Phronesis Volume 18 Issue 3 1973 [Doi 10.2307%2F4181920] Michael Lapidge -- Ἀρχαί and Στοιχεῖα- A Problem in Stoic Cosmology

ἀρχαίand στοιχεῖα A Problem in Stoic CosmologyAuthor(s) Michael LapidgeSource Phronesis Vol 18 No 3 (1973) pp 240-278Published by BRILLStable URL httpwwwjstororgstable4181920

Accessed 22082013 2106

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms amp Conditions of Use available at httpwwwjstororgpageinfoaboutpoliciestermsjsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars researchers and students discover use and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship For more information about JSTOR please contact supportjstororg

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize preserve and extend access to Phronesis

httpwwwjstororg

This content downloaded from 15021668200 on Thu 22 Aug 2013 210637 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

amppxot and croLxZec

A Problem in Stoic Cosmology

MICHAEL LAPIDGE

Tn recent years accurate and penetrating studies of Stoic logic epistemology psychology and physics have been published By contrast no critical attention has been given to Stoic cosmology

The reasons for this neglect are not far to seek In the first place Stoics themselves after Posidonius had expressed virtually no interest in cosmology Stoic doctrine of cosmology became codified and petri- fied by the doxographers and when errors were inevitably incorporated into this doxography there was neither sufficient expertise nor concern to correct them The doxographical testimonies which survive are confused and charged with contradiction In general modern scholarship has made little advance on the ancient doxographers towards the understanding of this aspect of Stoicism Further because there was no Stoic well enough versed in cosmology to reply to the attacks of (say) Plutarch or Plotinus modern scholarship has been obliged to give these adverse accounts more emphasis than they would be given if a Stoic refutation had been made and had survived But after the first century B C there was no Stoic who could have performed such a task and we are left with an inconsistent jumble of fragments Some of the inconsistency is to be attributed to the early Stoics themselves no doubt But we should not allow ourselves to forget that these early Stoics - and Chrysippus in particular - were accomplished logicians and that they would scarcely have toler- ated the silly contradictions with which they are charged by the comparatively simpleminded Christian apologists of a later period (I think particularly of Tertullian and Lactantius) Before any sound evaluation of Stoic cosmology can be made the inconsis- tencies in the fragments will have to be exposed to see which incon- sistencies are of Stoic provenance and which spring from inat- tentive and unsympathetic doxography The bulk of this formidable task awaits future investigation My concern here is to isolate one small problem among many the Stoic notions of principle and element

To begin at the apx7 perhaps the most frequently repeated statement of Stoic doxography is that for Zeno Cleanthes and Chrysippus

there were two amppXo one of which was passive (7=caZov) and was called

Uj the other of which was active (7roLo5v) and was called br6s1 This is a deceptively simple statement Before any consideration may be given as to why the Stoics posited two principles (amppxxL) instead of one or many and what they signified by the term apXn it is necessary to ascertain as nearly as possible what each of the principles was and how it functioned in the Stoics universe

The first-mentioned attributes of the Mcpacd are that one is active (MtoLo5v) the other passive (7rkaXov) or better perhaps undergoes action The conception of acting and undergoing action to account for movement and change is not original with Stoicism Plato had first articulated the distinction2 and Aristotle had seen that it might be used to account for a variety of physical phenomena3 Although no extensive discussion of how the Stoics applied these conceptions in their physical theory survives it is reasonable to suppose that Aristotles discussion of the role of action and undergoing action in genesis influenced the Stoic conception of cosmic genesis For both Aristotle and the Stoics the two concepts were inseparable aspects of the one process Aristotle observes that 7MLeZV and 1TampaeXv are the same in the sense that the road from Thebes to Athens is the same as that from Athens to Thebes4 Sextus Empiricus in a passage that is very

I SVF I85 (DL 7134 and Aetius I325) 493 II300 301 302 303 312 etc In the following discussion I shall wherever possible attempt to identify the Stoics responsible for a particular term or theory Identification is very often rendered impossible by the doxographical tendency to report o TDrxoL rather than a particular Stoics name as the source of an opinion The problem already perplexed Seneca - iam puta nos uelle singulares sententias ex turba separare cui illas adsignabimus Zenoni an Cleanthi an Chrysippo an Panaetio an Po- sidonio (ep 334) - and it remains acute today 2 Theaetetus 156 a Sophist 247 d Phaedrus 270 d Timaeus 57 a 3 eg de gen et corr 17323 b 1 sqq Phys III3202 a 22 sqq de gen anim 118724 b 5 sqq See discussion by F Solmsen Aristotles System of the Physical World (Ithaca NY 1960) pp 37-8 353-67 4 Phys II13202 b 11-14 In what follows I have assumed that certain Stoic theories were arrived at through contact with Aristotles physical thought in whatever form I realize that this assumption presents some difficulty The majority of Aristotles writings do not seem to have been known in their present form much before the first century BC It is improbable that they would have been known outside the Lyceum in 300 BC and it may be somewhat hazardous to argue for Stoic contact with Aristotelian thought on the basis of terminological resemblances And yet there are so many terms which seem to be of Aristotelian provenance in the Stoic sources that some contact between Aristotles thought and the early Stoics - even if only oral - seems likely This supposition seems

faithful to Stoic nominalism states that acting and undergoing action are one in conception but two in name5 - they are nominally distinct but essentially one6 The inseparability of action and undergoing action is crucial in the understanding of the Stoics conception of matter (U`kq)

Much of the difficulty in understanding the Stoic conception of Un may be alleviated by assuming (tentatively and subject to demonstration) that the term has three distinct meanings in Stoic sources

1 the one pre-existing substance or matter out of which the universe is created

2 the passive aspect of this substance only

3 the matter of particular created and ephiemeral objects

The distinction between 1 and 3 will be self-evident that between 1 and 2 is elusive and requires demonstration7 First my definition 1 Aristotle had met the problem that the universe could not come to be out of nothing by positing that it was eternal By contrast the notion that the universe is created and destructible is fundamental to Stoic cosmology The Stoics were consequently obliged to assume a substance out of which (recalling Aristotles e ov) the universe would come to be and which would at the same time underlie change in

preferable to maintaining that all Aristotelian terminology in Stoic sources has been foisted on the Stoics by Aristotelian-minded doxographers (althouglh this is often the case with Diogenes Laertius) See also n 44 below 5 adv math 9240 (not in SVF) cf SVF II302 (Philo) 6 The oneness of action and undergoing action brings withi it a train of difficulty For example in order for action to take place the agent anld thing acte(d upon must be distinct but not dissimilar in kind Clearly one thing could not act upon itself Aristotle met this problem by supposing that agent and patient must be alike in kind (yive) but distinct in form (e8et) and consequently must have the same substrate (de gen et corr 16 322 b 13-21 17323 b 30-

324 a 9) There is no evidence that the Stoics ever posed this problem ivitl regard to their one otOLx and its two aspects (TroLo5v raoaxov) 7Origen (SVF II318) gives a far longer list of meanings of U`Xj but excepting only his first two definitions (my 1 and 3 presumably) none of his othier definitions can be confirmed elsewhere in surviving Stoic testimonies Origens list smacks strongly of doxographys omniunm gatherum technique and it is likely that he was using this technique as well as an earlier nion-Stoic source (Numenius) rather than the Stoic texts themselves cf J IM C van Winden Calcidius on Matter (Leiden 1959) p 96

the universe during those periods of ampCx6aovuaLq8 The latter supposition depends on Aristotles demonstration that change requires an enduring substrate9 This substance is consistently called either ouaLtoc or npcrn Oioz or 7spurn iX in Stoic sources1O it is eternal and is of a fixed bulk or mass (that is it neither increases nor decreases) Universes are created from it and resolve themselves into it Although this conception of substance is indebted to Aristotle and is described in terminology which is unmistakeably Aristotelian12 the grave differences between the Stoic and Aristotelian conceptions need to be stressed Aristotle did not use the term first or prior to denote a body or substance which existed before the universe in time His eternal universe has no need of such a conception and he explicitly denies that the elements are generated from such a first body3

It seems likely that the Stoics (originally at least) attempted to distinguish between the one first substance and its passive aspect Calcidius states that Zeno and Chrysippus distinguished between essentia and silua14 Further the first substance is frequently called

7rp nj 1 its passive aspect is called simply Wn and is never (to my knowledge) called 7rpamprnj v` in a surviving testimony This may indicate that a distinction between U`X- and pT p U` was intended In any case the first substance or first matter has two aspects one of which is U`k one kz6 Although the two aspects are nominally separate they are in fact inseparable they are like the vay from Athens to Thebes seen from two different viewpoints The inseparabili-

8 Arius Didymus fr 37 (DDG p 469) -SVF II599 ouaxv -r yampxp -rotl yLvotl-

VOt4 U9PcTVXLt as 7trzpXULLV ampMCvotahaLa 4 LSaoCRa)q 7iamq xo Tb 8-ttoupyaov

9 Phys 19192 a 29-34 0SVF 185 II309 316 317 318 323 374

Arius Didymus fr 20 (DDG p 457) = SVF 187 oialxv 8i elVOL Trv Tiv

6vrw)v 7roCVTamp)V 7rp6)TVqV U`kv TWiTV 8amp 7caGov M48LOV xOCL OUTr 7TXeLG) YLYVOQLevnV ou-re

12 The term npWn U(- for example is often used by Aristotle Phys 111 193 a 29 Metaph A 1014 b 32 1015 a 7-10 H 4 1044 a 18-23 Or 1049 a 24-7 de gen anim I 729 a 32 See C Baeumker Das Problem der Materie in der griechischen Philosophie (Miunster 1890) p 241 and H Happ Hyle Studien zum aristotelischen Materie-Begriff (Berlin 1971) pp 307-9 for attempts to ascertain its elusive meaning in Aristotle also WV Charltons appendix to his Aristotles Physics I II (Oxford 1970) pp 129-30 13 de caelo III 6 305 a 22-4 ampXXamp SLAv oXX a4t)ouT6 TLVO4 eYXZwPeZ yLvea5oL rT

aTQ)LX- aU[CETOU yampp 4UO oaCO 7po6rpOV EIVuL T6)V a-ToLL()v 14 in Tim c 290 Waszink (SVF I 86)

ty of bc6e and (UX- is a feature of Stoic cosmology which cannot be too strongly emphasized it is asserted by Alexander of Aphrodisias15 Origen16 Proclus17 and Syrianus18 Calcidius too emphasizes this feature of Stoic monism at length ergo corpus universum iuxta Stoicos determinatum est et unum et totum et essentia unum autem quia inseparabiles eius partes sunt et inuicem sibi cohaerent19 So insistently is the inseparability of ampe6q and U`Xy) maintained in these (reliable) sources that one must be prepared to dismiss as mistaken any attempt to separate the two20

Against the Stoic doctrine that Oxe64 and u`XYn were in fact inseparable the problem which most vexed ancient commentators is to be considered the Stoics statement that matter was without quality or quality-less (ampIoLoq) If indeed UXI were never to be found separate from is64 one might well wonder how iXn could conceivably be described as 1MoLoq would not the continual presence of 4s6g qualify the u I21 Aristotle did not himself use the term Mrotog UX-n although the notion of matter being without qualification may be deduced from several passages22 Nevertheless Aristotles first matter was inseparable incorporeal and knowable only by analogy23 What then

16 SVF II 306 The term ampX ptroq in this context is Aristotelian as is the notion of Un being inseparable (de gent et corr II 1 329 a 24-6 iiLuti 8i pOCxLkv ILampv elvm( Lvo Dgt ThV av T)V r(ov al7)qCov aampXXamp to(u))nv OU XOPLa v and ibid 30 amppyv tLv xac trpc)-rTqv oLo4EvoL lvmt Tv USv v iXc0pLatOv Also II 5 332 a 35) One must always reckon with the possibility of Alexander foisting onto the Stoics an Aristotelian notion to which they did not subscribe Here the balance of evidence weighs against the possibility 16 SVF II318 1054 17 Proclus in Tim 81e (SVF 11307) 126 b (not in SVF) 297 (SVF 111042) 299 c (SVF 11307) in Parm IV (col 92113 Cousin not in SVF) 18 SVF II308 19 in Tim c 293 Waszink (not in SVF) cf c 294 20 For example the statement of Tertullian (SVF 1155) ecce enim Zeno quoque materiam mundialem a deo separat itaque materia et deus duo vocabula duae res Many ancient accounts of Stoic cosmology are vitiated by this tendency to dualism cf SVF II302 21 Plotinus in fact contemptuously derides the Stoics for speaking of god as qualified matter (SVF II314 [U-) Tr IXouvao] II320) See J M Rist Stoic Philosophy (Cambridge 1969) p 259 22 eg de gen et corr II 1 329 a 30 Metaphy Z 3 1029 a 20 See Solmsens discussion Aristotles System of the Physical World p 119 n 6 23 Aristotles conception of UXi has been the subject of many detailed studies On UfXvn as incorporeal see Baeumker Das Problem der Materie pp 236-8 L Cencillo Hyle Origen concepto y funciones de la materia en el Corpus Aristotelicum

led the Stoics to posit an apparently separable ampnoto4 vXA There is no simple answer to this question Assuredly they did speak of an amp-otos U Plutarch tells us this specifically24 The difficulties might perhaps have been removed by an appeal to the Stoics rigorous nominalism Thus although they spoke of an (toLos v`y (for whatever reason) they must have considered that its quality-less-ness was a mental construct only (what they would have called a rxt6v)25 and that although matter without quality was mentally conceivable it never in fact existed as such One might arrive at a notion of ampatoLoq U- only by abstraction This is how the problem appeared to Calcidius who when summing up the views of the Stoa (as well as of Plato and Aristotle) on matter stated that U`f or silua was sine qualitate ac sine figura ac sine specie non quo sine his umquam esse possit sed quod haec (scil silua) ex propria natura non habeat nec possideat potius quam comitetur species et qualitates denique si mentis con- sideratione uolumus ei haec adimere sine quibus non est possumus ei non effectu sed possibilitate horum omnium possessionem dare226 Matter is without quality not because it could ever exist as such but because of its own nature it was without quality The crucial point in understanding this confusing doctrine is the restrictive phrase of its own nature - ex propria natura Some such restrictive phrase usually accompanies Stoic discussions of matter which is said to be unqualified either x utor-djv or xKot evovv or xaci xv ro v 0yov27

