^{page 181 note 2} v. Cic, . de fin. 5. 16–20.Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 3} Plutarch, , Moralia 1033 ff. and 1058 ff.Google Scholar; contained in the Teubner edition of Plutarch's Moralia, vi. 2, edited by Pohlenz, M..Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 4} This line of criticism is more developed in Cicero, de fin. 4 and 5, where the Stoics are accused of not departing from the Peri patetics in fact, but only in terminology.

^{page 181 note 5} Cf. Cic, . de fin. 4. 78.Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 6} Cf. Cic, . de fin. 4. 40, 41, 46.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 1} Pohlenz, , ‘Plutarchs Schriften gegen die Stoiker’, Hermes, lxxiv. 23–26.Google Scholar Cf. Die Stoa, i. 186 ff.; 191 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 2} Hermes, lxxiv. 23.Google Scholar Cf. Die Stoa, i. 186–90.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 3} Hermes, lxxiv, 24.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 4} Die Stoa, i. 189.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 5} Die Stoa, i. 199; derived from D. L. 7. 128.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 6} Reesor, Margaret, ‘The Indifferents in the Old and Middle Stoa’, T.A.P.A. Ixxxii (1951), 109.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 7} Op. cit., p. 109.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 8} Ibid. p. 110; based on the doctrine that the ‘indifferents’ were necessary, from D. L. 7. 128 (ibid., p. 106).

^{page 182 note 9} Ibid., p. 110.

^{page 182 note 10} Ibid., p. 107.

^{page 182 note 11} From Cic. de off. 2.

^{page 182 note 12} Reesor, M., op. cit., p. 110.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 13} Ibid., p. 110; based on the arguments of Edelstein, , A.J.P. lvii. 308–9.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 14} van Straaten, , Panétius (Amsterdam, 1946).Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 1} Fr. 96 of v. Straaten’s collection of the fragments.

^{page 183 note 2} Op. cit., pp. 140–1.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 3} Ibid., pp. 143–4.

^{page 184 note 4} Ibid., p. 145.

^{page 184 note 5} Ibid., p. 147 f.

^{page 184 note 6} Ibid., pp. 152–3.

^{page 184 note 7} Ibid., p. 154. The evidence for this is our old friend D. L. 7. 128.

^{page 184 note 8} Ibid., pp. 191–200.

^{page 184 note 9} Ibid., p. 191.

^{page 184 note 10} Ibid., pp. 191–2; 167.

^{page 184 note 11} Ibid., pp. 166 ff.

^{page 185 note 1} Cic, . de fin. 5. 14, 15.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 2} D. L. 7. 84.

^{page 185 note 3} In general v. S.V.F. (Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, v. Arnim, , cited by volume and number of fragment) 3. 178–89Google Scholar; Cic, . de fin. 3. 16Google Scholar; de off. 1. 11Google Scholar; Sen, . Ep. 121. 14ff.Google Scholar; the evidence catalogued by Pohlenz, , Die Stoa, ii. 65–66Google Scholar; Philippson, R., ‘Das Erste Natur-gemasse’, Philol. lxxxvii. 445 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 4} Cic, . de fin. 3. 20 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 5} S.V.F. 3. 178, 179, 181, 182.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 6} S.V.F. 1. 149.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 1} For sources v. S.V.F. i. 230–2; 3. 491–543.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 2} prqficisci ab, Cic, . de fin. 3. 22, 60.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 3} Plu. comm. not. 1069 e = S.V.F. 3. 491Google Scholar; cf. Plu. op. cit. 1070a = S.V.F. 3. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 4} e.g. Cic, . de fin. 3. 22.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 5} Cic, . de fin. 3. 58.Google Scholar Cf. de fin. 3. 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Acad. Post. 1. 37Google Scholar = S.V.F. 3. 231.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 6} Stob, . S.V.F. 3. 136Google Scholar; cf. S.V.F. 3. 117 ff.Google Scholar; Cic, . de fin. 3. 62 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 7} Cic, . de fin. 3. 50–51Google Scholar; S.V.F. 3. 124–6.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 8} nisi si quid impedierit, Sen, . de olio 3. 2Google Scholar = S.V.F. 1. 271Google Scholar; Cic, . de fin. 3. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 9} D. L. 7. 107 = S.V.F. 3. 117Google Scholar; S. E., adv. math. 11. 59Google Scholar = S.V.F. 3. 122Google Scholar; Plu. de S. R. 1048 c = S.V.F. 3. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 10} Cic, . de fin. 3. 51–52Google Scholar; cf. Stob, . S.V.F. 1. 192Google Scholar; S.V.F. 3. 126 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 11} Cic, . de fin. 3. 22.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 12} Shown by the application of the term in its wider form to plants and animals (S.V.F. 1. 230), and the attempt at etymology in D. L. 7. 108.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 13} Cicero classifies: ‘omnis de officio duplex est quaestio: unum genus est quod pertinet ad finem bonorum’ (this is officium in its wider sense as shown by the example given of this class, omniane officio perfecta sint. See previous note; in this sense in the human sphere may be applied to perfect human action, but as such is always qualified by in contrast to When unqualified it is always used in the narrower sense of a restricted technical term in human ethics—so de fin. 4. 39), ‘alterum, quod positum est in praeceptis, quibus in omnis partis usus vitae conformari possit’; and just below, ‘quorum autem ofificiorum praecepta traduntur … de quibus est nobis his libris explicandum’.

