"I think that in good fortune and glory I have the advantage of
you; but in reason and education I am inferior to you, also in that perfect happiness
which you have attained to. On which account I have thought it good to address you, and
invite you to come to me, being convinced that you will not refuse what is asked of you.
Endeavour, therefore, by all means to come to me, considering this fact, that you will not
be the instructor of me alone, but of all the Macedonians together. For he who instructs
the ruler of the Macedonians and who leads him in the path of virtue, evidently marshals
all his subjects on the road to happiness. For as the ruler is, so is it natural that his
subjects for the most part should be also."
And Zeno wrote him hack the following answer. [262>]
ZENO TO KING ANTIGONUS, GREETING.
"I admire your desire for learning, as being a true object for the wishes of
mankind, and one too that tends to their advantage. And the man who aims at the study of
philosophy has a proper disregard for the popular kind of instruction which tends only to
the corruption of the morals. And you, passing by the pleasure which is so much spoken of,
which makes the minds of some young men effeminate, show plainly that you are inclined to
noble pursuits, not merely by your nature, but also by your own deliberate choice. And a
noble nature, when it has received even a slight degree of training, and which also meets
with those who will teach it abundantly, proceeds without difficulty to a perfect
attainment of virtue. But I now find my bodily health impaired by old age, for I am eighty
years old: on which account I am unable to come to you. But I send you some of those who
have studied with me, who in that learning which has reference to the soul, are in no
respect inferior to me, and in their bodily vigour are greatly my superiors. And if you
associate with them you will want nothing that can bear upon perfect happiness."
So he sent him Persaeus and Philonides, the Theban, both of whom are mentioned by
Epicurus, in his letter to his brother Aristobulus, as being companions of Antigonus.
IX. And I have thought it worth while also to set down the decree of
the Athenians concerning him; and it is couched in the following language.
"In the archonship of Arrhenides, in the fifth presidency of the
tribe Acamantis, on the twenty-first day of the month Maimacterion, on the twenty-third
day of the aforesaid presidency, in a duly convened assembly, Hippo, the son of
Cratistoteles, of the borough of Xypetion, being one of the presidents, and the rest of
the presidents, his colleagues, put the following decree to the vote. And the decree was
proposed by Thrason, of Anacaea, the son of Thrason.
"Since Zeno the son of Innaseas, the Cittitaean, has passed many years in the
city, in the study of philosophy, being in all other respects a good man, and also
exhorting all the young men who have sought his company to the practice of virtue, and
encouraging them in the practice of temperance making his own life a model to all men of
the greatest [263>] excellence, since it has in every respect corresponded to the
doctrines which he has taught; it has been determined by the people (and may the
determination be fortunate), to praise Zeno, the son of Innaseas, the Cittiaean, and to
present him with a golden crown in accordance with the law, on account of his virtue and
temperance, and to build him a tomb in the Ceramicus, at the public expense. And the
people has appointed by its vote five men from among the citizens of Athens, who shall see
to the making of the crown and the building of the tomb. And the scribe of the borough
shall enrol the decree and engrave it on two pillars, and he shall be permitted to place
one pillar in the Academy, and one in the Lyceum. And he who is appointed to superintend
the work shall divide the expense that the pillars amount to, in such a way that every one
may understand that the whole people of Athens honours good men both while they are living
and after they are dead. And Thrason of Anacaea, Philocles of the Piaeus, Phaedrus of
Anaphlystos, Medon of Acharnaes, Mecythus of Sypalyttas, and Dion of Paeania, are hereby
appointed to superintend the building of the tomb."
These then are the terms of the decree.
X. But Antigonus, of Carystos, says, that Zeno himself never denied
that he was a native of Cittium. For that when on one occasion, there was a citizen of
that town who had contributed to the building of some baths, and was having his name
engraved on the pillar, as the countryman of Zeno the philosopher, he bade them add,
XI. And at another time, when he had had a hollow covering made for
some vessel, he carried it about for some money, in order to procure present telief for
some difficulties which were distressing Crates his aster. And they say that he, when he
first arrived in Greece, had more than a thousand talents, which he lent out at nautical
XII. And he used to eat little loaves and honey, and to drink a small
quantity of sweet smelling wine.
XIII. He had very few youthful acquaintances of the male sex, and he
did not cultivate them much, lest be should be thought to be a misogynist. And he dwelt in
the same house with Persaeus; and once, when he brought in a female flute-player to him,
he hastened to bring her back to him.
XIV. And he was, it is said, of a very accommodating [264>] temper;
so much so, that Antigonus, the king, often came to dine with him, and often carried him
off to dine with hirn, at the house of Aristocles the harp-player; but when he was there,
he would presently steal away.
XV. It is also said that he avoided a crowd with great care, so that he used to sit at
the end of a bench, in order at events to avoid being incommoded on one side. And he never
used to walk with more than two or three companions. An he used at times to exact a piece
of money from all who came to bear him, with a view of not being distressed by numbers;
and this story is told by Cleanthes, in his treatise on Brazen Money. And when he was
surrounded by any great crowd, would point to a balustrade of wood at the end of the
colonnade which surrounded an altar, and say, "That was once in the middle of this
place, but it was placed apart because it was in peoples way; and now, if you will
only withdraw from the middle here, you too will incommode me much less."
And when Demochares, the son of Laches, embraced him once, and said
that he would tell Antigonus, or write to him of everything which he wanted, as he always
did everything for him, Zeno, when he had heard him say this, avoided his company
for the future. And it is said, that after the death of Zeno, Antigonus said, "What a
spectacle have I lost." On which account he employed Thrason, their ambassador, to
entreat of the Athenians to allow him to be buried in the Ceramicus. And when he was asked
why he had such an admiration for him, he replied, "Because, though I gave him a
great many important presents, he was never elated, and never humbled."
He was a man of a very investigating spirit, and one who inquired very
minutely into everything; in reference to which, Timon, in his Silli, speaks thus:
I saw an aged woman of Phoenicia,
Hungry and covetous, in a proud obscurity,
Longing for everything. She had a basket
So full of holes that it retained nothing.
Likewise her mind was less than a simdapsus [W sort of guitar or violin.]"
He used to study very carefully with Philo, the dialectician, and to argue with him at
their mutual leisure; on which [265>] account he excited the wonder of the younger
Zeno, no less than Diodorus his master.
XVIII. There were also a lot of dirty beggars always about him, as Timon tells us,
where he says
Till he collected a vast cloud of beggars,
Who were of all men in the world the poorest,
And the most worthless citizens of Athens.
And he himself was a man of a morose and bitter countenance, with a constantly frowning
expression. He was very economical, and descended even to the meanness of the barbarians,
under the pretence of economy.
XIX. If he reproved any one, he did it with brevity and without
exaggeration, and as it were, at a distance. I allude, for instance, to the way in which
he spoke of a man who took exceeding pains in setting himself off, for as he was crossing
a gutter with great hesitation, he said, "He is right to look down upon the mud, for
he cannot see himself in it." And when some Cynic one day said that he had no oil in
his cruise, and asked him for some, he refused to give him any, but bade him go away and
consider which of the two was the more impudent. He was very much in love with
Chremonides; and once, when he and Cleanthes were both sitting by him, he got up; and as
Cleanthes wondered at this, he said, "I hear from skilful physicians that the best
thing for some tumours is rest." Once, when two people were sitting above him at
table at a banquet, and the one next him kept kicking the other with his foot, he himself
kicked him with his knee; and when he turned round upon him for doing so, he said,
"Why then do you think that your other neighbour is to be treated in this way by
On one occasion he said to a man who was very fond of young boys, that
"Schoolmasters who were always associating with boys had no more intellect than the
boys themselves." He used also to say that the discourses of those men who were
careful to avoid solecisms, and to adhere to the strictest rules of composition, were like
Alexandrine money, they were pleasing to the eye and well-formed like the coni, but were
nothing the better for that; but those who were not so particular he likened to the Attic
tessedrachmas, which were struck at random and without any great nicety, and so he said
that their [266>] discourses often outweighed the more polished styles of the others.
And when Ariston, his disciple, had been holding forth a good deal without much wit, but
still in some points with a good deal of readiness and confidence, he said to him,
"It would be impossible for you to speak thus, if your father had not been drunk when
he begat you;" and for the same reason he nicknamed him the chatterer, as he himself
was very concise in his speeches. Once, when he was in company with an epicure who usually
left nothing for his messmates, and when a large fish was set before him, he took it all
as if he could eat the whole of it; and when the others looked at him with astonishment,
he said, "What then do you think that your companions feel every day, if you cannot
bear with my gluttony for one day?"
On one occasion, when a youth was asking him questions with a
pertinacity unsuited to his age, he led him to a looking-glass and bade him look at
himself, and then asked him whether such questions appeared suitable to the face he saw
there. And when a man said before him once, that in most points he did not agree with the
doctrines of Antisthenes, he quoted to him an apophthegm of Sophocles, and asked him
whether he thought there was much sense in that, and when he said that he did not know,
"Are you not then ashamed," said he, "to pick out and recollect anything
bad which may have been said by Antisthenes, but not to regard or remember what. ever is
said that is good?" A man once said, that the sayings of the philosophers appeared to
him very trivial; "You say true," replied Zeno, "and their syllables too
ought to be short, if that is possible." When some one spoke to him of Polemo, and
said that he proposed one question for discussion and then argued another, he became
angry, and said, "At what value did he estimate the subject that had been
proposed?" And he said that a man who was to discuss a question ought to have a loud
voice and great energy, like the actors, but not to open his mouth too wide, which those
who speak a great deal but only talk nonsense usually do. And he used to say that there
was no need for those who argued well to leave their hearers room to look about them, as
good workmen do who want to have their work seen; but that, on the contrary, those
who are listening to them ought to be so attentive to all that is said as to have no
leisure to take notes.
[267>] Once when a young man was talking a great deal, he said,
"Your ears have run down into your tongue." On one occasion a very handsome man
was saying that a wise man did not appear to him likely to fall in love; "Then,"
said he, "I cannot imagine anything that will be more miserable than you good-looking
fellows." He also used often to say that most philosophers were wise in great things,
but ignorant of petty subjects and chance details; and he used to cite the saying of
Caphesius, who, when one of his pupils was labouring hard to be able to blow very
powerfully, gave him a slap, and said, that excellence did not depend upon greatness, but
greatness on excellence. Once, when a young man was arguing very confidently, he said,
"I should not like to say, O youth, all that occurs to me." And once, when a
handsome and wealthy Rhodian, but one who had no other qualification, was pressing him to
take him as a pupil, he, as he was not inclined to receive him, first of all made him sit
on the dusty seats that he might dirt his cloak, then he put him down in the place of the
poor that he might rub against their rags, and at last the young man went away. One of his
sayings used to be, that vanity was the most unbecoming of all things, and especially so
in the young. Another was, that one ought not to try and recollect the exact words and
expressions of a discourse, but to fix all ones attention on the arrangement of the
arguments, instead of treating it as if it were a piece of boiled meat, or some delicate
eatable. He used also to say that young men ought to maintain the most scrupulous reserve
in their walking, their gait, and their dress; and he was constantly quoting the lines of
Euripides on Capaneus, that
His wealth was ample.
But yet no pride did mingle with his state,
Nor had he haughty thought, or arrogance
More than the poorest man.
And one of his sayings used to be, that nothing was more unfriendly to the
comprehension of the accurate sciences than poetry; and that there was nothing that we
stood in so much need of as time. When he was asked what a friend was, he replied,
"Another I." They say that he was once scourging a slave whom he had detected in
theft; and when he said to him, "It was fated that I should steal ;" he
rejoined, "Yes, and that you should be beaten." He used to call beauty the
[268>] flower of the voice; but some report this as if he had said that the voice is
the flower of beauty. On one occasion, when he saw a slave belonging to one of his friends
severely bruised, he said to his friend, "I see the footsteps of your anger." He
once accosted a man who was all over unguents and perfumes, "Who is this who smells
like a woman ?" When Dionysius Metathemenus asked him why he was the only person whom
he did not correct, he replied, "Because I have no confidence in you." A young
man was talking a great deal of nonsense, and he said to him, "This is the reason why
we have two ears and only one mouth, that we may hear more and speak less."
Once, when he was at an entertainment and remained wholly silent, he
was asked what the reason was; and so he bade the person who found fault with him tell the
king that there was a man in the room who knew how to hold his tongue; now the people who
asked him this were ambassadors who had come from Ptolemy, and who wished to know what
report they were to make of him to the king. He was once asked how he felt when people
abused him, and he said, "As an ambassador feels when he is sent away without an
answer." Apollonius of Tyre tells us, that when Crates dragged him by the cloak away
from Stilpo, he said. "O Crates, the proper way to take hold of philosophers is by
the ears; so now do you convince me and drag me by them; but if you use force towards me,
my body may be with you, but my mind with Stilpo."
XX. He used to devote a good deal of time to Diodorus, as we learn from
Hippobotus; and he studied dialectics under him. And when he had made a good deal of
progress he attached himself to Polemo because of his freedom from arrogance, so that it
is reported that he said to him, "I am not ignorant, O Zeno, that you slip into the
garden-door and steal my doctrines, and then clothe them in a Phoenician dress." When
a dialectician once showed him seven species of dialectic argument in the mowing argument
[The Greek is, en tôi therizonti logô, a species species of argument so called,
because he who used it mowed or knocked down his adversaries Aldob.], he asked him
how much he charged for them, and when he said "A hundred drachmea,""he
gave him two hundred, so exceedingly devoted was he to learning.
They say too, that he was the first who ever em- [269>] ployed the word duty (kathêkon),
and who wrote a treatise on the subject. And that he altered the lines of Hesiod
He is the best of all men who submits
To follow good advice; he too is good,
Who of himself perceives whateer is fit.
[The Greek text is:
Keinos men panaristos hos eu eiponti pithêtai
Esthlos d' au kakeinos hos autos panta noêsêi.
The lines in Hesiod are:
Keinos men panaristos hos autos panta noêsêi
Esthlos d' au kakeinos hos eu eiponti pithêtai Works & Days, 293.
That man is best, whose unassisted with
Perceives at once what in each case is fit.
And next to him, he is surely most wise,
Who willingly submits to good advice.]
For he said that that man who had the capacity to give a proper hearing
to what was said, and to avail himself of it, was superior to him who comprehended
everything by his own intellect; for that the one had only comprehension, but the one who
took good advice had action also.
XXII. When he was asked why he, who was generally austere, relaxed at a
dinner party, he said, "Lupins too are bitter, but when they are soaked they become
sweet." And Hecaton, in the second book of his Apophthegms, says, that in
entertainments of that kind, he used to indulge himself freely. And he used to say that it
was better to trip with the feet, than with the tongue. And that goodness was attained by
little and little, but was not itself a small thing. Some authors, however, attribute this
saying to Socrates.
XXIII. He was a person of great powers of abstinence and endurance; and of very simple
habits, living on food which required no fire to dress it, and wearing a thin cloak, so
that it was said of him:
The cold of winter, and the ceaseless rain,
Come powerless against him; weak is the dart
Of the fierce summer sun, or fell disease,
To bend that iron frame. He stands apart,
In nought resembling the vast common crowd;
But, patient and unwearied, night and day,
Clings to his studies and philosophy.
[270>] XXIV. And the comic poets, without intending it, praise him in their very
attempts to turn him into ridicule. Philemon speaks thus of him in his play entitled the
This man adopts a new philosophy,
He teaches to be hungry; nevertheless,
He gets disciples. Bread his only food,
His best desert dried figs; water his drink.
But some attribute these lines to Posidippus. And they have become almost a proverb.
Accordingly it used to be said of him, "More temperate than Zeno the
philosopher." Posidippus also writes thus in his Men Transported :
So that for ten whole days he did appear
More temperate than Zenos self.
XXV. For in reality he did surpass all men in this description of virtue, and in
dignity of demeanour, and, by Jove, in happiness. For he lived ninety-eight years, and
then died, without any disease, and continuing in good health to the last. But Persaes, in
his Ethical School, states that he died at the age of seventy-two, and that he came to
Athens when he was twenty-two years old. But Apollonius says that he presided over his
school for forty-eight years.
XXVI. And he died in the following manner. When he was going out of his school, he
tripped, and broke one of his toes; and striking the ground with his hand, he repeated the
line out of the Niobe:
I come: why call me so?
And immediately he strangled himself, and so he died. But the Athenians buried him in
the Ceramicus, and honoured him with the decrees which I have mentioned before, bearing
witness to his virtue. And Antipater, the Sidonian, wrote an inscription for him, which
runs thus :
Here Cittiums pride, wise Zeno, lies, who climbd
The summits of Olympus; but unmoved
By wicked thoughts neer strove to raise on Ossa
The pine-clad Pelion; nor did he emulate
Th immortal toils of Hercules; but found
A new way for himself to th highest heaven,
By virtue, temperance, and modesty.
And Zenodotus, the Stoic, a disciple of Diogenes, wrote another: [271>]
You made contentment the chief rule of life,
Despising haughty wealth, O God-like Zeno.
