Chapter XXIII: The New Academy (9)

[714] Diog. xii. 106; Stob. ii. 142; Cic. Fin. iii. 15, 51; Sext. l.c.; Plut. Sto. Rep. 30. The Stoics were not altogether agreed as to whether fame after death belongs to things to be desired. According to Cic. Fin. iii. 17, 57, Chrysippus and Diogenes denied it; whereas the younger Stoics, pressed by the Academician Carneades, allowed it. Sen. Ep. 102, 3, even quotes it as a Stoic maxim that posthumous fame is a good. But probably bonum is here inaccurately used for προηγμένον.

[715] Cic. Fin. iii. 10, 34; 16, 52; Sext. M. xi. 62. See p. 232, 3 and 283, 2.

[716] Sen. Ep. 9, 14: Sapientem nulla re egere [δεῖσθαι], et tamen multis illi rebus opus esse [χρῆναι].

[717] Plut. Sto. Rep. 30, 4: ἐν δὲ τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ ἀγαθῶν τρόπον τινὰ συγχωρεῖ καὶ δίδωσι τοῖς βουλομένοις τὰ προηγμένα καλεῖν ἀγαθὰ καὶ κακὰ τἀναντία ταύταις ταῖς λέξεσιν· ἔστι, εἴ τις βούλεται κατὰ τὰς τοιαύτας παραλλαγὰς (with reference to the greatness of the difference between προηγμένον and ἀποπροηγμένον) τὸ μὲν ἀγαθὸν αὐτῶν λέγειν τὸ δὲ κακὸν ... ἐν μὲν τοῖς σημαινομένοις οὐ διαπίπτοντος αὐτοῦ δ’ ἄλλα στοχαζομένου τῆς κατὰ τὰς ὀνομασίας συνηθείας. See p. 284, 1; Cic. Fin. iv. 25, 68, and the previous remarks on the division of goods, p. 230, 3. Diog. 103, says that Posidonius included bodily and external advantages among the ἀγαθά. In Sen. Ep. 87, 35, he, however, expressly proves that they are not goods.

[718] Sen. Ep. 95, 5: Antipater quoque inter magnos sectæ hujus auctores aliquid se tribuere dicit externis (namely for the perfection of the highest good), sed exiguum admodum. Seneca here declaims, in the spirit of strict Stoicism, against such a heresy, but he himself says (De Vit. Be. 22, 5): Apud me divitiæ aliquem locum habent, only not summum et postremum. But what philosopher would have said they had this?

[719] De Vit. Bea. 21.

[720] Cic. Off. iii. 12, 51; 13, 55; 23, 91; 15, 63; 23, 89. Diogenes of Seleucia says that it is permitted to circulate base money, knowingly to conceal defects in a purchase from the purchaser, and such like. Hecato of Rhodes, a pupil of Panætius, thinks that not only will a wise man look after his property by means lawful and right, but he believes that in a famine he will prefer letting his slaves starve, to maintaining them at too great a sacrifice.

[721] According to Cic. Off. ii. 14, 51, he would allow an attorney to ignore truth, provided his assertions were at least probable.

[722] Plut. Sto. Rep. 30, 2.

[723] Ibid. 5.

[724] According to Plut. Sto. Rep. 20, 3 and 7 and 10; 30, 3, Diog. vii. 188, Stob. ii. 224, the Stoics, following Chrysippus, admit three ways of earning an honest livelihood—by teaching, by courting the rich, by serving states and princes. The first and the last were no longer condemned in the Alexandrian period, as they had been before, but still they were in bad repute, and the second was particularly so. Still more at variance with Greek customs was the course advocated by Chrysippus (in Plut. Sto. Rep. 30): καὶ κυβιστήσειν τρὶς ἐπὶ τούτῳ λαβόντα τάλαντον. Chrysippus himself (in Diog.) enumerates the objections to the modes of life just named, and, in general, to all trading for money, but his objections cannot have appeared to him conclusive.

[725] Plut. Sto. Rep. 18, 1 and 3. Com. Not. 12, 4: λυσιτελεῖ ζῇν ἄφρονα μᾶλλον ἢ μὴ βιοῦν κἂν μηδέποτε μέλλῃ φρονήσειν; or, as it is expressed, 11, 8: Heraclitus and Pherecydes would have done well to renounce their wisdom, if they could thereby have got rid of their sickness. A prudent man would rather be a fool in human shape than a wise man in the shape of a beast.

[726] καθῆκον, an expression introduced by Zeno, according to Diog. 108.

[727] See p. 265.

[728] Diog. 107: καθῆκον φασὶν εἶναι ὃ πραχθὲν εὔλογόν τιν’ ἴσχει ἀπολογισμὸν οἷον τὸ ἀκόλουθον ἐν τῇ ζωῇ (the same in Cicero), ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ φυτὰ καὶ ζῷα διατείνει· ὁρᾶσθαι γὰρ κἀπὶ τούτων καθήκοντα. Stob. 158: ὁρίζεται δὲ τὸ καθῆκον τὸ ἀκόλουθον ἐν ζωῇ, ὃ πραχθὲν εὔλογον ἀπολογίαν ἔχει· παρὰ τὸ καθῆκον δὲ ἐναντίως. τοῦτο διατείνει καὶ εἰς τὰ ἄλογα τῶν ζῴων, ἐνεργεῖ γὰρ τι κἀκεῖνα ἀκολούθως τῇ ἑαυτῶν φύσει· ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν λογικῶν ζῴων οὕτως ἀποδίδοται, τὸ ἀκόλουθον ἐν βίῳ. καθῆκον is, in general, what is according to nature, with which ἀκόλουθον coincides. (See p. 228, 2.) See Diog. 108: ἐνέργημα δ’ αὐτὸ [τὸ καθῆκον] εἶναι ταῖς κατὰ φύσιν κατασκευαῖς οἰκεῖον.

[729] Diog. vii. 109: τῶν καθηκόντων τὰ μὲν ἀεὶ καθήκει τὰ δὲ οὐκ ἀεί· καὶ ἀεὶ μὲν καθήκει τὸ κατ’ ἀρετὴν ζῇν· οὐκ ἀεὶ δὲ τὸ ἐρωτᾷν τὸ ἀποκρίνεσθαι καὶ περιπατεῖν καὶ τὰ ὅμοια. Cic. Fin. iii. 17, 58: Eat autem officium quod ita factum est, ut ejus facti probabilis ratio reddi possit. Ex quo intelligitur, officium medium quoddam esse, quod neque in bonis ponatur neque in contrariis ... quoniam enim videmus, &c. (see p. 265, 2) ... quoniamque non dubium est, quin in iis quæ media dicimus sit aliud sumendum aliud rejiciendum, quidquid ita fit aut dicitur communi officio continetur. Also Off. i. 3, 8. Acad. i. 10, 37. Corresponding to προηγμένον and ἀποπροηγμένον, Zeno placed officium and contra officium, as media quædam between recte factum and peccatum. Stob. ii. 158: τῶν δὲ καθηκόντων τὰ μὲν εἶναί φασι τέλεια, ἃ δὴ καὶ κατορθώματα λέγεσθαι ... οὐκ εἶναι δὲ κατορθώματα τὰ μὴ οὕτως ἔχοντα, ἃ δὴ οὐδὲ τέλεια, καθήκοντα προσαγορεύουσιν, ἀλλὰ μέσα, οἷον τὸ γαμεῖν, τὸ πρεσβεύειν, τὸ διαλέγεσθαι, τὰ τούτοις ὅμοια.

[730] Stob. 160. Diog. l.c.: τὰ μὲν εἶναι καθήκοντα ἄνευ περιστάσεως, τὰ δὲ περιστατικά. καὶ ἄνευ μὲν περιστάσεως τάδε, ὑγείας ἐπιμελεῖσθαι καὶ αἰσθητηρίων καὶ τὰ ὅμοια· κατὰ περίστασιν δὲ τὸ πηροῦν ἑαυτὸν καὶ τὴν κτῆσιν διαῤῥιπτεῖν. ἀνάλογον δὲ καὶ τῶν παρὰ τὸ καθῆκον. This distinction, of course, only applies to μέσον καθῆκον. The unconditional duty of virtuous life cannot be abrogated by any circumstances.