(Madrid 1958) pp 44-50 and the exhaustive treatment by H Happ Hyle pp 778 sqq On U-1 as knowable xaoampvocoXoyEmv see J Owens The Aristotelian Argument for the Material Principle of Bodies in Naturphilosophie bei Aristoteles und Theophrast ed 1 During (Heidelberg 1969) pp 196-201 24 SVF 11380 v yampp SXv amp7rotov ovopackouat Plutarch justly argues that the Stoics in speaking of amp7rotoq 5q present only half the problem (Or 8amp i[LLa PA17r0oua) they nowhere speak of the correlative rot6L6neTq4 ampoto 25 See the excellent discussion of Xex-ramp by A A Long in Problems in Stoicism ed A A Long (London 1971) pp 75-90 26 in Tim c 310 (not in SVF) Similarity between this passage and a passage in Origen (SVF II 318) has led scholars to assume a common source for the two accounts Waszink (Calcidii Coinmentarium in Timaeum (Leiden 1962) pp lxxviii-lxxx) proposed Porphyry and van Winden (Calcidius on Matter pp 95-6) Numenius On Calcidius and the Stoic conception of UiXVn in general see van Winden pp 93-103 27 eg SVF II 313 318 1047 The Stoics seem to have distinguished things known by conception and by experience (xarr amp7rdvouxv and xoczx nepETrroamv) see Sextus Empiricus adv math 858 (SVF II 88) A similar distinction is attributed to Posidonius - that between zorTamptdvOLmV and xauYU6aroaLv (DL

Failure to appreciate what was intended by the restrictive phrase misled some of the most trenchant criticism of Stoic theory in antiquity - that of Plutarch and Plotinus

Plutarch notes in de communibus notiiiiS28 that for the Stoics the

ampe64 which is found in uX- is neither unmixed nor simple but composed of another and through another It is impossible to tell whether Plutarch is quoting Stoic terminology but he seems to be thinking of WZos and u`X- as two components of the one compound ouCaoc But u(XY by itself is said to be irrational and withouit form

-en a un xocxiv xoyoq xY amp7toLo4 By contrast the 4eos is not said to be 1aw4to4 or `ios (the half-argument again) So Plutarch charges if rational 1s64 anid uSt are indeed one the Stoics are inconsistent in calling u`n irrational ( L yap v eV XCXL ampauT6v I UIY xMal

o 6oyog oix siu trv Tr uv I`Xoyov amptro38Wdxoatv) One wonders how the

Stoics might have answered this charge In the first place Plutarchs treatment is slightly tendentious in considering U`n and 41r6 as components of a mixture rather than as nominally distinct aspects of one substance And in neglecting the Stoics nominalism Plutarch has probably overlooked the force of their qualifying phrase YoaocUr-iJrv

UX-n is by itself irrational and without quality If by a process of mental abstraction (`Xyj could be conceived on its own it would be found to be without quality But it is never in fact found in such a state Consequently the Stoics would lhave been obliged to defend the positioni that UXn in so far as it is an eternal aspect of the one substance is in effect rational Plutarch found this position completely untenable as any Platonist vould have done

The criticism of Plotinus is less careful than that of Plutarch in its attempt to discover what the Stoics doctrine was in many ways he misrepresents this doctrine Plotinus criticism of the Stoic theory of matter is found principally in Enn VI125-729 He proceeds

7 135 =-- fr 16 in L Edelstein and I G Kidd Posidonius I The Fragnments

(Cambridge 1972)) 28 1085 b (SVF 11 313) On Plutitarchs criticism of Stoicism in general see M Pohlenz Plutarchs Schriften gegen die Stoiker Hermes 74 (1939) pp 1-12 F H Sandbachi Plutarclh on the Stoics CQ 35 (1941) pp 20-5 and recently D Babut Plutarque et le stoicisnie (Paris 1969) esp pp 24-46

29 Not all of Plotinus discussion is printed in SVZF Plotinus theory of matter has been discussed by J M Rist Phronesis 6 (1961) pp 154-66 on Plotinus and Stoicism in general see W Theiler Plotin zwischen Platon und Stoa Entretiens Fondation Hardt 5 (1960) pp 63-86 and recently A Graeser Plotinus

and the Stoics (Leiden 1971)

to discuss the theory from his Platonic point of view a point of view which is de facto intolerant of the Stoics thoroughgoing materialism Thus he charges that the Stoics did not reserve the place of honour in their cosmology for the principle of all things but (regrettably) substituted that which was devoid of life unintelligent shadowy and indeterminate30 The Stoics failing here is easily apprehended their system is not Plotinian and Plotinus is ill-disposed from the beginning to understand their theory of matter Likewise Plotinus asks of them how does it come about that matter sometimes becomes body other times its soul3 Here he simply refuses to countenance the widely-known Stoic doctrine that iuZn was corporeal32 and persists in reading Iu in a Platonic sense Given these (wilful) misunder- standings of Stoic theory it is not surprising that Plotinus criticism of the Stoic X-1 is in many ways deficient He argues as follows 3 to the Stoics the ampek is a second something to matter and is corporeal Corporeality is said (by Plotinus and purportedly by the Stoics) to consist in both matter and form Whence then given that ampe64 is corporeal does it get its form For if it existed without

U-1 it would be incorporeal Further if corporeality consists in matter and form how could uX- possibly be a principle (apx() For if `XYn is corporeal it must be composite (ie it must consist in matter and form) and therefore matter and form must be prior to it (hence it is no amppx) Plotinus argument is challenging but wrong In the first place it is misleading to stress that Oe is a second something to u`X- the 1e64 and uX- are inseparably one and may be separated in name only It is unlikely that the Stoics defined body (a7tux) as consisting in matter and form or quality Those Stoic definitions which survive define body as that which has length breadth and height 34 one is inclined to suspect that the definition was formulated in those terms to avoid the very criticism which Plotinus makes In any case the Stoics considered that quality was corporeal35 so that a composite of quality and matter would nonetheless be body

It is clear that the Stoics must have defended their description

80 Enn VI127 (SVF 11314) 31 Ibid 32 eg SVF 1136 137 138 11773 774 775 780 785 etc 83 Enn VI126 (SVF 11315) 3 DL 7135 150 SVF 11382 cf the comment of Alexander of Aphrodisias that 7rampv alt5X0 M 1i)iv i i X-4 lvcLt (SVF 11394) where no mention is made of quality 35 SVF 11323 (Galen) 11383 (Simplicius)

of the passive aspect of the one substance (definition 2) as ampnotoo iX1 by resort to a rigid nominalism however tenuous this defense might now seem At the same time Stoic texts speak of an amp7oto ouaL36

To see what the word ampnotoc might mean when applied to the one substance or npcv-~-U v) (definition 1 above) is more problematic still37 As I understand the Stoic terminology ouaLx is used to describe the one first substance which consists in two aspects Although by a process of abstraction one might arrive at a conception of one aspect separate from the other (ampatoLoq v` or ampuXoq 45e6) no such abstraction would be pertinent to the first substance By definition the qualifying aspect (5e64) of the first substance is eternally present in it At the very least this eternal presence of 0ek would seem to account for the spherical shape of the first substance during those periods when ovalm is in the shape of a cosmos38 Clearly a different explanation would be required to account for the quality-less-ness of the first substance than to account for the application of the term dsotoL to its passive aspect alone That is why one is inclined to credit the testimony of Plutarch when he gives a radically different explanation of ampitOLoq oUCLa Towards the end of de communibus notitiis Plutarch discusses the confusion in Stoic terminology of U`kq oua and aamp4 He notes that certain Stoics proposed the following notion that oaL X

was said to be abotoq not (as one would expect) because it was devoid of all quality but rather because it contained all qualitics ov 86 LVEq

YvG)v spopoaXXovrou k6yov 1 amp4rOLov vrV ouaOv ampVO[LOCaOVreq OuX 6TL

7ramprY1 stepaL 7TOLOW7TO OCXX66 L 7rMampa oc a o 39 Although this statement was incomprehensible to Plutarch it may be seen to square with the Stoic system while the cosmos was formed the first substance would include - would be - all qualified things and even after z7wiat the substance would contain spermatically the qualities

36 SVF I85 II318 380 87 This problem already puzzled Galen who asks Mrt pvaouaLv amp7rOomv rv 7rpwrIv ousa(v (SVF II382) cf Galens discussion at SVF II323 a 88 The testimony of ps-Philo (SVF 11621) adds more confusion MQxouaoc ampXPL

Tf ampx vUpcoaeo4 oUiacz rtL 8tX LXOaLuuV-n i amp8Lmx6a[L ro What is the force of ax pt r- kx7up6aew Presumably oata persists eternally whether in the shape of a cosmos or not This problem does not seem to have been fully worked out We know for example that the universe is spherical (SVF II 547) But what shape (if any) does the oUCi have when it is not formed into a cosmos No surviving Stoic source poses this question 39 de comm not 1086 a (SVF II380)

of things of the succeeding ampvOoCGL 40 There is therefore some considerable justification for treating amp=oqoL (Ij and amp7rotoq ouac as distinct conceptions But even if such a distinction be granted as wholly Stoic the choice of the one word 7rotog to connote these different conceptions was surely unfortunate At least part of the confusion in Stoic texts seems to be due to the unhappy choice of terminology by the Stoics themselves

There is one further meaning of i`kv (definition 3 above) which is well attested in Stoic sources Diogenes Laertius reports41 that the ouata of all things is the 7rpcxri `XSn and that AvA or ouata is used in two senses that of the whole (the universe) which neither increases nor decreases and that of parts (ampv ed ti pou4) which both increases and decreases Diogenes statement is confirmed by Calcidius who notes that the partes of the one substance are changed but not destroy- ed42 where presumably the mass of the whole remains constant and if a part of it were destroyed (ie were reduced to nothing) the mass would be diminished Thus partes may be destroyed in so far as they are partes but in respect of the whole there is no destruction The Stoics apparently regarded the destruction of parts qua parts as change A quantity of earth becomes water it ceases to be earth (or is destroyed as earth) but in becoming water the mass of the whole remains constant and is in this way a substrate to the change Some- thing approaching this modern conception of mass is what must be intended by Plotinus statement that one U-XT underlies (ij7roff3Xi- m5or) the elements43 At the same time the particular ( rampv 7r 1 pouq) vXn of (say) the earth changes when it becomes water The notion of a constant corporeal mass underlying change would have been unthinkable to Aristotle Nevertheless the Stoics would seem to be indebted here as elsewhere to Aristotles thought regarding genesis44

40 Alternatively the oafo might be ampTrotog in the sense that Platos oAo0X was said to be amp~iopyo4 and cVc8eXkq (Timaeus 51 a) ready to receive any shape But the abundant Stoic testimonies that the substance contained a7epxrtxol 6yot would weigh against this 41 DL 7150 (SVF I87 II316) 42 in Tim c 292 Waszink (SVF 188) cf Arius Didymus fr 20 (DDG pp 457-8 = SVF I87) rc 8amp 6p-nq -T- oux ampel t ampocru 86xpvcEv ampXX p 8LaLpCaampL xol

GuYXCzalftu 43 SVF 11320 cf II408 (Galen) I5Ji rLt CatLV 1 (MCMLV U7OPC5gt0ampiVn rOt aTOL-

4 W Wiersma (Mnemosyne 3rd ser 11 (1943) p 195 n 3) has argued following Bignone (LAristotele perduto I pp 33 42 68 sqq) that since only Aristotles

That change from one thinig to its opposite required a common substrate (6CMXCL0svov or UXrB) is a fundamental doctrine of Aristotle4s and it clearly influenced the Stoic doctrine that all things come to be froin S 16 The Stoics however made a clear distinction between Un and U7roxe4vov For them UX- was the corporeal substance which underlay all change By contrast 67oxecurvov was a categorical term used to describe one aspect of the state of an object it was something said about an object (X-t6v) and hence was incorporeal This difference may be seeni in Dexippus comment47 - that for the Stoics the uoxevoV was two-fold and included both the `X- of an object and its ntowv - where U cannot be simply equivalent to VWOxzLEvov

