SVF I.78

Original — Ancient Greek

πρὸς τὸν εἰπόντα μηδὲ δίκην δικάσῃς πρὶν ἀμφοῖν μῦθον ἀκούσῃς ἀντέλεγεν ὁ Ζήνων, τοιούτῳ τινὶ λόγῳ χρώμενος· εἴτ' ἀπέδειξεν ὁ πρότερος εἰπών, οὐκ ἀκουστέον τοῦ δευτέρου λέγοντος· πέρας γὰρ ἔχει τὸ ζητούμενον· εἴτ' οὐκ ἀπέδειξεν· ὅμοιον γὰρ ὡς εἰ μηδὲ ὑπήκουσε κληθεὶς ἢ ὑπακούσας ἐτερέτισεν· ἤτοι δ' ἀπέδειξεν ἢ οὐκ ἀπέδειξεν· οὐκ ἀκουστέον ἄρα τοῦ δευτέρου λέγοντος.

StoicOs Translation

Against him who said “judge no case before you have heard the tale of both sides”, Zeno argued back, using an argument of this kind: if the first speaker proved his case, the second speaker must not be heard — for the question is settled; if he did not prove it — then it is as if he had not answered when summoned, or, having answered, had merely hummed; but either he proved it or he did not prove it; therefore the second speaker must not be heard.

Context

Plutarch's De Stoicorum repugnantiis is a sustained polemic that collects Stoic sayings to expose alleged self-contradictions. Here he reports a dilemma Zeno constructed against the celebrated verse-proverb about hearing both sides — probably a logical exercise showcasing dilemma-form, which Plutarch weaponises against the school's own courtroom practice.

Source notes:Greek text verified against H. von Arnim, SVF I (1903), no. 78, p. 23 (scanned page). De Stoicorum repugnantiis is an explicitly anti-Stoic polemic: Plutarch cites the argument to convict the Stoics of inconsistency — hostile framing to be kept distinct from the reported content. The reading ἐτερέτισεν (“hummed”) was verified letter by letter; the proverb is printed without quotation marks; von Arnim's apparatus notes “de versu cf. Bergk” (it is a verse proverb) and the school's debt to Antisthenes. Second witness under the same number: Scholia to Lucian, De calumnia 8.

What the source actually tells us

A later report and paraphrase inside a hostile work: Plutarch himself signals paraphrase with “using an argument of this kind” (τοιούτω τινὶ λόγω) — the dilemma's structure is Zeno's, its wording Plutarch's. The attribution is explicit; the polemical purpose (convicting Stoics of inconsistency) is Plutarch's agenda, not part of the doctrine. The verse-proverb Zeno attacks is quoted by Plutarch without attribution to any author.

Philosophical meaning

The dilemma is a masterclass in Zeno's compressed logic: exhaust the alternatives, and the comfortable proverb collapses. Its point is almost certainly not judicial advice but logical training — showing how a two-horned argument corners an unexamined maxim. That later Stoics served as judges gave Plutarch his opening for the charge of inconsistency.

Scholarly uncertainty

Original context and purpose are lost: whether Zeno offered this as serious jurisprudence, dialectical display, or teaching example cannot be determined from Plutarch's hostile excerpt. The rare verb ἐτερέτισεν (“hummed”, i.e. gave no real answer) is textually secure but its exact nuance is discussed.

Go deeper

• Study Stoic Logic in the Academy →
• Judgment and justice in Stoic Ethics →