DOCSLIB.ORG

Seneca and Paul on the Future of Humanity and of the Cosmos

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Seneca and Paul on the Future of Humanity and of the Cosmos The Salvation of Creation: Seneca and Paul on the Future of Humanity and of the Cosmos James P. Ware Modern scholarship confirms what Seneca says about himself: that he was a convinced Stoic, who was nonetheless not averse to criticism of his Stoic predecessors, who drew eclectically upon a variety of thinkers regardless of school, and also sought to make original contributions to philosophical thought.1 The starting point for our examination, in Part One, of Seneca’s un- derstanding of the future of human beings and of the cosmos will therefore be the ancient Stoic conception of cosmic conflagration and renewal. In con- trast with Seneca, there is widespread disagreement (and, I will argue, misun- derstanding) in Pauline scholarship regarding the proper contextualization of Paul’s eschatology within its ancient philosophical and cultural milieu. In Part Two, therefore, our examination of Paul’s future expectation, I will address this debate regarding Paul’s eschatological hope. The aim will be to gain an au- thentic grasp of the content of Paul’s hope of resurrection and new creation, in order to set Paul and Seneca in fruitful dialogue regarding the cosmos, human beings, and their future. 1 Part One: Seneca and the Expectation of Eternal Recurrence The mainstream Stoic teaching postulated the cyclical or periodic destruc- tion by fire (ἐκπύρωσις) and subsequent renewal (παλιγγενεσία), in its identical form, of the entire created order.2 According to the Stoics, says Origen, “after the conflagration of the universe, which has taken place from infinity and will take place to infinity, the same order of all things, from beginning to end, has 1 See, e.g., Ep. 74.23; 80.1; 82.8-24; 83.8-27; 87.26-27; 90 (passim); 94 (passim); 104.16; 109.3; 113 (passim). 2 See SVF 1.98, 107; 2.590, 599, 625, 626; Cicero, Nat. d. 2.118; Philo, Aet. 47; Dio Chrysostom, Borysth. 55; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.13.4-7; cf. A.A. Long, “The Stoics on World-Conflagration and Everlasting Recurrence,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 23 (1985): Supplement, 13-37; and René Hoven, Stoïcisme et Stoïciens face au problème de l’au-delà (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1971), 31-37. On related currents of thought within the ancient world, see B.L. van der Waer- den, “Das grosse Jahr und die ewige Wiederkehr,” Hermes 80 (1952): 129-55. © KoninklijkeBrillNV,Leiden,2017 | DOI10.1163/9789004341364 015 286 Ware been and will be.”3 The doctrine appears to have been held universally through the time of Chrysippus. But a number of leading Stoics thereafter either with- held judgment or rejected the doctrine, including Zeno of Tarsus (Chrysippus’ successor as προστάτης of the school at Athens), his successor Diogenes of Babylon, Diogenes’ student Boethus of Sidon, and Panaetius (the chief figure of the Middle Stoa).4 Seneca, in contrast, held to the mainstream Stoic doctrine of cosmic con- flagration and recurrence with firm conviction. The universe “replicates itself again and again within the space of infinite time” (se intra huius spatium to- tiens remetiatur).5 Repeated passages reveal Seneca’s familiarity with and ac- ceptance of the dogma.6 It is to Seneca, in fact, that we owe perhaps the most lyrical and poetic statement of the doctrine in antiquity, at the close of his consolation to Marcia: Consider then that your father, Marcia, speaks to you from that high arch of heaven . “For if the common fate can be a comfort for your yearning, nothing will stay in its present state, long time will overthrow and lay low all things. And when the time shall come, in which the world destroys itself that it may be renewed, these things will fall by their own powers, and stars will collide with stars, and, as all the matter of the cosmos kindles to flame, whatever now shines in an ordered way will turn to fire in one universal conflagration. We, too, blessed souls and partakers of eternity, when God decides to build these things anew, will also ourselves, as all things perish, become a small addition to the vast destruction, and be changed back into our original elements.”7 The Stoic doctrine of cosmic renewal, in postulating the everlasting cyclical recurrence of this universe and its history, had a fascinating and existentially significant entailment: in each renewal or παλιγγενεσία, every person who has ever lived will be restored exactly as they were, to lead the identical life again.8 3 Origen, Cels. 4.68 (= SVF 3.626). The translation of this and all other primary source material in this essay is the author’s. 4 SVF 3, Zeno Tars. 5; SVF 3, Diog. Bab. 27; Philo, Aet. 76. 