2.

ANTIPATER'S WRITINGS

2.1. IN DEFENCE OF STOIC LOGIC

2.1.1. On Things Chrysippean (T19-22)

The three testimonia afforded by Arrian (T20-22) are interesting

not least for their striking consistency. They all contain the following
elements in one form or another: there is criticism of a pupil or pupils
for skipping or assuming knowledge of the first two t o p o i of Epictetus'
educational programme; there is further criticism of pride in knowledge
gleaned from studying the third topos (the reasons vary); conspicuous
mastery of the third t o p o s includes a familiarity with the works of
Chrysippus, Antipater and Archedemus (invariably in that order). We
should not rule out the possibility that Arrian himself has fabricated
certain parts of three diatribes out of one set of very general notes, but
such creative remodelling of a consistent theme suggests rather that
Arrian is reporting more or less accurately the words of Epictetus.1
Of particular interest to us is the consistent reference to the works
of Antipater and Archedemus in connection with the works of Chrysippus
and the third t o p o s of Epictetus. This t o p o s was intended for the advanced
student of Stoic philosophy, one who had already learned to be unmoved
by the indifferent (by studying the first t o p o s of o[rexi", " y e a r n i n g "2) ,

1
We may note that the reference to Chrysippus, Antipater and Archedemus
is most apt on the first occasion (T20), since it is preceded at some distance by the
impetuous pupil's desire to learn tiv levgei Cruvsippo" ejn toi'" peri; tou' Yeudomevnou

(2.17.34); the second instance (T21) is preceded, also at some distance, by a more
general desire of philosophers to study, amongst other things, Yeudomev n ou" (3.2.6),

suggesting a reworking of the general idea of that part of the earlier diatribe; the
third instance (T22) stands near the beginning of a diatribe with no previous
reference to Chrysippus or fallacies, and the references to Antipater and Archedemus
appear forced in the new context.
2
L&S II, 56C note on line 2: "Epictetus treats o[rexi" as a distinct psychological

faculty whereas in Chrysippean Stoicism it refers to a species of oJrmhv. … In Epictetus,

as his first two 'topics' indicate, the object of o[rexi" is the good or the apparent

good, … that of oJrmhv the performance of kaqhvkonta. …"

188

and how to behave as part of a larger context (by studying the second
t o p o s of kaqhvkonta, "proper actions"). The third topos concerns
sugkatav q esi", "assent"; but this should not be a completely new topic for
the student. In the first topos, the student should have learned about
assenting to the right impressions, particularly that all things external
are neither good nor bad, but indifferent. The third t o p o s seems to have
been concerned with how to assent correctly in less than sound
circumstances, both physical and logical.1 Part of Epictetus' criticism of
hasty students eager to study the third t o p o s may be expressed in this
way, that those who have not learnt to assent correctly at all are ill-equipped
to study how to assent correctly in unusual circumstances; precisely
because they have failed to assent correctly at all, they abuse the third
t o p o s for alien ends, especially a reputation for cleverness, which is in
fact an indifferent.

In conclusion, following our analysis of T20-22

1. The works of the three Stoics mentioned in connection with the

third t o p o s are not of a general nature, but germane to the question of
assent to impressions in physically or logically unsound circumstances.2
They contained at least discussions of fallacies, a subsection of dialectic.
2. It is not clear from these references how the writings of Antipater
and Archedemus were related to the work of Chrysippus - they may have
included independent work on the same subjects, as well as direct
interpretation and criticism of Chrysippus. It appears from another
diatribe that they disagreed with Chrysippus at least in the analysis of
certain stock arguments.3 The evidence there suggests that they were

