sign in sign up
<<
Home , Arius Didymus, Persaeus, Sphaerus, Stilpo, Stoic physics

Ο Ζήνων ο Κιτιέας και η Στωική κοσμολογία: μερικές σημειώσεις και δυο συγκεκριμένες περιπτώσεις.

KEIMPE ALGRA

Η έκταση και η φύση της συμβολής του Ζήνωνα στη Στωική φυσική και κοσμολογία είναι δύσκολο να θεμελιωθούν. Η ανακοίνωση αυτή μελετά μερικά από τα σχετικά προβλήματα. Η χρήση της ονομαστικής ετικέτας "Ζήνων" από τις αρχαίες μας πηγές δε θα πρέπει πάντα να αξιολογείται επιφανειακά, και η απόδοση καθώς και η διευθέτηση του υλικού του Hans Von Arnim στο Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (SVF) δε θα πρέπει να γίνεται αποδεκτή χωρίς κριτική, για λόγους που περιγράφονται σ’ αυτή την εργασία. Παρέχονται δύο συγκεκριμένες περιπτώσεις αποσπασμάτων, οι οποίες, με μια πιο προσεκτική ματιά, δε θα πρέπει να αποδοθούν στο Ζήνωνα. Τελικά, υποστηρίζεται ότι ο Ζήνων δεν ήταν παραγωγικός συγγραφέας σε θέματα φυσικής, και ότι έτυχε στους διαδόχους του ( σε μερικούς από αυτούς) – πιο συγκεκριμένα στον Σφαίρο, στον Κλεάνθη και στον Χρύσιππο – να επεξεργαστούν περαιτέρω και να συγκροτήσουν λεπτομερειακά την φυσική κοσμοεικόνα της Στωικής σχολής. Αυτό σημαίνει πως υπάρχουν περιθώρια ανάπτυξης της φυσικής και της κοσμολογίας στα πλαίσια του αρχαίου Στωικισμού, και πως, συνακόλουθα, είναι ζωτικής σημασίας να διακρίνουμε πιο ξεκάθαρα, απ’ ότι συνήθως, τι πρέπει με ασφάλεια να αποδοθεί στο Ζήνωνα και ότι τέτοιου είδους "κοινά στωικά" δόγματα πρέπεί μόνο πιθανά, ή μερικά, να ανιχνευτούν σ΄αυτόν.

Zeno of Citium and Stoic Cosmology: some notes and two case studies

KEIMPE ALGRA

1

Zeno of Citium, as indeed the early Stoics in general, conceived of as consisting of three interrelated parts: , physics and .1 But although Zeno’s foundational work covered all three areas, he appears to have had his preferences. Most of the surviving book titles clearly belong to works dealing with ethics. Zeno’s activities in the area of ‘logic’, on the other hand, were largely confined to , whereas the development of logic proper was mainly the achievement of .2 In the area of

1 The classical tripartion (logic, physics, ethics) is ascribed to Zeno at D.L. VII, 39 and , Fin. IV, 4 (both printed as SVF I, 45) with a reference to his Περ‹ λÒγου. On the close ties between the various parts of philosophy in , see the famous similes preserved by Sextus M VII, 16 and D.L. VII, 40 (= SVF II, 38; philosophy as an orchard, with logic as the protective wall, physics as the trees, and ethics as the fruits; or philosophy as an egg, with logic as the shell, physics as the white and ethics as the yolk). In line with the tenor of these similes, Zeno appears to have kept to the sequence logic-physics-ethics (cf. D.L. VII, 40 = SVF I, 46), a sequence which appears to reflect the relative importance of the various parts (the focus of the whole system being on ethics). 2 Most of the surviving material on Zeno’s activities in logic (in the broad ) relates to the theory of the (kataleptic) phantasia: see the texts printed as SVF I, 52-73. In addition there is some evidence on Zeno’s being interested in (the status of) rhetoric and in poetics (he wrote a work entitled ΠροβλƵατα ῾Οµηρικὰ - cf. the catalogue at D.L. VII, 4 = SVF I, 41) and in the theory of language (he wrote a Περ‹ λ°ξεων - ibidem.) He was also interested in paradoxes and the way they might be solved by ( SR 1034 F = SVF I, 50) and he may have written about them in the work presented in the 158 Keimpe Algra physics and cosmology Zeno produced at least one work of major impact, the Περ‹ τοË ˜λου, and possibly one or two more. On the other hand we also know that later Stoics – , , Chrysippus, – made contributions of their own, and that what in the later Hellenistic and early Imperial periods counted as was certainly not in all respects the system as set up by Zeno. This raises the question whether Zeno’s contribution to Stoic physics can be isolated and to what extent it is possible to trace anything like a development in this particular area of early Stoic thought.3 Any attempt to answer this question will inevitably be hampered by the nature and the quantity of the available evidence. In a sense there is too little: the amount of securely attributable material is limited and there are almost no verbatim quotations from Zeno’s physical works.4 In another sense there is too much: most of the relevant sources are rather late and do not hesitate to report what in their own days was considered to be accepted Stoic doctrine under the name label ‘Zeno’ or ‘Zeno and his school’. The latter problem can only to some extent be neutralized by a constant awareness on our part of the different status of the various sources and of the way in which their aims, methods, biases and limitations qualify the value of their evidence. Apart from this it is salutary to remind ourselves of the limitations of what has become the standard edition of the fragments and testimonies, Von Arnim’s Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (SVF). Perhaps inevitably this collection – including its ascriptions and its sometimes idiosyncratic arrangement of the

catalogue as ΛÊσεις. On Zeno’s own use of syllogisms (i.e. his logica utens) see Schofield (1983). A limited contribution to logic proper on Zeno’s part is suggested by Cicero (Fin. IV, 9 = SVF I, 47): ‘de quibus etsi a Chrysippo maxime est elaboratum, tamen a Zenone minus multo quam ab antiquis’. A convenient overview of Zeno’s (possible) contributions to logic in Von Fritz (1972) 93-100. See now also Barnes (1999) 72-3. 3 As yet little work has been done in this area. Some developments in and the theory of cognition have been charted by Pohlenz (1938). 4 An exception is Zeno’s argument for complete conflagration as quoted by Alexander of Lycopolis XII (p. 19, 2-4), a fragment not included in SVF. See on this text Mansfeld (1979) 147-8 and Van der Horst (1996) 321, with n. 33. Zeno of Citium and Stoic Cosmology 159 material – has acquired an almost canonical status. However, for all its merits, it should be used with caution, as the present paper may serve to show. I shall here approach the problem of Zeno’s contribution to Stoic physics mainly by focusing on some of the difficulties involved in our attempts to solve it. I shall first, in section 2, signal some of the features of Von Arnim’s collection of fragments that may be relevant to our assessment of Zeno’s position within the school. Sections 3 and 4 will offer two case studies of physical tenets that have been ascribed specifically to Zeno, both in the ancient sources and in SVF: the theory of the coherence of the as paraphrased by Arius Didymus, and the definitions of space, place and void which are presented in ’ version of the doxography of Aetius. I shall argue that in the former case the ascription of the material to Zeno is at least doubtful, whereas in the latter case it is almost certainly unwarranted. In section 5, finally, I shall try to put these findings into a broader perspective by reviewing what evidence we have, on a more general level, of the position and development of physics in the early Stoa.

