No More Learning

Rejected things are, in the case of qualities of the mind, stupidity, unskilfulness, and the like; in the case of circumstances affecting the body, death, disease, weakness, a bad constitution, mutilation, disgrace, and the like; in the case of external circumstances, poverty, want of reputation, ignoble birth, and the like. But those qualities and circumstances which are indifferent, are neither preferred nor rejected. [107] Again, of things preferred, some are preferred for their own sakes, some for the sake of other things, and some partly for their own sakes and partly for that of other things. Those which are preferred for their own sakes, are ability, improvement, and the like; those which are preferred for the sake of other things, are wealth, nobility of birth, and the like; those which are preferred partly for their own sake, and partly for that of something else, are strength, vigour of the senses, universal soundness, and the like; or they are preferred, for their own sakes, inasmuch as they are in accordance with nature; and for the sake of something else, inasmuch as they are productive of no small number of advantages; and the same is the case in the inverse ratio, with those things which are rejected. {62} Again, they say that that is duty, which is preferred, and which contains in itself reasonable arguments why we should prefer it; as for instance, its corresponding to the nature of life itself; and this argument extends to plants and animals, for even their nature is subject to the obligation of certain duties. [108] And duty (to kath? kon) had this name given to it by Zenon, in the first instance, its appellation being derived from its coming to, or according to some people, apo tou kata tinas h? kein; and its effect is something kindred to the preparations made by nature. Now of the things done according to inclination, some are duties, and some are contrary to duty; and some are neither duties nor contrary to duty. These are duties, which reason selects to do, as for instance, to honour one's parents, one's brothers, one's country, to gratify one's friends. These actions are contrary to duty, which reason does not choose; as for instance, to neglect one's parents, to be indifferent to one's brothers, to shirk assisting one's friends, to be careless about the welfare of one's country, and se on. [109] Those are neither duties, nor contrary to duty, which reason neither selects to do, nor, on the other hand, repudiates, such actions, for instance, as to pick up straw, to hold a pen, or a comb, or things of that sort. Again, there are some duties which do not depend on circumstances, and some which do. These do not depend on circumstances, to take care of one's health, and of the sound state of one's senses, and the like. Those which do depend on circumstances, are the mutilation of one's members, the sacrificing of one's property, and so on. And the case of these actions which are contrary to duty, is similar. Again, of duties, some are always such, and some are not always. What is always a duty, is to live in accordance with virtue; but to ask questions, to give answers, to walk, and the like, are not always duties. And the same statement holds good with respect to acts contrary to duty. [110] There is also a class of intermediate duties, such as the duty of boys obeying their masters.

{63} The Stoics also say that the mind is divisible into eight parts; for that the five organs of sensation, and the vocal power, and the intellectual power, which is the mind itself, and the generative power, are all parts of the mind. But by error, there is produced a perversion which operates on the intellect, from which many perturbations arise, and many causes of inconstancy. And all perturbation is itself, according to Zenon, a movement of the mind, or superfluous inclination, which is irrational, and contrary to nature. Moreover, of the superior class of perturbations, as Hecaton says, in the second book of his treatise on the Passions, and as Zenon also says in his work on the Passions, there are four kinds, grief, fear, desire, and pleasure. [111] And they consider that these perturbations are judgments, as Chrysippus contends in his work on the Passions; for covetousness is an opinion that money is a beautiful object, and in like manner drunkenness and intemperance, and other things of the sort, are judgments. And grief they define to be an irrational contraction of the mind, and it is divided into the following species, pity, envy, emulation, jealousy, pain, perturbation, sorrow, anguish, confusion. Pity is a grief over some one, on the ground of his being in undeserved distress. Envy is a grief, at the good fortune of another. Emulation is a grief at that belonging to some one else, which one desires one's self. Jealousy is a grief at another also having what one has one's self. Pain is a grief which weighs one down. Perturbation is grief which narrows one, and causes one to feel in a strait. Sorrow is a grief arising from deliberate thought, which endures for some time, and gradually increases. [112] Anguish is a grief with acute pain. Confusion is an irrational grief, which frets one, and prevents one from clearly discerning present circumstances. But fear is the expectation of evil; and the following feelings are all classed under the head of fear: apprehension, hesitation, shame, perplexity, trepidation, and anxiety. Apprehension is a fear which produces alarm. Shame is a fear of discredit. Hesitation is a fear of coming activity. Perplexity is a fear, from the imagination of some unusual thing. [113] Trepidation is a fear accompanied with an oppression of the voice. Anxiety is a fear of some uncertain event. Again, desire is an irrational appetite; to which head, the following feelings are referable: want, hatred, contentiousness, anger, love, enmity, rage. Want is a desire arising from our not having something or other, and is, as it were, separated from the thing. but is still stretching, and attracted towards it in vain. And hatred is a desire that it should be ill with some one, accompanied with a certain continual increase and extension. Contentiousness is a certain desire accompanied I with deliberate choice. Anger is a desire of revenge, on a person who appears to have injured one in an unbecoming way. Love is a desire not conversant about a virtuous object, for it is an attempt to conciliate affection, because of some beauty which is seen. [114] Enmity is a certain anger of long duration, and full of hatred, and it is a watchful passion, as is shown in the following lines [Homer, Il_1'81]:
For though we deem the short-lived fury past,
'Tis sure the mighty will revenge at last.

But rage is anger at its commencement. Again, pleasure is an irrational elation of the mind over something which appears to be desirable; and its different species are enjoyment, rejoicing at evil, delight, and extravagant joy. Enjoyment now, is a pleasure which charms the mind through the ears. Rejoicing at evil (epichairekakia),is a pleasure which arises at the misfortunes of others. Delight (terpsis) that is to say turning (trepsis), is a certain turning of the soul (protrop? tis psych? s), to softness. Extravagant joy is the dissolution of virtue. [115] And as there are said to he some sicknesses (arrh? st? mata) in the body, as, for instance, gout and arthritic disorders; so too are those diseases of the soul, such as a fondness for glory, or for pleasure, and other feelings of that sort. For an arrh? st? ma is a disease accompanied with weakness; and a disease is an opinion of something which appears exceedingly desirable. And, as in the case of the body, there are illnesses to which people are especially liable, such as colds or diarrhoea; so also are there propensities which the mind is under the influence of, such as enviousness, pitifulness, quarrelsomeness, and so on. [116] There are also three good dispositions of the mind; joy, caution, and will. And joy they say is the opposite of pleasure, since it is a rational elation of the mind; so caution is the opposite of fear, being a rational avoidance of anything, for the wise man will never be afraid, but he will act with caution; and will, they define as the opposite of desire, since it is a rational wish. As therefore some things fall under the class of the first perturbations, in the same manner do some things fall under the class of the first good dispositions. And accordingly, under the head of will, are classed goodwill, placidity, salutation, affection; and under the head of caution are ranged reverence and modesty; under the head of joy, we speak of delight, mirth, and good spirits.