1
For Epictetus' ideal student's motivation for studying the three topoi, and
for examples from each, see 2.17.29-33.
2
Physically unsound circumstances include being asleep, sick, drunk or
"melancholic"; logically unsound circumstances include the presentation of fallacies
and sophisms.
3
Arrian, D i s s . 2.19.1-10 (=SVF III Ant. 30), reveals that the students of
Epictetus read works of Antipater in which he took sides against Chrysippus, at
least in the case of the Master Argument, where Antipater agrees "in general" with
Cleanthes. See § 2.2.1.4 below.
Writings 2.1.2 (T23-5) 189

used for the elucidation of arguments, while here, the emphasis is on

their use by students of Epictetus for the elucidation of Chrysippus.
3. The combination of fallacies with the question of assent causes
me to suspect that at least some of the works of Antipater studied by
Epictetus and his pupils belong to that part of Antipater's logic which
dealt with "canons and criteria" (DL 7.41; see esp. §3.2.1, §7).

Cicero (T19) observes that Chrysippus wrote on every subject, yet

that this did not prevent later Stoics from returning to the same topics.
The tone of this testimony does not suggest a return to the same topics
specifically in order to defend them against attack, or modify them because
of hostile criticism, although such motivation is not to be ruled out. Later
Stoics may have returned to the same topics, at least occasionally, because
they were actually concerned with the subject matter in its own right.
Antipater and Archedemus are elsewhere referred to as leaders in the
field of dialectics (T12, 1.3.3), and it would not be surprising if they took
an intelligent interest in Chrysippus' work on dialectic and developed his
ideas in that field without external prompting. At the same time, however,
Chrysippus' views and arguments were attacked, most notably by Carneades.
In the field of logic, Antipater and Archedemus would have been obvious
champions against such attacks.

2.1.2. Against Carneades (T23-5)

As T23 stands, Antipater wrote many works against Carneades, but

Cicero's text may have portrayed Antipater crossing swords with Carneades
in entire, not necessarily many, works (reading totis for t o t - see T23
Comm.). T23-5 may share at some remove a common source which would
appear to favour the reading totis in T23. That T23 does share a common
source with the other testimonia, however, is uncertain, particularly since
the others do not mention Mnesarchus, who, it would seem, was also reported
to have written works against Carneades in Cicero's source. We shall return
to this omission after a look at the other two testimonia, where a common
source is more easily discernible. There is a historically suspect line of
argument common to both testimonia (T24-5): that Carneades was the best
public speaker of his time (implied in T24); that Antipater did not dare
meet him in public debate; that consequently Antipater preferred to write
190

rather than speak against Carneades; that he devoted whole works to this
end. Plutarch (T24) adds that, for this reason, Antipater was nicknamed
"Reed-Shrieker". Numenius (T25) does not mention this point, but Plutarch
should not be accused of fabrication. The name probably appeared in
Plutarch's intermediate source, but only once as, perhaps, the point of an
anecdote or comic lampoon inspired by the common source. Plutarch
would have found the name admirably suited to his amusing treatise on
talkativeness, and worthy of elaboration, but he is hardly the inventor of
the anecdote, given his misconstrual of the name in the following lines
(see T24 Comm.).
If Mnesarchus were to have been mentioned in the common source,
we may now at least suggest why he does not appear in T24-5. Plutarch's
intermediate source may have been a witty anecdote or lampoon at
Antipater's expense, and Mnesarchus would have been out of place;
Numenius may well have discussed Mnesarchus' relations with Carneades,
but Eusebius could have chosen not to excerpt that part of the Life of
Carneades.
The evidence for a common source for T23-5 is flimsy. Cicero could
have had independent knowledge concerning the activities of Mnesarchus
and Antipater against Carneades. Even a hypothetical common source,
however, may be described. It would have contained, at least, a pro-
Academic Life of Carneades with mention of Mnesarchus, and a version
of the Antipater anecdote similar to the one found in Numenius, (most
probably without kalamobova"). This common source would necessarily
have predated 45 B.C., the year of the composition of the Academici libri.
The evidence for a common source for T24-5 is less flimsy. It would
have contained, at least, a pro-Academic Life of Carneades including a
version of the Antipater anecdote similar to the one found in Numenius.
It would necessarily have predated a source used for De Garrulitate, itself
written in the second half of the first century A.D.
How accurate is either common source in its description of the feud
between Carneades and Antipater? Antipater's unwillingness to face a
superior dialectician such as Carneades in public debate may just about
be credible, but certain features of the account suggest an alternative
scenario, which, whether correct or not, necessarily casts doubt on the
historical truth of much of the story. The original version of the story, it
seems to me, may be no more than an attempt to counter a (Stoic?) charge
Writings 2.1.2 (T23-5) 191