With solemn look, and hoary brow serene,
You taught a manly doctrine; and didst found
By your deep wisdom, a great novel school,
Chaste parent of unfearing liberty.
And if your country was Phoenicia,
Why need we grieve, from that land Cadmus came,
Who gave to Greece her written books of wisdom.
And Athenaeus, the Epigrammatic poet, speaks thus of all the Stoics in common
O, ye whove learnt the doctrines of the Porch,
And have committed to your books divine
The best of human learning; teaching men
That the minds virtue is the only good.
And she it is who keeps the lives of men,
And cities, safer than high gates or walls.
But those who place their happiness in pleasure,
Are led by the least worthy of the Muses.
And we also have ourselves spoken of the manner of Zenos death, in our collection
of poems in all metres, in the following terms:
Some say that Zeno, pride of Citium,
Died of old age, when weak and quite worn out;
Some say that famines cruel tooth did slay him;
Some that he fell, and striking hard the ground,
Said, "See, I come, why call me thus impatiently?"
For some say that this was the way in which he died. And this is enough to say
concerning his death.
XXVII. But Demetrius, the Magnesian, says, in his essay on People of
the Same Name, that his father Innaseas often came to Athens, as he was a merchant, and
that he used to bring back many of the books of the Socratic philosophers, to Zeno, while
be was still only a boy; and that, from this circumstance, Zeno had already become talked
of in his own country; and that in consequence of this he went to Athens, where he
attached himself to Crates. And it seems, he adds, that it was he who first recommended a
clear enunciation of principles, as the best remedy for error. He is said, too, to have
been in the habit of swearing "By Capers," as Socrates swore "By the
XXVIII. Some, indeed, among whom is Cassius the Sceptic, attack Zeno on many accounts,
saying first of all that he denounced the general system of education in vogue at the
[272>] time, as useless, which he did in the beginning of his Republic. And in the
second place, that he used to call all who were not virtuous, adversaries, and enemies,
and slaves, and unfriendly to one another, parents to their children, brethren to
brethren. and kinsmen to kinsmen; and again, that in his Republic, ho speaks of the
virtuous as the only citizens, and friends, and relations, and free men, so that in the
doctrine of the Stoic, even parents and their children are enemies; for they are not wise.
Also, that he lays down the principle of the community of women both in his Republic and
in a poem of two hundred verses, and teaches that neither temples nor courts of law, nor
gymnasia, ought to be erected in a city; moreover, that he writes thus about money,
"That he does not think that men ought to coin money either for purposes of traffic,
or of travelling." Besides ail this, he enjoins men and women to wear the same dress,
and to leave no part of their person uncovered.
XXIX. And that this treatise on the Republic is his work we are assured
by Chrysippus, in his Republic. He also discussed amatory subjects in the beginning of
that book of his which is entitled the Art of Love. And in his Conversations he writes in
a similar manner.
Such are the charges made against him by Cassius, and also by Isidorus,
of Pergamus, the orator, who says that all the unbecoming doctrines and assertions of the
Stoics were cut out of their books by Athenodorus, the Stoic, who was the curator of the
library at Pergamus. And that subsequently they were replaced, as Athenodorus was
detected, and placed in a situation of great danger; and this is sufficient to say about
those doctrines of his which were impugned.
XXX. There were eight different persons of the name of Zeno. The first
was the Eleatic, whom we shall mention hereafter; the second was this man of whom we are
now speaking; the third was a Rhodian, who wrote a history of his country in one book; the
fourth was a historian who wrote an account of the expedition of Pyrrhus into Italy and
Sicily; and also an epitome of the transactions between the Romans and Carthaginians; the
fifth was a disciple of Chrysippus, who wrote very few books, but who left a great number
of disciples; the sixth was a physician of Hesophila, a very shrewd man in intellect, but
a very indifferent writer; the [273>] seventh was a grammarian, who, besides other
writings, has left some epigrams behind him; the eighth was a Sidonian by descent, a
philosopher of the Epicurean school, a deep thinker, and very clear writer.
XXXI. The disciples of Zeno were very numerous. The most eminent were,
first of all, Peraeus, of Cittium, the son of Demetrius, whom some call a friend of his,
but others describe him as a servant and one of the amanuenses who were sent to him by
Antigonus, to whose son, Halcymeus, he also acted as tutor. And Antigonus once, wishing to
make trial of him, caused some false news to be brought to him that his estate had been
ravaged by the enemy; and as he began to look gloomy at this news, he said to him,
"You see that wealth is not a matter of indifference."
The following works are attributed to him. One on Kingly Power; one
entitled the Constitution of the Lacedaemonians; one on Marriage; one on Impiety; the
Thyestes; an Essay on Love; a volume of Exhortations; one of Conversations; four of
Apophthegms; one of Reminiscences; seven treatises, the Laws of Plato.
The next was Ariston, of Chios, the son of Miltiades, who was the first
author of the doctrine of indifference; then Herillus, who called knowledge the chief
good; then Dionysius, who transferred this description to pleasure; as, on account of the
violent disease which he had in his eyes, he could not yet bring himself to call pain a
thing indifferent. He was a native of Heraclea; there was also Sphaerus, of the Bosphorus;
and Cleanthes, of Assos. the son of Phanias, who succeeded him in his school, and whom he
used to liken to tablets of hard wax, which are written upon with difficulty, but which
retain what is written upon them. And after Zenos death, Sphaerus became a pupil of
Cleanthes. And we shall speak of him in our account of Cleanthes.
These also were all disciples of Zeno, as we are told by Hippobotus,
namely : Philonides, of Theles; Callippus, of Corinth; Posidonius, of Alexandria;
Athenodorus, of Soli; and Zeno, a Sidonian.
XXXII. And I have thought it best to give a general account of all the
Stoic doctrines in the life of Zeno, because he it was who was the founder of the sect.
He has written a great many books, of which I have already [274>] given a list, in
which he has spoken as no other of the Stoid has. And his doctrines in general are these.
But we will enumerate them briefly, as we have been in the habit of doint in the case of
the other philosophers.
XXXIII. The Stoics divide reason according to philosophy, into three
parts; and say that one part relates to natural philosophy, one to ethics, and one to
logic. And Zeno, the Cittiaean, was the first who made this division, in his treatise on
Reason; and he was followed in it by Chrysippus, in the first book of his treatise on
Reason, and in the first book of his treatise on Natural Philosophy; and also by
Apollodorus and by Syllus, in the first book of his Introduction to the Doctrines of the
Stoics; and by Eudromus, in his Ethical Elements; and by Diogenes, the Babylonian; and
Posidorus, Now these divisions are called topics by Apollodorus, species by
Chrysippus and Eudromus, and genera by all the rest. And they compare philosophy to
an animal, likening logic to the bones and sinews, natural philosophy to the fleshy parts,
and ethical philosophy to the soul. Again, they compare it to an egg; calling logic the
shell, and ethics the white, and natural philosophy the yolk. Also to a fertile field; in
which logic is the fence which goes round it, ethics are the fruit, and natural philosophy
the soil, or the fruit-trees. Again, they compare it to a city fortified by walls, and
regulated by reason; and then, as some of them say, no one part is preferred to another,
but they are all combined and united inseparably; and so they treat of them all in
combination. But others class logic first, natural philosophy second, and ethics third as
Zeno does in his treatise on Reason, and in this he is followed by Chrysippus, and
Archidemus, and Eudromus.
For Diogenes of Ptolemais begins with ethics; but Apollodorus places
ethics second; and Panaetius and Posidonius begin with natural philosophy, as Phanias, the
friend of Posidonius asserts, in the first book of his treatise on the School of
But Cleanthes says, that there are six divisions of reason according to
philosophy: dialectics, rhetoric, ethics, politics physics, and theology; but others
assert that these are not divisions of reason, but of philosophy itself; and this is the
opinion advanced by Zeno, of Tarsus, among others.
XXXIV. Some again say, that the logical division is [275>] properly
subdivided into two sciences, namely, rhetoric and dialectics; and some divide it also
into definitive species, which is coversant with rules and tests; while others deny the
propriety of this last division altogether, and argue that the object of rules and tests
is the discovery of the truth; for it is in this division that they explain the
differences of representations. They also argue that, on the other side, the science of
definitions has equally for its object the discovery of truth, since we only know things
by the intervention of ideas. They also call rhetoric a science conversant about speaking
well concerning matters which admit of a detailed narrative; and dialectics they call the
science of arguing correctly in discussions which can be carried on by question and
answer; on which account they define it thus: a knowledge of what is true, and false, and
neither one thing nor the other.
Again, rhetoric itself they divide into three kinds; for one
description they say is concerning about giving advice, another is forensic, and the third
encomiastic; and it is also divided into several parts, one relating to the discovery of
arguments, one to style, one to the arrangement of arguments, and the other to the
delivery of the speech. And a rhetorical oration they divide into the exordium, the
narration, the reply to the statements of the adverse party, and the peroration.
XXXV. Dialectics, they say, is divided into two parts; one of which has
reference to the things signified, the other to the expression. That which has reference
to the things signified or spoken of, they divide again into the topic of things conceived
in the fancy, and into those of axioms, of perfect determinations, of predicaments, of
things alike, whether upright or prostrate, of tropes, of syllogisms, and of sophisms,
which are derived either from the voice or from the things. And these sophisms are of
various kinds; there is the false one, the one which states facts, the negative, the
sorites, and others like these; the imperfect one, the inexplicable one, the conclusive
one, the veiled one, the horned one, the nobody, and the mower.
In the second part of dialectics, that which has for its object the
expression, they treat of written language, of the different parts of a discourse, of
solecism and barbarism, of poetical forms of expression, of ambiguity, of a melodious
voice, of music; and some even add definitions, divisions, and diction. [276>] They say
that the most useful of these parts is the consideration of syllogisms; for that they show
us what are the things which are capable of demonstration, and that contributes much to
the formation of our judgment, and their arrangement and memory give a scientific
character to our knowledge. They define reasoning to be a system composed of assumptions
and conclusions; and syllogism is a syllogistic argument proceeding on them. Demonstration
they define to be a method by which one proceeds from that which is more known to that
which is less. Perception, again, is an impression produced on the mind, its name being
appropriately borrowed from impressions on wax made by a seal; and perception they divide
into, comprehensible and incomprehensible: Comprehensible, which they call the criterion
of facts, and which is produced by a real object, and is, therefore, at the same time
conformable to that object; Incomprehensible, which has no relation to any real object, or
else, if it has any such relation, does not correspond to it, being but a vague and
Dialectics itself they pronounce to be a necessary science, and a
virtue which comprehends several other virtues under its species. And the disposition not
to take up one side of an argument hastily, they defined to be a knowledge by which we are
taught when we ought to agree to a statement, and when we ought to withhold our agreement.
Discretion they consider to be a powerful reason, having reference to what is becoming, so
as to prevent our yielding to an irrelevant argument. Irrefutability they define to be a
power in an argument, which prevents one from being drawn from it to its opposite. Freedom
from vanity, according to them, is a habit which refers the perceptions back to right
Again, they define knowledge itself as an assertion or safe comprehension, or habit,
which, in the perception of what is seen, never deviates from the truth. And they say
further, that without dialectic speculation, the wise man cannot be free from all error in
his reasoning. For that that is what distinguishes what is true from what is false, and
which easily detects those arguments which are only plausible, and those which depend upon
an ambiguity of language. And without dialectics they say it is not possible to ask or
answer questions correctly. They also add, that precipitation in denials extends to those
things which are done, so that those [277>] who have not properly exercised their
perceptions fall into irregularity and thoughtlessness. Again, without dialectics, the
wise man cannot be acute, and ingenious, and wary, and altogether dangerous as an arguer.
For that it belongs to the same man to speak correctly and to reason correctly, and to
discuss properly those subjects which are proposed to him, and to answer readily whatever
questions are put to him, all which qualities belong to a man who is skilful in
dialectics. This then is a brief summary of their opinions on logic.
XXXVI. And, that we may also enter into some more minute details
respecting them, we will subjoin what refers to what they call their introductory science,
as it is stated by Diocles, of Magnesia, in his Excursion of Philosophers, where he speaks
as follows, and we will give his account word for word.
The Stoics have chosen to treat, in the first place, of perception and sensation,
because the criterion by which the truth of facts is ascertained is a kind of perception,
and because the judgment which expresses the belief, and the comprehension, and the
understanding of a thing, a judgment which precedes all others, cannot exist without
perception. For perception leads the way; and then thought, finding vent in expressions,
explains in words the feelings which it derives from perception. But there is a difference
between phantasia and phantasma. For phantasma is a conception of the
intellect, such as takes place in sleep; but phantasia is an impression, tupôsis,
produced on the mind, that is to say, an alteration, alloiôsis, as Chrysippus
states in the twelfth book of his treatise on the Soul. For we must not take this
impression to resemble that made by a seal, since it is impossible to conceive that there
should be many impressions made at the same time on the same thing. But phantasia is
understood to be that which is impressed, and formed, and imprinted by a real object,
according to a real object, in such a way as it could not be by any other than a real
object; and, according to their ideas of the phantasiai, some are sensible, and
some are not. Those they call sensible, which are derived by us from some one or more
senses; and those they call not sensible, which emanate directly from the thought, as for
instance, those which relate to incorporeal objects, or any others which are embraced by
reason. Again, those which are sensible, are produced by a 278>] real object, which
imposes itself on the intelligence, and compels its acquiescence; and there are also some
others, which are simply apparent, mere shadows, which resemble those which are produced
by real objects.
Again, these phantasiai are divided into rational and
irrational; those which are rational belong to animals capable of reason; those which are
irrational to animals destitute of reason. Those which are rational are thoughts; those
which are irrational have no name; but are again subdivided into artificial and not
artificial. At all events, an image is contemplated in a different light by a man skilful
in art, from that in which it is viewed by a man ignorant of art.
By sensation, the Stoics understand a species of breath which proceeds
from the dominant portion of the soul to the senses, whether it be a sensible perception,
or an organic disposition, which, according to the notions of some of them, is crippled
and vicious. They also call sensation the energy, or active exercise, of the sense.
According to them, it is to sensation that we owe our comprehension of white and black,
and rough and smooth: from reason, that we derive the notions which result from a
demonstration, those for instance which have for their object the existence of Gods, and
of Divine Providence. For all our thoughts are formed either by indirect perception, or by
similarity, or analogy, or transposition, or combination, or opposition. By a direct
perception, we perceive those things which are the objects of sense; by similarity, those
which start from some point present to our senses; as, for instance, we form an idea of
Socrates from his likeness. We draw our conclusions by analogy, adopting either an
increased idea of the thing, as of Tityus, or the Cyclops; or a diminished idea, as of a
pigmy. So, too, the idea of the centre of the world was one derived by analogy from what
we perceived to be the case of the smaller spheres. We use transposition when we fancy
eyes in a mans breast; combination, when we take in the idea of a Centaur;
opposition, when we turn our thoughts to death. Some ideas we also derive from comparison,
for instance, from a comparison of words and places.
There is also nature; as by nature we comprehend what is just and good. And privation,
when for instance, we form a notion of a man without hands. Such are the doctrines of
[279>] the Stoics, on the subject of phantasia, and sensation, and thought.
XXXVII. They say that the proper criterion of truth is the
comprehension, phantasia; that is to say, one which is derived from a real object,
as Chrysippus asserts in the twelfth book of his Physics; and he is followed by Antipater
and Apollodorus. For Boethius leaves a great many criteria, such as intellect, sensation,
appetite, and knowledge; but Chrysippus dissents from his view, and in the first book of
his treatise on Reason, says, that sensation and preconception are the only criteria. And
preconception is, according to him, a comprehensive physical notion of general principles.
But others of the earlier Stoics admit right reason as one criterion of the truth; for
instance, this is the opinion of Posidonius, and is advanced by him in his essay on
XXXVIII. On the subject of logical speculation, there appears to be a
great unanimity among the greater part of the Stoics, in beginning with the topic of the
voice. Now voice is a percussion of the air; or, as Diogenes the Babylonian, defines it,
in his essay on the Voice, a sensation peculiar to the hearing. The voice of a beast is a
mere percussion of the air by some impetus: but the voice of a man is articulate, and is
emitted by intellect, as Diogenes lays it down, and is not brought to perfection in a
shorter period than fourteen years. And the voice is a body according to the Stoics; for
so it is laid down by Archidemus, in his book on the Voice, and by Diogenes, and
Antipater, and also by Chrysippus, in the second volume of his Physics. For everything
which makes anything, is a body; and the voice makes something when it proceeds to those
who hear from those who speak.