[731] Compare, on this point, besides the quotations on p. 265, 2, Diog. 108: τῶν γὰρ καθ’ ὁρμὴν ἐνεργουμένων τὰ μὲν καθήκοντα εἶναι, τὰ δὲ παρὰ τὸ καθῆκον, τὰ δ’ οὔτε καθήκοντα οὔτε παρὰ τὸ καθῆκον. καθήκοντα μὲν οὖν εἶναι ὅσα ὁ λόγος αἱρεῖ (demands; see p. 244, 2, the αἱρῶν λόγος) ποιεῖν, ὡς ἔχει τὸ γονεῖς τιμᾷν, ἀδελφοὺς, πατρίδα, συμπεριφέρεσθαι φίλοις· παρὰ τὸ καθῆκον δὲ ὅσα μὴ αἱρεῖ λόγος, e.g. neglect of parents; οὔτε δὲ καθήκοντα οὔτε παρὰ τὸ καθῆκον, ὅσα οὔθ’ αἱρεῖ λόγος πράττειν οὔτ’ ἀπαγορεύει, οἷον κάρφος ἀνελέσθαι, κ.τ.λ. Combining with this the passage previously quoted, it appears that καθῆκον includes not only actions which aim at a moral good, but those which aim at a simple προηγμένον; and, in view of the latter, καθῆκον is included among things intermediate, or ἀδιάφορα in its more extended meaning. Cic.; see p. 288, 2. Stob. 158, says that those καθήκοντα which are at the same time κατορθώματα, are οὐδὲ τέλεια, ἀλλὰ μέσα ... παραμετρεῖσθαι δὲ τὸ μέσον καθῆκον ἀδιαφόροις τισὶ καλουμένοις δὲ παρὰ φύσιν καὶ κατὰ φύσιν, τοιαύτην δ’ εὐφυΐαν προσφερομένοις, ὥστ’ εἰ μὴ λαμβάνοιμεν αὐτὰ ἢ διωθούμεθα ἀπερισπάστως (if, without particular occasion, or as Diog. 109 observes, ἄνευ περιστάσεως—see previous note—we despise or reject them) μὴ εὐδαιμονεῖν.

[732] In the latter sense καθῆκον and κατόρθωμα have been already discussed, p. 264.

[733] Sen. De Ira, i. 16, 7: When the wise man sees anything revolting, non ... tangetur animus ejus eritque solito commotior? Fateor, sentiet levem quendam tenuemque motum. Nam, ut dixit Zeno, in sapientis quoque animo etiam cum vulnus sanatum est, cicatrix manet. Id. ii. 2; Ep. 57, 3; De Const. 10, 4; Stob. Floril. 7, 21; Plut. C. Not. 25, 5; Epictet. in Gell. N. A. xix. 1, 17. Conf. p. 253, 5, 6.

[734] Sen. Brevit. Vit. c. 14, 2: Hominis naturam cum Stoicis vincere, cum Cynicis excedere. Similarly Ep. 9, 3: Hoc inter nos et illos (Stilpo and the Cynics in general) interest: noster sapiens vincit quidem incommodum omne, sed sentit: illorum ne sentit quidem.

[735] Conf. Sen. De Ira, ii. 2–4, particularly the quotation in Gell. from Epictetus: Even the wise man is apt, at terrible occurrences, paulisper moveri et contrahi et pallescere, non opinione alicujus mali percepta, sed quibusdam motibus rapidis et inconsultis, officium mentis atque rationis prævertentibus. But what distinguishes him from the foolish man is that only the foolish man and not the wise man assents (συγκατατίθεται, προσεπιδοξάζει) to such impressions (φαντασίαι).

[736] Diog. vii. 115: εἶναι δὲ καὶ εὐπαθείας φασὶ τρεῖς, χαρὰν, εὐλάβειαν, βούλησιν· καὶ τὴν μὲν χαρὰν ἐναντίαν φασὶν εἶναι τῇ ἡδονῇ οὖσαν εὔλογον ἔπαρσιν· τὴν δὲ εὐλάβειαν τῷ φόβῳ οὖσαν εὔλογον ἔκκλισιν· τῇ δὲ ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐναντίαν φασὶν εἶναι τὴν βούλησιν οὖσαν εὔλογον ὄρεξιν. Subdivisions of βούλησις are: εὔνοια, εὐμένεια, ἀσπασμὸς, ἀγάπησις; of εὐλάβεια: αἰδὼς, ἁγνεία; of χαρά: τέρψις, εὐφροσύνη, εὐθυμία. The same three εὐπάθειαι are mentioned by Cic. Tusc. iv. 6, 12, with the remark that they only belong to the wise. See Stob. 92, and Sen. Ep. 59, 14; 72, 4 and 8, respecting the wise man’s cheerfulness.

[737] Besides the quotations, p. 271, see Plut. Sto. Rep. 31, 5: καὶ μὴν οὔθ’ αὑτὸν ὁ Χρύσιππος ἀποφαίνει σπουδαῖον, οὔτε τινὰ τῶν αὑτοῦ γνωρίμων ἢ καθηγεμόνων. Cic. Acad. ii. 47, 145; Quintil. Inst. xii. 1. 18.

[738] Sen. Tranq. An. 7, 4: Ubi enim istum invenies, quem tot seculis quærimus? (the wise man.) Ep. 42, 1: Scis quem nunc virum bonum dicam? Hujus secundæ notæ. Nam ille alter fortasse tanquam phœnix semel anno quingentesimo nascitur, see p. 273, 1, just as everything great is rare. But compare p. 274, 3.

[739] Cic. Fin. iv. 20, 56, and p. 274, 2.

[740] Hos enim (says Sen. De Const. 2, 1, of the two named) Stoici nostri sapientes pronuntiaverunt, invictos laboribus, etc. Further particulars in Heraclit. Alleg. Hom. c. 33 and 70.

[741] Sen. Ep. 90, 5. To these wise men of the old world Posidonius traced back all kinds of useful discoveries. Posidonius is probably meant by the ‘younger Stoics’ (Sext. Math. ix. 28), who say that they introduced belief in the Gods.

[742] Sen. l.c. 44: Non dat natura virtutem, ars est bonum fieri ... ignorantia rerum innocentes erant ... virtus non contingit animo nisi instituto et edocto et ad summum adsidua exercitatione perducto. Ad hoc quidem, sed sine hoc nascimur, &c.

[743] Stob. Ecl. ii. 236: ἴσων δὲ ὄντων τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων εἶναι τινας ἐν αὐτοῖς διαφορὰς, καθόσον τὰ μὲν αὐτῶν ἀπὸ σκληρᾶς καὶ δυσιάτου διαθέσεως γίγνεται, τὰ δ’ οὒ. (See p. 251, 2, for the difference between emotion and disease of the soul.) καὶ τῶν σπουδαίων γε ἄλλους ἄλλων προτρεπτικωτέρους γίγνεσθαι καὶ πιστικωτέρους ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἀγχινουστέρους, κατὰ τὰ μέσα τὰ ἐμπεριλαμβανόμενα τῶν ἐπιτάσεων συμβαινουσῶν, i.e., virtuous men are not all equally secure. These differences of degree do not, however, apply to wisdom (nor on the other hand to folly), which admits of no increase, but only to such properties as are included in the whole moral state, but are not themselves of moral nature. See Cic. Fin. iv. 20, 56, and p. 275, 1.

[744] Stob. Serm. 7, 21: ὁ δ’ ἐπ’ ἄκρον, φησὶ [Χρύσιππος] προκόπτων ἅπαντα πάντως ἀποδίδωσι τὰ καθήκοντα καὶ οὐδὲν παραλείπει· τὸν δὲ τούτου βίον οὐκ εἶναί πω φησὶν εὐδαίμονα ἀλλ’ ἐπιγίγνεσθαι αὐτῷ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν ὅταν αἱ μέσαι πράξεις αὗται προσλάβωσι τὸ βέβαιον καὶ ἑκτικὸν καὶ ἰδίαν πῆξίν τινα λάβωσιν. Chrysippus was probably the author of the division of progressers into three classes, which is discussed by Sen. Ep. 75, 8. Of those who have reached the highest stage it is said, omnes jam affectus et vitia posuerunt, quæ erant complectenda didicerunt, sed illis adhuc inexperta fiducia est. Bonum suum nondum in usu habent. Jam tamen in illa quæ fugerunt recidere non possunt, jam ibi sunt unde non est retro lapsus, sed hoc illis de se nondum liquet et ... scire se nesciunt.

[745] See pp. 239, 1; 271, 7.

[746] Sen. Ep. 75, 10: Quidam hoc proficientium genus de quo locutus sum ita complectuntur, ut illos dicant jam effugisse morbos animi, affectus nondum (on this distinction, see p. 251, 2), et adhuc in lubrico stare, quia nemo sit extra periculum malitiæ nisi qui totam eam excussit. The same view is upheld by Sen. Ep. 72, 6.

[747] Diog. vii. 127: τὴν ἀρετὴν Χρύσιππος μὲν ἀποβλητὴν, Κλεάνθης δὲ ἀναπόβλητον· ὁ μὲν, ἀποβλητὴν, διὰ μέθην καὶ μελαγχολίαν· ὁ δὲ, ἀναπόβλητον, διὰ βεβαίους καταλήψεις. The latter view was that of the Cynics. Although departed from by Chrysippus, it belongs to those points in which the original relation of Stoicism to Cynicism was weakened by him. Sen. Ep. 72, 6, speaking in the spirit of Cleanthes, says that he considered a candidate of the first class secure against relapses. On the other hand, Simpl. Categ. 102, α, β (Schol. in Arist. 86, a, 48; b, 30), says first that the Stoics declared virtue to be indefectible, but subsequently limits this assertion by saying that, ἐν καιροῖς (the reading κάροις is better) καὶ μελαγχολίαις, virtue, together with the whole rational life (λογικὴ ἕξις), is lost, and succeeded, not indeed by vice, but by a ἕξις μέση. A similar question is, Whether the wise man can become mad? which is answered in the negative by Diog. vii. 118, though not without some modifying clauses. Alex. Aphr. De An. 156, b, also combats the view that the wise man will act virtuously when in a frenzy.