Once again Aristotelian terminology has been borrowed by the Stoics but the Stoic conception is distinct

Now the Stoic conception of apXirp may be reconsidered One of the most difficult problems in the interpretation of Stoic cosmology is that of reconciling the fact that on the one hand they posited a single primal substance out of which the cosmos arose and on the other hand they posited two ampppc not one48 Though it is virtually impossible at this remove to reconstruct the deliberation which led Zeno to posit two ipXOCL some conjecture is worthwhile One must assume as Zeller long ago remarked49 that the Stoic system was

exoteric writings and dialogues were known outside the Lyceumn in Zenos time Zeno could not hiave had access to those Aristotelian works (de gen et coyy Physica Metaphysica) wliclh discuss the concept of U7A Wiersina consequently denies that Zeno taught a )7 and proposes that attributions of this doctrine to Zeno must be an error of later doxography (he compares tlle false attribution of U)j to Plato in Aetius 1321) Wiersma was conducting a polemic againist the extreme view of Siebeck (Untersuchungen zur Philosophie der Griechen (Freiburg 1888) pp 181-252) that all principal Stoic physical doctrines derive fronm Aris- totle If u(- were an isolated instance Wiersmas remarks would be salutary But the balance of evidence weighs against llim he must account for 7ot6ouv

7riacov cpJuLt as creative (eyxwtx6v) irpcur UX the 67roxe[tvvov the natural elemental tendencies upwards and downwar(ds and perhaps the circular- moving otdampp by recourse to non-Aristotelian physics 5 The most detailed discussion is in Phys I7190 a 35 sq(l 46 DL 7150 (SVF II316) U(X) 86 CTLV e G TLampTOTO5V yLVErLat l)iogenes intends this as a general definition to embrace the variety of wavs in wlhiclh the Stoics used the term 47 SVF 11374 Dexippus discussion is influenced bv Plotinus Enn VI 125 (partly printed in SVF 11373) 48 This question was put trenchantly by A Bonh6ffer in his appendix (Der stoische Pantheismus) to Die Ethik des Stoikeys Epictet pp 244-5 4 Phil d Griech 11114 p 126

erected on certain underlying assumptions which Zeno had not ac- quired from the criticism of Platonic or Aristotelian positions In general terms Zenos a priori assumptions might be described as materialism monism and nominalism50 If the universe as it exists is not eternal it must have been created If created it could not have been created out of nothing There must have existed some pre- cosmic substance out of which the universe came to be This is essentially the position of the Presocratic cosmologists this pre-existing something from which the universe began - whether water air fire or something less determinate - was generally called the apX51 Why then did the Stoics not call their first matter or first substance the Oipxy The Stoics maintained that all things arose from this one

- v6 r- nTampvrox yLveatampax as Cleanthes said52 - so it would not have been surprising if they had designated this one substance as the amppyj of their cosmology It must have appeared as such to Sextus Empiricus for at one point he calls the Stoics one substance the Op p aampotoLU

pV oiv xcdL ampVamp acI0awoo T-qV 6ov OxV a67 CV-Taoo y6VeawaV Ol O

Ipx yIp W)v ov Xv x soi sarLV T amp7t004 53 But such a theory could no longer satisfactorily answer questions which were raised in Zenos time particularly by Aristotles treatment of genesis The Stoics were obliged to explain how the cosmos arose from this one substance In so far as they were materialists they would have argued that all causation must be corporeal that only matter can act upon matter54 Creation must have been caused either by a material force outside the one substance (a notion which would have been repugnant to their monism) or else by such a force within the one substance itself55 Using Aristotelian terminology they designated one aspect

5 These fundamental assumptions are discussed by J R Mattingly Early Stoicism and the Problem of its Systematic Form Philosophical Review 48 (1939) esp pp 274-6 51 See A Lumpe Der Terminus Prinzip (amppX) von den Vorsokratikern bis auf Aristoteles ABG 1 (1955) pp 104-7 Because the term 4pXy is found largely in the testimonies and not in direct quotations it is more probable that the attribution of the term springs from post-Aristotelian doxography than from the Presocratics themselves 52 Arius Didymus fr 38 (DDG p 470) = SVF 1497 53 adv math 10312 (SVF 11309) 54 SVF I90 II340 341 363 387 55 Sextus Empiricus (adv math 975 = SVF 11311) reproduces an almost identical train of argument in setting out the Stoic cosmology (1) n -TOLVUV tjV OVTrc OUGL x aXLV)T0Q OiUacX EK X9T XL 1X7LTLCT04 U67O TLVO4 dtTi OC6pDX xtve5LaL (2) r xtvo3v 86 oix ampXo rt 7tLv6v ka-wL eIVXL 8UVOCLEV tLVM 8

of this substance active (noLoi5v)56 But that which acted could not exist without something to act upon (naZov) Aristotle had suggested that an amppy- could not exist by itself but must exist in something and also that genesis could only take place from opposites57 Hence more than one aPX-n would be needed to account for cosmic generation58 (even though Aristotle did not himself consider such an event) The Stoics settled on two amppXcx[ each of these amppXxa existed in something else and their functions were distinct enough that they might be considered opposites It would have been quite appropriate to designate the active apyj as 196e And at one point Aristotle had himself suggested that Xv1 was characteristically passive $9 the Stoics adopted this suggestion They were consequently left with a cosmological paradox while attempting to remain faithful to their monism in positing one substance they required at least two ampppai to account for cosmic genesis Calcidius puts the paradox concisely duo totius rei sumunt initiauna quidem essentia60 It needs scarcely to be added that this paradoxical position was vigorously attacked in antiquity6

It would seem reasonable to assume that the Stoics arrived at their conception of two aCpaocE through some confrontation with Aristotles theory of genesis and change62 Once again the vast difference between

cxUr`q nreomnpxulxtv (3) oa-r oampSv m glvoc ioL axT ATlV iu7b ampXT)a xtveCZT(L 8uvCX4e cf SVF II599 56 cf F Solmsen Aristotles System ol the Physical World p 89 57 Phys I2185 a 4 ( yap amppx4 TLVO4 tvCov) cf discussion by W Wieland Die aristotelische Physik 2nd edn (G6ttingen 1970) pp 55-7 also Metaph A 10 1075 a 27 sqq (on principles) 58 The necessity of more than one amppXl arises from the discussion at Metaph K 2 1060 a 13_b 30 See discussion of this passage by A Ehrliardt The Be- ginning (Manchester 1968) pp 122-3 who infers from Aristotle that one amppxi must be active one passive Although Aristotle in theory maintained that three amppXat were needed to account for change (UBX1 elgoq a-tp-aLm) as at Phys 1 7 191 a 15-17 in fact these three reduced themselves to two form and matter (cf Happ Hyle p 295) That the Stoics posited two amppXotr is not inconsistent with Aristotle 59 de gen et corr I 7 324 b 18 (4 8UAX- f bX-1 rXTrmitx6v) II 9 335 b 29-30

(Tq5 LV yampp j5 T6 tampaXCLV ampTL xOCl T6b XLVCampL) cf Baeumker Das Problem der Materie p 265 and Happ Hyle pp 762-3 60 in Tim c 289 Waszink (not in SVF) 61 Notably by Plutarch (SVF II525) Plotinus (SVF 11314 373) and Lactantius (SVF II1041) 62 See however the recent discussion by H J Kramer Platonismus und helle- nistische Philosophie (Berlin 1971) pp 133 sqq who sees the Stoic amppyxa in the context of Academic discussion

the Stoic and Aristotelian conceptions should be stressed Aristotles amppxoct were more or less methodological principles conceptions used to account for the process of change63 Aristotles universe was eternal and he had no concern with describing cosmic genesis The Stoic conception of PXocl as corporeal entities which exist before the universe is created and out of which it comes to be would have been intolerable to Aristotle

It is virtually impossible to form a satisfying and accurate idea of the Stoic conception of )j In many ways we are better informed concerning the other amppXn the 4es6 The 641s is almost invariably described as fiery Aetius reports that Zeno considered the amps6 to be the fiery mind of the cosmos4 Plutarch testifies that the Stoics Zeus (- 5e6q) was one mighty and continuous fire65 and Eusebius that the fiery and hot substance of the cosmos was god which was corporeal and was the creative force itself and was none other than the energy of fire66 Clearly fire as creative force occupied a central position in Stoic cosmology For Cleanthes that which had heat and was fiery was able to move of its own accord - omne quod est calidum et igneum cietur et agitur motu suo in Ciceros words67 That heat or fire (the Stoics did not distinguish between the two terms) is the principle of growtli and self-movement is perhaps best witnessed in the well-known statement of Zeno that cpyaL is a creative fire (7i5p -teXvtxOv) going methodically about the business of creation68 Zenos

6f3 This point has been argued by Wieland Die aristotelische Physik p 104 Die aristotelischen Prinzipien stehen mit Wasser und Luft den Elementen und Atomen gar nicht auf derselben Stufe Sie sind Gesichtspunkte unter denen man ua auch alle von den Vorgangern angenommenen Prinzipien ordnen kann Wielands viewpoint has been vigorously disputed by Happ Hyle pp 798-9 see also G Morel De la notion de principe chez Aristote Archives de philosophie 23 (1960) pp 487-511 24 (1961) pp 497-516 64 Aetius I723 (DDG p 303) = SVF 1157 cf Servius on Aen 6727 (SVF I11031) 65 de facie in orbe lunae 926 c (SVF I11045) 66 SVF 111032 rv Trupi - xcx ppv ouatov elvoct xO 6aou xclt r6v f6v elvcL a7Nu xaot tv 8-ttoupy6v ociuP6v oux8tepov Trq roi rp6 ao4te 67 ND 223 (SVF I513) Solmsen has observed that cietur motu suo would seem to be a translation of Greek amppX (Meded A kad van Wet 249 (1961) p 272 cf idem JHS 77 (1957) p 122) But Solmsen would seem to have in mind the Aristotelian notion of 4pxi (as for example that at Metaph A 8 1073 a 23-25) and there is no evidence that the Stoics defined amppyy in this way 68 SVF I171 II1133 1134 That the definition is by Zeno himself see Pohlenz Die Stoa II pp 38-9

definition incorporates some Aristotelian terminology69 but the conception of fire as material creative force could not be found in Aristotle Zenos system was strongly monistic and it would have been equally correct to describe this creative force as cuat or 496 or even fate or providence Thus it would have been consistent with Zenos system to describe amp6q the amppxn as sup reXvtx6v although the only fragment to make such a statement is late and is not explicitly attributed to Zeno ox Zraxot voepowv 56V Otoyalvovctl wup TXvLov O6a r3d aaov e yevevJ 70

We must now ask if Zeno described his t0k or sup eXVoV as at bnp There is abundant evidence that he did But simple affirmation here is slightly misleading By the time of Zeno virtually every ancient cosmological system assigned some role to xo1p7 and it would have been surprising if Zeno had omitted it The question should rather be put does Zenos use of the term adhp to describe his amph6k reflect the theorizing of a particular cosmological system and specifically does it reflect the impressive conception of a spherically-moving od$p which Aristotle had formulated Further does the Stoics Ojp occupy a position additional to the four commonly known elements or first bodies - is it conceived of as a quinta essentia or merely as the uppermost of the four elements Cicero in several places notes that the summus deus of the Stoics was said to be aether and Minucius Felix says that the Stoics maintained aethera interdiu omruum esse principium73 where jrincipium possibly translates the Stoic term CpX Further as we know from Zenos definition of oupcv6q (preserved by Achilles Tatius) the atrJp is the outermost or uppermost part (-rob gaprov) of the universe and includes all things except

69 The notion of yauat as eXvLx66v is evidently Aristotelian (eg Phys II8199 a

9 sqq b 29-30) as Siebeck (Die Umbildung der peripatetisclhen Naturphilo- sophie in die der Stoiker Untersuchungen zur Philosophie der Griechen p 222) and Solmsen (Aristotles System of thePhysical WVorld p 115 n 91) haveobserved One might add that the conception of nature working methodically is also Aristotelian 9lL 8q yu9L 0 yofv-q i y6vaLv o6amp6 ampLv eE 9UvaLv (Phys 111 193 b 12-13)