[117] {64} They say also, that the wise man is free from perturbations, because he has no strong propensities. But that this freedom from propensities also exists in the bad man, being, however, then quite another thing, inasmuch as it proceeds in him only from the hardness and unimpressibility of his nature. They also pronounce the wise man free from vanity, since he regards with equal eye what is glorious and what is inglorious. At the same time, they admit that there is another character devoid of vanity, who, however, is only reckoned one of the rash men, being in fact the bad man. They also say that all the virtuous men are austere, because they do never speak with reference to pleasure, nor do they I listen to what is said by others with reference to pleasure. At the same time, they call another man austere too, using the term in nearly the same sense as they do when they speak of austere wine, which is used in compounding medicines, but not for drinking. [118] They also pronounce the wise to be honest-hearted men, anxiously attending to those matters which may make them better, by means of some principle which conceals what is bad, and brings to light what is good. Nor is there any hypocrisy about them; for they cut off all pretence in their voice and appearance. They also keep aloof from business; for they guard carefully against doing any thing contrary to their duty. They drink wine, but they do not get drunk; and they never yield to frenzy. Occasionally, extraordinary imaginations may obtain a momentary power over them, owing to some melancholy or trifling, arising not according to the principle of what is desirable, but contrary to nature. Nor, again, will the wise man feel grief; because grief is an irrational contraction of the soul, as Apollodorus defines it in his Ethics.

[119] They are also, as they say, godlike; for they have something in them which is as it were a God. But the bad man is an atheist. Now there are two kinds of atheists; one who speaks in a spirit of hostility to, and the other, who utterly disregards, the divine nature; but they admit that all bad men are not atheists in this last sense. The good, on the contrary, are pious; for they have a thorough acquaintance with the laws respecting the Gods. And piety is a knowledge of the proper reverence and worship due to the Gods. Moreover they sacrifice to the Gods, and keep themselves pure; for they avoid all offences having reference to the Gods, and the Gods admire them; for they are holy and just in all that concerns the Deity; and the wise men are the only priests; for they consider the matters relating to sacrifices, and the erection of temples, and purifications, and all other things which peculiarly concern the Gods. [120] They also pronounce that men are bound to honour their parents, and their brethren, in the second place after the Gods. They also say that parental affection for one's children is natural to them, and is a feeling which does not exist in bad men. And they lay down the position that all offences are equal, as Chrysippus argues in the fourth book of his Ethic Questions, and so say Persaeus and Zenon. For if one thing that is true is not more true than another thing that is true, neither is one thing that is false more false than another thing that is false; so too, one deceit is not greater than another, nor one sin than another. For the man who is a hundred stades from Canopus, and the man who is only one, are both equally not in Canopus; and so too, he who commits a greater sin, and he who commits a less, are both equally not in the right path. [121] Heracleides of Tarsus, indeed, the friend of Antipater of Tarsus, and Athenodorus, both assert that offences are not equal. Again, the Stoics, as for instance, Chrysippus, in the first book of his work on Lives, say, that the wise man will take a part in the affairs of the state, if nothing hinders him. For that he will restrain vice, and excite men to virtue. Also, they say that he will marry, as Zenon says in his Republic, and beget children. Moreover, that the wise man will never form mere opinions, that is to say, he will never agree to anything that is false; and that he will become a Cynic; for that Cynicism is a short path to virtue, as Apollodorus calls it in his Ethics; that he will even eat human flesh, if there should be occasion; that he is the only free man, and that the bad are slaves; for that freedom is a power of independent action, but slavery a deprivation of the same. [122] That there is besides, another slavery, which consists in subjection, and a third which consists in possession and subjection; the contrary of which is masterhood, which is likewise bad.

And they say, that not only are the wise free, but that they are also kings, since kingly power is an irresponsible dominion, which can only exist in the case of the wise man, as Chrysippus says in his treatise on the Proper Application of his Terms made by Zenon; for he says that a ruler ought to give decisions on good and evil, and that none of the wicked understand these things. In the same way, they assert that they are the only people who are fit to be magistrates or judges, or orators, and that none of the bad are qualified for these tasks. Moreover, that they are free from all error, in consequence of their not being prone to any wrong actions. [123] Also, that they are unconnected with injury, for that they never injure any one else, nor themselves. Also, that they are not pitiful, and that they never make allowance for any one; for that they do not relax the punishments appointed by law, since yielding, and pity, and mercifulness itself, never exist in any of their souls, so as to induce an affectation of kindness in respect of punishment; nor do they ever think any punishment too severe. Again, they say that the wise man never wonders at any of the things which appear extraordinary; as for instance, at the stories about Charon, or the ebbing of the tide, or the springs of hot water, or the bursting forth of flames. But, say they further, the wise man will not live in solitude; for he is by nature sociable and practical. Accordingly, he will take exercise for the sake of hardening and invigorating his body. [124] And the wise man will pray, asking good things from the Gods, as Poseidonius says in the first book of his treatise on Duties, and Hecaton says the same thing in the third book of his treatise on Paradoxes.

They also say, that friendship exists in the virtuous alone, on account of their resemblance to one another. And they describe friendship itself as a certain communion of the things which concern life, since we use our friends as ourselves. And they assert that a friend is desirable for his own sake, and that a number of friends is a good; and that among the wicked there is no such thing as friendship, and that no wicked man can have a friend. Again, they say that all the foolish are mad; for that they are not prudent, and that madness is equivalent to folly in every one of its actions; [125] but that the wise man does everything properly, just as we say that Ismenias can play every piece of flute-music well. Also, they say that everything belongs to the wise man, for that the law has given them perfect and universal power; but some things also are said to belong to the wicked, just in the same manner as some things are said to belong to the unjust, or as a house is said to belong to a city in a different sense from that in which a thing belongs to the person who uses it.

{65} And they say that virtues reciprocally follow one another, and that he who has one has all; for that the precepts of them all are common, as Chrysippus affirms in the first book of his treatise on Laws; and Apollodorus, in his Natural Philosophy, according to the ancient system; and Hecaton, in the third book of his treatise on Virtues. [126] For they say that the man who is endowed with virtue, is able to consider and also to do what must be done. But what must be done must be chosen, and encountered, and distributed, and awaited; so that if the man does some things by deliberate choice, and some in a spirit of endurance, and some distributively, and some patiently; he is prudent, and courageous, and just, and temperate. And each of the virtues has a particular subject of its own, with which it is concerned; as, for instance, courage is concerned with the things which must be endured; prudence is concerned with what must be done and what must not, and what is of a neutral or indifferent character. And in like manner, the other virtues are concerned with their own peculiar subjects; and wisdom in counsel and shrewdness follow prudence; and good order and decorum follow temperance; and equality and goodness of judgment follow justice; and constancy and energy follow courage.

