In the course of the current writing, I've been obliged to take a close look at Stoicism in order to work out a certain historical problem. As I have gone deeper into this, I realized that this may very well be the tradition that informed the work of Gurdjieff. One of the other interesting things I found was that this line of philosophers seems to be one of the most important and unsung things going on back then, and were completely eclipsed by Plato who we know was thoroughly condemned by Hervey Cleckley's analysis. The following is excerpted from the current work:
[...]
Socrates (469 - 399 BC) came along and seems to have been genuinely Greek, that is, not born in Anatolia, but very little is known of his actual life and teachings because everything is filtered to us through Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes. Aristophanes depicts him as a clown who taught his students how to bamboozle their way out of debt. While this is often thought to be a parody, it is true that no one knows how Socrates made his living since he devoted himself exclusively to discussing philosophy. Aristophanes portrays Socrates as a paid teacher who was running a sophist school, but Plato and Xenophon explicitly deny that he ever accepted payment for teaching. Later sources claim that he was a stone-mason. Plato refers to his military service; in the APOLOGY, Socrates compares his military service to his legal troubles that led ultimately to his death, portraying Socrates as saying that anyone on the jury who thinks he ought to retreat from philosophy must also think soldiers should retreat when it seemed likely that they will be killed in battle.
It is actually at this point, the time of Socrates, that we can note an interesting divergence in philosophical thought, or so it appears to me. The issue of Archelaus being the teacher of Socrates, as I have indicated, is a bit controversial because he is never mentioned by Xenophon, Plato, or Aristotle; thus it is assumed that the story was told in order to connect the famous philosopher to the Ionian school. Nevertheless, Diogenes Laërtius, our main source, does invoke the authority of Ion of Chios, a contemporary of Socrates, that Socrates went with Archelaus on a trip to Samos.
Socrates was a genuine historical character, the problem is, we know nothing about him that hasn’t been filtered through somebody else, mainly Plato. The problem with that is, while Plato may have represented many ideas of Socrates fairly accurately, it is widely acknowledged that he also used the figure of Socrates to promulgate his own ideas because there are conflicts and inconsistencies that exist between Plato’s accounts and the reports of others such as Xenophon. Note particularly that “Aristophanes depicts him as a clown who taught his students how to bamboozle their way out of debt.” That’s going to become a much more interesting remark as we go move into the ideas of the Cynics and Stoics, all of whom come across as very Gurdjieffian!
Antisthenes
One of Socrates students was Antisthenes (c. 445-365 BC) who advocated living an ascetic life in accordance with virtue. His father was an Athenian and his mother a Thracian. He was present at the death of Socrates and never forgave his master’s persecutors and was instrumental in seeing that they were ultimately punished. His teaching style was to simply have dialogues and the Greek historian and rhetorician, Theopompus even said that Plato stole many of his ideas. He was, apparently, possessed of great wit and was often sarcastic, utilizing wordplay to make his points. He is quoted as saying that he would rather fall among crows (korakes) than flatterers (kolakes), for the one devour the dead, but the other the living.
Antisthenes developed Socrates’ fundamental ethical idea that virtue, not pleasure is the object of life. He is reported to have considered pain and even being defamed as a blessing. (Another very Gurdjieffian idea.) However, it is clear that what he meant was pleasure that derives from mindless gratification of the physical senses because he also praised the pleasures of the soul and good friendship, etc. In short, Antisthenes appears to have developed ideas that were foundational to Cynicism and that is why he has been linked to Diogenes of Sinope to Crates to Zeno, the founder of the Stoics. Some have argued that a connection was impossible and the Stoics invented it to acquire a link to Socrates; others argue the other way. So, let’s look at Diogenes and see if we can form a reasonable impression.
Diogenes of Sinope
This Diogenes (412-323 BC) is, to me, one of the most interesting characters in the history of philosophy. He was born in Sinope, a city on the shores of the Black Sea, the son of a man who “minted coins for a living.” Diogenes was exiled after he was caught defacing the coins, so I’m assuming that his father worked at a government mint. One can see in this action a rebellion against the control of the wealthy elite which seems to be the theme of Diogenes’ life and the impetus for the development of his philosophy. In any event, he was exiled from his home and moved to Athens and began a lifelong practice of challenging established customs and values. He argued that instead of being troubled about the true nature of evil, people merely rely on customary interpretations. Once again, Gurdjieff said much the same thing.
Diogenes believed that actions reveal who a person really is, not high-sounding words and theories. He made his very public avoidance of earthly pleasures a commentary on contemporary Athenian behaviors thus expressing his disdain for what he regarded as the folly, pretense, vanity, self-deception, and artificiality of human conduct. He became famous for his more or less anti-philosophy activities which exhibited a remarkable logical consistency. For example, he lived in a large jar – and ancient homeless person - and destroyed the single wooden bowl he possessed after seeing a peasant boy drink from the hollow of his hands. It was contrary to Athenian customs to eat within the marketplace, and still he would eat, for, as he explained when rebuked, it was during the time he was in the marketplace that he felt hungry. He used to stroll about in full daylight with a lamp; when asked what he was doing, he would answer, "I am just looking for an honest man." Modern sources often say that Diogenes was looking for an "honest man", but that the ancient sources actually say that he is simply looking for a "human" (anthrôpos). His point was that the unreasoning behavior of the people around him meant that they did not qualify as human.
The behavior described so far certainly does remind us of Socrates who was a “gadfly” according to Plato. This was a description of a person who upsets the status quo by being an irritant and asking upsetting questions. Plato quoted Socrates as saying, during his trial: "If you kill a man like me, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me," because his role was that of a gadfly, "to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth."
According to one story, Diogenes was captured by pirates while traveling to Aegina and subsequentyly sold as a slave in Crete. Being asked his trade, he replied that he knew no trade but that of governing men, and that he wished to be sold to a man who needed a master. He was then sold to a Corinthian named Xeniades who bought him to be a tutor to his two sons. He spent the rest of his life in Corinth teaching the doctrines of virtuous self-control. Some stories say that he was set free by Xwniades after a time, and others say "he grew old and died at Xeniades’ house in Corinth." He is even said to have lectured to large audiences at the Isthmian Games.
It was in Corinth that a meeting between Alexander the Great and Diogenes is supposed to have taken place. The accounts of Plutarch and Diogenes Laërtius recount that they exchanged only a few words: while Diogenes was relaxing in the sunlight in the morning, Alexander, thrilled to meet the famous philosopher, asked if there was any favour he might do for him. Diogenes replied, "Yes, stand out of my sunlight". Alexander then declared, "If I were not Alexander, then I should wish to be Diogenes." In another account of the conversation, Alexander found the philosopher looking attentively at a pile of human bones. Diogenes explained, "I am searching for the bones of your father but cannot distinguish them from those of a slave."
There are conflicting accounts of Diogenes' death. He is alleged variously to have held his breath; to have become ill from eating raw octopus; or to have suffered an infected dog bite. When asked how he wished to be buried, he left instructions to be thrown outside the city wall so wild animals could feast on his body. When asked if he minded this, he said, "Not at all, as long as you provide me with a stick to chase the creatures away!" When asked how he could use the stick since he would lack awareness, he replied "If I lack awareness, then why should I care what happens to me when I am dead?" In other words, even as he was dying, Diogenes made fun of people's excessive concern with the "proper" treatment of the dead. The Corinthians erected to his memory a pillar on which rested a dog of Parian marble and a statue of Diogenes with his symbolic dog was erected at his home town, Sinop.
Along with Antisthenes and Crates of Thebes, Diogenes is considered one of the founders of Cynicism. The ideas of Diogenes, like those of most other Cynics, must be arrived at indirectly because Cynic ideas are inseparable from Cynic practice; therefore what we know about Diogenes is contained in the anecdotes concerning his life which include sayings attributed to him in a number of scattered classical sources.
Diogenes maintained that all the artificial growths of society were incompatible with happiness and that morality requires a return to the simplicity of nature. In his words, "Humans have complicated every simple gift of the gods." Although Socrates had previously identified himself as belonging to the world, rather than a city, Diogenes is credited with the first known use of the word "cosmopolitan". When he was asked where he came from, he replied, "I am a citizen of the world (cosmopolites)". This was a radical claim in a world where a man's identity was intimately tied to his citizenship in a particular city state.
Diogenes had nothing but disdain for Plato and his abstract philosophy. Diogenes viewed Antisthenes as the true heir to Socrates, and shared his love of virtue and indifference to wealth, together with a disdain for the opinions of society at large. This is certainly interesting if, in fact, it is true that Plato was inclined to claim the ideas of others as Theopompus had said about him in relation to Antisthenes. Plato once described Diogenes as "a Socrates gone mad." Perhaps this was because Diogenes deliberately sought out Plato to embarrass him by challenging his interpretations of Socrates and sabotaging his lectures. Considering the direction that Plato and his followers took, as we will discuss further on, I’m inclined to agree with Diogenes.
Many anecdotes of Diogenes refer to his dog-like behavior, and his praise of a dog's virtues. Diogenes believed human beings live artificially and hypocritically and would do well to study the dog. Besides performing natural bodily functions in public with ease, a dog will eat anything, and make no fuss about where to sleep. Dogs live in the present without anxiety, and have no use for the pretensions of abstract philosophy. In addition to these virtues, dogs are thought to know instinctively who is friend and who is foe. Unlike human beings who either dupe others or are duped, dogs will give an honest bark at the truth. Diogenes stated that "other dogs bite their enemies, I bite my friends to save them."
The term "Cynic" itself derives from the Greek word κυνικός, kynikos, "dog-like" and that from κύων, kyôn, "dog" (genitive: kynos). One explanation offered in ancient times for why the Cynics were called dogs was because Antisthenes taught in the Cynosarges gymnasium at Athens. The word Cynosarges means the place of the white dog. Later Cynics also sought to turn the word to their advantage, as a later commentator explained:
There is another discussion of Diogenes and the Cynics in Michel Foucault's book FEARLESS SPEECH. There Foucault discusses Diogenes' public dramas in relation to speaking of truth (parrhesia) in the ancient world. Foucault later expands this to establish an alternative conception of militancy and revolution through a reading of Diogenes and Cynicism. One can see hints of the idea of non-violent protest such as that advocated by Gandhi here as well. When you think about it, Diogenes of Sinope sounds an awful lot like Jesus, now doesn’t he, right down to the interactions with the “money changers” at the beginning of his career. Considering that New Testament scholar, Burton Mack, has identified the earliest layers of the sayings of the individual around whom the Jesus myth was formed, to have been based on Cynic philosophy, Diogenes and his fellow may be as close as we can get to picturing the “real Jesus” with any accuracy.
