Anne Murray Duets Friends And Legends

Now available at alibris.com

( 4.6/5.0 ★ | 331 downloads )
-- Click the link to download --

https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.26
530094638627821&type=15&murl=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2
Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F0094638627821
Anne Murray Duets Friends And
Legends

ISBN: 0094638627821
Category: Media > Music
File Fomat: PDF, EPUB, DOC...
File Details: 15.6 MB
Language: English
Website: alibris.com
Short description: Good 2008

DOWNLOAD: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&
offerid=1494105.26530094638627821&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2F
www.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F0094638627821
 Anne Murray Duets Friends
And Legends

• Click the link: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.2653009463862782

1&type=15&murl=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F0094638627821 to do
latest version of Anne Murray Duets Friends And Legends in multiple formats such as PDF, EPUB, and
more.
• Don’t miss the chance to explore our extensive collection of high-quality resources, books, and guides on
our website. Visit us regularly to stay updated with new titles and gain access to even more valuable
materials.
.
 (1050) C PLUTARCH’S MORALIA ~ \ ~ las ~ mavTaxovd
yap TadTa OpvAcirau’ bm’ adtadv, Kat To" \ > > / “Atos 6
erehelero® Bovdy ”” -rov , Opnpov elpynKeval gnaw" opbas emi
THv etwappevny® avadépovra® Kal THY TOY ohww dvow Kal? iy
TAVTO Ovouxetrar. Tas ovv apa pev ovdEVOS alaypot mapaiTios 6 6
C9 ue = see > , ? 8 J 8 , cos’ aya 8 ovde TovAdxioTov évddyerat®
ylyve” 9 ae \ , la ee aba addAws 7° Kata THY KoWHY dvoW Kal TOV
eKElvys Adyov; €v yap maat Tots yryvopevots Kal Ta > \ , * 10? /
(TEER Bee , atoxpa dnovlév™® eatw. Kaitor 6 pev ‘Emixoupos € ~
nn apwoyeTws aTpépetar Kat piroreyvet, THS atdtov KWHGEWS
pHnxXavwpevos EeXevPEp@oar Kal amrodtoat / A \ A TO
EkOUGLOV UTEP TOD” Uy KaTaATEtY avéeyKAnToV™ THY KaKiav, 6
d€ Xpvoitmos” dvarentapevnv Trap1 @puAdeira -X*, g, n, FE, B (ef.
De Facie 935 ¥F [L.C.L. xli, p. 144, n. 4]). % 76 -X, g, B; omitted by
all other mss. 3 6. éredelteto ~y 3 diereAelero -Tolet. 51, 5. * daolr -
g. > eipnuerny -E. 8 avadpaiporra -}!. 7 6 Beds -omitted by 8. 8
evdéxyecOar -B. a3 5 7 -omitted by g. 10 Snrovbev -g 3 Saou Beds
-1"1, N 5 Syrou Gedy -1*? and all other MSS. iy 12 umép dé rod -X
3°, g, B avemixAnrov -£. at 0 Bt X ovarnwer -A (added in margin),
Vat. Reg. 80 ; omitted by all other mss.; ‘‘ sufficeret etiam <6 §’>” -
Pohlenz ; “ cestui-ci ”’ - A myot. i Cf. Aa ca frag. 176 and ii, frags.
1024 and 1076 (p. 315, 1-11); Seneca, Nat. Quaest. ii, 45; W.
Theiler in Phyllobolia fiir Peter Von der Mihll, p. 46, n. 2. > Iliad i, 5.
For the interpretation w hich follows ch. Scholia Graeca in Homeri
[liadem ed. Dindorf, i, p. 6, 7; Eustathius, Ad Iliadem, 20, 10-13 (i,
p. 33, 11-15 [Van der Valk]); and Plutarch himself in Quomodo
Adolescens Poetas Audire Debeat 23 v. ¢ Krag. 378 (Usener,
/picurea, p. 254). Cf. 1045 B-c supra and the passages cited in note
a there, in all of which it is said or implied that the ** swerve ’’ of
the atoms was introduced for the purpose of avoiding determinism
and of 548
 STOIC SELI-CONTRADICTIONS, 1050 for the Stoics keep
harping on this everywhere “ and Chrysippus declares that Homer
was right in his statement, “and Zeus’s design was maturing,’ ? since
he was there referring to destiny and the nature of the universe as a
whole, in conformity with which all things are ordered. How, then,
can it be that god is not accessory to anything shameful and at the
same time that not even the slightest thing can come about
otherwise than in conformity with the universal nature and its
reason’ Tor among all the things that come about are included, I
presume, the shameful also. Yet, while Epicurus, in order not to
leave vice free from blame, squirms this way and that and resorts to
artifices in devising the liberation of volition and its release from the
everlasting motion,° Chrysippus gives bare-faced providing for free
choice and moral responsibility. Epicurus opposes determinism
without referring to the “ swerve,” however, in Hpistle iii, 133-134
and in Ilepi dvcews incerti libri... reliquiae, frag. 7 (Epicuri Ethica ed.
C. Diano, pp. 30-51=G. Arrighetti, Hpicuro Opere®, pp. 335-358
[but see the latter’s note, pp. 631 f., on 7, iii, 13 ff.]); and the
‘““swerve”’ is mentioned without reference to the moral problem in
Aétius i, 12, 15 and 23, 4 (Dow. Graeci, pp. 311 and 319-320) and
Plutarch, De Pythiae Oraculis 398 8. From Lucretius, ii, 216-250 and
Cicero, De Finibus i, 18-19 it would appear that the device was
introduced primarily to explain how atoms falling in the void could
intercept and clash with one another ; and that its original purpose
was to answer this physical problem posed by Aristotle’s objection to
Democritean atomism appears to be confirmed by a comparison of
Epicurus, Lpistle i, 61+46> with Aristotle, Physics 215 b 21-22 and
216 a 20 (cf. J. Katz, A.J.P., Ixiv [1943], pp. 432-435; G. Capone
Braga, Studi su Hpicuro { Milano, 1951], pp. 43-45 and Sophia, xxiii
[1955], p. 109 ; D. J. Furley, 7'wo Studies in the Greek Atomists {
Princeton, 1967], pp. 173-183 and pp. 232-233, and on this M. C.
Stokes, Class. Rev., N.S. xix [1969], pp. 288-289). 549
 PLUTARCH’S MORALIA (1050) pyatav ours didwow ws ov
Hovey e€ avayKns ovde 4 Kal’ eiwapwevnv a.AAa Kat! Kara, Aoyov
Geod Kat KaTa Pvow mEeTonevyn THY aploTyv. eT. de Kal Tatil
opatav® Kata A€Ew ovTws Exovra®: “THs yap Kowns ducews els
mavtTa duaTewovons, Sejoer Tav TO OTWOOUV yryvopevov ev TH
OAW* Kal TOV jLOpiwy? oTwobv® Kat exeivnv yevéobar Kal Tov
EKEL, \ VP ey > / \8 \ gory vns Aoyov KaTa 70 efijs arcwhd ros dua
TO PAT efwlev evar TO eVOTNOOHLEVOV TH oLKcovopiig pare D
Tay pLepa@v pndev EXew o7rws Kun Onoerat 7 oXacev adhws ”
Kata THY Kownvy dow.” TIVES otv at TOY pep@v oyéoes Elo Kal”
Kiwihoes; O7Aov pev OTL oX€oELS AL KaKiaL Kal TA voonpara,
podapyupia pidndoviae ftAodo€tat detAtar adukiaw” KWIOELS de
porxetar KAoTrat mpodoata' avd popovia TAT pPOKTOViaL. TOUT
oleTaL XpvautTos ovUTE puucpov OUTE Heya Tapa Tov Tob Atos
Aoyov evar” Kal vopov Kal Sikyv Kal mpdvotay’ waTE pn Ylyveo$at
mapa Tov voyov TO Tapavopely WNdE Tapa \ YA \ 10 a 15 be) \17 \
\ Thy duKny TO adLKely’” unde’® Tapa’ THY TpOVOLaY TO
KQKOTTOLELW. 1 xat -omitted by X, g, B, E. 2 opate -Meziriac; dpa
7a = Wyttenbach ; eipntar R. G. Bury. 3 éxovtt “2. 5 Bhp -W
yttenbach ; Adyw -MSS. TO popiw -B. 8 6 7 otv -X*3 dr0bv -g, aX(?),
B, E Gre “Thy 8 Here the first hand of d begins again, as does the
text in and z: see 1044 ¢ supra. ® oxéce -X, g, B. 10 -added by
Meziriac. 11 Kat -X, g, B; omitted by all other mss. 12 drrodofia
(dirodogiar -N, @) Seda adi«ia -F, XN, B, a 18 mpocoodtat ~}'1, V,
Ze 550 Vv
 STOIC SELI-CONTRADICTIONS, 1050 licence “ to vice as
having been caused not merely of necessity or according to destiny
but also in conformity with god’s reason and with the best nature.