[127] Another doctrine of the Stoics is, that there is nothing intermediate between virtue and vice; while the Peripatetics assert that there is a stage between virtue and vice, being an improvement on vice which has not yet arrived at virtue. For the Stoics say, that as a stick must be either straight or crooked, so a man must be either just or unjust, and cannot be more just than just, or more unjust than unjust; and that the same rule applies to all cases. Moreover, Chrysippus is of opinion that virtue can be lost, but Cleanthes affirms that it cannot; the one saying that it can be lost by drunkenness or melancholy, the other maintaining that it cannot be lost on account of the thin perceptions which it implants in men. They also pronounce it a proper object of choice; accordingly, we are ashamed of actions which we do improperly, while we are aware that what is honourable is the only good. Again, they affirm that it is of itself sufficient for happiness, as Zenon says, and he is followed in this assertion by Chrysippus in the first book of his treatise on Virtues, and by Hecaton in the second book of his treatise on Goods.

[128] For if, says he, "magnanimity be sufficient of itself to enable us to act in a manner superior to all other men; and if that is a part of virtue, then virtue is of itself sufficient for happiness, despising all things which seem troublesome to it. " However, Panaetius and Poseidonius do not admit that virtue has this sufficiency of itself, but say that there is also need of good health, and competency, and strength. And their opinion is that a man exercises virtue in everything, as Cleanthes asserts, for it cannot be lost; and the virtuous man on every occasion exercises his soul, which is in a state of perfection. {66} Again, they say that justice exists by nature, and not because of any definition or principle; just as law does, or right reason, as Chrysippus tells us in his treatise on the Beautiful; [129] and they think that one ought not to abandon philosophy on account of the different opinions prevailing among philosophers, since on this principle one would wholly quit life, as Poseidonius argues in his Exhortatory Essays. Another doctrine of Chrysippus is, that general learning is very useful. And the School in general maintain that there are no obligations of justice binding on us with reference to other animals, on account of their dissimilarity to us, as Chrysippus asserts in the first book of his treatise on Justice, and the same opinion is maintained by Poseidonius in the first book of his treatise on Duty. They say too, that the wise man will love those young men, who by their outward appearance, show a natural aptitude for virtue; and this opinion is advanced by Zenon, in his Republic, and by Chrysippus in the first book of his work on Lives, and by Apollodorus in his Ethics. [130] And they describe love as an endeavour to benefit a friend on account of his visible beauty; and that it is an attribute not of acquaintanceship, but of friendship. Accordingly, that Thrasonides, although he had his mistress in his power, abstained from her, because he was hated by her. Love, therefore, according to them is a part of friendship, as Chrysippus asserts in his essay on Love; and it is not blameable. Moreover, beauty is the flower of virtue.

And as there are three kinds of lives; the theoretical, the practical, and the logical; they say that the last is the one which ought to be chosen. For that a logical, that is a rational, animal was made by nature on purpose for speculation and action. And they say that a wise man will very rationally take himself out of life, either for the sake of his country or of his friends, or if he be in bitter pain, or under the affliction of mutilation, or incurable disease. [131] And they also teach that women ought to be in common among the wise, so that whoever meets with any one may enjoy her, and this doctrine is maintained by Zenon in his Republic, and by Chrysippus in his treatise on the Republic, and by Diogenes the Cynic, and by Plato; and then, say they, we shall love all boys equally after the manner of fathers, and all suspicion on the ground of undue familiarity will be removed.

They affirm too, that the best of political constitutions is a mixed one, combined of democracy, and kingly power, and aristocracy. And they say many things of this sort, and more too, in their Ethical Dogmas, and they maintain them by suitable explanations and arguments. But this may be enough for us to say of their doctrines on this subject by way of summary, and taking them in an elementary manner. [132] {67} They divide natural philosophy into the topics of bodies, and of principles, and of elements, and of Gods, and of boundaries, and of place, and of the vacuum. And they make these divisions according to species; but according to genera they divide them into three topics, that of the world, that of the elements, and the third is that which reasons on causes. The topic about the world, they say, is subdivided into two parts. For that in one point of view, the mathematicians also have a share in it; and according to it it is that they prosecute their investigations into the nature of the fixed stars and the planets; as, for instance, whether the sun is of such a size as he appears to be, and similarly, whether the moon is; and in the same way they investigate the question of spherical motion, and others of the same character. [133] The other point of view is that which is reserved exclusively for natural philosophers, according to which it is that the existence and substance of things are examined, [for instance, whether the sun and the stars consist of matter and form,] and whether the sun is born or not born, whether it is living or lifeless, corruptible or incorruptible, whether it is regulated by Providence, and other questions of this kind.

The topic which examines into causes they say is also divisible into two parts; and with reference to one of its considerations, the investigations of physicians partake of it; according to which it is that they investigate the dominant principle of the soul, and the things which exist in the soul, and seeds, and things of this kind. And its other division is claimed as belonging to them also by the mathematicians, as, for instance, how we see, what is the cause of our appearance being reflected in a mirror, how clouds are collected, how thunder is produced, and the rainbow, and the halo, and comets, and things of that kind. [134] {68} They think that there are two general principles in the universe, the active and the passive; that the passive is matter, an existence without any distinctive quality; that the active is the reason which exists in the passive, that is to say, God. For that he, being eternal, and existing through out all matter, makes everything. And Zenon, the Citiaean, lays down this doctrine in his treatise on Essence, and so does Cleanthes in his essay on Atoms, Chrysippus in the first book of his Investigations in Natural Philosophy, towards the end, Archedemus in his work on Elements, and Poseidonius in the second book of his treatise on Natural Philosophy. But they say that principles and elements differ from one another. For that the one had no generation or beginning, and will have no end; but that the elements maybe destroyed by the operation of fire. Also, that the elements are bodies, but principles have no bodies and no forms, and elements too have forms. [135] Now a body, says Apollodorus in his Natural Philosophy, is extended in a threefold manner; in length, in breadth, in depth; and then it is called a solid body; and the surface is the limit of the body having length and breadth alone, but not depth. But Poseidonius, in the third book of his Heavenly Phaenomena, will not allow a surface either any substantial reality, or any intelligible existence. A line is the limit of a surface, or length without breadth, or something which has nothing hut length. A point is the boundary of a line, and is the smallest of all symbols.