Crates of Thebes
Crates (365-285 BC) was the son and heir of a wealthy Theban but he renounced his life of ease to become a pupil of Diogenes. Right away, in Diogenes Laertius, we find a reference to Crates referring to himself as "a fellow-citizen of Diogenes, who defied all the plots of envy." Considering what we have learned about Diogenes’ interactions with Plato, one suspects that it was in this context that there were “plots of envy.” Crates is also described as being the student of Bryson the Achaean, and of Stilpo.
He is said to have been deformed with a lame leg and hunched shoulders but nevertheless, lived a life of cheerful simplicity. He was nicknamed the Door-Opener (Greek: θυρεπανοίκτης) because he would enter any house and people would receive him gladly and with honour:
Crates was the teacher of Zeno of Citium and was undoubtably the biggest influence on Zeno in his development of Stoic philosophy. Zeno always regarded Crates with the greatest respect, and some of the accounts we have of Crates have probably come down to us via Zeno's writings.
Crates wrote a book of letters on philosophical subjects, the style of which is compared by Diogenes Laërtius to that of Plato; but these no longer survive. Several fragments of his thought survive, however. He taught a simple asceticism, which seems to have been milder than that of his predecessor Diogenes:
One of Crates’ poems was a parody of a famous hymn to the Muses written by Solon in which the latter prayed for prosperity, a good reputation, and "justly acquired possessions," Crates parody humorously typified Cynic desires:
Crates also parodied Homer, writing a poem describing the ideal Cynic state in counter-point to Homer's description of Crete. Crates' city is called Pera, which in Greek is the beggar's wallet which every Cynic carried:
The word tuphos in the first line, is one of the first known Cynic uses of a word which literally means mist or smoke. It was thereafter used by the Cynics to describe the mental confusion in which most people live their entire lives. The Cynics sought to clear away this fog and to see the world as it really is; most Gurdjieffian.
He is said to have died at a great age (c. 285 BC), and was buried in Boeotia.
Zeno
Stoicism proper was founded in Athens by Zeno of Citium (c. 334 – 262 BC). Zeno was born on the island of Cyprus, was of Phoenician descent and the story is, from the LIVES AND OPINIONS OF EMINENT PHILOSOPHERS by Diogenes Laërtius, that Zeno was a merchant who came to philosophy in Athens after surviving a shipwreck! He studied under Crates of Thebes, who was the most famous Cynic philosopher living in Greece at that time, followed by other teachers of other schools. (Check my flow chart above.)
Just speculating: it may have been due to his merchant background that Zeno decided to imitate the Platonic Academy and take things to the next level by founding a more formal school of Cynic philosophy which he modified somewhat to become “Stoicism”. Modeling the curriculum on the Academy, he divided the new philosophy into three parts: Logic (which included rhetoric, grammar, and theories of perception and thought); Physics (not just science, but the divine nature of the universe as well); and Ethics, the end goal of which was to achieve happiness through the right way of living according to Nature. Because Zeno's ideas were built upon by Chrysippus and other Stoics, it is difficult to determine exactly what he thought at the very beginning, but his general views were probably foundational and can thus be inferred from what was written later.
Zeno thought that one of the most fundamental things for a philosopher was to know and utilize correct logic because it was only through rational thinking that a person could know how to avoid deception. Zeno said that there were four stages in the process leading to true knowledge, which he illustrated with the example of the flat, extended hand, and the gradual closing of the fist:
The Universe, in Zeno's view, is God: a divine reasoning entity, where all the parts belong to the whole. Into this pantheistic system he incorporated the physics of Heraclitus (504-501 BC) who was a pre-Socratic philosopher who was self-taught.
Heraclitus
A little background information on Heraclitus may help us to understand the context of his ideas which were obviously phrased in obscure terminology even for that time!, Heraclitus was a hereditary king who abdicated in favor of his brother because he was expected to participate in government and refused, saying that politics was ponêra, or evil. He may have been perfectly right about that, but reading what little is available about him gives the impression of an incredible intellect that wasn’t quite grounded and he spent a lot of time in a depressed state.
Heraclitus was self-taught and apparently led a very lonely life due to his contempt for mankind. He believed that Hesiod and Pythagoras, though very learned, lacked understanding; he thought that Homer and Archilochus deserved to be beaten. He eventually became so misanthropic that he wandered the hills like a madman eating grass and herbs. When he became ill with what was called dropsy, or severe edema which was obviously evidence of some systemic failure, he attempted to cure himself by packing his legs with cow manure and baking in the sun. That experiment brought his life as a philosopher to an abrupt end. Before that fatal act, however, he wrote a book that became quite famous and was still available down to the time of Plutarch and Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD). His philosophy was full of riddles and he was known as “The Weeping Philosopher”.
Heraclitus is famous for insisting that the universe is all about change. He said "No man ever steps in the same river twice". His cryptic utterance that "all entities come into being in accordance with this Logos" (literally, "word", "reason", or "account") has been the subject of endless speculation. He proposed that the Universe contains a divine artisan-fire, which foresees everything, and extending throughout the Universe, must produce everything via the unity of opposites, "the path up and down are one and the same". This “divine fire” attracted Zeno.
I think that Cicero was rather out of his depth. This divine fire, or aether, is also “logos”, that is, the basis for all activity in the Universe; it is both the source of passive matter, and the artisan creating with, and enlivening it, which neither increases nor diminishes itself. It sounds rather like an early version of Information Theory!
According to classical scholar, Anthony Long, "the importance of Heraclitus to later Stoics is evident most plainly in Marcus Aurelius.” Explicit connections of the earliest Stoics to Heraclitus showing how they arrived at their interpretation are missing but they can be inferred from the Stoic fragments, Long concludes to have been "modifications of Heraclitus."
Zeno and his fellow Stoics were intensely interested in Heraclitus' treatment of this mysterious “fire”. In addition to seeing it as the most fundamental of the four elements and the one that is quantified and determines the quantity (logos) of the other three, he presents fire as the cosmos, which was not made by any of the gods or men, but "was and is and ever shall be ever-living fire." I would say that this was along the lines of plasma cosmology; he may have been a little crazy, but he may also have seen things that others cannot.
The primitive substance of the universe is a divine essence (pneuma) which is the basis of everything which exists. The separation of force from matter produces a divine fire (aether) which, as the basis of all matter, is differentiated into elements and shaped by the tension caused by the pneuma working according to the divine reason (logos) of the universe. These processes are responsible for the formation, the development, and ultimately, the destruction of the universe in a never-ending cycle (palingenesis). The human soul is an emanation from the fiery aether which permeates the universe, and sensation is transmission of pneuma-currents from objects, which interact with the substance of the mind, which is the soul's ruling part. The Stoics also recognised the existence of other gods and divine agents as manifestations of the one primitive God-substance.
The cycle of its transformations and successive condensations constitutes the life of the universe. The universe and all its parts are only different embodiments and stages in the change of primitive being which Heraclitus had called a progress up and down.
Out of it is separated, first, elemental fire, the fire which we know, which burns and destroys; and this, again, condenses into air or aerial vapour; a further step in the downward path produces water and earth from the solidification of air. At every stage the degree of tension is slackened, and the resulting element approaches more and more to "inert" matter.
But, just as one element does not wholly transform into another (e.g. only a part of air is transmuted into water or earth), so the pneuma itself does not wholly transform into the elements. The residue that remains in original purity with its tension is the ether in the highest sphere of the visible heavens, encircling the world of which it is lord and head. From the elements the one substance is transformed into the multitude of individual things in the orderly universe, which is itself a living thing or being, and the pneuma pervading it, and conditioning life and growth everywhere, is its soul.
But this process of differentiation is not eternal; it continues only until the times of the restoration of all things. For the world which has grown up will in turn decay. The tension which has been relaxed will again be tightened; things will gradually resolve into elements, and the elements into the primary substance, to be consummated in a general conflagration (ekpyrôsis) when once more the world will be absorbed in God. Then in due order a new cycle of the universe begins, reproducing the previous, and so on forever.
As a consequence of this idea that the world is regularly born and dies, Zeno focused on the idea of world ages, or cosmic cycles though it seems they went in a direction that was not intended by Heraclius and brought it down to the ground proposing cycles of cosmic destruction on earth as well. They apparently came to the idea that when things in the world, probably including human behavior on social and individual scales, had decayed sufficiently, God would bring a purging fire on the land and “correct” things, and set them straight.
For the Stoics, God is everywhere as the ruler and upholder, and at the same time the law, of the universe. Zeno declared cult images, shrines, temples, sacrifices, prayers and worship to be of no avail. A really acceptable prayer, he taught, can only emerge from a virtuous and devout mind. The Stoics however defended because divinity could be ascribed to its manifestations including the heavenly bodies, which were conceived as the highest of rational beings, to the forces of nature, even to cosmically inspired men; thus the cosmos was teeming with divine agencies.
Heraclitus offers no analogy to the doctrine of four elements as different grades of tension; to the conception of "fire" and "air" as the "form" of particulars; nor to the function of organizing fire which works by methodic plan to produce and preserve the world. Nor, again, is there any analogy to the peculiar Stoic doctrine of universal intermingling. It does seem to be the case that Zeno himself took Heraclitus rather literally which, as far as we know, may be more correct than the Platonic astralizers that we will come to soon enough.
As to where and how Zeno came to his ideas, we note that it was said that Zeno was of an earnest, if not gloomy disposition; that he preferred the company of the few to the many; and that he was fond of burying himself in investigations. I would suggest that he may have become obsessed with the idea of figuring out the cosmic cycles of destruction. He may have also realized that the “gods” were the agents of “correction” and that this was what was being described in myth and legend as having happened over and over again.
Zeno was honored during his lifetime for his philosophical teachings and having a good influence on the young people of his time. He died, it is said, by holding his breath! None of Zeno's writings have survived except as fragmentary quotations preserved by later writers. He was succeeded by Cleanthes.
