Chapter XXIII: The New Academy (7)

[498] Plut. Plac. iv. 4, 2. Ibid, c. 21: The Stoics consider the ἡγεμονικὸν to be the highest part of the soul; it begets the φαντασίαι, συγκαταθέσεις, αἰσθήσεις, and ὁρμαὶ, and is by them called λογισμός; from it the seven divisions of the soul reach to the body, like the arms of a cuttle-fish, and are therefore collectively defined as πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοὺ ἡγεμονικοῦ (μέχρις ὀφθαλμῶν, ὤτων, μυκτήρων, γλώττης, ἐπιφανείας, παραστάτων, φάρυγγος γλώττης καὶ τῶν οἰκείων ὀργάνων). Galen, l.c. iii. 1, 287. See p. 215, 2; Diog. 110 and 157; Porphyr. and Iamblich. in Stob. i. 836, 874, and 878; Chalcid. in Tim. 307; Nicomachus, in Iambl. Theol. Arith. p. 50. But there was no universal agreement among the Stoics on this subject. According to Tertull. De An. 14, Zeno only admitted three divisions of the soul, whilst some among the later Stoics enumerated as many as ten; Panætius only held six, and Posidonius went still further away from the view current among the Stoics. The remarks of Stob. i. 828, probably refer to the Peripatetic Aristo.

[499] See p. 73, 2.

[500] Conf. Cleanth. Hymn 4:

ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ γένος ἐσμὲν ἰῆς μίμημα λαχόντες
μοῦνοι, ὅσα ζώει τε καὶ ἕρπει θνήτ’ ἐπὶ γαῖαν.

[501] See p. 214, 2 and Chrys. in Galen, l.c. iii. 1, p. 287. Conf. p. 211, 5: ταύτης οὖν [τῆς ψυχῆς] τῶν μερῶν ἑκάστῳ διατεταγμένον [ων] μορίῳ, τὸ διῆκον αὐτῆς εἰς τὴν τραχεῖαν ἀρτηρίαν φωνὴν εἶναι, τὸ δὲ εἰς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὄψιν, κ.τ.λ. καὶ τὸ εἰς ὄρχεις, ἕτερόν τιν’ ἔχον τοιοῦτον λόγον, σπερματικὸν, εἰς ὃ δὲ συμβαίνει πάντα ταῦτα, ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ εἶναι, μέρος ὂν αὐτῆς τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. Plut. Plac. iv. 4, 2: τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἀφ’ οὗ ταῦτα πάντα ἐπιτέτακται [= ταται] διὰ τῶν οἰκείων ὀργάνων προσφερῶς ταῖς τοῦ πολύποδος πλεκτάναις. Conf. Sext. Math. ix. 102. Alex. Aphr. (De An. 146) therefore denies the Stoical assertion, that the ψυχικὴ δύναμις is only one, and that every activity of the soul is only the action of the πὼς ἔχον ἡγεμονικόν. Conversely Tertullian, De An. 14, speaking quite after the manner of a Stoic, says: Hujusmodi autem non tam partes animæ habebuntur, quam vires et efficaciæ et operæ ... non enim membra sunt substantiæ animalis, sed ingenia (capacities). Iambl. in Stob. i. 874: The powers of the soul bear, according to the Stoics, the same relation to the soul that qualities bear to the substance; their difference is partly owing to the diffusion of the πνεύματα, of which they consist, in different parts of the body, partly to the union of several qualities in one subject-matter, the latter being necessary, for ἡγεμονικὸν to include φαντασία, συγκατάθεσις, ὁρμὴ, and λόγος.

[502] Plut. Virt. Mort. c. 3, p. 441, speaking of Zeno, Aristo, and Chrysippus: νομίζουσιν οὐκ εἶναι τὸ παθητικὸν καὶ ἄλογον διαφορᾷ τινι καὶ φύσει ψυχῆς τοῦ λογικοῦ διακεκριμένον, ἀλλὰ τὸ αὐτὸ τῆς ψυχῆς μέρος, ὃ δὴ καλοῦσι διάνοιαν καὶ ἡγεμονικὸν, διόλου τρεπόμενον καὶ μεταβάλλον ἐν τε τοῖς πάθεσι καὶ ταῖς κατὰ ἕξιν ἢ διάθεσιν μεταβολαῖς κακίαν τε γίνεσθαι καὶ ἀρετὴν καὶ μηδὲν ἔχειν ἄλογον ἐν ἑαυτῷ. Plac. Phil. iv. 21, 1. Galen, l.c. iv. 1, p. 364: Chrysippus sometimes speaks as if he admitted a distinct δύναμις ἐπιθυμητικὴ or θυμοειδής; at other times, as if he denied it. The latter is clearly his meaning. Ibid. v. 6, 476: ὁ δὲ Χρύσιππος οὐθ’ ἕτερον εἶναι νομίζει τὸ παθητικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς τοῦ λογιστικοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων ἀφαιρεῖται τὰ πάθη. See p. 209, 1. Iambl. in Stob. Ecl. i. 890; Diog. vii. 159. Orig. c. Cels. v. 47: τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἀρνουμένους τὸ τριμερὲς τῆς ψυχῆς. Posidonius (in Galen, l.c. 6, 476) endeavours to prove that Cleanthes held a different view, by a passage in which he contrasts θυμὸς with λόγος—but this is making a rhetorical flourish do duty for a philosophic statement.

[503] Chrys. (in Galen, ii. 2, 215): οὕτως δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐγὼ λέγομεν κατὰ τοῦτο (the primary power in the breast) δεικνύντες αὑτοὺς ἐν τῷ ἀποφαίνεσθαι τὴν διάνοιαν εἶναι.

[504] Cleanthes, v. 4, p. 215, 1. Epictet. Diss. i. 14, 6: αἱ ψυχαὶ συναφεῖς τῷ θεῷ ἅτε αὐτοῦ μόρια οὖσαι καὶ ἀποσπάσματα. Id. ii. 8, 11. M. Aurel. ii. 4, v. 27, calls the soul μέρος ἀπόρροια, ἀπόσπασμα θεοῦ; and, xii. 26, even calls the human νοῦς θεός. Sen. Ep. 41, 2: Sacer intra nos spiritus sedet ... in unoquoque virorum bonorum, quis Deus incertum est, habitat Deus. Id. Ep. 66, 12. Ratio autem nihil aliud est quam in corpus humanum pars divini spiritus mersa. Consequently, reason, thought, and virtue are of the same nature in the human soul as in the soul of the universe, as Iambl. in Stob. Ecl. i. 886, states as a Stoic view. From this relationship to God, Posidonius deduces in a well-known simile (see p. 84, 1) the soul’s capacity for studying nature, and Cicero (De Leg. 1. 8, 24) the universality of a belief in God. All souls, as being parts of the divine mind, may be collectively regarded as one soul or reason. Marc. Aurel. ix. 8: εἰς μὲν τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα μία ψυχὴ διῄρηται· εἰς δὲ τὰ λογικὰ μία λογικὴ ψυχὴ μεμέρισται. xii. 30: ἓν φῶς ἡλίου, κἂν διείργηται τοίχοις, ὄρεσιν, ἄλλοις μυρίοις· μία οὐσία κοινὴ, κἂν διείργηται ἰδίως ποιοῖς σώμασι μυρίοις· μία ψυχὴ, κἂν φύσεσι διείργηται μυρίαις καὶ ἰδίαις περιγραφαῖς. This oneness, however, must, as the comparison shows, be understood in the sense of the Stoic realism: the universal soul, in the sense of ethereal substance, is the element of which individual souls consist. See also Marc. Aurel. viii. 54.

[505] In this sense, Sen. Ep. 31, 11, calls the animus rectus, bonus, magnus, a Deus in corpore humano hospitans.

[506] Further particulars, p. 174, 180, 189.

[507] See p. 179.

[508] See p. 88, 1.

