Achard, Martin. 2001. "Logos Endiathetos Et Théorie Des Lekta Chez Les Stoiciens." Laval Théologique et Philosophique no. 57:225-233.
This paper is a discussion of Claude Panaccio's (*) interpretation of the Stoic view of logos endiathetos [internal discourse]. Two questions are more specifically
addressed : 1) what is the relation between logos endiathetos and lekta? and 2) is logos endiathetos tied to language or not?"
(*) Le discours intérieur. De Platon à Guillaume d'Ockham (1999).
Alessandrelli, Michele. 2013. Il Problema Del Lekton Nello Stoicismo Antico. Origine E Statuto Di Una Nozione Controversa. Firenze: Olschki.
"According to Michael Frede’s interpretation, the notion of lekton was developed in the context of the Stoic theory of causality, and conceived as a metaphysical entity. The
author of the book challenges this developmental explanation, upholding the linguistic origin of the notion of lekton, that would have been always conceived by the Stoics as a purely
semantic entity – that is, as the incorporeal meaning of a corporeal linguistic voice."
Annas, Julia. 1980. "Truth and Knowledge." In Doubt and Dogmatism. Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology, edited by Barnes, Jonathan, Burnyeat, Myles and Schofield, Malcolm,
84-104. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Baldassarri, Mariano. 1993. "Un Trattatello Plutarcheo Di Dialettica Stoica: De E Delphico Cap. Vi." In Studi Di Filosofia Antica Ii, 43-65. Como: Libreria
Pubblicato in tedesco in: Klaus Döring, Theodr Ebert (hers.) - Dialektiker und Stoiker. Zur Logik der Stoa und ihrer Vorläufer - pp. 33-46
———. 1993. "Il Simposio Di Bamberg Sulla Logica Degli Stoici E Dei Suoi Precursori." In Studi Di Filosofia Antica Ii, 67-107. Como: Libreria Noseda.
Symposion zur Logik der Stoiker und ihrer Vorläufer (Bamberg, 2-6 September 1991)
———. 1993. "Una Rilevante Disciplina Antica Documentata in Modo Nuovo (Discussione)." In Studi Di Filosofia Antica Ii, 109-123. Como: Libreria Noseda.
del libro di Karlheinz Hülser - Die Fragmente zur Dialektik der Stoiker - Stuttgart, Frommann Holzboorg 1986-1987.
———. 1993. "Osservazioni Sull'interpretazione Prantliana Della Logica Stoica." In Studi Di Filosofia Antica Ii, 125-138. Como: Libreria Noseda.
Barnes, Jonathan. 1980. "Proof Destroyed." In Doubt and Dogmatism. Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology, edited by Barnes, Jonathan, Burnyeat, Myles and Schofield, Malcolm,
161-181. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
———. 1982. "Medicine, Experience and Logic." In Science and Speculation. Studies in Hellenistic Theory and Practice, edited by Barnes, Jonathan, Brunschwig, Jacques,
Burnyeat, Myles and Schofield, Malcolm, 24-68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Translated in French as: Médecine, expérience et logique, in: Revue de Métaphysique et de
Morale, 1989, 94, pp. 437-481.
———. 1985. "Theophrastus and Stoic Logic." In Aristoteles. Werk Und Wirkung, Paul Moraux Gewidmet, I: Aristoteles Und Seine Schule, edited by Wiesner, Jürgen, 557-576.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Reprinted in: Reprinted in: J. Barnes, Logical Matters: Essays in Ancient Philosophy II, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2012. pp. 413-432.
———. 1993. "Meaning. Saying and Thinking." In Dialektiker Und Stoiker. Zur Logik Der Stoa Und Ihrer Vorläufer, edited by Döring, Klaus and Ebert, Theodor, 47-61. Stuttgart:
———. 1997. Logic and Imperial Stoa. Leiden: Brill.
———. 1999. "Aristotle and Stoic Logic." In Topics in Stoic Philosophy, edited by Ierodiakonou, Katerina, 23-53. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Reprinted in: J. Barnes,
Logical Matters: Essays in Ancient Philosophy II, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2012. pp. 382-412.
"Were Aristotle's logical writings known to the early Stoic logicians, and did Aristotle's logical ideas have any influence on the development of Stoic logic? The evidence which
bears on this question is perplexing: there are numerous pertinent texts which favour an affirmative answer; yet as we approach them they seem, like so many will-o'-the-wisps, to retreat -- and we
are stumbling in a treacherous marsh.
But the question is not without its fascination, in as much as it concerns the historical relations between two magnificent monuments to Greek philosophical acumen; and it may stand
some discussion. Section I presents some general ruminations. Section II deals with the preliminary question of whether the Stoics could in principle have read Aristotle. Section III assembles a
sample of the evidence which suggests that the Stoics did in fact read and study their Aristotle. And the remaining sections try to assess the value of this evidence.
The question is a historical one, and it invites consideration of a certain type of historical explanation. It is not merely a matter of whether the Stoics were aware of the
Peripatetic achievement in logic: it is a matter of whether this awareness influenced their own logical thoughts and caused them to think in this way rather than in that." p. 23
———. 2005. "What Is a Disjunction?" In Language and Learning. Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age. Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium Hellenisticum, edited by
Frede, Dorothea and Inwood, Brad, 274-298. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
That the Stoics were the instigators of the emphasis put on linguistic observations in ancient philosophy is uncontested. To what degree they are rightly accused of paying more
attention to expressions rather than to things is quite another matter, despite the fact that this reproach was voiced repeatedly in antiquity by authorities such as Galen and Alexander of
Aphrodisias and has lasted through the nineteenth century AD. If the Stoics have enjoyed a better press since the twentieth century it is because they were taken to be logicians for logic's sake,
committed formalists who stopped just short of inventing the appropriate type of artificial language. That this picture needs revision is argued by Jonathan Barnes (What is a disjunction?')