A word (lexis), again, is, according to Diogenes, a voice consisting of letters,
as "Day." A sentence (logos) is a significant voice, sent out by the
intellect, as for instance, "It is day;" but dialect is a peculiar style
imprinted on the utterance of nations, according to their race; and causes varieties in
the Greek language, being a sort of local habit, as for instance, the Attics say thalatta,
and the lonians say hêmerê. The elements of words are the twenty-four letters and
the word letter is used in a triple division of sense, meaning the element itself, the
graphical sign of the element, and the name, as Alpha. There are seven vowels, a, e,
ê, i, o, u, ô; six mutes, b, g, d, k, p, t. But voice is different from
[280>] a word, because voice is a sound; but a word is an articulate sound. And a word
differs from a sentence, because a sentence is always significative of something, but a
word by itself has no signification, as for instance, blitri:. But this is not the
case with a sentence. Again, there is a difference between speaking and pronouncing; the
sounds are pronounced, but what are spoken are things which are capable of being spoken
XXXIX. Now of sentences there are five parts, as Diogenes tells us in
his treatise on Voice; and he is followed by Chrysippus. There is the noun, the common
noun, the verb, the conjunction, and the article. Antipater adds also quality, in his
treatise upon Words and the things expressed by them. And a common noun (prosêgoria)
is, according to Diogenes, a part of a sentence signifying a common quality, as for
instance, man, horse. But a noun is a part of a sentence signifying a peculiar quality,
such as Diogenes, Socrates. A verb is a part of a sentence signifying an uncombined
categorem, as Diogenes (ho Diogenês) or, as others define it, an element of a
sentence, devoid of case, signifying something compound in reference to some person or
persons, as, "I write," "I say." A conjunction is a part of a sentence
destitute of case, uniting the divisions of the sentence. An article is an element of a
sentence, having cases, defining the genders of nouns and their numbers; as ho, hê,
to, hoi, hai, ta.
XL. The excellences of a sentence are five,good Greek, clearness,
conciseness, suitableness, elegance. Good Greek (Hellênismos) is a correct style,
according to art, keeping aloof from any vulgar form of expression; clearness is a style
which states that which is conceived in the mind in such a way that it is easily known:
conciseness is a style which embraces all that is necessary to the clear explanation of
the subject under. discussion; suitableness is a style suited to the subject; elegance is
a style which avoids all peculiarity of expression. Of the vices of a sentence, on the
other hand, barbarism is a use of words contrary to that in vogue among the well-educated
Greeks; solecism is a sentence incongruously put together.
XLI. A poetical expression is, as Posidonius defines it in his
introduction on Style, "A metrical or rhythmical diction, proceeding in preparation,
and avoiding all resemblance to prose." For instance, "The vast and boundless
earth," "Th expanse of heaven," are rhythmical expressions; and
[281>] poetry is a collection of poetical expressions signifying something, containing
an imitation of divine and human beings.
XLII. A definition is, as Antipater explains it in the first book of
his treatise on Definitions, a sentence proceeding by analysis enunciated in such a way as
to give a complete idea; or, as Chrysippus says in his treatise on Definitions, it is the
explanation of an idea. Description is a sentence which, in a figurative manner, brings
one to a knowledge of the subject, or it may be called a simpler kind of definition,
expressing the power of a definition in plainer language. Genus is a comprehending of many
ideas indissolubly connected, as animal; for this one expression comprehends all
particular kinds of animals. An idea is an imagination of the mind which does not express
actually anything real, or any quality, but only a quasi reality and a quasi quality;
such, for instance, is the idea of a horse when a horse is not present. Species is that
which is comprehended under genius, as man is comprehended under animal.
Again, that is the most general genus which, being a genus itself, has
no other genus, as the existent. And that is the most special species, which being a
species has no other species, as, for instance, Socrates.
XLIII. The division of genus is a dissection of it into the proximate
species; as, for instance, "Of animals, some are rational, others irrational."
Contrary division is the dissection of genus into species on the principle of the
contrary; so as to be by a sort of negation; as, for instance, "Of existent things,
some are good and some not good;" and, "Of things which arc not good, some are
bad and some indifferent." Partition is an arrangement of a genus with reference to
place, as Crinis says, for instance, "Of goods, some have reference to the mind and
some to the body."
XLIV. Ambiguity (amphibolia) is an expression signifying two or
more things having an ordinary or a peculiar meaning, according to the pronunciation, in
such a way that more things than one may be understood by the very same expression. Take,
for instance, the words aulêtris peptôke. For you may understand by them, a house
has fallen down three times (aulêtris peptôke), or, a female flute-player
has fallen, taking aulêtris as synonymous with aulêtria.
LV. Dialectics are, as Posidonius explains them, the science [282>] of what is true
and false, and neither one or the other, and it is, as Chrysippus explains it, conversant
about words that signify and things that are signified; these then are the doctrines
asserted by the Stoics in their speculations on the subject of the voice.
XLVI. But in that part of dialectics which concerns things and ideas
signified, they treat of propositions, of perfect enunciations, of judgments, of
syllogisms, of imperfect enunciations, of attributes and deficiencies, and of both direct
and indirect categorems or predicaments.
XLVII. And they say that enunciation is the manifestation of the ideal
perception; and these enunciations the Stoics pronounce some to be perfect in themselves,
and some to be defective; now those are defective, which furnish an incomplete sense, as
for instance, "He writes." For then we ask further, "Who writes?" But
those are perfect in themselves, which give a sense entirely complete, as for instance,
" Socrates writes." Accordingly, in the defective enunciations, categorems are
applied; but in those which are perfect in themselves, axioms,. and syllogisms, and
questions, and interrogations, are brought into play. Now a categorem is something which
is predicated of something else, being either a thing which is added to one or more
objects, according to the definition of Apollodorus, or else a defective enunciation added
to the nominative case, for the purpose of forming a proposition.
Now of categorems, some are accidents . . . . as for instance,
"The sailing through a rock." . . . . And of categorems, some are direct, some
indirect, and some neither one nor the other. Now those are correct, which are construed
with one of the oblique cases, in such a manner as to produce a categorem, as for
instance, "He hears, he sees, he converses." And those are indirect, which are
construed with the passive voice, as for instance, "I am heard, I am seen."
[283>] And those which are neither one nor the other, are those which are construed in
a neutral kind of manner, as for instance, "To think, to walk." And those are
reciprocal, which are among the indirect ones, with out being indirect themselves. Those
are effects, energêmata, which are such words as, "He is shaved;" for
then, the man who is shaved, implies himself.
The oblique cases, are the genitive, the dative, and the accusative.
XLVIII. An axiom, is that thing which is true, or false, or perfect in
itself, being asserted, or denied positively, as far as depends upon itself; as Chrysippus
explains it in his Dialectic Definitions; as for instance, "It is day,"
"Dion is walking." And it has received the name of axiom, axiôma,
because it is either maintained, axioutai, or repudiated. For the man who says,
"It is day," appears to maintain the fact of its being day. If then it is day,
the axiom put before one is true; but if it is not day, the axiom is false. And an axiom,
a question, and an interrogation, differ from one another, and so does an imperative
proposition from one which is adjurative, or imprecatory, or hypothetical, or appellative,
or false. For that is an axiom which we utter, when we affirm anything positively, which
is either true or false. And a question is a thing complete in itself, as also is an
axiom, but which requires an answer, as for instance, " Is it day?" Now this is
neither true nor false; but, as "It is day" is an axiom; so is, "Is
it day?" a question. But an interrogation, tusma, is a thing to which it is
not possible to make an answer symbolically, as in the case of a question erôtêma,
saying merely "Yes," but we must reply, "He does live in this place."
The imperative proposition is a thing which we utter when we give an
order, as for instance this
Do you now go to the sweet stream of Inachus.
[This line is from the Inachus of Sophocles, (one of his lost plays).]
The appellative proposition is one which is used in the ease in which, when a man says
anything, he must address somebody, as for instance :
Atridos, glorious king of men,
Most mighty Agamemnon.
[Homer, Illiad, ii, 484]
A false judgment is a proposition, which, while it has at the [284>] same time the
appearance of a real judgment, loses this:character by the addition, and under the
influence of, some particle, as for instance
The Parthenon at least is beautiful.
How like the herdsman is to Priams Sons.
There is also the dubitative proposition, which differs from the judgment, inasmuch as
it is always uttered in the form of a doubt; as for instance:
Are not, then, grief and life two kindred states?
[This line is from, the Citharista of Menander.]
But questions, and interrogations, and things like these, are neither true nor false,
while judgments and propositions are necessarily one or the other.
Now of axioms, some are simple, and others are not simple; as
Chrysippus, and Archedemus, and Athenodorus, and Antipater, and Crinis, agree in dividing
them. Those are simple, which consist of an axiom or proposition, which is not ambiguous,
(or of several axioms, or propositions of the same character,) as for instance the
sentence, "It is day." And; those are not simple, which consist of an axiom or
proposition; which is ambiguous, or of several axioms or propositions of that character.
Of an axiom, or proposition, which is ambiguous, as "If it is day;" of several
axioms, or propositions of that character, as, "If it is day, it is light."
And simple propositions are divided into the affirmative, the negative, the privative,
the categorical, the definite, and the indefinite; those which are not simple, are divided
into the combined, and the adjunctive, the connected and the disjunctive, and the causal
and the augmentative, and the diminutive. That is an affirmative proposition, "It is
not day." And the species of this is doubly affirmative. That again is doubly
affirmative, which is affirmative of an affirmative, as for instance, "It is not not
day;" for this amounts to, "It is day." That is a negative proposition,
which consists of a negative particle and a categorem, as for instance, "No one is
walking." That is a privative proposition which consists of a privative particle and
an axiom according to power, as "This man is inhuman." That is a categorical
proposition, which consists of a nominative case and a categorem, as for instance,
"Dion is walking." That is a definite proposition, [285>] which consists of a
demonstrative nominative case and a categorem, as for instance, "This man is
walking." That is an indefinite one which consists of an indefinite particle, or of
indefinite particles, as for instance, " Somebody is walking," "Re is
Of propositions which are not simple, the combined proposition is, as
Chrysippus states, in his Dialectics, and Diogenes, too, in his Dialectic Art; that which
is held together by the copulative conjunction "if." And this conjunction
professes that the second member of the sentence follows the first, as for instance,
"If it is day, it is light." That which is adjunctive is, as Crinis states in
his Dialectic Art, an axiom which is made to depend on the conjunction "since" (epei),
beginning with an axiom and ending in an axiom, as for instance, "Since it is day, it
is light." And this conjunction professes both that the second portion of the
proposition follows the first, and the first is true. That is a connected proposition
which is connected by some copulative conjunctions, as for instance, "It both is day,
and it is light." That is a disjunctive proposition which is disconnected by the
disjunctive conjunction, "or" (êtoi) as for instance, "It is either
day or night." And this proposition professes that one or other of these propositions
is false. That is a causal proposition which is connected by the word,
"because;" as for instance, "Because it is day, it is light." For the
first is, as it were, the cause of the second. That is an augmentative proposition, which
explains the greater, which is construed with an augmentative particle, and which is
placed between the two members of the proposition, as for instance, "It is rather day
than night." The diminutive proposition is, in every respect, the exact contrary of
the preceding one; as for instance, "It is less night than day." Again, at
times, axioms or propositions are opposed to one another in respect of their truth and
falsehood, when one is an express denial of the other; as for instance, "It is
day," and, "It is not day."
Again, a conjunctive proposition is correct, when it is such that the opposite of the
conclusion is contradictory of the premise; as for instance, the proposition, "If it
is day, it is light," is true; for, "It is not light," which is the
opposite to the conclusion expressed, is contradictory to the premise, "It is
day." And a conjunctive proposition is incorrect, when it [286>] is such that the
opposite of the conclusion is not inconsistent with the premise, as for instance, "
If it is day, Dion is walking." For the fact that Dion is not walking, is not
contradictory of the premise, "It is day."
An adjunctive proposition is correct, which begins with a true premise,
and ends in a consequence which follows of necessity, as for instance, "Since it is
day, the sun is above the earth." But it is incorrect when it either begins with a
false premise, or ends with a consequence which does not follow properly; as for instance,
"Since it is night, Dion is walking," for this may be said in the day-time.
A causal proposition is correct, when it begins with a true premise,
and ends in a consequence which necessarily follows from it, but yet does not have its
premise reciprocally consequent upon its conclusion; as for instance, "Because it is
day, it is light." For the fact of its being light, is a necessary consequence of its
being day; but the fact of its being day, is not necessarily a consequence of its being
light. A causal proposition is incorrect, which either begins with a false premise, or
ends with a conclusion that does not follow from it, or which has a premise which does not
correspond to the conclusion; as for instance, "Because it is night, Dion is
A proposition is persuasive, which leads to the assent of the mind, as
for instance, "If she brought him forth, she is his mother." But still this is a
falsehood, for a hen is not the mother of an egg. Again, there are some propositions which
are possible, and some which are impossible; and some which are necessary, and some which
are not necessary. That is possible, which is capable of being true, since external
circumstances are no hindrance to its being true; as for instance, "Diocles
lives." And that is impossible which is not capable of being true; as for instance,
"The earth flies." That is necessary which, being true, is not capable of being
false; or perhaps is intrinsically capable of being false, but still has external
circumstances which hinder its being false, as for instance, "Virtue profits a
man." That again, is not necessary, which is true, but which has a capacity of being
false, though external circumstances offer no hindrance to either alternative; as for
instance, "Dion walks."
That is a reasonable or probable proposition, which has a [287>]
great preponderance of opportunities in favour of its being true; as for instance, "I
shall be alive to-morrow." And there are other different kinds of propositions and
conversions of them, from true to false, and reconversions again; concerning which we must
speak at some length.
XLIX. An argument, as Criuis says, is that which is composed of a lemma
or major premise, an assumption or minor premise, and a conclusion; as for instance this,
"If it is day, it is light;" "But it is day, therefore it is light."
For the lemma, or major premise, is, "If it is day, it is light." The
assumption, or minor premise, is, "It is day." The conclusion follows,
"Therefore it is light." The mode of a proposition is, as it were, a figure of
an argument, as for instance, such as this, "If it is the first, it is the second ; but it is the first, therefore it is the second."
A conditional syllogism is that which is composed of both the preceding
arguments; as for instance, "If Plato is alive, Plato breathes; but the first fact is
so, therefore so is the second." And this conditional syllogism has been introduced
for the sake, in long and complex sentences, of not being forced to repeat the assumption,
as it was a long one, and also the conclusion; but of being able, instead, to
content ones self with summing it up briefly thus, "The first case put is true,
therefore so is the second."
Of arguments, some are conclusive, others are inconclusive. Those are
inconclusive which are such, that the opposite of the conclusion drawn in them is not
necessarily incompatible with the connection of the premises. As for instance, such
arguments as these, " If it is day, it is light; but it is day, therefore,
Dion is walking." But of conclusive arguments, some are called properly by the
kindred name conclusions, and some are called syllogistic arguments. Those then are
syllogistic which are either such as do not admit of demonstration, or such as are brought
to an indemonstrable conclusion, according to some one or more propositions; such for
instance as the following: "If Dion walks, then Dion is in motion." Those are
conclusive, which infer their conclusion specially, and not syllogistically; such
for instance, as this, "The proposition it is both day and night is false. Now it is
day; therefore, it is not night."
Those again, are unsyllogistic arguments which have an air [288>] of
probability about them, and a resemblance to syllogistic ones, but which still do not lead
to the deduction of proper. conclusions. As for instance, "If Dion is a horse, Dion
is an animal; but Dion is not a horse, therefore, Dion is not an animal."
Again, of arguments, some are true, and some are false. Those are true
which deduce a conclusion from true premises, as, for instance, "If virtue profits,
then vice injures." And those are false which have some falsehood in their premises,
or which are inconclusive; as, for instance, "If it is day, it is light; but it is
day, therefore, Dion is alive."
There are also arguments which are possible, and others which are
impossible; some likewise which are necessary, and others which are not necessary. There
are too, some which are not demonstrated from their not standing in need of demonstration,
and these are laid down differently by different people; but Chrysippus enumerates
five kinds, which serve as the foundation for every kind of argument; and which are
assumed in conclusive arguments properly so called, and in syllogisms, and in modes.
The first kind that is not demonstrated, is that in which the whole argument consists
of a conjunctive and an antecedent; and in which the first term repeats itself so as to
form a sort of conjunctive proposition, and to bring forward as the conclusion the last
term. As, for instance, "If the first be true, so is the second; but the first is
true, therefore, so is the second." The second kind that is not demonstrated, is that
which, by means of the conjunctive and the opposite of the conclusion, has a conclusion
opposite to the first premise. As, for instance, "If it be day, it is light; but it
is night, therefore it is not day." For here the assumption arises from the opposite
of the conclusion, and the conclusion from the opposite of the first term. The third kind
that is not demonstrative, is that which, by a negative combination, and by one of the
terms in the proposition, produces the contradictory of the remainder; as, for instance,
"Plato is not dead and alive at the same time but Plato is dead; therefore, Plato is
not alive." The fourth kind that is not demonstrative, is that which, by means of a
disjunctive, and one of those terms which are in the disjunctive, has a conclusion
opposite to what remains; as, for instance, "It is either the first, or the second:
but it [289>] is the first; therefore, it is not the second." The fifth kind that
is not demonstrative, is that in which the whole argument consists of a disjunctive
proposition, and the opposite of one of the terms, and then one makes the conclusion
identical with the remainder; as, for instance, "It is either day or night but it is
not night; therefore it is day."
