² PIR ²A 1288, cf. Grimal, P., REA XLVII, 1945, 261 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ Clem. I 1, 8 cf. 4. Absolute power: 1 passim. Vigilance: 3, 3 cf. n. 88. Consent and affection: 3, 4; 4, 3; 8, 6 f.; 13, 4; 14, 5 f.; 15, 5; cf. Benef. II 20 (‘cum optimus status civitatis sub rege iusto sit’), written after Seneca's fall from power. The necessity of limiting freedom was a commonplace, cf. Tac., , Hist. I 16, 4Google Scholar; Dio LVI 43, 4. Musonius held that the good king must be a philosopher, fr. VIII Hense.

⁴ Const. 2, 2, but cf. Tranqu. 16, 1: ‘Cato ille virtutum viva imago’. Cato fought for ‘libertas’ or the ‘res publica’, a ‘bona causa’ (Prov. 3, 14), yet the argument in Benef. II 20, cf. ep. 14, 13 and the fragment in Lactant., , Div. Inst. VII 15, 4Google Scholar suggests that Seneca thought the cause hopeless. Cf., however, M. Griffin, CQ 1968, 373 ff., on ep. 14, 12 f.

⁵ Plut., Cato Minor 25 and 36 f. Thrasea presumably used the life of Cato by his friend, Munatius Rufus (cf. also Val. Max. IV 3, 2), which Plutarch perhaps knew only from Thrasea's work.

⁶ Tac., , Ann. XIV 57, 3Google Scholar, cf. XVI 22, 4 on which see p. 29.

⁷ ep. 73, 1 (Seneca assumes that philosophers are persons living in retirement, 73, 4 and 10); 103, 5.

⁸ ep. 5 and 14, 7 ff.; Clem. II 5, 2. Despite allegations by their critics (Ann. XVI 22; Suet., Nero 37), respectable Stoics like Euphrates and Thrasea were careful to censure vices, not individuals (Pliny, , ep. 110, 7Google Scholar; VIII 22, 3).

⁹ Kanus Iulius (Sen., Tranqu. 14; Plut. fr. 140 Bernadakis); perhaps Iulius Graecinus (Tac., Agr. 4 with Sen., , ep. 29, 6Google Scholar). Seneca implies that some Stoics had been in trouble before Nero (n. 7).

¹⁰ Dio LXVI 13; LXV1I 13; Suet., , Dom. 13, 3Google Scholar; Tac., Agr. 3; Pliny, , ep. III 11Google Scholar. Epictetus' life; Millar, F., JRS LV, 1965, 141 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Epict. I 12, 7; 19, 11 ff.; 29, 7 ff.; IV 5, 35; 7, 33 f., cf. Loeb index under ‘tyrants’. See G. Boissier, L'Opposition sous Les Césars, 1875, 102 ff.; Wirszubski, esp. 127; 140.

¹² ep. 73, 2 ff. Cf. 14, 14: ‘hos Stoicos qui a re publica exclusi (perhaps because they regarded it as so badly governed as to give them no place in it, cf. p. 18 ff.) secesserunt ad colendam vitam sine ulla potentioris offensa’; 98, 13 for Sextius, a near Stoic (Zeller 695 ff.), who ‘honores reppulit’ though ‘itanatus ut rem publicam deberet capessere’; nn. 7 and 69. Seneca's brother, Mela, at first rejected an official career, probably for such reasons, Sen., , Controv. II pr. 3Google Scholar (‘hoc unum concupiscentem, nihilconcupiscere’); Helv. 18, 2.

¹³ Quint., pr. 15; XII 3, 12 (principally aimed at false philosophers); Tac., , Ann. XIII 42, 3Google Scholar; Hist. IV 5; Agr. 4, 3 (with which cf. Suet., Nero 52; Musonius fr. XVI; Epict. I 11, 39; 26, 5). Note Cicero's remark to Cato, (Fam. XV 4, 16Google Scholar): ‘philosophiam veram illam et antiquam, quae quibusdam oti esse et desidiae videtur, in forum atque in ipsam aciem paene deduximus’.

¹⁴ Works cited in n. 1 document my summary of Stoic morals.

