The early Stoics knew propositional logic, and their successors didn't until the mid-19th century. (Source: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6380918-stoic-lo

The early Stoics knew propositional logic, and their successors didn't until the mid-19th century. (Source: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6380918-stoic-logic https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6380918-stoic-logic) Then the likes of Boole and Frege made it possible to see what they were getting at again from what survived -- which was, mainly, hostile reviews. Until then, anyone would've told you the current theory of logic was as advanced as it'd ever been, and the Stoics were guilty of arid pettifogging. One thing Mates does in the book I mentioned is find translators' misunderstandings and prejudices, like the hair-sewing bit in the OP. That also comes up in Lucio Russo's The Forgotten Revolution about the sources on Hellenistic science -- classicists generally aren't scientists either. (This comment is turning out to sound really hard on classicists, and I certainly don't feel that way. I'm just an interested reader.)