One of Zeno’s close associates and students was Aratus the poet, author of a work entitled PHAENOMENA. In addition to philosophy, Aratus was a scholar of astronomy and his poem was a description of the constellations and other celestial phenomena partly based on the workd of Eudoxus of Cnidus, the astronomer, mathematician student of the Pythagorean school. This connection may be very important so we are going to take a look at the Pythagoreans and Eudoxus whose input may have played a big part in the above-referenced researches of Zeno. Eudoxus died when Zeno was a young lad so this is a sort of flashback.
Pythagoras
Pythagoras of Samos (570 – 495 BC) was the founder of the religious movement called Pythagoreanism. Very little is known about him since whatever may have been written close to the time has been lost, and what we now have was written centuries after his time. The story that we have is that he was born on Samos, a Greek island, and traveled widely, including to Egypt, seeking knowledged. About 530, he moved to Croton, a Greek colony in southern Italy, and set up a religious sect. Allegedly, his followers practiced rites developed by him based on what he had learned and developed via his travels and studies. The Pythagoreans took an active role in the politics of Croton and this is what led to their downfall, apparently. The Pythagorean meeting places were burned and Pythagoras and his followers were forced to flee and he is said to have ended his days in Metapontum, which was about 20 miles from Tarentum. (Remember Tarentum!)
The tradition tells us that the school of Pythagoras split at some point and one group followed the more mathematical line, extending the scientific work of Pythagoras. The other group focused on the more religious aspects and declaring that the “scientific” breakaway group was not really following Pythagorus, but rather the renegade, Hippasus. The more scientific ideas appear to be best represented by Philolaus who developed the work of Anaximander of the Milesian school who was one of the teachers of Pythagoras.
On the other hand, the idea most central to Pythagorean mystical teachings was the transmigration of souls which was an idea that was actually native to the Celts and related Germanic tribes. Much of their mysticism concerning the soul seems inseparable from the Orphic tradition. The Orphics included various purifactory rites and practices as well as incubatory rites of descent into the underworld which bring to mind Shamanism. Apart from being linked with this, Pythagoras is also closely linked with Pherecydes of Syros who is said to have been the first to write about philosophical things in prose as opposed to poetry.
Pherecydes
Pherecydes (544 BC), born on the Greek island of Siros, is said to have been the bridge between the ancient myths and pre-Socratic Greek philosophy. He described a cosmogony based on three principles: Zas (Zeus), Cthonie (the Chthonic) and Chronos (Time). That translates roughly to the fiery force of Zeus (electricity?), plus what was inside or under the earth, and possibly “time”, though that may be a later interpretation of Chronos AKA Saturn who “always existed”. What seems to be so is that the implication was that Chronos, or Time, was recurrent;that is, came back again and again as our Giant Comet and his children certainly did and continue to do.
Pherecydes major work was entitled PENTEMYCHOS, which is translated as meaning “five recesses” or “the five sanctuaries” (some sources say it was Heptamycho, or seven recesses). It is assumed that he “taught his philosophy through the medium of mythic representation”, that it was a mystical esoteric teaching, treated allegorically. One ancient commentator wrote:
That sounds very much like what outsiders were saying about the Mithraic Mysteries. So what was the PENTEMYCHOS all about? Actually, it was about a cosmic battle taking place, with Kronos as the head of one side and Ophioneus – the serpent - as the leader of the other. As we know, the same story is elsewhere enacted with Zeus and Typhon/Typhoeus, Marduk vs. Tiamat, and parallels too numerous to mention.
The semen (seeds AKA comet fragments) of Chronos was placed in the “recesses” and numerous other gods and their offspring were the result. This is described in a fragment preserved in Damascius' ON FIRST PRINCIPLES. With the understanding of giant comets, and that they were perceived to arrive from certain areas of the sky with regularity, we can better interpret the “recesses” as being constellations. A close relationship appears to exist between these recesses and Chthonie, which is another of the three first-existing things. Chthonie has to do with the origin of the word "chthonic"; her name means "underlying the earth". That is explained by the fact that the comets appear to pass below the horizon, seeming to go “inside the earth” or into the ocean.
Ophioneus and its brood of serpents are depicted as ruling the birthing cosmos for some time, before finally falling from power thanks to the arrival of the cavalry in the form of Zeus who “orders and distributes” things. The story describing this has Zas making a cloth which he decorates with earth and sea, presented as a wedding gift to Chthonie, and wrapped around her as a wedding garment. In another fragment it is not Chthonie, but a winged oak that is wrapped in the cloth. The winged oak in this cosmology has no precedent in Greek tradition but we certainly know of trees of life as comets with their attendant ion tails and other electrical activity, and the World Tree is typical of northern cosmogonies.
Apparently, the chaotic forces – or comets, as we know them - are eternal and cannot be destroyed so Zeus takes possession of the sky, space and time, and throws Ophioneus and the gang out from the ordered world and locks them away in Tartaros. Hesiod described Tartaros as being "in a recess (mychos) of broad-wayed earth", i.e. they disappeared below the horizon.
The locks to Tartaros are fashioned in iron by Zeus, and in bronze by Poseidon which could mean that some of the comet fragments came to earth and others plunged into the ocean. Judging from some ancient fragments, Ophioneus was thrown into Okeanos, not into Tartaros. We need to stay open on that because we have also learned that the sky was perceived as a vast, overhead ocean by the ancients. In one version, it is Kronos who orders the offspring – the comet fragments - out from the cosmos to Tartaros. We are told about chaotic beings put into the pentemychos, and we are told that the Darkness has an offspring that is cast into the recesses of Tartaros. No surviving fragment makes the connection, but it is possible that the prison-house in Tartaros and the pentemychos are ways of referring to the essentially same thing. In short, they were flung off into space, i.e. were probably moved into different orbits passing from view below the horizon or, more intriguingly, passing out of the plane of the ecliptic into the region of the celestial equator . The question is: do they still exist in these orbits?
A comparatively large number of sources say Pherecydes was the first to teach the eternality and transmigration (metampsychosis) of human souls. Both Cicero and Augustine thought of him having given the first teaching of the "immortality of the soul" which may or may not be the case, however, he was among the first we know about and that he did promote the idea is certain. Hellenic scholar, Hermann S. Schibli, writes that Pherecydes "included in his book [PENTEMYCHOS] at least a rudimentary treatment of the immortality of the soul, its wanderings in the underworld, and the reasons for the soul’s incarnations".
Pherecydes’ works were still extant in the Period we are concerned with, so certainly Zeno and Aratus were using them in their researches.
Back to Pythagoras
Ancient commentators agree that Pherecydes was Pythagoras's most "intimate" teacher and it is thought that the term pentemychos (five hidden recesses) is the most likely origin of the Pythagorean use of the pentagram, used by them as a symbol of recognition. I would venture to suggest at this poin that the five hidden recesses that might represent the movement of cometary orbits away from the ecliptic into the regions of the celestial equator, might be what is represented by the five extra-ecliptic constellations depicted in the tauroctony: Canis Minor, Hydra the snake, Crater the cup and Perseus.
The Pythagoreans taught that a release from the wheel of reincarnation was possible but only via a process of purification of the soul. They followed the Orphic traditions and practices to purify the soul but at the same time they suggested a deeper idea of what such a purification might be. Aristoxenus said that music was used to purify the soul just like medicine was used to purge the body. Pythagoras suggests that the highest purification of a life is in pure contemplation. It is the philosopher who contemplates about science and mathematics who is released from the "cycle of birth." The pure mathematician's life is, according to Pythagoras, the life at the highest plane of existence. Thus the root of mathematics and scientific pursuits in Pythagoreanism is also based on a spiritual desire to free oneself from the cycle of birth and death.
Neopythagoreanism was a revival of various ideas traditionally associated with the Pythagoreans that began in the 2nd century BC and lasted until the 2nd century AD. In 1915, a subterranean basilica where 1st century Neo-Pythagoreans held their meetings was discovered near Porta Maggiore on Via Praenestina, Rome. The groundplan shows a basilica with three naves and an apse similar to early Christian basilicas that did not appear until much later, in the 4th century. The vaults are decorated with white stuccoes symbolizing Neopythagorean beliefs but its exact meaning remains a subject of debate.
Notable Neopythagoreans include Apollonius of Tyana. Middle and Neo-Platonists such as Numenius and Plotinus also showed some Neopythagorean influence. They emphasized the distinction between the soul and the body. God must be worshipped spiritually by prayer and the will to be good. The soul must be freed from its material surroundings by an ascetic habit of life. Bodily pleasures and all sensuous impulses must be abandoned as detrimental to the spiritual purity of the soul. God is the principle of good; Matter the groundwork of Evil. The non-material universe was regarded as the sphere of mind or spirit.
Eudoxus
Eudoxus (410 or 408 BC – 355 or 347 BC) first studied mathematics with Archytas who was a scientist of the scientific breakaway group of the Pythagorean school. Archytas was famous for founding mathematical mechanics. He was also reputed to have built the first artificial, self-propelled flying device. Archytas dealt with several mathematical formulations that were important to later mathematical works. Politically and militarily, Archytas was the dominant figure in Tarentum in his generation. (Remember Tarentum? It was 20 miles from Metapontum where Pythagoras allegedly ended his days.) The Tarentines elected him strategos, (general), seven years in a row – violating their own rule against successive appointments. He was allegedly undefeated as a general. Archytas had a reputation for virtue as well as efficacy and some scholars have argued that Archytas was one of the models for Plato's philosopher king, and that he influenced Plato's political philosophy as expressed in THE REPUBLIC.
Following his studies under Archytas, Eudoxus studied medicine with Philiston and then, around 387 BC, at the age of 23, Eudoxus traveled to Athens to study with the followers of Socrates. He eventually became the pupil of Plato, with whom he studied for several months, but due to a disagreement they had a falling out, after which he traveled to Heliopolis, Egypt to pursue his study of astronomy and mathematics. From Egypt, he then traveled north to Cyzicus, located on the south shore of the Sea of Marmara, then south to the court of the famous king of Caria, Mausolus. During his travels he gathered many students of his own.
Nearly 20 years after he had left Athens, Eudoxus returned with his students in tow. According to some sources, around 367 he assumed headship of the Academy during Plato's period in Syracuse (during which time, apparently, Archytas attempted to rescue Plato from Dionysius II ) and taught Aristotle. He eventually returned to his native Cnidus, where he served in the city assembly. While in Cnidus, he built an observatory and continued writing and lecturing on theology, astronomy and meteorology.
He died either in 355 or 347 BC. Much, much later, in the 16th century, when Europe finally began to emerge from the Dark Age of Catholicism, Eudoxus was “rediscovered”.