to the effect that it was Carneades who was unable to respond to Antipater's
attacks: after all, the argument would go, there still existed Antipater's
works against Carneades, and there was no written response from
1
C a r n e a d e s . Such a charge would explain the virulence of the pro-Academic
counterattack, the emphasis on Carneades' skill in public speaking,
Antipater's fear of meeting Carneades in public debate, the belittling and
mockery of Antipater's writing activity, and the otherwise puzzling remark
in Numenius concerning Antipater's works: "They have no force now,
and had even less then..." This last remark can best be understood as an
aggressive defence against works "now" being used as evidence for
Antipater's superiority over Carneades "then".2

In conclusion, following our analysis of T23-5:

1. Antipater, and probably Mnesarchus, wrote works entirely devoted

to attacks on Carneades.
2. Antipater was probably not nicknamed kalamobova" ("Reed-
Shrieker").
3. Evidence for an exceptionally fierce feud between Antipater and
Carneades is suspect. Of course, as eminent contemporary representatives
of rival camps, their disagreements would have been more noteworthy
than most. It is also possible that Antipater attracted attention by coming
to grips with Carneades in the area of epistemology (implied by Cicero's
referring to the feud between them in, of all works, the A c a d e m i c i) ,
something which other Stoics criticized (cf. T30 - L u c . 17) and which we
shall deal with later (§5.1.1).
4. The evidence of T24-5 to the effect that Antipater was outclassed
by Carneades is in itself suspect.

1
Carneades left nothing in writing (DL 4.65; but cf. Aulus Gellius, 17.15.1-3).
2
It would be tempting to conclude that the author of this defence was a
pupil of Carneades (ta; de; loipa; aujtou' oiJ maqhtai; sunevgrayan, DL 4.65), but

the construction itself is speculative.

192

2.2. TITLES OF WORKS

The catalogues of works in Book 7 of Diogenes Laertius give us some

idea of the range and character of the interests of Zeno (7.4), Ariston
(7.163), Herillus (7.166), Dionysius (7.167), Cleanthes (7.174-5), Sphaerus
(7.178), and Chrysippus (7.189-202). The last catalogue as it now appears is
disproportionately long, but it would originally have been even longer,
before the end of Book 7 somehow disappeared. Just how much else was
contained in this lost portion of Book 7 is debatable, but it may have
included catalogues of the works of Diogenes of Babylon and Antipater of
Tarsus. Any loss, of course, is deplorable, but the thought of losing a
catalogue of Antipater's works is particularly frustrating. A partial
catalogue of the works of other Stoics could be reconstructed with
reasonable assurance from citations gleaned from various sources, but
there is much less assurance when dealing with works ascribed to
Antipater. There are at least two Stoic Antipaters - Antipater of Tarsus
and the first century B.C. Antipater of Tyre. It appears generally safe to
assume that an ascription to one or the other, distinguished by provenance,
is sound, and that an ascription to "Antipater the Stoic" refers to one or
other of these two. This need not always be the case, however, since the
source may be recording an assumption made at some point concerning
the exact identity of an "Antipater". An ascription to "Antipater" only
becomes a complicating factor when the context is not clearly
philosophical, or when the works drawn on are not clearly philosophical.
The problem then is not merely to choose between two Stoics, but to
decide whether a Stoic Antipater is meant at all.
Antipater of Tarsus is the preferred candidate when the ultimate
source is earlier than Antipater of Tyre (e.g., Panaetius, Clitomachus);
and when the subject pertains to logic (on which his reputation rests) or
to the debate with the Academics. Antipater of Tyre appears to have had a
name in ethics and politics (Plut. Cat. min. cp. 4), and wrote at least one
large physical work (D.L. 7.139,140,142,148). Antipater of Tarsus wrote on
physical and ethical issues as well, so the allocation of testimonia and
fragments in these fields is often tentative, if attempted at all.
 193

