Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-kpkbf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-25T07:00:22.304Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2022

Christian Vassallo*
Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]


In Aëtius 1.7.8 Mansfeld–Runia, Diogenes, Cleanthes and Oenopides are said to have maintained that the deity is the world-soul. However, the identity of the Diogenes whom the doxographer mentions here has long been a matter of scholarly dispute. In response to attempts to ascribe the doxa to Diogenes of Apollonia, this paper reassesses old arguments and proposes new considerations to argue that a fundamental aspect of Diogenes of Babylon's theology is at stake here.

Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (, which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

The identity of the Diogenes in the Aëtian passage in which he, along with Cleanthes and Oenopides, is said to identify the deity with the world-soul (1.7.8 Mansfeld–Runia,Footnote 1 henceforth MR) has long been controversial. With a few exceptions, this fundamental theological tenet is ascribed to Diogenes of Apollonia. This paper endorses the opposing thesis—that the Diogenes in question is the Stoic philosopher—and paves the way for a reconsideration of other Aëtian evidence, such as Stoic doxai, in which the name Diogenes appears without the ethnicon.

In Book 1 of Aëtius’ compendium, chapter 7, devoted to the nature of God (Τίς ὁ θεός, Who the Deity is), is introduced by an extended paragraph, transmitted by Stobaeus (= Stob.) and absent from Ps.-Plutarch (= [Plut.]),Footnote 2 on the history of ancient atheism and its representatives in both poetry and philosophy. In this list, Diagoras, Theodorus, Euhemerus, Callimachus, Euripides, Plato and Anaxagoras are cited in that order.Footnote 3 Immediately after §1, Aëtius describes the various conceptions of the deity that ancient thinkers, from the Milesians to Epicurus, espoused (§§2–25, in Stob. and [Plut.]). The doxographer here follows a sequence whose rationale is the same as that of chapter 1.3, On Principles, What They Are (Περὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν, τί εἰσιν): the number of items (in our case that of divinities rather than of principles) and the subsequent contrast between monists and pluralists.Footnote 4 However, Aët. 1.7.2–25 MR combines the treatment of school successions and single philosophers, and for the most part does not match the order of the analogous lists in Cicero's On the Nature of Gods Footnote 5 and in Philodemus’ On Piety, although in all three lists the beginning and the end, viz. Thales and Epicurus, are the same. Let us compare synoptically the sequence of philosophers provided by these three sources; I highlight in bold the cases in which the name Diogenes appears.

Cicero's and Philodemus’ parallel passages differ from each other to the extent that they demonstrate that neither depends on the other, nor do they share a unique common source.Footnote 8 Proof that Cicero and Philodemus did not draw on each other's work includes (a) striking doxographical lacunae, such as the lack in Cicero of any reference to Heraclitus, whose theology is instead the subject of an important snippet in Philodemus’ extant text; (b) the dissimilar style, much more polemical in Cicero than in Philodemus; (c) the often substantial difference in the philosophical content of the doxai of the authors cited in the two catalogues. Their varying treatment of Diogenes of Apollonia illustrates these discrepancies well. Cicero briefly expounds the theology of this Presocratic philosopher between his discussions of Democritus and Plato; Philodemus, on the other hand, mentions Diogenes of Apollonia between Heraclitus and the unknown (Presocratic) philosopher whose theology is described in an unfortunately lost column of P.Herc. 1428. However, in addition to the differing placement of the doxa, what stands out is the dissimilar content of Cicero's and Philodemus’ reports: in Cicero, Velleius denounces the unacceptable consequences of identifying God with air for the conception of the nature of divinity; in Philodemus, by contrast, Diogenes is the representative of a demythicized version of God, which leads him to praise Homer for having identified Zeus with air.

This is a necessary precondition for any attempt to resolve an important problem of Aëtius’ passage in question, viz. the doxa mentioned above, placed between those of Democritus and Pythagoras, which ascribes the idea that the deity should be identified with the world-soul to Diogenes, Cleanthes and Oenopides alike (Aët. 1.7.8 MR):

Διογένης καὶ Κλεάνθης καὶ Οἰνοπίδης τὴν τοῦ κόσμου ψυχήν.

