Skip to main content

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

See other formats





ftonton: C. J. CLAY AND SONS, 




ltip>ifl: F. A. BROCKHAUS. 






IX THE YEAR 1889. 







[All Rights reserved.] 

Cambridge : 



S dissertation is published in accordance with thr 
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 t<> 
avoid in dealing with a large body of scattered authorities, 
the majority of which can only be consulted in a public- 

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 Jahrbticher fur Philo- 
lofjie for 1878, p. 435 foil., 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 187-i LS75 (Commentationes I 
et II de Zenone Citiensi et Cleaitt/ie Assio). Mullach s 
collection of the fragments of Cleanthes in vol. I of the 
Fragmenta Philusoplioriun Gnieconnn is so inadequate 
as hardly to deserve mention. 


Among the general aids the first place is claimed by 
Zeller s Philosophic der Griecheit, 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 
Entivicklung der Stoischen Philosophic, forming the second 
volume of his Untersuchunyen 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 Psijchologie 
der Stoa (1880), 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 Doxograpld Graeci, deserve special mention. Al 
though the results arrived at have been checked by the 
aid of modern writers, the ancient authorities and es 
pecially Diogenes Laertius, Plutarch, Sextus Empiricus, 
Stobaeus (Eclogae), and Cicero have been throughout 
treated as the primary source of information. The refer 
ences to Stobaeus are accommodated to Wachsmuth s 
edition (Berlin, 1884). Susemihl s article on the birth- 


year of Zeno in the Nem Jahrb ticker fur Pldloloyie for 
1889 appeared too late to be utilised for the introduction. 

A word must be said with reference to the plan of 
the present collection. No attempt has been made to 
disentangle in every case the words of the writer from 
the body of the citation in which they appear. Although 
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 \ve 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 Avhich 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 Apophthefjmata, 
though it is often impossible to draw a strict line between 
written and oral tradition. 

I desire to thank Mr R. 1). Hicks, Fellow of Trinity 
College, for many valuable suggestions and criticisms. 


p. 37, 1. 13, for "he was only able" read "he alone was able 
p. 53, 1. 23, add "see however on Cleanth. frag. 114." 


1. Life of Zeno. 

TIIK chronology of Zeno s life 1 , 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 tirst edited by Comparetti in 1875 2 . From this we learn 
that Cleanthes was born in 331 B.C., and, as we know from 
other sources 3 that he lived to the age of 99, he must have 
died in B.C. -32 in the archonship of Jason 4 . But, according 
to the papyrus (col. 29), at the time of his death he had pre 
sided over the School for 32 years", which fixes the death of 
Zeno as having taken place in B.C. 2G4, thus confirming the 
authority of Jerome, who says under the year Ol. 129, 1 --B.C. 
264, 3 ; "Zeno Stoicus moritur post quern Cleanthes philosophus 
agnoscitur." Now, in Diog. Laert. vn. 28 we have two distirct 

1 See Bohde in Bhcin. Mus. 33, p. 622. Goinperz ib. 34, p. 154. 
Susemihl s article iu Fleckeisen s Jahrb. for 1882, vol. 125, pp. 737 746, 
does not add anything to our knowledge of the chronology of Zeuo s life. 

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

3 Lucian Macrob. 11). Val. Max. vin. 7, Ext. 11. 

4 So too the papyrus col. 28 (d)ir-r]\\dy(Tj sir apxovTos l)dffoi>os. 

5 Such at least is the restoration of Gouiperz : Comparetti reads 
rpiaKovTo. Kal OKTU, but admits that dvo is possible. The word after /cat 
is illegible. 

6 So Bolide states, but iu Migne s ed. of Eusebius i. p. 498 the state 
ment appears to belong to 01. 128. 

H. P. 1 


accounts of his age at the time of his death, the one, that of 
Persaeus, in his TJOtKal o-^o\ai, who makes him 72, and the 
other apparently derived from Apollonius Tyrius 1 , 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 3 . 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 4 . 

Zeno, the son of Mnaseas 5 , was born at Citium, a Greek 
city in the south-east of Cyprus, whose population had been 
increased by Phoenician immigrants 6 . Whether he was of 
pure Greek blood or not we cannot tell 7 , 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 1st century 
B.C.). For his work on Zeno s life see Diog. L. vn. 1. 2. 24. 28. Strabo 
xvi. 2. 24. 

3 Gomperz I.e. undertook to prove that Zeno died in the month Sciro- 
phorion (01. 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. vii. 7. 8. 

4 The weakness of this hypothesis lies in the fact that Antigonus 
Gonatas did not become King of Macedon until 278 277 B.C., although 
no doubt he was struggling for the crown from the time of the death of 
his father Demetrius in B.C. 283. This is met to some extent by Kohde 
1. c. p. 624 n. 1. 

5 Diog. L. vii. 1 mentions Demeas as another name given to his 
father but elsewhere he is always ZTJVUC )lva<rtov. 

8 Cimon died while besieging this place (Thuc. i. 112). 

7 Stein, Psychologic der Stoa n. 3 sums up, without deciding, in 
favour of a Phoenician origin. So also Ogereau p. 4 whereas Heinze 
thinks that everything points the other way (Bursian s Jahresbericht 
vol. 50, p. 53). 


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 1 , is 
in any case not altogether unwarranted. 

Again following the authority of Persaeus (Diog. L. I.e.) 2 , 
we may conclude that he arrived at Athens at the age of 2 2, 
but as to the cause which brought him thither we are dif 
ferently informed, and it is uncertain whether lie came for the 
express purpose of studying philosophy , or in furtherance of 
some mercantile enterprise 4 . 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 5 . The story of his 
first meeting with Crates is characteristic H : Zeno, who had 
recently arrived at Athens, one clay 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 7 . This last is the statement of Apollonius, 

1 So (powiKlSiov Crates ap. Diog. L. vn. 3. Cf. Cic. de Fin. iv. 56 et saep. 
- Another account gives his age as thirty (Diog. L. vn. 2). 

3 Diog. L. vn. 32. 

4 Diog. L. vn. 3. 

5 See Zeno apoph. 3, and the notes. 

6 Diog. L. vn. 3. 

7 Diog. L. vii. 2. 4. 28. The other tradition is traced by Eohde to 
Apollodonis known as 6 rovs \povov^ dvaypa-^as. Evidence of his having 
dealt with Zeno s chronology will be found in Philod. -rrfpi 



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 3 , 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 4 a decree 

col. xi. (Here. vol. coll. prior vol. vm.) For Zeno s teachers cf. Nuuie- 
nius ap. Euseb. P. E. xiv. 5, p. 729 HoXfuuvos 8t eytvovro 
ApKecriXaos *ai 7^vti)v...7iijv<jjva fj.(i> ovv fj.(/j.vr]fj.a.t eiiruv Sepo/cparei elra 8t 
llo\4fj.wi>i <oiT?7<rcu, ai flis 6e irapa K/MTT/TI ni vurai. vvvi 8t aiTtf \f\oyifft)w, 
on Kai 2,Ti\ird)v6s n fj.frf<f)(f, /ecu r(tiv \6yui> ruv l{paK\fiTeiuv. firti yap 
ffVfj.(poiT<j)i>T(s irapa IloXe/xuw f^tXort/XTjtfrjtraf dXXTyXois <rufj.irape\al3oi> et y rr]v 
irpo? dXX^Xoiis iMxyv, o M^ 1 * Hp4itX*lTW Kai UTiXiruva apa /cat Kpar^ra, iLv 
virb fj.v iirtXTrwi os tyevero p.a\r)Tris, virb 5e HpCUrXcffW avffrypds, Kvmcot 8( 
inri) KpanjTos. 

1 According to Sext. Emp. adv. Math. vn. 321, Zeno was a irptcr/Si/r^s 
when he irpo<rt/j.aprvpri(rtv favri^i rr)v eiipecrtv T-^S a.\r)0fias. This refers to 
the publication of his writings, but this must have shortly followed the 
opening of the school. Jerome on Euseb. Chron. (i. p. 498 Migne) says 
opposite 01. 126 " Zeno Stoicus philosophus agnoscitur." 

2 Diog. L. vn. 5. 

3 Zeno apoph. 6. 

4 The decree was carried in the archonship of Arrhenides, i.e. Nov. 
265 B.C., if Arrhenides was archon 265 204 as seems to be Gomperz s 
opinion, vid. supr. p. 2, n. 2. 


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. vil. 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 1 , 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 4 . 

Tn 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 5 , 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 1 . 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 7 , 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 Pint. Sto. Rep. 4, 1. 
- Diog. L. vn. 12. 
:! Diog. L. vir. 6. 

4 H. N. xxxiv. 19. 32. 

5 See Zeno apoph. 25 and 26. 

6 See note on apoph. 25. 

7 So Demetrius Poliorcttes : Grote vol. xn. p. 190. 


which he had obtained for the treasury from Lysimachus, 
Ptolemy, and Antipater 1 . \Ve 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 2 ; 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 lie is said 
to have been a lover of Chremonides 3 . 

In voluntarily hastening his own end, Zeno only illustrated 
the teaching of his school. One day, on leaving the Stoa, lie 
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 4 . 

His personal appearance was evidently not attractive. 
Timotheus 5 , in his work Trepl /8iW, described him as wry necked, 
while Apollonius called him lean, rather tall, and of a dark 
complexion 6 , with thick calves, flabby flesh, and a weak 

1 See Grote vol. xn. p. 214. 

2 Cf. Seneca de Tranq. An. i. 7 Zenonem Cleanthem Chrysippunij 
quorum nemo ad renipublicam accessit. 

3 Zeno apoph. 44. 

4 Zeno apoph. 56. 

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

6 An uncomplimentary epithet, cf. Theocr. x. 26 EO/J-^ KCL x a -P^ fffffa 
Zupav KaXtovrl TV Traces, ia\va.v dXii^ai trrof, fyw 5^ /^6fos fj.(.\l\\upov. id. 
iii. 35 a p.e\a.v6xpw- 


digestion. Tlie last-named defect is said to have been the 
cause of his frugal diet 1 , but this was HO 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 etieminacy, and genet-silly of a somewhat stern and 
reserved cast of mind, though not without consideration for 
the wants of others. 

-2. Stoicisni 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 
uaco /xara and syllogisms, belong almost entirely to Chrysippus, 
and, when we remember that out of 7- r >0 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 Zeuo 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 

i els apros, ofo, tV X <, iir^ielv Mup. Philemon ap. Diog. L. vn. 27. 
- See Zeno apoph. 27. 


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 impressioii 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 favraala K ara- 
XrfTTTiKTj is the criterion of truth . Diogenes Laertius, however, 
mentions certain ap^aic repot TWV SrwiKeoV as teaching that 
opOos Adyos is the standard of truth. This passage has been 
treated by Hirzel (in whose judgment other authorities have 
concurred) as proving that Zeno and Cleanthes were the philo 
sophers indicated, and that Chrysippus was the first to in 
troduce the definition of the ^avravia Kara^rjirTiKij. The only 
other evidence, by which he connects Zeno with opOos Ao yos, 
is Philo quis virtuti studet p. 880 appearing in our collection 
as frag. 157. To this might have been added Arr. Epict. diss. 
iv. 8. 12 (frag. 4) and Philodem. irtpl euVe/2. 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 <j>avra<Tia KaraA.^?*?/. 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 
p. 174): Mit Zeller muss man annehmen, dass das KaraXrjvriKol 
ursprunglich emen aktiven Sinn halte, da der Tonns desselben Zweifels- 
ohne auf die didvoia eimvirkt. Andererseits muss man Hirzel wieder 
darm Becht geben, dass die 5u/oia sich unmoglich rein leidend verhalttm 
kann, dass vielmehr das KaraX^^ auch einen passiven Beigeschmack 
hat. Und doch lassen sich beide, sich scheinbar ausschliessende Stand- 
punkte vereimgen, wenn man in das Kara^Trr^bv den von uns vermu- 
teten Doppelsmn hineinlegt, den Zeno wohl absichtlich andeuteu wollte. 
Danach waren die Qavraola und Sidvoia bei der /cardX^s gleicherweise 
teils aktiv, teils passiv, woraus sich die schwankende Anwendung dieses 
Ausdrucks sehr wohl erklart." For the connection of ro^oj with KO.TO.- 
Xiji/ is, which is not however proved to be Zenonian, cf. Sext. Emp. adv. 
Math. vn. 408 dXXo yap avrrj ^v ij dirapa\\aia. run rt /coraX^^ K 
TUV aKaTa\7jirruv <f>avTa.<nwv Kara TO fvapyts Kal (vrovov iSiu/^a vapicrrarai. 

K al 


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 op8ov<; Adyous are coupled 
with^o-TrouSat us Siatfecreis 1 . 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 2 . Again, if Zeno defined (pavraaia as a riVwcrts, and 
discriminated between the truth of various <ai Taertai, he must 
have pursued the subject still farther : and, if art and memory 
are defined with reference to Kara A^i/a? an( l opinion is dis 
tinguished therefrom, it follows of necessity that he must have 
defined Kara/X^is itself. Still, even admitting to the full the 
ethical significance of opOos Adyos :i . the passage in Diogenes is 
not thereby disposed of, for if Zeno and Cleanthes are not 
indicated by the words 01 apxaio repoi TWF STGHKCOV to whom 
does this expression refer 1 Must we, then, suppose that Zeno 
put forward two criteria of knowledge, rational thought (opOos 
Ao yos) as well as the experience of sense (/caTa A^i/as) 1 Such a 
conclusion would be inconsistent with the clearness and direct 
ness of Zeno s teaching. The only way out of the difficulty 4 
is to adopt the theory of Stein, who regards the doctrine of 
opOos Adyos as a concession to rationalism. o p$os Adyos 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 Ao yos require to be completed and corrected on the side 

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

2 It is satisfactory to find that Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 341, claims 
for Zeno the Qavraaia Kara^irriKT] on precisely similar grounds to those 
stated in the notes to frag. 11. 

3 For this see Stein, Erkenntnistheorie pp. 2r> .l 204. 

4 It should he mentioned that Corssen de Posidonio Ehodio (1878) 
pp. 17 1<) proposed to eliminate ZTUIMV 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 avo\fiirovffiv should in this case be pressed. 
Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 25!. 


of sensible experience before they can attain to objective 
actuality 1 . 

From this point of view, then, it is not unreasonable to 
credit Zeno with the substance of the teaching recorded in 
Cic. Acad. i. 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 tvvoiai and not at 
all that of Trpo\T]i{/fi<;-. 

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 
O-O AOIKOS, and a symbolical explanation, recorded by Cicero, of 
the different degrees of knowledge. 

Zeno s contributions to Physics have been unduly de 
preciated by some authorities but, while it is true that the 
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 3 . 
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, 31;">. 

- Stein holds that irp&\rj\f/is was substituted by Chrysippus for Zeno s 
6p86s \6yos, in so far as the latter is concerned with epistemology 
(Erkenntnistheorie p. 269, 270). 

3 See Stein, Psychologic p. 56 ami n. 77, whose reference to the number 
of fragments in Wachsmuth s collection is however misleading. As 
regards Zeno, Wachsmuth s fragments are only intended to be supple 
mentary to Wellmann s article in Fleckeisen s Jahrb. for 1873, so that no 
inference can be drawn from the fact that there are more physical than 
ethical fragments. It will be seen from the present collection that the 
numbers are very nearly equal. 


operation of these two principles. The active principle is God, 
and the passive is matter, (rod is more closely denned as the 
liery aether 1 , 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 
tire, air,, water and earth out of which everything else is formed. 
To explain the production of the individual thing by the in- 
terminflin"- of its elements, Zeno broached the celebrated 

O o 

theory of (cpucrts oV oXou, 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 l)e shown to have had a beginning in time Zeno saw clear 
proofs that the universe itself is destined to pass away. There 
will come a time when by the unceasing law of fate the world 
and all that it contains will again be merged in the primeval lire, 
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. -">8, remarks that there is no evidence of Zeno 
having used the term TrceD/m in this connection. 


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 descrip 
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 omitted 
to describe God, who is the soul of the universe, as fiery breath, 
yet the soul, which is the moving principle of the body, is 
defined as a warm breath, or (after Heraclitus) as a sentient 
exhalation. For the soul is fed by exhalation from the blood, 
just as the heavenly bodies are by particles from the lower 


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 ^ ye/xoviKov 
which is situated in the heart to the various organs of sense, 
it is said to have eight parts, namely, the T/ye/xovtKoi/ 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 

O ~ 

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 
according 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 


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 1 , 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 8 . 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 dyaOd and KO.KO.: 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 rd 
Kara <f>vai.v. 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 a8ta<opa are ranged 
between virtue and vice in a graduated scale of negative and 
positive value (dira^a. and aia), the middle place being oc 
cupied by TO, Ka6dira a8td<opa, i.e. such matters as havpg an 
even or odd number of hairs in one s head. Everything 
possessing ciia is Kara <j>v(riv, and everything possessing diraia4 
is vapd <j>v<nv. At the same time aia is not a permanent, 
attribute of any aSta ^opov, for that which is at one time Kara 

1 Cf. Stein, Psychologic p. 13. 

2 Hirzel, Untersuchungen n. p. 108, thinks otherwise and the point is 
certainly a doubtful one. If Zeno spoke only of human nature, Clearlthes 
may have here, as elsewhere, shown the connection of ethical with 
physical doctrine by explaining 0i><m as KOIVTI <f>v<ru. Then Chrysippus 
would have united both views. If this was the real development, there 
would be some pretext for Stobaeus assertion that Cleanthes added ry 
jvffei to the definition, while the authority of Diogenes Laertius would 
remain unimpaired. See however Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 260. 


4>vcriv might, under certain circumstances, become Trapd (frvmv. 
Herein lies the vital distinction between u Sta^opa and ayaOd, 
for the latter are unaffected by any possible change of circum 
stances: a virtuous action can never be contrary to nature. 
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 (= Kara Trporjyov^vov 
Aoyov or uvev TreptoTao-fcos) we shall always choose in preference 
to their contraries. These then are the Trpo^y/xeVa. Cor 
responding with this classification of objects, we have a scale 
of actions ranging from KaropOM/ma (virtuous action) to a/*ap- 
rrjfjLO. (sinful action), wherein K.a6-f]Kov answers to the class of 
d8id(f>opa. Every KaOrjKov is thus directed to the choice of rd 
KUTO. <f>v(TLV and the avoidance of rd Trapd <v<ru . The doctrines 
of KaOrJKov and Tpor/y/xeVov 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 7roA.iTta proposed to establish a socialistic constitution 
under which the importance of d8id<f>opa would be reduced to 
a minimum. 

Zeno held further that virtue is one and indivisible, 
springing from the -qyefjLoviKov, of which it is a taxed 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 (^poV^o-is), and justice, 
courage, and temperance are the particular applications of 
wisdom in diverse spheres. Whether Zeno also distinguished 
between two different kinds of ^poV^rts, one as the ground 
work, and the other as a particular species of virtue, must 


remain doubtful. Hirzel (I.e. p. 99) infers that he did, but 
Plutarch s words do not necessarily lead to such a conclusion, 
and we ought to hesitate to attribute such an inconsistency to 


Zeno without direct evidence. No doubt the Stoic school 
generally put forward four cardinal virtues <^povr?o-i?, SiKaioa-vvrj, 
dvSptio. and croj^poo-vvT?, 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, 
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 
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 lie 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 


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 lias 
completely suppressed them. Finally, since death belongs to 
the class aSta c^opa, suicide is justifiable in the wise man, if 
circumstances prescribe such a course. 

Jt is obvious that a teacher, whose ethical views were of 
the nature, which we have just indicated, could not rest 
satisfied with the existing constitution of civic life in Greece. 
Equally unsatisfactory to him was the aristocratical com 
munity of Plato, with the sharply drawn dividing line between 
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 TTO AI?, but comprises the whole of 
mankind living together like a herd of cattle 1 . In this state 

O Q 

there will be no temples, law-courts, or gymnasia; no work of 
human craftsmen is worthy of divine acceptance; the state 
must be adorned not with costly offerings, but by the virtues 
of its inhabitants. Zeno likewise advocates an abolition of 
coinage, a community of wives, and a thorough revolution of 
the current system of education. 

The remaining fragments, dealing mainly with particular 
, do not require to be summarised here. 

3. Zeno s relation to 2 evioufi philosophers. 

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 2 : if all that belongs to others were 
withdrawn from the voluminous writings of Chrysippus, we 
should have a blank page 3 . Antiochus, in Cicero 4 , represents 

1 Cf. Newman, Politics of Aristotle, vol. i. p. 88. 
- Cf. Diog. L. vn. 25. 

3 Diog. L. vn. 181. 

4 Acad. i. 43. The same argument is put forward by Cicero himself 
against Cato in the 4th book of the de Finibus. 

H. P. 2 


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" 1 . 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 011 
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. _Of 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 3 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 xin. 121. 

2 "Die Stoa war vielmehr die veitaus selbstaiKlitfste Hcbule der 
nacharistotolisrhen Philosophic," Htein, Psychologic p. 10. 

3 Antisthenes ap. Sinipl. in Cat. p. 54 b u II\CLTUV, iirirov ^(v bpd 
iinroTTjTa. dt oi x opCi. Cf. Zeno frag. 23. 


teaching as well as in the life of Diogenes . Like Zeno, 
Aiitistlienes 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 4 . 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 Aiitistlienes and Diogenes on record 
denying the legitimacy of such a course 5 . Virtue itself is 
described, after Socrates, as consisting in wisdom and pru 
dence: "prudence," says Aiitistlienes, "is the safest wall; it 
cannot be undermined or betrayed"". At the same time the 
futility of the ordinary course of Greek education is strongly 
insisted on 7 . 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 8 . 

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 1 ", 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 

] Diog. L. VI. 71 btov o\ v avrl rC:v axM" ru " ^ovui> Tors Kara. 0;W 
eXoue^ors rjt> ei! 5cu,u6i/u>s. Zeno trag. 120. 

- Diog. L. vi. 11. Zeno frag. 12-"). 

Diog. L. vi. 10.1. Zeno frag. 12*. 

4 AIT. Epict. Diss. i. 24. C>. Zeno frag, 129. 

5 Zeller Socrates, etc. Eng. Tr. p. 319, n. r>. Cf. Zeno frag. H>1. 

6 Diog. L. vi. 13. Zeno frag. 134. 

7 Diog. L. vi. 103. Zeno frag. 1C.7. 

* Diog. L. vi. 33, 35. Zeno frag. 148. 
11 Diog. L. vi. 104. 

10 Diog. L. vn. 2d, 27. 

11 Diog. vi. 104. vn. 121. 

9 9 


humanised and elevated to an extent entirely incompatible 
with Cynicism, mainly owing to the attention which was 
bestowed on mental culture 1 . 

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 2 . 
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 3 . Both teachers allow to the wise man the passion 
of love, as he alone will be able to select a suitable object 4 : 
both maintain that the virtuous alone are capable of genuine 
friendship 5 . 

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 Kara. &6av and at another KO.T" aXrfOftav". The al 
legorising method of interpretation is common to both, and 
was afterwards developed to an excessive degree by Cleanthes 
and Chrysippus 7 . 

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 8 ; these things, 

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

* Diog. L. vi. 72. Dio. Chrys. x. 29. Cf. Zeno frags. 170 and 179. 
These passages are from the iroXirei a of Zeno, which is supposed to have 
been written while he was still an exponent of orthodox Cynicism. Chry 
sippus, however, is reported to have also held this repulsive doctrine. 

3 Diog. L. vi. 11. Zeno frag. 171. 

4 Diog. L. vi. 11. Zeno frag. 172. 
8 Diog. L. vi. 12. Zeno frag. 149. 

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

~ See Cic. N. D. n. 63 foil. 

8 See the passages collected by Zeller Socrates, etc. E. T. p. 304. 


according to Zeno, belonged to the class of 7rpo>;y/Aei a. 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 1 . 

B. To Heraclitus. 

There can be no doubt that Zeno borrowed some important 
principles in his physical teaching from the writings of He 
raclitus, 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 :i , with the early Ionian physicists, starting from hi.s 
dogma that all tilings are tire, 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 4 . 
However this may 1)6, Heraclitus is essentially a hylozoist, 
\vlio, 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. vi. 24 and contrast Zeno frag. 118. 

- See the elaborate discussion in Zeller, Pre-Socr. Phil. Eng. Tr. n. 
pp. fi 2 77. See however Bysvater, Jonrn. Phil. i. 42. 

Met. i. 3. 8. This is the view of Ueberweg p. 40 and is also held by 
Dr Jackson. 

4 Zellers position (p. 20 foil.) combines the two views. 


pedocles on the one hand, and the Parmenidean immobility on 
the other. The Xo yo? vvos 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 1 . This law he calls yvco/zij, 81/07, cipoppcn?, TO 
Trepie xov r//A(2s Xoyixdv T ov KOI <j>ptVT)pc<>, and o ZeiV, 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 
the use which Heraclitus made of his formula Xo yos was one 
of the chief points in his system which attracted the attention 
of Zeno. As a disciple of Cynicism he was familiar with 
Xo yos as a dialectical and an ethical principle : neither of these 
aspects of Xoyos was discarded by him in broaching, his own 
system. Yet, through the help of the Heraclitean Xo yo?, he 
was enabled to take one step further. Just as Plato gave to 
the Socratic V7ro 0co-is or general conception a metaphysical 
existence in the form of the idea, so did Zeno elevate the Xo yo? 
of Antisthenes from its position as a criterion for thought and 
duty to that of the physical cause of being and movement :i . 
The Stoic deity is, like the Heraclitean Xo yos, provided with 
many names, such as God, Mind, the all pervading Aether, 
Fate, Forethought, and Zeus, but on the other hand it belong* 
to an essentially later period of thought. \Ve have here set 
forth the teleological view of Nature, which is regarded us 
creating all things out of itself for a good purpose 4 . 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 tire of Heraclitus becomes 

1 Heraclitus frag. 50 ed. Bywater. Hiiv.el finds here the origin of the 
Stoic roVos, but this is very questionable. 

- For a detailed statement see Krische, FonohllllgttO p. 368 foil. 

3 The comparison is suggested by Hirzel n. p. 42. But Hirzel very 
much underestimates the influence of Heraclitus on Zeuo, as Heinze has 
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 Cic. N. D. n. 58. 


aether or -n-vp T^VLKOV 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 TWOS, a 
notion entirely alien to Heraclitus. The doctrine of irdrra 
ftel is replaced by that of /jLTa(3o\i], and uAAoiWis gives way 
to the characteristic theory of the mixture of substances, 
known as Kpouris Si oAojr. 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 1 . Zeno seems to 
have adopted Heraclitus definition of the soul as an dva- 
fo /u ao-os, but, instead of regarding this exhalation as imbibed 
from the outer air (TO -rreptexov}, 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 evKpcuria. 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 5 . 

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 Tlieophrastus, the new Academy 

1 Stob. Eel. i. 22. 3 b p. 11)9, K . 
- Heracl. frag. 74, By water. 
3 Stob. Floril. in. 8-1. 


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 sin 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 <aj/rao-t u KaTaXrjirTiKrj 
as the criterion : in this, the essential point, whereby the con 
vincing power of the impression is made the test of its reality, 
is due entirely to Zeno, but he was obviously influenced by 
the Aristotelian treatment of ^ai/racri a, in which it appears as 
"decaying sense," 2 and is more accurately defined as "the 
movement resulting from the actual operation of the sense 
faculty" 1 . 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 

1 This question is discussed in Benn s Greek Philosophers (Preface). 
- Rhet. i. 11. 1370 a 28. 
3 de An. in. 3. 42!) a 1. 


Aristotle 1 , and his terminology, at any rate, is recognisable in 
a logical fragment preserved by Stobaeus". 

Diogenes Laertius introduces his discussion of the Stoic 
physics by stating that the two u px at/ posited by the school 
were God and Indeterminate Matter : here we have not only 
the well-known Aristotelian distinction between the formal 
and the material cause, but also his description of matter as 
that which is entirely formless and contingent 3 . 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 find 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 4 . Zeller well 

1 Met. i. 1. Anal. Post. n. HI. 

- Zeno frag. 24. 

:i Metaph. vi. 3. 1029 a 20 \(yu 6 f\^ 77 KaO avrriv ur/re TL ^re 
Troabv /J-r/Tf aXXo /ot^Sec Xe -yercu oh wpiffrai TO ov. 

4 Cic. Fin. iv. (>. 14. Clem. Alex. Strom, vin. p. H04 Sylb. Polemo 
himself is represented as saying to Zeno : ov \av6dixis, c3 Tir/vuv, TCUS 
KTJTTCUCUS trapfiffpiwv Ovpais, nai TO. doyfj.ara KX^TTTUV <poLi>iKiKi2 s fj.tra^<pifvi>i ^ 
(Diog. L. vii. 25). One of the doctrines, which were in this way appro- 


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 irdOi) 
(frag. 142) and the explanation of the world us wov l/xi/a^ov 
(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. 
vii. 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 fyws preserved 
by Andronicus irepi Tratiuv c. 4 as vTrypeaia. tit&v eh vtuv KaTaKocr/j.r)ffiv nal 
KCL\UI> : cf. Plut. ad priu. iner. 780 D llo\(^uv t\eye rbv tpura dvai. OeCiv 
{ in) peer Lav m vtuv fjrifj.f\fiav (Kreuttner, Andronicus p. 41)). 

1 Stoics etc. p. 3SW. 

- See Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Anti^ onos p. 107 : Zeller and Wachs- 
muth adopt Nietzsche s hypothesis (Kheiu. Mus. xxiv. 185) that all the 
lists in Diog. are, with certain exceptions, derived from Demetrius of 


for not only does Diogenes in several places cite him by 
name (e.g. 2) but also Strabo (xvi. 2. 24, p. 7-~>7) expressly 
mentions a work of his with the title -KLVO.^ rwv drro Z^ rwo? 
^lAoo-o^coi/ KCU TWV /3t/3/\tW ; who supplied Diogenes with the 
appendix has not been determined. 

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

T. Logical. 

(1) Trepi Xoyov. From this work, not mentioned in the 
general catalogue, Diog. L. (vn. 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) KaOo\LKd. Nothing is known of this work but the 
title (Diog. 4) : Wachsmuth thinks that xaOoXiKa. irepl /Xe teoiv 
is the title of a single work. 

(3) vrept Aeewv (Diog. 4). In Stoic terminology Ae ^ts is 
defined as <$>wr] dyy^u/u./xuTos as opposed to Aoyos which is e/x^?/ 
0-ri^avTiK-rj UTTO 8tavotas e /<7rep.7ro/AeV?7 (Diog. VI r. :>G). 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 o-oAotKi^etv (frags. 
30 and 31). Wellmann (Xeue Jahrb. fur 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 TTC/K 
TOV Kiyuws Kfxprj&Oai Zijvwva rots oVo /xacru . 

(4) Tcxvr) (I->iog. 4). This is identified by Zeller and 

Magnesia, who is specified by name with reference to Xenophoirs works 
(DioR. L. ii. 57). Susemihl (Jahrbiicher fiir Philol. 12,5, p. 741) thinks 
that che Diogenes catalogue comprises only those writings of Zeno which 
were included in the Stoic canon, and that the TroXtret a, therex"^ e/w??, 
and the Siarpi^al were treated as apocryphal while their genuineness was 

1 See however on frag. 23. 


Wellmann with the ipoynicij r^\vrj of $ 34, while Wachsmuth 
writes TC^VT; KOL Xvo-fis KCU tXcy^ot ft as one title. The third 
course, which at first sight seems the most natural inasmuch 
as Tf\vr) bears this special meaning from Corax and Tisias 
downwards, is to regard it as an art of rhetoric. The ob 
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 SiT/yrjo-is and Trapa Sciy/m may belong to 
some other Zeno, this does not apply to the passages in Sextus 
and Quintilian. 

(5) XvVtis xal eXcyxot ft (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 1 : see frag. 6. 

II. Physical. 

(6) TTtpl TOV oXou (Diog. 4) seems to have been the most 
important of Zeno s physical writings. Diogenes refers to it as 
containing Zeno s views about the elements (vn. 13G) 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) TTcpt <ucrcws cited by Stobaeus Eel. i. 5. 15. p. 78, IS. 
for Zeno s views on the subject of cI/^ap/Acvr; : 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 Erkenntuistheorie n. <>8! might have been put 
more strongly. He follows the old reading and speaks of two treatises, 
TexviKai Xi crtis and HXeyxoi. /3 . 


(8) 7Tpt ovcri as unnecessarily identified by "VVellmann (I.e. 
p. 442) and Susemihl with irepl oXov and Trepl (jbvcreco? is quoted 
by Diog. (134) for Zeno s definition of the two first principles, 
God and Matter. 

(9) Trepl a-rj/jLCMv : a treatise on divination (Diog. 4). 
Thus pavTiKr) is defined in Stob. Eel. n. 122, 238 as eVio-Tr/^ 
0f(j>p i]Ti.K-t) arjfjifiMV TWV O.TTO &ewv r/ Sat/xovwv TT/JOS avupwTTLVov ftiov 

Tuv. This is no doubt the work referred to by Cic. de 
Div. i. 3, 6 sed cum Stoici omnia fere ilia diflunderent quod 
et Zeno in suis commentariis quasi semina quaedam sparsisset. 
Its position in the catalogue makes against PrantTs hypo 
thesis 1 , who classes it as a logical work. 

(10) -n-epl oi//ews only known by its title (Diog. 4) is re 
garded as logical by Stein. 

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

III. Ethical. 

(12) Trepl TOV KaOiJKovTos (Diog. 4). Here must belong 
Zeno s definition of duty (frag. 14-")), from the terms of which 
Wellmann conjectures without much probability that we should 
identify this treatise with the following. 

(13) TTtpl TOV Kara (frvaw (3iov (Diog. 4). 

(14) irepl 6p/j.rj<; rj Trepl dvOpwirov e^t crew? (Diog. 4). 
Diogenes quotes the Zenonian definition of the summum 
bonum from this book (vn. 87); Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. in. 580) 
proposed to separate this title reading r) - octo, and Weygoldt 
adopting this further identified vrept dvOpwirov <^>i;o-eo)s with Trept 

v, but the latter is not an anthropological work. 

(15) Trepl TT0.0WV (Diog. 4) containing the general defini 
tion of emotion and the discussion of its several subdivisions, 
pain, fear, desire and pleasure (ib. 110). 

(16) 7roXtTta. 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 

1 i. p. 458. So also Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 689. 


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 1 . 

(17) Trcpt VO/AOU (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. 
xxin. p. 287 A speaks of the vopoi of Zeno but appears to l>e 
referring generally to Ids philosophical precepts. 

(18) Trtpl rfjs E\Xr)v(.Krj<; TrcuSetas (Diog. 4): cf. frag. 167, 
which however is stated to belong to the TroXtrct o. 

(19) cpumK?/ TC X^ (Diog. 34). To this book pro 
bably belongs the interesting fragment (174) preserved by 
Clem. Alex, relating to the behaviour suitable to young 

( 20) Siarpi/Jai (Diog. 34): a similar work, as we are 
told by Diog. whose statement is continued 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 TToXireia, we may believe that this and the last three works 
were written in close connection with it, as shorter appendages 
dealing with special topics, and before Zeno had worked out 
the distinctive features of Stoicism. From the general meaning 
of "lectures, discussions" (for which cf. Plat. Apol. 37 D TUS 
//.<is 8iTpt/3as /cat TOUS Aoyovs) 8tuTpi/3r/ seems to have assumed 
the special sense of a short ethical treatise, if we may trust 
the definition of Hermogenes (Rhett. Or. ed. Waltz, t. in. p. 
406) &La.T/>iftri e o-rt /Spa^co? Siu! or//zaro5 rflucoiv OCTUO-IS. Zeller s 
identification with the xP" aL i improbable, and Susemihl 

1 A summary will be found in Wellmaun 1. c. p. 437 foil. As regards 
its Cynic tendencies Susemihl observes: Wer den Witz machte, er sei 
bei ihrer Abfassung wohl schon iiber den Hund gekommen, aber noch 
nicht iiber den Schwanz, schrieb eben damit dies Werk einer etwas 
spiitern Zeit, zu friihesten etwa als er von Krates zu Htilpon iiberge- 
gangen war. 


believes that the Biarpi/Bal was excluded from the 
being an earlier Cynic work. 

(21) 7J0LKO. (Diog. 4). The title is somewhat doubtful, 
as Wachsmuth reads aTroyLU r^oFei ^uaTa KpaT^ros yOiKa. as a 
single title, and Wellmann would emend r) xP f ^ ai f r ^ixa: 
more probably however it was a collection of short ethical 

TV. Miscellaneous. 

(22) Trpo/^A^/xuTwv Qfj.r)piKwv e (Diog. 4): we learn from 
Dio. Chrys. - r ):5, 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 lie 
in some cases proposed emendations may be seen from 
Strabo vn. 3. 6, cf. ib. i. p. 41, xvr. p. 1131. Krische p. 392 
shows that there is no foundation for the suggestion that 
Zeno attributed the Tliad and the Odyssey to different 

(23) TTept 7ro<.t]TLK fj<; uV/)oacrcos (Diog. 4). Stein, Er- 
kcnntnistheorie n. GS9, speaks of this work, the 7rpo/3A. Qp.r)p. 
and the Trept EAA^i . TruiS. as an educational series, and regards 
them as an appendix to the TroXireta. 

(24) uTTo/Ai Ty/Aoveu/xttTu KpuTvyros (Diog. 4) also mentioned 
by Athen. iv. 102 B as Z?;Vtovos tt7ro/u.vr/^/.oi eu/Aara, from which 
Persaeus is said to liave made extracts. There seems little 
doubt that this was identical with the xpeicu mentioned in Diog. 
vi. 91 in connection with Crates, or that Wachsmuth is right 
in referring to this book the story of Crates and the cobbler 
(frag. 199). Aphthonius definition of ^petat runs thus: tt?ro- 
/jir rjfjio\ i /j,a oa i TO/Aoi tvcrro^ws ITTL TI TrpocraiTroi/ ui a^epo/xerov. 

(2- r )) tTTco-ToXat (Maxim. Floril. ed. 3Iai, c. G). This 
reference was first pointed out by Wachsmuth, see frag. 190. 

The passage in Cic. N. D. i. 36 (cum vero Hesiodi Theo- 
goniam interpretatur) led Fabricius to insert among his list of 
Zeno s writings (ill. p. oSO) { Tro/xi Ty/xoVerpa tis Tr/v HcnoSoi; 


Oeoyoi iav 1 , and there can be no doubt from the statements in 
Proclus and the other Scholiasts 2 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 not 
feel much inclined to accept Krische s view (p. 367) that the 
allegorical explanations of Hesiod were worked into the irtpi 
oA.ov :i . May they not belong to the Trtpi TTOIIJTIKT/S uKpouo-ea>s? 

It remains to call attention to Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 9. 58 
p. 245, S. p. 681, P. uAAa KCU ul STOHKOI Xcyowrt ZTJVWVL TOJ irptanp 
yeypu.<f>6an rifa a fJiij paSiws itrirpiirovai TOIS ftaOr)Tal<; dvayi- 

yVU>CTKf.LV p.7/ OV^l TTflpaV 8c8a)KO(7l TTpOTCpOS 1 yVljaiCJS (f)tXo<TO<f)OLfV, 

but similar suggestions of esotericism are made against all 
the post- Aristotelian schools, and especially against the New 
Academy. (Mayor on Cic. N. D. I. 11.) 

5. Zeno s style. 

The fragments which survive of Zeno s writings are not 
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 4 , though he lays himself open to the charge of 

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

- Cf. also Diog. L. vni. 48, Minuc. Felix Octav. xix. 10 Chrysippus 
Zenonem interpretatione physiologiae in Hesiodi Homeri Orpheique 
carminibus imitatur. 

a Zeller who formerly supported this view (Stoics p. 40) now thinks 
otherwise (Ph. d. Gr. in. 4 1. 32). 

4 Fronto ad Verum Imperat. i. p. 114 ad docendum planissimus 
Zenon. Cf. Diog. L. vn. 38?<m fdv otv avrov KOI ra irpoffyfypa/j./j.^va 


abruptness and want of finish. To this tendency was clue his 
custom of couching his arguments in syllogistic formulae, 
which often served to cloak a somewhat obvious fallacy 1 . 
This formally logical style subsequently grew so habitual with 
the Stoics that they earned for themselves the title of StaXeK- 
riKoL Cicero (N. D. in. 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 2 . Particularly striking is his observation 
that those who are in a state of -n-poKoirrj 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. n. 22), "similitudine, ut saepe solet, 
rationem concludit hoc modo." "If tuneful flutes were pro 
duced from an olive should not we regard some knowledge of 

TroXXd, ev oh e\a.\r)crei> us ovdeis TUV "ZTUIKUV in which passage Stein, 
Psychologie n. 2, finds evidence of " die Klarheit und Gediegenheit der 
iSchrit ten Zenos. " 

1 In Cic. N. D. n. 20 the Stoic claims that such arguments "apertiora 
sunt ad reprehendeudum." Elsewhere Cicero calls them " contortulis 
quibusdam et minutis conclusiunculis nee ad sensum pennanentibus." 
Tusc. ii. 42. 

- Cf. Wellmann 1. c. p. 445. 

H. P. 3 


flute-playing as inherent in the olive I" (frag. 63). In like 
manner he uses the simile of the minister in a royal court to 
explain his doctrine of the Trpor/y/xeW (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 
flow of life (frag. 124). 

It will be remembered that Cicero, or his authority, con 
stantly taunts Zeno with being the inventor of new words, 
and new words only 1 . 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 
TrpoT/y/AeVov and diroTrpo-rjyiJ.fvov, which stand on rather a 
different footing, we may instance irpoKOTn;, evapycia, (rvyKaru- 
<9eo-is, KaTo p0w/xu, KarttA.T/i//is, Ku.6fjKov, Wota(?), and rvTroxris : 
TrpoAt/i/as is certainly not due to Zeno. Yet, although none 
of these words are new coinages, KaToA^i/as and KO.BTJKOV are 
instances specially selected by Cicero in support of his statement. 

Diog. Laert. x. 27 speaking of Chrysippus observes: KOI 
rd fjiaprvpia roaavra eoriV, ok CKCI VWV /xovtov yffieLV TO. /3i/?Ata, 
KO.6a.TTtp KOI Trapd ZTJVWVI eoriv evpflv Kal irapd ApioToreAei. 
The existing fragments however do not justify this assertion. 

Finally, although doubtless the circumstances under whicli 
the fragments have been preserved render this tendency more 
noticeable than it otherwise would l)e, 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. II. 205 212), and it is not unreasonable to suppose 
that the habit originated with the founder. Instances of this 

1 Cic. Fin. in. 5. 15. Tusc. v. 32. 34. Legg. i. 38, etc. Cf. Galen 
de diff. puls. vm. 642 ed Kiihn ZTJXWI- 8t 6 Kmei j tri irpbrtpov ( 
KaivoTOUf iv re /ecu uirfpfiaiKiv ri> TUV E\\rivuv tffos iv TO?S 6vt>fw.ffi.v. 



will occur passim. Tn fact, his writings in their general 

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. 1 74. 

| G. Cleanthes. 
In discussing the dates of Zeno s life we have seen that 


there is <rood reason to believe that Cleanthes was born in the 


year E.G. 331, and if so he was only live 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. 2G4 till Ids death 
in B.C. 232. Against this computation there is to be taken 
into account the fact that Diogenes (vn. 176) states that lie 
lived to the age of 80 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 1 . 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 <t>pttvT/\T7s 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 Ilohde 1. c. p. G2 2 n. 1 suggests that Diogenes subtracted the 111 
years passed under Zeno s tuition from the years of bis life, but this is 
hardly credible. 

- Dio.?. L. vn. 108. 



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. vn. 182 OUTOS (Chrysippus) 
ovi8icr0eis VTTO TIVOS ort ov)(l TTOpd Apiorcjvi fitTo. iroXXwv (T^oXa^oi, 

t TOIS TToXXoiS, ?7T, TTpO(TCi\O\ , OVK OLV (f)L\O<TO(^rj(Ta. HlS ap 

parent want of success possibly stimulated the unfavourable 
estimate with which his written works were received by 
antiquity 1 . 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 special strength of Chrysippus, 
who was very probably employed in defending Stoicism during 
his predecessor s life 2 , and who surpassed Cleanthes in fine 
ness and subtlety, even if he was inferior to him in depth 3 . 
Most suggestive, in this view, becomes the passage in Diog. 
L. VII. 179 SiT/ve x$77 (Chrysippus)... Trpos K\edv6r)v a> *cai TroX- 
Xa*as eXcye /xoV^s rfjs TWV Soy/u.arwv SiSacrKaXias XP!? ll/ > T " s 

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

2 Cf. Diog. L. vii. 182 TT/X>S 5 rbv Ko.rf^ K\edi/0oi s SiaXtKn- 
Kbv, /cat irporeivovra. aiV<p cro</>icr/u.aTa, ir^Tra.vffo, elire, Trapt\KUV rbv Trpftrjiv- 
Tfpov airb rCiv irpa.yfjLa.TiKbjTipwi , 7?M I/ & TO S fO S ravra irporlOti. 

3 So Hirzel n. p. 180 " Kleanthes war keine die Begriffe zerglie- 
dernde, sondern eine anschauende Natur, er war wohl minder riihrig aber 
vielleicht tiefer angelegt als sein Schiller," and Stein, Psychologic p. 171 
" Kleanthes erscheiut als der rauhschaalige, miihsam stammelnde, aber 
tiefe Denker, Chrysipp dagegen als der feinere, leichtbewegliche, elegant 
vermittelnde Scbonredner." 


8e a7ro8ei eis avrov eup^ cmv. 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 lias quite recently been subject to a considerable 
modification in current opinion. He has been generally re 
garded as merely the exponent of his master s teaching, and 
as having contributed no new views of his own to the de- 
velppment of the system. 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 (vn. 1G8), and that he did not object to be 
called an ass, declaring that heysvas oJy 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). Xow 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) 1 . 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 n. p. 187 he curiously says : " Da wir aber uichts unver- 
sucht lassen diirfen, um eine eigentiimliche Lehre des Kleanthes heraus- 
zubringen." On the other hand, Windelband, writing as late as 1888, 
says of Cleanthes : " als Philosoph ist er unbedeutend gewesen " (Miiller s 
Handbuch, v. 292). 


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

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 politics. 

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 <avTcuria 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 intro 
duction of this extreme result of sensualistic views so properly 
belongs. Since Chrysippus, in express opposition to Cleanthes, 
defined ^arrcurux as erepoiWis rfyc/^oviKov, it is less likely that 
he should have propounded a theory which in its very terms 
carries out the more materialistic doctrine of his opponent. 


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 1 . 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 2 . The belief in 
God himself does not, as with Zeno, arise from a " certa 
animi ratio " but rather from induction founded on empirical 
observation 3 . 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 
iis 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 32H. 

- Cleanth. frags. 82 and 36. 

3 Cleanth. frag. 52. (Cic. N. D. n. 13.) 


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. vn. 54. If, as Stein 
himself admits, Chrysippus substituted TrpoAr^i? for the 
Zenonian optfos \oyos, Cleanthes must of necessity be included 
in the term apxaio repoi riav STUHKWI/, for there is no one else 
to whom the words could apply 1 . Were further positive 
evidence of Cleanthes " concession to rationalism " required, 
it would surely be as reasonable to supply it from frag. 21 
faxy* -fc Me pos pfTcxovras T/ /ias >^v^ouo-^at as to deduce the 
contrary from frags. 100 and 106. 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 o KvptcvW 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 XCKTOV in the sense of 
KarrfYoprjp.a \ that he left definitions of art and rhetoric, and 
that he explained the names given to a certain kind of slippers 
and a drinking-cup. 

The first five of the physical fragments need not detain ua 
here, containing, as they do, with one exception, merely a 
restatement of positions already taken up by Zeno. The 
exception referred to is the introduction of Trvev/xa 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 dpxaiorfpoi andere Stoiker als Zeno Kleanthes und 
ChryKipp verstehen." Chrysippus is here excluded by the nature of the 
case : the inference need not lie stated. 

- See Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 827. 


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. i. 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) ova-Lav Se Oeav rm> o\ov 
KOO-/J.OV /ecu roV oi-pavov, but this is not conclusive. Not only 
the general cast of the expression, but also the addition of the 
words /cat rov ovparov, make us hesitate to ascribe to these 
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 tilings. Every creature is produced at the proper time 
by means of certain proportions of the soul s parts, which are 
found in the seed. The soul, however, is material and is 
braced up by that tension which is elsewhere described as "a 
stroke of tire." 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 2 , 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 n. 787755. See Stein, 
Psychologic n. 118. 

2 This is probably the meaning of 1. 4 in the Hymn to Zeus where 
3 note. For the doctrine of the macrocosm and the microcosm in 

general see Stein s Appendix to Psych, pp. 205214. 


Thus the phenomenal world is created and again destroyed by 
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 T/ye/^oviKov 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 -r}yep.oviKov 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 the 
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 tire, which is destructive, but to 
the creative. As the sun strikes the world with his rays, 
he is called a plectrum. Sun, moon, and stars are alike 
conical in shape. 

Cleanthes proved that the soul is material by two syllo 
gistic arguments, founded on the mental resemblance between 
parents and children and the sympathy of the soul with the 
body. So far indeed did his materialism extend that he even 
maintained that the act of walking was the extension of Trvetyj-a 
from the TJycfioviKov to the feet. In other respects he seems to 
have concurred in Zeno s psychology, teaching that the 

1 For the tension-theory in general see Stein, Psychologic, pp. 73 and 
74, nn. 109 and 110. The notion of TO^OI is not entirely unknown to 
Zeno : cf. Zeno frags. 56, C7, 103. 


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 1 , 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 i.e. -rrvp 
aeiwov is the only eternal god; the rest are perishable and 
will be destroyed at the eKTrvpwcrts. The popular religion is a 
representation of truth, but requires interpretation if \ve 
would understand its real significance. Thus, the Eleusinian 
mysteries are an allegory; Homer, if properly understood, is a 
witness to truth; the very names given to Zeus, Persephone, 
Dionysus, Apollo, and Aphrodite are indications of the hidden 
meaning which is veiled but not perverted by the current 
belief, and the same is true of the myths of Heracles and 
Atlas. Tt is difficult now-a-days to enter into the spirit with 
which the Stoic school pursued these etymological fancies. 
At times it is hard not to acquiesce in Plutarch s opinion (see 

1 Cic. N. 1). n. 03, in. (>. 


frag. 55), who attributes them to TreuSia and cipujvcux. 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 Stavvcrut, 
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 1 . 

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). Denning 
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 role to 
which he is destined. The same spirit may be traced in the 

1 The etymologies of Plato in the Cratylus are quite as bad as any of 
these, but they are professedly in part at least playful. The most recent 
exposition of this dialogue is. by Mr Heath in the Journal of Philology 
xvn. iy*2. 


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 CTKOTTO?, and the attainment of happiness as reXos 1 . 

The doctrine of roVos was applied by Cleanthes, with im 
portant results, to two branches of his master s ethical system, 
namely, the, nature of virtue and the emotions. Zeno had 
identified virtue with ^/aoV^crt?, but Cleanthes, while retaining 
the intellectual basis which 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 tyKpareia, dvSpeta, SiKatocrwr/, and 
cr<D<t>po(Ti!vr]. It will be observed that eyKpuVeia here occupies 
the position which by Chrysippus and his followers is assigned 
to <poV?7o-ts. Thus Cleanthes fortities his main position, that 
strength of tension is the necessary starting-point of virtue, 
by a tacit appeal to the authority of Socrates, who had pointed 
to ey/cpuTera as Kp^Tris aper^s. A recurrence to the same 
teacher may also be recognised in the approbation with which 
his identification of TO oay^e pov with TO Succuoi is cited. To 
return to TWOS , when the tension is relaxed, a weakness of 
soul follows, and in this weakness is to be found the explana 
tion of the TrdOrj. 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 TO VOS to the -n-dO-r] leads us to the con 
sideration of another question, not indeed directly raised by 
the fragments of Zeno and Cleanthes, but having an important 

1 See however Hirzel n. p. 557. 


bearing on our general view of their ethical doctrines. What 
position do the irdOrj occupy in the classification of goods? 
Zeno classified rjSovrj and therefore presumably the other irdBr) 
among the aSta<opo, and the reason is not far to seek. He 
regarded irdOr) as distinct from vice, because they have nothing 
to do with ignorance (Plut. Virt. Mor. 10 ras tViTtto-eis rwv 
iraOwv Kdl Tas (r^oSporrjTa? ou <ao-i yiyvea-Bai Kara rrjr KpLiriv iv 
77 TO dfiaprqTLKOv). Only KaKia. or TO {JLCT^OV KaKta? is KOLK.OV, 
according to Zeno, and irdOtx: is neither, but rather an eViye v- 
vrjfj.a. (Cf. Ta eVtytyvo/zeva *cptcr(rtv Zeno frag. 139 and for the 
distinction between cViyevi/^/AUTa and /zcTe xovru cf . Diog. L. vn. 
95.) That this applies to all the irdOrj and not merely to 
ijSovT] is made clear by the following considerations. In frag. 
169 Zeno recommends the rational use of wealth OTTO? a8tfj 
Kal dOavpaoTov Trpos TaXXa Ttjv 8id6eo-LV TT}? i/ VX 1 ? 5 X OVTS ocra 
aXd CO-TI p-TJTf ai(r^pa TOIS fA.v Kara <f>v<riv w5 tVi TroAu 
TWV 8 fvavTLiav /itT/Sev 88oiKOTs Xo ycu /cai p.rj <f>o(3w TOVTWJ/ 
This shows that the dSta<opa are the field of 
?, and for Xwnj we may refer to Cic. Tusc. in. 77 nihil 
enim esse malum <juod turpe non sit si htf/enti 
tainen non satis mihi videtur vidisse hoc .Cleanthes, suscipi 
aliquando ae(/ritiulinem 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 1 , declares y8ovr)v /A^TC KUTU <j>v<rtv ctvai 
p.ijre d^tav t^eiv V T<3 ^iw (frag. 88) but does not venture to 
class it as Kaxov. The result of this discussion is that Zeno 
and Cleanthes did not class Xvn-q and <o /8os with Ka*ca, and 
therefore Wachsmuth cannot be right in attributing to Zeno 
a passage in Stobaeus 2 where this classification is implied. 

1 Zeller, Stoics p. 2H7. The remarks in the text are intended to 
obviate the difficulty as to the classification of ijdovr] 8iiested by Heinxe, 
dc Stoicorum affectibus p. 37. 

- See Wtichsmuth s Stobaeus vol. 11. p. 58. That this question was 
much debated appears from Cic. Tusc. iv. 29. Some appear to have held 
that irciflos was KCLKOV but not ncudo. (Stob. 1. C.), because Trdfloj is Kiv^ffit 
but KaKia is 5iA6Tis (Cic. 1. C. 30). 


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 
071 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 Ttfpl -ij^ovfj^ Cleanthes seems to have en 
gaged in a spirited controversy with the Epicureans, and to 
have attacked their moral teaching, just as lie perhaps assailed 
their physics in the work TTC/CU aro/xwv. 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 TrapaivfTixos or uVo#ertKos TOTTOS (i.e. the region of 
applied morals), we notice that Cleanthes frequently refers his 
precepts to the general principle, which is a leading character 
istic of Stoic morals, namely, that virtuous conduct depends 
not on the nature of the deed but on the disposition of the 
agent. The same action may be either vicious or virtuous, 
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 Trepi ev- 

/3ouA.l aS, KCpl XP tTO ?> Tfpt </>00V/t>l aS, TTtpi TifJi-fjS, TTfpl So^TJS, 

TTfpL <tAias, Trepi (rv/u.7ro<riou K.r.X. To the book Trepi. ^apcros we 
may assign three of the extant fragments (frags. 97, 98, 99) 
all of which are preserved by Seneca in the de Beneh ciis. 
The theory of consolation (frags. 93 and 94) may belong either 
to the Trepi apwyr/<; or the Trepi <tAi a?. Frags. 100 103 all in 


verse and one in hexameter metre ouht to be referred to the 


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 role 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 ei p.rj yap rjr Xpvcwnros 
OVK av ?iv STOCI (Diog. L. vii. 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. vii. 180) a 
matter of small moment. Though logic was only the pro 
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 maintaining 
the possibility of knowledge against the universal scepticism of 
the New Academy. It is not surprising, therefore, that the 
foremost champion of dogmatism should have taken the highest 
place in the Stoic triad. 


7. Tlie writings of Cleanthes. 

The relation of the poetical to the prose writings of 
Cleanthes has not been accurately determined, and the evi 
dence does not enable us to decide whether the former were 
published separately from, or in conjunction with the latter. 
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 Otuv, 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 capaeitv 
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 pr/cra? 
T Tror^riKas Trapa.ri9f.Tai Kal urTOptas rraXaiwv 7rpaeu>i /j.ap- 
rupoucras of.? /Wya) were accustomed to freely interpolate 
poetical quotations in their prose writings, and Cleanthes 
may have composed his own norilegia, just as Cicero trans 
lated from the Greek where the Latin poets failed him 
(Tusc. D. n. 2G). A catalogue of the titles known to us is 
subjoined ; where not otherwise indicated, the source of 
reference is Diog. L. vn. 174, 175. 

I. Logical. 

(1) Trepi tStW. For iSta cf. Ar. Top. i. 5, p. 102 a 17 : the 
essential attributes of a thing are its 1810. : thus 

8e/m/<os is an i8tov of man. 

(2) TUJV uTropoii . 

(3) Trepi 8iaA.eKTf.K77S. 
H. P. 


(4) Trepi TpoVajv. Probably this is logical rather than 

(5) Trepi Kanjyopij/LtaTajv.. To this book may be referred 
frag. 7. 

(6) Trepi /xeToXi^ews (Athen. xi. 467 d, 471 b). 

(7) Trepi rov xupieiWros (Arr. Epict. II. 19. 9). Krische 
p. 427 n. gives to this work the title Trepi Swarwv, but Epict. 
distinctly contrasts Chrysippus work bearing the general title 
with a treatise by Cleanthes on the particular fallacy (KXeuY^T/s 
& iSia yeypa<e Trepi TOVTOV), Wachsmuth, Comni. I. p. 18. 

(8) Trepi Te xvrjs ni^y 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) Trepi TOT) Xo you y . This and the following book ap 
pear in the catalogue among the ethical works. 

(10) Trepi TricrT7;/x7/s. 

Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 722, counts among the logical 
works the books Trepi \povov Trepi aio^Ty trews and Trepi 80^775, -but 
omits, probably by an oversight, the book Trepi TPOTTWV. He 
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) Trepi xpoVov. 

(2) Trepi rtys Z^i/wvos <t <jioAoytas /? . 

(3) TOW HpaxXeirou e?7y7;crewi S*. Cf. Diog. L. IX. 15 
re eicriv oeroi l^rjyrjvrai avruv TO <rt;yypa/x/u.a. KOI yap 

KO.I HpaKXet ^s o HOVTIKO? KXea r^? re *cai 2</>cupos 
o STWIKOS. 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- 


thesis of three elements, and that roVos is traceable to iraXiv- 
TOVOS (or TraXivTpo7ro<;) dp/jLovi-rj. Stein s more moderate estimate 
appears to us truer. 

(4) Trepi at<r$?7crea>s. 

(5) Trpos Ar;p,o/cptTov, perhaps the same as Trepi rwv drofjuav 
(Diog. L. vii. 134) so Krische p. 430. 

(6) Trpos Apto-rapxof, see 011 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) VTTOfjLvtj/uiaTa <v<rtKa (Plut. Sto. Rep. C. 8). 
The books next in order treat of $coAoyiKov. 

(8) apxaioXoyta has been identified witli /xi>$i/ca (Athen. 
xin. 572 e, Porphyr. vit. Pyth. c. 1), but the genuineness of the 
latter work is seriously questioned. Miiller frag. hist. Gr. n. 
p. 5. 9. 11 thinks that the TO. Kara TTO\IV p.v6iKo. of Neanthes of 
Cyzicus (cf. Plut. quaest. syrup. I. 10) is referred to in both 
passages and Zeller Pre-Socr. I. p. 308 says: The Cleanthes 
of Porphyry is certainly not the Stoic but most likely a mis 
spelling for Neanthes of Cyzicus. 

(9) Trept flewv, cf. Plut. de vit. aer. alien, c. 7. To this 
work Wachsmuth refers frags. 47. 54. 5G. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 
62. 63. Krische (p. 418, 422) also the statements in Cic. 
N. D. I. 37 (frags. 14 17) and the hymn to Zeus (frag. 48). 
See also Osann Praef. Cornut. p. ix. 

(10) Trepi yiyufTwj . 

(11) Trepi Y/zevcuou. This is a curious title. Perhaps it 
should rather be classed as ethical. Cf. Persaeus book Trepi 
ydfj.ov (Diog. L. vii. 36). 

(12) Trtpi TOV TroirjTov. 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) OcopaxLo. (ps.-Plut. de Fluv. v. 3. 4) was identified 
by Krische with the book Trepi ytyavrcov supra (p. 434) but this 



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

(14) iTpl opaJv, ib. \. 17. 4. 

Fabricius Bibl. Gr. ill. p. 552 infers from Simplic. in 
Epict. Man. c. 78 that one of Cleanthes works bore the title 
lap.(3fia, but the words simply mean "in his well known Iambic 

III. Ethical. 

(1) Trpos "HpiAAov. For Herillus see Zeller p. 42. 

(2) Trepi dp/ui/s /? . 

(3) Trepi TOV KaOijKOVTOS y. 

(4) Trepi fvj3ov\La<i. 

(5) Trepi ^aptros. 

(6) TrporpeTTTiKo?. Cf. Diog. L. VII. 91. 

(7) Trepi dperwv. 

(8) Trepi v<^vtas. 

(9) Trepi TopyLinrov "num Trpos FopytTTTrov qui idem fuerit 
atque FopyiTrTrtS^s ad quem complura scripta Chrysippus misit? 
Waclism. Mohnike p. 100 wishes to read FopytTrTriSov. 

(10) Trept <f>6ov(pia<;. 

(11) Trepi IpwTos. Here belongs perhaps frag. 108. 

(12) Trepi 

(14) Trepi TL/j.rj<;. 

(15) Trepi 80^7;?. 

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

(17) Trepi 

(18) Trepi 

(19) Trepi TOU 

(20) Trepi 

(21) Trepi 

(22) Trepi 

(23) Trepi 7rpdf(i>v. 

(24) Trepi /3acriXeias. 


(25) TTfpl <lAtas. 

(26) Trept frv/J.TTOo LOv. Persaeus wrote CTU/XTTOTIKU V7ro/j.vr ]- 
uara or StaXoyot (Athen. iv. 162 b, xiu. 607 a). 

(27) Trept TOV on 77 avrr/ dperrj oVSpos *ai ywatKOS. So 
Antisthenes also taught (Diog. L. vi. 12) and cf. Socrates in 
Xen. Symp. n. 9. Otherwise Aristotle, Pol. i. 13. 1260 a 21. 
Eth. vin. 14. 1162 a 26. 

(28) Trept TOV TOV o~o(f)ov croc/HcrTeuetv. 

(29) Trept XptLwv. 

(30) SiaTpt/3wv p. 

(31) Trept yoovrjs. For this book see Krische p. 430 foil. 

(32) Trept XO.XKOV (Diog. L. vii. 14). The title of this book 
has been much discussed. It was altered to Trept ^aptros by 
Casaubon, to Trept xpo vou by Menagius, Fabricius and Mohnike, 
and to Trept xpetwv by Wachsmuth. It is possible that ^aA/coi) 
is due to the scribe s eye catching the word ^a^Kov which 
closely precedes in the citation, and, if so, we have no clue to 
the true title. 

(33) Trept o-Toa?. This book is supposed to have existed 
from a mutilated passage of Philodemus Trept <>i\o<ro(j>wv in vol. 
Here. VIII. col. 13 v. 18 ok at T aVaypa<at ran Tr(t)i/aKwv (at)re 

7Kat <T7]fJiaivovo-LV, (Trapa K.X)edvOf] eV TW Trept o-r(ods e)cr(Tti ) 
vTij TJ P.VTJM. ^^ >, 6 . 

/ / 


1. Diog. L. VII. 39, rpi/jLepr) (fracrlv elvai TOV Kara 

\6yov. ecvat yip avTOv TO /Jiev n 
oe i]6iKov TO oe \oyi/c6v. OVTCO Se rrpcoTO^ SteZXe TA 
KtrtetN ev TOO rrepl \6yov. 

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. vn. 1G eWeXe crrepoz 
8e...oi elrrovTes r?}? c/uXocro^/a? TO ^ikv TI eivai (^VCTLKOV TO 
8e 1J0IKOV TO $e Xoyi/cov wv >vuap,ei /jiev TL\aTO)v eVrn 
o?, rrepi TTO\\WV /j,ev (frvcrtfcwv TroXXcoy Se i}6iKwv OVK 
e \OJIKWV SiaXe^^et? 1 prjTOTCtTa Se ol Trepl TOT 
teal ol drro TOV TcepiTraTov GTL 8e ol aTTo r^? 
(7Toa? e^ovTai, Trja8e r^? Sfatpecreco?. Ar. Top. I. p. 105 b 19 


(3\rj/jtdTa>i> /Jt,eprj Tpia al /j,ev <yap rjOucal TrpoTaaeif elcriv, at 
Se (J3V(7iKai, al 8e Xoyt/cal must not be taken as indicating 
that Aristotle had in view the triple division (see Waitz in 
foe.). 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. I. 19 he wrongly 
attribvites the division to Plato (fuit ergo jam accepta a 
Platone philosophandi ratio triplex) : Diog. L. III. 56 only 
says that Plato introduced the SiaXert/co? TOTTO?, not that 


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 Tptro- 
yeveia (Zeller, pp. 363, 3G4). Hirzel (de logica Stoicorum 
in Sauppe s Satura Philologa, p. 71) thinks that Zeno was 
the inventor of the term \oyuc>} in place of Xenocrates 

2. Diog. L. VII. 40, d\\oi 8e irpwTov pcv TO Xoyi/cov 
rarrovai Seirepov 8e TO (frva-itcoV KCL\ rpirov TO rjOitcov. 
wi> e(TTi Zr)va)v ev T&> Trepl \ojov. 

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: 
TOVTWV (pepdiiv) 8eiv TaTTeadai irpwTOv pev TU \oyticd, 
8evTepa &e TO. tjQitcd, TpiTa 8e TO, fyvcnicd and yet in the 
same passage we find attributed to Chrysippus the state 
ment 01)8 a\\ov TIVOS eve/cev T7/9 <f)V(TiK7J<; Oewpias Trapa- 
\tj7TTrj<; ovcrr]? fj TT/DO? TJ;I> irepl dyaOwv rj KCLKWV ^idaracnv, 
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. (vil. 40) physics are likened to 
the fruit of the garden and the yolk of the egg, in Sextus 
(adv. Math. vn. 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 


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. c. 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. [Bitter and 
Preller, 390 n. and Ueberweg, p. 192 apparently regard as 
the earlier view that which gave physics the most im 
portant position, but sec Stein, Psychologic n. 7.] 


3. Arr. Epict. diss. IV. 8, 12, 6ewp^fJLara rov $iKo<ro- 
(bov...d Zijvwv \e<yei, ^vwvai rd rov \oyov crrot^eta, rrotov 
TL, eKaaroi avrmv ecru KOI TTCO? ap^orrerac, rrpos d\\r)\a 
Kal ocra rovrots (\Ko\ov9d eari. 

It is difficult, in the absence of Zeno s context, to 
decide the exact meaning of rd rov \6yov aroi-^eia. 
There is no doubt that the Stoics used this phrase in the 
sense of "parts of speech" (Diog. VII. 5<S pfj^a Be ecrri... 
aroL^elov \6yov drrrcorov), but this meaning is not general 
enough and is certainly excluded by the words im 
mediately preceding in Epictetus TI reXo? ; ^] n fyopelv 
rpiftwva ; ov, d\\d ro opOov e^et^ rov \6yov. It is sug 
gested, therefore, that Zeno is here expressing, possibly in 
an earlier work, the nominalism of Antisthenes and that 
\6yov o-rot^la = the (indefinable) elements of definition. 
It is now generally admitted (see e.g. Dr Jackson in 
Journ. Phil. xni. 2G2) that the opinion stated at some 
length by Socrates in Theaet. p. 201 E 202 C is that of 
Antisthenes, and the words crrot^etot and ^670? in this 
sense must have belonged to his terminology (see the 


whole passage and especially rd pev rrpwra oiovrrepei 
crrot %eia...\6 yov OVK e^et 201 E, ovrto STJ rd [lev 
0X070. teal ayvwra elvai, alcrdrird 8e, cf. 20G E TO 
devra rl e/cacrrov Svvarov elvai rrjv diroKpiviv Bid rwv 
aroi-^eiwv aTroSovvai ra> epo/jievw) : with this should be 
compared the passages in AT. Metaph. vni. 3. 1043 b 23, 
XIV. 3. 1091 a 7 war ova las eart p,ev )? evBe-^erai elvai 
opov Kal \6yov olov T^? crvvderov eav re alcrdijTrj edv re 
vorjTrj rj- e^ (Sv 8 avrrj Trputrwv OVK ecrriv. It is not a 
necessary inference from this passage that Zeno treated 
opQos ~\.6yo<> as tcpiTTjpiov dXrjdeia^, or that he and 
Cleanthes are the a\\oi rives TO>V dp^aiorepwv ^.TWLKWV 
whom Diogenes (vn. 54) mentions as holding this opinion, 
although Hirzel thinks this established, comparing frag. 
157 (Untersuchungen, II. 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 <f>avTa<rla KaraX^TrriKij, as will 
appear hereafter. Hirzel further remarks: "Unter den 
TWV (iTTo rfjs Sroa? rtfe? des Alexand. Aphrod. zur Topik 
(schol. Arist. p. 256 b 14) welche den AXX/D? durch rl ffv 
definirten konnte 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 yvwvai rd 
TOV \6yov aroi-^ela as "die Erkenntnis der Elemente des 
Denkens d. h. wie das Denken beschaffen sei und worin 
die gegenseitige Verbindung der Gedanken bestehe und 
welche Konsequerizen sich aus dieser Gedankenverbind- 
ung ergeben." 

4. Arr. Epict. diss. I. 17. 10, 11, Kal rd \oyiKn 
aKaprrd e crTt.../cat Trepl rovrov fiev 0-^ro^.eBa, el & ovv xai 
rovro 80177 Tt9, CKelva aTrapKel, on rwv d\\a>v 


SlCtKplTlKa KCtl eTTlO-KeTTTlKci KOL to? (IV T49 lTTOt 

rifcd /cal crrantcd rt<? \eyei ravra ; nov 
Kal Zii jvoiv tcai K. X.eavOrj^ ; 

This and the two following fragments show us the 
view which Zeno took of the value of logical studies, 
which were recommended not so much on account of the 
value of the results obtained, as because they enable us tu 
test the theories and expose the fallacies of others and to 
clear the ground for further enquiries, cf. Ar. Top. I. 104 
b 1 TOVTO 8 iBiov 77 (j,d\i<TTa ol/ceLov rijs 
e<7Tiv %Ta<rTlKr) yap ovara Trpos ra9 dirao wv 
ap%a<? oSov e^et, cf. also the title opyavov given to 
Aristotle s logical treatises (Waitz II. 294-) and the name 
KdvoviKrj adopted by the Epicureans. For the distinction 
between the Peripatetic and Stoic views of logic see 
Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 207. Hirzel s remarks about 
Zeno (de log. Stoic, p. 72) do not take into account this 

o-TdTiKa, "weighing." The word is used by Plato, cf. 
Phileb. 55 E olov Tracrwv TTOU re^vwv dv rt? 
Xwpi^r) Kal fji.erp rjTtKrjV Kal arariKr/v, cJ>> e?ro? 
Charmid. 166 B. 

5. Stob. Eel. ii. 2. 12 p. 22, 12 Wachsm. [vulgo Floril. 
LXXXII. 5], Zrjvcav ra9 rwv Sia\KTiK(i)v re^va^ e^Ka^e TOi? 
xerpot? ou irvpov ou8 a XXo rt TOJV <T7rovoai(av 
aXX d^ypa Kal KOTrpia. 

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 SiaXeKriKoi, as the Stoics them 
selves are by Sextus (Zeller, Socrates etc. p. 250 n. 3). 
Moreover Alexinus was a determined opponent of Zeno 


(Diog. II. 109 8ie<f>epeTO 8e p,d\ia-ra 777109 Zrjvwva) and 
Sextus tells us how he controverted Zeno s proof that the 
world is Xoyi*o9 (Math. ix. 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 StaXetcrifcwv in 
frag. 5 and SiaXercTiKrjv 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. i. 40. re xvas = 

SIKCUOIS : so the three best MSS AM and S : elxaiois 
adopted by Mein. from MS B (late and untrustworthy) is 
virtually a conjecture. Wachsm. suggests xv&alois but, on 
the interpretation given above, St/eatW is more forcible : 
the methods are good enough (cf. ^rpijTitcd frag. 4) but 
they are put to base uses, i.e. to mere quibbling. After 
/LteV/3Oi9 Gaisf. add. ol?. 

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. Eel. II. 2. 14, 18, 
22 = Floril. LXXXII. 7, 11, 18) in one of the points on 
which he severed himself from the Stoic school. 

6. Plut. Sto. Rep. VIII. 2, e Xve Se (sell. Zeno) aofaa-- 
fjiara Kai rr/v 8ta\eKTCKrjv <W9 TOVTO Troieiv 8vvafJ,evr)v 
K.e\eve 7rapa\a/j./3dveiv TOI)<? /jLadrjrds. Hence Schol. 
ud Arist. 22 b 29 ed. Brandis speaking of Zeno of Elea 
says that he was called d/j.fyorepo yXuHTcros ov% OTL 8ia- 
\eKTitcos rjv tw? 6 Ktrtei/9. 

<ro4>o-(i.aTa, cf. the anecdote related by Diog. vn. 25. 
A logician showed Zeno seven Sia\KTiKai ISeat in the 
Reaper fallacy, and received 200 drachmas, although his 
fee was only half that amount, ib. vn. 47 OVK dvev 8e 


rfjs &La\KTiKrjs Oecopias rov crcxfrov I ITTTWTOV evecrdat i 

u< re fA 

TT\V 8ia\KTiKTjv. Strictly speaking, \ojiKj} is a wider 
term than SmXe/cTi/c?;, cf. Diog. VII. 41 TO Se \oyiKoi> 
fjtepos (fracrlv evioi et? Svo Siaipeto-dai 
pijTOpticrjv /cat a? ^taX.eKTiKt jv, Sen. Ep. 89, 10. 

7. (fravracrLa eVrl TUTraxrt? eV tyv^f). Sext. Einp. 
Math. vii. 228, 230 distinctly attributes this definition to 
Zeno. Diog. VII. 45 n]v Se ^avracriav elvat rvTruxrcv di> 
tyvXli) r v ot o/uaro? oliceiw^ fjieTevrfve^fJievov djro rtav 
TVTTWV ev TOJ Krjpo) VTTO rov SaKrvXiov yi yvojjievwv, ib. 50 
quoting Chrysippus gloss aXkoiwaLs : cf. Pint. Conini. 
Not. 47. 

For the use of TUTTWO-IS see Introd. p. 34. That 
Zeno did not define his meaning further than by the bare 
statement is evident from the controversy which after 
wards arose between Cleanthes and Chrysippus as to the 
exact meaning of TVTTWO-LS : for which see on Cleanth. 
frag. 3. It would seem however from the expressions 
"effictum" and "impressum" in Zeno s definition of av- 
racria KaraX^TrriKr] (frag. 11) that Cleanthes is a truer 
exponent of his master s teaching in this matter than 
Chrysippus. Zeno must have been influenced by Aristotle s 
treatment of (fravTacrta (de An. in. 3): see Introd. p. 24. 
See further Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 157. 

8. ra? fj,ev aco-dr/creis d\i]6els rwv Se 
fjiev d\r)0els ra<? 8e ^euSet?. This is attributed to the 
Stoics generally by Stob. Eel. I. 50. 21, Plut. plac. iv. 8. 
9, but must belong to Zeno having regard to Sext. Emp. 
adv. Math. VIII. 355, A^/xo/c^iro? //,e^ iracrav aio 0r)Tijv 
vTrap^iv KeKivrjKev, ETrtVoupo? 8e Trdv ala~Bijr6v 
/3e(3aiov elvai 6 Se ST&HACO? ^rjvwv Siaipeaei e^prjro ; Cic. 


N. D. I. 70 urgebat Arcesilas Zenonem, cum ipse falsa 
omnia diceret quae sensibus viderentur; Zeno autem 
nonnulla visa esse falsa, non omnia ; Cic. Acad. I. 41 visis 
non omnibus adjungebat fidem. 

Zeno is not entirely a sensualist : Stein, Erkenntnis- 
theorie, p. 307. For the general doctrine see ib. p. 142 
151. Zeno is here again following the lead of Aristotle, 
cf. de An. III. 3. 7 elra al fj,ev (scil. aiadrjcreis) dXrjdelf 
del, al 8e (fravracrLai ytvovrat al TrXetou? \lreuSets. On the 
other hand Epicurus held Trao-a? TO? fyavraaias aXyOels 
elvai (Sext. Math. vn. 204). 

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

Cicero is here speaking of the Greek evdpyeta, for 
which he elsewhere suggests as translations perspicuitas 
or evidentia (ib. II. 17). Every sense impression is 
evapyes according to the Epicureans (Zeller, p. 428), but 
with Zeno evdpyeia is simply introduced as an attribute 
of KaTa\7)TTTiKrj fyavTacria: cf. Sext. Math. VII. 257 speaking 
of the K. <f>. avTT) yap evapyrjs ovaa icai 7r\r)KTtKi} fiovov 
ov%l ru>v rp^dov Xa/i/Sa^erat tcaTaaTrwcra ^/u,a? et? criry- 
KardOeaiv real a\\ov /Aij&evos &0/j,evr) ei9 TO roiavrrj 
fj et9 TO TTJV TTpo? Ta? XXa? Sia<j)opdv VTTO- 
Hirzel (Untersuchungen, n. pp. 3, 6) attributes 
to the Cynics but his authorities merely show 
that Diogenes proved the possibility of motion by walking 
about (Diog. vi. 39), which Sextus (Math. x. 68) calls a 
proof 5t avrfjs TJ}? e 

10. Sext. Math. VII. 253, aXXa yap ol pev dp%aio- 
repoi T&JI> ^TOJIKWV Kpirt ipcov (fracriv elvai rfjf d\r)0eias 
Kara\ri7rTiKrjv fyavracrlav. ib. 227 tcpiTijpiov dXrj 

TTJV fcaraXrjTTTiKjjv fyavraalav. This is to be at- 


tributcd to Zeno partly as an inference from the word 
np-^aioTepot,, partly as a necessary corollary from the next 
fragment, and partly in accordance with the testimony of 
Cic. Acad. I. 42 sed inter scientiam et inscientiam com- 
prehensionem illam (KardXrj-^iv) quam dixi collocabat 
eamque neque in rectis neqne in pravis numerabat sed 
soli credendum esse dicebat. Diog. L. vn. 46 refers the 
citation to the school generally and in 54 quotes it from 
Chrysippus ev rfj SvutbeKa-ny rdov fyvattcwv. 

For the doctrine of the KaraX^TrrLKy} fyavraa-ia see 
Zeller, pp. 87 89. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 167 foil. 
Four different explanations of the meaning of the term 
have been given (1) tcaraX. active. The irresistible cha 
racter of the impression compels assent, Zeller. (2) KardX. 
passive : the perception is grasped by the mind, Hirzel. 
(3) The object of representation (TO inrdp-^ov} and not 
the perception is grasped by the mind, Ueberweg, p. 192 
(now given up by Hoinze). (4) KaraX. both active and 
passive, Stein, thus reconciling the apparent contra 
diction between Cic. Acad. I. 41, and Sext, Math. vil. 257. 
For the exact meaning of Kara\r l ^^)(Ka-TaXr l mLKrj <pav- 
racrla cf. Sext. Emp. Math. XI. 182 KaTaX-rj^i^ ecrn icara- 
XrjTrTiKrjs $>avTaaias crvyKaraOecr^ : a distinction, possibly 
due to Zeno, which tends to disappear in practice. See 
also Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 182. Ka-raX^^ Kara- 
\Tj7TTiKr}, etc. were new terminology invented by Zeno, 
according to Cic. Acad. I. 41 comprehensionem appel- 
labat similem iis rebus, quae manu prehenderentur: ex 
quo etiam nomen hoc dixerat cum eo verbo antea nemo 
tali in re usus est, ib. II. 145, but the verb KaraXa/^- 
rfdveiv had been used by Plato in the sense "to grasp 
with the mind," Phaedr. 250 r> -rrepl 8e >cd\\ovs, da-rep 
per etceivwv re eXa^Trev ov, Sevpo re eXdovre? 
avro Sid rrjs evapyea-rdrris ala-dr) crews TU>V 


ijnerepa)i> <ni\$ov evapyecrrara. Zeno, therefore, only 
specialised the meaning of the word, see Introd. p. 34 
and generally Introd. p. 9. 

11. Sext. Math. VII. 24<S, ^avraa-ia KaTa\r)7rriKij 
eariv 77 OTTO rov vTrdp^ovros KOI KOLT avro TO vtrap^ov 
evaTrope/jLay/jLevr) Kal evaTrecrfypayiaiLevri cnroia OVK av ye- 
VOITO d-rro pr) v-rrdpxovTos, ib. 426, Pyrrh. II. 4. Diogenes 
gives the definition in substantially the same words in 
50 adding however Kal evaTrorervfrw^evr] after evairo- 
fMefjLay^evrj : in 46 he omits oirola v7rdp%ovTo$ but 
adds : dKardX^Trrov Se rrjv /LIT) a-Tro vTrdp^ovro^, r/ afro 
fj.v, fir) Kar avro 8e TO inrdp-^ov rrjv fit) rpavi) 
e/crvTrov, which very possibly belongs also to Zeno. 
The evidence attaching the definition to Zeno is as fol 
lows : Cic. Acad. II. 18 si illud esset, sicut Zeno definiret, 
tale visum impressum effictumque ex eo unde esset quale 
ease non posset ex eo unde non esset, id nos a Zenone defi- 
nitumrectissimedicimus; ib. 113, ib. I. 41 id autem visum 
cum ipsum per se cerneretur comprehendibile (of Zeno) 
ib. II. 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 TO Be Soypa TOVTO avrov (scil. Z^i/tuj/o?) Trpwrov 
evpopevov tcavro TO ovo/J,a ft\eTrwv V^OKLJJLOVV ev rah 
TI}V KaraX^TTTiKriv ^avraaiav irdar) ^rj-^avf} 
avrrjv (of Arcesilas). August, c. Acad. III. 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- 


nition can hardly be due to Chrysippus, who only suc 
ceeded to the headship of the Stoa eight years after the 
death of Arcesilas (cf. Pint. Coin. Not. c. 1). This ques 
tion of the criterion was the chief battle-ground of the 
Stoics and the New Academy, and in later times Carneades 
maintained d/card^-vTa -rrdvra elvai ov -jrdvra 8e (iSi]\a 
(Zeller, p. 555). In the second book of Cicero s Academica 
the question is discussed at length. Sext. Math. VIL 248 
252 shows in detail the reason for the insertion of each 
member of the definition: the impression must be from 
the object to exclude the visions of madmen, and with 
reference to the object to exclude a case like that of 
Orestes, who mistook his sister for a Fury. It must be 
imprinted and stamped on the mind to ensure that the 
percipient shall have noticed all the characteristics of the 
object. Lastly, the addition o-rroia ovtc dv yevoiTO d-rro 
firj VTrdpxovTo? was inserted to meet the Academic ob 
jection that two impressions, one true and the other false, 
might be so entirely alike (d7rapd\\aKrov} as to be in 
capable of distinction, which of course the Stoics did not 
admit. For eVaTro/ze/zc^eV?; cf. Ar. Ran. 1040 oOev 
<f>prjv airo^a^a^vri TroXXa? dperds 

12. Olympiodorus in Plat, Gorg. pp. 53, 54 (ed. Jahn 
ap. Neue Jahrb. f tir Philol. supplement bd. xiv. 1848 
p. 239, 240) Zrjvwv 8e (f>r](nv on re^vi] earl cfvar^^a etc 
ea)i> o-vyyeyv/jiva(r/j,evov (? -wv] rrpos ri re Xo? ei>- 
rwv ev TO) /3la>. 

Cf. Lucian Paras, c. 4 re^vr) eariv, &5? 70; 
cro<f>ov rivo? dtcov<ra<i, CTVO-TIJ/JUI e/c Kar 
crvyyeyv/jivaa-/u,evo)i> Trpos ri reXo? ev^priarov rwv ev 
/3/ft>. Schol. ad. Ar. Nub. 317 OVTO) ydp 6pi6fj,e0a TTJV 
re-^vrjv olov ava-rr^iMa e/c KardX^-^eajv eyyeyvfAvao-pevGov 
real -rd efagfc. Sext. Emp. Math. n. 10 Trdcra roivvv 
H. P. 


reyvrj crvarrjfjid ecrrtv e /t Kara\r]^reu>v 

KOI CTTI reXo? evxprja-TOV TU> /3i&) \a/jL^av6vTO}v rrjv dva- 

(ftopdv. The same definition partially in id. Pyrrh. in. 

188, 241, 251, Math. I. 75, vn. 109, 373, 182. Wachsm. 

also quotes (Comm. I. p. 12), Schol. Dionys. Thrac. p. 649, 

31, ib. p. 721, 25 oi STOH/COI oi;Ta><> opi^ovrai rrfv 

re-^vrj e<nt ffvff rrjp.a Trepl "^v^v yevopevov 

eyyeyv/jLvaa-fjievwv K.T.\. Cf. also Quiutil. II. 17, 41 Nam 

sive, ut Cleanthes voluit, ars est potestas via, id est, ordine 

cfficiens: 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. II. 22 ars vero quae potest esse 

nisi quae non ex una aut duabus sed ex multis animi 

perceptionibus constat. Fin. III. 18 artes...constent ex 

cognitionibus et contineat quiddam in se ratione consti- 

tutum et via (illustrating also the next frag.). N. D. II. 

148 ex quibus (perceptis) collatis inter se et comparatis 

artes quoque efficimus partim ad usum vitae... necessarias. 