¹⁵ So Chrysippus argued against Chios, Ariston of, cf. SVF I 361–9Google Scholar; III 26 f. For кαθήкογτα ibid. III ch. VIII: they are κατορθώματα when performed by the wise man; in my judgement these differ only in respect of the state of mind in which they are performed; the objective content of the acts is the same.

¹⁶ See e.g. Sen., , Benef. IV 33 f.Google Scholar; Chrysippus ap. Epict. II 6, 9 f.; Epictetus himself continually tells men to act μεθ᾽ ν῾πεϛαιρέσεως (Bonhöffer II 267).

¹⁷ ep. 42, 1, cf. SVF I 44; III 526; 545; 668; Epict. IV 12, 19. Cf. Pliny, , ep. III 11, 5Google Scholar on Artemidorus, ‘virum aut sapientem aut proximum simillimumque sapienti’.

¹⁸ Imitation of the sage: see e.g. Hierocles, ap. Stob. IV 502, 9 fGoogle Scholar. The early Stoics had prescribed duties for ordinary men: see Brunt I 23 f. The doctrine that it was the purpose that counted even in their acts goes back to Cleanthes, cf. Sen., , Benef. VI 11, 1 f.Google Scholar, and is everywhere implicit in writers from Panaetius onwards, see e.g. n. 24. (For a contrary view, which I cannot discuss here, see I. G. Kidd in A.A. Long, Problems in Stoicism, 1971, ch. VII.) From Panaetius Stoics are mainly concerned with the conduct of imperfect mortals, see Cic., Off. passim, and e.g. Sen., , Tranqu. 7, 2Google Scholar; 11, 1; Benef. II 18 and 31, 1, especially those who are making moral progress, a common theme in Seneca's letters, notably 75, 8 ff. Cf. Bonhöffer II 144–53.

¹⁸ Cic., , Off. III 13Google Scholar. Extrapolation: Cic., , Fin III 33 with 37 f.Google Scholar; Sen., ep. 120; Musonius fr. XVIII Hense; Diog. Laert. VII 91 (Posidonius). Cf. Cic., Fin. II 45Google Scholar (Panaetian according to Pohlenζ, AF23.

²⁰ Appendix, paragraph 3 f.

²¹ See esp. Sen. ep. 94 f.

²² Tac., , Hist. IV 5Google Scholar. Tacitus is surely following (and endorsing) the Stoic laudation on Helvidius by Herennius Senecio (Agr. 2). I would conjecture (contra Murray, O., Historia XIV, 1965, 57Google Scholar) that this is also true of his following remark: ‘erant quibus adpetentior famae videretur, quando etiam sapientibus cupido gloriae novissima exuitur’; it was philosophers, rather than ordinary men, who disapproved of an ‘excessive lust for glory’ (cf. Agr. 4, 3), Stoics regarding glory as one of the ‘indifferent things’, yet even Marcus Aurelius found it hard to put away ‘that last infirmity of noble mind’, cf. Brunt II 14.

²³ II 10, 10 f.; IV 6, 26; 12, 16. Musonius fr. II implies that all men know what is right.

²⁴ III 7, 21 f.; Brunt, , Historia X, 1961, 215 ffGoogle Scholar. Epictetus of course attaches importance to the man's state of mind as well as to his overt actions, in somewhat the same way as Matthew 5, 27 f.

²⁵ ep. 120, 18, cf. Benef. V 14, 5.

²⁶ Appendix, paragraphs 5–9 (Epictetus); 12 (Seneca).

²⁷ Off. I 98: ‘ut enim pulchritudo corporis apta compositione membrorum movet oculos et delectat hoc ipso, quod inter se omnes partes cum quodam lepore consentiunt, sic hoc decorum, quod elucet in vita (cf. 102; II 32), movet adprobationem eorum, quibuscum vivitur, ordine et constantia et moderatione dictorum omnium atque factorum’. Cf. I 14 f.; 17; 66; 95 f; 126; 130; II 37 (decorum is present in every virtue, and every action, though most manifest in the control of passions). Cf. Orator 70–74, and see n. 48.

²⁸ For Panaetius' doctrines see Philippson, R., Philol. LXXXV 357 ff.Google Scholar; Pohlenz, M., Kl. Schr. I 100 ffGoogle Scholar. and AF passim; L. Labowski, Die Ethik des Panaitios, 1934. For decorum see off. I 93–151 passim.