5 Marc. 21.2. 6 See Ep. 9.16; 36.10-11; 71.11-16; 110.9; Nat. 3.28.7-29.3; Herc. Ot. 1102-17; Ben. 4.8.1; Polyb. 1.2-4; perhaps also Ep. 101.9. 7 Marc. 26.1, 6-7. On the Stoic character of the passage, in particular its debt to Posidonius, see Karlhans Abel, “Poseidonios und Senecas Trostschrift an Marcia,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 107 (1964): 221-60. 8 See SVF 1.109; 2.590, 625, 628, 630..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Historical Synopsis of the Aristotelian Commentary Tradition (In Less Than Sixty Minutes)
    HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS OF THE ARISTOTELIAN COMMENTARY TRADITION (IN LESS THAN SIXTY MINUTES) Fred D. Miller, Jr. CHAPTER 1 PERIPATETIC SCHOLARS Aristotle of Stagira (384–322 BCE) Exoteric works: Protrepticus, On Philosophy, Eudemus, etc. Esoteric works: Categories, Physics, De Caelo, Metaphysics, De Anima, etc. The legend of Aristotle’s misappropriated works Andronicus of Rhodes: first edition of Aristotle’s works (40 BCE) Early Peripatetic commentators Boethus of Sidon (c. 75—c. 10 BCE) comm. on Categories Alexander of Aegae (1st century CE)comm. on Categories and De Caelo Adrastus of Aphrodisias (early 1st century) comm. on Categories Aspasius (c. 131) comm. on Nicomachean Ethics Emperor Marcus Aurelius establishes four chairs of philosophy in Athens: Platonic, Peripatetic, Stoic, Epicurean (c. 170) Alexander of Aphrodisias (late 2nd —early 3rd century) Extant commentaries on Prior Analytics, De Sensu, etc. Lost comm. on Physics, De Caelo, etc. Exemplar for all subsequent commentators. Comm. on Aristotle’s Metaphysics Only books 1—5 of Alexander’s comm. are genuine; books 6—14 are by ps.-Alexander . whodunit? Themistius (c. 317—c. 388) Paraphrases of Physics, De Anima, etc. Paraphrase of Metaphysics Λ (Hebrew translation) Last of the Peripatetics CHAPTER 2 NEOPLATONIC SCHOLARS Origins of Neoplatonism Ammonius Saccas (c. 175—242) forefather of Neoplatonism Plotinus (c. 205—260) the Enneads Reality explained in terms of hypostases: THE ONE—> THE INTELLECT—>WORLD SOUL—>PERCEPTIBLE WORLD Porphyry of Tyre (232–309) Life of Plotinus On the School of Plato and Aristotle Being One On the Difference Between Plato and Aristotle Isagoge (Introduction to Aristotle’s Categories) What is Neoplatonism? A broad intellectual movement based on the philosophy of Plotinus that sought to incorporate and reconcile the doctrines of Plato, Pythagoras, and Aristotle with each other and with the universal beliefs and practices of popular religion (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Scepticism About Gods in Hellenistic Philosophy*
    SCEPTICISM ABOUT GODS IN HELLENISTIC PHILOSOPHY* Anthony A. Long University of California, Berkeley Philosophical theology offered the ancient sceptic, Academic or Pyrrhonist, a target which was tailor-made to his methods of argumentative counter-attack in the interests of “suspension of judgement” (epochê). His principal opponents, the Stoics, had marshalled a battery of formal proofs concerning the existence and nature of the gods; and formal proof, or the detection of weaknesses in it, was grist to the sceptic’s mill.1 Moreover, the Stoics were in fundamental disagreement with the Epicureans over theology, disagreement of a kind that the sceptic relished. Without exerting himself, he could begin a refutative routine, as Sextus Empiricus does in Pyrrhôneioi Hupotupôseis [hereafter PH] 3.2-4, by first invoking disagreements on god’s nature: is god corporeal or incorporeal, anthropomorphic or some other form, in spatial location or not, within the world or outside it? If such foundational questions cannot be settled, how, asks Sextus, can we even get a conception (ennoia) of god? People say [e.g., Epicureans] that god should be considered that which is imperishable and blessed.2 But consider what different schools understand by divine blessedness, and basic disagreement surfaces again: is divine blessedness displayed in the rational order pervading the entire world, as Stoics maintain? Or should one opt for the Epicurean conception of gods who are quite detached from the world and who provide no occupation for themselves or for anything else? These Pyrrhonian manoeuvres are scarcely food for deep philosophical thought. Their simplicity, none the less, is beguiling and effective.