[748] Further particulars have been already given, p. 61. Seneca (Ep. 95, 1) calls the subject of applied ethics, which Aristo rejected, parænetice, or pars præceptiva. Sextus speaks of two τόποι—a παραινετικὸς and a ὑποθετικός. Both terms, however, appear to denote the same thing; for ὑποθετικὸς is defined by Muson. in Stob. Floril. 117, 8, as παραινετικός. He who is himself insufficiently educated will do well ζητῶν λόγων ἀκούειν ὑποθετικῶν παρὰ τῶν πεποιημένων ἔργον εἰδέναι τίνα μὲν βλαβερὰ τίνα δὲ ὠφέλιμα ἀνθρώποις. ὑποθετικὸς τόπος is therefore identical with the suasio of Posidonius (in Sen. Ep. 95, 65). See p. 223, note 1.

[749] Sen. Ep. 94, 4: Cleanthes utilem quidem judicat et hanc partem, sed imbecillam nisi ab universo fluit, nisi decreta ipsa philosophiæ et capita cognovit.

[750] See p. 223, 1.

[751] See Cic. Off. i. 2, 7; 3, 9; iii. 2, 7. Cicero himself said that he chiefly followed Panætius (περὶ τῶν καθηκόντων), not as a mere translator, but correctione quadam adhibita. See p. 300, 2.

[752] Cic. Off. i. 3, 7: Omnis de officio duplex est quæstio: unum genus est, quod pertinet ad finem bonorum: alterum, quod positum est in præceptis, quibus in omnes partes usus vitæ conformari possit. He would devote his attention to officia, quorum præcepta traduntur. Cicero then goes fully into particulars. He treats of amusement and occupation (i. 29, 103); of the peculiar duties of the young and the old, of officials, citizens, foreigners (i. 34); of outward appearance, gait, conversation (i. 36); of the means of winning others (ii. 6, 21). Panætius must have given a similar treatment to the subject.

[753] See p. 223, 1.

[754] Particularly in the portions treating περὶ τῶν καθηκόντων and περὶ προτροπῶν τε καὶ ἀποτροπῶν.

[755] See p. 260, 4.

[756] See p. 260, 4, and 261, 1.

[757] According to Cic. Off. i. 2; 7, Add Att. xvi. 11, Panætius, in the third chief division of his treatise on duties, intended to discuss cases of collision between apparent interest and duty, but his intentions were never carried out. It appears, however, from Off. i. 45, 159; iii. 12, 50; 13, 55; 23, 89, that these cases were frequently discussed, not only by the pupils of Panætius, Posidonius, and Hecato, but by Diogenes of Seleucia and Antipater of Tarsus.

[758] The Treatise of Panætius appears to have been used as a chief authority, not only by Cicero, but by others. Antipater of Tyre, a cotemporary of Cicero, had added discussions on the care of health and wealth (Cic. Off. ii. 24, 86); and Hecato, in his treatise on duties, had added further casuistical investigations (Cic. iii. 28, 89). Brutus, too, who, like his teacher Antiochus, was devoted to a moderate Stoicism, and of whom Sen. Ep. 95, 45, reports that he had laid down rules for the relations of parents, children, and brothers in his treatise περὶ τοῦ καθήκοντος, may have followed Panætius.

[759] Sen. Ep. 94, 1; 95, 1.

[760] Stob. ii. 128: ἐν ἕξει (not only ἐν σχέσει, see p. 230) δὲ οὐ μόνας εἶναι τὰς ἀρετὰς ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας τέχνας τὰς τῷ σπουδαίῳ ἀνδρὶ, ἀλλοιωθείσας ὑπὸ τῆς ἀρετῆς καὶ γενομένας ἀμεταπτώτους, οἱονεὶ γὰρ ἀρετὰς γίγνεσθαι.

[761] The treatise of Panætius—we learn from Cic. Off. i. 3, 9; iii. 2, 7; 7, 33—discussed its subject first from the platform of duty, and then from that of interest. The third part, which Panætius proposed to himself—the collision between duty and interest—was never fully carried out. Cicero adds discussions on two questions, which of two conflicting duties and which of two conflicting interests must be preferred (i. 3, 10, c. 43; ii. 25). Otherwise he appears in his two first books to follow the order of Panætius.

[762] See pp. 260, 298. Amongst other things, as we learn from the fragment in Athen. xiii. 555, a, Chrysippus discussed the question of shaving; and Alex. Aphr. Top. 26, quotes, in illustration of the useless enquiries of the Stoics, ἐν τοῖς περὶ καθηκόντων, an enquiry whether it is proper to take the largest portion before one’s father at table, and whether it is proper to cross the legs in the school of a philosopher.

[763] εὐταξία, εὐκαιρία, talis ordo actionum ut in vita omnia sint apta inter se et convenientia. i. 40, 142; 144.

[764] i. 43. We omit Cicero’s treatise, this section not being found in Panætius.

[765] Panætius still more diffusively, 5, 16.

[766] Such, for instance, as the prohibition against being angry with enemies (i. 25, 88), which recalls at once the difference of the Stoics and Peripatetics on the admissibility of emotions. See p. 252.

[767] Diog. 117 says: The σόφος or σπουδαῖος is free from vanity (ἄτυπος), is earnest (αὐστηρὸς), frank (ἀκίβδηλος), and with no inclination to pretence. He stands aloof from the affairs of life (ἀπράγμων), lest he should do anything contrary to duty. See p. 323, 1. Stob. ii. 240, says: The wise man is gentle (πρᾶος), quiet (ἡσύχιος), and considerate (κόσμιος), never exciting angry feelings against others, never putting off what he has to do.

[768] Chrysippus, in Plut. Sto. Rep. 47, 1: βλάψουσιν οἱ σοφοὶ ψευδεῖς φαντασίας ἐμποιοῦντες, ἂν αἱ φαντασίαι ποιῶσιν αὐτοτελῶς τὰς συγκαταθέσεις· πολλάκις γὰρ οἱ σοφοὶ ψεύδει χρῶνται πρὸς τοὺς φαύλους καὶ φαντασίαν παριστᾶσι πιθανὴν, οὐ μὴν αἰτίαν τῆς συγκαταθέσεως· ἐπεὶ καὶ τῆς ὑπολήψεως αἰτία τῆς ψευδοῦς ἔσται καὶ τῆς ἀπάτης. Stob. ii. 230: μὴ ψεύδεσθαι τὸν σόφον ἀλλ’ ἐν πᾶσιν ἀληθεύειν· οὐ γὰρ ἐν τῷ λέγειν τι ψεῦδος τὸ ψεύδεσθαι ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ διαψευστῶς τὸ ψεῦδος λέγειν καὶ ἐπὶ ἀπάτῃ τῶν πλησίον. τῷ μέντοι ψεύδει ποτὲ συγχρήσασθαι [l. -σεσθαι] νομίζουσιν αὐτὸν κατὰ πολλοὺς τρόπους ἄνευ συγκαταθέσεως· καὶ γὰρ κατὰ στρατηγίαν πρὸς τῶν ἀντιπάλων, καὶ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ συμφέροντος προόρασιν (which, however, may not be translated as Ritter iii. 662 does ‘for the sake of advantage’; it rather refers to such cases as those mentioned by Xen. Mem. iv. 2, 17, and Plato, Rep. ii. 382, C, 389, B; iv. 459, C, in which the interests of another or of the community require deception) καὶ κατ’ ἄλλας οἰκονομίας τοῦ βίου πολλάς. In accordance with this passage, too, the statement of Procl. in Alcib. (Op. ed. Cous. iii. 64)—that the Stoics differ from their predecessors in that they reject all lies—must be explained: οὔτε γὰρ ἐξαπατᾷν ἔστι δικαίως κατ’ αὐτοὺς οὔτε βιάζεσθαι οὔτε ἀποστερεῖν, ἀλλ’ ἑκάστη τῶν πράξεων τούτων ἀπὸ μοχθηρᾶς πρόεισιν ἕξεως καὶ ἄδικός ἐστιν. The point here in dispute is simply verbal; the Stoics were, in reality, at one with Plato, in not calling permitted falsehood untruth or deceit only for the reasons quoted by Chrysippus and Stobæus.

[769] Cic. Fin. iii. 20. 68: Cynicorum autem rationem atque vitam alii cadere in sapientem dicunt, si quis ejusmodi forte casus inciderit, ut id faciendum sit, alii nullo modo. The latter must, however, have been in a minority.

