304. The world-state is not held together either by force or by state-craft, but by goodwill. We must be able say ‘Love is god there, and is a helpmate to make the city secure[14].’ This feeling of love and friendship grows up naturally between wise men, because they partake in the reason of the universe; so that we may equally well say that the bond of the state is the Logos (ratio atque oratio)[15]. Since reason and the universal law exist in the community from the beginning, law does not need to be created; it exists of itself, and by natural growth (φύσει)[16]. The writing down of laws is only a stage in their development[17].
Zeno’s revolutionary views.
305. The theory of the world-state, as first sketched by Zeno, found no place for any of the cherished institutions of the Athens in which it was preached. In the heavenly city must be neither temples nor images[18]; so far the aims of the Persian invader are to be carried out. The reason given is far from flattering to the artistic pride of the Athenians, for they are told that their magnificent buildings and statues of world-wide renown are only the work of common builders and workmen[19]. Nor must there be law-courts[20] or gymnasia. The practice of hearing both sides in a law-court is unreasonable, because if the plaintiff has proved his case it is useless to hear the defendant, and if he has not proved it, it is superfluous[21]. The training of the youth in grammar, music, and gymnastic is worthless[22], for the true education is in virtue. Coined money, as in modern communistic Utopias, should not be required either for commerce or for travel[23].
Women to be in common.
306. With regard to the position of women Zeno, agreeing to some extent with Plato, asserted the startling doctrine that ‘women should be in common, and men should mate with them as they pleased[24].’ That Zeno was suggesting, even for an imaginary state, any sort of loose living, need not for a moment be supposed; his continence was notable[25]; he expressly approves of marriage[26]; and the members of his school were honourably known by their aversion to adultery[27]. But Zeno could not base his theory of the relation of the sexes merely upon established practice. We may assume that he observed that in the world of animals and of birds mating was free[28], whereas in human society it was encumbered by national prejudices, class privilege, and personal jealousy; and in particular that woman was regarded as a chattel, contrary to the fundamental principle of his state[29]. By his doctrine of ‘free mating’ he aimed at the root of these evils. The gradual abolition at Rome of the restrictions on ‘connubium’ illustrates the application of his principle, just as the prohibition of ‘miscegenation’ in modern America illustrates its denial. Zeno may well have perceived how deeply the potentiality of marriage affects all social relations, and it is probable that the progress of Stoicism did much to break down the racial barriers that existed in Zeno’s time, but which had almost completely disappeared five centuries later throughout the civilized world. Another application of his doctrine is found in the life of Cato of Utica[30]. But its general meaning is clear: marriage exists not by nature, but by institution (θέσει); its law is human and mutable, but nevertheless within proper limits is one that may not be transgressed. By the side of the text of Zeno we still have the authorized comment of Epictetus[31].
Incest no abomination.
307. The Stoics did not shrink from insisting upon the abstract principle of the community of women even in an extreme case in which their doctrine encountered a violent prejudice. No natural law, they maintained, prohibits marriage relationship between near relatives[32]. The tale of Oedipus and Jocasta, which is so prominent a theme in the great Athenian tragedies, appears to Zeno to be a matter about which too much ado has been made[33]. For suppose the case that all the world were destroyed by flood except one man and his daughter; would it not be better that he should beget children by her, and that the whole human race should not perish[34]? In this reference to the traditional flood we may readily trace one reason why the Stoics insisted on their principle. For at the beginning of human history we are compelled to postulate an Adam and an Eve, a human pair related in their birth and at the same time united as parents of the race[35]. Go back to the beginnings of the universe; there too we must postulate the same combination of relationships, and so only can we understand the poets when they speak of Hera as ‘wife and sister of Zeus[36].’
Burial a convention.
308. Perhaps even more shocking to Hellenic feeling was Zeno’s indifference to the treatment of the dead, Burial was to him no sacred duty to the departed one; it was equally right to throw the body to the fire, as the Indians, or to the vultures, as the Persians[37]. Nor is there any need to condemn those nations amongst which the dead are eaten by their own relatives[38], for all these things are matters not of principle but of convenience, and to eat human flesh may still be desirable if circumstances require it[39], as for instance in shipwreck, or if a limb is amputated[40]. The problem of the disposal of the dead became a favourite subject of discussion in Stoic circles. Chrysippus wrote at length on the subject, comparing the customs of various nations as well as the habits of animals, in order to ascertain the law of nature. He reaches the conclusion that dead bodies should be disposed of in the simplest possible way, not being regarded as of more importance than the hair or nail-parings from which we part in life[41]. Cicero shortly sums up this discussion in the Tusculan disputations, and draws the conclusion that whilst the living must consider what it is fitting for them to do, to the dead man it is a matter totally indifferent[42]. In the imperial period this consideration is of importance as showing that the tyrant has no power after death[43].
Slavery.