Storia della filosofia romana

Speranza
228THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
The bibliography on Hellenistic and Roman philosophy is enormousand grows exponentially every year. Good bibliographies for theRoman philosophers are to be found in Griffin and Barnes (1989) andLong and Sedley (1987) (abbreviated as
“
LS
”
in the text of this book).The list of references that follows mentions all works to which refer-ence has been made in the notes, where their relative usefulness hasusually been indicated. A few works will be exceptionally useful forreaders of this volume: first, Long and Sedley (1987), who have col-lected and translated a large selection of texts on Hellenistic philoso-phy, many of them by Roman authors. The editors have added helpfulcommentary as well as the bibliography mentioned above. Second,Long (1986) is a lucid introduction to Hellenistic philosophy, the basisof Roman philosophy. To this should be added Sharpies (1996), whosebook is arranged thematically. The essays in the pioneering first vol-ume of Griffin and Barnes,
Philosophia Togata
(1989), form a goodintroduction to the Roman philosophers under the Republic.Of the making of dictionaries and encyclopedias there is no end. Of one-volume works, the
Oxford Companion to Philosophy
(1995) isrefreshing and fair to Roman philosophers. The Oxford and CambridgeUniversity Presses have published a number of other Companions andDictionaries of Philosophy (Oxford, 1994, edited by S.Blackburn;Cambridge, 1995, edited by R. Audi). The third edition of the
Oxford Classical Dictionary
(1996, edited by S. Hornblower and A. Spaw-forth) is a vast improvement on its predecessors. Its entries on philoso-phers are generally informative and free of the prejudices that devaluedentries in earlier editions: some, such as the article on Lucretius by P.and D. Fowler, are distinguished and more useful than many journalarticles and books. Of multi-volume works Routledge
’
s
Encyclopediaof Philosophy
(10 vols, 1998, edited by E.Craig) has many entries use-
229

ful to students of the Roman philosophers. The venerable German
Paulys Realencyclop
ä
die
is still indispensable for its articles on indi-vidual philosophers, such as the one on Cicero. Its successor,
Der NeuePauly
(Stuttgart: Metzler, 1996
–
), is easier on the eyes and generallymore concise. It is still in progress, and (at the time of this writing) hasnot reached the volume that will include M.Tullius Cicero.The most exhaustive resource for the Roman philosophers is themassive and ongoing
Aufstieg und Niedergang der r
ö
mischen Welt
,edited by H.Temporini and W.Haase. The articles in volumes II. 36. 1
–
6 are especially relevant, as the following list of references makesclear. Too many of these are prolix, but the surveys of particular sub- jects and authors, with their bibliographies, are often valuable.Texts and translations of the major authors are generally available inthe Loeb series, although many of these are in need of modernizing.There are good English translations in the Cambridge series of transla-tions (those by Griffin and Atkins and by Zetzel are listed below), andin the series of texts and translations published by Aris and Phillips.Many of the major works are available in translation in the Penguinseries. Less well-known or fragmentary authors have been well servedin extracts printed by Long and Sedley (1987), but some are availableonly in Greek or Latin Teubner texts or in the collections of fragmentsedited by Usener (
Epicurea
, 1887) and Von Arnim (
StoicorumVeterum Fragmenta
, 1905), from which a few translations have beenprovided in this book.
230THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
NOTES
1
PHILOSOPHIA TOGATA
1Griffin and Barnes (1989); Barnes and Griffin (1996).2This is the basic argument of the astringent work of Barnes (1997),largely devoted to Epictetus.3Maurach (1997), 7
–
14.4Buechner (1982), p. 6, frag. 1.5Cic.,
T
.
D
. 4. 1
–
7.6Virgil,
Aen
. 8.9; 11.225
–
30.7
Aen.
8. 51
–
54, 333
–
36.8Livy, 1. 18; Cicero,
T
.
D
. 4. 3. Both authors point out the chronolog-ical impossibility of the story. The Romans adopted the Greek con-cept of Numa as the
“
Philosopher King
”
, as is explained byOgilvie (1965), 89.9Livy, 3. 31. 7
–
8; Ogilvie (1965), 449
–
50.10Greece was reorganizedinto two provinces, Macedonia andAchaea, in 27 BCE.11See Felling,
“
Plutarch: Roman Heroes and Greek Culture
”
, in Grif-fin and Barnes (1997), 199
–
232.12Plutarch,
Sulla
12
–
14.13Plutarch,
Sulla
26; cf. Strabo, 13. 1. 54 (608
–
09).14Barnes, J.,
“
Roman Aristotle
”
, in Barnes and Griffin (1997), 1
–
69;64
–
66 for a summary and demolition of the standard picture.15It is not mentioned in Cicero
’
s tour of philosophical sites set inAthens in 79 BCE (
De Finibus
5. 1
–
2). For its remains see Travlos(1971), 345
–
47, s.v.
“
Lykeion
”
, and 169, map of Athens, no. 202.
231

Recent excavations for the new Athens subway have revealed itssite.16
Cic
.,
De Fin
. 5.7.17See Gottschalk(1989): 1083
–
97 for Andronicus.18For Cynicism, especially useful is Branham and Goulet-Caz
é
(1996). For Cynicism in the Roman world, note Branham
’
s intro-duction (1
–
27), and Griffin, M.,
“
Cynicism and the Romans:Attraction and Repulsion
”
, 190
–
204. Still useful is Dudley (1937).19They are linked, for example, by Epictetus,
Disc
. 2. 13. 24 and 16.35. Many people in antiquity believed that the first Cynic was Anti-sthenes of Athens (
c
.445
–
365 BCE), a follower of Socrates, whowas present at his death, according to Plato,
Phaedo
59B.20Diogenes Laertius, 6. 54.21For Zeno
’
s
Politeia
see Schofield (1991).22Augustine,
Civ
.
Dei
19. 1
–
3.23The key statement is at
De Off
. 1. 128:
“
we must not listen to theCynics or those Stoics who have been almost Cynics
”
. ForCicero
’
s discomfort with plain speaking see Griffin (above, note18), 191
–
92.24Horace,
Ep
. 2. 2. 60:
sermones Bionei
. Horace called his ownsatires
Sermones
.25Branham and Goulet-Caz
é
(1996), 25. For the Cynics in the impe-rial age see Goulet-Caz
é
(1990).26Epictetus,
Disc
. 1. 24. 6
–
10, and 3. 22, discussed in Chapter 8.Goulet-Caz
é
(1990), 2773
–
74, warns against accepting Epictetus
’
picture of Cynicism uncritically. She is also sceptical of the Cyniccredentials of Dio Chrysostom (
Ibid
., 2810
–
12).27See Griffin (1996), 196
–
200.28Much of Cynic lack of decorum concerned the human body and itsfunctions: see Krueger (1996).29Sen., N.Q. 7. 32. 1
–
2, quoted inChapter 5, p. 133.30Juvenal,
Sat
. 13. 120
–
25. For analysis of philosophical influencesin
Sat
. 10, the most philosophical of the satires, see Courtney(1980), 448
–
54, whose conclusion, that this is not
“
poetry of thetop class
”
, is wide of the mark.31The apparent praise of Hadrian in
Sat
. 7. 1
–
21 is tempered byirony and indirection.32For Favorinus see Holford-Strevens (1997); Barigazzi (1993);Michel (1993).33Cic.,
De Off
. 1. 58, 160. For Hierocles see Parente (1989).34Harrison (2000) gives proper consideration to Apuleius
’
philosoph-ical credentials, especially in chapters3
–
5.
232THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
35Books 6 for the Cynics, 7 for the Stoics (wrongly given as Book 8in OCD
3
, 475) and 10 for the Epicureans. Analysis and discussionby Goulet-Caz
é
(1992); Hahm (1992); Gigante (1992).
2THE ARRIVAL OF THE GREEK PHILOSOPHERS IN ROME
1For the facts see Astin (1978), 174
–
75.2Cicero,
De Oratore
2. 155. Many other ancient references aregiven by Astin (1978), 175.3
Cicero
,
De Off
. 3. 114; Livy, Per. 53.4See Astin (1978), 164, for Cato
’
s withering remarks about Albi-nus, reported by Polybius, 39. 1. 1.5Gellius,
N.A
. 6. 14. 9.6Cicero,
De Oratore
2. 157
–
61.7
Cic
.,
Top
. 6(=LS31F).8Sources for Diogenes are collected in
SVF
3. 210
–
43. New evi-dence for his importance is being found in the Herculaneumpapyri, for which seeChapter 4, pp. 100
–
01.9For sources for and fragments of Carneades, see Mette (1985), 39
–
148 (53
–
141 for Carneades).10Gellius,
N
.
A
. 6. 14. 10, quoting Polybius (
Hist
. 33. 2, the Greek text of which is not extant) and Rutilius Rufus (frag. 3). Polybiusmay have heard Carneades in Rome, and Rutilius (b.
c
. 160 BCE)was a pupil of Panaetius.11Cic.,
Rep
. 3. 9
–
31 for Philus
’
version of Carneades
’
speech against justice; 33
–
41 for Laelius
’
defence (which is not explicitly said tobe a reproduction of Carneades
’
first speech). Lactantius,
Inst
. 5.14
–
18 (= frag, 11b1 Mette) and
Epit
. 50
–
52 (=frag. 11b2 Mette),rebuts Carneades. Augustine summarizes parts of the speeches of Philus and Laelius in
Civ
.
Dei
19. 21 and 22. 6 (=frag. 11b3Mette). For Philus
’
speech see Hahm (1999), 167
–
83.12Livy, 39. 6. 7
–
7. 5; Polybius 31. 25. 6
–
7.13Pol., 31. 23
–
24. For Scipio see Astin, A.E.,
Scipio Aemilianus
,Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.14Pol., 31.25. 2
–
9.15Polybius
’
description of a Roman nobleman
’
s funeral (6. 53
–
54) isthe
locus classicus
for Roman ancestral tradition.16Cicero,
Brutus
77; Livy, 45. 8. 6.17Plutarch,
Aemilius
6. 8
–
9; Astin (1967), 15
–
16.18Livy, 44. 44; Plutarch,
Aem
. 22. 3
–
9; Polybius, 31. 29. 1
–
7.
NOTES233
19Plutarch,
Aem
. 28. 11. E.Rawson speculates about the contents of the library in
CAH
2
8. 464.20Astin (1978), chapter 8 (pp. 157
–
81), with complete references forancient sources.21Quoted by the elder Pliny,
N
.
H
. 29. 13
–
14.22Astin (1978), 339, who discusses the
Ad Filium
in Appendix 8,332
–
42.23Plutarch,
Cato Mai
. 8. 18.24
HRR
frag. 6, 56, 50.25Plutarch,
Cato Mai
. 23. 1.26
mera mortualia
(Cell. N.A. 18. 7. 3).27Gellius, N.A. 15. 11. 1; Suetonius,
Gramm
. 25;
MRR
1. 444. Theother expulsions were in 92 BCE and 89 or 92 CE.28Athenaeus, 12. 547a.29
Cato Mai
. 23. 3.30Suetonius,
Nero
52.31Cicero,
Ac
. 1. 19. Diogenes Laertius (3. 56) more accurately saysthat physics was the original and sole philosophical subject, towhich Socrates added ethics, and Plato dialectics. See Barnes(1997a), especially 140
–
46, analysing problems in translatingCicero
’
s terminology.32Cic., Ac. 1.30.33Diogenes Laertius 7. 41
–
44 (=LS 31 A).34D.L., 7. 83 (=
SVF
2. 130 and LS 31C). Plato establishes dialecticas the
“
coping-stone
”
of education in
Rep
. 8. 534b
–
e.35Aristotle,
Rhet
. 1. 2 (1355b 25).36
vir bonus, dicendi peritus
, quoted by Quintilian,
Inst
. 12. 1. 1, insupport of his argument that the orator must be morally good. ButAstin (1978), 147 and 154, points out the ambiguities in Cato
’
sphrase.37Lactantius,
Inst.
5. 14. 5 (=LS 68M), discussed by Long (1986),104
–
06.38Long (1986), 104.39Cic.,
De Rep
. 3.33.40Lucilius, frag. 200
–
07W, quoted by Cicero,
De Fin
. 2. 24.41Cic.,
T
.
D
. 4. 5.42Cic., Pro
Murena
66;
De Fin
2. 24, 4. 23.43Cicero,
Acad
.
Pr
. 2. 5 (=Panaetius, frag. 23V); Astin (1967), 296
–
99. Panaetius
’
fragments are quoted from Van Straaten (1962).44Astin (1967), 17 and 302
–
06.45Cic.,
Pro Murena
61
–
63.46Long (1986), 211.
234THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
47Cic.,
De Off
. 1. 46. A corollary of including those who show
“
some evidence of virtue
”
is the idea of progress towards virtue (asopposed to the sharp distinction between the virtuous person andall others), discussed by Seneca in
Ep
. 75, for which seeChapter 6,pp. 174
–
6.48Cic.,
De Fin
. 4. 79 (=Panaetius, frag. 55V). Xenocrates was a disci-ple of Plato, Theophrastus and Dicaearchus were followers of Aristotle.49
De Off
. 2. 35 (=Panaetius, frag. 62V);
De Leg
. 3. 14 (=frag. 61V).50As can be seen from the names listed in Panaetius, frag. 137
–
63V.51Seneca,
Ep
. 116. 5 (=Panaetius, frag. 114V).52Frag. 55V, quoted above.53Frag. 64
–
69V54Frag. 70
–
74V.55LS54I
–
Q; 55A, E, J
–
M; 62A
–
C, K.56Cic.,
De Off
. 1. 101 (=frag. 87V); cf.
