• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

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 philosophy as consisting of three interrelated parts: logic, physics and ethics.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 epistemology, whereas the development of logic proper was mainly the achievement of Chrysippus.2 In the area of 1 The classical tripartion (logic, physics, ethics) is ascribed to Zeno at D.L. VII, 39 and Cicero, 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 Stoicism, 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 sense) 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 dialectic (Plutarch 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 – Cleanthes, Sphaerus, Chrysippus, Posidonius – made contributions of their own, and that what in the later Hellenistic and early Imperial periods counted as Stoic physics 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 psychology 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 cosmos as paraphrased by Arius Didymus, and the definitions of space, place and void which are presented in Stobaeus’ 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.

Load more

  29

Copy Link