[770] Diog. 121: κυνιεῖν τ’ αὐτὸν [τὸν σοφόν]· εἶναι γὰρ τὸν κυνισμὸν σύντομον ἐπ’ ἀρετὴν ὁδὸν, ὡς Ἀπολλόδωρος [on whom, see p. 51, 1] ἐν τῇ ἠθικῇ. Stob. 238: κυνιεῖν τε τὸν σοφὸν λέγουσιν, ἴσον τῷ ἐπιμένειν τῷ κυνισμῷ, οὐ μὴν σοφὸν ὄντ’ ἂν ἄρξασθαι τοῦ κυνισμοῦ.

[771] See p. 274, 2. According to the epigrams of Timon, in Diog. vii. 16, Athen. iv. 158, a, Sext. Math. xi. 172, Zeno’s School must have presented a very Cynical appearance. Probably, the description is partially true of the earlier history of that School; still I would attach no great value to it as illustrating the system.

[772] Ep. 5, 1; 103, 5; Fr. 19, in Lactant. Inst. iii. 15.

[773] See, on this point, Tranq. An. 8, 4; Benef. v. 4, 3; 6, 1; Ep. 90, 14. Sen. Ep. 29, 1, does not, however, agree with the Stoic custom of sowing exhortations broadcast.

[774] As may be seen in Musonius and Epictetus.

[775] Plut. Sto. Rep. 22 (the question being as to the pollution of the temples by the contact with the dead or lying-in women or unclean foods); in other cases indeed, as Plutarch objects, he would not allow these considerations.

[776] Besides Diog. vii. 188, and Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 207, see Chrysippus’s own words, in Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 247 (Math. xi. 193). The majority of the Stoics appear to have limited cannibalism to cases of extreme necessity. See Diog. 121. Chrysippus had probably been speaking, in the context, of the different modes of treating the dead among various nations (Cic. Tusc. i. 45, 108), intending to prove that no uniformity of practice prevailed.

[777] Cic. Off. i. 35, 128, with the limitation: Cynici aut si qui fuerunt Stoici pæne Cynici.

[778] Diog. vii. 33: καὶ ἐσθῆτι δὲ τῇ αὐτῇ κελεύει χρῆσθαι καὶ ἄνδρας καὶ γυναῖκας καὶ μηδὲν μόριον ἀποκεκρύφθαι. The latter act is only conditional, and allowed in certain cases, such as for purposes of gymnastics.

[779] Diog. 33; 131.

[780] Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 201.

[781] Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 200; 245; Math. xi. 190; Clement. Homil. v. 18.

[782] Sext. Pyrrh. i. 160; iii. 205; 246; Math. xi. 191; Plut. Sto. Rep. 22; Clement. Homil. v. 18.

[783] Plut. l.c. 21, 1.

[784] Sextus, however (Pyrrh. iii. 206), attributes to him, as the representative of the School, what properly only belongs to Chrysippus: τό τε αἰσχρουργεῖν ... ὁ Ζήνων οὐκ ἀποδοκιμάζει.

[785] His words (Sext. Math. xi. 190; Pyrrh. iii. 245; Plut. Qu. Con. iii. 6, 1, 6) are as follows: διαμηρίζειν δὲ μηδὲν μᾶλλον μηδὲ ἧσσον παιδικὰ ἢ μὴ παιδικὰ μηδὲ θήλεα ἢ ἄρσενα· οὐ γὰρ ἄλλα παιδικοῖς ἢ μὴ παιδικοῖς οὐδὲ θηλείαις ἢ ἄῤῥεσιν ἀλλὰ τὰ αὐτὰ πρέπει τε καὶ πρέποντά ἐστι; and: διαμεμήρικας τὸν ἐρώμενον; οὐκ ἔγωγε· πότερον οὖν ἐπεθύμησας αὐτὸν διαμηρίσαι; καὶ μάλα. ἀλλὰ ἐπεθύμησας παρασχεῖν σοι αὐτὸν ἢ ἐφοβήθης κελεῦσαι; μὰ Δί’. ἀλλ’ ἐκέλευσας; καὶ μάλα. εἶτ’ οὐχ ὑπηρέτησέ σοι; οὐ γάρ. The form of expression is certainly very Cynic-like, but the meaning is not what Sextus supposes. Zeno’s object is not to justify unnatural vice, but to show that those who allow any form of unchastity cannot forbid this form, and that the wish and the attempt are morally on a par with the deed.

[786] See the following note.

[787] Musonius, in Stob. Serm. 6, 61 (conf. Cic. Fin. iii. 20, 68): Ne amores quidem sanctos alienos a sapiente esse volunt. According to Diog. vii. 129, Stob. ii. 238, love is only directed to beauty of soul. By Diog., Stob., Alex. Aphr. Top. 75, and Cic. Tusc. iv. 34, 72, it is defined to be ἐπιβολὴ φιλοποιΐας διὰ κάλλος ἐμφαινόμενον; and, according to Plut. C. Not. 28, ἔμφασις κάλλους is an incentive to love; but these statements are guarded by adding that the bad and irrational are ugly, and the wise are beautiful. It was probably in imitation of Plat. Sym. 203, E, that the Stoics nevertheless stated τοὺς ἐρασθέντας αἰσχρῶν παύεσθαι καλῶν γενομένων. Love is excited by a sensation of εὐφυία πρὸς ἀρετὴν, its object is to develop this capacity into real virtue. Until this end has been attained, the loved one is still foolish, and therefore ugly. When it has been attained, the striving, in which Eros consists, has reached its object, and the love of the teacher to his pupil goes over into friendship between equals.

[788] Conf. Orig. c. Cels. iv. 45: The Stoics made good and evil depend on the intention alone, and declared external actions, independent of intentions, to be indifferent: εἶπον οὖν ἐν τῷ περὶ ἀδιαφόρων τόπῳ ὅτι τῷ ἰδίῳ λόγῳ (the action taken by itself) θυγατράσι μίγνυσθαι ἀδιάφορόν ἐστιν, εἰ καὶ μὴ χρὴ ἐν ταῖς καθεστώσαις πολιτείαις τὸ τοιοῦτον ποιεῖν. καὶ ὑποθέσεως χάριν ... παρειλήφασι τὸν σοφὸν μετὰ τῆς θυγατρὸς μόνης καταλελειμμένον παντὸς τοῦ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένους διεφθαρμένου, καὶ ζητοῦσιν εἰ καθηκόντως ὁ πατὴρ συνελεύσεται τῇ θυγατρὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ ἀπολέσθαι ... τὸ πᾶν τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος.

[789] How strictly he respected chastity and modesty in women is proved by the fragment, preserved by Clem. Pædag. iii. 253, C, respecting the dress and conduct of maidens.

[790] Cic. Fin. iii. 19, 64: Mundum autem censent regi numine Deorum eumque esse quasi communem urbem et civitatem hominum et Deorum; et unumquemque nostrum ejus mundi esse partem, ex quo illud consequi, ut communem utilitatem nostræ anteponamus.

[791] M. Aurel. ix. 9; xii. 30. Sen. Ep. 95, 52: The whole world is a unit; membra sumus corporis magni. Natura nos cognatos edidit. Hence mutual love, love of society, justice, and fairness. Ep. 48, 2: Alteri vivas oportet, si vis tibi vivere. Hæc societas ... nos homines hominibus miscet et judicat aliquod esse commune jus generis humani.

[792] Cic. Legg. 12, 33: Quibus enim ratio a natura data est, iisdem etiam recta ratio data est: ergo et lex, quæ est recta ratio in jubendo et vetando (see p. 241, 2): si lex, jus quoque. At omnibus ratio. Jus igitur datum est omnibus. Ibid. 7, 23: Est igitur ... prima homini cum Deo rationis societas. Inter quos autem ratio, inter eosdem etiam recta ratio communis est. Quæ cum sit lex, lege quoque consociati homines cum Diis putandi sumus. Inter quos porro est communio legis, inter eos communio juris est. Quibus autem hæc sunt inter eos communio, et civitatis ejusdem habendi sunt. Ps. Plut. V. Hom. 119: The Stoics teach ἕνα μὲν εἶναι τὸν κόσμον, συμπολιτεύεσθαι δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ θεοὺς καὶ ἀνθρώπους, δικαιοσύνης μετέχοντας φύσει.

[793] Cic. Tusc. iv. 23, 51.

[794] Cic. Fin. iii. 20, 67; Off. i. 7, 22; Sen. Clement. i. 3, 2; Benef. vii. 1, 7; M. Aurel. v. 16, 30; vii. 55; viii. 59; ix. 1; xi. 18; Diog. vii. 129; Sext. Math. ix. 131.

[795] Hence, according to Cic. Fin. iii. 21, 69, not only ὠφελήματα and βλάμματα (moral good and evil), but εὐχρηστήματα and δυσχρηστήματα (other advantages and disadvantages) are common to all men.