2

At first sight the arrangement of material in Von Arnim’s SVF appears to be straightforward and clear: the evidence related to Zeno and his immediate pupils up to Cleanthes is contained in volume I, whereas volumes II and III provide the Chrysippean and ‘common Stoic’ material. However, as the case studies in the next two sections of this essay may illustrate, matters are not so simple. It will be apposite at this point to have a brief look at the general criteria that have governed Von Arnim’s policy of ascribing material to Zeno, and the concomitant assignment of fragments to volume I. To begin with, we should be aware of the fact that the first volume of SVF – which was actually the last to be published – does not 160 Keimpe Algra contain the results of Von Arnim’s own investigation of the sources. It was put together as a kind of appendix to the collection of the fragments of Chrysippus (contained in volumes II and III), which constituted Von Arnim’s original research project in the context of a Preisaufgabe of the University of Göttingen (which he eventually won). Although this shows that Von Arnim in the end felt the need to include the material on Chrysippus’ predecessors as well, he was not prepared to go over the whole corpus of ancient sources once again, and was content instead to use – and where necessary to adapt to his own purpose – the material collected by others.5 In practice this means that he used the earlier editions of W. Wellmann and A. C. Pearson (the latter being itself heavily dependent on the former).6 Hence the selection of material for this first volume was to a large extent governed by Wellmann’s criteria for attributing material to Zeno. A brief examination of these criteria will therefore be apposite for our present purpose. To begin with, Wellmann claimed, not surprisingly, that we should include what are clearly verbatim quotations. Uncontroversial though this criterion may be, it will be of little help in practice, since there is so preciously little – if anything at all – that is ‘clearly’ a verbatim fragment and so much that is not. Of course Wellmann knew this and accordingly he put forward the following additional criteria:7

(a) if later Stoics are attested to have discussed the meaning of a tenet ascribed to Zeno, or if they are said to have developed different views from his on a particular subject, the information about the Zenonian tenet has to be accepted;

(b) if a dogma ascribed to Zeno is already found among one of Zeno’s teachers or if it fits in well with his Bildungsgang and Character it should also be accepted;

5 See the Phaefatio to vol. I, p. iii. 6 Cf. Wellmann (1873) 433-490; Pearson (1891). 7 I am here paraphrasing Wellmann (1873) 435. Zeno of Citium and Stoic Cosmology 161

(c) a view (eine Annahme) shared by all later Stoics, without which the philosophy of the school could not have developed the way it did, has to be ascribed to Zeno.

Whereas of these criteria (a) will be seen to be relatively unproblematical, (b) raises important questions (who are Zeno’s teachers and how much independent information do we have on their tenets?) and is arguably circular (how can we establish Zeno’s Bildungsgang and Character independently of the fragments at issue?). The problem with (c) is partly that it is not altogether obvious when an Annahme is crucial in the required sense, and partly also that its strict application tends to play down the way in which Zeno’s followers, in particular Chrysippus, built out and further articulated the system.8 What later sources report as the Stoic orthodoxy should not be traced back automatically and in toto to Zeno. Wellmann’s criteria were criticised as early as in 1891 by Troost, who was more sensitive to the danger that common school doctrine might be uncritically ascribed to Zeno.9 And, to be true, even Von Arnim acknowledged in the Praefatio to SVF I that one should in principle further sift the material ascribed nominatim to Zeno by setting it off against the material ascribed to Chrysippus and other later Stoics. Yet he also made it clear that he considered this task as

8 Compare the famous tag reported by D.L. VII, 183: εÞ µØ γὰρ ·ν ΧρÊσιππος, οÈκ ἄν ·ν ≤ Στοά. Cf. also Cicero, Fin. I, 6 (SVF II, 34): ‘quid enim est a Chrysippo praetermissum in Stoicis?’ And note Von Arnim’s acknowledgement of the fact in the Praefatio to vol. I, p. iii: ‘eam Stoicae doctrinae formam, quae imperatorum Romanorum aetate fuit, uberrimis testimoniis illustrare posssumus eandemque ex Chrysippi auctoritate tota pendet’. 9 Cf. Troost (1891) 7: ‘leges illae... vix eae visae sunt, quas certos duces sequamur’. His own main criterion (ibid.) shows his basically more sceptical attitude towards the ascriptions in our sources΄’qui loci claris verbis Zenoni tribuntur, digni videntur, quibus fidem habeamus, dummodo ne causa obstet, qua scriptori diffidamus aut totius scholae esse sententiam existimemus, quae principis prodatur. Qualis nuntius eo firmior est, quo planius Zeno ab iis internoscatur, qui successerunt’. 162 Keimpe Algra going beyond the limits of his own edition.10 The behind this was not merely that Von Arnim’s own research had focused on Chrysippus, rather than on Zeno or Cleanthes. He was also convinced that a collection of fragments could and should only give the plain evidence and that the process of sifting out the securely attributable material constituted a next step to be made on the basis of the kind of rough collection he offered.11 In the latter respect Von Arnim’s attitude is understandable and in principle even defensible. The problem is rather that his own qualifications concerning the status of much of the material in volume I were lost on many of its later users. The edition seems to have acquired a of its own: its selection and arrangement of material and its ascriptions to Zeno or other Stoics are often simply taken for granted. In addition, even if we can understand that Von Arnim was not in a position, or unwilling, to further sift out the material he had collected, we should nevertheless acknowledge that his overall procedure in putting together the collection has had some very curious results. Thus, the ‘common Stoic’ material which our sources ascribe to ‘the Stoics’ is printed in volume II because, Von Arnim argued, ‘the Stoic system’ as later sources knew it was largely the system as worked out by Chrysippus.12 On the other hand equally common Stoic material ascribed to ‘Zeno and his school’ or to ‘the followers of Zeno’ was included in volume I, on account of the mere occurrence of the name label. To complicate matters even further, in some cases texts are printed twice, both in volume I and in volumes II or III. An example is Aetius I, 10, 5 (as preserved in

10 Cf. the Praefatio to vol. I, p. iv: ‘Zeno et Cleanthes quid docuerunt, ita tantum enucleari potest, ut quae nominatim ad referuntur, et cum hac Chrysippea philosophia et cum Posidonianis et cum Socraticis et Academicis Zenonis antecessoribus diligenter comparentur. Hunc igitur laborem exantlare neque volui neque potui, sed fundamenta tantum struere, unde illae quastiones proficiscerentur’. 11 Cf. the Praefatio to vol. I, p. iv: ‘Nam fragmentorum collectiones ita instiui oportet, ut ad ipsam quasi substantiam traditionis facilis aditus paretur. Ea vero quae non nisi subtili disquisitione ex illa materia extrahhi possunt atque ea maxime quae sola coniectura quamvis probabili nituntur, ab eiusmodi collectione procul habenda esse censeo’. 12 Cf. the remarks, quoted above, n. 8. Zeno of Citium and Stoic Cosmology 163 ps.-Plutarch I, 10, 4): οß ἀπÚ ΖÆνωνος Στωικο‹ §ννοƵατα ≤µ°τερα τὰς Þδ°ας ¶φασαν. It is included as SVF II, 360 (on the basis of Von Arnim’s own criteria: after all the name label speaks in general terms of οß ΣτωικοÛ), but also as part of SVF I, 65 (presumably because, in of the occurrence of the name label ‘Zeno’, it had been included in the collections of Wellmann and Pearson). The results of this procedure verge on the absurd when two versions of one and the same doxographical report (Aetius II, 20, 4, on the sun being an ἄναµµα νοερÒν) are printed in separate volumes: the version of ps.-Plutarch as SVF II, 655 (because it has the name label οß ΣτωικοÛ), and the version preserved by Stobaeus as part of SVF I, 501 (because it has the name label Κλεάνθης). Another example of this odd procedure concerns the early Stoic definitions of place, void and room (χ≈ρα), as provided by Aetius (I, 19, 1 in Diels’ reconstruction). These definitions have been printed both as part of SVF I, 95 (because the lemma in Stobaeus speaks of ΖÆνων κα‹ οß ἀπ᾿ αÈτοË) and as SVF II, 504 (because ps.-Plutarch’s version has the label οß Στωικο‹ κα‹ ᾿ΕπÛκουρος). Section 4 below will offer a closer examination of these definitions and of the problem of their ascription. For the moment these few observations may already serve to show that we should be wary of relying too uncritically on the arrangement of material in SVF.