This too, moreover, is seen put word for word as follows ® : ‘ For,
since the universal nature extends to all things, everything that
comes about in any way whatever in the whole universe and in any
of its parts will necessarily have come about conformably with that
nature and its reason in due and unimpeded sequence, for neither is
there anything to obstruct the organization from without nor is any
of its parts susceptible of being moved or of assuming any state
save in conformity with the universal nature.’’ What, then, are the
states and movements of its parts? Obviously the vices and disorders
—the lusts for riches, for pleasures, for glories, the forms of
cowardice and of injustice—are states ; and acts of adultery, thefts,
betrayals, homicides, and parricides are movements.° Of these
Chrysippus thinks that none either great or small is contrary to the
reason and law and right and providence of Zeus—-with the
consequence that illegality does not occur contrary to law or
wrongdoing contrary to right or knavery contrary to providence.? ¢
This phrase, used also in Conjugalia Praecepta 139 ¥ and Quaest.
Conviv. 712 a, is a reminiscence of Il’lato, Phaedrus 240 ¥ 6. * S.V.F.
ii, frag. 937 (p. 269, 19-33) +cf. A. A. Long in Problems in Stoicism,
p. 196, n. 24 and pp. 178-183. ¢ Cf. S. VF. iii, frags. 421-430. ¢ Cf.
Plotinus, Hnn. ut, ii, 16, lines 1-8. 14 elvar Adyov -E, 15 unde...
dduxetv -omitted by g. 16 unde -X, gf, Bs pare py -d, v, 23 pyre -all
other mss. 17 xara -K, Vat. Reg. 80. 551
 (1050) E PLUTARCH’S MORALIA ? \ \ A 35. “AAAa pv tov
Oedv Koddlew dyot rH / \ a“ > ~ a KaKiav Kat ToAAG rovety emt
KoAdGEL THY TOVNnPaY, Lf 1 3 ~ lanl j womep ev T@ OEevTepw
epi Me@v more prev Ta 4, ~ ~ / dvoxpynoTa ovppaivev® drnai Tots
ayabots* odx woad 4 / 4 > A a mep tots pavAots KoAdcews ydpw
adda Kat adAAnv / e “A > olKovopLiay WomEep ev Tats moAcor. Kai
maAw ev 7 ~ aA ~ fe Tovtois’ “‘mpa@tov de TOV KaK@v
trapamAnotws A a“ > 7 a 3 EOTLY GKOVOTEOV TOS
TpoELpNpEevots. €i0° OTL TADT ‘ ~ 4 Ul \ amroveweTar KaTa TOV
Tov’ Atos Adyov HToL emt : / aA 3 y ” / \ \ 4 KoAaoet Kar aAAnv
Exovadv ws mpos Ta OAa Vf ” \ oo aA olkovopiav.” €oTL ev OvY Kal”
TOUTO dELVOV, TS Kal’ ylyveobar THY Kakiav Kal KoAaleobar Kata
“a \ / » tov tod’ Atos Adyov. émuretver b€ THY brEevayTiw> a , \ , 8
, , ow ev T@ SevTepw mept Dicews® ypadwv Tade: € } \ > ‘““n d€
KaKLA TpOs TA SEA GUUTTMpaTa LoLoV TLV A , EXEL Opov”:
yiyveTar prev yap Kal” adTH TwSs KATO ~ # Tov THS dvoews AOyov
Kal, wa oUTWS ElTW, OUK 1 wore -d, V, Z. 2 cupPaivew -X, 8,3
ouvpPaiver -all other Mss. 3 rots ayabois dyai -B. 4 rod -omitted by
a, A, B. 5 kat-X, g, B; omitted by all other mss. 6 xai -omitted by d,
v, z. 7 rod -omitted by A (~ in margin), B, y. ® xpjoews -B. ® 6pov
-Rasmus (Prog. 1872, p. 15) from De Comm. Not. 1065 a ; Adyov -
mss. here. 10 «ai -X, g, B; omitted by all other mss. (adrimws -y, n).
¢ §.V.F. ii, frag. 1176; of, 1040 c supra (S. V.F, iy frag. Lys): > Cf.
Maximus of Tyre, Philos. xli, iv g (p. 480, 4-8 [Hfobein]) and the
ultimate source, Plato, Laws 903 8 4—p 3; so with the example
given by Chrysippus of his “ incommoda... per sequellas quasdam
necessarias facta, quod ipse 552
 STOIC SELF-CONTRADICTIONS, 1050 35. Nevertheless, he
says * that god chastises vice and does many things with a view to
chastisement of the wicked. For instance, in the second book on the
Gods he says that inconvenient things do sometimes happen to the
virtuous not as they do to the base for their chastisement but in the
course of other arrangements, as happens in cities ; and again he
puts it in these words: “ First, evils are to be understood after the
fashion of what has been said before ; and then it must be
understood that these things are dispensed according to the reason
of Zeus either with a view to chastisement or in the course of other
arrangements the nature of which is relative to the universe as a
whole.’ Now, this is itself dreadful, that the origin and the
chastisement of vice are both in accord with the reason of Zeus ; but
Chrysippus intensifies the contradiction by writing as follows in the
second book concerning Nature’: “ Vice is peculiarly distinguished
from dreadful accidents, for even taken in itself it does in a sense
come about in accordance with the reason of nature and, if I may
put it so, its genesis is not useless in relation to the appellat xara
mapaxoAov@naw ” (Aulus Gellius, vir, i, 9-11 = S.V.F. ii, p. 336, 15-
25) cf. Plato, Timaeus 75 a 7-c 7. ¢ §.V.F. ii, frag. 1181 (p. 339, 14-
19) ; cf. De Comm. Not. 1065 a-sB, where the quotation begins 7 8€
xaxia mpos ta Aoira cupntwmpata éxyer Gpov. In the present
passage Adyov of the mss. is probably a mistake for 6pov induced
by Aoyov in the next line, but otherwise the text here probably
reproduces the words of Chrysippus more accurately (cf. Pohlenz,
Hermes, \|xxiv [1939], p. 12, n. 2). The authenticity of Sea is
supported by Plutarch’s play on the word just above (€or. wev odv ..
. Secvov) ; Chrysippus distinguishes from the dreadful accidents that
may befall virtuous men (cf. 1050 & supra and 1051 c-p infra) xaxia,
which according to him is not a ovprrwua. 553
 PLUTARCH’S MORALIA (1050) axXpnoTws ViYVETAL POS To
oda: obd€ yap av Taya ov Hv.* Kal ovTos® eT UT LG Tots emions
T™pos / 1051 tavavria dvadeyopuevois, Os bo TOD TAavTwWSs TL
BovAcobar Kal MEpt TavTos® eElmety tOLov Kal mEpiTTOV ouK aX
PHOTWS Aeyet BoAdavrvoropetv ovKopavreiv" Kal adpaivey, ovK
aypynaTtws® axpyorous elvat, BAraBepovs, Kakodaipovas. elra
motds tis’ o Zevs, , \ “16 / / a a, Aéyoo d€ Tov Xpvoinmov, Kodalav
TpaypLa LAT ab abrob LAT axpnoTws YUYVOLEVOY 5 a) pev yap
Kata TAVTWS dvéyKAnros € EOTL KATA Tov Tob ° Xpvcinmou Adyov'
6 be Leds eyKAnTéos eit’ axpyHaTov ovoay THY KaKiay TETolnKey
ElTE TOLnGAasS OvK axypnatws KoAdaler. 36. dAw év 7 mpwrw
mepi Atkatoatvys, «tTov epi TOV Oedv ws eviaoTapéevwy eviots’”
adiKn‘6 / ame ie 6 , > ” B pac, ‘ Kxaxiav d€’’ dyat “ KafddAov dpat
ove / > wy #3 # ipl on’ ) ~ >? > > Suvarov €or ovr exe Kadds
apiivac. (adr el pev ovK exer KaAds dpPjivar)™ THY dvoplay THY
dduktay THY dBeAreptav™ ov Tob TapOvTos €or doyou To Cyreiv:
avtos de” THY Kaktav, doov ep 1 oddé . . . Fv -De Comm. Not. 1065
» (Rasmus, luc. eét., and Emperius, Op. Philol., p. 340); ovre yap
rayaba wv -mss. here. 2 odros -Meziriac ; otrws -MSss. ‘Tept TOU
TavTos -£. Kat cukodavteiv -B. edvhpaiverw -d, 23 evdaivery -v.
axpyortous -E. TOLOGTL rov -F}, X1, d, v3; 6-z; 7o -all other mss.