[509] Diog. 156; Plut. N. P. Suav. Viv. 31. 2, p. 1107; Plac. iv. 7, 2; Ar. Didymus, in Eus. Præp. Ev. xv. 20, 3; Sen. Consol. ad Marc. c. 26, 7; Ep. 102, 22; 117, 6; Cic. Tusc. i. 31, 77. Seneca (ad Polyb. 9, 2; Ep. 65, 24; 71, 16; 36, 9, and in Tertull. De An. c. 42; Resurr. Carn. 3. 1) and M. Aurelius (iii. 3; vii. 32; viii. 25, 58) are only speaking κατ’ ἄνθρωπον, in seeming to doubt a future life after death, in order to dispel the fear of death in every case. It is, however, a mistake of Tiedemann (Sto. Phil. ii. 155) to suppose that they, in many passages (Sen. Ep. 71, 102, M. Aur. ii. 17; v. 4, 13), supposed the immediate dissolution of the soul after death. It is, on the contrary, clear, from M. Aurel. iv. 14, 21, that the soul lives some time after death, and is not resolved into the world-soul till the general conflagration. But even this is a variation from the ordinary view of the Stoics. According to Seneca (Consol. ad Marciam) the souls of the good, as in the doctrine of purgatory, undergo a purification, before they are admitted to the ranks of the blessed; and here this purification is no doubt required on physical grounds. When the soul is purified, both in substance and morals, it rises up to the ether, and there, according to M. Aurelius, united to the σπερματικὸς λόγος τῶν ὅλων, it lives, according to the common view, until the end of the world. The ether is also allotted to the blessed, for their residence, by Cic. Tusc. i. 18, 42; Lactant. Inst. vii. 20; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi. 31, 2, p. 1107. The souls, as Cicero remarks, penetrating the thick lower air, mount to heaven, until they reach an atmosphere (the juncti ex anima tenui et ardore solis temperato ignes) congenial with their own nature. Here they naturally stop, and are fed by the same elements as the stars. According to Chrysippus (in Eustath. on Il. xxiii. 65), they there assume the spherical shape of the stars. According to Tertull. De An. 54, conf. Lucan. Phars. ix. 5, their place is under the moon. Zeno, in speaking of the islands of the blest (Lact. Inst. vii. 7, 20), probably only desired to enlist popular opinion in his own favour. The souls of the foolish and bad also last some time after death; only, as being weaker, they do not last until the end of the world (Ar. Did.; Theodoret. Cur. Gr. Affec. v. 23, p. 73); and meantime, as it is distinctly asserted by Sen. Ep. 117, 6, Tertullian, and Lactantius, they are punished in the nether world. Tertullian in placing a portion of the souls of the foolish in the region of the earth, and there allowing them to be instructed by the wise, is probably referring to the purification mentioned by Seneca. For the supposed transmigration of souls see p. 166, 2.

[510] The peculiar notion mentioned by Seneca (Ep. 57, 7) as belonging to the Stoics—animam hominis magno pondere extriti permanere non posse et statim spargi, quia non fuerit illi exitus liber—was not required by their principles, as Seneca already observed. It belongs, in fact, only to individual members of that School.

[511] Conf. Baur, Seneca und Paulus, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theol. i. 2, 221.

[512] Ep. 102, 22: Cum venerit dies ille, qui mixtum hoc divini humanique secernat, corpus hic, ubi inveni, relinquam, ipse me Dis reddam ... per has mortalis vitæ moras illi meliori vitæ longiorique proluditur. As a child in its mother’s womb, sic per hoc spatium, quod ab infantia patet in senectutem, in alium maturescimus partum. All we possess, and the body itself, is only the baggage, which we neither brought into the world, nor can carry away with us. Dies iste, quem tanquam extremum reformidas, æterni natalis est. Ep. 120, 14: The body is breve hospitium, which a noble soul does not fear to lose. Scit enim, quo exiturus sit, qui, unde venerit, meminit. Conf. Ep. 65, 16.

[513] Consol. ad Marc. 24, 3: Imago dumtaxat filii tui periit ... ipse quidem æternus meliorisque nunc status est, despoliatus oneribus alienis et sibi relictus. The body is only a vessel, enveloping the soul in darkness: nititur illo, unde dimissus est; ibi illum æterna requies manet. Ibid. 26, 7: Nos quoque felices animæ et æterna sortitæ. Ibid. 19, 6: Excessit filius tuus terminos intra quos servitur: excepit illum magna et æterna pax. No fear or care, no desire, envy, or compassion disturbs him. Ibid. 26, 5. Consol. ad Polyb. 9, 3, 8: Nunc animus fratris mei velut ex diutino carcere emissus, tandem sui juris et arbitrii, gestit et rerum naturæ spectaculo fruitur ... fruitur nunc aperto et libero cœlo ... et nunc illic libere vagatur omniaque rerum naturæ bona cum summa voluptate perspicit. Ep. 79, 12: Tunc animus noster habebit, quod gratuletur sibi, cum emissus his tenebris ... totum diem admiserit, et cœlo redditus suo fuerit. Ep. 102, 28: Aliquando naturæ tibi arcana retegentur, discutietur ista caligo et lax undique clara percutiet, which Seneca then further expands.

[514] In Consol. ad Marc. 26, 1, Seneca describes how, the time of purification ended, the deceased one inter felices currit animas (the addition: excepit illum cœtus sacer Hanse rightly treats as a gloss) and how his grandfather shows him the hall of heaven. Ibid. 26, 3.

[515] Ep. 26, 4: Velut adpropinquet experimentum et ille laturus sententiam de omnibus annis meis dies ... quo, remotis strophis ac fucis, de me judicaturus sum. Compare the hora decretoria, Ep. 102, 24.

[516] Ep. 102, 29: Hæc cogitatio (that of heaven and a future life) nihil sordidum animo subsidere sinit, nihil humile, nihil crudele. Deos rerum omnium esse testes ait: illis nos adprobari, illis in futurum parari jubet et æternitatem menti proponere.

[517] Ep. 36, 10: Mors ... intermittit vitam, non eripit: veniet iterum qui nos in lucem reponat dies, quem multi recusarent, nisi oblitos reduceret. Sed postea diligentius docebo omnia, quæ videntur perire, mutari. Æquo animo debet rediturus exire. The souls cannot return, according to the Stoic teaching, until after the general conflagration, presuming that the same persons will be found in the future world as in the present. See p. 166, 2. As long as the world lasts, the better souls will continue to exist, and only the particles of the body are employed for fresh bodies. Accordingly, the passage just quoted, and also Ep. 71, 13, must refer to the physical side of death, or else to the return of personality after the conflagration of the world.

[518] Besides the definitions of αἴσθησις in Diog. 52, and the remark that impressions are made on the organs of sense, but that the seat of feeling is in the ἡγεμονικόν (Plut. Plac. iv. 23, 1), the following statements may be mentioned: In the process of seeing, the ὁρατικὸν πνεῦμα, coming into the eyes from the ἡγεμονικόν, gives a spherical form to the air before the eye, by virtue of its τονικὴ κίνησις (on τόνος, see p. 128, 2), and, by means of the sphere of air, comes in contact with things; and since by this process rays of light emanate from the eye, darkness must be visible. Diog. 158; Alex. Aph. De Anim. 149; Plut. Plac. iv. 15. The process of hearing is due to the spherical undulations of the air, which communicate their motion to the ear. Diog. 158; Plut. Plac. iv. 19, 5. On the voice, called also φωνᾶεν, see Plut. Plac. iv. 20, 2; 21, 4; Diog. 55, and above p. 214, 2; 74, 6. Disease is caused by changes in the πνεῦμα, Diog. 158; sleep ἐκλυομένου τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ τόνου περὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, Diog. 158; Tertull. De An. 43; and in a similar way, death ἐκλυομένου τοῦ τόνου καὶ παριεμένου Iambl. (in Stob. Ecl. i. 922), who, however, does not mention the Stoics by name. In the case of man, the extinguishing of the power of life is only a liberation of rational souls.

[519] Page 77.