²⁹ I 97 f. ‘Constantia’; 14; 17; 71; 102; Sen., Const. passim, cf. the old Stoic use of άμετάπτωτος and βέβαιος (SVFIV Index).

³⁰ I 111: ‘aequabilitas cum universae vitae turn singularum actionum’; in his commentary on Tusc. Disp. II 65 Pohlenz suggests that it represents the Stoic δμολογούμενος βιος.

³¹ I 98; 107, cf. Epict. III 23, 4 ff. (Quint. XI 1, 8–14 is reminiscent of this.)

³² I 107 ff.; 119 f. Cf. Epict. III 21, 17 ff.; 22, 50–2 and 86.

³³ I 115 ff.; 120 f.

³⁴ I 111–14; Epict., Ench. 37. Cic., , de orat. I 169Google Scholar illustrates the moral obligations that ensue from assuming a persona by one's own choice.

³⁵ Cf. n. 27: Cicero proceeds (I 99): ‘adhibenda est igitur quaedam reverentia adversus homines et optimi cuiusque et reliquorum. Nam neglegere, quid de se quisque sentiat, non solum arrogantis est, sed etiam omnino dissoluti.’ His usage of ‘reverentia’ or ‘verecundia’ in Off. implies this view: αιδώς, by contrast, in Musonius (e.g. fr. XXX) and Epictetus means ‘self-respect’.

³⁶ I 103 f.; 127; 129–140; 144 f.; 150 f. I believe the last passage to be basically Panaetian (Brunt I 26–34), but 127 illustrates how Romans could make duties out of their own conventions, which differed from the Greek. Epict. I 11, 12 f. could indeed deny that the conventions in some (non-Greek) societies were καλἀ και προσήκοντα.

³⁷ I 148, cf. III 63 (Hecaton); I 128, against Cynics and any Stoics who are ‘paene Cynici’, no doubt an animadversion on some views in Zeno's and Chrysippus’ books περἱ πολιτείας, cf. Diog. Laert. VII 33 f.; SVF III 743–56. Epictetus, who allows men with a special vocation to become Cynics (III 22), implies everywhere that most men should follow conventional moral rules. Cf. Hierocles ap. Stob. III 733 f.: one must obey the laws of one's own city and resist any attempt to violate or overturn them, . He approves Zaleucus' law that any one proposing a legislative change should do so with a rope around his neck. Further,. such customs are based on . For Marcus see Brunt II 16.

³⁸ Tac., , Ann. XIV 57, 3Google Scholar. Cf. Sen., , Tranqu. 9, 2Google Scholar.

³⁹ E.g. Caesar, , BC III 90, 1Google Scholar; 5, 4. Hence eventually ‘office’ in our sense, Suet., Aug. 37.

⁴⁰ Off. I 112, Plut., Cato Minor 59; 66; Cic. 38, 1. Although Munatius Rufus (n. 6) did not accompany Cato in the civil war, he obviously could, and surely would, have obtained first-hand reports on Cato's attitude and conduct, and Plutarch's testimony may be taken as reliable. Cf. Sen., Prov. 2, 10 fGoogle Scholar.

⁴¹ Tac., , Ann. XVI 26, 5Google Scholar, cf. 25, 1, where friends who recommended him to defend himself ‘securos esse de constantia eius disserunt’. Tacitus' source may well be Rusticus' Life (Agr. 2), the work of an eye-witness who shared Thrasea's ideas. Note also XIV 56, 2.

⁴² Epict. I 2,12–18.

⁴³ Tac., , Ann. III 6, 1Google Scholar (Tiberius' edict): ‘non enim eadem decora principibus viris et imperatori populo quae modicis domibus aut civitatibus’; VI 48, 1 (L. Arruntius justifying his suicide): ‘non eadem omnibus decora respondit.’

⁴⁴ E.g. Cic., Har. Resp. 61; Phil. VIII 29; Tac., , Agr. 9, 3Google Scholar. Plin., , ep. I 23Google Scholar does indeed reflect philosophical opinion (‘plurimum interest quid esse tribunatum putes, quam personam tibi imponas; quae sapienti viro ita aptanda est ut perferatur’).