70 Aetius I733 (DDG p 306) = SVF II1027 where ampe6q has replaced cp6aL

of the frequently quoted definition The statement of Athenagoras Legatio pro Christianis c 6 is derived from Aetius 71 There are two well-documented studies of achLYp that by J H Waszink Reallexikon fur A ntike und Christentum sv aether and by P Moraux RE XXIV col 1171-1263 sv quinta essentia 72 ND 136 39 Acadpr 2126 (SVF 1154) 73 Oct 1910 (SVF I154)

itself74 Cleanthes (reported by Cicero) gave a more extensive definition of aether tum ultimum et altissimum atque undique circumfusum et extremum omnia cingentem atque complexum ardorem qui aether nominetur certissimum deum iudicat15 To this point there is little that is original in the Stoic cxthp To inquire more closely Aristotle in de caelo had explained the cosmic ordering of elements by reference to the two simple motions - the rectilinear (sUZo) and the circular (7rcpecpepq) Rectilinear motion may be away from or towards a point circular motion is around it The simple bodies or elements have simple motions air and fire tend naturally upwards earth and water naturally downwards in rectilinear movement By contrast the first body or alodp encloses the four elements and has a characteristic circular motion7fi If we recall that to Cicero at least77 the Stoic and Peripatetic systems were so similar that the two separate names were scarcely justifiable it is worthwhile asking if any trace of Aris- totles distinctive occwmp theory may be discovered in the Stoic cosmol- ogy78 No certain answer can be given On the one hand Arius Didymus79 preserves an account purportedly by Chrysippus that there were two basic tendencies in the cosmos the stationary centre (07ntopvov) and that which revolved about it (7repLyep6pevov 7sp TO

tecaov) Of these the oahnp is the nepLpep6pOUvov earth air and water the vsopvov Against this account Achilles Tatius80 reports the Stoic

74SVF 115 7 ND 137 (SVF I530) cf SVF I532 534 580 (DL 7137) 76 The principal argument is found in de caelo 11 and 2 1112 IV3 and 4See commentary by Solmsen Aristotles System of the Physical World pp 254 sqq and G A Seeck (Jber die Elemente in der Kosmologie des Aristoteles Zetemata 34 (Munich 1964) pp 91-119 77 de fin 412-13 ergo in hac ratione tota de maximis fere rebus Stoici illos (scil Peripateticos) secuti sunt ut et deos esse et quattuor ex rebus omnia constare dicerent ergo adhuc quantum equidem intellego causa non uidetur fuisse mutandi nominis non enim si omnia non sequebatur idcirco non erat ortus illinc 78 Moraux (RE XXIV col 1233) has remarked certain similarities between the Stoic and Aristotelian conceptions of ato8p he does not concern himself however with the theory of natural movements Note that Alexander of Aphrodisias (de mixt p 2236 Bruns) accuses the Stoics of distorting Aristotles conception of the aamp4tp 79 fr 31 (DDG p 465) = SVF 1I527 The attribution to Chrysippus is extremely insecure Diogenes Laertius (7138) gives the identical definition of oupxvvo verbatim and states that he is quoting it from Posidonius work MerexpooyLx

TOtCOaL4 (fr 14 EdelsteinKidd) 80SVF II554

doctrine that all cosmic parts (t6pp= elements) tend towards the centre yi 8ampp ampap sdup a tcwva vetesUt emc r uzaov where the fire mentioned is the odthnp8 This account would seem to square with the more elaborate testimony by Arius Didymus attributed to Zeno that all parts of the cosmos have a natural movement towards its centre itampvToc or ptep- TroV5 xO6a1ou En 6 ~taov rOV x6tou V cpopampv

gXCLV82 Some parts however have more weight than others air and fire are comparatively weightless (Pocp) which is not to say that they are light or tend upwards The cosmos is maintained because of the balance or tension (-reveatL) between the very heavy and less heavy parts No mention is made in either of these statements of circular motion of the macSp But this picture is further confused by another statement of Achilles Tatius that of the four elements fire and air are light have a natural inclination upwards and whirl around as well epaa()pampov ov 6vreV atozL(L)V 3tr3pXE tr 7trp Xcd

obv ocPOC XoGUYtoraa Ov M Er7v 0vC Yopampv L-V 6 0p[rLv xOlx nepct- veLzaXo83 Achilles would seem to have combined (or confused) the notion of rectilinear upward motion with the circular motion of the

10Hp it is surely a mistake however that both air and fire are whirled around In any case it would seem that some Stoics at least taught two rectilinear motions (upwards and downwards) Simplicius states unequivocally that for the Stoics there are two motionis whiclh differ naturally (cpiaeL yap 8auamppopcx ToWCMTa) the one from the centre to the

extremities the other from the extremities to the centre84 Though Simplicius is never beyond suspicion of Aristotelizing Stoic doctrine his account may well be corroborated by that found in Aetius Of the four elements air and fire are light eartlh and water lheavy xO6yov yap

D=XPXt gVat 0 VUeL WC6 T058 1totU pkaoU pu 83 TO l EGoav XoiL TO lev 7rpLyLOV cIp7 XoCC tUxV TrO 8 LEpLOV 7rpLLYpzp7 xvLvezrcu85 It -will be

noted that the first statement (XO v eO Vt Ove- TrO -oi aou) flatly con- tradicts the earlier statement of Achilles Tatius (76vToc VeuL etL TO

u6aov) If this testimony of Aetius may be accepted as uncontaminated Stoicism the influence of Aristotles dth5p doctrine is indisputable

8i As may be seen from SVF II555 (also Achilles Tatius) 82 Arius Didymus fr 23 (DDG p 459) = SVF 199 88 SVF 11555 84 SVF II556 85 Aetius 1124 (DDG p 311) = SVF II571 The accounts of natural movement and cosmic order by Philo which are included in STVF (II561 568) are ulnmis- takeably Aristotelian and are of no use in reconstructing Stoic doctrine

But is Aetius himself free of Aristotelizing We are left with several conflicting Stoic theories (1) that earth air and water tended towards the centre and fire revolved around them (2) that all four elements tended towards the centre (no revolution of fire in this case presumably) (3) that earth and water tended to the centre fire and air to the extremities where they whirled around (4) that earth and water tended towards the centre air and fire to the extremities whence terrestrial light moved in a straight line but aethereal light moved in a circle peripherally Given the present state of fragments no resolution of the conflict seems possible It would seem that the Stoics themselves did not agree on any one doctrine They were apparently trying to solve two cosmological problems at once first how does the cosmos cohere - what prevents it from flying off into space and second how may the existing stratification of the four elements be accounted for It may well be that Zeno answered the first question by positing the tendency of all four elements to the one centre86 thereby eliminating any tendency away from the cosmos and towards the void This problem of course was brilliantly solved by the invention of the cohesive powers of the all-penetrating nv4uxa But whether the two-tendency theory represents a post-Zenonian development or not is impossible to say

The balance of evidence indicates that the Stoics taught that there were four and not five cosmic layers the uppermost of which was the 4h6q or the adthMp and which (in as much as it was 4eo) consisted in 7tip trvexo6v The four-layer stratification is confirmed on two separate occasions by Cicero who explicitly denies that the Stoics taught any fifth element87 Ciceros confirmation may perhaps contradict the above-quoted statement by Aetius which posited a distinction between rectilinear and peripheral movement of light and which would thus imply an Aristotelian omNdjp in addition to the four prime substances However the movement of the oduinp was conceived its function in Stoic cosmology is clear by the agency of the aethereal fire the cosmos comes to be (ro MLpLov amp8 xeZvo sup ip ou Ov XO6[OV

86 cf SVF I101 Zvcov 9exaxe L6 NVp xaCulRav Xtvelaampxt Zeno also seems to have conceived of an ampyxuxX(os vopampo (SVF I118) though what role it played in his cosmology (if any) is indeterminable 87 A cad post 139 de finibus 412 On Stoicism Aristotle and the fifth substance see A Jannone Aristote et la physique stoicienne Actes du Vlle Congres de lAssocG Budd (1963) pp 284-5

yeyOVeVau)88 and is ultimately consumed89 What role the aetherial fire as teo6 (and hence as amppX) has in Stoic cosmogony will be considered shortly

A further problem was raised by the Stoics conception of acxIp as so It was stressed earlier that the two Stoic principles tampe6 and (ikv] were inseparable the one from the other Yet ampE0

would seem to exist on its own as ocxchp90 Certainly no surviving testimony tells us that the cdrp consisted in passive Ui1 as well as in fiery 0o although the theory of inseparability would logically seem to require such a statement To meet this difficulty the Stoics drew on their conception of matter as having mass In addition to being prescribed by length breadth and height body (aCqm) must also have been seen as having weight or mass And the mass of a given body would presumably vary both in proportion to its size and with respect to the concentration of its matter Bodies might be less or more pure depending on how much matter they contained (or depending on the relationship between the 5e60 and the U`) During his discussion of the Stoic U`n Calcidius makes reference to just such a theory in a passage which has not previously been noted and which is inexplicably omitted from von Arnims collection of fragments Certain substances are said by the Stoics to be more or less material others to have more mass esse enim quasdam magis alias minus siluestres materias aliasque aliis corpulentiores quarum tamen exordium fore unam quandam antiquiorem communem omnium sil- uam9Y This conception is the theoretical basis for the frequent statements that the principle 4s64 is the purest of bodies

veV 4V TCOV 7rxiv-t)V alp xa Ov-rL x pcampc-oov as Hippolytus observ-

ed92 or -0 [ev 8pCXrpLoV 4o -V 6XV VOi4 ev pVrtiV rCXLxpLVE in the words of Philo93 Similarly Arius Didymus at one point reports the

88 SVF II327 (Galen) cf 111067 89 Dio of Prusa (SVF II 601) mentions that conflagration is caused by the amp1LXpampqaCL MEUpo0 90 If one accepts the possibility of 4e6s existing on its own one must be prepared to accept the possibility of a separate quantity of matter (though where it wollld be found is not readily apparent) The possibility of such a store of matter is defended by H K Hunt Some Problems in the Interpretation of Stoicisnl A UMLA 27 (1967) pp 165-77 esp p 168 91 in Tim c 289 Waszink (not in SVF) 9a Philosophoumena 21 (DDG p 571) = SVF 111029 9 de opifmundi 8 (SPF 11302)

opinion of Chrysippus () that ocxamp4p is apawoeaToo SXLXgtXPVLaTOCO494

this agrees well with his statement elsewhere that Xpuat`ntn (scil 80re) ai rOv O pa TOv X(XpcOcOOV XcXL CXCXpLv6aTOV amp- 7r T(V

XLJt6rOT V 6X xac~ nv ov 7RPLampyOVTA Oc t3X7aLou popampv95 To some Stoics - AntipaterY for example - the xclnp was the ruling part

(~yeovtxov) of the cosmos for Chrysippus the nyYeLOcVLXOv was the purest part of the aether (so ampapWtrpoeV ToU oCtpo))7 In terms of the Stoic theory as reported by Calcidius ocL-p would seem to be more 4ek less DX It is interesting that we nowhere learn of the obverse possibility - of substance that is more material less 46q Here as elsewhere the Stoics presented only half the argument 6

uLLGU rXSloUa as Plutarch says of them in another context Before leaving the oamppXomL one final difficulty must be mentioned

This difficulty arises from the fact that Zeno is said to have designated the pre-cosmic xampoq as water We know that one aspect of the pre- cosmic ouatoc was fiery (the oe) but no surviving fragment describes the other aspect (uX) as watery and it is not easy to see what a reference to Xampo4 as water might mean within the context of Zenos cosmology Perhaps the best-known reference to Xoo in antiquity was that in Hesiods Theogony 116 (7p-rLaL xampo4) Cicero98 tells us that Zeno interpreted Hesiods Theogony though whether or not Zeno wrote a full commentary on the work is not now ascertainable It seems likely that a written work (of whatever length) is in question for the several reports in scholiasts on Hesiod derive evidently from such a work99 Thus Valerius Probus makes reference to Theogony 116 and adds nam Zenon Citieus sic interpretatur aquam yoc appellatum ampo9 TOu XEaampOLL100 In all likelihood Cornutus followed Zeno in remarking that XCs is the water which exists before ampxaxo-

94 fr 31 (DDG p 466) = SVF II527 see note 79 above 95 fr 29 (DDG p 465) = SVF II 642 cf 11413 (the sun as 7r5p tgt6XLpLVk)

96 DL 7139 97 DL 7139 (SVF 11644) 98 ND 136 (SVF I167) 99 cf SVF 1103 105 II564 565 100 SVF 1103 (on Vergil ecl 631) cf SUF 11564 oL 8F eEpiaot m Xos 7r7pamp t6O X6L5ampO 6 6aG XkaaOL The Stoics may possibly have been anticipated in this conception of xampo4 and its etymological derivation from XaoampOL by Phere- cydes who is said by Achilles Tatius (Isag 3 = DK 7 Bla) to have proposed water as the beginning of all thilngs which he called Xoq Achilles statement may well be contaminated by Stoicism

unatq and derives its name from moisture101 In a similar observation preserved by a scholiast on Apollonius of Rhodes Zeno stated that xacoq was water and that the cosmos was formed by water sinking down forming slime and then the slime solidifying to produce earth (xacL Z vwv 8 TO irop HaLt6o yaampoq 8wp aVL cp7)aLtv ou avtLaV0VOq

Uv yLveaYOct 1 1yvuevLuV r yY aTpqLVL0tVTL102 And in still another scholion on the Theogony derived from Zeno the earth is said to be produced from water103 It is thus indisputable that Zeno conceived of a pre-cosmic water which took part in cosmogony To put the question again how may this pre-cosmic water be reconciled with the widely attested notion that the cosmos was produced from the primal substance one aspect of which was the fiery 4eo6 the other the passive