^{page 186 note 14} Sen, . Ep. 95. 45.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 15} So Cicero, , de fin. 3. 58–59Google Scholar: ‘ut si iuste depositum reddere in recte factis sit, in officiis ponatur depositum reddere; illo enim addito “iuste” fit recte factum, per se autem hoc ipsum reddere in officio ponitur’. Cf. Clemens, , S.V.F. 3. 515Google Scholar; Sextus, , S.V.F. 3. 516.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 1} I take the anecdote in D. L. 7. 25 to apply here, where immediately after the sentence that Zeno is said the story follows that Zeno changed Hesiod, Op. 293 to

^{page 187 note 2} Cic, . de off. 1. 39. 59Google Scholar; Philo, , S.V.F. 3. 513Google Scholar; D. L. 7. 102 = S.V.F. 3. 117.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 3} Cic, . de Jin. 3. 59Google Scholar; S. E., adv. math. 11. 199 ff.Google Scholar; Sen, . Ep. 95. 5, 39, 40, 43Google Scholar; Sen, . de ben. 6. 11. 1–2Google Scholar = Cleanthes, S.V.F. 1. 579Google Scholar; Philo, , S.V.F. 3. 512Google Scholar:

^{page 187 note 4} Cic, . de fin. 4. 15Google Scholar: ‘hoc non est positum in nostra actione’; cf. Fronto, S.V.F. 3. 196: ‘nee quidquam quod in manu fortunae situm videat concupiscet’; cf. Epictetus passim.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 5} Stob, . S.V.F. 3. 510: Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 6} D. L. 7- 104: (i.e.

^{page 187 note 7} S.V.F. 1. 188; 3. 29–37, 129, 181, 498.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 8} Plu. comm. not. ch. 23. 1069 e: Plu, . op. cit. 26. 1071 bGoogle Scholar: Cic, . de fub. 3. 23Google Scholar ‘ab iisdem (principiis naturae) necesse est proficisci ipsam sapientiam’; Cic, . de fin. 3. 31: ‘quid autem apertius quam, si selectio nulla sit ab iis rebus quae contra naturam sint earum rerum quae sint secundum naturam, tollatur omnis ea quae quaeratur laudeturque prudentia?’; cf. chs. 58–61, especially ‘prima autem ilia naturae sive secunda sive contraria sub iudicium sapientis et dilectum cadunt, estque ilia subiecta quasi materia sapientiae’ (ch. 61).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 9} Plu, . op. cit., ch. 23. 1069 eGoogle Scholar

^{page 187 note 10} v.p. i85n. 15. This is the force of the added iuste of Cicero, the of Sextus. So Sen. Ep. 95. 43, forcibly: ‘amico aliquis aegro adsidet: probamus. at hoc hereditatis causa facit: vultur est, cadaver expectat. eadem aut turpia sunt aut honesta; refert quare aut quemadmodum fiant.’

