Chapter XXIII: The New Academy (6)

[399] Sen. (after Cleanthes, whose verses in Epictet. Man. 52) Ep. 107, 11: Ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt. Hippolyt. Refut. Hær. i. 21, has put it very plainly: τὸ καθ’ εἱμαρμένην εἶναι πάντη διεβεβαιώσαντο παραδείγματι χρησάμενοι τοιούτῳ, ὅτι ὥσπερ ὀχήματος ἐὰν ᾖ ἐξηρτημένος κύων, ἐὰν μὲν βούληται ἕπεσθαι, καὶ ἕλκεται καὶ ἕπεται ἑκὼν ... ἐὰν δὲ μὴ βούληται ἕπεσθαι, πάντως ἀναγκασθήσεται, τὸ αὐτὸ δήπου καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων· καὶ μὴ βουλόμενοι γὰρ ἀκολουθεῖν ἀναγκασθήσονται πάντως εἰς τὸ πεπρωμένον εἰσελθεῖν. The same idea is expanded by M. Aurel. vi. 42: All must work for the whole, ἐκ περιουσίας δὲ καὶ ὁ μεμφόμενος καὶ ὁ ἀντιβαίνειν πειρώμενος καὶ ἀναιρεῖν τὰ γινόμενα, καὶ γὰρ τοῦ τοιούτου ἔχρῃζεν ὁ κόσμος. It is man’s business to take care that he acts a dignified part in the common labour.

[400] After all that has been said, this needs no further confirmation. Conversely, the unity of the forming power is concluded from the unity of the world. See p. 143, 1, 2. Conf. Plut. Def. Orac. 29, p. 425. M. Aurel. vi. 38: πάντα ἀλλήλοις ἐπιπέπλεκται καὶ πάντα κατὰ τοῦτο φίλα ἀλλήλοις ἐστί ... τοῦτο δὲ διὰ τὴν τονικὴν κίνησιν καὶ σύμπνοιαν καὶ τὴν ἕνωσιν τῆς οὐσίας. Ibid. vii. 9.

[401] Sext. Math. ix. 78: τῶν σωμάτων τὰ μέν ἐστιν ἡνωμένα, τὰ δὲ ἐκ συναπτομένων, τὰ δὲ ἐκ διεστώτων ... ἐπεὶ οὖν καὶ ὁ κόσμος σῶμά ἐστιν, ἤτοι ἡνωμένον ἐστι σῶμα ἢ ἐκ συναπτομένων, ἢ ἐκ διεστώτων· οὔτε δὲ ἐκ συναπτομένων οὔτε ἐκ διεστώτων, ὡς δείκνυμεν ἐκ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν συμπαθειῶν· κατὰ γὰρ τὰς τῆς σελήνης αὐξήσεις καὶ φθίσεις πολλὰ τῶν τε ἐπιγείων ζῴων καὶ θαλασσίων φθίνει τε καὶ αὔξεται, ἀμπώτεις τε καὶ πλημμυρίδες (ebb and flood), περί τινα μέρη τῆς θαλάσσης γίνονται. In the same way, atmospheric changes coincide with the setting and rising of the stars: ἐξ ὧν συμφανὲς, ὅτι ἡνωμένον τι σῶμα καθέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος, ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἐκ συναπτομένων ἢ διεστώτων οὐ συμπάσχει τὰ μέρη ἀλλήλοις. Diog. vii. 140: ἐν δὲ τῷ κόσμῳ μηδὲν εἶναι κενὸν ἀλλ’ ἡνῶσθαι αὐτὸν, τοῦτο γὰρ ἀναγκάζειν τὴν τῶν οὐρανίων πρὸς τὰ ἐπίγεια σύμπνοιαν καὶ συντονίαν. Ibid. 143: ὅτι θ’ εἷς ἐστι Ζήνων φησὶν ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ ὅλου καὶ Χρύσιππος καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρος ... καὶ Ποσειδώνιος. Alex. De Mixt. 142, a, see p. 127, 5; Cic. N. D. ii. 7, 19; Epictet. Diss. i. 14, 2: οὐ δοκεῖ σοι, ἔφη, ἡνῶσθαι τὰ πάντα; Δοκεῖ, ἔφη· τί δέ; συμπαθεῖν τὰ ἐπίγεια τοῖς οὐρανίοις οὐ δοκεῖ σοι; Δοκεῖ, ἔφη. Cicero mentions the changes in animals and plants corresponding with the changes of seasons, the phases of the moon, and the greater or less nearness of the sun. M. Aurel. iv. 40. From all these passages we gather what the question really was. It was not only whether other worlds were possible, besides the one which we know from observation, but whether the heavenly bodies visible were in any essential way connected with the earth, so as to form an organic whole (ζῷον, Diog. vii. 143).

The Stoic conception of συμπάθεια was not used to denote the magic connection which it expresses in ordinary parlance, but the natural coincidence between phenomena belonging to the different parts of the world, the consensus, concentus, cognatio, conjunctio, or continuatio naturæ (Cic. N. D. iii. 11, 28; Divin. ii. 15, 34; 69, 142). In this sense, M. Aurel. ix. 9, observes that like is attracted by like; fire is attracted upwards, earth downwards; beasts and men seek out each other’s society; even amongst the highest existences, the stars, there exists a ἕνωσις ἐκ διεστηκότων, a συμπάθεια ἐν διεστῶσι. Even the last remark does not go beyond the conception of a natural connection; nevertheless, it paves the way for the later Neoplatonic idea of sympathy, as no longer a physical connection, but as an influence felt at a distance by virtue of a connection of soul.

[402] M. Aurel. vi. 1: ἡ τῶν ὅλων οὐσία (the matter of the world) εὐπειθὴς καὶ εὐτρεπής· ὁ δὲ ταύτην διοικῶν λόγος οὐδεμίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ αἰτίαν ἔχει τοῦ κακοποιεῖν· κακίαν γὰρ οὐκ ἔχει, οὐδέ τι κακῶς ποιεῖ, οὐδὲ βλάπτεταί τι ὑπ’ ἐκείνου. πάντα δὲ κατ’ ἐκεῖνον γίνεται καὶ περαίνεται.

[403] Diog. 149: ταύτην δὲ [τὴν φύσιν] καὶ τοῦ συμφέροντος στοχάζεσθαι καὶ ἡδονῆς, ὡς δῆλον ἐκ τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου δημιουργίας.

[404] Plut. Sto. Rep. 21, 3, p. 1044: εἰπὼν [Χρύσιππος] ὅτι ... φιλοκαλεῖν ... τὴν φύσιν τῇ ποικιλίᾳ χαίρουσαν εἰκός ἐστι, ταῦτα κακὰ λέξιν εἴρηκε· γένοιτο δ’ ἂν μάλιστα τούτου ἔμφασις ἐπὶ τῆς κέρκου τοῦ ταώ. Conf. the Stoic in Cic. Fin. ii. 5, 18: Jam membrorum ... alia videntur propter eorum usum a natura esse donata ... alia autem nullam ob utilitatem, quasi ad quendam ornatum, ut cauda pavoni, plumæ versicolores columbis, viris mammæ atque barba.

[405] M. Aurel. iii. 2: It is there proved by examples, ὅτι καὶ τὰ ἐπιγινόμενα τοῖς φύσει γιγνομένοις ἔχει τι εὔχαρι καὶ ἐπαγωγὸν ... σχεδὸν οὐδὲν οὐχὶ καὶ τῶν κατ’ ἐπακολούθησιν συμβαινόντων ἡδέως πως διασυνίστασθαι.

[406] Cic. Acad. ii. 26, 85; Sen. Ep. 113, 16. The latter includes this variety of natural objects among the facts, which must fill us with admiration for the divine artificer.

[407] Plut. Plac. i. 6, 2: καλὸς δὲ ὁ κόσμος· δῆλον δ’ ἐκ τοῦ σχήματος καὶ τοῦ χρώματος καὶ τοῦ μεγέθους καὶ τῆς περὶ τὸν κόσμον τῶν ἀστέρων ποικιλίας; the world has the most perfect form, that of a globe, with a sky the most perfect in colour, &c.

[408] See the passages quoted p. 145, 4, particularly Cic. N. D. ii. 32.