De Off
. 1. 132, 2. 18 (=frag.88
–
89V).57Aristotle,
N
.
E
. 1102a27
–
28.58LS53R(=SVF3. 175).59Tertullian,
De Anima
14. 2 (=frag. 85V), ascribes to Panaetius asix-part division of the soul.60Cic.,
De Rep
. 1. 34 (=frag. 119V).61Cic.,
De Rep
. 1.35
–
36.62Cic.,
De Off
. 1. 124 (=frag. 121V). The phrase
“
define its rights
”
translates the reading
describere
: the alternative reading,
dis-cribere
, gives the sense
“
to distribute rights [namely, to citizens]
”
.63Polybius 6. 53
–
54.64Long (1986), 216.65Cic.,
Ad Att
. 2. 1.8.66
De Fin
. 1. 6 (cf.
N
.
D
. 1. 123 and 2. 88);
T
.
D
. 2. 61.67Cic.,
Ad Att
. 2. 1. 12.68Frag. 255 EK; Plutarch,
Marius
45.69The leader of this school was Karl Reinhardt, especially in hisbook (1926).70Edelstein and Kidd (1972 and 1989); Kidd (1988 and 1999).71Frag. 91 EK; cf. Panaetius, frag. 63V72Kidd, s.v.
“
Posidonius
”
, in OCD
3
, 1232.73Posidonius, frag. 88 EK (=
SVF
2. 38).74The same objection applied to the simile of the egg.75Posidonius, frag. 99a EK: cf. frag. 97a EK.76Nock (1959), p. 15 quoted.77Strabo 2. 3. 8 (=Posidonius, frag. T85 EK).
NOTES235
78
SVF
2. 973.79Frag. 164 EK, esp.
§
5.80They constitute most of frag. 150a
–
87 EK: see Kidd (1988) forcommentary, along with Kidd (1971).81Galen,
De Plac
., 5. 469 (=Posidonius, frag. 30 EK).82Greek
pleonazousa horme
(SVF 3. 377).83Frag. 152 and 157 EK (=Galen,
DePlac
. 5. 429
–
30). Frag. 157 isalso quoted in frag. 34 EK.84The tripartite nature of the soul, and its analogy to the tripartitecity, is a central argument in Plato
’
s
Republic
, set forth in
Rep
. 4.434e
–
444e. Plato
’
s terms for the irrational parts of the soul are
thymoeides
(
“
spirited
”
) and
epithymetikon
(
“
desiring
”
).85
SVF
1. 179, quoted by Posidonius in frag. 187B EK (=Galen,
DePlac
. 5. 469
–
76), line 35.86Frag. 186 EK (=Clement,
Strom
., 2. 21. 129).87See Hahm (1989) and the commentary on frag. 252
–
84 in Kidd(1988), 861
–
971.88Frag. 255 EK.89Frag. 253 EK (=Athenaeus 5. 211D
–
215B).90Frag. 67
–
69, 274
–
76 EK.91Frag. 284 EK (=Seneca,
Ep
. 90. 5
–
13, 20
–
25, 30
–
32), with Kidd(1988), 96l
–
71.92Frag. 60 EK (=Athenaeus 6. 263c
–
d).
3CICERO AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES
1Powell (1995). The quotation is from Long (1995), p. 50.2Cato, frag. 14 Jordan, quoted by Quintilian,
Inst
. 12. 1. 1. See p. 22above.3See Powell (1995), 12.4Diodotus died in 59 BCE: see
Ad Att
. 2. 20. 6.5
N
.
D
. 1.6.6For example, at the end of the
De Natura Deorum
(3. 95) headmits that he prefers the views of the Stoic Balbus to those of theEpicurean Velleius and the Academic Cotta.7See p. 59 for Cicero
’
s ambivalence towards the Stoic doctrine thatvirtue alone is sufficient for the good life.8Cicero,
Ad Fam
. 13. 1. 2. Memmius was the patron of Lucretius.Phaedrus became head of the Epicurean school at Athens and wassucceeded by Patron in 70 BCE.
236THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
9
Brutus
316.10The fragments and testimonia for Philo and Antiochus are printedin Mette (1986
–
87), 9
–
24 for Philo, 25
–
63 for Antiochus; frag. 9Mette (=Cicero,
T
.
D
. 2. 9) for Philo
’
s teaching. For Philo
’
s life andphilosophy see Brittain (2001), who, 173
–
91, is critical of Cicero
’
sevidence.11See Frede (1999), p. 280 for the end of the Academic school.12Long (1986), 231.13Cic., Ac. 1.45.14See Sharpies (1996), 9
–
10 and 27
–
32.15For Aristotle
’
s criticism of the Platonic theory of ideas, see, forexample,
N
.
E
. 1096a
–
1097a.16
“
Cognitive impression
”
approximates to the Greek
kataleptike phantasia.
Cicero translates
katalepsis
(
“
cognition
”
) as
comprehen-sio
and uses various terms such as
percipere
and
impressio
and
visum
for
“
impression
”
.17Greek,
eulogon
. LS 69B (=Sext. Emp.,
Adv
.
Math
. 7. 158).18Cicero translates the Greek
pithanon as probabile
(
Luc
. 103). Hequotes Clitomachus, Carneades
’
successor as head of the Academy
c
. 128
–
110 BCE, for this theory (
Luc
. 103
–
04=LS 69I,J).Carneades
’
theory is set forth at greater length by Sextus Empiri-cus (LS 69D,E=Sext. Emp.,
Adv
.
Math
. 7. 166
–
84).19Cicero,
Luc
. 11
–
12.20Cicero,
Ac
. 1. 40
–
42 (excerpts in LS 40B and 41B);
Luc
., 16
–
39.Cic.,
De Fin
. 5.7, for Aristotle
’
s authority.21For differences between the ethics of Antiochus and the Stoics, seeCicero,
De Fin
. 4. 37
–
41, 78. For Antiochus
’
physics, see
Ac
. 1.24
–
29, where the reference to Aristotle
’
s fifth element is non-Stoic.22Cicero,
N
.
D
. 1. 16, where Balbus criticizes Antiochus.23
Luc
. 132.24LS 71C,
§§
9
–
11: see Barnes (1989), 93
–
94, Appendix C. For Aen-esidemus see the commentary on LS 71, vol. 1, 470
–
73. The quar-rel was still between Academics: see Striker (1997).25Barnes (1989), 90.26Cic., N.D. 1.6.27Cic.,
Luc
. 29.28Long (1986), 229.29Plato,
Rep
. 621b
–
d.30Barnes (1989), 90.31The Introduction and Commentary of Reid (1881) are still valu-able. The text edited by O.Plasberg (Leipzig: Teubner, 1908)includes the texts of Cicero
’
s letters that chart the course of the
NOTES237
work
’
s creation. Inwood and Mansfeld (1997) contains ten essayson the
Academica
, with bibliographies. For Antiochus, basic isBarnes (1989). For Philo see Brittain (2001), especially 38
–
72(
“
Philo
’
s Life
”
), with extensive bibliography.32The relevant passages are printed in Plasberg (1908), 28
–
32, and inappendix A to Griffin (1997a), which is the best discussion of thesubject. For most readers the brief and lucid summary in Powell(1995), xiv
–
xvi, will be sufficiently informative.33Cicero,
Brutus
, 307. Cicero admired the elder Catulus and madehim a participant in Books 2 and 3 of
De Oratore
. He could notmake him a participant in the
Catulus
, the dramatic date of whichwas twenty-five years after his death.34
Ad Att
. 13. 16, written on 26 June, 45 (T14 in Appendix A of Grif-fin, 1997a). Griffin discusses this version on pp. 20
–
27.35Matters are further confused by the convention of referring to theextant book of the first version (
Lucullus
) as
Academica Priora
(although it is actually the second book) and the final version as
Academica Posteriora
(although the extant book is actually thefirst book and is printed before the
Lucullus
). For illumination seePowell (1995), xv, and Griffin (1997a), appendix B, pp. 33
–
34.36
De Fin
. 5. 9
–
75 (Piso) and 76
–
95 (Cicero).37Augustine,
C
.
D
. 19, 1
–
3, for the
De Philosophia
.38
Ad Fam
. 9.6.4.39
Ad Att
. 13. 16. 1.40
Ad Att
. 13. 12
–
19, 21
–
25, 33a, 35.41
Ad Att
. 13. 25. 3.42This was the
De Lingua Latina
, published probably in 43 in twenty-five books, of which Books 5
–
25 were dedicated to Cicero.43
Ad Fam
. 9.8.44
Ad Att
. 13. 44. 2 (T20 in Griffin, 1997a, b).45
Ad Att
. 13. 13. 1 (T12 in Griffin, 1997a, b).46
Ad Att
. 13. 12
–
25.47Clarke (1981),chapter 1, has useful sections on Brutus as an intel-lectual (pp. 22
–
33) and on his death and his attitude to suicide (pp.67
–
72). Clarke accepts the narrative of Plutarch rather than that of Dio.48Plutarch,
Brutus
40. 7
–
8.49Plutarch,
Brutus
52.50Plutarch,
Brutus
56. 11 (=
Comparison with Dion
3. 11).51Cicero,
Ad Brut
. 1. 9.52
Brutus
311
–
12, 330.53Quintilian,
Inst
. 10. 1. 123.
238THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
54
Brutus
10.55Tacitus,
Dial
. 18.4.56
De Fin
. 1. 1
–
12.57
De Fin
. 3.6.58
Paradox
.
Stoic
.,
Preface
1.59Plutarch,
Cato Min
. 4. 4.60
Cato Min
. 4. 2
–
3.61
Cato Min
. 10; Strabo 14. 674.62Suetonius,
Divus Julius
19. 1:
“
not even Cato denied that thisbribery was in the interests of the Republic.
”
See Syme (1939), 34,100.63As recorded in their letters: Cicero,
Ad Fam
. 15. 3
–
6.64
Ad Att
. 7. 2. 7.65Cicero,
Pro Murena
83; Lucan,
B
.
C
. 2. 383.66
Cato Min
. 70.67
Cato Min
. 65. 11, 67.2.68Cicero discusses Cato
’
s example at
T
.
D
. 1. 74.69Plutarch,
Cato Min
. 72. 2.70Sallust,
Cat
. 51
–
53.71References are to Mueller
’
s Teubner edition, 1890.72See Lesky (1966), 553
–
55 for the
Protrepticus.
For Cicero
’
s philo-sophical works see Suss (1966), 136
–
37 for the
Hortensius
;Philippson (1939). There is no comparable survey in English:McKendrick (1989) is written for a different readership.73Augustine,
Confessions
3. 7 (=
Hortensius
, frag. 10M).74Aug.,
De Trinitate
14. 9 (=frag. 50M).75Aug.,
De Trin
. 14. 19 (=frag. 97M).76S
ü
ss (1966), 53.77
T
.
D
. 4. 82.78
De Fin
. 3.5.79
De Fin
. 3. 15.80
De Fin
. 3. 35.81
De Fin
. 3.40.82Catullus 61. It is doubtful that Torquatus is the Allius of Catullus68.83
De Fin
. 1.29.84
De Fin
. 1. 16, 2. 119.85Philippson (1939), 1136
–
37.86For example, the argument of 2. 31 is the same as the Antiocheanargument of
De Fin
. 5. 45.87
De Fin
. 2. 17.88
De Fin
. 5. 22;
T
.
D
. 5.32.
NOTES239
89As Cato says (3. 14):
“
I will set forth the whole of the doctrine of Zeno and the Stoics.
”
90Greek
adiaphora
: 3. 53 for explanation of the Latin translation.91
De Fin
. 3. 31 (=LS 64A).92The definitions of Diogenes and Antipater are given in LS 58K
(=
Stobaeus 2. 76. 9
–
15) and discussed in LS I, pp. 398
–
401. Chrysip-pus said that the end was
“
living in accordance with nature
”
(LS64C [= D.L. 7. 87
–
89]); Diogenes that it was
“
to use reason rightlyin choosing and not-choosing things in accordance with nature
”
;Antipater that it was
“
to live choosing things in accordance withnature and not-choosing things contrary to nature
”
.933. 75.
“
Revere
”
is used to translate
colendum
, which in Latindenotes both
“
worship
”
and
“
study
”
.94
T
.
D
. 5. 32.955. 1
–
8.96See Travlos (1971), 233
–
41, 578
–
79.97See the bird
’
s-eye view in LS I, p. 4.98See Pohlenz
’
s Teubner text (1967), iv-v, for their survival in lateantiquity and revival in the Carolingian age, when the principalmanuscripts were copied.99
T.D.
1. 7 (
seniles declamationes
).100
De Div.