⁴⁵ Appendix, paragraphs 5–9; 12.

⁴⁶ See e.g. Sen., ep. 5; 92, 11 f.; 94, 5; Musonius fr. VIII (35, 3 Hense): philosophy τάξιν δέ καὶ κόσμον καὶ εὐσχημοσὑνην περιποιεἰ και όλως τὸ ἐν καὶ σχέσει πρέπον Epict., Ench. 33, 2, 8, 11 and 14; 36; 40 f.; 45–8; Marcus I 7 f.; 16, 4 f. and 8 etc. Epictetus insists on the duty of cleanliness, partly for aesthetic reasons (IV 11, 25 ff., cf. Appendix 11) and partly to avoid offending others (ib. 14 and 32 f.).

⁴⁷ I 2, 28 f., cf. Musonius 88, 5 ff. (Hense); van Geytenbeck, A.C., Musonius Rufus V 3Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Ars Poetica 304 ff. He names Panaetius, in Odes I 29Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ E.g. SVF III 333–9; Sen., , Otio 4, 1 ffGoogle Scholar. It is a misunderstanding to ascribe to this metaphysical doctrine political and practical import.

⁵⁰ SVFIII 694–700, cf. 611–24.

⁵¹ Ibid. 697.

⁵² Ibid. 698.

⁵³ III 3, 9 ff.

⁵⁴ SVFIII 324; 694; Sen., , Otio 8, 3Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Cic., , Fin. III 62–4Google Scholar; 68 reflects earlier Stoic teaching; for Panaetius, cf. Off. I 11 f.Google Scholar; 17; 50–8; II 12–18 and probably (cf. n. 19) Fin. II 45.

⁵⁷ Plut., Lyc. 31. Cf. Musonius fr. XX (113 Hense). Epict. I 2, 2 apparently approved of the ritual scourgings.

⁵⁸ Thus Polyb. VI 3, 7 f.; 10; 48–50, though critical, admits Sparta to have a mixed constitution, under which many virtues were instilled into the citizens and which possessed long stability. In principle his views are quite traditional, cf. Walbank ad locc.

⁵⁹ E.g. Otio 1, 2; ep. 35, 4; 120, 19 ff.

⁶⁰ Diog. Laert. VII 131.

⁶¹ Many scholars have assumed that his ideas lie behind those of Polyb. VI or Cic., Rep. or both. But cf. e.g. Walbank, , Commentary on Polybius I pp. 296, 640 f., 644Google Scholar; V. Pöschl, Römischer Staat u. gr. Staatsdenken bei Cicero, 1962 passim., esp. 23; 118.

⁶² Plut., Cleom. 10 f.; 13; 16 (the Stoic Sphaerus assisted in reorganizing the agoge; for his books on Sparta, cf. SVF I 620Google Scholar; 629 f.; note also Persaeus' Politeia Lakonike, ib, 435, 454 f.).

⁶³ Wirszubski 145 f. is reasonable.

⁶⁴ Persaeus, Cleanthes and Sphaerus all wrote such works, SVF I 435, 481, 620, Musonius, fr. VIII. may give some idea of their contents. Persaeus actually served Antigonus Gonatas (SVF I 439–44) and Sphaerus Ptolemy Philopator (624 f.) as well as Cleomenes III.

⁶⁵ Panaetius (Pohlenz, , RE XVIII 422Google Scholar), Blossius of Cumae (Dudley, D. R., JRS XXXI, 1941, 94 ff.Google Scholar), Athenodorus Cordylio and Antipater of Tyre (Zeller, 606 n. 1). Cicero too had the Stoic, Diodotus, living in his household (Zeller l.c.).

⁶⁶ Hist. I 1; Strabo VI 4, 2, cf. Zeller 608.

⁶⁷ Panaetius himself defended as well as exemplified this vocation, cf. Cic., , Off. I 69–73Google Scholar; 92(cf. Pohlenz, AF 55).

⁶⁸ Sen., , Otio 3, 3Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ E.g. Otio passim; Brev. Vit. 18–20; ep. 19; 22; 28, 6 ff.; 29, 10 ff.; 41, 8; 53; 68; 72, 3; 73; 103, 4 f.; ‘evil communications’: 19, 10 f., cf. Epict. III 16; IV 2.