Diogenes and Cleanthes and Oenopides [say that the deity is] the soul of the cosmos.Footnote 11

This doxa is transmitted only by Stobaeus (Ecl. 1.1.29b) and is placed between those concerning Democritus’ and Pythagoras’ theologies: the former identified the deity with the Mind residing in a spherically shaped fire (§7); the latter considered the Monad as the deity and the Good, and the Undetermined Dyad as a daemon and the Evil (§9). As for Oenopides (41 A 6 DK), Zeller supposed he was an otherwise unknown Stoic,Footnote 12 but this unlikely suggestion has never gained credence. In the Placita, Oenopides appears only twice more, always along with Pythagoras.Footnote 13 Independently of the question of the Stoic interpretation of his thought in the Aëtian passage at hand, he should be identified with the homonymous astronomer of Chios (fifth century b.c.).Footnote 14 Scholars have long disagreed on the identity of the Diogenes cited by Aëtius in §8. Among the many scholarly arguments, Diels's stance is peculiar. From the index nominum of the Doxographi Graeci, it is clear that he previously ascribed the doxa to Diogenes of Babylon;Footnote 15 later, in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, he changed his mind and included the doxa among the witnesses to Diogenes of Apollonia collected in 64 A 8 DK (however, except for Aëtius, in none of these witnesses is the soul, whether individual or cosmic, in question). By contrast, von Arnim recorded this doxa in SVF III 31 (= SVF I 532), among bits of evidence concerning Diogenes of Babylon's physics that transmit important fragments of his treatise, On the Regent Part of the Soul (SVF III 27–37).Footnote 16 In his edition of Diogenes of Apollonia, Laks treats this testimonium neutrally, placing it among the dubia (S 1).Footnote 17 In his collection of the Presocratics co-edited with Most (henceforth LM), however, Laks cautiously mentions the passage among the Stoicizing Versions of Diogenes (?) (28 R 17 LM), along with two other Aëtian witnesses pertaining to the chapters of Book 2 of the compendium that deal with the causes of the world's tilt (Τίς ἡ αἰτία τοῦ τὸν κόσμον ἐγκλιθῆναι)Footnote 18 and with the world itself, that is, its nature (Περὶ κόσμου), respectively.Footnote 19 Lastly, Mansfeld and Runia, in the commentary on their new monumental edition of Aëtius, reiterate that the issue remains unclear, as indicated in their apparatus testimoniorum on page 373, where both possibilities are given. However, they also offer arguments in favour of Diogenes of Apollonia and a ‘Stoicizing’ reading of his theory of the elements.Footnote 20

There are four strong arguments in favour of identifying the Diogenes in Aët. 1.7.8 MR with the Stoic rather than with the Presocratic philosopher. The first three rest on formal aspects of the passage, while the fourth focusses on the philosophical content of the testimonium. 1) It has been observed that the only argument that Diels could have used to rule out the possibility that Diogenes of Babylon is meant in the doxa at issue is that the Stoic would then appear only here in the Placita.Footnote 21 But this conclusion is clearly untrue. In Aët. 2.32.9 MR, Diogenes is explicitly indicated as ὁ Στωικός and is said to maintain that Heraclitus’ Great Year is to be multiplied by 365 times (SVF III 28). But even if Diogenes of Babylon appeared only here in the compendium, this would not be reason enough to rule out a priori that Aëtius was referring to him in the passage under consideration: his name would not be the only hapax legomenon in the Placita.Footnote 22 Among several examples, I find the case of the Stoic philosopher, pupil and successor of Diogenes of Babylon, Antipater of Tarsus, significant. His name appears only in the chapter On Fate (Περὶ εἱμαρμένης) of Book 1 of the compendium, where, immediately after the doxa on Zeno of Citium, he is said to support the theory that God and Fate coincide.Footnote 23 2) Moreover, although it is true that in the doxai concerning him Diogenes of Apollonia is rarely cited by Aëtius with his ethnicon, viz. 1.3.10 and 4.3.8 MR, Diogenes of Apollonia is also cited alongside a Stoic only in this passage of the Placita, to the best of my knowledge. 3) The sequence of philosophers in Cicero and Philodemus does not automatically indicate that Aëtius’ Diogenes must be the Presocratic philosopher. I have already highlighted above the differences in the content of Cicero's and Philodemus’ reports on Diogenes of Apollonia. However, in neither of these reports is Diogenes’ theology connected with that of other philosophers, let alone with that of the Stoics. In addition, in the long list from Aëtius, each Presocratic theological doxa is devoted to a single thinker. The only exception is Melissus, who is linked with Zeno of Elea (within the same doxa) in saying that the deity is the One/All, the only entity that is everlasting and unlimited (§18). 4) The deciding reason, however, for ascribing the Aëtian doxa to the Stoic Diogenes is the philosophical argument. I now develop this point in greater detail.