Eudoxus introduced the idea of non-quantified mathematical magnitude to describe and work with continuous geometrical entities such as lines, angles, areas and volumes, thereby avoiding the use of irrational numbers. In doing so, he reversed a Pythagorean emphasis on number and arithmetic, focusing instead on geometrical concepts as the basis of rigorous mathematics. Some Pythagoreans, such as Eudoxus' teacher Archytas, had believed that only arithmetic could provide a basis for proofs. Induced by the need to understand and operate with incommensurable quantities, Eudoxus established what may have been the first deductive organization of mathematics on the basis of explicit axioms. This change in focus by Eudoxus in combination with a Greek intellectual attitude unconcerned with practical problems, led toa divide in mathematics which lasted two thousand years. Thanks to this, there was a significant retreat from the development of techniques in arithmetic and algebra.
Listing and describing all his many mathematical achievements here is not necessary, but we are interested in his astronomy, astrology, and mathematics relating to same. In mathematical astronomy, Eudoxus’ fame is due to the introduction of the astronomical globe, and his early contributions to understanding the movement of the planets. He is also said to have introduced the first descriptions of the full classical set of constellations. Considering what he did in mathematics, one has to wonder if his astronomical contributions were equally inhibiting? Or, perhaps not. Or, perhaps, he just re-interpreted everything in the usual Platonic astralizing way of the time, which ended up preserving ancient terms and symbols with new meanings assigned to them. In any event, the works of Eudoxus are among those studied by Zeno and Aratus wrote his surviving poem, PHAENOMENA based on Eudous. So, we are now returning from our flashback to the time of Zeno, founder of Stoicism, and his sidekick, Aratus.
Aratus
Aratus (c. 315 – 240 BC) was a native of Soli in Cilicia, a town about 20 miles from Tarsus. There are several accounts of his life by Greek writers, and the SUDA and Eudocia also mention him. He is known to have studied with Menecrates in Ephesus and Philitas in Cos. As a disciple of the Peripatetic philosopher Praxiphanes, in Athens, he met the Stoic philosopher Zeno. About 276 he was invited to the court of the Macedonian king Antigonus II Gonatas, whose victory over the Gauls in 277 BC Aratus set to verse. Here he wrote his most famous poem, PHAENOMENA (Appearances). He then spent some time at the court of Antiochus I Soter of Syria, but subsequently returned to Pella in Macedon, where he died sometime before 239/240 BC. His chief pursuits were medicine (which is also said to have been his profession), grammar, and philosophy.
The PHAENOMENA appears to be based on two prose works - PHAENOMENA and ENOPTRON (MIRROR, presumably a descriptive image of the heavens) - by Eudoxus of Cnidus. We are told by the biographers of Aratus that it was the desire of Antigonus to have them turned into verse, which gave rise to the PHAENOMENA of Aratus; and it appears from the fragments of them preserved by Hipparchus, that Aratus has in fact versified, or closely imitated parts of them both, but especially of the first.
The purpose of the PHAENOMENA is to give an introduction to the constellations, with the rules for their risings and settings; and of the circles of the sphere, amongst which the Milky Way is reckoned. The immobility of the earth, and the revolution of the sky about a fixed axis asserted and the path of the sun in the zodiac is described. However, though the planets are introduced, they are mentioned as merely bodies having a motion of their own, without any attempt to define their periods nor is anything said about the moon's orbit.
There are numerous problems with the descriptions in the work which later scholarship has shown to have been due to the fact that the risings and settings were accurate for an epoch as far back as 3400 BC which coincides with the time period of the tauroctony as Ulansey has depicted it, and what I, myself, discovered following a different set of indicators. What this means is that Eudoxus was working with astronomical information that was extremely ancient.
The second half of the work, DIOSEMEIA consists of forecasts of the weather from astronomical phenomena, with an account of its effects upon animals. It appears to be an imitation of Hesiod, and to have been imitated by Virgil also. The substance said to be taken almost wholly from Aristotle's METEOROLOGICA, from the work of Theophrastus, ON WEATHER SIGNS, and from Hesiod, WORKS AND DAYS. Nothing is said in either poem about Hellenistic astrology. Authors of twenty-seven commentaries are known; ones by Theon of Alexandria, Achilles Tatius and Hipparchus of Nicaea survive as well as an Arabic translation that was commissioned in the ninth century by the Caliph Al-Ma'mun. He is cited by Vitruvius, Stephanus of Byzantium and Stobaeus. Several accounts of his life are extant, by anonymous Greek writers.
Ulansey conjectures that the influence of Aratus in Tarsus may have led to the emphasis on astrology within the Stoic movement. It could very well be that it was from Eudoxus 3000 year old astronomical knowledge,combined with the works of Pherecydes and Pythagorus, that the tauroctony of the Mithraic Mysteries derived. But there is more to it than that: in case you didn’t notice, the figures in the taruoctony are reversed from the way they actually appear in the sky. Ulansey proposes:
Cleanthes
Cleanthes ( c. 330 BC – c. 230 BC) was the successor to Zeno as the head of the Stoic school in Athens. He was originally a boxer who came to study philosophy and made a living by carrying water at night. His power of patient endurance, or perhaps his slowness, earned him the title of "the Ass" from his fellow students, a name which he was said to have rejoiced in because it meant that his back was strong enough to bear whatever Zeno put upon it. He preserved and developed Zeno’s teachings and originated new ideas of his own in Stoic physics which amounted to developing Stoicism along the lines of materialism and pantheism.
Cleanthes revolutionized Stoic physics by the theory of tension (tonos) which distinguished Stoic materialism from all other conceptions of matter as dead and inert. He developed Stoic pantheism, and applied his materialistic views to logic and ethics as well. He argued that the soul was a material substance, and that this was proved (a) by the circumstance that not only bodily qualities, but also mental capacity, are transmitted by ordinary generation from parent to child; and (b) by the sympathy of the soul with the body seen in the fact that, when the body is struck or cut, the soul is pained; and when the soul is torn by anxiety or depressed by care, the body is correspondingly affected. Cleanthes also taught that souls live on after death, but that the intensity of its existence would vary according to the strength or weakness of the particular soul. Again, this sounds remarkably like the ideas of Gurdjieff!
Zeno had said that the goal of life was "to live consistently," the implication being that no life but the passionless life of reason could ultimately be consistent with itself. Cleanthes is credited with having added the words "with nature," thus completing the well-known Stoic formula that the goal is "to live consistently with nature."
For Cleanthes, this meant, in the first place, living according to the dictates of the universe; for the universe is under the governance of reason, and everyone has the possibility to learn about the world-course, to recognize it as rational and cheerfully to conform to it. This, according to him, is true freedom of will: not acting without motive, or apart from set purpose, or capriciously, but humbly acquiescing in the universal order, and, therefore, in everything that befalls one. The direction to follow Universal Nature can be traced in his famous prayer:
This is also remarkably similar to the ideas presented in the New Testament book of Romans, written by another native of Tarsus, the apostle Paul:
Cleanthes regarded the Sun as being divine; because the Sun sustains all living things, it resembled the divine fire which (in Stoic physics) animated all living beings, hence it too must be part of the vivifying fire or aether of the universe.
The earliest Stoics, such as Cleanthes, Aristo and Sphaerus, all wrote commentaries on the work of Heraclitus, which suggests strongly that, under Zeno, they were all involved in the same search for the key to understanding the cosmic cycles.
The earliest surviving Stoic work, the HYMN TO ZEUS of Cleanthes, though not explicitly referencing Heraclitus, is clearly influenced by that work. Cleanthes physicalized and modified the Heraclitean logos. Zeus rules the universe with law, and the weapon he utilized to ensure that things conform to the laws of the cosmos is the "forked servant", the "fire" of the "ever-living lightning." Cleanthes then says, Zeus uses the fire to straighten out the common logos that travels about mixing with the greater and lesser lights. This is Heraclitus' logos, but now it is confused with the common nomos, which Zeus uses to make the wrong right and "order the disordered."
The HYMN TO ZEUS is extremely interesting considering our background subject: cometary cataclysms that recur at intervals. If you recall, the image of Ninurta I included some pages back, showed him holding a stylized lightning bolt. The same is true of the lion-headed god who holds just such a lightning bolt on his chest and, as we will see, just such a lightning bolt is one of the initiatic symbols of the Mithraic Mysteries. Further, this lightning bolt closely resembles plasmoid phenomena observed both in the laboratory and in space as was covered in the previous volume. So here, it almost seems as if Cleanthes is saying that recurring cataclysms straighten things out in the cosmos. In short, to Cleanthes, these things are not just abstract principles of things going on in noumenal worlds, the “hypercosmos”, as was the interpretation of the Platonists and their predecessors, Cleanthes is saying that these things happen in the real world on a more mundane level and he probably included scale in his speculations: a single human could be “straightened out”, or a group, a city, a nation; they could be straightened out by coming into conformity with Nature, or they could be straightened out by being reduced to primal substance. For Cleanthes, the Logos is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword. Tension itself Cleanthes defined as a fiery stroke; in his HYMN TO ZEUS lightning is the symbol of divine activity.
I should also mention that the Christian fathers of the early church had a great deal to say about this “Logos” business because it was of paramount importance to them to distance themselves from their pagan roots. The Stoic modification of Heraclitus' idea of the Logos was also influential on Jewish philosophers such as Philo of Alexandria, who connected it to "Wisdom personified" as God's creative principle. Philo uses the term Logos throughout his treatises on Hebrew Scripture in a manner clearly influenced by the Stoics.
Cleanthes died at the age of 99, c. 230 BC We are told that an ulcer forced him to fast and even though the ulcer improved, he continued his fast, saying that, as he was already half-way on the road to death, he would not trouble to retrace his steps.
Cleanthes pupil was Chrysippus who became one of the most important Stoic thinkers and succeeded him as the leader of the school.
[...]
Socrates (469 - 399 BC) came along and seems to have been genuinely Greek, that is, not born in Anatolia, but very little is known of his actual life and teachings because everything is filtered to us through Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes. Aristophanes depicts him as a clown who taught his students how to bamboozle their way out of debt. While this is often thought to be a parody, it is true that no one knows how Socrates made his living since he devoted himself exclusively to discussing philosophy. Aristophanes portrays Socrates as a paid teacher who was running a sophist school, but Plato and Xenophon explicitly deny that he ever accepted payment for teaching. Later sources claim that he was a stone-mason. Plato refers to his military service; in the APOLOGY, Socrates compares his military service to his legal troubles that led ultimately to his death, portraying Socrates as saying that anyone on the jury who thinks he ought to retreat from philosophy must also think soldiers should retreat when it seemed likely that they will be killed in battle.