⁷⁰ Tranq. 6, cf. 1, 11 (Const. 19, takes a different view). The discussion of Athenodorus' views in 3 ff. illustrates the diversity and subtle gradations of Stoic opinion on the problem of political activity.

⁷¹ Appendix paragraph 3 cf. I 29, 44; II 23, 38 f.; III 7, 21; 24, 99; IV 4, 19-33; 7, 24.

⁷² III 15, 8–13; IV 3, 8 f.

⁷³ III 7, 31; IV 1, 40, 48, 95 and 148; 7, 19–24; 10, 20 ff.

⁷⁴ II 14, 25 ff.; III 15, 11 f.

⁷⁵ Cf. Brunt, Athenaeum (forthcoming).

⁷⁶ Brunt II 10 ff. with full documentation.

⁷⁷ Med. XI 18, 1. cf. XI 7; X 31, 2; VIII 1.

⁷⁸ Philol. LXXXVII, 1932, 358 ff. and 431 ffGoogle Scholar. Augustus: Gell. XV 7, 3; Claudius: Suet, Cl. 38; Pius: Fronto 168 N. Koestermann also cited Ovid, , Tr. II 219Google Scholar; Veil. II 124, 2; Lucan I 45; Tac., Dial. 17; Plin., , Pan. 7, 3Google Scholar; 86, 3; [10, 4 should be added]; HA Ver. 1, 6; Comm. 1, 8; Clod. Albin. 2, 3; Avid. Cass. 7, 1; Ael. 1, 1.; Eutrop. IX 27; Amm. Marc. XV 8, 14, and he collected much evidence for the concept that others too had each his statio in a sort of hierarchy, cf. also H. Emonds, Anhang to the 1963 edition of A. von Harnack, Militia Christi; it goes back to Plato, Phaedo 61E; Apol. 28D and probably to the Pythagoreans. For Stoic usage cf. Appendix 9 and 12. Note that Herodian often refers to conduct fitting (πρέπον) or unfitting to an emperor, I 15, 7; II 5, 4; III 13, 1; 14, 1; V 7, 5.

⁷⁹ I 16, 9; III 5; VII 7; 45 (quoting Plato). Cf. X 25; XI 9 on ‘deserters’. ‘Place’, XI 20, 2. ‘Vocation’ (ὑπόθεσις), VIII 1; X 31; XI 7 (cf. Epict. II 5, 11). Tasks (ἔργα), V 1; VI 2; 30, 1; VIII 2.

⁸⁰ Cf. esp. I 16 and VI 30 for Pius as his model; also VI 44 (for the ἰδία κατασκευή cf. 16, 2; IX 26); XI 18, 1 and fin.. The numerous references to justice and ‘social activities; e.g. VI 7, relate in his case to activities of a kind determined by his function as ruler.

⁸¹ Med. III 4, 3; V 31; VIII 3. Cf. Sen., , Clem. I 8, 1Google Scholar; for Antigonus, Aelian, VH II 20Google Scholar; W. W. Tarn, Antigonus Gonatas, 1913, 256. Cf. Musonius fr. VIII; XXXI; XXXIII; Dio Chrys. III 75 (probably Stoic). Tiberius regarded imperium as ‘onerosam servitutem’ (Suet, Tib. 24, 2), but it was obviously ‘noble’ too, bringing fame; see other texts in Béranger, 175 ff. Cf. Appendix 12.

⁸² Clem. 13, 3; 19, 8. Cf. n. 88.

⁸³ See n. 3, cf. Benef. V 4, 3; Epict. III 7, 33.

⁸⁴ Clem. I 1, 8; 10, 3; in Benef. VI 30–2 he complains that monarchs seldom permit such liberty. Cf. n. 150.

⁸⁵ I 1, 4.

⁸⁶ I 19, 8.

⁸⁷ Cf. nn. 76, 79 and 80.

⁸⁸ FIRA I² no. 102; Millar, , JRS LVII, 1967, 9 ff.Google Scholar, cf. Béranger 169–217.

⁸⁹ Dio LXXI 6, 2, cf. Brunt II 18.