It was a widely accepted notion in antiquity that both fire and water were instrumental in creation Plutarch states that fire without moisture is unnutritious and dry whereas water without heat is unfruitful and sterile104 For Varro fire and water are the causa nascendi duplex105 Theophrastus who was contemporary with Zeno stated that everywhere nature generates life by mixing heat with

101 Comp Theol c 17 Lang cf ps -Philo (SVF II437) Xampo o piv Aptaloro-nq r6nov Oferoct elvou Tov 8i E-rwX(oV 9VLOL TD6 68wp 7aop(mO T)V XUC5LV To0VQoLM 77roLTn-

1XCL VoAO~L~vrzq 12 SVF 1104 In the Quaestiones Honiericae of Heraclitus (Allegoricus) a cos-

inogony is found which begins from a moist substance (uypx 9UaL5) part of

this becomes rarefied into air and the finest part of the air is kindled to become xdap The water however is condensed and changing into slime becomes earth auvt4xvov T- T6 U68p xax [cxXaXA6[cvov et EXuv obroyoco5vr= (Quaest Hom 223 Buffi6re) Heraclitus goes on to note that this is why Thales chose water as the cTotLelov of all things But the terminology (and the cosinogony) is unmistakeably from Zeno 103 SFF 1105 Zvov 8i 6 1TuX6q ex TO6 6ypo5 -tjv 7oaCrX9LV y7v yeyeVltaat

9maLv The comparatively rare plhrase is repeated by Diogenes Laertius (7137 uTOCaXU 8 7rv-rcov yiv) which may indicate that Diogenes is quoting directly from Zenos text 104 quaest Roni 263 e -T nVp xZplq Uyp6Tno amp-rpocov eart xcd tnp6v -r 8i

bUp ampvcu fp~t6ampTroq ampyovov xat iyp6v 106 ling lat 561 cf Ovid Met 1430-1 quippe ubi temperiem sumpsere umorque calorqueconcipiunt et ab his oriuntur cuncta duobus Lactantius (Inst div 29) quotes these lines and adds alterum enim quasi masculinumn elementum est alterum quasi foemininum alterum activum alterum patibile ideoque a veteribus institutum est ut sacramento ignis et aquae nuptiarum foedera sanciantur quod foetus animantium calore et humore corporentuir atque animentur ad vitam

moisture in a certain way the moisture acting as matter (X-n) for the heat106 In fact this notion is attested in Zeno in the context of his discussion of human procreation Sperm according to Zeno consisted in nveiua and moisture107 and for Zeno 7tvEu-~x was equivalent to heat (4$p[LcxaCcc)108 The male contributes sperm which is of heat and moisture the female produces a moist substance

(U(X-1)109 There is every reason to believe that Zeno applied this notion of generative heat and moisture to the cosmos as well That is what is meant by Arius Didymus report that god moved through matter

ot06v7Ep xocL V T yoeV rT ppa10 Here of course is the origin of Zenos astsp-rixoX6yoL Further we have the explicit testimony of Diogenes Laertius that just as seed in the sperm so the 064 being the spermatic reason of the cosmos remains as such in the water during cosmic generation Wa=ep zV T yOV- X0 a7p~iU 7rEpLCS7TSCX OUTampXO ZXL TOUTOV

(scil EOv) a7spptLOCxOv Xoyov 6vTC To6 xOaou 7oL0v8e Uo7rcC[ac ev

-rF iUypp111 The fiery 649 that is subsisting in pre-cosmic moisture brings about creation And this is what Zeno must have intended by referring to pre-cosmic ZXoq as moisture

It is apparent that Zeno thought of his two inseparable amppxoax in many different ways as the active (7roLo5v) and passive (7taxaov) as the ke6k and UX- as fire (n7p -exvtx6v) and pre-cosmic moisture

(Xxo4) as the hot male sperm and the female moisture Zeno was himself much given to allegorizing and it is not surprising that he should have represented his two fundamental principles so variously Later Stoics followed this inclination of Zeno Thus Servius observes that although the Stoics posited the one god they applied different names to it depending on its function in fact itsdivinity was said to be of either sex male if it were active female if passive unde etiam duplicis sexus numina esse dicuntur ut cum in actu sunt mares sint feminae cum patiendi habent naturam 12 This is to say that lo 7rnoLiv is conceived of as masculine no 7tampaXov as feminine Origen

106 de causis plant 111233 Wimmer =0CVtovCX0U yxp -) 5OL4 ampo0yo0Vt FLLuLkVIn

7CW4 TX Vyp6TI -r6 pLhP6V XciNEp UnV 05iaCV -v 1yp6-ro TX fp) cf de igne 10 and 65 Wimmer 107 SVF 1128 The idea is Aristotelian 6dt [dv OZV -r6 mdpL YxOLV6v nvCU o0CT xcxt V8mTroq (degen anim I12735 b 37) 108 SVF I127 pLoaocv 8A xaL wveutuo Zi1jvwv T6o aro EN=oL 9YoLv 109 SVF 1129 10 Arius Didymus fr 20 (DDG p 458) = SVF 187 I DL 7136 (STVF 1102 1I580) 112 SVF 111070

preserves a statement of Chrysippus to this effect Hera is said to be the U(- Zeus the e46113 Finally Dio of Prusa very evidently draws on this tradition of Zeno in describing the marriage of Hera and Zeus as the combination of (female) moisture (uypampv ouacv) with the cosmic sperm (o7rpcx toi5 ntovT64) the sperm residing in the moisture just as creative nvUi4 in the seed114 The designation of these various parallel forces emphasizes unwittingly the dualism of Stoic cosmology Strictly speaking of course all these forces are to be considered merely as aspects of one substance But it requires considerable strength of will to consider (say) fire and water as one and we are obliged to forgive those ancient commentators who could not credit the Stoics monism

In addition to the two amppXyaL the Stoics also posited four aTocZeLa One of the most difficult questions of Stoic cosmology is to ask how the amppXvt were related to the atroXea or to put the question otherwise why the Stoics should have wished to make such a distinction at all15 Cosmology before Zeno had made no such distinction6 Plato speaking of fire and the prime substances in the Timaeus (48b) says that they are called either amppyoL or crroLXeZo to5 nocvrt6 (by the Preso- cratics presumably) Aristotle too uses the terms almost synonymous- ly117 Corporeal elements are defined by Aristotle as those parts into which bodies are ultimately reducible and which may not be further divided without a change of form8 It follows that complex bodies

I SVF 111074 114 Or 3655 (SVF II622) 115 cf G Verbeke LIvolution de la doctrine du pneuma (Louvain 1945) pp 39-40 quel [est] le rapport qui existe entre les principes et les 616ments 11 nest pas certain que Zenon ait dejk pos6 ce probleme il requiert cependant une solution Verbeke himself proposes no solution It will be seen from the following discussion that Zeno had indeed raised the question and had worked out the relationship intricately 116 On the notion of CJroLzetov see H Diels Elementum (Leipzig 1899) 0 Lagercrantz Elenentum (Uppsala 1911) W Vollgraff Elementum Mnemo- syne 4 ser 2 (1942) pp 89-115 W Burkert oarotetov Philologus 102 (1959) pp 167-97 and A Lumpe Der Begriff Element in Altertum ABG 7 (1962) pp 285-93 117 Metaph A 3 983 b 11 Meteor I 2 339 a 11 sqq de gen et corr 1 2 329 a 5 etc 118 Metaph A 3 1014 a 31-34 64Lolwg 8amp xoct Tra rov acq0Cur0v alTOLXtN XyOUaLV

O XkyOVTC Et at 8amp amplpELtZc Ta 4aw1Tm1 gaX0(oX ampXOlvoc 8amp kxi ampXe o et8ht 8a0-

q4povroc

consist in combinations of these elements and that the bodies are themselves reducible to their elements One might ask whether here as elsewhere the Stoics were influenced by Aristotles conception of alOLXCLOV Diogenes Laertius preserves a Stoic definition of croXeLov with exactly this meaning 9tc- 3 atowXjLov Oi 7CpWrOU YEVeroV C Tamp

yLVo6zva xxl L 8 eaZovTov ampava6rac119 But we have already seen abundant evidence that for the Stoics the pyoct were the material e o6 of the cosmos such a conception of aoLyZEov would obviate the conception of amppxn- as it was articulated In this case we are able to watch Diogenes at work Into his discussion of Stoic cosmology he has inserted Aristotles definition of ipyx or aTocxeov c oi yap eanV

Mv7t( s 6vrm xxc EK OU yEYvtrL 7WpcOU xaC Lk O YsLperL rXeutkoV120

In short Diogenes definition of arotXiov is not pertinent to Stoic theory

Diogenes Laertius elsewhere reports explicitly that the Stoics distinguished between amppcxL and aroLx-c4 Unfortunately this report is vexed with textual problems and must be quoted in full

ampOC(Pipetv 8 goatV amppx) xoal a-oLXeloV ts [Liv yap 7CIaL oampyCVnOU ltxagt

ampap-ou a 8a aoLqemx xmtamp rv kxTr6pcoatv pk[ppcfatL ampcxamp xao iacrtous elvtv tamp4 ampspXMO xoaL ampu6pqpou4 d 8 LILp9(saL121

The bone of contention here is the statement that the amppxpZx are Mawtoua In fact the consensus of manuscripts reads ac ampaamps-

TrOU is an emendation based on a statement in the Suda Stoic scholarship has ranged itself into two opposing camps Hirzel122 and von Arnim123 prefer ampCaoaampouq whereas Baeumker124 Mattingly125 and Pohlenz26 prefer a4mcra It is fair to ask what 0ampatwIouq might have meant as applied to amppXmjx The Stoics considered that only the corpo-

119 DL 7136 120 Metaph A 3 983 b 8-9 121 DL 7134 (SVF II299) 122 Untersuchungen zu Ciceros philosophischen Schriften (Leipzig 1882) p 756 n 1 123 SVF II299 and the notes ad loc More recently C H Kahn (Stoic Logic and Stoic LOGOS AGP 51 (1969) pp 158-72) inclines to prefer ampawLtmouq on the basis of similarities between the universal Logos and the incorporeal )exampa (pp 168-9 and n 21) The reading ampa cimaoouq is printed by H S Long in his recent Oxford (OCT) edition of Diogenes Laertius and by Edelstein and Kidd Posidonius I The Fragments fr 5 124 Das Problem der Materie p 332 n 3 125 Philosophical Review 48 (1939) p 281 126 Die Stoa II p 38

real could be said to exist27 and considered only four classes of non-existent or incorporeal (Xaexuov) rxro-v xEvOv ONov and xpovov128 In so far as the aaciorov did not really exist it was said to be a exro6v it existed in name but not in fact Would it have been conceivable to describe the Stoic kh6s as existing in name alone The os6e is active the vtN passive and only that which is corporeal may undergo activity 6 Ca4ctOCTov xax oUTg oUrT 7tOLELV nt 7EPUXEV Or 7rcxaxV129 Further according to Cleanthes at least nothing incorporeal may act on something corporeal oUv86 a oCXrov 0pVa-

Io a8 aWt 1 ampXkamp ta I a 64Lo a

I LCt130 The two amppXoc(

which by acting on each other produce the cosmos must therefore be corporeal Abundant documentary evidence confirms this statement Aristocles states of the amppaL that amp`upo aW~LOCT-r fP7aLv JvouL xoc TO

7oLQ5V xCx ro 7r wtaampov131 and Origen expressly states that roUq ampOt rr Stoac saamp~LrLXa Nyo

I o eivau - 1pXaq132 I have no doubt then

that the correct reading should be u as the manuscripts affirm although even that is somewhat misleading The two amppXaL are not separate bodies but aspects of one substance Perhaps the reading

a6tLa would be more faithful to Stoic theory One wonders if Diogenes statement has any value after all It is founded on Aristotelian dis- tinctions33 and the insistence on form (prpCoaaL) is something which cannot be confirmed by any other Stoic statement concerning the mroLexa134 Nevertheless the basic distinction which it proclaims

127 SVF 11320 (Plotinus) a4tmxac ti6vov xr 6vrx elvLL and SVF 11525 (Plutarch) 6vrm yap A6vu TX awmr x)ovLv 128 Sext Emp adv math 10218 (SVF I1331) cf the discussion of this Stoic notion by E Br6hier La theorie des incorporels dans lancien stoicisme AGP 22 (1909) pp 114-25 129 Sext Emp adz math 8263 (SVF II363) 180 SIVF I518 (Nemesius) cf Aristotle de anima III4429 a 13 sqq 181 SVF 198 cf SVF I153 (that the l6q is acsp) and DDG p 608 xx 6 6v HXampOVv ft6v ampa6toLmrov Zvov 8amp adux 182 SVF II1051 183 eg ampyev rouqampOpAxpprouq cf de caelo I11280 b 1 sqq et passimn 134 The distinction between formed and unformed would seem to have little validity in Stoic cosmology because of its conception of two cosmic states that of the created cosmos (8tox6anvsmL) and that before or after The amppXao could well be unformed before sloX6a0i5a4 but when the cosmos is created and they are transformed into elements do they cease to be amppXm( qua paXxO Aristotle had slhown that MamppXotE must always exist (Phys I6189 a 18-20) and for the Stoics too the MamppXmo were eternal (SVF 185 etc) To meet the difficulty the Stoics argued that amppXat preceded a-rotxetx both temporally and essentially