It is actually at this point, the time of Socrates, that we can note an interesting divergence in philosophical thought, or so it appears to me. The issue of Archelaus being the teacher of Socrates, as I have indicated, is a bit controversial because he is never mentioned by Xenophon, Plato, or Aristotle; thus it is assumed that the story was told in order to connect the famous philosopher to the Ionian school. Nevertheless, Diogenes Laërtius, our main source, does invoke the authority of Ion of Chios, a contemporary of Socrates, that Socrates went with Archelaus on a trip to Samos.
Socrates was a genuine historical character, the problem is, we know nothing about him that hasn’t been filtered through somebody else, mainly Plato. The problem with that is, while Plato may have represented many ideas of Socrates fairly accurately, it is widely acknowledged that he also used the figure of Socrates to promulgate his own ideas because there are conflicts and inconsistencies that exist between Plato’s accounts and the reports of others such as Xenophon. Note particularly that “Aristophanes depicts him as a clown who taught his students how to bamboozle their way out of debt.” That’s going to become a much more interesting remark as we go move into the ideas of the Cynics and Stoics, all of whom come across as very Gurdjieffian!
Antisthenes
One of Socrates students was Antisthenes (c. 445-365 BC) who advocated living an ascetic life in accordance with virtue. His father was an Athenian and his mother a Thracian. He was present at the death of Socrates and never forgave his master’s persecutors and was instrumental in seeing that they were ultimately punished. His teaching style was to simply have dialogues and the Greek historian and rhetorician, Theopompus even said that Plato stole many of his ideas. He was, apparently, possessed of great wit and was often sarcastic, utilizing wordplay to make his points. He is quoted as saying that he would rather fall among crows (korakes) than flatterers (kolakes), for the one devour the dead, but the other the living.
Antisthenes developed Socrates’ fundamental ethical idea that virtue, not pleasure is the object of life. He is reported to have considered pain and even being defamed as a blessing. (Another very Gurdjieffian idea.) However, it is clear that what he meant was pleasure that derives from mindless gratification of the physical senses because he also praised the pleasures of the soul and good friendship, etc. In short, Antisthenes appears to have developed ideas that were foundational to Cynicism and that is why he has been linked to Diogenes of Sinope to Crates to Zeno, the founder of the Stoics. Some have argued that a connection was impossible and the Stoics invented it to acquire a link to Socrates; others argue the other way. So, let’s look at Diogenes and see if we can form a reasonable impression.
Diogenes of Sinope
This Diogenes (412-323 BC) is, to me, one of the most interesting characters in the history of philosophy. He was born in Sinope, a city on the shores of the Black Sea, the son of a man who “minted coins for a living.” Diogenes was exiled after he was caught defacing the coins, so I’m assuming that his father worked at a government mint. One can see in this action a rebellion against the control of the wealthy elite which seems to be the theme of Diogenes’ life and the impetus for the development of his philosophy. In any event, he was exiled from his home and moved to Athens and began a lifelong practice of challenging established customs and values. He argued that instead of being troubled about the true nature of evil, people merely rely on customary interpretations. Once again, Gurdjieff said much the same thing.
Diogenes believed that actions reveal who a person really is, not high-sounding words and theories. He made his very public avoidance of earthly pleasures a commentary on contemporary Athenian behaviors thus expressing his disdain for what he regarded as the folly, pretense, vanity, self-deception, and artificiality of human conduct. He became famous for his more or less anti-philosophy activities which exhibited a remarkable logical consistency. For example, he lived in a large jar – and ancient homeless person - and destroyed the single wooden bowl he possessed after seeing a peasant boy drink from the hollow of his hands. It was contrary to Athenian customs to eat within the marketplace, and still he would eat, for, as he explained when rebuked, it was during the time he was in the marketplace that he felt hungry. He used to stroll about in full daylight with a lamp; when asked what he was doing, he would answer, "I am just looking for an honest man." Modern sources often say that Diogenes was looking for an "honest man", but that the ancient sources actually say that he is simply looking for a "human" (anthrôpos). His point was that the unreasoning behavior of the people around him meant that they did not qualify as human.
The behavior described so far certainly does remind us of Socrates who was a “gadfly” according to Plato. This was a description of a person who upsets the status quo by being an irritant and asking upsetting questions. Plato quoted Socrates as saying, during his trial: "If you kill a man like me, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me," because his role was that of a gadfly, "to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth."
According to one story, Diogenes was captured by pirates while traveling to Aegina and subsequentyly sold as a slave in Crete. Being asked his trade, he replied that he knew no trade but that of governing men, and that he wished to be sold to a man who needed a master. He was then sold to a Corinthian named Xeniades who bought him to be a tutor to his two sons. He spent the rest of his life in Corinth teaching the doctrines of virtuous self-control. Some stories say that he was set free by Xwniades after a time, and others say "he grew old and died at Xeniades’ house in Corinth." He is even said to have lectured to large audiences at the Isthmian Games.
It was in Corinth that a meeting between Alexander the Great and Diogenes is supposed to have taken place. The accounts of Plutarch and Diogenes Laërtius recount that they exchanged only a few words: while Diogenes was relaxing in the sunlight in the morning, Alexander, thrilled to meet the famous philosopher, asked if there was any favour he might do for him. Diogenes replied, "Yes, stand out of my sunlight". Alexander then declared, "If I were not Alexander, then I should wish to be Diogenes." In another account of the conversation, Alexander found the philosopher looking attentively at a pile of human bones. Diogenes explained, "I am searching for the bones of your father but cannot distinguish them from those of a slave."
There are conflicting accounts of Diogenes' death. He is alleged variously to have held his breath; to have become ill from eating raw octopus; or to have suffered an infected dog bite. When asked how he wished to be buried, he left instructions to be thrown outside the city wall so wild animals could feast on his body. When asked if he minded this, he said, "Not at all, as long as you provide me with a stick to chase the creatures away!" When asked how he could use the stick since he would lack awareness, he replied "If I lack awareness, then why should I care what happens to me when I am dead?" In other words, even as he was dying, Diogenes made fun of people's excessive concern with the "proper" treatment of the dead. The Corinthians erected to his memory a pillar on which rested a dog of Parian marble and a statue of Diogenes with his symbolic dog was erected at his home town, Sinop.
Along with Antisthenes and Crates of Thebes, Diogenes is considered one of the founders of Cynicism. The ideas of Diogenes, like those of most other Cynics, must be arrived at indirectly because Cynic ideas are inseparable from Cynic practice; therefore what we know about Diogenes is contained in the anecdotes concerning his life which include sayings attributed to him in a number of scattered classical sources.
Diogenes maintained that all the artificial growths of society were incompatible with happiness and that morality requires a return to the simplicity of nature. In his words, "Humans have complicated every simple gift of the gods." Although Socrates had previously identified himself as belonging to the world, rather than a city, Diogenes is credited with the first known use of the word "cosmopolitan". When he was asked where he came from, he replied, "I am a citizen of the world (cosmopolites)". This was a radical claim in a world where a man's identity was intimately tied to his citizenship in a particular city state.
Diogenes had nothing but disdain for Plato and his abstract philosophy. Diogenes viewed Antisthenes as the true heir to Socrates, and shared his love of virtue and indifference to wealth, together with a disdain for the opinions of society at large. This is certainly interesting if, in fact, it is true that Plato was inclined to claim the ideas of others as Theopompus had said about him in relation to Antisthenes. Plato once described Diogenes as "a Socrates gone mad." Perhaps this was because Diogenes deliberately sought out Plato to embarrass him by challenging his interpretations of Socrates and sabotaging his lectures. Considering the direction that Plato and his followers took, as we will discuss further on, I’m inclined to agree with Diogenes.
Many anecdotes of Diogenes refer to his dog-like behavior, and his praise of a dog's virtues. Diogenes believed human beings live artificially and hypocritically and would do well to study the dog. Besides performing natural bodily functions in public with ease, a dog will eat anything, and make no fuss about where to sleep. Dogs live in the present without anxiety, and have no use for the pretensions of abstract philosophy. In addition to these virtues, dogs are thought to know instinctively who is friend and who is foe. Unlike human beings who either dupe others or are duped, dogs will give an honest bark at the truth. Diogenes stated that "other dogs bite their enemies, I bite my friends to save them."
The term "Cynic" itself derives from the Greek word κυνικός, kynikos, "dog-like" and that from κύων, kyôn, "dog" (genitive: kynos). One explanation offered in ancient times for why the Cynics were called dogs was because Antisthenes taught in the Cynosarges gymnasium at Athens. The word Cynosarges means the place of the white dog. Later Cynics also sought to turn the word to their advantage, as a later commentator explained:
Diogenes is discussed in a 1983 book by German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, CRITIQUE OF CYNICAL REASON, in which Diogenes is used as an example of Sloterdijk’s idea of the kynical in which personal degradation is used for as a caricatured form of censuring society. Calling the practice of this tactic “kynismos,” Sloterdijk explains that the kynical actor actually embodies the message he/she is trying to convey. The goal is typically dramatically acted out regression that mocks authority particularly when authority is considered to be corrupt, suspect or unworthy.
There is another discussion of Diogenes and the Cynics in Michel Foucault's book FEARLESS SPEECH. There Foucault discusses Diogenes' public dramas in relation to speaking of truth (parrhesia) in the ancient world. Foucault later expands this to establish an alternative conception of militancy and revolution through a reading of Diogenes and Cynicism. One can see hints of the idea of non-violent protest such as that advocated by Gandhi here as well. When you think about it, Diogenes of Sinope sounds an awful lot like Jesus, now doesn’t he, right down to the interactions with the “money changers” at the beginning of his career. Considering that New Testament scholar, Burton Mack, has identified the earliest layers of the sayings of the individual around whom the Jesus myth was formed, to have been based on Cynic philosophy, Diogenes and his fellow may be as close as we can get to picturing the “real Jesus” with any accuracy.
