Clement's ethics and psychology, namely the doctrine of 7d6os,
i és . point of Clement's ethics.! But the same Stoic doctrine is adopted ; eer ethical wae '
: ism * { Middle Platonism and .
2« irs also in Middle Platonism:
| | Midd by Antiochus? and conscaery i.
That the general def it wi e Albinus, Did. as He 'will sate t5 carmen :
Strom. ii. 59. 6 goes bac Kodovdeiv ayntéov Tas aperas, and 183. 14, dyspioro. . . APSE ' following comparis aMirwv,3 Apuleius, De Plat. ii, 228, eas vero, quae perfectae sint, the following individuas sibi et inter se conexas esse
. arbitratur,s and in the j | Clem. Strom. ii. 59.6 (ii. 14 anonymous commentator of the Theaetetus, cols. 9. 39-10. 1-3 a adbos 5é mAcovdlovoa Spi) (p. 8 ed. Diels-Schubart) and col. 11. 16 f. (p. 9).8 Philo also
' reiyovoa Ta KATA TOV Manon i s.
? s maintains that he who has one of the virtues must necessarily ] 7} Opp exedepoperm kai have all of them, De Vita Mos. ii. 7 (iv. 202. 3-4), ef' dv dedvrws i | Ady" mapa pow ob Levee é ge et ES:
, | wvyis Kara THY mpds Tov S nal ent dperav el EveoO ov Kab puxns mY:
FP elzrot Tis av Oo KGL €77L apeTwv eiwe Aéyea at, OTL fe}plav €X' e y i > SVP iii + according to Philo, virtue is one in if ame(evav Ta 7a0H... adri Meas SXEE (= SVF iii. 303) ine § hi I te species"of the év Exactrov rév malay el ti origin, and as different pea a oe - Pow mo \mibode vty fou, dAdyous dpétes A€you same genus, 79 yap Shov év yéver 2) epert,
7] Kare <9 28 peek a (= SVF iii. 377).
Téuverat, ppovnow Kal owdpootyny Kat dyS8petav REE Stkatoavyny ( (De Sacr. Ab. et C. 84, vol. i. 237. 3-4 = SVF iii, 304). W hat Philo nt says in this passage reminds us of the doctrine of the origin of i virtue from the Logos, which we have already examined (p. 64 i} above).
| 3. We have now to go through a very important aspect of | ri i i) Clement's ethics and psychology, namely the doctrine of 7d6os,
| which has so far been regarded as one of the strongest arguments | in support of the assumption that Clement depends directly upon | Stoicism in his ethical doctrines.® It will be our purpose to see e riew ca a:
YW. r here also it is q = e ysee sais waaay esaee 2 ene Platonism and The definitions of the s : a ys back to Middle Ple , ; Ee possible to trace Clement's views bac ms s . terminology, and it is th to Philo. In this way we shall also be able to show, in the next ji age 8) octi se relati i i xists between a part of | Su r section, the close relationship which ex
BEE | In order, however, * See especially Merk, 72: 'Mit der Stoa stimmt ferner Chen Dede in | mdHos, it is necessary to e der Lehre von der Einheit der Tugend. Wer die eine Tugend hat, hat die ander:
| Two other passages Bet .
2 De Fin. v. 67: nam cum ita copulatae connexaeque sint, ut omnes omnium participes respect: sint nec alia ab alia possit separari; cf. A. Liider, 50, Strache, Der Eklektizismus
L i. i Strom. vi. 135. 3 (ii. 500
* On the dvraxodovdla of virtues inAlbinus see Pracchter, Cras: S44,andme i H eumepeeyerar 7d Ope 8g-go. For the presence of this doctrine in Neoplatonism see Plotinus,
Znn. i. 2. 7 i ruxdv, "a amvedua etny and Porphyry, Sent. xxxii. 4. nem st ts 4.8
* Sce also Moreschini, Studi sul 'De dogm. Plat.' di Apuleio, 80. — t Bags) sei (Tao Mih s For some general remarks on this anonymous commentator see
Praec > | vias SVF iii. 391, which contai op. cit. 552-3.
6 Sce, for instance, Merk, 50, 64, and 65, Daskalakis, 97, and especially Pohlenz, Mente Eh, ae ), iii, NGA, phil.-hist. K1. (1943), 125-7 and 162, and Die Stoa i. 420.