708 -omitted by Gy iVin: Bia B evioTapeveny eviors Sy and -o.s Over
erasures), Bs d, v, 2, Bs; évorapévos (wy Superscript over org -ACT-)
eviey -F, a, A, B, y, n, E. is ine “V, 2 oon Dm or RP & 10 554
 STOIC SELF-CONTRADICTIONS, 1050-1051 universe as a
whole, since otherwise the good would not exist either.” And this
man censures those who impartially argue the opposite sides of a
question,? this man who from a desire at all costs and on every
subject to say something original and extraordinary asserts that
purse-snatching, blackmail, and folly are not useless, that it is not
useless for there to be men who are useless, injurious, and
wretched. What kind of being, then, is Zeus, I mean the Zeus of
Chrysippus, who chastises a thing that comes about neither of itself
nor without use? For, while vice according to the reasoning of
Chrysippus is entirely free from blame, Zeus must be blamed
whether he has created vice which is without use or having created
it not without use chastises it. 36. Again, in the first book concerning
Justice after having spoken of the gods as opposing some wrongful
acts he says*: “ To abolish vice completely, however, is not possible ;
nor is its abolition a good thing.”’ The present treatise is not
concerned with the investigation ¢whether the abolition of}
lawlessness, injustice, and stupidity -supplied by Bernardakis after
Reiske (dAX’ ed peév ov Kalas exer apOjvac) ; Omitted by all mss.
without indication of lacuna. 13 GBeArnpiav -Mss., corrected by
Diibner. 14 +4 -omitted by g. 16 §€ -omitted by g. 555
 (1051) PLUTARCH’S MORALIA ¢ A A ~ ~ > ~ a > +
é€avT@, dia Tod dirocodeiv avaiphv, nv ovK exer a > a / 6 ~ \ ~ /
KarAds avapety, waxopwevov TL moved Kal TH Adyw \ A 6 am \ Se ,
te 2 7 = , Kal T@ Yew. mpos d€ ToUToLs Acywv Eviois adLKN)re 2 G
\ i] \ ” , ~ 2 ~ pacw eviotacba Tov Beov Eeudacw madw tHs* Tov / /
apapTnatav Sidwow avicdtytos.” y A ~ 37. "Eru’ mept tot pndev
eyxAntov elvar pnde \ ’ NPs , \ \ ae, , peutrov (ev TM)” KOCUW,
KATA THY aploTHY vow ¢ os , 6 , 7 ; ” ATaVTWY TrEepaivopevwr,
moAAdKis’ yeypadws, €o/ Tw OTrov TmaAW eyKAnTas Twas
aper€cias Ov TreEpt [LtKpa Kal patAa KataXeiter. é€v yoov TH Tpitw
TeEpt Ovdcias pvynabeis ote cupBaiver twa Tots Kadoits > A ~ ¢ id
1) \ (Sod Kayabots tovadta, ‘‘ moTepov’’ dyaiv ‘ apedov~ , > eee ,
pevwy zwav, Kalamep év oikias® peiloo. trapa/ \ \ A TINTEL TWA
TITUPA KAL TrOGOL” TUpoi TiVEs’? TAY Py girs / a A ‘ / ul dAwy eb
otkovopovupevwy, 7 d1a TO KabioTacBar Eri a , , — ’ a ae t TOV
ToLlovTwY Sayovia dada ev ois TH OvTt ylyMaer 2 , 3 / Te ‘ A \ A
vovTat Kal eyKAnreat apeActat;’’? dyoi dé modAv Kat w~ a 4 Ss ~
TO THS avayKns peutyGar. TO fev ovY Ta TOLAITA 1 §é -omitted by
B. * ris -omitted by a(~ in margin), A, f, y, n, EF. 3H. C. after Amyot
(“. .. qu'il y a doncques quelque inégalité entre les pechez’’) 3
dvoovdrnTos -MSS. 4 re -aCFF- s Sou -all other mss. 5 ¢év t@> -
added by Wyttenbach and iniplied by Amyot’s ‘“en ce monde’’;
peumrov xoopw (Kdopov - Vat. Reg. 80) -mss. 8 zapayopevwy ~-X%
(ay over erasure), 2; mapayoperny -B. 7 moAAakts -omitted by E. 8
olKetats -d, Vv. ® woot -a', ys N (moat Tupi), F. 10 tyes -omitted by
g (but cf. S.VLP. ii, p, 223, 21: mogous Tivas xpovous). 11 +9 €dv
Kal -£. 556
 STOIC SELF-CONTRADICTIONS, 1051 abolishing so far as it
is in his power to do so the vice which it is not a good thing to
abolish, he is himself doing something that conflicts both with his
doctrine and with god. Besides, in saying that god opposes some
wrongful acts, he suggests in turn that there is inequality among
wrong actions. 87. Moreover, although he has often written on the
theme that there is nothing reprehensible or blameworthy Cf. 1050 ¢
supra: Kata Adyor Veod Kai Kara dvow .. . THY apioTny. ¢ S.V.F. ii,
frag. 1178. Cf. Cicero, De Nat. Deorum ii, 167 and iii, 86 and Babut,
Plutarque et le Stoicisme, pp. 291293 and p. -£39. 2 Cf. [Plutarch],
De Placitis 885 a=S.VVF. ii, frag. 976 with Plato, Timaeus 47 ¥ 5-48
4 2. S57
 PLUTARCH’S MORALIA (1051) cuprrwpara Tov Kadov
Kayaladv avdpav, otov 7 LwKpatovs katadixyn Kat 6 Ilu@aydpov
Cavros éumpnopos v0 THv KvAwvetwv kat Zyvwvos bo Anpvdou' Tov
TUpavvov Kal “Avripayros” bro AtoD vuotov otpeBAovpéevwv
avaupecers, muTspous” mapa TinTovow armeiKacew ¢ Sons €oTly
evxepetas €@" TO dé pavAous Saipovas é€k mpovolas éml Tas
TovavTas emiotacias Kabioracba: Hs obK €oTw éyKAnpa* tot Geot,
Kkabdrep Baci\éws Kakots Kal eprrAnKTOLS GaTpaTrats Kal
OTpaTHYOts StoLKHOELS ETITPETOVTOS® Kal TEPLOPOVTOS U0
TOUTWY apEeAOUpEVOUS KQL TTAPOLVOUPLEVOUS TOUS
aplaoToUS; Kal nv El TOAD TO THS avayKns péuiKTat Tols
mpaypacw, oUTE Kpatet mavtTwv o beds ovTE TAaVTA KATA TOV
eKELVOU Aoyov dtorketrac. 38. [Ipods tov ’Emixouvpov uddiota
paxeTat Kal TpOS TOVS avalpobvTas THY Tpdvolay a7ro° THY EvE
voiwdv'’ as éxopev rept Oe@v evepyetixovs Kat puA1 Siyuvrov -X%
(c over erasure), g, B (so also Kk, B in Ade. oe 1126 »). 2
*Avripdvros - -Basil. ; TUPAVOS “MSS. avaipéceis, muTUpois -B 3
avaipécer emt mtvpois -]°, Neri oC erased -X\? )s a3 avaipécer
mTvpos -B; avaipecers (-pe “yz: -péay -V) émi mutvpous (Tupiows -
V) -al) other MSS. 4 aveykAnpata -d, V, Z 5 €miTpamevTos -d, vs, 2
6 dro -X, g, Bs é« -all other mss. 7 edvvormv -a, .\?. 3 a FOr thet
term cupmtapata See 1050 F supra, > Cf. Plutarch, Nieias xxiii, 4
(538 r) ) and Ade. ('olotem 1126 Bn; Cicero, De Nat. Deorum iii, 82;
Diogenes Laertius, ii, 3 42. ¢ Cf. De Genio Socratis 583 4, where
Plutarch does not 558
 STOIC SELI-CONTRADICTIONS, 1051 degree of insensibility
manifested in likening to husks that get lost the accidents * to
upright and virtuous men such as were the sentence passed upon
Socrates ° and the burning alive of Pythagoras by the Cyloneans ©
and the torturing to death of Zeno by the tyrant Demylus ¢ and of
Antiphon by Dionysius ¢ ; but to say that base spirits have been
providentially appointed to such offices of charge, how can this be
anything but an accusation of god as of a king who entrusts
provinces to evil and demented governors and generals and pays no
attention to their neglect and abuse of the most virtuous men?
