BOUGHT fV^ITH THE INCOME 
 FROM THE 
 
 SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 189Z 
 
 AMJ.fA'f. u/l//t^ 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 924 079 584 771 
 
PA 
 
THE FEAGMENTS 
 
 OF 
 
 ZENO AND CLEANTHES. 
 
aonfion: C. J. CLAY AND SONS, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, 
 AVE MARIA LANE. 
 
 fflmtalse: DBI6HT0N, BELL, AND CO. 
 
 Hefmig: F. A. BROCEHAUS. 
 
 iJtta Sort: MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS 
 
 OF 
 
 ZENO AND CLEANTHES 
 
 WITH INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATORY 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 AN ESSAY WHICH OBTAINED THE HARE PEIZE 
 IN THE YEAR 1889. 
 
 BY 
 
 i^' 
 
 Jf} CT PEARSON, M.A. 
 
 LATE SCHOIiAB OF OHBISl's COLLEGE, CAMBBIDGE. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 C. J. CLAY AND SONS, 
 
 CAMBBIDGE UNIVERSITY PEESS WAEEHOUSE. 
 
 1891 
 
 [All Bights reserved.] 
 
CambriSge: 
 
 PKINTED BY 0. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, 
 AT I'HE UNIVEEBITY PRESS. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 rilHIS dissertation is published in accordance with the 
 -^ conditions attached to the Hare Prize, and appears 
 nearly in its original form. For many reasons, however, 
 I should have desired to subject the work to a more 
 searching revision than has been practicable under the 
 circumstances. Indeed, error is especially difficult to 
 avoid in dealing with a large body of scattered authorities, 
 the majority of which can only be consulted in a public 
 library. 
 
 The obligations, which require to be acknowledged for 
 the present collection of the fragments of Zeno and 
 Cleanthes, are both special and general. The former are 
 soon disposed of In the Neue Jahrbucher fur Philo- 
 logie for 1873, p. 43.t 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 1874 — 1875 {Gommentationes I 
 et II de Zetione Citiensi et Cleanthe Assio). Mullaeh's 
 collection of the fragments of Cleanthes in vol. I of the 
 Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecoruvi is so inadequate 
 as hardly to deserve mention. 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 ■ Among the general aids the first place is claimed by 
 Zeller's Philosophie der Griechen, which has been con- 
 stantly consulted. The edition referred to is the Second 
 edition of the English Translation of the part dealing with 
 the Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, which appeared in 
 1880. In a few cases the fourth German edition has 
 also been quoted. Keference 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 
 Entwicklwig der Stoischen Philosophie, forming the second 
 volume of his Untersuchungen zu Cicero's Philosophischen 
 Schriften. To Hirzel belongs the credit of having vin- 
 dicated the originality of Cleanthes against ancient and 
 modem detractors, although in working out his views he 
 often argues on somewhat shadowy foundations, and has 
 unduly depreciated the importance of the contributions 
 made by Zeno. Lastly, Stein's two books die Psychologie 
 der Stoa (1886), and die Erkenntnistheorie der Stoa (1888), 
 have been of great service, and his views, where he 
 disagrees with Hirzel, have been generally adopted. Many 
 other books have of course been consulted and will be 
 found cited from time to time, among which Krische's 
 die theologischen Lehren der Griechischen Denker, and 
 Diels' Boxographi 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 Oicero have been throughout 
 treated as the primary source of information. The refer- 
 ences to Stobaeus are accommodated to Wachsmuth's 
 edition (Berlin, 1884). Susemihl'a article on the birth- 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 year of Zeno in the Nev£ Jahrhucher fur Philologie for 
 1889 appeared too late to be utilised for the introduction. 
 
 A word must be said with reference to the plan of 
 the present collection. No attempt has been made to 
 disentangle in every case the words of the writer from 
 the body of the citation in which they appear. Although 
 this is practicable in some cases, in others it is mere 
 guess-work, and a uniform system has therefore been 
 adopted. For similar reasons the fragments have been 
 arranged as far as possible in natural sequence, without 
 regard to the comparatively few cases in which we know 
 the names of the books from which they were derived. 
 However, the arrangement has been a matter of much 
 perplexity, especially in those cases where the authorities 
 overlap each other, and several modifications in the order 
 would have been introduced as the result of a larger 
 experience, were it not that each alteration throws all the 
 references into confusion. The collection was made and 
 put together practically in its present form before an 
 opportunity offered of consulting Wachsmuth's pamphlets, 
 and it was satisfactory to find that only a few of his 
 passages had been missed. On the other hand, the ad- 
 ditional matter which will be found here for the first time 
 is not large. It may, therefore, be reasonably concluded 
 that we now possess the greater portion of the material, 
 which is available for reconstructing the history of the 
 earlier Stoa. For the sake of completeness I have included 
 even those notices, whose authenticity is open to suspicion, 
 as well as a collection of the so-called Apophthegmata, 
 though it is often impossible to draw a strict line between 
 written and oral tradition. 
 
 I desire to thank Mr R. D. Hicks, Fellow of Trinity 
 College, for many valuable suggestions and criticisms. 
 
COBRIGENDA. 
 
 p. 37, 1. 13, for "he was only able" read "he alone was able". 
 ■p. 63, 1. 23, add " see however on Cleanth. frag. 114." 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 § 1. Life of Zeno. 
 
 The chronology of Zeno's life', formei'ly a subject of much 
 dispute, has been almost entirely cleared up by an important 
 passage discovered in one of the papyrus rolls found at Hercu- 
 laneum, which contains a history of the Stoic philosophers and 
 was first edited by Comparetti in 1875^. From this we learn 
 that Cleanthes was born in 331 B.c.,„and, as we know from 
 other sources' th9,t he lived to the age of 99, he must have 
 died in B.C. 232 in the archonship of Jason*. But, according 
 to the papyrus (col. 29), at the time of his death he had pre- 
 sided over the School for 32 years*, which fixes the death of 
 Zeno as having taken place in B.C. 264, thus confirming the 
 authority of Jerome, who says under the year 01. 129, 1 = b.c. 
 264, 3" "Zeno Stoicus moritur post quem Cleanthes philosophus 
 agnoscitur." Now, in Diog. Laert. vu. 28 we have two distinct 
 
 1 See Eohde in Rhein. Mus. 33, p. 622. Gomperz ib. 34, p. 154. 
 Susemihl's article in Fleckeisen's Jahrb. for 1882, vol. 125, pp. 737—746, 
 does not add anything to our knowledge of the chronology of Zeno's life. 
 
 " Col. 28, 29. Comparetti believes this book to be the work of 
 Philodemus. 
 
 3 Lucian Macrob. 19. Val. Max. viii. 7, Ext. 11. 
 
 * So too the papyrus eol. 28 (i)TrT)Wi,y(Ti iw' &pxo'''''os 'l)d<rovos. 
 
 ° Such at least is the restoration of Gomperz : Comparetti reads 
 Tpi&KovTa Kai dxTii, but admits that dvo is possible. The word after Kal 
 is illegible. 
 
 6 So Bohde states, but in Migne's ed. of Euaebius i. p. 498 the state- 
 ment appears to belong to 01. 128. 
 
 H. P. 1 
 
2 INTROBUCTION. 
 
 accounts of his age at the time of his death, the one, that of 
 Persaeus, in his ■qdiKol crxoXai, who makes him 72, and the 
 other apparently derived from ApoUonius Tyrius', declaring 
 that he lived to be 98 years old. Apart from internal con- 
 siderations, the authority of Persaeus is unquestionably the 
 higher, and reckoning backwards we are thus enabled to place 
 the birth of Zeno in the year 336 b-C." Rohde suggests that 
 the other computation may have been deduced by ApoUonius 
 Tyrius from the letter to Antigonus, now on other grounds 
 shown to be spurious, but which Diogenes unquestionably 
 extracted from ApoUonius' book on Zeno^ In this Zeno is 
 represented as speaking of himself as an octogenarian, so that 
 on the assumption that the letter was written in b.c. 282, shortly 
 after Antigonus first became king of Macedonia, and, calcu- 
 lating to the true date of Zeno's death (Ac. 264), he would 
 have been 98 years of age in the latter year^- 
 
 Zeno, the son of Mnaseas", was born at Citium, a Greek 
 city in the south-east of Cyprus, whose population had been 
 increased by Phoenician immigrants'. Whether he was of 
 pure Greek blood or not we cannot telF, 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. vii. 1. 2. 24. 28. Strabo 
 XVI. 2. 24. 
 
 " Gomperz 1. c. 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. vn. 7. 8. 
 
 * The weakness of this hypothesis lies in the fact that Antigonus 
 Gonatas did not become King of Macedon until 278 — 277 B.o., although 
 no doubt he was struggling for the crown from the time of the death of 
 his father Demetrius in b.o. 283. This is met to some extent by Rohde 
 1. c. p. 624 n. 1. 
 
 " Diog. L. vn. 1 mentions Demeas as another name given to his 
 father but elsewhere he is always Z^i/wi/ Mvauriov. 
 
 « Cimon died while besieging this place (Thuc. i. 112). 
 
 ' Stein, Psychologie der Stoa n. 3 sums up, without deciding, in 
 favour of a Phoenician origin. So also Ogereau p. 4 whereas Heinze 
 thinks that everything points the other way (Bursian's Jahresbericht 
 vol. 50, p. 53). 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 Oriental complexion to his tone, of mind, and affected the 
 character of his literary style, so that the epithet "Phoenician," 
 afterwards scornfully cast in his teeth by his opponents^, is 
 in any case not altogether unwarranted. 
 
 Again following the authority of Persaeus (Diog. L. l.c.)*, 
 we may conclude that he arrived at Athens at the age of 22, 
 but as to the cause which brought him thither we are dif- 
 ferently informed, and it is uncertain whether he came for the 
 express purpose of studying philosophy^, or in furtherance of 
 some mercantile enterprise^ There is however a consensus of 
 testimony to the effect that he suflFered shipwreck on his 
 voyage to Athens, a misfortune which he afterwards learnt to 
 bless as it had driven him to philosophy". The story of his 
 iirst meeting with Crates is characteristic": Zeno, who had 
 recently arrived at Athens, -one day sat down by a bookseller's 
 stall and became engrossed in listening to the perusal of the 
 second book of Xenophon's Memorabilia. Suddenly he en- 
 quired of the bookseller where such men as Socrates were to 
 be found. At that moment Crates happened to pass down 
 the street, and Zeno, acting on a hint from the bookseller, 
 from that time attached himself to the Cynic teacher. 
 
 It is impossible to reconcile the dates, which we have 
 taken as correct, with the remaining indications of time, 
 which are scattered through the pages of Diogenes. Thus we 
 are told that Zeno was a pupil of Stilpo and Xenocrates for 
 ten years, that the whole time spent under the tuition of 
 Crates, Stilpo, Xenocrates and Polemo was twenty years, and 
 that Zeno presided over the School, which he himself founded, 
 for fifty-eight years ^ This last is the statement of ApoUonius, 
 
 1 So ^mxldiop Crates ap. Diog. L. vii. 3. Cf. Cio. de Fin. iv. 56 et saep. 
 
 2 Another aooouut gives his age as thirty (Diog. L. vii. 2). 
 ' Diog. L. VII. 32. 
 
 ' Diog. L. VII. 3. 
 
 ° See Zeno apoph. 3, and the notes. 
 
 " Diog. L. VII. 3. 
 
 7 Diog. L. VII. 2. 4. 28. The other tradition is traced by Bohde to 
 Apollodorus known as 6 rois xpovovs dvaypayj/ai. Evidence of his having 
 dealt with Zeno's chronology will be found in Philod. irepi <l>i\oir6<p<i»> 
 
 1—2 
 
4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and must be taken in connection with his opinion that Zeno 
 lived till he was -98 years of age. Probably, ApoUonius 
 adopted the tradition that Zeno came to Athens at the age of 
 thirty, and allowed ten years for the period of tuition. He 
 must have assigned B.C. 322 as the date of the foundation of 
 the Stoa, which is obviously far too early. According to the 
 chronology adopted above, Zeno came to Athens about B.C. 314, 
 and, if so, he cannot have been a pupil of Xenocrates, who 
 died in that year. All that can be said with any approach to 
 certainty is that after a somewhat extended period of study 
 under Crates, Stilpo, and Polemo, Zeno at length, probably 
 soon after 300 B.C. ', began to take pupils on his own account, 
 without attaching himself to any of the then existing philo- 
 sophical schools. These pupils were at first called Zenonians, 
 but when their master held his lectures in the Stoa Poikile, 
 they adopted the name of Stoics which they afterwards 
 retained^. 
 
 Though not yet rivalling the Peripatetic school in respect 
 of the number of its followers', the Stoic philosophy steadily 
 won its way into general esteem no less by the personal influ- 
 ence of its founder than through the fervour of its adherents. 
 So great, indeed, was the respect which the character of Zeno 
 inspired at Athens, that shortly before his death ^ a decree 
 
 ool. XI. (Here. vol. eoU. prior vol. viii.) For Zeno's teachers of. Nume- 
 niua ap. Euseb. P. E. xiv. 5, p. 729 IloXf/iCiii/os Si iyivofTo yinbpifjuu. 
 'ApKeaCkaoi Kol 7ii)V<av...Zi)i'ava ixh oty /U/iviiiJ.ai eliriiv SevoKparei flra Si 
 JloKiiunvL <l>oiTr)<rai., aiSis Si irapa Kparriri Kwlaai. vvvl Si auTip XeKoyiaSia, 
 Sti' KoX STiXjrw</6s re fierkax'^t koI rSiv yjrjov ruiv 'HpaftXeiTeiwp. iirA ykp 
 aviiipOiTCiVTes irapa Tlo^i/iuvi i^iXonff^Bijaav dXXijXois (rvii.irape\a^ov els tV 
 irpSs dXXiJXous paxVt 4 I'^v ''Rpi.KKenov KOl STiXTrui/a aim xal Kparrira, uv 
 iwb fiiv SriXirwi/os ^7li'eT0 /iOX'JTTJs, iri Si 'HpaK\elTOV aua-TT/pSs, kvvikos Si 
 iiTb KpaTrjTos. 
 
 ' According to Sext. Emp. adv. Math. vii. 321, Zeno was a irpeapHTris 
 when he Trpoaeiiaprv^vev iavrif riiv elipeatv t^s iXijdeias. 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 Stoicns philosophus agnoscitur." 
 
 ' Diog. L. VII. 5. 
 
 ^ Zeno apoph. 6. 
 
 * The decree was carried in the archonship of Arrhenides, i. e. Nov. 
 265 B.C., if Arrhenides was archon 265 — 264 as seems to be Gomperz's 
 opinion, vid. supr. p. 2, n. 2. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 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. vii. 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, h'e steadily refused the offer of 
 their citizenship^, and on one occasion, when holding an 
 official position, insisted on being described as a citizen of 
 Citium^ This devotion to his native town, whether a genuine 
 sentiment of the heart or assumed in order to avow his con- 
 viction of the worthlessness of all civic distinctions, seems to 
 have been appreciated by his countrymen, who erected his 
 statue' in their market-place, where it was afterwards seen 
 by the elder Pliny*. 
 
 In the later years of his life, Zeno's fame extended beyond 
 the limits of Athenian territory; there is ample record of his 
 intimacy with Antigonus Gonatas', the son of Demetrius 
 Poliorcetes and king of Macedon, and from one anecdote we 
 learn that he had attracted the attention of Ptolemy Phila- 
 delphus^ Now that Athens had completely lost her freedom, 
 she became a hotbed of political intrigue in the interests of 
 the various successive pretenders to the Macedonian throne; 
 some beguiled her with the promise of liberty', but by far the 
 most potent instrument to gain her favour was gold. Thus, 
 while the internal politics of Athens had become of purely 
 municipal interest, the greatest services to which Demochares, 
 the nephew of Demosthenes, could lay claim as meriting the 
 gratitude of the Athenians were the substantial money presents 
 
 1 Plut. Sto. Eep. i, 1. 
 
 ^ Diog. L. VII. I"2. 
 
 ' Diog. L. vir. 6. 
 
 * H. N. XXXIV. 19. 32. 
 
 ° See Zeno apoph. 25 and 26. 
 
 ^ See note on apoph. 25. 
 
 ' So Demetrius PoUoroetes : Grote vol. xii. p. 196. 
 
6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 which he had obtained for the treasury from Lysimachus, 
 Ptolemy, and Antipater'. We cannot be surprised that, in 
 such a period as this, Ptolemy and Antigonus, hoping to gain 
 him over by personal condescension and munificent liberality, 
 should have eagerly courted the adherence of one, whose influ- 
 ence like that of Zeno extended over a wide circle among the 
 youth of Athens. It seems clear however that, in general, Zeno 
 avoided politics altogether °; and, although it may be doubtful 
 whether his friendship for Antigonus may not have induced 
 Zeno to espouse his political cause, we can at least be sure that 
 the presents of the king were not accepted as bribes by the Stoic 
 philosopher. If Zeno died in B.C. 264, he cannot have lived to 
 see the conclusion of the so-called Chremonidean war, when 
 Athens was besieged by Antigonus and defended by the joint 
 efforts of Ptolemy and the Spartans, and it is impossible to say 
 on which side his sympathies were enlisted, although he is said 
 to have been a lover of Chremonides'. 
 
 In voluntarily hastening his own end, Zeno only illustrated 
 the teaching of his school. One day, on leaving the Stoa, he 
 stumbled and fell, breaking one of his fingers in his fall. 
 Regarding this as a warning of Providence, which it was 
 folly to neglect, and convinced that the right course for a 
 wise man is willingly to assist in carrying out the decrees of 
 destiny, he returned home and at once committed suicide''. 
 
 His personal appearance was evidently not attractive. 
 Timotheus', in his work irepi /3i<uv, described him as wrynecked, 
 while ApoUonius called him lean, rather tall, and of a dark 
 complexion", with thick calves, flabby flesh, and a weak 
 
 ' See Grote vol. xn. p. 214. 
 
 2 Cf. Seneca de Tranq. An. i. 7 Zeuonem Cleanthem Chrysippunij 
 quorum nemo ad rempublicam accessit. 
 
 ' Zeno apoph. 44. 
 
 * Zeno apoph. 56. 
 
 » Nothing seems to be known of the date of this writer: see Diet. 
 Biog. These authorities are quoted by Diog. L. vii. 1. 
 
 8 An uncomphmentary epithet, of. Theocr. x. 26 ho/i^vKa xapfeo-o-a 
 Si)/)BC KoKiovrl rv Tavres, laxvhv iXibKavarov, iyii Si /idros fi^\ix>^upov. id. 
 iii. 35 a /teXaxixpus. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 digestion. The last-named defect is said to have been the 
 cause of his frugal diet', but this was no doubt also recom- 
 mended to him by his philosophical views. In spite of his 
 habitual abstinence, he enjoyed the company of his friends at 
 a convivial banquet, where his severity relaxed with the wine 
 he drank, just as (to use his own comparison) beans are im- 
 proved by soaking ^ For the rest, he seems to have been a 
 man of few words, but quick at repartee, disliking all dis- 
 play and effeminacy, and generally of a somewhat stern and 
 reserved cast of mind, though not without consideration for 
 the wants of others. 
 
 § 2. Stoicism as established by Zeno. 
 
 It will be convenient at this point to summarise those 
 leading doctrines which the e^ddence 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 
 diuoftara and syllogisms, belong almost entirely to Chrysippus, 
 and, when we remember that out of 750 books which he is 
 said to have written no fewer than 311 were devoted to 
 logical studies, it is not improbable that he owed much of his 
 reputation to his performances in this branch. In Zeno's 
 eyes the most important division of logic was the question of 
 the standard of knowledge, although strictly speaking this 
 should rather be considered as belonging to psychology. He 
 
 ' efj apTos, Sypov lirxas, imineiv vSuip. Philemon ap. Diog. L. vn. 27. 
 2 See Zeno apoph. 27. 
 
8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 held that, though the senses themselves are unerring, the im- 
 pressions they convey are often erroneous, and that only such 
 impressions are to be trusted as are in themselves perspicuous. 
 The ultimate test of truth resides in the strength of tension 
 in the impression, as it strikes the sense-organ. If satisfied 
 in this way that the impression is such that it must proceed 
 from a real object, the mind in the exercise of its ever present 
 activity grasps the impression, and assents to it. This is the 
 meaning which Zeno expressed by saying that (ftavraata Kara- 
 XtiKTiK-rj is the criterion of truth '. Diogenes Laertius, however, 
 mentions certain afixo-ionpoi t<3v "SirioiKiav as teaching that 
 opdoi A.dyos 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 (fiavracria Ka.TaXrjirTi,Kij. The only 
 other evidence, by which he connects Zeno with 6p06^ Xdyos, 
 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. TrepI euVcyS. 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 ^avrafTia. KaTaXryTmio]. In Philo 
 there is no question of a logical criterion at all, but Zeno is 
 
 ' 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 musa man annehmen, dass das KaTaXijvnKov 
 urspriinglich einen aktiven Sinn halte, da der Tonus desselben Zweifels- 
 obne auf die diavota einwirkt. Andererseits muss man Hirzel wieder 
 darin Becht geben, dass die 5i(b<oia sich unmoglicb rein leidend verbalten 
 kann, dass viehnebr das KaraXriTTiKiv auch einen passiven Seigescbmack 
 hat. Und docb lassen sich beide, sich scheinbar auBechUessende Stand- 
 ptmkte vereinigen, wcnn man in das KaraKriTTiKiv den von uns vermu- 
 teten Doppelsinn bineinlegt, den Zeno wohl absichtlioh andeuteu wollte. 
 Danaoh waren die tfiavraala und Siavoia bei der KariiXrj^is gleicherweise 
 teils aktiv, teils passiv, woraus sich die sohwankende Anweudung dieses 
 Ausdruoks sehr wohl erklart. " For the connection of toi/os with Kara- 
 Xtj^is, which is not however proved to be Zenonian, cf. Sext. Emp. adv. 
 Math. Tii. 408 dXXa ykp aiinj fiiv ij irapaWa^la tuv re icoToXijTrTiKilJi/ xal 
 t(ov dxaraXijTrTWP ^avratnuv Kard, to ivapyis Kal ^vrovov Idltofjuz Trapiffrarau 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 speaking of the state of mind of the wise man, whose soul is 
 in perfect conformity with the law of reason, and who has 
 mastered all his impulses and passions. This is still more plain 
 in the extract from Philodemus, where opBov's Xoyov; are coupled 
 with o-TTouSata? Sta^eo-ets'. The weight of evidence the other 
 way must remain to be stated hereafter, but it may be re- 
 marked that, even if Cicero's testimony is discredited, the fact 
 of the controversy between Zeno and Arcesilas is not thereby 
 disproved^- Again, if Zeno defined cpavracria'sLS a rwoitris, and 
 discriminated between the truth of various f^avraa-iai, he must 
 have pursued the subject still farther ; and, if art and memory 
 are defined with reference to KaraXiji/fis and opinion is dis- 
 tinguished therefrom, it follows of necessity that he must have 
 defined KaTaX.r]\j/K itself. Still, even admitting to the full the 
 ethical significance of opflos \6yo^^, the passage in Diogenes is 
 not thereby disposed of, for if Zeno and Cleanthes are not 
 indicated by the words ol apxa-torepoi tiSv ^tioikiov to whom 
 does this expression refer 1 Must we, then, suppose that Zeiio 
 put forward two criteria of knowledge, rational thought (op66% 
 Adyos) as well as the experience of sense (KaraXiji/fis) ? Such a 
 conclusion would be inconsistent with the clearness and direct- 
 ness of Zeno's teaching. The only way out of the difiiculty' 
 is to adopt the theory of Stein, who regards the doctrine of 
 6p6o<s Xdyos as a concession to rationalism, opdos Xoyos be- 
 comes, in this view, a subsidiary and secondary criterion', so 
 that the results of thought must be confirmed by experience. 
 In other words, the potential notions inspired in us by the 
 divine Adyos require to be completed and corrected on the side 
 
 ' For Epict. 1. c. see note on Zeno frag. 4. 
 
 2 It is satisfactory to find that Stein, Erkenntniatheorie n. 341, claims 
 for Zeno the 0oi/Toiria (COTaXijirnK'i) on precisely similar grounds to those 
 stated in the notes to frag. 11. 
 
 3 For this see Stein, Brkenntnistheorie pp. 259 — 264. 
 
 " It should be mentioned that Corssen de Posidonio Bhodio (1878) 
 pp. 17 — 19 proposed to eliminate Stmi/cui' 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 airo\elirov(n.y should in this case be pressed. 
 Stein, Brkenntnistheorie p. 259. 
 
10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of sensible experience before they can attain to objective 
 actuality'. 
 
 From this point of view, then, it is not unreasonable to 
 credit Zeno with the substance of the teaching recorded in 
 Cic. Acad. 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 Ivvoiai and not at 
 all that of irpoKijij/eL's^- 
 
 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 
 a-oKoLKo^, and a symbolical explanation, recorded by Cicero, of 
 the difierent degrees of knowledge. 
 
 Zeno's contributions to Physics have been unduly de- 
 preciated by some authorities but, while it is true that the 
 development of this branch is largely due to Cleanthes, still a 
 fair estimate of the fragments here collected will lead us to 
 the conclusion that the essential groundwork of the Stoic 
 physical teaching was laid by the founder of the school'. 
 Zeno started from the proposition that nothing exists but the 
 material, inasmuch as body alone is capable of acting and 
 being acted upon. All body is thus either active or passive 
 and the material world is itself the result produced from the 
 
 ^ Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 314, 815. 
 
 ^ Stein holds that 7rp6Xi;^is was substituted by Chrysippus for Zeno's 
 6pS6s \6yos, in so far as the latter is concerned with epistemology 
 (Erkenntnistheorie p. 269, 270). 
 
 ' See Stein, Psyohologie p. 56 and n. 77, whose reference to the number 
 of fragments in Waohsmuth's collection is however misleading. As 
 regards Zeno, Waohsmuth'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. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 operation of these two principles. The active principle is God, 
 and the passive is matter. God is more closely defined as the 
 fiery aether", which permeates the whole of the universe, even 
 as honey passes through the honeycomb. He is at once the 
 embodiment of reason and of law, and the power which binds 
 in one the various portions of the universe, who, though his 
 essence is constant, appears in difierent forms in everything 
 that exists. Nature, forethought and fate are thus only diflTerent 
 names for the same being ; as nature he creates the world, and 
 creates it in entire harmony with the law of fate. Matter, on 
 the other hand, is formless and indeterminate, though limited 
 in extent, and can exist only in conjunction with some active 
 quality ; although it is itself eternal, its parts are subject 
 to change. The creation of the world is brought about by the 
 action of God upon matter, whereby the creative fire through 
 an intermediate watery stage passes into the four elements 
 fire, air, water and earth out of which everything else is formed. 
 To explain the production of the individual thing by the in- 
 termingling of its elements, Zeno broached the celebrated 
 theory of Kpdcns St' oXov, which is in efiect a denial of the axiom 
 that two bodies cannot occupy the same space. 
 
 The world, however, will not last for ever, nor are we left 
 without indications of its destructibility. In the inequality of 
 the earth's surface, in the retrocession of the sea, in the mor- 
 tality of every substance with which we are acquainted, and 
 lastly in the fact that the human race and all living creatures 
 can be shown to have had a beginning in time Zeno saw clear 
 proofs that the universe itself is destined to pass away. There 
 will come a time when by the unceasing law of fate the world 
 and all that it contains will again be merged in the primeval fire, 
 only to be created anew, as the embryo is formed from the 
 seed. For the process is unvarying no less than never-ending ; 
 a new Heracles will free a young world from its plagues, and 
 a new Socrates will plead his cause against the same accusers. 
 
 1 Stein, Psyohologie p. 58, remarks that there is no evidence of Zeno 
 having used the term irvev/ia in this connection. 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The individual and the cosmos are thus partakers in the 
 same decree of fate, but their likeness does not stop here. Not 
 only is the world a unity, but also a living unity ; it is more- 
 over sentient, rational, intelligent, and wise. 
 
 Two characteristics are especially prominent in Zeno s 
 system, first, his metaphysical contrast between God and 
 matter, and, secondly, his materialism. He seems to have 
 been animated by a desire to combine the results of later 
 thought with the simplicity and directness of the early Ionian 
 physicists. All is to be evolved out of fire : but fire is clothed 
 with divine attributes, and sharply contrasted with the passive 
 material on which it works. But Zeno did not observe that 
 the combination is in reality self-destructive, and that tvith 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 diff'erent 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 fir?. 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 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 elements. Moreover, it is corporeal and grows up with the 
 tiody, 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 TjyeimviKov 
 which is situated in the heart to the various organs of sense, 
 it is said to have eight parts, namely, the t^yefioviKov itself, the 
 five senses, and the capacities of speech and generation. The 
 soul entirely permeates the body, and at its departure the 
 composite structure of soul and body is destroyed. The soul 
 itself endures for a time after its separation from the body 
 but is not immortal, and its condition after death is deter- 
 mined by the grade of purity to which it has attained. Such, 
 at least, seems to be a fair inference from a passage of 
 Lactantius in which Zeno speaks of the separation of the 
 unholy from the holy and contrasts the misery of the former 
 with the blessedness of the latter. On his discussion of the 
 voice, sleep, vision, and the seed we need not dwell. 
 
 It remains to consider Zeno's attitude towards the popular 
 religion. Although, in the strict sense, he teaches that there 
 is but one God, yet he admits that there is a certain amount 
 of truth in polytheism, as implying a recognition of the 
 ubiquity of the divine presence. The manifestation of God 
 in the powers of nature is symbolised by Zeus, Here and 
 Poseidon, who represent the aether, the air, and the water 
 respectively. In his interpretation of Hesiod's Theogony he 
 gives the reins to his etymological fancy, so as to bring the 
 cosmogony of the poet into accordance with Stoic views. 
 Lastly the existence of divination is inferred from the fore- 
 thought, which characterises the divine government. 
 
 Ethics, which are the crowning point of the Stoic system, 
 come next in order. The aim and object of life is to live in 
 agreement with nature, which is, in other words, to live 
 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 
 
14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Cleanthes took divergent views of its character, but, recog- 
 nising the manner in which the different branches of the 
 Stoic system are interlaced with one another', we may reason- 
 ably conclude that by the prominence given to nature Zeno 
 desired to connect his moral teaching with the divine creative 
 aether, which permeates the universe'. Our first impulses, 
 however, tend not to virtue but to self-preservation, and virtue 
 is impossible in the child or the brute, since neither of them 
 possesses the informing power of reason. These natural im- 
 pulses require the guidance of reason, and in their proper 
 subordination to it is to be found the condition of happiness, 
 which may be described as the unruffled flow of life. For 
 happiness nothing is required but virtue, and no external 
 circumstance's, nothing but what is morally evil, can diminish 
 the satisfaction belonging to the virtuous. In this way we 
 are led to discriminate between dyaOa and KaKa: 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 to 
 Kara, <j>v(nv. 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 d,8ia.<t>opa. are ranged 
 between virtue and vice in a graduated scale of negative and 
 positive value (aTra^ta and a^i'a), the middle place being oc- 
 cupied by TO Kaddirai dSid<j>opa, i.e. such matters as having an 
 even or odd number of hairs in one's head. Everything 
 possessing d$La is Kara. <l>vcnv, and everything possessing dira^i'o 
 is wapd KJyvcriv. At the same time d^ia is not a permanent 
 attribute of any dZid<j>opov, for that which is at one time Kara 
 
 ' Cf. Stein, Psychologie p. 13. 
 
 " Hirzel, Untersuohungen ii. p. 108, thinks otherwise and the point is 
 certainly a doubtful one. If Zeno spoke only of human nature, Cleanthes 
 may have here, as elsewhere, shown the oouuebtiou of ethical with 
 physical doctrine by explaining 0i}<ris as xotvii (piais. Then Chrysippus 
 would have united both views. If this was the real development, there 
 would be some pretext for Stobaeus' assertion that Cleanthes added rg 
 <fiiirei to the definition, while the authority of Diogenes Laertius would 
 remain unimpaired. See however Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 260. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 <j>v<TLv might, under certain circumstances, become irapa <f>v(riv. 
 Herein lies the vital distinction between aScai^opa and dyaOa, 
 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 ■rrporiyovij.evov 
 Xoyov or av€v ire/aicTTOo-ecus) we shall always choose in preference 
 to their contraries. These then are the TrpoTjy/ieVa. Cor- 
 responding with this classification of objects, we have a scale 
 of actions ranging from KaTopOiofia (virtuous action) to dfidp- 
 rr)fi.a (sinful action), wherein KadrJKov answers to the class of 
 dSidtjiopa. Every KaJdfJKov is thus directed to the choice of ra 
 Kara <l>v(rtv and the avoidance of rci irapd KJiviriv. The doctrines 
 of KaOrJKov and vporjyfiivov 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 7ro\iT£ta proposed to establish a socialistic constitution 
 under which the importance of a8ui<^opa would be reduced to 
 a minimum. 
 
 Zeno held further that virtue is one and indivisible, 
 springing from the t^yefwviKov, of which it is a fixed and 
 permanent condition. Consistently with this, he maintains 
 that all sinful actions are equally wrong, since all alike imply 
 an aberration from a standard, which excludes increase or 
 diminution. None the less, however, can we distinguish 
 between different manifestations of virtue or separate virtues : 
 virtue itself is identical with wisdom (<^pov7jo-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 
 
16 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 remain doubtful. Hirzel (I.e. p. 99) infers that he did, but 
 Plutarch's words do not necessarily lead to such a conclusion, 
 and we ought to hesitate to attribute such an inconsistency to 
 Zeno without direct evidence. No doubt the Stoic school 
 generally put forward four cardinal virtues </>povr;o-is, SiKaioa-vvrj, 
 dvSpeta and a-oi<j>pocrvvr], 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 he has 
 done, feels no compassion, and is absolutely free from every 
 form of emotion. At the same time, it is clear that Zeno 
 contemplates a progress from the state of folly to that of 
 wisdom as practicable; this advance is characterised by the 
 purgatioh of the soul from emotional and delusive affections 
 under the influence of reason. Even though he ultimately 
 
INTRODUCTION. 17 
 
 emerges from the conflict with success, the wise man still feels 
 the scars from the wounds he has received during its course, 
 and is often reminded of his former evil impulses after he has 
 completely suppressed them. Finally, since death belongs to 
 the class a'Sta^opa, suicide is justifiable in the wise man, if 
 circumstances prescribe such a course. 
 
 It is obvious that a teacher, whose ethical views were of 
 the nature, which we have just indicated, could not rest 
 satisfied with the existing constitution of civic life in Greece. 
 Equally unsatisfactory to him was the aristocratical com- 
 munity of Plato, with the sharply drawn dividing line between 
 the guardians and the rest of the citizens. For this reason 
 Eros, the god of friendship and concord, is taken as the 
 presiding deity of Zeno's ideal state, a state which in no way 
 corresponds to the Greek ttoAis, but comprises the whole of 
 mankind living together like a herd of cattle'. In this state 
 there will be no temples, law-courts, or gymnasia; no work of 
 human craftsmen is worthy of divine acceptance; the state 
 must be adorned not with costly offerings, but by the virtues 
 of its inhabitants. Zeno likewise advocates an abolition of 
 coinage, a community of wives, and a thorough revolution of 
 the current system of education. 
 
 The remaining fragments, dealing mainly with particular 
 KadiJKovra, do not require to be summarised here. 
 
 § 3. Zeno's relation to previous philosophers. 
 
 The opponents of the Stoic school were fond of accusing 
 its members of plagiarism and want of originality. Zeno is 
 the keen Phoenician trader, pilfering other men's wares, and 
 passing them off as his own^: if all that belongs to others were 
 withdrawn from the voluminous writings of Chrysippus, we 
 should have a blank page^ Antiochus, in Cicero*, represents 
 
 1 Cf. Newman, Politics of Aristotle, vol. i. p. 88. 
 
 2 Cf. Diog. L. Tii. 25. 
 8 Diog. L. VII. 181. 
 
 * Acad. I. 43. The same argument is put forward by Cicero himself 
 against Cato in the 4th book of the de Knibus. 
 
 H. P. 2 
 
18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the views of Zeno as merely immaterial changes in minor 
 points of the genuine Academic doctrine, while Juvenal 
 only repeats current opinion in speaking of the Stoic dogmas 
 as "a Cynicis tunica distantia'". Even a slight acquaintance 
 with the Stoic system is sufScient to refute these gross 
 charges: indeed, its originality is abundantly vindicated when- 
 we point to the influence it exercised for several centuries on 
 the intellectual life of Greece and Rome". At the same time 
 it must be admitted that Zeno was largely indebted to his 
 predecessors — especially to Antisthenes and Heraclitus — for 
 the bricks and mortar with which he constructed so splendid an 
 edifice. 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, a,s is the 
 all permeating aether from the fiery element of Heraclitus. 
 We proceed to discuss in detail the various points in which 
 Zeno's obligation to previous thinkers is most strongly marked. 
 
 A. To Antisthenes and the Cynics. 
 
 The resemblances between Zeno and the Cynics are natu- 
 rally to be found chiefly in their ethical doctrines. Physics 
 were almost entirely neglected by the Cynics, and their nomina- 
 listic logic was not of great importance for Stoicism, although 
 we may observe in passing that both schools maintained in 
 similar terms' that Plato's ideas were a mere fiction of the 
 brain and had no objective existence. The Stoic doctrine of 
 life in accordance with nature finds its historical origin in the 
 
 1 XIII. 121. 
 
 2 "Die Stoa war vielinehr die weitaus selbstaudigste Sohule der 
 nacharistotelischen Philosophie," Stein, PBychologie p. 10. 
 
 ' Antisthenes ap. Simpl. in Cat. p. 54 b ij IINiiTuv, VTrTrov /j^v 6/jw 
 'nnr6Tr}Ta Si oix hpu. Cf. 2ieno frag. 23. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 teaching as well as in the life of Diogenes ^ Like Zeno, 
 Antisthenes teaches that virtue is in itself sufficient to secure 
 happiness'', that nothing is a Good but virtue, nothing an Evil 
 but vice, and that everything else is indifi'erent*. Accordingly 
 Diogenes held that death, since it involves no disgrace, cannot 
 be an EviP. Hence it is not surprising to learn that many of 
 the Cynics put an end to their lives by suicide, though we 
 have sayings both of Antisthenes and Diogenes on record 
 denying the legitimacy of such a course'. Virtue itself is 
 described, after Socrates, as consisting in wisdom and pru- 
 dence: "prudence," says Antisthenes, "is the safest wall; it 
 cannot be undermined or betrayed"". At the same time the 
 futility of the ordinary course of Greek education is strongly 
 insisted on'. The distinction between virtue and vice draws 
 with it that between the wise and the foolish; the philoso- 
 pher's wallet preserves a chosen few from a condition border- 
 ing on madness^ 
 
 We are told, on the authority of Diogenes Laertius", that 
 Zeno adopted the Cynic form of life. This is probably to be 
 taken with some limitation, as the incidents recorded of his 
 life only partially agree with it. It is certain, however, that 
 his life was one of abstinence and simplicity'", and for this 
 reason he became the butt of the comic poets, who thus un- 
 consciously testified to his merit. Apollodorus EphUlus, 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 Shv ovv dvTL Ttav dxp^Tuv irovtav Toijs Kara ipuffiv 
 iXofUvovs i^v eiidatfiovcjs. Zeno frag. 120. 
 * Diog. L. VI. 11. Zeno frag. 125. 
 " Diog. L. VI. 105. Zeno frag. 128. 
 ^ Arr. Epiet. Diss. i. 24. 6. Zeno frag. 129. 
 5 ZeUer Socrates, etc. Eng. Tr. p. 319, n. 5. Cf. Zeno frag. 161. 
 « Diog. L. VI. 13. Zeno frag. 184. 
 ' Diog. L. VI. 108. Zeno frag. 167. 
 8 Diog. L. VI. 83, 35. Zeno frag. 148. 
 » Diog. L. VI. 104. 
 " Diog. L. vn. 26, 27. 
 " Diog. VI. 104. VII. 121. 
 
 2—2 
 
20 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 humanised and elevated to an extent entirely incompatible 
 with Cynicism, mainly owing to the attention which was 
 bestowed on mental cultured 
 
 Turning to the views of the two schools in applied moral 
 science, we find a curious agreement as to the relations of the 
 sexes : Zeno and Diogenes both held that, in the ideal state, 
 there should be a community of wives, and neither saw any- 
 thing revolting in marriage between the nearest relations'. 
 At the same time marriage and the begetting of children are 
 recommended for the wise man both by Zeno and Antisthenes, 
 and apparently we must regard this as intended to apply to 
 the existing condition of life, in which marriage was a civil 
 institution'. Both teachers allow to the wise man the passion 
 of love, as he alone will be able to select a suitable object* : 
 both maintain that the virtuous alone are capable of genuine 
 friendship' 
 
 Lastly, Zeno copied Antisthenes in his treatment of the 
 Homeric poems, and particularly in explaining certain ap- 
 parent contradictions as due to the fact that the poet speaks at 
 one time Kara 86^av and at another kot' dXrjdtuiv'. The al- 
 legorising method of interpretation is commoia to both, and 
 was afterwards developed to an excessive degree by Cleanthes 
 and Ohrysippus'. 
 
 Though we have thus seen that Zeno's ethical teaching is 
 largely founded on Cynicism, we must not forget the many 
 points of divergence. Thus, for example, we find the Cynics 
 treating honour and wealth as absolute evils"; these things, 
 
 ' The difference of spirit in the two schoola is well put by Sir A. 
 Grant (Ar. Eth. vol. i. p. 317 ed. 3). 
 
 2 Diog. L. VI. 72. Dio. Chrys. x. 29. Cf. Zeno frags. 176 and 179. 
 These passages are from the iroXire/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. 
 ■• Diog. L. VI. 11. Zeno frag. 172. 
 » Diog. L. VI. 12. Zeno frag. 149. 
 
 « Dio. Chrys. 53, 4. Zeno frag. 195. 
 
 ' See Oic. N. D. ii. 63 foil. 
 
 8 See the passages collected by Zeller Socrates, etc. E. T. p, 304. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 21 
 
 according to Zeno, belonged to the class of irporjyfjJva. Again, 
 to take their attitude towards the popular religion, we know 
 that Zeno expressly countenanced divination, while the ex- 
 istence of prophets made Diogenes think man the most foolish 
 of animals'. 
 
 B. To Heraclitus. 
 
 There can be no doubt that Zeno borrowed some important 
 principles in his physical teaching from the writings of He- 
 raclitus, and particularly from his account of the cosmogony. 
 There is, however, a difficulty in comparing the doctrines of 
 the two schools minutely, owing to the obscurity in which our 
 knowledge of the Heraclitean theories is involved, and which 
 is often increased by the doubt as to whether some particular 
 doctrine belonged equally to the Stoics and the philosopher 
 of Ephesus, or whether some later development, introduced by 
 the former, has not been wrongly ascribed to the latter by our 
 authorities. For instance, it was at one time stoutly main- 
 tained that the conflagration of the world was not taught by 
 Heraclitus but that it was first propounded by Zeno, although 
 the contrary opinion seems now to prevail^. Again, it is not 
 entirely clear whether we are to class Heraclitus, as Aristotle 
 does', with the early Ionian physicists, starting from his 
 dogma that all things are fire, or whether we are to regard 
 this principle as a metaphysical abstraction, metaphorically 
 shadowing forth the eternal flux of all things, a view which is 
 more in accordance with Plato's criticism in the Theaetetus*. 
 However this may be, Heraclitus is essentially a hylozoist, 
 who, following Anaximenes, chooses fire as being the rarest 
 element, and insists on the continuity of change in order to 
 escape from the mechanical theories of Anaxagoras and Em- 
 
 ' Diog. VI. 24 and contrast Zeno frag. 118. 
 
 ^ See the elaborate discussion in Zeller, Pre-Socr. Phil. Eug. Tr. ii. 
 pp. 62 — 77. See however Bywater, Journ. Phil. i. 42. 
 
 3 Met. I. 3. 8. This is the view of Ueberweg p. 40 and is also held by 
 Dr Jackson^ 
 
 * Zeller's position (p. 20 foil.) combines the two views. 
 
22 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 pedocles o"n the one hand, and the Parmenidean immobility on 
 the other. The Xo'yos ^wos is with him the expression of the 
 truth that nothing can be known but the law of mutability, 
 the harmony in difference, which he likens to the stretching of 
 a bowstring'. This law he calls yvtafirj, SUri, elfiapfievrj, to 
 irepie^oi' ■q/jMi XoyiKov re ov Koi <j)p€vrjpti, and d Zeus^, 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 Adyos was one 
 of the chief points in his system which attracted the attention 
 of Zeno. As a disciple of Cynicism he was familiar with 
 A.dyos 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 \dyos, he 
 was enabled to take one step further. Just as Plato gave to 
 the Socratic vrroOeo-K or general conception a metaphysical 
 existence in the form of the idea, so did Zeno elevate the Xdyos 
 of Antisthenes from its position as a criterion for thought and 
 duty to tliat of the physical cause of being and movement'. 
 The Stoic deity is, like the Heraclitean Xdyos, provided with 
 many names, such as God, Mind, the all pervading Aether, 
 Fate, Forethought, and Zeus, but on the other hand it belongs 
 to an essentially later period of thought. We have here set 
 forth the teleological view of Nature, which is regarded as. 
 creating all things out of itself for a good purpose*. The 
 Stoics, at least after Cleanthes, are also pantheists in so far as 
 they acknowledge that God and the world are identical. Even 
 where Zeno followed Heraclitus most closely there are essential 
 differences in treatment. The fire of Heraclitus becomes 
 
 1 Heraclitus frag. 56 ed. Bywater. Hirzel finds here the origin of the 
 Stoic Tovos, but this is very questionable. 
 
 2 For a detailed statement see Krisohe, Forsohungen p. 368 foil. 
 
 = The comparison is suggested by Hirzel ii. p. 42. But Hirzel very 
 much underestimates the influence of Heraclitus on Zeno, as Heinze has 
 pointed out. It is quite contrary to the evidence to attribute the Hera- 
 clitean tendencies of the Stoa solely, or even mainly, to Cleanthes 
 
 ■* Cic. N. D. n. 58. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 23 
 
 aether or irup tcxvikov — 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 iravra 
 pel is replaced by that of /ieTajSoXj;, and aAAottuo-is gives way 
 to the characteristic theory of the mixture of substances, 
 known as Kpaarii Si oXwv. In stating the differences between 
 the two schools we have indicated how the Stoic physics were 
 built upon Heraclitus. The remaining resemblances are com- 
 paratively unimportant. It was a natural corollary to both 
 systems to maintain the unity of the cosmos'. Zeno seems to 
 have adopted Heraclitus' definition of the soul as an dva- 
 dv/iLacro^, but, instead of regarding this exhalation as imbibed 
 from the outer air (to Trepiixpv), 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 evKpaa-ia. Lastly, 
 we may observe that Heraclitus attributed immortality to 
 the soul, and that in Ethics he counselled submission to the 
 common law and the regulation of speech and thought in ac- 
 cordance with the demands of nature^. 
 
 C. To Plato and Aristotle. 
 
 It has often been observed as a remarkable fact that the 
 influence exercised both by Plato and Aristotle on their im- 
 mediate successors was comparatively small. Zeno and Epi- 
 curus sought the groundwork of their ethics in the systems of 
 Antisthenes and Aristippus, and followed in their physics, 
 with surprising closeness, the pre-Socratic philosophers -He- 
 raclitus and Democritus. Indeed, the Peripatetic school itself 
 showed no great vitality after Theophrastus, the new Academy 
 
 1 Stob. Eel. I. 22. 3 b p. 199, 10. 
 
 2 Heracl. frag. 74, Bywater. 
 
 3 Stob. Floril. m. 84. 
 
24 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of Arcesilas and Carneades bore no resemblance to that founded 
 by Plato, and Antiochus owed more to the Stoa than to the 
 old Academy which he professed to resuscitate. In the post- 
 Aristotelian philosophy, taken as a whole, we find a universal 
 tendency to materialistic views, a striking decline of interest 
 in purely intellectual research, as an end in itself, and a 
 general agreement in confining the area of speculation to the 
 two questions of the standard of ethics and the logical criterion. 
 However we are to explain this phenomenon, and even if we 
 consider inadequate the explanation of Zeller, who attributes 
 this result to the loss of political freedom and the consequent 
 concentration of thought on the needs of the individual, we 
 are more concerned with the fact itself than with its possible 
 causes'. It is enough to say that the system founded by Zeno 
 was in no sense the offspring of those of Plato and Aristotle, 
 although in many points it presupposes their existence. 
 
 In the case of Chrysippus we may go further, for there is 
 no doubt that his logic was largely a development, and that 
 not a very happy one, of the Aristotelian doctrine of the 
 syllogism. Zeno, however, although the titles of several of 
 his logical treatises have come down to us, was not considered 
 to have paid great attention to this branch of philosophy. 
 The principal contribution made by Zeno to the theory of 
 knowledge is the establishment of the iftavraaia KaraX.rjirTt.K-^ 
 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 ^airao-io, in which it appears as 
 "decaying sense,'" and is more accurately defined as "the 
 movement resulting from the actual operation of the sense 
 faculty "^ Again, in the Zenonian definitions of memory 
 and art there will be found a familiarity with the progres- 
 sive stages in the growth of knowledge, as enunciated by 
 
 ^ This question is discussed in Benn's Greek Philosophers (Preface), 
 2 Bhet. I. 11. 1370 a 28. 
 8 de An. in. 3. 429 a 1. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 25 
 
 Aristotle', and his terminology, at any rate, is recognisable in 
 a logical fragment preserved by Stobaeus^. 
 
 Diogenes Laertius introduces his discussion of the Stole 
 physics by stating that the two dpxaC posited by the school 
 were God and Indeterminate Matter : here we have not only 
 the well-known Aristotelian distinction between the formal 
 and the material cause, but also his description of matter as 
 that which is entirely formless and contingent'. The aether, 
 the so called quinta essentia of Aristotle, of which the heavenly 
 bodies were composed, has its representative under the system 
 of Zeno, who held that the circumference of the world was 
 surrounded by a moving belt of aether. 
 
 Cicero puts into the mouth of professed Antiocheans, and, 
 when speaking in the character of Antiochus, himself makes 
 the charge that Zeno's Ethics are identical with those of the 
 Academy, and that the only change is one of terminology. 
 This is developed at length in the fourth book of the de Finibus, 
 where Cicero points out the inconsistency of denying that 
 external goods contribute to happiness, while admitting that 
 they have a certain positive value. There is considerable force 
 in the objection in so far as it lays bare a weak point in the 
 Stoic stronghold, but, if it is meant for a charge of plagiarism, 
 it is grossly unfair. In fact, as has been remarked, Antiochus, 
 who himself stole the clothes of Zeno, was always anxious to 
 prove that they never belonged to Zeno at all. As we know, 
 however, that Zeno was a pupil of Polemo, it is not unnatural 
 to 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*. Zeller well 
 
 1 Met. X. 1. Anal. Post. ii. 19. 
 
 2 Zeno frag. 24. 
 
 ' Metaph. vi. 3. 1029 a 20 \4yia S' vXriv yj KaB' aMiv nijTe n M« 
 TTOirov /i'/rre aXXo /iriBiv 'Kiyerat ofs wpicrrai. to Sv. 
 
 * Cic. Fin. iv. 6. 14. Clem. Alex. Strom, vm. p. 304 Sylb. Polemo 
 himself is represented as saying to Zeno : — oi XavBivtK, a Z^vw, Tnh 
 Kijiralai! ■n-apeurpiav Sipais, Kal t4 Soyiiara KXiirriov tpowmixSii fiera/iipteviiis 
 (Diog. Ii. VII. 25). One of the doctrines, which were in this way appro- 
 
26 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 sums up the extent of Academic influence when he says' that 
 "such points in Platonism as the Socratic building of virtue 
 on knowledge, the comparative depreciation of external goods, 
 the retreat from sensuality, the elevation and the purity of 
 moral idealism, and, in the older Academy, the demand for 
 life according to nature, the doctrine of the self-suflBciency 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 rrdOrj 
 (frag. 142) and the explanation of the world as ^iSov £ful/v\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. ApoUonius Tyrius has been with much probability 
 suggested as the authority to whom the main division is due*, 
 
 priated by tbe Stoa, appears to be tbe third definition of (pat preseiTed 
 by Andronicus irepl TraBwv 0. 4 as uTijpeffia $su>v els viuv KaTaKofffiTja-iv Kal 
 KaXCiv : of. Plut. ad prin. iner. 780 d Uo\inm> (\eye rbv (pwra elxai 6eCiv 
 iirripealav els viuv iri/iiXeiav (Kreuttner, Andronioua p. 49). 
 
 1 Stoics etc. p. 399. 
 
 ^ See Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Antigonos p. 107 : Zeller and Waohs- 
 muth adopt Nietzsche's hypothesis (Bbein. Mas. xxiv. 18S) that all tbe 
 lists in Diog. are, with certain exceptions, derived from Demetrius of 
 
INTEODUCTION. 27 
 
 for not only does Diogenes in several places cite him by 
 name (e.g. § 2) but also Strabo (xvi. 2. 24, p. 757) expressly 
 mentions a work of his with the title Trtvaf t<Sv diro ZijVuvos 
 ^iKouo^iav KoX twv jSijSXiW ; who supplied Diogenes with the 
 appendix has not been determined. 
 
 The works, of which any record has survived to us, may 
 be divided into four classes : — 
 
 I. Logical. 
 
 (1) TTcpt \6yov. From this work, not mentioned in the 
 general catalogue, Diog. L. (vii. 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) KaOoXiKOL. Nothing is known of this work but the 
 title (Diog. 4) ' : Wachsmuth thinks that KaOoKiKo. jrepi Xe'^cuii' 
 is the title of a single work. 
 
 (3) irept \i$€tiiv (Diog. 4). In Stoic terminology \e^is is 
 defined as ifiunn^ cyypa/«.paTos as opposed to Xo'yos which is <f><ovy 
 (rrj/jLavTiKy} diro SiavoMi iKwefUTroijAvr] (Diog. VII. 56). It is pro- 
 bable, therefore, that this work dealt specially with the defini- 
 tion of terms, and to it may perhaps belong the fragments in 
 which Zeno explains the proper meaning of o-oXoiKi^etv (frags. 
 30 and 31). Wellmann (Neue 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 irept 
 Tov Kvpims Kiy^pnjaOoLi Zrjviava TOis oi/o/xao'tv. 
 
 (4) TexvYj (Diog. 4). This is identified by Zeller and 
 
 Magnesia, who is specified by name with reference to Xenophon's works 
 (Diog. L. II. 57). Susemihl (Jahrbueher fiir Philol. 125, p. 741) thinks 
 that the Diogenes catalogue comprises only those writings of Zeno which 
 were included in the Stoic canon, and that the iroXirefa, the rexyv ipariKTi, 
 and the Siarpi^al were treated as apocryphal while their genuineness was 
 admitted. 
 
 1 See however on frag. 23. 
 
28 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 "Wellmann with the eptort/oj Te'xwj of § 34, while Wachsmuth 
 writes rixyv Kai \weis xai ikty^oi. )8' as one title. The third 
 course, which at first sight seems the most natural inasmuch 
 as TfTKyi) 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 Ghrysippus. 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 SLijyrja-K and TrapdSeiyfw. may belong to 
 some other Zeno, this does not apply to the passages in Sextus 
 and Quintilian. 
 
 (5) XuVets Koi iXeyxoL ^ (Diog. 4). Possibly owing to 
 the influence of Stilpo the Megarian, Zeno may have devoted 
 some attention to this branch of logic, which in general he 
 regards as of less importance' : see frag. 6. 
 
 II. Physical. 
 
 (6) irtpt 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 (vii. 136) and the 
 creation and destruction of the world (ib. 142), and quotes 
 from it the statement that there is only one world (ib. 143). 
 It also contained an account of the eclipses of the sun and 
 moon (ib. 145), and explanations of the phenomena of thunder 
 and lightning (ib. 153). 
 
 (7) iTipi (^vcrcajs cited by Stobaeus Eel. I. 5. 15. p. 78, 18. 
 for Zeno's views on the subject of tiimpfiefr] : Krische (p. 367) 
 would identify it with the last named treatise. 
 
 1 This is the only work which deals with the formal side of logic, so 
 that Stein's argument in Erkenntnistheorie u. 689 might have been put 
 more strongly. He follows the old reading and speaks of two treatises, 
 Tex"""*' \v<Teis and Aeyxo' P- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 29 
 
 (8) irepi ova-la's unnecessarily identified by Wellmann (I.e. 
 p. 442) and Susemihl with irepl oXov and irepl tftvcrea)^ is quoted 
 by Diog. (134) for Zeno's definition of the two first principles, 
 God and Matter. 
 
 (9) irepl oTj/xeicDv : a treatise on divination (Diog. 4). 
 Thus fLavTiKrj is defined in Stob. Eel. ii. 122, 238 as iiruTT^/iri 
 6emprfTiKrj (rrjfJLaotv Tcov airo dewv rj SaL/iovw irpoi dvOpiairivov pCov 
 <rvvT€Lv6vTmv. This is no doubt the work referred to by Cic. de 
 Div. I. 3, 6 sed cum Stoici omnia fere ilia difiunderent quod 
 et Zeno in suis commentariis quasi semina quaedam sparsisset. 
 Its position in the catalogue makes against Prantl's hypo- 
 thesis', who classes it as a logical work. 
 
 (10) irepl oif/etai only known by its title (Diog. 4) is re- 
 garded as logical by Stein. 
 
 (11) JlvdayopiKd. (Diog. 4) classed by Wachsmuth as a 
 physical book owing to its position in the catalogue, but nothing 
 else is known concerning it. 
 
 III. Ethical. 
 
 (12) irept Tcyv KaOnJKovTO^ (Diog. 4). Here must belong 
 Zeno's definition of duty (frag. 145), from the terms of which 
 Wellmann conjectures without much probability that we should 
 identify this treatise with the following. 
 
 (13) irepl Tov Kara. <j>vcnv fiiov (Diog. 4). 
 
 (14) irepl opp.rj'i rj irepl dv6p<airov <j>vcretoi (Diog. 4). 
 Diogenes quotes the Zenonian definition of the summum 
 bonum from this book (vii. 87) j Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. in. 580) 
 proposed to separate this title reading rj' = octo, and Weygoldt 
 adopting this further identified irepl dvdpumov <l>va-ew's with irepl 
 ^a-em, but the latter is not an anthropological work. 
 
 (15) irepl ira6&v (Diog. 4) containing the general defini- 
 tion of emotion and the discussion of its several subdivisions, 
 pain, fear, desire and pleasure (ib. 110). 
 
 (16) iro\vreia. This seems to have been the most 
 generally known, as it is certainly the most often quoted, of 
 Zeno's -ssfritings; it was also one of the earliest in point of 
 
 1 I. p. 458. So also Stein, Brkenntnistheorie n. 689« 
 
30 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 time, having been written while its author was still under the 
 influence of Cynicism (Diog. 4). Plutarch informs us that it 
 was written as a controversial answer to Plato's Republic. 
 The allusions to it are too numerous to be specified here in 
 detail'. 
 
 (17) irepl vo/nov (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. 
 XXIII. p. 287 A speaks of the vo/aoi of Zeno but appears to be 
 referring generally to his philosophical precepts. 
 
 (18) TTC/n T^s "EWtjvik^s iraiSttos (Diog. 4) : cf. frag. 167, 
 which however is stated to belong to the TroXiTcto. 
 
 (19) iponiKT^ Texvv (Diog. 34). To this book pro- 
 bably belongs the interesting fragment (174) preserved by 
 Clem. Alex, relating to the behaviour suitable to young 
 men. 
 
 (20) 8taTpi/3at (Diog. 34): a similar work, as we are 
 told by Diog. whose statement is confirmed by the passages 
 (frags. 179, 180) quoted from it by Sextus. As we are told 
 by Plutarch that something of the same kind was contained in 
 the iroXiTtia, 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 rai 
 €/ias SiarpijSas xal toiis Xoyovi) Siarpifi-q seems to have assumed 
 the special sense of a short ethical treatise, if we may trust 
 the definition of Hermogenes (Rhett. Gr. ed. Waltz, t. iii. p. 
 406) htaTpip-q i<TTi )Spax«os SiavoTyjuaTOS ijOiKOv iKTa<rii. Zeller's 
 identification with the ^P"''' is improbable, and Susemihl 
 
 ' A summary will be found in Wellmann 1. c. p. 437 foil. As regards 
 its Cynic tendencies Susemihl observes : — Wer den Witz maohte, er sei 
 bei ihrer Abfassung wohl schon uber den Hund gekommen, aber nooh 
 nicht liber den Schwanz, schrieb eben damit dies Werk einer etwas 
 spatern Zeit, zu fiiihesten etwa als er von Krates zu Stilpon iiberge- 
 gangen >Yar. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 31 
 
 believes that the SiaTpt/Sal was excluded from the iriva| as 
 being an earlier Cynic work. 
 
 (21) T^OiKo. (Diog. 4). The title is somewhat doubtful, 
 as Wachsmuth reads diroixvyj/jLOvevfjiaTa KpaTijros rjOiKo. as a 
 single title, and Wellmann would emend rj xp"at for rjOiKo.: 
 more probably however it was a collection of short ethical 
 TTpoySXij/xaTtt. 
 
 IV. Miscellaneous. 
 
 (22) irpopXrjfuxTiov 'OfL-qpiKuiv e (Diog. 4) : we learn from 
 Dio. Chrys. 53, 4 that Zeno wrote on the Iliad, Odyssey 
 and Margites, and that his object was to show the general 
 consistency of Homer by explaining that a literal meaning 
 was not to be applied throughout the poems, which ought 
 in many instances to be interpreted allegorically. That he 
 in some cases proposed emendations may be seen from 
 Strabo vii. 3. 6, cf. ib. i. p. 41, xvi. p. 1131. Krische p. 392 
 shows that there is no foundation for the suggestion that 
 Zeno attributed the Iliad and the Odyssey to different 
 authors. 
 
 (23) Trepl iroirjTLKTJ's aKpodatui's (Diog. 4). Stein, Er- 
 kenntnistheorie n. 689, speaks of this work, the irpoySX. 'O/iiyp. 
 and the irepl 'EA.A.tji'. iratS. as an educational series, and regards 
 them as an appendix to the TroXireia. 
 
 (24) diro/tvrj/Aoveu/xaTa KparjjTos (Diog. 4) also mentioned 
 by Athen. iv. 162 b as Ztjviovoi aTop,vryp,ovcup.aTa, from which 
 Persaeus is said to have made extracts. There seems little 
 doubt that this was identical with the xp«tai 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 xp^iai runs thus: — diro- 
 uvrmovtvijui avvrofi-ov €i<rTox«>s eirt Tt irpoauiirov avatji^poixivov. 
 
 (25) iina-ToXai. (Maxim. Floril. ed. Mai, c. 6). 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 (in. p. 580) vTrop.vr]fwv€Vfj.a eis njv 'Ho-to'Sotj 
 
32 INTKODUCTION. 
 
 6toyov[av\ and there can be no doubt from the statements in 
 Proclus and the other Scholiasts^ that Zeno's labours extended 
 to Hesiod as well as to Homer. It is, however, impossible to 
 say in what work these fragments appeared, and we do not 
 feel much inclined to accept Krische's view (p. 367) that the 
 allegorical explanations of Hesiod were worked into the TrepX 
 oXov^. May they not belong to the irepl rroiijrtic^s a/cpoatreois? 
 
 It remains to call attention to Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 9. 58 
 p. 245, S. p. 681, P. dXKa. koX ot %TtatKo\ \f.yorv(ji li-qviavL tw irpiina 
 yeypd<j>6ai, Tiva a fiii] paStus iirnpeirovin tois p.aOrjTa.l'! dvayi- 
 yvtiiTKUv ixrj oii^i iriipav SeScokocti irporepos €t yj^CTWos <^t\ocro<^ot£i', 
 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'', though he lays himself open to the charge of 
 
 ' See Flacb, Glosseu und Scholien zur Eesiodischen Theogonie, p. 29 
 foil. 
 
 ^ Cf. also Diog. L. viii. 48, Minuc. Felix Ootav. xix. 10 Chrysippus 
 Menonem interpretatione physiologiae in Hesiodi Homeri Orpheique 
 carminibus imitatur. 
 
 ' Zeller who formerly supported this view (Stoics p. 40) now thinks 
 otherwise (Ph. d. Gr. in." 1. 32). 
 
 * Fronto ad Verum Imperat. i. p. 114 ad doeendum planissimus 
 Zenon. Cf. Diog. L. vn. 38 icn fiii> o$v airoO /coi t4 -irpocryeypa/iiiiva jSi/SXia 
 
INTRODUCTION. 33 
 
 abruptness and want of finish. To this tendency was due his 
 custom of couching his arguments in syllogistic formulae, 
 which often served to cloak a somewhat obvious fallacy '. 
 This formally logical style subsequently grew so habitual with 
 the Stoics that they earned for themselves the title of Sta\«- 
 TiKoi. 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"- Particularly striking is his observation 
 that those who are in a state of ttjookotttj 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. ii. 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 
 
 TToWd, iv oXs i\6,\ri(Tev lis oiSds tQv Stuiikuv in which passage Stein, 
 Psyohologie n. 2, finds evidence of " die Klarheit und Gediegeuheit der 
 Schriften Zenos." 
 
 ^ In Cic. N. D. II. 20 the Stoic claims that such arguments "apertiora 
 sunt ad reprehendendum." Elsewhere Cicero calls them " contortulis 
 quibusdam et minutis oonclusiunoulis neo ad sensum permanentibus." 
 Tnsc. II. 42. 
 
 2 Cf. Wellmann 1. c. p. 443. 
 
 H. P. 3 
 
34 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 flute-playing as inherent in the olive?" (frag. 63). In like 
 manner he uses the simile of the minister in a royal court to 
 explain his doctrine of the ■n-poijyfu.evov (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'- 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 
 Ttpor/yiJicvov and diroirparfyiiivov, which stand on rather a 
 diflferent footing, we may instance vrpoKOTrq, ivdpyeia, a-vyKarii- 
 Seo-is, KaTopOiafia, Karakfjij/K, Ka6^Kov, evvoiaiT), and njTrcDtrts : 
 TrpoA.Tji/'is is certainly not due to Zeno. Yet, although none 
 of these words are new coinages, KaTaXrjij/K and KaOrJKov are 
 instances specially selected by Cicero in support of his statement. 
 
 Diog. Laert. x. 27 speaking of Chrysippus observes: — koX 
 Ta liaprvpuL roaavra iarrCv, ojs iKcCviav fiovmv yi/jxiv to. ySijSXto, 
 KaOaiTtp KoX irapa Zrjvoivi io'Tiv evpetv Koi irapd 'ApioTOTcXet. 
 The existing fragments however do not justify this assertion. 
 
 Finally, although doubtless the circumstances under which 
 the fragments have been preserved render this tendency more 
 noticeable than it otherwise would be, we shall not be wrong 
 in attributing to Zeno a love of precise definition. The school 
 afterwards became famous for their definitions (cf. Sext. 
 Pyrrh. 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. puis. VIII. 642 ed Ktthn Ziji/wc Si i Kmeis fn irpdrepov MX/iTiirs 
 KaiPOTO/ieiv re xal iTrepPalvav rb rSv '£}\Xifi>(in> (Sos iv rots dpd/uuriv. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 35 
 
 will occur passim. In 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. 174. 
 
 § 6. Gleanihes. 
 
 In discussing the dates of Zeno's life we have seen that 
 there is good reason to believe that Cleanthes was born in the 
 year B.C. 331, and if so he was only five years younger than 
 Zeno. We also saw that he lived to the age of 99 and 
 presided over the Stoa for 32 years from B.C. 264 till his death 
 in B.C. 232. Against this computation there is to be taken 
 into account the fact that Diogenes (vii. 176) states that he 
 lived to the age of 80 and was a pupil of Zeno for nineteen 
 years. Unless we are prepared to reject the authority of the 
 papyrus altogether, we have in Diogenes' account either a 
 difierent tradition or a stupid blunder'- In any case, 
 Cleanthes was well advanced in life when he became head 
 of the Stoic School. 
 
 He was bom at Assos, a town in the Tread, 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 4>pedvTA.ijs 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 Eohde 1. c. p. 622 n. 1 suggests that Diogenes subtracted the 19 
 years passed under Zeno's tuition from the years of his life, but this is 
 hardly credible. 
 
 2 Dio«. L. VII. 168. 
 
 3—2 
 
36 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 characterised his life are no less apparent in his teaching. 
 Whatever he did was marked by energy and completeness 
 and was grounded on deeply-rooted conviction. Philosophy 
 with him was not merely an intellectual exercise, but far 
 more a religious enthusiasm. This religious fervour led him 
 to regard the theological side of philosophy as of the highest 
 importance, and, feeling that the praise of the divine majesty 
 should be set forth in something higher than sober prose, his 
 genius expressed itself in poetical compositions of the greatest 
 merit. It is easy to believe that a man of this character may 
 have proved an unsuccessful teacher, and there is some evi- 
 dence that under his presidency the Stoic school was in danger 
 of losing ground, cf. Diog. L. vii. 182 ovto's (Chrysippus) 
 ovet8i(r0£ts VTTo tivos oti ovp^i irapd 'ApCoTuvi (lerd ttoXXmv o^oXa^ot, 
 tl Tois iroAAois, £«r«, TrpoCTcixov, ovk av £^i\o<ro<^(ro. His ap- 
 parent want of success possibly stimulated the unfavourable 
 estimate with which his written works were received by 
 antiquity'. The Stoa was now fiercely assailed by various 
 opponents — its ethics by the Epicureans, and its logical 
 theories by Arcesilas. Skill in controversy was more than 
 ever needed, if the position won by Zeno's efibrts was to be 
 maintained. Herein lay the special strength of Chrysippus, 
 who was very probably employed in defending Stoicism during 
 his predecessor's life*, and who surpassed Cleanthes in fine- 
 ness and subtlety, even if he was inferior to him in depth'. 
 Most suggestive, in this view, becomes the passage in Diog, 
 L. VII. 179 hii}vl)(6ri (Chrysippus). ..Trpos KXidvOriv & kcI iro\- 
 XaKis IXeye /wviji t^s tQv SoyjUaTcui/ SiSatTKakCai p^g^etv, tos 
 
 1 There is no direct evidence for thia, but the whole of Diogenes' 
 account implies it. 
 
 2 Cf. Diog. L. VII. 182 jrpAs Si toi/ KaTe^avMriiixvov KXedvdovs SiakeKn- 
 Kbv, Kai irpoTelvovTO. airr(^ ffotpitr^Ta, w^Travffo, elTre, irap^'KKtav rbv irpetr^i- 
 repot/ &t6 tu)V irpayfjLaTiKUTsptav, ijfuv di tols v€ois ravra irporidH. 
 
 3 So Hirzel ii. p. IBO " Kleanthes war keine die Begriffe zerglie- 
 demde, sondern eine ansohaueude Natur, er war wohl minder riihrig aber 
 vielleicht tiefer angelegt ala sein Schiiler," and Stein, Psychologie p. 171 
 " Eleanthes erscheint als der rauhschaalige, mlihsam stammelude, aber 
 tiefe Denker, Chrysipp dagegen als der feinere, leiohtbewegliohe, elegant 
 vermittelnde Schonredner." 
 
INTRODUCTION. 37 
 
 8€ an-oSct^cK ovTov evpnja-etv. The anecdote leads us to infer 
 that Chrysippus was conscious of a want of originality in 
 himself, and a want of combative force in his master. 
 
 The position of Cleanthes among the early leaders of the 
 Stoic school has quite recently been subject to a considerable 
 modification in current opinion. He has been generally re- 
 garded as merely the exponent of his master's teaching, and 
 as having contributed no new views of his own to the de- 
 velopment of the system. This opinion is not without justi- 
 fication in the ancient authorities. Diogenes Laertius ex- 
 pressly asserts that Cleanthes adhered to the same tenets as 
 his predecessor (vii. 168), and that he did not object to be 
 called an ass, declaring that he was only able to bear Zeno's 
 burden (ib. 170). This estimate of his powers was for some 
 time acquiesced in by modern investigators, so that even 
 Zeller says of him (p. 41): — "Cleanthes was in every way 
 adapted to uphold his master's teaching, and to recommend it 
 by the moral weight of his own character, but he was in- 
 capable of expanding it more completely, or of establishing it 
 on a wider basis" (see also Krische, Forschungen, pp. 417 and 
 418). Now however a reaction in his favour has set in, and 
 from a closer scrutiny of the notices concerning him the 
 opinion has been formed that " his contributions were more 
 distinctive and original than those of any other Stoic " 
 (Encyol. Brit. Art. Stoics)'. In a question of such im- 
 portance it is singularly unfortunate that the hand of time 
 has dealt so hardly with him, not only in the actual amount 
 of the fragments which have been preserved to us, but also 
 in their relative importance for his philosophic system. For 
 one fragment of supreme value such as frag. 24 we have 
 six or seven trifling etymologies of the names of the gods, 
 
 ^ Hiizel has carried this view to an extreme, which the facts do not 
 warrant. At ii. p. 137 he curiouBly says: — "Da wir aber nichts unver- 
 sucht laesen diirfen, um eine eigentumliche Lehrc des Eleanthes heraus- 
 zubringen." On the other hand, Windelband, writing as late as 1888, 
 says of Cleanthes : — " als Philosoph ist er unbedeutend gewesen " (MiiUer's 
 Haudbuch, v. 292). 
 
38 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of so extravagant a character that it is hard to credit their 
 seriousness. The happy chance that has preserved to us the 
 Hymn to Zeus is counterbalanced by the consideration that 
 we only know of his theory of tension through two or three 
 
 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 ^avroo-ta 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 modem 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 <l>avTacria as eTepotucris ifytjioviKOv, 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. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 39 
 
 We have therefore, in accordance with Stein's view, included 
 the passage of Plutarch, which attributes the doctrine to the 
 Stoics in general, among the fragments of Cleanthes. Stein, 
 however, goes further'. Zeno had conceded this much to 
 rationalism, that we derive directly from God the capacity 
 for abstract thought, and that certain notions are the pro- 
 duct of this potentiality when actualised by experience. In 
 an ingenious and closely-reasoned argument, whose force it 
 is diflOicult to reproduce within short limits, Stein contends 
 that this position was thrown over by Cleanthes. According 
 to the latter, the capacity given us by nature is solely that 
 for moral and not for intellectual activity". The belief in 
 God himself does not, as with Zeno, arise from a "certa 
 animi ratio " but rather from induction founded on empirical 
 observation ^ The conclusion is that Cleanthes is a thorough- 
 going advocate of empiricism. But a divergence from the 
 rest of the school in a matter of such importance ought not 
 to be assumed on mere inference resting on ambiguous state- 
 ments, although were this doctrine explicitly ascribed to Cle- 
 anthes in a single passage we should not hesitate to accept 
 it, as being in entire consonance with his general bent of 
 mind. What then is the evidence which Stein produces apart 
 from the passage of Cicero just referred to, which is by no 
 means conclusive ? In the first place he appeals to two 
 passages which prove that moral impulses are transmitted to 
 us from our parents and implanted in us by nature^, and 
 lays stress on the fact that intellectual powers are not in- 
 cluded. This, however, is only negative evidence, and for 
 positive proof we are referred to frags. 106 and 100 ; in the 
 first of these we read that the uneducated difier from the 
 brutes only in shape, and in the second that the undiscerning 
 opinion of the many should be totally discarded. Surely 
 these grounds are insufficient to support the conclusion : 
 
 1 Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 322—328. 
 
 2 Cleanth. frags. 82 and 36. 
 
 3 Cleanth. frag. 52. (Cic. N. D. ii. 13.) 
 
40 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Plato himself might have greeted these sentiments with ap- 
 probation. But a more serious stumbling-blook remains in 
 the oft quoted passage from Diog. L. vii. 54. If, as Stein 
 himself admits, Chrysippus substituted 7rpo'\r;i/'w for the 
 Zenonian opdoi Xoyos, Cleanthes must of necessity be included 
 in the term dp^auoTtpoi tJJi' SruiKuii/, for there is no one else 
 to whom the words could apply'. Were further positive 
 evidence of Cleanthes' " concession to rationalism " required, 
 it would surely be as reasonable to supply it from frag. 21 
 i{/v)(rjv. . .^s /xepos /JitTixpvTai ij/xas iiuj/v\ov<T6ai 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 Kvptevav 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 XektoV in the sense of 
 KaTryyoprjfw,', that he left definitions of art and rhetoric, and 
 that he explained the names given to a certain kind of slippers 
 and a drinking-cup. 
 
 The first five of the physical fragments need not detain us 
 here, containing, as they do, with one exception, merely a 
 restatement of positions already taken up by Zeno. The 
 exception referred to is the introdijction of irvtvim as the 
 
 ' 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 apxatorepoi andere Stoiker als Zeno Kleanthes und 
 Chrysipp verstehen." Chrysippus is here excluded by the nature of the 
 case : the inference need not be stated. 
 
 ' See Stein, Brkenntnistheorie p. 327. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 41 
 
 truest description of the divine permeating essence, which 
 Zeno had characterised as aether. With frag. 17 however we 
 are on a different footing. Cleanthes teaches, according to 
 Cicero's account, that the world is God, and it is significant 
 that, although the same doctrine is attributed by him to 
 Chrysippus (N. D. 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) ovaiav 8« deov rov oXoi' 
 K6(rii.ov KoX Toi/ ovpavov, but this is not conclusive. Not only 
 the general cast of the expression, but also the addition of the 
 words KoX Tov ovpavov, 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 \ and teaching 
 that these elements themselves do not remain stable but are 
 in a restless and continual mutation, he was led to search for 
 the cause of this ceaseless movement. The question may be 
 put in another form, why did God create the world? The 
 answer was found in a comparison of the structure of indi- 
 vidual things. Evfery creature is produced at the proper time 
 by means of certain proportions of the soul's parts, which are 
 found in the seed. The soul, however, is material and is 
 braced up by that tension which is elsewhere described as "a 
 stroke of fire." This tension is ever varying and is the cause 
 of movement in the human frame. Now, since the individual 
 is a pattern of the universe', the cause of movement in the 
 cosmos must be the tension which permeates all its parts. 
 
 ' Not three in spite of Hirzel's Excursus ii. 737—755. See Stein, 
 Psychologje n. 113. 
 
 ^ This is probably the meaning of 1. 4 in the Hymn to Zeus, where 
 eee note. For the doctrine of the macrocosm and the microcosm in 
 general see Stein's Appendix to Psych, pp. 205 — 214. 
 
42 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Thus the phenomenal world is created and again destroyed 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^yt/jLoviKov 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 Tjyt/ji.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 fire, which is destructive, but to 
 the creative. As the sun strikes the world with his rays, 
 he is called a plectrum. Sun, moon, and 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 Trvtv/m 
 from the -^f/jLoviKov 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, Psyohologie, pp. 73 and 
 74, nn. 109 and 110. The notion of tokos is not entirely unknown to 
 Zeno : cf. Zeno frags. 56, 67, 103. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 43 
 
 reasoning powers are developed by external impressions, and 
 that all souls exist after death till the time of the general con- 
 flagration. His views on zoology comprise a statement that 
 the pig was provided with a soul to keep him fresh for sacrifice 
 and a curious anecdote proving the intelligence of ants. 
 
 To the theological branch of physics Cleanthes devoted 
 considerable attention', but in practice no sharp dividing line 
 can be drawn between physics and religion, since in the Stoic 
 system they necessarily overlap. It is hardly necessary to 
 analyse the Hymn to Zeus, but it may be observed that 
 Cleanthes refuses to admit that evil is due to the divine 
 agency, a remark which must be taken in connection with the 
 statement of Chalcidius that, while Ohrysippus 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. irvp 
 dfiliSov is the only eternal god; the rest are perishable and 
 will be destroyed at the eKTrupaitris. The popular religion is a 
 representation of truth, but requires interpretation if we 
 would understand its real significance. Thus, the Eleusinian 
 mysteries are an allegory; Homer, if properly understood, is a 
 witness to truth; the very names given to Zeus, Persephone, 
 Dionysus, Apollo, and Aphrodite are indications of the hidden 
 meaning which is veiled but not perverted by the current 
 belief, and the same is true of the myths of Heracles and 
 Atlas. It is difficult now-a-days to enter into the spirit with 
 which the Stoic school pursued these etymological fancies. 
 At times it is hard not to acquiesce in Plutarch's opinion (see 
 
 1 Cie. N. D. II. 63, in. 63. 
 
44 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 frag. 55), who attributes them to iraiSid. and eipioveia. But, if 
 this is so, it is impossible to account for the extreme diligence, 
 which was expended upon them. E:ather, 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 Siavv<rac, 
 but his explanation could not be disproved, and he was bound 
 to explain the name somehow, since, so long as it remained 
 unexplained, it was a standing objection to his method'. 
 
 The number of ethical works attributed to Cleanthes, 32 
 out of a total of 56, shows that he paid considerable attention 
 to this branch of philosophy. Yet, in the main, he seems to 
 have accepted the principles laid down by Zeno, except in 
 those cases where his physical innovations demanded a 
 separate treatment, and many of the fragments which have 
 come down to us deal rather with the practical than with the 
 theoretical side of morals. This agrees with what we are 
 told as to the titles of his books (see infra, p. 52). Defining 
 the aim of life and happiness in the same manner as Zeno, 
 Cleanthes laid special stress on the agreement with the 
 general law of nature, while Chrysippus is said to have 
 emphasised the necessity for agreement with human nature no 
 less than with nature in general. This view is thoroughly in 
 consonance with the general bias of Cleanthes' teaching. One 
 of the most striking and important of his doctrines is the 
 parallelism between the macrocosm of the world and the 
 microcosm of the individual. The more, therefore, that man 
 brings himself into harmony with the spirit which breathes 
 throughout the universe, the more does he fulfil the r61e to 
 which he is destined. The same spirit may be traced in the 
 
 1 The etymologies of Plato in the CratyluB 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 Philoloev 
 XVII. 192. ^' 
 
INTRODUCTION. 45 
 
 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 cTKoiros, and the attainment of happiness as rekoi'. 
 
 The doctrine of tovos 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 <^jodvi;o-«, 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 iyKpartLa, dvBpeux, Stxaioo-vvj;, and 
 <Tmtj>poiruvr]. It will be observed that iyKpareia here occupies 
 the position which by Chrysippus and his followers is assigned 
 to <l>p6vrja-K. Thus Cleanthes fortifies his main position, that 
 strength of tension is the necessary starting-point of virtue, 
 by a tacit appeal to the authority of Socrates, who had pointed 
 to lyKpareia as KpryirU dpenj?. A recurrence to the same 
 teacher may also be recognised in the approbation with which 
 his identification of to o-u/xf^epov with to Sikoiov is cited. To 
 return to tovos; when the tension is relaxed, a weakness of 
 soul follows, and in this weakness is to be found the explana- 
 tion of the TrdOr). 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 irdOr) leads us to the con- 
 sideration of another question, not indeed directly raised by 
 the fragments of Zeno and Cleanthes, but having an important 
 
 ' See however Hirzel ii. p. 557. 
 
46 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 bearing on our general view of their ethical doctrines. What 
 position do the Trddr) occupy in the classification of goods? 
 Zeno classified tJSovi; and therefore presumably the other irdOri 
 among the dSta.<l>opa, and the reason is not far to seek. He 
 regarded ttoBt] as distinct from vice, because they have nothing 
 to do with ignorance (Plut. Virt. Mor. 10 ras cn-irao-eis t<3v 
 ira^oJv Koi ras (T^oSpoTTjTas ov if}a<rL ytyvecr^ai Kara rrjv Kpi<Tiv iv 
 77 TO afiapTTiTiKov). Only KaxCa or to /xcTexov KaKias is kukov, 
 according to Zeno, and irddoi is neither, but rather an liriyiv- 
 v-qixa. (Cf. TCI £7riyiyvo/i£va Kpiaea-Lv Zeno frag. 139 and for the 
 distinction between iinyevv^fiaTa and fLtrixovra cf. Diog. L. vil. 
 95.) That this applies to all the iraOr) and not merely to 
 ■qhovrj is made clear by the following considerations. In frag. 
 169 Zeno recommends the rational use of wealth ottws dSef) 
 Kal dSavpLaoTov wpds TaXXa Tijv ZidBtfTiv t^s i/'i^X^S f.)(oi'T€'; oda 
 firiTe KaXa i(TTi, fitjre aia'^a. tois piv Kara <l>viri,v «os iirl ttoXv 
 Xpwvrai T(j}v 8 evavTiutv //.ijSci/ ScSoikotcs Xoyo) Koi p.yj <j)oP<o tovtidv 
 an-ex<ovTai. This shows that the dSidifiopa are the field of 
 ^6j3oi, and for XvTrr) we may refer to Cic. Tusc. iii. 77 nihil 
 enim esse malum quod turpe non sit si lugenti persuaseris...et 
 tamen non satis mihi videtur vidisse hoc Cleanthes, suscipi 
 aliquando aeffritudinem posse ex eo ipso, quod esse summum 
 malum Cleanthes ipse fateatur. It is noteworthy, moreover, 
 that Cleanthes, who is allowed to have been the severest 
 opponent of pleasure', declares iJSoviJi' ft»?Te Kara, t^wiv civac 
 /ti;Tt dilav f-xav ev tm /Stio (frag. 88) but does not venture to 
 class it as xaxoV. The result of this discussion is that Zeno 
 and Cleanthes did not class \xnrq and <^oj8os with xaica, and 
 therefore Wachsmuth cannot be right in attributing to Zeno 
 a passage in Stobaeus" where this classification is implied. 
 
 ' Zeller, Stoics p. 237. The remarks iu the text are intended to 
 obviate the difficulty as to the classification of ijSov^ suggested by Helnze, 
 de Stoicorum aSectibus p. 37. 
 
 ^ See Waohsmuth's Stobaeus vol. ii. p. 58. That this question was 
 much debated appears from Cic. Tusc. iv. 29. Some appear to have held 
 that iriSos was kokok but not Kada (Stob. 1. c), because Trdffos is xlvTitns 
 but Kaxta is SMeffis (Cic. 1. o. 30). 
 
INTKODDCTION. 47 
 
 That this view did not continue to be the orthodox view of the 
 school after their time is possible, but to pursue the subject 
 further would be foreign to our purpose. 
 
 The uncorrupted impulses given by nature tend towards 
 virtue, and, when they are suitably developed, wisdom founded 
 on firm apprehension, so that it can never be lost, follows in 
 due course. Secure in the possession of virtue, the wise man 
 partakes of the same excellence as God. 
 
 In the treatise Trepi t/Sov^s Cleanthes seems to have en- 
 gaged in a spirited controversy with the Epicureans, and to 
 have attacked their moral teaching, just as he perhaps assailed 
 their physics in the work irepi droiuav. 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 iio 
 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 irapaivcTiKos or viroOenKoi tojtos (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 jrept cu- 
 jSovXias, TTcpi x°'P"'^^^ '^^P'- 'i^^ovipta's, ■Trepl Tifirjs, irtpl So'^s, 
 irepl ^tXias, Trepi o-u/XTTOO-tou k.tX To the book ircpl xap'Tos we 
 may assign three of the extant fragments (frags. 97, 98, 99) 
 all of which are preserved by Seneca in the de Beneficiis. 
 The theory of consolation (frags. 93 and 94) may belong either 
 to the TTcpI a'puy^s or the irepl c^tXias. Frags. 100 — 103 all in 
 
48 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 verse and one in hexameter metre ought to be referred to the 
 vepl So^T/i. 
 
 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 physicSj 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 rdle 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 d /x^ yap ^v Xpvo-«nros 
 ovK av r/v Sroa (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. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 49 
 
 § 7. The writings of Gleanthes. 
 
 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 irepl OeiSv, 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. Krisohe p. 422 supposes that the Hymn 
 to Zeus was a poetical supplement incorporated with this 
 treatise, but such treatment would surely have produced 
 highly incongruous results. It is possible that we ought to 
 separate Cleanthes the philosopher from Cleanthes the poet, 
 and to infer that works published by him in the latter capacity 
 were not included in the list of his philosophical treatises. 
 At the same time we should remember that Chrysippus (Galen, 
 plac. Hipp, et Plat. p. 315) and Posidonius (ib. p. 399 prjo-eis 
 re TTOirjTiKas TrapaTiQeraL koX i<7Topia% iroXaiwv irpaieoiv /JMp- 
 Tvpova-as oTs A,£yet) were accustomed to freely interpolate 
 poetical quotations in their prose writings, and Cleanthes 
 may have composed his own florilegia, just as Cicero trans- 
 lated from the Greek where the Latin poets failed him 
 (Tusc. D. II. 26). A catalogue of the titles known to us is 
 subjoined; where not otherwise indicated, the source of 
 reference is Diog. L. vii. 174, 175. 
 
 I. Logical. 
 
 (1) 7r€pl IBioiv. For tSia cf. Ar. Top. i. 5, p. 102 a 17 : the 
 essential attributes of a thing are its tSia : thus ypan/iaTiKrj'; 
 8eKT6/cos is an tStoi' of man. 
 
 (2) Trepi T<3v airopoiv. 
 
 (3) Trepi SiaXtKTiKTJs. 
 
 H. P. ■* 
 
50 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 (4) wfpl TpoTTutv. Probably this is logical rather thaii 
 rhetorical. 
 
 (5) TTtpl KorriyoprjiJuiTiav.. To this book may be referred 
 frag. 7. 
 
 (6) ircpl neraX-^ij/eai^ (Athen. xi. 467 d, 471 b). 
 
 (7) vepl Tov KvpieuovTOi (Arr. Epict. II. 19. 9). Krische 
 p. 427 n. gives to this work the title wepl SwoTtov, but Epict. 
 distinctly contrasts Chrysippus' work bearing the general title 
 with a treatise by Cleanthes on the particular fallacy (KXcav^ijs 
 8' tSia yeypa^e nepl tovtov), Wachsmuth, Comm. I. p. 18. 
 
 (8) vepl Te^vTjs may be the same work as the ars rhetorica 
 mentioned in Cic. Fin. iv. 3, but if so it is out of its place in 
 the catalogue, where it appears between nos. 4 and 5 of the 
 physical books. 
 
 (9) TTtpl ToB koyov y. This and the following book ap- 
 pear in the catalogue among the ethical works. 
 
 (10) -TTfpi eirurrriit,r)i. 
 
 Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 722, counts among the logical 
 works the books ircpt y^povov irepi aidOTjtTeioi and irepl 8ofi;s, but 
 omits, probably by an oversight, the book irepi rpoirmv. 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) Trept ■)(p6vov. 
 
 (2) TTcpi njs TfTjvun/o'i tj>v(no\oyia(s ^. 
 
 (3) Tbjv 'HpaKXetVou i^rjyija-emv S*. Cf. Diog. L. IX. 15 
 ■TrkfUTTOi T£ eto-tv otroi e^ijyjjvrai avTov to crvyypap.fA,a. xat yap 
 ' XvTLO-Oevrii koI 'HpaKktiSrji 6 IIovTi/cos KXcacdi;; re «al %<f>aipoi 
 6 Stojiko's. The influence of Heraclitus on Cleanthes has been 
 variously estimated. Hirzel is the chief advocate in favour of 
 it, holding e.g. that Cleanthes agreed with him in his hypo- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 51 
 
 thesis of three elements, and that to'vos is traceable to iraXtV- 
 Tovos (or irakivrpoiroi) dpfiovirj. Stein's more moderate estimate 
 appears to us truer. 
 
 (4) Trepi attr^i7<re(Bs. 
 
 (5) Trpos Arj/ioKpiTov, perhaps the same as irepl t<ov droixiav 
 (Diog. L. VII. 134) so Krische p. 430. 
 
 (6) irpos 'Apl(TTap)(ov, see on frag. 27. Some have erro- 
 neously supposed that the Aristarchus here referred to was 
 the Homeric critic, whose date is a century later than 
 Cleanthes; cf. Krische p. 394 and Wilamowitz-Moellendorf in 
 Hermes xx. 631. 
 
 (7) viroiJivijfJi,aTa (jivoriKa. (Plut. Sto. Rep. c. 8). 
 The books next in order treat of OeoXoyiKov. 
 
 (8) dpxaLoXoyCa has been identified with fLvOiKa (Athen. 
 XIII. 572 e, Porphyr. vit. Pyth. c. 1), but the genuineness of the 
 latter work, is seriously questioned. Miiller frag. hist. Gr. ii. 
 p. 5. 9. 11 thinks that the ra Kara iroXw ({.vOlko. 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) Trepi 6e(Sv, cf. Plut. de vit. aer. alien, c. 7. To this 
 work Wachsmuth refers frags. 47. 54. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 
 62. 63. Krische (p. 418, 422) also the statements in Cic. 
 ISr. D. I. 37 (frags. 14—17) and the hymn to Zeus (frag. 48). 
 See also Osann Praef. Cornut. p. ix. 
 
 (10) Trepl yiydvTitiv. 
 
 (11) irepl'Y/j.fvaiov. This is a curious title. Perhaps it 
 should rather be classed as ethical. Cf. Persaeus' book irepl 
 •ya/iOD (Diog. L. VII. 36). 
 
 (12) trepl Tov TroirfTov. 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) dwixaxia- (ps.-Plut. de Fluv. v. 3. 4) was identified 
 by Krische with the book Trepl yiyavToiv supra (p. 434) but this 
 
 4—2- 
 
52 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and the next book are rightly described by Wachsmuth as 
 "ficta ab impostore ps.-Plutarcho," see note on frag. 69. 
 
 (14) irepl opiSv, ib. V. 17. 4. 
 
 Fabricius Bibl. Gr. iii. p. 552 infers from Simplic. in 
 Epict. Man. c, 78 that one of Cleanthes' -works bore the title 
 'lajiAjSeta, but the words simply mean "in his well known Iambic 
 lines." 
 
 III. Ethical. 
 
 (1) n-pds 'HptXXov. For Herillus see Zeller p. 42. 
 
 (2) irepl opiLrj^ yS'. 
 
 (3) Trept Tov Ka6'qK0VT0'i y'. 
 
 (4) irepi ev^ovXia^. 
 
 (5) ■TTtpl ^apiTOs. 
 
 (6) wporpeirrtKOs. Cf. Diog. L. VII. 91. 
 
 (7) irepl aperoij'. 
 
 (8) Trepi fv<j)vtai. 
 
 (9) wepl TopyiTTTTOv "num Trpos Topynnrov qui idem fuerit 
 atque ropywrirt'Sijs ad quern complura scripta Chrysippus misit?"' 
 Wachsm. Mohnike p. 100 wishes to read ropyiinri'Sov. 
 
 (10) wepl <j)6ovfpias- 
 
 (11) irepl IpujTos. Here belongs perhaps frag. 108. 
 
 (12) irepl e\ev6epia^. 
 
 (13) epuyriKrj rexyrj. 
 
 (14) irepl TLp.rj'S. 
 
 (15) irepl So^jys. 
 
 (16) iroXiTiKoi. Here belongs frag. 104, cf. Plut. Sto, 
 Rep. c. 2. 
 
 (17) irepl /SovX^s. 
 
 (18) irepl v6p.iav. 
 
 (19) Trepi rov Sixa^eiv. 
 
 (20) Trept dpwyijt!. 
 
 (21) Trepi reXovi. 
 
 (22) Trepi KaA.uji'. 
 
 (23) irepl irpa^ewv. 
 
 (24) irepl ^atriXeias. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 53 
 
 (25) wept <fiiXiai. 
 
 (26) irepi crvfUTtocriov. Persaeus -wrote (jvfjaroTiKa. vTroit.vq- 
 }uxTa or Sia'Aoyoi (Athen. IV. 162 b, xiii. 607 a). 
 
 (27) TTipX ToC oTt ■^ avrrj dperrj dvSpos koi yvvaiKOi. So 
 Antisthenes also taught (Diog. L. vi. 12) and cf. Socrates in 
 Xen. Symp. ii. 9. Otherwise Aristotle, Pol. i. 13. 1260 a 21. 
 Eth. VIII. 14. 1162 a 26. 
 
 (28) irepl ToC Tov (ro<f)6v (TOffiurTeveLV, 
 
 (29) Trept XP^'<"''- 
 
 (30) SiaTpi,/3iSv P . 
 
 (31) Trept ■qhov7j<s. For this book see Krische p. 430 foil. 
 
 (32) TTipl xoXkov (Diog. L. VII. 14). The title of this book 
 has been much discussed. It was altered to irtpl y(ap'-'''°'^ ^1 
 •Casaubon, to ircpt ■)(p6vmi by Menagius, Fabricius and Mohnike, 
 and to irepi ^peiw by Waohsmuth. It is possible that xoKkov 
 is due to the scribe's eye catching the word ^aXxov which 
 closely precedes in the citation, and, if so, we have no clue to 
 the true title. 
 
 (33) Trept oToas. This book is supposed to have existed 
 from a mutilated passage of Philodemus ircpi (fuXoo-otjyiov in vol. 
 Here. VIII. col. 13 v. 18 <us atr' avaypa^al twv Tr(i)vaKcuv (at)T£ 
 PipXioBrJKai <rrjp.aivov(nv, (wapd K\)ea.v6r] iv tu Trepl oT(oas e)tr(Tiv) 
 Aioytvovs avTfi ij ix,vy)ii.rj. 
 
THE FKAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 1. Diog. L. VII. 39, rpi/iepT] (jjaalv elvui tov Kara 
 (f>i\o<TOij>iav Xoyov. eivai Y"P ctuTov to fiev Tt, (pvcrtKov to 
 Se rjQiKov TO he XoyiKov. ovToa he •iTpa>TO<; hueTKe Zr^vav 6 
 KtTtei)? iv Tw irepl Xoyov. 
 
 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. vil. 16 ivTeXearepov 
 he...ol elirovTe'; ttJ? (j)i,Xoa'0(f>iav to jxev ti elvai (jivaiKov to 
 he ii]6iic6v TO he XoyiKov wv hwajMei fJiev HXaTcov iaTiv 
 dpyriyo'S, Trepl iroXXtSv jmIv (pvaiKwv ttoXXwv he rjBiicaiv ovk 
 oXIr/mv he XoytKav SiaXe^^et?' p7}TQTaTa he ol irepl tov 
 SevoKpafTjv Koi ol aTro tov TrepiiraTOV eTt he ol diro t^9 
 a-Todi; exovTat, Trjcrhe t^9 hiaipecrea)^. At. Top. I. p. 105 b 19 
 eaTi h' (B? TVTT^ irepiXa^eiv twv irpoTaa-eaiv kuX twv irpo- 
 ^X7]/jidT(ov fiepr] Tpia' ai fiev yap -^Oiual irpoTcureL'; eiaiv, al 
 he (f>va-tKal, al he XoyiKal must not be taken as indicating 
 that Aristotle had in view the triple division (see Waitz in 
 loc). Cicero speaking of Speusippus, Aristotle, Xenocrates, 
 Polemo, and Theophrastus says (de Fin. iv. 4) : — totam 
 philosophiam tres in partes diviserunt, quam partitionem 
 a Zenone esse retentam videmus. In Acad. 1. 19 he wrongly 
 attributes the division to Plato (fuit ergo jam accepta a 
 Platone philosophandi ratio triplex) : Diog. L. lii. 56 only 
 says that Plato introduced the SjaXewrtKos totto?, not that 
 
56 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 he recognised the triple division. With the Stoics it 
 became so fundamental that they did not hesitate to refer 
 to it the three heads of Cerberus and Athene's name Tptro- 
 yeveia (Zeller, pp. 363, 364). Hirzel (de logica Stoicorum 
 in Sauppe's Satura Philologa,' p. 71) thinks that Zeno was 
 the inventor of the term Xoyix^ in place of Xenocrates' 
 
 SiaXSKTlKT]. 
 
 2. Diog. L. VII. 40, aXXoi Se irpwTov fiev to XoyiKov 
 TCLTTOva-f Bei/Tepov Be to cfyvcriKoV koX Tp'iTov to ijdiKov. 
 wv iari Zrjvwv ev t£ irepl \6yov. 
 
 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: — 
 TOVTcov (fiepwv) Beiv rdrTeaffai irpwTov /iev rd Xoyixd, 
 Sevrepa Be rd rjOtKa, rpira Be rd (j)vaiKd — and yet in the 
 same passage we find attributed to Chrysippus the state- 
 ment ovB' dWov nvo'; eveKev t^? <^v<nKrj<; 9ewpia<; "jrapa- 
 XTjTrrrj'i ovcrrji; rj irpo's rrjv trepl dyadwv rj icaKOtv Bidaraaiv, 
 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. (vii. 40) physics are likened to 
 the fruit of the garden and the yolk of the egg, in Sextus 
 (adv. Math. vii. 17 — 19) they are compared to the trees in 
 the garden and the white of the egg, having changed 
 places with ethics. But both alike in recording the 
 comparison, which Posidonius thought more apt, yield the 
 place of honour to ethics, which are compared to the soul 
 of man. It is not improbable, as Wellmann and Stein 
 (Erkenntnistheorie, p. 302) think, that the two former of 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 57 
 
 these similes may be due to Zeno, on whose fondness for 
 such similes we have remarked in the Introd. p. 33, but 
 there is no evidence to decide. The confusion about the 
 whole matter seems to have arisen from the distinction 
 made by the Stoics between the order of relative im- 
 portance and the order of teaching (cf Sext. 1. 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. [Ritter and 
 Preller, § 390 n. and Ueberweg, p. 192 apparently regard as 
 the earlier view that which gave physics the most im- 
 portant position, but see Stein, Psychologie n. 7.] 
 
 LOGICA. 
 
 3. Arr. Epict. diss. IV. 8, 12, OeapijfiaTa tov <f>iXocr6- 
 <j)ov...a Z'^vcov \eyei yvwvai to. tov Xoyov aT0i')(ela, irolov 
 Ti, eKatTTov avToov iim Kai ttcS? apfioTrerai, irpot aXKTJKa 
 Kol ocra TOVTOb<; aKoKovffd icm. 
 