3

We shall now first turn to another case study. The text of Arius Didymus fr. 23 deals with the coherence of the cosmos.13 In general

13 In the present section I further work out the analysis of the status and structure of Arius’ text and of Stobaeus’ procedure which I offered in Algra (1988), esp. 176 with note 43. In the meantime the same items have been the subject of a fuller investigation by Mansfeld & Runia (1997) 238-65 who arrive at similar conclusions. For a full survey of the ‘problem of Arius Didymus’ the reader is referred to their work. 164 Keimpe Algra

Arius Didymus’ ascriptions appear to be relatively trustworthy, because he often makes it his business to isolate the views of individual Stoics and to set them off against each other. In other words, his testimony quite often matches what I have labeled Wellmann’s criterion (a).14 The fragments of Arius Didymus collected in Diels’ Doxographi Graeci have been culled from Stobaeus (the majority) and, in a few cases, from Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica.15 The structure of Arius Didymus’ original account can be observed most clearly in the few fragments on Stoic physics that have been preserved by Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica. Fr. 29 Diels (PE X, 15, 1-9), for example, is about and the structure of the cosmos. The lemma on top added by Eusebius is ıποÛαν δÒξαν §πάγονται οß Στωικο‹ περ‹ τοË θεοË κα‹ περ‹ συστάσεως τοË πάντος ἀπÚ τ«ν ᾿ΑρεÛου ∆ιδʵου, and at the end of the fragment Eusebius winds up by saying ταËτα µ¢ν οÔν ἀπÚ τ∞ς ᾿Επιτοµ∞ς ᾿ΑρεÛου ∆ιδʵου προκεÛσθω. We appear to be dealing, in other words, with a section from Arius quoted verbatim and en bloc. The structure of the fragment is revealing. We first get an account of common Stoic tenets (note the use third person plural: ˜λον δ¢ τÚν κÒσµον ... προσαγορεÊουσι θεÒν: τοËτον δ¢ ßνα ε‰ναι φασιν ... ἀÛδιον τÚν κÒσµον ε‰ναι φασι). The views of individual Stoics, in this case Cleanthes and Chrysippus, are appended because, and only insofar as, they had specific views on the hêgemonikon of the cosmos (Cleanthes claimed it was the sun;

14 Cf. above, 160. 15 In selecting the material to be attribbuted to Arius, Diels was following in the footsteps of Meineke (and Heeren). On the history of what is now called the Meineke-Diels hypothesis concerning the identification of the fragments of Arius Didymus on the one hand and fragments from Aetius on the other, see now Mansfeld & Runia (1997), 238-265. On the whole the Meineke-Diels hypothesis appears to be based on decent evidence, although minor corrections may be called for. Anyway in the case of the fragments which I shall be discussing here Diels’ ascription to Arius Didymus need not be doubted. Note, incidentally, that it is immaterial for our present purpose to know whether or not Arius Didymus is identical to the emperor ’ court philosopher Arius. The common view that he is has now been questioned with good arguments in Göransson (1995), 203-231. Zeno of Citium and Stoic Cosmology 165

Chrysippus opted for : Κλεάνθει µ¢ν ≥ρεσε τÚν ¥λιον ε‰ναι ... ΧρυσÛππƒ δ¢ τÚν αÞθ°ρα). A similar picture – a common Stoic main account side by side with references to individual Stoics – emerges from the text printed by Diels as fr. 39 (PE XV, 20, 1-7). Here Eusebius has not copied the text en bloc, but has selected some higlights from a larger context in which Arius described Stoic psychology. First we get the view of Zeno on semen (τÚ δ¢ σπ°ρµα φησ‹ν ı ΖÆνων κτλ.), then Eusebius skips some of Arius’ text and jumps over to Arius’ report (µετὰ βραχ°α §πιλ°γει) of Cleanthes on Zeno’s psychology (Κλεάνθης µ¢ν τὰ ΖÆνωνος δÒγµατα παρατιθ°µενος πρÚς σÊγκρισιν ... φησιν ˜τι ΖÆνων κτλ.). Then he jumps over again (κα‹ µετ᾿ ˆλιγα) to a section in which Arius gives common Stoic doctrines about the (we are back at the 3rd person plural: ε‰ναι δ¢ ψυχØν §ν τ“ ˜λƒ φασÛν, ˘ καλοËσιν αÞθ°ρα κα‹ ἀ°ρα κτλ.) and, once more, to an equally general and impersonal passage about whether or not the soul survives (τØν δ¢ ψυχØν γενητÆν τε κα‹ φθαρτØν λ°γουσιν ... τÚ δ¢ διαµ°νειν τὰς ψυχὰς οÏτως λ°γουσιν). What these fragments reveal is that the basis of Arius Didymus’ text was a kind of running exposé which gave common Stoic views, i.e. tenets subscribed to by the school in general. This basis was enriched by specific references to individual Stoics where they provided interesting arguments or definitions or where they did not agree on certain details.16 Stobaeus was not only less faithful than Eusebius in excerpting Arius’ text, as has been shown by Mansfeld and Runia,17 but he also cut apart Arius’ running exposition and interspersed it with material from other sources. This procedure has clearly affected the way he presents the material. In those cases where Arius provided specific views of Zeno, Cleanthes or Chrysippus he provided their names in

16 The two other passages from Arius on Stoic physics copied by Eusebius (frs. 36 and 37 Diels) corroborate this picture. 17 See Mansfeld & Runia (1997) 260-2. who usefully compare the respective versions of Eusebius and Stobaeus of Arius Didymus fr. 36 Diels, the only preserved fragment which is rendered by both of them. 166 Keimpe Algra the course of his running text. Here Stobaeus could simply copy the text plus the names. Thus we get phrases in Stobaeus like κÒσµον δ᾿ε‰ναι φησιν ı ΧρÊσιππος σÊστηµα §ξ οÈρανοÈ κα‹ γ∞ς κτλ. (fr. 31 Diels) or even ΖÆνωνα δ¢ οÏτως ἀποφαÛνεσθαι διαρρÆδην (fr. 38 Diels). In such cases the material preserved by Stobaeus can be quite securely attributed to the particular philosopher at issue, on the authority of Arius Didymus. However, as we noted, the text of Arius basic exposition of common Stoic physics appears to have provided no names (merely expressions like ‘they say’ or ‘they believe’). Here Stobaeus had to add name labels himself, and in such cases he appears to have had a preference for using the name label ‘Zeno’ in the genitive case. Thus we find some fragments from Arius in Stobaeus which start out with the name label ΖÆνωνος – as a mere prefix, i.e. without a proper syntactical connection to the contents of the fragment at issue. These fragments betray their provenance as parts of Arius’ running account of common Stoic physics in their actual text by such words as φασιν (they say). One of these fragments is our fr. 23 of which we shall here discuss the first part. The fragment opens as follows:

ΖÆνωνος. Τ«ν δ᾿ §ν τ“ κÒσµƒ πάντων τ«ν κατ᾿ ÞδÛαν ßξιν συνεστ≈των τὰ µ°ρη τØν φορὰν ¶χειν §π‹ τÚ τοË ˜λου µ°σον, ıµοÛως δ¢ κα‹ αÈτοË τοË κÒσµου, διÒπερ Ùρθ«ς λ°γεσθαι πάντα τὰ µ°ρη τοË κÒσµου §π‹ τÚ µ°σον τοË κÒσµου τØν φορὰν ¶χειν, µάλιστα δ¢ τὰ βάρος ¶χοντα.