According to the Stoics, truth follows upon truth, as "It is
light," follows upon "It is day." And falsehood follows upon falsehood; as,
"If it is false that it is night, it is also false that it is dark." Sometimes
too, truth follows from falsehood; for instance, though it is false that "the earth
flies," it is true that "there is the earth." But falsehood does never
follow from truth; for, from the fact that "there is the earth," it does not
follow "that the earth flies."
There are also some arguments which are perplexed, being veiled and
escaping notice; or such as are called sorites, the horned one, or the nobody. That is a
veiled argument* which resembles the following one; "two are not a few, nor
three, nor those, nor four, and so on to ten; but two are few; therefore, so are ten
few." [* It would appear that there is a considerable hiatus here; for the instance
following is a sorites, and not a specimen of the veiled argument. And there is no
instance given of the concealed, or of the horned one. Still, the mere fact of the text
being unintelligible, is far from proving that we have not got it as Diogenes wrote it; as
though in the language of the writer in Smiths Biographical Dictionary, vol. i. pp.
1022, 1023, "the work contains a rich store of living features, which serve to
illustrate the private life of the Greeks," it is equally clear that the author
"was unequal to writing a history of Greek philosophy. His work in reality is nothing
but a compilation of the most heterogeneous and often contradictory accounts
traces of carelessness and mistakes are very numerous; much in the work is confused, and
there is also much that is quite absurd. And as far as philosophy itself is concerned,
Diogenes very frequently did not know what he was talking about when he abridged the
theories of the philosophers."]
The nobody is a conjunctive argument, and one that consists of the
indefinite and the definite, and which has a minor premise and a conclusion; as, for
instance, "If any one is here, he is not in Rhodes."
L. Such then are the doctrines which the Stoics maintain on the subject of logic, in
order as far as possible to establish their point that the logician is the only wise man.
For they assert that all affairs are looked at by means of that speculation [290>]
which proceeds by argument, including under this assertion both those that belong to
natural aud also those which belong to moral philosophy for, say they, how else could one
determine the exact value of nouns, or how else could one explain what laws are imposed
upon such and such actions? Moreover, as there are two habits both incidental to virtue,
the one considers what each existing thing is, and the other inquires what it is called.
These then are the notions of the Stoics on the subject of logic.
LI. The ethical part of philosophy they divide into the topic of
inclination, the topic of good and bad, the topic of the passions, the topic of virtue,
the topic of the chief good, and of primary estimation, and of actions; the topic of what
things are becoming, and of exhortation and dissuasion. And this division is the one laid
down by Chrysippus, and Archedemus, and Zeno, of Tarsus, and Apollodorus, and Diogenes,
and Antipater, and Posidonius. For Zeno, of Cittium, and Cleanthes, have, as being more
ancient they were likely to, adopted a more simple method of treating these subjects. But
these men divided logical and the natural philosophy.
LII. They say that the first inclination which an animal has is to
protect itself, as nature brings herself to take an interest in it from the beginning, as
Chrysippus affirms in the first book of his treatise on Ends; where he says, that the
first and dearest object to every animal is its own existence, and its consciousness of
that existence. For that it is not natural for any animal to be alienated from itself, or
even to be brought into such a state as to be indifferent to itself, being neither
alienated from nor interested in itself. It remains, therefore, that we must assert that
nature has bound the animal to itself by the greatest unanimity and affection for by that
means it repels all that is injurious, and attracts all that is akin to it and desirable.
But as for what some people say, that the first inclination of animals is to pleasure,
they say what is false. For they say that pleasure, if there be any such thing at all, is
an accessory only, which, nature, having sought it out by itself, as well as these things
which are adapted to its constitution, receives incidentally in the same manner as animals
are pleased, and plants made to flourish.
Moreover, say they, nature makes no difference between [291>] animals and plants,
when she regulates them. so as to leave them without voluntary motion or sense; and some
things too take place in ourselves in the same manner as in plants. But, as inclination in
animals tends chiefly to the point of making them pursue what is appropriate to them, we
may say that their inclinations are regulated by nature. And as reason is given to
rational animals according to a more perfect principle, it follows, that to live correctly
according to reason, is properly predicated of those who live according to nature. For
nature is as it were the artist who produces the inclination.
LIII. On which account Zeno was the first writer who, in his treatise
on the Nature of Man, said, that the chief good was confessedly to live according to
nature; which is to live according to virtue, for nature leads us to this point. And in
like manner Cleanthes speaks in his treatise on Pleasure, and so do Posidonius and Hecaton
in their essays on Ends as the Chief Good. And again, to live according to virtue is the
same thing as living according to ones experience of those things which happen by
nature; as Chrysippus explains it in the first book of his treatise on the Chief Good. For
our individual natures are all parts of universal nature; on which account the chief good
is to live in a manner corresponding to nature, and that means corresponding to ones
own nature and to universal nature; doing none of those things which the common law of
mankind is in the habit of forbidding, and that common law is identical with that right
reason which pervades everything, being the same with Jupiter, who is the regulator and
chief manager of all existing things.
Again, this very thing is the virtue of the happy man and the perfect happiness of life
when everything is done according to a harmony with the genius of each individual with
reference to the will of the universal governor and manager of all things. Diogenes,
accordingly, says expressly that the chief good is to act according to sound reason in our
selection of things according to our nature. And Archidemus defines it to be living in the
discharge of all becoming duties. Chrysippus again understands that the nature, in a
manner corresponding to which we ought to live, is both the common nature, and also human
nature in particular; but Cleanthes will not admit of any other nature than the common one
alone, as that to which people ought to live in a manner corresponding; and re- [293>]
pudiates all mention of a particular nature. And he asserts that virtue is a disposition
of the mind always consistent and always harmonious; that one ought to seek it out for its
own sake, without being influenced by fear or hope by any external influence. Moreover,
that it is in it that happiness consists, as producing in the soul the harmony of a life
always consistent with itself; and that if a rational animal goes the wrong way, it is
because it allows itself to be misled by the deceitful appearances of exterior things, or
perhaps by the instigation of those who surround it; for nature herself never gives us any
but good inclinations.
LIV. Now virtue is, to speak generally, a perfection in everything, as
in the case of a statue; whether it is invisible as good health, or speculative as
prudence. For Hecaton says, in the first book of his treatise on Virtues, that the
scientific and speculative virtues are those which have a constitution arising from
speculation and study, as, for instance, prudence and justice; and that those which are
not speculative are those which are generally viewed in their extension as a practical
result or effect of the former; such for instance, as health and strength. Accordingly,
temperance is one of the speculative virtues, and it happens that good health usually
follows it, and is marshalled as it were beside it; in the same way as strength follows
the proper structure of an arch. And the unspeculative virtues derive their name
from the fact of their not proceeding from any acquiescence reflected by intelligence; but
they are derived from others, are only accessories, and are found even in worthless
people, as in the case of good health, or courage. And Posidonius, in the first hook of
his treaties on Ethics, says that the great proof of the reality of virtue is that
Socrates, and Diogenes, and Antisthenes, made great improvement; and the great proof of
the reality of vice may be found in the fact of its being opposed to virtue.
Again, Chrysippus, in the first book of his treatise on the Chief Good, and Cleanthes,
and also Posidonius in his Exhortations, and Hecaton, all agree that virtue may be taught.
And that they are right, and that it may be taught, is plain from men becoming good after
having been bad. On this account Panaetius teaches that there are two virtues, one
speculative and the other practical; but others make three kinds, the logical, the
natural, and the ethical. Posidonius [293>] divides virtue into four divisions; and
Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and Antipater make the divisions more numerous still; for
Apollophanes asserts that there is but one virtue, namely, prudence.
Among the virtues some are primitive [viz., primary] and some are
derived. The primitive ones are prudence, manly courage, justice, and temperance. And
subordinate to these, as a kind of species contained in them, are magnanimity, continence,
endurance, presence of mind, wisdom in council. And the Stoics define prudence as a
knowledge of what is good, and bad, and indifferent; justice as a knowledge of what ought
to be chosen, what ought to be avoided, and what is indifferent; magnanimity as a
knowledge of engendering a lofty habit, superior to all such accidents as happen to all
men indifferently, whether they be good or bad; continence they consider a disposition
which never abandons right reason, or a habit which never yields to pleasure; endurance
they call a knowledge or habit by which we understand what we ought to endure, what we
ought not, and what is indifferent; presence of mind they define as a habit which is
prompt at finding out what is suitable on a sudden emergency; and wisdom in counsel they
think a knowledge which leads us to judge what we are to do, and how we are to do it, in
order to act becomingly. And analogously, of vices too there are some which are primary,
and some which are subordinate; as, for instance, folly, and cowardice, and injustice, and
intemperance, are among the primary vices ; incontinence, slowness, and folly in counsel
among the subordinate ones. And the vices are ignorance of those things of which the
virtues are the knowledge.
LV. Good, looked at in a general way, is some advantage, with the more particular
distinction, being partly what is actually useful, partly what is not contrary to utility.
On which account virtue itself and the good which partakes of virtue are spoken of in a
threefold view of the subject. First, as to what kind of good it is, and from what it
ensues; as, for instance, in an action done according to virtue. Secondly, as to the
agent, in the case of a good man who partakes of virtue.
* * * * *
[The third point of view is wanting; and those that are given appear to
be ill selected. The French translator, following the hint of Huebner, gives the following
passage from Sextus Empiricus (a physician of the Sceptic school, about b.c. 250), in his
work against the Philosophers, which he says may serve to rectify and complete the
statement of Diogenes Laertins. "Good is said, in one sense of that which produces
the useful, or from which the useful results; that is, the good per excellence, virtue.
For virtue is as it were the source from which all utility naturally flows. In another
sense it is said of that which is accidentally the cause of utility; under this point of
view we call good not only virtue, but also those actions which are conformable to virtue,
for they are accidentally useful. In the third and last place, we call good everything
that possibly can be useful, comprehending under this definition virtue, virtuous actions,
friends, good men, the Gods, &c., &c."] [294>]
At another time, they define the good in a peculiar manner, as being
what is perfect according to the nature of a rational being as rational being. And,
secondly, they say that it is conformity to virtue, se that all actions which partake of
virtue, and all good men, are themselves in some sense the good. And in the third place,
they speak of its accessories, joy, and mirth, and things of that kind. In the same manner
they speak of vices, which they divide into folly, cowardice, injustice., and things of
that hind. And they consider that these things which partake of vices, and actions done
according to vice, and bad men, are themselves in some sense the evil; and its accessories
are despondency, and melancholy, and other things of that kind.
LVI. Again, of goods, some have reference to the mind, and some are
external; and some neither have reference to the mind, nor are external. The goods having
reference to the mind are virtues, and actions according to the virtues. The external
goods are the having a virtuous country, a virtuous friend, and the happiness of
ones country and friend. And these which are not external, and which have no
reference to the mind, are such as a mans being virtuous and happy to himself. And
reciprocally, of evils, some have reference to the mind, such as the vices and actions
according to them; some are external, such as having a foolish country, or a foolish
friend, or ones country or ones friend being unhappy. And these evils which
are net external, and which have no reference to the mind, are suck as a mans being
worthless and unhappy to himself.
LVII. Again, of goods, some are final, some are efficient, and some are
both final and efficient. For instance, a friend, [295>] and the services done by him
to one, are efficient goods; but courage, and prudence, and liberty, and delight, and
mirth, and freedom from pain, and all kinds of actions done according to virtue, are final
goods. There are too, as I said before, some goods which are both efficient and final; for
inasmuch as they produce perfect happiness they are efficient, and inasmuch as they
complete it by being themselves parts of it, they are final. And in the same way, of
evils, some are final, and some efficient, and some partake of both natures. For instance,
an enemy and the injuries done to one by him, are efficient evils; fear, meanness of
condition, slavery, want of delight, depression of spirits, excessive grief, and all
actions done according to vice, are final evils ; and some partake or both characters,
since, inasmuch as they produce perfect unhappiness, they are efficient; and inasmuch as
they complete it in such a way as to become parts of it, they are final.
LVIII. Again, of the goods which have reference to the mind, some are
habits, some are dispositions, and some are neither habits nor dispositions. Dispositions
are virtues, habits are practices, and those which are neither habits nor dispositions are
energies. And, speaking generally, the following may be called mixed goods: happiness in
ones children, and a happy old age. But knowledge is a pure good. And some goods are
continually present, such as virtue; and some are not always present, as joy, or taking a
LIX. But every good is expedient, and necessary, and profitable, and
useful, and serviceable, and beautiful, and advantageous, and eligible, and just.
Expedient. inasmuch as it brings us things, which by their happening to us do us good;
necessary, inasmuch as it assists us in what we have need to be assisted; profitable,
inasmuch as it repays all the care that is expended on it, and makes a return with
interest to our great advantage; useful, inasmuch as it supplies us with what is of
utility; serviceable, because it does us service which is much praised; beautiful, because
it is in accurate proportion to the need we have of it, and to the service it does.
Advantageous, inasmuch as it is of such a character as to confer advantage on us;
eligible, because it is such, that we may rationally choose it; and just, because it is in
accordance with law, and is an efficient cause of union.
And they call the honourable the perfect good, because it [296>] has naturally all
the numbers which are required by nature, and because it discloses a perfect harmony. Now,
the species of this perfect good are four in number: justice, manly courage, temperance,
and knowledge; for in these goods all beautiful actions have their accomplishment. And
analogously, there are also four species of the disgraceful: injustice, and cowardice, and
intemperance, and folly. And the honourable is predicated in one sense, as making these
who are possessed of it worthy of all praise; and in a second sense, it is used of what is
well adapted by nature for its proper work; and in another sense, when it expresses
that which adorns a man, as when we say that the wise man alone is good and honourable.
The Stoics also say, that the beautiful is the only good, as Hecaton
says, in the third book of his treatise on Goods, and Chrysippus asserts the same
principle in his essays on the Beautiful. And they say that this is virtue, and that which
partakes of virtue; and this assertion is equal to the other, that everything good is
beautiful, and that the good is an equivalent term to the beautiful, inasmuch as the one
thing is exactly equal to the other. For since it is good, it is beautiful; and it is
beautiful, therefore, it is good.
LX. But it seems that all goods are equal, and that every good is to be
desired in the highest degree, and that it admits of no relaxation, and of no extension.
Moreover, they divide all existing things into good, bad, and indifferent. The good are
the virtues, prudence, justice, manly courage, temperance, and the rest of the like
qualities. The bad are the contraries, folly, injustice, and the like. Those are
indifferent which are neither beneficial nor injurious, such as life, health, pleasure,
beauty, strength, riches, a good reputation, nobility of birth; and their contraries,
death, disease, labour, disgrace, weakness, poverty, a bad reputation, baseness of birth,
and the like; as Hecaton lays it down in the seventh book of his treatise on the Chief
Good; and he is followed by Apollodorus, in his Ethics, and by Chrysippus. For they affirm
that those things are not good but indifferent, though perhaps a little more near to one
species than to the other.
For, as it is the property of the hot to warm and not to chill one, so it is the
property of the good to benefit and not to injure one. Now, wealth and good health cannot
be said to benefit any more than to injure any one: therefore, neither [297>] wealth
nor good health are goods. Again, they say that that thing is not good which it is
possible to use both well and ill. But it is possible to make either a good or a bad use
of wealth, or of health; therefore, wealth and good health are not goods. Posidonius,
however, affirms that these things do come under the head of goods. But Hecaton, in the
nineteenth book of his treatise on Goods, and Chrysippus, in his treatises on Pleasure,
both deny that pleasure is a good. For they say that there are disgraceful pleasures, and
that nothing disgraceful is good. And that to benefit a person is to move him or to keep
him according to virtue, but to injure him is to move him or to keep him according to
They also assert, that things indifferent are so spoken of in a twofold
manner; firstly, those things are called so, which have no influence in producing either
happiness or unhappiness; such for instance, as riches, glory, health, strength, and the
like; for it is possible for a man to be happy without any of these things; and also, it
is upon the character of the use that is made of them, that happiness or unhappiness
depends. In another sense, those things are called indifferent, which do not excite any
inclination or aversion, as for instance, the fact of a mans having an odd or an
even number of hairs on his head, or his putting out or drawing back his finger; for it is
not in this sense that the things previously mentioned are called indifferent, for they do
excite inclination or aversion. On which account some of them are chosen, though there is
equal reason for preferring or shunning all the others.
LXI. Again, of things indifferent, they call some preferred (proêgmena),
and others rejected (apoproêgmena). Those are preferred, which have some proper
value (axian), and those are rejected, which have no value at all (apaxian
echonta). And by the term proper value, they mean that quality of things, which causes
them to concur in producing a well-regulated life; and in this sense, every good has a
proper value. Again, they say that a thing has value, when in some point of view, it has a
sort of intermediate power of aiding us to live conformably to nature; and under this
class, we may range riches or good health, if they give any assistance to natural life.
Again, value is predicated of the price which one gives for the attainment of an object,
which some one, [298>] who has experience of the object sought, fixes as its fair
price; as if we were to say, for instance, that as some wheat was to be exchanged for
barley, with a mule thrown in to make up the difference. Those goods then are preferred,
which have a value, as in the case of the mental goods, ability, skill, improvement, and
the like; and in the case of the corporeal goods, life, health, strength, a good
constitution, soundness, beauty; and in the case of external goods, riches, glory,
nobility of birth, and the like.