 It is difficult, in the absence of Zeno's context, to 
 decide the exact meaning of rd tov T^yov a-Tof)(^eia. 
 There is no doubt that the Stoics used this phrase in the 
 sense of "parts of speech" (Diog. vii. 58 prjfia Se ia-Ti... 
 (TToixeiov "Koyov utttoitov), but this meaning is ncft general 
 enough and is certainly excluded by the words im- 
 mediately preceding in Epictetus rC reXo? ; /mtj ti (fyopelv 
 Tpi^eova ; ov, dWd to opdov exeiv tov \6yov. It is sug- 
 gested, therefore, that Zeno is here expressing, possibly in 
 an earlier work, the nominalism of Antisthenes and that 
 \6yov (7Toix^ia = the (indefinable) elements of definition. 
 It is now generally admitted (see e.g. Dr Jackson in 
 Journ. Phil. xiii. 262) that the opinion stated at some 
 length by Socrates in Theaet. p. 201 E — 202 c is that of 
 Antisthenes, and the words trToixeiov and \6yo<; in this 
 sense must have belonged to his terminology (see the 
 
58 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 whole passage and especially to, fiev irp&Ta olovirepel 
 crroi'xeia...\6'yov ovk e^ei 201 E, oijTOi Sr) to, /lev crTOi'xela 
 dXoya xal ayvwra elvai, alirOrira Si, cf. 206 E to ipmrt}- 
 oevra rt e/cacrrov Swarov elvai rrjv diroKpiaiv Sia twv 
 aroi'x^euov dirohovvaL Ta> epofievep) : with this should be 
 compared the passages in Ar. Metaph. Vlll. 3. 1043 b 23, 
 XIV. 3. 1091 a 7 ^ar oiiaim ea-rt fiev rj<! ivSi-yeTai. elvai 
 opov Koi \6yov olov t?5s avvderov idv re aladrjrrj idv re 
 voTjTT] rj' i^ Sv B' avTr] irpdiTav ovk eariv. It is not a 
 necessary inference from this passage that Zeno treated 
 6p66<} X070S as Kpirr]pLov dX7]6eia<s, or that he and 
 Cleanthes are the dWoi Tive<; tqjv dp'^acorepcop 'Etcockcov 
 whom Diogenes (vii. 54) mentions as holding this opinion, 
 although Hirzel thinks this established, comparing frag. 
 157 (Untersuchungen, il. pp. 14 f. 23). Indeed it is 
 difficult to understand how, except on the h3rpothesis of 
 a change of opinion, this is reconcilable with the fact that 
 Zeno introduced the ^avraala KwreCKri'irTiKr), as will 
 appear hereafter. Hirzel further remarks : — "Unter den 
 TWV «Vo T)5? Sroa? rti'e? des Alexand. Aphrod. zur Topik 
 (schol. Arist. p. 256 b 14) welche den \byo<s durch tL r^v 
 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 "^vrnvai tu 
 Tov \6yov a-Toixela as "die Erkenntnis der Elemente des 
 Denkens d. h. wie das Denken beschaffen sei und worin 
 die gegenseitige Verbindung der Gedanken bestehe und 
 welche Konsequenzen sich aus dieser Gedankenverbind- 
 ung ergeben." 
 
 4. Arr. Epict. diss. i. 17. 10, 11, kuI tu Xoyiicd 
 aKaptrd iaTi...Kal vepl tovtov fiev oifrofieda, ei 8' ovv kuI 
 TOVTO BoIt] Tt?, ixelva dirapKei, oti twv dWmv eVrt 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 59 
 
 SiaKpiTiKa Koi eirKTKeiTTiKa koI m? av ti<s eiiroi fierpTj- 
 TiKcb KoX araTiKO.' ti? Xiyet ravra ; fiovoi X.pvirnnro<f 
 Kal 7i'r)vav KoX TSXeavd'qi; ; 
 
 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 to 
 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 S' iSiov rj fidXtcrra oiKeiov rrj<; 8ta\6KTi«^9 
 icTTiv e^eraaTLKrj yap ovaa irpo^ ra? airacraiv twv fieffoBcov 
 dp^af oSov exei, cf also the title opyavov given to 
 Aristotle's logical treatises (Waitz ii. 294) and the name 
 KavovtKrj 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 
 evidence. 
 
 o-TOTiKo, "weighing." The word is used by Plato, cf 
 Phileb. 55 E olov Traaaiv irov re'Xvmv av rt? dpidiirjTlKrjv 
 j((opi^7) Koi p,eTpr]TCK'>]v koi a-TariKrjv, (u? 67ro? eiirelv. 
 Charraid. 166 B. 
 
 5. Stob. Eel. II. 2. 12 p. 22, 12 Wachsm. [vulgo Floril. 
 LXXXII. 5], Z-qvmv TO? Twv BiaXeKTiKmv rej(va<; eUa^e rot? 
 BiKaioi<} fjLerpoi'i ov irvpov ovB' a\Xo Tt twv airovhaiaiv 
 /leTpovcrip dW a')(ypa Kai KOirpia. 
 
 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 8taXe«Tt«oi, as the Stoics them- 
 selves are by Sextus (Zeller, Socrates etc. p. 250 n. 3). 
 Moreover Alexinus was a determined opponent of Zeno 
 
60 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 {Diog. II. 109 Bte^epero Be fiaXia-ra Trpoi Zrjviova) and 
 Sextus tells us how he controverted Zeno's proof that the 
 world is \07iK0? (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 BiaXeKTi.Kwv in 
 frag. 5 and BiaXeKTiKtjp 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. T^vtts = 
 treatises. 
 
 BiKaiois : so the three best MSS AM and S : eUaioK; 
 adopted by Mein. from MS B (late and untrustworthy) is 
 virtually a conjecture. Wachsm. suggests ■xyBaioK but, on 
 the interpretation given above, BikuLoi's is more forcible: 
 the methods are good enough (cf. fierprfTiKa frag. 4) but 
 they are put to base uses, i.e. to mere quibbling. After 
 fierpoK Gaisf add. oh. 
 
 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 = rioril. Lxxxii. 7, 11, 18) in one of the points on 
 which he severed himself from the Stoic school. 
 
 6. Plut. Sto. Kep. viii. 2, eXve Be (soil. Zeno) <ro<f>l,a- 
 /jLura Koi rr/v BiaXeKTiKrjv ta? tovto iroielv Bvvafievrjv 
 eKeKeve irapdXap.^dveiv toi)? fi,a67)rd<s. Hence Schol. 
 ad Arist. 22 b 29 ed. Brandis speaking of Zeno of Elea 
 says that he was called dfi<j)orep6y\(oa-a-o<; ov^, on Bia- 
 XeKTiKOi rjv w? 6 KiTteu?. 
 
 cro<|>C(rnaTo, cf the anecdote related by Diog. vii. 25. 
 A logician showed Zeno seven SiaXeKn/cal IBeai in the 
 Reaper fallacy, and received 200 drachmas, although his 
 fee was only half that amount, ib. vii. 47 ovk dvev Be 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 61 
 
 Trj<! BiaXeKriKrj^ dea>pLa<; top <to<\)uv airrcoTov eveadai ev 
 Xo7&)...t6 re a/t^tySoXw? Xeyo/ievop BievKpiveiadai. 
 
 Tijv SiaXcKTiKijv. Strictly speaking, XoytK'^ is a wider 
 term than SioXsktck'^, cf. Diog. VII. 41 to Se XoytKov 
 fiipc; ipaaiv evioi et's Svo SiaipelcrBai eiriaTiifiat;, eh 
 prjTopiKrjv KoX el<s BidXeKTCKrjv, Sen. Ep. 89, 16. 
 
 7. <f)avTacria etrrl TviraxTL'; ev '^V')(^. Sext. Emp, 
 Math. VII. 228, 236 distinctly attributes this definition to 
 Zeno. Diog. VII. 45 ttjv he ^avTaaiav elvai Tvirmcriv ev 
 "^vx^, Tov ovofiUTO'; olKeiec; fuerevqveyfievov dirb twv 
 TXiTTOiv ev Tw Ki}pS VTTO TOV SaKTvXCov yiyvo/ievcov, ib. 50 
 quoting ■ Chrysippus' gloss aWotwcrt? : cf. Plut. Comm. 
 Not. 47. 
 
 For the use of ryTrtoo-ts 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 rvTracrt? : for which see on Cleanth, 
 frag. 3. It would seem however from the expressions 
 "effictum" and "impressum" in Zeno's definition of ^av- 
 Taaia KaTaXrjTTTtK'ij (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 (f>avTaa-ia (de An. III. 3) : see Introd. p. 24. 
 See further Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 157. 
 
 8. Ta^ fiev al<T6ri<Tei<; aK,7]dei<; tSv Se (fiavTaa-tcav ra? 
 fiev dXrjOel^ ra? Se i/revSet?. 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, AT/^tioK/otTo? /lev iracrav aladrjTr^v 
 virap^iv KeKivr)Kev, 'KviKovpo<! Se ttov aia-drjTov eXe^e 
 ^e^aiov elvai 6 Be XTtotKO'i Zijvcov Biaipe<ret ey^prJTo ; Cic. 
 
■62 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 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, 
 ci. de An. ni. 3. 7 elra at fiev (scil. aladija-eii) aXrjOei^ 
 del, ai Be ^avraaiai <yLvovrai ai irKeLov^ yjrevSeK. On the 
 other hand Epicurus held Trao-a? ras (f>avraa-la<! aKri6ei<! 
 elvat, (Sext. Math. VII. 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 ivdpyeia, for 
 which he elsewhere suggests as translations perspicuitas 
 or evidentia (ib. il. 17). Every sense impression is 
 ivapyh according to the Epicureans (Zeller, p. 428), but 
 with Zeno ivdpyeia is simply introduced as an attribute 
 of KaTd\.7]7rnKrj ^avraaia: cf. Sext. Math. VII. 257 speaking 
 of the K. <^. avTT) yap ivapyrj<; ovcra koI TvKTfKTiKrj fiovov 
 ov'xl tSv rpix^v f^afi^dverat KaTaa-irwaa i^/jlo,'; ets <rvy- 
 KaTadeaiv Koi SXXov /irjSevov Seofievr) eh rd roiavrrj 
 Trpoairi'irTeiv rj eh ro Trjv irpoi ra? dXKa<s Sca^opdv vtto- 
 ^dXKeiv. Hirzel (Untersuchungen, ii. pp. 3, 6) attributes 
 ivdpyeia 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 8i avTrj<; t^? ivapyeiai. 
 
 10. Sext. Math. VII. 253, dXKd ydp oi /j,ev dpxato- 
 repoi Twv ^TtoiKwv KpiTijpiov ^aaiv elvai Trj<s d'\r]deia<! rrjv 
 KaraXTjirTiK'^v ^avraaiav. ib. 227 Kpirijpiov dXr)6eLa<i 
 elvai Trjv KaraXtjirriK'^v <f)avTaa'lav. This is to be at- 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 63 
 
 tributed to Zeno partly as an inference from the word 
 dpjfavoTepob, 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 (KaTaXrj-yjriv) quam dixi collocabat 
 eamque neque in rectis neque in pravis numerabat sed 
 soli credendum esse dicebat. Diog. L. vii. 46 refers the 
 citation to the school generally and in 54 quotes it from 
 Chrysippus iv rfj SvcoBexaTr) twv ^vo-ikwv. 
 
 For the doctrine of the KaraKrjwTiKr) (jsavraaia see 
 Zeller, pp. 87 — 89. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 167 foil. 
 Four different explanations of the meaning of the term 
 have been given (1) /caraK. active. The irresistible cha- 
 racter of the impression compels assent, Zeller. (2) kutoX. 
 passive : the perception is grasped by the mind, Hirzel. 
 (3) The object of representation (to inrap-xpv) and not 
 the perception is grasped by the mind, Ueberweg, p. 192 
 (now given up by Heinze). (4) KaraX. both active and 
 passive. Stein, thus reconciling the apparent contra- 
 diction between Cic. Acad. i. 41, and Sext. Math. vii. 257. 
 For the exact meaning of KaTdXr]'\jn<;)(KaTaXri7rTiKT^ <j)av- 
 raaia c£ Sext. Emp. Math. XI. 182 KaTaXTjyjri^ ia-Ti xara- 
 XTjiTTLKrji; <l)avTaa-la<; a-vyicaTddea-L<; : a distinction, possibly 
 due to Zeno, which tends to disappear in practice. See 
 also Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 182. KaTdXr]yjri,<! kotu- 
 XrjTTTiKrj, 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 KaraXafi- 
 fSdveiv had been used by Plato in the sense "to grasp 
 with the mind," Phaedr. 250 D trepl Be xdXXovf, Sairep 
 ei-TTOfiev, p-er eKeivcov re eXafinrev ov, Bevpo re iX66vre<i 
 KaTeiXrj(f>afi€v avTo Bid t^? evapyeardTr)'; alaOrjaeoD'i twv 
 
64 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 ■^/leTepa)!/ a-riX^ov ivapyearaTa. Zeno, therefore, only 
 specialised the meaning of the word, see Introd. p. 34 
 and generally Introd. p. 9. 
 
 11. Sext. Math. VII. 248, ^avraaia KaTaXrjirTiKri 
 eariv r) otto tov inrcipj^ovTO^ Koi kut avro to virap'xpv 
 ivairo/iefiayfievrj koL eva'ire<7<f)payia fievq oiroia ovk av ye- 
 voiTo arro firj v'lrdpxovTO';, ib. 426, Pyrrh. II. 4. Diogenes 
 gives the definition in substantially the same words in 
 § 50 adding however koX ivaTroreTvircafiivr} after ivairo- 
 fiefiayfievT) : in § 46 he omits oTroia — v7rdp')(ovTO<s but 
 adds : — dKaraXriTrTov Be Trjv fifj wrro i'irap')(ovTo<;, r) otto 
 VTrap^ovTO? fiev, fir) kut avrd 8e to VTrdp'Xpv Trjv fir) Tpavfj 
 firjBe eKTvirov, 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 
 esse non posset ex eo unde non esset, id nos a Zenone defi- 
 nitum rectissime dicimus; ib. 113, ib. i. 41 id autem visum 
 cum ipsum per se cemeretur 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 he Boyfia tovto avrov (soil. Zrjvtovo^) irpmTov 
 evpofievov KavTo to Svofia ^XeTrav evBoKifiovv iv raw 
 'AdijvaK Trjv KaTcbKrjTTTiKrjv ^avTatriav 'Traay /irij^^avp 
 i-^prJTo eV avTTjv (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- 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 65 
 
 nition can hardly be due to Chrysippus, who only suc- 
 ceeded to the headship of the Stoa eight years after the 
 death of Arcesilas (of. Plut. Com. 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 dKaraXri'jrTa iravTa eivat ov irdvTa Be dS-rjXa 
 (Zeller, p. 555). In the second book of Cicero's Academica 
 the question is discussed at length. Sext. Math. vii. 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 cmoia ovk dp yevoiTo dv^ 
 liTj v-7rdpxovTo<s was inserted to meet the Academic ob- 
 jection that two impressions, one true and the other false, 
 might be so entirely alike (dtrapdTOuiKTov) as to be in- 
 capable of distinction, which of course the Stoics did not 
 admit. For iva-n-o/ie/jiay/iivr] cf. Ar. Ran. 1040 odev ^/x^ 
 ^p^v diro/ia^a/jLevT] ttoWos o/oera? etrovqaev. 
 
 12. Olympiodorus in Plat. Gorg. pp. 53, 54 (ed. Jahn 
 ap. Neue Jahrb. fur Philol. supplement bd. xiv. 1848 
 p. 239, 240) Zrjvwv Se ^r)<nv '6ti rkxvn eari avarrj/jba e'/e 
 KcCra\'ij'y}reQ)V avyy eyv/ivacr/ievov (? -cov) irpoi ti TiXoi eij- 
 •^prja-Tov Twv ev tw jSitp. 
 
 Cf. Lucian Paras, c. 4 rex^v eariv, co? iyco Siafiin]- 
 p,ovev(o <ro<f>ov rivoi; aKOVo'a';, crvffTi^fia iic KaTaXr)->^ewv 
 a-vyyeyvfivaa-iiivwv 'irp6<s ti t6\o? evxPV'^'^°v '''^^ ^^ ''''P 
 ^itp. Schol. ad. Ar. Nub. 317 ovtw yap opi^ofieda Tqv 
 TexvtjV olov avaTTifia iic KuraX'^ip'eav iyyeyvfivaa/ievcov 
 KoX rd i^e^rj^. Sext. Emp. Math. II. 10 irdaa toivvv 
 H. P. § 
 
66 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 Tej(yv a-va-TTiiid iariv e« /caraXijf^eeav ervyyeyvfivaa/jLevav 
 Kal 67ri Te\o? ev')(pr)aTOV rtp /Sim Xa/i^avovriov Tr/v ava- 
 (fyopdv. The same definition partially in id. Pyrrh. iii. 
 188, 241, 251, Math. i. 75, vii. 109, 373, 182. Wachsm. 
 also quotes (Coram. I. p. 12), Schol. Dionys. Thrac. p. 649, 
 31, ib. p. 721, 25 oi XtcoikoI ovTto<! opi^ovrai Trjv rexvnv 
 re'xyT) iart ffvarrjfia Trepl y^v^^v yevofievov eyKaToKirifreaiv 
 eyyeyvfivaafMevmv k.t.X. Cf. also Quintil. II. 17, 41 Nam 
 sive, ut Cleanthes voluit, ars est potestas via, id est, ordine 
 efficiens: esse certe viam atque ordinem in benedicendo 
 nemo dubitaverit; sive ille ab omnibus fere probatus 
 finis observatur artem constare ex praeceptionibus con- 
 sentientibus et coexercitatis ad finem vitae utilem. Cic. 
 frag. ap. Diomed 414 ed. Putsch ars est perceptionum 
 exercitarum constructio ad unum exitum utilem vitae 
 pertinentium. Cic. Acad. ii. 22 ars vero quae potest esse 
 nisi quae non ex una aut duabus sed ex multis animi 
 perceptionibus constat. Fin. ill. 18 artes...coristent ex 
 cognitionibus et contineat quiddam in se ratione consti- 
 tutum et via (illustrating also the next frag.). N. D. ii. 
 148 ex quibus (perceptis) coUatis 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 
 ■77 fiev ovv Te')(y7) efts rt? fieTa \6yov d\7)dov<s •TroirjTtK'^ 
 iaTiv) and that it proceeds by means of regulated prin- 
 ciples (cf. Met. I. 1. 5 yivsTai he rexv) '6rav e'/c iroXKwv 
 TTJf; ifiTreiplai evvoijfidrcov fila KadoKov yivrirai Trepl rwv 
 ofioLwv VTToXrjylni}). Aristotle's distinction that Te^vrj is 
 concerned with yeveai'i while efriaTrjfir) deals with 6v 
 (Anal. Post. II. 19. 4) is of course foreign to Zeno's system. 
 
 Zeller's note on p. 266, 2 (Eng. Tr.) is inaccurate but 
 appears correctly in the 4th German ed. (ill. 1. 247). 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 67 
 
 13. Schol. ad Dionys. Thracis Gramm. ap. Bekk. 
 Anecd. p. 663, 16, oS? StjXoX /cat 6 Turjvmv \eya>v re^v?] ia-rlv 
 e^t? oBoTroirjTiKi], rovreari, Si oSov Kal fieOoSov iroiovad ti. 
 
 The authenticity of this fragment is rendered doubtful 
 (1) by the fact that Zeno had defined rey^vrj differently, 
 as we have seen, (2) because Cleanthes defined Texvrj as 
 e^K 6Ba> iravra avi/ovaa (frag. 5). It is of course possible 
 that Zeno left two alternative definitions as in the case 
 of ird6o<; (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 
 oBoTToirjTiKTj has a suspicious look. Stein however, Er- 
 kenntnistheorie, p, 312, accepts the definition. 
 
 14. jJi'Vriiir) 6rjaavpiaiM)<; iffn (jiavTacnSv. 
 
 These words are shown to belong to Zeno by the 
 following considerations. Sext. Emp. Math. vil. 372 foil. 
 is describing the controversy between Cleanthes and 
 Chrysippus as to the meaning of Zeno's rviraaiii and 
 introduces one of Chrysippus' arguments el yap Krjpov 
 rpoTTOv Tvirovrai r\ '>frv')(rj ^avTacrTtKm'i Tracr^ouo-a del to 
 'ia")(<nov Kivrjfia eTTto'KOTija'ei t§ irporepq, ^avTaaia, oxrTrep 
 Kal rj T^? SeuTCjOa? a^paryiBo<i t^tto? i^aXenrriKo'; ea-Ti 
 rov trporepov. aW' el tovto, dvatpelrai fiev fivjjfir}, drj- 
 <ravpi<rfj,6<{ ovcra (jiavTacriwv, dvaipelrai he irdaa re'xyiT 
 (Tvarrjfia yap fjv /cat adpoicTfia KaraXr^i^emv k.tX. Now 
 one might suspect from internal evidence alone that 
 Chrysippus is appealing to the school definitions of Memory 
 and Art as established by Zeno in support of his argument 
 against Zeno's pupil, but the inference becomes irresistible 
 when we find that the definition of Art is certainly Zeno's, 
 as has already beein shown. Cf. Cic. Acad. ii. 22 quid 
 quisquam meminit quod non animo comprehendit et 
 tenet ? ib. 106 memoria perceptarum comprehensarumque 
 
 5—2 
 
68 THE FKAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 rerum est. Plut. plac. iv. 11. 2. Aristotle discusses the 
 relation between fivrjfit] and ^avraaia in the tract de 
 Memoria (see Grote's Aristotle, pp. 475, 476). fivrnxt) = fwvri 
 rov al<r6i]fj,aT0<!, An. Post. II. 19. 99 b 36. 
 
 15. Sext. Enip. adv. Math. VII. 151, So^av eivai Trjv 
 dcrOevrj leal '\jrevSr] o-vyKaraOeaiv 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- 
 beeillam assensionem. Stobaeus speaks of two Stoic defi- 
 nitions of ho^a Eel. II. 7. 11"", p. 112, 2 [=11. 231] Strra? 
 >yap eivai Bo^ag rrjv fiev dKaraXrfirT^ avyKardOea-iv, ttjv 
 S' vvokTiifriv daeevrj, cf. ib, II. 7. 10. p. 89, 1[=II. 169] 
 irapdXafi^dpecrOai ttjv Bo^av dvrl ttJ? da-devovt viro- 
 \>;i|r60)9. It is possible from a consideration of the next 
 frag, that Zeno's word was olr)(Ti<i. Thus, as with Plato, 
 Bo^a and d'^voia are ultimately identical. See further 
 Stein, Erkenntnistheorie pp. 204, 205. 
 
 16. Diog. L. VII. 23, e\676 Se firiBep elvac t^? olij- 
 crews dWoTpiooTepov Trpo? KarakTjyjnv twv eTTUnijfimv. 
 
 TcUv ^i<rrr||ji(3v. The plural is used because eTrivrrifir} 
 in the narrower sense in which Zeno used the word is 
 a single Kard\rif^i<s. The Stoics also defined eiria-Trifir) 
 as a ava-TTi/jLu (cf. Stob. Eel. ii. 7. 5^ p. 73, 21 = ii. 129) 
 of such perceptions. At the same time we must be- 
 ware of supposing that eTria-ri^fir) is according to Zeno 
 identical with KardXrjylrii;. eTrtaTijfiTi is the conscious 
 knowledge of the wise man, whereas KardXriylrK; may be 
 possessed by the (pavkog. The latter may occasionally 
 and accidentally assent to the Kara'hq'iTriKrj (jiavraaia, 
 but the former's assent is regular and unerring. Cf Sext. 
 Math. VII. 152 wv rrjv jxev eTricrT'^fjLrjv ev /jlovoii; v^ia-raadai 
 Xeyovai rot? tro^olg, Trjv Be So^av ev /movok tok ^av'Koi'i 
 
THE FEAGMENTS OF ZENO. 69 
 
 TTjv Be KaraKrjy^iv Kotvrjv dfj,<j>0Tep(i}v elvai. We have here, 
 in fact, the Platonic distinction between So^a dXrjdrji; and 
 eTncrTfjiJ,r) in another form. 
 
 17. Cic. Acad. I. 41, si ita erat comprehensum ut 
 convelli ratione non posset scientiam sin aliter inscientiam 
 nominabat (Zeno). ■ 
 
 The Greek sources for this will be found in Stob. 
 Eel. II. 7, 5^ p. 73, 19 = II. 129 elvat rrjv iTria-Trj/jLTjv Kard- 
 Xrjylnv da^oKri koo diMeTaTTTarov inro \6yov, ib. 11" p. Ill, 
 20 = II. 231, rrjv dyvoiav fiera'TrTCOTiKriv elvai o-vyKard- 
 deaiv Kol da-Oevrj, cf. Sext. Emp. Math. VII. 151, eVttr- 
 Trffi'qv elvai Trjv dacjioKr} koI ^e^aiav Koi dfierdOeTov vird 
 Xoyov KaTaKrji^iv, see also Stein, p. 311 and n. 711, who 
 concludes that these definitions are Zenonian. Diog. 
 L. VII. 47, avTrjv re rrjv eTria-rij/irjv ^aalv fj KaraXt}i^i,v 
 da<f)aXrj, ^ e^iv iv ^avracnwv irpoaSe^ei, dfierdtrroirov 
 viro \6yov. The definition of eTna-rrjixri as eft? k.t.\. is 
 due to Herillus, cf ib. vii. 165, 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 eTna-rrjfjir) as the 
 ethical reXo?. 
 
 18. Cic. Acad. i. 42, inter scientiam et inscientiam 
 comprehensionem collocabat, eamque neque in rectis 
 neque in pravis numerabat. 
 
 Cf. Sext. Math. VII. 151, iiTi,arr]firjv ical So^av koI rrjv 
 ev fiedopia rovrmv rerayfievrjv KardXriyjriv. . .KardXrj-^iv Se 
 
70 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 Trjv fiera^v tovtuv: ib. 153, 6 ^h.pKeaL\ao<;...heiKvv<i on 
 ovBev eVrt fiera^ii eTriarijfirjii kol So^ii KpvTrjpiov rj Kard- 
 Xrjyjni;. (It will be observed that where Cicero speaks of 
 inscientia Sextus mentions So^a, 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 eina-Tfjfiai, and 
 certain vices (evils) as dyvoiai, c£ Stob. Eel. ii. 7. 5*, 
 p. 58, 5—59, 3 = II. 92—94. 
 
 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. Vlll. 397, belonged to Zeno ; 
 cf. especially avykardffea-t'i ^rts SiirKovv eoiKev elvat 
 irpayfia koX to fiev ri e')(etv aKovaiov to Se eKOvatov ical 
 eTrl Trj rifierepa Kpitrei Kelfievov. 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 elfiap/jtevT] : 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 
 (jiavrda/iaTa. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 71 
 
 20. Cic. Acad. i. 41, Quod autem erat sensu compre- 
 hensum, id ipsum sensum appellabat. 
 
 For the different meanings of aia-Otja-K in the Stoic 
 school, see Diog. L. VII. 52 a'iadv<^i<s Se XeyeTai Kara 
 rov<s Xtojikov'; to re dff)' i^yefioviKov Trvevfia Koi iirl ra? 
 alaOrjaeii; SirJKov, xal »; St' avrmv «aTa\iji^t9, kol rj irepl 
 TO, alaOrjTTjpia KaTacTKevrj, aaS" 7]v rivet •jrrjpol ylvovTai : 
 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 ata-drjTov 
 or aladrjrtKov rather than of a'ia07ja-i^, in which case cf 
 Diog. L. VII. 51 raiv Be ^avraa-imv /car' avTov<i al fiev 
 eiaiv aladTjTiKal al S' ov. aladTjTiKal fiev al Si alaOr)- 
 TTjpiov fj alaOrjT'qpiwv Xafi^avofievai k.tX. 
 
 21. Cie. Acad. i. 42, Zeno sensibus etiam fidem 
 tribuebat quod comprehensio facta sensibus et vera illi 
 et fidelis videbatur, non quod omnia quae essent in re 
 comprehenderet sed quia nihil quod cadere in eam posset 
 relinqueret quodque natura quasi normam scientiae et prin- 
 cipium sui dedisset, unde postea notiones rerum in animis 
 imprimerentur, e quibus non principia solum sed latiores 
 quaedam ad rationera inveniendam viae reperiuntur. 
 
 For the general sense see Zeller, p. 80, n. 1. 
 
 non quod omnia : Dr Reid cites Sext. Pyrrh. i. 92 
 BKaaTov Twv (jtaivo/iivcov rifuv aiadrjTwv iroiKiKov vtto- 
 iriiTTeiv hoKel olov to firjXov Xeiov ei/cSSes yXvKV ^avdov. 
 &B7]\ov ovv TTorepov irore ravrwi fiova^ ovroxi 'e^^et ra? 
 TTOioT'qTat; rj fiovoiroibv fiiv itrri irapa Be ttjv Sid(f)opov 
 KaTOffKevljv TWV altrOrjTijplcov Bid^opov tf)aiveTai ^ Kal 
 TrXet'ovas fiev t<Sv <f>aivo/iiv(i)v ey^et iT0i6Tr)Ta<i, rjfilv Be 
 ov'^ inro-jriiTTova-i Tive<s avrmv, ib. 97. These passages 
 however do not refer to Stoic teaching but are used in 
 furtherance of the Sceptical argument. 
 
72 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 notiones: a translation of evvoiai. It seems certain that 
 the distinction between irpoXri'^ei,^ and evvoiai (for which 
 see R and P. § 393 and note c. and Stein, Erkenntnis- 
 theorie, p. 237) is not at least in terms Zenonian, though 
 he may have spoken of koivoX evvoiai. Reid (on Acad. ii. 
 30) suggests that the word TrpoXrjijn'; was introduced by 
 Zeno, but cf. Cic. N. D. i. 44 ut Epicurus ipse irpoKriy^i'; 
 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 o ddpoia- 
 /4^9 Twv Tov vov ^avTaerfiarcov Koi rj erv/Ke^aXauucri'i twv 
 iirl fiepovi et? to Kadokov (Sext. Emp. Math. VII. 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 
 dirpoTTTaxria, dveiKai6rri<i, dveXey^ia, and dfiaraiOTTi^ 
 quoted by Diog. L. vii. 46, 47. Temeritas is probably 
 a translation of irpoireTeia, a favourite word with Sextus 
 when speaking of the dogmatists (e.g. Pyrrh. i. 20) but 
 also used by the Stoics (Diog. vil. 48). Reid also quotes 
 (on Ac. II. 66) Epict. d. III. 22. 104 irpoireTr)'; crvyKard- 
 0eaK. 
 
 23. Stob. Eel. I, 12. 3, p. 136, 21, Zijva)vo<} <Kal rtSi^ 
 dv avrov> . rd ivvoi^/jiard ^aai fitjre nvd elvai fiijre 
 iroid, waavel Si riva km, dxravei iroid ^avTaajiara '^v')(rji}' 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 73 
 
 Tavra Se vtto twv dp'^aLwv IBeai irpoaarfopeveo'dai. rwv 
 yap Kara ra ivvor/fiaTa virofrnTTOvraiv elvai ra? ihewi, 
 olov dvdpeeTrmv, ittttcov, Koivorepov elireiv -jravrtav twv 
 ^(pav KoX TWV aXKav 6it6<twv \eyovcriv lSea<; elvai. [rauTa? 
 he 01 "SiTcoiKoi <}>i\6<TO<f)oi'<J3aenv dwirdpKTOv: eivai ical twv 
 fiev evvor)fj.dTcov fisTe'X^eiv jj/ta?, twv Be iTTwcrewv, a? Brj 
 •7Tpo(7r)yopi,a<i Kokovert, Tvy^^^dveiv^. 
 
 Cf. Euseb. P. E. xv. 45, ol d-rro Zi]va)vo<; XtwikoI ivvor)- 
 IxaTa rifieTepa ra? (Sea?. Plut. Plac. I. 10, 4, oi diro 
 Zirjvwvot ^TWiKoi evvorjiiaTa rjixeTepa Tai; ihea<; e^'acrav. 
 
 Wellmann, p. 484, (followed by Stein, Erkenntnis- 
 theorie, n. 689) suggests that this may have come from 
 the book entitled KaOdktKd. 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' (Zijvwv) 
 ev Tw dcr6eve(TTep<p wv r)a-V)(iav ar/wv ov Svvdfievo'i dSi- 
 icelaOai 'ApKea-t\dov fiev dcjsiero, -TroWd av ehrelv e')(wv, 
 aW' ovK ■qOeXe, Td-)(a Se fidWov aXXw<;, 7rpd<s Se tov 
 ovKeTi ev ^wa-iv ovtu YiXaTwva eaKiafidyei, tcaX Trjv diro 
 dp,d^r]<; Trofnrelav iraa-av KaTedopv^ei, Xeywv w<; out dv 
 TOV TiXdTwvo^ dfivvofiivov, VTrepBiKelv re avTov dXKtp 
 ovBevt fiiXoV eire fieXjja-eiev 'ApKea-tXda, auros 76 Kep- 
 Bavelv wero diroTpey^dftevoi; d^' eavTov tov 'ApKealKaov. 
 TOVTO Be fjBrf KuX ^AyadoKXea tov ^vpaKoa-tov TToirja-avTa 
 TO a6<l>ia-fj,a eVi. rot)? 'K.apj(r]Boviov<s. At any rate, both 
 the circumstances and the chronology indicate that the 
 reference is not to the YloXtTeia (Introd. p. 29). 
 
 Iwor'iiaTtt. For the definition cf Plut. Plac. IV. 11 
 6<7T( ^6 vcnjfia <f>dvTa<rfia Biavoiai Xoyncov ^wov, i.e., as he 
 goes on to explain, ivvorjfia stands to (jidvTaa-fia in the 
 relation of eZSo? to 76i'o? : ^ai'Tatr/ttara are shared with us 
 by all other animals whereas evvorj/iaTu belong to the 
 gods and mankind alone. Diog. vil. 61, evvoijixa Be iaTt 
 <j)dvTa<T/ia Btavoiaf, ovTe Tt ov ovtb iroiov, weravel Be tl 
 
74 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 ov Kal axravel iroiov, olov yiveTai dvarinroyfia lttttov xal 
 lir} 7rap6vTo<s. 
 
 Tivo. . .iroid, i.e. they have no existence or definiteness. 
 For the Stoic conception of rt and ttoiov, 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). 
 
 IS^as. The meaning is that the Platonic ideas are 
 identical with ivvoi^/iaTa, inasmuch as they possess no 
 objective existence, but are mere figments of the mind. 
 Plato himself deals with this very point, Parm. 132 B 
 dSXd.../j,r) Twv eiSav eKacrrov y rovrcov v6r}/ia, Kal ovSa/iov 
 avTm •jrpoenjKT} iyylr/veadai aXXodt rj iv ■^u^^at?. Antis- 
 thenes had already criticised the theory of ideas from this 
 point of view: see In trod. p. 18. 
 
 *iroirfiiT6vT»v : the regular word for the presentation 
 of external impr'essions to the organs of sense (e.g. 
 Sext. Pyrrh, l. 40 ou^ ai aiJrai...v'7roTri'irTov(7i <f)av- 
 racTiai). 
 
 ivoa-av, K.T.X. So far as it goes this passage is in 
 agreement with Aristotle's statement that Plato recog- 
 nised ideas of oiroaa ^va-et only (Metaph. A. 3. 1070 a 18): 
 see Dr Jackson in Journ. Phil. x. 255, etc. 
 
 ravras — rwyxavtiv. These words are not expressly attri- 
 buted to Zeno: hence Diels followed by Wachsm. adds 
 to the lemma Zr]vo)vo<; the words Kal rmv dir outov. 
 
 T«v 8i wTMirewv, k.t.\. This passage is extremely diffi- 
 cult and is supposed to be corrupt by Zeller, m*. 2. 79 
 and Wachsmuth. The latter suggests to? Se TrotoTi/ra? 
 evayvvfiiwv, k.t.X. or if Trrcoa-ecov is corrupt for iirtovviii&v 
 " in fine talia fere interciderint ra? Koivdf ■jrocoTqTa'^, cf. 
 Diog. VII. 58," the former (coll. Sext. Math. vii. 11) would 
 read to Tvy)(dvovra in place of Tvy)(^dveiv (die Gedanken 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 75 
 
 seien in uns, die Bezeichnungen gehen auf die Dinge). 
 The text, as it stands, has been interpreted in three ways : 
 (1) notitiae rerum rationi nostrae insitae sunt, nomina 
 fortuito obveniunt. Dials. (2) Trrdocrets = omnes singulae 
 res cuiuscumque qualitatis )( yeviKa -rroid, i.e. Iheai. These 
 impress themselves on the mind of man {TV'^')(^aveiv), 
 Petersen, 1. e. p. 82, foil. : but this interpretation of TTTtSo-t? 
 is unwarranted and is founded on a misconception of 
 Diog. L. VII. 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) ol he airo t^? 'AKaBtj/ila^ 
 eKoKow TO, fieOeKTO. airo tov /tere^^ecr^at Kal ras TTTMO-et? 
 TenKTfl? diro tov Tvyx^dvecrOai, and Clem. Alex. VIII. 9. 26 : 
 after saying that the TrrtSo-t? for the Karriyoprj/ia "re/j,- 
 verai" is "to Te/xvea-Oai," and for j/au? lyiyverat, " ro vavv 
 yivea-dat " and explaining that Aristotle called the Trroicrt? 
 irpoarjyopia he proceeds rj •7rrwcri<; Se da-(6fiaT0<i elvau 
 ofioKoyeiTM' Sto Kal to cro^ia/ia eKeivo Xverai, b "Key el's: 
 Biipverai <tov Std tov aTo/MaTO^, oirep d\7jde<;, oIkluv Se 
 'Keyei's, oIkm dpa Std tov a-TOixaTOt aov Siep^eTai oirep 
 yfrevSo<;' ovSe yap Trjv oiKoav 'Keyofxev <Tmp,a ovaav, aWa 
 Tfjv TTTwcTLV dcTtofiaTov ovaav, ^? OLKia Tvyxavei. A 
 consideration of the latter passage, which it is surprising 
 that no one has cited, warrants the suggestion that Td 
 iirdpxovTa or some such words have fallen out after 
 Tvyxdvetv. All would then be plain : Trrojo-ts = name 
 )(6i'i'0'J?yaa = thought. TTToaai'i was also) (KaTrjyoprj/Ma as 
 noun to verb (Plut. qu. Plat. x. 1, 2). For the present use 
 of TTTwcrii, cf. also Sext. Math. xi. 29, vi. 42, for TTTtSo-ts in 
 Aristotle see Waitz, Organon, vol. i. p. 328, 329. irpoa-T]- 
 yopia is a common noun, such as " man " " horse " (Diog. 
 VII. 58, Sext. Pyrrh. III. 14) tending in practice to become 
 identical with TrrcSo-f?, though theoretically narrower. 
 
76 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 24. Stob. Eel. I. 13, 1", p. 138, 14 (Ar. Did. 457, 
 Diels), a'tTtov B' 6 Zijvmv if>rj(rlv elvai St '6' o5 he airtov 
 <TVfi^e^r]K6<;' koI to /J,ev oXtiov awfia, oS Be ahiov Karq- 
 yopTjfM' dSi/varov S' elvai rh fiev ainov irapelvai, ov Be 
 eariv a'lnov firj vTrdp'x^etv, to Be Ti^yofievov roiavrrjv e^et 
 Bvvafuv' airiov icrrt, Be o jtr/veral ti, olov Bia rr)v 
 tf>p6v7}(ri,v yiverai to (jypoveiv Kal Bid rrjv '^vy(r]V ytverai, 
 TO ^rjv Koi Bid Trjv aa^poavvrjv yiveTai to aa)<f>poveiv, 
 aBvvoTov rydp elvai <T(o<^poa~uvri<s vepi Tiva ovaij^ fjirj 
 aax^povelv f/ ■yjrvxv'i P-V ^V" V <l)pov>]a'ea)<; li'q ippoveiv. 
 
 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 ahiov from a 
 logical standpoint, and that KaTrjyoprjp.a is introduced to 
 ezplain 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 
 adopt the four Aristotelian causes because his material- 
 istic views led him to regard the efficient as the only 
 true cause. 
 
 cn)(jipepTiKis = " result " or " inseparable consequence," c£ 
 Stob. Eel. I. 13 ad init. a'lTiov eaTi Bi o to diroTeXeo'p.a -^ 
 Bi o a-vfi^aivei ti. This meaning of avfi^e^r]Ko^ 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 Xeyerai Be koi aWw? ffvp,l3e^f}ic6<! olov 
 oaa virdp'^ei eKdaT(p KaB" avTO firj iv Ty ovaia ovTa olov 
 T^ Tpiywv^ TO Bvo 6pdd<i exeiv. That avp.^efirfKO's 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 a'lnov can never be present unless 
 accompanied by the ov ahiov. 
 
THE FBAGMENTS OF ZENO. 77 
 
 o-(S|i,tt : the materialism of the Stoics is well known : to 
 what lengths it was pushed may be seen from Zeller, 
 Stoics pp. 127 — 132, with the examples given in the 
 notes. 
 
 KaTT)76pT||j.a : the ov alnov 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 virap^i^ of 
 XeKTci, only arose later: see further on Cleanth. frag. 7. 
 The present passage is illustrated by Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 14 
 ol fiev oSv awfia, oi S' da-w/j,aTOV to airiov elval (pacriv. 
 Bo^ai S' av a'lTiov elvat Koivorepov xar auroi)? St' o 
 ivepyovv jive'Tat to d-jroTekea'ixa, olov to? o ^\to? rj 7; 
 Tov rjXiov depfioTT)'; tov •)(ela6ai tov icr)pov rj t^? T^utrea)? 
 Tov /CTjpov.' KoX yap iv tovt^ Siaire^tovijKacriv, oi fiev 
 irpoaTjyopiSv aiTiov elvai to airtov <j)d<7K0VTe^, olov t^9 
 j^i^o-eo)?, ol Se KaTTjyoprjiiaTcov, olov tov ■yeicrdai,. ib. Math. 
 IX. 211 %T(oiKo\ /u^v irdv aiTiov awiid (ftacri, creo/jbaTi, 
 dacafiaTov ti,v6<s aiTiov jevicrOai, olov a-wfia fiev to a-fiiXiov, 
 atofiaTt, Be Trj arapKi, dacofidTov Be tov Tefiveadai /caTt}- 
 yoprjfiaTO'i, Kal TrdXiv crmfia /j,ev to trvp, ercofiaTi Be tu 
 ^^X(p, dffcofidTOv Be tov KaLeadai KaTriyoprifiaTO<i. 
 
 <|>povri<riv K.T.X. A parallel to this will be found at 
 Stob. Eel. II. 7 11* p. 98, 3 ttjv yap ^povrjaiv alpovp^Oa 
 ej^ew' KoX TTJv cran^poa-uvriv, ov fid Ala to (f>poveiv Kau 
 aoxjipoveiv, dcrwfiaTa ovTa Koi KaTTfyoprjfiaTa. Stein, 
 Erkenntnistheorie p. 307, infers from this passage that, 
 according to Zeno, not a single moment in life passes 
 without thought, but that the rfyefioviKov always thinks. 
 
 25. Anonymi Texvq ap. Spengel Rhet. Gr. i. 434, 23, 
 Zrjvwv Be ovTO} (jtrjal' Bir/yrja-l'; eaTL twv ev Ty viTOOeaei 
 irpayfidTiov eK9e<TL<s eh to virep tov XeyovTO<! "Kpoawrrov 
 peovaa. 
 
78 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 Perhaps this frag, comes from the Te'xyr) of Zeno: 
 see Introd. p. 27. Zeller is inclined to doubt whether 
 the words do not belong to some other Zeno, but inas- 
 much as this anonymous writer also quotes Chrysippus 
 (p. 454, 4), the presumption is that he refers to Zeno of 
 Citium, and there is no a priori reason to discredit his 
 authorship. 
 
 Biij-ytio-is : the narrative portion of a speech contain- 
 ing the statement of facts, of Diog. L. vii. 43 t6v Se 
 ptjTopiKov \6^ov 6t? re ro trpoolfiiov koX eh T'^v Si'^yrjaiv 
 Koi TO, TT/oos Toi)? ovTiBiKovi Kul Tov iiriXoyov. Dion. 
 Hal. Ant. Rhet. X. 12 etm Be rd t^? v-7ro6i<Teo}<; aroi'x^eia 
 riaaapa, Trpoolfiiov, SirjyrjffK, Triffret?, eiriKoyoi. Lysias 
 especially excelled in his treatment of this branch of his 
 art. Dion. H. Lys. c. 18 ev Se rm SiTjyeladai rd irpdfyfiara, 
 '6'Kep, olfiai, /jiepo^ ifKeiar't}'; Belrai (jipovTuho^ xal <j)vXaKr}^, 
 dvap,<j)i0oKQ)^ riyovp-ai, KparuTTOV avTOV elvat wavrcov 
 prjTopiov K.T.X. 
 
 iiTo8i<rt\. : cf Sext. Emp. Math. III. 4 vir60ea-K vpoa-- 
 ayopeverai ev prjTopiKfj r} twv eVt fiipov; ^ijttjo-k. 
 
 «ls tA K.T.X. "adapted to the character maintained on 
 behalf of the speaker." irpoacoTrov is technical )( m-pdyiia. 
 TO Be Ke<f)dXaiov tov irpooifiLov Bo^a Trpoffanrwv re Kal 
 irpayfiaTcov 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 
 peova-a cf Plat. Rep. 485 D orm ye eli ev ti al eiri.Qvp.iai, 
 <r<j)6Spa peova-iv...m Brj irpbt ra /jLadrjfjLaTa Kot irdv to 
 ToiovTov eppvriKaaiv. 
 
 26. Anonymi Te^yvr) ap. Spengel Rhet. Gr. i. 447, 11 
 <B? Be Tirfvav' irapdBeiyfid ian yevofievov •jrpdjyfiaTO'; 
 dm'o/Mvrifioveva-t'i et? ofioiwaiv'^ tov vvv ^ijrovfjLevov. Maxi- 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 79 
 
 mus Planudes ap. Walz. Rhet. Gr. V. 396 irapaSeiy/jia 
 Si ia-Tiv, (w? Zrjvaiv <j)r)trl,v, yevofievov irpdyfiaTO'; dtrofwrj- 
 fi6vevai,<; ei<s o/JLoLoacnv tov vvv ^r]Tovfievov. 
 
 This frag, must stand or fall with frag. 25. 
 
 irapdSEi-y|j.a : 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 col S' avTa)<; koI oi priTopiKoi, av/ivei- 
 Oovaiv' rj yap Bid irapaSeiyfidroyv, o eariv iiraywyrj, tj Si 
 evffv/itjfidTiov, '6wep ian <rvXKoyi<rfi6<!. 
 
 27. Quintil. Inst. Or. iv. 2. 117 hie expressa (verba) 
 et ut vult Zeno sensu tincta esse debebunt. 
 
 It has been supposed by some that these words are a 
 reference to apoph. 13, but inasmuch as sensu is a very 
 inappropriate translation of 64? vovv, and Quintilian is 
 speaking of the narrative portion of a speech, the meaning 
 is rather "coloured by the actual impressions of sense" 
 i.e. giving a vivid and clear representation of the actual 
 facts. 
 
 28. Anonymi variae collectiones mathematicae in 
 Hultschiana Heronis geometricorum et stereometricorum 
 editione p. 275, Tavpov %iSoviou ecrriv vtrofivrjixa ew 
 TioXiTelav YlXaTcovo's iv m iari ravra' wpiaaro 6 Ti\dTwv 
 TTjv yecofj,eTp[av...'Apia-TOTeK'ri<i S' . . .Zijvwv Se e^iv iv 
 irpoaSi^ei, <j)avrat7iwv dfierdirTrnTov viro \6yov. 
 
 This frag, is due to Wachsmuth (Comm. I. p. 12) 
 who emends as above for the meaningless e^iv Tr/ao? Set^iv 
 ^avTacri&v dfieTairTmTm<; vttoSIkov, coll. Diog. L. vii. 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 fiadrtpMriicwv has 
 
80 THE FBAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 dropped out. I cannot find any evidence to illustrate 
 Stoic views on mathematics. 
 
 29. Plut. Sto. Rep. 8, 1, tt/jo? rov elirovra 
 fiTjSe SiKTjv StKoo-j;? Trplv (qu. add av) dfMJ)oiv fivdov 
 
 dKovay<i 
 dvTeXeyev 6 Tirjvaiv, roiovrq) nvi Xoym 'X^pcofievov elV 
 direBei^ev 6 irporepoi; elirwv ovic dKova-reov tov Sevrepov 
 XiyovTO^' irepa'i yap e')(ei to ^r/TOVfievov ' eir ovk direSei^eV 
 Sfioiov yap ffls el /i'^Be inrrjKOvae K\r)6el<i rj vTraKovaa'i 
 eTeperiaev rfroi S' aTreSei^ev tj ovk direBei^ev' ovk 
 dKovariov apa rov Bevrepov XeyovTO';. The same is 
 preserved by Schol. ad Lucian. Cal. 8 with unimportant 
 variations. 
 
 |iTj8^ 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 ^evBijaioSeiov (Att. VII. 
 18), see Bergk Poet. Lyr. Gk. p. 464 : cf Ar. Vesp. 725 77 
 irov cro^^s ^v iaris eipacrKev, irplv av dfi(f>oiv (ivdov 
 oKovcrrji; ovk av BiKdaai<i. Eur. Heracl. 179 rt's av BIktjv 
 Kplveiev rj yvoir] Xoyov Trplv av Trap' dfi<l)olv fivdov eKfidOri 
 0-0^0)9 ; 
 
 Xfryiji. 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. 
 
 im]Koii<r« : appeared in court when the case was called 
 on — answered to his name : cf Dem. F. L. p. 423 § 257 
 r/Tificoaev vTraKovaavra nv avrov KaTTjyopov " 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 01)8' inraKovaai 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 81 
 
 KaXovfievo<; ^deXev. Meid. p. 580, 581 KaKovfjLevo<i ovo/xaa-rti 
 ...Sia ravT ovx vvrjaovcre. Andoc. Myst. § 112 Kd6' 6 
 KTjpv^ SKTjpvTTe ri<! rrjv iKeTrfpiav Karadeirj, kuI ot/'Sel? 
 virijKova-ev. Isae. p. 49, 25 = 84 R. d-7roypa<f>eU eh ttjv 
 ^ovXrjv Ka/covpywv viro^aspoav w-^ero Kai ov'x^ virr/Kov- 
 ffev. 
 
 KKr\iils : either (1) by the presiding magistrate, cf. 
 Dem. Olymp. p. 1174 iireiSr) 8' ixaXei 6 ap^tov ei? to 
 SiKacTTJjpiop airavra': toi)? d/j.^to'^rjrovvTa^ Kara top v6/xov. 
 Ar. Vesp. 1441 v^pi^ 'io)<! av rfjv SUrjv a,p')(aiv KoXfj, or (2) 
 by the officer of the court solemnly calling him by name. 
 We know that this procedure [KkriTev(Ti,<s) was adopted in 
 the case of a defaulting witness, and it may also have been 
 applied if one of the parties failed to put in an ap- 
 pearance. 
 
 30. Diog. L. VII. 18, eipacrxe Se tov^ fiev twv daoKoiKwv 
 \6yov<; Kal dir7jpTia-/j.evov<; ojJboLow; elvat tw dpyvpio) t(S 
 ' A\e^avBpei(p' evo<f>daK/j,ov<! fxev koX irepiyeypa/ifiivov;, 
 Kadd KoX TO vofiia-fia, ovSev Se Bid ravra /SeXrt'oi'a?. toi)s 
 Se TovvavTiov difxufioiov rot? 'Attikoiv TeTpaSpd')^fioi<; 
 elxr} fiev KeKOfifievov^ Kal aoXowcw?, KadeKKSiv fiivroi 
 TToWoKK rd<; KeKaX\,iypa<}>r}fieva<; Xef et?. 
 
 XoYovs. For the comparison of words to coins cf Hor. 
 A. P. 59 licuit semperque licebit signatum praesente nota 
 producere nomen. Juv. VII. 54 qui communi feriat carmen 
 triviale Moneta and Prof Mayor's note. Possibly this and 
 the following frag, came from the work -n-epl Xe^eav. 
 
 'AXf^avSpela : in this phrase which recurs at vxii. 85 
 I have followed Kohler (Rhein. Mus. xxxix. 297) in 
 reading ^AXe^avSpeim for ^ AXe^avBpivw. It appears that 
 Alexandria had struck no coinage in the reign of the 
 Ptolemies (Head, Historia Numorum p. 718); on the 
 other hand the tetradrachm of Alexander was part of the 
 H. p. 6 
 
82 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 current coinage all over Greece (ib. p. 198 foil, and see 
 Hultsch, Gr. and Kom. Metrologie pp. 243 — 245). 
 
 KCKO|i.)i,{vovs...iroXotK(i>s. MSS. KeKOfj,fievoi<!. Bywater 
 (Journ. Phil. xvii. 76) reads KeKOftfievov} koX a-oXoiKovi 
 and the former certainly seems necessary to restore the 
 balance of the sentence. 
 
 KoflAK€iv: this meaning of KadeKKto is omitted by L. 
 and S. s. v. 
 
 X4gets bracketed by v. Wilamowitz and Kohler is 
 rightly retained by Bywater. 
 
 31. Zonarae Lex. s.v. aoXoLici^eiv col. 1662, a-okoiKt^eiv 
 ov fiovov TO Kara i^wvrjv koX Xoyov '^copiKeveaOaL aWa Kai 
 iirl ivSv/Marcov orav Tt? y(^a)ptKM<; evhthvaKT^rai, r) araKTco'i 
 eadirj rj d-Koaficoi; TrepnraTrj wi ^rjai Zrjvcav. Wachsmuth, 
 Comm. I. p. 12, cites Cyrilli, Lex. cod. Bodl. ant. T. ii. 11. 
 ap. Cramer anec. Paris iv. p. 190 v. o-o\oj«ta-/to?" ore rt? 
 aTixv(o<s SiaXeycTaf aoXoiKt^etv ov /movov to KaTO, Xi^iv 
 Kal ^(ovrjv ISicoTeiieiv, dXXd Kal iirl (popTifiaTfov, OTav tk 
 ■)((iipi,KW<; ivSiSvTai rj oTaiCTCist; eadiei tj dK6<r/j,ei)<! ■KepiiraTel 
 as ^tjai, Zijvtav 6 K.iTiev<;. 
 
 <roXoiKCj€iv. Zeno is not alone in using the word in 
 this extended sense, cf Xen. Cyr. viii. 3. 21 ^aiif^epvr)^ 
 Be Tf? ^v aoXoiKOTepot dvdpa)iro<i ra> Tpo-Ktp. 
 
 4irl lv8v(idT(i>v. The Athenians attached great import- 
 ance to Koa-fiiOTrj^ in dress as in other matters of 
 personal behaviour. The cloak was required to be of 
 a certain length, cf. Theophr. Char. 24 (Jebb) of the 
 Penurious Man : — (jiopovvTai; eXaTTO) twv fji,ripmv rd 
 ifiaTia; and to wear it in the fashionable style (eVt Be^id 
 dva^dXXea6ai) was a mark of sobriety. Cf. Ar. Av. 1567 
 ovToii tI Bpd<! ; eV dptaTep' ovTa)<; dfiTri-x^ei ; ov /Li6Tay3aA,ei? 
 dolfiaTiov cSS' iirl Se^iav; 
 
 cItciktos la-Uxt. How carefully children were trained 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 83 
 
 in this respect may be seen from three passages of Plutarch 
 cited by Becker, Charicles, E. T. pp. 236, 237. Cf e.g. de 
 Educ. Puer. 7 rrj /xev Be^ia avvedi^eiv to, TraiSia heyeaQai 
 Ta? Tpo<j}d';, Kav irporeiveie rrjv dpia-repdv, iirirtfidv. 
 
 aK6ir|j.c»5 irepiiroT^. Fast walking in the streets was so 
 severely criticised that it was a circumstance which 
 might be used to damage an opponent before a jury ; cf. 
 Dem. Pantaen. p. 981 § 52 Nik6^ovKo<: S' eiri^Oovof; eari, 
 Kal Tap^6(U9 ^aSi^ei kol fieja ^OeyyeTai,, xal ^aKTijpiav 
 <j)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 iroXKol fiev yap 
 liiKpov hiaXeyofj-evoi, koI KOfffiiax; dfj.ire'Xpfievoi fj^eydXav 
 KaKwv airioi yeyovacrtv, erepoi Se twv toiovtcov dfie\,ovvr6<; 
 ■rroWd KoyaOd vfj.d<; elcriv elpyacr/Mevoi. 
 
 32. Sext. Emp. Math. II. 7, evOev yovv ical Zijvwv 
 o KtTtei)? epcoTTjdeli; 'Sra Sia^epet SiaKeKTi/cr] ptjropiKfj'i 
 trvcrrpi'^a'; ttjv ^(elpa, koX irdXiv i^avXcoaa^ ecfyr) '' tovtos " 
 Kara fiev t'^v avcrTpo<j)rjv to arpoyyiiXov Kal &payp Trj^ 
 SiaXeKTi,Kfj<; rdrTcov ISUofia Bid Se rij<! e^aTrXwaewi Kal 
 iKTaaew; twv SaKTvXcov to TrXarv Trj<; prjTopiKrj^ Svvdpeai<; 
 alviTr6/ji,evo<;. Cic. Fin. II. 17 Zenonis est inquam hoc 
 Stoici omnem vim loquendi, ut jam ante Aristoteles, 
 in duas tributam esse partes, rhetoricae palmam, dialecti- 
 •cam pugni similem esse dicebat, quod latius loquerentur 
 rhetores, dialectici autem compressing. Orat. 32, 113 
 ^Zeno quidem ille, a quo disciplina Stoicorum est, manu 
 demonstrare solebat quid inter has artes interesset, nam 
 cum compresserat digitos pugnumque fecerat, dialecticam 
 aiebat eiusmodi esse; cum autem diduxerat et manum 
 dilataverat, palmae illius similem eloquentiam esse dicebat. 
 Quint. Inst. Or. II. . 20 Itaque cum duo sint genera 
 orationis, altera perpetua, quae rhetorice dicitur, altera 
 
 6—2 
 
84 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 concisa, quae dialectice ; quas quidem Zeno adeo con- 
 iunxit ut hanc compressae in pugnum manus, illam 
 explicitae, diceret similem. 
 
 Although this extract and the next purport to be 
 merely spoken remarks of Zeno, it has been thought 
 better to insert them at this place, as distinctly belonging 
 to Xoyi/cr']. Very probably in their original form they 
 came from some written work. 
 
 T& o-TpoYyiiXov 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 TOfl avcrrpe^etv to, voij/xara ical <rTpoyyv\m<} ixipepeiv 
 w? 7rpo9 d\7]6ivov^ dywva<; €TririjBeiov AvaLav dTreBej(6fir]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 uUam nisi sapientem. Et hoc quidem Zeno gestu 
 conficiebat. Nam, cum extensis digitis adversam manum 
 ostenderat, "visum" inquiebat "huiusmodi est." Deinde, 
 cum paullum digitos contraxerat, "adsensus huiusmodi."' 
 Tum cum plane compresserat pugnumque fecerat, com- 
 prehensionem illam esse dicebat: qua ex similitudine 
 nomen ei rei quod antea non fuerat KaToXrjylnv 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 ta 
 depend on rovo^, yet probably the introduction of t6vo<: 
 is later than Zeno. He suggests with more reason p. 126 
 that the activity of the rj^efioviKov in the process of 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 85 
 
 reasoning may be inferred from this, i.e. the '^yefioviKov is 
 not merely receptive (/cam Treta-iv) but also productive 
 {kut' ivepyeiav). 
 
 scire : we have already seen that eTriar'^fir] is peculiar 
 to the wise man, while KaraXrj'^p'K is also shared by the 
 ^avXoi : 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 ■n-oana ar/voel 6 
 4>av\o<; (Math. VII. 434). Eeid quotes Sext. Pyrrh. II. 83 
 StoTrep Trjv fiev aXrjdeiav ev jMova arirov^aitp ipacrlv elvai, 
 TO Se d\r]6e^ xal ev i^avkai' ivSi'xeTat yap tov (pavKov 
 d\7]6e<; Ti elireiv. 
 
 visum = (pavTaaLa frag. 7. adsensus = avyKarddeai<; 
 frag. 19. comprehensionem = KaraXrjyjriv, see on frag. 10. 
 scientiam, frag. 17. 
 
 PHYSICA. 
 
 34. Cic. Acad. i. 39, (Zeno) nullo modo arbitrabatur 
 quicquam effici posse ab ea (soil, 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, cf Soph. 247 D Xiya Stj rd koI Siroiavovv xeKTij- 
 fievov Svva/j,iv, etr el<i to iroLelv erepov Stlovv ire^vKO^, 
 etV 6t? TO iradelv koX ap,iKpoTaTov inro tov (jiavXoTUTOv, 
 Kav el fiovov eladira^, vdv tovto oVto)? elvat : he differed, 
 however, widely from Plato in limiting these things to 
 material objects. For Stoic materialism cf. Plut. plac. iv. 
 20 irdv yap to hpwfievov rj koI ivoiovv crwfia (quoted by 
 Zeller, Stoics p. 126) and further references ap. Stein, 
 Psychologic n. 21. For the application of this doctrine 
 
86 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 to theories of sensation and thought see the authorities 
 collected in Dr Eeid's note. 
 
 35. Diog. L. VII. 134, Bok€l S" avToi<; a,pxa<; elvai 
 
 TWV oKtOV SvO TO TTOtOVV KOI TO TTaff'T^OJ'. TO fiev ovv 
 
 Trda-'xov elvai Trjv airoiov ovaLav Trjv vX'qV to Be iroLovv 
 TOP iv avTr] Xoyov tov Oeov. tovtov yap ovTa atBiov Sia 
 •7raa7]<i v\ri<; Srjfiiovpyelv eaaaTa. Tidrfcn he to Boyfia 
 TovTo Tirjvwv 6 KtTiei)? iv T<p irepX ov(Tia<;. Plut. plac. 
 I. 3. 39 7ir)v(ov Mvaaeov Ktrtei)? dp)^d<; jxev tov Oeov Kai 
 TTjv '{iKr)v, wv fiev eo'Ti tov iroLelv atTio<! rj he tov •Kua'yebv, 
 a-Toixeia he TeTTapa. Stob. Eel. I. 10. 14 f. 126, 17 Z^^vcov 
 yivaaeov KiTteO? dp^d,^ tov Oeov kol Trjv vKtjv <rT0ixela he 
 TeTTapa. Diels.p. 289, adds the following passages: — Achill. 
 Tat. p. 124 E Zrjvav 6 Ktriei)? dp^dt elvai, Xeyei tuiv okwv 
 Oeov KaX vX-qv, Oeov fiev ro ttolovv, vXtjv he to Troiov/ievov, dcf)' 
 wv Ta Tea-aapa (TTot^eta yeyovevai. Philo, de Provid. I. 22 
 Zeno Mnaseae filius aerem deum materiam et elementa qua- 
 tuor [aerem is a blunder arising from dp^ds (Diels), which 
 seems better than Stein's suggestion (Psych, n. 31) to sub- 
 stitute aethera]. Theodoret, Gr. cur. aff. iv. 12 Zrjvmv he 6 
 KiTt6U9, 6 yivaaeov, 6 Kpari/TO? ^oiTrjTri<; 6 rJ/? SxffltKij? 
 ap^a<; alpea-eQ3<; tov Oeov Kal Trjv liXrjv dp^d^; e^i/o-ei/ elvai. 
 Of. 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) hvo to? 
 dpyd<! ^ovXeTat Troielv to p.ev viroKeifievov cos vXtjv, o 
 rrpoaayopevei wavhex^^, to S' «us auTiov koi kivovv, o 
 irepMTTTei, Trj tov Oeov Kal Trj TdyaOov hvvdfiei : see 
 Introd. p. 25. When we remember that God is by the 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 87 
 
 Stoics identified with fiery breath, the purest and rarest 
 of all substances, while on the other hand the world itself 
 is merely a temporal manifestation of the primary fire, it 
 becomes apparent that the Stoic dualism is ultimately 
 reducible to a monism and that the system is essentially 
 hylozoistic, like those of the early lonians (Zeller, Stoics, 
 p. 155, 6. Stein, Psychologic n. 25, collects the passages 
 which prove this). How far this was worked out by Zeno 
 may be doubted : indeed there is no evidence to show 
 that he ever passed beyond the stage of regarding the 
 dual origin of the world as fundamental, and the opinion 
 is now prevalent that Cleanthes by his principle of t6vo<; 
 was the first to consciously teach the pantheistic doctrines, 
 which subsequently became characteristic of Stoicism. 
 
 Sr)niovp7etv : a favourite Platonic word, recalling the Sr]/j,t,- 
 ovpyof of the Timaeus. For the distinction between apxal 
 and aTof)(eia cf Diog. L. Vll. 134 hta^epew Se <f>aa-iv dpxa<i 
 Kal aroiyeia' t«? p,ev yap elvat, dyevvrjTOv; Koi d<f)6dpT0V';- 
 rd Be cTTOi'xela Kara rrjv eKirvpaatv (pdeipeadai. 
 
 36. Hippolyt. Philosoph. 21, 1. p. 571 Diels Xpv- 
 aiiriroi; koX Zijvtov o? viredevro koL avroX dp)(rjv fiev 6eov 
 Twv irdvTcov crdSfia ovra to Kadapwrarov Sid irdvTWV Be 
 Bt/TfKew rijv Trpovoiav avrov. Galen. Hist. Philos. 16. p. 241. 
 Diels p. 608 UXdrmv p-ev ovv Kal Zijvmv 6 XrcaiKi'; irepl 
 T^S ovcrt'as Tov Oeov SteXijXv^ore? oi3^ o/bioto)? "irepl ravrri'; 
 Bievori0T]a-av, aW' o fiev nXaroJi' 6edv da-oofiUTov, Tirjvmv 
 Be amjjba irepl t^9 /jLopijir]^ p,7]Bev elprjKore'i [if we may 
 rely on Diels' text here, some modification will be required 
 in Stein, Psychologic n. 88, where Kiihn's reading ov 
 Koap-ov oKKa irapd ravTa...Ti dWo is adopted]. 
 
 Cf. generally Tatian ad Graec. c. 25 p. 162 c (speaking 
 of the Stoics) a-(Sp.d tii elvai \eyet, deov, iyco Be da-oi/jiaTOV. 
 August, adv. Acad. III. 17. 38 (quoted below). 
 
88 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 t4 KoeapiiroTov. " God is spokcn of as being Fire, 
 Aether, Air, most commonly as being ■irvevfia 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. Kadapwrarov is used with 
 special reference to Birjxeiv, cf. Sext. Emp. vii. 375 ovSe 
 TO TTvevfia <^va-Lv e')(ei, trpo'i tovto \rinr(o<Tiv\ iirtr^Seiov, 
 XemofiepiffTaTov koI evpovv Trapd to, Toiavra rcov creo/ia- 
 rmv virdp-xpv. Ar. Metaph. i. 8. 3, 4 (speaking of those of 
 his predecessors who had explained generation by av'fKpu- 
 o"t? and Bi,dKpia-i<;) ry fiev yap av So^eie aTotxeitoSetrTaTov 
 elvai TrdvTwv i^ ov lyiyvovrai, a-vyKpiaei TrpcoTov, toiovtov 
 Be TO /iiKpo/iepea-TaTov koL XeirroTarov dv elT) raiv atofia- 
 Tiov. Bioirep oaob irvp dpj^rjv ridiaai fioKLara ofidXo- 
 jov/ievco'; dv rw Xoya Tovrtp Xeyoiev. Krische, Forschungen 
 p. 382. 
 
 irpovoiov 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. iii. 2. 9 (in. 36) Diels. p. 592 
 eXeye Be irdvra Bi,rjKeiv to delov. 
 
 rationem : the Heraclitean X6yo<;, Introd. p. 22. 
 
 38. TertuUian, ad Nat. II. 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: KTjpla. Zeno's fondness for simile has been 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 89 
 
 observed upon in the Introd. p. 33. Virgil's lines are 
 well known, Georg. iv. 219 sqq. His quidam signis atque 
 haee exempla secuti Esse apibus partem divinae mentis et 
 haustus Aetherios dixere ; deum namque ire per omnes 
 Terrasque tractusque maris eaelumque 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. ii. 120 cuius 
 (divinae sollertiae) vos majestatem deducitis usque ad 
 apium formicarumque perfeetionem 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 
 esse censet eamque vim obtinere recta imperantem pro- 
 hibentemque contraria. Lactant. Inst. i. 5 Item Zeno 
 (deum nuncupat) divinam naturalemque legem. Minuc. 
 Folic. Octav. 19. 10 Zeno naturalem legem atque divinam. . . 
 omnium esse principium. 
 
 Cf. Diog. L. VII. 88, £B? aTrayopeveiv e'icodev 6 v6fj,o<; 6 
 /coti/o? o-rrep icrrlv 6 6p6d<; X0709 Sid irdvTwv ep'xpfievo^ 6 
 avro<; a>v rm Ad KaOrjye/jiovt, rovTip rrj<; twv ovtcdv Sioikij- 
 <7e<B? ovri. Schol. on Lucan II. 9 hoc secundum Stoicos 
 dicit, qui adfiormant 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. II. 7. 11" p. 96, 10 = Floril. 46, 12 t6v 
 re vofiov o'TrovBalov elvai ^aai Xdyov opoov bvra irpoo'- 
 TuKTiKov /lev ^v iroL'qreov, dvayopevrtKOv Se wv ov iroi- 
 rjTeov repeated at 11. 7. 11', p. 102, 4 
 
 Gods and men are influenced by the same law " quae 
 est recti praeceptio pravique depulsio" Cic. N.D. 11. 78. 
 
90 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 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. il. 10. For Zeno Right 
 exists ^va-ei, and not merely 6ea-ei, cf. Krische p. 371. 
 Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 708. 
 
 40. Philodemus irepl evae^. c. 8, Set ttjv <S>vvafj,iv 
 ovaav a-vva<Tr>TiKrjv olKe<i>co<; rtSv fJLepm<v> 7rpo<? 
 a>X\,r]Xa Kal eK...a)v Trjv S" dva<ToXrj>v r)<Ku>ov Kai 
 KV<K\r](riv> r) TrepioBov. 
 
 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. 
 
 ■niv Svvaiiiv. This is evidently a Stoic description of 
 God as the power which binds the parts of the world 
 together and keeps them in union. 
 
 oT)vairTiKiiv. We should expect trvveKTiKi^v, which is 
 the more natural word in this connection. Sext. Math. 
 IX. 84 avdyKr} dpa vtto tjj? apC(rTr]<! avrov (tov Koafiov) 
 fj}vaeai<; avve'xeaOai iirel Kal 'irepLe')(ei Td<; Trdvrcov <})vcret<! 
 ...ToiavTT) Be Tvyx,dvovcra 6e6^ icmv. On the other hand 
 avvaTTTco <7vva<f>i] and the like are technically applied to 
 the structure of manufactured articles, which are said to 
 be e« crvvaiTTOfievtov) (■qvtofiiva : ib. 78 eK (TvvaTrTo/jievojv 
 Be rd eK re irapaKeifievcov koI Trpot ev n Ke<f>d\aiov vevov- 
 Tcov avve<rrtoTa to? aXvcet? Kal irvpyiaKoi Kal vr]e<!. 
 
 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. il. 126 Zenoni et 
 reliquis fere Stoicis aether videtur summus deus [if fere 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 91 
 
 is pressed here, it points to the exception of Cleanthes, 
 but see on Cleanth. fr. 15]. 
 
 aethera not to be confounded with drjp, which is one 
 of the four elements and subject to destruction ; aerem in 
 Tertull. is probably a blunder, unless with Stein, Psych, 
 n. 80, aut should be read for et. The aether here in 
 question is an equivalent of Trvev/na or of ttujo texvikov, 
 i.e. it is merely one of the labels convenient to express 
 the material essence of God. Neither ttv/s nor aWrip is 
 regarded in itself as a complete description. For the 
 distinction between the Stoic al9rip and the Heraclitean 
 ■TTvp see Stein, Psychologie p. 26 and n. 31. The Stoic 
 deity is at once corporeal and rational: but how far it may 
 be said to have been personified cannot be determined: in 
 fact, as has been remarked, the ancients seem to have 
 grasped the notion of personification with much less 
 distinctness than modern thinkers. 
 
 42. Stob. Eel. 1. 1. 29" p. 35, 9, Zijvojv 6 SrwiKo? vovv 
 KocrfMov TTvpcvov (scil. ^601' direijj'ijvaTo). August, adv. Acad. 
 III. 17. 38 nam et deum ipsum ignem putavit (Zeno). 
 
 Cf Stob. Eel. I. 1. 29'' p. 38, 2 dvcoTaTco iravTav vow 
 ivaiOepiov elvai 6e6v. 
 
 For the Stoic conception of the World-Soul see Stein,. 
 Psychologie p. 41, who distinguishes the world soul from 
 the Aether God, the former being an offshoot from the 
 latter. "Die Weltseele ist nur ein Absenker jenes Ur- 
 pneumarestes der als Gott Aether unser Weltganzes 
 umspannt ; sie ist als Ausfluss der Gottheit jenes kiinst- 
 lerische gottliche Feuer (irvp reyyiKov) das die Keimkrafte 
 {a-irepiJMTiKov<s \6yov^) der Weltbildung im allgemeinen 
 und der Einzelbildungen insbesondere in sich enthalt." 
 In regarding vovq as an indwelling material essence Zeno 
 revived the position formerly taken up by Diogenes of 
 
92 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 Apollonia in opposition to Anaxagoras : see the fragment 
 quoted by Zeller, Pre-Socraties, E. T. I. p. 287 n. 7. 
 
 The MSS Koa-fiov was corrected to Kotr/iov by Krische 
 p. 378, who supplies 6e6v dire^^varo. Hirzel II. p. 220, 2 
 prefers to put a comma after Koa-fiov: otherwise Kai 
 injpivov is necessary. 
 
 43. Themist. de An. 72 b [ed. Speng. Ii. p. 64, 25] 
 Tof^a he Koi rot? dird Tirjvcovo'i aviJ,<j>a)vo<i ri So^a Bid 
 irdai)'! ovaiaf ire^oirrfKevai rov deov ride/jLevoK kul ttou 
 jiev elvai vovv irov Se "^v^^v vov Be ^vaw ttov Be e^iv. 
 
 This same force, appearing in different substances, is 
 -called e^t? as the bond of union for inorganic matter, 
 (^utrts in the case of plants, yjrvxv in the case of animals, 
 andvou? as belonging to rational beings. Diog. L. vii. 139 Bi 
 wv fiev yap cos e^4S Ke'^copTjKev e<5? Bid tu>v oaTwv koi T(Sv 
 vevpwv Bi wv Be m? vov<i cos Bid rov ifyefioviKov, cf. 
 Cleanth. Frag. 51. Some Stoics seem however to have 
 denied this distinction between i^u^?) and vovf. Nemes. 
 Nat. Horn. c. 1 (quoted by Stein, Psych, pp. 92, 3) nvh 
 Be ov BLeaTeiXav airo Trj<; '^V')(rj<! rov vovv dWa ttj? 
 ovaLa<; avrrj's i^yefioviKov elvai to voepov yyovvTai. Stein 
 however is not justified in holding that the living principle 
 of animals occupies a position midway between <piia-i<i and 
 ^jrvxv, as will be shown on Cleanth. frag. 44. That the 
 passage is good evidence that the distinction between 
 e^t?, (f)va-i<} and yjrvxv is Zenonian may be inferred from 
 the words avfi^wvot rj Bo^a. 
 
 44. Lactant. de Vera Sap. c. 9, Zeno rerum naturae 
 dispositorem atque artificem universitatis Xoyov praedicat 
 quern et fatum et necessitatem rerum et deum et animum 
 lovis nuncupat. Tertull. Apol. 21 Apud vestros quoque 
 sapientes Xoyov id est sermonem atque rationem constat 
 artificem videri universitatis. Hunc enim Zeno determinat 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 9S 
 
 factitatorem qui cuncta in dispositione formaverit eundem 
 et fatum vocari et deum et animum lovis et necessitatem 
 omnium rerum. Minuc. Fel. 19. 10 rationem deum vocat 
 Zeno. Lact. Inst. iv. 9 siquidem Zeno rerum naturae dis- 
 positorem atque opificem universitatis Xoyov praedicat 
 quem et fatum et necessitatem rerum et deum et animum 
 lovis nuDCupat : ea scilicet eonsuetudine qua solent lovem 
 pro deo accipere. 
 
 45. Stob. Eel. I. 5. 15. p. 78, 18, Zrjvcov 6 'S.raiKo^ 
 ev Tft) irepi ^vaea)<; {ttjv elfiapfiivriv) Svvafiiv KivqriKrjv t^? 
 vXr]^ Kara ravToi icai coaavra'i rjvnpa ixrj Sia<f>epeiv 
 irpovoiav xal <f>v(nv KoXetv. Theodoret, Graee. Aff. Cur. 
 VI. 14. p. 87, 26 ZTjvav Be 6 Ktrei)? Svvafiiv KeKkr/Ke 
 Trjv elfiapfiivrjv KivrjTiKrjv Trj<s vXi;? t'^v Se avTrjv koX 
 Trpovotav Koi ^vaiv wvo/iaerev. 
 
 (1.1^ 8ia<j)fptiv. God receives different names, while his 
 essence is constant, owing to the various phases of his 
 union with matter (Tdi Trpoa-rjyopia'; fieToXa/i/Sdveiv St' 
 o\i?? T?7? i/Xrj'i Bi ^? Ke-)(mpr)Ke irapaXKa^av Stob. Eel. I, 
 1. 29 b p. 37, 23, according to Diels and Wachsmuth a 
 mistake for Bid to? t^? vki)<; BC '^'s Ke)(wpr)Ke irapaXKa^ev;). 
 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. Of. Athenag. Supplic. c. 6. p. 7 B 
 oi Be dvo Tr)<; crTod<;- Kav rats irpoa-Tjyopiaii Kara rdi; 
 TrapaXkd^eii; rrj^ SXi;?, St' ^s ipaeri to irvevfia j(aipelv tov 
 6eov, 7r\r)dvva>a'i ro Qelov tok ovo/Macri, rm yovv epya 
 eva vofil^ovai rov deoV el ydp 6 fiev 6e6^ irvp Te'xyiKov 
 oBm ^dBi^ov enl yeveaei<; koo-jmov e/nrepieik7)cj)6^ airavTa^ 
 Toi)? a-'7rep/ji.aTiKOv^\6yov<; KaS" 01/9 eKatrra KaG' elfMapfievrfv 
 yiverai, to Be irvevp,a avrov BiijKei Bi oKov tov Koafiov, 
 6 debi e?? KaT axnov<; Zev? iJikv Kara to ^eov t'^? ZXtj^ 
 6vofia^6fJievo<; "Upa Be Kara tov depa Kal rd Xoiird xad' 
 
:94 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 eKaaTov t?"? vXr)^ fiepoi; Bi rj^ Ke')(wpr)Kev KaXov/ievoi. In 
 this connection it may be observed that Gercke (Chrysippea, 
 p. 697) 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. 149, /caO^ elfiap/ievijv Si (jiaai to, 
 iravTa '^(r/veaOai li.pv(n7nro<!,..Kal Tlo(TeiBwvi,o<;...Kai, 
 Zirjvwv ^or)6h<; Be. 
 
 Since elfiap/j-evT] is identical with irpovoia, it follows 
 that everything is produced Kara Trpovoiav. Cleanthes, 
 however, demurred to this (frag. 18). 
 
 46. Cic. N.D. II. 57, Zeno igitur ita naturam definit 
 ut eam dicat ignem esse artificiosum ad gignendum pro- 
 gredientem via. Censet enim artis maxime proprium 
 esse creare et gignere, quodque in operibus nostrarum 
 artium manus efficiat, id multo artificiosius naturam 
 «fl5cere, id est, ut dixi, ignem artificiosum magistrum ar- 
 tium reliquarum. Cic. Acad. I. 39 Zeno statuebat ignem 
 esse ipsam naturam. N.D. III. 27 naturae artificiose 
 ambulantis, ut ait Zeno. Wachsmuth (Comm. i. p. 9) adds 
 Tertull. ad. Nat. ii. 2 cuius (ignis) instar vult esse naturam 
 Zeno. 
 
 The Greek of the definition is »; <j>icn<} ian irvp re^vt- 
 Kov oBm ^oBi^ov eh yevea-Lv, Diog. L. VII. 156. Clem. 
 Alex. Strom. V. p. 597. ^va-i<; is only another name for 
 God viewed in his creative capacity. Hence Stob. Eel. i. 
 1. 29'' p. 37, 20 ol liToiiKol voepov deov airo^alvovrai irvp 
 re'xyiKov oBp ^dBi^ov iirX yeveaei k6(7/jlov, ifiirepieiXri<f>69 
 Trdvrai; tov<! airepp.ariKov^ Xoyovi Kaff" oi)? Utravra Kuff 
 ■eifiap/JLevrjv yiverai : Athenag. 1. c. Wellmann, p. 472 and 
 Weygoldt p. 35 think that \6yo<! a-Trep/iariKo^ is a Zenonian 
 expression. So Stein, Psych, p. 49 and n. 87. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 95 
 
 47. Tatian ad Graec. c. 3, p. 143 c, koI 6 ^eo? dvo- 
 heij^driaerai kukwv Kar avrbv (scil. 'Zirjvwva) •jroirjTrj'i, iv 
 afjiapai'i re Kal (tkwXtj^i /cai dpprjTOvpjol'i Karayivofievoi;. 
 
 Cf. Clem. Alex. Protrept. 5 § 66 oiiSe iirjv toi)? diro rrji; 
 liTod^ TrapeXevao/Mai Sid •rrdar)'; vKt)^ koI Bid rrji dri/MO- 
 rdrrj'; to deiov BirjKeiv Xeyovra';- oi KaTai(T')(vvovcriv dre')(^- 
 vw<! Tr)v <j)iXoao(f)iav: Sext. Pyrrh. III. 218 SrMtKot Be 
 ■7rvev/j,a SifJKoi/ Kal Bid raiv eiBex^wv : Cic. Acad. ir. 120 cur 
 deus omnia nostra causa cum faceret — sic enim voltis — 
 tantam vim natricum viperarumque fecerit? cur mortifera 
 tam multa et perniciosa terra marique disperserit? We 
 have no information as to what answer Zeno made to this 
 objection, but the later Stoics said that physical evils 
 ultimately served a good purpose: so Chrysippus ap. Plut. 
 Sto. Eep. 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 eontinet natura non artificiosa 
 solum sed plane artifex ab eodem Zenone dicitur consultrix 
 et provida utilitatum opportunitatumque omnium. 
 
 An ingenious explanation of this difficult passage is 
 given by Stein, 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 ■^yefioviKov der Welt 
 bezieht." The -n-vevfjia 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 {<7cofj,a 
 TO KaOapwTaTov), whereas the world-soul is less Kadapov 
 from its combination with matter. 
 
96 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 artifex : probably a translation of rexvirT)'; Diog. L. 
 Vll. 86, but Hirzel II. p. 220 represents it by SrjfMovfyyoi;, 
 in which case cf. Diog. L. vil. 137. 
 
 49. Chalcid. in Tim. c. 290, Plerique tamen silvam 
 separant ab essentia, ut Zeno et Chrysippus. Silvam 
 quippe dicunt esse id quod subest his omnibus quae 
 habent qualitates, essentiam vero primam rerum omnium 
 silvam vel antiquissimum fundamentum earura, suapte 
 natura sine vultu et informe : ut puta aes, aururo, 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 
 ova-la and vXt/ — the former the indeterminate and formless 
 matter underlying the universe, and the latter the stuff 
 out of which a particular thing is made. vXt) is thus 
 from one point of view the more general term, since ovaia 
 = irpanri vX-q (frag. 51). Cf Dexipp. ad Cat. Schol. Arist. 
 Brandis 45 a 21 eo-ri to inroK€ifj.evov S«ttoz/ koI Kard rot)? 
 diro Trj'i aToa<; koX Kara toi)? irpea^vTepov; ev fiev to Xeyo- 
 fievov trpwrov viroKeifievov coi rj airoio^ HXt] fjv Svvdfiei crm/j,a 
 6 'AptaToreXr}<; <j)r)crlv Bevrepov Be VTro/cet/ievov to iroiov 
 o Kotvw^ f) IBl(0<; vipicrTaTo k.t.X. Similarly Arist. Metaph. 
 VII. 4. 1044 a 15 distinguishes irprnTt] and o'lKela vXri and 
 ib. IV. 24. 1023 a 27 says that material origin may be 
 specified in two ways rj Kara to irpaiTov lyevoi rj Kwrd 
 TO iaTUTOv elBo<! olov ea-Tt fnev w? diravTa to, Tr}KTd e^ 
 iBaToi (i.e. brass as being fusible comes from water) eari 
 S' o5s e'« ■xaXxov 6 caiBpid's. The point of view of Posi- 
 donius is different: he holds Bia^kpeiv ttjv ovaLav Trji 
 vXri<! Trjv <avTrjv> ovaav Kara tjjv inroffTaaiv, eirivoia 
 jjLovov. Stob. Eel. I. 11. 5", p. 133, 22. Wellmann (Neue 
 Jahrb. vol. 115, p. 808) denies that it is a necessary inference 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 97 
 
 from this passage that Zeno taught the doctrine of the 
 four Stoic categories. Stein, Psych, n. 73, explaining the 
 passage generally as above, apparently identifies ovaia 
 with Koivw'i iroiov, and vXrj with iSitu? iroiov, but this 
 distinction is a subordinate one, for ovaia is entirely 
 distinct from -rroiov, whether koivwv or t'Stw?, as Dexipp. 
 I.e. shows. 
 
 50. Chalcid. in Tim. c. 292. Deinde Zeno hanc ipsam 
 essentiam finitam esse dicit unamque eam communem 
 omnium quae sunt esse substantiam, dividuam quoque 
 et usque quaque mutabilem: partes quippe eius verti, 
 sed non interire, ita ut de existentibus consumantur in 
 nihilum. Sed ut innumerabilium diversarum, etiam 
 cerearum figurarum, sic neque formam neque figuram nee 
 ullam omnino qualitatem propriam fore censet funda- 
 menti rerum omnium silvae, coniunctam tamen esse 
 semper et inseparabiliter cohaerere alicui qualitati. Gum- 
 que tam sine ortu sit quam sine interitu, quia neque de 
 non existente subsistit neque consumetur in nihilum, 
 non deesse ei spiritum ac vigorem ex aeternitate, qui 
 moveat eam rationabiliter totam interdum, nonnumquam 
 pro portione, quae causa sit tam crebrae tamque vehe- 
 mentis universae rei conversionis ; spiritum porro motivum 
 ilium fore non naturam, sed animam et quidem rationabi- 
 lem, quae vivificans sensilem mundum exornaverit eum 
 ad hanc, qua nunc inlustratur, venustatem. Quem qui- 
 dem beatum animal et deum adpellant. 
 
 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* p. 161, 19 
 Tov Se Totrov (i.e. full space) treirepaafievov hid. to firjBev 
 ffwfia direipov elvai, KaOdirep Be to atofiariKov TreTre- 
 H. P. 7 
 
98 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 paa-fievov elvav oi/TO)? to aamfiarov direipov, Diog. VII. 160 
 a-(Sfj.a Be ia-Ti kut avroi)^ tJ ovala koX -rreirepaa-iiivi). The 
 Stoic view is refuted by Lucr. i. 1008 — 1051, who con- 
 cludes thus : — infinita opus est vis undique materiai. 
 Similarly Diog. L. X. 41 etre yap fjv to icevov aireipov 
 TO. Se adtfiara mpiafieva, ovhafiov av e/ieve ra awfiaTa, aXK 
 iipipero Kara to direipov Kevov Sieairap/ieva, ovk e^ovTa 
 Ta vTrepeiSovTU xal a-TeWovra Kara ra? dvrLKOira<;. 
 
 wiamque earn etc. See on frag. 51. 
 
 cerearum : wax is chosen as being one of the most 
 pliable substances. Cf. Sext. Math. Vli. 375 o fidkaiem- 
 Taroi Krjpoi;. . .Tvirovrai faev viro Tivof afia voijfiari Sid ttjv 
 vypoTijTa ou (rvvij(et Se tov tvitov. 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 
 
 eandem 
 esse, sed in varias doceo migrare figuras. 
 
 neque formam etc. Cf. Posid. ap. Stob. Eel. l. 11. 5' 
 p. 133, 18 Trjv Twv iXav ovffLav Koi vKrjv diroiov koX 
 diiop(f)ov elvai icaff oa-ov ovBev aTroTeTayfiivov iSiov e^et 
 (T'XTj/ia ovBe TroiOTijra xad' avTrjv del S" ev Tivi crp^?7/iaTt 
 Kul iroioTTjTi ehai. In this respect the Stoics simply 
 adopted Aristotle's conception of vXt], cf Metaph. Z. 3. 
 1029 a 20 Xiya S" vXrjv ^ lead' avrijv fiijTe rt /tt^re iroa-ov 
 firjTe dWo fir]8ev Xeyerai all &pi(TTai ro ov. Arist. ap. 
 Stob. Eel. I. 11. 4, p. 132 foil, concluding thus: — Seiv ydp 
 d/jb(j)oiv (i.e. v\r}<i ical etSow?) t^? arvvoSov Trpo? ttjv tov 
 <rd)/jiaTO^ virocrraa-iv. The distinction between the two 
 schools is that, whereas the Stoics defined SXt) as a-wfia 
 (Stob. Eel. I. 11. 6" p. 133, 16), Aristotle declared it to be 
 cTwuaTiKrj merely, but this distinction is more apparent 
 than real. 
 
 ,c 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 99 
 
 sine ortu:, dthio<i, avy^povoi; rm Beat, infra frag. 51. 
 
 neque de non existente: the denial of o'ttXco? yevecrii; 
 cK firj 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." C£ Posidonius ap. Stob. Eel. I. 20. 7, 
 p. 178, 2, TTjv fikv yap eic rwv ovk ovtcdv koI ttjv et? ovk 
 ovra (j^Oopav Kal'yevea'iv)..,d7riyva)crav dvvirapKTOV ovaav. 
 M. Aurel. IV. 4. 
 
 moveat, kivtjtiktjv Trj<! S\r]';, frag. 45. 
 
 non naturam: in apparent contradiction to frag. 46, 
 but we shall probably explain : the irvevfia is not merely 
 <f>vaK, it is also "^vxv, nay more it is ■^u%^ \6yov eypvaa, 
 i.e. vov<;. 
 
 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% p. 132, 26. Z^vtovor ovaiav 
 Be eXvai Trjv rmv ovtcov. irdvrwv irpwTijy vXrjv, ravTtjv Be 
 iraaav d'iBiov Kal oilre TrXetw ytyvo/iivTiv ovre e\drT(o' 
 rd Be fiipTi Tavrr)^ ovk del ravrd Sia/ieveiv dWd Siai- 
 peiadai Kal (rvyj^eiadai. Bid TavT7}<s Be Sta6eiv top tov 
 travro'} \6yov, ov evioi el/Mipfievriv KoKovaiv, olovrrep ev ry 
 yovfi TO trirepixa. Epiphan. Haeres. I. 5, Diels, p. 558, 
 (jidcrKei ovv Kal ovroi (Zi^vcov) rrjv vXrjv avyxpovov KaXwv 
 r^ de^ i<ra rat? aXXaii aipeaecriv, eifiapfiivrjv re elvai 
 Kal yeveavv e^ i5? ^ ifdvra BioiKelrai. Kal •irda')(ei. Diog. 
 L. Til. 150, ova Lav Be <f>a(Ti twv ovtcov dirdvTwv rrjv 
 irpwTrjv i\r}v (o<i..,Zi]vav...Ka\eiTat Be Bi-x^co<i ovaia re Kal 
 
 7—2 
 
100 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 vXt) ^ re Twv -rrdvrtuv koI ■^ twv eTrl fiepov;. rj fiev ovv 
 Tcov oXcov 0VT6 irXeieov oUre ikarrmv i^iverai' rj Se t(Sv 
 eTTi fiepov; koX TrXeiav koI ekdrrtov. TertuU. 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 inseparabiJem 
 deum silvae, eundemque per silvam meare, velut semen 
 per membra genitalia. 
 
 o4't€ irXtCu. The uTToio'} SXt) is, as we have seen, 
 mpiafievTj and ireirepatTfievr]: being also dtBto'i it is in- 
 capable of increase or diminution. Its parts however (i.e. 
 matter as seen in the i'Si'm? iroiov or individually deter- 
 mined thing) are subject to destruction and change. See 
 the further authorities cited by Zeller, Stoics, p. 101, n. 2. 
 
 Sioipetcreoi Kol <rwyx«t<rflot. Strictly Speaking both these 
 terms are to be distinguished from the theory of inter- 
 mingling which was characteristic of Stoicism (/epao-t? 
 St" '6\eov, and see infra). Thus Siaipeai<} is the sepa- 
 ration of substances which have been combined by 
 •irapd0e<rt<;, e.g. a heap of barley, wheat or beans, while 
 <7-i5iyj^utrt? is the chemical fusion of two distinct substances 
 which lose their essential properties in consequence of the 
 process (Ohrysipp. ap. Stob. Eel. I. 17. 4, p. 154, 10 — 155, 
 14), The Stoic Kpaa-iv or fil^i<i 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. Zi^vcova Se ovtw? 
 diro(j>alv6cr6ai, SiappjjStjv' roiaiiTtjv Se Serjaet elvai ev 
 •trepvoScp TTjv rov '6Xov SiaKo(r/ir)<riv ex t^9 ovaia<i, '6rav sk 
 irvpo's rpoirrj eh iStap SC depo<; yivriTai, to fiiv ri v^iff- 
 raffdai koX yjjv a-vviaraaOai, [koI] eK tov Xoittov Se to 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 101 
 
 fiev Siafiiveiv vSmp, ex Be tow dr/ju^ofievov aipa yiveo'dai, 
 Xeirrvvofiivov Be tov depo<s irvp i^dirTeadat, rrjv Be fit^iv 
 < KoX > Kpdaiv yiveaOai ry et? a)\Xrj\a twv (rrofxeiav 
 fierafioXy cai/iaTO? oXov Bi '6\ov rivd'i erepov Biepj(p/ievov. 
 Diog. L. VII. 135, 136, ev re elvai Qebv koI vovv koX 
 elfiapfievTjv ical Aia TroWat? re eTipai<i 6vo/iaaiat<i nrpoa- 
 ovofia^eadai. icaT apxo^ f^ev ovv Kaff avrov ovra rpeTreiv 
 TTJv irda-av oiKriav Bi depo<s el<} vBwp' koX matrep ev ry 
 yovrj TO cnrepiia irepiejfeTai, ovrm ical tovtov cnrepp,aTiKov 
 Xoyov ovra tov /coafiov, TOiovSe VTroXelveadai ev t«3 ir^pm 
 evepyov avr& iroiovvra Trjv vXr]v tt/jo? rrjv twv e^? 
 yevea-tv elra diroyevvdv irpwTOv rd Teaaapa OTOij^ela 
 irvp, vBwp, depa, yijv. Xeyei Be irepX avrdav Zir/vrnv ev rm 
 irepl TOV oXov. Diog. L. VII. 142, yiveaOai Be t6v Koa/iov 
 lirav eK irvpov rj ovaia Tpairy Bi depov el<i vypoTTjTa, elra 
 to Tra^u/tejoe? avTov a-va-rdv diroTeXeaOy yrj to Be XeirTO- 
 fjbepei e^aepmdrj, koX tovt eirl irXeov Xeirrvvdev irvp diro- 
 yevvijar)' etTa Kara fil^iv ex TovTcav (pvrd Te xal ^ma koi 
 Ta dXXa yevr). irepX Bri ovv t^s yeveae<i)<s xal t^? <^dopd<! 
 TOV KOfffiov (ftrjcrl Zijvcov fiev ev t^ irepl '6Xov, k.t.X. 
 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. 
 
 kv irtpio'8c|»: these words seem to refer to the periodic 
 renewal of the world after each eKnvpa){ri<i 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, wa-Te koi ravTa dvaXri<f>drjvai eli tov 
 TOV '6Xov Xoyov,. eire Kara vepioBov eKirvpovp,evov eiTe k.t.X. 
 Numenius ap. Euseb. P. E. xv. 18. 1, dpeaxei Be tok 
 irpea-fivraTOKS ratv diro t^<i alpeaecaf Tavrr}<; e^vypovadai 
 irdvra Kard irepc6Bov9 Ttvo? to? fieyiaTa<! eh irvp al0e- 
 pwBei dvaXvo/jiivtov irdvTtov. 
 
102 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO, 
 
 oTov iK irvpos Tpoiri^ k.t.x. The evolution of vBo)p 
 from the -n-vp rexvtKov is first described and then the 
 subsequent generation of the four elements from t6 
 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 {irvpoi rpoiral irpmTov 
 daXaercra' BaT^Aaaij'! Se ro fiev rjfiuTV yfj to Se r]fii<rv 
 vpria-Trjp, R. and P. § 30) but dififers from him in adopting 
 the theory of the four elements, and to this fact is due 
 the introduction of the words Si depo<s. Cf. also the 
 account of Anaximenes, ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 6 a, 'Ava^i- 
 fiev7]<! dpaioiifievov /lev rov depa irvp yiyveo'dai <j)r]<Tt, 
 irvKvovfievov Se dve/iov, elra vi<f>o<!, elra ert fiaXKov iihmp, 
 elra yr/v, elra XLQovi to. Be dWa ix rovriov. The dvaj 
 KaTco 68os appears clearly in the passage in Stobaeus, cf 
 Cleanth. frag. 21. There are certain difficulties in this 
 account of the SiaKoa-fiTja-K, 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 e^v- 
 ypaxTii entirely distinct from and anterior to the formation 
 of the four elements ? If Diog.'s account is based upon 
 Zeno, this question must be answered in the affirmative, 
 but in Stobaeus it appears rather as an ordinary stage in 
 the Karta oBoi;. That an entire resolution of the irvp 
 re-xyiKOV into vypov (except as regards t6 'ea-jaoirov rov 
 rrvpo'i) was taught by the Stoa is also clear from Cornut. 
 c. 17, p. 85, Osann. eari, Se X.do<! fiev ro irpo rrj<s SiuKocr- 
 firjaewis yevofievov vypov, amo t^? j^uffew? ot5TQ)S wvo- 
 fiafffievov, TJ TO irvp, '6 eirriv oiovel Kdo<;..,fjv Si irore, w 
 rrai, irvp rd nrdv koX yevjjfferao irdXiv iv TrepwS^' 
 a^effdivro^ S' eh depa avrov fiera^oXTJ ddpoa ylverai 
 6t9 iiSap' S^ XafijSdvei rov ftev vt^UTrafievov fiipov} rfj<! 
 ovala<{ Kara rniKvaxnv rov Se Xerrrvvo/jLevov Kara dpalaxriv. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 103 
 
 (2) Is the e^iiypaxrt? 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 eKirvptaait; ? Perhaps it is safest 
 to regard Zeno as an exponent of the simple o^6<; ava> 
 KOTO) and to treat the complications in connection with 
 the Tovof theory of Cleanthes (frag. 24). 
 
 Tpoortj, codd. corr. Heeren. Tpairr}, Mein. (del. yivTirai,) 
 coll. D. L. VII. 142. 
 
 X£irTDvo|i^oii, K.T.X. is the corr. of Wachsm. for the Mss. eic 
 Tivo<} Se Tov depo({, coll. Chrysipp. ap. Plut. Sto. Rep. 41, 3. 
 
 Iitgiv. The mixture of dry substances )( Kpda-iv 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 : koI yap eh TreXayo^ 
 6\t709 olvoi ^X7i0el<i eTri iroa-ov dvTnrapeKTa8ri<reTai avfi- 
 ^OapijcreTat (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 dXKoicoaK 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^oKij, (1) Kara Siaipeinv, (2) Kar 
 dWolataiv, (3) Kara (riyyvaiv, (4) ef '6~hM>v or /car' 
 avoKvaiv, proceeds : — TOVTmv he rrjv Kar dXXoltocrcv irepl 
 Trjv ovatav yiveadai ra? S' dWa^ TpeK irepl Toi/i iroioi)<t 
 Xeyo/ievovi; Toi><s eVl Tr}<s overia<s yivofikvow;. 
 
 53. Galen, et? to 'I-jriroKpaTov vTro/ivq/ia irepl ^u/AtSi/ 
 I. (XVI. 32 K.) Zijvoav re 6 KiTteo? [Ss] ras Troior'qrat; ovtio 
 
104 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 KoX Tti? ov<Tia<; Si '6\ov Kepavvv<T9ai ivofii^ev, id. de nat. 
 facult. I. 2, el S' &inrep ra? TToiOTrjra'} koX ras ovaiat Si 
 S\(ov Kepdvvvadai "x^prj vofii^eiv, ta? vffrepov aire^vaTO 
 Zijvwv 6 KtTteo?. (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. iii. 57 — 62, which contains a statement and 
 reftitation of the doctrine here referred to. The foUowing^ 
 short summary will make the meaning clear: — Things 
 which are subject to the influence of Kpaa-ii are them- 
 selves a combination of ovaia and iroioTijre'; : when 
 mixture takes place, we must either say that the ovaiai 
 are mixed or that the TroioTT/Tes 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, XeiTrerai \iyeiv '6ti koi ai iroioTTjrev 
 tUv Kipvap-evfov koi at ov(riai •ympovcri oi dKKrfKcov xai 
 fiiyvvfievai tj/i/ Kpdaiv diroreXovaiv (§ 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 TTOtoTi;? was material no less than ovaia. "Aris- 
 totle's eZSos becomes a current of air or gas (irvevfid), the 
 essential reason of the thing is itself material, standing ta 
 it in the relation of a gaseous to a solid body." (Encycl. 
 Brit. Art. Stoics.) 
 
 54. Stob. Eel. I. 20. 1% p. 171, 2. Zj/i/wvi koX KXedvdet 
 KOI "K.pva-imrtp dpia-Kei rrjv ovaiav fiera^dWeiv olov elf 
 ffiripfia TO TTvp, Kal irdXiv ex roiirov roiavTTjv dirore- 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 105 
 
 Xeia-ffai rrjv SiaKocrfirjaiv o'la Trporepov rjv. Euseb. P. E. 
 XV. 18. 3, apeaKei yap rot? ^TmiKoh <^CKo<t6<^oi,<; t'^v 'oKtjv 
 ovatav fiera^dWeiv eh irvp olov et? airepfia naX iraKiv €k 
 TovTov avTTjv awoTeXetaOai, T171; hiaKoap/qaiv o'ia to Trpo- 
 repov rjv Kal TOVTO to hoyiia rwv diro Trjf; aipeaew<; ol 
 irpwroi Koi irpeff^vTaroi •jrpoo'rj/cavTO Zrjvwv re xal 
 KXedvOrji Kal Xpi^trtTTTro?. Arnob. ad Nat. II. 9, qui ignem 
 minatur mundo et venerit cum tempus arsurum, non 
 Panaetio, Chrysippo, Zenoni (credit) ? 
 