2.2.101Summarily expressed in 3. 14
–
15 and developed in 3. 16
–
84.102He had used the plural of
inventrix
a decade earlier in
De Oratore
1.13.103Philippson (1939), 1149.104
Ad Att.
12. 14. 3.105Frag. 7M: quotations are from Mueller
’
s Teubner edition, 1890.106See Dudley (1937), 114
–
15.107
Ad Att.
12. 14. 3.108
T.D.
1.65
–
66.109Frag. 11M(=Lactantius,
Inst
. 1. 15
–
16).110
Ad Fam
. 4. 5.111
De Div
. 2. 3.112S
ü
ss (1966), 93.113
N
.
D
. 1. 123 (=Posidonius, frag. 22a EK), quoted also by Lactan-tius,
De Ira Dei
4. 7 (=frag. 22b EK).114N.D. 2. 3, repeated by Cotta at 3. 6. Balbus
’
four sections arerespectively 2. 4
–
44, 45
–
72, 73
–
153, 154
–
67.1152. 154.1163. 29
–
37 (=Carneades, frag. 8a Mette).1173.5
–
6.
240THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
1183.93.119
N.D.
2. 104
–
14.120N.D. 2. 104.121
De Div.
1. 13
–
15. Quintus also quotes thirteen lines from Cicero
’
s
Marius
at
De Div.
1. 106, and seventy-eight lines from his poem
De Consulatu Suo
at
De Div.
1. 17
–
22.122See Courtney (1993), 235
–
46.1231. 1
–
7.1242. 8.125For the
“
intellectual and cultural context
”
of
De Divinatione
seeBeard (1986).126
De Div.
1. 3
–
4.127Rawson (1985), 304
–
06; Seneca, N.Q., 2. 39
–
49.128Cicero,
Ad Fam.
6. 5
–
9; Rawson (1978, reprinted in Rawson 1991,289
–
323).129
De Div,
1. 34, 82
–
83, 117
–
18 (=LS 42C
–
E). Cf,
De Div.
2. 9
–
10,and
De Fato
26
–
33 (=LS 70 F,G).130
De Div,
1. 7; 1. 6 for Panaetius
’
doubts.131Schofield (1986), p. 63 quoted, with a summary of the work
’
s struc-ture on p. 64.132As Cicero points out at 2. 8.133
De Div.
2.70.1342. 148.1352. 150.136Schofield (1986), 50.137See LS 20, 55, 62, 70G.138Criticized by Cicero at
De Fato
5
–
7 (=Posidonius, frag. 104 EK).139See Sharpies (1995).140
De Fato
28
–
30 (=LS 55S), with Carneades
’
argument quoted at
§
31. The
“
lazy argument
”
(Greek,
argos logos
; Latin,
ignavaratio
) says that action is useless because what will happen is fatedto happen.141
De Fato
46
–
48, the final sections of the extant text.142Cicero,
Ad Fam.
9. 4. See Griffin (1995), 339
–
41.143
De Div.
2.7.144Macrobius was Prefect of Italy in 430 CE: see Cameron (1966).There are 230 manuscripts of the
Commentary
and 276 of the
Som-nium
: see Reynolds (1983), 222
–
32.145For Zeno
’
s
Politeia
see Schofield (1991), especiallychapter 2.146Cicero,
De Div
. 2. 3.147
De Rep.
1.2.148See Sharpies (1986).
NOTES241
149Cicero discusses this in a letter to his brother written about the endof October, 54 (
Ad Q.F.
3. 5. 1).150
De Rep.
1. 14. 3 for political instability in 129.151As he recalls at 6. 9. 1.152For valuable introductions to
De Republica
see Zetzel (1995) and(1999). The most comprehensive survey of scholarship on the
De Republica
is still Schmidt (1973).1531. 15.1541. 30
–
33:1. 33 quoted.155
Ad Q.F.
3. 5. 1:
de optimo statu civitatis et de optimo cive.
156Ennius, frag. 156 Sk:
moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque
.1571.36:
unum e togatis
.1581. 39:
est igitur res publica res populi
. The epigram depends for itseffect on a double play on words, reflecting the traditional Romandistinction between public affairs (
res publica
, which can mean
“
politics
”
as well as
“
republic
”
) and private property (
res privata
).1591. 45 for the mixed constitution; 1 54 and 69 for Scipio
’
s prefer-ence for monarchy.160Powell (1994), who (p. 22) refers to
“
a class of persons designatedas
rectores
and helmsmen of the state
”
and connects Cicero
’
s
rec-tor
with Plato
’
s statesman (
politikos
),
“
the good man skilled ingovernment
”
(pp. 24
–
25).161Zetzel (1995), 20.162
De Rep.
2. 1
–
2.163See Astin (1978), 225
–
26.164
De Rep.
3. 8
–
31. See pp. 22
–
3.165
De Rep.
3. 32
–
41,
§
33 quoted (=Lactantius,
Inst.
6. 8. 6
–
9, and LS67S).166See LS 67, esp. A, K
—
L: 67S is this passage.167See Powell (1994), and cf. note 160 above.168For a tactful selection of names see Zetzel (1995), 27.169Zetzel (1995), 224.170The
Somnium,
however, does have its detractors, for example Ken-ney (1977), 9:
“
The elaborate Pythagorean cosmology of the
Som-nium Scipionis
is no more than a technicolor backdrop to his[Cicero
’
s] Sunset Home for Retired Statesmen.
”
171For an introduction to
De Legibus
see Zetzel (1999), xx-xxiv, withbibliography on xxxv.172Text, 2. 19
–
23; commentary, 2. 24
–
69.173Text, 3. 6
–
11; commentary, 3. 18
–
47. The beginning of the com-mentary is lost, and the work breaks off after 3. 49.174
De Leg.
2. 17.
242THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
175Respectively
Brutus
306
–
16 (see pp. 35
–
7 of this book) and118
–
21.176
Or.
8
–
16: see pp. 34
–
5.177
De Or.
1. 5.178
De lnv.
2.8.179
De lnv.
1. 1
–
5.1801. 213.181Scaevola was related by marriage to Crassus, Laelius and Marius.Cicero
—
who compares him, Crassus and Antonius as orators in
Brutus
139
–
55
—
studied law under him (
Brutus
306). He is thenarrator of Cicero
’
s dialogue
On Friendship.
182
De Or.
3. 9
–
10.183
De Or.
1.29.1841.31
–
34.1851.45
–
47.1861.211.1871.212.1881.223.1891.224.1903. 54
–
143.1913. 142.192
Ad Att.
15. 27. 2; 16. 2. 6 and 6. 4;
De off.
2. 31.193Val. Max. 8. 14.194
De Sen.
3. Ariston of Ceos was head of the Peripatetic school
c
.225 BCE. The principal speaker in his dialogue on old age wasthe ever-aging Tithonus, loved by Eos (Aurora).195Shown in
De Agri Cultura
2. 56
–
69 (attitude towards slaves); 2.143 (attitude towards the female housekeeper).196
De Sen.
56: see Livy 3. 26
–
29.197
De Sen.
82
–
84 (
§
82 quoted).198
Ad Fam.
11. 27, 28. See Griffin (1997b).199D.L., 7. 124 (=LS 67P).200
De Fin.
1. 65
–
70 (Torquatus: =LS 22 O); 2. 82
–
85 (Cicero: cf.
De Amic.
27). For Epicurus
’
sayings on friendship see D.L. 10. 148 (
K. D.
27, 28: =LS 22E), and 10. 120; LS 22F. See Rist (1972), 127
–
39.201For Atticus see Rawson (1985), 100
–
01. She believes that Atticus
“
was not a serious Epicurean
”
.202
Top.
1
–
5.203See Barnes, in Barnes and Griffin (1997), 54
–
57.204
Top.
6.205See Sharpies (1995).206See Stump (1988).
NOTES243
207
Ad Fam.
4. 13.208
Ad Fam.
4. 13. 3, 7.209
Ad Att.
15. 13. 6; 16. 11. 4.210Horace,
Carm.
3. 3; Cicero,
De Off.
3. 99
–
115.211
De Off.
3. 121.212See Astin (1978), 332
–
40.213
Ad Att.
15. 13. 6.214
De Off.
3. 121.215For commentary see Dyck (1996). For translation see Griffin andAtkins (1991).216D.L. 7. 108:
“
kathekonta
are the things that reason tells us to do
”
.217
Ad Att.
16. 14. 4; cf. 16. 11. 4.218Dyck (1996), 3
–
8.219
Ad Att.
16. 11.4.220
De Off.
2. 60.221
De Off.
3. 99
–
115.222
De Off.
3.7
–
8;
Ad Att
. 16. 11.4; 16. 14.4.223
De Off.
3. 34.224
De Off.
1. 7, reading
conformari.
225
De Off.
1. 9
–
10.2261. 12
–
14.2271. 18
–
19 (wisdom); 1. 21
–
60 (justice).228
De Off.
2. 69
–
71.229
De Off.
1. 61
–
92; 1. 78 for Cicero
’
s career.230
De Off.
1. 93
–
151.231
De Off.
1. 152
–
60; 1. 153 for the definition of wisdom.232
De Off.
1. 60; cf. 1. 58.233
De Off.
2. 1.234
De Off.
1. 6; 2. 7
–
8 (cf. 3. 20).235
De Off.
2. 9
–
10.2362. 11
–
22.2372. 23
–
38.2382. 39
–
51.2393. 43
–
46.2402. 52
–
64.241Griffin and Atkins (1991), 91.242For example, Horace,
Sat.
2. 8 and
Ep.
1. 17 and 18; Seneca,
De Ben.
6. 33
–
34; Juvenal,
Sat
. 1, 3, 5.2432. 72
–
85;
§
85 quoted.2442. 88
–
89.245The story of Gyges, 3. 38
–
39, taken from Plato (
Rep.
359d
–
60e), isan exception.
244THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
2463. 1
–
3.2473. 79
–
85.2483. 20
–
28.249Dyck (1996), 492.2503. 99
–
115 (Regulus); 3. 97
–
98 (Ulysses); 3. 25 (Hercules).2513. 100.2523. 116
–
20.253See Reynolds (1983), 130
–
31.254Suss (1966), 143; Montaigne,
Essais
, 2. 10.255See Douglas (1968), 5. See Mommsen (1856), 3. 619
–
21 (Dick-son, 1883, 4. 724
–
30). See Drumann (1929), 6. 574
–
96, for theattack on Cicero, who is the subject of this volume and much of vol. 5. The editor of the second edition, P.Groebe, quotes (p. vii) E.Meyer
’
s estimate that this attack is
“
a master-example of partisantreatment
”
and
“
das bizarrste Produkt deutscher Gelehrsamkeit
”
.256In the OCT series,
De Officiis
, ed. M.Winterbottom, 1994;
DeFinibus,
ed. L.D.Reynolds, 1998.257Wilkinson, L.P., in
CHCL
, 1983, 2. 92.258S.v.
“
Cicero
”
, in OCPhil., 135.259See Douglas (1964), especially 157
–
66.
4LUCRETIUS AND THE EPICUREANS
1
Q.F.
2. 9. 4. For the punctuation of this passage see Sedley (1998),1 and 203.2Cicero,
Ac.
1. 5
–
6;
T.D.
4. 6
–
7.3For Epicurean political participation see Griffin and Barnes(1989); Fowler (1989); Sedley (1997). For Epicureans and the mur-der of Julius Caesar, see Momigliano (1941), together with Griffinand Barnes (1989), 28
–
31.4
Cicero, De Fin.
1. 37.5Cicero,
Ad Fam.
15. 15, 16, and 19; see Sedley (1997), 41, andGriffin (1989), 28
–
31.6
Ad Fam.
15. 16. 1 (which also mentions the death of Catius); 15.19. 1
–
2, where Cassius calls Amafinius and Catius
“
bad transla-tors
”
(
mali verborum interpretes
).7For Philodemus see Philippson (1938); Dorandi (1990); Asmis(1990); Auvray-Assayas and Delattre (2001).8See Griffin (2001), who discusses Piso
’
s Epicureanism in the con-text of his political career.
NOTES245
9For their story see Sedley (1998), 65
–
68 and 94
–
99. For the textsof the papyri see the bibliography in Griffin and Barnes (1989),259
–
60.10Cicero,
T.D.
3. 38.11Asmis (1990), 2392; see Kuiper, (1925).12Col. 12
–
14 for death in old age (cf. Epicurus
Vatican Sayings
17);25. 2 for the bereaved; 25. 37
–
26. 7 for death in a foreign country(cf. Cic.,
T.D.
5. 107, with the examples of Panaetius andPosidonius).13Cols 28. 5 and 37. 27
–
29; cf. LS 24B (=
Vatican Sayings
31);Usener,
Epicurea
, fr. 339, ascribes the original saying both toMetrodorus and Epicurus.14Nor Philodemus by Lucretius: see Sedley (1998), 65
–
68.15See Sedley (1998), 67
–
85.16Sedley (1998), 91
–
93.17Sedley (1998), 94
–
165; still useful is Steckel (1968), 601
–
11 for
De Natura.
