronomical Observations from 1861 to 1865. Vol. XXI. Royal
4to., 155. From 1866 to 1869. Vol. xxl. 155.

LAW.

Elements of the Law of Torts. A Text-book for Students. By
MELVILLE M. BIGELOW, Ph.D. Crown 8vo. τος. 6d.

A Selection of Cases on the English Law of Contract. By
GERARD BROWN FINCH, M.A. Royal 8vo. 28s.

Bracton’s Note Book. A Collection of Cases decided in the King’s
Courts during the Reign of Henry the Third, annotated by a Lawyer of

that time, seemingly by Henry of Bratton. Edited by F. W. MAITLAND.
3 vols. Demy 8vo. £3. 35. (net.)

Tables shewing the Differences between English and Indian Law.
By Sir ROLAND KNyveEt WILsoN, Bart., M.A., LL.M. Demy 4to. 1s.

The Influence of the Roman Law on the Law of England.
Being the Yorke Prize Essay for the year 1884. By T. E. ScruTron,
M.A. Demy 8vo. tos. 6d.

Land in Fetters. Being the Yorke Prize Essay for 1885. By
T. E. ScRUTTON, M.A. Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Commons and Common Fields, or the History and Policy of the
Laws of Commons and Enclosures in England. Being the Yorke Prize
Essay for 1886. By T. E. Scrurton, M.A. Demy 8vo. τος. 64.

History of the Law of Tithes in England. Being the Yorke Prize
Essay for 1887. By W. EASTERBy, B.A., LL.B. Demy 8vo. 75. 6d.

London; Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

10 PUBLICATIONS OF

History of Land Tenure in Ireland. Being the Yorke Prize Essay
for 1888. By W. E. Montcomery, M.A., LL.M. Demy 8vo. τος. 6d

History of Equity as administered in the Court of Chancery. Being
the Yorke Prize Essay for 1889. By Ὁ. M*KENzIE KERLY, M.A., St John’s
College. Demy 8vo. 125. 6d.

An Introduction to the Study of Justinian’s Digest. By Henry
JouHN Rosy. Demy 8vo. 95.

Justinian’s Digest. Lib. VII., Tit. I. Ὡς Usufructu, with a Legal

and Philological Commentary by H. J. Rosy. Demy 8vo. gs
The Two Parts complete in One Volume. Demy 8vo. 18s.

A Selection of the State Trials. By J. W. Wit.is-BuNnp, M.A.,
LL.B. Crown 8vo, Vols. I.and II. In 3 parts. 30s,

The Institutes of Justinian, translated with Notes by J. T. Appy,
LL.D., and BRYAN WALKER, M.A., LL.D. Cr. 8vo. 16s.

Practical Jurisprudence. A comment on Austin. By Ε, C.
Crark, LL.D., Regius Professor of Civil Law. Crown 8vo. 9s.

An Analysis of Criminal Liability. By the same. Cr. 8vo. 75. 6d.

The Fragments of the Perpetual Edict of Salvius Julianus, Ar-
ranged, and Annotated by the late BRYAN WALKER, LL.D, Cr. 8vo. 6s.

The Commentaries of Gaius and Rules of Ulpian. Translated
and Annotated, by J. T. ΑΒΡΥ, LL.D., and BryAN WALKER, M.A..
LL.D. New Edition by Bryan Walker. Crown 8vo. 16s.

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. 12s. The translation separate, 6s.

Selected Titles from the Digest, by BRyAN WALKER, M.A., LL.D.
PartI. Mandativel Contra. Digest xvul.1. Cr. 8vo. 55.
Part II. De Adquirendo rerum dominio, and De Adquirenda vel

amittenda Possessione, Digest xLI, 1 and 2. Crown 8vo. 65s.

Part III. De Condictionibus, Digest xu. 1 and 4—7 and Digest

XIII. 1—3. Crown 8vo, 6s.

HISTORICAL WORKS.

The Life and Letters of the Reverend Adam Sedgwick, LL.D.,
F.R.S. (Dedicated, by special porniesion, to Her Majesty the Queen.) By
JouN WILLIs CLARK, M.A., F.S.A., and THomas MCKenny HuGHEs,
M.A. 2vols. Demy 8vo. 36s.

The Growth of English Industry and Commerce during the Early
᾿ς and Middle Ages. By W. CunNINGHAM, D.D. Demy 8vo. 16s.