Crates of Thebes
Crates (365-285 BC) was the son and heir of a wealthy Theban but he renounced his life of ease to become a pupil of Diogenes. Right away, in Diogenes Laertius, we find a reference to Crates referring to himself as "a fellow-citizen of Diogenes, who defied all the plots of envy." Considering what we have learned about Diogenes’ interactions with Plato, one suspects that it was in this context that there were “plots of envy.” Crates is also described as being the student of Bryson the Achaean, and of Stilpo.
He is said to have been deformed with a lame leg and hunched shoulders but nevertheless, lived a life of cheerful simplicity. He was nicknamed the Door-Opener (Greek: θυρεπανοίκτης) because he would enter any house and people would receive him gladly and with honour:
One of his students, a certain Metrocles of Maroneia, had a sister named Hipparchia who is said to have fallen in love with Crates, his lifestyle, and teachings. She abandoned her wealthy and pampered life and married him. According to accounts, the marriage was remarkable in those times for being based on mutual respect and equality between the couple. Stories about Hipparchia appearing in public everywhere with Crates are told mainly because respectable women did not behave as she did. They had at least two children, a girl, and a boy named Pasicles. We learn that Crates is supposed to have initiated his son into sex by taking him to a brothel, and he allowed his daughter a month's trial marriage to potential suitors.
Crates was the teacher of Zeno of Citium and was undoubtably the biggest influence on Zeno in his development of Stoic philosophy. Zeno always regarded Crates with the greatest respect, and some of the accounts we have of Crates have probably come down to us via Zeno's writings.
Crates wrote a book of letters on philosophical subjects, the style of which is compared by Diogenes Laërtius to that of Plato; but these no longer survive. Several fragments of his thought survive, however. He taught a simple asceticism, which seems to have been milder than that of his predecessor Diogenes:
Again we are reminded of the figure of Jesus and his “sayings” and little social dramas. Crates’ philosophy was imbued with humour that was both gentle and subtle. He jokingly suggested that people should not eat anything but lentils because luxury and extravagance were the chief causes of seditions and insurrections in a city. This joke would later feature as a satire in book 4 of Athenaeus' DEIPNOSOPHISTAE, where a group of Cynics sit down for a meal and are served a lengthy “feast” of bowl after bowl of lentil soup.
One of Crates’ poems was a parody of a famous hymn to the Muses written by Solon in which the latter prayed for prosperity, a good reputation, and "justly acquired possessions," Crates parody humorously typified Cynic desires:
Crates also parodied Homer, writing a poem describing the ideal Cynic state in counter-point to Homer's description of Crete. Crates' city is called Pera, which in Greek is the beggar's wallet which every Cynic carried:
The word tuphos in the first line, is one of the first known Cynic uses of a word which literally means mist or smoke. It was thereafter used by the Cynics to describe the mental confusion in which most people live their entire lives. The Cynics sought to clear away this fog and to see the world as it really is; most Gurdjieffian.
He is said to have died at a great age (c. 285 BC), and was buried in Boeotia.
Zeno
Stoicism proper was founded in Athens by Zeno of Citium (c. 334 – 262 BC). Zeno was born on the island of Cyprus, was of Phoenician descent and the story is, from the LIVES AND OPINIONS OF EMINENT PHILOSOPHERS by Diogenes Laërtius, that Zeno was a merchant who came to philosophy in Athens after surviving a shipwreck! He studied under Crates of Thebes, who was the most famous Cynic philosopher living in Greece at that time, followed by other teachers of other schools. (Check my flow chart above.)
Just speculating: it may have been due to his merchant background that Zeno decided to imitate the Platonic Academy and take things to the next level by founding a more formal school of Cynic philosophy which he modified somewhat to become “Stoicism”. Modeling the curriculum on the Academy, he divided the new philosophy into three parts: Logic (which included rhetoric, grammar, and theories of perception and thought); Physics (not just science, but the divine nature of the universe as well); and Ethics, the end goal of which was to achieve happiness through the right way of living according to Nature. Because Zeno's ideas were built upon by Chrysippus and other Stoics, it is difficult to determine exactly what he thought at the very beginning, but his general views were probably foundational and can thus be inferred from what was written later.
Zeno thought that one of the most fundamental things for a philosopher was to know and utilize correct logic because it was only through rational thinking that a person could know how to avoid deception. Zeno said that there were four stages in the process leading to true knowledge, which he illustrated with the example of the flat, extended hand, and the gradual closing of the fist:
The Universe, in Zeno's view, is God: a divine reasoning entity, where all the parts belong to the whole. Into this pantheistic system he incorporated the physics of Heraclitus (504-501 BC) who was a pre-Socratic philosopher who was self-taught.
Heraclitus
A little background information on Heraclitus may help us to understand the context of his ideas which were obviously phrased in obscure terminology even for that time!, Heraclitus was a hereditary king who abdicated in favor of his brother because he was expected to participate in government and refused, saying that politics was ponêra, or evil. He may have been perfectly right about that, but reading what little is available about him gives the impression of an incredible intellect that wasn’t quite grounded and he spent a lot of time in a depressed state.
Heraclitus was self-taught and apparently led a very lonely life due to his contempt for mankind. He believed that Hesiod and Pythagoras, though very learned, lacked understanding; he thought that Homer and Archilochus deserved to be beaten. He eventually became so misanthropic that he wandered the hills like a madman eating grass and herbs. When he became ill with what was called dropsy, or severe edema which was obviously evidence of some systemic failure, he attempted to cure himself by packing his legs with cow manure and baking in the sun. That experiment brought his life as a philosopher to an abrupt end. Before that fatal act, however, he wrote a book that became quite famous and was still available down to the time of Plutarch and Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD). His philosophy was full of riddles and he was known as “The Weeping Philosopher”.
Heraclitus is famous for insisting that the universe is all about change. He said "No man ever steps in the same river twice". His cryptic utterance that "all entities come into being in accordance with this Logos" (literally, "word", "reason", or "account") has been the subject of endless speculation. He proposed that the Universe contains a divine artisan-fire, which foresees everything, and extending throughout the Universe, must produce everything via the unity of opposites, "the path up and down are one and the same". This “divine fire” attracted Zeno.
I think that Cicero was rather out of his depth. This divine fire, or aether, is also “logos”, that is, the basis for all activity in the Universe; it is both the source of passive matter, and the artisan creating with, and enlivening it, which neither increases nor diminishes itself. It sounds rather like an early version of Information Theory!
According to classical scholar, Anthony Long, "the importance of Heraclitus to later Stoics is evident most plainly in Marcus Aurelius.” Explicit connections of the earliest Stoics to Heraclitus showing how they arrived at their interpretation are missing but they can be inferred from the Stoic fragments, Long concludes to have been "modifications of Heraclitus."
Zeno and his fellow Stoics were intensely interested in Heraclitus' treatment of this mysterious “fire”. In addition to seeing it as the most fundamental of the four elements and the one that is quantified and determines the quantity (logos) of the other three, he presents fire as the cosmos, which was not made by any of the gods or men, but "was and is and ever shall be ever-living fire." I would say that this was along the lines of plasma cosmology; he may have been a little crazy, but he may also have seen things that others cannot.
The primitive substance of the universe is a divine essence (pneuma) which is the basis of everything which exists. The separation of force from matter produces a divine fire (aether) which, as the basis of all matter, is differentiated into elements and shaped by the tension caused by the pneuma working according to the divine reason (logos) of the universe. These processes are responsible for the formation, the development, and ultimately, the destruction of the universe in a never-ending cycle (palingenesis). The human soul is an emanation from the fiery aether which permeates the universe, and sensation is transmission of pneuma-currents from objects, which interact with the substance of the mind, which is the soul's ruling part. The Stoics also recognised the existence of other gods and divine agents as manifestations of the one primitive God-substance.
The cycle of its transformations and successive condensations constitutes the life of the universe. The universe and all its parts are only different embodiments and stages in the change of primitive being which Heraclitus had called a progress up and down.
Out of it is separated, first, elemental fire, the fire which we know, which burns and destroys; and this, again, condenses into air or aerial vapour; a further step in the downward path produces water and earth from the solidification of air. At every stage the degree of tension is slackened, and the resulting element approaches more and more to "inert" matter.
But, just as one element does not wholly transform into another (e.g. only a part of air is transmuted into water or earth), so the pneuma itself does not wholly transform into the elements. The residue that remains in original purity with its tension is the ether in the highest sphere of the visible heavens, encircling the world of which it is lord and head. From the elements the one substance is transformed into the multitude of individual things in the orderly universe, which is itself a living thing or being, and the pneuma pervading it, and conditioning life and growth everywhere, is its soul.
But this process of differentiation is not eternal; it continues only until the times of the restoration of all things. For the world which has grown up will in turn decay. The tension which has been relaxed will again be tightened; things will gradually resolve into elements, and the elements into the primary substance, to be consummated in a general conflagration (ekpyrôsis) when once more the world will be absorbed in God. Then in due order a new cycle of the universe begins, reproducing the previous, and so on forever.
As a consequence of this idea that the world is regularly born and dies, Zeno focused on the idea of world ages, or cosmic cycles though it seems they went in a direction that was not intended by Heraclius and brought it down to the ground proposing cycles of cosmic destruction on earth as well. They apparently came to the idea that when things in the world, probably including human behavior on social and individual scales, had decayed sufficiently, God would bring a purging fire on the land and “correct” things, and set them straight.
For the Stoics, God is everywhere as the ruler and upholder, and at the same time the law, of the universe. Zeno declared cult images, shrines, temples, sacrifices, prayers and worship to be of no avail. A really acceptable prayer, he taught, can only emerge from a virtuous and devout mind. The Stoics however defended because divinity could be ascribed to its manifestations including the heavenly bodies, which were conceived as the highest of rational beings, to the forces of nature, even to cosmically inspired men; thus the cosmos was teeming with divine agencies.
Heraclitus offers no analogy to the doctrine of four elements as different grades of tension; to the conception of "fire" and "air" as the "form" of particulars; nor to the function of organizing fire which works by methodic plan to produce and preserve the world. Nor, again, is there any analogy to the peculiar Stoic doctrine of universal intermingling. It does seem to be the case that Zeno himself took Heraclitus rather literally which, as far as we know, may be more correct than the Platonic astralizers that we will come to soon enough.
As to where and how Zeno came to his ideas, we note that it was said that Zeno was of an earnest, if not gloomy disposition; that he preferred the company of the few to the many; and that he was fond of burying himself in investigations. I would suggest that he may have become obsessed with the idea of figuring out the cosmic cycles of destruction. He may have also realized that the “gods” were the agents of “correction” and that this was what was being described in myth and legend as having happened over and over again.