 The Stoic authorities for the doctrine of iK-rrvptoa-ii; 
 will be found collected in Zeller, p. 164 n. 2. On this 
 point they were opposed to the Peripatetics who held the 
 d<f)6apa-ia of the Koafiov, 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 eKTTvptoa-K from Heraclitus (see Introd. p. 21) : it may 
 however be observed that it was far more in accordance 
 with his historical position to maintain the destructibility 
 of the world, at any rate, so long as we concede any 
 materiality to his primal fire ; if fire is a mere metaphor 
 to express vavra pel, the case is of course very different. 
 Of Marc. Aurel. ill. 3. The Christian writers often 
 allude to the eKirvpmai'i, which serves at once as a 
 parallel and a contrast to their own doctrine, e.g. Tatian, 
 adv. Graec. c. 25, p. 102 C, eKirvpwaiv (Xeyet rts) diro- 
 ^alveip Kara '^6vov<! iydo Se ela-aTra^. Justin Martyr, 
 Apol. I. 20. 20, p. 66 D. 
 
 tA iriip, add. €« Heeren whom Heinze, Logos, p. Ill, 
 follows, but the alteration is needless. For awepfia cf. M. 
 Aurel. IV. 36. 
 
 55. Tatian, adv. Graec. c. 5, rov Zijveova Bid rfj^ eKirv- 
 ptBirew? diroi^aivofievov dviaratrdai irdXiv rov^ avrov^ ivi 
 roll avrol<!, \67<a Se "Avvrop xal M.eX7)rov iirl r& Karrj- 
 
106 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 yopelv Bovaipiv Se eVi toj ^evoKroveiv koX 'HpaK\ea iroKiv 
 iin TM adXelv •jrapaiTtjTeov. 
 
 Of. Nemes. Nat. Horn. c. 38, ea-eaOai yap irdXiv 
 ^coKparr) xal HXdrava koX e/caarov rmv dvOpoairav <tvv 
 Tot? OUT04S KoX ^iXoK Kcu TToXirai'! Koi TO. avrd ireLcreaQaL 
 Kal TOK avroiij trvvTev^eaOai koi rd avrd fierw)(6ipieiadai, 
 Kal Trdaav ttoXlv Kal Koofiijv Kal dypov ofioteo^ diroKaOia- 
 raadai. The exact repetition in some future cycle of the 
 world's course of the events that have already happened 
 was maintained also by the Pythagoreans, cf. Simpl. Phys. 
 173 a, el he tk irurrevaebe rot? Y\vda/^opeioi,<i, ta? irdXuv 
 Ta avrd dpid/juS, Kor/at pAjOoXoyevaco to pa^Siov eywv 
 vfuv Kadf)fievoi^ o'vto), koi rd dXXa Trdvra ofwLoix; e^et 
 Kal Tov 'xpovov evXoyov iari top 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. 
 
 irapoiTT|Tfov : Tatian's objection to the Stoic theory is 
 based on the ground that there is no progress towards 
 perfection, the bad will be again more numerous than 
 the just: Socrates and Heracles belong to a very small 
 minority. 
 
 56. [Philo.J irepl d^dapcriaf Koa-fiov, cc. 23, 24, p. 510, 
 11, foil. Mang. p. 264, 3 Bern. p. 486, Diels. @e6<}>paaTo<! 
 fievTot <j)r)al tows yereffW' Kal (f>6opdv tov K6irp,ov Kart}- 
 yopovvTa<; vtto TeTTapwv diraTtjdfjvai, twv fieyla-Tcav, yrjf 
 
.THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 107 
 
 av{o/JbaXia<;, 6aXdTTr)<; dva)(a)pi]<7eoj<;, maarov rwv rov '6Xov 
 fiepmv hiaXv(Teo)<;, •)(€p(Tala)v <j)dopd<} icara yevr/ ^mmv. Kara- 5 
 aneva^eiv Bk to fiev irpwTov oLru)?" 'el fir) yeveaemi} dp'x^rjv 
 eXa^ev r) yrj, fiipo^ v7raveaT0<! ovSev dv en avrrjv eapdro, 
 xSafiaXd S' iJSt] rd oprj irdvT eyeyevtyro, icaX ol yedXo^oi 
 iravTe': laoTreSot rfj TreSidBi' ToaovTtov yap Kad' eKoarov 
 eviavTov ofi^pmv e^ d'iSiov ^epofieveov elK6<! fjv rwv Sirjpfievojv 10 
 -TTjoos iiyfro<; rd fiev ■x^eifJ.dppoK; direpprj-^dai, rd S' VTrovoarij- 
 <Tavra Ke-yaXdadat, Trdvra Se Sid irdvTav tJSi] XeXeidvOai' 
 vvvl Be (Tvve')(a)<; dvcofiaXiai ical ira/jLTroXXcov opmv ai •7rp6<s 
 aWepiov v'<fro<i ^nrep^oXaX fir]vv/j.aT earl rov Trjv yrjv firj 
 dMiov elvaf TrdXai ydp, co? e^r;//, eV direipqi ■y^pov^ Toi^ 15 
 i7rofj.^piai<i diro irepdrtov eirl irepara irdcr' dv Xe(i>^6po<s 
 iyeyev7]T0. iretpVKe ydp ^ vBaTo<; <f>vcn'; koL fidXiara a<^' 
 vylrrjXoTaTiov KarapdrTovcra rd fiev e^coOev rfi jSla, rd Be 
 tS <7vve')(el rwv yjreicdBcov KoXdirTovffa KoiXaLveiv virep- 
 yd^ea6ai re rrjv CTKXrfpoyeaiv koX XidtoBeardrrjv opvKTtjpwv 20 
 ovK eXaTTOv.' ' ical p/flv 9) ye OdXaa<Ta,' <paa[v, ' rjBi] 
 fiefieleorai' fidprvpet B' ai vrjatov evBoicifituTaTat 'PoSo? 
 T6 Kal AtJXo?' avrai ydp to /lev vaXaiov ri^aviafievai 
 tcard Trj<s OaXdTTr}<; iBeSiiKeaav eTTixXv^ofievai, j(p6v^ S' 
 iKTTepov eXaTTOvfievT)'! rjpefia icaT oXlyov dvia-xpvffat, w<; 25 
 dl irepl avTcov dvaypatpeiaai /iTjvvovaiv 'uTTopiai' {rrjv Be 
 ArjXov ical ^Kva^rjv mvofuiaav BC diKfioTepmv ovofidriov 
 irtcTTorS/ievoi to Xeyofievov,. eireiB'i] ydp BrjXri dva^avelera 
 iyevero dByiXovfievq koX d<f)avfj<} ovaa to- TraXat] Trpo? Se 
 TOVTOt? fieydXfOV ireXar/wv fieyaXovt /coXttou? Kal Pa6el<{ 30 
 dva^pavdevTa<i rjireipaiadai, ical yeyevrj(r0at rrj'i irapaicei- 
 fiivTj^ ■)(^c6pa<; fioipav ov Xvirpdv trTreipo/ievov<i ical (jtvTevo- 
 fievovi, ol<! (T7}fieV drra r^? 7raXai,d<} eva'7roXeXei<f>6ai 
 6aXaTT<oae(o<! ^jrrj^iBdi; re Kal KoyyO'': i^oX '6(7a o/ioioTpoira 
 •nrpoi aiytaXovi elcoOev diro^pdrreadai. [Bto ical Ili,vBapo<! 35 
 cttI t^? AjJXou <f>T](ri' 
 
 Haip", eo deoB/idra, XivapoTrXoicdfiov 
 
108 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 •7raihea<Ti AaToO? ifiepoearaTov epvo<i 
 Ti-ovTov Ovr^aTep, j(jSovb<i evpeiav aKivryrov repa<i' av 
 re PpoTol 
 
 40 Aa\oi/ KiKK,ri<TKOV<Tt,v, pAicape'i 8' eV 'OXv/iTTW Ti)\k- 
 
 iftavrov Kvaviai; ■xdovm aarpov. 
 Ovyarepa yap Hovtov Trjv A^\oi/ e'lprjKe to \ej(dkv alvn- 
 To/tevo?]. et Brj p^eiovrai 'q OaXarra, fieio>0i]<rerai fiev ■tj 
 yij, fiaxpaii S' iviavTwv trepiohoif koX eh airav eKarepov 
 tTTOi')(etov avaXwdricreTai, SaTravtodi^a-eTai <Se> Kal 6 
 
 45 avfnra<i arjp eK rov Kar oK'vyov i\aTTOvfievo<;, diroKpi- 
 BrfaeTat Se irdvT eh fiiav ovaiav rfjv nrvpof;.' 
 
 •rrpd<s Se rrju tov rpirov Ke<paXalov KaTaaKevrjv 'X^pcovrat 
 \6ya> ToimBe ' ' i^deiperak irdvTto'i iicelvo, oS irdvra rd fiepr} 
 ^daprd iart, tov 8e Koafioii irdma Ta fiepr] ^OapTa i<m, 
 
 50 <j)6apTb<i dpa o Koa/iov iaTiv,' o S" virepedifieda vvv eiri- 
 aKeiTTeov. irolov p-epoi Tfj<i yrj<;, "v dird TavTi]ii dp^wfieOa, 
 fiel^ov rj eXaTTov, ov '^povto ZiaXvdrjaerai ; XWiov oi 
 KpaTaioTaroi dp' ov fivSaai Kal (TtjirovTai Kara Trjv efew? 
 dadeveiav — [^ B' eart •jrvevfiaTiK6<! t6vo<s, Sea-fwv ovk 
 
 55 dppr)KTO'!, dXKa fiovov BvirSidXvTO'i] — dpvTTTOfievoi Kal 
 peome<! eh \eirTrjv to trp&Tov dvaXvovTat koviv ; [eW 
 vaTepov Sairavrjdimei i^avaXvovTat] ti Se ; el firj Trpov 
 dve/uov piiri^oiTo Tb iiSoop, aKivTjTov eaOev ovj^ i5^* ijcrwyta? 
 veKporhai ; /leraffdWei yovv Kal SvaooBeaTaTov yiyveTat, 
 
 60 ola 'y^V'xrjv dijyriprjfiivov ^mov. a" ye fiijv dipoi <})dopal 
 iravTi Tto SijXar voaelv ydp Kal <l)6iveiv Kal Tpoirov tlv 
 diroQvqaKeiM irk^vKev. ivel tL av tk, firj a-TO^a^Ofieva^ 
 ovo/idTiov evTrpeveiai} dXKd Td\rjdov<;, etirot Xoifidv elvai 
 •trX'^v depot; ffdvaTov to olKeiov irddo'i ai^a^eovTO? iirl 
 
 65 (f>Oopa wdpTtav oaa ^jrvx'j'i fiefioipaTai ; ti ^pj) fiaKprj- 
 yopeiv irepl irvpog ; dTpo<f>r]aav ydp avTiKa ff^evvvrai 
 j((iiX6v, ^ ^aaiv oi iroirjTai, yeyovd^ ef eavrov. 8i6 a-Krjpnr- 
 TOfievov opOovTai kutu ttjv t^s dvaif>dei<Tri<} vXT]<i vofiijv, 
 €^avaX(o6eiff7]^ S' d^avl^erai. [to TrapatrXriaiov /xevToi 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 109 
 
 Kai, rov<} Kara rrjv 'IvSiic'^v SpaKOVTai <f)atri irda-xeiv. 70 
 avepirovrav yap eVt ra /ieyiara twv ^matv i\e<fiavTa<} 
 ■Trepl vdora Koi vijSiiv airacrav elXetcrOai, ^Xe/Sa S' fjv av 
 Tvxrj Si€\6vTa<} epTThveiv tov ai/iarois, dTr\ria-Ta><i eiri- 
 ffTrcofievovv ^lauo "KvevfiaTt xal avvrovq) poi^m. fieyp'' Z*^" 
 ovv Tti/09 i^avaXovfiivovii eKeivovg dprej^eiv vir d/jir]'xavi,a(} 75 
 avaaKi,pru)vra<; Kai rrj Trpovofiaia ttjv nrXevpav TinTTovTaf 
 ft)? KaOi^ofievovv rmv SpaKommv, eiT del Kevovfievov tov 
 ^coTiKov "TTTjSav fjL€v fiijKeTi hvvaadai, KpaSai,vojj,evov^ 8' 
 kardvat, fiiKpov S' varepov Ka\ rdSv aKeXmv i^a(rdevr)(rdv- 
 Tcav KaraaeiffdevTaii vird Xi<j)aifjiia<; d'iroy^v')(eiv' veaovTai 80 
 Se Tov<! aWLovi tov ffavdrov a-vvairoXXivai rpoircp ToiwSe' 
 firfKeT e-xpvrei; Tpo(fyi]V ol SpaKoprei;, ov irepiiOeaav Seff/iov 
 iinj(eipovaiv iKXveiv dwaXXayrjv '^Srj iroOovvref, iiro Se 
 TOV ^dpov<s T&v iKei^avTwv QXi^ofievoi irie^ovvTai Kai 
 TToXii fidXXov iTreiSdv tv'XJi ffripi^ov <ov> Kai XcdmSe^ 85 
 TO eBa(f>ov' IXvairtifievoi yap Kai nrdvTa troiovvTe's ets 
 BidXviTiV virb t^? tov iriecravTOV ^lai TreSij^ei/Te? kavrov<; 
 nroXvTpoiraxi iv d/Mr}'X^dvoK Kai diropoii; yvfivda-avTe<i 
 i^aaOevovai <Kal> Kaddvep ol KaraXeva-devrei; rj Tei')(ov<; 
 ai(f)viSi,ov eTrev€'x_divT6<; •irpoKardKr)^6evTe<;, ovB' oaov dva- 90 
 Kv^ai hwafievoi irviyfi TeXevTmaiv.^ el St) rtSv fiepwv 
 €Ka<TT0v TOV Koo'fiov <})dopdp {nrojievei,, SrjXovoTt Kai 6 ef 
 avTwv iTa/yel<i K6ap.o<i a^Bapro<i ovk earai.' tov Se Teraprov 
 xal Xoiirov Xoyov aKpi^coTeov iSBe (jjacriv. ' el S' 6 Koa-fio^ 
 dtSioi ^v, ^v av Kai Ta ^ma dtSia Kai ttoXv ye fidXXov to 95 
 Twv dvdpmirtov 761/0? otrw Kai twv aXXaiv dfieivov. aXXd 
 Kai o-^iyovov ^avfjvab rot? ^ovXofievoK epevvdv rd <j}vaeco^. 
 £(/eo? yap fidXXov S" dvayxalov dvffpwiroi^ cvvvirdp^at 
 Ta^ Teyya^ «»? av laijXlKav ov /lovov on XoyiKy to ififie- 
 60B0V olKeiov dXXd Kai on ^rjv dvev tovtiov ovk e<TTiv' 100 
 iBiofiev Toi)? eKaaToav "xpovov^ dXoyijaavTei twv iviTpayea- 
 Bovfievcov 6eoi<} fivOtov * * * et /tt^ diBto'i dv6ptoiro<!, ovB' 
 dXXo Ti f«3ov, ^XTT ovB' al BeBeyfievat ravra j(wpai, yrj 
 
110 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO 
 
 Kol iiS(op Kol dijp. ef wv TO ijidaprdv ehai tov KOtr/iov 
 BrjXov ianv.' 
 
 It will be seen that the writer attributes to Theo- 
 phrastus the statement and criticism of certain views as 
 to the creation and destruction of the world, which were 
 opposed to the Peripatetic doctrine of its eternity. After 
 the above extract this hostile view is refuted by arguments 
 obviously derived, in part at least, from Peripatetic 
 sources', although the name of Theophrastus is not again 
 introduced. The question arises, assuming the good faith 
 of the extract, to whom do these criticised views belong? 
 This point was first raised by Zeller in Hermes xi. 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''12) ; of the post- 
 Aristotelians they obviously alone suit the Stoics, who 
 were alone in holding the periodical destruction of the 
 world. The second argument, built on the retrocession of 
 the sea, finds a parallel in the views of a world-flood 
 attributed to the Stoa by Alexander Aphrod. Meteor. 
 90* m.; and the dialectical form in which the third and 
 fourth arguments are couched suggests the same origin. 
 Again, the authority of Diog. L. Vli. 141 is conclusive as to 
 the third argument, and the terminology of e^tf, r6vo<i, 
 irvevfia, and wevfiaTiKrj SvvafiK, to which may be added 
 ovaia', ava^OeiaTj'i S5\7;s, and ^vaei oIksIov, 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 iu detail by Zeller, 1. o. p. 424, S. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. Ill 
 
 phrastus could have criticised, for the latter died in 
 01. 123, that is between 288 and 284 B.C., at a time when 
 Zeno's school had been founded for about 15 years. For 
 the avoidance of a direct mention of Zeno, if such was 
 really the case in the Theophrastean original, Zeller quotes 
 the parallel cases in which Aristotle combats the views of 
 Xenocrates and Speusippus without referring to them by 
 name. As an additional circumstance pointing to Zeno's 
 authorship, we may refer to the form in which the 
 syllogism introducing the third argument is cast. This is 
 undoubtedly one of those breves et acutulae conclusiones, so 
 often mentioned by Cicero as characteristic of the style 
 of the founder of Stoicism and of which examples (in 
 addition to those in Cicero) have been preserved by 
 Sextus Empiricus and Seneca: see the collection in 
 Introd. p. 33. This is perhaps the right place to observe 
 that a supposed frag, of Zeno, extracted by Wachsmuth 
 (Comm. I. p. 8) from Philo de Provid. 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. 106 — 108). His main 
 contention is that the authority of the compiler of the 
 pseudo-Philonian treatise is too weak to support so im- 
 portant a discovery as the alleged controversy between 
 Theophrastus and Zeno, of which no trace has come down 
 to us from other sources. He does not believe that this 
 " nebulo " had ever read Theophrastus, and suggests that, 
 finding the name of Theophrastus attached to the first 
 two arguments in some work of Critolaus, he left his 
 readers to assume that the elder Peripatetic was really 
 responsible for those passages in which Critolaus himself 
 
112 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 attacks what is undoubtedly Stoic doctrine. The result 
 is that Diels, though he prints cc. 23 — 27 in the body of 
 his work, does not believe that they contain (even after 
 allowing for later accretions) a genuine excerpt from the 
 (f>vaiKal 86^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. 48 — 50 is extremely 
 probable not only from internal indications, but also 
 because of the evidence of Diogenes Laertius vil. 141, 142 
 (observe especially the words irepl Brj ovv t^s yeviaeaxt 
 Kai T^? <f)6opd<; tov Koafiov <jyr]a-l Zijvojv ev to) "jrepX 
 '6Xov). But, as to the general body of the fragment, the 
 case is different : if we cannot trust the good faith of the 
 writer, as giving us a genuine statement of the refutation 
 by Theophrastus of his opponents' doctrine, it may well 
 be that the two earlier arguments represent early Ionian, 
 possibly Heraclitean, views (with Stoic additions), and 
 that in the later portions we have the work of one of 
 Zeno's successors as set out by a later Peripatetic. On 
 the other hand, if Theophrastus is responsible for the 
 exposition of all four arguments, they certainly belong to 
 a single teacher or a single school, and that teacher, as 
 has been shown above, must be Zeno. It is therefore 
 necessary for us to consider the tenor of Zeller's rejoinder 
 in Hermes XV. 137 — 146, which, briefly stated, resolves 
 itself into a theory as to the origin of the pseudo-Philonian 
 treatise. He fully admits the many absurdities with 
 which the text is strewn, but argues that they can all be 
 eliminated without interfering , with the nexus of the 
 arguments; nay more, that the original writing, though 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 113 
 
 not of great value, was at least a clear and trustworthy 
 exposition of the views of the Peripatetic school, to which 
 the writer belonged, but that the sequence of its thought 
 has been distorted and its whole character changed by the 
 blundering additions of a later hand. We are able to 
 recognise in this treatise the work of two distinct authors, 
 the first probably an Alexandrian philosopher of the latter 
 half of the first century before Christ, and a contemporary 
 of Arius Didymus and Boethus, and the second an 
 Alexandrian Jew of the first or second century of the 
 Christian era. The references of the original writer to 
 Greek philosophy are found to be correct in all cases 
 where his statements can be scrutinised by the light of 
 other evidence : why then should we mistrust his citation 
 of Theophrastus ? To test this theory in detail would 
 require a thorough examination of the treatise in question 
 with reference to the suggested additions, an examiuation 
 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 fi-om 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. He 
 believes that the compilator of the treatise only had later 
 Peripatetic writings — especially those of Critolaus — before 
 H. P. 8 
 
114 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 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. 1 — 5) and these headings, if taken alone, might refer 
 to pre-Aristotelians. Yet, holding in agreement with 
 Zeller and against Diels that the arguments by which 
 the headings are supported are undeniably Stoic, he 
 concludes that a younger Peripatetic adopted the Theo- 
 phrastean scheme, originally a doxographical statement 
 of pre-Aristotelian doctrines, as a groundwork for his 
 polemic against the Stoics, who on their side had a- 
 dopted these four arguments, perhaps from Heraclitus 
 and Empedocles. Finally he suggests, on very inadequate 
 grounds (p. 47), that Antipater of Tarsus was the particular 
 Stoic whose views are summarised. If this theory is 
 correct, it is certainly an extraordinary coincidence that 
 Theophrastus should have selected from the older philo- 
 sophy four particular statements, which go to prove the 
 destructibility of the world, and that the Stoics should 
 have unconsciously taken up identically the same ground 
 in support of their own theory. Zeller's opinion still 
 appears to me more reasonable: see also Stein, Psych, n. 86, 
 who has anticipated the argument used above from the 
 syllogism in 11. 33 — 35. 
 
 8. Td o(H] cf. Comut. c. 17. p. 85 Osann, ra K oprj 
 (yeyove) Kara e^oa-rpaKicr/idv Trj<s 7^9. Schol. Hes. Theog. 
 p. 238, TO, opr) irepl to dvwfiaXov t^s cwt^Tyo-ew? eXa^e 
 Ta? e^<yx,ai ical Kara e^oarTpaKit7p,ov avrr}^. 
 
 iye<i(viyro)(i'yeveTo 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 av is less apparent, 
 though always present: cf. e.g. Dem. Timocr. p. 746 § 146, 
 if imprisonment were contrary to the Ath. constitution 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 115 
 
 ovff oa-<ov 6vBei,^l<; ea-riv rj dTrayay^, Trpoa-eyeypairTO dv 
 iv Tot? vofioK K.T.\. "There would not have been found 
 a dame enacted in the laws" etc. 
 
 16. dird irepaTiav k.t.X. "The whole earth would have 
 become a highway from end to end." Tracr' dv. so Bii- 
 cheler and Dials for irdaa. 
 
 19. Tfi oTJvextt, MS. Med. whence Bucheler reads 7^ 
 ffwe^eia, recalling the line KoiXaivet irerpT^v pavX<i vhaTO<; 
 ivSeXe'X^eia. 
 
 26. -rf^v — iriXai expelled by Zeller, Herm. xv. p, 140. 
 
 28. 7op: the sentence would run more smoothly if 
 this word were omitted. 
 
 33. ots oT](ji«t' drra K.T.X. The observation of similar 
 facts induced in Xenophanes the belief that the earth 
 was originally in a fluid state : cf Hippolyt. i. 14 (quoted 
 by Zeller, pre-Socrat. I. p. 570), Be Hevo<^dvr}<i (il^iv rfj<! 
 7^9 Trpos TYjv OdXaaaav yeveaOai Boicel xal t^ ')(p6v(p dtro 
 rov vypov Xvea-dai, (jyda-ictov Toiavra^ ^^(^eiv diroBet^ei';, 
 OTi, iv p^ear] yy koX opeaiv evpiaKOVTO Koyyat Kal iv 
 XvpaKova-ai'; Be iv Tat<; XaTopiai<; Xeyei evpfjaOai tiittov 
 l')(jdvo<; Kal ^eoKwv, iv Be Udpq) rinrov d^vrji iv Tip 
 fiaOel Tov XLOov, iv Be MeXtVj; ifkaKa^ avp.irdvTWv daXaa- 
 tricov, 
 
 35. 810 — olviTTontvos expelled by Zeller 1. c. and also 
 by Bucheler. 
 
 37, Pindar, frag. 64[87] Bergk. 
 
 43. ircpidSois : see on frag. 52. 
 
 45. airoKpi6Ti<r€Toi "will be merged," cf. Thuc. i. 3, 
 ^'EW7]va^...eh ev ovopM diroKeKplo'dai, Diog. L. vil. 148, 
 ^vt7i<i...roiavTa Bpaiaa d<f> o'liov direKpidrj. 
 
 48—50. Cf. Diog. L. vii 141. Philo, de provid. 1. 12. 
 
 53. sjeeos : lit. hold, an undoubtedly Stoic term. The 
 £^i<! of inorganic matter answers to the (j)vcn<! of plants, 
 and the •^vp(;^ of animals : supra frag. 43. Cf Sext. Math. 
 
 8—2 
 
116 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 IX. 81, Twi' rjvwfievoDV creofidraiv ret /J,ev vvo i^t\% efew? 
 <rvvey^erai...Kal e^ew? fiev, m Xidoi xal ^v\a (Zeller, p. 
 208). 
 
 54. irvtuiioTiKos Tovos : 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. ^^ovTcs " passing away " in the Heraclitean sense ; 
 yet even Plato has el yap pioi to <rm/ia...(Phaed. 87 d), 
 XcTTTi^v Koviv, cf. Soph. Ant. 256. 
 
 etO' — 4|avo\. Om. Med. MS. cf. Bucheler Rhein. Mus. 
 32. 442. 
 
 58. dv^|ji«v : the illustration is suggestive in connection 
 with the doctrine of -irvevfia. For pL-n-i^oiro cf. frag. 106 
 Ki,vovp.evov KaX dvapiTTi^ofievov iir eKeivov. 
 
 60. <|toxi^v appears to be attributed to animals in 
 general and not exclusively to man, see on frag. 43. 
 
 63. EvirpcireCas. Cf. Plat. Euthyd. 305 E, Kal ydp ej^ei 
 ovrw; w "K-pirav evirpeireiav fiaXkov rj aKr)6eiav. It is 
 possible that there is a reference to some contemporary 
 school here, which had explained \oi/xo? after the manner 
 of Prodicus. For the definition cf M. Aurel. IX. 2. 
 
 69—91 ejected by Zeller' 1. c. 
 
 85. ov add. Diels. 89. koV add. Bernays. 
 
 99. US ov not merely equivalent to mairep but ellip- 
 tical. The full phrase would be te? etwo? rjv av el lar)- 
 XiKe<! rjo-av. Xen. Mem. II. 6. 38, ff e'l aoi weiKTaifjn koiv^ 
 TTjv iroXiv ylrevBofievoi; cof av <rTparriyiK<p koI ttoXitikw 
 eavTrjv eiriTpe'y^ai, where see Kiihner. In this way is to 
 be explained Thuc. i. 33. 1. 
 
 102. , " Deesse quibus evpTj/idrmv tempera explica- 
 verant vidit Mangey," Usener. 
 
THE PEAGMENTS OF ZENO. 117 
 
 57. Philargyrius ad Verg. Georg. il. 336, Zeoon ex 
 hoc mundo quamvis aliqua intereant tamen ipsum perpetuo 
 manere quia inhaereant ei elementa e quibus generantur 
 materiae: ut dixit crescere 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 /cocr/io?, 
 which, as we have seen, was held by Zeno: again, ele- 
 menta can hardly be a translation of ij-Toi.'xela, which 
 undoubtedly perished. We must suppose therefore that 
 Zeno is speaking not of the visible world, but of the 
 universe, and that elementa = dp-)(ai. According to Diog. 
 L. VII. 137 Koafwi is used by the Stoics in three senses: 
 the first of these is avrov tov Qebv tov ia t^? d'7rd<rj}<i 
 ovaba<: ISiax; iroibv 8? Zrj d^daprot; ian xal dyevvrjro'i, and 
 this is the sense which mundus must bear here. If this 
 explanation be thought impossible, we can only suppose 
 that there is a confusion with Zeno of Tarsus who is said 
 to have withheld assent to the doctrine of the ixTrvpcoai';, 
 Zeller, p. 168 n. 1. Stein, Psych, p. 64 and n. 92, thinks 
 that Zeno held that at the eKirvpwai'} the various mani- 
 festations of God — world-soul, \6709 cTirepp.ariKQ<! etc. — 
 lose themselves in the divine unity, but that the inde- 
 terminate matter {d-rroiot vXt]) remains, cf ib. p. 34, n. 42. 
 
 58. Diog. Laert. VII. 143, ort re eh eariv (6 Koa-fio^) 
 2trjvtov <i>'q(Tlv ev t& irepX tov iXov. Stob. Eel. I. 22. S** p. 
 199, 10, Zjji'toi' eva elvai rov koct/mov. 
 
 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 
 (TVfjLirddeia fieptSv or awTovia is one of the developments 
 introduced by Oleanthes. 
 
118 THE FKAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 59. Sext. Math, IX. 101, Zrjvmv he 6 Kmei/?, diro 
 'Sievo<f)wvro<i t-tiv d^opfi'^v Xa^cov, ovraxrl a-vvepcorS.' to 
 irpolefievov airip/ia Xor^iKov xal avr6 XoyiKov iffriv o 
 Se K6(rfio<! irpoierai atrepixa \oyiKOV' Xoyiicbv dp' iarlv 
 6 Koafio^. & avveivar/eTat Ka\ rj tovtov virap^K, Cic, 
 N, D. ir. 22, nihil quod animi quodque rationis est 
 expers, id generare ex se potest animantem compotem- 
 que rationis. Mundus autem generat animantes compo- 
 tesque rationis. Animans est igitur mundus composque 
 rationis. 
 
 We need not infer from this passage that Zeno ex- 
 pressed himself to be adopting Socrates' argument, for 
 in the preceding paragraphs in Sext. 1. c. 92 f. the passage 
 referred to (Xen. Mem. I. 4 §§ 2 — 5. 8) is set out and 
 discussed. The parallel passage is § 8 kuI ravra ei'Sofl? on, 
 yrj'i re fiixpov fJiApo<; ev tS> awiiwrt irdXKrjis ovcri^<i e\ei<; k.t.X. 
 ...vovv Se fiovov apa ovSafiov ovra ere evri/^ft)? ttw? SoKet? 
 trvvapTrdaai, xal rdSe rd virepfieyedr) koX ifKrjdo'i direipa 
 Bi d<^poa-vvr)v rivd, wi otei, €VTdKra)<s e^eti/ ; cf. Sext. 
 Math. IX. 77, M. Aurel. iv. 4 and see Stein, Psych, n. 53. 
 
 TowTOD. Bekker with some plausibility suggests tov 
 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. II. 22, Idemque (Zeno) hoc modo: 
 " Nullius sensu carentis pars aliqua potest esse sentiens. 
 Mundi autem partes sentientes sunt: non igitur caret 
 sensu mundus.'' 
 
 Cf. Sext. Math. IX. 85, aX\a koX r/ Ta<! XoycKu^ irepie- 
 ■)(pvaa (^vaei<i irdvrw'; iarX 7^ytKij' ov yap olov re to oXov 
 TOV fiipovi 'X^eipov elvar dXK' el dpiaTr} ecTTi <^v<Tt'i rj rov 
 KOff/iov hvoiKovaa voepd re ea-Tai Kal airovhaia koX 
 d6dvaT0<;. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 119 
 
 61. Sext. Math. IX. 104, koX iraKiv 6 Zrjvoav <j>riarlv 
 " [^'] '''° ^oyiKov Tov fi/rj Xo'^iKOV Kpeirrov ia-riv ovBev Se 
 ye KoajJbov Kpetrrov icrnv XoyiKov apa 6 koct/juk. koI 
 to(TavTm<! sttI tov voepov koI e/i'^up^ta? /liere^ovTO?. to yap 
 voepbv TOV firj voepov Koi to efiyjrvx^ov tov piiTj ep.i^v'ypv 
 KpeiTTov etj-Tiv' ovBev Si ye Koafiov KpeiTTOV voepo'i apa 
 Kal efitlrvx^o^ eaTiv 6 Kocr/wi." Cic. N. D. II. 21, quod 
 rations utitur id melius est quara id quod ratione non 
 utitur. Nihil autem mundo melius: ratione igitur mun- 
 dus utitur. Of. ib. III. 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 ttoititckov is better than to p,ri ttoititikov or to 
 ypafi/iUTiKov than t6 firj ypafip^aTiKov: otherwise Archi- 
 lochus would be better than Socrates, Aristarchus than 
 Plato (Sext. 1. c. 108—110). For the fact cf Diog. vii. 
 139, o^Tio S^ Kal TOV '6\ov K6ap,ov ^wov ovtu Kal ep/^v')(pv 
 Kal XoyiKov k.t.X. Stein adds Philo, de incorr. m. p. 506 
 M, o Kocr/io? Kal ^ufft? XoyiKrj, ov p.6vov epiylrv^of eov, aXXd 
 Kal voepov 7r/309 Be Kal (^p6viiio<i. Siebeck refers to 
 Arist. de Gen. An. II. 1. 731'' 25, to epr^v^ov tov d-yjtv'xpv 
 
 ^ikTlOV. 
 
 62. Sext. Math. IX. 107, Swdfiei Be tov avTov tw 
 Ztjvcovt \6yov i^edeTo (scil. Plato) xal yap ovto's to trdv 
 KaWicTTov elvai ^mv KaTa i^vaiv aireipyaapievov epyov 
 Kal KaTa tov eiKOTa Xoyov, ^mov efiyjrvxov voepov re koI 
 XoyiKov. 
 
 Hirzel's theory, ii. p. 217, 218, that Zeno called the 
 world efJLtlrvxpv and XoyiKov only but not ^^ov is con- 
 troverted by Stein, Psych, n. 82 from this passage. The 
 passage in Plato, part of which is quoted by Sextus, is 
 
120 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 Timaeus, p. 29 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 quin inesset 
 in oliva tibicinii quaedam scientia? quid? si platani 
 fidiculas ferrent numerose sonantes, idem scilicet censeres 
 in platanis inesse musicam. Cur igitur mundus non 
 animans sapiensque judicetur, quum ex se procreet 
 animantes atque sapientes ?' 
 
 This recalls the anecdote about Amoebeus : apoph. 19. 
 
 64. Stob. Eel. I. 23. 1, p. 200, 21, Zrjvav trvpivov 
 eivai Tov 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, Tirjvwv 6 
 KtTtei)? ofJrcB? avrbv wpia-aro' 'ovpav6<i eariv aldepoi to 
 €<rj(aTov' i^ oi koX iv a> iaTi irdvra efi^avca<;' irepii'^ei, 
 yap irama irXriv avTov' ovBev yap iavrd ireptej(ei' aW' 
 erepov earl irepieKTiKov. 
 
 aie^pos rd KtrxoTov: 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 Ka\ 
 Sia TovTo T] fiev yrj ev r^ vSari, Tovro S" iv Tm dipt, o5to? 
 S' iv tS) alOepi, 6 8' aWrjp iv tw ovpav^, 6 S' ovpavd^ 
 ovKeTi iv aWp. Just before he had said : iv t^ ovpav^ 
 iravTa' 6 yap ovpavot t6 irav to-o)?. 
 
 irepUxtu 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 ovpavd<s is spoken of as to irepiexov 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 121 
 
 irdvTa otroaa vo-qra ^aa : cf. also the irepiexov <f>pevfjpei of 
 Heraclitus (Sext. Math. vii. 127 foil.). M. Aurel. Vlll. 54. 
 
 66. Diog. L. VII. 148, ovcriav Be 0eov Zi]va>v <j)r}al 
 Tov oKov Koafiov Kal tov ovpavov. 
 
 Cf. Stob. Eel. 1. 1. 29, p. 38, 1. The Stoics held 0eoi)?. . . 
 TOV Koa-fiov Kal rov<} dcrTepai koI rfjv yrjii. 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 rhv ovpavov are added because in it the material 
 essence of divinity exists in its purest form. Diog. L. 
 VII. 138, ovpavof Se eanv r) ecj^ari; irepi^epeia, iv y Trap 
 iBpvrai TO deiov. Hence Chrysippus and Posidonius spoke 
 of the ovpav6<! as ro i^ye/juoviKov rov Koaixov (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 Koa/jLoi; ovala deov) and that Diog. 
 through a confusion of subject and predicate interpreted 
 this as a definition of the essence of God. Another 
 possibility is that Koa-fic; 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, Zijv(ovo<;. twv S" iv 
 T& Koafia iravTOSv rwv Kar ISiav e^iv crvvearcormv ra 
 /Jiiprj TrjV (jiopdv exeiv ew to rov oXov fieaov, ofiolm^ Be Kal 
 avTov rov Koa/iov Bioirep 6p0iS<! Xeyea-dat rrdvra rd fiepri 
 rov KOfffiov i'Trl ro /letrov rov KoafMov rrjv ^opdv e^eti', 5 
 /laXiara Be rd ^dpoi e^ovra. ravrov 8' aXriov elvai Kal 
 rrj<; rov KOfffiov p-ovfj's iv drreLpa Kevw, Kal t^s 7^9 irapa- 
 ■jrX/rjO'ia)'; iv ra Koa/j,^ irepl ro rovrov Kevrpov KaOiBpv- 
 f/.evT]'; iaoKparw<s. ov rrdvrto^ Be aw/xa ^dpo<: e^^ecv, aXX' 
 d^aprj elvat depa Kal rrvp' relveadai Be Kal ravrd 7rta9l0 
 
122 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 eTTt TO TTJi 8\i;? <r<f>aipas tov Koafiov fieaov, ttjv Se 
 ava-TOffiv TTjod? t^v irepiifiepeiav avTov Troieiadai' ^vaei 
 yap dv(a<f)oiTa Taxn elvac Sia to firjSevo^ fiSTexelv fiapovi, 
 TrapaifKriai<ii><i Be tovtoi^ ovS' avTov t^aai tov Koafiov 
 
 15 ^dpo<} exeiv Sid to ttjv 'oKrjv avTov avaTaaiv eic re TtSv 
 ^dpo<i e')(6vrajv aToij^eiwv elvai Kal ex tcov a^apoov. Ttjv 
 8' oXtjv yfjv Kuff" kavTrjv fj-ev e')(eiv dpeaKei ^dpo<s Trapd Se 
 TJjv Oiaiv hid TO TTJv fiitrrjv e')(eiv "yiopav {^po'i Se to fieaov 
 elvai TTJv if>opdv rots toiovtoi^ adiiiaaiv) iin tov tottov 
 
 20 TovTov fieveiv. 
 
 2. oTJvsoTWTwv. This is the most general term, else- 
 where opposed to ervvd-TTTea-dai, a-vvi'x^ea-dai etc. 
 
 4. vivTo. ri pL^pi) K.T.X. This centralising tendency is 
 called by Diogenes (vil. 140) ttjv tSv ovpavieov irpb<} Ta 
 iirljyeia crvfi/irvoiav koi avvfov'iav. In the Stoic doctnne 
 of the microcosm and the macrocosm there is one dis- 
 crepancy, in that while the rjyenoviKov of the world is at 
 its extreme periphery the rjyenoviKov 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. o4 T<ivT«.s i\ K.T.\. C£ Stob. Eel. I. 14. 1 f p. 142, 9, 
 oi ^TosiKoX Svo fiev iic twv TeaadpcDV aT0i')(eiu>v KOV<j}a 
 ■jTVp Kal depa' Svo Be ^apea vStop xai yrjv. Kov(j}ov yap 
 VTrdp'xei ^va-ei, o vevei diro tov ISiov fiecrov, j3apv Se to el<i 
 /iiaov, 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 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 123 
 
 lineis in caelestem locum subvolent, sive ipsa natura 
 superiora adpetente, sive quod a gravioribus leviora natura 
 repellantur. N. D. ii. 116, 117. The Stoics were following 
 Aristotle (ap. Stob. Eel. I. 19. 1, p. 163, 9, t^? Se Kara 
 Toirov Kivrjaemt rrjv fiev airo rov fieerov 'yiveaOai, rfjv Be 
 eirl TO fiia-ov, rrjv Be irepl t6 fieaov TTVpo? [lev ovv koX 
 aepa dirb rov /lea-ov, yfj'; koX i^Saro? irrX to fiiaov, rov 
 Trifnrrov rrepl to fiea-ov.). 
 
 10. reCvEo-Sai S^ : So Diels for MSS. yiveaOai, a correc- 
 tion more probable for palaeographical reasons and in itself 
 more attractive than Meineke's Ktveiadat. Cf. Nemes. 2. 
 p. 29, roviKrjv eivai klvt/o'iv irepl rd acofiara ew to eirio 
 afia Kal to efoj Kivovfj.ein]v. Chrysipp. ap. Plut. Sto. Rep. 
 44. 7. 1054 E, ovreo Be rov o\ov reivofievov et? ravrb koI 
 Kivovfievov K.r.X. The explanation is as follows: — the 
 natural motion of the elements is restrained and modified 
 by the continual process of change (jj-era^oX-q) 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 /Sa/oos 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 Stobseus, 
 that at the eKirvpaxTK 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, p,rire av^eadat Be pjjre /ieiovadai rov Koa-fiov 
 Tots Be fiepeaiv ore p,ev rrapeKreiveadai irpb^ trXeiova rorrov 
 ore Be avareKKeadai. 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- 
 
124 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 pansive and interpenetrative force, has also a strong 
 cohesive force and thus holds all things together round 
 the centre." See also M. Aurel. xi. 20. 
 
 11. <ri{>aCpas : for the Stoic doctrine of the rotundity of 
 the world, cf. Stob. Eel. 1. 15. 6* oi 'SitcoikoI a-^aipoei8fj rov 
 Koa-fjLov aire^rjvavTo, Diog. VII. 140, Cic. N. D. I. 24, hence 
 avTiTToSe? Cic. Acad. il. 123. 
 
 17. iropd Si Tiiv e^criv: in itself earth /3apo9 exei and 
 &o tends to move irpin to fiiaov, but owing to the accident 
 of its position in the centre of the Koa-fio^ its natural 
 motion has no opportunity of becoming apparent. 
 
 18. ^xTi\v. For the position of the earth cf Diog. L. 
 VII. 137, 155, Cic. N. D. i. 103. 
 
 68. Stob. Eel. I. 15. 6» p. 146, 21, Ztjvwv e^aaice rd 
 TTvp Kar evdelav KiveiaOai. 
 
 Cf Stob. Eel. I. 14. 1. £ p. 142, 12, to fiev irepiyeiov 
 xj)Cu9 Kar evdelav... Kivelrai,. This is only true of irvp 
 arexvov, for the aether or Trup rexviKov has a circular 
 motion in the same manner as the irifi'n-Tov aS/ia of 
 Aristotle. So Ar. de Caelo, i. 2. 9, to ts yap trvp iir 
 evOeia'i ava> <j>ip€Tai. 
 
 69. Stob. Eel. i. 18. 1* p. 156, 27, Zr/vav xal ol wrr 
 avTOv evTO^ fiev tow Koarfiov fitjSev elvai, Kevov, efo) 8' avTov 
 aireipov. Siatj)ipeLv Be Kevov, Toirov, x'^pav' KaX to fiev 
 Kevov elvai ep7]/j,iav au)fuiTo<s, tov Se tottov to e-Trex^fievov 
 iiro o-w/iaTo^, T'ijv 8e X'^P"'^ '''o ^'* fJ^epov^ eTrexofievov. 
 
 Cf. Diog. Vll. 140, e^codev Se avTov irepiKexvpAvov 
 ■elvai TO Kevov aireipov' iirep a(imp,aTov elvai' daoi/MiTov 
 Se TO olov Te KUTexeo'dai vit6 aiofuzTrnv ov KaTexofievov' iv 
 Se Tft5 KOiTfia fj,7]Bev elvai leevov. Plut. plac. 1. 18, oi Stcoi/voI 
 ■evTb? fiev tov Koafiov ovBev elvai Kevov, e^todev S' avTov 
 aireipov. M. Aurel. X. 1. Diels adds Theodoret iv, 14, eVro? 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 125 
 
 fiev roO iravTO's fj/)]Bev elvai icevov, 6«to9 Se avrov irdfnroX.v 
 re Ka\ diretpov. The Epicureans held that without the 
 existence of void within the world motion was impossible 
 (Lucr. I. 329 foil., Reid on Acad. I. 27, ii. 125). The Stoics 
 were unaffected by this argument in consequence of their 
 doctrine of w/Sao-i? Si' 'oKmv, see further on frag. 50, supra. 
 Aristotle denied the existence of void altogether either 
 within or without the universe. 
 
 K4V0V, TOTTov, \afo.v. 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* p. 161, 8, 
 who compares Kevov to an empty, roiro'i to a full, and x'^P"' 
 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, {ro ksvov} 
 Kexfiypia-^iivov Koi aQpoov elvai Ka& avro irepiexpv tov 
 oipavov, to? irporepov fiev wovto rmv dp^atoiv Tive'i, fj,eTa. 
 Se ravra oi irepX Zijvava tov Ktrtea. Philopon. on Ar. 
 Phys. IV. 6. p. 213 a 31, <j>acrl Be koi toi)? irepX Zrjvmva tov 
 K-iriea ovtoi (scil. e^co tov ovpavov elvai Kevov rt KaG" 
 avro) So^d^eiv. 
 
 Twv dpxatwv Tiv^s are probably the Pythagoreans who 
 believed in an diretpov irvev/ia 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, Zijvcov tov ijXtov 
 drrjai, Kal ttjv aekrjV'qv Koi twv dXXxov daTpcov eKaaTOv 
 elvai voepov koI (j)p6vifiov -rrvpivov •7rvp6<; rexviKov. Bvo 
 rydp yevri Trvp6<i, to fiev uTeyvov Kal fierd^aWov el<i eavro 
 TTjv Tpo^Tjv, TO Be TeyyiKOV, av^rjTiKov re Kal TTjprjTiKOv, 
 otov ev Tol<s <f>VTOi'; eoTi Kal f^ot?, o Br) ^iiai<; ea-Ti Kai 
 
126 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 "^^XV ToiovTOv S^ •jTvpoi elvai ttjv tcSv aarpcov ovaiav' 
 t6v B' i]\tov KoX TTfp aeXijVTjv Sv6 <l)opa<s <f>epeadai, tijv fiev 
 vTTo Tov Koafiov o/iT dvaToXfji el<i dvaroXojv, rfpj S ivavTiav 
 TO) Koapitp ^epSiov 6K ^(phiov /j^Ta^aivovra^. rd<i B e«- 
 Xeiyfrei^ Toiircov yiyveadai Biai^6pto<i, '^Xlov fiev irepl Ta<s 
 tTvv6Bov<s, a-eXrjvr)!} Be vepl rd^ travffeXijvov^' ytrfvetrBai B 
 eir dfi^oTepav Tat eKXei'yJret'! kol iie'i^ovs koX iXarrovi, 
 Stob. Eel. I. 26. 1, p. 219, 12, Zijvav rrjv aiXrjvnv e(f)v<Tev 
 aarpov voepov ical ^povifiov irvpivov Be •jrvpoq re'xvi.Kov. 
 
 TTupivov: they are situated in the external periphery 
 of aether, and are themselves composed of the same sub- 
 stance. The later Stoics, at any rate, held that the 
 heavenly bodies are fed by exhalations of grosser matter, 
 and hence their differentiation from their environment. 
 Cf. Cleanth. frags. 29 and 30. 
 
 8^0 yivr\ : cf. Cleanth. frag. 30. 
 
 ^ia-is refers to i^vTolt and yjrvxv to ^a)oi<! : cf. frag. 
 43. 
 
 ■|>ap<is. The first movement is the diurnal revolution 
 from east to west (from one rising to another): the second 
 is the orbit described Kara tov ^^Bmkov kvkXov, occupying 
 either a year or a month, as the case may be. For the 
 Zodiac cf. Diog. L. vii. 155, 156. 
 
 v-nh TOV Ko<r|i.oD, i.e. they move with the aether which 
 revolves round the three lower strata of the world. These 
 latter are themselves stationary, so that Koap^ov 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 tov...k6<tpov to p,ev elvai •jrepi,(f>ep6p^vov Trepl to 
 pAaov TO B virop^vov Trepiipepop^evov p,ev tov aWepa vtto- 
 p.evov Be Trjv yfjv kol ra eV avTijt vypd Kal tov depa...T6 
 Be irepi^epop.evov avT<p eyKVKXiwi aldepa elvai, ev ^ ra 
 dffTpa KaOiBpvTai Ta t dirXavfj kol ra irXavc6p£va, Oela 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 127 
 
 Tr)v ^iaiu ovra koI efiijrvx^a Kal SioiKovfieva Kara rrjv 
 Trpovocav. 
 
 l<iSu>v: according to Diels, the ace. is "insolenter 
 dictum " and requires the addition of eti, but it has been 
 pointed out to me that the true explanation of the ace. 
 is to be found in the fact that ^mBiov is a measure of 
 space =30 /wipai, Hippol. Haer. v. 13: we should not 
 therefore compare /iera/Sa? ^iorov Eur. Hipp. 1292, which 
 is in any case different. For the fact cf. Diog. vii, 144. 
 
 Tos 8* Ik\€£i|/6is : see infra frag. 73. 
 
 )i.et^ovs Kal cXaTTovs : " entire and partial." 
 
 72. Cic. N. D. I. 36, idem (Zeno) astris hoc idem 
 (i.e. vim divinam) tribuit tum annis, mensibus, annorum- 
 que mutationibus. 
 
 astris. On the other hand the Epicureans taught 
 that the stars could not possess happiness or move in 
 consequence of design. Diog. L. X. 77, /tTjre av irvprnhr) 
 Tivd crvvecrrpafi/jLeva rriv /j,aKapi6rr)Ta KeKTrj/ieva Kara 
 PovKr)aiv Ta<; Ktvr)(Tei<; TavTa<! Xa/jL^dveiv. 
 
 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" (KJrische, 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, da-Tpasv he hrj irepl Travroov Kal aeXriv7j<; iviavTwv 
 re Kal firjvdov Kal iraamv mpcSv irepb, riva cDCKov Xoyov 
 epovfiev ^ TOP avrov tovtov, w'i etrebhrj "^vyi} fiev rj ^Jrvxal 
 ■jrdvTav tovtwv aiTtai, ei^dvqaav, dyaOal Be -rrdaav dperijv, 
 Qeovf avrdt elvat tfjija-o/jLeii, e'ire iv o'Wfj.ao'iv evovaai, ^<pa 
 ovra, KO<Tfiov<Ti trdvra ovpavov, eire oirr) re Kal 07r(0<; ; 
 In Sext. Math, ix, 184 an argument of Carneades is 
 
128 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 quoted of the Sorites type, disproving the existence of 
 God. If the sun is a god, so are days, months and years. 
 This the Stoics might have admitted, but he concludes 
 thus: — <Tvv Tft) aroirov elvai rfjv fiev ■^/lepav deov eivai 
 Xeyeiv, ttjv Se em koX Trjv /learjfi^piav xal ttjv ieiXrjv 
 fjLrjKeri,. 
 
 73. Diog. L. VII. 145, 6, eKKeiireiv he rov fiev rjKiov 
 e'm'irpoadovar}<s avT^ aeXijvr]^ Kara to Trpdi r]fia<i /iepo<s, 
 0)9 Zr/vrnv dvaiypd(f)ei iv rw irepl oXov. tpaiverai yap 
 vvepxoiJievr) rat? avvohoK koX d-rroKpvTTTOvcra avrov koX 
 irdXiv wapaXXaTTOVKra. yvrnp'ti^erat, he tovto hid XeKdvrji; 
 'ihcop e'^ovffij?. ttjj/ he a-eXrjviqv e/nrhrTOV(rav elf t6 t^? 
 7^9 aKLOafia. '66ev Kal rat? iravaeXrivoiii eKXeiireiv 
 /lovaK, Kaiirep Kara htdfierpov larafievrjv Kara firjva tw 
 rfxitp' OTi Kara Xo^ov w? tt/so? t6v rjXiov Kivovfievq irapaX- 
 XdrTet TO) -irXaTei rj ^opeiorepa fj voTicorepa yivofievt). 
 Srav jievTOt, to TrXaros avTfj<! kutu tov rfXiaKov koX tov 
 hid fjuea-eov yevr)Tai eiTa hia/jieTpT^arrj tov ijXiov tots 
 eKXeiirei. 
 
 inXtltrtiv. 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' S*" 3") : the same explanation was 
 also given by Anaxagoras (Zeller, pre-Socratics ii. p. 361). 
 The same account is given by the Stoic in Cic. N. D. ii. 
 103, .luna...subiecta atque opposita soli radios eius et 
 lumen obscurat, tum ipsa incidens in umbram terrae, 
 cum est e regione solis, interpositu interiectuque terrae 
 repente deficit. 
 
 Tais oTJviSois " at the period of conjunction." C£ Cic. 
 Eep. I. 25, Pericles... docuisse cives sues dicitur, id 
 quod ipse ab Anaxagora, cuius auditor fuerat, exceperat, 
 certo illud (eclipse of sun) tempore fieri et necessario, 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 129 
 
 cum tota se luna sub orbem solis subiecisset: itaque, etsi 
 non omni intermenstruo, tamen id fieri non posse nisi 
 certo intermenstruo tempore. Thuc. il. 28. 
 
 o-tXijviiv, cf. Stob. Eel. I. 26. 3, p. 221, 23, Xpiiannrof 
 eKKeiiretv rrjv o-eKrjvqv rrj<i 7^? avrfj iirnrpoadovar)^ Kal 
 649 aKiav avrrj<i kpmvmovaav. 
 
 ■irttvo-eXi]vois : the fact was a matter of common observa- 
 tion: cf. Thuc. VII. .50, 7/ fir]vt\ eKXei-rref irvy^^ave yap 
 •7ravaeK7}vo<i ovaa. 
 
 KOTcl Xo|ov: hence iXiKoeiSr) in Diog. L. vii. 144, see 
 Krische p. 389. 
 
 8ia n^o-wv scil. ^q)Bl(ov. 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, aa-rpairrjv he e^ayjriv 
 ve<f)wv -Traparpi^ofievav rj fn}yvv/j,ev(ov viro irvevfiaToi;, a5? 
 Z'^vcov ev Tp irepX 'okov' ^povrrjv Be tov tovtoov '\]f6<l)ov eic 
 irapaTpiyfrea'! rj ptj^eatt' Kepavvbv Be e^ayjriv a-<f>oBpa.v fierd 
 TToWrj^ ySt'a? "KLTTTOva'av eirl yrj^ vecjxSv Traparpi^ofieviov 
 rj priyvv/jbivcov. 
 
 Cf. Chrysippus ap. Stob. Eel. I. 29. 1, p. 233, 9, darpa- 
 Trrjv e^affriv vecj)£v eKrpi^ojJLevwv rj pTjyvvfievcov vtto irvev- 
 fiaTO<;, ^povTrjv B' elvai tov tovtwp ■\lr6^ov...oTav Be 17 tov 
 TTvevfiaTov (popd cr^oBpoTepa yevr]Tai Koi •irvpwBr]<s, Kepav- 
 vov diroTeXeiaOai. ib. p. 234, 1 where the same views are 
 attributed to 01 'ZtohkoL Here again there is nothing 
 specially characteristic of the Stoa: Epicurus, as was his 
 wont, gave a number of possible explanations and amongst 
 them these: see Diog. L. x. 100 — 103, cf. Lucr. vi. 96 f. 
 (thunder), 1 62 f (lightning), 246 £ (thunderbolts). Lucan i. 
 151, qualiter expressum ventis per nubila falmen aetheris 
 impulsi sonitu etc. Aristoph. Nub. 404 foil. 
 
 H. P. 9 
 
130 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 75. Senec. Nat. Quaest. vii. 19. 1, Zenon noster in 
 ilia sententia est: congruere iudicat stellas, et radios inter 
 se committere: hac societate luminis existere imaginem 
 stellae longioris. 
 
 On this point the majority of the Stoic school seem to 
 have deviated from the teaching of Zeno, considering his 
 view unsatisfactory: thus Diog. vll. 152, KOfj,i]Ta<s Se koX 
 •jra><y(ovia<i koX Xafiirahiat wpa elvai v^earTwra, tto'xov^ 
 aApo<s eh rov aldepwSr] tottov dveveyOevroi;, cf. Stob. Eel. I. 
 28. 1" p. 228, 6, Bo»;^o? aepo? dv7}/j,/j,evov (fyavraaiav. Sen. 
 N. Q. VII. 21, placet ergo nostris cometas. . .denso aere 
 creari. 
 
 76. Stob. Eel. I. 8. 40' p. 104, 7, Zrjvwv e(f>7)<7e 
 'Xfiovov elvai KivriaetO's Stdarrjfia, tovto Se Kal /lerpov Kal 
 KpLTrjpiov To^^ou? T6 KoX ^paSiiTr}TO<; OTTw? e'xei <eKaaTa>. 
 Kajd rovrov Se yiyveaOai rd yivofieva Kal rd irepatvoneva 
 airavra koI rd ovra elvai. Simplic. ad Cat. 80 a 4, 
 Twv Se "SiTcoiKmv Zi^vtov fiev irdari'^ aTrXcS? Kivijo'ecof 
 Sidarrjfia tov ')(p6vov elvai, who goes on to say that 
 Chrysippus limited the definition by adding the words 
 TOV Koa-fjiov. Cf. Diog. VII. 141, eVt Se Kal tov 'x^povov 
 dadfjLaTOv, SidaT'qp.a ovTa t^? tov koo-^ov Kivrjaeoi<;. 
 Varro L. L. vi. '6 (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. III. 7. 6, Sext. 
 Pyrrh. iii. 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. 223 — 225. 
 
 «Ko<rTo is added by Wachsm. and some word is clearly 
 wanted: Posidonius however in reproducing the clause 
 has oTTws ex^i> to iirivoovfievov (Stob. Eel. I. 8. 42, p. 105, 
 21). It seems better to remove the comma usually placed 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 131 
 
 after /8joaSvTj;To?, as the genitives depend at least as 
 much on otto)? ej^et as on fierpov koX Kptrrjpiov, cf. e.g. 
 Thiic. II. 90. 4, co<; etj^e ra^^oi;? eKa<7To<i. 
 
 awavTa must be corrupt, as some verb is required to 
 balance '^Iveo'dav and elvai,. Usener suggests dirapril^ea-Bai, 
 which gives the required sense, cf. dirapTia-fjiov. Chrysipp. 
 ap. Stob. Eel. I. 8. 42, p. 106, 17. Diels' correction dirav- 
 rdv is less satisfactory in meaning. 
 
 77. Censorinus de die Nat. xvii. 2, quare qui annos 
 triginta saeculum putarunt multum videntur errasse. hoc 
 •enim tempus genean vocari Heraclitus auctor est, quia 
 orbis aetatis in eo sit spatio. orbem autem vocat aetatis 
 dum natura ab sementi humana ad sementim revertitur. 
 hoc quidem geneas tempue alii aliter definierunt. Hero- 
 •dicus annos quinque et viginti scribit, Zenon triginta. 
 
 genean: this substantially accords with the popular 
 reckoning as recorded by Herod. ll. 142, yeveal yap 
 Tpei<! dvBpwv SKaTov ered itrri. 
 
 HeracUtics : for the other authorities which attribute 
 this statement to Heraclitus see Zeller pre-Socratics ii. p. 
 87, n. 4 and frags. 87 and 88 ed. Bywater. 
 
 sementi : saeculum is properly used with the meaning 
 " generation " and this supports the derivation from sero, 
 satus (Curtius G. E. i. p. 474 Eng. Tr.). For examples see 
 the Lexx. 
 
 Herodictts: either (1) the Alexandrian grammarian, or 
 (2) the physician of Selymbria : see D. Biog. 
 
 Zenon: according to Wachsmuth Jahn proposes to 
 •substitute Xenon, but the agreement with Heraclitus 
 rather points to the founder of the Stoa. 
 
 78. Stob. Eel. I. 16. 1, p. 149, 8, Ziji/eai/ 6 STojtKo? rd 
 ■^pcofiara Trpmrovi etvai (T'X^-r]fiaTia-fj,ovii t^9 vXtji;. The 
 
 9—2 
 
132 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 same words occur also in Plut. 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, Erkenntnistheorie 
 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. iii. 2. 9 (iii. 36), Diels p. 
 592, ra? Be alTua'; twv -Trpa/yfidrwv irrj jxev e(j)' tjimv tt^ Se 
 oiiK 6^' rjiMV, TOVTeaTi, to, jxev rwv irpwy/jLartov 60' r)fuv 
 ra Se ovk icj} rifiiv. 
 
 We have already seen that Zeno held «a0' ei/iapfj,evr)v 
 Tti iravra rflr/veaOai,, 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, koX avToX 8e to KaG" elfiapfievtjv elvai irdvTi] 
 Sieffe^aiwo'avTO TrapaSel'yfJ.aTi 'x^pTjad/j.evoi roiovro) OTt 
 (oa-irep o'XJjfiaro'; idv y e^riprrifievoi; kvwv, edv ixev ^ovXrjTai 
 eireadai koI eXKerat koX eirerai eKcov, nroimv Koi rd avre^ov- 
 aiov fieTCL T^9 dvar/Kr]i; olov rfji elfiapfiivrj^' idv Se fiij 
 ^ovXr)Tai, eire<T6ai, •rrdvTai'i dvayKaa'6'^(reTaf to avrd Srj irov 
 Kal eirl twv dvdpwirwV koX /jltj ^ovXo/jLevoi yap aKoXovdeiv 
 dvarjKaaOrjaovTai irdvTw; eh to veirpoj/jLevov eiaeXOeiv. 
 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. 328 — 332, who ascribes to Cleanthes the introduction 
 of the Stoic answer to the dilemma, has omitted to notice 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 133 
 
 the present frag, and does an injustice to Zeno in 
 asserting that the conflict between free will and necessity 
 never presented itself to his mind. 
 
 80. Censorinus de die Nat. iv. 10, Zenon Citieus, 
 Stoicae sectae conditor, principium humano generi ex novo 
 mundo constitutum putavit, primosque homines ex solo 
 adminiculo divini ignis, id est dei providentia, genitos. 
 
 This doctrine is connected with that of the destructi- 
 bility of the world: cf. frag. 56, where however there 
 is unfortunately a lacuna at the point where the origin of 
 man is being discussed, oifr^ovov 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, tcov Be vetoTepav arcoiKav (fyaai 
 Tti/e? ToOs TT/jtBTOU? KOI '^Tf/evelt; Twv avQpw-Kwv Kara ttoXi) 
 raiv vvv avvea-ei Bta^epovTa<; yeyovevai, u><; irdpeari.fiaOelv 
 eK rrjt; rifi&v Trpd<i toi); dp'xaiorepov'; koX r/paw! eKeivov;, 
 &Girep Tt, TrepiTTOV al(rdr]Trjpiov a')(pvTa<s rrjV o^vTTjTa 
 TTJi Biavoiai iiri^ejSXijKevai rrj deLa ^vaei Koi voriaai 
 Tti'a? Bvvafiei<! 6ewv. Cf Cic. Leg. i. 24. Tusc. ill. 2, 
 nunc parvulos nobis dedit (natura) igniculos quos celeriter 
 
134 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 malis moribus opinionibusque depravati sic restinguimus, 
 ut nusquam naturae lumen appareat. For the anthropo- 
 logical aspect of this passage see Stein, Psych, p. 115. 
 
 81. Varro de Re Rust. ii. 1, 3, sive enim aliquod fuit 
 principium generandi animalium.ut putavit ThalesMilesius 
 et Zeno Citieus, sive contra principium horum exstitit 
 nullum, ut credidit Pythagoras Samius et Aristoteles 
 Stagirites. 
 
 It is obvious that only on the hypothesis of the world 
 in its present form being without beginning is the doctrine 
 of the eternity of the human race or of animals possible, 
 Aristotle, however, expressly says (de Caelo i. 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. 439 — 442 and especially 
 p. 439 n. 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, 
 Xenophanes, Parmenides, and Archelaus (Zeller 1. c. I. pp. 
 255, 577, 601, ir. 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 St? iirTa irmv] 
 Tore yap o reXeiof ev rj/uv d7rocj>aiveTai Xoyo^, coi 'Apiaro- 
 reXrji Kai Zijvtov Kal 'AXK/iatrnv 6 Hvdayopeio'i <j)aa-iv. 
 
 Cf. Stob. Eel. I. 48. 8, p. 317, 21, ttoXiv toLvvv wepl tov 
 vov Kai "Traadiv rwv KpeiTTOvcov Bvvd^ecov rrji; t^vyij? 
 
.THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 135 
 
 01 fiev ^reoiKol Xeyovai ixrj evdi}<i efi^vetrdai rbv Xoyov, 
 iiarepov he avvaOpoi^eaOai diro twv alaOrjaewv koI ^avra- 
 a-iwv Trepl SeKaria-aapa bttj. Plut. plac. IV. 11, o Se \6yoi 
 Kad ov irpoaa'yopevoiJLeda XoyiKol iic rwv •jrpoXijyp-ewv 
 avfjLifKripovadai Xiyerat, Kara ttjv TrpcliTriv e0SofidSa. 
 (This points to some slight divergence in the school itself 
 as to the exact period of life at which o Xoyo? TeXecovrai : 
 secus Stein, Erkenntnistheorie p. 116, but how can trvfi- 
 ■7r\r)pova6ai="hegm"'i) Diog. VII. 55, ^ft)«'J7...a7ro Siavova<; 
 eKirep/irofikvt}, 009 o Aioyev'rj(; (f}r]<rl,v' riTi<s diro BeKareaardptav 
 sTwv TsKeiovTai. The mind at birth is a tabula rasa: 
 reason lies in the application of irpoXri^ei^ and evvoiai, 
 which are themselves ultimately founded on external 
 impressions, cf. Cleanth. fr. 37 OvpaOev elaKplvecrOai rbv 
 vovv. The present fragment has been generally overlooked. 
 *AXK|i.o£ii>v: this statement is not referred to in Zeller's 
 account of Alcmaeon (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 Se ■>^v)(fj^ 'K\edv6ri<i fiev rd Zijveovo<; 
 Soyfiara irapariOifievo's ttjoo? avyKpiariv Trjv irpo'! rov; 
 aWou? ^v<TiKoi.<s (fy^aiv, on 7irjV(ov rrjv ilrvxriv Xeyei 
 dbaOrjTiKrjv dvaOvfilaaw, Kaddtrep '}ipdKkeiTo<;. /SoiiXo/iei'o? 
 yap eii^aviaat '6ti at "^vy^al dvadvpiiwfievai, voepaL aei 
 ylvovrai e'lKaaev aura? tok iroTafioK Xeytov oi/xaj? 'ttotu- 
 /ioiai, Tolcrw avTolaiv efi^aivovaiv erepa Kal erepa iBara 
 i'TTtppei' Kal tfrvxal 8e dvb twv vypwv dvadvtuwvrac 
 dvadvfiLacTiv /iev ovv ofioim^ raJ 'JipaxXeiTtp rrjv '^jrv^rjv 
 dirot^alveL Zijvmv, duaOTiriKrjv he avrrjV elvai hta tovto 
 \iyei, '6ri rwovaOal re hvvarat [to /jLeyeOo<i] to fiepo'i to 
 rjyovfievov avTfjt; diro twv ovtwv Kal v'Trap'X^ovTcov hta twv 
 aladfjTijpiwv Kal Trapahi')(e<TOai Td<{ TVTTwaeK' TavTa yap 
 ihia y]fV)(rji iffTiv. 
 
136 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 ol<rfli]TiKi5v : the MSS. have ai<rdr)(rip rj 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 ''frvxvv ol %rwiKo\ opL^oinai TTvev/jia crvfi<f>ve<! koX 
 avadv/iMffiv alaBrjnKrjv dvatrTOfiivqv diro twv iv adfian 
 vypcov. 
 
 <ivoe«|iCo<riv : cf. At. de Anim. I. 2. 16. 405 a 25, koI 
 HjOfflKXetTO? Be Trjv dpyrjv elvai (jirjai yjrvx^vv, eiTrep rrjv 
 dvadvfiiaaiv, i^ fj^ rdWa avvlcTTjo-iv, i.e. Aristotle identi- 
 fies the dvadvfiia(Ti<i (" fiery process " Wallace) with irvp. 
 Zeno adopts the word as an apt description of the warm 
 breath of which the soul is composed. 
 
 voepot. The soul's rational power is constantly renewed 
 by the fiery process, because it is fed by the emanations 
 from the trepiexov 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 ai/Tj 
 yjrvxv a-o^toTaTTi (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 erepai del. 
 
 Akoo-iv oiTos: the principle of iravTa pel applies 
 no less to the soul than to the world in general : 
 thus Arist. I.e. continues koI daos/MiTwraTov re xal piov 
 del' TO Se Kivovfievov Kivovfjuevo) yiyvaxTKeadaf iv Kivqaei 
 S" elvai rd ovra udKelvoi wero Kal ol TroXkoL The soul is 
 voepd because it is in flux. For -jrora/ioia-i cf. Plat. Crat. 
 402 A, 'iipdK\eiTois...-rroTafj,ov porj direiKa^mv rd ovra 
 Xiyei CBS St? e? tov avrov irorafiov ovk dv efi^aLr)<i, R and 
 P§26. 
 
 KaC. . .ivo6«|jiiuvToi. Bywater Heracl. fr. 42 ascribes these 
 words to Zeno and not to Heraclitus : the importance of 
 this will appear presently. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 137 
 
 ofioCm : i.e. in the same sense as Heraclitus : the latter 
 however would not have called the soul ala-drjTiic^, dis- 
 tinguishing as he did between sensation and knowledge : 
 KUKol fidprvpev dvOpmiroav 6<f)0d\/jiol koX una j3ap^dpov<i 
 ■>^vxd<s exovTMv frag. 11 Sch. and Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, 
 p. 12: hence Sextus infers that Heraclitus held rijv alaOrja-iv 
 a-iriarov elvai (Math. VII. 126). 
 
 TwiroCo-Soi: cf. frag. 7, and for diro rdov ovrmv K.r.X. frag. 
 11. 
 
 84. Rufus Ephes. de part. horn. p. 44 ed. Clinch, 
 SepfiaKTiav 8e koI irvevfia Tirjvasv to avTo elvai <f>r]<riv. 
 
 This passage has been discovered by Stein, Psych, n. 
 81 to whose remarks the reader is referred. 
 
 85. Diog. L. VII. .157, Zijvcov Se 6 K.iTievg...irvevfia 
 evOepfiov elvai rijv i^vyriv. tovtoo lydp jj/ia? elvaL ejiirvo- 
 ovi, Kot VTTO TovTov icivelaQai. 
 
 Cf. Alex. Aphr. de an. p. 26, 16 ed. Bruns, oi dirh 
 Trji ItTodi TTvevfia axiTrjv \eyovTe<i elvai a-vyKet/j,ev6v ttqjs 
 e« T6 TTvpo^ Koi depo<s. Sext. Pyrrh. II. 70, inrei ovv r) "^v^^ 
 irvevfia Ka\ to ^yefioviKov fj XeirTop.epeo'Tepov ti irveufuiTo^ 
 K.T.\. If any of the authorities seem to assert that 
 Heraclitus defined the soul as irvevfia, this is doubtless 
 either due to Stoic influence or is a mere gloss on dva- 
 dvfjiiaaK : see the ,reff. in Zeller pre-Socratics ii. p. 80 
 where however the reference to Sext. Math. ix. 363 (leg. 
 361) is a mistake, as the passage is dealing with ra twv 
 ovTcov tTToixeia. Not dissimilar is the Epicurean defini- 
 tion of the soul : Diog. L. x. 63, ^ "^Jrvxv cdS/id e<m Xsttto- 
 fiuepe^ trap '6\ov to adpoiafia Trapea-Trapfiivov' irpoo'ep,- 
 (jyepiaTaTOV Se irvevfiaTi 0epp,ov Tiva Kpaaiv exovTi. Sext. 
 Emp. Math. IX. 71, XeTrro/tepet? yap ovcrai (al y^vxal) Kal 
 ovy fJTTOV wpccBeii 17 irvevfiaTtoSeK ets rovf ava> p-aXKov 
 TOTrou? Kov<^o^opov<iTi,v. 
 
138 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 4iri To«TO« Kivctir6ai. : frag. 91. 
 
 86. Cic. Acad. i. 39, (Zeno) statuebat ignem esse 
 ipsam naturam quae quidque gigneret et mentem atque 
 sensus. Fin. iv. 12, cum autem quaereretur res admodum 
 difficilis, num quinta quaedam natura videretur esse ex 
 qua ratio et intellegentia oriretur, in quo etiam de animis 
 cuius generis essent quaereretur, Zeno id dixit esse ignem. 
 Tusc. I. 19, Zenoni Stoico animus ignis videtur. 
 
 See also Stein, Psychologie p. 101. 
 
 87. Galen plac. Hippocr. et Plat. ii. 8 (v. 283 Kuhn), 
 et Si ye eiroiro {Aioyevri^ 6 Ba/SvXcovto?) K\edv0ei /cat 
 "Kpuffiirirm koX Tirjvmvi rpei^eaOai /J,ev i^ aifiaroi; i^rjcraai, 
 rr/v 'i^u^Jji' ovalav B' avTrj^ virdp'^eiv to irvevfia. 
 
 It is doubtful whether the doctrine of the nourishment 
 of the soul by the blood was held by Heraclitus and from 
 him derived by Zeno. The only authority, besides the 
 doubtful passage of Arius Didymus (frag. 83), from which 
 it can be argued that such a view belonged to him is 
 Nemes. Nat. Hom. c. 2 p. 28 (quoted by Zeller, pre- 
 Socratics ll. p. 80) 'HpaKXetro? Be rrjv tov TravToi yfrv^Tiv 
 avaOvfiiaaiv etc rwv vypwv, who however goes on expressly 
 to distinguish the individual soul from the world-soul and 
 states that the former is composed aTro ttj<; 6«t6s (avadv- 
 fudaeaxi). 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 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 13^ 
 
 to adopt this supposition: that Zeno held the soul to 
 be fed from the internal moisture of the body, which must 
 be the blood, is clear from frag. 83 even if we leave out of 
 account the frag, next following. 
 
 88. Longinus ap. Euseb. P. E. xv. 21, Zrjvmvi fiev 
 yap Kol KXedvdei vefiecrijaete tk ap hiKaiw^ ovtco (T<f)6Spa 
 v^pianicwv irepl avrrji; (scil. ifrv^rjv) StaXej^deicn koI 
 TavTov dfi<f)to Tov arepeov a'ifj,aTO<; elvai rrjv ilrv^'^v 
 dvadv/Miaa-iv <fyi]aaa-i. Theodoret, gr. aff. cur. p. 934 Migne^ 
 dfi^co yap (Tirjvav Kal KXedvdri<s) tov arepeov aifiaroi 
 elvat rrjv yjrv^^^v dvadvjjbCaariv. 
 
 In both cases the MSS. have a(iip.aro<; for aXfiaro^, but 
 the words are often confused and <ywiiaro<s 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 a"p.aro<i 
 is rather an odd expression, but was probably introduced 
 by way of contrast to iffv)(ij as Xeirro/iepeararov Trvev/Mi^ 
 For a/j.<j)Q) Viger suggested dfi^olv, but the word is some- 
 times indeclinable. 
 
 89. Tertullian de Anima, c. 5, denique Zeno con- 
 situm spiritum definiens animam hoc modo instruit, "quo" 
 inquit "digresso animal emoritur, corpus est : consita 
 autem spiritu digresso animal emoritur; ergo consitus 
 spiritus corpus est : consitus autem spiritus anima est : 
 ergo corpus est anima." Macrob. Somn. Sc. i. 14. 19,, 
 Zenon (dixit animam) concretum corpori spiritum. 
 
 Cf Chrysipp. ap. Nem. Nat. Horn. c. 2, p. 33, 6 
 ddvaroi; eerri ^a)/3to-/to? '^v^fj<i dm awfiaroi; " ovBev Se 
 daoo/uirov diro a-cofjuaroi j^^mpi^erai' ovSe yap if^dtrrerat, 
 (r<6fiaro<; daccfiarov' ^ Se yfrvx^V "o-^i' e^dtrrerai, Kal X'^P^' 
 ^erai rov a-(Ofj.aro^. awp.a dpa rj '^v'^V- See Zeller, Stoics- 
 
140 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 p. 211, where further illustrations to this and the following 
 frag, will be found in the notes, concretum or consitum 
 corpori spiritum = Chrys. ap. Galen. Hipp, et Plat. iii. 1 
 (v. 287 Kiihn), rj "^vxv "fvevfid e<7Ti avfi<l>vTov r)iuv 
 avve')(jk<; iravrX rm (rcofiari, Bijjkop (quoted by Zeller). For 
 quo digresso etc. cf Cic. Tusc. I. 18, sunt qui discessum 
 animi a corpore putent esse mortem. Plat. Phaed. 64 c, 
 apa firj aWo ri {^yov/ieda rov Odvarov elvai) y ttjv rrjv 
 "^vxrjii dno tov adfiaTo^ aTrdWayrjv ; 
 
 90. Chalcid. in Tim. c. 220, Spiritum quippe animam 
 esse Zenon quaerit haetenus: quo recedente a corpore 
 moritur animal, hoc certe anima est. naturali porro 
 spiritu recedente moritur animal : naturalis igitur spiritus 
 anima est. 
 
 It is possible that this passage and the extract from 
 Tertullian (fr. 89) are derived from a common original, 
 but, as in their present form the syllogisms are directed 
 to distinct points, it has been thought better to keep 
 -them separate. 
 
 91. Galen, Hist. Phil. 24, Diels, p. 613, t^v Be 
 ■ova lav avr^<} {'^v')(r]i) ol fiev dcrco/iarov e^aaav (b? UXdrav, 
 01 Be adfiara xivelv w? Zijveov koI ol e^ avrov. Trvevfia 
 ^dp elvai ravTTiv virevorjaav koX oStoi. 
 
 o-witaTa Kivctv. So MS. A, but B has a-oo/MiTa avyxivovv 
 and the Latin version of Nicolaus has "corpus simul 
 secum movens." Wachsm. conj. awfia aw/iara 'dp.a kivovv. 
 Usener : aw/ia to adfiara kivovv, Diels : awfia avro 
 Kivovv sive e'f eavrov Kivovfievov. Coll. Gal. def, Med. 30 
 Kard Be tov<; Srwi/coi)? awfia \e7rT0/iepe<s e^ eavrov Kiv- 
 ov/ievov. Whatever may be the right reading, awfia 
 certainly seems wanted as well as amp,ara to point the 
 •contrast with Plato. For the doctrine of the soul re- 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 141 
 
 garded as the principle of movement, see the summary of 
 the views of previous philosophers given by Arist. de An. 
 I. 2. |§ 2—6, 403 b 27—404 b 1. That the soul was self- 
 moving as being the principle of motion, was a dis- 
 tinctively Platonic dogma. Phaedr. 245 c, ixrj SiXKo tl 
 etvai TO avTO eavro klvovv rj ^jrv^VV. Legg. 895 A, ■^vyr)v 
 ...Trjv Svva/ievTjv avTqv Ktveiv kCptjctiv, where the argument 
 is made use of to prove the immortality of the soul. 
 
 For the Stoics cf Sext. Math. ix. 102, Trao-ij? ydp 
 <^vo"eft>s Koi yfi'VXV'i V Karap-^^r) rrj(; Kivqcrem'i '^iveadai BoKet 
 airo '^ye/ioviKov, and the references collected by Stein, 
 Psych, nn. 217 and 221 to which add M. Aurel. v. 19. 
 The theory of two? 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, 18, dWa /xev o" ye 
 aTTO ^pvaiTTTrov koI Z'^vcovo^ ^iKocto^oi koL iravTet ocroi 
 aa/J-a TTJv ■\lrv)(rjv voovah rd'; fiev Bvvdfiei<! w? ev t^J 
 VTTOKeip^ev^ TroiOTTjTa^ (rvfi^i^d^ovai, Trjv Se ■y^v)(rjv oj? 
 ovaiav TTpoiJ'jroKei/j.evTjv Tai^i hvvdp,eai Ti6ea<nv, eK S" dfi<f)o- 
 reptov TovTcov avvderov ^vaiv i^ avo/juoiiov avvdryovcriv. 
 
 iroio'Ti)Tos...ou(rCav. TMs 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. vii. 234, (f>aal 
 ydp "^vyTjv XiyeaOai Bi^^^ 'to re avvi'xpv Trjv '6\r]v avy- 
 Kpicriv Kol KUT IBlav TO riyefioviKOV. 
 
 irpoihroKa|ji6niv : for the significance of this expression, 
 see Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 310. 
 
142 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 93. Nemes. de Nat. Horn. p. 96, Zr/uav Se 6 XTwt/co* 
 OKTaiiepfj tf)r}aiv elvai ttjv "^vxijv, Siaipwv ainrjv eit re to 
 rjiyefiovtichv Kol el<i ra? irevre aladrjaevi Koi ei<i to (fxavrj- 
 TiKdv Kol t6 ffTrep/iaTiKop. Stob. Eel. I. 49. 34, p. 369, 6, 
 ci diro Zijvtovo^ OKTafiepfj ttjv ''Irv'xrjv SiaSo^a^ovat Trept, 
 <'^v> Ta? Bvvdfiei<; elvai nXelova^, &<Tirep ev too }]y€fioviKm 
 evtnrapjfovawv ^avTaaia<;, o-vyKaradecrem^, 6pfirj<;, \6yov. 
 
 We must distinguish the /lepr) yfrvxn': from the Sv- 
 vdfiei<;, for they are not identical, as the passage in 
 Stobseus shows. Sext. Emp. Math. vii. 237, kuI yap r] 
 opfirj Kal ■^ avyKaTd6e<n<; Ka\ rj KaToKTjyjriii eTepouoaett 
 elaX Tov i^yefioviKov. 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". 
 
 Td ij7€|iovik6v. We have clear evidence here that the 
 term riyefioviKov is Zenonian. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie 
 nn. 219 and 693, is inconsistent on this point, in the 
 former passage attributing its introduction to Cleanthes 
 and in the latter to Zeno. It is very possible that 
 Cleanthes first spoke of to •qyefioviKov tov Koafiov, which 
 with him was the sun, in furtherance of his view of man 
 as a microcosm. 
 
 94. TertuUian 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 TertuUian, thinking that the three divisions in question 
 are the ■qyepiOviKov, the (Jxovtjtikov, and the cnrep/j,aTiK6v, 
 and that the five organs of sense were regarded by Zeno 
 as parts of the body, though the centre of sense resides 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 143 
 
 in the rj^efioviKov. On the other hand Weygoldt, 1. c. 
 p. 36, and Heinze in Bursian's Jahresb. i. p. 191, think 
 Nemesius more trustworthy than TertuUian, 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 
 TertuUian is (1) t6 ■fj'fefi.oviKov, (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 \670i' 
 e^ov, 6vfjioeiBe<!, and iTridvfj.7)TiK6v, we should have had 
 some diSiculty in reconciling the two. Hirzel, li. p. 154, 
 155 appears to be unaware of the passage in Nemesius : 
 he accepts the evidence of TertuUian, but explains it as 
 an ethical rather than a physical distinction. 
 
 95. Epiphan. adv. Haeres. iii. 2. 9 (ill. 36), Zijvav 6 
 KtTtei)? o 'Ztcoiko'! e<f)r) . . .Zeiv , . .e')(etv to Oelov iv fiovm rai 
 vm /laXXov Be Oeov riyeladai top vovv. ecni yap dOdva- 
 
 TO<s ek.eye Se Kal /xeTa 'X^tupLO-fiov Tov a-wfiaroi; * * * 
 
 Kal eicdXet Tr)v ^jrv^'iv •iroXv)(^p6viov irvevfia, ov fj,rjv he 
 d<^6apTov Si' t\ov eKeyev avrffv elvai. eKhairavdrai, yap 
 viro TOW TToXkov j(^p6vov €19 TO d^avif, oS? (jyriat. Cf 
 August, contra Acad. iii. 17, 38, quamobrem cum Zeno 
 sua quadam de mundo et maxime de anima, propter 
 quam vera philosophia vigilat, sententia delectaretur, 
 dicens earn esse mortalem, nee quidquam esse praeter 
 hunc sensibilem mundum, nihilque in eo agi nisi corpore ; 
 nam et deum ipsum ignem putabat. 
 
 TO e«tov : cf Cleanth. frag. 21, Stein, Psychol, p. 97. 
 
 iroXuxpwiov : the language of this extract recalls the 
 objection of Cebes in the Phaedo to Socrates' proof of 
 
144 THE FBAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 the immortality of the soul p. 87 A — 88 B, recapitulated 
 by Socrates p. 95 B — E, cf. especially to Be airo(f>aivetv on 
 lajQipov TL iariv r) '^V')(rj koX BeoeiBei Kal rjv ert Trporepov 
 irplv rjiiaii dvdpanrov} yeveo'dai ovSev KcoXveiv <^<i iravra 
 ravra firjvveiv ddavaa-iav fiev firj, on Be TroXvx^poviov re 
 eanv ■^v^'7, KaX rjv irov irporepov dfii]j(^avov '6(tov 'xpovov 
 Kal yBei re koL evparTev iroXKd, drra k.tX. For the 
 limited future existence which the Stoics allowed to the 
 soul see Zeller, p. 218 foil, and add Schol. ad Lucan. 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. 
 
 Tou ira|j.aTos : some such words as 'x^povov nvd Biafieveiv 
 have fallen out here. 
 
 ov...£i|)eapTov: this is not inconsistent with dffdvaTov 
 above. The soul never perishes entirely, although event- 
 ually it passes into a higher power, Diog. vir. 156. 
 ■\lrv)(riv fierd Odvarov iirifieveiv, <}>6aprrjv Be elvai. Stein 
 Psychol, p. 145. 
 
 96. Themist. de An. 68 a Speng. ii. p. 30, 24, aW 
 '6fjLO)<; Zi^vcovi fiev inroXeiTreTai tw d-jro\oyia KeKpaaQai 
 'oKr)v BC '6\ov Tov a(jt)p,aro<; ^da-Kovri rrjv ^jrv^^p Kal ttjv 
 e^oBov avT^y avev <j>6opdi} tov o-vyKpifiaro'! firj iroiovvTi. 
 
 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 Kivel to aajxa 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 rovr evBexerai, eiroiT av to dvia- 
 raaSat rd TedvewTa twv ^axov. We might therefore 
 
THE FBAGMENTS OF ZENO. 145 
 
 infer from this passage that Zeno taught that the soul 
 moved the body (frag. 91). 
 
 Themistius says that Zeno is rescued from this dilemma 
 by the doctrine of /cpao-t? Bi iXav, 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, c£ Iambi, ap. 
 Stob. Eel. I. 49. 33, p. 368, 6, koO' of)? Se fitk ^av Tfj<; 
 '^v-xf}<! ianv 1] Tov crvvOerov, <7vyKeKpafJ.€V7)<i t^? ■\]rv'xrj<s 
 Tw awfiari. Sext. Math. IX. 72, ovBe yap irporepov to 
 cSfia Bta/cparrjTiKov 7)v avTwv (rwv '^Irvx^v) dXlC avral 
 Tw crcofiari (7VfjLfj,ovfj<! rjaav atrial k.t.X. The best illus- 
 tration however is Sext. Math. vii. 234, ^acrl yap yfrvxvv 
 XeyeaOai Six^<;, to re awk'ypv Trjv oX/qv avyxpiaiv xai 
 KaT ISlav TO '^yefioviKov. OTav yap eiTrco fiev <Tvve<rTdvai 
 TOV dvOptoirov SK '^v')(fi<i icaX crcofiaTO';, rj tov OavaTov eivat 
 j(^copia-/idv ■\Jrv'xij'; cnrd acofiaTOi;, iBiax; Ka\ovfjL6v to rjye- 
 jjuoviKov, the meaning of which passage seems to be that 
 only the rjyefwviKov and not the whole soul is said to 
 depart, inasmuch as the corpse must possess aweKTiie^ 
 Bvvafii<; in the form of e^t?, 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 avvexov from 
 ^lrv)(ij to e^t9 is <j)dopd tov o-vyKpi/j.aTO'i (for <f>6opd 
 ){6dvaTo<s see on frag. 95). 
 
 97. Lactant. Inst. vii. 7. 20, Esse inferos Zenon 
 Stoicus docuit et sedes piorum ab impiis esse discretas: 
 et illos quidem quietas et delectabiles incolere regiones, 
 hos vero luere poenas in tenebrosis locis atque in caeni 
 voraginibus horrendis. 
 
 Cf. TertuU. de anima c. 54, quos quidem miror quod 
 imprudentes animas circa terram prosternant cum illas 
 
 H. P. 10 
 
146 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 a sapientibus multo superioribus erudhi 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 iroXneia, which Zeno, as we are told 
 by Plutarch, directed against the Platonic school (see 
 Hirzel, Untersuchungen ii. pp. 25 — 31). It is certainly 
 hardly credible that Zeno can have attached any philo- 
 sophical importance to a theory stated in these terms, 
 and it is better to regard it as a concession to popular 
 belief in a matter which could not be formulated with 
 scientific precision. See also Stein, Psych, p. 149 and 
 162, who infers that Zeno agreed with Chrysippus rather 
 than with Cleanthes in the controversy appearing in 
 Cleanth. frag. 41. The general view of the school was 
 that the soul after death ascends to the upper aether and 
 is preserved there among the stars to which it is akin : 
 Sext. Math. ix. 73, 74, Cic. Tusc. i. 42, 43. 
 
 98. Plut. plac. IV. 21. 4, to Zk (pavaev v-ko tov Zriv(ovo<s 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 147 
 
 elprffiAvov, o KaX i^avrjv leaXovaiv, ecrri wevfia Biareivov 
 diro Tov T^yefioviKOV /le'^pi ^apvyyof koX yXtoTTTj'i Kol twv 
 oiKelcov opydvwi/. 
 
 a on Cleanth. frag. 43. 
 
 99. Eustath. in II. 2 506, p. 1158, 37, vepotlxovovi 
 KijpvKa^ "Ofi7]po<s Kavravda elirwv tov /card Z'^vava tjJ? 
 (jsmvljii opov irpovire^aXev elirovTa' " <f)(ovij ia-riv drjp tre- 
 irXtjyiievoi;." 
 
 Cf. Diog. L. VII. 55, eiTTi, Se (fimvri drip TreirXtiy/ievoi;. 
 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 viro opiifj<;, while the voice of man is evapdpo<s 
 Koi dTTo Biavoiai; eKTre/MTrofiivrj, Diog. 1. c. See also the 
 passages quoted by Stein, Psychol, n. 248. 
 
 C£ Plato's definition, Tim. p. 67 B., oXm? fiev ovv 
 (jxovrjv 0wfiev Trjv St' wreov vtt' dipof iyKe<j}a\.ov re KaX 
 a'iixaTO<s p-exP'' '^^X'!'^ "rrKTjyrjv BiaSiBofiivrjv. Ar. de An. 
 II. 8 discusses yfroipoi, dicorj, and <l>covri. Sound is formed 
 orav virofievji irX'rjyeU 6 drjp leal /jltj hiaj(v6y (§ 3, p. 419 
 b 21): voice is then defined as ■y^6i^o<i tl<; ifiyjrvxov 
 (§ 9, p. 420 b. 5) and is minutely described. 
 
 100. GaLen, Hipp, et Plat. plac. ii. 5, V. p. 241, K, 
 6 6av/ia^6/j,6vo^ viro twv cttcoikoov X6yo<; 6 Z'^vavo<;... 
 exei ydp tSSe. " ^tovrj htd (j)dpvyyo<} p^wpet. et Se ^i* aTro 
 TOV iyxe^dXav x'^P^^'^^i ""* "■^ ^'" <l)dpvyyo<; ixeopei. 
 oOev Se X0709, ical <f>o>vij ixeWev ^wpet. X0709 Se diro 
 Siavoia<; x^P^t, q)0"t' ovk iv t(3 eyKe<j}dXep icTTiv rj htdvoba." 
 
 It is tempting to suggest that \0709 and ^wvrj 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 : oO^v eKireiMirerai rj ^covij, koX i] evap6po<;' ovkovv 
 
 10—2 
 
148 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 Kai T] arjfiaivovaa evapdpo<! ipwvrj eKeWeV tovto Se \6yoi;. 
 Kai \o70? dpa meWev iKTrifiireTai odev xal rj <f)a>vij. 
 Galen's comment is that Zeno has omitted some of the 
 necessary a^icifiara, while Diogenes has too many. He 
 also points out the fallacy underlying the preposition 
 d-TTo, which is ambiguous ; either ef 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 : 
 o6ev 6 \6yo<i eKirefiirerai, ixel Set koI top 8LaXoyi,(7fj,6v 
 ylpfveaOai, rovTeaTiv, iv eKelvm T(p fioplai. tovto Be <^a-oiiev 
 dvTiKpvi elvai ■>}revSo<!, ov yap et ti kuto, irpoaipecrtv eic 
 Tivo<s eKirefiTreTai, Ka-r eKelvo to fiopiov heUvvTai Trjv 
 Bidvoiav virdpj^eiv, KoBdvep ovBe to ovpov ovSe to irTveXov 
 ovBe rf Kopv%a ovBe to diroirdTTj/jLa. 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. II. 5, v. p. 247, 
 Kiihn, xal tovto ^ovKeraL ye Ttrjvmv KaX l^pva-i'7nro<! a/ia 
 Tw a^eTsp^ X°P^ '"'"'VtI BiaBiBoadai. ttjv Sk tov vpoa- 
 ireaovTOfs e^mdev iyyevofievijv t<^ fwpiqi KLVrjtriv eh ttjv 
 ap'^rjv TTji} yfrv)(tj^, 'iv aiadt^Tai to ^wov. 
 
 This passage occurs in the course of the discussion 
 as to (jxov^ and Bidvoia as a parenthetical argument, and 
 Galen objects that there is no perceptible interval of time 
 between the impression and the sensation. Cf. Plut. plac. 
 IV, 23. 1, impressions are made on the organ of sense but 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 149 
 
 the seat of feeling is in the T^ye/j-oviKov. Philo de mund. 
 Opif p. 114 Pfeifif. (quoted on Cleanthes, frag. 3). See 
 also Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 306. 
 
 102. Galen, Hipp, et Plat. plac. iii. 5, v. p. 322, 
 Kiihn, b re Zrjva)v irpot roi)? eirCK.afi^avofievov'i, on iravra 
 Ta ^r/TOVfieva et? to arofia <f)epei, e<f>T]a'ev " aW' ov irdvra 
 KarairiveTat ' , ovre Trj<; KaraTroo'eto'i dWa><s av olaeioTepov 
 \eyofievr]<; ovre rij? Kara^daewi rwv prjdevTwv, el /mtj 
 irepi rov OwpaKa to riyefjuoviKov rjiuv ^v, el<s o ravTa 
 irdvTa (fiepeTat. 
 
 ^ipei, so I. Muller for MSS. (fyepeiv. This obscure passage 
 was formerly punctuated as though Zeno's words extended 
 from aXV ov irdvTa to (j>epeTai, but, if the context is read, 
 it is at once plain that I. Muller is right in putting the 
 inverted commas after learaTrlveTai. Chrysippus, who is 
 being quoted, is aiming to prove the location of the ^76- 
 fjLovLKop in the breast by the usage of ordinary speech : 
 e.g. dvajSaiveiv top dvfiov — KaTawiveiv Trjv ')(o\r)v — atra- 
 pdyfiaTa KaTa'irivecrOai — KaTairKov to prjdev dirfjXdev: 
 then comes this reference to Zeno, and the conclusion 
 oijTe — ^eperai 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. 
 Muller translates : — Et Zeno reprehendentibus, quod 
 omnia, quae in quaestionem vocarentur, in ore gestaret, 
 'at,' inquit, 'npn omnia a me devorantur,' apparently 
 making Zeno the subject of ^epei, but the Latin is in 
 other respects hardly less obscure than the Greek. 
 Wachsmuth, who has the old punctuation, interprets 
 irdvTa TO, ^njTov/Meva as " afFectus " and suggests (piperai 
 for <j}epeiv, but what meaning he deduces from the passage 
 I do not understand. In this perplexity, the following 
 explanation is suggested. irdvTa ra ^ijTovneva is the 
 
150 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 subject of 06joet and the objectors say: — all objects of 
 investigation are ultimately concerned with the. mouth. 
 For <}>epei see L. and S. oi eTTiKafi^avo/ieuoi, are the 
 Epicureans, who denied the existence of any intermediate 
 a-rjfuiivofievov (XeKTov) between a-rjfuuvov (cjxovi]) and 
 Tvyx^dvov {to eKTo? vTroKeifMevov}, cf. Sext. Math. vili. 11 
 foil, andesp. 13, oi Be irepl r6v '^7rlKovpov...<l)alvovTat... 
 irepX rfj (fimvfj to dXrjde'i xal yfrevSo^ atroXelTreiv. Diog. L. 
 
 X. 33, irav ovv nrpa.'^fia ovo/Mari to3 irpdnwi eTrtTerayfiivip 
 ivapye<! ea-ri. But this nominalism went hand in hand 
 with the most absolute credence in every sense-perception. 
 To the Stoic, however, not every <pavrcuria is evapyrj^, but 
 only that which is KaToXrjTrTiKi]. Hence Zeno's reply : — 
 however this may be, we can't swallow everything. Kara- 
 irLveT'ai is substituted for KaraTiiMfiL^dveTai, just as irrofia 
 takes the place of ^(ovij. Some confirmation of this guess 
 may be found in the recurrence of to ^'^Tovfievov, ^Ttrelv, 
 etc. in Epicurean texts (Diog. x. 33, 37, 38, Sext. Math. 
 
 XI. 21). If Miiller's punctuation is adopted, this fragment 
 ought rather to be numbered with the dwo^deyfiaTa, 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. 
 
 o«T€ K.T.X. . It would not be correct to speak of " swallow- 
 ing" or "imbibing"' another's words, in any other case 
 unless (aX\a)? el firj) the dominant part of the soul were 
 in the breast. For KaTairoaetcxs cf. Ar. Ach. 484 (of 
 Dicaearchus encouraging his 0i//io? to persevere in taking 
 the part of the Lacedaemonians) ea-TT]Ka<! ; ovk el kutu- 
 hrimv lEivpiTTtSrjv ; 
 
 103. Cic. de Divin. ii. 119, contrahi autem animum 
 Zeno et quasi labi putat atque concidere at ipsum esse 
 dormire. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 151 
 
 Elsewhere sleep is said to be caused by a slackening 
 of the tension in the irvev/ia. Diog. L. vii. 158, t6v Se 
 virvov 'flveffdai, iicXvo/iivov rov alaOrjri,Kov tovov irepi to 
 rjyefwviKov. Plut. plac. V. 23. 4, liXaTiov ol "ZtcoikoI tov 
 fiev virvov ylveaSat dvetrei tov aladriTiKov irvevnaTO'i, ov 
 KUT uva')(aXaan6v, Kaddvep eVi t^9 7^5, <j}epo/j,evov Se w? 
 iirl TO ^yefioviKov fiecro^pvov. 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 avTo^ {Zrjvcov) e^?; 
 TTjv fjLsv opacnv diro tov depo(i \a/j,0dv6iv to ^co?, Trjv Se 
 •^vxrjV diro twv fiadrifiaTav. 
 
 For the Stoic theory of vision see Zeller, p. 221, n. 4. 
 Stein, Psych, n. 241. In Plut. plac. iv. 21, '6paai<; is 
 defined as irvevfia BiaTelvov n7r^ riyefioviicov /j,iypt(; 
 q(l)0a\/j,wv. 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 semen ignis is, qui anima ac mens. 
 
 Mueller's punctuation of the passage has been followed: 
 in Spengel's edition, Zeno's statement is made to extend 
 farther, ignis = nvevfia 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 ^va-i,<{ is warmer than yf^vxv, which seems question- 
 able. 
 
 106. Euseb. P. E. xv. 20. 1,. Ar. Did. fr. phys. 39, 
 
152 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 Diels p. 470, to Be airepfia (j}T]crlv 6 Z-^vcov eivai b 
 fieOiTjaiv av6pa)7ro^ Trvevfia /led' vr/pov, '^V'xrjv fiepo<; koX 
 airoairaa/ia Kal tov o-rrepfiaro^ rov rwv Trpoyovcov Kepaa/xa 
 Kal /uyfia rwv t^? "^Ifvxvf p-epiov crvveXrfKvdoi;' e^ov yap 
 Toi)? \6yov<! T& 'oKm Tov<i avrovv tovto, 'Srav d<l)e6^ et? t^v 
 fii^rpav (rvWr](f)dev vir oKXov Trvev/iaToi, iMipot ^Irv^V'^ 
 Tijs TOV 0i]\eo<s KpvcfyBev re <f>vei, Kivovfievov Kal dvappi/iri- 
 ^ojievov VTT EKelvov irpocfKdfji^avov del [et's] to vypov Kal 
 av^ofievov ef avTov. Theodoret freely copies Euseb. gr. 
 aff. cur. V. 25, Zijvcov Be 6 Ktrtei)? o TrjaBe t^? aipearemf 
 riy-qadfievo'; ToiaBe irepl '^I'X^' Bo^d^eiv toi)? oiKeiov<; 
 eBiBa^e ^oiTr}Td<;' t6v yap toi dvdpanrivov dopov vypov 
 ovTa Kal p,eTe-)(OVTa irvevfiaTot Trjv '^V'xfj^ eifyr/aev elvat 
 fj,epo<; Te Kal dTT6aira(Tp.a Kal tov twv irpoyovoav <nrepp.aTO<i 
 Kepaa-fia Te Kal fuy/ia ef diravTcov Tmv t^? i|ruj^^? fiopiatv 
 avvadpoicrOev. Plut. de cohib. Ira, 15, KauToi {^Kaddirep 6 
 ZiTfvmv eXeye to trirepixa <rvnfii/yfia Kal Kepaa/ia twv Trj<s 
 "^v^rji; Bvvafiemv virdpj^eiv d'jreaTracrfiivov) oUto) k.t.X. 
 ib. plac. V. 4. 1, Zijvcov (to airepfia) a&fia' "^v^V^ yap 
 elvai dTTOffiraxyfia. Same in Galen, hist. phil. 31. XIX. 
 322 K., cf. Galen, opot iaTp. 94 (XIX. 370 K.), a-irepfjua eaTiv 
 dvOpcinrov o fieOlrja-iv avBpanrov fieff vypov '^V'xrji; jxepovt 
 Sipirayfia Kal avfifiiy/ia tov twv trpoyovcav yevov<i, olov 
 Te avTO ffv Kal avTo avfifu-xdev direKpiBij. Diog. VII. 158, 
 dvdpanrov Be airepfia, o fiediqcnv 6 dvOpayiro'i, /jueS' vypov 
 avyKipvaadai, {Xeyova-iv) tok t^? '\]rv)^r}<s fiepeai KaTa 
 fity/jLov TOV rmv irpoyovav Xoyov. 
 