The text continues with a number of similar accusativus cum infinitivo constructions – which, we should add, are independent of the name label ΖÆνωνος – until we arrive at the following revealing sentence:

παραπλησÛως δ¢ τοÊτοις οÈδ᾿ αÈτÒν φασιν τÚν κÒσµον βάρος ¶χειν διὰ τÚ τØν ˜λην αÈτοË σÊστασιν ¶κ τε βάρος §χÒντων στοιχεÛων ε‰ναι Zeno of Citium and Stoic Cosmology 167

κα‹ §κ τ«ν ἀβαρ«ν, τØν δ᾿ ˜λην γ∞ν καθ᾿ •αυτØν µ¢ν ¶χειν ἀρ°σκει βάρος, παρὰ δ¢ τØν θ°σιν ... §π‹ τοË τÒπου τοÊτου µ°νειν.

The verb ‘φασι’ clearly suggests that Arius is here talking about the view of the school as a whole, not just Zeno’s views. This suggestion is reinforced by the use of the impersonal ἀρ°σκει in the next sentence. In spite of Stobaeus’ rather specific label ΖÆνωνος we appear to be dealing with a piece of what Arius presents as common Stoic school doctrine. It is worth noting that parallel versions of the argument reproduced by Arius Didymus are to be found in Achilles, Cicero and , where they are presented as common school doctrine.18 What I attempt to show here is that this was how the argument was originally presented by Arius Didymus as well. Of course this does not preclude the possibility that some or even much of it goes back to Zeno. But whether we are prepared to ascribe it to Zeno will have to depend on whether we believe the theory at issue was so crucial to Stoic physics that it must have been present in Zeno’s work right from the start.19 On the basis of the evidence itself, however, we have no way to tell: the name label ΖÆνωνος cannot be taken as a reliable indication that we are dealing with authentically Zenonian material. It is perhaps worth pointing out that a comparable story may be told about Arius Didymus fr. 40, where the name label ΖÆνωνος is prefixed to an account of the Stoic theory of §ννοƵατα.20

18 See further Algra (1998). The four accounts have been conveniently printed in parallel columns in Hahm (1977), Appendix IV. 19 Cf. Wellmann’s criterion (c), referred to above. Note, however, that Chrysippus is known to have discussed the problems connected with weight and ‘natural motion’ of the parts of the cosmos in various works; cf. the way Plutarch SR 1053e tries to oppose two Chrysippean passages dealing with this very subject from the Περ‹ κινÆσεως and the Φυσικα‹ τ°χναι respectively. 20 Another example may be Arius Didymus fr. 20 (Stob. I, 11, 5), as is suggested by Mansfeld & Runia (1997) 262, although here the situation is less clear. It is true that the name label is not part and parcel of the text, but 168 Keimpe Algra

4

We shall now turn to our second case study, which concerns the material on space, place and void attributed to Zeno by Von Arnim and printed as SVF I, 94-96.21 The texts at issue derive from Aetius, and Philoponus. The testimonies of Themistius (SVF I, 94) and Philoponus (SVF I, 96) can be discarded as almost worthless for the purpose of isolating Zeno’s views: they render, in very general terms, what was in their days known to be the Stoic position concerning the void. There is no evidence whatsoever that they had access, either directly or indirecetly, to any of Zeno’s original works and their ‘Zeno and his followers’ (ΖÆνων κα‹ οß ἀπ᾿ αÈτοË, Themistius) or ‘those around Zeno’ (τοÁς περ‹ ΖÆνωνα τÚν Κιτι°α, Philoponus) should simply be taken to refer to ‘the Stoics’ in general.22 However, the testimony of Aetius printed in SVF I, 95 might seem to present a different case. Here we are not just given the ‘stock’ information that Zeno and his followers believed there to be a void outside the cosmos and no void inside.23 We are presented with some rather specific definitions of the concepts of τÒπος, χ≈ρα and κενÒν:

Stobaeus appears to have abridged the text in this respect anyway, for also the second lemma has the name label (Chrysippus) added in the genitive case. Moreover there is no verb in the 3rd person plural. So it is not inconceivable that we are dealing with an original piece of Zenonian material (comparable to the Zenonian lemmata of fr. 18 or 26 Diels). 21 As in the previous section, I am here elaborating on the results of previous work. What I am offering here is complementary to Algra (1994), where I discussed the early Stoic theory of space, without however focusing in detail on the way the various preserved sets of definitions interrelate, or on the problem of Zeno’s specific contribution (the subjects of the present section). 22 In fact the status of these ‘fragments’ is not different from that of the passages from Themistius and Simplicius printed as SVF II, 506-508 (i.e. in the Chrysippean section of SVF), which ascribe equally general tenets to ı περ‹ ΧρÊσιππον χÒρος or οß ΣτωικοÛ. See also the very general information provided by Galen (Qual. Incorp.) and printed as SVF II, 502. 23 This seems to have been a piece of standard information which is also to be found in the testimonies of Themistius (SVF I, 94), Philoponus (SVF I, 96) and Diogenes Laertius (SVF I, 95), second part). Zeno of Citium and Stoic Cosmology 169

ΖÆνων κα‹ οß ἀπ᾿ αÈτοË .... διαφ°ρειν κενÚν τÒπον χ≈ραν: κα‹ τÚ µ¢ν κενÚν ε‰ναι §ρηµÛαν σ≈µατος, τÚν δ¢ τÒπον τÚ §πεχÒµενον ÍπÚ σ≈µατος, τØν δ¢ χ≈ραν τÚ §κ µ°ρους §πεχÒµενον, Àσπερ §π‹ τ∞ς τοË ο‡νου πιθάκνης (Aetius I, 20, 1 in Stobaeus’ version).

It might be assumed that the doxographer Aetius, like Arius Didymus, is one of those sources that make it their job to distinguish between the positions of individual Stoic philosophers.24 It is probably for this reason that scholars like Pohlenz and Von Fritz regarded his ascription of the definitions of spatial terms to Zeno as trustworthy. However, on closer view matters appear to be more complicated. First of all, the ascription in Stobaeus’ version of Aetius is not really that specific at all, for here again we find ‘Zeno and his followers’ (ΖÆνων κα‹ οß ἀπ᾿ αÈτοË). Moreover, in the version of ps.-Plutarch the various definitions have been coalesced with other material and ascribed, even more generally, to ‘ and the Stoics’.25 Thirdly, also a comparison of these definitions with two other sets of definitions presented by Arius Didymus and shows that a more skeptical approach is warranted in this case. Let us take a look at these parallel sets of definitions. The set of definitions provided by Arius Didymus (fr. 25 Diels) is ascribed to Chrysippus, and given what was said above on Arius’ procedure, there is actually no reason to doubt this ascription. Von Arnim accordingly printed these definitions as SVF II, 503. We shall here only deal with the first part of the fragment (as printed by Diels) which runs as follows:

24 We may recall Wellmann’s criterion (a), set above, 160. 25 Von Arnim accordingly printed Ps-Plutarch’s version of I, 20, 1 in the second volume, as SVF II, 504, on which see above, 163. 170 Keimpe Algra

[ΧρυσÛππου]. ΤÒπον δ᾿ε‰ναι ı ΧρÊσιππος ἀπεφαÛνετο τÚ κατεχÒµενον δι᾿ ˜λου ÍπÚ ˆντος ŭ τÚ οÂÒν <τε> κατ°χεσθαι ÍπÚ ˆντος κα‹ δι᾿ ˜λου κατεχÒµενον ε‡τε ÍπÚ τινÚς <ε‡τε> ÍπÚ τιν«ν. §ὰν δ¢ τοË οáου τε κατ°χεσθαι ÍπÚ ˆντος τ‹ µ¢ν κατ°χηται, τ‹ δ¢ µÆ, τÚ ˜λον <οÎτε> κενÚν ¶σεσθαι οÎτε τÒπον, ßτερον δ° τι οÈκ »νοµασµ°νον: τÚ µ¢ν γὰρ κενÚν το›ς κενο›ς ἀγγεÛοις λ°γεσθαι παραπλησÛως, τÚν δ¢ τÒπον το›ς πλÆρεσι: χ≈ραν δ¢ πÒτερον τÚ µε›ζον οÂÒν τε κατ°χεσθαι ÍπÚ ˆντος κα‹ οÂον µε›ζον ἀγγε›ον σ≈µατος ŭ τÚ χωροËν µε›ζον σ«µα. (Arius Didymus fr. 25, first part).