ETHICS te tov alaBicew Kai Tod Aowrod adparos wopevdperdv re Kat of zdé0os, he keeps him mpwrorabody Sid cdparos, THY mpoaperucny 5 Td Hyepovexov exe according to which 7d8 Svvapw. connected with body an Strom. iv. 136.
(ii. 500. 23-5) : bua Tob owpariuKod bea ela: pulse peculiar to the tw aic@dverard dvOpwros, éribupel, iSerar, opyileras, tpéperar, avferar.
; the émOvpntucy and the It is clear from the first passage that Clement regards the mvedpa q We are nage ble toa capxixdv as the expression of the animal life in man, and that | with ate lg 7 ate he connects it also with body and sensations (dia re r@v aicbjoewy points on which nides kal rod AowroO cwparos mopevdpevov); in the second passage
} the veaietey to = e the TVvEo La capKucdv or owparuKoy is closely related not only to the ; of the soul, at a me animal life (rpédera, avéerar) but also to such functions as q and the imple is ee emibupetv, SecOu, dpyilecOa, i.e. to wdBos (see also the term fi reason) occur ; so p mpwrorabody which occurs in the first passage).
Albinus, as Ei ae sie The veda capxixdy, in so far as it comprehends all the irrathem adopt Posidonius' tional functions in itself, represents for Clement the inferior and Rt apparent contradiction with irrational part of the human soul. The rational faculty is sharply
| of no importance, since the pr distinguished from it: rv mpoatperuciy S€ 7d ayepovexdy exer Ab, et C. 84, mpooréraxrar pévro <a '
Ae a hy Cl | Smép 100 mparov pev yopviy dve dvvapur, Strom. vi. 135.3-This is the reason why Clement comesto h| Srodiwers thy duytw davfvan. It speak about the two different 7veJzara dwelling in man, with ; oxenagudérww with the expre which the two tables of stone containing the ten commandments but kept the following words of . i i ( . Li nid Wi ) without remembering that, by are concerned (see Strom. vi. 134. 1, vol. 11. 499. 20-30 and.
The dependence of this passage 136. 4.501. 1-2). This distinction of two zveduara is practically ; app. ad loc., and by Heinisch, one and the same thing with the partition of the soul into a (art. cit. 126 a 2), has. howeve a a z s A sae ata , | 72, is wrong in maintaining th rational and irrational part, which we have already observ ed. en effet, entitrement dépendan A conclusion can be drawn from Clement's doctrine of the I | ' The fourth book ofGalen' mveb jue. capxixdv. Since, as we have seen, the émbvpeiv, the | His best evidence for both Ch
$ ee bia he: liz it, it foll | Posidonius' criticism of it. Gale 7Seo8a, and the épyileo#a: are functions peculiar to it, it follows pus, and refers to his doctrine, that émBupia, Sov}, and épy%, which are three of the main 746y,
;| c. 5, vol. v Kiihn, p. 392. 2-8 . must have their natural seat in the irrational part of the soul, and | Go NO), Feito, op.a03415 'i .
" ith | criticized Chrysippus' doctrine also be connected, in some way, both with sensation and wit himself closer to Plato's partitio body. Consequently Clement could hardly have shared the view tion of the origin of zd@os: se of those who, like Chrysippus, considered zd@os simply as the ql Bare eller, iii/t. 599 n. 2),
F i $4 this way, teaced | 901n. 3), and y, c, 5, vol. v product of a wrong judgement of reason and, in this way, trace A. Schmekel, 262 n. 1). Posidon it back to the rational part of the soul. Actually Clement, as { oh notas real parts (pn) Pohlenz has rightly pointed out, never mentions this Chrysippean
On Desiir.o0m and footnot mies omnd, pi ) z On Posidonius' doctrine of wd@ doctrine in his writings.2 Though adopting Chrysippus' definition
262-3, K. Gronau, 253-4, Poh ae Theiler, Die Vorbereitung 1 See footnote 2, p. 81 above. ie dependence on Posid 2 See Pohlenz, NGA, phil.-hist. Kl. (1943), 126, cf. Die Stoa i. 420. The only
® Fes Ags ' exception is represented by Strom. v. 67. 4
(ii. 371. 8-9), dvev rijs owparucs iNéligot Antiochus see, for ins ddvaplas Kal ray Talay mévrw, doa weperoosow al Keval Kal pevdeis drodiipers. This aturales esse dicerent et ratione exp | i) ETHICS if Galen is very clear on this point. In the fourth book of his y kal pavOdvw De Plac. Hipp. et Platonis he does not conceal his polemical attitude
{ Oupods 5€ kpet towards Chrysippus, but does his best to point out his contradic- ; (c. 6, tions and incongruities; reason, he maintains, cannot be the ;, It is important t ice cause of 7dos, which must have its origin in the irrational funct if 5 Has e nonce tions of the soul: 'We ask you, which cause has given origin to } conflict between reason soul; a "
Medea: rovréort 70 éxdor this irrational movement which, though not being produced by sid ath Se bh pap .
