,1(70 THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO AND CLEANTHES. ftonton: C. J. CLAY AND SONS, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, AVE MARIA LANE. ambriDse: DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO. ltip>ifl: F. A. BROCKHAUS. #tto Hork: MACMILLAX AND CO. THE FRAGMENTS OF ZENO AND CLEANTHES WITH INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATORY NOTES. AX ESSAY WHICH OBTAINED THE HARE PRIZE IX THE YEAR 1889. BY A. C. PEARSON, M.A. LATE SCHOLAR OF CHRIST S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. LONDON: C. J. CLAY AND SONS, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE. 1891 [All Rights reserved.] Cambridge : PBIXTKIi BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT THK UNIVERSITY PRKSS. PREFACE. S dissertation is published in accordance with thr conditions attached to the Hare Prize, and appears nearly in its original form. For many reasons, however, I should have desired to subject the work to a more under the searching revision than has been practicable circumstances. Indeed, error is especially difficult t<> avoid in dealing with a large body of scattered authorities, a the majority of which can only be consulted in public- library. to be for The obligations, which require acknowledged of Zeno and the present collection of the fragments former are Cleanthes, are both special and general. The Philo- soon disposed of. In the Neue Jahrbticher fur Wellmann an lofjie for 1878, p. 435 foil., published article on Zeno of Citium, which was the first serious of Zeno from that attempt to discriminate the teaching of Wellmann were of the Stoa in general. The omissions of the supplied and the first complete collection fragments of Cleanthes was made by Wachsmuth in two Gottingen I programs published in 187-i LS75 (Commentationes s et II de Zenone Citiensi et Cleaitt/ie Assio). Mullach I of the collection of the fragments of Cleanthes in vol. is so Fragmenta Philusoplioriun Gnieconnn inadequate as hardly to deserve mention. VI PREFACE. Among the general aids the first place is claimed by Zeller s Philosophic der Griecheit, which has been con stantly consulted. The edition referred to is the Second edition of the English Translation of the part dealing with the Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, which appeared in 1880. In a few cases the fourth German edition has also been Reference is also quoted. made to the English Translations of the other parts of Zeller s book, wherever available. Except incidentally, Zeller gives up the at tempt to trace the development of the Stoa in the hands of its successive leaders, and this deficiency is to some extent supplied by the ingenious work of Hirzel, die Entivicklung der Stoischen Philosophic, forming the second volume of his Untersuchunyen zu Cicero s Philosophischen To Hirzel Schriften. belongs the credit of having vin dicated the originality of Cleanthes against ancient and modern detractors, although in working out his views he often argues on somewhat shadowy foundations, and has unduly depreciated the importance of the contributions made Zeno. Stein s by Lastly, two books die Psijchologie der Stoa (1880), and die Erkenntnistheorie der Stoa (1888), have been of great service, and his views, where he disagrees with Hirzel, have been generally adopted. Many other books have of course been consulted and will be found cited from time to time, among which Krische s die theologischen Lehren der Griechischen Denker, and Diels Doxograpld Graeci, deserve special mention. Al though the results arrived at have been checked by the aid of modern writers, the ancient authorities and es pecially Diogenes Laertius, Plutarch, Sextus Empiricus, Stobaeus and (Eclogae), Cicero have been throughout treated as the primary source of information. The refer ences to Stobaeus are accommodated to Wachsmuth s edition (Berlin, 1884). Susemihl s article on the birth- PREFACE. vii year of Zeno in the Nem Jahrb ticker fur Pldloloyie for 1889 appeared too late to be utilised for the introduction. A word must be said with reference to the plan of the present collection. No attempt has been made to disentangle in every case the words of the writer from the body of the citation in which they appear. Although this is practicable in some cases, in others it is mere guess-work, and a uniform system has therefore been adopted. For similar reasons the fragments have been arranged as far as possible in natural sequence, without regard to the comparatively few cases in which \ve know the names of the books from which they were derived. However, the arrangement has been a matter of much perplexity, especially in those cases where the