 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-uXXij+Bfo : conceptum, cf. Sext. Math. v. 55 foil, 
 ifivci,: is productive (not intrans.). So perhaps in the 
 well known line: Horn. II. vi, 149, eJ? dvBp&v yeveij, ^ 
 fiev ^vei rj 8' diroXriyev. Otherwise, as Te is not required 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 153 
 
 by the sense, we might suggest that re^vet arose from 
 <f>veTai, cf. Diog. L. VII. 159, rdSv ets t^v yrjv Kara- 
 ^dKXofiivcav (nrepfidriov a iraXauoOevTa oiiK eru (|>vcTai. 
 Cleanth. fr. 24, wa-irep yap ev6<s rivo^ ra fiepr} iravra 
 ^iemi K.T.X. Diels suggests KepaaOev re tf)vei and Usener 
 icpv<f)a eTTKr^vei. 
 
 tls after del is perhaps due to dittography. 
 
 107. Plut. plac. V. 5. 2, ZTji^ajj/ (ra? 6rfKe'La<s) SXijv 
 fiev vypav irpoteadai, oiovel dirb Tr}<i crvyyvfivaa-La^ ISpmrav, 
 ov firjv (TirepfiaTtKou. The same in Galen, hist. phil. c. 31, 
 XIX. 322 K., cf. Diog. L. vii. 159, to Be t^? ^ijXet'a? 
 (a-7repfia) dyovov dirotfyaivovTaf arovov re yap elvat Kal 
 oKiyov Koi vSaTmSei, a$? o ^^aipo<s <f>r]criv. 
 
 <nrcp|iaTiKov. Diels, p. 418 reads a-irepfia treiTTiKov. 
 
 108. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. ix. 133, Ziqvaiv he ical 
 ToiovTov ripatTa Xoyov' toi)? 06Oi)s evXaymt dv rt? rip,tprj. 
 Toi)? Se firj ovra<i ovk dv Ti<s evXaymi Ttfiwr)' elcrlv dpa 
 6eoL 
 
 Sextus proceeds to describe the forced interpretation 
 which Diogenes of Babylon and others put upon Zeno's 
 words in order to get rid of the transparent sophistry 
 (ib. 133—136). Theon, Progymn. 12, p. 251 (Spengel, 
 Rhet. gr. p. 126, 16) gives proofs of the existence of the 
 gods, among which is : e^s Se ort Kal roh (TOiftoh BoKei, 
 olov nXarwi't, 'ApierToreXet, Zijvmvi. 
 
 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 evae^. p. 84 Gomp., iravret ovv oi diro 
 Zijvmvov, el Kal direKeiirov to Saip.6viov..,eva deov Xeyov- 
 aiv eivai. 
 
154 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 At first sight these passages are inconsistent with frag. 
 108, but in reality there is no such diflficulty: 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. ii. 
 45 distinctly denies that the derivative gods are human 
 in shape, cf Philod. ttc/ji evcre^. p. 85 G., dvdpioTroeiBeii 
 yap eKelvoi ov vofii^ovcriv dWa d6pa<i koX irveviiaTa Koi 
 aiOepai. For Antisthenes cf. Philod. irepX eiiae^. p. 73 G., 
 •trap 'AvTicrBivei S' ev fiev rw (^vaiKoi Xeyerai to Kara 
 vofiov elvat ttoWoi/s deovi, Kara Se (pvo'iv eva. 
 
 110. Cic. N. D. I. 36, Gum vero Hesiodi Beoyovlav 
 interpretatur, toUit 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 eeoyovCav : 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 moUius. 
 Similarly "H/397 =air in Empedocles (R. and P. § 131). d^p 
 is also one of Plato's derivations, who says the, order of 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 155 
 
 the letters has been reversed, yvotr]<; S" dv el TroWa/tt? 
 Xeyot? TO Tjy9"H/3as ovofia, Crat. p. 404 C. 
 
 Vestani: cf. N. D. il. 67. " Wahrscheinlich leitete 
 Zenon ihren Namen von eardvai, ab und brachte hiermit, 
 anspielend auf den Altar der Hestia im Prytaneum, den 
 Stillstand der Erde im Mittelpunkt der Welt in Verbind- 
 ung." Krische, p. 401. 
 
 This is perhaps the best place to refer to a supposed 
 fragment of Zeho contained in Philodem. Trepl dewv Sia- 
 ycoyrj'i, Hercul. vol. VI. Tab. I. 1, <av> So <o> Zijvmv 
 BKaaTov <Tov 6eov aireipa Kare')(ei,v> Sr) rd ev€ <T^pia>... 
 <ovK d>v a-vvaKO<\ov6ei el fir] ri> twv ala)v<(ov> Kal 
 d<^i> ovrai Sta<(^>^tcra/t46<i'o?> to? fieKra Ta><! Oedt. 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 lunonem aera lovem caelum Neptunum 
 mare ignem esse Vulcanum et ceteros similiter vulgi deos 
 elementa esse monstrando publicum argiiit graviter et 
 revincit errorem. 
 
 lovem : it is clear that Zeus was identified with the 
 
156 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 aether or pure fiery essence, of which caelum is here an 
 equivalent, as in Pacuvius ap. Cic. N. D. ii. 91, hoc quod 
 memoro nostri caelum Grai peAibent aethera. Of. Chrysipp. 
 ap. Philod. Trepl evae^. p. 79 Gomp., "H^ato-Tov Be irvp 
 €hai...^ia Se tov aWipa. 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 fiev yap (jjacri St ov rd iravra' Zrjva Se KoXovai Trap 
 
 oaov TOV tpjv aiTLo^ e(rTtv, t] Std tov ^rjv Ke')((iopriKev 
 
 "Upav Se KaTCL Trjv eh depa' Koi "H^dia-Tov KaTct t'^v el<f 
 Td Te'x^viKov irvp' zeal HocreiSwva KaTci ttjv et? Tb vypov. 
 The extract from Minuc. Felix lends some slight weight 
 to Kjische'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' -n-vp Te'xyiKov is, according to Krisch«, 
 a blunder: Hephaestus is elsewhere identified with earthly 
 fire (t»)// <f>\6ya in Plut. de Iside c. 66, for which however 
 see on Cleanth. fi-ag. 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), xal Sid tovto tov p,ev dprov Ar)/jij]Tpav 
 vofiiaOijvat top Se oivov Aiovvaov to Se vScop Uoa-eiSciva 
 TO Se •7rvp"Ji<f)aiaTov Koi rjSi) t&v €V')(^pn!i<TT0VVT(ii)V eKOCTTOv. 
 
 112. Valer. Probus in Virg. Eel. vi. 31, p. 21, 14 Keil : 
 sunt qui singulis dementis principia adsignaverunt... 
 Thales Milesius magister eius (Anaximenis) aquam. Hanc 
 quidem Thaletis opinionem ab Hesiodo putant manare 
 qui dixerit : i)'Tot jxev irpanurTa 'xdo'i yeveT, avTap eireiTa, 
 Nam Zenon Citieus sic interpretatur aquam x^'^ ^P" 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 157 
 
 pellatum d-n-o rod i^eeor^at, quamquam eandem opinionem 
 ab Homero possumus intellegere quod ait 'D,Keav6v re 
 6ewp yevecTiv Kal fiijTepa TtjOvv. This frag, is cited by 
 Wachsrauth Comm. i. p. 11, who adds "eadem originatio 
 est apud Achill. Tat., Isag. in Arat. phaen. 3. 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 
 III. 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 own 
 •n-ptoTTj v\rj as might have been expected. Cf also the 
 anecdote related of Epicurus in Sext. Math. x. 18, 19. 
 
 diro ToS x&o-Btti.. 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/iat Se kuI 
 'HcrioBo<!. 
 
 113. Schol. on Apoll. Khod. i. 498, kuI Zrivcav hi rh 
 Trap 'HtrtdSft) p^ao? vhwp elvai <f>'r](Tiv, ov avvi^dvovrov 
 i\i)i' •ylvecrdai, ^9 Trriyvvfiivij^ rj yrj a-repefiviovTai. TpLrov 
 he "]Sipa>Ta r^eyovevai KaO' 'Ho-t'oSoi/, "va to irvp irapaaTija-rj' 
 •jTvpaSeo'Tepov yap 7rd6o<; "Epoj?. 
 
 This passage shows clearly that Zeno must have re- 
 jected or been ignorant of 11. 118 and 119 of the Theog. 
 see Krische, p. 396. 
 
 Xiios. See on frag. 112 and add Comut. c. 17, p. 85 
 Osann, ean he j^ao? /lev to irpo t^s BiaKoa-fi'^a-ecoi ye- 
 vofievov vypov, diro Trjq y(v<rea)<; ovtsj? mvofiaaiievov, 
 
 iXvv : similar views with regard to the formation of the 
 
158 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 earth are attributed to Xenophanes. Hippolyt. 1. 14, ravra 
 Be (f>r](ri yeviffdai 2t6 iravra eirrfKwO'qaav iraKai top oe 
 ro-rrov iv rm Tri/Xp ^Tjpavdrjvat, k.t.X., and to Anaxagoras 
 (Zeller, pre-Socratics ii. p. 356). Hence Zeno himself 
 spoke of earth as viroa-radfiri Travrwv, frag, 114. 
 
 iropwS^oTepov : a familiar comparison. Find. P. IV. 219 
 Medea ev ^paaX Kaco/ievav. Virg. Aen. IV. 68, uritur in- 
 felix Dido. Georg. iii. 244, in furias ignemque ruunt: 
 amor omnibus idem. C£ Schol. ad Hes. Theog. 120, tJS' 
 e/309. . .eviot Be trvp ■ to •jrvpmBe<s yap riji iTndvfiia<!. 
 
 The authorities give two further Stoic explanations of 
 Hesiod's Eros ; (1) mth a reference to 'X6yo<; enrep/naTiKoii. 
 Oomut. c. 17, p. 86 Osann, 6 Be "E/aoj? o'i'v avroi'; yeyovevai 
 epprjOi], ri opfirf iirl ro yevvav. (2) Fire regarded as 
 avveKTiKrj Bvvafu<s: Schol. ad Hes. Theog. 120, rd rpia 
 o'Toi'xeia elirwv to B Xiyei to irvp oirep Baifioviw; epcoTa 
 ^rja-i, avvap/io^eiv yap koi avvayeiv kol evovv Tre<f>VKev. 
 On the passage generally cf Flach, Glossen u. Scholien, 
 p. 37, who attributes to Zeno the words in the Schol. on 
 1. 115, 6« 6e Tov vBaT0<! eyevovTO to, aToi'^eia, yrj kuto, 
 ervvi^Tjffiv, drjp Kara dvaSoaiv " to Be \eTrTOfiepe<; tov 
 depo<s yeyove irvp, rd Be opr) Kara e^oa-TpaKiafiov t?7? 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 Kpovo's from 'x^p6vo<; 
 id. p. 44 (cf Cic. N. D. 11. 64). Flach refers many other 
 definitions to Zeno : a list of some of them will be found 
 at p. 48 of his work, but those of his inferences which are 
 not supported by direct evidence cannot be dealt with 
 here. 
 
 114. Schol. on Hes. Theog. 117, Z'^vwv Bk 6 SreatKos 
 e« TOV vypov Trjv VTroaTaff/ii^v yrjv yer^evvfjadai <^<nv, 
 TpiToi/ Bk "E/atBTa yeyovevai, oOev 6 iirayofiepois dQerelrai 
 
THE FEAGMENTS OF ZENO. 159 
 
 o-Tij^os. Cf. Diog. L. VII. 137, viroa-TdB/jirjv Se iravrwv 
 rrjv yrju, fj.ea'rjv dirdvTCOv ovcrav. 
 
 Wachsmuth connects this with frag. 113. For the 
 general sense cf. frag. 52. The word v7roa-Td6firi is Platonic 
 (Phaed. 109 c). 
 
 115. Schol. on Hes. Theog. 134 Gaisf. Gr. Poet. Min. 
 II. 482, 6 Zijvcov ^7](tI tov<s Ttrdj/a? Sta Travroi; eipfjaOai 
 T(i tnoi')(eia tov KoajjLOV. TLolov <^ap \eyei rr/v iTourrtjTa 
 Kara rpoir^v ' AidXiK'^i' tov it •Kpo<; to k, K.p€iov Se to 
 ^acriXiKov Koi rj'yep.oviicov, "Tirepiova Se Trjv dvco Kivqaiv 
 dirh TOV virepdvo) livai. eirel Se ipvaiv e^et irdvTa Ta 
 0dpri d(pie/j,eva iriirTeiv avoaOev to toiovtov elSo'i 'IdireTov 
 iKoKecre. 
 
 iroi6TT|TO, frag. 53. ireJvTO TO Popn, frag. 67. Papi)...£v(i)6{V... 
 
 etSos: so Flach, p. 223 after Schoemann. The old reading 
 was Kov<f)a...dv<o...n6po<i. Osann suggested tiTTeiv for 
 TriTTTeiv. Cf Cornut. c. 17, p. 91 Osann, ovtox; vtto toov 
 TToXaiwv 'laTrero? p.ev eopofidadr) 6 'K6yo<! xaO ov ^wvqTiicd 
 Ta ^Sa eyeveTO xal 2Xo? o ■\lr6<po<! direTeKea-dri, Id^eTo's tk 
 cov' Id yap i^ (fxovij. Koio? Se Ka0 ov irold Tiva tu ovTa 
 iaTi' t£ yap k TroWa^oO ol "Icovei; dvTb tov it '^pwvTai. . , 
 Kpto? Se Kad' ov Ta /lev dp'xei Kal Swacrrevei twv irpay- 
 fidTcov Ta S' viroTeTaKTai Kal SvvaaTeveTai' evrevdev Td')(a, 
 Kal TOV iv Tots •JTOifMvioK Kpiov irpoa-ayopevofievov. "Twep- 
 itav Se KaB" ov virepdvco Tiva eTepwv irepiTTopeveTat. See 
 Flach, Glossen u. Scholien zur Hes. Th. p. 42 foil. 
 
 116. Schol. on Hes. Theog. 139, Gaisf Gr. Poet. Min. 
 II. 484. Ki!«\6)7ra?. Zirjvwv Se irdXiv (pvaiKcoTepcot ra? 
 iyKVKXlov<} (f>opd<; elpfjaOal, (jyrjai' Bib Kal to ovofiaTa 
 TOVTtov e^edero ^povTijv re Kal 'ZTepoir'qv' "Apyrjv Se 
 eireiZrj (fiaai t6v dpyfJTa Kepavvov ' TraiSa? Se ^aiv 
 avToi^ TOV Ovpavov iireiSrj irdvTa Tama Ta 7rd07] irepl 
 
160 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 TOP ovpavov elcn...liv XP°'"P y^P ''""'* eyevovTO ^yxvicXot 
 •rrepi,(l)opal tov irvp6<i e« tou depoii]. 
 
 Flach's arrangement of the text is quite different : he 
 inserts the words ev XP°^V — o.epo<! after elpfjadai (jtrjaiv, 
 altering ^opai; into irepi.^opd'i. See his interpretation, 
 p. 50. 
 
 IykvkXCows <|)opos. The band of aether which formed the 
 external stratum of the world revolved in a circle round 
 it. Stob. Eel. I. 14 1', p. 142, 13, to aWepiov {(jiw'i) irepi- 
 <j)epm<; Kiveirau. In the matter of the revolving aether 
 Zeno followed Aristotle, whose quinta essentia is described 
 by Sextus as to KVK\o<j>opt]riK6v cr£fj,a (Pyrrh. II. 31). 
 Aristotle himself approves of the Platonic derivation from 
 del detv and censures Anaxagoras for referring it to aWaa 
 (de Caelo i. 2) ; see also Krische, p. 306 foil. 
 
 Bp6vTnv re Kol Srepoiriiv. Wachsmuth says : — "immo 
 ^povTTjv re Kol crrepoTrriv," but surely Hesiod is the 
 subject to i^edeTo as to <f)r]a-i below. ridea6ai ovofia is 
 used regularly of the father : e.g. Isae. ii. § 36, rm ifjup 
 •jraiBliO) i0efn}V- to ovofia to eKeivov. 
 
 iv xpo"* ''•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. wept evae^. col. 8, t<ov>? he 6p6ov<s 
 <\o7>oi'9 KaX a'irovhaia<; Biadet7et<! AiotTKOvpov;. 
 
 From the position of these words in the fragments of 
 Philodemus irepl evae^eiai it appears probable that they 
 belong to Zeno : see on frag. 40. Gomperz however p. 74 
 puts a full stop after SiaOeaei^. 
 
 <5p9o4s XoYovs: 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. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 161 
 
 8uie^o-«is are opposed to e^et? as "permanent forms 
 admitting neither of increase nor diminution," Zeller, 
 p. 103. Thus intellectual goods are divided into (1) 
 virtues = hiaOeaeii;, (2) crTrovBaUti e^ei<i such as huvtiki], 
 and (3) eVatveras evepyeia<; = ovre e^eti ovre Siadea-eK, 
 such as (f)povifj,evfia, Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5, e and f, Diog. vii. 
 98, Cleanth. frag. 51, c£ Sext. Pyrrh. III. 243, avr^ yap ^ 
 <f>pov[fi7j Biddeaiii aicaTah.rj'irTO'; ea-rt p-rfTe e^ avrf}^ aTrXw? 
 Kal avTodev <f)aivofievr) fjirjre iic twv epycov avTfj<!' icoivd 
 yap iari ravra Kal twv iSiarmv, For the distinction 
 between e^t? and Scddeai's in Aristotle see Wallace on de 
 An. II. 5. 417 b. 15. 
 
 Aioo-Koilpoiis : 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 n'^v Kal fiavTiKrjv v(j>ecr- 
 rdvai irdadv <f>ac7iv, el Kal irpovoiav elvai' Kal avrrjv Kal 
 Teyyriv dtro^aivovai, hid riva^ eK0da-ei'i, &<i <f>r)a-t Zijvmv. 
 
 (lovTiKij. The Stoic definition was as follows; Stob. 
 Eel. II. 7. 5b 12, p. 67, 16, elvat, Be rrjv /jluvtikijv (f)acnv 
 eTriaTrjfjLTfv decoprjTiK'iiv a'r)/j,eLO)v twv diro dewv 17 Bat/iovwv 
 7r/3os Be dvdpwTTivov ^iov avvTeivovTwv. Substantially the 
 same in Sext. Math. ix. 132. 
 
 A KaC. Others read jy Kai, reversing the argument : in 
 fact, the Stoics seem to have appealed to the truth of 
 fiavTiKT] 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. 
 
 T^vTjv. 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 
 
162 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 Nescire me fateor, evenire autem te ipsum dico videre. 
 That its professors are sometimes deceived does not in- 
 validate the title of divination as an art (ib. § 24), 
 cf. N. D. II. 12. 
 
 ETHICA. 
 
 119. Diog. L. VII. 84, to Se rjBiKov fiipo^ t^? <j>iXo- 
 ao^iav Siaipovcriv ei? re tov irepl 6pfJ,ri<; koX ei? rov irepl 
 dyadav koX KaKwv tottov koI 6t? rbv vepi iraOwv koI irepl 
 dperrji; Koi irepl reXou? irepl re t^? irpooTrj^ d^iav ical twv 
 irpd^ewv Koi irepl rdSv /cadTjtcovTmv irpoTpoirwv re koX 
 diroTpoir&v' koX ovto) 8' viroSiaipovaiv ol irepl ^piicrnrirov 
 /cat 'Apj(iSr)/j,ov kol Zr/vcova tov Tapcrea k.t.X. 6 p,ev yap 
 KtTiei)? Zijvcov Kal 6 KXedv6Tj<; ea? av dp'xaioTepoi dtjjeXea- 
 Tepov irepl twv irpayfidrwv Sie\a/3ov. 
 
 There is a full discussion of this passage in Zeller, 
 p. 223, 1 : its difficulties, however, do not affect Zeno or 
 Cleanthes. 
 
 120. Diog. L. VII. 87, SiAirep irpwro^ 6 Zi^vav ev tS 
 irepl dvdpwirov c^vo-eo)? reko<; elire to 6fio\oyovfj,evco<; Trj 
 (j)va-ei ^fjv, oirep ia-TO KaT dpeTrjv ^rjV dyei yap irpd<; 
 TavTTiv 'qfjbci'i r) <f)va'i<s. Lactant. Inst. III. 7, Zenonis 
 (summum bonum) cum natura congruenter vivere. id. 
 III. 8, audiamus igitur Zenonem; nam is interdum vir- 
 tutem somniat. Summum, inquit, est bonum cum natura 
 consentanee vivere. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 6*, p. 75, 11, to Se 
 T6\os o fiev Zr)vmv o'6t(0'; direScoKe ' to S/ioXoyov/iivcoi; 
 ^rjv ' ' TOVTO 8' ecTTi Ka6' eva \6yov Kal (TVficjxovov ^rjv, tu? 
 Tmv fia'^p/ievcoi! ^wvtcov KaKoSaifwvovvTcov, Plut. Comm. 
 Not. 23, 1, ov'xl Kal Ztjvwv tovtov; (soil. Peripatetics) 
 ■qKoXovdijaev viroTidefievoK aTOix^la Tr}<; evBaifwvia^ Trjv 
 ^v(7LV KoX TO Kara t^vaiv. (Cf. Cic. Fin. IV. 72, videsne 
 igitur Zenonem tuum cum Aristone verbis consistere, 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 163 
 
 re dissidere ; cum Aristotele et illis re consentire, verbis 
 discrepare? ib. v. 88.) Clem. Alex. Strom, ii. 21. 129, 
 p. 496 P., 179 S., irdXiv F ad Tirjvojv fjuev 6 Xtchiko^ Te\o<; 
 '^yeirai to /car dperrjv ^rjv, cf. Cic. Fin. iv. 14, hunc ipsum 
 Zenonis aiunt esse finem, declarantem illud, quod a te 
 dictum est, convenienter naturae vivere (where see Mad v.): 
 ib. in. 21, summum...bonum, quod cum positum sit in eo, 
 quod ofioKojlav Stoici, nos appellemus convenientiam, etc. 
 There is a conflict of testimony here between Diog. 
 and Stob. as to whether Cleanthes added the words ry 
 ^vaei to Zeno's definition or found them there already. 
 On the whole the fact that Diogenes quotes from a 
 named book of Zeno's makes his authority the more trust- 
 worthy. So Wellmann, 1. c. pp. 446 — 448, cf Krische, 
 p. 372, 3. Ueberweg, p. 199, adds that Diog.'s state- 
 ment is all the more credible, because Speusippus, 
 Polemo, and Heraclitus had enounced similar principles. 
 Zeller, p. 228, 2, does not decide the point. Hirzel, 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 In trod. p. 14. 
 
 121. Plut. fragm. de an. ed. Wyttenb. v". p. 899, koX 
 oiKeiaxTeo}'} 7rdcr7j<; koX aXKoTpiwaew; apxH '''o aicrddvea-Oai, 
 ...01 diro 7iriva}vo<i. 
 
 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 oi diro Zrivcovo<!, yet there is no reason why 
 he should not have taught this. The soul at birth is only 
 open to the impressions of sensation, and its first impulse 
 is towards self-preservation. Cf. Plut. Sto. Rep. 12, 5, 
 p. 1038 C, dW' ovT aiaOrja-li; icrrtv oh fUTjBev alaOrjTov, 
 
 11—2 
 
164 THK FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 ovT olKei(i>(TL<; oZ? fir)Sev oliceiov' rj yap olKelaxrii} a'itrdr](Ti<f 
 eoiKe Tov oiKeiov Koi dvrlXrjyjrt,'! elvai. 
 
 122. Porphyr. de Abstin. Iir. 19, ttjv Se ovKeUoa-iv 
 ap')(r]v rLdetnai, SiKaioavvr)^ oi airb Ziriva>vo<i. 
 
 SiKaioirivTi is one of the four cardinal virtues (see infra, 
 frag. 134) and is founded on olKeicca-ii in the same sense 
 as dpeTTj generally. The natural impulse of every animal 
 is towards self-preservation, so that it seeks after those 
 things which are Kara (fivcrtv and shuns those which are 
 "Trapd <l>va-iv. Diog. L. VII. 85 ; Cic. Fin. III. 16 ; Alex. 
 Aphr. de an. p. 150, 28 ed. Bruns. oi fiev ovv 'S,reoiKol ov 
 irdvTe'i he Xiyovaiv irp&rov oiKeiov elvai to ^mov avTa' 
 eKaa-Tov yap i^&ov ev6v^ yevofievov irpo<s re avTO oLxei- 
 ovaOai, Kal Srj koi tov dvOpwirov' oi Be ^([apteffTepoi/ 
 SoKovvTe<; \eyeiv avTwv ical fidWov Btapffpovv irepl TovSe 
 Aaaiv TTpo? Trjv crvaTaaiv koX Trjpriaiv (pKeiSxrOai evdvi 
 yevofievov^ ruidt Trjv ruiwv avTwv. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 13, 
 p. 118, 11 (where the doctrine is attributed to the Peri- 
 patetics). For TO, TT/xara KUTa <j>va-tv, see Madv. de Fin. 
 Exc. IV. and especially p. 818', "Stoici...ita disputabant, 
 ut, quae postea demum, orto subito rationis lumine, quod 
 in infante nondum esset accensum, et animadversa con- 
 stantia convenientiaque naturae, nasceretur voluntas cum 
 natura consentiendi, in qua et virtus et perfectio rationis 
 esset, earn omnino a prima conciliatione dirimerent, 
 bonumque constituerent, quod expeteretur, a primis, quae 
 appeterentur, genere seiunctum." 
 
 123. Epict. diss. I. 20. 14, xaiToi avrd? fiev 6 irporj- 
 yoviievo<i X6yo<; twv ^i\oa6<pcov Xiav einXv o\,lyo<s. el 
 6i\ei<; yvwvai, dvayvcodi Ta Zijvtovo'i, xal o^Jrei' tL yap 
 exei fiaicpov elirelv oti tcXos ia-Ti to erreadai deotf, ovaria 
 B' drfaOov j(pr}a'ii o'ia Set (jtavTuaioSv ; 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 165 
 
 irpoT]7oiS|icvos X070S, " leading doctrine " : not in the 
 technical sense to be noticed on frag. 169. 
 
 SirorSai Bcots is Only another way of expressing 6/jio\oyia 
 TTJ ^vcrei. This passage furnishes an argument in support 
 of the view taken in the In trod. p. 14 as to the character 
 of Zeno's (jivcri^. 
 
 iJiovToirnSv. Zeno went back to the Socratic doctrine 
 that virtue is knowledge, so that it is not surprising to 
 find that his epistemology is brought into connection with 
 practical morality. That particular class of impressions 
 which is directed towards the performance of some moral 
 action gives rise to corresponding 6p/jial in the soul, cf. 
 Stob. Eel. II. 7. 9, p. 86. 17, to Se kwovv Trjv opfirjv ovSev 
 erepov elvai Xeyovcriv dW' rj i^avraaiav opfirjriK'^v rov 
 KadijKovTo^ avTodev. Virtue consists in the proper direction 
 of these op/ioi in accordance with the dictates of 6p&6<s 
 Xoyos: hence Diog. L. vii. 86 says of reason: — Texvirrjii 
 yap oSto<; iiriyiyverai t!j<; opiMrj^, cf. Cleanth. frag. 66. 
 The doctrine depends on the freedom of the assent : supra, 
 frag. 19, cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 9^ p. 88, 1, Trao-a? he to? 
 opfia^ a-vyKaTadea-ei<! elvai, Ta<; Se -TrpaKTiKa'i Kal to KtvrjTi,- 
 Kov -jreptexeiv, and see Windelband in Miiller's Handbuch, 
 V. 295. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 166, 167, points 
 out that the ethical application of <f>avTaa-iai is very often 
 mentioned by the younger Stoics, although not unknown 
 in the earlier period, cf. Diog. VII. 48, axxre ek aKoa-fiiav 
 Kal elKaioTTjTa Tpeireadai, rot)? dyvfivaa-Tovt e')(pvTa<i To.'i 
 ^avTaaiai;. 
 
 124. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 6^ p. 77, 20, ttjv he evhaifiovlav 
 6 Zijvfov (opiaaTO tov rpoirov tovtoV evhaifiovia h eaTiv 
 evpoia ^Lov. Sext. Math. XI. 30, evhatfiovia hi ia-Ttv, oj? 
 OL T€ nrepl tov Zr/vava Kal KXeavdriv ical ^pvatnnrov aire- 
 hoa-av, evpoia 0lov. Cf Cleanth. frag. 74, Diog. VII. 88. 
 
166 THE FEAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 M. Aurel. II. 5, V. 9, x. 6. evBatfiovla is not identical with 
 Te\o9, which rather consists in to tv^^iv t^? evSaifioviai. 
 
 125. Diog. VII. 127, avrdpKrj elvai dpeTrjv tt/jo? 
 evBaifioviav, Kadd (^Tjai Zijvmv. August, contra Acad. 
 III. 7. 16, clamat Zenon et tota ilia porticus tumultuatur 
 hominem natum ad nihil esse aliud quam honestatem ; 
 ipsam suo splendore in se animos ducere, nuUo prorsus 
 commodo extrinsecus posito et quasi lenocinante mercede ; 
 voluptatemque illam Epicuri solis inter se pecoribus esse 
 communem ; in quorum societatem et hominem et sapi- 
 entem tendere nefas esse. August, de trin. xiii. 5. 8, 
 diximus ibi quosque posuisse beatam vitam quod eos 
 maxime delectavit...ut virtus Zenonem. Cic. Fin. v. 79, a 
 Zenone hoc magnifice tamquam ex oraculo editur : " virtus 
 ad bene vivendum seipsa contenta est." Cf. Acad. i. 7, 35 ; 
 II. 134, 135 ; Paradox, ii. This position was borrowed 
 from the Cynics, In trod. p. 19. 
 
 126. Cic. Fin. iv. 47, errare Zenonem, qui nulla in re 
 nisi in virtute aut vitio propensionem ne minimi quidem 
 momenti ad summum bonum adipiscendum esse diceret, 
 et, cum ad beatam vitam nullum momentum cetera habe- 
 rent. ad appetitionem tamen rerum esse in iis momenta 
 diceret. ib. iv. 60, Zeno autem quod suam quod propriam 
 speciem habeat cum appetendum sit, id solum bonum 
 appellat, beatam autem vitam eam solam, quae cum 
 virtute degatur. 
 
 This point constitutes the main gist of Cicero's argu- 
 ment against the Stoic virtue in de Fin. iv., viz. that 
 while the -irpwra Kara ^vaiv are an object of desire, they 
 have no weight in the explanation of virtue itself. Madvig 
 points out (1) that Cicero has throughout confused the 
 Stoic prima constitutio, which excludes virtue, with that 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 167 
 
 of Antiochus which includes it, (2) that throughout the 
 Fourth Book he attributes far more importance to the 
 doctrine of olKeicoa-K than the Stoics themselves did 
 (pp. 820, 821), and (3) that he fails to notice the Stoic 
 distinction between to Tv^^avew twv Kara <f>vcriv and 
 TO irdvTa iroieiv evsKa tov Tvyx^dveiv avTwv (Stob. Eel. 
 II. 7. 6% p. 76. 13 ; Plut. Sto. Rep. c. 26 ; Cic. Fin. ii. 22). 
 On the subject in general see Zeller, p. 278 foil. For the 
 nature of the TrpwTa KaTo. ^vaiv cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 3°, 
 p. 47. 12 f.; ib. 7% p. 80. 9 ; 7«, p. 82. 12. The position of 
 Zeno will have to be considered with reference to the 
 Trporjyfiiva, where the same inconsistency appears. 
 
 aut vitio : these words were bracketed by some of the 
 add. and are, of course, logically indefensible, but see 
 Madv. 
 
 127. Cic. Tusc. II. 29, Nihil est, inquit (Zeno), malum, 
 nisi quod turpe atque vitiosum est...Numquam quidquam, 
 inquit (soil, 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. Eel. II. 7. 5*. p. 58, 14, we read dvaXoyov Be 
 T(Sv KUKwv TO. //,ev eivai KaKla<i, to, B' ov, and the examples 
 given of the latter class are 'Kviri] and <j>6^oi. 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 ar/add and Kaxd, we find 
 rjBovTj classed among the dSid(f>opa, cf Diog. L. vii. 103, 
 and this agrees with the statement in the present passage 
 that dolor is an d7roTrpor]y/ji,evov. So dolor is classed in 
 Cic. Fin. III. 51, where Zeno's name appears in the 
 
168 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 immediate context, and it is to be observed that the 
 corresponding wporjyfiivov in that passage is not ^Sovtj 
 but " doloris vacuitas." The entire subject of the relation 
 which the emotions bear to the classification of dyaOct 
 and KaKa 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 KaKa. 
 
 128. Stob. Eel. II. 1. 5^ p. 57, 18, ravr elvai (jyrj<7i,v 6 
 Tirjvayv oaa ovaLai fiereyei, twv S' ovriov ra fiev arfaOa, to, 
 Se KaKa, to, Se dSid(f)opa. ayadd /lev rd roiavra' <f>p6vr]<riv, 
 craxppoa-vvriv, SiKaioa-vvijv, dvhpeiav Koi irdv o itrrtv dperrj 
 r) fi€Te')(ov dpeTr}<!' KaKa Be rd ToiavTa' a^poawrjv, aKO- 
 Xaaiav, dSiKiav, Sei\iav, Kal irav o effrt xaKia t] fieri'X^ov 
 Kaxlai' dSid(l)opa Se rd roiavra' ^torjv ddvarov, Bo^av 
 dBo^iav, irovov ■^Sovijv, ttKovtov TrevLav, voaov iyleiav, xal 
 rd ToiJTOt? ofwia. 
 
 Substantially the same account appears in Diog. L. 
 VII. 101, 102, where Hecaton, ApoUodorus, and Chrysippus 
 are referred to as authorities. 
 
 TOv 8' ovTuv 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, 
 irdv TO ov fj dyadov iariv ^ KaKov eariv fj ovre dyaOov 
 iariv oi/re KaKov ia-nv. In the same passage he states 
 that the name dSid^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 (li. p. 45 n.) that Aristotle was the first tO' in- 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 169 
 
 troduce the term dBid^opov, and that Zeno spoke of 
 fiecra. 
 
 <|>povT](riv K.T.X. cf. frag. 134. 
 
 wov toTiv (JpeTij : cf. Sext. Math. XI. 77, aXKov fiev Zijviav, 
 Bi oS rrjv dpeTTjv dyadov elvai BeSo^axev. ib. 184, KaOo 
 Koi opt^ofievoi nve<; i^ avTwv i^aaiv drfadov ecrriv dpeTT) ^ 
 TO fxere'xpv dperrj^. The meaning of iiere-^pv dperrji; is 
 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 fierexov KUKia^. 
 
 i^Bovijv : cf Aul. Gell. ix. 5, 5. Zeno censuit voluptatem 
 esse indifferens, id est neutrum neque bonum neque malum, 
 quod ipse Graeco vocabulo dBtd^pov 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 i^Sov^ among the 
 KUKa. It will be observed that, omitting irovov rjhovrfv, 
 every pair of dhid^opa here mentioned contains a -Trporjy- 
 /jAvov and an aTroirporfyfievov, and that, except in the case of 
 voaov vyleiav (which Wachsm. transposes), the -rrpoijyfihov 
 is mentioned first. We should naturally suppose the 
 same to be the case with rjBovrj and ttwo?, but which 
 then is the Trporjyfievov 1 Wachsmuth evidently thinks 
 ySov^, 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 ttovo? is the irpoijyfievov, and '^Sovrj the 
 diroTrporiyiiivov, and that rjBovrj is contrasted with ■rrovo'i 
 rather than with Xinrr), because the latter certainly belonged 
 
170 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 to the class of d7ro7rpor)yij,eva (frag. 127). For ttoz/os cf. 
 Diog. L. VII. 172, AaKtovof rivo^ elvovroi '6ti 6 ttoi/o? 
 dyaOov, Sia'xydeC<s <f>T]criv (KXedvdr}<s) aXfuvro<i et? dr/a0oio 
 <pi\ov reKo<s, Zeno, frag. 187, and for TjZovrj cf. Sext. Math. 
 XI. 73, oi he d-rrb rTj<s o-roa? dBi,d<})opov (scil. rjhovrjv eivai 
 <j)a(7iv) Koi ov •KpoTj'yiievov. Cleanth. frag. 88. 
 
 Wachsmuth would continue to Zeno the passage follow- 
 ing this in Stobaeus down to p. 59. 3, but the evidence 
 is against this. The prominence given to iVp^i)? yfrv^V'' 
 rather points to an origin subsequent in date to Cleanthes, 
 and \inrr] and ^6/3o^ are here classed as Kaxd, which is 
 inconsistent with frag. 127, not to speak of jJSoz/^ 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<popa death belongs 
 to the diroTrporjyfiiva Diog. L. vii. 106 ; cf. Cic. Fin. ill. 
 29, ut enim, qui mortem in malis ponit, non potest eam 
 non timere, sic nemo uUa 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, tamen alia secundum naturam dicebat 
 (Zeno), alia naturae esse contraria. His ipsis alia inter- 
 iecta et media numerabat. Quae autem secundum natu- 
 ram essent, ea sumenda et quadam aestimatione dignanda 
 dicebat, contraque contraria ; neutra autem in mediis 
 relinquebat, in quibus ponebat nihil omnino esse momenti. 
 
 In this and the following §§ of Cicero it is unsafe to 
 attribute entirely to Zeno the summary of Stoic doctrines 
 there set forth, in the absence of other testimony pointing 
 in the same direction. At the same time there is no 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 171 
 
 reason a priori why Zeno should not have sub-divided 
 dSid(j)opa into (1) to. Kara ^v<riv, (2) rd irapd (^vaiv, and 
 (3) rd Kaddira^ aSta^o/sa = media, or have identified rd 
 Kard <f>vaiv with Xi^Trra or rd d^iav e^ovra, and rd irapd 
 <^v(riv with aXrjTrra or rd drra^iav ej(ovra. Cf. Stob. Eel. 
 II. 7. 7", p. 82, 11 ; 7', p. 84, 3. 
 
 131. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 7*, p. 84, 21, r^v K d^Lav exovrcov 
 rd jjbkv e'xeiv TroWrjv d^iav rd Be ^pa')(elav, 6/j,ola)'i Se /cat 
 rajv drra^iav i'x^ovrav d /jlbv e'^eiv TroWrjv drra^Lav, a Se 
 ^pa^eiav. rd fiev ovv nroXKrjv e-)(pvra d^iav 7rpo7iyfieva 
 XiyeaOat, rd Se TroWiyz/ aTra^Lav aTroTrpoi^yfieva, Zijv(ovoi5 
 rai/Ttt? rdi} ovofiacrlai! defievov -Trpcorov rot? nrpd/y/jiatri,. 
 irporjyiJievov S' elvai Xeyovaiv, o dBid(f>opov <6v> eKXeyofieOa 
 Kara irpoTjyovfievov Xoyov. rov he ofioiov \6yov ivl rm 
 dTTOTrporjyfiivtp elvai koI rd irapaSelr/fiara Kard rrjv 
 dvaXoyiav ravrd. ovBev Be rwv dyadmv elvai irporjyfievov IQ 
 Bid TO rfjv p,eyL<Trr}v d^iav avrd exeiv. ro Be irpoTiy/iivov, 
 rrjv Bevrepav ^((opav KOi d^iav e'xpv, avveyyi^eiv ttw? ry 
 raiv dr^aOwv tjyvo'ei' ovBe ydp ev avXfj rwv irporjyfieveov 
 elvai rov ^aaiKea dXkd toi)? yuer' avrov rerayfievov;. 
 •jTporjy/jLeva Be "KeyetrOai ov rm irpd<i evBaifiovlav rivd a-v/i- 15 
 ^dWeadai avvepyeiv re ttjOos avrr/v, aXKd rm avayxaiov 
 elvai rovrcov rrjv eKKoyrjv iroieladai irapd rd diroirporiyp.eva. 
 Plut. Sto. Rep. 30, 1. Some of the irpea-^vrepoi said that 
 Zeno's irporjyfievov was in as bad a way as the sour wine, 
 which its owner could not dispose of as wine or vinegar : 
 so the irpoTjyuevov is neither an dyadov nor an dBid- 
 (f)opov. 
 
 4. iroU'qv ixovra a^lav. In Stob. Ecl. II. 7. 7^, p. 83, 10 
 
 every thing which is in accordance with nature is said 
 d^iav e^eiv. Diog. L. VII. 105 identifies irporiyfiiva with 
 ra ixovra d^iav, Sext. Emp. Math. XI. 62 with rd Uavrjv 
 d^iav exovra, cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 7", p. 80, 17. Cicero's 
 
172 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 phrase, Acad. i. 37 (sed quae assent sumenda ex iis alia 
 pluris esse aestimanda, alia minoris), is of doubtful import : 
 see Keid in loc. In Fin. iii. 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 Xtjttt^ without being -rrporiyfieva. 
 
 5. Zijvoivos: apart from the evidence of Stob. and 
 Plut. it is clear that the Trporiy/jLeva must have formed 
 part of Zeno's system from the fact that Aristo expressly 
 dissented from him on this point (Cic. Acad. II. 130), cf. 
 Cic. Fin. ill. 51. According to Hirzel p. 418 the word was 
 discarded by the later Stoics, and ei}')^pri<rTa substituted 
 by Posidonius. 
 
 8. irpor|YoiiS|uvov X070V : see on frag. 169. 
 
 Ttf diroirpai]7)i^v<^ : SO Wachsmuth for to diroTrpoijyfjuivov 
 MSS. Heeren reads twv — wv. 
 
 13. oiSk vdp iv oiXfl : cf. Cic. Fin. III. 52, ut enim, inquit 
 (Zeno), nemo dicit in regia regem ipsum quasi productum 
 esse ad dignitatem — id est enim Trporiyfiivov — sed eos qui 
 in aliquo honore sunt, quorum ordo proxime accedit, ut 
 secundus sit, ad regium principatum, sic in vita non ea, 
 quae primario loco sunt, sed ea, quae secundum locum 
 obtinent, Trporjyfieva, id est, producta nominentur. 
 
 TiSv irpoii7|ii<v<i)v : so Madv. ad de Fin. I.e. for MSS. toc 
 irpoayop.evov : he is followed by Wachsmuth. Hirzel II. 
 p. 823 prefers •irporjyovfievaiv. 
 
 15. Tiva: so MSS. Tti/i Davies. <noipav> riva Hense. 
 
 16. «: Mein. rt MSS. 
 
 dXXd T§ K.T.X. On the subject of the nrporjyfjieva in 
 general consult Zeller, pp. 278 — 287. This sentence con- 
 tains the gist of the Stoic position in the matter. Al- 
 though sickness e.g. does not impede the happiness of the 
 wise man, since he is secure in the possession of virtue, it 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 17S 
 
 is at the same time impossible ceteris paribus not to 
 prefer health to sickness, cf. Stob. Eel. il. 7. 7, p. 79, 
 12—17. 
 
 132. Diog. L. VII. 120, dpea-Kei re ovtok la-a i^yeicrBai, 
 Ta dfj,apr7]/jiara, Kadd <j)7]ai...Z'ijvav. Sext. Math. VII. 
 422, KavrevOev opfiwfievoi oi irepX tov Zijvcova iBiSaa-Kov 
 '6ti, caa io'Ti rd dfiapTijfjLara. 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, iii. 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. dfidpTriiJia is the 
 correlative of Karopffcofia and is defined as to irapd tov 
 opOov Xoiyov irpaTTOixevov, r) iv a irapaXeKeiiTTai ti 
 KadrJKov viro XoyiKov ^(pov, Stob. Eel. II. 7. 11", p. 93, 16. 
 See further Zeller, p. 267. 
 
 133. Cic. Mur. § 61, omne delictum scelus esse 
 nefarium, nee minus delinquere eum, qui gallura galli- 
 naceum, cum opus non fuerit, quam eum, qui patrem 
 suffocaverit. 
 
 This is quoted among the sententiae et praecepta 
 Zenonis, but it is extremely unlikely that the illustration 
 used is that of Zeno. Cicero attempts (Paradox, iii. 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 dtidpTtj/ia, many d/iapTijfjiaTa 
 are committed in the act of parricide. 
 
 134. Plut. Sto. Rep. VII. 1, 2, dpeTd<; 6 Zrjvajv diro- 
 
174 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 Xenret TrXe/oj/a? Kara hia^opd^, Sairep 6 TlXdrcov, olov 
 <f)pov7)aiv dvSpeiav aai^poavvrjv hiKaioavvqv, w? d-^doopiarovi 
 fiev ovaa';, erepav 8e Kal Bi,a<f>epov<ra<! dWjjXav, irdXiv Be 
 opiififievo's avTwv eKdarrjv, rrjv fikv dvSpeiav <fyricrl ^povqavv 
 elvat ev ivepyTjTeoiv' rrjv Se Bi/caioavvrjv ^povrjffiv ev 
 dirovep/riTeotis' w<i fitav oScrav dperrjv rat? Se ttjOO? to 
 irpdyfiaTa a'x^eaeai Kara ra? evepyeia<; Bia<^epeiv BoKOvaav. 
 Plut. de Virt. Mor. 2, eot/ee Se Kal Tirjvmv eh tovto ■jrax: 
 V7ro<f)epea6ai 6 K.iTtev<i, 6pi^6fievo<; rrjv ^povqaiv ev fiev 
 avove/irjTeoi'; BiKatoa-vvrjv' ev Be Biaipereoi^ aoo^poavvrjv' 
 ev Be viro/ieveTeoK dvBpelaV dTroXoyov/ievoi Se d^iovaiv ev 
 TOUTOt? T'^v eiria-TijfMTiv <j}p6vi]<nv viro tov Z^vcovot wvo- 
 p.da-6ai. Diog. L. VII. 161, dperdf re ovre TroXXa? ela-fjyev 
 (soil. Aristo) to? 6 Z'^viov. Cic. Acad. i. 38, hie (Zeno) 
 omnis (virtutes) in ratione ponebat...nec uUo modo... 
 (seiungi) posse disserebat, nee virtu tis usum modo...sed 
 ipsum habitum per se esse praeelarum, nee tamen virtutem 
 cuiquam adesse quin ea semper uteretur. Of. ib. ii. 31, 
 Fin. IV. 54. 
 
 Of. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5"^ p. 60, 12, Kal r'^v /iev ^povtiatv 
 irepl rd Ka6r)Kovra 'ylveadat,' rrjv Be <rQ}<f>poavv7)v irepl rd<; 
 opp.a<! rov dvdpwTTOV' rrjv Be dvSpeiav rrepl rd<; VTroyttoi/a?' 
 T?}i' Be BiKaioa-vvrjv trepl ra? d-Trovefirjaei';. Diog. VII. 126. 
 Zeno taught that virtue is one and indivisible, but that in 
 different spheres it is manifested in different forms. He 
 resumed the Socratie position (for whieh see Zeller, 
 Soerates E. T. p. 140 foil., and espeeially Xen. Mem. III. 9, 
 Plat. Men. 88 c), that virtue is knowledge, but adopted 
 the terminology of Aristotle by making use of the word 
 ^povrfvif instead of eTricrrij/irj, 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 
 Zeno had already defined (j>p6vTi(n<s as eVto-rr'jtn? dyaOmv 
 
THE FBAGMENTS OF ZENO. 175 
 
 Kal KUKwv." 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 
 states. 
 
 dirov6|i.i]T&is = the rendering every man his due (dvove- 
 /irjTtKTJ Tfj^i a^ias kadarai Stob. I.e.), cf the definition 
 attributed to Simonides in Plat. Rep. i. p. 331 E, oxi to rd 
 6<j>eiX6fj,6va eKaarip diroSiBovai BiKaiov ecrn. It is more 
 general in meaning than Aristotle's to eV rat? Biavofiah 
 Slkuiov (Eth. N. V. 2. 12). 
 
 Siaiperfois: distinguishing between things with a view 
 to choice : it deals with to? aipea-ev; koI eKK\icrei<; (Cleanth. 
 frag. 76). 
 
 4iron6V6Tfois...h'«pviiTfoi.s. Hirzel suggests that there 
 is a lacuna in Plut. Sto. Rep. I.e. and that we ought 
 to read there ^pov^qaiv elvai. iv Kviro/juevereoi^ rrjv Be 
 creo^poervvrjv ^p6vr)a-ivev>a!peTeoi<; (in place oi evepyrjTeoi<;). 
 For vTTOfjL. cf Ar. Eth. III. 6, 6, 6 dvBpeto<;...ovBeh yap 
 vTTOfi.eveTiKanepo's twv Seivwv : for the general sense cf. 
 Thuc. II. 40. 3, KparicTTOi S' dv T-qv yjrvxrjv BtKaLco<; Kptdeiev 
 01 rd re Beivd koX rjBea iTa(f)eaTaTa ycyvcocrKovre'; Kal Bid 
 ravra /j,^ d-TTOTpeTTO/Mevoi, ex rwv klvBvvwv. 
 
 irx^o-eo-i. This word has a technical meaning with the 
 Stoics, being opposed to Kipr/aii} on the one hand (cf Cic. 
 Tusc. IV. 30), and to e^t? (non-essential)(essential) on the 
 other (Stob. Eel. ii. 7. 5'', p. 73, 1). The virtues themselves 
 are Biaff6a-ei<;, for which see on frag. 117. 
 
 135. Plut. Virt. Mor. c. 3, Koiv&<i Be diravTe<; ovtoi 
 (scil. Menedemus, Aristo, Zeno, Chrysippus) t^k dperrjv rod 
 rfyefioviKov Trj<; yfrvxv'! BidOeaiv nva xal Brivafiiv y&fevq- 
 
176 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 fUvrjv viro \6yov, fiaXKov Be Xoyov ov<rav avTrjv ofioXoyov- 
 fievov /cal ^e^aiov kuX dfieTaTTTcoTov viroTiBevTai' Kai 
 vofii^ovaiv ovK elvai rb TradjjTiKdv xal aXoyov Sia(f>opa 
 TiVb KaX ^vaei •^wp^^9 tov XoyiKov SiaKeKpt/iivov, aWa to 
 avTO Trj<! yjrvxrji; ftepo^ (o S?) Kokovat Sidvoiav Kai rjyefiovi- 
 Kov), hioXov Tpeiro/jLevov Kai fierd^aWov ev re rot? trddeav 
 KoX Tat? Kara e^iv rj Sidffeaiv fiera^oKaK, KaKiav re 
 ylveadat Kai dpeTijv, KaX fj,r)Sev e'X^eiv aXoyov ev eavT&' 
 XeyeaOai Be aXoyov, orav tw irXeovd^ovrt Trj<s opp-rj's 
 iaj^yp^ yevofiev<p Kai KpaTrjaavri irpoi n rcov dToircov 
 irapd TOV alpovvra Xoyov eK<j)epr]Tai' Kai yap to Trd6o<! 
 elvai Xoyov irovripov Kai oKoXaaTov, ex <j)avXr)<} xal BiTjfiap- 
 TT]iJiivr]<; Kpicreaji at^oBpoTT^Ta Kai pwfirjv trpoaXa^ovTa. 
 
 Ti\v dpHv K.T.X. cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5'^^, p. 64, 18, apera? S' 
 elvai, 7rXeiov<; ^aal Kai djf^topiffTOVi dir dXXijXwv koI ra? 
 auras toj r^yepLOViKM fiepei TJy? '^vy(r]<s Ka& vrroaTaaiv. 
 
 o^o\«nioiy.ivov : frag. 1 20. 
 
 d|icTciirTWTov : cf. the definition of knowledge in frag. 17. 
 Virtue is knowledge as applied to conduct. 
 
 Kol vojiC^oiKri 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 /nepia-Tr/ 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 Trvev/xa throughout the 
 body does not detract from its unity either on the physical 
 or the moral side : tto^o? and dpeT-fj are alike affections of 
 the ■^yep.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 
 carried on in one and the same country." Reid on Acad. 
 1.38. 
 
 Siavoiav koI ii7C)i,oviK6v. For the distinction between 
 these two terms see Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 132, 306. 
 
 ilgiv *i Suieeo-iv: see on frag. 117. The Trddrj are dis- 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 177 
 
 tinguished, being neither e^et? nor BiadeaeK but xiv^aeif, 
 Cic. Tusc. IV. 30. 
 
 T<p irXsovdjovTi. Zeno's view of the "TrdOT) will be con- 
 sidered in the next following fragments. Cf. Stob. Eel. 
 II. 7. 10, p. 88, 10, elvai Se vdOr) travra tou rfr/efioviKov ri}'i 
 
 136. Diog. L. VII. 110, ea-Ti Se avro to trdOo'i Kara 
 Tirjviova rj oKoyo^ Kol rrapd <l>v<riv yjrvxrj^ KivrjaK, rj opfirj 
 irXeovd^ovtra. Cic. Tusc. IV. 11, est igitur Zenonis haec 
 definitio ut perturbatio sit, quod irdOm ille dicit, aversa a 
 recta ratione, contra naturam animi commotio. Quidam 
 brevius, perturbationem esse appetitum vehementiorem. 
 ib. 47, definitio perturbationis, qua recte Zenonem usum 
 puto ; ita enim definit ut perturbatio sit aversa a ratione 
 contra naturam animi commotio, vel brevius ut pertur- 
 batio sit appetitus vehementior. 
 
 Cf. Cic. Off. I. § 136, perturbationes, id est, motus 
 animi nimios rationi non obtemperantes. Stob. Eel. ii. 7. 
 2, p. 44, 4, irdv irddo'i opfirj irXeovd^ovaa. ib. 7. 10, p. 88, 8, 
 •jrddo<; S' elvai ^aaiv opfjurjv irKeova^ovcrav xal direidfj tS 
 aipovvTi Xoym rj Kivr)a-iv '\jrv')(rj(; <dXoyov> irapd <f)vaiv. 
 Plut. in fragm. utr. anim. an corp. libid. et aegrit. c. vii. 
 Andron. vepl iraOmv c. I. The comments in Stob. I.e. 
 10% p. 89, 3 — 90, 5, are important. They appear to belong 
 to Chrysippus and show that, while defining the irddrt as 
 Kpiaei<i, 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 direidri'i tw alpovvri Xoyco are a gloss of 
 Chrysippus upon Zeno's term 0X070?. 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 
 
178 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 unity of the soul (frag. 135). In maintaining that every 
 vadof is essentially aXoyov and trapa ^vaiv, 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 rj tow m? aKTjdw ^iXoa-6<j)ov '^vxv 
 ouTO)? airejferab rwv ■^^Sovoov re Koi e-Tridv/iiwv kul Xvttwv 
 Kul fj)6^cov Kaff oaov Svvarai,, although elsewhere Plato 
 admits that certain pleasures and pains are allowable (see 
 Zeller's Plato, p. 444). Similarly Aristotle, while classing 
 certain Trddr) as akoya, declares that under certain circum- 
 stances wrath and desire are legitimate (Eth. N. iii. 1. 
 24—26). 
 
 137. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 1, p, 39, 5, m S" 6 Stwi/co? 
 wpLaaTO Tirjvwv' Trado<; iarlv opfirj TrKeovd^ovcra. ov \eyei 
 ' ireipvKvta TrXeovd^eiv , aW' •^St) iv ifKeovaafim ovtra' ov 
 yap Swdfiei, fiaXXov S' evepyeia. wpiaaro Be KdKelvm<s' 
 irdQo<i ecTTt irroLa ''|'i'%^9, airo rfj^ roov ttttjvoov <l)opd<; to 
 evKivrfTov rov iraOTjriKov irapeiKaaa^. 
 
 Cf ib. II. 7. 10, p. 88, 11, Bio koI irda-av irroiav -Trddoi 
 elvai <Kai> irdXiv <7rav> irdOo'; irroiav. Wachsmuth 
 refers to Chrysipp. ap. Galen, de Hipp, et Plat. plac. iv. 5, 
 p. 364, 23, Mlill. olKeia><! Be rm rwv -rraOwv yevei utto- 
 BiBoTui Koi rj TTTOia Kara to evaeao^Tjp^vov tovto koI 
 (bepofievov eixr], where the use of the word aTroBiBoTai, 
 points to Zeno's authorship, dird T'^s — irapeiKdcrai seems 
 to be merely the comment of Didymus, although it is 
 possible that Zeno derived irToia from ireTeadai, 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. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 179 
 
 quasi morbis: see on frag. 144. aTradrj elvai rbv ao^ov, 
 Diog. VII. 117. 
 
 opinionisque iudido : in view of what follows this is 
 important, and the expression aptly illustrates Galen's 
 statement that Zeno regarded the wclOti as ra i-Triyiy- 
 vofieva Kpiueeriv. 
 
 intempercmtiam. The particular virtue which is con- 
 cerned with regulating the opfial is aca<ppoa-vvr) : see on 
 Cleanth. frag. 76, so that excess of impulse or Tra^os is 
 said to be produced by its opposite, nKoXaaia (ar/voia 
 alperwv Kal <j}evKTWv leaX ovheripmv, Stob. Eel. II. 7. S*"', 
 p. 60, 2), cf. Tusc. IV. 22, Quemadmodum igitur tempe- 
 rantia sedat appetitiones et efScit, ut eae rectae rationi 
 pareant, conservatque considerata indicia mentis : sic huic 
 inimica intemperantia omuera animi statum inflammat 
 conturbat incitat; itaque et aegritudines et metus et 
 reliquae perturbation es omnes gignuntur ex ea. 
 
 139. Galen. Hippocr. et Plat. plac. v. 1, v. 429 K., 
 ^rjvaiv ov tw; KpUrei<i avTce; ciXKa ra? iiriyi'yvofieva'i 
 avTOi'! ffixTToXa? Kal Xvaei<; iirapaei'; re koX [to?] 7rTwa-6i<; 
 Tfj<; yfrv)(fj<! evofiil^ev eivai ra iraffrj, ib. IV. 3, V. 377 K. 
 Chrysippus contradicts himself, Zeno, and other Stoics as 
 to this 0( oil Td<; KpLaei'i avra<; tt}^ ilru^^? akXd [kui] ra? 
 eirl Tairai,'; oKoyov; crutrroXa? Kai ranreivwaei^ Kal S?;^6f9 
 iirapaeL'; re KaX Staj^utret? vTroXa/jb^avovaip elvai to, t^? 
 i/ri;%^9 TrdOTj. Wachsmuth, Comm. i. p. 7, adds ibid. iv. 2, 
 V. p. 367 K., TOiavTqv tlvoL Trjv ovaiav rwv itaOStv (i.e. oti 
 al /ieieoaec<s Kal ai iirdpcrei'i Kal at (TvaToKal Kal al Sia- 
 ^i5o"ef9...T^? dXoyov Svpdfjbeco<; ian iraOrjuara rai'i Sd^at? 
 eTTtytyvofjieva) 'ETrt'/cou/ao?. . .xal Zr/vwv VTroXafi^dvei. Galen 
 distinguishes between three different views of the nature 
 of irddr), (1) that they have no connection at all with 
 Xoyiafio'i or xpiaK, which is the view of Plato and 
 
 12—2 
 
180 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 Posidonius, and in which Galen himself concurs. He 
 infers that Cleanthes was of the same opinion (but see 
 on Cleanth. frag. 84) ; (2) that they are Kpiaeif, cf. Diog. 
 L. VII. 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 
 itrvyir/vofieva Kpiaeanv 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 nradT) 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 tradri with KpCaeif and connecting them with 
 (Tv'fKaradiaei.<i: cf Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 198, 199. 
 
 oTiiTToXcis. This refers to Xvirt}, which is defined as 
 avaTokq aXoyo^ (Diog. L. VII. Ill, cf M. Aurel. II. 10) 
 or direidv'} Xoy^ (Stob. Eel. II. 7. 70^ p. 90, 14) : in the 
 same way eirapa-i's refers to rjhovrj (Diog. L. VII. 114, Stob. 
 1. c, 1. 16). 
 
 Xio-eis. For this word Miiller substitutes Sta^vVei?, 
 but this is perhaps] questionable, cf Cic. Tusc. iii. 61, 
 ex quo ipsam aegritudinem Xinrrjv Chrysippus [quasi 
 \v(Ttv id est] solutionem totius hominis appellatam putat. 
 
 Tcts, 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. 
 
 Sijgeis. Zeller's correction, accepted by Mtiller, for 
 Sei^em, is made almost certian by Cic. Tusc. iv. 15, ut 
 aegritudo quasi morsum aliquem doloris efficiat, c£ Tusc. 
 III. 83, cited on frag. 168. 
 
 8iox<i<r«is. In Diog. L. VII. 114 this word appears |as a 
 subdivision of -^Bov^ and is defined as ai/aXuo-ts dperl}^. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 181 
 
 Tn Snidas, , col. 818, however ^Sovrj itself is defined as 
 aXoyo^ Sid'xytTi,':, cf. deliquescat in Cic. Tusc. iv. 37. It is 
 worthy of observation that all these words (excepting 
 perhaps raireiv(ca-et<}) refer to XvTrr) and •^Bovr], and that 
 eiriOvfiUi and ^oySo? are not so prominent. For rairei- 
 vma-ei';, cf. exanimatione humili atque fracta connected 
 with metus in Gic. Tusc. IV. 13, and for ■n-TwaeK demitti 
 (of aegritudo) ib. 14, 37. In the face of the evidence 
 already cited, Wellmann, p. 454, seems to be wrong in 
 supposing XiaeK and TrTuxreK to be equivalent to Spe^K 
 and 6kk\,i<ti,i} in Diog. and Stob. 11. cc. 
 
 (mUo-is refers to \v7rrj, Chrysipp. ap. Galen, IV. 2, 
 p. 367. 
 
 140. Themist. de An. 90 b, Spengel, ii. 197, 24, km. ov 
 KaKw<; ol aTTO Tirjvmvoi ra irndr) rrji; dvdpcowivrj's i^v^^? 
 TOW Xoyov SiacrTpo<pd<s etvai ridifievoi koX Xoffov Kpitreii; 
 i^fiapT7}fievav. 
 
 In the face of Galen's testimony this statement is 
 of no importance so far as Zeno is concerned and may be 
 discarded. 
 
 141. Galen, Hipp, et Plat. plac. iii. c. 5, V. p. 322 K., 
 ov fiovov ^pvaiTTiTO'i aXKa KUi K.Xeav6Ti<{ xal Zr/vcov 
 kTOifiw; avrd ndeacnv (roi)? (po^ovi koX tw Xi/Tra? koX 
 ■jTcivff otra TOiavra irdOr) Kara Ttjv KapSlav (7vvi<rTai70ac). 
 This passage is taken from Wachsmuth, Comm. i. p. 7. 
 The emotions are placed in the heart because it is the 
 seat of the i^ysfioviKov (frag. 100), of which the ttoOt) are 
 affections (frag. 135), Zeller, p. 213, Stein, Psych, n. 258. 
 
 142. Diog. VII. 140, Twv iraOwv rd dvwTaTW {KaOd 
 <f)riaiv...7tr)V(ov iv t^ irepl Tradwv) elvai yevT) reTrapa, 
 Xvirrjv, <^Q^ov, hndvfiiav, r)hovriv. 
 
 Stob. Eel. II. 7. 10, p. 88, 14, irpwra S' elvai tw ykvet 
 
182 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 Tavra rd reacrapa, iiridviiLav, <fi6^ov, Xinrrfv, ■^Sovr/v, cf. 
 Cic. OS. I. 69, Tusc. ili. 24, iv. 11, Jerome Epist. cxxxiii. 
 illi enim quae Graeci appellant i!rd6ij nos perturbationes 
 possumus dicere, aegritudinem videlicet et gaudium, 
 spem et metum, quorum duo praesentia, duo futura 
 sunt, asserunt extirpari posse de mentibus et nuUam 
 fibram radicemque vitiorum in homine omnino residere, 
 meditatione et assidua exercitatione virtutum. Plato had 
 already recognised Xv-n-t], ^6^o^, i-mdv/iia and ■^Sov^ as 
 the four chief Tradrj, cf Phaed. 83 B, cited on frag. 136. 
 From rd avmrdro) . . .yevrj it is obvious that Zeno classed 
 certain el'Siy under each of the principal irdQ'q, but how 
 much of the exposition in Diog. L. vii. Ill — 116, Stob. 
 Eel. II. 7, lO*"'" is derived from him the evidence does not 
 enable us to determine, nor can we tell whether the 
 doctrine of the evirdOeiai belongs to him. 
 
 143. Cic. Tusc. III. 74, 75, Satis dictum esse arbitror 
 aegritudinem esse opinionem mali praesentis, in qua opini- 
 one illud insit, ut aegritudinem suscipere oporteat. Ad- 
 ditur ad banc definitionem a Zenone recte ut ilia opinio 
 praesentis mali sit recens. Galen de Hipp, et Plat. plac. 
 IV. 7, p. 416, '6 yovv opoi ovro<s', (fnjcriv [Posidonius], ' 6 t'^? 
 Xinrr}';, (oa-irep ovv koX aXKoi, iroWol twv iradwv viro re 
 Ztjvavo'; elprffiivot, koI ■7rp6<i rov ^pviriwirov yeypafifievot 
 (ra(j)oo<s i^eXeyx^ovcri t-^v 'yvwfirjv avrov. So^av yap elvai 
 7rp6c7<f>aT0v rod kukov avrm -rrapeivai ^prjat (? (jtacrt) rrjv 
 Xvirriv. iv <p koX crvvrofjumrepov iviore \eyovTe<; wBe ttw? 
 •Trpocrcfjepovrai' Xiiirrj ear), So^a irp6a-^aro<; kukov irapov- 
 a-iai}.' XvTTTjv is the necessary correction of Cornarius, 
 Bake and I. Miiller for the MSS. aVi;?. The unfortunate 
 currency, which Kiihn's da-rj<s has obtained, has given rise 
 to much perplexity. 
 
 These passages, and especially that of Cicero, have been 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 183 
 
 strangely neglected by the authorities. A difficulty arises 
 here, because it is generally inferred from frag. 139 that 
 the treatment of the Trddrj by Zeno and Chrysippus was 
 radically different, and it is strange that, if Zeno defined 
 Xvirrj, for example, as aXoyo^ o-vcttoXij, he should also 
 have defined it as Sofa Trpoo-^aro? kukov Trapova-iai. 
 (For the connection of Chrysippus with the latter defini- 
 tion cf. Galen, op. cit. iv. p. 836 K, 336, 9 M., iv rot? 
 6pi,a-fjL0i<! Twv yeviKWv iradwv reXecoi; diro')(a)pel rrji yvco/j,i]<; 
 avTwv [scil. his own writings] Trjv Xvirriv opi^o/juevo^ So^av 
 irpocr^arov kukov "Trapovcrva^ top Se (po^ov irpoaioKiav 
 KUKOV Trjv Be rjhovrjv So^av irpixr^aTov ayadov irapovaia'i, 
 but at the same time defines ewidviiLa as dXoyo<; ope^it.) 
 For, in that case, how could Galen or Posidonius have 
 treated Chrysippus as diverging from Zeno by explaining 
 the trdOT] as Kpiaei^, especially as Posidonius is the 
 ultimate authority on whom the attribution of the ho^a 
 definition to Zeno rests ? 
 
 Now the evidence of Galen establishes almost beyond 
 a doubt that the definitions of Xvitti as dXoyo<; crva-ToXrj 
 and of '^Sov'i] as aXoyo^ e-rrapafi (Diog. L. VII. Ill, 114) 
 were propounded by Zeno. From this it would seem to 
 follow as a natural corollary that he also defined eindvixia 
 as aXoyoi ope^if (Diog. VII. 113), and <f)6^o^ as 0X0709 
 eK/eXto-t? (Stob. Eel. II. 7. 10^ p. 90, 11, eKKXiacv aTreidrj 
 Xoya), cf Andron. Trepl -rraOwv, c. I., Xvirr) p,ev ovv eariv 
 dXoyoi; avaroXr], (fio^o^ Se dXoyo<s eKKXicri<}, iiriOvfiia Be 
 dXoyoi ope^i<;, i^Bovrj Be dXoyo'i eirapaK ; and see Kreuttner, 
 p. 31. On other grounds it seems probable (see on frag. 
 136) that Chrysippus is responsible for the substitution of 
 direi.Brj'i Xoytp for dXoyov in Stob. 1. c, but we cannot tell 
 who added the words iirl ^evktw Bokovvti and e'^' alperw 
 BoKovvri virdp'xeiv (Galen, Hipp, et Plat. IV. 2, p. 367), 
 which appear also in Diog. 114. It remains therefore to 
 
184 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 decide whether the definitions of which So^a 'irp6o-<f>aro<i 
 KaKov •jrapovcrla^ 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, ii. 232, 233 and 504), but if 
 Posidonius' evidence is to be accepted in the one case, 
 why is it to be discarded in the other, especially where it 
 tells most strongly against himself? cf. Galen, p. 390 K., 
 (HoereiScovios:) •jreipdrai firj fiovov eavTov rot? IlXaT(oviKoi<! 
 dXXa Koi, Tov Ktrtea Zijvcova -rrpocrdyeiv. 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 (t'^v avrov tt/oo? 
 avTov ivavTioikoyUiv tov Xpua-lirirov, Galen, p. 390). It 
 would seem therefore that he is less worthy of credence 
 as a witness, when he affirms a discrepancy between Zeno 
 and Chrysippus than when he testifies to the identity of 
 their doctrine. Nor ought we to neglect the fact that 
 in Diog. L. VII. 112 ^6^o<{ is defined as kukov irpocrSoKia, 
 being thus differentiated from the other trdOrj, and that 
 this definition is ultimately traceable to Plato (Protag. 
 358 D, Leich. 198 b). 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 
 (elpTjfievoi), and subsequently to the publication of the 
 work irepl ttuOwv, put forward the So^a 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 
 
THK FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 185 
 
 of Zeno's system. In any case the difference was com- 
 paratively unimportant : ' hane differentiam levissimam 
 esse quis est quin videat, cum uterque id semper docuerit, 
 irddr) esse voluntaria?' (Heinze, Stoicorum de Affectibus 
 doctrina, p. 10, and see also pp. 23, 24, 36, 37). 
 
 144. Lactant. Inst. iii. 23, inter vitia et morbos 
 misericordiam ponit (Zeno). id. Epist. ad Pentad. 38, 
 Zeno Stoicorum magister, qui virtutem laudat, miseri- 
 cordiam... tamquam morbum animi diiudicavit. 
 
 It is probable that Zeno spoke of the Trddrj in general 
 terms as voaoi and that Chrysippus is responsible for the 
 distinction between vocrr/fiaTa and appwaTrjiiaTa, as the 
 passage in Cic. Tusc. iv. 23 suggests. Cf. Zeller, p. 251, 
 252, and Stein, Psych, n. 267. At the same time morbus 
 may here be simply the translation of 7rddo<;, which Cicero 
 rejected (Tusc. m. 7, iv. 10). For eXeo?, a subdivision of 
 \virv, cf. Diog. VII. Ill, Stob. Eel. Ii. 7. 10", p. 92, 12, 
 Cic. Tusc. IV. 18. 
 
 145. Diog. VII. 107, 108, eVi Be KadrJKov ^aaiv elvai 
 o 'rrpa')(jdev eS\oyov riv l'o"^6i diroXoyicrfiov' oiov to dico- 
 Xovdov iv Ty ^cofj, otrep koX iirl rd ^vrd Kal ^ma Siareivei. 
 opdaQai ydp «a7rt Tovrav KaOijKOvra. Kanovofidadai Se 
 vTTo vpooTov 7i'r]vayvo<i to KaOiJKOV airo rov Kara Tiva^ 
 rjKeiv TTj^ vpocro)vofJ.acrLa<! €i\r)p.fj,evTj<;. Cf. ib. 25, <f)aal Be 
 Kal TTpwTov KadrjKov mvofianevaii Kal \6yov irept, avrov 
 ■rreiroi/qKevai (referring to the treatise irepl rov KaOr)- 
 Kovro<;, Introd. p. 29). 
 
 Stob. Eel. II. 7. 8, p. 85, 13, Spl^erai Be to KaOfJKov 
 TO dKoKovOov iv fw^, 8 Trpa'y^Oev evXoyov dirdXoyiav e')(ei' 
 Trapd TO KaOfJKOv Be to ivavrim^. tovto Biareivei Kal el<s 
 TO dXoya twv ^axov, evepyei ydp ri xaKelva aKoXovdcois rfi 
 eavTWV <l>v(rei' eVt <S6> tcSz/ \oyiKwv ^axov oi/tw? airo- 
 
186 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 SlSorar to ukoXovOov iv /3t'p. Cic. de Fin. III. 58, est 
 autem officium quod ita factum est ut eius facti probabilis 
 ratio reddi possit (where see Madv.). 
 
 KadrJKov 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 KaropOeo/ia. That Zeno must have treated of 
 leaTopdwfjM 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 KadrJKov 
 is closely connected with that of "Trporjyfievov {a.KoXovOo'i 
 B' etTTL TO) irepl twv •jrpoijy/x.evotv 6 irepX tov Kadt]KOVTO<s 
 Tcmo<i, 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 dhid- 
 (fiopa. Hence we must explain Kara Tivaf 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 Vemunft selber 
 ihren Ursprung hat), as Hirzel has shown by a com- 
 parison of Epict. Enchir. 15, fjuefivrja-o ore tos iv crvfiTrotTitp 
 Set ae dvaa-Tpk^eadai. rrreptcjiepo/ievov yeyove ri Kara ae ; 
 eKTeiva'i Tr)v x^^P"' Koafii<o<; fierdXa^e' irapepxerai ; p,rj 
 Karexe. oviroa rjKet; fir} eVi/SaXXe •jroppco ttjv ope^iv' 
 dWd irepifieve, fiexpt'! dv yevqrai. xard ae. ovtco irpd<; 
 Teicva, oiTto "Trpoii yvvaiKa, o^to) Trpo? dpxdi, oSro) ttjOO? 
 ttKovtov, Kal eerr) iroTe d^io^ rwv Oeuiv a-vfiTTOTijis. KadrJKov, 
 therefore, in Zeno's system is not a general term of which 
 KaTopdwfiaTa and fieaa KadriKovra are subdivisions, but 
 rather KuOijKovra and KaTopOcofiara are mutually ex- 
 clusive, so that the distinctions between del KadrfKovra 
 and ovK del KadijKovra, and fieaa KaOrjKovTa and rekeia 
 KadrjKovra belong to later Stoics : see Hirzel, Unter- 
 suchungen, il. pp. 403 — 410. evXoyov does not imply 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 187 
 
 action in accordance with right reason, i.e. virtue, as 
 Zeller and Ueberweg suppose, for reason in this sense 
 cannot be attributed to <j)VTa and oKo'^a ^ma, which are 
 nevertheless capable of KaOr]KovTa according to the 
 authorities. (The use of ev\oyo<; in this narrower sense is 
 justified by Hirzel, ir. 341, 1, from a comparison of Diog. 
 VII. 76. Seneca, de Benef. iv. 33, sequimur qua ratio non 
 qua virtus trahit ; Diog. VII. 130, evX6<yw<; i^d^etv eavTov 
 Tov ^iov Tov <T0(j)6v.) If Hirzcl's explanation is correct, 
 it follows that in Sext. Math. VII. 158, where KaTopday/Ma 
 is defined as oirep vpay^dev eiiXoyov e'^ei rrjv aTroiXoyuiv, 
 Arcesilas adopts the Stoic definition of KaOrjKov as the 
 true basis of KaropOwfia. Wellmann, p. 461, believes that 
 KaTopOwjjLa 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 KaropOa/jLa. 
 It is unnecessary to observe that Zeno was not the first 
 to use KaOfJKov in the sense of "duty": all that is meant 
 is that he gave the word its special technical sense, cf. 
 KaraXrjyJnii. As to the divergence of Stobaeus from 
 Diogenes we should note (1) that to aKokovdov iv ^eofj is 
 made the main point in the definition, which is probably 
 a mistake, c£ Cic, (2) the distinction between /St'o? and 
 ^mrj, for which cf. Arist. ap Ammon. in Steph. Thes. ^t'o? 
 eo-Ti XoyiK'^ ^(or) (quoted by Hirzel). 
 
 146. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 1, p. 38, 15, oi 8e KaTo, Zrivwva 
 TOV Xtcoikov Tpo7ri,KW<s' rid6<; ia-ri irrjyrj ^lov, a<j> ^s al 
 Kara fiipo'} irpa^ei^ piovcn. 
 
 The Stoics regarded not so much the act itself as the 
 character of the agent (cf. cnrovSaia Scddeat^). For 
 TTtjy^ cf. Plat. Leg. 808 C, who says that a young boy e^ei 
 irrjyrjv tov (jjpoveiv fj,i]7ra) KarrjpTVfievqv. 
 
188 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 147. Diog. L. VII. 173, Kara Zrjveova KaTaXr/Trrov 
 €ivai TO r]6o^ e^ etBovt. 
 
 Cf. Stob. Eel. I. 50. 34, ot IiTcoikoI tov cro^ov aladrjaet 
 KaTaXriTTTov dird tov e'lSovi; reK/jiripiioSw^. Euripides 
 regrets that it is impossible to distinguish men in this 
 manner. Med. 516 — 520, 
 
 CO Zev, Ti S?) XP^°'°^ M-^^ °' kI^BtjXo^ y 
 TeKfiJjpt dvdpanroiaiv cS'7raaa<; aa^rj, 
 dvSpwv S' 'Sra ^prj rov Kaicov SieiSevai, 
 ovBeU j(apaKTrjp efj.ire^vKe adfiari; 
 
 cf. Hippol. 924 foil. Cie. Lael. 62. So Shaksp. Macb. I. 4. 
 
 11, There's no art to find the mind's construction in the face. 
 
 148. Stob. Eel. n. 7. 11^, p. 99, 3, dpea-Kei yap rm re 
 ZijV(ovi Koi Toll dw' avTov 'S.tioikoIi <j)i\o<r6(f>oi<i Svo yevi} 
 Twv avOpanrwv elvai, t6 ixev twv awovSaiaiv, to Se twv 
 <f)av'Ka)V koI to fiev twv (rirovhaicov Sid iravTO's tov ^iov 
 
 5 xprjadai raw dpeTal<;, to Se TtSv ^avXoav Taiv KaKiai'i' 
 oBev TO fiev del xaTopdovv iv diraaiv oh TrpotrTiOeTai, to 
 Se dfiapTavetv. KaX t6v fiev airovSaiov rat? irepl tov ^iov 
 ifiireipiai,^ 'X^pwfievov iv rot? irpaTTO/jiAvoiis vtt uvtov 
 •ndvT eu iroieiv, Kaddirep (ppovlfito'i koX aaxfepovci)^ Kal 
 
 10 KUTa Tfi? aWa? dpeTai' tov Se ^avXov KUTa tovvuvtIov 
 KaKco<!. Kal TOV /lev airovSaiov /leyav koI dSpov koi 
 vyJr'qXov Kal la")(yp6v. pAyav fiev on SvvaTai i^iKveia-dai 
 Ttfji' KUTa Trpoaipeaiv ovtcov avTW Kal TrpoKetfievcov' dSpov 
 Si, '6ti eaTiv 7]v^r)fievo<; iravTodev' vyjrrjXov S', on, fieTel- 
 
 15 X7)<j)e TOV e7n/3dXXovTO<; vyjrov^ dvSpX yevvai(p Kal <70<f>S. 
 Kal Iff'xypov S', '6ti, ttjv iiri^dXXova-av la'xyv irepiTre- 
 troi/r)Tai, drjTTriTO'; wv koI d,KaTaymvi,<7T0<;. trap o Kal 
 ovTS dvayKa^eTai viro tlvo<; ovTe dva^Ka^ei Tiva, ovTe 
 KtoXverai ovTe KwXvei, ovTe /Staferat inro tivo<! out avTOf 
 
 20 /Stafet Tiva, ovTe Seavo^ei ovTe Sea-Tro^eTai, outb KaKoiroiel 
 Tiva ovT avToi; KaKOTToietrai, ovre KaKol<s TrepLTriTTTei Kovt 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 189 
 
 aWov TTOiei KaKOK irepiiri'rrTeiv>, ovre i^aTraTarai ovre 
 t^aTrard aWov, ovre Bia^frevBerai ovre aryvoei ovre \av- 
 6dvet eavTov, ovre xadoXov yjrevSoi; VTToXa/i^dvei ■ evSaificov 
 Si eariv /idXiffra xai ei^ruj^? Kal fiaKapiof km oXySio? xal 25 
 evtre^fji; koX deo<f)iXrji} Kal d^uofUiTiKOit, ^ao'CKiKO'; re Kal 
 (TTpaTTjyiKov Kal •jtoXitiko'; Kal olKovofiiKOf xal •)(^priiiaTi(T- 
 riiKO';. Toi)? Se ^atJXou? airavra TovToi<i evavria e'^eiv. 
 
 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. iii. 75, 76. 
 
 9. iravT eS iroittv : cf infra frag. 156. Ambrosius, de 
 Abraham li. 7. 328, 37, cites Gen. Xlii. 14 and 16 and 
 continues, hinc tamquam a fonte hauserunt Stoici philo- 
 sophi dogmatis sui sententiam : omnia sapientis esse... 
 unde et Salomon in Proverbiis ait: eius qui fidelis sit 
 totus mundus divitiarum (Prov. xvii. 6). Quanto prior 
 Salomon quam Zenon Stoicorum magister atque auctor 
 sectae ipsius. 
 
 12. [i^av. Physical excellence can only be predicated 
 of the wise man, even if in the popular sense of the term 
 he does not possess it, for no kind of excellence can be 
 attributed to the (j)av\o<!. Further, inasmuch as the only 
 good is dpeTTJ or to fiere-yov dpeTr}<!, physical advantages 
 only have value when found in conjunction with virtue. 
 
 17. aijTTiiTos. Cf. frag. 157, the parallelism of which 
 is perhaps a circumstance of some weight in favour of 
 Zeno's authorship here. 
 
 19. pidjcrai: for this verb, see Shilleto on Thuc. i. 
 2. 1. 
 
 20. Seinrojei: cf. Diog. L. VII. 122, ^ (SovXeia) dvri- 
 
190 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 Tiderai rj SeaTroreia ^avXtj ovaa Koi avrrj. Stob. Eel. 
 II. 7. ll^ p. 104, 5. 
 
 23. 8iai|;rfSeroi : because falsehood consists not merely 
 in stating something contrary to fact but in doing so 
 advisedly in order to deceive others (Stob. Eel. II. 7. 11™, 
 p. Ill, 10; Sext. Math. vii. 44, 45). So, on the other 
 hand the ^avXo'i may speak dXriOei ri but is devoid of 
 dXi^0eia. 
 
 26. Ivo-epv^s Kol e«o<t>. Similar assertions in an amplified 
 form occur in Diog. L. vii. 119. 
 
 dgiupaTiKos : this appears to mean "high in rank," see 
 Plut. Mor. 617 D, and cf. the use of d^im/ia in Thuc. as 
 applied to Pericles. It can hardly mean "speaking axioms" 
 as when used of Areesilas in Diog. iv. 31. 
 
 pao-iXiKos. Among the sententiae et praeeepta Zenonis 
 «ited by Cie. Mur. § 61 occurs solos sapientes esse si 
 servitutem serviant reges. It is extremely probable that 
 this paradox was asserted by Zeno from Diog. L. vii. 122, 
 aWa Kal /SatrtXea? {elvai toi)? ao<poii^) t^? ^aa-ikeiav 
 ovarjv dp'^^rji; dvvirevdvvov, ^rt? irepl fiovovi av toi)? 
 t70<pov<s arair), KoBd ^rfai, ^pva-iirirot; iv T(p irepX rov 
 Kvpia)<: Ke-^pfjerOai Zi^veova tok 6v6fia<nv. Cf. Hor. Sat. I. 
 3. 125, Stob. Eel. II. 7. 11™, p. 108, 26. 
 
 27. oTpoTtiYiKos. Plut., vit. Arat. 23, 3, quotes /movov 
 /rrpaT7)ydv etvai rbv <70(f)6v as a Boyfia Zijvo)vo<!. 
 
 149. Diog. VII. 33, irdXiv iv Trj iroKireia irapia-ravTa 
 (Zi]vmva) TToXtVa? Kal <f)i\ov<i koX olKeiovi Kal i\ev6epovi 
 Tov<! a-jrovSalov} fiovov. Clem. Alex. Strom. V. 14. 95, p. 703 
 P, 253 S, Z?7i'ft)i' T6 6 XTmiKoi irapd IlXaTwi'o? Xa^wv, 6 
 Se dvrb rr)<; ^ap^dpov <f3iXo<To^ia<i, tov<i dyadovv Trdvrai 
 dXXi]Xo)v elvai <f)iXov<; Xejei. The same in Euseb. P. E. 
 XIII. 13, p. 671. 
 
 itoKvnUi. Introd. p. 29. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 191 
 
 woXtTos : the question naturally arises, how is this 
 statement to be connected with the cosmopolitanism which 
 Zeno in the same treatise advocated (see frag. 162, iva. . . 
 ircvra'i dpffpcoirov; rjiydifieOa Stj/aotci? koX irokiTa's)! 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 a-o^oi and 
 <j)avXoi. Presumably in the ideal state everyone would 
 be so trained in Stoic precepts as to become thereby 
 
 ffTTOuSatO?. 
 
 <t,aovs : cf Diog. L. VII. 124, Stob. Eel. ii. 7. 11", p. 
 138, 15, where friendship is based upon ofiovoia which can 
 only be found among the wise. Cic. Off. i. 56, N. D. 1. 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 In trod. p. 19 ; it had already been taught 
 by Socrates (Xen. Mem. ii. 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. 
 
 l\6«9^pot.s. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 11', p. 101, 18, Diog. L. vii. 
 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. iii. 75, recte etiam pulcher ap- 
 
192 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 pellabitur: animi enim lineamenta sunt pulcriora quam 
 corporis. 
 
 151. Cic. Fin. V. 84, Zeno sapientem non beatum 
 modo sed etiam divitem dicere ausus est. Cic. Mur. § 61, 
 solos sapientes esse, si mendicissimi, divites. 
 
 For the sense of. Cic. Paradox. VI., Stob. Eel. ii. 7. 11', 
 p. 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 neqiie placari. 
 
 The reasons for this opinion are given by Diog. vii. 
 123, ikeijfiovdi; re firj elvai, <rDyyvrjifi7)v re e')(etv /irjSevi' 
 IJLrj yap Trapievai to? bk tov vofiov iiri^aXKoixya^ KoXaaei^ 
 eirdi TO 76 eiKeiv leal 6 eXeo? avrr) re j; hneiiceM ovSeveid 
 ia-Ti '^vxrj<i TT/aos Kcikdcrei'; irpocriroiovfJiiivr]'; ■x^pTjcrTOTr/Ta 
 fj/ijSe oieadai cTKXripoTepa<! aura? elvai. The same at 
 greater length in Stob. Eel. 11. 7. 11*, p. 95, 25— '96, 9 ; see 
 also Zeller, p. 254 It should be remembered that eXeo? 
 is a subdivision of Xvttt; (eVt tc5 BokoOvti dva^iw; xaKo- 
 ■KaOtlv Stob. Eel. II. 7. 10°, p. 92, 12) and therefore one of 
 the irddi] : possibly this is all that is meant by Lactant. 
 Inst. III. 23 (frag. 144). 
 
 153. Cic. Mur. § 61, sapientem nihil opinari, nuUius 
 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 Zeno, 
 tota philosophia sublata est. Cic. Acad. 11. 113, sapientem 
 nihil opinari... h or um neutrum ante Zenonem magno 
 opere defensum est. August, contra Acad. 11. 11, cum 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 193 
 
 ab eodem Zenone accepissent nihil esse turpius quam 
 opinari. 
 
 The Greek authorities for this fall partly under frag. 
 148, 1. 22, oilre e^airaTaraL ovre i^airara aXXov, oijTe 
 BiayjrevBerai oire dyvoei ovre "Kavddvet eavrov ovre Kad- 
 okov yfrevSo^ viroXafi^dvet, and the rest may be supplied 
 from Stob. Eel. II. 7. 11"", p. 112, 1, fi-qSev 8' v-n-oKaf/^dveiv 
 dcr6evw<; oKXd fMoXKov da-^aXtS<; xai ^e^aim^ Sio koi /I7j8e 
 So^d^eiv TOP ao<^6v... p. 113, 5, ovBe fieTavoeiv S' viro- 
 "Kafi^dvovai tov vovv e')(pvTa...ovhe fiera^dWeaOai Se 
 KWT ovBeva rpoirov ovBe fieTaTiOea-dat ovBe a-ipdXKeadai,. 
 Diog. VII. 121, en re nfj So^dcretv rov cro<f>6v. For Zeno's 
 definition of Bo^a see on frag. 15. 
 
 154. Diog. VII. 32, i'x^dpoii^ kuI iroKefiLovi koX Boifkov^ 
 Koi dWorpiov; Xhyeiv avrdv (Tirjvcova) dXKrfKwv elvai 
 'jraj'Ta? toi)s /^^ aTrovBaiovi Kal yovet<! tskvcov koi dBe\- 
 (j}ov<; dBeXijiSv, oiKelovs oiKeicov. 
 
 This is the natural antithesis of frag. 149. Even 
 parents are enemies to their children, if <f)avX,oi, because 
 natural relationship and parental love are absolutely 
 dBid^opa as compared with dperr). On the subject of 
 these paradoxes in general consult Ritter and Preller 
 § 420 with the notes. 
 
 155. Cic. Mur. § 61, nos autem, qui sapientes non 
 sumus, fugitivos, exules, hostes, insanos denique esse. 
 
 But for the sake of uniformity this might have been 
 omitted, as we can feel very little confidence that we have 
 here the actual words of Zeno. For exules cf. Stob. Eel. 
 II. 7. 11', p. 103, 9, \eyova-i Be Kal ^vydBa irdvTa <f)avKov 
 elvai, Kaff" ocrov ffTepeTai vofiov xal TroXiretas Kara ^vaiv 
 eTri^dk\ov<Tr}<}. 
 
 156. Athen. IV. 158 B, XreoiKdv Be Boyfia eaTiv' on 
 H. P. 13 
 
194 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 re iravra eS irotijaeL 6 a-o<f>69 Kal (j>aKfjv <j>povi/MO)i aprvaec 
 816 Koi Tifimv 6 <I>\tocrtos e(j>r) 
 
 Kal [Zr]voivei6v'\ ye <j>aKrjv ei/retv o? firj (ftpovi/icoi 
 fiefidOrjicev 
 
 (»9 ovK aWo)? Swafievrjii ey]r7)d7Jvai ^aKrj'i el jirj Kara 
 T171' Zrjvwveiov v^riyqaiv o? e'^i; 
 
 et? he <j)aKfjv e/i^aWe SvmBeKarov Kopidvvov. 
 
 oTi re KT.X. This follows from the doctrine that all 
 virtue is wisdom {(fipovria-t';): since ^povrjaK is required 
 in the preparation of a (jjaKrj, 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. VII. 125, iravTa re 
 ev iroLeiv rov ao^ov, m? koX iravTa cjjufiev to. avX'^fiara ev 
 avKelv rov ^Icr/jLrjviav, 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 ? ' ut quamvis 
 tacet Hermogenes, cantor tamen atque optimus est modu- 
 lator etc' Cf also Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5"", p. 66, 14 foil. 
 
 157. Philo, liber quis virtuti studet, p. 880, a^iov to 
 Zrjvwveiov ewK^covrja-ai in ddrrov av da-KOV jSairrlcrai'; 
 trXripr} irvevfj.aTO'; rj ^idcraio rov airovSaiov ovtivovv 
 aKOvra Spdcrai ri twv d^ovKrjTmv' dvevhoTO<s yap Kal 
 drj(T<i7iro<; '^vx^ V^ 6p6b<i Xoyof Boyfiaai irayloi^ e- 
 vevptoae. 
 
 PoittCo-ois . . . puuroio. So Mangey, followed by Wach- 
 smuth, for the MSS. ^aTrTia-ai,...l3ida-aiTo. The same 
 editor suggests the alternative of inserting rt?, which is 
 less probable. 
 
 pido-oio : for the freedom of the wise man's will cf Cic. 
 Tusc. IV. 12, eiusmodi appetitionem Stoici ^ovX'ncrtv 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 195 
 
 appellant, nos appellamus voluntatem. Earn illi putant in 
 solo esse sapiente ; quam sic definiunt : voluntas est, quae 
 quid cum rations desiderat, and see Stein, Erkenntnis- 
 theorie, p. 196. 
 
 dv&SoTos : cf. supra frag. 148, l(7')(yp6v B' (jov a-o<f>6v) on 
 rriv eiri^dWovcrav layyv •jrepnreirol'ijTat arjTTrjTO'i wv Koi 
 dKaTcuydvLcrTOf. M. Aurel. I. 16 fin. 
 
 opOis X670S : see Introd. pp. 8, 9. 
 
 158. Seneca, de Ira, i. 16, 7, Nam, ut dixit Zeno, in 
 sapientis quoque animo etiam quum vulnus sanatum sit 
 cicatrix manet. Sentiet itaque suspiciones quasdam et 
 umbras affectuum, ipsis quidem carebit. 
 
 Tbis is a concession to popular feeling, although at 
 the same time the absolute dndOeia (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 evvddeiai. Further re- 
 ferences are given by Zeller, p. 291. Cf Diog. vii. 118, 
 7rpo(T7rea'ei<r6at jjAvtol irork avrm <\>avraaUi<s aXXoKorovs, 
 Sid fieXarf^oXiav rj Xi^prjcnv k.t.X., where however the 
 point is rather different. Remembering that Zeno de- 
 scribed the effect of grief as Sjjfet?, we may compare 
 Socrates' description of the result of violent love in Xen. 
 Symp. IV. 28, olicnrep viro drjplov ri,v6<; BeBrjy/ji,evo<! tov 
 re w/j,ov TfKelov rj irevre i^/jiepa<s SBa^ov Kal iv ry xapSia 
 Sa-Trep Kvrja-fid ri iSoKOVv exeiv. Cic. Tusc. III. 83, hoc 
 detracto, quod 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 ^avratria, but will refuse 
 a-vyKaTddea-i<;. See further on Cleanth. frag. 94. 
 
 13—2 
 
196 THE FEAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 159. Seneca, Epist. 83. 8, Ebrio secretum sermonem 
 nemo committit: viro autem bono committit: ergo vir 
 bonus ebrius non erit. 
 
 Seneca finds no difficulty in refuting this fallacy, in 
 spite of the defence which he quotes from Posidonius. 
 For the syllogistic form of the argument see Introd. 
 p. 33. Von Arnim, Quellen Studien p. 104, has pointed 
 out the original in Philo de Plantatione Noe p. 350, el t<o 
 fiedvovTi ovK dv Tts evXoyco^ Xoyov aTTopprjTov irapaKara- 
 OoiTO <T^ he ao^ai '!rapaKaTaTLdevTai> ovk dpa fiedyei 6 
 d(TTelo<;. 
 
 ebrius non erit: c£ Diog. L. VII. 118, koI olvwOrjaeadai, 
 /JLBV (rov a-o<f)6v), ov (leOvcrdrjcreaOai, Si. Stob. Eel. II. 7, 
 ll", p. 109, 5, otJp^ olop Be /ie6vcr9'^<7ea0ai tov vovv e')(pvTa' 
 Trjv yap fiedrjv dfiapT7)TiKdv Trepii'^eiv, Xrip-qaov elvai 
 <ydp> irapd tov olvov, ev p/qhevi he tov airovhalov dp,ap- 
 rdveiv k.t.\. Similarly Socrates in Xen. Symp. II. 26. 
 The Peripatetics held, on the contrary, according to 
 Stobaeus, that the wise man fiedvadrjo-eadai kuto. a-vfi- 
 7re/3t(^o/3a9, Kav el fitj 7rpoTjyovp,evw<; (Eel. II. 7. 24, p. 144, 
 10). 
 
 160. Plut. de prof in virt. 12, '6 pa Srj ical to tov 
 Zijvmvo'i oTTOiov ea-Ttv' rj^lov yap aird twv ovelpwv eicaaTov 
 eavTov crwaiaddvearOai irpoKOTTTOVTO^, el p.'^re rjhopxvov 
 ala-'x^pw Tivi eavTOV p/ijTe ti irpocriep.evov rj irpaTTovTa t£v 
 Seivwv Kol dSiKosv Spa kutu tov<s tirvovs aW' olov ev ^v6m 
 yaXrjvr)^ aKXiffTm KaTa<j)avei hi,d\dp,7rei Ttjii ■^vj^^? to 
 ^avTatTTiKov icaX wadi^TiKOV viro tov Xoyov StUKevv- 
 /livov. 
 
 etird TOV dveCpuv : 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. 
 
 irpoKOTTTovTos : WcUmaun p. 462 argues that Zeno, while 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 197 
 
 maintaining to the full the possibility of acquiring virtue, 
 did not admit the practical non-existence of wise men or 
 the consequent distinction between ot irpoKoirrovreii and oi 
 airovZalov : these latter views, he thinks, may have 
 originated with Chrysippus. On irpoKoirrj in general see 
 teller, p. 293 foil. 
 
 •irpo<rU|i.6vov, " approving " (cf. Dem. Timocr. § 156). The 
 words al<T')(p& Beivwv dSiKav point to the acquisition 
 of the three leading virtues a-m^poavvrj dvSpeCa and 
 SiKaioavvT). 
 
 dW otov K.T.X. The emotions are dispersed by reason 
 in the mind of the ■wpoKoirTcov, 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. 
 
 <t)ovTa<rTiK6v, has no objective reality but is merely 
 SidKevo<; eX/cvcr/AO?, irddov ev ry '^v')(^ air ovSev6<; <pavTa(7- 
 Tov yivo/jLevov (Plut. plac. IV. 12). Observe that it is 
 described as a Trddot. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 156, n. 
 309. 
 
 161. Seneca, Epist. 104. 21, quod si convivere etiam 
 Oraecis juvat [cum Socrate, cum Zenone versare : alter 
 te docebit mori, si necesse erit: alter, antequam necesse 
 erit. 
 
 antequam necesse erit. Suicide {i^ayayi]) is justifiable 
 under certain circumstances. It is important to re- 
 member that life and death belong to the class of the 
 dSid^opa, and suicide therefore has no connection with 
 dpeTTj, but is merely to be regarded as a matter of 
 KadrJKOv {rol'i Se Kad^Kovcri xal toi<; Trapd to xadrjicov 
 <'irapa>fieTpeic70at, rrjv re ^co'^v koI tov Odvarov Stob. 
 Eel. II. 7. 11" p. 110, 13 and see on frag. 145). This 
 point is emphasised by Zeller p. 338. 
 
198 THE FRAGMENTS OP ZENO. 
 
 162. Plut. Alex. virt. 6, koI jjltjv tj ttoKv davfia^o/ievrf 
 iroXireia rov rrjv "Ztkoikwv aXpea-uv KaTa^aXofievov Zirjvwvois 
 6t? Iv TOVTO crvvreivei tcetfxiXacov iva fir] Kara TroXet? /j/t)Se 
 Kara hrfjjLov; oliccSfj,ev, tSt'ots eKaaroi Suopiarfiivoi SiKaiot^, 
 aWa wavTaf dvdpaiirovv yjw/MeOa BrjfiOTa^ koX TroXlrav, 
 eh Be j8t09 y koi Koo'fio';, mairep a.'yeXr}<; avvvofiov vofim 
 Koivat <7VVTpe<f>ofiev7]';. tovto Zijvcov fiev eypa-yjrev axiirep 
 hvap 7] eihoiKov evvofita^ (fiCKoao^ov kuI iroKnela'i ava- 
 Tv-jrcca-dfievo'} : id. de Sto. Rep. II. 1, eVel Toivvv iroXkd /liv, 
 (B9 ev Xoyoii; avrm Z-i]vmvi...je'ypafi/ieva rvyxavei vepl 
 'jro\iTeia<i koX tow ap'^^eadai koX dpj(eiv xal SiKot^etv koX 
 prjTopeveiv. Chrysost. Horn. I. in Matth. 4, ov yap Kaddvep 
 nxdrcov 6 Trjv KaToyeXacrTov eKeLvqv TroXirelav a-vvOeU 
 Koi Zirjvtov Kal ell ti<; ere/so? troXiTelav eypa^lrev jJ vo/jjOVf 
 avveOrjKev. 
 
 •irdvTos dvepuirovs: 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, fiovrjv re 
 opBrjv TToXireiav eivai ttjv ev KoafKp). As to Socrates, see 
 Zeller's Socrates p. 167 n. 8, R. and P. § 219". 
 
 uoTrep a.ylKt\'i <n)w6|iov. As Zeno is generally admitted to 
 have written the iroXireia when he was still under the 
 influence of the C3m.ic school, Zeller (Socrates p. 82.5) 
 treats this passage as being typical of Cynicism, and 
 suggests that Plato, in the Politicus (267 D, ovkovv twv 
 vojjbevTiKwv rjpZv iroSXmv <f>avei<Twv dpn rexv&v fiia tj? •^v rf 
 TToXiriK'^ Kal fit,a<; tiv6<; 076X779 eTri/ieXeia ; k.t.X.) and in his 
 description of the vwv ttoXk} in Rep. 372 A. foil, is referring 
 to Antisthenes. The reference is however extremely 
 doubtful (see Ueberweg p. 93), and it is worth noticing 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 199 
 
 that the comparison of the ruler of a state to a herdsman 
 was a favourite one with Socrates. Xen. Mem. i. 2, 32, etTre 
 iTOV 6 ZicoKpdrrji; on davfiaarov oi Sokolt] elvai, etVt? 
 yevofievoi jSowv aye\rj<} vofiev'} koI ra? /3ov9 iXdrrovi re 
 Kai j^^eipov; iroiiov jjlt] o/jioXoyoir] KaK6<; ^ovicoXof elvai' ert 
 Se davfiaaTorepov ei ti<} irpoaTaTr)'; yevo/jtevo's TrdXea)? 
 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, Uovriavo^ Se Zijvcova e<fir} 
 Tov KiTtea v'TToXafi^dveiv top "Epcora deov elvai (f>i\ia<; 
 Koi iXevdepuai; en Se Kal btJ,ovoia<s irapaaKevaaTiKov, 
 aXkov S' ot)Sej/o?. Sw Kal ev rrj iroXiTeia e^ " tov "E/swra 
 6e6v €ivai, avvepyov virdp'^ovTa Trpo? ttjv t^? iroXeco'; 
 a-eoTTjplav." Plut. vit. Lycurg. 31. Lycurgus' object was 
 not to leave Sparta with a large empire, aW' wa-n-ep ev6<; 
 avSpot ^iw Kal iroXeca^ oX-tj? vofii^av evSai/JLOViav av 
 dpeTij<; iyyuveadai Kal 6fiovoia<! t^? ttjOO? avrrjv, 7rp6<{ 
 rovTO avvera^e Kal avvT^pfioaev, ottw? eXevdepiot Kal 
 avrdpKei'i yevopevot koi a-ca(j)povovvTe<! eVi TrXela-Tov y^povov 
 tiaTeXwai. rairifv Kal TiXdrav eXoySe Trj<; IIoXtTewi? viro- 
 decriv Kal Ato^evr?? Kal Tit/jviov k.t.X. 
 