in a painstaking investigation of the treatment of connectives in Apollonius Dyscolus' essay with that title and Galen's Institutio logica. Barnes shows that Apollonius' text is coherent and
thereby undermines a long-standing prejudice about the Stoic impact on the development of traditional grammar: contrary to what has been assumed (via an unwarranted textual emendation in a
crucial passage of Apollonius Dyscolus) Apollonius does not criticise the Stoics' meddling with grammar, but rather their insufficient interest in some of its finer points. Far from adopting a purely
formalistic stance, the Stoics distinguished between natural and non-natural disjunctions and colligations. They used these considerations not only to distinguish between natural and occasional
disjunctions, but also between grammatical and semantical nonsense. Since no other text besides Apollonius' attributes the conception of 'natural disjunctions' to the Stoics it is a question whether
it actually is of Stoic origin rather than derived from the Peripatetics or an invention by certain grammarians. As Barnes shows, the interconnections and boundaries between natural language and
formal logic did not only play a crucial role in the treatment of disjunctions by Apollonius Dyscolus. They are also the basis of Galen's criticism of Stoic logic on the differentiation between
complete and incomplete conflict and implication, whose intent was to show what is and what is not a legitimate use of conjunctions. If that distinction is at stake, then Galen's view on disjunctions
and conjunctions turns out to be coherent, despite initial appearances to the contrary. The differing parties accused each other of not having paid sufficient attention to the pragmata;
however, their complaint is not that the facts in the world have been ignored, but rather that the meaning of the terms has not received sufficient attention." From the Introduction by
Dorothea Frede and Brad Inwood, pp. 11-12
———. 2009. "Grammaire, Rhétorique, Épistémologie, Et Dialectique." In Lire Les Stoïciens, edited by Gourinat, Jean-Baptiste and Barnes, Jonathan, 135-149. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France.
Becker, Oskar. 1957. "Über Die Vier "Themata" Der Stoischen Logik." In Zwei Untersuchungen Zur Antiken Logik, 27-49. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Berrettoni, Pierangiolo. 1997. "L'aksioma Diasaphoun to Mallon Nella Logica Stoica." In Grammatica E Ideologia Nella Storia Della Linguistica, edited by
Berrettoni, Pierangiolo and Lorenzi, Franco, 1-34. Perugia: Margiacchi - Galeno.
Bobzien, Susanne. 1986. Die Stoische Modallogik. Würzburg: Kõnighausen-Neumann.
Inhalverzeichnis: Einleitung 4;
I. Der Axioma-Begriff der Stoiker 11;
1. Die stoische Definition des Axioma-Begriffes 11; 2. Vorläufige Bestimmung der Wahrheitskriterien des stoischen Axioms 14; 3. Der gleiche Satz bezeichnet verschiedene Axiomata:
das definite Axioma 17; 4. Axiomata vergehen 18; 5. Axiomata, die ihren Wahrheitswert wechseln: meta - piptonta 21; 6. Das Bestehen des dem Axioma korrespondierenden Sachverhalts wird durch
das Axiome je nur für den Zeitpunkt der Behauptung dieses Axioma behauptet 23; 7. Zeitbezogene Axiomata 26; 8. Wahrheitsbedingungen der zeitbezogenen Axiomata 28; 9. Wahrheitswertwechsel der
zeitbezogenen Axiomata 26; 9. Axiomata mit Pseudodaten 31; 11. Nichtzeitbezogene Axiomata 34; 12. Zusammenfassung 36;
II. Die stoische Modallogik 40;
1.Die Definitionen der stoischen Modalbegriffe 40; a) Interpretation und Rekonstruktionsversuche vor Frede 40; b) Fredes Rekonstruktion der stoischen Modalbegriffe 45; 2.Korrelation
der stoischen Axioma- und Sachverhaltsmodi 50; 3. Die Sachverhaltsmodi und ihre überlieferten Bestimmungen 51;
4. Kontingente Axiomata und Sachverhalte 56; 5. Der Ausdruck 'epidektikon aletés / pseudos einai 60; 6. Die Modalitäten der nichtzeitbezogenen Axiomata 63; 7. Der Ausdruck
'äussere Umstände hindern...' 67; 8. Die Modalitäten der zeitbezogenen Axiomata 72; a) Die Modalitäten der Axiomata über die Gegenwart 73; b) Die Modalitäten der Axiomata über die Vergangenheit 76;
c) Die Modalitäten der Axiomata über die Zukunft 91; 9. Zusammenfassung und Schlussfolgerung bzgl. der Art der Modalitäten der zeitbezogenen Axiomata 98; 10. Modalitätenwechsel 103; 11. Aus Möglichem
folgt Unmögliches 105; 12. Die Rekonstruktion des stoischen Modalsystems von Mignucci und Vuillemin 113; 13. Zusammenfassung 118; Anmerkungen 121; Symbol- und Abkürzungsverzeichnis 142;
"ABSTRACT: Part I discusses the Stoic notion of propositions (assertibles, axiomata): their definition; their truth-criteria; the relation between sentence and proposition;
propositions that perish; propositions that change their truth-value; the temporal dependency of propositions; the temporal dependency of the Stoic notion of truth; pseudo-dates in propositions. Part
II discusses Stoic modal logic: the Stoic definitions of their modal notions (possibility, impossibility, necessity, non-necessity); the logical relations between the modalities; modalities as
properties of propositions; contingent propositions; the relation between the Stoic modal notions and those of Diodorus Cronus and Philo of Megara; the role of 'external hindrances' for the
modalities; the temporal dependency of the modalities; propositions that change their modalities; the principle that something possible can follow from something impossible; the interpretations of
the Stoic modal system by B. Mates, M. Kneale, M. Frede, J. Vuillemin and M. Mignucci are evaluated.
For a shorter, updated, English version of Part I of the book see my 'Stoic Logic', in K. Algra et al. (eds), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge
1999, 92-157. For a shorter, updated, English version of Part II of the book see my 'Chrysippus' Modal Logic and its Relation to Philo and Diodorus', in K. Doering, Th. Ebert (eds.), Dialektiker
und Stoiker (Stuttgart 1993) 63-84."
———. 1996. "Stoic Syllogistic." Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy no. 14:133-192.