Moreover, if in events necessity is involved in large measure, then
god does not control all things nor are all things ordered in
conformity with his reason. 38. He fights especially against Epicurus
and against those who do away with providence, basing his attack
upon the conceptions that we have of the say explicitly that
Pythagoras himself died in the fire set by Cylon’s partisans. lor
references to the various accounts of his death cf. Zeller, Phil. Griech.
1/1, p. 417, n. 2 and A. Delatte, La Wie de Pythagore de Diogéne
Laérce (Brussels, 1922), pp. 186-137 and pp. 241-944. 4 The Zeno
referred to is the Eleatic, the friend and follower of Parmenides. Vhe
name of the tyrant, which Plutarch gives here and in Adv. Colotem
1126 p-Er but omits in Ve Garrulitate 505 p, varies in the various
versions of the story (cf. Diogenes Laertius, ix, 26-27; Zeno, frags. \
6-9 [D.-K.]; Cicero, De Nat. Veorum iii, 82 with A. S. Pease’s note in
his edition, ii, p. 1190). © Uf. Quomodo Adulator ab Amico
Internoscatur 68 a-z and Aristotle, fhetoric 1385 a 9-13. The
Antiphon meant here is the tragic dramatist (cf. Nauck, Trag. Graec.
F’rag.*, pp. 792-793 and Dieterich, R.-F. i [1894], col. 2526, 40-61),
who is confused with Antiphon of Khamnus in the
PseudoPlutarchean Vitae Decem Oratorwn 833 8, and by Philostratus
in his Jitae Sophistarum 1, 15, iii. 259
 PLUTARCH’S MORALIA Aa , bd] ~ \ 4 la (1051) av@pwrous
eémwoobvtes. Kat tottwy toddaxod é \ a ypagopévwv Kat
Aeyopévav’ map’ adtots ovdev edet 4 2 Ag€ers raparibecar.” Katrow
XPNOTOVS | ob mavTas® > A eikos’ Tovs Geovds mpoAapBavew.®
dpa yap ola *Tovdator kat Lpou wept Gedy dpovotow, dpa Ta TAY
ToWTaY Toons EuTrémAnoTat’ Sevotdaipovias.’ dlapTov O€ Kal
yevynTov® ovdeis Ws eros eimetvy dta| t e e \ ” Sha , voeirar Oedv.
dv tva tods addovs ad@ mavtas, > / e A > “ © a , Avtimatpos 0
Tapoevs ev TH mepi Wedv ypader TavTa KATO, Aetw: po" d€ Tob
ovpTravtos Adyou Thy evapyeray nv EXopev mept Geod dia Bpaxéwy
F émAoyiovpcba. Bedv Tou voodpev C@ov pada piov Kat adbaprov
Kat” evroiuntikov avOpwruv.”’ 5 / ” 13 OO , , 14 ¢ eita ToOUTWY
EKacToY vdyyovpevos* dna ovUTWSypadopevwy Kal Aeyopevey -X,
2g, Bs Aeyouéevwr Kai Aeyopevwy -F; Aeyouevwy kai voovpevwy -d,
Vv, 23 Aeyopevwy (alone) -all other MSS. ‘ mrepiTiBeoBax -d, v. 3
Kal TO A S(over erasure), g B ; Kaitou -all other Mss. : MEG dmavras
-g, E.; od xpnorovs dzavras -b. 5 eixos --\. D. Nock (ef. Sandbach,
Class. Quart., xxxiv [1940], p. 29, n. 2); elvac -Mss. § rpochapPavew
-F, X, g, Bs mpoBatvew -v ; mpo\apBavew ae other mss. (cf. Non
Posse Suaviter Vivi 1092 c). 7 éumémAnra -a) ; eurérAnnra -Vat.
Reg. 80. 8 Serdaovias -Z; 8 o Wamovias -a*(erasure between § and
o and between o and 1); dvodaiporias -n. ® yernrov -X*(ye over
erasure), ACT, Ks yevvnror -£, By ys n, B; wryrov -I’, a, A}, d, Vv, z.
10 apo -X, g, B, Bs mpos -all other Mss. 1l yapyecav -\eziriac ;
évépyecav -MSs. | "2 «at -omitted by v, z. | 13 Exaoros -B. 14
ddnyovpevos -H. C.; ddnyodpevos -uss. (defended by Westman in
Pohlenz-W pag Moralia yi/2, a 231; but cf. De Se Ipsum Laudando
543 a, Non Posse Suaviter Vivi 1097 a, and especially De -1n. Proc.
in Timaeo 1027 ¥ with app. erit.). 560
 STOIC SELF-CONTRADICTIONS, 1051 gods in thinking of
them as beneficent and humane. Since this occurs frequently in
what the Stoics write and say, there was no need to give quotations.
And yet the likelihood is that not all men have preconceptions of the
gods as benignant, for look at the kind of notions Jews and Syrians
have about gods ? and see how full of superstition the notions of the
poets are. One may say, however, that no one supposes god to be
subject to destruction and generation.© Not to mention any of the
others, Antipater of Tarsus in his book on the Gods writes word for
word as follows @:; “‘ As a preliminary to the whole discourse we
shall take a concise reckoning of the clear apprehension * which we
have of god. Well then, we conceive god to be an animate being,
blessed and indestructible ‘ and beneficent towards > men.” Then,
explaining each of these predicates, he * TIpos tov "Enixovpov . . .
mapariBecPa=S.V.F. ii, frag. 1115. Cf. De Comm. Not. 1075 & (S.V.F.
ii, frag. 1126), and for Epicurus on providence see 1043 B, page
492, note a. In the text here there is no need either to change ée. to
ei, as Reiske did, or to suppose with Pohlenz (Hermes, Ixxiv [1939],
p. 12, n. 2) that it is the apodosis of a condition contrary to fact, the
protasis of which has been lost. > Cf. De Superstitione 166 a, 169 c,
170 pd; Jones, Platonism of Plutarch, pp. 26-27 and Latzarus, Idées
Religieuses, pp. 161-166. ¢ Cf. De Comm. Not. 1074 E—1075 a. ¢
Antipater, frag. 33 (S.V.F. iii, p. 249, 10-15). ¢ Pohlenz adopts
Wyttenbach’s évoay, giving as his reason for rejecting é¢vdpyeay a
reference to Bonhdffer, Epictet und die Stoa, p. 220, n. 2; but see
Sandbach, Class. Quart., xxiv (1930), pp. 50-51 and note ¢ on 1047
c supra. Besides the passages cited in that note see also S.V’.F. i,
frag. 346 (Ariston of Chios). ? Cf. Plato, Phaedrus 246 p 1-2;
Aristotle, Metaphysics 1072 b 28-30 and Hth. Nic. 1178 b 8-9. 561
 (1051) 1052 B PLUTARCH’S MORALIA «é¢ \ \ > A / 9 \ e ~
? sis kat pnv adbaprovs attovs nyobvtar mayvTes. ? \ > > ~ f} e ba
? ovdets otv €oTt THY TavTwY oO Xpvoirmos Kat’ > / A \ 4 A A
Avturatpov: ovdev yap otetas Ary Tod mTupos yy 4S aA a A / ~
adpGaprov eivar Tv Jedv adda rravtas opadrds’ Kat / ol yeyovotas
Kat Plapnoopevovs. tatta dé mapA c / 3 ~ e b nn / Tayod, ws emos
eineiv, bm adtod A€yeTal. Tapa4 \ 4 >] ~ / \ ~ (¢ > Onjaopwar de
A€Ew Ex TOU TpiTov TEpi Ocdv: “ Kal ” , « \ » 9 13 O \ erepov
Aoyov ov ev apa” yevnrot elvar Kal pbap‘wee el ee Ma rite \ Pe ae a
6 tou Aéyovtau’ ot 8 ayevyto..” Kal TavT am apxins / bmodetkvvcba.