They also teach that God is unity, and that he is called Mind, and Fate, and Zeus, and by many other names besides. [136] And that, as he was in the beginning by himself, he turned into water the whole substance which pervaded the air, and as the seed is contained in the produce, so too, he being the seminal principle of the world, remained behind moisture, making matter fit to be employed by himself in the production of those things which were to come after; and then, first of all, he made the four elements, fire, water, air, and earth. And Zenon speaks of these in his treatise on the Universe, and so does Chrysippus in the first book of his Physics, and so does Archedemus in a treatise on the Elements. {69} Now an element is that out of which at first all things which are produced, and into which all things are resolved at last. [137] And the four elements are all equally an essence without any distinctive quality, namely, matter; but fire is the hot, water the moist, air the cold, and earth the dry, though this last quality is also common to the air. The fire is the highest, and that is called aether, in which first of all the sphere was generated in which the fixed stars are set, then that in which the planets revolve; after that the air, then the, water; and the sediment as it were of all is the earth, which is placed in the centre of the rest. {70} They also speak of the world in a threefold sense; at one time meaning God himself, whom they call a being of a certain quality, having for his peculiar manifestation universal substance, a being imperishable, and who never had any generation, being the maker of the arrangement and order that we see; and who, after certain periods of time, absorbs all substance in himself, and then re-produces it from himself. [138] And this arrangement of the stars they call the world, and so the third sense is one composed of both the preceding ones. And the world is a thing which is peculiarly of such and such a quality consisting of universal substance, as Poseidonius affirms in his Meteorological Elements, being a system compounded of heaven and earth, and all the creatures which exist in them; or it may be called a system compounded of Gods and men, and of the things created on their account. And the heaven is the most remote circumference of the world, in which all the Divine Nature is situated. Again, the world is inhabited and regulated according to intellect and providence, as Chrysippus says, in his works on Providence, and Poseidonius in the thirteenth book of his treatise on Gods, since mind penetrates into every part of the world, just as the soul pervades us; but it is in a greater degree in some parts, and in a less degree in others. [139] For instance, it penetrates as a habit, as, for instance, into the bones and sinews; and into some it penetrates as the mind does, for instance, into the dominant principle. And thus the whole world, being a living thing, endowed with a soul and with reason, has the aether as its dominant principle, as Antipater of Tyre, says in the eighth book of his treatise on the World. But Chrysippus, in the first book of his essay On. Providence, and Poseidonius in his treatise on Gods, say that the heaven is the dominant principle of the world; and Cleanthes attributes this to the sun. Chrysippus, however, on this point contradicts himself; for he says in another place, that the most subtle portion of the aether, which is also called by the Stoics the first God, is what is infused in a sensible manner into all the beings which are in the air, and through every animal and every plant, and through the earth itself according to a certain habit; and that it is this which communicates to them the faculty of feeling.

[140] They say too, that the world is one and also finite, having a spherical form. For that such a shape is the most convenient for motion, as Poseidonius says, in the fifth book of his Discussions on Natural Philosophy, and so says Antipater also in his essay on the World. And on the outside there is diffused around it a boundless vacuum, which is incorporeal. And it is incorporeal inasmuch, as it is capable of being contained by bodies, but is not so. And that there is no such thing as a vacuum in the world, but that it is all closely united and compact; for that this condition is necessarily brought about by the concord and harmony which exist between the heavenly bodies and those of the earth. And Chrysippus mentions a vacuum in his essay on a Vacuum, and also in the first book of his treatise on the Physical Arts, and so does Apollophanes in his Natural Philosophy, and so does Apollodorus, and so does Poseidonius in the second book of his discourses on Natural Philosophy. [141] And they say that these things are all incorporeal, and all alike. Moreover, that time is incorporeal, since it is an interval of the motion of the world. And that of time, the past and the future are both illimitable, but the present is limited. And they assert that the world is perishable, inasmuch as it was produced by reason, and is one of the things which are perceptible by the senses; and whatever has its parts perishable, must also be perishable in the whole. And the parts of the world are perishable, for they change into one another. Therefore, the whole world is perishable. And again, if anything admits of a change for the worse it is perishable; therefore, the world is perishable, for it can he dried up, and it can be covered with water.

[142] Now the world was created when its substance was changed from fire to moisture, by the action of the air; and then its denser parts coagulated, and so the earth was made, and the thinner portions were evaporated and became air; and this being rarefied more and more, produced fire. And then, by the combination of all these elements, were produced plants and animals, and other kinds of things. Now Zenon speaks of the creation, and of the destruction of the world, in his treatise on the Universe; and so do Chrysippus, in the first book of his Physics, and Poseidonius, in the first book of his treatise on the World, and Cleanthes, and Antipater, in the tenth book of his treatise on the World. But Panaetius asserts that the world is imperishable. Again, that the world is an animal, and that it is endowed with reason, and life, and intellect, is affirmed by Chrysippus, in the first volume of his treatise on Providence, and by Apollodorus in his Natural Philosophy, and by Poseidonius; [143] and that it is an animal in this sense, as being an essence endowed with life, and with sensation. For that which is an animal, is better than that which is not an animal. But nothing is better than the world; therefore the world is an animal. And it is endued with life, as is plain from the fact of our own soul being as it were a fragment broken off from it. But Boethus denies that the world is an animal. Again, that the world is one, is affirmed by Zenon, in his treatise on the Universe, and by Chrysippus, and by Apollodorus, in his Natural Philosophy, and by Poseidonius, in the first book of his Discourses on Natural Philosophy. And by the term, the universe, according to Apollodorus, is understood both the world itself, and also the whole of the world itself, and of the exterior vacuum taken together. The world, then, is finite, and the vacuum infinite.

[144] {71} Of the stars, those which are fixed are only moved in connection with the movements of the entire heaven; but the planets move according to their own peculiar and separate motions. And the sun takes an oblique path through the circle of the zodiac, and in the same manner also does the moon, which is of a winding form.
And the sun is pure fire, as Poseidonius asserts in the seventh book of his treatise on the Heavenly Bodies, and it is larger than the earth, as the same author informs us, in the sixteenth book of his Disclosures on Natural Philosophy. Also it is spherical, as he says in another place, being made on the same principle as the world is. Therefore it is fire, because it performs all the functions of fire. And it is larger than the earth, as is proved by the fact of the whole earth being illuminated by it, and also the whole heaven. Also the fact of the earth throwing a conical shadow, proves that the sun is greater than it, and the sun is seen in every part, because of its magnitude. [145] But the moon is of a more earthy nature than the sun, inasmuch as it is nearer the earth. Moreover, they say that all these fiery bodies, and all the other stars, receive nutriment; the sun from the vast sea, being a sort of intellectual appendage; and the moon from the fresh waters, being mingled with the air, and also near the earth, as Poseidonius explains it in the sixth book of his Discourses on Natural Philosophy. And all the other stars derive their nourishment from the earth. They also consider that the stars are of a spherical figure, and that the earth is immovable. And that the moon has not a light of her own, but that she borrows it from the sun. And that the sun is eclipsed, when the moon runs in front of it on the side towards us, as Zenon describes in his work on the Universe; [146] for when it comes across it in its passage, it conceals it, and again it reveals it; and this is a phenomenon easily seen in a basin of water. And the moon is eclipsed when it comes below the shadow of the earth, on which account this never happens, except at the time of the full moon; and although it is diametrically opposite to the sun every month, still it is not eclipsed every month, because when its motions are obliquely towards the sun, it does not find itself in the same place as the sun, being either a little more to the north, or a little more to the south. When therefore it is found in the same place with the sun, and with the other intermediate objects, then it takes as it were the diameter of the sun, and is eclipsed. And its place is along the line which runs between the Crab and the Scorpion, and the Ram and the Bull, as Poseidonius tells us.