[409] Plut. (in Porphyr. De Abstin. iii. 32): ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνο νὴ Δία τοῦ Χρυσίππου πιθανὸν ἦν, ὡς ἡμᾶς αὐτῶν καὶ ἀλλήλων οἱ θεοὶ χάριν ἐποιήσαντο, ἡμῶν δὲ τὰ ζῷα, συμπολεμεῖν μὲν ἵππους καὶ συνθηρεύειν κύνας, ἀνδρείας δὲ γυμνάσια παρδάλεις καὶ ἄρκτους καὶ λέοντας, κ.τ.λ. Cic. N. D. ii. 14, 37: Scite enim Chrysippus: ut clypei causa involucrum, vaginam autem gladii, sic præter mundum cetera omnia aliorum causa esse generata, ut eas fruges et fructus, quas terra gignit, animantium causa, animantes autem hominum, ut equum vehendi causa, arandi bovem, venandi et custodiendi canem. Id. Off. i. 7, 22: Placet Stoicis, quæ in terris gignantur ad usum hominum omnia creari.

[410] Cic. Fin. iii. 20, 67: Præclare enim Chrysippus, cetera nata esse hominum causa et Deorum, eos autem communitatis et societatis suæ. N. D. ii. 53, 133, in describing the Stoic teaching: Why has the universe been made? Not for the sake of plants or animals, but for the sake of rational beings, Gods and men. It is then shown (c. 54–61), by an appeal to the structure of man’s body, and his mental qualities, how God has provided for the wants of man; and the argument concludes with the words, Omnia, quæ sint in hoc mundo, quibus utantur homines, hominum causa facta esse et parata. Just as a city, and what is therein, exists for the use of the inhabitants, so the world is intended for the use of Gods and men. Even the stars quanquam etiam ad mundi cohærentiam pertinent, tamen et spectaculum hominibus præbent. The earth with its plants and animals was created for the service of man. In Orig. c. Cels. iv. 74, p. 559, the Stoics assert that Providence created all things for the sake of rational beings; M. Aurel. v. 16 and 30; Gell. vii. 1, 1. Hence the definition of κόσμος quoted on p. 158, 1.

[411] Chrysippus (in Plut. Sto. Rep. 32, 1, p. 1049) shows how useful fowls are; the horse is intended for riding, the ox for ploughing, the dog for hunting. The pig, Cleanthes thought (Clemens, Strom. vii. 718, B), was made to sustain man, and endowed with a soul, in place of salt, to prevent its corrupting (Cic. N. D. ii, 64, 160; Fin. v. 13, 38; Plut. Qu. Conviv. v. 10, 3 and 6, p. 685; Porphyr. De Abstin. iii. 20); oysters and birds for the same purpose also (Porphyr. l.c.). In the same way, he spoke of the value of mice and bugs, see p. 189, 1. The Stoic in Cic. N. D. ii. 63, 158, following in the same track, declares that sheep only exist for the purpose of clothing, dogs for guarding and helping man, fishes for eating, and birds of prey for divers uses. Epictet. Diss. ii. 8, 7, in the same spirit, speaks of asses being intended to carry burdens; for this purpose they must be able to walk, and, in order to walk, must possess the power of imagination.

[412] See p. 186, 1.

[413] Cic. N. D. ii. 14, 37: Ipse autem homo ortus est ad mundum contemplandum et imitandum, nullo modo perfectus, sed est quædam particula perfecti. Sed mundus quoniam omnia complexus est, nec est quidquam, quod non insit in eo, perfectus undique est.

[414] We gather this from the comparatively full accounts of the Stoic theory of the moral government of the world. Plut. Sto. Rep. 37, 1, p. 1051, says that Chrysippus wrote several treatises περὶ τοῦ μηδὲν ἐγκλητὸν εἶναι μηδὲ μεμπτὸν κόσμῳ.

[415] See p. 187, 2, and Chrysippus (in Plut. Sto. Rep. 44, 6): τέλεον μὲν ὁ κόσμος σῶμά ἐστιν, οὐ τέλεα δὲ τὰ κόσμου μέρη τῷ πρὸς τὸ ὅλον πως ἔχειν καὶ μὴ καθ’ αὑτὰ εἶναι. Compare also the statement in Plut. Solert. An. c. 2, 9, p. 960, that animals must be irrational, because the irrational must be contrasted with the rational.

[416] Gell. vii. [vi.] 1, 7: Chrysippus in his treatise περὶ προνοίας, discussed, amongst other things, the question, εἰ αἱ τῶν ἀνθρώπων νόσοι κατὰ φύσιν γίνονται. Existimat autem non fuisse hoc principale naturæ consilium, ut faceret homines morbis obnoxios ... sed cum multa inquit atque magna gigneret pareretque aptissima et utilissima, alia quoque simul agnata sunt incommoda iis ipsis, quæ faciebat cohærentia: eaque non per naturam sed per sequelas quasdam necessarias facta dicit, quod ipse appellat κατὰ παρακολούθησιν.... Proinde morbi quoque et ægritudines partæ sunt dum salus paritur. M. Aurel. vi. 36: All evils are ἐπιγεννήματα τῶν σεμνῶν καὶ καλῶν. Plut. An. Procr. c. 6 and 9, p. 1015: αὐτοὶ δὲ (the Stoics) κακίαν καὶ κακοδαιμονίαν τοσαύτην ... κατ’ ἐπακολούθησιν γεγονέναι λέγουσιν. Sen. Nat. Qu. vi. 3, 1.

[417] Sen. Nat. Qu. v. 18, 4 and 13: Non ideo non sunt ista natura bona, si vitio male utentium nocent.... Si beneficia naturæ utentium pravitate perpendimus, nihil non nostro malo accepimus.

[418] Chrysippus (in Plut. Sto. Rep. 21, 4) remarks that bugs do us good service by preventing us from sleeping too long, and mice warn us not to leave things about. He also observes (Ibid. 32, 2) that wars are as useful as colonies, by preventing over-population. See the quotations, p. 185, 4; 186, 2. M. Aurel. viii. 50, makes a similar remark in regard to weeds. In the house of nature all the waste has its uses.

[419] A circumstance which Plut. Com. Not. 19, p. 1067, dexterously uses against the Stoics.

[420] Cleanthes, Hymn. v. 17 (see p. 171, 3); Plut. Sto. Rep. 33, 2: Chrysippus affirms, ὡς τῶν αἰσχρῶν τὸ θεῖον παραίτιον γίνεσθαι οὐκ εὔλογόν ἐστιν, law is innocent of crime, God of impiety. Id. (in Gell. vii. 2, 7): Quanquam ita sit, ut ratione quadam necessaria et principali coacta atque connexa sint fato omnia, ingenia tamen ipsa mentium nostrarum perinde sunt fato obnoxia, ut proprietas eorum est ipsa et qualitas ... sua sævitate et voluntario impetu in assidua delicta, et in errores se ruunt. Hence Cleanthes continues, in a passage quoted in Greek by Gellius: ὡς τῶν βλαβῶν ἑκάστοις παρ’ αὐτοῖς γινομένων καὶ καθ’ ὁρμὴν αὐτῶν ἁμαρτανόντων τε καὶ βλαπτομένων καὶ κατὰ τὴν αὐτῶν διάνοιαν καὶ πρόθεσιν. In Plut. Sto. Rep. 47, 13, p. 1057, Chrysippus says that, even if the Gods make false representations to man, it is man’s fault if he follows those representations. Conf. Epictet. Ench. c. 27: ὥσπερ σκοπὸς πρὸς τὸ ἀποτυχεῖν οὐ τίθεται, οὕτως οὐδὲ κακοῦ φύσις (evil in itself) ἐν κόσμῳ γίνεται. Id. Diss. i. 6, 40. Such observations bear out in some degree the statement of Plut. Plac. ii. 27, 3, that, according to the Stoics, τὰ μὲν εἱμάρθαι, τὰ δὲ ἀνειμάρθαι. See above, p. 179, 3, 4.

[421] Chrysippus felt this. Hence he says (in Gell.): It has been also decreed by destiny that the bad should do wrong.

[422] Chrysippus in Plut. Sto. Rep. 36, 1: κακίαν δὲ καθόλου ἆραι οὔτε δυνατόν ἐστιν οὔτ’ ἔχει καλῶς ἀρθῆναι. Id. (in Gell. vii. 1, 10): As diseases spring from human nature, sic hercle inquit dum virtus hominibus per consilium naturæ gignitur vitia ibidem per affinitatem contrariam nata sunt.