pvarkwTepov. yAvos pev yap Kal / \ e7 Oo \ Va ” cedjvy Kai ot’ dAdot
Geot mapamAjaov exovtes / 18 ? ¢ \ \ bay / > ) \ Aoyov yevytot
etow, 6 de Zevs atdids e€orwv.”’ Kal ll \ \ ~ awdaAw mpoeAOav: ‘
ojowa® de Kal mEpt TOD POwew"™ ~ € th ~ » Kal mEept ToD
yeveéoOar’” pnOnoera Ep TE TAY AA~ \ A12 } et \ \ , ] ~ Awv Gedy
kat Tob” Atos: ot pev yap P8aprot eiat Tod \ \ / + ) ? ” v4 dé Ta
wepn aplapta.”’ TovTos ert PovAopat TapaA ~ \ lanl > 4 Bavety
puxpa tev vireo tod “Avtimatpov Xeyopeeve’ ‘ ocot d€
TEpLtatpodvTat TO EUTTOLNTLKOV EK 1 Gpadds -omitted by d, v, z.
2 dpa -H. C.3 yap -mss. (deleted by Wyttenbach; _ retained by
Pohlenz, who places a colon after caf érepov Adyor, taking this as a
formula of transition, which is improbable in view of mapamAjo.ov
exovtes Adyov infra). X3, d, EK; yevvnroi -all other mss. héyovras -
X3(in margin), g, B; omitted by all other mss. X38, E 3 ayévynro -all
other Mss. avapyys -1, EB. of -omitted by g 3 of ddAor Peot -
Pohlenz. X3, d, Es yevynroi -all other mss. Omotos 2. ; 10 60ivew -
Diibner ; dpovety -mss.; P0apfva -Leonicus. U gicbdavecbar -X, g, B
(FE! in margin: yp. aicBavecBar). 2 «al wept Tod -F.
 STOIC SELEF-CONTRADICTIONS, 1051-1052 says: ©
Moreover, all men hold them to be indestructible.’ In that case,
Chrysippus is not one of Antipater’s “all men,’”’® for he thinks that
in the gods there is nothing indestructible except fire but that all of
them alike have come into being and are going to be destroyed. This
he states practically everywhere ; but I shall give a quotation from
his third book on the Gods®: “ Corresponding to a difference of
constituent principle some, therefore, are said to be subject to
generation and to destruction and others to be unsubject to
generation. An exposition of this from the beginning is rather a topic
for physics, for sun and moon and the rest of the gods, since they
have a similar principle of constitution, are subject to generation, but
Zeus is everlasting.”’ And again further on: “ Similar assertions will
be made about decaying and having come to be in regard to Zeus
and the rest of the gods, for the latter are subject to destruction but
the parts of the former are indestructible.” ° Beside these statements
I wish to set a few more words by Antipater ¢ : “Those who divest
the gods of beneficence are in * Cf. Plato, Republic 398 c 7-8;
Ilippias Major 293 a oe A > S.VF. ii, frag. 1049 (p. 309, 14-25); cf.
De Comm. Not. 1075 a-c and De Defectu Orac. 420 a (S.V.F. ii, p.
309, 2636 and p. 310, 1-4). ¢ Pohlenz, referring to S.V.#’. ii, frags.
589 ff., says that one would expect to find here pépn pév POapra,
adros Se ap@apros. In frags. 589-595, however, the Stoic contention
that the xoapuos is d@aprds is supported by the principle, od Ta
pepn P0apra €or: Kai 7d SAov (ii, p. 181, 1-2); and in the face of this
Chrysippus is not likely to have asserted that Zeus is himself
dé@apros though his parts are ¢@apra. ¢ Antipater, frag. 34 (S.V.F.
iii, p. 249, 16-20); ef. Babut, Plutarque et le Stoicisme, p. 461, n. 1,
563
 PLUTARCH’S MORALIA (1052) rev" Gedy aro pépous
mposBadrdAovav® 7H TovTWwY C -~ 4 \ A > \ , \ ¢ / mpornper
Kata Tov avtov Adyov Kal ot vopilovres 2 \ 3, / \ ~ A 9 yy avtous
yevecews te kat Pbopds Kowwveiv.” etmep i LEA ” ¢ ‘ € , ovv emions
atomos o plaprovs nyovpevos Tovs X an sf / Beovs 7H pH vopuilovt.
mpovontikovs elvar Kai > gpiravpwrovs, émions diamémTwKev
*Emixovpw A Xpvoirmos’ 6 pev yap TO evToLNTLKOY 6 dé TO
adbaprov apaipeirar tTav Oedv. 39. Kat pnv ev t@ tpitw epi Oedyv 6
Xpvoutr\ A3 , \ ” \ 790 4 mos méept Tod tpépecfat Tovs adAous
Beods Tade / (¢ ~ ¢€ A yy 4 = reyes: “ tpopH Te ot ev adXror Deo
ypHvrar Tapa/ , > b) 7 75 ¢ \ ‘ \ e mAnciws, avvexopevor Ot
avTynv’: o dé Levs Kal o 3 ~ Koopos Kal’ erepov TpdTOV
CovvexovTat THY KaTa > lanl / 4 Tepiodous Twas els Tip)’
avadtoKopevwy Kal €K bd a on / qupos ylyvopevwy.”' evradla pev
ovv® amodai4 \ ” 9 A / \ vetat mavTas Tovs adAXous’ Beovs
tpépecbar Any tod Kdopov Kat Tod Aids, ev b€ TH TpwTw TeEpl , \ /
\ ” , 10 4 : HIpovoias tov Aia dnotv av€eoPar péxpr" av ets avtov
amavTa KatavaAwon’: ‘ émet yap 6 Pavaros trav -omitted by F.
mpoaBadovar “2; mpoBa.Arovor -all other mss. too -X, g, B, E; 70 -
all other mss. Tade -omitted by E. aia -nN. x > -H. C.; lacuna
indicated by Nylander;
 STOIC SELI-CONTRADICTIONS, 1052 partial conflict with
the preconception of them in the same sense as are those who
believe them to partake of generation and destruction.” If, then, he
who holds that the gods are subject to destruction is as absurd as is
he who believes that they are not provident and humane, Chrysippus
has erred as much as has Epicurus, for the latter eliminates the
beneficence of the gods ¢ and the former their indestructibility. 89.
Moreover, in the third book on the Gods Chrysippus makes the
following statement about the nourishment of the rest of the gods®:
‘ Nourishment is used in a similar way ¢ by the rest of the gods —-it
is through it that they are sustained, but Zeus and the universe
sustain themselves) in a different way S.V.F. ii, frag. 1068. ¢ For
wapamAnoiws Pohlenz refers to 1050 © supra (aapamAnciws é€oriv
axovoréov), but cf. rather 1052 a supra: ot GAAot Geol
mapamAjoaov exovres Adyov. “ As the first clause of the next
sentence shows, Plutarch did not understand ztp0¢f ypévra: or
anything with a similar meaning to be the predicate of 6 Zeds kat 6
Kécpos. Giesen was therefore right in rejecting the conjectures of
Reiske and of Rasmus, and the same objection holds against
Madvig’s emendation and against von Arnim’s supplement with or
without Pohlenz’s variation of it. ‘ S.V.F. ii, frag. 604 (pp. 185, 43-
186, 3). Cf. De Comm. Not. 1075 8 and 1077 pb; S.V.F. ii, frag. 526.