Rejected things are, in the case of qualities of the mind, stupidity,
unskilfulness, and the like; in the case of circumstances affecting the body, death,
disease, weakness, a bad constitution, mutilation, disgrace, and the like; in the case of
external circumstances, poverty, want of reputation, ignoble birth, and the like. But
those qualities and circumstances which are indifferent, are neither preferred nor
rejected. Again, of things preferred, some are preferred for their own sakes, some for the
sake of other things, and some partly for their own sakes and partly for that of other
things. Those which are preferred for their own sakes, are ability, improvement, and the
like; those which are preferred for the sake of other things, are wealth, nobility of
birth, and the like; those which are preferred partly for their own sake, and partly for
that of something else, are strength, vigour of the senses, universal soundness, and the
like; or they are preferred, for their own sakes, inasmuch as they are in accordance with
nature; and for the sake of something else, inasmuch as they are productive of no small
number of advantages; and the same is the case in the inverse ratio, with those things
which are rejected.
LXII. Again, they say that that is duty, which is preferred, and which
contains in itself reasonable arguments why we should prefer it; as for instance, its
corresponding to the nature of life itself; and this argument extends to plants and
animals, for even their nature is subject to the obligation of certain duties. And duty (to
kathêkon) had this name given to it by Zeno, in the first instance, its appellation
being derived from its coming to, or according to some people, apo tou kata tinas
hêkein; and its effect is something kindred to the preparations made by
nature. Now of the things done according to inclination, some are duties, and some are
contrary to duty; and some are neither duties nor contrary to duty, [299>] These are
duties, which reason selects to do, as for instance, to honour ones parents,
ones brothers, ones country, to gratify ones friends. These actions are
contrary to duty, which reason does not choose; as for instance, to neglect ones
parents, to be indifferent to ones brothers, to shirk assisting ones friends,
to be careless about the welfare of ones country, and se on. Those are neither
duties, nor contrary to duty, which reason neither selects to do, nor, on the other hand,
repudiates, such actions, for instance, as to pick up straw, to hold a pen, or a comb, or
things of that sort.
Again, there are some duties which do not depend on circumstances, and
some which do. These do not depend on circumstances, to take care of ones health,
and of the sound state of ones senses, and the like. Those which do depend on
circumstances, are the mutilation of ones members, the sacrificing of ones
property, and so on. And the case of these actions which are contrary to duty, is similar.
Again, of duties, some are always such, and some are not always. What is always a duty, is
to live in accordance with virtue; but to ask questions, to give answers, to walk, and the
like, are not always duties. And the same statement holds good with respect to acts
contrary to duty.
There is also a class of intermediate duties, such as the duty of boys
obeying their masters.
LXIII, The Stoics also say that the mind is divisible into eight parts;
for that the five organs of sensation, and the vocal power, and the intellectual power,
which is the mind itself, and the generative power, are all parts of the mind. But by
error, there is produced a perversion which operates on the intellect, from which many
perturbations arise, and many causes of inconstancy. And all perturbation is itself,
according to Zeno, a movement of the mind, or superfluous inclination, which is
irrational, and contrary to nature. Moreover, of the superior class of perturbations, as
Hecaton says, in the second book of his treatise on the Passions, and as Zeno also says in
his work on the Passions, there are four kinds, grief, fear, desire, and pleasure. And
they consider that these perturbations are judgments, as Chrysippus contends in his work
on the Passions; for covetousness is an opinion that money is a beautiful object, and in
like manner drunkenness and intemperance, and other things of the sort, are judg-
[300>] ments. And grief they define to be an irrational contraction of the mind, and it
is divided into the following species, pity, envy, emulation, jealousy, pain,
perturbation, sorrow, anguish, confusion. Pity is a grief over some one, on the ground of
his being in undeserved distress. Envy is a grief, at the good fortune of another.
Emulation is a grief at that belonging to some one else, which one desires ones
self. Jealousy is a grief at another also having what one has ones self. Pain is a
grief which weighs one down. Perturbation is grief which narrows one, and causes one to
feel in a strait. Sorrow is a grief arising from deliberate thought, which endures for
some time, and gradually increases. Anguish is a grief with acute pain. Confusion is an
irrational grief, which frets one, and prevents one from clearly discerning present
circumstances. But fear is the expectation of evil; and the following feelings are all
classed under the head of fear: apprehension, hesitation, shame, perplexity, trepidation,
and anxiety. Apprehension is a fear which produces alarm. Shame is a fear of discredit.
Hesitation is a fear of coming activity. Perplexity is a fear, from the imagination of
some unusual thing. Trepidation is a fear accompanied with an oppression of the voice.
Anxiety is a fear of some uncertain event.
Again, desire is an irrational appetite; to which head, the following
feelings are referable: want, hatred, contentiousness, anger, love, enmity, rage. Want is
a desire arising from our not having something or other, and is, as it were, separated
from the thing. but is still stretching, and attracted towards it in vain. And hatred is a
desire that it should be ill with some one, accompanied with a certain continual increase
and extension. Contentiousness is a certain desire accompanied I with deliberate choice.
Anger is a desire of revenge, on a person who appears to have injured one in an unbecoming
way. Love is a desire not conversant about a virtuous object, for it is an attempt to
conciliate affection, because of some beauty which is seen. Enmity is a certain anger of
long duration, and full of hatred, and it is a watchful passion, as is shown in the
For though we deem the short-livd fury past,
Tie sure the mighty will revenge at last.
[Homer Illiad I 81.]
But rage is anger at its commencement.
Again, pleasure is an irrational elation of the mind over something
which appears to be desirable; and its different species are enjoyment, rejoicing at evil,
delight, and extravagant joy. Enjoyment now, is a pleasure which charms the mind through
the ears. Rejoicing at evil (epichairekakia), is a pleasure which arises at
the misfortunes of others. Delight (terpsis) that is to say turning (trepsis),
is a certain turning of the soul (trotropê tis psychês), to softness. Extravagant
joy is the dissolution of virtue. And as there are said to he some sicknesses (arrhôstêmata)
in the body, as, for instance, gout and arthritic disorders; so too are those diseases of
the soul, such as a fondness for glory, or for pleasure, and other feelings of that sort.
For an arrhôstêma is a disease accompanied with weakness; and a disease is an
opinion of something which appears exceedingly desirable. And, as in the case of the body,
there are illnesses to which people are especially liable, such as colds or diarrhea; so
also are there propensities which the mind is under the influence of, such as enviousness,
pitifulness, quarrelsomeness, and so on.
There are also three good dispositions of the mind; joy, caution, and
will. And joy they say is the opposite of pleasure, since it is a rational elation of the
mind; so caution is the opposite of fear, being a rational avoidance of anything, for the
wise man will never be afraid, but he will act with caution; and will, they define as the
opposite of desire, since it is a rational wish. As therefore some things fall under the
class of the first perturbations, in the same manner do some things fall under the class
of the first good dispositions. And accordingly, under the head of will, are classed
goodwill, placidity, salutation, affection; and under the head of caution are ranged
reverence and modesty; under the head of joy, we speak of delight, mirth, and good
LXIV. They say also, that the wise man is free from perturbations,
because he has no strong propensities. But that this freedom from propensities also exists
in the bad man, being, however, then quite another thing, inasmuch as it proceeds in him
only from the hardness and unimpressibility of his nature. They also pronounce the wise
man free from vanity, since he regards with equal eye what is glorious and what is
inglorious. At the same time, they admit that there [302>] is another character devoid
of vanity, who, however, is only reckoned one of the rash men, being in fact the bad man.
They also say that all the virtuous men are austere, because they do never speak with
reference to pleasure, nor do they I listen to what is said by others with reference to
pleasure. At the same time, they call another man austere too, using the term in nearly
the same sense as they do when they speak of austere wine, which is used in compounding
medicines, but not for drinking.
They also pronounce the wise to be honest-hearted men, anxiously
attending to those matters which may make them better, by means of some principle which
conceals what is bad, and brings to light what is good. Nor is there any hypocrisy about
them; for they cut off all pretence in their voice and appearance. They also keep aloof
from business; for they guard carefully against doing any thing contrary to their duty.
They drink wine, but they do not get drunk; and they never yield to frenzy. Occasionally,
extraordinary imaginations may obtain a momentary power over them, owing to some
melancholy or trifling, arising not according to the principle of what is desirable, but
contrary to nature. Nor, again, will the wise man feel grief; because grief is an
irrational contraction of the soul, as Apollodorus defines it in his Ethics.
They are also, as they say, godlike; for they have something in them which is as it
were a God. But the bad man is an atheist. Now there are two kinds of atheists; one who
speaks in a spirit of hostility to, and the other, who utterly disregards, the divine
nature; but they admit that all bad men are not atheists in this last sense. The good, on
the contrary, are pious; for they have a thorough acquaintance with the laws respecting
the Gods. And piety is a knowledge of the proper reverence and worship due to the Gods.
Moreover they sacrifice to the Gods, and keep themselves pure; for they avoid all offences
having reference to the Gods, and the Gods admire them; for they are holy and just in all
that concerns the Deity; and the wise men are the only priests; for they consider the
matters relating to sacrifices, and the erection of temples, and purifications, and all
other things which peculiarly concern the Gods. They also pronounce that men are bound to
honour their parents, and their brethren, in the second place after the Gods. [303>]
They also say that parental affection for ones children is natural to them, and is a
feeling which does not exist in bad men. And they lay down the position that all offences
are equal, as Chrysippus argues in the fourth book of his Ethic Questions, and so say
Persaeus and Zeno. For if one thing that is true is not more true than another thing that
is true, neither is one thing that is false more false than another thing that is false;
so too, one deceit is not greater than another, nor one sin than another. For the man who
is a hundred furlongs from Canopus, and the man who is only one, are both equally not in
Canopus; and so too, he who commits a greater sin, and he who commits a less, are both
equally not in the right path.
Heraclides of Tarsus, indeed, the friend of Antipater, of Tarsus, and
Athenodorus, both assert that offences are not equal.
Again, the Stoics, as for instance, Chrysippus, in the first book of
his work on Lives, say, that the wise man will take a part in the affairs of the state, if
nothing hinders him. For that he will restrain vice, and excite men to virtue. Also, they
say that he will marry, as Zeno says in his Republic, and beget children. Moreover, that
the wise man will never form mere opinions, that is to say, he will never agree to
anything that is false; and that he will become a Cynic; for that Cynicism is a short path
to virtue, as Apollodorus calls it in his Ethics; that he will even eat human flesh, if
there should be occasion; that he is the only free man, and that the bad are
slaves; for that freedom is a power of independent action, but slavery a deprivation of
the same. That there is besides, another slavery, which consists in subjection, and a
third which consists in possession and subjection; the contrary of which is masterhood,
which is likewise bad.
And they say, that not only are the wise free, but that they are also kings, since
kingly power is an irresponsible dominion, which can only exist in the case of the wise
man, as Chrysippus says in his treatise on the Proper Application of his Terms made by
Zeno; for he says that a ruler ought to give decisions on good and evil, and that none of
the wicked understand these things. In the same way, they assert that they are the only
people who are fit to be magistrates or judges, or orators, and that none of the bad are
qualified for these tasks. Moreover, that they are free from all error, in [303>]
consequence of their not being prone to any wrong actions. Also, that they are unconnected
with injury, for that they never injure any one else, nor themselves. Also, that they are
not pitiful, and that they never make allowance for any one; for that they do not relax
the punishments appointed by law, since yielding, and pity, and mercifulness itself, never
exist in any of their souls, so as to induce an affectation of kindness in respect of
punishment; nor do they ever think any punishment too severe. Again, they say that the
wise man never wonders at any of the things which appear extraordinary; as for instance,
at the stories about Charon, or the ebbing of the tide, or the springs of hot water, or
the bursting forth of flames. But, say they further, the wise man will not live in
solitude; for he is by nature sociable and practical. Accordingly, he will take exercise
for the sake of hardening and invigorating his body. And the wise man will pray, asking
good things from the Gods, as Posidonius says in the first book of his treatise on Duties,
and Hecaton says the same thing in the thirteenth book of his treatise on Extra-ordinary
They also say, that friendship exists in the virtuous alone, on account
of their resemblance to one another. And they describe friendship itself as a certain
communion of the things which concern life, since we use our friends as ourselves. And
they assert that a friend is desirable for his own sake, and that a number of friends is a
good; and that among the wicked there is no such thing as friendship, and that no wicked
man can have a friend.
Again, they say that all the foolish are mad; for that they are not
prudent, and that madness is equivalent to folly in every one of its actions; but that the
wise man does everything properly, just as we say that Ismenias can play every piece of
flute-music well. Also, they say that everything belongs to the wise man, for that the law
has given them perfect and universal power; but some things also are said to belong to the
wicked, just in the same manner as some things are said to belong to the unjust, or as a
house is said to belong. to a city in a different sense from that in which a thing belongs
to the person who uses it.
LXV. And they say that virtues reciprocally follow one another, and that he who has one
has all; for that the precepts [305>] of them all are common, as Chrysippus affirms in
the first book of his treatise on Laws; and Apollodorus, in his Natural Philosophy,
according to the ancient system; and Hecaton, in the third book of his treatise on
Virtues. For they say that the man who is endued [viz., endowed] with virtue, is able to
consider and also to do what must be done. But what must be done must be chosen, and
encountered, and distributed, and awaited; so that if the man does some things by
deliberate choice, and some in a spirit of endurance, and some distributively, and some
patiently; he is prudent, and courageous, and just, and temperate. And each of the virtues
has a particular subject of its own, about which it is conversant; as, for instance,
courage is conversant about the things which must be endured; prudence is conversant about
what must be done and what must not, and what is of a neutral or indifferent character.
And in like manner, the other virtues are conversant about their own peculiar subjects;
and wisdom in counsel and shrewdness follow prudence; and good order and decorum follow
temperance; and equality and goodness of judgment follow justice; and constancy and energy
Another doctrine of the Stoics is, that there is nothing intermediate between virtue
and vice; while the Peripatetics assert that there is a stage between virtue and vice,
being an improvement on vice which has not yet arrived at virtue. For the Stoics say, that
as a stick must be either straight or crooked, so a man must be either just or unjust, and
cannot be more just than just, or more unjust than unjust; and that the same rule applies
to all cases. Moreover, Chrysippus is of opinion that virtue can be lost, but Cleanthes
affirms that it cannot; the one saying that it can be lost by drunkenness or melancholy,
the other maintaining that it cannot be lost on account of the thin perceptions which it
implants in men. They also pronounce it a proper object of choice; accordingly, we are
ashamed of actions which we do improperly, while we are aware that what is honourable is
the only good. Again, they affirm that it is of itself sufficient for happiness, as Zeno
says, and he is followed in this assertion by Chrysippus in the first book of his treatise
on Virtues, and by Hecaton in the second book of his treatise on Goods.
For if, says he, "magnanimity be sufficient of itself to enable us to act in a
manner superior to all other men; and [306>] if that is a part of virtue, then virtue
is of itself sufficient for happiness, despising all things which seem troublesome to
it." However, Panaetius and Posidonius do not admit that virtue has this sufficiency
of itself, but say that there is also need of good health, and competency, and strength.
And their opinion is that a man exercises virtue in everything, as Cleanthes asserts, for
it cannot be lost; and the virtuous man on every occasion exercises his soul, which is in
a state of perfection.
LXVI. Again, they say that justice exists by nature, and not because of
any definition or principle; just as law does, or right reason, as Chrysippus tells us in
his treatise on the Beautiful; and they think that one ought not to abandon philosophy on
account of the different opinions prevailing among philosophers, since on this principle
one would wholly quit life, as Posidonius argues in his Exhortatory Essays. Another
doctrine of Chrysippus is, that general learning is very useful.
And the School in general maintain that there are no obligations of
justice binding on us with reference to other animals, on account of their dissimilarity
to us, as Chrysippus asserts in the first book of his treatise on Justice, and the same
opinion is maintained by Posidonius in the first book of his treatise on Duty. They say
too, that the wise man will love those young men, who by their outward appearance, show a
natural aptitude for virtue; and this opinion is advanced by Zeno, in his Republic, and by
Chrysippus in the first book of his work on Lives, and by Apollodorus in his Ethics. And
they describe love as an endeavour to benefit a friend on account of his visible beauty;
and that it is an attribute not of acquaintanceship, but of friendship. Accordingly, that
Thrasmides, although he had his mistress in his power, abstained from her, because he was
hated by her. Love, therefore, according to them is a part of friendship, as Chrysippus
asserts in his essay on Love; and it is not blameable. Moreover, beauty is the flower of
And as there are three kinds of lives; the theoretical, the practical, and the logical;
they say that the last is the one which ought to be chosen. For that a logical, that is a
rational, animal was made by nature on purpose for speculation and action. And they say
that a wise man will very rationally take himself out of life, either for the sake of his
country or of [307>] his friends, or if he be in bitter pain, or under the affliction
of mutilation, or incurable disease. And they also teach that women ought to be in common
among the wise, so that whoever meets with any one may enjoy her, and this doctrine is
maintained by Zeno in his Republic, and by Chrysippus in his treatise on Polity, and by
Diogenes the Cynic, and by Plato; and then, say they, we shall love all boys equally after
the manner of fathers, and all suspicion on the ground of undue familiarity will be
They affirm too, that the best of political constitutions is a mixed
one, combined of democracy, and kingly power, and aristocracy. And they say many things of
this sort, and more too, in their Ethical Dogmas, and they maintain them by suitable
explanations and arguments. But this may be enough for us to say of their doctrines on
this head by way of summary, and taking them in an elementary manner.