[423] Chrysippus in Plut. Sto. Rep. 35, 3 (C. Not. 13, 2): γίνεται γὰρ αὐτή πως [ἡ κακία] κατὰ τὸν τῆς φύσεως λόγον καὶ ἵνα οὕτως εἴπω οὐκ ἀχρήστως γίνεται πρὸς τὰ ὅλα, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν τἀγαθὸν ἦν. C. Not. 14, 1: As in a comedy, what is absurd contributes to the effect of the whole, οὕτω ψέξειας ἂν αὐτὴν ἐφ’ ἑαυτῆς τὴν κακίαν· τοῖς δ’ ἄλλοις οὐκ ἄχρηστός ἐστιν. Similarly M. Aurel. vi. 42. Gell. viii. 1, 2: (Chrysippus) nihil est prorsus istis, inquit, insubidius, qui opinantur, bona esse potuisse, si non essent ibidem mala: nam cum bona malis contraria sint, utraque necessum est opposita inter se et quasi mutuo adverso quæque fulta nixu (Heraclitus’ ἀντίξουν συμφέρον) consistere: nullum adeo contrarium est sine contrario altero. Without injustice, cowardice, &c., we could not know what justice and valour are. If there were no evil, φρόνησις as ἐπιστήμη ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν would be impossible (Plut. C. Not. 16, 2, p. 1066).

[424] Cleanthes, Hymn. 18:

ἀλλὰ σὺ καὶ τὰ περισσὰ ἐπίστασαι ἄρτια θεῖκαι
καὶ κοσμεῖν τὰ ἄκοσμα, καὶ οὐ φίλα σοὶ φίλα ἐστίν·
ὧδε γὰρ εἰς ἓν ἅπαντα συνήρμοκας ἐσθλὰ κακοῖσιν
ὥσθ’ ἕνα γίγνεσθαι πάντων λόγον αἰὲν ἐόντα.

[425] Plut. Sto. Rep. 35, 1: τὸν θεὸν κολάζειν φησὶ τὴν κακίαν καὶ πολλὰ ποιεῖν ἐπὶ κολάσει τῶν πονηρῶν ... ποτὲ μὲν τὰ δύσχρηστα συμβαίνειν φησὶ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς οὐχ ὥσπερ τοῖς φαύλοις κολάσεως χάριν ἀλλὰ κατ’ ἄλλην οἰκονομίαν ὥσπερ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν ... [τὰ κακὰ] ἀπονέμεται κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Διὸς λόγον ἤτοι ἐπὶ κολάσει ἢ κατ’ ἄλλην ἔχουσάν πως πρὸς τὰ ὅλα οἰκονομίαν. Id. 15, 2: ταῦτά φησι τοὺς θεοὺς ποιεῖν ὅπως τῶν πονηρῶν κολαζομένων οἱ λοιποὶ παραδείγμασι τούτοις χρώμενοι ἧττον ἐπιχειρῶσι τοιοῦτόν τι ποιεῖν. At the beginning of the same chapter, the ordinary views of divine punishment had been treated with ridicule. Conf. Quæst. Rom. 51, p. 277.

[426] Thus Chrysippus (in Plut. Sto. Rep. 37, 2) in answer to the question, How the misfortune of the virtuous is to be explained, says: πότερον ἀμελουμένων τινῶν καθάπερ ἐν οἰκίαις μείζοσι παραπίπτει τινὰ πίτυρα καὶ ποσοὶ πυροί τινες τῶν ὅλων εὖ οἰκονομουμένων· ἢ διὰ τὸ καθίστασθαι ἐπὶ τῶν τοιούτων δαιμόνια φαῦλα ἐν οἷς τῷ ὄντι γίνονται ἐγκλητέαι ἀμέλειαι; Similarly the Stoic in Cic. N. D. ii. 66: Magna Dii curant, parva negligunt,—hardly satisfactory explanations for any theory of necessity. It is still more unsatisfactory to hear Seneca (Benef. iv. 32) justifying the unmerited good fortune of the wicked as due to the nobility of their ancestors. The reason assigned by Chrysippus (in Plut.)—πολὺ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀνάγκης μεμῖχθαι—does not quite harmonise with Plut. C. Not. 34, 2: οὐ γὰρ ἥ γε ὕλη τὸ κακὸν ἐξ ἑαυτῆς παρέσχηκεν, ἄποιος γάρ ἐστι καὶ πάσας ὅσας δέχεται διαφορὰς ὑπὸ τοῦ κινοῦντος αὐτὴν καὶ σχηματίζοντος ἔσχεν. Just as little does Seneca’s—Non potest artifex mutare materiam (De Prov. 5, 9)—agree with his lavish encomia on the arrangement and perfection of the world. For, according to the Stoics, matter is ultimately identical with reason and deity. These contradictions do not, however, justify the doubt expressed by Heine, Stoic. de Fato Doct. 46, that Seneca is here not speaking as a Stoic. For Chrysippus says very much the same thing. See p. 190, 1, 2.

[427] M. Aurel. ix. 16: οὐκ ἐν πείσει, ἀλλ’ ἐνεργείᾳ, τὸ τοῦ λογικοῦ ζῴου κακὸν καὶ ἀγαθὸν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ἡ ἀρετὴ καὶ κακία αὐτοῦ ἐν πείσει, ἀλλὰ ἐνεργείᾳ.

[428] M. Aurel. viii. 35: ὃν τρόπον ἐκείνη [ἡ φύσις] πᾶν τὸ ἐνιστάμενον καὶ ἀντιβαῖνον ἐπιπεριτρέπει καὶ κατατάσσει εἰς τὴν εἱμαρμένην καὶ μέρος ἑαυτῆς ποιεῖ, οὕτως καὶ τὸ λογικὸν ζῷον δύναται πᾶν κώλυμα ὅλην ἑαυτοῦ ποιεῖν καὶ χρῆσθαι αὐτῷ ἐφ’ οἷον ἂν καὶ ὥρμησεν.

[429] Seneca’s treatise, De Providentia, is occupied with expanding this thought. In it, the arguments by which the outward misfortunes of good men are harmonised with the divine government of the world are: (1) The wise man cannot really meet with misfortune: he cannot receive at the hands of fortune what he does not, on moral grounds, assign to himself (c. 2, 6). (2) Misfortune, therefore, is an unlooked-for exercise of his powers, a divine instrument of training; a hero in conflict with fortune is a spectaculum Deo dignum (c. 1, 2–4. Conf. Ep. 85, 39). (3) The misfortunes of the righteous show that external conditions are neither a good nor an evil (c. 5). (4) Everything is a natural consequence of natural causes (c. 5). Similar explanations in Epictet. Diss. iii. 17; i. 6, 37; i. 24, 1; Stob. Ed. i. 132; M. Aurel. iv. 49: vii. 68 and 64; x. 33.

[430] Philodem. περὶ θεῶν διαγωγῆς, col. 8, Vol. Herc. vi. 53: ἰδιωτικῶς ἅπαντος αὐτῷ [θεῷ] δύναμιν ἀναθέντες, ὅταν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐλέγχων πιέζωνται, τότε καταφεύγουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ διὰ τοῦτο φάσκειν τὰ συναπτόμενα (what is suitable) μὴ ποιεῖν, ὅτι οὐ πάντα δύναται.

[431] See above, p. 126; 101, 2; Diog. 135. Conf. Stob. Ecl. i. 410.

[432] In Diog. 150, there is no difference made between Apollodorus and Chrysippus. Stob. Ecl. i. 344; Plut. C. Not. 38, 3, p. 1079; Sext. Math. x. 142. Similarly Aristotle.

[433] Plut. Plac. i. 9, 2: οἱ Στωϊκοὶ τρεπτὴν καὶ ἀλλοιωτὴν καὶ μεταβλητὴν καὶ ῥευστὴν ὅλην δι’ ὅλου τὴν ὕλην. Diog. 150. Sen. Nat. Qu. iii. 101, 3: Fiunt omnia ex omnibus, ex aqua aër, ex aëre aqua, ignis ex aëre, ex igne aër ... ex aqua terra fit, cur non aqua fiat e terra? ... omnium elementorum in alternum recursus sunt. Similarly Epictet. in Stob. Floril. 108, 60. Conf. p. 101, 2; 198, 3. This is borrowed not only from Heraclitus, but also from Aristotle.

[434] They only called the first kind κίνησις. Aristotle understood by κίνησις every form of change.

[435] Stob. Ecl. i. 404, 408, gives definitions of κίνησις, of φορά, and of μονή, taken from Chrysippus and Apollodorus. Simpl. Categ. 110, β (Schol. in Arist. 92, 6, 30. Respecting the kinds of μεταβολή see the extracts from Posidonius on p. 101, 2) distinguishes between μένειν, ἠρεμεῖν, ἡσυχάζειν, ἀκινητεῖν, but this is rather a matter of language. Simpl. Cat. 78, β, relates that the Stoics differed from the Peripatetics in explaining Motion as an incomplete energy, and discusses their assertion that κινεῖσθαι is a wider, κινεῖν a narrower, idea.