The set of definitions provided by Sextus Empiricus is not ascribed to any Stoic in particular. In line with his general policy of linking all such unattributred ‘common Stoic’ material to Chrysippus, Von Arnim printed these definitions in vol. II as well (as SVF II, 505):

κα‹ οß Στωικο‹ δ¢ κενÚν µ¢ν ε‰ναÛ φασι τÚ οÂÒν τε ÍπÚ ˆντος κατ°χεσθαι, µØ κατεχÒµενον δ°, ŭ διάστηµα ¶ρηµον σ≈µατος ŭ διάστηµα ἀκαθεκτοʵενον ÍπÚ σ≈µατος, τÒπον δ¢ τÚν ÍπÚ ˆντος κατεχÒµενον κα‹ §ξισαζÒµενον τ“ κατ°χοντι αÈτÒν, νËν ¯ν καλοËντες τÚ σ«µα, καθÆς κα‹ §κ τ∞ς µεταλÆψεως τ«ν Ùνοµάτων §στ‹ συµφαν°ς. χ≈ραν δ¢ φασιν ε‰ναι διάστηµα κατὰ µ°ν τι κατεχÒµενον ÍπÚ σ≈µατος κατὰ δ° τι ἀκαθεκτοʵενον. ¶νιοι δ¢ χ≈ραν ¶λεξαν Íπάρχειν τÚν τοË µεÛζονος σ≈µατος τÒπον, …ς ταÊτ˙ διαφ°ρειν τοË τÒπου τ“ §κε›νον µ¢ν µØ §µφαÛνειν µ°γεθος τοË §µπεριεχοµ°νου σ≈µατος - κἂν γὰρ §λάχιστον περι°χ˙ σ«µα, οÈδ¢ν ∏ττον τÒπος προσαγορεÊεται - τØν δ᾿ ἀξιÒλογον §µφαÛνειν Zeno of Citium and Stoic Cosmology 171

µ°γεθος τοË §ν αÈτ“ σ≈µατος (Sextus, M. X, 3- 4) (* τοË τÒπου τÚν τÒπον mss.: τοË τÒπου <τØν χ≈ραν> Bake, followed by von Arnim).

What can we learn from a comparison of these three sets of definitions? As we noted, the attribution to Chrysippus in Arius seems to be safe. Of course this does not in principle preclude the possibility of a Zenonian origin of the definitions: Chrysippus may simply have followed Zeno. Yet, it is important to note that the definition of χ≈ρα in Aetius, which is paralleled by the first definition of χ≈ρα in Sextus, cannot really be by Zeno. For what it describes – occupied place plus void – was according to Arius’ account explicitly referred to by Chrysippus as ‘something for which we have no name’ (ßτερον δ° τι οÈκ »νοµασµ°νον). It would be odd for Chrysippus to make this claim if Zeno had in this connection used the term χ≈ρα. How then should we explain the definition of χ≈ρα in Aetius? As a later post-Chrysippean definition testifying to a change of view on this issue within the school? There is no evidence for such a change of view and it is not easy to think up why any Stoic would have wanted to correct Chrysippus in this respect. We should therefore seriously consider the remaining option, viz. that we are dealing with a (sometimes slightly garbled) reformulation (i.e. identical ad sententiam, though not qua Wortlaut) made either within the school, or within the doxographical tradition. This indeed seems to be a promising approach. Chrysippus’ first definition of χ≈ρα as preserved by Arius Didymus, which speaks of a space larger than the body contained (τÚ µε›ζον οÂÒν τε κατ°χεσθαι ÍπÚ ˆντος κα‹ οÂον µε›ζον ἀγγε›ον σ≈µατος) may well have been cavalierly paraphrased at some point as denoting a space which is partially void – which indeed is what is implied by the first definition in Sextus (διάστηµα κατὰ µ°ν τι κατεχÒµενον ÍπÚ σ≈µατος κατὰ δ° τι ἀκαθεκτοʵενον) and by the definition in Aetius (τÚ §κ µ°ρους §πεχÒµενον, Àσπερ §π‹ τ∞ς τοË ο‡νου πιθάκνης). Arius Didymus’ second Chrysippean definition of 172 Keimpe Algra

χ≈ρα, on the other hand, speaks of that which contains a larger body (τÚ χωροËν µε›ζον σ«µα). As such it may have been read as implying that χ≈ρα is simply the place of a larger body – which is what we find in Sextus’ second definition, attributed to ‘some’ (¶νιοι δ¢ χ≈ραν ¶λεξαν Íπάρχειν τÚν τοË µεÛζονος σ≈µατος τÒπον). Schematically the way these definitions interrelate may be presented as follows:

•Arius Didymus: χ≈ραν δ¢ πÒτερον (1) τÚ µε›ζον οÂÒν τε κατ°χεσθαι ÍπÚ ˆντος κα‹ οÂον µε›ζον ἀγγε›ον σ≈µατος ŭ

(2) τÚ χωροËν µε›ζον σ«µα

• Sextus: χ≈ραν δ¢ φασιν ε‰ναι διάστηµα κατὰ µ°ν τι κατεχÒµενον ÍπÚ σ≈µατος κατὰ δ° τι ἀκαθεκτοʵενον. ¶νιοι δ¢ χ≈ραν ¶λεξαν Íπάρχειν τÚν τοË µεÛζονος σ≈µατος τÒπον,

• Aetius: τØν δ¢ χ≈ραν τÚ §κ µ°ρους §πεχÒµενον, Àσπερ §π‹ τ∞ς τοË ο‡νου πιθάκνης. The fact that the definition of χ≈ρα in Aetius cannot be by Zeno casts doubt on the Zenonian origin of the other definitions in Aetius as well. And indeed, also in these cases the definitions provided by Sextus and Aetius can be plausibly regarded as different Zeno of Citium and Stoic Cosmology 173 versions of the Chrysippean definitions as they are provided by Arius Didymus. If we first take a look at the definitions of place, we may note that Sextus’ definition (τÚν ÍπÚ ˆντος κατεχÒµενον κα‹ §ξισαζÒµενον τ“ κατ°χοντι αÈτÒν), is equivalent to the first Chrysippean definition in Arius (τÚ κατεχÒµενον δι᾿ ˜λου ÍπÚ ˆντος – we may note that δι᾿ ˜λου corresponds το §ξισαζÒµενον and also note the use of ˆν instead of σ«µα in both cases). But also the definition in Aetius (τÚ §πεχÒµενον ÍπÚ σ≈µατος) may be regarded as a compressed version of the same definition. All this results in the following scheme:

• Arius Didymus: ΤÒπον δ᾿ε‰ναι ı ΧρÊσιππος ἀπεφαÛνετο (1) τÚ κατεχÒµενον δι᾿ ˜λου ÍπÚ ˆντος ŭ (2) τÚ οÂÒν <τε> κατ°χεσθαι ÍπÚ ˆντος κα‹ δι᾿ ˜λου κατεχÒµενον ε‡τε ÍπÚ τινÚς <ε‡τε> ÍπÚ τιν«ν • Sextus: τÒπον δ¢ τÚν ÍπÚ ˆντος κατεχÒµενον κα‹ §ξισαζÒµενον τ“ κατ°χοντι αÈτÒν, νËν ¯ν καλοËντες τÚ σ«µα, καθÆς κα‹ §κ τ∞ς µεταλÆψεως τ«ν Ùνοµάτων §στ‹ συµφαν°ς • Aetius: τÚν δ¢ τÒπον τÚ §πεχÒµενον ÍπÚ σ≈µατος 174 Keimpe Algra

Arius Didymus does not explicitly provide Chrysippus’ definition of the void, so here our reconstruction is inevitably more conjectural. However, it can be inferred from Arius’ text that Chrysippus did discuss the void, and that he characterized it as ‘that which is capable of being occupied by body, but is not occupied’ (τÚ οÂÒν τε ÍπÚ ˆντος κατ°χεσθαι, µØ κατεχÒµενον δ°), which materially amounts to one of the definitions we find in Sextus. In the absence of any further material in the preserved fragment of Arius we cannot link the other two definitions in Sextus to Chrysippus with any certainty. However, Chrysippus may have given more than one definition of the void, just as he gave more than one definition of τÒπος and χ≈ρα. In other words, the occurrence of these unparalelled definitions in Sextus does not contradict our hypothesis of a Chrysippean origin either. In addition it is worth noting that, as in the case of the definitions of χ≈ρα and τÒπος, what Aetius provides appears to be not unrelated to what Sextus provides: §ρηµÛαν σ≈µατος (Aetius) may well be read as an (abridged) equivalent of διάστηµα ¶ρηµον σ≈µατος (Sextus). This suggests a family resemblance between the various preserved definitions of the void similar to that which can be established between the definitions of τÒπος and χ≈ρα:

• Arius Didymus provides no definitions of the void, but one, <τÚ οÂÒν τε ÍπÚ ˆντος κατ°χεσθαι, µØ κατεχÒµενον δ°>, can be reconstructed from the context;

• Sextus: (1) τÚ οÂÒν τε ÍπÚ ˆντος κατ°χεσθαι, µØ κατεχÒµενον δ°, ŭ (2) διάστηµα ¶ρηµον σ≈µατος ŭ (3) διάστηµα ἀκαθεκτοʵενον ÍπÚ σ≈µατος,

• Aetius:. τÚ µ¢ν κενÚν ε‰ναι §ρηµÛαν σ≈µατος Zeno of Citium and Stoic Cosmology 175

Here as well the family resemblance between the definitions is easy to explain on the assumption that both Sextus and Aetius represent versions of (lost) Chrysippean original definitions. Let us summarise our findings. First, the occurence of the name label ‘Zeno’ (or rather ‘Zeno and his followers’) in (Stobaeus’ version of) Aetius cannot really be taken at face value. Secondly, the definition of χ≈ρα provided by Aetius cannot be by Zeno. Thirdly, on closer inspection all three definitions (i.e. of τÒπος, χ≈ρα and κενÒν) in Aetius, as well as their counterparts in Sextus Empiricus, can be plausibly regarded as reformulations (or perhaps to some extent re-interpretations) of the Chrysippean definitions which are to be found in Arius Didymus. We may therefore provisionally conclude that it is more than likely that the definitions of spatial terms rendered by Aetius are ultimately to be traced back not to Zeno, but to Chrysippus. This provisional conclusion need not really suprise us, in view of the available circumstantial evidence. Chrysippus is known to have devoted a whole work to the void (Περ‹ κενοË,) and to have discussed the subject also in the first book of the Φυσικα‹ τ°χναι (D. L. VII, 140). We know, moreover, that he was engaged in polemics against the Epicurean conception of the void.26 So he is probably one of the first Stoics to have worked out a proper theory of space (place, void, room). What about Zeno? It is likely of course that he discussed the general features of at least the void, for also in his cosmology an extracosmic void was needed to provide room for the cosmos at an eventual conflagration. But there is no evidence for a more thorough reflection on the theoretical problems concerning space on his part. In this connection it is worth noting that he doesn’t figure in Diogenes Laertius’ short list of laudationes of those Stoics who specifically discussed the void at VII, 140. Diogenes only mentions Chrysippus, Apollophanes, Apollodorus and Posidonius. We may conclude that there is actually no good reason to print the definitions provided in (Stobaeus’ version of) Aetius I, 20, 1 as a

26 Thus we know that he stressed the idea of the isotropy of the void as against the Epicurean claim that there are fixed directions (‘up’ and ‘down’) in the infinite void: cf. Plutarch, SR 1054e. 176 Keimpe Algra

Zenonian fragment. Like the definitions in Sextus they are probably to be traced back to a set of definitions which was first formulated by Chrysippus, and which subsequently became widely used within the school.

5

I want to conclude this essay by offering some reflections on a more general level on the status of physics in the early Stoa. The catalogue of Zenonian book-titles in Diogenes Laertius appears to be incomplete.27 Yet it is well to remember that of the 19 titles mentioned in the context of this catalogue,28 only a few concern books that certainly or probably dealt with cosmology and physics. In the case of the Περ‹ τοË ˜λου we may be certain. It is explicitly quoted or referred to 4 times in our sources, which makes it for us Zeno’s second best known work, after the Πολιτε›α. On account of their position in the catalogue,29 two other titles may with some probability be assigned to the domain of physics as well: Περ‹ ˆψεως (presumably a work on the physiological aspects of vision) and Περ‹ σηµεÛων (probably a book on meteorological

27 The catalogue probably derives, directly or indirectly, from Apollonius of Tyre who is referred to by Strabo (XVI, 2, 24) as ᾿Απολλ≈νιος ı τÚν πÛνακα §κθε‹ς τ«ν ἀπÚ ΖÆνωνος φιλοσÒφων κα‹ τ«ν βιβλÛων. On Apollonius as a source for Diogenes Laertius and on his dependence on earlier sources see now Barnes (1996), 169-72. Titles which are attested in the fragments, but which are absent from the catalogue of D.L. VII, 4, are: ∆ιατριβαÛ, Περ‹ λÒγου, Περ‹ οÈσιας, Περ‹ φÊσεως, and Χρε›αι. See for the attestations the list Fragmenta Zenonis ad singulos libros relata, printed as an appendix in SVF I, p. 71-2. 28 At VII, 4 Diogenes Laertius first mentions the Πολιτε›α, he then gives the catalogue proper which consists of 14 titles, and adds a kind of appendix consisting of 4 more titles. 29 The list is not as neatly articulated as its Chrysippean counterpart, but the first 6 titles of the catalogue proper clearly belong to ethics, the last 3 to logic (in the broad sense). The Καθολικά are usually also assigned to the logic section (but we have really no idea as to the nature of its contents). Zeno of Citium and Stoic Cosmology 177 and astronomical signs).30 The same may apply to the enigmatic Πυθαγορικά. Elsewhere two additional titles of apparently physical works are ascribed to Zeno: Περ‹ οÈσÛας (by D.L.; cf. SVF I, 85a) and Περ‹ φÊσεως (by Aetius ap. Stobaeum; cf. SVF I, 176). Aetius, of course, is not the most trustworthy source when it comes to titles, and it is plausible that the rather general title Περ‹ φÊσεως is his way of indicating Zeno’s main work in the area of 31 physics, i.e. the περ‹ τοË ˜λου. It has been argued that a similar 32 story applies to the Περ‹ οÈσÛας, although we may here be dealing with a separate work on the more ontological aspects of physics (i.e. matter and God and the way they relate).33 Even so we may conclude that Zeno’s works on physics were relatively few, and that his treatment of the grand themes of cosmology was probably