None of the witnesses in 64 A 8 DK relates Diogenes of Apollonia's view of air qua (physical) principle to the idea of a world-soul. As Laks points out, none of the sources allows us to argue that Diogenes of Apollonia ever upheld the world-soul doctrine or, more generally, the existence of a cosmic intelligence.Footnote 24 Neither is this reported in Augustine's account (De ciu. D. 8.2 = 64 A 8 [4] DK), where Diogenes of Apollonia's aer is only said to be provided with a diuina ratio, nor in the other two bits of evidence that are recorded, not in DK, but only in Laks's edition: Clement of Alexandria (Protr. 5.64.1–3 = T 7b Laks) and Minucius Felix (Oct. 19.5 = T 7d Laks). In the doxographical sources specifically devoted to Diogenes of Apollonia's psychology in the Vorsokratiker (64 A 20 DK) as well, no link between the theory of the world-soul and Diogenes of Apollonia appears. In On the Soul (1.2.405a21–5), Aristotle only says that for Diogenes soul is air and, since it is the thinnest of all things, it is also its principle (above all the principle of its motion).

In Book 4 of Aëtius’ compendium (4.7.1 MR), the doxa on the indestructibility of the soul is ascribed to Diogenes (of Apollonia) along with Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Plato, Empedocles and Xenocrates. Note that no Stoic appears here. The Stoics as a general group are discussed instead at 4.7.3 MR. At the end of 64 A 20 DK, Diels adds in parentheses Aët. 4.5.8 MR, where the opinion that the regent part of the soul is placed in the heart's arterial cavity, which is pneumatic (Διογένης ἐν τῇ ἀρτηριακῇ κοιλίᾳ τῆς καρδίας, ἥτις ἐστὶ πνευματική), is ascribed to a Diogenes who is not otherwise specified. Scholars strongly suspect that Aëtius is speaking here not about Diogenes of Apollonia but about Diogenes of Babylon.Footnote 25 Moreover, an apparently heterodox opinion in comparison to the official Stoic position—which maintained that the regent part of the soul is found in the entire heart or in the heart-embracing pneuma (Aët. 4.5.7 MR), not in a part of the heart—is ascribed to Diogenes of Babylon. If, as I am inclined to believe, Aët. 4.5.8 MR concerns Diogenes of Babylon's psychology, then its close connection to Galen's witness in SVF III 30—in which the regent part of the soul is said simply to be in the heart—is evident.Footnote 26 Finally, among the evidence for Diogenes of Apollonia's psychology in the Vorsokratiker, Diels did not include Aët. 4.3.8 MR (T 5b Laks = 28 D 12 LM), where the essence of the soul is said to be air (ἐξ ἀέρος τὴν ψυχήν). Now, it is clear that Aëtius also speaks in these passages about the soul tout court, not about a world-soul, and that he introduces the doxa under the name of Diogenes, who is unequivocally provided with his ethnicon (Διογένης ὁ Ἀπολλωνιάτης).Footnote 27

All the evidence just cited refers only to the physiological aspects of Diogenes of Apollonia's psychology, without ascribing to him the idea of a cosmic soul. Conversely, to prove on a philosophical level that Aët. 1.7.8 MR refers to the Stoic, we need a source that, even indirectly, connects Diogenes’ God to psychology, and in particular to a cosmic concept of the soul. This source does exist: Philodemus, in the last section of his treatise On Piety, provides an account of Diogenes of Babylon's theology which is much more detailed than that of the parallel passage in Cicero's On the Nature of Gods.Footnote 28 Below I give a synoptic overview of the two texts with a translation.

Philodemus goes into detail here concerning Diogenes’ allegorical method for approaching the gods, viz. an ‘inductive’ (or ‘rationalistic’) theological method in which the Stoic identifies the gods’ names with physical entities and renders some of the most important members of the Olympic pantheon—Poseidon, Hera, Athena (and indirectly Demeter as well)—mere emanations or parts of Zeus. But who is Zeus for Diogenes? Philodemus maintains that the Stoic, in his work On Athena, said that the cosmos is identified with Zeus, or that the cosmos contains Zeus as a man does his soul.Footnote 35 Such an allegory is in itself a cosmo-theological tenet which posits that the cosmos and man, on the one hand, and deity and soul, on the other, neatly correspond to each other. Hence, in analogical terms, Diogenes’ Zeus is the soul (that is, the life) of God/cosmos that some sources ascribe to the early Stoics.