: v K reason, is clearly produced by some cause? We say that sometimes i SPHERE I U it is the irascible faculty, and sometimes the concupiscible faculty
] kal pavOdve that produces it' (Ge 5, vol. v Kihn, Pp. 393. 2-5) 5 'consequently, {y Bupds 8é Kpei Chrysippus, reason is not the cause of this runaway and imf (Stro moderate movement; you yourself admit that it takes place i i against reason. It is not possible that something is produced by a We leave the problem of reason and against reason at the same time; since this movement q Euripides' Medea in Clem +3 o - 0) must be produced at any rate by some cause, the faculty which } and go back to illustrate produces passions is not the rational, but an irrational one' a eres Platonism. Plu (c.
5, vol. v Kithn, pp. 394. 18-395.
5). Moreover, in order to i as Galen does, his polem % | maintained that aos i prove the real existence of the conflict between the rational and p . si SORE E Feat 4 the irrational functions of the soul, and to show how wrong and 'ail" arg iMBE eT O ee .
: a AVANS KAL iu APT full of contradictions is Chrysippus' view on 7d0os, he quotes two f i Bos 1d) p age : sere 5; y ' aBovor and re lines of Euripides' Medea (1078-9) which, as he himself says, he
Sass 7S) 44 saneal mac found in Chrysippus' TTept wadav: 4 8é ve Mijtaa BuoGeton apes | a rational and an irratio ie F seh sgt ie Rees tes SRD i } Sirrds typ@v abs ddnOAs 708 Ovpod, wept ts odk ofS Srws 6 Xpvourmos obk aicbdverat i ences es roo EBpemiS LING | that it is in the latter that xa?' éavrod tod Hvpimidov peuynpevos erav
\ . oy ! mabyrixoy Kat dAoyov Kal collocarent, ne his quidem adsentiebatur (sc. Zeno]. Nam et perturbationes voluntarias i Sedjtevor, 442 a), The d esse putabat opinionisque iudicio suscipi .
. This passage is quoted byStrache, Ekl., 33. wrong opinion, but dire Strache (op. cit. 33-4) thinks that Antiochus opposed the teaching of the old q opbdrnrt So€dv oddé dava Porch on zd8os. Pohlenz holds the opposite view on this point, since he thinks that q eee Loe epad. d ry Antiochus adopted Chrysippus' doctrine, according to which the 7d@y are pro- { iM. cup es sie hated t duced by a wrong opinion. Pohlenz was led to this assumption by the fact that he
Kabdrep éx pilns tod m y ig Op!
Pp y : pen) first considered Antiochus as the source of the third book of Cicero's Tusculanae, 451 a,2 cf. De Libid. et where the Chrysippean view is openly supported (see his article in Hermes 41 aae
\ndestoh (1906), 338). The casual mention of Antiochus at § 59 does not, however, represent al mdvra Kal ras dobev a sufficient reason to trace this book back to him. Moreover, as Strache has pointed y oravew,.3 In these two las out (op. cit. 32), the criticism of the Academic Crantor and of the Peripatetics
| nection between dos which appears in it (see especially §§ 12-13, 22, and 71) does not fit in with the al Strom. vi general attitude of Antiochus, who liked to present himself as the restorer, against C + VL 130.
I (see P Arcesilas' scepticism, of the philosophy ofthe antiqui, i.e. of the Old Academy and 'lement and Plutarch of the Peripatetic school which, in his opinion, did not substantially differ from i each other (Ac. Post. i. 37 and 38). Later on, Pohlenz changed his view about the | ' For the quotation in Gale source of the third book of the Tusculanae (see the note S 244 Z 16 in Die Stoa ii.