⁹⁰ Stanton, E. R., Hislona XVIII, 1969, 570 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁹¹ Cf. Wirszubski 138: ‘Thrasea acted primarily as a courageous and upright Roman senator who held Stoic views, not as a Stoic philosopher who happened to be a senator at Rome’, endorsed by Syme 558. In my view Stoicism fortified both Marcus and Thrasea in performing the duties conventionally attached to their stations.

⁹² I 12, 17.

⁹³ IX 29; contra Farquharson ad loc. the text should not be amended, nor is it ironic: Marcus has in mind the Stoic doctrine that the effect of an action does not determine its value.

⁹⁴ Brunt II, 1–6.

⁹⁵ This cannot be shown in detail here.

⁹⁶ Paneg. 3–4, 1; Trajan really is ‘talis quales alii principes futuros se tantum pollicentur’, 24, 1. For Pius this sort of panegyric was ‘tam trita et adsidua materia’ (Fronto 163 N).

⁹⁷ I 16, 1(τὸ). μενετικὸν άσαλεύτως έπὶ τῶν έξητασμένων κριθέντων..καὶ τὸ άπαρατρέπτως τὸ κατ άξίαν άπονεμητικὸν έκάστῳ;3:(τὸ) ύπομενετικὸν τῆς έπὶ τῶν τοιουτων τινῶν καταιτιάσεως.. καὶ βέβαιον, cf. 7 fin.

⁹⁸ Tac., , Ann. IV 37 f.Google Scholar; Strabo VI 4, 2.

⁹⁹ See e.g. Suet., , Nero 10, 1Google Scholar: ‘ex Augusti praescripto imperaturum se professus’.

¹⁰⁰ ‘Civilitas’: e.g. I 16, 8; 17, 3; VI 30, 1; on the text see A. R. Birley, Marcus Auretius, 1966, 67 n. 4 against Maas, P., JRS XXXV, 1945, 145Google Scholar. See Pliny, , Paneg. 2, 3Google Scholar; 22, 1; 23, 1; 24, 2 (cf. M. Durry ad loc.) etc. Note Seneca on Gaius offering his foot to an aged consular to kiss: ‘non hoc est rem publicam calcare?’ (Benef. II 12), cf. Epict. IV 1, 17.

¹⁰¹ Brunt II 13 f. cf. n. 150.

¹⁰² I am not persuaded by Millar, F., JRS LXIII, 1973, 50 ffGoogle Scholar. Veil. II 89 (‘prisca ilia et antiqua rei publicae forma revocata’) surely gives the official view.

¹⁰³ Ve1l. II 89, 3; 126, 2.

¹⁰⁴ Sest. 137.

¹⁰⁵ Tac., , Ann. I 7, 7Google Scholar (cf. n. 146); Suet., , Aug. 53, 1Google Scholar; Tib. 27; Dio LVII 8, 2.

¹⁰⁶ Tac., , Ann. I 11Google Scholar (cf. Dio LVII 2); III 35.

¹⁰⁷ E.g. II 87; III 65, 3; IV 6.

¹⁰⁸ Suet., Aug. 54.

¹⁰⁹ Tac., , Ann. I 79, 5Google Scholar. Cf. III 60, 1: ‘imaginem antiquitatis senatui praebebat’.

¹¹⁰ IV 6, 2; Suet., Tib. 30–2.

¹¹¹ Ann. II 35; his ‘libertas’, I 74; II 43; Dio LVII 15, 9; cf. Sen. Ira I 18, 13 on his ‘rigor’ which he took to be ‘constantia’; for the distinction cf. Epict. II 15.

¹¹² FIRA I² no. 43, cf. Caracalla (!) ap. Dio LXXVII 20. Tacitus, makes Otho call the senate ‘caput imperii’ (Hist. I 84Google Scholar).

¹¹³ Paneg. 66.

¹¹⁴ Ann. XVI 28, 2: for the metaphor cf. p. 13 and Appendix 5–9 and 12.

¹¹⁵ Ibid. XIII 4, cf. n. 99.

¹¹⁶ Ibid. 49. (For restrictions imposed at Rome and perhaps elsewhere by Augustus and Tiberius see Dio LIV 2; Suet., Tib. 34.)

¹¹⁷ Cf. Sen., , Benef. II 18, 2Google Scholar; Dio Chrys. XXXVIII 3; Matthew 25, 21; M. Aur. II 16; also P. Tebt. 151; 703.