[436] Simpl. Phys. 310, b: οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς κατὰ πᾶσαν κίνησιν ἔλεγον ὑπεῖναι τὴν τοπικὴν, ἢ κατὰ μέγαλα διαστήματα ἢ κατὰ λόγῳ θεωρητὰ ὑφισταμένην.

[437] Simpl. Categ. 78, β (Schol. 78, a, 23): Plotinus and others introduce into the Aristotelian doctrine the Stoic view: τὸ κοινὸν τοῦ ποιεῖν καὶ πάσχειν εἶναι τὰς κινήσεις.

[438] Simpl. l.c. 77, β; Schol. 77, b, 33. Simplicius himself contradicts this statement. It had, however, been already advanced by Aristotle.

[439] Simpl. l.c. 78, β (Schol. 78, a, 28): The Stoics who, according to p. 84, ε, Schol. 79, a, 16, very fully discussed the categories, made the following διαφοραὶ γενῶν: τὸ ἐξ αὐτῶν κινεῖσθαι, ὡς ἡ μάχαιρα τὸ τέμνειν ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας ἔχει κατασκευῆς—τὸ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ ἐνεργεῖν τὴν κίνησιν, ὡς αἱ φύσεις καὶ αἱ ἰατρικαὶ δυνάμεις τὴν ποίησιν ὑπεργάζονται; for instance, the seed, in developing into a plant—τὸ ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ ποιεῖν, or ἀπὸ ἰδίας ὁρμῆς ποιεῖν, one species of which is τὸ ἀπὸ λογικῆς ὁρμῆς—τὸ κατ’ ἀρετὴν ἐνεργεῖν. It is, in short, the application to a particular case of the distinction which will be subsequently met with of ἕξις, φύσις, ψυχὴ, and ψυχὴ λογική. The celebrated grammatical distinction of ὀρθὰ and ὕπτια mentioned p. 95, 3 is connected with the distinction between ποιεῖν and πάσχειν. Conf. Simpl. p. 79, α, ζ; Schol. 78, b, 17 and 30.

[440] See page 135.

[441] Stob. Ecl. i. 382: Ζήνων καὶ οἱ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐντὸς μὲν τοῦ κόσμου μηδὲν εἶναι κενὸν ἔξω δ’ αὐτοῦ ἄπειρον (conf. Themist. Phys. 40, b; Plut. Plac. i. 18, 4; ibid. c. 20, beginning οἱ Στωϊκοὶ καὶ Ἐπίκουρος). διαφέρειν δὲ κενὸν τόπον χώραν· καὶ τὸ μὲν κενὸν εἶναι ἐρημίαν σώματος, τὸν δὲ τόπον τὸ ἐπεχόμενον ὑπὸ σώματος, τὴν δὲ χώραν τὸ ἐκ μέρους ἐπεχόμενον (Plut. adds, like a half-empty vessel). Stob. i. 390: Chrysippus defined τόπος = τὸ κατεχόμενον δι’ ὅλου ὑπὸ ὄντος, ἢ τὸ οἷον κατέχεσθαι ὑπὸ ὄντος καὶ δι’ ὅλου κατεχόμενον εἴτε ὑπὸ τινὸς εἴτε ὑπὸ τινῶν. If, however, only one portion of the οἷόν τε κατέχεσθαι ὑπὸ ὄντος is really filled, the whole is neither κενὸν nor τόπος, but ἕτερόν τι οὐκ ὠνομασμένον, which may possibly be called χώρα. Hence τόπος corresponds to a full, κενὸν to an empty, χώρα to a half-empty, vessel. Sext. Math. x. 3, Pyrrh. iii. 124, speaks to the same effect. Cleomed. Meteor. p. 2, 4; Simpl. Categ. 91, δ. According to the Stoics, παρυφίσταται τοῖς σώμασιν ὁ τόπος καὶ τὸν ὅρον ἀπ’ αὐτῶν προσλαμβάνει τὸν μέχρι τοσοῦδε, καθόσον συμπληροῦνται [-οῦται] ὑπὸ τῶν σωμάτων.

[442] The Stoic idea of space is so understood by Themist. Phys. 38, b; Simpl. Phys. 133, a.

[443] See previous note and in Diog. 140 (where, however, instead of ἀσώματον δὲ, we should read κενὸν δὲ) definitions of κενόν.

[444] Stob. Ecl. i. 392, quoting Chrysippus.

[445] See p. 131, 2.

[446] Simpl. Categ. 88, ζ. Schol. 80, a, 6: τῶν δὲ Στωϊκῶν Ζήνων μὲν πάσης ἁπλῶς κινήσεως διάστημα τὸν χρόνον εἶπε (conf. Plut. Plat. Quæst. viii. 4, 3) Χρύσιππος δὲ διάστημα τῆς τοῦ κόσμου κινήσεως. Conf. Ibid. 89, α, β; Simpl. Phys. 165, a. More full is Stob. Ecl. i. 260: ὁ δὲ Χρύσιππος χρόνον εἶναι κινήσεως διάστημα καθ’ ὅ ποτε λέγεται μέτρον τάχους τε καὶ βραδύτητος, ἢ τὸ παρακολουθοῦν διάστημα τῇ τοῦ κόσμου κινήσει. The passages quoted by Stob. Ibid. 250 (Plut. Plac. i. 22, 2), 254, 256, 258, and Diog. 141, from Zeno, Chrysippus, Apollodorus, and Posidonius, are in agreement with this. In the same places occur several other observations on Time, which are, however, of no importance, such as that Time as a whole, and likewise the past and the future, are unlimited, the present is limited; the present cannot be accurately determined, it is the boundary between the past and the future (Archedemus in Plut. C. Not. 38, 6, p. 1081), lying partly in the one, partly in the other (Chrysippus, ibid. 38, 8).

[447] Sext. Math. x. 142; Plut. Com. Not. 41, p. 1081; Stob. i. 260.

[448] For the conception of στοιχεῖον, which is also that of Aristotle (Metaph. i. 3, 938, b, 8), and its difference from that of ἀρχὴ, see Diog. 134; 136. The difference, however, is not always observed. Chrysippus (in Stob. Ecl. i. 312) distinguishes three meanings of στοιχεῖον. In one sense, it is fire; in another, the four elements; in the third, any material out of which something is made.

[449] Lassalle, Heraclitus, ii. 84.

[450] See p. 161. As is there stated, primary fire first goes over into water δι’ ἀέρος (i.e. after first going over into air, not passing through air as an already existing medium, as Lassalle, Heracl. ii. 86, inaccurately says), and water goes over into the three other elements. In this process there is, however, a difficulty. Fire is said to derive its origin from water, and yet a portion of primary fire must have existed from the beginning, as the soul of the world. Nor is it correct to say, that actual fire is never obtained from water in the formation of the upper elements (as Lassalle, p. 88, does).

[451] Chrysippus, in Stob. Ecl. i. 312: πρώτης μὲν γιγνομένης τῆς ἐκ πυρὸς κατὰ σύστασιν εἰς ἀέρα μεταβολῆς, δευτέρας δ’ ἀπὸ τούτου εἰς ὕδωρ, τρίτης δ’ ἔτι μᾶλλον κατὰ τὸ ἀνάλογον συνισταμένου τοῦ ὕδατος εἰς γῆν, πάλιν δὲ ἀπὸ ταύτης διαλυομένης καὶ διαχεομένης πρώτη μὲν γίγνεται χύσις εἰς ὕδωρ, δεύτερα δὲ ἐξ ὕδατος εἰς ἀέρα, τρίτη δὲ καὶ ἐσχάτη εἰς πῦρ. On account of this constant change, primary matter is called (Ibid. 316, where, however, the text is obviously corrupt, and therefore only partially intelligible) ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ ὁ λόγος καὶ ἡ ἀΐδιος δύναμις ... εἰς αὐτήν τε πάντα καταναλίσκουσα καὶ τὸ [ἐξ] αὑτῆς πάλιν ἀποκαθιστᾶσα τεταγμένως καὶ ὁδῷ. Epictet. in Stob. Floril. 108, 60: Not only mankind and animals are undergoing perpetual changes, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ θεῖα, καὶ νὴ Δί’ αὐτὰ τὰ τέτταρα στοιχεῖα ἄνω καὶ κάτω τρέπεται καὶ μεταβάλλει· καὶ γῆ τε ὕδωρ γίνεται καὶ ὕδωρ ἀὴρ, οὗτος δὲ πάλιν εἰς αἰθέρα μεταβάλλει· καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς τρόπος τῆς μεταβολῆς ἄνωθεν κάτω. On the flux of things, see also M. Aurel. ii. 3; vii. 19; ix. 19; 28. Cic. N. D. ii. 33, 84: Et cum quatuor sint genera corporum, vicissitudine eorum mundi continuata (= συνεχής; conf. Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 2, 2, continuatio est partium inter se non intermissa conjunctio) natura est. Nam ex terra aqua, ex aqua oritur aër, ex aëre æther: deinde retrorsum vicissim ex æthere aër, ex aëre aqua, ex aqua terra infima. Sic naturis his, ex quibus omnia constant, sursum deorsum, ultro citroque commeantibus, mundi partium conjunctio continetur. See p. 194, 3.