[147] {72} They also say that God is an animal immortal, rational, perfect, and intellectual in his happiness, unsusceptible of any kind of evil, having a foreknowledge of the world and of all that is in the world; however, that he has not the figure of a man; and that he is the creator of the universe, and as it were, the Father of all things in common, and that a portion of him pervades everything, which is called by different names, according to its powers; for they call him Dia as being the person (di hon) everything is, and Zeus, inasmuch as he is the cause of life, (tou Z? in), or because he pervades life. And Athene, with reference to the extension of his dominant power over the aether (eis aithera). And Hera, on account of his extension through the air (eis aera). And Hephaistos, on account of his pervading fire, which is the chief instrument of art; and Poseidon, as pervading moisture, and Demeter, as pervading the earth (G? ). And in the same way, regarding some other of his peculiar attributes, they have given him other names.

[148] The substance of God is asserted by Zenon to be the universal world, and the heaven; and Chrysippus agrees with this doctrine, in his eleventh book on the Gods; and so also does Poseidonius, in the first book of his treatise on the same subject. Antipater, in the seventh book of his treatise on the World, says that his substance is like air. And Boethus, in his treatise on Nature, calls the substance of God the sphere of the fixed stars.

{73} And his nature they define to be, that which keeps the world together, and sometimes that which produces the things upon the earth. And nature is a habit which derives its movements from itself, perfecting and holding together all that arises out of it, according to the principles of production, in certain definite periods, and doing the same as the things from which it is separated. [149] And it has for its object, suitableness and pleasure, as is plain from its having created man. {74} But Chrysippus, in his treatise on Fate, and Poseidonius, in the second book of his work on Fate, and Zenon, and Boethus, in the first book of his treatise on Fate, say, that all things are produced by fate. And fate, (heimarmen? ), is a connected (eiromen? ) cause of existing things, or the reason according to which the world is regulated.

{75} They also say that divination has a universal existence, since Providence has; and they define it as an act on account of certain results, as Zenon and Chrysippus, in the second book of his treatise on Divination, and Athenodorus and Poseidonius, in the twelfth book of his discourses on Natural Philosophy, and in the fifth book of his treatise on Divination, all agree in saying; for Panaetius denies that it has any certain foundation. [150] {76} And they say that the substance of all existing things is Primary Matter, as Chrysippus asserts in the first book of his Physics; and Zenon says the same. Now matter is that from which anything whatever is produced. And it is called by a twofold appellation, essence and matter; the one as relating to all things taken together, and the other to things in particular and separate. The one which relates to all things taken together, never becomes either greater or less; but the one relating to things in particular, does become greater or less, as the case may be. {77} Body is, according to them, a substance and finite; as Antipater says, in the second book of his treatise on Substance; and Apollodorus, in his Natural Philosophy, agrees with him. It is also subject to change, as we learn from the same author; for if it were immutable, then the things which have been produced out of it would not have been produced; on which account he also says that it is infinitely divisible; but Chrysippus denies that it is infinite; for that nothing is infinite, which is divisible at all. [151] {78} He admits, however, that it is infinitely divisible, and that its concretions take place over the whole of it, as he explains in the third book of his Physics, and not according to any individuality or juxtaposition; for a little wine when thrown into the sea, will keep its distinctness for a brief period, but after that, will be lost.

{79} They also say that there are some daemones, who have a sympathy with mankind, being surveyors of all human affairs; and that there are heroes, which are the souls of virtuous men, which have left their bodies. {80} Of the things which take place in the air, they say that winter is the effect of the air above the earth being cooled, on account of the retirement of the sun to a greater distance than before; that spring is a good temperature of the air, according to the sun's approach towards us; [152] that summer is the effect of the air above the earth being warmed by the approach of the sun towards the north; that autumn is caused by the retreat of the sun from us to those places from which they flow.

{81} And the cause of the production of the winds is the sun, which evaporates the clouds. Moreover, the rainbow is the reflection of the sun's rays from the moist clouds, or, as Poseidonius explains it in his Meteorology, a manifestation of a section of the sun or moon, in a cloud suffused with dew; being hollow and continuous to the sight; so that it is reflected as in a mirror, under the appearance of a circle. And that comets, and bearded stars, and meteors, are fires which have an existence when the density of the air is borne upwards to the regions of the aether. [153] That a ray of light is a kindling of sudden fire, borne through the air with great rapidity, and displaying an appearance of length; that rain proceeds from the clouds, being a transformation of them into water, whenever the moisture which is caught up from the earth or from the sea, by the sun, is not able to be otherwise disposed of; for when it is solidified, it is then called hoar frost. And hail is a cloud congealed, and subsequently dispersed by the wind. Snow is moisture from a congealed cloud, as Poseidonius tells us in the eighth book of his discourse on Natural Philosophy. Lightning is a kindling of the clouds from their being rubbed together, or else broken asunder by the wind, as Zenon tells us in his treatise on the Universe; and thunder is the noise made by them on the occasion of their being rubbed together or broken asunder; [154] and the thunderbolt is a sudden kindling which falls with great violence on the earth, from the clouds being rubbed together or broken asunder, or, as others say, it is a conversion of fiery air violently brought down to the earth. A typhoon is a vast thunderbolt, violent and full of wind, or a smoky breath of a cloud broken asunder. A pr? st? s is a cloud rent by fire, with wind. [Earthquakes occur when wind rushes] into the hollows of the earth, or when the wind is pent up in the earth, as Poseidonius says in his eighth book; and that some of them are shakings, others rendings, others emissions of fire, and others, instances of violent fermentation. [155] {82} They also think that the general arrangement of the world is in this fashion; that the earth is in the middle, occupying the place of the centre; next to which comes the water, of a spherical form; and having the same centre as the earth; so that the earth is in the water; and next to the water comes the air, which has also a spherical form. {83} And that there are five circles in the heaven of which the first is the arctic circle, which is always visible; the second is the tropical summer circle; the third is the equinoctial circle; the fourth, the winter tropical circle; and the fifth the antarctic, which is not visible. And they are called parallel, because they do not incline to one another; they are drawn however around the same centre. But the zodiac is oblique, cutting the parallel circles. There are also five zones on the earth; [156] the first is the northern one, placed under the arctic circle, uninhabitable by reason of the cold; the second is temperate; the third is uninhabitable because of the heat, and is called the torrid zone; the fourth is a temperate zone, on the other side of the torrid zone; the fifth is the southern zone, being also uninhabitable by reason of the cold.