265
 PLUTARCH’S MORALIA (1052) pev eoTe Wux7s Xwpropos”
amo TOU owparos » O€ TOU KOO[OU pox) ov Xwpicerar pe »
avgerau de ovvex@s pexpr’ av ets adtyv eEavadwan® thy vAnv, od
pntéov amobyynoKew Tov Kogpov.’ Tis ay ovr" evavTiwtepa Aéywv
€avT@ gavein Tod Tov adtov Geov viv pev avteabar viv d€ un
Tpéhecbat AéyovTOS i” Kal TOUT” ov det ovdoyileoBar: capes yap
auTOS eV TO avr yeypager: . avrapKns 5° ctv D A€yerat povos 6
KOGpOs 51a TO LOoVvos Ev avTa TrAVT éxyew wv deitar, Kat
Tpépetar €€ avTod Kal avEerar, TOV dAAwy popiwy ets adAAnda
KatadAdartTopevwv.”” od povov obv ev éexeivoits Tovs aAdous
Geovs atodaivwy® tpepopevovs Any Tod Kocpov kat tou Atos ev
ToUToUs de kal TOV mE eyo TpépecBar paxerae mpos avtov add’
ert’ pwaddov OTL TOV KOO HOV avgeabat pnow e€ adtoo
TpEpo[LeVOV. TobvavT tov 6° elkos WV ToOTov [Lovov 7) avEeabat
thy adrot Pbiow™ Exovta tpodyv Tots 8 Xwpropos puxis -Bfi [EXPL
X,d, v3 dypis -23; peéxpes -all other mss. : eauriy Karavahcioy -2. ‘
rts ovv av 5 éavtod -H. 6 vov pev . . . A€yovtos -X, g, Bs omitted by
all other uss. (one line left vacant by EF). 7 -xatadAatropéevwy -
Meziriac; xatarerpopievewy -V 3 Katatropevy -a, Al; Katatarropevwy
(karatrato...-)-all other mss. 8 dGrodawopevwy -y, n, Tolet. 51, 5. ®
GAda Ti -&3 GAd’ é€ore -Vat. Reg. 80. ete! -2. glo) Meo VF. ii,
Prakég 790 cy 791 aid for this definition of death Plato, Phaedo 67
pv 4-5 and Gorgias 524 8 2-4. From it follows the distinction referred
to in De Comm. Not. 1075 c: Ovnrov elvac tov advOpwrov, od
Ovnrov dé Tov Gedy adda dbaprov. 566
 STOIC SELF-CONTRADICTIONS, 1052 death is the
separation of soul from body @ and the soul of the universe is not
separated but goes on growing continually until it has completely
absorbed its matter, the universe must not be said to die.” Now, who
could more plainly contradict himself than the man who says of one
and the same god now that he grows and again that he does not
take nourishment? And inference is not needed to reach this
conclusion,®? for in the same book he has himself clearly written
©: “ The universe alone is said to be self-sufficient because it alone
has within itself everything it needs, and it gets from itself its
nourishment and growth by the interchange of its different parts into
one another.” So he is in conflict with himself not only because in the
former passages he declares that except for the universe and Zeus
there is nourishment of the rest of the gods and in the latter he
states that there is nourishment of the universe also but even more
because he says that the universe ' grows by getting nourishment
from itself. The likelihood was just the contrary, that this alone docs
not grow, since it has its own decay for nourishment,@ > Cf. De
Comm. Not. 1075 8B: ratra 8 ody ws d\Aa mOAAG . avdAdoyilopcBa.
. . OS had . My frag, 604 (p. 186, 4-7). Cf. Plato, Timaeus 33 c 8—p
3 and on the imitation of this passage by Chrysippus see Bréhier,
Chrysippe, p. 148, n. 1. Not recognizing the origin of the notion,
Sambursky says (Physics of the Stoics, p. 114): ‘“‘ Here the Stoics hit
upon an important physical law which applies to closed systems that
are not subject to any interference.” 4 Against the use that
Chrysippus made of Jimaeus 33 c 8-p 3 Plutarch turns the words
immediately preceding that passage (Timaeus 33 c 7-8): adro yap
éavte tpodiy tiv éEavtod Piow mrapéxov. D67
 (1052) EK PLUTARCH’S MORALIA dMois Geois eSwbev
Tpepopevors émidoow vyiyveaBat Kai avgnow Kal padov ets TouTous
KaTavaAioxeobas TOV KOopoy, ey exeivy pev ef avrod tovtois 6° am
exeivov AapBavew ael TL Kal Tpédecar ovpPeBnke. / ¢ ~ ~ ” v4 40.
Aevtepov towvy 1 Tdv Vedv evvoia Tepiexet , TO €VdaLLov Kal
paKaplov Kal adToTeddés. 610 Kal 4 / > A tov Edpimidny émawotow
elmovra A \ e , ” a> BLL ae / detrar yap o Oeds, etrrep €or’ opbdis’
Oeds, 3 , + ~ "QO 2 / / ovdevds: aoud@v olde aaigs® Aoyot. adda
O ye Xpvounaos €v ois* TrapeBepuny* avrapKn povov civa TOV
Koapov dyat Oud TO jLOvov ev abr e mavT éxew wv deira. ti odv
EmeTat T@ povov avrapKn TOV KOogpov’ elvat; TO pyre TOV
TjAvov avTdpky pyATE THY oehqvny elvan par aMov TiWa TOV
Oedv. avtapKers d€ px OvTes ovK ay elev eddatVA Moves OvdE
paxdpior. 41. To Bpédos ev TH _yaotpi pk Tpéheabar vopiler
xadamep puTov: ¢ orav bé TexO 7» puxopevov® 4 bo TOO aépos
Kal OTOMOvpEVOY TO TYEHLA pETA1 mss. and Clement, Strom. v,
75, 23; ovrws -Euripides (L, P). 2 Goida@v owe -Clement, Strom. v,
75, 23; doaddv 8 otde -Euripides (L, P); avdAdv of 8€ -F1, X, 23
adray of Se -F? and all other mss. 8 The testimony of d, v, z ends
here. In all three mss. the words év ofs are followed without
warning by De Defectu Orac. 412 c, rod xpnornpiov Kri. *
mapabenny -ay A. TO pOvov TOV one avTapkKn -§ huxdpevov -X9,
3, Puxeimevoy -2 3 yuyovpevoy -all other MSS. 5 @ Hercules Furens
1345-13146. The ‘S wretched tales ” are 568
 STOIC SELF-CONTRADICTIONS, 1052 whereas the rest of
the gods, since they get nourishment from without, do have increase
and growth and that it is rather the universe that is consumed in
their growth if it is a fact that, while it is its own source, they are
always drawing upon it for their nourishment. 40. A second factor
included in the conception of the gods, moreover, is happiness,
blessedness, and independence. That is the reason why they
applaud Euripides too for having said : God wants for nothing if he’s
truly god ; It’s poets who contrived these wretched tales.
Chrysippus, however, in what I have quoted ° says that the universe
alone is self-sufficient because it alone has within itself everything it
needs. What, then, is the consequence of the assertion that the
universe alone is self-sufficient ? That neither the sun nor the moon
is self-sufficient nor any other of the gods. And, not being self-
sufficient, they would not be happy or blessed either. 41, He believes
© that the foetus in the womb is nourished by nature @ like a plant
but that at birth the vital spirit, being chilled and tempered by the
the stories of the illicit loves and internecine wars of the gods
referred to by Theseus in lines 1316-1319 (cf. 1341-1344). > 1052 D
supra. © +6 Bpépos . . . paxydpevos adt@=S.V.F. ii, frag. 806 (p.
992, 18-24). Cf. 1053 c-p infra, De Comm. Not. 1084 p-F, De Primo
Frigido 946 c, and Porphyry in Eusebius, P’raep. Mvang. xv, 11, 4 (all
printed as part of S.V.F. ii, frag. 806) ; S. VF. ii, frags. 804, 805, and
807; and Pseudo-Galen (i.e. Porphyry), 4d Gaurum xiv, 4 (p. 54, 15-
20 [Kalbfleisch]) ; F, W. Kohnke, Hermes, xciii (1965), pp. 383-38 4.
