The Ancient Library
 

Scanned text contains errors.

On this page: Panaetolus

10J)

PANAETIUS.

and that before b. c. 111, in which year L. Crasstis found there no longer Panaetius himself, but his disciple Mnesarchus (Cic. tie Oral. i. 11). Neither the year when Panaetius was born, nor the age attained by him, is stated ; all' we know is, that he composed the books on Moral Obligations thirty years before his death (Cic. de Off. iii. 2, after Posidonius), and that in those books mention was made of Scipio, as it seems, as being already dead (Cic. de Off. i. 26, ii. 22). He could scarcely have been much older or younger than Scipio Aemilianus, who died b. c. 129, and was born b.c. 185 (see Van Lynden, I.e. p. 11, &c. comp. p. 46, &c.). Suidas (s. v.} is the only one who knows anything of an older Panaetius of Rhodes ; though in the passage referred to he does not distinguish these two Rhodians of the same name, whom he sets down, from one another. He was probably led to that statement by the erroneous assumption of an ignorant sophist, that Panaetius had been the in­structor of the elder Scipio Africanus (Gell. xvii. 21 ; comp. Van Lynden, p. 6, &c.).

The principal work of Panaetius was, without doubt, his treatise on the theory of moral obligation (irepi rov KaQ^K.ovros\ composed in three books. In this he proposed to investigate, first, what was moral or immoral; then, what was useful or not useful ; and lastly, how the apparent conflict be­tween the moral and the useful was to be decided ; for, as a Stoic, he could only regard this conflict as apparent. The third investigation he had expressly promised at the end of the third book, but had not carried out (Cic. ad Att. xvi. 11, de Off. iii. 2, 3, comp. i. 3, iii. 7, ii. 25) ; and his disciple Posidonius seems to have only timidly (ib. iii. 2) and imper­fectly supplied what was wanting ; at least Cicero, who in his books on Moral Obligations intended, not indeed to translate, but to imitate in his own manner, our Rhodian (ib. ii. 17, iii. 2, i. 2, ad Att. L c.), in the third section of the subject, which xvas not carried out by his guide, did not follow Posidonius, but declares that he had completed in­dependently and without assistance what Panaetius had left untouched (de Off. iii. 7). To judge from the insignificant character of the deviations, to which Cicero himself calls attention, as for example, the endeavour to define moral obligation (ib. i. 2), the completion of the imperfect division into three parts (i. 3, comp. ii. 25), the rejection of unnecessary discussions (ii. 5), small supplementary additions (ii. 24, 25), in the first two books Cicero has bor­rowed the scientific contents of his work from Panaetius, without any essential alterations. The Roman philosopher seems to have been induced to follow Panaetius, passing by earlier attempts of the Stoa to investigate the philosophy of morals, not merely by the superiority of his work in other respects, but especially by the endeavour that pre­vailed throughout it, laying aside abstract investi­gations and paradoxical definitions, to exhibit in an impressive manner the philosophy of morals in its application to life (de Off. ii. 10). Generally speaking, Panaetius, following Aristotle, Xeno-crates, Theophrastus, Dicaearchus, and especially Plato, had softened down the harsh severity of the older Stoics, and, without giving up their funda­mental definitions, had modified them so as to be capable of being applied to the conduct of life, and clothed them in the garb of eloquence (Cic. de Fin. iv. 28, Tuscul. i. 32, de Leg. iii. 6 ; comp. Pint, de Stoic. Repugnant, p. 1033, b. ; and Van Lynden, p.

PANAETOLUS.

60, &c. 83, &c.). With him begins the endeavour to supply eclectically the deficiencies in the stoic theory, and to mould it into a new shape ; so that among the Neo-Platonists he passed for a Platonist (Proclus, in Plat. Tim. p. 50). For this reason also he assigned the first place in philosophy to physics, not to dialectics (Diog. Lae'rt. vii. 41), and appears not to have undertaken any original treat­ ment of the latter. In ph}'sics he gave up the stoic doctrine of the conflagration of the world (Cic. de Nat. Dear. ii. 46, comp. 142 ; Stobaeus, Ed. Pliys. i. p. 414), endeavoured to simplify the division of the faculties of the soul (Nemes. de Nat. Plain, c. 15 ; Tertull. de Anima, c. 14), doubted the reality of divination (Cic. de Divin. i. 3, ii. 42, 47, Acad. ii. 33, comp. Epiphanius, adv. Haeres.ii. 9). In ethics he recognised only a two-fold direction of virtue, the theoretical and the practical, answering to the dianoietic and the ethical of Aristotle (Diog. Lae'rt. vii. 92) ; endeavoured to bring the ultimate object of life into nearer relation to natural impulses (gk ^iVews dtyopuai • Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. p. 497), and to render manifest by similes the inse­ parability of the virtues (Stobaeus, Ed. Eili. ii. p. 112) ; pointed out that the recognition of the moral, as something to be striven after for its own sake, was a leading fundamental idea in the speeches of Demosthenes (Pint. Demosth. p. 852, a.) ; would not admit the harsh doctrine of apathy (A. Gellius, xii. 5), and, on the contrary, vindicated the claim of certain pleasurable sensations to be regarded as in accordance with nature (Sext. Empir. adv. Math. xi. 73), while he also insisted that moral definitions should be laid down in such a way that they might be applied by the man who had not yet attained to wisdom (Seneca, Epist. 116). That Cicero has not reproduced the entire contents of the three books of Panaetius, we see from a fragment taken from them, which is not found in Cicero, but has been preserved by A. Gellius (xiii. 27), and which at the same time makes us acquainted with the Rhodian's treatment of his subject in its rhetorical aspects. A similar mode of setting forth his subject, directed to its concrete relations, and rendered in­ telligible bjT examples and similes, was to be found, if we may judge by the scanty quotations from it that we have, in his treatise on Equanimity (irepl euOu/^i'as ; Diog. Lae'rt. ix. 20, which Plutarch pro­ bably had before him in that composition of his which bears the same name), and in those on the Magistrates (Cic. de Legg. iii. 5, 6), on Providence (Cic. ad Att. xiii. 8), on Divination (see above), and the letter to Q. Aelius Tubero. His work on the philosophical sects (rrspl a,tp€<rs<av9 Diog. Lae'rt. ii. 87) appears to have been rich in facts and critical remarks (Van Lynden, p. 62, &c.), and the notices which we have about Socrates, and on the books of Plato and others of the Socratic school, given on the authority of Panaetius, were probably taken from that work. [Ch. A. B.J

PANAETOLUS (nammoAos), an Aetolian in the service of Ptolemy Philopator, king of Egypt, who joined with his countryman Theodotus in betraying Coele-Syria into the hands of Antio- chus III., and on the approach of the Syrian king surrendered into his hands the important city of Tyre. (Polyb. v. 61,62.) From this time he held an important place in the service of Antiochus, and distinguished himself highly in the expedition of that monarch ngainst Euthydemus, king of Buetriit, about b. c. 211. (Id. x. 49.) [E. H. B,]

Pages
About | First

107

108

109
letter/word  
volume
page #  
Search this site
Google


ancientlibrary.com
WWW
All non-public domain material, including introductions, markup, and OCR © 2005 Tim Spalding.
Ancient Library was developed and hosted by Tim Spalding of Isidore-of-Seville.com.