CHAP.
III.

death of Cleanthes, to the presidency of the Stoic School. He is also said to have attended the lectures of Arcesilaus and Lacydes, philosophers of the Middle Academy; and so thoroughly had he appropriated their critical methods, that later Stoics accused him of furnishing Carneades with the necessary weapons for attacking them,3 by having raised philosophical doubts in a masterly manner, which he was not always able to meet satisfactorily. This critical acuteness and skill, more than anything else, entitle him to be regarded as the second founder of Stoicism. In learning, too, he was far in advance of his predecessors, and has been considered the most laborious and learned man of antiquity. In many respects, however, he deviated from the teaching of Zeno and Cleanthes; following an independent

4

6

Diog. Pro. 15. Strabo, xiii.
1, 57.
2 Diog. vii. 183. It is possible,
as Ritter, iii. 524, supposes, that
he was for some time doubtful
about Stoicism, under the in-
fluence of the Academic Scep-
ticism, and that during this time
he wrote the treatise against
ovvheela; but that he separated
from Cleanthes, setting up a
school in the Lyceum in opposi-
tion to him, is not contained in
the words of Diog. 179; 185.

Diog. 184; iv. 62. Cic.
Acad. ii. 27, 87. Plut. Sto. Rep.
10, 3. These passages refer par-
ticularly to Chrysippus six
books κατὰ τῆς συνηθείας.
the other hand, his pupil Aris-
tocreon, in Plut. 1. c. 2, 5, com-
mends him as being Tŵv 'Akadŋ-

On

μiakŵv oтpayyaridwv konída (Plut. Comm. Not. i. 4).

When a learner, he is said to have used these words to Cleanthes: 'Give me the principles; the proofs I can find myself.' Subsequently it is said of him: If the Gods have any logic, it is that of Chrysippus' (Diog. 179). See Cic. N. D. i. 15, 30; ii. 6, 16; iii. 10, 25; Divin. i. 3, 6. Senec. Benefic. i. 3, 8; 4, 1, who complains of his captiousness. Dionys. Hal. Comp. Verb. p. 68. Krische, Forsch. i. 445.

5 Diog. 180. Athen. xiii. 565, Damasc. V. Isid. 36. Cic. Tusc. i. 45, 108.

a.

Cic. Acad. ii. 47, 143. Diog. 179. Plut. Sto. Rep. 4, 1. According to the latter passage, Antipater had written a special

4

course in speculation, as he had done in other ways,'
and allowing himself to be led on by his own intel-
lectual impulse. Still, the basis of the system
remained the same, though it was somewhat deep-
ened by his intellectual treatment. In fact, the
Stoic doctrine was expanded by him on all sides.
with such completeness, that hardly a gleaning of
details was left for his successors to gather up.3 In
multitude of writings he exceeded Epicurus; 5 their
titles, and a comparatively small number of frag-
ments, being all that have come down to us." It will
be easily understood of such a vast quantity of writ-
ings, that their artistic value is not very high. The
ancients are unanimous in complaining of their care-
less and impure language, of their dry and often
obscure style, of their prolixity, their endless repeti-
tions, their lengthy citations, and their too frequent
appeals to etymologies, authorities, and other irrele-
vant proofs. But by Chrysippus the Stoic teaching

treatise περὶ τῆς Κλεάνθους καὶ of their master. Hence the charge
Χρυσίππου διαφορᾶς.
that Chrysippus had written
against Epicurus in rivalry (Diog.
x. 26, and the criticism of Apol-
lodorus in Diog. vii. 181).

Diog. 185, mentions it as deserving of especial notice, that he refused the invitation of Ptolemy to court, and dedicated none of his numerous writings to a prince.

Diog. 179; 183.
Quid enim est a Chrysippo
prætermissum in Stoicis? Cic.
Fin. i. 2, 6.

According to Diog. 180, there were not fewer than 750. Conf. Valer. Max. viii. 7; Lucian, Hermotim. 48.

This appeared to the Epicureans disparaging to the honour

6

Baguet, p. 114-357, discusses the subject very fully, but omitting several fragments. On logical treatises, of which alone there were 311 (Diog. 198), see Nicolai, De logicis Chrysippi libris: Quedlinb. 1859. Prantl, Gesch. d. Log. i. 404. Petersen (Philosoph. Chrysip. Fundamenta: Hamburg, 1827) attempts a systematic arrangement of all the known books.

See Cic. De Orat. i. 11, 50.

CHAP.

III.

CHAP.
III.

(2) Later Stoics.

was brought to completeness; and when he died, in the year 206 B.C.,' the form was in every respect fixed in which Stoicism would be handed down for the next following centuries.

2

A cotemporary of Chrysippus, but probably somewhat his senior, was Teles, a few extracts from whose writings have been preserved by Stobæus,3 in the shape of popular moral considerations written from a Cynic or Stoical point of view. The same age also produced the Cyrenaic Eratosthenes, a man distinguished in every branch of knowledge, but particularly celebrated for his mathematical attainments, who was gained for Stoicism by Aristo. Another cotemporary of Chrysippus, and perhaps his fellow-student," who in many respects approximated

Dionys. Hal. Diog. vii. 180; x.
27. Galen, Differ. Puls. ii. 10;
vol. viii. 631; Hippocr. et Plat.
Plac. ii. 2; iii. 2; and Baquet.
See also Plut. Sto. Rep. 28, 2;
and Bergk, Commentat. de Chrys.
lib. περὶ ἀποφατικῶν : Cassel,

1841.

The circumstances of his
death are related differently in
Diog. 184; but both authorities
are untrustworthy. The story of
the ass is also found in Lucian,
Macrob. 25; the other version in
Diog. iv. 44; 61. On the statue
of Chrysippus in the Ceramicus
see Diog. vii. 182; Cic. Fin. i. 11,
39; Pausan. i. 17, 2; Plut. Sto.
Rep. 2, 5.

* In 40, 8, mention is made of
the honourable position enjoyed
by the Athenian Chremonides,
who had been banished from his
country.
The banishment of

to the teaching of the Peripatetics, was the Stoic Boëthus. The proper scholars of Chrysippus were without doubt numerous; but few of their names are known to us.3 The most important among them appear to have been Zeno of Tarsus, and Diogenes of Seleucia, who succeeded Chrysippus in the presi

CHAP.

III.

CHAP.
III.

dency of the School. The pupil and successor of Diogenes, in his turn, was Antipater of Tarsus, who is mentioned along with his countryman Archedemus.3 Under Panatius, Antipater's scholar, Stoicism entered the Roman world, and there underwent internal changes, to which attention will be drawn in the sequel.1