[520] The chief passage in Diog. vii. 84, is as follows: τὸ δὲ ἠθικὸν μέρος τῆς φιλοσοφίας διαιροῦσιν εἴς τε τὸν περὶ ὁρμῆς καὶ εἰς τὸν περὶ ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν τόπον καὶ τὸν περὶ παθῶν καὶ περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ περὶ τέλους περί τε τῆς πρώτης ἀξίας καὶ τῶν πράξεων καὶ περὶ τῶν καθηκόντων προτροπῶν τε καὶ ἀποτροπῶν. καὶ οὕτω δ’ ὑποδιαιροῦσιν οἱ περὶ Χρύσιππον καὶ Ἀρχέδημον καὶ Ζήνωνα τὸν Ταρσέα καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρον καὶ Διογένην καὶ Ἀντίπατρον καὶ Ποσειδώνιον· ὁ μὲν γὰρ Κιττιεὺς Ζήνων καὶ ὁ Κλεάνθης ὡς ἂν ἀρχαιότεροι ἀφελέστερον περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων διέλαβον. There may be doubts as to the punctuation, and, consequently, as to the sense, of the first sentence; but the form of expression seems to imply that the five first portions contain main divisions, and the six following subdivisions. The ethics of Chrysippus and his followers would therefore fall into the following main divisions: περὶ ὁρμῆς, περὶ ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν, περὶ παθῶν; but it would be hard to assign to these divisions their respective subdivisions. The statement of Epictetus, Diss. iii. 2, agrees in part with this division. He distinguishes in his introduction to virtue three τόποι: ὁ περὶ τὰς ὀρέξεις καὶ τὰς ἐκκλίσεις, called also ὁ περὶ τὰ πάθη; ὁ περὶ τὰς ὁρμὰς καὶ ἀφορμὰς καὶ ἁπλῶς ὁ περὶ τὸ καθῆκον; and, lastly, ὁ περὶ τὴν ἀνεξαπατησίαν καὶ ἀνεικαιότητα καὶ ὅλως ὁ περὶ τὰς συγκαταθέσεις. The first of these divisions would correspond with the third of Diogenes, the second with his first; but the division περὶ ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν does not harmonise with the third of Epictetus (which, according to what follows, rather refers to the critical confirmation of moral principles not specially mentioned by Diogenes), but rather with his first division treating of ὀρέξεις and ἐκκλίσεις. Stobæus again differs from either. In his survey of the Stoic ethics (Ecl. ii. c. 5), he first, p. 90, treats of what is good, evil, and indifferent, of what is desirable and detestable, of the end-in-chief, and of happiness, in this section discussing at length the doctrine of virtue. He then goes on, p. 158, to consider the καθῆκον, the impulses, p. 166, and the emotions (πάθη, as being one kind of impulse), appending thereto, p. 186, a discussion on friendship; and concluding, p. 192 to 242, with a long treatise on ἐνεργήματα (κατορθώματα, ἁμαρτήματα, οὐδέτερα), the greater portion of which is devoted to describing the wise man and the fool. Turning to Sen. Ep. 95, 65, it is stated, on the authority of Posidonius, that not only præceptio, but also suasio, consolatio, and exhortatio, and, moreover, causarum inquisitio (which, however, can hardly have been called etymologia by Posidonius, as Hanse reads but ætiologia) and ethologia, description of moral states, are necessary. In Ep. 89, 14, the parts of moral science are more accurately given as three; the first determining the value of things, the second treating de actionibus, the third de impetu, περὶ ὁρμῆς. Two of these parts coincide indeed with those of Diogenes, but this is not the case with the third, which is only one of the subdivisions in Diogenes (περὶ τῶν πράξεων); and even Seneca’s first part more nearly agrees with one of these (περὶ τῆς πρώτης ἀξίας). Unfortunately, Seneca does not mention his authorities; and, accordingly, we are not sure whether his division is a genuine Stoic division. A similar division will be subsequently met with in the eclectic Academician Eudorus (living under Augustus). None of the divisions quoted agree with the three problems proposed by Cic. Off. ii. 5, 18, or the three sections enumerated by Epict. Enchir. c. 51 (76), in which Petersen (Phil. Chrys. Fund. p. 260) recognises Seneca’s three main divisions of Ethics. In the midst of such contending authorities, it seems impossible to establish the main division of the Stoic Ethics. One thing alone is clear, that they were themselves not agreed on the subject. Petersen’s attempt, l.c. p. 258, appears to me a failure.

[521] Stob. Ecl. ii. 138: τέλος δέ φασιν εἶναι τὸ εὐδαιμονεῖν, οὗ ἕνεκα πάντα πράττεται, αὐτὸ δὲ πράττεται μὲν, οὐδενὸς δὲ ἕνεκα.

[522] Diog. vii. 85; Cic. Fin. iii. 5; Gell. N. A. xii. 5, 7. That the two latter writers follow one and the same authority appears partly from their literal agreement with each other, and partly from their adopting a uniform method in refuting the Epicurean statement, that the desire for pleasure is the primary impulse. That authority is probably the treatise of Chrysippus περὶ τέλους, since it is distinctly referred to by Diogenes. Plut. Sto. Rep. 12, 4, quotes from it: ὡς οἰκειούμεθα πρὸς αὑτοὺς εὐθὺς γενόμενοι καὶ τὰ μέρη καὶ τὰ ἔκγονα ἑαυτῶν. The difference mentioned by Alex. Aphr. De An. 154—that at one time self-love, at another the preservation of one’s own nature, is the impulse—is unimportant.

[523] Diog. vii 85: τὴν δὲ πρώτην ὁρμήν φασι τὸ ζῷον ἴσχειν ἐπὶ τὸ τηρεῖν ἑαυτὸ, οἰκειούσης αὑτῶ [αὑτῷ] τῆς φύσεως ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, καθά φησιν ὁ Χρύσιππος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ τελῶν, πρῶτον οἰκεῖον εἶναι λέγων παντὶ ζῴῳ τὴν αὑτοῦ σύστασιν καὶ τὴν ταύτης συνείδησιν. οὔτε γὰρ ἀλλοτριῶσαι εἰκὸς ἦν αὐτοῦ [Cobet incorrectly αὐτὸ] τὸ ζῷον, οὔτε ποιῆσαι ἂν [l. ποιήσασαν sc. τὴν φύσιν] αὐτὸ μήτ’ ἀλλοτριῶσαι μήτ’ οὐκ [must evidently be struck out] οἰκειῶσαι. ἀπολείπεται τοίνυν λέγειν συστησαμένην αὐτὸ οἰκείως πρὸς ἑαυτό· οὕτω γὰρ τά τε βλάπτοντα διωθεῖται καὶ τὰ οἰκεῖα προσίεται. Similarly, Cic. l.c. 5, 16. Antisthenes had already reduced the conception of the good to that of οἰκεῖον, without the fuller explanation. Here the Academic theory of life according to nature, which had been enunciated by Polemo, Zeno’s teacher, is combined therewith. Some difficulty was nevertheless caused by the question whether all living creatures possess a consciousness (συνείδησις, sensus) of their own nature; without such a consciousness, natural self-love seemed to the Stoics impossible. They thought, however, that this question (according to Sen. Ep. 121, 5, conf. Cic. l.c.) could be answered in the affirmative without hesitation, and appealed for evidence to the instinctive activities by which children and animals govern their bodily motions, guard themselves from dangers, and pursue what is to their interest, without denying that the ideas which children and animals have of themselves are very indistinct, that they only know their own constitution, but not its true conception (constitutionis finitio, Sen. p. 11). Constitutio, or σύστασις, was defined by the Stoics, Sen., p. 10. as principale animi quodam modo se habens erga corpus.

[524] Cic. Fin. iii. 5, 17; 6, 20.

[525] The terms are here treated as synonymous, without regard to the hair-splitting with which the Stoics distinguished (Stob. Ecl. ii. 136) three meanings of τέλος, between τέλος and σκοπός.

[526] Stob. ii. 134 and 138; Diog. vii. 88; 94; Plut. C. Not. 27, 9; Cic. Fin. iii. 7, 26; 10, 33; Sen. V. Beat. 3, 3; conf. Ep. 118, 8; Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 171; Math. xi. 30. In Stob. ii. 78 and 96, formal definitions are given of ἀγαθὸν, τέλος, and εὐδαιμονία. The latter is generally paraphrased by εὔροια βίου, as Zeno had defined it. Various formulæ for the conception of a life according to nature are given by Cleanthes, Antipater, Archedemus, Diogenes, Panætius, Posidonius, and others in Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 416; Stob. 134; and Diog., all apparently taken from the same source.