Zeno was honored during his lifetime for his philosophical teachings and having a good influence on the young people of his time. He died, it is said, by holding his breath! None of Zeno's writings have survived except as fragmentary quotations preserved by later writers. He was succeeded by Cleanthes.
One of Zeno’s close associates and students was Aratus the poet, author of a work entitled PHAENOMENA. In addition to philosophy, Aratus was a scholar of astronomy and his poem was a description of the constellations and other celestial phenomena partly based on the workd of Eudoxus of Cnidus, the astronomer, mathematician student of the Pythagorean school. This connection may be very important so we are going to take a look at the Pythagoreans and Eudoxus whose input may have played a big part in the above-referenced researches of Zeno. Eudoxus died when Zeno was a young lad so this is a sort of flashback.
Pythagoras
Pythagoras of Samos (570 – 495 BC) was the founder of the religious movement called Pythagoreanism. Very little is known about him since whatever may have been written close to the time has been lost, and what we now have was written centuries after his time. The story that we have is that he was born on Samos, a Greek island, and traveled widely, including to Egypt, seeking knowledged. About 530, he moved to Croton, a Greek colony in southern Italy, and set up a religious sect. Allegedly, his followers practiced rites developed by him based on what he had learned and developed via his travels and studies. The Pythagoreans took an active role in the politics of Croton and this is what led to their downfall, apparently. The Pythagorean meeting places were burned and Pythagoras and his followers were forced to flee and he is said to have ended his days in Metapontum, which was about 20 miles from Tarentum. (Remember Tarentum!)
The tradition tells us that the school of Pythagoras split at some point and one group followed the more mathematical line, extending the scientific work of Pythagoras. The other group focused on the more religious aspects and declaring that the “scientific” breakaway group was not really following Pythagorus, but rather the renegade, Hippasus. The more scientific ideas appear to be best represented by Philolaus who developed the work of Anaximander of the Milesian school who was one of the teachers of Pythagoras.
On the other hand, the idea most central to Pythagorean mystical teachings was the transmigration of souls which was an idea that was actually native to the Celts and related Germanic tribes. Much of their mysticism concerning the soul seems inseparable from the Orphic tradition. The Orphics included various purifactory rites and practices as well as incubatory rites of descent into the underworld which bring to mind Shamanism. Apart from being linked with this, Pythagoras is also closely linked with Pherecydes of Syros who is said to have been the first to write about philosophical things in prose as opposed to poetry.
Pherecydes
Pherecydes (544 BC), born on the Greek island of Siros, is said to have been the bridge between the ancient myths and pre-Socratic Greek philosophy. He described a cosmogony based on three principles: Zas (Zeus), Cthonie (the Chthonic) and Chronos (Time). That translates roughly to the fiery force of Zeus (electricity?), plus what was inside or under the earth, and possibly “time”, though that may be a later interpretation of Chronos AKA Saturn who “always existed”. What seems to be so is that the implication was that Chronos, or Time, was recurrent;that is, came back again and again as our Giant Comet and his children certainly did and continue to do.
Pherecydes major work was entitled PENTEMYCHOS, which is translated as meaning “five recesses” or “the five sanctuaries” (some sources say it was Heptamycho, or seven recesses). It is assumed that he “taught his philosophy through the medium of mythic representation”, that it was a mystical esoteric teaching, treated allegorically. One ancient commentator wrote:
That sounds very much like what outsiders were saying about the Mithraic Mysteries. So what was the PENTEMYCHOS all about? Actually, it was about a cosmic battle taking place, with Kronos as the head of one side and Ophioneus – the serpent - as the leader of the other. As we know, the same story is elsewhere enacted with Zeus and Typhon/Typhoeus, Marduk vs. Tiamat, and parallels too numerous to mention.
The semen (seeds AKA comet fragments) of Chronos was placed in the “recesses” and numerous other gods and their offspring were the result. This is described in a fragment preserved in Damascius' ON FIRST PRINCIPLES. With the understanding of giant comets, and that they were perceived to arrive from certain areas of the sky with regularity, we can better interpret the “recesses” as being constellations. A close relationship appears to exist between these recesses and Chthonie, which is another of the three first-existing things. Chthonie has to do with the origin of the word "chthonic"; her name means "underlying the earth". That is explained by the fact that the comets appear to pass below the horizon, seeming to go “inside the earth” or into the ocean.
Ophioneus and its brood of serpents are depicted as ruling the birthing cosmos for some time, before finally falling from power thanks to the arrival of the cavalry in the form of Zeus who “orders and distributes” things. The story describing this has Zas making a cloth which he decorates with earth and sea, presented as a wedding gift to Chthonie, and wrapped around her as a wedding garment. In another fragment it is not Chthonie, but a winged oak that is wrapped in the cloth. The winged oak in this cosmology has no precedent in Greek tradition but we certainly know of trees of life as comets with their attendant ion tails and other electrical activity, and the World Tree is typical of northern cosmogonies.
Apparently, the chaotic forces – or comets, as we know them - are eternal and cannot be destroyed so Zeus takes possession of the sky, space and time, and throws Ophioneus and the gang out from the ordered world and locks them away in Tartaros. Hesiod described Tartaros as being "in a recess (mychos) of broad-wayed earth", i.e. they disappeared below the horizon.
The locks to Tartaros are fashioned in iron by Zeus, and in bronze by Poseidon which could mean that some of the comet fragments came to earth and others plunged into the ocean. Judging from some ancient fragments, Ophioneus was thrown into Okeanos, not into Tartaros. We need to stay open on that because we have also learned that the sky was perceived as a vast, overhead ocean by the ancients. In one version, it is Kronos who orders the offspring – the comet fragments - out from the cosmos to Tartaros. We are told about chaotic beings put into the pentemychos, and we are told that the Darkness has an offspring that is cast into the recesses of Tartaros. No surviving fragment makes the connection, but it is possible that the prison-house in Tartaros and the pentemychos are ways of referring to the essentially same thing. In short, they were flung off into space, i.e. were probably moved into different orbits passing from view below the horizon or, more intriguingly, passing out of the plane of the ecliptic into the region of the celestial equator . The question is: do they still exist in these orbits?
A comparatively large number of sources say Pherecydes was the first to teach the eternality and transmigration (metampsychosis) of human souls. Both Cicero and Augustine thought of him having given the first teaching of the "immortality of the soul" which may or may not be the case, however, he was among the first we know about and that he did promote the idea is certain. Hellenic scholar, Hermann S. Schibli, writes that Pherecydes "included in his book [PENTEMYCHOS] at least a rudimentary treatment of the immortality of the soul, its wanderings in the underworld, and the reasons for the soul’s incarnations".
Pherecydes’ works were still extant in the Period we are concerned with, so certainly Zeno and Aratus were using them in their researches.
Back to Pythagoras
Ancient commentators agree that Pherecydes was Pythagoras's most "intimate" teacher and it is thought that the term pentemychos (five hidden recesses) is the most likely origin of the Pythagorean use of the pentagram, used by them as a symbol of recognition. I would venture to suggest at this poin that the five hidden recesses that might represent the movement of cometary orbits away from the ecliptic into the regions of the celestial equator, might be what is represented by the five extra-ecliptic constellations depicted in the tauroctony: Canis Minor, Hydra the snake, Crater the cup and Perseus.
The Pythagoreans taught that a release from the wheel of reincarnation was possible but only via a process of purification of the soul. They followed the Orphic traditions and practices to purify the soul but at the same time they suggested a deeper idea of what such a purification might be. Aristoxenus said that music was used to purify the soul just like medicine was used to purge the body. Pythagoras suggests that the highest purification of a life is in pure contemplation. It is the philosopher who contemplates about science and mathematics who is released from the "cycle of birth." The pure mathematician's life is, according to Pythagoras, the life at the highest plane of existence. Thus the root of mathematics and scientific pursuits in Pythagoreanism is also based on a spiritual desire to free oneself from the cycle of birth and death.
Neopythagoreanism was a revival of various ideas traditionally associated with the Pythagoreans that began in the 2nd century BC and lasted until the 2nd century AD. In 1915, a subterranean basilica where 1st century Neo-Pythagoreans held their meetings was discovered near Porta Maggiore on Via Praenestina, Rome. The groundplan shows a basilica with three naves and an apse similar to early Christian basilicas that did not appear until much later, in the 4th century. The vaults are decorated with white stuccoes symbolizing Neopythagorean beliefs but its exact meaning remains a subject of debate.
Notable Neopythagoreans include Apollonius of Tyana. Middle and Neo-Platonists such as Numenius and Plotinus also showed some Neopythagorean influence. They emphasized the distinction between the soul and the body. God must be worshipped spiritually by prayer and the will to be good. The soul must be freed from its material surroundings by an ascetic habit of life. Bodily pleasures and all sensuous impulses must be abandoned as detrimental to the spiritual purity of the soul. God is the principle of good; Matter the groundwork of Evil. The non-material universe was regarded as the sphere of mind or spirit.
Eudoxus
Eudoxus (410 or 408 BC – 355 or 347 BC) first studied mathematics with Archytas who was a scientist of the scientific breakaway group of the Pythagorean school. Archytas was famous for founding mathematical mechanics. He was also reputed to have built the first artificial, self-propelled flying device. Archytas dealt with several mathematical formulations that were important to later mathematical works. Politically and militarily, Archytas was the dominant figure in Tarentum in his generation. (Remember Tarentum? It was 20 miles from Metapontum where Pythagoras allegedly ended his days.) The Tarentines elected him strategos, (general), seven years in a row – violating their own rule against successive appointments. He was allegedly undefeated as a general. Archytas had a reputation for virtue as well as efficacy and some scholars have argued that Archytas was one of the models for Plato's philosopher king, and that he influenced Plato's political philosophy as expressed in THE REPUBLIC.
Following his studies under Archytas, Eudoxus studied medicine with Philiston and then, around 387 BC, at the age of 23, Eudoxus traveled to Athens to study with the followers of Socrates. He eventually became the pupil of Plato, with whom he studied for several months, but due to a disagreement they had a falling out, after which he traveled to Heliopolis, Egypt to pursue his study of astronomy and mathematics. From Egypt, he then traveled north to Cyzicus, located on the south shore of the Sea of Marmara, then south to the court of the famous king of Caria, Mausolus. During his travels he gathered many students of his own.