"For the Stoics, a syllogism is a formally valid argument, and the primary function of their syllogistic is to establish the formal validity of arguments. Stoic syllogistic can be
understood as a system of formal logic that relies on two types of argumental rules:' first, five rules (the accounts of the indemonstrables) which were used to determine whether any given argument
is an indemonstrable argument (anapodeiktos logos), i.e. an elementary syllogism the validity of which is not in need of further demonstration (D.L. 7.79), since its validity is evident in
itself (Sextus, M. 2. 223);2 second, one unary and three presumably binary argumental rules, called themata, which allow one to establish the formal validity of non-indemonstrable
arguments by analysing them in one or more steps into one or more indemonstrable arguments (D.L. 7. 78). The function of these rules is not to generate non indemonstrable syllogisms from
indemonstrable ones, but rather to reduce given non-indemonstrable arguments to indemonstrable syllogisms. Moreover, the Stoic method of deduction differs from standard modern ones in that the
direction is reversed. The Stoic system may hence be called an 'argumental reductive system of deduction'.
In the following I present a reconstruction of this system of logic. The rules or accounts used for establishing that an argument is indemonstrable have all survived, and the
indemonstrables are among the best-known elements of Stoic logic. However, their exact role and logical status in Stoic syllogistic are usually neglected. I expound how they are integrated in the
system of deduction. The state of evidence for the themata is dismal -- although perhaps not hopeless. I suggest a reconstruction of the themata, based on a fresh look at some of
the sources, and then offer a reconstruction of the general method of reduction of arguments and some general remarks on Stoic syllogistic as a whole and on the question of its completeness (much of
which will not depend on the particular formulation of the themata I propose, but on more general considerations for a reconstruction).
Stoic logic is a propositional logic, and Stoic negation and conjunction are truth-functional. This has, naturally, led to comparisons with the 'classical' propositional calculus
(as e.g. presented in Principia Mathematica), including repeated examinations of Stoic syllogistic on completeness in the modern sense. The Stoic theory of deduction invariably comes out as
deficient, inferior, or simply outlandish in such comparisons, which has evoked adjusting additions and modifications -- tacit or explicit -- in previous reconstructions of the system. I suggest that
this is the wrong approach; that the classical propositional calculus is the wrong paradigm; that Stoic logic has to be considered first of all in its own light; and that, if one looks for
comparisons with contemporary logic, one can find some rather more interesting parallels when turning one's attention to non-truth-functional propositional logics."
(1) By an argumental rule I mean a rule that produces arguments from (zero or more) arguments, as opposed to a rule that produces propositions from (zero or more) propositions.
(2) The accounts of the indemonstrables, when interpreted as rules, are nullary argumental rules.
———. 1997. "The Stoics on Hypotheses and Hypothetical Arguments." Phronesis.A Journal for Ancient Philosophy no. 42:299-312.
The article argues (i) that the hypothetical arguments about which the Stoic Chrysippus wrote numerous books (DL VII 196) are the same as those mentioned five times in
"Epictetus" (e.g., Diss. I 25.11-12), and (ii) that these hypothetical arguments are formed by replacing in a non-hypothetical argument one (or more) of the premisses by a Stoic "hypothesis"
or supposition. Such "hypotheses" differ from propositions in that they have a specific logical form and no truth-value. The reason for the introduction of a distinct class of hypothetical arguments
can be found in the context of dialectical argumentation. Some evidence for the use of Stoic hypothetical arguments in ancient texts is discussed."
———. 1998. Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.
See Chapter 3 Modality, determinism, and freedom pp.
"A considerable number of our testimonies about the Stoic doctrine of determinism are concerned with modality. In particular the concepts of possibility and necessity were central
to some parts of its discussion. It seems that Hellenistic philosophers generally agreed that an action or, in general, activity does not depend on us and is not in our power, if it (or a
corresponding proposition) is necessary or impossible; or, put differently, that a prerequisite for something's depending on us is that it is both possible and non-necessary. This fact is invoked
both by the Stoics in defence of their theory and in the criticism of their opponents. But in the debate over fate and determinism, modalities played a role in a number of different contexts. They
are dealt with separately in the following sections:
- Chrysippus rejected Diodorus' modal theory, because of its built-in necessitarian consequences (3.1.2).
- Chrysippus developed his own set of modal notions, which, in themselves, do not lead to necessitarianism and which secure a necessary con
dition for that which depends on us (3.1.3-5).
- Some critics of Chrysippus and the Stoics developed arguments to show that there is a conflict between Chrysippus' modal notions and the Stoic theory of fate (3.2).-
- Some later Stoics replied to this type of objection by giving an epistemic interpretation of Chrysippus' modal notions (3.3).
- Critics of the Stoics objected that fate, qua Necessity, renders all events necessary; but this objection is not justified in Chrysippus' philosophy (3.4)." p. 97
———. 2002. "Pre-Stoics Hypothetical Syllogistic in Galen's Institutio Logica." In The Unknown Galen, edited by Nutton, Vivian. London: Institute of Classical
Studies, University of London.
The text of the Institutio logica is not found in Kühn (*) because its sole surviving MS was first published, not long after its discovery, in 1844, and thus too late for
inclusion. The reasons for once considering it spurious are unconvincing. Galen's Institutio is one of our main witnesses for a hypothetical syllogistic which predates Stoic propositional
logic. Galen draws from a number of different sources and theories including the "ancient philosophers" (hoi palaioi ton philosophon), including Chrysippus; and the "more recent" (hoi
neoteroi), post-Chrysippean Stoics or logicians of other schools who adopted Stoic terminology and theory."
[* Karl Gottlob Kühn, Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia. Leipzig: C. Cnobloch, 1821-1833, 19 volumes, reprinted Hildesheim, Georg Olms,1964-1997].
———. 2003. "Logic." In The Cambridge Companion to Stoics, edited by Inwood, Brad, 85-123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2005. "The Stoics on Fallacies of Equivocation." In Language and Learning. Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age. Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium
Hellenisticum, edited by Frede, Dorothea and Inwood, Brad, 239-273. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
As Susanne Bobzien shows, the Stoics had philosophical reasons for the development of strategies to handle `lexical' ambiguities, because they regarded fallacies of ambiguity as
complexes of propositions and sentences that straddle the realm of linguistic expression (the domain of language) and the realm of meaning (the domain of logic); moreover, there is also a pragmatic
component because being deceived is a psychological disposition that can be reduced neither to language nor to meaning. Not all arguments are, after all, as transparently fallacious as is the example
that exploits the ambiguity of 'for men/manly' and concludes that a 'garment for men' must be courageous because manliness is courage. Bobzien provides a detailed analysis of the relevant passages,
lays bare textual and interpretative difficulties, and explores what the Stoic view on the matter implies for their theory of language. She points up that the Stoics believe that the premisses of the
fallacies, when uttered, have only one meaning and are true, and thus should be conceded; hence no mental process of disambiguation is needed, while Aristotle, by contrast, assumes that the premisses
contain several meanings, and recommends that the listeners explicitly disambiguate them. Bobzien proffers two readings of the Stoic advice that we 'be silent' when confronted with fallacies of
ambiguity, and explicates how each leads to an overall consistent interpretation of the textual evidence. Finally, she demonstrates that the method advocated by the Stoics works for all fallacies of
lexical ambiguity." From the Introduction by Dorothea Frede and Brad Inwood, pp. 10-11
———. 2011. "The Combinatorics of Stoic Conjunction: Hipparchus Refuted, Chrysippus Vindicated." Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy no. 40:157-188.