 TOV "EpwTO. 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. ir. 7. ll-", p. 108, 15, iv 
 fjiovoK re rol<; ao^oh diroXeiirovai t^iXiav, iirel ev ft6voi<; 
 T0iiT0t<{ ofiovoia yiveTai irepl twv Kara tov 0iov, rrjv S' 
 ojJbovoiav elvai Koivdov ayaOwv eirunrjiiriv. Chrysipp. ap. 
 Philod. irepl evcre^. col. 12, p. 79, Gomp., Kal Trjv aurrjv elvai 
 Kal ^vvofjulav Kal Aiktjv Kal 'Ofiovoiav Kal ^iprjvqv Kal 
 'A^poBlrrjv xal to TrapaTrXi^cnov irdv. It is probable that 
 
200 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 Zeno took the same objection, that of want of unity, to 
 Plato's Republic as is taken by Aristotle Pol. ii. 5, p. 
 1264 a 24, eV ixia yap voKei, Siio TroXets dvayKOiov etvai, 
 Koi ravrwi iivevavTia<; dX\,ijXai<!. Cf also ib. II. 4 1262 
 b 7, Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 16, and contrast Ar. Pol. Ii. 2. 
 1261 b 10. Hirzel, ii. p. 36, finds here a divergence from 
 Antisthenes, comparing Clem. Alex. Strom, ii. 485 P., but 
 he apparently forgets Diog. L. vi. 12, which shows that the 
 inconsistency, if it exists, is with Antisthenes himself. 
 
 164. Clem, Alex. Strom, v. 12, 76, p. 691 P. 249 S., 
 Xeyei Be xal Zijveov, 6 t^? 'Z'raiKfj'i KTL(TTr]<; aipea-eax;, iv 
 T^ rr}'! TToXtreta? I3i0\iq) /jurjre vaoO? Seiv •jroieiv /irjTe 
 dyaXfiara' firjSev yap elvai rwv 6ewv d^tov KaTaaicevaafia, 
 Koi ypd<j)ei,v ov SeSiev avTali Xefetrt rdBe' iepd re oikoSo- 
 jjuelv ovSev Seijcrei' lepov yap firj ttoXKov d^iov, koi ar/iov 
 ovBev j(prj vofii^eiv, ovBev Be iroXKov d^iov ical ayiov 
 olKoBofimv epyov Koi ^avavawv. The same in Grig. C. 
 Cels. I. 5, p. 324. Plut. Sto. Rep. VI. 1, ert BoyiJ-a Z'i)vwvo<i 
 etniv' lepd QeSiv fir) olKoBo/j,eiv' iepbv yap fir] ttoXKov 
 d^iov Kal dytov ovk eariv' oiKoBofimv B' epyov Kal ^avav- 
 crcov ouBep icrri ttoXXov d^iov. Theodoret, Gr. Aff. Cur. 
 III. p. 780 = p. 49, 45, TavTU a-vvopmv Kal Zijveov 6 
 KtTtei? iv Tc3 Tr)<i YloXireiafi dirayopevei ^i^l(p Kal vaovi 
 otKoBofielv Kal dyaXfiara reKTalveiv' ovBev yap elvat 
 TovTcov ^rfolv 6ewv d^iov KaracrKevaafia. Epiphan. 
 Haeres. iii. 36, Zijvoiv 6 K.iTievv 6 Xtcoiko'; e^rj firj Belv 
 0eoU olKoBofieiv lepd. 
 
 The Cjmics also deny the sanctity of temples : Diog. 
 L. VI. 73, firfBev re dro-Kov elvai i^ lepov ri Xa^eiv. 
 Zeno's language in some particulars recalls St Paul's 
 address to the Athenians, Acts xvii. 24, 6 ©eo? o Trotj^o-as 
 rov KocTfiov Kai iravra rd iv avr^, oSto^ ovpavov Kal yfjif 
 Kvpio<s inrdp')((ov ovk iv 'xeipotroiriTot,<; vaol<s KaroiKei. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 201 
 
 165. Stob. Floril. 43, 88, Zrjviov e<f>v Setv to? TrdXet? 
 Koafieiv ovK avaOrjiMacnv oKKa Tal<; rdov oIkovvtcov dperai,';. 
 
 In a similar spirit Crates promised to honour Hermes 
 and the Muses ov hairavai,<s rpv<f>epal<; dXX' dperatv 6aiai<; 
 (Julian Or. vi. 200 A, quoted by Zeller, Socrates p. 329 n. 1). 
 
 166. Diog. L. VII. 33, Ka\ kuto, toi)? hiaKoaLovi 
 CTTL'X^ov'i 117)6' lepd /MTjre hiKaaTrjpia fiijTe yvfivdcna iv rat? 
 iroXeffiv oiKoSofieurdat. 
 
 Kard. . .o-tCxovs. Prose writings were cited according to 
 the number of lines, cf. Diog. L. vii. 187, (Chrysippus) ev 
 T(p irepl Twv dpyaiav (j)V(Tio\6ycav avyypd/j,/j.aTi Xiyaiv 
 /card Toil? e^aKocriov? aTl'xovf;. Dion. Hal. de Thuc. hist. 
 jud. c. 19, irpooifiiov t^? itTTopia? A'^XP' irevraicocriwv 
 eKfirjKvvei, (rrLyav. 
 
 SiKoimipia: "wozu Gerichtshofe, wo iiberall Gerechtigkeit 
 waltet ? wozu Gymnasien, wenn Korperkraft und Gewandt- 
 heit ohne Wert sind ? " Wellmann p. 438. The reference 
 to yvfwdaia confirms the statement of Plutarch (Sto. 
 Kep. 8, 2) that Zeno wrote against Plato's Republic : with 
 Plato yvfivaa-riKT} forms an important element in the 
 training of the ^vXaKe<; (Rep. III. p. 410 — 411). 
 
 167. Diog. VII. 32, evioi /Jbivroi. . .iv TroWot? kutij- 
 yopovvre<i tov Zijvojvo? rrjv eyKVKkiov iraiheiav a'^^prjO'Tov 
 d-jro<paiv6i,v Xeyova-iv iv dpj(fi Trj<i 7roKireia<;. 
 
 IvkiikXios iroiSe£a. The ordinary course of Greek educa- 
 tion comprised the three branches of ypdfji,fj,ara, fiovaiKij, 
 and yvfivaa-TiKij (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, ttjv re dperrjv 
 
202 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 rwv epyeov elvai, firjTe X6y<ov ifKeiovcov Beofievrjv, fj/rjTe 
 liadrjfiarwv. 73, fiovai,Kri<s re Kol yecofieTpiKrji; koI daTpo- 
 Xoyla^ KaX rwv roiovrcav dfieXeiv ws" d')(firiaTa)v Kal ovk 
 dvayKaitov. 103, vapairovvrai Se xal ra iyxiiKXia fiadrj- 
 fiaTa. ypdfifiara yovv firj p,av6dpeiv e<f>aaKev 6 ^Avria- 
 6evrj<{ Toi)? (Too^povai; yevofievov^, Xva firj BiaarpetfjOivTO 
 Toc<s dWoTploif. Epicurus agreed with Zeno on this 
 point (see Prof. Mayor on Cic. N. D. i, 72), while Aristotle 
 considered that rd eyxiiKXia /jLad^/iara are useful for the 
 acquisition of virtue (Diog. L. v. 31). It is important to 
 observe that Chrysippus held evxp't'^'relv Ta iyKii/cXia 
 fiae^fxara (Diog. L. VII. 129, cf Stob. Eel. ii. 7, 5"", p. 67, 5), 
 and it is possible that Zeno may at a later period of his 
 life have modified his conclusion on this point, just as he 
 diverged from the Cynics in recommending Dialectic and 
 Physics as well as Ethics, Zeller p. 63, 3, Hirzel il. p. 523, 
 4, cf. Cleanth frag. 106. 
 
 168. Diog. VII. 33, Trept re vofila-fiaro's ovrax; ypd^eiv 
 (Zrjvcova), vofiiafia S' ovr d'KXar^f)<; evexev o'UaOai Zelv 
 KaraaKevd^eiv ovr dvoSrifiia'; evexev. 
 
 v6|iwr(io.' "Diogenes in the TroXirela proposed a coinage 
 of bones or stones {darpdyaXoi) instead of gold and silver, 
 Athen. iv. 159 E." Zeller, Socrates, p. 325 n. 
 
 oXXoTtjs ivtKiv. This again is pointed at Plato Rep. li. 
 371 B, dyopd St] rjfjblv Kal vofiiafia ^vfi^oXov t^9 dXXayrji; 
 eveica yevrjaeTai e'/t tovtov. Aristotle's statement is more 
 exact, explaining that money is a security with a view to 
 future exchange : VTrep rrji /ieXXovarji; dXXayfj<;, el vvv 
 /j/TjSev Beirat, on etrrai idv Serjd'p, rb vofiifffia olov iy- 
 yvnrrj'i ia6' vfiov. 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, Zrjvcov Se 6 dirb Tr}<s 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 203 
 
 Xrodi; iravra raXka irKrjv tov vofilfim^ auTot? (i.e. gold 
 and silver) koX koXw^ 'x^pfjcrdai vofiiaa^ dSidipopa, ttjv fiev 
 alpecTiv avTwv Kal <f>V'yriv aTreLircov, rr/v '^(prja'iv Be Tmv Xirwv 
 Kal airepiTTWv irporiyovfieveo<; iroieta-Oat irpoaTcuTKraiv' 
 07r6)9 aheri koX dQavfiacrrov ttjoos raWa rrjv BidOeaiv t^9 
 yfrvxv'i e'x^ovre'i oi avOpmiroi, oa-a yJyre KcCkd iari /Mjre 
 al(rxp<i, T019 fiev Kara <pva-iv (u? eVt ttoXi) ypmvrai, twv B' 
 evavTimv fj.rjBev oXmi SeBoiKoreis Xoym Kal firj (j)6^q) Tovrcav 
 d'!rk')(wvrai. 
 
 The opinions professed with regard to money bear 
 the same relation to the last frag, as frag. 171 bears to 
 frag. 176. This passage affords another good illustration 
 of the doctrine of the KadrjKovra as applied to those 
 things which are morally indifferent. The airovBaiof, 
 who is unaffected either by fear or desire {airaOrj'i), and 
 whose bpiJLaX are properly directed by right reason, will 
 know how to discriminate between to, Kara <j>va-iv and to. 
 Trap a (pvcriv, SO as to cling to the former and avoid the 
 latter. Thus ttXouto? is a irporjy/jLevov (Diog. L. VII. 106), 
 and possesses value as being of advantage for life in 
 accordance with nature (ib. 105), while jJ 6p9rj ■y^prjai.i; 
 ifKovrov which is characteristic of the a-irovBalo'i is sharply 
 distinguished from the <f>iXoTr\ovTia (Stob. Eel. Ii. 7. 10', 
 p. 91, 18) of the (jjaOXof. 
 
 otpeo-iv: suggested by Schweighauser and adopted by 
 Kaibel for the MSS. dp^nv. After Trjv XPV"'''^ ^^ Schweig. 
 thought some words had fallen out such as Ttjv p-ev 
 opvrjv eta. 
 
 XiTuv. Cf. M. Aurel. I. 3, to Xltov Kara rrjv BiaiTav. 
 
 dmpCTTuv. So Casaubon in place of MSS irepiTTwv. 
 Contrast M. Aurel. v. 5 with id. IX. 32. 
 
 irporivoDii&us. This word is difScult. In Sext. Emp., with 
 whom it occurs at least eight times, it always means 
 "priQcipally" or "in the first place," being often opposed 
 
204 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO, 
 
 to dKoKov6oD<i. cf. TTpoTjyov/ievo^ Xoyoi; frag. 123 = leading 
 doctrine. Here however it seems to have the special 
 Stoic sense = in the absence of overriding circumstances 
 XKara ireplaTaa-iv, 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 KaQrjKovTa into to, avev wept- 
 ffTao-eo)?, such as vyieia^ iinfieKeiadai (or «a\c«? ^^/a^tr^at 
 ifKovTw as here), and to, Kara wepia-raaiv, such as ti)v 
 KTTj<riv SiappCiTTciv (vii. 109). Hirzel, p. 825, denies that 
 vporjyov/MevQx; belongs to the elder Stoics, thinking that 
 it was taken over subsequently from the Academics and 
 Peripatetics. He would substitute here wi irporiyfieveov. 
 
 dScTj points to the purging of the soul from the in- 
 fluence of the -TrdOrj : 8eo<s is a subdivision of (j)6^o<; not 
 very explicitly defined ap. Stob. Eel. ii. 7. 10" p. 92, 5. 
 
 aeoiliicurrov. 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 
 davfid^eiv, which Plato and Aristotle speak of as the 
 starting point of philosophy, is something quite different. 
 Cf Marc. Aurel. 1. 15, Cic. Tusc. iii. 30. Hence Arr. Epict. 
 Diss. I. 18, 11, firj Savfiai^e ro KaXXoi t^? yvvaiKoi; koX tw 
 fioi-ym 01) ')(aXeTravei<;. For BtdBea-iv see on frag. 117. 
 
 170. Seneca de Otio 30, 2, Zenon ait: accedet ad 
 rempublicam (sapiens), nisi si quid impedierit. id. Tranq. 
 An. I. 7, Promptus compositusque sequor Zenonem, Clean- 
 them, Chrysippum ; quorum tamen nemo ad rempublicam 
 accessit, nemo non misit. 
 
 The same doctrine is attributed to Chrysippus in 
 Diog. L. VII. 121, TToXiTeTjeadai <j}aal rov a-o(j}6v, dv firj ti 
 KwXvy, w? (firjai X/jucrtTnro? ip irpmro) irepX ^latv : cf Cic. 
 Fin. III. 68, Schol. on Lucan ii. 380, Stoicorum sapiens 
 erit civilis, hoc est, in administratione rei publicae. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 205 
 
 TO iroKiTeveadat is another instance of KadrjKov which 
 is to be undertaken kutu tov irpoTyyovfievov Xojov (Stob. 
 Eel. II. 7. 11", p. Ill, 5) = -rrporjyovfiivco^ (see on last frag.). 
 We may say then that, while to TroXcTeveaOai is KaOrJKQv 
 Trporiyovfj,eva>i; or avev TrepiaTaaecci, to firj TroXireveadai is 
 /cadfjKov KUTO, TrepLaTacTLv, just as a careful use of wealth 
 is contrasted with the condition of the spendthrift. 
 
 171. Diog. VII. 121, Kol ya/Mija-eiv, to? 6 Ztjvcov (pTjalv 
 iv iroXiTeia, (rov <T0<p6v) koX TraiBoTrottjaea-dai. 
 
 Of. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 11", p. 109, 16, Cic. Fin. iii. 68. The 
 statement refers to the duty of a wise man under existing 
 circumstances, and while living in an ordinary civil com- 
 munity. It has no reference to the ideal state in which 
 wives are to be held in common (frag. 176) : ^a/iio? clearly 
 belongs to the d8td(popa and ya/Melv is a KaOrjKov. This 
 seems better that Wellmann's view p. 439, who strains 
 the meaning of 70/^0? to bring this passage into con- 
 formity with frag. 176, and is strongly supported by the 
 analogous case of the duty of the wise man to enter public 
 life. The latter clearly refers to existing political in- 
 stitutions, c£ Stob. Eel. II. 7. 11*", p. 94, 9, iroXiTevea-dai 
 TOP a-o(f>6v Koi fioXicTTa iv rats Toi,avTai<; TroXiTeiaii rat? 
 ip,<j)aivov(Taiis Tiva TrpoKOTrrjv ttjOo? to? Tekeiai TroXtreta?. 
 The same explanation will account for the two passages 
 in Diog. VI. 11 and 72, where similar views are attributed 
 to the Cynics, without supposing (with Zeller, Socrates 
 p. 320) a divergence of opinion between Antisthenes and 
 Diogenes. 
 
 172. Diog. L. VII. 129, koI epaa-drjaea-Oai he Tbv 
 aoSov tSv vitov twv ifopaivovTav Bid tov eiBovi ttjv tt/jo? 
 dpeTrjv ev<^vtav, &<? ^rjo-i Zi^vtuv iv Ty TroXiTeia. 
 
 For the Cynics see Introd. p. 20. This passage is no 
 
206 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 doubt inspired by the influence of the Phaedrus and 
 Symposium. Speaking of the epco<; 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 ev(j)vtav ib. 209 B, i|fu%i7 
 Ka\y Koi jevvala koI ev(f)vet, cf. frag. 147, KaTaXr^iTTOv 
 elvai TO ^do<; i^ eiSov<!. We must distinguish between 
 the 6/06)9 of the <7irou8ato? and the <J3avXo<;. to epdv 
 itself belongs to the class of dBtd<f)opa, and implies, 
 therefore, a corresponding KaOfjicov, the duty, that is, 
 Tou KoXm epdv, Stob. Eel. II. 7. S"", p. 66, 3—10. If then 
 the objection is raised that the o-TrouSato? should avoid 
 epm'i, if he is to retain his dtrddeia, since epax; is a sub- 
 division of eiriOvfiia and a iraOo'i, the answer is that this 
 is untrue of that particular form of e/aea? which is defined 
 as eTTi^dXrj ^iXoTTod'av Bta KaXXo^ efi(f>aiv6fj,evov (Stob. 1. c. 
 1. 12, ib. 10" p. 91, 15, 11^ p. 115, 1, Diog. L. vii. 113, 120, 
 Sext. Emp. Math. vii. 239), and which is not an iiriOvfiia. 
 Under eiridviiia are to be classed e/xare? cr^oSpol only, 
 and in Diog. vil. 113 the distinction between the two 
 classes of epcoi is clearlj- indicated. Cic, Fin. iii. 68, speaks 
 of amores sanctos. 
 
 173. Athen. Xlli. 563 E, koc tovto fiev i^TjXcoKOTe^ 
 Tov dp'X^vyov vfiwv T^? ao^ia<s Zijvtova tov ^oiviKa, 09 
 ovSeircoTTOTe yvvaiKl e'x^p')]aaTO iraiSiKOK S' del' (09 'Ai/rt- 
 ryovoi; 6 K.apvaTio'i ItTTopel ev tS -irepl tov 0iov avTOV' 
 OpvWeire yap oti " Set firj twv aw/iaTtov dWd t^9 ^frvxrji; 
 epav. 
 
 Ssi |jii\ K.T.\. It is most natural to suppose that these 
 are Zeno's words from the position of his name in the 
 context. For the sense see on frag. 172. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 207 
 
 174. Clem. Alex. Paedag. in. 11. 74, p. 296 P. 109 S., 
 viroypdijieiv 6 Ktrteu? eoLKe Zijvcov eliedva veaviov ical 
 ovTox; avTov dvBpiavTOvpyei ' earai, <j}7j<r[,, Kadapov to 
 irpoa-ayjTov, 6(f)pv^ jxyj Kadetfiivij, fiijS' Ofi/Ma dvaveTrra/ievov, 
 fir)Se hiaKSKKaa-fievov, jjufj UTrrto? o Tpd')(rfKo<s, /j/riS" dvie- 
 fieva rd rov <7(6fiaTO<; fieXij, dWd [rd^ fierecopa ivT6voi<; 
 Ofioia- 6p6b<; vov^ ttjO^? tov Xoyov, 6^vri]<! xal KaroKco'^rj 
 Twv opdiSi eiprjfiiviov, Kal a-'xpjfiaria-fiol Koi Kivrjaeii; firiSev 
 ivhihovcrai, toI<s dKokdaTOit iK7riSo<;. atScu? /lev iiravdeLTOi 
 Kal dppevcoTrla' direaTW Se KaX 6 diro twv fivpoTroaXimv 
 Kai j(^pv<ro'^oeia)v Kal ipioircoKlcov a\i/s koI 6 dirb twv 
 dWav ipyaa-T7]pLa>v, ev9a koX eTaipiKW^ KeKoafiifp.evot,, 
 ScTTTep iirl Teyov<; Kade^ofievoi,, Sir)/j,epevovcrtv. 
 
 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 appevooiria of itself shows. It seems 
 probable^ as Wachsmuth suggests, that this frag, comes 
 from the epwTiKrj Te'x^vrj (Introd. p. 30). 
 
 veovlov. So Cobet I.e. for veaviSa. Dind. with two MSS. 
 reads veavia. 
 
 KoBop^v. Cf. Plut. de Audiendo 13, p. 45 C, Trpoa-wira 
 KaTaaToa-K Kadapd Kal dve/j,(paTO<:. 
 
 dvoireirTtt(ji&ov : barefaced, impudent, cf Xen. Mem. Ii. 1. 
 22, Ta Se ofi/MaTa e'yeiv dvaTreTTTafiiva, of the woman 
 representing Vice in Prodicus' fable. See Aesch. Suppl. 
 198, 9 and the comm. firjBe SiaKeKXaa-fiivov is an emen- 
 dation of Cobet's (Mnemos. xi. 387) for the MSS. /iri^' 
 dvaKeKXaa-fiivov, the meaning of which is not clear. 
 With the alteration dvav. est hominis protervi et petu- 
 lantis, StaK. mollis et impudici. 
 
 rd is rejected by Wachsm. with great improvement to 
 the sense. 
 
 dpBos voijs, so Wachsm. for vulg. opdovov tt/oo? k.tX. 
 
208 THE FRAGMENTS OP ZENO. 
 
 Perhaps it would be better to place a comma after rows, 
 and comiect Trpbi tov Xoyov with o^vrrj'i. Diad. brackets 
 
 K£vriiris...«v8iSoti(ro Dind. with some MSS. 
 
 HupoirmXCwv : thcse shops are mentioned as the lounges 
 frequented by young men. Ar. Eq. 1375, ra jieipaKia 
 ravrl \iy(o, rdv rp fJ'Vp^. Lys. Or. 24 § 20, eKaaro'; yap- 
 v/jLwv ei6i(7Tai trpocr^oLTdv 6 /j,ev irpoi fivpoTreoXeiov, 6 Se 
 •7rp6<; Kovpelov, 6 Se Trpoi a Kvrorofjbeiov, 6 B' oiroi av Tvj^rj : 
 id. Or. 23. § 3, Isoc. Or. 7. § 48, ovk iv toi<s ffKipa^eioK ol 
 vewTepoi Sterpi^ov ays' iv rats avXrjrplaiv ovB^ ev tow 
 TOiovTOK a-vWoyoii; dW' iv tok i'lriTTjSevfiaa-iv efievov iv 
 oh iTd')^6r)aav. In Homer's time the smith's shop was 
 used for this purpose : Od. xviii. 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. 
 
 KEK07|i.T||i&oi....Kaecj6|i.evoi. So Cobet for KeKoa-firjiiivai... 
 Kade^ofjLevai. For the former word cf. Xen. Mem. iii. 11. 
 4 where Theodota is spoken of as TroXvreKdiq K6K0(7/j,r]~ 
 fievrjv, and Lucian, Ver. Hist. II. 46, yvvaiKa^ iravv irai- 
 pi/cmv KeKotrp/niievaL (quoted by Becker, Charicles E. T. 
 p. 249) ; and for the latter Aeschin. Timarch. § 74 toi)? iirl 
 T&v olKTi/jLarmv Kade^o/jjivov; (referred to by Waehsm.), and 
 Catull. XXXVII. 8, 14. 
 
 175. Diog. L. VII. 22, Beiv re eXeye tou? veoivi Trda-r) 
 Kocr/jiioTrjTi 'X^prjaOai Kal iropela Koi iTj^rjiiaTi koX irepi- 
 ^oXrj. 
 
 Possibly this is only a reference to the preceding 
 frag. For iropela see on frag. 31. irepi^oXy = clothing. 
 
 176. Diog. L. VII. 131, dpea-Kei Be avrot'; Kal Koivd(! 
 elvai Ta? yvvalKa<; Seiv irapd tois a-o<j)oi<s aJcTe tov iv- 
 TvypvTa T'p ivTVXpytrri '^prjo-Qai, Kadd <^r]ai, Zirjvmv iv tt}- 
 
THE FEAGMENTS OF ZENO. 209 
 
 iroXiTeia. ib. 33, Koivd'; re rd<! yvvaiKa^ Soy/iarl^etv 
 o/jLoim's nXaTwj/i iv Ty iroKirelq. 
 
 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, KaX ia-drJTi, Se rrj avry iceXevei 
 (Zrjvwv) ')(pfi(T6ai dvBpa<! Koi yvvai/ea'i KaX jMrfhev fiopiov 
 aTTOKeKpii^Oai. 
 
 The same view seems to have been advocated by the 
 Cynics. Hence the point of Menander's lines quoted by 
 Diog. L. VI. 93, aviMirepiiraTrjcrei's yap rpi^eov e'xpva' i/ioi, 
 &airep Kparr/Ti ra KvviK^ iroO' rj yvvr\. Socrates in 
 Xen. Symp. II. 3 says : — eV^?)? oKKt} fj,kv yvvaiKi, aWrj Se 
 dvSpl KoXr]. With regard to the words fitjBev fiopiov 
 dtroK. 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 yvfivdava : 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 KaQr]KovTa 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, Vll. 63, p. 739, eKKKtvova-i 
 TO fioi'X^eveiv ol rd tov Ktrtews Zt^i/oz/o? <f)i\oa-o<j)ovvT6^. . . 
 Sid TO KoivwviKOv Kal irapd ^vo'iv elvai rp Xoyixm faioj 
 voBeveiv t^v viro twv vofuov irepa •jrpoKaTaXrj^deicrav 
 yvvaiKa Kal ^deipetv tov dWov dvffpclnrov oIkov. 
 
 Since strictly speaking marriage is an dSid(j)opov, to 
 fioixeveiv cannot be contrary to virtue, and such an 
 offence would be impossible in the ideal state. Still, with 
 H. P. 14 
 
210 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 society constituted as it is, /*^ fioi')(evei,v is icadfJKov &vev 
 irepia-Taa-emt and therefore Kara <f>v(nv. 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. 11" 94, 8 foil.). In Sext. Pyrrh. III. 209 
 we find rov<; ye firjv fiofxpiiv KoXd^et Trap' rnjutv v6fio<i, 
 irapa Be riaiv dSi,d<j)op6v iart raK rtSv erepcov yvvai^l 
 fil/yvvadar kuX <^iXoa6<^cov Se rive'; (pairiv dSid<popov elvat, 
 TO dWorpla yvvaiKi fiir/vvaffai. The Stoics are probably 
 indicated, and the passage is in no way inconsistent with 
 the present, of. Theoph. ad Autol. ill. 3 p. 118 D, ov'^l 
 Kal irepl cefivorrjTO'; -ireiprnfievoi ypd(f)eiv dtreXr/eiav Kol 
 •7ropveia<! xal ^i\(las eSCBa^av einTeK.eladaii, en firjv Kal 
 Tas ffTvyrjrdi dpprjroiroitav eiarjytja-avTo ; 
 
 179. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. III. 245, olov yovv 6 aipeai- 
 dp')(r)'i avTwv Z'qvav iv rati BiaTpi^ali (fyrjai irepl iraihtav 
 diyoayfji; dXKa re ofioia xal rdBe' " Bia/j,7)pl^eiv fiySev fiaWov 
 firjBe fj(T(Tov iraiBiKct rj fjuri iraiBiKa /j,7]Se OrfKea rj dppeva' 
 oil ydp [ecTTt] vaiBiKol<; aXKa rj firj -TratBiKOK ovBe OrfKelaK 
 fj appeaiv, oKXa ravra Trpeireo re Kai irpeirovTa eaTiv'' 
 The same fragment is preserved by Sext. Emp. adv. 
 Math. XI. 190, introduced by the words koi ixrjv irepl fiev 
 iraiBcav dytoyrji; iv rati BiaTpi^ai<; 6 aipe<Tidpj(ri<s Zijvcov 
 Toiavrd riva Bte^euriv, and with the variant aWa irat- 
 BlkoI<; for eaTi iraiBiKOK uXSm. 
 
 Iv Tots Siarptpais. 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. Gels. 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 : elirov oZv ev 
 Tw irepl dBia^opwv roir^ on too IBl^ \6yq> (the action 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 211, 
 
 taken by itself) Qv^arpaai fiuyvvaOai, dBid<j)opov earlv, 
 
 el Kal 111) \pi] Iv rats KaBEO-ruo-ais n'oXi.TE&ii.s ri toiovtov iroiElv, 
 Kal virodea-ewi ')(apiv...TTapeiKrj^aai rov <ro^6v fiera 
 rr}^ Ovyarpo'! p.ovrj'i KaraXeKeififievov iravro'i rov r&v 
 dvOpooirav yivov'i Sie<f>6app,evov, Kal t;qTov<nv el Kadr/- 
 ic6vTeo<! 6 irarrjp (TvveKevaerai ry dvyarpl virep rov fiij 
 diroKiaOai. . .TO irdv twv dvOpmircov yivov." This also illus- 
 trates frag. 178. 
 
 180. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. III. 246, -irepl Se t^? ek rot)? 
 yovsK ocrioTrjTO^ 6 ajJro? dvrjp {Zijveov) ^rjatv eh ra trepl 
 rrjv 'loKocTTTjv Kal tov Olhiiroha '6ti ovk fji) Seivov rpl^eiv 
 Trjv fir/Tepa xal el fiev daOevovaav erepov ri fiepo<i tov 
 a-a)fiaTO<! Tpi^^a^ rat? yepalv ci^eXei ovSev aler'x^pov' el 
 Se erepa p-eprj Tpii^a<s ev^paivev, oSvvcofievrjv iravcra^, Kal 
 •7raiSa<} e/e t^? firjTpd<s yevvaiovf eirolrjaev, al(Tj(p6v. Sext. 
 Emp. Math. XI. 191, Kai ye 6 fiev Zr/vav rd wepl t^? 
 'loKOffTT)^ Kal OlSliroSof laropovfievd ^rjaiv oti ovk '^v 
 Beivov rptT^cw t'^v fi'rjTepa. Kal el fiev dcrOevovaav to 
 amfia rat? X^pcl rpu^a's <o<j)eKei,, ovSev ala-^pov' el Be 
 eTepat fiepei rpv^ai 60' ea eSpev oBvvanevqv nrava-a'; Kal 
 TraiBa^ e'/c t^? fiTjrpov yevvaiovi 7roti;o-as tI ^v ala'x^pov ; 
 ib. Pyrrh. III. 205, dWd Kal 6 Ktrtet)? Zrjvciv (jtrjal fii) 
 droirov elvai to fiopiov rrji fiTjTpov rS eavrov fiopia Tplyjratr 
 KaOaTTep ovBe dXKo ti fiepo<i tov (rai/iaros ai/r^? Tjj j^etjOt 
 Tp2-\jrai, ^avXov dv etiroi tk elvai. Plut. Quaest. Conv. III. 
 6. 1, § 6, cos eyioye vrj t6v Kvva koI tov ZtJi/mj/os dv 
 e^ovX6fi7)v e^r) Biafir]pia-/iov<; ev av/nrocria) rivl Kal vaiBia 
 /jbdWov TJ (TTTovBrji; roaavTi]^ ej(piievtp crvyypdfi/iari tt} 
 iroXiTela KaTarerd'^Oai. 
 
 It should be observed that Sextus does not state that 
 this extract as well as the last comes from the BiaTpi0al, 
 so that we may perhaps refer Plutarch's words to this 
 passage : Wellmann however, p. 440, thinks that both the 
 
 14—2 
 
212 THE FRAGMENTS OP ZENO, 
 
 Sextus passages come from the Biarpi^ai, in which case 
 Plutarch's statement should form a separate fragment. 
 Cf. Chrysipp. ap. Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 246, id. ap. Epiphanius 
 adv. Haeres. iii. 2. 9 (ill. 39), Diels, p. 593, eXeye yap Selv 
 fiirfvvaOai Tal<s fiijTpdai toi)? TratSa? roiv Se irarpacTi raf 
 dvyarepat. Diog. L. VII. 188, Theoph. ad Autol iii. 6, 
 120 D. 
 
 181. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. XI, 190, koX iraXcv (6 
 Zijvcov) " ScafiefiijpiKai} TOP ipwfievov ; ovk eytuye. "rrorepov 
 ovK iireOv/j/rjo-ai avTOV Siap/rfpla'at ; koX fidXa. dK\' iire- 
 6vp/r](ra<! rrapaajfelv croi avrov rj e<f)o^-:^dij<s KeXevffai; /id 
 AC. dW' eKeXeva-a'} ; koX fidXa. elr ovk VTrrjpeTtjiri troi ; 
 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 enrovSala Stddea-i<}, c£ Cleanth. frag. 95, 
 
 iiTTK eTTidvfJii&v dvej(^6T ala"^pov 7rpdyp,aT0<s 
 ovTO<s iroirfvei, tovt idv Kaipbv Xd^rj. 
 
 Bekker suggests aW' ein6vii,rja-a<i...elT i<f>o^Tjdr]i. 
 
 182. Sext, Emp. Pyrrh. III. 200, kuI rC ffav/iaa-Tov, 
 OTTOV ye Kal ol diro rfj^ KvvLKrji; <jiiXo<ro^ia<i koI oi irepl 
 Tov KtTtea Zijvwva Kal KXedvdrjv Kal Xpvaiirirov dStd- 
 ^opov TOVTO (i,e, dppevofii^lav) elvai ^axnv ; 
 
 183. Sext, Emp. Pyrrh. in. 206, ro re aitrxpovpyelv 
 iiraparov ov trap rjiilv 6 Zrjveov ovk dTToBoKifid^ei, 
 
 184. Theoph. ad Autol. lli. 6, p. 119 c, rt a-oi eSo^e 
 rd Zr)vmvo<! fj rd Aioyevov; Kal K.Xedvdov<!, oiroaa nrepc- 
 e')(pvaiv ai ^i^oi avrwv ScSda-KOVcrai, dvdpwirolSopia^, 
 irarepa'S fiev viro ISlmv reicvwv etfrecrOai Kal ^i^pwaKeaOai, 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 213 
 
 Kai,, ei Tts ov ^ovXono r) jj.epo'i tl tjJ? fivcrepd<; rpo<f)ri<; 
 diroppl-^lreiev, avrbv KareaOLeaOat, tov jxrj (fxvyovra ; 
 
 Of. Diog. L, VII. 121, <yev(Te(T0ai re koX dvOpwirlvaiv 
 crapKwv Kara irepio'Tacriv, ib. 188 (Chrysippus) iv Be r^ 7' 
 irepl SiKalov Kara toi)s j^iXtow? (jTt^oii?, Kal Tot)s aTro- 
 6av6vTa<s KUTeadieiv KeXevcov. Sext. Pyrrh. III. 207, 247 
 foil, Math. XI. 192—194, Mayor on Juv. xv, 107. Canni- 
 balism was also recommended by the Cynics, Diog. vi. 73, 
 fjfrjS" dvoaiov elvat to koi dvOpwTreiwv xpewv ^ylraadac, o)? 
 SfjXov 6K TMv dXkoTpimv eOwv, with which cf. an amusing 
 summary of the various modes of disposing of the dead 
 prevalent in different countries, ap. Sext. Pyrrh. III. 
 226 — 229. It should be observed however that the Stoics 
 only enjoined this practice Kara irepia-racnv. 
 
 185. Epiphan. Haeres. III, 36, toi)? Se reXevrwvrai 
 JoJot? irapa^dXKeLV 'X^pfjvai rj irvpi. Koi tok TratStKot? 
 ')(prj(Tdai aKcoXiiTCix;. 
 
 Chrysippus, ap. Sext, Emp. Pyrrh. iii. 248, Math. xi. 
 194, recommends that the flesh of deceased relations 
 should be eaten if suitable for food, but, if useless for that 
 purpose, rj Karopv^avrev rd fivljfia iiroltroveriv rj nara- 
 KavaavTe<i rrjv T6<j)pav dtfyija-ovcrtv. The meaning of these 
 obscure words of Epiphanius appears to be similar, and 
 Tvapa^dWeip 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. III. 226—9). 
 
214 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 186. Cic. Ep. Fam. ix. 22. 1, Atqui hoc (libertas 
 loquendi) Zenoni placuit. . .sed ut dico placet Stoicis suo 
 quamque rem nomine appellare. 
 
 Cf. Oic. Off. I. 128, nee vero audiendi sunt Oynici, 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, ii. 20. 125 P. p. 494, S. p. 
 178, KaXfSi 6 Zrjvmv iirl twv 'IvSmp ekeyev eva 'IvBdv 
 ■irapoTrTcofievov eOeXeiv <av> ihelv fj •jraaat ra? irepl irovov 
 oTToSei^ei^ liaOeiv. 
 
 The allusion to the Indians is explained by the words 
 the Indian philosophers are said to have used to Alexander: 
 adfj-ara fiev /i6rd.^ei<! eK tottov eh tottov, ^frv'X^a<! S' '^fieripag 
 ovK dvayKaaeif iroieiv a jjutj 0ov\,6fieda. irvp avdpairoK; 
 fier/ivrov KoXacrr'^piov, tovtov r]tiel<; KartKppovovfiev. Clem. 
 Alex. Strom, iv. 7. 50. Similarly PMlo, in telling the 
 same story: quod omnis probus sit liber, p. 879, wvp 
 fieyioTOW! roifs ^&ai awfjuaai, ttovov; koX (f>6opav epyd^erai, 
 TOVTOV virepdvw rifieh yivofieda, ^tSyre? KaiofieOa. The 
 historians attest the custom of burning themselves alive 
 said to have been practised by the Brahmans. Strabo, 
 XV. 1. 65, a'ia'XiaTov 8' avTol^ vofiil^eaOai voaov awfia- 
 TiKrjv' Tov S' virovorjaavTa Kaff avTov tovto i^ayeiv 
 eavTov Bid irvpb^ vijaaVTa trvpav, viraXei^lrd/Mevov Be koX 
 KadiaavTa eirX Trjv irvpav v^dyjrai xeXeveiv, aKivrjTov Be 
 Kaieadai. Curt. VIII. 9. 32, apud hos occuparefati 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. li. 52 etc. , 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 215 
 
 • 
 
 ov, added by Cobet, '^pfirjg Xoyiov, i. p. 487. 
 
 Tds...diro8££|«is. There is no doubt some particular 
 reference in this, the point of which it is difficult now to 
 ascertain. May it refer to Antisthenes ? In Diog. L. vi. 2, 
 we read of him : ort 6 -ttovo^ dr/a66v a-vvia-Trjcre Sia tow 
 /ieyaXov Hpa/cXeou? koI tov K.vpov, and in the list of his 
 works preserved by the same writer (vi. 15 — 18) we find 
 three with the title 'H/sa/eX^s, two of which bear the 
 alternative title r) irepl la-'xyo's. 
 
 188. Galen de cogn. animi morbis, v. 13, o'vTto yovv 
 KoX Zijvoav rj^iov iravra irpdrreiv T^fj.a<i d,a<j>aXwii, wi diro- 
 Xoyrjaofiivovs oXlyov varepov iraiSaycoyoK' wvofia^e yap 
 ciiTcoi e/cetvos 6 avrip toi)? ttoWou? twv avdptoiroav eToi/iovi} 
 ovTa'i roi<s TreXa? i-Trirtfiav Kav /j.rjBeh avTOW vapaKoXfj. 
 
 iraiSo-yuvots : for their duties see Becker, Charicles, E. T. 
 p. 226. 
 
 189. Stob. Flor. 14, 4 = Anton. Meliss. I. 52, 
 
 eXe7^e cravrov, '6aTi<s el, jxrj irpb<; X'^piv 
 UKov, d(j)aipov Se koTuzkiov irapprforiav. 
 
 8X€7X« o-owrov recalls yvwOi a-eavTov, for which see the 
 authorities ap. Mayor on Juv. xi. 27. 
 
 TTpAs x«'pi''' ""o"' = ^o ^°* listen to flatterers, is the 
 passive form of tt/so? rjhovqv ri Xeyeiv (Thuc. II. 65), "Trpoi 
 '^Sovrjv hrjpjqyopelv (Dem. Phil. I. § 38), ■irpo<s 'xapiv ipei<; 
 (Soph. 0. T. 1152). The best illustration however is 
 Stob. Eel. II. 7. 11^ p. 114, 23, the wise man ovre irpoff- 
 ^ipei Ttvl 0VT6 irpoaLeTai, rov irpo'; %<i/3ti' Xoyov, Diog. L. 
 VII. 117. 
 
 Meineke would also ascribe to Zeno the couplet 
 quoted by Stob. Flor. ii. 12, where the lemma in the MSS. 
 is ZijvoBoTov. 
 
216 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 ft 
 
 190. Maxim. Floril. c. 6, ed. Mai, 6 fiev yeoopyoii a^' 
 &v av iroKvv KaX koXov diXot Kapirov Xa^etv ciipeXi/iov 
 eavTov CKeivoK -Trapiy^erai, koI wavra rpoirov iirifieXeirat 
 Kal depaTrevei' ttoXv Bk fiaWov avOptoTTOi rolt co^eXi/jLOK 
 ire^vKoai ')(api^ea6at Kal nrepi tov? TOtovTovi fiaXicTTa 
 a-TTOvBd^etV Kal davfiaarov ovSev. Kal yap Kal roov fiepmv 
 Tov acofiaToi eKeivwv eTrifieXovfieda fidXXov enrep axfyeXt- 
 /jLWTepa iavTOK Trpdi rrjv virijpecriav vofii^ofiev eivat, 'o6ev 
 ofioiwi i5<^' wv ev Trder'x^eiv d^iovfiev, w^eXCfiovii avroK 
 epyoK, dXXd iir) Tol<i X6yoi<; etvai Set. ovSe yap r) iXala 
 T^) depaveuovTi. avrrjv hrayaXKeTai, aW' eK^epovera 
 TToXXoiJ? re Kal KaXow Kapirov<s eireia-ev eavrrji; hn- 
 /xeXeiaOac fidXXov. 
 
 This fragment is taken from Wachsmuth (Comm. i. 
 p. 6): see Introd. p. 31. 
 
 e^Xoi: unless ffiXy be read, dv belongs to the verb. 
 Cf. Dem. de Cor. § 246, dXXd firjv wv y dv o prjTcop 
 v'irev6vvo<i etT/, nrdaav e^irao'iv Xdfi^ave. But it is often 
 difficult to determine -whether the optative is really 
 potential. See Fennell on Find. Nem. iv. 8, Goodwin 
 § 557, Madvig § 137. 
 
 u<|>^i|iov, cf. Cleanth. frags. 75 and 77. 
 
 avepwiroi, " 01 addendum ? " Wachsm. 
 
 eowrots: Jelf § 654 b. 
 
 191. Athen. XIII. 565 D, 6 Be a-o^6<s e'/tewo? Zrjveov, w? 
 ^r](riv 'AvTiyovo^ 6 K.apva-rio<i, Trpo/j,avT6v6iMevo<! vftcov co? 
 TO 6t«09 Trepl TOV ^lov Kal Trj<; TrpoairoirfTov eTTiTT^Seuo-ew?, 
 ei^rj ws ol TrapaKov<ravTe<i avTov tSv Xoymv Kal firj cvvevTei 
 eaomai pvirapol xal dveXevdepof KaOdtrep ot Trj<i 'Apia- 
 TiTTTTov 'irapeve')(j9evTe<! alpetreoit dawroi Kal dpaa-eK. 
 
 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- 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 217 
 
 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, e5 yap eiprjTai, e(}>r), to tov 
 Zrjviovo:; '6ti tovtov eveKa Kapreov o5 Koi KOfiTjreov, tov 
 Kara, ^vcnv, "va firj Qapovpsvo's Ti? vird tt}<; KOfirj'; fjLrjS" 
 iva)(Xovfj,6vo<s rj irpo's p.riSefiiav ivepyetav. 
 
 ToS Kord <|>vo-iv. 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 KaOijKovTa, Diog. L. VII. 108, ivepyrifia Se 
 avTo (jcaOriKov) elvai, rat? kuto, <f>vcTiv icaTa(rKevai<s olxeiov, 
 Stob. Eel. II. 7. 8% p. 86, 13 ; Diog. L. vii. 105. 
 
 193. Diog. L. VIII. 48, aWa fi'^v xal tov ovpavov 
 irp&Tov (i.e. Pythagoras) ovo/iatrai Kocr/iov koI Trjv yrjv 
 aTpoyyvXrjV ta? Be ^eo^paaTd HapfieviSTjv' «b? BeZtjvav 
 'Ho-t'oSoy. 
 
 The lines of Hesiod supposed to be referred to are 
 Theog. 126 — 128, rata Se toi irpcoTov fiev iyeivaTo icrov 
 €avT§ ovpavov ao'Tepoevd iva jxiv trepl iravTa kcCKvittoi 
 6<^p e'lri jjuaKapeatTi deal's eSo? da'^dKe<; alei, which are 
 a very poor basis for the two assertions. For the limited 
 sense in which xSa-fio^ is used, cf. Diog. vii. 138, Kal 
 avTrjv Be Trjv BiaKocr/irjcriv twv daTepwv Koafiov elvai 
 Xeyovaiv, Krische, p. 396, 397. 
 
 194. Diog. L. VI. 91, Zijvav B' avff 6 Kmew eV rats 
 ■X^peiai<; Kal kwBcov avTov (Crates) ^rjai •jroTe irpoapd-tfrai 
 t£ Tpi^cavi dveirt/TpeTTTOvvTa. 
 
 kv Tats xpe'ais. Introd. p. 31. 
 
218 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 
 
 T<f Tpcpwi. 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 
 rpl^cop (cf apoph. 3). 
 
 dveiriTpeirroSvTo i.e. "nec curavisse deformitatem." The 
 word is omitted in L. and S. and also in Steph. Th. 
 
 195. Dio. Chrysost. LIII. 4, yeypa^e Se koX Zrjvwv 6 
 ^i\6<To^o<s elf? re ttjv ^WiaZa koI ttjv 'OSvaaelav Kal irepl 
 Tov M-apyirov Si' BoksI y^p xal tovto to "Troiijfia viro 
 'O/iijpov yeyoveuai veiorepov koI airoireiptofievov Ti}<; avrov 
 <j>vcreai<; tt/oo? nroiqariv. 6 Se Zijvcov ovSev rwv tov 'Ofiijpov 
 •<^eyei, 8,fia SiTjyovfievo^ xal SiSdaxoav '6ti to, /j,ev Kara 
 So^av TO, Se KUTo, aKrjQeiav yeypa^ev, (57r«BS fi/rj ^aivrjTai 
 avTos avTm /jia^6fievo<s ev Tiai SoKovaiv evavTbco^ elprjaOai. 
 6 Se Xoiyos ovTO<! ' AvTia-devov<; eVrt irpoTepov oti to fiev 
 So^y TO, Se dXriOeia eip7)Tai t^ TroirjTy' dW' 6 fiev ovk 
 e^eipydaaTO ovtov, 6 Se KaS" eicaaTOv twv eirl p.epov<i 
 eSrjXcaaev. 
 
 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. 
 
 Mop'yCTOD. 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., Tir'ivwv 6 Xtwikk 
 ipjjWaTTe Tov<s aTi'^ov; Xeycov 
 
 Kelvo<i fiev iravdpiaTO's 09 eZ elwovTi TrLO'qTai,' 
 ea6\b<s S' aZ Kaxelvot o? avTO^i trdvTa votjerrf, 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 219 
 
 Tr) evTreiOeia ra irpeoreia SiSov^, rfj ^pov^aei Se to, 
 Semepeia. The same in Proclus on Hesiod, Op. 291, 
 Gaisf. Poet. Gr. Min. il. p. 200, cf. Diog. L. vii. 25, 26, 
 whose comment on the change of place in the lines is 
 as follows: — KpeirTova yap elvai tov aKovaai xaXcS? 
 hvvdfievov to Xeyo/ievov koI 'x^pfjadai avTm, tov St' avTov 
 TO irav (TvvvoriaavTOii. Tip fiev yap etvai fiovov to avvelvai. 
 Tffl S ev ireiadevTi irpoffetvai Koi Trjv vpa^iv. Themist. 
 Or. VIII. 108 C, ifiol Se xal Tirjvmv 6 Ktrtev? XLav dpeaTO's 
 Trjv evireideiav diro^vdfievo^ t^? dr/')(i,voia^ dperrjv elvab 
 ^aaikiKOOTepav Kal Trjv Ta^iv Trjv 'JiaioSov fieTa6el<s k.t.X. 
 id. Or. XIII. 171 D, 6pdm<i yap vTrekdfi^ave Zijvmv 6 Ktrtei;? 
 fiaffiXiKeoTepav elvai Trjv dryx^ivoiav Trjv evireideiav. 
 
 The lines of Hesiod (Op. 291) are often quoted or 
 imitated : c£ Ar. Eth. I. 4, 7, Liv. xxii. 29, 8, Soph. Ant. 
 720 <^r)ii eymye irpea^eveiv iroXii <j)vvai tov dvBpa irdvT 
 e7ri(TTr]iJi/q<i •TrKemv' ei S' ovv...Kai twv XeyovTmv ev KaXov 
 TO fiav&dveiv. 
 
 197. Plut. de and. poet. p. 33 E, koI 6 Z^vtov itravop- 
 Govfxevoi} TO TOV "SiO^oKXeovis, 
 
 oo-Tt? Se Trpo? TVpavvov i/nropeverai 
 Keivov Vrt SovXo<s koLv eXev0epo<i /jioXt}, 
 /MeTeypa<j}ev 
 
 ovK ea-Ti 8ovXo<; av (^ rj^) iXevOepoi /ioXr/, 
 T<3 ekevdeptp vvv ffwexijiaivav tov ddeij kui /j,eyaXo<l>pova 
 Kal dTaireivfOTov. 
 
 The fragm. is no. 711 (Dind.). This was also given to 
 Aristippus or Plato by other authorities : see Diog. L. il. 
 82. For eKev6epo<i cf. frag. 149. 
 
 198. Strabo Vll. 3. 6, Homer never mentions Arabia 
 el p/fj Zr]va)Vi t^ <j)iXoa6^q) irpoaeKTeov ypa<f>ovTi' 
 
 Ai6io7ra<i S' iKOfirjv Kal 'ZiSoviov<; "ApaySa? re. 
 
220 THE FBAGMENTS OP ZENO. 
 
 Horn. Od. IV. 83 where the edd, now adopt xal 'Epefi- 
 0OV9 the reading of Posidonius: Crates of Mallus pre- 
 ferred 'Epefivo^i (Krische p. 393). 
 
 199. Stob. Floril. 95. 21, Z^vav e^ Kpdrrjra 
 avayiyvcitTKeiv iv cjevrettp /cadij/jievov rbv ' A.pi(rTOTeKov<i 
 "TrpoTpeirriKov ov eypayjre irpd^ ®e/iia(ova twv Kvirpieov 
 ^aaiXea Xiycav otl ovSevl irXeito ar/ada iirap^et irpb's to 
 (j>i\,0(TO([>fja'ai, -kKovtov re yap vXeia-rov avTov e')(eiv dotrre 
 SaTTavav el<s ravra en Se So^av v'irap')(eiv avr^. dvar/iyvw- 
 <TKovTO<! Be avTov rbv aKvrka e<j)rj 7rpoaey(^eiv afia pdirrovra, 
 Kai Tov Kpdrrjra elirelv iyw fiot SokcS, w ^iKitrice, ypd'\jreiv 
 irpof (76 irporpeTTTiKov' irKeLco yap optS ffoi virdp'X^ovTa 
 •jrpo'i TO (f>iXo(TO<j)i]a-ai, wv eypayfrev 'AptaroreX/ij^. 
 
 This passage belongs to the work entitled KparijTo? 
 d-jTOfivrj/jtovevfiaTa : Introd. p. 31. 
 
 200. Stob. Floril. 36. 26, Zrjvmv rmv /jbadTjriSv e^aa-xe 
 rov<} fiev (f>i\oi\6yov<s elvat rovf Se Xoyo^iXov^. 
 
 The meaning is made clear by Stob. Eel. II. 7. 11'' p. 
 105, 4, where it is said of the ^avXoi; : — /MjSe etvai ^i\6- 
 \oyov, \oy6cl>i\ov Se fiaXKov, fiixP'' 'XaXi'd<! etniroXaiov 
 irpofiaivovra, fn^Kiri Se Kal toI(} epyoi<s iic^e^aioifievov 
 rbv T^9 aperrji; Xoyov. 
 
 201. Stob. Floril. 6. 34, o Zr)vwv yndro toi)? irXela- 
 TOj)s Xeywv, e^ov airb twv irovtov ras jJSova? (f>epeiv, dirb 
 TWV fiayeipeimv Xafi^dvovraii. 
 
 ir<5v«v. This passage should have been quoted in the 
 note on frag. 128. 
 
 202. Stob. Floril. 4. 107, Zi^vwv Se e^ yeXoiov 
 eKdaTOV<s fiev tok irpdyfiaaiv co? Set ^-fjv iifj •7rpo<rij(ei,v <b? 
 ovK elSbrav, t6v Se irapd irdvTwv eiraivov dav/id^eiv to? 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO. 221 
 
 i'XPfievov Kpureax;. TrpayfJ-aaiv is clearly corrupt and 
 Waehsmuth reads TraptiyyeiKaa-iv, but Mr R. D. Hicks 
 suggests Toi^ irapa twv ao^mv vapeiyyeKfuta-iv which 
 restores the balance of the sentence. 
 For the sense cf. Cleanth. frag. 100. 
 
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 
 
 1. Diog. L. VII. 2, j^/3i7o-T57pjafo/*^i'ou avrov (Zir)va)vo<i) 
 tL irpaTTWv apiara ^icocreTai,, airoKpivaadai tov 6ebv el 
 a-v'Y)(po}Tt^oi,ro rot? vexpoK- odev ^vvevra, rci rmv apyaiwv 
 avcxrft/fvdsa-Keiv. The same in Suid. s. v. a-vy^eoTt^effBat 
 col. 938. 
 
 2. Diog. L, VII. 3, irop<\>vpav i/i'ireTropevfievo^ dtro 
 T^? ^oiviKfjis •7rp6<s T^ Ueipaiel evavaryrj<rev. dvekOwv Se 
 eh TO? 'Adijva? ■^Srj rpiaKOVTOVTr]<!, e/cddiae Trapa Tiva 
 ^I^i<nrc6\i]v, dvayiyvwaKOVTO^ Se eKeivov to Sevrepov rwv 
 SevotjxSvTO^ dirofiVTffioveviJ.dTwv rfaQeXf iirvffero irov Bia- 
 rpt^oiev ol ToiovTOi dvBpe<!. evKUipa^ Bk 7rapi6vTo<; 
 KpdTr}ro<!, 6 /3tj8\t07ra)\ij? Bei^ai avrov (ftrjcn, TOVT(p irapa- 
 KoXovOrjaov. Cf. Themist. Or. XXIII. 295 D, rd Bk dfi(])l 
 Zijva)vo<i dpiBrjfKa re eari Koi ifBofieva virb rroWmv '6rt 
 avrov jj 'Zo)Kpdrov<s dvoXoyia ix ^oivUtfii el<s rrjv HoiKiXriv 
 TJyaf/ev. 
 
 3. Plut. de Inimic. Util. 2, ZtJi/wj/ Se, t^? vavKXr]pia<} 
 avr& avvrptlSeUrri^, 7rvd6fievo<; elirev, et ye, (3 tuj^i?, Trotet? 
 €49 rov rpL^cava trvveXavvovcra rjimt. Plut. de Tranq. An. 
 6, Zirivtavi r^ Kixjei fila vav<s nrepiriv ^oprrjyois' irvOofievo^ 
 Be ravrrjv avro^oprov dTroXtoKevai (rvyxXvcrdeia-av, eS ye, 
 elvev K.r.X. with xal rrjv crrodv added after rpi^ava. 
 Substantially the same account in Plut. de Exilio 11, with 
 
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 223 
 
 Kol ^Lov i^iKoao^ov in place of KaX rrjv aToav. Suidas 
 col. 1023 s. V. vvv evirKoTjKa OTe vevavdyriKa. eVt rwv 
 Trap' iXirlSa evrvxp^aavrcov. Zijvcov yap 6 K.iTiev<; KaraXt' 
 irmv Toi)? irplv Si,Ba(rKa\,ov<s koX K.pdrrjTO'i tov <f)iXo(r6<f>ov 
 ^oiTTjTTJ^ yevofievot tovto e'ip7)Ke, vavayia •trepiiretrmv xal 
 elirwv, ev ye iroel ■q rv'yr) irpoa-eXativovcra ■^fid^ <f>iXoao^ia 
 * * * oiruy TpairfjvaL Trpof (jiiKoao^iav. That the story 
 was given in various forms appears from the account 
 in Diog. L. vii. 4, 5. Senec. de Tranq. An. 14, 2, Nun- 
 tiato naufragio Zeno noster, quum omnia sua audiret 
 submersa, " lubet " inquit " me fortuna expeditius philoso- 
 phari." 
 
 4. Diog. L. VII. 19, TT/ad? he tov ^aa-Kovra w? rd 
 iraiWa avTw 'Avrurdevrji} ovk dpearKei, -y^pelav ^o<^OKKeov<; 
 irpoeveyKafievoi;, '^pcorrjo'ev ei nva koX KoXd e'x^eiv aiirm 
 SoKet. TOV B' OVK eihevai (f>rja-avTO<;, eiT ovk ala^xyvrj, 
 e(l>7), el fiiv TL Kaxdv ^v elpr]/j,evov vtt ' AvTurOevovi 
 TOVT eKXeyofievoi; koL fivrj/Movevcov, el Se tl koKov, ovB' 
 eiri^aXKofievo's KaTe')(eiv ; 
 
 5. Diog. L. VII. 20, 'KeyovTO'i Si tivo'; avT^ irepl 
 TloXifteovo^, to? aWa irpoBe/j.evo'i dX\a Xiyei (rKv6p(OTrdcra<;, 
 ecfyt), TToaov yap ■j^ydira^ to, SiBo/ieva; 
 
 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, 6 Be Zrjvaiv opwv tov 
 ®e6(j)pa<TT0v iirl t£ ttoWoi)? e^etv fia0rjTd<s dav/ia^ofievov, 
 6 eKeivov /lev %op6s, 6^17, fieL^mv, ovfio^ Be a-v/j.<jie>v6Tepo<;. 
 Plut. de seips. citra inv. laud. c. 17, ovra yap 6 Tjrqvwv 
 irpo'i TO TfsS\do<i T&v @eo<jipdcrTov p.aO'qTmv, 6 eKeivov x°P°'>' 
 e<j)y, fiei^cov, 6 eixo<s Be a-vfi^avoTepoi;. 
 
224 APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 
 
 7. Diog. L. VII. 24, <f>rj(Tl B' ^AiroWwvio<; 6 Tvpio<s 
 e\/covTO<s avTov Kjoar/jro? tov IfiaTiov diro 2,TC\7r(ovo<: 
 elireiv, w KpaTnj^, 'Ka^rj ^iKoao^tov iarlv cTrtSe^to? ?; Sia 
 Twv WTCov' Treitra? ovp '|X.«6 tovtov. el Se fie ^laty, to 
 fiev amfia irapd aoi earai, rj Be ''frvj(r] irapa ZiTiKircDVi. 
 
 Of. Cleanth., frag. 108, and for the concluding words 
 of the anecdote Arist. Ach. 398, 6 vovi fiev e^a ^vXKeyoav 
 iirvWia ovk evBov avro? B' evBov k.tX. Plant. Aulul. 
 179, nunc domum properare proper o : nam egomet sum 
 hie, animus domist. Pseudol. 32, nam istic meus animus 
 nunc est non ia pectore, and Lorenz ad loc. 
 
 8. Diog. L. Vir. 21, e'\67e Be koI rmv ^iKocr6<j>(ov toi)? 
 TrXet'oTou?, ra fiev troKKa dcro^ovi eivai, to, Be fiiKpa xal 
 rvxrjpd d/iadei<i. 
 
 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 evfiadelf, with 
 Meric Casaubon. 
 
 9. Diog. L. VII. 20, ehrovTO's Be tlvo<s '6t(, fuiepa avra 
 BoKei TO, \oydpia Tajv ^iXoaoipmv, Xe76t?, elire, TdXrjOrj. 
 Sec fievTot Kol ras avWa^d<i avrmv ^pa')(ela<i elvai, ei 
 Bvvarov. 
 
 10. Diog. L. VII. 25, xal irpo'i rov Bei^avra Be avrm 
 BiaKeKTiKbv iv ra Oepi^ovTi Xoyto eirrd BiaXeKTiKa^ IBea? 
 irvdeaOai iroaa^ elcnrpdrTerai fiia-Qov' aKOVcravTa Be 
 e/cardv BiaKoaiav avT^ Bovvai. 
 
 The fallacy known as Qept^mv 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 depl^cov 
 was as follows: — Either you will reap or you will not reap: 
 
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 225 
 
 it is therefore incorrect to say, perhaps you will reap." 
 Zeller, p. 182. 
 
 11. Suidas col. 1202 s.v. S£\To? = Diog. L. vil. 37, 
 T^Xeavdrji;, ov Kol d(f)a)fiolov tok cricXrjpoKijpot^ Se\T0t9, a'i 
 fioXi^ fiev ypatjiovTai, ht,aT7)pov<n Se ra ypa^evra. Cf. Plut. 
 de Audiendo c. 18, SaTrep 6 K.Xedvdr]'} kuI Hevo/tjoari;?, 
 ^paBvrepot SoKovvre'i elvai tSv <TV(Tj(pKa(TTWv, ovk direSi- 
 hpaaKov ix rov fiavOdpeiv ovSe dweKafivov, dWd (jiddvovTei 
 6ts 6avTov<i eirai^ov, dyyeloi'} re ^pa'xyo'TO/ji.oi'} koX irivaKiai, 
 ')(aXKal<i diretKa^ovTe's, a)? /Ao\ts p-ev irapaSe'X^op.evoi toi)s 
 \070u? da-(f)dKMv Se ical /Se/Sat'o)? TTjpovvrev. For iTLvaKe<s 
 see Becker, Charicles, Eng. Tr. p. 162. 
 
 12. Diog. L. VII. 18, 'Apia-Toovo? Se tov p,a6r]Tov 
 iroWd Si,a\e'yop,6vov ovk ev<f)vw<;, evia Be koX ■irpoireTcS<; 
 Kal 6pa(7ea)<s, dSvvarov, elirev, el p,r) ae 6 iraTrjp p,e6va)v 
 iyewrjo-ev. oOev avrov xal \d\ov aTTCKaXei, ^pa'^yXoyoi 
 wv. Attributed to Diogenes by Plut. de Educ. Puer. 3. 
 
 13. Stob. Floril. 36, 23, rwv Tt9 ev ^AKaBrip,eia 
 veavLCTKcov Trepl eirnriBevpidTwv BieXeyero d^povto^' Be 
 Tirjvoav edv prj rrjv yXmrrav, ecfyij, et? vovv diro^pe^a^ 
 StdKeyy, iroXv TfKeleo en Koi ev rot? Xoyoii ifKijp.p.eXrja-ei'!. 
 Plut. Phoc. V. 2, Zijvmv eXeyev on Bel tov ^tXaao^ov eli 
 vovv d'TTofidirrovra irpo^epeadai TrjvXe^iv. Cf. Suidas I. p. 
 828 (of Aristotle), t^? ^txrem'; ypa'pipi.d>Tev<s '^v rov KdXap,ov 
 dwo^pi'xmv ek 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, Selv Be e^ tov BtaXeyofievov, 
 wairep tov<s viroKpiTdi;, Trjv p,ev (jicov^v Kal rrjv Bvvap^iv 
 p,eydXrjv e^etv* to p,evToi a-ro/ia p/fj BieXKeiv' o iroielv 
 Toi)? TToWa pev XaXovvra^, dBvvaTa Be. 
 
 H. P. 15 
 
226 APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 
 
 15. Diog. L. VII. 20, ToZ? fv Xeyo/tevoK ovk e<j>T] Seiv 
 KaraXei'irea-dai tSttov, Sairep toi<s ar/adoK TexviraK ei<s 
 TO deaaaadai' TovvavrLov Be rdv aKOvovra o'vTto Trpo? 
 Tots XeyofievoK yvveaOat, ware i^rj Xafi^aveiv xpovov et's 
 Tfjv einarjfieimaiv. 
 
 Toirov : perhaps we should read ■x^pdvov, wanrep roirov. 
 
 16. Diog. L. VIT. 22, p,rj Ta<i ^wvdg ical ra<s Xe^ei? 
 Selv aTTOfivrifioveveiv, dXXa trepl rfjv Siddeaiv r^? ')(peia<} 
 TOP vovv da-x^oXeladai firj wa-trep eyjrrjaiv rtva rj cTKevacnav 
 ava\afi^dvovTa<s. 
 
 For the distinction between (jxcv^ and \e^i<; cf. Diog. 
 L. VII. 56, \6^t? S' ea-Ti ^mvrj iyypdfifiaTo<i. The meaning 
 is: — we ought not to commit to memory the words and 
 expressions of a maxim (xpelai as in apoph. 4), but to 
 exercise our mind as to its arrangement, without learning 
 it by heart like a cookery recipe. For dvaXap,^dveiv cf. 
 Plut. Agesil. 20, 3. Cobet, however, translates otherwise. 
 
 17. Diog. L. VII. 23, to kuXKo^ elire t^s aw^poavvTit 
 avdo<; elvai. 
 
 So Cobet, followed by Wilamowitz, for MSS. ^cbi'^?... 
 ^atvqv, cf Diog. L. VII. 130, wpa dv6o<! dperrji;. Zeno, 
 frag. 147, KaToSjtjTTTov elvai to ^Oo<i ef elhov<i. 
 
 18. Stob. Floril. Monac. 196, Zrjvwv 6 4>iX6ao^o<i, 
 XeyovTcov Ttvwv oti irapdho^a Xkyei, elirev, dXfC ov irapd- 
 vofjLa. Cf Cleanth. frag. 107. 
 
 19. Plut. de Virt. Mor. 4, KaiTot koX Z'^vcovd ^aaiv 
 eh 6eaTpov dviovTa Ki6apq)BovvTo<! 'A/M>i^e(0's 7r/3os toi)s 
 HadtfTdis, icDfiev, ehrelv, 27ra>? KaTa/iddm/iev o'iav evTepa 
 Koi vevpa Kal ^vXa xal oaTa \6yov Koi dpidfwv fieTaa- 
 yi/VTa Kal ra^eo)? ififiiXeiav Kal (pmv^v d^lijaiv. 
 
 Cf Plut. Arat. c. 17, 2, aSovTW 'Afioi/S^w; ev Tea 
 dedTp(p, a passage which also fixes Amoebeus as a con- 
 temporary of Antigonus. 
 
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 227 
 
 20. Stob. Floril. 36, 19, Zi)V(ov tt/oo? tov irKeLo) "KaXelv 
 GekovTa ?) aKoveiv " veavLa-Ke," elirev, " »J (fivai^ -fijuv 
 ■^XwTTav jMev jilav Svo he tSra irapeajfev, iva BtirXacriova 
 <Sv Xeyofiev aKOvm/iev." Diog. L. VII. 23, Trpos to (fiXvapovv 
 jieipcLKvov, Bta tovto, el-ire, Bvo mra i'xpfiev, trrofia Se ep, 
 iva irkeLova fiev (XKovmfMev, r^TTOva Se Xeyoa/iev, cf. Plut. de 
 Garrul. 1, Kca^OTJj'i yap avdaipeT6<i iariv (scil. rj daiyrjaia) 
 uvdpcoTTCov, oTfiai, fieiJb<j)Ofievci)v '6ti fiiav fiev yXwrrav Svo 
 S" mra e'p^ouo-M», id. de audiendo, 3, kuX yap rdv 'E7ra/tt- 
 veovSav 6 '^irLvOapo'i eiraivSv e^j; p.r)Te irXeiova yivmaKOVTU 
 
 . jj/rire iXdrrova ^deyyofiev^ paBitoif evTV)(elv erepm. /cal 
 Trjv (f)vcTiv rjfiwv 6/cao-Tft) Xeyovai hvo fiev wra Bovvai 
 /liav Be yXwrrav 609 eXdrrova Xeyeiv rj aKOveiv o^ei- 
 XovTi. 
 
 21. Diog. L. Vir. 21, veavia-Kov iroXXa XaXovvTo<;, 
 €07?, TO. (ord (TOV el<! Trjv yXwrrav avveppvrjKev. 
 
 22. Diog. L. VII. 26, eXeyi re Kpeirrov elvai rot? 
 -TTOcrlv oXiadelv rj ry yXwTTr/. 
 
 This is found several times in the collections of yvwfiai, 
 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, irXeiovmv re irepia-Tavrcov avrov 
 Sel^ai iv ry area Kar aKpov ro ^vXivov irepi,^epe<i tov 
 jStofiov e<f)r], TOVTO ttots iv fieam eKeiTO' Bia Be to ep/iro- 
 M^etv IBia eTedr}. koI vfteti; fiev e« tov /ikaov ^aa-Taa-avTei 
 avTOVf rjTTOv rj/jilv evo^XijceTe. 
 
 Kohler in Rhein. Mus. xxxix. 297 proposes l3ddpov 
 for ^(Ofwv. 
 
 24. Diog. L. VII. 24, epwTyOeXf irw^s ej^et Trpo? Xot,- 
 Zopiav, Ko^direp, elirev, el '7rpe(T^evTrj<i dvairoKpi/ro'i airo- 
 
 (TTeXXolTO. 
 
 16—2 
 
228 APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 
 
 The point of this bon mot appears to have been lost 
 in the tradition: it must originally have stood: — "The 
 man who abuses me I send away like an ambassador 
 without an answer (^Kaddtrep el irpea^emrjv dvairoKpirrov 
 dwoareWoi/ii)": so Wilamowitz. 
 
 25. Diog. L. VII. 24, iv crvfnroa-i^ KaraKeip^evo^ ctyrj, 
 Tr)v alriav ■^pcoTrjOi/]. ecjyr] ovv tw iyKaXecravri dTrayyeiXai 
 Trp6<! Tov ^acriXea, ort irapfjv Ttt aiwirdv eTn(7Td/ievo<}, 
 ^aav Se oi epu>Ti^<TavTe<s irapd UroXefiaiov Trpia^en; d<f>i- 
 KSfievoi, Kol ^ovXofievoi /j,a6eiv tL eXiroiev irap avrov 
 7r/309 TOV ^aaiKea. Stob. Floril. 33, 10, ZTji/aji/, 'Avriyovov 
 irpiff^etis 'Adrjva^e irep-'^avTO'i, KXr]6el<} vtt avrwv avv 
 aXKoK (j)i\oa-6(f)oti iirl hehrvov, KUKeivav irapd itotov 
 a-TTevSovTcov eTTiBelKVvadai Trjv avrmv e^iv, auro? i<riya. 
 Twv Be irpecr^eav ^ijtovvtcov tL dirayyeiXwa-i trepl avrov 
 •7rpd<s 'AvTuyovov, "tovt avro," 6</n?, "o ^Xeirere." hva- 
 Kparea-raTov ydp iravrmv 6 X6yo<s. Plut. de Garrul. IV. 
 Adrjvycri Be tii eanav irpia^eK ^atTtKiKov<!, e<f>i\oTifiij67) 
 aTTOvBa^ovaiv avroi^ avvayayeiv eh ravro toi)s <j>t\o- 
 ao<f>ov<;, j^piofiivtov Be rcSv dWwv Koivo'Koyla koX ra? 
 av/i^oXa<s diroBiBovTaiv tov Be 2irjVfovo<! riav)(iav dyovTO^, 
 ^iXo^povTjadfievoi. koX TrpoiriovTe^ oi ^evoi, irepl aov Be 
 TL 'x^prj Xeyeiv, e<f>aa-av, w Tnfjvwv, r^ 0aaiXei ; KUKelvo^, 
 aXKo p/rjBiv, elirev, fj '6tl irpeff^vTrj^ ecTTlv iv 'AdTjvaa 
 irapa irorov o-ioyTrdv Bvvd/ievo^. Also in an expanded 
 form ap. Theodor. Metoch. p. 334, Kiessling. 
 
 The anecdote in the form related in Diog. Laert. rests 
 on the authority of Antigonus of Carystus, and hence 
 Wilamowitz (Antig. p. 114) concludes that the king who 
 sent the embassy was Ptolemaeus and not Antigonus 
 Gonatas. It was natural that in later times, when the 
 friendly relations subsisting between Antigonus and Zeno 
 were remembered, the country of the ambassadors should 
 
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 229 
 
 have been transferred from Egjrpt 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, Var. H. IX. 26, Tirjvmva top Kiriea Si 
 alBov<} dyav xal (nrovBrj^ ^yev 'AvTiyovov 6 ^at7t\ev<!. Kal 
 irore ovv virepvXijadei^ o'lvov hreKwfiaae rm Ztrjvtiivi,, koX 
 <l)tXwv avTOV ical •jrepi^dWcov Hre e^oivo^ Sv, rj^Lov ri 
 avTov irpoffrd^ai, o/j.vii'; ical veavievo/ievoi ai/v 'opK(p /tij) 
 drvx^creiv t^? aiTijo-eo)?. 6 Se Xiyet avrm, 7ropev0el<; 
 €fiea-ov' a-e/ivw<! afia Kal p.eyaXoippovm'i rriv /leOr/v eKey^ai 
 Kal (jteia-dfievo^ avrov fiij irore StappayQ vtto 'irXria-fiovrj<;. 
 
 27. Athen. II. 55 F, Bio Kal Zijvcov 6 Ktrtei;?, a-K'\r)p6<s 
 av Kal irdvv 6vfiiK0<s tt/jo? toi)? yvmpifiov;, e-rrl TrXeiov 
 rod oivov <r7rd(7a<s ■jJSi)? iyivero Kal /otetXt^os' Trpo? roii^ 
 iTvv6avofievov<; ovv rov rpoirov rrjv Bia<f)opdv eXeye to 
 avTo Toll 6epfioi<; irdcr')(eiv, Kal yap eKeivow trplv Bia- 
 ^payflvai iriKpoTdTOv; eivai, •jroTitrdevTa<s Be yXvKei<; Kal 
 'irpo<T7}vea-TdTov<i. Galen, de Anim. Mor. 3. IV. 777 K., Kal 
 Ztjvwv, C09 ^aaiv, eXeyev oti, KaOdrrep ol iriKpol depfioi 
 fipe'xpfievoi T& vBaTi yXvKei'; yivovTai, otlitio Kal avTov iir 
 o'lvov Btarieea-dai. Eustath. on Horn. Od. ^, 293, p. 1910, 
 42, Zijvcov ovv, ^acrlv, 6 Ktrtei)? aKXripo^ aWw? wv irp6<; 
 Toi)? (rvvrjdeii;, o/ua>f ei irXelov oivov irda-eie (leg. airdaeie) 
 rjBw eyiveTO Kal /ietXij^o?, Xiyoav ravTov Ti Toii Oep/ioK 
 'jrda'^eiv, ot iriKporepoi ovTe<: irplv Bia^payfivai TroTiadevTe^ 
 yXvKei<i yivovTai Kal TrpoarjviaTepoi. Similarly Diog. L. 
 VII. 26. 
 
 28. Athen. viil. 345 c, Zijvcav 8' 6 KiTiev<} 6 t^s 
 '%Tod<; /CTt'ffTi;?, Trpo? rov 6-<^o^ar/ov a> ffwe^rj eVt irT^iova 
 
230 APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 
 
 XP^vov, Ka0d <l>r]a-iv 'Ai/Ttyovos o Kapujrrtos fv rm Zijvcovoif 
 ^icp (p. 119 Wil.), fieydXov rivoi Kara rv^vv Ix^vo^ 
 irapaTedivTois, oKTmv S' ovSevoi irapea-Kevacfihov, \a0aiv 
 6 2i7jV(ov diro rov trivaKO<i olof; rjv KarecrdLeiv. tov o 
 inl3\et^avTo^ avT&' ri ovv, ecjyrj, toi)? a-v^wvrd^ (rot oiei 
 irdtT'x^eiv, ei <rv filav rjiiepav /j,j] BeBvvrjaai iveyicelv O'yjro- 
 (jyaylav ; The same in Diog. L. Vll. 19. 
 
 29. Athen. V. 186 D, o Be Zijvcov, ivel tw twv 
 vapovToav oi^o^arfmv dwecrvpev a/jLa t^ irapaTeOrjvai to 
 iirdvco TOV Ix^vov, tTTpi'^a<; KaX avTCK tov i'^dvv aireavpev 
 e-KiKer/av (Eur. Bacch. 1129) 
 
 'Ivti Se TciTrl QaTep i^eipyd^eTO. 
 The same story is told of Bion Borysthenites, id. viii. 
 344 A. Schweighauser (Ind.) thinks it is rightly attri- 
 buted to Zeno. 
 
 30. Diog. L. VII. 17, Bvolv B' viravaiceifiivoiv iv 'rrortp, 
 Koi TOV vir avTov tov v<^^ eavThv aKifiaXi^ovTO'i t^ iroBL 
 avTb<s EKeivov t^ yovari. iwi<TTpa(^evT0'i Be, tL ovv o'lei 
 TOV VTroKaTO) (70V irda-^eiv vtto aov ; see also Suidas, col. 
 792, s. V. ffKifiaXia-eo. Vulgo virepavaK. and virep uvtov : 
 corrected by Menage. 
 
 31. Stob. Floril. 57, 12, Z77z/ci)i' 6 St&>(xo9 <l>i\6ao<j>qi 
 opwv Tiva Twv yvttplfioav vtto tov dr/pov •jrepia'Trtofievov 
 einreV idv firj aii tovtov diroXia'g'i, oiTo^ a-e aTToXea-ei. 
 
 32. Boissonade, Anecd. Gr. vol. I. p. 450, Zijdi, iS 
 dvOpayire, (irj fiovov Xva (^drfg<i KaX iriyi; dW' Xva t6 l^rjv 
 •jrpix} TO eS ^rjv KaTa'Xprjo-ri, attributed to Zeno in Cod. 
 Keg. Paris, 1168, seems to be another form of the well- 
 known saying of Socrates, ap. Stob. Floril. 17, 22, ^wfiev 
 ovK 'Iva eaBL(ojt,ev dXV eaQUop,ev Xva ^wfiev. This forms 
 frag. eth. 10 in Wachsmuth's collection (Comm. i. p. 8), 
 who refers to other passages giving the saying to Zeno. 
 
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 231 
 
 33. Diog. L. vil. 21, koX irpoef^epero to. tov JLa^aiov' 
 <»?, eTTi^aXofievov Tivd<; rSv fiadrjrav fieydXa (jtvaav, 
 vaTa^ais elirev, co? ovic iv tcU /jieyaXtp to ev /ceifJievov eir), 
 aXX ev rw ev to fi&fa. 
 
 The sajdng.of Caphesias is recorded also by Athen. 
 XIV. 629, A. 
 
 34. Diog. L. VII. 26, to ev ylveadai irapa /iiKpov, ov 
 firjv fiiKpov elvai. 
 
 35. Plut. de vit. pud. 13, to tov ZjJj/wi/o?, w? awav- 
 TTjaai; Tivl veaviaKm twv (Tvvr)6mv irapa t6 retj^o? riav')(fj 
 l3aBi^ovTt, KoX 7rv06fj,evo<!, oti ipevyei tf)iXov d^iovvTa fiap- 
 Tvpeiv avTw to, '^evhrj' tL \e76t?, (prjcrvv, d^ikTepe ; ae 
 fiev iKecvo<s dryveofiovcov Ka\ dSiKwv ov SiSiev ovS' alcr- 
 ')(yveTai,' av B' melvov virep twv StKaicov ov 6appel<; vtto- 
 CTTrjvat ; 
 
 36. Diog. L. VII. 16, 17, olov e-rri tov KaKXcoin^o/ievov 
 TTOre 6(^'»7. 6'x^eTiov yap ti OKvrjpm^ avTov virep^aivovTo^, 
 StKaico'i, eltrev, vcjiopa t6v TrrfKov ov yap eaTiv ev avtm 
 KaTOTTTpiaaaOai. 
 
 37. Diog. L. VII. 19, fieipaxiov Se irepiepyoTepov irapd 
 Trjv rjXiKlav epwTWVT0<i ^i^Tr/fid ti, irpodijyaye irpof KaTOir- 
 Tpov, Koi i/ceXevaev ifi^Xeyjrai, eTreiT '^pcoTTjaev el BoKel 
 avTm dpfioTTovTa elvai oyjret Ta ToiavTa ^TjTrjfiaTa. 
 
 38. Diog. L. VII. 21, veavlaKov Se tcvo's ffpaavTSpov 
 SiaXeyofievov, ovk dv etiroifii, e^rj, /ieipdiciov, d e'jrep')(eTai 
 
 flOl, 
 
 39. Diog. L. VII. 21, tt/do? t^v xaXov ehrovTa oti ov 
 BoKel avTw ipaffO-qaeaOai 6 aoipo';, ovSev, e(pr], v/jloSv 
 ddXicoTepov eaeaOai twv xaXcov (ei jMrj riiieZ<; epaa-Omja-o- 
 fieda, added by Menage from Hesych. Mil). Cf. frag. 172. 
 Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Floril. 63. 21. 
 
232 APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 
 
 40. Diog. L. VII. 22, Travrcov eXeyev dirpeireaTepov 
 eivat TOP Tv<j>ov, koI iiakiara iirX t&v vkmv. 
 
 41. Diog. L. VII. 23, trpot top Ke')(pi<rfievov t& iJkvpip, 
 rk ia-riv, efr], 6 ywj/at/eo? o^av ; cf. Xen. Symp. II. 3. 
 
 42. Stob. Eel. n. 31, 81, p. 215, 13 = Exc. e MS. Flor. 
 Ion Damasc. p. II. c. 13, 81, Z'rjvoov ipcoTrjdeh ttoS? dv Ti<; 
 veo<s iKd'x^tcrTa dfiaprdvot, el irpo 6(j>0aKfiwv ej(ei, e<pr), obi 
 fiaXiara rifia xal alcryyverai. 
 
 43. Stob. Floril. 15, 12, Tirjvtov irpif toi)? diroXoyov- 
 fievov; vtrep r^? avTwv da-eoTta<s Kal \iyovTa<; eK iroXKov 
 Tov Trepiovroi dvaXiaKeiv eXeyev, ^ ttov koI rot? fiayelpoi^ 
 avyyvwa-eaOe, idv dXfivpd Xeyatai TreTTOtTjKevat rd S^'fra, 
 on irXrjOo'! dXdov avroi^ VTrrjp')(ev ; 
 
 44. Diog. L. VII. 17, epwTt/etSs Se hiaKeifieva X/oe- 
 fitavihov, TrapaKaOi^ovrwv avrov re Kal KXedvdov;, dvearij. 
 6av/j,d^ovToi} Se tov K.Xedv6ov<!, ecjji], Kal r&v larpcov aKovco 
 Twv dr/aO&v Kpdrurrov elvai ^dpfiaxov wpo? rd (jiXeyfial- 
 vovra ■fjcrvylav. 
 
 For Chremonides cf. Introd. p. 6. 
 
 45. Diog. L. VII. 18, Trpos Se rov ^iXowaiSa, ovre toi)? 
 SiSa(TKdXov<s e(f)Tj <j>peva<! exeiv, del Biarpi^ovrai iv irai- 
 hapioi<i, ovre eKeivov^. 
 
 46. Stob. Floril. 17, 43, Z-qviov he 6 Kmei)? ovU 
 voaSv (pero Seiv Tpo<f>rjv Trpoa-<j>epea-0ai Tpv^epmrepav, dX)C 
 etrel 6 depairevrnv larpov eKeXevev avrov <j>aye2v veorrov 
 •n-epta-repdv, ovk dvatrxofievoi, "o5? Mavfjv," e<j)7], " /ie 
 depdireve." 
 
 Manes was a common slave's name, cf. Ar. Av. 522, 
 
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 233 
 
 OKTCi)? v/ia? TravTe<i irpoTepov fieydXow arylovv t ivofit^ov, 
 vvv S' dvBpdiroS', rfKiOLov^, Mavdi;. See also Sandys on 
 Dem. Or. 45 § 86, Or. 53 § 20. There is a reference here 
 to the Stoic cosmopolitanism (frag. 162) : for their views 
 of slavery see Zeller p. 329. 
 
 47. Diog. L. VII. 17, to? Be K.vvik6^ rts ov <^riaa<} ekatov 
 h')(ei,v iv Trj \riKv6(p irpoayrrjo'ev avrov ovk e<j}7] Scoffetv. 
 aireXOovTa fievroi eKeXeve aice'y^aa-dai oTTore/sos e'it] dvai- 
 
 48. Athen. IX. 370 C, Kal ov irapaBo^ov el Kara t^? 
 Kpdfi^T)<; TH/6? MfjLvvov, oTTOTe Koi Zijvcov 6 K.irieii<s 6 Tri<s 
 Sroas icri(7T(op fiifiovfievoi top Kara t^? kvvo<s '6pKov 
 %WKpdTov<i Kol avTOi w/jLvve rrjv /cdirTrapiv, o)? "E/iTToSo? 
 ^aiv iv ' Airofivrifiovevfiaa-iv, cf. Diog. L. VII. 32. 
 
 "E(iiroSos : on this very doubtful name see Miiller, Frag. 
 Hist. Gr. IV. 403, after whom Kaibel reads "E/j,ireSo<;. 
 
 49. Stob. Floril. 98, 68, ZTyj/wi/ eXeyev ovSevdi 'nfidf 
 oiiTco ireveffdai a5? 'x^povov. ^paj(p's yap ovTto<s 6 ^lo<i, rj 
 Be ri'xyT) /j.aKpi], koX fiaXXov rj ras t^? t^v^rj'; voaov; 
 kdaaaOai Svvafievr], cf. Diog. L. VII. 23, fj,7]Sev6<s re i^fid'; 
 o^ToD^ elvai evBeei'i <»? "X^povov. 
 
 So Theophrastus ap. Cic. Tusc. iii. 69. 
 
 50. Stob. Floril. Monac. 197, o avT6<i (Z^viov) epwTTj- 
 6ei^ Ti 6(7Tt ^tA,09, aWos olo^ iyw. Diog. L. vii. 23, 
 ipmT7]6eii tl<; eari ^iXof ; aWo?, e^ri, iym. 
 
 So Arist. Eth. N. ix. 4, 5, eo-rt yap 6 ^tX,o? aWo? 
 avToi, cf. Cic. Lael. § 80 verus amicus... est tamquam 
 alter idem, ib. § 23 and Reid's note. 
 
 51. Origen adv. Gels. vill. 35, p. 768, Zi^vwv Be Trpo? 
 Tov ehrovra, diroKoLp/qv edv fir] ae Tip-wpriatoiiai, iyw Be, 
 emev, edv firj ere ^L\ov KTr)<rwp.ai. 
 
234 APOPHTHKGMATA OF ZENO. 
 
 52. Diog. L. VII. 23, £^iovva-{ov Se tov MeraOe/jtevov 
 eiTr6vTo<i avrm Sia ri oajtov fiovov ov Siopdot ; e<^ri, ov yap 
 aoi TTiaTeva. 
 
 For Dionysius cf. Diog. L. vii. 37, 166, 167. Cic. Fin. 
 V. 94. Athen. vil. 281 D. 
 
 53. Seneca de Benef. iv. 39. 1, Quaxe ergo, inquit, 
 Zeno vester, quum quingentos denarios cuidam promisisset 
 et ilium parum idoneum comperisset, amicis suadentibus 
 ne crederet, perseveravit credere quiapromiserat? Perhaps 
 the same circumstance is alluded to in Themist. Or. xxi. 
 252 B, TTore d(l>rj/ca<; T(p 8eSavei<r/Mevcp, Kadairep Ttrjvwv 6 
 KiTteiJs. 
 
 54. Diog. L. VII. 23, ^ovKov eiri Kkoiry, ^atrlv, ifiaarl- 
 yov' TOV S' elirovTO^, eifiapro fioi Kkeyjrai' koI Saprjvai, 
 
 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 CatuU. xxiii. 1. 
 
 55. Diog. L. VII. 23, twv yvwpLfimv tiv6v waiBapiov 
 fiefuoXannafievov deaa-d/ievoi;, irpb<s avTov, bpw aov, e4>r), 
 TOV dvfjLov TO. 'ix'i'V- 
 
 56. Diog. L. VII. 28, 29, eVeXeura Si) oStw'!. e'/c ttJ'} 
 a"xp\rj^ dinaiv irpoaeirTaKTe koX tov haKTvXov Trepiepprj^e. 
 iraiaai} Sk t^v yijv ttj X^t/o/, (fiTja-l to ex Tfj<i Nto/Sij?, 
 
 epj(pfiai, tI fi aHeii; ; 
 
 KoX Trapa'xpv/JM eTeXerirV'^V) aTroirvl^ag eavTov. Stob. 
 Floril. VII. 45, Tirjvmv, ws 17S1; yipcov wv Trraio-a? KaTeireaev, 
 " epxofiai',' eVire, " tC p.e avsK ; " koX elaeXd^v eavTov 
 i^yaiyev. Lucian Macrob. (lxii.) 19, Z'^vcov Se...ov <})aa-iv 
 eia'epxofJi>evov eh Trjv eKKKr^aiav koX irpoaiTTaLa'avTa dva- 
 
APOPHTHEGMATA OF ZENO. 235 
 
 4>dey^aa-0ai, tI fie ^oa<; ; koI virocrTpi-^JravTa oiKuBe ical 
 a7roa')(piievov rpo^rj<i TeXevTrjaai rov ^iov. 
 
 Ni6Pt)s: the author of the play is uncertain. Both 
 Aeschylus and Sophocles wrote plays with this title, but 
 Nauck thinks the words belong to the Niobe of Timo- 
 theus: cf. Soph. frag. 395 (Dind.). The situation must 
 have been similar to the concluding scene of the Oedipus 
 Coloneus, where Oedipus is summoned by a mysterious 
 voice : 0. C. 1626 f 
 
 57. Theodor. Metoch. p. 812, Kiessling, koX 6 fiev 
 Zirfvcov ekeryev, fjXOe, TraprfKdev, ovSev irpoq ifie KadoKov, 
 irepl Twv ivTavda Trpayndrtov xal rov /St'ou <j)i\ot70(f)wv. 
 
 This recalls Marcus Aurelius, e.g. VI. 15. 
 
THE FEAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 1. Diog. L. VII. 41, 6 Se KXedvOt}': tf fiip'^ ^a-t 
 
 SiaXeKTlKOV, pTJTOpiKOV, fjdlKOV, TToXlTlKOV, ^VaiKOV, 060- 
 
 XoyiKov. 
 
 i^ iu'pi). These are only subdivisions of the triple 
 Zenonian division : thus BioKeKTiKov and prjropiKov to- 
 gether occupy the same ground as XoyiKov (Diog. L. vii. 41 
 cited in Zeno frag. 6, where Oleanthes is probably meant). 
 For his rhetorical writings see Introd. p. 50. Hirzel ii. 
 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, el<s rp€i<s \070u9 et's re 
 Tov irepl Tov iravroi; koX tov ttoXitikov koi tov deoXoyiKov. 
 But see Stein, Psych, n. 95, Erkenntnistheorie n. 206. 
 
 iroXiTiKov. Similar is Aristotle's distinction between 
 <j>p6vri<rii (practical thought) and •jroKiriKr] (Eth. VI. 8), iu 
 which chapter <f>p6v'ri<Ti<; appears both as the general term 
 and as a special subdivision dealing with the individual. 
 The same may be said of tjOlkov here. 
 
 eeoXo7iK^v. Aristotle divides Speculative {detop'nriKrj) 
 Philosophy into ^va-tKtj, /jLadrjfianK'q, deoXoyiKij (Metaph. 
 V. 1, 10). The last-named branch is identical with irpioTT) 
 <f)iXo(70(f>M and is the best of the three, because its subject- 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 237 
 
 matter is the most honourable (id. x. 7. 9). In the Stoic 
 system it would have been impossible to follow out this 
 distinction in practice, since their materialism was de- 
 structive of metaphysic, and it may be doubted whether 
 BeoXoyoKov does not simply refer to the treatment of 
 popular religion appearing in the book Trepl 0ewv. The 
 hymn to Zeus belongs to deoXoyiicov rather than to 
 
 LOGICA. 
 
 2. Epict. Diss. I. 17. 11, t<J XoyiKo. aWeov ea-rl Sia- 
 KpiTiKa Kal iTTia-KeTTTiKd Kali, to? iiv ti<; eXiroi,, /jLerprjriKa 
 Kal araTiKa. T^? Xeyei ravra ; fi6vo<! ^pva-iT'iro'i Kal 
 Zrjvwv Ka\ KXedvOrj'} ; See Zeno frag. 4. 
 
 3. Sext. Emp. Math. VII. 228, (Ti;7re<)<7t?) irepl ^? evffv<s 
 Kai hiearrjcraV KXedvffirji; fiev yap rrjv rinreoa-tv Kara 
 elaoyrjv re Kal 6^o%»/j', Sairep Kal 8id twv SaKTvXiwv yi- 
 yvo/j.iv7]v Tov Krjpov Tinraxriv. ib. 372, el yap rvTraxriii iariv 
 iv '^wj^^ V ^avracria, iJTOi Kar i^o'xrjv Kal elao')(rjv TVTraxTK 
 icTTiv, 0)5 oi "Trepl tov KXeavdr/v vo/jli^ovo'IV, rj Kara ilrtX?;!/ 
 eTepoi(0(Tiv yCverai k.tX. ib. VIII. 400, K\edvOov<; fiev 
 Kvpim<! aKovovTO^ Trjv fierd ei<TO')(fj<; Kal e^o')(fj<s voov/ievTjv 
 (rvTraxnv). id. Pyrrh. II. 70, eVel ovv r) "^v^^v i^al to 
 riye/jLOViKov irvevfid ea-Tiv rj XeTTTOfiepeo'Tepov Tt, irvevfiaTO';, 
 COS (paa-iv, ov Sw^ereTai Tt? Tinrcoaip eirivoelv iv avT& ovTe 
 KaT e^o'XTJv Kal ela-oxv^, «»? eVt twv a^payihasv opa/iev, 
 ovTe KaTOL Trjv TepaToXoyovfiivrjv eTepoiwTlKrjv. 
 
 Zeno's definition of ^avTaa-ia (frag. 7) became a battle 
 ground for his successors : Cleanthes explained ruVtoo-t? 
 as referring to a material impression like that made upon 
 wax by a seal," cf Pbilo de mund. opif p. 114, PfeifE, m 
 (scil. vm) Ttt <f)av4vTa 6«to? eiaco KOfii^ovaai, StayyeXXowt 
 
238 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 KoX eTriSeUvvvrai Toi)? rv'/row eKaarmv, ivai^parfi^oiievat, to 
 ofioiov TrdBot. K7)p(p yap eoiKW';, Be'X^eTai ras Sia twv 
 ala-drjo-etov <j}avTaa-ia<s, ah ra awiiara KaraXafi^tivet,. 
 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. vii. 
 45 — 50); and he accordingly interpreted rvTrojcrj? by 
 6T6joota)o-t9 and aWot'wo-t?, cf. Cic. Tusc. I. 61 an imprimi, 
 quasi ceram, animum putamus, et esse memoriam sig- 
 natarum rerum in mente vestigia? Hirzel ii. pp. 160 — 168 
 finds here also the influence of Heraclitus, who, he believes, 
 is pointed at in Plat. Theaet. p. 191 foil., 6e<; S^ fioi Xoyov 
 evexa iv rat? ■yfrvxctK r)ii.wv evov tcr/pivov eKfiar/eiov k.tX. 
 He relies however entirely on the disputed frag. Kaicoi 
 /jLaprvpei dvOpdirot,^ o(^6aXfJLoX Koi wra ^ap^apoiii; •^uj^a? 
 i')(6vTmv, 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 
 
 elo-oxiiv. . .Iloxijv = concavity. . .convexity. Cf. Sext. Pyrrh. 
 I. 92, at yovv rypacfyal rrj fiev o^lrei hoicovaiv eia-o^dv koX 
 i^oxdis e'xeiv, ov p/fjv km rfj dtfty, ib. i. 120. Plat. Rep. 
 602 D, KoX ravTa KajiirvKa re koX evffia iv vSacri re 
 Oewfievoi^ KoX e^co, icai KoVkd re Br) koX i^e)(pvTa Sid ttjv 
 irepl rd ■xpm/JMra av irkdvqv t^s oi^eo)?. 
 
 SaKTuXtoiv. For ancient Greek rings see Guhl and 
 Koner, E. T. p. 182, with the illustrations, and for Kr^pov 
 see on Zeno frag. 50. Hirzel l.c. shows that the metaphor 
 was common, even apart from philosophic teaching: cf. 
 Aesch. P. V. 789, heXroi, (ppevwv, etc. 
 
 4. Plut. Plac. IV. 11, 01 XraiKoi ^atjiv' '6Tav yevvr)dfi 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 239 
 
 o av9p(oiTO<i e'^ei to i^yefiovtKov fiepo^ rrjg i^up^^S wairep 
 ')(apT7)v evepyov (or ivepyov) elv airor^pa^v' eh tovto fiLav 
 eKaarirjv twv evvoiwv ivaTroypd^eTai. 
 
 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. I. 9, p. 279 Mang., (pavraa-ia S' eari 
 Tvtrmo'K iv '^vy^fj, a yap ela-ijyayev eicdaTr) rmv alcrdija-ecov, 
 mcrirep 8aKTv\i6<} rt? rj a^payh, ivdirefid^aTO rov otKeiov 
 "XapaKTripa' Krjpm Se ioiKm'i 6 vov'i. quis rer. div. haer. c. 
 37, p. 498 Mang., ?J yap ^jrvxr) t6 Kijpivov, ai<s eiTre rt? TtSi/ 
 dp')(^aimv. 
 
 5. Olympiodorus 1. c. on Zeno frag. 12, KX6dv6r)<} 
 ToLvvv Xiyet, ore Te^vr) e<TTiv e^i<i oBa irdvTa dvvovaa. 
 Quintil. Inst. Or. ii. 17. 41, nam sive, ut Cleanthes voluit, 
 ars est potestas, via, id est, ordine efficiens. 
 
 Cf. also Cic. Fin. iii. 18, quoted on Zeno frag. 12. 
 Olympiodorus objects that the definition is too wide, and 
 that it would include ^vai<; which is not a Te^j/T? (cf Cic. 
 N.D. ir. 81), but Cleanthes might have replied that neither 
 is <f>vcni; an e^ts. For e^t? cf. on Biddea-iv Zeno frag. 117, 
 and Stob. Eel. II. 7, 5'' p. 73, 7, iv e^ei Be ov fiovaf elvai 
 Tw; dp6Td<;, dWd Kal ra? re^fvaii ra? ev r& aTrovSaieo 
 dvBpl aXXotw^e/o-a? vtto t^s dpeTr}<; Kal yevo/ievai dfiera- 
 iTTWTOvi;, olovei ydp dpera/s yiveadai. 
 
 6. Syrian, ad Ar. Metaph. 892 b 14—23, aSs dpa to 
 eiBi] irapd rol<s deioK ToiiroK dvBpdaiv (i.e. Socrates Plato 
 
240 THE FEAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 Parmenides and the Pythagoreans) ovre tt^o? tj)!/ p^<nv 
 rfj^ Toov ovoiJ,dTa)v a-vvrjOeia^ Trapifyero, eo? XpvfftTTTTO? Kal 
 Apy(e8rifio<s kol olifKeiov; twv XraiKWV varepov cp^drjcrav... 
 ov firjv ovB' evvorjiiaTo, elai irap avrol^ at ISiai, aS? 
 KXedvffnji; iarepov ecprjKev. 
 
 This diflficult 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 vcyi^fiara, he 
 supposes that Cleanthes' words were ovic eiaiv ai iBeai 
 voTjfiara. Zeller also p. 85 has vorjiiaTa. However 
 ivvorifiaTa appears in the Berlin Aristotle edited by 
 Usener, and so Wachsmuth (Comm. ii. p. 3) reads. Stein 
 explains as follows: — voij/iara represent abstract ra- 
 tionalised knowledge resulting from our experience by 
 the agency of opOo^ \d70s. By such voij/iara 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 (ivvoi^/iaTa) can never be the criterion of 
 knowledge, since they have no real existence. Cf. Simpl. 
 in Cat. £ 26 C : ovriva rd koivcL trap avTot? \676Tat. 
 But, even assuming that the distinction between vovifia 
 and ivvojjfia is well founded, which is by no means clear, 
 and that vorifiara 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 
 ivvoij/iara " : in other words, the negative ovhe is no part 
 of Cleanthes' statement, but belongs to the commentator. 
 This is abundantly clear from the following words : — ovS 
 CO? ' AvTtovtvo's, fiiyvvi Tfjv Aoyyivov koI KXedvdov^ So^av, 
 rm v(p wapv^iaravTO Kara Td<i ivvorjTiKdi} ISea^. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 241 
 
 7. Clem. Alex. Strom, viii. 9. 26, 930 P, 332 S, Xe/crd 
 yap TO, KaT7]yopr]/j,ara KoXovai, K.\edv6T]<! koX 'Ap'xeSr}fio<;. 
 
 XcKTct: 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 (fiea-ov rov re 
 vo'^fiaro^ /cal rov irpdy/jiaTO'i). Neither again are they 
 identical with the spoken words, which are corporeal (Sext. 
 Math. VIII. 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 Karrjyoprjfia is a subdivision of Xeicrov, 
 and is described as XeKTOV eWtTres (Diog. VII. 64). From 
 this passage, then, we must infer that Cleanthes was the 
 first to restrict KaTrjyoprjfia to its narrower sense by the 
 introduction of the new term Xsktov. An example of 
 KaTijyoprjfia given by Sextus is dyjrivdLov Trteti/ (Pyrrh. ii. 
 230), but a new term was required to denote the abstrac- 
 tion of a complete assertion (e.g. Cato ambulat), for which 
 KaT7]y6prjp.a was obviously insufficient. For Xsktov gene- 
 rally see Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, pp. 219 — 222. 
 
 'Apx^8i)|j,os : Zeller p. 60. The most important fact 
 recorded about him is that he placed the ■^ye/j.ovi/cov rov 
 Koa-fiov in the centre of the earth (Zeller p. 147). 
 
