Note 23 — Chapter III · HISTORY OF THE STOICS UNTIL THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY B.C.

Aristo, son of Miltiades, a Chian, discussed most fully by Krische, Forsch. 405, known as the Siren, because of his persuasive powers, and also as the Baldhead, was a pupil of Zeno (Diog. 37; 160; Cic. N. D. i. 14, 37; Acad. ii. 42, 130; Sen. Ep. 94, 2), but is said, during Zeno’s illness, to have joined Polemo (Diocl. in Diog. 162). Although it may be objected that his teaching does not diverge in the direction of Platonism, but rather in the opposite direction, still Polemo’s contempt (Diog. iv. 18) for dialectic may at one time have had its attractions for him. It is a better established fact that his attitude towards pleasure was less indifferent than it ought to have been, according to his principles (Eratos and Apollophanes in Athen. vii. 281, c); but the charge of flattery towards his fellow-pupil Persæus appears not to be substantiated (Athen. vi. 251, c). His letters show that he was on intimate terms with Cleanthes (Themist. Or. xxi. p. 255, b). His loquacity is said to have been displeasing to Zeno (Diog. vii. 18). He appeared as a teacher in the Cynosarges, Antisthenes’ old locality (Diog. 161), thus claiming descent from Cynicism. Of his numerous pupils (Diog. 182; Plut. C. Princ. Philos. i. 4. p. 776), two are mentioned by Diogenes, 161; Miltiades and Diphilus. Athenæus names two more: Apollophanes, and the celebrated Alexandrian sage, Eratosthenes, both of whom wrote an ‘Aristo.’ The latter is also named by Strabo, i. 2, 2, p. 15, Suid. Ἐρατοσθ. Apollophanes, whilst adopting Aristo’s views of virtue in Diog. vii. 92, did not otherwise adopt his ethics. His natural science is mentioned by Diog. vii. 140, his psychology by Tertull. De An. 14. Since Eratosthenes was born 276 B.C., Aristo must have been alive in 250 B.C., which agrees with his being called a cotemporary and opponent of Arcesilaus (Strabo, l.c.; Diog. vii. 162; iv. 40, and 33). According to Diog. vii. 164, he died of sunstroke. Not only had his School disappeared in the time of Strabo and Cicero (Cic. Legg. i. 13, 38; Fin. ii. 11, 35; v. 8, 23; Tusc. v. 30, 85; Off. i. 2, 6; Strabo, l.c.), but no traces of it are found beyond the first generation. The writings enumerated by Diog. vii. 163, with the single exception of the letter to Cleanthes, are said to have been attributed by Panætius and Sosicrates to the Peripatetic; but Krische’s remarks, p. 408, particularly after Sauppe’s demurrer (Philodemi de Vit. Lib. X. Weimar, 1853, p. 7), raise a partial doubt as to the accuracy of this statement. The fragments, at least, of Ὁμοιώματα preserved by Stobæus seem to belong to a Stoic. Perhaps from the Ὅμοια come the statements in Sen. Ep. 36, 3; 115, 8; Plut. De Aud. 8, p. 42; De Sanit. 20, p. 133; De Exil. 5, p. 600; Præc. Ger. Reip. 9, 4, p. 804; Aqua an Ign. Util. 12, 2, p. 958. ↑