[796] According to Plut. Sto. Rep. 16, Chrysippus denied that a man could wrong himself. If, in other passages, he seems to assert the contrary, this apparent inconsistency is probably due to the double meaning of ἀδικεῖν, which sometimes means ‘to wrong,’ sometimes simply ‘to harm.’ Strictly speaking, a relation involving justice can only exist towards another. See Cic. on p. 315, 2.

[797] Towards the Gods, man stands, according to the above passages, in a relation involving justice. There is, therefore (Sext. ix. 131), a justice towards the Gods, of which piety (see p. 261, 1) is only a part.

[798] Sen. Benef. iv. 18.

[799] M. Aurel. vii. 13: If you only consider yourself a part, and not a member, of human society, οὔπω ἀπὸ καρδίας φιλεῖς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· οὔπω σε καταληπτικῶς εὐφραίνει τὸ εὐεργετεῖν· ἔτι ὡς πρέπον αὐτὸ ψιλὸν ποιεῖς· οὔπω ὡς αὑτὸν εὖ ποιῶν.

[800] See p. 298, 3.

[801] Off. i. 7, 20: De tribus autem reliquis [virtutibus, the three others besides understanding] latissime patet ea ratio, qua societas hominum inter ipsos et vitæ quasi communitas continetur, cujus partes duæ sunt: justitia, in qua virtutis splendor est maximus, ex qua viri boni nominantur, et huic conjuncta beneficentia, quam eandem vel benignitatem vel liberalitatem appellari licet.

[802] Off. i. 7–13; ii. 14–17.

[803] See p. 254, 2, 3.

[804] We shall subsequently have occasion to prove this in detail. It may here suffice to refer to the treatises of Seneca, De Beneficiis, De Clementia, and De Ira. On the value of mercy, he remarks (De Clem. i. 3, 2): Nullam ex omnibus virtutibus magis homini convenire, cum sit nulla humanior.

[805] Conf. Panætius, in Cic. Off. i. 25, 88.

[806] De Clem. ii. 5–8.

[807] Among the points characteristic of Stoicism, the censure deserves notice which Sen. (Ep. 7, 3; 95, 33; Tranq. An. 2, 13) passes on gladiatorial shows and the Roman thirst for war. (Ep. 95, 30.) The attitude of the Stoics to slavery and the demand for love of enemies will be considered hereafter.

[808] Stob. ii. 184: τήν τε ὁμόνοιαν ἐπιστήμην εἶναι κοινῶν ἀγαθῶν, διὸ καὶ τοὺς σπουδαίους πάντας ὁμονοεῖν ἀλλήλοις διὰ τὸ συμφωνεῖν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὸν βίον. Cic. N. D. i. 44, 121: Censent autem [Stoici] sapientes sapientibus etiam ignotis esse amicos, nihil est enim virtute amabilius. Quam qui adeptus erit, ubicumque erit gentium, a nobis diligetur. See Off. i. 17, 55. Conf. p. 309, 3.

[809] Plut. C. Not. 22, 2. The same thought is expressed in the statement (ibid. 33, 2) that the wise man is as useful to deity (the universe) as deity is to him.

[810] Sen. Benef. vii. 12, 2; Ep. 81, 11; 123, 15; 9, 5; Stob. ii. 118; see p. 271, 3. Diog. 124. According to Diog. 32, Zeno, like Socrates, was blamed for asserting that only the good (σπουδαῖοι) among themselves are fellow-citizens, friends, and relations; whilst all the bad are enemies and strangers.

[811] He is, as Sen. Ep. 9, 5, puts it, faciendarum amicitiarum artifex.

[812] Si vis amari, ama, says Hecato, in Sen. Ep. 9, 6.

[813] We have already encountered friendship in the Stoic list of goods. See p. 230, 3. Stob. 186 says, more accurately, that friendship, for the sake of the commonwealth, is not a good, διὰ τὸ μηδὲν ἐκ διεστηκότων ἀγαθὸν εἶναι; on the other hand, friendship, in the sense of friendly relations to others, belongs to external goods; in the sense of a friendly disposition merely, it belongs to intellectual goods. On the value of friendship, Sen. 99, 3. Friendship is defined as κοινωνία βίου (Stob. 130); κοινωνία τῶν κατὰ τὸν βίον, χρωμένων ἡμῶν τοῖς φίλοις ὡς ἑαυτοῖς (Diog. 124). Similar definitions are given by Stob. of varieties of friendship: γνωριμότης, συνήθεια, κ.τ.λ. On the absolute community of goods among friends, see Sen. Ep. 47, 2; 3, 2; Benef. vii. 4, 1; 12, 1.

[814] Ep. 109, 3 and 11.

[815] Ep. 9, 13: Se contentus est sapiens, ad beate vivendum, non ad vivendum. Ad hoc enim multis illi rebus opus est, ad illud tantum animo sano et erecto et despiciente fortunam.

[816] Ep. 9, 5.

[817] Sen. Ep. 109, 5.

[818] Ep. 109, 13; 9, 8; 10, 12; 18.

[819] See p. 318, 2.

[820] Stob. ii. 208: τὸν γὰρ νόμον εἶναι, καθάπερ εἴπομεν, σπουδαῖον, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὴν πόλιν. ἱκανῶς δὲ καὶ Κλεάνθης περὶ τὸ σπουδαῖον εἶναι τὴν πόλιν λόγον ἠρώτησε τοῦτον· πόλις μὲν εἰ (wrongly struck out by Meineke) ἔστιν οἰκητήριον κατασκεύασμα εἰς ὃ καταφεύγοντας ἔστι δίκην δοῦναι καὶ λαβεῖν, οὐκ ἀστεῖον δὴ πόλις ἐστιν; Floril. 44, 12. See pp. 223; 241, 3.

[821] Plut. Sto. Rep. 2, 3: Chrysippus recommends political life, placing βίος σχολαστικὸς on the same footing with βίος ἡδονικός. Diog. vii. 121: πολιτεύεσθαί φασιν τὸν σοφὸν ἂν μή τι κωλύῃ, ὥς φησι Χρύσιππος ἐν πρώτῳ περὶ βίων· καὶ γὰρ κακίαν ἐφέξειν καὶ ἐπ’ ἀρετὴν ἐφορμήσειν. Sen. De Ot. 3, 2: Epicurus ait: non accedet ad rempublicam sapiens, nisi si quid intervenerit. Zenon ait: accedet ad rempublicam, nisi si quid impedierit. Cic. Fin. iii. 20, 68: Since man exists for the sake of other men, consentaneum est huic naturæ, ut sapiens velit gerere et administrare rempublicam: atque, ut e natura vivat, uxorem adjungere et velle ex ea liberos procreare. Stob. ii. 184: τό τε δίκαιόν φασι φύσει εἶναι καὶ μὴ θέσει. ἑπόμενον δὲ τούτοις ὑπάρχειν καὶ τὸ πολιτεύεσθαι τὸν σοφὸν ... καὶ τὸ νομοθετεῖν τε καὶ παιδεύειν ἀνθρώπους, κ.τ.λ.

[822] Cic. Legg. ii. 5, 11.

[823] Diog. Ibid.: καὶ γαμήσειν, ὡς ὁ Ζήνων φησὶν ἐν πολιτείᾳ, καὶ παιδοποιήσεσθαι. Ibid. 120: The Stoics consider love of children, parents, and kindred to be according to nature. Chrysippus (in Hieron. Ad. Jovin. i. 191): The wise man will marry, lest he offend Zeus Γαμήλιος and Γενέθλιος. Antipater (whether the well-known pupil of Diogenes of Seleucia, or the younger Stoic Antipater of Tyre mentioned by Cic. Off. ii. 24, 86, is not stated) in Stob. Floril. 67, 25: Wife and child are necessary to give completeness to civil and domestic life; a citizen owes children to his country, and family love is the purest. Musonius (Ibid. 67, 20, Conf. 75, 15): A philosopher ought to be a pattern in married life, as in every other natural relation, and discharge his duties as a citizen by founding a family; love for wife and children is the deepest love.

[824] Plut. Sto. Rep. 2, 1: ἐπεὶ τοίνυν πολλὰ μὲν, ὡς ἐν λόγοις, αὐτῷ Ζήνωνι, πολλὰ δὲ Κλεάνθει, πλεῖστα δὲ Χρυσίππῳ γεγραμμένα τυγχάνει περὶ πολιτείας καὶ τοῦ ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν καὶ δικάζειν καὶ ῥητορεύειν. Conf. the titles in Diog. vii. 4; 166; 175; 178. Diogenes’s list contains no political writings of Chrysippus. It is, however, known to be incomplete; for Diog. vii. 34; 131, quotes Chrysippus’s treatise περὶ πολιτείας, a treatise also quoted by Plut. Sto. Rep. 21 (1, 3, 5). According to Cic. Legg. iii. 6, 14, Diogenes and Panætius were the only Stoics before his time who had entered into particulars respecting legislation, though others might have written much on politics.