It is worth while to compare with Zeno s definition of 

art those to be found in Aristotle: both philosophers 

alike recognise its practical character (cf. Eth. vi. 4. 6 

7; p*v ovv T%VIJ eft? Tt? fj,erd \6<yov aXrjdovs 7rotr)TiKij 

<TTIV) and that it proceeds by means of regulated prin 

ciples (cf. Met. I. 1. 5 yiverat Se T^X 1 "*) rav * K TroXXwi/ 

T^? enTreipias evvorjfiaTwv fiia KaOoXov yevrjrai Trepl TU>V 

ofioiwv t 7ro\?7 vja<?). Aristotle s distinction that re-^vrj is 

concerned with yevea-ts while eTria-rtj^ij deals with bv 

(Anal. Post. II. 19. 4) is of course foreign to Zeno s system. 

Zeller s note on p. 266, 2 (Eng. Tr.) is inaccurate but 

appears correctly in the 4th German ed. (ill. 1. 247). 


13. Schol. ad Dionys. Thracis Gramm. ap. Bokk. 
Anecd. p. 663, 16, o5? Br)\ol teal 6 Zijvwv \eywv reyvrj earlv 

%iS 6SoTTOir}TLK1J, TOVT(7Tl, Si" 6SoV KOI fJL06SoV TTOlOVad Tl. 

The authenticity of this fragment is rendered doubtful 
(1) by the fact that Zeno had defined re^vi) differently, 
as we have seen, (2) because Cleanthes defined -rk-^vn as 
e6<? 6$a> -rravra avvovaa (frag. 5). It is of course possible 
that Zeno left two alternative definitions as in the case 
of 7r0o9 (frags. 136 and 137), and that Cleanthes adopted 
one of these with verbal alterations, but it seems most 
probable that the Schol. has made a mistake, and certainly 
oSoTTotrjTi/cv has a suspicious look. Stein however, Er- 
kenntnistheorie, p. 312, accepts the definition. 


These words are shown to belong to Zeno by the 
following considerations. Sext. Emp. Math. vn. 372 foil. 
is describing the controversy between Cleanthes and 
Chrysippus as to the meaning of Zeno s rv-rrwa^ and 
introduces one of Chrysippus arguments el yap K^pov 
rpoTrov TVTTOvrai r/ -^vxf) $>avTa<TTiKMs Tr/ia^ovcra del TO 
fclvr)/j,a eVtcr/cor^crei rfj Trporepa ^avraaia, wcnrep 

Kai j r^ SevTepa? ffpar/l TVTTOS eaeitrnito^ ean 
rov -rrporepov. d\~>C el TOVTO, dvaipeirai p.ev fwjpri, 6i]- 
ovcra $avra(Tiu>v, dvaipeirai &e -rraaa rexi T 
yap r/v teal (Wpoia^a Kara\^ewv K.T.\. Xow 
one might suspect from internal evidence done that 
Chrysippus is appealing to the school definitions of Memory 
and Art as established by Zeno in support of his argument 
against Zeno s pupil, but the inference becomes irresistible 
when we find that the definition of Art is certainly Zeno s, 
as has already been shown. Cf. Cic. Acad. n. 22 quid 
quisquam meminit quod non animo comprehendit et 
tenet >. ib. 106 memoria perceptarum comprehensarumque 



rerum est. Plut. plac. iv. 11. 2. Aristotle discusses the 
relation between /Mwijfjir) and fyavracria in the tract de 
Memoria (see Grote s Aristotle, pp. 475, 476). p^vr}^ = AM>J/T) 
rov ai<r0ri/j,aros, An. Post. II. 19. 99 b 36. 

15. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. VII. 151, Bo^av elvai rrjv 
da-devrj Kal -^rev^r] avyrcardOeo-iv attributed to Zeno by 
Cic. Acad. I. 41 ex qua (inscientia) exsisteret etiam opinio, 
quae esset imbecilla et cum falso incognitoque communis, 
cf. ib. Tusc. iv. 15 opinationem autem...volunt esse im- 
becillam assensionem. Stobaeus speaks of two Stoic defi 
nitions of Sofa Eel. II. 7. ll m , p. 112, 2 [=11. 231] 

jap elvai 86a<? rrjv /Mev aKaraXijTrrw crisyKarddecriv, 
8 v7r6\r)TJriv daOevij, cf. ib. II. 7. 10. p. 89, l[=n. 169] 
7rapa~\.a/ji/3di>e(r@ai rrjv &6av dvrl rr)<t da-0evovs VTTO- 
X^ewf. It is possible from a consideration of the next 
frag, that Zeno s word was olrjai.^. Thus, as with Plato, 
B6i;a and dyvoia are ultimately identical. See further 
Stein, Erkenntnistheorie pp. 204, 205. 

16. Diog. L. VII. 23, e\ey6 8e (ATj&ev elvat T^? 0177- 

TWV ^-iria-TT](iuiv. The plural is used because 
in the narrower sense in which Zeno used the word is 
a single Kard\T)^lri<f. The Stoics also defined eVio-T?;^?; 
as a ffva-r^a (cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5 1 p. 73, 21 =11. 129) 
of such perceptions. At the same time we must be 
ware of supposing that eTTia-r^r) is according to Zeno 
identical with Kard\r}\lri^. eVicrr^/iT/ is the conscious 
knowledge of the wise man, whereas Kard\T]-^n^ may be 
possessed by the <aOXo9. The latter may occasionally 
and accidentally assent to the KaraXijTm/c?} fyavracria, 
but the former s assent is regular and unerring. Cf. Sext. 
Math. VII. 152 toi/ rf/v p,kv eTria-T^rjv ev /idvot? vfy io-raadai 
\ejova~t rot? cro<^>ot<, rrjv Be B6av ev /j.6voi<; rot? <f>av\ois 


rrjv 8e Kard\r]^nv tcoivtjv d^orepuv eivai. We have here, 
in fact, the Platonic distinction between Soga d\TjOr)s and 
in another form. 

17. Cic. Acad. I. 41, .si ita erat comprehension ut 
convelli ratione non posset scion tiam sin aliter inscientiam 
uominabat (Zeno). 

The Greek sources for this will be found in Stob. 
bcl. II. /, 5 p. 73, 19 = 11. 129 eivai rr/v eTncrr^ fjiijv tcard- 
\r)tyiv acr(f)a\rj /cal d^eraTTTwrov VTTO \6yov, ib. 11 " p. Ill, 
-0=11. 231, ri]v dyvoiav ^erairrwriKriv eivai a-vy/card- 
deaiv KOI dcrOevrj, cf. Sext. Emp. Math. VII. 151, eVtcr- 
rrj^riv eivai n]v dcr^)a\rj teal /3e{3a[av real dfjuerdderov VTTO 
\6yov KardXrj-^Lv, see also Stein, p. 311 and n. 711, who 
concludes that these definitions are Zeiionian. Diog. 
L. VII. 47, avrr]V re. TI]V eTrta-rr/^v (fraalv ?} KardXri^Lv 
(tacfraXfj, f) e^tv ev (fravracridov Trpoa-Segei, d/jLerdTrrwrov 
VTTO \6yov. The definition of Trt<mj/j,r] as 49 /c.rA. is 
due to Herillus, cf. ib. vn. 105, but I am unable to see 
why on that ground Zeller, p. 82, n. 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 eVia-r^/u,?; as the 
ethical re Xo?. 

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

Cf. Sext. Math. VII. 151, eTrtcrT?;//?;^ teal 86av /cal rrjv 


ragv TOVTWV : ib. 153, 6 A.pK<ri\ao<;...o eiKvv<; on 
Sev ecTTi fj,erav 7riaTii/j,r)<> ical S6j~r)<s Kpirrjpiov r\ Kcnd- 
(It will be observed that where Cicero speaks of 
inscientia Sextus mentions Soga, but, as has been shown, 
they are practically identical.) Wellmann, p. 484, thinks 
that either there is some mistake in the text or that 
Cicero has misunderstood his authorities, but the passage 
in Sextus I.e. 151 153 makes the meaning perfectly 
clear: see 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 eVto-r^/iai and 
certain vices (evils) as dyvoiai, cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5 b , 
p. 58, 559, 3 = II. 9294. 

19. Cic. Acad. I. 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. vin. 397, belonged to Zeno ; 
cf. especially crwyKaTdOecris tfris OLTT\OVV eoitcev elvai 
Trpay/jia KOL TO p.v TI e^eiv (IKOIXTIOV TO Be eKouaiov KOI 
eTrl Tfj rj/j.Tepa /cpicrei Kelpevov. A full list of authorities 
is given by Zeller, Stoics, p. 88, n. 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 ei/j,apfjiev7) : see Wellmann, 1. c. 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 


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

For the different meanings of aio-Oya-is in the Stoic 
school, see Diog. L. VII. 52 at cr^crt? Se \eyerai /card 
roi)? ^.TWIKOVS TO T6 </> rfye/j,oviKOV Trvev^a KOL 7rl rav 
alaOijcreis SLTJKOV, Kal rj &L avTwv Kard\r)-^^, /cal -q Trepl 
TO. alcrdi/Tiipia /caracr/cem/, fcaO ijv rives trr/pol <yivovTai : 
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 alo-dyrov 
or aiadrjTiKov rather than of aL<r6r)ais, in which case cf. 
Diog. L. VII. 51 rwv 8e (^avraaiuiv KCLT avrovs ai ^ev 
L<TLV ai(r@r)TiKal at 8 ov. alcrOriTiKal ^ev al BL 
rj ai<r0r)T T)pi(av \a^^avojjLevai K.r,\. 

21. Cic. Acad. I. 42, Zeno sensibus etiam fidein 
tribuebat (|uod comprehensio f acta sensibus et vera illi 
et fidelis videbatur, 11011 quod omnia quae essent in re 
conrprehenderet sed quia nihil quod cadere in eam posset 
relinqueret quodque natura quasi normam scientiae et prin- 
cipiuin 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. I. 02 
Kaa"Tov rwv fyaivofMevwv i]fM,v al(r9r)rwv TrouciXov VTTO- 
TriTTTeiv SoKel olov TO jJLrf\.ov \eiov eucoSe? <y\vKv avd6v. 
(iBrj\ov ovv TTOTepov Trore raura? yu,oz/a? 6Vr&>9 e^et Ta>? 
TrotCT^ra? 77 /jLovoTTOtov fiev ecrTL Trapd 8e TTJV 8ui(f)opoi 

KaTao~Kvr]V TU>V aiadrjTripiuiv 8id<f)opov (fraLveTai rj /cat 

\/ t tt f ~ % * 

juev TWV (paivo[j,eva)v e%et Trotor^ra?, rj/j,tv oc 

vTroTTLTTTovcTL Tivcs ctvT&v, ib. 97. These passages 
however do not refer to Stoic teaching but are used in 
furtherance of the Sceptical argument. 


notiones: a translation of evvoiat. It seems certain that 
the distinction between trpo\rj\lrei<; and evvoiai (for which 
see R. and P. 393 and note c. and Stein, Erkermtnis- 
theorie, p. 237) is not at least in terms Zenonian, though 
he may have spoken of tcotval ewoiai. Reid (on Acad. II. 
30) suggests that the word -rrpoXirfyts was introduced by 
Zeno, but cf. Cic. N. D. I. 44 ut Epicurus ipse Tr/jdX^t? 
appellavit, quam antea nemo eo verbo nominarat, so that 
it is more probable that Chrysippus borrowed it from the 
rival school ; but see Stein, 1. c. p. 248 250. evvoia, on 
the other hand, used by Plato (Phaed. 73 c) in quite a 
general sense, and defined by the Peripatetics as 6 dBpoia- 
/jLO<f TWV TOV vov (^avrao-pLaTtav Kal r/ crwyK6<$>a\ai(i)<Tis rcav 
7rl /Ltepou? et<? TO Ka06\ov (Sext. Emp. Math. vn. 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. II. 21. 

22. Cic. Acad. I. 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 
(iTrpoTTTwa-ia, dveiKaiorr]?, di>\ey!;ia, and dpaTaioTrjs 
quoted by Diog. L. vn. 46, 47. Terneritas is probably 
a translation of TrpojreTeia, a favourite word with Sextus 
when speaking of the dogmatists (e.g. Pyrrh. I. 20) but 
also used by the Stoics (Diog. vn. 48). Reid also quotes 
(on Ac. II. G6) Epict. d. III. 22. 104 TrpoTrerrjs 

23. Stob. Eel. I. 12. 3, p. 13G, 21, Zj/Wo? < K al 
our avrov> . rd evvorj^ara <f>a<ri /AJre rtrd elvai 
TTOKI, axravei Be nva Kal tiWaj/ei Troid (^avrdcr/jiaTa 


ravra Be vrro TWV dp%aia>v IBeas TrpocrayopevecrOat,. rwv 
yap Kara rd evvo^ara VTroTTiTTTovTwv elvai T? t Se a?, 
olov dvdpwTrwv, ITTTTWV, KOivoTepov eiTrelv irdvTwv TWV 
fracav Kal T(av d\\o)v owoawv \eyovcnv iBeas etvai. [raura? 
Be 01 ~S,Ta>LKol <tXocro(oi fyacnv dvuTrdpKTovs elvai Kal rwv 
fjmv evvorifjidrwv fjiere^eiv ?;/u,a?, TWV Be Trruxrewv, a? BTJ 
TrpocrrjyopLas Ka\ovcn, Tvyydveiv\. 

Cf. Euseb. P. E. XV. 45, 01 d-no Zrjvwvos Sr&)iot evvor)- 
/Ltara r//jierepa ra? t Sea?. Plut. Plac. I. 10, 4, ol OTTO 
Tirjvwvos ^rcoiKol evvorip^ara jjjAerepa T? IBeas efyacrav. 

Wellmami, p. 484, (followed by Stein, Erkenntnis- 
theorie, n. 689) suggests that this may have come from 
the book entitled Ka9o\iKa. Possibly this criticism of 
the ideas formed part of the attack upon Plato mentioned 
by Numenius, ap. Euseb. P. E. xiv. 6, p. 733, 6 8 

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

i ev ^(ticriv ovTa Tl\drwva ecrKia/jbd^ei, real rrjv aTro 
ajj,af~r)s Trofjureiav nrncrciv KctTeOopv/Bet, \eyo)v <w? OVT dv 
TOV Yl\drci)vo<; d/jLvvo/jLevov, virepBiKetv re avrov d\\a> 
ovBevi /LteXof el re fj,e\rjcreiev Ap/cecrtXa&), au ro? 76 /cep- 
Baveiv wero aTrorpe-v^a^eyo? a< eavrov TOV \\picecri\aov. 
TOVTO Be yBrj Kal \\.yaOoK\ea TOV ^.vpatcoaiov Troi^cravra 
TO o-6<f}ia-/jt.a eVi TOI)<? Kap-^r)8ovlov<f. At any rate, both 
the circumstances and the chronology indicate that the 
reference is not to the EtoXtTeta (Introd. p. 29). 

eworfiara. For the definition cf. Plut. Plac. IV. 11 
<TTi Be vorffjia (fravTacrfia Btavoias XoycKov %u>ov, i.e., as he 
goes on to explain, ewor^d stands to ^dv-raa^a in the 
relation of etSo? to yevos : (^avTacr/^ara are shared with us 
by all other animals whereas evvoij/jiaTa belong to the 
gods and mankind alone. ^ig- VI I. 61, evvor//j.a Be eaTt 
(f>(ivTaa-fj,a Biavoias, ovTe TL ov ovre TTOIOV, wcravel Be TI 


ov Kal axravel TTOIOV, olov yiverai dvarvTrtapia I TTTTOV teal 

nva. . .iroid, i.e. they have no existence or definiteness. 
For the Stoic conception of n and TTOLOV, see Zeller, 
pp. 98 f. and 102 f. It has been inferred from this passage 
that the doctrine of the four categories does not belong 
entirely to Chrysippus (Petersen, Chrys. phil. fundam. 
p. 18). 

lS6xs. The meaning is that the Platonic ideas are 
identical with eWo^ara, inasmuch as they possess no 
objective existence, but are mere figments of the mind. 
Plato himself deals with this very point, Parm. 132 B 
d\\,t] ra>v el8u>v etcaaTOV f) rovrwv vorj^a, Kal ovSapov 
avru> TrpoariKT) eyyiyvecrQat a\\o6i 77 ev fyw^als. Antis- 
thenes had already criticised the theory of ideas from this 
point of view: see Introd. p. 18. 

vjroiriirrovTttv : the regular word for the presentation 
of external impressions to the organs of sense (e.g. 
Sext. Pyrrh. I. 40 ov% ai ailral. ..vTroTriTTTova-i <f>av- 

6ir6crwv, K.T.X. So far as it goes this passage is in 
agreement with Aristotle s statement that Plato recog 
nised ideas of oiroa-a fyvcrei only (Metaph. A. 3. 1070 a 18): 
see Dr Jackson in Journ. Phil. x. 255, etc. 

ravras rvYxavtiv. These words are not expressly attri 
buted to Zeno : hence Diels followed by Wachsm. adds 
to the lemma Ziijvwvos the words Kal rwv a?r avrov. 

TWV Si TTTWO-CWV, K.T.\. This passage is extremely diffi 
cult and is supposed to be corrupt by Zeller, ill 4 . 2. 79 
and Wachsmuth. The latter suggests ra<? 8e 
TTG)vvfjii(uv, K.T.\. or if TTTaxrewv is corrupt for ^ 
" in fine talia fere interciderint ra? Koivds TroioTijras, cf. 
Diog. vil. 58," the former (coll. Sext. Math. vn. 11) would 
read TO Tvy-^dvovra in place of rvy-^aveiv (die Gedanken 


seicn in mis, die Bezeichnimgen gehen auf die Dinge). 
The text, as it stands, has been interpreted in three ways : 
(I) notitiae rerum rationi nostrae insitae sunt, nomina 
fortuito obveniunt, Diels. (2) Trrwcreis = omnes singulae 
res cuiuscumque qnalitatis )( yevi/cd TTOUI, i.e. ISeai. These 
impress themselves on the mind of man (Tvy%dveiv), 
Petersen, 1. c. p. 82, foil. : but this interpretation of TTTUKT^ 
is unwarranted and is founded on a misconception of 
Diog. L. vn. 58. (3) Prantl s interpretation (l. 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) 01 &e d-rro rrjs 
etcd\ovv rd f^ede/crd airo rov jJuere^eaOai KOI T<? 
rev/eras a.7ro rov rvyxdvecrdai, and Clem. Alex. VIII. 9. 26 : 
after saying that the 7TT&5crt9 for the Karijy6pr)fj,a " rep.- 
verai" is "TO re^vecrBai" and for vavs jiyverai "TO vavv 
<yiv(T0ai, " and explaining that Aristotle called the TTTWCT^ 
he proceeds rj TTTOOCTI^ Se aaw/jLaro^ eivai 
810 KOL TO croffricr/Aa e/ceivo \verat, o Xeyet? 
<rov Sia rov crTOyu,aTO?, oTTep d\ri6e$, oltciav 8e 
oiKia dpa Sid rov aro/j.aro^ aov ^tiep-^erai GTrep 
So? 1 ovSe yap rrjv oiKiav \eyofj,ei> crw^ta ovcrav, d\\d 
TTTUXTIV daw/jLarov ovcrav, 7)9 oiKia Tvy%dvei. A 
consideration of the latter passage, which it is surprising 
that no one has cited, warrants the suggestion that rd 
or some such words have fallen out after 
All would then be plain : TTTWCTI^ = name 
)(eWo r) p,a = thought. TTTUXTK was also) (KaT7jyoprifj,a as 
noun to verb (Plut. qu. Plat. X. 1, 2). For the present use 
of TTTftJo-69, cf. also Sext. Math. XI. 29, vi. 42, for TTTWCTI^ in 
Aristotle see Waitz, Organon, vol. I. p. 328, 329. irpua-ij- 
yopia is a common noun, such as " man " " horse " (Diog, 
Vir. 5S, Sext. Pyrrh. III. 14) tending in practice to become 
identical with TTTwcrt?, though theoretically narrower. 


24. Stob. Eel. I. 13, 1 , p. 13S, 14 (Ar. Did. 457, 
Diels), aiTiov & 6 Zijvaiv <f>i}crlv elvai Si o ov Se airiov 
crv[j,j3ej3r)K6s KCU TO p,ev aiTiov crtw/za, ov Be aiTiov Kari)- 
yoprj^a dSvvarov 8 elvai TO fjiev aiTiov jrapeivai ov Se 
ecrTiv aiTiov /AT} vTrdp^eiv. TO Se \ey6fjievov Toiavrrjv ex i 

SvvafJ.IV a lTlOV eCTTl Si JiJVeTaL Tl, olov Sid TTJV 

(frpovrjcriv jLveTai TO (f>poveiv Kal Sid TTJV ^rv^rjv yiveTai 
TO i^rjv Kal Sid TTJV aaxppoavvijv yiveTat, TO <ra><f)poviv. 
dSvvaTov <ydp elvai aw<$>pocrvvr)s Trepi Tiva ova^s /J,T} 
crtixfrpovelv T/ ^u^?;? pr/ fyjv rj (frpovTjaea)? /AT} fypovelv. 

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

o-vfiffepTjKos = " result " or " inseparable consequence," cf. 
Stob. Eel. I. 13 ad init. aiTiov e crrt Si o TO aTroreXecr/za fj 
Si o crv/jiftaivei TI. This meaning of cru/i/3e/377/co? is also to 
be found in Aristotle, who uses the word in two distinct 
senses: see an elaborate note of Trendelenburg on de An. i. 
1 p. 402 a 8 who quotes amongst other passages Metaph. 
A 30 1025 a 30 \eyeTai Se Kal aAAw? o~v(j,(3e/3r)Ko<; olov 
ucra vTrdp^ei KaaTu> /ca$ avTO fj,rj ev TTJ ovaia ovTa olov 
TO) Tpiywvw TO Svo 6p8d<; ex flv - That crv/j,^^TjKo<f 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 aiTiov can never be present unless 
accompanied by the ov aiTiov. 


o-u^a : the materialism of the Stoics is well known : to 
what lengths it was pushed may be seen from Zeller, 
Stoics pp. 127132, with the examples given in the 

KaTTjYop^jia : the ov al riov 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 V7rap%is of 
\eKTo, only arose later : see further on Cleanth. frag. 7. 
The present passage is illustrated by Sext. Pyrrh. HI. 14 
01 [Mtv ovv o-a)/j,a, ol <$ do-a)/j,aTov TO aiTiov elval fyacnv. 
cogai & av aiTtov dvai Kotvorepov /car avrovs & o 
evepyovv yiveTai, TO aTroTeXecr^a, olov &k 6 ?;A,i09 ?; r] 
TOV rj\wv OepfAOTTis TOV yelaQai TOV tcrjpbv ?} TT}<; ^ucrew? 
TOV Kijpov. Kal yap ev TOVTW SiaTre^wvijKacriv, ol /j,ev 
TrpocnjyopLwv aiTiov elvai TO al-nov fydaKovTes, olov TTJS 
^uo-eeo?, ol 8e KaTrjyoprjpdTwv, olov TOV -^laQai. ib. Math. 
IX. 211 ^TWiKol pev Tcdv a iTiov vwyia $acn 
Ttvos aiTiov yeveaOai, olov a^fia p,ev TO 
oe TTJ aapKi, daw^drov 8e TOV TepvecrOai 
s, Kal 7rd\tv aw/^a /lev TO Trvp, vwpaTi oe TU 
TOv 8e TOV /caiecrOai KaT^yopr/fAaTOS. 

(frpovipiv K.T.X. A parallel to this will be found at 
Stob. Eel. II. 7 ll f p. 98, 3 rr\v yap <f)p6vt]o-iv alpov/J.e6a 
e%iv Kal TTJV a-w^poa-vvrjv, ov fjid A/a TO fypovelv Kal 
aa)())povetv, daoo/jiaTa ovTa Kal KaTyyopr/uaTa. Stein, 
Erkenntnistheorie p. 307, infers from this passage that, 
according to Zeno, not a single moment in life passes 
without thought, but that the jyeuoviKov always thinks. 

25. Anonymi Te^vrj ap. Spengel Rhet. Gr. I. 434, 23, 
Zrjvwv Be OVTW (ferjcri- Su iyria-Ls eaTt TWV ev Ty VTrodeaei 
TrpayuaTwv e/c^eui? et<? TO vjrep TOV \eyovTos 7rp6o-(07rov 


Perhaps this frag, comes from the re^vr) 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 
Citiuin, and there is no a priori reason to discredit his 

Sirens : the narrative portion of a speech contain 
ing the statement of facts, cf. Diog. L. vn. 43 rov Be 
prjropiKov \oyov ei9 re TO rrpooLp,Lov Kal els rrjv Sir jyija-iv 
Kal rd 77/369 TOI)? dvTL&ltcovs Kal rov erri\o r yov. Dion. 
Hal. Ant. Rhet. X. 12 ecrrt Be rd T?}? vTrodea-ews crroL-^ela 
recraapa, rrpooi^iov, Birjyija-is, Tricrret?, eViXoyoi. Lysias 
especially excelled in his treatment of this branch of his 
art. Dion. H. Lys. c. 18 ev Be ra> Biyyetadat rd rrpd yp.ara, 
OTrep, ol/Jiai, /Ltepos rrXeicrrris Beirai (fipovriBos Kal <j)V\aKr}S, 
dva/ji(f)tl3o\(i)<i r^ovfj-aL icpdrtarov avrov elvai rrdvrwv 
prjropwv K.r.\. 

vnro06rti : cf. Sext. Enip. Math. III. 4 VTr60e<Ti<; 7rpo<r- 
ayopeverai ev pijr optic fj i] rwv eVl /Aepoi"? ^ijrrjcn<f. 

ls TO K.T.X. "adapted to the character maintained on 
behalf of the speaker." rrpocrwrrov is technical )( 7rpuy/j.a. 
TO Be tce<f)d\aiov rov Trpooiftiov Boa rcpocrwrrwv re Kal 
Trpajfjidrwv 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 
peovcra cf. Plat. Rep. 485 D OT&> ye et? ev rt al emBv^ iat, 
<r<f)6Bpa peovcriv...(L Brj Trpos rd fiaOrjfAara Kal jrdv ro 
roiovrov eppwjKaaiv. 

26. Anonymi re%vrj ap. Spengel Rhet. Gr. I. 447, 11 
co9 Be Zirjvtov TrapaBeiypd ecrrt jevofxevov Trpdyparos 
et? ofMoiwcnv rov vvv r)rov/j,evov. Maxi- 


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

fjLOVV(Tl$ 6t? OjJLOiW(TiV TOV VVV fyfTOV/J-eVOV. 

This frag, must stand or fall with frag. 25. 
n-apdSfrypa : 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. I. 1, 71 a 9 to? ai;rcy? Kal ol prjTopiKol av^Trei- 
r *1 7"P ^* TrapaBeiy/jLarcov, o eartv eTraywyij, ij &S 
oTrep eari 


27. Quintil. Inst. Or. iv. 2. 117 hie expressa (verba) 
t ut vult Zeno sensu tincta esse debebunt. 

It has been supposed by some that these words are a 
eference to apoph. 13, but inasmuch as sensu is a very 
inappropriate translation of et? vovv, and Quintilian is 
speaking of the narrative portion of a speech, the meaning 
is rather " coloured by the actual impressions of sense " 
i.e. giving a vivid and clear representation of the actual 

28. Anonymi variae collections mathematicae in 
Hultschiana Heronis geometricorum et stereometricorum 
editione p. 27-5, Tavpov 2i8(Wou ea-riv v7r6fj,vr)[Aa et? 
YloXirelav Tl\cnwvos ev <j> dan ravra oopiaaTo 6 TlXdrcov 
TI}V yea)peTpLav... Apio-TOT6X<t]s 8\..Zijva)v Se egiv ev 
TrpocrBe^et (^avracnwv (l/JieT( nrru>rov VTTO \6yov. 

This frag, is due to Wachsmuth (Comm. I. p. 12) 
who emends as above for the meaningless egiv TT/JO? Seii-iv 
(fravTaaiwv dfj,eTcnrTa)T(a<? vTrobiKov, coll. Diog. L. VU. 45. 
It is barely credible that Zeno can have defined geometry 
in the same words by which Herillus certainly and he 
himself possibly defined knowledge. There is doubtless 
some mistake in the tradition: possibly p.aOrj^.arLKwv has 


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

29. Plut. Sto. Rep. 8, 1, TT/JO? rbv eiirovra 
&i/cr)V Sircd<rr)<; irplv (qu. add av} 

dvTe\eyev o Zrjvwv, roiovro) nvl \6yw ^pw^evo^- err 
aTreSeigev 6 irpoTepos elirwv OVK aKovcneov rov Sevrepov 
\eyovros Trepas yap e^ei TO fyrovpevov err OVK aTre&ei^ev 
o/jLotov yap 009 el f^rjBe VTrr/fcovae K\ri6el<; 77 inraicovffas 
erepeTKrev rjroi 8 (nr&ei^ev fj OVK aTreSei^ev OVK 
aKov<rTeov apa rov Bevrepov \eyovros. The same is 
preserved by Schol. ad Lucian. Cal. 8 with unimportant 

PjS* K.T.X. A verse of uncertain authorship commonly 
referred to Phocylides on the authority of the Schol. ad 
Lucian. I.e. but called by Cicero ^fevBrjcrioBeiov (Att. VII. 
18), see Bergk Poet. Lyr. Gk. p. 464- : cf. Ar. Vesp. 725 ^ 
TTOV <ro</>09 rjv oo-Tt? e^acKev, Trplv av a^olv pvOov 
aKovo-ys OVK av SiKaaais. Eur. Heracl. 179 Ti? av SIKTJV 
Kpiveiev fj yvolrj \6yov Trplv av Trap* dpfyolv fJ.vBov 

X6-yu>. 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. 

VITTIKOVO-C: appeared in court when the case was called 
on answered to his name : cf. Dem. F. L. p. 423 257 
^rifioxrev vTraKovo-avrd riv avrov Kanjyopov " procured 
the disfranchisement of a man who had actually ap 
peared as his accuser." The word was used indifferently 
of plaintiff and defendant, ib. p. 434 290 ovb* vTraKovcrai 


-ij6e\ev. Meid. p. 580, 581 Ka\ov/j,evos ovo^aarL 
...Sid ravr ovx VTrijKovcre. Audoc. Myst. 112 /cad 6 
Krjpvg etcr/pvTre rt ? rrjv iKerijpiav Karadeirj, Kal ovSels 
vTrr/Kovcrev. Isae. p. 49, 25 = 84 R aTroypafais et<? rr/v 
ftov\Y)v KaKovpywv viroywptov torero Kal ov^ VTTIJKOV- 

KXT]0is : cither (1) by the presiding magistrate, cf. 
Dem. Olymp. p. 1174 eVetS?} 8 e/azXet 6 dp-^wv et? TO 
BiKaartjpiov aTravras TOI)? a/^iovS^rotWa? Kara rov VO/J.QV. 
Ar. Vesp. 1441 vj3pi eto? dv n]v Si/c^v ap-ywv Ka\p,or (2) 
by the officer of the court solemnly calling him by name. 
We know that this procedure (tcXr/Teva-is} was adopted in 
the case of a defaulting witness, and it may also have been 
applied if one of the parties failed to put in an ap 

30. Diog. L. VII. 18, evacuee 8e TOI)<? p,ev rdov daoXoiKcov 
\6yov<? Kal dTnjpTia-fAevowi o/zotou? elvai TW dpyvpiw rca 

KaOd Kal TO v6fj,ia-fxa, ovoev Se Sid ravra /SeXr/oj/a?. TOI)? 
oe rovvavriov dcfxo/jioiov TOi? Arrt/cot? 

For the comparison of words to coins cf. Hor. 
A. P. 59 licuit semperque licebit signatum praesente nota 
producere nomen. Juv. vn. 54 qui communi feriat carmen 
triviale Moneta and Prof. Mayor s note. Possibly this and 
the following frag, came from the work Trepl \e^ewi>. 

AXtjjavSpei ip : in this phrase which recurs at vin. 85 
I have followed Kohler (Rhein. Mus. xxxix. 297) in 
reading AXe^az Speiw for AXegavSpLvw. It appears that 
Alexandria had struck no coinage in the reign of the 
Ptolemies (Head, Historia Nimiorum p. 718); on the 
other hand the tetradrachm of Alexander was part of the 
H. p. 


current coinage all over Greece (ib. p. 198 foil, and see 
Hultsch, Gr. and Rom. Metrologie pp. 243 245). 

KiKopji^vovs. . .o-oXoiKus. MSS. KKOfjL^,voi<f. Bywater 
(Journ. Phil. xvil. 70) reads /ce^o/i/ieVou? /ecu <TO\OIKOVS 
and the former certainly seems necessary to restore the 
balance of the sentence. 

Ka6&iiv: this meaning of Ka0e\K(i> is omitted by L. 
and S. s. v. 

\ is bracketed by v. Wilamowitz and Kohler is 
rightly retained by Bywater. 

31. Zonarae Lex. s.v. (ro\oiKietv col. 1G(>2, 
ov fj,6i ov TO Kara fywvrjv Kal \6yov ^(opiKeveadai oXXa 
eVi evBvjMaTwv orav TIS ^wpiKw^ evBiBicrKr/Tai rj drdi 
ecrdir) f) a/cocr/ico? TrepnraTjj w? (firjcn V^vwv. Wachsmuth, 
Comm. i. p. 12, cites Cyrilli, Lex. cod. Bodl. ant, T. n. 11. 
ap. Cramer anec. Paris IV. p. 190 V. <roXoticr/Lt6<j ore ri? 
tirexvats SiaXeyerai cro\otKieiv ov povov TO fcaT(i \ej;iv 
teal (f)a>vrjv loia)Ti>iv, d\\d Kal eVt ^op^fiaTwi , oTav rt? 
ft]? evoeBvTai i] ara/cTw? ecrdiei // r//cocr/Lia)9 

. Zeno is not alone in using the word in 
this extended sense, cf. Xen. Cyr. vm. 3. 21 Aai^epvi)? 

5e Tf? f)V (70\OiKOTpO<t <iv6pU>TTOS TCW TpOTTW. 

iit\ 4v8\)fidTwv. The Athenians attached great import 
ance to Koap-ioTT]^ in dress as in other matters of 
personal behaviour. The cloak \vas required to be of 
a certain length, cf. Theophr. Char. 24 (Jebb) of the 
Penurious Man : (fropovvTas eXrirro) TWV ^rjpwv 7(1 
; and to wear it in the fashionable style (eVi oegul 
d\\afrai) was a mark of sobriety. Cf. Ar. Av. 15G7 
TI 8pd<; ; eV dpLaTep ovTa)<; d/j,7re^ei ; ov /LieTa/3a\ei9 
wB eVt Be^idv , 
^o-Oi^. How carefully children were trained 


in this respect may be seen from three passages of Plutarch 
cited by Becker, Charicles, E. T. pp. 230, 237. Of. e.g. de 
Educ. Puer. 7 rf} ^v Segia a-vveO^eiv rd -rraiSta 8exe<T0ai 
T? rpo<j)d<}, K(iv Trporelveie r^v dpiarepdv, e-rriTifjudv. 

aKoo-fxcos irepnraT^. Fast walking in the streets was so 
severely criticised that it was a circumstance Avhich 
might be used to damage an opponent before a jury ; cf. 
Dem. Pantaen. p. 981 52 N^/iWo? 8 eVfyftwk Lri, 


(f)opel and see Sandys on id. Steph. I. 68, 77. Lysias 
protests against such matters being considered of any 
importance in^a law court, Or. xvi. 19 7ro\\oi ^ yap 

KO.KWV aiTioi yeyovaaiv, erepot Se rwv TOIOVTWV 
vroXXa Kuyadd VfJba? eiaiv elp 

32. Sc\t. Emp. Math. II. 7, evdev yovv K al 7^ 
o Ktriei)? epwrriOels OTM Siafapei 8ta\KTiKi} priropLK^ 
o-uo-r/^e^a? TVV X elpa Kal Trd\Lv e ^aTrXwa-a? fyrj " TOVTM " 
Kara ^v T^V avcrTpo^v TO arpoyyvXov Kal /3pa X v T^V 
^ rdrrcov IStwfia Sid 8e r;/ 9 ^a-rrXwae^ Ka l 
ruv SaKTV\a)v TO vrXari) rfc pijropiKj^ Svvdpew 
vo?. Cic. Fin. n. 17 Zenonis est in.juam hoc 
Stoici omnem vim loquendi, ut jam ante Aristoteles, 
in duas tributam esse partes, rhetoricae palinam, dialecti- 
cam pugni similem esse dicebat, quod latins loquerentur 
rhetores, dialectici autem compressius. Orat, 32, 113 
Zeno quidem ille, a quo disciplina Stoicorum est, maim 
demonstrare solebat quid inter has artes interesset, nam 
cum compresserat digitos pugnumque fecerat, dialecticam 
aiebat eiusmodi esse; cum autem diduxerat et manum 
dilataverat, palmae illius similem eloquentiam esse dicebat. 
Quint. List. Or. n. 20 Itaque cum duo sint genera 
orationis, altera perpetua, quae rhetorice dicitur, altera 

G 2 


concisa, quae dialectice ; quas quidem Zeno adeo con- 
iunxit ut hanc compressae in pugiium 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 \oyiKt i. Very probably in their original form they 
came from some written work. 

TO (rrpoyyvXov 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 : 
ev ra> o-varpetyeiv rd vor/fj.ara KOL crTpoyyvXa)? eK<f>epeiv 
w<? 7T/30? d\7)0ivov<; dywvas 7rmj8eiov \wriav d-jre^e^o^v 
(Isocr. 11). The translation "well rounded" while seeming 
to preserve the metaphor conveys a false impression. 

33. Cic. Acad. II. 145, At scire negatis quemquam 
rem ullam nisi sapientem. Et hoc quidem Zeno gestu 
conficiebat. Nam, cum extensis digitis adversam inanum 
ostenderat, "visum" inquiebat "huiusmodi est." Deinde, 
cum paullum digitos contraxerat, "adsensus huiusmodi." 
Turn cum plane compresserat pugnumque fecerat, com- 
prehensionem illam esse dicebat: -qua ex similitudine 
nomen ei rei quod antea non fuerat Kard\ri^nv imposuit. 
Cum autem laevam manum adverterat et ilium pugnum 
arte vehementerque compresserat scientiam talem esse 
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 TOJ/O?, yet probably the introduction of rovo* 
is later than Zeno. He suggests with more reason p. 126 
that the activity of the i^p.oviKov in the process of 


reasoning may be inferred from this, i.e. the r/y/j,oviKov is 
not merely receptive (Kara Treiatv] but also productive 
(/COT evepyeiav). 

scire : we have already seen that eVtcrr^/i?; is peculiar 
to the wise man, while /caraX^-^t? is also shared by the 
</>au\o? : 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 travra dyvoei o 
<f>av\o<; (Math. VII. 434). Reid quotes Sext. Pyrrh. II. 83 
oioTrep TTJV fj,ev d\r)0iav ev JJLOVW crTrovSaLW (fracrlv elvat, 
TO 6e (ikijOes Kal ev (pav\w evSe^erai yap rov (bav\ov 
d\r)0es TL eiirelv. 

visum = (fiavracria frag. 7. adsensus = crvyKara6e(Ti,^ 
frag. 19. coiuprehensionem = Kara\rj \lrtv, see on frag. 10. 
scientiam, frag. 17. 


34. Cic. Acad. I. 39, (Zeno) nullo modo arbitrabatur 
quicquam effici posse ab ea (scil. natura) quae expers esset 
corporis nee 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, ct. Soph. 247 D \eyco Bt] TO Kal oiroiavovv 
fjievov ovvafAiv, err et? TO Troielv erepov OTLOVV TT 
(V et? TO 7ra6eiv Kal o~/j,iKp6TaTOV VTTO TOV (f)av\OT(iTov, 
K(iv el fjiovov elaaTca^, TCU.V TOVTO OVTWS elvai, : he differed, 
however, widely from Plato in limiting these things to 
material objects. For Stoic materialism cf. Pint. plac. iv. 
"20 TTUV yap TO Bpca/J.evov 17 Kal TTOLOVV au>^a (quoted by 
Zeller, Stoics p. 126) and further references ap. Stein, 
Psychologic n. 21. For the application of this doctrine 


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

35. Diog. L. VII. 134, oWet & avTols ap^a? elvac 

TWV 0\0)V BvO TO 7TOIOVV Kal TO 7rdo"%OV. TO fJ,fV OVV 

Trdayov elvai TIJV CITTOIOV ovcriav Trjv v\rjv TO oe Tcoiovr 
TOV ev avTrj \6yov TOV Oeov. TOVTOV yap ovTa difttov 8i<t 
Trduri^ v\rjs BtjfMLOvpjelv etfacrra. ri6r](Ti 8e TO ooy/J.a 
TOVTO Zirjvwv 6 Ktrtei)? ev TO> Trepl overtax. Plut. plftc. 
I. 3. 39 Ziijvwv W^acreou Ktrtei)? dp%ds p.ev TOV Oebv /cat 

TTjV V\TJV, U>V 6 fieV <TTt TOV TTOltV atTtO<? l] & TOV TT 

crrot^eta 8e rerrapa. Stob. Eel. I. 10. 14 f. 120, 17 
Mvacreov KtTiei)? p%a? TOV Beov Kal TTJV vXrjv crToi-^eia 
rerrapa. Diels,p. 289, adds the following passages: Achill. 
Tat. p. 124 E Lr]vwv o KiTievs "PX" 9 ^ vat ^*7** T( " I; o\a)v 
deov KOI vXrjv, 6wv pw TO TTOIOVV, vXrjv 8e TO Trotovpevov, a<$> 
wv TO. Tea(rapa crToi^ela yeyovevai. Philo, de Provid. I. 22 
Zeno Mnaseae films aerein deum materiam et elementa qua- 
tuor [aerem is a blunder arising from apX"? (Diels), which 
seems better than Stein s suggestion (Psych, n. 31) to sub 
stitute aethera]. Theodoret, Gr. cur. aff. iv. 12 Z-tjvwv Be 6 
KiTtei/?, 6 Mi/ao-e ou, 6 KpaTT/ro? ^otTT/r?}? 6 T//9 Z 
ajpeo-eo)? TOV deov Kal Trjv v\r)v PX" 9 f(f >1 l crl 

Cf. Sext. Math. ix. 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) 8vo Tat 
a pva<? /SouXerai TTOtdv TO fj-ev vTroKeipevov o5? v\r)V, o 

Trpoo-ayopevei Travoex^f, TO 8 &5? ahiov Kal KIVOVV, o 
TreptaTrret TTJ TOV Oeov Kal TTJ TayaOov Svvdpei : see 
Introd. p. 25. When we remember that God is by the 


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 lonians (Zeller, Stoics, 
p. 155, (5. Stein, Psychologic n. 25, collects the passages 
which prove this). How far this was worked out by Zeno 
may be doubted : indued there is no evidence to show 
that he ever passed beyond the stage of regarding the 
dual origin of the world as fundamental, and the opinion 
is now prevalent that Cleanthes by his principle of rovos 
was the first to consciously teach the pantheistic doctrines, 
which subsequently became characteristic of Stoicism. 

ST]|Aiovp-yiv : a favourite Platonic word, recalling the 
ovpyo? of the Timaeus. For the distinction between d 
and crroi-^ela cf. Diog. L. VII. 13-i Sia<j>epeiv Se 
Kai crTOi^etcr r9 p,ev yap elvai dyevvtjTovs Kal d 
TCI Se crror^eta /card r>}v eKTrvpaxTiv 

36. Hippolyt. Philosoph. 21, 1. p. 571 Diels Xpv- 
/cat, Ztrjvwv o t vTredevro Kal avrol dp-^rjv fiev Oeov 
0-w/j.a ovra TO KaOaptOTaTov Bid jrdvTwv Be 
Birjrcet,v rrjv -npovoiav avTov. Galen. Hist, Philos. 16. p. 241. 
Diels p. 608 HXarcof /J.GV ovv KOL Zir/vwv 6 Sr&u/co? Trepi 
TT;? overtax TOV Oeov 8te\T]\v66Te^ ov-% o/ioi &j? Trepi raur?;? 
XX 6 fj,ev Yl\aTO)v 0eov daw [JLCLTOV , 7^r]vwi< 
Trepi r//9 popfyr^ fj,rj8ev dpy/coTes [if we may 
rely on Diels text here, some modification will be required 
in Stein, Psychologic n. 88, where Kiihn s reading ov 
Koa-fMOV d\\d Trapd TavTa...Ti d\\o is adopted]. 

Cf. generally Tatian ad Graec. c. 25 p. 162 c (speaking 
of the Stoics) awfjud rt? elvai \eyei deov, eya> 8e d 
August, adv. Acad. in. 17. 38 (quoted below). 


T& KaOopiiraTov. " God is spoken of as being Fire, 
Aether, Air, most commonly as being Trvevfia 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, tcadapwrarov is used with 
special reference to Sttjiceiv, cf. Sext. Emp. vil. 375 ot Se 
TO TrveVfia fyvo iv X l 7r / 3 ( TOVTO [ri/TTtwo-ti/] eTTir 
XeTTTO/Ltepeo-Taror teal evpovv Trapd ra rotavra TWV 
Ttav vTrdpxov. Ar. Metaph. I. 8. 3, 4 (speaking of those of 
his predecessors who had explained generation by a-vyicpi- 
cris and Stdtcpifris) rfj fj,ev yap dv S6ete <noi^iw^e(na-rov 
eivai irdvTwv e% ov yiyvovrai o-wytcpicrei irpwrov, roiovrov 
&6 TO fiiKpo^epea Tarov Kal \e7TTOTarov av irj rwv <ra)fia- 
TO3V. SiOTrep offot TTvp dp%r)V Ti@acri yLtaXtTTa 0/10X0- dv ra> \6yw TOVTW \eyoiev. Krische, Forschungen 
p. 382. 

wpovoiav like rationem in the next frag, brings into pro 
minence the spiritual side of the Stoic conception of God, 
which is everywhere strangely blended with the material. 

37. Cic. N. D. I. 36, rationem quandam per omnem 
rerum naturam pertinentem vi divina esse affectam putat. 
Cf. Epiphan. adv. Haeres. in. 2. 9 (in. 36) Diels. p. 592 
\eye 8e Trdvra ^trjKeiv TO Oelov. 

rationem : the Heraclitean \6yos, Introd. p. 22. 

38. Tertullian, ad Nat. n. 4, ecce enim Zeno quoque 
materiam mundialem a deo separat et eum per illam 
tamquam mel per favos transisse dicit. Cf. id. adv. 
Hermog. 44 Stoici enim volunt deum sic per materiam 
decucurrisse quomodo mel per favos (quoted by Stein, 
Psychologie, p. 35, n. 43). 

favos: KTjpia. Zeno s fondness for simile has been 


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. n. 120 cuius 
ulivinae 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. D. I. 36, Zeno naturalem legem divinam 
osse censet eamque vim obtinere recta imperantem pro- 
hibentemque contraria. Lactant. Inst. I. 5 Item Zeno 
(deum nuncupat) .divinam naturalemque legem. Mimic. 
Felic. Octav. 19. 10 Zeno naturalem legem atque divinam... 
omnium esse principiura. 

Cf. Diog. L. VII. 88, a><? djrayopeveiv eia>@ev 6 vofAos o 
KOIVOS oTrep ecrrlv 6 opOos \oyos bid TTCIVTWV ep^o^evos o 
avros (t)V TGO Ati KaOrjye/Jioi i TOVTW r?;? rwv OVTWV Stoitcij- 
<re&)? OVTC. Schol. on Lucan II. 9 hoc 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. Eel. TI. 7. II 1 p. 96, 10 = Floril. 46, 12 rov 
re vofJiov crTrovSaiov elvai, fyacri \oyov opdov 6i>ra Trpoa- 


rjreov repeated at II. 7. II 1 , p. 102, 4. 

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


Law is the human counterpart of the "ratio summa 
insita in natura" id. Leg. I. 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 lovis, id. ib. II. 10. For Zeno Right 
exists <f>v<rei and not merely 0e<ri, cf. Krische p. 371. 
Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 708. 

40. Philodemus Trepl evo-e/3. c. 8, Bet TTJV <S>vva/j,iv 
ovcrav o-vva<TT>ri/ci )v oi/ce<t>&><> TWV pepa><v> 7rpo<<> 
(i>\\ij\a fcai K...u>v TI]V 8 ava<TO\i}>v rj<\i>ov /cat 
Ki><K\rjatv> 77 TreploBov. 

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

n}v Svvajnv. This is evidently a Stoic description of 
God as the power which binds the parts of the world 
together and keeps them in union. 

o-wa-rrriKTiv. We should expect a-we/cri/c^v, which is 
the more natural word in this connection. Sext. Math. 
IX. 84 avdyicr) dpa VTTO rfjs apiarrj<f avrov (rov 

aL eVel teal Trepie^ei ras Trdvrwv 
8e Tvy%(ivovcra 6eos ecrriv. On the other hand 
avva<f)}] and the like are technically applied to 
the structure of manufactured articles, which are said t<> 
be CK crvvaTrTOfjLevwv) (^i]vwp,iva : ib. 78 etc (rvvaTTTO^ikvutv 
Be TO, eK re TrapaiceL^vfov KO,\ Trpos ev n tce<f)(i\aiov vevov- 
TOJV crvvecTTWTa w? aXutret? /cat TrvpyicrKoi /cat vijes. 

41. Cic. N.D. i. 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. II. 126 Zenoni et 
reliquis fere Stoicis aether videtur summus deua [if fere 


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

aethera not to be confounded with dr]p, which is one 
of the four elements and subject to destruction ; aerem in 
Tertull. is probably a blunder, unless with Stein, Psych, 
n. 80, ant should be read for et. The aether here in 
question is an equivalent of Trvev/Jia or of Trvp re^vi/cov, 
i.e. it is merely one of the labels convenient to express 
the material essence of God. Neither Trvp nor aldrjp is 
regarded in itself as a complete description. For the 
distinction between the Stoic al6r]p and the Heraclitean 
Trvp see Stein, Psychologic p. 20 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. Eel. I. 1. 29 1 p. 85, 9, Zrjvtav o Sr&n/co? vovv 
Koapov TTVpivov (scil. 6eov (iTrefrjvaTo). August, adv. Acad. 
ill. 17. 38 nam et deum ipsurn ignem putavit (Zeno). 

Cf. Stob. Eel. I. 1. 29 p. 38, 2 avwrdrw irdvrwv vovv 
evaidepiov elvai 6e6v. 

For the Stoic conception of the World-Soul see Stein, 
Psychologic p. 41, who distinguishes the world soul from 
the Aether God, the former being an offshoot from the 
latter. "Die Weltseele ist nur ein Absenker jenes Ur- 
pneumarestes der als Gott Aether miser Weltganzes 
nmspannt ; sie ist als Ausfluss der Gottheit jenes kimst- 
lerische gottliche Feuer (Trvp re^vi/cov) das die Keimkriifte 
(cTTrep/xari/coi)? \6yovs) der Weltbildung im allgemeinen 
und der Einzelbildungen insbesondere in sich enthalt." 
In regarding i/oO? as an indwelling material essence Zeno 
revived the position formerly taken up by Diogenes of 


Apollonia in opposition to Anaxagoras : see the fragment 
quoted by Zeller, Pre-Socraties, E. T. i. p. 287 n. 7. 

The MSS Koa-fjMv was corrected to Ko<rfiov by Krische 
p. 378, who supplies deov dire^r/varo. Hirzel II. p. 220, 2 
prefers to put a comma after KO<T(J,OV: otherwise KOI 
TTI/PIVOV is necessary. 

43. Themist. de An. 72 b [ed. Speng. n. p. 64, 25] 
Be Kol TOI? aVo Z^IXMI/O? avp<f>a)vos rj Sofa Bid 
overlap Tre^oirr/Kevai rov 6eov Tt$6/Lte i>ot<? teal TTOV 
/j,ev elvai vovv Trot) e "^rv^rjv TTOV Be (frvcriv TTOV Be efty. 

This same force, appearing in different substances, is 
called eft<? as the bond of union for inorganic matter, 
(/>i)eri<? in the case of plants, ^rv^} in the case of animals, 
and vovs as belonging to rational beings. Diog. L. vn. 139 Bi 
u>v fMev ydp w<? eft? Ke^u>prjKev w? Bid TGOV oarwv teal T<av 
vevpwv 8t (av Be <o? vovs w? Bid TOV Tjye/AoviKov, cf. 
Cleanth. Frag. 51. Some Stoics seem however to have 
denied this distinction between ^w^r/ and vovs. Nemes. 
Nat. Horn. c. 1 (quoted by Stein, Psych, pp. 92, 3) rti/e? 
Be ov BiecrreiXav OTTO T^? ^^X }? TOV vovv d\\d rfjs 
ovcrias avrrjs yyeftovitcov elvai TO voepov i/yovvrai. Stein 
however is not justified in holding that the living principle 
of animals occupies a position midway between <f>v<ri<; and 
tyv)(ri, as will be shown on Cleanth. frag. 44. That the 
passage is good evidence that the distinction between 
eft?, <j>v<ri<; and ^rv^ is Zenonian may be inferred from 
the words <rt^4<cuz/o9 1} Sofa. 

44. Lactant. de Vera Sap. c. 9, Zeno rerum naturae 
dispositorem atque artificem universitatis \6yov praedicat 
quern et fatum et necessitatem rerum et deum et animum 
lovis nuncupat. Tertull. Apol. 21 Apud vestros quoque 
sapientes \6yov id est sermonem atque rationem constat 
artificem videri universitatis. Hunc enim Zeno dcterminat 


factitatorem qui cuncta in dispositione formaverit eundeni 
et fatuin vocari et deum et animura lovis et necessitatem 
omnium renim. Mimic. Fel. 19. 10 rationem deum vocat 
Zeno. Lact. Inst. IV. 9 siquidem Zeno rerum naturae dis- 
positorem atque opificem universitatis \6yov praedicat 
quern et fatuin et necessitatem rerum et deum et animum 
lovis nuncupat: ea scilicet consuetudine qua solent lovem 
pro deo accipere. 

45. Stob. Eel. I. 5. 15. p. 78, 18, Zr/vcov 6 STOH/COS- 
ev TM Trepl (ucre&)9 (TTJV el/j,ap/J,evr]v) Svvafiiv KivrjTifcrjv TT/S 
1^X779 Kara ravrd /cat (ocravro)? IJVTIVO, /j,rj 8ia(f)epeii> 
TTpovoiav Kol (frvcriv Ka\iv. Theodoret, Graec. Aff. Cur. 
VI. 14. p. 87, 26 Zi]va)v Be 6 Ktrei)? Svvafiiv KeK\rj/ce 
rrjv elfJLap^evr]v KivriTiKrjv rfjs v\r}<? TT)I/ 8e avrtjv /cat 
irpovoiav KOL fyvcriv wvofACKrev. 

(ii^ 8ia(j>piv. God receives different names, while his 
essence is constant, owing to the various phases of his 
union with matter (ra<? Trpocrrjjopia^ fj,era\afji/3aveiv Si 
0X779 T^? v\r)s 8t ?)? Ke-^wpij/ce Trap(iX\a%av Stob. Eel. I. 
1. 29 b p. 37, 23, according to Diels and Wachsmuth a 
mistake for $ia ra? T^? V\TJ<? St r;? Ke^copTjKe TTapa\\a%eis}. 
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. c. 6. p. 7 if 
oi &e (iTTo r?/9 error?? K(iv Tat9 Trpoo-rjyoplais Kara ra9 
7rapa\\aei<> T>79 1^X779, St ^9 <f)a(ri TO Trvevp.a ^wpelv TOV 
6eov, 7r\rjOvva>o-L TO Qtlov Tolf ovofAacri, TU> <yovv 
eva vofAi^ovcri TOV BeoV et yap 6 ^ev Oeos Trvp 

TOU9 cnrepiJLaTiKovs o i yovs Ka 019 e/cacrTa /ca eifj,apfj,ei>r]i> 
yiveTcti, TO oe Trvev/^a avTov $ir;Ki St o\ov TOV 
6 6eo$ et9 /car CIVTOVS Zev<; fj,ev KCLTO, TO %eov 7779 
r/ H/3a oe KaTa TOV depa /cat rd \onrd 


4 7)9 K-^wpr}Kev Ka\ov^vo<^. In 
this connection it may be observed thatGercke(Chrysippea, 
p. 097) is mistaken in speaking of a fragment of Zeno 
as preserved by Aristocles ap. Euseb. P. E. xv. 14. The 
reference there is to the Stoics generally and not to Zeno 
in particular. 

45 A. Diog. L. VII. 140, xaff eipap^evrjv 8e <f>acn ra 
i \pvai7nros... real Tiocrei?>a)i>io$...Kai 

Since ei/j.ap/jLevrj is identical with Trpovoia, it follows 
that everything is produced Kara irpovoiav. Cleanthes, 
however, demurred to this (frag. 18). 

46. Cic. N.D. II. 57, Zeno igitur ita naturam definit 
ut earn 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. I. 39 Zeno statuebat ignem 
esse ipsam naturam. N.D. in. 27 naturae artificiose 
ambulantifi, ut ait Zeno. Wachsmuth (Comm. I. p. 9) adds 
Tertull. ad. Nat. II. 2 cuius (ignis) instar vult esse naturam 

The Greek of the definition is rj <f>va-i<; eVrt irvp re^vt- 
KOV 6Sc5 /3dSi%ov et? yeveaiv, Diog. L. VII. 156. Clem. 
Alex. Strom, v. p. 597. ^^0-49 is only another name for 
God viewed in his creative capacity. Hence Stob. Eel. I. 
1. 29 1 p. 37, 20 ot Sr&H/fol voepov 6eov aTro^aivovrai irvp 
6Bu) (3dSiov eVt yeveaei rcotrfAov, e/j,7repiei\r](f)6<; 
cr7rp/j,a.TiKoi>s \oyovs Kad 01)9 airavra Ka0* 
yiverai : Athenag. 1. c. Wellmann, p. 472 and 
Weygoldt p. 35 think that \0709 cnrep^anKo^ is a Zenonian 
expression. So Stein, Psych, p. 49 and n. 87. 


47. Tatian ad Graec. c. 3, p. 143c, Kal u Qeos d-rro- 

KdK(ai> /car avrov (scil. Zi jvwva) Troirjnjs, ev 
re Kal (TKu>\ri%i Kal dppr)Tovp<yoi<; KaTa<yLvop,evos. 
Cf. Clem. Alex. Protrept. 5 60 ov>e prjv rot)? avro T?;? 
TrapeXevcrofAac 8id 7racr7/9 V\TJS Kal Bid T?; 
TO Oeiov SujKeiv \eyovTas- ot Karaia-^vvovcnv 
rrjv (f)i\oo-o(f)iav: Scxt, Pyrrh. III. 218 ^TCOCKO! Se 
&if}Koi> Kal Sid TU>V elSe^Owv. Cic. Acad. II. 120 cur 
deus omnia nostra causa cum faceret sic enim voltis 
tantam vim natiicum viperarumquc fccerit? cur mortifera 
tain multa ot porniciosa terra maricjue dispersorit? 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. Pint. 
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. II. 58, Ipsius vero mundi qui omnia 
complexu suo coercet et continet natura non artificiosa 
s(jlum sod plane artifex ab eodem Zcuonc dicitur consultrix 
et provida utilitatum opportunitatumque omnium. 

An ingenious explanation of this difficult passage is 
given by Stein, Psychologic, pp. 42, 43 in accordance 
with his view of the distinction between World-Soul and 
Aether-God. " Die natura artificiosa ist unseres Erach- 
tens die Weltseele, wahrend die natura plane artifex 
sich auf den Gott Aether oder das -I^/JLOVLKOV dor Welt 
bezieht." The irvev^a which permeates the universe is 
ignis artificiosus and only secondarily represents God, 
since it is an efflux from him. It cannot be described 
as plane artifex, a term which is applied to God (awp.a 
TO Ka6apu>Ta.Toi>), whereas the world-soul is less icadapbv 
from its combination with matter. 


artifex : probably a translation of Texvirr)? Diog. L. 
VII. 86, but Hirzel II. p. 220 represents it by fypiovpyos. 
in which case cf. Diog. L. vn. 137. 

49. Chalcid. in Tim. c. 290, Plerique tamen silvam 
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 tarn his 
quam ceteris ut sint causa est, ipsum esse substantiam. 

This passage shows that Zeno distinguished between 
ovaia and v\rj the former the indeterminate and formless 
matter underlying the universe, and the latter the stuff 
out of which a particular thing is made. V\T) is thus 
from one point of view the more general term, since ovaia 
= TrpvTr) v\ri (frag. 51). Cf. Dexipp. ad Cat. Schol. Arist. 
Brandis 45 a 21 eVri TO inroictificvov St,TTov Kal Kara TOI)? 
<TToa<? Kal Kara TOI)<? Trpe<r/3vTepov<; ev pev TO \eyo- 
pwTov v7roKelfj,6vov oj<? rj avroto? v\rj i]v Swa^ei crdo^a 
6 A/3i<TTOTeXr;9 <f)rj<rlv Sevrepov 8e VTTOKei^evov TO iroiov 
o KOIVWS r) t Si co? v^icrraro K.T.\. Similarly Arist. Metaph. 
VII. 4. 1044 a 15 distinguishes irpwrr] and oiKeia v\rj and 
ib. iv. 24. 1023 a 27 says that material origin may be 
specified in two ways r) Kara TO TrpwTov yevos 1} /COT 

TO VGTaTOV 6i8o9 olov CTTl flV <W? (ITTai Ta Til TT)KTCl % 

uSaTo? (i.e. brass as being fusible comes from water) COTL 
8 eo<? eK ^a\Kov o dvopids. The point of view of Posi- 
donius is different : he holds &ia<f>epeiv TI}V ovaiav T?;? 
TTJV <avTTjv> ovcrav KdTii Tr)V v-noaTacriv, 7rivoia 
Stob. Eel. I. 11. 5 C , p. 133, 22. Wellmann (Neue 
Jahrb. vol. 115, p. 808) denies that it is a necessary inference 


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 ova-La 
with Kotvctif TTOLOV, and V\TJ with /Siax? TTOLOV, but this 
distinction is a subordinate one, for ovaia is entirely 
distinct from TTOIOV, whether KOIVWS or ISlax;, as Dexipp. 
I.e. shows. 

50. Chalcid. in Tim. c. 292. Deinde Zeno hanc ipsam 
essentiam finitam esse dicit unamque earn 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 nee 
ullam omnino qualitatem propriam fore censet funda- 
menti rerurn omnium silvae, coniunctam tamen esse 
semper et inseparabiliter cohaerere alicui qualitati. Cum- 
que tarn sine ortu sit quam sine interitu, quia neque de 
non existente subsistit neque consumetur in nihilum, 
non deesse ei spiritum ac vigorem ex aeternitate, qui 
moveat earn rationabiliter totam interdum, nonnumquam 
pro portione, quae causa sit tarn crebrae tamque vehe- 
mentis universae rei conversionis ; spiritum porro motivum 
ilium fore non naturam, sed animam et quidem rationabi- 
lem, quae vivificans sensilem mundum exornaverit eum 
ad hanc, qua nunc inlustratur, venustatem. Quern qui 
dem beatum animal et deum adpellant. 

finitam. This is in strong contrast with Epicurean 
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. Eel. I. 18. 4 (1 p. 161, 19 
TOV Se TOTTOV (i.e. full space) TreTrepacr/jievov Sid TO (JL^GV 
aTTetpov elvat,. KadaTrep Be TO (rw/jiaTiKov Tre-rre- 
H. P. 7 


paapevov elvat OUTO>? TO acrw^arov aTretpov, Diog. VII. 150 
crft)/za oe ea-Tt tear aiiTOix; r/ ovaia fcal TreTrepaa-^evrj. The 
Stoic view is refuted by Lucr. I. 10081051, who con 
cludes thus : infinita opus est vis undique material. 
Similarly Diog. L. X. 41 are ydp fy TO KWOV a-rretpov 
TO. oe aw^a-ra eapiapeva, av epeve ra trw^ara, d\\ 
tyepero Kara TO d-jreipov Kevov oieaTrappeva, OVK eypvra 
TO, VTrepeioovTa teal aTe\\ovTa KCLTCL ra<? dvTiKOTrds. 

unamque earn etc. See on frag. 51. 

cerearum : wax is chosen as being one of the most 
pliable substances. Cf. Sext. Math. VII. 375 6 paXaKw- 

\ r i i X N % 

raro? Kr)pos...TV7rovTai pen VTTO TWOS apa vorjfiaTi da 

vypoTrjTa ov avvk^i Se TOV TVTTOV. A very close parallel 
will be found in Ov. Met. xv. 169: (of Pythagoras) 
utque novis facilis signatur cera figuris, 
nee manet ut fuerat, nee formas servat easdem, 
sed tamen ipsa eadem est; animam sic semper 


esse, sed in varias doceo migrare figuras. 
neque formam etc. Cf. Posid. ap. Stob. Eel. I. 11. 5^ 
p. 133, 18 TTfV TWV o\a)v ova- lav teal i>\tjv a-rroiov KOI 
v elvai icaff ovov ovoev d-rroTeTay^ov IOLOV ex i 
ovoe TroioTijTa fcaff avTrjv del 8 ev TIVI (T^H.O.TI 
KOI TrotoTT? elvai. In this respect the Stoics simply 
adopted Aristotle s conception of v\r), cf. Metaph. Z. 3. 
1029 a 20 Xey&> B" v\r)i> f} icaff avTrjv /nrjre TI fir)Te TTOO-OI/ 
fj.r)T a\\o prj&ev \eyeTai, ol? wpHTTai, TO ov. Arist. ap. 
Stob. Eel. I. 11. 4, p. 132 foil, concluding thus: Selv ydp^ 
dfi^oiv (i.e. v\i)s Kai etSou?) T^? avvooov 717309 TTJV TOV 
ffwuaTos v-TTOffTaa-iv. The distinction between the two 
schools is that, whereas the Stoics denned v\rj as o-w/xa 
(Stob. Eel. I. 11. 5 b p. 133, 16), Aristotle declared it to be 
trtw/iaTt/c?) merely, but this distinction is more apparent 
than real. 


sine ortu: diStos, avyxpovos rw Oeu>, infra frag. 51. 

neque de nan existente : the denial of avrXco? yeveais 
K fir/ OVTOS is common to all ancient philosophy. See 
Tyndall, fragments of Science p. 91 (quoted by Munro on 
Lucr. I. 150), " One fundamental thought pervades all 
these statements, there is one taproot from which they 
all spring : this is the ancient notion that out of nothing 
nothing comes, that neither in the organic world, nor in 
the inorganic, is power produced without the expenditure 
of other power." Cf. Posidonius ap. Stob. Eel. I. 20. 7, 
p. 178, 2, TJ}V p,ev >ydp e/c TO>V OVK ovrutv Kal rrjv et? OVK 
ovra ((frOopdv Kal yevecri,v)...d7re yv(i)o-av dvinraptcTOV ovcrav. 
M. Aurel. iv. 4. 

moveat, KivrjTt/ctjv rrjs vXys, frag. 45. 

-non naturani : in apparent contradiction to frag. 46, 
but we shall probably explain : the Trvevpa is not merely 
(/wo-<, it is also i}rv%ij, nay more it is ^f%>; \6yov e^ovaa, 
i.e. i/oi)?. 

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

51. Stob. Eel. i. 11. 5 a , p. 132, 26. Zijvavor ova-lav 
Be elvat rrjv TU>V OVTWV Trdvrwv Trpwrrjv v\^v, ravrrfv 8e 
Tracrav dtSiov Kal ovre 7rXe/<u ^^vo^kvr]v ovre eXarro) 
ra Se /J>epr) Tavrir}^ OVK del ravra Sia/j,eveiv d\\d Bcai- 
peladai Kal crvy^elcrdai. Bid Tavrr)<; Be BiaOetv rov rov 
iravTos \oyov, bv evioi el^ap^evriv tcaXovcriv, olovTrep ev ry 
yovy TO aireppa. Epiphan. Haeres. I. 5, Diels, p. 558, 
(fracrKet ovv Kal ovros (Ttrjvwv) TTJV v\rjv (rvyxpovov Ka\wv 
TO) dew tcra rals a XXat? aipecrecnv, elp,apfLevriv re elvai 
Kal yeveaiv e^ ?;? ra iravra BioiKetrai Kal Travel. Diog. 
L. VII. 150, over lav Be <f>aai TUIV OVTCOV curdvTwv TT)J/ 
v\r)v (a^...ZTji>a)v...Ka\eirai Be St^aJ? ovcria re Kal 



v\rj 77 re ratv TrdvTwv KOL 77 rwv eVt pepovs. rj fiev ovv 
TWV o\o)v ovre TrXeiwv ovre e\drr(av yiverai >] Be r&v 
eVi fjLepovs Kal rrXeivv teal e\drro)v. Tertull. de Praes. 
Cup. c. 7, et ubi materia cum deo exaequatur Zenonis 
disciplina est. 

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

OVTC irXcCw. The aTroto? v\r) is, as we have seen, 
wpia-fjievij and rcerrepaa-^evrj: being also dtBios it is in 
capable of increase or diminution. Its parts however (i.e. 
matter as seen in the lotus TTOLOV or individually deter 
mined thing) are subject to destruction and change. See 
the further authorities cited by Zeller, Stoics, p. 101, n. 2. 

Sicuptwrflcu Kal o-vYX^* 1 - Strictly speaking both these 
terms are to be distinguished from the theory of inter 
mingling which was characteristic of Stoicism (/epa<rt? 
fit o\a)v, and see infra). Thus Siaipea-is is the sepa 
ration of substances which have been combined by 
Trapd6e<m, e.g. a heap of barley, wheat or beans, while 
avyxvo-is is the chemical fusion of two distinct substances 
which lose their essential properties in consequence of the 
process (Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Eel. I. 17. 4s p. 154, 10155, 
14). The Stoic /cpao-t? or ^ui<? 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. Eel. I. 17. 3, p. 152, 19. Zr,vwva 8e oimw<? 
diro<t>aive<r6ai SiapprjSyV roiavrrjv 8e Secret elvat ev 
o&a) TTJV rov 6\ov SiaKovfiTjanv e /t rfjf ouaia?, orav etc 
T/JOTTT) et? vSup BC ae/JO? yevrjTat, TO pkv ri v^ia- 
xal yfJ v o-vvia-raffOai [ical] e/c TOV XotTroO Se TO 


fj,ev Siapeveiv vSwp, ex 8e rov drpi^ofievov depa ylvetrdai, 
\eTrrvvofievov oe rov depos rrvp e^aTrreaOat, rrjv 8e fjLi^iv 
< Kal > Kpdaiv yiveadai rrj et? a\\rj\a rduv 
/j,erafto\f] crw/uLaros o\ov 8t o\ov TII^O? erepov 
Diog. L. VII. 135, 136, ev re elvcti deov teal vovv /cat 
i/jLapfj,evr]v Kal Ata TroXXat? re erepat? Qvopaaiais Trpoa- 
ovofAa^ecrdai,. KCLT ap^ri? ftev ovv Kaff avrov ovra rpeweiv 
rrjv Trcicrav ovcriav Si depo? et? vSwp Kal uxnrep ev rfj 
yovfj TO cr7rep/j,a Trepte-^erai ovrw Kal TOVTOV aTrepnaTiicov 
\6yov ovra rov Koap,ov, roiovSe v7ro\L7r(rOai ev rca vypu> 
evepyov avru> Troiovvra rr]v v\rji> TTOO? rrjv rwv e^-r;? 
yevecriv etra diroyevvdv irputrov rd tkcraapa crroiyela 
TTvp, vSwp, depa, <yrjv. \e<yi 8e irepl avrwv Zr^vwv ev ra> 
Trepl rov o\ov. Diog. L. VII. 142, jivecrOai Se rov Koa/j,ov 
brav K Trvpos rj ovcria rpaTrfj 8t aepo? et? vyporr/ra, elra 
TO Tra^f/iepe? avrov avcrrdv d-n-ore\ecr6f) yrj TO 8e XCTTTO- 
epa)0rj, Kal rovr errl 7r\eov ~\.7rrvv0ev -rrvp TTO- 
elra Kara IU%LV GK rovrwv (f>vrd re Kal %u>a Kal 
rd d\\a yev-rj. Trepl Srj ovv T?;? yeveaettx; Kal rrjs <f>6opds 
rov Koapov fyyo-l TATJVWV /lev ev ra> Trepl o\ov, K.T.\. 
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. 

v -n-tpioSu) : these words seem to refer to the periodic 
renewal of the world after each eWt/ptwcri? 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. Marc. Aurel. X. 7, ware Kal ravra dva\ri<J>0rivat et ? TO> 
TOL> o\ov \oyov, e ire Kara TreploSov eKTrvpovf^evov eire K.r.\. 
Xumenius ap. Euseb. P. E. xv. 18. 1, dpecrKet 8e rots 
Trpeaftvrarots rwv d-Tro rf)$ aipea-eays ravrris e^vypovcrdai, 
Trdvra Kara Trepi68ov$ rtvd? rds fieylara^ et? Trvp aWe- 
ptooe? dva\vop,evwv Trdvrwv, 


oTav K irvpos rpoir^ K.r.X. The evolution of VOO)p 

from the -rrvp re^viKov is first described and then the 
subsequent generation of the four elements from TO 
vypov. 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 (71-17309 rpoTral irpwTov 
ddXacraa 0d\.do-<rrjs 8e TO fiev rjfiKrv yfj TO 8e fypurv 
Trprjo-Trjp, R. and P. 30) but differs from him in adopting 
the theory of the four elements, and to this fact is due 
the introduction of the words oY ae po?. Cf. also the 
account of Anaximenes, ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 6 a, Ai>at- 
jj,evrj<t dpaiovp,evov pev TOV depa Trvp yiyvecrdai (prjat, 
TTV/cvovfMevov 8e dvfjiov, elra vecfros, eiTa en fjid\\ov vowp, 
elra yrjv, elra \i6ovs rd Be d\\a etc TOVTWV. The dvw 
fcdm 68o<? appears clearly in the passage in Stobaeus, cf. 
Cleanth. frag. 21. There are certain difficulties in this 
account of the SiaKoa-prja-is, 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 egv- 
7ptuo-i9 entirely distinct from and anterior to the formation 
of the four elements 1 If Diog. s account is based upon 
Zeno, this question must be answered in the affirmative, 
but in Stobaeus it appears rather as an ordinary stage in 
the Kara 6809. That an entire resolution of the irvp 
TtyyiKov into vypov (except as regards TO ecr-^arov TOV 
Trvpos) was taught by the Stoa is also clear from Cornut. 
c. 17, p. 85, Osann. eo-Tt 8e Xao<? pev TO irpo rf)<; Sta/coo-- 
^4T/o-eo)9 yevopevov vypov, a-n-o rrj<; ^uo-eo>9 OVTWS wvo- 
pao-fjievov, f) TO irvp, o <TTIV olovel Kao<j.,.^v Be TTOTC, to 
Tral, 7rvp TO Trdv Kal <yevij(TfTai ird\LV ev TrepioSy 
o-(3ecrdevTO<; 8" ei<t depa avrov pera/SoXr) ddpoa yiverai 
619 vBtop" o Sri Xa/x/Saj^et Toy [lev v^Kna^vov pepovs rrjt 
ov<ria<; Kara TTVKVWO-IV TOV 8e \e7TTvvofjLevov Kara dpaiwo-iv. 


(2) Is the egvypwo-is merely a step in the creative process 
or is it to be regarded, as it apparently was by Clean thes, 
as the antithesis of the eKTrupwacs ? Perhaps it is safest 
to regard Zeno as an exponent of the simple 6809 avw 
Kara) and to treat the complications in connection with 
the ToVo9 theory of Cleanthes (frag. 24). 

Tpoirrj, codd. corr. Heeren. rpaTrrj, Mem. (del. yevrjrai) 
coll. D. L. viz. 142. 

\irrvvo^vov, K.T.\. is the corr. of Wachsm. for the MSS. ex 
rivos 8e rov depot, coll. Chrysipp. ap. Plut. Sto. Rep. 41, 3. 

[iiiv. The mixture of dry substances )( icpaa-tv the 
fusion of moist. For a full discussion of the peculiar 
Stoic doctrine, see Zeller, Stoics, p. 136 foil. 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 : teal yap et? 7re\a<yo<> 
0X1709 00*09 /3X,?7$et9 eVt TTOCTOV avTiTrapeKTaOrjaerai <rv^- 
<^6apr)a-Tai (Diog. L. VII. 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 aXXoicoo-t9 is not found in the Stoa before 
Marcus Aurelius, but this is inaccurate. Thus Posidonius, 
ap. Stob. Eel. I. 25, p. 178, 7, after explaining that there 
are four kinds of fiera/BoXr), (1) Kara Siaipecnv, (2) /car 
d\\oiu>criv, (8) Kara crvy^vaiv, (4) e o\u>v or ar 
dvciXvariv, proceeds : rovrwv 8e rt)v /car d\\oia)<riv Tr 
TTJV ovcrlav yivea dai rd<; 8 ri XXav rpetf Trepl roi/9 
\eyo/Mevov<; rou9 eVt rfjs ova-las 

53. Galen, et9 TO iTnroKpdrov vTTo^vrip,a Trepl 
I. (XVI. 32 K.) Znffvwv re o KiTteo<? [09] Ta9 TroiorTjTaf OVT<O 


teal rcif overlap Si o\ov tcepdvvwrdai evofii^ev, id. de nat. 
facult. I. 2, 6i & uxnrep rds Troior^ra? KOI ra<? ovaias St 
o\wv KepdvvvcrOai, ^pi} vofii^eiv, <w? ixrrepov (iTrefajvaro 
Zr/vu)v o Ktrteo?. (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. in. 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 Kpd<ns are them 
selves a combination of ova-la and Troiorrjre^ : when 
mixture takes place, we must either say that the oixriat 
are mixed or that the -rroi6rijT<; 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, XetTrerat \eyeiv on teal at Troiorrjre^ 
rwv Kipvapevwv teal at ovcriat, ^wpovcri ot a\\rj\(0v /cat 
fAtyvvfAevat rrjv icpdaiv diroTe\.ov<riv ( 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 7rot6rr)<j was material no less than ovo-ta. " Aris 
totle s 4809 becomes a current of air or gas (Tri/eu/xa), the 
essential reason of the thing is itself material, standing to 
it in the relation of a gaseous to a solid body." (Encycl. 
Brit. Art. Stoics.) 

54. Stob. Eel. I. 20. 1% p. 171, 2. Z^wi/t /cat K\edv0ei 
teal XpucriTTTTft) dpefftcei rrjv ovcriav ftera/SaXXety olov elf 
07rep/j.a TO Trvp, teal traXiv eV rovrov roiavrrfv 


\eia-0ai TTJV SiaKoa-^rja-tv o la Trporepov TJV. Euseb. P. E. 
XV. 18. o, apecrKei yap TCH<? ST&H/COI? (f)i\.ocr6(f)otf rr/v oXrjv 
ovcriav p.eraj3a\\eiv elf trvp olov elf crTrepfia teal ird\iv e /c 
TOVTOV avrrjv avroreXetcr&u TI}V BtaKoa-^crtv o la TO irpo- 
Tepov ifv teal TOVTO TO S6y/j,a rcav CITTO TIJS alpeaewf ol 
TrpuiToi Kal TrpecrfivTaTot TrpocnJKavTO r Lr]vwv re KOI 
K\dv0i)<i Kal Xpuo-iTrTro?. Amob. ad Nat. II. 9, qui ignem 
minatur mundo et venerit cum tempus arsurum, non 
Pauaetio, Chrysippo, Zenoni (credit) 1 

The Stoic authorities for the doctrine of eKirvpwaif 
will be found collected in Zeller, p. 164 n. 2. On this 
point they were opposed to the Peripatetics who held the 
dffrdapvia of the Koafiof, 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 eKTrvpaxris 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 an}- rate, so long as we concede any 
materiality to his primal fire ; if fire is a mere metaphor 
to express irav-ra pet, the case is of course very different. 
Cf. Marc. Aurel. in. 3. The Christian writers often 
allude to the etcTrvpwa-is, which serves at once as a 
parallel and a contrast to their own doctrine, e.g. Tatian, 
adv. Graec. c. 25, p. lu 2 C, eKirvpcoaiv (\eyet ri<?) TTO- 
ftaiveiv Kara ^povovs eya) Se ela-dira%. Justin Martyr, 
Apol. I. 20. 20, p. 66 D. 

TO irvp, add. elf Heeren whom Heinze, Logos, p. Ill, 
follows, but the alteration is needless. For cnrepfj.a cf. M. 
Aurel. iv. .36. 

55. Tatian, adv. Graec. c. 5, TOV Z-tjvwva Sid Trjt eK7rv- 
pwcrewf a7ro(f)atv6^evov dvicrTaadai, 7rd\tv TOI)? avTovf eVt 
rot? avTOtf, \eyca 8e "AvvTov Kal MeX^Toy eVt TOJ KUTTJ- 


yopelv Rovaipiv Be eVl r<o ^evoKrovelv Kal Hpa/cXea Tra\iv 
firl TO) d6\elv Trapairrjreov. 

Cf. Nemes. Nat. Horn. c. 38, evecrOcu yap irdXiv 
^wfcpdrr) Kal \\\dra}va /cal e/caa-rov rwv dvdpwTrwv <rvv 
rot? auTOi? teal (/u Xot? Kal TroXiVat? Kal rd avrd 7reicre<r6ai 
Kal Tot<? avrols crvvrev^ecrdai Kal rd avrd fiera-^eipieicrdat 
Kal Trdcrav TTO\LV Kal Kwprjv Kal dypov O/AOICO< diroKaOicr- 
rao-Oai. 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. 
178 a, el Be n<f TTiffreixreie rot? llvOayopelow, cw? Trd\w 
rd avrd dpiOfJUp, Ka<y(a fivdo\oyevcr(i) TO paftSiov ex wv 
Vfuv Kadrjfievois ovra), Kal rd d\\a Trdvra o/iotcy? eei 
Kal rov ypovov ev\oyov ecrrt, rov avrov elvai (quoted by 
Zeller, Pre-Socratics I. p. 474, n. 2). The Stoics 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: cf. Cic. Acad. II. 125, et ut nos nunc simus ad 
Baulos Puteolosque videamus, sic innumerabilis paribus 
in locis isdem esse nominibus, honoribus, rebus gestis, 
ingeniis, formis, aetatibus isdem de rebus disputantis ? 
The subject is well treated by Ogereau, Essai, p. 70. 

irapai-rrr&v : 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 


56. [Philo.] trepl d^Qapcrias KM/MOV, cc. 23, 24, p. 510, 
11, foil. Mang. p. 264, 3 Bern. p. 486, Diels. Beo^pao-ro? 
/tei/roi (foal rovt yevea-iv Kal <f)0opdv rov Kocrpov Karrj- 
yopovvras VTTO rerrdpav dTrartjOtjvai, ra>v peyia-rtov, 77/5 


<iva>/jta\ia<t, Oakdrrr)^ dva^wp^creuis, eKficrrov TWV TOV o\ov 
jjiepwv 8ia\vcre(i)S, \epcraiwv (frOopas Kara yevrj a>a>v. Kara- 5 
<TKevd^eiv Be TO /jLev rrpwrov OVT<O<J el //.?} yevecrews dp-^v 
e\a/3ev T) 717, ftepo? inravecrTOS ouBev dv en avrr/s ewpdro, 
%8a/jLa\d S ?;Sr/ rd oprj Trdvr eyeyevrjro, KOI ol yetoXocfroi 
Trdvres IcroTre&ot rf) TreStaSt TO<TOVTWV ydp fcaO efcacrrov 
eviavrov o^pwv e dlBlov (frepo/jLevwv etVo? TJV rwv 8irjp/jLevu>v 10 
7T/309 vtyos rd /j,ev ^et/Ltappoi? aTrepp^^Bai, rd S VTrovocnr]- 
<ravra K^a\( tcrOat, Trdvra Se Sid travroiv rj8rj \e\eidv6ai 
vvvl Be avve^w^ dvw^a\.iai KCU Tro/iTroXXwf opwv at 
; aldepiov vtyos V7rep/3o\al fjirivv^ar eVrt TOV TTJV 
; d l Biov elvat irdXai yap, co? efajv, ev djreipw ^povw rat? 15 

Treparwv ejrl Trepara iraff dv 
e$>vice yap rj v8aro<; fyvcns icai /j,d 
Karapdrrov(ra rd fiev e^wdev rfj /3ia, rd Se 
I TO) avve^el TWV ^rend^wv Ko\drrTov(ra KoC\.a[veiv vrrep- 
; yd^eaOai re rrjv <7K\T]poyea)v KOI ^dfo^ecrrdTrjv opvKTrjpwv 20 
| CVK e\a,TTOv. KOI fjirjv ij ye OdXaacra, (j>acriv, tjBrj 
; /jLepeiwTai ^dpTvpes S at vr)crwv euBoKif^oorarai, 
; Te Kai A 17X0? avrat ydp TO fiev rrdXaiov r 
9 Kara TJ;? da\drrr]<s eBeBv/cea-av erriK\v^6fMevai, ^povw S 
i vcTTepov e\a,TTOvfAevrjs rjpefia /car 6\iyov di la-^ovaai, &5? 25 
I ai Trepl avrwv dvaypafalcrai, /j,r/vvovcrt,v icrToplai [rrjv 8e 
I A?}Xoi> Kai<f>r)V wvofiacrav 81 d/j,<f)OTepa)v ovofJLarwv 
I maTovfjbevoi TO \ey6fj,evov, erreiBrf ydp Brj\rj dvafyavelaa 
eyeveTO d8r)\ovfj,evr) teal d(j)avr/s ovcra TO rrd\ai\ rrpbs Be 

rreXayiav ^eyd\ov^ K.6\rrov<s Kai /3a$et<? 30 
rjTreipwcrdat Kai yeyev?)<70ai r?}? irapaxei- 
A fjLevrjs ^u>pa^ /Aoipav ou \vrrpdu crrretpo/j,ei>ov<; Kai (frvTevo- 
: /LteVou?, ol? crrifj,eT drTa r^? TraXaia? va7ro\e\ei<j)8ai, 
6a\arr(t)(T(i)s -^rrj(f)l8d<j re Kai Koy^a<^ Kai ocra o/jLOiorpowa 

aiyia\ovs elwdev arro{3pdTre<T0ai. [Bio Kai HivSapos 35 

Xat p , to OeoB/J,aTa, \i7rapo7r\OKd(j,ov 


7rai8e<T<ri \arovs t/j-epoecrrarov Zpvos 

Hovrov Ovyarep, %0ovo<; eupeia? aKivrjrov repaf av 

re ftporol 
40 AaXof Kt,K\ij<TKOva iv, /ta/cape<? 8 ev O\vfj,7T(0 rrj\e- 

(fravrov Kvaveas -^6ovo<f darpov. 

