Scanned text contains errors.

1314

ZENON.

reference to an invitation of the king, which Zenon declined (Diog. Laert. yii. 7, &c.)» is unmistake-ably the invention of a later rhetorician (see Aldo-brandinus on the above passage), it is well esta­blished that a close intimacy subsisted between them, kept up through Persaeus and Philonides, disciples of the philosopher, and companions of the king (Ibid. 9. 6, 13—15, 36 ; Arrian, Epiet. iii. 13; Simplic. in Epictet. Enchir. c. 51 ; Aelian, F. H. ix. 26). Zenon is also said to have attracted the attention of the Egyptian Ptolemaeus (Diog. Laert. vii. 24 ; in Stobaeus, Serm. xxxi. however, with reference to the same story, ambassadors of Anti-gonus are spoken of). Much more honourable, however, is the confidence and esteem which the Athenians showed towards him, stranger as he was ; for although the well-known story that they deposited the keys of the fortress with him, as the most trustworthy man (Diog. Laert. 6), may be a later invention, there seems no reason for doubting the authenticity of the decree of the people by which a golden crown and a public burial in the Cerameicus were awarded to him, because, during his long residence in Athens, by his doctrines and his life spent in accordance with them, he had conducted the young men who attached themselves to him along the path of virtue and discretion (Diog. Laert. 10, &c., 6, 15). The Athenian citi­zenship, however, he is said to have declined, that he might not become unfaithful to his native land (Plut. de Stoicor. repugn, p. 1034, a ; comp. Diog. Laert. 12), where in return he was highly esteemed (Ibid. 6). For the rest, we have preserved some not very characteristic traits from his life, in part from the works of the elder Stoics, as Persaeus, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus (Ibid. 1, 15). From them we see that he was of an earnest, if not gloomy disposition (Ibid. 16, comp. 26 ; Sidon. Apollinaris, Epist. ix. 9); that he loved to with­draw himself from the great crowd, and to walk about with only two or three (Diog. Laert. 14) ; that he was fond of burying himself in investiga­tions (ibid. 15), had a dislike to prolix and elabo­rate speeches (ibid. 18, 22 ; Stob. Serm. xxxiv.), and was clever and ready at short telling answers. (Diog. Laert. 19, &c., 23, &c. ibid. Menag.)

We are not able to ascertain with certainty either the year of Zenon's birth, or that of his death, and cannot regard as accurate the state­ments that he came to Athens at the age of 22 or even 30 years, that he pursued his philosophical studies for 20 years, and presided over his school for 58 years (Diog. Laert. 28), even though we should prefer the statement that he reached the age of 98 (ibid.\ to that of his disciple Persaeus, according to which he was only 72 years old when he died. He is said to have been still alive in the 130th Olympiad (ibid. 6), and this is certainly in accordance with the statements which make him a disciple of Polemon, who became president of the Academic school in 01. 116. 2, and also with what we are told about his intercourse with Antigonus Gonatas, who came to the throne in 01. 124, and with Arcesilas (Cic. Acad. i. 9, 13, ii. 24). Of his writings for the most part only the titles are quoted (Diog. Laert. 4). The enumeration that we possess can hardly be complete, yet it shows us to some extent to what objects his investigations were chiefly directed. We have mention of works upon the ethic of Crates (Kpdrtjros i)6iKd), on the life spent according to nature (irepl rov Kara

ZENON.

fiiov) ; on impulse, on the nature of man (irep\ bpfj/ris fy irepl avdpcairov Screws, comp. 87) ; on the affections (irepl iraBwv, comp. 110) ; on the fitting (irepl rov Kad^Kovros] ; on law (irepl vo~ /uou), besides the Politeia mentioned above ; on Grecian education (irepl 'EAArj^iwrjs TrcuSei'as) ; the art of love (epcoriK^j rsyyi}}. Of writings re­lating to physics we find mentioned one on the universe (irepl rov oAou, comp. 142, 43, 45) ; on essence (irepl ovcrias, 134); on signs (irepl vy/ueicw') ; on the sight (irepl oij/ecos). The con­tents of the following seem to have been of a logical kind: on the idea (irepl rov \6yov, 39? 40); treatises (Siarpigcu, 134); on verbal ex­pression (irepl Ae£ecos) ; Solutions (Awms), and Refutations (e\ejxoi)> Besides these there are attributed to him works on Poetry (irepl ttoitjti/ctjs aKpodaecos) ; Homeric Problems (irpoS^/adruv 'O/nriptKwi' irevre, comp. Diog. Laert. viii. 48) ; a work entitled K<x0oAiKa ; Commentaries ('atto-Hvimov eviAara) ; and one on the Pythagorean doc­trines (TlvQayopiKcC).

The writings of Chrysippus and later Stoics seem to have obscured those of Zenon, and even the warm adherents of the school seem seldom to have gone back to the books of the latter, still less the authorities yet remaining to us. They give, and often confusedly enough, sketches of the Stoic sys­tem, but it is only as special occasions present them­selves that they notice what belongs to the several framers of the system, and in what they differed from each other, and from the later Stoics. Con­sequently we can only determine in the general, and often merely by conjecture, how far Zenon himself had conducted the doctrine, and still less how he gradually arrived at the outlines of it. At first he appears to have attached himself to the Cynics. This is confirmed not only by the above-mentioned authorities, but by the little that has been preserved out of or respecting his Politeia (Diog. Laert. vii. 32, 121, 129; Theodoret. Gr. Aff. cur. iii. p. 780 ; Plutarch in the above-quoted passages) ; and it is not unlikely that it was there that he gave occasion to the assertion of the later Stoa, that Cynism was the near way to virtue (elj/cu rbv KwiffiAbv crvvropov ctt* a,per))i/ 6o'6v. Diog. Laert. 121, ibid. Menag.). In-his treatises ($iarpt§al) also there must still have been a good deal of Cynism. (Sext. Emp. adv. Math. xi. 191 ; Hypot. iii. 245, comp. 205.)

The need of a foundation and completion of ethic by means of logic and physic, led Zenon to approximate to the Academics, and in some degree also to Aristotle. The threefold division of phi­losophy he had explained in his treatise on the Idea, and had anticipated the succession which was adopted also by Chrysippus and others,— Logic, Physic, Ethic (Diog. Laert. 39, &c.). But he is certainly not the originator of the compre­hensive schematism in which we find the logic and physic of the Stoics treated (Ibid. 84). In his treatment of logic, he was even behind his prede­cessors (Cic. de Fin. iv. 4). His short and narrow conclusions needed a more explicit foundation to be able to withstand the objections of the Academics in particular (Id. de Nat. Deor. ii. 7). To show the necessity of a scientific treatment of logic, he urged that the wise man must know how to avoid deception (Id. Acad. ii. 20). Without doubt he re­ferred our cognitions to impressions, and these to affections of the soul (erepoidoaeis rrjs