18D.L. 10. 35
–
83; cf. Sedley (1998), chart 1, p. 133.19D.L. 10. 39
–
44, 54
–
62.20D.L. 10. 46
–
53.21D.L. 10. 63
–
67.22D.L. 10. 68
–
71.23D.L. 10. 73b
–
74; Lucr.,
DRN
2. 1048
–
174.24
DRN
5. 771
–
1457; D.L. 10. 75
–
76a.25D.L. 10. 76b
–
82.26See the chart in Bailey (1947), 1. 23.27Sedley (1998), 138
–
44.28D.L. 10. 84
–
116.29D.L. 10. 91; Lucr.,
DRN
5. 564
–
613; Cicero,
De Fin.
1. 20 and
Ac.
2. 123. See Bailey (1947), 3. 1406
–
10.30D.L. 10. 85
–
86, 116.31D.L. 10. 121
–
35;
§
122 quoted (=LS 25A).32D.L. 10. 123
–
24a; Lucr.
DRN
6. 50
–
91, with Bailey (1947), 3.1560; Cicero, N.D., 1. 49 (=LS 23E, with explanation at LS 1.145); Sedley (1998), 122
–
23.33D.L. 10. 124b
–
127a (=LS 24A); Lucr.,
DRN
3. 830
–
1094 (830
–
31quoted).34D.L. 10. 127b
–
132 (=LS 21B): 129 quoted.35D.L. 10. 133
–
35 (135 quoted).36D.L. 10. 139
–
54; cf. Cicero,
De Fin.
2. 20.37
Against the Sophists
4. 9
–
14; LS 25J; Usener,
Epicurea,
p. 69; cf.Cicero,
De Fin.
1. 40
–
41.
246THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
38Cf. Sedley (1998), 163.39
KD
5 (cf. 17).40
KD
33 (31
–
38 expand on this).41
KD
14 (cf. 39).42
KD
27
–
28 (cf. 7 and 40); LS 22F (quoting various
Vatican Sayings
).43
DRN
5. 1120
–
30.44
DRN
2. 1
–
19.45See Schofield (1991),chapter 2.46
KD
27
–
28.47See Sedley (1997), 41 and 46
–
47; cf. notes 3 and 5 above.48See Griffin (2001), especially 88
–
92.49
N.E.
1155a22.50
KD
10
–
11.51
KD
12
–
13.52
KD
18
–
30; cf. LS 21E
–
H.53In Greek, respectively,
katastematike
and
kinetike,
which has noequivalent in English beyond the Graecism
“
kinetic
”
.54D.L. 10. 127.55Plato,
Gorgias
493a.56
DRN
3. 1007
–
10. The Danaids were condemned in the Underworldto draw water in jars full of holes.57
DRN
6. 20
–
21, 25.58
DRN
5. 1117
–
19.59Thuc. 2. 47
–
54.60Lucretius says that he is
“
speeding towards the finishing-line
”
(6.92
–
93).61
DRN
6. 1
–
41.62Keeping the manuscript reading
cortice
in 4. 43.63
DRN
1. 54
–
61.64
DRN
1. 136
–
39.65
DRN
4. 1
–
9.66See Sharples (1996), 12
–
16.67
DRN
4. 499. See LS 16A (=
DRN
4. 469
–
521) and B (=D.L. 10.31
–
32).68DRN 4. 524
–
614.69
OCD
3
890.70Sedley (1998), 58
–
59.71
DRN
1. 47 3
–
77.72
DRN
5. 1036.73
DRN
3. 6
–
8.74
DRN
1. 55
–
56.75
DRN
1. 62
–
135.
NOTES247
76Sedley (1998), 22, part of an extended discussion, with referencesto other theories, 1
–
34.77
DRN
1. 716
–
62.78For example, Spenser,
F.Q.
4. 10. 44
–
47.79
DRN
1. 62
–
79.80
DRN
6. 58
–
79.81
DRN
1. 84
–
101.82
DRN
1. 146
–
48.83
DRN
1. 117
–
26.84
DRN
1. 150, 215
–
16, 419
–
20.85
DRN
2. 62
–
66 (formation and dissolution); 80
–
332 (motion); 333
–
729 (shapes and compounds); 730
–
990 (secondary qualities); 216
–
93 (
clinamen
).86
DRN
2. 990
–
1174; 2. 1048
–
51 for the limitless void; 1173
–
74 forthe farmer
’
s death.87
DRN
2. 991
–
98.88
DRN
3. 1
–
93; 1
–
30 for praise of Epicurus, 13
–
30 quoted. Lines 6
–
8 are quoted on p. 113.89
DRN
3. 94
–
416.90
DRN
3. 323
–
69, 417
–
829.91
DRN
3. 830
–
1094.92
DRN
3. 830
–
42; Epicurus,
KD
2.93
DRN
3. 894
–
99.94D.L. 10. 120.
DRN
3. 1042 for Epicurus
’
death.95
DRN
4. 1
–
25, partially quoted on p. 111.96
DRN
4. 26
–
44 (29
–
30 quoted), replacing 4. 45
–
53.97
DRN
4. 1
–
822.98
DRN
4. 739
–
43 for Centaurs; 788
–
99 for dreams (
“
latent image
”
at796).99D.L. 10. 127b
–
32; KD 18
–
30.100
DRN
5. 117
–
19; 6. 25.101
DRN
5. 1
–
54 (7
–
12 quoted).102Bailey (1947), 3. 1393; Sedley (1998), 152
–
54 (154 quoted).103
DRN
5. 771
–
924.104
DRN
5. 925
–
1457; Kenney (1977), 20.105
DRN
5. 1120
–
35.106
DRN
5. 1194
–
1203.107
DRN
5. 990
–
98.108
DRN
6. 1
–
42.109
DRN
6. 43
–
534, 535
–
1137.110
DRN
6. 83
–
89.111
DRN
6. 379
–
422, with repetition of 6. 87
–
89.
248THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
112Cicero,
De Div
. 2. 42
–
43.113
DRN
6. 579
–
82.114
DRN
6. 1090
–
1137; Sedley (1998), 123.115Bailey (1947), 3. 1719. It is unlikely that the treatise
On Epidemics
(which does not mention the plague at Athens) was a source.116
DRN
6. 1093
–
97.117
DRN
6. 1138
–
1286; Thuc., 2. 47
–
54.118Another Epicurean survivor in public life was L.Calpurnius Piso.For the problem of Cassius
’
Epicureanism see Sedley (1997) andMomigliano(194l).119Virgil,
Geo.
2. 490
–
93.120Virgil,
Aen.
1. 742
–
46.121Statius,
Silvae
2. 7. 76; Quintilian,
Inst.
10. 1. 87. See Ferguson(1990).122Persius,
Sat.
3. 77
–
84; Lucretius,
DRN
1. 150, 248.123Seneca,
Ep.
95. 11, quoting
DRN
1. 54
–
57.124Seneca,
Ep.
106. 8, quoting
DRN
1. 304; 106. 11, 12.125Seneca,
Ep.
110. 6, quoting
DRN
2. 55
–
56.126Seneca,
De Tranquillitate
2. 14, quoting
DRN
3. 1068 (inaccu-rately). See Kenney (1971), 241, for the view that the use of thisidea by later authors places Lucretius
“
near the source of theRoman tradition of diatribe satire
”
.127Gellius,
N.A.
10. 26. 9, quoting
DRN
4. 528.128See Hershbell (1992 a, b).129
An Recte Dictum
6.130See Ferguson (1990), 2326
–
27.131See Mejer (1992:3586
–
90 for Epicurus); Gigante (1986) (partlyexcerpted and translated into German in Gigante, 1992).132See Clay (1990): Chilton (1971). For M.Smith
’
s publications seeClay (1990), 2554
–
56 and 2558, and add Smith (1993).133See Clay (1990), 2481
–
90.134
Non Posse
1094E
–
1095B.135Clay (1990), 2526
–
48.136Clay (1990), 2529, for the Greek text (=frag. 49 Koerte and
Vati-can Sayings
47).
5PHILOSOPHERS AND POETS IN THE AUGUSTAN AGE
1Augustus
’
words in
Res Gestae
34 are:
rem publicam ex mea potes-tate in senatus populique Romani arbitrium transtuli
:
“
I trans-
NOTES249
ferred the republic from my power into the disposal of the senateand people of Rome.
”
This implies transference of the government,since the Republic (so Augustus implies) had continued to existthroughout the period of the second triumvirate and the years thatfollowed the collapse of the triumvirate.2Tacitus,
Ann.
1. 3. 7:
eadem magistratuum vocabula.
3Tacitus,
Dialogus
38. 2.4Tacitus wrote his history of the period 69
–
96 CE first, with the title
Historiae
, followed by the
Annales
, the history of the period 14
–
68CE (the terminal date is not definite, since the extant work breaksoff in 66).5See Griffin (1976), 38
–
40.6Seneca,
N.Q.
7. 32. 1
–
2.7Seneca,
Ep.
59. 7
–
8, 64. 2.8Seneca,
Ep.
64. 3.9Griffin (1976), 38, note 8; Seneca,
Ep.
107. 17
–
22; Sorabji (1993),125.10Seneca,
Ep.
100. 9.11Quintilian,
Inst.
10. 1. 124.12See Mansfeld (1990), especially 3179
–
83.13See Hahm (1990), especially 3035
–
47 and 3234
–
43.14Hahm (1990), 2939.15For the Stoic doxography see Pomeroy (1999).16Plutarch,
Ant.
80
–
81; Suetonius,
Aug.
89. 1; further references inHahm (1990), 3035.17Dio, 51. 16. 4; Seneca,
Cons, ad Marc.,
4. 2; Marcus Aurelius,M
ed. 8
.31.18Seneca,
Cons, ad Marc.
4
–
5,
§
5. 5 quoted.19Long (1986), 75
–
76; LS 71
–
72.20As Horace himself says,
Sat.
1. 6. 76
–
78.21
Ep.
2. 2. 42
–
45, written in about 19 BCE.22The
Epodes
were published as a whole in 30 BCE; Book 1 of the
Satires
was finished perhaps in 35 BCE, and Book 2 in 30 BCE.23Fraenkel (1957), vii.24
Ep
. 1.4:
Epicuri de grege porcum
is at line 16.25
Ep
. 1. 1, lines 10
–
14 quoted.26D.L. 2. 77.27Xenophon,
Mem
. 2. 21
–
34 (cf. Cicero,
De Off.
1. 118); Seneca,
DeVita Beata
17
–
23.28
Ep.
1. 1.41, 106
–
08.29
Ep.
1. 2. 3. Chrysippus (d. 207 BCE) was head of the Stoic school,and Grantor (d. 275 BCE) was a member of the early Academy.
250THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
30
Ep.
1. 18 (lines 96
–
112 quoted).31Fraenkel (1957), 309.32
Sat.
1. 5. 105
–
31; cf.
Sat.
1. 6. 81
–
84. Quoted are
Sat.
1. 4. 116
–
17, where the speaker is Horace
’
s father.33
Sat.
1. 3. 96
–
98, further developed in lines 113
–
42.34D.L. 10. 135.35
Ep.
2. 2. 60. Diogenes Laertius, 4. 46
–
58, includes Bion with theAcademics, but he says (4. 51) that he became a Cynic. His styleof lecturing was certainly Cynic.36The word
“
diatribe
”
is controversial: see the lucid article by Moles,J. L., in
OCD
3
463
–
64, s.v.
“
diatribe
”
. Diogenes Laertius, 2. 77,calls Bion
’
s lectures
“
Diatribes
”
.37
Ridentem dicere verum
,
Sat
. 1. 1. 24;
de te fabula narratur
,
Sat
. 1.1. 69
–
70.38See
Sat.
2. 2. 55
–
66, for criticism of the
“
dog
”
Avidienus, and cf.Griffin (1996), 196. Kiessling-Heinze, however, in their commen-tary on 2. 55, deny any connection between Avidienus
’
epithet,
canis,
and Cynicism.39Fifteen friends are named in
Sat.
1. 10. 81
–
86.40See Lebek (1981).41
Essay on Criticism
653
–
56.42V.P., 2. 88. 2.43While the notion of having poverty as one
’
s wife is similar toCynic doctrine, the metaphor of being clothed in virtue was usedby Plato,
Rep.
5. 457a:
“
the guardians
’
wives will be clothed invirtue
”
.
Virtus
in Horace, however, has the added connotation of
Roman
manliness.44
DRN
6. 400
–
01.45D.L. 10. 133
–
34.46
DRN
3. 912
–
17.47The mention of Ancus Martius (third king of Rome) in line 15alludes to Lucretius,
DRN
3. 1025.48Ferguson (1990), 2269.49For example, Bacchus, source of poetic inspiration, in
Odes
2. 19and 3. 25.50
Aurea mediocritas, Odes
2. 10. 5. Cf. Aristotle,
N.E.
1106a26
–
29.51
Ep.
1. 1. 14.52
Catalepton
5. 8
–
10, 8. 1
–
5;
Vita Donati
35.53
Arg.
1. 496
–
511.54
Aen.
1. 740
–
46.55
Geo.
2. 475
–
94, 477
–
82 quoted.56
Geo.
2. 483
–
89.
NOTES251
57
Geo.
2. 490
–
94. Cf. Aristotle,
Post. An.
2. 645a5, for
“
those whoare able to know causes
”
.58
Geo.