30 In principle the possibility is not to be excluded that the Περ‹ σηµεÛων was a work on logic or epistemology (for this suggestion see e.g. Barnes (1999) 73, n. 43, with further references), but in view of Zeno’s rather limited interest in logic this is perhaps less likely. A physical work Περ‹ σηµεÛων (i.e. on astronomical and meteorological ‘signs’) was attributed to in antiquity (fr. 250 Rose; see also the title ΣηµεÛα χειµ≈νων α´ in the catalogue of D.L. V, 45), and a Περ‹ σηµεÛων α´ is also ascribed to (D.L. V, 45 and Proclus In Tim. 3. 286a9 = fr. 194 FHSG). A work Περ‹ σηµεÛων Íδάτων κα‹ πνευµάτων κα‹ χειµ≈νων κα‹ εÈδι«ν has been preserved and is ascribed to Aristotle in the MSS, but to Theophrastus in editions from the 16th century onward. It is probably a compilation made by some Peripatetic. See Cronin (1992). Note that if Zeno wrote a Περ‹ σηµεÛων of this (physical) kind, it may have been used as a source for the second part of the Phaenomena (the so-called ∆ιοσηµε›α or ∆ιοσηµε›αι) of his pupil Aratus of Soli. As yet, scholarly Quellenforschung concerning this second part of the Phaenomena has focused primarily on the Peripatetic tradition, even though the influence of Stoicism on Aratus in general (esp. on the proem) has been widely recognized. On the fact that Aratus must have used a fuller source than the ps.-Theophratsean Περ‹ σηµεÛων Íδάτων κα‹ πνευµάτων κα‹ χειµ≈νων κα‹ εÈδι«ν see Kidd (1997) 23. 31 Von Fritz (1972) 91. 32 Sceptical as to the title Περ‹ οÈσÛας are Wellmann (1973) 442, and Von Fritz (1972) 91. 33 According to D.L. VII, 132, the Stoics divided physics in three topoi: τÒν τε περ‹ κÒσµου κα‹ τÚν περ‹ τ«ν στοιχεÛων κα‹ τρÛτον τÚν αÞτιολογικÒν. A work Περ‹ οÈσÛας may have covered the second of these topoi, the Περ‹ τοË ˜λου the first. For a late example of a work on Stoic physics covering the first topos only, see Cleomedes’ ΚυκλικØ θεωρÛα. (also known in the MSS as Μετε≈ρα). 178 Keimpe Algra confined to a single work, the Περ‹ τοË ˜λου, a work which moreover appears to have consisted of a single book. In this limited space Zeno is reported to have discussed such various topics as the uniqueness of the cosmos (D. L. VII, 143 = SVF I, 97), cosmogony (D.L. VII, 136 = SVF I, 102, 2nd part), meteorological phenomena (D. L. VII, 153-4 = SVF I, 117), and astronomical phenomena such as eclipses of the sun (D. L. 145 = SVF I, 119). Of course these findings cannot be used to support the claim that Zeno thought physics was unimportant, but they do at least suggest that his treatment of physics was fairly general, leaving much to be worked out by his followers. In this connection a few pieces of ‘circumstantial evidence’ may be relevant. First of all, Zeno’s intellectual background deserves to be taken into account. As a pupil of Crates the Cynic he can be assumed to have familiarized himself thoroughly with the Socratic tradition which – this goes for both the Cynics and the – regarded physics as either useless, or beyond our human capacities (or both).34 It appears that Zeno ended up disagreeing on both accounts, but we need not assume that this conception of the role of physics left no traces at all. It is quite conceivable, although impossible to prove, that Zeno believed that both the range and the usefulness of physics are limited – in other words, that many of the details of the physical world defy human explanation and that anyhow physics is only useful insofar as it can provide a basis for ethics.35

34 A useful survey of the influences on Stoicism according to the biographical tradition in Hahm (1997), 219-38. On the connection with Crates, see D.L. VII, 2 (SVF I, 1), VII, 32 (SVF I, 6); see also Numenius ap. Eus. PE XIV, 5, 11 (SVF I, 11). Among the titles of Zeno’s books as listed in D.L. VII, 4 is work ᾿Αποµνηµονεʵατα Κράτητος ±θικά. 35 We may presume that Zeno’s subsequent connections with the dialecticians Stilpo, and Philo of (cf. D.L. VII, 1; 16; 25 = SVF I, 1; 4; 278) and with the Academy (the biographical tradition connects him with Polemo and Xenocrates; see the passages quoted in the previous note and D.L. VII, 24 = SVF I, 24) did not particularly foster his interest in physics either. Although the long tradition of exegesis of the Timaeus had already begun - for a convenient survey see Runia (1986) 41-45 - the early Academy appears to have dealt with physics primarily from a more general metaphysical point of view. At any rate there was no tradition of detailed discussion of physical problems. Zeno of Citium and Stoic Cosmology 179

However this may be, it is interesting to note that a predominant interest in ethics, and a lack of interest in physics, is also witnessed among Zeno’s immediate pupils. We need not even point to such ‘radicals’ as Aristo, Dionysius of Heracleia or Herillus of Carthage; neither of the latter wrote anything on physics, whereas Aristo in a quasi-Cynic fashion explicitly gave up the whole subject as being beyond our reach.36 It is perhaps more significant that we also find it in the case of Zeno’s star pupil , whom he sent to Antigonus Gonatas as a suitable philosophical representative (when Antigonus had asked for Zeno himself). For all we know, Persaeus wrote nothing on physics either.37 Cleanthes and Sphaerus appear to have been the first Stoics to set themselves the task of working out Zeno’s physics and cosmology, even if the evidence suggests that for them as well physics was not the main area of interest.38 They did so in various ways. First of all by clarifying Zeno’s work and by locating it within the philosophical tradition. Thus we know that Cleanthes wrote a work in two books entitled Περ‹ τ∞ς ΖÆνωνος φυσιολογÛας and a fragment from Arius Didymus (preserved by Eusebius) tells us that he made an attempt to compare Zenonian physics to the work of previous philosophers.39 In addition, his four books ῾ΗρακλεÛτου §ξηγÆσεις may well be taken to have established, or at least worked out in more detail, a link between Zenonian physics and . Sphaerus also wrote a work on Heraclitus in five (!) books (Περ‹ ῾ΗερακλεÛτου) but also works on the two main topoi of physics: a Περ‹ κÒσµου in two books and a work Περ‹ στοιχεÛων.40 In addition, both Cleanthes and Sphaerus devoted separate works to special subjects (thus Cleanthes wrote a

36 On Aristo on physics see the material discussed by Ioppolo (1980) 78-90. 37 Favourite pupil: Ind. Stoic., PHerc. 1018, col. XII (SVF I, 437); Persaeus and Antigonus: D. L. VII, 6 (SVF I, 439). Catalogue of Persaeus’ works in D.L. VII, 36 (SVF I, 435). 38 Of the 50 titles ascribed to Cleanthes, only 5 concern works on physics. In the case of Sphaerus, a pupil of both Zeno and Cleanthes, the ratio is 6 out of the 36 know titles. 39 Arius Didymus fr. 39 (= SVF I, 519). The fragment may indeed well derive from the Περ‹ τ∞ς ΖÆνωνος φυσιολογÛας. 40 On these two topoi see above, n. 33. 180 Keimpe Algra