- that between amppocL and aerotxZoc - is abundantly attested elsewhere138 Given then that the Stoics distinguished between amppXaL and

=roLXqeZ how were these concepts related The simplest statement concerning this relationship is again given by Diogenes Laertius the =rotxta together constitute the 5XI (oc I re-Mopa aroqea dIvat o0 Tv 7oLv oiT-av -rv yv)136 This simple equation makes nonseilse of well-attested Stoic doctrine concerning both the iMXn of parts (rav 6cid p4pouq) and the distinction between precosmic and cosmic substance Plotinus137 states that XYn was said to underlie (Unof3Xfa- Ix) the elements and this statement squares with that of Galen338

that there is a u-noPXnev7I US to all the elements And the fact that this un underlies the elements surely precludes all possibility of any direct equation An even more considerable objection to Diogenes equation is that statement by Sextus Empiricus that first matter changes and by changing itself brings about the four elements r] a7tOcO UX) rXoa jc OC4 yLyvrTOa O 06CapX toIM139

That is i)Xn precedes the elements in time since the elements arise from U`n they clearly cannot be identical to it

How do the aroLXJeo arise from the amppxx The cosmogonies attributed to the Stoics are riddled with inconsistency and require detailed examination For once fortunately we have accounits attributed to each of the three major thinkers of the early Stoa and we are often in a position to see where one thinker rethought the doctrine of his pre- decessor We may begin with the three accounts attributed to Zeno140 two of which are found in Diogenes Laertius one in Anus Didymus

( 1) aLox6a[LnaL must occur periodically from the oiatoc when from fire a change into water through air will come about One part (-r6 piv tL) will

take its place underneath and will constitute earth and of the remainder some will remain as water some will through vaporization produce air and from part of this air fire will be kindled

[Arius Didymus fr 38 (DDG pp 469-70)]

35 SVF 185 (Aetius Achilles Tatius Philo) Galen (SVF II408) observes that crotXeo x must be homogeneous in so far as they are elements and concludes ampV TOUTUp yap 87 XOX 8L)VyXe C tOLXeLOV amppXP4 ampkV t-) O(Xq Oxp)a q OuX ~ ampVampyx7)q 0LO-

YeVCL4 EIVOL rOL4g 7rpampydCaLv CT)V u7rDppxoutaLv apXaO aO 8i ctrOL)(CEX 7rV-r 6[LOyeV7

Perhaps the latter notion derives from Aristotles observation that the first bodies are otOOLsp7) (MVeteor IV1389 b 26-28) 136 DL 7137 (SVF II580) 137 SVF II320 138 SVF II408 139 advmath 10312 (SVF II309) 140 All three are printed in SVF I102

( 2) in the beginning (xmramppXo) being by himself god transformed substance (rv Trampaxv ouaLav) through air into water and as in the sperm the seed is found so god remains in the moisture (UrnhOtXEtETrC 4v IV -Cij0 Jyp4) adapting matter (c6cpy6v m-rc 7otoUVTM TV rvtAiV) for subsequent productions Thence he creates first of all the four 0-rOLX6M

[DL 7136]

( 3) the cosmos is created when from fire the substance changes through air into moisture (ampx irupoq n oicrxaC TpOMr 8C Lampkpo5 etq uyp6rja) then the coarser part (TO 7aXuucpi) of the moisture condenses into earth the lighter part (r XemroLpkq) turns into air and this rarefaction goes on to produce fire

[DL 7142]

Though there are minor discrepancies these three accounts are evidently derived from the one Zenonian cosmogony It will be seen that Zeno conceived of a two-stage cosmogonical process first the primal substance (or god or fire the termns are equivalent) transforms part of itself into water or moisture second the action of the fire or os6 on this moisture in turn produces the four elements by means of vaporization or condensation These accounts correspond exactly to that Zenonian conception we considered earlier with regard to Xoo that 7r5p rXeXov and pre-cosmic moisture were responsible for cosmic generation141 For Zeno cosmic generation follows the same pattern as human generation

The cosmogonies of subsequent Stoics are to be seen against that of Zeno Arius Didymus has preserved an extensive account of Cleanthes cosmogony with the world enflamed the middle of it settles down first then the nearby parts are extinguished all tlhrough and with the world turned to moisture the extremity of the fire when the middle has reacted against it (or bounced off it) makes it turn back again to its opposite (viz fire) then he claims with this upward transformation it grows and begins to order the whole

ampX(OylPYfVT0q T05 rM37Crv auVEcM Tr6 0kOV MXrO73 7p tOV etlX ltXOxgt X

kX6[ievm ampTOaCOsVVUafampOL 8t kou ltTOi = Vr6q k UypCVkVroq no lay(xMov oi3

irup6q MVtruTqCaaXVTO4 UT(- TOU lLkaOU Tpk7EampCt 7rXLV lt7rOLlVgt eEs roUvavr(ov

el4oUm T TpE7CO[VOU ltampVoA kvgt (P7)tLV XutCa~ampL xall amppXCa4l 8vLxoall tv r

6)OV142

141 The sinking down and solidification of earth mentioned by the scholiast on Apollonius of Rhodes (above p 260) corresponds exactly witlh the second stage of Zenos cosmogony after the fire has inseminated the water the earth (r6

7axu4epiq) condenses out 2 Arius Didymus fr 38 (DDG p 470) = SVF 1497 I have given the text

Arius is very probably reproducing Cleanthes own text here - the word kXzpoyELc is nowhere else attested and would seem to be a coinage of Cleanthes But if Cleanthes did coin a new terminology to describe cosmogony43 his conception is largely traditional Pre- cosmic fire acting on water for Cleanthes as for Zeno is said to begin (amppXea8xt) the process of ampLox6apaL by which the creation of the four elements and their subsequent ordering is to be understood

A cosmogony similar in outline to that of Zeno and Cleanthes is ascribed by Plutarch to Chrysippus the fire changes through air into water From the water earth condenses and air evaporates By becoming rarefied the air produces aether which embraces the cosmos and moves in a circular direction44 This account is brief but may be seen to reproduce nearly verbatim the cosmogony attributed to Zeno by Arius Didymus The only addition is the explicit statement that the fire produced by rarefaction of air is the OClnp In short it would appear that Zeno Cleanthes and Chrysippus taught essentially the same cosmogony145 that the principle fire (su5p rexvLx6v that is) co-operates with a pre-cosmic moisture to generate in turn the four elements by the processes of rarefaction and condensation146

But the fact that the four mtXe were generated from the two MpXxc presented the Stoics with a nearly insuperable problem and one which continued (and continues) to confuse commentators of Stoicism It is this one of the oamppxocL is described as 7i5p sxvLX6V or more generally as fire but through the agency of this fire the four

of von Arnim the words in brackets are his (necessary) additions Von Arnim discusses this passage in detail in RE XI1 col 563 sv Kleanthes 143 Note however that sinking down (cruvtzLv) is the term used by Zeno to describe the condensation of earth from water in his commentary on Hesiods Theogony (SVF 1104 above p 260) 144 de Stoic repugn 1053 a (SVF II579) cf also ibid 1053 b (SVF II605) xOcl IV 8TCXV kX7pC0art yVYnTOXL amp6Xou 4iv Xcd 43ov lVaL cpvnao ltr6v x6aLovgt

arwvv4Levov 8 aGc xl =xUV6prvov Ct1 586rp xot yiv xMI Tz6 CWTOetaq 7pineabM 145 A similar cosmogony is attributed to a certain Stoic by ps -Philo (SVF II619) after amppoan and the extinguishing of the fire the fire changes into air the air into water and the water sinks down into earth The principal roles of pre-cosmic fire and water have been obscured here The account attributed by Clement of Alexandria (Strom V 14 104 = DK 22 B 31) to Heraclitus in which fire changes through air into water which then acts as sperm of creation and from which the elements are born is unmistakeably Stoic So too is that of Dio of Prusa Or 3655 (SVF II622) 146 Those cosmogonical accounts which do not proceed from the two principles (n5p repxx6v and pre-cosmic moisture) are probably to be dismissed as non-

elements are generated one of which is fire How are these two sorts of fire to be distinguished Zeno and Cleanthes strove to make such a distinction there is no evidence that Chrysippus ever did The distinction they made was a simple one the fire which is god is creative but that fire which we experience daily is destructive Thus a statement by Zeno preserved by Arius Didymus

Zeno said that the sun moon and each of the other stars were intelligent and fiery consisting in np trevtx6v For there are two sorts of fire the one destructive (amprXXvov) and changing its nutriture into itself the other creative (reXvtx6v) productive and preservative such as is found in plants and animals and which is PUaL and 4uXi The substance of the stars consists in this 7ip XcVLx6V147

It is fairly certain that the distinction TExvLXOvI6rsxvov was Zenos own (as was the conception of su5p reXv6x6v itself)1448 Cleanthes made a similar distinction although he did not use Zenos terminology Cicero preserves Cleanthes distinction

atqui hic noster ignis quem usus vitae requirit confector est et consumptor omnium idemque quocumque invasit cuncta disturbat ac dissipat contra ille corporeus vitalis et salutaris omnia conservat alit auget sustinet sensuque adficit negat ergo esse dubium horum ignium sol utri similis sit cum is quoque efficiat ut omnia floreant et in suo quacque genere pubes- cant quare cum solis ignis similis eorum ignium sit qui sunt in corporibus animantium solem quoque animantem esse oportet et quidem reliqua astra quae oriantur in ardore caelesti qui aether vel caelum nominatur14

Stoic Thus the brief statement in Aetius (1161 = SVF 11582) the genesis of the cosmos is said to begin from the earth that is from the centre For the ampxpy of a sphere is its centre Similarly that preserved by Hermias and attributed to Cleanthes (SVF 1495) that genesis begins with earth changing into water water into air air into fire the fire being then borne aloft But genesis cannot begin with earth after IX=upeaCl the succeeding cosmic generation must begin with fire More confusing still is that account in Arius Didymus (fr 21 [DDG p 458] = SVF II413) fire changes into air air into water water into earth and then again earth changes into water water into air and so on back to fire I suspect that this account is not intended to describe the genesis of the elements but rather their mutual interaction once created It is a well known Stoic doctrine that the elements could be transformed into each other (SVF 1102 II405 etc) 147 fr 33 (DDG p 467) = S VF 1 120 148 A similar distinction is reported by Diogenes Laertius (or is it Diocles) that some presentations (yavrocaoct) are -rEXvLxcLx some amprreyvot This distiniction is probably Zenos as well 149 ND 241 (SVF 1504)

There is every reason to believe that this distinction was consistently maintained by the early Stoics themselves Achilles Tatius testifies that the Stoics said the stars consisted in fire a fire divine and eternal and unlike the fire we know which is destructive50 The distinction made by Philo between ignis corruptibilis and ignis salutaris undoubtedly springs from Stoicism the ignis salutaris is said to be that per quem omnia artificiose facta sunt quare ut mihi videtur etiam nonnulli philosophorum ignem artificialem asseruere in viam cadere ad semina in generationem producenda51 Philos last sentence translates Zenos definition of cUplFLq In many ways the distinction between the terrestrial and heavenly fires was an easy one to make Indeed the Stoics were not the first to make it Plato had remarked various sorts of fire (Timaeus 58c) and Aristotle had been obliged to distinguish between terrestrial fire and his first body (ocThnp) he had done so by stating that what we conventionally call (heavenly) fire is not fire at all but rather an excess of heat

(07ep3oXI yap epuoi xoai otov Ecrq ta-L -0 7r5p)152 Theophrastus too had noted that terrestrial fire continually seeks nourishment and cannot exist without nutriment but against this there exists the pure and unmixed warmth of the first sphere (ev icn TN 7pChT apouLpa rouvirl

C95L4 Oacr ampL LXT0V ivaz amppO6pn xod xhpckv)53 But if fire is to be understood as pure and unmixed this must mean that it does not burn anything but that is against the nature of fire Consequently Theo- phrastus posits two kinds of fire 4 [euv 7pWrr xochzpoamp x0Cl 1Xm0q

I LtWpi trv tr ye acpop pnyVi xoL aeL xoramp yEVo a 154 Theo- phrastus goes on to explore the relationship between the two fires and ends by distinguishing between warmth which for him is creative and is an amppXJ and fire which is destructive55 Clearly then Zeno was not alone in distinguishing two sorts of fire I would suggest however that hiis distinction was cardinal to Stoic cosmology in a way far more important than the similar distinctions of Aristotle and Theo-

160 SVF II682 151 SVF II422 152 Meteor 13340 a 19 sqq cf de gen et corr I13330 b 25 29 Aristotle dem- onstrates in de caelo 117289 a 11-35 that the stars consist in heat but not in fire Boyance (Hermes 90 (1962) p 63 n 4) suggested that the Stoics two-fire distinction could be traced to Meteor 13 1I de igne 4 Wimmer See commentary on de igne by P Steinmetz Die Physik des Theophrastos von Eresos (Berlin 1964) pp 111-47 154 Ibid 165 Ibid 6

phrastus The difference between Stoic amppXml and arOLXa hinges in effect on the distinction between the two fires For although no surviving fragment says so explicitly it is clear that rup reXvLx6v the ampe6s is an amppy4 whereas 7r5p 1rxvov is one of the four arXe created by the 7t5p rXVLXOV