Nearly 20 years after he had left Athens, Eudoxus returned with his students in tow. According to some sources, around 367 he assumed headship of the Academy during Plato's period in Syracuse (during which time, apparently, Archytas attempted to rescue Plato from Dionysius II ) and taught Aristotle. He eventually returned to his native Cnidus, where he served in the city assembly. While in Cnidus, he built an observatory and continued writing and lecturing on theology, astronomy and meteorology.
He died either in 355 or 347 BC. Much, much later, in the 16th century, when Europe finally began to emerge from the Dark Age of Catholicism, Eudoxus was “rediscovered”.
Eudoxus introduced the idea of non-quantified mathematical magnitude to describe and work with continuous geometrical entities such as lines, angles, areas and volumes, thereby avoiding the use of irrational numbers. In doing so, he reversed a Pythagorean emphasis on number and arithmetic, focusing instead on geometrical concepts as the basis of rigorous mathematics. Some Pythagoreans, such as Eudoxus' teacher Archytas, had believed that only arithmetic could provide a basis for proofs. Induced by the need to understand and operate with incommensurable quantities, Eudoxus established what may have been the first deductive organization of mathematics on the basis of explicit axioms. This change in focus by Eudoxus in combination with a Greek intellectual attitude unconcerned with practical problems, led toa divide in mathematics which lasted two thousand years. Thanks to this, there was a significant retreat from the development of techniques in arithmetic and algebra.
Listing and describing all his many mathematical achievements here is not necessary, but we are interested in his astronomy, astrology, and mathematics relating to same. In mathematical astronomy, Eudoxus’ fame is due to the introduction of the astronomical globe, and his early contributions to understanding the movement of the planets. He is also said to have introduced the first descriptions of the full classical set of constellations. Considering what he did in mathematics, one has to wonder if his astronomical contributions were equally inhibiting? Or, perhaps not. Or, perhaps, he just re-interpreted everything in the usual Platonic astralizing way of the time, which ended up preserving ancient terms and symbols with new meanings assigned to them. In any event, the works of Eudoxus are among those studied by Zeno and Aratus wrote his surviving poem, PHAENOMENA based on Eudous. So, we are now returning from our flashback to the time of Zeno, founder of Stoicism, and his sidekick, Aratus.
Aratus
Aratus (c. 315 – 240 BC) was a native of Soli in Cilicia, a town about 20 miles from Tarsus. There are several accounts of his life by Greek writers, and the SUDA and Eudocia also mention him. He is known to have studied with Menecrates in Ephesus and Philitas in Cos. As a disciple of the Peripatetic philosopher Praxiphanes, in Athens, he met the Stoic philosopher Zeno. About 276 he was invited to the court of the Macedonian king Antigonus II Gonatas, whose victory over the Gauls in 277 BC Aratus set to verse. Here he wrote his most famous poem, PHAENOMENA (Appearances). He then spent some time at the court of Antiochus I Soter of Syria, but subsequently returned to Pella in Macedon, where he died sometime before 239/240 BC. His chief pursuits were medicine (which is also said to have been his profession), grammar, and philosophy.
The PHAENOMENA appears to be based on two prose works - PHAENOMENA and ENOPTRON (MIRROR, presumably a descriptive image of the heavens) - by Eudoxus of Cnidus. We are told by the biographers of Aratus that it was the desire of Antigonus to have them turned into verse, which gave rise to the PHAENOMENA of Aratus; and it appears from the fragments of them preserved by Hipparchus, that Aratus has in fact versified, or closely imitated parts of them both, but especially of the first.
The purpose of the PHAENOMENA is to give an introduction to the constellations, with the rules for their risings and settings; and of the circles of the sphere, amongst which the Milky Way is reckoned. The immobility of the earth, and the revolution of the sky about a fixed axis asserted and the path of the sun in the zodiac is described. However, though the planets are introduced, they are mentioned as merely bodies having a motion of their own, without any attempt to define their periods nor is anything said about the moon's orbit.
There are numerous problems with the descriptions in the work which later scholarship has shown to have been due to the fact that the risings and settings were accurate for an epoch as far back as 3400 BC which coincides with the time period of the tauroctony as Ulansey has depicted it, and what I, myself, discovered following a different set of indicators. What this means is that Eudoxus was working with astronomical information that was extremely ancient.
The second half of the work, DIOSEMEIA consists of forecasts of the weather from astronomical phenomena, with an account of its effects upon animals. It appears to be an imitation of Hesiod, and to have been imitated by Virgil also. The substance said to be taken almost wholly from Aristotle's METEOROLOGICA, from the work of Theophrastus, ON WEATHER SIGNS, and from Hesiod, WORKS AND DAYS. Nothing is said in either poem about Hellenistic astrology. Authors of twenty-seven commentaries are known; ones by Theon of Alexandria, Achilles Tatius and Hipparchus of Nicaea survive as well as an Arabic translation that was commissioned in the ninth century by the Caliph Al-Ma'mun. He is cited by Vitruvius, Stephanus of Byzantium and Stobaeus. Several accounts of his life are extant, by anonymous Greek writers.
Ulansey conjectures that the influence of Aratus in Tarsus may have led to the emphasis on astrology within the Stoic movement. It could very well be that it was from Eudoxus 3000 year old astronomical knowledge,combined with the works of Pherecydes and Pythagorus, that the tauroctony of the Mithraic Mysteries derived. But there is more to it than that: in case you didn’t notice, the figures in the taruoctony are reversed from the way they actually appear in the sky. Ulansey proposes:
Cleanthes
Cleanthes ( c. 330 BC – c. 230 BC) was the successor to Zeno as the head of the Stoic school in Athens. He was originally a boxer who came to study philosophy and made a living by carrying water at night. His power of patient endurance, or perhaps his slowness, earned him the title of "the Ass" from his fellow students, a name which he was said to have rejoiced in because it meant that his back was strong enough to bear whatever Zeno put upon it. He preserved and developed Zeno’s teachings and originated new ideas of his own in Stoic physics which amounted to developing Stoicism along the lines of materialism and pantheism.
Cleanthes revolutionized Stoic physics by the theory of tension (tonos) which distinguished Stoic materialism from all other conceptions of matter as dead and inert. He developed Stoic pantheism, and applied his materialistic views to logic and ethics as well. He argued that the soul was a material substance, and that this was proved (a) by the circumstance that not only bodily qualities, but also mental capacity, are transmitted by ordinary generation from parent to child; and (b) by the sympathy of the soul with the body seen in the fact that, when the body is struck or cut, the soul is pained; and when the soul is torn by anxiety or depressed by care, the body is correspondingly affected. Cleanthes also taught that souls live on after death, but that the intensity of its existence would vary according to the strength or weakness of the particular soul. Again, this sounds remarkably like the ideas of Gurdjieff!
Zeno had said that the goal of life was "to live consistently," the implication being that no life but the passionless life of reason could ultimately be consistent with itself. Cleanthes is credited with having added the words "with nature," thus completing the well-known Stoic formula that the goal is "to live consistently with nature."
For Cleanthes, this meant, in the first place, living according to the dictates of the universe; for the universe is under the governance of reason, and everyone has the possibility to learn about the world-course, to recognize it as rational and cheerfully to conform to it. This, according to him, is true freedom of will: not acting without motive, or apart from set purpose, or capriciously, but humbly acquiescing in the universal order, and, therefore, in everything that befalls one. The direction to follow Universal Nature can be traced in his famous prayer:
This is also remarkably similar to the ideas presented in the New Testament book of Romans, written by another native of Tarsus, the apostle Paul:
Cleanthes regarded the Sun as being divine; because the Sun sustains all living things, it resembled the divine fire which (in Stoic physics) animated all living beings, hence it too must be part of the vivifying fire or aether of the universe.
The earliest Stoics, such as Cleanthes, Aristo and Sphaerus, all wrote commentaries on the work of Heraclitus, which suggests strongly that, under Zeno, they were all involved in the same search for the key to understanding the cosmic cycles.
The earliest surviving Stoic work, the HYMN TO ZEUS of Cleanthes, though not explicitly referencing Heraclitus, is clearly influenced by that work. Cleanthes physicalized and modified the Heraclitean logos. Zeus rules the universe with law, and the weapon he utilized to ensure that things conform to the laws of the cosmos is the "forked servant", the "fire" of the "ever-living lightning." Cleanthes then says, Zeus uses the fire to straighten out the common logos that travels about mixing with the greater and lesser lights. This is Heraclitus' logos, but now it is confused with the common nomos, which Zeus uses to make the wrong right and "order the disordered."
The HYMN TO ZEUS is extremely interesting considering our background subject: cometary cataclysms that recur at intervals. If you recall, the image of Ninurta I included some pages back, showed him holding a stylized lightning bolt. The same is true of the lion-headed god who holds just such a lightning bolt on his chest and, as we will see, just such a lightning bolt is one of the initiatic symbols of the Mithraic Mysteries. Further, this lightning bolt closely resembles plasmoid phenomena observed both in the laboratory and in space as was covered in the previous volume. So here, it almost seems as if Cleanthes is saying that recurring cataclysms straighten things out in the cosmos. In short, to Cleanthes, these things are not just abstract principles of things going on in noumenal worlds, the “hypercosmos”, as was the interpretation of the Platonists and their predecessors, Cleanthes is saying that these things happen in the real world on a more mundane level and he probably included scale in his speculations: a single human could be “straightened out”, or a group, a city, a nation; they could be straightened out by coming into conformity with Nature, or they could be straightened out by being reduced to primal substance. For Cleanthes, the Logos is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword. Tension itself Cleanthes defined as a fiery stroke; in his HYMN TO ZEUS lightning is the symbol of divine activity.
I should also mention that the Christian fathers of the early church had a great deal to say about this “Logos” business because it was of paramount importance to them to distance themselves from their pagan roots. The Stoic modification of Heraclitus' idea of the Logos was also influential on Jewish philosophers such as Philo of Alexandria, who connected it to "Wisdom personified" as God's creative principle. Philo uses the term Logos throughout his treatises on Hebrew Scripture in a manner clearly influenced by the Stoics.
Cleanthes died at the age of 99, c. 230 BC We are told that an ulcer forced him to fast and even though the ulcer improved, he continued his fast, saying that, as he was already half-way on the road to death, he would not trouble to retrace his steps.
Cleanthes pupil was Chrysippus who became one of the most important Stoic thinkers and succeeded him as the leader of the school.