[527] Diog. vii. 88: διόπερ τέλος γίνεται τὸ ἀκολούθως τῇ φύσει ζῇν· ὅπερ ἐστὶ κατά τε τὴν αὑτοῦ καὶ κατὰ τὴν τῶν ὅλων, οὐδὲν ἐνεργοῦντας ὧν ἀπαγορεύειν εἴωθεν ὁ νόμος ὁ κοινὸς ὅσπερ ἐστὶν ὁ ὀρθὸς λόγος διὰ πάντων ἐρχόμενος ὁ αὐτὸς ὢν τῷ Διΐ ... εἶναι δ’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὴν τοῦ εὐδαίμονος ἀρετὴν καὶ εὔροιαν βίου, ὅταν πάντα πράττηται κατὰ τὴν συμφωνίαν τοῦ παρ’ ἑκάστῳ δαίμονος πρὸς τὴν τοῦ τῶν ὅλων διοικητοῦ βούλησιν.

[528] Stob. ii. 160 (conf. 158): διττῶς θεωρεῖσθαι τήν τε ἐν τοῖς λογικοῖς γιγνομένην ὁρμὴν καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς ἀλόγοις ζῷοις. Diog. 86: Plants are moved by nature without impulse, animals by means of impulse. In the case of animals, therefore, τὸ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν is the same as τὸ κατὰ τὴν ὁρμήν. In rational creatures, reason controls impulse; and accordance with nature means accordance with reason. In Galen. Hippoc. et Plat. v. 2, p. 460, Chrysippus says: ἡμᾶς οἰκειοῦσθαι πρὸς μόνον τὸ καλόν. M. Aurel. vii. 11: τῷ λογικῷ ζῴῳ ἡ αὐτὴ πρᾶξις κατὰ φύσιν ἐστὶ καὶ κατὰ λόγον. Hence the definition of a virtuous life, or a life according to nature: ζῇν κατ’ ἐμπειρίαν τῶν φύσει συμβαινόντων (Chrysippus, in Stob. 134; Diog. 87; Clem. l.c.; also Diogenes, Antipater, Archedemus, Posidonius); and that of the good: τὸ τέλειον κατὰ φύσιν λογικοῦ ὡς λογικοῦ (Diog. 94).

[529] Sen. Ep. 121, 14: Omne animal primum constitutioni suæ conciliari: hominis autem constitutionem rationalem esse: et ideo conciliari hominem sibi non tanquam animali sed tanquam rationali. Ea enim parte sibi carus est homo, qua homo est. Id. Ep. 92, 1: The body is subservient to the soul, and the irrational part of the soul to the rational part. Hence it follows: In hoc uno positam esse beatam vitam. ut in nobis ratio perfecta sit. Similarly. Ep. 76, 8. M. Aurel. vi. 44: συμφέρει δὲ ἑκάστῳ τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ κατασκευὴν καὶ φύσιν· ἡ δὲ ἐμὴ φύσις λογικὴ καὶ πολιτική. Conf. viii. 7 and 12.

[530] According to Stob. ii. 132, Diog. vii. 89, the ancient Stoics were not altogether agreed as to the terms in which they would express their theory. Zeno, for instance, is said by Stobæus to have defined τέλος = ὁμολογουμένως ζῇν; Cleanthes first added the words τῇ φύσει, and Chrysippus and his followers augmented the formula by several additions. Diog. 87 attributes the words τῇ φύσει to Zeno, adding, however, 89, that Chrysippus understood by φύσις, τήν τε κοινὴν καὶ ἰδίως τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην, whereas Cleanthes understood τὴν κοίνην μόνην οὐκέτι δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ μέρους. These differences are, however, not important. The simple expression ὁμολογουμένως ζῇν means, without doubt, ἀκόλουθον ἐν βίῳ, the ζῇν καθ’ ἕνα λόγον καὶ σύμφωνον (Stob. ii. 132 and 158), the ὁμολογία παντὸς τοῦ βίου (Diog. vii. 89), the vita sibi concors, the concordia animi (Sen. Ep. 89, 15; V. Be. 8, 6), the unum hominem agere, which, according to Sen. Ep. 120, 22, is only found in a wise man—in a word, the even tenour of life and consistency. Nevertheless, this consistency is only possible when individual actions accord with the requirements of the character of the agent. Accordingly, Stob. ii. 158, places ἀκολούθως τῇ ἑαυτῶν φύσει by the side of ἀκόλουθον ἐν βίῳ. Cleanthes, therefore, in adding to the expression ὁμολογουμένως the words τῇ φύσει, which, however, according to Diog. 87, Zeno had done before him, was only going back to the next condition of ὁμολογουμένως ζῇν. We can, however, hardly believe with Diogenes that Cleanthes understood by φύσις only nature in general, but not human nature. He may have alluded in express terms to κοινὴ φύσις or κοινὸς νόμος only, with the praise of which his well-known hymn ends, but it cannot have been his intention to exclude human nature, which is only a particular form of nature in general. Chrysippus therefore only expanded, but did not contradict, the teaching of his master.

[531] Diog. vii. 30; 94; 101; Stob. ii. 200; 138; Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 169; Math. xi. 184; Cic. Tusc. ii. 25, 61; Fin. iv. 16, 45; Acad. i. 10; Parad. 1; Sen. Benef. vii. 2, 1; Ep. 71, 4; 74, 1; 76, 11; 85, 17; 120, 3; 118, 10, where the relation of the conceptions honestum bonum, secundum naturam is specially considered. To prove their position, the Stoics make use of the chain-argument, of which they are generally fond. Thus Chrysippus (in Plut. Sto. Rep. 13, 11): τὸ ἀγαθὸν αἱρετόν· τὸ δ’ αἱρετὸν ἀρεστόν· τὸ δ’ ἀρεστὸν ἐπαινετόν· τὸ δ’ ἐπαινετὸν καλόν. (The same in Cic. Fin. iii. 8, 27, and iv. 18, 50, where I would suggest the reading validius instead of vitiosius.). Again: τὸ ἀγαθὸν χαρτόν· τὸ δὲ χαρτὸν σεμνόν· τὸ δὲ σεμνὸν καλόν (The same somewhat expanded in Cic. Tusc. v. 15, 43.) Stob. ii. 126: πᾶν ἀγαθὸν αἱρετὸν εἶναι, ἀρεστὸν γὰρ καὶ δοκιμαστὸν καὶ ἐπαινετὸν ὑπάρχειν· πᾶν δὲ κακὸν φευκτὸν. Another sorites of the same kind in Sen. Ep. 85, 2.

[532] Stob. ii. 78; 94; Diog. vii. 94 and 98; Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 169; Math. xi. 22, 25, and 30. According to Cic. Fin. iii. 10, 33, Diogenes reconciled this definition with the definition of the good and the perfect quoted on p. 227, 4, by observing that the useful is a motus aut status natura absoluti.

[533] Sext. l.c. Stob. ii. 188: μηδένα φαῦλον μήτε ὠφελεῖσθαι μήτε ὠφελεῖν. εἶναι γὰρ τὸ ὠφελεῖν ἴσχειν κατ’ ἀρετὴν, καὶ τὸ ὠφελεῖσθαι κινεῖσθαι κατ’ ἀρετήν. Ibid. ii. 202; Plut. Sto. Rep. 12; Com. Not. 20, 1; Cic. Off. ii. 3, 10; iii. 3, 11; 7, 34.

[534] M. Aurel. ix. 16.