Failure to make this apparently simple distinction reduces Stoic cosmology to confusion and nonsense Yet the distinction was easily overlooked In the second book of Ciceros de natura deorum for example Balbus had explained Cleanthes two-fire distinction at length156 But when Cotta replies to Balbus in the third book he has already forgotten the distinction He asks if fire is not fed it will perish how then can it be eternal157 Cottas argument is irrele- vant Balbus had clearly explained that the fire in which aether consisted was vitalis and salutaris and that it preserved nourished and increased all things If Cotta could have made this mistake in the very presence of Balbus it is not surpnsing that later commentators should have followed his example Aristocles (as quoted by Eusebius) states that for Zeno fire is the aroLXetov whose oamppZoct are ampek and v158 Aristocles has imputed to Zeno a non-Stoic definition of aToLeX0ov (as did Diogenes Laertius) has failed to realize that the e6k is in fact the fire which creates and has ignored the fact this fire is an apxy He is partly aware of its significance - he calls it r

npampr)ov nip - but his failure to apply Zenos distinction entirely vitiates his statement The same might be said of a frequently-quoted statement of Arius Didymus that fire is the aTolqemOV par excellence because out of it the remaining elements are produced and into it they ultimately resolve159 Within the context of Zenos system this statement cannot be correct The fire - namely 7rip rZvtxx6v - which generates all things is not a aroLZxeov in any sense but an apx There are complicating factors here however The fragment is attributed to Chrysippus From the same fragment we learn that Chrysippus defined GoLXeZov in three ways first to designate the primordial fire which produced the cosmos and second to designate earth air fire

156 ND 241 quote(I above p 268 157 ND 337 quod interire possit id aeternum non esse natura ignem autem interiturum esse nisi alatur non esse igitur natura ignem sempiternum 158 SVF I98 159 fr 21 (DDG p 458) = SVF lI413 r6 gi tp xxl xorampkoXyv cTrotXctoV XkycaxLt

8tcr6 1j OcFroi3 NrprTrou TrM XoLCauramp TxCaL xc -rEt Xoc3oxtv t xc k T6 axrTov nivroc xto6lcvoc BX6c u

and water (that is Zenos four aroLxZZcx) The third definition is missing from the transmitted text60 To say the very least Chrysippus terminology is confusing fire the aro Lxxzov produces four atoLZeZa one of which is fire The confusion is not eliminated by the addition of xzo- Koyv to describe the one a-oLxrov which genlerates a different four What is clear is that Chrysippus for some reason or other aban- doned Zenos distinction between OCpXf and GtroLxoV161 This is affirmed by a further statement made by Arius from the a-rotzev fire comes the PXn which is Xoyoq or eternal energy62 What led Chrysippus to abandon Zenos distinction is not immediately clear I shall consider one possibility shortly

Other ancient commentators misunderstood Zenos distinction in other ways Porphyry seems to be completely unaware that the Stoics distinguished between a creative and a destructive fire The Stoics do not shrink he says from calling fire noetic and eternal as if this fire were just like that which we know from daily life Thus they contradict Aristotle who denied that the aether consisted in fire as we know it163 Again the Stoics - like Aristotle to some degree -

distinguished between the aether (sru5p -csyvtGv) and the fire we know from daily life (amp`rz7vov) it is only surprising that the learned Porphyry should have ignored it Justin for example states that the Stoics said that even god himself dissolved into fire64 Justin was simply unaware that 1zo6 was nup reXvmxv Similarly Augustine states that the Stoics said that fire one of the four elements was thought to be god65 He too was unaware that god was the ampcpZ or sup 7zsvtx6v

160 In spite of the fact that Arius explicitly says rpLtXC amp xeyouevou xoclr Xp6aLMVov TOi5 TOLeLo- Diels (Elementun pp 38-9) claimed to discover six separate meanings of aroqetov in the passage in question Diels argument is over-ingenious and totally unconvincing On Chrysippus use of aroLxampov see also J B Gould The Philosophy of Chrysippus (Leiden 1970) pp 119-20 161 What are we to malie of Diogenes Laertius report that towards the end of his Physica Chrysippus posited two 4p(oci just as had Zeno and Cleanthes (DL 7134) Chrysippus threefold definition of sTOLX1Lov as well as his conception of

7ve5[ocx (see below) obviate the possibility that he taught the traditional Stoic amppX atOLXyLov distinction Have we to reckon with the further possibility that Physica is a work written before he had worked out his conception of cve5tio 162 fr 21 (DDG p 458) = SVF II413 yeyovevo 8197)ae xocito ampOCU ampoC036a 7repi a-COXELOU C5 EaTL TO TZ ALouTO CUXrVY ampTOTOV XO PX ltXOCL 0gt Oyo4 xi -r

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

which created in turn the four atotyea one of which was everyday fire This confusion persists in modern scholarship166

The blame for this confusion does not rest entirely on the inattention of the doxographers Even leaving the confusion introduced by Chrysippus momentarily to one side there are abundant contradictions in the teaching concerning the two fires The fire of the sun is said to be creative and hence in need of no nourishment What then are we to make of the frequent testimonies that the Stoics taught an

ampvocaupcatq that is that the sun and the other stars were nourished or fed by the sea67 It seems likely that the Stoics adopted the conception of iVampu$dLMatL from Aristotle68 but did not fully integrate it with their conception of 7r-Up CxVLXov On the other hand the avaup(-

oat is perhaps to be considered as another case of generation from the action of 7rip reXvyLx0v on water or perhaps simply as an example of interchange between elements (even though the sun does not techni- cally consist in elemental fire) In any case no surviving Stoic account of xcampuV[catL4 takes the two-fires distinction into consideration A more serious problem is posed by the Stoics conception of exiznpwatc

As the cosmos is generated from 7r5p reXvxo6v presumably (and logically) it would dissolve into su5p teXvtx6v although no Stoic fragment says just that But 7d5p rexvLxov is a creative and sustaining force how can it be responsible for the destruction of the cosmos The dilemma is revealed clearly in Balbus account of Stoic cosmology At one point he expounds Cleanthes teaching about the destructive fire which consumes (confector est et consumptor omnium) and the creative fire which sustains and is the substance of the sun69 Shortly thereafter he explains eXpwaL4 as occurring because the sun and the other stars consume the earth and water quod astrorum ignis et aetheris flamma consumit ex quo eventurum nostri putant - ut ad extremum omnis mundus ignesceret cum umore consumpto neque terra ali posset nec remearet aer70 If the sun indeed consists in

166 Even Pohlenz (Die Stoa 173) writes Dieses schopferisches Feuer ist das Element Among modern scholars Rist alone consistently distinguishes between the two fires see Stoic Philosophy pp 185sqq 167 DL 7145 (SVF 11650) Tpl9CaXampL 8 TampT 9[L7rUPO T3TO xZOt v ampXx ampGapa

-rv dv XLOV ampx -tyai 4xamp-G cf also SVF II 652 655 656 658 659 661 663 677 and 690 168 esp Meteor 14341 b 7-342 a 29 also I7344 a 10 sqq II3357 b 24-358 a 34 II4359 b 34-360 a 16 etc 168 ND 241 (SVF 1504) 170 ND 2118 (SVF II593)

7rcp rZXvLX6v how can it be said to consume the other elements Zeno seems to have proposed no solution to this glaring contradiction To resolve (or at least to obscure) the problem Cleanthes and Chrysippus worked out a complicated nomenclature to explain what happened at XIt)pGtaL Cleanthes argued that the world dissolved into ypXo Chrysippus that it dissolved into ocyi171 It is impossible to ascertain what was meant by these terms Philo defines axY-p

as a sacred fire a cpa6 ampsaro 1A72 Alexander of Aphrodisias notes that light is an emanation (amp7opor) of fire which the Stoics call

yq 113 Cleanthes choice of 9p6o rather than uym is bizarre for ocvyn is customarily the light of the sun and since for Cleanthes the sun was the 7yZLOVLXOv of the universe it would seem reasonable that the universe would resolve itself into the suns fire or light A certain Stoic quoted by Philo distinguished three kinds of fire CvtYpoc rpo6 and ocuy174 This agrees in part with a statement of Galen175 - which is not necessarily a Stoic statement - that air igniting produces cpkR earth igniting produces (vApoca and water igniting produces amppcxo Galen does not mention ay however And if these terms in themselves are not confusing enough we are also told that the Stoics considered the sun to be JvoaaX Voep6V176 Small wonder that later commentators become confused when reporting the Stoic conception of fire

However great these confusions might seem they were manifoldly increased by one factor the inception into the Stoic cosmology of nve53Lcx as a cosmic force It will be seen at once that the adoption of nvzi3x as central agent in the Stoic cosmology would cause the distinctions we have been considering - that between amppyn and Cror-

yeZov and that between sup TXvtxov and stup Teyxvov - to be aban- doned As had been shown earlier for Zeno 4eoe as sup rewXvOv

171 SVF 1511 11611 172 SVF II664 173 SVF 11432 174 SVF II612 175 SVF II427 176 SVF II650 655 656 cf II652 The attribution of the concept of the sun as ampvm[ui vospopv to any Stoic is not without difficulty It is attributed to Stoicism at large in DL 7145 A passage in the Etym Gud (which is thoroughly corrupt) attributes the identical terminology to Zeno alone (SVF 1121) Aetius II2016 (DDG p 351 = DK22 A 12) attributes the phrase to Heraclitus and Heca- taeus Has the doxography been influenced by Stoic terminology Or Stoic terminology by Heraclitus

was the creative cosmic agent I am firmly of the opinion that it was Chrysippus who first made the far-reaching application of the conception of a bodily xve5uoc (which all Stoics taught) to the cosmos that is it was Chrysippus who discovered cosmic nveuoc The evidence for this assertion is of two sorts first there is not one dependable ascription to Zeno of any conception of a cosmic nveupoc and second virtually every account of cosmic nvse5Fao and its manifold operations - notably its role in establishing cosmic tension (rovoq) - is ascribed to Chrysippus

Although there is no considerable evidence that Zeno taught a cosmic 7rvpxoc this evidence however flimsy needs to be assembled once for all On the one hand there is sound and dependable evidence that Zeno taught a bodily rnsvz5Vc which functioned much in the way that Aristotles bodily 7rvep4oc or inborn heat functioned77 The question here is whether or not Zeno himself saw by analogy a 7ve5a

operating in the cosmos as =vsupi operates in the human body It is extremely doubtful that he did One would be obliged to point to Philos statement Zeno Mnaseae filius aerem deum materiam et elementa quatuor78 where aerem would have to be seen as translating 7rve5pia in its pre-Stoic sense of air or wind This in itself would suggest that he attached no sense of cohesion pervasion or vitality to it From Ciceros time onwards nvei4toc is translated as spiritus not aer179 The fact that Zeno elsewhere used nve54toc to designate wind - Diogenes Laertius quotes a passage from his de universo where lightning is seen to be caused by clouds torn apart by wind (pyVuPevoV uO 7rvsi4tocTo0)80 - would seem to indicate that he did not at the same time use nve5aoc to denote an all-pervading cohesive and life-giving cosmic force A statement in Calcidius (purportedly by Zeno) says that spiritus was found in matter from eternity181 This statement is extremely unreliable evidence for Zenos theory

177 SVF I127 1veuio as identical to bodily heat I128 human sperm consists in 7ve53to and moisture I135 (DL 7157) the human soul consists in nvuc5o gvfp0ov (cf I137 and 138) 1140 (Galen) the substance of the human soul is 7rve5Va I145 (Themistius) the soul is nve5pa I146 (Epiphanius) the soul is 7cOXUXPOVLOV 7tVepu

178 de provid 122 (SVF I85) Philos sentence is probably to be emended and punctuated to read aeltthegtreltugtm deum materiam et elementa quatuor the sentence is thus a statement of Zenos two amppyoct and four aoLtyloc 179 ND 2117 also 2134 136 and 138 180 DL 7153 (SVF I117) 181 in Tim c 292 Waszink (SVF I88)

though the paragraph begins with Zeno as subject it concludes with adpellant suggesting that Calcidius had Stoici and not Zeno in mind And this passage was not drawn directly from Zenos works in any case Calcidius was here following either Numenius or Porphyry182 In short given the absence of any other statement whatsoever concerning Zeno and cosmic 7vMU40 neither the testimony of Philo nor of Calcidius is dependable in establishing that Zeno taught a cosmic nve5Lvci Further there is no mention in any statement attributed to Zeno of the behaviour of cosmic nve4[m no mention that is that it interpenetrates and animates the cosmos that it creates a pneumatic tension (nveuuasxos tovoq) that it unifies the cosmos And if he had how could he possibly have squared its functions with those of his 7sup