¢“ Nature” (fdas) as the Stoics used it technically to designate the “‘
vegetative grade ”’ (dutc«ov) of the vital spirit (avedpa): cf. S. VF. ii,
frags. 710-712, 714-716, 718, and 787. 569
 PLU'TARCH’S MORALIA (1052) Badrew Kat ylyvecbar C@ov
obev OUK G10 TpOTOv 1053 THY poxny avopdacbar Tropa, TV peur.
autos Oe TaAw thy dbvyny d.paLorepov TVEDLA THS procws Ka
Aemrropepearepov NYELTAL pLayYopLEevos avrg.’ TOs yap olov te
AETTOpEpES EK TAXVMEPOdS Kal® apatov yeveobar kata
mrepipvéw Kal mUKYWOWW; 6 de petlov €otr, THs mepupvoger
yiyveoBan TO Epipoxov do palvopevos epapuxov nyetrat Tov nAov,
mvpwov ovTa Kal yeyevnievov eK Tis avabvpuacews Els Top
peraBadovons ;° A€yet yap ev TO mare mepl Dvcews: ‘9 S€ aupos
petaBodn € EoTL TOLOUT I) du’ depos eis® vdwp TpETETAL’ KAK
TOUTOV, yHS* bdiotapyevyns, anp avabuyiarat: Aemtuvopevov de
Tod aépos, 0 al@ap mepixetrar’ KiKAw, ot 8 aotépes ex Badatrrns
peta Tod HAtov avamTovTaL.” TL otv avarer mepupifews
evavTiwrepov 7 diaxvoer TUKVWGEWS; TA pLEV® VOWP Kal yHv’
EK mupos Kal 1 €avT@ -g. 2 maxupepods yeveo$ar Kal -£. 3
wetaBaddAovons -!", N1(first A erased -X°), geo'r- (second added
superscript), a. 4 apwrw -g 3 tpitw -all other mss. (but cf. 1049 r
and contrast the topics of the third book in 1038 c, 1042 a-s, 1048 B
supra). > ets -omitted by Bb. 6 ris -F, X1 ” mepryetrar -Wyttenbach ;
mepréyerar -Mss. 8

ra pev -Reiske; ra pev -Bernardakis: ra ev -Pohlenz. ry -F. @ 4.6.

wea is derived jot Wakisy | ‘ chilling ies fe VF. il, frags. 807 and 808),
an etymology which is pre-Stoic (cf. Plato, Cratylus 399 p 10-f 3 and
Aristotle, De Anima 405 b 28-99). ®’ Cf. S.V.F. ii, frags. 715, 780,
785, 787 and i, frag. 45+ (>. 108, 28-29). 570
 STOIC SELI-CONTRADICTIONS, 1052-1053 air, changes
and becomes animal and that hence soul has not inappropriately
been named after this process.2 On the other hand, he holds soul to
be vital spirit in a more rarefied and subtile state than nature ®; and
so he contradicts himself, for how can a subtile and rarefied state
have been produced from density in the process of chilling and
condensation ? What is more, how is it that, while declaring
animation to be the result of chilling, he holds the sun to be
animate, when it is igneous and the product of vaporous exhalation
which has changed to fire?* For he says in the first book concerning
Nature @: “ The transformation of fire is like this: by way of air it
turns into water; and from this, as earth is precipitated, air
evaporates ; and, as the air is subtilized, ether © is diffused round
about, and the stars along with the sun are kindled from the sea.’’
Now, what is more opposed to kindling than chilling or to diffusion
than condensation? The latter produce ° éuyvyov nyetrar . . .
petaBadovons=S.V.L’. ii, frag. 579 (p. 179, 28-30): ef. De Comm.
Not. 1084 5 and S.V-F. ii, frags. 652, 655, 663, 677, and 690. The
self-contradiction is denied by Rieth (Grundbegriffe, p. 125), who
contends that the ‘* tempering ”’ at birth was supposed to intensify
the rovos of the vital spirit by concentrating the heat within it. Some
support for this might be found in S. V.F. ii, frag. 446 (p. 147, 13-25);
but even this would not wholly resolve the difticulty. ¢ §.V.F. ii, frag.
579 (p. 179, 30-34); cf. ii, frag. 581 and frag. 413 with W. Spoerri,
'‘Spéthellenistische Berichte tiber Welt, Kultur und Gotter (Basel,
1959), p PP. 40-42. ¢ The Stoic ether was not a “ fifth essence” like
Aristotle’s but a kind of fire: cf. S.V.F. i, frags. 120, 134, and 171; ii,
frags. 527 (p. 168, 17-31), 580 (p. 180, 10-12), 596 (p. 184, 2-5),
601 (p. 185, 11-15), and 1067 (p. 313, 18-20) ; Plutarch, De lacie
928 c-p. 571
 PLUTARCH’S MORALIA led Se 1 A \ > A . (1053) aépos*
rrovet, Ta 8° Ets TEP Kal dépa TpéieEL TO Bypov ( = Kat ye@des.
GAA’ dpuws dzrov pev TIv dvaxw? Orrouv de tHy mepubvéw®
apynv emibvyias moet. Kal pny drav exmUpwors yevytar didAov, (tov
Kodopov 816Aov)* Civ Kat C@ov elvai dno. cBevvipevov 8’ abBis Kal
TaXVYOLEVOY Eis VOwWpP Kal yHV Kal TO CwWULAtoeides
TtpeTecbar. Adyar 8 ev TH TpwTw epi TTpovotas: “‘ dudAou prev
yap wv? 6 Kdapos TUPwdNS evOds Kat Yuyy eoTw eavTod Kal
yyEemovuKdy GTE dé, petaBadwy ets Te® TO Dypov Kal THY
évaTroAEtdlcioav vyyjv, TpoTov Tia eis apa Kal wuynv petéBarev’
wore ouveotava® €k TovTwy, GAAov twa eaxe Adyov.”’ evtadla
dymov cadds TH pev eExTTUpwoEL Kal Ta arbvya TOD KéopOV
Pyalv Eis TO” épisvxov tpetecOar TH S€ oBéoer maAWw Kal THY
wuynv aviecbar Kat avuypaivecBar yetaBaddovoav Els TO
owparoedes. aTOTFOS OvY paiverar Th Tep.poter vov pev €€ dvaro
Ont wy Tov eyisvya vov els avaic@nta Kal aivya petaBddAAwv To |
dépa -h. 2 avayvéw -n. i Trepiipvty -\F5ig.,.Bs Be Traparpugwv -X}
and all other sss. 4 -H. C.3 added after elvat ¢now by Wyttenbach
(not Amyot), after Cdov by Bernardakis 5 S:oAou Civ Kat Cdov -
Pohlenz. 5 ay -a°°'Trs' (qw over erasure), -\, B, y, n, B, Ketan X\, g
(preceding yap omitted), adopted by Pohlenz with after mupwdys. 6
[re] “deleted by W yttenbach (but ef. De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1018 c:
&& Te THs apyfs Kat roo. ..3 Gonda, Mnemany nes 4. Ser. vil [1954],
pp. 284- 285). ? peréBadev -Reiske ; petaBddou dv -X”, & 3
“wetaBaddwy -all other mss. (rpd70v .. . weraBadAwy -omiticd in
text but added in margin by X}?), 572
 STOIC SELEF-CONTRADICTIONS, 1053 water and earth
from fire and air, and the former turn into fire and air what is liquid
and earthy ¢; but nevertheless in one place he makes kindling and in
another chilling the origin of animation. Moreover, he says that,
when conflagration has become thorough, after 7d bypov, but
against this see the following paraphrase in c infra, . . . ri puyiv
aviecOa Kal avvypaivecbar..., without mention of yeddes or y7. 8
guuotava -F, X\!, a! 3 cuveorarar -X”. 9 tov -£. 973
The text on this page is estimated to be only 46.00%
accurate

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA (1053) mhetorov Epos Tis Tob

KOOPOU puxhs. avev 0 TOUT WY O TE pl puxns yeverews avTa@
dyos* baXopeevny eXet TpOs TO Ooypa THV dmd8cukw. viyvecBar
pev yap dyou THv buxny OTaVv TO Bpédos amore x OF Kaldmep
oTopwoe TH mrepupvger TOU D avevparos® peraBaddvros”
arrodetEec de Xpijrae TOD yeyovevat Thy bvyyv Kal peTayeveoTepay
eivat pdaLoTO T@* KOL TOV TpoTrov Kat TO Hos eLoporovalar Ta,
TEKVO. Tots yovebou. BAremerau dé 7 TOUT evayTiwats: od yap
olov te thy puyny T™po Tis GMOKUITEDS nOoroteto ban,