[535] See Diog. 94; Stob. ii. 96; 124; 130; 136; Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 169; Math. xi. 22; Cic. Fin. iii. 16, 55; Sen. Ep. 66, 5. Good is here defined to be either ὠφέλεια or οὐκ ἕτερον ὠφελείας (inseparably connected with ὠφέλεια, the good in itself, just as the virtuous man is connected with virtue, which is a part of himself. See Sextus l.c. and above p. 104, 2), or, what is the same thing, ἀρετὴ ἢ τὸ μετέχον ἀρετῆς. (Sext. Math. xi. 184.) A distinction is drawn between three kinds of good: τὸ ὑφ’ οὗ ἢ ἀφ’ οὗ ἔστιν ὠφελεῖσθαι, τὸ καθ’ ὃ συμβαίνει ὠφελεῖσθαι, τὸ οἷόν τε ὠφελεῖν. Under the first head comes virtue, under the second virtuous actions, under the third, besides the two others, virtuous subjects—men, Gods, and demons. A second division of goods (Diog., Sext. iii. 181, Stob.) is into goods of the soul, external goods, the possession of virtuous friends and a virtuous country, and such as are neither (τὸ αὐτὸν ἑαυτῷ εἶναι σπουδαῖον καὶ εὐδαίμονα, virtue and happiness considered as the relation of the individual to himself, as his own possessions). Goods of the soul are then divided into διαθέσεις (virtues), ἕξεις (or ἐπιτηδεύματα, as instances of which Stob. ii. 100, 128, quotes μαντικὴ and φιλογεωμετρία, &c.; these are not so unchangeable as peculiarities of character, and are therefore only ἕξεις, p. 103, 1), and those which are neither ἕξεις nor διαθέσεις—actions themselves. A third division of goods (Diog., Cic. l.c., Stob. 80, 100, 114) distinguishes τελικὰ or δι’ αὑτὰ αἱρετὰ (moral actions), ποιητικὰ (friends and the services they render), τελικὰ and ποιητικὰ (virtues themselves); fourthly and fifthly, μικτὰ (as εὐτεκνία and εὐγηρία), and ἁπλᾶ or ἄμικτα (such as science), and the ἀεὶ παρόντα (virtues), and οὐκ ἀεὶ παρόντα (οἷον χαρὰ, περιπάτησις). The corresponding divisions of evil are given by Diogenes and Stobæus. The latter (ii. 126 and 136) enumerates, in addition, the ἀγαθὰ ἐν κινήσει (χαρὰ, &c.) and ἐν σχέσει (εὔτακτος ἡσυχία, &c.), the latter being partially ἐν ἕξει; the ἀγαθὰ καθ’ ἑαυτὰ (virtues) and πρὸς τί πως ἔχοντα (honour, benevolence, friendship); the goods which are necessary for happiness (virtues), and those which are not necessary (χαρὰ, ἐπιτηδεύματα). Seneca’s list is far more limited, although it professes to be more general. He mentions, prima bona, tanquam gaudium, pax, salus patriæ; secunda, in materia infelici expressa, tanquam tormentorum patientia; tertia, tanquam modestus incessus.

[536] Cic. Fin. iii. 10, 33: Ego assentior Diogeni, qui bonum definierit id quod esset natura absolutum [αὐτοτελὲς] ... hoc autem ipsum bonum non accessione neque crescendo aut cum ceteris comparando sed propria vi et sentimus et appellamus bonum. Ut enim mel, etsi dulcissimum est, suo tamen proprio genere saporis, non comparatione cum aliis, dulce esse sentitur, sic bonum hoc de quo agimus est illud quidem plurimi æstimandum, sed ea æstimatio genere valet non magnitudine, &c.

[537] Sen. Benef. vii. 2, 1: Nec malum esse ullum nisi turpe, nec bonum nisi honestum. Alex. Aph. De Fat. c. 28, p. 88: ἡ μὲν ἀρετή τε καὶ ἡ κακία μόναι κατ’ αὐτοὺς ἡ μὲν ἀγαθὸν ἡ δὲ κακόν. See p. 229; 233, 1.

[538] Sext. Math. xi. 61, after giving two irrelevant definitions of ἀδιάφορον: κατὰ τρίτον δὲ καὶ τελευταῖον τρόπον φασὶν ἀδιάφορον τὸ μήτε πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν μήτε πρὸς κακοδαιμονίαν συλλαμβανόμενον. To this category belong external goods, health, &c. ᾧ γὰρ ἔστιν εὖ καὶ κακῶς χρῆσθαι, τοῦτ’ ἂν εἴη ἀδιάφορον· διὰ παντὸς δ’ ἀρετῇ μὲν κακῶς, κακίᾳ δὲ κακῶς, ὑγιείᾳ δὲ καὶ τοῖς περὶ σώματι ποτὲ μὲν εὖ ποτὲ δὲ κακῶς ἔστι χρῆσθαι. Similarly, Pyrrh. iii. 177, and Diog. 102, who defines οὐδέτερα as ὅσα μήτ’ ὠφελεῖ μήτε βλάπτει. Stob. ii. 142: ἀδιάφορον = τὸ μήτε ἀγαθὸν μήτε κακὸν, καὶ τὸ μήτε αἱρετὸν μήτε φευκτόν. Plut. Sto. Rep. 31, 1: ᾧ γὰρ ἔστιν εὖ χρήσασθαι καὶ κακῶς τοῦτό φασι μήτ’ ἀγαθὸν εἶναι μήτε κακόν.

[539] Zeno (in Sen. Ep. 82, 9) proves this of death by a process of reasoning, the accuracy of which he appears to have mistrusted: Nullum malum gloriosum est: mors autem gloriosa est (there is a glorious death): ergo mors non est malum. In general, two considerations are prominent in the Stoic treatment of this subject: that what is according to nature cannot be an evil, and that life taken by itself is not a good. Other arguments, however, for diminishing the fear of death are not despised. See Sen. Ep. 30, 4; 77, 11, 82, 8; Cons. ad. Marc. 19, 3; M. Aurel. ix. 3; viii. 58. And other passages quoted in Baumhauer’s Vet. Philosoph. Doctr. De Morte Voluntaria, p. 211.

[540] Chrysippus (in Plut. Sto. Rep. 15, 4): All virtue is done away with, ἂν ἢ τὴν ἡδονὴν ἢ τὴν ὑγίειαν ἤ τι τῶν ἄλλων, ὃ μὴ καλόν ἐστιν, ἀγαθὸν ἀπολίπωμεν. Id. (in Plut. C. Not. 5, 2): ἐν τῷ κατ’ ἀρετὴν βιοῦν μόνον ἐστὶ τὸ εὐδαιμόνως, τῶν ἄλλων οὐδὲν ὄντων πρὸς ἡμᾶς οὐδ’ εἰς τοῦτο συνεργούντων. Similarly, Sto. Rep. 17, 2. Sen. Vit. Be. 4, 3: The only good is honestas, the only evil turpitudo, cetera vilis turba rerum, nec detrahens quicquam beatæ vitæ nec adjiciens. Id. Ep. 66, 14: There is no difference between the wise man’s joy and the firmness with which he endures pains, quantum ad ipsas virtutes, plurimum inter illa, in quibus virtus utraque ostenditur ... virtutem materia non mutat. Ep. 71, 21: Bona ista aut mala non efficit materia, sed virtus. Ep. 85, 39: Tu illum [sapientem] premi putas malis? Utitur. Id. Ep. 44; 120, 3; Plut. C. Not. 4, 1; Sto. Rep. 18, 5; 31, 1; Chrysippus, in Ps. Plut. De Nobil. 12, 2; Diog. 102; Stob. ii. 90; Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 181; Alex. Aphr. Top. 43 and 107.

[541] Sext. Math. xi. 61. See above, p. 232, 3. Diog. 103: The good can only do good, and never do harm; οὐ μᾶλλον δ’ ὠφελεῖ ἢ βλάπτει ὁ πλοῦτος καὶ ἡ ὑγίεια· οὐκ ἄρ’ ἀγαθὸν οὔτε πλοῦτος οὔθ’ ὑγίεια. Again: ᾧ ἔστιν εὖ καὶ κακῶς χρῆσθαι, τοῦτ’ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγαθόν· πλούτῳ δὲ καὶ ὑγιείᾳ ἔστιν εὖ καὶ κακῶς χρῆσθαι, κ.τ.λ. In Sen. Ep. 87, 11, instead of the proposition, that nothing is a good except virtue, the following arguments are given as traditional among the Stoics (interrogationes nostrorum), apparently taken from Posidonius (see p. 31, 35, 38): (1) Quod bonum est, bonos facit: fortuita bonum non faciunt: ergo non sunt bona. (Similarly in M. Aurel. ii. 11, iv. 8: Whatever does no moral harm, does no harm to human life.) (2) Quod contemptissimo cuique contingere ac turpissimo potest, bonum non est; opes autem et lenoni et lanistæ contingunt: ergo, &c. (So, too, Marc. Aurelius, v. 10.) (3) Bonum ex malo non fit: divitiæ fiunt, fiunt autem ex avaritia: ergo, &c. (Conf. Alex. Aphr. Top. 107: τὸ διὰ κακοῦ γιγνόμενον οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγαθόν· πλοῦτος δὲ καὶ διὰ πορνοβοσκίας κακοῦ ὄντος γίνεται, κ.τ.λ.) (4) Quod dum consequi volumus in multa mala incidimus, id bonum non est: dum divitias autem consequi volumus, in multa mala incidimus, &c. (5) Quæ neque magnitudinem animo dant nec fiduciam nec securitatem, contra autem insolentiam, tumorem, arrogantiam creant, mala sunt: a fortuitis autem (previously, not only riches but health had been included in this class) in hæc impellimur: ergo non sunt bona. That riches are not a good is proved by Diogenes (in Cic. Fin. iii. 15, 49); that poverty and pain are no evils is proved by the argument, quoted in Sen. Ep. 85, 30: Quod malum est nocet: quod nocet deteriorem facit. Dolor et paupertas deteriorem non faciunt: ergo mala non sunt. The Stoic proposition is also established from a theological point of view. Nature, says M. Aurel. ii. 11, ix. 1, could never have allowed that good and evil should equally fall to the lot of the good and the bad; consequently, what both enjoy equally—life and death, honour and dishonour, pleasure and trouble, riches and poverty—can neither be good nor evil. On the value of fame, see id. iv. 19.