Bobzien, Susanne, and Mignucci, Mario. 1999. "Logic. Iii. The Stoics." In The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, edited by Algra, Keimpe, Barnes, Jonathan,
Mansfeld, Jaap and Schofield, Malcolm, 92-176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
§§ 1-7 (pp. 92-157) by S. Bobzien; § 8 (pp. 157-176) by M. Mignucci.
Bochenski, Joseph. 1961. A History of Formal Logic. Notre Dame: Indiana University Press.
Translated from the German edition "Formale Logik" (1956) by Ivo
Reprinted New York, Chelsea Publishing Co., 1970.
On the Stoics see Part III. The Megarian-Stoic School pp. 105-251.
Brancacci, Aldo. 2005. "Antisthène Et Le Stoïcisme: La Logique." In Les Stoïciens, edited by Romeyer, Dherbey Gilbert and Gourinat, Jean-Baptiste, 55-73. Paris: Vrin.
Brittain, Charles. 2005. "Common Sense: Concepts, Definition and Meaning in and out of the Stoa." In Language and Learning. Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age.
Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium Hellenisticum, edited by Frede, Dorothea and Inwood, Brad, 164-209. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Charles Brittain also focuses on an important aspect of the philosophical analysis of language: its relation to reality and to the conceptual apparatus in the human mind, which on
most theories connects reality to language. To the naive mind, a concept like 'common sense' would not seem to be in need of development since it must have been in place since the dawn of human
reasoning. Nor is that the issue of Brittain's paper. Instead, he focuses on the development of a theory of common sense that is based on the connection between a stock of rational
conceptions that is the common possession of all humans and the words which map naturally onto those conceptions and so give expression to them. The Stoics themselves did not maintain that everyone
can acquire conceptions that successfully capture the essence of things; such success presupposes the uncorrupted mind of the wise; so these normative concepts do not seem to be an obvious source for
a theory of common conceptions that are open to all. As Brittain contends, it would nevertheless be wrong to attribute such a theory to the later Platonists despite the fact that they advocated the
existence of universally acceptable word-meanings that are open to every human being's grasp. For Platonists regarded these meanings as mere accidental features of the thing in question. What was
needed to establish a theory of common sense was a combination of the two theories: the 'preliminary definition' of a term with universal acceptance that lays claim to at least a partial grasp of the
thing's essence. En route to this solution Brittain offers, inter alia, a reconstruction of the mechanism at work in the formation of common concepts with abstract and general contents and
seeks to solve the conundrum of how definitions of the words corresponding to the concepts are formed. He does so by carefully sifting through different sources that employ Stoic vocabulary (such as
'preconceptions' or 'common conceptions') but that differ significantly from the Stoic view that all humans have at least a partial grasp of a thing's essential properties, rather than mere
accidental properties. This assumption paves the way towards a theory of 'common sense' that establishes a direct connection between the concepts and the objects of the world and explains how
ordinary language-speakers have at least an outline understanding of the world. Such a theory, so Brittain argues, is the upshot of Cicero's treatment of preconceptions, in the basis of definitions.
The rendering of 'preconception' (prolepsis) as shared by all - by communis mens and finally by communis sensus - justifies the attribution to Cicero of at least 'a
fragment of a theory of common sense' in civic and political matters that everyone in principle can understand. This was a theory that deeply influenced the later rhetorical tradition and thereby
became a lasting asset in cultural history." From the Introduction by Dorothea Frede and Brad Inwood, pp. 8-9
Brochard, Victor. 1892. "La Logique Des Stoïciens." Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie no. 5:449-468.
Repris dans: V. Brochard, Études de philosophie
antique et de philosophie moderne: XI. La logique des Stoïciens (Première étude 220-238); XII. La logique des Stoïciens (Deuxième étude 239-251), Paris, Vrin, 1954.
Brunschwig, Jacques. 1980. "Proof Defined." In Doubt and Dogmatism. Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology, edited by Barnes, Jonathan, Burnyeat, Myles and Schofield, Malcolm,
125-160. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
———. 1986. "Remarques Sur La Classification Des Propositions Simples Dans Les Logiques Hellénistiques." In Philosophie Du Langage Et Grammaire Dans L'antiquité, 287-310.
Rèimpimé dans: J. Brunschwig, Études sur les philosophies hellénistiques. Epicurisme, stoïcisme, scepticisme, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1995.
Translated as: Remarks on the classification of simple propositions in Hellenistic logics, in: J. Brunschwig, Papers in Hellenistic Philosophy, translated by Janet
Lloyd, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 57-71.
———, ed. 2006. Les Stoïciens Et Leur Logique. Paris: Vrin.
Actes du Colloque de Chantilly 18-22 septembre 1976.
Première édition 1978; deuxième édition, revue, augmentée et mise à jour (reproduit la pagination de l'édition originale).
