[168] See p. 84, 4. This question was raised in the Stoic School itself. Sextus at least, not hesitating to attack the Stoic teaching from this side (Math. viii. 262), speaks of an ἀνήνυτος μάχη in reference to the ὕπαρξις of λεκτὰ, and he remarks (viii. 258): ὁρῶμεν δὲ ὡς εἰσί τινες οἱ ἀνῃρηκότες τὴν ὕπαρξιν τῶν λεκτῶν, καὶ οὐχ οἱ ἑτερόδοξοι μόνον, οἷον οἱ Ἐπικούρειοι, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ, ὡς οἱ περὶ τὸν Βασιλείδην, οἷς ἔδοξε μηδὲν εἶναι ἀσώματον. Probably the question was first raised by later Stoics, when pressed by their opponents. Basilides was the teacher of Marcus Aurelius. Otherwise the existence of λεκτὰ was spoken of as quite natural. [169] Sext. Math. viii. 70, see above p. 83, 2: τῶν δὲ λεκτῶν τὰ μὲν ἐλλιπῆ καλοῦσι τὰ δὲ αὐτοτελῆ. Various kinds of propositions are then enumerated as being αὐτοτελῆ. Following the same authority, (Diocles? see Diog. 48) Diog. 63, says: φασὶ δὲ τὸ λεκτὸν εἶναι τὸ κατὰ φαντασίαν λογικὴν ὑφιστάμενον. τῶν δὲ λεκτῶν τὰ μὲν λέγουσιν εἶναι αὐτοτελῆ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ, τὰ δὲ ἐλλιπῆ. ἐλλιπῆ μὲν οὖν ἔστι τὰ ἀναπάρτιστον ἔχοντα τὴν ἐκφορὰν, οἷον Γράφει· ἐπιζητοῦμεν γὰρ, Τίς; αὐτοτελῆ δ’ ἐστὶ τὰ ἀπηρτισμένην ἔχοντα τὴν ἐκφορὰν, οἷον Γράφει Σωκράτης. Prantl in saying, p. 438, that the Stoics divide judgments (ἀξιώματα) into complete and incomplete, is inaccurate. Only λεκτὰ are so divided, but λεκτὸν has a wider meaning than that of a logical judgment. ἀξιώματα are only one form of λεκτὰ αὐτοτελῆ. [170] Plut. Qu. Plat. x. 1, 2, p. 1008. A judgment (πρότασις or ἀξίωμα) ἐξ ὀνόματος καὶ ῥήματος συνέστηκεν, ὧν τὸ μὲν πτῶσιν οἱ διαλεκτικοὶ, τὸ δὲ κατηγόρημα καλοῦσιν. The terms πτῶσις and κατηγόρημα belonging to the Stoic terminology, the Stoics must be meant by οἱ διαλεκτικοί. In the first class of words they distinguish ὄνομα and προσηγορία, limiting ὄνομα to proper names, and understanding by προσηγορία all general terms, whether substantives or adjectives (Diog. 58; Bekker’s Anecd. ii. 842). According to Stob. Ecl. i. 332, πτῶσις was only used to express προσηγορία. Diog. 192, mentions two books of Chrysippus περὶ τῶν προσηγορικῶν. For the meaning of κατηγόρημα or ῥῆμα, the verb, consult Diog. 58 and 64; Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 14; Cic. Tusc. iv. 9, 21; Porphyr. in Ammon. De Inter. 37, a. According to Apollon. De Construct. i. 8, ῥῆμα was used in strict accuracy only for the infinitive, other forms being called κατηγορήματα. [171] The distinction between ὄνομα and κατηγόρημα was somewhat bluntly referred to this logical and metaphysical antithesis by the Stoics, as may be seen in Stob. Ecl. i. 336: αἴτιον δ’ ὁ Ζήνων φησὶν εἶναι δι’ ὃ, οὗ δὲ αἴτιον συμβεβηκός· καὶ τὸ μὲν αἴτιον σῶμα, οὗ δὲ αἴτιον κατηγόρημα.... Ποσειδώνιος ... τὸ μὲν αἴτιον ὂν καὶ σῶμα, οὗ δὲ αἴτιον οὔτε ὂν οὔτε σῶμα, ἀλλὰ συμβεβηκὸς καὶ κατηγόρημα. Hence for the latter the names σύμβαμα and παρασύμβαμα. See following note.