[542] This view is compared with the Academician in Cic. Tusc. v. 13, 39; 18, 51; Sen. Ep. 85, 18; 71, 18; 92, 14. In the last passage, the notion that happiness can be increased by external goods, and is consequently capable of degrees, is refuted by arguments such as 4, 24: Quid potest desiderare is, cui omnia honesta contingunt?... et quid stultius turpiusve, quam bonum rationalis animi ex irrationalibus nectere?... non intenditur virtus, ergo ne beata quidem vita, quæ ex virtute est. Conf. Ep. 72, 7: Cui aliquid accedere potent, id imperfectum est.

[543] Cleanthes expands this notion, in rhetorical language, in Cic. Fin. ii. 21, 69. Conf. Sen. Benef. iv. 2, 2: [Virtus] non est virtus si sequi potest. Primæ partes ejus sunt: ducere debet, imperare, summo loco stare: tu illam jubes signum petere. Id. Vit. Be. 11, 2; 13, 5; 14, 1.

[544] Compare on this subject the words of Chrysippus on p. 233, 1, quoted by Plut. Sto. Rep. 15, and, for their explanation, Sen. Benef. iv. 2, 4: Non indignor, quod post voluptatem ponitur virtus, sed quod omnino cum voluptate conferatur contemptrix ejus et hostis et longissime ab illa resiliens. Id. Vit. Be. 15, 1: Pars honesti non potest esse nisi honestum, nee summum bonum habebit sinceritatem suam, si aliquid in se viderit dissimile meliori. According to Plut. 15, 3; 13, 3, Com. Not. 25, 2, this statement of Chrysippus is at variance with another statement of his, in which he says: If pleasure be declared to be a good, but not the highest good, justice (the Peripatetic view) might perhaps still be safe, since, in comparison with pleasure, it may be regarded as the higher good. Still, this was only a preliminary and tentative concession, which Chrysippus subsequently proved could not be admitted, inasmuch as it was out of harmony with the true conception of the good, and changed the difference in kind (on which see p. 232, 1) between virtue and other things into a simple difference in degree. Plutarch (Sto. Rep. 15, 6), with more reason, blames Chrysippus for asserting against Aristotle that, if pleasure be regarded as the highest good, justice becomes impossible, but not other virtues; for how could a Stoic, of all philosophers, make such a distinction between virtues? Evidently the zeal of controversy has here carried away the philosopher beyond the point at which his own principles would bear him out.

[545] M. Aurel. vi. 15: ὁ μὲν φιλόδοξος ἀλλοτρίαν ἐνέργειαν ἴδιον ἀγαθὸν ὑπολαμβάνει· ὁ δὲ φιλήδονος ἰδίαν πεῖσιν· ὁ δὲ νοῦν ἔχων ἰδίαν πρᾶξιν. Conf. ix. 16: οὐκ ἐν πείσει, ἀλλ’ ἐνεργείᾳ, τὸ τοῦ λογικοῦ πολιτικοῦ ζῴου κακὸν καὶ ἀγαθόν.

[546] Sen. Ep. 92, 6–10; Vit. Beat. 5, 4; 9, 4; Posidonius, in Sen. Ep. 92, 10.

[547] Taking the expression in its strict meaning, it is hardly allowed by the Stoics, when they speak accurately. Understanding by ἡδονὴ an emotion, i.e. something contrary to nature and blameworthy, they assert that the wise man feels delight (χαρὰ, gaudium), but not pleasure (ἡδονὴ, lætitia, voluptas). See Sen. Ep. 59, 2; Diog. 116; Alex. Aphr. Top. 96; the last-named giving definitions of χαρὰ, ἡδονὴ, τέρψις, εὐφροσύνη.

[548] Sen. Ep. 23, 2; 27, 3; 59, 2; 14; 72, 8; Vit. Be. 3, 4; 4, 4; De Ira, ii. 6, 2.

[549] Diog. 94: Virtue is a good; ἐπιγεννήματα δὲ τήν τε χαρὰν καὶ τὴν εὐφροσύνην καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια. Sen. Benef. iv. 2, 3: It is a question utrum virtus summi boni causa sit, an ipsa summum bonum. Seneca, of course, says the latter. Conf. De Vit. Be. 4, 5: The wise man takes pleasure in peace of mind and cheerfulness, non ut bonis, sed ut ex bono suo ortis. Ibid. 9, 1: Non, si voluptatem præstatura virtus est, ideo propter hanc petitur ... voluptas non est merces nec causa virtutis, sed accessio, nec quia delectat placet, sed si placet et delectat. The highest good consists only in mental perfection and health, in ipso judicio et habitu optimæ mentis, in the sanitas et libertas animi, which desires nothing but virtue; ipsa pretium sui. Ibid. 15, 2: Ne gaudium quidem, quod ex virtute oritur, quamvis bonum sit, absoluti tamen boni pars est, non magis quam lætitia et tranquillitas ... sunt enim ista bona, sed consequentia summum bonum, non consummantia. Here, too, belongs the statement in Stob. ii. 184, 188 (conf. M. Aurel. vii. 74): πάντα τὸν ὁντινοῦν ὠφελοῦντα ἴσην ὠφέλειαν ἀπολαμβάνειν παρ’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, for the reasons stated, p. 230, 1.

[550] Sen. Vit. Be. c. 7 and 10–12; M. Aurel. viii. 10. Among the Stoic arguments against identifying pleasure and pain with good and evil, may be placed the inference in Clem. Strom. iv. 483, C, which bears great similarity to the third argument, quoted on p. 233, 2: If thirst be painful, and it be pleasant to quench thirst, thirst must be the cause of this pleasure: ἀγαθοῦ δὲ ποιητικὸν τὸ κακὸν οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο, κ.τ.λ.

[551] Diog. 85: ὃ δὲ λέγουσί τινες, πρὸς ἡδονὴν γίγνεσθαι τὴν πρώτην ὁρμὴν τοῖς ζῷοις, ψεῦδος ἀποφαίνουσιν. ἐπιγέννημα γάρ φασιν, εἰ ἄρα ἐστὶν, ἡδονὴν εἶναι, ὅταν αὐτὴ καθ’ αὑτὴν ἡ φύσις ἐπιζητήσασα τὰ ἐναρμόζοντα τῇ συστάσει ἀπολάβη.

[552] Taking pleasure in its widest sense. In its more restricted sense, they reject ἡδονή, understanding thereby a particular emotion. See p. 236. 2.

[553] Sext. Math. xi. 73: τὴν ἡδονὴν ὁ μὲν Ἐπίκουρος ἀγαθὸν εἶναί φησιν· ὁ δὲ εἰπὼν ‘μανείην μᾶλλον ἢ ἡσθείην’ (Antisthenes) κακόν· οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἀδιάφορον καὶ οὐ προηγμένον. ἀλλὰ Κλεάνθης μὲν μήτε κατὰ φύσιν αὐτὴν εἶναι μήτε ἀξίαν ἔχειν αὐτὴν ἐν τῷ βίῳ, καθάπερ δὲ τὸ κάλλυντρον κατὰ φύσιν μὴ εἶναι· ὁ δὲ Ἀρχέδημος κατὰ φύσιν μὲν εἶναι ὡς τὰς ἐν μασχάλῃ τρίχας, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ ἀξίαν ἔχειν. Παναίτιος δὲ τινὰ μὲν κατὰ φύσιν ὑπάρχειν τινὰ δὲ παρὰ φύσιν.