In fact, immediately after the report on Diogenes of Babylon's theology Philodemus maintains that all the Stoics, generally labelled as ‘Zeno's followers’, held that God is one, and is the same entity as the universe endowed with a soul.Footnote 36 The Epicurean philosopher is here plainly employing the macrocosm/microcosm model that Democritus (68 B 34 DK) introduced and that is ubiquitous in Plato's Timaeus. In addition, according to Arius Didymus, Chrysippus claimed that the cosmos is also called Zeus because it coincides with God and is for us the cause of life.Footnote 37 But even before Chrysippus, Cleanthes in his Hymn to Zeus outlined a ‘cosmic theology’ of this sort when he said that the entire universe obeys Zeus.Footnote 38 In Cicero's On the Nature of Gods, Velleius describes this aspect of Cleanthes’ theology in even more clear-cut terms: Cleanthes—he says—maintained, among other things, that God is the cosmos in that he is both the mind and the soul of all nature.Footnote 39

When Aëtius cites Diogenes and Cleanthes together in Book 1 of his compendium (1.7.8), he must be alluding to a divinity provided with all of these features. These characteristics go beyond a God identified with a natural element according to the model of Presocratic physics: they clearly subscribe to an ‘immanentistic’ concept of deity that aligns with the Stoic ‘pantheistic’ and ‘monotheistic’ tenets.Footnote 40 In light of the textual correspondences discussed above, the Diogenes to whom Aëtius ascribes the concept of a God qua world-soul cannot represent a ‘Stoicized’ Diogenes of Apollonia. He must be rather identified as the Stoic Diogenes of Babylon.Footnote 41


1 Mansfeld, J. and Runia, D.T., Aëtiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer, V: An Edition of the Reconstructed Text of the Placita with a Commentary and a Collection of Related Texts, 4 Parts (Leiden and Boston, 2020)Google Scholar.

2 On Stobaeus and Ps.-Plutarch as sources of Aëtius, see Mansfeld, J. and Runia, D.T., Aëtiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer, Volume One: The Sources (Leiden and Boston, 1997), 121271Google Scholar.

3 See Runia, D.T., ‘Atheists in Aëtius: text, translation and comments on De placitis 1.7.1–10’, Mnemosyne 49 (1996), 542–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar = J. Mansfeld and D.T. Runia (edd.), Aëtiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer, Volume Three: Studies in the Doxographical Traditions of Greek Philosophy (Leiden and Boston, 2010), 343–73.

4 As Mansfeld and Runia (n. 1), 1.389–95, at 319 point out, ‘at a first glance no dominating diaeresis or diaphonia is clearly visible in the lemmata order of the second part … This is because systematic criteria have been combined with one belonging with the Successions order, just as in ch. 1.3.’ See also J. Mansfeld, ‘Lists of principles and lists of gods: Philodemus, Cicero, Aëtius, and others’, in C. Vassallo (ed.), Presocratics and Papyrological Tradition: A Philosophical Reappraisal of the Sources (Berlin and Boston, 2019), 609–30.

5 One of the exceptions to the chronological order is the place assigned to Diogenes of Apollonia: A.R. Dyck, Cicero: De natura deorum Book 1 (Cambridge, 2003), 96–7.

6 Dyck (n. 5).

7 Vassallo, C., ‘The “pre-Socratic section” of Philodemus’ On Piety: a new reconstruction. Praesocratica Herculanensia X (Part II)’, APF 64 (2018), 98147CrossRefGoogle Scholar [henceforth V.]. Below the correspondence with the editions by Schober, A., ‘Philodemi De pietate Pars prior’, CErc 18 (1988), 67125Google Scholar = A. Schober, Philodemi Περὶ εὐσεβείας libelli partem priorem restituit A. Schober (Diss., Königsberg, 1923) [henceforth S.] and Henrichs, A., ‘Die Kritik der stoischen Theologie im PHerc. 1428’, CErc 4 (1974), 532Google Scholar [henceforth H.]. For the bibliological reconstruction backing my new column-numbering, see Vassallo, C., ‘La “sezione presocratica” del De pietate di Filodemo: una nuova ricostruzione. Praesocratica Herculanensia X (Parte I)’, APF 63 (2017), 171203CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The list of philosophers in P.Herc. 1428 proposed here modifies the list by D. Obbink, ‘“All gods are true” in Epicurus’, in D. Frede and A. Laks (edd.), Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath (Leiden / Boston / Köln, 2002), 183–221, at 196–7.