[452] Diog. 137: εἶναι δὲ τὸ μὲν πῦρ τὸ θερμὸν, τὸ δ’ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑγρὸν, τόν τ’ ἀέρα τὸ ψυχρὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν τὸ ξηρόν. Plut. Sto. Rep. 43, 1, p. 1053. The air is, according to Chrysippus, φύσει ζοφερὸς and πρώτως ψυχρός. Id. De Primo Frig. 9, 1; 17, 1, p. 948, 952; Galen, Simpl. Medic. ii. 20, vol. xi. 510. Sen. Nat. Qu. iii. 10; i. 4: Aër ... frigidus per se et obscurus ... natura enim aëris gelida est. Conf. Cic. N. D. ii. 10, 26. Of the four properties by the pairing of which elements arise, even Aristotle had attributed one to each element as its distinguishing feature, assigning cold to water, moisture to air.

[453] Thus the upper portion of the air, owing to its proximity to the region of fire and the stars (Sen. Nat. Qu. iii. 10), is the warmest, the driest, and the rarest; but yet, owing to the evaporation of the earth and the radiation of heat, warmer than the middle, which in point of dryness and density is between the two, but exceeds both in cold. See p. 146, 4.

[454] Chrysippus, in Stob. i. 314: λέγεσθαι δὲ πῦρ τὸ πυρῶδες πᾶν καὶ ἀέρα τὸ ἀερῶδες καὶ ὁμοίως τὰ λοιπά. Thus Philo, Incorrupt. M. 953, E, who is clearly following the Stoics, distinguishes three kinds of fire: ἄνθραξ, φλὸξ, αὐγή. He seems, however, only to refer to terrestrial fire, which, after all, forms only one small portion of fire.

[455] Pp. 128, 2; 148, 2; 151, 1; 163, 2.

[456] This statement must be taken with such modification as the unity of the world renders necessary. If the upper elements were to move altogether away from the centre, the world would go to pieces. Hence the meaning can only be this: that the difference of natural motions can only take place within the enclosure holding the elements together, and so far a natural motion towards the centre can be attributed to all bodies as a distinctive feature, anterior to the contrast between heaviness and lightness. Conf. Chrysippus, in Plut. Sto. Rep. 44, 6, p. 1054: The striving of all the parts of the world is to keep together, not to go asunder. οὕτω δὲ τοῦ ὅλου τεινομένου εἰς ταὐτὸ καὶ κινουμένου καὶ τῶν μορίων ταύτην τὴν κίνησιν ἐχόντων ἐκ τῆς τοῦ σώματος φύσεως, πιθανὸν, πᾶσι τοῖς σώμασιν εἶναι τὴν πρώτην κατὰ φύσιν κίνησιν πρὸς τὸ τοῦ κόσμου μέσον, τῷ μὲν κόσμῳ οὑτωσὶ κινουμένῳ πρὸς αὑτὸν, τοῖς δὲ μέρεσιν ὡς ἂν μέρεσιν οὖσιν. Achill. Tat. Isag. 132, A: The Stoics maintain that the world continues in empty space, ἐπεὶ πάντα αὐτοῦ τὰ μέρη ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον νένευκε. The same reason is assigned by Cleomedes, Meteor. p. 5.

[457] Stob. Ecl. i. 346 (Plut. Pl. i. 12, 4). Zeno, Ibid. 406: οὐ πάντως δὲ σῶμα βάρος ἔχειν, ἀλλ’ ἀβαρῆ εἶναι ἀέρα καὶ πῦρ ... φύσει γὰρ ἀνώφοιτα ταῦτ’ εἶναι διὰ τὸ μηδενὸς μετέχειν βάρους. Plut. Sto. Rep. 42, p. 1053: In the treatise περὶ κινήσεως, Chrysippus calls fire ἀβαρὲς and ἀνωφερὲς καὶ τούτῳ παραπλησίως τὸν ἀέρα, τοῦ μὲν ὕδατος τῇ γῇ μᾶλλον προσνεμομένου, τοῦ δ’ ἀέρος, τῷ πυρί. (So too in Ach. Tat. Isag. i. 4 in Pet. Doctr. Temp. iii. 75.) On the other hand, in his Φυσικαὶ τέχναι, he inclines to the view that air in itself is neither heavy nor light, which however can only mean that it is neither absolutely, being heavy compared with fire, and light compared with water and earth.

[458] Diog. 137: ἀνωτάτω μὲν οὖν εἶναι τὸ πῦρ ὃ δὴ αἰθέρα καλεῖσθαι, ἐν ᾧ πρώτην τὴν τῶν ἀπλανῶν σφαῖραν γεννᾶσθαι, εἶτα τὴν τῶν πλανωμένων. μεθ’ ἣν τὸν ἀέρα, εἶτα τὸ ὕδωρ, ὑποστάθμην δὲ πάντων τὴν γῆν, μέσην ἁπάντων οὖσαν. Ibid. 156; see p. 202, 3. To these main masses, all other smaller masses of the same element in different parts of the world are attracted, because all seek to reach their natural place. Conf. M. Aurel. ix. 9.

[459] Sen. Nat. Qu. vi. 16, 2 (totum hoc cœlum, quod igneus æther, mundi summa pars, claudit), and p. 198, 3, where the same thing is called πῦρ by Stobæus, æther by Cicero. See p. 146, 4. The same thing is meant by Zeno, where he says (Stob. Ecl. i. 538, 554, and Cleanthes says the same in Cic. N. D. ii. 15, 40. Ach. Tat. Isag. 133, C) that the stars are made of fire; not, however, of πῦρ ἄτεχνον, but of πῦρ τεχνικὸν, which appears in plants as φύσις, in animals as ψυχή. See p. 201, 5.

[460] In Ach. Tat. Isag. 130, A, he defines οὐρανὸς as αἰθέρος τὸ ἔσχατον, ἐξ οὗ καὶ ἐν ᾧ ἐστὶ πάντα ἐμφανῶς. Similarly Diog. 138; Cleomed. Met. p. 7. Otherwise the term is used in a wider sense.

[461] See p. 146, 4.

[462] Stob. i. 346: τὸ μὲν περίγειον φῶς κατ’ εὐθεῖαν, τὸ δ’ αἰθέριον περιφερῶς κινεῖται. See p. 202, 3. It is only of terrestrial fire that Zeno can (Stob. Ecl. i. 356) say, it moves in a straight line. Cleanthes even attributed to the stars the spherical shape, which on the strength of this passage he attributes to it. See Plut. Plac. ii. 14, 2; Stob. i. 516; Ach. Tat. Isag. 133, B.

[463] They denied it, according to Orig. c. Cels. iv. 56. Cic. Acad. i. 11, 39, says: Zeno dispensed with a quinta natura, being satisfied with four elements: statuebat enim ignem esse ipsam naturam, quæ quæque gigneret, et mentem atque sensus.

[464] The spherical shape of the earth is a matter of course, and is mentioned by Ach. Tat. Isag. 126, C; Plut. Plac. iii. 10, 1; 9, 3. Cleom. Met. p. 40, gives an elaborate proof of it, for the most part taken from Posidonius.

[465] Heraclit. Alleg. Hom. c. 36, and Diog. 145, also affirm that the earth is in the centre, unmoved. The reason for this fact is stated by Stob. i. 408, to be its weight. Further proofs in Cleomed. Met. p. 47.