_ 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
present time by J. W. CLARK, M.A. 4 Vols. Super Royal 8vo. £6. 6s.

Also a limited Edition of the same, consisting of 120 numbered Copies
only, large paper Quarto; the woodcuts and steel engravings mounted
on India paper; of which roo copies are now offered for sale, at Twenty-
five Guineas net each set.

London: Cambridge. Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. II

The University of Cambridge from the Earliest Times to the
Royal Injunctions of 1535. By J. B. MULLINGER, M.A. Demy 8vo. 125.

— PartII. From the Royal Injunctions of 1535 to the Accession of Charles
the First. Demy 8vo. 18s.

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. 245.

Scholae Academicae: some Account of the Studies at the English
Universities in the Eighteenth Century, By CHRISTOPHER WORDs-
WORTH, M.A. Demy 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Life and Times of Stein, or Germany and Prussia in the Napoleonic
Age, by J. R. SEELEY, M.A. Portraits and Maps. 3 vols. Demy 8vo. 30s.

The Constitution of Canada. By J. E. C. Munro, LL.M.
Demy 8vo. Ios.

Studies in the Literary Relations of England with Germany in
the Sixteenth Century. By C. H. HERForD, M.A. Crown 8vo. gs.
Chronological Tables of Greek History. By Cart PETER. ‘Trans-

lated from the German by G. CHAWNER, M.A. Demy 4to. Ios.

Travels in Arabia Deserta in 1876 and 1877. By CHaRLEs
M. Doucuty. With Illustrations. Demy 8vo. 2 vols. £3. 35.

History of Nepal, edited with an introductory sketch of the Country
and People by Dr Ὁ. WriGHT. Super-royal 8vo. 10s. 6d.

A Journey of Literary and Archeological Research in Nepal and
Northern India, 1884—5. By C. BENDALL, M.A. Demy 8vo, τος.

Cambridge Wistorical Bessavs.

Political Parties in Athens during the Peloponnesian War, by
L. WuisLey, M.A. (Prince Consort Dissertation, 1888.) Second Edi-
tion. Crown 8vo. 25. 6d.

Pope Gregory the Great and his relations with Gaul, by F. W.
KELLETT, M.A. (Prince Consort Dissertation, 1888.) Crown 8vo. 25. 6d.

The Constitutional Experiments of the Commonwealth, being the
Thirlwall Prize Essay for 1889, by E. JENKs, B.A., LL.B. Cr. 8vo. 25. 6d.

On Election by Lot at Athens, by J. W. HEap.am, B.A. (Prince
Consort Dissertation, 1890.) Crown 8vo. [751 the Press.

The Destruction of the Somerset Religious Houses and its Effects.
By W. A. J. ARCHROLD, B.A., LL.B. (Prince Consort Dissertation,
1890.) Crown 8vo. [Zn the Press,

MISCELLANEOUS.

The Engraved Gems of Classical Times with a Catalogue of the
Gems in the Fitzwilliam Museum by J. H. MrppteTon, M.A. Royal 8vo.
125. 6d. τ

Erasmus. The Rede Lecture, delivered in the Senate-House, Cam-
bridge, June 11, 1890, by R. C. Jess, Litt.D. Cloth, 25. Paper Covers, 1s.

The Literary remains of Albrecht Durer, by W. M. Conway. With
Transcripts from the British Museum Manuscripts, and Notes upon them
by Lina ECKENSTEIN. Royal 8vo. 215. ;

The 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 8vo. 16s.

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane,

-

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

B Zeno, of Citium

626 The fragments of Zeno and
Z21P4 Cleanthes

Peary

ia Raed to Ay
ee

nt as
LAS vg

ao 5982 ve
athe! it

fae

ay

ψ.

i
Ὶ

ἐξ

τ Υ ms iar get, yr
μὴν be ee.
But cau
4 fs
Whe viene:

“

᾿

ἐφ τ OT 485

3

wig
ne Weky

eee
oe,
ΠΡ ΜΈΝ
δ τς ie ἘΝῚ :
get oe
Pret isa

ἢ

ΣΝ

" ws
δ sy
Shai

(
ἐνῷ
ΣΤῊ
Pers
ne
: Ay ἐπὰν
PAA Tey
pier ast
ben a?
τος 1
Ἂν

7

yt

ice