2. 495
–
522: cf.
DRN
2. 1
–
19.59
Geo.
2. 523
–
40.60
Geo.
3. 1
–
48.61
Geo.
4. 219
–
27; 210
–
18 for the bees
’
social coherence.62
Geo.
4. 559
–
66, 563
–
64 quoted.63
Aen.
6. 703
–
51.64
Aen.
6. 756
–
853.65For Juno
’
s centrality see Johnson (1976), esp. 114
–
34.66
Aen.
1. 277
–
78.67
Aen.
10. 112.68
Menin Iliad
1. 1.69
Aen
. 12. 946
–
47. Virgil had used the phrase
“
set on fire by furies
”
of Dido (4. 376) and of Amata and the Latin matrons (7. 392).70The standard-bearer of this school is Putnam (1986:1st edn, 1965),151
–
201. For a summary of the present state of opinion and bibli-ography see Hardie (1998), especially 99
–
101.71Galinsky (1988) and (1994).72LS 65A, E, G; Arius Didymus in Stobaeus 2. 10a
–
c (=Pomeroy[1999] 56
–
60).73The principal source for Epicurean doctrine on anger is Philode-mus,
On Anger
: see the analysis by Asmis (1990), 2395
–
99. Notealso Lucretius,
DRN
3. 319
–
22.74Aristotle,
N.E.
1126a
–
b.75Aristotle,
Rhet.
1178a30.76Cf. Cicero,
T.D.
4. 43
–
50.77Horace,
Ep.
1. 2. 62:
ira furor brevis est.
78Hardie (1998), 100. Martindale (1993, 51) aptly calls Virgil
’
sambiguities
“
energizing contradictions
”
.79
Tristia
4. 10, lines 103
–
04 quoted.80
Tristia
4. 10. 35
–
40 (
otium
); 103
–
04 (exile).81See Myers (1994).82
Met.
6. 687
–
701.83Compare Lucretius,
DRN
6. 96
–
159 (thunder); 160
–
322(lightning); 557
–
84 (earthquakes), and Seneca,
N.Q.
2. 12
–
59(thunder and lightning); 6. 20 (earthquakes, quoting Democritusand Epicurus).84
Met.
15. 75
–
478. The traditional dates for Numa
’
s reign are 715
–
673 BCE, while Pythagoras came to Croton
c
.530. The impossibil-ity of the meeting is pointed out by Cicero,
De Rep.
2. 28
–
29, andLivy, 1. 18. 2. For the speech see Myers (1994), 133
–
65.
252THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
85
Met.
15.6:
quae sit rerum natura requirit.
86
Met.
15. 60,
vir Samius
;
DRN
1. 66,
Grains homo.
87
Met.
15. 62
–
64.88
Met.
15. 66
–
72.89
Met.
15. 75
–
142, 456
–
78. Sorabji (1993) has many references toPythagoras: note 130
–
33 and 172
–
75.90
Met.
15. 143
–
455; 143
–
51 for inspiration and authority (contrast
DRN
1
.
102
–
03).91
Met.
15. 153
–
57.92
Met.
15. 262
–
72 (flood: cf.
Met.
1. 262
–
347); 273
–
417 (naturalwonders); 420
–
52 (cities and peoples).93
Met.
15. 147
–
52.94Myers (1994), 158.95
Met.
15. 871
–
79.961.7
–
10; 4. 764.971. 113
–
14. There were earlier astrological works: the names of Nechepso and Petosiris are attached to an influential Greek treatiseon astrology of
c
.150 BCE (of which only fragments are extant).They may be among the
“
priests
”
mentioned by Manilius in 1. 47as founders of the discipline of astrology. See Barton (1994), 26
–
29.981. 483
–
92.99Cicero,
De Div.
1. 91.100
De Div.
2. 87
–
99; 2. 9 (Carneades); 2. 88 (Panaetius).101Manilius, 1. 66
–
112 (96
–
98 quoted); Lucretius, 5. 925
–
1497.1024.866
–
935 (885 and 886
–
97 quoted).1034.932:
ratio omnia vincit.
1041.250:
vis animae divina regit.
1052.115
–
16:
quis caelum posset nisi caeli munere nosse, /et reperiredeum, nisi qui pars ipse deorum est?
1064. 12
–
16. In Latin line 16 reads:
nascentes morimur, finisque aborigine pendet.
1074. 108
–
09, 114
–
15.
6SENECA AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES
1Tac.,
Ann.
4. 34
–
35.2Sen., N.Q. 7. 32. 1
–
2. Andr
é
(1987, 35), however, believes thatphilosophy still
“
occupied an important place in social and culturallife
”
.3Lucan, B.C. 1.639
–
72.
NOTES253
4See Richardson (1992), 57, s.v.
“
Basilica Subterranea
”
.5Seneca,
Ep.
49. 2, 108. 17
–
21.6Sen.,
Ep.
108. 22, evidently referring to the suppression of Egyp-tian and Jewish rites in 19 CE (Tac.,
Ann.
2. 85. 4), for these sectsforbade the eating of pork. In 16 CE, by decrees of the senate,astrologers and magicians (
mathematici magique
) were expelledfrom Italy, and two were executed (Tac.,
Ann.
2. 32. 3).7For Chaeremon see Frede (1989).8Sen.,
Ep.
90. 7
–
10.9
Ann.
16. 35. 1.10Tac.,
Hist.
4. 40. 3;
Ann.
16. 32.11Dio 66. 13. Vespasian was punning on the Greek word
kynikos,
“
doglike
”
.12
Ben.
7. 1;
Ep.
62. 3.13
Ep.
62 3.14See Rutherford (1989), 81
–
82; Andr
é
(1987), 53.15See
PIR
2
A6l6. His first name is not known. He was born before43 BCE and died between 37 and 41 CE.16Sen. Rhet.
Contr.
2,
Praef.
2.17
Contr.
2. 10
–
13.18Cf. Seneca,
Ep.
87, especially 39
–
41.19N.Q. 3. 27. 3.20
Suas.
2. 12.21
Ep.
110. 13
–
20.22
Inst.
10. 1. 125
–
31.23Sandbach (1975), 149, 161. For a review of
iudicia super Senecam
see Boyle (1983), 1
–
5.24The editions of Seneca mentioned were published as follows:Erasmus, Basel: Froben, 1515, 2nd edn, 1529; Lipsius, Antwerp:Moretus, 1605, 2nd edn 1615; Muretus, Rome: Grassi and Zan-netti, 1585
–
86; Gruter, Heidelberg: Commelin, 1592, and Paris:Sonnius, 1599.25Guillemin (1952
–
54 and 1957).26
Ann.
1. 3. 7.27
De Clem.
1. 1.28N.Q. 1. 16
–
17.29
Ep.
16. 5.30
Ep.
107. 8
–
10.31
Ep.
107. 11. This fragment of Cleanthes
’
Hymn to Zeus
is knownonly in this quotation.32
De Const.
7. 1.33See Griffin (1968).
254THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
34
De Const.
2. 1
–
2.35
De Const.
7. 1.36
De Off.
1. 46, possibly adapting Panaetius.37Cf. LS 591 (=
SVF
3. 510), where Chrysippus says that the personwho has progressed to the furthest point is still not truly happy,because his actions lack
“
firmness and stability
”
.38Suetonius,
Claud.
38.39See Braden (1985), 28
–
62.40
De Ira
1. 3. 3
–
8. Sorabji (1993), 60
–
61, finds Seneca
’
s discussionof anger in animals
“
entirely implausible
”
.41The doctrine is stated in
De Ira
1. 5.42
De lra
1. 21.4.43
De Ira
2. 19
–
21. Plato is concerned, for example, with the effect of music and wine on children
’
s emotions in
Laws
2. 664b
–
666c (cf.
De Ira
2. 20. 2).44
De lra
3. 3. 1 (cf. 1. 9. 2, 1. 17. 1); Aristotle,
NE
1116b23
–
31.45
De Ira
3. 42. 2
–
43. 5 (42. 2 and 43. 1 and 5 quoted).46See Fillion-Lahille (1989).47
De Ben.
7. 1. 3
–
7. Examples of specific topics are
“
Should one beoutdone in giving benefits?
”
(5. 2
–
6) and
“
Should one ask for therepayment of a benefit?
”
(5. 20. 6
–
25).48
Ep.
81. 3 (the injured beneficiary); 10
–
13 (the
sapiens
)
.
49
De Ben.
1. 6. 1.50
De Ben.
3. 18
–
28.51Cicero,
De Off.
3. 63, 89.52Aristotle,
Pol.
1253b32
–
1254al5. For Seneca see Griffin (1976),256
–
85; Manning (1989), especially 1525
–
31.53See Griffin (1976), 315
–
66 (chapter 10,
“
The Philosopher on Polit-ical Participation
”
).54See Schofield (1991),chapter 2.55Cicero,
De Fin.
5. 65.56Schofield (1991), 102.57
De Tranq.
3
–
4 (4. 3
–
4 quoted). There were two philosophers fromTarsus with the name of Athenodorus: this one was probably sonof Sandon and was a friend of Cicero and Augustus.58
Inst.
11. 1. 35; cf. Sen.,
Ep.
55. 4.59
Ep.
96. 5; 120. 18.60Tacitus,
Ann.
16. 28. 2.61
De Otio
3. 5.62
De Otio
4. 1
–
2.63
De lra
15.4.64See Griffin (1976), 367
–
88; Gris
é
(1982),chapter 7.
NOTES255
65Tacitus,
Ann
. 15. 64. 4; Plato,
Phaedo
118a, where Socratesinstructs his friends to offer a cock to Asclepius as a thank-offeringfor liberation from the disease of life.66D.L. 7. 130.67
Ep.
24. 22
–
25, quoting and agreeing with Epicurus.68
Ep.
30. 1
–
3, 12.69Tacitus,
Ann.
15. 62
–
64.70See Barnes (1997), 12
–
23, whose arguments are followed here;Griffin (1976), 175, accepts the traditional view that Seneca
“
hadnothing but contempt
”
for rhetoric and dialectic.71See Barnes (1997), 12
–
13, for a selection of warnings to Luciliusagainst the trivialities of logic, e.g.
Ep.
113. 26.72See Barnes (1997), 21
–
23; Griffin (1976), 175,
“
Seneca
’
s interestin physics was intense
”
.73He was Nero
’
s speech-writer (Tac.,
Ann.
13. 3. 1); he was impo-tent to prevent Britannicus
’
murder (13. 14. 3) and probablyrewarded for his silence after the murder (13. 18. 1, which does notmention him by name); he did nothing to prevent the murder of Agrippina (14. 7. 3
–
4).74Tac.,
Ann
. 13. 42. 4; Dio 61. 10,75Macaulay (1900), 14. 114.76Lipsius (1615), xi.
7STOICISM UNDER NERO AND THE FLAVIANS
1
Hist.
1. 4. 2.2Examples are Epictetus and Plutarch (in Greece), Apuleius (inAfrica), Favorinus (in Gaul and Greece, settling later in Rome).3
Demosthenes
2.4See Anderson (1989): Bowersock (1969), despite the criticisms of Brunt (1994). Brunt (37) rightly says that the
“
efflorescence of Greek oratory
…
was an illusion
”
(an idea credited to Wilamowitz)and denies that the second-century sophists
“
absorbed or domi-nated the literary and intellectual life of the second century AD
”
.His statement (46), that
“
Plutarch
’
s
…
curiosity and a capacity forrational argument
…
sets him on an intellectual level far above thatof Epictetus
”
, is bizarre.5
Med.
1. 7.6Rutherford (1989), 81, part of his discussion, 80
–
89.7For Favorinus see Holford-Strevens (1997); for Galen and the
256THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
sophists, Brunt (1994), 43
–
46, demolishing Bowersock (1969),chapter 5.8Justin Martyr, executed in 165 CE, seems to be a rare example. Hewas condemned, however, for his Christian beliefs.9Dio 62. 2.10
PIR
2
H59; Tac.,
Hist.
4. 5
–
9; Suet.,
Vesp.
15.11See Griffin (1997b), 194
–
97.12Dio 65. 13.13Gellius 15. 11. 1, omitting the expulsion of 74; Suetonius,
Dom.
10. 3.14Tacitus,
Agricola
45 (published in 98); Pliny,
Ep.
3. 11. 3, writtenshortly after 100. Arulenus had published a eulogy of Thrasea, andHerennius one of Helvidius (Tac.,
Agr.
2). Pliny also says thatTitinius Capito was publishing [accounts of]
“
the deaths of distin-guished men, including some who were very dear to me
”
(
Ep.
8.12. 4, written after 100).15Pliny,
Ep.
7. 19: Fannia
’
s spirit was
“
most worthy of her husbandHelvidius and her father Thrasea
”
.16See Most (1989). The standard text for Cornutus is Lang (1881).17Plato,
Gorgias
493a.18Nock (193l): Lapidge (1989), esp. 1402
–
05.19See Saccone (1985) for bibliography. Few scholars have discussedPersius
’
philosophy: still the best is Casaubon (1605).20Seneca,
Ep.
114. 1:
talis hominibus fuit oratio qualis vita.
21Juvenal,
Sat.