{84} Another of their doctrines is that nature is an artificial fire tending by a regular road to production, which is a fiery kind of breath proceeding according to art. Also, that the soul is sensible, and that it is a spirit which is born with us; consequently it is a body and continues to exist after death; that nevertheless it is perishable. But that the soul of the universe is imperishable, and that the souls which exist in animals are only parts of that of the universe. [157] But Zenon the Citiaean, and Antipater in his treatise concerning the Soul, and Poseidonius also, all say that the soul is a spirit; for that by it we have our breath, and by it we are moved. Cleanthes, accordingly, asserts that all souls continue to exist till they are burnt up; but Chrysippus says that it is only the souls of the wise that endure. And they further teach that there are eight parts of the soul; the five senses, and the generative faculties, and voice, and reason. And we see because of a body of luminous air which extends from the organ of sight to the object in a conical form, as it is asserted by Chrysippus, in the second book of his Natural Philosophy, and also by Apollodorus. And the apex of this cone is close to the eye, and its base is formed by the object which is seen; so that that which is seen is as it were reported to the eye by this continuous cone of air extended towards it like a staff. [158] In the same way, we hear because the air between the speaker and the hearer is struck in a spherical manner; and is then agitated in waves, resembling the circular eddies which one sees in a cistern when a stone is dropped into it.

Sleep, they say, is produced by a relaxation of the aesthetic energies with reference to the dominant part of the soul. And the causes of the passions they explain to be the motions and conversions which take place in connection with this spirit or soul.

{85} Seed, they define as a thing of a nature capable of producing other things of the same nature as the thing from which it has been separated. And the seed of man, which man emits, is, together with moisture, mixed up with the parts of the soul by that kind of mixture which corresponds to the capacity of the parents. [159] And Chrysippus says, in the second book of his Natural Philosophy, that it is a spirit according to substance; as is manifest from the seeds which are planted in the earth; and which, if they are old, do not germinate, because all their virtue has evaporated. And Sphaerus says, that seed proceeds from the entire body, and that that is how it is that it produces all the parts of the body.

They also say that the seed of the female is unproductive; for, as Sphaerus says, it is devoid of tone, and small in quantity, and watery. {86} They also say that that is the dominant part of the soul which is its most excellent part; in which the imaginations and the desires are formed, and whence reason proceeds. And this place is in the heart. [160] These then are the doctrines on the subject of natural philosophy entertained by them, which it seems sufficient for us to detail, having regard to the due proportions of this book.

[160] The following are the points in which some of [the Stoics] disagreed with the rest.

LIFE OF ARISTON.

{1} Ariston the Bald, a native of Chios, surnamed the Siren, said, that the chief good was to live in perfect indifference to all those things which are of an intermediate character between virtue and vice; making not the slightest difference between them, but regarding them all on a footing of equality. For that the wise man resembles a good actor; who, whether he is filling the part of Agamemnon or Thersites, will perform them both equally well. {2} And he discarded altogether the topic of physics, and of logic, saying that the one was above us, and that the other had nothing to do with us; and that the only branch of philosophy with which we had any real concern was ethics. [161] {3} He also said that dialectic reasonings were like cobwebs; which, although they seem to be put together on principles of art, are utterly useless.

{4} And he did not introduce many virtues into his scheme, as Zenon did; nor one virtue under a great many names, as the Megaric philosophers did; but defined virtue as consisting in behaving in a certain manner with reference to a certain thing. {5} And as he philosophized in this manner, and carried on his discussions in the Cynosarges, he got so much influence as to be called a founder of a sect. Accordingly, Miltiades and Diphilus were called Aristoneans. {6} He was a man of very persuasive eloquence, and one who could adapt himself well to the humours of a multitude. On which account Timon says of him:
And one who, from Ariston's wily race,
Traced his descent.

[162] Diocles, the Magnesian, tells us that Ariston having fallen in with Polemon, passed over to his school, at a time when Zenon was lying ill with a long sickness. The Stoic doctrine to which he was most attached, was the one that the wise man is never guided by opinions. But Persaeus argued against this, and caused one of two twin brothers to place a deposit in his hands, and then caused the other to reclaim it; and thus he convicted him, as he was in doubt on this point, and therefore forced to act on opinion. He was a great enemy of Arcesilaus. And once, seeing a bull of a monstrous appearance, having a womb, he said, "Alas! here is an argument for Arcesilaus against the evidence of his senses. " [163] On another occasion, when a philosopher of the Academy said that he did not comprehend anything, he said to him, "Do not you even see the man who is sitting next to you? " And as he said that he did not, he said:
Who then has blinded you, who's been so harsh,
As thus to rob you of your beaming eyes?

{7} The following works are attributed to him.

Two books of Exhortatory Discourses;
Dialogues on the Doctrines of Zenon;
six books of Conversations;
seven books of Discussions on Wisdom;
Conversations on Love;
Commentaries on Vain Glory;
twenty-five books of Reminiscences;
three books of Memorabilia;
eleven books of Apophthegms;
a volume against the Orators;
a volume against the Rescripts of Alexinus;
three treatises against the Dialecticians;
four books of Letters to Cleanthes.
But Panaetius and Sosicrates say, that his only genuine writings are his letters; and that all the rest are the works of Ariston the Peripatetic.
[164] {8} It is said that he, being bald, got a stroke of the sun, and so died. And we have written a jesting epigram on him in choliambic verse, as follows:
Why, O Ariston, being old and bald,
Did you allow the sun to roast your crown?
Thus, in an unbecoming search for warmth,
Against your will, you've found out chilly Hell.

{9} There was also another man of the name of Ariston; a native of Iulis, one of the Peripatetic school. And another who was an Athenian musician. A fourth who was a tragic poet. A fifth, a native of Halae, who wrote a treatise on the Oratorical Art. A sixth was a peripatetic Philosopher of Alexandria.