^{page 187 note 11} Plu, . op. cit., ch. 26. 1071 bGoogle Scholar; cf. Cic, . de fin. 3. 32. They are like the ball in a ball game, Epict. 2. 5. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 1} So the title of Panaetius' book is

^{page 188 note 2} Plu. de S. R. 9; cf. Cic, . de fin. 3. 73.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 3} The authorities, D. L. 7. 39 f. and S. E., adv. math. 7. 16 ff., are much confused here between order of teaching and intercon nexion of the subjects.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 4} S.V.F. 2. 41Google Scholar; Cic, . de fin. 3. 74; 4. 54; 5. 83. This seems to me the point of Plutarch's mediod of criticism by contradictions.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 5} e.g. S.V.F. 1.85; 2. 299 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 6} e.g. S.V.F. 1. 120, 171; 2. 423, 774.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 7} S.V.F. 1. 134.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 8} D. L. 7- 88: And virtue is S.V.F. 3. 260.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 9} Plu. de S. R. ch. 7. 1034 c (Pohlenz's emendation, or something like it must be right); Plu, . de virt. mor. 2.Google Scholar So S. E., adv. math. 11. 200Google Scholar = S.V.F. 3. 516; cf. D. L. 7. 92. Seneca shows how this works Ep. 95. 5, 57.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 10} D. L. 7. 88.

^{page 188 note 11} S. E., adv. math. 11. 13Google Scholar = S.V.F. 2. 36Google Scholar: Epict. i. 10. 10: Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 12} D. L. 7. 88.

^{page 189 note 1} Sen, . Ep. 95. 48.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 2} e.g. de fin. 3. 24, 34, 36, 40, 44; 4. 45.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 3} Ibid. 5. 14, 15.

^{page 189 note 4} S.V.F. 3. 2. 44; 3. 3. 57.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 5} So v. Straaten, , op. cit., p. 152: ‘une différence dans la façon de formuler’.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 6} Cic, . de fin. 3. 33: ‘paulum oppido inter se differunt, et tamen eodem spectant’.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 7} S.V.F. 3. 3. 56, 57.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 8} Pan. fr. 110, v. Straaten. For its im portance as evidence, see v. Straaten, , op. cit., pp. 154 f., 159Google Scholar; moreover v. Straaten thinks the three objects named by D. L. are representative of the whole class of Pohl, . Stoa, i. 199Google Scholar; Gött, . Nadir, i (1936), 4Google Scholar; Reesor, , pp. 106, 109.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 9} For Galen, see below.

^{page 189 note 10} Plu. 1048 a = S.V.F. 3. 137.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 1} Cf. Plu. de S. R. ch. 15; Cic, . de fin. 3. 52.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 2} de anim. p. 163, 11. 4 ff. Bruns, Google Scholar = S.V.F. 3. 192.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 3} Ibid. 11. 8–9 Bruns.

^{page 190 note 4} Cf. points (2) and (3) of Plutarch, p. 181.

^{page 190 note 5} Pan. fr. 109.

^{page 190 note 6} Clem. Pan. fr. 96.

^{page 190 note 7} Cf. Cleanthes, S.V.F. 1. 566Google Scholar; Chrysippus, D. L. 7.89 = S.V.F. 3. 228. v. Straaten, who thinks Panaetius is saying something different, although his method of formulation is practically identical with that of his predecessors (op. cit., p. 152), ’on ne pourra donner que difficilement une réponse à la question de savoir pourquoi Panétius a précisément choisi cette façon de formuler’ (p. 152, n. 3).Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 8} e.g. ‘quae quattuor quamquam inter se colligata atque implicata sunt, tamen ex singulis certa officiorum genera nascuntur’, 1. 15; ‘honestum, ex quo aptum est officium’, 1. 60; ‘sed ab iis partibus, quae sunt honestatis, quem ad modum officia ducerentur, satis expositum videtur’, 1. 152; cf. Sen, . Ep. 94. 33: ‘et prudentia et iustitia officiis constat, officia praeceptis disponuntur’.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 1} Cf. de off. i. 46: ‘quoniam autem vivitur non cum perfectis hominibus planeque sapientibus, sed cum iis, in quibus praeclare agitur si sunt simulacra virtutis’.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 2} Cf. de off. 1. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 3} officium, that is, in its restricted technical sense in human ethics, v. supra, p. 185 n. 13.