13. 120
–
23. Persius
’
phrase
“
harvest of Cleanthes
”
(5. 64) is explicitly Stoic, for example.22Pichon (1912), 165
–
216, 216 quoted.23
B.C.
10. 194
–
331; Seneca N.Q. 4. 1
–
2. Cf. Lucretius,
DRN
6.712
–
37.24Kirk and Raven (1957), 439
–
40, no. 613; Seneca, N.Q. 4. 1. 28
–
30.25
B.C.
1. 70
–
80.26
B.C.
7. 809
–
15.27Due (1970), 214 quoted.28
B.C.
2. 7
–
11. Cf. Lapidge (1989), 1386
–
90, 1407.29The most important are
B.C.
1. 583
–
696 (series of prophecies con-cerning the coming war); 5. 67
–
236 (Delphic oracle); 6. 413
–
830(Erictho
’
s necromancy); 7. 151
–
205 (omens and signs presagingbattle). See Le Bonniec (1970), especially 182
–
91; Morford(1967), 59
–
74.30
B.C.
7. 207
–
13.31
B.C.
6. 611
–
17.32
B.C.
5. 515
–
31.
NOTES257
33This has led Johnson to portray Lucan
’
s Cato in a witty but mis-guided chapter (
“
Cato: the Delusions of Virtue
”
) as a caricature,inhuman, a bore, and
“
funny
”
: Johnson (1987), 35
–
66.34
B.C.
2. 234
–
391; Cf. Plutarch,
Cato Min.
25 and 52, and see themeasured remarks of Fantham (1992), 138
–
39.35
B.C.
9. 186
–
293 (assumption of leadership), 294
–
949 (desertmarch).36
B.C.
9. 511
–
86 (564
–
80 quoted).37
B.C.
9. 581
–
84.38Cf. Seneca, N.Q. 1,
Praef.
13;
Ep.
41. 1
–
2, 4
–
5.39
B.C.
9. 601
–
04.40
B.C.
4. 593
–
653.41The praise of Nero,
B.C.
1. 33
–
66, cannot be taken as a seriousexpression of theological or philosophical views.42
B.C.
9. 455
–
59 and 445
–
47.43
B.C.
5. 504
–
677, 632
–
36 quoted: see Morford (1967), 20
–
58.44
B.C.
7. 695, 433.45
B.C.
3. 145
–
46.46
B.C.
7. 43.47
B.C.
8. 493
–
95.48
B.C.
4. 404
–
581, 575
–
79 quoted.49
B.C.
8. 610
–
36.50
Life of Rowe,
in Johnson (1973), 398.51For biographical details see
PIR
2
M753 (1987, the fullest); VonFritz (1935). For the philosophy of Musonius see Laurenti (1989).52Tac.,
Hist
. 3. 81.53Tac.,
Hist.
4. 10, 40.54Pliny,
Ep.
3. 11. 5
–
7: see Sherwin-White (1966), 240
–
44, whosays that Musonius
“
was the first to apply philosophy to senatorialpolitics
”
, certainly an exaggeration.55Pliny,
Ep.
10. 1 (
§
10 quoted).56Epictetus,
Disc.
4. 8. 17
–
20.57Epictetus,
Disc.
1. 7. 30
–
33=Musonius, frag. 44.58
Discourse
6 (p. 22, Hense, 1990): cf. Seneca,
Ep.
90. 46 (quoted).59See Laurenti (1989), 2113
–
20; cf. Hijmans (1959).60Cicero,
De Off.
1. 79, 67.61Seneca,
Cons. ad Marciam,
16. 1
–
4.62
Disc.
4. 17, lines 12
–
13 and 21
–
22, Hense.63
Disc.
13a, pp. 69
–
70, Hense.64
Disc.
13b.65Lucan himself was an attentive husband, and his wife continued to
258THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
love and honour his memory long after his death, as Statius tells usin
Silvae
2. 7.66Van Geytenbeek (1962), 159.67Tac.,
Ann
. 15. 71. 4.
8FROM EPICTETUS TO MARCUS AURELIUS
1The known facts of Epictetus
’
life are discussed by Dobbin (1998),xi
–
xiv. Epictetus refers to his experience as a slave at 1. 9. 29 and1. 19. 20
–
21.2
Disc.
3. 23. 30.3Barnes (1997) devoteschapter 3(pp. 24
–
125) to Epictetus; in
Appendix,
129
–
45, he adds text, translation and commentary on
Disc.
1. 7. See also Dobbin (1998), 113
–
18, for excellentcommentary.4
Disc.
1. 7. 30
–
33.5The authorship of the
Discourses
is discussed by Dobbin, 1998,xx
–
xxiii, supporting the view that Epictetus was the author.6As late as the sixth century CE the Neoplatonist Simplicius wrote avast commentary on the
Handbook.
7See the discussion by Dobbin (1998), 65
–
78, who sketches thebackground of the topic in Aristotle and Chrysippus. He notes thatby using the second-person address (
“
You
…”
) Epictetus reinforcesthe impression of the individual
’
s freedom of choice.8See Hershbell (1989), especially 2159
–
60; Dobbin (1998), 76
–
77.9
Disc.
3. 1. 40: cf. 4. 5. 12.10
Disc.
3. 22. 20. Cf. Musonius, fr. 38 (=Epictetus, fr. 4).11
Disc.
3. 24. 95.12
Disc.
3. 22. 52.13
Disc.
3. 12. 1
–
4.14
Disc.
3. 2 (
§§
1
–
2 quoted).15
Disc.
3. 2. 4.16
Disc.
3. 2. 5.17In
Disc
. 1. 4, for which see Dobbin (1998), 88
–
98.18See Barnes (1997),chapter 3
passim,
especially 33
–
42.19
Disc.
3. 12. 7.20
Disc.
3. 12. 12: cf. Persius,
Sat.
3. 109
–
11.21Plato,
Apology
38A.22As Epictetus himself reports at
Disc
. 1. 7. 32.23Aulus Gellius,
N.A.
17. 19 (=Epictetus, fr. 10).
NOTES259
24
Disc.
1. 24. 6
–
10; 3. 22. 24
–
25.25Seneca,
De Prov.
4. 7
–
8.26
Disc.
1. 24. 3
–
5. Since Domitian had banished philosophers fromRome the
“
scout
’
s
”
mission was dangerous.27
Disc.
3. 22. 53.
“
Know yourself refers to the long-revered Greek principle inscribed on the temple of Apollo at Delphi.28
Disc.
4. 8. 35.29
Disc.
3. 22. 86
–
92. For Epictetus
’
more extended views on the sub- ject of cleanliness, see
Disc.
4. 11.30In 3. 22. 30
–
44 the Cynic shows Agamemnon how inferior hisquality of life is to that of the philosopher.313. 22. 62
–
76. Epictetus admits that the marriage of Crates and Hip-parchia was a special case.32
Disc.
3. 22. 97. The theme is an old one in Roman literature. In thesecond century BCE Terence wrote:
“
I am a human being: nothingthat is human is irrelevant to me
”
(
Heaut.
77).33As the Loeb translator, W.A.Oldfather, among others, has said of
Disc.
3. 22. Even Barnes (1997), who is generally sympathetic toEpictetus, says (25):
“
he offered to the world a pin-striped cyni-cism, Diogenes without the barrel
”
, hardly a fair comment on
Disc.
3. 22 and 4. 11.34
Disc.
3. 22. 94, following a portrait of the Cynic as having a guid-ing principle (
hegemonikon
)
“
purer than the sun
”
, and a pure con-science that is a more powerful defence than the military guardsthat protect kings. Epictetus quotes the same line from the
Hymn to Zeus
at
Disc.
2. 23. 42 and 4. 1. 131.35
Disc.
3. 22. 100
–
06.36
Disc.
1. 16. 17
–
21.37See Swain (1997), especially 177
–
81, for the change in the secondcentury from
Academicus
to
Platonikos.
38See pp. 127
–
28. See Hershbell (1992a).39See Hershbell (1992b).40Cf. Cicero,
Pro Murena
60
–
66; see p. 24.41LS 611 (=D.L. 7. 127); cf. LS 61T, U (=Plutarch,
On CommonConceptions
1063a
—
b and 1062b).42
Moral Progress
75d
–
f.43
SVF
3. 527 (=D.L. 7. 120, quoting Chrysippus; 3. 529 (=LS 59 O).44
SVF
2. 1152
–
54. The problem of animal intelligence is discussedby Sorabji (1993), 160
–
61 for
Gryllus
and 178
–
79 for Plutarch.45Sorabji (1993), 9, takes the debate back to Alcmaeon of Croton(c.500 BCE), who said that human beings have understanding,
260THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
while animals have perception. The crucial stage was Aristotle
’
sdenial of reason and belief in animals (Sorabji, 1993, 12
–
16).46Cf. Seneca,
Ep.
121; Epictetus,
Disc.
2. 8. See Tsekourakis (1987).47See Cherniss (1976), 369
–
411.48See Cherniss (1976), 622
–
59.49D.L. 7. 89 (=
SVF
3. 39, 228).50
De Comm. Not.
1060B
–
D. The Greek word for
“
common concep-tions
”
is
ennoiai
, as in
SVF
2. 104.51For the unity of the categories of Stoic philosophy see Long(1986), 118
–
21.52See Hershbell (1992), 3344
–
45.53Plutarch,
Cato
67
–
70;
Otho
16
–
17. Plutarch notes, however, thatCato was reading
“
Plato
’
s dialogue about the soul
”
(i.e.
Phaedo
)before his suicide. In Plutarch,
Brutus
40 (quoted above, p. 45),Brutus distinguishes between Academic and Stoic attitudes to sui-cide. Cf. p. 49 for Cato
’
s suicide.54
Phocion.
3. 4; the next quotation is from 3.9.55See Plutarch,
De Comm. Not.
1085C
–
D (=
SVF
2. 444 and LS 47G).56See Harrison (2000), 1
–
10, for details of his life. Sandy (1997)discusses his education (chapter 1) and his relationship to the sec-ond sophistic (especially chapters2
–
3).57See Harrison (2000) for discussion of Apuleius
’
works; also Hij-mans, B.L.,
“
Apuleius Philosophus Platonicus
”
, in
ANRW
2. 36. 1(1987), 395
–
475
;
Sandy (1997), chapters4
–
5.58Note the subtitle of Harrison (2000):
Apuleius: A Latin Sophist.
59
Florida
is discussed by Harrison (2000),chapter 3, 89
–
135 (103
–
04 for
§
7; 126
–
27 for
§
20). Quotations are from the Teubner textedited by R.Helm, Leipzig, 1910.60
Florida
20. 97
–
98, probably from a speech in praise of Carthage.61
Camena togatorum, Camena
being the Latin equivalent of theGreek
Mousa.
62See Harrison (2000),chapter 4(136
–
73) for
De Deo Socratis
;chapter 5(174
–
209) for
De Mundo
and
De Platone.
Harrison (11
–
12) is sceptical about the authenticity of
Peri Hermeneias,
which isaccepted by Hijmans (1987) and Sandy (1997), who discusses allthese works inchapter 5. For introduction, text, translation(French) and commentary on the three authentic works see Beau- jeu (1973), who (vii
–
viii) does not think that the
Peri Hermeneias
is authentic.63
De Deo Soc.
132
–
33.64
Symp.
202d
–
e.
NOTES261
65See Harrison (2000), 195
–
209, especially 196
–
203 for a compari-son of the two works; cf. Beaujeu (1973), 49
–
59.66See Harrison (2000), 174
–
95, with useful summary on 181
–
82. Cf.Beaujeu (1973), 111
–
19 and commentary on 309
–
37.67See Harrison (2000),chapter 6, 210
–
59.68
Met.
Book 11:
§§
5 and 23 quoted. See Harrison 235
–
38 for inter-pretations of Book 11, together with the enormous bibliography onBook 11. He inclines
“
towards an interpretation of a largely paro-dic and satirical kind
”
(p. 238), seeing the purpose of the novel as
“
pleasure and not enlightenment
”
(p. 259). It is hard to see how thepassionate conversion of Book 11 is in any way
“
parodic andsatirical
”
.69See Rives (1995), for religious structure and practice in Africaunder the Roman empire. His discussion is relevant to Apuleius,even though the setting for
Met.
11 is in Greece. See Rives (1995),190
–
91, for
Met.
11.5, seeing this text and others like it as
“
anexpression of the tendency towards monotheism
”
; 262
–
63 for theinitiation of Lucius, seen more as a genuine religious document, inparticular as a
“
type of religious authority, based on control of secret yet essential religious knowledge
”
.70He is no. A697 in
PIR
2 (pp. 119
–
24; 121 for his adoptive names),s.v. M.Annius Verus.71See Brunt (1974); Asmis (1989); Rutherford (1989).72
Med.
1. 14.
PIR
2 C1022 is the philosopher Claudius Severus, iden-tified with C1027, the consul of 146 CE; C1023 is the son-in-lawof Marcus, consul in 173 CE.73
Med.
1. 7. See Rutherford (1989), 225
–
50.74
Med.
1. 11. See Champlin (1974).75
Med.
1. 7.76
Med.
1. 16; cf. 6. 30.77
Med.