2.2.1. Works of Antipater of Tarsus

1. peri; o{rwn.
"On definitions", in at least two volumes.1 On Antipater's revolutionary
definitional aspect of logic, see §§3, 4, and 7.
2. peri; levxew" kai; tw'n legomevnwn.
"On diction and things said", in at least two volumes.2 The context in
which this title appears shows that it contained at least a section on parts
of speech. J. Mansfeld uses the title, tentatively, to support his suggestion
that Antipater of Tarsus was one of the first Stoics, if not the first, to treat
"phonetics" before "semantics" in his systematic treatment of dialectic.3 It
is possible, however, that the title does not refer to the two sections of
dialectic; my discussion of the parts of speech, and in particular the
mesov t h" which Antipater is said to have introduced in this book, lead me
to suggest that the work dealt with the correspondence between parts of
speech and the things signified by those parts of speech.4
3. peri; dunatw'n.
"On things possible", in at least two volumes.5 It is mentioned in the
same breath as the following, more specialized, work.
4. peri; tou' kurieuvonto".
"On the Master Argument", in at least two volumes.6 This and the
preceding work will be discussed in the extended version of this thesis.
We may point out here that Antipater appears to have described the
opposing points of view of previous philosophers on this issue, and taken
a stand, in this case, with Cleanthes against Chrysippus.
5. peri; th'" Kleavvnqou" kai; Crusivppou diafora'".

1
ejn tw'/ prwvtw/ peri; o{rwn - DL 7.60 (T26=SVF III Ant. 23; L-S 32C).
2
ta; peri; levxew" kai; tw'n legomevnwn - DL 7.57 (=SVF III Ant. 22).
3
J. Mansfeld, 372 [418]. The division and exposition of Stoic philosophical
discourse will be discussed in section 3, where my arguments owe much to Mansfeld's
acute analysis of the text of Diogenes Laertius.
4
To be dealt with in Dialectic in the extended version of this work.
5
ejn toi'" peri; dunatw'n - Arrian 2.19.9 (=SVF III Ant. 29).
6
ejn toi'" peri; tou' kurieuvonto" - Arrian 2.19.9 (=SVF III Ant. 29).
194

"On the difference between Cleanthes and Chrysippus", in one

1
volume. The testimonium shows that the work dealt with at least one
ethical issue (see f. below), but it need not have been a book on ethics.2
Other differences between Cleanthes and Chrysippus mentioned in the
sources may derive from this book, although not all, as the testimonium
to the work "On the Master Argument" demonstrates.3
Differences between Cleanthes and Chrysippus cited amongst a list
of various Stoics' opinions on a particular subject (e.g., DL 7.139=SVFI,
499=I I, 642+644) need not derive from this book, and are not considered
here. A difference between Cleanthes and Chrysippus on a particular
subject is more likely to derive from Antipater's book when the opinion
of no other Stoic is also given, and especially when their disagreement is
expressly noted. The following passages are worthy of consideration:
a. the cosmos becomes flov x (Cleanthes) or auj g hv (Chrysippus) (Philo
de incorr. mundi, 254,7=SVFI, 511=I I, 611).4
b. walking is the pneuma released by the hegemonikon into the
legs (Cleanthes) or the hegemonikon itself (Chrysippus). That there is a
disagreement between the two is remarked upon (Seneca e p . 113,23=SVFII,
836).
c. fate is providential and providence fated (Chrysippus); providence
is fated, but fate is not necessarily providential (Cleanthes). This difference
might more naturally derive from Antipater's work on the Master
Argument or divination (Chalcidius in Timaeum, cp.144=SVF I I, 933).
The two following passages also emphasize a difference between
Chrysippus and Cleanthes only, but J. Mansfeld appears to be correct in

1
ejn tw'/ peri; th'" Kleavvnqou" kai; Crusivppou diafora'" - Plutarch De St.