Table des matières: Avant propos de la deuxième édition 7; Avant propos de la première édition 11; John M. Rist: Zeno and the Origins of Stoic Logic (non revu par l'auteur) 13; Ian
G. Kidd: Posidonius and Logic (revu par l'auteur) 29; Victor Goldschmidt: Remarques sur l'origine épicurienne de la "prénotion" (revu par Pierre-Marie Morel) 41; Anthony A. Long: The Stoic
Distinction Between Truth (me alétheia) and the True (to alethés) (revu par l'auteur) 61; Claude Imbert: Théorie de la représentation et doctrine logique dans le stoïcisme ancien
(revu par l'auteur) 79; George Kerferd: The Problem of syntakatathesis and katalepsis in Stoic Doctrine (revu par Thomas Bénatouïl) 109; Urs Egli: Stoic Syntax and Semantics (revu
par l'auteur) 131; Pierre Pachet: l'imperatif stoïcien (revu par l'auteur) 149; Françoise Caujolle-Zaslawsky: Le style stoïcien et la paremphasis (revu par l'auteur) 165; Richard Goulet: La
classification stoïcienne des propositions simples selon Diogène Laërce, VII 69-70 (revu par l'auteur) 191; Anthony C. Lloyd: Definite Propositions and the Concept of Reference (revu par
Jean-Baptiste Gourinat) 223; Jacques Brunschwig: Le modèle conjonctif (revu par l'auteur) 235; Gérard Verbeke: La philosophie du signe chez les stoïciens (revu par Danielle Lories) 261; Hervé
Barreau: Cléanthe et Chrysippe face au maître-argument de Diodore (revu par l'auteur) 283; Mario Mignucci: Sur la logique modale des stoïciens (revu par Paolo Crivelli) 303; Pasquale Pasquino: Le
statut ontologique des incorporels dans l'ancien stoïcisme (revu par l'auteur) 333; Andreas Graeser: The Stoic Categories (revu par l'auteur) 347; Janine Bertier: Une hénadologie liée au stoïcisme
tardif dans le commentaire d'Alexandre d'Aphrodise à la Métaphysique d'Aristote (990 b 9) (non revu par l'auteur) 369; Jean-Paul Dumont: Mos geometricus, mos physicus (revu par
Pierre-Marie Michel) 389; Joseph Moreau: Immutabilité du vrai, nécessité logique et lien causal (revu par Valéry Laurand) 405; Jonathan Barnes: La doctrine du retour éternel (revu par l'auteur) 421;
Maria Daraki: Les fonctions psychologiques du logos dans le stoïcisme ancien (non revu par l'auteur) 441; Bibliographie complémentaire 475; Index locorum 485-509.
Burnyeat, Myles. 1982. "Gods and Heaps." In Language and Logos. Studies in Ancient Greek Philosophy Presented to G. E. L. Owen, edited by Schofield, Malcolm and Nussbaum,
Martha, 315-338. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
On the Stoic Sorite paradox.
———. 2011. "The Origins of Non-Deductive Inference." In Science and Speculation. Studies in Hellenistic Theory and Practice, edited by Barnes, Jonathan, Brunschwig,
Jacques, Burnyeat, Myles and Schofield, Malcolm, 193-238. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Casari, Ettore. 1958. "Sulla Disgiunzione Nella Logica Megarico-Stoica." In Actes Du Viii Congrès Internationale D'histoire Des Sciences. Florence-Milan, 3-9 Septembre 1956.
Vol. Iii, 1217-1224. Paris: Hermann et C.ie.
Castagnoli, Luca. 2010. "How Dialectical Was Stoic Dialectic?" In Ancient Models of Mind: Studies in Human and Divine Rationality, edited by Nightingale, Andrea Wilson and
Sedley, David, 153-179. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cavini, Walter. 1983. "La Teoria Stoica Della Negazione." In Atti Del Convegno Internazionale Di Storia Della Logica, edited by Abrusci, Michele, Casari, Ettore and Mugnai,
Massimo, 229-234. Bologna: CLUEB.
———. 1985. "Il Papiro Parigino 2. Testo, Traduzione E Commento." In Studi Su Papiri Greci Di Logica E Medicina, 85-126. Firenze: Olschki.
———. 1985. "La Negazione Di Frase Nella Logica Greca." In Studi Su Papiri Greci Di Logica E Medicina, edited by Cavini, Walter, Donnini-Macciò, Maria Cristina, Funghi,
Maria Serena and Manetti, Daniela, 7-126. Firenze: Olschki.
Indice dei Contenuti: Nota liminare 9;
LA NEGAZIONE ARISTOTELICA
1. La sintesi dichiarativa: supplemento di frase e contenuto descrittivo 11; 2. Negazione semplice e affermazione trasposta 17; 3. Le asserzioni indeterminate: trasformazione
predicativa ed equivocità composta 26; 4. Portata esistenziale dell'affermazione 36; 5. Negative categoriche 41;
LA NEGAZIONE STOICA
1. Frammenti e testimonianze 47; 2. La teoria stoica degli axiomata 48; 3. Negazione semplice e composta 51; 4. Opposti contraddittòri 57; 5. Ambiguità della negazione
APPENDICE - IL PAPIRO PARIGINO 2
Testo e traduzione 86; Commento 107; Bibliografia 122-126
———. 1996. "Essere Ed Essere Vero. Sull'uso Assoluto Di Hyparcho Nella Logica Stoica." In Odoi Dizesios = Le Vie Della Ricerca. Studi in Onore Di Francesco Adorno, edited
by Funghi, Maria Serena, 141-145. Firenze: Olschki.
Celluprica, Vincenza. 1980. "La Logica Stoica in Alcune Recenti Interpretazioni." Elenchos.Rivista di Studi sul Pensiero Antico:123-150.
———. 1989. "Diocle Di Magnesia Come Fonte Della Dossografia Stoica in Diogene Laerzio." Orpheus.Rivista di Umanità Classica e Cristiana no. 10:58-79.
Colish, Marcia L. 1979. "The Stoic Hypothetical Syllogisms and Their Transmission in the Latin West through the Early Middle Ages." Res Publica Litterarum no. 2:19-26.
———. 1985. The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. Leiden: Brill.
Vol. I: Stoicism in Classical Latin Literature (1985); Vol. II:
Stoicism in Christian Latin Thought through the Sixth Century (1990).
See Vol. I, Chapter One: Stoicism in Antiquity § C) Logic pp. 50-60.
"Logic in the Stoic philosophy deals broadly with the way men think and speak about the world. The Stoics' theory of knowledge, their formal dialectic, and their theories of
language, grammar, rhetoric, and poetics show an intimate relationship to their physics and ethics. The logos of thought and speech is a cognate of the logos as the rational principle of the universe
and of the human logos which enables man to make the correct judgments on which his ethical life depends." pp. 50-51
Corcoran, John. 1974. "Remarks on Stoic Deduction." In Ancient Logic and Its Modern Interpretations. Proceedings of the Buffalo Symposium on Modernist Interpretations of Ancient
Logic, 21 and 22 April, 1972, edited by Corcoran, John, 169-181. Dordrecht: Reidel.