XvLx6v Although some scholars83 have attributed the conception of cosmic

nveup to Cleanthes I can see no compelling evidence for this attribution The huge balance of evidence suggests that the full versatility of nve5ua as cosmic force was first realized by Chrysippus Even if Cleanthes had first conceived the analogical application of bodily nVDXLa to the cosmos it was Chrysippus who worked out in astounding detail the behaviour of this nv4iUu The cosmic ntvsi3pa was able to explain an infinite variety of phenomena the stability of the cosmos (a problem which earlier Stoics had been unable to solve decisively)184 the interrelationship of all cosmic parts to one another (as for example lunar movement to tides) seeing and hearing earthquakes and other terrestrial phenomena the principle of growth in plants and animals the cause of shape in all objects to name only the most arresting features of the theory85 On the analogy of bodily nve5iuM it became the source of cosmic life In so far as it bound and vitalized the cosmos it was considered as 6ok in so far as it was hot and fiery it usurped the functions of 7ti3p tsevLx6v Zenos earlier conception of puaLs as 7r5p rexvL6v was expanded (or rather revised) to include the new conception of cosmic 7vMi3[a Thus Diogenes Laertius after quoting Zenos definition adds that 7up -eyvLx6v is to be understood as sTve4ua 7UpOet8k X VLL eV0CG188 At some point Zenosdefinition was thor- 182 See van Windens discussion Calcidius on Matter pp 98-9 and n 26 above 183 Notably Verbeke Ldvolution de la doctrine du pneuma p 55 184 See above pp 255-7 185 Excellent discussion by S Sambursky Physics of the Stoics (London 1959) pp 21-48 also Pohlenz Die Stoa I 73-5 188 DL 7156 Elsewhere (DDG p 306) 7rv4o is simply accommodated to the definition by the connective xocl

oughly revised to exclude sugp rexvtx6v and to give nveu4t its proper due Galen preserves just such a definition and there can be no doubt that the tLves in question are late Stoics (puaLv TLVCg slVouL )CyOUaL

nveU5Ltx vrxvov Qo7o0 L xv187 where 0807roGntLxOv has replaced 48e 3AL ov of Zeno and nve5pc evreyvov Zenos sup rxvrxG

Chrysippus discovery of the wide application of the concept of cosmic me53o is an exciting moment in the history of thought So quickly and widely was the nvioa used to explain cosmic phenomena that there was little time to revise the traditional cosmology188 Many of Zenos distinctions became obsolete The nveuuat as the conception was inherited by the Stoics from medical thought consisted in both air (the traditional meaning of the term nvsua) and heat189 the Stoics consequently defined nve-uatm as consisting in fire and air that is in two elements190 But on the other hand nve4icx in so far as it is the creative agent in the cosmos takes over the position of Zenos 1t6e19 An obvious problem arises the nv4uiux functions as an apXJ but is itself constituted of two a-MLZeZcx This problem did not escape ancient commentators In a moment of penetrating analysis Alexander of Aphrodisias exposes the Stoics dilemma Alexander argues (1) the Stoics posit two ampPyxL `X and b64 one

187 Hist phil 20 (DDG p 611 not in SVF) 188 I incline to think that Boethus of Sidons (the Stoic) views are to be seen as a conservative reaction to the far-ranging application which Chrysippus was making of 7rveu5o Boethus seems to have posited a bodily nvEv4za for Macrobius says Boethus (scil animam dixit) ex aere et igne (Comnm in Somn Scip I 14 20) But he denied that the cosmos was a living thing (rZ ov DL 7143) this must mean that he denied that a vital breath or rve[ihox penetrated the cosmos And in fact Boethus locates the amp64 outside the cosmos in the sphere of the fixed stars (DL 7148) Boethus cosmology is thus a return to Zenos simpler scheme and may well be seen as a reaction to the contemporary teaching of Chrysippus 89 See Solmsen MlusHelv 18 (1961) p 180 idem Meded Nederi Akad van Wet 249 (1961) p 282 190 SVF 11310 xat yap cpoq xazl 7rup6q pLuroL -v ojaL9v yXrLV C6 nrv4ut

II442 -r nva yeyov6q ampx Trup6q -re xocXL Opoq 11786 UX OCrTav Xyov-re EIVOL cuyxe(tvov 7rq gx -t 7up6q xcxiL amppo4 Against this one must perhaps weigh the statement in Arius Didymus fr 28 (DDG p 463 = SVF II471) that for Chrysippus ivsi3a consisted in air Could this mean that fire was not a constituent of nve5uo 191 SVF II310 ampe6q xcr uro6 aCo nv5 iv voep6v -r xcdt amptLov 111009

6P[oVTOCL g8 -rV Toi eO5 0 ouaXv oL ETWYxcA OUTW- 3lLU u voepov xxC 7wp(o8e

111027 oL EmTwxol voep6v amp6v a 7roocvov-rac Me5t [LV ampLWXOV amp OXOU TOU

x6apou

active and one passive (2) they say that 649 is corporeal in so far as it is eternal and noetic 7tVse5Lx (3) but 7uprvsx is itself composed of something of the four simple bodies which the Stoics call a-rotZea And Alexander poses the following paradox either nve-u~i4 may be a compound of elements or else it must be some sort of fifth body192 No satisfactory solution to this paradox seems to have been found The Stoics were forced to abandon Zenos distinction between amppoxac and aroqeZoc and between creative and destructive fire Because nve5i3m is at once creative agent and is composed of elements the constituent elements themselves assume the characteristics of activity and passivity which Zeno had assigned to the amppxot alone Thus Nemesius attests that for the Stoics two elements are acxa

(fire and air ie the constituents of nveuua) and two are 7ocDXx

(earth and water)193 This division creates further difficulties in turn for if fire and air are said to be active and together are seen to dis- charge the role of 45s in Zenos scheme by analogy earth and water in so far as they are passive ( couhyLxamp) are incongruously assigned the role of Zenos UA Some such reasoning must lie behind Galens otherwise confusing testimony that fire and air are pneumatic substance whereas earth and water are hylic tFVv yCampXp TVEUMTCLXIV

ouatxv t6 auvzov rv X uALxIv To auvr6xorvov o p pv x 7t

aL)VEXEw ypmaL ynv e XCi u(wp auVSvaeL94 However unconvincing the attempt it is nonetheless clear that the Stoics whom Galen is quoting here were attempting to harmonize the doctrine of ni4ut within the traditional cosmological framework of Zeno Other Stoics made different (and equally unconvincing) attempts at assimilation Alexander had suggested that the Stoics 7cVe5pa had either to be considered as elemental stuff or else as a fifth substance (Vaxt so

4Mov OCamprOZq aCOica 7rZnVT7 tq ouaGX) certain Stoics proposed just such a solution At one point Galen remarks that in addition to the elemental qualities (two 7toLqLxamp two 7toTnxamp) certain Stoics added a fifth body xac itampuTOV 7rUpetaMyeL xCTO TOUq Zaxok TO 8LYampXOV 86X 7tXVTGV

sTv4x95 To these Stoics at least 7vci5ia had become emancipated from its origin as elemental fire and air in mixture and had become an

192 SVF II310 A similar criticism is made by Simplicius (SVF II389) which possibly derives from Alexander 193 SVF II418 Aristotle had applied this distinction to the basic qualities not the elements cf de gen et corr 112329 b 25 sqq Meteor IV1378 b 12 194 SVF II439 195 SVF II416

autonomous cosmic agent it consequently assumed a role additional to the four elements196 By this point Zenos distinction between amppxat and aroLXeZa had been long forgotten

Soon afterwards not only Zenos distinction was forgotten but virtually the entirety of Stoic cosmological thought as well Today we are left with the merest remnants of a once vital cosmology Yet it is only by applying distinctions such as that between amppXot and amoLXeU to these apparently confusing remnants that the Stoic cosmology as a coherenit and compelling conception begins to emerge97

Clare Hall Cambridge

19O The doctrine concerning elements reported by Diodorus Siculus (11116) in which nvi4ua is listed in addition to the traditional four clearly reflects Stoic influence as Spoerri rightly conjectures (Spdthellenistische Berichie uiber Welt Kultur und Golter (Basel 1959) p 188) 197 I should like to acknowledge the kindness of F H Sandbach and J M Rist who read and criticized this article in typescript and who made many helpful suggestions

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Issue Table of Contents
Phronesis Vol 18 No 3 (1973) pp 187-278
Front Matter
Hippolytus Elenchos as a Source for Empedocles Re-Examined II [pp 187-203]
Thrasymachus and Legalism [pp 204-208]
Pure Form in Aristotle [pp 209-224]
Aristotle on the Transcendentals [pp 225-239]
ἀρχαί and στοιχεῖα A Problem in Stoic Cosmology [pp 240-278]
Back Matter

amppxot and croLxZec

A Problem in Stoic Cosmology

MICHAEL LAPIDGE

Tn recent years accurate and penetrating studies of Stoic logic epistemology psychology and physics have been published By contrast no critical attention has been given to Stoic cosmology

The reasons for this neglect are not far to seek In the first place Stoics themselves after Posidonius had expressed virtually no interest in cosmology Stoic doctrine of cosmology became codified and petri- fied by the doxographers and when errors were inevitably incorporated into this doxography there was neither sufficient expertise nor concern to correct them The doxographical testimonies which survive are confused and charged with contradiction In general modern scholarship has made little advance on the ancient doxographers towards the understanding of this aspect of Stoicism Further because there was no Stoic well enough versed in cosmology to reply to the attacks of (say) Plutarch or Plotinus modern scholarship has been obliged to give these adverse accounts more emphasis than they would be given if a Stoic refutation had been made and had survived But after the first century B C there was no Stoic who could have performed such a task and we are left with an inconsistent jumble of fragments Some of the inconsistency is to be attributed to the early Stoics themselves no doubt But we should not allow ourselves to forget that these early Stoics - and Chrysippus in particular - were accomplished logicians and that they would scarcely have toler- ated the silly contradictions with which they are charged by the comparatively simpleminded Christian apologists of a later period (I think particularly of Tertullian and Lactantius) Before any sound evaluation of Stoic cosmology can be made the inconsis- tencies in the fragments will have to be exposed to see which incon- sistencies are of Stoic provenance and which spring from inat- tentive and unsympathetic doxography The bulk of this formidable task awaits future investigation My concern here is to isolate one small problem among many the Stoic notions of principle and element

To begin at the apx7 perhaps the most frequently repeated statement of Stoic doxography is that for Zeno Cleanthes and Chrysippus

9 Phys 19192 a 29-34 0SVF 185 II309 316 317 318 323 374

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

9 Phys 19192 a 29-34 0SVF 185 II309 316 317 318 323 374

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

9 Phys 19192 a 29-34 0SVF 185 II309 316 317 318 323 374

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

9 Phys 19192 a 29-34 0SVF 185 II309 316 317 318 323 374

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

q4povroc

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

[DL 7136]

[DL 7142]

6)OV142

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

163 SVF II1050 164 SITF 11614 165 SVF 1423

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

x6apou

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

Article Contents

p 240
p 241
p 242
p 243
p 244
p 245
p 246
p 247
p 248
p 249
p 250
p 251
p 252
p 253
p 254
p 255
p 256
p 257
p 258
p 259
p 260
p 261
p 262
p 263
p 264
p 265
p 266
p 267
p 268
p 269
p 270
p 271
p 272
p 273
p 274
p 275
p 276
p 277
p 278
Front Matter
Back Matter

Phronesis Volume 18 Issue 3 1973 [Doi 10.2307%2F4181920] Michael Lapidge -- Ἀρχαί and Στοιχεῖα- A Problem in Stoic Cosmology

stoic doxography

stoic provenance

stoic cosmologyauthors

stoic refutation

stoic doctrine of cosmology

stoic notions of principle

jstor terms

jstor archive

Documents

Bernasconi - Heidegger's Destruction of Phronesis

PARMENIDES’ METHODOL AND THE PROBLEM OF PHRONESIS … ·....

Phronesis Volume 16 Issue 1 1971 [Doi 10.2307%2F4181854] B.....

Phronesis Volume 19 Issue 1 1974 [Doi 10.2307%2F4181923]...

Phronesis Volume 12 Issue 2 1967 [Doi 10.2307%2F4181798] J.....

PHRONESIS E VIRTUDE DO CARÁTER EM ARISTÓTELES: …

Customer Experience Journey - PHRONESIS

Phronesis Volume 19 Issue 1 1974 [Doi 10.2307%2F4181927]...

Strategy as Distributed · PDF fileStrategy as Distributed.....

Phronesis Volume 14 Issue 1 1969 [Doi 10.2307%2F4181825]...

Phronesis Volume 28 Issue 1 1983 [Doi 10.2307%2F4182166]...

BETWEEN FOUNDATIONALISM AND NIHILISM: IS PHRONESIS...

Phronesis Volume 5 Issue 1 1960 [Doi 10.2307%2F4181660] W......

Leitura Da Tese - A Phronesis Em Aristóteles

Phronesis Volume 14 Issue 1 1969 [Doi 10.2307%2F4181824] L.....

Phronesis Volume 17 Issue 1 1972 [Doi 10.2307%2F4181872]...