¹¹⁸ Ann. XIII 33; XVI 21, cf. Pliny, , ep. VI 29, 1Google Scholar.

¹¹⁹ Ibid. XV 20–2. Cf. Dio LVI 25, 6; Brunt, , Historia X, 1961, 216Google Scholar. Chrysippus' defence of private property (Cic., Fin. III 67Google Scholar) is equally valid as an apologia for social distinctions. ‘Stoic cosmopolitanism’ (Wirszubski 140) had no practical implications. Epictetus (II 23, 24 f.) rates the use of a slave above that of a domestic animal but below that of a citizen, and that of a citizen below that of a magistrate.

¹²⁰ Ann. XIV 12.

¹²¹ Ibid. XVI 22. Cf. E. Koestermann, Archivio Veneto, LXXVII, 1965, 5–11.

¹²² Ann. XV 67. (K. Wellesley, CR, XII, 1962,119 emends ‘oderam te’ to ‘amaveram te’, but ‘nee’ = ‘sed non’ (Gerber, Lex. Tac. 922 f.), and ‘oderam’ is needed as the direct answer to the question and is then taken up by ‘odisse’ in rhetorical emphasis.) Cf. XV 68; XVI 5; Dio LXIII 22.

¹²³ Ann. XIV 48. Stoics permitted lying for a good purpose, SVF II 132; 197; III 554; Epict. IV 6,33. But Epictetus would hardly have approved of Thrasea's flattery, cf. Ill 24, 44–50.

¹²⁴ XVI 22, 1 cf. Sen., Tranq. 3 f. Note Tiberius' resentment in a similar case, Ann. II 34.

¹²⁵ Agr. 3.

¹²⁶ Benef. VII 20, 3 (I doubt if Seneca meant his readers to think of Nero), cf. II 19, 2: Here. For. 923; Cic., , Offic. III 32Google Scholar. Cf. above all Trajan's reputed direction to his praetorian prefect, Dio LXVIII 16, 1². And note Marcus' approval of Brutus, I 14.

¹²⁷ Ann. XV 71, 4. Tacitus carefully distinguishes between geniune conspirators and victims of Nero's mere suspicion or dislike; but after Nero's death men were more likely to have fabricated complicity than innocence.

¹²⁸ E.g. I 29 passim; III 24, 103–7; IV 1, 86–90; 7 passim. Socrates' refusal to obey the ‘Thirty Tyrants’ is exemplary: e.g. IV 1, 160. Cf. n.ll. Stoics perhaps recommended suicide rather than resistance to Plautus, Rubellius, see Ann. XIV 59Google Scholar.

¹²⁹ PIR ² 1 730; H 128 and 60. Rogers, R. S., Cl. Ph. LV, 1960, 19 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. is perverse.

¹³⁰ PIR ² H 59.

¹³¹ Tac., , Hist. IV 6Google Scholar; II 91; Dio LXV 7.

¹³² Hist. IV 3, 3; 4, 3 (cf. Ann. XIV 12, 1; Dio LXII 15 on Thrasea); 7, 2.

¹³³ IV 9.

¹³⁴ IV 6, 3–8. Cf. Pliny, Paneg. 62. Here Helvidius admittedly proposed a departure from usual practice.

¹³⁵ Hist. II 10; IV 6; 40–4. Eprius: PIR ² E 84.

¹³⁶ Note Eprius' gibe in IV 43, 2, ‘senatum tuum’; 45, 1 indicates that the senate was disappointed at the failure of Helvidius etc., even though it feared to support him. Nerva did take his advisers from ‘the first men’ (Dio LXVII 2, 3), and Trajan allegedly chose as his friends those most odious to Domitian (Pliny, , Paneg. 45, 2, cf. n. 134Google Scholar).

¹³⁷ I infer the date from Suet., Vesp. 15 on the edicts Helvidius issued as praetor in 70 which ignored Vespasian; his attitude to the emperor had become colder since Dec. 69 (n. 132). Syme 212 puts Helvidius' death as late as 74 on the basis of an argument from Tac., , Dial. 2, 1Google Scholar, but cf. n. 145.