Ovyarepa ydp Hovrov rrjv A^Xoy eip^Ke ro \e%6ev alvir- 
rouevos]. el 87} peiovrai rj 6n\arra, peioidijcrerat, /J,ev rj 
<yf), /ia/c/3at? 8 eviavrwv TreptoSot? teal et? arrav eicdrepov 
crroi^elov ava\u>6r)crerai,, SaTravwOjjcrerai <8e> KOL o 
45 cTL /iTra? dr;p eic rov icar 6\iyov e\arrov^.evo<^, (iTrotcpi- 
Orjcrerai 8e rcavr els ^iav ovcriav rr/v 
7T/30<? Se rrjv rov rpirov Ke(pa\aiov 
Xoyw roi(u8e (frdeiperai rrdvrws eKelvo, ov rcdvra ra /J.epij 
<f)0aprd ecrrt, rov Be KOCT/JLOV rcdvra rd pepr) <f)6aprd eari, 
50 (f)6aprof dpa 6 ACOCT/ZO? ecrrlv. o 8 inrepeOe^eBa vvv em- 
cnceirreov. rrolov /u.epo<? rfjs 7?;?, JV drro ravrrj^ dp^w^ieda, 
[j,etov rj eXarrov, ov ^pova) ia\v6r)crerai ; \ida)i> 01 
Kparaioraroi dp ov /LtuScScri Kal ar/rrovrcu Kara rrjv eea>9 
dadeveiav [77 8 eo-rt rrvev^ariKo^ TO/ O?, Secr/io? OVK 
55 dpprjicros, d\\d p,6vov &vcrSid\vros] dpvrrrop,evoi, Kal 
peovres el$ \eTrrrjv ro rrpwrov dva\vovrat KOVIV ; [ei@ 
vcrrepov 8a7ravr)0evres e%avd\vovrai\ ri 8e ; ei [*rj Trpo? 
dvk^JMV pnri^oiro rb vBiap, aKiwrjrov eadev ov^ v<$> ^(ru^t a? 
veKpovrat ; fj,eraf3d\\ei yovv Kal Svcray&ea-rarov yiyverat 
GO ola r f v %rjv d(pr)prj/j,evov ^u>ov. a i ye ^,rjv depos (frdopal 
rravri ra> 8f)\ai vocreiv ydp Kal <f)6ii>iv Kal rporrov rtv 
drroOvrjaKeiv rrefyvKev. e-rrel ri dv rt?, pr) a-ro^a^6fj.evo<; 
ovofidrwv evrrperreias d\\d rd\r)dovs, CITTOI Xoipov eivat 
7r\r)v depos ddvarov ro oiicelov rrddos dva%eovro$ eVt 
G5 <f>0opa Trdvrwv ocra ^v)^^ pepoiparai ; ri ^prj fj,aKprj- 
yopelv Trepl -rrvpos ; drpo^r/crav ydp avriKa crftevvvrat 
6v, ff fyacriv 01 rroirfrai, yeyovos e eavrov. Sib a-Krjpnr- 
opBovrat Kara rrjv rfjs dva<f>6eicrrj<; vXrjs vofir)v, 
8" d<f>avierai. [ro 


teal TOU9 Kara rr/v *Iv8iK)}v BpaKOVrds (fracri 7rda"%eiv. 70 
avepTTOVTas yap CTTI ra fieyL(TTa TWV ^(awv eXecfravras 
Trepl vu>Ta Kal vrjBuv aTracrav eiXelcrdai, <f)\e/3a 8 fjv av 
rv%r) oieXovTas (J,7TtVtv TOV ai uaTos, 
cr7ra)/j,evovs /3tai&) Trvevfiarc teal avvrovw p 
ovv Tii/o? e%ava\ou[jievovs e/celvovs dvTe%tv VTT afirj-^avLa^ 75 
dvaaKipriavTas teal rfj Trpovo^aia rrjv TT\evpav rvTrrovras 
>9 Ka6iofj,evov<> TWV Bpatcovrcov, etr del Kevov^evov TOV 
^WTLKOV TrrjBdv fMv fjL,rjtc6Ti ^vvaaOai, KpaSaivofievovs S 
.ecrrai/at, piKpov 8 ixrrepov teal rwv crKeXwv egacrOevrjcrdv- 
To)v KaraaetcrOevTas VTTO Xi0at/z,/a? dTro^ru^eLV Trecroi/ra? 80 
Se roi)? atri ou? TOV davcnov a-vvaTT6\\vvai rpoTrw rotwSe 
Tpcxprjv oi Spa /coi/re?, oi/ irepiedecrav &ecr/j,oi> 
K\veiv a7ra\\ayt}v rjSr) Tro^oufre?, UTTO Se 
TOV /3apou? Tcof e\e$dvTwv 6\LJB6fjievoi Tne^ovvTaL teal 
TroXi) /j,d\\ov 7Tiodv TV^r] (7Tepi(f)ov <ov> Kal \iOdo8es 85 
TO eSa<^o? iKvcrTrw^evoi yap Kal TrdvTa vrotouvre? et? 
vTTo r?;? TOU TrtecravTos ySia? TreS^^eyre? eauroi)? 
eV a^nj^avo^ Kal aTropot? yv/jtvdo~ai>Tes 
<Kal> KaOd-rrep oi KaTa\evcr6evTes rj Tefyovs 
ai(f>vi8iov eTrevexOevTes 7rpoKaTa\r]<p0evTe<;, ovo^ ocrov dva- 90 

Bvvd^evoc rrviyfj TeXevTwa-iv.] el 8rj TWV jiepuiv 
e/cacrroi/ roO Kocrfjiov $>6opdv VTTOfAevet, 8rj\ovoTt Kal 6 % 
JIVTWV 770,7619 o<r/i09 d<f)dapTos OVK e&Tai. TOV 8e TerapTov 
Kal \OLTTOV \6yov aKpifiwTeov a>Se (f>a(Tiv. ei S 6 /cocr^o? 

r/v, r/v av Kal TO. &>a d l Sia Kal rro\v ye /JbaXXov TO 95 
dv6pw7ra)v yevos ocrw Kal TU>V d\\wv dfieivov. d\\d 
Kal o^riyovov (fravfjvat, rot9 /3ov\ofievois epevvdv Ta 
et/co9 yap fj,d\\ov 8 dvayKalov dvdpwTrois 
ra9 Te^fa9 &)9 dv t,crr)\i,Ka<? ov fj,ovov brt \oyiKy TO e / 
6ooov OLKelov a\\d Kal OTL fyjv dvev TOVTWV OVK eaTLV 100 
roi)9 eKacTTtov xpovovs a\oyr)aavTe<i TWV e 

6eol<i fjivdwv ^. ^ ^ el p,r] diotos dvOpwTros, 
.d\\o TI %(*)ov, WCTT ovo* ai SeSeypevai TavTa 


teal vBcop Kal dr jp. eg wv TO ^tdaprov flvat, rov 
8r/\6v ecTTiv 

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 1 , 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 XL 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 I. 10. 279 b 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 a m.; and the dialectical form in which the third and 
fourth arguments are couched suggests the same origin. 
Again, the authority of Diog. L. VII. 141 is conclusive as to 
the third argument, and the terminology of et<?, TOI/O?, 
TTvevpa, and irvev^ariK^ 8uz/a/Lu<?, to which may be added 
ovtria, ai>a</>#etcr77<? v\r)<;, and <J>v<rei oiiceiov, 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. c. p. 424, 5. 


phrastus could have criticised, for the latter died in 
01. 128, 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 
Iritrod. p. 33. This is perhaps the right place to observe 
that a supposed frag, of Zeno, extracted by Wachsmuth 
(Cornm. I. p. 8) from Philo de Provid. I. 12, and to the 
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. 100108). 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 


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 
(frvcriKal Bo^ai 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 11. 4850 is extremely 
probable not only from internal indications, but also 
because of the evidence of Diogenes Laertius VII. 141, 142 
(observe especially the words Trepl Brj ovv rrj<j yevea-etos 
teal TJ;? <f>0opa<; TOV tcovpov facrl Zijvow tv T&> Trepl 
o\ov). 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 


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 
question is to be found in von Arnim s Quellen Studien 
zu Philo von Alexandria (Berlin 1888) p. 41 foil. Hi- 
believes that the compilator of the treatise only had later 
Peripatetic writings especially those of Critolaus before. 
H. p. 8 


him, and that the main portion of our passage was derived 
from one of them. All that belongs really to Theophrastus 
is the statement of the headings of the four arguments 
(11. i_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 11. 33 35. 

8. rd SRTI cf. Cornut. c. 17. p. 85 Osann, ra 8 opr) 
(yeryove) Kara e%o<rrpaKivnov rfc 7^9. Schol. Hes. Theog. 
p. 238, ra opt] -rrepl ro avwp,a\ov rijs avvi&<T<as e\a/3e 
ras eo%a<? /cat tear a e^oarpaKia-^ov avrfjs- 

*yryfrr|To)(e76i;eTo 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 uv is less apparent, 
though always present: cf. e.g. Dem. Timocr. p. 746 146, 
if imprisonment were contrary to the Ath. constitution 


IX. 81, rwv i]vw^vwv aw^drwv rd pev VTTO tyi\f)<> ee&><? 


54. imvjiaTiKis r6vos : 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, 
cf. Cleanth. frag. 24. The words however may in any case 
be a later addition, and under the circumstances they have 
been bracketed. 

56. peovrts " passing away " in the Heraclitean sense ; 
yet even Plato has el yap peoc TO <rw/wi...(Phaed. 87 D). 
\irr^v KOVIV, cf. Soph. Ant. 256. 

W avo\. Om. Med. MS. cf. Biicheler Rhein. Mus. 

32. 442. 

58. dW|u*v : the illustration is suggestive in connection 
with the doctrine of Trvevpa. For pnrL^otro cf. frag. 106 
KivovfJ-evov KOI dvapiTri&nevov vir eiceivov. 

60. iHt^v appears to be attributed to animals in 
general and not exclusively to man, see on frag. 43. 

63. c*rptas. Cf. Plat. Euthyd. 305 E, ical ydp X ei 
OVTOK: &5 Kpirwv evTrpe-rretav pa\\ov % d\r)0eiav. It is- 
possible that there is a reference to some contemporary 
school here, which had explained Xoi/xo? after the manner 
of Prodicus. For the definition cf. M. Aurel. IX. 2. 
6991 ejected by Zeller, 1. c. 
85. 5v add. Diels. 89. Kal add. Bernays. 

99. *is dv not merely equivalent to wo-Trep but ellip 
tical. The full phrase would be &5? *6? rjv iiv el tV?- 
\iKS r,<rav. Xen. Mem. H. 6. 38, 7} ei <roi ireCaaipt KOIV$ 
rrjv TTO\IV -^evBofievo^ eo? av a-rpaTrjyLKw Kal 7ro\iTtK$ 
eavrriv eTrirptyai, where see Kuhner. In this way is to 
be explained Thuc. I. 33. 1. 

102. "Deesse quibus evpypdruv tempora explica- 
verant vidit Mangey," Usener. 


57. Philargyrius ad Verg. Gcorg. n. 336, Zenon ex 
hoc mundo quamvis aliqua intereant tamen ipsum perpetuo 
manerc quia inhaereant ei elementa e quibus generantur 
materiae : ut dixit cresccrc quidem, sed ad interitura 
non pervenire manentibus elementis a quibus revalescat. 

If taken literally, the doctrine here referred to would 
be inconsistent with the destructibility of the #007x09, 
which, as we have seen, was held by Zeno : again, ele 
menta can hardly be a translation of crroi^ela, which 
undoubtedly perished. We must suppose therefore that 
Zeno is speaking not of the visible world, but of the 
universe, and that elementa = PX" - According to Diog. 
L. vil. 137 tfooy/,09 is used by the Stoics in three senses: 
the first of these is avrov rov deov rov etc r^? drraari^ 
ova-ias t8w9 TTOLOV 09 S?} dtfrOapros ecrri teal dyevvr]TO<>,a,i\d 
this is the sense which mundus must bear here. If this 
explanation be thought impossible, we can only suppose 
that there is a confusion with Zeno of Tarsus who is said 
to have withheld assent to the doctrine of the etcTrvpaxTis, 
Zeller, p. 168 n. 1. Stein, Psych, p. G4 and n. 92, thinks 
that Zeno held that at the eKrrvpwcn^ the various mani 
festations of God world-soul, ^0709 o-rrep pan/cos etc. 
lose themselves in the divine unity, but that the inde 
terminate matter (a7roto9 v\r)} remains, cf. ib. p. 34, n. 42. 

58. Diog. Laert. Vil. 143, on re et9 e<rriv (6 
ZTJVWV (fir/a-lv ev rco Trepl TOV o\ov. Stob. Eel. I. 22. o b p. 
199, 10, 7ii]vwv eva elvai rov KOO-^OV. 

This was one of the points which distinguished the 
Stoics from the Epicureans, who held that there are an 
infinite number of worlds. See further Zeller, p. 183 and 
the notes : the characteristic and important view of 
crvp,Tra6eia fJi&pwv or avvrovia is one of the developments 
introduced by Cleanthes. 


59. Sext. Math. IX. 101, Y^vwv Be 6 KtTiey?, airo 


Trpoiepevov afrepp-a \oyitcov Kal avro \OJIKOV ecrriv o 
Se /cocr/no? rrpoterai cnrepp,a \OJLKOV- \oyiKov dp ecrnv 
6 /edoyu>9. a> crvveiadyerai Kal 77 rovrov V7rapf;i<>. Cic. 
N. D. II. 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 

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. c. 92 f. the passage 
referred to (Xen. Mem. I. 4 2 5. 8) is set out and 
discussed. The parallel passage is 8 Kal ravra ei Stw? on 
7779 re p,iKpov /j,epos eV T&J cnw/^art 7roXX^9 OU CTT/? e^et9 K.T.\. 
...vovv Be /j,6vov (ipa ov8afiov ovra ere evTv^aJs TTW? oofceis 
(rvvapTrdaai, KOL rd8e rd vTrepfAeyedr] Kal 7T\7;0o? aTreipa 
Bi d(f)poa-vvr)v rivd, a5? oiei, evrdicTW e^eiv , cf. Sext, 
Math. ix. 77, M. Aurel. iv. 4 and see Stein, Psych, n. 53. 

TOVTOV. Bekker with some plausibility suggests rov 
6eov. 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. D. n. 22, Idemque (Zeno) hoc modo: 
" Nullius sensu carentis pars aliqua potest esse sentiens. 
Mundi autem partes sentierites sunt : non igitur caret 
sensu mundus." 

Cf. Sext. Math. IX. 85, a\\a Kal 77 ra? \oyiKa<; irepie- 
^ovaa (f)v<reis irdvrws eVrl \oyiKi?" ov ydp oloi> re TO o\ov 
TOV uepovs yelpov elvaf d\\ el down] ecrrt (frvcris rj TOV 
KotTfJiov BioiKovo-a voepd re ecrrai Kal cnrovoaia Kat 


61. Sext. Math. IX. 104, Kal irdXiv o Zrjvcav 
" t ei ] T ^ ^-oyt-Kov TOV /jbrj \oyiKov /cpelrrov e<TTW ovoev oe 
ye Koa/Jiov /cpetrrov ecrTtV \oyiKov dpa o Kocrfjios. Kai 
(acravTfas eVt TOV voepov Kal e^-^rv-^ia^ yLtere^ot TO?. TO yap 
voepov TOV fir] voepov Kal TO efAifrvjfpv TOV /U,T) e^^v^ov 
KpeiTTov e<TTiv ovSev oe ye KOCT/J,OV KpeiTTOv voepos apa 
teal eyu-T/ru^o? ea-Tiv o Arocr/io?." Cic. N. D. II. 21, quod 
ratione utitur id inelius est quam id quod ratione non 
utitvir. Nihil autem mundo melius: ratione igitur niun- 
dus utitur. Cf. ib. in. 22, 23. 

Alexinus the Megarian attacked Zeno s position with 
the remark that in the same way the world might be 
proved to be poetical and possessed of grammatical know 
ledge. The Stoics retorted that it is not true that in the 
abstract TO TTOLTITLKOV is better than TO yu.?} TTOI^TLKOV or TO 
ypan/jLaTiKov than TO /u,r) ypa/j,/j,aTi/c6v : otherwise Archi- 
lochus would be better than Socrates, Aristarchus than 
Plato (Sext, 1. c. 108110). For the feet cf. Diog. vn. 
139, ovTW orj Kal TOV o\ov KOCT^OV yov ovTa Kal e /u/^ru^oz/ 
Kal \oytKov K.T.\. Stein adds Philo, de incorr. m. p. 50G 
M, o KOCTfjiOf Kal (^ucri? \oytKTJ, ov JJLOVOV efju^vy^os (av, aX\,d 
Kal voepos 7T/30? 8e Kal <f)povin,o<s. Siebeck refers to 
Arist. de Gen. An. n. 1. 731 b 25, TO epvv TOV 

62. Sext. Math. IX. 107, 8vvd/j,et 8e TOV avTov TU> 
7ji]vwvi \oyov e^eOeTO (scil. Plato) Kal yap OUTO? TO TTOLV 
Ka\\i(TTOv eivai (frrjcriv KaTa (frvaiv aireipyaafjievov epyov 
Kal KaTa TOV ei/coVa \6yov, ^utov efji-^rv^ov voepov Te Kal 

Hirzel s theory, II. p. 217, 218, that Zcno called the 
world ep.^rv^ov and \oyiKov only but not ^wov is con 
troverted by Stein, Psych, n. 82 from this passage. The 
passage in Plato, part of which is quoted by Sextus, is 


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

63. Cic. N. D. II. 22, Idemque similitudine, ut saepe 
solet, rationem conclusit hoc modo : si ex oliva modulate 
canentes tibiae nascerentur, num dubitares qtiin inesset 
in oliva tibicinii quaedam scientia ? quid ? si platani 
ndiculas ferrent nuraerose 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. Eel. i. 23. 1, p. 200, 21, Z^vwv Trvpivov 
flvat rov ovpavov. 

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, 
Ktrtei)? ouro)? avrov wpicraro ovpavos eanv aidepos TO 
O"^arov e ov teal ev o> ecrrt Trdvra e/t</>aixw? Trepie^ei 
yap Trdvra TT\TJV avrov ovSev yap eavro Trepie^et aXX, 
repov e<rri TrepieicriKov. 

aiet pos TO ?arxaTov: cf. Diog. L. vii. 138 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 KCU 
Sid rovro T; fj,ev yrj ev rw vSari, rovro & ev rut depi, ouro? 
ev TO) alBept, 6 8 aldrjp ev rct> ovpavw, 6 8* ovpavos 
ovtceri ev d\\(f). Just before he had said : ev ra> ovpavw 
jrdvra o yap ovpavos TO rrdv I<TU>S. 

wcpUxtu 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 ovpavos is spoken of as TO 


oTToaa vor^rd %wa : cf. also the Trepie^ov typevfjpes of 
Heraclitus (Scxt. Math. vn. 127 foil.). M. Aurcl. vin. 54. 

66. Diog. L. VII. 148, ovaiav 8e deov Zijvcov (770- 1 
TOV o\ov KOO~/J,OV Kal rov ovpavov. 

Cf. Stob. Eel. i. 1. 29, p. 38, 1. The Stoics held 6>eot)?. . . 
TOV Kocr/jiov Kal TGI)? daTepa<? Kal Tr)v yrjv. 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 
Kal TOV ovpavov are added because in it the material 
essence of divinity exists in its purest form. Diog. L. 
VII. 138, ovpavbs 8e e&Tiv 1} e cr^ar?; Trepufiepeia, ev rj rrav 
I SpvTai TO delov. Hence Chrysippus and Posidonius spoke 
of the ovpavov as TO yye^oviKov TOV KOO^OD (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 (6 KOCT/JLOS ovaia 6eov) and that Diog. 
through a confusion of subject and predicate interpreted 
this as a definition of the essence of God. Another 
possibility is that Kooyio? is used in the same sense as in 
frag. 71. See also Stein, Psychologic n. 88. 

67. Stob. Eel. i. 19. 4, p. 166, 4, Z^coz/o?. TWV 8 ev 
Kocr/Aw TrdvTcov TU>V KCLT ISiav e^tv crvve<TTU)Ta>v ra 
Ttjv tj>opdv %eiv els TO TOV o\ov pecrov, 0^0/61)9 8e Kal 
avTov TOV Koa-fjiov Siojrep opdws \eyecr0ai, jrdvTa TO, f^eptj 

TOV KOCTfJiOV eVt TO ^JukdOV TOV KOCT/AOV TT)V (f)0pdv %eiV, 5 

fj.aXi(TTa 8e TCI (Bdpos e%ovTa. TavTcv S CLITIOV elvat, Kal 
r^9 TOV KoafAOV [Aovrjs ev dTreipw Kevw, Kal T?;? yrjs jrapa- 
ev TW KOCT^W Trepl TO TOVTOV KevTpov Ka9i8pv- 
iVo/cparftj?. ov Trayrty? 8e aw^a ftdpos e-^eiv, dX\" 
elvat, depa Kal irvp Telveadai 8e Kal raura TTW? 10 


eVt TO TJ/<? 0X7/9 a^aipas rov Koafiov fj,ecrov, rrjv Be 
(Tvcrrao iv TT/DO? rrjv 7repi<f>epeiav avrov TroietcrBai <f)v<rei 
yap dvaxfroira ravr elvai Bid TO fiijBevos ^ere^eiv 
7rapa7r\r)o-ia)<i Be TOUTOt<? o08 avrov $a<n rov 
15 /3apo<? eyeiv Sid TO TT)I> oXr/v airrou ava-racriv etc T6 

/9apo? eyovrwv <Troi%i(i)v elvai teal etc r<ov aftapaiv. rrjv 
8 oX?;!/ 7771^ /ta^ eatT^i/ pev fyeiv dpeo-xet, /3apo? ?rapa Be 
rrjv decnv 8td TO rr]V /jLea-rjv %ei,v ^atpav (Trpo? Be TO pevov 
elvai rrjv <f>opdv Tot? TotoiJTOt? cf(t)^acnv] eVt TOU rorrov 
20 rovrov neveiv. 

2. trvvfo-Tomov. This is the most general term, else 
where opposed to <rvvd7rre<r0ai, a-vve^ea-Bai etc. 

4. iravra rd (x^pri K.T.\. This centralising tendency is 
called by Diogenes (vil. 140) rr/v rwv ovpaviwv ?rpo? rd 
eTriyeia o-vfnrvotav teal (rvvroviav. In the Stoic doctrine 
of the microcosm and the macrocosm there is one dis 
crepancy, in that while the r/yefjiovitcov of the world is at 
its extreme periphery the ^ye^ovitcov 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. oi ivTs Si K.T.X. Cf. Stob. Eel. i. 14. 1 f. p. 142, 9, 
01 STOU/COI Bvo pev K rwv recradpwv (rroi-%eiwv Kovfya 
Trvp teal depa Bvo Be fiapea vBwp ical yrjv. KOV<J>OV ycip 
irrrdpxei fyvcrei,, o vevet dirb rov iBiov /u-ecrou, /3a/>i) Be TO ei<? 
peaov, 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. Tusc. I. 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 


lineis in caelestem locum subvolent, sive ipsa natura 
superiora adpetente, sive quod a gravioribus leviora natura 
repellantur. N. D. n. 116, 117. The Stoics were following 
Aristotle (ap. Stob. Eel. I. 19. 1, p. 163, 9, rrjs 8e Kara 
TOTTOV Kivrjo-ea) 1 ? rrjv /J-ev CLTTO TOV /jiecrov ^ivecrdai, rrjv Se 
e-Trl TO /jieaov, TJJV Se Trepl TO /jiecrov Trupo? fj,ev ovv KOI 
depo<? CLTTO TOV /jiecrov, 7779 Kal uSaro? eVl TO pecrov, TOV 
TrefjiTTTOv Trepl TO f^eaov.). 

10. Ttivfa-Qou. 8^ : So Diels for MSS. ylveo-0ai, a correc 
tion more probable for palaeographical reasons and in itself 
more attractive than Meineke s Ktvelcrdac. Cf. Nemes. 2. 
p. 29, TOVLKTJV elvai Klvrjcriv Trepl TO, aw^iaTa et? TO eVw 
apa Kal TO e%u> tcivovpevriv. Chrysipp. ap. Plut. Sto. Rep. 
44. 7. 1054 K, OVTW 8e TOV o\ov Teivofj,evov et? TOWTO Kal 
KivovfMevov K.T.\. The explanation is as follows : the 
natural motion of the elements is restrained and modified 
by the continual process of change (yiieTa/SoX??) 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 /3apo? 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 Stobasus, 
that at the e /cTrupcocrt? the world is resolved into the void 
(Eel. I. 18. 4 b. p. 160, 11 and Euseb. P. E. xv. 40): cf. ib. 
I. 21. 3 b, /j,iJTe av^ecrdaL 8e piJTe fieiovo-dai TOV Kocrpov 
Tot? Se pepecnv oVe /j,ev TrapeKTeLvecrdai Trpo? Tr\eiova TOTTOV 
cTe Be o-vo-Te\\ea-dai. This is not necessarily inconsistent 
with Prof. Mayor s explanation (on N. D. II. 116) that 
"the all-pervading aether, while it has a naturally ex- 


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

11. <rtaCpas : for the Stoic doctrine of the rotundity of 
the world, cf. Stob. Eel. 1. 15. 6 b ot STGH/COI a-(f)aipoei8rj TOV 
Koa-pov d-ire^vavTo, Diog. vii. 140, Cic. N. D. I. 24, hence 
rtimVoSe? Cic. Acad. II. 123. 

17. iropd Si TTIV et o-iv: in itself earth /3apo? e^et and 
so tends to move TT/JO<? TO pecrov, but owing to the accident 
of its position in the centre of the /cdoyio? its natural 
motion has no opportunity of becoming apparent. 

18. (w o^v. For the position of the earth cf. Diog. L. 
vii. 137, 155, Cic. N. D. I. 103. 

68. Stob. Eel. I. 15. 6 a p. 146, 21, T^rjvwv efyavice TO 
Trvp Kar evBetav tciveicrdat. 

Cf. Stob. Eel. I. 14. 1. f. p. 142, 12, TO pev Treptyeiov 
Kar ev6elav...KiveiTai. This is only true of Trvp 
, for the aether or Trvp re-^viKov has a circular 
motion in the same manner as the TrefiTrrov awfia of 
Aristotle. So Ar. de Caelo, I. 2. 9, TO re jap Trvp eV 
evOeias avw 

69. Stob. Eel. I. 18. l d p. 156, 27, Zi ivnv teal ot air 
avrov 6^-09 fiev TOV tcacr/iov fjitj^ev elvai KCVOV, e!~(i) 8 
(iTreipov. Siatyepeiv Be icevov, TOTTOV, ^wpav icai TO 
xevov elvai eprjplav (TW/JMTOS, TOV Se TOTTOV TO 
VTTO crw/AaTos, TTJV Be -%<apav TO etc pepovs e 

Cf. Diog. VII. 140, e j;<i)dev &e avTov 
elvai TO icevov aTreipov OTrep acrw^iaTov elvat 
&e TO olbv T KaTe%e<jdai VTTO a-wfuiTcov ov KaTe%6/j,evov ev 
Se T(O Koa-fAw fjujBev elvai KCVOV. Pint. plac. I. 18, ot STOU/OH 
fires fiev TOV Koa^ov ovSev elvai icevov, e%u>6ev 8 avTov 
aireipov. M. Aurel. X. 1. Diels adds Theodoret IV. 14, e 


rov Travros fj,T)Sev eivai Kevov, e/cro? oe avrov 
re teal (tTreipov. The Epicureans held that without the 
existence of void within the world motion was impossible 
(Lucr. i. 329 foil., Reid on Acad. I. 27, n. 125). The Stoics 
were unaffected by this argument in consequence of their 
doctrine of Kpaais Si o\wv, see further on frag. 50, supra. 
Aristotle denied the existence of void altogether either 
within or without the universe. 

Kevov, TOTTOV, \upoiv. The Stoics and the Epicureans 
were in virtual agreement in their definitions of these 
terms : see Sext. Emp. adv. Math. x. 2, 3. For a fuller 
exposition cf. Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Eel. I. 18. 4 1 p. 161, 8, 
who compares Kevov to an empty, TOTTO<? to a full, and x ( * ) P a 
to a partially filled vessel, cf. the similar views of Aristotle 
quoted by R. and P. 327. 

70. Themist. Phys. 40 Speng. II. 284, 10, (TO 
Ke-^wpia-f^evov Kal dOpoov eivai Ka& avro Trepie^ov TOV 
ovpavov, &k Trporepov fiev a/ovro TU>V ap^aiwv rives, per a 
be ravra oi rrepl r /ir)vwva rov Kirtea. Philopon. on Ar. 
Phys. IV. 6. p. 213 a 31, fyaal Se xai 701)9 rrepl Tiijvwva rov 
Ktrtea ovroo (scil. e^u> rov ovpavov eivai Kevov n KaO 
avro) So^d^eiv. 

TWV dpxai<ov nvis are probably the Pythagoreans who 
believed in an aireipov jrvev/jLa outside the universe, 
called Kevov by some of the authorities (Zeller, pre-So- 
cratics I. pp. 467, 8). 

71. Stob. Eel. I. 25. 5, p. 213, 15, Zijvwv rov rj\iov 
</>77crt Kal r?]v aeXr/vrjv /cat r<av d\\(DV aarpwv eKaarov 
eivai voepov Kal (frpovi/Jiov Trvpivov rrvpos re^vLKov. ovo 
yap yevrj 771*009, TO p,ev are^vov Kal uerd{3a\\ov et9 eavro 
rrjv rpo^rjv, TO Be re^viKov, av^r/riKov re Kal rrjprjriKov, 
olov ev Tot9 0fTOi9 eaTt Kal coot9, o Si] (pvcris ecrrt Kai 


f 7TVpO<? evdl TTJV rWV (UTTpfOV 

rov 8 rj\iov icai rrjv a~e\^vrjv Bvo (fropds <f>epecr6ai, rrjv fj.ev 
V7TO rov Kocr/j,ov d.Tr dvaro\rj<; et<> dvaro\i )v, rrjv 8 evavriav 
etc %o)Biov fiTd/3aivovTd<t. rd^ 8 e/c- 
Tovrciiv ^i^veadai, 8ta</>op<u?, tfXiov pkv Trepl ra? 
<rvv6Sov<;, 0-6X77^779 Be trepl ra? Travcre\rivov<; yi<yvea-6ai 8 
^V dp<j>oTep(i)v ra? e/cXei ^et? /cai /u,ei bi/<? /cat eXarroi;?. 
>Stob. Eel. I. 2(5. 1, p. 219, 12, Zqvw TI]V cre\rjv t]v e<f>ria-ev 
dcnpov voepov tcai fypovijjiov Trvpivov Se Trvpbs re^viKOV. 

mjpivov: 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. 20 and 30. 

8vo ^VTI : cf. Cleanth. frag. 30. 

<j>v<ris refers to <f>vrois and ^u%7 to %a>ois : cf. fr;ig. 

<j>op<is. The first movement is the diurnal revolution 
from east to west (from one rising to another) : the second 
is the orbit described Kara rov <pBuucbv KVK\OV, occupying 
either a year or a month, as the case may be. For the 
Zodiac cf. Diog. L. vn. 155, 150. 

vir6 TO! Koo-fxov, i.e. they move with the aether which 
revolves round the three lower strata of the world. These 
latter are themselves stationary, so that /eooyiou 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. Eel. I. 21. f. p. 184, 185; and cf. 
especially rov...KO(Tp,ov ro fjiev elvai Trepifyepofievov Trepl TO 
fjL<rov TO 8 VTTOfjievov 7Tpi<f)ep6/j,evov iikv rov aldepa VTTO- 
fjLevov Be rr)V yrjv KOI ra eV avrijs vypd tcai rov 
8e 7repi<j>ep6fj,evov avTaj eyKVK\io)<f aWepa elvat, ev &> ra 
darpa KadiBpvrat, rd T dir\avrj fcal rd 7r\ava>/jLeva, Oeia 


fyvcriv ovra KOL e/jb^rv^a real Sioitcovfjieva Kara TTJV 

u8iov: according to Diels, the ace. is "insolenter 
dictum" and requires the addition of et?, but it has been 
pointed out to me that the true explanation of the ace. 
is to be found in the fact that <aSt,ov is a measure of 
space = 30 p,o2pat, Hippol. Haer. v. 13: we should not 
therefore compare (jLeraftds ftiorov Eur. Hipp. 1292, which 
is in any case different. For the fact cf. Diog. vii. 144. 

TCIS 8 KXft\J/is : see infra frag. 73. 

(it^ovs Kal Narrows : " entire and partial." 

72. Cic. N. D. I. 36, idem (Zeno) astris hoc idem 
(i.e. vim divinam) tribuit turn annis, mensibus, annorum- 
<[iie 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, /^re av TrvpwSr) 
rivd avvecnpan-p.eva rrjv fjuaKapiorr/Ta KKTr)/j.eva Kara 

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, dcTTpwv 8e Brj Trepl Trdvrwv KOU creX^yr/? eviavrwv 
re Kal fMijvutv teal iraawv a>pwv Trepi, riva d\\ov \6yov 
epov/^ev 17 rov avrov rovrov, w? eVetS?} "^v-^rj /xev r/ -^rw%al 
7rdvTO)i> Tovrcav ainai efyavrjcrav, dyaOal Se Trdcrav dperrjv, 
deovs aura? elvai <f)r/<TO[j,ev, elre ev awpao iv evovacu, ^wa 
ovra, Kocr/jiovcri Trdvra ovpavov, eire OTTTJ re Kal OTTOK : 
In Sext. Math. IX. 184 an argument of Carneades is 


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: a~vv TO> droTTov elvai rrjv ^ev rj^epav 6eov elvat 
\eyeiv, rr/v Be eo> Kal rrjv fiea-rj^^piav Kal rrjv 

73. Diog. L. VII. 145, 6, e/cXetVetj/ Be rov /j,ev tf 
7ri7rpoadova-rj<? avrw ffe\^vr)<; Kara TO 7rpo<? T^a 
eo? Tii^vwv dvaypd^ei ev TO> Trepl o\ov. (^aiverai yap 
rat? <rvv68ois Kal aTroKpvTTTOvcra avrov /cat 
7rapa\\drrovcra. yvcopL^erai Be rovro Bid Xe/caj/7;? 
vBwp e ^oua?;?. rrjv Be creXr/vrjv /j,7ri7TTOvcrav 6t? TO TT;? 
7^9 aiciacrfjLa. 66ev Kal Tat? trava e\T/voi<; eK\etTTlv 
jjiovais, Kaijrep Kara Bidp-erpov lara^vrfv Kara fjLrjva TCO 
r)\i(p on Kara \oov co? TT^O? TOJ^ ij\iov Kivovftevr) 7rapa\- 
\drret ru> "ir\drei 17 ftopeiorepa rj voriwrepa yivofAevTj. 
6rav /LtefTOt TO TrXaTO? avrijs Kara rov r)\iaKov Kal rov 
Bid iieawv yevijrai elra 8ia/j,erpjjcrr] rov ij\tov rore 

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 (Eel. I. 25. 1 3 b 3 C ): the same explanation was 
also given by Anaxagoras (Zeller, pre-Socratics II. p. 361). 
The same account is given by the Stoic in Cic. N. D. II. 
103, luna...subiecta atque opposita soli radios eitis et 
lumen obscurat, turn ipsa incidens in umbram terrae, 
cum est e regione solis, interpositu interiectuque terrae 
repente deficit. 

rais <rvv68ois " at the period of conjunction." Cf. Cic. 
Rep. I. 25, Pericles... docuisse cives suos dicitur, id 
quod ipse ab Anaxagora, cuius auditor fuerat, exceperat, 
certo illud (eclipse of sun) tempore fieri et necessario, 


cum tota sc luna sub orbein solis subiecisset: itaque, etsi 
non omni intermenstruo, tamen id fieri non posse nisi 
certo intermenstruo tempore. Thuc. n. 28. 

v, cf. Stob. Eel. i. 2(5. 3, p. 221, 23, Xpvannro<; 

T>]v ae\r)VrjV T>/9 7*7? aVTr) 7Tl7rpO(T00V(T r)S Kdi 

et9 (Ttciav dvTrjs efMTrlTTTOvaav. 

Travo-tXTJvois : the fact was a matter of common observa 
tion: cf. Thuc. vii. 50, 77 /jLr/vrj K\L7rei eTvj^ave yap 
7rai>(7e\rjvo<; ovaa. 

Kara. Xooi): hence e\iKOi8r) in Diog. L. vii. 144, see 
Krische p. 889. 

Sid (Ato-wv scil. o>8tW. 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). 

74. Diog. L. vii. 153, 154, da-Tpa-n-^v 8e e^a^ru> 
ve<f>c5v TrapaTpifiopevcov rj pyyvvfjievcov VTTO Trvev^aro^, w? 

V TO) TTCpl 0\OV /3pOVTl]l> 8e TOV TOVTWV l}f6(f)Ol> K 

s rj pqgew Kepavvov St egatyiv <r<f>o8pciv pent 
s TTLTTTova-av eVt 7^9 v(pcov 

Cf. Chrysippus ap. Stob. Eel. I. 29. 1, p. 233, 9, da-rpa- 
TTTJV ega-friv ve(j)v eKTpifio^evwv r} pijyvvfjievwv VTTO irvev- 
/uaTo?, /3povrr/v 8 elvai TOV TOVTWV ^ro^)ov...orav 8e rj TOV 
TTvevpaTOs (popd <T(j)o8pOTepa yevrjTai teal 7rvpw8ij<f, Kepav 
vov aTTOTeXdadai. ib. p. 234, 1 where the same views are 
attributed to ol STOM/COI. Here again there is nothing 
specially characteristic of the Stoa: Epicurus, as was his 
wont, gave a number of possible explanations and amongst 
them these: see Diog. L. x. 100103, cf. Lucr. vi. 90 f. 
(thunder), 1 02 f. (lightning), 246 f. (thunderbolts). Lucan r. 
151, qualiter expressum veutis per nubila fulmen aetheris 
impulsi sonitu etc. Aristoph. Nub. 404 foil. 

H. P. 9 


75. Senec. Nat. Quaest. vil. 10. 1, Zenon noster in 
ilia sententia est: congruere iudicat stellas, et radios inter 
se committere: hac societate In minis 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. VII. 152, jco/uqra? Be Kal 
Trvyttivias Kal Xa/r7raS/a* Trvpd elvai vfavrwra, Tra^ou* 
depot ei? rov alOep^Btj rorrov dveve^Oevrot, cf. Stob. Eel. I. 
28. 1* p. 228, 6, BoTjtfof depot avrjupevov fyavraaiav. Sen. 
N. Q. vil. 21, placet ergo nostris cometas. . .denso aere 

76. Stob. Eel. I. 8. 40 e p. 104, 7, Zryi/aw 
ypovov elvai Kivijaewt Btdcrrrj/j.a, rovro Be Kal perpov 
xpinipiov ra^ou? re Kal /3pa8i/T/?TO9 O7ra)9 e^e 
Kara TOVTOV Be yiyvea-Bai rd ^ivo^eva Kal rd 
aTtavra Kal rd ovra elvai. Simplic. ad Cat. 80 a 4, 
rdov Be ^.rwiKwv Zt jvatv }iev rrdaTjs 7rX&5? Ktvr )(T(i><; 

Biuarrjaa rov XP VOV vai > wno g oes on to ^J ^^ 
Chrysippus limited the definition by adding the words 
rov Koa-fjLOV. Cf. Diog. vil. 141, en Be Kal rov xpovov 
d<T(afj.arov, idarrip.a ovra rijs rov KOO-/J.OV KIVJ J crews. 
Varro L. L. VI. 3 (quoted by Prof. Mayor on Cic. N. D. I. 
21.), tempus esse dicunt intervallum mundi motus. See 
also Zeller p. 198 and add Plotin. Ennead. in. 7. 6, Sext. 
Pyrrh. in. 136 f. 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. 223225. 

^Kewrra is added by Wachsm. and some word is clearly 
wanted: Posidonius however in reproducing the clause 
has OTTO)? e-%ei TO emvoov pevov (Stob. Eel. I. H. 42, p. 105, 
21). It seems better to remove the comma usually placed 


after /BpaBvrrjro^, as the genitives depend at least as 
much on OTTW? ^X ei as on /^erpov Kal Kpirtjpiov, cf. e.g. 
Thuc. II. 00. 4, &5? *x T( ^ ot "> e/cacTTo?. 

airavra must be corrupt, as some verb is required to 
balance ylveo-dai and elvai. Usener suggests diraprL^ecrOat,, 
which gives the required sense, cf. (iTraprLa-fjiov. Chrysipp. 
ap. Stob. Eel. I. 8. 42, p. 106, 17. Diels correction airav- 
-rav is less satisfactory in meaning. 

77. Censorinus de die Nat. xvn. 2, quare qui annos 
triginta saeculum ]>utarunt multum videntur errasse. hoc 
enim tempus genean vocari Heraclitus auctor est, <|uia 
orbis aetatis in eo sit spatio. orbem autem vocat aetatis 
dum natura ab sementi humana ad sementim revertitur. 
hoc quidem geneas tempus alii aliter deh nierunt. Hero- 
dicus annos quinque et viginti scribit, Zenon triginta. 

yenean : this substantially accords with the popular 
reckoning as recorded by Herod. II. 142, yeveai yap 
r/oet? <iv8p(av eKaTov ered ICTTL. 

Heroclitus : for the other authorities which attribute 
this statement to Heraclitus see Zeller pre-Socratics n. ]. 
S7, n. 4 and frags. 87 and 88 ed. By water. 

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

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

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

78. Stob. Eel. 1. 10. 1, p. 149, 8, V^vwv 6 ^.TWIKOS rd 

Trpwrovs elvai a-^Tj^aria/jLov^ T//9 v\r)s. The 


same words occur also in Pint. plac. I. 15. 5 and in Galen 
Hist. Phil. c. 10. XIX. 258 Kuhn. 

The above extracts appear to represent all that is 
known of the Stoic theories about colour: for the Epi 
curean view cf. Lucr. II. 795 foil. Stein, Erkeuntnistheorie 
p. 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. ill. 2. 9 (ill. 36), Diels p. 
592, ra<? Be air las TWV -rrpay^cnwv TTTJ pkv e<j> rjniv TT>) Be 
OIK e<f> riplv, rovrea-Ti, rd pei> TWV Trpaj^iTwv e</> ijpiv 
T(t Be OVK e<$> r^ilv. 

We have already seen that Zeno held *a0 elfiapfjievrjv 
TU -rrdvra ^veadai, 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. I. 18, teal avTol Be TO xad eipapplvijv elvai Travrtj 
BiefteftaioHravTO TrapaBeiy/J-ari ^p^ffd^evoi, TOIOVTW oTt 
uxnrep oxwaTOS edv $ e^pTrj^evos KVWV, edv pev @ov\r)Tai 
eTreo-Oat icai e\KeTai Kal e-rre-rai kictav, -rroiatv real TO avTJ~ov- 
aiov fieTa r^<? dvd^Kt]S olov T?;? el^apfj,evT)^ edv Be pi] 
@ov\r)Tai 7rea-6ai Trdinw dvayKaa6>]creTaf TO av-ro orj TTOV 
Kal e-rri TWI> dvdpwTrwV Kal M povXopevoi yap aKO\ovdelv 
dvayKao-6ij(rovTat -jrdvTWS els TO ire-rrpw^evov ei<re\0eiv. 
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 foil. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie 
pp. 328332, who ascribes to Cleanthes the introduction 
of the Stoic answer to the dilemma, has omitted to notice 


the present frag, and does an injustice to Zeno in 
asserting that the conflict between free will and necessity 
never presented itself to his mind. 

80. Censorinus de die Nat. iv. 10, Zenon Citicus, 
Stoicae sectae conditor, principium huinano generi ex novo 
inundo constitutum putavit, primosque homines ex solo 
adminiculo divini ignis, id est dei providentia, genitos. 

This doctrine is connected with that of the destructi- 
bility of the world : cf. frag. 5G, where however there 
is unfortunately a lacuna at the point where the origin of 
man is being discussed, otyfyovov in that passage must 
not be supposed to be at variance with this : the argu 
ment there is simply to show that the world cannot be 
without beginning, because facts show that mankind has 
not existed from eternity. Zeno is, therefore, distinctly 
opposed to a theory of progression; mankind was produced 
in the first instance, when the primary fire was in full 
sway, and was entirely formed out of the divine essence ; 
the inference must be that men have degenerated through 
the assimilation of coarser substances, and in this con 
nection we may perhaps point to Posidonius belief in the 
popular view of a golden age, when there was a complete 
supremacy of wise men. Senec. Ep. 90, 5. There is a 
parallel to this passage in Sext. Math. IX. 28 where the 
arguments given by various schools for the existence 
of gods are being recited, T&V 8e vewrepwv crrwuewv $>aai 
Tives TOI)? TTpwrovs KOI yr/yeveis rwv dvOpunrwv Kara TTO\V 
TWV vvv crvvecrei Siafapovras yeyovevai, w? Trdpeari /jia0elt> 
K T>/9 i]fjLwv 7rpo<? TGI)? dp^aiorepov^ teal ?;p&)a? Klvov<t, 
wajrep rt TreptrTov aladrfT^piov o"%6vras rr/v o^vrijTa 
T?;? Biavoias 7Ti(3e/3\rjKevat. rfj 6eia (f)vcrt, /cal vorja-ai 
riva? Sut-c/^ei? 6eu>v. Cf. Cic. Leg. I. 24. Tusc. in. 2, 
nunc parvulos mjbis dedit (natura) igniculos quos celeriter 


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

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

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 1. 10 279 b 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 I. pp. 439442 and especially 
p. 439 11. 2 and for the similar case of Xenophanes ib. 
p. 570: see also Newman on Ar. Pol. II. 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, 
Xenophaues, Parmenides, and Archelaus (Zeller 1. c. I. pp. 
255, 577, 001, II. p. 392), or on the earth, as Diogenes 
of Apollonia (ib. I. p. 296). Somewhat similar were the 
views of Empedocles and Anaxagoras (ib. II. pp. 160, 365). 

82. Schol. ad Plat. Alcib. I. p. 121 E Si? e-rrra 
Tore yap 6 reXeto? eV rnjiiv (i7ro<f>aiverai \6yos, <9 Apiffro- 
Kal 7jr]vwv Kal AXjc/MU&P 6 Ylvdayopeios fyaaiv. 

Cf. Stob. Eel. I. 48. 8, p. 317, 21, TrdXiv roivvv irepl TOV 
vov Kal 7racr(Jui> 


01 IJLCV "^.rwiKol \eyov(TL /AI) evdvs efA<f)V&0ai TOI> \oyov, 
varepov Se o-vvaOpoi^ecrdat, TTO TWV ala-6r ]creu>v /cal (fravra- 
CTLWV Trepl SeKareaaapa errj. Plut. plac. IV. 11, o Se ^0709 
tcaO uv 7rpocrayopev6fj,0a \oyiKol etc rwv 
avfj,7r\rjpova 0aL \eyerai Kara rrjv Trpcorrj 
(This points to some slight divergence in the school itself 
as to the exact period of life at which 6 ^0709 reXetourat : 
secus Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 116, but how can 
7r\r]povadai = "begin"?) Diog. VII. 55, fywvr]. ..CLTTO 
eKTre/jiTTO/jievr), o$9 o Aioyevr/s (frrjaiv r/ris (ITTO 
era>v reXeiovrai. The mind at birth is a tabula rasa : 
reason lies in the application of 77^0X^6^9 and ei>voiai, 
which are themselves ultimately founded on external 
impressions, cf. Cleanth. fr. 37 dvpaOev elaicpivecrdaL rov 
i ovv. The present fragment has been generally overlooked. 
A\K(iawv: this statement is not referred to in Zeller s 
account of Alcmaeori (pre-Socr. I. pp. 521 526). For 
Aristotle cf. Pol. I. 13 1260 a 14. 

83. Euseb. P. E. xv. 20, 2. Ar. Did. fr. phys. 39, 
Diels p. 470, Trepl Be ^rv^rj<^ K^eavdrj^ p,ev ra Tirjixovos 

7rpo9 (TvyKpicnv rijv irpo^ rou9 

yap e^fyavicrai, on al ^rw^ai dva0vfAi,a)fj,evai voepai ael 
yivovrai etKacrev avras rot9 7TOTa/aoi9 \eyu>v OVTCOS TTOTCI- 
rolati avrolcrtv e/n/Batvovcriv erepa Kal erepa voara 
Kal ^rv^al 8e (ITTO TU>V vypwv a 
cnv [j,ev ovv o/ioi&)9 TCO Hpa/cXetVw rrjv 
i Zrjvcov, (iLcrdrjTifCTJv 8e avrrjv elvai Bid TOVTO 
s \eyei, on rvTrovaOai re Bvvarai, [TO neyedos~\ TO /iepo9 TO 
i]yov/jLevov avrrjs (ITTO rwv ovrwv Kal vTrap^ovrutv Ota rwv 
Kal TrapaBe^eaOai r9 TVirwcreis ravra yap 


iiv : the MSS. have aia-drja-tv 77 but the correction 
(made by Wellmann p. 475 and Zeller p. 212) is rendered 
certain by the parallel passage in ps-Plut. vit. horn. c. 127, 
rrjv ^fv^rjv 01 ^.rcaiKol opl^ovrat Trvevpa <ru/i</>ue<> Kal 
dvaBvjUturiV al&QrjriKrjv dva7rrop,evrjv (ITTO rwv ev trw/nart 

avaev|ia<riv : cf. Ar. de Anim. I. 2. 16. 405 a 25, ical 
H/3aXetro<? Be TTJV dpyyv elvai <f)r)(ri "^rv^v, eiTrep TTJV 
dvaOvfjLLacnv, e r*<? raXXa avviaTrjaiv, i.e. Aristotle identi 
fies the dva0v/j,ia(ri<; (" fiery process " Wallace) with TrOp. 
Zeno adopts the word as an apt description of the warm 
breath of which the soul is composed. 

vopa. The soul s rational power is constantly renewed 
by the fiery process, because it is fed by the emanations 
from the Trepte-^ov according to Heraclitus or from the 
moist parts of the body, i.e. the blood, according to Zeno. 
In this way Heraclitus explained his famous saying avrj 
ty v X r l 0"0(o>TaT77 (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 erepat del. 

ffKao-cv avrds: the principle of fravra pel applies 
no less to the soul than to the world in general : 
thus Arist. l.c. continues /cat dtrui^arutrarov re Kal peov 
dei TO Be Kcvov^evov Kivovpevw ycyvoocrKea-Oai ev Ktvr)<ret 
B* elvai rd ovra xaKeivos cuero Kal oi TroXXot. The soul is 
voepd because it is in flux. For Trora/ioicrt cf. Plat. Crat. 
402 A, HpaXe6T09...7roTa/zoi) por) djreiKa^wv rd ovra 
\eyet eo<? 819 e? rov ainov Trora^ov OVK av e^^alrj^. R and 

Ko...dvaevpnivrai. Bywater Heracl. fr. 42 ascribes these 
words to Zeno and not to Heraclitus : the importance of 
this will appear presently. 


ofiouos : i.e. in the same sense as Heraclitus : the latter 
however would not have called the soul ala-Byrucy, dis 
tinguishing as he did between sensation and knowledge : 
(iv6p(aTcwv o(f)0a\/j,ol Kal wra fiap/3<ipovs 
frag. 11 Sch. and Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, 
p. 1 2 : hence Sextus infers that Heraclitus held rrjv aia-ffycriv 
elvai (Math. VII. 126). 

o-eai : cf. frag. 7, and for airo TWV OVTWV K.T.\. frag. 

84. Rufus Ephes. de part, horn. p. 44 ed. Clinch, 
Oep^aaiav 8e teal irvev/jia Yirjvwv TO avro eivai (f)r)criv. 

This passage has been discovered by Stein, Psych, n. 
81 to whose remarks the reader is referred. 

85. Diog. L. VII. 157, Ztjvwv Se 6 KiTievs... 7ri>eviJ.a 
evdepfjiov elvai riijv "^rv^v. rovrto yap r//ji(i<; eivac /J,TTVO- 
ou9, Kal VTTO rovrov Kivel&Oai. 

Cf. Alex. Aphr. de an. p. 26, 16 ed. Bruns, 01 a-jrb 
TIJS STO<> 7TJ>evfjia avrtjv Xeyovres eli>ai av^K.eip.e 
IK. re TTu/30? Kal depos. Sext. Pyrrh. II. 70, eVtt ovv 
Trvev/uia Kal TO ^yefAoviKov i] \.7rTOfj,pea-Tep6i> TI 
K.T.\. If any of the authorities seem to assert that 
Heraclitus denned the soul as Trvevpa, this is doubtless 
either due to Stoic influence or is a mere gloss on ava- 
Qv^lacns : see the reff. in Zeller pre-Socratics II. p. SO 
where however the reference to Sext. Math. ix. 363 (leg. 
361) is a mistake, as the passage is dealing with rd TWV 
OVTWV (TToi^ela. Not dissimilar is the Epicurean defini 
tion of the soul : Diog. L. X. 63, 77 ^^^77 a-w^d eVrt XCTTTO- 
^tepe? Trap o\ov TO adpoicr/jia TrapecrTrapfMevov TrpocrefM- 
0tpe cTTaToz/ 8e TrvevfiaTL depp-ov Tiva Kpdcriv e-^ovTL. Sext. 
Emp. Math. IX. 71, XCTTTO /^e pei? yap ovaai (al -^rv^al) Kal 
ovy TITTOV 7rvp(a?)ei<; r; TrvevfAaTwSeis et? roi)? dvw /j,d\\ov 


viro TOVTOV Kivicr0ai : il ^- 9 1 

86. Cic. Acad. I. .89, (Zeno) statuebat igncm esse 
ipsam naturam quae quidque gigneret et mentem atque 
sensus. Fin. IV. 12, cum autem quaereretur res admodum 
difticilis, num quinta quaedam natura videretur csse ex 
qua ratio et intellegentia oriretur, in quo ctiam de animis 
cuius generis essent quaereretur, Zeno id dixit esse ignem. 
Tusc. I. 19, Zenoni Stoico animus ignis videtur. 

See also Stein, Psychologic p. 101. 

87. Galen plac. Hippocr. et Plat. II. 8 (v. 283 Kiihn), 
el Be ye eTroiro (Aioyevr)? 6 Ba/3tAamo9) K\edv8ei teal 

Kal Tirjvwvi, rpe^ecrOai fiev e at/zaro? 0?;cra<Ti 
ovatav 5 avT^ V7rdp%eiv TO Trvevfia. 
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. Horn. c. 2 p. 28 (quoted by Zeller, pre- 
Socratics II. p. 80) Hpa/cXetro? Se rrjv rov Travros "^v^r/it 
dvaQv/j,iaaii> etc rwv vypwv, who however goes on expressly 
to distinguish the individual soul from the world-soul and 
states that the former is composed Vo rr;9 e /cro? (dvaOv- 
fjudaew^}. 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 n. 2. 
With regard to this passage, Wachsmuth (Comm. I. p. 10) 
suggests that there is here a confusion between Zeno of 
Citium and Zeno of Tarsus, but there is no necessity 


to adopt this supposition: that Zcno held the soul to 
br fed from the internal moisture of the body, which must 
be the blood, is clear from frag. 83 even if we leave out of 
account the frag, next following. 

88. Longinus ap. Euseb. P. E. XV. 21, Zrjvcovt fj,ev 
Kal K\edv0ei vefMear/creie rt? av SIAOU CO? ovrw crtfroSpa 

Trepl avri^ (scil. ^L% /?) 8ia\e%6ela-L /cal 
ravTov d/jL(pw rov crrepeov a/ /xaro? eivat, rrjv "^v%rjv 

(prjaacri. Theodoret, gr. aff. cur. p. 934 Migne, 
<ydp (JArivwv KOI K\edv0rjs) rov crrepeov at/zoro? 
eivac rrjv tyv^v dvadv^lauiv. 

In both cases the MSS. have crcw/noro? for al/iaro?, but 
the words are often confused and crw/LtaTo? 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 (v. 33, vi. 15). arepeov at/iaro? 
is rather an odd expression, but was probably introduced 
by way of contrast to "^fv-^rj as \7nofjiepecrTarov 7rvevfj,a. 
For d /jL(j)fi} Viger suggested d^olv, but the word is some 
times indeclinable. 

89. Tertullian do Anima, c. 5, denique Zeno con- 
sit um spiritum definiens anirnam hoc modo instruit, "quo" 
inquit "digresso animal ernoritur, corpus est : consito 
autem spiritu digresso animal emoritur: ergo consitus 
sjiiritus corpus est: consitus autem spiritus anima est: 
ergo coi pus est anima." Macrob. Somn. Sc. I. 14. 19, 
Zenon (dixit animam) concretum corpori spiritum. 

Cf. Chrysipp. ap. Nem. Nat. Horn. c. 2, p. 33, o 
crn ^typicryu-o? ^rv xfis aTto crwfAaTOS ov8tv Se 
d,7ro <To >/iaro9 ^wpl^erai ov&e yap 

rov trw/aaro?. ado/aa dpa Y) ~^~v^. See Zeller, Stoics 


p. 211, where further illustrations to this and the following 
frag, will be found in the notes, concretum or consitum 
corpori spirituni = Chrys. ap. Galen. Hipp, et Plat. III. 1 
(V. 287 Kiihn), rj ^v^t] Trvevfid eart, crv/j.<f)VTOV r^lv 
cTwe^es Travrl T&> crca^arc StrJKov (quoted by Zeller). For 
cjuo digresso etc. cf. Cic. Tusc. I. 18, sunt qui discessum 
animi a corpore putent esse mortem. Plat. Phaed. 64 c, 
a pa /LIT) a\\o TI (r/yovfj,e6a rov ddvarov elvai) f/ rrjv rtj<f 

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

It is possible that this passage and the extract from 
Tertullian (fr. 89) are derived from a common original, 
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, TJV Be 
ovaiav avrijs (tyv%fjs) oi /Ltei> (icrwp.aTOv e<j>acrav w? 

01 Be crdojjLara Kivtiv to? /jrjvwv real ol e avrov. 
yap elvai Tavrrjv inrevorjcrav KOI OVTOI. 

<rw|iaTa KIVCIV. So MS. A, but B has creo/tara crir/Kivovv 
and the Latin version of Nicolaus has "corpus simul 
secum movens." Wachsm. conj. <r&)fta crwp-ara a^a KLVOVV. 
Usener : crw/j-a rd crca^ara KLVOVV. Diels : au>^a avro 
KIVOVV sive e^ eavrov Kivov^ievov. Coll. Gal. def. Mod. 30 
Kara 8e rov<t STOH/COI)<? croiifia XeTrro/iepe? e^ eavrov KIV- 
ovpevov. Whatever may be the right reading, crwpa 
certainly seems wanted as well as eroj/iara to point the 
contrast with Plato. For the doctrine of the soul re- 


garded as the principle of movement, see the summary of 
the views of previous philosophers given by Arist. de An. 
I. 2. 26, 403 b 27404 b 7. That the soul was self- 
moving as being the principle of motion, was a dis 
tinctively Platonic dogma, Phaedr. 245 C, prj d\\o n 
elvai TO avro eavro KLVOVV r) ^rv^t iv. Legg. 895 A, -^rv^v 
...rrjv ^vvafjievriv avrrjv Kivelv Kivricnv, where the argument 
is made use of to prove the immortality of the soul. 

For the Stoics cf. Sext. Math. ix. 102, TTCKJ^ yap 
<ucrew? Kal "fyvxrjs )} Karap-^i] rrjs Kivrjcrea)^ yiveaOai So/eel 
afro rjye/jLoviKov, and the references collected by Stein, 
Psych, nn. 217 and 221 to which add M. Aurel. v. 19. 
The theory of rovos throws an entirely new light on this, 
as on many other Stoic doctrines, which were originally 
adopted on independent grounds. 

92. Stob. Eel. I. 49. 33, p. 367, IS, d\\d ^ev ol ye 
(ITTO \pvcri7nrov Kal Yjrjvwvos (f)i\6cro(f)0i Kal Trdvres oaoi 
a-wfJia Tt}v ^rv^v voovcri, rs" f^-ev BwdfAeis w? ev TO) 
V7TOKeifJ,va> TTOtor^Ta? o-u/j,/3i/3d^oucTi, Ttjv St ^rv^rjv w? 
ovcriav Trpov7roKei{A}>rjv rat? Svva/Aecrt TiOeacriv, GK & dfj,<f)o- 
repcov TOVTWV avvderov (frvcriv e dvo^oiwv avvdyovcnv. 

TroioT^Tas...ovo-iav. 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. I. 24 foil. 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. vu. 234, (paa-l 
yap ^rv^rjv \eyea~6ai 8f^<w? TO re crvve^ov rrjv 6\rfv crvy- 
Kal Kar ISi av TO rjye^iovLKOv. 

VT]v : for the significance of this expression, 
see Stein, Erkenntriistheorie, p. 310. 


93. N ernes. de Nat. Horn. p. 96, Zijvcov 8e 6 

f>r]criv elvai Ti]v ^rv^rjv, Siaipwv avTrjv is 
rjyffjLoviKov Kal etV ra<? TTVT cuV6tycret< Kal ei? TO 
TIKOV KOI TO (TTreppaTiKov. Stub. Eel. I. 49. 34, p. 369, 6, 
ol GLTTO /iijvwvos OKTapepr) TI]V ^fv-^t}^ Biaoo^d^ovcrt 
<rjv> ra? 8vvdfj,ei<f elvai TrXeioya?, tocnrep ev TW 
evvrrap-^ovaMV fyavraaias, criry/caTa^ecrea)?, opjj.ij<;, \6yov. 

We must distinguish tho pepr) ^v^f)*; from the Su- 
vdpets, for they are not identical, as the passage in 
Stoba-us shows. Sext. Emp. Math. vn. 237, Kal yap > ; 
opurj Kal r] crv<yKaT(i6cri<i Kal 77 /caraX^^tv erepotwcret? 
elcrl TOV rjyepovtKov. In spite of this eightfold division 
of local extension (see Zeller, p. 214 n. 2) the Stoics 
held the unity of the soul as an essence : see especially 
Stein, Psych, pp. 119, 122, who suggests "soul-functions" 
as a more suitable expression for the Stoics than " parts 
of the soul". 

T<J ^Y*H LOVIK< > V - "We have clear evidence here that the 
term r/yepoviKov is Zenonian. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie 
nn. 219 and G93, is inconsistent on this point, in the 
former passage attributing its introduction to Cleanthes 
and in the latter to Zeno. It is very possible that 
Cleanthes first spoke of TO rjyep.oviKov TOV KOCT^OV, which 
with him was the sun, in furtherance of his view of man 
as a microcosm. 

94. Tertullian de Anima, c. 14, dividitur autem in 
partes nunc in duas a Platone, nunc 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 ifyepoviKov, the <P(I)VIJTIKOV, and the (nreppaTiKov, 
and that the five organs of sense were regarded by Zeno 
as parts of the body, though the centre of sense resides 


in the r/<ye/j,ovitc6v. On the other hand Weygoklt, 1. c. 
p. 30, and Heinze in Bnrsian s Jahresb. I. p. 191, think 
Nemesius more trustworthy than Tertullian, and certainly 
the better opinion is that Zeno taught the eightfold 
division (see Stein s full discussion, Psych, pp. 158 160). 
It is just possible that the triple division mentioned by 
Tertullian is (1) TO ijyepoviKov, (2) the five senses, and 
(3) the voice and the reproductive organism, and that, if 
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 \6yov 
evpv, dvfAoet&es, and eTriOvftrjTiKov, we should have had 
some difficulty in reconciling the two. Hirzel, II. p. 154, 
155 appears to be unaware of the passage in Nemesius: 
he accepts the evidence of Tertullian, but explains it as 
an ethical rather than a physical distinction. 

95. Epiphan. adv. Haeres. in. 2. 9 (in. 36), Zrjvcav v 
Ktrtei)? 6 STOHKO? e(f>i. ..Seiv. ..e^eiv TO Oelov ev fjiovw rw 
voj fid\\ov Be Oeov rjyeia Oai. rov vovv. eari, yap dOdva- 

TOS eXeye Se KCU fjierd ^wpiap-ov rov aui^aro^ 

KCti ercaXei rrjv fyv"%i]V Tro\v%poviov TrvevfJia, ov /JDJV Be 
a(f)6aprov 8S cA,ou e\eyev avr^v elvai. eKBcnravdrai yap 
VTTO rov TTO\\OV ^povov et? TO d<paves, w? tprjcri. (Jf. 
August, contra Acad. in. 17, 3S, quamobrem cum Zeno 
sua ([iiadain de mundo et maxime de anima, propter 
quam vera philosophia vigilat, sententia delectaretur, 
dicens earn esse rnortalem, nee quidquam esse praeter 
hunc sensibilem mundum, nihilque in eo agi nisi corpore ; 
nam et deum ipsum ignem putabat. 

TO 0iov: cf. Cleanth. frag. 21, Stein, Psychol. p. 97. 

n-oXvxpoviov : the language of this extract recalls the 
objection of Cebes in the Phaedo to Socrates proof of 


the immortality of the soul p. 87 A 88 B, recapitulated 
by Socrates p. 95 B E, cf. especially ro Be a7ro<paivetv on 
io-yvpbv ri evriv rj tyv xf) KOL OeoeiBes Kal r)v en trporepov 
TTOIV 7;/itt9 dv6p(i)Trovs yevecrdai ovBev Kd)\veiv (f>r)<; irdvra 
ravra firjvveiv dQavacriav fiev /JLTJ, ori Be TroKv^povLov re 
eo-nv ^rvxn> * a * tf v 7rov Tporepov d^-^avov oaov xpovov 
Kal ySei re tcai zrrparrev TTO\\CL drra K.r.X. For the 
limited future existence which the Stoics allowed to the 
soul see Zeller, p. 218 foil, and add Schol. ad Lucaa ix. 1, 
alii (animas) solidas quidem, postquam exierint de corpore, 
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. 

TOV o-oi|iaTos: some such words as -^povov nvd Siapevetv 
have fallen out here. 

ov...a4>6apTov: this is not inconsistent with dOdvaros 
above. The soul never perishes entirely, although event 
ually it passes into a higher power, Diog. vir. 156. 
^rvyr}v fjierd Odvarov eTTipevetv, (frOaprrjv Be elvai. Stein 
Psychol. p. 145. 

96. Themist. dc An. G8 a Speng. II. p. 30, 24, a\V 
ofttB? 2,rivo)vi ftev i/TTO\i7reraL Tt? ajroXoyia KKpdcr0ai 
0X771; Si" 8\ov rov o-w/iaro? faiatcovn r-qv -tywxfiv Kal rrjv 
e^oBov avrijs dvev <}>dopds rov o~wyKpip,aros prj -rroiovvri. 

The passage of Aristotle is de An. I. 3 6, p. 406 a 
30 65, where he says that one of the objections to 
the view that the soul Ktvei ro o-wfia 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. el Be TOUT fVSe ^erat, ihroir dv ro dvi<r- 
raffBai rd reBvewra roov tywv. We might therefore 


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

Themistius says that Zeuo is rescued from this dilemma 
by the doctrine of /cpacrt? 01 u\wv, 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. Iambi, ap. 
Stob. Eel. I. 49. 33, p. 3G8, 6, read oi)? 8e pia 

TO) crwfJiaTi. Sext. Math. IX. 72, ouoe yap Trporepov TO 
<7u>^a StaKpaTriTiKov i]v avrdov (TOOV -fyvxwv) aXX, avral 
TU> <T(t)/j,aTi (rvp-^ovf)^ r/crav aiTLai K.T.\. The best illus 
tration however is Sext. Math. vn. 23-i, <$>a<rl yap ^v^v 
\eyea~0ai Si^oj?, TO re crvve^ov TI]V o\r)v avytcpicriv /tal 
Kar ISlav TO rjyefjbovtKov. oTav yap eirrwfjLev crvvecrTavai, 
TOV av6pw7Tov etc ^rv^rjf Kal crftj/zaro?, rj TOV OavaTov etvai 
yjapicr^ov "fyvvfis O.TCO crco/Ltaro?, t Stw? Ka\ovfjiev TO lyye- 
JJLOVIKOV, the meaning of which passage seems to be that 
only the r^ye^oviKov and not the whole soul is said to 
depart, inasmuch as the corpse must possess avveKTiKr/ 
ovva/jw; in the form of eft<?, for otherwise it will be 
altogether non-existent. (See Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, 
p. 105 foil.) But there is no inconsistency with the 
present passage, since the change of TO avve%ov from 
~^ V ")C1 t < > i s <j)0opd TOV o-vy/cpl/uiaTos (for <f)6opd 
}(6dvaTos see on frag. 95). 

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

Cf. Tertull. de anima c. 54, quos quidem miror quod 
imprudentes animas circa terrain prosternant cum illas 
H. P. 10 


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 Eel. 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 TroXtreia, which Zeno, as we are told 
by Plutarch, directed against the Platonic school (see 
Hirzel, Untersuchungen n. 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 
Clean th. frag. 41. The general view of the school was 
that the soul after death ascends to the upper aether and 
is preserved there among the stars to which it is akin : 
Sext. Math. ix. 73, 74, Cic. Tusc. I. 42, 43. 

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


elpr]/j,evov, o KOI (f)a)vrjv Ka\ovcnv, ecrri rrvevp,a 

drro rov rfyefioviKov f^e^pt (fxipvyyo^ Kal y\a>rr / r]s KOI rwv 

oltcelcov opydvwv. 

Cf. on Cleanth. fra. 43. 

99. Eustath. in II. 2 506, p. 1158, 37, 

"Q/jir/pos Kavravda elrcwv rov Kara T^r/vwva Trjs 
opov 7rpov7re/3a\ev elrrovra " (pa)V7) eariv drjp rre- 

Cf. Diog. L. VII. 55, ecrrt 8e (frcovr) drjp 
This frag, is taken from Wachsmuth, Comm. I. 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 vrrb op^rj^, while the voice of man is evapOpos 
KOI CLTTO Biavolas eKTre^Tro^evrj, Diog. 1. c. See also the 
passages quoted by Stein, Psychol. n. 248. 

Cf. Plato s definition, Tim. p. 67 B., oX&>? ph ovv 
<f>a>vr/v ddofiev rr/v 81 wrwv VTT depo<? ey/ce<f)a\ov re Kal 
al fj,aros fJ-^pt, ^v-^fj^ 7r\r)>yr)v SiaStSo/j,evr)v. Ar. de An. 
II. 8 discusses -v^o^o?, dico^, and fywvrj. Sound is formed 
orav V7rofjiVT) TrXT/Yei? 6 drip Kal firj 8ia%vdfj ( 3, p. 419 
b 21): voice is then defined as A^O^O? ris e/^-^rv-^ov 
( 9, p. 420 b. 5) and is minutely described. 

100. Galen, Hipp, et Plat. plac. n. 5, v. p. 241, K, 
o 6avp,a^o[Jievos vrro rwv arwiKutv \6yo<; 6 Z^fty^o?... 
X l y a P &$ " 4>o>vrj Sid <f>dpvyyos %wpei. el 8e r/v TTO 
roO ejKecf)d\ov xwpovaa, OVK dv Bid (pdpvyyos eywpei. 
oOev 8e \6yo<f, Kal (frwvr) eKeWev ^wpel. \6yos 8e d-rro 
diavoias *%o)pel, COCTT OVK ev rw eyKe<$d\w earlv r) Suivoia." 

It is tempting to suggest that ^0709 and fyiavr) 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 : odev e /c7re/u,7reTat rj (^wvr j, Kal 77 evapOpos OVKOVV 



Kdi r) (TTj^aivovcra evapdpos (pwvrj efceWev TOVTO oe 
KOI Xoyos <ipa trceWev eKTre /iTrerat Wev /cat rj 
Galen s comment is that Zeno has omitted some of the 
necessary d^iu>ij.ara, while Diogenes has too many. He 
also points out the fallacy underlying the preposition 
UTTO, which is ambiguous ; either e or VTTO 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 : 
66ev 6 \6yos tKTrefjiTreTai, e /cet Bei KOI TOV oia\oyio-/j,ov 
yiyveo~6ai, TOVTCCTTIV, ev eKtlvw TU> fiopiw. TOVTO O (prjcrofiev 
elvai i/reOSo?, ov yap ei Tt /cara irpoaipecriv K 
K7TfJ.7reTai KaT eicelvo TO poptov Sei/cvvTai TTJV 
rt ip^eiv, Kaddjrep ovBe TO ovpov ovSe TO TTTV\OV 
ov&e rj Kopv^a ovSe TO diroTraTrip,a. 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 
(Cic. N. D. I. 41), laboured to prove that the birth of 
Athene from the head of Zeus in no way conflicted with 
their view that the breast was the seat of reason (Zeller, 
p. 364). See generally Stein, Psychol. p. 137. 

101. Galen, Hipp, et Plat. plac. n. 5, v. p. 247, 
Kiihn, KOI TOVTO f3ov\Tai ye 7^vwv Kal Xpi;crt7r7ro<? iip,a 
TW (T&eTepa) yopta TCO.VT\ oiaoi8o<rdai TTJV etc TOV Trpoa"- 
Trecro/ TO? e^wdev eyyei opevrjv TW fiopica Kivr)<ri,v et? TT/V 
{ip-yr}if T^? "^f~v)(T]^, iv atcrdrjTai TO fyjjov. 

This passage occurs in the course of the discussion 
as to <f>d)vr) and bu ivoia as a parenthetical argument, and 
Galen objects that there is no perceptible interval of time 
between the impression and the sensation. Cf. Pint. plac. 
iv. 23. 1, impressions are made on the organ of sense but 


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

102. Galen, Hipp, et Plat. plac. nr. 5, v. p. 322, 
Ku hn, o re Zrjvu>v vrpo? TOI)? eTri\a/A/3avo/Aevov<>, on Trdvra 
rd fyrovpeva ei<? TO arofjua (pepei, efpr/crev " dX)C ov rravra 
tcaraTriverai ", ovre T??? Karcnrocrews d\\u>s civ olfceiorepov 
?;? ovre TV? KarajBdaews rwv prjOevrcov, el /u,/} 
rov Owpaica TO I jyefAoviKov rjpJlv riv, et? o ravra 
irdvra (frepeTai. 

<|>pi, so I. Miiller for MSS. (frepeiv. This obscure passage 
was formerly punctuated as though Zeno s words extended 
from dX\" ov Trdvra to (peperai, but, if the context is read, 
it is at once plain that I. Miiller is right in putting the 
inverted commas after KarairiveTai. Chrysippus, who is 
being quoted, is aiming to prove the location of the 7776- 
fjioviK.ov in the breast by the usage of ordinary speech : 
e.g. dvaftaiveLV rov dvfjiov Karcnrivei.v rr]v r %o\r)v cnra- 
pdy/^ara Kararriveo-6aL KaraTTiwv ro pr)0ei> dTrr)\6ev: 
then comes this reference to Zeno, and the conclusion 
ovre (freperai is the inference drawn by Chrysippus from 
the facts stated. Still, it is by no means clear what was 
the force of the objection made to Zeno or of his rejoinder. 
Miiller translates : Et Zeno reprehendentibus, quod 
omnia, quae in quaestionem vocarentur, in ore gestaret, 
at, inquit, non ornnia a me devorantur, apparently 
making Zeno the subject of (pepei, but the Latin is in 
other respects hardly less obscure than the Greek. 
Wachsmuth, who has the old punctuation, interprets 
Trdvra rd fyrov/jieva as " affectus " and suggests (freperai 
for fyepeiv, but what meaning he deduces from the passage 
I do not understand. In this perplexity, the following 
explanation is suggested. Trdvra rd ^jrov^eva is the 


subject of <f>epei and the objectors say: all objects of 
investigation are ultimately concerned with the mouth. 
For <e pet see L. and S. ol 7ri\afi^av6^evot are the 
Epicureans, who denied the existence of any intermediate 
vrtpaivoptvov (\fKTov) between o-rjfiaivov (rfxovri) and 
fvyxfivov (TO eVro? viroKei^evov}, cf. Sext. Math. vm. 11 
foil, and esp. 13, ol Se ire pi rov t Earueovpov...^talvovrak... 
Trepl rfj <f>a)i>f) TO dXr/des tcai vJreOSo? aaro\tiirei>v. Diog. L. 
X. 33, TTO.V ouv Trpayfjict OVOfJMTi TCO -rrpcardx; eTTLTerayfj-eva) 
evapyes eVrt. But this nominalism went hand in hand 
with the most absolute credence in every sense-perception. 
To the Stoic, however, not every fyavraaia is evapyrjs, but 
only that which is Kara\r)7TTiKrj. Hence Zeno s reply : 
however this may be, we can t swallow everything, xara- 
TTiverat is substituted for /cara\a/j.^dvTat, just as <rr6fj.a 
takes the place of <f>a)vij. Some confirmation of this guess 
may be found in the recurrence of TO fyrovnevov, r)Tctv, 
etc. in Epicurean texts (Diog. x. 33, 37, 38, Sext. Math. 
XL 21). If Muller s punctuation is adopted, this fragment 
ought rather to be numbered with the diro^OeyfjiaTa, but, 
in a matter of so much uncertainty, I have not ventured 
to remove it from the physical fragments, among which it 
is placed by Wachsmuth. 

ovrc K.T.X.. It would not be correct to speak of " swallow 
ing " or " imbibing " another s words, in any other case 
unless (a\Xo><? el p.ij) the dominant part of the soul were 
in the breast. For Karajroa-ewi cf. Ar. Ach. 484 (of 
Dicaearchus encouraging his #17x09 to persevere in taking 
the part of the Lacedaemonians) eo-T^/ca? ; OVK et Kara- 

103. Cic. de Divin. II. 119, contrahi autem animuin 
Zeno et quasi labi putat atque concidere et ipsum esse 


Elsewhere sleep is said to be caused by a slackening 
of the tension in the Trvevpa. Diog. L. VII. 158, rov 8e 
VTTVOV yiveadai K\vofiei OV rov ala diyri/cov rovov jrepl TO 
r/yefMOviicov. Plut. plac. V. 23. 4, H\drwv ol ^rwi/col rov 
jj,ev vrrvov yivecrdai avecret, rov alcrOr^rtKov rrvevp^aros, ou 
/car nva-^aXacrfjLOv, KaOdrcep errl rrjs 7?}?, fyepo^evov 8e <w? 
eVt TO r/yefMoviKov ^ecrofypvov. For Plato s theory of sleep 
cf. Tim. p. 45 D, E, and for the Stoics, Stein, Psychol. 
p. 141. 

104. Stob. Flor. Monac. 198, 6 avros (Zijvcov) tyy 
Trjv p-ev opaatv drro rov depos \ap*ftdvei,v ro <pu>s, r>]v 8e 
^ITV^JV arro rwv /j,a0r)[jt,dr(i)v. 

For the Stoic theory of vision see Zeller, p. 221, 11. 4. 
Stein, Psych, n. 241. In Plut, plac. IV. 21, opacr^ is 
defined as rrvevpa oiareivov diro r;y6[j,oviKov /te^pi? 
o^)9a\iJLu>v. The views of the ancient philosophers before 
Aristotle will be found concisely stated in Grote s Plato, 
III. 265 n., and for Aristotle see Grote s Aristotle, p. 465. 

105. Varro de L. L. v. 59, sive, ut Zenon Citieus, 
animalium sernen 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 = Trvevfia 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 <f)vcri<; is warmer than ^v^n, which seems question 

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


Diels p. 470, TO 8e (nrepfjta <f>r)a-lv 6 Ttr/vwv elvat o 
/j.e6trjcrtv av6p(07ros Trvevfia p,e9 vypov, ^~v^rj<; pepos Kal 
(ZTrocnracriAa Kal rov crTrep/iaro? rov rwv rrpoyovwv Kepacrjia 
Kal fjLtyjjta rwv rfc tyv^s pepwv <rvve\r)\vdo<; e%ov yap 
TOV<? \6yovs ru> 0X0) TOI)? avrovs rovro, orav a<f)0fj et? rr/v 
r* a\\ov TrvevpaTos, /u,e/3o<? "^fX^? 
rov 0yj\o<i Kpv(f>dei> re (f)Vi Kivovpcvov Kal dvappnri- 
v VTT eKeivov 7rpo(r\d[j,/3avov del [ft?] TO vypov Kal 
eg avrov. Theodoret freely copies Euseb. gr. 
aff. cur. V. 25, Tt-qvwv 8e o K.tnev<f 6 TJj<rSe TTJS aipecreo)^ 
roidSe irepl ^f^ ;? &odeii> TOI)? ot/ceiou? 
rov yap roi ilvdpwTTLVov dopov vypov 
rveuuaros T^? ^v^f)<f e<j)r)(rev elvat 
re Ka aTrocnracr^a Kal rov riav Trpoyovcov crvrep/iaTO? 
Kfpacrfj,a re Kal p.lyp,a e airdvrwv rutv T^ ^fv-^rj<t ftopfcv 
<rvva6poicr6ev. Plut. de cohib. Ira, 15, Kalroi (Kaddrrep 6 
e\eye TO cnrep/j-a a-v^^ty/j,a Kal Kepacrfia r<av rfjf 
8vva/j,eo)v V7rdp%eiv drrecrrracrp,evov} ovra) K.r.\. 
ib. plac. V. 4. 1, Z^ywi/ (TO o-Trep/na) crwp-a "fyvyj} * y a p 
elvat drrofTrraa-p.a. Same in Galen, hist. phil. 31. XIX. 
. 322 K.,cf. Galen, opot iarp. 94 (XIX. 370 K.), (nrepfia ea-rlv 
dvdpdiirov o fjuedtTjcriv uvOpwrros iieQ* vypov ifrv)(t]S p,epov^ 
dpTrayfjta Kal crvp,p*typa rov ru>v Trpoyovtav yevovs, olov 
re avro ijv Kal avro av^/jLi-^Bev dTreKptdi). Diog. VII. 158, 
dvdpcaTrov Be cnrepfia, o ^le^tijcrtv 6 livdpwrros, /J>e0 J vypov 
(TvyKipvaa-dat (\eyova-tv) rots T^<? ^f^;^9 pepevt Kara 
fAiypov rov rwv rrpoyovutv \oyov. 

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. 
o-uXX^Wv : conceptum, cf. Sext. Math. v. 55 foil. 
<j>vi : is productive (not intrans.). So perhaps in the 
well known line: Horn. II. VI. 149, <y<? dvSpaJv yever), 1} 
fj.ev <pvei t] S d7ro\riyei. Otherwise, as re is not required 


by the sense, we might suggest that re^uet arose from 
<f>verai, cf. Diog. L. VII. 159, rwv et<? rrjv yrjv icara- 
ftaXXoaei tov cnrep/jidTwv a iraXaLwOevra OVK en cj>vTai. 
Cleanth. fr. 24, axnrep yap evos TWOS rd peptj irdvra 
4>vTai K.r.X. Dials suggests tcepaa-Oev re (frvei and Usener 

ds after del is perhaps due to dittography. 

107. Pint. plac. V. 5. 2, Zrjvcov (T? #7/A,fca<?) V\T)V 
ev vypav TTpoieaOai, oiovel diro rijs (rvyyvjJ,va<rLa<i iBpwras, 
ov fjujv (T7rep/jiaTi,K6i>. The same in Galen, hist. phil. c. -SI, 
xix. 322 K., cf. Diog. L. vn. 159, TO Se r/}? ^Xet a? 
(cT7re/3/u,a) dyovov aTTO^aivovrai arovov re yap eivai icai 
oXiyov feed vSaratSes, o5? o Sc^atpo? ^TJCTIV. 
v. Diels, p. 418 reads (nreppa 

108. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. IX. 133, Zijvav 8e 

r/pwra XoyoV rov<; deovs evXoyws dv Ti? 
TOI)? 8e /J,r) ovras OVK. av Tt? evX6ya>s TifAwr) ei(Ti,v apa 

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. 133136). Theon, Progymn. 12, p. 251 (Spengel, 
Rhet. gr. p. 126, 16) gives proofs of the existence of the 
gods, among which is : e?}< Se ori /cat rot? cro^ot? So/cet, 
olov YlXdrcovi, Apto-roreXet, Yirjvwvt,. 

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. Trepl eva-e/3. p. 84 Gomp., TraVre? ovv 01 d-rro 
ZT JVWVOS, ei Kal ajreXeiTrov TO 8ai[i6viov...ei>a 6eov Xeyov- 
cnv eivai,. 


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. n. 
45 distinctly denies that the derivative gods are human 
in shape, cf. Philod. Trepl eva-e/3. p. 85 G., dvdpwiroei&el*; 
yap etcetvoi ov vofiiov<riv aXXa aepa<? tcai Trvevfiara /cat 
aWepas. For Antisthenes cf. Philod. -rrepl ei)o-e/3. p. 73 G., 
Trap \vTLcr6evei 8 ev fikv ru> (^VCTLKU) Xeyerai TO Kara 
elvai TroXXoi)? Oeovs, Kara 8e <f)vaiv eva. 

110. Cic. N. D. I. 36, Cum vero Hesiodi Oeoyovtav 
interpretatur, tollit omnino usitatas perceptasque cogniti- 
ones deorum ; neque enim lovem neque lunonem neque 
Vestam neque quemquam qui ita appelletur in deorum 
habet numero sed rebus inanimis atque mutis per quandam 
significationem haec docet tributa nomina. 

Hesiodi 0<ryov(av : Introd. p. 31. 

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

lunonem = air : see infra and cf. Cic. N. D. II. 66 ; she is 
identified with air as being the wife of luppiter (= aether), 
and air is regarded as feminine, quod nihil est eo mollius. 
Similarly "Hprj =air in Empedocles (R. and P. 131). drjp 
is also one of Plato s derivations, who says the order of 


the letters has been reversed, 71/01?;? 8 dv el 
\eyoii TO -7-179 "Hpa? ovopa, Crat. p. 404 C. 

Vestam: cf. X. D. II. 67. " Wahrscheinlich leitete 
Zenon ihren Namen von eardvaL ab mid 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. Trepl 6eu>v 8ia- 
7&>7r;?, Hercul. vol. VI. Tab. I. 1, <av> 8a <o> Zrjvwv 
efcaaTov <TOV Oeov (iTTeipa KaTe%eiv> 8rj rd eve <rr/pia>... 
<OVK d>v a-vvaKo<\ov8ei el fjir/ rt> rwv ai(av<u>v> KCU 
a<%t,> ovrai ^>ia<(^>9i,a-d^e<vo^> co? fMe<rd ra>? Beds. 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. 
I. p. 9 n. 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. 
c. iv. col. I. c. xi. and col. II. c. xii. 