[554] Accordingly, it is also defined to be τέχνη εὐδαιμονίας ποιητική. Alex. Aphr. De An. 156, b.

[555] Diog. 89: τήν τ’ ἀρετὴν διάθεσιν εἶναι ὁμολογουμένην καὶ αὐτὴν δι’ αὑτὴν εἶναι αἱρετὴν, οὐ διά τινα φόβον ἢ ἐλπίδα ἤ τι τῶν ἔξωθεν· ἐν αὐτῇ τ’ εἶναι τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν, ἅτ’ οὔσῃ [-ης] ψύχῃ [-ης] πεποιημένῃ [-ης] πρὸς ὁμολογίαν παντὸς τοῦ βίου. Sen. De Clem. i. 1, 1: Quamvis enim recte factorum verus fructus sit fecisse, nec ullum virtutum pretium dignum illis extra ipsas sit. Id. Ep. 81, 19. Ep. 94, 19: Æquitatem per se expetendam nec metu nos ad illam cogi nec mercede conduci. Non esse justum cui quicquam in hac virtute placet præter ipsam. Id. Ep. 87, 24: Maximum scelerum supplicium in ipsis est. Benef. iv 12: Quid reddat beneficium? dic tu mihi, quid reddat justitia, &c.; si quicquam præter ipsas, ipsas non expetis. M. Aurel. ix. 42: τί γὰρ πλέον θέλεις εὖ πριήσας ἄνθρωπον; οὐκ ἀρκῇ τούτῳ, ὅτι κατὰ φύσιν τὴν σήν τι ἔπραξας, ἀλλὰ τούτου μισθὸν ζητεῖς; When man does good, πεποίηκε πρὸς ὃ κατεσκεύασται καὶ ἔχει τὸ ἑαυτοῦ. Id. vii. 73; viii. 2. See pp. 230, 1; 236, 4.

[556] Diog. vii. 127: αὐτάρκη εἶναι τὴν ἀρετὴν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν. Cic. Parad. 2; Sen. Ep. 74, 1: Qui omne bonum honesto circumscripsit, intra se felix est. This αὐτάρκεια is even asserted of individual virtues, by virtue of the connection between them all. Of φρόνησις, for instance, in Sen. Ep. 85, 2. it is said: Qui prudens est, et temperans est. Qui temperans, est et constans. Qui constans est, imperturbatus est. Qui imperturbatus est, sine tristitia est. Qui sine tristitia est, beatus est. Ergo prudens est beatus, et prudentia ad vitam beatam satis est. Similarly in respect of bravery (ibid. 24). This αὐτάρκεια of virtue was naturally a chief point of attack for an opponent. It is assailed by Alex. Aphr. De An. 156, on the ground that neither the things which the Stoics declare to be natural and desirable (προηγμένα), nor, on the other hand, the natural conditions of virtuous action, can be without effect on happiness, and that it will not do to speak of the latter as only negative conditions (ὧν οὐκ ἄνευ). See Plut. C. Not. 4, and 11, 1.

[557] Plut. Sto. Rep. 26; C. Not. 8, 4, where Chrysippus is charged with at one time denying that happiness is augmented by length of time, and at another declaring momentary wisdom and happiness to be worthless. Cic. Fin. iii. 14, 45; Sen. Ep. 74, 27; 93, 6; Benef. v. 17, 6; M. Aurel. xii. 35. The Stoics are, on this point, at variance with Aristotle.

[558] This view is frequently expressed by the Stoics of the Roman period, Seneca, Epictetus, and M. Aurelius. Proofs will be found subsequently.

[559] Tusc. v. 15, 43; 14, 42.

[560] Parad. 2.

[561] De Const. 13, 5; 75, 18: Expectant nos, si ex hac aliquando fæce in illud evadimus sublime et excelsum, tranquillitas animi et expulsis erroribus absoluta libertas. Quæris, quæ sit ista? Non homines timere, non Deos. Nec turpia velle nec nimia. In se ipsum habere maximam potestatem: inæstimabile bonum est, suum fieri.

[562] Ep. 29, 12: Quid ergo ... philosophia præstabit? Scilicet ut malis tibi placere, quam populo, ... ut sine metu Deorum hominumque vivas, ut aut vincas mala aut finias.

[563] See Krische, Forschungen, 368 and 475.

[564] See p. 148, 2.

[565] νόμος, according to the Stoic definition (Stob. Ecl. ii. 190, 204; Floril. 44, 12, and in the fragment of Chrysippus quoted by Marcian in Digest. i. 3, 2, and the Scholiast of Hermogenes in Spengel Συναγ. τεχν. 177, Krische, Forsch. 475) = λόγος ὀρθὸς προστακτικὸς μὲν τῶν ποιητέων, ἀπαγορευτικὸς δὲ τῶν οὐ ποιητέων. It is therefore σπουδαῖόν τι or ἀστεῖον, something of moral value, imposing duties on man. The ultimate source of this λόγος must be looked for in the λόγος κοινὸς, the divine or world reason. The general law is, according to Diog. vii. 88 (who here, according to the passage quoted from Cic. N. D. i. 15, 40 on p. 148, 2, is apparently following Chrysippus) = ὁ ὀρθὸς λόγος διὰ πάντων ἐρχόμενος, ὁ αὐτὸς ὦν τῷ Διΐ. It is the ratio summa insita in natura, quæ jubet ea quæ facienda sunt, prohibetque contraria (Cic. Legg. i. 6, 18, conf. the quotation from Cic. N. D. i. 14, 30, respecting Zeus, on p. 150). According to Cic. Legg. ii. 4, 8 and 10, it is no human creation sed æternum quiddam, quod universum mundum regeret, imperandi prohibendique sapientia, the mens omnia ratione aut cogentis aut vetantis Dei, the ratio recta summi Jovis (conf. Fin. iv. 5, II, in the fragment in Lact. Inst. v. 8). It is accordingly, as Chrysippus l.c. says in the words of Pindar (Plato, Gorg. 484, B), πάντων βασιλεὺς θείων τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων πραγμάτων.

[566] Cic. Legg. i. 6, 18; ii. 4, 8; 5, 11.

[567] Or as Stob. ii. 184, expresses it, δίκαιον is φύσει καὶ μὴ θέσει.

[568] This is proved by Cic. Legg. i. 12, 33, in a chain-argument clearly borrowed from the Stoics: Quibus ratio a natura data est, iisdem etiam recta ratio data est. Ergo et lex, quæ est recta ratio in jubendo et vetando. Si lex, jus quoque. At omnibus ratio. Jus igitur datum est omnibus. Upon this conception of law is based the Stoic definition of κατόρθωμα as εὐνόμημα, that of ἁμάρτημα as ἀνόμημα.

[569] The good alone, or virtue, is αἱρετόν; evil is φευκτόν. See p. 229, 1; 238, 3, and Stob. Ecl. ii. 202. αἱρετὸν is, however, Ibid. 126, 132, ὃ αἵρεσιν εὔλογον κινεῖ, or, more accurately, τὸ ὁρμῆς αὐτοτελοῦς κινητικόν; and αἱρετὸν is accordingly distinguished from ληπτόν—αἱρετὸν being what is morally good, ληπτὸν being everything which has value, including external goods. The Stoics make a further distinction (according to Stob. ii. 140 and 194) with unnecessary subtlety between αἱρετὸν and αἱρετέον, and similarly between ὀρεκτὸν and ὀρεκτέον, ὑπομενετὸν and ὑπομενετέον, using the first form to express the good in itself (for instance, φρόνησις), the latter to express the possession of the good (for instance, φρονεῖν).