 8. Epict. Diss. II. 19. 1 — 4, 6 Kvpievwv 'Koyoi diro 
 roiovTWV rivwv di^opfiwv riptoTrjcrdai ^alverai ' Koivrj^ yap 
 ovaTj'i fidy^rif rot? rpial tovtoi^ irpo^ dWrjXa, t^ irdv 
 irapek'ijXvdd'i aXij^es dvayKaiov elvai, xal tw Swarm 
 dSvvarov firj aKoKovOelv, Koi rat Svvarov elvai o ovr eariv 
 d\r}de<; ovr earai' avviBmv rrjv P'd-)(rjv ravr7]v 6 ^i6Sa>po<i 
 ry rwv Trpcorwv Svolv iridavorTjri a-vvexpr]ffaro irpo'; 
 rrapdo'raa'iv rov firjSev elvai Bvvarov o ovr eariv oKrjde^ 
 ovr earai. Xonrov 6 fjbiv ri<; ravra r-qprjaei rwv Svoiv, 
 on earl re ri ovvarov, o ovr eariv aMjae^ ovr earai 
 
 H. P. 16 
 
242 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 KoX Swarm dSvvarov ovk aKokovdel' oii nrav Be TrapeXrj- 
 Xv66ii aXfjdev avar^Koiov icrri' KaOdirep oi irepl KXedvdrjv 
 <f)epecrdai hoKovaiv, olf eirX ttoXi) a-vvriyopriaev ^h.vriirarpo<i. 
 oi he ToXKa Svo, on hwarov t earXv o oSr eariv dXrjdeis 
 ovT e<TTat' KoX Trdv irapeXrfKvOo'; d\T}de<s dvop/Koiov iaTiv' 
 hvvarm B' dBvvarov aKoXovdei. rd rpia S' exeiva ri/jprjirai, 
 dfir'/'x^avoii, Sid to Koivfjv elvai avrwv fid'X7)v. Cic. de Fato 
 7. 14, omnia enim vera in praeteritis necessaria sunt, ut 
 Chrysippo placet, dissentienti a magistro Cleanthe, quia 
 sunt immutabilia nee in falsum e vero praeterita possunt 
 convertere. 
 
 Three propositions are here mentioned, which are 
 inconsistent with each other in such a way that the 
 acceptance of any two involves the rejection of the third: — 
 (1) Every past truth is necessary. (2) That which is 
 possible can never become impossible. (3) A thing may 
 be possible which does not exist and never will exist. 
 Diodorus asserted the truth of (1) and (2) and denied (3) : 
 thus Simplicius ad Cat. 65. 6 — 8 describes his followers 
 as avTrj TTJ eK^daet KpivovTe<; to Svvarov. Cic. Fam. IX. 
 4 (writing to Varro) -rrepl Svvarwv me scito Kara AioSwpov 
 xpiveiv. Quapropter, si venturus es, scito necesse esse te 
 venire : sin autem non es, rwv dSvvdrwv est te venire. 
 Cleanthes asserted the truth of (2) and (3) and denied (1). 
 Chrysippus asserted the truth of (1) arid (3) and denied 
 (2), cf Alexander ad An. Pr. i. 15 p. 34 a 10 Xpuo-tTTTro? Se 
 Xeycov p/rjSev KcoiKveiv koI Swarm dSvvarov eireaOai K.r.X. 
 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. iii. 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 6 Kvpievcov Xoyo^ = 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 243 
 
 argument getting the better of others : cf. Themist. Or. ii. 
 30 b who mentions it together with 6 Keparivrj^ as the 
 discovery of Philo or Diodorus. In Lucian Vit. Auct. 
 c. 22 Chrysippus professes his ability to teach it as well 
 as the depL^av 'HXe/cr/ja and iyKeKoXvfifievo^. Aul. Gell. 
 I. 2. 4, KvpievovTa<i ricrv')(CL^ovTa'i koX acopetTa^. Cleanthes 
 wrote a special treatise on the subject (Introd. p. 50). 
 
 9. Quintil. Inst. Or. ii. 15. 33 — 35. huic eius sub- 
 stantiae maxime conveniet finitio, rhetoricen esse bene 
 dicendi scientiam. nam et orationis omnes virtutes 
 semel complectitur, et protinus etiam mores oratoris, cum 
 bene dicere non possit nisi bonus, idem valet Chrysippi 
 finis ille ductus a Cleanthe, scientia recte dicendi (scil. 
 rhetorice). 
 
 Kiderlin (Jahrb. f. Class. Phil. 131, p. 123) conjectures 
 that the word Cleanthis has fallen out after substantiae, 
 so that, while Cleanthes defined rhetoric as iiriaTijij.ri 
 Tov ev Xeyeiv, the words tov opOw^ Xeyeiv would be an 
 alteration of Chrysippus. See however Striller Rhet. 
 Sto. pp. 7, 8. For the usual Stoic definition cf. Diog. 
 L. VII. 42, Ti]V re prjTopiKrjv, eTriaTrjfirjv ovaav tov ev 
 Xeyeov irepl twv ev hie^ohm Xoyasv where rhetoric is 
 contrasted with dialectic, since dialectic was also defined 
 as i-TTia-TijfjLT) TOV ev Xejeiv by the Stoics (Alex. Aphr. Top. 
 3. 6, quoted by Stein, Erkenntnistheorie n. 210). Sext. 
 Emp. Math. ii. 6. 
 
 10. Varro de L. L. V. 9, quod si summum gradum non 
 attigero, tamen secundum praeteribo, quod non solum ad 
 Aristophanis sed etiam ad Cleanthis lucubravi [secundum 
 explained in § 7 quo grammatica escendit antiqua, quae 
 ostendit quemadmodum quodque poeta finxerit verbum 
 confinxerit declinarit]. 
 
 16—2 
 
244 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 11. Athen. XI. 467 d, 'KXeav6r]<; he 6 (pi\6a-o<f)09 ev tS 
 irepl /j,eTa'\ij'y}rea)<! a/iro twv KaTaa-KevaaavTav (fyrja-iv ovo- 
 fiao'Ofjvai rrjv re drjpiKkeiov KvXiKa kol Trjv SetvidSa. ib, 
 471 b, K\edp0r)<; 8' eV tcS "Trepl fieraX'rj^jreai^ a-VYypdfifiaTi 
 (}yrj(Ti, Ttt roivvv evp-qfjuaTa, koX baa Toiavra en Kai ra 
 Xoiird ea-Tt, olov 6r)piKKeio<;, Seividv, 'I(f)iKpari^, ravTcu 
 [yap] irporepov avviaropei rov<; evpovTw;, ^alverat S 
 en Ka\ vvV el Se firj -rroiei tovto, /iera/Se/SXij/co? av eirf 
 /jiiKpov Tovvofia. dXXd, Kaddirep e'iprjrai, ovk kcm Tnarev- 
 aai T^ Tvxpvn. 
 
 |j,6TaXii<|/{Ms : the meaning of this word seems to be that 
 explained by Quintil. viii. 6. 37, superest ex his, quae 
 aliter significent, /u,6Ta\i?>|rt<?, id est, transumtio, quae 
 ex alio in aliud velut viam praestat : tropus et varissimus 
 at maxime improprius, Graecis tamen frequentior, qui 
 Centaurum Chirona, et vqaov; (? vav<;) 6od<; 6^eia<; dicunt. 
 Nos quis ferat, si Verrem suem aut Laelium doctum 
 nominemus ? cf. Arist. Top. vi. 11, p. 149 a 6. 
 
 eripCKXeiov: 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. 
 
 Scivids and 'I4>i,KpaTls are the names given to particular 
 kinds of slippers, the latter of which was so called after 
 the celebrated Athenian general. Cf Poll. vil. 89, otto Se 
 Tcov ')(p7]aaiievaiv 'Ic^iK/aart'Se?, Aei,vidSe<;, ^AXKi^idSia, 
 XfjLtvBvpiSia, M.vvdKia airo Mwdxav. Diod. Sic. XV. 44, 
 TO? re iiTToBeaei'; toi<; aTpanwrait; euXvTou? Ka\ Kov<fia<; 
 eiroi'qae, ra? l^e'X^pi tov vvv i<f)iKpaTiSa^ aTr" eKeivov kuXov- 
 fieva^. Alciphr. Ep. III. 57, evayx^ot; K.povio}v eva-rdvTwv 
 'lipiKpaTiSa(} fiot veovpyei'i eirefiy^e. Becker's Charicles 
 E. T. p. 450, MuUer Handbuch iv. 428. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 245 
 
 ■ydp is expunged by Meineke, whom Wachsm. follows. 
 
 oTivtoTopei is read by Casaubon for a-vvia-Topelv. It seems 
 to mean " connoted." 
 
 A i\ (111 ^^- " if i* do^s not do this, the word must have 
 changed somewhat." For the tense cf. Dem. xxx. 10. 
 Timocrates and Onetor were both men of substance ctfo-r' 
 ovK av Sid TovTO y' elev ovk evdv<! BeSeoK6re<;. 
 
 PHYSICA. 
 
 12. Diog. L. VII. 134, Soxel B' avToii; dp'^a<s elvai rcSv 
 oXcov Svo, TO iroiovv Koi ro irda'x^ov. to fjuev ovv •Ka,a'j(ov 
 elvai TTjv d-rroiov ovaiav Trjv iXtjv, to Be ttoiovv toi/ iv 
 avTrj Xoyov top deov. tovtov ydp dtBiov ovTa Bid irdarji; 
 avTrj<; BTj/jiiovpyetv SKaa-Ta. TiOrjcri Be t^ Boy/jia tovto... 
 KXeavdr/i! iv tw -rrepi drofiuv. See Zeno frag. 35. 
 
 13. TertuU. Apol. 21, haec (quae Zeno dixit 7J>yov 
 esse cf. Zeno frag. 44) Cleanthes in spiritum congerit 
 quern permeatorem universitatis affirmat. 
 
 spiritum = Trvevfia. So far as the evidence serves, 
 Cleanthes was the first to explain the Heraclitean irvp as 
 •n-vev/ia. 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 Trvev/ia to Chry- 
 sippus and restricts Cleanthes to irvp, while at p. 216 he 
 allows that Cleanthes introduced the conception of 
 TTvevfia. 
 
 permeatorem. Gk. SirjKeiv Zeno frag. 37, probably 
 indicates that CI. accepted Kpaa-K Bi oXav, cf. Alex. 
 Aphrod. de Mixt. 142 a, rjvwa-dai ttjv avixTtaaav ova-iav, 
 
246 THE FKAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 irvevfi'aTO'i tivo<! Sid Trao-ijs avTr}^ SirjKOVTO<;, viji ab 
 (TvvarfeTai, koI crvfifiivei. 
 
 14. Stob. Eel. I. 1. 29" p. 34, 20, Atcr^evvi koX KXedv- 
 Brj'i Kai Olvo7riSr]<s (rov debv) ttjv tov Koafiov y^vyf}v. 
 Cic. N. D. I. 37, turn totius naturae menti atque animo 
 tribuit hoc nomen. Minuc. Octav. xix. 10, Theophrastus 
 et Zeno et Chrysippus et Cleanthes sunt et ipsi multi- 
 formes, sed ad unitatem providentiae omnes revolvuntur. 
 Cleanthes enim mentem modo animum modo aethera 
 plerumque rationem Deum disseruit. 
 
 Cleanthes teaches the exact correspondence between 
 the microcosm of the individual and the macrocosm of 
 the world: there is therefore in the world a ruling 
 principle analogous to the soul of man. Sext. Math. 
 IX. 120, (2o-T6 eVel Koi 6 Koa-fio^ vwo (ftvaewq SioiKelrat 
 •jroXvfieprj^ Ka6ea-Tw<i, e'lrj dv ri iv avTw to Kvpievov Kal to 
 7rpoKaTap')(6fJLevov twv Kivrjaeaiv. ovBev Be Bvvarov eivai 
 ToiovTov T) rrjv rwv bvrwv ^vaiv, ^Tt? 6eo<i eariv. eo'Tiv 
 dpa 6e6<;. 
 
 15. Cic. N. D. I. 37, tum 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. II. 325). 
 
 According to Krische, p. 428 — 430, Cicero has here 
 made a blunder by importing an explanation of his own 
 into the Greek original 6e6v elvai tov alQepa, and by a 
 confusion of the two senses in which aidrjp is used in the 
 Stoic School (1) = TTUjO Te'x^viKov, (2) = the fiery zone 
 surrounding the world. Cleanthes, as will be presently 
 seen, disagreeing with the rest of the school, regarded the 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 247 
 
 sun and not the belt of aether as the TjjefioviKov, or, in 
 popular language, as the abode of God (Cic. Acad. il. 126). 
 Cleanthes therefore only meant to affirm the identity 
 of deoi; and the -rrvp Te')(viK6v. This may be true, but the 
 reasoning is not conclusive. Apart from the word 
 certissimum, which is not important, there is no reason 
 why Cleanthes should not have attributed divinity to the 
 ultimus omnia cingens aether, just in the same manner as 
 he does to the stars, where Krische feels no difficulty. 
 Similarly Stein, Psychol, n. 99 : the aether emanates from 
 the "TJrpneuma" and is a divine power, but not God 
 himself. 
 
 ultimum i.e. farthest removed from the earth which is 
 in the centre of the universe. Zeno, frag. 67. Cic. N. D. ii. 
 41. 117. Diog. VII. 37. 
 
 16. Philod. trepi evcre^. c. 9, Xoyov i^yovfievov twv iv 
 T(S K0(7iMw. Cic. N. D. I. 37, turn nihil ratione censet esse 
 divinius. 
 
 This, it should be remembered, is in direct opposition 
 to the teaching of Epicurus, who speaks of the world 
 as <f>v<7ei aXor/o) e'/c twv drofiiov avvecrTaiTa (Stob. Eel. 
 I. 21. 3° p. 183, 10). 
 
 17. Cic. N. D. I. 37, Cleanthes... tum ipsum mundum 
 deum dicit esse. Cf. N. D. ii. 34. 45. 
 
 See Krische p. 424 — 426, according to whom we are to 
 interpret mundum here in the first of the three senses 
 specified by Diog. L. vii. 187, 138, lo-rt K6a-fio<; 6 tStaj? 
 TToio'} Trj<; Tmv okav ova-ia<;. Cf Chrysippus ap. Stob. Eel. 
 I. 21. 5, p. 184, 11, Xeyerai S' ere/aaj? Kocr/jbO'; 6 ^ed?, Ka0' 
 ov ri BiaKoa-fiijcn^ jiverat koI TeXeiovrai. In any case, we 
 have here a distinct statement that Cleanthes was a 
 pantheist, and identified God with matter. The different 
 meanings given to «der/tt09 in effect amount to this that it 
 
248 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 may be regarded either as the sum total of all existence, 
 or as the transitory and derivative part of existence : the 
 distinction, however, as Zeller observes, is only a relative 
 one (see his remarks p. 159). For pantheism as advocated 
 by Cleanthes see Hirzel ii. 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 provideiitiae 
 auctoritate, fataliter quoqiie provenire, nee tamen quae 
 fataliter ex providentia, ut Cleanthes. 
 
 Zeno had affirmed the identity of elfiapfiivri and 
 ■7rp6voi,a (frag. 45), but omitted to discuss the difficulties 
 involved in so broad an explanation of fatalistic doctrine. 
 Cleanthes felt the difficulty that kukov could not be said 
 to exist Kara irpovoiav, even if it existed /cafl' eifiap/j,evriv. 
 This point will recur in the Hymn to Zeus frag. 46, 1. 17, 
 ovBe Tt ylverai epyov eVt '^dovl cot) Bl^a hatp,ov...'ir\rjv 
 oiToaa pe^ovai kukoI a^eTepri<nv dvolai<s, 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 tovtov 
 Se Tov \6yov to, •irapair\r)<Tta ipovfiev koL irepl t^? dpeTrj<i 
 I'lfjMV KoX Trepl T^9 KaKla<; koX to '6\ov rwv Te)(ywp kclL twv 
 dri'^vtov. ..ovOev yap eaviv dfWws twv Kara fiepof yCyve(rdai, 
 ovSe TOvXa'^io'Tov a\X' ?* Kara rr/v koivtjv (fjva-tv xal rbv 
 eKeivfji \6yov. id. Comm. Not. 34, 5, el be ovhe Tov\d')(ia-Tov 
 ecTTi, TWV fiepwv e^x^etv aWw? aXX' rj Kard Tr)v tov Aio^ 
 0ov\7](TLv. Chrysippus also defined el/jLapp,evr] as \670s 
 TMV iv TO) Koa-fitp irpovoLa SioiKovfievwv. The Sceptic 
 objections on this head are put very clearly in Sext. Pyrrh. 
 III. 9—12. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 249 
 
 19. Philo de provid. ii. 74 p. 94 Aucher : (astra erratica) 
 nota sunt non solum ratione verum etiam sensu ita movente 
 providentia, quae, ut dicit Chrysippus et Cleanthes, nihil 
 praetermisit pertinentium ad certiorem utilioremque dis- 
 pensationem. quod si aliter melius esset dispensari res 
 mundi, eo modo sumpsisset compositionem, qua tenus 
 nihil occurreret ad impediendum deum. 
 
 I have taken this fragment from Gercke (Chrysippea 
 p. 708). 
 
 quae nihil praetermisit.. MMc\i of the Stoic exposition 
 in the 2nd book of Cicero's de Natura Deorum is a 
 commentary on this. Thus for astra erratica c£ § 103 
 foil, and esp. § 104, ergo, ut oculis adsidue videmus, sine 
 ulla mutatione et varietate cetera labuntur...caelestia... 
 quorum contemplatione nullius expleri potest animus 
 naturae constantiam videre cupientis. Generally cf. M. 
 Anton. II. 3, rci r^s tv^?;? ovk dvev (^vcreta ^ a-v^KKm<Teto<; 
 Kal etnirKoKfji; raiv irpovoLa SioiKov/ievcov' irama eKeWev 
 pel' TrpocreaTi Be ro dvayKuiov, Kal to rm oXa KOfffitp 
 av/j^epov, ov fi.epo<i el. 
 
 qua tenus... Ki the same time we find elsewhere a 
 chain argument of Chrysippus in Alex, de fato c. 37 p. 
 118 01) irdvTa fiev eart KaO' el/xapfiivTjv, ovk etrrt Be 
 dKmXvTO<i Kal dirapefiTroBiaro^ rj tow Koafiov BiolKrjtTii 
 K.T.X. But inconsistency was inevitable in this matter, 
 when Chrysippus could account for the existence of evil 
 by saying (Plut. Sto. Rep. 36. 1) KaKiav Be KaOoKov dpai 
 ovre Bvvarov eariv ovt ep^et Ka\w^ dpOfjvai. 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 eflSgiata Stoici tradunt 
 
250 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 Zenon Citiaeus et Speusippus (leg. Chrysippus) Soleus 
 et Cleanthes Thasius (leg. Assius). See on Zeno frag. 52. 
 
 21. Hermiae Irris. Gent. Phil. 14, Diels p. 654, aW 
 o KXeav6ri<i diro tov <f>pearo<; iirdpai rrjv KecfjaKrjv KaToyeXa 
 aov TOV ooyfiaTo<i koX avTo<; dvifia tcL's a\ij6el<i dp'^d<; deov 
 Kai vXrjv. Kai rr/v fiev yrjv fiera^dWeiv eis vScop, to 8e 
 vScop el<s depa tov Se depa <el<; Trvp> (j}6pe<rdai, to Se irvp 
 ei.'i Ta irepiiyeia 'xmpelv, Trjv Be ylfvxvv Si SXov tov Koafiov 
 SirjKeiv, y<; fiipo'; fieTe^x^ovrai; i^fidi; ifiyfrvx^ova-dai. 
 
 <|)p?aTos. This is explained by the anecdote related by 
 Diog. VII. 168, St60oi]0T] Se eVt <f>i\oTrovia, os 76 irivi]'} wv 
 (iyav &pfi7)ae /Miado^opelv' Kai vvKTcop fiev iv tok Kij-rroc; 
 rjvTXei, /led' rjfiepav S' iv rot? Xoyoii eyvfivd^eTO' Wev Kai 
 ^pedvTXijii eKXijdTj. The same idea is kept up by dvi/id 
 i.e. " hauls up." 
 
 Kol Ti^v (iJv yf\v K.T.X. 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 
 •n-dvTa pel. Cf Krische p. 387. It is however always 
 implied, cf Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Eel. I. 10. 16» p. 129, 18, 
 Trp(0T7j<s fjLev ytyvofievri^ t^9 6/c irvpo'i KaTO, avaTaaiv et? 
 depa fieTa^oXr]<;, SevTepat S' dirb tovtov et's vScop, T/atr?;? 
 Se en fioKXav KaTa to dvdXoyov avviaTa/ievov tov vSaTO^ 
 et? yrjv. irdXiv S' dirb Tainrj^ SiaXvofievr]<i kuI SLaj^eofievrji; 
 •jrpaiTTf p,ev yipjveTai ^i/o-t? et? liScop, Sevrepa S' i^ vSaToi 
 eh depa, TpiTi] Se Kai e(T')(aT7) eh 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 aere aether, deinde retrorsum vicissim 
 ex aethere aer, inde aqua, ex aqua terra infima. Sic 
 naturis his, ex quibus omnia constant, sursus deorsus, 
 ultro citro commeantibus mundi partium coniunctio conti- 
 netur. For Heraclitus see R. and P. § 29. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 251 
 
 els Trijp. Some words must be supplied here: Diels 
 inserts avio. 
 
 TO Zi irvp : the reverse process is concisely stated. 
 
 ■^s n^pos ner^ovras : for the divine origin of the human 
 soul see Stein Psych, p. 96, n. 169. 
 
 22. Stob. Eel. I. 20, 1" p. 171, 2, Zr/vcovi km KXedvdeo 
 Koi ~K.pva i-KiTfii dpeaKei Trjv ovalav fiera^dXKetv olov et? 
 a-iripfia to irvp, Koi ttoKiv ex tovtov roiavrqv diroTekeia-dai, 
 Trjv BiaKoa-fiTiaiv, o'la irporepov rjv. See Zeno frag. 54. 
 
 23. Philo, Incorr. Mundi p. 954, fiera^dWeiv yap rj 
 6t9 ^Xorya rj eh avyrjv avayKaiov' eh fikv ^Xoya, cos ooeTO- 
 K.\edv6r]<;, eh S' avyr]v, «b? 6 H.pvcrnr'Tro';. 
 
 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 Tej(vi,Kov with nrvp dre'xvov. <f)\6^ and avyy 
 therefore alike express what Numenius, speaking of the 
 school in general, calls irvp aldepwSe<; i.e. Trvp re-xyiicov 
 (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 eKirvp(o<Ti<; and 
 that 0\of is used with reference to the Sun (see on frag. 
 24), and avyrj as a representation of the finest aether. 
 For the connection of 0\o^ with ■^Xto? he quotes Diog. L. 
 VII. 27, Aesch. Pers. 497, Soph. Trach. 693, 0. T. 1425 
 (Stein, Psychologie pp. 70, 71 and the notes). Hirzel's 
 explanation is similar (ii. p. 211), except that he does not 
 see any reference to the sun : according to him, Cleanthes 
 spoke of a permeating Trvp for which TTvev/j-a was substi- 
 tuted by Chrysippus : but see on frag. 13. For <\>k6ya cf 
 iK(liXoyta0evTO<s in frag. 24. 
 
252 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 24. Stob. Eel. I. 17. 3, p. 153, 7, KXeai/^i/? Se oJ^to) 
 •TTtB? (fiTjacv' iK<f>\oyia9ivTOi! rov ■jravTO'i (rwi^eiv to fiecrov 
 avTOV irpmrov, elra ra i')(^6fieva anroa^ivvvadai, Si '6\ov. 
 rov Be iravTO'i i^vypavdevTO<i to ea'x^arov rov rrvpo^, avri- 
 Tvirtjiravroi avra rov fiea-ov, rpirrea-dai irdXiv el<s rovvav- 
 riov, eW ovrco rpeirofievov avoa <^r)a),v av^eadai Kai ap')(e(T- 
 Sai BiaKO<T/j,eiv ro oXov' koX roiavrtjv rrepiohov aiei Kai 
 StaKoafiTjaiv nroiovfievov rov iv rrj rwv oXav oiiaia rovov 
 jjbr) iraveaOai. wairep yap evo'i rivof ra fieprj rravra <f>vercu 
 Ik a-Trep/judrcov iv rot? xadiJKOvai j(p6voi<i, oiirco icai rov 
 o\ov ra fiepr], wv Kal rd ^£a xal rd ipvrd ovra rvyx^avei, 
 iv roll; Kadtj/covai ■xpovoii tpverai. Kal Sffrrep Ttve? Xoyoi 
 r&v fiepwv 61? avipua avviovre^ fiiyvvvrai xal avdit 
 BiaKplvovrai yivofievmv rwv fiepmv, o{5to)? ef ev6<} re rrdvra 
 yiveaOai Kal eK rrdvrcov el<i h> (TvyKpivecdai, oSw koI 
 crvfi<jic6v(0i Sie^tovar]'! rrji •nrepioSov. 
 
 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 rrvp dei^wov 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. iii. 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 a-<^alpo'i is always readier 
 to admit the loosening of tension, while the bracing in- 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 253 
 
 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 dv<o av^ea-Oai), 
 This is the theory of tension as applied to the StaKoa-- 
 fiTjat,';, and its statement constitutes the most important 
 contribution made by Oleanthes to Stoicism. A difficulty 
 in the above exposition remains to be stated: — Why is 
 there no created world in the period between eKirvpcocrt'i 
 and e^vypu<n<;, 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 eWiJ- 
 pftxrt? 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 eaxarov rov 
 7rvpo<; Tpeirerai et? rovvavriov. There is also a divergent 
 view, namely, that the destruction of the world may be 
 compassed by KaraKXva/ji.o's as well as by eKTrvpoicn';. 
 This implies that our world can exist during the tran- 
 sition towards i^vypacri';. Cf. Sen. N. Q. III. 29. 1 and 
 Heraclit. Alleg. Horn. c. 25, p. 53, quoted by Zeller p. 169, 
 1. Schol. on Lucan VII. 813 eKiripwai';, quam secuturam 
 KaraicXva-ij^ov^ adserunt Stoici, seems to have been over- 
 looked, but is of doubtful import. Stein's account of the 
 SiaKocr/iTjo-K (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 eo-^^aToz/ 
 Tov ■irvpb'i 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. 124 — 134). He strongly insists 
 
254 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 that TO ea-'x^arov means extremum (das Feuer des Umkreises) 
 and not reliquum, and that Philo irepl d<j)6. Koa/iov 18, 
 {fierd rrjv eKirvptoaiv eireihoiv 6 veo<; Koafiov fiiXKy orj- 
 fiiovpyeiadai av/iTrav fiev to irvp ov a^evvvrai, woarj oe tl<s 
 avTov fiokpa viroXeiTrerai,) 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 TeLveadai is sound, Zeno is confessedly 
 dealing with another point, viz. the explanation of how 
 the separate parts of the «dcr/w.o? are kept in one solid mass 
 and why they are not scattered into the void. Ogereau p. 
 10 attributes the introduction of rovo^ 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. 
 
 Td (i^o-ov, cf. Stob. Eel. I. 21, S^ p. 183, 3, d-7r6 yi)<; Be 
 dp^aadai t'tjv yevea-iv rov Koafiov, KaOdirep diro Kevrpov, 
 dp')(rj Se <x<paipa^ to Kevrpov. 
 
 «|v7pov9^vTos, cf Diog. L. VII. 135, 136 quoted on Zeno 
 frag. 52. 
 
 Tpeiro|ilvou. MSS. corr. Canter. 
 
 TOV...TOV0V. The MSS. have Toi}...Toi'ou. The reading 
 in the text is due to Mein., whom Wachsm. now follows, 
 although he formerly (Comm. ii. p. 11) kept the MSS. 
 reading, removing the colon after oXov and inserting 
 commas after koI and tovov. There is some mistake 
 in Stein's note on this point, Psychol, n. 41. 
 
 Ik <rirep(JidT(i)v. Cf Zeno frag. 54 = Oleanth. frag. 22, and 
 see Kitter and Preller § 402. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 255 
 
 Xoyoi was unnecessarily suspected by the older edd. of 
 Stobaeus. The conj. rovoi is tempting, but Wachsm. 
 quotes Marc. Aurel. IX. 1, apfirjcrev (i) <f)vcri,<;) eVt rijvSe rrjv 
 SiaKoa-firicriv avXka^ovad riva<; \670us rwv icrofiivcov 
 K.r.\. The best parallel is Zeno frag. 106, which puts 
 the text beyond dispute. rivh \070t rwv /lepwv = 
 certain proportions of the constituent parts of the soul. 
 
 yivo]Uv<av P. yeivofievmv F, whence ryevofiiveov Mein. 
 Wachsm. Diels: but the present, accepted by Hirzel il. 
 p. 126, seems preferable. 
 
 els is bracketed by Diels and Wachsm. 
 
 25. Plut. Comm. Not. 31, 10, ert toLvvv i'7raya>vi^6fievo<; 
 6 KXedvdTji; rrj eKirvpcoaei \eyet, rrjv aeKrjvrjv Koi, rd Xotira 
 aarpa tov rfXiov i^o/ioioicreiv wdvra kavrm, koi fierajSaXelv 
 eh eavTov. 
 
 As the sun is, according to Cleanthes, the ■^ye/jLoviKov 
 TOV Koa-fiov, the ■jrvp dei^mov may be supposed to exist 
 there in its purest form (cf. the authorities cited by 
 Zeller, Stoics p. 204, 3, Krische p. 386), and to this the 
 moon and the other stars will be assimilated at the 
 eKTrvpa><n<;. 
 
 l|o|jioi.Mo-6iv. MSS. have i^o/ioidaaaL corr. Zeller, p. 165, 
 n. 4. 
 
 26. Stob. Eel. I. 15, 6" p. 146, 19, KXeav^ijs /ctwo? 
 tSv Xtcoikwv to TTvp dire^rjvaTO KOJVoeiSi'i. 
 
 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* p. 146, 14, ol diro 
 \lv6ay6pov...(i6vov TO dvcoTUTOv TTvp Kiovoet,Si<i. This is 
 supposed to refer to the Milky Way (Zeller, pre-Socratics, 
 I. p. 466 n. 2), cf infra frags. 32, 33. 
 
 27. Plut. de facie in orbe lunae c. 6, 3, Sairep 
 
256 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 Apia-rap'x^ov meTO Selv KXedvdr)^ tov Xctfiiov d<Te^eLa<; 
 TrpocTKaketaBai tov<s "KWijva^, (w? Kivovvra tov Kocrfiov rijv 
 effTiav, oTi <Td> (jsaLvofieva a-oo^eiv avrjp iireipdro, p.ivei,v 
 TOV ovpav6v VTTOTide/ievo';, i^eXiTTeaOai Se icaTa Xo^ov 
 kvkXov Trjv yrjv, a/ia Kal irepl tov avTrj<; a^ova iivovfievqv. 
 
 This comes from the treatise tt/jo? ' Apia-Tapxov : 
 Introd. p. 51. 
 
 'ApCjTTopxov: the celebrated mathematician. For the 
 theory here attacked cf. Sext. Math. X. 174, oi ye /jltjv ttjv 
 tov Kocrfwv Kivrjaiv dve\6vTe<i Trjv Se yfjv KivelaOai Bo^d- 
 <7avTe<!, oii<; ol irepl ' ApiarTap^ov tov fjbadrjfiaTiKov ic.tX. 
 Stob. Eel. I. 25, 3'' p. 212, 2, 'Api(7Tapxo<i tov rjXiov la-Trjai 
 fieTa Twv dirXavwv Trjv Be yfjv Kiveladai irepl tov tjXiaKov 
 kvkXov. (This also illustrates Kara Xo^ov kvkXov.) It 
 appears however to be doubtful whether Aristarchus 
 propounded this view otherwise than hypothetically : cf. 
 Plut. quaest. Plat. viil. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 dcr6p6Cas irpoo-KoXeio-Sai. For the ypa^fj atrejSeta? see 
 Attischer Process ed. Lipsius, pp. 366 — 375, and cf the 
 case of Anaxagoras (ib. p. 370). Every ypa(j)i], as well as 
 an ordinary civil action, commenced with the ■irp6aKKria-t<; 
 or writ of summons (ib. p. 770 £). 
 
 ecrrfav: alluding to the central position of the earth. 
 Aesch. Ag. 1056 eo-rta? fiea-ofi(f>d\ov, 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 ea-Tia tov 
 iTavT6<;: see Dr Thompson on Phaedr. 247 A, jxevei yap 
 'EtTTta iv 6ea>v oXutp fiovq. 
 
 TO, ij>aivo|Mva o-mjeiv : "to save appearances:" for which 
 phrase see Prof Mayor in Journ. Phil. vi. 171. 
 
 28. Euseb. P. E. xv. 15. 7, Ar..Did. fr. 29 ap. Diels, 
 p. 465, riyefioviiebv Be tov Koafiov KXedvdei fiev ijpea-e rov 
 
THE FEAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 257 
 
 rjXiov elvai Sia to fieytcnov tcov darpaiv inrdpyeiv koi 
 ifKetara cv/i^aWeadai tt/oo? t'^v twv oXwi' BioL/crjo'iv, 
 Vfiipav itai iviavTov irotovvra koX tom aWa? Spaq. 
 Censorin. frag. 1, 4, et constat quidem quattuor elementis 
 terra aqua igne aere. cuius principalem solem quidam 
 putant, ut Cleanthes. Diog. vil. 139. Stob. Eel. i. 21. 6* 
 p. 187, 4, KXedvdrii o ^tcoiko'S iv rfkLip e<fyr)aev elvai to 
 ijyefioviKov rov Koafiov. Cic. Acad. II. 126, Cleanthes, 
 qui quasi majorum est gentium Stoicus, Zenonis auditor, 
 solem dominari et rerum potiri putat. 
 
 There is no warrant whatever for Krische's suggestion 
 (p. 435), that Cleanthes probably (" wahrscheinlich ") 
 adopted the Heraclitean theory of the daily renewal of 
 the sun : everything points the other way. At the same 
 time, the important position assigned to the sun was 
 probably due to his Heraclitean studies (see Introd. 
 p. 50), for, though Heraclitus himself did not maintain 
 this doctrine, we read of the Heraclitean school in Plat. 
 Cratyl. 413 B, t6v rjXiov. . .Siaiovra koX Kciovra eimpoTreveiv 
 TO. 6vTa. Cf. Pliny, N. H. Ii. 12 (cited by Hirzel, il. p. 138). 
 
 29. Stob. Eel. I. 25. 3' p. 211, 18, K.\edv0v<; dva/ifia 
 voepdv TO iic 6aXdrrr)<i rov rjXiov. irepl Se tcov Tpoirwv 
 <j}aa-i Kara, to Std.t7TT]fj,a Trji; vTroK£i,fievr]<; Tpo(^r]<;' ooKeav6<; 
 B' io'Ti * * * ^? T-^v avadvfiLacTiv iiriveiMeTai. crwyKaTO^epea- 
 6ai Se Tov fjXiov Kivovfjuevov eXiKa ev ry cr^aipa, diro tov 
 lcrr)fj,eptvov iiri Te dpKTOV koI votov, onrep ia-n irepaTa 
 rfj^ eXiKoi}. Cic. N. D. III. 37, Quid enim? non eisdem 
 vobis placet omnem ignem pastus indigere nee permanere 
 uUo modo posse, nisi alitur: aU autem solem, lunam, 
 reliqua astra aquis, alia dulcibus, alia marinis ? eamque 
 causam Cleanthes adfert cur se sol referat nee longius 
 progrediatur solstitiali orbi itemque brumali, ne longius 
 discedat a cibo. Macrob. Sat. i. 23, 2, ideo enim sicut et 
 H. P. 17 
 
258 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 Posidonius et Cleanthes aflSrmaiit, solis meatus a plaga, 
 quae usta dicitur, non recedit, quia sub ipsa currit Oceanus, 
 qui terrain ambit et dividit. 
 
 Wachsmuth regards Cic. and Stob. U. cc. as containing 
 two distinct fragments (Oomm. ii. fr. phys. 7 and 8), but 
 the passage in Cic. is only a verbal expansion of irepl 
 Tpoirwv...Tpo^r)<;. 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^ p. 239, 5. Hirzel con- 
 cludes (ii. 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. 
 
 oCvaiipa K.T.X. c£ Plut. plac. II. 20. 3, irepi ovaia<s rfKiov, 
 ol %Ta)iicoX dvafi/j-a voepov ex 6a\a,TTi]<;. Diog. VII. 145, 
 Tpe(j>ea6ai, Be to. ep.iTvpa ravra (i.e. the sun and moon) 
 Koi ra aXXa acrrpa' tov fiev rfKiov ex t^? fieyoKr]'; daXwr- 
 Tr)<; voepov ovra dvafifia, whereas the moon is fed with 
 fresh water, and is mixed with air. Chrysippus ap. Stob. 
 Eel. I. 25. 5, TOV yXiov elvai to dOpoiaOev e^a/ifia voepov e« 
 TOV TTj^ daXaTTt]!! dvadv/inifiaTo^. Wachsmuth adds Galen, 
 hist. phil. c. LVIII. p. 277 K., WKeavov he icaX ttjv daXacra-av 
 irapex^iv Tip 7;Xtp Tpo<prjv Trjv avTov vypoTrfTa e')(ov<rav ev 
 avTw Koi TTjV jewSj) dvaOv/iiaaiv. 
 
 TpoiTMv: a necessary correction by Bake for the MSS. 
 Tpo<f)oov. 
 
 i|>ao-i MSS. Wachsm. suggests iprjo-i. 
 
 IotJ: there is a lacuna after this word. Wachsmuth 
 formerly (Comm. ii. p. 10) supplied xai yij coll. Plut. plac. 
 II. 23. 3, but he now writes : " lacuna fuit in Aetii exemplo, 
 quod cum Ps. Plutarcho legit Stobaeus ; Plut. rj ryrj add.; 
 Aetius /cal rj /leyaXii) ddXaava vel simile scripsit," quoting 
 the passages cited above. 
 
 (n)YKaTa<|>^pe(r6ai i.e. with the aether, which is itself in 
 motion. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 259 
 
 ?XiKo, cf. Diog. L. VII. 144, Tov Se rjXiov Xo^rjv rrjv 
 iropeiav iroielaOai Sta tov ^(oBiaKov kvkKov, ofioieov Koi 
 rrjv crekrjVT^v eXiKoeiBrj. 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 immense mundo tam 
 longe lateque colluceat, et is eius tactus est, non ut 
 tepefaciat solum, sed etiam saepe -comburat. quorum 
 neutrum faceret, nisi esset igneus. " ergo," inquit, " cum 
 sol igneus sit Oceanique alatur humoribus, quia nuUus 
 ignis sine pastu aliquo possit permanere, necesse est aut 
 ei similis sit igni quem adhibemus ad usum atque ad 
 victum, aut ei, qui corporibus animantium continetur. 
 atqui hie noster ignis, quem usus vitae requirit, confector 
 est et consumptor omnium idemque, quocumque invasit, 
 cuncta disturbat ac dissipat. contra ille corporeus vitalis 
 et salutaris omnia conservat, alit, auget, sustinet sensu- 
 que adficit." negat ergo esse dubium horum ignium sol 
 utri similis sit, cum is quoque efficiat ut omnia floreant 
 et 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. 69, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 319. 
 
 17—2 
 
260 THE FEAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 Oceani : cf. frag. 29. 
 
 ei...igni: for the two kinds of fire cf. Zeno frag. 71. 
 corporeus : see on frag. 42. 
 
 aether vel caelwn: 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 
 avefvoiaav S' odroi KXedvdrjv tov <jiiXocro(j)ov, b? avriKpv^ 
 irXrJKTpov TOV rfKiov xaXel' ev yap Tai<; dvaTo\al<! ipeiBoav 
 ra? avyd^ olov irKrjcraaiv tov KOfffiov, 6i9 Trjv evapfioviov 
 TTopelav TO (f)m<! dyei, e/c Se tov ri\iov aTjfiabvei koI to, 
 XoLird daTpa. 
 
 irXtjKTpov: Krische- p. 400 connects this with the Stoic 
 identification of Heracles with the sun. Thus Heracles is 
 TO ifKrjKTiKov KoX SiaipeTiKov (Plut. de Iside c. 40), and 
 his name is derived from drjp and /cXacrt? by Porphyrius 
 ap. Euseb. P. E. iii. p. 112 c, and Nicomachus ap. Laur. 
 Lyd. de Mens. iv. 46. irXrJKTpov is properly "any striking 
 instrument": hence lightning is described as irXfjKTpov 
 Sio^oXov -n-vpoii Kepavvov (Eur. Ale. 128): cf especially 
 Plut. de Pyth. orac. c. 16 ad fin. vcTepov fievToi irXrJKTpov 
 dvedi]Kav Ta> Oe^ -x^pva-ovv eiriar'^a-avTe^, to? eoiice, ^KvOiva 
 XeyovTi Trepl t^s Xu/aa?, rjv dp/j,6^eTai Ztjvo'; €veiSr}<; 'AiroX- 
 X(ov, irdaav dp'^rjv Kal reXo? avXXa^wv' e^^et Se Xa/j.'irpdv 
 irXrJKTpov riXiov (pdoi (quoted by Hirzel, p. 181). Eur. 
 Suppl. 650, Xafiirpd fj,ev a/crt?, rfKuov Kav^v aacfii]^^ 
 Sandys on Bacch. 308, and Milton's " With touch ethereal 
 of Heaven's fiery rod." 
 
 32. Stob. Eel. I. 26. 1' p. 219, 14, KXedve7]<; irvpoeiSrl 
 Trjv aeXrjvrjV, iriXoeihrj he T(p a'')(ri/j,aTi. 
 
 ■irvpoeiSii: but the fire of the moon is not so pure as that 
 of the sun, being fed with grosser matter. Cf. Diog. L. Vll. 
 144, elvai Se tov fiev r/Xiov elXtxpive^ Try/). ..145, yecoSea- 
 Tipav Se Trjv (reXijvrjV. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 261 
 
 iriXoeiBTj : the MSS. have TrrjkoetBr} corrected by Lipsius 
 {Phys. Stoic II. 13), who also suggests TroXwetS^, to ttl- 
 \oeiSrj, 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 tr/ca^oetS?;? 
 (Stob. Eel. I. 26. 1° p. 218, 8), for no support can be derived 
 from TrCkrui.aTa depo<; (Anaximander) or ve(j)o<; •jreTriXrjfiivov 
 (Xenophanes), which simply refer to densely packed clouds. 
 Krische, p. 435, boldly reads KwvoeiSrj 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 KO)voei8^<; 
 (cf. frag. 33). The other Stoics consistently describe the 
 moon as at^at.poei.hri'i (Stob. Eel. I. 26. 1* 1' p. 219, 20, 26). 
 
 33. Stob. Eel. I. 24. 2"^ p. 205, 25, oi fiev aWoi, 
 <%TmiKol> o'^aipiKov's avTov'i, KX€dv67]<i Se KtovoeiSei^ 
 (soil, the stars). Plut. plac. ii. 14. 2. Galen, hist. phil. 
 c. 13 (XIX. 271 K.), TLXeavdrjii Kojz'oetSeZs toi)s ao-re/sa?. 
 Achill. Tat. p. 133° KXedvOrj^ avTov<; (sc. toi)? da-repa^) 
 KoapoeiSei; exeiv a-xrjfid tprjcrc. Theodoret, Gr. Cur. aff. IV. 
 20, p. 59. 16, KmvoeiSel^ Se KXedvOrj^ 6 "Ztwikoi;. 
 
 Cleanthes attributed a conical shape to fire, sun, moon, 
 and stars. There is no direct evidence as to the sun and 
 moon, but it is a fair inference from the authorities that 
 they also were conical. It is probable, moreover, that 
 
262 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 Cleanthes was moved by the consideration that Heraclitus 
 described sun, moon and stars as boat-shaped (a-KacfjoeiSfj), 
 of. Stob. Eel. I. 25. 1« 26. l", Diog. L. ix. 9. Krische is 
 apparently right in inferring that the same is true of the 
 world, cf. Plut. plae. II. 2. 1, ol ft,ev ^tcolkoI a^aipoeiSf} 
 TOP Koafiov, aXXoi Se KcovoeiBrj, ol Se poeiSij. 
 
 34. Plut. plac. II. 16. 1, 'Ava^ay6pa<; icaX ArjfjLOKpiTO^ 
 Kol K.Xea,v07](; diro dvaroXSv iirl Sverfid^ (jjepecrdai Trai/ra? 
 rov<} d<TTepa<;. Galen, hist. phil. c. 13, XIX. 272 K. 'A. 
 Kol A. KoX K\. aTTo dvaTokwv eh 8vcrfid<; ^epeadai Tov'i 
 daTepai vofii^ovaiv. 
 
 ircivTos in Plut. apparently includes dTrXavrj dcrrpa as 
 well as the ■irKavwp.eva: the former are said avfiTrepi- 
 ^epeaOai to3 oKw ovpavw, rd Be TrXavmfieva kwt ISiai; 
 Kiveia-ffat Kivi^a-eL<! (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), 
 viro Trjv StaKeKavfjLevrjv ^wvr)v Tive<; tSv dp^aiwv direcjy)]- 
 vavro, Sv etrrt Koi K.Xedvdr)<; 6 ^to)iko<; <f>iX6a'0(f)0';, vtto- 
 Ke')(ya6ai puera^v tSv TpoiriKwv rov wKeavov. 
 
 This fragment is taken from Wachsmuth's collection 
 (fr. phys. 27, Comm. II. 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 (evKpaToi), p,ia Bk BtaKeKavpLevT). 
 t) Bk TOVTCov fiierrj ttuctcSv eaTiv diro tov Bepivov TpoTriKov 
 pexpi' Tot) 'x^eipepivov rpoiriKOv' Tocrovrov ydp irXdrof evet. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 268 
 
 oa-ov Koi 6 ^\to? irepiipx^Tai,. KoXeirat Se SiaKeKavfievr] 
 Sia TO 7rvpeoSrj<; elvai, tov rfKuov St avrrji; T-rjv iropeiav ael 
 TToiovfievov. Posidonius, as we learn from ib. 31, p. 90, 
 made six zones, dividing the torrid zone into two. 
 
 36. Tertullian de An. c. 5, vult et Cleanthes non 
 solum corporis lineamentis, sed et animae notis simili- 
 tudinem parentibus in filios respondere, de speculo scilicet 
 morum et ingeniorum et adfectuum : corporis autem simi- 
 litudinem et dissimilitudinem capere : et animam itaque 5 
 corpus similitudini vel dissimilitudini obnoxiam. item 
 corporalium et incorporalium passiones inter se non com- 
 municare. porro et animam compati corpori, cui laeso 
 ictibus, vulneribus, ulceribus condolescit, et corpus animae, 
 cui adflictae cura, angore, amore, coaegrescit, per detri- 10 
 mentum scilicet vigoris, cuius pudorem, et pavorem rubore 
 atque pallore testetur. igitur anima corpus ex corporalium 
 passionum commutatione. Nemesius, Nat. Horn. p. 32, 
 6 KXedvOri'} rocovSe irXeKet (rvX\oyia-fj.6v' ov fiovov 
 ipTjcrlv oiMoioi Tot? yovevai ytvo/Meda Kara to croofia dWd 15 
 Kal Kara Trjv 'y^v')(rji> rot? -rrddeai, rot? rjOeai, Tal<; Siadeaecri. 
 (7aifji,aT0<s Se to H/moiov kuI to dvojjboiov, oi}%t Se da-wfiaTov, 
 croHfia dpa r} yfrv')(pj...eTi Be 6 KXedvd7j<; <f>ri(7lv' ovBev aaw- 
 fidrov <Tvpnrda")(ei, awfiaTi, ovSe dacofiaTq) CTW/Ma, aXXa 
 crcofia awfJiaTf <rvfi'7rd(T')(^ei Be rj ■^v')(rj tc3 (rco/iari, vocovvti 20 
 Kol refivo/iivo) Kal to o-tS/ia rfj yfrvxrj' alcr'xyvofievri'; 701)1' 
 epvOpov •yiverai, Kal (f>o^ovfiev'r]<; uy)(^p6v' ertSfia dpa ij 
 ■^vXV- 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? 
 
 The Nemesius passage is regarded as a distinct frag- 
 ment from the two places in Tertullian by Wachsmuth 
 (Comm. II. fr. phys. 20, 21), but, as Hirzel has observed, they 
 
264 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 obviously refer to the same original. Stein's observations 
 on this passage should be consulted (Erkenntnistheorie, 
 n. 736). The mind is a tabula rasa at birth, in the sense 
 that it possesses no definite knowledge. But through the 
 seed a capacity for knowledge, and ethical tendencies in 
 particular, are transplanted from father to son: see also 
 Introd. p. 38 f. 
 
 5. The ordinary punctuation of this passage puts a 
 full stop at animam, with no stop after capere, but this 
 gives no satisfactory sense. Mr Hicks would strike out 
 the words capere et, remove the stop after animam, and 
 alter ohnoxiwm 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. voveBo-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. ^9e<ri: Wachsmuth reads e^eo-ifrom the Oxf. ed. of 
 1671, but cf. Zeno, frag. 147, KaTaXtjirrdv elvat ro ^6o^ i^ 
 e'iSov^. 
 
 Biae^o-eo-i : cf. on Zeno, frag. 117. 
 
 17. <rffl|ioTos: agreeably to Stoic tenets, for likeness 
 and unlikeness cannot be predicated of the non-existent, 
 cf. Zeno, frags. 34 and 91. 
 
 19. <rv\miirxa: the a-vfiirdOeia fiepmv is an indication to 
 the Stoic of the evcocni; of a body: this is true of the cosmos 
 no less than of the individual. Sext. Math. ix. 79, who 
 continues (80), eVl 8^ tcSi' ijvmfiivcov crvfiirdOeid tj? ccttiv, 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 265 
 
 e'i ye SaKTvXov refivofievov to '6Xov avvhiarlQeTai, aw/ia. 
 "rjvmfiivov tolvvv iarl a-wfia koX 6 K6a-/j,o<s. id. V. 44, ovSe 
 yap ovTm<; rjvmrai to irepie'X^ov ois to dvOpmirivov crSp,a, 
 Lva, ov rpoTTOv t§ Ke^aXfj rd vTroxeifieva fiepr) avfJLiraa-'xei 
 Kol Tot9 VTroKet/jLevoii ■q KetpaXij, oiiTca Koi Tot? eirovpavioi'; 
 rd i-Trlyeia. Cic. N. D. III. 28. The question as between 
 body and soul is discussed in the pseudo-Aristotelian 
 (j>va-ioyvco/iiKd. Cf. Plat. Phaed, 83 D. M. Aurel. ix. 9. 
 
 37. Stob. Eel. I. 48. 7, p. 317, 15, Uveayopa^, 'Aj/a^ 
 ayopai, TiXaTav, HevoKpdrT]^, JD^edvOrj^ OvpaOev elaKpi- 
 vecrOai rov 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, XeiweTai, Se tov vovv fiovov 
 BvpaOev eveicrievai kol Oelov elvat fiovov' ovOev ydp avTov 
 Trj ivepyeia Koivtovel aafiaTiicrj evepyeia), whose doctrine is 
 widely different from Plato's. As regards Cleanthes, the 
 Stoics in general do not distinguish between z/oOs and 
 ■yjrvxv (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'xr) OvpaOev ela-Kpiverat. Perhaps the 
 meaning is that the reasoning powers (vov<;) are founded 
 on external impressions, from which Knowledge is derived: 
 cf Zeno, frag. 82. Stein, however (Psychol, p. 163 foil.), 
 believes that by OvpaOev is indicated the action of the 
 outer air on the embryo at birth, whereby the i|rv%^ is 
 
266 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 developed out of a mere ipiiai<!. In this case Cleanthes 
 anticipated the Chiysippean doctrine of TrepCylrv^if. 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. il. 18 might suggest a more 
 general view, that the point referred to is the material 
 nature of the soul as irvevfia, but the context in Stobaeus 
 is against this. 
 
 38. =Zeno, frag. 83. 
 
 There is a curious contradiction in Stein's Psychologie 
 on this point. At p. 107 and p. 155 he cites and upholds 
 the evidence which distinctly attributes to Zeno the 
 doctrine of the soul being fed by exhalations from the 
 blood. Yet at p. 165 he suggests that this innovation 
 was made by Cleanthes. 
 
 39. = Zeno, frag. 87. 
 
 40. = Zeno, frag. 88. 
 
 41. Diog. L. VII. 157, KXeai/^?;? fxkv ovv Trao-a? 
 eTTiBia/iiveiv {ra<; '^v^o'!) f^^XP'' '''V'> eKirvpdiaea)';, XpiJ- 
 aiTTTTO'; 8e rdi; twv a-o<j)cov fiovov. 
 
 a. 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 rvTraxrn; and the "Urpneuma" ((^Xof 
 and avyrj). Ar. Did. ap. Euseb. P. E. xv. 20. 3 follows 
 the account of Chrysippus, rrjv Be yfrvx^v yevvriTijv re koI 
 <^6apTrjv \eyovcriv' ovk ev6v<; he tov a-wfiaro^ airaXka- 
 yelcrav (pdeipecrdai, aX\' eirtfieveiv Tiva<; ■)(^p6vov<s icaff 
 iavTtjv Trjv p^v tSv airovhalav P'S^pt Trj<; et? ttu/s dvaXv- 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 267 
 
 a"6(B? Twv TrdvTcov, Trjv Se rwv d^povcov tt/jos 7roerov<! Tiva<; 
 'X,p6vov';...rd<; Se twv d(pp6vcov koI dXoymv ^anov '\jrvx^d<; 
 a-vvairoWva-Oat, rot? crwfiacnv. 
 
 42. Cic. N. D. 11. 24, quod quidem Cleanthes his etiam 
 argumentis docet, quanta vis insit caloris in omni corpore: 
 negat enim ullum esse cibum tarn gravem, quin is die et 
 nocte concoquatur, cuius etiam in reliquiis inest 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 
 TTvevfia 6v0epfiov (frag. 85). The excellence of the human 
 soul consists peculiarly in a suitable mixture (evKpaa-la) of 
 warmth and cold. Of 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. 
 avy^ ^r)prj ■^vx^r) cro<pa)TdT7), but substituted warmth for 
 dryness. It is highly probable that the words immediately 
 preceding this extract, which are of great importance for 
 the Tovo'i 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 
 qtia neque ali possent neque crescere. Nam omne, quod 
 est calidum et igneum, cietur et agitur motu suo, quod 
 autem alitur et crescit, motu quodam utitur certo et 
 aequabiH, qui quamdiu remanet in nobis, tam diu sensus et 
 vita remanet, refrigerato autem et extincto calore occidimus 
 ipsi et exstinguimur. Compare with this the remarks of 
 Stein Psychol, p. 32, and Philo de incorr. mundi, p. 507, 
 Mang. Hirav t7wfia dvaXvo/Mevov et? irvp hiaXveraC re ical 
 yelrai, a-^evvv/jbevr]^ Se Trj<; iv avrS ^Xoyo'; areWerai koI 
 avvdyeTai. This is one of the many points of contact 
 between the Stoics and the medical school of Hippocrates, 
 We are reminded of the rovo'; of Cleanthes when we read 
 
268 THE FBA6MENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 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. ill. 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, dXka 
 Trpoi TOi^TOts Kal rds evep^ela'i awjMaTa Koi ^<pa iroiovai, 
 TOP irepiTraTov ^ipov, rrjv 6p')(r]<riv, Trjv V7r60ecTiv, Trjv irpoa- 
 ayopevcTiv, Trjv XoiSopiav. 
 
 spiritum : the Greek original of this would be -n-vevfia 
 Biarelvov diro rov '^ye/MoviKov fJ-ej^pt ttoScSv (cf. Plut. plac. 
 IV. 21). The deviation of Chrysippus from the teaching 
 of his predecessor was probably caused by a desire to 
 insist more strongly on the essential unity of the souL Cf. 
 Iambi, ap. Stob. Eel. i. 49. 33, p. 368, 12, irm ovv Sia- 
 Kpivovrai ; Kara fiev toi)? Stoji/coi)? eviai fiev Stac^oponjTt 
 <T(Sv> VTTOKetfiivmv trafid^mV irvevfiara yap otto tov 
 riyefJioviKov ^aaiv ovroi hiareiveiv aXKa kut aWa, ra 
 IMev ei<i 6^6dKiJLOv<;, rd he el<i wra, rd Se ei<; dXKa aierdT/- 
 TJjpia' eviai he IhioTTjTi TroiorrjToi; irepl to avTO inroKei- 
 fievov' wcrirep ydp to jjbrfKov ev rm avrw o'ti/iaTi ttjv 
 >y\,vKiiT7]Ta e'xei koX rrjv evmhiav, oiiTW Koi rd ^yefiovixdv 
 ev ravr^ (jiavraalav, avyKardOecTiv, 6pfj,tjv, \6yov avv- 
 elXfjcpe. Sext. Math. IX. 102, ir&aai, al errX rd fiepT] rov 
 2\ou e^aTrocTTeXXofievai hvvdfiei^ to? diro rivm Trijyrji; rov 
 riyefioviKov e^arroarehXovrai,, wtrre rrdcrav hvva/jLiv t^v 
 irepl rd /iepov ovcrav Kal rrepX rd SiXov elvai, Sid ro dwo 
 rov ev avr^ r^yefioviKov hLahihoadai,, The former passage 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 26& 
 
 is, I find, also cited by Stein for the same purpose (Psychol, 
 p. 168). He points out that Cleanthes explaiaed the 
 different soul functions by means of a irvev/j-a Siaretvav, 
 and Chrysippus by a irvevfid Traj? expv. 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 (jiavracria 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 (li. p. 201) is vitiated by his 
 fundamental error as to Cleanthes' view of the 'qye/ioviKov. 
 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 
 Se avrrjv (sciL ttjv Sidvoiav) elvai rd'; alaOijaeKS, Kaddirep 
 Sid Tivcov OTTWV Twv aladrjTTjplav irpotciirTovaav, ^9 
 aTaa-ew; rjp^e ^rpdrcov 6 <j)vcriK6<;. Cf. Cic. Tusc. I. 46, 
 viae quasi quaedam sunt ad oculos, ad aures, ad nares, a 
 sede animi perforatae. 
 
 44. Clem. Alex. Strom. Vli. 6. 33. 849 P. 304 S., 'SOev 
 KoX 6 Ma-as-iro<s ov KaKm ej>7) toi)? 5? KeKpar/evat /leyicrTOV 
 oTUv ekKoavTai. avveiBevat yap avroU el<; ovSev dWo 
 ■^pr}(Tlfjioi,<s rj 'rrXrjv ei<s rrjv OvarLav' Sio /cal KXeav^ij? (jyrjcrlv 
 dvff oKwv avTOv<; e%6ty rrjv yjrvxrjv, "va firj crairr} 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. iii. 20, 77 Se 
 v<;, ivravda ydp ian twv '^apiTwv to tjSkttov (soil, tow 
 X/aKtrtTTTTOi/), ov Si dXXo ti ifKrjv dvecrOai eyeyovei, kui Ty 
 aapKt Trjv '<^v')(rjv 6 ded<; olov aXa<s ive/jii^ev. Elsewhere 
 the statement is ascribed to no definite author. Cic. Fin. 
 
270 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 V. 38, ut non inscite illud dictum videatur in sue, animum 
 illi pecudi datum pro sale, ne putisceret. Varro de R R. 
 II. 4, 10, suillum pecus donatum ab natura dicunt ad epu- 
 landum. itaque iis animam datam esse proinde ac salem 
 quae servaret carnem. Plut. Quaest. Conv. v. 10, 3, Sto koI 
 Tcov '^reoiKwv evtoi rrjp ilvrjv aapKa Kpea yeyovevai Xeyovai, 
 T^? t^vyfjii Sairep akwv irapecrirapiievTi's virep rov Sia- 
 /iiveiv. Lastly, we have two passages of similar import 
 in which a suggested derivation of S<} from 6veiv is referred 
 to: Clem. Alex. II. 20. 105, p. 174 S. p. 484 P., Xeyerat 
 <yovv riva rav (^CKoaoi^ovvTcov ervfioXoyovvra ttjv vv 0vv 
 elvai (jidvat, ax; eh Ovaiv koI a^ayrjv fiovov iririlBeiov' Be- 
 BocrOai yap rmBe rm faia) yjrvxrjv "Trpo^ ovSev erepov rj eveKa 
 Tov Ttt? a-dpKa^ cr(f)pi/yav. Varro R. R. II. 4, 9, sus Graece 
 dicitur u?, olim 9v<: dictus ab illo verbo, quod dicunt dvetv, 
 quod est inmolare. ab suillo enim [genere] pecore inmo- 
 landi initium primum sumptum videtur; cuius vestigia 
 quod initiis Cereris porci inmolantur. 
 
 Everything in the world is created for and adapted to 
 a special end ; the existence of various animals is used as 
 an argument to prove the government of the world by 
 irpovoia (cf the context in Cic. N.D. 1. c). In a similar 
 spirit Epict. Diss. II. 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 Stein's theory (Psych, p. 92 f.) that 
 the vital principle of animals is not -^v^v, l^ut something 
 midway between ^v<ti,<; and ylrvxv, ought not to be accepted. 
 He contends that Marcus Aurelius is the first Stoic who 
 expressly gives ^jrvx^ to animals, but cf Zeno frag. 50, 
 spiritum...fore non naturam, sed animam et quidem 
 rationabilem, which clearly points to the 0X070? yjrvxv of 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 271 
 
 animals )( ■^jrvx'fj T^oyov e^ovcra of men. Zeno frag. 56, 
 1. 41, yfrvxvv d(j}7]p7]fievov ^(pov, Ar. Did. ap. Euseb. P.E. XV. 
 20. 3, ras Se rmv a^povcov Kal oKoycov ^cocov T|ru;j{;a9. To 
 the passages cited by Stein from Marcus Aurelius add 
 V. 16, vi. 14. 
 
 45. Plut. de soUertia animalium xi. 2, 3, o fiev ovv 
 KXeai/^ijS eKeye, Ka'iirep ov <f>d(rKa)v /lere'x^eiv Xoyov rd ^ma, 
 TotavTy dewpia iraparvxelv fjLvpfjbr]Ka<; ekdelv iirl fivp/jLT]- 
 Kidv erepav fivpfirjKa yeapdv ^ipovTa<!' dvt6vTa<; ovv Sk ttji; 
 fivpfjiTjKtdi irepov; olov evTvyxdvetv avrot? koX irdXiv 
 Karep'^eadai' Kal tovto Sts rj rph yeveaOai: TeKo<i Se, toi)? 
 fj,ev Karmdev dveveyxetv Scnrep Xvrpa tov vexpov aicdiKrjKa, 
 Toi)s S' ixelvov apafievov^, diroBovra'; Se tov vexpbv o'lj(ea- 
 dai. Aelian Nat. An. vi. 50, 'K.Xedvdriv tov "Aaa-iov KaTtj- 
 vdyKoae koI aKovTa el^ai Kal diroaTrjvai to4? fojot? tov 
 Kal ixeiva Xoyicrfiov jMrj Sta/iapTaveiv, dvTiXeyovTa icr'X^vpwv 
 Kal KUTa KpaTO'i, laTopLa TOtavTrj, tf>a(rlv. eTV^ev 6 K\e- 
 dv6r]<; Ka6i]/jievo<i Kal fievToi Kal a-)(pXrjv dycov jxaKporepav 
 aXXws" oiiKovv fj,iipfi7]Ke<! irapd rot? iroa-lv rfaav avTiS 
 TToXXoi' o Se dpa opa ef aTpatrov Ttvoi erepas veKpbv 
 fivpfi'^Ka fivpp/TjKa'i aXXov<i Kop,i^ovTa'; et? oIkov eTeptov, 
 Kal eavTol<; ov avvTpo^wv Kal eVt ye to5 '^eCXei t^? fJ-^p- 
 fir}Kid<i ecrTWTaf avTw veKptp, Kal dviovTai KdTcoOev eTepov<; 
 Kal avv6vTa<i toI^ ^evoi<; tu? eVt Tivt, eiTa KaTiovTa^ toi)? 
 avTOv<;, Kal irXeovaKi'; tovto' Kal TeXevTwvra^ cTKwXrjKa, 
 olovel XvTpa, Ko/ileraf toi)? Se eKelvov fiev Xa^elv, nrpoeaOai 
 Se ovirep ovv STnjyovTO vexpov' Kal exewovi viroSe^aaOai, 
 aafiivco^, a)9 viov KOfil^ofievov; r] dSeX^ov. 
 
 (ji€T^X«iv X670U Td jua: for animals possess indeed ijrvj(ijv, 
 but not yjrvxrjv Xoyov '^^(pvaav Kal Sidvoiav: hence the 
 term dXoya ^ma: cf. Sext. Math. XI. 99 foil: — the Stoics 
 say that the courage of certain of the nobler (jyevvaia) 
 animals proves that to KaXov is <f)va'ei alpeTov, but only 
 
2T2 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 rj <f>povLfiv] Biddea-iv can discern to koKov: hence o oXek- 
 rpvwv Koi 6 ravpot firj fieri'X^ovra Trji (ppovifiij'i hiadeaewi 
 ovK av /3\evoi to koXov re koX dyadov. Hermes ap. Stob. 
 Eel. I. 41. 6, p. 284, 12, ttcS? ovv opw/iev Tiva t£v tiXoymv 
 eiricTT'^fir] Kai Te'^yj] '^pwfieva, olov toj)? fivpiJ,7jKa<! ras 
 Tpo<j)d^ diroOTjaavpL^oiMevov; tov ')(ei,iiwvo';. 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 e^t?, plants as ^i^trt?, and 
 men and animals as ■^vxv (Diog- L- vii. 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/i7;po9 fiev ovv <j}7]crlv "tu? dyadov 
 Koi iraiSa KaratjiOifievoio XiTreadai," eoiice Se rj ^v<7t? 
 SeiKvvvai, '6Tb KoX (j}lXov eavTW ti ficopov KaToXirireiv, co 
 <j>lXe "OfiJjpe, KepSo<s iaTbv, olov ti koX vepi Z'^vcovo^ koi 
 K.\edv6ov<; voovfiev el ti (or elVe) aKovo/iev, i.e. it was an 
 advantage to Zeno to leave his friend Cleanthes behind 
 him to uphold his doctrines. 
 
 |i.i)p(jn]Kas: cf. Cic. N.D. III. 21, num existimas formicam 
 anteponendam esse huic pulcherrimae urbi, quod in urbe 
 sensus sit nuUus, in formica non modo sensus sed etiam 
 mens ratio memoria? Aristotle allowed that some animals, 
 and especially bees, possessed i/ous (cf Grote's Aristotle, 
 p. 483). 
 
 aUus: "aimlessly'': so Eur. Hipp. 375, vBt) vot aWm? 
 vvKTOi iv fiaKprn XP°^9 Ovtjtwv i^povTia § Bie<f>6apTai 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 273 
 
 €| drpairoO tivos Irfpos: alluding to the practice of ants to 
 use one narrow path in passing backwards and forwards 
 between their hole and any other place. Cf. Verg. Aen. 
 IV. 404, praedamque per herbas convectant calle angusto. 
 Georg. 1. 379, angustum formica terens iter, where Forbiger 
 refers to Arist. Hist. An. IX. 38, del fiLav drparrov Trdvre^ 
 /3aBi^ova-iv. 
 
 46. Cic. N. D. I. 37, idemque (Cleanthes) quasi 
 delirans in iis libris, quos scripsit contra voluptatem, turn 
 fingit fonnam quandam et speciem deorum, turn divini- 
 tatem onmem tribuit astris, turn nihil ratione censet esse 
 divinius. 
 
 quasi delirans: for the treatise irepl ■^Bovrj^ 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 dvi,KriTOi<i ev X'^P"'''^ ^"^ ^^^ hymn to Zeus, as Prof. Mayor 
 suggests. 
 
 astris: this position is proved at length in N. D. ii. 
 40—44, cf Chrysippus ap. Stob. Eel. i. 21. 5. p. 185, 5, 
 ev ^ (atdipi) rd aarpa KaOi^pvTai. ..Oela rrjv ^liaiv ovra 
 Koi e/j/yjrv'XO' «*' BiotKov/Meva Kara rr]v irpovoiav. 
 
 47. Plut. Comm. Not. 31, 5, aWa ^pvai/Tnro^ koX 
 KXedvdrj'! ifi-rreirXriKOTei, m? eVo? elireiv, to) \6ya> dedSv 
 TOP ovpavov TTjv yrjv tov aepa ttjv daXuTTav ovoeva t<Sv 
 ToaovTcov d(j)OapTov ovB' dtStov diroXeXoliraaL, ifKriv fiovov 
 TOV Ato?, 6t? 01' 7rdvTa<s KaTavaXia-Kovcri tov<; dWov<;... 
 ravra Be ov...toi<} Boyfxaaiv erreTai, aXX' ainol fie-^a 
 ^owvTe<i ev rot? irepX 0ewv koI trpovoLai; eifiapfievr)<; re koI 
 (hiiffeax! rypafifiaai BiappijSrjv Xeyovai toi)? dWovf deov<i 
 diravTa'i elvai iyeyov6Ta<; koI ^dap'qaojj.evov; viro ttu/jo?, 
 rriKTov<; tear avTov<s Satrep K'qpivov: rj KarTiTepcvov<s ovra^. 
 
 H. P. 18 
 
274 THE FBAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 llJwrtirXriKOTes: 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. 60). 
 
 Ai6s: Zeus is here identified, as often, with the supreme 
 Stoic God: see Zeller, p. 358. 
 
 iv Tots irepi flewv k.t.X. Ohrysippus wrote irepl demp 
 {Diog. VII. 148), Trepi irpovoia^ (ib. 139), irepl ei/iap/ievT]!} 
 (ib. 149), and (jivcriKo, (ib. 39). For Cleanthes irepl 0ewv 
 see Introd. p. 51. 
 
 <t)eapti(roiiivovs: cf. Chrysipp. ap. Plut. Sto. Rep. 38, 5. 
 Plut. de def. Or. c. 19, kuitoi toi)? SraitKoi)? yivwcrKOfiev 
 ov p,ovop KUTo, Saifioveov r)v \ey<o So^av k'^ovTCK, aWa koI 
 ffedov ovTwv ToaovTcov to irXrjdo'i ivl ^jOW/ieVov? d'iSifp koI 
 d<f>ddpT^, Toi)? S' dXKov; koI yeyovevai koI (j>6ap'^a-ea-dai 
 vofii^opra^, 
 
 48. Stob. Eel. i. 1. 12. p. 25, 3. KXedpdov;. 
 KiiBiar ddapdrayp, iroXvoipv/ie, irayKparei; alei, 
 Zev, ^vtrecoi dp')(7)ye, pofJLOv fjAra irdpra KV^eppwv, 
 ;i^tttpe" ffe yap irdprecrcrt 6eiM<! 6p7)rol<n irpoaavhdp, 
 eK aov yap yepo^lea/j/iv, mx^v /Jiifiri/jLa \a)(6pTe<! 
 fiovpoi, 'daa fcoet re Kal epirei 6pr)T eirl yalap' 5 
 
 ra> <re KaOvfiprjarco koI crop KpaTOi diep deuroa. 
 crol Sr] ird<; '68e Koafw;, eXiaao/iepov irepl yaiav, 
 ireideTai, § xep dyrj^, Kal eKwp viro aelo Kpareiraf 
 Totop e;^6t? viroepyop dpiKijToi'i epl x^palp 
 dfitfy^Kr), TTvpoevr, dei^cSovra Kepavvop' 10 
 
 Tov yap viro irXrjy^^ ^va-ea)<s irdpT ippiya <<np>' 
 «5 ai) KaTevdvpei<s koivop Xoyop, o? Std irdpreov 
 <j}0CTq,, fiiypiifiepoi jMeyaXoK fiiKpoii re (fideafff 
 [(B? T6(T(T0<i yeyawi virarov ^aaiKei)<! Blo, Trairo's,] 
 ovSi Tt, yiyperai 'ipyop eirl ^fiopl aov hi)(a, Baifwp, 15 
 ovT€ Kar aWepiop deiop iroXop ovr epl iroprip, 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 275 
 
 •jfKrjv hirotra pe^ov<Ti kukoI a<f>eTep7](Ti,v avoi.ai';' 
 
 dWa ai) koI to, •Trepiaad<r>eiri(TTa(Tai dpria Oetvai, 
 
 Kol Koafieiv TOKoa/jia Kot ov ^CKa trot ^iXa eariv, 
 
 aSe yap eh ev irdina crvvijpfj.oKa'i iaOXd Kaicolaiv, 20 
 
 (oad^ eva yiyveadai irdvrwv Xoyov diev iovra, 
 
 ov <f)euyovTe<; iua-iv '6aoi dvqrwv icaKol elai, 
 
 hvafiopoi, o'i T dyaOSv fiev del Krfjaiv 7ro6eovTe<! 
 
 ovT iaopwai 6eov koivov vofiov, ovre icKvovenv, 
 
 w.Kev TreiOofievoi <tvv v^ fiiov ea&Xov e'xpiev. 25 
 
 avTol S' av9^ Spfiwa-iv dvoi kukov dXKo<; eir akXo, 
 
 ol jjbev virep Bo^rj^ crirovSrjv SvcrepierTov e')(pvTe<;, 
 
 oi S' iirl Kepho<TVva<; Terpafi/jbevoi ovSevl Koa-fim, 
 
 dWoi S' ell dveaiv Koi a(6iiaT0<s rjhea epya 
 
 eV aXKore B' dWa (j}epovTe<i, 30 
 
 <7TrevBovTe<i fidXa TrdfiTrav evavria rSvBe yevea-Oai. 
 aXKa Zev irdvBwpe, Ke\aive<^e<;, dpytxepavve, 
 avdpw'7rovi;<fj,ei»pvov direipoavvqii otto Xvyprji;, 
 r}v av, irarep, aKeBaaov ■^V)(r]<; diro, Sos Be Kvprjaai 
 yvwfi7]<;, fj irUrvvoi; av .BiKrji fji-era iravra Kv^epvd^, 35 
 o^p av nfJ/rj&evTe's dfiei^oofieffdd <re ri/ifj, 
 vfivovvTe'i rd ad epya Sir)veKe^, m? eireovKe 
 dvTjTov iovT, CTrei ovre ^poroK yepa<s dXKo ri fiel^ov, 
 ovre deoli, n koivov deX vo/mov ev BCktj v/ivelv. 
 
 1. iroXvwvDnt : not merely in the popular religion, but 
 more particularly from the Stoic standpoint, cf. Diog. L. 
 VII. 147 Br)/j.iovpydv rwv '6\a>v, Kal Sairep irarepa irdv- 
 TcoV Kocvwi; re, xal to /iepo^ avTov to BirJKOv Bid irdvTav, 
 o TToWai? irpoarjyopiaK irpoaovofid^erat, kutu Ta<; Svvd- 
 /j,ei<s. See also Krische, p. 401; Stein, Psych, n. 74. 
 
 2. v6|ji.ou: ef. Zeno, frag. 39. 
 
 4. Ik <roC 7op •y^vos i<r\Uv. Cf. Act. Apost. XVII. 28, 
 where the words tov yap Kal yevo^ iafiev are quoted by 
 St Paul. The divergence in reading points to the fact 
 
 18—2 
 
276 THE FEAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 that these words were taken from the Phaenomena of 
 Aratus, 1. 5, rather than from the present passage. 
 
 rjxou: so MS. F, an unmetrical and senseless reading, 
 not yet satisfactorily corrected. The vulg. t'^? is a con- 
 jecture of Brunck, and is destitute of authority. Meineke 
 read r^evofieada Xoyov ; Wachsm. (Oomm. II. p. 18) sug- 
 gested vov a-ov (or a 8^ aov) r/i^fia, and now proposes 
 TijjLTjiJba for fjLifj/rj/Ma ; Usener ' cum appareat ^'%oii ex glos- 
 semate natum esse' i58^? (a word coined from vSelv). 
 None of these are convincing, and all are inferior to 
 Bergk's '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.) Kotvcoviav B' vtrapj^eLv 7rp6<; aXXrjXov^ (sciL 
 Oeov ical avOpmnrtav) Sia, to \670u fieTe')(ei,v. If yevofieada 
 is accepted for 761/09 eafiev, perhaps /lovov or e« <rov. 
 
 5. o<ra: for the omission of the antecedent c£ Soph, 
 Ai. 1050, Trach. 350, and for the sense Hom. II. 17. 447, 
 Od. 18. 131. Hirzel argues (11. 201—210), mainly relying 
 on this passage, that Cleanthes was not a pantheist in the 
 full sense of the term, and that he allowed only a limited 
 extension to the divine trvev fia : but see Introd. p. 41. 
 
 6. dtlira : dlSm F, whence delSm Wachsm. ; but the 
 present is very awkward after Kadvfivija-eo, and it is by no 
 means clear that Cleanthes would have preferred deiaofiai 
 (see the evidence collected by Veitch s. v.). 
 
 7. Koo-jios is here used, as Krische, p. 425, has observed. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 277 
 
 in the less extended sense mentioned in Diog. vii. 138, 
 Koi dvTTJv Se T^v Biaic6<rfi'ri(riv twv darepaiv Koa/iov elvai : 
 hence eKiffo-o/ievo^ = /cvKXo(j}opr]TiK6<i. 
 
 9. IvC. So Brunck and Wachsm. v-rro MS. F. nerd 
 Mein. For the sense cf. Soph. 0. 0. 1515. 
 
 10. ani|>TJKii: alluding to forked lightning, cf. Aesch. 
 P. V. 1040 TTUjOO? dfi(fyr]K'r]<; ^6(TTpv')(o<;. Hesych. d/j,(j)r]Kei 8e 
 i^ eKarepov fiipovi ■qKovrjfievov /SeXo?' rj Kepavvoi, rj f t'l^o?. 
 
 Kcpavvov : for the physical explanation cf Zeno frag. 
 74. But to Cleanthes Kepavv6<s is only another name for 
 '!r\r]yr) irvpo';, which he identifies with r6vo<;, cf Heraclit. 
 frag. 28. Byw. rd Se irdvTa otaKi^ei Kepavvoi. 
 
 11. k^plyaa-iv: SO Ursinus and most edd. for eptjya F 
 "in quo postea spatium 10 litt.," which might suggest 
 epya <Safida-0r)> : but there are similar spaces after vv. 
 12 and 13, and the text at this point is generally sus- 
 picious. Wachsm. formerly marked a lacuna after this 
 line, but now agrees with Hirzel, II. p. 118, n. 1, in referring 
 «5 in V. 12 to Kepavvov. 
 
 18. |ieYa\iiiv (iiKpoicri F, which Petersen tries to defend, 
 was corrected by Brunck. The reference is to the sun, 
 moon, and stars. For the general sense cf Zeno frag. 45. 
 A lacuna was marked after this line by Mein., who is 
 followed by Wachsm. But it is equally possible that v. 
 14 is a spurious or corrupt addition, for (1) the sense is 
 complete without it, (2) 8ta travTo^ is suspicious after Sta 
 Trdvrav in v. 12, (3) it is difficult to imagine any context 
 which would prevent m roaao^ yeyam^ from being frigid, 
 if not obscure, (4) the excessive sigmatism is pointless. 
 
 17 — 20. itMfv 6m<ra. k.t.X. The explanations given by 
 the Stoics of this weak point in their system are hope- 
 lessly confused and contradictory, as may be seen from 
 an examination of the passages cited in the nqtes to 
 Zeller, p. 189 — 193. We have had occasion to. refer to 
 
278 THE PEAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 this subject before (frag, 18), and, putting together that 
 passage and the present, we may perhaps suppose that 
 Cleanthes accounted for the existence of moral evil some- 
 what as follows : — evil is not directly due to God, but is a 
 necessary accompaniment of the process, whereby he 
 created the world out of himself. At the same time, the 
 omnipotence of God is vindicated by the consideration that 
 evil is ultimately swallowed up in good, and that the 
 apparent irregularity of nature is in reality only a phase 
 in the working of a higher law. Chrysippus is incon- 
 sistent here, as elsewhere (cf. Diog. L. vil. 180), but to 
 some extent, at least, he agreed with Cleanthes: m rmv 
 alayjimv to delov Trapairiov yiveadai ovk eliXoyov iariv 
 (Plut. Sto. Rep. 33, 2). We may compare Plato's words 
 Rep. II. 379 C, ov8' dpa 6 6e6^, eireihrj ayad6<i, irdvrtov av 
 e'ir) aiTtos, (US ol ttoXXoI "Kerfovaiv, aW' oXiycov fiev rot? 
 dv6pa>7roi<; atVto?, ttoWcSi' Be dvainoi' iraiXv yap iXuTTio 
 rdr/add rwv kukoov rjiilv' Koi rwv (lev dyadwv ovBeva dk- 
 Xov airiaTeov, twv Be kukcov aW' drra Bel ^TjTelv to. acTia, 
 a\\' ov Tov deov. See further Gercke Chrysippea, p. 699. 
 
 24. Koiviv v6|iov. Cf infra frag. 73. No doubt Cle- 
 anthes remembered Heracl. frag. 91. Byw. ^vvov eart irdtn 
 TO i^povelv. 
 , 25. Kcv belongs to the verb, Madv. § 137. 
 
 26. avcv KaKo0...aXXa F, dvoi Wachsm., KaK6v...aKXo 
 Sauppe. 
 
 28. oiSevl Kdo-|jwj): this phrase is used by Herod, and 
 Thuc. as an equivalent for araKra)?. Here it means 
 "inordinately, recklessly." Cleanthes was probably in- 
 fluenced by Homer's fondness for /iai^ drdp ov /card 
 KoiTiiov (II. 2. 214 etc.) and the like. al. ovS' ev\ 
 KoajJitp. 
 
 30, 31. aWoTcv Usener, ^epovrai Meineke, while in 31 
 Wachsm. suggests irevea-ffai for yeveaSai. The sense is 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 279 
 
 unsatisfactory, but as the text is so mutilated conjecture 
 seems hazardous. Mohnike (pp. 34 — 44) has a long dis- 
 cussion on these lines, which he calls the hardest in 
 the Hymn. As the text stands, 1. 31 must mean that 
 the effect of the actions of the <f)avXoi is just the opposite 
 to that which they intend. 
 
 32. dp'yiK^pttuve. Cf. Zeu? apY?;?, an expression used 
 by Empedocles to denote fire (R. and P. § 131), Zeno 
 frag. 116, "Apyi]v Be iiretBij <J3acn tov dpjTJTa Kepavvov. 
 
 33. |i4v : add. Scaliger, but perhaps we should read e«- 
 pjjov. direipoavvrji} i.e. ayvoia, the condition of the ^avKoi. 
 
 36. ■yvfflii.Tis ^ ir£<rvvos k.t.X. Another reminiscence of 
 Heraclitus, frag. 19. Byw. ev to cro<j)6v, i-jrLa-raadat 
 '^vwp/f)v, fi Kv^epvdrai irdvTa Bid irdvrmv. 
 
 49. Philodem. de Mus. col. 28, 1, ei p,<r\ 76 •7r>apd 
 Yi\edv<6>ei \eyeiv <avTd> 6e\7j<7ova-<i>v, 09 ^Tj(7tv 
 d/ieivo<vd>ye etvai rd TroirjriKa koi <fiovcT>i.Kd irapa- 
 Bei<yfi>aTa, Kal, tov <X6y>ov tov Tfj<; ^iXoao<pla<; 
 lKavw<<;> /lev i^ay<y>eXK€i<v B>wafievov Td 6e<t>a Kal 
 d<v>6<p>m<'iriva, fi>rj e'xov<T>o<; Be y^iXov twv Oeicov 
 fieyeOwv Xe^et? olKela<s, ra fieT<pa> Kal Td fieXr) Kal tovi 
 pv6fiov<s cos fidX<i>a'Ta 7rpoa-iKvet<r6ai tt/so? Trjv dXrjdeiav 
 TTJi TWV QeUov 6<ew> pia<!. 
 
 For the general sense, cf. Plat. Rep. x. 607 A, elBevau 
 OTi offov fiovov iifiV0V<! ^eot? Kal eyKu,fiia tok dyadoK 
 troiija-eeo'i irapaBeKTeov eh ttoXiv. The underlying thought 
 is that it is impossible to define the nature of God: 
 cf. Hermes, ap. Stob. Eel. 11. 1. 26, Oe6v vofja-ai fiev 
 ^aXeirov, ^pdaat Be dBvvaTov. 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 ot/ceta?, but 
 this makes ra fieTpa k.tX. very abrupt, and it is better 
 to regard koI before tov Xoyov as connecting elvai and 
 
280 THE FBAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 Trpoa-iKveladai, although this leaves dfieivova without an 
 object. 
 
 >l<tXoS: 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. 289 B, C, 7roi7]Tal...iv fiovtrtKfi v/jLvi]a-avTe<;...idv ovv 
 tjfieii; eiri')(^eipwfj,ev rd avrd Xoy^ i^rtXp Koafieiv. ■\friXo<s 
 \0709 also means " abstract reasoning " (Dr Thompson on 
 Phaedr. 262 c), and a "bare statement" unsupported by 
 evidence, Dem. Androt. § 22, Aphob. i. § 54. 
 
 T<Sv. . .olmtas, " 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 longi canalis angustias tractum, , 
 potentiorem novissimo exitu effudit; sic sensus nostros 
 clariores carminis arta necessitas efficit. 
 
 tuba. Greek trumpets were long and straight, ending 
 in a bell-shaped aperture (kcoBcov), cf. Aesch. Eum. 567, 
 StfiTOjOO? Tvpa7)viKT} adXiriy^ ^poreiov Trvevfiarot ttXij- 
 povfiivt) vireprovov yijpvfia ^atveTm, 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 yocis erat. Cf. Sen. Ep. 7 ad fin. 
 114, 1. Hence Quintilian frequently uses the word for a 
 ' sentence ' or ' period.' 
 
 arta necessitas : cf. Pind. N. IV. 33, ra fiaxpa S" i^evi- 
 Trecv ipvicei, fie redfioi;, 
 
 51. Sext. Math. IX. 88, 6 Be KXeov^iy? ©[Jtcb? o-vvj)- 
 ptora' el (^vcnt ^V(xew9 eart, Kpelrrcav, el'17 dv Tt? dpiarTj 
 
THE FEAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 281 
 
 ^vcn<;' el "^^vxri yffV'xfi'i iari Kpeirrwv, eirj dv rt? dpia-Trj 
 yjrvx^' Koi el t^^ov roivvv KpeiTTOv icrri ^coov, elt) dv ri 
 KpcuTLo-rov ^Sov. ov yap eh direhpov i/CTrlirTei-v 7re<j}VKe rd 5 
 ToiavTa, uKTrrepovv ovre rj ij)vai,<! eSvvaro eV dveipov 
 av^eaOai Kara rh Kpelrrov ovO rj ^jrv^^ ovre to ^(pov. 
 (89) aWa /j,T^v ^mov ^aov Kpelrrov iariv, to? itttto? j^eX.ciJi'i;?, 
 el rv'xpt, KoX ravpo<i ovov koI Xemv ravpov. "rravrcov Se 
 <7)(eB6v rwv iTTiyeicov ^mmv Koi acofiariKr} koX •'^vyiKy 10 
 Biadiffei, TTjOoe'^et re koI Kparicrrevei, 6 avdpmiro^' roivvv 
 Kpdriarov dv e'ir) ^(pov km dpiarov. (90) Koi ov rrdvv ri 
 6 dv9paiiro<i Kpdriarov elvai hvvarai ^tSov, olov evdeto<} 
 ort Std KaKia<; iropeverai rov irdvra 'x^povov, el Be /j.ij ye, 
 rov "TrXeicrrov (koI yap e'i rrore Trepiyevoiro dperrji;, di/re 15 
 Kal Trpo? rat? rov ^Lov Sv<7/Aat? rrepiyiyverai), eirlKTjpov r 
 icrrl Kal dadevet Kal fivpicov Beofievov ^orjdrifidrcav, 
 KaOdirep rpocfirj'; Kal (TKeTraafidrcov Kal t^s aWiy? rou 
 a(OfjLaT0<s eTnfieXeia<!, iriKpov rtvo<! rvpdvvov rponrov e(f>ecr- 
 tcSto? i^/J'tv Kal rdv Trp6<s rifxepav Saa/jbov drrairovvro'i, Kal 20 
 el firj wape'X^oi/jiev ware Xoveiv avro Kal dXei^eiv Kal 
 rrepi^dWeiv Kal rpe<j)ei,v, v6(rov<; Kal ddvarov drreiKovvro^. 
 wcrre ov reXeiov ^aov 6 dvdpanro<s, areXes he Kal rroXv 
 Ke^ofpicr/ievov rov reXelov. (91) ro Be reXetov Kal dpiarov 
 Kpelrrov fiev dv virdp'X^oi dvdpcoirov Kal rrdaai'; rat? 25 
 dperah ervfiTreTrXrjpmfiivov Kal rravrb'i KaKov dveirlBeKrov, 
 rovro Be ov Biolcrei 6eov. ea-riv dpa Oeo's. 
 
 This argument for the existence of God is stated in 
 different language and a somewhat amplified form by 
 Cic. N. D. 11. 33—36 : of. especially § 35. 
 
 2. <J>«<ris: the vital principle of plants. Zeno frag. 43. 
 
 6l...i<rTi...£tTi ov: in this form of the conditional 
 sentence the inference is stated less bluntly than if the 
 indicative were used : see Madv. § 135 E, 1 a. This is 
 especially frequent with eOeXa or ^ovXofiai in the pro- 
 tasis : cf, Stallb. ad Plat. Symp. 208 c. Eur. Ale. 1079. 
 
282 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 A close parallel to the use here is Dem. xxxvi. 44, 
 et Se TOVTO ayvoeK, on TriffTt? d^opfjufj iracrmv ean 
 fieyia-Ti] Trpo? XRVH^'^ttr/iov, irav av drfvo'i/jaei,a<;. 
 
 11. BiaO^crei : cf. Zeno frag. 117. 
 
 12. KoC: Bekker proposed to read dWd or Ka\ firjv, 
 but Wachsmuth's icairoi is preferable. 
 
 15. irepiY^oiTo : for the optative in protasis, see Jebb 
 on Soph. Ai. 521, Ant. 666. 
 
 16. Suo-nats: cf. At. Poet. c. 21, § 13, 1457 b 22, ^ 8 <yrjpa<! 
 Trpo? ^iov Kol eairepa irpo'i rifiepav' ipec roivvv rrjv kcnrk- 
 pav yrjpaii Tjfiepai, koL to yrjpav eairipav yStow rj, Siairep 
 'EfvireSoKX^'S, hvajid'^ ^iov. Cf. Aesch. Ag. 1123, /3toi; 
 Svj/TO? avyal^. The difficulty of attaining dpenj, in the 
 Stoic sense, is illustrated by the fact that even Socrates 
 and Antisthenes were only regarded as TrpoKOTrTovre^ 
 (Diog. VII. 91) ; and Alexander says that they admit the 
 existence of a good man here and there, &<nrep rt irapd- 
 So^ov ^mov xal irapd ^vaiv, (rTravicorepov tov ^oLvlko'; 
 (de Fato, c. 28). In Diog. 1. c. the fact that ^avKoi can 
 become dyaOoX is given as a proof that virtue is teachable. 
 Hirzel has traced the development of the doctrine of the 
 wise man within the Stoa, and shews that by the earlier 
 Stoics (Zeno and his immediate pupils) the ideal was 
 regarded as attainable and as actually realised by them- 
 selves (pp. 274—277). 
 
 20. diraiToSvTos. The preposition conveys the idea of 
 demanding as of right: c£ diroSovvai as used in the 
 Halonnesus dispute (Aeschin. Ctes. § 83). 
 
 22. irepipdWeiv, " to clothe," cf. Zeno, frag. 175. 
 
 52. Cic. N. D. II. 13 — 15. Cleanthes quidem noster 
 quattuor de causis dixit in animis hominum informatas 
 deorum esse notiones. primam posuit eam, de qua modo 
 dixi, quae orta esset ex praesensione rerum futurarum; 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 283 
 
 alteram quam ceperimus ex magnitudine commodorum, 5 
 quae percipiuntur caeli temperatione, fecunditate terrarum, 
 aliarumque commoditatum complurium copia: tertiam 
 quae terreret animos fulminibus, tempestatibus, nimbis, 
 nivibus, grandinibus, vastitate, pestilentia, terrae motibus 
 et saepe fremitibus, lapideisque imbribus et guttis imbrium 10 
 quasi cruentis, 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 
 geminato...quibus exterriti homines vim quandam esse 15 
 caelestem et divinam suspicati sunt, quartam caussam 
 esse eamque vel maximam aequabilitatem motus, con- 
 versionem caeli, solis, lunae, siderumque omnium dis- 
 tinctionem, varietatem, pulcritudinem, ordinem, quarum 
 rerum aspectus ipse satis indicaret non esse ea fortuita. 20 
 Cic. N. D. III. 16, nam Cleanthes, ut dicebas, quattuor 
 modis formatas in animis hominum putat deorum esse 
 notiones. unus is modus est... qui est susceptus ex 
 praesensione rerum futurarum. alter ex perturbationibus 
 tempestatum et reliquis motibus. tertius ex coramoditate 25 
 rerum quas perspicimus et copia. quartus ex astrorum 
 ordine caelique constantia. 
 
 1. Cleanthes. Mr Bywater concludes (Joum. Phil. 
 VII. 75 foil.) that Cleanthes was largely indebted to 
 Aristotle's dialogue irepl <f>iKo(ro<f)ia<! for his statement 
 of the four reasons given for the origin of a belief in gods, 
 and proves that the first and fourth in the series were 
 derived from that work. 
 
 2. informatas. It is to be observed that Cleanthes 
 regards the idea of God's existence as derived entirely 
 from our experience of external objects, and not as an 
 innate conception. Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, n. 737. 
 
 4. praesensione : this argument depends on the exis- 
 
284 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 tence of fiavriKi], r) hC oveipcav irpopprjcrii; etc. (Sext. 
 Math. IX. 132), which are described as •n-Xrjdo'; -rrpayfidrcov 
 •n-e-Tno'Tevfievcov ■^Stj irapa 'rraaiv avdpwTTOK. Krische, 
 p. 419, attributes some further arguments to Cleanthes, 
 which the evidence does not warrant. 
 
 7. tertiam: there does not appear to be any extant 
 parallel to this in the Greek texts. Although there is no 
 reason to suppose that we have not here a reproduction of 
 the general argument of Cleanthes, at the same time it is 
 probable that Cicero has enlarged the list of portents 
 from Roman sources. The prodigies mentioned are those 
 which constantly meet us in Livy, as requiring expiation 
 by lustrationes, supplicationes, lectisternia etc. Lists of 
 prodigies illustrating those mentioned here by Cicero will 
 be found in Liv. xxL 62, xxii. 1, xxiv. 44, xxvi. 23, etc. 
 Tac. H. I. 86, Juv. xiir. 65 — 70, 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. quartam: for a fuller statement of the fourth 
 argument, cf. Sext. Math. ix. 111—118, ib. ix. 26—27 : 
 in the last passage it is simply introduced by the term 
 evioi, but from its position between an argument of 
 Epicurus and one belonging to some "younger Stoics," 
 Mr Bywater (Joum. Phil. vii. 76) infers that its immediate 
 source was one of the earlier Stoics, possibly Cleanthes. 
 
 17. aequabilitatem. "Cicero is probably translating 
 some such phrase as oixaXoTTjTa Kivija-ecoi;, ^opdv ovpavov," 
 Prof. Mayor. 
 
 53. Epiphan. adv. Haeres III. 2. 9 (III. 37), K\edv6r)<! 
 TO dyadbv kuI KaX6v Xeyei elvat ra? '^Sovd^, Kal avdpmirov 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 285 
 
 SKoXei fiovrjv Tfjv yjrvxrjv, koI toi)? ^eoi)? fiva-riKo. aj^^/jLaTa 
 eXeyev elvat xal /cXj/o-et? iepd<;, koX BaSovxov e<j)a(7Kev elvai 
 Tov rj\iov, Kal tov Koafiov fiva-Ta<; koX toi)? KaT6')(pv<! rwv 
 Oeiwv re\QTais eXeye. 
 
 t4 dvoe6v...ii8ov(ts. 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. 
 
 av8p«irov 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. 106 
 Toi)s am-aiSevTov^ f^ovr] rfj fiop^fj twu Oijpiwv Bia^epetv. 
 
 • Tois Btois 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 '^yefioviKov 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. Of. Porphyr. ap. Euseb. P. E. iii. 12. 
 p. 116, iv Se Tot? Kar ^EiXeva-lva jivarripioL'; 6 fiev lepo- 
 (f>dvTr]<i ets eiKova tov hrjfiiovpyov ivaKevd^erai, SaSot/^o? 
 Se 6t9 TTjv riXCov. 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 
 irepl ^iXoa-o<j)la<!, and explaining the belief in the gods 
 as due to a feeling of awe and admiration consequent on 
 the contemplation of the heavenly bodies. The allusion 
 to the mysteries is brought in by way of comparison : "we 
 seem introduced into a temple like that at Eleusis, only 
 more august and solemn, because the figures [= the hea- 
 
286 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 venly bodies] we see circling around us are not lifeless or 
 made with hands, and the celebrants are not men, but the 
 immortal gods." This explanation is fortified by a re- 
 ference to Dio. Ohrys. XII. p. 387 B, Plut. de tranq. 20, 
 p. 477 c, D (also quoted by Diels). For fiva-nica a-^v- 
 /xara see Lobeck Aglaoph. p. 130, and for K\i]a-ei<; iepd<; 
 ib. p. 62. 
 
 |iiJ<rTos. . .TcXcTtt's. Diels, p. 592, who records other sug- 
 gestions, has fiva-Tripiov...Te\ea-rdi. Perhaps, from a 
 comparison of Chrysipp. ap. Etjnn. M. 751, 16 id. Plut. 
 Sto. Rep. 9, we ought to restore toi)? kutoxov^ twv Beirnv 
 <\6'yov<;> reXera?. 
 
 54. Philodem. Trepl evcre^. fr. 13. iv Be rm 8euT6<pw> 
 (scil. irepl 0ewv Xpiiaiinrois) ra r<£> et's 'Op(j)ea <«at M> 
 ovaaiov dva(pe<p6fi>e<v>a koI <T>d irap <'0>p,rjpm icai 
 'H<rtoS<ft)> KoX ^vpi<'7r>[Srj K<al> Trotijrats oKXok <tB>s 
 Ka<l> K.\edv97i<! <'ir>eipdTa<b avv>oiKeiov<v> ral'! 
 86^at<i auru><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 prime 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 Trepl Oewv. 
 
 55. Plut. de audiendis poetis c. 11, Sej Se /twjSe rmv 
 ovo/idrcov dfi€\w<{ aKOveiv, dWd rrjv fiev KX6dv0ov<; irai- 
 Blov trapaiTeiffdai,' Kareipeoveverai yap eaTiv 2t6 ttooo-- 
 Troiovfievo'i i^rjiyeiadai to 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 287 
 
 Zev irdrep "IBrjOev fieSeeov, 
 
 Kal TO 
 
 Zev ava AwStovaie, 
 
 KeXevfov dva/^is^vwaKeiv v^* %v, w? rov eK rrj'; ryrj<s dvaOvfi- 
 iw/j,evov depa Bid Trjv dvdSoaiv 'AvaScoBcovalov ovra. 
 Wachsmuth cites Schol. B L Homer 11 233 Zev dva Am- 
 Btovale] nve<i Se dvaSmSeovaie v^ ev irapd Trjv dvdBoaiv 
 Twv dyaOmvC?) 
 
 This comes from the book irepl tov ttoitjtov according 
 to Krische, p. 433, and Wachsm., Comm. i. p. 17. Zev 
 iraTep "lSr)6ev /leBemv, II. III. 276, 320 : Zev dva AmBtovaie, 
 II. XVI. 233. 
 
 iraiSidv. It is worthy of observation that Plut. dis- 
 tinctly suggests that Cleanthes was not serious in his 
 etymologies : see Introd. p. 43, 44, and cf. Plat. Cratyl. 
 406 B, dXX' eVri yap Kal (TirovBai(o<; elptifievo's 6 Tpoiro^ 
 TWV ovofiaTuv TOVTOit TOK deoK Kal •jraiBiKW';. 
 
 dvo9u|jn<6n6vov : a reference to the feeding of the celestial 
 bodies by exhalations of coarser material, cf. frag. 29 
 ciKeav6<! B' eVrt...^? tt^v dvadvfiiacnv eTTivifieTai. Comut. 
 c. 17, p. 84 Osann. oijp Kara dvdBoa-iv. It may be ob- 
 served that the attribution of this doctrine to Thales by 
 Stob. Eel. I. 10, 12, p. 122, 18 cannot be relied upon, 
 
 56. Plut. de Is. et Osir. 66, ^epae^ovriv Be ^tri nrov 
 KXedvOrji; to Bid twv Kapirwv ^epofnevov Kal (j)ovev6fievov 
 ■jrvevfia. 
 
 Diibner translates: spiritus qui per fruges dum fertur 
 interimitur. Probably this, as well as the seven following 
 fragments, comes from the treatise irepl demv (Wachsm. 
 Comm. I. p. 15). Cf Plut. de Is. c. 40, where Demeter 
 and Persephone are explained as t6 Bid tt}^ yrj'; koI twv 
 Kaptrwv SirJKov wevfia. Chrysipp. ap. Philod. irepl evcre^. 
 col. 12, p. 79 Gomp. Kal ttjv ArjfjirjTpa yrjv ^ to ev avTy 
 
288 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 TTvevfia. Cic. N. D. ii. 66, ea (Proserpina) enim est quae 
 ^epae<f>6vr] 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 modem views see Jebb on Soph. Ant. 894. 
 
 57. Macrob. Sat. 1. 18, 14, unde Cleanthes ita cogno- 
 minatum scribit (Dionysum) d-jrd tov Biavvcrai, quia coti- 
 diano impetu ab oriente ad oecasum diem noctemque 
 faciendo caeli conficit cursum. 
 
 In the Orphic hymn, quoted just before the present 
 passage, Dionysus is derived from Biveiadat. He is else- 
 where explained by the Stoics (1) as wine, Cic. N. D. ii. 
 60, c£ Plato's derivation from BiSeofn and olvo<;, the latter 
 being resolved into oXea-dat and vom, (2) as to yovifiov 
 TTvevfia KoX rpo^i/jbov, 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 lamina, laben- 
 tem caelo quae ducitis annum, Liber et alma Ceres. 
 
 58. Macrob. Sat. I. 17, 8, Cleanthes (Apollinem) w<; 
 air aXX(ov Kal aWav tottcov to? dvaroXai; troiovjievov, 
 quod ab aliis atque aliis locorum declinationibus faciat 
 ortus. 
 