LXVII. They divide natural philosophy into the topics of bodies, and of
principles, and of elements, and of Gods, and of boundaries, and of place, and of the
vacuum. And they make these divisions according to species; but according to genera they
divide them into three topics, that of the world, that of the elements, and the third is
that which reasons on causes. The topic about the world, they say, is subdivided into two
parts. For that in one point of view, the mathematicians also have a share in it; and
according to it it is that they prosecute their investigations into the nature of the
fixed stars and the planets; as, for instance, whether the sun is of such a size as he
appears to be, and similarly, whether the moon is; and in the same way they investigate
the question of spherical motion, and others of the same character. The other point of
view is that which is reserved exclusively for natural philosophers, according to which it
is that the existence and substance of things are examined, [for instance, whether the sun
and the stars consist of matter and form,] and whether the sun is born or not born,
whether it is living or lifeless, corruptible or incorruptible, whether it is regulated by
Providence, and other questions of this kind.
The topic which examines into causes they say is also divisible into two parts; and
with reference to one of its considerations, the investigations of physicians partake of
it; according to which it is that they investigate the dominant [308>] principle of the
soul, and the things which exist in the soul, and seeds, and things of this kind. And its
other division is claimed as belonging to them also by the mathematicians, as, for
instance, how we see, what is the cause of our appearance being reflected in a mirror, how
clouds are collected, how thunder is produced, and the rainbow, and the halo, and comets,
and things of that kind.
LXVIII. They think that there are two general principles in the
universe, the active and the passive That the passive is matter, an existence without any
distinctive quality. That the active is the reason which exists in the passive, that is to
say, God. For that he, being eternal, and existing through out all matter, makes
everything. And Zeno, the Cittiaean, lays down this doctrine in his treatise on Essence,
and so does Cleanthes in his essay on Atoms, Chrysippus in the first book of his
Investigations in Natural Philosophy, towards the end, Archedemus in his work on Elements,
and Posidonius in the second book of his treatise on Natural Philosophy. But they say that
principles and elements differ from one another. For that the one had no generation or
beginning, and will have no end; but that the elements maybe destroyed by the operation of
fire. Also, that the elements are bodies, but principles have no bodies and no forms, and
elements too have forms.
Now a body, says Apollodorus in his Natural Philosophy, is extended in
a threefold manner; in length, in breadth, in depth; and then it is called a solid body;
and the superficies is the limit of the body having length and breadth alone, but not
depth. But Posidonius, in the third book of his Heavenly Phaenomena, will not allow a
superficies either any substantial reality, or any intelligible existence. A line is the
limit of a superficies, or length without breadth, or something which has nothing hut
length. A point is the boundary of a line, and is the smallest of all symbols.
They also teach that God is unity, and that he is called Mind, and Fate, and Jupiter,
and by many other names besides. And that, as he was in the beginning by himself, he
turned into water the whole substance which pervaded the air, and as the seed is contained
in the produce, so too, he being the seminal principle of the world, remained behind
moisture, making matter fit to be employed by himself in the production of those things
which were to come after; and [309>] then, first of all, he made the four elements,
fire, water, air, and earth. And Zeno speaks of these in his treatise on the Universe, and
so does Chrysippus in the first book of his Physics, and so does Archedemus in some
treatise on the Elements.
LXIX. Now an element is that out of which at first all things which are
are produced, and into which all things are resolved at last. And the four elements are
all equally an essence without any distinctive quality, namely, matter; but fire is the
hot, water the moist, air the cold, and earth the dry though this last quality is
also common to the air. The fire is the highest, and that is called aether, in which first
of all the sphere was generated in which the fixed stars are set, then that in which the
planets revolve; after that the air, then the, water; and the sediment as it were of all
is the earth, which is placed in the centre of the rest.
LXX. They also speak of the world in a threefold sense; at one time
meaning God himself, whom they call a being of a certain quality, having for his peculiar
manifestation universal substance, a being imperishable, and who never had any generation,
being the maker of the arrangement and order that we see; and who, after certain periods
of time, absorbs all substance in himself, and then re-produces it from himself. And this
arrangement of the stars they call the world, and so the third sense is one composed of
both the preceding ones. And the world is a thing which is peculiarly of such and such a
quality consisting of universal substance, as Posidonius affirms in his Meteorological
Elements, being a system compounded of heaven and earth, and all the creatures which exist
in them; or it may be called a system compounded of Gods and men, and of the things
created on their account. And the heaven is the most remote circumference of the world, in
which all the Divine Nature is situated.
Again, the world is inhabited and regulated according to intellect and
providence, as Chrysippus says, in his works on Providence, and Posidonius in the
thirteenth book of his treatise on Gods, since mind penetrates into every part of the
world, just as the soul pervades us; but it is in a greater degree in some parts, and in a
less degree in others. For instance, it penetrates as a habit, as, for instance, into the
bones and sinews; and into some it penetrates as the mind [310>] does, for instance,
into the dominant principle. And thus the whole world, being a living thing, endowed with
a soul and with reason, has the aether as its dominant principle, as Antipater, of Tyre,
says in the eighth book of his treatise on the World. But Chrysippus, in the first book of
his essay On. Providence, and Posidonius in his treatise on Gods, say that the heaven is
the dominant principle of the world; and Cleanthes attributes this to the sun. Chrysippus,
however, on this point contradicts himself; for he says in another place, that the most
subtle portion of the aether, which is also called by the Stoics the first God, is what is
infused in a sensible manner into all the beings which are in the air, and through every
animal and every plant, and through the earth itself according to a certain habit; and
that it is this which communicates to them the faculty of feeling.
They say too, that the world is one and also finite, having a spherical form. For that
such a shape is the most convenient for motion, as Posidonius says, in the fifteenth book
of his Discussions on Natural Philosophy, and so says Antipater also in his essay on the
World. And on the outside there is diffused around it a boundless vacuum, which is
incorporeal And it is incorporeal inasmuch, as it is capable of being contained by bodies,
but is not so. And that there is no such thing as a vacuum in the world, but that it is
all closely united and compact; for that this condition is necessarily brought about by
the concord and harmony which exist between the heavenly bodies and those of the earth.
And Chrysippus mentions a vacuum in his essay on a Vacuum, and also in the first book of
his treatise on the Physical Arts, and so does Apollophanes in his Natural Philosophy, and
so does Apollodorus, and so does Posidonius in the second book of his discourses on
Natural Philosophy. And they say that these things are all incorporeal, and all alike.
Moreover, that time is incorporeal, since it is an interval of the motion of the world.
And that of time, the past and the future are both illimitable, but the present is
limited. And they assert that the world is perishable, inasmuch as it was produced by
reason, and is one of the things which are perceptible by the senses; and whatever has its
parts perishable, must also be perishable in the whole. And the parts of the world are
perishable, for they change into one another. Therefore, the whole, world is [311>]
perishable. And again, if anything admits of a change for the worse it is perishable;
therefore, the world is perishable, for it can he dried up, and it can be covered with
Now the world was created when its substance was changed from fire to
moisture, by the action of the air; and then its denser parts coagulated, and so the earth
was made, and the thinner portions were evaporated and became air; and this being rarefied
more and more, produced fire. And then, by the combination of all these elements, were
produced plants and animals, and other kinds of things. Now Zeno speaks of the creation,
and of the destruction of the world, in his treatise on the Universe, and so does
Cleanthes, and so does Antipater, in the tenth book of his treatise on the World. But
Panaetius asserts that the world is imperishable.
Again, that the world is an animal, and that it is endued with reason,
and life, and intellect, is affirmed by Chrysippus, in the first volume of his treatise on
Providence, and by Apollodorus in his Natural Philosophy, and by Posidonius; and that it
is an animal in this sense, as being an essence endued [viz., endowed] with life, and with
sensation. For that which is an animal, is better than that which is not an animal. But
nothing is better than the world; therefore the world is an animal. And it is endued with
life, as is plain from the fact of our own soul being as it were a fragment broken off
from it. But Boethus denies that the world is an animal.
Again, that the world is one, is affirmed by Zeno, in his treatise on
the Universe, and by Chrysippus, and by Apollodorus, in his Natural Philosophy, and by
Posidonius, in the first book of his Discourses on Natural Philosophy. And by the term,
the universe, according to Apollodorus, is understood both the world itself, and also the
whole of the world itself, and of the exterior vacuum taken together. The world, then, is
finite, and the vacuum infinite.
LXXI. Of the stars, those which are fixed are only moved in connection with the
movements of the entire heaven; but the planets move according to their own peculiar and
separate motions. And the sun takes an oblique path through the circle of the zodiac, and
in the same manner also does the moon, which is of a winding form. And the sun is pure
fire, as Posidonius asserts in the seventh book of his treatise on the Heavenly Bodies,
and it is larger than the earth, as the [312>] same author informs us, in the sixteenth
book of his Disclosures on Natural Philosophy. Also it is spherical, as he says in another
place, being made on the same principle as the world is. Therefore it is fire, because it
performs all the functions of fire. And it is larger than the earth, as is proved by the
fact of the whole earth being illuminated by it, and also the whole heaven. Also the fact
of the earth throwing a conical shadow, proves that the sun is greater than it, and the
sun is seen in every part, because of its magnitude. But the moon is of a more earthy
nature than the sun, inasmuch as it is nearer the earth.
Moreover, they say that all these fiery bodies, and all the other
stars, receive nutriment; the sun from the vast sea, being a sort of intellectual
appendage; and the moon from the fresh waters, being mingled with the air, and also near
the earth, as Posidonius explains it in the sixth book of his Discourses on Natural
Philosophy. And all the other stars derive their nourishment from the earth. They also
consider that the stars are of a spherical figure, and that the earth is immovable. And
that the moon has not a light of her own, but that she borrows it from the sun. And that
the sun is eclipsed, when the moon runs in front of it on the side towards us, as Zeno
describes in his work on the Universe; for when it comes across it in its passage, it
conceals it, and again it reveals it; and this is a phenomenon easily seen in a basin of
water. And the moon is eclipsed when it comes below the shadow of the earth, on which
account this never happens, except at the time of the full moon; and although it is
diametrically opposite to the sun every month, still it is not eclipsed every month,
because when its motions are obliquely towards the sun, it does not find itself in the
same place as the sun, being either a little more to the north, or a little more to the
south. When therefore it is found in the same place with the sun, and with the other
intermediate objects, then it takes as it were the diameter of the sun, and is eclipsed.
And its place is along the line which runs between the crab and the scorpion, and the ram
and the bull, as Posidonius tells us.
LXXII. They also say that God is an animal immortal, rational, perfect, and
intellectual in his happiness, unsusceptible of any kind of evil, having a foreknowledge
of the world [313>] and of all that is in the world; however, that he has not the
figure of a man; and that he is the creator of the universe, and as it were, the Father of
all things in common, and that a portion of him pervades everything, which is called by
different names, according to its powers; for they call him Dia as being the
person (di hon) everything is, and Zêna, inasmuch as he is the cause
of life, (tou Zêin), or because he pervades life. And Athêna, with
reference to the extension of his dominant power over the aether (eis aithera). And Hêra, on account of his extension through the air (eis aera). And Hêphaistos,
on account of his pervading fire, which is the chief instrument of art; and Poseidôn,
as pervading moisture, and Dêmêtêr, as pervading the earth (Gê). And in
the same way, regarding some other of his peculiar attributes, they have given him other
The substance of God is asserted by Zeno to be the universal world, and the heaven; and
Chrysippus agrees with this doctrine, in his eleventh book on the Gods; and so also does
Posidonius, in the first book of his treatise on the same subject. Antipater, in the
seventh book of his treatise on the World, says that his substance is aërial. And
Boethus, in his treatise on Nature, calls the substance of God the sphere of the fixed
LXXIII. And his nature they define to be, that which keeps the world
together, and sometimes that which produces the things upon the earth. And nature is a
habit which derives its movements from itself, perfecting and holding together all that
arises out of it, according to the principles of production, in certain definite periods,
and doing the same as the things from which it is separated. And it has for its object,
suitableness and pleasure, as is plain from its having created man.
LXXIV. But Chrysippus, in his treatise on Fate, and Posidonius, in the
second book of his work on Fate, and Zeno, and Boethus, in the eleventh book of his
treatise on Fate, say, that all things are produced by fate. And fate, [314>] (eimarmenê),
is a connected (eiromenê) cause of existing things, or the reason according to
which the svorld is regulated.
LXXV. They also say that divination has a universal existence, since
Providence has; and they define it as an act on account of certain results, as Zeno and
Chrysippus, in the second book of his treatise on Divination, and Athenodorus and
Posidonius, in the twelfth book of his discourses on Natural Philosophy, and in the fifth
book of his treatise on Divination, all agree in saying; for Panaetius denies that it has
any certain foundation.
LXXVI. And they say that the substance of all existing things is
Primary Matter, as Chrysippus asserts in the first book of his Physics; and Zeno says the
same. Now matter is that from which anything whatever is produced. And it is called by a
twofold appellation, essence and matter; the one as relating to all things taken together,
and the other to things in particular and separate. The one which relates to all things
taken together, never becomes either greater or less; but the one relating to things in
particular, does become greater or less, as the case may be.
LXXVII. Body is, according to them, a substance and finite; as
Antipater says, in the second book of his treatise on Substance; and Apollodorus, in his
Natural Philosophy, agrees with him. It is also subject to change, as we learn from the
same author; for if it were immutable, then the things which have been produced out of it
would not have been produced; on which account he also says that it is infinitely
divisible; but Chrysippus denies that it is infinite; for that nothing is infinite, which
is divisible at all.
LXXVIII. He admits, however, that it is infinitely divisible, and that
its concretions take place over the whole of it, as he explains in the third book of his
Physics, and not according to any circumference or juxtaposition; for a little wine when
thrown into the sea, will keep its distinctness for a brief period, but after that, will
LXXIX. They also say that there are some Daemones, who have a sympathy
with mankind, being surveyors of all human affairs; and that there are heroes, which are
the souls of virtuous men, which have left their bodies.
LXXX, Of the things which take place in the air, they say that winter
is the effect of the air above the earth being [315>] cooled, on account of the
retirement of the sun to a greater distance than before; that spring is a good temperature
of the air, according to the suns approach towards us; that summer is the effect of
the air above the earth being warmed by the approach of the sun towards the north; that
autumn is caused by the retreat of the sun from us to those places from which they flow.
[There is a hiatus in the text here. Casaubon supplies the meaning by a reference to
Plutarchs Treatise on the opinions of the Philosophers, iii. 7, "that the winds
are a flowing of the air, and that they have various names with reference to the countries
from which they flow"]
LXXXI. And the cause of the production of the winds is the sun, which
evaporates the clouds. Moreover, the rainbow is the reflexion of the suns rays from
the moist clouds, or, as Posidonius explains it in his Meteorology, a manifestation of a
section of the sun or moon, in a cloud suffused with dew; being hollow and continuous to
the sight; so that it is reflected as in a mirror, under the appearance of a circle. And
that comets, and bearded stars, and meteors, are fires which have an existence when the
density of the air is borne upwards to the regions of the aether.
That a ray of light is a kindling of sudden fire, borne through the air
with great rapidity, and displaying an appearance of length; that rain proceeds from the
clouds, being a transformation of them into water, whenever the moisture which is caught
up from the earth or from the sea, by the sun, is not able to be otherwise disposed of;
for when it is solidified, it is then called hoar frost. And hail is a cloud congealed,
and subsequently dispersed by the wind. Snow is moisture from a congealed cloud, as
Posidonius tells us in the eighth book of his discourse on Natural Philosophy. Lightning
is a kindling of the clouds from their being rubbed together, or else broken asunder by
the wind, as Zeno tells us in his treatise on the Universe; and thunder is the noise made
by them on the occasion of their being rubbed together or broken asunder; and the
thunderbolt is a sudden kindling which falls with great violence on the earth, from the
clouds being rubbed together or broken asunder, or, as others say, it is a conversion of
fiery air violently brought down to the earth. A typhon is a vast thunderbolt, violent and
full of wind, or a smoky breath of a cloud broken asunder. A prêstês is a cloud
[316>] rent by fire, with wind, . . . [Something is evidently wanting here; probably
some mention of an earthquake.] into the hollows of the earth, or when the wind is pent up
in the earth, as Posidonius says in his eighth book; and that some of them are shakings,
others rendings, others emissions of fire, and others, instances of violent fermentation.