8 C. Vassallo, The Presocratics at Herculaneum: A Study of Early Greek Philosophy in the Epicurean Tradition (Berlin and Boston, 2021).

9 Transl. H. Rackham.

10 My translation.

11 Transl. J. Mansfeld and D.T. Runia.

12 See E. Zeller and E. Wellmann, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Bd. III.1: Die nacharistotelische Philosophie, erste Hälfte (Leipzig, 1909; repr. Darmstadt, 2006), 50 n. In addition to others, von Fritz, K., ‘Oinopides’, RE 17.2 (1937), 2258–72Google Scholar, at 2271–2 and Mansfeld and Runia (n. 1), 1.397 disprove this hypothesis.

13 Aët. 2.12.2 (with the ethnicon) and 2.32.6 MR.

14 Sextus Empiricus, i.e. the only source of Oenopides’ theory of the elements, claims that he believed fire and air were the principles (Pyr. 3.30 = 41 A 5 DK).

15 H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci (Berlin 1879; repr. 19654), 676: ‘Diogenes Babylonius … deum esse mundi animam’.

16 Among other things, this evidence attests that, according to Diogenes of Babylon, the regent part of the (individual) soul was in the heart, viz. where it is possible to draw nourishment and pneuma in larger quantities (especially SVF III 30: cf. n. 26 below).

17 A. Laks, Diogène d'Apollonie: Edition, traduction et commentaire des fragments et témoignages (Sankt Augustin, 20082), 237. The only real evidence for ascribing this doxa to Diogenes of Apollonia derives, according to Laks, from the possible authenticity of Anaximenes’ 13 B 2 DK (= As 35 Wöhrle), transmitted by Aët. 1.3.3 MR: so Alt, K., ‘Zum Satz des Anaximenes über die Seele: Untersuchung von Aetios περὶ ἀρχῶν’, Hermes 101 (1973), 129–64Google Scholar; contra, J. Mansfeld, ‘Anaximenes’ soul’, in J. Mansfeld, Studies in Early Greek Philosophy: A Collection of Papers and One Review (Leiden and Boston, 2018), 167–76.

18 Aët. 2.8.1 MR (= 64 A 11 DK = 28 R 15 LM).

19 Aët. 2.1.8 MR (= 64 A 10 DK = 28 R 16 LM).

20 Mansfeld and Runia (n. 1), 1.392–3 and 397. So already Hüffmeier, F., ‘Theologische Weltbetrachtung bei Diogenes von Apollonia?’, Philologus 107 (1963), 131–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 137. See also Dreßler, J., ‘Diogenes von Apollonia und die Entstehung des Gottesbeweises in der griechischen Philosophie’, RhM 156 (2013), 113–40Google Scholar, at 128–34.

21 Laks (n. 17), 237.

22 Laks (n. 17), 239. For an analytical overview of the name-label data in the Placita, see E. Jeremiah, ‘Not much missing? Statistical explorations of the Placita of Aëtius’, in J. Mansfeld and D.T. Runia (edd.), Aëtiana IV: Papers of the Melbourne Colloquium on Ancient Doxography (Leiden and Boston, 2018), 279–373, at 353–61. Jeremiah, however, ascribes the doxa in Aët. 2.32.9 MR to Diogenes of Babylon only (Διογένης ὁ Στωικός).

23 Aët. 1.27.6 MR: Ἀντίπατρος ὁ Στωικὸς θεὸν ἀπεφαίνετο τὴν εἱμαρμένην.

24 Laks (n. 17), 34 and 237.

25 So also Mansfeld and Runia (n. 1), 3.1473, app. loc. sim. (‘probabilior Diogenes Stoicus’). See Laks (n. 17), 238 (S 2). The same should go for the embryological doxa in Aët. 5.15.4 MR: Diels ascribes it to Diogenes of Apollonia (64 A 28 DK = T 20 Laks = om. LM), but almost certainly it should be ascribed to Diogenes of Babylon (thus T. Tieleman, ‘Diogenes of Babylon and Stoic embryology: Ps. Plutarch, Plac. V 15.4 reconsidered’, Mnemosyne 44 [1991], 106–25; Mansfeld and Runia [n. 1], 3.1883, app. loc. sim.: ‘verisimiliter Diogenes Babylonius’).