The purpose of this note is to raise and clarify certain questions concerning deduction in Stoic logic. Despite the fact that the extant corpus of relevant texts is limited, it may
nevertheless be possible to answer some of these questions with a considerable degree of certainty. Moreover, with the answers obtained one might be able to narrow the range of possible solutions to
other problems concerning Stoic theories of meaning and inference.
The content of this note goes somewhat beyond the comments I made during the discussion of Professor Gould's paper 'Deduction in Stoic Logic', in the symposium. I am grateful to
Professors Gould and Kretzmann for pointing out the implications of those comments as well as for encouraging me to prepare them for this volume.
One of the obstacles to a careful discussion of Stoic logic is obscurity of terminology. Clarification of terminology may catalyze recognition of important historical facts. For
example, in 1956 a modern logician suggested (incorrectly) in a historical note [A. Church, Introduction to mathematical logic, Princeton. 1956, fn. 529] that the distinction between
implication and deduction could not have been made before the work of Tarski and Carnap. But once historians had clarified their own terminology it became obvious that this distinction
played an important role in logic from the very beginning. Aristotle's distinction between imperfect and perfect syllogisms is a variant of the implication-deduction distinction and Gould 'Deduction
in Stoic Logic' suggests the existence of a parallel distinction in Stoic logic." p. 169
Crivelli, Paolo. 1994. "Indefinite Propositions and Anaphora in Stoic Logic." Phronesis.A Journal for Ancient Philosophy no. 39:187-206.
The verb hupotattein belongs to the jargon of Stoic logic and expresses the operation of subordination, which yields the definite propositions that are relevant to the
truth or falsity of a given indefinite proposition. The standard ("sentential") truth conditions of conditionals and conjunctions yield the expected ("quantificational") truth conditions of
indefinite conditionals and conjunctions, i.e. truth conditions suitable for "universal" and "particular" propositions."
———. 1994. "The Stoic Analysis of Tense and of Plural Propositions in Sextus Empiricus, Adversus Mathematicos X 99." Classical Quarterly no. 44:490-499.
———. 2009. "La Dialectique." In Lire Les Stoïciens, edited by Gourinat, Jean-Baptiste and Barnes, Jonathan, 41-61. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
———. 2010. "The Stoics on Definitions." In Definition in Greek Philosophy, edited by Charles, David, 359-423. New York: Oxford University Press.
The present study is a reconstruction of the Stoic theory of definition. The topic is vast and the sources are scarce. My focus is on the epistemological and semantic aspects of the
Stoic theory of definition.
The study's first section explains how important definitions were for the Stoics. The second section expounds the different locations of the study of definitions within the Stoic
system of philosophical disciplines. The third section discusses the epistemological side of the theory of definitions on which one of these locations relies. In particular, it addresses two roles
played by definitions: sharpening our conceptions in such a way that they are more successfully applied to or withheld from entities, and endowing our conceptions with a systematic structure that
makes them suitable for instruction. The fourth section discusses the link between definition and essence: it argues that the Stoics do not think that definitions reveal the essence of what is
defined. The fifth section discusses the position of definitions within Stoic philosophy of language: definitions are not linguistic expressions, but sayables of a special kind (distinct from
statables)." (p. 359).
Croissant, Jeanne. 1984. "Autour De La Quatrième Formule D'implication Dans Sextus Empiricus, Hyp. Pyrrh. Ii, 112. Essai De Mise Au Point." Revue de Philosophie
Ancienne no. 2:73-120.
Repris dans: J. Croissant, Études de philosophie ancienne, Bruxelles, Ousia, 1986, pp. 297-345.
Detel, Wolfgang, Hülsen, Reinhard, Krüger, Gerhard, and Lorenz, Wolfgang. 1980. "Lekta Elliphé in Der Stoischen Sprachphilosophie." Archiv für Geschichte der
Philosophie no. 62:276-288.
Dorandi, Tiziano. 2005. "La Tradition Papyrologique Des Stoïciens." In Les Stoiciens, edited by Romeyer, Dherbey Gilbert and Gourinat, Jean-Baptiste, 29-52. Paris:
J'ai organisé ma contribution en cinq sections: I. Noms de philosophes stoïciens et de leurs oeuvres dans les papyrus (d'Égypte et d'Herculanum). 2. Histoire de la Stoa de
Philodème de Gadara. 3. Textes stoïciens en tradition directe (livres ou fragments de philosophes stoïciens transmis par les papyrus d'Égypte ou d'Herculanum). Je considère d'abord les textes dont
l'attribution à un philosophe défini est certaine ou présumée telle: Chrysippe, Hiéroclès, Musonius Rufus; ensuite, je m'arrête sur le papyrus Parisinus 2 dont l'attribution à Chrysippe a été
contestée; enfin, j'examine des cas de fausses attributions. 4. Textes stoïciens en tradition indirecte (les extraits de la Politeia de Zénon de Citium cités par Philodème; ceux tirés des
œuvres d'Ariston de Chios, d'Antipatros de Tarse et de Diogène de Séleucie). 5. Pour terminer, je dresserai une liste de papyrus où se trouve une référence à la Stoa, aux stoïciens, ou des allusions
à des doctrines stoïciennes." p. 30.
Les pp. 35-37 sont sur les Recherches logiques (Logika zêtêmata) (fragmenta, P. Herc. 307) de Chrysippe.
