Another grammarian belonging to the School of Diogenes is Zenodotus (Diog. vii. 30), supposing him to be identical with the Alexandrian Zenodotus (Suid. Ζηνόδ.). A third is perhaps the celebrated Aristarchus, whom Scymnus calls a fellow-disciple of Apollodorus. A fourth, Crates of Mallos, called by Strabo, xiv. 5, 16, p. 676, the instructor of Panætius, by Suid. a Stoic philosopher, who in Varro, Lat. ix. 1, appeals to Chrysippus against Aristarchus. Antipater’s pupils are Heraclides of Tarsus (Diog. vii. 121); Sosigenes (Alex. Aphr. De Mixt. 142); C. Blossius of Cumæ (Plut. Ti. Gracch. 8, 17 and 20; Val. Max. iv. 7, 1; Cic. Læl. 11, 37). Eudromus, mentioned by Diog. vii. 39, appears to belong to the time between Chrysippus and Panætius. Between Zeno of Tarsus and Diogenes, Diog. vii. 84, names a certain Apollodorus, the author, probably, of the fragments in Stob. Ecl. i. 408 and 520. Possibly, however, he may be identical with the Apollodorus mentioned by Cic. N. D. i. 34, 93, and consequently a cotemporary of Zeno. In Diog. vii. 39, he is called Ἀπολλόδωρος ὁ Ἔφιλλος, instead of which Cobet reads Ἀπολλόδωρος καὶ Σύλλος. Apollodorus the Athenian, mentioned by Diog. vii. 181, is without doubt the Epicurean, known to us also from Diog. x. 2 and 25. Krische, Forsch. 26, thinks even that the passages in Cicero refer to him. The age of Diogenes of Ptolemais (Diog. vii. 41), of Œnopides mentioned by Stob. Ecl. i. 58; Macrob. Sat. i. 17, together with Diogenes and Cleanthes, and of Nicostratus, mentioned by Philodemus περὶ θεῶν διαγωγῆς Tab. I. 2 and perhaps by Artemidorus Oneirocrit. I. 2 Sch. is quite unknown. Nicostratus, however, must have written before the middle of the first century before Christ. He is probably distinct from the Nicostratus who wrote on the Aristotelian categories in an adverse spirit, and is referred to by Simpl. in Categ. Schol. in Arist. 40, a; 24, b, 16; 41, b, 27; 47, b, 23; 49, b, 43; 72, b, 6; 74, b, 4; 81, b, 12; 83, a, 37; 84, a, 28; 86, b, 20; 87, b, 30; 88, b, 3 and 11; 89, a, 1; 91, a, 25; b, 21. For this Nicostratus used the treatise of a certain Roman Lucius, whereas Roman treatises on the Categories can hardly have existed before the time of Philodemus, a cotemporary of Cicero. However, both Lucius and Nicostratus appear to have been Stoics. [67] Already Simpl. in Cat. Schol. in Arist. 49, a, 16, says: παρὰ τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς, ὧν ἐφ’ ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ διδασκαλία καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν συγγραμμάτων ἐπιλέλοιπεν. [68] Plut. Plac. Pro. 2: οἱ μὲν οὖν Στωϊκοὶ ἔφασαν, τὴν μὲν σοφίαν εἶναι θείων τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων ἐπιστήμην· τὴν δὲ φιλοσοφίαν ἄσκησιν τέχνης ἐπιτηδείου· ἐπιτήδειον δ’ εἶναι μίαν καὶ ἀνωτάτω τὴν ἀρετήν· ἀρετὰς δὲ τὰς γενικωτάτας τρεῖς, φυσικὴν, ἠθικὴν, λογικὴν, κ.τ.λ. See also Diog. vii. 92.