yeyvoperny’ PETA THY dmoKinow, 7 ovppnoerat, mpi 7 yeveotat
pox, opotay evar buyn, TovTEoTL Kal Elvar TH OpoLoTyTt Kal pun
elvar dia TO pHTW yeyovevar. et O€ dyoer® Tus OTL, Tals KpdoEoL
TAY GWLATwWY eyyryvoperns’ THS O[LOLOTHTOS, at wvxat
yevouevau” petaPaAdovor,” diadbetper TO TEKH pov Tob yeyovevat
THY puxny: EvOEXETAL yap OUTWS Kal ayevnTov™’ ovcay, oTav EK
ézrevo€éAOn, peraBadrew TH KPAcEL THS OMOLOTHTOS. 42. Tov
cepa. TOTE Lev dveopeph Kat Kovdov eivat pou TOTE O€ [LITE
Bapov unTe KoUdov. ev pev ovv TH Sevtépw mepi Kivjoews tO Te
Tip 1 Aoyos atre@ -g, E. 2 mvevpovos -|*, a}. > peraBdMovros -2,
a'(first A erased), E. 4 ro yeyovévar . . . TH -omitted by y! but added
in margin by eerie 5 ywoyerny -X*, g, Boor. ; yevopevny -E 3)
yerwyevyy a’, Val. Reg. 80 ; yevvaperny -}, X43; Bt, ooo ae. Boe 8
dyoe -Z; and note in margin of Kuso coe Pyoe Tis tows ofpua 5 : gat
-all other mss. ” ywopevns -E. vyevopevat -\*, &, 3 yervamevon -all
other vss. ® wetaBadovatv ek % ayevntov 7, BE. ayevynTov -all
other mss. 574:
 STOIC SELI-CONTRADICTIONS, 1053 universe." Apart from
this, however, in his account of the generation of soul the
demonstration is in conflict with the doctrine, for, while he says @
that the soul comes to be when the foetus has been brought to
birth, the vital spirit having changed under chilling as if under
tempering, yet as proof that the soul has come to be and is junior to
‘body he uses mainly the argument that the offspring closely
resemble their parents both in bent and in character.” The
discrepancy of these assertions is obvious : it is not possible for the
soul, coming to be after the birth, to have its character formed
before the birth or else it will turn out that before soul has come to
be it is similar to a soul, z.e. both exists, in that it has similarity, and,
because it has not yet come to be, does not exist; but, if one should
say that, the similarity originating in the blends of the bodies, the
souls change after they have come to be, the argument for the
generation of the soul is ruined, since in this way the soul may also
be ungenerated and upon entering the body © may change under
influence of the blend that constitutes the similarity. 42. Sometimes
he says that air has an upward tendency and is light and sometimes
that it is neither heavy nor light. Thus in the second book concerning
Motion he states 4 that fire, being weight* SN. VF. ii, frag. 806 (p.
222, 25-35) ¢ cf. the beginning of this chapter and note c on page
569 supra. > Yor this argument cf. S.V.F. i, frag. 518 (Cleanthes) and
Cicero, Tuse. Disp. i, 79 (=van Straaten, Panaetii Rhodii Fragmenta |
1962), p. 27, 25-27) ; Verbeke, Kleanthes, pp. 152-156 ; van
Straaten, Panétius, pp. 116-117. ¢ For the expression cf. Aristotle,
De Gen. Animal. 736 b 7 (Ovpabev emevovevat). ¢ S.V.F. ii, frag.
434. The fact that here and in S.V.F. 575
 PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 5) .u. on > a s (1053) aBapes ov
avwdepés elvar' A€yer Kal TovTw* Tapa/ \ > ~ Ul ons ~ A TAnGiws
TOV aépa, ToD pév VdaTos TH yh padrdAov / a “~ A
Tpoovepopyevov’ TOO 6 aé€pos TH Tupi. ev b€ Tals a , ee A ¢€ /
tad ld e Dvoixais Téxyvais ei tHv érépav péerer Sdfav, ws 7 A 3, 5 ~
~~ pnte Bapos €€ atrod pijre Kouddtyta Tod aépos EXOVTOS. f > 6:
43, “Ett tov* aépa dvce. Codepov civar’ Aé€yen, \ 6 / a aA A Kal
TOUTW TEKLNPLW xXpHTat Tod Kat Wvyxpov civar TpwTws’
avTiketobar yap avtov® To pev Codepov A / \ F pos THv
Aapmpotntra TO bێ Yuypov mpos THY OepoTnTa Tov mupds. Taira
Kwadv ev TH TPWTW ~ ~ , ? ~ tov’ Dvoikdv Lyntynpatwv madw ev
Tots epi \ "“E€ewv odd€v addo tas e€eus® mAnv aépas® etval
dyow: “ bio TovTWY yap ovvéxeTaL TA OWpaTa: ~ A Ld ant / Kat
TOU Trowov Exaorov elvar THY cEer GuvExopevwY ; lA QiTLos ©
Guvéywr'? anp eat, ov" oxAnpoTnTa pev > / , > 9 , / 12 92 » ev
oloypw tmuKvoTynta 5 év Ai~w AevKdTHTAa™ 8° ev aBapes elvai
dyna elz’ avwdepes -B. TovTo -N. F Tob pev . . . mpoovepouevou -
omitted by X, g. ér. tov -Sandbach (Class. Quart., xxxiv [1940], p.
21, n. 3); 7 rov -F1(H erased -F?), X, g, B; 7vov -all other mss. elvac
-omitted by g. awTa -E Tepi -£. rau (at end of line) fects -g. aépos -
E. 10 § auvéxwy aitios -£. 11 6y -F, X, g, B; 6s -a®°!?- and all other
mss. 12 gxAnporatov .. . TuKvoTaTov . . . AeuvKdTaTOV -£. 1 2 3 4
ors go wo i, frag. 99 (especially pp. 27, 31-28, 1) aBapés and not
Koddov is used is made much of by Sambursky (Physics of the
Stoics, pp. 6-7 and 111), who insists that the Stoics really 576
 STOIC SELF-CONTRADICTIONS, 1053 less, has an upward
tendency and that the case of air is much the same as this, since
water is more closely associated with earth and air with fire; but in
the Arts of Physics he leans to the other opinion,¢ assuming that of
itself air has neither weight nor lightness. 43. Moreover, he states®
that air is naturally murky ; and this he uses as an argument for its
being primarily cold also, saying that its murkiness is opposed to the
brilliance and its coldness to the heat of fire. This argument he
advances in the first book of the Physical Questions, but in the books
on Habitudes again he says ¢ that habitudes are nothing but
quantities of air: “ For it is these that produce the cohesion in bodies
; and each of the things that habitude makes cohesive owes its
particular quality to the cohibiting air, which in iron is called
hardness, in stone solidity, and in silver whiteness.’’4 These regarded
fire and air as “ gravitationally neutral’; but cf. S.V.F. ii, frags. 473 (p.
155, 32-36), 555 (p. 175, 19-22 and 31-35), and 571, where these
elements are explicitly called xodg¢a. On the other hand, according
to the Stoics the primary natural motion of all bodies is to the centre
of the universe (1055 a infra=S.V.F. ii, p. 173, 31-33; cf. S.V.F. i, p.
27, 25-29), and so all could be said to have weight (cf. the doubtful
text in S.V.F. ii, p. 115, 39-40; Pohlenz, Stoa, i, p. 76). * §.V.F. ii,
frag. 435; cf. Pseudo-Galen on Stoic matter, mers’. ii, frag. 327, >
S.V.F. ii, frag. 429 (p. 140, 35-39); cf. ibid., pp. 140, 40-141, 4 and
frag. 430 (= De Primo Frigido 952 c-p and 948 p—949 s) and also
S.V.F. ii, p. 143, 14-17, p. 178, 6-10, and p. 180, 8-9; O. Gilbert, Die
meteorologischen Theorien des griechischen Altertums (Leipzig,
1907), pp. 243-244. ¢ §.V.F. ii, frag. 449 (p. 147, 38-43). 4 On this
passage and what follows cf. P. Duhem, Le Systéme du Monde i, pp.
302-308 and Sambursky, Physics ST7