Rep. 1034A (=SVF III Ant. 66).

2
Cohn, 19, and DPhA, 222-3, treat the book as a work on ethics.
3
Hoven, 51, has already suggested that the work is the source of most of the
notices we have concerning differences between Cleanthes and Chrysippus, and I
have made use of his list which includes SVF I,484=II,56; I,489=II,283+954;
I,499=II,642+644; I,511=II,611; I,525=II,836; I,551=II,933; I,555=III,4; I,568=III, 237.
4
One might speculate that the Stoic passage copied a little earlier by Philo,
in which three aspects of pu' r are distinguished and defined (a[nqrax, flovx, aujghv) ,

would itself come from Antipater's book (Philo, 252,5=SVFII, 612), but the ultimate
source would presumably be Chrysippus.
Writings 2.2.1 (Antipater of Tarsus) 195

his conclusion that they derive from a common source of the Peri haireseon
type, containing l a u d a t i o n e s and emphasizing a k o i n o n i a between the
Cynics (Antisthenes) and the Stoics (DL 6.104).1 It does not follow, of course,
even if these passages ultimately derive from Antipater, that Antipater
himself wrote on the differences between Cleanthes and Chrysippus with
respect to Antisthenes.
d. In a small Cynic laudatio, Antisthenes is reported to have said in
his Heracles that the t e l o s was to; kat• ajreth;n zh'n , as, we are then informed,
is the Stoics' (DL 6.104). The corresponding Stoic laudatio on the subject is
at 7.87-8, where various interpretations of the phrase are given with
references. The laudatio concludes with a difference between Chrysippus
and Cleanthes on the meaning of the word fuvsi" in the phrase "according
to nature". Chrysippus understands it to mean both universal and individual
nature, while Cleanthes understands it only as universal (DL 7.89=SVF III,
4).
e. The Cynic laudatio, in an interesting section on virtue, reports
Antisthenes' view (again in his H e r a c l e s) that virtue cannot be lost (DL
6.105). In the corresponding Stoic laudatio, Chrysippus holds that virtue
can be lost through drunkenness or melancholy; Cleanthes, that it cannot,
since katalepseis are certain (DL 7.127=SVFIII, 237). Unlike the preceding
examples, this one is not from physics, but from ethics or the field of
criteria.
The following passages have Cleanthes differing with Chrysippus
with respect to Zeno. The first passage is particularly important, since it
is the testimonium containing the title, "On the difference between
Cleanthes and Chrysippus":
f. Cleanthes agreed with Zeno (in declining to accept Athenian
citizenship), which leaves us to infer that Chrysippus did not (Plutarch
De St. Rep. 1034A =SVF III Ant. 66). Perhaps Chrysippus reinterpreted
Zeno's stand on this issue and consequently differed from Cleanthes, on
the pattern of another testimonium which may derive from Antipater's
book:
g. Zeno's "imprint on the soul" is a concrete impression (Cleanthes)

1
J. Mansfeld, esp. 338 [384] ff. The emphasis on Zeno's t e l o s and his link
with the t e l o s of Antisthenes would be designed to divert attention from the
embarrassing connection between Zeno and the later Cynics - J. Mansfeld, 349 [395].
196