 Chrysippus (Macrob. 1. c.) derived the word 'AttoWcov 
 from d and ttoXi;?, 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 aTfKov, del 
 ^dWovTo<;, d-TroXovovToq, and 0/40770X051/70? (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 diro 
 TOV XevKalveadai, irdvTa ^wTifoi'To? rfKiov, a guess, which, 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 289 
 
 SO far as the etymology of Avk6io<; is concerned, has found 
 some favour in modem times (Mtiller Dor. ii. 6 § 8). Pro- 
 bably Cleanthes did not recognise a distinction between 
 the two titles Au/etos 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 Pausan. 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^ta? cognominatur, ut 
 ait Oenopides, 2x1 miropeueTai, rov Xo^ov kvkKov cnr6 
 8va-fj,mv hi dvaToXa<; Kivovfievoii, id est quod obHquum 
 circulum ab occasu ad orientem pergit: aut, ut Cleanthes 
 scribit, eVetS^ tca6' e\t«a? Kivelrai, Xo^al yap elai koI 
 aSrai, quod flectuosum iter pergit. 
 
 Cf. Achill. Tat. Isag. 169 A, o fpSta/e^s kuI 'Ko^ia<i 
 VTTo TiiVmv KaXelrai, eVetS?) ^Xtos ras 0801)9 iv avT(£ 
 Tropeverai \0f09. iv Be Tcp rj^ia) 6 'AttoWwi' 09 icaXelTai 
 Ao^ia'i vTr6 twv iroirjrmv elvai viareveTai. Cornut. c. 32 
 gives two explanations: Xo^eSv hk koI TrepiaKeXwv ovTtav 
 Twv •)(^pri(TiJiMV 01)9 SiScca-t Ao^iwi wv6p,acrraf rj atrh t^9 
 \of ot7;to9 T779 iropeiai fjv Troielrat Bia tow ^wSiaKov kvkKov. 
 For modern derivations of the name Loxias see Jebb on 
 Soph. O.T. 854. 
 
 ?XtKas : for the obliquity of the sun's course cf. frag. 29 
 and Diog. L. vii. 144 there quoted. 
 
 61. Photius s. v. XAa-xai; p- 158 ed. Herm., 'KKedvOri<i 
 Se (f>7}aiv cnrovevefi'^a-dai, t^ ^AttoXKojvi Ta9 Xecr^a?, e^e- 
 BpaK Se 6/jiOLa<; yiveaOai,, xal avrov Be top 'AttoWim Trap' 
 ivlot^ AetT'xrjvoptov iiriKoXela-Oai. So Suidas I. 541 s. v. 
 
 H. P. 19 
 
290 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 Xecr^at. In Harpocrat. s.v. we get the additional informa- 
 tion that these remarks were contained in the treatise 
 nrepi 6e6av. 
 
 Cf. Plut. de el ap. Delphos c. 2 : Apollo is called Aecr- 
 ')(r)v6pio<!, 'Srav ivepywffi leaX diroKavwcn ')(p(OfJi.evoi tc3 
 StaXiyeaffai koX (jtiXotroipeLV Trpo? dWrjXovi;. The inference 
 ■drawn by Wachsmuth seems correct, viz., that Comutus 
 took from Cleanthes the words found in c. 32, xal Xea^V 
 vopiov S' avTov (^ A-TroXKmva) Trpoa-'rjiyopevcrav Sid to to? 
 ^/Mepa^ rat? Xeff^at? Kal rm bfjuikelv dXKrfKoK <TVve')(eaOai 
 Toi)? dvOpolnrow, rdi; Se viixra^ xaff eauroi)? dvatraveadai. 
 He remarks that Comutus appears to have devoted much 
 attention to the study of Cleanthes. Cf. Pers. Sat. v. 63, 
 cultor enim iuvenum purgatas inseris aures fruge Cle- 
 anthea. 
 
 I|48pai.s. 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 Cameadis; 
 •quem videre videor (est enim nota imago), a sedeque ipsa, 
 tanta ingeni magnitudine orbata, desiderari illam vocem 
 puto. " Vitruvius in his description of the palaestra, or 
 gymnasium, such as were attached to Roman villas of the 
 higher class, recommends that in three of the cloisters 
 surrounding the court there should be exedrae spatiosae 
 in quibus philosophi, rhetores, reliquique qui studiis 
 delectantur sedentes disputare possint v. 11." Prof Mayor 
 on Cic. N.D. i. 15. See also Becker, Charicles, p. 303. 
 Guhl and Koner, p. 403. 
 
 i|ioCas: the distinction between Xiaxai and i^eBpai 
 seems to be that the former were separate buildings used 
 entirely as lounges, whereas the latter were attached 
 •either to a private house or a public gymnasium. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 291 
 
 62. Cornut. c. 31 ad fin., toi)? Se SwSeKa affX,ov<; 
 ivhe.'yerai /lev dvayayelv ovk aX\oTpico<; iirl tov 6e6v, tB? 
 KoX KXedv67]<; iiroiriaeV ov Belv 8e Soicel "rravra-yov evpeai- 
 Xoyov irpea^eveiv. 
 
 It seems clear from the account of Comutus 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 Comutus of Heracles as an archer : 
 KoX To^oTTj^ K av 6 deo'i irapeiad'yoiTO, Kara, re to 7ravTaj(pv 
 huKvelaOai k.t.X. But in the account of the twelve labours 
 in Heraclitus, All. Hom. c. 33, Heracles is represented 
 simply as a wise man who brought to light the hidden 
 truths of philosophy: 'HpuKXea Se vofiia-reov ovk otto 
 a-eo/MiTiKrj<; Suvdfieco<; dva'X^Bevra too-ovtov layyaai rot?. 
 t6t6 ')(p6voi<;. dW' dvrjp efi^pcov koX o^o^^a? ovpaviov 
 fjA)(rT7]<; 76701/0)9, mairepel Kara ^aOeiai d'xXvo'i viroBe- 
 SvKviav i^oiTKje ttjv (j)iKo<To(j)iav, KaOdirep ofioXoyova-i Kal 
 liTcoiKcov 01 BoKi/MmraTot. 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 Comutus. Krische (p. 400) on the other 
 hand says: — "irre ich nicht, so fiihrte Kleanthes, gleichwie 
 spater Porphyrins (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 N. D. p. 91 g)." 
 
 eipea-lXa^ov : "expectes TOV," Lang. Osann interprets this 
 to mean that Cornutus apologises for referring to the 
 authority of Cleanthes by saying that such a trifler ought 
 not to be respected in all cases. This derives a certain 
 amount of support from Plutarch de and. poet. p. 31 where 
 
 19—2 
 
292 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 Chrysippus is spoken of as evpea-iXoyaiv a-mOavto'i. But 
 it seems strange that Comutus 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 
 evpeaiXor^iav. 
 
 63. Schol. in Hom. II. in. 64, ap. Bekker, p. 9& 
 b. 23, TL\edvdr)<; he iv Aecr^w ovrto rifidadai '^jpvafjv 
 ' A<f>poSbr7]v. 
 
 Wachsmuth (Comm. I. p. 15)- classes this among the 
 fragments of the work Trepl demv, but there is more likeli- 
 hood in Krische's view (p. 433) that it belongs to the Trepl 
 Tov ■n-oiffTov, for there is no reason to separate it from 
 frags. 55 and 65. Perhaps Cleanthes tried to explain the 
 currency of the epithet ■x^pvairi by the existence of a gilded 
 statue of Aphrodite at Lesbos. For the figurative mean- 
 ing of ;;^/3uo-ow? = precious, which is perhaps all that is 
 implied in the epithet, see Jebb on Soph. Ant 699. 
 
 64. Athen. XIII. 572 f., 'ir6pvr)<i he ' A<^pohirr)<; iepov 
 ia-Ti •jrapa ^A^vhijvoK, &<; <^r}<n Ti.dp.^iXo'i' Karey^^o/ievrji; 
 yap T^? TToXeo)? hovXela toi)? ^povpov<; Toix; iv avTy irore 
 dvaavrai;, m Icrropel KXedvOri^ iv rot? MvdtKOK, koi 
 /Medva-Bivra^ eraLpa'; ifKeLovaii irpoa-'Ka^elv' &v uLav, kutu- 
 KotfiTjdevra^ avTov<s ihovcrav, dveXofievriv rdi; /cXei? xal to 
 T6iXo<> iirep^aaav, d-rrayyeTKai rot? ^A^vhrjvoi^. roiii; h' 
 avTLKa fieS" ^ttKoiv d<f)iKop,evov<}, dveXeiv fiev tovs ^v\aKa<i, 
 KpuTTiffavra^ he t£v reij^^cSv kuI yevo/j,evov<; iyKparcK tt)^ 
 iXevOepLai; 'xapiaTjjpia ry iropvri dTrohlhovTa<! 'A^pohlrij^ 
 Hopvi]^ vaov Ihpvcraadat. 
 
 nipvTis: cf. Aphrodite Pandemos, and the worship of 
 Aphrodite Ourania at Corinth (Becker's Charicles, p. 246). 
 The object of Cleanthes was doubtless to explain away the 
 discreditable legends attaching themselves to the gods, 
 and thus in the present instance the debased worship at 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 293 
 
 Abydos is shown to be due to the accident of a historical 
 circumstance, and not to the essential characteristics of 
 the goddess. There is however considerable doubt as to 
 the genuineness of this fragment, see Introd. p. 51. 
 
 65. Schol. in Hom. Od. i. 52, ap. Cramer, Anecd. 
 Oxon. III. 416, 6Xo6<j)povo<i] KXedv07j(; Sacrvvef tov irepl 
 
 T(Bv oXcov (ppOVOVVTOi;. 
 
 Wachsmuth also quotes Eustath. in Hom. p. 1389, 55, 
 TOV "A.T\avTa...ol fiev a\X7]yopov<riv eii rr/v d/cd/iarov koX 
 aKOTTiarov irpovoMV ttjv iravrav alrlav koL oXoo^pova tov 
 ToiovTov "ArXavTa voovavv, oo? tov inrep '6'Kaiv (jjpovovvTa 
 Tjyovv Toov oKwv ^pomicTTtKov. Bio Kol oKXeavOfji;, &)<; ^aaiv, 
 eSda-vve to o t^9 apj(pva7]<;. Cf Cornut. de nat. d. c. 26, 
 6Xo6(f)pova S' avTov ("ATXavTo) eiprjaOai hid to TrepX toov 
 oXcov (ppovTL^etv Kal vpovoelaffai, t^? iravTcov avTov twv 
 fjiepwv (Ta>Tr]pia<i. See also Flach Glossen u. Scholien zur 
 Hes. Th. p. 76. Cleanthes identified Atlas with vpovoia, 
 as holding together the framework of the world (cf. e^t?). 
 
 66. Apollon. soph. lex. Homer, p. 114 ed. Bekk. v. 
 fiwXv {k. 305), KXeav^T/? he 6 (j>iX6c70(j)o^ dXXr)yopi,Kw<; 
 tfyqai hrfXavaOai tov Xoyov, hi ov fiwXvvovTai at 6pp,al koi 
 Tcl irdOrj. 
 
 This frag, is taken from Wachsmuth (Comm. i. p. 18) : 
 cf. Zeno, frag. 160, hiaXd/Mirei Trj<i '<}rv)(rj<; to ^avTaa-TiKov 
 Kal iraOrjTiKov viro tov Xoyov hiaKe'xy/jiivov. Stob. Eel. 
 II. 7. 10°' p. 89, 16, iTdvTe<; S" ol iv rot? •jrddea-iv ovts^ 
 d7ro(rTpe^ovTai, tov Xoyov. 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 dXXTjyopia. 
 
 67. Certamen Homer, et Hesiod., p. 4, 18, ed. Nietzsch 
 (in act. societ. philol. Lips. tom. I. fasc. 1), 'EXXdvifco<; /lev 
 
294 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 •yap KoX K\edvdr]<; Maiova (sic coni. Sturz, Hellanic. frg. 
 p. I7l et Welcker ep. cycl. p. 149 pro ^lova) Xeyovai 
 (Trarepa 'Ofirjpov). 
 
 This frag, is taken from Wachsm. Comm. I. p. 17. 
 Cf. Procl. vit. Horn. ap. Gaisford Hephaestion, p. 516, ol 
 fiev ovv lifivpvaiop avrov aVo^ati'o/iei'ot M.aiovo9 fiev 
 •7ra.T/309 \e<yov(Tiv elvai. ib. p. 517, M.alova yap (J3aa-i (scil. 
 'E\\ai/t/co9 Kal AafJ,aerTr)<; Kal ^epeKvS7]<;) top Op-rjpov 
 trarepa. 
 
 68. Porphyr. vit. Pythag. 1, 2, 'Kkeav67}<; ev rw 
 Tre/jLTTTO) ratv /jLvffiKwv 'Zvpov, eic Tvpov rrj^ 'Zvpla<i (scil. 
 Mnesarchus, the father of Pythagoras). criToSeia^ Se kutu- 
 \a^ova7}<s Toi)? ^afiiov^ •jrpoa-'rrKeiia'avTa tov M.vr]cTap- 
 "^Qv KaT ep/KopLav /iera (tLtov tt} vrjcra) koI aTroBofievov 
 5 Ttfirjdrjvat iroKiTeLa. Hvdajopov B' ex TraiStov et? irdcrav 
 fiddrjO'iv ovTO<i ev^vovi;, rov M.vrjaapy^pv oTrayayeiv avrbv 
 6t? Tvpov, eKet Be tok Xa\Baioi<i a-vcrrdvTa fieraa-'xetv 
 TOVTWV iirX TrXetoi' -Troirjaai, iiraveXOovra B' et? t^v ^Icoviav 
 ivTevOev top TLvdayopap vpwTOP /jukp ^epenvSj} too 'Sivpiip 
 
 10o/jLiXrj<7ai BevTepop S' 'EpfioSdfiavTi t^ Kpew^vXtp eV 
 ^djiti) rjBrj yrjpdcTKopTi. Xeyei S' 6 }^Xedp0r]<i aXKov; eivai 
 oi TOP Trarepa avTov Tvpijpop diroi^aipopTai twv ttjp 
 Krjfipov dTTOiKrja-dvTcop ipTevdev Be Kara irpd^iv et? ^dfiop 
 iXOovTU KUTaixelpai Koi dcTTOP yeveadai. nrXeovTO^ Be tov 
 
 15 yLpTjcrdp'ypv et? Tr/p 'IraXtai' cvfiTrXeva-avTa top Tlv6a- 
 yopap peop opTa K6p,iBfj cr<f)6Bpa ovaav evBaifiova xal Tod' 
 vcrrepop et? avTrjv airoirXevaai. KUToXeyei B' avTOv Kal 
 dSeX^ov<; Bvo EvpovaTOP Kal Tvpprjpov Trpea^vTepovs. 
 Wachsmuth also quotes Clem. Alex. Strom, i. p. 129 S. 
 ft)? Be KXedp0r]i (MBS. Neav^i;?) Stipto? 17 Ti/pto? (fuit 
 Pythagoras). Theodoret, Graec. aff. cur. p. 8, 43, 6 Be 
 KXedpOri^ (MSS. 'Nedvdri^) Tvpiov {IlvOayopav) opofid^ei. 
 This frag, must stand or fall with frag. 64. The facts 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 295 
 
 in the life of Pjrfchagoras with which these statements are 
 concerhed will be found fully discussed by Zeller, pre- 
 Socratics, i. p. 324 foil. After evBaifiova in 1. 16 some 
 such word as aiaOecrdai seems wanted. 
 
 69. Pseudo-Plut. de Fluviorum nominibus, v. 3, 
 irapcbKeiTai S" [avT<p] to K.avKdcriov opo<;' eicaXeiTo Se 
 rd irporepov ^opeov Koirrj Si alriav TOiavrrjv. ^opea<; 
 Si ipmTiKTJv eiTLOvfiiav l^iovqv apirda-a^, rrjv 'ApKTOVpov 
 dvyarepa, KaTrjve'^Kev eif? Tiva \6<J3ov N i(j)dvTTjv koXov- 
 fievov, KoX iyevvTjcrev e/c t^s irpoei.p'rjfj.evT)!; viov "TpiraKa, 5 
 Tov SiaSe^dfievov 'Hvio-xpv rrjv ^aalXeiav. fierfovoiidaOr) 
 Se TO opo'; Koirr) Bo/aeou. irpocrrjyopevdT] Se K.avKacro<; Sid 
 "rrepicrTacnv toiovttjv. fierd ttjv yiyavTO/.ia'x^lav K.povo'} 
 eKKXivmv to? Atos ctTretXa?, e^vyev et? rrjv dxpcepeiav 
 Bo/360w KoiTTj'i, Koi 649 KpoKoSeikov /jbeTafj,op<l)coOei<i KeXa&ev'lO 
 6 Se llpofi')]dev<;> eva rav eyxmpiwv voifjieva, KavKaaov, 
 dvarafioiv, koi KaTavo7Jcra<i avrov rrjv Stddeaiv t<Sv 
 a'ir'Kdy)(yav, elirev ov jxaKpdv eivai toi)? TroXe/itow?. 6 
 Se Zev<; e'in<^aveX<; tov fiev irarepa S-qaa^ TrXe/cT^ £V"V' 
 KareTaprdprnae' to S' opo<; et? Ti/jirjv tov Troifiivo<; Kai/-15 
 Kaaov fjieTovo/Mdcrai;, irpoa-eSrja-ev avTw tov Ilpo/ir)6ea koX 
 rjvdn/Kaaev avTov viro a'jrKay)(yoi^dyov aeTov iSaaavi- 
 ^eerdai, oti iraprivo^rjaev el<; Ta anXdyxva, oJs laTopel 
 K\edvd7]<; ev <y' Oeoiiwyia'^. 
 
 The treatise de Fluviis was composed perhaps in the 
 reign of Hadrian or Trajan, but all or nearly all the 
 authorities which the author cites are impudent fictions. 
 For further information see the Preface to Hercher's 
 edition of the tract (Lips. 1851) and especially § 3. 
 
 2. Bopfov koCtt] : cf. Pind. Nem. I. 3, 'OpTvyia Se/jiviov 
 'AjOT6/x.tSo9. Hom. II. XXIV. 615, ev 'ZiirvXa odi (jiaa-l 
 Oedmv efifievai evvd<; vvfKpdcov. 
 
 10. |j.tTa|i.opi|>a)e6£s. Wyttenbach saw that some words 
 
296 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 had fallen out here, since a reference to Prometheus is 
 required. He supplied therefore the words within brackets 
 and substituted dvarafimv for avairavrnv. For dvairavav 
 avapira^mv (Reinesius) and dvaa-irwv (Dodwell) have also 
 been suggested. 
 
 70. Pseudo-Plut. de Fluv. V. 4, yevvdrai. S" iv avTw 
 (Caucasus) fioTavrj Tlpo/Mijdeio^ KaXovfiivrj, fjv Mj;8eta 
 (yvXKk^ovaa Kal XeioTpi^ovaa, tt/sos dvTinradeia's rov 
 Trarpo^ i')(P'ijaaro, Ka6w<; laTopei 6 avroi; (scil. Cleanthes). 
 
 IIpa|j,ife»o5, of. Ap. Bhod. III. 843, 
 
 ^ Se rem? yXa^vpfj'; e^elXero ipeapiafioio 
 ^apfiaKov, o ppa re ^a<rl lipo/iijOeiov KoXeeadai, 
 
 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. xvii. 4, yewdrat S' iv 
 avTa (Taygetus) ^oTavrj KoKovfiivr) 'Kapuria rjv <ai> 
 yvvalice<i eapo<i dp'^ofievov rot's Tpaxv^oi<s irepLdirrovcTi 
 KoX virb Twv avhpwv crvp/iraQeaTepov dyaTTtSvraf Ka6w<s 
 laropei KXedv6T)<! iv a irepl opmv. 
 
 Xopwrto: Hercher thinks this word is invented from 
 the name of a city in Arcadia. 
 
 ETHICA. 
 
 72. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 6% p. 76, 3, K\edve'n^...o'iTa)<s 
 aTreScoKe' reXos eVrl to SfioXoyovfievm'i rrj ^vaei ^rjv. Cf. 
 .Diog. L. VII. 87, Clem. Alex. Strom, ii. 21. 129, p. 497 P., 
 179 S., KXedvdr]^ Se (scil. reXo? yyeirai) t6 ofioXoyov- 
 fievwf; TTJ (f)va-et ^rjv iv rS evXayicrreiv, o iv rf} twv Kara 
 ipvcriv iKKoyfi KeiaOai SteXafi^avev. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 297 
 
 In the extract from Clement, Krische, p. 423 n., pro- 
 poses to insert the words Atoyevrj'; Be between ^ijv and eV 
 rtp eiXoyta-relv on the evidence af3forded by Diog. L. vii. 
 88, Stob. Eel. II. 7. 6% p. 76, .9, who both expressly 
 attribute the definition evXoyia-Teiv ev rfj rwv Kara 
 ^va-iv iKXoyr} to Diogenes Babylonius. His suggestion 
 is approved by Wachsmuth (Oomm. ii. p. 4) and Heinze, 
 Stoic. Eth. p. 11 n. For the question as to whether 
 Cleanthes first introduced the words t^ ^va-ei into the 
 definition, see on Zeno, frag. 120. 
 
 73. Diog. L. vii. 89, <j>v(tiv Se 'K.pv<n'mro<; fiev i^aKovei, 
 y a.KoKovBoD'i Set ^rfv, rr/v re Koivrjv /cai iSieo? avdpcoirivrjv 
 6 Be }^\eavdri<; rrjv Kotvrjv fiovriv 6«Sej^6TOt ^vcriv, ■§ 
 aKokovOelv Bel, ovKen Be koX rijv eVl fiepov<s' rtjv re 
 dpsTriv BiadecTiv etvai o/j,o\oyovfievriv koX avrrjv Bi avrrjv 
 eivai alperriv, ov Bid riva <f)6^ov rj iXiriBa rj tl twv e^codev 
 ev avTrj re elvai rr/v evBaifioviav, are ovarj ''frv^y "rreTTOir)- 
 p-evri 7r/30? rrjv ofiokoy'iav iravrb'i rov ^iov Buaa-Tpet^ea-dai, 
 Be TO XoyiKov ^<pov iroTk /j,ev Bid ra? twv e^codev irpay- 
 fiaTeidSv iriOavoTT^Ta'i, iroTe Be Bid ttjv KUTij'xrja-iv twv 
 (TVVOVTCov, iirel rj 0t)<7t? d(j)opfid<; BlBwcriv dBiaa-Tp6<pov<;. 
 
 Diogenes leads us to suppose that Cleanthes and 
 Chrysippus dissented as to the interpretation of ^vai<s, 
 and that Cleanthes refused to allow that human nature 
 is included. This however is scarcely credible (cf. the 
 next fi*ag.), although it is quite possible that Cleanthes 
 laid special stress on Koivrj <j}vcrK and koiv6<; v6/io<;, cf. 
 frag. 48, 1. 24, Cic. Fin. ill. 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. Plut. Sto. Eep. 9). Hirzel li. pp. 112—118, 
 thinks that Diogenes' account is substantially right. He 
 
298 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 regards Zeno as the upholder of Cynicism in preference 
 to which Oleanthes devoted himself to the study of 
 Heraclitus, c£ Heracl. fr. 7, Sch., 8i6 Set evea-dai tw 
 ^vva>, Tov \6yov Se iovroi ^vvov ^woveriv oi troXKoi &)? 
 Ihiav exovTe<; (j>p6vr]aLv. To the objection that Zeno had 
 already recognised the Heraclitean \6yo<s 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. 
 
 Sid6c(riv 6iioXoYov)i.lvT|v : for hiaOeaiv see on Zeno, frag. 
 117, and for the general sense cf. Chrysipp. ap. Stob. 
 Eel. II. 7. 5*^, p. 60, 7, KoivoTepov Se rrjv dperrju hiaOeaiv 
 eivai ^aat ■sfrv'^fi': (rvfi<p(ovov avrrj wepi oXov tov ^lov. 
 
 ar' oiioTj: Zeller (p. 238, 3) corrects oi'Vi;? '^^X^'^ 
 TreiroiTj/ievT)';. 
 
 cti|iop|ids, cf. frag. 82. 
 
 74. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 6^ p. 77, 21, evSat/j^vla S' earrlv 
 evpota /St'ou. Kexp-qrav Se Kal KXeavdrji; r^ optp TOVT(p ev 
 roll eavTov crvyypdfi/jiaa'i, Kal o XpvcrtTTTTO? Kal oi dtro 
 Tovrav irdvTe'; ttjv evSai/iovCav elvat Xeyovrei; ov^ erepav 
 TOV evSaifiovo^ /Slov, kuitoi, ye XeyovTei; Trjv fjuev evBai- 
 fioviav (TKOTTov kKKsiaQai t^Ko^ S' eli'at to Tvyelv Trj<; 
 evBaifiovia<;, oirep TavTov elvat rm evSaifioveiv. Sext. 
 Emp. Math. XI. 30, evSaifiovla Se eariv, ta? oi irepl tov 
 KXeavdr/v, evpoia ^cov. 
 
 o-Koirov. For the distinction between a-Koirbis and t6\o?, 
 cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 3"=, p. 47, 8, Kal eaTi aKoiro^ fikv to 
 irpoKelfievov eh to Tvxetv, olov dcrTrh To^oraK- reXo? S' rj 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 299 
 
 Tov irpoKetfievov rev^i^. ffovXovrai yap ivipyijfj.a rifie- 
 repov elvai irpcxi ro t€\o9, ib. II. 7. 6°, p. 77, 1 — 5. 
 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 o-kottoi; and reXo? was foreign to the 
 earlier Stoa, and was introduced by Panaetius. 
 
 75. Clem. Alex. Protrept. VI. 72, p. 21 S., 61 P., 
 KXedvOr)'! Se 6 'Aa-a-ev<s, 6 anro t^? Sroa? (f>i\6<ro(j)o<; o? 
 ov deoyovlav TTOLrjTtK^v OeoKoylav Se aKr)di,vTjv ivBeiKwrai, 
 ovK a'7reKpv\}raT0 tov 6eov irepi on irep el^^ev <})povoov' 
 
 rdyadov epwTa(; fi olov ear ; cLkove Si] • 
 Terayfievov, SiKaiov, ocriov, euo-e/Se?, 
 KpaTOVv eavTOv, ')^pr]<ri/j,ov, koXov, Siov, 
 aiKTTTjpov, avdeKacTTOv, alel crvfKJjepov, 
 a(J30^ov, aXvirov, X-vcrtreXe?, dvwhvvov, 5 
 
 m<peKifj,ov, evapearov, a<T(^aXe<;, (^IXov, 
 evTifjLov * * * 6fio\oyovfj,evov, 
 ev«\e69, aTV<f)ov, eVt/ieXev, irpaov, cr^oSpov, 
 y^povi^ofievov, dfiefiTTTOv, alel Siafievov. 
 
 The same occurs in Strom. V. 14, 110, p. 715 P., 257 S., 
 introduced by the words ev tlvo "Troiij/MaTi irepl tov 6eov 
 and also in Euseb. P. E. xiii. 13, p. 679. 
 
 Clement's mistake in referring these lines to Cleanthes' 
 conception of the deity, when they really refer to the 
 ethical summum bonum, is obvious, and has been pointed 
 oiit by Krische, p. 420 £ Krische thinks that they may 
 have formed a poetical appendix to the prose work, which 
 is either the irepl Te\ov<; or the irepl koXwv. 
 
 Seven of these epithets, viz. SiKaiov, 'x^pTja-i/j.ov, koKov, 
 Seov, crvfKJiepov, XvcrtreXe'!, w<j)eXip,ov are predicated of 
 
300 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 dyadov in Diog. L. VII. 98, 99, with the addition of 
 aiperov and evxprttrrov: cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5*, p. 69, 11, 
 iravTa Se ToyaOa w<j)e\ifia elvat kol ev'^prja-ra Kol trvfi- 
 <pipovTa Kal Xva-iTeXrj koL airovSala koX irpeirovTa Kai 
 KoKa KoX olKeia, ib. 5\ p. 72, 19, ib. ll^ 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. Kparoiv iavrov: pointing to the virtue iyxpareia 
 (frag. 76) : reliquum est, ut tute tibi imperes, Cic. Tusc. 
 n. 47. 
 
 4. avo-TTipov: cf. Diog. L. vil. 117, xal ava-Tr)pov<! 8e 
 ^paeriv elvai ■jravra<; rov<; a-irovhaiov;, Stob. Eel. II. 7. 11*, 
 p. 114, 22. 
 
 aie^KooTov : in Ar. Eth. IV. 7. 4 the av6eKaa-ro<i is the 
 mean between the aXal^wv and the e'ipwv, and is described 
 as d\r)devTiicb<; Kol tS ^la Kal tcS \6y<p. We may com- 
 pare then Stob. Eel. ii. 7, 11", p. 108, 11, where the wise 
 man is said to be aTrXou? koI aVXao-ro? while to elpmvev- 
 ecrOat belongs alone to the ^auXos, ib. p. Ill, 11, eV Trdaiv 
 aXrjdeveiv top ao<p6v. 
 
 5. ^opov, dXvirov, dvuSwov : because the wise man is 
 
 7. Some word has dropped out here. In Clem. Alex. 
 Strom. V. 1. c. the words da^aX.^^ <^iXov evn/jLov are 
 omitted and o/MoXoyov/ievov is placed at the end of 1. 6. 
 In Euseb. 1. c. we have two complete lines but eiidpeaTov 
 is repeated from 1. 6, thus : — evrt/juou evapeerrov 6/j,o\o- 
 yov/ievov: this is perhaps the original reading, where 
 the error is due to evapea-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 evapea-rov to the second. Mohnike however 
 thinks (p. 51) that Eusebius had the work of Clement 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 301 
 
 before him while writing, and that the second evapearov 
 is mere patchwork to mend the metre. 
 
 8. &Tvi|>ov, cf. Diog. L. VII. 117, arv^ov re elvat tov 
 cro<pov. 
 
 wpijov, cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. ll^ p. 115, 10—12. 
 
 76. Plut. Sto. Rep. VII. 4, 6 Be KXedvdv<! iv virofivrj- 
 fiaai ^vaiKol^ ehrwv 'drt " TrSjiyrj Trvpo^ 6 tovo'; effri, 
 KCLV iKavb^ iv rj] ■\/''v%S yevrjrat Trpo? to eTrtreXelv ra 
 iiri^aXKovTa Icr'xv'i KaXeirai, icai KpdTO<i," ein^epet, Kara 
 Xi^iv, " r} 8' i(T'xy<; avrr) koL to Kparo^ orav fiev eVt tok 
 (pavela-iv ifi/ievereoi'; iyyevTjTai,, iyKpareid iariv Srav S' 
 ev Tots vTTOfieveTeoi'i, dvSpeia' irepl ra? d^La<; Se Sixaio- 
 avvT) ■ irepl ra? alpecreK xal e'/cKXtVet? a-cocjypoirvvr]." 
 
 Cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 5"^, p. 62, 24, kuI 6p,oito<s Siavep 
 IcT'xv'} TOV (Tw/iaTO'i TWO? i<TTlv iKavQii iv vevpoi<s OVTCa 
 Koi 7] Trj<s yfrvy(ri<s laj^ii'; tovos ecTTiv iKavof ev Tm Kpiveiv 
 KoX irpdTTebv rj fir). See also Zeller, p. 128, 2, 256, 2. 
 
 ■ir\i\ff[ inipos. This is the material air-current which 
 forms the rfyep-oviKov of the individual, being an efflux 
 of the divine nrvevfia. Cleanthes here brings his ethical 
 teaching into close dependence on his physical researches : 
 of the physical aspect of t6vo<! we have spoken at frag. 24. 
 Zeno's <j>p6vTja-t<s is explained as iKav6<! t6vo<; '^Irv^rjii, ie. as 
 t'o-^i)? Kul KpdTo<s. Possibly Cleanthes was influenced by 
 the Cynic use of T6vo<i : 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. 
 
302 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 Zeno held, or appeared to hold, that ^povrja-K 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 <j}p6vr]ai<! 
 in the wider, but substituting iyKpdreM in the narrower 
 meaning: see Hirzel II. p. 97 foil. Chrysippus on the 
 other hand restored <j}p6v7)ai<! as the cardinal virtue, but 
 represented by eTria-Tijfir} that notion of <f)p6v7)a-L<i which 
 was common to Zeno and Cleanthes. 
 
 <|)av€i<riv : so Hirzel, p. 97, 2, for etrii^aveaiv, coll. Stob. 
 Eel. II. 7. 0*^ p. 61, 11, e<yKpaTeiav Be eTnaTrjfirjv dwirep- 
 l3aTov Twv Kara rov opObv Xoyov (pavevTtov. We find 
 also definitions of iyKpdreia in Diog. L. Vil. 93, Sext. 
 Math. IX. 163, which are substantially identical with that 
 cited from Stobaeus : in Stob. it appears as a subdivision 
 of (7co<l>po<j-vvr], while both in Diog. and Stob. the word 
 ifjiHeveTeov is found in connection with Kaprepia, a sub- 
 division of dvhpeia. No doubt their account is derived 
 fi-om Chrysippus : it is noteworthy, however, that 6pdo<s 
 \o7o? appears in these definitions : see Hirzel, 1. c. Stein, 
 Erkenntnistheorie, p. 262. In giving this prominent 
 position to eyKpareia Cleanthes was following in the 
 steps of Socrates (Xen. Mem. I. 5. 4, dpd ye ov ')(^prj irdvra 
 dvSpa rjyrjcrdiJLevov ttjv iyicpdreiav dpeTrj<s elvai Kpr^iriha), 
 and the Cynics (Diog. L. vi. 15). 
 
 dg^as : the full definition, probably that of Chrysippus, 
 appears in Stob. Eel. ll. 7. 5*', p. 59, 11, Bucaioavvnv Se 
 i-JTKTT'^fj/rjV dTrovefj/r/TiKrfv rfj^ d^l,a<; eKacrrtfi, ib. 7*^ p. 
 84, 15. 
 
 atp^cis Kol IkkXCo-eis: aoi^pocrvvT] is ooncemed with the 
 regulation of the opixal (Stob. Eel. ii. 7. 5''^ p. 60, 13, 
 ib. S''^ p. 63, 16), and is therefore directed to the avoidance 
 of -n-ddt], among which (f>6^09 is defined as eKK\ca-i<s 
 wjreidrj'i Xoytp (Stob. Eel. ii. 7. 10^ p. 90, 11). 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 303 
 
 77. Clem. Alex. Strom, ii. 22, 131, p. 499 P., 179 S., 
 Sio KoX KX€avdri<! iv t^ Sevrepq> irepX rihovfj<; tov S(b- 
 KpaTTjv <j)r](rl Trap' eKaara BiBaerKeiv as o auros St«atds 
 re Koi evSaifimv dvijp koI tS irpolntf) BieXovn to Sikuiov 
 diro TOV <7Vfi(j)epovTO<; Karapdadai to? dcre^e^ Tt irpdjfia 
 SeSpaKOTi' dae^eif yap Tm ovti oi to cvfi^epov dirb tov 
 BiKaiov TOV Kwrd vofiov 'xmpi^ovTe'i. 
 
 Cf. Cie. Oif. III. 11, itaque accepimus Socratem ex- 
 secrari solitum eos qui primum haec natura cohaerentia 
 opinione distraxissent. cui quidem ita sunt Stoici assensi 
 ut et quidquid honestum esset id utile esse censerent 
 nee utile quicquam quod non honestum. id. Leg. I. 33, 
 recte Socrates exsecrari eum solebat qui primus utili- 
 tatem a iure seiunxisset: id enim querebatur caput esse 
 exitiorum omnium. 
 
 For Socrates, who identified to m^iXip,ov with to 
 dyadov, cf. Zeller, Socrates, p. 150 foil. Cleanthes, as we 
 have seen (frag. 75), asserted that the good was also 
 crv/jL^ipov and m<f)e\ifiov : for the school in general see 
 Zeller, Stoics, p. 229, 2. 
 
 78. Diog. L. VII. 92, ■n-\eiova<s (elvai aperas ^ TeTTapa<;) 
 01 irepl KXedvOriv koX ^pvcmnrov xal 'AvriiraTpov. 
 
 Zeller, p. 258, thinks that this simply means that 
 Cleanthes enumerated the various subdivisions of the 
 four cardiaal virtues. Hirzel, p. 97, 2, prefers to suppose 
 that it is due to the mistake of placing ^povqai.'s, which 
 is the source of the several virtues, on the same level as 
 the four main divisions of virtue. 
 
 79. Diog. L. VII. 91, BiSuktijv re etvai avTrjv (\er/o) 
 he Trjv dpeTTjv) koX Hpv<rnr'iro<} iv rm -irptoTm irepX TeXov; 
 ^al KoX KXedp6r]<;. 
 
 This is, of course, ultimately traceable to Socrates, but 
 
304 THK FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 was also enforced by the Cynics: of. Diog. vi. 10 (Antis- 
 thenes) SiBukt^v dnreheiicvve rrjv dpeTijv, ib. 105, dpiaKsi 8 
 avroli} Kol rrjv dperrlv BiBaKrrjv elvai, Kudd <p7]aiv 'AvTi- 
 aOevf)^ iv rm 'HpuKXel. 
 
 80. Diog. L. VII. 127, kuI /jltjv rrjv dperrjv XpvfftTTTro? 
 /j,ev dirofiXTjTijv, KXedvOrj^ Be dvairo^X'rjrov, o fiev airo- 
 ^nvtiTrjv Bid fiedrjv Koi fieX-ayx^oXiav, 6 Be dvairQpKrjTov Bid 
 ^e^aiov<; KaTaXr)-^ei.<i. 
 
 On this point Cleanthes is in agreement with the 
 Cynics (Diog. L. VI. 105), whence Wellmann, p. 462, infers 
 that Zeno's teaching must have been in agreement with 
 Cleanthes rather than with Chrysippus. See also the 
 authorities cited by Zeller, p. 295, 3, and add Cic. Tusc. 
 II. 32, amitti non potest virtus. 
 
 (U«Tiv: but Zeno held that the wise man ov fiedvadi]- 
 aea-dai (frag. 159). 
 
 neXayxoXfav : Cic. Tusc. III. 11, quod (furor) cum mains 
 esse videatur quam insania, tamen eiusmodi est, ut furor 
 (jieXayxokia) in sapientem cadere possit, non possit 
 insania. 
 
 pcpaCovs KOTaXTj<|feis : although KaTdX7)yfn<; 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. il. 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 Karakrj'^ei.'i is so great, that 
 even melancholy and drunkenness fail to shake him. In 
 support of this he quotes Epict. diss. i. 18. 21 — 23, ti? 
 oZv o drjTTTjTO^ ; ov ovK, i^io-rrjaiv ovBev rmv diroTrpoai- 
 pertov. tL ovv dv xavfia rj rovrtp ; tl dv olvrnfievo^ ■!} ; tL 
 dv ixeXayx"^^^ > '^' ^'^ iitrvoi,^; ovt6<s /jloi, ivTiv 6 dviKTjTO^ 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 305 
 
 affXrirrji. II. 17. 33, ■^deXov S' aff^aXtS? ej^ew' ical oureLa-TOXS, 
 KaX ov fjLovov i'Yprjyopw'; dWd koL KadevBcov Kal oiv(Ofji,evo<s 
 KoX iv fie\ay^oXia. He thinks that the later Stoics 
 invented the distinction between oivovadat and fjuedveiv 
 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, dpea-Kei Se avroi'; Kal Sia 
 TravTo? ■xprjcrQat ry apery, ft)? ol wepl K.Xedv07iv ^aa-[v. 
 ai/aTTO/SXi/TO? yap iarf koI iravrore rp "^vj^g p^/s^rat 
 ovaj} reXeia 6 erTTOwSato?. 
 
 82. Stob. Eel. II. 7. S**, p. 65, 8, iravra^ yap dv6 
 TTOVS d^op/idi; e-j^eiv ix ^v<recoi; Trpo? dpeTrjv, koI olovel top 
 Twv riiMan^eCwv Xoyov exetv Kara KXedvOrjv • o6ev dreXw 
 fiev ovra^ elvat <^avXov<s TeXeuo9evra<s Se airovhaLovi. 
 
 dif>op|t<ls. For this sense of the word cf. frag. 73 
 d<f)opfia<i dhia(TTp6(^ov<s "uncorrupted impulses." Stob. 
 Eel. II. 7. 5*^, p. 62, 9 e')(eiv yap (toi' avdpmirov) d^opfid^ 
 trapd T?79 ^iicr€m<; Kal Trpos ttjv tov KaOrjKovTO'; evpetriv 
 Kal TT/so? rrjv t&v opfiwv eva-rddeiav Kal tt/so? to? vtto- 
 /iom? Kal irpdi ra? dirovefj.rjcrei,'!. As a general rule, how- 
 ever, it is contrasted with opfiy as " aversion " )( " impulse 
 towards," Stob. Eel. II, 7. 9, p. 87, 5, Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 273, 
 eyKpdreLav...ev rat? Trpos to koXov opfialv Kal iv rah drro 
 rod KaKov d^op/Mu^, 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<^opiJLd<i ydp •7rpoeiXr]<f>€i Trapd rrj<f 
 0uflreft)?, Sv dfj,eXi]aa<; ouj^ oldi re eart, vvv SiaKplveiv rd 
 ylrevSi] dtro rcov dXrjddav. 
 
 H. P. 20 
 
306 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 Tov : SO Zeller, (p. 243, 1), for to. 
 
 i^|iia)ipeC(i)v : so Wachsm. for MSS. ij/iia/ji^eiaicav. Meineke 
 reads fu/xiafi^elcav. 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 Se ad ^ija-eie rt? koKo- 
 Keiav elvai tw TlvOLtp irapa^aXKeiv tov ^aaCKea, X.pvanr- 
 ■7ro<; fiev vfitv Kal KXeavdr]!; ov avyxcoprierei xal (likov 
 e6vo<i (f)i\o<70<f>M<! ^7 6 iie Trj<; iroiKiKr)'; x°P°'^ "' ^o,cTKOVTe<i 
 elvai Trjv avTrjv apeTrjv Kal dXrjdeiav dvSpo^ koI dead. 
 
 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. il. 106 f, oi Se diro 
 T^? %Toa9 Kal Trp/ avTrjv apeTrjv elvai 6ewv Kal dvdpmTrav 
 elpijKacriv. Cic. Leg. I. 25, iam vero virtus eadem in 
 homine ac dec est neque alio ullo ingenio praeterea. 
 
 84. Galen. Hipp, et Plat. plac. v. 6, v. p. 476 K., t^v 
 /jiev tov KXedvOov^ yvecfiriv vtrkp tov iradrfTiKov t^s 
 ■y^vxv'i 6« TwvSe ipaLveadal ^rja-L twv eirwv. 
 
 Ao7t(7/U.o?. Ti ttot' icrO' ort ^ovKei, Ov/ie ; tovto 
 
 fioi t^pdaov. 
 @vfj,6<i. exeiv, Xojiafie, irdv o j3ov\ofiat -jroieiv. 
 
 A. val ^aa-iXiKov ye' irXrjv ofjiW! elirov TrdXiv. 
 
 ©. (Sv dv eTTiOv/ido TavS" ottw? yevija-eTai. 
 
 tuvtI Ta dfiot^dia KXeavOov; <f>ri<rlv elvai TloaeiSwvio^ 
 evapyw<i iKBeiKvv/j-eva rrjv Trepl tov iraOr^TiKov Trj<; yfrvyfjv 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 307 
 
 f^vrnfirfv avTOV, e'i ye S^ "TreirolrjKe rbv Aoytafiov tw ©v/iaJ 
 diaXeyofievov £B9 eraipov €Taip<p. 
 
 2, 3. I^il Xo'yio-|iiav...pairiXi,Ko'v yi MSS. e^eti', Xoyia/ie, 
 Wyttenbach ^aaiXiKov itrri Mullach, ^aaiXiKov ev ye 
 Scaliger, vai /3. 7. Mein. Perhaps we should read Troietv 
 \oyiaii6v...eyw ^aaiXiKo^s- 
 
 4. (Sv Meineke, Mullach, m? MSS., oa Wyttenbach. 
 
 Mohnike, p. 52, thinks that this fragment comes either 
 from 7r6j0t 6p/j,fj<i or irepl TUiyov. 
 
 Posidonius uses the verses to prove that Cleanthes 
 was in substantial agreement with himself in supposing 
 that the various functions of the rjyefioviKov are radically 
 distinct. Zeller, 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, dvpadev elaKpL- 
 vea-dai tov vow, where see note, and is well refuted by 
 Stein, Psych, pp. 163—167. 
 
 85. Galen, Hipp, et Plat. ix. 1, V. p. 653 K., Ilocret- 
 Swvioi;, . .BetKvvo'tv ev rrj Trepl iradwv TrpayfiaTeia SiotKov- 
 jjAvovi rjiia'i VTTO rpmv Svvd/Mewv, eTridvfi'rjTiKrj'; re koI 
 OvfioeiSovij Koi \oyiaTiKT}<;' rrj(; S" avT'qi; 6 Tioo'eiSaivio^ 
 eXe^ev elvai Kal tov KXedv07]v. 
 
 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- 
 
 20—2 
 
308 THE FRAGMKNTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 tween Xoyia-fioi and dvnof. For 8vvdfiet<i see Hirzel, li. 
 p. 486, 1. 
 
 86. Stob. Floril. 108, 59, o Se KXeavdvi eXeye rrjv 
 Xvirrjv "^wj^^? irapdXviriv. 
 
 This appears to be the only remaining indication of 
 the position of Cleanthes as regards the definition of the 
 •n-dOrj, but it is not without significance. Zeno had pro- 
 bably defined Xiiin) as 0X070? a-va-ToXrj •v/tuj^tJ? (see on 
 Zeno frag. 143), but Cleanthes saw his way to a better 
 explanation from the standpoint of two? : the soul 
 of the wise man, informed by right reason, is characterised 
 by lax^'i, licav6<! two?, evrovla, but if the emotions over- 
 power the natural reason of a man, there supervenes a 
 resolution of tension, drovia or dadeveia. This view of 
 the emotions was adopted by Chrysippus, cf Galen, Hipp. 
 et Plat. V. 387 K. rj opdrj Kpiai'; i^ijyetTai, fierd rrji; Kara 
 Trjv y^vx^jv evTovia<;: see especially the long passage be- 
 ginning ib. p. 404 K. where the view of nrddo'i as drovia 
 or derdeveia is explained at length by Chrysippus. With 
 regard to Xv-n-t] cf Tusc. ill. 61, omnibus enim modis 
 fulciendi sunt, qui ruunt nee cohaerere possunt, propter 
 magnitudinem aegritudinis. Ex quo ipsam aegritudinem 
 XvTTTjv Chrysippus quasi solutionem totius hominis appel- 
 latam putat. ib. 11. 54, animus intentione sua depellit 
 pressum omnem ponderum, remissione autem sic urgetur, 
 ut se nequeat extollere. No doubt Cleanthes, like Plato, 
 derived Xvirr] from Xvca: Plat. Crat. p. 419 c. See also 
 Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 130. 
 
 87. Galen, Hipp, et Plat. in. 5, V. 332 K., ov fiovov 
 H.pva-nriro's dXXd kuI KXedvdr)^ KaX Zyvcov eToi/im^ avrd 
 Ttdeaaiv (scil. tou? 0o/3ou? koI to? X,i;7ra? koX trdvO' oaa 
 rotavra nrdO-q Kara rrjv KapSlav a-vvla-Tacrdat) = Zeno, 
 frag. 141. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 309 
 
 Hirzel's contention (p. 152 f.) that Cleanthes placed 
 the i^yeftoviKov in the brain, and that hence we are to 
 explain Plut. plac. iv. 21. 5, is controverted by Stein, 
 Psych, p. 170, from this passage, for we have seen that 
 the TrdOi] are aifections of the T^ye/ioviKov. Hirzel replies 
 (p. 154) that opfial and irdOr], though dependent on the 
 ■^yefioviKOp, 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, aWa KXedvdvi fiev 
 fiijTe Kara ipvaiv avrrjv (i^Sovrjv) elvai nrjr d^iav e)(eiv 
 [avrrjv] iv rm /3icp, KaOdirep he to KoKXvvrpov Kara ^vaiv 
 fi'^ elvai. 
 
 T^Bovrj is, according to Cleanthes, not merely an dSid- 
 <f)opov but also Trapd ^vaiv, being entirely devoid of d^ia, 
 cf Diog. L. VII. 105, and see on Zeno, frag. 192. 
 
 KoXXwrpov 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 rpi^av (Diog. 
 L. vil. 26), recommended the same dress for males and 
 females (frag. 177), and forbade young men to be erot- 
 piKw<s KeKoa-firjfievoi (frag. 174). 
 
 ovTiiv is bracketed by Bekker. Hirzel discusses this 
 passage at length (pp. 89 — 96). He thinks that the first 
 part (/t7;T6. ../Sio)) contains a climax : i^Bovrj has no connec- 
 tion with virtue, and therefore is not dr/oBov (/cara (jtixriv); 
 further, it has no d^ia and is not even irporjyp.evov. Hence 
 Zeno and Cleanthes did not identify rd Kara ^vtriv with 
 
310 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 •7rpor)yfieva : for in that case they could not have treated 
 irporufieva as dSia^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 avTTjv which 
 should be retained) is dS(,d<f)opov in the narrower sense. 
 Cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 7^ p. 81, 14 ovre Be 'n-porjyp.eva ovr' 
 aTTOTrpori'Yfieva. . .T^Sovrjv trdaav Kal irovov xal el tl aXKo 
 roiovTO. Next, Kara ^va-iv fju-fj elvai is a gloss, and when 
 this is struck out we should supply d^iav exeiv with 
 Kaffdirep 8e KoKKvvTpov. In short, Cleanthes treats plea- 
 sure as an iircyevvrifia (Diog. L. VII. 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 6/io\oyov- 
 fievto^ T7J ^va-ei ^rjv, therefore everything, which is Kara 
 4>va-t,v, is dperrj or fxere'xpv dperrjis. Cf. Stob. Eel. 7. 7", 
 p. 80, 9 hunt, Kov, ^aai, Xeyiofiev dSi,d<j)opa to, amfiaTiicd 
 Kal rd e'/CT09, tt/sos to eva-j(7jfi6vo)<s ^rjv (iv ^ep iaTi to 
 evSaifiOVO)!;) aBi,d<f>opd ^a/iev avTa eivat, ov fia Ata ttjOO? 
 TO Kard (jivcriv e}(etv ovBe Trpof opfirjv Kal dtjiopfiijv. Rather, 
 we have seen reason to hold that the class of ra Kara 
 (fivcnv is wider, or, at any rate, certainly not narrower than 
 that of rd irporiyfieva. Indeed, this is apparent from the 
 present passage : — 6 Be 'Ap'x^iBi^fiov Kara ^vaiv fiev elvai 
 tus Toii; iv p,aa-)(aKri TjOt^as, ov')(l Be Kal d^iav ej^etv, i.e. 
 there are some things which may be Kara <j)va-iv 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 firjTe Kard i^vtnv 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 311 
 
 elvai with natura — admiscuit. The inelegant repetition 
 of fjuri . . .elvai has an object, namely, to contrast to koK- 
 Xvvrpov with tw; iv fia<r')(aKri Tpi^iK!, whereas, on the other 
 hand, if the second aiiTrjv is retained, it cannot be inter- 
 preted differently to the first avrrjv, and to press the latter 
 would make nonsense. 
 
 89. Stob. Floril. 6. 37, KXeai/^i/s eXeyev, el Te\o<; 
 earlv rihovr), irpov icaKov rot? avOpwTrot.'i Trjv (^povr^aiv 
 BeBocrdai. 
 
 This is no doubt directed against the Epicureans. 
 Diog. L. X. 128, rrjv rihovrjv oLpyrfv Koi reKo<i \eyofi6v eivai, 
 Tov fjiaKapiwi ^rjv. Chrysippus also wrote a treatise 
 described as d-iroSei^i'; irpoi rb firj elvat, ttjv '^Bovrjv riXoi 
 (Diog. L. VII. 202). Trjv <f>p6v7ia-iv furnishes a proof that 
 Oleanthes upheld Zeno's view of virtue as (f>p6vi](7K : see 
 on frag. 76. 
 
 8eS6<reoi: so Meineke for BiBoerOai. Cf. Cic. de Senec. 
 § 40, cumque homini sive natura sive quis deus nihil 
 mente praestabilius dedisset, huic divino muneri ac dono 
 nihil tarn esse inimicum quam voluptatem. 
 
 90. Cic. Fin. ii. 69, pudebit te illius tabulae quam 
 Oleanthes sane commode verbis depingere solebat. iube- 
 bat eos qui audiebant secum ipsos cogitare pictam in 
 tabula Voluptatem, pulchemmo vestitu et ornatu regali in 
 solio sedentem : praesto esse Virtutes ut ancillulas, quae 
 nihil aliud agerent, nullum suum officium 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 natae sumus, ut tibi serviremus ; aliud negotii 
 nihil habemus." Cf. Aug. de civit. dei v. 20, solent 
 
312 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 philosophi, qui finem boni humani in ipsa virtute consti- 
 tuunt, ad ingerendum pudorem quibusdam philosophis, 
 qui virtutes quidem probant, sed eas voluptatis corporalis 
 fine metiuntur et illam per se ipsam putant adpetendam, 
 istas propter ipsam, tabulam quandam verbis pingere, ubi 
 voluptas in sella regali quasi delicata quaedam regina 
 considat, eique virtutes famulae subiciantur, observantes 
 eius nutum ut faciant quod ilia imperaverit, quae pruden- 
 tiae iubeat ut vigilanter inquirat quo modo voluptas 
 regnet et salva sit ; iustitiae iubeat ut praestet beneficia 
 quae potest ad comparandas amicitias corporalibus com- 
 modis necessarias, nuUi faciat iniuriam, ne offensis legibus 
 voluptas vivere secura non possit; fortitudini iubeat, ut 
 si dolor corpori accident qui non compellat in mortem, 
 teneat dominam suam, id est, voluptatem, fortiter in 
 animi cogitatione ut per pristinarum deliciarum suarum 
 recordationem mitiget praesentis doloris aculeos ; tem- 
 perantiae iubeat, ut tantum capiat alimentorum et si qua 
 delectant ne per immoderationem noxium aliquid valetu- 
 dinem turbet et voluptas, quam etiam in corporis sanitate 
 Epicurei maximam ponunt, graviter offendatur. ita vir- 
 tutes cum tota suae gloria dignitatis tanquam imperiosae 
 cuidam et inhonestae mulierculae servient voluptati; 
 nihil hac pictura dicunt esse ignominiosius et deformius 
 et quod minus ferre bonorum possit aspectus; et verum 
 dicunt. 
 
 Further references ap. Zeller, p. 235 — 239. Epiphan. 
 Hseres. III. 2, p. 1090 C KXeavdrjis to dyadov kuI koXov 
 Xer^ei elvai T<i? ■^Sova<} is a stupid blunder of the epitoma- 
 tor : cf. Krische, p. 431. Hirzel, p. 96, 1, holds that it is 
 merely an exaggeration of Oleanthes' position: see on 
 frag. 88. 
 
 pulcherrimo vestitu: this illustrates KaWwrpov in 
 frag. 88. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 313 
 
 si modo...possent: Madvig points out that these words 
 belong to Cleanthes' statement, and are not a' part of 
 Cicero's comment. 
 
 Virtutes ut ancillulas: on the controversial character 
 of the work Trepl jJSoi'^s see Kjrische, pp. 430 — 432. In 
 the Epicurean system virtue has only a conditional value, 
 as furnishing a means to pleasure. Diog. L. x. 138 Sid Se 
 Tr)v '^SovTJv Kol Tos (ZjOera? Seii' aipeccrdai, ov Si avrdv' 
 SffTrep Kal tyjv laTpiKrjv hid Trjv vyieiav, KaOd ^ai /^ioyevT]<!. 
 
 91. Epict. Man. c. 53. 
 
 ayov Se fi, eo Zev, koi trvy rj ireTrpeo fievrj, 
 oiroi iroO' v/uv elpX SiareTay/jievo'!, 
 £09 eTfro/Liat 7 aoKVO<; r/v be firj aexa 
 Kaic6<; yev6fievo<s, ovBev rJTTov eijrofiai. 
 
 The first line is quoted by Epict. diss. ii. 23. 42, and 
 two lines by id. ib. III. 22. 95, iv. 1. 131, and IV. 4. 34. 
 Senec. Epist. 107, 10, et sic adloquamur lovem cuius 
 gubemaculo 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, 
 malusque patiar, quod pati licuit bono, 
 ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt. 
 
 See also the commentary of Simplicius on Epict. 1. c. 
 p. 329. These celebrated lines constitute the true 
 answer of the Stoa to the objection that the doctrine 
 of irpovoia is incompatible with the assertion of fi-ee- 
 
314 THE FRAGMENTS OP CLEANTHES. 
 
 will. Zeller p. 182. The matter is put very plainly in 
 the passage of Hippolyt. Philosoph. 21, 2, Diels p. 571, 
 quoted at length in the note on Zeno frag. 79. The spirit 
 of Stoicism survives in the words of a modern writer : — 
 "It has ever been held the highest wisdom for a 
 man not merely to submit to Necessity, — Necessity will 
 make him submit, — but to know and believe well that the 
 stem 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, ii.) Marcus Aurelius often dwells on 
 the contrast between ra e<f rjfjiZv and to, ovk i<}> ■^filv. 
 Of. especially X. 28, Kal ori fiovm tw \oyiic£ ^^wto SeSorai, to 
 eKovaio)^ eireadaiTOKyivofievoi';' roSe eTreadai ifriXoVjirdcriv 
 dvajKaiov. So ib. VI. 41, 42 ; VII. 54, 55 ; VIII. 7 ; XII. 32, 
 
 92. Seneca Epist. 94, 4, Cleanthes utilem quidem 
 iudicat et banc 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 universo fluit, nisi decreta 
 ipsa philosophiae et capita cognovit. 
 
 The branch of philosophy here referred to is known as 
 the irapaiveriKo^ or viroderiKoq rotrov. Aristo regarded it 
 as useless, and it is very possible that his "letters to 
 Cleanthes" (Tr/ai? 'KXeavdrjv itnaToiK&v 8' Diog. L. VII. 
 163) dealt with this controversy. Of. Sext. Math. vii. 12, 
 Kal 'Apia-Tcov 6 Xtos ov /lovov, tu? ^aai, TrapjiTelro r^v re 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 315 
 
 <f)v<nK7jv KaX XoyiK-^v deaplav Sid to dvaxfieXe'! Koi tt/OOS 
 KaKov Tol<i <j)cXo<TO(f)ov(rtv virdpjfeiv oKXd koI tow yjOikov 
 Toirov; nvd<; crv/jLTrepieypacfiev, KaOdirep tov re -irapaiveTiKov 
 Kal TOV viroderiKOP tottoV tovtov: yap et? rtV^a? Koi 
 iratSayayoui iriirTeiv. The words in which Philo of 
 Larissa described the tottos virodeTnco^ illustrate Seneca's 
 statement: Stob. Eel. II. 7. 2, p. 42, 18, iirel he koI twv fiea-ca^ 
 BtaKeifievcov dvdpcoTrav irpovotap iroLTjTeov, ov<mva<; eic twv 
 TrapaivenKoov Xoycov w<pe\eia'daL trvfii3aivei, /jltj Bwafievovi 
 irpoaevKatpelv rot? Si,e^oSi,icol<s irKdreaiv fj Sid ')(povov 
 a-Tevoj(aipia<s fj Sid Tiva<; dvayKaia<; d<T')(p\'i,a<;, eireiaeveKTeov 
 TOV vtroOeTiKov \6yov, Si oS Td<! tt/so? ttjv dcr(f)dXeiav /cat 
 T'^v opdorrfTa t^9 eicdcrTOV •)(^pr](iea)<; viroOrjKa'i iv eTriTO/j.di'; 
 e^ovaiv. The importance attached by Oleanthes to irapai- 
 veTiKrj illustrates the practical spirit of Stoicism : see also 
 Hirzel, II. p. 104. 
 
 93. Cic. Tusc. III. 76, sunt qui unum officium con- 
 solantis putent malum illud omnino non esse, ut Cleanthi 
 placet. 
 
 Consolatio {irapafivdrfTiKri) is a branch of irapaiveriKrj 
 and is concerned with removing the irdOrj, cf Eudorus ap. 
 Stob. Eel. II. 7. 2. p. 44, 15 6 Se irepl riov dtrorpe-rrovTcov 
 icaXeiTai 7rapa/ivdj]Tiic6<i, 09 Ka7MVfiev6<{ eaTi tt/jo? evuov 
 ■iraOoXoyiKoii. Cf- Sen. Epist. 95, 65. As emotion is 
 founded on false opinion (see on Zeno, frag. 138), the duty 
 of him who offers consolation to another is to explain that 
 what appears to the other to be an evil is not really so. 
 
 malum illud: the context in Cicero shows that the 
 reference is particularly to death, for which cf Zeno, frag. 
 129. The construction is not to be explained by an ellipse 
 of docere or the like, but rather esse is nominalised so that 
 malum. . .esse = to kukSv. . .eivai. This is common in Lucr., 
 see Munro on i. 331, 418 and cf Verr. V. 170, quid dicam 
 
316 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES, 
 
 in crucem tollere ? Cicero even writes : inter optime valere 
 et gravissime aegrotare (Fin. II. 43). Draeger, § 429. 
 
 94. Cic. Tusc. III. 77, nam Cleanthes quidem sapi- 
 entem consolatur, qui consolatione non eget. nihil enim 
 esse malum, quod turpe non sit, si lugenti persuaseris, non 
 tu illi luctum, sed stultitiam detraxeris; alienum autem 
 tempus docendi. et tamen non satis mihi videtur vidisse 
 hoc Cleanthes, suscipi aliquando aegritudinem posse ex 
 eo ipso, quod esse suramum malum Cleanthes ipse 
 fateatur. 
 
 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 airadri<i, 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 fieXayxof^Ui or when 
 in severe pain, in spite of his ^e^aluf KaToXi^yjrei,^ (see on 
 frag. 80 and c£ Stob. Floril. 7. 21 d\r/elv fikv tov a-o<p6v, 
 fjurj 0aa-avi^e<70ai Si. 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' aTrXeS? BiBdaKei on tovtI fikv 6\Ly(u<f>e\e^ 
 ian, ifKeiova's S ej^ei ra? o^^XT^o-et?, virfupiviv earai 
 iroi&v aipeaewi Koi (ftvy^'i Trpdv eripav a'Cpeaw koX (jnry^v, 
 jcal ovK avaipetriv ttj^ rapaj^^S. iirep aToirov' 6 y^p 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 317 
 
 o')(XovfjLevo^ ov ^ovKerai fiaOelv tL fiaXKov o'xXei Kal t[ 
 tjTTOV, aXK' aTraXKayfjvai Trj<i o'xXTjtreco'; ireirodTjKev. 
 
 95. Stob. Floril. 6. 19. 
 
 'o<TTi<i eTndv/iwv ave^er ala')(pov Trpayfiaroi 
 ovro<; iroirjcrei tovt eav Kaipov Xa^rj. 
 
 For the doctrine that virtuous action depends on the 
 intention and not on the deed itself, see Zeller, p. 264 and 
 cf. Zeno frags. 146 and 181. 
 
 96. Stob. Floril. 28, 14, KXedvdij'; e^ tov ofivvovra 
 rjToi euopKelv rj eiriopKelv Ka6' ov oftwai 'xpovov. eav 
 p,ev yap oiiTco^ o/jLVvrj eo? iiriTeXicrmv rd Kara tov '6pKov 
 evopKelv, idv Be irpodeaiv e'^cov p/r) eirireXelv, eiriopKelv. 
 
 See on frag. 95, and cf. Chrysipp. ap. Stob. Floril. 28, 
 15. 
 
 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, etiam 
 si accepisset. sic latro est, etiam antequam manus 
 inquiaet : quia ad occidendum iam armatus est, et habet 
 spoliandi atque interficiendi voluntatem. exercetur et 
 aperitur opere nequitia, non incipit. ipsum quod accepit, 
 beneficium non erat, sed vocabatur. sacrilegi dant poenas, 
 quamvis nemo usque ad deos manus porrigat." 
 
 This and the two next following fragments probably 
 come from the book irepl x'^piro';. Introd. p. 52. Eudorus 
 the Academic ap. Stob. Eel. il. 7. 2, p. 44, 20 speaks 
 in Stoic terminology of 6 irepl TtSv 'xapLrtov totto^ as 
 arising e/e tov Xoyov tov Kara rrjv Tr/ao? tov? irXrjiri.ov 
 ayetrw virdp'yeiv. 
 
 heneficium non sit : because the question is concerning 
 an act of kindness to a bad man, on whom, according to 
 
318 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 Stoic principles, it was impossible to confer a favour 
 (Senec. Benef. v. 12. 3), cf. Stob. Eel. II. 7. 11* p. 95, 5, 
 firiSiva Be (pavXov firjTe m(f>ekec<Tdai fiijre w^eXelv, Plut. 
 Comm. Not. 21. 
 
 sacrilegi: the edd. quote Phsedr. iv. 11. Senec. de 
 Benef vii. 7. 3, iniuriam sacrilegus Deo quidem non potest 
 facere : quem extra ictum sua divinitas posuit: sed punitur 
 quia tanquam Deo fecit. De Const. Sap. 4, 2. 
 
 98. Seneca de Benef vi. 11. 1, beneficium voluntas 
 nuda non efficit: sed quod beneficium non esset, si 
 optimae ac plenissimae voluntati fortuna deesset, id aeque 
 beneficium non est, nisi fortunam voluntas antecessit ; non 
 enim profuisse te mihi oportet, ut ob 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, quem non quaesierat, 
 invenit. ilium, inquit, laudabimus puerum qui quantum 
 in se erat quod iussus est fecit: hunc feliciter inertem 
 castigabimus.'' 
 
 Another illustration of the value of the virtuous in- 
 tention apart from the results attained by it. Cf Oic. 
 Parad. iti. 20 nee enim peccata rerum eventu, sed vitiis 
 hominum metienda sunt. 
 
 Academia: see the description of this place in Diog. 
 L. III. 7 : there was doubtless a a-roa attached to it, whence 
 totum porticum infra. 
 
 circulatorem : a quack, mountebank : cf Apul. Met. 1. 
 c. 4, Athenis proximo ante Poecilen porticum circulatorem 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 319 
 
 adspexi equestrem spatham praeacutam mucrone infesto 
 devorare. Probably a translation of davfiaToiroi,6<s: 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. il. 31. 12, 
 a benefit expects no return : non enim sibi aliquid reddi 
 voluit (qui beneficium dat), aut non fuit beneficium sed 
 negotiatio. 
 
 negotiatio : probably a translation of 5^jOi;/iOTto-/[id9, for 
 the Stoic wise man is described as the only true man of 
 business: Stob. Eel. n. 7. 11*, p. 95, 21, imovov Se t6v 
 airovhaiov avSpa '^r/fiaTiirriKov elvai, yivwaicovTa d<^ wv 
 'X^pTjfiaTiaTeov koX irore ical ttcb? Kal fie'x^pi irore. 
 
 100. Clem. Alex. Strom. V. 3. 17, p. 655 P. 237 S., 
 Kal rj KXedvdovi Se rov ^twikov <pi\o<T6<f)ov iroir/TticT} 
 wSe TTft)? TO. SfJLOia ypdipet 
 
 /jLTj Trpos So^av opa, ideXcov a'o<f>6<; alifra yev6<rdai, 
 /MijSe ^o^ov TToTCKoov UKpiTOV Kal dvaiSea So^av 
 ov yap irXrjdo^ S'x^ei (7vveTrjv Kpicriv ovre BtKalav 
 ovTe KaXtjv, okiyoi^ Se "Trap' dvSpdcri tovto kbv evpOK. 
 
 Clement also quotes an anonymous comic fragment 
 to the same effect : — aiarypav 8e Kpiveiv ra KaXd rm 
 iroWa ■\}r6<])q). Stein, Erkenntnistheorie, p. 326 says: — 
 "hatte- auch er (Kleanthes) den sensus communis, die 
 KOival evvoiai oder •irpo\r]->^ei<s gebilligt, wie konnte er 
 dann so wegwerfend und verachtlich iiber das allgemeine 
 Laienurteil aburteilen ? " He concludes therefore that 
 Cleanthes threw over altogether the Stoic concession to 
 
320 THE FRAGMENTS OP CLEANTHES. 
 
 rationalism implied in the doctrine of 6pd6<s Xoyoi and 
 irp6Kn^ei<s, but see Introd. pp. 39, 40. Of. generally Cic. 
 Tusc. III. 3, 4. 
 
 8o|av : this is changed to ^d^iv by Meineke, who is 
 followed by Wachsmuth, and Cludius is reported as 
 suggesting dXoyov for aKpirov. The reason given for 
 the change by Wachsmuth is that Bo^av " male con- 
 iungitur cum uKptrou," presumably because So^a implies 
 Kpia-K!, but surely the words may mean " undiscriminating 
 opinion " as explained by the next line. The text is con- 
 firmed by M. Aurel. IV. 3, t^ ev/ierd^oXov koI aKpirov rwv 
 ev(j>7}neiv SoKovvrojv. Of. ib. II. 17. 
 
 o4...o4'«...oiiTc, is justified by Homer, II. VI. 450, aX\' 
 oil jjLot Tpaxov roaaov fieXei aXyo<; oiriairca ovt avrfj^ 
 '^Ka^t]^ ovT€ Upidfioio dvaxro^, k.t.X. Cf. Soph. Ant. 
 952. 
 
 101. Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 14. 110, p. 715 P. 257 S., 
 6 Be avTO^ {KXedvdr]';) Kara to a-icoirco/jLevov Trjv twv 
 TToWcSv Bial3dXXa)v elSaXoT^MTpLav iiritfyepei 
 
 dveXevdepo<; Tra? oaTt<s el<s Bo^av ySXeTret 
 to? Brj trap iKeivrji; Tev^ojjxvot KaXov tm/o?. 
 
 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. 
 
 Sojov : for Zeno's definition, cf. Zeno, frag. 15. Clean thes 
 wrote a separate treatise irepi 60^179, from which we 
 may conjecture that the present and the preceding fi-ag- 
 ments are derived. Introd. p. 52. The Cynics described 
 evyeveiai re kuI Bo^a^ as TrpoKoa-fi'ijfiaTa KaK(,a<i (Diog. L. 
 VI. 72). The Stoics regarded them as TrpoTjyfiiva (Diog. 
 L. VII. 106). 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 321 
 
 102. Mantiss. proverb, (in paroemiogr. Gr. vol. ii. 
 p. 757) cent. i. 85. 
 
 KaKw<i aKoveiv Kpeiacrov fj Xiyeiv KaKm<i. 
 
 KXeav^ov?. 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, vid. Gregor. Nazianz. carm. 
 p. 157*." 
 
 103. Stob. Floril. 42. 2. 
 
 KaKovpyorepov ovSev Sta^oXrjq ecrt ttw 
 Xddpa yap wiraTr^aaaa tov ireireiafievov 
 fuaoi dvairXaTTei Trpos tov ovSev airtov. 
 
 SiapoXifs: defined, ap. Stob. Eel. ii. 7. IV, p. 115, 21, 
 eivai, Se ttjv 8ial3oiKrjv Stda-raa-iv ijjatvofieveov <\>LX<ov ■yjrevSei 
 \d7p, 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 aStajSoXo? 
 both in the active and the passive sense (i.e. /ijjre Bia- 
 ^dXKeiv firjre Sia^aXXe<rdai), but their utterances are not 
 consistent on this point: see Zeller, p. 253 n. 6, who in 
 citing passages to the contrary effect fails to notice this 
 discrepancy. 
 
 104 Stob. Eel. II. 7. 11\ p. 103, 12, t«ai/c5s Be xal 
 KXedv6rj<; vepl to a-irovSaiov elvai Ttjv ttoXiv Xoyop 
 ripwTr)<re toiovtov TrdXt? /J-ev <et> eoTiv oiKTjTrjpiov 
 KaTacTKevacrfia, ets o KaTa^evyovTa<i eaTi SUrjv Sovvat 
 KOi Xa/Selv, ovk daTelov hrj TToXt? eaTiv ; dWd /jltjv toiov- 
 tov iffTiv rj TToXt? olKrjTrfpiov affreiov ap eaTLV r) TroXii;. 
 
 Possibly this belongs to the ttoXitikoi : Introd. p. 
 52. Cleanthes has here adopted the syllogistic form 
 H. P. 21 
 
322 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 of argument, which occurs so frequently in Zeno's frag- 
 ments : see Introd. p. 33. The Cynics' line of argument 
 is somewhat similar. Diog. L. vi. 72 ov 70/3, ^a-iv 
 (Diogenes), avev TroXeeoq 6<l)e\.6<s rt elvai dffrelov da-retov 
 Se y] 'KoKi'i' voyi^ov Be dvev, iroXeco'i ovSev o^eXo<i- aa-relov 
 dpa 6 v6fio<;. Cicero's definition is as follows, Eep. I. 39, res 
 publica est res populi, populus autem...coetus multitu- 
 dinis iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus, 
 Cf. Ar. Pol. I. 2. 1253 a 37. 
 
 tt, inserted by Heeren, who is followed by Wachsm. 
 Meineke omits it and changes S^ before ttoXii into S' 57. 
 
 105. Seneca Tranq. An. i. 7, promptus compositus- 
 que sequor Zenonem, Cleanthem, Ohrysippum : quorum 
 tamen nemo ad rem publicam accessit, nemo non misit. 
 
 See on Zeno, frag. 170. 
 
 106. Stob. Floril. 4, 90, KXedvdv^ e4>v toi)? oTrai- 
 SevTovi /jLovy rrj fJ-opijifj twv Orjpiwv Statfiepeiv. 
 
 The same occurs in Stob. Eel. 11. 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 tt^v ey/cvK\iov iraiheiav 
 d'x^pijo-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, irapdSo^a fiev Ifo-w? ^aalv 
 01 (fjiXoaoipot, KaOdirep koL 6 KX6dv6ri>i eXeyev, ov /irjv 
 TrapdXoya. 
 
 iropdSoJa : the Stoics themselves accepted and defended 
 this description of their doctrines. Cic. Paradox. Prooem. 
 4 quia sunt admirabilia contraque opinionem omnium ab 
 ipsis etiam vapaBo^a appellantur. Plut. Comm. Not. 3 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 323 
 
 Ta Koiva leal Trepi^orjTa, a St} irapaSo^a Koi avroi, fier 
 evK6XLa<} he')(pfi,evoi, rrjv oltoitUiv. 
 
 108. Plut. vit. Ale. VI. 2, fiev ovv YLXeavOtfi eXeye 
 rov ipwfjLevov i5^' kavrov fiev eic rSv wrmv Kparela-dat, toi<; 
 S avrepaaTol's ttoWo? \ajSa? irapej(eiv ddiKTOv; eavrw, 
 Trjv ryaaTepa Xeywv Kot to, alBoia Kal tov \aifi6v. 
 
 This may be referred to the ipmnKr} re^vq or irepl 
 ep(07o<;, Introd. p. 52. See on Zeno, frags. 172 and 173, 
 and cf. Diog. L. vii. 24 (Zeno apoph. 7) Xa/Si) (f)i\o(j-6<pa>v 
 ia-Tiv eVtSe^to? j; ScA tiSv arav. 
 
 109. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. III. 200, oi irepl tov KXedvOrjv 
 dSid<f)opov TovTo (to ttJ? dppevofii^ia<!J eivai ^affiv = Zeno 
 frag. 182. 
 
 110. Stob. Floril. 6, 20. 
 
 TTodev iroT dpa ylverai, p.oi'x&v yevo^ ; 
 eK Kpi6i,(ovT0<; dvBpd<i iv d<ppoBi(rioi<;. 
 
 lioix<3v : for Stoic views on /loixela, see Zeno, frag. 178. 
 KpieiuvTos : for this word cf. Buttmann's Lexilogus, s. v. 
 dKO<TTri<ia<;, E. T. p. 78. 
 
 111. Plut. de Aud. Poet. c. 12, p. 33, Wev ovS' al 
 irapahiopddxTeK <^av\(o<s exovaiv, at<i Kal KXeavdrji; ixPV" 
 
 auTo Kal 'Avn(Tdiv7]9' 6 jiev k.tX o Se KXedvd7)<i -rrepl 
 
 rov -ttXovtov, 
 
 (jiiKoK re Sovvai awfid r ei<} voaov<i rreaov 
 Bairavaiffi ffwaai, 
 fieraypd<j>(ov ovrco' 
 
 rropvaii re Sovvai awfiid r ei,<i vocrov; rrecrov 
 Sa7ravai<i imrpi/^ai,. 
 
 The lines in question are from Eur. El. 428, 9, where 
 
 21—2 
 
324 THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 fevot? is read in place of <}>i\oK. Stob. Floril. 91, 6 quoting 
 the passage has <j>i\oi';. 
 
 The ordinary view of the school regarded irXovroi; 
 as a Trporjyfiivov, 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 So^a (frag. 101), but that word is am- 
 biguous. 
 
 112. Diog. L. VII. 14, iviovi Se koX ycO^Khv eltre- 
 Trparre Tot)s irepiiaTafievovi (o Zijvwv) Sare SeSioraf to 
 SiBovai iiri ivoy^Xetv, xada (fyijat KXedvd7j<s iv Tp irepl 
 
 JfoKKOV. 
 
 For the title of the book see Introd. p. 53. The 
 above is Cobet's text ; omitting &are SeStora?, Wachs- 
 muth reads ;)^a\Koi) for ■)(a\Kbv MSS., and also suggests 
 iviore for iviov<s, but ivLov^ 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 Tovt avroivTa^ X^V' Tifitopeiv Tiva<; and Ar. Pac. 832. 
 
 113. Philodem. -jrepl ^iKoa-o^tov ap. Vol. Hercul. VIII. 
 col. 13, V. 18, K<a,l K\>effii'0i7? iv <t(3>i vepl a-T<ijXr)><! 
 <T^>9 Aioyevov<; avrfj<<s> fiv7i<fiovev>ei, KCti e'iraiv<ei> 
 KoX <fiiKp6v> v<7Te<p>ov iv avT<mi rov>r<<oi, Kada>'ir<ep 
 6T>ep<tti>ff iviwv <e>')(6eai,<v> [1. eK6ecnv'\ <'iroi>e<l- 
 T>aL. 
 
 Such is the restoration of Gomperz in Zeitschrift fur 
 die Oesterr. Gymn. 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 
 ai XjOi/o-iTTTTou Ta^ai (Comparetti, Papiro Ercolanense col. 
 46). For the circumstances of the burial of Diogenes cf. 
 Diog. L. VI. 78. oirijs refers to the iroXiTeia of Diogenes. 
 
THE FRAGMENTS OF CLEANTHES. 325 
 
 114. Schol. ad Nic. Ther. 447, p. 36, 12 Keil, Kpav- 
 Trjpe^ \eyovTai ol iitXTepov dva^aivovreg oSoi/re? irapa to 
 Kpaiveiv KoX airoirKripovv rrjv 'qXiKiav. veeoTepav yap •^Si) 
 •^fMov yevofiivcov (jtvovrai oi oSovre'; oStoi. KXedv0rji Se 
 aro>(f)povi(rTfjpa9 avTov<; Kd\ei. vvv aifKwi; toi)? oSoi/ra?. 
 arco(j>povi<rTT}pe<; Se Sid to afia t^ dvievai avTovi liaX to 
 (rm^pov Tov vov Xafi^dveiv ruidt. 
 
 For KpavTTJpe'i cf. Arist. Hist. An. II. 4. <j)vovTai Se ol 
 TekevToiot tok avdpcoTroc^ yo/Mtpioi, ov<s KaXoven, KpavTrjpa'i, 
 vepl Ta 6iK0(nv err) koX dvSpdai Kal yvvai^L 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 Trjv rov 
 (j)povelv Spav irepX to elKoaTov 6T09, and Melet. ap. Cramer 
 Anecd. Ox. III. 82, 26 roi)? Be fivXiTai twv oBovrcav Ttve? 
 ffco^povKTTrjpa'i iKoKevav Bid to (fiveo'Oai irepl Trjv tov 
 dp'xeadai (f>poveiv toi)? iraiSa^ Spav. Thus, while the 
 growth of the reasoning powers is complete in the four- 
 teenth year (Zeno, frag. 82), the attainment of a-a)<f>pocrvv7) 
 may well have been assigned to the conclusion of the third 
 6/3So/ua;. 
 
 115. =Zeno frag. 184. 
 
APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 1. Diog. L. VII. 169, (jicurl Se koX 'Avrir/ovov avrov 
 irvdeaOai ovra cucpoarrjv, Bia rl avTKel ; rov S' el-Treiv, 
 avrKw r^ap fiovov ; n o ov')(l aKairTW ; n o ovk apoto, 
 Kal iravTa ttoiw '^i\oao<j)ia'; eveica ; Kol yap 6 7ir]vtov 
 avrov (TVveyvfjLva^ev eh rovro, Kal iviXevev o/So\oi' <f>epeiv 
 airo<\>opa<i. Plut. de vitand. aere alieno 7, 5, KXedvdt) Be 
 6 /SatriXev? 'Avriyovo'i ripwra Sia j^povov Oeaadfievo^ iv 
 Tat? 'Adrjvatis, d\6i<! en, KXeavOev; dXm, ^r^aiv, w ^a- 
 atXev, o iroidS evexa rov ^rjv fiovoi; Be dTroa-Trjvai p/rjBe 
 4f>iKoiTo<f)ia<{. Cf. Stob. Floril. 17, 28, Xpva-fjnro<s 6 SoXei)s 
 iiroteiTO rov ^iov ex irdvv oXiywv, KXedvffr)^ Be Kal diro 
 iXarrovtov. Epict. diss. III. 26. 23, ttcS? KXedvBij^ e^Tjo-ev 
 &fj,a (T'x^oXd^av Kal dvrX&v. Senec. Ep. 44, 2, Cleanthes 
 aquam traxit et rigando hortulo locavit man us. 
 
 2. Diog. L. VII. 170, Kal irore ddpourdev t6 Kep/ia 
 eKOjiiaev ets fiitrov rwv yviopificav, Kai ^7)ai, KXedvO^i^ fiev 
 Kal aWov K\edv0T]v Bvvaur dv rpe^eiv, ei ^ovXotro. oi 
 B' e-)(pvre<i Wev rpa^riaovrai, irap eripcov iTri^rjrova-i, rd 
 eiTirrjBeia, Kahrep dveifiivto^ (f>iKo(To^ovvTe^. oOev Brj Kal 
 Sevrepo<s 'H/oa/eX^? 6 KXedv0f]<; eKaXeiro. 
 
 3. Diog. L. VII. 171, irpoKpLveav Bk rov eavrov ^iov 
 rov rwv rrXovauov, eXeyev, iv w at^aipL^ovaiv eKeivot 
 avrov yrjv (fKXrjpdv Kal uKapirov epyd^eadai, aKdirrmv. 
 
APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES. 327 
 
 4. Diog. L. VII. 170, Koi aKmirroiievois Se viro rmv 
 <rvfJi.iMidriTwv rjvel'xero, Koi ovo^ oKovtov •rrpo<Tehe)(ero' 
 Xeymv avrog fiovog hvvaaOai ^aa-rd^eiv to Zi^vwvoi; <f>opTlov. 
 
 5. Diog. L. VII. 171, Kao Trore 6vei,Bi^6fievo<; tos SetXo?, 
 Sid Tovro, elirev, oKlya dfiaprdvo), 
 
 6. Diog. L. VII. 174, oveiBia-avro^ avrm Tivof ets to 
 yijpa^, Kajco, 6<f)rj, d-mevoit ^oiiKofiav orav Se nravTwypQev 
 dfiavTov vyiaivovra irepivodS xal ypdipovra koL dvayi- 
 vmaKovra, irdXiv fieva). 
 
 7. Diog. L. VII. 171, TToWaKf? Be koI eavrtp hre- 
 ifKrjTTev' &v dKova-a<; ^Apia-rmv, rivi, e'^i;, eiri'irXrjTrei'i ; 
 jcal o? yeXdaa^, Trpea-^VTr/, (jirjcri, TToXta? fiev 6')(pvTi, vovv 
 he p/Tj. 
 
 8. Diog. L. VII. 173, "ZaxTideov tov 7roi7]Tov iv Oedrpw 
 elirovTO's irpo'i avrov irapovra, 
 
 oOs ^ KXedvdov^ p,copia ^or)XaTet, 
 
 €p,eivev eirl ravrov <r')(rip,aTO<;. e^ (o arfatrdevTe'i oi 
 aKpoarai, tov p^ev eKpoTrfaav, tov Be Xeterideov e^e^aXov. 
 p,eTayiv(S><rKOVTa Be ovtov eVt t% XoiBopia irpoarfKaTo, 
 elirtov aroTTOV elvai, tov p^ev Aiovvaov koL tov 'UpaKXea 
 (jiXvapovpevov; viro TtSv itoitjtwv prj 6pyi^e<r0ai, avTov Be 
 ivl Trj Tvxpva-ri ^XaG<j)r]p,t,a Bv<rxepaiveiv. Cf. Plut. de 
 Adulat. 11. 
 
 9. Diog. L. VII. 171, elir6vTo<i Be Tivo<; ' ApKecrL\aov 
 jjurj TTOieiv TO Beovra, iravcrai, 6<f>7], Kal prj yjreye. el yap 
 KoX \6y(p TO KaOrJKOv dvaipei, TOt? yovv epyoi<; avTO Tidel. 
 Kot 6 ^ApKeaCXaov, ov KoXaKevopui, (jyrjai. tt/Oo? ov 6 
 KXedvdr]!!, vai, e<fi7}, ae KoXaKeva, ^dpevo<i dXKa pev Xeyeiv, 
 eTepa Be iroielv. 
 
328 APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 10. Diog. L. VII. 173, e\eye Be Koi Toi<: e« tov irepi- 
 Trarov '6fioi6v rt trd<T')(eu> rats XvpaK cCt /caX(09 <j)6ey^a- 
 /jLevai avrmv ovk aKovovai. 
 
 11. Cic. Tusc. II. 60, e quibus (philosophis) homo 
 sane levis Heracleotes Dionysius, cum a Zenone fortis esse 
 didicisset, a dolore dedoctus est. nam cum ex renibus 
 laboraret, ipso in eiulatu clamitabat falsa esse ilia, quae 
 antea de dolore ipse sensisset. quem cum Cleanthes 
 condiscipulus rogaret quaenam ratio eum de sententia 
 deduxisset, respondit: quia si, cum tantum operae philo- 
 sophiae dedissem, dolorem tamen ferre non possem, satis 
 esset argumenti malum esse dolorem. plurimos autem 
 annos in philosophia consumpsi nee ferre possum : malum 
 est igitur dolor, tum Cleanthem, cum pede terram per- 
 cussisset, versum ex Epigonis ferunt dixisse : 
 
 Audisne haec, Amphiarae, sub terram abdite? 
 Zenonem significabat a quo ilium degenerare dolebat. 
 
 Dionysius 6 fieradefievo'; is mentioned also in Zeno 
 apoph. 52, where see note. For the quotation from the 
 Epigoni, c£ Soph. fr. 194, 195. (Dind.) 
 
 3. renibus: but according to Diog. L. vii. 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. ll. 2. 16. KXedverj^ 
 ipcoTWfievov Sid ri trapd rot? ap')(ai,0K ov iroKKwv <^CKo<to- 
 (jyqadvrav Sfjuoi irXeLovi SieXapAlrav fj vvv, 'on, elire, rare 
 fiev epyov rjaKelro, vvv he X0709. 
 
 13. Diog. L. VII. 172, fieipaKLcp ttotc BiaXeyo/jievoi 
 iirvdero el aladdverai' tov S' iiriveva-avTO^, Si^ ri ovv, 
 eiTTep, iyo^ ov/e alarddvojxai '6ti alaOavei ; 
 
APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES. 32& 
 
 14. Diog. L. VII. 172, ipofievov tiv6<! tC v-TroriOea-dair 
 Bel rm vi(p, to Ti}<; 'HXe/CTjoa?, etjti], criya (Tvya XeiTTOv 
 'i')(yo^. 
 
 The quotation is from Eurip. Orest. 140. 
 
 15. Stob. Floril. 33, 8, a-i,oy7r&vTo<s tov KXedvdov^, 
 iirei ti<s b^tj, tL ai<ya<;; koX firjv rjhij toIi <f)L7MK ofiCKelv. 
 ^Su, 6(^?7, aW' oamirep ijBiov roamSe fiaWov avrov tow 
 (piKoK irapa'x^eapTjreov. 
 
 16. Diog. L. VII. 174, irpd<s Be tov /iovr/prj koX kavTw 
 \a\ovvTa, ov tpavXcp, e<f>7j, dvOpaTrtp \aXel<s, 
 
 17. Exc. e MS. loan. Flor. Damasc. il. c. 13. 125 = 
 Stob. Eel. II. 31. 125 Wachsm., rj oii toiovto<! "rrah eKeivoi 
 6 AaKcov, 8? KXedvBTjv tw ^CKoao^ov rjpdiTTiaev el dyadov 
 6 ■7r6vo<s i<TTiv ; ovtco yap eKelvo<i ^aLveTai <jiij<rei ire<jiVK(o<r 
 KdKm<! Kal Tedpa/ifiivot ev Trpos dpeTTJv SaTe eyyiov elvac 
 vofii^eiv TOV irovov Ti}<; TayaOov ^Uffem? 17 t^? tov KaKOv- 
 '6<i ye tus opxikoyovfievov tov p,r} xaxov virdp'^eiv avTov 
 el dya66v Tvy)(^dvei wv eirvvQdveTO. odev Kal 6 KXedvdij^ 
 dyacrdelis tov iraiSoi ehrev apa irpoi avTov, aifji,aTO<i eir 
 dr/adoio, (\>'iXov Te'/co?, oV dr/opevet'! (Horn. Od. IV. 611). 
 Diog. L. VII. 172. AaKCovoi tivo<; ehr6vT0<i, oti 6 ir6vo<; 
 dr/adov, Biaj(ydeK ^a-iv, aifiaTov ets dyaOoio, <j)tXov Tmo^. 
 
 irovov is an dBid^opov (Stob. Eel. 11. 7. 5* p. 58, 3. 
 Diog. L. VII. 102), but it may perhaps be inferred from 
 this passage that Cleanthes classed it among the Trpoijy- 
 /leva. See on Zeno frag. 128. Antisthenes regarded it a& 
 dyoBov (Diog. L. VI. 2). 
 
 18. Stob. Floril. 95, 28, K\edv6rj<!, epwTwiievo^ TraJ? 
 dv TK eiTj 7r\ov(no<s, elirev, el twv evtdvfuwv eirj irevr]^. 
 
 19. Exc. e MS. loan. Flor. Damasc. II. 13. 63 = Stob. 
 Eel. II. 31. 63 Wachsm., KXedvdrj^, eTaipov dirievai, 
 
330 APOPHTHEGMATA OF CLEANTHES. 
 
 /ieWovTO? Kol ipioT&VTO'i TTtS? av i^Kiara dfiaprdvoi, ehrev, 
 €1 Trap eicao'Ta wv irpdrreK hoKoirjii ifie irapelvai. Cf. 
 Zeno, apoph. 42, and Maxim. Serm. 5. 
 
 20. Diog. L. VII. 173, Xeyerai, Be, <f>dcrK0VT0<; avrov 
 Kara Zirjvoava KaTaXrjTrrbv elvai, rd ■^do<s i^ ellSovi, veavicr- 
 Kov<i Tivd<! evrpa-rriXov! dyayelv Trpdi avrov KivaiSov 
 iaKXTjpa/ymyrjfievov iv dypm, Kal d^iovv dhro^aiveaOai Trepl 
 Tov 'rj6ov<;' rdv Se Siairopovfievov KeXevaai dirievai rov 
 dvdpeoirov, «bs Se diriwv exelvo^ eTrrdpev, e'xa», eiirev, avrov, 
 6 KXeaj/^ij?, /laXaKoi} eariv. Cf. Zeno, frag. 147. 
 
 21. Diog. L. VII. 172, ^lycrt Se 6 'Evdrcov iv rah 
 )(peuui, evfwp(j)ov fieipaicLov elir6vro<s el 6 el<; rrjv yaarepa 
 rvrrroiv yaffrpi^ei, Kal 6 eh rov<; firjpov's rvirrcov firjpi^ei,, 
 €^, (TV fj,ev roii^ Siafj/rjpi(rfi,ov<s e'xe, fieipaKtov. [at S' 
 dvaXoyoi ^coval rd dvdXoya ov -jrdvrwis a-7)fiaivovtTi, irpdr/- 
 luira.] Cobet brackets the concluding words. 
 
 22. Diog. L. VII. 176, KaX reXevra rovSe rov rpoirov 
 hiathrjo-ev avr& ro ovKov dira/fopevadvrmv Se rwv larpdSv 
 Svo rjfiepa/s direcr'Xero rpo^<i. Kal ttw? ^o'X'^ kclXw^ Sxrre 
 row larpoin avrm rrdvra rd avvridr) a-vy^copelv. rov Be 
 p,rj dvav)(eaQai aW' elrrovra -IJBt) avrm irpocoBoiriroprjaBai, 
 Kal rdi XotTTa? dTroff'Xp/ievov reXevrrjaai. Lucian, Macrob. 
 19, KXedvOr]^ Be 6 Ziji/oji/o? fiadTiril<; Kal BiaBo'Xp^ iwea Kal 
 evevr}Kovra oiroi yeyov(b<! err/ ^vfia eaj(ev iirl rov jfelXov^ 
 Kal diroKaprepdSv eireXQovrwv avra Trap eralpav rivmv 
 'Ypafifidrojv TrpocreveyKa/jbevo^ rpoijirjv Kal irpd^at irepl av 
 fj^lovv 01 ^IXoi, dTro(r')(^6fj,evo9 avdii rpo^fji e^eXirre rov 
 filov. Stob. Floril. 7, 54, 'KXedvB-q'i vrro yXwrrr)<; eXKov; 
 avrm yevo/iivov rrjv rpo(pi^v ovk iBvvaro •jrapatrep/ireiv ws 
 Be paov 'ea-)(e Kal 6 larpo<i avrm rpo^rjv irpoa-iiyayev, <rv Si 
 fie, e^ij, ^ovXei •^Sr) ro irXiov rrji oBov Karavvaavra 
 dvaarpi^ew, elra irdXtv ef vrrapxv^ ttjv avrrjv ^pxea-dai, ; 
 Kal e^rjXdev rov ^lov. 
 
INDICES. 
 
 [The references are to the numbers of the fragments, except where p. is 
 
 prefixed.] 
 
 I. INDEX FONTIUM. 
 
 A 
 
 AchiU. Tat. Isag. 124 b Z 35 
 
 129b Z 65 
 
 133c C 33 
 
 Aelian. Nat. An. vi. 50 45 
 
 Ambros. de Abraham, ii. 7...Z 148 
 Anon. T^i/i/ ap. SpengelEhet. 
 
 Gr. I. 434. 23 Z 25 
 
 Anon, rix"''! ^P- Speugel Bhet. 
 
 Gr. 1.447. 11 Z26 
 
 Anon, variae coll. math, in 
 
 Hulstchiana Heronis geom. 
 
 et stereom. edit. p. 275 Z 28 
 
 Anton. Meliss. i. 62 Z 189 
 
 Apollon. soph. lex. Horn. p. 
 
 lUBebk C66 
 
 Aruob. ad Nat. II. 9 Z 54 
 
 Arrian. Epict. diss. 1. 17. 10, 
 
 11 Z4,C2 
 
 Arrian. Epict. diss. i. 20. 14 ... Z 123 
 
 n. 19.1—4... 8 
 
 II. 23. 42 ... C 91 
 
 III. 22. 95 ... C 91 
 
 IV. 1. 131 ... C 91 
 
 IV. 1. 173 ...C 107 
 
 IV. 4. 34 91 
 
 IV. 8.12 Z3 
 
 Athenaeus iv. 158b Z 156 
 
 VI. 233 b, e Z 169 
 
 XI. 467d 11 
 
 XI. 471b Oil 
 
 xin. 561c Z163 
 
 Athenaeus xiii. 563 e Z 173 
 
 xm. 565d Z 191 
 
 xiii. 572f 64 
 
 Augustin. c. Acad. 11. 11 Z 153 
 
 III. 7. 16. ..Z 125 
 
 III. 9. 18... Z 11 
 
 ni.17.38. . .Z42, 95 
 
 de Civ. Dei v. 20 ... C 90 
 
 deTrinit.xni.5.8...Z 125 
 
 Aul. Gell. IX. 5. 5 Z 128 
 
 C 
 
 Censorin. de dienat. iv. 10... Z 80 
 
 XVII. 2... Z 77 
 
 frag. I. 4 28 
 
 Certamen Horn, et Hes. p. 4, 
 
 18 Nietzsch 67 
 
 Ohalcid. in Tim. c. 144 18 
 
 0.220 Z 90 
 
 c. 290 Z49 
 
 c. 292 Z 50 
 
 Chrysost. Hom. i. in Matt. 4...Z 162 
 Oioero Acad. i. 36 Z 130 
 
 1.38 Z134,138 
 
 1.39 Z34, 46, 86 
 
 I. 41 Z 8,9, 11,15, 
 
 17, 19, 20 
 
 I. 42...Z10, 18, 21,22 
 
 11.18 Zll 
 
 11.77 Zll 
 
 II. 113 Z 11, 153 
 
 n. 126 Z 41, 28 
 
332 
 
 INDEX FONTIUM. 
 
 Cicero Acad. ii. 145 Z 33 
 
 de Div. n. 119 Z 103 
 
 Pam. IX. 22. 1 Z 186 
 
 Fin. II. 17 Z 32 
 
 11.69 90 
 
 III. 52 Z 131 
 
 IV. 12 Z86 
 
 IV.14 Z 120 
 
 IV. 47 Z 126 
 
 IV. 60 Z126 
 
 IV. 72 Z 120 
 
 V. 38 44 
 
 V. 79 Z 125 
 
 V. 84 Z 151 
 
 V. 88 Z 120 
 
 Muren. 61.. .Z 182, 133, 148, 
 
 150, 151, 152, 153, 155 
 
 Nat. De. i. 36 ...Z 37, 39, 41, 
 
 72, 110 
 
 1.37 ...014,15,16,17, 
 
 46 
 
 Oioero Nat. De. i. 70 Z 8 
 
 II. 13—15 ... C 52 
 
 n. 21 Z61 
 
 II. 22... Z 59, 60, 63 
 
 n. 24 42 
 
 11.40 30 
 
 n. 57 Z46 
 
 II. 58 Z48 
 
 II. 160 44 
 
 HI. 16 52 
 
 m. 27 Z46 
 
 m. 37 29 
 
 Orat. 32. 113 Z 32 
 
 Tuso.i. 19 Z86 
 
 11.29 Z 127 
 
 III. 74. 75 Z 143 
 
 m. 76 93 
 
 III. 77 94 
 
 IV. 11 Z 136 
 
 IV. 47 Z136 
 
 V. 27 Z 127 
 
 01ein.Alex.Paedag.iii.ll.74..Z 174 
 
 Protrept. vi. 72... 75, 101 
 
 Strom.n.20.105... 44 
 
 11.20. 125...Z 187 
 
 n.21.129...Z120, 
 
 72 
 
 n. 22. 131.. 77 
 
 V. 3. 17 ...0 100 
 
 V. 8. 48 ... 31 
 
 V. 12. 76.. .Z 164 
 
 V. 14. 95.. .Z 149 
 
 V. 14. 110... 75, 101 
 
 01em.Alex.Strom.vii. 6. 33... 44 
 
 vm.9.26... 7 
 
 Oomut. de Nat. De.e. 31 62 
 
 Cyrill. Lex. Bodl. n. 11. ap. 
 
 Cramer Anecd. Par. iv. 190... Z 31 
 
 D 
 
 Dio Ohrysost. Lin. 4 Z 195 
 
 Diog. Laert. vi.91 Z 194 
 
 VII. 14 0112 
 
 18 Z30 
 
 22 Z175 
 
 23 Z16 
 
 25 Z 145, 196 
 
 32 Z 154, 167 
 
 33 ... Z 149, 166, 
 
 168, 177 
 
 39 Zl 
 
 40 Z2 
 
 41 01 
 
 84 Z119 
 
 87 ... Z 120, 72 
 
 89 C73 
 
 91 79 
 
 92 78 
 
 107 Z145 
 
 108 Z 145 
 
 110 Z136 
 
 120 Z132 
 
 121 Z171 
 
 122 Z148 
 
 127 ... Z 125, C 80 
 
 128 81 
 
 129 Z172 
 
 131 Z176 
 
 134 Z 35, 12 
 
 135 Z52 
 
 136 Z52 
 
 139 28 
 
 140 Z142 
 
 142 Z52 
 
 143 Z58 
 
 145 Z73 
 
 146 Z73 
 
 148 Z66 
 
 149 ... Z 45 A, 118 
 
 150 Z51 
 
 153 Z74 
 
 154 Z74 
 
 157 Z 85, 41 
 
 161 Z1B4 
 
 — - 173 Z147 
 
 vm. 48 Z193 
 
INDEX FONTIUM. 
 
 333 
 
 E 
 
 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. B. xni. 13, p. 671... Z 149 
 
 p. 679... 75 
 
 XV. 15.7 C28 
 
 18.3 Z54 
 
 20.1 Z106 
 
 20. 2...Z 83, C 38 
 
 45 Z23 
 
 Bustath. in II. 2. 506, p. 1158. 
 
 37 Z99 
 
 G 
 
 Galen de cogn. anim. morb. 
 
 V. 13. Kfihn Z188 
 
 Galen in Hippoor. de humor. 
 
 I. l(xvi. 32K.) Z53 
 
 Galen Hipp, et Flat. plac. ii. 
 
 5(v. 241K.) ZIOO 
 
 Galen Hipp, et Flat. plao. n. 
 
 5(v. 247K.) ZlOl 
 
 Galen Hipp, et Plat. plao. ii. 
 
 8 (v. 283 K.) Z87, C 39 
 
 Galen Hipp, et Flat. plao. in. 
 
 5 (v. 322 K.) Z102 
 
 Galen Hipp, et Flat. plac. m. 
 
 5 (v. 332 K.) Z141, 87 
 
 Galen Hipp, et Flat. plac. iv. 
 
 2 (v. 367 K.) Z139 
 
 Galen Hipp, et Flat. plac. iv. 
 
 3 (v. 377 E.) Z139 
 
 Galen,Hipp. et Flat. plao. iv. 
 
 7 (v. 416 K.) Z143 
 
 Galen Hipp, et Flat. plao. v. 
 
 l(v. 429K.) Z139 
 
 Galen Hipp, et Flat. plao. v. 
 
 6 (v. 476 K.) 84 
 
 Galen Hipp, et Flat. plao. ix. 
 
 l(v. 653K.) 85 
 
 Galen Hist. Phil. 5 (xix. 241K.) Z 36 
 
 9 (XIX. 254K.) Z 91 
 
 10(xix.258K.)Z78 
 
 13(xix.271K.)C33 
 
 13 (XIX. 272 K.) 34 
 
 31 (XIX. 322 K.) 
 