[825] Conf. the fragment of Sen. De Matrimonio, in Hieron. Ad. Jovin. i. 191, Fr. 81 Haase, which, like the Essenes, requires absolute abstinence from pregnant women. A few unimportant fragments are also preserved of Chrysippus’s treatise on the education of children. See Quintil. Inst. i. 11, 17; 1, 4 and 16; 3, 14; 10, 32; Baguet, De Chrys. (Annal. Lovan. iv. p. 335). He is reproached by Posidonius (Galen. Hipp. et Plat. v. 1, p. 465) for neglecting the first germs of education, particularly those previous to birth.

[826] Diog. vii. 131.

[827] Plut. Sto. Rep. 20, 3–5; 7; 30, 3; C. Not. 7, 6.

[828] Diog. vii. 4.

[829] Diog. vii. 131.

[830] Diog. 33: κοινάς τε γὰρ γυναῖκας δογματίζειν ὁμοίως ἐν τῇ Πολιτείᾳ καὶ κατὰ τοὺς διακοσίους στίχους, μήθ’ ἱερὰ μήτε δικαστήρια μήτε γυμνάσια ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν οἰκοδομεῖσθαι ... νόμισμα δ’ οὔτ’ ἀλλαγῆς ἕνεκεν οἴεσθαι δεῖν κατασκευάζειν οὔτ’ ἀποδημίας. Ibid. 131.

[831] Plut. Alex. Virt. i. 6, p. 329.

[832] Plut. Sto. Rep. 20, 1: οἶμαι γὰρ ἔγωγε τὸν φρόνιμον καὶ ἀπράγμονα εἶναι καὶ ὀλιγοπράγμονα καὶ τὰ αὐτοῦ πράττειν, ὁμοίως τῆς τε αὐτοπραγίας καὶ ὀλιγοπραγμοσύνης ἀστείων ὄντων ... τῷ γὰρ ὄντι φαίνεται ὁ κατὰ τὴν ἡσυχίαν βίος ἀκίνδυνόν τε καὶ ἀσφαλὲς ἔχειν, κ.τ.λ.

[833] Stob. Ecl. ii. 186: πολιτεύεσθαι τὸν σοφὸν καὶ μάλιστα ἐν ταῖς τοιαύταις πολιτείαις ταῖς ἐμφαινούσαις τινὰ προκοπὴν πρὸς τὰς τελείας πολιτείας.

[834] Stob. Floril. 45, 29: In answer to the question, why he withdrew from public life, he replied: διότι εἰ μὲν πονηρὰ πολιτεύεται [-σεται], τοῖς θεοῖς ἀπαρέσει, εἰ δὲ χρηστὰ, τοῖς πολίταις.

[835] Sen. Ep. 29, 11: Quis enim placere potest populo, cui placet virtus? Malis artibus popularis favor quæritur. Similem te illis facias oportet ... conciliari nisi turpi ratione amor turpium non potest.

[836] Sen. De Ot. 3, 3, p. 320, 3: It needs a special cause for devoting oneself to private life. Causa autem illa late patet: si respublica corruptior est quam ut adjuvari possit, si occupata est malis ... si parum habebit [sc. sapiens] auctoritatis aut virium nec illum admissura erit respublica, si valetudo illum impediet. Ibid. 8, 1: Negant nostri sapientem ad quamlibet rempublicam accessurum: quid autem interest, quomodo sapiens ad otium veniat, utrum quia respublica illi deest, an quia ipse reipublicæ, si omnibus defutura respublica est? (So we ought to punctuate.) Semper autem deerit fastidiose quærentibus. Interrogo ad quam rempublicam sapiens sit accessurus. Ad Atheniensium, etc.? Si percensere singulas voluero, nullam inveniam, quæ sapientem aut quam sapiens pati possit. Similarly Athenodorus, in Sen. Tranq. An. 3, 2.

[837] Athenodor. l.c. 3, 3.

[838] Diss. iii. 22, 67.

[839] Sen. De Otio, 4, 1: Duas respublicas animo complectamur, alteram magnam et vere publicam, qua Di atque homines continentur, in qua non ad hunc angulum respicimus aut ad illum, sed terminos civitatis nostræ cum sole metimur: alteram cui nos adscripsit condicio nascendi. Does it not seem like reading Augustin’s De Civitate Dei? Some serve the great, others the small state; some serve both. Majori reipublicæ et in otio deservire possumus, immo vero nescio an in otio melius. Ep. 68, 2: Cum sapienti rempublicam ipso dignam dedimus, id est mundum, non est extra rempublicam etiamsi recesserit: immo fortasse relicto uno angulo in majora atque ampliora transit, &c. Epict. Diss. iii. 22, 83: Do you ask whether a wise man will busy himself with the state? What state could be greater than the one about which he does busy himself, not consulting the citizens of one city alone for the purpose of obtaining information about the revenues of a state, and such like, but the citizens of the world, that with them he may converse of happiness and unhappiness, of freedom and slavery? τηλικαύτην πολίτειαν πολιτευσαμένου ἀνθρώπου, σύ μοι πυνθάνῃ, εἰ πολιτεύσεται; πυθοῦ μου καὶ, εἰ ἄρξει· πάλιν ἐρῶ σοι· μωρὲ, ποίαν ἀρχὴν μείζονα ἧς ἄρχει;

[840] Sen. De Otio, 5, 1; 7; 6, 4.

[841] Marcus Aurelius, vi. 44: πόλις καὶ πατρὶς ὡς μὲν Ἀντωνίῳ μοι ἡ Ῥώμη, ὡς δὲ ἀνθρώπῳ ὁ κόσμος. τὰ ταῖς πόλεσιν οὖν ταύταις ὠφέλιμα μόνα ἐστί μοι ἀγαθά. ii. 5: πάσης ὥρας φρόντιζε στιβαρῶς ὡς Ῥωμαῖος καὶ ἄρρην.

[842] Ibid. ix. 29: ὅρμησον ἐὰν διδῶται καὶ μὴ περιβλέπου εἴ τις εἴσεται μηδὲ τὴν Πλάτωνος πολίτειαν ἔλπιζε, ἀλλὰ ἀρκοῦ εἰ τὸ βραχύτατον πρόεισι.

[843] Plut. Sto. Rep. 2, 1.

[844] De Otio, 6, 5; Tranq. An. 1, 10.

[845] See Socrates and Socratic Schools, p. 324.

[846] This connection is already indicated by Plutarch’s grouping the Stoics and Alexander together.

[847] Sen. Ep. 95, 52; M. Aurel. See p. 312, 2; 313.

[848] Diss. i. 13, 3. See p. 331, 2.

[849] Sen. Ep. 95, 52, continues after the quotation in p. 312, 2: Ex illius [naturæ] constitutione miserius est nocere quam lædi. Ex illius imperio paratæ sint juvantis manus. Ille versus et in pectore et in ore sit: homo sum, nihil humani a me alienum puto. V. Be. 24, 3: Hominibus prodesse natura me jubet, et servi liberine sint hi, ingenui an libertini, justæ libertatis an inter amicos datæ quid refert? Ubicumque homo est, ibi beneficii locus est. De Clem. i. 1, 3: Nemo non, cui alia desint, hominis nomine apud me gratiosus est. De Ira, i. 5.

[850] Sen. De Otio, i. 4: see p. 256, 4: Stoici nostri dicunt ... non desinemus communi bono operam dare, adjuvare singulos, opem ferre etiam inimicis. We shall subsequently meet with similar explanations from Musonius, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. In particular, Seneca’s treatise, De Ira, deserves to be mentioned here, and especially i. 5, 2: Quid homine aliorum amantius? quid ira infestius? Homo in adjutorium mutuum genitus est, ira in exitium. Hic congregari vult, illa discedere. Hic prodesse, illa nocere. Hic etiam ignotis succurrere, illa etiam carissimos perdere. Ibid. ii. 32, 1: It is not so praiseworthy to return injury for injury, as benefit for benefit. Illic vinci turpe est, hic vincere. Inhumanum verbum est ... ultio et talio. Magni animi est injurias despicere. Conf. Cic. Off. i. 25, 88: Violent anger towards enemies must be blamed: nihil enim laudabilius, nihil magno et præclaro viro dignius placabilitate atque clementia. Even when severity is necessary, punishment ought not to be administered in anger, since such an emotion cannot be allowed at all. See p. 254, 1.

[851] Sen. Ep. 95, 52. See p. 328, 3. Cic. Off. i. 13, 41.