[466] Stob. Ecl. i. 446: τοῦ δὲ ... κόσμου τὸ μὲν εἶναι περιφερόμενον περὶ τὸ μέσον, τὶ δ’ ὑπομένον, περιφερόμενον μὲν τὸν αἰθέρα, ὑπομένον δὲ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς ὑγρὰ καὶ τὸν ἀέρα. The earth is the natural framework, and, as it were, the skeleton of the world. Around it water has been poured, out of which the more exalted spots project as islands. For what is called continent is also an island: ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ὕδατος τὸν ἀέρα ἐξῆφθαι καθάπερ ἐξατμισθέντα σφαιρικῶς καὶ περικεχύσθαι, ἐκ δὲ τούτου τὸν αἰθέρα ἀραιότατόν τε καὶ εἰλικρινέστατον. It moves in circular form round the world. Then follows what is given in the text as to the stars, next to which comes the stratum of air, then that of water, and lastly, in the centre, the earth. Conf. Achil. Tat. Isag. 126, B, see p. 200, 3. The language of Cleomed. Met. c. 3, p. 6, is somewhat divergent. He places the sun amongst the planets, between Mars and Venus. That Archedemus also refused to allow the earth a place in the centre has been already stated, p. 147, 2. The language of Ach. Tat. Isag. c. 7, 131, B, is ambiguous: As the circumference originates from the centre, so according to the Stoics the outer circle originates from the earth; when compared with the quotations on p. 161, 2; 162, 1.

[467] Stob. i. 356; Plut. Plac. ii. 2, 1; i. 6, 3; Diog. 140; Cleomed. Met. pp. 39 and 46; Heraclit. Alleg. Hom. c. 46. Ibid. on the perfection of this form and its adaptation for motion. Comparing Achil. Tat. Isag. 130, C, Plut. Plac. ii. 2, 1 (Galen. Hist. Phil. c. 11), with the passages on p. 201, note 4, it appears probable that Cleanthes believed in a spherical form of the earth. According to Ach. Tat. Isag. 152, A, who probably has the Stoics in view, the axis of the world consists of a current of air passing through the centre. On the division of the heaven into five parallel circles, and that of the earth into five zones, conf. Diog. 155; Strabo, ii. 2, 3, p. 95.

[468] Stob. i. 392; Simpl. Phys. iii. 6; Diog. 143 and 150.

[469] Diog. 140; Stob. i. 382; Plut. Plac. i. 18, 4; Sext. Math. vii. 214; Theodoret, Cur. Gr. Aff. iv. 14, p. 58; Hippolyt. Refut. Hær. i. 21. Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 7, observes that motion is possible by means of ἀντιπερίστασις, without supposing the existence of empty space. A number of arguments against the existence of empty space may be found in Cleomed. Met. p. 4.

[470] See p. 168, 1; Cleomed. Met. 2 and 5.

[471] Chrysippus, in Stob. i. 392: The Empty and the Non-Material is unlimited. ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ μηδὲν οὐδέν ἐστι πέρας, οὕτω καὶ τοῦ μηδενὸς, οἷόν ἐστι τὸ κενόν. The Empty could only be bounded by being filled. To the same effect, Cleomed. p. 6. On the unlimited beyond the world, see Diog. 140 and 143; Stob. i. 260 and 382; Plut. Sto. Rep. 44, 1, p. 1054; C. Not. 30, 2, p. 1073; Plac. i. 18, 4; ii. 9, 2; Theodoret, l.c. and p. 196, 2. That Posidonius denied the infinity of the Empty has been already stated, p. 168, 1. Chrysippus, in affirming that the world occupies the centre of space, was therefore contradicting himself, as Plut. Def. Or. 28, p. 425, Sto. Rep. 44, 2, observes.

[472] Achil. Tat. Isag. 126, A; 132, A, see p. 200, 1; Stob. i. 408. According to Stob. i. 442, Plut. C. Not. 30, 2 and 10, p. 1073, Plac. ii. 1, 6; i. 5, 1, Diog. 143, Sext. Math. ix. 332, Ach. Tat. 129, D, the Stoics had various names for the world, according as the Empty was included or excluded in the conception. Including the Empty, it is called τὸ πᾶν; without it, ὅλον (τὸ ὅλον, τὰ ὅλα, frequently occurs with the Stoics). The πᾶν, it was said, is neither material nor immaterial, since it consists of both. Plut. C. Not. l.c.

[473] Diog. 145; Plut. Plac. ii. 14, 1; 22, 3; 27, 1; Stob. i. 516; 540; 554; Ach. Tat. 133, D. Compare the reference to Cleanthes on p. 201, 4, with which, however, the statement in Stob. i. 554, that he considered the moon πιλοειδὴς (ball-like—the MSS. have πηλοειδῆ) does not agree.

[474] According to Cic. N. D. ii. 15, 40, Diog. 144, Stob. Ecl. i. 314; 519; 538; 554; 565, Plut. Fac. Lun. 5, 1; 21, 13, p. 921, 935, Plac. ii. 25, 3; 30, 3, Galen, Hist. Phil. 15, Philo, De Somn. 587, B, Achil. Tat. Isag. 124, D; 133, C, and above p. 200, 3; 162, 2, the stars generally consist of fire, or, more accurately, of πῦρ τεχνικὸν, or Ether. The purest fire is in the sun. The moon is a compound of dull fire and air, or, as it is said, is more earth-like, since (as Plin. Hist. Nat. ii. 9, 46, without doubt after Stoic teaching, observes) owing to its proximity to the earth, it takes up earthy particles in vapour. Perhaps it was owing to this fact that it was said to receive its light from the sun (Diog. 145), which, according to Posidonius in Plut. Fac. Lun. 16, 12, p. 929, Cleomed. Met. p. 106, not only illuminates its surface, but penetrates some depth. Cleomed. 100, believes that, besides the light of the sun, it has also a light of its own.

[475] Diog. 145; Stob. i. 532; 538; 554; Floril. 17, 43; Plut. De Is. 41, p. 367; Sto. Rep. 39, 1; Qu. Conv. viii. 8, 2, 4; Plac. ii. 17, 2; 20, 3; 23, 5; Galen, Hist. Phil. 14; Porphyr. Antr. Nymph, c. 11; Cic. N. D. iii. 14, 37; ii. 15, 40; 46, 118; Sen. Nat. Qu. vi. 16. 2; Heraclit. Alleg. Hom. c. 36, p. 74 and 56, p. 117; most of whom affirm that the sun is sustained by vapours from the sea, the moon by those of fresh water, and the other stars by vapours from the earth. The stars are also said to owe their origin to such vapours. Chrysippus, in Plut. Sto. Rep. 41, 3, adds to the passage quoted p. 161, 2: οἱ δ’ ἀστέρες ἐκ θαλάσσης μετὰ τοῦ ἡλίου ἐνάπτονται. Plut. Ibid. 2: ἔμψυχον ἡγεῖται τὸν ἥλιον, πύρινον ὄντα καὶ γεγενημένον ἐκ τῆς ἀναθυμιάσεως εἰς πῦρ μεταβαλούσης. Id. C. Not. 46, 2, p. 1084: γεγονέναι δὲ καὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἔμψυχον λέγουσι τοῦ ὑγροῦ μεταβάλλοντος εἰς πῦρ νοερόν.

[476] Stob. i. 532; Cic. l.c.; Macrob. Sat. i. 23, quoting Cleanthes and Macrobius; Plut. Plac. ii. 23, 5. Diogenes of Apollonia had already expressed similar views. Further particulars as to the courses of the stars without anything very peculiar in Stob. i. 448; 538; Plut. Pl. ii. 15, 2; 16, 1; Diog. 144; Cleomed. Meteor. i. 3. Eclipses are also discussed by Diog. 145; Stob. i. 538; 560; Plut. Fac. Lun. 19, 12, p. 932; Plac. ii. 29, 5; Cleomed. pp. 106 and 115, nor is there anything remarkable. Quite in the ordinary way are some observations of Posidonius and Chrysippus given in Stob. i. 518; Achil Tat. Isag. 132, B; 165, C. The information—quoted from Posidonius by Cleomed. Meteor. 51; Procl. in Tim. 277, E; Strabo, ii. 5, 14, p. 119—respecting observations of Canobus have no bearing on our present enquiry.