 ...Z 106, 107 
 
 Galen.nat.facult.i. 2(n.5K.) Z53 
 Gemin. Blem. Astron. p. 53 
 (in Patau's XJranol.) 35 
 
 H 
 
 Harpocration s. V. WffX"' C 61 
 
 Hermias Irria. Gent. Phil. 14. 
 
 p. 654Diels 21 
 
 Hippolyt. philosoph. 21. 1 ... Z 36 
 
 L 
 
 Lactant.Epit. ad Pentad. 88. ..Z 144 
 
 Inst. I. 5 Z 39, 015 
 
 in. 4 Z153 
 
 III. 7 Z120 
 
 III. 8 Z120 
 
 III. 23 Z 132, 144 
 
 IV. 9 Z44 
 
 vn. 7 Z 97 
 
 delradeill Z 109 
 
 deVer. Sap.9 Z 44 
 
 Longinus ap. Euseb. F. E. xv. 
 
 21. 3 Z 88,040 
 
 M 
 
 Maerob. Sat. 1. 17. 8 58 
 
 I. 17.31 O60 
 
 I. 17. 36 59 
 
 I. 18. 14 57 
 
 1.23.2 29 
 
 Somn. Soip.i.14.19... Z 89 
 
 Mantiss. Proverb, (in paroem. 
 
 Gr. n. p. 757) cent. i. 85... 102 
 
 Maxim. Floril. o. 6 Z 190 
 
 Minuo. Bel. Ootav. xix. 10... Z 39, 
 41, 44, 111, 14 
 
 N 
 
 Nemes. Nat. Horn. p. 32 36 
 
 p. 96 Z93 
 
 Numenius ap. Buseb. P. B. 
 XIV. 6. p. 733 ZU 
 
 
 
 Olympiodorus in Flat. Gorg. 
 
 p. 53f. Z12, 5 
 
 Origen c. Oels. i. 5. p. 324 ...Z 164 
 
 vn. 63. p. 739.. .Z 178 
 
334 
 
 INDEX FONTIUM. 
 
 P 
 
 PhilargyriusadVerg.G.n.336. Z57 
 Philo liber quis virt. stud. p. 
 
 880 Z157 
 
 Philo mund. incorr. p. 505. 27. C 23 
 
 p. 510. 11. Z 56 
 
 Philo de Provid. i. 22 Z 35 
 
 11.74 C19 
 
 PhilodemUB wepl eiae^. o. 8 Z 40, 117 
 
 0. 9 ... C 16 
 
 e. IB... C54 
 
 p. 84G....Z109 
 
 vepl fiovrnxfis 0. 28. C 49 
 
 wepl^iKoffo^iavC.lS. C 113 
 
 Philoponus on Ar. Phys. iv. 6. 
 
 p. 213 a. 31 Z70 
 
 Photius s. V. \4<rxat C 61 
 
 Plutarch Alo. 6. 2 C 108 
 
 Alex. virt. 6 Z 162 
 
 Arat. 23. 3 Z 148 
 
 Aud. Poet. 11 C55 
 
 12.^ Z197 
 
 — — 12 cm 
 
 Cohib. Ir. 15 Z 106 
 
 Comm. Hesiod 9 ...Z 196 
 
 Not. 23. 1...Z 120 
 
 31. 5... C 47 
 
 31. 10. C 25 
 
 de facie in orbe lunae 
 
 6. 3 C27 
 
 Plutarch de fluv. 5. 3 C 69 
 
 5.4 C70 
 
 17.4 C71 
 
 frag, de an. Wytt. V^. 
 
 p. 899 Z121 
 
 Plutarch Is. et Osir. 66 C 56 
 
 Lycurg. 31 Z 163 
 
 plao. I. 3. 39 Z 35 
 
 I. 10. 4 Z23 
 
 I. 15.5 Z78 
 
 II. 14. 2 C33 
 
 II. 16. 1 C34 
 
 II. 20.3 C29 
 
 IV. 11. 1 C4 
 
 IV. 21.4 Z98 
 
 V. 4. 1 Z106 
 
 V. 5. 2 Z 107 
 
 prof, in virt. 12 Z 160 
 
 (luaest.Conv.iii.6.1.. Z180 
 
 V. 10.3 C44 
 
 Soil. an. 11. 2, 3 ... C 45 
 
 . Sto. Eep. 2. 1 Z162 
 
 6.1 Z164 
 
 Plutarch Sto. Eep. 7. 1, 2 ...Z 134 
 
 7.4 C76 
 
 8. 1 Z29 
 
 8.2 Z6 
 
 30.1 Z131 
 
 Virt. Mor. 2 Z 134 
 
 3 Z1B5 
 
 Porphyr. de Abstin. in. 19 ...Z 122 
 
 III. 20 ... C44 
 
 vit. Pythag. 1. 2 C 68 
 
 Probus ad Virg. Ed. vi. 31. p. 
 
 10. 33 Keil Z 52, 20 
 
 Probus ad Virg. Ed. vi. 31. p. 
 
 21. 14 Keil Z112 
 
 Proclus ad Hes. Op. 291 Z 196 
 
 Q 
 Quintil. Inst. Or. ii. 15. 33—35 C 9 
 
 II. 17. 41... 5 
 
 II. 20. 7 . Z 32 
 
 IV. 2. 117... Z 27 
 
 E 
 
 BufuB Ephes. de part. horn, 
 p. 44 Z84 
 
 Schol. ad ApolLEhod. 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. n. in. 64 ... C 63 
 
 XVI. 233... 55 
 
 Horn. Od. 1.52 (Cra- 
 mer A. 0. III. 416) C65 
 
 Schol. adLucian. Cal. 8 Z 29 
 
 Nio. Ther. 447 C 114 
 
 Plat. Alo. 1. 121 E . . . Z 82 
 
 Seneca de Benef. ii. 31. 12 ... C 99 
 
 V. 14. 1 97 
 
 VI. 11. 1 ... 98 
 VI. 12. 2 ... 99 
 
 Epist. 82. 7 Z129 
 
 83. 8 Z159 
 
 94. 4 92 
 
 104. 21 Z161 
 
 107. 10 91 
 
 108.10 O50 
 
 113. 18 43 
 
INDEX FONTIUM. 
 
 335 
 
 Seneca delrai. 16. 7 Z 158 
 
 Nat.Quaest.vii.ig.l.. Z 75 
 
 de Otio Sap. 30. 2 ...Z 170 
 
 Tranq.An.i.7...Z170,C105 
 
 Sext. Emp. Math. ii. 7 Z 32 
 
 yn. 151 ... Z 15 
 
 VII. 227 ... Z 10 
 
 vn.228...Z7,C3 
 
 VII. 236 ... Z 7 
 
 VII. 248 ... Z 11 
 
 vn. 253 ... ZIO 
 
 VII. 372. ..Z 14, C 3 
 
 VII. 422 ...Z132 
 
 vn. 426 ... Zll 
 
 VIII. 855... Z 8 
 
 vni. 400... 3 
 
 IX. 88 C51 
 
 IX. 101 ... Z 59 
 
 IX. 104 ... Z61 
 
 IX. 107 ... Z 62 
 
 IX. 133 ...Z 108 
 
 XI. 80. . .Z 124, C 74 
 
 XI. 74 88 
 
 XI. 77 Z 128 
 
 XI. 190... Z 179,181 
 
 XI. 191 ...Z 180 
 
 Pyrrh. II. 4 Zll 
 
 II. 70 3 
 
 in. 200 Z182 
 
 III. 205 Z 180 
 
 111.206 Z188. 
 
 III. 245 Z 179 
 
 III. 246 Z180 
 
 Simplio. adCat. 80a.4 Z 76 
 
 in Epict. Man. 53 ... C 91 
 
 Stob. Eol. I. 1. 12. p. 25. 3... C 48 
 
 1. 29i'.p.34.20... C 14 
 
 p. 35. 9... Z 42 
 
 5.15. p. 78. 18... Z45 
 
 8. 40». p. 104. 7. Z 76 
 
 10. 14. p. 126. 17. Z35 
 
 11. 5». p. 182. 26. Z 51 
 
 12. 3. p. 136. 21. Z 23 
 
 . 13. 1°. p. 138. 14. Z 24 
 
 15. 6^ p. 146. 19. 26 
 
 p. 146. 21. Z 68 
 
 16. 1. p. 149. 8... Z78 
 
 17. 8. p. 152. 19. Z 52 
 
 p. 153. 7... 24 
 
 18. l'i.p.156.27. Z69 
 
 19.4. p. 166. 4... Z67 
 
 20. 1". p. 171. 2 
 
 ...Z 54, 22 
 . 21. 6«. p. 187. 4... 28 
 
 Stob. Eel. I. 22. 3i>. p. 199. 10. Z 58 
 
 23. 1. p. 200. 21. Z 64 
 
 24. 21. p. 205. 25. 33 
 
 25. 3'. p. 211. 18. 29 
 
 25. 5. p. 213. 15. Z 71 
 
 26. 1'. p. 219. 12. Z 71 
 
 p. 219. 14. 32 
 
 48. 7. p. 317. 15. C 37 
 
 49. 38. p. 867, 18. Z 92 
 
 49. 84. p. 869. 6. Z 93 
 
 II.2. 12.p. 22. 12... Z5 
 
 7. 1. p. 88. 15.. .Z 146 
 
 p. 39. 5.. .Z 137 
 
 — 5»..p.57. 18...Z128 
 
 _5M.p. 65. 8... 82 
 
 _6». p.75. 11...Z120 
 
 — 6». p. 76. 8 ... 72 
 
 — 6=. p. 77. 20. . .Z 124 
 
 —6". p. 77. 21... 74 
 
 — 7B.p. 84.21...Z131 
 
 —lis. 99. 3 Z148 
 
 — 11'. p. 103. 12.. 104 
 
 81. 64. p. 212. 22.0 106 
 
 Stob. Floril.4.90 106 
 
 4.107 Z202 
 
 6.19 95 
 
 6.20 110 
 
 6.34 Z201 
 
 6. 37 89 
 
 6.62 Z 192 
 
 14. 4 Z 189 
 
 28. 14 96 
 
 86.26 Z 200 
 
 42.2 O103 
 
 43. 88 Z165 
 
 95.21 Z199 
 
 108.59 86 
 
 Strabo vn. 3. 6 Z 198 
 
 Suidas s. V. X^o-xo' C 61 
 
 Syrian, ad Metaph. 892 b. 14. . . 6 
 
 Tatian ad Graeo. c. 3 Z 47 
 
 c. 5 Z55 
 
 TertuUian de Anim. c. 5 ..Z 89, 86 
 
 c. 14 Z94 
 
 c. 25 36 
 
 Apol. 21 Z44, 013 
 
 Maro. I. 13 Z 41 
 
 Nat. II. 2 Z46 
 
 4 Z38 
 
 Praes. Oup. 7 Z 51 
 
336 
 
 INDEX FONTIUM. 
 
 Themist. de An. 68 a Z 96 
 
 72 b Z43 
 
 90 b ZUO 
 
 Or. II. 27o C83 
 
 Or. viii.lOBc Z 196 
 
 Or. XIII. 171 D Z196 
 
 Phys. 40 b Z70 
 
 Theodoret Gr. Cur. Aff. m. 
 
 p. 780 Z164 
 
 Theodoret Gr. Cur. Aff. iv. 12. Z 35 
 
 IV. 20. 33 
 
 V. 25. Z 106 
 
 Theodoret Gr. Cur. Aff. v. 25 
 p. 934 Z88, C40 
 
 Theodoret Gr. Cur. Aft. vi. 14. Z 45 
 Theon progymn. 12. p. 251. ..Z 108 
 Theoph. ad Autol. in. 5. p. 
 119 e Z 184, C 115 
 
 V 
 
 Varro Ling. Lat. v. 9 C 10 
 
 V.59 Z105 
 
 E. E. II. 1. 3 Z81 
 
 II. 4. 9 44 
 
 Z 
 
 Zonaras s. V. troXoucI^eti' Z 31 
 
II. INDEX NOMINUM. 
 
 Academics, Z 169. 
 
 Alcmaeon, Z 82. 
 
 Alexander, Z 30. 
 
 Alexandria, Z 30. 
 
 Alexinus, Z 5, 61. 
 
 Amoebeus, p. 226. 
 
 Anaxagoras, Z 81, 113, C 27. 
 
 Anaximander, Z 81, G 29. 
 
 Anaximenes, Z 52. 
 
 Antigonus Carystius, p. 228. 
 
 Gonatas, p. 2, 5, 6, 228. 
 
 Antiochus, p. 17, 25, Z 126. 
 
 Antipater, p. 114, C 59. 
 
 Antisthenes, p. 19, 20, 22, 58, Z 3, 
 23, 109, 162, 163, 171, 187, 195, 
 C79. 
 
 Apollodorus, p. 19. 
 
 Apollonius, p. 2, 4, 26. 
 
 Arcesilas, Z 11, 145. 
 
 Arohedemus, C 7. 
 
 Archelaus, Z 81. 
 
 Aristarchus, p. 42, 51, C 27. 
 
 AristippuB, Z 197. 
 
 Aristo, p. 36, Z 5, 131, 191, C 92. 
 
 Aristotle, p. 24, 25, Z 12, 26, 35, 
 49, 50, 53, p. 110, Z 65, 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. 
 Boethus, Z 64. 
 
 Caphesias, p. 231. 
 Cameades, Z 11. 
 Chremonides, p. 6, 232. 
 
 H. P. 
 
 Chrysippus, p. 7, 20, 27, 28, 34, 36, 
 38, 40, 43, 45, 48, 49, 50, Z 2, 7, 
 11, 14, 21, 23, 24, 49, 52, 66, 72, 
 74, 76, 79, 100, 102, 136, 139, 143, 
 144, 160, 167, 185, C 3, 8, 9, 13, 
 18, 19, 23, 24, 37, 41, 43, 44, 48 
 (17), 76. 
 
 Cicero, p. 34, Z 126. 
 
 Cleauthes, p. 1, 23, 35, 36—53, Z 3, 
 7, 13, 14, 35, 45 a, 52, 56 (54), 58, 
 79, 93, 120, 128. 
 
 Crates, p. 3, 31, Z 165. 
 
 of MalluB, Z 198. 
 
 Critolaus, p. 111. 
 
 Cynics, p. 18—21, 30, Z 9, 125, 149, 
 162, 164, 167, 171, 172, 176, 177, 
 184, 186, 194, C76, 79, 80, 88, 
 101, 104. 
 
 Demetrius, p. 27. 
 
 Diodorus, p. 40, C 8. 
 
 Diogenes, p. 18, 19, 20, 21, Z9, 
 
 168, 171, 185, p. 225, C 113. 
 
 of ApoUonia, Z 42, 81. 
 
 of Babylon, Z 100, 108, C 72. 
 
 Diouysius (d /leToff^/Kecos), p. 234, 
 
 328. 
 
 E 
 
 Empedocles, p. 114, Z 73, 81, 110. 
 
 Empedns, p. 233. 
 
 Epicurus and Epicureans, Z 8, 
 9, 21, 50, 55, 58, 69, 72, 73, 74, 
 85, 102, 112, 167, C 16, 89, 90. 
 
 H 
 Heraclitus, p. 21—23, 50, Z 52, 54, 
 p. 114, Z 64, 65, 77, 83, 85, 87, 
 1, 3, 21, 28, 29, 33, 48 (10, 24, 
 
 22 
 
338 
 
 INDEX NOMINUM. 
 
 HerUluB, p. 52, Z 17. 
 
 HerodicuB, Z 77. 
 
 Hesiod, p. 31, 32, Z 29, (Tlieog. 
 118, 119) Z 113, (T/jeoff. 126— 
 128) Z 193, (Op. 291), Z 196. 
 
 Hippocrates, Z 106, C 42. 
 
 Homer, p. 31, 43, 51, Z 174, 195, 
 198. 
 
 Indians, Z 187. 
 
 M 
 
 Marcus Aurelius, Z 52, 162, C 44. 
 lians, Z 5. 
 
 N 
 
 Neanthes, p. 51. 
 
 Polemo, p. 3, 25. 
 
 Posidonius, p. 49, Z 24, 49, 52, 66, 
 
 76, 80, 131, 143, 198, C 35, 84. 
 Ptolemy, Philadelphus, p. 5, 6, 228, 
 Pythagoras and Pythagoreans, Z 50, 
 
 65, 65, 70, 73, 81, 26, 27, 29, 
 
 37, 68. 
 
 S 
 
 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 48. 
 
 T 
 
 Thales, Z 73. 
 Theophrastus, p. 110 f., 233. 
 
 PanaetiuB, Z 54. 
 
 Parmeuides, Z 64, 81. 
 
 Peripatetics, p. 110 f., Z 159, 169. 
 
 Persaeus, p. 31, 53. 
 
 Phooylides, Z 29. 
 
 Plato, p. 25, 26, 80, Z 1, 16, 21, 23, 
 34, 35, 62, 65, 91, 99, 108, 110, 
 112, 134, 185, 186, 142, 149, 162, 
 168, 166, 167, 168, 169, 172, 177, 
 197, C 37, 57, 58. 
 
 CratyluB, p. 44. 
 
 Virgil, Z 97. 
 
 Xenoorates, p. 8, Z 1, 128, C 37. 
 Xenophanes,Z 56 (38), 81, 113, 117. 
 
 Zeno, p. 1—35, 46, 13, 18, 24, 76, 
 of Tarsus, Z 57, 87. 
 
III. INDEX VEEBORUM. 
 
 dyaed, p. 14, 15, Z 127, 128, C 75. 
 
 &yi\ri ffivvoiMS, Z 162. 
 
 a7i'oio, Z 18. 
 
 dSeiJs, Z 169. 
 
 o5i(i0o/)o, p. 14, 15, 17, 46, Z 127, 
 
 128, 129, 145, 154, 161, 171, 172, 
 
 178. 
 oiJttj/tos, Z 148, 157. 
 iBdvaros (voSs), Z 95. 
 dSai/Maros, Z 169. 
 aWipos rb IffxiTov, Z 65. 
 niffij;!), Z 41, C 15. 
 afAKi. Z 87, 88. 
 «io-9^(j-eaJS {irepl), p. 50, 51. 
 afo-flTjffts, Z 8, 20, 121. 
 aladrfrbv, Z 20. 
 afrtoi/, Z 24. 
 d/coXacr^a, Z 138. 
 aXXa77}, Z 168. 
 dXKoliatnSf Z 52. 
 aXXtos, C 45. 
 0X070 f^a, C 44, 45. 
 afidpniiM, p. 15, Z 132, 133. 
 A/ieTdiTTUTOv, Z 135. 
 d/i^riKris, C 48 (10). 
 ox, Z 190. 
 dxaSuduxoie, C 55. 
 dvaBv/iitKris, p. 23, Z 83, C 55. 
 AvaXaii^Avew, p. 226. 
 ava/i/jM voepiv, C 29. 
 dvaTreiTTafj^voVf Z 174. 
 a^Speia, Z 134, C 76. 
 dveTiTpeiTTeTv, Z 194. 
 Avepavo^oplas, Z 184, C 115. 
 £k(ii KdTW d86s, Z 52. 
 d|ia, p. 14, Z 130, 131. 
 d^ui>fmnK6s, Z 148 (16). 
 dirdeeia, Z 158. 
 aTraiSeiirous, C 106. 
 dwa^la, p. 14, Z 130, 131. 
 diripiTTos, Z 169. 
 dTrXas yivcirts, Z 50. 
 
 diroKplvetrBcu, Z 56 (45). 
 
 'AttAXXmv, C 58. 
 
 diro/ivri/wveiiJiaTa KpdTTjros, p. 31, 
 
 Z 199. 
 oTTOpe/AT/r^ots, Z 134. 
 aTroTpmjyiihiov, V. vporiyiiivov. 
 dwdpuv (irept), p. 49. 
 "Apo/Ses, Z. 198. 
 dpyiK^pavve, C 48 (32). 
 dpcTT}, Z 125, 128, 134, 135, C 78, 
 
 79, 80, 83. 
 dperiiv (irepi), p. 52. 
 'kplffrapxov (irpbs), p. 51, 
 d^poitTTJfjLCLTa, Z 144. 
 dpxal, Z 35. 
 dpX<^^°^^^^) P* ^^' 
 apxaiirepoi, p. 40, Z 10. 
 dpuT^s (""fpOi P- ^7, 52. 
 dacpslas ypaip'/i, 27. 
 a(r6XotK0^, Z 30. 
 daripa, C 33, 84. 
 
 OffTpaTTIJ, Z 74. 
 
 aTOfjuijv (irepi), p. 47. 
 drpairos, 45. 
 afi7)j, C 23. 
 aidiKasTOi, C 75. 
 oiXi), Z 131. 
 dipopp,aX, C 82. 
 'A^ipoSlTTi, C 63, 64. 
 
 iSdpos, Z 67. 
 ^affiXelas {TepL), p. 52. 
 pa<Ti\iK6s, Z 148 (16). 
 /SidfeTot, Z 148 (12). 
 /3(os, Z 145. 
 ^ouX^s (5rep0> P- 52. 
 ppovrli, Z 74. 
 
 ydfios, Z 171: 
 7d/iOU (irepl), p, 
 7eyed, Z 77. 
 yeia/isTpla, Z 28. 
 
 51. 
 
340 
 
 INDEX VERBORUM. 
 
 yiydvTWv {irepl), p. 51. 
 Topytvirov (TcpO, p. 52. 
 yvfivdata, Z 166. 
 7Ui'arites, Z 176. 
 
 SaKTvXluv, C 3. 
 
 Aeiwds, C 11. 
 
 5£<r7r6fet, Z 148 (12). 
 
 Sriiuovpyeiv, Zk 35. 
 
 Srifuovpryds, Z 48. 
 
 A^fidKpiTav (irpis), p. 61. 
 
 «?|i!, Z 139, 158. 
 
 Sia/3oXii, C 103. 
 
 Siafl^o-eis, Z 117, 135, C 36, 51. 
 
 Sialpeais, Z 51. 
 
 S(ai/>eT^ois, Z 134. 
 
 5iaxtK\a<Tiiivov, Z 174. 
 
 Sia/cdtr/LHims, Z 52. 
 
 SiaXeKTM-li, Z 6, 32, C 1. 
 
 SmXeKTiK^S (Trepf), p. 49. 
 
 SiaKcKTiKol, p. 33, Z 5. 
 
 didvoia, Z 100, 135. 
 
 dtarptpal, p. 30, Z 179. 
 
 Siarpipwi p', p. 53. 
 
 Staxiio'cis, Z 139. 
 
 aiai^Ei^Serat, Z 148 (14). 
 
 SiiiT'jjirts, Z 25. 
 
 Si^iKetv, 13. 
 
 d(K(ifeu> {irepi roS), p. 52. 
 
 Slxatov, C 77. 
 
 SiKaioairn, Z 122, 134. 
 
 SiKa(m)/»a, Z 166. 
 
 Aiovv<ros, C 57. 
 
 AiouKoipovi, Z 117. 
 
 Sola, Z 15, 143, 153. 
 
 S6|i)s (ffepO, P- 47, 48, 50, 52, 100, 
 
 101. 
 Swd/uets ^ux^s, Z 93, C 85. 
 SwaTov^ C 8. 
 dwartav {irepi), p. 50. 
 dva-fial ^iov, G 51. 
 
 iyKpiraa, p. 45, C 76. 
 ^<n)<c\ios iraiSefa, Z 167. 
 el/mpfUvii, Z 19, 45, 45 A, C 18. 
 elirox^, C 3. 
 IkkXufis, Z 143, C 76. 
 iK\eL^eis, Z 71, 73. 
 iKTipans, Z 52, 54, 55, C 22, 24. 
 ^67xe ffavrov, Z 189. 
 aeos, Z 144, 152. 
 e\ev$eplas (jrcpi), p. 52. 
 iXevBipovs, Z 149. 
 ai|, C 29, 60. 
 
 'BX\i;i»iit^s iraiSefas (ire/if), p. 30. 
 
 ivaTo/ieiMy/jiJvos, Z 11, 
 
 iiidpyeia, p. 34, Z 9. 
 
 ivdufiaTUVt Z 31. 
 
 hepyrfriots, Z 134. 
 
 ivvo'finaTa, Z 23, C 6. 
 
 ^XTOio, p. 10, 34, Z 21. 
 
 e'^ayioyri, Z 161. 
 
 e|%ai, C 61. 
 
 «|is, Z 48, p. 110, Z 56 (53), 117, 
 
 134, 135, C 5. 
 eloxi), C 3. 
 ^|i)7puffis, Z 52, C 24. 
 (irapaii, Z 139, 143. 
 lirenOiu Seois, Z 123. 
 ejri^ei'i'iJ/iaTO, p. 46. 
 eTiyiyv6ttera Kplaeatv, Z 138, 139. 
 erievida, Z 142, 172. 
 kvuTT'tiii.-n, Z 16, 17, 18, 33, 134. 
 etriffT'^fiTjs {vepi), p. 50. 
 iTTiOToXtd, p. 31. 
 Jpws, Z 113, 163, 172. 
 epwnidi T^Kij, p. 30, 52, Z 174, 
 
 C108. 
 fpuTos (irepi), p. 52. 
 ffffli)!, Z 177. 
 eaBleiv iraKTias, Z 31. 
 'Eo-Wo, Z 110, C 27. 
 ((TxaTov ToO irvp6s, C 24. 
 ei);3ou\fas (ire/>f), p. 47, 52. 
 €6dMpu)vla, Z 124, 74. 
 evKpturla, p. 23, G 42. 
 eUXoyov, Z 145. 
 eiirpiireia, Z 56 (63), 
 cipe<ri\o7os, 62. 
 eilpoia, Z 124, G 74. 
 ei(/>vta, Z 172. 
 eiipvtas (repl), p. 52. 
 ^^' ri/iiv, Z 79, C 91. 
 
 Zeis, Z 111. 
 
 Z^i/uKos (irep2 t^s Z. 0virioXoy{as /3'), 
 
 p. 50. 
 fvSioK, Z 71. 
 ^vi; SiaKexavfUvii, G 35, 
 ^(jjox (6 K6ir/<o:), Z 62, 
 
 ityeiioviKiv, p. 13, 42, Z 24, 33, 67, 
 93, 101, 135, 141, G 15, 25, 28, 
 84. 
 
 liSoKij, p. 46, Z 127, 128, 139, 142, 
 143, G 88, 89, 90. 
 
 ilSovris (irepi), p. 47, 53. 
 
 ijSim, p. 31. 
 
INDEX VERBORUM. 
 
 341 
 
 ■flOtKov, Z 2, 119. 
 ^Sos, Z 146, 147, 36. 
 JiXios, C 25, 28, 29, 30, 31. 
 'Hpa/cXefrou e^riyliaeuv S', p. 50. 
 'H/hokX^s, C 62. 
 "Hpv, Z 110. 
 "HpiXXoK (jrpds), p. 52. 
 "H^attTTos, Z 111. 
 
 detKaros, Z 129. 
 
 ^au/iaroTTOios, C 98. 
 
 0eo\oytK6i>, C 1. 
 
 deoixaxlay V- ^1- 
 
 Beos, Z 35, 108, 109. 
 
 9e6s itaKuc iroHjT^s, Z 47, C 48 (17). 
 
 deos <lj6afni<T6iJ.eiios, C 47. 
 
 flewK (Trepi), p. 49, 51, C 47. 
 
 depl^uv, p. 224. 
 
 0epiia<rla, Z 84. 
 
 eiirei, Z 39. 
 
 Si^pf/cXeioK, C 11. 
 
 eipaSev, C 37. „ 
 
 'IdirerSsTZTlsr 
 I64ai, Z 23, C 6. 
 iSiov, p. 49. 
 iSfwi/ (irepO, p. 49. 
 Iditas TToibv, Z 49. 
 Upi, Z 164. 
 tttfs, Z 113. 
 fo-os, I'. i/idpTriiw,. 
 'ItpiKpariSf C 11. 
 
 KaOiira^ dSidipopa, Z 130. 
 
 Ka0ap6s, Z 36, 174. 
 
 Kae4\Keiv, Z 30. 
 
 KaerJKoii, p. 15, 34, Z 145, 161, 169, 
 
 170, 171, 172, 177, 178, 192. 
 KaS^KovTos (TTepI), p. 29, S2. 
 KaSoXiKi, p. 27, Z 23. 
 KaKd, p. 14, Z 127, 128. 
 Kaxla, p. 46. 
 KdXXui'Tpoi', C 88. 
 KoKQv (TrepOt P. ^2* 
 /top5/a, Z 141, C 87. 
 (card, Z 145. 
 KOTck ^lio-u', p. 14, 15, Z 130, 169, 192, 
 
 C88. 
 — — (irepl roC k. 0. /32ov), p. 
 
 29. 
 KaroXT/TTTtK^, V. ^ai/Tatria. 
 KOTaX?7irT4>', Z 147. 
 KariX-n^is, p. 34, Z 10, 16, 18, 33, 
 
 C80. 
 
 KaTaThxTOi, Z 102. 
 
 KarriydpyiiM, Z 23, 24, C 7. 
 
 Ka-nr/opniiiATuv {irepl), p. SO. 
 
 KaTbp0ij>na, p. 15, 34, Z 145. 
 
 KeKoanriiiivoi, Z 174. 
 
 KO-Ay, Z 69, 70. 
 
 KepowAs, Z 74, C 48 (10). 
 
 KTipla, Z 38. 
 
 KTip6s, Z 50. 
 
 /cfcT/o'ts, Z 91. 
 
 /cX^Seis, Z 29. 
 
 (cXijo-eis lepaf, C 53. 
 
 KOIVUS voi6v, Z 49. 
 
 Kofos, Z 115. 
 
 KofiTJTai, Z 75. 
 
 raV/ios, Z 57, 66, 71, 162, 193, 
 
 C 17, 48 (7). 
 KpavT^pes, C 114. 
 Kpoo-B 5t' oXou, p. 11, 23, Z 51, 52, 
 
 53, 96, C 13. \ 
 
 Kpeios, Z 115. 
 (cpfo-eis, Z 136, 139, 143. 
 Epdxos, Z 113. 
 KiiKXuTres, Z 116. 
 Kvpieiuv, C 8. 
 Kupicrfoi^os (irepi), p. 50. 
 KbJvoeiSTjs, 26, 33. 
 
 XeKTOK, p. 40, Z 24, C 7. 
 
 X^o-x"'' *-' 61. 
 
 AiEffX^vbpioVf C 61. 
 
 X^feui' (irep(), p. 27, Z 30, 31. 
 
 X^fis, p. 27, 226. 
 
 Xtjutii, Z 130, 131. 
 
 Xirds, Z 169. 
 
 Xoviicd, Z 4, C 2. 
 
 Xo7»c^, Z 1. 
 
 XoyiKo'i', Z 2. 
 
 Xd7os, p. 22, Z 3, 37, 44, C 16. 
 
 — (TTrep/toTiitds, Z 46, C 24. 
 Xdyou (Trept), p. 27 
 
 — {irepl ToC), p. 50. 
 
 — (rTotx«ct, Z 3. 
 Xo7d0tXos, Z 200. 
 Aofias, C 60. 
 Xofds, Z 73. 
 AtJ/c6to?, C 59. 
 Ai)«os, C 59. 
 
 Xtfm;, p. 46, Z 127, 128, 139, 142, 
 
 143, 144, C 86. 
 "Kitrea Kal IXeyxoi, p. 28. 
 Xiiffis, Z 139. 
 
 MaioTO, C 67. 
 
342 
 
 INDEX VEEBOEUM. 
 
 MaK^s, p. 232. 
 
 uavnidi, p. 29, Z 118. 
 
 Ma/07lTijs, Z 193. 
 
 liiym, Z 148. 
 
 jiieri, C 80. 
 
 neeiei.v, Z 159. 
 
 jueftanris, Z 139. 
 
 /«XayxoXia, C 80 
 
 ,tt,«pi7 (fvxv), Z 93, 94. 
 
 ^^s-ov, C 24. 
 
 liiaa, Z 145. 
 
 /uerajSiiWeir^ai, Z 153. 
 
 }i^a^oMi, p. 23. 
 
 ^eraXTj^ews (irepf), p. 50, C 11. 
 
 fieTavoeLVf Z 153. 
 
 /iCT^oi'Ta, p. 46, Z 128. 
 
 fu^is, Z 51, 52. 
 
 fiV^fJLTJ, Z 14. 
 
 Aiotxeiieu', Z 178, C 110. 
 fivdixd, p. 51. 
 /lipiiriKes, C 45. 
 HvpoTiiXia, Z 174. 
 pAiariKk (TXii/fTa, C 53. 
 juuXv, G 66. 
 
 ;<ao^ Z 164. 
 xo^/taTO, C 6. 
 vdfuff/ia, Z 168. 
 v6/tos, Z 39. 
 ii^/wu (fepOi P- ^'^• 
 voiJJtiv {irepi), p. 52. 
 Kotn^/uira, Z 144. 
 i/oo-oi, Z 144. 
 i/oOs, Z 43, C 37. 
 i/oCs {KoaiMv), Z 42. 
 
 flSoTTOllJTKo}, Z 13. 
 
 oi-qaii, Z 15, 16. 
 
 okelwo-is, Z 121, 122, 126. 
 
 i\o6<tipovm, C 65. 
 
 aXou (irepi), p. 28. 
 
 ilwKoyla tfiiaa, Z 120, 123, C 72. 
 
 ofiovoia, Z 163. 
 
 ■Svelpuv, Z 160. 
 
 Spcuris, Z 104. 
 
 •ope|is, Z 143. 
 
 opi;, Z 56 (8). 
 
 dpBos Soyot, pp. 8—10, 40, Z 3, 117, 
 
 123, 157. 
 6p8uis \iyav, C 9. 
 6pMa(. Z 123, 138. 
 ip/tij! (7rep0> P- 29, 52. 
 ipfii' (irepi), p. 52. 
 odpavoSt Z 66. 
 
 oMa, p. 41, Z 49, 50, 51, 53, p. 110. 
 oiaias (vepl), p. 29. 
 oij/£US (repl), p. 29. 
 
 7rde»7, p. 45, Z 135—144, 172, C86. 
 
 vaeSiv (irepl), p. 29, 184. 
 
 jrotSoyuyoi, Z 188. 
 
 iraiSeia, u. iyKikXios. 
 
 iravff^XTjvoSf Z 73. 
 
 TropajSdXXeic, Z 185. 
 
 TrapiSeiy/ia, Z 26. 
 
 irapdSola, C 107. 
 
 irapaBeaii, Z 51. 
 
 TrnpoixeTotiJ, p. 47, C 92. 
 
 jrapdX07O, C 107. 
 
 ■irapap.v6riTMii, 93, 94. 
 
 Trapi ^tfffiK, p. 14, 15, Z 130, 169. 
 
 iriaxov, Z 34, 35. 
 
 7repi|8oXi), Z 175. 
 
 TTCpi^W, Z 65. 
 
 TrepLoSos, Z 52, 56 (43). 
 
 TrepiTraTetc aKOff/xus, Z 31. 
 
 irfpiffToiris, p. 15, Z 169, 170, 184. 
 
 7n;7i), Z 146. 
 
 TTiXoeiS^s, C 32. 
 
 TrXTjyj) Tvpos, C 76. 
 
 Tr\rJKTpov, C 31. 
 
 ttXoCtos, Z 169, C 111. 
 
 TveSfut, p. 11, 40, 42, Z 41, 48, p. 
 
 110, Z 84, 85, C 13. 
 
 SiaTeivov, C 43. 
 
 irvev/iaTiKii dinaftis, p. 110. 
 
 irvevfrnnms Tovos, Z 56 (54). 
 
 iroiTjnfc^s d/tpoa(reus (irepi), p. 31. 
 
 TTOiTjTofl (irepI), p. 51. 
 
 TToia, Z 23, 49. 
 
 iroiorris, Z 53, 92. 
 
 TTOiovv, Z 34, 35. 
 
 TToXlS, C 104. 
 
 TToXiroi, Z 149. 
 
 noXire/o, p. 20, 29, Z 28, 97, 149, 
 
 162. 
 iroXireieirBai, Z 170. 
 
 TToXlTiKOI', C 1. 
 TToXlTlKOS, p. 52. 
 
 iroXuxpovios, Z 95. 
 iroXviSivviujs, C 48 (1). 
 Tovos, Z 128, 187, 201. 
 iropela, Z 175. 
 noo'ei5(6K, Z 111. 
 irpdieuv ('Tepl), p. 52. 
 Trpo/SXijiUciTwi' OfiitpiKuii, p. 31. 
 wpmryiiivov, p. 15, 34, Z 127, 128, 
 131, 145, 169. 
 
INDEX VEEBORUM. 
 
 343 
 
 irporj-Yoi/ievos, p. 15, Z 123, 131, 
 
 169, 170. 
 irpoKOTTi}, p. 34. 
 irpoKOirrovTes, Z 160. 
 irpo'Xi;^ IS, p. 10, 34, 40, Z 21. 
 vpovoia, Z 36, 45 A, C 18, 19, 44. 
 ■jrpoiriTem, Z 22. 
 vpoffSoKla, Z 143. 
 Trpocyriyopiaj Z 23. 
 irpofflwBai, Z 160. 
 irpoiricoXerffflot, G 27. 
 irp6s x^Pi^' 2 189. 
 
 WpOfftOTTOVf Z 25. 
 
 TrporpeTTTtKos, p. 52. 
 
 irpwra Karh, <f>6(Ti.v, 7i 122, 126. 
 
 TTToia, Z 137. 
 
 TTTuo-is, Z 23, 139. 
 
 nuflo70piKa, p. 29. 
 
 irOp T€xyi.K6v, p. 23, Z 41, 42, 46, 
 
 68, 71, C 13, 15, 23, 26, 30. 
 TTupoeifiiJs, C 32. 
 
 piu, Z 25, 56 (56), C 21. 
 /SijT-opi/cii, Z 32, C 9. 
 
 ffeXi}!/?;, Z 73, C 32. 
 
 fnjfieiojy (irepl), p. 29. 
 
 (T/coTTo's, p. 45, C 74. 
 
 iToXotKii^eip, Z 31. 
 
 aotplcr/Mra, Z 6. 
 
 (roipov (irepl tov t&v <r. <70<j>i(rTeieiv), 
 
 p. 53. 
 atripim, Z 106, 107, C 24. 
 (TTouSafos, Z 148 — 159. 
 iXTaTiK&, Z 4. 
 (TtiJXtjs (Trepf), C 113. 
 ffHxoi., Z 166. 
 (TTdSs (irepi), p. 53. 
 a-Toixeia.t Z 3, 35. 
 iTTpaTTiyiKos, Z 148. 
 (rTpo77i)Xos, Z 32. 
 (TvyKwraBeins, p. 34, Z 15, 19, 33, 
 
 123, 139, 158. 
 ffiJvXuo''!, Z 51. 
 ,7vWTi<t>eeis, Z 106. 
 iTVfipe^TIKOs, Z 24. 
 cviivideia /iepuv, Z 58. 
 ffVfiTToffiov {irepl), p. 47, 53. 
 <rviJup4pop, p. 45, C 77. 
 ffvvaiTTiK'^, Z 40. 
 irweKTiK^, Z 40. 
 avveffTijiTtjjv, Z 67. 
 ffim^ov, Z 96. 
 ffwiCTopetv, C 11. 
 
 ffivoSos, Z 73. 
 avffToKii, Z 139, 143. 
 <r<t)(upa, Z 67. 
 tr^aXXeirdai, Z 153. 
 (Tx^ffw, Z 134. 
 (r%o, Z 24, 34, 36, 91. 
 ffmppovuTTrjpes, C 114. 
 <rw<l>po(!ivn, Z 134, 138, C 76. 
 
 TaTTeiKiiireis, Z 139. 
 Telvetreat, Z 67. 
 T^Xetos X670S, Z 82. 
 TeXerds, C 53. 
 
 tAos, p. 45, Z 120, 124, C 74. 
 tAous (5rep£), p. 52. 
 rixvn, p. 27, Z 5, 12, 13, 118, C 5. 
 Tixvm (irepl), p. 50. 
 Tex^l^V^t ^ 48. 
 TieeffBai (6vop.a), Z 116. 
 Ti^tt'^s (irepO. P- 47, 52. 
 wii, Z 23. 
 TiTocas, Z 115. 
 
 t6vos, p. 8, 22, 23, 42, 45, 51, Z 33, 
 35, p. 110, Z 91, 103, C 24, 42, 76. 
 rdiroi, Z 69. 
 Tpl^uv, Z 194. 
 rpt^epijs, Z 1. 
 TpiToyineia, Z 1. 
 TpoTUv (irepl), p. 50. 
 Ti/yxdi'oi'Ta, Z 23. 
 Tiirwns, p. 34, Z 7. 
 
 i'Xil, Z 35, 49, 50, 51. 
 6iievalov (repl), p. 51 
 irraxoieiv, Z 29. 
 "Iireplav, Z 115. 
 Air49e(«s, Z,25. 
 iiroSeracAs riiros, p. 47, C 92. 
 {iirofieveTioii, Z 134. 
 iiroirlTTeLV, Z 23. 
 iirocrraJBiifi, Z 114. 
 Ss, C 44. 
 
 tpaivo/ieva (roSfeu', C 27. 
 
 ipaKij, Z 156. 
 
 4,avTa<sla, p. 24, 38, Z 7, 8, 33, 123, 
 
 158, C 3. 
 KaTaXijTTTiK^, p. 8, 9, 24, Z 
 
 10, 11. 
 4>dvTa<riui, Z 23. 
 
 ipaVTOifTlKOV, Z 160. 
 
 i/ioOXos, Z 148, 154. 
 ^epffe(p6vij, C 56. 
 ^dovepias (7rep£), p. 47, 52. 
 
344 
 
 INDEX VBEBORUM. 
 
 <t>6opa ToB Koff/iov, Z 56. 
 <piMa, Z 163. 
 (pMas {wepl), p. 47, 53. 
 (piKoXoyoi, Z 200. 
 ^rXovs, Z 149. 
 0Xd|, C 23. 
 
 <t>opos, p. 46, Z 128, 142, 143. 
 ^opd. {iyKiK\u>s), Z 71, 116. 
 ^pedvrXris, p. 35, C 21. 
 ^povijo-ts, p. 15, 16, 45, Z 134, 156. 
 ^vyis, Z 155. 
 ^lio-a, Z 39, p. 110. 
 0i5(rews (jrepi), p. 28. 
 ipviyiKov, Z 2. 
 
 0i><ris, p. 14, Z 43, 45, 46, C 51, v. 
 oput\ayta and Kord. 
 
 (koiv^), C 73. 
 
 01^10, Z 106. 
 
 tptiivaev, Z 98. 
 
 0u»^, Z 99, 100, p. 226. 
 
 XoXkoC (Ttepl), p. 53, C 112. 
 
 X&oi, Z 112, 113. 
 
 X<4piTos (irepl), p. 47, 52, C 97—99. 
 
 Xdprriv eOepyov, C 4. 
 
 Xpeuu, p. 31, Z 194. 
 
 Xpeidv (irepi), p. 53. 
 
 XpniMTiaiuoi, C 99. 
 
 Xpovov (vepl), p. 50. 
 
 Xpovoi, Z 76. 
 
 Xpi^tiara, Z 78. 
 
 Xiipa, Z 69. 
 
 ^iXos, C 49. 
 
 vJ'ux'}, Z 43, 56(60), 83—96, C 36- 
 
 45. 
 ToO KoaiMv, C 14, 21. 
 
 lbs aK,Z 56(99). 
 ii(p4\ilios, Z 190, C 75, 77. 
 
 CAMBKIDGE: PBINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. A SONS. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
PUBLICATIONS OF 
 
 Cfte Cambrilrge ©ni'bersiitp ^ress. 
 
 THE HOLY SCRIFTUBES, &c. 
 The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English 
 
 Version, with the Text revised by a Collation of its Early and other 
 Principal Editions, the Use of the Italic Type made uniform, the Mar- 
 ginal References remodelled, and a Critical Introduction, by F. H. A. 
 Scrivener, M.A., LL.D. Crown 410., cloth gilt, 21s, 
 The Student's Edition of the above, on good writing paper, with one 
 column of print and wide margin to each page for MS. notes. Two Vols. 
 Crown 4to., cloth, gilt, 31.;. 6d. 
 
 The Leotionary Bible, with Apocrypha, divided into Sections 
 adapted to the Calendar and Tables of Lessons of 1871. Cr. 8vo. y. 6a. 
 
 The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint. Edited 
 by the Rev. Professor H. B. Swete, D.D. Vol. I. Genesis— IV Kings. 
 Crown 8vo. ^s. dd. Vol. II. I Chronicles — Tobit. [JVearly ready. 
 
 The Book of Psalms in Greek according to the Septuagint. Being 
 
 a portion of Vol. II. of above. Crown 8vo. 2J. 6d. 
 
 The Book of Ecolesiastes. Large Paper Edition. By the Very 
 Rev. E. H. Plumptre, Dean of Wells. Demy 8vo. "js. 6d. 
 
 Breviarium ad usum insignis Ecclesiae Sarum. Juxta Editionem 
 maximam pro Claudio Chevallon et Francisco Regnault a.d. 
 MDXXXi. in Alma Parisiorum Academia impressam : labore ac studio 
 Francisci Procter, A.M., et Christophori Wordsworth, A.M. 
 
 Fasciculus I. In quo continentur Kalendarium, et Ordo Temporalis 
 sive Proprium de Tempore totius anni, una cum ordinali suo quod 
 usitato vocabulo dicitur Pica sive Directorium Sacerdotum. Demy 
 8vo. i8j. 
 
 Fasciculus II. In quo continentur Psalterium, cum ordinario Officii 
 totius hebdomadae juxta Horas Canonicas, et proprio Completorii, 
 LiTANiA, Commune Sanctorum, Ordinarium Missae cum Canone 
 ET XIII Missis, &c. &c. Demy 8vo. i2j. 
 
 Fasciculus III. In quo continetur Proprium Sanctorum quod et 
 Sanctorale dicitur, una cum Accentuario. Demy 8vo. ijf. 
 
 Fasciculi I. II. III. complete £2. is. 
 
 Breviarium Romanum a Francisco Cardinal! Quignonio editum 
 et recognitum iuxta editionem Venetiis a.d. 1535 impressam curante 
 Johanne WiCKHAM Legg. Demy 8vo. 12s. 
 
 The Pointed Prayer Book, being the Book of Common Prayer 
 with the Psalter or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or 
 said in Churches. Royal i4mo, cloth, is. 6d. 
 
 The same in square 32mo. cloth, 6d. 
 
 The Cambridge Psalter, for the use of Choirs and Organists. Spe- 
 cially adapted for Congregations in which the "Cambridge Pointed Prayer 
 Book" is used. Demy 8vo. cloth, 3s. 6d. Cloth limp cut flush, 2s. 6d. 
 
 London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 
 
PUBLICATIONS OF 
 
 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, i^. Leather, u. 6d. 
 
 Psalms of the Pharisees, commonly known as the Psalms of 
 Solomon, by H. E. Ryle, M.A. and M. R. James, M. A. DemySvo. 15J. 
 
 The Authorised Edition of the English Bihle (1611), its Sub- 
 sequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. By F. H. A. Scrivener, 
 M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. Crovra 8vo. 7J. 6d. 
 
 The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the 
 Text followed in the Authorised Version, together with the Variations 
 adopted in the Revised Version. Edited by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., 
 D.C.L., LL.D. Small Crown 8vo. 6s. 
 
 The Parallel New Testament Greek and English. The New 
 
 Testament, being the Authorised Version set forth in 161 1 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. I2S. 6d. ( The Sevised Version is the joint Property of the Universities 
 of Cambridge and Oxford.) 
 
 Greek and English Testament, in parallel columns on the same 
 p^e. Edited by J. Scholefield, M.A. New Edition, with the marginal 
 references as arranged and revised by Dr Scrivener. ']s. 6d. 
 
 Greek and English Testament. The Student's Edition of the 
 
 above on large writing paper. 410. nj. 
 
 GreekTestament,exeditioneStephanitertia,iS5o. Sm. 8vo. 3^.6^. 
 
 The Four Gospels in Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions. 
 By Rev. Prof. Skeat, Litt.D. One Volume. Demy Quarto. 30J. 
 Each Gospel separately. lox. 
 
 The Missing Fragment of the Latin Translation of the Fourth 
 Book of Ezra, discovered and edited with Introduction, Notes, and 
 facsimileoftheMS., byProf. Benslt, M.A. Demy 4to. \os. 
 
 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. 4to. £\. is. 
 
 The Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament. By 
 J. R. Harris, M.A. With 3 plates. Demy 4to. los. 6d. 
 
 Notitia Codicis Quattuor Evangeliorum Grseci membranacei viris 
 doctis hucusque incogniti quem in museo suo asservat Eduardus Reuss 
 Argentoratensis. 2s. 
 
 London: Cambridge Warelwuse, Ave Maria Lane, 
 
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 3 
 
 THEOLOGY— (ANCIENT). 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia's Commentary on the Minor Epistles of 
 
 S. Paul. The Latin Version with the Greek Fragments, edited from the 
 MSS. with Notes and an Introduction, by H. B. Swete, D.D. Vol. I., 
 containing the Introduction, and the Commentary upon Galatians — Colos- 
 sians. Demy Octavo, uj. 
 
 Volume II., containing the Commentary on i Thessalonians— Philemon, 
 Appendices and Indices. \i,s. 
 
 Chagigah from the Babylonian Talmud. A Translation of the 
 Treatise with Notes, etc. by A. W. Streane, M.A. Demy 8vo. \os. 
 
 The Greek Liturgies. Chiefly from original Authorities. By C. A. 
 SwAiNSON, D.D., late Master of Christ's College. Cr. 4to. 15J. 
 
 Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, comprising Firqe Aboth and 
 Pereq R. Meir in Hebrew and English, with Critical Notes. By C. 
 Taylor, D.D., Master of St John's College, ioj. 
 
 Sancti Ireneei Episcopi Lngdunensis libros quinaue adversus 
 
 Hsereses, edidit W. Wigan Harvey, S.T.B. CoUegii Regalis olim 
 Socius. 2 Vols. Demy Octavo. \%s. 
 
 The Palestinian Mishna. By W. H. Lowe, M.A. Royal 8vo. 21s. 
 
 M. Minucii Felicis Octavius. The text newly revised from the 
 original MS. with an English Commentary, Analysis, Introduction, and 
 Copious Indices. By H. A. Holden, LL.D. Cr. 8vo. 7^. 6rf. 
 
 Theophili Episcopi Antiochensis Libri Tres ad Antblycnm. Edidit 
 
 Prolegomenis Versione Notulis Indicibus insttuxit Gdlielmus Gilson 
 Humphry, S.T.B. Post Octavo. 5^. 
 
 Theophylacti in Evangelium S. Mattheei Commentarins. Edited 
 by W. G. Humphry, B.D. Demy Octavo. Is. dd. 
 
 TertuUianns de Corona Militis, de Spectacnlis, de Idololatria 
 
 with Analysis and English Notes, by G. Currey, D.D. Crown 8vo. 5J. 
 
 Fragments of Philo and Josephus. Newly edited by J. Rendel 
 Harris, M.A. With two Facsimiles. Demy 4to. \is. id. 
 
 The Teaching of the Apostles. Newly edited, with Facsimile Text 
 and Commentary, by J. R. Harris, M.A. Demy 410. i\s. 
 
 The Rest of the Words of Baruch : A Christian Apocalypse of 
 the year 136 a.d. The Text revised with an Introduction by J. Rendel 
 Harris, M.A. Royal 8vo. sj. 
 
 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. 5^. 
 
 Biblical Fragments from Mouht Smai, edited by J. Rendel 
 Harris, M.A. Demy 4to. ioj. 6rf. 
 
 The Diatessaron of Tatiam. By J. Rendel Harris, M.A. Royal 
 
 Bvo. is. 
 
 London: Cambridge Warehouse^ Ave Maria Lane. 
 
PUBLICATIONS OF 
 
 THEOLOGT— (ENGLISH). 
 
 Works of Isaac Barrow, compared with the original MSS. A 
 new Edition, by A. Napier, M.A. 9 Vols. Demy 8vo. £i. y. 
 
 Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy, and a Discourse concerning 
 the Unity of the Church, by I. Barrow. Demy 8vo. is. 6d. 
 
 Pearson's Exposition of the Creed, edited by Temple Cheval- 
 LIER, B.D. 3rd Edition revised by R. Sinker, D.D. Demy 8vo. its. 
 
 An Analysis of the Exposition of the Creed, written by the Right 
 Rev. Father in God, John Pearson, D.D. Compiled by W. H. Mill, 
 D.D. Demy Octavo, is. 
 
 Wheatly on the Common Prayer, edited by G. E. Corrie, D.D. 
 
 late Master of Jesus College. Demy Octavo, "js. 6d, 
 
 The Homilies, with Various Readings, and the Quotations from 
 the Fathers given at length in the Original Languages. Edited by 
 G. E. CORKIE, D.D. late Master of Jesus College. Demy 8vo. 7^. bd. 
 
 Two Forms of Prayer of the time of Queen Elizabeth. Now First 
 Reprinted. Demy Octavo. 6d. 
 
 Select Discourses, by John Smith, late Fellow of Queens' Col- 
 lege, Cambridge. Edited by H. G. Willlams, B.D. late Professor of 
 Arabic Royal Octavo, 'js. 6d, 
 
 De Obligatione Conscientise Prselectiones decem Oxonii in Schola 
 Theologica habitse a Roberto Sanderson, SS. Theologise ibidem 
 Professore Regio. With English Notes, including an abridged Transla- 
 tion, by W. Whewell, D.D. Demy 8vo. is. 6d. 
 
 Csesar Morgan's Investigation of the Trinity of Plato, and of Fhilo 
 
 Judseus. 2nd Ed., revised by H. A. Holden, LL.D. Cr. 8vo. 4s. 
 
 Archbishop Usher's Answer to a Jesuit, with other Tracts on 
 Popery. Edited by J. Scholefield, M.A. Demy Svo. Js. 6d. 
 
 Wilson's Illustration of the Method of explaining the New Test- 
 ament, by the early opinions of Jews and Christians concerning Christ. 
 Edited by T, Turton, D.D. Demy Svo. is. 
 
 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. z vols. Demy Octavo. 151. 
 
 S. Austm and his place in the History of Christian Thought. 
 
 Being the Hulsean Lectures for 1885. By W. Cunningham, D.D. 
 Demy 8vo. Buckram, 12s. 6d. 
 
 Christ the Life of Men. Being the Hulsean Lectures for 1888. 
 By Rev. H. M. Stephenson, M.A. Crown Svo. 2i. 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. 3J. 6d. 
 
 London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 
 
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 5 
 
 GREEK AlTD LATIN CLASSICS, &c. 
 
 {See also Yf- i6> 17O 
 Sophocles : the Plays and Fragments. With Critical Notes, Com- 
 mentary, and Translation in English Prose, by R. C. Jebb, Litt.D., 
 LL.D., Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge. 
 Fart I. Oedipus Tyrannus. Demy 8yo. .Second Edit. 12s. 6d. 
 Part II. Oedipus Coloneus. Demy 8vo. Second Edit. 12s. 6d. 
 Fart III. Antigone. Demy 8vo. Second Edit. 12s. 6d. 
 Part IV. Philoctetes. Demy 8vo. 12s. 6d. 
 Select Private Orations of Demosthenes with Introductions and 
 English Notes, by F. A. Paley, M.A., & J. E, Sandys, Litt.D. 
 Fart I. Contra Phormionem, Lacritum, Pantaenetum, Boeotum de No- 
 mine, de Dote, Dionysodorum. Cr. 8vo. New Edition. 6s. 
 Fart II, Pro Phormione, Contra Stephanum I. II. ; Nicostratum, Cono- 
 nem, Calliclem. Crown 8vo. JVew Edition, js. 6d. 
 
 Demosthenes, Speech of, against the Law of Leptines. With 
 Introduction and Critical and Explanatory Notes, by J. E. Sandys, 
 Litt.D. Demy 8vo. gs. 
 
 Demosthenes against Androtion and against Timocrates, with 
 
 Introductions and English Commentary by William Wayte, M.A. 
 Crown Svo. 7^. 6d. 
 
 Euripides. Bacchae, with Introduction, Critical Notes, and Archse- 
 ological "Illustrations, by J. E. Sandys, Litt.D. New Edition, with 
 additional Illustrations. Crown Svo. 12s. 6d. 
 
 Euripides. Ion. The Greek Text with a Translation into English 
 
 Verse, Introduction and Notes by A. W. Verrall, Litt.D. Demy Svo. 
 p. 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. iSs. 
 
 Aeschyh Fabulae IKETIABS XOH*OPOI in libro Mediceo men- 
 dose scriptae ex w. 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. Crovm Svo. 6s. 
 
 The ThesBtetus of Plato, with a Translation and Notes by the 
 same Editor. Crown Svo. js. 6d. 
 
 P. Vergili Maronis Opera, cum Prolegomenis et Commentario 
 Critico pro Syndicis PreU Academici edidit Benjamin Hall Kennedy, 
 S.T.P. Extra fcp. Svo. 3^. 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. 
 
PUBLICATIONS OF 
 
 M. Tulli Ciceronis pro C. Rabirio [Perduellionis Reo] Oratio ad 
 
 Quirites. With Notes, Introduction and Appendices. By W. E. Heit- 
 
 LAND, M.A. Demy 8vo. is. 6d. 
 M. T, Ciceronis de Natura Deorum Libri Tres, with Introduction 
 
 and Commentary by Joseph B. Mayor, M.A. Demy 8vo. Vol. I. loj-. 6d. 
 
 Vol. II. I2J. 6d. Vol. III. los. 
 
 M. T. Ciceronis de Officiis' Libri Tres with Marginal Analysis, an 
 English Commentary, and Indices. New Edition, revised, by H. A. 
 HoLDEN, LL.D., Crown 8vo. qs. 
 
 M. T. Ciceronis de OflBciis Libri Tertius, with Introduction, 
 Analysis and Commentary by H. A. Holden, LL.D. Cr. 8vo. 2S. 
 
 M. T. Ciceronis de Finibus Bonorum libri Quinqne. The Text 
 revised and explained by J. S. Reid, Litt.D. [In the Press. 
 
 Vol. III., containing the Translation. Demy 8vo. 9s. 
 
 Plato's Fhsedo, literally translated, by the late E. M. Cope, Fellow 
 of Trinity College, Cambridge. Demy Octavo, 51. 
 
 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. Sis. 
 
 Aristotle.— HEPI *YXH2. Aristotle's Psychology, in Greek and 
 English, with Introduction and Notes.byE. Wallace, M.A. DemySvo. lis. 
 
 HEPI AIKAIOSYNHS. 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 Blabs by W. J. Purton, B.A. Demy 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Pindar. Olympian and Pythian Odes. With Notes Explanatory 
 and Critical, Introductions and Introductory Essays. Edited by C. A. M. 
 Fennell, Litt. D. Crown 8vo. 9* . 
 
 — The Isthmian and Nemean Odes by the same Editor, gj. 
 
 The Types of Greek Coins. By Percy Gardner, Litt.D., F.S.A. 
 With 16 plates. Impl. 4to. Cloth £1. 11s. 6d. Roxburgh (Morocco 
 back) £1. IS, 
 
 SANSKRIT, ARABIC AND SYRIAC. 
 
 Lectures on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages 
 
 from the Papers of the late William Wright, LL.D. DemySvo. i+r. 
 
 The Divy^vad§.na, 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. lor. 
 
 Notes on the Tale of Nala, for the use of Classical Students, by 
 J. Peile, Litt.D., Master of Christ's College, Demy 8vo. l^s. 
 
 London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 
 
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 7 
 
 The History of Alexander the Great, being the Syriac version of 
 the Pseudo-Callisthenes. Edited from Five Manuscripts, witli an English 
 Translation and Notes, by E. A. Budoe, M. A. Demy 8vo. 25J. 
 
 The Poems of Beha ed din Zoheir of Egypt. With a Metrical 
 Translation, Notes and Introduction, by the late E. H. Palmer, M.A. 
 2 vols. Crown Quarto. 
 
 Vol. I. The Arabic Text. Paper covers, ioj. 6d. 
 
 Vol. II. English Translation . Paper covers. \qs. 6d. 
 
 The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite edited in Syriac, with an 
 
 English translation and notes, by W. Wright, LL.D. Demy 8vo. loj. 6cl. 
 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. yj. 6d. 
 
 Makdla-i-Shakhsi Sayyd,]ti: ki dar ]f^aziyya-i-Bkb Navishta-Ast (a 
 Traveller's Narrative written to illustrate the Episode of the Bib). Per- 
 sian text, edited, translated and annotated, in two volumes, by E. G. 
 Browne, M.A., M.B. {Nearly ready. 
 
 MATHEMATICS, PHYSICAL SCIENCE, &c. 
 
 Mathematical and Physical Papers. By Sir G. G. Stokes, Sc.D., 
 
 LL.D. Reprinted from the Original Journals and Transactions, with 
 additional Notes by the Author. Vol.1. DemySvo. 15J. Vol. II. 15J. 
 
 [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. Demy8vo. i8j. Vol. II. 15J. Vol. III. i8j. 
 
 The Collected Mathematical Papers of Arthur Cayley, ScD., 
 
 F.R.S. Demy 410. 10 vols. 
 Vols. I., II. and III. 25^. each. \yo\. 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 Stren<»th 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. 25J. 
 Vol. II. By the same Editor. [In ike Press. 
 
 The Elastical Researches of B^rre 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. qj. 
 
 Theory of Differential Equations. Part I. Exact Equations and 
 Pfaff's Problem. By A. R. Forsyth, Sc.D., F.R.S. Demy 8vo. i2j. 
 
 A Treatise on the General Principles of Chemistry, by M. M. 
 PattisoiJ Muir, M.A. Second Edition. Demy 8vo. 15^. 
 
 Elementary Chemistry. By M. M. Pattison Muir, M.A., and 
 Charles Slater, M.A., M.B. Crown 8vo. 4J. 6d. 
 
 Practical Chemistry. A Course of Laboratory Work. By M. M. 
 
 Pattison Muir, M.A., and D. J. Carnegie, M.A. Cr. 8vo. 3^. 
 
8 PUBLICATIONS OF 
 
 A Treatise on Geometrical Optics. By R. S. Heath, M.A. 
 Demy 8vo. 12s. 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. 8vo. 7 J. (>d. 
 
 A Treatise on Analytical Statics. By E. J. Routh, Sc.D., F.R.S. 
 
 [N'early ready. 
 
 A Treatise on Plane Trigonometry. By E. W. Hobson, M.A. 
 Demy 8vo. \_Nearly ready. 
 
 Lectures on the Physiology of Plants, by S. H. Vines, ScD., 
 
 Professor of Botany in the University of Oxford. Demy 8vo. lis. 
 A Short History of Greek Mathematics. By J. Gow, Litt. D., 
 
 Fellow of Trinity College. Demy 8vo. ioj. 6d. 
 Notes on Qualitative Analysis. Concise and Explanatory. By 
 
 H. J. H. Fenton, M.A., F.C.S. New Edit. Crown 4to. 6s. 
 Diophantos of Alexandria; a Study in the History of Greek 
 
 Algebra. By T. L. Heath, M.A. Demy 8vo. 7^. 6d. 
 
 A Catalogue of the Portsmouth Collection of Books and Papers 
 
 written by or belonging to SiR Isaac Newton. Demy 8vo. 5^. 
 A Treatise on Natural Philosophy. By Prof. Sir W. Thomson, 
 
 LL.D., and P. G. Tait, M.A. Part I. Demy 8vo. i6j. Part II. iSs. 
 Elements of Natural Philosophy. By Professors Sir W. Thomson, 
 
 and P. G. Tait. Second Edition. Demy Svo. gs. 
 An Elementary Treatise on Quaternions. By P. G. Tait, M.A. 
 
 Second Edition. Demy Svo. \\s. 
 
 A Treatise on the Theory of Determinants and their Applications 
 
 in Analysis and Geometry. By R. F. Scott, M.A. Demy Svo. iw. 
 
 Counterpoint. A practical course of study. By the late Prof. 
 
 Sir G. A. Macfarren, Mus. D. 5th Edition, revised. Cr. 4to. Is. 6d. 
 The Analytical Theory of Heat. By Joseph Fourier. Translated 
 
 with Notes, by A. Freeman, M.A. Demy Svo. 12s. 
 The Scientific Papers of the late Prof. J. Clerk Maxwell. Edited 
 
 by W. D. Niven, M.A. 2 vols. Royal 4to. £3. 3s. (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. x8s. 
 
 Practical Work at the Cavendish Laboratory. Heat. Edited by 
 W. N. Shaw, M.A. Demy Svo. 3s. 
 
 Hydrodynamics, a Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Fluid 
 Motion, by Horace Lamb, M.A. Demy Svo. 12s. 
 
 The Mathematical Works of Isaac Barrow, D.D. Edited by 
 
 W. Whewell, D.D, Demy Octavo. 7*. 6d. 
 
 Illustrations of Comparative Anatomy, Vertebrate and Inverte- 
 brate. Second Edition. Demy Svo. is. 6d, 
 
 London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 
 
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 9 
 
 A Catalogue of Australian Fossils. By R. Etheridge, Jun., F.G.S. 
 Demy 8vo. lo* . 6d. 
 
 The Fossils and Palseontological AflSnities of the Neocomian Deposits 
 
 of Upware and Brickhill, being the Sedgwick Prize Essay for 1879. By 
 W. Keeping, M.A. Demy 8vo. \os. (sd. 
 
 The Bala Volcanic Series of Caernarvonshire and Associated Rocks, 
 being the Sedgwick Prize Essay for 1888, by A. Harker, M.A., F.R.S. 
 Demy 8vo. is. 6d. 
 
 A Catalogue of Books and Papers on Protozoa, Coelenterates, 
 
 Worms, etc. published during the years 1 861-1883, tiy D'Arcy W. 
 Thompson, M.A. Demy 8vo. 12s. 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. 12s. 
 
 An attempt to test the Theories of Capillary Action, by F. 
 Bashforth, B.D., and J. C. Adams, M.A. Demy 4to. £1. 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, is. 6d. 
 
 Catalogue of Osteological Specimens contained in the Anatomical 
 Museum of the University of Cambridge. Demy-Svo. 2s. dd. 
 
 Astronomical Observations made at the Observatory of Cambridge 
 from 1846 to i860, by the late Rev. J. Challis, M.A. 
 
 Astronomical Observations from 1861 to 1865. Vol. XXI Royal 
 4to., 15J. From 1866 to 1869. Vol. xxii. 15J. 
 
 LAW. 
 
 Elements of the Law of Torts. A Text-book for Students. By 
 Melville M. Bigelow, Ph.D. Crown 8vo. los. 6d. 
 
 A Selection of Cases on the EngUsh Law of Contract. By 
 Gerard Brown Finch, M.A. Royal 8vo. ■28J. 
 
 Bracton's Note Book. A Collection of Cases decided in the King's 
 
 Courts during the Reign of Henry the Third, annotated by a Lawyer of 
 that time, seemingly by Henry of Bratton. Edited by F. W. Maitland. 
 3 vols. Demy 8vo. ^3. y. (net.) 
 
 Tables shewing the Differences between English and Indian Law. 
 By Sir ROLAND Knyvet Wilson, Bart., M.A., LL.M. Demy 4to. 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. is. 6d. 
 Commons and Common Fields, or the History and Pohcy of the 
 
 Laws of Commons and Enclosures in England. Being the Yorke Prize 
 Essay for 1886. By T. E. Scrutton, M.A. Demy 8vo. los. 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. 7^.6^. 
 
 London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 
 
PUBLICATIONS OF 
 
 History of Land Tenure in Ireland. Being the Yorke Prize Essay 
 
 for 1888. By W. E. Montgomery, M.A., LL.M. Demy 8vo. ioj. 6i/. 
 History of Equity as administered in the Court of Chancery. Being 
 
 the Yorke Prize Essay for 1889. By D. M»Kenzie Kerly, M .A. , St John's 
 
 College. Demy 8vo. \^s. oaf. 
 An Introduction to the Study of Justinian's Digest. By Henry 
 
 John Roby. Demy 8vo. gf. 
 Justinian's Digest. Lib. VII., Tit. I. De Usufructu, with a Legal 
 
 and Philological Commentary by H. J. RoBY. Demy 8vo. gj. 
 
 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. 30j. 
 
 The Institutes of Justinian, translated with Notes by J. T. Abdy, 
 LL.D., and Bryan Walker, M.A., LL.D. Cr. 8vo. i6f. 
 
 Practical Jurisprudence. A comment on Austin. By E. C. 
 
 Clark, LL.D., Regius Professor of Civil Law. Crown 8vo. gj. 
 An Analysis of Criminal Liability. By the same. Cr. 8vo. 75. dd. 
 
 The Fragments of the Perpetual Edict of Salvins Julianns, Ar- 
 ranged, and Annotated by the late Bryan Walker, LL.D. Cr. 8vo. 6j. 
 
 The Commentaries of Gains 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. in. The translation separate, 6^. 
 
 Selected Titles from the Digest, by Bryan Walker, M.A., LL.D. 
 Part I. Mandati vel Contra. Digest xviL I. Cr. 8vo. is. 
 
 Part II. De Adquirendo rerum dominio, and De Adqmrenda vel 
 
 amittenda Possessione, Digest XLI. i and 2. Crown 8vo. 6j. 
 Part III. De Condictionibus, Digest xii. i and 4 — 7 and Digest 
 XIII. I — 3. Crown 8vo. 6j. 
 
 HISTOEICAL WORKS. 
 
 The Life and 'Letters of the Reverend Adam Sedgwick, LL.D., 
 F.R. S. (Dedicated, by special peimission, to Her Majesty the Queen.) By 
 John Willis Clark, M.A., F.S.A., and Thomas M'=Kenny Hughes, 
 M.A. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. 36^. 
 
 The Growth of English Industry and Commerce during the Early 
 and Middle Ages. By W. Cunningham, D.D. Demy 8vo. i6j. 
 
 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. 6j. 
 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 loo copies are now offered for sale, at Twenty- 
 five Guineas net each set. 
 
 London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 
 
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. ii 
 
 The University of Cambridge from the Earliest Times to the 
 Royal Injunctions of 1535. By J. B. Mullinger, M. A. Demy 8vo. lu. 
 
 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. 14*. 
 
 Scholae Academicae : some Account of the Studies at the English 
 Universities in the Eighteenth Century. By Christopher Words- 
 worth, M.A. Demy 8vo. IQj. 6(/. 
 
 Life and Times of Stein, or Germany and Prussia in the Napoleonic 
 
 Age, by J. R. Seeley, M.A. Portraits and Maps. 3 vols. Demy 8vo. 30j. 
 
 The Constitution of Canada. By J. E. C. Munro, LL.M. 
 
 Demy 8vo. ioj. 
 
 Studies in the Literary Relations of England with Grermany in 
 
 the Sixteenth Century. By C. H. Herford, M.A. Crown 8vo. gj. 
 
 Chronological Tables of Greek History. By Carl Peter. Trans- 
 lated from the German by G. Chawner, M.A. Demy 4to. \os. 
 
 Travels in Arabia Deserta in 1876 and 1877. By Charles 
 M. Doughty. With Illustrations. Demy 8vo. 2 vols. £,■!,, y. 
 
 History of Nepal, edited with an introductory sketch of the Country 
 and People by Dr D. Wright. Super-royal 8vo. Vis. 6d. 
 
 A Journey of Literary and Archeeological Research in Nepal and 
 Northern India, 1884 — 5. By C. Bendall, M.A. Demy 8vo. los. 
 
 ©ambrftrgj f^tstottcal lEggags. 
 
 Pohtical Parties in Athens during the Peloponnesian War, by 
 L. Whibley, M.A. (Prince Consort Dissertation, 1888.) Second Edi- 
 tion. Crown 8vo. 2S. 6d. 
 
 Pope Gregory the Great and his relations with Gaul, by F. W. 
 Kellett, M.A. (Prince Consort Dissertation, r888.) Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 The Constitutional Experiments of the Commonwealth, being the 
 Thirlwall Prize Essay for 1889, by E. Jenks, B.A., LL.B. Cr. 8vo. -is. 6d. 
 
 On Election by Lot at Athens, by J. W. Headlam, B.A. (Prince 
 
 Consort Dissertation, 1890.) Crown 8vo. [In the Press. 
 
 The Destruction of the Somerset Religious Houses and its Effects. 
 By W. A. J. Archbold, B.A., LL.B. (Prince Consort Dissertation, 
 1890.) Crown 8vo. [In the Press. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 The Engraved Gems of Classical Times with a Catalogue of the 
 Gems in the Fitzwilliam Museum by J. H. Middleton, M.A. Royal 8vo. 
 12S. (td. 
 
 Erasmus. The Rede Lecture, delivered in the Senate-House, Cam- 
 bridge, June II, 1890, by R. C. Jebb, Litt.D. Cloth, is. PaperCovers, \s. 
 
 The Literary remains of Albrecht Diirer, by W. M. Conway. With 
 Transcripts from the British Museum Manuscripts, and Notes upon them 
 by LiNA EcKENSTEiN. Royal 8vo. 11s. 
 
 The Collected Papers of Henry Bradshaw, including his Memoranda 
 
 and Communications read before the Cambridge Antiquarian Society. 
 With \% facsimiles. Edited by F.J. H.Jenkinson, M.A. Demy8vo. i6f. 
 
 London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 
 
12 PUBLICATIONS OF 
 
 Memorials of the Life of George Elwes Corrie, D.D. formerly Master 
 
 of Jesus College. By M. Holroyd. Demy 8vo. lis. 
 The Latin Heptateuch. Published piecemeal by the French printer 
 
 William Morel (1560) and the French Benedictines E. Mart^ne (1733) 
 
 and'J. B. Pitra (iSs^ — 88). Critically reviewed by John E. B. Mayor, 
 
 M.A. Demy 8vo. TOi. 6d. 
 Kinship and Marriage in early Arabia, by W. Robertson Smith, 
 
 M.A., LL.D. Crown 8vo. 1$. 6d. 
 Chapters on EngHsh Metre. By Rev. Joseph B. Mayor, M.A. 
 
 Demy 8vo. p. 6d. 
 A Catalogue of Ancient Marbles in Great Britain, by Prof. Adolf 
 
 MiCHAELls. Translated by C. A. M. Fknnell, Litt.D. Royal 8vo. 
 
 Roxburgh (Morocco back). £2. 2S. 
 
 From Shakespeare to Pope, An Inquiry into the causes and 
 phenomena of the Rise of Classical Poetry in England. By E. GossE, 
 M.A. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
 
 The Literature of the French Renaissance. An Introductory 
 Essay. By A. A. Tilley, M.A. Crown Svo. 6s. 
 
 A Latin-English Dictionary. Printed from the (Incomplete) MS. 
 of the late T. H. Key, M.A., F.R.S. Demy 4to. £1. iis. 6d. 
 
 Ecclesiae Londino-Batavae archivum. Tomvs Primvs. Abra- 
 ham: Ortelii et virorum eruditorum ad eundem et ad Jacobvm 
 Colivm Ortelianvm Epistulae,(i524 — 1628). Tomvs Secvndvs. 
 EPISTVLAE ET TRACTATVS cum Reformationis tum Ecclesiae 
 Londino-Batavae Historiam lUustiantes 1544 — 1622. Ex autographis 
 mandante Ecclesia Londino-Batava edidit Joannes Henricvs Hessels. 
 Demy 4to. Each vol., separately, ^^3. loJ. Taken together ;£'5. 5J. Net. 
 
 An Eighth Century Latin-Anglo-Saxon Glossary preserved in the 
 Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, edited by J. H. Hessels. 
 Demy Svo. los. 
 
 Contributions to the Textual Criticism of the Divina Commedia. 
 
 Including the complete collation throughout the Inferno of all the MSS. 
 
 at Oxfordand Cambridge. BytheRev. E. MoORE, D.D. Demy 8vo. 2\s. 
 The Despatches of Earl Gower, English Ambassador at the court 
 
 of Versailles, June 1 790 to August 1 792, and the Despatches of Mr Lindsay 
 
 and Mr Monro. By O. Browning, M.A. Demy Svo. 15J. 
 Rhodes in Ancient Tunes. By Cecil Torr, M.A. With six 
 
 plates, los. 6d. 
 Rhodes in Modem Tunes. By the same Author. With three 
 
 plates. Demy Svo. Sj. 
 The Woodcutters of the Netherlands during the last quarter of 
 
 the Fifteenth Century. By W. M. Conway. Demy Svo. \as. 6d. 
 Lectures on the Growth and Training of the Mental Faculty, 
 
 delivered in the University of Cambridge. By Francis Warner, M.D., 
 
 F.R.C.P. Crown Svo. 4J;. 6d. 
 Lectures on Teaching, delivered in the University of Cambridge. 
 
 By J. G. Fitch, M.A., IX.D. Cr. Svo. jj. 
 Lectures on Language and Linguistic Method in the School. By 
 
 S. S. Laurie, M.A., LL.D. Crown Svo. 4^. 
 Occasional Addresses on Educational Subjects. By S. S. Laurie, 
 
 M.A., F.R.S.E. Crown Svo. is. 
 
 London: Cambridge Warehottse, Ave Maria Lane. 
 
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 13 
 
 A Manual of Cursive Shorthand, by H. L. Callendar, M.A. 
 
 Extra Fcap. 8vo. is. 
 
 A System of Phonetic Spelling, adapted to English by H. L. Callen- 
 dar, M.A. Extra Fcap. 8vo. dd. 
 A Primer of Cursive Shorthand. By H. L. Callendar, M.A. M. 
 
 Reading Practice in Cursive Shorthand. Easy extracts for Begin- 
 ners. St Mark, Pt. I. Vicar of Wakefield, Chaps. I. — IV. Alice in 
 Wonderland, Chap. VII. Price yl. each. 
 
 Essays from the Spectator in Cursive Shorthand, by H. L. 
 Callendar, M.A. id. 
 
 Gray and his Friends. Letters and Relics in great part hitherto 
 unpublished. Edited by the Rev. D. C. Tovey, M.A. Crown 8vo. (>$. 
 
 A Grammar of the Irish Language. By Prof. Windisch. Trans- 
 lated by Dr Norman Moore. Crown 8vo. yj. 6d. 
 
 A Catalogue of the Collection of Birds formed by the late Hugh 
 
 Edwin Strickland, now in the possession of the University of Cam- 
 bridge. By O. Salvin, M.A., F.R.S. £,t.. if. 
 
 Admissions to Gonville and Caius College in the University of 
 Cambridge March 1558— 9 to Jan. 1678—9. Edited by J. Venn, Sc.D., 
 and S. C. Venn. Demy 8vo. ioj. 
 
 A Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts preserved in the Uni- 
 versity Library, Cambridge, By the late Dr Schiller-Szinessy. ^s. 
 
 Catalogue of the Buddhist Sanskrit Manuscripts in the University 
 Library, Cambridge. Edited by C. Bendall, M.A. \^s. 
 
 A Catalogue of the Manuscripts preserved in the Library of the 
 University of Cambridge. Demy 8vo. S Vols. loj. each. 
 
 IndsK to the Catalogue. Demy 8vo. lar. 
 A Catalogue of Adversaria and printed books containing MS. 
 
 notes, in the Library of the University of Cambridge, y. 6d. 
 The Illuininated Manuscripts in the Library of the Fitzwilliam 
 
 Museum, Cambridge, by W. G. Searle, M.A. 7^. 6d. 
 
 A Chronological List of the Graces, etc. in the University Registry 
 which concern the University Library, is. 6d. 
 
 Catalogus Bibliothecse Burckhardtians. Demy Quarto. 5^. 
 
 Graduati Cantabrigienses : sive catalogus exhibens nomina eorum 
 
 quos gradu quocunque ornavit Academia Cantabrigiensis (1800 — 1884). 
 Cura H. R. LuARD, S. T. P. Demy 8vo. iis. 6d. 
 
 Statutes for the University of Cambridge and for the Colleges 
 therein, made, published and approved (1878 — 1882) under the Uni- 
 versities of Oxford and Cambridge Act, 1877. Demy 8vo. i6s. 
 
 Statutes of the University of Cambridge. 3^. 6d. 
 
 Ordinances of the University of Cambridge, ^s. 6d. Supplement 
 to ditto. \s. 
 
 Trusts, Statutes and Directions affecting (i) The Professorships 
 of the University. (2) The Scholarships and Prizes. (3) Other Gifls and 
 Endowments. Demy 8vo. Jj. 
 
 A Compendium of University Regulations. Demy 8vo. 6d. 
 
 London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 
 
14 PUBLICATIONS OF 
 
 Wi^t CambrOiffe Bible for achoolss anti CoIIepss, 
 
 General Editor : J. J. S. PEROWNE, D.D., Bishop of Worcester. 
 " It is difi&cult to commend too highly this excellent series." — Guardian. 
 Now Beady. Cloth, Extra Fcap. Svo. With Maps. 
 Book of Joshua. By Rev. G. F. Maclear, D.D. 2s. 6d. 
 Book of Judges. By Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 3^. 6d. 
 First Book of Samuel. By Rev. Prof. Kirkpatrick, B.D. 3^. 6d. 
 Second Book of Samuel. By Rev. Prof. Kirkpatrick, B.D. 35. 6d. 
 First Book of Kings. By Rev. Prof. Lumby, D.D. 3^. 6d. 
 Second Book of Kings. By Rev. Prof. Lumby, D.D. 3^. 6d. 
 Book of Job. By Rev. A. B. Davidson, D.D. 5^. 
 Book of Ecclesiastes. By Very Rev. E. H. Plumptre, D.D. 5^. 
 Book of Jeremiah. By Rev. A. W. Streane, M.A. 4J. 6d. 
 Book of Hosea, By Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D. 3^. . 
 Books of Obadiah and Jonah. By Arch. Perowne. 2s. 6d. 
 Book of Micah. By Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D. is. 6d. 
 Books of Haggai, Zechariah & Malachi. By Arch. Perowne. 3^. 6d. 
 Book of Malachi. By Archdeacon Perowne. is. 
 Oospel according to St Matthew. By Rev. A. Carr, M.A. 2s. 6d. 
 Gospel according to St Mark. By Rev. G.F. Maclear, D.D. 2s. 6d. 
 Oospel according to St Luke. By Archdeacon Farrar. 4^. 6d. 
 Gospel according to St John. By Rev. A. Plummer, D.D. 4^. 6d. 
 Acts of the Apostles. By Prof. Lumby, D.D. 45. 6d. 
 Epistle to the Romans. Rev. H. C. G. Moule, M.A. y. 6d. 
 First Corinthians. By Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 2s. 
 Second Corinthians. By Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 2s. 
 Epistle to the Galatians. By Rev. E. H. Perowne, D.D. is. 6d. 
 Epistle to the Ephesians. Rev. H. C. G. Moule, M.A. 2^. 6d. 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. By Archdeacon Farrar, D.D. 3^. 6d, 
 Epistle to the Philippians. By Rev. H. C. G. Moule, M.A. 2s. 6d. 
 Epistles to the Thessalonians. By Rev. G. G. Findlay, B.A. 2s. 
 General Epistle of St James. By Very Rev. E. H. Plumptre. is. 6d. 
 Epistles of St Peter and St Jude. By the same Editor. 2s. 6d. 
 Epistles of St John. By Rev. A. Plummer, M.A., D.D. ^s. 6d. 
 Book of Revelation. By Rev. W. H. Simcox, M.A. y. 
 
 Preparing. 
 Book of Genesis. By the Bishop of Worcester. 
 Books of Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. By Rev. C. D. 
 GmsBURG, LL.D. 
 
 London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 
 
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 15 
 
 Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. By Rev. Prof. Ryle, M.A. 
 
 Book of Psalms. Part I. By Rev. Prof. Kirkpatrick, B.D. 
 
 Book of Isaiah. By Prof. W. Robertson Smith, M.A. 
 
 Book of Ezekiel. By Rev. A. B. Davidson, D.D. 
 
 Epistles to Colossians & Philemon. By Rev. H. C. G. Moule, M.A. 
 
 Epistles to Timothy and Titus. By Rev. A. E. Humphreys, M.A. 
 
 Ct)e Smaller ©ambritige 35ible for ^tftoolg* 
 
 The Smaller Cambridge Bible for Schools ^111 form an entirely new series 
 of commentaries on some selected books of the Bible. It is expected that they will 
 be prepared for the most part by the Editors of the larger series {the Cambridge 
 Bible for Schools and Colleges). The volumes will be issued at a low price, and 
 will be suitable to the requirements of preparatory and elementary schools. 
 
 Now ready. Price is. each. 
 First and Second Books of Samuel. By Prof. Kirkpatrick, B.D. 
 First and Second Books of Kings. By Rev. Prof. Lumby, D.D. 
 Gospel according to St Matthew. By Rev. A. Carr, M.A. 
 Gospel according to St Mark. By Rev. G. F. Maclear, D.D. 
 Gospel according to St Luke. By Archdeacon Farrar, D.D. 
 Gospel according to St John. By Rev. A. Plummer, D.D. 
 Acts of the Apostles. By Professor Lumby, D.D. 
 
 THE CAMBRIDGE GREEK TESTAMENT 
 
 FOR SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES 
 
 with a Revised Text, based on the most recent critical authorities, and 
 English Notes, prepared under the direction of the General Editor, 
 
 J. J. S. PEROWNE, D.D., Bishop of Worcester. 
 Gospel according to St Matthew. By Rev, A. Carr, M.A. 4J-. M. 
 Gospel according to St Mark. ByRev.G.F. Maclear, D.D. i^s.dd. 
 Gospel according to St Luke. By Archdeacon Farrar. 6j. 
 Gospel according to St John. By Rev. A. Plummer, D.D. 6,?. 
 Acts of the Apostles. By Prof. Lumby, D.D. 4 Maps. 6s. 
 First Epistle to the Corinthians. By Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 3^. 
 Second Epistle to the Corinthians. By Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 
 
 \Preparing. 
 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. By Archdeacon Farrar, D.D. y. 6d. 
 Epistles of St John. By Rev. A. Plummer, M.A., D.D. 4^. 
 
 London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 
 
1 6 PUBLICATIONS OF 
 
 THE PITT PRESS SERIES. 
 
 *»* Copies of the Pitt Press Series may generally be obtained in two volumes. 
 Text and Notes separately. 
 
 1. GREEK. 
 
 Aristophanes. Aves— Plutus— Ranae. By W. C. Green, M.A., 
 
 late Assistant Master at Rugby School, y. 6d. each. 
 Euripides. Heracleidte. By E. A. Beck, M.A. 3^. 6d. 
 Euripides. Hercules Furens. By A. Gray, M.A., and J. T. 
 
 Hutchinson, M.A. 2s. 
 Euripides. Hippolytus. By W. S. Hadley, M.A. 2s. 
 Euripides. Iphigeneia in Aulis. By C. E. S. Headlam, B. A. 2s. 6d. 
 Herodotus. Book V. By E. S. Shuckburgh, M.A. 3J. 
 Herodotus. Book VI. By the same Editor. 4^. 
 Herodotus. Books VIII., IX. By the same Editor. 4^. each. 
 Herodotus. Book VIII., Ch. 1-90. Book IX., Ch. 1—89. By the 
 
 same Editor, y. 6d. each. 
 Homer. Odyssey, Book IX. Book X. By G. M. Edwards, M.A. 
 
 2S. 6d. each. 
 Homer. Odyssey, Book XXI. By the same Editor. 2s. 
 Homer. Iliad. Book XXII. By the same Editor. 2s. 
 Homer. lUad. Book XXIII. By the same Editor. [Marly ready. 
 Luciani Somninm Charon Fiscator et De Luctu. By W. £. 
 
 Heitland, M.A., Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge, is. 6d. 
 Lucian. Menippus and Timon. By E. C. Mackie, M.A. 
 
 [Nearly ready. 
 
 Platonis Apologia Socratis. By J. Adam, M.A. 3^. M. 
 
 Onto. By the same Editor. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Euthyphro. By the same Editor. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Plutarch's Lives of the Gracchi.— Sulla— Timoleon. By H. A. 
 
 HoLDEN, M.A., LL.D. 6s. each. 
 Plutarch's Life of Nicias. By the same Editor. 5^. 
 Sophocles.— Oedipus Tyrannus. School Edition. By R. C. Jebb, 
 
 Litt.D., LL.D. 4J. 6d. 
 Thucydides. Book VII. By Rev. H. A. Holden, M.A., LL.D. 
 
 [Nearly ready. 
 
 Xenophon— Agesilaus. By H. Hailstone, M.A. 2s. 6d. 
 Xenophon— Anabasis. By A. Pretor, M.A. Two vols. 7^. 6d. 
 Books I. III. IV. and V. By the same Editor. 
 
 Price is. each. Books II. VI, and VII. ^s. 6d. each. 
 Xenophon— Cyropaedeia. Books I. II. By Rev. H. A. Holden, 
 
 M.A., LL.D. 2 vols. 6s. 
 
 Books III. IV. and V. By the same Editor, ss. 
 
 Books VI. VII. and VIIL By the same Editor. 5s. 
 
 London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 
 
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 17 
 
 II. LATIN. 
 
 Beda's Ecclesiastical History, Books III., IV. Edited by J. E. B. 
 
 Mayor, M.A., and J. R. Lumby, D.D. Revised Edit. is. 6cl. 
 Caesar. De Belle Gallico Comment. I. By A. G. Peskett, M.A. 
 
 is.6d. Com. II. III. 2J. 
 Comment. I. II. III. is. Com. IV. V. is. 6d. Com. VI. and 
 
 Com. VIII. IS. 6d. each. Com. VII. -is. 
 
 De Bello Civili. Comment. I. By the same Editor. 3^. 
 
 M. T. Ciceronis de Amicitia.— de Senectute.— pro Sulla Oratio. By 
 
 J. S. Reid, Litt.D., Fellow of GonviUe and Cains College. 3J. 6d. each. 
 M. T. Ciceronis Oratio pro Archia Foeta. By the same. 2s. 
 M. T. Ciceronis pro Balbo Oratio. By the same. i^. 6d. 
 M. T. Ciceronis in Gaium Verrem Actio Prima. By H. Cowie, 
 
 M.A., Fellow of St John's Coll. is. 6d. 
 M. T. Ciceronis in Q. Caecilinm Oivinatio et in C. Verrem Actio. 
 
 By W. E. Heitland, M.A. , and H. CowiE, M.A. 3^. 
 M. T. Ciceronis Oratio pro Tito Annio Milone. By John Smyth 
 
 PuRTON, B.D. IS. 6d. 
 M. T. Ciceronis Oratio pro L. Murena. By W. E. Heitland, M.A. 3^. 
 M. T. Ciceronis pro Cn. Flancio Oratio, by H. A. Holden, LL.D. 
 
 Second Edition. 4J. 6d. 
 M. Tulli Ciceronis Oratio Philippica Secunda. By A. G. Peskett, 
 
 M.A. 3^. 6d. 
 M. T. Ciceronis Somnium Scipionis. By W. D. Pearman, M.A. 2s. 
 Horace. Epistles, Book I. By E. S. Shuckburgh, M.A. 2s. 6d. 
 Livy. Books IV., XXVII. By H.M.Stephenson, M.A. 2 j. 6;/. each. 
 
 BookV. By L. Whibley, M.A. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Book XXI. Book XXII. ByM.S.DiMSDALE,M.A. 2j.6<f.each. 
 
 M. Annaei Lucani Pharsaliae Liber Primus. By W. E. Heitland, 
 
 M.A., and C. E. Haskins, M.A. is. 6d. 
 Lucretius, Book V. By J. D. Duff, M.A., Fellow of Trinity 
 
 College. Price is. 
 P.OvidiiNasonisFastorumLiberVI. By A. Sidgwick, M. A. is.6d. 
 Quintus Curtius. A Portion of the History (Alexander in India). 
 
 By W. E. Heitland, M.A. and T. E. Raven, B.A. 3s. 6d. 
 P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Libri I.— XII. By A. Sidgwick, M.A. 
 
 i.r. 6d. each. 
 P. Vergili Maronis Bucolica. By the same Editor, is. 6d. 
 P. Vergili Maronis Georgicon Libri I. II. By the same Editor. 
 
 2s. Libri III. IV. By the same Editor. 2s. 
 Vergil. The Complete Works. By the same Editor. Two Vols. 
 
 Vol. I. Introduction and Text. 3s. 6d. Vol. II. Notes. 4J. 6d. 
 
 IIL FRENCH. 
 
 Bataille de Dames. By Scribe and Legouv^. By Rev. H. A. 
 Bull, M.A. 2s. 
 
 Dix Annees d'Exil. Livre II. Chapitres 1—8. Par Madame la 
 Baronne de Stael-Holstein. By the late G. Masson, B.A. and 
 G. W. Prothero, M.A. New Edition, enlarged. 2S. 
 
 London : Cambridge Warehotise, Ave Maria Lane. 
 
i8 PUBLICATIONS OF 
 
 Histoire dn SiScle de Louis XIV. uar Voltaire. Chaps. I.— XIII. 
 
 By GusTAVE Masson, B.A. and G. W. Prothero, M.A. is. 6d. 
 Chaps. XIV.— XXIV. is. 6d. Chap. XXV. to end. is. 6d. 
 
 Fredegonde et Brunehaut. A Tragedy in Five Acts, by N. Le- 
 
 MERCIER. By GUSTAVB MASSON, B.A. IS, 
 
 Jeanne D'Arc. By A. de Lamartine. By Rev. A. C. Clapin, 
 
 M.A. Revised Edition by A. R. Ropes, M.A. is. 6d. 
 La Canne de Jonc. By A. De Vigny. By Rev. H. A. Bull, M. A. zs. 
 
 La Jeune Siberienne. Le Leprenx de la Cite D'Aoste. Tales by 
 
 Count Xavier de Maistre. By Gustave Masson, B.A. is. 6d. 
 La Picciola. By X. B. Saintine. By Rev. A. C. Clapin,"M.A. 2s. 
 
 La Guerre. By MM. Erckmann-Chatrian. By the same 
 
 Editor. 3^, 
 La Metromanie. A Comedy, by Piron. By G. Masson, B.A. 2s. 
 Lascaris on Les Grecs dn XV^ Siecle, NonveUe Historique, par 
 
 A. F. VUiLEMAlN. By the same. 2s. 
 La Suite du Mentenr. A Comedy by P. Corneillk. By the 
 
 same. is. 
 Lazare Heche — Par Emile de Bonnechose. With Four Maps, 
 
 By C. COLBECK, M.A. IS. 
 Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, Com^die-Ballet en Cinq Actes. Par 
 
 J.-B. Poquelin de Molifere (1670). By Rev. A. C. Clapin, M.A. is, 6d, 
 Le Directoire. (Considerations sur la Revolution Fran^aise. 
 
 Troisiime et quatri^me parties.) Revised and enlarged. By G. Masson, 
 
 B.A. and G. W. Prothero, M.A. is. 
 
 Les Plaideurs. Racine. ByE. G.W.Braunholtz, M.A.,Ph.D. 25. 
 (Abridged Edition.) i^. 
 
 Les Prficieuses Ridicules. Moli^re. By E. G. W. Braunholtz, 
 
 M.A., Ph.D. IS. 
 (Abridged Edition.) is. 
 
 L'Ecole des Femmes. Moli^ire. By George Saintsbury, M.A. 
 
 IS. 6d, 
 Le Philosophe sans le savoir. Sedaine. By Rev. H. A. Bull, 
 
 late Master at Wellington College, is. 
 Lettres sur I'histoire de France (XIU— XXIV). Par Augustin 
 
 Thierry. By G. Masson, B.A. and G. W. Prothero. is. 6d. 
 Le Verre D'Ean. A Comedy, by Scribe. Edited by C. Col- 
 
 BECK, M.A. IS. 
 
 Le Vienx Celibataire, A Comedy, by Collin D'Harleville. 
 
 With Notes, by G. Masson, B.A. is. 
 M. Dam, par M. C. A. Sainte-Beuve (Causeries du Lundi, 
 
 Vol.. IX.), By G. Masson, B. A. Univ. Gallic, is. 
 Recits des Temps Merovingiens I— III. Thierry. By the late 
 
 G. Masson, B.A. and A. R. Ropes, M.A. Map. y. 
 
 London: Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 
 
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 19 
 
 IV. GERMAN. 
 
 A Book of Ballads on German History. By Wilhelm Wagner, 
 
 Ph.D. is. 
 A Book of German Dactylic Poetry. By Wilhelm Wagner, 
 
 Ph.D. 3J. 
 Benedix. Doctor Wespe. Lustspiel in fiinf Aufziigen. By Karl 
 
 Hermann Breul, M.A., Ph.D. 3^. 
 Culturgeschichtliche Novellen, von W. H. Riehl. By H. J. 
 
 WOLSTENHOLME, B.A. (Lond.). ■},!. 6<i. 
 
 Das Jahr 1813 (The Year 1813), by F. Kohlrausch. By 
 
 Wilhelm Wagner, Ph.D. is. 
 Der erste Kreuzzug (1095—1099) nach Friedrich von Raumer. 
 
 The First Crusade. By W. Wagner, Ph. D. 2s. 
 Der Oberhof. A Tale of Westphalian Life, by Karl Immer- 
 
 MANN. By Wilhelm Wagner, Ph.D. 3s. 
 Der Staat Friedrichs des Grossen. By G. Freytag. By Wilhelm 
 
 Wagner, Ph. D. 2s. 
 Die Karavane, von Wilhelm Hauff. By A. Schlottmann, Ph.D. 
 
 3;. 6<i. 
 Goethe's Hermann and Dorothea. By W. Wagner, Ph. D. Re- 
 vised edition by J. W. Cartmell. 3s. 6d. 
 Goethe's Knabenjahre. (1749— 1761.) Goethe's Boyhood. By W. 
 
 Wagner, Ph.D. Revised edition by J. W. Cartmell, M.A. 2j. 
 Hauflf, Das Bild des Kaisers. By Karl Hermann Breul, M.A., 
 
 Ph.D. 3s. 
 Hauflf, Das Wirthshaus im Spessart. By A. Schlottmann, Ph.D., 
 
 late Assistant Master at Uppingham School. 3s. 6d. 
 Mendelssohn's Letters. Selections from. ByjAMEsSiME, M.A. ^s. 
 Schiller. Wilhelm Tell. By Karl Hermann Breul, M.A., Ph.D. 
 
 2s. 6d. 
 
 (Abridged Edition.) \s. 6d. 
 
 Selected Fables. Lessing and Gellert. By Karl Hermann 
 
 Breul, M.A., Ph.D. 3^. 
 Uhland. Ernst, Herzog von Schwaben. By H. J. Wolsten- 
 
 HOLME, B.A. (Lond.). 3s. 6d. 
 Zopf und Schwert. Lustspiel in fiinf Aufziigen von Karl Gutz- 
 
 KOW. By H. J. WOLSTENHOLME, B.A. (Lond.). 3s. 6d. 
 
 V. ENGLISH. 
 
 An Apologie for Poetrie by Sir Philip Sidney. By E. S. Shuck- 
 burgh, M.A. The text is a revision of that of the first edition of 1595. 3s. 
 
 An Elementary Commercial Geography. A Sketch of the Com- 
 modities and Countries of the World. By H. R. Mill, Sc.D., F.R.S.E. ij. 
 
 An Atlas of Commercial Geography. (Companion to the above.) 
 By J. G. Bartholomew, F.R.G.S. With an Introduction by Dr H. R. 
 Mill. 3^. 
 
 London : Cambridge Warehouse, Ave Maria Lane. 
 
20 PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
 Ancient Philosophy from Thales to Cicero, A Sketch of, by 
 Joseph B. Mayor, M.A. 31. ^d. 
 
 Bacon's History of the Reign of King Henry VII. By the Rev. 
 Professor Lumby, D.D. 3^. 
 
 British India, a Short History of. By Rev. E. S. Carlos, M.A. is. 
 
 Cowley's Essays. By Prof. Lumby, D.D. 4J. 
 
 General Aims of the Teacher, and Form Management. Two Lec- 
 tures by F. W. Farrar, D.D. and R. B. Poole, B.D.' \s. 6d. 
 
 John Amos Comenius, Bishop of the Moravians. His Life and 
 Educational Works, by S. S. LaurSe, A.M., F.R.S.E. 3s. 6d. 
 
 Loclte on Education. By the Rev. R. H. Quick, M.A. 35. 6J. 
 
 Milton's Arcades and Comus. Bv A. W. Verity, M.A. 3s. 
 
 Milton's Tractate on Education; A facsimile reprint from the 
 Edition of 1673. Edited by O. Browning, M.A. 21. 
 
 More's History of King Richard III. By J. Rawson Lumby, D.D. 
 3s. 6d. 
 
 On Stimulus. A Lecture delivered for the Teachers' Training 
 
 Syndicate at Cambridge, May 1882, by A. SIDGWICK, M.A. New Ed. u. 
 
 Outlines of the Philosophy of Aristotle. Compiled by Edwin 
 
 Wallace, M.A., LL.D. Third Edition, Enlarged. 4s. 6d. 
 Sir Thomas More's Utopia. By Prof. Lumby, D.D. 3^. 6d 
 Theory and Practice of Teaching. By E. Thring, M.A. 4s. 6d. 
 
 The Teaching of Modem Languages in Theory and Practice. 
 By C. CoLBECK, M.A. 2s. 
 
 The Two Noble Kinsmen. By Professor Skeat, Litt.D. 3^. 6d. 
 
 Three Lectures on the Practice of Education. I. On Marking 
 by H. W. Eve, M.A. II. On Stimulus, by A. Sidgwick, M.A. III. On 
 the Teaching of Latin Verse Composition, by E. A. Abbott, D.D. 2s. 
 
 VI. MATHEMATICS. 
 
 Euclid's Elements of Geometry, Books I. and II. By H. M. 
 
 Taylor, M.A. is.6d. Books III. and IV. By the same Editor. is.6d. 
 
 Books I.— IV. in one volume. 3J. 
 
 Elementary Algebra (with Answers to the Examples). By W. W. 
 
 Rouse Ball, M.A. 4J. 6d. 
 Elements of Statics and Dynamics. By S. L. Loney, M.A. Part I. 
 
 Elements of Statics. 4J. 6d. Part II. Elements of Dynamics. 
 
 [Nearly ready. 
 
 Honlion : c. j. clay and sons, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE WAREHOUSE, AVE MARIA LANE. 
 
 ffilaSflOfa: 263, ARGYLE STREET. 
 
 txainSav. DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO. Urijijifl: F. A. BROCKHAUS. 
 
 Stisa lotit: MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 ' jr 
 
 Cambridge: printed by c. j. clay. m.a. & sons, at thk university press.