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

lovem : it is clear that Zeus was identified with the 


aether or pure fiery essence, of which caelum is here an 
equivalent, as in Pacuvius ap. Cic. N. D. II. 91, hoc quod 
memoro nostri caelum Grai perhibent aethera. Cf. Chrysipp. 
ap. Philod. Trepl eva-e/3. p. 79 Gomp.,"H<atcrToi/ Be Trvp 
elvai...&ia Be rov aWepa. Diog. L. VII. 147 God is the 
creator of the universe, and, as it were, the father of all ; 
his various manifestations are described by different names. 
Ata /lev yap <f>acri oY ov rd rrdvra Zrjva Be Ka\ovai trap" 

O<TOV rov fjv arrto? ecrriv, TJ Bid rov /}i Ke-^(aprjKev 

"Hpav Be Kara rrjv et? depa Kal "Htfraiarov Kara rrjv et? 
TO re^vLKov Trvp Kal YlocreiSdova Kara rrjv ei9 TO vypov. 
The extract from Minuc. Felix lends some slight weight 
to Krische s theory (p. 398) that the 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. D. II. 63, 64) belongs to Zeno. 

ignem. Diogenes rrvp re-^viKov is, according to Krische, 
a blunder: Hephaestus is elsewhere identified with earthly 
fire (r>}v <f>\6ya in Pint, 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. ix. 18 (after citing Euhemerus 
and Prodicus), Kal Bid rovro rov fj.kv dprov ^.Tj^rpav 
vopicrBijvai rov Be ulvov kiovvcrov ro Be vBwp TIoo eiBwva 
ro Be 7rvp"Y[<f)aio-rov Kal ijBrj ra>v ev-^prfcrrovvrutv exacrrov. 

112. Valer. Probus in Virg. Eel. VI. 31, p. 21, 14 Keil : 
sunt qui siugulis elementis principia adsignaverunt... 
Thales Milesius magister eius (Anaximenis) aquam. Hanc 
quidem Thaletis opinionem ab Hesiodo putant manare 
qui dixerit : tfroi f*ev Trpwn&ra %ao<? yever , avrdp eTreira. 
Nam Zenon Citieus sic interpretatur aquam ^009 ap- 


pellatum UTTO rov -^eeaBai, quamquam eandem opinionem 
ab Homero possumus intellegere quod ait Q/ceavov re 
6ewv yevecriv KOA, [AijTepa YrjOvv. This frag, is cited by 
Wachsmuth Comm. I. p. 11, who adds "eadem originatio 
est apud Achill. Tat., Isag. in Arat. phaen. 8. 125 e. Petav." 

The lines of Hesiod, Theog. 116 foil, are often quoted, 
e.g. by Plato, Symp. 178 B, to prove the antiquity of love, 
and by Ar. Met. I. 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 
in. 1. 298 b. 25, and Krische suggests (p. 395) that the 
application which is put upon it by him in the latter 
place prevented Zeno from identifying %ao<? with his o\vn 
Trpwrrj v\ij as might have been expected. Cf. also the 
anecdote related of Epicurus in Sext. Math. x. 18, 19. 

oiiro TOV \tta-6ai. Krische 1. 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 : ol/j,at 8e KCU 

113. Schol. on Apoll. Rhod. I. 498, teal Zijvcov Be TO 
Trap HcrtoSft) %09 vSwp elvai (frrjcriv, ou avvc^dvovTOS 
i\vv yiveaOai, ^9 TTiyyvvfMevrjc; i] yfj a-repe/jLViourat,. rplrov 
$6 "Epcora yeyovevai tcaO HcrtoSo^, iva TO Trvp TrapacrTijcrr) 
Trvpw&ecrTepov yap 7raOo<? "Epw?. 

This passage shows clearly that Zeno must have re 
jected or been ignorant of 11. 118 and 119 of the Theog. 
see Krische, p. 390. 

xaos. See on frag. 112 and add Cornut. c. 17, p. 85 
Osann, eaTL 8e %o? /*ev TO Trpo r?;? Sio./coo-yu,?;cre&>9 76- 
vopevov vypov, OTTO r^9 ^u<jeo>9 our&)9 (javo^aa^kvov. 

IXvv : similar views with regard to the formation of the 


earth are attributed to Xenophanes. Hippolyt. 1. 14, ravra 
Be fyr)ai yeveffBai ore Trdvra eTrr)\(t)drjo-av TrdXai TOV Be 
TOTTOV ev TO> 7rr)\y ^rjpavdtjvat /e.r.X., and to Anaxagoras 
(Zeller, pre-Socratics II. p. 356). Hence Zeno himself 
spoke of earth as vTroardd/jLT} TravTw, frag. 114. 

irvpa>86rrtpov : a familiar comparison. Find. P. IV. 219 
Medea ev <f>pa<ri tcatofj-evav. Virg. Aen. iv. G8, uritur in- 
felix Dido. Georg. in. 244, in furias ignemque ruunt : 
amor omnibus idem. Cf. Schol. ad Hes. Theog. 120, r?8 
epos...evioi Be irvp TO TrvpwBes yap r^? 7ri0vpia<>. 

The authorities give two further Stoic explanations of 
Hesiod s Eros ; (1) with a reference to Xo^yo? o-7repfj,aTtKos. 
Cornut. c. 17, p. 86 Osann, 6 Be "E/xo? o~vv avrols yeyovevai 
77 opfj,r) eTrl TO yevvav. (2) Fire regarded as 
rj &vvafjus: Schol. ad Hes. Theog. 120, ra rpla 
la eiTTcav TO 8 \eyei TO Trvp ojrep Sat/zoyw 
<f>r)<ri, avvapno^eiv <yup Kal avvdyeiv Kal evovv 
On the passage generally cf. Flach, Glossen u. Scholien, 
p. 37, who attributes to Zeno the words in the Schol. on 
1. 115, ex Be TOV vBaTos eyei OVTO Ta o-TOi^eia, yij Acara 
crvvifyffiv, dr/p KUTO, dvdBoaiv TO Be XeTrro/iepe? TOV 
aepo? yeyove Trvp, TO, Be oprj KaTa e!;oo~TpaKicrfiov T/?? 7?}?, 
which appear also in Cornut. c. 17, p. 84 Osann. This is 
likely enough, but there is no direct evidence. The same 
remark applies to the derivation of Kpovos from ^po^o? 
id. p. 44 (cf. Cic. N. D. II. 64). Flach refers many other 
definitions to Zeno : 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 

114. Schol. on Hes. Theog. 117, Zr/vwv Be 6 ST&KACO<? 
etc TOV vypov Trjv VTroo~Tddp,riv yrjv yeyevvfja-Qai (f)t](riv, 
Be "Eporra yeyoi evat, Wev o eVcryo/ueix)? d 


crrtvo?. Cf. Diog. L. VII. 137, vTToo rdBf^rjv 8e rcdvrwv 
rrjv yijv, fJ.ecnjv drrdvrwv ovcrav. 

Wachsmuth connects this with frag. 113. For the 
general sense cf. frag. 52. The word vrcoardB^ri is Platonic 
(Phaed. 109 c). 

115. Schol. on Hes. Theog. 134 Gaisf. Gr. Poet. Min. 
II. 482, o r /iii]vwv (frr/crl rot)? Tirdvas bid Travros elpfjcrBai 
T crrot^ela rov KOO-/AOV. Kotoy yap \eyei rrjv Troior rjra 
Kara rpOTrr/v AioXiKrjv rov TT Trpos ro K, Kpelov Se ro 
j3aai\LKov teal r/yefAovi/cov, "TTrepiova Se rr/v (ivu> KLvrjaiv 
drru rov vrrepavw levai. eVet 8e (friHTiv e%et rcdvra rd 
/3<ipr] d(f)ie/j,ei>a Triirreiv dvwOev ro roiovrov eZSos" \drcerov 

iroiOTTjTa, mig. 53. iravTO. TO. pap^. frag. 6/. pdpt] . . . avwOcv . . . 

I8os: so Flacb, p. 223 after Schoemann. The old reading 
was Kovcf)a...ava).../jL6pos. Osann suggested iTrreiv for 
TriTrreiv. Cf. Cornut. c. 17, p. 91 Osann, ovrws VTTO raiv 
rra\aiu>v Ia7rero9 p.ev wvofj^dcrOrf 6 \6yos /ca6 ov (pcowrjriKd 
rd ^wa eyevero Kal 0X09 6 1^0^)0? drrere\ecr6ri, Idfaros rt9 
wv id yap rj fywvr]. Koto? 8e Ka9 ov jroid riva rd ovra 
ecrrt ra> ydp K 7ro\\a%ov ol "Iw^e? dvrl rov TT ^pwvrat,... 
Kpto? 8e leaf? ov rd fiev dpx ei Ka ^ Svvao-revei, rwv irpay- 
jjudrwv rd 8 vrcoreraicraL Kal Svvacrrevrai evrevdev rd^a 
Kal rov ev rot? 7roiyu,i/tot9 Kpiov TT poo~ay opevo^evov. "Trrep- 
iwv Be Kaff ov virepdva) rLva erepwv TrepLTropeverat,. See 
Flach, Glossen u. Scholien zur Hes. Th. p. 42 foil. 

116. Schol. on Hes. Theog. 139, Gaisf. Gr. Poet. Min. 
II. 484. KzJ/cX&)7ra?. Zrjvcov Se r jrd\iv (f)vo~iKwrepws rd<? 
eyKVK\iovs (popds elprjcrdai (f>r)o-i Sto Kal rd ovb^ara 
rovrcov e^eOero I^povrrjv re Kal "SrepoTrriv "Apyrjv 8e 
fyacn rov dpyrjra Kepavvov TratSa? >e (pTjatv 
rov Ovpavov erreiS)} ndvra ravra rd rcddr) rrepl 


TOV ovpavov ett...e XP V( P ^" P TlVi 
7repi(}>opai TOV Trvpos IK rov depos]. 

Flach s arrangement of the text is quite different : he 
inserts the words ev XP V V <= P O(? after tipq<r0eU faia-iv, 
altering $op<? into Trepifopds. See his interpretation, 

p. 50. 

tyKVK\ovs 4>op<is. The band of aether which formed the 
external stratum of the world revolved in a circle round 
it. Stob. Eel. I. 14. l f , p. 142, 13, TO aWepiov (</>^) Trepi- 
<f>epa)<> teivetTai. In the matter of the revolving aether 
Zeno followed Aristotle, whose quinta essentia is described 
by Sextus as TO KVKXofoprjriKov <ra)/j,a (Pyrrh. II. 31). 
Aristotle himself approves of the Platonic derivation from 
del Oetv and censures Anaxagoras for referring it to aiOco 
(de Caelo I. 2) ; see also Krische, p. 306 foil. 

Bpovr^v T Kcd Zrtpoinv. Wachsmuth says: "immo 
/Bpovrrjv re real arepoTrrjv," but surely Hesiod is the 
subject to ee#eTo as to facri below. ridea-Qai ovo^a is 
used regularly of the father: e.g. Isae. II. 36, rcS e>6> 
TratStft) ede/jirjv TO ovopa TO Kii>ov. 

Iv \p6vu K.T.X. 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. Trepi euo-e/3. col. 8, T<OL>5 Se opdovs 
<\6y>ov<> KOI aTTOvSaias Siadeaets Atocr/coupou?. 

From the position of these words in the fragments of 
Philodemus -rrepl et)a-e$ei a<? it appears probable that they 
belong to Zeno: see on frag. 40. Gomperz however p. 74 
puts a full stop after Sm^e o-et?. 

6 P 9ovs Xofovs: see Introd. p. 8, and for the ethical 
importance of the expression Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, 
p. 259 foil. Cic. Tusc. iv. 34, ipsa virtus brevissime recta 
ratio dici potest. 


s arc opposed to efei? as "permanent forms 
admitting neither of increase nor diminution," Zeller, 


p. 103. Thus intellectual goods are divided into (1) 
virtues = 8ta#ecret?, (2) a-TrovSaias eei<? such as pavnicr), 
and (3) e7raiVT(i<; evepyetas = ovre efei<? ovre 8ta#e<rei<?, 
such as $povi[jLevp,a, Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5, e and f, Diog. vir. 
98, Cleanth. frag. 51, cf. Sext. Pyrrh. in. 243, avrr) yap 

Kal avroOev (fraivofAevrj /i^re e/c rwv epywv avrfjs rcoiva 
yap ecrn ravra Kal T<av ISiwrcov. For the distinction 
between eft? and SiddevLS in Aristotle see Wallace on de 
An. n. 5. 417 b. 15. 

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

118. Diog. L. VII. 149, Kal ^v Kal pavriKrjv v^ea- 
rdvai TTuadv (fraa iv, el Kal rrpovoiav eivai Kal avrrjv Kai 
reyvrji airo&aivovcn Sid rwas e/3a<ret9, w? ^trfcn Zrjvwv. 

fjiavriKii. The Stoic definition was as follows: Stob. 
Eel. II. 7. 5b 12, p. G7, 16, eivai Se rrjv /AavTiKJjv <j>aa-iv 
OewpijTiKrjv arj/Aeiwv TWV airo dewv 17 ^aifiovwv 
Se dvOpw-TTLvov ftlov a-vvreivovrwv. Substantially the 
same in Sext. Math. IX. 132. 

el KCU. Others read 77 /cat, reversing the argument : in 
fact, the Stoics seem to have appealed to the truth of 
^av-riKi ] 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. 

ri\vt\v. They prove that it is an art by the truth of 
certain results, cf. Cic. de Divin. I. 23, Quid? quaeris, 
Carneades, cur haec ita fiant aut qua arte perspici possint ? 
H. P. 11 


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), 
cf. X. D. ii. 12. 


119. Diog. L. vii. 84, TO Be jdtKov fiepos rfc <f>i\o- 
(ro<t>ia<; BiatpoiHTiv eis re rov Trepl 6p/j,ij<; KOI ei? rov Trepl 
dyaffwv Kal KCLKWV rorrov Kal ei? rov Trepl Tra0<Sv teal Trepl 
aperfjs fcal Trepl re\ov<t irepi re rrjs Trpwrtjs rigta? Kal rwv 
Trpdgewv Kal Trepl riav KadrjKovrwv rrporpo-jrutv re Kal 
(nrorpoirwv Kal ovrw S VTroSiatpovaiv 01 rrepl ~S.pv<rnnrov 
Kal Ap^eSij/jLov Kal Zijvtova rov Tap<rea K.r.X. 6 fiev yap 
Kmei)? Zitjvwv Kal 6 KXedvOifi ax; dv dp^aiorepoi <ieXe<7- 
repov Trepl rwv Trpay^drwv 8ie\a/3ov. 

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

120. Diog. L. VII. 87, BiOTrep Trpduros 6 Zrjvcav ev r<a 
Trepl dvffpunrov <f>v<rea)<s re\o<? elire TO o/jLoXoyovpevax; ry 
(frvcrei tjv, otrep earl Kar* dperijv ffv ayei yap Trpos 
ravrtjv 77/u.a? ?; <f>vcri<;. Lactant. Inst. III. 7, Zenonis 
(summum bonum) cum natura congruenter vivere. id. 
in. 8, audiamus igitur Zenonem ; nam is interdum vir- 
tutem somniat. Summum, inquit, est bonum cum natura 
consentanee vivere. Stob. Eel. u. 7. (J a , p. 7.5, 11, TO Be 
re\o<f o /j,ev Ziijvcov ovra)<f dTreBayxe TO 0/0,0X070 y/ieyw? 
%ijv rovro B ecrn Ka0* eva \6yov Kal avp^xavov ^r/v, &5v 
rwv /Lta^o/LteVco? ^wvrwv KaKo&aLpovovvrwv. Plut. Comm. 
Xot. 23, 1, ov-)(l Kal Zi jvwv rovrovs (scil. Peripatetics) 
r}Ko\oi/0ij(Tv VTTonOenevois aroi-^ela rrjs evBaifj,ovias rrjv 
(f>v(Tiv Kal TO Kara ^vaiv. (Cf. Cic. Fin. IV. 72, videsne 
igitur Zenonem tuum cum Aristone verbis consistere, 


re dissidere ; cum Aristotele et illis re consentire, verbis 
discrepare? ib. v. SS.) Clem. Alex. Strom. II. 21. 129, 
p. 496 P., 179 S., 7rd\iv & av Zi^vcov fiev 6 ST&KKO? reXo? 
r/yeirat TO /car dperfjv tfv, cf. Cic. Fin. IV. 14, hunc ipsum 
Zenonis aiunt esse finem, declarantem illud, quod a to 
dictum est, convenienter naturae vivere (where see Madv.): 
ib. ill. 21, suminum...bonum, cjuod cum positum sit in eo, 
quod ofjio\o^iav Stoici, nos appellemus convenientiam, etc. 
There is a conflict of testimony here between Diog. 
and Stob. as to whether Cleanthes added the words rfj 
(f)va-et to Zeno 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 AVellmann, 1. c. pp. 446 44S, 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. 22<S, 2, does not decide the point. Hirzel, II. 
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. Pint, fragm. de an. ed. Wyttenb. v 2 . p. 899, xal 

...01 (17TO 

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 01 (ITTO Tirjvwvos, 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. Pint. Sto. Rep. 12, 5, 
p. 1038 C, a\X OVT alad rjai^ eariv ot<> /i^Sei aladijTov, 



ovr otVeiWt? olf fjujBev oixeiov" S) yap oi/eeiWi? cii<rdi)<Ti? 
rov oitceiov tcai dvri\,ipw elvai. 

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

8iK<u<xrvvT) is one of the four cardinal virtues (see infra. 
frag. 134) and is founded on oiWWts in the same sense 
as dperr) generally. The natural impulse of every animal 
is towards self-preservation, so that it seeks after those 
things which are Kara <f>va-iv and shuns those which are 
Trapd <j>va-iv. Diog. L. vu. 85 ; Cic. Fin. HI. 16 ; Alex. 
Aphr. do an. p. 150, 28 ed. Bruns. ot pev ovv Srtut/cot ov 
Trainee Be Xeyovtriv Trpwrov oltcelov elvai TO %a>ov avrda 
GKacnov yap %wov evOvs yevopevov jrpof re avro oifcei- 
ova-0ai, Kal 8rj ical rov avdpwrrov oi 8e \apieGrepov 
Sorcovvres \eyeiv avrtav Kal fj,a\\ov SiapOpovv Trept rovSe 
<f>aatv Trpot rrjv <rv<7rao-iv teal rr/prja-tv (a/ceiwcrdai evQvs 
yevopevow; 77^9 rrjv rjpwv avrwv. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 13, 
p. 1LS, 11 (where the doctrine is attributed to the Peri 
patetics). For ra rrputra Kara <f>v(riv, see Madv. de Fiiu 
Exc. iv. and especially p. 818 3 , " 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, earn omnino a prima conciliation dirimerent, 
bonumque constituerent, quod expeteretur, a primis, quae 
nppeterentur, genere seiunctum." 

123. Epict. diss. I. 20. 14, Kairot ai/rd? fuv 6 irpo^- 
yovpevos \6yos rtav <f>i\o(r6<jx0v \iav ecnlv 0X4709. et 
0e\ei<; yvtovai, dvayvudt, rd Zijva)vo<;, Kal o-^ref ri yap 
e%t fjiaKpov eiTrelv on, reXo? eo-n TO Z-rreaQai 0eois, ovvia 
B dyadov xpfjvis oia Bel fyavracnwv ; 


"leading doctrine": not in the 
technical sense to be noticed on frag. 169. 

girctrftai. Ocois is only another way of expressing 6fio\oyia 
-rfj <pva-t. This passage furnishes an argument in support 
o f the view taken in the Introd. p. 1 4 as to the character 
of Zeno s (frvcris. 

4>avrao-iwv. Zeno went back to the Socratic doctrine 
that virtue is knowledge, so that it is not surprising to 
rind 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 op/Mai in the soul, cf. 
Stob. Eel. II. 7. 9, p. <SG. 17, TO Se KIVOVV njv oppfjv ovSev 
erepov elvat \e<yovaiv XX 77 fyavraa-iav opprjrtKrjv rov 
KaO^Kovro^ avrodev. Virtue consists in the proper direction 
of these opfial in accordance with the dictates of op6b<s 
\6yos: hence Diog. L. VII. 86 says of reason : Te^m?? 
yap OUTO? emylyverat r^ opufa cf. Cleanth. frag. 66. 
The doctiine depends on the freedom of the assent : supra, 
frag. 19, cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 9 h , p. <SS, 1, vrao-a? 8e ra? 
op^ds (TVjKaradeae^ elvai, ra? Se Trpa/cri/ca? xal TO KtvrjTi- 
KOV 7repc6 X etv, and see Windelband in Midler s Handbuch, 
v. 295. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 166, 167, points 
out that the ethical application of fyavraaiai is very often 
mentioned by the younger Stoics, although not unknown 
in the earlier period, cf. Diog. VII. 48, ware et? dtcoa^iav 
KOI eUaioTTjra Tpe-rreadai TOI)? dyvfivtiffTOV^t e^ovra^; TO? 

124. Stob. Eel. n. 7. (5 e , p. 77, 20, r^v 8e 
6 r /,r)vo)v wpivaro rov rporrov rovroV ev&aipovia B e 
evpoia /Siou. Sext. Math. XI. 30, evSaipovia Se eo-Tti/, cw? 
01 re rrepl rov Y^vwva Kal Kteavdyv teal XpvaiTnrov arre- 
8o<rav, evpaa &iov. Cf. Cleanth. frag. 74, Diog. VII. M.S. 


M. Aurel. II. 5, v. 9, x. 6. cvSeupovia is not identical with 
re Xo?, which rather consists in TO Tvydv rrjt 

125. Diog. VII. 127, avrdp/cT} elvat dpertjv 7rpo s - 
ev8atfj.oviav, tcadd <f>r)<ri Ztjixav. August, contra Acad. 
in. 7. 1G, clamat Zenon et tota ilia portions tumultuatur 
hominem natum ad riihil esse aliud quam honestatem ; 
ipsani suo splendore in se animos ducere, nullo prorsns 
oommodo extrinsecus posito et quasi lenocinante mercede ; 
voluptatemque illam Epicuri solis inter se pecoribus esse 
communem ; in quorum societatem et hominem et sapi- 
enteni tendere nefas esse. August, de trin. xin. 5. 8. 
diximtis ibi quosque posuisse beatam vitam quod eos 
maxime delectavit...ut virtus Zenonem. Cic. Fin. v. 79, a 
Zenone hoc magnifies tamquam ex oraculo editur : " virtus 
ad bene vivendum seipsa contenta est." Cf. Acad. I. 7, 35 ; 
II. 134, 135 ; Paradox, n. This position was borrowed 
from the Cynics, Introd. p. 19. 

126. Cic. Fin. iv. 47, errare Zenonem, qui nulla in re 
nisi in virtute aut vitio propensionem ne minimi quidem 
moment! 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. GO, Zeno autem quod suam quod propriam 
speciem habeat cum appe tend urn sit, id soluni bonum 
appellat, beatam autem vitam earn 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 irpwra Kara <f>v(riv 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 priina constitutio, which excludes virtue, with that 



of Antiochus which includes it, (2) that throughout the 
Fourth Book he attributes far more importance to the 
doctrine of otWaxm than the Stoics themselves did 
(pp. 820, 821), and (3) that he fails to notice the Stoic 
distinction between TO rv^^ veiv r( * v Kar "- $vaiv and 
TO rrdvra iroieiv eveica rov rv^iv^v avrwv (Stob. Ecl. 
IT. 7. 6", p. 76. 13 ; Plut. Sto. Rep. c. 26 ; Cic. Fin. IT. 22). 
On the subject in general see Zeller, p. 278 foil. For the 
nature of the -rrpwra Kara <j>ixriv cf. Stob. Ecl. II. 7. 3 , 
p. 47. 12 f.; ib. 7 tt , p. 80. 9 ; 7 1 , p. 82. 12. The position of 
Zeno will have to be considered with reference to the 
7Tpor)yfj,eva, where the same inconsistency appears. 

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

127. Cic. Tusc. II. 29, Nihil est, inquit (Zeno), maluin, 
nisi quod turpe atque vitiosum est...Numquam qiudquam, 
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, difficile 
perpessu, triste, durum, ib. V. 27, si Stoicus Zeno diceret 
qui, nisi quod turpe esset, nihil malum duceret. Cf. ib. 

II. 15. 

In Stob. Ecl. II. 7. 5", p. 58, 14, we read dvd\oyoi> 6e 
T v KUKWV rd pev elvai icaicias, rd 8 ov, and the examples 
given of the latter class are \v-rrri and (/>o/3o<>. 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 djadd and xaicd, we find 
7/801/7) classed among the dStdtfropa, cf. Diog. L. VII. 103, 
and this agrees with the statement in the present passage 
that dolor is an drcorrpo-n^^evov. So dolor is classed in 
Cic. Fin. III. 51, where Zeno s name appears in the 


immediate context, and it is to be observed that the 
corresponding Trporjypevov in that passage is not ^ovr, 
but " doloris vactiitas." The entire subject of the relation 
which the emotions bear to the classification of dyaBd 
and fcatcd 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 Kaicd. 

128. Stob. Eel. ii. 7. 5 a , p. 57, 18, ravr elvai 
<ov oa-a ovo-ias ^ere^ei, rwv $ ovrwv rd pkv dyaOd. ra 
8e tcatcd, rd 8e d8id<f>opa. dyaBd nev rd roiavra <j>pov7)<riv, 
a-wQpoa-vv-nv, 8iKaioa-vvr}v, dv8peiav ical rrdv o evnv dpert) 
V ^ 7 ^X OV a pT*is Kaicd 8e rd roiavra d^poa-vi tjv, dtco- 
\avtav, dbiKiav, 8ei\iav, Kal rrdv o eari reatcia rj ^re^ov 
KCIKW d8id<f>opa 8e rd roiavra fa^v 6dvarov, 86^ai> 
aSogiav, TTOVOV i?8ovrjv, rrkovrov rreviav, vovov vyieiav, Kal 
rd rovroif ofjMia. 

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

TV 8 ovrwv K.T.X. This classification is attributed by 
Sext. Math. XL 3, 4, to the Old Academy, the Peripatetics, 
and the Stoics in common: he quotes from Xenocrates, 
rrdv TO ov rj dya6ov eo-nv 77 /caicov eariv rj ovre dyadov 
eariv ovre Kaicov ea-riv. In the same passage he states 
that the name d&id<f>opov 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 (n. p. 45 n.) that Aristotle was the first to in- 


troduce the term dSidfopov, and that Zeno spoke of 

<j>p6vT]criv K.T.X. cf. frag. 134. 

v 8 I rfp<TTi : cf. Sext, Math. XL 77, fi\\ov pev Zqwuv, 
Si ov TT)I/ dpeT^jv dyaOov elvai 8eS6aez/. ib. 184, /ea0o 
/cat opi&fievoi rives e avroov <j>a<rtv dya06v e<mv dperrj r\ 
TO nerexov dperfc. The meaning of perex P eT ^ 1S 
made clear by Diog. L. vii. 94, 95, where it is explained 
as including actions in accordance with virtue, and good 
men : the converse is true of /^re^ov KaKMfi. 

^SOVTJV : cf. Aul. Gell. ix. 5, 5. Zeno ccnsuit voluptatem 
esse indifferens, id est neutrum neque bonum neque malum, 
juod ipse Graeco vocabulo d^Ki^opov appellavit. For the 
attitude of the Stoics towards the Epicurean summum 
bonum see Wellmann I.e. 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 7)801/7} among the 
Ka/cd. It will be observed that, omitting irovov rjSovr/v, 
overy pair of aSia<^opa here mentioned contains a 717)0777- 
uevov and an d-jroirpo-ny^evov, and that, except in the case of 
voffov vyieiav (which Wachsm. transposes), the -rrpoijyfievov 
is mentioned first. We should naturally suppose the 
same to be the case with r)8ovrj and 77-01/09, but which 
then is the -jrporjy^evovl Wachsmuth evidently thinks 
>;Soi/J7, since he transposes the words, and at first sight 
Diog. L. vii. 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 7761/09 is the -rrpo^^vov, and 77801") the 
dTTO-n-poriyfievov, and that 77801/1) is contrasted with 7761/09 
rather than with \inrr}, because the latter certainly belonged 


to the class of dTTOTrpoTjy/jLeva (frag. 127). For TTOI/O? cf. 
Diog. L. VII. 172, Adfccovos TO/O? eiirovros on 6 TTOI/O? 
dyaOov, Siaxv8ei<; fycriv (K\edv8r}<i) at /iaro? el? dyaffoio 
0/Xoi/ Te /co?, Zeno, frag. 187, and for 77801/7; cf. Sext. Math. 
XI. 73, oi Be OTTO r^s o-Toa? dSuufropov (scil. rJSoi/^y eiiW 
(fracriv) Kal ov 7rpor l j/j.voi>. Cleanth. frag. 88. 

Wachsinuth 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 tcr^t)? fyv-vfis 
rather points to an origin subsequent in date to Clean thes, 
and \VTTT) and 0o /3o5 are here classed as /ca/ca, which is 
inconsistent with frag. 127, not to speak of ijSovr/ in the 
present fragment. 

129. Senec. Epist. 82, 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 dSid<f>opa death belongs 
to the d rroTrporjyfj.eva Diog. L. vn. 100; cf. Cic. Fin. III. 
29, ut enim, qui mortem in inalis ponit, non potest earn 
non timere, sic nemo ulla in re potest id, quod malum esse 
decreverit, non curare idque contemnere. 

130. Cic. Acad. I. 36, Cetera autem, etsi nee bona 
nee mala essent, tarnen 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 
reliiKjuebat, -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 


reason a priori why Zcno should not have ^sub-divided 
aB<.d<t>opa into (1) rd Kara fyvviv, (2) rd rrapd <pv<riv, and 
(3) rd KaOtiiraZ dBid<f>opa = media, or have identified rd 
Kara <j>v(riv with \i)irrd or rd d&av e X ovra, and rd rrapd 
Qva-iv with d\rjrrra or rd drra&av e x ovra. Cf. Stob. Eel. 
n. 7. 7 a , p. 82, 11; 7 , p. 84, 3. 

131. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 1*, p. 84, 21, rv 8 aiai/ exo 
T /lev t X 6ti/ 7ro\X)i/ af tW ra Se ^pa X eiav. opal Be Kal 
r&v dira^Lav e^ovrwv d /lev e X iv 7ro\\r,v drraiav, a Be 
(3pa X elai>. rd ^ev ovv rco\\i]v e X ovra dgiav -rrpoiiy^eva 
\eyea6ai, rd Be 7ro\\r)v dira&av d-n-OTrpo^j^eva, Z^i/awo? 5 
ra^ra? ra? ovofjiaaia^ depevov -rrpwrov rot? Trpdyfxaa-i. 
Trpo-mnevov 8 elvai\eyov<riv, o dBtdfapov <ov>K\ey6fJ,0a 
Kara -rrpo^ov^evov \6yov. rov Be op-oiov \6yov eTrl TW 
dTTOirpornpevto dvai Kal rd TrapaSeiyuara Kara rr,v 
dva\oylav ravrd. ovBev Be rwv dya0v elvai irporjyfj.evov 10 
Bid TO n]v ^eyia-r^v d%iav avrd e X eiv. ro Be irporjy^evov^ 
n}v Bevrepav X u>pav Kal d^iav fyov, ffvveyyi^etv TTW? rf, 
rwv dya0wv <f>v<ret ovBe yap ev av\fj rwv rrporjy^evwv 
elvat rov jBaaiXea d\\d TOI)? per avrov reraypevovs. 
Trporjypeva Be \eyea-0ai ov ra, Trpos evBaifioviav nvd crvp- 15 
(3d\\eaOai avvepyelv re TT/JO? avrrjv, d\\d rw avayxaiov 
elvai rovrwv rjv eK\oy^v iroieladai -rrapd rd dTro-rrpoTjypeva. 
Pint. Sto. Hop. 30, 1. Some of the -rrpecrfivrepoc said that 
Zeno s TrpoTjypevov was in as bad a way as the sour wine, 
which its owner could not dispose of as wine or vinegar : 
so the rrporiyp,evov is neither an dyaBov nor an dBid- 


4. \XV,v ^ovra d^av. Ill Stob. Eel. II. 7. 7 , p. 83, 10 

every thing which is in accordance with nature is said 
d^ iav e X eiv. Diog. L. vil. 105 identifies irporiypeva with 
ra f. X ovra dt-iav, Sext. Emp. Math. XI. 62 with rd Uav^v 
d&av fyovra, cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 7 b , p. 80, 17. Cicero s 


phrase, Acad. i. 37 (sed quae essent sumenda ex iis alia 
pluris esse aestimanda, alia minoris), is of doubtful import : 
see Reid in loc. In Fin. in. 51 we have: quae autem 
aestimanda essent, eorum in aliis satis esse causae, quamob- 
rem quibusdam anteponerentur, where Madvig remarks 
that none of the authorities give examples of those things 
which are \rj7rra without being Trporjyf^eva. 

5. Zijvwvos: apart from the evidence of Stob. and 
Plut. it is clear that the Trporjy^va must have formed 
part of Zeno s system from the fact that Aristo expressly 
dissented from him on this point (Cic. Acad. n. 130), cf. 
Cic. Fin. in. 51. According to Hirzel p. 418 the word was 
discarded by the later Stoics, and v X prja-Ta substituted 
by Posidonius. 

8. irporflovptvov Xd-yov : see on frag. 1 69. 
TS diroirpo^Y^vo) : so Wachsmuth for TO (iTroTrporjy^evov 
MSS. Heeren reads roav o>v. 

13. ovSi Y d P *v aiXjj : cf. Cic. Fin. in. 52, ut enim, inquit 
(Zeno), nemo dicit in regia regem ipsum quasi productum 
esse ad dignitatem id est enim Trporjyuevovsed eos qui 
in ahquo 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, Trporjyfjieva, id est, producta nominentur. 

TWV irpoT^vwv : so Madv. ad de Fin. I.e. for MSS. rov 
7rpoay6fj.i>ov: he is followed by Wachsmuth. Hirzel n. 
p. 823 prefei s TrpoyyovfAevwv. 

15. rivd : so MSS. rti/t Davies. <polpd v > nva Hense. 
1C. TC: Mein. n MSS. 

dXXd T<i K.T.X. On the subject of the irpo^^va in 
general consult Zeller, pp. 278287. This sentence con 
tains the gist of the Stoic 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 


is at the same time impossible ceteris paribus not to 
prefer health to sickness, cf. Stob. Eel. 11. 7. 7, p. 79, 

132. Diow. L. VII. 120, dpea-Kei re avrols icra 
rd d^ap-n inara, tca0d ^o-fc...Zi)i/wi . Sext. Math. VII. 
422. KtlvrevBev oputapevoi 01 irepl rov Zjvava eMSafficov 
on ^a earl rd dfiapr^ara. Cic. Mur. 61, omnia 
peceata esse paria (among the sententiae et praecepta 
Zenonis). Lactant. Inst. III. 23, Zenonis paria peceata 
quis probat ? 

Cf. Cic. Paradox, in. Hor. Sat. I. 3. 120 foil. 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, dp.dpr^p.a is the 
correlative of K ar6pdo)^a and is denned as TO -rrapd rov 
opOov \6yov -rrparro/jievov, 77 ev u> 7rapa\e\enrrai ri 
KaOiJKOv VTTO \OJIKOV fyov, Stob. Eel. II. 7. IP, p. 93, lb . 
See further Zeller, p. 2H7. 

133. Cic. Mur. 61, oinne delictum scelus esse 
nefarium, nee minus delincjuere eum, qui gallum galh- 
naceum, cum opus non fuerit, quam eum, qui patrem 

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, in. 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 dfj-dpri^fia, many d/j,aprr/para 
are committed in the act of parricide. 

134. Plut. Sto. Rep. VII. 1, 2, dperds o ZTJVWV djro- 


TrXe/oi/a? Kara Siafapds, &<nr p 6 llXarwr/, olov 
v dv&pctav a-axf>poa-vvr) V Bixaioa-vi^v, <u 9 d X <pi<TTovs 
ovo-as, erepa? Be Kal Bta<f>epov(ra<t a XX^ Xwi/. TraXti/ Be 
peiKXt OVTW eKaar^v, r jv p.ev dvBpeiav fari <f>p6vrj(riv 
ftvai e i/ tvcpyrjrtoK; rr,v Be Bucaioo-vvrjv fpovrjviv eV 
mrQVtmrioui ^ ^ L av olo-av dper^v ra?? Se 777)0? rd 
Trpuyftara <T X at<T L Ka ra -rd? evepyela* Sia&peiv SoKovvav. 
Pint, de Virt. Mor. 2, eW Be K al 7^ vwv ^ T0 T 6 TTW? 
vTro<t>ep6<r0 ai o Kme^, tpi&iwo* rjv ^pw^v eV M ^ 
aTro^reo^ BucatwrvvfiV eV Se ^a^ereot? a^poavinjv 
cv Be VTTo^ereo^ dvSpeiav d-rroXoyovfie^ Be d&ovaiv eV 
Tourot? T^I/ brurrjftiji, foovrjw iVo roO Zi/i/wi/o? eJi/o- 
/^acr^at. Diog. L. VII. 101, dpcrd? re ouVc TroXX^? e *V^i; 
scil. Ansto) a>? 6 7^vmv. Cic. Acad. I. 38, hie (Zeno) 
omnis (virtutes) in ratione ullo modo... 
(seiungi) posse disserebat, nee virtutis usum modo...sed 
ipsum habitum per se esse praeclarum, nee tamen virtutem 
ciuquam adesse (juin ea semper uteretur. Of. ib n 31 
Fin. iv. 54. 

Cf. Stob. Eel. n. 7. 5*, p. 60, 12, K al r,}v 
-rrepi ra Kad^ovra yiveatiaf rr, v Be v^poavv^v -jrepl rd 
OPtWrov avBp^TTov rtjv Be dvSpeiav Trepl ra 9 tiropovd* 
rrjv Be SiKaiocrvvrjv Trepl T<? d-Trove^e^. Diog. VII. 126 
Zeno taught that virtue is one and indivisible, but that in 
rent spheres it is manifested in different forms He 
resumed the Socratic position (for which see Zeller 
s E. T. p. 140 foil., and especially Xen. Mem. m 9 
at. Men. 88 c), that virtue is knowledge, but adopted 
the terminology of Aristotle by making use of the word 
tpovw instead of <Wr^, and thus indicated that 
moral insight is to be distinguished from intellectual 
research (cf. Ar. Eth. vi. 13). There is therefore high 
probability in Zeller s suggestion (p. 258 n.) that "perhaps 
had already denned <fr><^< 9 as 


K al tcaKwv." At the same time he must have been in 
fluenced by the Platonic doctrine of the four cardinal 
virtues (Rep. p. 441 foil), 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 

dirovipTjTfois = the rendering every man his due (dirove- 
MTin] rfc aia? 6/mo-Tw Stob. I.e.), cf. the definition 
attributed to Simonides in Plat, Rep. i. p. 331 E, on, TO ni 
o^ei\.6p,eva e/cc/crTw aTroSiBovai Biicaiov ecrn. It is more 
o-eneral in meaning than Aristotle s TO eV Tat? Siavofj-als 
BUaiov (Eth. N. v. 2. 12). 

Bioiperfow: distinguishing between things with a view 
to choice : it deals with T<? aipe<rei<; KCLI e/c/cX/o-et? (Cleanth. 

frag. 70). 

x ll ro^vTois...V6 P ^T6ois. Hirzel suggests that there 
is a lacuna in Pint. Sto. Rep. I.e. and that we ought 
to read there <$>povr]a-iv elvai ev <inrO(J,VTOl,<S r>)v 8e 
a-a)(f>poo-vv7)v cf)povrio-ivev>alpTeots (in place of evepyijTeois). 
For vjrofji. cf. Ar. Eth. ill. 0, G, 6 dvBpelos...ov$els yap 
v7ro^ev6TLKu>Tepo^ TWV 8uvMV i for the general sense cf. 
Thuc. II. 40. 3, Kpanarot & av rrjv ^rv)(i}v St/catw? Kpideiev 
01 ra Te Seiva Kai ?/8ea aa^earara yiyvwaKovTes teal SKI 
ravra pi] d-TroTpeiro^voi etc TOJV Ktv8vva>v. 

o- X o-o-i. This word has a technical meaning with the 
Stoics, being opposed to Kivrja-is on the one hand (cf. Cic. 
Tusc. iv. 30), and to et<? (non-essential)(essential) on the 
other (Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5 k , p. 73, 1 ). The virtues themselves 
are Sia#eo-ei?, for which see on frag. 117. 

135. Plut. Virt. Mor. c. 3, KOLVW? Se a-rravi^ ouroi, 
(scil. Menedemus, Aristo, Zeno, Chrysippus) -rrjv dperrjv rov 
T/;? ^y^^? SuiQecriv nva Kal bvvapiv 


fjievr/v VTTO \6yov, /iaA,\oi> Se \6yov ov<rav avrrjv 6fJ.o\oyov- 
fievov Ka\ fteftaiov Kal dfie-rd n-rwTOV inroTtOevTai /cat 
vopi^ovcriv OVK eivat, TO TradrjTiKov KOI aXoyov 8ia(popa 
rivi Kal <f>vcri ^rv^Tjf rov \oyiKov &iaKercpifj,VOi>, d\\d TO 
avTo Trjs ^f^ /? H^pos (o Srj Ka\ovai Sidvoiav Kal ijyefjbovi- 
KOV), SioXov Tpeirop.evov Kal /xer/3aXXoi/ If re rot? Trddecri 
Kal Tat<; Kara e%iv rj SidOea-iv /iera/SoXai?, Katciav re 

Kal dpTr)i>, Kal pySev e^eiv aXoyov ev 
t 8e d\oyov, OTav TU> 7r\ovdovTi Tr/s 
yevo/j-evw Kal Kparj jaavTi TT/JO? TL TWV 
Trapd TOP alpovvTa \6yov eKcfrepijTaL Kal yap TU trdQos 
elvai \6yov irovrfpov Kal uKoXaaTov, CK (fravXijs Kal Birjfiap- 

piaeax; <T<f}o8p6TT]Ta Kal ptoprjv 7rpoa\a/36vTa. 
}v dpcT^v K.T.X. cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5 b ", p. 64, 18, apera? 8 
7T\eiov<; (pacrl Kal a^typ/tTTOu? a?r d\\r)\a)v Kal Tas 
aura? TU> yyefj,oviKa) /j.epi TJ-;? "^^179 a^ vTrocrraa iv. 
6p.oXo-yoTjp.tvov : ft*^- 120. 

apcTa-n-TUTov : cf. the definition of knowledge in frag. 17. 
Virtue is knowledge as applied to conduct. 

Kal vopiijovo-i K.T.X. 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 pepta-T^ in the Platonic 
sense (de An. i. 5, 24, but cf. Eth. i. 13, 10). With Zeno 
the local extension of the soul as a Trvevpa throughout the 
body does not detract from its unity either on the physical 
or the moral side : jrdBof and apery are alike affections of 
the yye/j,oviKov : 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 
earned on in one and the same country." Reid on Acad. 
I. 38. 

Sidvoiav Kal ti < yH lovlK v - F r the distinction between 
these two terms see Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 132, 306. 

^iv rj 8id0c<riv: see on frag. 117. The TrdOtj are dis- 


tinguished, being neither eet<? nor SiaOeveis but 
Cic. Tusc. IV. 30. 

TU> -n-Xeovd^ovTi. Zeno s view of the trddij will be con 
sidered in the next following fragments. Cf. Stob. Eel. 
II. 7. 10, p. 88, 10, elvai 8e irddr) Trdvra rou riyepoviKov rrjs 

136. l^iog. L. VII. 110, ecrri 8e avro TO 7r$o? Kara 
r /,rjvo)va r) d\oyos Kal irapd (j)V(riv ^v^rj^ Kivrjcrts, rj op^i} 
7r\eovd^ova-a. Cic. Tusc. IV. 11, est igitur Zenonis haec 
definitio ut perturbatio sit, quod TrdOos ille dicit, aversa a 
recta ratione, contra naturam anitni commotio. Quidani 
brevius, perturbationem esse appetitum vehementiorem. 
ib. 47, definitio perturbationis, qua i-ecte Zenonem usuin 
puto ; ita enini definit ut perturbatio sit aversa a ratione 
contra naturam animi commotio, vel brevius ut pertur 
batio sit appetitus vehementior. 

Cf. Cic. Off. I. 136, perturbationes, id est, motus 
animi nimios rationi non obtemperantes. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 
2, p. 44, 4, Trdv TrdOos op/j,r] ir\eovd^ovaa. ib. 7. 10, p. 88, 8, 
Trddos 8 elvai <pacnv vpprjv ir\^ovd^ovaav Kal aTretd!) raj 
aipovvTL \6<y(0 rj Kivrjcnv "^v^TJ<f <d\o / yov> Trapd (pvcriv. 
Plut. in fragm. utr. anim. an corp. libid. et aegrit. c. VII. 
Andron. Trepl iraQwv c. I. The comments in Stob. I.e. 
10 a , p. 89, 3 90, o, are important. They appear to belong- 
to Chrysippus and show that, while defining the TrdOr] as 
/cpt cret?, 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 aTreiOrji TO) aipovvn \crya> are a gloss ot 
Chrysippus upon Zeno s term 61X0709. 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 
H. P. 12 


unity of the soul (frag. 135). In maintaining that every 
7ra#o? is essentially a\oyov and Trapd <j>v<riv, 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 1} rod eo? d\ijOw <f>i\oa6(j)ov ^vx^j 
Oirrox? d-rrexerai rcav rjbovtav re Kal e-TriBvfjiiwv teal \wrrwv 
Kal tfroficav Kaff ocrov Svvarai, although elsewhere Plato 
admits that certain pleasures and pains are allowable (see 
Zeller s Plato, p. 444). Similarly Aristotle, while classing 
certain irad^ as a\oya, declares that under certain circum 
stances wrath and desire are legitimate (Eth. N. in. 1 

137. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 1, p. 39, 5, $? $ 6 
(apio-aTO Zr /vW 7rd0o<; eo-rlv 0/3/1?) Tr\eovd%ov<ra. ov \e 
-rre^vKvla ir\eovd^Lv , a\\ ^ 77 eV TrXeoz/aoyiw oixra ov 
yap Svvdftei, /iXXoi/ 8 evepyeia. wpiaaro 8e /caVetW? 
7rddo<{ ea-rl -rrroia ^vx^f, d-rro rfjf rwv imjvwv fopds TO 
VKIVT)TOV rov TradrjTiKov TTapeiKaaa^. 

Cf. ib. II. 7. 10, ]). 88, 11, Bio Kal Trda-av Trrolav Trddos 
elvat <Kal> TrdXiv <-jrdv> -jrddos -moiav. Wachsmuth 
refers to Chrysipp. ap. Galen, de Hipp, et Plat. plac. iv. 5, 
p. 364, 23, Miill. otVeitu? 8e TW rwv ira6u>v yevfi d-rro- 
Sioorat Kal 77 jrroia Kara TO vo-o~o/3r)fj,evov TOVTO Kal 
fapopevov LK^, where the use of the word d-n-oSiSoTai 
points to Zeno s authorship. Vo rfc TrapeiKdaas seems 
to be merely the comment of Didymus, although it is 
possible that Zeno derived Trrot a from Tre reo-fla*. as 
Wachsmuth thinks. 

138. Cic. Acad. I. 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. 


quasi morbis: see on frag. 144. drradrj elvat, rov aofyov, 
Diog. vn. 117. 

opinionisque indicia: in view of what follows this is 
important, and the expression aptly illustrates Galen s 
statement that Zeno regarded the rrdOrj as rd 


inteinpenoitiam. The particular virtue which is con 
cerned with regulating the op^al is aw^poavvr] : see on 
Cleanth. frag. 70, so that excess of impulse or rrdOos is 
said to be produced by its opposite, aKokaaia (dyvoia 
alperwv teal favKrwv Kal ov&erepwv, Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5 bl , 
p. 60, 2), cf. Tusc. iv. 22, Quemadmodum igitur tempe- 
rantia sedat appetitiones et efficit, nt eae rectae ration! 
pareant, conservatque considerata indicia mentis : sic huic 
inimica intemperantia omnem animi statum inflammat 
oonturbat incitat : itaque et aegritudines et metus et 
reliquae perturbationes omnes gignuntur ex ea. 

139. Galen. Hippocr. et Plat, plac. v. 1, v. 429 K., 
7^vwv ov ra? Arp/crei? auras d\\a T? 
avrais crucrroXa? Kal Xutrei? eVapcrei? re Kal [ra?] 
Ti7? "^^X 7 ?? evbfJii^ev eivai rd Trddrj, ib. IV. o, V. .^77 K. 
Chrysippus contradicts himself, Zeno, and other Stoics as 
to this o i ov ra? /cp/cret? aura? T?;S" ^rv^s d\\d [Kal] r9 
tVt rat Tat? rlXoyou? crL/crroXa? Kal TaTretfwcret? Kal S?;^et? 
tVapcrei? re Kal Sta^ucrei? v7ro\afA/3( ivova~iv eivai ra rr/s 
^rvxfl^ -rrdOij. Wachsmuth, Comm. I. p. 7, adds ibid. IV. 2, 
V. p. 367 K., roiavrrjv nvd rrjv ovcriav rwv rradwv (i.e. on 
al /ze/wcret? Kal ai errdpcreis Kal ai avcrro\al Kal at, Sia- 
. ..T?/9 d\6yov Bvvd/Aews ecrrt, TraOijaara rais oo^at? 
ETTi/coupo?. . .Kal Y^vwv vrro\afij3dvei. Galen 
distinguishes between three different views of the nature 
of Trad?), (1) that they have no connection at all with 
or Kpiais, which is the view of Plato and 



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 Kpicre^, cf. Diog. 
L. vn. 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 
eTTiyiyvopeva Kpureffiv 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 e.g. on frag. 136) that Chrysippus did not confine 
himself to the view that traBrj 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 irddr) with tcpta-eis and connecting them with 
o-iry/carafleo-et? : cf. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 198, 199. 

<rwrroXas. This refers to \inrrj, which is defined as 
crva-ro\r) 0X0709 (Diog. L. VII. Ill, cf. M. Aurel. II. 10) 
or d7Ti0)}<; Xoyy (Stob. Eel. II. 7. 70 h , p. 90, 14) : in the 
same way eirapa-is refers to r/Sovij (Diog. L. VII. 114, Stob. 
1. c, 1. 16). 

Xwrcis. For this word Mliller substitutes Btaxvcreis, 
but this is perhaps] questionable, cf. Cic. Tusc. ill. 61, 
ex quo ipsam aegritudinem XVTTTJV Chrysippus [quasi 
\vffiv id est] sulutionem totius hominis appellatam putat. 

TS, delet Miiller. 

Kal 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. 

8^ts. Zeller s correction, accepted by Miiller, for 
3et ei<>, is made almost certian by Cic. Tusc. iv. 15, ut 
aegritudo quasi morsum aliquem doloris efficiat, cf. Tusc. 
ill. 83, cited on frag. 158. 

Si<xxvo-is. In Diog. L. vn. 114 this word appears |as a 
subdivision of 77801/7) and is defined as 


In Suidas, col. 818, however j fiov>] itself is defined as 
Xo 7 o9 Sid X v<Tis, cf. deliquescat in Cic. Tusc. iv. 37. It is 
worthy of observation that all these words (excepting 
perhaps ra-n-eivaxrei^ refer to \vrrrj and rjSovj, and that 
Tri0vfiia and <6/3o? are not so prominent. For rarrei- 
vaxreK, cf. exanimatione humili atque fracta connected 
with metus in Cic. Tusc. IV. 13, and for Trrwo-ew demitti 
(of aegritudo) ib. 14, 37. In the face of the evidence 
already cited, Wellmann, p. 454, seems to be wrong in 
supposing Xuo-et? and rrrwaeis to be equivalent to fyei<? 
and eWXto-t? in Diog. and Stob. 11. cc. 

(ufao-is refers to \vrrrj, Chrysipp. ap. Galen, iv. 2, 
p. 367. 

140. Themist. de An. 90 b, Spengel, II. 197, 24, K al ov 
*o/5? ol drro Ztvuvo? rd rru0r) rfc avBpunrivW 
TOV \oyov Siaarpofrls elvai TiQt^voi Kal \6yov 


In the face of Galen s testimony this statement 
of no importance so far as Zeno is concerned and may be 

141. Galen, Hipp, et Plat. plac. in. c. 5, v. p. 322 K., 

OV (AOVOV XpUO-lTTTTO? \Xtt KOI K\(iv0^ Kal Y^VWV 

TOI>W? avrd rideacriv (rou? </>6^ou? KCU ra? Xu-Tra? /cat 
-rravff off a rotavra iraOr] Kara rr,v KapSiav ffwi<rra(T0ai). 
This passage is taken from Wachsmuth, Comm. I. p. 7. 
r Che emotions are placed in the heart because it is the 
seat of the fopoviiclv (frag. 100), of which the Trofy are 
affections (frag. 135), Zeller, p. 213, Stein, Psych, n. 258. 

142. Diog. VII. 140, TWV 7ra6v rd dvwrdrw (ica0a 
ev TW rrepl rra6<2v} elvai 761/17 rerrapa, 

\VTrriv, <j>r >/3ov, e, 

Stob. Eel. II. 7. 10, p. 88, 14, rrpwra 8 elvai rro yevei 



ravra rd reavapa, eTri0vpiav, <j>6/3ov, \virrjv, i}8ovjv, cf. 
Cic. Off. i. 69, Tusc. in. 24, iv. 11, Jerome Epist. cxxxiii. 
ilh enim quae Graeci appellant -rrdOr] nos perturbationes 
possumus dicere, aegritudinem videlicet et gaudium, 
spem et metum, quorum duo praesentia, duo futura 
sunt, asserunt extirpari posse de mentibus et nullam 
fibram radicemque vitiorum in homine omnino residere, 
meditatione et assidua exercitatione virtutum. Plato had 
already recognised X^TTT;, faftos, fVttfv/u o and ^801^ as 
the four chief iraBy, cf. Phaed. 83 B, cited on frag. 136. 
From rd dvwrarw... yevrj it is obvious that Zeno classed 
certain elSrj under each of the principal TraOij, but how 
much of the exposition in Diog. L. vn. Ill 1 16, Stob. 
Eel. n. 7, 10 b&c is derived from him the evidence does not 
enable us to determine, nor can we tell whether the 
doctrine of the evTrdBetai belongs to him. 

143. Cic. Tusc. in. 74, 75, Satis dictum esse arbitror 
aegritudinem esse opinionem mali praesentis, in qua opini- 
one illud insit, ut aegritudinem suscipere oporteat. Ad- 
ditur ad hanc definitionem a Zenone recte ut ilia opinio 
praesentis mali sit recens. Galen de Hipp, et Plat. plac. 
iv. 7, p. 416, 6 yovv 0/309 otJro? , faalv [Posidonius], 6 TJJS 
\V7ri}<;, wa-rrep ovv teal d\\oi 7ro\\ol rv -rraOwv VTTO re 
Zi )va)i>o<> eipqpeiHH fcal Trpos rov ^pval-mrov 

avrov. ai> ydp 

7rp6o-<f>arov rov KO.KOV avru> -rrapelvai fan (? <f>a<ri) 
\iiri)v. ev w teal o-vvropwrepov eviore Xe^oi/Te? tuSe 
7rpoa<f>epovraf \v-mj e<rrl S6t;a Trpovfyaros KUKOV Trapov- 
o-m?. XUTTT;? is the necessary correction of Cornarius, 
Bake and I. Miiller for the MSS. ar^. The unfortunate 
currency, which Kuhn s da-rj^ has obtained, has given rise 
to much perplexity. 

These passages, and especially that of Cicero, have been 


strangely neglected by the authorities. A difficulty arises 
here, because it is generally inferred from frag. 139 that 
the treatment of the Trafy by Zeno and Chrysippus was 
radically different, and it is strange that, if Zeno denned 
\VTT7j, for example, as 0X070? a-wroXr/, he should also 
have defined it as Sofa Trpoa^aros Ka/cov Trapovcrias. 
(For the connection of Chrysippus with the latter defini 
tion cf. Galen, op. cit. IV. p. 336 K., 336, 9 M., ev TOI? 
opurnols TWV yeviicwv TraQwv reXew? d-Tro^pel rfjs yvmpw 
avrwv [scil. his own writings] rjv \VTTIJV o>6>ei/o? B6%av 
-rrpoa^arov KCIKOV -jrapovvias rov Be (pofiov irpwrSoiclav 
KdKov TJ}V Be jSovrjv Bogav -rrpoa^arov dya0ov Trapovaias, 
but at the same time defines etriBvpia as ^1X0709 ope^.} 
For, in that case, how could Galen or Posidonius have 
treated Chrysippus as diverging from Zeno by explaining 
the 7ra077 as /e/n o-ew, especially as Posidonius is the 
ultimate authority on whom the attribution of the Sofa 
definition to Zeno rests 1 

Now the evidence of Galen establishes almost beyond 
a doubt that the definitions of XUTTT? as ^0709 cruo-roX?) 
and of 7780^7) as Xo70? e-rrapar^ (Diog. L. VII. Ill, 114) 
were propounded by Zeno. From this it would seem to 
follow as a natural corollary that he also defined eVt0v/ua 
as aXo 7 o? opefa (Diog. VII. 113), and <o/3o? as aXo 7 o ? 
KK\t<TK (Stob. Eel. II. 7. 10 b , p. 90, 11, K K \i<nv^ direi0fi 
X6 7 6D), cf. Andron. -rrepl -rraO^v, c. L, XI^TTT; p.ev ovv eanv 
aXo 7 09 o-uo-ToXi </>o/3o? Be a\oyos KK\i(7i<s, iiriQv^a Be 
0X070? 6>ef t?, 77801/17 Be 0X070? eirapw ; and see Kreuttner, 
p. 31. On other grounds it seems probable (see on frag. 
136) that Chrysippus is responsible for the substitution of 
aTreitf*}? X6 7 ft) for 0X0709 in Stob. 1. c., but we cannot toll 
who added the words eirl <pevKTto BOKOVVTI and e0 at perm 
BoKovfrc vTrdpxtiv (Galen, Hipp, et Plat. IV. 2, p. 367), 
which appear also in Diog. 114. It remains therefore to 


decide whether the definitions of which o6a .. r ^ r _ 
KaKov 7rapov<Tta<; is a type were introduced by Zeno or 
Chrysippus. The latter alternative would be the most 
satisfactory solution and is generally adopted (e.g. by 
Wellmann, p. 454, 455, Zeller, pp. 249, 250, Siebeck 
Geschichte der Psychologic, n. 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? cf. Galen, p. 390 K., 
(Uwre&ovUK) Treiparai w fiovov eavrov rot? nXareopt/Kofc 
a\\d KOI TOV Kme a Zrjvwva trpovdyeiv. 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 (rrjv avTov -rrpos 
avrov vavTio\ojiav TOV Xpva-iTnrov, 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 
m Diog. L. vii. 112 0d/3o9 is defined as KaK ov 7rpo<roo K ca, 
being thus differentiated from the other irdOr,, and that 
this definition is ultimately traceable to Plato (Protag. 
358 D, Lach. 198s). 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 
(cipw&oi), and subsequently to the publication of the 
work Trepl -rraO^v, put forward the S6a definitions, it 
would devolve on Chrysippus to reconcile as 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 


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, 
Trddrj esse voluntaria? (Heinze, Stoicorum do Affectibus 
doctrina, p. 10, and see also pp. 23, 24, 30, 37). 

144. Lactant. Inst. in. 23, inter vitia et morbos 
misericordiam pouit (Zeno). id. Epist. ad Pentad. 38, 
Zeuo Stoicorum magister, qui virtutem laudat, miseri 
cordiam... tamquam morbum animi diiudicavit. 

It is probable that Zeno spoke of the Trddrj in general 
terms as voo-ot and that Chrysippus is responsible for the 
distinction between vocrrj^ara and appwarrj^a-ra, as the 
passage in Cic. Tusc. iv. 23 suggests. Cf. Zeller, p. 251, 
252, and Stein, Psych, n. 2b 7. At the same time inorbus 
may here be simply the translation of 7m#o?, which Cicero 
rejected (Tusc. HI. 7, iv. 10). For e Xeo?, a subdivision of 
\v-rrr), cf. Diog. VII. Ill, Stob. Eel. II. 7. 10 K , p. 92, 12, 
Cic. Tusc. iv. 18. 

145. Diog. VII. 107, 10cS, en Be KaOijicov <$)a<riv dvai 
o TTpa xdev ev\oyov TLV ur^ei aTroXoyia-fioV olov TO d/co- 
\ov6ov ev rfj fafj, oirep Kal eVt ra <j)vrd Ka\ <wa Biareivei. 
opdvdai yap Knirl rovrwv KaOrjKOVTa. KarwvopdarOai Se 


iJKeiv rr;? Trpoo-coi/o/zacria,? el\r}npevr)<i. Cf. ib. 25, (j>acrl Be 
Kal -rrpwTov tcadrjKov a>vo/j,aK.evai, Kal \6yov Trepl avTov 
TreTToiijKevai (referring to the treatise rrepl TOV Ka6r)- 
KOVTOS, Introd. p. 29). 

Stob. Eel. II. 7. 8, p. 85, 13, opi&rai Be TO KaOfjieoV 
TO aKo\ovdov ev far), o TcpayQkv evXoyov d-rro X.o y lav e%ef 
Trapd TO KadfJKOv Be TO evavriws. TOVTO Biarelvei Kal et? 
Tri d\oja TWV %wwv, evepyel yap TL KtiKelva aKo\ovdcD<; Trj 
eVt <Be> TWV \oyiK<*)i> tywv OUTCO? d-rro- 


StSorai" TO dtcoXovffov ev fiiw. Cic. de Fin. III. 58, est 
autem officiuni quod ita factum est ut eius facti probabili* 
ratio reddi possit (where see Madv.). 

xaO^Kov 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 tcaropOwpa. That Zeno must have treated of 
Karop0a)/j,a 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 Ka0j K ov 
is closely connected with that of Trporjy^evov (d K o\ov6o<; 
8 ecrn rq> Trepi rwv Trporjy^evwv 6 Trepi rov KaQtitcovros 
To-TTOf, Stob. 1. c.) inasmuch as in the ordinary course of 
life we are forced to regulate our conduct with regard to 
external circumstances, which are strictly speaking dSta- 
4>opa. Hence we must explain Kara rivas where Kara 
means " over against " (die jenige Pflicht, die von aussen 
an uns herantritt, von der unterschieden werden soil, 
die in unserem eigensten Wesen, in der Vernunft selber 
ihren Ursprung hat), as Hirzel has shown by a com 
parison of Epict. Enchir. 15, p,envr)ao on OK ev avfnroa-iw 
Set ere dvacrrpefaatiai. 7T6pi<f)ep6/j,evov yeyove ri Kara ere ; 
CKrelvas T?}^ x ip a fotr/><i /ieraXa^e -rrapep-^erat ; M 
tfdrexe. OVTTO) fjxet; ^ eVt /SaXXe -rroppay rr)v 6pe%iv 
aXXa 7TpLfj.V, ^ue ^/jis- dv yevTjTcn, Kara ere. ovrw 7rpo<f 
reicva, ovrta TT/JO? yvvaiKa, ovrw Trpos /3^a?, ovrw 7rp6f 
TrXovrov, Kal eo-y -jrork dgios rwv 6ea>v <rv/j,7r6rr)<;. Kad^Kov, 
therefore, in Zeno s system is not a general term of which 
Karop0a)fj,ara and //.eVa KaO^xovra are subdivisions, but 
rather icadrjicovra and KaropOwpara are mutually ex 
clusive, so that the distinctions between del KaB^Kovra 
and OVK del tcadiJKovra, and pecra Ka0r]icovra and reXeta 
tcafytcovra belong to later Stoics: see Hirzel, Unter- 
suchungen, n. pp. 403410. evXoyov does not imply 


action in accordance with right reason, i.e. virtue, as 
Zeller and Ueberweg suppose, for reason in this sense 
cannot be attributed to $vra and aXoja tya, which are 
nevertheless capable of KaO^Kovra according to the 
authorities. (The use of evXoyo? in this narrower sense is 
justified by Hirzel, n. 341, I, from a comparison of Diog. 
viz. 76. Seneca, de Benef. IV. 33, sequimur qua ratio non 
qua virtus trahit ; Diog. VII. 130, ev\6ya)s egagetv eavrov 
rov fiiov rov <ro<f>6v.) If Hirzel s explanation is correct, 
it follows that in Sext, Math. vn. 158, where Karop0(ofj,a 
is defined as orrep rcpa^dev ev\oyov e^et rrji> drro\o^iav, 
Arcesilas adopts the Stoic definition of KaOfj/cov as the 
true basis of KaropOw^a. Wellmann, p. 4(51, believes that 
KaropBtafjia 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 KaropOwua. 
It is unnecessary to observe that Zeno was not the first 
to use icadtJKov in the sense of "duty": all that is meant 
is that he gave the word its special technical sense, cf. 
Kard\r)^is. As to the divergence of Stobaeus from 
Diogenes we should note (1) that TO aKokovQov ev fay is 
made the main point in the definition, which is probably 
a mistake, cf. Cic., (2) the distinction between /3io? and 
fai, for which cf. Arist. ap Ammoii. in Steph. Thes. 109 
earl \oyucr) far; (([noted by Hirzel). 

146. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 1, p. 3S, 15, oi 8e Kara Zijvwva 
rov ErwiKov rporriKUx; 17^09 eVrt 7^77^} @iov, d$ 779 al 
Kara /xepo? Trpd^eis peovcn. 

The Stoics regarded not so much the act itself as the 
character of the agent (cf. arrovt>aia &L(ideais). For 
7777777 cf. Plat. Leg. 808 c, who says that a young boy e 
rrrjyrjv rov (f>poveiv 


147. Diog. L. VII. 173, Kara Zijvwva KaraXrjTrrov 

ivai TO 

Cf. Stob. Eel. I. 50. 34, ol ~ra)iKol rov <ro(j>ov 
KaraXtjTrrov UTTO rov eioovs reKfj,-r]pio)ou><;. Euripides 
regrets that it is impossible to distinguish men in this 
manner. Med. 516 520, 

<w Zev, ri or) ^pvo-ov pev 09 Ki/3Sr)\os p 
reKfjirjpC dvdpw7roio-iv WTrao-a? crafyr/, 
dvSpwv 8 orw xpi) rov KCIKOV SietSevai, 
ovSeis x a P aKT1 !P fairtyvice (rca/ian; 

cf. Hippol. 924 foil. Cic. Lael. 62. So Shaksp. Macb. i. 4. 

11, There s no art to find the mind s construction in the face. 

148. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 11*- , p. 99, 3, dpeo-Kei 7 p rcS re 
Zrjvwvt real rot? air avrov Sr&H/cot? <<A.oo-o<of? 8vo yevij 
ru>v dvOpwTrwv elvai, TO /j.ev rwv <T7rovoal(av, ro Se rajv 
<j>av\wv KOI ro fiev ra>v <r7rovSato)v Sid Travrot rov fiiov 
5 xprjo-dai ralf (iperals, ro Se rwv $>av\wv rat? xateiaif 
b6ev ro fjifv del Karop6ovv ev arcaaiv ol? Trpoo-riderai,, ro 
ce dp,aprdviv. KCU rov yikv (nrovSaiov rals Trepl rov ftiov 
f47reipiai<; -^pu>p.evov ev rols Trparroftevois VTT avrov 
Trdvr ev Troieiv, xaOaTrep <t>povl/j.w$ teal crto^pd/ O)? Kal 

10 Kara ra9 d\\a<; dperdf rov Be <f>av\ov Kara rovvavriov 
/ra/c&><?. Kal rov p.ev (nrovSaiov peyav Kal dSpov Kal 
v*jrij\6v Kal la-^vpov. peyav [lev un Svvarat e<piKvel<T0ai 
ra)v Kara n poaipe&tv ovrwv avrw Kal TrpoKetp.evu>v dopov 
Be, ort, earlv rjvgrjfAevo? iravroOev v-^nj\ov B\ on perei- 

15 X7<e rov e7rt/3d\\ovro<; vtyovs dvSpi yevvaiw Kal a-o$u>. 
Kal la-^vpov B\ ori rrjv tVt/SrzXXofcra/ io-%vv Trepnre- 
Troitjrai, drfrrrjros u>v Kal aKaraycavia-rof. Trap" o Kal 
ovre avayKd^erai VTTO Ttro9 ovre dvajKa^ei riva, ovre 
KtoXverai, ovre K0)\vei, ovre ftidgerai VTTO nvof ovr avro<t 

20 /5tafet riva, ovre 8e<r7roei ovre Secnro^eraL, oure KaKOTroiei 
riva ovr ai ro9 KaKOTroieirai, ovre /ca/cot9 TrenriTrrei <ovr 


a\\ov rroiel KCIICOK rrepnriTrreiv>, ovre egaTrararai ovre 
Carrara d\\ov, ovre OLa^ev&erai ovre dyvoel ovre \av- 
6dvei eavrov, ovre Ka0o\ov "^eOSo? v-7ro\afj,@dvei evoaifiwv 
8e eo-nv /zaXto-Ta /cai, evrv^^ Kal /-ta/capto? /cat 6 X^to? /cat 25 
eua-e/Srjs /cat 0eo(f>i\ri<? /cai a^t&)/xaTt/c6<?, /3aeriXt/co? re /cat 
o-rparTjyiKos KOI rro\iriKos /cat OIKOVO/JUKOS /cat ^p77/iarr- 
Tt/cos 1 . TOI)? Se <f>av\ovs drravra rovroi? evavria e%etz/. 

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 foil., Cic. Fin. in. 75, 76. 

9. TTCVT *5 irouiv: cf. infra frag. 156. Ambrosius, de 
Abraham n. 7. 328, 37, cites Gen. xill. 14 and 15 and 
continues, hinc tamquam a fonte hauserunt Stoici philo- 
sophi dogmatis sui sententiain : omnia sapientis esse... 
unde et Salomon in Proverbiis ait: eius qui fidelis sit 
totus mundus divitiarum (Prov. XVII. 6). Quanto prior 
Salomon quam Zenon Stoicorum magister atquc auctor 
sectae ipsius. 

12. p. v av - l^hysical excellence can only be predicated 
of the wise man, even if in the popular sense of the term 
he docs not possess it, for no kind of excellence can be 
attributed to the <aOXo<?. Further, inasmuch as the only 
good is dperrj or TO fjiere^ov dperfjs, physical advantages 
(mly have value when found in conjunction with virtue. 

17 ctiJTTTyros. Cf. frag. 157, the parallelism of which 
is perhaps a circumstance of some weight in favour of 
Zeno s authorship here. 

19. puberal: for this verb, see Shilleto on Thuc. I. 

2. 1. 

20. Setnrotci: cf. Diog. L. vii. 122, 77 (8ov\eia) dvn- 


rj &<T7roreia <f>ai>\7) ovcra KCL\ avrrj. Stob. Eel. 
H. 7. IP, p. 104, 5. 

23. 8ia\j/v8rcu : because falsehood consists not merely 
in stating something contrary to fact but in doing so 
advisedly in order to deceive others (Stob. Eel. n. 7. ll m , 
p. Ill, 10; Sext. Math. vn. 44, 45). So, on the other 
hand the <f>av\o<: may speak duties TI but is devoid of 

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

d|iwnaTiKc$s : this appears to mean "high in rank," see 
Plut. Mor. 617 D, and cf. the use of dia>pa in Thuc. as 
applied to Pericles. It can hardly mean "speaking axioms" 
as when used of Arcesilas in Diog. iv. 31. 

pao-iXiKos. Among the sententiae et praecepta Zenonis 
cited by Cic. Mur. 61 occurs solos sapientes esse si 
servitutem serviant reges. It is extremely probable that 
this paradox was asserted by Zeno from Diog. L. vn. 122, 
d\\a Kal /3aat\ea9 (elvat, rot)? tro^ou?) TJ?? a<rtXeta? 

0&T779 dpxfc dvV7TV0VVOV, T)Tl<t TTtpi pWOV? (IV T0l)9 

o-o</>oi)9 o-Tair), K a6d ^ai Xpvo-nrTros ev rw Trepi rov 
tevpiax; tcexp?]a-0ai Zijvwva rot? ovo^a<jiv. Cf/Hor. Sat. I. 
3. 125, Stob. Eel. ir. 7. II" 1 , p. 108, 26. 

27. rT P <xTT, Y iK6s. Pint., vit, Arat. 23, 3, quotes 
elvai rov ao^ov as a Soypa Zrjvo)vo<f. 

149. Diog. vil. 33, TrdXiv eV T^ -jro^ireia Trapivravra 
jvfova) 7ro\tra9 Kal <j>i\ovs Kal oiKeiovs Kal eXevOepov? 
TOI)? a-TTovSalovs /JLOVOV. Clem. Alex. Strom. V. 14. 95, p. 703 
P, 253^3, Zijvtov re 6 Srwt/co? rrapd TlXdrwvos \a/3a>v, 6 
Se drro rfjf ftapfidpov <j>i\oo-o<t>ui<;, rot)? dya0ov<; rrdvra? 
d\\rj\( l )v elvai <f>i\ov<t \eyei. The same in Euseb. P. E. 
xiii. 13, p. 671. 

Introd. p. 29. 


iroXiras : the question naturally arises, how is this 
statement to be connected with the cosmopolitanism which 
Zeno in the same treatise advocated (sec frag. 162, iva... 
Trcvras (ivOpw-rrovs ijyw/jLe6a $r)/j,6ra<; KOL TroXtVa?)? 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 <ro</>oi and 
<f)av\ot. Presumably in the ideal state everyone would 
be so trained in Stoic precepts as to become thereby 

4><\ov S : cf. Diog. L. vii. 124, Stob. Eel. n. 7. II 1 ", p. 
138, 15, where friendship is based upon opovoia which can 
only be found among the wise. Cic. Off. I. 56, N. D. I. 121. 
A full discussion of the subject is given by Zeller, p. 317 
foil. 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. n. 6. 14 foil.). 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. 

ftcvttpovs. Stob. Eel. ii. 7. II 1 , p. 101, 18, Diog. L. vn. 
121, 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. in. 75, recte etiam pulcher ap- 


pellabitur: animi enim lineamenta sunt pulcriora quam 

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 cf. Cic. Paradox, vi., Stob. Eel. II. 7. II 1 , 
]). 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. vn. 
123, e\erjfj,ovd<t re prj elvai, (rvyyvrofjiijv re e-^eiv /jujSevi 
fir) yap irapitvai rd<; eic rov vopov eVt/SaXXoi/o-a? Ko\d<rei<f 
eVet TO 76 etxeiv teat 6 eXeo? avrrj re rj e-meiKeia ovSeveid 
<rn tyvxfjs 777)09 /eoXacret? 7rpocr7roiovfMevr}<f xPW orrjra 
prjSe oieaOai (TK\r)porepas avras elvai. The same at 
greater length in Stob. Eel. n. 7. IT 1 , p. 95, 2596, 9 ; see 
also Zeller, p. 254. It should be remembered that eXeo? 
is a subdivision of \VTTIJ (eVi reo BOKOVVTI dvafyw KCIKO- 
7ra0eiv Stob. Eel. II. 7. 10 , p. 92, 12) and therefore one of 
the -rrddr) : possibly this is all that is meant by Lactant. 
Inst. in. 23 (frag. 144). 

153. Cic. Mur. 61, sapientem nihil opinari, nullius 
rei poenitere, nulla in re falli, sententiam mutare num 
quam. Lact. Inst. III. 4, ergo si neque sciri quidquam 
potest, ut Socrates docuit, nee opinari oportet, ut Zeuo, 
tota philosophia sublata est. Cic. Acad. n. 113, sapientem 
nihil opinari... horum neutrum ante Zenonem magno 
opere defensum est. August, contra Acad. n. 11, cum 


ab eodem Zcnone accepissent nihil csse turpius quam 

The Greek authorities for this fall partly under frag. 
148, 1. 22, ovre e^arrardrai ovre e^arrara a\\ov, ovre 
oiatyevoerai ovre djvoei ovre \av6dvei eavrov ovre tcad- 
6\ov A/re08o<? V7ro\anpdvei, and the rest may be supplied 
from Stob. Eel. II. 7. ll m , p. 112, 1, /irjSev 8 vrro~ka^ftdveiv 
da-devw d\\d paXkov acr^aXco? /cat @e(3aia>s Bio /cat f^rjoe 
cogd^eiv rov crotyov... p. 113, 5, ovSe peravoelv 8 VTTO- 
\an,fBdvovGi rov vovv e%ovra. ..ov&e fjiera/3d\\eaOaL oe 
tear ovoeva rporrov ovoe fjierariOecrOai ovoe a(f)dX\ecrOai. 
Diof. VII. 121, eri re pr} So^daeiv rov <ro<j>ov. For Zeno s 
definition of co%a see on frag. 15. 

154. Diog. VII. 32, e%dpov<; KOI rro\e^Lov^ KOL Sov\ov<$ 
/cal aXXorpt ou? \eyeiv avrov (Zr/vwva) d\\ij\(ov eivai 
rrdvras TOI)? prj <nrov&a,Lov<s KOL yovels re/cvwv teal dBe\- 
^01)9 d&eXty&v, oliceiovs oiiceuov. 

This is the natural antithesis of frag. 149. Even 
parents are enemies to their children, if (f>av\oi, because 
natural relationship and parental love are absolutely 
dSidffropa as compared with dperr). On the subject of 
these paradoxes in general consult Hitter and Preller 
420 with the notes. 

155. Cic. Mur. 61, nos autem, qui sapientes 11011 
sumus, fugitives, cxules, 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. Eel. 
II. 7. II 1 , p. 103, 9, \eyovo-L &e ical (frwydoa rrdvra <$>av\ov 
eivai, K,a& oaov areperai VOJMOV /cal vroXireta? Kara 

156. Athen. IV. 158 B, ^rwi/cov oe Soypa eo-riV ori 
H. P. 13 


rejrdvra ev jrouja-ei 6 ero^o? ical ^UK^V <f>poviftax; dprv<ref 
Sio teal 

l [Zrjvwveiov] ye <a/o> tyciv 09 


c9 OVK a\X9 8vva/j,evr)<; 
rr)V Zrjvcoveiov v<f>r/<yr)(Tiv 09 (J>TJ 

et? Be fyaKrjv e/i/3a\Xe SvaSeKarov Kopidvvov. 

on TC KT.X. This follows from the doctrine that all 
virtue is wisdom (<j>p6vr)(rvi) : since <j>p6vr)o-is is required 
in the preparation of a (f>a K rJ, 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. vn. 125, -rrav-ra re 
ev Troidv rov ao<j>6v, 609 real -rrdvra (frapev TU av\ijfj.ara ev 
av\elv rov 1 07*77 Wai/, which furnishes a close parallel to 
Hor. Sat. 1. 3. 126 foil., non nosti quid pater/ inquit, 
Chrysippus dicat: sapiens crepidas sibi numquam nee 
soleas fecit, sutor tamen est sapiens. qui 1 ut quamvis 
tacet Hermogenes, cantor tamen atque optimus est modu 
lator etc. Cf. also Stob. Eel. n. 7. 5 bl , p. 66, 14 foil. 

157. Philo, liber quis virtuti studet, p. 880, agiov TO 
Zyvwveiov e7ri(f)o)vrjo-ai OTI ddrrov av do-Kov ^aTrrio-a^ 
TrXypr) Trvevfj-aTos rj fiidvaio rov (nrovSalov ovnvovv 
afcovra Spdaai n r&v d/3ov\i]ra)V dvevSoro? yap teal 
drjvarjros i/ry^,} }} v op0o<t \6yos 007/400-4 -rrayio^ e- 

pa-n-r(<rais . . . piao-aio. So Mangey, followed by Wach- 
smuth, for the MSS. /3a7rrio-ai.../3id(7aiTo. The same 
editor suggests the alternative of inserting res, which is 
less probable. 

PICXO-CUO : for the freedom of the wise man s will cf. Cic. 
Tusc. iv. 12, eiusmodi appetitionem Stoici 


appellant, nos appellamus voluntatem. Earn illi putant in 
solo essc sapiente ; quam sic definiunt : voluntas est, quae 
quid cum rationc desiderat, and sec Stein, Erkeuntnis- 
theorie, p. 196. 

dv v8oTos : cf. supra frag. 14-8, l(r%vpov S (rov <ro<f>6v) on 
rt}v e7ri/3fi\\ou(Tav lo")(yv TreptTreTroiijTai d^rrrjrof tav real 
d/caraywvia-ros. M. Aurel. I. 10 fin. 
: see Introd. pp. 8, 9. 

158. Seneca, de Ira, I. 16, 7, Nam, ut dixit Zeno, in 
sapientis quoque animo etiam qimm vulnus sanatum sit 
cicatrix manet. Sentiet itaque suspiciones quasdam et 
umbras affectimm, ipsis quidem carebit. 

This is a concession to popular feeling, although at 
the same time the absolute djrdOeia (Diog. L. vii. 117, 
Cic. Acad. I. 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 evirdOeiai. Further re 
ferences are given by Zeller, p. 291. Cf. Diog. vn. 118, 
rrpoarreo-eicrdai fiivroi rrore avrm ^avraa-ia^ aXXo/corou?, 
Bid /j,e\ayxo\lav rj Xrjprjaiv K.T.\., where however the 
point is rather different, Remembering that Zeno de 
scribed the effect of grief as S^et?, we may compare 
Socrates description of the result of violent love in Xen. 
Symp. IV. 28, wajrep VTTO Bijplou TWOS SeS^y^evo i rov 
re u)p.ov rr\elov rj rrivre -qf^epa^ u>$aov real ev rfj KapSia 
warrep Kvrjcr/j,d ri eSo/covv e^eiv. Cic. Tusc. III. 83, hoc 
detracto, qnod totum est voluntarium, aegritudo erit 
sublata ilia 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 fyavracria, but will refuse 
See further on Cleanth. frag. 94. 



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. 
p. 33. Von Arnim, Quellen Studien p. 104, has pointed 
out the original in Philo de Plantatione Noe p. 350, el T&> 
ftedvovTl OVK dv rt? ev\6yu>s \6yov aTropprjrov TrapaKard- <rw Be crotyto rrapaKararidevrai> OVK dpa 

ebrius non erit: cf. Diog. L. YII. 118, Kal ol 
fiev (rov <ro<f>6v), ov ^QvaQr^ecrQai Be. Stob. Eel. II. 7, 
ll m , p. 109, 5, ov% olov Be fjieOvaBtja-eadai rov vovv e-yovra 
rtjv yap p,e6i]v n^apTrjTLKov 7repi%eiv, XrjpTja-tv etvai 
<>yap> Trapd rov olvov, ev /j,r)Bevi Be rov airovBalov dpap- 
rdveiv /c.r.\. Similarly Socrates in Xen. Symp. II. 26. 
The Peripatetics held, on the contrary, according to 
Stobaeus, that the wise man fiedva-Otjaea-dat Kara o-v/j,- 
7repi<f>opds, tcdv el fj,rj 7rporjyovfj.eva)<f (Eel. II. 7. 24, p. 144, 

160. Plut. de prof, in virt. 12, opa BJ] KCU TO rov 
OTTOIOV ear iv rf^iov yap a-Tro rcav oveiptav exaarov 
eavrov crvvaiaOdveadai, TrpoKOTrrovros, el pyre r/Bo^evov 
aiV^pcG nvi eavrov /Mijre rt Trpoa-te^evov rj Trpdrrovra rdov 
Beivwv Kal dBiKutv opa Kara TOI)? VTTVOVS aXX olov ev /3v0(a 


<J>avraariKov Kal TradrjrtKOv vrro rov \6yov BiaKe%v- 

etiri TWV dvcpa>v : 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. 

: Wellmanii p. 462 argues that Zeno, while 


maintaining to the full the possibility of acquiring virtue, 
did not admit the practical non-existence of wise men or 
the consequent distinction between ol TrpoKo-rrrovT^ and ol 
aTTovSalot: these latter views, he thinks, may have 
originated with Chrysippus. On -rrpoKOTrr} in general see 
Zeller, p. 293 foil. 

orpoo-^uvov, "approving" (cf. Dem. Timocr. 156). 
words aicrxpv Sewoi; StW point to ^ the ^ acquisiti. 
of the three leading virtues aw^poavvi] dvBpeia and 


d\X otov K.T.X. The emotions are dispersed by reaso 
in the mind of the irpoKo-rrruv, 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. 

4,avTao-6v, has no objective reality but is merely 
Sidtcevos auwr/409, 7r0o ? h rfj ^v X fl a* ovBevo, fyavraa- 
rov y tV 6fie VOV (Pint. plac. IV. 12). Observe that it is 
described as a 7r0o9. Stein, Erkenntiiistheorie, p. 156, n. 

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 erit. Suicide (e^yrj) is justinabl 
under certain circumstances. It is important to re 
member that life and death belong to the class of the 
ahdfopa, arid suicide therefore has no connection with 
peT77, but is merely to be regarded as a matter of 
K00VJKOV (roZ? Be K a9rj K ovai xal rok -rrapcl TO KaO^ov 


Eel. n. 7. ll m p. HO, 13 and see on frag. 145). 
point is emphasised by Zeller p. 338. 


162. Plut. Alex. virt. 6, K al rfv 7} 

TroXireia rov rr)v ZraHKuv aipeaiv Karaj3aXo}j.evov Zij 

9 ev rovro vvvreivti, Ke<f>dXaiov tva pr) Kara TroXeis 

Kara Sr/povs oixunev, iSiot<: eKaa-roi Buopitrpevot Biicaiois, 

dXXd irdvra* dvOptoirow ijywfteOa Srjporas teal jroXlra?, 

efc Be /3/0? 77 Kal /coo-^09, wcnrep tiyekri? vvvvopov vopw 

KOIVW ovrrpefofibiji. rovro Zjvwv fuv eypa^ev &<nrep 

ovap f, etBtoXov evvom a? <^tXo<7o0ou Kal -rroXireia* ava- 

Tyir<a<rditevo? : id. de Sto. Rep. n. 1, eVet rotvvv 7ro\\d ^ev, 

w? ev \6yois aura Zrjwovi...yeypafAf^a rvyxdvet -rrepl 

TToXiTeuL? Kal rod apxe^ai Kal ap X eiv K al Bixd&iv Kal 

faropevetv. Chrysost. Horn. I. in Matth. 4, ov yap 

nXdrtOif 6 rrjv Karaye\aa-rov KLi>r)v 7ro\ireiav 

Kai Zijvav Kal ei rt<? ere/Do? -rroXireiav eypa^rev 77 


Trdvras dv9pa5-rrovs : 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. vi. 72, tfvrjv re 
opffjvvtfiuTclav elvai r^v ev xofffito). As to Socrates, see 
Zeller s Socrates p. 167 n. 8, R. and P. 219. 