authorities overlap each other, and several modifications in the order would have been introduced as the result of a larger experience, were it not that each alteration throws all the references into confusion. The collection was made and put together practically in its present form before an opportunity offered of consulting Wachsmuth s pamphlets, and it was satisfactory to find that only a few of his passages had been missed. On the other hand, the ad ditional matter Avhich will be found here for the first time is not large. It may, therefore, be reasonably concluded that we now possess the greater portion of the material, which is available for reconstructing the history of the earlier Stoa. For the sake of completeness I have included even those notices, whose authenticity is open to suspicion, as well as a collection of the so-called Apophthefjmata, though it is often impossible to draw a strict line between written and oral tradition. I desire to thank Mr R. 1). Hicks, Fellow of Trinity College, for many valuable suggestions and criticisms. COmtlGENDA. p. 37, 1. 13, for "he was only able" read "he alone was able p. 53, 1. 23, add "see however on Cleanth. frag. 114." INTRODUCTION. 1. Life of Zeno. TIIK of Zeno s life 1 a of much chronology , formerly subject dispute, has been almost entirely cleared up by an important passage discovered in one of the papyrus rolls found at Hercu- laneum, which contains a history of the Stoic philosophers and 2 was tirst edited by Comparetti in 1875 . From this we learn that Cleanthes was born in 331 B.C., and, as we know from 3 other sources that he lived to the age of 99, he must have 4 died in B.C. -32 in the archonship of Jason . But, according of his death he had to the papyrus (col. 29), at the time pre for 32 which fixes the death of sided over the School years", Zeno as having taken place in B.C. 2G4, thus confirming the authority of Jerome, who says under the year Ol. 129, 1 --B.C. ; 264, 3 "Zeno Stoicus moritur post quern Cleanthes philosophus distirct agnoscitur." Now, in Diog. Laert. vn. 28 we have two 1 See Bohde in Bhcin. Mus. 33, p. 622. Goinperz ib. 34, p. 154. Susemihl s article iu Fleckeisen s Jahrb. for 1882, vol. 125, pp. 737 746, does not add anything to our knowledge of the chronology of Zeuo s life. - Col. 28, 29. Comparetti believes this book to be the work of Philodemus. 3 Lucian Macrob. 11). Val. Max. vin. 7, Ext. 11. 4 col. 28 sir So too the papyrus (d)ir-r]\\dy(Tj apxovTos l)dffoi>os. 5 reads Such at least is the restoration of Gouiperz : Comparetti after /cat rpiaKovTo. Kal OKTU, but admits that dvo is possible. The word is illegible. 6 So Bolide states, but iu Migne s ed. of Eusebius i. p. 498 the state ment appears to belong to 01. 128. H. P. 1 2 INTRODUCTION. accounts of his age at the time of his death, the one, that of Persaeus, in his TJOtKal o-^o\ai, who makes him 72, and the other derived from 1 apparently Apollonius Tyrius , declaring that he lived to be 98 years old. Apart from internal con siderations, the authority of Persaeus is unquestionably the higher, and reckoning backwards we are thus enabled to place the birth of Zeno in the year 336 B.C.* Rohde suggests that the other computation may have been deduced by Apollonius Tyrius from the letter to Antigonus, now on other grounds shown to be spurious, but which Diogenes unquestionably 3 extracted from Apollonius book on Zeno . In this Zeno is represented as speaking of himself as an octogenarian, so that on the assumption that the letter was written in B.C. 282, shortly after Antigonus first became king of Macedonia, and, calcu lating to the true date of Zeno s death (B.C. 264), he would 4 have been 98 years of age in the latter year . the son of 5 born at a Zeno, Mnaseas , was Citium, Greek city in the south-east of Cyprus, whose population had been 6 increased by Phoenician immigrants . Whether he was of Greek blood or not we cannot tell 7 but we can pure , readily believe that his birthplace, while it in no degree influenced his philosophical genius, which was truly Hellenic, yet gave an 1 A Stoic philosopher (floruit in the earlier half of the 1st century B.C.). For his work on Zeno s life see Diog. L. vn. 1. 2. 24. 28. Strabo xvi. 2. 24. 3 Gomperz I.e. undertook to prove that Zeno died in the month Sciro- phorion (01. 128, 4) = June 264 B.C., offering to produce the proofs in a later article, but this promise does not seem to have been fulfilled. 3 Diog. L. vii. 7. 8. 4 The weakness of this hypothesis lies in the fact that Antigonus Gonatas did not become King of Macedon until 278 277 B.C., although no doubt he was struggling for the crown from the time of the death of his father Demetrius in B.C.