    [Show full text]
  • Posidonius' F 49 E ̶K and Vitruvius' on Architecture Vi 1. 3
    GEOGRAPHICAL SYSTEMS IN THE FIRST CENTURY BC: POSIDONIUS’ F 49 E ̶ K AND VITRUVIUS’ ON ARCHITECTURE VI 1. 3 ̶ 13 Eduardo M. B. Boechat Professor da UFRJ ABSTRACT: The article analyses innovative ethno-geographical systems of the first century BC. During Hellenistic times, the science of geography made use of increasingly advanced mathematical and astronomical skills to ensure a scientific basis for the cartographical project; however, this geographical research apparently disregarded the natural and human environments. There is a paradigm change in the referred century. The Stoic Posidonius focuses on the concept of zones found in the early philosophers and finds a compromise between the ‘scientific’ and the ‘descriptive’ geographies. Likewise, Vitruvius conveys a geographical system which associates climatic, somatic, and psychic features. KEYWORDS: Ethno-Geography, Posidonius, Vitruvius, First Century BC PROMETEUS - Ano 11 - Número 27 – Maio - Agosto/2018 - E-ISSN: 2176-5960 I- Introduction Greek philosophy began in the Archaic period (seventh–sixth centuries BC) with the naturalistic inquiry of the Presocratic philosophers. They speculated about the essence and structure of the universe seeking scientific explanations based on sensory assessment and logical inference. Theories about the physical layout of the world, including its shape, size, boundaries and inhabitants were offered as a rationalistic approach emerged. The science of geography – literally a written or drawn description of the earth (gê) – grew up from these roots, and in the words of one of its great authors in antiquity ‘investigated things both human and divine … as regards knowledge both of the heavens and of things on land and sea, animals, plants, fruits, and everything else to be seen in various regions (Strabo’s Geography I.
    [Show full text]
  • De Aeternitate Mundi Anton-Hermann Chroust
    Document generated on 09/25/2021 10:24 p.m. Laval théologique et philosophique Some Comments on Philo of Alexandria De Aeternitate Mundi Anton-Hermann Chroust Volume 31, Number 2, 1975 URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1020477ar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1020477ar See table of contents Publisher(s) Laval théologique et philosophique, Université Laval ISSN 0023-9054 (print) 1703-8804 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Chroust, A.-H. (1975). Some Comments on Philo of Alexandria: De Aeternitate Mundi. Laval théologique et philosophique, 31(2), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.7202/1020477ar Tous droits réservés © Laval théologique et philosophique, Université Laval, This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit 1975 (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research. https://www.erudit.org/en/ SOME COMMENTS ON PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA, DE A ETERNITÀ TE MUNDl Anton-HermannC h r o u s t N the De Aeternitate Mundi V, 20-24, which is regarded as a fragment of Aris­ I totle’s lost dialogueOn Philosophy,' Philo of Alexandria states: “Out of respect for the visible God [the universe,note by the author], the arguments which prove the universe to be uncreated and imperishable should be given their proper precedence and be placed at the beginning of our discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Bbm:978-94-015-8181-3/1.Pdf
    INDEXES INDEX OF NAMES Abaris 344 320,471 Abel 70, 104, 248, 447, 450 Alcinous (pseudo-), see Albinus of Smyrna Abelard, Peter 244, 375, 402, 405, 424, 425, Alcmaeon of Croton 189, 269 431 Alcuin of York 402 Abraham 70, 78, 96, 104, 105, 108, III, Il3, Alderotti, Taddeo (physician) 80 Il4, Il8, 121, 126 217, 227, 242, 249, 305, Aldo di Asolo (printer) 86 n 310, 447, 455 Aldobrandini, Pietro (Cardinal) 156, 157 Aceti, G. 442 Aldobrandini, Tommaso 156, 157, 158 Adam (Adamus), Melchior 70, 74, 97, 113, Alessandro di Sangro, Bishop of Bene- 128 vento 46 Adam xxiii, 52, 69, 70, 77, 91, 96, 100, 101, Alexander of Aphrodisias 43, 102, Il7, 216, 104, 107, 114, 115, 126, 215, 217, 238, 247, 230, 443, 467 251, 307, 310, 349, 446, 454, 466 Alexander of Hales 56, 456 Adrian VI, Pope (Adrian of Utrecht) 385 Alexander the Great 109, 131, 139, 166 Aegidius Romanus 27, 80, 102 Alexandre de Villedieu (Alexander de Aelian (Claudius Aelianus) 150 Villa Dei) 80 Aeschines Socraticus 180 Alfarabi, see al-Farabi Aeschylus 172, 173 Alfonso X (the Wise), King of Castile and Aesculapius 105, 109, 110 Leon 75,80 Aesop 73, 105 Algasel, see al-Ghazzali Aetius of Antioch 458 Allacci (Allatius), Leone 17B, 194 Agenor, King of the Phoenicians 108, Il2 Allen, M.]. B. 61 Aglaophemus 16, 24, Il2, Il7, 297 Allut, P. 63 Agricola, Rudolph 143, 242, 385 Amabile, L. xviii Agrippa von Nettesheim, Heinrich Cor- Amalric (Amaury) of Bene, 432 nelius 49, 51 n, 64, 447 Ammonius Alexandrinus (Eclectic philo- Aguzzi Barbagli, D.