[477] Stob. i. 554 (Plut. Pl. ii. 26, 1). This statement, however, appears only to be true of the sun, to which, indeed, it is confined by Diog. 144. That the sun is much larger than the earth, Posidonius proved; not only because its light extends over the whole heaven, but also because of the spherical form of the earth’s shadow in eclipses of the moon. Diog. l.c.; Macrob. Somn. i. 20; Heracl. Alleg. Hom. c. 46; Cleomed. Met. ii. 2. According to Cleomed. p. 79, he allowed to it an orbit 10,000 times as large as the circumference of the earth, with a diameter of four million stadia. The Stoic, in Cic. N. D. ii. 40, 103, only calls the moon half that size; and Cleomed. p. 97, probably following Posidonius, calls it considerably smaller than the earth. The other stars, according to Cleomed. p. 96, are some of them as large as, and others larger than, the sun. Posidonius, according to Plin. Hist. N. ii. 23, 85, estimated the moon’s distance from the earth at two million, and the sun’s distance from the moon at 500 million stadia. He estimated the earth’s circumference at 240,000, according to Cleomed.; at 180,000 according to Strabo, ii. 2, 2, p. 95.

[478] Conf. Stob. i. 66; 441; 518; 532; 538; 554; Floril. 17, 43; Plut. Sto. Rep 39, 1; 41, 2; C. Not. 46, 2; Plac. ii. 20, 3; Diog. 145; Phædr. Nat. De. (Philodem. περὶ εὐσεβείας) Col. 3; Cic. N. D. i. 14, 36 and 50; ii. 15, 39 and 42; 16, 43; 21, 54; Acad. ii. 37, 110; Porphyr. l.c.; Achill. Tat. Isag. c. 13, p. 134, A. Hence, in several of these passages, the sun is called after Cleanthes and Chrysippus a νοερὸν ἄναμμα (or ἔξαμμα) ἐκ θαλάσσης.

[479] Sen. Nat. Qu. vi. 16, discusses the point at length. See also the quotations on p. 144, 1, from Cic. N. D. ii. 9, and on p. 151, 1, from Diog. 147.

[480] Diog. vii. 152 and 138, mentions a treatise of his, called μετεωρολογικὴ or μετεωρολογικὴ στοιχείωσις; also, vii. 135, a treatise περὶ μετεώρων, in several books. Alexander, in Simpl. Phys. 64, 6, speaks of an ἐξήγησις μετεωρολογικῶν, which, judging by the title, may be a commentary on Aristotle’s meteorology. Geminus had made an extract from this book, a long portion of which on the relation of astronomy and natural science is there given. Whether these various titles really belong to these different treatises is not clear. Posidonius is probably the author of most of the later statements about the Stoic meteorology. He appears also to be the chief authority for Seneca’s Naturales Quæstiones, in which he is frequently named (i. 5, 10; 13; ii. 26, 4; 54, 1; iv. 3, 2; vi. 21, 2; 24, 6; vii. 20, 2; 4), particularly in his meteorological treatises.

[481] On the Milky Way, which Posidonius, agreeing with Aristotle, looked upon as a collection of fiery vapours, see Stob. i. 576; Plut. Plac. iii. 1, 10; Macrob. Somn. Scip. i. 15. On the comets, which are explained in a similar way, Stob. i. 580 (Plac. iii. 2, 8.—Whether the Diogenes mentioned here who looked upon comets as real stars is Diogenes the Stoic, or Diogenes of Apollonia, is not clear. The former is more probable, Boëthus having been just before mentioned); Arrian, in Stob. i. 584; Diog. vii. 152; and, particularly, Sen. Nat. Qu. vii. We learn from the latter that Zeno held (vii. 19–21; 30, 2), with Anaxagoras and Democritus, that comets are formed by several stars uniting; whereas the majority of the Stoics—and, amongst their number, Panætius and Posidonius (further particulars in Schol. in Arat. v. 1091)—considered them passing phenomena. Even Seneca declared for the opinion that they are stars. On the phenomena of light and fire, called πωγωνίαι, δοκοὶ, etc., see Arrian in Stob. i. 584; Sen. Nat. Qu. i. 1, 14; 15, 4. On σέλας, consult Diog. 153; Sen. i. 15; on halo (ἅλως), Sen. i. 2; Alex. Aphr. Meteorol. 116; on the rainbow, Diog. 152; Sen. i. 3–8; on virgæ and parhelia, Sen. i. 9–13; Schol. in Arat. v. 880 (Posidonius); on storms, lightning, thunder, summer lightning, cyclones, and siroccos, Stob. i. 596; 598 (Plac. iii. 3, 4); Arrian, Ibid. 602; Sen. ii. 12–31; 51–58 (c. 54, the view of Posidonius); ii. 1, 3; Diog. 153; on rain, sleet, hail, snow, Diog. 153; Sen. iv. 3–12; on earthquakes, Diog. 154; Plac. iii. 15, 2; Sen. vi. 4–31 (particularly c. 16; 21, 2); also Strabo, ii. 3, 6, p. 102; on winds, Plac. iii. 7, 2; Sen. v. 1–17; Strabo, i. 2, 21, p. 29; iii. 2, 5, p. 144; on waterspouts, Sen. iii. 1–26; the Nile floods, Ibid. iv. 1; Strabo, xvii. 1, 5, p. 790; Cleomed. Meteor, p. 32; on tides, Strabo, i. 3, 12, p. 55; iii. 3, 3, p. 153; 5, 8, p. 73; on seasons, p. 111, 2.

[482] Thus colours are explained as πρῶτοι σχηματισμοὶ τῆς ὕλης (Stob. i. 364; Plac. i. 15, 5); and sounds are spoken of as undulations in the air by Plut. Plac. iv. 19, 5; Diog. 158.

[483] Conf. Bake, Posidonii Rhod. Reliquiæ, pp. 87–184; Müller, Fragm. Hist. Græc. iii. 245.

[484] Sext. Math. ix. 81: τῶν ἡνωμένων (on ἕνωσις see p. 103, 1) σωμάτων τὰ μὲν ὑπὸ ψιλῆς ἕξεως συνέχεται, τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ φύσεως, τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ ψυχῆς· καὶ ἕξεως μὲν ὡς λίθοι καὶ ξύλα, φύσεως δὲ, καθάπερ τὰ φυτὰ, ψυχῆς δὲ τὰ ζῷα. Plut. Virt. Mor. c. 12, p. 451: καθόλου δὲ τῶν ὄντων αὐτοὶ τέ φασι καὶ δῆλόν ἐστιν ὅτι τὰ μὲν ἕξει διοικεῖται τὰ δὲ φύσει, τὰ δὲ ἀλόγῳ ψυχῇ, τὰ δὲ καὶ λόγον ἐχούσῃ καὶ διάνοιαν. Themist. De An. 72, b; M. Aurel. vi. 14; Philo, Qu. De. S. Immut. 298, D; De Mundo, 1154, E; Leg. Alleg. 1091, D; Incorrupt. M. 947, A; Plotin. Enn. iv. 7, 8, p. 463, C, Bas. 861, Cr. (Otherwise Cic. N. D. ii. 12, 33. See p. 146, 1). Respecting the difference of φύσις and ψυχὴ, φύσις is said to consist of a moister, colder, and denser πνεῦμα than ψυχή; but, on this point, see Plut. Sto. Rep. 41, 1; Com. Not. 46, 2; Galen, Hipp. et Plat. v. 3. Vol. v. 521. Qu. Animi Mores, c. 4. Vol. iv. 783. In Diog. 139, ἕξις and νοῦς, as the highest and lowest links in the series, are contrasted. Ibid. 156, there is a definition of φύσις = πῦρ τεχνικὸν ὁδῷ βαδίζον εἰς γένεσιν; and (148) another = ἕξις ἐξ αὑτῆς κινουμένη κατὰ σπερματικοὺς λόγους ἀποτελοῦσά τε καὶ συνέχουσα τὰ ἐξ αὑτῆς ἐν ὡρισμένοις χρόνοις καὶ τοιαῦτα δρῶσα ἀφ’ οἵων ἀπεκρίθη. It hardly need be repeated that the force is one and the same, which at one time appears as ἕξις, at another as φύσις. Conf. Diog. 138; Themist. l.c.; Sext. Math. ix. 84.

[485] The belief that blood circulates in the veins, spiritus in the arteries (Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 15, 1), which was shared by the Peripatetics, deserves to be mentioned here, Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 15, 1; also the explanations of sleep, death, and age in Plut. Plac. v. 23, 4; 30, 5; the assertion that animals are not only deficient in reason (on this point see Plut. Solert. An. 2, 9; 6, 1; 11, 2, pp. 960, 963, 967), but also (according to Chrysippus in Galen, Hippoc. et Plat. iii. 3; v. 1, 6. Vol. v., 309, 429, 431, 476) in emotions (or as Galen also says in θυμὸς and ἐπιθυμία), even in man the emotions being connected with the rational soul. Posidonius, however, denied this statement (Galen, p. 476), and Chrysippus believed that animals had a ἡγεμονικόν. (Chalcid. in Tim. p. 148, b.) He even discovered in the scent of dogs traces of an unconscious inference. Sext. Pyrrh. i. 69. See also p. 225, 2.

