A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

ZENON. ZENON. 1315
Sext. Emp. adv. Math. vii. 228, 230, 236), more in his view have been identical with the deity;
exact definitions of which were attempted by but what Heracleitus tacitly pre-supposed, that it
Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and others, who deviated the partakes of the world-consciousness, Zenon enone from the other, showing clearly that none such deavoured to define more exactly, and to prove,
had been established by Zenon. In like manner the substituting for the universe-ensouling power the
division of conceptions, or representations (pavTra- universe itself, that is, the substance of it, or the
oiaL) into such as were credible (7riOavai), incredible deity, and attributing reason to it, inasmuch as on
(c&rilavor), at once credible and not credible, and the one hand the rational (Aho'yKV) is better than
such as were neither credible nor incredible; and the irrational, and on the other, that which is
further into true and false, &c., may very likely found in the parts must belong to the whole (Sext.
have been made by Zenon (Ibid. 242, &c.). It lay Emp. adv. Math. ix. 104, 101; Cic. de Vat. Deor.
at the basis of the subdivision of true conceptions into ii. 8). In this universe-fashioning fire there must
comprehensible (Ka'am77r'X tKat), i. e. demonstrable, dwell not merely a concomitant consciousness, but.
and incomprehensible, which is referred to Zenon. a foreseeing one (Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii. 22), that
(Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 24.) But here also the more is, the eternal deity extended throughout the
exact definitions are to be ascribed to the later Stoa whole universe, must produce (anulovpyes7v, Diog.
(Sex. Emp. adv. Math. vii. 253). On the other Lalirt. vii. 134, 136) every thing. The doubt of
hand Zenon had reserved for the free-will the Ariston, whether God could be a being possessed of
power of assent (ovyTa'drcIOoaLs) in distinguish- life (Cic. de N2at. Deor. i. 14) seems to have been
ing between the impressions communicated to the directed against Zenon's further definitions, which
senses (Cic. Acad. i. 11), and distinguished the have not come down to us. Again, Zenon defined
following stages: representation, cognition, assent, the deity as that law of nature which ever accomknowledge, exhibiting their relation to each other plishes what is right, and prevents the opposite
by the well-known illustration of the flat-extended (Cic. 1. c.), as the energy which moves itself and
hand, and the gradual clenching of the fist (Cic. operates according to the laws of impregnation
Acad. ii. 4, i. 11). As the ultimate criterion of truth (A(hyoet 7rep/uaar'KoI, Diog. Laert. vii. 148; Cic.
Zenon assumed right reason (Diog. Labrt. vii. 54, de Nat. Deor. ii. 39), and identified it, or Zeus,
ibid. Interp.), which Chrysippus and others, in with spirit and predestination, or unconditioned
turn, endeavoured to separate into its constituent necessity (Stob. Ecl. Phys. i. 178; Diog. Lairt.
parts. vii. 88, 148, &c., 156), without detriment to the
Zenon seems to have had no share, or but very foresight and free self-determination attributed to
little, in the developement of the Stoic doctrine it (Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii. 22). He seems to have
respecting the categories, conclusions, the parts of endeavoured to refer the different chief deities of
speech and rhetoric. The last could have been the Greek mythology to the different fundamental
regarded by him only as an amplification of dialec- modes of manifestation of the single divine primary
tic, according to the comparison referred to by power (Ibid. i. 14, comp. Diog. Lairt. vii. 147,
Cicero (Orator. 32), and could hardly have ap- 149). He must have regarded individual souls as
peared to him to need a separate scientific treat- being what the world-soul was; as of the nature
ment. (Cic. de Fin. iv. 3.) of fire, or as warm breath (7rreviAa evOepuozY, Cic.
It seems that at the head of his Physic stood Tusc. i. 9, de Nat. Deor. iii. 14, comp. Plut, de
the proposition that every thing which operates, as ph. pl. Decret. iv. 3; Diog. Laert. vii. 156), and
well as every thing operated upon, is corporeal, therefore as perishable (Diog. Lairt. 1. c.). The
and consequently that the actual is limited to that threefold division of the soul attributed to him
(Cic. Acad. i. 11). He called the substance, that (Tertullian. de Aninza, c. 14) is obscure, if not
is to say the basis of every thing existent, that dubious. But however he may have divided it, he
primary matter which neither increases nor dimi- must have referred its different activities to one
nishes itself (Stob. Eel. Eth. p. 90; Diog. La'rt. vii. and the same fundamental power (r{YLyUoI:'&,,
150). This was in his view the intercommingling Sext. Emp. adv. Math. ix. 102; comp. Euseb.
of matter, in itself passive and void of quality Praep. Ev. xv. 20).
(&roos -7Arl), and of operative power, that is of the Zenon, coinciding with the Cynics, and with equal
deity (Diog. LaUrt. vii. 134; Cic. I.c.; Senec. Epist. stringency, recognised in the most decided manner
65). He saw this operative power in fire (Cic. the unconditional nature of moral obligations, and
Acad. i. 11), or aether (ibid. ii. 41), as the basis that only that which answers to them is valuable
of all vital activity (Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii. 9, iii. in itself; but departed from them partly in the
14), and in this way was led to go back to the deduction and definition of them, partly and chiefly
doctrine of Heracleitus. Attaching his views to in this, that by paving the way for the separation
that doctrine, he taught that the universe comes of the form and the purport or objects of our
into being when from fire, or through it, the actions, he undertook, with reference to the domain
primary substance passing through the intermediate of the (so-called) indfierent, to demonstrate a relastage of air, becomes liquefied, and then the thick tive value in that which accords with natural
portion becomes earth, the rarer portion air, and impulses, and so to oppose the harsh contempt of
lastly again becomes rarified into fire (Diog. Laert. the Cynics for custom, without however' allowing
vii. 142, comp. 136; Stob. Eel. Phys. p. 320). that the gratification of mere natural wants, and
Zenon also appropriated to himself the Heraclei- the external good things which serve that end,
tean doctrine of the periodic alternation of the have any value in themselves. In order to bring
formation and annihilation of the universe (Stob. forward prominently the unconditional value of the
Eel. Phys. i. p. 414). The more exact definition moral (Stob. Eel. Eth. p. 154) he termed it, folof the doctrine in this instance also belongs to his lowing the example of the Eretrio-Megaric school,
successors, as Chrysippus, Poseidonius, &c. The the single, sole and simple good (Cic. Acad. i. 16. 2),
active or artizan-fire (-EXVLKbV ardp, Cic. de Nat. which, for that very reason, is that which alone.Deor. ii. 22, comp. Diog. Laert. vii. 156) must should be striven after and praised for itself (Cice
4 2