or an alteration (Chrysippus) (SE 7.227ff =SVF I , 484=II,56). This testimonium

concerns the physical aspect of kataleptike phantasia, a subject which
would fall most naturally under physics, or the preliminary section of
logic.
To conclude, Antipater's book on the difference between Cleanthes
and Chrysippus may have touched on many areas of Stoic philosophy,
including physics (a-d, g) ethics (d-f) and epistemology (e, g). What
motivated Antipater to write the book is unclear. In one volume, it was too
small for a detailed discussion of each difference - the Master Argument,
for example, required at least two volumes when Antipater discussed the
Argument in depth - so pure philosophical enquiry may be ruled out.
Perhaps Antipater was trying to show that Chrysippus' modifications were
not significantly different from Cleanthes', and were still in keeping
with Zeno's doctrines. Antipater, of course, sometimes preferred Cleanthes'
position to that of Chrysippus (on the Master Argument, for example), but
at the time of writing this particular book, he may have been more
concerned to show his own reinterpretation of Zeno as legitimate and
progressive by using that of Chrysippus as a model.1
6. peri; yuch'"
"On soul" in at least two volumes.2 It is generally thought, with
reservations, to be by one or other of the Stoic Antipaters. To be discussed
in the Physics section in the extended version of this thesis.
7. peri; qew'n
"On gods" in one volume.3 To be discussed in Physics.
8. peri; mantikh'"

1
It would follow from this hypothesis that Antipater, like Chrysippus, did
not decline Athenian citizenship. It is, however, possible that Antipater wrote a
book on the difference between Cleanthes and Chrysippus in order to show where he
stood in relation to them on various issues, preferring whoever he believed had
interpreted Zeno more correctly. On this hypothesis, Antipater may have declined
Athenian citizenship, following the actual behaviour of Zeno (and Cleanthes).
2
• Antivpatron ejn tw'/ peri; yuch'" deutevrw/ -Scholia in Homeri Iliadem L
1 1 5 (=SVF III Ant.50); • Antivpatro" ejn toi'" peri; yuch'" - DL 7.157 (=SVF III

A n t .4 9 ) .
3
ejn tw'/ peri; qew'n - Plutarch De St. Rep.1051 (F35=SVF III Ant. 33).
Writings 2.2.2 (Antipater of Tyre) 197

"On divination" in two volumes.1 To be discussed in Physics.

9. peri; deisidaimoniv a "
"On fear of the gods" in at least four volumes.2 To be discussed in
Physics.
10. kata; tw'n aiJrevsewn
"Against the sects" in one volume.3

2.2.2. Works of Antipater of Tyre

1. peri; kovsmou
"On the cosmos" in at least ten volumes.4
2. peri; kaqhvkonto" (?)
"On proper action", deduced from Antipater of Tyre's criticism of
Panaetius' work of the same name.5

1
d u o [sc. de divinatione] - Cicero De Div. I 6 (T11=SVF III Ant. 37); Cicero is
probably referring to the same work later when discussing dreams, and not to a
one-volume peri; oj n eirav t wn :- plenus est Chrysippi liber, plenus Antipatri - De

Div. II 144 (=SVF III Ant. 42). As A.S. Pease observes in his commentary, "we are not
to suppose a one-volume work, but rather that the second plenus is singular by
attraction to the number of the first, or else through mere carelessness." (p.61, on
De Div. I 6).
2
• Antivpatro" oJ Tarseuv" ejn tetavrtw/ peri; deisidaimoniva" - Athenaeus

8.346C (SVF III Ant. 64).

3
• Antiv p at(r)o" ej n tw' ( i) kata; tw' n aiJ r ev s ewn - Philodemus, peri; tw' n
filosovfwn col.VII (=SVF III Ant. 67). A h a e r e s i s would presumably be a non-Stoic

school: Panaetius, for example, wrote about Aristippus in a peri; tw' n aiJ r ev s ewn

(DL 2.87, see 1.4.2).