[852] Cic. l.c.: Even towards slaves, justice must be observed. Here, too, belongs the question, discussed in full by Sen. Benef. iii. 18–28, Whether a slave can do a kindness to his master? He who denies that he can, says Seneca (18, 2), is ignarus juris humani. Refert enim cujus animi sit, qui præstat, non cujus status: nulli præclusa virtus est, omnibus patet, omnes admittit, omnes invitat, ingenuos, libertinos, servos, reges, exules. Non eligit domum nec censum, nudo homine contenta est. Slavery, he continues, does not affect the whole man. Only the body belongs to his lord; his heart belongs to himself, c. 20. The duties of the slave have limits, and over against them stand certain definite rights (c. 21. Conf. De Clement. i. 18, 2). He enumerates many instances of self-sacrifice and magnanimity in slaves, and concludes by saying: Eadem omnibus principia eademque origo, nemo altero nobilior, nisi cui rectius ingenium ... unus omnium parens mundus est ... neminem despexeris ... sive libertini ante vos habentur sive servi sive exterarum gentium homines: erigite audacter animos, et quicquid in medio sordidi est transilite: expectat vos in summo magna nobilitas, &c. So Ep. 31, 11; V. Be. 24, 3. See p. 328, 3. Conf. Ep. 44: Rank and birth are of no consequence, and p. 270, 3.

[853] Only the wise man is really free; all who are not wise are fools.

[854] Diog. 122, at least, calls δεσποτεία, the possession and government of slaves, something bad.

[855] According to Sen. Benef. iii. 22, 1, Cic. l.c., Chrysippus had defined a slave, perpetuus mercenarius; and hence inferred that he ought to be treated as such: operam exigendam, justa præbenda. Sen. Ep. 47, expresses a very humane view of treating slaves, contrasting a man with a slave: servi sunt; immo homines. He regards a slave as a friend of lower rank, and, since all men stand under the same higher power, speaks of himself as conservus.

[856] M. Aurel. iv. 4: εἰ τὸ νοερὸν ἡμῖν κοινὸν, καὶ ὁ λόγος καθ’ ὃν λογικοί ἐσμεν κοινός· εἰ τοῦτο, καὶ ὁ προστακτικὸς τῶν ποιητέων ἢ μὴ λόγος κοινός· εἰ τοῦτο, καὶ ὁ νόμος κοινός. εἰ τοῦτο, πολῖταί ἐσμεν· εἰ τοῦτο, πολιτεύματός τινος μετέχομεν· εἰ τοῦτο, ὁ κόσμος ὡσανεὶ πόλις ἐστί.

[857] See pp. 312, 1, 3; 325, 3, and Plut. Com. Not. 34, 6, who makes the Stoics assert: τὸν κόσμον εἶναι πόλιν καὶ πολίτας τοὺς ἀστέρας. M. Aurel. x. 15: ζῆσον ... ὡς ἐν πόλει τῷ κόσμῳ. iv. 3: ὁ κόσμος ὡσανεὶ πόλις.

[858] M. Aurel. iv. 4, and ii. 16. Cic. Fin. iii. 20, 67: Chrysippus asserts that men exist for the sake of each other; quoniamque ea natura esset hominis ut ei cum genere humano quasi civile jus intercederet, qui id conservaret, eum justum, qui migraret, injustum fore. Therefore, in the sequel: in urbe mundove communi. See p. 331, 2 and p. 312, 2. Sen. De Ira, ii. 31, 7: Nefas est nocere patriæ: ergo civi quoque ... ergo et homini, nam hic in majore tibi urbe civis est. Musonius (in Stob. Floril. 40, 9): νομίζει [ὁ ἐπιεικὴς] εἶναι πολίτης τῆς τοῦ Διὸς πόλεως ἣ συνέστηκεν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων τε καὶ θεῶν. Epict. Diss. iii. 5, 26; Ar. Didym. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 15, 4.

[859] M. Aurel. iii. 11: ἄνθρωπον πολίτην ὄντα πόλεως τῆς ἀνωτάτης ἧς αἱ λοιπαὶ πόλεις ὥσπερ οἰκίαι εἰσίν.

[860] Sen. De Ot. 4; Ep. 68, 2. See p. 325, 1. Vit. B. 20, 3 and 5: Unum me donavit omnibus [natura rerum] et uni mihi omnis ... patriam meam esse mundum sciam et præsides Deos. Tranq. An. 4, 4: Ideo magno animo nos non unius urbis mœnibus clusimus, sed in totius orbis commercium emisimus patriamque nobis mundum professi sumus, ut liceret latiorem virtuti campum dare. Epict. Diss. iii. 22, 83. Ibid. i. 9: If the doctrine that man is related to God is true, man is neither an Athenian nor a Corinthian, but simply κόσμιος and υἱὸς Θεοῦ. Muson. l.c.: Banishment is no evil, since κοινὴ πατρὶς ἀνθρώπων ἁπάντων ὁ κόσμος ἐστίν. It is, says Cic. Parad. 2, no evil for those qui omnem orbem terrarum unam urbem esse ducunt.

[861] Plut. Alex. M. Virt. i. 6, p. 329: καὶ μὴν ἡ πολὺ θαυμαζομένη πολιτεία τοῦ τὴν Στωϊκῶν αἵρεσιν καταβαλλομένου Ζήνωνος εἰς ἓν τοῦτο συντείνει κεφάλαιον, ἵνα μὴ κατὰ πόλεις μηδὲ κατὰ δήμους οἰκῶμεν, ἰδίοις ἕκαστοι διωρισμένοι δικαίοις, ἀλλὰ πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἡγώμεθα δημότας καὶ πολίτας, εἷς δὲ βίος ἦ καὶ κόσμος, ὥσπερ ἀγέλης συννόμου νόμῳ κοίνῳ τρεφομένης.

[862] In Epictet. Man. c. 53: more fully, Ibid. Diss. iv. 1, 131; 4, 34; and translated by Sen. Ep. 107, 11. See p. 182, 1. The verses are:

ἄγου δέ μ’ ὦ Ζεῦ καὶ σύγ’ ἡ Πεπρωμένη
ὅποι ποθ’ ὑμῖν εἰμι διατεταγμένος·
ὡς ἑψομαί γ’ ἄκονος· ἢν δὲ μὴ θέλω
κακὸς γενόμενος οὐδὲν ἧττον ἕψομαι.

[863] Sen. Prov. 5, 4 and 8: Boni viri laborant, impendunt, impenduntur, et volentes quidem, non trahuntur a fortuna, etc.... Quid est boni viri? Præbere se fato. Vit. Be. 15, 5: Deum sequere.... Quæ autem dementia est, potius trahi quam sequi?... Quicquid ex universi constitutione patiendum est, magno excipiatur animo. Ad hoc sacramentum adacti sumus, ferre mortalia.... In regno nati sumus: Deo parere libertas est. Ep. 97, 2: Non pareo Deo, sed adsentior. Ex animo illum, non quia necesse est, sequor, etc. Ep. 74, 20; 76, 23; 107, 9. Epictet. Diss. ii. 16, 42: τόλμησον ἀναβλέψας πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εἰπεῖν, ὅτι χρῶ μοι λοιπὸν εἰς ὃ ἂν θέλῃς· ὁμογνωμονῶ σοι, σός εἰμι. οὐδὲν παραιτοῦμαι τῶν σοι δοκούντων· ὅπου θέλεις, ἄγε. i. 12, 7: The virtuous man submits his will to that of God, as a good citizen obeys the law. iv. 7. 20: κρεῖττον γὰρ ἡγοῦμαι ὃ ὁ θεὸς ἐθέλει, ἢ [ὃ] ἐγώ. iv. 1, 131, in reference to the verses of Cleanthes: αὕτη ἡ ὁδὸς ἐπ’ ἐλευθερίαν ἄγει, αὕτη μόνη ἀπαλλαγὴ δουλείας. Man. 8: θέλε γίνεσθαι τὰ γινόμενα ὡς γίνεται καὶ εὐροήσεις. Similarly Fragm. 134, in Stob. Floril. 108, 60. M. Aurel. x. 28: μόνῳ τῷ λογικῷ ζῴῳ δέδοται τὸ ἑκουσίως ἕπεσθαι τοῖς γινομένοις· τὸ δὲ ἕπεσθαι ψιλὸν πᾶσιν ἀναγκαῖον. Ibid. viii. 45; x. 14.

[864] Sen. Ep. 120, 11, investigates the question, How does mankind arrive at the conception of virtue? and replies, By the sight of virtuous men. Ostendit illam nobis ordo ejus et decor et constantia et omnium inter se actionum concordia et magnitudo super omnia efferens sese. Hinc intellecta est illa beata vita, secundo defluens cursu, arbitrii sui tota. Quomodo ergo hoc ipsum nobis adparuit? Dicam: Nunquam vir ille perfectus adeptusque virtutem fortunæ maledixit. Nunquam accidentia tristis excepit. Civem esse se universi et militem credens labores velut imperatos subiit. Quicquid inciderat, non tanquam malum aspernatus est, et in se casu delatum, sed quasi delegatum sibi.... Necessario itaque magnus adparuit, qui nunquam malis ingemuit, nunquam de fato suo questus est: fecit multis intellectum sui et non aliter quam in tenebris lumen effulsit, advertitque in se omnium animos, cum esset placidus et lenis, humanis divinisque rebus pariter æquus, &c.

[865] Conf. Baumhauer, Vet. Phil. præcipue Stoicorum Doct. de Mor. Volunt.: Ut. 1842, p. 220.