¹³⁸ Dio LXVI 12, 2; Suet., Vesp. 15. According to Dio he ‘praised democracy’; for Dio this means the Republic, see e.g. L 1, 1; LII 9, 5; 14, 4; 15, 5; LIII 5, 4; 13, 5; 17, 11; LVI 43, 4.

¹³⁹ Wirszubski 124–9 and on Helvidius 148 f.

¹⁴⁰ J. Kaerst, St. zur Entwicklung u. theoretischen Begriindung der Monarchie im Altertum, 1898, 27–33; Toynbee, J. M. C., Greece and Rome XIII 1944, 43 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. (with which in general I agree); Charlesworth, M. P., CAH XI 9 fGoogle Scholar. This is not a place to discuss rival views, e.g. R. Hoistad, Cynic King and Cynie Hero, 1948.

¹⁴¹ III 22 passim. Note that Epictetus certainly accepted, though he did not stress, the orthodox Stoic view, which had no place in Cynic teaching, that it was right to procure ‘the things of value’ (n. 15), cf. Bonhöffer, II 42–4.

¹⁴² Ann. XVI 22, 3 f.; 28, 3.

¹⁴³ Syme II 550 f. Dio's admiration for Marcus was, however, profound, LXXII 34–6. In LXVI 13 he evidently adopts Mucianus' charges against Stoics as well as Cynics, whom Mucianus did not distinguish.

¹⁴⁴ Contra Toynbee op. cit. (n. 140).

¹⁴⁵ M. Rostovtseff, Soc. and Econ. Hist. of Roman Empire ² 586 n. 16. See Xiphilinus 207, 26 ff. The dispute probably reached its climax in 71 when the succession was settled, as Titus acquired the tribunician power and began to share in Vespasian's imperatorial salutations. There may be an oblique forward allusion in Eprius' speech in Hist. IV 8, 3, where ‘Vespasianum … iuvenum liberorum patrem’ is irrelevant in the context.

¹⁴⁶ Cf. Suet., , Titus 6–7, 1Google Scholar. For the pretence that even successors chosen for dynastic reasons were chosen in the public interest cf. Suet., , Aug. 56, 2Google Scholar; Tib. 21, 3; Tac., , Ann. III 56Google Scholar; XII 25; Plin., , Paneg. 96, 5Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁷ Hist. I 16. The choice was in fact made in a coterie, and Tacitus is no doubt ironic, cf. Nesselhauf, H., Hermes LXXXIII, 1955, 477 ffGoogle Scholar. The description of Piso, in Hist. I 14, 2Google Scholar suggests that he was himself a Stoic; note that a collaborator of Helvidius, Curtius Montanus, proposed the restoration of his memory, IV 40. Cf. Pliny, , Paneg. 7, 5Google Scholar: ‘imperaturus omnibus eligi debet ex (not ‘ab’) omnibus’; 9, 1; 10, 1; yet Pliny too assumes that if Trajan has a son, he will succeed, 96.

¹⁴⁸ E.g. Hist. II 77; Jos., , BJ IV 596Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁹ Geer, R. M., TAPA LXVII, 1936, 47Google Scholar succinctly traced the survival of the dynastic principle in the second century; Severus' strange claim to be adoptive heir of the Antonines most forcefully illustrates its utility. Seneca, , Benef. IV 30 fGoogle Scholar. offers a sort of apology for it; thus, it was a matter on which Stoics could differ.

¹⁵⁰ Med. 114.

¹⁵¹ Pol. 1286 b 25.

¹⁵² I 2, 19–24, cf. 18; II 5, 28 f.; Ill 1, 23; IV 1, 40 and 139 f. for διαπρέπει cf. Marcus 15 and n. 28; very Panaetian.

¹⁵³ Ann. XIV 12, 1:1 think that Tacitus decries the servility of the senate rather than Thrasea's courage. On another occasion Thrasea was more successful, XIV 49, 1: ‘libertas Thraseae servitium aliorum rupit’. Agr. 42, 4, if applied to the Stoic opposition, is hard to reconcile with Tacitus' other judgements on its individual members; he had, it would seem, no single, coherent view.

¹⁵⁴ Dio LXI makes Thrasea say that the servility of other senators would have been pardonable, if it could have assured their safety. Cf. nn. 40; 42.