4
• Antivpatro" oJ Tuvrio" ejn tw'/ ojgdovw/ peri; kovsmou , DL 7.139; ej n toi' "
peri; kovsmou, DL 7.140; ejn tw'/ dekavtw/ peri; kovsmou, DL 7.142; ej n eJ b dov m w/ peri;
kovsmou, DL 7.148. (=SVF III Ant. -,43,45,44; but von Arnim is more cautious in RE

"Antipatros von Tyros" 27). Cf. Susemihl, II.247; Cohn, 87 (and his criticism of von
Arnim, 12n6); DPhA, 224.
5
Cicero, Off. 2.86. Cf. Susemihl, II.247; Cohn, 87; DPhA, 224.
198

2.2.3. Works of Antipater of ?

1. peri; oujsiva"
"On being" in at least two volumes.1 What is said on being in this
testimonium is standard Stoic doctrine. Antipater of Tyre should not be
preferred simply because he was the last Antipater to be mentioned by
Diogenes Laertius,2 nor simply because he also wrote on being in his
work on the cosmos. On the other hand, Antipater of Tarsus should not be
preferred simply because Diogenes Laertius cites Antipater before
3
Apollodorus. The order is no guarantee that Apollodorus cited Antipater
in his work.
2. peri; zwv/wn
"On animals" in one volume.4 The identity of this author of wildlife
curiosities is the subject of much controversy. He need not be either Stoic
Antipater.
3. peri; ojrgh'"
"On anger" in at least one volume.5
4. o{ti kata; Plavtwna movnon to; kalo;n ajgaqovn
"That, according to Plato, only the k a l o n is good" in three volumes.6
5. peri; gavmou
"On marriage" in one volume.7

1
ejn deutevrw/ peri; oujsiva" - DL 7.150 (=SVF III Ant. 32)
2
So argued by von Arnim, RE I, 2516, 22-3.
3
So argued by Cohn, 12.
4
• Antivpatro" ejn tw'/ peri; zwv/wn Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium, ii 88-89a;

Antipater in libro de animalibus, Plutarch, Quaestiones Naturales , 38, ex versione

Latina Gyberti Longolii (=SVF III Ant.4 8 a ) .
5
• Antivpatro" ejn tw'/ prwvtw/ peri; ojrgh'" - Athenaeus 14.643F (=SVF III

A n t . 65).
6
• Antivpatro" me;n ou\n oJ Stwi£ko;" triva suggrayavmeno" bibliva peri; tou'
o{ti kata; Plavtwna movnon to; kalo;n ajgaqovn - Clem. Alex. Strom. V 97,6 (=SVF III

A n t . 56)
7
• Antipavtrou ejk tou' peri; gavmou - Stob. 4.22.25 (=SVF III Ant. 63).
Writings 2.2.3 (Antipater of ?) 199

6. peri; gunaiko;" sumbiwvsew"

"On living with a woman" in one volume.1 This and the preceding
work may be one and the same. The relatively lengthy fragments preserved
by Stobaeus contain some terminology reminiscent of Antipater of Tarsus,
but Antipater of Tyre could have used it too.
7. peri; oijketw'n crhvsew"
"On the treatment of servants". Attributed to Antipater, it appears in
a list of Stoic works in an Oxyrhynchus papyrus (Papyrus Milanensis
1.11) dating from the time of Hadrian. See Posidonius II, F3.2

1
• Antipavtrou ejk tou' peri; gunaiko;" sumbiwvsew" - Stob. 4.22.103 (=SVF

III Ant. 62).

2
I have just discovered on the Internet (June 1997) a supplement to DPhA i n
which this work is attributed to Antipater of Tarsus. The entry by R. Goulet runs as
follows: "Il faut ajouter à la liste des oeuvres d'Antipatros un Peri oiketôn chrèseôs
a' b', cité avec d'autres traités stoïciens de Boèce (->B 47), Chrysippe (->C 121),
Diogène de Babylone (->D 146) et Posidonius dans PMilVogliano 11 (lettre du IIe s.).
Cette lettre de Théon à son 'ami' (hetairôi) Héraclide le 'philosophe' commence par
la formule platonicienne (D.L. III 61, Lucien, Laps. 4) eu prattein. La lettre est
éditée, traduite et commentée par A. Linguiti, dans CPF, t. I, no. 6, p. 110-114."
200