1 On the importance of providence in Stoic doctrine and its ubiquity in Stoic writings cf. De Stoicorum Repugnantiis, 1050 A - B ( = S. V. F. ii, frag. 937), 1051 E ( = S. V. F. ii, frag. 1115); De Communibus Notitiis, 1075 E ( = S. V. F. ii, frag. 1126), 1077 D - E ( = S. V. F. ii, frag. 1064); Cicero, De Natura Deorum, iii. 92 ( = S. V. F. ii, frag. 1107); Diogenes Laertius, vii. 138-139 ( = S. V. F. ii, frag. 634).
2 Plutarch ascribes to Pindar this epithet of Zeus in Quaest. Conviv. 618 B, De Sera Numinis Vindicta, 550 A, De Communibus Notitiis, 1065 E, and in Praecepta Gerendae Reipublicae, 807 C uses it of the statesman; cf. Pindar, frag. 48, Bowra = 57, Bergk and Schroeder = 66, Turyn.
3 This terminology is more Platonic than Stoic: cf. Quaest. Conviv. 720 B - C, De An. Proc. in Timaeo, 1017 A; cf. Timaeus, 28 C and contrast S. V. F. ii, frag. 323 a.
4 Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1075 A 11-15, and Diogenes Laertius, vii. 137 ( = S. V. F. ii, frag. 526): (θεός) . . . δημιουργὸς ὢν τῆς διακοσμήσεως.
5 Wyttenbach's correction is assured by Timaeus, 41 B 4-6, of which this is meant to be an echo.
6 The Stoics held that the heavenly bodies consist of fire, which, though they call it αἰθήρ, is not a ‘fifth essence’ like Aristotle's (cf. Diogenes Laertius, vii. 137 = S. V. F. ii, frag. 580; S. V. F. ii, frag. 682). In De Stoicorum Repugnantiis, 1053 E Plutarch quotes Chrysippus to the effect that τὸ πῦρ ἀβαρὲς ὂν ἀνωφερες εἶϝαι ( = S. V. F. ii, frag. 434). In accordance with this, he here argues, the Stoics are not justified in explaining the circular motion of the heavenly bodies as ‘natural’ in the way that Aristotle did.