Περ‹ χρÒνου and Sphaerus’ a Περ‹ σπ°ρµατος and a Περ‹ τÊχης). Finally, both Cleanthes and Sphaerus appear to have attempted to fend off Zeno’s system against rival views (Cleanthes in his ΠρÚς ῞Ηριλλον, ΠρÚς ∆ηµÒκριτον, and ΠρÚς ᾿ΑρÛσταρχον; Sphaerus in his Περ‹ §λαχÛστων, and ΠρÚς τὰς ἀτÒµους κα‹ τὰ εÞδ«λα). We may note in passing that, contrary to what has sometimes been suggested, we have no evidence about Zeno himself defending his cosmology against Epicurus.41 Chrysippus carried on the project of ‘fortification’ of Zenonian philosophy, attacking rival ,42 filling in further details and supplying additional arguments to those put forward by Zeno.43 Perhaps we may say the project was carried to virtual completion by Posidonius who tried to connect the results of detailed and wide-ranging empirical observations to the overall framework of physics and cosmology as it had been developed by the early Stoics. Where does this leave Zeno? Of course he may be credited with having designed the outlines of Stoic cosmology and physics, and in some cases – one may think e.g. of the theory of the conflagration – it is quite conceivable that Stoic physical theorems sprang from his head more or less in full armour.44 Yet the evidence also suggests

41 For the suggestion that Zeno worked out his system in conscious opposition to Epicurus, see e.g. Wiersma (1943). 42 A few indications among the preserved titles: he wrote a Περ‹ δικαιοσÊνης πρÚς Πλάτωνα (cf. Plutarch SR 1040d and the texts printed as SVF III, 288, 313 and 455), and the preserved part of the catalogue of his works in D.L. VII, 189 ff. includes three anti-hedonistic treatises: Περ‹ τοË καλοË κα‹ τ∞ς ≤δον∞ς πρÚς ᾿Αριστοκρ°οντα, ᾿ΑποδεÛξεις πρÚς τÚ µØ ε‰ναι τØν ≤δονØν τ°λος, and ᾿ΑποδεÛξεις πρÚς τÚ µØ ε‰ναι τØν ≤δονØν ἀγαθÒν. Several of the quotations from Chrysippus’ work in Plutarch testify to his zealous anti-Epicurean polemics. 43 An interesting example is offered by the various addtional arguments (i.e. additional to those used by Zeno, cf. the argument printed as SVF I, 148) on the place of the ≤γεµονικÚν of the soul preserved in Galen’s PHP. 44 Cf. Zeno’s argument for a complete conflagration, preserved by Alexander of Lycopolis (and referred to above, n. 4.). Note that I do not mean to suggest that the theory of conflagration was completely original: Zeno may well have been indebted to Presocratic examples. Indeed there is no reason to deny that Zenonian physics was in various respects indebted to other philosophers Zeno of Citium and Stoic Cosmology 181 that he was not a very prolific writer on cosmology and it seems that it fell to Cleanthes and Sphaerus, and most of all to Chrysippus, to flesh out and defend the system – even if they usually did so without claiming originality for their views, preferring to present these views as elaborations of Zeno’s philosophy. This means that there certainly is room for the idea of a development of early Stoic physics and cosmology, and that there can be no doubt that the Chrysippean version of Stoicism – the main point of reference for most of our ancient sources – was in many respects more fully developed and articulated than the Zenonian original. Therefore the following conclusion seems to be warranted. If we want to draw as detailed a map as possible of the history of early Stoicism, it is vital that we distinguish, wherever an analysis of the evidence allows us to do so, what is securely attributable to Zeno not only from what is securely attributable to other early Stoics, but also from such 'common Stoic' material as is only possibly, or in part, of Zenonian origin. In the present paper I have offered two case studies where this can and should, to my , be done. Despite Von Arnim’s misgivings on this point, such an approach is one of the things that should be expected of any future edition of the fragments.45

(, Aristotle, Heraclitus; see on this subject in general Hahm (1977). I only wish to suggest that the theory of the conflagration as designed by Zeno probably did not need much further articulation from his immediate successors (it may have been questioned by later Stoics, but that is a different matter), whereas in other areas of physics such further articulation was indeed called for. 45 I would like to thank Jaap Mansfeld, Frans de Haas and the participants of the Zeno conference in Larnaca for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Algra, K. A. (1988), ‘The Early Stoics on the Immobility and Coherence of the Cosmos’, Phronesis XXXIII, 155-80. • Algra, K. A. (1994), Concepts of Space in Greek Thought, Leiden etc. • Barnes, J. (1996) ‘The Catalogue of Chrysippus’ Logical Works’, in: K. A. Algra, P. W. van der Horst & D. T. Runia (eds.), Polyhistor. Studies in the History and Historiography of , Leiden etc, 169-185. • Barnes, J. (1999), ‘Introduction, III: The History of Hellenistic Logic’, in: K. A. Algra, J. Barnes, J. Mansfeld & M. Schofield (eds.), The Cambridge History of , Cambridge 1999, 69-76. • Cronin, P. (1992), ‘The Authorship and Sources of the Peri sêmeiôn Ascribed to Theophrastus’, in: W. W. Fortenbaugh & D. Gutas (eds.), Theophrastus: His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings, Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities vol. 5, New Brunswick, 307-345. • Fritz, K. von (1972), ‘Zenon von Kition’, RE Xa, 83-121. • Göransson, T. (1995), Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus, Göteborg. • Hahm, D. (1977), The Origins of Stoic Cosmology, Ohio. • Horst, P. W. van der (1996), ‘"A Simple Philosophy". Alexander of Lycopolis on Christianity’, in: K. A. Algra, P. W. van der Horst & D. T. Runia (eds.), Polyhistor. Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient Philosophy, Leiden etc, 313-29. • Ioppolo, A.-M. (1980), Aristone di Chio e lo Stoicismo antico, Napoli. • Kidd, D. (1997), Aratus. Phaenomena, edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Cambridge. • Mansfeld, J. (1979), ‘Providence and the Destruction of the in Early Stoic Thought’, in: M. J. Vermaseren (ed.), Studies in Hellenistic Religion, EPRO 78, Leiden, 129-88; repr. in J. Mansfeld, Studies in Later Greek Philosophy and Gnosticism, London 1989. • Mansfeld, J. & Runia, D. T. (1997), Aëtiana. The Method and Intellectual Context of A Doxographer, vol. 1: The Sources, Leiden etc. • Pearson, A. C. (1891), The Fragments of Zeno and Cleanthes, with Introduction and Explanatory Notes, London. Zeno of Citium and Stoic Cosmology 183

• Pohlenz, M. (1938), ‘Zenon und Chrysipp’, Nachr. der Ak. der Wiss. zu Göttingen, Ph.-hist. Kl. I, 2, 9; 173-210, repr. in M. Pohlenz, Kleine Schriften, vol. 1, Hildesheim 1965, 1-39. • Runia, D. T. (1986), Philo of and the Timaeus of , Leiden etc. • Runia, D. T. (1996), ‘Additional Fragments of Arius Didymus on Physics’, in: K. A. Algra, P. W. van der Horst & D. T. Runia (eds.), Polyhistor. Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient Philosophy, Leiden etc., 363-81. • Schofield, M. (1983), ‘The Syllogisms of Zeno of Citium’, Phronesis 28, 31-58. • Troost, K. (1891), Zenonis Citiensis de rebus physicis doctrinae fundamentum ex adiectis fragmentis, Berliner Studien für Classische Philologie und Archaeologie XII, 3, Berlin. • Wellmann, E. (1873), ‘Die Philosophie des Stoikers Zenon’, Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie 111, 433-490. • Wellmann, E. (1877), ‘Zur Philosophie des Stoikers Zenon’, Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie 115, 800-808. • Wiersma, W. (1943), ‘Die Physik des Stoikers Zenon’, Mnemosyne XI, 191-216.