summarize the following text: distinction between NAME_1 and NAME_2, were creations of the human mind. NAME_1 and NAME_2 are real individuals, each having their own unified structure corresponding to their particular ten- sion. Now, it might be conceded that there are indeed real parti- culars in the world but still denied that their limits are real. That is, it could be claimed that the Stoics did not equate being a whole(or a partial whole – a part of a whole that is, itself, a whole)12 with being limited. On these grounds limits could still be claimed to be arbitrary mental constructs whilst allowing that tensional wholes are real. However, there is a significant body of evidence to the contrary, evidence which directly aligns being a real whole or unit with being limited.13 The first point that must be noted is that in the Stoic cosmos, unity, coherence and being a whole are all dependent on the presence of a sustaining cause, (αἴτιον συνέχον) and this is associated with the active principle or god and, on a more concrete level, with the tension in a particular thing’s pneuma. To give a few examples, we are told that ‘the universe is unified and sustained by a breath which pervades the whole of it’ (Alex.DeMix. 223.25–27 = LS 47L(1)); our body, ‘which is composed of many parts, is united externally and internally, and it holds firm by its own tenor’ (PhiloQuaestiones et solutiones in Genesim 2.4 = LS 47R(3)); the inward movement of tensile motion is said to be responsible for unity (Nemesius 2.18.5–10 = LS 47J (3)); Chrysippus 12 I follow NAME_3 1988: 225–6 in talking of ‘partial wholes’ here. The term (μερικὰ ὅλα) is not authentically Stoic, deriving instead from the Neoplatonists (e.g., Simp., In Phys. 501.20–3), but the concept of a part of a whole which is also itself a whole certainly is Stoic and this language will prove extremely useful in my discussion here, as it provides for the distinction of this type of part from mere magnitudes, which can also be thought of as parts but are not wholes, since they lack the tension that is required in order to be sustained. 13 I have discussed some of this evidence at greater length in Scade 2010. In that article I sought to identify the Stoic notion of cosmological limits (by ‘cosmological limits’ I mean, quite generally, limits that are a result of the action of the active principle or god; the evidence for structural limits comes largely from sources that have a cosmological scope, but it should be understood that the same analysis is applicable on amicrocosmic