[570] ὁρμὴ is defined by Stob. ii. 160, as φορὰ ψυχῆς ἐπί τι· ἀφορμὴ, which is contrasted therewith in Epict. Enchirid. 2, 2 Diss. iii. 2, 2, 22, 36, as (according to the most probable correction of the text) φορὰ διανοίας ἀπό τινος. See p. 243, 3. A further distinction (connecting herewith what may be otherwise gathered from the statements of Stobæus respecting the Stoic doctrine of impulses) is made between the impulses of reasonable beings and beings devoid of reason. It is only in the case of reasonable beings that it can be said that impulse is called forth by the idea of a thing as something which has to be done (φαντασία ὁρμητικὴ τοῦ καθηκόντος); that every impulse contains an affirmative judgment in itself (συγκατάθεσις), to which has been superadded a κινητικόν· συγκατάθεσις applying to particular propositions (those in which truth and falsehood consist. See p. 110, 3; 83, 2), whereas ὁρμὴ applies to κατηγορήματα (i.e. activities expressed by verbs. See p. 95, 1 and 2), since every impulse and every desire aims at the possession of a good. Ὁρμὴ λογικὴ is defined to be φορὰ διανοίας ἐπί τι τῶν ἐν τῷ πράττειν, and is also called ὁρμὴ πρακτικὴ (only a rational being being capable of πρᾶξις). If the φορὰ διανοίας refers to something future, the ὁρμὴ becomes an ὄρεξις, for which the text twice reads ὄρουσις. Among the varieties of ὁρμὴ πρακτικὴ, Stob. enumerates πρόθεσις, ἐπιβολὴ, παρασκευὴ, ἐγχείρησις, αἵρεσις, πρόθεσις, βούλησις, θέλησις, the definitions of which he gives, passing then to the doctrine of emotions, these being also a kind of ὁρμή. It appears, therefore, that activities of feeling and will are included in the conception of ὁρμή, as will be subsequently seen more fully in the doctrine of emotions, the conception of which likewise includes both.

[571] Stob. ii. 116, similarly 108: πάντας γὰρ ἀνθρώπους ἀφορμὰς ἔχειν ἐκ φύσεως πρὸς ἀρετὴν καὶ οἱονεὶ τὸ [l. τὸν] τῶν ἡμιαμβειαίων λόγον ἔχειν κατὰ τὸν Κλεάνθην, ὅθεν ἀτελεῖς μὲν ὄντας εἶναι φαύλους, τελειωθέντας δὲ σπουδαίους. Diog. 89, see p. 238, 3: The soul rests on the harmony of life with itself (virtue); extraneous influences corrupt it, ἐπεὶ ἡ φύσις ἀφορμὰς δίδωσιν ἀδιαστρόφους. Sen. Ep. 108, 8: Facile est auditorem concitare ad cupiditatem recti: omnibus enim natura fundamenta dedit semenque virtutis.

[572] The one point, according to Cic. N. D. ii. 12, 34, which distinguishes man from God is, that God is absolutely rational and by nature good and wise.

[573] Chrysippus (in Galen. De Hippocr. et Plat. iv. 2, vol. v. 368 Kühn): τὸ λογικὸν ζῷον ἀκολουθητικὸν φύσει ἐστὶ τῷ λόγῳ καὶ κατὰ τὸν λόγον ὡς ἂν ἡγεμόνα πρακτικόν· πολλάκις μέντοι καὶ ἄλλως φέρεται ἐπί τινα καὶ ἀπό τινων (for so we must punctuate, the reference being to ὁρμὴ and ἀφορμὴ, according to the definition, p. 242, 2) ἀπειθῶς τῷ λόγῳ ὠθούμενον ἐπὶ πλεῖον, κ.τ.λ. From this, it appears that Chrysippus’ definition of ὁρμὴ (in Plut. Sto. Rep. 11, 6 = τοῦ ἀνθρώπου λόγος προστακτικὸς αὐτῷ τοῦ ποιεῖν) must not be understood (as in Baumhauer’s Vet. Philos. Doct. De morte voluntaria, p. 74) to imply that man has only rational, and no irrational impulses. Chrysippus, in the passage quoted, must either be referring to that impulse which is peculiar to man, and is according to his nature; or else λόγος must be taken in its more extended meaning of notion or idea, for all impulses are based on judgments, see p. 242, 2; and it is clear, from Cic. Fin. iii. 7, 23 (‘as our limbs are given to us for a definite purpose, so ὁρμὴ is given for some definite object, and not for every kind of use’), that ὁρμὴ is not in itself rational, but first becomes rational by the direction given to it by man.

[574] The term emotion is used to express πάθος, although the terms of modern psychology are more or less inadequate to express the ancient ideas, as Cic. Fin. iii. 10, 35, already observed.

[575] Diog. vii. 110: ἔστι δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ πάθος κατὰ Ζήνωνα ἡ ἄλογος καὶ παρὰ φύσιν ψυχῆς κίνησις ἢ ὁρμὴ πλεονάζουσα. The same definitions are found in Stob. ii. 36, 166, with this difference, that ἀπειθὴς τῷ αἱροῦντι λόγῳ stands in place of ἄλογος, as in Marc. Aurel. ii. 5. Cic. Tusc. iii. 11, 24; iv. 6, 11; 21, 47; Chrysippus in Galen. De Hipp. et Plat. iv. 2, 4; v. 2, 4, vol. v. 368, 385, 432, 458 Kühn, and Id. in Plut. Virt. Mor. 10, Schl. p. 450; Sen. Ep. 75, 12. A similar definition is attributed to Aristotle by Stob. ii. 36, but it is no longer to be found in his extant writings. If it was in one of the lost books (Heeren suggests in the treatise περὶ παθῶν ὀργῆς Diog. v. 23), was that book genuine?

[576] Cic. Acad. i. 10, 39: Cumque eas perturbationes [πάθη] antiqui naturales esse dicerent et rationis expertes aliaque in parte animi cupiditatem, alia rationem collocarent, ne his quidem assentiebatur [Zeno]. Nam et perturbationes voluntarias esse putabat, opinionisque judicio suscipi, et omnium perturbationum arbitrabatur esse matrem immoderatam quandam intemperantiam. Fin. iii. 10, 35: Nec vero perturbationes animorum ... vi aliqua naturali moventur. Tusc. iv. 28, 60: Ipsas perturbationes per se esse vitiosas nec habere quidquam aut naturale aut necessarium.

[577] See p. 215, 3; 242, 2.

[578] Chrysippus, in Galen. iii. 7, p. 335; v. 1 and 6, p. 476, and above, p. 215, 3.

[579] Plut. Virt. Mor. 3, p. 441 (the first part of this passage has been already quoted, p. 215, 3, the continuation being) λέγεσθαι δὲ [τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν] ἄλογον, ὅταν τῷ πλεονάζοντι τῆς ὁρμῆς ἰσχυρῷ γενομένῳ καὶ κρατήσαντι πρός τι τῶν ἀτόπων παρὰ τὸν αἱροῦντα λόγον ἐκφέρηται· καὶ γὰρ τὸ πάθος, κ.τ.λ. See below, note 3.

[580] See p. 242, 2.

[581] Diog. vii. 111: δοκεῖ δ’ αὐτοῖς τὰ πάθη κρίσεις εἶναι, καθά φησι Χρύσιππος ἐν τῷ περὶ παθῶν. Plut. Virt. Mor. c. 3, p. 441: τὸ πάθος εἶναι λόγον πονηρὸν καὶ ἀκόλαστον ἐκ φαύλης καὶ διημαρτημένης κρίσεως σφοδρότητα καὶ ῥώμην προσλαβόντα. Stob. ii. 168: ἐπὶ πάντων δὲ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς παθῶν ἐπὶ δόξας αὐτὰ λέγουσιν εἶναι [instead of which read πάντων ... παθῶν δόξας αἰτίας λέγ. εἶν.], παραλαμβάνεσθαι [add δὲ] τὴν δόξαν ἀντὶ τῆς ἀσθενοῦς ὑπολήψεως. Conf. Cic. Tusc. iv. 7, 14: Sed omnes perturbationes judicio censent fieri et opinione ... opinationem autem volunt esse imbecillam assensionem. Id. iii. 11, 24: Est ergo causa omnis in opinione, nec vero ægritudinis solum sed etiam reliquarum omnium perturbationum? Fin. iii. 10, 35: Perturbationes autem nulla naturæ vi commoventur; omniaque ea sunt opiniones ac judicia levitatis. Acad. i. 10. See p. 244, 3.

[582] Diog. l.c.

[583] Cic. Tusc. iii. 11, 26; iv. 7, 14. Posidon. (in Galen. iv. 7, p. 416): Chrysippus defined apprehension (ἄση) as δόξα πρόσφατος κακοῦ παρουσίας.

[584] See p. 242, 1.