1. 16. 3.78
Med.
6. 30. 2.79See Asmis (1989), 2337
–
45.80
Med.
2. 1.81
Med.
2. 5.82
Med.
6. 30.83
Med.
6. 44.84
Med.
5. 6.85
Med.
11. 18. See Brunt (1974), 4
–
5, 11
–
12.86Plutarch,
De Ira
460D; Aristotle,
Rhet.
1380a9.87
Med.
3. 6.88See Rutherford (1989), 178
–
220.
262THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
89
Med.
2. 3.90
Med.
7. 9.91Rutherford (1989), 213.92
Med.
4. 23.93
Med.
10. 15.94See Bowersock (1969), 59
–
75, criticized by Brunt (1994), 43
–
46,who denies any connection between Galen and the sophists.95The standard edition of Galen
’
s works is K
ü
hn (1821
–
33; reprinted1964).
Quod Optimus Medicus
is in Vol. 1;
De Placitis Hip- pocratis et Platonis
in Vol. 5;
De Libris Propriis
and
De Or dine
in Vol. 19. The texts of
Quod Optimus
,
De Libris
, and
De Ordine
are in Mueller 1891 (repr. 1967), Vol. 2. The text of
Institutio Log-ica
(first published in 1844) is edited by Kalbfleisch (1896); intro-duction, translation and commentary by Kieffer (1964). See alsoDonini (1992); Hankinson (1992); H
ü
lser (1992).96See Barnes (1990); Allen (1990).97
Cons.
5. 6.
NOTES263
This page intentionally left blank.
REFERENCES
BOOKSAstin, A.E.,
Scipio Aemilianus,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.
——
Cato the Censor,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.Auvray-Assayas, C. and Delattre, D.,
Cic
é
ron et Philod
è
me: laPol
é
mique en
Philosophie
(
É
tudes de Litt
é
rature Ancienne 12
),Paris:
É
cole Normale Sup
é
rieure, 2001.Bailey, C.,
T. Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex,
3 vols,Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1947.Barnes, J.,
Logic and the Imperial Stoa
(
Philosophia Antiqua 75
), Lei-den: Brill, 1997.Barnes, J. and Griffin, M.,
Philosophia Togata II: Plato and Aristotleat Rome,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.Barton, T.,
Ancient Astrology,
London: Routledge, 1994.Beaujeu, J.,
Apul
é
e: Opuscules Philosophiques et Fragments,
Paris:Les Belles Lettres (
É
ditions Bud
é
), 1973.Bowersock, G.W.,
Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire,
Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1969.Boyle, A.J.,
Seneca Tragicus,
Berwick, Victoria, Australia: AurealPress, 1983.Braden, G.,
Renaissance Tragedy and the Senecan Tradition: Anger
’
sPrivilege,
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.Branham, R.Bracht and Goulet-Caz
é
, M.-O.,
The Cynics,
Berkeley:University of California Press, 1996.Brittain, C.,
Philo of Larissa,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.Buechner, C.,
Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum,
Leipzig: Teubner,1982.
265

Casaubon, I. (ed.),
Auli Persi Flacci Satirarum Liber,
Paris: Drouart,1605.Cherniss, H. (ed. and trans.),
Plutarch: Moralia XIII.2
(Loeb ClassicalLibrary 470), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976.Chilton, C.W.,
Diogenes of Oenoanda: the Fragments,
Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1971.Clarke, M.L.,
The Noblest Roman: Marcus Brutus and his Reputation,
London: Thames and Hudson, 1981.Courtney, E.,
A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal
, London:Athlone Press, 1980.
——
The Fragmentary Latin Poets
, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.Dobbin, R.,
Epictetus: Discourses
,
Book I,
Oxford: Clarendon Press,1998.Dorey, T.A.,
Cicero,
London: Routledge, 1964.Douglas, A.E.,
Cicero
(
Greece and Rome
,
New Surveys in the Classics
2), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.Drumann, W.,
Geschichte Roms
, 2nd edn, 1929 (reprintedHildesheim: Olms, 1964: first edn, 1844).Dudley, D.R.,
A History of Cynicism from Diogenes to the Sixth Cen-tury A.D.,
London: Methuen, 1937.Durry, M.,
Lucain
(
Entretiens sur l
’
Antiquit
é
Classique 15
), Geneva:Vandoeuvres, 1970.Dyck, A.R.,
A Commentary on Cicero
,
De Officiis
, Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan Press, 1996.Edelstein, L. and Kidd, I.G.,
Posidonius
,
Vol. I: The Fragments
, Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.Fantham, E. (ed.),
Lucan
,
De Bella Civili II
, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1992.Fraenkel, E.,
Horace
, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957.Furley, D.J.,
From Aristotle to Augustine
(Routledge History of Phi-losophy, Vol. II), London: Routledge, 1999.Griffin, M.,
Seneca: a Philosopher in Politics
, Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1976 (2nd edn, 1992).Griffin, M. and Atkins, E.M.,
Cicero: On Duties
, Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 1991.Griffin, M. and Barnes, J. (eds),
Philosophia Togata I: Essays on Phi-losophy
and Roman Society
, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989 (cor-rected edition, 1997).Gris
é
, Y.,
Le Suicide dans la Rome Antique
, Montreal: Bellarmin andParis: Les Belles Lettres, 1982.Hardie, P.,
Virgil
(
Greece and Rome New Studies in the Classics 28
)
,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
266THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
Harrison, S.J.,
Apuleius: A Latin Sophist
, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2000.Hense, O. (ed.),
Musonii Rufi Reliquiae
, Leipzig: Teubner, 1905(reprinted 1990).Hijmans, B.L.,
ASKES1S: Notes on Epictetus
’
Educational System(Wijsgerige
Teksten en Studies 2),
Assen: van Gorcum, 1959.Inwood, B. and Mansfeld, J.,
Assent and Argument: Studies inCicero
’
s
Academic Books
(
Philosophia Antiqua 76
), Leiden: Brill,1997.Johnson, S.,
Lives of the Poets
, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973 (1stedn, 1789
–
91).Johnson, W.R.,
Darkness Visible
, Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1976.Kalbfleisch, K.,
Galenus: Institutio Logica
, Leipzig: Teubner, 1896.Kenney, E.J.,
Lucretius De Rerum Natura, Book III,
Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 1971.
——
Lucretius
(
Greece and Rome New Surveys in the Classics
, 11),Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.Kidd, I.G.,
Posidonius
,
Vol. II: The Commentary
, Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 1988.
——
Posidonius
,
Vol III: The Translation of the Fragments
, Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Kieffer, J.S.,
Galen
’
s Institutio Logica,
Baltimore: Johns HopkinsPress, 1964.Kirk, G.S. and Raven, J.E.,
The Presocratic Philosophers
, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1957.K
ü
hn, C.G. (ed.),
Galeni Opera Omnia
, 20 vols, Leipzig, 1821
–
33(repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1964).Kuiper, T.,
Philodemus over den Dood
, Amsterdam: H.J.Paris, 1925.Lang, C. (ed.),
Cornuti Theologiae Graecae Compendium
, Leipzig:Teubner, 1881.Lesky A.,
A History of Greek Literature
(trans. J.Willis and C.deHeer), London: Methuen, 1966.Lipsius, J. (ed.),
Opera Omnia L.Annaei Senecae
, 2nd edn, Antwerp:Moretus, 1615.Long, A.A.,
Problems in Stoicism
, London: Athlone Press, 1971.
——
Hellenistic Philosophy
, 2nd edn, Berkeley: University of Califor-nia Press, 1986.Macaulay, T.B.,
Complete Works
, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1900.McKendrick, P.,
The Philosophical Books of Cicero
, London: Rout-ledge, 1989.
REFERENCES267
Martindale, C.,
Redeeming the Text
, Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 1993.Maurach, G.,
Geschichte der R
ö
mischen Philosophie
, 2nd edn, Darm-stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1997.Mommsen, T.,
R
ö
mische Geschichte
, Berlin, 1856 (trans. Dickson, W.G.,
History of Rome
, New York: Scribner, 1883).Morford, M.,
The Poet Lucan
, Oxford: Blackwell, 1967.Mueller, I. (ed.),
Galenus: Scripta Minora
, Leipzig: Teubner, 1891(reprinted Stuttgart, 1967).Myers, K.S.,
Ovid
’
s Causes: Cosmogony and Aetiology in the Meta-morphoses,
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994.Ogilvie, R.M.,
A Commentary on Livy
,
Books 1
–
5
, Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1965.Pichon, R.,
Les Sources de Lucain
, Paris: Leroux, 1912.Plasberg, O.,
M.Tullii Ciceronis Paradoxa Stoicorum
,
Academicorum Reliquiae
cum Lucullo
,
etc
., Leipzig: Teubner, 1908.Pomeroy, A.,
Epitome of Stoic Ethics: Arius Didymus
, Atlanta: Soci-ety of Biblical Studies (Texts and Translations, Graeco-RomanSeries, 14), 1999.Powell, J.G.F.,
Cicero the Philosopher
, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.Putnam, M.,
Poetry in the Aeneid
, 2nd edn, Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress, 1986 (1st edn, 1965).Rawson, E.,
Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic
, Baltimore:Johns Hopkins Press, 1985.
——
Roman Culture and Society
, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.Reid, J.S.,
Cicero: Academica
, London: Macmillan, 1881.Reinhardt, K.,
Kosmos und Sympathie: Neue Untersuchungen
ü
ber Poseidonios
, Munich: Beck, 1926.Reynolds, L.D.,
Texts and Transmission,
Oxford: Clarendon Press,1983.Richardson, L.,
A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome
,Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1992.Rist, J.M.,
Epicurus: an Introduction
, Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 1972.Rives, J.B.,
Religion and Authority in Roman Carthage from Augustusto
Constantine
, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.Rutherford, R.B.,
The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius
, Oxford:Oxford University Press , 1989.Sandbach, F.H.,
The Stoics
, London: Chatto and Windus, 1975.Sandy, G.N.,
The Greek World of Apuleius: Apuleius and the Second Sophistic
(
Mnemosyne
, Supplement 174), Leiden: Brill, 1997.
268THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
Schofield, M.,
The Stoic Idea of the City
, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1991.Sedley, D.,
Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom
, Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.Sharpies, R.W.,
Stoics
,
Epicureans and Sceptics
, London: Routledge,1996.Sherwin-White, A.N.,
The Letters of Pliny: a Historical and SocialCommentary
, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966.Smith, M.F.,
The Epicurean Inscription of Diogenes of Oenoanda,
Naples: Bibliopolis, 1993.Sorabji, R.,
Animal Minds and Human Morals
, Ithaca: Cornell Univer-sity Press, 1993.Stephens, W.O.,
The Ethics of the Stoic Epictetus: an English Transla-tion,
New York: Lang, 1996 (translation of Bonhoeffer, A.E,
Die Ethik des Stoikers
Epictet
, Stuttgart: Enke, 1894).Stump, E.,
Boethius
’
s In Ciceronis Topica
, Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress, 1988.Suss, W.,
Cicero: Eine Einfuhrung in seine Philosophische Schriften,
Wiesbaden: Verlag der Akad. der Wiss. und Lit. in Mainz, 1966.Syme, R.,
The Roman Revolution
, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939.Tarrant, H.,
Scepticism or Platonism?
, Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 1985.Travlos, J.,
Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens
, New York:Praeger, 1971.Usener, H.,
Epicurea
, Leipzig: Teubner, 1887.Van Geytenbeek, A.C.,
Musonius Rufus and Greek Diatribe
(
Wijs-gerige
Teksten en Studies 8
), Assen: van Gorcum, 1962 (originalDutch edition, Amsterdam: H.J.Paris, 1948).Van Straaten, M.,
Panaetii Rhodii Fragmenta,
3rd edn, Leiden: Brill,1962 (1st edn,
Pan
é
tius, sa Vie, ses
É
crits et sa Doctrine,
Amster-dam, 1946).Zetzel, J.E.G.,
Cicero: De Re Publica,
Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 1995.
——
Cicero: On the Commonwealth and On the Laws,
Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1999ARTICLES AND BOOK CHAPTERSAlien, J.,
“
The Skepticism of Sextus Empiricus
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 4(1990), 2582
–
607.

Anderson, G.,
“
Sophists and their outlook
”
,
ANRW
II. 33. 1 (1989),80
–
208.Andr
é
, J.-M.,
“
Les
é
coles philosophiques aux deux premiers si
è
cles de1
’
Empire
”
,
ANRW II.
36. 1 (1987), 5
–
77.Asmis, E.,
“
The Stoicism of Marcus Aurelius
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 3(1989), 2228
–
52.
——“
Philodemus
’
Epicureanism
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 4 (1990), 2369
–
406.Barigazzi, A.,
“
Favorino di Arelate
”
,
ANRW
II. 34. 1 (1993), 556
–
81.Barnes, J.,
“
Antiochus of Ascalon
”
, in Griffin, M. and Barnes, J. (eds),
Philosophia Togata I: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989 (corrected edition, 1997), pp. 51
–
86.
——“
Pyrrhonism, belief and causation. Observations on the Scepti-cism of Sextus Empiricus
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 4 (1990), 2608
–
95.