SxrTTtp dY&Tjs rvw6p.ov. As Zeno is generally admitted to 
have written the woXtreia when he was still under the 
influence of the Cynic school, Zeller (Socrates p. 325) 
treats this passage as being typical of Cynicism, and 
suggests that Plato, in the Politicus (267 D, OVKOVV rmv 
VO/UVTUC&V iro\\v <j>aveia-(av dpri re^vaJi/ /zt a rt? v}v 1} 
-rroXiriKT) Kal //t29 rivos dyeXijs etripeXeia ; K.r.X.) and in his 
description of the vv TroXt? in Rep. 372 A. foil, is referring 
to Antisthenes. The reference is however extremely 
doubtful (see Ueberweg p. 93), and it is worth noticing 



that the comparison of the ruler of a state to a herdsman 
was a favourite one with Socrates. Xen. Mem. I. 2, 32, enre 
TTOV 6 Sw/eprtTT/? on dav/^acrrov oi BoKolf} elvai, em? 
ytvo^evos fiouv dye\^ volets ical T* /Sot* eXdrrovs re 
real xeipovs TTOLUV ^ SfioXoyoir) /ca/co? @OVKO\O<; elvai en 
8e 6avna<TTOTepov ei rt? Trpoa-rdr^ yevopevo*; TroXew* 
K.T.X., with which cf. Plat. Gorg. 516 A. See also Newman, 
Politics of Aristotle, vol. I. p. 30. 

163. Athen. XIII. 561 C, Hovrtavbs 8e Zrjvcova fyr] 
TGI> Kmea viro\a^dveiv rov "Epeora debv elvai <j>t\ia<> 
teal e\ev6epia<; en Be xal o^ovoia^ TrapaffKevacrnKOV, 
d\\ov 8 ovSevos. Sto Ka\ ev r> } 7ro\irela tyr] " rov "Epwra 
6ebv elvai, <rvvepy6v ^irap^ovra vrpo? rr,v r^ 7roXea>9 
wrnpiav." Plut. vit. Lycurg. 31. Lycurgus object was 
not to leave Sparta with a large empire, \V ucrjrep evfc 
dvSpos /3io) KOI TToXeco? 0X7?^ vo/xtfwy euBatfMViav TT 
aperr/9 eyyive<r0ai KCLL opovoias TJJ? Trpo? ayr^i/, Trpo? 
o-wera^e /cat vvviip^oaev, OTT&)? e\ev6epioi teal 
yevo^evoi /cat (raxjipovovvTe? eVl 7rXet(7TO^ xpowv 
t. rauTT,!; *al nXa ra)^ eXa^e r^ HoXtre^o? v-rr6- 
ical Ai07e : i^779 /cat Zr/vwv K.T.\. 

TOV "Epc-ra. Love 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 concord. Cf. Stob. Eel. n. 7. ll^p. 108, 15, eV 
fiovois re TO?? o-oc/>(H9 (uro\elirov<ri, <j>t\iav, eVel ev povoi^ 
TOVTOLS opovoia yiverai -rrepl rwv /card TOV fiiov^ rrjv 8 
o^ovoiav elvai KOIVWV dya9wv eVto-r^z/. Chrysipp.^ap. 
Philod. -rrepl etVe/3. col. 12, p. 79, Gomp., ical n]v avnjv elvat 
K al E^vvo^lav teal MK^V /cat Opovotav /cat Elpr/vyv /cat 
/cat TO 7rapa7r\i]aiov irav. It is probable that 


Zeno took the same objection, that of want of unity, to 
Republic as is taken by Aristotle Pol. n. 5, p. 
t a 24, C V ^d yap -rr6\ei Svo 7roXe<9 dvayxalov elvai 
.aiTavrav virevavrfa a\\^\ a ^. Cf. also ib. n. 4 1262 
) 7, Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 16, and contrast Ar. Pol n 9 
b .10. Hirzel, n. p. 36, finds here a divergence from 
ithenes, comparing Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 485 P but 
he apparently forgets Diog. L. vi. 12, which shows that the 
onsistency, if it exists, is with Antistheues himself. 

164. Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 12, 76, p. 691 P 249 S 
ec 8e K al Zj vmv , 6 r^ 2*^ Krlar^ atpeae 
TV T^ iroXereiW frfftip wre vaoh Selv iroulv 
ayaXf.ara- M v yap elvcu TUV Oc&v a&ov 

ev atrak \e^at rdSe iepd re oi 
- ep b yap rf TroXXot ci&ov, Ka l ay lOV 
,, ovSw 8e TroXXov a&ov Ka l 
l p ava t awv . The same in 
s. I. 5, p. 324. Plut. Sto. Rep. vi. 1, e r, S6ya Z 
eo-Tiv tepa Oeuv rf olxoSofielv ieptv yap rf Tr 
afiop Kal ay lOV ov K $ mv - oiicoMpuv 6 epyov K al fravav- 
ou&v e o-ri 7ro\X rig lov . Theodoret, Gr. Aff. Cur. 
III. p. 780 = p. 49, 45, ravra vvvopuv K al Zj vtov 6 
K cS r^ HoXcre^ d-rrayopevec frfofo K al vaov, 

K al dydXftara racraiw ov^ yap elvac 

Oew fifa Kara^evaa^a. Epiphan 
Haeres. m. 36, Z 

me 6 
i pd. 

The Cynics also deny the sanctity of temples: Diog. 
^ VI. 73, M fa re dro-rrov l vai ^ l po {) Tl Xafclv. 
language in some particulars recalls St Paul s 
to the Athenians, Acts xvn. 24, 6 0e3 ? 6 Tro^a, 
rov Koap.ov Ka l -jrdvra rd ev aCry, 0^x09 ovpavov K al yfc 
K lp<09 mrdpxuv OVK eV etoTrorot? vaol ic 

vaol? icaroiicel 


165. Stob. Floril. 43, 88, Zqvwv e<f>r) Belv ra? 

OVK dvady jfjiaa-iv d\\d rat? rwv OIKOVVTWV aperat?. 
In a similar spirit Crates promised to honour Hermes 
and the Muses ov SaTrdvais rpvfapals XV perat? oaiais 
(Julian Or. vi. 200 A, quoted by Zeller, Socrates p. 329 n. 1). 

166. Diog. L. VII. 33, nal Kara TOI)<? 

tepd /x?;re 

Karci...crTixovs. Prose writings were cited according to 
the number of lines, cf. Diog. L. vn. 187, (Chrysippus) ev 
TW jrepl TWV dp^aiwv (f)vcrio\6jcoi avyypdf^^arL \eywv 
Kara rou? e^aKoatov^ o-Tt^ow?. Dion. Hal. de Thuc. hist. 
jud. c. 19, Trpooifiiov T//9 to-Topias 

: "wozu Gerichtshofe, wo uberall Gerechtigkeit 
waltet? wozu Gymnasien, wenn Korperkraft und Gewandt- 
heit ohne Wert sind ? " Wellmann p. 438. The reference 
to yvpvda-La confirms the statement of Plutarch (Sto. 
Rep. 8, 2) that Zeno wrote against Plato s Republic : with 
Plato jvfjivaa-TLKrj forms an important element in the 
training of the 0i Xa/ce9 (Rep. ill. p. 410 411). 

167. Diog. VII. 32, evioi ^evroi...ev vroXXoi? 
TUV Zijvwvos rijv eyKVK\iov iraiBeiav d- 
a7ro<palveiv \eyovaLV ev dpXTI T5 7 9 TroXtreiav. 

^KVK\IOS imiStCa. r J"he ordinary course of Greek educa 
tion comprised the three branches of ypn/i/iara, ^ovaiio], 
and yv/jivaa-TLKrj (Becker s Charicles E. T. p. 231 foil.). 
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, rriv re dperrjv 


ru>v epywv elvai, pr/re \6ywv rr\eiovwv 
HaQripdrwv. 73, /iot/o-t/a;<? re teal yewp,erpiK^ K al dvrpo- 
Xoyias Kal rwv roiovratv dpeXeiv &$v d-^prja-rwv Kal OVK 
dvayxaitav. 103, Trapatrovvrai Be Kal rd eyKVKXia p.a6r)- 
p.ara. ypdp,p.ara yovv fjn] pavQaveiv efaaKev 6 Ai^Tto-- 
tfeV?;? TOI)? adxppovas yevopevovs, iva ^ Siaa-rpe^oivro 
rot? d\\orp{oi?. Epicurus agreed with Zeno on this 
point (see Prof. Mayor on Cic. N. D. i. 72), while Aristotle 
considered that rd ey^/cXm ^aS^ara are useful for the 
acquisition of virtue (Diog. L. v. 31). It is important to 
observe that Chrysippus held ev^p^a-rdv rd ey K vK\ia 
fiaO^ara (Diog. L. VII. 129, cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7, 5 bn , p. 67, 5), 
and it is possible that Zeno may at a later period of his 
life have modified his conclusion on this point, just as he 
diverged from the Cynics in recommending Dialectic and 
Physics as well as Ethics, Zeller p. 63, 3, Hirzel n. p. 523, 
4, cf. Cleanth frag. 106. 

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

o/uoyia 8 OUT d\\ay^ evexev oleaQai 8eiv 

iv ovr drro&rjfMias eveicev. 

"Diogenes in the 7ro\ireia proposed a coinage 
of bones or stones (darpdyaXoi) instead of gold and silver, 
Athen. iv. 159 E." Zeller, Socrates, p. 325 n. 

dXXa-^s KVCKCV. This again is pointed at Plato Rep. II. 
371 B, dyopd STJ rj^lv Kal vopiapa gvpfioXov r^? d\\aytjs 
i>6Ka yevrja-erai e /c rovrov. Aristotle s statement is more 
exact, explaining that money is a security with a view to 
future exchange: vrrep r/;<? fie\\ova^ dXXayrjs, el vvv 
pijSev Seirai, ore carat edv Ser)6f), TO vo/j,t(T^a olov ey- 
yvTirrjs e o-0 Eth. v. 5. 14. Cf. especially Ar. Pol. I. 
9. 1257 a 32 foil, and Newman on ib. 1257 b 11. 

169. Athen. vi. 233 B, C, Z^tyi/ 8e 6 drro r 


irdvra rd\\a 7T\>}v rov vo^ i^w avrols (i.e. gold 
and silver) KOA, /caA.w? xp)ja-0ai ^o/u cra? dBidfopa, rrjv 
al pea-iv avrvv /cat ^>vyriv d-jrenrcov, ri]v %p?)(nv Se rwv 
/cat aTrepiTTWV TrpoT/yovpevw^ Troielo-dai TrpoardcratoV 
OTTO)? rtSef; /cat, dOav^aa-Tov Trpos raXXa rr/v StdOeaiv rfjs 
yfrvx^ e%ovre? ol avQpwiroi, ova /jujre Ka\d ecrrt ^re 
alcrxpd, rot? fJ-ev Kara ^iaiv w? eVi vroXi) xputvrai, rwv 8 
eva.vri.wv prjSev o\w? SeSot/core? Xtxyw /cat ^?) ^>6/3&) TOVTWV 

The opinions professed with regard to money bear 
the same relation to the last frag, as frag. 171 bears to 
frao-. 176. This passage affords another good illustration 
of the doctrine of the Kad^Kovra as applied to those 
thino-s which are morally indifferent. The aTrouSato?, 
who is unaffected either by fear or desire (d^aO^}, and 
whose appal are properly directed by right reason, will 
know how to discriminate between rd tcard $>vaiv and ra 
-napd <j>vo-iv, so as to cling to the former and avoid the 
latter. Thus TrXoOro? is a -rrporjy/jievov (Diog. L. VII. 106), 
and possesses value as being of advantage for life in 
accordance with nature (ib. 105), while 77 6p9^ xpv<ri<; 
TT\OVTOV which is characteristic of the <nrovSaio$ is sharply 
distinguished from the <f>i\OTr\ovTia (Stob. Eel. II. 7. 10 , 
p. 91; 18) of the (f)av\os. 

a\: P o-iv: suggested by Schweighauser and adopted by 
Kaibcl for the MSS. dpx iv. After TJ]V w^viv 8e Schweig. 
thought some words had fallen out such as rrjv 

opBriv et a. 

XITV. Cf. M. Aurel. I. 3, TO \LTOV Kara rr,v Stairav. 

direptTTwv. So Casaubon in place of MSS -rrepiTrwv. 
Contrast M. Aurel. v. 5 with id. IX. 32. 

upo^ovH^s. 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 


to drco\ov0a)s. cf. 7rpor)yov/j,vo<? \6yos frag. 123 = leading 
doctrine. Here however it seems to have the special 
Stoic sense = in the absence of overriding circumstances 
)(/card 7Tpi(TTa<rtv, cf. Epict. diss. III. 14. 7, Stob. Eel. II. 7. 
24. p. 144, 19, frag. 131. In this connection we may 
compare Diog. s division of KaOr^Kovra into rd avev irepi- 
, such as vyiia<> Trt,^e\ela6ai (or /caX&J? xprja-Oai 
as here), and rd Kara irepitrraa-iv, such as T^V 
iappCirmv (vn. 109). Hirzel, p. 825, denies that 
belongs to the elder Stoics, thinking that 
it was taken over subsequently from the Academics and 
Peripatetics. He would substitute here <y? irpo^^kvwv. 

dScVj points to the purging of the soul from the in 
fluence of the irdOr] : Seo? is a subdivision of </>o/3o<? not 
very explicitly defined ap. Stob. Eel. n. 7. 10 p. 92, 5. 

deav(iao-Tov. Cf. Hor. Epist. I. 6. 1, 2, nil admirari prope 
res est una Numici solaque quae possit facere et servare 
beatum ; where see Orelli, who properly observes that TO 
6avfj,d%eiv, which Plato and Aristotle speak of as the 
starting point of philosophy, is something quite different. 
Cf. Marc. Aurel. 1. 15, Cic. Tusc. in. 30. Hence AIT. Epict. 
Diss. I. 18, 11, fj,TJ Bav^aQe TO Ka\\o<; TJ}? yvvai/cos icai rq> 
&J ov xa\7ravel$. For 8id0e<riv see on frag. 117. 

170. Seneca de Otio 30, 2, Zenon ait: accedet ad 
rempublicarn (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. VII. 121, TroXirevecrOai (fracri rov croffrov, dv fit j TI 
K(I)\VTJ, do? <f)rj<ri \pit(TL7nro<; ev Trptarw Trepl ftlwv : cf. Cic. 
Fin. in. 68, Schol. on Lucan II. 380, Stoicorum sapiens 
erit civilis, hoc est, in administratione rei publicae. 


TO rro\ireveadai is another instance of KaOtj/cov which 
is to be undertaken /card rov rrpo^ov^evov \6yov (Stob. 
Eel. II. 7. II 1 ", p. HI, 5) = rrporjjovpevo)^ (see on last frag.). 
We may say then that, while TO 7ro\irevea6ai is KadrjKOV 
7rpOTjyov/J,evws or (ii>ev Trepio-rdaews, TO //,?; rroXireveaOai is 
KaQijfcov Kara rrepicrraaLV, just as a careful use of wealth 
is contrasted with the condition of the spendthrift. 

171. Diog. VII. 121, Kal ja/j,rjo-etv, w? 6 Ztjvcov 
ev 7ro\iT6ia, (rov aofyov) Kal 7rai$o7rot,ij(Tecr0ai. 

Cf. Stob. Eel. ii. 7. II" 1 , p. 109, 16, Cic. Fin. in. 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 110 reference to the ideal state in which 
wives are to be held in common (frag. 176) : 7^09 clearly 
belongs to the d&id<j>opa and yafielv is a rcaOrjtcov. This 
seems better that Wellmann s view p. 439, who strains 
the meaning of 7/*o9 to bring this passage into con 
formity with frag. 170, 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. Eel. II. 7. ll b , p. 94, 9, 7ro?UTeiWtfat 
TOV a-o(j)ov Kal fjudXiara ev Tat? TotauTCU? vroXiTe/ai? TCU? 
e^aivova-a^ rivd TrpoKOTrr/v 77/309 T<? TeXeta? TroXtTet a?. 
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 

172. Dioo-. L. VII. 129, Kal epacrOr ia-ecrOai Be rov 
ao<j)ov rwv vewv ruv epfyaivovrwv Bid rov eiSovs rr}v Trpos 
dperrjv ev(f>vt av, w? 4 >7 l aL ^l vwv * v T !> t rro\neia. 

F(jr the Cynics see Introd. p. 20. This passage is no 


doubt inspired by the influence of the Phaedrus and 

Symposium. Speaking of the eptu? of Socrates Dr 

Thompson remarks (Phaedrus App. i. 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 foil, and for evfyvtav ib. 209 B, ^rvxfl 

Kokf) Kal yevvaia real evfyvel, cf. frag. 147, /caraXrjTrrov 

elvat, TO 77^09 e eiSovs. We must distinguish between 

the e/3609 of the arrovSalos and the <f)av\o<t. TO epav 

itself belongs to the class of dSidfopa, and implies, 

therefore, a corresponding tcafffj/cov, the duty, that is, 

rov icakw epdv, Stob. Eel. II. 7. o b9 , p. 66, 310. If then 

the objection is raised that the o-jrovbalos should avoid 

ep&>9, if he is to retain his drrddeia, since epo>9 is a sub 

division of eTTiOvfjiia and a rrd6o<$, the answer is that this 

is untrue of that particular form of ep&>9 which is defined 

as 7ri/3o\rj (f)i\o7roiia<j Bid tcd\\os e^aivo^evov (Stob. 1. c. 

1. 12, ib. 10 p. 91, 15, IP p. 115, 1, Diog. L. vn. 113, 120, 

Sext. Emp. Math. vn. 239), and which is not an ewidvpia. 

Under briBv/ua are to be classed spares afoSpoi only, 

and in Diog. vn. 113 the distinction between the two 

classes of e/xu? is clearly indicated. Cic., Fin. III. 68, speaks 

of amores sanctos. 

173. Athen. XIII. 563 E, Kal TOVTO ^ie 
rov dpxrjyov vp&v TT;? cro^t a? /jjjvwva rov oviKa, 09 
ov&eTrwTrore yvvaiKt e^pijaaro 7rai8itcoc<t B del" 0)9 Aj/rt- 
701/09 6 Kapvo-riof icrropel ev rw rrepl rov (3iov avrov 
0pv\\iT6 yap on " Set firj rwv awpdrtov d\\d 

8i \>.-f[ K.T.X. 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. 


174. Clem. Alex. Paedag. in. 11. 74, p. 296 P. 101) S., 
o Kmet? eot/ce r /ir)vu>i> elfcova veaviov /cat 
avrov dvSpiavroupyei ecrra), 0r/crt, Kauapov TO 
, ofypvs /XT) rcaOei^evri, /u/^S o/x/u-a dvajreTrra^evov, 
~\.a<7/j.evov, p,rj VTTTLO^ o rpa^T/Xo?, /x^S dvie- 
/j,eva rd rov crwftaro? /i^eXr;, aXXa [T] /jLereatpa 
op6os vovs Trpo? rov \6yov, O^UTT;? /fat 
ws eipr)/j,ev(i)i>, teal cr^/xaricr/Ltol KOI Kivr)cri<; /J,r)Sev 

roi? a/coXacrrof? e XTTt So?. 
Kdl dppevwjria aTrecrTCi) Se /cat o aTro 
Kal ypvaoyoeLwv teal epL07rw\iwv a\vs /cat o a?ro 
ci\\(i>v epyaa-rrjpicav, evOa /cat eratpt/cw? 
wcrrrep eVt Te^ou? KaOe^o/Jievoi, Snj/jiepevovo iv. 

This remarkable fragment was first restored by Cobet 
in Mnemos. O. S. vi. p. 339, who saw that the writer was 
necessarily speaking of young men and not of young 
women, as the word dppevwTria of itself shows. It seems 
probable, as Wachsmuth suggests, that this frag, comes 
from the epwrLKi] re^vr) (Introd. p. 30). 

veaviov. So Cobet I.e. for veaviba. Bind, with two MSS. 
reads veavia. 

Ka6ap6v. Cf. Plut. de Audiendo 13, p. 45 C, 7rpo<T&)7rr.o 
/caracTTacrt? KaOapd Kal dve/jicfoaTOS. 

dvaTre-n-Ta|i vov : barefaced, impudent, cf. Xen. Mem. II. 1. 
22, rci Se o/i/Ltara ex eiv dvaTreTrra^eva, of the woman 
representing Vice in Prodicus fable. See Aesch. Suppl. 
198, 9 and the comm. /u,r;8e StaeXacr/xe^oz/ is an emen 
dation of Cobct s (Mnemos. xi. 387) for the MSS. /^S 
dvaKeK\aa-/jbevov, the meaning of which is not clear. 
With the alteration dvaTt. est hominis protervi et petu- 
lantis, 8ta/c. mollis et impudici. 

rd is rejected by Wachsm. with great improvement to 
the sense. 

6p96s vovs, so Wachsm. for vulg. opQovov irpos /c.r.X. 


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

KvT]o-is...v8i8ov(ra Bind, with some MSS. 

(ivpoirwXCuv : these shops are mentioned as the lounges 
frequented by young men. Ar. Eq. 1375, rd peipdtcia 
ravrl ~\.eya), rdv rw pvpw. Lys. Or. 24 20, etcavros yap 
v^utv eidiarai Trpoafoirdv 6 fiev 7T/30<? pvpoirwXelov, o 8e 
frpos Kovpelov, 6 Se 737509 crKvroro^dov, o 8 OTTOI dv rvyy : 
id. Or. 23. 3, Isoc. Or. 7. 48, OVK ev rot? aKipafaiois oi 
veutrepot, Sierpifiov ov& ev rat9 av\r)Tpi<rtv ovS ev rot? 
TOioi/rot? <rv\\6yoi<; aXX eV rot? eTrirySev /JLCUT ti> epevov ev 
oi? T(ix&T](rav. In Homer s time the smith s shop was 
used for this purpose : Od. xvm. 38, Hes. Op. 491 : later 
the barber s shop is most frequently mentioned: see 
the comm. on Hor. Sat. I. 7. 3. Other authorities are 
collected by Becker, Charicles E. T. p. 272. 

KKo<rjxT 1 (i^voi...Kae56p.voi. So Cobet for Kefco<r/j,r)/j.evai... 
Ka0eofj,vai. For the former word cf. Xen. Mem. in. 11. 
4 where Theodota is spoken of as TroXuTeXa? fcefcoa-fjn]- 
^kvr]v, arid Lucian, Ver. Hist. II. 46, yvvalKa^ -rrdw erai- 
pi/cus KKoa/j,r)/Mevai (quoted by Becker, Charicles E. T. 
p. 249) ; and for the latter Aeschin. Timarch. 74 roi)? eVt 
TWV olKt)fj,dra)v Kae^ofjiivovs (referred to by Wachsm.), and 
Catull. xxxvu. 8, 14. 

175. Diog. L. VII. 22, Setv re eXeye roi)? vtov? Trdtrp 
xpi")a0at Kal iropeiq Kal a-^fian /cat -rrepi- 

Possibly this is only a reference to the preceding 
frag. For jropeia see on frag. 31. 7repL/3o\rj = clothing. 

176 Diog. L. VII. 131, dpeo-Kei 8e avrols K al tcoivds 
elvai ra? yuvaltcas Seiv irapd rot? cro^ofr axrre rov eV- 
rf] evrvxovarj ^PW^ai, KaQu (770-4 Zrjvwv ev rf, 


TToXtre/a. ib. 33, icoivds re -m? yvvaiKas 
oyu-oico? n/Varom ev TTJ vroXtreta. 

For the Cynics see Introd. p. 20. Observe, however, 
that Chrysippus concurred in this opinion, which must 
not therefore be treated as merely Cynical. 

177. Diog. L. VII. 33, /cat eaOfJTi, Se Trj avTrj Ke\evei 
(Tir/vuiv) %pfjcrdai dvSpas Kdl yvvaifcas /cat 

The same view seems to have been advocated by the 
Cynics. Hence the point of Menander s lines quoted by 
Diog. L. VI. 93, <TV/ji7repnraTr]aei<; yap rpi/Bajv e ^oucr e^oi, 
SaTrep KparijTi TW KVVIKW Trod 77 <yw>i. Socrates in 
Xen. Symp. II. 3 says : earO^ aX\.rj pev yvvaifcl a 
dvSpl Kakrj. With regard to the words /jLr)8ev 
d-jroK. Zeller, p. 308 n. 2, remarks : " The latter act is 
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 <yvfj,vda-ia : 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 KaOrjKovra 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, VII. 63, p. 739, e/CK\ivova-i 
TO fioi^eveiv ol ra rov Kmeeo? Zr/vwvos <tXocro</>o{We9... 

Sid TO KOiVWVLKOV Kdl TTapd (J)VCTIV elvai TO) \OJLKW aj(i) 

voBeveiv rrjv VTTO rwv vo^wv erepco 7rpoKaTa\ rj(f)del(rav 
yvvaiKa /cal (bdetpetv TOV d\\ov dv0pa>7rov OCKOV. 

Since strictly speaking marriage is an dSidtfiopov, TO 
/jLoixeveiv cannot be contrary to virtue, and such an 
offence would be impossible in the ideal state. Still, with 
H. P. 14 


society constituted as it is, firj fj^oi^eveiv is Kadr) K ov avev 
Trepia-rda-eeof and therefore Kara fyva-iv. 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. Eel. ii. 7. ll b 94, 8 foil.). In Sext. Pyrrh. in. 209 
we find TGI; ? ye /JLTJV ^ot^oi)* Ko\det Trap yo/zo?, 
Trapd Be ricriv dSid<j>opov e&rt rat? rwv erepwv yvvatgl 
fUr/mMrvav real $i\oa6$>wv 8e rives (fracriv d8id<popov eivat 
ro dXXorpia yvvaiKi fiiywcrBai. The Stoics are probably 
indicated, and the passage is in no way inconsistent with 
the present, cf. Theoph. ad Autol. HI. 3 p. 118 D, ot^i 
Kal Trepi crefivor^ro^ Treipwfjtevoi ypdfaiv da-e\yeia<f KOI 
jropvetas Kal poixcCas eSiSagav eTTireXetadai, en pyv /cat 
ra? o-rvyrjrds dpprjroTrouas elcrrjyrjcravTo ; 

179. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. in. 245, olov yovv 6 alpeo-i- 
dpxrj? avr&v Zrfvcav ev rat? Siarpifiais <fyr)<rt Trepi TraiScav 
dywyrjs d\\a re opoia Kal rdSe " Sta/j.r)pieiv w&ev fj,d\\ov 
/A7?8e r/o-o-ov TraiSitcd 77 /zr) TraiSixd /jLijSe 0r)\ea rj dppeva 
ov yap [ecrrt] TraiSiKOis d\\a 77 fxrj Trai8itcoi<? ovSe OyXeiais 
rj dppea-iv, d\\d ravrd TrpeVet re Kal irpeTrovra ea-rtv." 
The same fragment is preserved by Sext. Emp. adv. 
Math. XL 190, introduced by the words Kal ^v Trepi ^ev 
iraiSwv dycoyrjf ev rat? 8iarpi/3at<; 6 aipea-idp^r}<; Zrjvcav 
roiavrd nva Bity-euror, and with the variant d\\a Trat- 
SiKol? for ecrrt TraiSiKois d\\a. 

lv rats Siarpipais. For this book see Introd. p. 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, n. 1). "The Stoics made good and evil depend 
alone on the intention, and declared external actions, 
independent of intentions, to be indifferent : el-rrov ovv ev 
rat Trepi dSia<f>6p(i>v roTrp ori r iSlw \6ytp (the action 


taken by itself) Ouyarpdcn fiiyvva-dat d8id(f>opov eariv, 

A Kal |xi} \pr\ V TCUS Ka0crTwcrais iroXireCais TO TOIOVTOV irouiv, 
Kal vTrodecretos xdpiv...7rapei\r)(j>aa-i TOV crofyov p,erd 
7-779 Ovyarpos ^6^779 KaTO\-e\eifJip,evov TravTos TOV TU>V 
dvOpwTcwv yevovs Bie^Oappevov, Kal ^rjTovaiv el KaOrf- 
KOVTWS 6 Trarrjp crvve\evaeraL rfj dvyarpl v-rrep TOV [J,r/ 
d7ro\(rdat...To Tcdv TWV dvOpunrwv yevos." This also illus 
trates frag. 178. 

180. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. III. 246, Trepl Be T^? et? TOI)? 
yoveh ocTiOTT^ro? 6 auro? nvrjp (Zijixov] (f)Tjcriv et? ra vrept 
Trjv loKaaTrjv Kal TOV OlSlTroSa OTL OVK r}V Seivov TpifleLV 
Tr)v /jurjTepa Kal el pev daOevoixrav erepov TL /aepo? TOV 
crco/xaro? Tpl-fyas rat? ^epalv co ^eXet ovoev ala-^pov et 
Se eTepa fteprj rpt-v^a? evtypaivev, oo vi>(j)p,evriv Travaa^, Kal 
TratSa? IK Trjs /LtT/rpo? yevvaiovs eTroirja-ev, alcr-^pov. Sext. 
Erap. Math. XL 191, Kal ye o pev Zrjvwv TO, Trepl T^? 
lo/cacTTT;? Kal Ot StVoSo? io-TOpov/jievd (frrjcnv OTL OVK r)v 
Seivbv rpl^rai TTJV fujrepa. Kal el pev daOevovcrav TO 
crwfjLa rat? X P a ^ r pfy a s w^eXet, ov8ev ala^pov el Be 
Tepu> /juepei rptA/ra? e GO evpev oBvvwfJiev^v Tcavcras Kai 
TratSa? eK T^? ya^rpo? yevvaiovs Trot^cra? ri TJV ala-^pov ; 
ib. Pyrrh. III. 205, d\\d Kal 6 KtTievs Zrfvcov 
droTTov elvai TO popiov r^9 /^rpo? TO> eavTOv popiw 

ovBe a XXo TI /Ltepo? TOV crcopaTO^ avTrjs TTJ 
(f)av\ov av eiirof, TLS elvai. Plut. Quaest. Conv. III. 
6. 1, 6, o$<? eywye vrj TOV Kvva Kal TOV Zrjvcovos av 
e{3ov\6[JL r]v (j>rj StayLt^ptcr/cioz)? ev crvfjiTrocriw TLVL Kai Traiota 
f) o-TTovBfjs rocrainri^ e^ofjievw o-vyypa/jL/j,aTi Tf) 

It should be observed that Sextus does not state that 
this extract as well as the last comes from the Siarpifiai, 
so that we may perhaps refer Plutarch s words to this 
passage : Wellmann however, p. 440, thinks that both the 



Sextus passages come from the Starpifiat,, in which case 
Plutarch s statement should form a separate fragment. 
Cf. Chrysipp. ap. Sext. Pyrrh. in. 246, id. ap. Epiphanius 
adv. Haeres. III. 2. 9 (in. 39), Diels, p. 593, eXeye yap Selv 
fiiyvvaOai rats fjL-rjrp fieri rot)? TratSas rot? 8e frarpda-i ra? 
dvyarepas. Diog. L. VII. 188, Theoph. ad Autol. III. G, 
120 D. 

181. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. xi. 190, Kal TT<I\IV (6 
Zijvwv) " 8iafj,efArjpiKa<> rov epa>/j,evov ; OVK eywye. Trorepov 
OVK eVetfy/zT/cra? avrov Sia^plcrai ; KOI /LtaXa. a\X eVe- 
dvpr)aa<$ irapaa-^eiv aoi avrov rj e<f>o/3> ]67)<; /ceXeOcrat ; pd 

At . aXX Ke\ev(ra$ ; Kal yLtaXa. etr OVK VTrr]peTr)cre aoi ; 

ov yap. 

The line taken here is that the intention is all impor 
tant, and not the act in itself : hence virtue belongs only 
to (nrovSaia Sid06<rts, cf. Cleanth. frag. 95, 

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

Bekker suggests aXX 7n6v/j,jj(ra<;...eir e< 

182. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. III. 200, K al TI 
OTTOV ye teal 01 aVo rfjf Kvvucrjs </)tXocro0/a9 Kal oi jrepl 
rov Kinea Zrjvtava Kal K\edv0r)v Kal XpvcriTnrov dSid- 
<f>opov TOVTO (i.e. dppevopigiav) elvai 

183. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. in. 206, TO Te 
eiraparov ov Trap 1 r n^lv 6 Zrjvcav OVK 

184. Theoph. ad Autol. in. 5, p. 119 C, TI trot eSoge 
TO, Zrjvcovo? 77 Ta Atoyevovi Kal K\edv6ovs, OTrdcra Trepi- 
at /3i/3\oi avrdov SiSda-Kovaai dvOpwrrofiopias, 
fiev VTTO ISiwv rercvwv fyeaOai Kal /3i/3pcaaKea-0ai 


K ai, el Tt? ov /3ov\oiTo Jj fiepos n rf;9 fiver ep 
d-rropptyeiev, avTOv aTecr0iW0<u TOV ^ (payovra ; 
Of. Diog. L. VII. 121, yeucrecrOai re ical dvO 
trapic&v Kara -rrtpiara, ib. 188 (Chrysippus) eV te r<j> 7 
Trepl Zucaiov Kara rot)? X 4\iW arrows, ical TOT)? a-Tro- 
eavoina* K are<r0{e L v Ke \ei V . Sext. Pyrrh. III. 207, 247 
foil, Math. XL 192194, Mayor on Juv. xv. 107. Canni 
balism was also recommended by the Cynics, Diog. vi. 73, 
^8 dvoviov elvai TO ical dvO panreiw Kpeuv &^aff0at, 5 
3,7X01; eV ruv aMwrpiav e0^, with which cf. an amusing 
summary of the various modes of disposing of the dead 
prevalent in different countries, ap. Sext. Pyrrh. III. 
226229. It should be observed however that the Stoics 
only enjoined this practice Kara 

185. Epiphan. Haeres. III. 36, rou? oe 

Trapapd\\eiv ^vai v irvpi ical rot? 
ypiia-Oai a/c&)Xf TO)?. 

Chrysippus, ap. Sext. Emp. Pyn-h. m. 248 ; Math. XL 
194 recommends that the flesh of deceased relations 
should be eaten if suitable for food, but, if useless for that 
purpose, r? KaTopv^avres TO pvfjpa eiroivovtriv fj ara- 
Kataavre* T)V T^pav d^ovaiv. The meaning of these 
obscure words of Epiphanius appears to be similar, and 
Trapapd\\eiv is certainly commonly used in this sense 
(see L. 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. 
I. 104). Chrysippus proved the absolute unimportance of 
any particular form of burial from a comparison of the 
varying practice of different nations (Cic. Tusc. I. 108, 
Sext. Pyrrh. in. 2269). 


186. Cic. Ep. Fam. ix. 22. 1, Atqui hoc (libertas 
loquendi) Zenoni placuit...sed ut dico placet Stoicis suo 
quamque rem nomine appellare. 

Cf. Cic. Off. i. 128, nee vero audiendi sunt Cynici, aut 
ei qui fuerunt Stoici poene Cynici, qui reprehendunt et 
invident, quod ea quae re turpia non sunt nominibus 
ac verbis flagitiosa ducamus : and see Zeller, Socrates 
p. 326. 

187. Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 20. 125 P. p. 494, S. p. 
178, *a\&>? 6 Zr)vwv 7rl TOJV IvSuv eXeyev eva IvSov 

e6e\etv <di>> iSeiv 77 Trdaas ra<f Trepl TTOVOV 

The allusion to the Indians is explained by the words 
the Indian philosophers are said to have used to Alexander: 
(Tw^ara pev /uera9 e/c TOTTOV et? TOTTOV, i/ru^a? S ^/iere pa? 
OVK dvayicdo-fis Troieiv a ^ @ov\6/j,0a. irvp avdpwTrois 
peyio-TOv Kokaa-rripiov, TOVTOV >J^et5 Kara^povovpev. Clem. 
Alex. Strom, iv. 7. 50. Similarly Philo, in telling the 
same story: quod omnis probus sit liber, p. 879, Trvp 
/jLeyiarovs rot? fcScrt aw^acri TTOVOW; tcai fydopav epyd^erai, 
TOVTOV VTrepdva) r^els yiv6/j,e6a, ^wi/re? KaioptQa. The 
historians attest the custom of burning themselves alive 
said to have been practised by the Brahmans. Strabo, 
XV. 1. 65, aia-^ia-Tov 8 avTois vofjui^eadai voaov cra)/j,a- 
TiKrjv TOV 8 VTrovorja-avTa Ka6 avTov TOVTO e^dyetv 
eavTov Bid TTU/OO? vqaavTa Trvpdv, V7ra\ei-frd/j,vov Be KCU 
KadicravTa eVt TTJV Trvpdv vfatyai tceXeveiv, d/civrjTov Be 
KaievQat. Curt. viii. 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. Tusc. II. 40, 
(Mueller) uri se patiuntur Indi. The case of Calanus is 
particularly recorded, Cic. Tusc. II. 52 etc. 


civ, added by Cobet, Ep/^9 \oyios, I. p. 487. 

rds .dTToSc^s. There is no doubt some particular 
reference in this, the point of which it is difficult now to 
ascertain. May it refer to Antisthenes 1 In Diog. L. vi. 2, 
we read of him : on 6 TTOI/O? dyaOov vvvevr^e Std rov 
^d\ov ttpa^ovs ical rov Kvpov, and in the list of his 
works preserved by the same writer (vi. 1518) we find 
three with the title ( Hpa*\fo two of which bear the 
alternative title rj ire pi 

188. Galen de cogn. animi morbis, V. 13, ovrw yovv 
K al Zijvtov rj^iov irdvra -rrpdrreiv r/^<; dff<pa\w*, 
-o/xei ov9 0X1701; varepov -jratia^ols M 
eiceivos o av^p roi)? vroXXou? v avdpv-irvv e 
roZ? vreXa? eiriTipav xav /^Sel? avrovs -rrapa 
aratSa^o^ - for their duties see Becker, Charicles, E. T. 
p. 226. 

189. Stob. Flor. 14, 4 = Anton. Meliss. I. 52, 

e Xe7%e aavrov, ocrrt? el, fir) Trpo? X a P LV 
dtcov, dfycupov 8e KO\aKa>v Trapp^a-lav. 

\CYX ^ avT6v recalls 7^w^t veavrov, for which see the 
authorities ap. Mayor on Juv. XL 27. 

,rp6 s X dpvv &KOV = do not listen to flatterers, is the 
passive form of 77730* ^ovr^v TI \eyeiv (Thuc. II. 65), TT/JO? 
^801/1)1; Siimopelv (Dem. Phil. I. 38), Trpo? X ap/ epek 
(Soph. O. T. 1152). The best illustration however is 
Stob. Eel. II. 7. 11", p. H4, 23, the wise man ovre Trpoa- 
(j>epei rivl ovre irpovierai rov Trpo? X (i P iV ^oyov, Diog. L. 

vii. 117. 

Meineke would also ascribe to Zeno the couple 
quoted by Stob. Flor. n. 12, where the lemma in the MSS. 
is Zyvooorov. 


190. Maxim. Floril. c. 6, ed. Mai, o fiev yevpyos a< 
(av av TTO\VV teal KO\OV 6e\oi Kapjrov \a/3eiv uxf>\ifj,ov 
eavrov KLvot<; "Trape^erai Kal Travra rpOTrov e 
Kal Qepcnrevei vroXt) Se pd\\ov avdpwjrot, rot? eo< 
7re(f)VKacri ^apt^ea-dai Kal Trepl -7-01)9 TOIOVTOVS 
<T7rovSdef.v Kal Oavfxacrrov ovBev. Kal yap Kal roav 
TOV (jco/iaro? bceivittV eVt/ieXoi;//,e#a fjbd\\ov ( nrep (J 

eaurot? Trpos rrjv VTnjpea-iav vofjbi^op,ev elvai, o 
v<f> &v ev Trda-^etv d^iovfjLev, &)(/)eXt/i 
, aXXa /JLTJ rot? ^670^9 elvai Sei. ovSe yap 77 e Xat a 
depairevovTi avrrjv 7raydX\eTai, aXX e(/>epoucra 
re al /eaXoi)<? KapTrovs ejreicrev eavrijs eVt- 

This fragment is taken from Wachsmuth (Comm. I. 
p. 6): see Introd. p. 31. 

0\oi: unless ^eX?; be read, av belongs to the verb. 
Cf. Dem. de Cor. 246, aXXa fj,r/v <Lv y av o pt jrwp 
inrevOvvos eirj, iracrav e^eraaiv Xa/i/3a^e. But it is often 
difficult to determine whether the optative is really 
potential. See Fennell on Find. Nem. iv. 8, Goodwin 
557, Madvig 137. 

w4>&i|xov, cf. Clean th. frags. 75 and 77. 

av8pwiroi, " ol addendum ? " Wachsm. 
Jelf 654 b. 

191. Athen. XHI. 565 D, 6 Se o-o^o? eVeti/o? Zi jva)v, w? 
(f>rj(Tiv Avriyovos 6 Kapvarios, TrpopavTevo/Aevos v/j,aiv <w? 
TO ei/co? Trepl TOV fiiov Kal r/79 Trpoa-Tronjrou TTiTrjSevcrea)S, 
<j)rj <W9 01 TrapaKovcravres avrov ru>v \oya)v Kal pi] crvvevTes 
ecrovrai pvTrapol Kal dv\evdepoi KaBaTrep ol TTJS Aptcr- 
TITTTTOV Trapeve ^Oe.vre^ a/pecreco9 dffVTOl Kal dpacrels. 

Cic., N. D. III. 77, attributes this remark to Aristo : 
si verum est quod Aristo Chius dicere solebat, nocere 
audientibus philosophos iis, qui bene dicta male interpre- 


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, ev yap eipvjrai, efy, TO rov 
Zt jvwvos on rovrov eve/fa Kapreov ov teal KO^reov, rov 
Kara <j>vcriv, r (va M fiapovpevos ns VTTO TT?<? /CO/XT;? ^8 
evoxXovpevos rj vrpo? (j,r)Bjj,lav evepyetav. 

rod Kurd 4>(iriv. Conformity to nature, i.e. external 
environment, is taken as the basis of all those actions, 
which, although unconnected with virtue, yet constitute 
the objects of KaOrj/covra, Diog. L. VII. 108, evepyrj^a Se 
avro (KaOfJKov) elvcu, rat? Kara (f>vcnv Karaa-Kevah oliceiov, 
Stob. Eel. ii. 7. 8 a , p. 86, 13 ; Diog. L. vn. 105. 

193. Diog. L. VIII. 48, d\\d H,T)V /cat rov ovpavbv 
rrpwrov (i.e. Pythagoras) ovopdcraL KOO-^OV KCU rrjv yrjv 
arpoyyv^V co? Se 0eo</>/oacrro<? TiapfJ^eviB rjV w? Se 

The lines of Hesiod supposed to be referred to are 
Theog. 126 128, Fata Se roi rrp&rov pev eyeivaro laov 
kavrfi ovpavov darepoevO iva /J.LV rrepl rrdvra Ka\vrrroi 
o<f)p elr) fMCiKapea-o-i ^eot? eSo? cr(/>aXe<? aid, which are 
a very poor basis for the two assertions. For the limited 
sense in which /cocr/xo? is used, cf. Diog. VII. 138, Kal 
avn]v Se rrjv SiaKOcr^a-iv rwv darepcov Koafiov eivai 
\eyovaiv, Krische, p. 396, 397. 

194. Diog. L. VI. 91, Zrfvmv 8 avff 6 Ktrtei)? ev ral? 
^pet at? Kal icwSiov avrov (Crates) ^al irore 
ra> rpiftcavi dveTnrpeirrovvra. 

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


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 
Tpi@(ov (cf. apoph. 3). 

dvcmTpcirrovvTa i.e. " nee curavisse deformitatem." The 
word is omitted in L. and S. and also in Steph. Th. 

195. Dio. Chrysost. LIII. 4, yeypafa Be real ZTJVUV 6 
<j>i\6ao(f>o<; 6t5 re rr,v IXtdSa Kal rrjv OSvo-reiav Kal -rrepl 
rov Mapyirov Be Bo/cel yap K al rovro TO Troirj^a vrro 
v yeyovevai vewrepov Kal aTroTreipwpevov rijs avrov 
7rpo5 TTOirja-iv. 6 Be Z^vwv ovBev rcav rov Opijpov 
&pa Birjyovpevos /cal BiBdo-Kvv ore ra pev K ara 
B6av ra Be Kara d\ij0eiav yeypafev, OTTW? ^ faivrjrcu 
avrfa avTa> jMjfOfUVO^ ev THTI BOKOVCTIV evavTifo? cipijtrOai. 
6 Be \6yos ovrof Avrttrfftvow earl -rrporepov on ra fj.ev 
Bofy ra Be d\i)0eia eiprjrai ru> rro^rfj- dX>C o pei> OVK 
egeipydo-aro avrov, 6 Be naff eicaarov ruv eirl pepovs 

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. 

MopY<j. 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. ix, Zr,W 6 2 
evt]\\arre TOI)? trri^ovf \eywv 

pev Travdpurro? 05 ev eiirovri iriOrfrai 
B 1 av Kaicelvos 05 auras Trdvra vorjcrrj, 


rfj ei TreiOeia ra Trputrela cioovs, rp <j)pov>j<r6i Se ra 
oevTepela. The same in Proclus on Hesiod, Op. 291, 
Gaisf. Poet. Gr. Min. n. p. 200, cf. Diog. L. vn. 25, 26, 
whose comment on the change of place in the lines is 
as follows : Kpeirrova yap elvai TOV aicovaai aX,o5? 
8vvdfA6Vov TO \eyofjievov Kal xpf)cr0at ai/T<>, rov 01 avrov 
TO Tcav crvvvoi icravTos. TW /j,ev yap elvai povov TO avveivai. 
rut 8 v TreiaOevTi Trpoaeivai, Kal rrjv Trpafyv. Themist. 
Or. VIII. 108 C, e /iot 8e Kal ZTJVWV 6 KtTteu9 XiW apeaTO? 
rr/v einreiOetav aTro^rjvdpevo^ rtf? 7%^ota<? dperrjv ewat 
&aai\iKWTepav /cat rrjv rd^iv ryv H&ioSov /AeraOels K.T.\. 
id. Or. XIII. 171 D, 6pO(a<; yap vire^d/ji^ave Zr/vwv 6 KtTtei)? 
/3aa-i\iKO)Tpav elvai rrj<? ay^Lvoia^ rrjv evirelOeiav. 

The lines of Hesiod (Op. 291) are often quoted or 
imitated : cf. Ar. Eth. I. 4, 7, Liv. xxn. 29, 8, Soph. Ant. 
720 (f)r)^ eywye Trpeafteveiv vroXu (frvvai, rov dvopa TrdvT 
7rto-T7At77? 7r\ewV el 8 OVV...KCU rwv \eyovrwv ev Ka\ov 
TO /jL,av0dvei,v. 

197. Plut. de and. poet. p. 33 E, teal 6 Zrjvwv eiravop- 
TO TOV 2o^)oXeou9, 
oo-Ti? Se Trpo? Tvpavvov IfMTropeveTai, 
tcelvov crTt SoOXo? Kav e\ev0epo<> 

OVK eo-Tt SoOXo? av (J. rjv) e\ev6epos 
W e\vBep(t) vvv avveK^aivwv TOV dSerj Kal peya\6(f)pova 


The fragm. is no. 711 (Bind.). This was also given to 
Aristippus or Plato by other authorities : sec Diog. L. n. 
82. For \i>6epo<; cf. frag. 149. 

198. Strabo vn. 3. 6, Homer never mentions Arabia 
el /JLTJ Zr/vwvL TW </u\ocro</>ft> Trpocre/tTeoi/ ypdfyovTi 
A.i6loira<; 8 IKO^V Kal StSoviou? "Apa/3a5 Te. 


Horn. Od. iv. 83 where the edd. now adopt *at 
01)5 the reading of Posidonius: Crates of Mallus pre 
ferred EpefjLvovs (Krische p. 393). 

199. Stob. Floril. 95. 21, Zijvtov fyq Kpdrrjra 
avayiyvcao-fceiv ev cr/cineta) KaOr/pevov rov \picrrore\ov<j 
TrporpeTrriKov ov eypa^e Trpd? Oe/uWi/a rvv Kwrrpioav 
/3a<ri\ea \eycov on ovSevl rr\eiw dyaffd vrrdp^L 777)09 TO 
(f>i\oo-o(f>ija-ai, 7r\ovrov re yap TrXeio-rov avrov e%eiv axj-re 
Scnravav et? ravra en 8e Sogav vTrdp-^etv avrw. dvayiyvut- 
O-/COI/TO? Se avrov rov cricvrea e<j)r) Trpoo-e^eiv <ifj,a pdjrrovra, 
ical rov Kpdrrjra ei-jrelv eya /j,oi Sotcw, co <J>tXtV/ce, ypdtyetv 
o9 ere TrporpeTrri/fov 7r\ei(o yap 6pd) aoi v 
os TO <f)i\o<ro<f)f)(Tai wv eypatyev Apia-roreXrjs. 
This passage belongs to the work entitled 
a: Introd. p. 31. 

200. Stob. Floril. 36. 26, Zr/vcov r<5v 
7-01)9 f^ev <f)i\o\6yov<f elvat 7-01)9 Be \oyo<f>i\ov<;. 

The meaning is made clear by Stob. Eel. II. 7. ll k p. 
105, 4, where it is said of the (f>av\os : prjBe elvai (f>i\6- 
\oyov, \oyo<j)t,\ov Be pdXXov, f^e^pt, \aXtds eTrnroXalov 
Trpoftaivovra, fj.y/ce ri Be Kal rois epyois K{3e/3aiov/j,evov 
rov r^9 dperijs \6yov. 

201. Stob. Floril. 6. 34, 6 Zjvtov rovs rr\eia- 
roi)9 \eyo)v, egov aTro rwv rcovwv ra9 rjBovds fapeiv, drrb 
rutv fiayeipeiwv \ap/3dvovra<;. 

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

202. Stob. Floril. 4. 107, Zjvtov Be efa yeXolov 
e/cao"Toi/9 fJ>ev roi<? rrpayp.acriv cos Bel ^fjv urj rrpoo~eyiv 009 
OVK elBorw, rbv Be Trapd irdvrwv eiraivov davfjid^eiv W9 



Trpdyfiacnv is clearly corrupt and 
Wachsmuth reads 7rapayyel\aa-iv, but Mr R D. Hicks 
suggests rot? -rrapa TWV vofywv TrapayyeX^aa-iV which 
restores the balance of the sentence. 
For the sense cf. Cleanth. frag. 100. 


1. Diog. L. VII. 2, %pi>j<TTr)pia%ofjLevov avrov 

rl wparrwv dpiara (Sioocrerai, aTrotcpivacrdai rov 6eov el 
rot? veicpols. odev gvvevra, ra TOJV d 

The same in Suid. s. v. 
col. 938. 

2. Diog. L. VII. 3, 7rop<f)vpav e/ji7rTropevfj,evo<; djro 
7-179 Qoivlicris 7rp6<; ru> TLeipaiet evavdyrja-ev. dve\0(av 8e 
64? ra? A#?7z/a<? ^187; rpiaKovrovrr]^, etcdOtae Trapd TWO, 

/, dvayvyixacrKOVTos 8e etcetvov TO Sevrepov TWV 
d-TTOfivrj/jLovev/jidTtav rja-Oel^ eTrvdero TTOV Sta- 
rplfioiev ol TOIOVTOI dvSpes. VKaipa><; 8e Trapiovros 
KpaTijTOS, o /3t/3XiO7r&)X,7^9 Set ^a? avrov <f>r]cri, rovry trapa- 
Ko\ov6i)crov. Cf. Themist. Or. XXIII. 295 D, ra 8e a/i</>i 
Zrjvcavos dpi8r)\d re ecrrt /cat d86(J,eva VTTO TroXXdSv 6ri 
avrov TI 2,a)tcpdrov<> aTro\oyia etc <froiviKrj<t et9 rrjv 

3. Plut. de Inimic. Util. 2, Zyvfov &e, rfc vavK\r]pla<t 
avr(p crvvrpi/Belcr rjs, rrvdo/Jievo^ elirev, ev j, to rv^rj, Trotet? 
et? rov rpi/3o)va <Tvve\avvov(ra ^09. Plut. de Tranq. An. 
6, Zrjvavt Ta> Ktrtet pia vavs Treptrjv (f>oprr)y6<; rrvdofievos 
Be ravrrjv avr6<f>oprov d7ro\co\evai crvyK\vcr6el(Tav, ev ye, 
elirev *.T.\. with xal rrjv <rrodv added after rpt/5va. 
Substantially the same account in Plut. de Exilio 11, with 


Kal (Siov fyi\6ao$>ov in place of KCLI rrjv crrodv. Suidas 
col. 1023 s. v. vvv einrXorjKa ore vevavdyr/Ka. eVt rwv 
Trap 1 \7rloa evrv^rjo-avruiv. Zr^vwv yap 6 Kirteu 9 Kara\i~ 
TTCOV TOI)<? Trplv oi8ao-Ka\ov<; Kal Kpdrrjros rov (f)i\ocro(f)ov 
(froirr/rrjs yev6/j,evo<; rovro elprjKe, vavayiw 7repi7recro)i> /cat 
eljrwv, ev 76 Troel r) rv^rj 7rpoae\avvov<ra 7//Ltr7? fyiXoaofyia 
* * * OUTCD TpaTTrjvai TT/DO? (f)i\ocro(f)Lav. That the story 
was given in various forms appears from the account 
in Diog. L. vn. 4, 5. Senec. de Tranq. An. 14, 2, Xun- 
tiato naufragio Zeno noster, quum omnia sua audiret 
submersa, " lubet " iiiquit " me fortuna expeditius philoso- 

4. Diog. L. VII. 19, 77^69 8e TOV (frdcrKovra (w? rd 
7ro\\d avTw Avricrdevrjs OVK dpeaicei, xpelav So^o/cXeof? 
ipwr^crev el nva Kal fca\d e^etv avrw 
rov S OVK elSevai, ja-avros, elr OVK 

(>rj, e p,ev n KCIKOV TJV eprifjievov VTT 

TOUT 6K\j6fjLvo<i Kal ^vrjjjiovevwv , el Se n KO\OV, ovo 

5. Diog. L. VII. 20, Xe 70i/T09 &e TIVOS avrw irepl 
?, a;? a\\a Trpode/Aevos d\\a \eyei, <TKvdpa)7rdo-as, 

e<prj, TTUCTOV <yp rfyira^ r 

The explanation is thus given by Aldobrand : videbatur 
ergo cupiditatis Polemonem accusare, ac si ilia ita docere 
consuevisset, quomodo a discipulis tractaretur. 

6. Plut. de prof, in virt. c. 6, o Se Zr/vwv opwv rov 
e6(f)paa-TOV eVl T&5 TroXXoi)? e%eiv fj,a0ijrd^ 
o efcelvov fiev %opo?, etyr], ^ei^ojv, ovfjLO? 8e 
Plut. de seips. citra inv. laud. c. 17, ovrw <ydp 6 
TO 7r\f)6os rwv (")eo(f)pdo-rov /juadrjrwv, 6 
, 6 e xo<? oe 


7. Diog. L. VII. 24, (prja-l 8 ATroXX&mo? o 
eX/coi/TO? avrov KparTjro? TOU tfiariov CITTO Sri 
eiTrelv, u> KpaTT??, Xa/3?; <tXocrd</>&>i> e&riv eVt8efo? 77 8t 
Tft)i/ amai/ TreiVa? GUI/ eX/te rovrov. el Be pe /3taf/;, TO 
/tier a<3fj,a irapd aoi ecrrai, r/ 8e ^rv^rj Trap a Sr/XTrcim. 

Cf. Cleanth., frag. 108, and for the concluding words 
of the anecdote Arist. Ach. 398, 6 1/01)5 /*ei/ ef&> ^v\\ey(ov 
7rv\\ia OVK ev&ov avTos 8 evSov /c.r.X. Plant. Aulul. 
179, nunc domum properare propero : nam egomet sum 
hie, animus domist. Pseudol. 32, nam istic meus animus 
nunc est non in pectore, and Lorenz ad loc. 

8. Diog. L. VI L 21, e Xe7e Be xal rwv <f>i\oa6<f>a)v rot)? 
7r\ei<TTov<>, ra. /AW TToXXrt atro^of? elvai, ra Be /jurcpa /cat 

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 evfia6el<t, with 
Meric Casaubon. 

9. Diog. L. VII. 20, etVoi/ro? Be TWOS on, pifcpu avrw 
BOKCI ra \oydpta roov (f>t\oa-6(f)wv, \eyeis, etTre, rd\T)6ij. 
Bet fj-evroi Kal ra? cruXXaySa? avrwv /Spa^eta? elvai, el 

10. Diog. L. VII. 25, Kal 7rpo<? rov Beigavra Be avna 
Bia\eKTifcov ev rq> Oepi^ovn \6ya) eTrrd BtaXeKTifcds IBeas 
Trvdecrdai Trocra? elcrTrpdrrerat, /jLiaOov aKovcravra Be 
ercarov Biaicocrias avru> Bovvai. 

The fallacy known as Oeplfav was concerned with the 
nature of the possible. " According to Ammon. de Inter. 
106 a [ 3 p. 160 ed. Or.], Lucian, Vit. Auct. 22 the depi^wv 
was as follows : Either you will reap or you will not reap : 


it is therefore incorrect to say, perhaps you will reap." 
Zeller, p. 182. 

11. Suidas col. 1202 s.v. SeXro? = Diog. L. vn. 37, 
K~\.edvdr)s, ov Kal d<j>a>polov rots" <JK\ripoK^pot^ SeXroi?, at 
fji,6\is fj,ev ypd(f)ovTat, 8iarrjpov(n oe rd ypa<pevTa. Cf. Plut. 
de Audierido c. 18, uxnrep 6 KXedvOrjs Kal se 

Sofcovvres elvai TU>V crvcr^oXacrrwv, OVK ci 
eK TOV /J,av0dveiv ovoe aTreKa/jivov, d\\d 
et? avTov<; 7rai,ov, dyyelois re /3pa^ucrro/Ltot? /cat TrivaKicn 
XaX/ca?? dTreiKdfrvres, ft5? /u,o \t9 p,ev TrapaSe^o/jievoi roi)? 
Xoyou? ao-</>aX&)? Se Kal /3e/3ai <w<? Tijpovvres. For 
see Becker, Charicles, Eng. Tr. p. 102. 

12. Diog. L. VII. 18, AptcrTtwt o? Se rou 
a 8ia~\.eyofj,evov OVK evcfrvuis, evia be Kal 

/cat Opacrecos, dSvvarov, elrrev, el fir/ ere 6 Trarrjp 

^evvrjcrev. odev avrov Kal \d\ov aTre/caXet, 

<av. Attributed to Diogenes by Plut. de Educ. Puer. 3. 

13. Stob. Floril. 36, 23, ra>v TI<S ev A/caS^/Lteta 
veavi<TKU>v Trepl eTnniSev/jidrwv Sie^eyero dfypovws o oe 
Zrjvwv edv pr} TH]V y\d>rrav, e<f>T], et? vovv dTro/Bpegas 
SLaXeyr), TTO\V 7r\ei(o ert Kal ev rot? \6yois TrX^^eX^cret?. 
Plut. Phoc. v. 2, 7j,r)va)V e\e<yev on Bel TOV (f)i\6(To(f)ov et <? 
vovv dTroftaTTTOVTa 7Tpo<pepecr0ai rrjv \el~iv. Cf. Suidas I. p. 
328 (of Aristotle), rrjs ^ucrew? ypafM/Jbarevs ffV TOV Ka\auov 
aVo/3pe^wi/ et? vovv. 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. VII. 20, oelv Se e$r] TOV 8t,a\ey6/^vov, 
(ocnrep rot;9 vTroKpiTas, TTJV [J,ev (f)(0vr)v Kal Trjv ovva^iv 
fj,eyd\T]v eyeiv TO /jLevToi crro^a f^rj oie\Keiv o Troielv 
roi)9 7ro\\d /jiev \a\ovvTas, dovvaTa oe. 

H. P. 15 


15. Diog. L. VII. 20, rot? fv \eyof4evois ovtc e^y &eiv 
KaraXeiTreadai TOTTOV, wcrTrep rots dyaOolf re^virat^i 619 
TO dedGaaOai rovvavriov Se rov aKovovra OVTO) 7rpo<? 
rot? \eyofjievois ylveadai, ware fj,rj \a/j,^dvetv %povov et? 

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

TOITOV : perhaps we should read %povov, uxnrep TOTTOV. 

16. Diog. L. VII. 22, ^,7) ra? <j>a)vds teal ra? 
TrofjLVTjfjioveveiv, d\\d Trepl ryv Std0e<Ttv TTJS 

rov vovv da-^o\icr6ai fj,rj axnrep e-^rrjcriv nva rj 

For the distinction between ^wvrf and Xe^t? cf. Diog. 
L. VII. 56, Xei9 S ecrrt ^xyy^ eyypdfj,fj,aros. The meaning 
is: we ought not to commit to memory the words and 
expressions of a maxim (xpei a? as in apoph. 4), but to 
exercise our mind as to its arrangement, without learning 
it by heart like a cookery recipe. For avaXapfidveiv cf. 
Plut. Agesil. 20, 3. Cobet, however, translates otherwise. 

17. Diog. L. VII. 23, TO /caXXo? dire T^9 era) </>p 00-1^779 
avdos elvat, 

So Cobet, followed by Wilamowitz, for MSS. (fxavfjs . . . 
(jxavr/v, cf. Diog. L. VII. 130, apa dvQos dperfc. Zeno, 
frag. 147, tcaTd\r)7TTov elvat, TO 77^05 e^ eiSovs. 

18. Stob. Floril. Monac. 196, Zrjvwv 6 <^>t\6cro0o?, 
\ey6vra)v rivdav ort irapdSoga \eyei, 17TV, aXX ov irapd- 
vopa. Cf. Cleanth. frag. 107. 

19. Plut. de Virt. Mor. 4, tcairoi teal Zr/vwvd <j>aa-tv 
et? Oearpov dviovra KiOapySovvros A/^ot/Seo)? Trpo? TOI)? 
HaOrjrds, Iwpev, eiireiv, OTT&K tcaTa^ddca^ev otav evrepa 
rcai, vevpa teat v\a teal oa-rd \6yov Kal dpid/j,ov /j,era<r- 
%ovra Kal Tafeeo? e/i/ieXeiai/ Kal (frwvrjv d^itjcriv. 

Cf. Plut. Arat. c. 17, 2, aSovros A/Ltoty3e&)9 eV TCO 
Bedrpy, a passage which also fixes Amoebeus as a con 
temporary of Antigonus. 


20. Stob. Floril. 36, 19, Zrjvwv Trpo? rov 7T\etw \a\elv 
Oe\ovra i] d/coveiv " veavicrice" elrcev, "77 </w<Tt? 
y\wrrav /Jiev fAiav Svo oe wra Trapecr^ev, iva SiTr X.acriova 
wv \eyo/j,ev dtcovwpev." Diog. L. VII. 23, vrpo? TO <f>\vapovv 
^eipdiciov, aid rovro, eljre, 8vo wra e^OfMev, aro^a Se ev, 
Iva 7r\eiova /lev UKOVW^V, 7jrrova 8e \6j(Of^ev, cf. Plut. do 
Garrul. 1, /CCO^OTT;? yap avOaipercx; earns (sell. 77 d 
dv6pucnra)v, oljjLai, p.efji^>o^evwv on piav fjbev 

3 COTCL a^ovo-iv, id. de audiendo, 3, KOI ydp rov 

vwv^av 6 ^7TLvOapo<f eTraivwv e^rj fjur^re rr Keiova 

/jurjre e\drrova (j)Oeyyof^ev(i) paoiws evrv%eiv erepa). real 

rr}v (frvcrtv r]jJLU>v eicdaru) Xeyov&i ovo fj,ev wra oovvai 

jjulav 8e yXwrrav a5? e\drrova \eyeiv rj dfcoveiv o<j)Gi- 


21. King. L. VII. 21, veaviaKov rro\\d \a\ovvros, 
t ^)?;, rci u>rd aov et? rrjv <y\wrrav (rvveppvrjKev. 

22. Diog. L. VII. 26, e Xe7e re Kpelrrov elvai roi9 
Troalv o\Lcr6elv rj rf] <y\wrrr}. 

This is found several times in the collections of jvwfMai, 
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. VII. 14, 7r\eiovwv re rrepiardvrtov avrov 
oeii;as ev rfj aroa nar aKpov TO %v\ivov rrepifyepes rov 
/3a>/jiov 6(^77, TOUTO TTOTC ei> fjuecrw e/ceiro oca oe ro ef^rro- 
oi^eiv ioia ereOrf. tcai Lyzet? fj,ev etc rov /j,ecrov /Saarda-avres 
avrovs rjrrov YJ^JUV evo-^Xrio-ere. 

Kohl or in Rhein. Mus. xxxix. 297 proposes fidOpov 
for (3(i)fMov. 

24. Diog. L. VII. 24, epwrydels 7r&5<? e^ei vr/ao? \oi- 
SopLdv, KaOdirep, elirev, el re pea /Sevres dvarroicpiros drco- 



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 (tcaOaTrep el Trpeo-ftevrrjv dvarroicpirov 
aTrocrreXXot/tu)": so Wilamowitz. 

25. Diog. L. VII. 24, ev o-vprrocriw tcara/ceipevos crtyfj, 
TTJV alriav ijpwnjdtj. <f>r) ovv ru> eytcaXeaavri aTrayyeiXai 
7T/3O9 rov /3ao-tXea, ort rraprjv rt<? Giwjrav eVto"rrt/u,ei>o9. 
rjo-av oe 01 epwrrjaavres rrapd UroXepaiov 7rpe t7/3et<? d<f>i- 
KOfievoi, ical /3ov\6fj,evoi fj.aBelv rt eiTroiev Trap 1 avrov 
7T/90? rov /Sao-tXe a. Stob. Floril. 33, 10, Zr/va)i>, AvTtyovov 
A.6rjvae 7re/u,-/ravT09, tc\r)0ei<; VTT avrojv cri/v 
0tXo<7o<^)ot9 eVt SeiTrvov, Kaiccivwv Trapd irorov 
eTriBei/cvvaOat rrjv avrwv (!!~iv, ai/ro? eaiya. 
T(OV Se Trpeo-ftewv ^rjrovvrwv ri dTra<yyei\w(n Trepl avrov 
7rpo<f Avriyovov, " rovr avro," e</>?7, " o /SXeVere." Sv<r- 
Kparzcrrarov yap irdvrwv o \6yos. Pint, de Garrul. IV. 
A.0T)vr}<ri Se rt<? ecrruwv Trpecr/Set? /SatrtXt/eoi/?, e<f>i\orifj,rj0r) 
(nrovoaov<Tiv avrols crvvayayeiv ei<f ravro roi)? d>i\o- 
cr600L9, xpu>n,evwv 8e rwv aXkwv KoivoXoyia /cat ra? 
aTroSiSovrojv rov oe Tirjvwvos r/av^iav ayovros. 
/cat TrpoTTtovres 01 %evot, Trepl <rov oe 
ri xP n Xeyeiv, tyao-av, u> Zrjvwv, rat y9ao-t\et ; /crzVet^o?, 
d\\o f*r)8ev, drrev, rj ori rrpecr^vr^ e<rrlv ev AOr /vats 
rrapa rrorov aiwrrdv Svvdpevos. Also in an expanded 
form ap. Theodor. Metoch. p. 334, Kiessling. 

The anecdote in the form related in Diog. Laert. rests 
on the authority of Antigonus of Carystus, and hence 
Wilamowitz (Antig. p. 114) concludes that the king who 
sent the embassy was Ptolemaeus and not Antigonus 
Gonatas. It was natural that in later times, when the 
friendly relations subsisting between Antigonus and Zeno 
were remembered, the country of the ambassadors should 



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. 

26. Aelian, Yar. H. IX. 26, Zrjvava rov Kircea 01 
aloovs ayav ical <nrovorj<; r)1 ev Air^yow 6 /3acrtXeu<?. /cat 
Trore ovv inrepTrXya-dels oivov eTreKW fiacre rco Zrjvwvi,, Kai 
<f>i\wv avrov Kal 7repij3d\\(av are egoivo? wv, rjgiov rl 
avrov Trpoa-ra^ai, ouvvs ical veavievouevos avv opKW ^} 
drvxweiv rfc aiVjJo-ew?. 6 Se \eyei avry, iropevBel? 
cpeo-ov <re/Ai;t5? a^a ical peyaXo^povw rrjv pedyv e\e<yj-a<; 
Kal ^eto-ft^eyo? avrov M vrore Biappayf) vrro 77X7707^179. 

27. Athen. II. 55 F, Sio /cat Zyvcov o Kmeik, <rK\rjpo<; 
wv Kal IT aw OvfjiiKos Trpo? rou? yvapluovs, eirl TrXelov 
rov oivov o-Trao-a? 7)81)9 eyivero Kal /ie/Xt^o? vrpo? TOI)? 
TTvvdavouevovs ovv rov rporrov rr)v Siatpopav e\eye TO 
auro rot? Oepuois -rrad^iv, ical yap eVeiVou? rcplv Sia- 
^pa-^fjvai TTi/cpoTarou? eli^at, rconaQtVTas Se y\VKeis Kai 
rrpoo-r)vea-rdrovs. Galen, de Anim. Mor. 3. IV. 777 K., /cat 
Zr;va)v, a> 5 0ao-^, eXe^ei/ ort, Kadd-rrep ol -rriKpol Oepaoi 
j^pe^o^evoi ru> vbari y\vKels yivovrat, ovro) Kal avrov vrc 
oivov BiaTi0ecr0at. Eustath. on Horn. Od. </>, 293, p. 1910, 
42, ZTJVMV ovv, (fracriv, 6 Kirievs crA,7/po9 aXXto? o^ vrpo? 
roi 9 o-vvrj0ei$, o/Lttu? et 7T\eiov oivov Tracrete (leg. o-?rao-ete) 
^8i)f eyivero Kal ^et Xtxo?, Xe7&)^ rauVoy rt rot? Oeppow 
7T<7cr%eti>, o? TTiKporepoi oi/T69 Trply Stafipaxfjvai TronaOevres 
7\u/cet9 ylvovrai Kal Trpoa-rjvecrrepoi,. Similarly Diog. L. 
vil. 26. 

28. Athen. vin. 345 c, Z^o^ 8 6 KiT4ei)9 o 
, 7rpo9 roy otyocfrdyov w avvefy eVi 


Xpovov, Ka6d <f)ija-iv Avriyovot 6 Kapvo-rios ev TO> 

$l(f> (p. 119 Wil.), peyaXov rivos Kara rv^nv 

TrapareQevros, d\\ov S ovSevos 7rapea-Kevacr/j.evov, 

o Zijvwv ctTTo rov Trivatcos olo<f jjv Kareadieiv. rov 

efj.@\e\fravro<; avra>- ri ovv, e^r), TOI)<? o-u^coi/ra? aoi oiei 

Trdo-xew, ei av piav rj^pav pi] &e8vvi)<rai evejfceiv di/ro- 

(payiav ; The same in Diog. L. VII. 19. 

29. Athen. V. 186 D, 6 8e Zijvatv, eVet rt? raiv 
Trapovrwv 6-^o(f)dya}v dfricrvpev afia rut TrapareOrjvai TO 
e7T(iva> rov i-)(6vo<;, o-rpeS/ra? KCU auro? rov l^vv (iTrea-vpev 
e7ri\eya)V (Eur. Bacch. 1129) 

Ivw 8e rdjrl Qdrzp egeipyd^ero. 
The same story is told of Bion Borysthenites, id. vm. 
344 A. Schweighauser (Ind.) thinks it is rightly attri 
buted to Zeno. 

30. Diog. L. VII. 17, Svolv & V7ravaKei/j.evoiv ev TTOTCO, 
/cat rov VTT avrov rov v<f> eavrov (TKifj,a\^ovro^ rw TroSt, 
avros Kelvov rw yovari. emo-rpafyevros B, ri ovv ol et 
rov vTTotcdrw aov Trao-^eti/ V-JTO <rov ; see also Suidas, col. 
792, s. v. a-KipaXiao). Vulgo v-rrepavatc. and VTrep avrov : 
corrected by Menage. 

31. Stob. Floril. 57, 12, Z^vtav 6 STOHKO? 
opwv nva r&v yva)pifj.a)v VTTO rov dypov TT 
etirev edv fjurj crv rovrov aTroXeV?;?, O^TO? <re a 

32. Boissonade, Anecd. Gr. vol. i. p. 450, ZfjBi, <Z 
dvdpwjre, ^77 povov tva ^^779 teal TT/J;? XX 7 va T o tfv 
Trpcx; TO ev tfv tear axprj cry, attributed to Zeno in Cod. 
Reg. Paris, 1168, seems to be another form of the well- 
known saying of Socrates, ap. Stob. Floril. 17, 22, {m/iev 
OVK iva eadiwpev aXX eV^^ev tva &fj,ev. This forms 
frag. eth. 10 in Wachsmuth s collection (Comm. I. p. 8), 
who refers to other passages giving the saying to Zeno. 


33. Diog. L. vii. 21, KOI Trpoe^e pero ra rov J.a<jyi)<riov 

ft)?. e7ri/3a\o/jLi>ov TIVOS TUIV fjLaOrjTwv fjbeyd\a (frvadv, 
Trara^as enrev, &$<? OVK ev TM f J ieyd\a) TO ev Keipevov elr), 
a\\ ev T<M ev TO fieya. 

The saying of Caphesias is recorded also by Athen. 
xiv. 629, A. 

34. Diog. L. VII. 26, TO ev yiveaOai, irapd fjiitcpov, ov 
H*r)v fit/cpov elvai. 

35. Plut. de vit. pud. 13, TO TOI) Zirjvwvos, w? cnrav- 
Trjo~a<; Tivl veavicrKfa TWV (Jvvr]Qwv Trapa TO 
/3a8iovTi, Kal TrvdofAevos, OTI (f>ev>yei fyi\ov 

Tvpelv avTa> TO, tyevSrj TL Xe 7et?, (frrjcriv, d/3e\Tepe ; ere 
dyvo)/j,ova)v Kal dSitcwv ov 8e8iev ou8 alcr- 
av 8 eicelvov inrep TWV Sitcalfov ov dappels VTTO- 

36. Diog. L. VII. 16, 17, olov eVt TOI) 

. o%eTioi> <ydp TL OKvrjp&s avTov 
, elirev, v(f)opa TOV Trr/^ov ov yap eo-Tiv ev 

37. Diog. L. VII. 19, ^ipanlov 8e TrepiepyoTepov irapa 
TTJV r/\LKLav epfDTWVTOS ^r)TTjfj,d TI, Trpoo rj yaje Trpo? KCLTQIT- 
Tpov, Kal e/ceXeucrei efj,(3\e\lrai,. eVeiT 7jpa!>T / r]o-ev el 
avTM dpfjLOTTOVTa eivai en/ret TO, TotavTa 

38. Diog. L. vii. 21, veavitrxov Be TWOS OpaavTepov 
8ia\e<yofAevov, OVK dv etTrot/xt, effrtj, iieipaKiov, a eVep^eTat 

39. Diog. L. VII. 21, Trpo? TO^ Ka\6v elirovTa OTL ov 

pao~dr]o~o~dat 6 cro009, ovbev, ec^rj, Vfjiu>v 
ecrea dai TWV Ka\a>v (el jjt,r) rj/mels epaa-Orjo-6- 
fieda, added by Menage from Hesych. Mil.). Cf. frag. 172. 
Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Floril. 63. 21. 


40. Diog. L. vii. 22, TTCLVTW IXe 7 ei/ d-rrpeirearepov 
elvai rov rv<f>ov, teal ^akiara eVt rtov vecav. 

Diog. L. vii. 23, Trpo? rov icexpio-^evov ra> pvpy, 
rt? eo-riv, etfyij, 6 yvvaitc6<; o&v ; cf. Xen. Syrap. II. 3. 

42. Stob. Eel. n. 31, 81, p. 215, 13 = Exc. e MS. Flor. 
Ion Damasc. p. n. c. 13, 81, Zjvuv ^r^el^ TTW? <iv 9 
veo? eXa^tcrra a^aprai/ot, et irpt 6(f>8a\}4(Sv e^et, e^, ou? 
fiaXiara ripa tcai al 

43. ^Stob. Floril. 15, 12, Zijvwv 717)09 TOU? a7ro\o 7 ou- 
ovt v-n-ep T^? ayrwi/ ao-wrta? /fat Xeyovras ex TTO\\OV 
rov TrepiovTOS dva\i<TKeiv e\ejev, r; Troy /cai rot? payei 
a-vwvwcreade, edv aXpvpd \eyaxri TreTroirjtcevai, rd o 
on TrXfjOos d\wv avroi<? i 

44. Diog. L. vii. 17, epuriKw Be oWe/^ei/o? Xpe- 
avrov re /cat K\edv0ovs, dve 

Se TOV evov^ rj, K a -rv arpwv dicovfo 
rtav dyaduv fcpdriarov elvai <^dp^aKov Trpo? ra </>Xe 7/t iat- 
vovra rjavyiav. 

For Chremonides cf. Introd. p. 6. 

45. Diog. L. VII. 18, 7T/>09 Se rov ^XoTratSa, oi^re rot)? 

^77 <f>peva<; e^eti/, aet oiarpifiovTas ev 
, ovre eVet i/oi"?. 

46. Stob. Floril. 17, 43, Zijveov Se 6 Ktrtei)? ovSe 
-wv^ yero Beiv rpo^v Trpoo-^epeadai Tpvfapcorepav, a\X 
eVet o OepajreiKav iarpos eVeXeyei/ avrov (frayeiv veorrov 
Trepio-repds, ovtc dvao-%6ij.evo<t, " to<? Mavfjv," ^77, " /ie 

Manes was a common slave s name, cf. Ar. Av. 522, 


OUTO><? t /itt? Trdvres frporepov peyXovs yiovs r 
vvv 8 az/fyaTroS , ijXiOtovs, Mai/a?. Sec 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. VII. 17, ft>9 Se KVVIKOS rt? 01) $?/cra? e\aiov 
ev ry XrjKvOw irpoayr^a-ev avrbv OVK <fyrj Saxrew. 
X-Oovra ^kv-roL eKe\eve crice^raa-Oai oTrorepo? elf} dvat- 


48. Athen. IX. 370 C, real ov Trapd&ogov el Kara TT}? 
Kpdf*,(3r]<; Ttves wfjivvov, OTrore KOI Zijvwv 6 Kirtei)? 6 r^9 
2roa? KTi<TT(t>p fjufiovpevos rbv Kara rrjs KVVOS opicov 
^(a/cpdrov^ KOI avrbs w^vve rrjv KaTnrapiv, ce5? "E/z,7roSo9 
(frrjortv ev A. jrofJLVijfjLovevfjLatnv, cf. Diog. L. vil. 32. 

"Ep-TToSos : on this very doubtful name see Miillcr, Frag. 
Hist. Gr. IV. 403, after whom Kaibel reads "E^vreSo?. 

49. Stob. Floril. 98, 68, Zrjvwv eXeyev ovSevos r/ 
OVTW TreveaOai co9 y^povov. /Spa^i)? yap OVTWS o ftios, rj 
Se Texvr) fjiaKprj, Kal fjidXXov 77 T? rr^ ^v^ voaovs 
Ida-aa-Oai Svvapevrj, cf. Diog. L. VII. 23, fj,r)8ev6s re 

So Theophrastus ap. Cic. Tusc. in. 69. 

50. Stob. Floril. Monac. 197, 6 auro? (Zijvmv) epwrij- 
rt ea-n (/u Xo?, a\\o? olo? e 7&). Diog. L. VII. 23, 

TI? ecrrt ^>/Xo? ; a\Xo?, e 0?/, 67 w. 

So Arist. Eth. N. ix. 4, 5, eart 7p 6 <<fXo5 a XXo? 
aJro9, cf. Cic. Lael. 80 verus amicus...est tamquam 
alter idem, ib. 23 and Reid s note. 

51. Origen adv. Gels. vm. 35, p. 7 68, Zijvwv 8e 7rp<k 
rbv el-jrovra, d-rroKoi^v edv fir; ve r^wp^wfiat,, eyca Se, 

, edv /jur/ ere $i\ov 


52. Diog. L. VII. 23, &iovv<riov 8e rov 

enrovToi avTw Bid rL avrov fjLovov ov Siopdoi ; e<f>r), ov yap 
<roi Tricrreva). 

For Dionysius cf. Diog. L. vn. 37, 166, 167. Cic. Fin. 
v. 94. Athen. vn. 281 D. 

53. Seneca de Benef. IV. 39. 1, Quare ergo, inquit, 
Zeno vester, quum quingentos denarios cuidam promisisset 
et ilium parura idoneum comperisset, amicis suadentibus 
ne crederet, perseveravit credere quia promiserat? Perhaps 
the same circumstance is alluded to in Themist. Or. xxi. 
252 B, Trore dcfrrjicas rda SeSaveia/jieva), tcaddrrep Zirjvwv 6 

54. Diog. L. VII. 23, SovXov eVt /cXoTr/y, </>acriV, e/ 

yov TOV 8 etVdi TO?, ei/xapro fjLOL K\e^rai /cat &apr/vai, 

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. XXIII. 1. 

55. Diog. L. vn. 23, rutv yvwptfiwv rivos TraiS 
/j,efjL(0\a)7ri(TfAevov 6eaadp,evo^, 7rp6? avrov, opw <rov, 
rov OvfAov rd i 

56. Diog. L. VII. 28, 29, ereXevra 8rj ovrax;. eV rfc 
aTTiwv TrpotreTTTatcre Kal rov Sd/crv\ov 7repie ppr?e. 
8e rr/v yrjv rfj 

i, r p avei? ; 

Kal Trapa^prlfia ere\evri)crev, aTroTrvl^af eavrov. Stob. 
Floril. VII. 45, Tt-qvwv, co? rjSr/ yepwv u>v Trrataa? Karejrecrev, 
eiTre, " ri pe aveis ; " teal eieeXOcov eavrov 
. Lucian Macrob. (LXII.) 19, Zr/vwv Be...ov (frao-iv 
eio-ep%6[j,evov et? n}v eKKXrjaiav Kal Trpo<nrralcravra dva- 


L pe /3oa<? ; Kal viroffrpfyavra oiicaSe Kal 

pocfrr/s T\evTTj(rai rov ftiov. 
the author of the play is uncertain. Both 
Aeschylus and Sophocles wrote plays with this title, but 
Xauck thinks the words belong to the Xiobe of Tiino- 
theus: cf. Soph. frag. 395 (Bind.). The situation must 
have been similar to the concluding scene of the Oedipus 
Coloneus, where Oedipus is summoned by a mysterious 
voice: O. C. 1G2G f. 

57. Thcodor. Metoch. p. 812, Kiessling, KOL 6 f^ev 
fyvwv e\eyev, r/\0e, 7rapij\0v, ot&ev 7T/309 e>e Ka6o\ov, 
Trepl rwv evravOa Trpajfjbarwv Kal rov {Biov 

This recalls Marcus Aurelius, e.g. vi. 15. 


1. Diog. L. vil. 41, 6 Se K\edv0r)<; e fieprj </>r/<ri - 

8ia\KTltc6v, prjTOplKOV, IjOlKOV, 7TO\ITIKOV, fywiKUV, #60- 


% (w pT]. These are only subdivisions of the triple 
Zenonian division : thus Sia\eKTiicbv and pyropiKov to 
gether occupy the same ground as \oyitcov (Diog. L. vn. 41 
cited in Zeno frag. 6, where Cleanthes is probably meant). 
For his rhetorical writings see Introd. p. 50. Hirzel n. 
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. IX. 5, ? T/>et<? \6yovs et? re 
TOV Trepi rov Trai/ro? fcai rov TToXirucov Kal rov 6eo\oyifc6v. 
But see Stein, Psych, n. 95, Erkenntnistheorie n. 206. 

iroXiriKov. Similar is Aristotle s distinction between 
<f>p6vT)o-i<; (practical thought) and TroXm/o? (Eth. VI. 8), in 
which chapter <f>p6vrj(ri<f appears both as the general term 
and as a special subdivision dealing with the individual. 
The same may be said of r)6in.Qv here. 

eo\o-yiKov. Aristotle divides Speculative (OewpTjTiicjj) 
Philosophy into (pva-ixtj, p-aOrj^ariKr), 0eo\oyiicij (Metaph. 
v. 1, 10). The last-named branch is identical with irpmrrj 
<j>i\ocro<f>la and is the best of the three, because its subject- 



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 
0eo\oytKov does not simply refer to the treatment of 
popular religion appearing in the book ire pi 0ewv. The 
hymn to Zeus belongs to 0eo\oyiKov rather than to 


2. Epict. Diss. I. 17. 11, rd \oyiKa a\\a>v eVrl Sta- 
KpiTiKa real eTrunceirTiica real, a><? av Tt9 eirroi, ^erp^riKa 
/cal o-rariKa. TI S \eyei ravra ; uovos Xpuo-tTTTTO? KCti 
Zr/vwv not K\edv0r)s ; See Zeno frag. 4. 

3. Sext. Emp. Math. VII. 228, (rvrrwais} trepl fa evOvs 
/cal Stea-Trjo-aV K\edv0^ pev jdp rrjv TVTTWVIV Kara 
el(Toxn v Te Kal e % 7 7 1 > Mwep Ka ^ & l< * r ^ v $a>ierv\la>v 7*- 
yvo/j,evrjv rov Kripov TVTTOXTLV. ib. 372, el yap TViracrk eo-riv 
ev -tyvxfl "n ^avraaia, rjroi tear e^o^v Kal etcro^^ TVTTOXTW 
ea-riv, o5? 01 Trepl rov K\edv0rjv vop%ov<rtv, rj Kara -v/rtX^v 

" erepoiojo-tv yiverai K.T.\. ib. VIII. 400, K\edv0ov<s fj.ev 
Kvpiw dicovovTOS ryjv uerd ela-oxfc Kal egoxfc voovpevrjv 
(rv7ro)(nv). id. Pyrrh. II. 70, eirel ovv 77 ^vyr] Kal TO 
faeuoviKov Trvevad eanv ff \eirTouepecrrep6v n Trvevuaros, 
w? <]>atriv, ov Bwrjo-erai rt? rvrrwaiv etnvoelv ev avrai ovre 
Kar e^ox^v Kal elcrox^v, (9 eVl rwv a^payiSwv op&fiev, 
ovre Kara rrjv reparoXoyovuevijv erepoiwriKriv. 