^{page 191 note 4} v. Straaten, , op. cit., pp. 191–200.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 5} Op. cit., pp. 140 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 6} de off. 1. 110.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 7} Cf. de off. 1. 107. We are invested by nature with two characters, ‘quarum una communis est ex eo, quod omnes participes proprie singulis est tributa’.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 8} v. Straaten, , op. cit., p. 143.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 9} ‘in omni autem actione suscipienda tria sunt tenenda, primum ut appetitus rationi pareat … horum tamen trium praestantissimum est appetitum obtemperare rationi.’

^{page 191 note 10} v. Edelstein, , ‘The Philosophical System of Posidonius’, A.J.P. lvii (1936), 305 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 1} v. Edelstein, , op. cit., pp. 308–10.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 2} e.g. Sen, . Ep. 87. 35, 31.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 3} Cic, . Tusc. 2. 61Google Scholar; cf. Gal, . de plac. 370, 3 M: Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 4} Gal, . de plac. 446. 13 M.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 5} Ibid. 449. 7; Clem, . Strom. 2. 129.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 6} v. supra, pp. 188–9.

^{page 191 note 7} Edelstein, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 8} Gal, . de plac. 449. 8 ff.; 450. 3 ff.; 451. 2–5 M.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 9} Gal, . de plac. 450 ff. M.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 10} v. supra n. 5; also Gal, . de plac. 451. 15–452. 10 M, which ends also 453. 10 f.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 11} Gal, . de plac. 456 M.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 12} Prof. Edelstein, , op. cit., has shown his heresies.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 13} Cf. Rieth, O., ‘Über das Telos der Stoiker’, Hermes lxix (1934), 39–44.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 14} Augmented, of course, by the fragmentary nature of our sources; e.g. we have quite a lot of information about Panaetius on , but little on

^{page 192 note 1} de off. 3. 11 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 2} So also de off. 1. 46.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 3} Sen, . Ep. 95. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 4} Ibid. 94. 11.

^{page 192 note 5} Cic, . de fin. 3. 58Google Scholar; Sen, . Ep. 94. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 6} e.g. progressio in Cic, . de off. 3. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 7} The translations of the Letters are from Gummere in the Loeb edition.

^{page 192 note 8} Sen, . Ep. 94. 29.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 9} Ibid. 94.

^{page 192 note 10} D. L. 7. 4, 25.

^{page 192 note 11} D. L. 7. 25.

^{page 192 note 12} Stob, . S.V.F 1. 192.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 1} Stob, . S.V.F. i. 192Google Scholar; cf. Cic, . de fin. 3. 52: ‘…sed eos qui in aliquo honore sunt quorum ordo proxime accedit, ut secundus sit, ad regium principatum, sic in vita non ea quae primo ordine [Madvig] sunt, sed ea, quae secundum locum obtinent, …nominentur.’Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 2} e.g. Plu, . Mor. 82 f.Google Scholar: (sc. and what else is the comparison of Plato and the tyrant Dionysius in Cic, . de fin. 4. 56?Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 3} Sen, . Ep. 94. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 4} D. L. 7. 175.

^{page 193 note 5} Cic, . de qff. 3. 15Google Scholar; v. supra pp. 189–90.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 6} Cf. Sen, . Ep. 94. 30Google Scholar: ‘hoc qui dicunt (i.e. that praecepta nihil adiuvant) non vident alium esse ingenii mobilis et erecti, alium tardi et hebetis, utique alium alio ingeniosiorem’; cf. Epict. i. 2. 33 f.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 7} Plu. comm.not. ch.26. 1071; v. suprap. 181.

^{page 193 note 8} Cic, . de Jin. 3. 22.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 9} Ibid. 4. 40.

^{page 193 note 10} S.V.F. 3. 519; twisted typically by Plu. de S. R. ch. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 11} Sen, . Ep. 94. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 12} Ibid. 116. 5 = Pan. fr. 114.

^{page 193 note 13} Cic, . de fin. 4. 79Google Scholar = Pan. fr. 55. Besides, Cicero seems more concerned with language and style, cf. de off. 2. 35 = Pan. fr. 62.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 1} Prof. C. O. Brink pointed out this difficulty to me.

^{page 194 note 2} e.g. Cic, . de fin. 4. 14–15Google Scholar; Sen, . Ep. 121. 16.Google Scholar