LIFE OF HERILLUS

[165] {1} Herillus, a native of Carthage, said that the chief good was knowledge; that is to say, the always conducting one's self in such a way as to refer everything to the principle of living according to knowledge, and not been misled by ignorance. He also said that knowledge was a habit not departing from reason in the reception of perceptions.

On one occasion, he said that there was no such thing as a chief good, but that circumstances and events changed it, just as the same piece of brass might become a statue either of Alexander or of Socrates. And that besides the chief good or end (telos), there was a subordinate end (hypotelis) different from it. And that those who were not wise aimed at the latter; but that only the wise man directed his views to the former. And all the things between virtue and vice he pronounced indifferent. {2} His books contain but few lines, but they are full of power, and contain arguments in opposition to Zenon. [166] {3} It is said, that when he was a boy, many people were attached to him; and as Zenon wished to drive them away, he persuaded him to have his head shaved, which disgusted them all. {4} His books are as follows.

One on Exercise;
one on the Passions;
one on Opinion;
the Lawgiver;
the Skilful Midwife;
the Contradictory Teacher;
the Preparer;
the Director;
Hermes;
Medeia;
a book of Dialogues;
a book of Ethical Propositions.


LIFE OF DIONYSIUS

{1} Dionysius, the Deserter (Metathemenos), as he was called, asserted that pleasure was the chief good, from the circumstance of his being afflicted with a complaint in his eyes. For, as he suffered severely, he could not pronounce pain a thing indifferent.

{2} He was the son of Theophantus, and a native of Heracleia. {3} He was a pupil, as we are told by Diocles, first of all of Heracleides, his fellow citizen; after that of Alexinus, and Menedemus; and last of all of Zenon. [167] And at first, as he was very devoted to learning, he tried his hand at all kinds of poetry. Afterwards, he attached himself to Aratus, whom he took for his model. Having left Zenon, he turned to the Cyrenaics, and became a frequenter of brothels, and in other respects indulged in luxury without disguise. {3} When he had lived near eighty years, he died of starvation. {5} The following books are attributed to him.

Two books on Apathy;
two on Exercise;
four on Pleasure;
one on Riches, and Favours, and Revenge;
one on the Use of Men ;
one on Good Fortune;
one on Ancient Kings;
one on Things which are Praised;
one on Barbarian Customs.
These now are the chief men who differed from the Stoics. But the man who succeeded Zenon in his school was Cleanthes, whom we must now speak of.

LIFE OF CLEANTHES

[168] {1} Cleanthes was a native of Assos, and the son of Phanias. He was originally a boxer, as we learn from Antisthenes, in his Successions. And he came to Athens, having but four drachmas, as some people say, and attaching himself to Zenon, he devoted himself to Philosophy in a most noble manner; and he adhered to the same doctrines as his master. {2} He was especially eminent for his industry, so that as he was a very poor man, he was forced to undertake mercenary employments, and he used to draw water in the gardens by night, and by day he used to exercise himself in philosophical discussions; on which account he was called Phreantles [from phrear, a well, and antle? , to draw water]. They also say that he was on one occasion brought before a court of justice, to be compelled to give an account what his sources of income were from which he maintained himself in such good condition: and that then he was acquitted, having produced as his witness the gardener in whose garden he drew the water; and a woman who was a meal-seller, in whose establishment he used to prepare the meal. [169] And the judges of the Areopagus admired him, and voted that ten minae should be given to him; but Zenon forbade him to accept them. They also say that Antigonus presented him three thousand drachmas. And once, when he was conducting some you men to some spectacle, it happened that the wind blew away his cloak, and it was then seen that he had nothing on under it; on which he was greatly applauded by the Athenians according to the account given by Demetrius the Magnesian, in his essay on People of the same Name. And he was greatly admired by them on account of this circumstance. They also say that Antigonus, who was a pupil of his, once asked him why he drew water; and that he made answer, "Do I do nothing beyond drawing water? Do I not also dig, and do I not water the land, and do all sorts of things for the sake of philosophy ? For Zenon used to accustom him to this, and used to require him to bring him an obol by way of tribute. [170] And once he brought one of the pieces of money which he had collected in this way, into the middle of a company of his acquaintances, and said, "Cleanthes could maintain even another Cleanthes if he were to choose; but others who have plenty of means to support themselves, seek for necessaries from others; although they only study philosophy in a very lazy manner. " And, in reference to these habits of his, Cleanthes was called a second Heracles.

{3} He was then very industrious; but he was not well endowed by nature, and was very slow in his intellect. On which account Timon says of him {in parody of Homer, Il_3'196}:
What stately ram thus measures o'er the ground,
And master of the flock surveys them round?
What citizen of Assos, dull and cold,
Fond of long words, a mouth-piece, but not bold.

And when he was ridiculed by his fellow pupils, he used to bear it patiently.

{4} He did not even object to the name when he was called an ass; but only said that he was the only animal able to bear the burdens which Zenon put upon him. [171] And once, when he was reproached as a coward, he said, "That is the reason why I make but few mistakes. " He used to say, in justification of his preference of his own way of life to that of the rich, "That while they were playing at ball, he was earning money by digging hard and barren ground. " And he very often used to blame himself. And once, Ariston heard him doing so, and said, "Who is it that you are reproaching ? " and he replied, "An old man who has grey hair, but no brains. " When some one once said to him, that Arcesilaus did not do what he ought, "Desist," he replied, "and do not blame him; for if he destroys duty as far as his words go, at all events he establishes it by his actions. " Arcesilaus once said to him, " I never listen to flatterers. " " Yes," rejoined Cleanthes, "I flatter you, when I say that though you say one thing, you do another. " [172] When some one once asked him what lesson he ought to inculcate on his son, he replied, "The warning of Electra" {Euripides, Orest_140}:
Silence, silence, gently step.

When a Lacedaemonian once said in his hearing, that labour was a good thing, he was delighted, and addressed him {in parody of Homer, Od_4'611}:
Oh, early worth, a soul so wise and young
Proclaims that you from noble blood are sprung.

