CHAPTER SIX

PLACE, SPACE, AND VOID IN STOIC THOUGHT

Introduction

One of the problems confronting the student of the philosophy of space of the early Stoics is the fragmentary nature of the evidence. Apart from two quotations from a work of Chrysippus we are dependent for our information on testimonia of a doxographical character (Arius Didymus, Aetius, Sextus) and on the work of the Stoic astronomer Cleomedes who probably post-dates the early Stoics by some five centuries. In practice this means that the early Stoic theory of space has to be reconstructed and that, conse­ quently, the philological component of any historical study in this field will be quite considerable. As another consequence, the conclusions will in a number of cases inevitably be of a rather provisional and hypothetical character. At the same time the subject is of considerable interest. From a systematic point of view, the consequent materialism of the Stoics, in connection with their no less consequent rejection of the atomist hypothesis, arouses curiosity about the way in which they gave place and space a niche in their physical system. From a more purely historical point of view it might be asked whether in this respect early Stoic physics shows any traces of previous discussions, in particular whether the Stoics knew and reacted to Aristotle's theory of topos as expounded in the esoteric works. The latter question has lately aroused renewed interest as a result of the diametrically opposed conclusions of D. Hahm's The Origins of Stoic Cosmology on the one hand, and F. H. Sandbach's Aristotle and the Stoics on the other. According to Hahm the influence of the Aristotelian pragmateiai on early Stoic physics-including the theory of space-has been considerable. Sandbach, on the other hand, defended the 'traditional' thesis about the fate of the school writings. In his view they more or less disappeared from the philosophical stage during the first centuries following on Aristotle's death. Sandbach argued that early Stoic philosophy- 262 CHAPTER SIX

indeed early Hellenistic philosophy in general-showed no traces of acquaintance with these works. In the present chapter I shall, in section 6.1, first deal with the preserved Stoic definitions of spatial concepts from what might be called a philological perspective. I shall try to determine how they are related and whether anything can be said about their prove­ nance. Special attention will be paid to the concept of chOra. In section 6.2 I shall discuss the difficult text of Plutarch, SR 1054b ff., a text which contains two verbatim quotations from Chrysippus' Peri dunaton. These two fragments are, as will appear, in more than one respect remarkable and interesting. Plutarch introduces the quotations in order to charge Chrysippus with grave inconsis­ tency, and as yet, scholars have not succeeded in providing an interpretation which proved Plutarch wrong. However, I shall try to show that these two fragments can be made sense of, provided that we take proper account of the fact that they originally figured in a context dealing with modal logic. The interpretation which is to result can be connected with section 6.1 in that, together with the findings of that section, it allows us to reconstruct hypotheti­ cally Chrysippus' peculiar concept of chOra. It also prepares the way for section 6.3, in so far as it suggests that the early Stoic-at least the Chrysippean-theory of space was dominated by two different perspectives which cannot easily be reconciled. Section 6.3 will deal with the ontological and epistemological aspects of the Stoic theory of place and of the void. I shall argue that in particular the theory of the void exhibited a fundamental ambiguity, in so far as the nature and ontological status of space was concerned. Section 6.4 discusses the doxographical evidence for Posidonius' allegedly heterodox position on the subject of the extent of the extra-cosmic void. The possble philosophical merits or demerits of that position will be assessed against the back­ ground of the analysis of the early Stoic theory of the void which was carried out in sections 6.2 and 6.3. The conclusions are followed by an appendix which focuses on a question to which I already referred, viz. whether the early Stoic theory of place and void shows any traces of Aristotelian influence.