[866] Diog. vii. 130: εὐλόγως τέ φασιν ἐξάγειν ἑαυτὸν τοῦ βίου τὸν σοφὸν (ἐξαγωγὴ is the standing expression with the Stoics for suicide. Full references for this and other expressions are given by Baumhauer, p. 243). καὶ ὑπὲρ πατρίδος καὶ ὑπὲρ φίλων κἂν ἐν σκληροτέρᾳ γένηται ἀλγηδόνι ἢ πηρώσεσιν ἢ νόσοις ἀνιάτοις. Stob. Ecl. ii. 226. Conf. the comœdian Sopater, in Athen. iv. 160, who makes a master threaten to sell his slave to Zeno ἐπ’ ἐξαγωγῇ.

[867] Ep. 12, 10: Malum est in necessitate vivere. Sed in necessitate vivere necessitas nulla est. Quidni nulla sit? Patent undique ad libertatem viæ multæ, breves, faciles. Agamus Deo gratias, quod nemo in vita teneri potest. Calcare ipsas necessitates licet. Id. Prov. c. 5, 6, makes the deity say: Contemnite mortem quæ vos aut finit aut transfert.... Ante omnia cavi, ne quis vos teneret invitos. Patet exitus.... Nihil feci facilius, quam mori. Prono animam loco posui. Trahitur. Attendite modo et videbitis, quam brevis ad libertatem et quam expedita ducat via, &c. Conf. Ep. 70, 14: He who denies the right of committing suicide non videt se libertatis viam eludere. Nil melius æterna lex fecit, quam quod unum introitum nobis ad vitam dedit, exitus multos. Ep. 65, 22; 117, 21; 120, 14; M. Aurel. v. 29; viii. 47; x. 8 and 32; iii. 1; Epictet. Diss. i. 24, 20; iii. 24, 95.

[868] De Prov. 2, 9; Ep. 71, 16.

[869] In the passages already quoted, pp. 40, 2; 41, 1; 50, 2.

[870] See Epictetus’s discussion of suicide committed simply in contempt of life (Diss. i. 9, 10), against which he brings to bear the rule (in Plato, Phæd. 61, E.) to resign oneself to the will of God. ii. 15, 4. Conf. M. Aurel. v. 10.

[871] Muson. in Stob. Floril. 7, 24, says: ἅρπαζε τὸ καλῶς ἀποθνήσκειν ὅτε ἔξεστι, μὴ μετὰ μικρὸν τὸ μὲν ἀποθνήσκειν σοι παρῇ, τὸ δὲ καλῶς μηκέτι ἐξῇ; and, again: He who by living is of use to many, ought not to choose to die, unless by death he can be of use to more.

[872] M. Aurel. v. 29: Even here you may live as though you were free from the body: ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἐπιτρέπωσι, τότε καὶ τοῦ ζῇν ἔξιθι· οὕτως μέντοι, ὡς μηδὲν κακὸν πάσχων.

[873] Ep. 70. See p. 338, 3. Clem. Strom. iv. 485, A, likewise calls the restriction of rational action sufficiently decisive reason: αὐτίκα εὔλογον ἐξαγωγὴν τῷ σπουδαίῳ συγχωροῦσι καὶ οἱ φιλόσοφοι (i.e. the Stoics), εἴ τις τοῦ πράσσειν αὐτὸν οὕτως τηρήσειεν [l. οὕτω στερήσειεν], ὡς μηκέτι ἀπολελεῖφθαι αὐτῷ μηδὲ ἐλπίδα τῆς πράξεως.

[874] Ep. 58, 33; 98, 16; 17, 9; De Ira, iii. 15, 3.

[875] See Ep. 58, 36, and 70, 11.

[876] See p. 335, 2.

[877] Olympiod. in Phædr. 3 (Schol. in Arist. 7, b, 25). The favourite comparison of life to a banquet is here so carried out, that the five occasions for suicide are compared with five occasions for leaving a banquet.

[878] Plut. C. Not. 11, 1: παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιάν ἐστιν, ἄνθρωπον ᾧ πάντα τἀγαθὰ πάρεστι καὶ μηδὲν ἐνδεῖ πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν καὶ τὸ μακάριον, τούτῳ καθήκειν ἐξάγειν ἑαυτόν· ἔτι δὲ μᾶλλον, ᾧ μηθὲν ἀγαθόν ἐστι μηδ’ ἔσται τὰ δὲ δεινὰ πάντα καὶ τὰ δυσχερῆ καὶ κακὰ πάρεστι καὶ πάρεσται διὰ τέλους, τούτῳ μὴ καθήκειν ἀπολέγεσθαι τὸν βίον ἂν μή τι νὴ Δία τῶν ἀδιαφόρων αὐτῷ προσγένηται. Ibid. 22, 7; 33, 3; Sto. Rep. 14, 3; Alex. Aphr. De An. 156, b; 158, b.

[879] Plut. Sto. Rep. 18, 5: ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ὅλως, φασὶν, οἴεται δεῖν Χρύσιππος οὔτε μονὴν ἐν τῷ βίῳ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς, οὔτ’ ἐξαγωγὴν τοῖς κακοῖς παραμετρεῖν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς μέσοις κατὰ φύσιν. διὸ καὶ τοῖς εὐδαιμονοῦσι γίνεται ποτὲ καθῆκον ἐξάγειν ἑαυτοὺς, καὶ μένειν αὖθις ἐν τῷ ζῇν τοῖς κακοδαιμονοῦσιν. Ibid. 14, 3. Sen. Ep. 70, 5: Simul atque occurrunt molesta et tranquillitatem turbantia, emittet se. Nec hoc tantum in necessitate ultima facit, sed cum primum illi cœpit suspecta esse fortuna, diligenter circumspicit, numquid illo die desinendum sit. Nihil existimat sua referre, faciat finem an accipiat, tardius fiat an citius. Non tanquam de magno detrimento timet: nemo multum ex stillicidio potest perdere. Conf. 77, 6.

[880] Cic. Fin. iii. 18, 60: Sed cum ab his [the media] omnia proficiscantur officia, non sine causa dicitur, ad ea referri omnes nostras cogitationes; in his et excessum e vita et in vita mansionem. In quo enim plura sunt, quæ secundum naturam sunt, hujus officium est in vita manere: in quo autem aut sunt plura contraria aut fore videntur, hujus officium est e vita excedere. E quo apparet, et sapientis esse aliquando officium excedere e vita, cum beatus sit, et stulti manere in vita, cum sit miser.... Et quoniam excedens e vita et manens æque miser est [stultus], nec diuturnitas magis ei vitam fugiendam facit, non sine causa dicitur, iis qui pluribus naturalibus frui possint esse in vita manendum. Stob. 226: The good may have reasons for leaving life, the bad for continuing in life, even though they never should become wise: οὔτε γὰρ τὴν ἀρετὴν κατέχειν ἐν τῷ ζῇν, οὔτε τὴν κακίαν ἐκβάλλειν· τοῖς δὲ καθήκουσι καὶ τοῖς παρὰ τὸ καθῆκον μετρεῖσθαι τήν τε ζωὴν καὶ τὸν θάνατον.

[881] Ep. 70, 11.

[882] Teles. in Stob. Floril. 5, 67, p. 127 Mein.

[883] The well-known hymn to Zeus, in Stob. Ecl. i. 30, and the verses quoted p. 333, 1. Nor is the poetic form used by Cleanthes without importance. He asserted, at least according to Philodem. De Mus. Vol. Herc. i. col. 28: ἀμείνονά γε εἶναι τὰ ποιητικὰ καὶ μουσικὰ παραδείγματα καὶ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ τῆς φιλοσοφίας, ἱκανῶς μὲν ἐξαγγέλλειν δυναμένου τὰ θεῖα καὶ ἀνθρώπινα, μὴ ἔχοντος δὲ ψιλοῦ τῶν θείων μεγεθῶν λέξεις οἰκείας. τὰ μέτρα καὶ τὰ μέλη καὶ τοὺς ῥυθμοὺς ὡς μάλιστα προσικνεῖσθαι πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τῆς τῶν θείων θεωρίας.

[884] Compare the celebrated dictum of the Stoic in Cic. N. D. ii. 28, 71: Cultus autem Deorum est optimus idemque castissimus plenissimusque pietatis, ut eos semper pura integra incorrupta et mente et voce veneremur; and more particularly Epict. Man. 31, 1: τῆς περὶ τοὺς θεοὺς εὐσεβείας ἴσθι ὅτι τὸ κυριώτατον ἐκεῖνό ἐστιν, ὀρθὰς ὑπολήψεις περὶ αὐτῶν ἔχειν ... καὶ σαυτὸν εἰς τοῦτο κατατεταχέναι, τὸ πείθεσθαι αὐτοῖς καὶ εἴκειν ἐν πᾶσι γινομένοις, κ.τ.λ. Id. Diss. ii. 18, 19. Further particulars on p. 345, 2.