    [Show full text]
  • Marketing Fragment 6 X 10.Long.T65
    Cambridge University Press 0521854393 - Aristotle and the Science of Nature: Unity without Uniformity Andrea Falcon Index More information Index of names Alcmeon of Croton, 103 Easterling, H. J., 114 Alexander of Aphrodisias, 19, 21, 22, 65, Effe, B., 72 77, 80, 84, 92–3, 102, 107–8, Egli, F., 116 114, 115 Eudemus of Rhodes, 48 Anaxagoras, 3, 38, 111–12, 117 Euripides, 117 Anaximenes, 120 Eudoxus of Cnidus, 74, 75 Andronicus of Rhodes, 69–70, 114 Antiphon the Sophist, 27 Falcon, A., 14, 70, 80, 84 Anton, J. P., 104 Frede, M., 17, 89, 109 Apollodorus of Seleucia, 36, 53 Furley, D., 72, 88 50 Balme, D., 88 Gaiser, K., 4 Gigon, O., 72 Barnes, J., 42 109 Beere, J. B., 13 Gill, M. L., , 100 Blank, D. L., 51 Goldstein, B. R., 67 Bodna´r, I., 11, 42, 84, 107 Gottschalk, H. B., 62 Boethus of Sidon (Peripatetic philosopher), Grant, E., 69 70 Guariglia, O. N., 105 – 77 Boethus of Sidon (Stoic philosopher), 37 Guthrie, W. K. C., Bogen, J., 104 24 Hahm, D., 114, 117 Bostock, D., 63 70 Broadie, S., 19, 76 Hankinson, R. J., , 4 Heinze, R., 81, 82 Brunschwig, J., 120 Burkert, W., 50 Heraclitus, 2 8 13 17 20 Herminus, 84 Burnyeat, M. F., , , , , 27 Byrne, P. H., 105 Hippocrates of Chios, 77 120 3 Jaeger, W., , Cappelle, W., Jouanna, J., 27, 103 Caston, V., 19 84 120 Judson, L., Cleanthes, Julianus of Tralles, 84 Charles, D., 102, 108 Charlton, W., 109 116 37 118 120 Kahn, C. H., Chrysippus, , , Kingsley, P., 116, 117 Code, A., 4, 7, 9, 21, 39, 41 50 42 Koller, K., Cohen, S.
    [Show full text]
  • Andronicus of Rhodes
    Comp. by: hramkumar Stage : Proof ChapterID: 0002195871 Date:19/8/14 Time:15:21:51 Filepath://ppdys1122/BgPr/OUP_CAP/IN/Process/0002195871.3d21 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 19/8/2014, SPi 2 Andronicus of Rhodes In this chapter, I argue that a late ancient interpretation of the Categories can be traced to Andronicus of Rhodes in the first century bce. According to this interpretation, the treatise helps to train us in the demonstration of truth (IðüäåØîØò), and not merely in the practice of persuasive rhetoric or dialectic.1 Andronicus sought to breathe new life into Aristotle’s vision of demonstrative science, and he found the Categories especially valuable for this function. In particular, Andro- nicus believed that the Categories helps us to distinguish per se predications whose subject and predicate both fall in the first category (for instance: ‘Socrates is a man’) from per accidens predications whose predicate falls in one of the non-substance categories (for instance: ‘Socrates is pale’, ‘tall’, or ‘hungry’).2 The former, Androni- cus argues, can be used to construct good definitions and so to engage in the rudiments of demonstration by way of division (äØÆßæåóØò), while the latter cannot. This interpretation partially explains Andro- nicus’ motivation for placing the treatise in so prominent a position in his catalogue of the Aristotelian corpus and rechristening it, 1 The dichotomy between demonstration and persuasion was, I think, treated as exhaustive by Andronicus, following the Hellenistic tradition (compare Diogenes Laertius 5.28, discussed below: rhetoric and dialectic are treated as proper subdivi- sions of persuasion, and both as distinct from demonstration of the truth).