Zeno s definition of fyavraala (frag. 7) became a battle 
ground for his successors: Cleanthes explained TuV&xm 
as referring to a material impression like that made upon 
wax by a seal, cf. Philo de mund. opif. p. 114, Pfciff., & 
(scil. vm) rd Qavevra e /cro? el trw icopi&vo-ai, Biayye\\ov(n 


teal 7riSeiKvvvTat rot)? TVTTOVS efcdcrrcav, vo-<j>payi6fj.evcu TO 
opoiov 7rd0os. K i)pw yap COIKOX;, Se^era* S Sta rwv 
al<r6r)<rewv </>az/racrtas% als ra awfj,ara Kara\afj,/3dvei. 
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. I.e., Diog. L vn. 
4550); and he accordingly interpreted Tvirtoo-i? by 
erepoiWt? and a\\otWt?, cf. Cic. Tusc. I. 61 an imprimi, 
quasi ceram, animum putamus, et esse memoriam sig- 

natarum rerum in mente vestigia? Hirzel n. pp. 160 168 

finds here also the influence of Heraclitus, who, he believes, 
is pointed at in Plat. Theaet. p. 191 foil., 0e 9 877 ^ot \6yov 
eve/ca ev ral<t ^v%als r/fjuav evov tcr/pivov e/cpayeiov /c.r.X. 
He relies however entirely on the disputed frag. Katcol 
ftdprvpes dvOpwTTOK; o<j>6a\nol teal d>ra fiapfiapoix; ^rvx^ 
exovTwv, 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 n. 734. 

cl<ro X iiv. . .^OXTJV = concavity. . .convexity. Cf. Sext. Pyrrh. 
I. 92, at yovv ypafai rf) p,kv o-fyei Sotcova-iv etVo^a? KOL 
efo^a? exeiv, ov prjv /cat rfj d<f>y, ib. I. 120. Plat. Rep. 
602 D, KOI ravra Ka^-rrvXa re Kal evOea ev vSaai re 
#e<w/iei/ot9 Kal ega, Kal Koi\d re &rj Kal e^e ^ot/ra Sid rrjv 
Trepi ra ^p<w/iara av ir\dvfjv T?;? o -^retu?. 

8aKTv\wv. For ancient Greek rings see Guhl and 
Koner, E. T. p. 182, with the illustrations, and for mjpov 
see on Zeno frag. 50. Hirzel I.e. shows that the metaphor 
was common, even apart from philosophic teaching: cf. 
Aesch. P. V. 789, 8e\roi Qpevwv, etc. 

4. Plut. Plac. IV. 11, ol STOHKO/ faaiv orav yevvr)6rj 


6 (ivOpw-jros e x TO jyepoviKov /Ltepo? T??? i/ru^s wa-rrep 
evepyov (or evepyov) et? aTroypafajv els TOVTO fiiav 

eK(icrri]v rov evvoiwv 

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, n. 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..!. 9, p. 279 Mang., fyavravia 3 rrt 
Tirn-eocm ev tyvxfj, a yap el<rrjyayev eKdcrrv) rwv aia-drjcrewv, 
(aa-Trep Sa/cruXto? rt? i} a-fypayis, evaTTepdgaTO TOV oliceiov 
%apaKTrjpa Krjpw &e eoiicws 6 vovs. quis rer. div. haer. c. 
37, p. 498 Mang., 77 yap ^HX?) TO Krjpivov, 009 el-rre Ti<? rwv 

5. Olympiodorus 1. c. on Zeno frag. 12, 
TOLVVV \eyei OTI re^vr] ea-rlv e^t? o8u> Trdvra dvvovaa. 
Quint il. lust. Or. II. 17. 41, nam sive, ut Cleanthes voluit, 
ars est potestas, via, id est, ordine efficiens. 

Cf. also Cic. Fin. ill. 18, quoted on Zeno frag. 12. 
Olympiodorus objects that the definition is too wide, and 
that it would include (frvats which is not a re^vr] (cf. Cic. 
N.D. ir. 81), but Cleanthes might have replied that neither 
is <uo-i5 an e(?fc<?. For ei? cf. on 8ta0e<r Zeno frag. 117, 
and Stob. Eel. II. 7, 5 k p. 73, 7, ev et-ei Be ov povas elvai 
ra? ripera?, dX\.d Kal ra? Te%i/a9 ra? ev rw cnrovai<> 
dv&pl d\\oia)0iO-a^ VTTO r?;? aperrj<^ Kal yevopevas d/iera- 
S, olovel yap dperds yiveaOai. 

6. Syrian, ad Ar. Metaph. 892 b 1423, w9 dpa rd 
rj Trapd rot? Belois rovrotf dvSpdatv (i.e. Socrates Plato 


Parmeuides and the Pythagoreans) ovre 777309 rrjv p 
T79 TU>V ovofjidrwv a-vvrjdeias Traprpyero, a>9 Xpvannros /cat 
Ap%e8r)[j,o<; teal ot TrXelovs rwv ^TWIKWV vcrrepov a>r/0r)crav... 
ov firjv ovS" evvojj/j.aTd eicri Trap avrols at t Se at, G>9 
K\edv0Tj<; vcrrepov eipijicev. 

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 vorj^ara, he 
supposes that Cleanthes words weje OVK elcriv ai iSeac 
vor)p,ara. Zeller also p. 85 has vor^ara. However 
evvorjfjLaTa appears in the Berlin Aristotle edited by 
Usener, and so Wachsmuth (Comm. II. p. 3) reads. Stein 
explains as follows : vorjuara represent abstract ra 
tionalised knowledge resulting from our experience by 
the agency of op06<; \6yos. By such vor/fj,ara 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 (evvoijuara} can never be the criterion of 
knowledge, since they have no real existence. Cf. Simpl. 
in Cat. f. 26 C : ovriva rd xoivd Trap avrols \eyerai. 
But, even assuming that the distinction between vo^pa 
and eworj/j-a is well founded, which is by no means clear, 
and that var/para is to be read here, the context in 
Syrian is conclusive against Stein. The meaning simply 
is, " nor again are the ideas in Plato etc. to be treated as 
evvoijpara " : in other words, the negative oi)e is no part 
of Cleanthes statement, but belongs to the commentator. 
This is abundantly clear from the following words : oi/S 
<W9 AyTGmi/09, piyvvs ryv Aoyyivov tcai K\fdv6o 
ru> vw TrapvtfrtcrTavTO /card ra? evvoijTitcds i 8ea9. 


7. Clem. Alex. Strom, vin. 9. 26, 930 P, 332 S, Xe/mi 
yap T(i Karriyoprip,ara Ka\ovcn KXe<w$7;9 ical Ap^eS?;^o?. 

\6KTd : 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 (f^eaov rov re 
votj/jiaros Kai rov rrpdy^aro^}. Neither again are they 
identical with the spoken words, which are corporeal (Sext. 
Math. viu. 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 KarrjyoprjfjLa is a subdivision of Xe/croi/. 
and is described as Xe/croi/ e AAtTre? (Diog. VII. 64). From 
this passage, then, we must infer that Cleanthes was the 
hrst to restrict rcarrjyoprjpa to its narrower sense by the 
introduction of the new term Xe/crov. An example of 
Kar^yoprj^a given by Sextus is d^rivOiov melv (Pyrrh. II. 
230), but a new term was required to denote the abstrac 
tion of a complete assertion (e.g. Cato ambulat), for which 
Karrjjop rj/j-a was obviously insufficient. For Xe/crov gene 
rally see Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 219 222. 

Apxe Sr^os : Zeller p. 50. The most important fact 
recorded about him is that he placed the i]yefj,oviKov rov 
in the centre of the earth (Zeller p. 147). 

8. Epict. Diss. II. 19. 1 4, 6 Kvpievwv \6yos drro 
roiovrwv rivwv dfyopiJLWv i}pu>rtjcr0ai (paiverai KOLVIJS yap 
roll rpicrl rovroLS 777309 d\\r)\a, rw rrdv 
aX?/^e9 dvayxdiov eivai, /cal ru> Swarm 
dovvarov ^ dito\ov6elv, /cat T(3 ovvarov elvai b ovr earcv 
d\rjOe^ ovr e crraf avvL^wv rrjv ^d^j]V ravrrfv o AioSco/90? 
nj rwv rrpttiTwv ovolv Trtdavorr/ri avvexpi ](Taro TT/JO? 
rrapdcrraa-iv rov p,r]Sev elvai Svvarov o OUT ecrriv d^Oes 
our earaL. \OITTOV o p*ev rt9 ravra rTjp^cret rwv ovolv, 
on ean re n Ovvarov, o ovr ecrriv d\rj0es ovr ecrraf 
ii. P. 16 


Kal Bvvara) dBvvarov OVK uKo\ov6el- ov TTUV Be TrapeXrj- 
\v0o<f d\rjBe<; dvaytcaiov eVrr KaOaTrep oi Trepl KXedvdrjv 
<t>epeo-6ai BOKOVO-IV, ol? eVi TTO\V <rvvrjyopr)crev \VTLTT arpos. 
oi be roXXa Bvo, on Svvarcv r eVrti/ o oiV <lo~Tiv d\Tj6es 
OVT ea-raf /cat TTUV TrapeXrjXvOos d\7)des dvayKcuov ecrriv 
Swarta S d&vvarov dicoXovdel. rd rpta 8 eieeiva Tr)pj<rai 
afujxavov, Bid TO Koivi]v elvai avrwv fj,d^-rjv. Cic. de Fato 
7. 14, omnia enim vera in praeteritis necessaria sunt, ut 
Chrysippo placet, dissentient! a magistro Cleanthe, quia 
sunt immutabilia nee in falsura e vero praeterita possurit 

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. 68 describes his followers 
as avrfj rrj K/3do-i Kpivovres TO Bvvarov. Cic. Fam. IX. 
4 (writing to Varro) trepl Svvarwv me scito Kara kio^wpov 
fcpiveiv. Quapropter, si venturus es, scito necesse esse te 
venire: sin autem non es, rwv dBvvdrwv est te venire. 
Cleanthes asserted the truth of (2) and (3) and denied (1). 
Chrysippus asserted the truth of (1) and (3) and denied 
(2), cf. Alexander ad An. Pr. I. 15 p. 34 a 10 Xpvo-iTnros Be 
\eywv iMtjBev Kw\veiv Kal Bvvaro) dBvvarov fTreatfai K.T.\. 
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. in. p. 495 foil. 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 o Kvpievwv \6yos = 


argument getting the better of others : cf. Themist. Or. II. 
30 b who mentions it together with 6 Keparlvr)? as the 
discovery of Philo or Diodorus. In Luciau Vit. Auct. 
e. 22 Chrysippus professes his ability to teach it as well 
as the depi^wv HXe/crpa and ey/ce/caXu/A/xeVo?. Aul. Gell. 
I. 2. 4, Kvpievovras jjav^a^ovra^; KCLI crwpeiras. Cleanthes 
wrote a special treatise on the subject (Introd. p. 50). 

9. Quiutil. lust. Or. u. 15. 3335. huic eius sub- 
stantiae maxiine conveniet finitio, rhetoricen esse bene 
dicendi scientiam. nam et orationis omnes virtutes 
semel complectitur, et protinus etiam mores oratoris, cum 
bene diccre 11011 possit nisi bonus, idem valet Chrysippi 
rinis ille ductus a Cleanthe, scientia recte dicendi (scil. 

Kiderliii (Jahrb. f. Class. Phil. 131, p. 123) conjectures 
that the word Cleanthis has fallen out after substantiae, 
so that, while Cleanthes defined rhetoric as eTnarrjfMrj 
rov ev \eyeiv, the words rov opdux; \eyeiv would be an 
alteration of Chrysippus. See however Striller Rhet. 
Sto. pp. 7, S. For the usual Stoic definition cf. Diog. 
L. VII. 42, TI]V re p^ropiK^v, e7ricrrr)/j.r)v ovcrav rov ev 
\eyeiv Trepl rwv ev Siej;o8(0 \o^wv where rhetoric is 
contrasted with dialectic, since dialectic was also defined 
as e-Trtcmj^r) rov ev ~\.eyeiv by the Stoics (Alex. Aphr. Top. 
3. 6, quoted by Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 210). Sext. 
Emp. Math. n. G. 

10. Varro de L. L. V. 9, quod si summum gradum 11011 
attigero, tamen secundum praeteribo, quod non solum ad 
Aristophanis sed etiam ad Cleanthis lucubravi [secundum 
explained in 7 quo grammatica esceridit aiitiqua, quae 
ostendit quemadmodum (|uod(i[ue poeta finxerit verbum 
confinxerit declinarit]. 



11. Athen. XI. 467 d, K\edvOr)<; 8e 6 </>t\6cro<o<? eV rw 
irepi /ueraX?/\/re&><? ajro TOW Ka-rao-Kevaadinwv (f>r)(rlv ovo- 
fj,a<T0ijvai rr/v re 6^piK\eiov KvXttca teal rrjv SetvtdSa. ib. 
4)71 b, KXei #7;9 eV raj Trepi /zeTaX?;^e&K crvyypd/,ari 
(frtycrt, rd roLvvv evpijfAara, ical oaa -roiaina Ti KOI rd 
\onrd <TTI, olov 6r)piK\eio<t, Seivids, I0t/cpaTt9, ravra 
[yap] Trporepov (TWLcrTopei TOI)? evpovras, <f>aiverai 3 
t Tt real vvv el 8e /J.TJ TTOICI TOVTO, /J.era^e^XrjKO i / ei /; 
pitcpov rovvofj,a. d\\d, tcaOaTrep eiprjTai, ovtc ecrTt Triarev- 
crat Tf3 TV^OVTI. 

fWTa\Ti4/ws : the meaning of this word seems to be that 
explained by Quintil. vin. 6. 37, superest ex his, quae 
aliter significent, yLteraX^i/rt?, id est, trausumtio, quae 
ex alio in aliud velut viam praestat : tropus et varissimus 
et maxime improprius, Graecis tamen frequentior, qui 
Centaurum Chirona, et 1/770-01/9 (1 vavs) 6o<\s d^et a? dicunt. 
Nos quis ferat, si Verrem suem aut Laelium doctum 
nomiuemus ? cf. Arist. Top. vi. 11, p. 149 a 0. 

6r]piK\iov: a kind of drinking cup, said to be named 
after Thericles, a Corinthian potter of some celebrity, and, 
according to Bentley on Phalaris 3, a contemporary 
of Aristophanes. Welcker, however (Rhein. Mus. vi. 
404 foil.), maintains that these cups were so called because 
they were decorated with the figures of animals. 

Snvids and LjHKparls are the names given to particular 
kinds of slippers, the latter of which was so called after 
the celebrated Athenian general. Cf. Poll. vn. 89, d-jro 8e 
TU>V xpija-apevcav l<f>iKpari8e<f, AetvtdSes, A\Ki/3idSia, 
~fj,iv8vpi8ia, MiW/aa dtru Mvvdicov. Diod. Sic. XV. 44 
ra? re vTroSeaeis rot? cn-pa-u&jTCU? evXvrovs icai KOixfras 
eVo/T/cre, ra? ^XP 1 r v v ^ v tyucpaT&eK air* eVetVou icaXov- 
/Ltei/a?. Alciphr. Ep. in. 57, evayxos Kpovtwv fva-rdvrwv 
]<f>itcpaTi8a<; poi veovpyels erre/ui/re. Becker s Charicles 
E. T. p. 450, Mliller Handbuch iv. 428. 


is expunged by Meineke, whom Wachsm. follows. 

is read by Casaubou for avvicnopelv. It seems 
to mean " connoted." 

l 8 (iij tr. " if it docs not do this, the word must have 
changed somewhat." For the tense cf. Dem. xxx. 10. 
Timocrates and Onetor were both men of substance war 
OVK dv Bid TOVTO 7 elev OVK evOvs 


12. DlOg. L. VII. 134, &OKl 
0\WV 8vO, TO TTOLOVV Kdi TO Trda^OV. TO flV OVV 

elvai Tr)i> a-TTOiov ova-lav Trjv v\rji>, TO Se TCOLOVV TOV ev 
ai/Trj \6yov TOV deov. TOVTOV <ydp dt oiov OVTO, old Tracrr;? 

Br)/jiiovp<yeiv e/cacrra. TidrjUL oe TO 86jfMa TOVTO... 

dr]s ev TM Trepl cvropwv. See Zeno frag. 35. 

13. Tertull. Apol. 21, haec (quae Zeno dixit \6jov 
esse cf. Zeno frag. 44) Cleanthes in spiritum congerit 
permeatorem universitatis affirmat. 

spiritum = Trvev^a. So far as the evidence serves, 
Cleanthes was the first to explain the Heraclitean Trvp as 
rrvev^a. 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 Trvevfta to Chry- 
sippus and restricts Cleanthes to Trvp, while at p. 210 he 
allows that Cleanthes introduced the conception of 

permeatorem. Gk. Sir/rceiv Zeno frag. 37, probably 
indicates that Cl. accepted Kpdcris SL o\wv, cf. Alex. 
Aphrod. de Mixt. 142 a, r/vwcrdai Tt]v crv/^Trao-av ovcriav, 


Sid -rrda^ avrtjf SirjKOVTO*;, v<j> ov 

(rvvdyerai Kal 

14. Stob. Eel. i. 1. 29 b p. 34, 20, Aioyevr)? K al 
6r)<; Kal OivoTriSrjs (TOV 6eov] rrjv rov Koapov 
Cic. N. D. i. 37, turn totius naturae menti atque animo 
tribuit hoc nomen. Minuc. Octav. xix. 10, Theophrastus 
et Zeno et Chrysippus ct 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, ware eVet Kal 6 KOO-JJLO^ VTTO <ucre&>9 StotKeirai 
TroXtyiep?}? KaOea-Tws, elr/ dv rt, ev avrw TO Kvpievov Kal TO 
TrpOKaTapxo/Aevov rwv Kcvrja-ewv. ovSev 8e Svvarov eivai 

TOIOVTOV 1) TTfV TWV OVTWV <f)V(J-lV, 1]ri^ 00<f (TTIV. <TTIV 

15. Cic. X. D. I. 37, turn ultimum et altissimum 
atque undique circumfusum et extremum omnia cin- 
gentem atque complexum ardorem, qui aether nominetur, 
certissimum deum judicat. Lactant. Inst. I. 5, Cleanthes 
et Anaximenes aethera dicunt esse summum Deum 
((quoting in support Verg. Georg. n. 325). 

According to Krische, p. 428430, Cicero has here 
made a blunder by importing ah explanation of his own 
into the Greek original 6e6v elvai rov aidepa, and by a 
confusion of the two senses in which al6t]p is used in the 
Stoic School (1)= TrOp re xyLKov, (2)= the fiery zone 
surrounding the world. Cleanthes, as will be presently 
seen, disagreeing with the rest of the school, regarded the 


sun and not the belt of aether as the foe^ovucov, or, in 
popular language, as the abode of God (Cic. Acad. n. 126). 
Cleanthes therefore only meant to affirm the identity 
of #eo9 and the -rrvp T^VLKOV. 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 oinnia 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 


nltlinum i.e. farthest removed from the earth which is 
in the centre of the universe. Zeno, frag. 67. Cic. X. D. II. 
41. 117. Diog. vii. 37. 

16. Philod. Trepl eixre/3. c. 9, \6yov rj^ov^evov rwv ei> 
rra Koa^w. Cic. X. D. I. 37, turn uihil ratione censet esse 


This, it should be remembered, is in direct opposition 
to the teaching of Epicurus, who speaks of the world 
as (bvcrei 0X070) IK rwv (ITO/JLWV a-vvea-rwra (Stob. Eel. 
I. 21. 3 1 p. 183, 10). 

17. Cic. X. D. I. 37, Cleanthes... turn ipsum mundum 
deum dicit esse. Cf. X. D. II. 34. 45. 

See Krische p. 424426, according to whom we are to 
interpret mundum here in the first of the three ^senses 
specified by Diog. L. vn. 137, 138, fan Koa^os 6 t 8wK 
770*69 7-^9 TW o\tov oiViW Cf. Chrysippus ap. Stob. Eel. 
I 21 5, p. 184, 11, A-eyerat 8 6X6/30)9 /<:6a>io9 o 6>eo9, Ka0 
oi V 8ta/c6<r/tA770-i9 ilverai KOI reXeiovTai. In any case, we 
have here a distinct statement that Cleanthes was a 
pantheist, and identified God with matter. The different 
meanings given to *6o>io9 in effect amount to this that it 


may be regarded either as the sum total of all existence, 
or as the transitory and derivative part of existence : the 
distinction,- however, as Zeller observes, is only a relative 
one (see his remarks p. 159). For pantheism as advocated 
by Cleanthes see Hirzel n. p. 206. Stein, Psychol. p. 67 
and n. 98. 

18. Chalcid. in Tim. c. 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, nee tamen quae 
fataliter ex providentia, ut Cleauthes. 

Zeno had affirmed the identity of et/j-appevrj and 
Trpovota (frag. 45), but omitted to discuss the difficulties 
involved in so broad an explanation of fatalistic doctrine. 
Cleanthes felt the difficulty that KCLKOV could not be said 
to exist Kara rrpovoiav, even if it existed icad" elp,ap^evrjv. 
This point will recur in the Hymn to Zeus frag. 46, 1. 17, 
ov$e TI yiverai, epyov eVt ^Oovl aov Bi X a Sal^ov . . .rr\^v 
oTroaa pefrvo-i /catcoi o-farepya-iv dvoiais, 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, Kara rovrov 
Se rov \oyov rd rraparr\r)<ria epovaev teal rrepl rfjs aperf}^ 
fcai Trepl ri}<t Kaula^ teal ro o\ov ru>v re^vcoi Kal rwv 
i . ..oi>Qev yap eariv aXXta? rwv Kara /i<f/!?<K yiyv<r6at 
vXdxivrov a\\ ,* t K ara n]v KOLV^V <f>vo-iv Kal rov 
\oyov. id. Comm. Not. 34, 5, et Be ov8f rov\d X i<rrov 
<rri rwv p,epu>v c^iv \X<u<? XX 77 Kara r-qv rov Ato? 
JovXijo-iv. Chrysippus also defined eipappcvri as Xo 7 o9 
rwv ev TW Koapw rrpovoia otoiKovuevuv. The Sceptic 
objections on this head are put very clearly in Sext. Pyrrh 
in. 912. 



19. Philo do provid. II. 74 p. 94 Anchor : (astra erratica) 
nota sunt non solum rationc verum etiam sensu ita movonte 
providontia, quae, lit dicit Chrysippns et Cloanthes, nihil 
praetermisit pertinentiiim ad ccrtiorom utilioremque dis- 
pensationem. quod si aliter melius osset dispensari res 
mundi, eo modo sumpsisset compositionem, qua tenus 
nihil occurroret ad impediondum deum. 

I have taken this fragment from Gercke (Chrysippea 

p. 708). 

(juae nihil praetermisit.. Much of the Stoic exposition 
in the 2nd book of Cicero s de Katura Deorum is a 
commentary on this. Thus for astra erratica cf. 103 
foil, and esp. 104, ergo, ut ocitlis adsidue videmus, sine 
ulla inutatione et varietate cetera labuntur...caelestia... 
quorum conteinplatione nullius expleri potest animus 
naturae constantiam videre cupientis. Generally cf. M. 
Anton. II. 3, rd TT}? T 1^779 OVK dvev (frvcrews 17 <rv<yK\aia-e(os 
xal eVtTrXotf//? TWV Trpovoia oioiKOV/JievwV iravra e/ceWev 
pel Trpoaean Be TO dvajKalov, Kal TO ru> o\u> KOCT^U) 
avfjLc^epov, ov //.e po? et. 

qua tenus... M the same time we find elsewhere a 
chain argument of Chrysippus in Alex, de fato c. 37 p. 
118 ov irdvra p-ev eari Ka6" ei^apfievrjv, OVK <TTI 8e 
d/c(t)\VTOS Kal (iTrape/JLTrooio-TOS r) rov KOCT^OV Stoi/c^crt? 
K.r.X. But inconsistency was inevitable in this matter, 
when Chrysippus could account for the existence of evil 
by saying (Pint. Sto. Rep. 36. 1) KdKiav oe Ka96\ov apai 
ovTe ovvarov eariv OVT e%et /caXctl? dpdrjvai. See Zeller s 
lucid exposition pp. 176 193. 

20. Probus ad Verg. Eel. 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 


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, dX)C 
6 K\edv0r)f d-rro TOV </>/3earo<? eTrdpaf TT}V K(f>a\r)v Karaye\a 
(7ov TOV SoypaTOf Kal avTof dvifjia Tdf a\T]6eif dp%df 6eov 
Kal vXrji . Kal TTJV pev yfjv /J,eTafta\\eiv elf vowp, TO oe 
vSajp el<f depa TOV Se depa <elf 7rvp> <f>epeo-0ai, TO Se frvp 
ei? Ta Trepiyeia ^wpdv, TJJV 8e ^vx^jv St o\ov TOV Kocrpov 
Sitjtceiv, TJ<J fjiepos fj,Te^ovra<f ^/Aa? e^v^ovaBai,. 

<j>ptaTos. This is explained by the anecdote related by 
Diog. VII. 168, Sie/3or/0T) 8e eVi <f>i\OTrovia, 05 ye TTC I/T;? wv 
uyaif wpfATjae p,icrdo(f)opelv Kal VVK.TWQ p,ev ev rot? KTJTTOIS 
tyirXet, p-eO qpepav & ev rot<? \6yois eyvfiva^eTO odev KOI 
3>pedvT\7)<; etcXrjOij. The same idea is kept up by dvifia 
i.e. " hauls up." 

Kal -HIV (iiv yr\v K.T.\. 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 
travra pet. Cf. Krische p. 387. It is however always 
implied, cf. Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Eel. I. 10. 16 C p. 129, 18, 
7T>ct)T77<? p.ev yiyvo/jLevrjs TTJS etc Trvpos KUTU avaTacriv et? 
depa /Liera/SoX?;?, SevTepas 8 airo TOVTOV eis vBwp, TptV?/? 
8e ert fjL(i\\oi> /cara TO dva\oyov avviaTafjievov TOV i;8aro9 
elf yrjv. 7rd\iv 8 airo TavTrjs oiaXvoftevi)? Kal 8ia^eo/j.evr}<; 
TrpaiTrj fiev yiyveTai %vori$ ei$ vScap, BevTepa 8 e voaTos 
elf depa, TpiTrj 8e Kal ea-^aTij elf Trvp. Cic. N. D. II. 84, et 
cum quattuor genera sint corporum, vicissitudine eorum 
mundi continuata natura est. Nam ex terra aqua, ex 
aqua oritur aer, ex ae re aether, deiride retrorsum vicissim 
ex aethere aer, inde aqua, ex aqua terra infirna. Sic 
naturis his, ex quibus omnia constant, sursus deorsus, 
ultro citro commeantibus mundi partium coniunctio conti- 
netur. For Heraclitus see R. and P. 29. 


els irvp. Some words must bo supplied here: Diels 
inserts dvw. 

T!> Se trip : the reverse process is concisely stated. 

^ ne pos jure xovras: for the divine origin of the human 
soul see Stein Psych, p. 96, n. 169. 

22. Stob. Eel. i. 20, P p. 171, 2, Z^i/aw al K\edv0et 
KOI X/waiWw apeo-ei T>;I/ ovaiav peTa@d\\eiv olov eh 
TO T al 7r\tv e/c TOUTOU Toiavrrjv dTroTe\ela6at 


, oia -rrporepov ffv. See Zeuo frag. o4. 

23. Philo, Incorr. Mundi p. 954, perafiaXXav yap ij 
eh 4>\oja rj eh avyijv dvayicatoV eh ^v $\6ya, w? oiero 
K\edvOr)s, eh 8 aity^ z , w? 6 XpucrtTrTro?. 

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 Trvp re^yiKov with Trvp arex vov - </> X an<1 a ^ 
therefore alike express what Numenius, speaking of the 
school in general, calls Trvp aWepwSes i.e. -rrvp T^VIKOV 
(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 eWvpwo-i? and 
that <\o is used with reference to the Sun (see on frag. 
24), and avyr] as a representation of the finest aether. 
For the connection of <Xo with ij\ios he quotes Diog. L. 
vii. 27, Aesch. Pers. 497, Soph. Trach. 693, 0. T.^1425 
(Stein, Psychologic pp. 70, 71 and the notes). Hirzel s 
explanation is similar (li. p. 211), except that he does not 
see any reference to the sun : according to him, Cleanthes 
spoke of a permeating Trvp for which irvev^a was substi 
tuted by Chrysippus : but see on frag. 13. For (j)\6ya cf. 
in fra. 24. 


24. Stob. Eel. i. 17. 3, p. 1.53, 7, KXea^? Be OVTW 
Trey? (prjaiv K<t>\oyio-0evTO<; TOV TravTos vvvi&Lv TO ptaov 
avTov irp&Tov, elra rd e^o^eva aTrotrfievvvaQai 81 o\ov. 
rov 8e Travrcx; e%vypavdei>Tos TO e<T^aTov TOV Trvpos, O.VTL- 
TVTrt iaavTos avTw TOV f^eaov, rpeVeo-^at 7rd\iv et? Tovvav- 
Tiov, eW o vTto Tpe-iropevov dvw $r)<r\v av^eaBai K al apx^- 
Bat Suiicoo-fieiv TO o\ov K al TOICIVTIJV TrepioSov alel real 
SiaKoo-prjo-iv TTOIOV^VOV TOV ev TTJ TWV o\u>v ova-la TOVOV 
M 7rav6<T0at. wa-rrep yap evos TIVO? TO. pepr) irdvra jwereu 

ev To<f xaiiKovvi xpovois, OVTW teal TOV 
o\ov Ta neprj, wv Kal ra ^wa Kal TO. <f>VTa ovTa 

cvjoi? KadtJKOva-i -^povo^ <f>VTat. /cat oa<rirep rive* \6yoi 
T(uv pepwv et? o-rrepua o-i/i/toi/re? piyvvvTat Kal avQis 
Buuepivovreu yivopevwv TWV pepwv, oi/rw? e| e^6? re -rrdvra 
yiveadai Kal etc -rrdvTwv et? li/ <rvyKplve<r0ai, 6oa> K al 
av^cavws Bie^iovcrrjf Tr}<; TrepcoSov. 

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 irvp dei&ov 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. m. 13. 1, nihil relinqui... 
aliud, igne restincto, quam humorem. In hoc 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 o-^atpo? is always readier 
to admit the loosening of tension, while the bracing in- 


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 avca av^eaBai}. 
This is the theory of tension as applied to the ZiaKca- 
[jirio-LS, 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 eWupcoo-^ 
and euypw<m, 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 eWu- 
poxri? is gradually extinguished, and slackening of tension 
produces not life but death (Plut. plac. v. 24 etc.) ; the 
creation of the world only starts when TO ea-^arov rov 
Trvpcs rpeTrerai etf rovvavriov. There is also a divergent- 
view, namely, that the destruction of the world may be 
compassed by /cara/cXuoyio? as well as by ercTrvpwcri.s. 
This implies that our world can exist during the tran 
sition towards egvypwais. Cf. Sen. X. Q. in. 29. 1 and 
Heraclit. Alleg. Horn. c. 25, p. 53, quoted by Zeller p. 109, 
1. Schol. on Lucan vn. 813 eKTrvpcaais, quam secuturam 
fccnaK\v(T^ovs adserunt Stoici, seems to have been over 
looked, but is of doubtful import. Stem s account of the 
8 ia K 6 a/j.rj a t? (Psych, p. 32 foil.) is radically different, but I 
do not see how it can be reconciled with this passage : 
(1) the creation of the world is due to a slackening of 
tension in the original fiery substance, and (2) TO ea^arov 
TOV Trvpoi is what remains of the original " Urpneuma " 
after the four elements have been formed, whereas ac 
cording to Cleanthes the creation of the world only begins 
when this remnant of fire begins to exert its influence. 
Hirzel discusses the present passage at some length 
(Untersuchungen II. p. 124134). He strongly insists 


that TO eff^arov meansextremum (das Feuer des Umkreises) 
and not reliquum, and that Philo Trepl <#. KOO-^OV 18, 
(fjiera rrjv eKTrvpwaiv eTreiSav 6 veos xooyio? fieXX-rj 8rj- 
fj,iovpyelo 6ai crvftTrav pev TO irvp ov crftevvvrai, Trocrr) 8e Tt? 
avTov poipa VTroXei-rrerai) follows Chrysippus and not 
Cleanthes. It would seem, however, that the distinction 
is not important, as ea-^arov must in this case be both 
extremum and reliquum. Further on he suggests that 
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 reivea-Qai is sound, Zeno is confessedly 
dealing with another point, viz. the explanation of how 
the separate parts of the KOCT^O^ are kept in one solid mass 
and why they are not scattered into the void. Ogereau p. 
10 attributes the introduction of ToVo? to Zeno, and 
depreciates the performances of Cleanthes (p. 19) ; but he 
insists throughout too strongly on the unity of the school, 
without considering its historical development. 

^<rov, cf. Stob. Eel. I. 21, 3 b p. 183, 3, a-rro y^ Se 
ttp^acrdai rijv yevtcriv rov KOCT/J-OV, Kadajrep airo rcevrpov, 

TO tcevrpov. 

s, cf. Diog. L. vii. 135, 136 quoted on Zeno 
frag. 52. 

Tpirojivov. MSS. corr. Canter. 

TOV...TOVOV. The MSS. have TOV...TOVOV. The reading 
in the text is due to Mein., whom Wachsm. now follows, 
although he formerly (Comm. n. p. 11) kept the MSS. 
reading, removing the colon after o\ov and inserting 
commas after /cat and rovov. There is some mistake 
in Stein s note on this point, Psychol. n. 41. 

<K o-irtpjiaTwv. Cf. Zeno frag. 54 = Cleanth. frag. 22, and 
see Hitter and Preller 402. 


was unnecessarily suspected by the older edd. of 
Stobaeus. The conj. TOVOL is tempting, but Wachsm. 
quotes Marc. Aurel. IX. 1, wp^aev (?) c/wcrt?) eVt r?;ySe rrjv 
8iaKoo-/jLri(Tiv av\\a/3ovad nvas Xo7ou? rwv eao^evwv 
K.T.\. The best parallel is Zeno frag. 106, which puts 
the text beyond dispute. rti/e? \6<yoi rwv f^epwv 
certain proportions of the constituent parts of the soul. 

yivo|ivo)v P. jLvof^evo)v F, whence ryevo/jievwv Mein. 
Wachsm. Diels : but the present, accepted by Hirzel II. 
p. 126, seems preferable. 

els is bracketed b Diels and Wachsm. 

25. Pint. Comm. Not. 81, 10, en -roivvv e 
6 KXeaj $??<? rfi ercTrvpuxrei \eyei r>]v cre\.i)vriv /cat ra \oL7ra 
ciarpa rov i j\ioi> e^o^oiatcreiv jravra eaurw, /cat p,era{3a\elv 

As the sun is, according to Cleanthes, the 
rov Koafjiov, the Trvp deL^wov may be supposed to exist 
there in its purest form (cf. the authorities cited by 
Zoller, Stoics p. 204*, 3, Krische p. 386), and to this the 
moon and the other stars will be assimilated at the 

eo|j.ou6<riv. MSS. have e^o^oiwaai corr. Zeller, p. 16-5, 


26. Stob. Eel. I. 15, 6" p. 146, 19, 
TWV ^.TWLKWV TO iTvp (iTref^^varo /cco^oetSe ?. 

Presumably this refers to the fire of the revolving 
aether, for the doctrine appears to be borrowed from the 
Pythagoreans cf. Stob. Eel. I. 15, 6 a p. 146, 14, 01 dirb 
\\v6a^/opov...^ovov TO (ivwrarov Trvp tcwvoeiSes. This is 
supposed to refer to the Milky Way (Zeller, pre-Socratics, 
I. p. 466 n. 2), cf. infra frags. 32, 33. 

27. Pint, de facie in orbe lunae c. 6, 3, wa-rrep 


(aero oelv K\edvdr)<; TOV ^.ap,Lov aVe/3eia<? 
TrpocrtcaXeiadai Tois"E,\\7)vas, cJ<? KIVOVVTO. TOV Kocrp,ov rrjv 
etrTiav, OTI <ra> (f)aiv6^eva aoi^eiv dvrjp ejreipdTO, peveiv 
TOV ovpavov V7roTi0efj,evo<;, e%e\iTTea0ai be Kara \ogov 
KVK\OV TIJV yijv, a/xa teal Trepl TOV avrJ?9 d ^ova 

This comes from the treatise Trpo? 
Int rod. p. 51. 

Ap(o-rapxov : the celebrated mathematician. For the 
theory here attacked cf. Sext. Math. X. 174, o f i ye p.i}v rrjv 
rov tc6(Tfj,ov Kivrjcriv ai/eXoi/re? TTJV oe yfjv Kivtcr6ai Sod- 
o-ai^Tf?, a;? ol Trepl Apia-rap^ov TOV /jLa6rjfj,aTLKOv K.T.\. 
Stob. Eel. I. 25, 3 k p. 21^, 2, Apio-rap^o? TOV r)\iov icrTr)(ri 
fj,Ta TWV cnr\avwv Trjv Se yfjv Kivticrdai Trepl TOV i)\t,aicov 
KVK\OV. (This also illustrates Kara XofoO KVK\OV.) It 
appears however to be doubtful whether Aristarchus 
propounded this view otherwise than hypothetically : cf. 
Plut. quaest. Plat. vm. 1, 2, 3. 

ao-ef3ci as n-poo-KaXtwrflai. For the ypa<j)rj acre/Set a? see 
Attischer Process ed. Lipsius, pp. 3G6 375, and cf. the 
case of Anaxagoras (ib. p. 370). Every ypa<f>rf, as well as 
an ordinary civil action, commenced with the Trpoa/cX^cri? 
or writ of summons (ib. p. 770 f.). 

i<rriav : alluding to the central position of the earth. 
Aesch. Ag. 1056 ecrrt a? /j,e<roiJ,<pdXov, Virg. Aen. II. 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 eo-rt a TOV 
iravTos: see Dr Thompson on Phaedr. 247 A, pevei yap 
KtTTta eV 6ewv OIKO) p-ovrf. 

TO, 4>atvofjiva orwjtiv : " to save appearances:" for which 
phrase see Prof. Mayor in Journ. Phil. vi. 171. 

28. Euscb. P. E. xv. 15. 7, Ar..Did. fr. 29 ap. Diels, 
p. 465, rjyenoviKov oe TOV Koa-pov K\tdvBei fiev tfpea-e TOV 


7j\iov elvat old TO /jLeyccrrov TWV aarpwv virap-^eLV Kat 


Kal eviavTov TTOIOVVTO, real ra<? aA,\a<? 
Censorin. frag. 1, 4, et constat quidem quattuor elementis 
terra aqua igne aere. cuius principalem solem quidam 
putant, ut Cleanthes. Diog. vn. 139. Stub. Eel. I. 21. G e 
p. 187, 4, K\eai/$?79 o 2r&)i:o9 ev 77X16) e<fyri<rv elvai TO 
rj^e^oviKov TOV Koa^ov. Cic. Acad. II. 120, Cleanthes, 
qui quasi majorum est gentium Stoicus, Zenonis auditor, 
solem domiuari et rerum potiri putat. 

There is no warrant whatever for Krische s suggestion 
(p. 435), that Cleanthes probably (" wahrscheinlich ") 
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 Introcl. 
p. 50), for, though Heraclitus himself did not maintain 
this doctrine, we read of the Heraclitean school in Plat. 
Cratyl. 413 B, rov rj\iov...oiai ovTa Kal /cdovra eirnpoTreveiv 
TO, ovra. Cf. Pliny, N. H. n. 12 (cited by Hirzel, n. p. 138). 

29. Stob. Eel. I. 25. 3 1 p. 211, 18, K\edv6r)^ a 
voepov TO eK OaXaTTijs TOV i]\iov. Tcepl 8e TWV Tporrwv 
(pacrt Kara TO SidaTTjfJia Trjs viroKei^evr]^ Tpo(j>>]<; 
8 eVrl * * * r;? rrjv dvaOvpiaGiv e-mve^eTai. 
Oat $e TOV rj\iov KLvov^evov e\ifca ev TTJ afyaipq, diro TOV 
latj/jiepLvov e-rri re dpKTOV Kal VOTOV, drrep ecrri- Trepara 
T7/9 e\iKos. Cic. N. D. ill. 37, Quid enim? non eisdem 
vobis placet omnem ignem pastus indigere nee permanere 
ullo inodo posse, nisi alitur: ali autem solem, lunam, 
reliqua astra aquis, alia dulcibus, alia marinis 1 eamque 
causam Cleanthes adfert cur se sol referat nee longius 
progrediatur solstitiali orbi itemque brumali, no lougius 
discedat a cibo. Macrob. Sat. I. 23, 2, ideo enim sicut et 
H. P. 17 


Posidonius et Cleanthes affirmant, solis meatus a plaga, 
quae usta dicitur, non recedit, quia sub ipsa currit Oceanus, 
qui terram ambit et dividit. 

Wachsmnth regards Cic. and Stob. 11. cc. as containing 
two distinct fragments (Comm. II. fr. phys. 7 and 8), but 
the passage in Cic. is only a verbal expansion of jrepl 
Tpo7rwv...Tpo(f)ij<i. Wachsm. does not cite Macrob. 1. c. 
This is one of the points which attest Cleanthes study of 
Heraclitus, cf. Stob. Eel. I. 25. 1 K 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. 

avajjijxa K.T.\. cf. Plut. plac. II. 20. 3, 7T6/H OtWa<? T^X/Of , 
avafjifia voepov eV OaXd-rr^. Diog. VII. 145, 
Be rd e/ATrvpa ravra (i.e. the sun and moon) 
Kal TO, a\\a ucrrpa rov /j,ev i]\iov CK rrjs fj,eyd\tj<; 6a\dr- 
r?7<? voepov ovra dvapfia, whereas the moon is fed with 
fresh water, and is mixed with air. Chrysippus ap. Stob. 
Eel. I. 25. 5, rov ij\tov elvat TO adpOLO-dev e^a^a voepov eic 
rov T^<? 6a\aTTii<; dva6v/j.idfj,aTos. Wachsmuth adds Galen, 
hist. phil. c. LVIII. p. 277 K., coKeavov Be Kal TTJV OdXaao-av 
T&> rj\iw rpo^jjv TTJV avrov vjporrjTa evovaav ev 
Kal TTJV 760)877 dvadv/j,ia(7iv. 
o-n-wv: a necessary correction by Bake for the MSS. 

4>a<ri MSS. Wachsm. suggests ^70-4. 

l<rri: there is a lacuna after this word. Wachsmuth 
formerly (Comm. n. p. 10) supplied Kal 7^7 coll. Plut. plac. 
II. 23. 3, but he now writes : " lacuna fuit in Aetii exemplo, 
quod cum Ps. Plutarcho legit Stobaeus ; Plut, ^ 777 add.; 
Aetius Kal rj /j,ejd\rj Qd\a<rcra vel simile scripsit," quoting 
the passages cited above. 

<rx>-yKaTa4> p(rflai i- e - with the aether, which is itself in 


cf. Diog. L. VII. 144, rov Be J )\ioi> \oi}v rrjv 
Tropeiav Troiela Bai 8m rov a)8iafcov KVK\OV, o/iotw? teal 
T)}V aeXtjvrjv e^iKoeiSr;. 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 I. p. 455, 2). 

30. Cic. N. D. ii. 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 tain 
longe lateque colluceat, et is eins tactus est, non ut 
tepefaciat solum, sed etiam saepe comburat. quorum 
ueutrum faceret, nisi esset igneus. " ergo," iiiquit, " cum 
sol igneus sit Oceanique alatur humoribus, quia nullus 
ignis sine pastu aliquo possit permanere, necesse est aut 
ei similis sit igni quern adhibemus ad usum atque ad 
victum, aut ei, qui corporibus animaritium continetur. 
atqui hie noster ignis, quern usus vitae requirit, confector 
est et consu raptor omnium idemque, quocumque invasit, 
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 in 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. 

testimonio: 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. G9, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 319. 



Oceani: cf. frag. 29. 

ei...iyni: for the two kinds of fire cf. Zeno frag. 71. 
corporeus : see on frag. 42. 

aether vel caelum : hence in Zeno frag. Ill Zeus is 
identified with caelum in place of the usual gloss aether. 

31. Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 8. 48. 674 P. 243 S., OVK 
dveyvwaav B ovroc KXedvBr/v TOV <j)i\6(ro(j)ov, 09 
Tr\iJKTpov TOV Jj\iov /ca\i ev <ydp rat? aVaroXat? 

ra? at"ya? oiov TC\r}aGwv TOV tcocrfjiov, elf TTJV 

Tropeiav TO </>ft5<? (iyei, e /c Be TOV rjKiov cnjfjiaivei teal TO. 

\oi7rd cicrTpa. 

irXrjKTpov: Krische p. 400 connects this with the Stoic 
identification of Heracles with the sun. Thus Heracles is 
TO Tr\TjKTiKuv Kal SiaipeTiKov (Plut. de Iside c. 40), and 
his name is derived from dr/p and K\acrt<? by Porphyrius 
ap. Euseb. P. E. III. p. 112 c, and Nicomachus ap. Laur. 
Lyd. de Hens. IV. 46. TrXrjtcTpov is properly "any striking 
instrument": hence lightning is described as TrXrjtcTpov 
Si6{3o\ov TTupo? reepavvov (Eur. Ale. 128): cf. especially 
Plut. de Pyth. orac. c. 16 ad fin. vo-Tepov fjuev 
dvedrfKav TU> dew ^pvcrovv eTrio-Tj jcravTes, to? eoi/ce, ^. 
\eyovTi Trepl T^? \vpas, i}v dpfjbo^eTai, Zrjvos eveiSrjs 
\Q)V, Tcaa-av dp^r/v Kal reXo? <Tv\\aftcav e^ei Be \ap-7rp6v 
Tr\fjKTpov r)\iov </>ao9 (quoted by Hirzel, p. 181). Eur. 
Suppl. 650, \a/j,7rpd fjuev dfCTis, r/\iov navwv cra<prjf. 
Sandys on Bacch. 308, and Milton s " With touch ethereal 
of Heaven s fiery rod." 

32. Stob. Eel. I. 26. T p. 219, 14, K\edv0r)<; TrvpoetSi) 
TI}V creXrfvrjv, TTiXoetS?; 8e TW cr^fJiaTi. 

irvpotiSii: but the fire of the moon is not so pure as that 
of the sun, being fed with grosser matter. Cf. Diog. L. VII. 
144, elvai Be TOV p.ev i jXiov elXifcpives 7TU/D...145, jewBecr- 
Tepav Be TTJV cr\yjvr}v. 


^ : the MSS. have 7T7;Xo8; corrected by Lipsius 
(Phys. Stoic II. 13), who also suggests TroXvei^, to nn- 
XoetS?;, 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 a-KaQoet&fc 
(Stob. Eel. I. 26. l c p. 218, 8), for no support can be derived 
from 7ri\^aTa depo? (Anaximaiider) or ve$os Treirikripevov 
(Xenophanes), which simply refer to densely packed clouds. 
Krische, p. -435, boldly reads Ktavoet&i] which gives the 
required sense, but is not close enough to the MSS. It is 
suggested therefore that the true reading is ^XioeiSrj, the 
n 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 Ktovoei^ 
(cf. frag. 33). The other Stoics consistently describe the 
moon as a^cupoei^ (Stob. Eel. I. 26. l k I 1 p. 219, 20, 26). 

33. Stob. Eel. I. 24. 2 a p. 205, 25, O i pev aXXoi 
<$Tcoiicol> afyaipiicovs CLVTOVS, K\edv0r)s Se icwvoeiSels 
(scil. the stars). Pint. plac. II. 14. 2. Galen, hist. phil. 
c. 13 (XIX. 271 K.), KXeaz/flr/? KwvoeiSels rot)? aVrepa?. 
Achill. Tat. p. 133 KXeaz/^? avrovs (sc. TO?)? acrrepa?) 
KuvoeiBes e X etv ^% > <t>W- Theodoret, Gr. Cur. aff. IV. 
20, p. 59. 10, /cwz oeiSet? 8e K\edv0rj<i 6 Srtot/co?. 

Cleanthes attributed a conical shape to fire, sun, moon, 
and stars. There is no direct evidence as to the sun and 
moon, but it is a fair inference from the authorities that 
they also were conical. It is probable, moreover, that 


Cleanthes was moved by the consideration that Heraclitus 
described sun, moon and stars as boat-shaped ((TfcafoeiStJ), 
cf. Stob. Eel. i. 25. 1- 26. l c , Diog. L. ix. 9. Krische is 
apparently right in inferring that the same is true of the 
world, cf. Plut. plac. II. 2. 1, oi fiev ZraiKol <r<j>aipoeiS>J 
rov Ko<r/j,ov, a\\oi oe KatvoeiSij, oi Be a>oei8f). 

34. Plut. plac. II. 16. 1, Az/aayopa9 K al 
KOL KXedvdrjs djro dvaroXwv eVi Sv<r/j,d<; fapecrdai irdvras 
rov<f do-repas. Galen, hist. phil. c. 13, XIX. 272 K. A. 
teat, A. Kal K\. drro dvaro\<av i? Sfoyia? ^epeaOai rot)? 

iravras in Plut. apparently includes d-rrXavrj aarpa as 
well as the TrXavajpeva: the former are said <rv^7repi- 
(frepecrdai, TW o\w ovpavca, rd Se TrXavcafieva tear I8ia<; 
tcivei<r0ai Ki^ae^ (Diog. VII. 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) 

f \ \ , ^ , & 

vrro rrjv dtaKe/cav/juev^v %abvr}v rives rwv ap-^aiwv aTre^- 
vavro, &v can Kal K\edv0r)<; 6 Srtui/co? ^tXoo-o^o?, VTTO- 
KexvaOai /Ltera^t) r<av rpoTriKwv rov wKeavov. 

This fragment is taken from Wachsmuth s collection 
(fr. phys. 27, Comm. n. p. 14): cf. frag. 29 and Macrob. i. 
23, 2 there cited. Krische, p. 393, refers this to the in 
fluence of Zeno s studies on Homer. "Hiernach mochte 
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 (evKparoi), pla Se BiaKKavfievr}. 
/ o rovrwv pecrr) 7rao-(3v cariv and rov Oepivou rpo-n-iKov 
rov xtipepii>ov rpoTTiKov ro&ovrov yap TrXdros e%et, 


ocrov Kal 6 7/Xio? Trepiep^eTat,. Ka\elrai 8e StafcefcavfAevi] 
Sid TO Trvpwbris elvai, TOV i}\iov Si avTrjs TT/V rropeiav del 
Troiovfievov. Posidonius, as we learn from ib. 31, p. 90, 
made six zones, dividing the torrid zone into two. 

36. Tertullian do An. c. 5, vult et Cleanthes non 
solum corporis lineamentis, sed et animae notis simili- 
tudinem parentibus in filios respondere, de speculo scilicet 
inorum et ingeniorum et adfectuura : corporis autem simi- 
litudinem et dissimilitudinem capere : et animam itaque 5 
corpus similitudini vel clissimilitudini obnoxiam. item 
corporalium et incorporalium passiones inter se non corn- 
municare. porro et animam compati corpori, cui laeso 
ictibus, vulneribus, ulceribus condolescit, et corpus animae, 
cui adflictae cura, angore, amore, coaegrescit, per detri- 10 
mentum scilicet vigoris, cuius pudorem, et pavorem rubore 
at(]ue pallore testetur. igitur anima corpus ex corporalium 
passionum commutatione. Nemesius, Nat. Horn. p. 32, 
6 KXez $?; ? Toiovde TrXeKei <TvX\.oyiafji6v ou ^ovov 
<>ri<j\v o/AOiot rot? <yovevo~i <yivb[Jbe9a Kara TO crdo/Jia a\X,d 15 
Kal Kara tr]v -^v^rj^ rot? TrdOeai, rot? -ijdecn, rals 
&e TO o/jioiov Kal TO dvo^otov, ov^l Be 
dpa i] ^Irv^. . .ert Se 6 K\edv9r]s (f)ijo-iv ovoev dcrw- 
rw/jiaTi, ovSe dcrw^c iTW crw/J,a, d\\d 
o~v{i7rda-%ei Be T] "^^X 7 ) T&> crcoyuart VOO~OVVTI 20 
Kal TO awp^a Tfj ~^v^j alo"^vvof J ievrj>f <yovv 
epvOpov yiveTai Kal (j)o/3ovfj,evr]<? ca^pov croo^a dpa r] 
fyvxfi. Tertullian de An. c. 25, unde oro te similitudine 
animae quoque parentibus de ingeniis respondemus secun- 
dum Cleanthis testimonium, si non ex animae semine 25 
educimur 1 

The Nemesius passage is regarded as a distinct frag 
ment from the two places in Tertullian by Wachsmuth 
(Comm. II. fr. phyp. 20, 21), but, as Hirzel has observed, they 


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. YV<VO-I: cf. Cic. Tusc. I. 79, vult enim (Panaetius). . . 
nasci animos, quod declaret eorum similitude, 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. ifOccn: Wachsmuth reads Ween from the Oxf. ed. of 
1671, but cf. Zeno, frag. 147, KaraX^-rrrov dvai TO ^#09 e f 

Sia0 o-on: cf. on Zeno, frag. 117. 

17. o-wjiaros: agreeably to Stoic tenets, for likeness 
and unlikeness cannot be predicated of the non-existent, 
cf. Zeno, frags. 34 and 91. 

19. (rvjiird<rxi: the o-vfiTrddeta fjLepdov is an indication to 
the Stoic of the ZVOHTK; of a body: this is true of the cosmos 
no less than of the individual. Sext. Math. IX. 79, who 
continues (80), eVt Se rwv rjvw^evwv a-v^Tradeia rt<? ecrriv, 


el ye 8atCTV\ov refjivop^evov TO 6\ov crvvSiarideTai, crw/^a. 
r)va)p. vov roLvvv eo~T\ arw^a KOI o /COCT/AO?. id. V. 44, ovoe 
yap OVTO>S rjvwrai TO Trepie^ov cJ? TO dvOpwrnvov crw^a, 
LVCL, ov TpoTTOv TTJ KetydXf) T vTTOKeifieva fJ>epTj crv/jL7rda"^ei 
teal rot? VTroKeip-evois i] /ce^aX?;, OVTO> Kal rot? eTrovpaviOiS 
TO, eTriyeia. Cic. N. D. ill. 28. The question as between 
body and soul is discussed in the pseudo-Aristotelian 
Cf. Plat. Phaed. 83 D. M. Aurel. IX. 9. 

37. Stob. Eel. I. 48. 7, p. 317, 15, UvOayopas, Am- 
ayopas, TlXaToiv, ^.evo/cpaTTj^, KXedvdr}^ OvpaOev elcncpi- 
vecrOaL TOV vovv. 

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. II. 3, p. 736 b 27, XetVerat Se TOV vovv JJLOVOV 
BvpaOev eTreLcrievai Kal Oelov elvat fjiovov ovdev yap avTov 
Tfj evepyeia Koivwvel a-w^aTUc-i} evepyeia), whose doctrine is 
widely different from Plato s. As regards Cleanthes, the 
Stoics in general do not distinguish between vovs and 
fyv% n (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 "^v^tj dvpaOev elo-KpiveTai. Perhaps the 
meaning is that the reasoning powers (vovs} are founded 
on external impressions, from which Knowledge is derived: 
cf. Zeno, frag. 82. Stein, however (Psychol. p. 163 foil.), 
believes that by Ovpadev is indicated the action of the 
outer air on the embryo at birth, whereby the -v^u%?) is 


developed out of a mere <f>va-i<;. In this case Cleanthes 
anticipated the Chrysippean doctrine of 7repn/rut<r. Hirzel 
(il. p. 156 foil.) uses this passage in support of his im 
probable view that Cleanthes maintained a tripartite 
division of the soul: he sees here also the influence of 
Heraclitus. Cic. N.D. n. 18 might suggest a more 
general view, that the point referred to is the material 
nature of the soul as Trvevpa, but the context in Stobaeus 
is against this. 

38. = Zeno, frag. 83. 

There is a curious contradiction in Stein s Psychologic 
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. VII. 157, K\edv6rj<; fiev ovv 

CrtTTTTO? e Ta? TU>V 

Cf. R. and P. 409. Cic. Tusc. I. 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 rvTrwa-K; and the "Urpneuma" (<f>\o% 
and avyrj). Ar. Did. ap. Euseb. P. E. xv. 20. 3 follows 
the account of Chrysippus, TJJV 8e ^fv^tjv yevvrjTr/v re teal 
(frdaprrjv Xeyovcriv OVK evdus Be rov cru>/^aTO<f aTraAAa- 
yeicrav fydeipecrdai, aXX eVi/tei eti/ rtvdf ^povovs K.a.6 
eavrijv TYJV 


crecos TGOV irdvTwv, TTJV Se rwv dfypovwv Trpos TTOCTOU? 


42. Cic. X. D. II. 24, quod quidem Cleanthcs his etiam 
argumentis docet, quanta vis insit caloris in omni corpore: 
negat enini ullum csse cibum tarn gravem, quin is die et 
nocte concoquatur, cuius etiam in reliquiis iiiest calor iis. 
quas natura respuerit. 

This must be regarded as an argument in favour of the 
warmth of the vital principle: hence Zeno called the soul 
TTvev^a evOepfiov (frag. 85). The excellence of the human 
soul consists peculiarly in a suitable mixture (evKpaala) of 
warmth and cold. Cf. Galen quod animi mores etc. IV. 783 
K. (quoted at length by Stein, Psychol. p. 105). Cleanthes 
no doubt was influenced by Heraclitus: cf. frag. 54>, Byw. 
avyrj ^rjpi} ^fv^r/ aocfxardrr], but substituted warmth for 
dryness. It is highly probable that the words immediately 
preceding this extract, which are of great importance for 
the TO^O? theory, are ultimately derived from Cleanthes: 
they are as follows: sic enim res se habet, ut omnia, quae 
alantur et quae crescant, contineant in se vim caloris, sine 
qua neque ali possent neque crescere. Nam omne, (mod 
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, tarn diu sensus et 
vita remanet, refrigcrato autem et extincto calore occidimus 
i]>si et exstinguimur. Compare with this the remarks of 
Stein Psychol. p. 32, and Philo de incorr. mimdi, p. 507, 
Mang. arirav crcoyu-a dva\vop,evov et <? Trvp SiaXverai re Ka\ 
%elrai, a^evvv^evrj^ 8e T/;? ev CLVTW (^Xo yo? (jreXXerai Kal 
avvdyerai. This is one of the many points of contact 
between the Stoics and the medical school of Hippocrates. 
\Ve are reminded of the rovos of Cleanthes when we read 


that Aristoxenus, the Peripatetic and musician, described 
the soul as ipsius corporis intentionem quandam (Cic. Tusc. 
I. 20), but the doctrines were totally dissimilar: see Munro 
on Lucr. in. 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, d\\d 
Trpo? Tourot? teal TU? evepyeias oxw /xara /cat &>a TTOLOVCTL, 
TOV Trep nraTov (j)ov, Trjv opxrjaiv, Trjv VTcoOecriv, Trjv Trpocr- 
ayopevcriv, Tr)v \oi8opiav. 

spiritum : the Greek original of this would be Ttvevpa 
BiaTelvov UTTO TOV r}yefj,oviKov ^XP 1 JT0 ^ >( ^ V (f- 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. 
Iambi, ap. Stob. Eel. I. 49. 33, p. 368, 12, TTW? ovv Bia- 
KpivovTcu ; KdTa fj,ev TOI)? Srwt/coi)? eviat p,ev BidtyopoTrjTi 
<TWV> vTTO/ceifjievwv awfJidTwv Trvev^idTd yap OTTO TOV 
(fiaaiv ovTOi BidTeiveiv d\\d KdT d\\a, Ta 

et? 6<f)dd\novs, Ta Be et<> wra, ra 8e et? a XXa aladrj- 


wcnrep yap TO jjt,ij\ov ev TU> di>Tq> crtw/iart TTJV 
X i Ka ^ T7 } v evtoBiav, OVTCO ical TO rjyep.ovLKOv 
tV TdVTU) (fiavTacriav, avyKdTadeaiv, op^n jv, \6yov (rvv- 
ei\rj^)e. Sext. Math. IX. 102, Trdcrai at eVt ra f^epr) TOV 
o\ov ea7roo~Te\\6[ivai Sui/a/iet? co? JTTO TIVOS Trrjyi)^ TOV 
ijyefAOviKov e ^aTrocrreA.A.oi Tat, cao~T Trdcrav Bvva/jLiv Trjv 
Trepl TO ^tepo? ovo-av xal Trepl TO o\ov elvat, Bid TO aVo 
TOU ev avTu> -qye^oviKov SiaSiBocrdai. The former passage 


is, I find, also cited by Stein for the same purpose (Psychol. 
p. 1G8). He points out that Cleanthes explained the 
different soul functions by means of a -rrvev^a Btareivov, 
and Chrysippus by a Trvevpd TTCO? e^ov. 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 fyavraaia 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 (II. p. 201) is vitiated by his 
fundamental error as to Cleanthes view of the ^yepoviKov. 
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. VII. 350, ol 
Be avTijv (scil rrjv Bidvoiav) elvai rd<? aiffQrja-ei?, tcaOaTrep 
Btd TIVWV OTTWV TOOV alaOrjT rjpiwv 7rpoKV7rrov(Tav, 77? 
ardaea)^ ?]p|e ^rpdrwv 6 fyva-LKos. Cf. Cic. Tusc. I. 46, 
viae quasi quaedam sunt ad oculos, ad aures, ad nares, a 
sede animi perforatae. 

44. Clem. Alex. Strom, vn. 6. 33. 849 P. 304 S., Wev 


orav e\Kwvrai. avvei^evai jap avrois et? ovSev <t~\Xo 
Xptja-i/JiOis 7; 7T\r}i> ei? rrjv Ovaiav- Bio KOI K\edv0 r)<; (fyr}(rlv 
dv& d\wv aurou? e%e> rrjv -fyvyfiv, iva /i>) <rairf) rd Kpea. 
The same saying is attributed to Chrysippus by Cic. N.D. 
II. 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. ill. 20, rj Be 
vs, evravOa ycip ecrrt ra>i> %apLTwv TO jj^Larov (scil. rov 
\pvo-i7T7rov), ov Bi a XXo TI -rr\riv OveaOai ejeyovei, Kai rfj 
aapicl TT)I> ^rv-^rjv o 6eos olov d\as evepigev. Elsewhere 
the statement is ascribed to no definite author. Cic. Fin. 


v. 38, ut non inscite illud dictum videatur in sue, animum 
illi pecudi datum pro sale, ne putisceret. Varro de R. R. 
II. 4-, 10, suillum pecus donatum ab natura dicunt ad epu- 
landum. itaque iis animam datam esse proinde ac salem 
quae servaret carnem. Pint. Quaest. Conv. v. 10, 3, Sio KOI 
TMV T(oiK<av eviot rr)v vivrjv a-aptca /cpea yeyovevai \eyov<ri, 
T?;? ^f%?;9 do-Trep aXcav Trapea-rrap^ev^ i"7rep rov Sta- 
neveiv. Lastly, we have two passages of similar import 
in which a suggested derivation of fa from 0vetv is referred 
to: Clem. Alex. n. 20. 105, p. 174 S. p. 484 P., X^yerat 
yovv riva TWV $L\o<ro$ovvrwv ervpoXoyovvra rrjv vv 6vv 
elvac (fxivai, &5? et? Ovcriv Kal (T<payrjv povov enrrjSeioV Be- 
So<r6ai yap rwSe rot ^ww ^rv^v jrpos ovSev erepov r) evefca 
rov ra9 o-a/a/ea? a-Qpiyiiv. Varro R. R. n. 4, 9, sus Graece 
dicitur fa, olim 6 fa dictus ab illo verbo, quod dicunt Qveiv, 
quod est inmolare. ab suillo enim [geuere] pecore 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 
Trpovoia (cf. the context in Cic. N.D. 1. c.). In a similar 
spirit Epict. Diss. n. 8. 7 says that asses were intended to 
bear burdens, and that, as for this purpose they must 
walk, imagination has been given them to enable them to 
do so. 

The passages here collected, as well as Zeno frag. 43, 
shew conclusively that Stem s theory (Psych, p. 92 f.) that 
the vital principle of animals is not i/ri;;^, but something 
midway between <t!o-t<? and -^v^ri, ought not to be accepted. 
He contends that Marcus Aurelius is the first Stoic who 
expressly gives ^xt to animals, but cf. Zeno frag. 50, 
spirjtum...fore non naturam, sed animam et quidem 
rationabilem, which clearly points to the ^0709 <fvxv of 


animals )( ^rvx^l ~^oyov e%ou<ra of men. Zeno frag. 56, 
1. 41, ^rv-)(i}v dcprjprj^evov %u>ov, Ar. Did. ap. Euseb. P.E. XV. 
20. 3, ra? oe TWV dfypovwv Kal d\oyu>v %u>a)v -v^ir^a?. To 
the passages cited by Stein from Marcus Aurelius add 
v. 16, vi. 14. 

45. Plut. de sollertia animalium XL 2, 3, 6 pev ovv 
e\e<ye, Kaiirep ov fydcncwv /j-ere^eiv \6yov rd toa, 
Oewpia Traparv^elv ^vp^rjKa^ e\0elv e-irl ^ivp^rj- 
erepav fj,vp/j,r]fca ve/cpov (pepovras- dvtovras ovv etc rfjs 
erepou? olov evTvy^dveLV avrois real 
i /cal TOVTO Si? rj rpt? yevecrOat, re Xo? 8e, 
tcdrwdev dvevey/celv wcnrep \vrpa TOV ve/cpov aK(t)\r}/ca, 
roi)? S eKeivov dpa/juevovs, drro^ovra^ 8e rov vefcpov ofyea- 
Qai. Aelian Nat. An. VI. 50, K.\edv0r]L> rov "Acrcrtoy Karrj- 
vd^Kaae teal aKovra el^ai Kal aTrocrr^at rot? ^wots" TOV 
teal eKeiva \ojiafj,ov /AT>} 8iafj,apTaviv, avTihe 
Kal Kara tcpaTOS, laropia roiavTrj, (paalv. TW%ev 6 
dvOrjs /caOrj/jievos Kal (Aevroi Kal o-^o\rjv dyaiv 
a XXa)? OVKOVV fAvp/jLTjKes Trapd rot? Troalv ijcrav avrco 
7ro\\oi 6 8e dpa 6pa e ^ drparrov TIVOS erepa? veKpov 
fMVp/jirjKa {ivpfJ,r]Kas a XXof? KOfii^ovTas et? olnov ereputv, 
Kal eawrot? ov avvrpofpoov Kal em 76 r&5 %ei\ei r?;? H*vp- 
fj,7]Kid^ ecrrwra? avrw veKpp, Kal dviovras Karcodev erepovs 
Kal crvvovras rot? eVot9 w? eVt TLVI, elra /cario^ra? roi)? 
avrovf, Kal TrXeovaKis TOVTO Kal TeXeirraWa? aKwKriKa, 
olovel \vTpa, KOfMLaai roi)? oe eKelvov fj,ev \aftelv, TrpoeaOai 
&e ovTrep ovv eTTijyovro veKpov Kal e/cetVou? V7ro8eacr0ai, 
j? viov Ko/jit^o/jievovs rj d8e\(pov. 
\6yov rd J!a: for animals possess indeed -^rv^v, 
but not "^v^rjv \6<yov e^ovcrav Kal Sidvoiav: hence the 
term d^oya wa: cf. Sext. Math. XL 99 foil: the Stoics 
say that the courage of certain of the nobler (yevvala) 
animals proves that TO Ka\ov is (pvcret, alpeTov, but only 


1} (f>povifj,ij SidOeats can discern TO tca\6v: hence 6 d\K- 
rpva)v teal 6 ravpos ^rj fier^ovra rrjs </>poi> 1/4779 Sta$ecrea>9 
OVK av /SXerroi TO tca\6v re teal dyadov. Hermes ap. Stob. 
Eel. I. 41. 6, p. 284, 12, 7r<w<? ovv opw^kv nva rwv dXoywv 
eVio-T?;/i77 /cat re^vy ^pat fj,eva, olov rovs nvpp,r)Kas rd<; 
T/3o<a9 aTToOrja-avpi^o/Aevovs rov ^et/i&Jt o?. It was easier, 
however, for the Stoics than for those who separate the 
soul of man from that of animals by a sharp dividing line, 
to make the admission which circumstances forced upon 
Cleanthes. For the soul of man differs from that of 
animals in degree only and not in kind ; it is the same 
substance, though varying in its degrees of purity, which 
permeates inorganic matter as et<?, plants as <ucrt9, and 
men and animals as ^rv^Tj (Diog. L. vn. 139). Chrysippus 
believed that dogs possessed the power of inference (Sext. 
Pyrrh. I. 69). Stein, Psychol. n. 165, is mistaken in quoting 
Ael. N.A. IV. 45 as an authority bearing on this subject. 
The passage, when cited in full, is seen to have an entirely 
different application: "0/0.77/309 fiev ovv <j>r)o-lv "<U9 dyaObv 
teal TraiBa Kara^OLp-evoio \i7reardai," eot/ce 8e r] <f)vo-i<; 
Seitcvvvai, oVt KOL <J>i\oi> eavra) rifiwpov Kara\nreiv, oo 
<f)i\e "O/j,7)pe, tcepSos e<rriv, olov TI teal irepl Zijvwvos xa\ 
K\edv6ov$ voovf^ev ei Tt (or etVe) dtcovofjuev, i.e. it was an 
advantage to Zeno to leave his friend Cleanthes behind 
him to uphold his doctrines. 

|jivip|iTiKas: cf. Cic. N.D. III. 21, num existimas forrnicam 
anteponendam esse huic pulcherrimae urbi, quod in urbe 
sensus sit nullus, in formica uon modo sensus sed etiam 
mens ratio memoria? Aristotle allowed that some animals, 
and especially bees, possessed vovt (cf. Grote s Aristotle, 
p. 483). 

oXXws: "aimlessly": so Eur. Hipp. 375, 7/877 TTOT a\\&)9 
I/U/CT09 ev patcpw xpovw dvrjTWv etypovricr fj 


t arpairov nvos sTt pas: 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. i. 379, angustum formica terens iter, where Forbiger 
refers to Arist. Hist. An. IX. 38, del ^lav drparrov 

46. Cic. N. D. I. 37, idemque (Cleanthes) quasi 
delirans in iis libris, quos scripsit contra voluptatem, turn 
migit formam quandam et speciem deorum, turn divini- 
tatem oinnem tribuit astris, turn nihil ratione censet esse 

quasi delirans: for the treatise irepl ^80^77? 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 dviKr/rois ev %epcrii> in the hymn to Zeus, as Prof. Mayor 

astris: this position is proved at length in N. D. n. 
4044, cf. Chrysippus ap. Stob. Eel. I. 21. 5. p. 185, 5, 
ev (j> (alOepi) rd acrrpa Ka0iSpvrat...0La rrjv (frvcriv ovra 
Kal e/jLilrvva Kal SioiKovfteva Kara rrjv Trpovoiav. 

47. Pint. Comm. Not. 31, 5, aXXa Xpvcwnros Kal 

rov ovpavov rr]V yrjv rov depa rr^v dd\arrav ovSeva rwv 
rocrovrwv citydaprov ovS" dioiov a-TroXeXoiTracri, rr\r)V povov 
rov Ato?, et? of Trai/ra? KaravaXla-Kovo-i TOU? dXXovs... 
ravra o OL ...TO^9 oo r /Liao iv t 7T6Tct^, ttA/A- avroi fj/^ya 
ftooovres ev rot? Trepl Oedv Kal Trpovoias ei^ap^evrj^ re /cat 
</)i;crea)? rypa/z/uacrt 8iappr)8rjv \eyova-t, rovs aXXou? 6eovs 
( nravras elvai <yeyovoras Kal <p6apr)crofji,evov^ VTTO rrvpos, 
Kar auroi)? wcnrep KTjpivovs // Kamrepivovs ovras. 
L 1>. 18 


< r ,,.,, n , rw -,c$: 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. II. CO). 

Ai6s: Zeus is here identified, as often, with the supreme 
Stoic God: see Zeller, p. 358. 

cv TOIS irtpl Ocwv K.T.X. Chrysippus wrote Trepi 6eu>v 
(Diog. vii. 148), Trepi -rrpovoias (ib. 139), Trepi elfiap^ev^ 
(ib. 149), and Availed (ib. 39). For Cleanthes Trepi 6ewv 
see Introd. p. 51. 

<J>9ap7]o-ofivovs : cf. Chrysipp. ap. Pint. Sto. Rep. 38, 5. 
Plut. de def. Or. c. 19, /catrot TOI)<? ST&H/COI)? yivtocrKopev 
ov povov Ka-ra Baifiovwv fjv \eya) B6av e^oi/ra?, d\\d teal 
OVTWV TocrovTOiv TO 7r\rjdo<; evl -^pw^evov^ diBiw /cal 

9apr(i), rot)? S aXXoy? /cat yeyovevai KOI 

48. Stob. Eel. I. 1. 12. p. 25, 3. 

ddavdrwv, TroXvwvv^e, TrajKpare^ alei, 
Zev, </>y<rea)9 dp%r)y, vopov fiera Trdvra icvftepvwv, 
X a ^P " yap TrdvTea-cri Oe/j-is dvrfTola-i 7rpo<ravSdv. 
etc crov yap 761/09 eo-pev, t^ou fjiL^pu Xa^di/re? 
fMOW oi, 6(ra a>et re real ep-rrei Qvrj r eVl yatav 5 

TO) o-e Ka0v[jLvi)(Ta) tcai crov tcpdro? dtev deiao). 
<rol Br) Tra? oSe Kocrfju)<f, eXicrcropevos Trepl yatav, 
Treiderai, y KZV ayrjs, ical etcwv VTTO creio Kpareirai- 
TOIOV e^et? VTroepyov (iviKr/TOis eVt yepcriv 
d/jL(f>tjKrj, 7rvp6evr\ deityovra tcepavvov 10 

TOV yap VTTO 7r\r)yf)<t cfrvcrews irdvr eppiya <criv> 
<o av fcarevOvveis KOIVOV \oyov, o? Sid Trdvraiv 
(froLTa, fj,iyvv[Mvo<; /j,eyd\ot<? /zt/c/Jot? re 
[<u? Too-o-o? yeyaais inrarof /3a<rt\v<; Bid 
ovSe Ti ylyverai epyov eVt ^dovl crov Bi^a, Bai/iov, 
/car aiOepiov Oeiov TTO\OV OVT* evl TTOVTW, 


ir\r/v orrocra pe^ovat, Ka/col afyerepycnv 

d\\d av Kal rd rrpi(To~d<T>erri(Tra(Tai dpria detvat, 

teal KotTfieiv raKocr/jia Kal ov (f)L\a aol <f)i\a eariv, 

do8e yap et? ev rrdvra o~vvi ]p^oKas eo~0\a Kaicolcriv, 20 

cocr$ eva yiyveadai rrdvruiv ~\oyov dtev eovra, 

ov (f>ev i yovTes ewcriv oaot dvrjrwv KCLKOL eicri, 

Bvafjiopot, 01 r d<yada>v fJLev del KTIJCTIV TroOeovre? 

ovr eaopwai Oeov KOLVOV VOJJLOV, ovre /cXvovatv, 

co Kev Treidofjbevoi crvv vw /3lov eo~6\ov e^oiev. 25 

avrol avd op^wcnv dvoi KdKov a XXo? e?r d\\o, 

01 fjiev vTrep 0^779 cr7rov8r)v Bvaeptcrrov e%oi>Te<t, 

01 S 7rl KepSoavvas rerpa^evot. ovSevl 

d\\oi S et? dvetnv KOI a-caparo^ r/Sea epya 

........................ eV d\\ore 8 d\\a 

(nrevSovTes /iaXa. Trdfiirav evavria rwvSe <y6veo~6ai. 
aX\d Zey TrdvSwpe, Ke\at,ve(f)e^, dpyi/cepavve, 
dvdpco7rovs<fAev>pvov dTreipoavvr]^ djro \vyprjs, 
>}v (TV, Trdrep, o-Ke8ao~ov ^rv^rj<f ciiro, So? 8e Kvpfjcrai 

, -f] Tri(Tvvos (TV Si /c??? yttera iravra Kvftepvds, 35 
dv Tt-iArjOevres d/j,ei,/3obfj.eo~6d ere ripf), 

rd ad epya Snjve/ces, co? evreot/ce 
OVT\ ejrel ovre /Sporots yepas d\\o TI [Aei^ov, 
ovre ^eot?. f) KOLVOV del VOJJLOV ev oi/cy vp,velv. 

1. 7roXviovu(i : not merely in the popular religion, but 
more particularly from the Stoic standpoint, cf. Diog. L. 
VII. 147 Brj/jiiovpyov rwv o\a>v, Kal &o~rrep rrarepa rrdv- 
ru>v KOIVWS re, Kal TO /juepos avrov TO SifjKov Bid rrdvrwv, 
o TroAAou? TrpocnjyopLaiS rcpoo ovo^d^eraL Kara T<? Svvd- 
/Ltei?. See also Krische, p. 401; Stein, Psych, n. 74. 

2. v6|iov : cf. Zeno, frag. 39. 

4. K o-ou yap Y^os eo-^V. Cf. Act. Apost. XVII. 28, 

where the words TOU ydp Kal yevo<? ecr/j,ev are quoted by 
St Paul. The divergence in reading points to the fact 



that these words were taken from the Phaenomena of 
Aratus, 1. 5, rather than from the present passage. 

TJXOW: so MS. F, an unmetrical and senseless reading, 
not yet satisfactorily corrected. The vulg. lrj<f is a con 
jecture of Brunck, and is destitute of authority. Meineke 
read yev6fj,ecr0a \6yov ; Wachsm. (Comm. II. p. 18) sug 
gested vov aov (or a 8rj crov) TfjLrj/j,a, and now proposes 
rtfirjfjia for fiifjLijpa ; Usener cum appareat rfxpv ex $ os ~ 
semate natum esse vSrjs (a word coined from vBeiv). 
None of these are convincing, arid all are inferior to 
Bergk s r 6\ov, 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 \6yov, if adopted, would mean "reason" (not 
"speech"), cf. Euseb. P. E. xv. 15, p. 817 d (quoted by 
Wachsm.) KOivwviav 8 inrap-^iv 777)09 d\\ij\ovs (scil. 
0eou Kal dv6pwTTQ)v) 8id TO \6jov /jiere^eiv. If <yev6fj.ecr6a 
is accepted for yevos <rp.ev, perhaps JJLOVOV or eic crou. 

5. So-a: for the omission of the antecedent cf. Soph. 
Ai. 1050, Trach. 350, and for the sense Horn. II. 17. 447, 
Od. 18. 131. Hirzel argues (n. 201210), 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 7rvev/j,a : but see Introd. p. 41. 

6. cxfCo-w : diSco F, whence deiBoj Wachsm. ; but the 
present is very awkward after KaBv/j-vija-a), and it is by no 
means clear that Cleanthes would have preferred deio-opai 
(see the evidence collected by Yeitch s. v.). 

7. Koo-jios is here used, as Krische, p. 425, has observed, 



in the less extended sense mentioned in Diog. vn. 138, 
Kal dvrrjv Be TIJV BiaKoo-fjirjaiv rwv darepwv KOO-^OV elvat : 
hence eXto-cro/Aei o? = /cu/cXo^o/j^-uKo?. 

9. M. So Brunck and Wachsm. VTTO MS. F. fierd 
Mein. For the sense cf. Soph. 0. C. 1515. 

10. a^TJKt!: alluding to forked lightning, cf. Aesch. 
P. V. 1040 Trvpbs diij>r)KW oo"r/3uxo9. Hesych. (ibices Be 
fc - e/carepov fj,epovs i}tcovr)fji,evov /3eXo<? r\ fcepavvos, i) l<<>9. 

K P ow6v. for the physical explanation cf. Zcno frag. 
74. But to Cleanthes icepavvbs is only another name for 
77X777?) Trupo?, which he identifies with rovos, cf. Heraclit. 
frag. 28. Byw. rd 8e Trdvra olaKi^ei icepavvbs. 

11. eppfyao-iv: so Ursinus and most odd. for eprjya F 
-in taio postea spatium 10 litt.," which might suggest 
epya ^afj.daO^ : but there are similar spaces after vv. 
1 2 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, II. p. 118, n. 1, in referring 
ro in v. 12 to Kepavvbv. 

13. fj^a w H-ixpouri F, which Peterson 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) Bid Travrbs is suspicious after Bid 
jrdvrwv in v. 12, (3) it is difficult to imagine any context 
which would prevent co? roo-ao? yeyau><t from being frigid, 
if not obscure, (4) the excessive sigmatism is pointless. 

1720. -irX^v 6) K.T.\. The explanations given by 
the Stoics of this Aveak 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 


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. vii. 180), but to 
some extent, at least, he agreed with Cleanthes: to? rdov 
aia-%pu>v TO Oelov Trapalnov yivevOai ovtc evXoyov ecrriv 
(Pint. Sto. Rep. 33, 2). We may compare Plato s words 
Rep. II. 379 C, ouT dpa 6 0eo9, eVetSi} dyaOos, -jrdvrwv av 
eiij airio?, a>9 01 7ro\\ol Xeyovviv, aXA, o\iya>v /j,ei> rots 
dvOpwroiS aiTios, TroXXwv 8e dvalrtof TroXi) yap eXdrra* 
rdyadd -rwv rcatcajv r) Kal rwv fiev dyadwv ovSeva d\- 
\ov airiareov, TWV 8e Ka/cwv aX\ arra Set frreiv rd atria, 
d\\" ov rov 6eov. See further Gercke Chrysippea, p. 699. 

24. Koiviv v6(iov. Cf. infra frag. 73. No doubt Cle 
anthes remembered Heracl. frag. 91. Byw. %vvov evri -jraai 

TO <j>pOVlV. 

25. KCV belongs to the verb, Madv. 137. 

26. avtu KaKo0...aXAa F, dvoi Wachsm., KaKov..,d\\o 

28. ov8vl KoVp.>: this phrase is used by Herod, and 
Thuc. as an equivalent for draKraxf. Here it means 
"inordinately, recklessly." Cleanthes was probably in 
fluenced by Homer s fondness for fid^ drdp ov Kara 
(II. 2. 214 etc.) and the like. al. ovS 1 cvl 

30, 31. &XXorv Usener, <f>epovrai Meineke, while in 31 
Wachsm. suggests 7reve<r0ai for yevea-ffai. The sense is 


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 <j>av\oL is just the opposite 
to that which they intend. 

32. dp-yiKpavv. Cf. Zet)? dpyi ]<;, an expression used 
by Empedocles to denote fire (R. and P. 131), Zeno 
frag. 116, "Ap<yr]i> 8e eVetS?? (fracn rov dpyrjra Kepavvov. 

33. jxe v : add. Scaliger, but perhaps we should read e /c- 
pvov. a7reipocrvvr)s i.e. dyv oia, the condition of the $>av\oi. 

3.6 . ~ -yvw|iT)s T] mo-vvos K.T.\. Another reminiscence of 
Heraclitus, frag. 19. Byw. ev TO <ro(f)6v, 
, 77 Kvftepvdrai rcdvra Sid Trdvrwv. 

49. Philodem. de Mus. col. 28, 1, el /A<I) ye ir>apd 
K.\edv<0>6L \e<yeiv <avrd> 6e\^aova<L>v, o? ^a-tv 
elvai rd TroirjTt/cd KOL <p,ova>iKd Trapa- 
, /cat, rov <\6j>ov rov Trjs c^tXocro^t a? 
ay<y>e^.\ei<i> 8>vva/j,evov rd 6e<l>a Kai 
d<v>0<p>a><7riva, /t>?) e^ov<r>o<f 8e tyi\ov ru>v Oeiwv 
fj,eye9ajv Xe^et? ot/eei a?, rd fjuer<pa> /cat rd p,e\Tj /cat roi)? 
pv6(jiov<; w? yLta/\,<t>crra TrpocriKvetcrOai Trpos rrjv d\rj9eiav 
Tt/9 TWV 6elu>v 0<ea>> pta?. 

For the general sense, cf. Plat. Rep. x. 607 A, el8evai 
ort oaov fjiovov VILVOVS 6eol<f KOI eyfcoufAia rot? dyadols 
7ronjo-eo)<; TrapaSe/creov et? TTO\LV. The underlying thought 
is that it is impossible to define the nature of God : 
cf. Hermes, ap. Stob. Eel. II. 1. 26, deov vorjaai pev 
%a\e7r6v, (frpdaai 8e dSvvarov. Plat. Tim. 28 C, 29 C, D. 
The construction is not quite clear. Zeller, in citing 
this passage (p. 342, 1), puts a full stop after otVcet a?, but 
this makes rd p,erpa K.T.\. very abrupt, and it is better 
to regard KOL before rov \6yov as connecting elvai and 


rrpoa-iKveladai, although this leaves dpeivova without an 

<|aAov: bare prose, i.e. 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, 7roir)Tal...ev povo-iicf) v/j,vr/<ravTe<t...dv ovv 
>?>et? 7Tixipfj.V rd avrd \6yo> i/rt\c3 Koafielv. >/rt\o9 
Xo7o? also means " abstract reasoning " (Dr Thompson on 
Phaedr. 262 c), and a " bare statement " unsupported by 
evidence, Dem. Androt. 22, Aphob. I. 54. 

TWV. . .olKtfos, " expressions suitable to the divine majesty." 

