Sandbach, who has given us a very useful introduction to early Stoicism, examines here a problem of more interest to specialists, that concerning the possible influence of Aristotle on the first Stoic philosophers. It is his view that Aristotle's influence, if any, was of little importance, and that if the development of Stoic philosophy is to be understood, it should be seen in relation rather to ideas to be found in Plato, in the Academy and in other thinkers such as (...) Diodorus. However it is not Sandbach's purpose to explore this second, positive thesis here. The negative critique of the supposed links between Aristotle and the Stoics is the focus of the book. Sandbach starts with a survey of what was known of Aristotle's works in the third century B.C. to philosophers and non-philosophical writers. A theme is introduced here that will be emphasized throughout the book: little of Aristotle was read outside his school, and neither he nor his school were held in high regard at that time. The next chapter strengthens this position and is followed by chapters organized according to each of the parts of Stoic philosophy, in which the claims of a variety of scholars for Aristotelian influence in particular areas of Stoicism are examined and rejected. Reading these chapters is rather like going through a set of file cards containing references and brief remarks. The critique ends with a short section on what the Stoics disregarded in Aristotle's philosophy, a Conclusion, and Appendices on some later Stoics and on Ocellus Lucanus. (shrink)

This chapter pursues an understanding of what Cicero thought 'Italic' philosophy to be, and proceeds to develop a broader account of how Cicero's version compares with the surviving textual evidence and testimonia from the Hellenistic period of the philosophy of the 'Italic' philosophers, including the Lucanians 'Ocellus', 'Eccelus', and 'Aresas/Aesara', and the Rudian Ennius. Special focus is placed on their theories of cosmology, psychology, and law. Collocation of 'Italic' with 'Pythagorean' philosophy of this era aids in building a more (...) comprehensive view of what Hellenistic Pythagoreanism may have looked like. Uploaded here is the pre-publication version; please email me for the printed version. (shrink)

The treatise On the Nature of the Universe, attributed to the Pythagorean Ocellus, has frequently been the subject of scholarly attention due to its engagement with Aristotle’s theory of elemental transformation or its role in the late Hellenistic debate on the eternity of the universe. In this paper, I argue that its author endorses a peculiar conception of matter: prime matter is an unqualified body, only potentially perceptible. Ps.-Ocellus draws this doctrine from Stoicism but reworks it for his (...) purposes outside the framework of Stoic corporealism. The author presents it as an antecedent to both Plato’s receptacle and Aristotle’s prime matter. As it turns out, the doctrine was meant to address some of the challenges posed by an incorporeal material principle. (shrink)

Entre otras cosas, la Historia Naturale de Ferrante Imperato, publicada en Nápoles en 1599, trata de varias especies de artrópodos que hoy podríamos identificar como la araña Lycosa tarentula (=Lycosa narbonensis), el ortóptero Gryllotalpa grillotalpa, y los coleópteros Mylabris variabilis, Oryctes nasicorsis, Cerambyx cerdo y Lucanus cervus. Es de destacar la notable fidelidad de las ilustraciones, así como el estilo directo de las descripciones, que mencionan frecuentemente el lugar de las observaciones. Ello da a la obra un valor añadido (...) de historia natural local, un concepto que está tan de moda hoy en día. (shrink)

Of the four surviving fragments of Varius' De Morte1 perhaps the most widely discussed has been the first: Vendidit hie Latium populis agrosque Quiritum eripuit, fixit leges pretio atque refixit This is imitated by Virgil, whose Sibyl says of a soul in Tartarus: Vendidit hie auro patriam dominumque potentem imposuit; fixit leges pretio atque refixit Most commentators, quoting Cic. Phil. 12.5.12, connect both passages exclusively with Antony, and rightly point to Servius' words on v. 622, ‘possumus Antonium accipere’. What should (...) be stressed, however, is that Servius also thinks the words ‘vendidit hie auro patriam’ have a general reference, but are at the same time designed to recall historical individuals, of whom he names two: etiam haec licet generaliter dicantur, habent tamen specialitatem: nam Lasthenes Olynthum Philippo vendidit, Curio Caesari XXVII. S. Romam: de quo Lucanus Gallorum captus spoliis et Caesaris auro. (shrink)