1 "Ancient Stoicism" (Zeno, Cleanthes, Chrysippus) which can be traced back to Socrates by way of the Cynics and the Megarians, though it had many other sources also (lonian and Heraclitean tradition, greco-semitic religious inspiration), developed during the course of the third century B.C.; "middle Stoicism" (Panaetius, Posidonius) took up the end of the second century and the first century B.C.; the third great Stoic branch was the Stoicism of the imperial epoch or the "Roman Stoicism" of the first two centuries A.D. (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius).
The Epicurean school, which goes back to Socrates through Aristippus of Cyrene, and beyond Socrates to Democritus, was founded by Epicurus at Athens in 306 B.C., and remained for a long time one of the four great Athenian schools. It bore its finest fruit in the poem of Lucretius in the first century B.C. (though this work is informed with a grand pessimism quite different from the unavowed, repressed disenchantment of Epicurus himself).
Cf. Paul Elmer More, Hellenistic Philosophies, Princeton University Press, 1923 (London: O.U.P., 1924); Emile Bréhier, Histoire de la Philosophie, Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1948, vol. II, Hellenistic and Roman Period; R. D. Hicks, Stoic and Epicurean, London, 1910; G. Rodier, "Histoire extérieure et intérieure du Stoïcisme" (in Études de Philosophie grecque, Paris, 1926); V. Brochard, "La Morale d'Épicure" (in Études de Philosophie ancienne et moderne, Paris, 1912); J. Lebreton, "Le monde païen et la conquête chrétienne" I, La philosophie religieuse du Stoïcisme (Les Études June 1925); Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, Leipzig, 1903, 1905, 1914; The Discourses of Epictetus, trans. P. E. Matheson, The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, trans. G. Long, The Extant Writings of Epicurus, trans. C. Bailey, in: The Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers, ed. Whitney J. Oates New York: Random House, 1940.
1 Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom., IV, 6 (Migne, P.G., t. VIII, col. 1240).
1 Cf. our essay on "The Meaning of Contemporary Atheism", in The Range of Reason, New York: Scribners, 1953; London: Bles, 1953.
2 For bibliography, see G. S. Kirk, Heraclitus, The Cosmic Fragments, Cambridge University Press, 1954.
3 Fr. 44.
4 Antigone II, 452460. Trans. R. C. Jebb, in The Complete Greek Drama. ed. Oates and O'Neill, New York: Random House, 1938, Vol. I.
5 Ion, II, 854-856. Trans. Robert Dotter, in The Complete Greek Drama.
1 Cf. Werner Jaeger, Paideia, II, p. 390, note 48; p. 407, note 202; 111, p. 346, note 216.
1 Cf. George Sabine, A History of Political Theory, Revised Edition, New York: Henry Holt, 1950, ch. VIII; London: Harrap, 1951.
2 Ibid., p. 141.
3 Hymn to Zeus, in The Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers, ed. W. J. Oates, Appendix, pp. 591-592.
1 Arrian's Discourses of Epictetus, I, ch. III, in The Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers, p. 229.
2 On the distinction between the jus gentium (which depends -- at least as regards the way in which its laws are known -- on the conceptual exercise of human reason) and natural law (which depends on divine reason alone and is known through natural inclinations), cf. our study "Natural Law and Moral Law", in Moral Principles of Action, edited by Ruth Nanda Anshen, New York: Harper, 1952 -- See George H. Sabine, op. cit., p. 157.
1 Cicero, Republic, III, 22.
2 Cicero, Laws, I, 10.
1 Cicero, Laws, I, 16.
2 Epistulae morales ad Lucilium, XCV, 33.
3 Meditations, VI, 44, in The Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers, p. 533.
4 Cf. Heinrich Rommen, op. cit.
1 We touched on these problems in our book, Man and the State, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951, pp. 84-97; London: Hollis and Carter, 1954.
1 Acts, XX, 35.
2 Sententia XXXIII, in Epicurea, ed. H. Vsener, Leipzig, 1887, p. 78.
1 Sum. theol., I-lI, 35, 4, ad 2.
2 Nicomachean Ethics, VlII, 5 and 6; X, 6.
1 This recipe against all evils, mentioned in a fragment of Philodemus of Gadara (first century B.C.), seems to go back to Epicurus himself. Cf. Emile Bréhier, op. cit., p. 410.
1 Simplicius, Commentary on the Categories, 78 b (Arnim, II, no. 499).
2 If the Stoics spoke of him as different from the world, it was so that he could justify the world and all that happens in the world by his sovereign will and sovereign reason; if they made him immanent in the world and of the same substance as it, it was because he was but the divinization of the world: Emperor of the world consubstantial with the world. "Though they say that the providential being is of the same substance as the being it directs, they also say, nevertheless, that he is perfect and different from what he directs." Origen, On the Gospel of St. John, XIII, 21 (Arnim, II, 1122), [Migne, P.G., t. XIV, col. 243].
1 Bréhier, op. cit., II, 297, 298.
1 On the Nature of Things, Book V, trans. H. A. J. Munro in The Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers, ed. Whitney J. Qates, p. 163, lines 6-8.
<< ======= >>