[486] Cleanthes, in Nemes. Nat. Hom. p. 33, and Tert. De An. c. 5: οὐδὲν ἀσώματον συμπάσχει σώματι οὐδὲ ἀσωμάτῳ σῶμα ἀλλὰ σῶμα σώματι· συμπάσχει δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ τῷ σώματι νοσοῦντι καὶ τεμνομένῳ καὶ τὸ σῶμα τῇ ψυχῇ· αἰσχυνομένης γοῦν ἐρυθρὸν γίνεται καὶ φοβουμένης ὠχρόν. σῶμα ἄρα ἡ ψυχή. Chrysippus in Nemes. p. 34: ὁ θάνατός ἐστι χωρισμὸς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ σώματος· οὐδὲν δὲ ἀσώματον ἀπὸ σώματος χωρίζεται· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐφάπτεται σώματος ἀσώματον· ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ καὶ ἐφάπτεται καὶ χωρίζεται τοῦ σώματος· σῶμα ἄρα ἡ ψυχή. The same is said by Tertullian.

[487] Nemes. Nat. Hom. c. 2, p. 30.

[488] Diog. 157; Cic. N. D. ii. 14, 36.

[489] Zeno, in Tertull. l.c., and very nearly the same in Chalcid. in Tim. p. 306 Meurs.: Quo digresso animal emoritur: consito autem spiritu digresso animal emoritur: ergo consitus spiritus corpus est, consitus autem spiritus anima est: ergo corpus est anima. Chrysippus in Chalcid. l.c.

[490] Cleanthes, in Nemes. l.c. 32: οὐ μόνον ὅμοιοι τοῖς γονεῦσι γινόμεθα, κατὰ τὸ σῶμα, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ψυχὴν, τοῖς πάθεσι, τοῖς ἤθεσι, ταῖς διαθέσεσι· σώματος δὲ τὸ ὅμοιον καὶ ἀνόμοιον, οὐχὶ δὲ ἀσώματον· σῶμα ἄρα ἡ ψυχή. The same in Tertullian, l.c.

[491] Chrysippus in Galen, Hipp. et Plat. iii. 1. Vol. v. 287: ἡ ψυχὴ πνεῦμά ἐστι σύμφυτον ἡμῖν συνεχὲς παντὶ τῷ σώματι διῆκον. Zeno. Macrob. Somn. i. 14: Zenon [dixit animam] concretum corpori spiritum ... Boëthos (probably the Stoic, not the Peripatetic of the first century, is meant) ex aëre et igne [sc. constare]. Diog. in Galen, ii. 8, p. 282: τὸ κινοῦν τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὰς κατὰ προαίρεσιν κινήσεις ψυχική τίς ἐστιν ἀναθυμίασις. Cic. Nat. D. iii. 14, 36; Tusc. i. 9, 19; 18, 42: Zeno considers the soul to be fire; Panætius believes that it is burning air. Diog. L. vii. 156, on the authority of Zeno, Antipater, Posidonius, says that it is πνεῦμα σύμφυτον, πνεῦμα ἔνθερμον. Stob. Ecl. i. 796 (Plut. Plac. iv. 3, 3). Cornut. N. D. p. 8: καὶ γὰρ αἱ ἡμέτεραι ψυχαὶ πῦρ εἰσι. Ar. Didymus, in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 20, 1: Zeno calls the soul αἴσθησιν ἢ ἀναθυμίασιν (should be αἰσθητικὴν ἀναθυμίασιν, conf. § 2 and Ps. Plut. Vit. Hom. c. 127: τὴν ψυχὴν οἱ Στωϊκοὶ ὁρίζονται πνεῦμα συμφυὲς καὶ ἀναθυμίασιν αἰσθητικὴν ἀναπτομένην ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν σώματι ὑγρῶν). Longin. in Eus. Ibid. 21, 1 and 3. Alex. De An. 127. b: οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς πνεῦμα αὐτὴν λέγοντες εἶναι συγκείμενόν πως ἔκ τε πυρὸς καὶ ἀέρος. Since, however, every πνεῦμα is not a soul, a soul is stated to be πνεῦμα πὼς ἔχον (Plotin. Enn. iv. 7, 4, p. 458, E); and the distinctive quality of the soul-element is its greater warmth and rarity. See Plut. Sto. Rep. 41, 2, p. 1052: Chrysippus considers the ψυχὴ to be ἀραιότερον πνεῦμα τῆς φύσεως καὶ λεπτομερέστερον. Similarly, Galen, Qu. An. Mores, c. 4. Vol. iv. 783: The Stoics say that both φύσις and ψυχὴ is πνεῦμα, but that the πνεῦμα is thick and cold in φύσις, dry and warm in ψυχή.

[492] Chrysippus. See previous note. This diffusion is further explained by Iambl. in Stob. Ecl. i. 870 and 874, Themist. De Anim. f. 68, a. Plotin. iv. 7, 8, p. 463, c, as being κρᾶσις, i.e. an intermingling of elements. That the soul forms the bond of union for the body, and not vice versâ, was a point vindicated by the Stoics against the Epicureans. Posid. in Achil. Tat. Isag. c. 13, p. 133, E; Sext. Math. ix. 72.

[493] Galen. Hippocr. et Plat. ii. 8, p. 282, on the authority of Zeno, Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and Diogenes; Longin. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 21, 3; M. Aurel. v. 33; vi. 15; Ps. Plut. Vit. Hom. 127.

[494] Zeno described the seed as πνεῦμα μεθ’ ὑγροῦ ψυχῆς μέρος καὶ ἀπόσπασμα ... μῖγμα τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς μερῶν (Arius Didymus, in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 20, 1), or as σύμμιγμα καὶ κέρασμα τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεων (Plut. Coh. Ir. 15). Similarly Chrysip., in Diog. 159. Conf. Tertullian, De An. c. 27. According to Sphærus, in Diog. 159, the seed is formed by separation from all parts of the body and can consequently produce all, as Democritus had already said. Panætius (in Cic. Tusc. i. 31, 79) proves, from the mental similarity, between parents and children, that the soul comes into existence by generation. For the mother’s share in producing the soul, see Ar. Did. l.c. See above p. 127, 5.

[495] Plut. Sto. Rep. 41, 1 and 8, p. 1052; C. Not. 46, 2, p. 1084. De Primo Frig. 2, 5, p. 946: οἱ Στωϊκοὶ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα λέγουσιν ἐν τοῖς σώμασι τῶν βρεφῶν τῇ περιψύξει στομοῦσθαι καὶ μεταβάλλον ἐκ φύσεως γενέσθαι ψυχήν. Similarly, Plotin. Enn. iv. 7, 8, p. 463, c. Conf. Hippolyt. Refut. Hær. c. 21, p. 40; Tertull. De An. c. 25. Plutarch (Plac. v. 16, 2; 17, 1; 24, 1) draws attention to the inconsistency of saying that the animal soul, which is warmer and rarer than the vegetable soul, has been developed of it there by cooling and condensation.

[496] On this point, the Stoics were not altogether agreed. Some (not all, as Plut. Pl. Phil. iv. 21, 5, asserts) made the brain the seat of the soul, in proof of which they appealed to the story of the birth of Pallas. Sext. Math. ix. 119; Diog. in Phædr. Fragm. De Nat. De. col. 6. Conf. Krische, Forschungen, i. 488, and Chrysipp. in Galen, l.c. iii. 8, p. 349. It appears, however, from Galen, l.c. i. 6, ii. 2 and 5, iii. 1, pp. 185, 214, 241, 287, Tertull. De An. c. 15, that the most distinguished Stoics—Zeno, Chrysippus, Diogenes, and Apollodorus—decided in favour of the heart. The chief proof is, that the voice does not come from the hollow of the skull, but from the breast. Chrysippus was aware of the weakness of this proof, but still did not shrink from using it. Galen, l.c. p. 254, 261. At the same time, he also appealed to the fact (ii. 7, 268; iii. 1, 290, c. 5, 321, c. 7, 335, 343; iv. 1, 362) that, by universal assent, supported by numerous passages from the poets, the motions of the will and the feelings proceed from the heart.

[497] Aristotle had assigned no particular organ of the body to reason.