Hecaton tells us in his Apophthegms, that once when a young man said, "If a man who beats his stomach gastrizei, then a man who slaps his thigh m? rizei", he replied, "Do you stick to your diam? rizei, but analogous words do not always indicate analogous facts. " Once when he was conversing with a youth, he asked him if he felt; and as he said that he did, "Why is it then," said Cleanthes, "that I do not feel that you feel? " [173] When Sositheus, the poet, said in the theatre where he was present, "Men whom the folly of Cleanthes urges -" he continued in the same attitude; at which the hearers were surprised, and applauded him, but drove Sositheus away. And when Sositheus expressed his sorrow for having abused him in this manner, he answered him gently, saying that it would be a preposterous thing for Dionysus and Heracles to bear being ridiculed by the poets without any expression of anger, and for him to be indignant at any chance attack. He used also to say, that the Peripatetics were in the same condition as lyres, which though they utter sweet notes, do not hear themselves. And it is said, that when he asserted that, on the principles of Zenon, one could judge of a man's character by his looks, some witty young men brought him a profligate fellow, having a hardy look from continual exercise in the fields, and requested him to tell them his moral character; and he, having hesitated a little, bade the man depart; and, as he departed, the man sneezed. "I have the fellow now," said Cleanthes, "he is a debauchee. " [174] He said once to a man who was conversing with him by himself, "You are not talking to a bad man. " And when some one reproached him with his old age, he rejoined, "I too wish to depart, but when I perceive myself to be in good health in every respect, and to be able to recite and read, I am content to remain. " They say too, that he used to write down all that he heard from Zenon on oyster shells, and on the shoulder-blades of oxen, from want of money to buy paper with. {5} And though he was of this character, and in such circumstances, he became so eminent, that, though Zenon had many other disciples of high reputation, he succeeded him as the president of his School.

And he left behind him some excellent books, which are these.

One on Time;
two on Zenon's System of Natural Philosophy;
four books of the Explanations of Heracleitus;
one on Sensation;
one on Art;
one addressed to Democritus;
one to Aristarchus;
one to Herillus;
two on Desire;
[175] one entitled Archaeology;
one on the Gods;
one on the Giants;
one on Marriage;
one on Poets;
three on Duty;
one on Good Counsel;
one on Favour;
one called Exhortatory;
one on Virtues;
one on Natural Ability;
one on Gorgippus;
one on Enviousness;
one on Love;
one on Freedom;
one called the Art of Love;
one on Honour;
one on Glory;
The Statesman;
one on Counsel;
one on Laws;
one on Deciding as a Judge;
one on the Way of Life;
three on Reason;
one on the Chief Good;
one on the Beautiful;
one on Actions;
one on Knowledge;
one on Kingly Power;
one on Friendship;
one on Banquets;
one on the Principle that Virtue is the same in Man and Woman;
one on the Wise Man Employing Sophisms;
one on Apophthegms;
two books of Conversations;
one on Pleasure;
one on Properties;
one on Doubtful Things;
one on Dialectics;
one on Modes;
one on Categorems.
{6} These are his writings. [176] And he died in the following manner. His gums swelled very much; and, at the command of his physicians, he abstained from food for two days. And he got so well that his physicians allowed him to return to all his former habits; but he refused, and saying that he had now already gone part of the way, he abstained from food for the future, and so died; being, as some report, eighty years old, and having been a pupil of Zenon nineteen years. And we have written a playful epigram on him also, which runs thus:
I praise Cleanthes, but praise Hades more;
Who could not bear to see him grown so old,
So gave him rest at last among the dead,
Who had drawn such loads of water while alive.

LIFE OF SPHAERUS

[177] {1} Sphaerus, a native of the Bosporus, was, as we have said before, a pupil of Cleanthes after the death of Zenon.

{2} And when he made a considerable advance in philosophy he went to Alexandria, to the court of Ptolemy Philopator. And once, when there was a discussion concerning the question whether a wise man would allow himself to be guided by opinion, and when Sphaerus affirmed that he would not, the king, wishing to refute him, ordered some pomegranates of wax to be set before him; and when Sphaerus was deceived by them, the king shouted that he had given his assent to a false perception. But Sphaerus answered very neatly, that he had not given his assent to the fact that they were pomegranates, but to the fact that it was probable that they might be pomegranates. And that a perception which could be comprehended differed from one that was only probable. Once, when Mnesistratus accused him of denying that Ptolemy was a king, he said to him, "That Ptolemy was a man with such and such qualities, and a king. "

[178] {3} He wrote the following books.

Two on the World;
one on the Elements of Seed;
one on Fortune;
one on the Smallest Things;
one on Atoms and Phantoms;
one on the Senses;
five Conversations about Heracleitus;
one on Ethical Arrangement;
one on Duty;
one on Appetite;
two on the Passions;
one on Kingly Power;
on the Lacedaemonian Constitution;
three on Lycurgus and Socrates;
one on Law;
one on Divination;
one volume of Dialogues on Love;
one on the Eretrian Philosophers;
one on Things Similar;
one on Terms;
one on Habits;
three on Contradictions;
one on Reason;
one on Riches;
one on Glory;
one on Death;
two on the Art of Dialectics;
one on Categorems;
one on Ambiguity;
and a volume of Letters.


LIFE OF CHRYSIPPUS

[179] {1} Chrysippus was the son of Apollonius, and a native of either Soli or Tarsus, as Alexander tells us in his Successions; and he was a pupil of Cleanthes. Previously he used to practise running as a public runner; then he became a pupil of Zenon or of Cleanthes, as Diocles and the generality of authors say, and while he was still living he abandoned him, and became a very eminent philosopher.

{2} He was a man of great natural ability, and of great acuteness in every way, so that in many points he dissented from Zenon, and also from Cleanthes, to whom he often used to say that he only wanted to be instructed in the dogmas of the school, and that he would discover the demonstrations for himself. But whenever he opposed him with any vehemence, he always repented, so that he used frequently to say [in parody of Euripides, Orest_540]:
In most respects I am a happy man,
Excepting where Cleanthes is concerned;
For in that matter I am far from fortunate.

[180] And he had such a high reputation as a dialectician, that most people thought that if there were such a science as dialectics among the Gods; it would be in no respect different from that of Chrysippus. But though he was so eminently able in matter, he was not perfect in style. {3} He was industrious beyond all other men; as is plain from his writings; for he wrote more than seven hundred and five books. And he often wrote several books on the same subject, wishing to put down everything that occurred to him; and constantly correcting his previous assertions, and using a great abundance of testimonies. So that, as in one of his writings he had quoted very nearly the whole of the Medeia of Euripides, and some one had his book in his hands; this latter, when he was asked what he had got there, made answer, "The Medeia of Chrysippus. " [181] And Apollodorus the Athenian, in his Collection of Dogmas, wishing to assert that what Epicurus had written out of his own head, and without any quotations to support his arguments, was a great deal more than all the books of Chrysippus, speaks thus (I give his exact words). "For if any one were to take away from the books of Chrysippus all the passages which he quotes from other authors, his paper would be left empty. " These are the words of Apollodorus; but the old woman, who lived with him, as Diocles reports, used to say that he wrote five hundred lines every day. And Hecaton says, that he first applied himself to philosophy, when his patrimony had been confiscated, and seized for the royal treasury.

[182] {4} He was slight in person, as is plain from his statue which is in the Cerameicus, which is nearly hidden by the equestrian statue near it; in reference to which circumstance, Carneades called him Cryxippus.