50. Senec. Epist. 108, 10, Nam, ut dicebat Cleanthes, 
quemadmodum spiritus noster clariorem sonum reddit , 
quum ilium tuba, per lougi canalis angiistias 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 ( K <oS<ov), cf. Aesch. Eum. 567, 
Stdropo? Tvpa-tjviKrj a-d\7rij^ fiporeiov -jrvevfjiaros 7r\r)- 
povvevT) v-jreprovov yjjpvfia fyaiverw, and Soph. Ai. 17, 
where Odysseus compares the voice of Athene to the 
sound of a trumpet. 

clariorem: more distinct, cf. Cic. Div. in Q. Caecil. 
48, clarius dicere (of an actor) )( multum summittere. 

sensus : signification, meaning : as in Ov. Fast. V. 484, 
hie sensus verbi, vis ea vocis erat. Cf. Sen. Ep. 7 ad fin. 
114, 1. Hence Quintilian frequently uses the word for a 
sentence or period. 

arta necessitas : cf. Find. N. IV. 33, rd f* aK pd V 
epvKft /u,e 

51. ^Sext. Math. ix. 88, o Be K\edv0^ otrax; 
- el <f>vo-i<i (frvaew eVrt Kpeirrwv, eirj dv TI? dpi 


el fy-vxn tyvx^ e " Tt Kpeirrwv, el, ?? cv rt? apary 
fal el %wov roivvv Kpelrrov eari Zyov, eiij dv ri 
Kpdriarov fyoov. ov yap ei<? ciireipov eWwrmi rrefyvKe rd 5 
roiavra, warrepovv ovre rj <f>vais eBvvaro eV direipov 
avgeaOai Kara TO Kpelrrov ovO r) ^v^} ovre TO Zyov. 
(89) d\\d firjv (aov %wov Kpelrrov ecrriv, w? ITTTTOS ^eXcof?;?, 
el TV^OL, Ka\ Tavpos ovov Kal \ewv ravpov. rrdvrwv oe 
a-^e8ov ru>v e r m r yeiwv %wa)V fcal GW^ariKY) Kal -v/ru^t/cJ} 10 
Siadeaet. Trpoe^ei re Kal KpancrTevei 6 avdpUTTO? roivvv 
Kpdrtarov civ eirf fyZov Kal apiarov. (00) Kal ov rrdvv n 
6 (ivOpwrros Kpdria-rov elvai Svvarat, wov, olov ev0ea><i 
on Bid KaKias rropeverai rov Trdvra %povov, el Be M ye, 
TOV TrXela-Tov (KOI yap ei rcore Trepiyevoiro apery?, o^re 15 
Kal Trpo? rat? rov fiiov cW/nat? ireptyiyverat), eirlfcijpov r 
earl Kal da-Oeves Kal /Avpiwv 8eo/j,evov /3oijOr)^dra)v, 
KaOdrrep rpo(p^ Kal aKtrcaapdrav Kal r^9 a\\i)<i rov 
<TWfj,aTOS eVi^eXaa?, rrtKpov TWOS rvpdvvov rporrov etpecr- 
rci)T09 r]H,lv Kal TOV vr/309 rjfxepav Baa/iov (iTraiTovvros, Kai 20 
el pr) TTape^oi/jiev ware \ovetv avro KOI dXeifyew K-ai 
7repi@d\\eiv Kal rpe^eiv, vocrovs Kal Odvarov diTei\ovvTOS. 
ware ov re\eiov ^wov o dvOpwrros, areXe? Be Kal TTO\V 
Ke-xwpiafievov rov re\eiov. (91) TO Be re\eiov Kal apiarov 
Kpelrrov fiev dv vrrdp-^oi dvOpwrrov Kal vracrat? rat? 25 
dperat? av^rrerrKrjpw^evov Kal vravro? /ca/coO dve-rriBeKrov, 
rovro Be ov Bioiaei deov. eariv dpa Oeos. 

This argument for the existence of God is stated in 
different language and a somewhat amplified form by 
Cic. N. D. ii. 3336 : cf. especially 35. 

2. 4>v<ri.s: the vital principle of plants. Zeno frag. 43. 

l...rTi...i:T] av: in this form of the conditional 
sentence the inference is stated less bluntly than if the 
indicative were used : see Madv. 135 R, la. This is 
especially frequent with eOe\w or @ov\ofj,ai in the pro 
tasis : cf. Stallb. ad Plat. Symp. 208 c. Eur. Ale. 1079. 


A close parallel to the use here is Dem. xxxvi. 44, 
el Se TOVTO Voet9, on TTIO-TK; dfyop^ -jraawv <TTI 
fiejia-nj 7T/3o<? xpr)[j,aTio-iJ,6v, irav av dyvorja-eias. 

11. Siatto-ci : cf. Zeno frag. 117. 

12. Kof: Bekker proposed to read d\\d or Kal (JLI}V, 
but Wachsmuth s tcairot is preferable. 

15. TrtpiYe voiTo : for the optative in protasis, see Jebb 
on Soph. Ai. 521, Ant. 666. 

16. Svo-ptais: cf. Ar. Poet. c. 21, 13, 1457 b 22, 77 3 7^9 
7rpo<? fiiov Kal eaTrepa Trpos rj/j,epav epei TO LVVV rrjv ecnre- 
pav yfjpa? rj/Jtpaf, Kal TO y^pa^ ea-rrepav fiiov rj, axrTrep 
E^Tre&o/cX^?, Sv<r/j,ds ftiov. Cf. Aesch. Ag. 1123, /3tov 
Svvros avyals. The difficulty of attaining apery, in the 
Stoic sense, is illustrated by the fact that even Socrates 
and Antisthenes were only regarded as TrpotcoTrTovres 
(Diog. vii. 91) ; and Alexander says that they admit the 
existence of a good man here and there, &Wep rt irapd- 
Sogov %wov Kal Trapd fyvcriv, a-n-avicorepov rov <&OIVIKO<; 
(de Fato,^ c. 28). In Diog. 1. c. the fact that (f>av\ 0i can 
become dyaBol 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. 274277). 

20. diraiTolvros. The preposition conveys the idea of 
demanding as of right: cf. d-rro^ovvai as used in the 
Halonnesus dispute (Aeschin. Ctes. 83). 

22. ircpipoXXciv, " to clothe," cf. Zeno, frag. 175. 

52. Cic. N. D. n. 1315. Cleanthes quidem noster 
quattuor de causis dixit in animis hominum informatas 
deorum esse notiones. primam posuit earn, de qua modo 
dixi, quae orta esset ex praesensione rerum futurarum : 


alteram quam ceperimus ex magnitudine comrnodorum, 5 
quae percipiuntur caeli temperatione, fccunditate terrarum, 
aliarumque commoditatum complurium copia: tertiam 
quae terreret animos fuhninibus, tempestatibus, nimbis, 
nivibus, grandinibus, vastitate, pestilentia, terrae motibus 
et saepe fremitibus, lapideisque inibribus et guttis imbrium 10 
quasi cruentis, turn labibus aut repentinis terrarum 
hiatibus, turn praeter naturam hominum pecudumque 
portentis, turn facibus visis caelestibus, turn stellis iis, 
quae Graeci cometas nostri cincinnatas vocant...tum sole 
geminate... quibus exterriti homines vim quandam esse 15 
caelestem et divinam suspicati sunt. quartani 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. D. in. 1C, nam Cleanthes, ut dicebas, quattuor 
modis formatas in animis hominum putat deorum esse 
notiones. unus is modus est...qui est susceptus ex 
praesensionc rerum futurarum. alter ex perturbationibus 
tempestatum et reliquis motibus. tertius ex commoditate 25 
rerum quas perspicimus et copia. quartus ex astrorum 
orcline caelique constantia. 

1. Cleanthes. Mr By water concludes (Journ. Phil, 
vii. 75 foil.) that Cleanthes was largely indebted to 
Aristotle s dialogue irepl <tXoo-o</a<? 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, Erkermtnistheorie, n. 737. 

4. praesensione : this argument depends on the exis- 


tence of fiavnicrj, 77 81 ovelpwv Trpopprja-is etc. (Sext. 
Math. IX. 132), which are described as trXfjdo^ Trpay^drajv 
7re7ricrTevfj,ev<i)v ifirj Trapd Trdaiv dvOpunrois. Krische, 
p. 419, attributes some further arguments to Cleanthes, 
which the evidence does not wan-ant. 

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 lustration**, supplicationes, lectisternia etc. Lists of 
prodigies illustrating those mentioned here by Cicero will 
be found in Liv. xxi. 62, xxn. 1, xxiv. 44, xxvi. 23, etc. 
Tac. H. i. 86, Juv. xm. 6570, and above all in the 
exhaustive account of Lucan, I. 525 583. 

8. quae terreret : Prof. Mayor quotes Democritus, ap. 
Sext, Emp. ix. 24. 

14. cometas: for the physical explanation, cf. on Zeno, 
frag. 75. 

16. quartern: for a fuller statement of the fourth 
argument, cf. Sext. Math. ix. Ill 118, ib. ix. 2627: 
in the last passage it is simply introduced by the term 
evtoi, but from its position between an argument of 
Epicurus and one belonging to some "younger Stoics," 
Mr Bywater (Journ. Phil. VH. 76) infers that its immediate 
source was one of the earlier Stoics, possibly Cleanthes. 

17. aequabilitatem. "Cicero is probably translating 
some such phrase as ofiaXoTrjra Kivtj&ewt, <f)opdv ovpavov," 
Prof. Mayor. 

53. Epiphan. adv. Haeres in. 2. 9 (in. 37), 
TO ayaBov icat icakov Xeyei elvcu ra? 7jSovd<;, Kal av6pa>Trov 



etcdXei povrfv -rrjv ^f%*?V, KOI TOI)<? #601)5 pvarriKa 
e\eyev elvai /cal AcXr/cret? icpds, real SaSoO%ov e<f>acrKV eivai 
TOV r]\iov, Kal TOV KOO-^OV yLtucrra? /cat 7-01)5 KCLTOXOVS rwv 
9eiwv reXera? e\e<ye. 

1-6 dyie6v...Ti8ovas. An obvious blunder. Krische, p. 
431 n. 1, suggests that the writer of the epitome has con 
founded the statement by Cleanthes of his opponents 
position with his own teaching. 

^vepwTrov K.T.X. 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, 
p. 209, finds here a trace of the correspondence between 
the macrocosm and the microcosm, and quotes frag. 100 
7-01)5 drraiSevTovs (Movy rrj poptyf} TWV 0i)pi(ov Sca^epeiv. 

TOVS 66ovs K.T.X. 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 ^epovitfov is 
symbolised by the torchbearer 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. in. 12. 
p. 116, ev Se TOi? Kar EXevalva pvaTripiois 6 p,ev lepo- 

Se el? rrjv falov. For the subject in general see Prof. 
Mayor on Cic. N. D. I. 119. Mr Bywater however (Journ. 
Phil. VII. 78) believes that we have here a mutilated 
argument, ultimately derived from Aristotle s dialogue 
Trepi <j>i\o<ro<j>ia<;, 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- 


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 re 
ference to Dio. Chrys. xn. p. 387 B, Plut. de tranq. 20, 
p. 477 c, D (also quoted by Diels). For ^variKa o- X ij- 
fiara see Lobeck Aglaoph. p. 130, and for K\j<ret? t epa? 
ib. p. 62. 

ftv<rras...TXTa s. Diels, p. 592, who records other sug 
gestions, has fivo-r^\ea-Ta<f. Perhaps, from a 
comparison of Chrysipp. ap. Etym. M. 751, 16 id. Plut. 
Sto. Rep. 9, we ought to restore rot)? Kar6 X ov<; r&v 8elwv 

54. Philodem. Trepi evo-e/3. fr. 13. ev Se TW Bevre<py> 
(scil. Trepi 6eu>v Xpvannros) rd r<e> et? Op</>ea <Kal M> 
ova-aiov dva^<p6fj,>e<v>a tcai <r>a Trap < Q>^r,pw Ka \ 
Ha-i6B<a)> Kal Evpi<7r>i8r] K <al> Tro^ra?? a XXoi? <to>9 
Ka<l> K\edv0r)<; <7r>etpara<t <rvv>oiKeiov<v> rat? 
So^ai? avru><v>. 

Cicero s paraphrase, which omits all mention of Cle- 
anthes, is as follows (N. D. i. 41) : in secundo autem vult 
Orphei, Musaei, Hesiodi Homerique fabellas accomodare 
ad ea, quae ipse primo libro de dis immortalibus dixerat, 
ut etiam veterrimi poetae, qui haec ne suspicati quidem 
sint, Stoici fuisse videantur. As far as Cleanthes is con 
cerned the direct evidence only applies to Homer: see 
Introd. p. 51, but cf. frag. 111. This passage is included 
by Wachsmuth (Comm. i. p. 16) under the fragments of 
the book Trepi 

55. Plut. de audiendis poetis c. 11, Sec 8e 
ovofUiTtov a>eXc9 dicovciv, d\\d T )i/ fiev KXedvtiovs -rrai- 
Sidv TrapaiTia-0ar KaTeipwveverat yap ea-rtv ore -jrpoa 
Troiovp,evo<i egiyyelo-ffat TO 


Zev Trdrep "iB^dev /zeSewi , 

Kal TO 

Zev ava Aa)8(0vaie, 

Ke\evo)v dvayiyvuxTKeiv vfi ev, &5? TOV etc TTJS yfjs avauv/ji- 
Lcouevov depa Sid TTJV di>aSocriv AvaSw&fovatov ovra. 
Wachsmuth cites Schol. B L Homer IT 238 Zev ava A&>- 
Swvaie] Tives Be dvaoa>Su>vale vfy" ev irapd TTJV dvdSocriv 
T&v dyadwv (?) 

This comes from the book irepl TOV TTOLT^TOV according 
to Krische, p. 433, and Wachsm., Comm. I. p. 17. Zev 
Trdrep "18r]6ev peSecov, II. III. 276, 320 : Zev ava AwScovaie, 
II. xvi. 233. 

ircuSiav. It is worthy of observation that Plut. dis 
tinctly suggests that Cleanthes was not serious in his 
etymologies : see Introd. p. 43, 44, and cf. Plat. Cratyl. 
40G B, aXA/ earl yap teal (nrovBaiuis 
rwv ovopdrwv TOUTOI? roi? Oeols /cat 

dva0u| : a reference to the feeding of the celestial 
bodies by exhalations of coarser material, cf. frag. 29 
wiceavos 8 e <TTt...r)<> rrjv avaQv^lacfiv eTTive/Aerai. Cornut. 
c. 17, p. 84 Osann. drjp Kara dvabocnv. It may be ob 
served that the attribution of this doctrine to Thales by 
Stob. Eel. L 10, 12, p. 122, 18 cannot be relied upon. 

56. Plut. de Is. et Osir. 66, <$>epae$>bvriv 8e (frrjo-i, TTOV 
TO Bed rwv Kapirwv (j>epo/j,evov Kal (povevofievov 

Diibner translates: spiritus qui per fruges dum fertur 
interimitur. Probably this, as well as the seven following 
fragments, comes from the treatise irepl Oe&v (Wachsm. 
Comm. I. p. 15). Cf. Plut. de Is. c. 40, where Demeter 
and Persephone are explained as TO 8id r^9 7^9 /cat TU>V 
KapTTaiv SirJKov TrvevfAa. Chrysipp. ap. Philod. Trepl ei)cre/9. 
col. 12, p. 79 Gomp. Kal TTJV ArifAyTpa <yfjv rj TO ev 


Cic. N. D. II. G6, ea (Proserpina) enim est quae 
) Graece nominatur, quam frugum semen esse 
volunt absconditamque quaeri a matre fingunt. Plato s 
derivations of the name will be found at Cratyl. 404 c, D. 
For modern views see Jebb on Soph. Ant. 894. 

57. Macrob. Sat. i. 18, 14, unde Cleanthes ita cogno- 
minatum scribit (Dionysum) OTTO rov Siavvcrai, 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 8iveia-0ai. He is else 
where explained by the Stoics (1) as wine, Cic. N. D. n. 
60, cf. Plato s derivation from to>/u and oli/o?, the latter 
being resolved into oieadai and 1/01)9, (2) as TO yovipoi 
rfvevfia Kal rpo<f)ifj,ov, 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. i. 17, 8, Cleanthes (Apollinem) <y<? 
air a\\(av /cat uXX.a)v rorrwv T? dvaro\d<; 7roiovfj,evov, 
quod ab aliis atque aliis locorum declinationibus faciat 

Chrysippus (Macrob. 1. c.) derived the word ATTO\\WV 
from a and rro\v^, while Plato explains the various func 
tions of the God by different etymologies of his name 
(Crat. p. 405 A E), so that he is at once drr\ov, del 
/3aA,XovT09, drroXovovros, and o/ioTroXoui/To? (ib. p. 406 A). 

59. Macrob. Sat. i. 17. 36, Cleanthes Lycium Apol 
linem appellatum notat quod, veluti lupi pecora rapiunt, 
ita ipse quoque humorem eripit radiis. 

Antipater in the same passage derives the name ano 
rov \evKaivea0ai trdvra fywrifyvTos ij\iov, a guess, which, 


so far as the etymology of Au/ceto? is concerned, has found 
some favour in modern times (Miiller Dor. n. 6 8). Pro 
bably Cleanthes did not recognise a distinction between 
the two titles Au/ao9 and Av/ceto? (Soph. El. 7), and the 
best modern opinion seems to agree with him to this 
extent: see Leaf on II. IV. 101. The connection of Apollo 
with wolves is indicated by the legends in Pausaii. II. 9. 7, 
II. 19. 3. In Cornut. c. 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, Ao^ a? cognorniiiatur, ut 
ait Oenopides, on eKTropeverai rov \o%ov KVK\OV drro 
cva-/ji(i)v eV dvaro~\.ds Kivovuevos, id est quod obliquum 
circulum ab occasu ad orientem pergit: aut, ut Cleanthes 
scribit, eVetS?) icaO e/Vt/ca? Kiveirai, \oal yap elcn Kal 
avrai, quod flectuosum iter pergit. 

Cf. Achill. Tat. Isag. 109 A, 6 &)Sia/co9 Kal Ao^t o^ 
VTTO rtvwv Ka\eirai, eVetSr) 77X^09 ra9 0801)9 eV avrcZ 
TropeveraL Xo^o9. ev 8e TU> ^X.t&) 6 ATroXXtov 09 /caXelrai 
Ao^i a9 VTTO TWV TTOLi]Twv elvac TTicrreueTai. Cornut. c. 32 
gives two explanations: Xo&3f 8e teal irepia-Ke\wv ovrwv 
rdov ypr^o-^wv 01)9 SiBwcri, Ao^i a9 ajfo/iacrrat TJ drro rrjs 
Xo| : OT7;T09 r?;9 Tropeias i}v Troieirat, Bid rov faSia/cov KVK\OV. 
For modern derivations of the name Loxias see Jebb on 
Soph. O.T. 854. 

SSXiKas : for the obliquity of the sun s course cf. frag. 29 
and Diog. L. vn. 144 there quoted. 

61. Photius s. v. XeV^at, p. 158 ed. Herm., KXeai/^9 
oe (frrjaiv (iTrovev^^o Oai rw ATroXXcovt ra9 Xecr^a9, e^e- 
oe Oyuotas" yiveaOat, Kal avrov Be rov ATroXXo) Trap 
i\ea"%r)vopiov eTriKa\eicrdai. So Suidas I. 541 s. v. 
H. P. 19 


Xecr^at. In Harpocrat. s.v. we get the additional informa 
tion that these remarks were contained in the treatise 

Cf. Pint, de el ap. Delphos c. 2 : Apollo is called Ae<r- 
vrjvopios, orav evepfyaMTi KOI dtro\avoKTi -^pw^evoL -TM 
8id\eye<T0ai, teal (friXoo-ofalv Trpo? aXX^Aou?. The inference 
drawn by Wachsmuth seems correct, viz., that Cormitus 
took from Cleanthes the words found in c. 32, KOI Xeo-^- 
vbpiov 8 avrbv (\\Tr6\\a)va) Trpoarjyopeva-av 8ia TO ra<? 
ij/j,epa<; rat? Xeo-^at? Kal rw 6/jnXelv aXX^Xot? a-vve^ea-Bai 
TOI)? dvdpwTTOvs, ra? 8e vv/cras icaO* eavrovs avcnravecrdai. 
He remarks that Cornutus appears to have devoted much 
attention to the study of Cleanthes. Cf. Pers. Sat. V. 63, 
cultor enim iuvenum purgatas inseris aures fruge Cle- 

{j Spais. 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 ilia moveor exedra; modo enim fuit Carneadis; 
quern 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. I. 15. See also Becker, Charicles, p. 303. 
Guhl and Koner, p. 403. 

6(ioas: the distinction between Xeo-^at and e^eBpat 
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. 


62. Cornut. c. 31 ad fin., roik oe SwoeKa (W~\,ovs 
ev dvayayelv ovrc d~\,~\.OTpia>$ eVt rov 6e6v, co? 
j^ eTron-jcrev ov Setf Se Sofcel rcavrayov evpecri- 
\oyov TtpecrfBeveiv. 

It seems clear from the account of Cornutus that there 
were two current modes of allegorical interpretation of the 
myths which centre round Heracles. By one set of inter 
preters Heracles was regarded as an ordinary mortal and 
by others as a god. Cleanthes apparently explained the 
twelve labours from the latter point of view. An illustra 
tion of this line of interpretation may be seen in the 
explanation given by Cornutus of Heracles as an archer : 
Kai TO^OT??? S av o 6eo<; Trapeia-dyoiTO, /card re TO Travra-^ov 
$UKi>ia-8ai K.T.\. But in the account of the twelve labours 
in Heraclitus, All. Horn. c. 33, Heracles is represented 
simply as a wise man who brought to light the hidden 
truths of philosophy : Hpa/cXeo. 8e vo/jLKrreov OVK 
aw/AaTi/crjs Suvd^ews dva^Oevra TOCTOVTOV la^vcraL 
Tore xpovois. a\\ avi]p kfAcfopwv Kai cro<^)(,a? ovpaviov 
/u-t crrr;? yeyovws, oocnrepel Kara /BaOeias 
Bvtcviav e 0(WTi(7e rr)v fyC^ocrofyiav, KadaTrep 
^.TwiKwv 01 8oKi/ji(t)Taroi. Zeller, pp. 368, 369, relying on 
the concluding words of the passage cited, thinks that the 
account is derived from Cleanthes, but, if so, there is a 
discrepancy with Cornutus. Krische (p. 400) on the other 
hand says: "irre ich nicht, so fiihrte Kleanthes, gleichwie 
spater Porphyrius (bei Euseb. P.E. III. 112 c), die zwolf Ar- 
beiten des Herakles auf die Bahn der Sonne durch die zwolf 
Zeichen des Zodiakus zuriick (Cornut. de X. D. p. 91 G)." 

(vpia-i\oyov : "expectes rov," 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 



Chrysippus is spoken of as evpeatXoyouv aTriQavws. 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. iv. 37 ? Mr Hicks suggests 

63. Schol. in Horn. II. in. 64, ap. Bekker, p. 99 
b. 23, K^edvdrjs Se eV Aeo-/3< ovro) TipaaOat, 

Wachsmuth (Comm. I. p. 15) classes this among the 
fragments of the work irepl Oewv, but there is more likeli 
hood in Krische s view (p. 433) that it belongs to the irepl 
rov Tronjrov, for there is no reason to separate it from 
frags. 55 and 65. Perhaps Cleanthes tried to explain the 
currency of the epithet ^pva^ by the existence of a gilded 
statue of Aphrodite at Lesbos. For the figurative mean 
ing of xpva-ovs = precious, which is perhaps all that is 
implied in the epithet, see Jebb on Soph. Ant. 699. 

64. Athen. Xill. 572 f., 77-0/31/779 Se A^poS/T??? iepov 
jrapa A/3u8r;fOt9, w? c^crt HdfjL<j>i\o<;- /eare^o/iei/?;? 
yap T?}<? TToXeo)? 8otXe/a TOI)<? <f>povpov<f TOWS ev avrf) TTOTC 
Qvaavras, &5? tcrropet KXedvBrjt; ei> roi? Mu^t/cotf, Kal 
fj,edv<T06VTa<; eraipa? Tr\eiovas TrpoaXa/Beiv wv piav, KCLTCL- 
KOifjiT]devTas avrovs ISovo-av, dve\o/j.evr}V TO? /cXet? /cat TO 
T64YO? V7rep(3d(rav, aTTayyelXai Tot? AfivSijvois. rovs 8 
avTiica fji0 o7T\a)V d(f)iKOfjLvov<{, dv\elv /J,V TGI 
tcparrjo-avTas Se ru>v rei^cov KOL yevop,evovs eyKparetf 
\ev0epia<> xapiaTrjpia TTJ Tropvr) dfroSiSovras 
js vaov iSpvcracrdai. 

: 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 


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 Horn. Od. I. 52, ap. Cramer, Anecd. 
Oxoii. III. 4-10, 6\o60poi>o?] K\edv0r]<i Sa<rvvef TOV Trepl 


Wachsmuth also quotes Eustath. in Horn. p. 1389, 55, 
TOV * \T\avra... oi fiev d\\T)yopov<riv et? T^V dxiifiaTov Kal 
aK07riaroi> rrpovoiav T)]V TcdvTwv alriav Kal o\oo^)pova TOV 
"ArXoi/ra vooveiv, w? rov inrtp o\u>v fypovovvra 
wv fypovncniKov. Sio Kal oK\edv9i]s, &<; (j>aa-u>, 
TO o rr]^ (ip^ova-ri^ Cf. Cornut. de nat. d. c. 20, 
o\oo$pova 8 avrov ( \r\avra} elptjffOat 8t TO Trepl TWV 
o\wv <j>povT%iv Kal Trpovoela-Oai, r?/9 irdvrwv avrov rwv 
^epuv o-twr/jpiW See also Flach Glossen u. Scholien zur 
Hes. Th. p. 7G. Clcanthes identified Atlas with -irpovoia, 
as holding together the framework of the world (cf. ef is)- 

66. Apollon. soph. lex. Homer, p. 114 ed. Bekk. v. 
pw\v (K. 305), KA,eai/07y? 8e 6 4>i\6cro(f)o$ 
<f)r)o-t 8rj\ova-0at TOV \6yov, Si ov fjLW\vvovrai ai op/uai 


This frag, is taken from Wachsmuth (Comm. I. p. 18): 
cf. Zcno, frag. 1GO, StaX/i7ret T^? TJrvxns TO favraffTucbv 
Kal TTaOrjTiKov VTTO TOV \6yov ^aKe^y^vov. Stob. Eel. 
II. 7. 10 ;l p. 89, 10, Trdvres 8 01 ev rot? rrdOecnv ovre-f 
d-n-oa-TptyovTai TCV \6jov. In this connection we may 
observe that Odysseus was taken by the Stoic school as 
one of the few typical wise men (Sen. de Const. 2. 1, de 
Benef. 13. 3). This is the earliest known instance of the 
word d\\r]jopla. 

67. Certamen Homer, et Hesiod., p. 4, 18, ed. Nietzsch 
(in act. societ. philol. Lips. torn. I. fasc. 1), E\\rwo<? pev 


<ydp Kal K\edi>07)<; Mat oz/a (sic coni. Sturz, Hellanic. frg. 
]). 171 et Welcker ep. cycl. p. 149 pro fiiova) \eyovcrt 
(jrarepa Ofjujpov). 

This frag, is taken from Wachsm. Comm. I. p. 17. 
Cf. Procl. vit. Horn. ap. Gaisford Hephaestion, p. 5 1C, 01 
fjiev ovv 2/zfpfatOf avrov a7ro(f>aiv6fjLevot, MatWo? p,ev 
Trarpo? Xeyovcriv elvat. ib. p. 517, Maiova <ydp avi (scil. 
EXXai/t/eo? Kal Aa/iao-rr}? /cat 

68. Porphyr. vit. Pythag. 1, 2, KXeai/^? eV TU> 
Tcav ^uQiKwv ^vpov, K Tvpov r^9 Supta? (scil. 
Mnesarchus, the father of Pythagoras). o-troSeta? Be Kara- 
Xa^ofV?;? roi)<> ^a/it ou? TrpoGTr\evaavra TOV ^ 
%ov tear e^TTopiav fiera crlrov rfj vrjcray Kal 
5 Tl/J,rjuf}Vtu 7ro\iTela. Hvdayopov 8 e/c Trai&wv et? Traaav 
fAfiarjaiv OVTOS ev(f>vov^,r6i> ^Ivrjaap^ov dTrayay^lv avrbv 
ei? Tvpov, Ki 8e rotv XaXSai ot? Gvcnavra 
TOVTWV 7ri 7T\eiov Troirjaai, 7rave\d6i>Ta 8 et? 
evrevdev rov llvdayopav Trpwrov /j,ev ^epe/cvBrj ra> 
10 o/xt\/;crat Bevrepov 8 Ep/AoSa/iafTt r&5 Kpe&>0iAt &> eV 
i,a/i&) 7} 8?; wpdaKovTi. \eyet 8 6 KXeaf^?/? aXXou? etvat 
o t, TOV Trarepa avroO ^vprj^ov d-TTo^aivovrai. TMV 
Af)/jivov dTroi/crja-dvToav evrevOev Be Kara Trpd^iv et f ^. 
e\06i>Ta Kara/Jielvai Kal darov jeveaOat. TrXeoi/ro? Be rov 
15 M^T/o-ap^ou et9 T^y IraXt ay (rvp,TT\evcravra TOV HvOa- 
yopav veov ovra Ko/jaBfj crcfroBpa ovcrav evBai/j,ova Kal TO& 
v<TTpov e/? ai/Trjv aTroTrXeucrai. Kara\eyei 8 avTov Kal 
dBe\(j)ov<f 8vo ILiivovcTTOv Kal Tvppijvov Trpea/Surepof?. 
Wachsmuth also quotes Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 129S. 
&N Be K\edv6r)<; (MSS. Neaz/^?;?) 2i)pto<? 77 Tupto? (fuit 
Pythagoras). Theodoret, Graec. aff. cur. p. 8, 43, o Be 

(MSS. Neai/#?79) Tvptov (llvdayopav) 6vo/j,dei. 
This frag, must stand or fall with frag. 64. The facts 



in the life of Pythagoras with which those statements are 
concerned will be found fully discussed by Zcller, pre- 
Socratics, I. p. 324 foil. After evZa^ova in 1. 16 some 
such word as al<r0ea0ai seems wanted. 

69. Pseudo-Plut. de Fluviorum nominibus, v. 3, 
TrapdKeirai 8 [avry] TO KavK<i<riov 6>o ? - e/caXerro Se 
TO -rrporepov Kopeov Koirrj Si air Lav roiavr^v. Bopea? 
Bt eptanicriv 7n0v^av Xi6vr) V dp-ndaa^ rrjv \\pxrovpou 
0vyarepa, Ka-njveyKev eis nva \6<$>ov N^avrrjv K a\ov- 
KOI eyewnrev etc T^ Trpoeiprjuevn* viov 


8e TO o>o? Koirr} Bopeov. ^poa^oevO Se KaJKOffO? Bia 
roiavr^v. p,erd TJJV 

Bopeov KoiTW, fcal et? K po K 6Sei\oi> 
o Se Upo^0ev^> eva rwv ejx w P^ wv voi^va^ Kavtcaaov, 
avara^v, tcai Karavoi^a^ avrov r Sid6e(Tiv 


8e Zei)9 eTTi(f>avel^ rov aev irarepa ^cra? vrXe/crw cp, 
K areraprdpo)<je- TO 8 o>o? et? n^v rov TTOL^VO^ Kav- 15 
peTovoada-as, Trpoa-eSrjaev avry rov 


f ^ 

ra <rn\d<rxya, a5? wrropet 

^ 7 

The treatise rfe ^/MWUS 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. Bop^ov KoCrr! : cf. Find. Nem. I. 3, Oprvyla Seuvtov 
\\preuiSos. Horn. II. XXIV. 615, eV StTruXw o0i <j>a<rl 
dedwv efji/jievai evvds vvu<j>dwv. 

10. ,Ta,>p<|>eefc. ^ytteiibach saw that some words 


had fallen out here, since a reference to Prometheus is 
required. He supplied therefore the words within brackets 
and substituted dvara/Awv for dvcnravcov. For dvcnravwv 
dvap-rrdfav (Reinesius) and dva<nrwv (Dodwell) have also 
been suggested. 

70. Pseudo-Plut. de Fluv. V. 4, yevvarai $* ev avrw 
(Caucasus) fioravr) Hpo[*.r>0io<? Ka\ovfJ,evrj, f}v MrjSeia 
(Tv\\eyov(Ta Kal \eiorpi/3ov(ra, TT/JO? dvTiiraQeias TOV 
Trarpo? e^p^craro, tcaOu? IcrTopel 6 avros (scil. Cleanthes). 

Ilpopjecios, cf. Ap. Rhod. in. 843, 

77 8e re to? y\a<f>vpf}<; egeiXero ^wpia^olo 
(fxip^a/cov, o ppd re (fracrl Upo/jLijdetov KaXeeaOai, 

where a lengthy description of the plant and its virtues is 
given. Prop. I. 12. 9, num me deus obruit, an quae 
lecta Prometheis dividit herba iugis. 

71. Pseudo-Plut. de Fluv. xvil. 4, yevvdrai 8 lv 
aura) (Taygetus) fiordvr] Ka\ov^evrj Xapuria r}v <al> 
yuvatKes eapo? dp^opevov rot? rpa^i i\oi^ TrepiaTrTovcri 
Kai VTTO TWV dvBpav auf^Tradea-Tepov dyaTrdovrai- Ka6<a<s 
icrTopet K\env0r/<; ev a Trepl opwv. 

Xapio-fo: Hercher thinks this word is invented from 
the name of a city in Arcadia. 


72. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 6 a , p. 76, 3, 
7re8a>e reXo? eVri TO 6/j,o\oyov/jiva)<; rrj <^vcrei fyjv. Cf. 
Diog. L. vii. 87, Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 21. 129, p. 497 P., 
179 S., KXedvdijs Se (scil. re\09 yyeiTai) TO opoXoyov- 
rfj (f>v<rei %r/v ev r3 ev\oyL<Trelv, o ev rfj TWV Kara 
eK\oyfi Kectrdac 



In the extract from Clement, Krische, p. 423 n., pro 
poses to insert the words 10761/775 Se between tfv and ev 
rw ev\oyi<rTeiv on the evidence afforded by Diog. L. vn. 
88, Stob. Eel. IT. 7. 6 a , p. 76, 9, who both expressly 
attribute the definition ev\oyio-reiv ev rfj rwv Kara 
4>v(riv eK\oyy to Diogenes Babylonius. His suggestion 
is approved by Wachsmuth (Comm. n. p. 4) and Heinze, 
Stoic. Eth. p. 11 n. For the question as to whether 
Cleanthes first introduced the words rf, $vaet into the 
definition, see on Zeno, frag. 120. 

73. Diog. L. VII. 89, (frva-iv Se XpixmrTros /J,ev e 
77 rtKO\ov0(0<; Set %fjv, rrjv re /coivr/v KOI ISitos avOpwrrivrjv 
o Se K\6rtV0775 TJ}V KOivrjv fiovrjv e /cSe^erai (frixriv, p 
uKO\ov6elv Set, otVert Se /cal rfjv e-rrl nepovs* TTJV re 
aperijv &id0ea-iv elvat 6fjLO\oyovfievr)V Kal avrijv Si avrr^v 
elvaL aipe-rrjv, ov Sid riva fyofiov rj e\.TrtSa 17 ri rwv egwdev 
ei> avrfj re elvaL r^v eiBai/Jiovlav, are ov<rp ^v^f] rrerroiT]- 
/j,evr] 7T/30? n]v 6fto\oyiav rravros rov @iov Siaarpe^ea-dai 
8e TO \OJLKOV t,wov TTore peis Sia ra? rwv egwOev rrpay- 
fj.areiwv Tri9avorrjra^, rrore Se Sid rr^v KaTnxn v 
avvovrwv, errel i] (frvcns dfapfids SiSwcriv dSiaa-rpofovs. 

Diogenes leads us to suppose that Cleanthes and 
Chrysippus dissented as to the interpretation of (frvcris, 
and" that Cleanthes refused to allow that human nature 
is included. This however is scarcely credible (cf. the 
next frao-.), although it is quite possible that Cleanthes 
laid special stress on Koivrj cbvcns and KOLVOS vofios, cf. 
frag. 48, 1. 24, Cic. Fin. in. 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 (Cic. 1. c., 
Chrysipp. ap. Pint. Sto. Rep. 9). Hirzel n. pp. 112118, 
thinks that Diogenes account is substantially right. He 


regards Zeno as the upholder of Cynicism in preference 
to which Cleanthes devoted himself to the study of 
Heraclitus, cf. Heracl. fr. 7, Sch., Bio Bel eTrea-Oai ru> 
%vva>, rov \6yov Be COI/TO? vvov ^wovo-iv ol TroXXoi, eo<? 
i&tav %ovre<; <f>p6vrjaii>. To the objection that Zeno had 
already recognised the Heraclitean Atxyo? as a leading 
physical principle, Hirzel answers that it does not follow 
that he also transferred it to the region of ethics, and 
that Cleanthes must be credited with this innovation. 
The latter part of the fragment has been included in 
deference to the judgment of Wachsmuth, but it appears 
extremely doubtful whether we are justified in tracing 
the epitomised views back to Cleanthes, because his name 
appears in the context. 

8td0o-iv 6p.oXo-yoD[itviiv : for BidOecnv see on Zeno, frag. 
117, and for the general sense cf. Chrysipp. ap. Stob. 
Eel. II. 7. 5 bl , p. 60, 7, Koivorepov Be rr/v dperrjv 8t,dde<riv 
eival <f)aat ^v^ns av^wvov avrf) jrepl o\ov rov /3iov. 

ar ov<rn: Zeller (p. 238, 3) corrects 

cx4>op(ids, cf. frag. 82. 

74. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 6 C , p. 77, 21, evBai/juovia 8* eVrrlr 
evpoia /9/ou. Ke^pijTai Be KOI K.\eav0i)? ro5 opw TOVTW ev 
rot? eavrov crvyypdfi,/j,aai Kai 6 Xpi trtTTTro? teal ol aTro 
TOVTWV irdvres rr}v evBatfJtoviav elvai \eyovres 011% erepav 
rov evBaipovos /3iov, Kairoi ye \eyoi>re<; rrjv /j,ev evBai- 
lioviav (TKOTTOV CKKelcrdaL re\o? 8 elvai TO rv^elv 7-779 
evBaipovias, OTrep ravrov elvai rw evBaifMovelv. Sext. 
Emp. Math. XI. 30, ev8at/j,ovia Be eo-nv, co? ol Trepl rov 
\\\edvdi]v, evpoia ftiov. 

O-KOITOV. For the distinction between o-/co7ro<? and reXo?, 
cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 3 C , p. 47, 8, teal ean atco-ros pev TO 
TrpoKCLfievov et<f ro rv%eiv, olov dcnrls rogoraif re\o9 8 rj 


rov Trpofcetpevov revgis. (Bov\ovrai <ydp 
repov elvai Trpo? TO reXo?, ib. II. 7. 0, p. 77, 1 ) - 
Wachsmuth believes the distinction to be due to Chry- 
sippus. The difficult passage in Cic. Fin. in. 22 is not 
really parallel to this: see Madv. in loc. On the whole 
matter see Hirzel, p. 550 foil. : he argues that the dis 
tinction between CTKOTTO^ and reXo? was foreign to the 
earlier Stoa, and was introduced by Panaetius. 

75. Clem. Alex. Protrept. vi. 72, p. 21 S., 61 P., 
KXeavdrjs Se 6 Ao-crei;?, 6 drro T?;? Sroa? 0tXocro^>o9 09 
ov Oeoyoviav TroirjritcTjv deoXoyiav 8e d\7]6ivrjv e 
OVK (iTrefcpv^raro rov Oeov rrepi on vrep el-^ev 

epwra? fji oov ecrr ; a/cove ?; 
ov, Sifcaiov, oo~toi>, eucre/Se?, 
KpaTovv eavrov, xpijcri.fAoi , KCL\OV. 8eov, 
ov, avOefcacrTOV, alel a-v^epov, 


es, cirvtyov, eV/^eXe?, Trpaov, cr(f)o8p6i , 
, alel Siapevov. 

The same occurs in Strom, v. 14, 110, p. 715 P., 257 S., 
introduced by the words ev rtvi Trotr/fiari Trepl rov 6eov 
and also in Euseb. P. E. xin. 13, p. 67 ( J. 

Clement s mistake in referring these lines to Cleanthes 
conception of the deity, when they really refer to the 
ethical sumnunn boninu, 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 Trepl reXou? or the Trepl Ka\wv. 

Seven of these epithets, viz. SiKcuov, xprja-i/u-ov, Ka\ov, 
Seov, crvfA^epov, XuatTeXes", w$e\ip<ov are predicated of 


dyaOov in Diog. L. vn. 98, 99, with the addition of 
aiperov and ev-^ptjcrTov: cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5 d , p. 69, 11, 
Trdvra 8e rdyaBd (a(f>e\ifj,a elvat teal ev^prjcrra real crvfi- 
(fiepovra teal \vcriT\fj KOI cnrovSaia teal irpeTrovra teal 
tca\d teal oiteela, ib. 5 1 , p. 72, 19, ib. IP, p. 100, 15 foil. 
Chrysippus proved similar statements by his favourite 
chain arguments, Plut. Sto. Rep. c. 13, Cic. Fin. in. 27, 
Tusc. V. 45. 

3. Kparovv tavrov : pointing to the virtue eytepdreia 
(frag. 76) : reliquum est, ut tute tibi imperes, Cic. Tusc. 
n. 47. 

4. avcrr^pov: cf. Diog. L. VII. 117, KOI avo-rrjpovs Se 
<f>acriv elvat, Trdvras TOI)<? aTrouSalovs, Stob. Eel. II. 7. 11*, 
p. 114, 22. 

av0Ka<rrov : in Ar. Eth. IV. 7. 4 the at)0e acrTo? is the 
mean between the d\a%a>v and the eipcov, and is described 
as aXydevriKos teal ro> /3t &> teal TCO \6yw. We may com 
pare then Stob. Eel. n. 7, ll m , p. 108, 11, where the wise 
man is said to be a7rXo)<? teal aTrXaa-ro? while TO elpwvev- 
belongs alone to the </>aOXo<?, ib. p. Ill, 11, eV Trdcrtv 
veiv TOV <ro(f)6v. 

5. otyopov, dXvn-ov, cxvuSwov : because the wise man is 

7. Some word has dropped out here. In Clem. Alex. 
Strom, v. 1. c. the words cr</>aXe? <f>l\ov evrifiov are 
omitted and 6/jLo\oyov/jLevov is placed at the end of 1. 6. 
In Euseb. 1. c. we have two complete lines but evdpe&rov 
is repeated from 1. 6, thus : evnpov evdpearov 6/j,o\o- 
yov/j,evov: this is perhaps the original reading, where 
the error is due to evdpea-rov 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 evdpeo-rov to the second. Mohnike however 
thinks (p. 51) that Eusebius had the work of Clement 



before him while writing, arid that the second evdpearov 
is mere patchwork to mend the metre. 

8. &TWJ.OV, cf. Diog. L. VII. 117, arvfov re elvai rov 


v, cf. Stob. Eel. ii. 7. 11 s , p. 115, 1012. 

76. Plut. Sto. Rep. VII. 4, 6 Se K\edvO^ ev 

QvviKoh eltrwv on, " ir\r)yt} -rrupo? 6 TWO? 
iKavbs ev ry tyvxil yevrjrai Trpo? TO eVtTeXea/ Ta 
aXXoz/Ta iV^ik Ka\elrat xal tcpaTO?," e-m^epet Kara 
, " 77 8 lo-^j)? a^ 7 ? Vt T P TO ? orav /iez^ e?rl Tot? 
<f>avel<riv e^evereo^ yyevi]rac, ey/cpdreid eanV orav S 
eV T0t9 vTrofievereois, uvBpela- -rrepl T9 a|ta? Se BLKCUO- 

Trepl T? aipeo-et? /cat e/eXicrei9 a-a><j)po<rvvi)." 
Cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5 bt , p. 62, 24, /cat O/AOWU? wo-7rep 
TO{) crftj/iaT09 TOt-09 e o-Ttv i/caj/o? eV vevpots ovrw 
real rj T?;? ^^X^9 tV%i;9 TWO? eo-Ttt- Ifcavbs ev roi fcpiveiv 
itai Trpdrreiv i} /M I. See also Zeller, p. 128, 2, 256, 2. 

irXri-rt Trvp6s. This is the material air-current which 

forms the foe/MOvi/cov of the individual, being an efflux 

of the divine irvev^a. Cleanthes hero brings his ethical 

teaching into close dependence on his physical researches : 

of the physical aspect of TOI/OS we have spoken at frag. 24. 

Zeno s 0/361/770-19 is explained as tavo9 ro^o? -jrv^, i.e. as 

tVxi)9 t /c/aaT09. Possibly Cleanthes was influenced by 

the Cynic use of r6i/o9 : see the passage quoted by Stein, 

Psych, p. 30 n. 37. 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. 


Zeno held, or appeared to hold, that fyovrjw 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 <f>p6vr)o-is 
in the wider, but substituting eyicpdreia in the narrower 
meaning: see Hirzel u. p. 97 foil. Chrysippus on the 
other hand restored ^pov^a^ as the cardinal virtue, but 
represented by eirumjfiri that notion of ^povrjtr^ which 
was common to Zeno and Cleanthes. 

<f>avto-iv : so Hirzel, p. 97, 2, for cirifdvcnv, coll. Stob. 
Eel. II. 7. o b2 , p. 61, 11, eytcpdreiav Se 7ricrTr//j,r)v dvvTrep- 
$a-Tov T<av Kara rov opdov \6yov fyavevrwv. We find 
also definitions of ejKpdreta in Diog. L. vn. 93, Sext. 
Math. ix. 153, which are substantially identical with that 
cited from Stobaeus : in Stob. it appears as a subdivision 
of <j)po<rvvT), while both in Diog. and Stob. the word 
efipevereov is found in connection with Kaprepia, a sub 
division of dvSpeia. No doubt their account is derived 
from Chrysippus : it is noteworthy, however, that op<9o9 
\0709 appears in these definitions : see Hirzel, 1. c., Stein, 
Erkenntnistheorie, p. 262. In giving this prominent 
position to ey/cpdreta Cleanthes was following in the 
steps of Socrates (Xen. Mem. I. 5. 4, Spd ye ov X prj -rrdvra 
dvSpa vrmvaitevov r^v eytcpdreiav dper^ elvai KprjTrtSa), 
and the Cynics (Diog. L. vi. 15). 

&&*s : the full definition, probably that of Chrysippus, 
appears in Stob. Eel. II. 7. o* 1 , p. 59, 11, Sticaiotr^v Si 

brumjftrjv dfirovefjtrjriKriv rfc rifto? eied<rra>, ib. 7 f p 

tt/i i * 

o4i, 1 o. 

aipeVtis Kal tKK\(o-is : cra)(f)po<Tvvri is concerned with the 
regulation of the 6 P fjui (Stob. Eel. n. 7. 5 b2 , p. 60, 13, 
ib. 5 M p. 63, 16), and is therefore directed to the avoidance 
of irdffij, amcjiig which </>dy9o5 is defined as 
\6ya> (Stob. Eel. II. 7. 10 b , p. 90, 11). 



77. Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 22, 131, p. 499 P., 179 S., 
Bio Kai K\nv0r}s ev ru> Bevrepy Trepl jfiovfjs rov lo>- 
Kpdnjv <j)>](rl Trap eKacrra BiBdaiceiv ^ o avros BiKaios 
re Kai ei Balfjicov dvi]p Kai ru> irpmrto Sie\6vri TO BUaiov 
drro rov a-vpfapovTos KarapdaOat cos ao-e/Se? n irpdy^a 
SeSpaKori- do-epels yap rw ovri ol TO av^epov drro rov 
StKaiov rov Kara vopov ^wpL^ovre^. 

Cf. Cic. Off. ill. 11, itaque accepinms Socratem ex- 
secrari solitum cos qui primum haec natura cohaerentia 
opinione distraxissent. cui quiclem ita sunt Stoici assensi 
ut et quidquid honestum esset id utile esse censerent 
nee utile quicquam quod non honestum. id. Leg. I. 33, 
recte Socrates exsecrari cum solebat qui primus utili- 
tatem a iure seiunxisset : id enini querebatur caput esse 
exitiorum omnium. 

For Socrates, who identified TO co^eXt/iov with TO 
dyaOov, cf. Zeller, Socrates, p. 150 foil. Cleanthes, as we 
have seen (frag. 75), asserted that the good was also 
<rvp<j>epov and riiftSupov : for the school in general see 
Zeller, Stoics, p. 229, 2. 

78. Diog. L. VII. 92, TrXetWa? (elvai a per as ?} rerrapas) 
ol Trepl K\edv0r}V Kai \pva-i7nrov Kai Avriirarpov. 

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 fypovntris, which 
is the source of the several virtues, on the same level as 
the four main divisions of virtue. 

79. Diog. L. VII. 91, SiSa/crriv re elvai avrtjv 
Se TI> dpertjv) Kai XpvaLTnros ev rra rrpwrv Trepl re\ov? 

This is, of course, ultimately traceable to Socrates, but 


was also enforced by the Cynics: cf. Diog. VI. 10 (Antis- 
thenes) Si&aKrrjv direSeiicvve TTJV dperrjv, ib. 105, ape ovcet 8 
avrois Kal rr/v dpertjv SiSatcTrjv elvai, icadd 
ev TOO HpaxXei. 

80. Diog. L. VII. 127, Kal fivjv TI]I> dperrjv \pvcmr7ro<f 
fi&V dTroftXrjTr/v, K\edv6r)<; Se di>a7r6/3\r)rov, o fj,ev a-Tro- 
/3\ i rjrr}v Bid fieOyv Kal fjieXay^oXlav, o 8e dva7r6/3\r/rov Sid 

On this point Cleanthes is in agreement with the 
Cynics (Diog. L. vi. 105), whence Wellraann, p. 462, infers 
that Zeno s teaching must have been in agreement with 
Cleanthes rather than with Chrysippus. See also the 
authorities cited by Zeller, p. 295, 3, and add Cic. Tusc. 
II. 32, amitti non potest virtus. 

^0T]v : but Zeno held that the wise man ov fieOva-Ojj- 
creadat, (frag. 159). 

(itXa-yxoXtav : Cic. Tusc. ill. 11, quod (furor) cum mains 
esse videatur quam insania, tamen eiusmodi est, ut furor 
(/zeXa7^oX/a) in sapientem cadere possit, non possit 

Pepcuovs KaToXij\|/is : although KaTa\r)-^ri<? 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: cf. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 184, 185. Cf. 
also Sext. Math. n. 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 KaraXrtyeis is so great, that 
even melancholy and drunkenness fail to shake him. In 
support of this he quotes Epict. diss. I. 18. 21 23, rt? 


perwv. TI ovv av Kav^ia ij rovrw ; ri av otW/ze^o? rj ; rl 
av fjL\ay^o\oi)v ; TI ev V7rvoi$ ; OVTOS p,oi, eVrti/ 6 dvi 


II. 17. 33, 7J 

Kal ov fjiovov eyprjyopws d\\d Kal KaOevScov Kal 
Kal ev fj,\ay^o\ia. He thinks that the later Stoics 
invented the distinction between oivovcrOat and fiedveiv 
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. VII. 128, dpe&Ket 8e aurot? Kal Sid 
Trai TO? %pr/cr0at rfj dperfj, <w? ol Trepl KXedvdrji 
dva7ro(3\riTO<; yap e crrc Kal Trdvrore rfj 
ovar) -reXeta 6 

82. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5 1>s , p. 65, 8, irdvra^ yap d 

(j)opfj,d<f ^eti> K <f)i><r<j}<? 7T/30? dpeT^v, Kal oiovel 
ra>i< r}fAiafj.fleia>v \6yov e^ecv Kara K\edvdr/v o6ev 
pev ovras elvai <pav\ov<; Te\eiu>devra$ 8e cr7rov$aiovs. 

d<j)op[xds. For this sense of the word cf. frag. 73 
d(f)op/j.ds d8iacrTp6(f)ovs " imcorrupted impulses." Stob. 
Eel. II. 7. 5 b:i , p. 62, 9 e^etv ydp (rov avQpwwov) d(f>opfjids 
Trapd rrjs <f)vcre(i)<t Kal vrpo? rrjv rov KaOijKovros evpeaiv 
Kal Trpo? rrjv T&V 6p/j,wv evcrrdOeiav Kal TT^O? rd? VTTO- 
^ovds Kal 7T/30? r9 aTrove/jLija-eis. As a general rule, how 
ever, it is contrasted with opprj as " aversion " )( " impulse 
towards," Stob. Eel. n, 7. 9, p. 87, 5, Sext. Pyrrh. in. 273, 
eyKpdreiav...v ratv TT/^O? TO Ka\ov opp,als Kal ev rat? a?ro 
rov KaKov d^opp^al^, ib. Math. XI. 210. Cleanthes re 
garded our capacity for virtue as innate, but whether at 
the same time he denied an innate intellectual capacity is 
open to question, cf. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, n. 735. 

Cf. M. Aurel. ix. 1, d^op^d^ ydp 7T/3oetX?/0et Trapd r?;? 
<frv crews, wv a/u,eX?/cra9 ot)^ oto? re eari vvv SiaKpivetv rd 

H. P. 20 


TOV: so Zeller, (p. 243, 1), for TO. 

Tljxiap-Pciwv : so Wachsm. for MSS. ?7/ua/z/3eiaiW. Meineke 
reads fu/ua/ii/3etW. The meaning is that men possess 
latent capacities which must be brought into play by 
their own exertions, if they would attain to perfection, 
cf. Cic. Tusc. III. 2, sunt enim ingeniis nostris semina 
innata virtutum, quae si adolescere liceret, ipsa nos ad 
beatam vitam natura perduceret. 

83. Themist. Or. II. 27 C, el 8e av excrete ri? Ko\a- 
Keiav elvai rut TlvOiw 7rapa/3d\\et,v TOV /3acri\ea, yLpvcmr- 
TTO? /jiev v/4tv KOI K\edvdr)<; ov (Tvy^caprjaec teal o\ov 

<f)i\ocro(j)la<f rj 6 e/c rfjs 7roiKi\rjs %opo? ot (f>d<rKOVT<> 
rr)v avrrjv aperffv KOI aXrjOeiav dvSpos KOI 6eov. 
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. II. 106 f, ol 8e diro 
rr/s TO<? Kal Tr]v avrr/v dpeTijv elvai 6eu>v tcai dvOpwTrwv 
elpr/Kaatv. 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., rr,v 
TOV KXedvOovs yvoofArjv inrep TOV TraBrjTiKov TTJS 

T(iSvoe fyaivecrdai 4>r)<ri TWV eirwv. 

TL TTOT eV^ OTI /3ov\ei, 

, \oyi<r/Ae, Trav o /3ov\o/j,ai Troielv. 
A. val /3aai\iK6v ye Tr\rjv o/Lttu? eiTrov 7rd\iv. 
0. (av dv eTriOv/jid) Tavff" OTTWS yevrjcreTat. 

TavT\ Ta dfjioiftdia RXedvOovs (^rjcrlv elvat 

eicSeiicvvpeva Tt}v Trepl TOV TradrjTiKov r/;? 


avrov, i 76 8?) ireTToirjKe rov Aoyio-jjiov ra> 
ov ct>9 eralpov eraLpw. 

2, 3. Y"<ri\iKo v -y MSS. e^ei 
Wyttenbach /3a<ri\i/c6v eVrt Mullach, fiaanXiKOV ev ye 
Scaliger, z/ai, /3. 7. Mein. Perhaps we should read rroidv 
\ojLa-fj-6v. ..eyw fiacriKiKos. 

4. <5v Meineke, Mullach, &>? MSS., oo- Wyttenbach. 

Mohuike, p. 52, thinks that this fragment comes either 
from Trepl op^rfS or vrepl \ojov. 

Posidouius uses the verses to prove that Cleanthes 
was in substantial agreement with himself in supposing 
that the various functions of the qyepoviicov are radically 
distinct. Zcller, p. 215, 3, says that this is to confound a 
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, OvpaOev ela-icpi- 
veaOac rov vovv, where see note, and is well refuted by 
Stein, Psych, pp. 163167. 

85. Galen, Hipp, et Plat. ix. 1, v. p. 653 K, 

ev rfj Trepl 7ra6wv TT pay pare La BIOCKOV- 
VTTO rpiwv 8vvafj,erav, eVi^u^Tt/c^? re /cat 
s Kal \oyi(TTiKr/s r?/? S avrfjs 6 TlocreiSwvios 
e\eev elvac Kal rov K\edvdrjv. 

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. 138) 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- 



tween \oyi<rfj,os and #17*09. For 8vvdfj,i<; see Hirzel, II. 
p. 486, 1. 

86. Stob. Florii. 108, 59, o Be K\edv0r)<; eXeye rrjv 

XVTTI)! tyv^S TTapd\V<TlV. 

This appears to be the only remaining indication of 
the position of Cleanthes as regards the definition of the 
rrdOrj, but it is not without significance. Zeno had pro 
bably defined \vrrr) as \0709 crv<noXr) "tyv^s (see on 
Zeno frag. 143), but Cleanthes saw his way to a better 
explanation from the standpoint of rovos : the soul 
of the wise man, informed by right reason, is characterised 
by lirjfljs, itcavo? rovos, evrovla, but if the emotions over 
power the natural reason of a man, there supervenes a 
resolution of tension, drovia or daQeveia. This view of 
the emotions was adopted by Chrysippus, cf. Galen, Hipp. 
et Plat. V. 387 K. 77 6p6r) tcpia-is egijyeirai fj,erd r^9 Kara, 
rrjv tyv)(r)v evrovias: see especially the long passage be 
ginning ib. p. 404 K. where the view of rrdOos as drovia 
or d&deveia is explained at length by Chrysippus. With 
regard to \v7rrj cf. Tusc. in. 61, omnibus enim modis 
fulciendi sunt, qui ruunt nee cohaerere possunt, propter 
magnitudinem aegritudinis. Ex quo ipsam aegritudinem 
\v7rrjv Chrysippus quasi solutionem totius hominis appel- 
latam putat. ib. II. 54, animus intentione sua depellit 
pressum omnem ponderum, remissione autem sic urgetur, 
ut se nequeat extollere. No doubt Cleanthes, like Plato, 
derived Xv-rrrj from \vo): Plat. Crat. p. 419 C. See also 
Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 130. 

87. Galen, Hipp, et Plat. in. 5, v. 332 K., ov pwov 
\pvcwnros (i\\d teal K.\edi>dr)<f real r At ]vu)V ero//i&)9 avrd 
riQkacriv (scil. roi)9 ^>o/5ou9 Kal rd<; \vrras Kal rrdvff ocra 
7oiavra rrdQr) /card rrjv Kaptiav cruviaraa dat) = Zeno, 
frag. 141. 


Hirzel s contention (p. 152 f.) that Clcanthes placed 
the r/yepoviKov in the brain, and that hence we are to 
explain Pint. plac. IV. 21. 5, is controverted by Stein, 
Psych, p. 170, from this passage, for we have seen that 
the irdQt] are affections of the rfyepovt/cov. Hirzel replies 
(p. 154) that appal and -n-ddij, though dependent on the 
jyefioviKov, are yet distinct from it. The improbability 
of Hirzel s whole theory lies in the fact that, if it is 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. XI. 74, d\\d KXeavdrp 
e Kara $v<nv avr^v (r/Sovrjv) elvai pijr d%iav 
[avrrjv] ev ru> /3tw, KaQd-rrep Be TO icd\\vvrpov /card <f>v<rtv 


ri is, according to Cleanthes, not merely an dSid- 
<f>opov but also -rrapd c/>iW, being entirely devoid of dj-ia, 
of. Diog. L. vii. 105, and see on Zeno, frag. 192. 

KdXXwrpov 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 rpifiwv (Diog. 
L. vii. 20), recommended the same dress for males and 
females (frag. 177), and forbade young men to be erat- 
piKws KeKoarfjbrjpevot (frag. 174). 

avTt]v is bracketed by Bekker. Hirzel discusses this 
passage at length (pp. 8996). He thinks that the first 
part (pr)re...@i(i>) contains a climax: r/Sovrj has no connec 
tion with virtue and therefore is not dyadov (Kara fyvaiv) ; 
further, it has 110 d%la and is not even TrpoiryfMevov. Hence 
Zeno and Cleanthes did not identify rd Kara <j>v<riv with 


TTporjyaeva : for in that case they could not have treated 
irpoqyfUva as dSid<j>opa. 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 avrrjv which 
should be retained) is d8id<popov in the narrower sense. 
Cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 7 1 , p. 81, 14 ovre 8e Trporjyaeva ovr 
d7TOTrporjypeva... q$ovT)v rrda-av KOI rrovov teal el rt a\\o 
roiovro. Next, Kara <f>v<riv ^ elvai is a gloss, and when 
this is struck out we should supply d%lav e-^eiv with 
KaOdrrep Be Ka\\vvrpov. In short, Cleanthes treats plea 
sure as an eTriyevvrjua (Diog. L. vn. 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 TO 6ao\oyov- 
/ie i/&>9 Ty <j>va-i rjv, therefore everything, which is Kara 
<bvcriv, is dperrj or uere-^ov dperrj^. Cf. Stob. Eel. 7. 7 1 , 
p. 80, 9 Start, tcdv, (fraai, \eya)fj,ev dStdtyopa rd aw^artKa 
Kal rd e /CTO?, 7T/30? TO ei/o-^/xoi/ta? ^ffv (ev (airep eari TO 
evSaifjLOvcas) d&idfopd <f)a/j,ev avrd elvai, ov fid At a Trpo? 
TO Kara (f>vaiv e^eus ov8e Trpbs 6pfj,i}v KOI d^op^r iv. Rather, 
we have seen reason to hold that the class of rd Kara 
(frvaiv is wider, or, at any rate, certainly not narrower than 
that of rd 7rpor}jfj,eva. Indeed, this is apparent from the 
present passage : 6 Be Apxeo^/no? Kara <}>vcriv fiev elvai 
o;? Ta? eV uao"xdXy Tpi%as, oi)^l Se Kal d^iav %eiv, i.e. 
there are some things which may be Kara <j>v<riv and yet 
devoid of d%ia. 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 n^re Kara 


elvat with natura admiscuit. The inelegant repetition 
of ^...elvai has an object, namely, to contrast TO rcd\- 
Xwrpov with T? ev fia(rxa\p rpix<n, whereas, on the other 
hand, if the second avrrjv is retained, it cannot be inter 
preted differently to the first ai/n)i>, and to press the latter 
would make nonsense. 

89. Stob. Floril. G. 37, KXedvOys e\eyei>, el 
ea-riv r/Sovr/, TT/JO? KCIKOV rols dvOpw-rro^ T)}V <j>povr)(Tii> 

This is no doubt directed against the Epicureans. 
Diog. L. X. 128, TT)V rjSovrjV dpxn v KaL r e\os Xeyopev eivai 
rov fjiaxapiaxi tfv. Chrysippus also wrote a treatise 
described as ciTroSet^i? Trpo? TO /JLI] elvai rrjv ^Bovrjv TeXo? 
(Diog. L. VII. 202). rrjv <j>povr)a-iv furnishes a proof that 
Cleanthes upheld Zeno s view of virtue as QpovrjirK : see 
on frag. 76. 

886o-6ai : so Meineke for SiSoadai. Cf. Cic. de Senec. 
40, cumque homini sive natura sive quis dens nihil 
mente praestabilius dedisset, huic diviuo muneri ac dono 
nihil tarn esse inimicum quam voluptatem. 

90. Cic. Fin. II. 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 lit ancillulas, quae 
nihil aliud agerent, nullum suum ofticium ducerent, nisi 
ut Voluptati ministrarent et earn 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 iiatae sumus, ut tibi serviremus ; aliud negotii 
nihil habemus." Cf. Aug. de civit. dei v. 20, solent 


philosophi, qui finem boni humani in ipsa virtute consti- 
tuunt, ad ingerendum pudorem quibusdam philosophis, 
qui virtutes quidem probant, sed eas voluptatis corporalis 
tine raetiuntur 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 ilia imperaverit, quae pruden- 
tiae iubeat ut vigilanter inquirat quo rnodo 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 

Further references ap. Zeller, p. 235 239. Epiphan. 
Haeres. III. 2. p. 1090 C KXedvBrjf TO dyaOov icai ica\ov 
\eyei elvai rd<; ^Bovds is a stupid blunder of the epitoma- 
tor: cf. Krische, p. 431. Hirzel, p. 96, 1, holds that it is 
merely an exaggeration of Clean thes position : see on 
frag. 88. 

pulcherrimo vestitu: this illustrates K(i\\vvrpov in 
frag. 88. 


si modo...possent: Madvig points out that these words 
belong to Cleanthes statement, and are not a part of 
Cicero s comment. 

Virtutes ut ancillidas: on the controversial character 
of the work ire pi r)Sovf)<i 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 8 id Be 
ri]v rjSovrjv teal rds dp eras 8elv aipetcrdat, ou 81 
uxnrep real rrjv larpiKr/v 8id rrjv vyieiav, Ka9d 

91. Epict. Man. c. 53. 

fiyov 8e ^ , u> Zev, Kal crvy 77 
OTTOI TTO& VJMV eifil 8iaTTay/J,evos, 

o? yevo/jievos, ov8ev rjrrov 

The first line is quoted by Epict. diss. n. 23. 42, and 
two lines by id. ib. in. 22. 05, iv. 1. 131, and IV. 4. 34. 
Senec. Epist. 107, 10, et sic adloquamur lovem 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 hoc secutum Ciceronis exemplum. 

due, o parens celsique dominator poli, 
quocumque placuit ; nulla parendi mora est. 
adsum impiger. fac nolle, comitabor gemens, 
mal usque patiar, quod pati licuit bono. 
ducnnt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt. 

See also the commentary of Simplicius on Epict. 1. c. 
p. 329. These celebrated lines constitute the true 
answer of the Stoa to the objection that the doctrine 
of jrpovoia is incompatible with the assertion of free- 


will. Zellcr 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, n.) Marcus Aurelius often dwells on 
the contrast between rd e < 7?/ui/ and rd ovtc e<f> rjplv. 
Of. especially X. 28, KOI on povw ru> XoyiKw &)&> 8e8orai, TO 
etcova-Lax; eTrea-QairolsyivofAevois rooe eireadaL fy-i\6v, r ira<Tiv 
dvaytcalov. So ib. VI. 41, 42 ; VII. 54, 55 ; Viii. 7 ; XII. 32. 

92. Seneca Epist. 94, 4, Cleanthes utilem quidem 
iudicat et hanc partem (philosophiae quae dat cuique 
personae praecepta, nee in universum componit hominem, 
sed marito suadet quomodo se gerat adversus uxorem, 
patri quomodo educat liberos, domino quomodo servos 
regat), sed imbecillam nisi ab universe fluit, nisi decreta 
ipsa philosophiao et capita cognovit. 

The branch of philosophy here referred to is known as 
the Trapaiveritcos or vTroQeriicos TOTTO?. Aristo regarded it 
as useless, and it is very possible that his "letters to 
Cleanthes" (73-^69 KXcavffijv 7riaro\(av 8 Diog. L. VII. 
163) dealt with this controversy. Cf. Sext. Math. vn. 12, 
Kat ApicrTa)v o Xio<> ov /J,6vov, a;? <j>a<rl, TrapyreiTO rr/v re 


rjv Kal \oyiKrjv Oewpiav But TO oV&><eA.e? /cat 
KCIKOV rot*? (f)i,\o(ro<j)ova-iv vrrdp^eiv aXXa /cat rov r)6iKov 
roTTOf ? rivas crvfATrepieypafav, KaOdtrep rov re rrapaiverucov 
/cat rov vrroderiKov rorcov TOUTOU? yap et? rirdas /cat 
rraioaywyovs rrirrreiv. The words in which Philo of 
Larissa described the TOTTO? v-rroderiKos illustrate Seneca s 
statement: Stob. Eel. II. 7. 2, p. 42, 18, eVet Se /cat rwv 
8iaKi/jieva)v dvOpwTrwv Trpovoiav TrotTjreov, ovarLva^ e/c 
TrapaiveriKwv \6ywv (a$e\el(r6ai a-v/jifiaivei, pr) Sv 
rrpoaevKcupelv rot? Ste^o8t/cot9 Tr\drecnv r/ Sid xpovov 
crrevoxwpLas rj oid nvas dvayfcaias acr^oXta?, eVetcreye/CTeo^ 
rov vTToOeriKov \6yov, St ot- ra? Trpo? T?)y dcr(pd\eiav /cat 
ijTa T^9 eKacrrov ^p?;cre&)? vrro9r)Kas ev eVtro/iaf? 
. The importance attached by Cleauthes to irapai- 

ri illustrates the practical spirit of Stoicism : see also 
Hirzel, II. p. 10-i. 

93. Oic. Tusc. in. 76, sunt qui unum officium con- 
solantis puteiit maluni illud omnino non esse, ut Cleanthi 

Consolatio (Trapa/ivdtjriKr)) is a branch of TrapaiveriKr) 
and is concerned with removing the rrdOrj, cf. Eudorus ap. 
Stob. Eel. II. 7. 2. p. 44, 15 6 8e Trepl rwv d-jrorpeTrovrcav 
KoXelrai Trapa/iu^rt/co?, 09 Ka\oi>fAv6s ecrrt TT/JO? eviwv 
7ra0o\oyiKos. 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 
inalum. ..esse = TO KCIKOV. . .elvat. This is common in Lucr., 
see jVIunro on I. 331, 418 and cf. Verr. v. 170, quid dicani 


in criicem tollere ? Cicero even writes : inter optime valere 
et gravissime aegrotare (Fin. II. 43). Draeger, 429. 

94. Cic. Tusc. in. 77, nam Cleanthes quidem sapi- 
entem consolatur, qui consolatione non eget. nihil eniin 
esse malum, quod turpe non sit, si lugenti persuaseris, uon 
tu illi luctum, sed stultitiam detraxeris ; alienum auteni 
tempus docendi. et tamen non satis mihi videtur vidisse 
hoc Cleanthes, suscipi aliquando aegritudinem posse ex 
eo ipso, quod esse summum malum Cleanthes ipse 

Cicero s criticism here 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 aTraOrjs, is unnecessary ; 
(2) that grief may be caused by baseness, which is an 
evil. Cf. Tusc. II. 30. 

This cannot be treated as merely containing Cicero s 
comment on frag. 93, for we have the additional statement 
sapientem consolatur, which is surely not an inference 
from Cleanthes definition. The statement is strange and 
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 ^e\a<y^o\ia or when 
in severe pain, in spite of his e/3ai a9 /earaX?;-\/ret<? (see on 
frag. 80 and cf. Stob. Floril. 7. 21 0X76^ pev TOV <ro$6v, 
/j,rj jBaa-avi&aBai 8e. Cic. Fin. V. 94, quasi vero hoc 
didicisset a Zenone, non dolere, quum doleret ! Zeno, 
frag. 158): cf. generally Sext. Math. XI. 130 140 and 
esp. 139 el S a7rX&3<> 8ta<7/cet on rovrl fikv 6\iya)(f)e\e<; 
ecrn, TrXeiWa? 8" e^et T< o^X?7<m<>, crvyKptaiv earai 
Troitov alpecrews /cat (frvyfjs TT/JO? erepav a tpeaiv teal <J>vyr/v, 
xal OVK dvaipecriv rr)<? Tapa^r)<f. oTrep UTOTTOV 6 yap 


ov /3ov\erai paQelv ri ^a\\ov o%Xet Kal ri 


95. Stob. Floril. 6. 19. 

oo-rt? emdv^wv avejfer ala-^pov 
ouro? troiricrei TOUT eai> tccupov \dftr). 
For the doctrine that virtuous action depends on the 

intention and not on the deed itself, see Zeller, p. 264 and 

cf. Zeno frags. 14G and 181. 

96. Stob. Floril. 28, 14, KXeaytfr?? etprj rov ofjbvvovra 
7/Vot evopicelv ij eVtop/ceu Kad" ov o/jbvvai ^povov. eav 
fjt,kv yap OVTWS o^vvrj co? eTrireX-eawv rd Kara TOV opicov 
evopicelv, edv 8e irpdOecnv e x&)y /A?) eVtreXeiv, evriopKeiv. 

See on frag. 95, and cf. Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Floril. 28, 

97. Seneca de Benef. v. 14. 1, Cleanthes vehementius 
agit: "licet," inquit, " beneficium non sit quod accipit, 
ipse tamen ingratus est : quia non fuit redditurus, etiani 
si accepisset. sic latro est, etiani antequam manus 
inquinet : quia ad occidendum iam annatus 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 arid the two next following fragments probably 
come from the book irepl %aptTo?. Introd. p. 52. Eudorus 
the Academic ap. Stob. Eel. n. 7. 2, p. 44, 20 speaks 
in Stoic terminology of 6 Trepi TWV ^apLrtav TOTTO? as 
arising IK TOV \dyov rov Kara ri]v TT/JO? TOU? TT\i]<rov 

benefiting non sit: because the question is concerning 
an act of kindness to a bad man, on whom, according to 


Stoic principles, it was impossible to confer a favour 
(Senec. Benef. v. 12. 3), cf. Stob. Eel. n. 7. ll d p. 95, 5, 
pijteva Se (f>av\ov /jiiJTc (afaXelcrQai p^re (afaXeiv, Plut. 
Comm. Not. 21. 

saciilegi: the edd. quote Phsedr. iv. 11. Senec. de 
Benef. vn. 7. 3, iniuriam sacrilegus Deo quidem non potest 
facere : quern 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 hoc 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 ilium 
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, quern non quaesierat, 
invenit. ilium, inquit, laudabimus puerum qui quantum 
in se erat quod iussus est fecit: hunc feliciter inertem 

Another illustration of the value of the virtuous in 
tention apart from the results attained by it, Cf. Cic. 
Parad. in. 20 nee enim peccata rerum eventu, sed vitiis 
hominum metienda sunt. 

Academia: see the description of this place in Diog. 
L. in. 7 : there was doubtless a <rroa attached to it, whence 
totum porticum infra. 

circulatorem : a quack, mountebank: cf. Apul. Met. 1. 
c. 4, Athenis proximo ante Poecilen porticum circulatorem 


adspexi equestrem spatham praeacutam mucrone infesto 
devorare. Probably a translation of 6avfiaro7roi6<; : 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. n. 31. 12, 
a benefit expects no return : non enim sibi aliquid reddi 
voluit (qui beneficium dat), aut non fuit beneficium sed 

negotiatio : probably a translation of xPVP aTlcr l J ^> f r 
the Stoic wise man is described as the only true man of 
business: Stob. Eel. II. 7. II 1 , p. 95, 21, povov 8e rov 
dv8pa ^pri^ariariKOV elvai, yivcoaKovra d<p <i)V 
Kal rrore Kal TraJs Kal ^P C rror - 

100. Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 3. 17, p. 655 P. 237 S., 
Kal rj K.\edv0ovs 8e rov Srcot/coO (f)i\ocr6(f)ov Troi^rt/c?) 
wSe TTCO? rd opoia 7pa0et 

jjirj Trpo? 86%av opa, eOeXwv <ro<o? al^ra jev(r6ai, 
/jbrjBe (^)0/3oD vroXXcoy aKpirov Kal dvaiBea 86%av 
ov yap 7r\rj@os e ^et a-vveri]v Kpicnv ovre Sixalav 
ovre Ka\i]v, o\iyois 8e Trap di>8pdo-i rovro KGV evpois. 

Clement also quotes an anonymous comic fragment 
to the same effect: ala-^pov 8e Kpivew ra Ka\d raj 
vroXXft) ^o(f)a). Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 326 says : 
"hatte auch er (Kleanthes) den sensus communis, die 
KOival evvoLai oder 7rpoX?/^et? gebilligt, wie konnte er 
dann so wegwcrfend und verachtlich liber das allgemeine 
Laienurteil aburteilen ? " He concludes therefore that 
Cleanthes threw over altogether the Stoic concession to 


rationalism implied in the doctrine of op#o<? \6yos and 
-n-poX^e^, but see Introd. pp. 39, 40. Of. generally Cic. 
Tusc. in. 3, 4. 

86av : this is changed to ftdgiv by Meineke, who is 
followed by Wachsmuth, and Cludius is reported as 
suggesting uXoyov for dfcpirov. The reason given for 
the change by Wachsmuth is that Sogav " male con- 
iungitur cum aicpnov" presumably because Soga implies 
rcpio-is, but surely the words may mean " undiscriminating 
opinion " as explained by the next line. The text is con 
firmed by M. Aurel. IV. 3, TO evfierdftoXov KOL atcpirov rwv 
ev<pr]/ SOKOVVTCDV. Cf. ib. II. 17. 

ov...ovT...ovT, is justified by Homer, II. vi. 450, a\\ 
ov fiot, Tpwwv rocraov /zeXet d\yo$ o-niavw ovr avrfjs 
r E/ca/9779 ovre Hptdfj.oio aW/cro?, K.T.\. Cf. Soph. Ant 

101. Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 14. 110, p. 715 P. 257 S., 

j/? Kara TO aicoTrwfjLevov rrjv r<uv 
Sia/3d\\a)v etSwXoXarpiav e 

dve\evOepos Tra? oo-rt? et? Sogav / 
to? 81} Trap etceiwr)*; reu^oyae^o? rca\ov 

In Clem. Alex. Protrept. vi. 72, p. 21 S. 61 P, the same 
two lines are cited as the conclusion of frag. 75, but they 
are obviously distinct. 

86av : for Zeno s definition, cf. Zeno, frag. 15. Cleanthes 
wrote a separate treatise -rrepi 0^77 ?, from which we 
may conjecture that the present and the preceding frag 
ments ^are derived. Introd. p. 52. The Cynics described 
vy veia<; re teal Sogas as irpoKoa-^nara Kaicia<; (Diog. L. 
vi. 72). The Stoics regarded them as -rrpo^^va (Dio? 
L. vii. 106). 


102. Mantiss. proverb, (in paroemiogr. Gr. vol. n. 
p. 757) cent. I. 85. 

dicoveiv Kpeicraov ; \eyeLV 

This is taken from Wachsmuth (Comm. II. 
p. 8), whose note is as follows : " Inter ecclesiasticorum 
scriptorum sententias hie trimeter laudatur ab Antonio 
Meliss. I. 53 et a Maximo 10, vicl. Gregor. Nazianz. carm. 
p. 157 d ." 

103. Stob. Floril. 42. 2. 

KdKovpyorepov ov$ev om/SoX?}? ecrrt rrw 
\d6pa <ydp drcar^a-acra rov rrerceiO fJievov 
dvarrX-drrei vrpo? rov ovSev ainov. 

denned, ap. Stob. Eel. n. 7. 11 s , p. 115, 21, 
rrjv 8ia/3oX?)f 8id(rTaart.v fyaivofjievwv $>i\u>v -v^euSet 
&), 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 aSta/SoXo? 
both in the active and the passive sense (i.e. /^re Sm- 
/3d\\eiv ^rj-re Sia/3d\\ea-0ai), but their utterances are not 
consistent on this point : see Zeller, p. 253 n. 6, who in 
citing passages to the contrary effect fails to notice this 


104. Stob. Eel. II. 7. II 1 , p. 103, 12, iKavws Se 

#?7? Trept TO aTTOV^alov elvai rrjv TTO\LV \oyov 
?/po)T?7cre roiovrov TroXi? pev <el> ecrriv oiKrjrrjpiov 
KaraarKva(T/j,a, et? o KaTafavyovras e crrt Si/c^v Sovvai 
fcal \a/3elv, OVK dcrrelov 8rj TroXt? eariv ; d\\a prjv TOLOV- 
rov eariv 77 TroXt? oltcriTj iptov dcrrelov dp ecrriv r\ TroXt?. 

Possibly this belongs to the 7roXtrto9 : Introd. p. 
52. Cleanthes has here adopted the syllogistic form 
H. P. 21 


of argument, which occurs so frequently in Zeno s frag 
ments : see Introd. p. 33. The Cynics line of argument 
is somewhat similar. Diog. L. vi. 72 ot; jap, (prja-iv 
(Diogenes), (ivev 7roXe<w>? o<eXo9 TI elvai dareiov aa-rclov 
Be ?; TroXt? vop.ov 8e avev, TrdXetw? ovSev 6 <eXof acrrelov 
dpa 6 vonos. Cicero s definition is as follows, Rep. I. 39, res. 
ptiblica est res populi, populus autem...coetus multitu- 
dinis iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus. 
Cf. Ar. Pol. i. 2. 1253 a 37. 

ci, inserted by Heeren, who is followed by Wachsm. 
Meineke omits it and changes 8rj before TroXt? into 8 77. 

105. Seneca Tranq. An. I. 7, promptus compositus- 
que sequor Zenonem, Cleanthem, Chrysippum : quorum 
tamen nemo ad rem publicam accessit, nemo uon misit. 

See on Zeno, frag. 170. 

106. Stob. Floril. 4, 90, KXeai/^? e<f>rj TO 1)5 dirai- 

The same occurs in Stob. Eel. II. 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 vrjv eytcvrcXiov TraiSetav 
uXprja-Tov (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. IV. 1. 173, TrapdSoga peit to-eo? (f>acriv 
01 <f)i\6(TO(f>oi, tcaOaTrep tcai 6 K.\edv0r)<; eXejev, ov fjL-ijv 

rrapd8o|a : the Stoics themselves accepted and defended 
this description of their doctrines. Cic. Paradox. Prooem. 
4 quia sunt admirabilia contraque opinionem omnium ab 
ipsis etiam Trapd&oga appcllantnr. Plut, Comm. Not. 3 


ra Kotvd /cal Treptftor/ra, a 8t} rrapd&o^a real avroi, / 
t r>]v drorciav. 

108. Pint. vit. Ale. VI. 2, 6 fjuev ovv K\edvOrj^ e\eye 
rov epcoftevov v<ji eavrov f^ev etc rwv dorcov KparelcrOai, rols 
8 (ivrepacnals TroXXa? Xa/3a? 7rape%eiv ddifcrovy eavTu>, 
TTJV yacrrepa \eycov KOL ra aiSota Kal rov \aifj,6i>. 

This may be referred to the epwriKr) re^vr) or Trepl 
epeoTo?, In trod. p. 52. See on Zeno, frags. 172 and 173, 
and cf. Diog. L. vn. 24 (Zeno apoph. 7) \a/3rj 
ecrrlv evrtSe^io? 77 8id rcSv WTCOV. 

109. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. III. 200, ot rrepl rov 
d8cd<j)opov rovro (TO rrjs dppevofAi^ias) elvai fyacriv Zeno 

frag. 182. 

110. Stob. Floril. 6, 20. 

rcoOev rear apa ylverai fj,oi^wv 76^09 ; 
etc KpiQiwvros dv8pos ev d(f)po8icriois. 

P.OIXWV: for Stoic views on poi^eta, see Zeno, frag. 178. 
Kpi9u3vTos : for this word cf. Buttmann s Lexilogus, s. v. 
, E. T. p. 78. 

111. Pint, de And. Poet, c. 12, p. 33, Wev ovS at 

<j)av\w<$ e^ovcriv, at? Kal 
craro Kal A.vna6evri^- o fjiev K.r.\ ____ 6 8e 
TOV 7r\ovrov, 

(f)L\ois re 8ovvai crwp,d r et? voaovs rreaov 


r et? vocrovs rcecrov 

The lines in question are from Eur. El. 428, 9, where 



gevois is read in place of <>i\ot9. Stob. Floril. 91, 6 quoting 
the passage has $i Xot<?. 

The ordinary view of the school regarded TrXouro? 
as a TrpoijjfjLevov, 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 Sofa (frag. 101), but that word is am 

112. Diog. L. VII. 14, eVt ou<? Se Kal %a\fcbv elae- 
Trparre TOVS Trepucna^evov^ (6 Ztjvwv) axrTe SeStora? TO 
irj evo-^Kelv, KaQa <pr)cri KXedvdij*; ev rut irepl 

For the title of the book see Introd. p. 53. The 
above is Cobet s text ; omitting oio-re SeStora?, Wachs- 
muth reads ^ak/cov for ^CL\KOV MSS., and also suggests 
evioTe for eviovs, but evlov? implies that the payment 
was not always exacted, while the article shows that, 
when made, it was made by all. Similarly Soph. O. T. 
107 TOI)? avroevras X 1 P^ Ttfttwpety riva? and Ar. Pac. 832. 

113. Philodem. irepl </u\ocro(&>y ap. Vol. Hercul. vin. 
col. 13, v. 18, K<al K\>dv6r)<? ev <rda>i Trepl aT<i)\r)><t 
<T?;>? Ato7eVou? avTr)<<;> /j,vr)</j,ovev>ei KOI 7raiv<el> 
xal <fjiiicpov> vcrre<p>ov ev avr<u>i Tov>r<a)i Ka0d>7r<ep 
T>ep<a)>0 evLwv <>xdecri<v> [1. eicOecriv] <TTOI><I- 

Such is the restoration of Gomperz in Zeitschrift filr 
die Oesterr. Oymn. Jahrg. 29 (1878) p. 252 foil., who, in 
justification of this somewhat strange title, refers to a 
book by Aristocreon, the nephew of Chrysippus, entitled 
at XpycrtTTTTou rac^at (Comparetti, Papiro Ercolanense col. 
46). For the circumstances of the burial of Diogenes cf. 
Diog. L. VI. 78. av-njs refers to the TroXtreta of Diogenes. 


114. Schol. ad Nic. Ther. 447, p. 36, 12 Keil, 
es \eyovTai, ol ixrrepov dva@alvoVT<; o&oWes irapd TO 
Kpaiveiv KOI diroirKtipovv rfv jXiiciav. vewrepwv yap rjBij 
rj/jiMV yevo/.iev(ov (pvovTai ol oBovres OVTOL. K\dvOv]<i Be 
ffox^povLarfjpa^ avrov? /eaXet. vvv aTrXtS? TOWS o&fora?. 
o-axfrpovio-rljpes 8e Bid TO o/Lta ry dvievat awVoi)? KOI TO 
cr&fypov ToO you \a/jL(3dveiv T^/ia?. 

For Kpavrftpes cf. Arist. Hist, An. II. 4. fyvovrai Be ol 
reKevraloi Tot? dvOpunrois yopfaoi, ovs /caXoOcrt Kpavrrjpas, 
Trepl rd eiKoaiv cry real dvBpdcri KCU yvvcugi. 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 Kara r^v rov 
Qpovelv wpav -rrepl TO elxoffTov eVo?, and Melet. ap. Cramer 
Anecd. Ox. III. 82, 26 TOU9 Be /^wXtra? TWV oBovTwv rti/e? 
a-axfrpovio-Trjpas etcaXetrav Bid TO (frveaOai Trepl TI}V TOV 
apXea-0ai <j>povelv TOVS TratSa? &pav. Thus, while the 
growth of the reasoning powers is complete in the four 
teenth year (Zeno, frag. 82), the attainment of <ro)<ppo<rvv>n 
may well have been assigned to the conclusion of the third 

115. = Zeno frag. 184. 