Döring, Klaus, and Ebert, Theodor, eds. 1993. Dialektiker Und Stoiker. Zur Logik Der Stoa Und Ihrer Vorläufer. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Vorwort 7; Abkürzungsverzeichnis 8; Teilnehmerverzeichnis 9; Wolfram Ax: Der Einfluss des Peripatos auf die Sprachtheorie der Stoa 11; Mariano Baldassarri: Ein kleiner Traktat Plutarchs über stoische
Logik 33; Jonathan Barnes: Meaning, Saying and Thinking 47; Susanne Bobzien: Chrysippus' Modal Logic and Its Relation to Philo and Diodorus 63; Walter Cavini: Chrysippus on Speaking Truly and the
Liar 85; Theodor Ebert: Dialecticians and Stoics on the Classification of Propositions 111; Urs Egli: Neue Elemente im Bild der stoischen Logik 129; Michael Frede: The Stoic Doctrine of the Tenses of
the Verb 141; Gabriele Giannantoni: Die Philosophenschule der Megariker und Aristoteles 155; Karheinz Hülser: Zur dialektischen und stoischen Einteilung der Fehlschlüsse 167; Katerina Ieorodiakonou:
The Stoic Indemonstrables in the Later Tradition 187; Fritz Jürss: Zum Semiotik Modell der Stoiker und ihrer Vorläufer 201; Mario Mignucci: The Stoic Themata 217; Luciano Montoneri: Platon,
die Ältere Akademie und die stoische Dialektik 239; Luciana Repici: The Stoics and the Elenchos 253; Andreas Schubert: Die stoischen Vorstellungen 271; Gerhard Seel: Zur Geschichte und Logik des
therizön logos 291; Hermann Weeidemann: Zeit und Wahrheit bei Diodor 319; Literaturverzeichnis 331; Register 343-361
Drozdek, Adam. 2002. "Lekton. Stoic Logic and Ontology." Acta Antiqua.Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae no. 42:93-104.
For the Stoics, the lekton is as an intermediary between the thought and the object. They do not exist independently of the mind, but, at the same time, the mind does not
create them. Due to this status, they guarantee intersubjectivity of the rational discourse. They are incorporeals that do not exist, but subsist and the Stoic Logos-God guarantees their permanent
subsistence. The lekta are semantico-syntactic entities. Their role is analogous to the role of an interlingua used as a tool for automated translation of languages."
Dumitriu, Anton. 1977. History of Logic. Tunbridge Wells: Abacus Press.
Revised, updated, and enlarged translation from the Roumanian of the second edition of
"Istoria logicii" (4 volumes).
On the Stoics see: Vol. I, pp. 216-253.
Dyson, Henry. 2009. Prolepsis and Ennoia in the Early Stoa. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Ebert, Theodor. 1987. "The Origin of the Stoic Theory of Signs in Sextus Empiricus." Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy no. 5:83-126.
In his critical discussion of the dogmatic philosophers Sextus Empiricus expounds a Stoic doctrine which has conveniently been labelled 'the theory of signs'. This chapter of Stoic
philosophy offers a blend of logic and epistemology, a mixture bound to attract the interest of present-day 'ancient philosophers'. Hence, with the growing discussion focusing on the philosophy of
the Hellenistic period, this part of Stoicism was to get a fair share of attention. (1) Controversy has been flourishing over the merits and weaknesses of this theory; it has been compared with
tenets about the topic of signs held by earlier and later philosophers, yet in these discussions it has almost universally been taken for granted that there is a single theory of signs and that it
can be attributed unqualifiedly to the Stoics. (2)
Part of what I want to do in this paper is to challenge this assumption. I shall argue that the material relating to the theory of signs which is preserved in Sextus does not
reflect Chrysippan teaching, but goes back to Stoics antedating Chrysippus. To have a convenient term, I shall refer to the pre-Chrysippan Stoics as 'early Stoics'. (3) I shall further argue that the
theory of signs of the early Stoics was a harvest not grown in the fields of Stoic philosophy, but that it originated from the 'Dialecticians', a group of philosophers confused for a long time with
the Megarians and rediscovered as a group in its own right by David Sedley. (4) I shall further try to point out some modifications which this theory underwent as it was integrated into the
epistemology of the early Stoics. I shall not discuss the doctrine of signs advocated by the opponents of the Epicureans in Philodemus' de Signis -- almost certainly Stoic philosophers -- a
doctrine which has been ably discussed by David Sedley in a recent paper. (5)" pp. 83-84
(1) Cf. G. Verbeke, 'La philosophie du signe chez les Stoiciens', in Les Stoiciens et leur logique, ed. J. Brunschwig (Paris, 1978), 401-24; J. M. Rist, 'Zeno and the
origins of stoic logic', ibid. 387-400; M. Baratin, 'Les origines stoiciennes de la théorie augustinienne du signe', Revue des Etudes Latines, LIX (1981), 260-8; M. F. Bumyeat, 'The Origins
of Non-deductive Inference', in Science and Speculation: Studies in Hellenistic Theory and Practice, ed J. Barnes et al. (Cambridge/Paris, 1982), 193-238; D. Sedley, 'On Signs',
ibid. 239-72; D. Glidden, 'Skeptic Semiotics', Phronesis, XX (1983), 213-55. For discussions in the older literature cf. R. Philippson, De Philodemi Libro qui est peri semeion kai
semeioseon et Epicureorum doctrina logica (Berlin, 1881); P. Natorp, Forschungen zur Geschichte des Erkenntnisproblems im Altertum (Berlin, 1884), 127 ff; W. Heintz, Studien zu
Sextus Empiricus (Halle, 1932), 42-51; G. Preti, 'Sulla dottrina del semeion nella logica stoica', Rivista Cntica di Storia della Filosofia, XI (1956), 5-14.
(2) The only exception known to me is D. Sedley who wants to 'put into abeyance the widespread belief that Stoic doctrine is under discussion by Sextus Empiricus throughout
M VIII. 141-298 and PH II. 97-133' (Sedley, above n. 1, 241).
(3) The traditional division of Stoicism puts Chrysippus' Stoic predecessors together with his own school into the Old Stoa, separating it from middle Stoicism inaugurated by
Panaetius. This classification seems to be based on Stoic ethics, and understandably so. After all, it was their moral philosophy which, beginning with Cicero, made the Stoics so immensely
influential, and here the affinity between Zeno and Chrysippus is clearly stronger than the one between Chrysippus and Panaetius. Yet in logic and epistemology, there is no similar relationship
between Chrysippus and his predecessors. Here the great break comes about with Chrysippus, and we should group Stoic philosophers in this field accordingly.
(4) Cf. D. Sedley, 'Diodorus Cronus and Hellenistic Philosophy', Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, CCIII, N S 23 (1977), 74- 120.
(5) Cf. D. Sedley, above n 1.