26 Gal. PHP 2.8, pages 164–7 De Lacy: οὔκουν οὔτε τούτων τῶν λόγων ἰσχυρὸς οὐδεὶς οὔθ’ ὅταν ὁ Διογένης εἴπῃ “ὃ πρῶτον τροφῆς καὶ πνεύματος ἀρύεται, ἐν τούτῳ ὑπάρχει τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, ὃ δὲ πρῶτον τροφῆς καὶ πνεύματος ἀρύεται, ἡ καρδία.” See T. Tieleman, Galen and Chrysippus on the Soul: Argument and Refutation in the De Placitis, Books II–III (Leiden / New York / Köln, 1996), 79–101, at 81 (with n. 57).

27 In this chapter (Εἰ σῶμα ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τίς ἡ οὐσία αὐτῆς), Aëtius specifies the ethnicon only for Diogenes of Apollonia.

28 Obbink (n. 7), 205–9.

29 καὶ Πλά|τωνα Obbink : κ̣[αὶ τ]ὸ[ν] Π̣λ̣ά̣|τωνα Henrichs.

30 τ[ῇ τέ]|χνῃ Obbink : τ[έ]|χνῃ Henrichs.

31 According to D.R. Shackleton Bailey's conjecture, in Att. 13.39.2 Cicero calls this Diogenes’ work On Pallas (Περὶ Παλλάδος). See Obbink (n. 7), 188 (with n. 10) and 208, with regard to Phld. Piet., P.Herc. 242, fr. 3.1–9; A. Henrichs, ‘Philodems De pietate als mythographische Quelle’, CErc 5 (1975), 5–38, at 30.

32 Transl. H. Rackham.

33 Cra. 404c.

34 My translation.

35 On this, see Dumont, J.-P., ‘Diogène de Babylone et la déesse Raison’, BAGB 3 (1984), 260–78Google Scholar, at 265–6.

36 P.Herc. 1428, col. 362.8–16 V. (= col. 10.8–16 H. = Zen. Cit. SVF I 164 [II]): πά̣ντες ο̣ὖν οἱ ἀ|πὸ घ[ή]νωνος, εἰ καὶ ἀ|10π{ο}<έ>λε̣ι̣πον τὸ δαιμό|νιον, ὥσπε̣ρ οἱ μ̣ὲ̣ν οὐ|κ ἀπ̣[έ]λειπον, [οἱ] δ’ ἔν | τισιν οὐκ ἀπέλ̣[ε]ιπον, | ἕνα θε̣ὸν λέγου[σ]ι̣ν εἶ|15ναι⋅ γινέσθω{ι} δ[ὴ] καὶ | τὸ πᾶν σ⸌ὺν⸍ τῆι ψυχῇ. Cf. Lactant. De ira D. 11 (= Zen. Cit. SVF I 164 [I]).

37 SVF II 528 (= Eus. PE 15.15–35 = Ar. Did. fr. 29 Diels): ὅλον δὲ τὸν κόσμον σὺν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μέρεσι προσαγορεύουσι θεόν⋅ τοῦτον δὲ ἕνα μόνον εἶναί φασι καὶ πεπερασμένον καὶ ζῷον καὶ ἀίδιον καὶ θεόν. … διὸ δὴ καὶ घεὺς λέγεται ὁ κόσμος, ἐπειδὴ τοῦ ζῆν αἴτιος ἡμῖν ἐστι.

38 SVF I 537.7–8 (= Stob. Ecl. 1.1.12): σοὶ δὴ πᾶς ὅδε κόσμος ἑλισσόμενος περὶ γαῖαν | πείθεται ᾗ κεν ἄγῃς, καὶ ἑκὼν ὑπὸ σεῖο κρατεῖται. See Thom, J.C., Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Tübingen, 2005), 6972Google Scholar.

39 SVF I 534 (= Cic. Nat. D. 1.14.37): tum ipsum mundum deum dicit esse, tum totius naturae menti atque animo tribuit hoc nomen, tum ultimum et altissimum atque undique circumfusum et extremum omnia cingentem atque complexum ardorem, qui aether nominatur, certissimum deum iudicat …

40 Cf. Aët. 1.7.24 MR.

41 This research was made possible thanks to funding from the Alexander von Humboldt-Foundation.