    [Show full text]
  • Aestimatio 13 (2016–2018) 187–191 188 Aestimatio
    Aristotelismo by Andrea Falcon Turin: Casa Editrice Einaudi, 2018. Pp. x + 150. ISBN 978–88–06–23112–5. Paper €18.00 Reviewed by Marilù Papandreou Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München [email protected] In Aristotelismo (Aristotelianism), Andrea Falcon traces the history of Aris- totelianism from the Hellenistic period to Late Antiquity. Right from the introduction, Falcon defines his notion of this history: it corresponds not with the history of the Peripatos but with the history of the presence of Aristotelian elements in ancient authors. For this reason, the book includes the examination not only of members of Aristotle’s school but also of authors who did not consider themselves exponents of the Aristotelian tradition or who even regarded themselves as its opponents. The book is divided into five chapters following a brief introduction onthe nature and intent of the work. Chapter 1 concerns the Hellenistic period, discussing the activity of the Peripatos as well as Epicurus and the Stoics. Chapters 2 and 3 address the post-Hellenistic age. Chapter 2 focuses on the exponents of the Peripatos (e.g., Boethus of Sidon,Xenarchus of Seleucia, Alexander of Aphrodisias), whereas chapter 3 concentrates on the presence of Aristotelian elements within the Platonic and Stoic traditions (i.e., Antiochus of Ascalon, Eudorus of Alexandria, Plutarch of Chaeronea, Alcinous, Apuleius, the pseudo-Pythagorean treatises, and Stoics such as Panaetius of Rhodes and Posidonius of Apamea). Chapter 4 deals with Late Antiquity, in particular with Porphyry, Iamblichus, and the School of Athens (e.g., Sirianus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius) as well as that of Alexandria (e.g., Ammonius and John Philoponus).
    [Show full text]
  • R.W. Sharples Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics an Introduction to Hellenistic Philosophy 1996
    STOICS, EPICUREANS AND SCEPTICS This study gives a comprehensive and readable account of the principal doctrines of the Stoics, Epicureans and various sceptical traditions from the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC to about AD 200. The discussion is arranged according to topics, rather than schools, in order to bring out the underlying issues and make clear what the schools have in common and how they differ. At the same time, the coherence of each system as a whole is emphasised. The Hellenistic philosophers and schools of philosophy have emerged from the shadow of Plato and Aristotle and are increasingly studied for their intrinsic philosophical value. Yet not only are they interesting in their own right, but they also form the intellectual background of the late Roman Republic and the early Empire. A thorough understanding of them is therefore essential for the appreciation of Latin thought and literature. Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics provides an introduction to the subject for all who are interested in understanding the significance of this period of ancient thought. R.W.Sharples holds a personal Chair in Classics at University College London. He has published widely in Classical Studies and Philosophy. STOICS, EPICUREANS AND SCEPTICS An Introduction to Hellenistic Philosophy R.W.Sharples London and New York First published 1996 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003. Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 Routledge is an International Thomson Publishing company © 1996 R.W.Sharples All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • 4Reek Philosophy
    OUTLINES OE THE HISTORY OF 4reek philosophy BY Dr. EDWARD ZELLER TRANSLATED WITH THE AUTHOR'S SANCTION BY SARAH FRANCES ALLEYNE AND -ABBOTT tJNlVEBSITi t NEW YORK HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 1S86 IN' MEMORIAM SARAH FRANCES ALLE7NE AUTHOR’S PREFACE. F or some years it has been my intention to respond to a request arising from various quarters, and add to my larger work on the Philosophy of the Greeks a short sketch of the same subject. But until the third edition of the History was brought to a conclusion I had not the leisure for the work. Sketches of thi3 kind will proceed on different lines according to the aim which is held in view. My object has been primarily to provide students with a help for academical lectures, which would facilitate preparation, and save the time wasted in writing down facts, without interfering with the lecturer’s work or imposing any fetters upon it. Hence I have made it my task to give my readers a pic­ ture of the contents of the philosophical systems, and the course of their historical development, which should contain all the essential traits— and also to put into their hands the more important literary references and sources. But as in the last points I have not gone beyond what is absolutely necessary, so in the historical account I have as a rule indicated the parts very briefly with which historical considerations of a general kind or special explanations and inquiries are connected, or in viii AUTHOR'S PREFACE. which, it seemed proper to supplement my earlier work.