———. 1991. Dialektiker Und Frühe Stoiker Bei Sextus Empiricus. Untersuchungen Zur Entstehung Der Aussagenlogik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Einleitung 13; I. Teil: Der Ursprung der stoischen Theorie des Zeichens. Erstes Kapitel: Die stoische Theorie des Zeichens bei Sextus Empiricus 29; Zweites Kapitel: Die stoische Theorie des Zeichens
vor dem Hintergrund der Berichte bei Diogenes Laertius 54; Drittes Kapitel: Dialektiker und frühe Stoiker zur Theorie des Zeichens 66; II. Teil: Die Dialektiker bei Sextus Empiricus. Viertes Kapitel:
Die Dialektische Klassifikation der Aussagen bei Sextus Empiricus 83; Fünftes Kapitel: Die Dialektische Klassifikation der Aussagen als Vorstufe der stoischen 108; Sechstes Kapitel: Die Dialektische
und die stoische Klassifikation der Fehlschlüsse bei Sextus Empiricus 131; Siebtes Kapitel: Die Dialektiker über Trugschlüsse und ihre Auflösung 176; Anhang I zum II. Teil: Diodor und die
'Dialektiker' in AM 10.111 209; Anhang II zum II. Teil: Dialektiker und Stoiker bei Apuleius 213; III. Teil: Der Ursprung der stoischen Theorie des Beweis. Achtes Kapitel: Der frühstoische Charakter
der Theorie des Beweises bei Sextus Empiricus 219; Neuntes Kapitel: Ubereinstimmungen und Unterschiede in den Referaten des Sextus zur stoischen Beweistheorie und das genetische Verhältnis ihrer
Quellen 232; Zehntes Kapitel: Von den Dialektikern zu Chrysipp -- der Weg einer Theorie in der Alten Stoa 287; Schlussbemerkung 303; Anhang: Texte aus Sextus Empiricus zu den Dialektikern und den
Stoikern 311; Literaturverzeichnis 326; Register 337-346.
English translation of the first part in: The origin of the Stoic theory of signs in Sextus Empiricus (1987)
———. 1993. "Dialecticians and Stoics on the Classification of Propositions." In Dialektiker Und Stoiker. Zur Logik Der Stoa Und Ihrer Vorläufer, edited by Döring, Klaus and
Ebert, Theodor, 111-127. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Egli, Urs. 1967. Zur Stoischen Dialektik.
Inauguraldissertation (Universität Bern).
Inhaltsverzeichnis: 1. Allgemeines zur Rekonstruktion der stoischen Dialektik 2; 2. Diokles bei Diogenes Laertios 7.49-82 8; 3. Quellengeschichtliche Nebenergebnisse zu Diogenes und
Sextos 59; 4. Nebenergebnisse zu Galens Einführung in die Logik 74; Zusammenfassung und Ausblick 87; Erklärung der wichstigsten Abkürzungen 106; Bibliographie 107-113.
———. 1983. "The Stoic Theory of Arguments." In Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, edited by Bäuerle, Rainer, Schwarze, Christoph and Stechow, Arnim von, 79-96.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Contents: 1. Relevance of the topic; 2. Concepts involved; 2.1 Arguments; 2.2 Simple and logical concepts; 2.3 A hypothesis on Stoic deduction theory; 3. A
commentary on Sextus' passage on invalidity [Adv. Math. 8, 292-294]; 3.1 The context; 3.2 The passage; 4. Deductions; 5. Completeness; 6. Conclusion; Appendix: Possible existence of cut free
"1. Relevance of the Topic
The Stoíc theory of arguments to my mind illustrates one point: If certain ancient doctrines had been properly understood, the corresponding modern theories would have been
developed sooner. We would have had a propositional logic by 1800, we would have had a serious syntax long before transformational grammar. Stoics, in addition, had already something like a speech
act theory. In one or two cases modern theories have directly been elaborations of Stoico-Megarian developments: First, Prior's tense logic was influenced by reflections on Diodorus. Second, Kripke's
semantics for modal logic was directly influenced by Prior's exposition of the theory of modality of Diodorus Kronos. Compare his truth definition of modal statements with that of Kripke:
p is possible now iff p is true now or will be true later (Diodorus).
p is possible in our world iff p is true in a world accessìble from ours (Kripke).
Kripke replaced points of time by possible worlds and the relation "to be now or later" by the accessibility relation. It is not impossible that further study of Stoic theories will
contribute in a similar way to modern discussions.
It has been proved by Lukasìewìcz and Mates that the Stoic theory of what they called syllogisms contained something we might call propositional logic in modern terms. Mates also
brought up the problem of deciding whether
1) Stoics contended that their propositional logic was complete; and whether
2) Stoic logic actually was complete according to modern criteria (Mates 1961, 81-82).
As to the first question, the evidence that Mates adduces is not wholly conclusive, for the passages are little more than consequences of the definition of syllogisms (= valid
arguments): According to this definition a syllogism is either a basic syllogism (anapodeiktos) or derived from basic syllogisms by the deductive rules (themata) (DL 7.78). From
this definition follows that every syllogism (which is not basic) is derived from the basic ones -- the passages adduced by Mates say just that. If it is not clear whether the Stoics actually held
that their propositional logic was complete, Becker's attempt to prove the completeness of Stoic logic by reconstructing the missing pieces of the deductive apparatus may seem futile. He has
also been severely criticised by Mueller, Frede and others because it is not clear
(a) whether the Stoic conditional sign ei is to be taken as a truth-functional connective or not,
(b) how the Chrysippean exclusion of arguments with but one premise can be reconciled with Becker's full use of such arguments in his proofs of semantic completeness,
(c) whether the completeness extended from the part of the system involving only conjunction and negation to other connectives.
I now want to reopen the question by arguing that a kind of completeness is indeed to be found in Stoic passages (though not in those Mates adduced) and that an examination of the
sources renders some plausibility to the thesis that the Stoics had a system of deduction rules which can be proved adequate according to modern criteria.
(Some material on the same matter is already contained in Egli 1967, 54 and Egli 1977 [Review of Frede 1974. Gnomon 49, 1977, 784-790].)" pp. 789-80.
———. 1993. "Neue Elemente Im Bild Der Stoischen Logik." In Dialektiker Und Stoiker. Zur Logik Der Stoa Und Ihrer Vorläufer, edited by Döring, Klaus and Ebert, Theodor,
129-139. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Evans, John David Gemmill. 2011. "The Old Stoa and the Truth-Value of Oaths." Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society no. 20:44-47.