126) but kept on thinking that Antiochus had followed Chrysippus in his doctrine i Theiler also, Die Vorbereitu of 7d8os without, however, being able to produce sufficient evidence in support
, * Ziegler also in his article 'P of his assumption (see Die Stoa i. 252). to the presence of Plutarch's doc "
] ) go ETHICS j remember that for Plutarch sensations and the animal life are work against Chrysippus peculiar to the irrational part of the soul and are closely related tragic poetry, in order to the body: domep ro aioOnrixdy 7) 76 Openrucov Kal 76 putuxdy his doctrine of 7é8os. Thi Tis yuyiis pépos: dAAd Tadro pev ddws dvijKoa Adyou Kal Kopa above), most probably tpémov Twa THs capkos exBeBrdornKe Kal mept 70 o@pa é eiKOTGR, } Plutarch, Albinus, and népuxe, De Virt. m. 442 b. This passage immediately reminds us of j lines, if not in the origin what Clement says in Strom. vi. 135. 3 about the zvedpa capxucdy.} book reproducing his vi The same views can be found in Albinus, who adopts Chrysippolemic against Chrysipp pus' definition of zd6os but stresses its origin from the irrational
Posidonius' theory of za6 part of the soul, denying, at the same time, that it can be the become part of the scho product of a xpicis: ort roivey mdbos Kivnois dAoyos poxiis os
The presence of this Pos emt Kak@ 7) ds emt dyab@: doyos pev ody cipro Knots, OTe ob may be due to the influ pices Ta 740 oddE dda, GAA TOY GAdywv ris iux7s duvdpewy shared the views held Kuwihoets* év yap TO mabyntiKk@ Tis buyiis ovviorarat (Did. 185. 22 ff.). argument.
Like Plutarch, Albinus draws a sharp line between the Aoyiortxdy In Neoplatonism, Plot and the wa@nrixdy and stresses the clash which occurs between ; According to him, the 'r them (c. xxiv, pp. 176-7).? Moreover, in the same chapter (pthe rational principle, i 177), he quotes the same two lines of Euripides' Medea which, i Aov ev uy 7H mpwrn, En as we have seen, are quoted both by Galen and by Clement.
} dvOpwrros 6 addnOjs oxedov Immediately afterwards, Albinus quotes two lines of Euripides' oyu yuyf. The real soul Chrysippus:
703 liv 7® cvvapdorépw S al al 768° 7j5n Getov dvOpazrois KaKov, : dav, Enn.i. 1.6, cf. Enn. i.
Srav tis 59 tayabdv, xpHrar 5é p17}. éavriyy kal ev éavrf. Sens not in the 'real' soul w These two lines occur in Plutarch, De Virt. m. 446 a as well, in from the body even whe a context in which he speaks, exactly as Albinus does, about the xwpiorh Kal evradba oven : clash between 7460s and reason. Immediately before, Plutarch which is formed by the b quotes another line of Euripides' Chrysippus, yodpnvy éxovra pw' real soul: rs yuyfs.
« % dvors BidLerar which is quoted also by Ciement, before the two ovvappdrepov ... GAAG mo lines of the Medea. All these lines occurring in Galen, Clement, twos ofov duwrds rod ma Albinus, and Plutarch were originally contained in Chrysippus'
Erepdv 71, 08 76 alaBdvec work ITep wa8av.3 But it is not unlikely that Posidonius, in his Enn. i. 1, 7, cf. Enn. i. 1. hicx . sy A ! 'The views expounded by Plutarch in De Virt. m. 442 b and 451 a (cf. also oeso SiS; GUO is t De Libid. et Aegr.,c. 9) most probably go back to Posidonius, as Theiler, op. cit. 88, Va pevovoa pev adr, e is inclined to believe: cf. De Plac. Hipp. et Plat. v, c. 5, vol. v Kithn, p. 464. 6-7. of the soul, which perm 2 See also Witt, 81. ad | Fibvanal F with it, represents the nat 3 That the lines 1078-9 of Euripides' Medea were quoted by Cheysippur is is the equivalent of Clem confirmed by Galen (see the quotation of Galen's passage, p. 88 above). ChrysipPlotinue vw " ow ; pus was very fond of quotations from Greek poetry: A. Elter, De Gnomologiorum mus' words €TEPOV TL, graecorum historia atque origine (Bonn, 1893-5), has shown that the late anthologies
. containing fragments of different Greek poems of the classical period go ultiSee Witt, 81.
_ mately back to Chrysippus' work (on this argument sec also A. Peretti, 119).
* 7@ is Kirchhoff's emend