——“
Logic in the
Academica
and the
Lucullus
”
, in Inwood, B. andMansfeld, J. (eds),
Assent and Argument: Studies in Cicero
’
s Aca-demic Books
(
Philosophia Antiqua 76),
Leiden: Brill, 1997a, pp.140
–
60.
——“
Roman Aristotle
”
, in Barnes, J. and Griffin, M.,
PhilosophiaTogata
II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome,
Oxford: Clarendon Press,1997b, pp. 1
–
69.Beard, M.,
“
Cicero and divination: the formation of a Latin dis-course
”
,
JRS
76 (1986), 33
–
46.Brunt, P.A.,
“
Marcus Aurelius in his
Meditations,
JRS
64 (1974), 1
–
20.
——“
The bubble of the Second Sophistic
”
,
BICS
39 (1994), 25
–
52.Cameron, A.,
“
The date and identity of Macrobius
”
,
JRS
56 (1966),25
–
38.Champlin, E.,
“
The chronology of Fronto
”
,
JRS
64 (1974), 136
–
59.Clay, D.,
“
The philosophical inscription of Diogenes of Oenoanda:new discoveries 1969
–
1983
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 4 (1990), 2446
–
559,3231
–
32.Donini, P.,
“
Galeno e la Filosofia
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 5 (1992), 3484
–
504.Dorandi, T.,
“
Filodemo: gli orientamenti della ricerca attuale
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 4 (1990), 2328
–
68.Douglas, A.E.,
“
Cicero the Philosopher
”
, in Dorey, T.A.,
Cicero,
Lon-don: Routledge, 1964, pp. 135
–
70.Due, O.S.,
“
Lucain et la Philosophic
”
, in Durry, M.,
Lucain
(
Entre-tiens sur
l
’
Antiquit
é
Classique 15
), Geneva: Vandoeuvres, 1970, pp.201
–
24.Ferguson, J.,
“
Epicureanism under the Roman empire
”
,
ANRW
II. 36.4 (1990), 2257
–
327 (revised by J.Hershbell).Fillion-Lahille, J.,
“
La production litt
é
raire de S
é
n
è
que sous les r
è
gnes
270THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
de Caligula et de Claude, sens philosophique et port
é
e politique: les
“
Consolationes
”
et le
“
De Ira
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 3 (1989), 1606
–
38.Fowler, D.,
“
Lucretius and politics
”
, in Griffin, M. and Barnes, J.(eds),
Philosophia Togata I: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Soci-ety,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989 (corrected edition, 1997), pp.120
–
50.Fowler, P. and Fowler, D.,
“
Lucretius
”
,
OCD
3
(1989), 888
–
90Frede, M.,
“
Chaeremon
”
,
ANRW
II
.
36. 3 (1989), 2067
–
103.
——“
The Skeptics
”
, in Furley, D.J.,
From Aristotle to Augustine
(Routledge History of Philosophy, Vol. II), London: Routledge,1999, pp. 253
–
86.Galinsky, G.K.,
“
The anger of Aeneas
”
,
AJP
109 (1988), 321
–
48.
——“
How to be philosophical about the end of the
Aeneid
”
,
IllinoisClassical Studies
19 (1994), 191
–
201.Gigante, M.,
“
Biografia e Dossografia in Diogene Laerzio
”
,
Elenchos
7 (1986), 7
–
102.
——“
Das Zehnte Buch des Diogenes Laertius: Epikur und derEpikureismus
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 6 (1992), 4302
–
07.Gottschalk, H.B.,
“
Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world fromthe time of Cicero to the end of the second century A.D.
”
,
ANRW
II.36. 2 (1989), 1079
–
174.Goulet-Caz
é
, M.-O.,
“
Le Cynisme
à
l
’É
poque Imp
é
riale
”
,
ANRW
II.36. 4 (1990), 2720
–
2833.Goulet-Caz
é
, M.-O.,
“
Le Livre Vi de Diog
è
ne Laerce:
é
tude de sastructure et r
é
flexions m
é
thodologiques
”
,
ANRW
II 36. 6 (1992),3880
–
4048.Griffin, M.,
“
Seneca on Cato
’
s politics:
Epistle
14. 12
–
13
”
,
CQ
18(1968), 373
–
75.Griffin, M.,
“
Philosophy, politics and politicians
”
, in Griffin, M. andBarnes, J. (eds),
Philosophia Togata I: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989 (corrected edition,1997), pp. 1
–
37.
——“
Philosophical badinage in Cicero
’
s letters to his friends
”
, inPowell, J. G.F.,
Cicero the Philosopher,
Oxford: Clarendon Press,1995, pp. 325
–
46.
——“
Cynicism and the Romans: attraction and repulsion
”
, in Bran-ham, R.Bracht and Goulet-Caz
é
, M-O.,
The Cynics
, Berkeley: Uni-versity of California Press, 1996, pp. 190
–
204.
——“
The composition of the
Academica:
motives and versions
”
, inInwood, B. and Mansfeld, J.,
Assent and Argument: Studies inCicero
’
s
Academic Books
(
Philosophia Antiqua 76
), Leiden: Brill,1997 (1997a), pp. 1
–
35.
REFERENCES271
——“
From Aristotle to Atticus: Cicero and Matius on friendship
”
, inBarnes, J. and Griffin, M.,
Philosophia Togata II: Plato and Aristo-tle at
Rome
, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997, pp. 86
–
109.
——“
Piso, Cicero and their audience
”
, in Auvray-Assayas, C. andDelattre, D.,
Cic
é
ron et Philod
è
me: la Pol
é
mique en Philosophie
(
É
tudes deLitt
é
rature Ancienne 12
)
,
Paris:
É
cole NormaleSup
é
rieure, 2001, pp. 85
–
99.Guillemin, A.-M.,
“
S
é
n
è
que, Directeur d
’Â
mes
”
,
REL
30 (1952), 202
–
19; 31 (1953), 215
–
34; 32 (1954), 250
–
74.
——“
S
é
n
è
que, Second Fondateur de la Prose Latine
”
,
REL
35 (1957),265
–
84.Hahm, D.E.,
“
Posidonius
’
s theory of historical causation
”
,
ANRW
II.36. 3 (1989), 1325
–
63.
——“
The ethical doxography of Arius Didymus
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 4(1990), 2935
–
3055.
——“
Diogenes Laertius VII: on the Stoics
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 6 (1992),4076
–
182, 4404
–
11.
——“
Plato, Carneades, and Cicero
’
s Philus (Cicero,
Rep.
3. 8
–
31)
”
,
CQ
49 (1999), 167
–
83.Hankinson, R.J.,
“
Galen
’
s philosophical eclecticism
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 5(1992), 3505
–
22.Hershbell, J.,
“
The Stoicism of Epictetus
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 3 (1989),2148
–
63.
——“
Plutarch and Epicureanism
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 5 (1992a), 3353
–
83.
——“
Plutarch and Stoicism
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 5 (1992b), 3336
–
52.Hijmans, B.L.,
“
Apuleius Philosophus Platonicus
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 1(1987), 395
–
475.Holford-Strevens, L.,
“
Favorinus: the man of paradoxes
”
, in Barnes, J.and Griffin, M.,
Philosophia Togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome
, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997, pp. 188
–
217.H
ü
lser, K.,
“
Galen und die Logik
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 5 (1992), 3523
–
54.Kidd, I.G.,
“
Posidonius on Emotions
”
, in Long, A.A.,
Problems inStoicism,
London: Athlone Press, 1971, pp. 200
–
15.Krueger, D.,
“
The bawdy and society: the shamelessness of Diogenesin Roman imperial culture
”
, in Branham, R.Bracht and Goulet-Caz
é
, M.-O.,
The Cynics
, Berkeley: University of California Press,1996, pp. 222
–
39.Lapidge, M.,
“
Stoic cosmology and Roman literature, first to thirdcenturies A.D.
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 3 (1989), 1379
–
429.Laurenti, R.,
“
Musonio, Maestro di Epitteto
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 3 (1989),2105
–
46.
272THE ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS
Lebek, W.D.,
“
Horaz und die Philosophic: die
Oden
”
,
ANRW
II. 31. 3(1981), 2031
–
92.Le Bonniec, H.,
“
Lucain et la Religion
”
, in Durry, M.,
Lucain
(
Entre-tiens sur
l
’
Antiquit
é
Classique 15
), Geneva: Vandoeuvres, 1970, pp.159
–
95.Long, A.A.,
“
Cicero
’
s Plato and Aristotle
”
, in Powell, J.G.F.,
Cicerothe
Philosopher,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995, pp. 37
–
61.Manning, C.E.,
“
Stoicism and slavery in the Roman empire
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 3 (1989), 1518
–
43.Mansfeld, J.,
“
Doxography and dialectic. The
Sitz im Leben
of the
Placita
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 4 (1990), 3026
–
229.Mejer, J.,
“
Diogenes Laertius and the transmission of Greek philoso-phy
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 5 (1992), 3556
–
603.Mette, H.J.,
“
Weitere Akademiker heute: von Lakydes bis zu Kleito-machos
”
,
Lustrum
27 (1985), 39
–
148.
——“
Philon von Larisa und Antiochos von Askalon
”
,
Lustrum
28
–
29(1986
–
87), 9
–
63.Michel, A.,
“
Rh
é
torique et Philosophic au second si
è
cle apr
è
s J-C
”
,
ANRW
II. 34. 1 (1993), 3
–
78.Moles, J.L.,
“
Diatribe
”
,
OCD
3
,
463
–
64.Momigliano, A., Review of B.Farrington,
Science and Politics in the Ancient
World
,
JRS
31 (1941), 149
–
57 (repr. in
Secondo Contributoalla Storia
degli Studi Classici
, Rome,1960).Most, G.W.,
“
Cornutus and Stoic allegoresis: a preliminary report
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 3 (1989), 2014
–
65.Nisbet, R.,
“
Persius
”
, in Sullivan, J.P. (ed.),
Critical Essays on Roman Literature: Satire,
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968,pp. 39
–
71.Nock, A.D.,
“
Kornutos
”
,
RE,
Suppl. 5 (1931), 995
–
1005.
——“
Posidonius
”
,
JRS
49 (1959), 1
–
15.Parente, M.Isnardi,
“
lerocle Stoico. Oikeiosis e doveri sociali
”
,
ANRW
II. 36. 3 (1989), 2201
–
26.Pelling, C.B.,
“
Plutarch: Roman heroes and Greek culture
”
, in Griffin,M. and Barnes, J. (eds),
Philosophia Togata I: Essays on Philoso- phy and Roman
Society
, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989 (correctededition, 1997), 199
–
232.
——“
Marcus Tullius Cicero: die philosophischen Schriften
”
,
RE
VIIA1 (1939), 1104
–
92.Philippson, R.,
“
Philodemos
”
,
RE
XIX (1938), 2444
–
82.Powell, J.G.F.,
“
The
rector rei publicae
of Cicero
’
s
De Republica
”
,
Scripta
Classica Israelica
13 (1994), 19
–
29.Rawson, E.,
“
Caesar, Etruria and the
Disciplina Etrusca
”
,
JRS
68
REFERENCES273
(1978), 132
–
52 (reprinted in Rawson, E.,
Roman Culture and Soci-ety
, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991, pp. 289
–
323).Reckford, K.J.,
“
Studies in Persius
”
,
Hermes
90 (1962), 476
–
504.Rist, J.M.,
“
The problem of friendship
”
, in Rist, J.M.,
Epicurus: an Introduction
, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972, pp.127
–
39.Saccone, M.S.,
“
La Poesia di Persio (1964
–
83)
”
,
ANRW
II. 33. 3(1985), 1781
–
812.Schmidt, P.L.,
“
Cicero
De Re Publica:
die Forschung der letzten f
ü
nf Dezennien
”
,
ANRW
I. 4 (1973), 262
–
333.Schofield, M.,
“
Cicero for and against divination
”
,
JRS
76 (1986), 47
–
65.Sedley, D.,
“
The ethics of Brutus and
Cassius
”
,
JRS
87 (1997), 41
–
53.Sharples, R.W.,
“
Cicero
’
s
Republic
and Greek political theory
”
,
Polis
5 (1986), 30
–
50.
——“
Causes and necessary conditions in the
Topica
and the
De Fato
”
in Powell, J.G.F.,
Cicero the Philosopher
, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1995, pp. 247
–
71.Steckel, H.,
“
Epikuros
”
,
RE
, Suppl. 11 (1968), 579
–
652.Striker, G.,
“
Academics fighting academics
”
, in Inwood, B. and Mans-feld, J.,
Assent and Argument: Studies in Cicero
’
s Academic Books
(
Philosophia
Antiqua 76
), Leiden: Brill, 1997, pp. 257
–
76.Swain, S.,
“
Plutarch, Plato, Athens, and Rome
”
, in Barnes, J. and Grif-fin, M.,
Philosophia Togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997, pp. 165
–
87.Tsekourakis, D.,
“
Pythagoreanism or Platonism and ancient medicine?The reasons for vegetarianism in Plutarch
’
s
Moralia
”
,
ANRW
II. 36.1 (1987), 366
–
93.Von Fritz, K.,
“
Musonius
”
,
RE
XVI (1935), 893
–
97.