LXXXII. They also think that the general arrangement of the world is in
this fashion; that the earth is in the middle, occupying the place of the centre; next to
which comes the water, of a spherical form; and having the same centre as the earth; so
that the earth is in the water; and next to the water comes the air, which has also a
LXXXIII. And that there are five circles in the heaven of which the
first is the arctic circle, which is always visible; the second is the tropical summer
circle; the third is the equinoctial circle; the fourth, the winter tropical circle; and
the fifth the antarctic, which is not visible. And they are called parallel, because they
do not incline to one another; they are drawn however around the same centre. But the
zodiac is oblique, cutting the parallel circles. There are also five zones on the earth;
the first is the northern one, placed under the arctic circle, uninhabitable by reason of
the cold; the second is temperate; the third is uninhabitable because of the heat, and is
called the torrid zone; the fourth is a temperate zone, on the other side of the torrid
zone; the fifth is the southern zone, being also uninhabitable by reason of the cold.
LXXXIV. Another of their doctrines is that nature is an artificial fire
tending by a regular road to production, which is a fiery kind of breath proceeding
according to art. Also, that the soul is sensible, and that it is a spirit which is born
with us; consequently it is a body and continues to exist after death; that nevertheless
it is perishable. But that the soul of the universe is imperishable, and that the souls
which exist in animals are only parts of that of the universe. But Zeno, the Cittiaean,
and Antipater, in their treatise concerning the [317>] Soul, and Posidonius also, all
say that the soul is a spirit; for that by it we have our breath, and by it we are moved.
Cleanthes, accordingly, asserts that all souls continue to exist till they are burnt up;
but Chrysippus says that it is only the souls of the wise that endure. And they further
teach that there are eight parts of the soul; the five senses, and the generative
faculties, and voice, and reason. And we see because of a body of luminous air which
extends from the organ of sight to the object in a conical form, as it is asserted by
Chrysippus, in the second book of his Natural Philosophy, and also by Apollodorus. And the
apex of this cone is close to the eye, and its base is formed by the object which is seen;
so that that which is seen is as it were reported to the eye by this continuous cone of
air extended towards it like a staff. In the same way, we hear because the air between the
speaker and the hearer is struck in a spherical manner; and is then agitated in waves,
resembling the circular eddies which one sees in a cistern when a stone is dropped into
Sleep, they say, is produced by a relaxation of the aesthetic energies
with reference to the dominant part of the soul. And the causes of the passions they
explain to be the motions and conversions which take place in connection with this spirit
LXXXV. Seed, they define as a thing of a nature capable of producing other things of
the same nature as the thing from which it has been separated. And the seed of man, which
man emits, is, together with moisture, mixed up with the parts of the soul by that kind of
mixture which corre- [318>] sponds to the capacity of the parents. And Chrysippus says,
in the second book of his Natural Philosophy, that it is a spirit according to substance;
as is manifest from the seeds which are planted in the earth; and which, if they are old,
do not germinate, because all their virtue has evaporated. And Sphaerus says, that seed
proceeds from the entire body, and that that is how it is that it produces all the parts
of the body.
They also say that the seed of the female is unproductive; for, as
Sphaerus says, it is devoid of tone, and small in quantity, and watery.
LXXXVI. They also say that that is the dominant part of the soul which
is its most excellent part; in which the imaginations and the desires are formed, and
whence reason proceeds. And this place is in the heart.
These then are the doctrines on the subject of natural philosophy
entertained by them, which it seems sufficient for us to detail, having regard to the due
proportions of this book. And the following are the points in which some of them disagreed
with the rest.
LIFE OF ARISTON.
I. ARIST0N the Bald, a native of Chios, surnamed the Scion, said,
that the chief good was to live in perfect indifference to all those things which are of
an intermediate character between virtue and vice; making not the slightest difference
between them, but regarding them all on a footing of equality. For that the wise man
resembles a good actor; who, whether he is filling the part of Agamemnon or Thersites,
will perform them both equally well.
II. And he discarded altogether the topic of physics, and of logic,
saying that the one was above us, and that the other had nothing to do with us; and that
the only branch of philosophy with which we had any real concern was ethics.
III. He also said that dialectic reasonings were like [319>]
cobwebs; which, although they seem to be put together on principles of art, are utterly
IV. And he did not introduce many virtues into his scheme, as Zeno did;
nor one virtue under a great many names, as the Megaric philosophers did; but defined
virtue as consisting in behaving in a certain manner with reference to a certain thing.
V. And as he philosophized in this manner, and carried on his
discussions in the Cynosarges, he got so much infiuence as to be called a founder of a
sect. Accordingly, Miltiades, and Diphilus were called Aristoneans.
VI. He was a man of very persuasive eloquence, and one who could adapt
himself well to the humours of a multitude. On which account Timon says of him
And one who, from .Aristons wily race,
Traced his descent.
Diocles, the Magnesian, tells us that Ariston having fallen in with
Polemo, passed over to his school, at a time when Zeno was lying ill with a long sickness.
The Stoic doctrine to which he was most attached, was the one that the wise man is never
guided by opinions. But Persaeus argued against this, and caused one of two twin brothers
to place a deposit in his hands, and then caused the other to reclaim it; and thus he
convicted him, as he was in doubt on this point, and therefore forced to act on opinion.
He was a great enemy of Arcesilaus. And once, seeing a bull of a monstrous conformation,
having a womb, he said, "Alas! here is an argument for Arcesilaus against the
evidence of his senses." On another Occasion, when a philosopher of the Academy said
that he did not comprehend anything, he said to him, "Do not you even see the man who
is sitting next to you?" And as he said that he did not, he said:
Who then has blinded you, whos been so harsh,
As thus to rob you of your beaming eyes?
VII. The following works are attributed to him. Two books of Exhortatory Discourses;
Dialogues on the Doctrines of Zeno; six books of Conversations; seven books of Discussions
on Wisdom; Conversations on Love; Commentaries on Vain Glory; twenty-five books of
Reminiscences; three books of [320>] Memorabilia; eleven books of Apophthegms; a volume
against the Orators; a volume against the Rescripts of Alexinus; three treatises against
the Dialecticians; four books of Letters to Cleanthes. But Panaetius and Sosicrates say,
that his only genuine writings are his letters; and that all the rest are the works of
Ariston the Peripatetic.
VIII. It is said that he, being bald, got a stroke of the sun, and so died. And we have
written a jesting epigram on him in Scayon iambics, in the following terms:
Why, O Ariston, being old and bald,
Did you allow the sun to roast your crown?
Thus, in an unbecoming search for warmth,
Against your will, youve found out chilly Hell.
IX. There was also another man of the name of Ariston; a native of Julii, one of the
Peripatetic school. And another who was an Athenian musician. A fourth who was a tragic
poet. A fifth, a native of Aloea, who wrote a treatise on the Oratorical Art. A sixth was
a peripatetic Philosopher of Alexandria.
I. CLEANTHES was a native of Assos, and the son of Phanias. He was
originally a boxer, as we learn from Antisthenes, in his Successions. And he came to
Athens, having but four drachmas, as some people say, and attaching himself to Zeno, he
devoted himself to Philosophy in a most noble manner; and he adhered to the same doctrines
as his master.
II. He was especially eminent for his industry, so that as he was a
very poor man, he was forced to undertake mercenary employrnents, and he used to draw
water in the gardens by night, and by day he used to exercise himself in philosophical
discussions; on which account he was called Phreantles [From phrear, a well, and antleô,
to draw water.]. They also say that he was on one occasion brought before a court of
justice, to be compelled to give an account what his sources of income were from which he
maintained himself in such good condition : and that then he was acquitted, having
produced as his witness the gardener in whose garden he drew the water; and a woman who
was a meal-seller, in whose establishment he used to prepare the meal. And the judges of
the Areopagus admired him, and voted that ten minae should be given to him; but
Zeno forbade him to accept them.
They also say that Antigonus presented him three thousand drachmas. And
once, when he was conducting some you men to some spectacle, it happened that the wind
blew away his cloak, and it was then seen that he had nothing on under it; on which he was
greatly applauded by the Athenians [323>] according to the account given by Demetrius,
the Magnesian, in his essay on People of the same Name. And he was greatly admired by them
on account of this circumstance.
They also say that Antigonus, who was a pupil of his, once asked him
why he drew water; and that he made answer, "Do I do nothing beyond drawing water? Do
I not also dig, and do I not water the land, and do all sorts of things for the sake of
philosophy ? For Zeno used to accustom him to this, and used to require him to bring him
an obol by way of tnbute.[The Greek used is apophora; which was a term especially
applied to the money which slaves let out to hire paid to their master.] And once he
brought one of the pieces of money which he had collected in this way, into the middle of
a company of his acquaintances, and said, "Cleanthes could maintain even another
Cleanthes if he were to choose; but others who have plenty of means to support themselves,
seek for necessaries from others; although they only study philosophy in a very lazy
manner." And, in reference to these habits of his, Cleanthes was called a second
III. He was then very industrious; but he was not well endowed by
nature, and was very slow in his intellect. On which account Timon says of him
What stately ram thus measures oer the ground,
And master of the flock surveys them round?
What citizen of Assos, dull and cold,
Fond of long words, a mouth-piece, but not bold.
[This is a parody on Horn, Illiad. lii. 196. The word holmos means the mouth-piece
of a flute.]
And when he was ridiculed by his fellow pupils, he used to bear it
IV. He did not even object to the name when he was called an ass; but
only said that he was the only animal able to bear the burdens which Zeno put upon him.
And once, when he was reproached as a coward, he said, "That is the reason why I make
but few mistakes." He used to say, in justification of his preference of his own way
of life to that of the rich, "That while they were playing at ball, he was earning
money by digging hard and barren ground." And he very often used to blame himself.
And once, Ariston heard him doing so, and said, "Who is it that you are reproaching
?" [324>] and he replied, "An old man who has grey hair, but no brains."
When some one once said to him, that Arcesilaus did not do what he
ought, "Desist," he replied, "and do not blame him; for if he destroys duty
as far as his words go, at all events he establishes it by his actions." Arcesilaus
once said to him, " I never listen to flatterers." " Yes," rejoined
Cleanthes, "I flatter you, when I say that though you say one thing, you do
another." When some one once asked him what lesson he ought to inculcate on his son,
he replied, "The warning of Electra :"
Silence, silence, gently step.
[Taken from the Orestes of Euripedes, I 140.]
When a Lacedaemonian once said in his hearing, that labour was a good thing, he was
delighted, and addressed him :
Oh, early worth, a soul so wise and young
Proclaims you from the sage Lycurgus sprung.
Hecaton tells us in his Apophthegms, that once when a young man said,
"If a man who beats his stomach gastrizei then a man who slaps his thigh mêrizei" he replied, "Do you stick to your diamêrizei," But analogous words
do not always indicate analogous facts. Once when he was conversing with a youth, he asked
him if he felt; and as he said that he did, "Why is it then," said Cleanthes,
"that I do not feel that you feel?"
When Sositheus, the poet, said in the theatre where he was present
Men whom the folly of Cleanthes urges;
He continued in the same attitude; at which the hearers were surprised, and applauded
him, but drove Sositheus away. And when he expressed his sorrow for having abused him in
this manner, he answered him gently, saying, "That it would be a preposterous thing
for Bacchus and Hercules to bear being ridiculed by the poets without any expression of
anger, and for him to be indignant at any chance attack." He used also to say,
"That the Peripatetics were in the same condition as lyres, which though they utter
sweet notes, do not [325>] hear themselves." And it is said, that when he asserted
that, on the principles of Zeno, one could judge of a mans character by his looks,
some witty young men brought him a profligate fellow, having a hardy look from continual
exercise in the fields, and requested him to tell them his moral character; and he, having
hesitated a little, bade the man depart; and, as he departed, he sneezed, "I have the
fellow now," said Cleanthes, "he is a debauchee."
He said once to a mnu who was conversing with him by himself, "You
are not talking to a bad man." And when some one reproached him with his old age, he
rejoined, "I too wish to depart, but when I perceive myself to be in good health in
every respect, and to be able to recite and read, I am content to remain." They say
too, that he used to write down all that he heard from Zeno on oyster shells, and on the
shoulder-blades of oxen, from want of money to buy paper with.
V. And though he was of this character, and in such circumstances, he
became so eminent, that, though Zeno had many other disciples of high reputation, he
succeeded him as the president of his School.
VI. And he left behind him some excellent books, which are these. One on Time; two on
Zenos System of Natural Philosophy; four books of the Explanations of Heraclitus;
one on Sensation; one on Art; one addressed to Democritus; one to Aristarchus; one to
Herillus; two on Desire; one entitled Archaeology; one on the Gods; one on the Giants; one
on Marriage; one on Poets; three on Duty; one on Good Counsel; one on Favour; one called
Exhortatory; one on Virtues; one on Natural Ability; one on Gorgippus; one on Enviousness;
one on Love; one on Freedom; one called the Art of Love; one on Honour; one on Glory; The
Statesman; one on Counsel; one on Laws; one on Deciding as a Judge; one on the Way of
Life; three on Reason; one on the Chief Good; one on the Beautiful; one on Actions;
one on Knowledge; one on Kingly Power; one on Friendship; one on Banquets; one on the
Principle that Virtue is the same in Man and Woman; one on the Wise Man Employing Sophisms; one on Apophthegms; two books of Conversations; one on Pleasure; one [326>] on
Properties; one on Doubtful Things; one on Dialectics; one on Modes; one on Categorems.
VII. These are his writings.
And he died in the following manner. His gums swelled very much; and, at the command of
his physicians, he abstained from food for two days. And he got so well that his
physicians allowed him to return to all his former habits; but he refused, and saying that
he had now already gone part of the way, he abstained from food for the future, and so
died; being, as some report, eighty years old, and having been a pupil of Zeno nineteen
years. And we have written a playful epigram on him also, which runs thus
I praise Cleanthes, but praise Pluto more;
Who could not bear to see him grown so old,
So gave him rest at last among the dead,
Whod drawn such loads of water while alive.
LIFE OF SPHAERUS.
I. Sphaerus, a native of the Bosphorus, was, as we have said before, a pupil
of Cleanthes after the death of Zeno.
II. And when he made a considerable advance in philosophy he went to Alexandria, to the
court of Ptolemy Philopater. And once, when there was a discussion concerning the question
whether a wise man would allow himself to be guided by opinion, and when Sphaerus affirmed
that he would not, the king, wishing to refute him, ordered some pomegranates of wax to be
set before him; and when Sphaerus was deceived by them, the king shouted that he had given
his assent to a false perception. But Sphaerus answered very neatly, that he had not given
his assent to the fact that they were pomegranates, but to the fact that it was probable
that they might be pomegranates. And that a perception which could be comprehended
differed from one that was only probable.
Once, when Innesistratus accused him of denying that [327>] Ptolemy
was a king, he said to him, "That Ptolemy was a man with such and such qualities, and
a king." [This is referring to the Stoic doctrine ridiculed by Horace: Si dives qui
sapiens est, Et autor bonus, et solus formosus, et est Rex Cur optas quod habes
?Hor. Sat L 130. Which may be translated : If every man is rich whos
wise, A cobbler too beyond all price A handsome man, and eke a king; Why thus your vows at
III. He wrote the following books. Two on the World; one on the
Elements of Seed; one on Fortune ; one on the Smallest Things; one on Atoms and
Phantoms; one on the Senses; five Conversations about Heraclitus; one on Ethical
Arrangement; one on Duty; one on Appetite; two on the Passions; one on Kingly Power; on
the Lacedaemonian Constitution; three on Lycurgus and Socrates; one on Law; one on
Divination; one volume of Dialogues on Love; one on the Eretrian Philosophers; one on
Things Similar; one on Terms; one on Habits; three on Contradictions; one on Reason; one
on Riches; one on Glory; one on Death; two on the Art of Dialectics; one on Categorems:
one on Ambiguity; and a volume of Letters.
LIFE OF CHRYSIPPUS
I. Chrysippus was the son of Apollonius, and a native of either
Soli or Tarsus, as Alexander tells us in his Successions; and he was a pupil of Cleanthes.
Previously he used to practise running as a public runner; then he became a pupil of Zeno
or of Cleanthes, as Diocles and the generality of authors say, and while he was still
living he abandoned him, and became a very eminent philosopher.
II. He was a man of great natural ability, and of great acuteness in every way, so that
in many points he dissented [328>] from Zeno, and also from Cleanthes, to whom he often
used to say that he only wanted to be instructed in the dogmas of the school, and that he
would discover the demonstrations for himself. But whenever he opposed him with any
vehemence, he always repented, so that he used frequently to say:
In most respects I am a happy man,
Excepting where Cleanthes is concerned;
For in that matter I am far from fortunate.
And he had such a high reputation as a dialectician, that most people
thought that if there were such a science as dialectics among the Gods; it would be in no
respect different from that of Chrysippus. But though he was so eminently able in matter,
he was not perfect in style.
III. He was industrious beyond all other men; as is plain from
his writings; for he wrote more than seven hundred and five books. And he often wrote
several books on the same subject, wishing to put down everything that occurred to him;
and constantly correcting his previous assertions, and using a great abundance of
testimonies. So that, as in one of his writings he had quoted very nearly the whole of the
Medea of Euripides, and some one had his book in his hands; this latter, when he was asked
what he had got there, made answer, "The Medea of Chrysippus." And Apollodorus.
the Athenian, in his Collection of Dogmas, wishing to assert that what Epicurus had
written out of his own head, and without any quotations to support his arguments, was a
great deal more than all the books of Chrysippus, speaks thus (I give his exact words).