1. Diog. L. VII. 169, <a<r! 8e Kal Avrvyovov avrov 
ovra dicpoarnv, Sid TI dvT\el ; TOV 8 eltrelv, 
dvT\(5 yap povov ; TI S oi^l (TKCLTCTW ; T I S ovtc apSco, 
KOI Trdvra TTOIW <^tXoo-o<^/a? eve/co, ; Kal jap 6 Zrjvwv 
avrov (Tvve^vfjiva^ev et? TOVTO, teal etceXevev o@o\6v <f>epeiv 
dTrofopas. Pint, de vitand. aere alieno 7, 5, KXedvdrj 8e 
o /SacrtXei)? Avrvyovos rjpta-ra Sid xpovov 6eaadfj.evo<f ev 
rai? Adr/vats, aXet? eri, KXeai/^e?; aXto, faaiv, w /3a- 

<Tl\V, O TTOtoS eV6Kd TOV %T)V fJLOVOS Se d7rO<TTJ]Vai /jLT}8e 

<j>i\o<ro<f>ia<;. Cf. Stob. Floril. 17, 28, XpvaiTnros 6 5lo\6)9 
eiroieiro TOV fiiov eic Trdvv o\iya>v, K\edv0r)<; 8e Kal ajro 
\arr6va)v. Epict. diss. III. 26. 23, TrcS? KXedvOrj? &<rev 
a/z,a a"xo\d%wv Kal dvr\wv. Senec. Ep. 44, 2, Clcanthes 
aquam traxit et rigando hortulo locavit mauus. 

2. Diog. L. VII. 170, KaL 7TOT6 d6poia-0ev TO Keppa 
eKopiaev els pecrov TWV yvwpipwv, Kai <f>i]o-i, KXedvOrjs p*v 
/cat d\\ov K\edv6ijv SvvaiT* dv Tpefyeiv, et @OV\OLTO. 01 
8 e^oi/re? odev Tpa(fjcrovTat, Trap eTepwv eVt^Toucrt ra 
, Kai-rrep dvetfj,eva><; <f)i\oo-o(f>ovi>Tes. odev 8r/ Kal 
6 K\edv0r}<{ e /caXetro. 

3. Diog. L. VII. 171, TrpoKplvatv 8e TOV eavTOV (3lov 
TOV T(av 7r\ov<ric0v, e\eyev, ev u> o-(f)aipl 
ai^To? 7171; aK\r)pdv Kal aKap-jrov epydfro-Qai, 


4. Diog. L. VII. 170, Kal a-KWTTTo/jievos Be VTTO rwv 
<rvnpa0viTwv r)m %eTO, Kal oi/o? dxovtov irpotreBfyero- 
\eywv ai)T09 ^di/o? BvvaaOaL fiaarci&iv TO ZT/VWI/O? Qopriov. 

5. Diog. L. VII. 171, /cat Trore 6vet,8i%6fievos 9 SetXo9, 
Sta roOro, 

6. Diog. L. VII. 174, ovet&icravTos avrcp rtz/o? et? TO 
, /cavw, Ufa, iiTrtevai ^ovKo^ai orav Se iravraxoOev 
ov vyiaivovra Trepivow Kal ypd<f>ovra Kal dvayi- 
vwcrKovra, ira\iv f^evw. 


7. Diog. L. VII. 171, 7roXXa/a<? 3e Kal eavrto eVe- 

)TTev wv (\Kovaas Apio-rvv, TLVL, e^rj, eiruir\ffrrevii 

l b\ 7 eXao-a9, Trpea-jSvTr}, <f>r)<ri, TroXta? ^ev e^oim, vovv 

8. Diog. L. VII. 173, 2<ucrt0eou TOU TTOL-rjrou ev Qedrpa 
7T/309 avTov Trapovra, 

019 ?7 e 

eVl ravrov ax^aro^. e</> w aya<r0evTS ol 
i, rov jj.ev Kp6rr)a-av, rov Se 2a><ri0eov e%e$a\ov. 
Be avrov eirl rf} \oiBopia TrpoaijKaro, 
UTOTTOV elvcu, rov pei> ^Lovvaov Kal rov HpaicXea 
$\vapovnevovs VTTO TWV TTO^TWV M opy%e*0at, avrov &e 
eirl r^ rvxova~r) /3\aa^/j,ia Bva-xepa^eiv. Cf. Plut. do 
Adulat. 11. 

9. Diog. L. VII. 171, eltrovros Be rivos \\.pKecri\aov 
^ rroielv ra Beovra, Travcrai, e^, KOI M -^rer/e. el yap 
Kal \o7ft) TO KadfJKov dvaipel, Tot9 yovv epyow avro ri0et 
Kal 6 A/3/cecrt\ao9, ou KoXaicevofiai, <j>r)orL 7T/J09 bv o 

a\\a i*e 

erepa Be rroielv. 


10. ^ Diog. L. vil. 173, e\e 7 e Be teal rot)? e* rov rrept- 
Trdrov opoiov ri rcda^e^ rals \vpais at /caXw? <j>deyt;d- 
avrwv OVK aKovovai. 

11. Cic. Tusc. ii. CO, e quibus (philosophis) homo 
sane levis Heracleotes Dionysius, cum a Zenone fortis esse 
didicisset, a dolore dedoctus est. nam cum ex renibus 
laboraret, ipso in eiulatu clamitabat falsa esse ilia, quae 
antea de dolore ipse sensisset. quern 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 argument! malum esse dolorem. plurimos autem 
annos in philosophia consumpsi nee ferre possum : malum 
est igitur dolor, turn Cleanthem, cum pede terram per- 
cussisset, versum ex Epigonis ferunt dixisse : 

Audisne haec, Amphiarae, sub terram abdite 1 
Zenonem significabat a quo ilium degenerare dolebat. 

Dionysius 6 p.erade^evo^ is mentioned also in Zeno 
apoph. 52, where see note. For the quotation from the 
Epigoni,cf. Soph. fr. 194, 195. (Dind.) 

3. renibus: but according to Diog. L. vn. 37, 166 and 
Cic. Fin. v. 94 the disease was ophthalmia 

7. si: inserted by Madv. (on Fin. v. 94), who is 
followed by the later editors. 

12. Stob. Floril. 82, 9 = Eel. n. 2. 16, 

Bid ri Trapd rot? ap^atot? ov 7ro\\(av (f>i\ocro- 
6V&)<? TrXfiovs SteXafjityav rj vvv, on, elire, rore 
epyov tf<TKiTO, vvv Se 

13. Diog. L. VII. 172, ptipaKiw TTOTC 
tTrv0eTO et aia-ddveraf rov 8 eTrtveva-avTos, Sid ri ovv, 
, eyw OVK aicr8dvo/j,ai OTI al 


14. Diog. L. VII. 172, epojievov TWOS TL V 

Sel TO! vlw, TO -7-179 HXe/crpa9, e</>?7, crlya atya XCTTTOV 
The quotation is from Eurip. Orest. 140. 

15. Stob. Floril. 33, 8, a-LwrrwvTos TOV KXedvQovs, 

t7ret rt9 <)i], TL crtyf ; Ka fjirv rjv roi? (1X049 o/jH\elv. 
i]Sv, e<?7, aXX oawTrep "jStov rocrtoSe ftaXXov avTov rot<? 

16. Diog. L. VII. 174, 777369 Se TOV fiov^pr/ /cat e 
\a\ovvTa, ov fyavXw, 6(^77, avupwirw XaXet9. 

17. Exc. e MS. loan. Flor. Damasc. II. c. 13. 125 = 
Stob. Eel. II. 31. 125 Wachsm., 77 ov TOLOVTOS 7rat9 eKelvos 
6 AaKwv, 09 KXeaz/07/v TOV (friXoo-otyov rfpa)Tr)o-6v el dyadov 
o TTOVOS eaTLv ; OVTO) yap e/ceii/09 fyaiverai <ucrei Tre$VK(as 
KO\W<> KOL Tedpa/jifjievos ev 77/369 dpeTrjv utcrTe eyyLov eivai 
vOfAlteiv TOV TTOVOV T779 TayaOov ^>ucre&)9 ) T"fjs TOV KaKOV 
09 76 &J9 o/jio~\.oyovfjLevov TOV /u.?} KaKov vTrdp^eiv avTov 
ei dyadov Tvy^dvet (av eTrvvOdveTO. Wev Kal 6 KXeai^^ 
dyacrOels TOV 7ra<8o9 enrev dpa 7rpo9 avTov, a(/Ltaro9 et9 
dyadolo, $l\ov re/co9, oT dyopeveis (Horn. Od. IV. 611). 
Diog. L. VII. 172. Aaajyo9 TIVOS eiVoWo9, OTL 6 TTOVOS 
dyadov oia vvOeis (bfjo~i,v, otfyu.ciT09 6t9 ayavolo, (pL\ov TGKOS. 

7761/09 is an dSidffropov (Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5 a p. 58, 3. 
Diog. L. vii. 102), but it may perhaps be inferred from 
this passage that Cleanthes classed it among the jrpo^y- 
fjueva. See on Zeno frag. 128. Antisthenes regarded it as 
dyadov (Diog. L. vi. 2). 

18. Stob. Floril. 95, 28, KXedvOrjs, epwT(ap,evos TTWS 
dv Tt9 etT; 7rXoucuo9, etTref, ei TU>V eTTLdv/ALtov elrj Trevrjs. 

19. Exc. e MS. loan. Flor. Damasc. II. 13. 63 = Stob. 
Eel. II. 31. 63 Wachsm., K\edv0r)s, eTaipov aTcikvai 


/ieXXoi/TO? Kal epwrwvros TT&J? av rjKtara d^aprdvoi, el-xev, 
i Trap CKacrra (av Trpdrreis 80*01779 e^e Trapelvai. Cf. 
Zeno, apoph. 42, and Maxim. Serm. 5. 

20. Diog. L. VII. 173, \eyerat Be, <j>d<rtcovTos avrov 
Kara Zrjvwva Kara\r)Trrov elvai TO 7)^09 e f et Sou?, veavlcr- 
Kovt TWOS evrpajreXovs dyayelv TT/JO? avrov KivaiBov 
ea-K\Tjpaya)yr)fj,evov eV dypw, /cal dgtovv aTrofyaiveadai Trepl 
rov tfOovs- TOV Se SiaTropovpevov veXeOcrat dirikvai rov 
dvOpwirov, &5s Se dfriutv e/ce?i/09 eTrrapev, e^w, etTrei/, ayroi , 
6 K\edv6r)s, yu,aXa6? ecrrti/. Cf. Zeno, frag. 147. 

21. Diog. L. VII. 172, fatrl 8e 6 Eicdrwv ev raw 
^/petat?, evpopfov petparclov etVoi/ro? et o et? TT}V yacrTepa 
TVTTTWV ya<TTp{ei, teal o elf TOI)<? fj.tjpov<j TVTTTWV pypi^ei, 
(f>i], a-v p,ev TOI)? 8ia/j,Tjpio-fjLovf e%, /J,ipd/ciov. [at 8 
ava\oyoi (fxovai rd dvdXoya ov Travras (rr}/j.aivovcri 717707- 
/tara.] Cobet brackets the concluding words. 

22. Diog. L. VII. 176, KOI reXeura roj/Se rov rpoTrov 
8ia>8r)(rev avray TO ov\ov aTrayopevo-dvrwv Be rwv larptav 
Bvo -quepas d-rrea-^ero rpo^. teal TTCO? eo-^e /caXw? wcrre 
rof? tarpoi/9 aOro) Trdvra rd a-vvrjdr} (rvy-^wpelv. rov Be 
PTJ avao-^eo-Oai aXX elrrovra r}8tj avrq> TrpocoBonropiJadai 
tcai ra<? XoiTra? diro<j^o^evov r\vrijaai. Lucian, Macrob. 
19, K\edv0r)<j Be 6 Zr/va)vo<t /j,adr)rr)<; real BidBo^of evvea Kal 
evevtjfcovra oiJro? yeyovws errj <f>vfj,a ea-^ev eVt rov ^ct Xou? 
Kat, (nroKaprepwv 7r\06vra>v avrut Trap" eraipwv rivwv 
ypapfAarcov Trpoo-eveyKdpevos rpofyrjv Kal Trpd^as Trepl wv 
y]%iovv 01 (f>i\oi, d7roo-^6/j,evo<; avQis rpo(f>Tj<; egeXnre rov 
ftiov. Stob. Floril. 7, 54, K\edv6^ VTTO y\wrrt]<j eXou? 
avrw yevofievov rrjv rpo(f>rjv OVK eBvvaro Traparrefnrew (9 
Be paov ecr^e /cat o t arpo? avra> rpo<f>r)v Trpocrrjyayev, <ri) Be 
fie, e<f>rj, /3ov\ei tfBr) TO rr\eov rtjs 6Bov Karavv&avra 
dva&rpefaiv, elra Trd\iv et; VTrap^ij<f n]v avrtjv 

Kal e^tj\Bev rov /Stou. 


[The references are to the numbers of the fragments, except where p. is 



Achill. Tat. Isag. 124 E Z 35 

1-29 E Z 65 

133 c C 33 

Aelian. Nat. An. vi. 50 C 45 

Ambros. de Abraham, n. 7...Z 148 
Anon. Tfx vr l a P- Speugel Ithet. 

(Jr. i. 434. 23 Z 25 

Anon. Ti\vr) ap. Speugel Ehet. 

Gr. i. 447. 11 Z 26 

Anon, variae coll. math, in 
Hulstchiana Heronis geom. 

et stereom. edit. p. 275 Z 28 

Anton. Meliss. i. 52 Z 189 

Apollon. soph. lex. Horn. p. 

lUBekk C 66 

Arnob. ad Nat. n. 9 Z 54 

Arrian.Epict. diss. 1. 17. 10, 

11 Z4,C2 

Arrian.Epict. diss. i. 20. 14 ...Z 123 

_ n. 19.1 4... C8 

n. 23. 42 ... C 91 

in. 22. 95 ... C 91 

iv. 1. 131 ... C91 

iv. 1. 173 ...C 107 

iv. 4.34 C 91 

iv. 8. 12 Z3 

Athenaeus iv. 158 b Z 156 

vi. 233 b, c Z 169 

xi. 467 d C 11 

xi. 471 b C 11 

xin. 561c Z 163 

Athenaeus xin. 563 e Z 173 

xiii. 565 d Z 191 

xiii. 572 f C 64 

Augustin. c. Acad. n. 11 Z 153 

in. 7. 16... Z 125 

in. 9. 18... Z 11 


de Civ. Dei v. 20 ... C 90 

deTrinit.xm.5.8...Z 125 

Aul. Gell. ix. 5. 5 Z 128 

Censorin. de die nat. iv. 10... Z 80 

. xvn. 2... Z 77 

frag. i. 4 C 28 

Certamen Horn, et Hes. p. 4. 

ISNietzsch C 67 

Chalcid. in Tim. c. 144 C 18 

c. 220 Z 90 

c. 290 Z 49 

c. 292 Z 50 

Chrysost. Horn. i. in Matt. 4...Z 162 

Cicero Acad. i. 36 Z 130 

i.38 Z 134, 138 

i.39 Z 34, 46, 86 

1.41 Z 8,9, 11,15, 

17, 19, 20 

i. 42... Z 10, 18, 21, 22 

n.18 Z 11 

n. 77 Zll 

n. 113 Z 11, 153 

n. 126 Z41, C 28 



Cicero Acad. n. 145 Z 33 

- de Div. ii. 119 Z 103 

- Fam. ix. 22. 1 Z 186 

Fin. n. 17 Z 32 

n. 69 C90 

ni. 52 Z 131 

iv. 12 Z 86 

iv. 14 Z 120 

iv. 47 Z 126 

iv. 60 Z 126 

- iv. 72 Z 120 

-v. 38 C44 

v. 79 Z 125 

v. 84 Z 151 

v. 88 Z 120 

Muren. 61... Z 132, 133, 148, 

150, 151, 152, 153, 155 

Nat. De. i. 36 ...Z 37, 39, 41, 

72, 110 

i. 37 ...C 14, 15, 16, 17, 

Cicero Nat. De. i. 70 Z 8 

- n. 1315 ... C 52 

- n. 21 Z 61 

n. 22... Z 59, 60, 63 

- n. 24 C42 

H.40 C 30 

n. 57 Z 46 

- n. 58 Z 48 

- n. 160 C 44 

in. 16 C 52 

- in. 27 Z 46 

- in. 37 C 29 

Orat. 32. 113 Z 32 

Tusc. i. 19 Z 86 

ii. 29 Z 127 

in. 74. 75 Z 143 

in. 76 C 93 

in. 77 C94 

iv. 11 Z 136 

iv. 47 Z 136 

v. 27 Z 127 74.. Z 174 

Protrept. vi. 72... C 75, 101 

Strom. n. 20. 105... C 44 
- 11.20. 125... Z 187 

H.21. 129.. .Z 120, 

C 72 

n. 22.131.. C 77 

v. 3. 17 ...C 100 

v. 8. 48 ... C31 

v. 12. 76.. .Z 164 

v. 14. 95. ..Z 149 

v. 14. 110... C 75, 101 

Clem. Alex. Strom, vn. 6. 33. . . C 44 
- vni. 9. 26... C 7 

Cornut. de Nat. De. c. 31 C 62 

Cyrill. Lex. Bodl. n. 11. ap. 
Cramer Anecd. Par. iv. 190. . . Z 31 

Dio Chrysost. 
Diog. Laert. vi 


LIII. 4.. 

Z 195 


Z 194 

a. 14 

C 112 

18 .. 

Z 30 

22 .. 

Z 175 

23 .. 

Z 16 

25 .. 
32 .. 

33 .. 

39 .. 

....Z 145,196 
....Z 154, 167 
. Z 149, 166, 
168, 177 
Z 1 

40 .. 

Z 2 

41 .. 

C 1 


Z 119 

87 .. 
89 .. 

. Z 120, C 72 
C 73 

91 .. 

C 79 

92 .. 

C 78 

107 .. 

Z 145 

108 .. 

Z 145 


Z 136 


Z 13 

121 .. 

Z 171 

122 .., 

Z 148 

127 .. 

Z 125, C 80 
C 81 


7. 172 


Z 176 

134 . 
135 ... 

...Z 35, C 12 
Z 52 

136 ... 

Z 52 

139 ... 

C 28 


Z 14 



143 .. 

Z 58 

145 ... 

Z 73 

146 ... 

Z 73 

148 ... 

Z 66 

149 ... 

Z 45 A, 118 


153 .. 

Z 74 

154 ... 

Z 74 

157 ... 
161 ... 

...Z85, C41 
Z 134 


7. 147 


. 48 .. 

...Z 193 



Epict. Man. 53 C 91 

Epiphan. Haeres. i. 5 Z 51 

in. 2. 9 (in. 

36) Z 37, 79, 95,164,185 

Epiphan. Haeres. in. 2. 9 (in. 

37) C53 

Euseb. P. E. xni. 13, p. 671. ..Z 149 

p. 679... C 75 

xv. 15.7 C28 

18. 3 Z 54 

20. 1 Z 106 

20. 2...Z 83, C 38 

45 Z 23 

Eustatb. in II. 2. 506, p. 1158. 
37 Z99 


Galen de cogn. anim. morb. 

v. 13. Kiihn Z 188 

Galen in Hippocr. de humor. 

i. 1 (xvi. 32 K.) Z53 

Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. n. 

5(v. 241 K.) Z100 

Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. n. 

5 (v. 247 K.) Z 101 

Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. n. 

8 (v. 283 K.) Z87, C 39 

Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. in. 

5(v. 322 K.) Z102 

Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. in. 

5(v. 332 K.) Z141, C 87 

Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. iv. 

2 (v. 367 K.) Z 139 

Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. iv. 

3(v. 377K.) Z139 

Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. iv. 

7 (v. 416 K.) Z 143 

Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. v. 

l(v. 429 K.) Z139 

Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. v. 

6(v. 476 K.) C84 

Galen Hipp, et Plat. plac. ix. 

1 (v. 653 K.) C 85 

Galen Hist. Phil. 5 (xix. 241 K.) Z 36 

9(xix.254K.)Z 91 



13 (xix. 272 K.) 034 

31 xix. 322 K.) 

...Z 106, 107 

Galen, nat. f acult. i. 2 (11. 5 K. ) Z 53 
Gemin. Elem. Astron. p. 53 
(in Petau s Uranol.) C 35 


Harpocration s.v. XeVxat C 61 

Hermias Irris. Gent. Phil. 14. 

p. 654Diels C 21 

Hippolyt. philosoph. 21. 1 ... Z 36 

Lactant.Epit. ad Pentad. 38... Z 144 

Inst. i. 5 Z39, C15 

m. 4 Z 153 

. m. 7 Z120 

m. 8 Z120 

m. 23 Z 132, 144 


iv. 9 

vii. 7 

de Ira del 11 Z 109 

. de Ver. Sap. 9 Z 44 

LonL inus ap. Euseb. P. E. xv. 
21.3 Z 88,040 


Macrob. Sat. i. 17. 8 C 58 

i. 17.31 C 60 

1.17.36 C 59 

i. 18. 14 C 57 

1.23.2 C 29 

Somn.Scip.i.14.19... Z 89 

Mantiss. Proverb, (in paroem. 
Gr. ii. p. 757) cent. i. 85... C 102 

Maxim. Floril. c. 6 Z 190 

Minuc. Eel. Octav. xix. 10... Z 39, 
41, 44, 111, C 14 


Nemes. Nat. Horn. p. 32 C 36 

p. 96 Z 93 

Numenius ap. Euseb. P. E. 
xiv. 6. p. 733 

Olympiodorus in Plat. Gorg. 

p. 53 f Z12, C5 

driven c. Gels. i. 5. p. 324 ...Z 164 
__L_ vii. 63. p. 739. ..Z 178 


Philargyriusad Verg.G. n.336. Z 57 
Philo liber quis virt. stud, n 

880 .............................. Z157 

Philo mund. incorr. p. 505. 27. C 23 

- p. 510. 11. Z 56 

Thilo de Provid. i. 22 ......... Z 35 

ii. 74 ......... C19 

Philodemtu wepl tvaffi. c. 8 Z 40, 117 

c. 9 ... C 16 

c. 13... C 54 

- p. 84G....Z 109 

. 28. C 49 

7re/)i0(\ocr6<^w C. 13. C 113 
Philoponus on Ar. Phys. iv. 6. 
p. 213 a. 31 .................. Z70 

Photius s. v. Xffo-xcu ............ C 61 

Plutarch Ale. 6. 2 ............... C 108 

Alex. virt. 6 ......... Z 1G2 

Arat. 23. 3 ............ Z 148 

Aud. Poet. 11 ......... C 55 

12 ......... Z 197 

- 12 ......... C 111 

Cobib. Ir. 15 ......... Z 106 

Comm. Hesiod 9 ...Z 196 
Not. 23. 1...Z 120 
- 31.5... C47 
31. 10. C 25 

6. 3 

de facie in orbe lunae 

C 27 

Plutarch defluv. 5.3 C 69 

- 5.4 C 70 

- 17.4 C71 

frag. dean. Wytt.V 2 . 

P. 899 Z 121 

Plutarch Is. et Osir. 66 C 56 

Lycurg. 31 Z 163 

plac. i. 3. 39 Z 35 

. Z 23 
. Z 78 
. C 33 
. C 34 

i. 10. 4 . 
i. 15. 5 . 
n. 14. 2. 
n. 16. 1 . 

n. 20.3 C 29 

- iv. 11.1 C4 

iv. 21.4 Z 98 

v. 4. 1 ... Z 106 

- v. 5. 2 Z 107 

prof, in virt. 12 Z 160 1.. Z180 

v. 10. 3 C 44 
Soil. an. 11. 2, 3 ... C 45 

Sto. Rep. 2. 1 Z 162 

6. 1 Z 164 

Plutarch Sto. Rep. 7. 1, 2 


80. l " 

Virt. Mor. 2 


.Z 134 

. C 76 
. Z 29 
. Z6 
.Z 131 
.Z 131 

- Z 135 

Porphyr. de Abstin. in. 19 ...Z 122 
m. 20 ... C 44 

vit. Pythag. 1.2 C 68 

Probus ad Virg. Ed. vi. 31. p. 

10. 33 Keil Z 52, C 20 

Probus ad Virg. Ed. vi. 31. p. 

21. 14 Keil ...Z112 

Proclus ad Hes. Op. 291 ......Z 196 


Quintil. Inst. Or. n. 15. 3335 C 9 

ii. 17. 41... C 5 

ii. 20. 7 .. Z 32 

iv. 2. 117... Z 27 


Rufus Ephes. de part. horn. 
P-44 Z84 


Schol. ad Apoll. Rhod. I.498...Z 113 
Arist. 22 b. 29 Brandis Z 6 

Dionys. Thrac. ap. 
Bekk. Anecd. p. 663. 16 ... Z 13 

Schol. ad Hes. Theog. 117 ...Z 114 

134 ...Z 115 

139 ...Z 116 

Horn. II. m. 64 ... C 63 

xvi. 233... C 55 

Horn. Od. i.52 (Cra 
mer A. O. m. 416) C 65 

Schol. ad Lucian. Cal. 8 Z 29 

Nic. Ther. 447 C 114 

Plat. Ale. 1.121 E... Z 82 

Seneca de Benef. n. 31. 12 ... C 99 

- v. 14.1 C 97 

- vi. 11. 1 ... C98 

vi. 12. 2 ... C 99 

- Epist. 82. 7 Z 129 

83. 8 Z 159 

94. 4 ... C92 

104. 21 Z 161 

107. 10 C 91 

108. 10 C 50 

113. 18 C 43 


Seneca de Ira i. 10. 7 Z 158 

- Nat.Quaest.vii.19.1 .. Z 75 

de Otio Sap. 30. 2 ...Z 170 

- Tranq.An.i.7...Z170,C105 
Sext. Emp. Math. n. 7 Z 32 

vii. 151 ... Z 15 
vn. 2-27 ... Z 10 

vn. 228... Z 7, C 3 
. vn. -2.% ... Z 7 

vn. 2 IS ... Z 11 

vii. 253 ... Z10 

vii. 372. ..Z 14, C 3 

vn. 422 ...Z132 

Z 11 

Z 8 

C 3 

C 51 

Z 59 


Z 62 

vn. 426 ... 
viii. 355... 
vni. 400... 

ix. 88 

ix. 101 ... 
ix. 104 .., 
ix. 107 ... 
ix. 133 ...Z IDS 
xi. 30... Z 124, C 74 

xi. 74 C 88 

xi. 77 Z 128 

xi. 190. ..Z 179,181 
xi. 191 ...Z 180 

.11.4 Z 11 

n.70 C3 

m. 200 Z 182 

.Z 180 
.Z 183 
.Z 179 

in. 205 
in. 206 
in. 245 
m. 246 

Z 180 

Simplic. ad Cat. 80 a. 4 ......... Z 76 

in Epict. Man. 53... C 91 
Stob. Eel. i. 1. 12. p. 25. 3... C 48 

I. 29 b .p.34.20... C 14 

- p. 35. 9... Z 42 

- 5. 15. p. 78. 18... Z45 
8. 40 e . p. 104. 7. Z 76 

- 10. 14. p. 126.17. Z 35 

II. 5\p. t32.26. Z 51 
12. 3. p. 136. 21. Z 23 

13. 1. p. 138.14. Z 24 

15. 6-\ p. 146. 19. C 26 

- p. 146. 21. Z 68 

16. 1. p. 149. 8... Z 78 
-- 17. 3. p. 152. 19. Z 52 

- - p. 153.7... C 24 

- 18. I 1 , p. 156. 27. Z 69 
. - 19.4. p. 166. 4... Z 67 

- 20. l c . p. 171. 2 

...Z 54, C 22 

- 21. 6 C . p. 187. 4... C 28 

Stob. Eel. i. 22. 3 1 . p. 199. 10. Z 58 

23. 1. p. 200. 21. Z 64 

. 24. 2 1 . p. 205. 25. C 33 

25. 3 1 . p. 211. 18. C 29 

25. 5. p. 213. 15. Z 71 

26. I 1 , p. 219. 12. Z 71 

- p. 219. 14. C 32 

48. 7. p. 317. 15. C 37 

49. 33. p. 367. 18. Z 92 

49. 34. p. 369. 6. Z 93 

n. 2. 12. p. 22. 12... Z 5 

7. 1. p. 38. 15... Z 146 

p. 39. 5...Z 137 

_ 5. p . 57. 18... Z 128 

_ 51*. p . 65. 8. . . C 82 

6\ p. 75. 11...Z 120 

6 ft . p. 76. 3 ... C 72 

_6 e . p. 77.20...Z 124 

_6. p. 77. 21... C 74 

7 1 - . p. 84. 21... Z 131 

ll e . 99. 3 Z 148 

ll i .p.!03.12..C104 

31.64.p.212.22.C 106 

Stob. Floril.4. 90 C 106 

4.107 Z202 

6. 19 C 95 

6.20 C110 

6.34 Z 201 

6. 37 C 89 

6.62 Z 192 

14. 4 Z 189 

28. 14 C 96 

36. 26 Z 200 

42. 2 C 103 

. 43. 88 Z 165 

. 95.21 Z 199 

108.59 C86 

Strabo vii. 3. 6 Z 198 

Suidas s. v. Xetrxcu C 61 

Syrian, ad Metaph. 892 b. 14 ... C 6 

Tatian ad Graec. c. 3 

Z 47 
Z 55 
Z 38 
Prats. Cup. 7 Z 51 

Tertullian de Anim. c. 5 ..Z 89, 
- c. 14 

c. 25 

Apol. 21 Z44, 

- Marc. i. 13 

Nat. n. 2 



Themist. de An. 68 a Z 96 

72 b Z43 

90 b Z 140 

Or. n. 27 c C 83 

Or. vin. 108 c Z 196 

Or. xm. 17lD Z 196 

Phys. 40 b Z 70 

Tbeodoret Gr. Cur. Aff. in. 

p. 780 Z 164 

Theodoret Gr. Cur. Aff. iv. 12. Z 35 
iv. 20. C 33 
v. 25. Z 106 

Theodoret Gr. Cur. Aff. v. 25 
p. 934 Z88, C40 

Theodoret Gr. Cur. Aff. vt. 14. Z 45 
Theon progymn. 12. p. 251. ..Z 108 
Theoph. ad Autol. in. 5. p. 
119 c Z 184, C 115 

Varro Ling. Lat. v. 9 CIO 

v. 59 Z 105 

R. B. ii. 1. 3 Z 81 

ii. 4. 9 .. .. C 44 

Zonaras s. v. ffo\oiKlfru> Z 31 


Academics, Z 109. 

Alcmaeon, Z 82. 

Alexander, Z 30. 

Alexandria, Z 30. 

Alexinus, Z 5, 61. 

Amoebeus, p. 226. 

Anaxagoras, Z 81, 113, C 27. 

Anaximander, Z si, C 29. 

Anaximenes, Z 52. 

Antigonus Carystius, p. 228. 
Gonatas, p. 2, 5, 6, 228. 

Antiochus, p. 17, 25, Z 126. 

Antipater, p. 114, C 59. 

Autisthenes, p. 19, 20, 22, 53, Z 3, 
23, 109, 162, 163, 171, 187, 195, 
C 79. 

Apollodorus, p. 19. 

Apollonius, p. 2, 4, 20. 

Arcesilas, Z 11, 145. 

Archedemus, C 7. 

Archelaus, Z 81. 

Aristarchus, p. 42, 51, C 27. 

Aristippus, Z 197. 

Aristo, p. 36, Z 5, 131, 191, C 92. 

Aristotle, p. 24, 25, Z 12, 26, 35, 
49, 50, 53, p. 110, Z65, 67, 68, 
69, 81, 99, 104, 112, 116, 117, 
128, 134, 135, 136, 163, 167, 168, 
169, 195, C 1, 37, 52, 53. 

Aristoxenus, C 42. 

Bion Borysthenes, p. 230. 
Boetlms, Z 54. 


Caphesias, p. 231. 
Carneades, Z 11. 
Cbremonides, p. 6, 232. 

H. P. 

Cbrysippus, p. 7, 20, 27, 28, 34.30. 

38, 40, 43, 45, 48, 49, 50, Z 2, 7. 

11, 14, 21, 23, 24, 49, 52, 66, 72. 

74, 76, 79, 100, 102, 130, 139, 143. 

144, 100, 107, 185, C 3, 8, 9, 13. 

18, 19, 23, 24, 37, 41, 43, 44, 4s 

(17), 70. 

Cicero, p. 34, Z 120. 
Cleanthes, p. 1, 23, 35, 3053, Z 3 r 

7, 13, 14, 35, 45 A, 52, 50 (54), 58, 

79, 93, 120, 128. 
Crates, p. 3, 31, Z 105. 

of Mallus, Z 198. 
Critolaus, p. 111. 
Cynics, p. 1821, 30, Z 9, 125, 149, 

102, 104, 107, 171, 172, 170, 177. 

184, 180, 194, C7G, 79, 80, 88. 

101, 104. 


Demetrius, p. 27. 

Diodorus, p. 40, C 8. 

Diogenes, p. 18, 19, 20, 21, Z 9. 

108, 171, 185, p. 225, C 113. 
of Apollonia, Z 42, 81. 

of Babylon, Z 100, 108, C 72. 
Dionysius (o fj.era.6^fj.fvos), p. 234, 



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, 107, C 10, 89, 90. 


Heraclitus, p. 2123, 50, Z 52, 54, 
p. 114, Z 04, 05, 77, 83, 85, 87, 
C 1, 3, 21, 28, 29, 33, 48 (10, 24, 




Herillus, p. 52, Z 17. 

Herpdicus, Z 77. 

Hesiod, p. 31, 32, Z 29, (Tlieoy. 
118, 119) Z 113, (J/ira.9. 126 
128) Z 193, (Cty. 291), Z l96. 

Hippocrates, Z 106, C 42. 

Homer, p. 31, 43, 51, Z 174, 195, 


Indians, Z 187. 


Marcus Aurelius, Z 52, 162, C 44. 
Megarians, Z 5. 


Neanthes, p. 51. 

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. 

Polemo, p. 3, 25. 

Posidonius, p. 49, Z 24, 49, 52, 66, 

76, 80, 131, 143, 198, C 35, 84. 
Ptolemy, Philadelphia, p. 5, 6, 228. 
Pythagoras and Pythagoreans, Z 50, 

55, 65, 70, 73, 81, C 26, 27, 29, 

37, 68. 


Seneca, Z 162. 

Socrates, p. 45, 53, Z 59, 123, 134, 

158, 159, 162, 194, p. 227, 230, 

C 76, 77, 79. 

Sophocles (frag. 711), Z 197. 
Stilpo, p. 3, 28. 
Strato, Z 64, C 43. 

Thales, Z 73. 
Theophrastus, p. 110 f., 233. 

Virgil, Z 97. 

Xenocrates, p. 3, Z 1, 128, C 37. 
Xenophanes,Z56 (33), 81, 113, 117. 

Zeno, p. 135, 46, C 13, 18, 24, 76. 

of Tarsus, Z 57, 87. 


dyadd, p. 14, 15, Z 127, 128, C 75. a7ro/rpi/e<70ai, Z 56 (45). 

a7fX?7 ffiWo/ttoy, Z 162. ATroXXwj , C 58. 

dyvoia, Z 18. dTrouivrjfj.ovev^.aTa Kpar^ros, p. 31, 

d5e?s, Z 109. Z 199. 

doidcjiopa, p. 14, 15, 17, 46, Z 127, awove^T^ois, Z 134. 

128, 129, 145, 154, 161, 171, 172, diroirpor]y/j.ei>ov, v. irpotjyfj.evoi . 

17*. aTropuv (Trept), p. 49. 

a^r-Tjros, Z 148, 157_. "Apa^es, Z. 198. 

dddvaros (cofs), Z 95. dpyixepavve, G 48 (32). 

;itfcu ,acn-os, Z 109. dpeTr,, Z 125, 128, 134, 135, C 78, 
aidepos TO {<j\a- rov i Z 65. 79, 80, 83. 

alBrip, Z 41, C 15. dperwi (irepi), p. 52. 

ai)ta, Z 87, 88. XpiffTa.px.ov (Trpos), p. 51. 

cu<rtf?}<7ews (?repi), p. 50, 51. dppwor^/uaTa, Z 144. 

aurfVis, Z 8. 20, 121. dpxcu, Z 35. 

O.ITIOV, Z 24. dpxa-LOTfpoi, p. 40, Z 10. 

d/coXao-ia, Z 138. cipa^s (irepl), p. 47, 52. 

ciXXa.777, Z 168. ciae/ietaj ypafir], C 27. 

\\ f ^7 "O X\ r / -)/i 

aAXoiaxTts, Z oJ. aaoAocKOS, /; oU. 

d XXajs, C 45. dtrr^pes, C 33, 34. 

aXcr/a j aJa, C 44, 45. dffTpa.Trr), Z 74. 

d/ij.dpTrjfj.a, p. 15, Z 132, 133. aro/xwc (Trept), p. 47. 

d/xerdTTTwroi , Z 135. drpaTros, C 45. 

d^Kr,*, C 48 (10). ai-74 C 23. 

dV, Z 190. av0fKaffTos, C 75. 
s B ^/-^-- \ / /i t -n 

CU ttO WOClJVCltf, U O. ^. Ctl AT), Zj lol. 

d^af^iwao-is, p. 23, Z 83, C 55. d<pop/jiaL, C 82. 

ai aXa.ujSdceti , p. 226. A<ppo5iTrj, C 63, 64. 

dva/ voepbv, C 29. 

dyaTrfTrTauei/oi/, Z 174. /Sapor, Z 67. 

dvdpeia, Z 134, C 76. /3a<n\etas (Trept), p. 52. 

dveTrtTpeTTTe?^, Z 194. a<7tXt/c6s, Z 148 (10). 

avdpuTrofiopias, Z 184, C 115. /iidfeTai, Z 148 (12). 

dVcj \-draj 6065, Z 52. /3tos. Z 145. 

d^ a, p. 14, Z 130, 131. /aoi X^s (Trepi), p. 52. 

a ^wMan/cos, Z 148 (16). ppovrrj, Z 74. 

dTrdOfia, Z 158. 

aTatoei Tous, C 106. yd/j.os, Z 171. 

aTra^a, p. 14, Z 130, 131. yd/j.ou (irepi), p. 51. 

dir<!piTTo<s, Z 169. 7<r; ed, Z 77. 

aTrXws 7 ct(TiS ) Z 50. 7ew^erpta, Z 28. 



yiydvruv (irtpi), p. 51. 
Yopyiirirov (irtpi), p. 52. 
{I Uvdaia, Z 166. 
yvvaiKts, Z 176. 

v, C 3. 
Aewcis, C 11. 

i, Z 148 (12). 
tlv, Z 35. 
577,utoi>p7<5s, Z 48. 
^TjubitpiTov (irp6s), p. 51. 
5% S, Z 139, 158. 
5iapo\j, C 103. 

SiaOtfffis, Z 117, 135, C 36, 51. 
s, Z 51. 
Z 134. 
^j OJ , Z 174. 
dia.K6ffnr)ffis, Z 52. 
5taXe;c7), Z 6, 32, C 1. 
StaXfKTi/cTjs (irepi), P- 49. 
SiaXfKTtKoi, p. 33, Z 5. 
StdKoia, Z 100, 135. 
5tarpi/3ai, p. 30, Z 179. 
dLarpipuv j3 , p. 53. 
Siaxwreis, Z 139. 

i, Z 148 (14). 
, Z 25. 

dLrjKflV, C 13. 

StKafetP (Trepi TOU), p. 52. 

diKaiov, C 77. 

SiKaiotrw T;, Z 122, 134. 

StxaffTrjpia, Z 166. 

Atovi cros, C 57. 

Aioffxoijpovs, Z 117. 

56a, Z 15, 143, 153. 

66*175 (irtpi), p. 47, 48, 50, 52, C 100, 

101.* t/ i X ^s, Z 93, C 85. 
di varov, C 8. 
5i i/aTwi (jrepi)) P- 50. 
ov, C 51. 

, p. 45, C 76. 
s iratStla, Z 167. 
j), Z 19, 45, 45 A, C 18. 
, C 3. 

s, Z 143, C 76. 
(K\ttyeit, Z 71, 73. 
e At7r. -pw<ris, Z 52, 54, 55, C 22, 24. 
?\eyx ( ffo-vrov, Z 189. 
Aeoj, Z 144, 152. 
e\tv6fplas (irtpi), p. 52. 
t\tv8tpovs, Z 149. 
<\^, C 29, 60. 

n-aiSefaj (irep/), p. 30. 
iva.Trofj.f/JMy/j.tvos, Z 11. 

, p. 34, Z 9. 
.dTuv, Z 31. 

s, Z 134. 

^/u a ra ) Z 23, C 6. 
ta, p. 10, 34, Z 21. 
aryT7, Z 161. 

, C 61. 
e is, Z 43, p. 110, Z 56 (53), 117, 

134, 135, C 5. 
eWC 7 ?. C 3. 
i 7pw(m, Z 52, C 24. 
^7rap<ris, Z 139, 143. 
fir((T0ai 0eois, Z 1*23. 
firiyfvvritJ.aTa, p. 46. 
fTTiyiyw^eva Kplfffffiv, Z 138, 139. 
eiriBvfjda, Z 142, 172. 
eiriffTJM, Z 16, 17, 18, 33, 134. 
eiriffrrifj.-!)? (vepl), p. 50. 
eTrterroXai, p. 31. 
fpws, Z 113, 163, 172. 
fpuriKT) Tt\vT), p. 30, 52, Z 174, 

C 108. 

parroj (Trepi), p. 52. 
eff^s, Z 177. 
fffdifiv dra/CTWS, Z 31. 
Ecrria, Z 110, C 27. 
Za\aTov rov irvpbs, C 24. 
i /3oi-Xias (irepi), p. 47, 52. 
t i 5at/aoj/t o, Z 124, C 74. 
evxpaffLa, p. 23, C 42. 
efXo70v, Z 145. 
fi >7rp<?7reia, Z 56 (63). 
tvpri\oyos, C 62. 
ei>ia, Z 124, C 74. 
ei)0wo, Z 172. 
ei)<i fas (irfp/), p. 52. 
i<f> iifuv, Z 79, C 91. 

Zefc, Z 111. 

ZTJVOH OS (i"fpt T Js ^- </>i (TtoXo7iai /3 ), 

p. 50. 

f^Stov, Z 71. 
fu>i>i) dia.K(Kavfdvr), C 35. 
jyoi (6 >c6crp.os), Z 62. 

, p. 13, 42, Z 24, 33, 67, 
93, 101, 135, 141, C 15, 25, 28, 

tfovr,, p. 46, Z 127, 128, 139, 142, 

143, C 88, 89, 90. 
rjSovrjt (irtpl), p. 47, 53. 
i70/ca, p. 31. 


rifaKOV, Z 2, 119. KarairivfTai, Z 102. 

770os, Z 146, 147, C 36. Karriydpwa, Z 23, 24, C 7. 

77X105, C 25, 28, 29, 30, 31. Kartjyopri/MTUv (irepl), p. 50. 

HpaK-XeiVou e^-tjyrjfffuv 5 , p. 50. /caro/30u>^a, p. 15, 34, Z 145. 

HpaKXijj, C 62. KfKOfffJ.-nfj.fvof, Z 174. 

HpTj, Z 110. Kfw, Z 69, 70. 

Hpi\\ov (Trpds), p. 52. xtpavvos, Z 74, C 48 (10). 

H0CUOTOS, Z 111. K-rjpia, Z 38. 

Kripfa, Z 50. 

tfaVaros, Z 129. /aV^cns, Z 91. 

tfai Aiai-oTTows, C 9H. K\ri6fis, Z 29. 

tfeoXo-yiKoi , C 1. K\rjffeu iepai, C 53. 

tfeo/uax 11 P- 51. KOii ws iroibv. Z 49. 

rfeos, Z 35, 108, 109. Kotos, Z 115. 
tfeos /caKuS? TTO^T^S, Z 47, C 48 (17). KOMTCU, Z 75. 

t eos <j>6apr}ff6/>os, C 47. KOO-/UOS, Z 57, 66, 71, 162, 193, 

tfeuw (irepf), p. 49, 51, C 47. C 17, 48 (7). 

depifav, p. 224. KpavT-fjpes, C 114. 

Hepu-affia, Z 84. \-pa<rts 5t oXou, p. 11, 23, Z 51, 52, 

t*<r, Z 39. 53, 96, C 13. 

OrjptVXeioJ , C 11. Kpeios, Z 115. 

HvpaSfv, C 37. \-pio-eis, Z 136, 139, 143. 

Kpo^os, Z 113. 

IdTrero?, Z 115. Ki/KXw7res, Z 116. 

/Seat, Z 23, C 6. x\>pievui>, C 8. 

i 5ioj, p. 49. /ii. ptei oi ros (Kepi), p. 50. 

idiuv (irepi), p. 49. Kuvofi.5r)s, C 26, 33. 

lOtOJS TTOtOV, Z 49. 

iepd, Z 164. \eKT6v, p. 40, Z 24, C 7. 

tXi j, Z 113. \e <7xcu, C 61. 

I o-os, v. d/uapr^a. \effxvvopiov, C 61. 

I0ucpcms, C 11. Xe tewv (irtpt). p. 27, Z 30, 31. 

\%u, p. 27, 226. 

/ca<?a7raf d8id<popa, Z 130. \rj7rrti, Z 130, 131. 

Kcttfapos, Z 36, 174. Xiros, Z 169. 

Ka8e\Kfiv, Z 30. Xo7ia, Z 4, C 2. 
Ka.09,Kov, p. 15, 34, Z 145, 161, 169, XC^KT?, Z 1. 

170, 171, 172, 177, 178, 192. \oyiKov, Z 2. 

Ka6-nKovTos (irepi), p. 29, 52. X^/os, p. 22, Z 3, 37, 44, C 16. 

Ka0o\iKd, p. 27, Z 23. - cr^p^cm/cos, Z 46, C 24. 

Ka.Kd, p. 14, Z 127, 128. \6yov (-n-epi), p. 27 

Aca/cta, p. 46. - (""fpt ToO), p. 50. 

KaXXwrpov, C 88. - 0-rotxf a, Z 3. 

KO.\UV (irfpi), p. 52. Xo70(/>tXos, Z 200. 

(fapSia, Z 141, C 87. Aoias, C 60. 

\-ard, Z 145. Xo^oi-, Z 73. 
Kara </>iW, p. 14, 15, Z 130, 169, 192, AvKfios, 59. 

C 88. Awaos, C 59. 

(7Tcpc roO f. </.. Siou), p. \VTTTI, p. 46, Z 127, 128, 139, 142, 

29. 143, 144, C 86. 

KO.Ta\T]TrriKri, v. (pavraffla.. Xucreis Kal tXeyxoi, P- 28. 

Ka.ra.\t)VT6v , Z 147. XiVis, Z 139. 
Ka.Td\r,tts, p. 34, Z 10, 16, 18, 33, 

C 81). Mai oca, C 67. 



Moi^s, p. 232. 
UOXTIKT?, p. 29, Z 118. 
Mo/xy/njr, Z 195. 
w^yas, Z 148. 
ue 077, C 80. 
fj.f6vai>, Z 159. 
fj-fitixris, Z 139. 
ueXa>xMa, C 80 
a<?p77 (i/ i/x^j), Z 93, 94. 
u^oi/, C 24. 
ue cra, Z 145. 
ueradXXe<T0cu, Z 153. 
uerapoXJi, p. 23. 

UeTO\7)l/ WS (TTfpi), p. 50, C 11. 

ufTaj/oeu , Z 153. 
fj-tr^xovra, p. 46, Z 128. 
ur|u, Z 51, 52. 
fjutTlfjir), Z 14. 
.aoix^et", Z 178, C 110. 
/u #i*cd, p. 51. 

,U.Up/J.T!)KfS, C 45. 

uupojrwXia, Z 174. 

-^fJMTa., C 53. 
ii, C 66. 

caot, Z 164. 
voTjfiaTa, C 6. 
v6fj.ifffj.a, Z 168. 
v6/uos, Z 39. 
v6fj.ov (irepi), p. 30. 
vonuv (iff pi), p. 52. 
poffij/xara, Z 144. 
vocroi, Z 144. 
i/oOs, Z 43, C 37. 

Z 42. 

ri, Z 13. 
S, Z 15, 16. 

j, Z 121, 122, 126. 
o\o6<f>poi>os, C 65. 
oXou (jre/){), p. 28. 
6/jLo\oyia (pvffet, Z 120, 123, C 72. 
6/j.ovoia, Z 163. 
ovtlpijiv, Z 160. 
opaerts, Z 104. 
opeis, Z 143. 
opt), Z 56 (8). 
op^oj Xo-yos, pp. 810, 40, Z 3, 117, 

123, 157. 
6p0ws \4yeiv, C 9. 
OPMO/, Z 123, 138. 
6p/x7)j (?repi), p. 29, 52. 
opuw (Trep/), p. 52. 
ovpavos, Z 66. 

owi a, p. 41, Z 49, 50, 51, 53, p. 110. 
(irept), p. 29. 
(irept), p. 29. 

aB-n, p. 45, Z 135144, 172, 086. 
iratfiDj (irepO, p. 29, 184. 
7rai5a7W7oi, Z 188. 
7rat5e/a, I . f^Aciy/cXios. 
ira.v<rt\r)i>os, Z 73. 
Trapa/SdXXeti , Z 185. 
irapa5fiy(j.a, Z 26. 
TrapdSo^a, C 107. 
irapd^fffis, Z 51. 
irapaivfriicri, p. 47, C 92. 
7rap<iXo7a, C 107. 
trapa/j.v6r]riKri, C 93, 94. 
Trapa 0i/(rtK, p. 14, 15, Z 130, 169. 
, Z 34, 35. 
^, Z 175. 
, Z 65. 
, Z 52, 56 (43). 

PL-IT artlv dKWTM^s. Z 31. 
laraffn, p. 15, Z 169, 170, 184. 

, Z 146. 
TrtXoetS^s, C 32. 
w\Tjyr) TTi/pos, C 76. 
ir\riKTpov, C 31. 
TrXoiVor, Z 169, C 111. 
TrceP/ua, p. 11, 40, 42, Z 41, 48, p. 

110, Z 84, 85, C 13. 

SiarfTifOv, C 43. 

irvfv/j.aTiKri Suva/us, p. 110. 

Trpft yuariKos TOVOS, Z 56 (54). 

iroirjTtKTJs dKpodfftus (irtpi), p. 31. 

iroirjTov (irepi), p. 51. 

Trow, Z 23, 49. 

TTotdr?;?, Z 53, 92. 

TrotoOf, Z 34, 35. 

TroXts, C 104. 

TToXIrai, Z 149. 

HoXtreia, p. 20, 29, Z 23, 97, 149, 

Tro\iTfVfff6ai, Z 170. 

TToXlTlKOV, C 1. 
TToXlTlKOS, p. 52. 

TroXi xpoftos, Z 95. 
TroXiiuJvi Mos, C 48 (1). 
TTWOS, Z 128, 187, 201. 
iroptia, Z 175. 
HoffctSuv, Z 111. 
Trpd^euv (irept), p. 52. 
irpofi\rifw.Tui> Ofj.T)piKuv, p. 31. 
irporiyntvov, p. 15, 34, Z 127, 128, 
131, 145, 169. 


irpor)yov[>os, p. 15, Z 128, 131, avvoSos, Z 73. 

1<J9, 170. avffroXri, Z 139, 143. 

irpoKoirri, p. 34. <r0cupa, Z 67. 

TTpOKOTTTOVTeS, Z 160. ff<pd\\<T6a.L, Z 153. 

irp6\T)\l/ts, p. 10, 34, 40, Z 21. <TX<?<, Z 134. 

irpovoia, Z 36, 45 A, C 18, 19, 44. o-tD^a, Z 24, 34, 36, 91. 

a-poTTfTfia, Z 22. ffwppoviffTrjpes, C 114. 

Trpoo-Scm a, Z 143. (rufipoavvr), Z 134, 138, C 76. 

TTpoariyopia, Z 23. 

irpoffieo-dat., Z 160. TaTreti/axms, Z 139. 

irpoa-Ka\ei<T0at, C 27. reiveffdai, Z 67. 

Trpos xap ". Z 189. reXaoj Xiyyos, Z 82. 

irpoffwrov, Z 25. reXerds, C 53. 

TrporpfTTTLKos, p. 52. reXoj, p. 45, Z 120, 124, C 74. 

TrpdJra Kara (puffiv, Z 122, 126. reXoi S (irfpi), p. 52. 

TTToia, Z 137. rex"?, P- 27, Z 5, 12, 13, 118, C 5. 

TTTweris, Z 23, 139. T^X^S ("^pO. P- 50. 

UvffayopiKd, p. 29. rex"^?, ^ 48. 

Tri p rexviKov, p. 23, Z 41, 42, 46, r^eo-^at (6co,ua), Z 116. 

68, 71, C 13, 15, 23, 26, 30. rt^s (Trept), P- 47, 52. 

rrpoeiS???, C 32. Ti^d, Z 23. 

Tirai as, Z 115. 

Ijta, Z 25, 56 (56), C 21. ro^os, p. 8, 22, 23, 42, 45, 51, Z 33, 

35, p. 110, Z 91, 103, C 24, 42, 76. 

T07TOJ, Z 69. 

fff\r,i>T], Z 73, C 32. rpipwv, Z 194. 

(n/Mfi wc (Trepi), p. 29. rpiMfpi??, Z 1. 

OOTTO S, p. 45, C 74. Tpiroyevfia, Z 1. 

o-oXoua feij , Z 31. rpoTrwv (Trept), p. 50. 

ao^uTjUara, Z 6. riryxdj/oj/ra, Z 23. 
ffrxpov (jrept roG TOJ cr. <roipt(7Tei etf), ryTrwcrtj, p. 34, Z 7. 

p. 53. 

o-7Tf>a, Z 106, 107, C 24. I/XT;, Z 35, 49, 50, 51. 

o-Troi Scuoy, Z 148159. vp.eva.iov (irepi), p. 51 

crrcm/cd, Z 4. i-Tra/coiW, Z 29. 

ar^X7;y (irfpi), C 113. Tweptwi , Z 115. 

tm xoi, Z 166. virWeffi s, Z 25. 

o-rofi? (Trept), p. 53. uTrofleri/rds T67ros, p. 47, C 92. 

oroixf a, Z 3, 35. i-TrcvxepeT^oiJ, Z 134. 

ffT-parT^ytKos, Z 148. vTroTriirTeiv, Z 23. 

ffrpoyyvXos, Z 32. L-Troo-rdtf/xij, Z 114. 
( vis, p. 34, Z 15, lit, 33, iV C 44. 

123, 139, 158. 

<n-7x i <, Z 51. (paivofj.ei a ffufrw, C 27. 

ffv\\r)<j>8eis, Z 106. ^a/c^, Z 156. 

avupfpyKos, Z 24. (pavraaia, p. 24, 38, Z 7, 8, 33, 123, 
avp.ira.8eLa. p,epuv, Z 58. 158, C 3. 

o-v^iroffiov (irepi), p. 47, 53. - /caToX^TrriK??, p. 8, 9, 24, Z 

avp.<ptpov, p. 45, C 77. 10, 11. 

ffwairTiKj,, Z 40. <pdi>Ta.(r/j.a, Z 23. 

cri j/eKTiKTy, Z 40. (pavraffriKov , Z 160. 

ffvveffruTuv, Z 67. </>auXos, Z 148, 154. 

0-iWx"> Z 96. ^epaetfiovn, C 56. 

ffWLVTOpelv, C 11. <t>6ovepias (irfpi), p. 47, 52. 


wi rou Koa/Aov, L 50. %O.\KOV (ft pi), p. 53, C 112. 

i, /. 103. X&n, Z 112, 113. 

/x;, p. 47, 53. X<*/* T <* (<** ) P- 47, 52, C 9799. 

t, X 200. x < fy /ri 7 " tfap/or, C 4. 

t/X 149. X/*"> P- 81, Z 194. 

f, C 23. XP*"*" ^ ir< / >t )i ! 53. 

i, |). 40, X 128, 142, 143. x/"*/"" "^ . c ;w - 

(^v/c^Xtot), X 71, 110. x/*>"" (" P 1 ). P- 50- 

t, p. 35, C 21. X/"". 2 70. 
t, p. 15, 10, 45, X 134, 150. x/ WMOTa, X 78. 

/. 155. X^P*! Z 69. 

(, z 39, p. 110. 

divatwi (, p. 28. ^aXoi, C 49. 

QvatKfo, X 2. t/ i/Xi?, Z 43, 56(60), 8396, C 36- 

^Jrn, p. 14, X 43, 45, 46, C 51, r. 45. 

6fM\oyla and /rard. roC Kofffwv, C 14, 21. 

(KOtPT^, C 73. 

0iW, X 106. wjav, Z 56(99). 

<t,uvouv, X 98. u)^Xi/)t, Z 190, C 75, 77. 
77, X 99, 100, p. 220. 



Cambria (je 


The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English 

Version, with the Text revised by a Collation of its F.arly and other 
Principal Editions, the Use of the Italic Type made uniform, the Mar 
ginal References remodelled, and a Critical Introduction, by .r. II. A. 
SCRIVENER, M.A., LL.D. Crown 4 . ,., cloth gilt, 2;;. 

THE STUDENT S EDITION of the above, on ,^W writing paper, with one 
column of print and wide margin to each page for MS. notes. Two Voli. 
Crown 4*.o., cloth, gilt, 3 IT. W. 

The Lectionary Bible, with Apocrypha, divided into Sections 
adapted to the Calendar and Tab!es of I,essons of 1871. Cr. 8vo. y. f>d. 

The Old Testament in Greek according to the Jvdited 

by the Rev. Professor H. Ii. SWKTE, D.L>. Vol. I. Genefcis IV Kin?-.. 8vo. ;;. oV. Vol.11. I Chronicles Tobit. \_:, early ready. 

The Book of Psalms in Greek according to the Septuagint. Being 

a por.ior. of Vol. II. of above. Crown fcvo. 2:. CV. 

The Book of Ecclesiastes. Large Pap-ir Edition. By the \ ery 
Rev. E. H. PLVMKrfcE, Dean of V. e".s. Derr.y >vo. 7:. ^. 

Breviarium ad usuin insignis Ecclesiae Sarum. J;/.ta Kd!t;onern 
maximam pro CLAVDIO CHEVA;.I.O.V e*. FiA. . cr- .o P.KO. AV;/I A.JJ. 
MDXXXI. in Alma Pariiior-m Acs, ;err.:.a irr.p. tviarci : ^./ J : -. zr, t .tidio 

FASCICVLVS I. In c-o KA:.LNJ>Air.:vif, e*. Oi-:xj TEK 
sive Pho?Ki"M i/E TEMKJJ-.E TO7IVS A. . -I, -;r.a cum or ;;r..&:; >.u 
usitato vocabulo dicitur PICA i. VE D:i..c";oi.:vw .SA^EJT. X/ ; VJ/. 
8vo. i *. . 

FASCICULUS II. In cao con:;E.irir PSALTEZJVM, cum orcJr_ar: o Off.cii 
to:iii5 hebcomada.e jua:a Hora.; Ca ^^i ^a.;, et p. OT-rio Cor/.j^.e .OT;. , 
ET xi:i Miss:;, ice. ccc. De=:v v.. 12.-. 

FASCICULUS III. In quo cor.:_ evir PiOJ-i- UM .SA-VC . OxUM quv: e*. 
>ar.:-.:re cirinr. :ir_2 cu=: A^"t."V_ari ,. I^e.v.v *vo. i-.:. 

FASCICCLI I. II. III. complete /2. ::. 

Breviarium Romanum a F?.AN ,:- ,o CA?.L-:VAL: Qv/o:>">. . io edffurn 

Tor-iAN. -L V~IC>;HAK Lz> ;-. L>fiLv -/-.. n.-. 

The Pointed Prayer Book, being the B->jk of Cornruon Prayer 
vr;:;: -_Le Psal:er or Ps.=lns of I/avii, poiz.*,fcd .i *_i.7 a^t t.o :>t t .r.^ >r 

s.i:i iz: Chu.ries. Roval 74Jto. :. 

The same in square 32i^o. clci, 6i. 

The Cambridge P=aiter. for the use of Choirs ar.d Organists. S;x;- 

L:nd:n : Carr^r-^f rf ante-uze, A .t Jifarii 

The Paragraph Psalter, arranged for the use of Choirs by the 
Right Rev. B. F. WESTCOTT, D.D., Lord Bp. of Durham. Fcp. 4to. 5*. 

The same in royal 32mo. Cloth, is. Leather, is. 6d. 

Psalms of the Pharisees, commonly known as the Psalms of 
Solomon, by H.E.RvLE, M.A. and M.R. JAMES, M.A. Demy 8vo. 15*. 

The Authorised Edition of the English Bible (1611), its Sub 
sequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. By F. H. A. SCRIVENER, 
M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. Crown 8vo. yj. 6d. 

The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the 

Text followed in the Authorised Version, together with the Variations 
adopted in the Revised Version. Edited by F. H. A. SCRIVENER, M.A., 
D.C.L., LL.D. Small Crown 8vo. 6*. 

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 
8vo. iis. 6d. ( The Revised Version is the joint Property oj the Universities 
of Cambridge and Oxford. ) 

Greek and English Testament, in parallel columns on the same 
page. Edited by J. SCHOLEFIELD, M.A. New Edition, with the marginal 
references as arranged and revised by DR SCRIVENER. 7.?. 6d. 

Greek and English Testament. THE STUDENT S EDITION of the 

above on large -writing paper. 410. us. 

Greek Testament, ex editione Stephani tertia, 1550. Sm. 8vo. 35. 6d. 

The Four Gospels in Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions. 
By Rev. Prof. SKEA.T, Litt.D. One Volume. Demy Quarto. 30*. 

Each Gospel separately. IO.T. 

The Missing Fragment of the Latin Translation of the Fourth 

Book of Ezra, discovered and edited with Introduction, Notes, and 
facsimile of the MS., by Prof. BENSLT, M.A. Demy 4(0. IO.T. 

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 ROBERT L. BENSLY. 
Demy 8vo. $s. 

Codex S. Ceaddae Latinus. Evangelia 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. 410. i. is. 

The Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament. By 

J. R. HARRIS, M.A. With 3 plates. Demy 410. IDJ. 6</. 

Notitia Codicis Quattuor Evangeliorum Graeci membranacei viris 
doctis hucusque incogniti quern in museo suo asservat Eduardus Reuss 
Argentoratensis. is. 

London : Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 


Theodore of Mopsuestia s Commentary on the Minor Epistles of 

?;< au1 - ,T e Latin Version with the Greek Fragments, edited from the 
5b. with Notes and an Introduction, by H. B. SWETE, D.D. Vol. I. 
containing the Introduction, and the Commentary upon Galatians Colos- 
sians. Demy Octavo, its. 

Volume II., containing the Commentary on i Thessalonians Philemon, 

Appendices and Indices. 12s. 

Chagigah from the Babylonian Talmud. A Translation of the 
Treatise with Notes, etc. by A. W. STRKANE, M.A. Demy Svo. ios. 

The Greek Liturgies. Chiefly from original Authorities. By C A. 
SWAINSON, D.D., late Master of Christ s College. Cr. 4 to. i 5 s. 

Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, comprising Pirqe Aboth and 
Pereq R. Meir in Hebrew and English, with Critical Notes. By C. 
TAYLOR, D.D., Master of St John s College, ios. 

Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdunensis libros quinque adversus 
Hsereses, edidit W. WIGAN HARVEY, S.T.B. Collegii Regalis olim 
Socius. 2 Vols. Demy Octavo. i8.r. 

The Palestinian Mishna. BY W. H. LOWE, M.A. Royal Svo. 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. Svo. fs. 6d. 

Theophili Episcopi Antiochensis Libri Tres ad Autolycum. Edidit 

Prolegomenis Versione Notulis Indicibus instruxit GULIELMUS GILSON 
HUMPHRY, S.T.B. Post Octavo. $s. 

Theophylacti in Evangelium S. Matthsei Commentarius, Edited 
by W. G. HUMPHRY, B.D. Demy Octavo. 7*. 6d. 

Tertullianus de Corona Militis, de Spectaculis, de Idololatria 

with Analysis and English Notes, by G. CURREY, D.D. Crown Svo. $s. 
Fragments of Philo and Josephus. Newly edited by J. RENDEL 

HARRIS, M.A. With two Facsimiles. Demy 410. \-is.6d. 
The Teaching of the Apostles. Newly edited, with Facsimile Text 

and Commentary, by J. R. HARRIS, M.A. Demy 4 to. iis. 
The Rest of the Words of Baruch : A Christian Apocalypse of 

the year 136 A.D. The Text revised with an Introduction by T. RENDEL 

HARRIS, M.A. Royal 8vo. w. 

The Acts of the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas; the ori 
ginal Greek Text now first edited from a MS. in the Library of the 
Convent of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, by J. RENDEL HARRIS and 
SETH K. GIFFORD. Royal 8vo. $s. 

Biblical Fragments from Mount Sinai, edited by J. RENDEL 

HARRIS, M.A. Demy 410. io.r. 6</. 
The Diatessaron of Tatian. By J. RENDEL HARRIS, M.A. Royal 

8vo. zs. 

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 



Works of Isaac Barrow, compared with the original MSS. A 
new Edition, by A. NAPIER, M.A. 9 Vols. Demy 8vo. ^3. 3*- 

Treatise of the Pope s Supremacy, and a Discourse concerning 
the Unity of the Church, by I. BARROW. Demy 8vo. 7*. 6</. 

Pearson s Exposition of the Creed, edited by TEMPLE CHEVAL- 
LIER, B.D. 3rd Edition revised by R. SINKER, D.D. Demy 8vo. m. 

An Analysis of the Exposition of the Creed, written by the Right 
Rev. Father in God, JOHN PEARSON, D.D. Compiled by \V. H. MILL, 
D.D. Demy Octavo. 5.1. 

Wheatly on the Common Prayer, edited by G. E. CORRIE, D.D. 

late Master of Jesus College. Demy Octavo, is. 6d. 
The Homilies, with Various Readings, and the Quotations from 
the Fathers given at length in the Original Languages. Edited by 
G. E. CORRIE, D.D. late Master of Jesus College. Demy 8vo. jj. 6d. 

Two Forms of Prayer of the time oi Queen Elizabeth. Now First 

Reprinted. Demy Octavo. 6d. 

Select Discourses, by JOHN SMITH, late Fellow of Queens, Col 
lege, Cambridge. Edited by H. G. WILLIAMS, B.D. late Professor of 
Arabic. Royal Octavo. 7^. 6d. 

De Obligatione Conscientiae Prselectiones decem Oxonii in Schola 
Theologica habitse a ROBERTO SANDERSON, SS. Theologian ibidem 
Professore Regio. With English Notes, including an abridged Transla 
tion, by W. WHEWELL, D.D. Demy 8vo. 7*. 6d. 

Csesar Morgan s Investigation of the Trinity of Plato, and of Philo 
Judseus. and Ed., revised by H. A. HOLDEN, LL.D. Cr. 8vo. 4*. 

Archbishop Usher s Answer to a Jesuit, with other Tracts on 

Popery. Edited by J. SCHOLEFIELD, M.A. Demy Svo. "js. 6J. 

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 Svo. 5*. 

Lectures on Divinity delivered in the University of Cambridge. 
By JOHN HEY, D.D. Third Edition, by T. TURTON, D.D. late Lord 
Bishop of Ely. 2 vols. Demy Octavo. 15*. 

S. Austin and his place in the History of Christian Thought. 

Being the Hulsean Lectures for 1885. By W. CUNNINGHAM, D.D. 

Demy Svo. Buckram, \is. 6d. 
Christ the Life of Men. Being the Hulsean Lectures for 1888. 

By Rev. II. M. STEPHENSON, M.A. Crown Svo. is. 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 Svo. y. 6d. 

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 



(See also pp. 16, 17.) 

Sophocles : the Plays and Fragments. With Critical Notes, Com 
mentary, ami Translation in English Prose, by R. C. JEBB, Litt. D., 
LL.D., Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge. 
Parti. Oedipus Tyrannus. Demy Svo. Second Edit, 
Part II. Oedipus Coloneus. Demy Svo. Second Edit, \2s.6d. 
Part III. Antigone. Demy Svo. Second Edit, \is.6d. 
Part IV. Philoctetes. Demy Svo. 1 is. 6d. 
Select Private Orations of Demosthenes with Introductions and 

English Notes, by F. A. PALEY, M.A., & J. E. SANDYS, Litt.D. 
Part I. Contra Phormionem, Lacritum, Pantaenetum, Boeotum de No 
mine, de Dote, Dionysodorum. Cr. Svo. A T ew Edition. 6s. 
Part II. Pro Phormione, Contra Stephanum I. II.; Nicostratum, Cono- 
nem, Calliclem. Crown Svo. A r ew Edition, js. Gd. 

Demosthenes, Speech of, against the Law of Leptines. With 

Introduction and Critical and Explanatory Notes, by J. E. SANDYS, 
Litt.D. Demy Svo. ys. 

Demosthenes against Androtion and against Timocrates, with 

Introductions and English Commentary by WILLIAM WAYTE, M.A. 
Crown Svo. js. 6d. 

Euripides. Bacchae, with Introduction, Critical Notes, and Archae 
ological Illustrations, by J. E. SANDYS, Litt.D. New Edition, with 
additional Illustrations. Crown Svo. iis. 6d. 

Euripides. Ion. The Greek Text with a Translation into English 
Verse, Introduction and Notes by A. W. VERRALL, Litt.D. Demy Svo. 
js. 6d. 

An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy. Part I. The Archaic In 
scriptions and the Greek Alphabet. By E. S. ROBERTS, M.A., Fellow 
and Tutor of Gonville and Caius College. Demy Svo. i8s. 

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 F. A. PALEY, M.A., LL.D. Demy 

Svo. -js. 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. KENNEDY, D.D. Crown Svo. 6s. 

The Thesetetus of Plato, with a Translation and Notes by the 

same Editor. Crown Svo. 7^. 6d. 

P. Vergili Maronis Opera, cum Prolegomenis et Commentario 
Critico pro Syndicis Preli Academici edidit BENJAMIN HALL KENNEDY, 
S.T.P. Extra fcp. Svo. 35. 6d. 

Essays on the Art of Pheidias. By C. WALDSTEIN, Litt.D., Phil.D. 

Royal Svo. With Illustrations. Buckram, 30^. 
M. Tulli Ciceronis ad M. Brutum Orator. A Revised Text. 

Edited with Introductory Essays and Critical and Explanatory Notes, 

by J. E. SANDYS, Litt.D. Demy Svo. i6s. 

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 


M. Tulli Ciceronis pro C. Rabirio [Perduellionis Reo] Oratio ad 

Quirites. With Notes, Introduction and Appendices. By W. E. HEIT- 

LANU, M.A. Demy 8vo. "js. 6<J. 
M. T. Ciceronis de Natura Deorum Libri Tres, with Introduction 

and Commentary by J< <SEPH B. MAYOR, M.A. Demy 8vo. Vol. I. los. dd. 

Vol. II. n s. 6d. Vol. III. los. 

M. T. Ciceronis de Offlciis Libri Tres with Marginal Analysis, an 
English Commentary, and Indices. New Edition, revised, by H. A. 
HOLDEN, LL.D., Crown 8vo. QJ. 

M. T. Ciceronis de Officiis Libri Tertius, with Introduction, 

Analysis and Commentary by H. A. HOLDEN, LL.D. Cr. 8vo. is. 

M. T. Ciceronis de Finibus Bonorum libri Quinque. The Text 

revised and explained by J. S. REID, Litt.D. [In the Press. 

Vol. III., containing the Translation. Demy 8vo. 8j. 

Plato s Phsedo, literally translated, by the late E. M. COPE, Fellow 
of Trinity College, Cambridge. Demy Octavo. t,s. 

Aristotle. The Rhetoric. With a Commentary by the late 
E. M. COPE, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, revised and 
edited by J. E. SANDYS, Litt.D. 3 Vols. Demy 8vo. 21*. 

Aristotle. IIEPI ^YXH2. Aristotle s Psychology, in Greek and 
English, with Introduction and Notes, by E.WALLACE, M.A. DemySvo. i8j. 

IIEPI AIKAIO2YNH2. 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. 6.r. 

Pindar. Olympian and Pythian Odes. With Notes Explanatory 
and Critical, Introductions and Introductory Essays. Edited by C. A. M. 
FENNELL, Litt. D. Crown 8vo. 9*. 

The Isthmian and Nemean Odes by the same Editor, gs. 

The Types of Greek Coins. By PERCY GARDNER, Litt.D., F.S.A. 

With 16 plates. Impl. 4to. Cloth ji. us. 6d. Roxburgh (Morocco 
back) 1. -2S. 


Lectures on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages 

from the Papers of the late WILLIAM WRIGHT, LL.D. DemySvo. 14*. 
The Divyavadana, a Collection of Early Buddhist Legends, now 
first edited from the Nepalese Sanskrit MSS. in Cambridge and Paris. 
By E. B. COWELL, M.A. and R. A. NEIL, M.A. Demy 8vo. i8j. 

Nalopakhyanam, or, The Tale of Nala; containing the Sanskrit 
Text in Roman Characters, with Vocabulary. By the late Rev. T. 
JARRETT, M.A. Demy 8vo. los. 

Notes on the Tale of Nala, for the use of Classical Students, by 
J. PEILE, Litt.D., Master of Christ s College. DemySvo. iis. 

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 


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. 25^. 

The Poems of Beha ed dm 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. los. 6</. 

Vol.11. ENGLISH TRANSLATION. Paper covers. :os. 6rf. 

The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite edited in Syriac, with an 

English translation and notes, by W. WRIGHT, LL.D. Demy 8vo. los. 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. 7^. 6d. 

Makala-i-Shakhsi Sayyah ki dar Kaziyya-i-Bab 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. 


Mathematical and Physical Papers. By Sir G. G. STOKES, Sc.D., 

LL.D. Reprinted from the Original Journals and Transactions, with 
additional Notes by the Author. Vol.1. DemySvo. 15^. Vol. II. 155. 

[Vol. III. In the Press. 

Mathematical and Physical Papers. By Sir W. THOMSON, LL.D., 

F.R.S. Collected from different Scientific Periodicals from May, 1841, 
to the present time. Vol.1. DemySvo. iSs. Vol.11. 15.?. Vol. III. i8.r. 

The Collected Mathematical Papers of ARTHUR CAYLEY, Sc.D., 

F.R.S. Demy 410. 10 vols. 

Vols. I., II. and III. 1 5 s. each. [Vol. IV. In 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 Strength 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. 2^ j. 
Vol. II. By the same Editor. [In Ike Press. 

The Elastical Researches of Barre de Saint-Venant (extract from 

Vol. II. of TODHUNTER S History of the Theory of Elasticity), edited by 
Professor KARL PEARSON, M.A. Demy 8vo. 9.?. 

Theory of Differential Equations. Part I. Exact Equations and 
Pfaff s Problem. By A. R. FORSYTII, Sc.D., F.R.S. Demy 8vo. iis. 

A Treatise on the General Principles of Chemistry, by M. M. 

PATTISON MUIR, M.A. Second Edition. DemySvo. i$s. 
Elementary Chemistry. By M. M. PATTISON MUIR, M.A., and 

CHARLES SLATER, M.A., M.B. Crown 8vo. 4^. 6d. 
Practical Chemistry. A Course of Laboratory Work. By M. M. 

PATTISON MUIR, M.A., and D. J. CARNEGIE, M.A. Cr. 8vo. 3J-. 


A Treatise on Geometrical Optics. By R. S. HEATH, M.A 

Demy 8vo. us. 6d. 

An Elementary Treatise on Geometrical Optics. By R. S. HEATH 

M.A. Crown 8vo. $s. 

A Treatise on Dynamics. By S. L. LONEY, M.A. Cr. Svo. "js. 6d 
A Treatise on Analytical Statics. By E. J. ROUTH, Sc.D., F.R.S 

[Nearly ready 

A Treatise on Plane Trigonometry. By E. W. HOBSON, M.A 

Demy Svo. [Nearly ready 

Lectures on the Physiology of Plants, by S. H. VINES, Sc.D. 

Professor of Botany in the University of Oxford. Demy Svo. iis. 

A Short History of Greek Mathematics. By J. Gow, Litt. D. 

Fellow of Trinity College. Demy Svo. ios.6d. 

Notes on Qualitative Analysis. Concise and Explanatory. B^ 

H. J. H. FENTON, M.A., F.C.S. New Edit. Crown 4 to. 6s. 
Diophantos of Alexandria; a Study in the History of Greel 

Algebra. By T. L. HEATH, M.A. Demy Svo. ;j. 6</. 

A Catalogue of the Portsmouth Collection of Books and Paper: 
written by or belonging to SIR ISAAC NEWTON. Demy Svo. 55. 

A Treatise on Natural Philosophy. By Prof. Sir W. THOMSON 
LL.D., and P. G. TAIT, M.A. Part I. Demy Svo. i6s. Part II. iSj 

Elements of Natural Philosophy. By Professors Sir W. THOMSON 
and P. G. TAIT. Second Edition. Demy Svo. 9.1. 

An Elementary Treatise on Quaternions. By P. G. TAIT, M.A 

Second Edition. Demy Svo. 14 s. 

A Treatise on the Theory of Determinants and their Application: 

m Analysis and Geometry. By R. F. SCOTT, M.A. Demy Svo. iis. 

Counterpoint. A practical course of study. By the late Pro! 

Sir G. A. MACFARREN, Mus. D. sth Edition, revised. Cr. 4 to. 7*. 6<, 
The Analytical Theory of Heat. By JOSEPH FOURIER. Translate! 

with Notes, by A. FREEMAN, M.A. Demy Svo. I2J. 

The Scientific Papers of the late Prof. J. Clerk Maxwell. Editec 

by W. D. NIVEN, M.A. 2 vols. Royal 4 to. ,3. 3^. (net.) 

The Electrical Researches of the Honourable Henry Cavendish 

F.R.S. Written between 1771 and 1781. Edited by J. CLERK MAX 
WELL, F.R.S. Demy Svo. i8s. 

Practical Work at the Cavendish Laboratory. Heat. Edited fr 

W. N. SHAW, M.A. Demy Svo. y. 

Hydrodynamics, a Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Fluk 
Motion, by HORACE LAMB, M.A. Demy Svo. iis. 

The Mathematical Works of Isaac Barrow, D.D. Edited b 
W. WHEWELL, D.D. Demy Octavo. 71. 6d. 

Illustrations of Comparative Anatomy, Vertebrate and Inverte 

brate. Second Edition. Demy Svo. is. 6d. 

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 


A Catalogue of Australian Fossils. By R. ETHERIDGE, Jun., F.G.S. 

Demy 8vo. los. 6d. 

The Fossils and Palaeontplogical Affinities of the Neocomian Deposits 

of Upware and Brickhill, being the Seclgwick Prize Essay for 1879. By 
W. KEEPING, M.A. Demy 8vo. los. 6d. 

The Bala Volcanic Series of Caernarvonshire and Associated Rocks. 
being the Sedgwick Prize Essay for 1888, by A. MARKER, M.A., F.R.S. 
Demy 8vo. - t s. 6d. 

A Catalogue of Books and Papers on Protozoa, Coelenterates. 

Worms, etc. published during the years 1861-1883, by D ARCY W. 
THOMPSON, M.A. Demy 8vo. us. 6d. 

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. 12.?. 

An attempt to test the Theories of Capillary Action, by F. 

BASHFORTH, B.D., and J. C. ADAMS, M.A. Demy 4 to. i. is. 
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. 7-r. 6d. 

Catalogue of Osteological Specimens contained in the Anatomical 

Museum of the University of Cambridge. Demy 8vo. 2.r. 6d. 

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. XXL Royal 

4 to., J5-S-. From 1866 to 1869. Vol. xxn. its. 


Elements of the Law of Torts. A Text-book for Students. By 
MELVILLE M. BIGKLOW, Ph.D. Crown 8vo. ios. 6d. 

A Selection of Cases on the English Law of Contract. By 

GERARD BROWN FINCH, M.A. Royal 8vo. 28.?. 

Bracton s Note Book. A Collection of Cases decided in the King s 
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. $. &. (net.) 

Tables shewing the Differences between English and Indian Law. 
By Sir ROLAND KNYVET WILSON, Bart., M.A., LL.M. Demy 410. is. 

The Influence of the Roman Law on the Law of England. 

Being the Yorke Prize Essay for the year 1884. By T. E. SCRUTTON, 
M.A. Demy 8vo. los. 6d. 

Land in Fetters. Being the Yorke Prize Essay for 1885. By 

T. E. SCRUTTON, M.A. Demy 8vo. 7*. 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. SCRUTTON, M.A. Demy 8vo. IQJ. 6d. 
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. 


History of Land Tenure in Ireland. Being the Yorke Prize Essay 

for 1888. By W. E. MONTGOMERY, M.A., LL.M. Demy 8vo. IQJ. 6J 

History of Equity as administered in the Court of Chancery. Being 

the Yorke Prize Essay for 1880. By U. M KENZIE K.ERLY, M.A., St John s 
College. Demy 8vo. 1 2 s. 6a. 

An Introduction to the Study of Justinian s Digest. By HENR\ 

JOHN ROBY. Demy 8vo. ()s. 
Justinian s Digest. Lib. VII., Tit. I. De Usufructu, with a Legal 

and Philological Commentary by H. J. ROBY. Demy 8vo. gs. 
The Two Parts complete in One Volume. Demy 8vo. i8j. 

A Selection of the State Trials. By J. W. WILLIS-BUND, M.A., 

LL.B. Crown 8vo. Vols. I. and II. In 3 parts. 30s. 

The Institutes of Justinian, translated with Notes by J. T. ABDY, 
LL.D., and BRYAN WALKER, M.A., LL.D. Cr. 8vo. i6j. 

Practical Jurisprudence. A comment on AUSTIN. By E. C. 
CLARK, LL.D., Regius Professor of Civil Law. Crown 8vo. 9*. 

An Analysis of Criminal Liability. By the same. Cr. 8vo. 75. 6d. 

The Fragments of the Perpetual Edict of Salvius Julianas, Ar 
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. ABDY, LL.D., and BRYAN WALKER, M.A., 
LL.D. New Edition by Bryan Walker. Crown 8vo. i6j. 

Grotius de Jure Belli et Pacis, with the Notes of Barbeyrac and 
others; an abridged Translation of the Text, by W. WHEWELL, D.D. 
Demy 8vo. 1 2 s. The translation separate, 6s. 

Selected Titles from the Digest, by BRYAN WALKER, M.A., LL.D. 

Parti. Mandati vel Contra. Digest xvu. I. Cr. 8vo. 5^. 

Part II. De Adquirendo rerum dominio, and De Adquirenda vel 

amittenda Possessione, Digest XLI. i and i. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

Part III. De Condictionibus, Digest xn. i and 4 7 and Digest 
xni. 13. Crown 8vo. 6j. 

The Life and Letters of the Reverend Adam Sedgwick, LL.D., 

F.R.S. (Dedicated, by special permission, to Her Majesty the Queen.) By 
M.A. i vols. Demy 8vo. 36*. 

The Growth of English Industry and Commerce during the Early 
and Middle Ages. By W. CUNNINGHAM, D.D. Demy 8vo. i6s. 

The Architectural History of the University of Cambridge and 

of the Colleges of Cambridge and Eton, by the late Professor WILLIS, 
M.A., F.R.S. Edited with large Additions and a Continuation to the 
present time by J. W.CLARK, M.A. 4 Vols. Super Royal 8vo. 6. 6s. 
Also a limited Edition of the same, consisting of 1 20 numbered Copies 
only, large paper Quarto; the woodcuts and steel engravings mounted 
on India paper; of which 100 copies are now offered for sale, at Twenty- 
five Guineas net each set. 

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 


The University of Cambridge from the Earliest Times to the 

Royal Injunctions of 1535. by J. B. MULLINGER, M.A. Demy 8vo. us. 
- Part II. From the Royal Injunctions of 1535 to the Accession of Charles 
the First. Demy 8vo. i8j. 

History of the College of St John the Evangelist, by THOMAS 
BAKER, B.D., Ejected Fellow. Edited by JOHN E. B. MAYOR, M.A., 
Fellow of St John s. Two Vols. Demy 8vo. i^s. 

Scholae Academicae : some Account of the Studies at the English 
Universities in the Eighteenth Century. By CHRISTOPHER WORDS 
WORTH, M.A. Demy 8vo. IQs. 6<A 

Life and Times of Stein, or Germany and Prussia in the Napoleonic 

Age, by J. R. SEELKY, M. A. Portraits and Maps. 3 vols. Demy 8vo. 30^. 

The Constitution of Canada. By J. E. C. MUNRO, LL.M. 

Demy 8vo. IDS. 

Studies in the Literary Relations of England with Germany in 

the Sixteenth Century. By C. 11. HERFOKD, M.A. Crown 8vo. gs. 
Chronological Tables of Greek History. By CARL PETER. Trans 
lated from the German by G. CiiAWNER, M.A. Demy 410. IQS. 

Travels in Arabia Deserta in 1876 and 1877. By CHARLES 

M. DOUGHTY. With Illustrations. Demy 8vo. i vols. ^"3. 3-5-. 
History of Nepal, edited with an introductory sketch of the Country 
and People by Dr D. WRIGHT. Super-royal Svo. 105. &d. 

A Journey of Literary and Archaeological Research in Nepal and 

Northern India, 1884 5. By C. BENDALL, M.A. Demy 8vo. IQS. 

Political Parties in Athens during the Peloponnesian War, by 

L. WIIIBLEY, M.A. (Prince Consort Dissertation, 1888.) Second Edi 
tion. Crown Svo. is. 6d. 

Pope Gregory the Great and his relations with Gaul, by F. W. 

KELLETT, M.A. (Prince Consort Dissertation, 1888.) Crown Svo. is.6d. 

The Constitutional Experiments of the Commonwealth, being the 

Thirlwall Prize Essay for 1889, by E. JENKS, B.A., LL.B. Cr. Svo. is. 6d. 
On Election by Lot at Athens, by J. W. HEADLAM, B.A. (Prince 

Consort Dissertation, 1890.) Crown 8vo. [In the J^ress. 

The Destruction of the Somerset Religious Houses and its Effects. 

By W. A. J. ARCHHOLD, B.A., LL.B. (Prince Consort Dissertation, 
1890.) Crown 8vo. [In the Press. 


The Engraved Gems of Classical Times with a Catalogue of the 

Gems in the Fit/.william Museum by J. II. MIDDLETON, M.A. Royal Svo. 

us. 6d. 
Erasmus. The Rede Lecture, delivered in the Senate-House, Cam 

bridge, June it, 1890, by R. C. JEBB, Litt.D. Cloth, is. Paper Covers, is. 
The Literary remains of Albrecht Diirer, by VV. M. CONWAY. With 

Transcripts from the British Museum Manuscripts, and Notes upon them 
by LINA ECKENSTEIN. Royal Svo. 21*. 

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 Svo. i6s. 

London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 

;7. JUN 1 4197s 



B Zeno, of Citium 

626 The fragments of Zeno and 

Z21P4 Cleanthes