    [Show full text]
  • Pneuma in Early Stoicism Robert Heller Royal
    PNEUMA IN EARLY STOICISM ROBERT HELLER ROYAL HOLLOWAY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON PhD 1 Declaration of Authorship I ………………………………… hereby declare that this thesis and the work presented in it is entirely my own. Where I have consulted the work of others, this is always clearly stated. Signed: ______________________ Date: ___________ 2 Abstract: The thesis proceeds on the supposition that there is an underlying theoretical unity between the three parts of philosophy and that the principle of coherence presupposes an element of continuity from one Stoic head to another. As such, whilst a fully- fledged theory of pneuma can only be attributed to Chrysippus, the third head of the school, the character of the theory is seen to be determined from much earlier with Zeno, who is the cause for the emergence of a pneuma with such unique characteristics in Chrysippus. Although the thesis does not pretend to be a comprehensive study of the concept of pneuma in Stoic thought, in order to trace the key characteristics of the Chrysippean concept in the earliest stages of the school and to reconstruct an outline of the underlying theory, I chart the evidence describing the mechanical processes involved in the pneuma’s variations in tension, its contraction and expansion, its growth and nourishment and the relation between the hegemonikon and the soul. These themes are discussed in chapters which are related to specific theories of the Stoics like cosmogony and cognitive process. The nature of the methodological approach means that I often use evidence from seemingly disparate parts of the Stoic system in order to better understand the processes involved and I also consider evidence from the doxographical records and extant commentaries which is largely ignored in the modern literature or is absent from von Arnim’s collection.
    [Show full text]
  • Greek and Roman Philosophy 100 Bc-200 Ad - Volume Ii
    Richard Sorabji Preface vii Frequently used abbreviations ix Richard Sorabji Introduction I Stoics and Cynics Major Stoics and Cynics in the period 100 BC - 200 AD 34 I Stephen White Posidonius and Stoic physics 35 II George Boys-Stones Fallere sellers: the ethical pedagogy of the Stoic Cornutus 77 III Miriam Griffin Seneca's pedagogic strategy: Letters and De beneficiis 89 IV John Sellars Stoic practical philosophy in the Imperial period 115 V Richard Sorabji What is new on the self in Stoicism after 100 BC? 141 VI Richard Sorabji What is new on emotion in Stoicism after 100 BC? 163 VII Christopher Gill Marcus Aurelius 175 VIII Michael Trapp Cynics 189 Epicureans Shortlist of known and suspected Epicureans 206 IX Diskin Clay The philosophical writings of Demetrius of Laconia 207 X Voula Tsouna Philodemus on emotions 213 XI Simon Trepanier The didactic plot of Lucretius, De re ruin natura and its Empedoclean model 243 XII Diskin Clay The philosophical inscription of Diogenes of Oenoanda 283 VOLUME II PSatoeists, Academics and Pythagoreans Major Platonists in the period 100 BC - 200 AD 295 XIII Charles Brittain Middle Platonists on Academic scepticism 297 XIV Harold Tarrant Antiochus: a new beginning? 317 XV Jonathan Powell Cicero 333 GREEK AND ROMAN PHILOSOPHY 100 BC-200 AD - VOLUME II XVI Michael Trapp Neopythagoreans 347 XVII Mauro Bonazzi Eudorus of Alexandria and early imperial Platonism 365 XVIII Jan Opsomer Plutarch on the One and the Dyad 379 XIX John Dillon Numenius: some ontological questions 397 XX Angelos Kritikos Platonism and principles in Origen 403 XXI Harold Tarrant Moral goal and moral virtues in Middle Platonism 419 XXII George Boys-Stones 'Middle' Platonists on fate and human autonomy 431 XXIII Harold Tarrant Platonist educators in a growing market: Gaius; Albinus; Taurus; Alcinous 449 XXIV Michael Trapp Apuleius of Madauros and Maximus of Tyre 467 XXV David Runia The rehabilitation of the jackdaw: Philo of Alexandria and ancient philosophy 483 Peripatetics Major Peripatetics in the period 100 BC-200 AD 502 XXVI Robert W.
    [Show full text]