"For if any one were to take away from the books of Chrysippus all the passages which
he quotes from other authors, his paper would be left empty."
These are the words of Apollodorus; but the old woman. who lived with
him, as Diocles reports, used to say that he wrote five hundred lines every day. And
Hecaton says, that he first applied himself to philosophy, when his patrimony had been
confiscated, and seized for the royal treasury.
IV. He was slight in person, as is plain from his statue which is in the Ceramicus,
which is nearly hidden by the equestrian statue near it; in reference to which
circumstance, Carneades called him Cryxippus. [From kruptô, to hide, and hippos, a
horse.] He was once reproached [329>] by some one for not attending the lectures of
Ariston, who was drawing a great crowd after him at the time; and he replied, "If I
had attended to the multitude I should not have been a philosopher." And once, when
he saw a dialectician pressing hard on Cleanthes, and proposing sophistical fallacies to
him, he said, "Cease to drag that old man from more important business, and propose
these questions to us who are young." At another time, when some one wishing to ask
him something privately, was addressing him quietly, but when he saw a multitude
approaching began to speak more energetically he said to him
Alas, my brother! now your eye is troubled;
You were quite sane just now; and yet how quickly
Have you succumbed to frenzy.
[These lines are from the Orestes of Euripedes, v. 247.]
And at drinking parties he used to behave quietly, moving his legs
about however, so that a female slave once said, "It is only the legs of Chrysippus
that are drunk." And he had so high an opinion of himself, that once, when a man
asked him, "To whom shall I entrust my son?" he said "To me, for if I
thought that there was any one better than myself, I would have gone to him to teach me
philosophy." In reference to which anecdote they report that people used to say of
He has indeed a clear and subtle head,
The rest are forms of empty aether made.
[This is a quotation from Homer, Odyssey, x. 495.
The Greek here is, hoios
pepnutai. The line in Homer stands: hoiôi pepnusthai, sc. pore
For if Chrysippus had not lived and taught,
The Stoic school would surely have been naught
VI. But at last, when Arcesilaus and Lacydes, as Sotion records in his
eighth book, came to the Academy, he joined them in the study of philosophy; from which
circumstance he got the habit of arguing for and against a custom, and discussed
magnitudes and quantities, following the system of the Academics.
VII. Hermippus relates, that one day, when he was teaching in the Odeum, he was invited
to a sacrifice by his pupils; [330>] and, that drinking some sweet unmixed wine, he was
seized with giddiness, and departed this life five days afterwards, when he had lived
seventy-three years; dying in the hundred and forty-third olympiad, as Apollodorus says in
his Chronicles. And we have written an epigram on him
Chrysippus drank with open month some wine
Then became giddy, and so quickly died.
Too little reckd he of the Porchs weal,
Or of his countrys, or of his own dear life;
And so descended to the realms of Hell.
But some people say that he died of a fit of immoderate laughter. For that seeing his
ass eating figs, he told his old woman to give the ass some unmixed wine to drink
afterwards, and then laughed so violently that he died.
VIII. He appears to have been a man of exceeding arrogance. Accordingly, though he
wrote such numbers of books, he never dedicated one of them to any sovereign. And he was
contented with one single old woman, as Demetrius tells us, in his People of the same
Name. And when Ptolemy wrote to Cleanthes, begging him either to come to him himself or to
send him some one, Sphaerus went to him, but Chrysippus slighted the invitation.
IX. However, he sent for the sons of his sister, Aristocrea and Philocrates, and
educated them; and he was the first person who ventured to hold a school in the open air
in the Lyceum, as the before mentioned Demetrius relates.
X. There was also another Chrysippus, a native of Cnidos a physician, from whom
Erasistratus testifies that he received great benefit. And another also who was a son of
his, and the physician of Ptolemy; who, having had a false accusation brought against him,
was apprehended and punished by being scourged. There was also a fourth who was a pupil of
Erasistratus; and a fifth was an author of a work called Georgics.
XI. Now this philosopher used to delight in proposing questions of this sort. The
person who reveals the mysteries to the uninitiated commits a sin; the heirophant reveals
them to the uninitiated ; therefore the hierophant commits sin? Another was, that
which is not in the city, is also not in the house; but a well is not in the city,
therefore, there is not a well in the house. Another was, there is a certain head; that
head you have not got; there is then a [331>] a head that you have not got; therefore,
you have not got a head. Again, if a man is in Megara, he is not in Athens; but there is a
man in Megara, therefore, there is not a man in Athens. Again, if you say anything, what
you say comes out of your mouth; but you say "a waggon," therefore a waggon
comes out of your mouth. Another was, if you have not lost a thing, you have it; but you
have not lost horns ; therefore, you have horns. Though some attribute this sophism
XII. There are people who run Chrysippus down as having written a great
deal that is very shameful and indecent. For in his treatise on the Ancient Natural
Historians, he relates the story of Jupiter and Juno very indecently, devoting six hundred
lines to what no one could repeat without polluting his mouth. For, as it is said, he
composes this story, though he praises it as consisting of natural details, in a way more
suitable to street walkers than to Goddesses; and not at all resembling the ideas which
have been adopted or cited by writers in paintings. For they were found neither in Polemo,
nor in Hypsicrates, nor in Antigonus, but were inserted by himself. And in his treatise on
Polity, he allows people to marry their mothers, or their daughters, or their sons. And he
repeats this doctrine in his treatise on those things which are not desirable for their
own sake, in the very opening of it. And in the third book of his treatise on Justice, he
devotes a thousand lines to bidding people devour even the dead.
In the second book of his treatise on Life and Means of Support, where
he is warning us to consider beforehand, how the wise man ought to provide himself with
means, he says, "And yet why need he provide himself with means? for if it is for the
sake of living, living at all is a matter of indifference; if it is for the sake of
pleasure, that is a matter of indifference too; if it is for the sake of virtue,
that is of itself sufficient for happiness. But the methods of providing ones self
with means are ridiculous; for instance, some derive them from a king; and then it will be
necessary to humour him. Some from friendship; and then friendship will become a thing to
be bought with a price. Some from wisdom; and then wisdom will become mercenary ; and
these are the accusations which he brings."
But since he has written many books of high reputation, it [332>]
has seemed good to me to give a catalogue of them, classifying them according to their
subjects. They are the following: Books on Logic; Propositions; Logical Questions; a
book of the Contemplations of the Philosopher; six books of Dialectic Terms addressed to
Metrodorus; one on the Technical Terms used in Dialectics, addressed to Zeno; one
called the Art of Dialectics, addressed to Aristagoras; four books of Probable Conjunctive
Reasons, addressed to Dioscorides.
The first set of treatises on the Logical Topics, which concern things,
contains: one essay on Propositions; one on those Propositions which are not simple; two
on the Copulative Propositions, addressed to Athenades; three on Positive Propositions,
addressed to Aristagoras; one on Definite Propositions, addressed to Athenodorus; one on
Privative Propositions, addressed to Thearus; three on the Best Propositions, addressed to
Dion; four on the Differences between Indefinite Propositions; two on those Propositions
which are enunciated with a reference to time; two on Perfect Propositions.
The second set contains, one essay on a Disjunctive True Propositions,
addressed to Gorgippides ; four on a Conjunctive True Proposition, also addressed to
Gorgippides; one called, the Sect, addressed to Gorgippides; one on the argument of
Consequents; one on questions touched upon in the three preceding treatises, and now
re-examined, this also is addressed to Gorgippides; one on what is Possible,
addressed to Clitus; one on the treatise of Philo, on Signification; one on what it is
that Falsehood consists in.
The third set contains, two treatises on Imperative Propositions; two
on Interrogation; four on Examination; an epitome of the subject of Interrogation and
Examination; four treatises on Answer; an abridgment on Answer; two essays on
The fourth set contains ten books on Categorems, addressed to
Metrodorus ; one treatise on what is Direct and Indirect, addressed to Philarchus;
one on Conjunctions, addressed to Apollonides; four on Categorems, addressed to Pasylus.
The fifth set contains, one treatise on the Five Cases; one on Things
defined according to the Subject; two on Enunciation, addressed to Stesagoras; two on
The next class of his writings refers to rules of Logic, [333>] with reference to
words, and speech which consists of words.
The first set of these contains, six treatises on Singular and Plural
Enunciations; five on Words, addressed to Sosigines and Alexander; four on the Inequality
of Words, addressed to Dion; three on the Sorites which refer to Words; one on
Solecisms in the Use of Words, addressed to Dionysius; one entitled Discourses, contrary
to Customs; one entitled Diction, and addressed to Dionysius.
The second set contains, five treatises on the Elements of Speech and
of Phrases; four on the Arrangement of Phrases; three on the Arrangement, and on the
Elements of Phrases, addressed to Philip; one on the Elements of Discourse, addressed to
Nicias; one on Correlatives.
The third set contains, two treatises against those who do not admit
Division; four on Ambiguous Expressions, addressed to Apollos; one, Ambiguity in Modes; two on the Ambiguous Use of Figures, in Conjunctive Propositions; two on the essay on
Ambiguous Expressions, by Panthorides; five on the introduction to the Ambiguous
Expressions; one, being an abridgment of the Ambiguous Expressions, addressed to
Epicrates; and a collection of instances to serve as an Introduction to the Ambiguous
Expressions, in two books.
The next class is on the subject of that part of logic which is
conversant about reasonings and modes.
The first set of works in this class, contains, the Art of Reasoning and of Modes, in
five books, addressed to Dioscorides; a treatise on Reasoning, in three books; one on the
Structure of Modes, addressed to Stesagoras, in five books; a comparison of the Elements
of Modes; a treatise on Reciprocal and Conjunctive Reasonings; an essay to Agatha, called
also an essay on Problems, which follow one another; a treatise, proving that Syllogistic
Propositions suppose one or more other terms; one on Conclusions, addressed to Anstagoras;
one essay, proving that the same reasoning can affect several figures; one against those
who deny that the same reasoning can be expressed by syllogism, and without syllogism, in
two books; three treatises against those who attack the resolution of Syllogisms; one
on the treatise on Modes, by Philo, addressed to Timostratus; two treatises on [334>]
Logic, in one volume, addressed to Timocrates and Philomathes; one volume of questions on
Reasonings and Modes.
The second set contains, one book of Conclusive Reasonings, addressed
to Zeno; one on Primary Syllogisms, which are not demonstrative; one on the resolution of
Syllogisms; one, in two books, on Captious Reasonings, addressed to Pasylus; one book of
Considerations on Syllogisms; one book of Introductory Syllogisms, addressed to Zeno;
three of Introductory Modes, addressed also to Zeno; five of False Figures of Syllogism;
one of a Syllogistic Method, for the resolution of arguments, which are not demonstrative;
one on Researches into the Modes, addressed to Zeno and Philomathes (but this appears to
be an erroneous title).
The third set contains, one essay on Incidental Reasonings, addressed
to Athenades (this again is an incorrect title); three books of Incidental Discourses on
the Medium (another incorrect title); one essay on the Disjunctive Reasons of Aminias.
The fourth set contains, a treatise on Hypothesis, in three books,
addressed to Meliager; a book of hypothetical reasonings on the Laws, addressed also to
Meliager; two books of hypothetical reasoning to serve as an Introduction; two
books of hypothetical reasonings on Theorems; a treatise in two books, being a resolution
of the Hypothetical Reasonings of Hedylus; an essay, in three books, being a resolution of
the Hypothetical Reasonings of Alexander (this is au incorrect title); two books of
Expositions, addressed to Leodamas.
The fifth set contains, an introduction to Fallacy, addressed
Aristocreon; an introduction to False Reasonings; a treatise in six books, on Fallacy,
addressed to Aristocreon.
The sixth set contains, a treatise against those who believe Truth and
Falsehood to be the same thing. One, in two books, against those who have recourse to
division to resolve the Fallacy, addressed to Aristocreon; a demonstrative essay, to prove
that it is not proper to divide indefinite terms; an essay, in three books, in answer to
the objections against the non-division of Indefinite Terms, addressed to Pasylus; a
solution, according to the principles of the ancients, addressed to Dioscorides; an essay
on the Resolution of the Fallacy, addressed to Aristocreon, this is in three books; a
resolution [335>] of the Hypothetical Arguments of Hedylus, in one book, addressed to
Aristocreon and Apollos.
The seventh set contains, a treatise against those who contend that the
premises on the Fallacy, are false; a treatise on Negative Reasoning, addressed to
Aristocreon, in two books; one book of Negative Reasonings, addressed to Gymnasias; two
books of a treatise on Reasoning by Progression, addressed to Stesagoras; two books
of Reasonings by Interrogation, and on the Arrest [The argument by progression is the
sorites. "The arrest" is the method of encountering the sorites, by taking some
particular point at which to stop the admissions required by the sorites.], addressed to
Onetor; an essay, in two books, on the Corrected Argument, addressed to Aristobulus;
another on the Non-apparent Argument, addressed to Athenades.
The eighth set contains, an essay on the Argument Oretis, in eight
books, addressed to Menecrates; a treatise, in two books, on Arguments composed of a
finite term, and an indefinite term, addressed to Pasylus; another essay on the Argument
Outis, addressed to Epicrates.
The ninth set contains, two volumes of Sophisms, addressed to
Heraclides, and Pollis; five volumes of Dialectic Arguments, which admit of no solution,
addressed to Dioscorides, an essay, in one book, against the Method of Arcesilaus,
addressed to Sphaerus.
The tenth set contains, a treatise in six books, against Custom,
addressed to Metrodorus; and another, in seven books, on Custom, addressed to Gorgippides.
There are, therefore, works on Logic, in the four grand classes which
we have here enumerated, embracing various questions, without any connection with one
another, to the number of thirty nine sets, amounting in the whole to three hundred and
eleven treatises on Logic.
The next division comprises those works which have for their object,
the explanation of Moral Ideas.
The first class of this division, contains an essay, giving a description of Reason,
addressed to Theosphorus; a book of Ethical questions; three books of Principles, to serve
as the foundation of Dogmas, addressed to Philomathes; two books of definitions of
Good-breeding, addressed to Metrodorus; two books of definitions of the Bad, addressed to
Metrodorus; [336>] two books of definitions of Neutral Things, addressed also to
Metrodorus; seven books of definitions of Things, according to their genera, addressed to
Metrodorus; and two books of Definitions, according to other systems, addressed to
The second set contains, a treatise on Things Similar, in three books,
addressed to Aristocles; an essay on Definitions, in seven books, addressed to Metrodorus.
The third set contains, a treatise, in seven books, on the Incorrect
Objections made to Definitions, addressed to Laodamas; two books of Probable Arguments
bearing on Definitions, addressed to Dioscorides; two books on Species and Genus,
addressed to Gorgippides; one book on Divisions; two books on Contraries, addressed to
Dionysius; a book of Probable Arguments relating to Divisions, and Genera, and Species; a
book on Contraries.
The fourth set contains, a treatise, in seven books, on Etymologies,
addressed to Diocles; another, in four books, on the same subject, addressed to the
The fifth set contains, a treatise in two books, on Proverbs, addressed
to Zenodotus; an essay on Poems, addressed to Philomathes; an essay, on How one Ought to
Listen to Poems, in two books; an essay, in reply to Critics, addressed to Diodorus.
The next division refers to Ethics, looked at in a general point of
view, and to the different systems arising out of them, and to the Virtues.
The first set contains, an essay against Pictures, addressed to Timonax; an essay on
the Manner in which we express ourselves about, and form our Conceptions of, each separate
thing; two books of Thoughts, addressed to Laodamas; an essay, in three books, on
Conception, addressed to Pythonax; an essay, that the Wise Man is not Guided by Opinion;
an essay, in five books, on Comprehension, and Knowledge, and Ignorance; a treatise on
Reason, in two books; a treatise on the Employment of Reason, addressed to Leptines.
The second set contains, a treatise, that the Ancient Philosophers approved of Logic,
with Proofs to support the Arguments, in two books, addressed to Zeno; a treatise on
Dialectics, in four books, addressed to Aristocreon; an answer to the Objections urged
against Dialectics, in three [337>] books; an essay on Rhetoric, in four books,
addressed, to Dioscorides.
The third set contains, a treatise on Habit, in three books, addressed
to Cleon; a treatise on Art and Want of Art, in four hooks, addressed to Aristocreon; a
treatise, in four books, on the Difference between the Virtues, addressed to Diodorus; a
treatise, to show that all the Virtues are Equal; a treatise on the Virtues, in two books,
addressed to Polis.
The next division refers to Ethics, as relating to Good and Evil.
The first set contains, a treatise in ten books, on the Honourable, and
on Pleasure, addressed to Aristocreon; a demonstration, that Pleasure is not the
Chief Good of Man, in four books; a demonstration that Pleasure is not a Good at all, in
four books; a treatise on what is said by . .*
* The remainder of the life of Chrysippus is lost.*