The Influence of the Platonic Dialogues on Stoic Ethics from Zeno to Panaetius of Rhodes1

chapter 2 The Influence of the Platonic Dialogues on Stoic Ethics from Zeno to Panaetius of Rhodes1

Francesca Alesse

In order to delineate and understand the reception of Plato’s thought and work in early and middle Stoicism, it is necessary to make two preliminary observations. The first is that Stoic philosophy is strongly anti-Platonic in its metaphysical, psychological and epistemological foundations. Stoicism puts forth a materialistic monism based upon the principle according to which the corporeal alone exists because it alone “acts and is acted upon”.2 Stoic ontology is monistic and materialistic, openly and explicitly opposed to the Platonic. As a consequence of this ontology, Stoicism considers the human soul, in all its cognitive and moral faculties, as corporeal,3 as well as the divinity itself.4 The divinity is defined as the active principle (poioun) that generates and per- vades nature, remaining immanently present in it for the whole duration of cosmic cycle.5 From the logical and epistemological viewpoint, Stoicism holds an empirical and sensualistic theory of truth that denies any kind of existence, separate or immanent, to universal notions, reducing them to mental entities (ennoemata).6 On the psychological and anthropological plane finally, early Stoicism holds a kind of psychological monism allowing for distinct psychological and physical functions but no distinction between the rational and de- siring soul,7 regarding instead passion, initially considered a vice, as a mistaken

1 I sincerely wish to thank Harold Tarrant and François Renaud who have revised the first version of my contribution, and Danielle Layne for reviewing the final version. 2 Cf. SVF i 85–96 and II 357–68; on the principle that there exists only what acts or is acted upon, cf. especially D.L. 7.34 (SVF I 85) and Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Math. VIII 263 (SVF II 363). It is apparently an echo of the principle embodied in the “sons of the earth” in the famous passage in Sph. 247d10–e4. 3 Cf. SVF I 135, 137; SVF II 790–800. 4 Cf. SVF I 528–36 and SVF II 1049–56. 5 D.L. 7.147. On the cosmos’ transformative cycles, cf. SVF I 98 and 102; on conflagration, SVF ii 596–632. 6 Cf. SVF I 65, I 494; II 378. 7 Cf. SVF ii 823, 827, 828; but above all 879–85.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004355385_004 the influence of the platonic dialogues on stoic ethics 47 judgment (krisis) produced by corrupted reason.8 These “anti-Platonic” fea- tures of Stoic thought vary in degree according to the Stoic thinker concerned and evolve in the course of time while remaining in outline distinctive tenets of the school. The second preliminary consideration to bear in mind is that the Platonic dialogues tend to center upon the character of Socrates as protagonist9 and, indeed for Stoic ethics, Socrates was a fundamental authority. This is abun- dantly documented by the biographical tradition pertaining to Zeno of Citium (whose conversion to philosophy appears to be due to the reading of Xeno- phon’s Memorabilia and to the knowledge of Socrates’ teaching),10 from the anecdotal literature, but also by several testimonies regarding the Stoic works and ethical doctrines that refer to various aspects of the so-called “Socratic writings” (logoi sokratikoi).11 The “Socratic writings” in the 4th century repre- sented a genuine literary genre, comprising works primarily written in di- alogue form (but also as memoirs and sometimes as “apologies”, i. e. judicial speeches in defense of Socrates). The followers of Socrates’ teaching who gave life to this literary genre included Antisthenes of Athens, Aeschines of Sphet- tus, Xenophon, Phaedo of Elis, Euclides of Megara and, of course, Plato. Sev- eral of these authors founded schools or gave life to new ways of thinking and living which exercised a remarkable intellectual influence on subsequent gen- erations and transmitted the Socratic teaching and some interpretation of it to

8 Cf. especially SVF I 208 and 209 (on Zeno the testimonies do not all cohere concerning the definition of pathos as krisis), and SVF III 378, 381, 456, 459, 461, 462. Moreover, in SVF II 885, 888, 895 and 906 we have testimony for Chrysippus’ polemic against Platonic psychology. See the recent collection of studies on various topics in Long (2013). 9 With the sole exception of the Leg., in which Socrates is absent and of those dialogues in which he is not the protagonist (Plt., Sph., Tim.). 10 Cf. D.L. 7. 2-4 = SVF I 41 = SSR V H 38. The young Zeno is the author of a work entitled Memories of Crates, modelled on Xenophon’s Memorabilia; cf. D.L. 6.91–2 = SVF I 272 = SSR V H 40. Another biographical note indicates that Zeno might have read already in youth “Socratic books”, cf. D.L. VII 32 = SVF I 6 = SSR V H 37. 11 Socratic literature constitutes a vast and complex cultural phenomenon, linked to the fact that Socrates was recognized as a teacher of various schools of thought, dialec- tical and moral in orientation, which explicitly come back to his teaching and which spread through a vast literary production. On the so-called Socratic schools and the logoi sokratikoi, cf. above all Giannantoni (1990) [ = SSR], the systematic collection of sources with historiographical contextualisation; for surveys and collections of essays, see Giannantoni and Narcy (1997), Romeyer-Dherbey and Gourinat (2001), Rossetti and Stavru (2010).